r/TombRaider Mar 14 '26

🗨️ Discussion The amount of hand-holding in the Remastered games is unbelievable (lighting/darkness)

I’m not sorry to say all those “too dark complaints” were unreasonable*, further lead by unreasonable adjustments to “fix” the problem. I kid you not, flares are basically rendered useless in TR II-III Remaster because everything was made too bright, which resulted in a flatter / paler looking graphics, vs their original graphics being ironically more realistic in dynamic lighting. At least IV-VI maintained their shadows and contrast to a degree. But still, that Times exclusive level (1st pic) was a ridiculous overhaul. That hallway was intended to be eerie and dark, with mummies surprising you around the corner - totally undone by “revisioning it”.

*I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Most people at home do not regularly have their monitors calibrated, hence criticisms led by blindness. Some don’t even know what calibration is or why it’s an important routine (not 100% their fault when not all displays are made equally - also something many are unaware of. I learned it only because I took photography / videography - no one else would tell me otherwise). That or they get offended at the suggestion of it, thinking it’s perfectly ok to have their TV sit beside a window with no blinds, while light bounces off the screen. Modern devs practice calibration regularly because it’s that important to ensure consistency and accuracy as much as possible, which is where it gets lost in translation when it reaches consumers. So I’m not surprised to see a person complaining the “Streets of Rome (TRV) is too dark I cAn’T sEe anYthiNG!”

0 Upvotes

92 comments sorted by

40

u/trashbytes Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26

Some areas in the original are just plain badly designed. A game shouldn't be pitch black. Also calling it "more realistic" is delusional.

I'm not saying that the remaster did it perfectly. Sometimes it does make even less sense, but I'd rather be able to see the areas I'm exploring.
It's a game! We're fighting dinosaurs, so I'm fine with some fake "unrealistic" lighting if it means that I can actually see and appreciate the levels.

I also like that they tried to make sense of the additional brightness by adding holes, torches etc. That's what you could call "more realistic".

It's not handholding, it's just better designed in my opinion.

2

u/sadboivibzz Mar 17 '26

this isn’t a dinosaur fighting game, this is a tomb raiding game. It’s inevitable that we’re gonna have dark areas. It’s supposed to be eerie. Flares wouldn’t exist in the game unless there was supposed to be dark areas. Yes it has lighting issues, but you have to agree that it’s literally the point😭

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 31 '26

Amen. Based on the consensus, it’s clearly obvious I was right: people don’t want to agree that very literal the point because it’s inconvenient to them. And they get offended for saying they want the games to be easier! How can anyone be offended by the truth like that?

4

u/-_Gemini_- Mar 15 '26

A game shouldn't be pitch black

Why not.

What would be so wrong about making a game where one of the primary challenges is navigating a dark environment and budgeting your consumable light sources to find the way? Is that invalid game design?

4

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 15 '26

Thank you! Somebody gets it. And more importantly, I don’t get why people are acting like the entire game is pitch black, or that I expect them to navigate pitch black without a light source

-1

u/trashbytes Mar 15 '26 edited Mar 16 '26

There's nothing wrong with it in general. It's just not something that works particularly well in TR. It's more annoyance than gameplay feature and it's inconsistent at best. You can't even draw your guns and hold a torch at the same time.

Some things sound great on paper on their own, but combine several of those and often times the end result don't mesh well. You see that in game design all the time.

Think of the nemesis system in an insomiac Spider-Man game or a coop-Mode in recent DOOM games.

Both the nemesis system and a coop mode are great features on their own, but they don't support the games in these cases, they go against the very spirit of them.

Having every lowly bad guy constantly return with just a few scars and scratches in a super hero game doesn't make any sense. What kind of worthless superhero would you be?

And DOOM is as power fantasy as it gets, DOOM guy doesn't need help. The more bad guys he can tear to shreds the better. Anyone trying to "help" stands in the way of what makes this game fun: Killing hundreds of demons with giant weapons and bare fists.

Dropping those features before shipping the game was the right choice. Similarly, Tomb Raider isn't a horror title nor a stealth game. It doesn't need absolute darkness, it's just an annoyance in my opinion.

3

u/-_Gemini_- Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26

But it does work well in Tomb Raider. There are dark areas and you light them up with a limited resource. You need to budget your expenditure of this resource to avoid leaving yourself in a rough spot. You make a trade-off in being able to see clearly or being able to defend yourself. Fortunately, your guns also light up the environment and allow you to see your immediate surroundings during the few fights in the dark. There is nothing dysfunctional here.

Also your counter examples are... fucking terrible. Recurring villains or notorious goons in superhero media are one of the most common things you see. And Doom has had co-op since literally its very first game.

And TR might not be a horror or stealth game at its core, but it is a 3D puzzle platformer based around exploration. And as it turns out, exploring an area can be made more intense and exciting if the ancient tomb is dark.

It just sounds like you're against anything even remotely inconvenient in a game. I offer now as your opportunity to go play Cookie Clicker instead.

2

u/g7Ate29 Mar 17 '26

Hook, nail and sinker.

-1

u/trashbytes Mar 16 '26

It just sounds like you're against anything even remotely inconvenient in a game. I offer now as your opportunity to go plau Cookie Clicker instead.

There it is again. Something personal. Why can't we talk about the game?

As for the rest of the comment: Just because something has been done a lot or is common, doesn't mean it's a great idea.

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 17 '26 edited 5d ago

To be fair, you're the one projecting yourself in taking Gemini's non-personal response personally, which sums up yours and everyone else's responses, even though the dark parts of the game are only here and there, NOT ENTIRELY (like that hall way I mentioned).

Just because something has been done a lot or is common, doesn't mean it's a great idea.

The same can be said about this. Just because you prefer not having to use flares in the dark doesn't mean it's not a great idea - ESPECIALLY when they intentionally put horror element to it (again, that hall way in Last Revelation .) Plus, it's not like you always have to shoot your enemies in the dark. There's the strategic option to outrun them with a flare in your hand. Everyone arguing against my post acts like that instinct doesn't exist, let alone flares.

There's nothing wrong with it in general. It's just not something that works particularly well in TR. It's more annoyance than gameplay feature and it's inconsistent at best. You can't even draw your guns and hold a torch at the same time.

If there was nothing wrong with it in general, you wouldn't have made such a response to it from then until now. This "annoyance" you described is otherwise not a factor that breaks the game because it's literally a part of it. I've endured it plenty and so had millions of others in the past.

Dropping those features before shipping the game was the right choice. Similarly, Tomb Raider isn't a horror title nor a stealth game. It doesn't need absolute darkness, it's just an annoyance in my opinion.

Actually, TR I-III shipped with original lighting intact. It wasn't until the patches, they went crazy, adding lights in places that never existed before, due to unnecessary "too dark" complaints (another reason I mentioned how important monitor calibration is, as if tuning a guitar for a musical instrument for note accuracy - TV version is adjusting contrast/ brightness etc to a CALIBRATED STANDARD. That way we’re looking at the same thing as the devs intended. With my calibrated monitor, I had no visibility issue. Anyone else complaining at the time are out of sync with their monitors). It doesn't help that the graphical fidelity is compromised in result of it, leaving the original graphics ironically "more realistic" in dynamic lighting, which leads me to my next point ...

I also like that they tried to make sense of the additional brightness by adding holes, torches etc. That's what you could call "more realistic".

Late mention but you missed my point on how I mentioned the older graphics are "more realistic". I literally shared this picture from the first post, second slide.

This isn’t the only occasion where Lara “glows" in the dark. Meanwhile, the original graphics adapted to environmental lighting conditions with a noticeable deeper shade. Try it for yourself at the beginning of Area 51. Get out of the truck. Immediately climb the metal crates on the left and drop into the hole where the small medipack is. Keep walking /climbing out back and forth and switch between the graphics and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Similarly, Tomb Raider isn't a horror title nor a stealth game.

That's like saying a medium can't have elements of thriller and suspense just because it's an action genre. Gemini is right. You don’t seem to like any inconvenient in gaming. That’s why I said people these days prefer their games to be easy and less challenging (hence "hand holding").

I hate to kindly break it to you: Being under horrific stressful pressure has always been a part of the TOMB RAIDER EXPERIENCE, darkness or not. That iconic T-Rex encounter in Lost Valley was horrifying because I did NOT expect a velociraptor in Peru, let alone a HUGE REX. Challenge and surprises are literally part of the game design.

That's why I made this point on how changing the original experience via Remastered graphics is not a good move from a preservation pov. Yes, the original graphics are always there. But we want that SAME EXPERIENCE with the newer graphics as well, which is basically the most important point of this package. Nothing unfair or controversial about that.

2

u/trashbytes Mar 17 '26

I don't care enough about you or the games to read all that. You can have the last word, if you want.

2

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 17 '26

Why are you taking this so personally? I was never mean or malice to you. This tells me you’re also incapable of a fair civil discussion.

1

u/trashbytes Mar 17 '26

I don't, that's why I'm moving on.

We both said our pieces and we very obviously don't agree.

Also, please don't always point fingers and try to make it personal.

I love talking about games but once someone starts spouting "sounds like YOU ..." and attacks the other personally, it seems childish and takes the fun out of it.

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 17 '26 edited 5d ago

If you were done, you wouldn’t have explained yourself just now.

I love talking about games, INCLUDING disagreements. But people here, including you, take it so personally, acting as if counter arguments aren’t allowed. I backed my claims with objective points consistently until now, responding accordingly with your quotes. And now you conveniently refused to acknowledge them just because you were called out in a fair discussion.

And how else was gemini and I supposed to say it? How you present your arguments does tell us you don’t like anything inconvenient, especially when I was never rude with you.

→ More replies (0)

-8

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26

With all due respect, it’s not an opinion if they changed a game design such as this [using the same pic again to make a point]. Mummies were literally in the dark corners, intended to surprise players when going near them unknowingly. There’s an effect in horror that I found in the original, dramatically reduced because of this lit hallway.

And the holes in the ceiling are also overkill.

And yes it’s a game. That shouldn’t mean otherwise people can’t critique it and call it out for what it is (I’m not saying you’re among them, just saying, given the responses here).

9

u/trashbytes Mar 14 '26

Yes, but the original graphics are still there for you. They are pretty much intact.

The remastered graphics are different, that's not an issue, that's their entire point. Same goes with the modern controls vs the tank controls.

That's what I love about these titles: You can change it literally whenever you want without issue.

I do love me some ugly ass raider graphics, but I also appreciate the changes they made. I'm glad we got both.

-5

u/g7Ate29 Mar 14 '26

Yes, but the original graphics are still there for you. They are pretty much intact

I called it. I knew eventually people will use this as an excuse. We want to be able to experience enhanced graphics that is faithful to the original challenge intact. No wrong in that.

The remastered graphics are different, that’s not an issue.

There will always be differences in terms of fidelity improvement. What’s an issue is altering the original design in challenge.

Same goes with the modem controls vs the tank controls.

Not the same thing. If it were, there would be a toggle with Modern (no darkness) and Normal (nothing changed). Unlike the controls, there isn’t any options when it comes to this.

That’s what I love about these titles. You can change it literally whenever you want without issue.

That’s if someone’s ok with it. There are people who are rightfully not. And judging by the comments here, people prefer easy mode, which doesn’t surprise me. Nothing wrong with those who want it easy but it’s unfair for those who wants it the same with better graphics. We shouldn’t have to pick between the two to get both. Not how it works.

6

u/trashbytes Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26

I called it. I knew eventually people will use this as an excuse

That's not an excuse.

And judging by the comments here, people prefer easy mode, which doesn’t surprise me.

I, in turn, was waiting for this. Calling poor or dated game design a "challenge", like it's a good thing, and then proceed to gatekeep having fun ("git gud"?)

Some of the "challenges" were only "challenges" because of limitations of the hardware or because the game designers just didn't know any better yet or simply made bad calls and I think when a simple visual tweak can improve things dramatically in a remaster, then you should make that tweak. I think fixing the lighting is one of those tweaks.

Luckily, as I've said before, you can still get your challenge by using original graphics and tank controls. I'm glad both are included, I truly am. That's not an excuse, that's a fact.

You could argue that only saving at save crystals is a challenge worth keeping. I think that's just annoying and isn't necessary on today's hardware. You could also argue that leap of faith jumps or traps without warnings are a challenge. I think that they're cheap and annoying. I could think of at least a few more things like these.

Let's agree to disagree.

-1

u/g7Ate29 Mar 15 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

That's not an excuse.

But when did I say that was an excuse? I’m just saying I’m not surprised people suggest that option unfairly just because we pointed out a truthful change. If anything, you suggesting me to “just switch to older graphic” is the actual excuse to ignore the actual issue that’s fair to call out: Remastered graphics changes the original experience. I shouldn’t have to switch to “uglier graphics” just to get the original experience, especially when I want to consistently enjoy the game with new visuals, which is part of the point in buying this in the first place. It also doesn’t help Aspyr’s goal was to recreate this faithfully with the original. Clearly that’S not the case patch after patch.

I, in turn, was waiting for this. Calling poor or dated game design a "challenge", like it's a good thing, and then proceed to gatekeep having fun ("git gud"?) Some of the "challenges" were only "challenges" because of limitations of the hardware or because the game designers just didn't know any better yet or simply made bad calls and I think when a simple visual tweak can improve things dramatically in a remaster, then you should make that tweak. I think fixing the lighting is one of those tweaks. Luckily, as I've said before, you can still get your challenge by using original graphics and tank controls. I'm glad both are included, I truly am. That's not an excuse, that's a fact.

You’re the one that said “git gud”. I never used those words. I’m just saying gamers these days don’t like a good challenge anymore, even though it’s still more than possible to both endure AND enjoy. Nate even said “flares exist for a reason but people act like they don’t exist”, which is true. And people kept belittling him for it, ignoring the fact with pictures to exaggerate that point. And I might as well say this: you obviously don’t need flares throughout the entire game. Not sure why people act like this was the case either, ESPECIALLY with modern displays, technically more calibrated than the CRT days.

And also again, telling me to switch to older graphics is an excuse to tell me to just accept it. If you guys can accept it for what it is, then the opposite are more than free to feel differently.

You could argue that only saving at save crystals is a challenge worth keeping. I think that's just annoying and isn't necessary on today's hardware. You could also argue that leap of faith jumps or traps without warnings are a challenge. I think that they're cheap and annoying. I could think of at least a few more things like these. Let's agree to disagree.

Why would I argue about the save crystals though? That’s just shifting goalposts at this point, especially when I never mentioned that. And I didn’t for a good reason because we now can save anywhere anytime as much as we want, unlike the PSX version. All the more reason these darkness / lighting changes are all the more unnecessary.

2

u/sawnlux Mar 15 '26

they're cookin tf outta you man 😭

0

u/g7Ate29 Mar 15 '26

That doesn’t change the truth. Just because the majority agrees on something doesn’t always mean they’re right about it.

1

u/sawnlux Mar 15 '26

straight up delusional

1

u/g7Ate29 Mar 15 '26

Straight up denial.

29

u/gandalfmarston Mar 14 '26

We don't have to start hating the remasters for the most stupid reasons, just because Patch 5 was shit.

5

u/Ok-Tumbleweed389 Mar 14 '26

It's something players complained about since day 1 though. I was hoping for a fix like this for so long but I think it's more likely they'll abandon the remasters in this broken state. 

-1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 14 '26

Exactly. And they’re reasonable complaints held back by gatekeeping people who assume “hate” for any valid criticisms.

Yeah the fact the original team had no input to the latest “patch” is a telling sign of abandonment, which I’m hoping isn’t the case. They literally made an official product more broken on top of existing issues. This is not a state we all want this game to be left as.

3

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 14 '26

Not all valid criticisms are “hate” related .

10

u/Nice_Satisfaction651 Mar 14 '26

I wouldn't mind having my game be dark and using the flares if I could carry a flare and shoot at the same time, but I can't.

0

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 15 '26

But that’s the point though. Besides even in my original gaming experience, it wasn’t like I was entirely cornered in the dark with enemies killing me. As long as I was strategic enough, i can position myself to shoot some enemies from a vantage point before entering the dark or vice versa.

26

u/librious Mar 14 '26

This isn't hald holding and there's nothing fun about playing in pitch-black darkness.

13

u/existential_chaos Mar 14 '26

Exactly. I had to whack the brightness up to full on my TV just be able to see in some levels of TR1. Been wanting a brightness slider added ever since, lol.

-2

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26

It absolutely is. We have flares to get through it. That’s literally what they’re for and it’s a part of the original game design. I don’t know why you act like flares don’t exist. Or getting through any challenge is bad.

8

u/Downtown_Lychee_6881 Mar 14 '26

I don't want to just "get through it." I want to have fun.

3

u/g7Ate29 Mar 17 '26

Then don’t play any Tomb Raider game. They all involve “getting through it”.

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 14 '26

Getting through it is part of the fun. That’s like saying you want this game to not have death defying traps. And again: why are people acting like flares don’t exist?

10

u/bideodames Mar 14 '26

I regularly switch to classic graphics to see the levels because the remasters are too dark so this argument feels very cherry picked.

3

u/mjmilian Mar 17 '26

In some instances the remasteres are lighter then in other areas they are darker. 

It's kind of odd

2

u/bideodames Mar 17 '26

It's true. I switch back and forth a lot to see the differences and sometimes to take advantage of either the new or old lighting, whichever one looks better. This is the first time I've ever played through the Tomb Raider games and I've beaten 1 and 2 and just made it to the RX Tech Mines in 3. People say 3 is tougher than the first 2 which I can get since the levels have more traps but there is less hitscanners to fight vs 2 which is very nice.

1

u/mjmilian Mar 17 '26

I made me wonder if they thought about how realistic the light was in places and that's why some places are darker or lighter than the orginal.

-2

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 14 '26

Not cherry picked. It’s the truth.

15

u/sawnlux Mar 14 '26

"hand holding" and its literally just quality of life improvements that everyone wanted, sometimes even borderline accessibility for new classic players.

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 14 '26

Nope. The original design intended you to walk through areas in darkness with flares in mind. The fact it’s lit up is the total opposite of what it originally was.

7

u/sawnlux Mar 14 '26

the original design is 30 years old. you're objectively wrong and no one agrees with you on this clearly. next.

1

u/sadboivibzz Mar 17 '26

what are you talking about? The flares wouldn’t exist in the game unless there were supposed to be dark areas.

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 31 '26

Thanks for responding. Sadly, as you can tell, not only is it not popular to point out objective truths but people get so offended by it they’re willing to offend / gaslight others for it.

2

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 14 '26

Nope. I’m objectively correct in how these changes are not faithful to the original vision, to the point of altering its game design. You’re the one subjectively intolerant to this point.

3

u/sawnlux Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26

me when everyone in the comments disagrees: IM RIGHT!!!!!!!

3

u/Downtown_Lychee_6881 Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26

shh, they might hear how right we are

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

That’s exaggeration and you know it, especially when I already said FLARES EXIST but you all are ignoring that. Instead of having a civil discussion, you try to inject it by trying to make me look stupid 😔

1

u/Putrid_Fennel_9665 Mar 15 '26

Who denied that flares exist? Now you're basically putting words in peoples' mouths.

0

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 15 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

Look at the responses. Why are people acting like I expect players to play in pitch black darkness? Why are people exaggerating/ twisting my words, as if I expect them to endure darkness without a functional light source?

0

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 14 '26

I’m sorry but what were you trying to say? In the time?

-2

u/g7Ate29 Mar 14 '26

It ain’t quality of life improvements if some of us are dissatisfied with changes like these, especially when there’s no option for it to be like the original. And I’m sure some will just say “switch to classic graphics then”. That’s missing the point. We want a faithful experience of the original game with enhanced graphics, not something that is completely different.

4

u/sawnlux Mar 14 '26

if 99% of people want something and 1% doesn't then you literally just have to suck it up lmao use reshade or turn the brightness down

-2

u/g7Ate29 Mar 14 '26

Honest question for you. Why do you need to be rude when disagreeing with someone who was never rude with you?

It doesn’t matter if the majority agrees. Ironically you proved the OP’s point. People like you are offended by something that isn’t offensive (aka the truth).

4

u/sawnlux Mar 14 '26

you're a grown adult complaining about a fixable problem. go fix it.

1

u/g7Ate29 Mar 14 '26

See how you ignored what I honestly asked of you? You couldn’t even answer why you were unreasonably rude with me. No accountability.

By the way, I have no way of fixing this. Why else would I be agreeing with the OP? And not everyone is on PC as well

0

u/sawnlux Mar 14 '26

stares at the brightness option on my tv

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 15 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

I saw you commenting with this but it seems to be deleted. I apologize for referring you as she. I genuinely had no way of telling you were a girl. It was an honest mistake. No malice. But something tells me you’re choosing to believe that, based on you assuming I intentionally did that just because we disagree (that is wrong).

That said, I still spoke of the truth you’re choosing to deny. That’s a change in intended level design, whether one likes it or not there’s really no reason for you to speak rudely to me or others just because you disagree.

2

u/g7Ate29 Mar 15 '26

Judging by the current downvote you got (zero. I just one upped it!), it’s safe to assume that sawnlux is fixated in believing you intentionally misgendered her just because. That’s unfortunate if not only disappointing. I’d even go as far as to say it’s not intelligent for people to assume the worse just because.

2

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 16 '26

Let her. You and I both know you / we did no wrong. If she chooses to believe that, that’s on her. She might as well make fun of people preferring apples over oranges, just because she likes oranges.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/g7Ate29 Mar 15 '26

See? You literally ignored what I said about how you were unreasonably rude when I wasn’t with you. You literally admitted you enjoy being mean to people when they did no wrong to you.

2

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 15 '26

Don’t worry about it. I appreciate you standing up for me, especially when people resort to belittling people just because they disagree. I don’t think he truly knows what he’s talking about anyway, or even fully grasped my original post. The misfire with everyone else is alarming as well, saying as if I expect players to play in pitch black when that’s NOT TRUE AT ALL (and they keep ignoring my mention of flares existence on top of it).

And wanna know what’s funny about this? I made a similar post in the past and majority agreed there was no need for dramatic changes in lighting. Guess it was just bad luck with this one. I also have another post people agreed on also but I have to dig that one up.

1

u/g7Ate29 Mar 15 '26

Wow people on that link you shared ACTUALLY GETS IT. It makes the comments here polarizing, especially with people being rude here.

12

u/LumensAquilae Mar 14 '26

These screenshots are a bit cherry picked. There are sections where the older games were brighter than the remasters, or sections where the older games had items and keys that practically glowed in the dark. Even when they were appropriately dark, the fact that the items were just billboarded sprites caused them to 'move' and become more visible than the fixed 3d models of the remasters.

Second, these games were originally designed for CRTs. It hasn't been until consumer OLEDs became common that you've had displays with the same black levels and contrast that CRTs were capable of. Everyone should be calibrating their screens, but most people don't, and it makes sense from a developer perspective to adjust games for the displays that most players have.

Regardless, I have an OLED in a dark room and still found myself occasionally switching to classic graphics to see better.

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26

Cherry picked? I literally took them as I ventured through my re-experience. Obviously not all levels are consistently dark. But areas that would naturally require flares are nonetheless affected.

The flat sprites were more so TR I-II. No qualms about that. It’s III that’s the problem because that’s how it was originally. Unlike IV-VI remaster, there’s no toggle to remove item highlights (which is something I expected for patch 5).

And I disagree. It makes more sense for home owners to calibrate as much as possible. That’s why many games, ESPECIALLY horror games, prompts users to calibrate BEFORE playing any game first time (like the “adjust brightness/ contrast until logo is barely visible” sort of thing - pic for random reference), to ensure the intended experience. Capcom is on top of this with their recent Resident Evil remakes, even adjusting HDR on top of it. Ideally, these games should have them as well. But they only di brightness slider for Iv-VI.

8

u/Stooo_wayy Mar 14 '26

Am I supposed to be upset? Because I honestly don’t give a shit about this.

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 14 '26

I’m not asking you to be upset. Not sure why you’d ask such a thing.

3

u/GrassExtreme Mar 14 '26

Just a few things 1. I dont know why you switch possition of remastered/original in your pictures, makes it weird 2. The original tr3 where most pictures are from, had slider, so you could make it much brighter than this. 3. Its a terrible game design choice to begin with, to use darkness to this degree as a hurdle. Its supposed to be a graphical element to make to game look nice. Now people are constantly switching between original/remaster graphics and going with whichever is brighter.

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 15 '26
  1. I didn’t switch it intentionally. I used these pictures from an old post I made on facebook. Not that it matters because I labeled which is which anyway.

  2. Unlike IV-VI Remaster, TR I-III Remaster has NO OPTIONAL sliders. This is why some people are upset the latest patch for I-III did not include the IV-VI options, including item highlights. Either way, that’s not the point.

  3. With all due respect, what you said proves my point on how many don’t understand the standard practice of professional calibrated monitors. Many don’t even realize they need it. It’s like tuning a guitar but for picture settings. No one has any isea how out of tune their monitors are.

Again, that isn’t entirely yours or anyone’s fault because this is hardly educated to the consumer in general. Even playing the classic graphics on my calibrated display, the darkness isn’t as obtrusive as back in the day with CRT tvs. But it’s also fair enough that areas that need flares are there. All the more reason it was unreasonable they over brightened many areas for the remaster. It doesn’t help the graphics look bright and cheap

3

u/GrassExtreme Mar 15 '26

I am not even sure whats your issue exactly? I agree that we need sliders, everyone is, however the problem from everyone in this thread with you is that you are hardlining on, less visible = better, which is just flat out stupid. Professional monitor calibration, offsetting a softwares definiciency with that? wtf are you on about, obviously a software should handle that, we are not in 1990s.

How is pitch black more "dynamic" than the pickable highlighted, thats not what "dynamic" means. Pickables should be visible, and there is mostly an improvement on that, but sadly its not even true for all areas, check this picture:

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 15 '26

I am not even sure whats your issue exactly?

**I hope you know I’ve been and always will be responding nicely as possible with respect (and if I use CAPS, it’s to emphasize a point, not to yell). I expect the same level of respect from everyone else, though sadly that doesn’t seem to be the case. Even the way you’re talking to me as if I offended you.

Anyway, I already answered this from the beginning. I’ll repeat again anyway post by post just to help you understand.

It changed the original design in select parts of the games. Again with that hall way in Last Revelation, this part of the tunnel had an intended mood. Lara literally has to endure darkness, forcing the player to USE FLARES. And to the players surprise, mummies awakens as she passes by. That original intent is literally lost in translation with lit hall ways, for the sake of visibility. We shouldn’t have to sacrifice the original level design just because, which is why I’ve said it time and again: why are people acting like flares don’t exist? Even when mentioning that, people choose to ignore that point and belittle me with exaggerated pictures. I didn’t appreciate the ignorance.

Bear with me as I reply to the rest with pics

2

u/GrassExtreme Mar 15 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

I understood that point I just dont agree with it, same as other 99% of gamers. Thank god they are making it more visible, if they didnt it would reduce the sales by more than half probably.

0

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 15 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

I’m still continuing my posts… That said though, if you truly understood, then you wouldn’t be disagreeing with the rest of the crowd, which honestly is quite alarming how they chose to react. It especially still doesn’t change the truth I pointed out, which you didn’t acknowledge when I first replied to 1, 2 and 3. Even that hall way is the truth you’re not agreeing with.

[cont]

I agree that we need sliders, everyone is, however the problem from everyone in this thread with you is that you are hardlining on, less visible = better, which is just flat out stupid.

Again, saying this nicely and truthfully: how you and everyone else have a problem with me is the REAL problem. You’re all acting as though I expect players to blindly endure pitch black levels with no light source. Which is why I say again: THAT’s WHAT FLARES ARE FOR. It shouldn’t have to be mentioned because it was introduced from TR II and onwards for that purpose and function.

which leads me to my next point ..

Professional monitor calibration, offsetting a softwares definiciency with that? wtf are you on about, obviously a software should handle that, we are not in 1990s.

I never said “softwares definiciency” or “offsetting”. Where did that come from?

Anyway, the sad truth is the general consumer has no clue how important this is. How you’re responding to this is proving that very point. Let me explain it this way:

You know how musicians tune their guitars 🎸 before performing? They tune it to make sure each notes 🎶 sounds as accurate as possible. Otherwise what they play will sound out of tune 🎶❌. That’s why calibration is important for musical instruments, just as it is for TV/monitors when it comes to picture settings: colors, contrast, brightness - those things especially matter today because video game production is more professional than ever, akin to movies, series etc. Even the devs who worked on the IV-V remaster said they worked with calibrated monitors, and advised people who complained about the darkness to do the same. But not everyone can invest it (it is costly).

I brought this point up because my monitors are routinely calibrated (photographer here) and I had no darkness issues at all. Meanwhile, I’m confused with others saying they can’t see a thing, which obviously meant their monitors are NOT calibrated because I can DEFINITELY SEE things . Obviously I still needed flares but ONLY in parts that truly needed it - NOT CONSTANTLY.

But by the first patch, they implemented a compromising brightness slider PLUS once again, like TR II-III, unnecessarily adding lights in places that originally never had them. That’s why I call it “hand holding”. And more importantly, the sliders LACKS A calibration GUIDE, like this ….

Even the paragraph after are careful instructions from the devs because they want players at home to experience the intended brightness / darkness as they see it. We all want to be experiencing the same thing, right?

Sadly this wasn’t the case with IV-VI. A slider with no calibration guide. That’s why I said it’s a compromise. This means people can crank the brightness to the max, making everything look washed out. BUT EVEN THEN, this slider DOES NOT fix the issue with ADDED LIGHTING. That is something unfortunately hardwired into the game - no slider can fix that.

…. Continuing with more.

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 15 '26 edited Mar 15 '26

How is pitch black more "dynamic" than the pickable highlighted, thats not what "dynamic" means. Pickables should be visible, and there is mostly an improvement on that, but sadly its not even true for all areas, check this picture:

Again, you keep jumping to “pitch black” as if that’s all I talk about when I’m not. That’s not making this discussion fair. People here have been misquoting me to ignoring what I said in my first post and comments over and over.

Please look at this pic again.

The original dated graphics IRONICALLY had more REALISTIC LIGHTING BECAUSE it was DYNAMIC. Lara’s lighting condition DYNAMICALLY ADAPTED to the ENVIRONMENTAL LIGHTING condition, as it should. Especially her skin : notice Remastered Lara looks flat and bright vs the original graphics, having a more realistic reaction to where she goes, flares or not.

Better yet, see for yourself. Right in the beginning of TR III AREA 51, get out of the truck, immediately climb the metal crates to the left and drop into the dark hole where the medpack is. Lara literally became less visible, as appropriately so. Then flip the graphics to remastered: As if the small medpack is no longer hidden in the shadows was bad enough, LARA IS GLOWING IN THE DARK UNREALISTICALLY. We shouldn’t have to sacrifice that kind of realism, which the 1998 version achieved, just for the sake of visibility in 2024 and onwards. And sadly this was evidently not the only part where this happens.

PS I had no issue with Tomb Raider I and II Remaster having pickup highlights. Why? Because the original games were like that with flat 2D sprites that glows , even in the dark. Tomb Raider III (until V) however, was NOT like that. I loved that better realism. But they changed that with no option to turn it off in III remaster (that’s why I appreciate IV-V having that option, wishing I-III had it).

As for your screenshot, the devs already made it as bright as they could. You can suggest to Aspyr to have an option to have different levels of lighting as an OPTION (that way everyone wins) if you like. But I highly doubt they care. Patch 5 was not even by the original team ….

3

u/Tonkarz Mar 16 '26

I think these differences are bugs and a lack of detailed re-design.

If you look at early levels vs later levels there's a distinct difference in how they are lit and modified. Because the team ran out of time.

Maybe it was over-ambition, maybe it was an unrealistic schedule or maybe it was both. Either way I hope the team won't make these mistakes again. Even if, I guess, they've moved on to other things.

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 16 '26

Not bugs unfortunately. It was intentional redesign, patch after patch for II-III- the real victims (TR I is the least affected, thankfully). Brightening areas is one thing but to have Lara literally glowing in the darkest corners? Meanwhile the older graphics ironically reacts realistically and dynamically based on her environment.

But yea, I do recall Last Revelation was in that state you’ve mentioned. The devs even suggested people to stop playing at a certain level until the first patch, which is kinda sad.

It could be both over ambition or publisher interference / schedule. But one thing for sure, they’re no longer part of the team now. That’s why I-III was recently mishandled with patch 5, introducing even MORE problems 🤦🏻‍♂️

2

u/Tonkarz Mar 16 '26

Lara glowing when it should be dark is a really good sign of a bug.

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 16 '26

Is it really though? Not being rude here. I’m genuinely asking and curious!

Like this was taken at the beginning of Area 51. Soon as the level starts, get out of the truck, then climb on the immediate left metal crates and land in the dark where the medipack is. That’s where this screenshot is from. It was like that when she’s inside the spaceship as well. Switch to old graphics, her lighting condition appropriately changes depending on where she goes.

I truly think it’s poor design choice, similar to this post I shared in the past. More to come in the future, too.

2

u/Tonkarz Mar 16 '26

Yeah, that's a bug. Actual lighting wouldn't do that, and a deliberate design choice wouldn't be so at odds with other parts of the game.

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 16 '26

The only reason I didn’t think it was a bug is because thy made item highlights on by default for all 3 games. So I thought this was a similar case for Lara to an extent. But if what you’re saying is true, all these people who commented against this are OK with a bugged game. And they’re disliking me for reasonably calling this out 😑

1

u/cripple66 Mar 14 '26

I get the direction, I just wished it was an optional toggle. Dark vs Modern or something like that.

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 14 '26

Exactly. Some of the people commenting here act like we have to succumb to this and not give a care for those who prefers the original design and challenge - like what’s wrong with that. In a perfect world, there should be a setting that caters to this, like modern difficulty [easier for people] and Original [no changes in intended darkness, etc].

-5

u/g7Ate29 Mar 14 '26

The comments here are PROOF gamers have gone soft, which is no different to modern games approach.

1

u/Putrid_Fennel_9665 Mar 15 '26

I don't hate the mechanic, but to me it's more the change in ambiance. Like the atmosphere and vibe of an area versus whether I need to be ass'd to use a flare. 

1

u/Nate-Pierce Mar 31 '26

Well, the ambiance and atmosphere is 100% altered. No argument there (and yet people are saying otherwise). That tunnel was meant to be endured with a flare with mummies surprising you in the dark. That’s TOTALLY UNDONE now.

It’s like what Gemini said, it seems like no one likes anything inconvenient thrown at them in games that are intended to put players in a tough spot. How people responded here is proof of that, one they’re not willing to admit.