Talk:Tomb Raider: Underworld

Blu-ray media

Has there been any confirmation by Eidos that this game will be released on Blu-ray, or has this been assumed from the platforms it will be available on? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 11:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

They haven't even 'officially' confirmed the title. I just wrote Blu-ray (and DVD) because of the platforms they've confirmed. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 17:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I figured I'd just ask :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Logo

I'm not sure that is the actual logo that Eidos have chosen for the game; it's more likely to be fan speculation ... 77.102.212.40 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that it's not the official logo. Until CD gets back into the office tomorrow, they're not confirming anything. The logo was uploaded to the website they obtained (which is not online right now.) Someone downloaded it off their offline site somehow and shared it with the world. It could change. Additionally, the image that goes in the infobox should be the boxart, not the logo. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Deus Ex 3

There is no proof, that Deus Ex 3 will be using old TR:A engine. Stephane D'Astous only said, that it will be "Crystal Dynamics engine", no details. I've removed the reference. PS. Heh. Someone was very quick in reverting.--153.19.192.241 (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading the original interview (http://www.developmag.com/interviews/104/QA-Stephane-DAstous-Eidos-Montreal), Stephane agrees when the interviewer says it will be the Tomb Raider engine. That, and do you know of any other Crystal Dynamics engines that have been released recently? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That sentence states, that the engine of Deus Ex 3 will be Tomb Raider: Anniversary engine and not the one powering TRU. The reference link doesn't support it. Both companies (Crystal Dynamics and Eidos Montreal) are owned by Eidos and are likely to share resources. We can also think about something like Pascal's Wager. If we delete the words "and Deus Ex 3" and DX3 really uses TRA engine, the article is still truthful. But if they stay and DX3 is on TRU engine, then the article is wrong. Therefore, I think they should be removed.--153.19.192.241 (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I wasn't deliberately quick. I just happened to spot and revert your edit while on one of my frequent trawls though my watchlist. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How can they be using an engine (TRU) that hasn't been fully developed yet — if it's even being developed at all? Especially since they refer to having a fixed technology base as really helping out in keeping team size (and therefore costs) down. Can't be a fixed technology base if it's still in dev. Here are some other sources on the matter:

• "D'Astous also revealed that Deus Ex 3 would utilise Crystal Dynamics's Tomb Raider engine, last seen in this year's Tomb Raider: Anniversary." IGN

• "Eidos Montreal has announced that Deus Ex 3 will use a modified Tomb Raider: Legend engine which is owned by Crystal Dynamics, an Eidos-owned studio." Fudzilla

• "Eidos Montreal's recently announced Deus Ex 3 will use a modified version of the engine created by Eidos-owned sister studio Crystal Dynamics for Tomb Raider: Legend (PC, PS2, X360)." ShackNews

Seeing as the source in the article as well as all others took the interview to mean the existent TR engine by CrystalD (aka. the one used in Legend and Anni), then Wiki should report it, seeing as it is a relevant piece of information and not trivial.

Pascal's Wager does not apply to Wiki for two reasons: 1) Because unreleased video game info can change rapidly. If we were to not write down any info that could possibly turn out to not be true, then no articles about unreleased video games should exist at all. Just recently, Eidos was saying this game was exclusive to PS3, 360, and Windows. Well, turns out that wasn't true. All we can do is look to the most recent information available and report it. 2) Because Wiki operates based on a policy of verifiability, not truth. If it turns out to be wrong, fine. But until that is shown to be the case, all we can do is report what others say, even if they may be wrong. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've logged in. Well, when I deleted three words I was reverted. Maybe when I delete the whole paragraph, my changes will stay. Crystal Dynamics has confirmed, that the engine, on which Tomb Raider: Underworld is built is just a modified version of the engine of Tomb Raider: Legend. To back it up:

We sat down with Creative Director Eric Lindstrom and Lead Programmer Rob Pavey and let them show off their new darling. "After Legend, we found that we hadn't exploited all of the engine's capabilities," remarks Lindstrom, "but we ended up building lots of new things into it for Underworld anyway." Working from a proven game engine is a huge advantage, but it carries with it the danger of stagnation. http://xbox360.gamespy.com/xbox-360/tomb-raider-underworld/849046p1.html --Nathan2000 (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at that, that doesn't seem to suggest either way - it merely says that they hadn't fully exploited the engine in Legend, that they have built lots of new things into Underworld, and while it is a huge advantage to use a proven game engine, it could lead to stagnation. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

They have built lots of new things into "it". Into the engine.--Nathan2000 (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, what the "it" originally referred to, we can't be sure, because they've split the quotation into two parts and may have omitted a section. It's equally likely he was referring to the series or, as Jam said, the game in question. Not to geek out on you, but mags like PC JEUX and Maxiconsolas confirmed a new engine, and here are some internet sources:

• "Extra details to the gameworld are also being built into Underworld, adding further visual gloss to proceedings, thanks to the introduction of the new game engine. TotalVideoGames
• VideoGamer.com: "What engine is the game being built on?"

     Sarah Van Rompaey (Senior Producer): "There's an all-new engine" VideoGamer

• Bill Beacham (External Designer, Eidos): "We've got a next-gen engine; we built it from the ground up" GameSpot

The early sources were saying it's not a new engine, but now that the later ones are coming out almost unanimously saying it is, it seems fairly certain that it is a new engine. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 16:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer all questions, the engine is based upon the Legend engine (and so was Anniversary), while most part of the new Underworld engine (especially the Xbox 360 and PS3 rendering codebase) was completely written from scratch, and most parts that weren't rewritten were massively altered. Also, while still being in development, the engine was also chosen to be used for Deus Ex 3 by Eidos Montreal. Now that Underworld is finished, for Deus Ex 3 and perhaps many other games using this engine to come, work will continue as it will never be feature complete due to new technological insights and specific per-game demands. .oisyn (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones

Is the part about Indiana Jones really necessary? It doesn't belong in the gameplay section anyway.--Legend Chronicles (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably not - I've removed it for the time being. I think it is mainly trivia, which is discouraged anyway. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay footage

Should something about the new underwater gameplay footage be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.211.92 (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw a forum thread for a video of that but the video itself was taken down before I could see it. That also means it's not a viable source... but this article probably has most of the information that could have been gleaned from that video.~ Dusk Knight 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Shorten Teaser Trailer???

Should we trim the teaser trailer info now - we don't need to know so much detail about it surely. Something along the lines of 'A teaser trailer was realesed detailing Lara destroying her mansion with a bomb.' Should be enough. Oh and can we yet state the ID of the voice in the gameplay trailer or is it specualtion until a cast list for the game reveals it? 86.150.78.172 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We will not be placing anything about the voice in the trailer until it is confirmed by an official source. It is possible that the other trailer information could be trimmed too - I'll look into it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Natla?

Should the return of the Natla character be mentioned? As the voice in a recent trailer was compared to Natla's voice in Anniversary, showing them to be identical.Super Badnik 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That is speculation, and should not be mentioned in the article without a source confirming it is Natla. Any such mention will be deleted if it doesn't have a reliable source. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 16:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There isn't anyone who can deny that the voice is natla. The voice is EXACTLY the same. Its pretty obvious. I even compared the trailer to Anniversary. It may be speculation, but it is definate; even without being confirmed... - Neutralle (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Until it is officially confirmed by Eidos or Crystal, then it is speculation, whether or not you believe it is Natla. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 15:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The game data which reads: 00:01:53:060_MED_Natla.MOV thus proving that IS Natala's voice. Also, it only takes a lil common sense to piece together the clue.

That's as OFFICIAL as you're going to get until 11/23/08.

SIGH ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.124.212 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How's this for size? http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=81583 - the screenshot is a tad dirty but there is no doubt that is Natla - the magazine that scren was in reveals that Amanda tries to revive Natla. Talk amongst yourselves. 213.166.17.13 (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the Natla info into the article - she is actually in the demo - but I commented it out. Please decide what to do with it. Ggctuk (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean she was mentioned in the demo?Super Badnik 17:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The demo does confirm several characters. It's not the easiest for everyone to check as it requires an Xbox 360 with Xbox Live or gaming PC, but it is official. Lara, Zip, and Alister are seen, while Natla and Amanda are mentioned only.~ Dusk Knight 05:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Tomb Raider: Underworld is game number 9 in the series

after 1/2/3/the last revelation/chronicles/the angel of darkness/legend/anniversary/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.225.68 (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Anniversary is considered a remake, so not an actual game in the series. The fact that it was previously known as Tomb Raider 8 also reveals that it is the 8th game in the series, not the 9th. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

However it is considered a PREQUEL to Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.124.212 (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

By who? Fans? Not reliable. CD/Eidos? Source it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 06:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the above poster is referring to Anniversary being a prequel, not Underworld.~ Dusk Knight 07:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that. We still need a valid source to back up this claim. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 07:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The "theory" that Underworld is game number 8 and not 9 is one that originated at fansites. Most of the reviews referred to Underworld as the "ninth game" or the "ninth outing" or the "ninth episode". Citing fansites as official sources is not Wikiepdia policy, is it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostercy (talk • contribs) 04:06, 12 March 2009

Agreed. It's the ninth game released, and the article claiming that it is the 8th game contradicts the same claim on the Tomb Raider: Anniversary page. I am thus restoring the designation of 9th. —Lowellian (reply) 22:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

9 is a great number. and this game is spectacular! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.4.113 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What game-engine is used?

...should be added to the info-box, since this game is very new in terms of graphics and physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.213.155 (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the game uses an all-new engine, there is no other game using it. Therefore the engine details don't need to be listed in the infobox (I don't think anyway). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Chill out !!!

All of you that wants to make this article exclusive, should chill out a bit. It's nice to have lot of trailers, infos and multimedia stuffs about a future game. Let some mystery around it! Just try to make an article for any person that reads it, not for the fans.

One more thing, I think the following paragraph should be no longer needed:

"It was announced in January 2008 that Tomb Raider: Underworld will be released in the fourth quarter of 2008, as opposed to the third quarter as was previously planned. In June 2008, it was announced that the game would be released in November 2008."

Tulok (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Levels section

Reading the section on levels, the last line states: "In Mexico, the level will feature a motorcycle part, which was shown on an IGN video." This is said just after mentioning the mini tutorial level. Is this statement refering to a Mexico level in the game, or when the game is released in Mexico they will have an extra section to the mini tutorial that includes the bike? This seems silly but it is just how I read it? Didn't want to alter in case that is what is meant. Dark verdant (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it means in the Mexico section of the game, although the statement is currently unsourced (and as such, will be removed shortly anyway). ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 17:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed level section per WP:GAMETRIVIA. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 18:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Push with grappling hook edit

The section regarding the grappling hook being able to push objects was edited to pull. Didn't want to change it back as I cannot look for a source whilst at work, but I think it should be push or at least push/pull. As i understand it from pictures I have seen, lara use the grapple hook behind object, pulls the wire so it is tight and then moves left or right, the wire then pushes against the object to move it. Maybe the section needs a slight re-word so it is understandable. Dark verdant (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mixed Reviews

Why no mention of the mixed reception? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.72.148 (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

you mean generally well received, it averages and 8 or so on metracritic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the reviews so far have been 70%-90% which is ussually classed as positive.Super Badnik 13:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the Reception part is overtly biased. The game averages at 75% on Game Rankings, which is very different from "extremely positive". Kaminari (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

However it isnt mixed, its positive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• According to who? Someplace else (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the lead of that section to use the Metacritic analysis of the reviews. I've also quoted their basic explanation of the individual metascores, as we probably should not be interpreting the numbers ourselves.~ Dusk Knight 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Someplace else (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete it!

I think that even if the next information has its source, it's no correct at all:

There are pieces that do not loop, meaning they will only play one time and will be triggered on specific events. The score is made more of musical fragments, similar to the first five games of the Tomb Raider series, and there will be less constant music than in Legend.

Thank you. --TudorTulok (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Holdback of reviews under 80/100 section?

http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/11/21/uk-tomb-raider-underworld-reviews-under-810-silenced-until-monday/

Anyone think this could be added? 99.140.201.47 (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think we need a few more reliable sources to back it up. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 09:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Im not so sure about this. GamesRadar says that this has been denied while this source suggests Eidos is quite open about this (if it even is true). And i haven't seen any 7/10 or less reviews suddenly appear.Super Badnik 13:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's discussed by The Guardian so it has been added to the article. I'm unclear why it was removed, so have added it again. Someplace else (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Francesca Genco - Trivia

You can always find connection between all stuffs around the world and you always know that you seriously influence people you might not even ever know. That's what I thought when I first found out that the beautiful voice featured in TR Legend and TR Underworld has some other performing predecessors. Thanks to Troels Folmann's musical project I know the name of the singer of that solo voice, from [1]. After that, my memory served me with some information, so I soon remembered of other several quite similar voices and these are:

• an old trailer form Diablo 2
• the Gladiator movie
• The Passion Of The Christ
• the new teaser trailer of Diablo 3
• some tracks from Apocalypto score

I would certainly call it a trend or style, I'm still not curios who is first in this experiment, or if it was rediscovered, or if it was discovered by two or more composers at the same time. I'm only curios where such kind of information would be useful, hope that someone is interested. Tomb Raider take a small part in this new trend, I believe. --TudorTulok (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

One more thing would be that probably the style could be called oriental modern adapted as Lisa Gerrard and Francesca Genco are oriental in style, but I still can't connect the movies and games together, but maybe it' all about a feeling, and not a music style, anyway... it's beautiful that the oriental mourn is widely used. --TudorTulok (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Poor referencing in this article

I'm surprised that Wikipedia allows citation of the fan site www.tombraiderchronicles.com as a "independent" source for quotes from Eidos (refs 4,13,16,21,32,34,36-39,52). Isn't that just like Eidos citing itself as a source, given that nearly everything on www.tombraiderchronicles.com is a handout from the Eidos marketing and PR departments? I thought Wikipedia applyed a higher criterion for supporting evidence. This article should neither be an advert for one fansite - quoting one fansite a lot doesn't make that site a "good source" and creates a sort of "self-fulfilling prophecy" as to the site's importance and credibility - nor a forum for Eidos representatives. If you need to quote Eidos, do it from an official Eidos site. Ostercy (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I swear you just have it in for TRC :p Anyway I tend to agree with you. Apart from the discussion on Tomb Raider's talk page over the linking to TRC, I do not believe it should be used to cite a source, especially if the information on the site is just copied or gathed from Eidos itself. Neu_tralle 15:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you really do have it in for TRC. If you want to go through the article and replace the sources with official ones, be my guest. As it stands, I don't see anything wrong the TRC sources. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 09:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have it in for TRC, but I don't see why it isn't just another fan site. There seem to be people editing Wikipedia who seem determined to use it to try and make TRC more important than it is, and to boost the traffic to that site using Wikipedia as a portal. The rules of Wikipedia have been used to remove links to other fan sites that I have quoted in the past, and I don't see why there should be a double standard. As for going through the article replacing or deleting the citations, I think that is the job either of the people who put the fansite citations there in the first place, or of the self-appointed Tomb Raider experts who spend so much time on the Tomb Raider pages telling the rest of us what should or should not be included. You're either the guardians of TR lore or you aren't.Ostercy (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If you are complaining about such a thing and think it should be changed, but others are not, then you should be the one to carry out these changes, or not complain at all. Neu_tralle 17:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "TR lore" has anything to do with citations. As you claim, if TRC are just re-writing Eidos press material, then they're as close to "TR lore" as you can get (without citing these press releases, but presumably only certain people get to see those?) The official Tomb Raider site has been cited a few times in the past. If you don't agree with the referencing, the onus falls on you to correct it, not to get others to do it for you. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll take your advice. I'll try replacing citations that go via a fan site to an Eidos site, with a link straight to an Eidos site. However I suspect that my alterations won't hang around long. If they don't - after all I'll be applying Wikipedia's own rules - it will be interesting to ask why my corrections aren't kept. So where are the references, exactly? When you open "edit" on this page, all you can see is the tag "reflist2". How do I access it?

So here are the replacements I'd make if I had access;

4. http://tombraider.com/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.488

13. http://www.totalvideogames.com/Tomb-Raider-Underworld/preview-12167.html or http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/unions/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26118108&union_id=15306

16. http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=26424298&union_id=2131

21. http://www.trademork.com/tomb-raider-underworld/

32. This link, apparently about the Beneath The Ashes release date, leads to a fan site at which - when you click on "Eidos Interactive" on the page - leads to a "Eidos Press Vault" site owned by the same fan rather than to Eidos Interactive. Alternative links to more general computer news sites that report the same news include; http://www.gamershell.com/companies/eidos/545908.html or http://uk.xboxlive.ign.com/articles/916/916411p1.html

34. same problem as 32.

36. http://www.tombraider.com/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.557

37. http://www.tombraider.com/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.561

38,39. references about the delay of Beneath The Shadows release - there are many general computer news sites that reported this http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/3331/tomb-raider-underworld----beneath-the-ashes-dlc-delayed or http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2009/02/lara_croft_breaks_her_date_to_go_beneath_the_ashes-2.html

52. http://www.bafta.org/awards/video-games/nominations,664,BA.html

Ostercy (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

These are my opinions of the sources you have provided:

4, 36 and 37 are fine to replace as they are official sources. 52 is also fine as it's an official source from BAFTA. 13, 16 and 32 should be fine to go with IGN/GameSpot links. 21 - looks like a "fan site" to me - can you find a more official source? 38 and 39 should be OK with one of those two although I know nothing about either site.

In terms of actually updating the references, you can't change the References section - you have to find the section where the original reference is (click the number) and then edit it inline there. Don't forget to use proper reference techniques - don't just replace the reference with the URL (see WP:CIT for details). ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 09:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Locations section

I have added a Locations section to the article. I recently noticed there is not a listing of the locations Lara visits. This information can only be read by reading the full plot which can spoil the details for many people hence the reason for creating this section. Feel free to expand upon this. Neu_tralle 20:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment as of 2009-06-16

I've rated this article C-class for a few reasons:

• The lead feels really short for an article of this size.
• Outside of the plot, several paragraphs are unsourced.
• The locations section really doesn't need to be spelled out like it is. A single paragraph discussing briefly the locations visited is a better alternative. This section would do better too combined with the previous Characters section, which could use a summary of the characters in the game besides Lara Croft: remember, write the article for folks that have no idea what a game is.
• Listing the motion actors isn't necessary, and the voice actors would better be covered next to their related characters in the aforementioned characters summary paragraph. As it is that block breaks the flow of the article.
• Almost the entire Development section has several choppy paragraphs. Combining them or bulking them up would do the article some good.
• The DLC parts could probably be summarized together a bit better.
• Sales could be put under reception, as it is Reception.
• That citation style note is right.

The article is off to a good start, but right now it's a solid C. It definitely needs some work before it can reach B-class and beyond. However I think it could be done in a short period of time with the right dedication. Good luck.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture

For a few months, this picture has been a subject of contention between editors. For now, I've taken it off the page until consensus can be reached. Please reach it here. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem? --Mike Allen 00:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know. I think I came in around the middle of all this. These diffs show what I know of the conflict: Removed, added, added, added, removed, added, and removed. Obviously those aren't all of the diffs, but those have the most relevant edit summaries that I know of. Also, see this thread on Super Badnik's talk page. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a poor excuse to exclude it from the article. It's not like the article has 10 non-free images on the page, in fact, it has NONE. That image demonstrates the improved graphics on both the environment and Lara. However, I would like to find a better image than that, that shows more of Lara, if possible. --Mike Allen 00:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The image does not meet the non-free content criteria because it doesn't illustrate anything that can't be described in text (just saying that the graphics were improved) and therefore is not necessary. Specifically, this image alone doesn't prove that graphics were "improved" from any baseline, and we don't just add non-free images for the sake of having more images. If you disagree, you can start a thread at WP:Non-free content review to get more outside opinions, but I firmly stand by my position that the picture is not necessary in the article, and it doesn't help that Super Badnik clearly doesn't know anything about the image use rules anyway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that absolutely no images would be good for the article? --Mike Allen 08:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said that (but thanks for dodging the actual topic of discussion and putting words in my mouth). Images are good, but non-free images need to meet strict criteria in order to be used, and just saying "images are nice" doesn't give you a free pass to misuse non-free media. Again, if you object, start a thread at WP:NFCR. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh ok. I asked a civil question. You know I have other things to do than debate on a useless image. Thank you. lol --Mike Allen 08:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So we agree that the image is "useless". I guess that settles it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

← Looks like the picture's going to be deleted tomorrow. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, i would like to point out that any actual image never gives any information that can't be explained through text, so according to that arqument wikipedia shouldn't have any images. Images are requested for articles to help better illustrate them, which is why pretty much every video game article has a screenshot. Super Badnik 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Who made the XBOX version?

It's not explicitly stated here. i find most games have the same developers for the PC, PS3 and XBOX 360 versions, and then another one for PS2 and Wii, and yet further developers for the iPhone, NDS, etc. Children of the dragon (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 10:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I already see several issues in the lead. One is that "On 25 May 2009, it was announced" was not updated. There is too much content about the releases. The lead should summarize the most important parts of the text, but currently it doesn't. There is no "release" section. Gameplay section was not summarized in the lead. Downloadable content too.

 Done Rewrote the one section, removed unnecessary detail, summarized gameplay & DLC and added "release" section.--WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

1. In the Gameplay section you did not introduce the actual gameplay, eg just the differences from prior installments. What if others did not play those games?

 Done Removed comparisons to previous instalments, changed a bit of info, added screenshot.--WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

1. 2nd section of Music is unreferenced

 Done Removed unsourced material. Looked and found citation and reference links for others.--WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Fix this and I will continue--Kürbis (✔) 10:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

   Wow, much better now. However, the plot is too large and should be trimmed. Three paragraphs will suffice; avoid too much in-game details and summarize the content.

 Done Plot shortened to 3 paragraphs.--WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Is the Characters section needed? It is not very long and could be merged with the plot section.

 Done Removed this section. Characters merged into the plot section, with interwiki links.--WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

1. The Music section is a bit short. Try describing the recording, the musical style, etc. Something like in XIII (video game) :).

Currently trying to find reference links/source to improve section.

1. In the tracklist, normally prepositions such as "of" are written in lower case. Ensure the titles are correct.--Kürbis (✔) 17:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done--WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some references are incomplete

   Use a consistent style, eg there are at least three different formats of "Gamespot"

   Something like "Uk.pc.ign.com" can be just "IGN". Same with Gamespot and other

 Done --WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

1. References such as 51 have no publishers--Kürbis (✔) 17:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done --WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Perhaps add screenshots

 Done

1. Overall: Good article

   Pass/Fail:

Thank you :)--WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The VGReviews box is dominated by two aggregators essentially saying the same thing, and yet the scores for GamesRadar, IGN and Nintendo Power, which you've quoted in the text - aren't listed. You list the PS2 Gamerankings score even though its based on 1 review. I would drop GameRankings altogether. The Orange link is broken, and is a terrible source, regardless of its reliability. - hahnchen 22:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Removed GameRankings section and Orange review. Added IGN, Nintendo Power and GamesRadar into the VGReviews box.--WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Revised Sales Figures

I was looking through some sales figures and calculated that to date, the game has sold over 3 million copies. Discovered this from the website "vgchartz"

https://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=23921 https://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=23915 https://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=21884 https://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=21885 https://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=32603

Each page is a different edition of the game, added together (excluding the DS version, as that appears to be a radically different game from the same cohesive version across other platforms), it comes out to about 3.04 million units. Unless I'm mistaken, or vgchartz is unreliable, I think we should update the 2.6 million sales figure in the article to 3, or "over 3 million".173.59.11.121 (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)