Talk:Tomb Raider (2013 video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

British English dates

Are dates without day like November 2010 written as 2010 November in BE? —Mike Allen 21:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No. 21 December 2010 or December 2010. Cheers MrMarmite (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! —Mike Allen 07:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation on the name for Tomb Raider 9

Not sure if anyone is aware, but the name for the ninth Tomb Raider game has been confirmed as Tomb Raider: A Survivor is Born. The official website for the game can be found here [1]. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; forgot to sign my previous comment. 80.192.226.205 (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a fan site. Also I believe it's just a tagline. We need an official statement and it will be released soon. —Mike Allen 23:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

PC

After IPs kept adding Microsoft Windows/PC in the platforms of the infobox. I went to the official site and at the bottom it says "PC". lol —Mike Allen 01:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

<fail>Wow. Well...there is it then.</fail> - SudoGhost™ 01:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've always seen it but you guys always rejected the "PC" as a game platform, so I thought the logo was perhaps just indicating general platforms supported by Crystal Dynamics games. -- Lyverbe (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

All the IPs had to do was add "as stated on official site" in their edit summary. —Mike Allen 02:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

HMV Release Date

On the HMV UK site the release date is quoted as 5th October 2012. A (poor) edit was made to add this and I reverted it due to lack of citation and/or proof that this was the real date. Just thought I should put a note about it here in case there is some truth in the date. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The date is wrong

it is not coming out in the 3rd quarter of 2012 it is due late 2011- early 2012

Do you have a reliable source that can confirm this? - SudoGhost™ 02:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously not as we are in the 2nd quarter of 2012 and still isn't out. First poster was lying. 87.113.222.229 (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

2013?

Where is the reference for this move? I have msged the editor who moved it.MrMarmite (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Third continuation?

Hi all. I'm a little confused as to what "third continuation" in the lead refers to. Initially I thought it meant trilogy (perhaps written by a non-native English speaker) so changed it, but that has now been reverted.

My best guess is it means the first game in the third Tomb Raider continuity (the first being the original game through Angel of Darkness and the second being Legend through Underworld (possibly including Guardian of Light)). If this is the case, then it is actually inaccurate, since it is not the third continuation of anything - continuation means an additional part in a series of things (e.g. TR2 etc were continuations of the series, while the original game was not and Underworld was a continuation of the second continuity. As another example, Return of the Jedi was a continuation of Empire Strikes Back, since the former continued story threads set up in the latter, but Empire was not a continuation of A New Hope (although it obviously was a continuation of the series)).

So, what does it mean? Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 10:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It is the first game in the third subserie of the Tomb Raider series. I think 'storyline' comes the closest. Triology would be wrong, because there are no signs they would limit the Tomb Raider series to 3 subseries. Sumurai8 (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know why trilogy is wrong, I just initially misunderstood what "third continuation" meant. Given that that is what it's supposed to mean I think a re-write of the lead may be in order - it's kinda confusing as-is regardless of the word used. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 15:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Confusing Lead

"The first in a third continuation, the game is set to provide no correlation to the entirety of the previous entries in the series; a reboot that emphasizes the reconstructed origins of the culturally influential lead character, Lara Croft."

I had to read this three or four times to understand what it was saying, and I'm still not sure what exactly it's trying to say. This needs to be reworded to be clear and concise. I'll break down what confuses me here.

"The first in a third continuation,"

What does that mean? Saying first, and then third, is going to confuse the average person, like it did me.

"the game is set to provide no correlation to the entirety of the previous entries in the series"

Don't say, "is set to provide," it's way too wordy. Simplify it to something like "the game provides no correlation" or "has no correlation." Take out "to the entirety" altogether, that's an unnecessary confuser.

Now, when you put those two together, which series are you taking about? the first, second, or third continuation? At this point it gets very confusing.

"a reboot that emphasizes the reconstructed origins of the culturally influential lead character, Lara Croft."

Again, WAY too wordy. And "reboot" is an incorrect term. A Reboot refers to a new game in a series that has not had any new games for more than two or three years (I'd say around that.) Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is fairly straight forward you know

1st - The first in a third continuation means that it's a 1st game in a 3rd attempted reboot (Tomb Raider 1 was one, Tomb Raider Legend was 2 and 2012 version is 3)

2nd - The game is set to provide no correlation to the entire series, which means its not going to reference anything from the past and it's going to be set on a different timeline to the others (Basically class it as a brand new series of games)

3rd Reboot of character - Straight forward meaning that Lara Croft has totally been redesigned with new moves, animations and mannerisms which will set her apart from all other incarnations of Lara Croft. It's all about reimaging a new story for the greatest video game explorer.

As I said kind of straight forward to understand really 46.208.50.199 (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I agree with the poster at the top complaining about this. It smacks of SALES WAFFLE. This has no place in Wikipedia, and such industries as this one employ (unfortunately!) people to pollute everyone's eyes and ears with this non-communication / newspeak. Not to be supported in my humble (but long-suffering) opinion. What do you think?

If the article was more honest, it would say: "The publishers thought that marketing an existing franchise would be easier, so they decided to make another Tomb Raider game. However, given the ubiquitous nature of Tomb Raider games, along with many mediocre games having been released under the franchise, they required some sort of twist, and logically then, to call it the currently-trendy description of a 'reboot' for extra marketing effectiveness. Thus, all the past history and privileged origins of Lara Croft the character have been dropped for the 'reboot', in order to profit from the marketing convenience of the character whilst distancing the latest game from the negativity associated with certain past releases and the over-saturation of the brand into the market."

Or to read between the lines, interpret it as: "We have the Tomb Raider franchise, and we're some deeply-unoriginal marketeers people [typical for the games industry] trying desperately to look more original than we are, even to the point of some b.s. on Wikipedia in very suspiciously 'professional' sales-waffle. Whilst the game seems to be [disputably] quite delayed."

Stop me if I ever become libellous or unfair... I don't think the above is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.50.162 (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Game numbering

1st Trilogy (sold as such by Core in a box set); Tomb Raider Tomb Raider 2 Tomb Raider 3

4. The Last Revelation 5. Chronicles 6. Angel of Darkness

2nd Trilogy (sold as such by Crystal Dynamics in a box set); Legend Anniversary Underworld

Doesn't that make Tomb Raider (2013) the tenth game? The numbering of Tomb Raider (2013) as "the ninth" is something done by some of the fans, not Crystal Dynamics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.165.220 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because Tomb Raider: Anniversary is a remake of the original Tomb Raider. WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes it the ninth story in the series, but the anon is right, it is absolutely the tenth game. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think in order to prevent an edit war we need to sort this out and come to a consensus. I have removed any mention of what game in the franchise (note: not series, since that implies continuity) it is from the lead for this reason; it can always be re-added later.

IMHO, this will be the tenth game in the franchise, and the ninth story/original game. At the end of the day it comes down to how we define our terms.

If we are simply referring to how many games there have been (i.e. it's the Xth game), this is either the tenth or the eighteenth (see List of Tomb Raider media#Other games for the minor/mobile/spin-off games) in the franchise. Saying that Anniversary doesn't count implies that either it and original game are the same game (sort of analogous to a multi-platform release; I don't consider this to be the case) or that it's akin to a spin off which I can see there being an argument for. However, if the latter is the case it probably needs reliable sources to place it as such (certainly, DC consider it a "main" release).

If on the other hand we are referring to how many stories there have been, then we need some different wording - instalment isn't really appropriate (like series it implies continuity) and game, well, see above. The fact that it isn't part of a single continuity though (and the fact that there have been 8 minor/mobile/spin-off games) makes me think that maybe we shouldn't be mentioning it at all in that sense. At the end of the day I'm not really sure we need to say "it's the Xth game" anyway.

Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 11:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, my friend who must remain anonymous was working on something entitled 'Tomb Raider 9' and it could be anything, but it adds to the evidence that this is internally/officially-referred to as TR9. Although as usual, take anything with a pinch of salt... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.50.162 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Official Artwork

Can someone please put the official artwork of the game here? Here you are the url of the image http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcbemvFXnv1qkq7tbo3_r1_500.jpg --PidiContent (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Multiplayer

Will Multiplayer information be added in th main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.161.116 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tomb Raider (2013 video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cabe6403 (talk · contribs) 14:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I will take this. Expect some initial comments within a day or so Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Prose is well written and I find no issues with it	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Other than a few minor MoS things I've highlighted in the discussion area, nothing major needing work	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	All references up to scratch	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	No issues here	Pass
(c) (original research)	All cited	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Everything seems there	Pass
(b) (focused)	The plot section is, perhaps, a bit lengthy but not drastically so. The rest of the article is great	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Criticism and praise given appropriate sections, no bias evident	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No evidence of content disputes	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Both images correctly tagged	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)		Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Congradulations on a well written article. It was a pleasure to review with only trivial issues I raised below. An easy addition to the GA articles. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 08:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

I'm on my initial read through and I notice there is a number of citations in the lead. Per WP:CITELEAD this is permitted but not encouraged as to avoid redundant citations. For example, the sales figures are cited in the lead and later in the article so citing in the lead is unnecessary. Could you please remove any redundant citations in the lead. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have done this. The citations for sales figures and general reception have been removed, but I have left in the citations that seemed to be part of the lead or key to it: ie, the hype the game got prior to release, the fact that this was a total reboot of the series. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks Y Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel there should be a bit more in the way of blue links, especially for first time use of terms that some may be unfamiliar with. For example, "The game also incorporates RPG elements: as the player progresses through the..." RPG should be piped to Role-playing video game or "Portuguese traders, United States Marines and a Japanese" where US marines could be linked. Again, these aren't strictly necessary but I feel it'd better the article Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Added the links, can't see anything else, but if you want to point anything out, feel free. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This article looks very good and I can find pretty much no issues with it. All I have remaining to do is check the sourcing. If that is to the same standard as the rest of the article then I anticipate an easy pass. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Images

This is a great article! Really, it is. I was about to suggest someone take a few more screenshots in the game and have them posted in different sections in the article as for example the multiplayer section. Any thoughts on this? Would this mess up the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.227.94 (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Rise of the Tomb Raider exclusivity

The information currently available says that Rise of the Tomb Raider is an Xbox exclusive game. Not "timed exclusive", although some writers say the wording of the statements is such that it may well launch other versions later, but as of right now, it's Xbox only unless someone gets something else in writing that says definitively otherwise. Assuming timed exclusive is personal interpretation. --McDoobAU93 14:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Date formatting

This has me stumped. In the editable page the code states:

{{collapsible list
  | title       = {{Video game release||5 March 2013}}
  | '''Microsoft Windows''', '''PlayStation 3''', '''Xbox 360'''
  | {{vgrelease new|WW|5 March 2013|JP|25 April 2013}}
  | '''OS X'''
  | {{vgrelease new|NA|23 January 2014|EU|23 January 2014}}
  | '''PlayStation 4''', '''Xbox One'''
  | {{vgrelease new|NA|28 January 2014|EU|31 January 2014|JP|22 February 2014 <small>(PS4)</small>|JP|4 September 2014 <small>(XONE)</small>}}
}}

All dates in d/m/y as is correct for TR pages. However, this is shown in the article as: (my comments in line with <-----)

Release date(s) 5 March 2013

Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360

WW March 5, 2013
JP April 25, 2013
OS X
NA January 23, 2014
EU January 23, 2014
PlayStation 4, Xbox One
NA January 28, 2014 <------m/d/y
EU January 31, 2014
JP 22 February 2014 (PS4) <------d/m/y
JP 4 September 2014 (XONE)

What is it in this template that is switching the format, even in one line?:

{{vgrelease new|NA|28 January 2014|EU|31 January 2014|JP|22 February 2014 <small>(PS4)</small>|JP|4 September 2014 <small>(XONE)</small>}}
MrMarmite (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Open world

Could this game be classified as open world?ECW28 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No. The article already contains sources that specifically state that the game has large hubs, but is not open world. -- ferret (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions

• The "Controversy" section is undue weight as is. Bake it into the Development section and rearrange the stuff on character development and player investment in story, as it's less a function of Reception.
• There's a bit of dateline, especially in the dev section. What matters to readers is its temporal context, so the day's number is rarely needed in such sections. (Month + year suffices), if they are even necessary at all.

– czar 05:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Also, for Good Article breadth, there should be a whole lot more on the development of the Definitive Edition, which isn't getting its own article. Perhaps the short Reception paragraph for it can be excused, but there should be plenty more to say on the Definitive remodeling and whatnot, no? – czar 02:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Himiko as antagonist

It seems every once in a while someone adds this article to Category:Video games featuring female antagonists, presumably considering Himiko to be such. Per the request in this edit summary, I wanted to explain why I think this is erroneous, and why I've been reverting such edits.

An antagonist is normally defined as a person or a group of people that opposes the protagonist, but Himiko doesn't really qualify as one. She never really opposes Lara, at least no more than a cliff does, or a puzzle in one of the tombs. Also, Lara herself doesn't actively struggle against Himiko until the very last few moments of the game, after having defeated the primary antagonist, Mathias. Indeed, Himiko can be seen as nothing more than a tool or weapon in Mathias' hands that he uses to achieve his objectives, rather than a conscious character. This stands in stark contrast to an excellent example of a female antagonist from the Tomb Raider franchise - Jacqueline Natla.

Finally, there appear to be no reliable sources (e.g. reviews) that would describe Himiko as an antagonist. In fact, most reviews don't seem to mention her at all. Therefore, considering her an antagonist, and a significant one at that (to warrant inclusion of the article in the aforementioned category), seems unsound. Indrek (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Indrek's reasoning. -- ferret (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Even without the plot analysis, a "female antagonist" is easily not a defining characteristic of the game, especially as described by vetted vg sources. – czar 13:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Source for reception summary

Re: Adding a cn tag? Really? Yes, really. Please cite a source for the claim when challenged instead of reverting to nothing. czar 15:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The general consensus is that we use Metacritic's terminology if we're relying on MC to discuss how favorably (or not) something was received. MC doesn't switch to "universal acclaim" unless it's over 90%. High 80s is still considered "generally positive". --McDoobAU93 16:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section

I already asked about this above, but is there any way to phrase this section without having an explicit "controversy" heading? (avoid "controversy" sections) It creates weight issues. Right now the "controversy" is almost as important (by weight) as the game's development. czar 17:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. Open to suggestions. czar 18:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tomb Raider (2013 video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://officialtombraiderblog.tumblr.com/post/6290828040/the-demo-was-amazing-i-love-the-new-dark-gritty-feel

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

English

This is an American game since it was developed by Crystal Dynamics, an American game developer. So why are the article and dates written in British English? -- Wrath X (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Because the developer's region is not a strong national tie. The Tomb Raider franchise itself and Lara Croft however has very strong national ties to Britain. -- ferret (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

So why is the article for the sequel Rise of the Tomb Raider written in American English? -- Wrath X (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Because no one had taken the time or it was simply missed. Almost every tomb raider article is British. Rise simply needs updated. -- ferret (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)