PDA

View Full Version : Tomb Raide seris is so damn PLAYED OUT !!



yendor1613
29th Jun 2009, 07:15
tomb raider is the first of it's kind. there is no other video game that stars a woman like Lara who can do just about anything. she is athletic in every possible way pulling off stunts such as phenomenal acrobatics, swimming, jumping from platform to platform with ease etc. etc.

the original tomb raider was a great game because it was very unique in many ways. the story was mediocre (to say it was one of the very 1st PlayStation games), the graphics were pretty good, and the puzzles and strategy were the best. the 1nly problem i (as well as many other reviewers & fans) was that it was way too much puzzles and strategy and not enough action & violence. also, i didn't like the fact that there were barely any human enemies to kill because the players were so busy killing lions, tigers & bears (OH MY!).

tomb raider 2 was their highest reviewed game in the entire series. the game managed to have strategy, puzzles, tombs, and triple the action than the first 1; they even involved water & motor bike sequences. the game was so well integrated as far as action & puzzle because 1 did not overwhelmed the other.

ever since tomb raider 3 the series was starting to fall off a bit. tomb raider 3, last revelation & chronicles has not changed since 1st sequel. The games were not evolving fast enough to compete with other action adventure games. tomb raider: angel of darkness was when the series hit rock bottom. the combat system was weak & the puzzles were barely even puzzles; it was clear to see that the game was rushed and incomplete. the only positive side of angel of darkness was it had a really good story for the 1st time in the entire series. kurtis trent gained a favorable fan base also i might add.

tomb raider: legend was a hard comeback. part of the reason i believe the game did so well is because it was dominated by action. nowadays people don't buy games that's titled action/adventure but you get a something that's dominated by puzzles, platforming, and, riddles.

tomb raider: underworld sucked. the story was pretty ok but somehow i get the feeling that it was put on the back burner. it had way many puzzles and not enough action plus it was that big of a change (especially since on a new gen console) from legends & anniversary. their main biggest problem was the combat system. crystal dynamics really need to sit down & rebuild the combat system as far as machine & melee weapons and most the definitely hand-2-hand combat. that game was lucky to have decent graphics it did because so far behind the times that all i had i blast from the past of 1996.

Now that tomb raider is owned by SquareEnix their games should have triple the quality it had before since their budget is going to be a hell of a lot bigger. they should keep all the good qualities of tomb raider (swimming, water & motor bike sequences, acrobatics, platforming, etc etc) but make the action & puzzles of exploring cohesive just as tomb raider 2 did. my biggest wish is for them to a major upgrade on the over-all combat system & bring back the rocket launcher. SquareEnix already commented saying that Tomb Raider will get the same treatment as final fantasy does.don't be surprise if they remake the angel of darkness series or if they do a CG movie (which i'm sure u all is going to see a lot of in the games).

Bampire
29th Jun 2009, 08:06
Core TR games: Never really had a story line. The point of the game was to get certain artifacts, in different locations. It's pretty much a man's race to get it before the other person does before they cause havoc to the rest of the world. That's been the main plot line for all TR games.

Though, that wasn't a problem for on-going TR fans who love the games for what it is. We get to explore different areas, use different weapons. Have a bigger verity in everything Lara does.

We know the graphics weren't the greatest. All Core did was smooth the pixels out, and added a couple more skins and updated the cinematic, sometimes not even use the same GCI that they used in the original (Example: End cutscene, beginning, etc).

Going back to the original TR. It was so awesome because Toby was working with Core at the time, he's the one who has created such a great game. We know he left, prematurely. He didn't get the chance to work with his own creation for the longest time. Which has brought Lara down to where she is now. What I'm saying is that if Toby stayed and continued to work with his game, the story for each game would have been much better and we would see a much different TR series then what we see now.

Going on to CD:

But, since he's back working with his creation, and having Lara work to get closure from her mother's disappearance, destroy someone of her past who kept coming back; because she's an immortal demi-god. Immortal means one cannot die, unless you cut their head off, or whatever else that can take their immortality away and make them mortal.

I loved the fact they re-created the original game, mainly because of the story update for new TR fans can understand and find the Easter eggs in TR:L, also knowing that Natla and Lara have had a destructive past, and continue to meet eachother.

Recreating TR was a good idea. They used the same engine as they did in TR:L, yet added just a little bit to it, alike of what Core did to the past games. They just added on, and didn't improve the graphics, at all. But it was a great engine! It's smooth, yet it lacked so much.

Going onto TR:U.. I personally think this game was fantastic because: 1.) Graphics. 2.) closure. 3.) Continued and ended the mother story, and Natla story. 4.) opened up a whole new playable character, which is Lara's Doppleganger.

Now.. We're running into repeated history... TR:AOD had a playable character. TR:U(DLC) has a playable character. AOD has Kurtis, which had a gun and psychic powers.
TR:U(DLC) has Doppleganger, who looks like a much more wicked Lara. Has powers that would allow her to speed up, and unleash a great amount of force, who also had twin 9mm pistols.
I just hope the choice of keeping the Doppleganger as the playable character in the upcoming TR game will become so much more successful then TR:U itself.

People may enjoy the thought of Lara tag teaming with a 'demonic' twin, to take down monsters and great-powerful-beings in order to keep the world, and mankind from it's own extinction.

(Before I forget)The downsides of TR:U -
-Lack of replayability: nothing like CD's last games. I get it that they're trying to get the classic TR gameplay back, but they should've understood that a greater percentage enjoys the trials, cheats, costumes, and all that wonderful rewards they would receive when playing the game over and over.

-No boss battles: Everyone is outraged by the lack of boss battle. I know everyone has been wanting to beat the tar out of Natla since they heard she's back in the game. (I personally love this character.) Even in the DLC for TR:U lacks a boss battle.

But anyway, I digress.

Core didn't pay attention to the stories to the TR franchise. They killed off Pierre DuPont twice! Can you say "Overkill"? Dies in Chronicles and in TR1. That's how bad they are at the stories, but despite the fact, the games are still amazing and fun to play.

What's great is that if you dislike the games so much you can make one of your own by using the program "Level Editor" and download skins, files, etc to create a game of your own. OR go into the real business and help improve the story, graphics and whatnot for the next Tomb Raider game.

It's great that you're voicing your opinion. It's the only way for the developers to improve the upcoming games. Though, if one would babble on about how crappy it is, and not being constructive it's a waste of a post. But going back to the Core games, we know that they didn't have great stories. The only ones with a stable plot would be the original and AoD. Some love the mother story line (Aka: new TR fans), and some hate the mother story (about 60% of the classic TR fans dislike it, just guesstimating, I for one disliked the mother story.)

Anyway, I need to stop typing before I end up with a novel..

I hope you enjoy my bickering.

Flintmelody
29th Jun 2009, 12:45
The golden age of TR was TR1-3. At that point TR was right up there as one of the biggest video game series around. Revolutionary in graphics, gameplay, music and inginuity. For me nothing was better at the time. The story was simple but it worked.

Whilst the latter Core games of TRLR and TRC were great they showed little evolution from the earlier games. Other series were evolving faster. TR didn't develop fast enough with the times. This left Core in a position where they needed to update everything for the next game. AOD was really fantastic but things like the control flaws really overshadowed it. Elements like story and atmosphere were the besyt of any TR. Many fans it seems can't get passed that.

Then came the CD games. All of them have real strengths but fundamental flaws as well. Legend was a nice try. Very few flaws and a strong comeback for the season. Maybe lineararity and shortness damaged the game quite a bit but it had huge replayability. TRA was really good for graphics, replayability and length. For me though it wasn't quite faithful enough to the original and about half the levels felt smaller than the original.

TRU was really rather messy. Fantastic graphics can't cover up it's flaws. Whilst the concepts of the story were good they were undeveloped and the Mother plot wasn't good. The music and combat was disapointing. I hate the idea of a 2nd Lara as a 'good' charicter. If doppleganger is used it should be Lara's enemy. The main too flaws were a massive lack of replayability and this horrible concept of multilayered puzzles. As I have said before it gives stop-start playing. It makes the game real dull. I want to see integrated puzzles and certainly not that.

The early Core games are still the best and I hope crystal can get back to that level. I think more foccus on gameplay and less on graphics is needed. The older style of TR music is a must for a return. The concept of multilayered puzzles NEEDS to go out the window. The series is becoming a bit played out and though I still think it's really great. CD have a very dificult task on their hands and fingers crossed for them with that.

Jurre
29th Jun 2009, 13:28
@yendor1613:

I think it is all about making the choice whether they want Tr to be a high-profile mainstream game -like Uncharted- or a low-profile fan-specitic game - like Ship Simulator 2008-
Legend was the former, Anniversary the latter, Underworld was an attempt to be both -and my opinion, a failed one...
I am with you that I want Tr to focus more on the combat. Not as much as in Uncharted: in fact I think the best part of Uncharted are the first 3 chapters, in which there is more talking, story development and puzzeling and less shooting. But to make it 50-50 in Tr would be ideal.

However, if Crystal and Eidos and Square Enix were to decide that they only want appeal the oldskool fans, then I think I have no more business here and I'll kiss the Tr franchise goodbye.

Wlado.Srbija
29th Jun 2009, 14:07
I see that you have copied this thread from TRF, so, I'll copy my answer too. I don't know what are you trying to prove? Third time to start the same thread...

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showpost.php?p=3760674&postcount=7

Flintmelody
29th Jun 2009, 15:24
I like having this thread here. Some of us aren't over on other forums so to have it here too is good. In responce to one of Wlado's comments about puzzles and TR.... I would say TRU has the biggest proportion of puzzles in any TR and they are often in a 'this is a puzzle' format rather than well integrated.


@yendor1613:
However, if Crystal and Eidos and Square Enix were to decide that they only want appeal the oldskool fans, then I think I have no more business here and I'll kiss the Tr franchise goodbye.

With some quite strong rivals in the same league like prince of Persia and others, TR needs to capitalise on both it's uniqueness and it's long term fans. They have to put enough in to impress old skool fans like myself and a wider audiance. Generic games like TRU will be the death of TR.

Some original style TR aspects such as music would go allong way to get the old skoolers and Core/Legend style diversity in gameplay and environments will hopefully please wider gamers.

Jurre
29th Jun 2009, 16:26
With some quite strong rivals in the same league like prince of Persia and others, TR needs to capitalise on both it's uniqueness and it's long term fans.
I think what you call uniqueness is considerd outdatedness by many others. Tr was unique back then when it revolutionised the gaming world. But in order the be revolutionary you have to do something new and that has'nt happend since 1996.



Some original style TR aspects such as music would go allong way to get the old skoolers and Core/Legend style diversity in gameplay and environments will hopefully please wider gamers. Like I said: Underworld failed in my regard to be both appealing to the fans as to the mainsteam, and of course I can never be sure but I don't think Crystal D is capable to do it. In fact I don't believe any studio in the world could do that, and therefore I think they should make a choice.

tombraidergal
29th Jun 2009, 18:00
I agree with you although the only core tomb raider I played was tr3 demo which I enjoyed, me and my brother played it then act it out together for fun. I can't really compare them to tomb raider now adays but I think the only reason some people prefer classics is because the graphics were so bad you couldn't where a ledge was or wasn't! LOL.
I found underworld really disappointing. Legend having been my first full tomb raider game which took me ages to complete. I was only 10 so I didn't understand much about it but I found it gripping like a movie. I think underworld was bad because they shared too many bits of the game and rushed it. Frankly, I wish I hadn't spoiled myself and checked the site as often. But anniversary I took a bit of interest to it and bought it seven months later on my birthday because it wasn't a need to buy thing. The next game they make, I'll check forums and tombraider.com for info but other than that I won't spoil myself.

Mr Croft
29th Jun 2009, 18:26
^

Sorry, but you only watch the videos and pictures if you want to. So they didn't spoil the game, it was you who did it. :)

Gitb97
29th Jun 2009, 22:00
Mr Croft is right TRGirl,
if you havnt played a classic, then you dont know what your missing, you may think the up-to-date tombraiders are best. but the classics are even better! TRGirl, you may have played the demo, but thats only one single level. not the whole epic adventure with creatures that dont even exist anymore ^>^ im only saying. im not trying to run you down, to be fair, this goes to everyone who hasnt played the classics ^>^

josh1122
29th Jun 2009, 22:13
but I think the only reason some people prefer classics is because the graphics were so bad you couldn't where a ledge was or wasn't! LOL.


I find it people always say the classics are better simply only because of nostalgia reasons. Which for other game franchises I play or just games this generation in general, I often prefer classics over newer games because of that, nostalgia.Not because classics were better or the newer games are worse but nostalgia is where your best memories are at and that's why you'll find most people here or anywhere else(any franchise related) most of the time saying classics of a series are the best

Gemma_Darkmoon_
29th Jun 2009, 23:51
I find it people always say the classics are better simply only because of nostalgia reasons. Which for other game franchises I play or just games this generation in general, I often prefer classics over newer games because of that, nostalgia.Not because classics were better or the newer games are worse but nostalgia is where your best memories are at and that's why you'll find most people here or anywhere else(any franchise related) most of the time saying classics of a series are the best

The older TR games took weeks and even months to play through first time. The new games take days if you ration yourself. We got sets of levels in the most iconic places in the world. Legend did this but TRU was just random cave to random jungle. In the Core games also I think the music and general design is top class even compared to modern games (TR or otherwise). The series has also now become rather too centred around big puzzles and big combat areas. It makes things like ambush points way too obvious and the game feel predictable. I think this is where the played out feeling comes from.

In gameplay, length and music terms the classics win hands down. They can't compare in the graphics though.

josh1122
30th Jun 2009, 00:04
The older TR games took weeks and even months to play through first time. The new games take days if you ration yourself. We got sets of levels in the most iconic places in the world. Legend did this but TRU was just random cave to random jungle. In the Core games also I think the music and general design is top class even compared to modern games (TR or otherwise). The series has also now become rather too centred around big puzzles and big combat areas. It makes things like ambush points way too obvious and the game feel predictable. I think this is where the played out feeling comes from.

In gameplay, length and music terms the classics win hands down. They can't compare in the graphics though.

I still stand by what I said, nostalgia holds most people into thinking classics(any series, this isnt just related to TR) are better than their newer counter parts.

It's untrue in my case as well that older Tomb Raiders took weeks or months to beat. Not one TR game, new or old has ever taken me weeks or months to beat. I'm sure others have beaten them sooner as well. It's all about how the player plays the game, older games took me the same amount of time to beat as newer TR games, couple days or so, nowhere near weeks or months

I think nostalgia is the reason why I find TR2 one of my favorite games in the series as well. Good game,yes, but nostalgia kinda keeps it that way

Jinnyskeans
30th Jun 2009, 00:21
imagine TR2, EXACTLY THE SAME but with Underworld graphics!

i dont want them to remake it cuz my imaginations is better

josh1122
30th Jun 2009, 00:27
imagine TR2, EXACTLY THE SAME but with Underworld graphics!

i dont want them to remake it cuz my imaginations is better

umm what to that last line and yeah no more remakes please,hopefully we won't see any more of those

pinpal
30th Jun 2009, 04:51
Underworld was very good, I really liked every tomb raider game except AOD. I really don't think that the tomb raider series is played out, in fact I think its better than ever.:cool:

rg_001100
30th Jun 2009, 06:47
I think it is all about making the choice whether they want Tr to be a high-profile mainstream game -like Uncharted-
UDF was platform exclusive. (Because we ALL love that soo much (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=86281)). (Give a better example, perhaps?).
If racing games were popular would you suggest TR become a full-out racing game with its bike sequences? I wouldn't think so; TR is good because it is what it is, and doesn't need to conform to other standards of gameplay. (i.e. it doesn't need to become *another* generic 3rd-person action-shooter).


In gameplay, length and music terms the classics win hands down. They can't compare in the graphics though.
Length is an issue of technology... comparable to how CD's graphics win. (i.e. that CD's games are so much shorter is not the fault of CD, but because of the technology).

I would say, as far as Core vs. CD... they are two different flavours/takes on TR gameplay; With two different styles of input/movement playing through the levels. I find both are fun to play, but they are different kinds of fun.

_________________


I see that you have copied this thread from TRF, so, I'll copy my answer too. I don't know what are you trying to prove? Third time to start the same thread...

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showpost.php?p=3760674&postcount=7
:rolleyes: C'mon... we are our OWN forum here.

jayjay119
30th Jun 2009, 14:21
If racing games were popular would you suggest TR become a full-out racing game with its bike sequences? I wouldn't think so; TR is good because it is what it is, and doesn't need to conform to other standards of gameplay. (i.e. it doesn't need to become *another* generic 3rd-person action-shooter).

I would say, as far as Core vs. CD... they are two different flavours/takes on TR gameplay; With two different styles of input/movement playing through the levels. I find both are fun to play, but they are different kinds of fun.

Couldn't agree more with you there RG, you put it perfectly.

Jurre
30th Jun 2009, 16:23
UDF was platform exclusive. (Because we ALL love that soo much (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=86281)). (Give a better example, perhaps?).
If racing games were popular would you suggest TR become a full-out racing game with its bike sequences? I wouldn't think so; TR is good because it is what it is, and doesn't need to conform to other standards of gameplay. (i.e. it doesn't need to become *another* generic 3rd-person action-shooter).
You are really, really going too far here: I never said it should become exclusive to one console and that is nowhere near the definition of a high-profile game: I also never said it should change to a completly different gerne: Tomb Raider and Uncharted are within the same genre of Indiana Jonesque action adverntures, they are practicly twins compared to a race game.

If I didn't know better I'd swear you are trying to ridicule me with these outlandish claims.

Greenas
30th Jun 2009, 21:53
Honestly , i think that TRL TRA TRU is a bit of a dragged out storyline , i got legend (loved it) got anniversary(loved it even more) got underworld (loved it but was still , however , dissapointed) . Legend was a huge success because at the time it was a revoluntionary game , anniversary improved on legend and was truely amazing in its length , story , and fluidity in terms of graphics and frame rates . Gameplay was also a slightly improved yet currently amazing factor.
Underworld came out with alot more competition than its prequels and although graphics were greatly improved it was not enough . As it was before , all aspects were slightly improved , but it was not enough . Having three games of nearly exactly the same elements was a great contributing factor to TRU not being as groundbreaking a game as everybody thought .
TRL was amazing at the time because there was nothing else like it at the time , the same with anniversary , underworld , however , was released with basically the same gameplay and storyline even though competetive games were released . Those games offered new elements that TRU did not in terms of gameplay , tomb raider was becoming too monotonus and dragged out . No new innovations in terms of gameplay led TRU astray .
Now , moving on to the story , it was great in legend and in anniversary , same too with underworld (i thought it was an amazing climax at the time) but sitting back for awhile and letting my mind clear , going back to play a month or so ago , i realised it was not all that amazing .
The next TR game should start on a clean slate , new storyline , new gameplay , same old lara . No more doppelganger , just let the old story go , you've juiced 3 whole games out of it , isnt that enough . Same goes for gameplay , we need more than what you are currently giving , other games do , so if those bigshot companies do care so much about their profits , they should innovate and give TR much more than what they did in underworld in terms of gameplay and partially the storyline .

rg_001100
1st Jul 2009, 05:49
You are really, really going too far here: I never said it should become exclusive to one console and that is nowhere near the definition of a high-profile game: I also never said it should change to a completly different gerne: Tomb Raider and Uncharted are within the same genre of Indiana Jonesque action adverntures, they are practicly twins compared to a race game.

If I didn't know better I'd swear you are trying to ridicule me with these outlandish claims.

UDF just doesn't strike me as an uber-popular game. No one in the Xbox360 crowd is saying how amazing it is, nor the PC. That is two platforms out of the major next-gen crowd... Other multi-platform titles where everyone praises it would strike me as "Popular" games as is what TR should be aspiring to (maybe).

The "Racing game" example is just "what is popular in the gaming industry", hypothetically.
Generic action-shooters are 'safer' to make given how widely they can appeal... That is what I think you are saying that TR should adopt, isn't it? TR should gain more action elements to become a more 'popular' game?
The comment about making TR into a racing game was more to point out that TR shouldn't just adapt to whatever the 'popular' generic is of the gaming industry; it then loses what makes it so great.

Jurre
1st Jul 2009, 13:51
UDF just doesn't strike me as an uber-popular game. No one in the Xbox360 crowd is saying how amazing it is, nor the PC. That is two platforms out of the major next-gen crowd... Other multi-platform titles where everyone praises it would strike me as "Popular" games as is what TR should be aspiring to (maybe). Naturaly UDF is only popular within the crowds who are able to play it. I am very sure that if it was to be released on other platforms it would be succesfull there as well.

Tomb Raider is not amoung the most pupolar games at the moment, not on any console.


The "Racing game" example is just "what is popular in the gaming industry", hypothetically.
Generic action-shooters are 'safer' to make given how widely they can appeal... That is what I think you are saying that TR should adopt, isn't it? TR should gain more action elements to become a more 'popular' game?
The comment about making TR into a racing game was more to point out that TR shouldn't just adapt to whatever the 'popular' generic is of the gaming industry; it then loses what makes it so great.
Not adopt: evolve. Tr already has action, but its the action from 1996.

If Tr never had any gunplay or anything related to that I wouldn't dare to presume it should become partly a third person shooter. But it does, and it is like a dinosaur amoung the other games who weren't affraid of evolving their gameplay to update it to today's state of the art.

To evolve into what you call the 'popular generic' is to please a huge crowd of gamers, to do not is to please a small crowd of oldskool fans like you. Like I said, they will have to make a choice because I think it is obvious that the gap between the two is unbreachable.

jayjay119
1st Jul 2009, 13:57
I think TR could use a bit more evolution in its combat. However, it is not a 3rd Person Shooter like UDF blatantly is. TR Is an Action, Adventure game. Therefore based more on puzzle solving and exploration than combat. It always has been. That doesn't mean to say that, it shouldn't get a bit more combat elements in there but it has to be relevant and realistic not just a whole level crammed wit gunfire in every room. It gets repetitive and boring.

When i first played uncharted, I enjoyed it. There was some nice locations, decent platforming and good story layout. However by the end of the game, it had become just an all out shooting competition. Which ruined it for me. If TR was to become more like uncharted it would lose a hell of a lot more fans than it would make.

Jurre
1st Jul 2009, 14:10
It didn't exactly ruin it for me, but indeed there was to much of it.

Like I said in post #4 the perfect balance for me would be 50% platforming and 50% combat (or other things like stealth or whatever)...

jayjay119
1st Jul 2009, 17:33
Yeah I agree, I think the combat should certainly be reviewed. There needs to be a decent cover system implemented for fight with humans that's for sure. I wouldn't mind seeing a stealth type thing in there either.

tombraidergal
3rd Jul 2009, 18:54
i know i ave always wanted to play tomb raider classics, but i think i'll be sticking to demo's on vista for now coz i don't want my dad to go barmy and say why have you downloaded this??? in fact, i would just say, because you two have medieval war games and i want to play a computer game too. ha ha. lol, i know, that was a bit strange about what i said before. but i am gona have a go.

Flintmelody
4th Jul 2009, 10:50
i know i ave always wanted to play tomb raider classics, but i think i'll be sticking to demo's on vista for now coz i don't want my dad to go barmy and say why have you downloaded this??? in fact, i would just say, because you two have medieval war games and i want to play a computer game too. ha ha. lol, i know, that was a bit strange about what i said before. but i am gona have a go.

Do download the Classics. They are every bit as good as todays TR's. You will be glad you did.

As for combat/puzzles think the TRL/TRA combat engine return with some upgrades. Less puzzles would be good. The puzzles and combat should be mixed up rather than a whole level of combat and then a whole level of puzzles like we saw in TRU.

naraku
4th Jul 2009, 11:50
I really hope Square doesn't give TR the FF treatment, or give AoD another shot. :eek:It would be at that point that I'd consider the series Played out and finished.

I agreed with the OP up to the point of sighting Aod for it's great story and KT's likability. Mainly because I think atop all the supposed shortcomings of game play, hack and slash fit and finish ultimately it was AoD's story, and KT's *cough* Likability*cough* that were the death nails of that installment.

I wish that they (Whoever is in charge of Development) take a really long walk and think about what makes Tomb Raider worthy of its Action/ Adventure badge which it once so proudly wore. Perhaps more attention should be payed to the games than the films about said game.

C'mon it's called Tomb Raider for heavens sake, lets go grave robbing in the next game not sight seeing, the very name Tomb Raider or grave robbing sounds just so wrong it's almost taboo yet the games have become so squeaky clean, so politically correct she's lost some street cred, here.

If a story need be, let's give her origins another go, not in film but in game. I would love a TR where the story starts with Mom, Dad, Lara and possibly a fiancee and the plane crashes, in a snowy mountain range somewhere and we start off where the wreck left off, ala Croft Manor where it's extreme survivalist mode, she sees her fiancee die in her arms, and finds mom and dad dead, some tragic music and we must keep Lara alive, stop her from bleeding to death, and freezing to death, the point of said level would be to get Lara down the hill alive. then a scene of her in a lonely croft manor.

During the above we would start with an aristocratic dare I say it arrogant valley girl Lara, then through her ordeals evolves into the Lara we know today. Say she finds some of her dads or mom's possessions and perhaps Richard died never having to go on a archeological dig he wanted to be a part of first thing when he got back, now after his death he never gets a chance to, so Lara out of (add reasons here) wants to complete dads unfinished business.

She's had a proper acrobatic training and some rough marksmanship skills which WE master along with her. This would easily be reason enough for some UDF manual targeting system, and a dodge and cover system. Instead of all over the world trekking how about she sticks to the story and just two or three countries? Say Argentina? Chile and England of course?

As long are they keep us shooting game, busting heads and grave robbing, giving us that delinquent feeling of old than the series could prevail to see two decades or more, but if it turns out to be just like every other 3rd person shooter, then it's done for.

forget about the doppelganger and just give Lara herself, the Doppels moves, speed and hand to hand melee combat.

jayjay119
4th Jul 2009, 13:04
I really hope Square doesn't give TR the FF treatment, or give AoD another shot. :eek:It would be at that point that I'd consider the series Played out and finished.

I agreed with the OP up to the point of sighting Aod for it's great story and KT's likability. Mainly because I think atop all the supposed shortcomings of game play, hack and slash fit and finish ultimately it was AoD's story, and KT's *cough* Likability*cough* that were the death nails of that installment.



I disagree, i'm sure it was more the shoddy controls and camera, bugs and the lack of tombs that let AOD down. The story and music were one of the best things about it. There's major scope there and if CD did decide to give it another go I, and many others would be very glad... whilst others would moan yet still buy it anyway!

Jurre
4th Jul 2009, 13:24
how about she sticks to the story and just two or three countries? Say Argentina? Chile and England of course?
I agree with that. Of course she's a world traveller, but she doesn't have to go all around the world just in one game. If she stayed on one spot during a game certain ideas can be better worked out instead of briefly touched upon. Like I mentioned before, much more could have been made out of the valley full of dinosaurs, the king Arthur myth and the secret Sojvet base. Also, then we don't need any weird theories about ancient cultures (that we learn nothing about) going all around the world to make scions, and spread the Norse mythology or something... I don't know I still can't make sense of that.

I'd like to see Lara being more connected with the real world. Like: she's an archeologist: is she member of an institution like the Royal Society? Who are her rival archeologists? Were did she learn to shoot? In the British National Rifle Association? Did she win a marks(wo)man award?

jayjay119
4th Jul 2009, 13:59
Also, then we don't need any weird theories about ancient cultures (that we learn nothing about) going all around the world to make scions, and spread the Norse mythology or something... I don't know I still can't make sense of that.


The problem with Underworld's story is that its a lot more complex than Legends and yet its not explained as well,you have to have a good memory of legend and Anniversary to get it. Plus there is the trail of having to read those journal entries over and over till they slot into place, which isn't enjoyable. I hope in the next one the have lara using sort of a dictophone method where she recounts her journal aloud.

Anyway Spoilers ahead.

First let's start with the Scion, made in Atlantis as some kind of enormous hard drive. Natla used the information within to somehow betray Tihocan and Qualopeque, trying to bring about the 7th age, possibly submerging Atlantis in the process then she is banished, only to repeat the process later and be thwarted by Lara so she needs another way: Remember here that Natla says 'There are other remnants of Atlantis and i will find another.' However before Lara goes on the hunt for the Scion in TR1, Lara's father has been being maniplulated by Natla to try and find Thor's Hammer and gain access to Helheim, which is also Avalon.

Now to legend. In Legend we see Lara's mother go missing when she pulls he sword out of the stone. Lara later connects the artifact to the myth of King Arthur and Excalibur,but realises that they are, in fact much older than that era. Natla then confirms that the portal are a travel network which takes you to Helheim/Avalon.

Underworld. Now following her fathers leads Lara is on the hunt for Thor's Hammer, Natla manipulating her leads her on her way twice. Natla reveals that she has lived longer than our entire civilization and judging by the fact that she want's to start the 7th age,then that means our civilization which has lasted millenia is the 6th age, maybe this means she has been about since the 1st. Anyway Natla's knowlege of the midguard serpent and how it will bring about ragnarok, plus the appearance of the sword portal in the main chamber leads us to beleive that all the different myths, are not separate myths but part of the same ancient civilization which is Atlantis. And that the fact have just been distored through the ages leading to the creation of the various different myths we have today!

Jurre
4th Jul 2009, 14:23
Yes, well my little problem with that is that the ornaments on walls, pillars and objects are of a different kind in the Anniversary-Atlantis than they are in Legend and Underworld. In the latter they are are sort of tribal pattern. Amanda's tattoos are of the same kind, which by the way I think could be the base for a great story: like Amanda being taken over by the spirits of the 'Ancients' and marked with their symbols, but as we all know there is no story and the tattoos magicly dissappeared in U.
Anyway, the Atlantis architecture is more based around pillars with illuminating hieroglyphs and the colour pattern is yellow and red. They are a civilization obsessed by lava it seems, whilst the other one had its own kind of lethal liquid.
I think that if it was the intention of the developers that Atlantis and the ancient civ that made the portals and the sword are the same they would have made these things more coherent.
But I think there was nothing coherent in the Crystal studio to begin with, its almost like the stories, levels designs and character designs of past three games have been made by 3 different studios, its that confusing, inconsistant and messy.

rg_001100
4th Jul 2009, 22:42
...I wish that they (Whoever is in charge of Development) take a really long walk and think about what makes Tomb Raider worthy of its Action/ Adventure badge which it once so proudly wore. Perhaps more attention should be payed to the games than the films about said game.

C'mon it's called Tomb Raider for heavens sake, lets go grave robbing in the next game not sight seeing, the very name Tomb Raider or grave robbing sounds just so wrong it's almost taboo yet the games have become so squeaky clean, so politically correct she's lost some street cred, here...
I don't think she has, not in the respect that she's not robbing tombs anymore. So long as TR is still going into ancient, 'unexplored' areas solving puzzles and shooting creatures up, I don't see a problem with that. (TR2 has Lara exploring the Great Wall of China.. it is classic, but it's not necessarily the "Great Tomb" of some dead guy.. it's just ancient, and has traps/puzzles to get past).
AoD had the "Tomb of Ancients", I think it was... so it wasn't as if there were no tombs in AoD; it's just that the gameplay was just so different to what it had been previously (due in part to the movement/controls).
Tombs/Ancient areas do play a *small* part in TR... I recall reading on Wikipedia that there was criticism for TR3 straying from a "lack of tombs"; yet I wouldn't call TR3 any less of a TR game for it. It's still made up of what makes TR great.


...forget about the doppelganger and just give Lara herself, the Doppels moves, speed and hand to hand melee combat.
This one would be a little hard to describe for continuity in the series. :hmm:


As for combat/puzzles think the TRL/TRA combat engine return with some upgrades. Less puzzles would be good. The puzzles and combat should be mixed up rather than a whole level of combat and then a whole level of puzzles like we saw in TRU.
TR:L's combat was focused solely on humans, and the combat controls reflected that (e.g. can do "cool stuff" to fight against the mercenaries, but not against the animals).
TR:A's combat was focused solely on animals, and the combat controls also reflected this (e.g. no melee at all, stylised combat moves replaced mostly by the Adrenaline Dodge).
TR:U's combat system is against both animals and humans.. (with greater emphasis on animals/creatures, though), and it's pretty much a mix of TR:L's and TR:A's "combat engine" in that the player can jump on heads, melee, etc. any enemy.
I don't quite see, then, how you say it should revert back to "TR:L/A" combat considering the difference... though what was it of TR:L/A's combat that you preferred over TR:Us (or what did you not like about TR:U's that had been done better before), and which "side of the fence" (vs. humans or vs. animals/creatures) do you think combat should be on?

Pulse
5th Jul 2009, 03:31
I'd like Tomb Raider to have more combat. People seem to be drawn to that.

CGI movie= :thumb:

naraku
5th Jul 2009, 07:10
I don't think she has, not in the respect that she's not robbing tombs anymore. So long as TR is still going into ancient, 'unexplored' areas solving puzzles and shooting creatures up, I don't see a problem with that. (TR2 has Lara exploring the Great Wall of China.. it is classic, but it's not necessarily the "Great Tomb" of some dead guy.. it's just ancient, and has traps/puzzles to get past).
AoD had the "Tomb of Ancients", I think it was... so it wasn't as if there were no tombs in AoD; it's just that the gameplay was just so different to what it had been previously (due in part to the movement/controls).
Tombs/Ancient areas do play a *small* part in TR... I recall reading on Wikipedia that there was criticism for TR3 straying from a "lack of tombs"; yet I wouldn't call TR3 any less of a TR game for it. It's still made up of what makes TR great.


This one would be a little hard to describe for continuity in the series. :hmm:

Well she never robbed tombs per say but my thoughts are, Why the heck hasn't she gotten around to it yet? One of the things I liked about UDF is that he was clearly treasure hunting for personal gain and he didn't really give it a second thought. Ok so Lara plays for sport, she even says it in TR1 and TRA, so all her trinkets were for um....... What exactly, to donate to the local museum?

If she's not the grave robber then let the villain be the Tomb Raider and Lara the good guy, but all I'm saying lets get into dark gloomy, spiderweb filled tombs shall we?! and stay away from Parisian Ghetto's. and talking to Prostitutes and Bar tenders, reporters and etc.

TR3 wasn't my faves and that's probably were it all started to stray a bit, TR4 was better, in fact I liked it better than TR3. What I dislike is the fact that they did what CD has done and stretched the storyline too long. TR4-6 and the never finished TR6 trilogy!!!! was essentially utterly milking it

jayjay119
5th Jul 2009, 14:14
Yes, well my little problem with that is that the ornaments on walls, pillars and objects are of a different kind in the Anniversary-Atlantis than they are in Legend and Underworld. In the latter they are are sort of tribal pattern. Amanda's tattoos are of the same kind, which by the way I think could be the base for a great story: like Amanda being taken over by the spirits of the 'Ancients' and marked with their symbols, but as we all know there is no story and the tattoos magicly dissappeared in U.
Anyway, the Atlantis architecture is more based around pillars with illuminating hieroglyphs and the colour pattern is yellow and red. They are a civilization obsessed by lava it seems, whilst the other one had its own kind of lethal liquid.
I think that if it was the intention of the developers that Atlantis and the ancient civ that made the portals and the sword are the same they would have made these things more coherent.
But I think there was nothing coherent in the Crystal studio to begin with, its almost like the stories, levels designs and character designs of past three games have been made by 3 different studios, its that confusing, inconsistant and messy.

I agree things are a little messed up and non coherent at times, but we know that the Legend story wasn't pre-written. They finished Legend, did TRA and then wrote TRU and slapped them together. If a story is done this way it ALWAYS leaves plot holes. There are other indescrepansies such as the Bolivia portal magically being fixed at the end of TRU when it got broken taking Lara's mother in TRL. I think we just accept the slight differences as plot holes. Or another way to look at it is that, we as a civilization have a lot of different architecture go to mexico and the Mayan Ruins are incredibly different from those in Scotland, UK. Considering that Atlantis was meant to be a supercontinent with people far more advanced than us, eg Natla then its not surprise to me that they have such radically different architecture and elements.

Greenas
5th Jul 2009, 15:00
Do download the Classics. They are every bit as good as todays TR's. You will be glad you did.


In some ways they are and in some ways they aren't .

Jurre
5th Jul 2009, 16:22
I agree things are a little messed up and non coherent at times, but we know that the Legend story wasn't pre-written. They finished Legend, did TRA and then wrote TRU and slapped them together. If a story is done this way it ALWAYS leaves plot holes. There are other indescrepansies such as the Bolivia portal magically being fixed at the end of TRU when it got broken taking Lara's mother in TRL. I think we just accept the slight differences as plot holes.
Even when taken into account that it wasn't pre-written there are too many inconsistencies for my taste. For instance: Crysis was made by the German Crytek studio. It follows the adventures of a soldier on an Island. Then another studio, the Hungarian Crytek studio makes Crysis Warhead: a game that takes place at the same tima and place as the first one: but through the eyes of another soldier... And everything that happens is consistant with the happenings in the orignal Crysis: it begins to snow when it did in C, he hears what happens to the other soldier and is exactly what happened in C and so on... And that was made by two different studios in different countries. There is hardly anything like that in Legend & Underworld. To me it seems like they didn't care at all whether the story in U was loyal to that of its predecessor. They just don't care.... And that hurts because I cared very much about the Legend story: it is the most magnificent gamestory I ever saw...



Or another way to look at it is that, we as a civilization have a lot of different architecture go to mexico and the Mayan Ruins are incredibly different from those in Scotland, UK. Considering that Atlantis was meant to be a supercontinent with people far more advanced than us, eg Natla then its not surprise to me that they have such radically different architecture and elements.
But all of the art and architecture throughout Legend and Underworld looks the same: its only in Anniversary that it looks different.
Also I think this ancient civilization originated in one place and then took over the world. I would say its more like the British empire: and their houses looked pretty much the same in India as in Virginia... with some small differences perhaps, but anyway: if there really have to be an explanation I would say that the Anniversary-Atlantis is from a later or earlier period in the ancient civilization and therefore it looks different.
But then there is the thing that I am making up the story, whilst it should have been the scriptwriters. Say what you want about Uncharted but at least they have more respect to their own script and to their characters (they don't kill them off randomly) and they are able to keep things coherent and believable (within the story's own logic of course)

jayjay119
6th Jul 2009, 13:10
But then there is the thing that I am making up the story, whilst it should have been the scriptwriters. Say what you want about Uncharted but at least they have more respect to their own script and to their characters (they don't kill them off randomly) and they are able to keep things coherent and believable (within the story's own logic of course)

Oh I agree, personally i'm a big believer that a story should be written and finished before any work starts, and then if it gets altered along the way so be it. It makes for a more epic story, this is the way the AOD was done and why i'm so annoyed it was never finished... There's an idea for CD right there.

However comparing the story from a game like uncharted to TRU's is, in my opinion out weighted. The story of TRU is more complex than the one in UDF in general. It would be hard for the writers of uncharted to have mucked it up. There was no character development or story development just Drake wants this artifact, mini plot twist and the end. However this is what TR used to be like, the story was always about the artifact. I don;t see why that wouldn't work now instead of always having a Trilogy story.

Jurre
6th Jul 2009, 16:07
Oh I agree, personally i'm a big believer that a story should be written and finished before any work starts, and then if it gets altered along the way so be it. It makes for a more epic story, this is the way the AOD was done and why i'm so annoyed it was never finished... There's an idea for CD right there.

However comparing the story from a game like uncharted to TRU's is, in my opinion out weighted. The story of TRU is more complex than the one in UDF in general. It would be hard for the writers of uncharted to have mucked it up. There was no character development or story development just Drake wants this artifact, mini plot twist and the end. However this is what TR used to be like, the story was always about the artifact. I don;t see why that wouldn't work now instead of always having a Trilogy story.
True... well I don't really mean the story is so great, its more how the characters are designed. In fact I think there are a lot of plotholes in UDF's story too. Like: nothing is explained about this mummy coughing up vapours that turn people into zombies -who is he? -how does he do that? Why do the zombies look like Gollem and not like a zombified conquistador with armor and helmet? How does that guy who tricks his boss in opening the coffin know about this zombiefing breath? How did the U-boat crew became torn apart when the zombies live (-you know what I mean) on another Island?
So I guess UDF has its own share of plotholes as well, but it is the characterisation of the protagonist and his friends that truly excels. And those conversations like: 'Wow Nate, what do you make of this?' when Drake and Sullivan first enter an underground temple really gives the idea that they are entering something special: they awe at the sight of the ancient ruins and they're shocked to their foundations when they see the zombies the first time. For Lara it seems like another day at the office: she isn't surprised at all when seeing a bunch of dinosaurs and upon seeing a zombified Yeti (how many times do you get to say that?) she begins to mumble something about the origin of frost giants in Viking mythology. I was like: 'hello! You do realise there is a horrifying monster in front of you, do you? Are you gonna be surprised? or shocked? Is this an epic adventure or are we just here to do the inventory?'
Now in fact there used to be such moments.... in Legend...

naraku
7th Jul 2009, 08:25
Lara showed facial expressions in Underworld, like anger, and :scratch: whatever she showed when the ship sank, something like :eek:. Sure Underworld had plot hole, but if you go back and replay Legend then Underworld it's almost, not exactly but almost THE continuation of Legend. They should have just done that to begin with and just made Legend longer and completed start to finish. Now that would have been a thrill ride.

Then right about now they would be putting the finishing touches on an all new adventure in the for of TR9 and fully next gen.

jayjay119
7th Jul 2009, 12:31
So I guess UDF has its own share of plotholes as well, but it is the characterisation of the protagonist and his friends that truly excels. And those conversations like: 'Wow Nate, what do you make of this?' when Drake and Sullivan first enter an underground temple really gives the idea that they are entering something special: they awe at the sight of the ancient ruins and they're shocked to their foundations when they see the zombies the first time. For Lara it seems like another day at the office: she isn't surprised at all when seeing a bunch of dinosaurs and upon seeing a zombified Yeti (how many times do you get to say that?) she begins to mumble something about the origin of frost giants in Viking mythology. I was like: 'hello! You do realise there is a horrifying monster in front of you, do you? Are you gonna be surprised? or shocked? Is this an epic adventure or are we just here to do the inventory?'
Now in fact there used to be such moments.... in Legend...

I think that level of characterization was needed in UDF though, because it was the first game in the series and Drake needed to be shown as a viable character with viable motives, its essentially his first trip out. For Lara we assume TRU is her most recent adventure, considering all the things she has seen before this, it really is just another day at the office for her. I think the fact that she thought it was dead was why she was so calm and collected.

Legend did have such moments but they could have been achieved in TRA or TRU by comments from Lara to herself, just off handedly!

Jurre
7th Jul 2009, 15:03
Lara showed facial expressions in Underworld, like anger, and :scratch: whatever she showed when the ship sank, something like :eek:. Sure Underworld had plot hole, but if you go back and replay Legend then Underworld it's almost, not exactly but almost THE continuation of Legend. That's a matter of opinion. In my view they are nothing alike and both the story and the way of telling it are completley changed in Underworld.


I think that level of characterization was needed in UDF though, because it was the first game in the series and Drake needed to be shown as a viable character with viable motives, its essentially his first trip out. For Lara we assume TRU is her most recent adventure, considering all the things she has seen before this, it really is just another day at the office for her.Well it might be for her but we as the audience shouldn't feel it that way. As the title of this topic suggests there are people (lots in fact, within the mainstream audience) who think of this franchise as being totaly depleted of creative energy, and that is why they move over to Uncharted. Which by the way I think will continue to have this same level of characterization: the thing is that they are not afraid of giving Drake new friends like the brunette girl. The last time Crystal D did that (in Legend of course) they suffered the wrath of the fanbase who is entiteld to the opinion that Lara shouldn't have friends.


Legend did have such moments but they could have been achieved in TRA or TRU by comments from Lara to herself, just off handedly!
Well being a remakeI respect the lack of banter in Anniversary but I see no reason why the headset had to go in Underworld if they just gave the option to turn it off: they made a completly useless sonar map and a worthless hint system, then that shouln't be a problem either.

rg_001100
7th Jul 2009, 21:24
That's a matter of opinion. In my view they are nothing alike and both the story and the way of telling it are completley changed in Underworld.

TR:L's story is much better told, sure.. I'm not sure what Naraku means by TR:U is a "direct continuation" but to me it just seems to be TR:L's story, almost exactly the same.

In TR:L there is Exacibur and in TR:L there is Thor's Hammer.
At the start of the game, in TR:L Lara is exploring an area that she has been told about by a friend. In TR:U, Lara is exploring an area that she has been told about by a friend.
When Lara finds the artefact in this area, in TR:L there are mercenaries already there; in TR:U the mercenaries come in after Lara.
Subsequent globe-trotting; in TR:L, Lara finds out more about Excalibur and collects the pieces necessary to reforge excalibur. In TR:U, Lara finds the artefacts required to get Thor's Hammer to work... (where the artefacts finally start working, TR:L Nepal and TR:U Jan Mayen... both are cold/snowy).
After this, in TR:L, Lara goes to fight (with super-weapon excalibur in hand), the 'villain' Amanda. in TR:U, Lara goes to fight (with super-weapon Thor's Hammer in hand) the at the 'villain' Natla. (Gameplay wise there is a difference here, in that Natla is only fought during the cutscene).

The motives are different... but other than that it seems a pretty comparable story. (In TR:L, Lara's searching for her mother. In TR:U, Lara's searching.... wait, maybe the motives are the same as well. Huh).

Jurre
7th Jul 2009, 21:51
Yes, but I would call that a 'story-frame' or 'the way a story is build around the gameplay'. What I mean with being different are things like the way and the tone in which it is told: in that regard I believe they are very different.

naraku
8th Jul 2009, 08:09
TR:L's story is much better told, sure.. I'm not sure what Naraku means by TR:U is a "direct continuation" but to me it just seems to be TR:L's story, almost exactly the same.

In TR:L there is Exacibur and in TR:L there is Thor's Hammer.
At the start of the game, in TR:L Lara is exploring an area that she has been told about by a friend. In TR:U, Lara is exploring an area that she has been told about by a friend.
When Lara finds the artefact in this area, in TR:L there are mercenaries already there; in TR:U the mercenaries come in after Lara.
Subsequent globe-trotting; in TR:L, Lara finds out more about Excalibur and collects the pieces necessary to reforge excalibur. In TR:U, Lara finds the artefacts required to get Thor's Hammer to work... (where the artefacts finally start working, TR:L Nepal and TR:U Jan Mayen... both are cold/snowy).
After this, in TR:L, Lara goes to fight (with super-weapon excalibur in hand), the 'villain' Amanda. in TR:U, Lara goes to fight (with super-weapon Thor's Hammer in hand) the at the 'villain' Natla. (Gameplay wise there is a difference here, in that Natla is only fought during the cutscene).

The motives are different... but other than that it seems a pretty comparable story. (In TR:L, Lara's searching for her mother. In TR:U, Lara's searching.... wait, maybe the motives are the same as well. Huh).
I guess you do know what I mean, or you just came to that realization. :whistle:


Yes, but I would call that a 'story-frame' or 'the way a story is build around the gameplay'. What I mean with being different are things like the way and the tone in which it is told: in that regard I believe they are very different.

Story frame?...:scratch:

Well of course the tone is different, because in the end of Legend Lara is pissed off, angry even, i.e. Underworld is a bit darker in tone, me thinks. As in less taking more and more hammer.

Ok, I went out on a tangent, but Legend and Underworld are a good dynamic duo. And I don't count TRA because that's a remake of TR1 they just added somethings to make it make sense in CD continuity of her story. Which by the way kinda makes it a non remake in a way. More like spin off or alternate dimension etc. etc. game.

Anyhow the way Uncharted was designed, to be a one game action flick roller coaster ride without the trilogy nonsense is what makes UDF a hot tamale today, and it's what made TR a hot tamale back in the good ol days, why then do all this harry potter, lord of the rings continuity crap anyways. Why can't this duo be the end of it and TR9 be a new fresh nothing to do with Amanda, Natla, Kurtis, Excalibur, Thor's Hammer, or the Doppelganger and just be a stand alone title? It works for UDF now, worked for TR1&2, making it work now would make people take another look. Whiplash even. So why wouldn't it work now? It plainly works?

So TR played out? It is only limited by the Creativity of the developers, and the willingness to give a ..... about the game and it's fans even if it is under new management or they are forced to work on a former competing developers' game.