Posted March 12, 200817 yr In my opinion it is, better gameplay and better action sequences. What about you?
March 12, 200817 yr Yes it is. Better graphics, better gunplay, more realistic character, just better all round in my opinion.
March 12, 200817 yr I think its just slightly better than tomb Raider graphically it shows what the PS3 can do at an early stage. Story its draws you in and some of the set plays is break taking to take part in and to be honest i love the idea of the combat where you would get flanked by the enemies and you need to keep changing where your taking cover. This is a game i cannot wait to see a second game. However in regards of Tomb Raider though it is one of the classic games for the PS1 though (still yet to play the remake)
March 12, 200817 yr The first three Tomb Raiders are classics, but Angel of Darkness is frankly, piss poor. And thats being generous. 4 was ok, but felt like a rehash of the original. Legends, i thought was brilliant, but not a patch on Uncharted.
March 13, 200817 yr All of them as a wholeWell that's an unfair comparison due to the graphical and technical limitations of the PS1 (and even the PS2) incarnations of the Tomb Raider series. I'll reserve judgement until Tomb Raider: Underworld is released on PS3 before making a direct comparison.
March 13, 200817 yr I really liked Unchartered, but then theres the childhood memories of playing Tomb Raider 2.
In my opinion it is, better gameplay and better action sequences.
What about you?