I don't see the problem. All they've done is try to bring the same element that makes action heroes like Indiana Jones and John McClane in Die Hard great, which is that they get hurt, have emotions and are very easy to empathize with. It doesn't mean they don't do spectacular things. They're just very "human" characters.
Rise of the Tomb Raider [XO, XOX, X360, PS4, P4Pro]
- Thread starter Scott_Arm
- Start date
I'm not saying the games are like those movies. That's like saying the Mummy franchise is like Indiana Jones, which is basically sacrilege. All I'm saying is that, as action heroes, John McClane, Indiana Jones express emotions and get injured in a way that is more human than the average action hero. They are trying to bring more of that to the Lara character.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I'm not sure what the problem is. Lara wasn't always the Lara that was around in the original games. That was an older and more experienced Lara.
Those games stopped selling well. So for the reboot, they decided to go with what is basically Tomb Raider Origins and copy Uncharted. Although I didn't like the first Tomb Raider reboot because it was basically Uncharted, and I think Uncharted sucks, I understand what they were trying to do. A little overboard, like Uncharted, but it's a game. Virtually all games go overboard.
I have more of a problem with that fact that Lara in the first Reboot was TOO good and TOO competent. She should have been more inexperienced and less competent. But that would have made for a boring game. They could have made her even more like the first games, but that wouldn't have made any sense in an Origins game. I mean she's supposed to be a girl that just graduated from College with no military training.
Now you can argue that they shouldn't have gone for her origins story and not copied Uncharted, but then the game likely would have been a financial flop just like the last few Tomb Raider (not the top down 3rd person one) games which was one of the reasons Eidos failed and had to be sold to Square Enix.
Regards,
SB
Those games stopped selling well. So for the reboot, they decided to go with what is basically Tomb Raider Origins and copy Uncharted. Although I didn't like the first Tomb Raider reboot because it was basically Uncharted, and I think Uncharted sucks, I understand what they were trying to do. A little overboard, like Uncharted, but it's a game. Virtually all games go overboard.
I have more of a problem with that fact that Lara in the first Reboot was TOO good and TOO competent. She should have been more inexperienced and less competent. But that would have made for a boring game. They could have made her even more like the first games, but that wouldn't have made any sense in an Origins game. I mean she's supposed to be a girl that just graduated from College with no military training.
Now you can argue that they shouldn't have gone for her origins story and not copied Uncharted, but then the game likely would have been a financial flop just like the last few Tomb Raider (not the top down 3rd person one) games which was one of the reasons Eidos failed and had to be sold to Square Enix.
Regards,
SB
I don't remember Indiana constantly whining though; sure, he gets injured but he laughs it off.
This:
Is nowhere near Indiana Jones, movie or character. And it's my main gripe with the reboot and the sequel.
Sigfried1977
Legend
Or maybe TR Underworld didn't sell all that well because it was buggy as hell, felt unfinished, and got critically panned as a result. Besides, didn't the reboot - which is available for just about any system on the planet - gain widespread infamy for not meeting SE's lofty sales expectations either? Maybe TR just doesn't need to be this massive, cinematic, me-too experience. We've had enough successful mid-tier games by now to see the hyperbolic claim of there being no middle ground between indie and Jerry Brookheimer for the bullshit it is.
Last edited:
ArcticCircle
Newcomer
Correct, Tomb Raider reboot failed to meet sales target in the first few months, but later vastly surpassed 'em. Usually sequels (no matter if it's a reboot or not) are very front loaded but since they changed Tomb Raider formula so much, it gained a lot of new fans over longer period of time. Tomb Raider started with a bang in 1996, but then each sequel sold worse untill 6th generation of console entries. Sales hit bit above 2 million (less for Anniversary) but since development budgets went up the same time, it was situation that Eidos just couldnt deal with.
So far reboot has sold over 8.5 million units.
http://www.pcgamer.com/tomb-raider-reboot-has-sold-85-million-copies/
Massive increase and well deserved success story. Hopefully this new game manages to do the same, despire Microsoft deal and late release for PC and PS4.
Sigfried1977
Legend
That is 8.5 million over the course of multiple years, including remastered versions of the very same game for platforms with barely any worthwhile games on them. And just how many of these copies were picked up at massive discounts I wonder. Also let's not forget that the development of the reboot was hella costly and the marketing was insane. 8.5 million is an impressive number, but only if the game in question didn't swallow a 100 million dollars and half of its copies were sold at discounts. The game was certainly on sale a great many times. I also wonder whether PS Plus freebies counted towards sales. Since business people love nothing more than to spin numbers, I'm assuming they probably did.
Long story short: comparing the old TR to the new game isn't an apples to apples comparison. Not just in terms of gameplay.
Long story short: comparing the old TR to the new game isn't an apples to apples comparison. Not just in terms of gameplay.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Wow, I can't believe Anniversary did so poorly. I loved that game on PS2 and PSP/Vita.
Sigfried1977
Legend
Me too. Have the game on the PS2, the 360, the PSP, and the PS3. The game basically fixed everything that was "broken" with the original while hugely amplifying most of its strengths. Best remake since the Resident Evil one.
I'm not really that surprised by its sales, though. The game was originally a PS2 exclusive (dunno whether the pc release date was the same too), released at a time nobody really cared about the PS2 anymore. The other versions came out much, much later. Probably too late. Save for the surprisingly decent PSP version (considering how TR Legend was basically unplayable on the PSP, the quality of Anniversary was shockingly good), they also weren't particularly great ports.
Given how gameplay focused and non-cinematic the game was, I don't think the game's budget was particularly massive. Besides, a million+ copies for a PS2 game isn't bad at all.
Sigfried1977
Legend
You mean TR Anniversary? Of course there are dinosaurs in it.
ArcticCircle
Newcomer
Old tomb raider games got plenty of pack-ins, re-releases and such like Tomb Raider gold, Tomb Raider Trilogy, Tomb Raider two for one value pack ect.
Whatever discounts don't matter when Tomb Raider reboot hit profitable as far as back in december 2013. In march 2014 and couple of million sales later here's what Crystal Dynamics Darrell Gallagher had to say
http://tombraider.tumblr.com/post/78758228963/a-special-note-from-head-of-studios-darrell
After that 6 million, whatever price next 2.5 million units were sold to consumers, are pure profit. 8.5 million unit sale is huge, no matter how you look at it.
The market has grown since 1996. When the first tomb raider was released it was on PS1 and the Saturn around 1+ year after their launch. A much smaller install baseCorrect, Tomb Raider reboot failed to meet sales target in the first few months, but later vastly surpassed 'em. Usually sequels (no matter if it's a reboot or not) are very front loaded but since they changed Tomb Raider formula so much, it gained a lot of new fans over longer period of time. Tomb Raider started with a bang in 1996, but then each sequel sold worse untill 6th generation of console entries. Sales hit bit above 2 million (less for Anniversary) but since development budgets went up the same time, it was situation that Eidos just couldnt deal with.
So far reboot has sold over 8.5 million units.
http://www.pcgamer.com/tomb-raider-reboot-has-sold-85-million-copies/
Massive increase and well deserved success story. Hopefully this new game manages to do the same, despire Microsoft deal and late release for PC and PS4.
The games released later was just on one console platform. For this reason I consider the original 3 games much bigger successes than the last game considering the conditions of the time. The franchise died on the PS2 which was almost like a shinier PS1 game but with worse gameplay and bugs. It was impossible for the series to go anywhere as it evolved. When some decent games were released people already lost interest
By the time the Reboot was released we were already 6 years in the generation. People were starving for a proper next gen version and the 360 market was thirsty for an Uncharted equivalent. They picked Uncharted's formula which was a proven concept. The game was not only released on PS3 and 360 that had a massive install base it was also released on PS4 and XB1 that both lacked games for some time.
They really milked the potential sales of the reboot
Tomb Raider is a global phenomenon because of that first game. No way the reboot had that same level of cultural impact even if it's sales were higher. I remember the first TR being launched and back then it was a MAJOR deal. The reboot is awesome but in the eyes of history it's clear which had the bigger impact.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Yup, I bought a PlayStation to play the original Tomb Raider. It was one of the first truly great 3D third person games so was doing a whole bunch of things that were genuinely new and the sequels iterated the formula for a while. I actually tired of the game by the fourth original PlayStation outing (the one set entirely in Egypt) and bowed out until the remaster on PS2.
The original had the hook of being a new experience then the sequels' hook were more of the same but better (subjective). Tomb Raider was so irrelevant for so long the 2013 game had to stand on it's own and compete with other third person games. I really liked it but I like the Uncharted formula and 2013 TR was clearly intent on doing the combat thing over pure exploration and 3D navigation and puzzle thing.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- Games Industry