Both Kotaku and Joystiq have reported that Eidos is planning to reinvigorate the Tomb Raider franchise.  This is probably the fourth reboot for the IP but I am not really counting.

Reports have it that the game may be more open world and delve more into the action-horror genre. Screenshots here.

Both Kotaku and Joystiq have reported that Eidos is planning to reinvigorate the Tomb Raider franchise.  This is probably the fourth reboot for the IP but I am not really counting.

Reports have it that the game may be more open world and delve more into the action-horror genre. Screenshots here.

If I have to raid tombs then count me out.

Just not my style.

What the FUCK was that shit?  There were root-fingered monsters on those screenshots...right?  Was I looking at that properly?  Also, what the FUCK is with the person holding a bow and arrow while riding a horse?

I'm not into it.  The Crystal Dynamics games were headed in the right direction, especially Underworld (despite Eidos screwing it up with the DLC issues).  Lara is best when she's raiding tombs.  It's always been about a lone person navigating a hostile environment, and Tomb Raider at its best did it way better than Prince of Persia (especially now that they've turned it into a rhythm-climbing game) and Assassin's Creed or Uncharted (which are way more action oriented).  I don't think that adding a combat system, no matter how interesting, is going to help Tomb Raider.  Create interesting environments and an intuitive, solid control scheme and Lara can climb and flip and dive and solve puzzles again.  That's what she needs.  Not horse riding and bows and arrows. 

They should let this past memory of the 90s fade away and perhaps direct some innovation into new IPs.

Sonic says hello.

I adored the first three Tomb Raiders, so I'd definitely give it another shot if this turns out good, though I'm not very optimistic about this.

4th reboot? What? The series hasn't really advanced since Tomb Raider 1, every time they called for a reboot it was more of the same, yet usually blander and worse. That last remake made the whole thing a little more fluid, taking after Prince of Persia in a way or two, which carried over to the next game, but other than that, Tomb Raider has been exactly that... Perhaps it's finally a real, much needed, first reboot. Concept art is nice. Tree monsters are hardly more absurd than mummies and skeletons and flying demons shooting fireballs... Though a return to the basics with some actual tomb raiding would also be pretty cool. I think they need to look at their first inspirations, Indiana Jones, and run with that. Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayas, that shit is still cool. It may seem common but it's hardly been explored all that much in actually competent ways...

" Sonic says hello. "

" @Video_Game_King: Mega Man's core series, as well as the X series, fucking own.  Therefore, I don't see where you comparison comes from other than the Battle Network Star Force Saga Event Thing Stuff spin-offs...which no one pays attention to other than DS owners. "

" @Video_Game_King: Mega Man's core series, as well as the X series, fucking own.  Therefore, I don't see where you comparison comes from other than the Battle Network Star Force Saga Event Thing Stuff spin-offs...which no one pays attention to other than DS owners. "

The core franchise and X franchise "lost steam"?  Last I remembered, the X franchise is a different story than the core franchise...along with gameplay changes...which is why it's a separate series.  Zero was a way of bringing the Mega Man franchise to consoles, and Battle Network is a way of getting a slice of the TCG action. "

For those who are wondering: This will be the second reboot, the first reboot was with Legends when Crystal D took over after a decade of mediocrity from Core.

I haven't played Underworld yet, Legends and Anniversary where two great games and I enjoyed what they were doing.
We need to see more before we can make a judgment, this is too little information.

" @jakob187 said:

The core franchise and X franchise "lost steam"?  Last I remembered, the X franchise is a different story than the core franchise...along with gameplay changes...which is why it's a separate series.  Zero was a way of bringing the Mega Man franchise to consoles, and Battle Network is a way of getting a slice of the TCG action. "

Yea, people were losing interest. With the classic, it was because they wouldn't make one for the SNES for a really long time. For X, it was because it never went 3D. Oh, and the fact the storyline would never ever end. "

" @Video_Game_King said:

" @jakob187 said:

The core franchise and X franchise "lost steam"?  Last I remembered, the X franchise is a different story than the core franchise...along with gameplay changes...which is why it's a separate series.  Zero was a way of bringing the Mega Man franchise to consoles, and Battle Network is a way of getting a slice of the TCG action. "

Yea, people were losing interest. With the classic, it was because they wouldn't make one for the SNES for a really long time. For X, it was because it never went 3D. Oh, and the fact the storyline would never ever end. "

This isn't the place to argue about the history of the Mega Man franchise, but I'll say my last comments so you can say yours and we can get back to the Tomb Raider discussion at hand:

Mega Man never lost steam.  Capcom developed Mega Man games on the NES because it was cheaper and it allowed them to offer continuing support for the console while they focused on making the X series for the SNES.  Granted, Mega Man 6 never came to NA, but then again...if I was focusing on the X franchise and it was making me money, I'm not going to be too worried about one game on the NES not going to NA when they have a brand new franchise coming on the SNES.  Mega Man 7 came out for the SNES, and it rocked fucking socks.  Mega Man 8 hit for the Saturn and the PS1, and it rocked fucking socks.  Mega Man X8 used 3D models in a 2D setup, and it rocked fucking socks.

Your idea of "losing steam" is obviously negated by the fact that Capcom takes their time to make sure that the core franchise and X franchise offer quality games EVERY SINGLE TIME...which they have.  So...AGAIN...I wonder how you can say they "lost steam" when they simply have long development times to fine tune what will eventually be awesome games.

Also...I love Mega Man Legends and Legends 2.  =  P  So don't even bring those into the equation.

Now, back to Tomb Raider for me...fuck treeple.

"

" Sonic says hello. "

So, are they going to make one good new Tomb Raider game and then whore out the same tired gameplay concepts over and over again until they do another reboot? Because that seems to be a cycle now. Oh well.

" @Video_Game_King: Upon further research...it did.  I just never apparently noticed it coming out.  =  /   "

Tomb Raider was a nice, new game that perfected the action adventure genre for its time and set some new standards.
Tomb Raider II didn't derive too far from that, overdid the crate puzzles but was all in all a great sequel with a nice setting.
Tomb Raider III went too far in the chaotic level design and was largely advertised with "Lara has now 3 new moves!!1", setting the series up for sequel hell
Tomb Raider IV didn't change too many things, but returned to more elaborate, clever puzzles and showed effort again in the story department. It was more tight and more polished. You could say it was a first "overhaul".
Tomb Raider V - The Chronicles was another "Lara now has mor moves!1" sequel.
Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness tried to be an overhaul, with some new concepts and controls and camera, and failed so horribly with its mixture of old and new that I want to stab my eyes out just thinking of it. It almost killed the franchise, were it not for the great decision and consequence to let go of Core and hire Crystal Dynamics to make everyone forget about it.
Tomb Raider: Legend was a great new start that took the franchise name and setting and made an actual good action adventure game out of it, getting rid of the fighting and puzzling mechanics, and the general level design approach. Legend was a complete overhaul, and a long needed one.
Tomb Raider: Anniversary was a classical "sequel", not changing much of the previous game but delivering new content and moves.
Tomb Raider: Underworld, for some reason, decided to do away with everything that was good about Legend and reintroduce the horrible controls and camera and levels and fighting. A return to the old roots, so to speak, rightly shunned.


So this is indeed the fifth "redesign" of the series.

A return to form (IV), a remake (Legend), and a half-assed shitty game (Darkness) are overhauls? I guess we won't ever agree on this.

I only liked 1 and 4, I played the Legends demo but it didn't grab me.

" @jakob187 said:

" @Video_Game_King: Mega Man's core series, as well as the X series, fucking own.  Therefore, I don't see where you comparison comes from other than the Battle Network Star Force Saga Event Thing Stuff spin-offs...which no one pays attention to other than DS owners. "

Um, not even DS owners pay attention to those games.  Unless you mean uninformed DS owners.  :p "

Um, 2 and 3 also controlled like that, but they also sucked in many other aspects. IV was like a homage to 1 to me. Sure, it had the same ancient framework, but at least it used it decently. It was good. Overly tedious and boring at times, but overall, good. The original was a drag near the end too actually. Anyway, I was just commenting on Meo's post. And no, it's not just that we didn't know better, Tomb Raider was pretty impressive. And she wasn't exactly a tank, compare her to the Resident Evil cast of the same era. Pretty agile, in comparison.>_>

TR had a lot of quality that went beyond the mere fact of being 3D. Clever puzzles, which is why everyone did block puzzles after that making them tiresome, agile combat sequences, nice music, some beautiful vistas... It had some great scenes, as subtle as diving in a pool from a high platform and hearing the main title music and feeling, I dunno, feelings, peaceful, for once. Or the first exit from the water tunnels. Or the Trex. Etc. It was good in more than being 3D. Sticks have nothing to do with it, they'd only help with camera control, but you rarely needed that since it was a fixed behind view. You couldn't strafe run like an FPS but in combat sequences you did jump a lot sideways and rolling and such to avoid hits...

I mean, sure, they were good for their time and are outdated now but they deserve more credit than "we didn't know better" for sure. And of course someone's still better off playing I or IV than the much newer Underworld for example... Their design was more sound.

I wonder if squarenix will have any influence over the reboot. Borrowing of tools, staff, artists, etc. Just a thought.

I do wish that TR would lay low for a while before coming out with a reboot.

" I wonder if squarenix will have any influence over the reboot. Borrowing of tools, staff, artists, etc. Just a thought. I do wish that TR would lay low for a while before coming out with a reboot. "

The biggest thing that caught my eye was the M rating. Huh. Didn't really ever expect Tomb Raider to leave the T rating.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I've just never been a huge fan of this franchise.  I enjoyed Tomb Raider II...but outside of that, I gave it chance after chance after chance to impress me...and it just never did that.  =  /

Uncharted is what Tomb Raider is supposed to be. I wish them the best of luck, even if it is not like Tomb Raider I hope it's a good game. Remember all drastic reboots don't end badly. Splinter Cell Convintion anyone?