I was planning to add a full template for the Tomb Raider series myself at one time but it seems User:Hibana cut me short :) I switched the original red color to a more "Tomb Raider styled" yellow, added some breaks between games and added the movies in a separate section. I think we can expand this template more in the future, but for now it is useful enough. Cheers. -- Steerpike 22:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
| Tomb Raider series |
|---|
| Tomb Raider | Tomb Raider II | Tomb Raider III | The Last Revelation | Tomb Raider: The Lost Artifact | Tomb Raider Chronicles | Tomb Raider: Curse of the Sword | Tomb Raider: The Prophecy | The Angel of Darkness | Tomb Raider: The Osiris Codex | Tomb Raider 2: Quest for Cinnabar | Tomb Raider 3: Elixir of Life | Tomb Raider Legend |
| Tomb Raider movies |
| Lara Croft: Tomb Raider | Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life |
To User:N. Harmonik: where do these titles come from?
- Tomb Raider: The Lost Artifact
- Tomb Raider: Curse of the Sword
- Tomb Raider: The Prophecy
- Tomb Raider: The Osiris Codex
- Tomb Raider 2: Quest for Cinnabar
- Tomb Raider 3: Elixir of Life
If they are simply expansions on the regular games I see no need to add them in this template. Could you clarify this for a minute? -- Steerpike 17:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)\
- Sorry it took me so long to reply. The first one's for the PC, the second one's (about Lara being cursed by a cut received from a sword) for the Game Boy Color, the third one's for the Game Boy Advance and the last three are all for mobile phones. I got this information from GameFaqs. N. Harmonik 15:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I see. I suppose we should include them in the table then, but it might look a little confusing to add them in with the regular games. I guess they're not considered part of the main "canon" of the series? Either way The Lost Artifact is an expansion to Tomb Raider III and is mentioned in that article. -- Steerpike 15:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Its good that the tombraider article has got infomation on all the spin off games.
I decided to split the main series' games into eras. This will facilitate navigation between games and will put order into the different circles of development of Tomb Raider games. The first is the Classic era, which contains from Tomb Raider 1 thru 3; the second era, containing from The Last Revelation thru Angel of Darkness; the third era, containing from Legend thru Underworld; and the fourth era, which begins with the new reboot of Tomb Raider set to be released in 2011.-- Hahc21 ( talk) 04:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I like the three-era design. However I would name them after the developers, meaning "Core Design Era", "First Crystal Dinamics Era" and "Second Crystal Dynamics Era" (or Crystal Dinamics Reboot, I dunno). If you add a fourth era at all, you should still keep the first five games together. AoD was supposed to start a new trilogy, which didn't happen. So if there should be an fourth, it should solely contain AoD.
87.174.211.241 (
talk) 19:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well AOD didn't start a new trilogy so we don't add an "era" solely for that game. I agree with the way it is now. —
Mike
Allen 01:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. But I still vouch for a change in the name of the eras. "first", "second" and "third" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Core Design and Crystal Dynamics seem good, but I dunno how to name the third era.
178.203.20.49 (
talk) 20:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with this change:
[1]--
TudorTulok (
talk) 19:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I do not agree with naming the eras from the developers perspective. I, who originaly modified the template and created the division of titles in eras, did it considering the release span of the games. The first release span contained from Tomb Raider to AoD (1996 to 2003). The second historical span begun with Legend and ended with Underworld (2006 to 2008); then , the third is about to begin with Tomb Raider (2011). It is not about the developer but the continuity of the releases and the continuity of the history between the games.-- Hahc21 ( talk) 16:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with this change:
[1]--
TudorTulok (
talk) 19:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. But I still vouch for a change in the name of the eras. "first", "second" and "third" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Core Design and Crystal Dynamics seem good, but I dunno how to name the third era.
178.203.20.49 (
talk) 20:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well AOD didn't start a new trilogy so we don't add an "era" solely for that game. I agree with the way it is now. —
Mike
Allen 01:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi again XD. I'm a very very great fan of Lara Croft and back in December '10 I designed the eras division of canon games into the template. I'm still a little confused about why shouldn't 'The Last Revelation', 'Chronicles' and 'The Angel of Darkness' be a solely era. The three games are related and they have no main connection with the first 3 games on the storyline. The Angel of Darkness was supposed to start a new trilogy based on what happened on The Last Revelation and the details told in Chronicles, even not taking into consideration many events in the first trilogy. So i'd like to be clarified in that matter! Thanks Hahc21 ( talk) 00:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
brawlhalla is not a Tomb Raider game, it uses Lara Croft as a skin in the game, by that logic you could add hundreds of games, but it's not fit for purpose
TudorTulok (
talk) 09:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
