PDA

View Full Version : The Future of Tomb Raider



popa
23rd Dec 2008, 03:55
I've recently, finally, had the time to play Tomb Raider. The only experience I previously had was playing the very first game (the one Anniversary is based on) and I only got half way through, although I was really impressed with it. Everyone has different things they enjoy, but this one fits me to a T.

Now I'm going to play them all, starting with Legend and Anniversary on my PS2 and ending with Underworld on my PS3. I'm almost finished with Legend and it's been a blast.

Here's my question. What are the plans to continue the series? From what I hear, Underworld is changing the paradigm somewhat. It would be nice to have something to look forward to after Underworld.

I suspect I'm covering old ground here, and if I am, my sincere apologies.

Jorge22
24th Dec 2008, 05:26
The future of Tomb Raider is that it will remain a commercial thing for kids who have no idea what a good game is and are totally amazed just by graphics that look all greenish to me. But there is another future for Tomb Raider as well, and that's the custom level world, with thousands of them and many, many people from the entire world playing them for free. That is the non-commercial Tomb Raider that comes from the heart, but I don't really expect you or any of all these new fans to understand the notion. I'll tell you this, though: my 10 year old son doesn't want anything to do with the "new" Tomb Raider. He says it's nothing like the Tomb Raider games I play. So, you multiply him by many other kids whose families know something about Tomb Raider as it really is and you have a huge number of people to always keep the real Tomb Raider alive. I must tell you this, even though you'll think I'm raining on your parade, while Eidos keeps releasing new Tomb Raider games with awful commands and no personality at all, they withdraw their support to the continuation of really great Eidos games such as Omikron - that says a lot.

rg_001100
24th Dec 2008, 07:42
To answer the question in the OP, no there haven't been any announcements for the next TR game. (or LoK game).

I would disagree with Jorge22 on some of the things about where TR is at now, and will continue to be. There is a different personality in them, and they manage to capture some of what made TR really great; and there are plenty of fans of the classic TRs that have come to appreciate the CD TR games.
But the TRLE-community is indeed a great place for the fans of Core Design TR fans, who don't appreciate the CD games. Also good for those who liked the Core games as well.

Staticon
24th Dec 2008, 17:37
I love the classic TR and have built one or two levels myself.

As I have only played a couple of hundred custom levels so far, there are still over a thousand for me to play (and still new ones are being created). :)

Long live TR.

As this is solely related to TR, it would probably be better situated in the TR forums. Allow me to re-direct. :)

CrisGer
24th Dec 2008, 19:48
There is a wondefully bright future for Tomb Raider, contrary to some negative voices, I LOVE all of the games, each in their own way, the newest ones are marvels of their own kind, and the older ones are beautiful too. Each has its own special qualities and I have every assurance that Eidos and the chosen developers will continue to make wonderful games for the next decade at least. So I hope you will join us as we all continue to move into the future with Lara and these wonderful games.

Tomb Raider Last Revelations

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/8449/laraandthebluechamber1de1.jpg

and the "new" TR is equally beautiful....

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/5921/56225531ak5.jpg

and the future is bright indeed......

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6402/lara3ex7.jpg

GoLarago
24th Dec 2008, 22:22
The future of Tomb Raider is that it will remain a commercial thing for kids who have no idea what a good game is and are totally amazed just by graphics that look all greenish to me. But there is another future for Tomb Raider as well, and that's the custom level world, with thousands of them and many, many people from the entire world playing them for free. That is the non-commercial Tomb Raider that comes from the heart, but I don't really expect you or any of all these new fans to understand the notion. I'll tell you this, though: my 10 year old son doesn't want anything to do with the "new" Tomb Raider. He says it's nothing like the Tomb Raider games I play. So, you multiply him by many other kids whose families know something about Tomb Raider as it really is and you have a huge number of people to always keep the real Tomb Raider alive. I must tell you this, even though you'll think I'm raining on your parade, while Eidos keeps releasing new Tomb Raider games with awful commands and no personality at all, they withdraw their support to the continuation of really great Eidos games such as Omikron - that says a lot.

I'm a hard core Core Tr fan also but I do have to give credit were it is due. CD probably saved TR from oblivion. Underworld at least was very close to the feel of the old core games with some new twists. Do I like the increased human combat no, Do I like how they have changed her personality, no. I hate the shortness of new games plus the fact that there is no where near enough traps and exploring. Plus dag namit they burned the dang mansion down. Bunch of vandals!

Having said that; the old Core games by the time TR4 were bad in need of modern controls. If nothing else , mouse look and turn. We have that now. The graphics are stunningly beautiful (the MAIN reason they are so short unfortunately ). Its really easy to immerse oneself in the game. I will never go to any of the places that inspired the game locations but for a few hour I can feel like I did. I would love to see the perfect combo of the Core games mixed with the graphics and controls CD has given us. We probably won't because the newer players don't have much in the way of patience. There is no reason however to change who Lara is or what TR is but there is also no reason we can't upgrade graphics and controls. If CD does blow it totally which having played Underworld I don't think they will. We should hopefully have several really nice games to play. If they do blow it well I'll play the old ones and community maps . Their loss.

The Sage Nabooru
25th Dec 2008, 20:51
I know I've heard a few panicked voices over TR being cancelled.........but to me that's just ridiculous. Cancelling TR would be almost the equivalent of Nintendo cancelling Zelda. "Hmm, we've got this vastly popular, profitable franchise that's recognized all over the world.....let's can it!" I don't think so.

And as for those who say Lara is running out of places to go to, that's also crazy. This world is huge. I was just flipping through my Greatest World's Treasures book and came across all kinds of things Lara could hunt down next: the mystery of the Antikythera Mechanism (basically solved, but I'm sure CD could juice up a story about it), the classics the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail, King Solomon's mines, El Dorado, etc. And of course they can always make something up, in fact they usually do. Lara's never been to the Arabian Peninsula, ancient Mesopotamia, or Korea, and she's spent little time in North America, India, and sub-Saharan Africa. And even then, to bring up Zelda again, well Link has been in the same freakin' kingdom almost every game for the past 22 years, fighting the same freakin' bad guy, and it never gets old.

Lara's got a lot ahead of her and I can't wait to see what happens. Hopefully it will include seeing Croft Manor's bathroom and kitchen again. :)

pinpal
25th Dec 2008, 20:58
I know I've heard a few panicked voices over TR being cancelled.........but to me that's just ridiculous. Cancelling TR would be almost the equivalent of Nintendo cancelling Zelda. "Hmm, we've got this vastly popular, profitable franchise that's recognized all over the world.....let's can it!" I don't think so.

And as for those who say Lara is running out of places to go to, that's also crazy. This world is huge. I was just flipping through my Greatest World's Treasures book and came across all kinds of things Lara could hunt down next: the mystery of the Antikythera Mechanism (basically solved, but I'm sure CD could juice up a story about it), the classics the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail, King Solomon's mines, El Dorado, etc. And of course they can always make something up, in fact they usually do. Lara's never been to the Arabian Peninsula, ancient Mesopotamia, or Korea, and she's spent little time in North America, India, and sub-Saharan Africa. And even then, to bring up Zelda again, well Link has been in the same freakin' kingdom almost every game for the past 22 years, fighting the same freakin' bad guy, and it never gets old.

Lara's got a lot ahead of her and I can't wait to see what happens. Hopefully it will include seeing Croft Manor's bathroom and kitchen again. :)


:thumb: WELL SAID.

Jurre
25th Dec 2008, 21:33
One possible strategy would be what they are doing now which is to try keeping both the fanbase and the mainstream market happy. It results in generaly happy fans, except for those die-hard Core-boys, but within the mainstream media it is criticized for being nothing new and it results in mediocre ratings: sixes and sevens. In the meanwhile it will be overshadowed by new series like Uncharted -untill of course that series is also abandoned by the mainstream as being old and nothing new. After all this is not the middle ages anymore, people praise the new and original.

Another possibility is to forget about traditions and stuff and focus completely on what makes good gameplay that is enjoyed by the majority of gamers while certain antiquated elements need to be removed, even though they have been around since the beginning. Its what they did on Legend and as a result it has been the most positively received game in years within the mainstream media while it produced lots of whiners within the fanbase.

GoLarago
26th Dec 2008, 19:24
Another possibility is to forget about traditions and stuff and focus completely on what makes good gameplay that is enjoyed by the majority of gamers while certain antiquated elements need to be removed, even though they have been around since the beginning. Its what they did on Legend and as a result it has been the most positively received game in years within the mainstream media while it produced lots of whiners within the fanbase.

If your going to do that though, why not just go with a new IP. I like new IP's . I get more choices. No baggage to carry around in a new IP. What we are getting now is TR fluff.( Make no mistake I absolutely enjoyed Underworld by the way). Just enough TR that they can get away with calling it TR but not enough change to call it something else. Innovative gameplay, stunning graphics, great new controls doesn't mean you have to change the basic premise of the TR franchise. Which was platforming and search and discovery. The Core fan base is the only reason CD got a chance at TR. It wasn't the Johnny come latelys to TR that prompted Legend release. It was the old evil Core fans who of course absolutely hate any change. The new fans are going to change it so us old fans go away then Lara can carry a tactical nuke around.:lol: I'll most likely still play them but they won't really be TR.:(

Jurre
26th Dec 2008, 19:42
Sorry... IP??

GoLarago
26th Dec 2008, 20:21
Sorry... IP??

Intellectual property. A totally new game franchise. Gears of War 1 was a new IP when it came out.

In fact I would love to see a new franchise with a girl like in Perfect Dark(I think that its name, been awhile). Aren't enough girl character games. She could be a total bad ass. Sort of a combo of 007, Indiana Jones, hell throw a little Wonder woman into the mix.. Think of the awesome weapons and combat possible.:nut:

Jurre
26th Dec 2008, 22:01
If your going to do that though, why not just go with a new IP. I like new IP's . I get more choices. No baggage to carry around in a new IP. What we are getting now is TR fluff.( Make no mistake I absolutely enjoyed Underworld by the way). Just enough TR that they can get away with calling it TR but not enough change to call it something else. Innovative gameplay, stunning graphics, great new controls doesn't mean you have to change the basic premise of the TR franchise. Which was platforming and search and discovery. The Core fan base is the only reason CD got a chance at TR. It wasn't the Johnny come latelys to TR that prompted Legend release. It was the old evil Core fans who of course absolutely hate any change. The new fans are going to change it so us old fans go away then Lara can carry a tactical nuke around.:lol: I'll most likely still play them but they won't really be TR.:(
Right... Well I don't think that in that scenario it may just as well be a new franchise: it simply implies that rather than the improvement of the most succesfull elements only, the developers should also consider the removal and/or replacement of elements on which improvement is not possible.

For instance in my opinion Underworld would have been a better game without the combat as it is now. If they can't improve it I think they should consider removing it. Maybe replace it with stealth. But in that regard Tomb Raider suffers from being a long-lived franchise: it tends to be conservative in dealing with things and that gives new-born franchises like Uncharted an edge over the old ones.
Its not impossible for the oldies to do those changes, they just need the guts to do it. I strongly believe its either that or we should just accept that the mainstream media will crown Uncharted as the new king of ancient ruines-based 3rd person game -untill, like I said, they become sick of that franchise as well-

UMIST_For_Ever
26th Dec 2008, 23:11
I still think that the game suffers a little with the developers.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the work they have done but they are too busy making everything look pretty and sacrifice gameplay.

Even in their blog/podcasts, they admitted that before release, they frequently crashed the PS3 and XBox versions of the game.

GoLarago
27th Dec 2008, 01:59
Right... Well I don't think that in that scenario it may just as well be a new franchise: it simply implies that rather than the improvement of the most succesfull elements only, the developers should also consider the removal and/or replacement of elements on which improvement is not possible.

For instance in my opinion Underworld would have been a better game without the combat as it is now. If they can't improve it I think they should consider removing it. Maybe replace it with stealth. But in that regard Tomb Raider suffers from being a long-lived franchise: it tends to be conservative in dealing with things and that gives new-born franchises like Uncharted an edge over the old ones.
Its not impossible for the oldies to do those changes, they just need the guts to do it. I strongly believe its either that or we should just accept that the mainstream media will crown Uncharted as the new king of ancient ruines-based 3rd person game -untill, like I said, they become sick of that franchise as well-

That's what I was getting at if you change too much its only TR in name. Then they may as well call it something else. Still may be lots of fun to play but wouldn't be a real TR game. That's where a new IP would come in.

As for combat with people that was never a really big thing in TR games. At least not until probably AoD. I could take it or leave it. I didn't however think it was bad in Underworld not compared to the old Core games. I always felt combat especially with people, except for the Bosses of course, interfered with hunting for goodies. TR hasn't ever really been a run and gun series.

Conservative maybe but I don't hate adding new things and capabilities to Lara.I want new people to come to enjoy playing TR. I don't mind her sneaking around. I love Splinter cell. I actually didn't mind the npc's in AoD though its not my favorite TR. The meat of TR in my opinion has always been exploration, isolation, and treasures. Leading up to an actual raiding event however, I would love to see her pushing herself thru crowded streets plum full of people just like in Assassins Creed. Entering some shop to have a conversion that takes her to the entrance of her next defiling of some poor souls tomb.:D Adding some mirrors edge type or Prince of Persia type wall walking moves to her capabilities would be grand. What is missing and was the most fun for me at least was all the freaking traps, puzzles and places you could go that really had nothing to do with the puzzles that got you to the next level. You weren't in any hurry to get to the end. The journey was what mattered.:thumb:

rg_001100
27th Dec 2008, 06:14
Plan "A":

One possible strategy would be what they are doing now which is to try keeping both the fanbase and the mainstream market happy. It results in generaly happy fans, except for those die-hard Core-boys, but within the mainstream media it is criticized for being nothing new and it results in mediocre ratings....
After all this is not the middle ages anymore, people praise the new and original.
(This seems to be "stick with the old, advance with the new at the same time")

Plan "B":

Another possibility is to forget about traditions and stuff and focus completely on what makes good gameplay that is enjoyed by the majority of gamers while certain antiquated elements need to be removed, even though they have been around since the beginning. Its what they did on Legend and as a result it has been the most positively received game in years within the mainstream media while it produced lots of whiners within the fanbase.
(This seems to be "old traditions are irrelavent, it's about survival")

On the issue of the introduction of new game features, the conservative view should be considered carefully; one example of "new and cool" ruining a series is the Commandos series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandos_(series)). It's a stealth, real-time tactics game. The latest game, Commandos: Strike Force moved away from this, and became an action-oriented FPS, that ''blended in" with the crowd, and instead of being something special, a game of the commandos series, it was 'ordinary' at best, horrible at worst.
The main issue with "Plan B" is that if it differs from what the game was originally, there is little point in having it different. It's likely to copy the things other games do well, but undoubtably any feature along these lines would be old and substandard in comparision. If future TR games hold little (or none) of what makes them TR games, then there is no point in calling it TR, or making the game.


That's what I was getting at if you change too much its only TR in name. Then they may as well call it something else. Still may be lots of fun to play but wouldn't be a real TR game. That's where a new IP would come in.

As for combat with people that was never a really big thing in TR games. At least not until probably AoD. I could take it or leave it. I didn't however think it was bad in Underworld not compared to the old Core games. I always felt combat especially with people, except for the Bosses of course, interfered with hunting for goodies. TR hasn't ever really been a run and gun series.

Conservative maybe but I don't hate adding new things and capabilities to Lara.I want new people to come to enjoy playing TR. I don't mind her sneaking around. I love Splinter cell. I actually didn't mind the npc's in AoD though its not my favorite TR. The meat of TR in my opinion has always been exploration, isolation, and treasures. Leading up to an actual raiding event however, I would love to see her pushing herself thru crowded streets plum full of people just like in Assassins Creed. Entering some shop to have a conversion that takes her to the entrance of her next defiling of some poor souls tomb.:D Adding some mirrors edge type or Prince of Persia type wall walking moves to her capabilities would be grand. What is missing and was the most fun for me at least was all the freaking traps, puzzles and places you could go that really had nothing to do with the puzzles that got you to the next level. You weren't in any hurry to get to the end. The journey was what mattered.:thumb:

Combat with people was fairly big in TR2, and TR3; but as far as design within TR goes, it is very much a "take it or leave it" thing. If they do take it, however, it's got to be damn good because there are so many action games out there that handle human v human combat; and the human v. human combat within TR is always going to be ranked alongside them; so it would need to be very good to impress. Non-human enemies were a lot more fun in TR:U; and they allow for diverse, or interesting, enemies. Leaving human v. human out in TR wouldn't necessarily be a horrible thing.

For the inclusion of new features; I would heavily advise that the features were not overused, or forced within gameplay. Adventure/moving around-style things perhaps can be used a lot; but forcing stealth in a game series (and upon fans) in a series/fangroup that have not needed to use stealth before (and not had a reputation for stealth) is just a bad idea. Using it too little is pointless as well.

Re-introducing features of the old series must be taken with care as well; if introduction of new features is for the mainstream, with possible failure upon the dedicated fangroup; then old features are for the fangroup, with 'possible failure' for everyone.

Cheese is nice.
27th Dec 2008, 07:44
As long as Buzz Monkey is fired, I will be happy. Cancelling Lara? Ha! I scoff at you!!! CD wouldn't dare. Otherwise, they would have a nice heaping peice of hot and angry Cheese. Hehehehe!!!!!! I'm Baaa-ack!!!!( Grins evily):D

9er_Fan
27th Dec 2008, 18:39
I think most of the worry around "cancelling Tomb Raider" is really worry about the financial viability of Eidos and its parent company, SCI. Their earnings loss was larger than their gross revenue in their last published statement.

http://miranda.hemscott.com/ir/seg/pdf/Annual_Report_Accounts_2008.pdf

I cannot figure out their cash position. Lack of cash is what causes companies to go bankrupt. They seemed to bleed cash like a stuck pig but somehow most of their bleeding is how they capitalize their development (which I don't understand). They raised more capital so the net effect is they have 25M in cash left (down only 5M from FY07).

Honestly, this explains the shortness of Underworld. It *had* to ship for this Holiday season. It looks like the entire fate of the company depended on it.

Tomb Raider is a top-20 franchise and too valuable a franchise to be cancelled. If Eidos cannot continue then I'm sure Electronic Arts or Ubisoft will pick it up.

As for the gameplay future, there seems to be 2 camps.

Camp 1 = keep it a "platform" game. Camp 2 = expand in new directions. I am in Camp 2.

Here is my review...
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=896697&postcount=14

Here are my gameplay suggestions in the "RPG Elements" thread...
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=919579&postcount=67
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=920168&postcount=72

rg_001100
27th Dec 2008, 18:47
As for the gameplay future, there seems to be 2 camps.

Camp 1 = keep it a "platform" game. Camp 2 = expand in new directions. I am in Camp 2.

:scratch: Hmm. By the way this is put, it sounds like Camp 2 is along the lines of a completely new game, rather than an extension of TR into new areas. I do not think it would be a good idea for TR to completely re-vamp and make itself in an area it has never been before; I would think it is a good idea, though, for TR to include/explore new areas/features that have not been included in the past, as long as they work with what features make TR what it is.

GoLarago
27th Dec 2008, 21:55
:scratch: Hmm. By the way this is put, it sounds like Camp 2 is along the lines of a completely new game, rather than an extension of TR into new areas. I do not think it would be a good idea for TR to completely re-vamp and make itself in an area it has never been before; I would think it is a good idea, though, for TR to include/explore new areas/features that have not been included in the past, as long as they work with what features make TR what it is.

Exactly what I was trying to get at. They need a new IP (game) for those in the second camp. Totally new character ,no baggage, totally new play style. Probably be a lot of fun to play! But don't turn TR into the new game.
As much as I would hate to see TR die as a franchise, I'd rather have it die than be so transformed it not even TR anymore. There is so much growth potential in TR and it can be done without destroying what defines TR. It's kind of like listening to new comers telling us how they do things back home. Well go back home!:eek:

BTW there has only been actually one CD TR game so far, made up of three episodes . Remember it takes L A and U all together to give us the length of one of the original Core games:rasp: :lmao:

rg_001100
28th Dec 2008, 06:04
Exactly what I was trying to get at. They need a new IP (game) for those in the second camp. Totally new character ,no baggage, totally new play style. Probably be a lot of fun to play! But don't turn TR into the new game.
As much as I would hate to see TR die as a franchise, I'd rather have it die than be so transformed it not even TR anymore. There is so much growth potential in TR and it can be done without destroying what defines TR. It's kind of like listening to new comers telling us how they do things back home. Well go back home!:eek:

BTW there has only been actually one CD TR game so far, made up of three episodes . Remember it takes L A and U all together to give us the length of one of the original Core games:rasp: :lmao:

I do not see any point in "camp 2" (as it is laid out here), to be honest, or no reason to discuss it within the context of "next TR game" discussion.
The reason I think so, is, that this "new IP" is going to have to please a fanbase; there is going to have to be something it does special, and does correctly. TR already has a set of criteria in place that make it a great game, and it is pretty unique in what people like about it. Any future game for this fanbase would have to satisfy the key criteria of what makes the game a good game, anything additional just needs to be able to work with it, and not ruin gameplay.

I do not see what point of view you hold. You say you are in camp 2, with


"They need a new IP (game) for those in the second camp. Totally new character ,no baggage, totally new play style. Probably be a lot of fun to play! But don't turn TR into the new game.
As much as I would hate to see TR die as a franchise, I'd rather have it die than be so transformed it not even TR anymore."

and then you seem to flip sides, and say


"There is so much growth potential in TR and it can be done without destroying what defines TR."

If they start with new IP, "new character, no baggage, new play style" then they must drop anything from the past, and just start making a "good game" ignorant of the past. I do not see how that makes sense if it's being made for a fanbase which already has an idea of what they do like and don't like. (Well, overall at least).

GoLarago
28th Dec 2008, 20:53
I do not see any point in "camp 2" (as it is laid out here), to be honest, or no reason to discuss it within the context of "next TR game" discussion.
The reason I think so, is, that this "new IP" is going to have to please a fanbase; there is going to have to be something it does special, and does correctly. TR already has a set of criteria in place that make it a great game, and it is pretty unique in what people like about it. Any future game for this fanbase would have to satisfy the key criteria of what makes the game a good game, anything additional just needs to be able to work with it, and not ruin gameplay.

I do not see what point of view you hold. You say you are in camp 2, with


"They need a new IP (game) for those in the second camp. Totally new character ,no baggage, totally new play style. Probably be a lot of fun to play! But don't turn TR into the new game.
As much as I would hate to see TR die as a franchise, I'd rather have it die than be so transformed it not even TR anymore."

and then you seem to flip sides, and say


"There is so much growth potential in TR and it can be done without destroying what defines TR."

If they start with new IP, "new character, no baggage, new play style" then they must drop anything from the past, and just start making a "good game" ignorant of the past. I do not see how that makes sense if it's being made for a fanbase which already has an idea of what they do like and don't like. (Well, overall at least).

No I'm not in camp 2. I guess I'm not explaining my self right.
I was saying that IF they change it too much they might as well do away with TR all together and come out with a new franchise to replace it.

For example I love the Need For Speed games especially Underground 1 and Most Wanted. When Pro-street came out it wasn't a NFS game. I played the heck out of it had a good time with it, but it wasn't a NFS game as far as I was concerned . If they had called it anything else it would have done great. Unfortunately for them NFS is about the illegal street racing not organized legal racing. The fan base knew it and weren't happy

Yes, some of the evil Core players are stuck in the past.:eek: Some of us Core players though want new TR games but only if what is done does not destroy the basic concept of the game. I mean TR has "tradionally" been heavy into platforming and discovery as I said before. Yes there was combat and for its time it was ok.

Its now 10 years later and we have lots of new capabilities. Using the new capabilities doesn't mean throwing out what it means to be a TR game in the first place.

Though I'm not a fan of combat in TR. Except when it makes sence and they attack her first.:rasp::D We had combat in the caveman days so that's apart of TR. I'd personally love to see the combat we have brought into the 21 century. Blind fire, cover system,etc. I mean if she is going to slaughter people let her do it right.:lol: With all the platforming TR had adding some parcor style moves would be new and fit her well. Vehicles that control well and gobs of fun to drive. Though I hated the voice chatter in L and A it was well handled in U. It could have allowed for equipment drops that she didn't have access to in the old days. Changes like these add new abilities without changing the basics

I know I'm still probably not being clear but there is a lot of room for updating TR without morphing her to the point of non-recognition.
What a good portion of the new fans unhappy with TR seem to hate most of all seems to be what it means to be a TR game.For them they won't be happy until TR matches their desires and its purged of all things TR.. For those persons I think it might be better if they had a game of their own game more in line with their desires. That was the reason I suggested a new IP for them.

Jurre
28th Dec 2008, 22:17
On the issue of the introduction of new game features, the conservative view should be considered carefully; one example of "new and cool" ruining a series is the Commandos series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandos_(series)). It's a stealth, real-time tactics game. The latest game, Commandos: Strike Force moved away from this, and became an action-oriented FPS, that ''blended in" with the crowd, and instead of being something special, a game of the commandos series, it was 'ordinary' at best, horrible at worst.A very reasonable argument, but just because it happened to Commandos doesn't mean the same thing will happen to Tomb Raider. In fact, hasn't Crystal D already proved to be capable to handle such a change when they made Legend? It was a huge succes to the big crowd. If they had continued this the Nautghy Dog boys would be eating their hats.
I think Pyro Studios (developers of Commandos) was right when they decided that it was time for change, but they changed it in the wrong way. I believe if they had turned it into a Hitman-style game -third-person, either stealth or action is up to the player- it would have been a giant succes.


The main issue with "Plan B" is that if it differs from what the game was originally, there is little point in having it different. It's likely to copy the things other games do well, but undoubtably any feature along these lines would be old and substandard in comparision. If future TR games hold little (or none) of what makes them TR games, then there is no point in calling it TR, or making the game.That doesn't seem to bother the Far Cry 2 boys, nor their audience.... This is exactly what I mean with being conservative: they consider relatively little adjustments to be giant changes. How many times people here are whining over that she has a ponytail instead of a braid, or that she has a personality now, or a different outfit, whats next? Its not a Tomb Raider if her shoeties are green instead of brown? You think the Uncharted boys are concerning themselves with that sort of things? (Maybe they will in ten years, but surely not for now)

rg_001100
28th Dec 2008, 22:31
A very reasonable argument, but just because it happened to Commandos doesn't mean the same thing will happen to Tomb Raider. In fact, hasn't Crystal D already proved to be capable to handle such a change when they made Legend? It was a huge succes to the big crowd. If they had continued this the Nautghy Dog boys would be eating their hats.
I think Pyro Studios (developers of Commandos) was right when they decided that it was time for change, but they changed it in the wrong way. I believe if they had turned it into a Hitman-style game -third-person, either stealth or action is up to the player- it would have been a giant succes.
:hmm: There was a change from AoD->TR:L, but that is a change in developers. It seems to be more the case of 'accidental' change rather than deliberately moving towards that style of play. It was CD's best crack at the TR nut at the time; and they have become better at reaching "classic" TR since then. (TR:A and TR:U are improvements). There were, and still are, people who did/do not think that TR:L was true TR.
If they had pumped more action into it, while neglecting what made TR great, they would have lost an entire fanbase. (Well, a few would have stayed; but because this is hypothetical, it can't be said whether that would be for TR, or because the action-packed game was a good enough game irrelavent of TR).
TR needs fresh and new, not necessarily now, but it will need it eventually. (Arguably now, though). What I am saying is this change needs to be kept within limits; TR should not be transformed into another game, it should keep what is good about it now.


That doesn't seem to bother the Far Cry 2 boys, nor their audience.... This is exactly what I mean with being conservative: they consider relatively little adjustments to be giant changes. How many times people here are whining over that she has a ponytail instead of a braid, or that she has a personality now, or a different outfit, whats next? Its not a Tomb Raider if her shoeties are green instead of brown? You think the Uncharted boys are concerning themselves with that sort of things? (Maybe they will in ten years, but surely not for now)
I think a lot of the fans of the original Far Cry moved on to Crysis; which can be seen to be the spiritual successor to Far Cry. (They both share similar enough elements, developed by the same company).
And that's one of the things that needs to be considered; TR is not a young franchise. TR is a game series that has had a build up of fans, and a very specific fangroup that are fans because of what the game is, because of the elements of the game.

Jurre
28th Dec 2008, 22:48
:hmm: There was a change from AoD->TR:L, but that is a change in developers. It seems to be more the case of 'accidental' change rather than deliberately moving towards that style of play. It was CD's best crack at the TR nut at the time; and they have become better at reaching "classic" TR since then. (TR:A and TR:U are improvements). There were, and still are, people who did/do not think that TR:L was true TR.And in the meantime, I'm seeing that many people from outside the fanbase are saying that Legend was better in many aspects -as do I- And if the succes of Legend was accidental, then why is the failure of Commandos Strike Force not?



If they had pumped more action into it, while neglecting what made TR great, they would have lost an entire fanbase. (Well, a few would have stayed; but because this is hypothetical, it can't be said whether that would be for TR, or because the action-packed game was a good enough game irrelavent of TR).
TR needs fresh and new, not necessarily now, but it will need it eventually. (Arguably now, though). What I am saying is this change needs to be kept within limits;
But how far? Oldskool fans want the limits to be tight, the mainstream crowd wants them to be..... -sorry, whats the opposite of tight limits?-


TR should not be transformed into another game, it should keep what is good about it now.
Of course: I totaly agree on that: but I'm saying the things its not good at should be changed, and I strongly believe that would have already been done had the series been three years old instead of twelve.


I think a lot of the fans of the original Far Cry moved on to Crysis; which can be seen to be the spiritual successor to Far Cry. (They both share similar enough elements, developed by the same company).
And that's one of the things that needs to be considered; TR is not a young franchise. TR is a game series that has had a build up of fans, and a very specific fangroup that are fans because of what the game is, because of the elements of the game. But are those fans realizing that they are busy ripping the game in two? It has to be devided between them and the mainstream crowd, and I believe the result is mediocre to both groups. Had they been less conservative and less driven by nostalgia over ten year old games the developers could focus and produce a better game.

rg_001100
29th Dec 2008, 00:10
And in the meantime, I'm seeing that many people from outside the fanbase are saying that Legend was better in many aspects -as do I- And if the succes of Legend was accidental, then why is the failure of Commandos Strike Force not?
As I see it, C:SF was different from the previous games in terms of genre; while prev. games had been RTTactics, C:SF was a FPShooter. It could have worked better if more of the stealth elements had been included in C:SF, but instead C:SF was a more typical shooter rather than a FP-perspective Commandos game, it was like other shooters in the industry with not enough to distinguish it from the crowd.
TR already has something to distinguish it from the crowd; it needs to keep these wherever it ends up, otherwise it risks blending in with the rest of the games.
TR:L was still a 3PAction/Adv game; and within TR it still fits (even if loosely). Different people like TR:L,A and U differently depending on their preferrences, and how they see each game.


But how far? Oldskool fans want the limits to be tight, the mainstream crowd wants them to be..... -sorry, whats the opposite of tight limits?-
...
Of course: I totaly agree on that: but I'm saying the things its not good at should be changed, and I strongly believe that would have already been done had the series been three years old instead of twelve.
....
But are those fans realizing that they are busy ripping the game in two? It has to be devided between them and the mainstream crowd, and I believe the result is mediocre to both groups. Had they been less conservative and less driven by nostalgia over ten year old games the developers could focus and produce a better game.

Opposite of tight limits is probably "slack". "Limits" is probably the wrong word though; I think "criteria" might be better, in that different fans are looking for different things in the game, old-skool or traditional fans would be looking for puzzles, exploration (and judge any game based on that), whereas more mainstream fans might look more at the action than anything else.
How far? Well, losing grip on the "core criteria" would be a bad idea, and gripping to it too tightly is a bad idea.
If the future games lose touch with what TR once was, then it becomes an "ordinary" game, even to the mainstream. TR has always been a special game in itself; TR might or might not survive as an ordinary game, because of the legacy behind it, but there are other games that have done damn well in the action genre, that TR would need to live up to if it is going to be on "their grounds".
I think CD would be able to make the next game along the same lines as they have been going; a more classic-adventure. Once they reach that point, however, (TR:U wasn't quite there all the way), they need to consider where they will take the genre, what new things they will add to it.

GoLarago
29th Dec 2008, 00:45
And in the meantime, I'm seeing that many people from outside the fanbase are saying that Legend was better in many aspects -as do I- And if the succes of Legend was accidental, then why is the failure of Commandos Strike Force not?


But how far? Oldskool fans want the limits to be tight, the mainstream crowd wants them to be..... -sorry, whats the opposite of tight limits?-
Of course: I totaly agree on that: but I'm saying the things its not good at should be changed, and I strongly believe that would have already been done had the series been three years old instead of twelve.
But are those fans realizing that they are busy ripping the game in two? It has to be devided between them and the mainstream crowd, and I believe the result is mediocre to both groups. Had they been less conservative and less driven by nostalgia over ten year old games the developers could focus and produce a better game.

In my opinion these mainstream fans as you call them don't really know what a real TR game is all about. They are only judging from Legend onward. They liked that and wanted more of that. But legend was not much of a TR game. It was sadly watered down TR flavored run and gun game. Fun to play if you forgot they were trying to call it a TR game but it wasn't TR. Now Underworld has been the best yet at combining old school with the new controls and graphics. In fact if it had some more exploring, greater length, new updated combat system it would have been just as good. In fact a fine successor to the series. As it is they came damn close and I think they will get it next time.

I ask you if you remove the platforming and the hunting for goodies (the old stuff that doesn't work anymore)what is left? A simple run and gun. There are a lot of those out there already.

I don't object to new things in the game, but give some ideas for what you would like to see.

rg_001100
29th Dec 2008, 00:49
In my opinion these mainstream fans as you call them don't really know what a real TR game is all about. They are only judging from Legend onward. They liked that and wanted more of that.

The view of the "mainstream" is still one that needs to be taken into account. I think they *know* what was in the classic TR games, but I don't think they appreciate it for what it was, that is to say that most mainstream-ers would not like to see the Core-TR formula.

GoLarago
29th Dec 2008, 01:59
The view of the "mainstream" is still one that needs to be taken into account. I think they *know* what was in the classic TR games, but I don't think they appreciate it for what it was, that is to say that most mainstream-ers would not like to see the Core-TR formula.

I think your right. I don't deny that they most definably have a right to be heard and that their views do need to be taken into account. The fact that I feel they want to take the franchise a way I don't want it to go in no way keeps me from imagining that they couldn't come up with something new that could meld into the basic play of the game perfectly and enhance the playing experience.:scratch:

The question that might be more important for the future is how many of the players are old players as opposed to new players. If its only a small very vocal group of new players trying to force major game changes on the majority that won't do Eidos' sales much good. If on the other hand they are the majority players now it won't matter. Money always rules in the end.

9er_Fan
29th Dec 2008, 18:03
Gosh I hope you're not talking to me about being a newcomer. I started with TR1.

The people who are clamoring for more are doing it because they want more characterization, more immersion, more "WOW" with something no game has done before. Tomb Raider 1 did that but other franchises have replaced Tomb Raider in leading these important categories.

Tomb Raider can go in 2 directions...

1. Stay the same and be a (hopefully) well executed platform game. Lara Croft will continue to fade as a vanguard of the industry. People who buy the game can expect to be entertained for the length of the game (hopefully twice a long as the Underworld), put it down, and move on. That is what is happening to Underworld. Bought/rented, played, set-down (or returned/eBay-ed), and move-on. Literally, I bought Underworld, ejected Mass Effect from the CD drive, beat Underworld too quickly, ejected the CD and put Mass Effect back in. Underworld did not replace Mass Effect. Fallout 3 did.

2. Straddle the line between #1 and whatever is needed for Lara Croft to return to the vanguard of the industry. Doing things that will earn new fans and drive participation outside of actually playing the game. The community will grow. The trade-off is evolving what it means to be a Tomb Raider game. However, if the designers capture the spirit of exploring and finding somewhere new then they can change the gameplay a lot and no one will notice an aberration in "harmony."

Choice 1, quite frankly, is boring. With every release, you will hear the dejected sighs from people like me who remember when Tomb Raider was the vanguard.
Is Tomb Raider going to resign itself to being like the annual romantic comedy that seems to come to theaters every Christmas? Safe, reliable money, but utterly forgetable? Or will Tomb Raider ascend to pivotal status? I vote pivotal.

GoLarago
29th Dec 2008, 23:49
TR was the vanguard? I don't know about that. I'm a TR junkie but nah Duke Nukem and Heretics' graphics were better and the textures in those games actually matched up . I'm not really interested in playing a TR game in name only. I play the old for the game play That is very much missing from the new. Underworld was close but too short, needed more traps and puzzles. Besides you don't so much play a CD TR game as the computer plays it for you. Oh I'm going to fall : press this button. Brilliant innovation . Oh blades slicing: press these buttons when told to. So exciting. We used to get to do all that stuff ourselves. Boring button pushing on demand. I didn't pay 50 bucks to watch the computer play the game. Gee might as well watch the TV. If that's what some of the new fans want, there are plenty of games out there already doing that stuff. Why copy them. Why if we are wanting to improve TR copy what everybody else is doing. Innovative new stuff no problem, copying no!

rg_001100
30th Dec 2008, 00:15
The question that might be more important for the future is how many of the players are old players as opposed to new players. If its only a small very vocal group of new players trying to force major game changes on the majority that won't do Eidos' sales much good. If on the other hand they are the majority players now it won't matter. Money always rules in the end.
The way I see it, it does not matter how large the fangroup is telling them to do what they will do; if the majority of people playing TR don't like TR, then to take the elements of TR out of the game would just be stupid, and would ruin the game regardless of what that large group want. The best thing is to offer what people love about TR, because it is TR, and make the game availabe/accessible to those who don't necessarily love TR, have features that they will like as well.


Gosh I hope you're not talking to me about being a newcomer. I started with TR1.
Not talking about specific people here, 9er_Fan, unless the examples are necessary. Specific groups are about as close as we've got to naming names, and it should probably stay that way.


The people who are clamoring for more are doing it because they want more characterization, more immersion, more "WOW" with something no game has done before. Tomb Raider 1 did that but other franchises have replaced Tomb Raider in leading these important categories.

Tomb Raider can go in 2 directions...

1. Stay the same and be a (hopefully) well executed platform game. Lara Croft will continue to fade as a vanguard of the industry. People who buy the game can expect to be entertained for the length of the game (hopefully twice a long as the Underworld), put it down, and move on. That is what is happening to Underworld. Bought/rented, played, set-down (or returned/eBay-ed), and move-on. Literally, I bought Underworld, ejected Mass Effect from the CD drive, beat Underworld too quickly, ejected the CD and put Mass Effect back in. Underworld did not replace Mass Effect. Fallout 3 did.

2. Straddle the line between #1 and whatever is needed for Lara Croft to return to the vanguard of the industry. Doing things that will earn new fans and drive participation outside of actually playing the game. The community will grow. The trade-off is evolving what it means to be a Tomb Raider game. However, if the designers capture the spirit of exploring and finding somewhere new then they can change the gameplay a lot and no one will notice an aberration in "harmony."

Choice 1, quite frankly, is boring. With every release, you will hear the dejected sighs from people like me who remember when Tomb Raider was the vanguard.
Is Tomb Raider going to resign itself to being like the annual romantic comedy that seems to come to theaters every Christmas? Safe, reliable money, but utterly forgetable? Or will Tomb Raider ascend to pivotal status? I vote pivotal.
Hmm. I would suggest that there are more alternatives than suggested.
Choice 1 is not quite as you make it out. To an extent, yes, but not quite. There're people who liked TR:L, and TR:A, better than TR:U, and I think one of the reasons why they would play TR:L/A more than TR:U would be the replayability; TR:U lacks easy replayability (no "replay level" function, lack of unlockable outfits, etc.) that TR:L/TR:A have. I would suggest that if TR is "done correctly" in the next TR game, without the inclusion of new features into the series, it would manage to survive if it was accessible to those who might not otherwise play it ( = if they don't have to be stuck on puzzles, exploration, etc.), although I think that reaching that "pinnacle point", they would have to travel in new directions to get to somewhere more advanced.
I would also suggest that although the audience for TR should broaden, and attempt to satisfy as many people as possible within the action/adventure genre; it shouldn't be expected to be the #1 fav game for everyone. The more it is the #1 game for, sure, but for people such as yourself, who enjoy/appreciate other games, it then comes down to personal preferrences, and no matter how good TR:U becomes, there will be people who prefer other games, just because they do.

As for option 2; Yes, TR will need new features, but I would suggest that if the game as a result does not contain the essense of what TR is, the features that made it a great game and enjoyed by so many fans, then it doesn't matter how good a game it is.

The way I see it, there are a balance of elements that need to be put into the game; the elements that made the older, classic games successful, and newer features that allow TR to be a great game within the industry. I would suggest that one without the other is pointless.


...I play the old for the game play That is very much missing from the new. Underworld was close but too short, needed more traps and puzzles. Besides you don't so much play a CD TR game as the computer plays it for you. Oh I'm going to fall : press this button. Brilliant innovation . Oh blades slicing: press these buttons when told to. So exciting. We used to get to do all that stuff ourselves. Boring button pushing on demand. I didn't pay 50 bucks to watch the computer play the game.
Indeed, make no mistake in saying the Core games (the first four, anyway) were brilliant games. You are right in suggesting, though, that there is no longer precision required in playing the game. That's the way CD have opted to do it, the challenge of getting around the environment is in deciding where Lara is to go, and she is smart enough to figure out subtleties that are not quite as challenging as you'd make them out to be. It allows CD to do some pretty neat things, though.
(And QTEs are dead. :D)


...Why copy them. Why if we are wanting to improve TR copy what everybody else is doing. Innovative new stuff no problem, copying no!

Copying others is not necessarily a bad idea, but it should be carefully decided before they choose to do it. In one sense, TR cannot lead if it follows others, but it can't exactly lead if it's not up to the same standard of the other games either.

GoLarago
30th Dec 2008, 03:14
Indeed, make no mistake in saying the Core games (the first four, anyway) were brilliant games. You are right in suggesting, though, that there is no longer precision required in playing the game. That's the way CD have opted to do it, the challenge of getting around the environment is in deciding where Lara is to go, and she is smart enough to figure out subtleties that are not quite as challenging as you'd make them out to be. It allows CD to do some pretty neat things, though.
(And QTEs are dead. :D)



Copying others is not necessarily a bad idea, but it should be carefully decided before they choose to do it. In one sense, TR cannot lead if it follows others, but it can't exactly lead if it's not up to the same standard of the other games either.

I don't think we are in disagreement in our basic concepts. I really like the new things she can do. Love the Underworld grapple tho I wish (but its not necessary) just wish it was aimable The scripting of "some" actions can be wonderful way of doing things that would probably not be possible for us as players to do. Some of the lack of platforming satisfaction I felt could be a combo of the new moves not requiring as much from me as the player and shortness of the games. If they have chosen to cut my involvement they need to reward me with something to take its place. Had the game been much longer I might not have noticed it as much or at all. This shortness is a unfortunately a direct result of the stunning graphics in the new games. The time required to produce them unfortunately limits the length of the games. Perhaps someone with come up with some new developer tool (soon?,hope,hope)that while help in this area.

As for copying well I'd prefer the term inspired:rasp: Copying is such a dirty word:lol: Though I picked on you about the lack of combat. Because it was so lame in the core game I guess. Stand and/or jump and shoot. I would love to see a modern combat system.

Jurre
30th Dec 2008, 04:49
TR:L was still a 3PAction/Adv game; and within TR it still fits (even if loosely).
Glad we agree on that.


How far? Well, losing grip on the "core criteria" would be a bad idea, Not so sure about that...


and gripping to it too tightly is a bad idea.Indeed it is.



If the future games lose touch with what TR once was, then it becomes an "ordinary" game, even to the mainstream. TR has always been a special game in itself; TR might or might not survive as an ordinary game,


In my opinion these mainstream fans as you call them don't really know what a real TR game is all about. They are only judging from Legend onward. They liked that and wanted more of that. But legend was not much of a TR game.
And what I'm saying is that because of the long legacy of games, the fans view of what is Tomb Raider and what not is relatively very very tight, which makes it extremely difficult for the developers to try anything new in order to make some progress in this enourmously progressive business.
And I am not talking about things like turning it into a first person shooter or whatever, its a game mainly about platforming and it always will be, but some people do get upset about a ponytail already... I mean what the....
If Legend was not a Tomb Raider game then what the hell is the newest Prince of Persia game supposed to be? It differs more from the previous games in gameplay and style than Legend possibly could. But that is because PoP, and Uncharted, and many other new franchises don't have this fan-inquisition who is gonna condemn anything that conflicts with the Holy Tr-Scriptures as heretical and burn it alive at the stake. That allowes those developers much more freedom and changes for improval.

And if you're one of those inquisitors you'll be happy with the same sort of game as it has been for twelve years, but in the meantime I am really frightened that Lara Croft and Tomb Raider are not gonna make it any much longer.

Also, many people said that while Legend was not what they considered a Tr-game it was still a good game itself. Well if you're willing to accept the fact that it is financialy no longer possible to make a Tomb Raider in the classic sense because the mainstream market considers that as outdated, then what it so wrong with a good game that features our favourite heroine??

rg_001100
30th Dec 2008, 05:03
what it so wrong with [I]a good game that features our favourite heroine??

Well, it's not TR, simply put. It doesn't matter if it has Lara in it or not; Lara could star in any game and it might not be TR. TR is more about the environments, traps and other elements than Lara herself. It's arguable whether she was/is important to the success of TR, but regardless there are fans who love TR for being TR. Without the elements of TR in it, even if it is a good game if it does not capture the spirit of the originals then it is not the same.
I believe it would be possible to please the diverse range from classic->new through use of options, settings, gadgets, etc. so that more/better combat can be pumped into the game if desired, and puzzles can be avoided if desired. Perhaps even an action mode, sortof like Treasure Hunt, but with bad guys in it, where all the puzzles are solved.

Jurre
30th Dec 2008, 05:30
Well, it's not TR, simply put. It doesn't matter if it has Lara in it or not; Lara could star in any game and it might not be TR. TR is more about the environments, traps and other elements than Lara herself. It's arguable whether she was/is important to the success of TR, but regardless there are fans who love TR for being TR. Without the elements of TR in it, even if it is a good game if it does not capture the spirit of the originals then it is not the same.I believe Legend featured many of these things, and I also believe that whether it captures the spirit is more a matter of whether people will accept it into their minds or not. Uncharted fans for 2 years would in that case, Tr fans for 12 years wouldn't.


I believe it would be possible to please the diverse range from classic->new through use of options, settings, gadgets, etc. so that more/better combat can be pumped into the game if desired, and puzzles can be avoided if desired. Perhaps even an action mode, sortof like Treasure Hunt, but with bad guys in it, where all the puzzles are solved. Yeah,..... a bit like the special wikipedia for people who don't wanna hear anything about evolution... It tells that dinosaurs died out 90 years ago...:D

rg_001100
30th Dec 2008, 05:40
I believe Legend featured many of these things, and I also believe that whether it captures the spirit is more a matter of whether people will accept it into their minds or not. Uncharted fans for 2 years would in that case, Tr fans for 12 years wouldn't.
The video game industry is still a fairly young industry; TR is one of the longer running series within it. It has already been set what makes TR a good game; it's not quite as easily adaptable as games like UDF which have only had 1 game, and a sequel annouced.


Yeah,..... a bit like the special wikipedia for people who don't wanna hear anything about evolution... It tells that dinosaurs died out 90 years ago...:D
That comment's coming very close to out of line, I think, but anyway;
The idea was more make it a good game, but the players take from the game what they like of it. The game tailors to them...

Jurre
30th Dec 2008, 05:50
The video game industry is still a fairly young industry; TR is one of the longer running series within it. It has already been set what makes TR a good game; it's not quite as easily adaptableOh, but if there's a will there's a way...


That comment's coming very close to out of line, I think, but anyway;
The idea was more make it a good game, but the players take from the game what they like of it. The game tailors to them...
Yes, sorry... my thoughts went astray...

Of course.... I only think people will become spoiled and only ask for more and more tailoring options....

rg_001100
30th Dec 2008, 06:06
Oh, but if there's a will there's a way...

Well, I suppose one thing to consider is the TRLE community. If TR as we know it breaks down, 'raiders will just go there to find it. I don't see this as an ideal solution, but I think it is what the few who are disappointed with TR as it is have done.
Not sure about where the TRLE community will be heading, though.

Jurre
30th Dec 2008, 06:14
Lets hope for the best shall we?

They'll better keep the series alive because there is no way I will ever turn to Uncharted to forfill my raiding-desires.

rg_001100
30th Dec 2008, 07:41
Lets hope for the best shall we?

They'll better keep the series alive because there is no way I will ever turn to Uncharted to forfill my raiding-desires.

Well, I guess that's the best we can do, really. Hehe, personal opinion of what TR should become sort of hinders the developers, I guess. Here's hoping they find a solution that fits all the positive things, and draws away from the negative things said about TR:L-U. (Good luck to the devs).

And I think TRLE would be best place to go if TR does fail.

Ben-Raider
30th Dec 2008, 11:15
Im hoping they will continue on, I want to be 40 years old and admitting that I still play tomb raider and embarass my children when I tell them that I am getting tomb raider 18/Tomb Raider 19

GoLarago
30th Dec 2008, 14:22
Honestly I don't think Eidos pays a whole lot of attention to what we say here. Not because they don't care. As a business if they want to make money they have to listen to their customers. Its just the fact that we on both sides of the issue of where to take TR are only a very small yet vocal portion of the fans as a whole . I don't know if it is possible just using statistics for them to get a really good picture or feel for what the TR Fans compared to community as a whole wants for the TR series as apposed to what we as individuals would like or not. However they should hopeful care to take a peak every once in a while, other wise one day they might wake up with no fans what so ever:eek: .:D

9er_Fan
6th Jan 2009, 04:20
Here is a screenshot of duke nukem (link instead...nice stealing bandwidth banner LOL)
http://www.3drealms.com/duke3d/shots/shot3.jpg

Here is a screenshot of TR 1
http://www.tombraiders.net/stella/walks/TR1walk/screenshots/midas14.jpg

They are just under a year apart but I think TR is night-and-day better.

I may again be putting my thoughts into other people's but I think the "emotion" behind the RPG elements thread is what I say below. To me it's the bottom line.


Underworld did not have the immersion, participation, length, or replayability that I wanted from Tomb Raider. In short, not enough Lara. We can argue about this genre or that genre--this feature or that feature--but the only games I see that contain enough of those 4 things are the RPG-like games.

GoLarago
6th Jan 2009, 05:53
Underworld did not have the immersion, participation, length, or replayability that I wanted from Tomb Raider. In short, not enough Lara. We can argue about this genre or that genre--this feature or that feature--but the only games I see that contain enough of those 4 things are the RPG-like games.

I will gently disagree with you . I thought that Underworld was the best of the three CD games because for me it came closest in feel to the Core games while adding the new stuff that CD has brought us. That is not to say it could not have been way longer with a lot of traps. I had no problem getting immersed into the game. I do think the story could have been done better and provided real answers and closure. Three interconnected stories and two about Laras' mom is enough already. Lara doesn't need to go RPG like to be replayable. The old games (discounting AoD)weren't and get played over and over . The same thing can be said about the Duke, Heretic, Hexen, etc. They didn't need unlockables and clothing changes( which I don't mind) in order for someone to feel that they are replayable they just are.:D