Tomb Raider Forums  

Go Back   Tomb Raider Forums > Tomb Raider Series > Tomb Raider Anniversary

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-07-17, 21:54   #11
Yeauxleaux
Member
 
Yeauxleaux's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,356
Default

Three is also a number that has significance for a pretty much endless list of reasons in so many cultures. I don't think it's likely they were referencing Christianity there, three is just a very typical number. "Things happen in 3s" is a saying for a reason.

I just thought it was to suit the number of locations Lara visits before finding Atlantis, three tombs for three rulers (and pieces of scion). Peru has "Qualopec's tomb", Greece has "Tihocan's tomb", and I always wondered if Egypt was supposed to have Natla's tomb if she died... this is obviously excluding Atlantis, which is both mythical/fictional and Natla's horrifically botched attempt at reviving her civilisation.

Last edited by Yeauxleaux; 09-07-17 at 21:55.
Yeauxleaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-17, 09:23   #12
Wooxman
Member
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashnod View Post
*could* is the operative word.

Could also be a reference to the Roman Triumvirates historically speaking.

More than likely it references nothing in specific, and is just a means to reinforce the dynamic of rule established in TR1.
I wouldn't be surprised if it actually refers to nothing in particular, especially since Crystal didn't put much thought into a lot of stuff from the LAU trilogy and forgot about it when they made TRU anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeauxleaux View Post
I just thought it was to suit the number of locations Lara visits before finding Atlantis, three tombs for three rulers (and pieces of scion). Peru has "Qualopec's tomb", Greece has "Tihocan's tomb", and I always wondered if Egypt was supposed to have Natla's tomb if she died... this is obviously excluding Atlantis, which is both mythical/fictional and Natla's horrifically botched attempt at reviving her civilisation.
The Egyptian city and temples also could've been built by Tihocan since ancient Greece and Egypt were connected by a lot of things like trading and their rulers.
Wooxman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-17, 20:37   #13
JoelCaesar
Member
 
JoelCaesar's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,562
Default

I am almost certain that Natla says this line in Underworld towards the end. "Ragnorok the seventh age is upon us!" This is the only time it is ever mentioned in the game and I wonder if it was yet another plot point abandoned, like Tihocan's empty tomb and how Excalibur magically disappears.
JoelCaesar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-17, 22:56   #14
Ashnod
Member
 
Ashnod's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoelCaesar View Post
I am almost certain that Natla says this line in Underworld towards the end. "Ragnorok the seventh age is upon us!" This is the only time it is ever mentioned in the game and I wonder if it was yet another plot point abandoned, like Tihocan's empty tomb and how Excalibur magically disappears.
1) It's not something that necessarily has to be explained further than in Natla's estimation, wiping civilization clean and starting anew would be the Seventh Age by her reckoning of time. That we are still in the failed Sixth Age. It's no more or less relevant to the story of Underworld than say, the Wheels of Kathar reference in Anniversary.

2) When did Excalibur magically disappear?
Ashnod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-17, 23:15   #15
Yeauxleaux
Member
 
Yeauxleaux's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashnod View Post
2) When did Excalibur magically disappear?
Between the games...

I could see if maybe Lara hid it somewhere obscure to stop it getting into the wrong hands, it could be easily explained that way. But it wasn't explained, it literally wasn't even mentioned in Underworld IIRC. Considering how important it was in the Legend storyline, which Underworld is supposed to follow on from, yes that is a big deal. Same goes for the stone daises and time travelling (only briefly mentioned by Natla in TRU), and the myth of Avalon.

I guess they just made Natla start gassing bout some "ragnarok" to tie into the Norse culture, which they were so desperate to explore in Underworld that they dropped everything else important to do it.

Last edited by Yeauxleaux; 10-07-17 at 23:17.
Yeauxleaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-17, 23:19   #16
Vinkula
Member
 
Vinkula's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 25,545
Default

But Excalibur DID appear in Underworld, when Lara escaped Helheim and she picks it up when she and Amanda return back to the Nepal Temple.

So, I guess Lara found 2 Excaliburs in LAU trilogy.
Vinkula is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-17, 23:21   #17
Ashnod
Member
 
Ashnod's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeauxleaux View Post
Between the games...

I could see if maybe Lara hid it somewhere obscure to stop it getting into the wrong hands, it could be easily explained that way. But it wasn't explained, it literally wasn't even mentioned in Underworld IIRC. Considering how important it was in the Legend storyline, which Underworld is supposed to follow on from, yes that is a big deal. Same goes for the stone daises and time travelling (only briefly mentioned by Natla in TRU), and the myth of Avalon.

I guess they just made Natla start gassing bout some "ragnarok" to tie into the Norse culture, which they were so desperate to explore in Underworld that they dropped everything else important to do it.
No, seriously, when did it disappear?

Because the artifact that Amelia Croft took into Helheim (and Lara and Amanda used to activate the Dais there) is not the artifact that Lara reconstructs in Legend.

There is no "Excalibur" in the sense of a unique sword. They are just the keys to the Dais network, one of which that post-Atlantean civilization in England mistook for a sword. There are potentially many of these artifacts. Hence, Lara saying "if removing these artifacts brings you here" (Plural) in Underworld, and Eric Lindstrom's comment in his Q&A here that Lara now has two Excaliburs.

Last edited by Ashnod; 10-07-17 at 23:24.
Ashnod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-17, 23:23   #18
Yeauxleaux
Member
 
Yeauxleaux's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinkula View Post
But Excalibur DID appear in Underworld, when Lara escaped Helheim and she picks it up when she and Amanda return back to the Nepal Temple.

So, I guess Lara found 2 Excaliburs in LAU trilogy.
OH YEAH, I totally forgot about that haha

Still though that just makes it worse to me. It's like they finally re-introduced the themes they had made such a big deal of right at the end (random too, out of nowhere after a game of them not being there), as if it was an afterthought.

I can almost see it being like the developers said "hey we've forgot to include this the entire game, let's shove it in here".
Yeauxleaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-17, 23:29   #19
Yeauxleaux
Member
 
Yeauxleaux's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 10,356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashnod View Post
No, seriously, when did it disappear?

Because the artifact that Amelia Croft took into Helheim (and Lara and Amanda used to activate the Dais there) is not the artifact that Lara reconstructs in Legend.

There is no "Excalibur" in the sense of a unique sword. They are just the keys to the Dais network, one of which that post-Atlantean civilization in England mistook for a sword. There are potentially many of these artifacts. Hence, Lara saying "if removing these artifacts brings you here" (Plural) in Underworld, and Eric Lindstrom's comment in his Q&A here that Lara now has two Excaliburs.
Yeah but that still leaves no explanation as to where LE sword she had in Legend went. It still vanished without mention even if there are more. So yes it disappeared.

Just because there's more than one sword it doesn't change the fact that the one Lara had vanished. It also doesn't reconcile that CD still neglected to tie together all their plot points they'd been building up for two games. If literally the only point of introducing the time-travel portals and daises in TRL was to give Lara and Amanda an escape point, that's disappointing as ****.

And I do hope I'm not coming off as some bitter hater, because I actually do like the LAU games. I think they're fun and have some pretty good points, Legend and Anniversary in particular were nicely designed. I just find the writing and continuity between the games sloppy. They're not coherent.

Last edited by Yeauxleaux; 10-07-17 at 23:33.
Yeauxleaux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-17, 23:47   #20
Vinkula
Member
 
Vinkula's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 25,545
Default

Maybe Lara gave the sword in Legend to the British Museum? She does mention Alister to get there at the end of Legend.
Vinkula is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 21:50.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Tomb Raider Forums is not owned or operated by CDE Entertainment Ltd.
Lara Croft and Tomb Raider are trademarks of CDE Entertainment Ltd.