Talk:Tomb Raider: Anniversary

Error in confirmed game elements
From the looks of the screenshots and the renders, the weapons she is carrying aren't the classic Brownings from the original games. They look more like M1911 Colt's or 1911 clones. L33tj0s 08:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Release date
I've read now somewhere that the release date is sometime in March 2007. Simply south 00:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fresh Idea
I have a proposal. I posted some time ago an article that just doesn't fitted with Wikipedia's standards. This is my article: User:Locketudor/Tomb Raider music. I want to split it, remake it and distribued it to all Tomb Raider games. --Tulok 15:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Classic Costumes"
Does this mean all costumes from TR1 to TRC? (Opinion here: that would be pretty cool if it were!) Ggctuk 09:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean up
Please guys, this article deserves a good clean up. From the beginning, contributors have written their own speculations or hearsays about the game, without caring about structure or sources. We have now plenty of online (and paper) reviews to be able to correctly write about what has been confirmed to be in the game, and to properly source it (ie not lazily put 2 or 3 external links, but create proper citations with templates, etc). Folken de Fanel 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This article could also use some more screenshoots and images. --sturm 23:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Levels
since we dont have any info about the level's descriptions, how about we delete them and then add them again once we have obtained info.

Update: HELP!!! while trying to get rid of the image on remake status i think i took of alot of the Core section by accident. could someone restore the article to the point before i took the image off? Fullarius 18:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I wrote that stuff under levels (yes, a lot of it is speculation, but if this is to be faithful, then until we get an actual level list, then I think this should be kept) Ggctuk 10:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It can't be kept as speculation as to what will make it to the final game, however we can mention what was in the original levels, without speculating about it's presence in Anniversary.


 * When the game is released, we'll be able to make a comparison original/remake, but currently it's useless, and as speculations aren't the aim of Wikipedia...So we've better rewrite any speculative statement, so that it won't speculate anymore about the content of Anniversary. Folken de Fanel 11:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * May we post pre-released screenshots here? Ggctuk 12:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

proper sources
Is IMDB a reliable source? if it isnt then why is it cited?

Inccorect information?
"One move they did was a fireball throw, just like the original counterpart. The trailer revealed also that the game was planned for a May release."

From the trailer, I could have sworn that the mummy just stood down from the 'looking' position and another one just blew up. Mummies in the first Tomb Raider NEVER threw fireballs and it looked like to me that the mummy simply blew up.

Could somebody verify this, or were they actually throwing fireballs (in which case winged mummies are next probably) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ggctuk (talk • contribs) 12:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
 * My mistake - they were throwing fireballs - not exactly faithful to the mummies in TR1, but hey, CD and EI make the rules (but I think iD's going to sue somebody). Ggctuk 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I could have sworn the mummies in the original game threw fireballs when they were at a distance... unless that's just in the "Unfinished Business" extra levels? Dave-ros 14:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Animation Reels - leaked or not?
An animation reel has appeared recently on YouTube, and I was wondering whether it was leaked or not. If it was, would it still be worth a mention? Content included animations from Lara, Larson, Raptors, the T-Rex (Which would point to this being leaked since EI and CD want to keep a tight lid on the T-Rex for now) the Unmummified Atlantean, and in some instances, the centaurs. Ggctuk 08:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was leaked. Not sure whether it deserves a mention. It wasn't that important.

Wondering
Isn't it important, the fact that some people worked for the music of the games. There is Nathan McCree, Peter Connelly, Troels Brun Folmann, Alan Silvestri and lot of other important names. If anyone would like to help me with the genral article about Tomb Raider Music User:Locketudor/Tomb Raider music. --Tulok 13:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I put the article on a new page with the old link redirecting to the new URL so its easier for people to find it. New link: Tomb Raider Music.

TRA on Wii
I've no time right now to work on a good way to include the info, so I'm providing all the sources necessary for you guys to create great new section on the subject, as usual ;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/05/15/bcnsci15.xml http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/headlines3268.html http://wii.ign.com/articles/788/788338p1.html

Folken de Fanel 20:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems it was unnecessary after all ^^...Folken de Fanel 20:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Trailers
Soon we won't need the trailers section. Please focus on more important things!--Tudor Tulok 03:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

PC version?
Isnt there a PC version. My friend downloaded the game from a torrent for the pc and from what ive seen it was made for it and not just an emulator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.69.65.165 (talk • contribs).
 * Yes, there is a version for the PC. Please read the article. ColdFusion650 22:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It says Gametap version. Its PC but you stream them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.69.65.165 (talk • contribs).
 * Ok, two things. One: sign your comments. Two: Read the article. It clearly says that there will be a PC version. ColdFusion650 01:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am such an idiot. Sorry about that, i was looking for it to say PC and it says windows. When i look for something specific, i don't really notice other thing. And i dont have an account here so i dont know how i should sign my comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.69.65.165 (talk • contribs){{#if:11:07, May 28, 2007 {CDT)|&#32;11:07, May 28, 2007 {CDT)|}}.
 * Below the save button, there is a thing that says "sign your username" ~ ColdFusion650 17:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it released?
I see the release date stuff, and it even says "coming soon" on Steam, but explain how this page can exist: http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/tombraideranniversary/walkthrough/index.html

Did this guy get a leaked copy or something? --Katana314 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that a lot of UK citizens who ordered on Amazon.co.uk have received the copy 2 days early...myself included! I was completely shocked!  I have no idea what the explanation is...but I think it should therefore be mentioned in the article.  (Check out www.tombraiderforums.com to see just how many fans have got their copy early) Jamandell (d69) 23:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot
I wrote the plot through summarizing some of the actual cutscenes of Tomb Raider Anniversary posted on YOUTUBE.COM. It may change as the whole plot is released when the game is released. Please contribute as necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.184.79 (talk • contribs).
 * I went through and corrected the spelling and grammar. ColdFusion650 12:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank god for that, I was starting to see fireflies on my eyeballs after switching so many times between several windows to write the plot. However, don't you think the end part, in the boat where Lara looks at her hands-AGAIN, is up for interpretation instead of actually suggesting to the viewer what she thinks? I think it would be better if we just write it as is and leave it to the viewer on what he/she thinks. Also, on another note the Atlantis level is described in further detail than the prior ones. Shouldn't we generalize it, focusing on character development plot points? After all, this is the first story where we get to know Lady Croft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.184.79 (talk • contribs).
 * I don't care. I just fixed the spelling and grammar. Content is not what I was focusing on. ColdFusion650 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

First human kill
From what i know there is a little mistake in the storyline. In Anniversary Larson is suppose to be the first human victim of Lara. The problem is that Larson also appears in Chronicles (so it had to take place before Anniversary) and from what i remember Lara was killing people there already. --sturm 11:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read through the plot of Chronicles, it's just a series of flashbacks, a clips show. So, that particular mission takes place before the first Tomb Raider. Other missions take place at different times. ColdFusion650 11:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but does Lara kill anyone in that part of Chronicles?--sturm 14:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. ColdFusion650 14:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If TRC's Rome takes place before TR1 and TRA, then no, Lara did not kill them. Because otherwise how would they be in TR1/Anniversary?? Ggctuk 08:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Im not asking if she killed Larson but did she kill other human enemies in Chronicles. --sturm 14:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * She killed people in the Russia and VCI levels, mostly dogs and wild animals (as well as statues and deceased gladiators) in the Rome levels and none in the Black Isle levels. Ggctuk 13:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dogs, wild animals, and statues are not people. ColdFusion650 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Rome plot from TRC has been completely retconned; AE makes no sense at all otherwise (as Lara has a completely different personality). MMAN 12:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempted Move
Whoever tried to move this article, did it wrong. They didn't actually move it properly, using the move function. But since the new title article already exists from their attempt, I can't move it to the correct title without an administrator. Please do not attempt to move this page in the interim. ColdFusion650 19:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Differences from the original 1996 Tomb Raider" cleanup
This section in the article needs a little cleanup. When I read it I found information of a speculative nature. I have done my best to remove some of it and add some more information, however, we need to keep speculation from this article now the game is out. Ggctuk 12:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Differences from the original 1996 Tomb Raider
I think this is a good thing to have but it seemed a bit biased towards the original game (although it's admittedly near-impossible to defend some of the deletions). I clarified some points and tweaked a few of the bits that showed a very obvious bias. I also removed some of the "other changes" (they showed the most obvious bias of all, and thing about the Mutant Lara having eyebrows just read like some pointless fan trivia thing).

I also removed the "remake status" section, as it was speculation from before the game's release MMAN 12:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reception
WHERE IS "RECEPTION/REVIEWS" PART OF THE GAME?

Spoilers
Could someone please add spoiler tags to this. I would do it myself but i suck at editing.

And add a Spoiler tag for the section that talks about the differences between TR1 and TR:A. Fullarius 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened at 'References'
At reference nr. 11, it says: Cite error 8; No text given.

Can anyone clean this up? Gawanti 10:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Xbox 360 Episodic Content section
"On 18 June 2007 Eidos announced an Xbox 360 version of Tomb Raider: Anniversary. The game is split up into four episodes with the first two being released in September and the next two following shortly afterwards. The Croft Manor level will be available as a free download for each set of episodes. Purchasing all four episodes will cost 2400 Microsoft Points ($29.99 USD) and will require a Tomb Raider: Legend disc. It is the first time a full retail game will be available on the Xbox Live Marketplace. The game will also be released as a retail game for the Xbox 360 at a later date."

Is there a source for this? This is the first time I've heard of it. I know the game can be bought instore, but there is nothing to download for it. Carocat 22:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a press release from Sci - Shrensh 23:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. That also mentions September and as of now [end of October] there is nothing of it yet. Carocat 09:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of searching, and it looks like the release date for the episodic content on the Xbox Live Marketplace has been pushed back to November (Source) - Shrensh 11:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Review Response Table
I've just added a review response table, replacing the last 2 column unaligned one. Please can you add review scores as you please to compile the list. Make sure you code it properly, and don't use sites which give a score of all of reviews from multiple sites. Thanks - Breadsticks.rock (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Article protected?
I can't edit it. I was going to add a little bit under "Other Changes" noting that weapons now have a maximum ammunition limit that prevents the player from accumulating any more ammo. In the original Tomb Raider, the player could carry as much ammo as there was to be found in the entire game. 74.242.118.197 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article has been protected since August 2007 due to vandalism at the time. Whether it can be unprotected, I don't know. Do you have a source to confirm that? I'm sure you are correct but you need a reliable source to back it up.  [Jam] [talk] 08:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where to find a citation just to point out a minor change in gameplay mechanics. It's a pretty apparent feature you can confirm just by opening the game and checking your inventory. You could try adding it for now and see if anyone wants to challenge the lack of citation. I doubt it's of much importance. 65.6.50.235 (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewards
There is no mention of the golden shotgun or silver SMGs. This represents an oversight that ought to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikie42 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 1 June 2008


 * If you can find a reliable source for it on the Internet, it can be included.  [Jam] [talk] 06:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Stella's Tomb Raider site count as a reliable source? Also can I express disbelief we need to even source it. 86.131.180.127 (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly - stick the link here and some of the other editors can take a look and see what they think. And yes, everything needs to be sourced somehow or other - personal experience doesn't count.  [Jam] [talk] 18:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Righto, here;s the link http://tombraiders.net/ Golden shotgun etc under anivversery section, in the cheats/cheat codes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.45.252 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean [this link]? I'm not sure if Stella's site would count as a reliable source, but it would actually be difficult to find one explaining game features such as this. The manual doesn't make any mention of specific unlockable content, but it is infact there. You can cross-check with strategy guides and walkthroughs, but again, I don't know if they could be cited as reliable sources on Wikipedia. In this case, I don't think it's important to stress strict reliability, considering game features are more of a common knowledge. I think it's fine to simply point out that the game has unlockable rewards without going into specific detail about what all of those rewards are, but I wouldn't object to someone adding a mention about it. 74.242.120.174 (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah thanks for that, I was running late so i didn't have time to put that link on the page. But like Jam said - personal experience doesn't count so it seems we have to cite reference somehow. 86.164.28.91 (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:GAMECRUFT. This is a game concept that doesn't need to be explored. -- The Guy  complain edits 04:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New plot
As it was stated that it needed shortening I've had a go at it. If you think its any better feel free to use it. I've trimmed alot of description out and tried to leave only key points but I think it needs someone elses input now

In 1945 Los Alamos, a mushroom cloud engulfs an abandoned town, uncovering a crystalline structure. A unidentified winged creature breaks free and flies out.

In 1996 Calcutta Lara Croft is hired by Jacqueline Natla to retrieve one piece of the Atlantean Scion. Lara succeeds in finding the corpse of Qualopec and after reading some inscriptions learns he was one of the god-rulers of Atlantis before it fell beneath the waves. Lara takes the Scion fragment and the tomb begins to crumble. Lara escapes to find Larson, an old adversary, ready to relieve her of her piece of the Scion. Lara refuses to hand the artifact over and engages Larson in a fight, and after defeating him she learns another archaeologist has been sent to look for the second piece of the Scion. Lara infiltrates Natla Technologies and learns the location of the second piece of the Scion.

Lara is then forced to race against Pierre Dupont to reach the second piece of the Scion. Lara eventually uncovers the Tomb of Tihocan, the second of the god-rulers. Pierre then threatens Lara with death unless she gives him pieces of the Scion. Lara refuses, attacking him until he flees from the tomb. However, two centaurs then awake, trampling Pierre to death.

After escaping Tihocan's tomb, Lara heads to the location of the third and final piece of the Scion. Successfully obtaining it, she connects the pieces and has a vision about the god-kings, whose third member is revealed to be Natla herself. Natla is expelled from their sacred order and condemned for unleashing Atlantis' own armies against it and trying to usher in the Seventh Age through the use of the Scion. She is then encased in the crystalline structure which was later uncovered in the blast in Los Alamos.

Lara’s vision ends as Natla takes the now complete Scion. Natla's henchman are then ordered to kill her. However Lara escapes and pursues Natla on her motorbike, managing to infiltrate Natla's boat undetected.

They soon dock to an island which is a remnant of Atlantis. Inside she meets Larson again, who tries to stop her from continuing further. Lara shoots Larson dead and looks at her hands horrified at what she has done, greatly remorseful from her first human kill. Lara finally catches up to Natla who has activated the Scion, along with the pyramid buried beneath it. Natla offers Lara a seat beside her but Lara refuses and destroys the Scion.

Natla attacks Lara in anger but Lara escapes, Natla plummeting into the lava. However Natla survives, stating that she is immortal. Lara faces off against Natla and pins her under a falling pillar. Lara escapes the crumbling pyramid as the island violently erupts. Lara dives into the sea and gets into the boat she used to get to the Lost Island. She looks back her actions were for the safety of mankind and sails off into the horizon.

81.132.45.252 (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a proposal for a shorter synopsis, this goes into a bit too much detail. Instead of explaining every single event in the game, why not summarize each episode? i.e., explain Lara's initial hiring by Natla Technologies, and her quest to explore the Peruvian regions for the lost Scion. Then just go on to summarize where Lara is going next, and give a short backstory explaining why she is approaching her new target. It may be a lot neater if you leave out details that are too specific, like "Pierre meets his fate by getting trampled to death by magically animated centaur statues," for instance. The details of Pierre's death aren't a critical concern to a synopsis of the major overlying plot elements. 74.242.120.174 (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's possible working proposal: (feel free to make changes)


 * Tomb Raider: Anniversary follows Lara Croft as she explores four major regions: Peru, Greece, Egypt and Atlantis. Initially hired by Natla of Natla Technologies to uncover a missing artifact known as the Atlantean Scion, Lara finds herself trekking vast mountain ranges and cavernous labyrinths within the Peruvian region in search of Qualopec's Tomb -- home to the first piece of the Scion. Upon uncovering the fragment, Lara becomes entwined in the internal affairs of Natla and her past as her encounters with other mercenaries hired to uncover the remaining fragments reveal a darker underlying motive.


 * Concerned about Natla's involvement with the Scion and its history, Lara furthers her quest in Greece, where she must race against Pierre DuPont to recover the second fragment of the Scion. In doing so, much of the Scion's history is revealed once two of the three fragments are unified, giving Lara a glimpse into the fate of the lost continent of Atlantis, and Natla's former position as its ruler. As well, the location of the final piece is revealed in the Scion's vision, aiding Lara in its ultimate recovery.


 * Lara then sets off to Egypt in search of the sanctuary which houses the final fragment. Upon unifying all three, the vision of Natla's past and the history of Atlantis is completed, revealing Natla's banishment from the sacred triad which once presided over the continent and its denizens. However, before having time to escape with the artifact, it is reclaimed by Natla and her minions; an encounter which Lara barely manages to survive.


 * Chasing after Natla, Lara finds herself within the excavation site of an authentic Atlantean pyramid. In a final confrontation with Natla, it is conceded that she was indeed the queen of Atlantis at one point in history, but was banished from the order when she attempted to overthrow it and induce what she refers to as "The Seventh Age." Lara engages Natla in a final battle, putting an end to the surfacing of the Seventh Age, and the possible destruction of humanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.120.174 (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that mine maybe in a little too much detail but I left the Pierre detail in because his fate is different to the original and so didn't want to cause confusion. Also I think one problem is that we have to understand and make it clear this story isn't just about the scion - its about Lara's first kill now too. I agree you've contracted the story of the scion really well but Larson's not given enough detail that he perhaps now deserves. 86.164.28.91 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, actually. It might be a good idea to mention changes to Lara's personality in the "Differences from the original 1996 Tomb Raider" section, though. In fact, it may be easier to outline those kind of differences there, as opposed to finding a way to work them into the plot itself. (as trying to explain so much detail in a short synopsis would call for a lot of... detail) Just an idea. 74.242.104.56 (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose a merge of this article with Tomb Raider. They both cover the same topic, as this game is a remake, not a separate game in itself. It has some differences, but is ultimately verified as a remake. Since it covers the same subject as Tomb Raider, they should be one whole article, not two separate pieces. Also, a lot of the information contained in this article are trivial video game concepts, such as non-verified differences between the remake and original, game level descriptions, enemies, allies, and movements are completely specified. Unnecessary detail like this can absolutely be trimmed, and, when trimmed, it will be a much shorter article that ultimately resembles the original's article, and so they should be merged. Plot and gameplay, the two core, biggest things the article should describe, are similar in both installments, and so could be described using one section in each.

For example, we could add a section in the original's article stating details about the announcement of the remake, and the developments, and a few verified, key differences between the two, and state that it retains similar gameplay and plot elements. That's all that's ultimately needed to cover this subject. -- The Guy complain edits 04:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think they should be merged. The similarity between TR1 and TRA is almost entirely in-universe (basic story, characters, etc.), and even then there are differences and contradictions.  Gameplay is different enough (closer to Legend than TR1), and it's a completely different game as far as out-of-universe info goes (different developer, composer, voice cast, game engine, platforms, etc.).  Merging would likely confuse editors and readers alike and would make the single article too long (or at least the scope too wide), especially with out-of-universe info.  Both games are separate and notable enough in their own right to warrant separate articles.


 * I do agree that the "Game Content" and "Differences from the original Tomb Raider" sections need heavy revising and rewriting. Also, the "Core Design: Tomb Raider 10th Anniversary Edition" section is more relevant to the Tomb Raider article and probably should be merged into the section there. ~ Dusk Knight  06:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The different things that are out-of-universe, such as voice cast, are not notable. At best, the out-of-universe differences can be noted as "the game was developed by Crystal Dynamic, rather than Core Design." We really don't need to elaborate on voice cast, composer, et cetera. If you want an example, take a look at Resident Evil. The GameCube re-make is elaborated rather nicely in-article, given the out-of-universe differences are not as numerous, but still; that is my aim with this. If the original's article will become too big, well, I notice it needs a good trimming and re-focus as it stands right now, anyways. My point is that probably 50% of the content is shared by both installments, with the only major differences being cosmetic. We can sure make a section on a remake short, just noting the remake, and the key differences between the releases. -- The Guy complain edits 00:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a wealth of information available about the development, history (including reception), and gameplay of both games, which are different and more important than in-universe elements to a non-fiction effort like this. This article doesn't even have proper sections for these right now.  If the article (as it is now) was anywhere near it's full potential, then I would agree that it should be merged.  But in the long run, I think it would detract from the Tomb Raider article's quality and ultimately have to be split off once serious effort is put into TRA's development, history, and gameplay. ~ Dusk Knight  04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we should tidy up both articles, and find a way to do this well. Ultimately, being basically the same games, one with an updated engine, they do belong in the same article. Ultimately. -- The Guy  complain edits 05:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that they are the same game. I view them as different games (the engines are not related) that follow the same basic story. I suggest raising this issue at WP:VG, as more opinions are needed before such a merge is made. ~ Dusk Knight 07:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to make the point that the games with completely identical in gameplay and other mechanics. I know there are many things varying from the original but again; look at the Resident Evil article, and its remake. There is about a 75% percent difference between the original and remake, and, having played both games, I can tell you they are completely different.  However, they share the same article, because they share the same premise of gameplay; go around a giant mansion, searching for clues as to how to escape,  where your partners went, and why zombies are roaming the halls. The plot is also the same, but told differently, with different characters and all, but all the general details remain the same. Therein lies my point; the same basic premise of this and the original are same (raid tombs and other environments searching for the Scion), and so, suitable for a single article. I will certainly bring this proposal up at WP video games, though. -- The Guy  complain edits 06:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree to the merging. The two games are written about a decade or more apart, and this is a encyclopedia, thus notice that prehaps it is a good intent to store history. The game mechanics ARE different and there are differences, its like trying to merge Streets of Rage with Oni. The real similarities are the common theme of a female heroine preforming acrobatics, while killing monsters and animals as well as a greedy treasure hunter with her trusty pistols. The tech is far apart... Has the person who proposed merging actually played the games, or is he a picky wikipedia reader, who has only read the articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dared111 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comparison is an extremely bad one; Oni is NOT a Streets of Rage re-make. This game IS a re-make of the original.  While the game mechanics are different, the same basic premise, plot, and characters of the original remain here in Anniversary.  Therefore, your comparison is extremely invalid, as your mentioned video games are completely unrelated; not the same game universe.  Since you inquired, as well, I've completed the original Tomb Raider, II, Legend, Anniversary, and Underworld.


 * Also, sorry I haven't submitted this for discussion at WP:Video games yet. I've been too busy (lazy) to figure out specifics on where to list this for a more thorough discussion.  Anybody want to point me in the right direction? -- The Guy  complain edits 03:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The main talk page is probably the place to go. I see a few merge discussions there. ~ Dusk Knight  04:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to comment that the Tomb Raider: Anniversary page has a ridiculous amount of cruft on it. I'm sure that it would merge well, since the two games have a common plot and characters - after trimming down all that indiscriminate info you'll probably be left with little information that merits its own page. On an unrelated note, I just remembered I have a copy of Tomb Raider: Anniversary lying around. *goes to play it*-- ZXCVBNM 02:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * EDIT: After playing some of Anniversary, it seems that it is an "enhanced remake" with quite a lot more content than the original. However, the point still stands that it is a remake of the original; not to mention the fact that there's a section about a PSP remake in both articles, which seems confusing. In my opinion, merge away, but leave the infobox as a drop-down in the Tomb Raider article.-- ZXCVBNM 06:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keeping a seperate listing in the infobox as well as a section is the original game's article about the remake is perfectly reasonable level of Coverage. See Chrono Trigger for a game with a similar length of time between its release and an enhanced remake for the DS. For an example games that would be appropriate as their own articles despite saying they are remakes or retellings see The Bard's Tale (1985 video game) and The Bard's Tale (2004 video game). じん    ない   16:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is the same characters, plot, and worlds agreed. But I'm sorry it is simply that there are two significantly different release dates, they games run on different consoles, and game play is completely remastered and changed.  Why are there two separate pages for Charlie and the Chocolate factory and Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory? Are they not the same story with the same characters? just events are skewed and effects upgraded... These two games have both had their significant effect on the progression of RPG games and deserve separate pages. -- cjklimas 11:30, 15 January 2009
 * Different release dates would be featured for the remake of a game, wouldn't it? I just removed a lot of the unnecessary cruft, and noticed that the article needs to be re-written significantly for a lot of other violations of policy. For example, probably about 75% of the lead section focuses on different release dates in different countries and platforms. This can be eliminated in favor of one simple sentence about the first release date in the lead, as it is further expanded in the infobox. Also, the British formatting needs to be eliminated; this may be made by a British-based company, but Wikipedia is an American-based site, and the Manual of Style has specific rules for the formatting of things such as dates, and currently the entire series of Tomb Raider articles are not in line. As it stands, though, yes, gameplay is significantly varying from the original, but that's not significant enough to warrant separate articles when 75% of the other features are the same. Take a look at Resident Evil's two remakes, Prince of Persia's remake, Chrono Trigger's remake. They all feature significantly different gameplay from the others, but because they share the same basic premise of gameplay, they are merged. That should be the case here, after a good clean-up. Also, if gameplay is so significant, why doesn't this article have a section on it? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory compares a book and a film, respectively. Those are not the same things, and the film does feature an altered plot, but ultimately, not both being books, or both being films, they warrant separate articles.-- The Guy complain edits 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate butt in, but Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory are BOTH movies. One is from 2005, one is from 1971. Yes, they are based upon the same material, but they are both movies, one a remake of the same content at a later date. Sure does sound familiar! 67.242.6.184 (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That Wikipedia is an American based website is utterly irrelevant to the type of English used. The Manual of Style does not dictate one form of English over the other, it specifically states that a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. In this case, the franchise was devised, originally developed and heavily associated with Britain, thus it should be in British English, not American English. Dates are allowed to be in either American or European style to account for the type of English used - your change from European date style to American date style was in error. As for merging, I'm entirely unconvinced it is a necessity, simply because of some gameplay simularities and a shared plot. Merging should not take place simply because other articles do it in another way (ie a variation on the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument in deletions), but a case by case basis, on the credit of the sources available and the potential of the article. A cursory glance produces more than enough sources to construct unique development and reception details - these are the parts of a video game article which would be covered by proper secondary, reliable sources, upon which a quality article hangs, not the gameplay and plot sections. GameSpot and IGN for the PC version alone produce more than enough articles to construct a production history and commentary on the game's technology for a development section. Game Rankings has 58 reviews listed while Metacritic has 48 reviews available, more than enough to create a featured article-quality reception section. Just because this article is terribly written at present is no reason to merge, and based on the quantity of subsantial coverage available, the fact it is a remake is not either. I strongly oppose any merge, such a thing would damage Tomb Raider coverage as this has real-world aspects that cannot be properly covered as part of another article. -- Sabre (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with merging the two articles. As per Dusk's comments, the only bits of similarity the two games share is their underlying in-universe story (locations, characters, etc.) but even that story has changed between the two games. The games don't share the same platforms, game engines, development team (aside from Toby Gard), etc., and as per Sabre's comments, there is more than enough evidence to let this game stand alone, and just because other games have had to be merged (for one reason or another) doesn't mean that we have to follow suit.

I'm sure I could have come up with a more compelling argument, but I think everyone else has said it for me. Basically, I'd rather we didn't, and I think it will be to the detriment of this game (and the original) if we do. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 22:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Chrono Trigger "remake" is just an enhanced port, not a remake (an example of that would be Chrono Resurrection or something of the sort). But the problem with this game is that there are so many plot changes that the two articles would not be mutually compatible, and you couldn't just add "in Anniversary, Lara did this instead of this" to the appropriate section. I suggest linking a section of Tomb Raider to this article instead of merging them. Instead of calling it a remake, how about "inspired by Tomb Raider"?-- ZXCVBNM 23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just using flattering terms to boost your point of its notability; bottom line it's a remake and is like King's Quest: Quest for the Crown, which did more than just port it to newer OS; it enhanced graphics, sound, added voices (later), changed puzzles, radically altered gameplay to the point it was completely different, added and somewhat altered storyline and was produced some time after the original....sound familiar? And it's listed in a section of the article. じん    ない   00:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no policy or guideline that states "remakes should be covered in the parent article". Taking the approach of "x article(s) do this, so it should be done here as well" is not in the least bit helpful as it doesn't actually give any weight to the actual viability of this article. To merge, there must be some particular reason for why this article can't properly survive by itself. I've posted links that contain more than enough sources to produce the proper real-world sections required by any quality article, which focuses on Tomb Raider Anniversary, not Tomb Raider 1, making an article on Anniversary sustainable with proper work. What King's Quest does, what Resident Evil does, what Chrono Trigger does is all irrelevant to the viability of this article. -- Sabre (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources to show this articles "Notability"
Since there are people here claiming that this article is worthy of it's own article, let's go down the list to see what you have to assert that:


 * 1) Amazon.co.uk for release date - the site is not considered reliable for release dates therefore that site fails
 * 2) Eidos's website. The first version, the claim of improved could be seen as being unreliable source for that claim since the website acts as a promotional tool; a modified version of the engine or newer version of the engine would be okay. The second use is also debatable, but again I'm willing to give you that as well. All that does though is prove verifablity, not notabiluty.
 * 3) Erogamer is fine for a source, however that doesn't constitute notability, just verifiability.
 * 4) Blues News - who are these people? Why are they notable? - Even if it is, that isn't notable info - it's just release date. NM - found them. Still they can only be used as verifiable information for what you have listed.
 * 5) Press release - that can be used to show verifiability, but not notability.
 * 6) Gametap is fine for what you want to use it for, but like Erogamer it only notes verfiability
 * 7) Valve - who are they? Why should what they say be notable? - Even if it is, it's not notable, it's just listing a platform its on.
 * 8) Value - Wikipedia does not allow linking for sources that require payments because this information is considered "unpublished".
 * 9) Gamesindustry - that source is a RS denoting a level of notability; however it is does not denote the generally level of notability required for spinout articles.
 * 10) tombraiderchonicles - appears to be a fansite, and thus not meeting RS
 * 11) VA cast notes verifiability, not notability
 * 12) see 10
 * 13) searches are not valid for anything - this one should be removed immediatly
 * 14) see 12
 * 15) Gametrailers - it only notes the score so the level of notability added is low, not enough to justify a spinout
 * 16) Offical Nintendo Magazine - see 14
 * 17) Forums are listed as not reliable
 * 18) Edios site can denote verifiability, but not notability

So let's see...you have 3 sites denoting notability, 2 of which are only scores on a chart. You have 4 sites which directly violate WP:RS, 1 which indirectly does, and 1 source who's reliability is questionable at information at most can be used as verifiable. This does not seem to meet the criteria for a spinout article. plot summaries cannot be used to denote notability. じん    ない   04:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have read the bit where I posted the sources. I'm sure we all agree that the current revision of this article is naff. But one is meant to consider the potential of the article, not its current state. I shall repost the links for your convienience, which contain more than enough articles to attest to notability and to create decent development and reception sections. There are plenty of articles available on GameSpot and IGN for the PC version alone to create a production history for a development section, without looking at other platforms or other media sites. Reception wise, 48 reviews on Metacritic, 58 reviews on Game Rankings. Both sites are run by CBS Corporation and reviews listed on these aggregator sites are generally considered reliable in featured article candidacies, so they are more than suitable for this. Accounting for the fact that Game Rankings and Metacritic will probably repeat each other and not actually counting the individual articles within the GameSpot and IGN links, that is still 60 sources of significant coverage that attest to notability of Tomb Raider Anniversary in a quick google search, that did not include print magazines and more focused articles on specific elements of the game, such as interviews. That easily passes the notability criteria, and it is more than possible to create a decent article out of those sources. Yes, the current version is not that great and appallingly referenced, but that is not the point that should be considered, the article's potential is what should be. -- Sabre (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know one is suppose to consider potential and it's my belief that for notability requirements that its not any more worthy than any other remake out there; indeed there are other remakes far more worthy that are adequately covered inside the article. WP:IMPERFECT is not a license to start creating articles just because WP:ILIKEIT. If this page were put up for a formal AfD given the information cited and the way we handle remakes usually, it would almost certainly be merged. じん    ない   18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a case of ILIKETIT, although it seems that you have an axe to grind with articles covering remakes. I have provided substantial and reliable coverage of this as an independent product, more than enough to construct a proper article, and you are ignoring them. This discussion is futile. If the sources currently cited in the article was all that was available, then yes, it would be merged, but more than enough other sources, the exact type of sources used on practically every other well-sourced video game article, have been produced to validate this having an independent article. -- Sabre (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Including everything here, plus everything on those articles, the differences could be summed up it's its own section after removing duplicate information, moving the development, music and reception information inside the main article in their own seperate subsections as well as removing trivial information such as release on every single trailer (notes that it the number of trailers is still important). The stuff not written about here mostly goes with the development and a lot on how it differs from the original. じん    ない   00:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Information within the Metacritic/Game Rankings sites, about three paragraphs, four when proper sales information with bits like being top selling game for a significant time in the UK is included. Development history across all platforms, probably about two, perhaps three, not accounting for a wider and more focused search for development information. Add another paragraph for a music section. All on what is unique to this product, not going on about gameplay or plot. Perfectly workable for a separate article, not practical within the body of another article (that isn't put together that well either). A summary of that amount of information within the Tomb Raider article would tell a reader barely anything if it was the full extent of coverage on WP. -- Sabre (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also believe in looking at the potential of the article, not its current state. Where we differ, though, is that I don't look at what the article could be if it had perfect little editors who work vigorously on it. I look at the potential of the article based on its editors; when the article was made, how relevant the topic the article covers still is (relevant as in current, meaning when it was released), how often and significantly edits are made to it, and the current status of the article. Articles which are not in their prime (this, for example) tend to have a diminishing number of editors, and so a diminishing potential. So I ask you; who is going to make these improvements? You are not, currently. I haven't been on Wikipedia long enough to constructively make an article fulfill its potential. The potential for this article right now is very little, because the demand for editing it is very small. That is a valid factor, and should be taken into consideration. If we were to judge based only on the potential of the article itself, not the editors, then we wouldn't have any need to do so anyways; almost every article that meets the notability guidelines of Wikipedia has the potential to become a Featured Article, based on its editors.


 * Considering that this article is no longer in its prime, and less editors are likely to edit it, I'd say the chance for this large re-construction is very unlikely, and likewise, the potential of the article diminishing fast. Judging from a case-by-case perspective, this article would be able to stand on its own two feet if it had dedicated editors, but it can't, and probably won't, and so I believe it should be merged. This isn't based on any sources or guidelines, but I'm only trying to think logically. To minimize the clutter that is never likely to be cleaned, we should merge the articles. -- The Guy complain edits 04:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * EDIT: On a different note, I just realized that my comment made it sound like I only consider how relevant the topic of the article still is; this is not the case. I do consider the potential of the articles based on sources as well, but in this case, I think the editing base should definitely be considered as more of a priority.  That's the point I was trying to stress, not that I disregard the significance of potential sources, and I apologize if that was misleading. -- The Guy  complain edits 05:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because no-one's working on it does not that mean that the article has to be done away with, that is not how Wikipedia works - sometimes articles on all subjects are left in a mess for years before being cleaned up (same principle applies in deletion discussions). The potential for a large scale reconstruction of the article only increases as time continues - almost all of the articles I have worked up to GA or FA status have been complete rewrites on articles left neglected for years. Remember that Wikipedia has no deadline. None of the Tomb Raider articles are in any particularly brilliant shape, this is no worse than some of the rest. As I've stated in the WP:VG discussion, I would be willing to clean up and rewrite this article in due course—not immediately, as I'm trying to clean up other stuff at present. -- Sabre (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying that we should do away with the article solely because of the editor base, but I said that should only be a factor. Anyways, your agreeing to redo the article changes that. I think we should discontinue this discussion until the article is at the full potential; after you edit it. I apologize that I can't do it myself, but I primarily focus on music article; the only video game article I've worked on extensively is Prince of Persia, and Prince of Persia: The Fallen King, and both of those articles are currently sub-par, as editing a video game article, I find, it completely different than a music article. -- The Guy complain edits 21:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't have time to read the whole discussion, but I'd disagree with the merge! Thanks! Fin©™ 14:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed clean-up
I see the proposed clean-up still hasn't happened. As I've now edited more game articles, I'll help where I can with this effort, but come on. Little has happened in the time span of six months. -- The Guy complain edits 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Explosion in the intro
I'd like to point out that the explosion at the beginning was not just an explosion, but a nuclear experiment in Manhattan Project, Los Alamos, New Mexico. Manhattan Project's objective was to create the first A-bomb.

Manhattan Project ended in around 1945-1946 after successfully creating the first nuke. In those days, an actual mock-up of a town was used to test the practical blast yield of an atomic bomb.

Note that in the explosion scene, the blast yield could destroy a town and results a mushroom cloud. Both are the trademark of a nuclear blast. There was also the trefoil symbol on the fence in the scene to warn people about radiation, indicating that the area was intentionally closed-off. And New Mexico, the location, plus the town, and the year 1945 are mentioned in the scene.

I'd also like to point out that 1945 is during WWII. During that period, there was no such big blast on US soil, or anywhere else, before Manhattan Project. So this blast can't be anything else but that.

For the discussion's sake, you can see the vid of the intro here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoiC0cJYZ5U

Anthonydraco (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)