PDA

View Full Version : Lara Croft coming back with vengence!!



pinpal
5th Dec 2009, 18:55
Check this out, the new tomb raider game will have multiplayer and possibly Co op. looks like crystal dynamics have been taking notes from a certain game developer thats been naughty:D:lmao:. (get it) (if you don't I meant Uncharted developer Naughty Dog)
any way heres where this information came from.
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Next-Tomb-Raider-Has-Multiplayer-21517.html:thumb:
Update: Multiplayer possibly confirmed here's the link
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2009/12/07/next-tomb-raider-will-have-multiplayer/ Oh god I am so excited!!!!.

jayjay119
5th Dec 2009, 19:02
Check this out, the new tomb raider game will have multiplayer and possibly Co op. looks like crystal dynamics have been taking notes from a certain game developer thats been naughty:D:lmao:. (get it) (if you don't I meant Uncharted developer Naughty Dog)
any way heres where this information came from.
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Next-Tomb-Raider-Has-Multiplayer-21517.html:thumb:

Yes because Naughty Dog are the only people to have ever done a co-op/ multi-player function in a game! Multi-player has been being talked about in Tomb Raider since Legend's time, its not something that has just been thought up now! Core were going to do it in their version of TRA!

Treeble
5th Dec 2009, 19:49
Legend does have a multiplayer mode, but only on PSP.

MaloneCroft09
5th Dec 2009, 19:53
Take that Drake!! >:):lol::lmao::tongue2::naughty::cool:

neo111118
5th Dec 2009, 20:09
Just hope not to be a bad design
cause this is a new step
Like TR6 was a new step but a bad one . I hope they make it a good one.

LC is Me
5th Dec 2009, 21:30
Just hope not to be a bad design
cause this is a new step
Like TR6 was a new step but a bad one . I hope they make it a good one.


I agree.
I hope they are making the right decisions in this and I'm curious as to how they will execute it...properly.

Ants_27_
5th Dec 2009, 21:59
Well, yes (as I did start that poll ages ago about whether people thought it was a good idea) but they'd be taking on a pretty hefty task as they've yet to perfect 'level design' for single player. I think glitches (going from previous TR's) would be the MP downfall, why? Because you can't really have glitches in an online game, well not ones that render the game unfair.

Besides they would have to get rid of auto aim... Auto-aim online equals so much fun (I say sarcastically to myself). Then the idea of cover systems would appear, ranking systems, perks/rewards, game modes, how many players. Plus the maps would need to be laid out different too, me thinks.

Well, that's if they intend to create a solid MP experience for the people who arn't obsessed with Lara and only Lara (note I did not say TR).:rolleyes:

_Love2Raid_
5th Dec 2009, 22:23
Could someone please post the article in text? I clicked the link and all the pop-ups drove me crazy. Strange, since Firefox usually blocks those? :hmm:

Treeble
6th Dec 2009, 00:21
For you, L2R. :)


Next Tomb Raider Has Multiplayer?
By Pete Haas: 2009-12-04 23:17:47

For her entire career, Tomb Raider hero Lara Croft has worked alone. In her next adventure, though, she may have back-up.

Crystal Dynamics, the developer behind the series since 2003, is now seeking a lead designer (http://jobs.gamasutra.com/jobseekerx/viewjobrss.asp?cjid=20182&accountno=61772) for "future AAA title development for Xbox 360 and PS3." This designer is going to be charged with creating and leading "multiplayer vision and design effort" for the title. It also mentions that they'll be designing "multiplayer maps", which suggests a separate multiplayer mode, as opposed to co-op support for a campaign. That doesn't mean it couldn't have co-op as well, though.

Their unannounced game was outed earlier this summer by another listing. That particular wanted ad stated that their game belonged to "one of the most prestigious AAA franchises in the industry." Today's job posting is the first mention of the game's platforms or multiplayer, though.

This sort of a change isn't completely unexpected. In an interview (http://play.tm/interview/22003/tomb-raider-underworld-with-eric-lindstrom/2/) last fall, Crystal Dynamics' creative director Eric Lindstrom stated last fall that they consider multiplayer features with each new installment and "next time could be the one." Publisher Eidos has been looking for a way to revitalize the franchise, too.

Just in case the interview link can't be checked either, here are the relevant bits:


Multiplayer plans...?

We thought about it in Legend, we thought about it even harder for Underworld. Ultimately, we decided not to do it, not only because Lara is a solo operator - especially in this game - but we really wanted to focus in on a certain type of experience. And that experience was all about adventure. It isn't out of the question, however, we consider this every time, and next time could be the one!

:)

MattFini
6th Dec 2009, 02:01
I think everything that we know so far can be taken as good sings.

I love that they're taking their time with this title (thankfully, it wasn't rushed out this year) and my hope is that they're going to use this time to make something special.

Gemma_Darkmoon_
6th Dec 2009, 04:28
Glad to hear of these new developments. Sounds better for next TR. Don't think CD are taking hints from Uncharted. Who cares about that game? This is TR going to do better.

Randy 54
6th Dec 2009, 04:53
I was sorry to read this.

Bampire
6th Dec 2009, 06:18
I honestly don't know what to think, other then... Wtf?

Natla
6th Dec 2009, 10:20
Doesn't sound much like Her Ladyship.

IvanaKC
6th Dec 2009, 10:30
I read this and I say: BRILLIANT! I couldn't wait for this to happen! YAY!

_Love2Raid_
6th Dec 2009, 12:05
For you, L2R. :)



Just in case the interview link can't be checked either, here are the relevant bits:



:)

Thank you! :group_hug:

I think it´s a great idea. Nowadays multiplayer is almost a must and this will most definitely increase the replay factor of the game and provide more insight in Lara´s character. But I hope there will still be a solo campaign mode though! I hate to be followed by some noob all the time everywhere I go, like in Uncharted. :eek:

John Carter
6th Dec 2009, 15:55
Agree with Love2Raid up there. I don't mind a multiplayer mode (which I personally will probably never play), but not at the cost of a good solo campaign mode.

pinpal
6th Dec 2009, 17:26
Agree with Love2Raid up there. I don't mind a multiplayer mode (which I personally will probably never play), but not at the cost of a good solo campaign mode.

true, but they seem to be taking there time and focusing hard. I think they can pull it off.:cool:

jayjay119
6th Dec 2009, 17:53
Agree with Love2Raid up there. I don't mind a multiplayer mode (which I personally will probably never play), but not at the cost of a good solo campaign mode.

I agree with this, Multi player would be a nice side game but CD need to remember this is still Tomb Raider they are developing and the series doesn't really lend to multiplayer or co-op in the main campaign mode.

MissJess
6th Dec 2009, 20:09
As long as the actual solo campaign mode is great, I have no problem with them adding multiplayer.

nikkinickels
6th Dec 2009, 20:33
oo boy i can't wait, although i hope most of the attention on the story stays on lara, idk it won't feel like a tomb raider game if it's about both characters but i'm up for the change and give it a chance, can't wait! :D

chriss_99
6th Dec 2009, 22:15
To be honest, I don't really care about multiplayer. I won't be using it anyway, for me it's all about playing alone. If the multiplayer should increase the sales of the game, I'm all for it!

JRod108
6th Dec 2009, 22:16
Hmm... I don't know what to think about this. Other than what Ants_27_ said about auto-aim and that CD appears to be taking their time, I can't really see the positives in this. How is this going to be implemented? Lara is a solo character and she is the sole character that CD has introduced to us thus far that has a combatinive background and has any depth to her character. The reason I bring this up is to bring up the question on what kind of characters are supposed to make up this mulitplayer experience? If not that, and we get to make our own avatars, how will this be connected to the storyline? Atleast in Halo we know that the Master Chief wasn't the only one of his kind. In COD, we know that there isn't just one soldier. But, in Tomb Raider, there has only been one real character.

Even though I can't see the positives, I really can't see many negatives to this idea either. It won't be hard to win me over to this idea, because it is a good one on paper, if CD can come up with a logical reason as to how it is ultimately connected to the storyline. Hopefully this means that Lara will no longer be the sole character (I honestly don't count Winston and CO. because they have never really been fleshed out. Think about it, aside from the little snippets on text on the Legend game, we know nothing about their past.) and we will actually see some believable human interaction that doesn't involve anger or violence.

josh1122
6th Dec 2009, 22:27
Welp my hopes for this game have gone down even more. Now they're adding multiplayer so now were going to get a half crapped single player mode....

sigh

nikkinickels
6th Dec 2009, 22:35
oh god, just imagine, winston in the game, one level is like, get everything prepared for lara and run errands LOL
"prepare a meal for lara before she locks you in the freezer, 2 minutes, GO"
hahahah

Randy 54
6th Dec 2009, 23:03
I agree with Josh. Tomb Raider has always been a one person game, so now what part of the gaming experience will suffer while trying to implement someone's "brilliant idea"?
How many more glitches can a person endure? Players that prefer to go it alone will end up with something like the PS2 version of Underworld? Can't wait.

Error96_
7th Dec 2009, 00:45
Multiplayer could be a great. It's just down to if they can get the gameplay around it right and it really must not let the single player suffer. Hope the multiplayer is two controlers and one console rather than internet based where each of the two gamers needs a console.

pinpal
7th Dec 2009, 02:46
this could be great, I would like for the story to be like the tomb raider comics because Lara and Chase Carver make a great team and so does Lara and Sara Pezzini. There are so many possibilities that comes with this multiplayer idea.:eek:

josh1122
7th Dec 2009, 07:49
Usually when devs decide ''oh hey lets put multiplayer in a game that doesnt need it, but its so popular right now every dev thinks they need to have it!''. The single player suffers...ugh...do I even want a TR 9..? lol

Like I think Randy said, there was all ready glitches/bugs in the last version of this game, now they're going to focus on Multiplayer too? good lord

Rexie
7th Dec 2009, 13:04
I now feel like Worf in that TNG episode, where Q came in with a marachi band.
*headdesk*:mad2:

(for those who don't know what TNG is)

VBTRp80Q64U

jayjay119
7th Dec 2009, 19:07
Welp my hopes for this game have gone down even more. Now they're adding multiplayer so now were going to get a half crapped single player mode....

sigh

as opposed to the masterpieces of the past? I agree this sort of worries me, Cd haven't really shown they can do a full single player without linearity or bugs well enough yet.

I know Multiplayer mode is an inevitability in every series these day but I just hoped they would at least use this game to perfect single player first. I'm just glad they haven't tried to throw it into the main game so we would have ended up with a cross between Resident Evil 5 atrocious buddy system or PoP's linear buddy system.

Ants_27_
7th Dec 2009, 21:36
so now what part of the gaming experience will suffer while trying to implement someone's "brilliant idea"?

That's technically not true... Games in the past have added multiplayer to them without sacrificing any of the single player, I guess it's down to the size of the development team and probably their talent.

Look at MGS 3 and 4, they -to me- are the best single player experiences I've ever played through and they implemented online without sacrificing any of their epicness.

The point being that games need not suffer because of any online features that they wish to include.

josh1122
7th Dec 2009, 21:43
That's technically not true... Games in the past have added multiplayer to them without sacrificing any of the single player, I guess it's down to the size of the development team and probably their talent.

Look at MGS 3 and 4, they -to me- are the best single player experiences I've ever played through and they implemented online without sacrificing any of their epicness.

The point being that games need not suffer because of any online features that they wish to include.

Your right games dont need to suffer because of online features(multiplayer) but they do. When Multiplayer is needlessly added into a game just because ''hey multiplayer is popular, lets shove it into the game!''. The quality in some of the certain aspects of the game go down

As jay stated,CD's last game,Underworld had many bugs for a lot of players, now they had all those bugs JUST concentrating on the single player mode. NOW, you have a smaller team,working on both single player AND multiplayer.

That's just asking for the worst disaster since AOD

I face palm whenever franchises feel the need for Multiplayer,just because its the ''in'' thing

I miss the days when devs actually seemed to work on making a GOOD single player experience. Those days are long gone it seems, too much priority is being put into multiplayer these days


I'm looking at you Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 2 and now even Tomb Raider :mad2:

a_big_house
7th Dec 2009, 21:50
this isn't even true, weve all thought about TR being a 2 player at one point, just becuase someone puts in on a website doesnt mean its gonna happen :-)

josh1122
7th Dec 2009, 21:56
this isn't even true, weve all thought about TR being a 2 player at one point, just becuase someone puts in on a website doesnt mean its gonna happen :-)

It's been reported on such gaming sites as Kotaku as well, so I'm pretty sure this is credible

Ants_27_
7th Dec 2009, 22:31
As jay stated,CD's last game,Underworld had many bugs for a lot of players, now they had all those bugs JUST concentrating on the single player mode. NOW, you have a smaller team,working on both single player AND multiplayer.

I miss the days when devs actually seemed to work on making a GOOD single player experience. Those days are long gone it seems, too much priority is being put into multiplayer these days

I'm looking at you Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 2 and now even Tomb Raider :mad2:

True. The glitches in TR could not be allowed to be online, more so if it renders the game un-fair. Like glitching the game to allow you to fall a great distance without injury. Plus don't CD only have like 30 employees?:scratch:

Bioshock's multiplayer looks quite bad, well from the footage I saw.

jayjay119
7th Dec 2009, 23:24
That's technically not true... Look at MGS 3 and 4, they -to me- are the best single player experiences I've ever played through and they implemented online without sacrificing any of their epicness.

The thing about this though is Hideo Kojima and the rest of the Kojima studios team have never failed to deliver an epic first player experience, never. Its was epic in MGS1, even more so in 2 (despite the who Raiden controversy) and even more epic in Twin Snakes so when it was announced the MGS3 would be including a multiplayer online mode I had no doubts in them to do it. CD however are different, Legend was a solid game but it wasn't a tomb raider game. TRA was better but not strictly their own work as all the levels were based on existing maps and TRU was full of glitches for some and half baked in design and story. CD haven't captured how to fully deliver that fully rounded feeling in Single player yet and now they're moving onto throwing multi-player into the mix also 'just because' that's what is worrying.

josh1122
8th Dec 2009, 00:02
The thing about this though is Hideo Kojima and the rest of the Kojima studios team have never failed to deliver an epic first player experience, never. Its was epic in MGS1, even more so in 2 (despite the who Raiden controversy) and even more epic in Twin Snakes so when it was announced the MGS3 would be including a multiplayer online mode I had no doubts in them to do it. CD however are different, Legend was a solid game but it wasn't a tomb raider game. TRA was better but not strictly their own work as all the levels were based on existing maps and TRU was full of glitches for some and half baked in design and story. CD haven't captured how to fully deliver that fully rounded feeling in Single player yet and now they're moving onto throwing multi-player into the mix also 'just because' that's what is worrying.

Took the words right out of my mouth

+1 for this post lol

pinpal
8th Dec 2009, 00:36
I believe this tomb raider will be great. Underworld was fantastic to me. I don't understand why you guys think its a bad idea to add multiplayer. I mean if you finish the game 6 times, don't you want to take a break and play a multi player map with your friends or something. And this thing about the single player suffering because of multiplayer is just ignorant, Take a look a game like MGS4 and Uncharted2 and also grand theft auto 4 including gay tony. Come on this is great news and you know it.
P.S. COME ON!!!!!!!!.:)

jayjay119
8th Dec 2009, 00:46
I believe this tomb raider will be great. Underworld was fantastic to me. I don't understand why you guys think its a bad idea to add multiplayer. I mean if you finish the game 6 times, don't you want to take a break and play a multi player map with your friends or something. And this thing about the single player suffering because of multiplayer is just ignorant, Take a look a game like MGS4 and Uncharted2 and also grand theft auto 4 including gay tony. Come on this is great news and you know it.
P.S. COME ON!!!!!!!!.:)

Like I said before, the problem is I don't have faith in CD to do a multi-player mode when they haven't mastered how to do single player alone yet. All the other games you listed are not good comparisons because they haven't failed to deliver in the single player area. CD have.

Multiplayer in theory wouldn't bother me, it wouldn't infringe on the main game and i'd probably never touch it, but the developer needs to be capable of pulling both it and the single player mode off successfully and independently from each other, considering CD haven't mastered one yet I fail to see why they are including another. You should never run before you can walk.

naraku
8th Dec 2009, 00:50
Check this out, the new tomb raider game will have multiplayer and possibly Co op. looks like crystal dynamics have been taking notes from a certain game developer thats been naughty:D:lmao:. (get it) (if you don't I meant Uncharted developer Naughty Dog)
any way heres where this information came from.
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Next-Tomb-Raider-Has-Multiplayer-21517.html:thumb:

Is that site reliable? Is it as official as we're gonna get it?

Randy 54
8th Dec 2009, 01:11
I believe this tomb raider will be great. Underworld was fantastic to me. I don't understand why you guys think its a bad idea to add multiplayer. I mean if you finish the game 6 times, don't you want to take a break and play a multi player map with your friends or something. And this thing about the single player suffering because of multiplayer is just ignorant, Take a look a game like MGS4 and Uncharted2 and also grand theft auto 4 including gay tony. Come on this is great news and you know it.
P.S. COME ON!!!!!!!!.:)

You're comparing apples to oranges. It doesn't matter which games are successful as multi-player, they are not Tomb Raider.

pinpal
8th Dec 2009, 02:13
Like I said before, the problem is I don't have faith in CD to do a multi-player mode when they haven't mastered how to do single player alone yet. All the other games you listed are not good comparisons because they haven't failed to deliver in the single player area. CD have.

Multiplayer in theory wouldn't bother me, it wouldn't infringe on the main game and i'd probably never touch it, but the developer needs to be capable of pulling both it and the single player mode off successfully and independently from each other, considering CD haven't mastered one yet I fail to see why they are including another. You should never run before you can walk.

Eric Linstrum (spelled it wrong I believe) already stated why Underworld had flaws, He stated that the time frame was to short, there was a death on the team, and one of the animators got pregnant and had to leave. And after all that Underworld was still a decent game, so now that Eidos has been takin over and square enix is running things, Square Enix by the way never release games until there absolutely ready. And Ian Livingstone stated that their hard at work on the next tomb raider, and that they are doing some truly remarkable things that will make you say "Oh Lara I Love You So Much". I really have no reason to say anything but good things about the next tomb raider.:D And multi player added is just bonus goodness for me.:nut: The tomb raider game still haven't been announced yet and its been over a year.
Lastly Crystal Dynamics has yet to release a bad tomb raider game.:thumb:

_Love2Raid_
8th Dec 2009, 02:52
The thing about this though is Hideo Kojima and the rest of the Kojima studios team have never failed to deliver an epic first player experience, never. Its was epic in MGS1, even more so in 2 (despite the who Raiden controversy) and even more epic in Twin Snakes so when it was announced the MGS3 would be including a multiplayer online mode I had no doubts in them to do it. CD however are different, Legend was a solid game but it wasn't a tomb raider game. TRA was better but not strictly their own work as all the levels were based on existing maps and TRU was full of glitches for some and half baked in design and story. CD haven't captured how to fully deliver that fully rounded feeling in Single player yet and now they're moving onto throwing multi-player into the mix also 'just because' that's what is worrying.

Kojima is a perfectionist, if only the ones in charge of TR were the same..

Anyway, it may be so that you think CD have failed to deliver us a decent solo adventure. This doesn't mean adding a multiplayer will screw it up even further. They have asked for a new developer exclusively for the multiplayer part, which has started the rumours in the first place. I don't see how this could affect the main game.

pinpal
8th Dec 2009, 02:58
Kojima is a perfectionist, if only the ones in charge of TR were the same..

Anyway, it may be so that you think CD have failed to deliver us a decent solo adventure. This doesn't mean adding a multiplayer will screw it up even further. They have asked for a new developer exclusively for the multiplayer part, which has started the rumours in the first place. I don't see how this could affect the main game.

OH god thank you for being the smart one:D:worship:
How in the world can multiplayer effect the main game, next they will say lara having a jeep to ride will affect the game:lol:

josh1122
8th Dec 2009, 07:32
OH god thank you for being the smart one:D:worship:
How in the world can multiplayer effect the main game, next they will say lara having a jeep to ride will affect the game:lol:

Apprently you don't understand much if you don't know how tacking on Multiplayer doesnt affect the main game. :thumb:

Don't think you or Love2Raid get it, no offense

Ants_27_
8th Dec 2009, 07:46
The thing about this though is Hideo Kojima and the rest of the Kojima studios team have never failed to deliver an epic first player experience, never. Its was epic in MGS1, even more so in 2 (despite the who Raiden controversy) and even more epic in Twin Snakes so when it was announced the MGS3 would be including a multiplayer online mode I had no doubts in them to do it.

Very true.

CD go hire Hideo Kojima:lol:

Besides he practically does everything, director, game developer and producer isn't he? I can't remember now.:scratch:

jayjay119
8th Dec 2009, 20:07
Eric Linstrum (spelled it wrong I believe) already stated why Underworld had flaws, He stated that the time frame was to short, there was a death on the team, and one of the animators got pregnant and had to leave. And after all that Underworld was still a decent game, so now that Eidos has been takin over and square enix is running things, Square Enix by the way never release games until there absolutely ready. And Ian Livingstone stated that their hard at work on the next tomb raider, and that they are doing some truly remarkable things that will make you say "Oh Lara I Love You So Much". I really have no reason to say anything but good things about the next tomb raider.:D And multi player added is just bonus goodness for me.:nut: The tomb raider game still haven't been announced yet and its been over a year.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about and proves nothing


Lastly Crystal Dynamics has yet to release a bad tomb raider game.:thumb:
I have one word to answer that statement. Legend.


Kojima is a perfectionist, if only the ones in charge of TR were the same..

Anyway, it may be so that you think CD have failed to deliver us a decent solo adventure. This doesn't mean adding a multiplayer will screw it up even further. They have asked for a new developer exclusively for the multiplayer part, which has started the rumours in the first place. I don't see how this could affect the main game.

I agree about Hideo but not about the rest. I'm not saying adding multi player would further ruin it but I expect them to get one thing right before adding another thing into the mix and splitting their focus, unless they are hiring separate staff in order to do the multi-player maps in which case i do not mind.


Originally posted by Pinpal
OH god thank you for being the smart one
How in the world can multiplayer effect the main game, next they will say lara having a jeep to ride will affect the game
Wow thanks for that insult that really wasn't needed. Just because people have different opinions to you doesn't mean they are stupid, especially when they have a valid point. No one here is saying multi-player is a bad thing, if it's done properly neither are they saying it will effect the main game. We are saying that CD shouldn't try to incorporate a whole new gameplay mode before solidifying one. Okay? good, next......


Very true.

CD go hire Hideo Kojima:lol:

Besides he practically does everything, director, game developer and producer isn't he? I can't remember now.:scratch:

Yes, he does. Personally I think the man is a creative genius, the MGS series is nothing short of a masterpiece, you can see he truly cares about the series and the characters.

pinpal
8th Dec 2009, 22:11
This has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about and proves nothing

It proves why underworld wasn't what some people expected. Think about it if there time frame was longer, and if they hadn't lost important people on the project, what do you think underworld would have been like. More polish, all levels in the game and possibly more. now they have everything they need to make a great single player and a great multiplayer option in the game. You say they need to learn how to make a great single player mode first but they already do, they just need as Lara once said "Patience and Persistence".
which they now have:):thumb:



I have one word to answer that statement. Legend.
I have a few words to say to that statement:cool: Legend was the game that brought lara back and topped the video game charts:cool:





I agree about Hideo but not about the rest. I'm not saying adding multi player would further ruin it but I expect them to get one thing right before adding another thing into the mix and splitting their focus, unless they are hiring separate staff in order to do the multi-player maps in which case i do not mind.

thats why they are looking to hire some multiplayer game developers.

Wow thanks for that insult that really wasn't needed. Just because people have different opinions to you doesn't mean they are stupid, especially when they have a valid point. No one here is saying multi-player is a bad thing, if it's done properly neither are they saying it will effect the main game. We are saying that CD shouldn't try to incorporate a whole new gameplay mode before solidifying one. Okay? good, next......

sorry if you took that as an insult. I didn't mean it that way.

jayjay119
8th Dec 2009, 23:39
It proves why underworld wasn't what some people expected. Think about it if there time frame was longer, and if they hadn't lost important people on the project, what do you think underworld would have been like. More polish, all levels in the game and possibly more. now they have everything they need to make a great single player and a great multiplayer option in the game. You say they need to learn how to make a great single player mode first but they already do, they just need as Lara once said "Patience and Persistence".
which they now have:):thumb:
Well all in all I'm the first one to admit that CD are not largely at fault for all that was wrong with TRU but as it stands, its not just that game. None of the three past games have demonstrated that CD understand how to do a successful single player TR game on their own, which is what worries me about them trying to tackle too much. I'm all for patience and persistance that's why i'd have hoped Cd were going to take the time to perfect the single player mode in TR9 before adding multi player in TR10.



I have a few words to say to that statement:cool: Legend was the game that brought lara back and topped the video game charts:cool:

Legend may have been the game that topped the charts but that means nothing here,in this discussion I mean. Legend is a generic 3rd person shooter which is why it topped the charts, because that is what was and is popular. It was a good game but it was not a good tomb raider game, it removed all of what made the series special and just left Lara, 2 pistols and tombs which is not Tomb Raider, its about the gameplay and atmosphere too.


why they are looking to hire some multiplayer game developers.
That's good, theres no solid info yet but if they are hiring a team to do the multi player whilst the core team work on the main plot then I have no quibbles.


sorry if you took that as an insult. I didn't mean it that way.
ok then, my mistake.sorry:thumb:

DamianGraham
9th Dec 2009, 01:03
hmmm my reservations (if any) about this idea are mainly "Will it fit in with overall story/gameplay" i mean, i don't wanna run around the (as speculated) abandoned island killing monsters, and then jump into a happy run and gun with friends halo FPS game.. NOT my style, and DEFINITELY not Lara's style.. now if they incorporate it in a LOGICAL way, then i'm all good! cant fking wait for more TR 9 news!!

pinpal
9th Dec 2009, 01:51
hmmm my reservations (if any) about this idea are mainly "Will it fit in with overall story/gameplay" i mean, i don't wanna run around the (as speculated) abandoned island killing monsters, and then jump into a happy run and gun with friends halo FPS game.. NOT my style, and DEFINITELY not Lara's style.. now if they incorporate it in a LOGICAL way, then i'm all good! cant fking wait for more TR 9 news!!

Oh man, heaven forbid tomb raider ever become a halo first person shooter style game. I absolutely hate first person shooters:mad2::mad2::mad2:.

nikkinickels
9th Dec 2009, 04:18
Oh man, heaven forbid tomb raider ever become a halo first person shooter style game. I absolutely hate first person shooters:mad2::mad2::mad2:.


agreed.

Ants_27_
9th Dec 2009, 08:11
Oh man, heaven forbid tomb raider ever become a halo first person shooter style game. I absolutely hate first person shooters:mad2::mad2::mad2:.

I love FPS games as long as they are World War ones, not crappy modern ones nor future ones.

@jayjay - your right, Kojima is a genius and that is why I love the games he does. You really can tell that he cares for the story and all the characters, not just one or two.

Shame I can't say the same about TR... sorry people, I just can't.

rg_001100
9th Dec 2009, 08:52
Usually when devs decide ''oh hey lets put multiplayer in a game that doesnt need it, but its so popular right now every dev thinks they need to have it!''. The single player suffers...ugh...do I even want a TR 9..? lol

Like I think Randy said, there was all ready glitches/bugs in the last version of this game, now they're going to focus on Multiplayer too? good lord
They did this with Quick Time Events for TR:L/A. (Can I count Arcade bike-chase shooter sequences which don't relate to the rest of the gameplay in there too?). That turned out well :rolleyes:
I'd be concerned the effect of multiplayer (or another element unnecessarily introduced because of popularity) on the core gameplay of the series...
(Coming soon TR: The MMORPG? ... maybe best to not joke about such things).


as opposed to the masterpieces of the past? I agree this sort of worries me, Cd haven't really shown they can do a full single player without linearity or bugs well enough yet.
If where CD are taking the series works better as multiplayer, and they come off with a better multiplayer game than a single player game that resembles TR in some shape or form, it's perhaps better that they try MP. (I would prefer a brilliant SP game closer to what TR is supposed to be about though).


Is that site reliable? Is it as official as we're gonna get it?
I suppose given the article first linked in the opening post it's safe enough to assume they're talking about Tomb Raider (or some future mutation of it).
But no, no official announcement, it's just people guessing.

_Love2Raid_
9th Dec 2009, 14:46
That's good, theres no solid info yet but if they are hiring a team to do the multi player whilst the core team work on the main plot then I have no quibbles.


That´s the whole point of the article.

AdobeArtist
10th Dec 2009, 05:15
Hmm... I don't know what to think about this. Other than what Ants_27_ said about auto-aim and that CD appears to be taking their time, I can't really see the positives in this. How is this going to be implemented? Lara is a solo character and she is the sole character that CD has introduced to us thus far that has a combatinive background and has any depth to her character. The reason I bring this up is to bring up the question on what kind of characters are supposed to make up this mulitplayer experience? If not that, and we get to make our own avatars, how will this be connected to the storyline? Atleast in Halo we know that the Master Chief wasn't the only one of his kind. In COD, we know that there isn't just one soldier. But, in Tomb Raider, there has only been one real character.

Even though I can't see the positives, I really can't see many negatives to this idea either. It won't be hard to win me over to this idea, because it is a good one on paper, if CD can come up with a logical reason as to how it is ultimately connected to the storyline. Hopefully this means that Lara will no longer be the sole character (I honestly don't count Winston and CO. because they have never really been fleshed out. Think about it, aside from the little snippets on text on the Legend game, we know nothing about their past.) and we will actually see some believable human interaction that doesn't involve anger or violence.

Well JRod, I share some similar concerns about multiplayer. My initial reaction was, no way. Multiplayer just doesn't work within the context of the games. When you look at other titles that incorporate players playing against other players, you see how the single player experience adapts itself to tournament gaming. Halo, Killzone 2, RainbowSix - all titles who's campaign game revolves around shoot out conflicts will naturally lend itself well to the combat in a team vs team matchup, which mirrors the stories war scenarios.

So of course with TR being focused on exploration adventuring, multiplayer hardly seems workable within the structure of the gameplay here. And then it hit me;

NOT team VS team multiplayer, but CO-OP multiplayer. Gears of War 2 and Halo ODST really struck gold with a marvelous idea. 4-5 players working together against an endless stream of AI bad guys, where it's surviving the overwhelming numbers that grows in each wave is the challenge.

This I can see working for future Tomb Raider games, where the 5 players have to defend different temples (each temple being the unique arena map) from an onslaught of mercenaries trying to breach it. The idea being that not only do the players have to survive to make to each next wave/round, but also protect key structures of the temples. All players dying or all key structures being destroyed results in the game over and then having to start over from a certain check point.

The bag guys would come in a variety of mercs, with different armaments (rifles, pistols, sniper rifles, rocket launchers, etc...) and maybe even a handful of mythical creatures in the higher waves to mix things up a bit. And since this is a Tomb Raider game we're talking about, incorporating mechanism and environmental traps to help protect the temple and as an added means of squashing enemies would really help set this apart from Horde Mode and ODST's Fire Fight.

The only detail I haven't quite worked out yet, as you were contemplating JRod, is the players character selection. GeoW and ODST have main story characters to choose from. I suppose Lara and Doppelganger would make up two of the 5, but I just can't picture Amanda or Natla working together with Lara to fill out the character selection options.

But then again, since in GeoW there's nothing to stop the game from having 3 Cole Trains as each player can choose which ever character model they want to play with, we could keep this to just multiple Lara's where the players can customize their own Lara avatar from her established selection of outfits (similar to Halo's Spartan armor customization), and even maybe having some color palettes to choose from, so the 5 Lara's would still be distinguished on the playing field from the choices of;

* Classic outfit
* Legend outfit
* Underworld outfit
* Wet suit
* Dry suit
* Sola Diving suit
* Catsuit
* That fashion contest winner
* Military outfit from past games
* Denim outfit
* Biker outfit
* Japan Dress
* Opera House dress
* Bikinis

(why not those last three, just for fun? :) )

Additionally, there could be players choices of hair style options, from ponytail to braid, to hair loosely down, to maybe even a few original new styles, like maybe a Victoria Bekham style short and chic. Plus eyewear could be some options, round reds, to the matrix style shades.

Randy 54
11th Dec 2009, 00:51
Instead of trying to convert the game into something it wasn't designed for, why not solve a puzzle and unlock a nice bonus level, similar to what was done in TR3? Or how about personalizing the game by having Lara address the player by name as she guides you through certain areas? Or how about the player being able to choose what route to take through certain levels, again like TR3? These features would let the player exercise a little more control while still retaining the game's identity.

Ants_27_
11th Dec 2009, 07:54
Instead of trying to convert the game into something it wasn't designed for..

What was it designed for?

Was MGS designed in the beginning to feature online? Was Resi?

My point is -which is probably wrong- that most franchises running from PS1 to even further back weren't designed for online play, yet they 'converted' it -eventually- without even effecting the single player, e.g. Uncharted, MGS.

Perhaps I am just wrong, but that's the way I see it.:D

jayjay119
11th Dec 2009, 13:48
What was it designed for?

Was MGS designed in the beginning to feature online? Was Resi?

My point is -which is probably wrong- that most franchises running from PS1 to even further back weren't designed for online play, yet they 'converted' it -eventually- without even effecting the single player, e.g. Uncharted, MGS.

Perhaps I am just wrong, but that's the way I see it.:D

I agree with you actually. I'm a bit precarious about the whole multiplayer thing, but that is only because Cd don't yet seem to have grasped how to do single player mode properly, granted that isn't heir fault due to both financial and time constraints induced by Eidos but you should never move onto a new task before perfecting the one you are already doing.

However like Ants says many long running franchises were not designed for online play or multiplayer (as it is today) just simply because when they debuted it didn't exist and every series could include it in some way. Its just the way in which it is included must be relevant and true to how the game plays in single player mode, for example in TR if they created new maps specifically for multiplayer with a race to the artifact, timed obstacle courses etc it could work because these are things that have already been done in single player mode in earlier games.

Arctic
11th Dec 2009, 18:12
I honestly don't know wether to hate it or love it. It will be interesting to see how it works out, though, and I think it could become a really good game if they get it right :D

Ants_27_
11th Dec 2009, 18:46
However like Ants says many long running franchises were not designed for online play or multiplayer (as it is today) just simply because when they debuted it didn't exist and every series could include it in some way. Its just the way in which it is included must be relevant and true to how the game plays in single player mode..

I agree with you completely, especially about not moving onto another task until the 'other' is perfected.

Of course I don't think that TR should 'do' MP just because other long running franchises have: MGS, Resi and whatever else (not aimed at you jayjay). The point is that a game isn't really designed one way and that's it, especially when things keep evolving like the introduction of 'online'.:D

Can't remember if I said this already but, games like Uncharted and MGS fit well with the idea of online because they have fleshed out combat systems. I mean all shooters automatically work well with online (within reason) and I think if the SP has the foundations of a shooter in place then it will probably work.:nut:

Now I just feel confused.:lol:

Randy 54
12th Dec 2009, 01:14
I can say no more on this subject because you guys just don't get it. Stick a fork in me................I'm done.

jayjay119
12th Dec 2009, 02:16
I can say no more on this subject because you guys just don't get it. Stick a fork in me................I'm done.

Or maybe its you who doesn't get it, you can't just say no to something because a series wasn't built round it, when it could potentially work. Especially when said thing didn't even exist when the series started.

A series has to evolve and change and incorporate the new elements that technological advances bring, and that fit in with the current market to survive.If any series is in need of that it is TR. I'm not saying Multiplayer is the answer to all the problems the series has, neither am I saying it would be the worst thing in the world if it were to be included but it just has to be done right. Its the same thing with the combat aspect, it needs to evolve desperately and implement a bit more but not so much so that it becomes a shooter like legend was.

pinpal
12th Dec 2009, 03:36
Or maybe its you who doesn't get it, you can't just say no to something because a series wasn't built round it, when it could potentially work. Especially when said thing didn't even exist when the series started.

A series has to evolve and change and incorporate the new elements that technological advances bring, and that fit in with the current market to survive.If any series is in need of that it is TR. I'm not saying Multiplayer is the answer to all the problems the series has, neither am I saying it would be the worst thing in the world if it were to be included but it just has to be done right. Its the same thing with the combat aspect, it needs to evolve desperately and implement a bit more but not so much so that it becomes a shooter like legend was.

:thumb: I agree tomb raider needs to evolve anyway it knows how. Multi player is a good option, if you don't like the multiplayer in the game then don't click the multiplayer option.

Ants_27_
12th Dec 2009, 09:10
Or maybe its you who doesn't get it, you can't just say no to something because a series wasn't built round it, when it could potentially work. Especially when said thing didn't even exist when the series started.


Plus -I speak for myself here and maybe others- I would rather see a series try to do something new to it's formula by adding the new technologies that have been made available, for example online.

Whether it was boom or bust it wouldn't bother me, heck it wouldn't bother me if they practically changed everything but kept the core/foundation side of it. The point is that wouldn't it be better if their 'new formula' failed but at least they would go out trying to change the game and not churn out the same game, again, again and again?

Just to put it out there I don't hope a new formula fails, I hope you get my point:D

I think that is basically what you said jayjay that series should evolve... and I agree.

josh1122
14th Dec 2009, 13:34
CD can't even get a solid single player experience down and people expect the next game to be great WITH adding multiplayer, i still do not see the logic in this way of thinking

But opinions are opinions and I'll agree to disagree :)

Randy 54
14th Dec 2009, 16:23
Or maybe its you who doesn't get it, you can't just say no to something because a series wasn't built round it, when it could potentially work. Especially when said thing didn't even exist when the series started.

A series has to evolve and change and incorporate the new elements that technological advances bring, and that fit in with the current market to survive.If any series is in need of that it is TR. I'm not saying Multiplayer is the answer to all the problems the series has, neither am I saying it would be the worst thing in the world if it were to be included but it just has to be done right. Its the same thing with the combat aspect, it needs to evolve desperately and implement a bit more but not so much so that it becomes a shooter like legend was.

Evolve into what, a combat game? The problem I see, is the lack of appreciation for what the game is all about. The only thing that should change are the stories because aside from the obvious flaws, CD did a fine job with Underworld. The blood splatter that people cried for kind of cheapened the visual experience, but other than that, I'd say they were finally on track with what they were trying to do. Nothing wrong with that.
What good would multi player do for this game? Why do so many think it's a great idea when it doesn't fit the game's format? That extra time and money would be better invested in working out the bugs that plagued the last game, that would be a technological advance.
No, I don't think the game needs to evolve, or change, or anything else, but some attitudes sure do.

jayjay119
14th Dec 2009, 16:37
Evolve into what, a combat game?

I seriously considered ceasing to read your post after the first line because you clearly hadn't bothered to read my entire post that you quoted before deciding to rant about it. So in response your firs line,allow me to quote my last line


it needs to evolve desperately and implement a bit more but not so much so that it becomes a shooter like legend was.
So no not into a combat game, you completely missed the point of my post in your ignorance.


The problem I see, is the lack of appreciation for what the game is all about. The only thing that should change are the stories because aside from the obvious flaws, CD did a fine job with Underworld. The blood splatter that people cried for kind of cheapened the visual experience, but other than that, I'd say they were finally on track with what they were trying to do. Nothing wrong with that.
What good would multi player do for this game? Why do so many think it's a great idea when it doesn't fit the game's format? That extra time and money would be better invested in working out the bugs that plagued the last game, that would be a technological advance.
Where are you seeing this 'problem' of yours? Because from what I can see everyone here is giving creative critisism on how the game could evolve (which despite what you say it does need to do, every game does and despite your opinion a greater majority are starting to see the current format that hasn't really changed at all and what did change was dumbed down, as stale.) whilst remaining true to what TR is. The only problem I see here is CD (and core also) fanboys who refuse to accept they can do anything wrong, when clearly they can. Newer elements such as a separate multiplayer mode could be incorporated into TR whilst remaining true to what the series is about,if they were done right. Fact.


No, I don't think the game needs to evolve, or change, or anything else, but some attitudes sure do.
Yeah I couldn't agree more but not the same people you are thinking about I'd bet.

Ants_27_
14th Dec 2009, 18:54
Evolve into what, a combat game? The only thing that should change are the stories.

I mean look, no matter how phenomenal Underworld could've been (was to some people) they couldn't just change the story and expect people to put up with buying the game. £40 for the same game you bought two years ago is a stupid and lazy mistake on the developers 'part.

Games should challenge the developers by pushing them out of their comfort zones, thus giving them experience to use on new IP's that CD will create in the future.

That's how I see it at least.:D

Randy 54
15th Dec 2009, 13:35
I seriously considered ceasing to read your post after the first line because you clearly hadn't bothered to read my entire post that you quoted before deciding to rant about it. So in response your firs line,allow me to quote my last line


So no not into a combat game, you completely missed the point of my post in your ignorance.


Where are you seeing this 'problem' of yours? Because from what I can see everyone here is giving creative critisism on how the game could evolve (which despite what you say it does need to do, every game does and despite your opinion a greater majority are starting to see the current format that hasn't really changed at all and what did change was dumbed down, as stale.) whilst remaining true to what TR is. The only problem I see here is CD (and core also) fanboys who refuse to accept they can do anything wrong, when clearly they can. Newer elements such as a separate multiplayer mode could be incorporated into TR whilst remaining true to what the series is about,if they were done right. Fact.


Yeah I couldn't agree more but not the same people you are thinking about I'd bet.

So where's all this constructive criticism? While I've offered alternative ideas, you've offered nothing except criticism of me. Hardly constructive. I was looking for ideas from you and the rest.
I asked what the game is supposed to evolve into, and still nothing. So I'll ask this again, what role would multi player have in this game? Tigers? Bats?
Rolling boulders? A sidekick? .....What?
So I'll put in black and white, (and I just know you'll disagree), if multi player is introduced into the present format, what direction will the game eventually evolve into other than........COMBAT? It's inevitable. The video game market is down, popularity will rule in an attempt to boost sales.
I do not play the other games, they are not interesting to me, so if my concerns about preserving a game, that I thoroughly enjoy, seem unfounded,
please by all means, offer some constructive criticism.

Ants_27_
15th Dec 2009, 19:50
So I'll put in black and white, (and I just know you'll disagree), if multi player is introduced into the present format, what direction will the game eventually evolve into other than........COMBAT? It's inevitable..

Not necessarily though. MGS 4 is still a stealth game and they introduced the idea of things like death matches and what not back in MGS 3.

Why? I personally see it that MGS separates the online from single player extremely well. While the main campaigns are mainly designed with stealth in mind (although most were technically designed to be played one of three ways) the online focuses more on the shoot everything idea, well when I played it it seemed too.

The point is that multiplayer doesn't always affect the single player, well not when a developer cares for their franchise and actually knows what they want to do with it.

jayjay119
15th Dec 2009, 22:27
So where's all this constructive criticism? While I've offered alternative ideas, you've offered nothing except criticism of me. Hardly constructive. I was looking for ideas from you and the rest.
I asked what the game is supposed to evolve into, and still nothing. So I'll ask this again, what role would multi player have in this game? Tigers? Bats?
Rolling boulders? A sidekick? .....What?
So I'll put in black and white, (and I just know you'll disagree), if multi player is introduced into the present format, what direction will the game eventually evolve into other than........COMBAT? It's inevitable. The video game market is down, popularity will rule in an attempt to boost sales.
I do not play the other games, they are not interesting to me, so if my concerns about preserving a game, that I thoroughly enjoy, seem unfounded,
please by all means, offer some constructive criticism.

If you want to find creative critisism them why don't you try actually reading the thread and looking at the ideas proposed before jumping all over a topic. I find it funny that you state that all you see is me critisising you when I only did that in my last post, which by the way was a response to you just critisising me. You think you are offering creative critisism? I don't see how when all you are doing is virtually putting your fingers in your ears and repeatedly saying 'it'll never work' and throwing sarcastic comments around... the theory of multiplayer in TR could work id things, as I have stated above were done right. Like I said before read the thread if you want to see what creative critisism we have used.

I'll put my theory in black and white too shall I? Multiplayer does not equal combat overload, and even if it did, it would be a separate mode that would not affect the main game or its gameplay, if you don't like combat don't click on the multiplayer option.

jones110
17th Dec 2009, 13:41
Check this out, the new tomb raider game will have multiplayer and possibly Co op. looks like crystal dynamics have been taking notes from a certain game developer thats been naughty:D:lmao:. (get it) (if you don't I meant Uncharted developer Naughty Dog)
any way heres where this information came from.
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Next-Tomb-Raider-Has-Multiplayer-21517.html:thumb:
Update: Multiplayer possibly confirmed here's the link
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2009/12/07/next-tomb-raider-will-have-multiplayer/ Oh god I am so excited!!!!.

This is a Great Message :D:)

JRod108
18th Dec 2009, 04:11
adobeARTIST, you have something there with the idea for characters, though I would prefer the developers to think of some other characters, besides Lara to put in the multiplayer before going for your idea. Saying that, it doesn't mean that I want CD to force anything and wind up with something stupid and I would prefer a bunch of Lara's running around than something that is awful. Your idea isn't bad, I would just like to see CD try integrating other characters before going with just Lara. As for the actual mulitplayer, I think I would like to see something else besides the "Firefight" modes that have been so popular lately. Granted, your idea is still much better than mine, seeing as I have yet to actually think of one.

I really don't understand the criticism against this idea based upon the grounds that CD can't do singleplayer right, and so on. Didn't the article say that there would be a separate team for the multiplayer? Please, correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I've read said article. However, if I'm right, then the multiplayer is not necessarily going to be bad if the singleplayer is sub par, it's going to depend on the other team's abilities.

As for multiplayer being someone else's idea, I think that is like saying the adoption of cars was just a fad. It is of my opinion that multiplayer is the future of gaming. A huge portion of games have some type of multiplayer, and I don't think that it is because it is simply a selling point. I think the reason that multiplayer is so popular is that, in my personal experience anyway, it is much more challenging than the singleplayer game. Granted singleplayer campaigns are always going to have elements that cannot be added to that of multiplayer, but multiplayer has something extremely important that the singleplayer will always lack: unpredictable opponents. I believe that a computer will never be as good as a human gamer simply because computers can't think for themselves and I don't think that A.I. will ever be on par with a human player.

Multiplayer doesn't have to be about combat. Just look at games like WOW. They have combat elements, but the games can hardly be called combat games. As for TR becoming a shooter, first of all, I have no problems with shooters, and secondly I think that there isn't enough combat as it is. Saying those two things, I don't actually want TR to become a shooter, I just want a better combat experience when there is combat. I don't want something like Legend where you shoot something every five seconds, I can buy a better game for that purpose, but I want things like auto-aim (especially auto-aim), camera, A.I. and the atmosphere in general to have a complete and utter overhaul. This is ridiculous. It is the year 2009 and the combat still plays for itself. It has been the same for ten long years and I quite frankly find that absolutely unacceptable. I know TR isn't all about the combat, but in my opinion, that is the area that is suffering most and I think multiplayer might just be the incentive to get whatever idiot that allowed an important part of the gameplay to lie stagnant for a decade off their lazy butt and do something about it.

I have decided that as long as CD can find a way to logically implement the multiplayer in a way that fits with the story then it will be a good idea to me.

SamiKatt
20th Dec 2009, 03:45
Honestly, if they want to MP or co-op, I really don't mind as long as the game is good & lots of fun!!! I have so enjoyed the TR series since I first played Legends!!! This is still my all time fav... I have played Anniversary & Underworld and while I enjoyed them, they (IMHO) cannot compare to Legends... I am looking forward to the next game & the adventure that will ensue!!! Bring it on, CD!!!

BlackThor
20th Dec 2009, 15:20
ahahahahahahahahahaaaaahahah yesssss. with no new news for so long i started to loose interest but this multiplayer thing got me sooooo excited for this game again:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

now that i've calmed down i would like to say i hope amanda and her wrath stone appear as your partner in crime in the next installment. her powers would make for some interesting landscaping senarios for a co-op campaign. plus with square leading the way with this new expansion i think it could be a huge success

pinpal
22nd Dec 2009, 01:42
ahahahahahahahahahaaaaahahah yesssss. with no new news for so long i started to loose interest but this multiplayer thing got me sooooo excited for this game again:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

now that i've calmed down i would like to say i hope amanda and her wrath stone appear as your partner in crime in the next installment. her powers would make for some interesting landscaping senarios for a co-op campaign. plus with square leading the way with this new expansion i think it could be a huge success

but ofcourse it will be a success.:thumb: Also love Amanda sure hope she's playable. There really taking there time:cool: I believe this game will continue there success with there other three releases.:D