what would you do if TR became a Playstation Exclusive again?

[Carbonek_0051]

Originally Posted by Dennis's Mom

I disagree. TR was never single console, but there's no question the success of Playstation and the success of Lara go hand in hand. It was the PS that brought Lara to the masses and made TR a household name.

Well of course.

But she was never officially or exclusively Sony's mascot. I am trying to understand the logic of people when they think making TR a single platform game would make the game much better. Like I have stated multiple times, there are plenty of multiplatform games that are brilliant even some better than exclusives.

[Megalith]

The fact is that saleswise the PS versions of the classics completely overshadowed all other versions.

I remember the game being synonymous with the playstation brand in the 90's even if it wasn't a PS exclusive.
The vast majority of gamers didn't even knew that other versions existed back then,therefore it's natural for someone to regard the classic Lara as Sony's mascot.
I don't know in other territories but at least in Europe,chances were that if you had a playstation you also had at least one TR game.

[almayah]

OK i think that whould be soo unfair, cuz i think 50% people won't play tomb raider

[Moon-Safari]

People say they wont get a ps3 for one game, but I think that's a lot of fluff. If your favorite game went back to its main platform, it wouldn't even be debatable. I bought my ps3 for ratchet and clank alone, even against the advisement of a gamestop employee. Now that the slim is out and its even cheaper, there really is no excuse. It only does EVERYTHING! and there are other great games for it besides Tomb Raider.

and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't eric say that the reason they couldn't add a cinimatic playback feature was because the 360 couldn't handle it, or there wasn't enough room on the disk????? wouldn't have been a problem on blueray or for the ps3. just sayin.

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by Moon-Safari

and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't eric say that the reason they couldn't add a cinimatic playback feature was because the 360 couldn't handle it, or there wasn't enough room on the disk????? wouldn't have been a problem on blueray or for the ps3. just sayin.

I doubt it was disk space since Legend and Anniversary both had it. It was because there wasn't enough time. Yet again another game forced out before it was even half way finished by £ido$.

[Moon-Safari]

Originally Posted by Phlip

I doubt it was disk space since Legend and Anniversary both had it. It was because there wasn't enough time. Yet again another game forced out before it was even half way finished by £ido$.

Legend and Anniversary were PS2 titles. come on.

[Carbonek_0051]

Originally Posted by Moon-Safari

Legend and Anniversary were PS2 titles. come on.

They were on 360.

[Isaac]

Originally Posted by Moon-Safari

and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't eric say that the reason they couldn't add a cinimatic playback feature was because the 360 couldn't handle it, or there wasn't enough room on the disk????? wouldn't have been a problem on blueray or for the ps3. just sayin.

It's not about room on the disk. He said that the cutscene were playing directly in-game, using the in-game environment. The cutscene, in other words, weren't pre-rendered.

Just throw a grenade before entering a cutscene, you'll see it explode in the cutscene.

In order to replay correctly a cutscene, the game would need to reload/modify the whole room in order to fit it correctly with the custscene. The best example is the last room in Thailand level, with the big rotating bridge.

Replaying the cutscene where Lara enters the room (going in the middle of it and reading the inscription and the map) after completing the room would result in seeing Lara walking in mid-air to the middle-platform (since the bridge has been rotated to the other side).

Another example would be the intro cutscene to the Arctic Sea where Lara creates a hole in the ice. In order to replay the cutscene, they would need to reload the whole ground without the hole...

Etc.

It make sense, but it doesn't at the same time...

[Moon-Safari]

Originally Posted by Carbonek_0051

They were on 360.

Still wasn't a true 360 title. It was a port. The game mechanics were soooo very last gen. The only thing that warranted a 360 title was the high res textures. and for the most part they looked silly and overdone. The levels were the same as ps2. That means no serious draw distance or crazy game mechanics. It was all pretty mild compared to what the next gen systems can accomplish, so there was still plenty of room to process the cinimatics... not to mention the game was short.

[Moon-Safari]

Originally Posted by Isaac

It's not about room on the disk. He said that the cutscene were playing directly in-game, using the in-game environment. The cutscene, in other words, weren't pre-rendered.

Just throw a grenade before entering a cutscene, you'll see it explode in the cutscene.

In order to replay correctly a cutscene, the game would need to reload/modify the whole room in order to fit it correctly with the custscene. The best example is the last room in Thailand level, with the big rotating bridge.

Replaying the cutscene where Lara enters the room (going in the middle of it and reading the inscription and the map) after completing the room would result in seeing Lara walking in mid-air to the middle-platform (since the bridge has been rotated to the other side).

Another example would be the intro cutscene to the Arctic Sea where Lara creates a hole in the ice. In order to replay the cutscene, they would need to reload the whole ground without the hole...

Etc.

It make sense, but it doesn't at the same time...

So the PS3 couldn't load the level in its correct altered state just to show a cinematic is what you're telling me? I think that it could. *shrugs*