www.tombraiderforums.com  

Go Back   www.tombraiderforums.com > Tomb Raider Series > Future of Tomb Raider

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 15-03-21, 15:16   #251
TrustyBow
Professor
 
TrustyBow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Vroom Vroom
Posts: 4,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killchan View Post
-=Exclusive=-

So people kinda forgot to buy it?
A Tomb Raider game?

If yes, what does that tell you?
1. Sony has better marketing.
2. Spider-Man is a much more recognizable figure with yearly exposure in the MCU movies.
3. The first title in a rebooted series vs the last title in an origin trilogy.
4. People are dumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by killchan View Post
-=Exclusive=-
?
__________________
SOPHIE <3
TrustyBow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-21, 15:30   #252
killchan
Archaeologist
 
killchan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Out when ready.
Posts: 2,259
Default

SE had to work with what they had.

I can't think of anything they could have done to push Shadow to relevancy.
__________________
*Depth* doesn't determine a character's value. How well they fit does.
killchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-21, 15:46   #253
biscuits
Professor
 
biscuits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 4,799
Default

You people have to keep in mind that at the time, Square were willing to put their western AAA games on hold to focus on their Avengers project. They basically switched priorities and wanted to use the Marvel license. It's why Eidos is working on a Guardians Of The Galaxy game instead of Deus Ex. It's also why Crystal was taken off of Tomb Raider to work on Avengers. At the time the game was probably thought to be easy profit purely because of the attached license.
biscuits is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-21, 17:24   #254
Koper
Hobbyist
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuits View Post
You people have to keep in mind that at the time, Square were willing to put their western AAA games on hold to focus on their Avengers project. They basically switched priorities and wanted to use the Marvel license. It's why Eidos is working on a Guardians Of The Galaxy game instead of Deus Ex. It's also why Crystal was taken off of Tomb Raider to work on Avengers. At the time the game was probably thought to be easy profit purely because of the attached license.
Exactly. SE smelled fast money but did not take into account that Crystal worked more than 10 years on the TR Series.

I am not surprised why the avengers game is "bad". They got off developing TR and they gave Shadow also to the other developing studio. Eidos only had experience with the TR multiplayer.
Koper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-21, 17:33   #255
jajay119
Tomb Raider
 
jajay119's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,309
Default

That's not true Eidos developed the tombs in Rise which were seen to be the most major improvement in the game over the reboot. Its not a surprise they were given the game and the actual Tomb Raider focused gameplay in Shadow was some of the best the series has seen in years.

The combat was unbalanced, but so was it in CD's most recent game and the story was shoddy but again so was it in Rise, which Crystal made. The series was no worse off for EM taking over - in fact if they hadn't bodged the combat and made a better story it would arguably have been in a great place.
__________________
... in my opinion.
jajay119 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-21, 19:11   #256
Rai
Moderator
 
Rai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In a bubble outside the universe
Posts: 34,362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuditePrince12 View Post
Um sorry I came off as projecting but I'm actually not trying to push my wishes. Getting rid of reboot Lara as a whole is not what I want, neither is just bringing back classic Lara what I hope for. I know about the unifying and what was said in the video but that last interview with PlayStation magazine made me really think about what they were hinting at. Megan stated that Lara has, "grown and evolved as a character as we all do throughout our lives" and "If there isnít enough DNA from the original games, then youíve lost sight of what made the franchise great". To me this comes across as them trying to really make a significant change with where they take this Lara and how they want to go back to their roots. I can appreciate that. And also I'm glad that reboot Lara is still here. Although I dislike her, I still like consistency and another reboot would've been a bad idea.
I think we're talking about the same article. My understanding of it was that, yes, trying to evolve the games and the character of Lara would involve remembering the franchise roots and bringing back elements of C/Lau Lara to Survivor Lara. S-Lara is done with her origins and now they need to take the character in a new direction. Keeping S-Lara exactly as she is in SotTR is tricky as people might have gotten the impression they're continuing with the origin story, which is what Survivor era Lara is associated with. I got the impression that they're hoping to find a way to bring the Laras together without losing too much of each iteration, so Lara Croft is just Lara Croft and not S-Lara, LAU Lara or Classic Lara, she's just Lara. People/fans want to recognise the Lara they love.

Quote:
Originally Posted by killchan View Post
oh come on now

if Shadow met their sales expectations, we wouldn't be talking about unification and you know it
We don't know why they've come to this direction. It could be down to sales of SotTR, but the origin trilogy as a whole had decent success. I do remember that SE commented that Shadow wasn't innovative enough, or similar and that they may have to re-think their marketing strategies. I think it was inevitable that, going forward, they may have wanted gameplay to evolve, perhaps taking into account the exploration and puzzle 'pillars' even more. Shadow already took steps with that. Also, it's been abundantly clear for quite some time now that people were expecting more of the classic iconography and attitude of classic Lara to return. As I say above, the origin story has been told. Where to go from there? For all we know CD could have had a number of ideas floating around before finalising with the 'unification' idea. It does make sense to bring in more classic elements, but they also can't just switch from S-Lara too abruptly or it may seem too jarring (for some). A time jump would help with that.
__________________
"Who we are is not what we wear, or what sparkles. It's our spirit that defines us."
Rai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-21, 19:15   #257
biscuits
Professor
 
biscuits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 4,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jajay119 View Post
That's not true Eidos developed the tombs in Rise which were seen to be the most major improvement in the game over the reboot. Its not a surprise they were given the game and the actual Tomb Raider focused gameplay in Shadow was some of the best the series has seen in years.

The combat was unbalanced, but so was it in CD's most recent game and the story was shoddy but again so was it in Rise, which Crystal made. The series was no worse off for EM taking over - in fact if they hadn't bodged the combat and made a better story it would arguably have been in a great place.
I don't think Eidos was worse than Crystal. I think the issue was the games were too samey. All three reboot games followed the same formula and didn't really take risks or reinvent themselves. It follows the same structure:

-Lara gets stranded due to a vehicular or natural disaster.
-The game establishes its "survival" gameplay by having Lara find or craft a makeshift bow.
- Quite frankly the Stormguard, Deathless, and Yaaxil felt like reskinned versions of each other. They're all introduced in the same manner. Rise's final Kitezh section is basically the exact same as the ending sequence in TR13, right down to the map's circular structure.

The reboot games kind of resembled the Assasin's Creed series in that all three games were wayyyyy too simillar and repetitive in their design. The animations are recycled. Lots of assets are reused. Even the shooting mechanics are the exact same (I'd even argue the gunplay got worse).
Just like the Core Design era games, the sequels felt more like DLC rather than widely different and innovative sequels. That's not saying that same-y sequels are bad, but costumers losing interest and the developers reaching a point where they have to reinvent themselves is par the course. I think even before the news about unifying the timelines came out, most of us expected a soft reboot of some sort.

Last edited by biscuits; 15-03-21 at 19:17.
biscuits is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-21, 06:58   #258
killchan
Archaeologist
 
killchan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Out when ready.
Posts: 2,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuits View Post
I don't think Eidos was worse than Crystal. I think the issue was the games were too samey. All three reboot games followed the same formula and didn't really take risks or reinvent themselves. It follows the same structure:
let's be real now, the classics and LAU died to the same exact disease.

The difference I see, from my extremely biased POV at least , is that both the formula and the iconography of the classics have more potential, now more than ever. We never got to see Classic Lara in true glorious graphics, and the gameplay was deep and substantial enough to be more than just about objectives or eyecandy.
__________________
*Depth* doesn't determine a character's value. How well they fit does.

Last edited by killchan; 16-03-21 at 07:02.
killchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-21, 12:29   #259
Moon-Safari
Relic Hunter
 
Moon-Safari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New York City Gender: Male
Posts: 8,531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killchan View Post
let's be real now, the classics and LAU died to the same exact disease.

The difference I see, from my extremely biased POV at least , is that both the formula and the iconography of the classics have more potential, now more than ever. We never got to see Classic Lara in true glorious graphics, and the gameplay was deep and substantial enough to be more than just about objectives or eyecandy.
Definitely agree with this. A time jump in the next story would be so appropriate, because that's how it's going to feel stepping into classic Lara's shoes after skipping a whole console generation. It's going to be amazing.

I don't think there's anything wrong with samey gameplay as long as they start off with something solid and keep good stories going while updating with major systems each game. That's where they failed. The stories got so bad when they started out with something really great. They need to make major progress with the character in every game if they're just going to keep reusing assets. I hate status quo stories with a cast that disappears every game. Jonah was the only one that we got to see more of and he was so whiney and boring. Lara needs an actually superhero sidekick that is her equal almost, like chase carver from the comics. I'm always wondering why lara keeps hanging out with this loser Jonas.

Honestly, if they outfitted the LAU stories with Survivor gameplay, I would be replaying those games all the time. But if you go back to LAU they aged so poorly gameplay wise and the stories aged extremely well. The next game needs to reinvent the animations and just mix LAU's plotlines but make them affect Lara's personal life in new ways every game that build on the last, Use survivors expansive gameplay and add acrobatics and new gadgets, and just reinvent classic Lara with a twist. They would have the perfect series on their hands to deliver samey gameplay without an issue for the next decade.
__________________
~"It's time for a Lara that looks like me!" - No, you're boring.~ -killchan
Moon-Safari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-03-21, 12:11   #260
redfox45
Professor
 
redfox45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Temple of Xian
Posts: 2,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killchan View Post

The difference I see, from my extremely biased POV at least , is that both the formula and the iconography of the classics have more potential, now more than ever. We never got to see Classic Lara in true glorious graphics, and the gameplay was deep and substantial enough to be more than just about objectives or eyecandy.
In the mid 2000's this wouldn't have been the case though. Like Resident Evil I think people needed a break from the formula that many were probably completely over at that point. Especially after the complete embarrassment that was AoD.
Not everyone was that invested in seeing TR live forever. Onto bigger and better things.
__________________
Rose tinted glasses permanently broken :(

Last edited by redfox45; 17-03-21 at 12:16.
redfox45 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 17:06.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.