Crystal Dynamics confirms upcoming Lara Croft reboot will feature a head-to-head mode.
Next year's Tomb Raider reboot will not be a single-player-only affair. Crystal Dynamics global brand director Karl Stewart recently revealed via Twitter that the game will in fact ship with a multiplayer mode.
This was first speculated when United Kingdom retailer GAME listed multiplayer as a major feature for Tomb Raider. The details have since been removed, but it was suggested that players would be able to control Lara's shipmates or Yamatai scavengers in a variety of modes.
First details on Tomb Raider's multiplayer mode will be revealed in Official Xbox Magazine's January issue, due to subscribers this week.
What a shame...another one bites the dust. Seems that the games I grew up with are constantly destroyed. My list is getting smaller by the day with such announcements. Pitty...
It's sad that Tomb Raider always had such a strong personality yet felt the need to borrow from the 'kid in the street' that is uncharted. Sad, really sad.
Good luck with that, I hope Far Cry 3 still beats the aspects of this game. If Tomb Raider does it better then its fine because the way this reboot is, has earned my respect since the great TR classics. I'd like to see this reboot take me to deep caves etc. The multiplayer will have to really be of something really great since Far Cry 3 has co-op and multiplayer. I plan to get this game..
Games keep getting shorter and shorter, with endings that are rushed or vapid. More story line is left in later DLC then the 2nd half of most adventure games.
Least we keep getting high quality, fun, engaging multiplayer that add great value, and makes your purchase worth more. LOL I cannot even type that with a straight face.
Really unless a game is dedicated multiplayer Gears, COD, Halo, etc
All of the added multiplayer is just weak and worthless.
Wow this new tomb game supposed to have 12-15hours of gameplay - I mean I know it is not an rpg but they could at least give use some more gaming hours and more quality during that time.
Yet another game that doesn't need multiplayer gets multiplayer.
Am I the only one who wishes devs would focus on doing one thing well, either multiplayer or singleplayer, instead of diluting the experience by TRYing to do both?
Or, they could go the Minecraft route, there's no real difference between multiplayer and singleplayer, except the number of people involved.
Creating a multiplayer mode is now a good way of securing more sales which would otherwise be lost to those who illegally download and crack the game.
@thibgiffard You don't really know much about pirates, do you? They create their own servers to play MP, so your theory doesn't fly at all.
@thibgiffard Yup, they'll all be pirates, and there aren't as many pirates as companies try to make it out to be.
However, MP does not effect sales or piracy, because pirates will pirate just for the heck of it, they never intended to buy the game in the first place.
Another thing I wish companies would do, instead of worrying so much about pirates, and treating all their paying customers as pirates, they should make things better for their paying customers, giving them more incentives to actually pay for the game.
MP isn't the way, because, as I said, pirates can make their own servers, which will probably be active even after the official servers shut down.
This is stupid, especially if it's some generic deathmatch. This is why Bioshock Infinite will be a great game, because the developers disposed of multiplayer in exchange for a better campaign story :)
I'm assuming this will be more like co-op game play and not really player-vs-player deathmatch. Whatever the case, I won't be buying it on day one. It looks good, but I'm pretty broke after the holidays and still have other great games like Dishonored, Borderlands 2, Sleeping Dog, Dragon Dogma, Dark Souls & Witcher 2 to play. Tomb Raider can wait.
Why are so many games including mp when it flat out looks ridiculous, c'mon man follow irrational games who say screw mp we can create a top tier game through something more meanignful...a story.
Staff-Meeting-Room conversation : "Hmm, gamers seem to be unhappy with our boring, short, fully linear cinematic quick-time-event experience, what can we do ?" -> "Quickly cram in multiplayer to justify the required uPlay account activation while we're at it" -> "Great idea, oh and you 2 over there, how's that recoloring of clothes coming along which we'll be selling as overpriced post-release DLCs ..."
I saw that coming a mile away and will be enjoying you not meeting your sales expectations.
That's what you get for not listening to what your customers actually want.
It's not like nobody told them that even their 2 year old E3 "demo" looked boring as hell, they chose to ignore that precious feedback, so let them fail.
I've got my popcorn ready.
i believe it'll be more like @roboticsun said, but i remain skeptical about it, skeptical until they release/reveal some multiplayer footage
Okay everybody, shoe-horned multiplayer is getting ridiculous now - if we want it to stop; we need to stop buying used games (particularly used copies of relatively NEW games... which is stupid anyway- what do you save, like $4?) - and support significant single-player DLC. Adding extra campaign stories is the best idea developers utilize to prevent gamers selling their copies (Harley Quinn's Revenge is a good example of this) and I think most of us prefer resources being spent post-release to help us get more miles out of single player games we like, to having a full featured multiplayer suite that some of us will spend a week on, but most of us won't even touch. Developers, if you're not going to make multiplayer that can stand on its own alongside the campaign, to the point that people can argue over which is the actual focus (Halo and Killzone are good examples of this), spend more time/money making the campaign something the we do not WANT to sell!
@grey_fox1984 so youre already assuming that the multiplayer for this game was just thrown on? how about we wait till its release to rip it apart
ps: not buying used games isnt gonna do a damn thing
There's nothing WRONG with having multiplayer in a game, but it does make you wonder just what exactly they will do with it. I'm guessing it won't be Team Deathmatch or anything, so maybe some Co-Op could be fun
Why do game developers feel the need to include multiplayer modes in games that don't need multiplayer?. I don't mind, but I'll just be really pissed if the main game is buggy, short or otherwise if more focus is placed on the multiplayer aspect
I WOULD LOVE to have a mode where you race to loot a number of different temples with enemies that react differently each time. Maybe you wait up a bit and the guards will rush off to fight the other player. (Think a version of Rainbow Six Vegas 2's Terrorist Hunt where you start on (randomized) opposite sides of the map and rush to recover a treasure from the center.)
i just hope the multiplayer mode's not : whom ever reaches the bow through jungle wiinnssss! who got more dear killz?
leaderbord: dear headshots, dear legshots. dear disembowelment & etc !!!
@PouyaDH I saw rabbit :D
@pycho22solid Absolutely. The only bad thing is if they will release too much paid DLC. People don't need to play the multiplayer ad if it's because the online achievements/trophies they should check their priorities again. (We should play a game for the fun, for the characters, for the story,...).
Exactly, it is just a bonus, if some people want to focus on that aspect more then others then that is thier business. Not all gamers are focused on stories and characters, just look how well COD sells. Even the single player story in COD is so contrived, it is almost impossible to enjoy. Just like different people like to collect different things, some people love thier achievements. You may not see the point of it, just as you may not care for coin, stamp or doll collecting. My point being, everyone thinks differently and enjoy different things.
@Lordcrabfood When some people play games like Hanna Montana or others and they don't care about it, it's not playing, it's an obsession of earning a lot of virtual numbers. I don't care if people play just for that, but take a look on some achievements websites, a lot of people there don't like multiplayer because the trophies are too hard to get. I didn't say that achievements are bad but they are just a bonus. I didn't say it's the correct way but again, a game is way more than just earning a trophy !
While Mass Effect 3's multi-player was okay, it didn't need it, like AT ALL.Could any of you guys manage to do me a solid and confirm to me whether the theory that this is yet another game that really doesn't need a multi-player mode in it. I feel like this is both unneeded and unwanted.
@TorMasturba Yes, I have to agree. The MP in ME3 was okay but it didn't really impress me that much. I played it with a few players in various countries and communication was good but the missions were really of no challenge. I went to every one of them and after a while it got so boring it just wasn't as entertaining as I had hoped they would be. Especially since there really wasn't that many to play.The only cool thing about it all was that I could play as any race or sex as an Adept,Engineer,Infiltrator,Sentinel, Vanguard or Soldier with all the powers that go with it. And the choice of weapons was fare, but I wished I could have had better choices. No, I don't think MP is needed for this game.But if they wanna do it, let 'em. We'll all see if it was worth it or not.
Content you might like…
Users who looked at this article also looked at these content items.
Avalanche Studios co-founder says developer's ambition is for action, not moments that make players cry; steampunk-style game on hold. Full Story
- Posted May 15, 2013 11:33 pm AEST
4A Games creative director Andrew Prokhorov thanks Jason Rubin for telling the studio's story, but says, "We deserve the ratings we get." Full Story
- Posted May 17, 2013 5:44 am AEST