I honestly don't understand how they can unify all three timelines. Lara's parents are either explorers like her or aristocrats that disown her because she refuses to marry another aristocrat; Lara's mother either went through a Portal to Helheim and died there or died of cold when her plane crashed in the mountains (or she's alive like in the Classic continuity); she either has a personal motive to explore all those tombs, or she does it as a hobby / for profit (as she writes books about her adventures); she either has sidekicks back at the mansion or she doesn't. Most of the key events in these three timelines are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. I don't think they can have a single unique timeline without leaving important elements that some people may consider important and ending up pleasing nobody with a Frankensteinian monstrosity.
I'm guessing they're just calling it a 'unified timeline' as a very surface level description and because Zelda did something similar, but that in reality it'll actually just entail the sequel to the Survivor games being closer in style to the old games. It doesn't mean the older games will somehow all canonically take place in the future of the Survivor timeline, just that Lara will look and act more like her old self in the next game. Maybe some events from the older games will be referenced as having taken place similarly in this timeline, but not much more than that. Maybe they'll combine it with the timeline of the 'Lara Croft and ...' spin-off games? Haven't played those, so I don't know if any story contradictions already exist. Unless they're planning a multiverse type story à la Crisis on Infinite Earths, where actual parallel universes merge together, but I doubt that, lmao. (There was a mobile game where different incarnations of Lara interacted, though, so who knows, lol. There's a precedent for it.)
Building off of that-the sentiment that Survivor TL happens before Legend TL, her first kill from Anniversary doesn't hold as much weight when she spent years mowing down mercenaries and cultists, they'd definitely have to rework that or cut it completely unless they wanted to focus on how she sees him as a friend/rival/colleague I don't see it working the same
One thing you failed to mention is that both of Lara's parents are ALIVE in the original timeline, and that they disowned Lara for refusing to marry the Earl of Farringdon and going her own way. They even make a brief appearance at the beginning of Tomb Raider Chronicles. So no, you can't just insert anything you like from the Core-era timeline elsewhere. It does not fit, and these are different Laras with different histories and motivations.
True and they don't play a huge role in the games like the other two timelines were the cutscenes are significantly built around parents. So, Crystal Dynamics cuts those few frames in Chronicles and rewrites the manuals and they're good. It's not the first time nor the last time this happens to a series.
I honestly find the parent dying/going missing stuff boring, the classic origin was more interesting. Ironically it’s also a more empowering backstory than the modern changes because it was her choice to do what she does because she found it fun. I love the films but I definitely blame them for them changing it in Legend (they even lifted the design of the house from the films and added Lara’s flipping moves so it was likely the inspiration for that too).
@@precurrentgaming5300 In what platform the manual talks about her parents? In my Chronicles manual, all it says is: "A tragic loss... I is a cold, dark, rainy day. With the memorial service for Lara Croft over, her old friends retire to the Croft Mansion. As they sadly collect their thoughts, they reminisce about Lara's past adventures... Meanwhile... Hundreds of miles away, Werner Von Croy co-ordinates the frantic dig - searching for answers buried deep beneath the Egyptian desert..."
@@Frey_2026in the beginning of the chronicles there are a man and woman walking into her status looking at her it must be her parents then later we see her three friends talking about her and her adventures along the game
I would be amazed if they actually remade everything and cleared their name for AOD to actually redo it completely and finish that trilogy. But idk if that is really feasable with Square and the state of the gaming world rn
AOD had an interesting story imo and I wouldn't mind seeing it done well, but realistically I don't think they will remake everything, but who knows. Capcom is basically remaking everything in RE. TR could be the same.
What folks don't understand is that this timeline is rebooted, essentially the last tree games are equivalent to the prequels in Star Wars. As far as i know the goal is blend the new games in the older games. So probably the next instalment would be the very first game of the franchise, with this Lara and the old timeline.
Just a thought - but would it make more sense to put Legend and Underworld after TR3 (i.e. bump TR2 and 3 forwards to be after the original). This explains why Croft Manor doesn't feature in TR4, and sets her mindset onto the path of isolation that TR4, 5 and then Angel of Darkness would extrapolate on. There's nothing in Legend that feels it would need to be before TR2 and 3 - in fact its a natural evolution for her to build a team around her after TR3, which then Underworld kills forcing her to go solo for TR4 and then Zip cameo in chronicles.
"A Friend Remembers", I have to thank you. For a year now, I have been trying to create a single timeline with a coherent story. And thanks to you, I now know what I have been missing. I mean, I already knew I had to create a story arc for Lara, I just didn't know what it should be. But now I do. Her story, should be that of a woman who tried to gain control over her life by becoming the badass tomb raider we know, only to feel like she lost it because of all the loss she witnessed over the course of her adventures. At the end of her story, she understands that the pain she went through over the course of her adventures, even if unfortunate, was only a natural part of it, and her life was filled with purpose due to those adventures and the lessons she learned from them. But like every living being, it's time for her to sit back, relax, and pass down whatever knowledge she acquired to the future genarations. Maybe by writing books.
Survivor Lara as of now is 29, classic Lara was 28 in 1996, the first Tomb Raider and Anniversary states that, so it’s impossible to unify the timelines when the dates don’t add up, and let not forget that they look nothing alike, Survivor Lara is a whole different person personality and feature wise, The legend timeline was a soft reboot or reimagining, but they kept everything cohesive vs Survivor where they completely change everything.
@@superpermabannedDane Not asking for the twin guns to be the main weapon but they are an iconic part of her character so it would be nice to see them again. Even though they are 'unrealistic', you know, unlike undead Sun Queens and such. ?;- )
I agree Natla is a good villain but I don't want to see her return. She's already been in 4 out of the 12 main Tomb Raider games, and for me that's enough.
In the unpatched ending to Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Lara has a letter on her desk sent by Natla, sent from 'Scion Tower'. this was taken out and replaced with the different ending but you can still view it on youtube
Just look how Lara looks at Underworld (2008) How beautiful - sexy - awesome - cool - and realistic for a 2008 game I think they could have done better job with Lara that we have nowadays due to the fact that the graphics have involved so much
The Survivor Timeline would have to be Set in 1989 , 7 years Later, Lara Destroys Atlantis's Power station in order to Escape, Second game would then have be about finding the Truth about Atlantis and the Power of the Scion where she later comes across the Dagger of Xian and later in that same year taking back the Iris that both have something in relation to the Scion. Lara then returns to the ruins of the Atlantean Pyramid in "Unfinished Business" to take back the Scion to then discover its Origins from The Meteorite Artifacts that then lead to the Third game. The Scion Arc ends after Lara collects the Hand of Rathmore. The rest start to get personal Chronicles is preety much a loosely "Gold" expansion to TR4 but with cutscenes this time and not to officiently limited to the PC. While Golden Mask is the only expansion that isnt very canon rather than What could be possibly Lara's Dream like estate while stuck in the pyramid after events of TR4.
I thought that Jonah can sit in the manor and talk to Lara from his microphone like Zip. I saw Zip's character bio in TRL and it says Zip is a kinda chef like Jonah. Thats why i am thinking like that.
Honestly Legend and Survivor timelines can mesh well with minimal effort. Both feature a plane crash into snow, a Mother's "Death" and an obsessive Father who's dedicated to the Mother's revival which leads to his death. Pretty analogous. I'm curious how Unified will do it
For me the classic and the Legend series work pretty well together. Personally I never actually regarded them two distinct timelines. But I really hope they don't try to shoehorn the abomination the Survivor series is in.
I want a lighter and a less serious tone, and a Lara with a fresh feeling personality that matches it. With the unified timeline thing officially happening, i just hope they dont erase the Legend timeline.
Yes, there are things that do contradict Lara's oast in the original timeline, like the fact that her first ever adventure in the original timeline was at 14 years old in Cambodia with Von Croy, not at 21. So she would be more experienced and confident in TR 2013 if the timeline was unified
They could spin it to work, because the fact that she shadowed Von Croy doesn't mean she becomes a pro in that moment and couldn't struggle in TR 2013.
She was actually 16 on her adventure with Von Croy. Her first big outing is kinda the time she was in Ireland with the family butler, Winston. Here she has a supernatural encounter and aids a priest. This happens in Chronicles. Just a little bit before she adventures out with Von Croy.
I remember playing the original Tomb Raider Pentium 166Mhz or something around there. Its amazing how far it has come. Watching this took my through memory lane.
That is true and they don't play a huge role. A brief glimpse in Chronicles that most won't even recognize unless they've searched it and some manual references. Though manuals change. Just look at Capcom's Resident Evil manuals. People have been calling out minor changes since 1996. Capcom basically says, canon is what we say today, no matter the minor inaccuracies of the past. Crystal Dynamic's will likely do the same.
After surviving a plane in the Himalayas, a 21 year old Lara Croft, finds her sheltered and aristocratic life suffocating. She's disowned by her parents. Lara takes up travel writing to pursue her need for adventure. That is the back story to the original games. Such a brilliant tale, with Lara's independence on show. The reboots, bizarrely, had the soap opera and cliché melodrama of her various parentals issues mar the story.
@@maxking235 Also, the second movie had Lara with a boyfriend...and that totally goes against that change she had in the Himalayas. She craves adventure, not love, and is a one woman show. That's the Lara I want to see. The one who went against her family and polite society and chose the wilds to play in.
@@AerkiJyr Lara having had a previous love interest isn't in any way contradictory with her backstory in Core's timeline, but the whole nonsense about her being an orphaned archaeologist's daughter is.
i loved how og lara didn't need an origin story to be badass. it's such a boring trope that heroines start off weak and need suffering to become tough.
For a year now, I have been trying to create a single timeline with a coherent story. But finally, thanks to a comment here, now I know what I have been missing. I mean, I already knew I had to create a story arc for Lara, I just didn't know what it should be. But now I do. Her story, should be that of a woman who tried to gain control over her life by becoming the badass tomb raider we know, only to feel like she lost it because of all the loss she witnessed over the course of her adventures. At the end of her story, she understands that the pain she went through over the course of her adventures, even if unfortunate, was only a natural part of it, and her life was filled with purpose due to those adventures and the lessons she learned from them. But like every living being, it's time for her to sit back, relax, and pass down whatever knowledge she acquired to the future genarations. Maybe by writing books.
The next game after shadow is going to be the re-remake of tomb raider 1, because on a deleted scene of shadow, Lara have a letter from Natla talking about Scion, in my opinion TR 2 and 3 aren't too inportant since it's not too much personal for Lara, except that in Rise have easter egg of TR 2, when play Croft Manor in Rise Lara grab a Dragon statue who's the same Dragon of TR 2 and she says "maybe I can go there someday" she's talking about China, where's TR 2 principal location.
Instead of putting them all in a timeline, I think it would be so much more interesting if they put all 3 Laras in one Universe as 3 different people. So I asked and answered my own question: (I'll be referring to Legend Lara as LAU, this is also more of a fan canon and could more be interpreted as fanfiction) What if by unifying they meant putting all 3 Laras in the same Universe by relating them as sisters? Well it would be a mess but I TRIED to fix it It goes: Amelia and Richard live in the LAU Croft Manor 1968 Classic Lara was born 1975 LAU Lara was born 1979 TRC Black Isle (Ireland happened) 1984 Von Croy takes Lara to Cambodia LAU Lara and Amelia are on a plane and crash in the Himalayas, Amelia goes missing 1986 TRC Russia happens 1987 LAU Lara had an accident whilst gymnastic training and went into a coma 1988 Amelia came back with the Excalibur somehow but she couldn't let anyone except Classic Lara and Richard know, LAU Lara is still a coma 1989 Classic Lara was arranged into a marriage but she declined expressing she wants to adventure into the world, she gets disowned and kicked out of her house forced to move into Croft Manor At the same time, TRC Rome happens 1991 Amelia gets pregnant with Reboot Lara and together with Richard move into the secondary Croft Estate (Reboot Mansion) 1992 Reboot Lara is born and Classic Lara pays Richard and Amelia to be able to spend time/see her baby-sister. 1993 LAU Lara awakens from her coma and finds out Richard had another daughter, believing Richard had moved on and got another woman pregnant she cut ties with her father, moving into the LAU Mansion and only having distant contact with Classic Lara, Winston agreed to both work for Classic and LAU Lara 1995 TRC VCI happens 1996: TR1 and TRA happen (Classic Lara remained in the real world whilst LAU Lara was somehow altered into an alternative dimension for the time being until she somehow warped into the real world after TRA) 1997 TR2 happens and Reboot Lara is fascinated by Classic and LAU Lara, but more particularly with Classic Lara Classic Lara goes to the fountain of youth (unreleased tr4 gold) and accidentally turns 16 again, though aging up again she only turned 21 again. 1998 TR3 happens 1999-2000 TR4 happens and Lara gets buried alive in Egypt LAU Lara in an attempt to cover up Lara's death decided to claim to be Classic Lara, having survived Egypt, yet she gets massive backlash from the public and a funeral is held for Classic Lara (TRC opening) with Lara's parents and reboot Lara attending a few days later Lara is actually discovered alive after having crawled out of the Egyptian tomb that buried her alive. 2001. Amelia and Richard die, the funeral is held in secret and LAU Lara is not invited, only knowing Richard died but not attending his funeral out of anger, still not knowing amelia was alive. Tomb Raider Movie happens Classic Lara shares custody over reboot Lara together with Roth Late 2001 Classic Lara retires from Tomb Raiding, due to no longer being able to force herself to continuation her life expedition from the Trauma she faced in Egypt 2002 AoD Trilogy happens 2003 Classic Lara decides to un-retire from tomb raiding and tr2003 cradle of life happens 2004-2006: Revisioned Tomb Raider happens (whether it was part of Classic or LAU or both is up for interpretation) 2006: Legend happens 2008: Underworld happens 2009: Lau Lara has a mental breakdown over finding out Amelia was not dead and the Amelia she shot in Underworld was some zombie of a random abomination made to slightly resemble her mother 2013 TR2013 happens 2015: Rise and Shadow I tried to add some drama in between to fix the inconsistencies surrounding Lara's parents, which don't make any sense really, also Ana is missing but that's ok.
Interesting! As I read this, it got me thinking about 3 cousins with 3 different sets of parents born at different times going on adventures in the same world.
I don't think the Survivor games can fit with the others because Lara is far too different a character in those games, plus her past does not line up for so many reasons. As for the Classic and Legend timelines, in my head they are one, with Legend and Underworld simply taking place sometime after Angel of Darkness once Lara's name is cleared. One problem is that the backstories contained in the original PSX games' instruction manuals do not jive. For this, we must simply conclude that the Legend games make massive retcons to Lara's past, and that the information in those manuals is no longer canon. As far as I know, there is nothing in the games themselves that is not directly contradictory, at least not with a little imagination.
Despite the differences in the timelines, the order you put them in makes sense. I would be okay with the newest games being Lara's origin story as long as they did a remake of AoD and then continue the trilogy. That's a little risky to wish for though considering Crystal Dynamics' approach...
I believe it’s all one time line. Just each game is another story, and each game is obviously a different part of her life. In Underworld, Amanda makes a comeback from Legend, and Natla from the classic Tomb Raider from 1996. I also believe they’re all connected as well to the survivor timeline. If you don’t know by now, in the unedited/original ending of Shadow of the Tomb Raider, a letter appears that includes the name “Jacqueline Natla”. This just proves that the survivor series is just a back story of how she got to where she was in the classic games from 1996-2003, as well as Legand and Underworld. I also believe that in Tomb Raider 1-3, she’s a little older. Maybe 30’s. And same with Legend. Underworld I believe she’s in her early 40’s. That’s just a theory.
It’s the most reasonable mashup I’ve ever heard of. Please let’s hope in something like this. I waited almost 20 years for a sequel of TRAoD, I can wait other 10 for something really well done. Actually Anniversary Lara seems the most close to the reboot, plus in your vision she would kill Larson without the blink of an eye.
I mean, she did mention intending to look into the Dagger of Xian if you click on something in her home when exploring in I think Rise? Can't find a refernece to it but I remember finding something.
i think it would be perfect if "Tomb Raider 2013" is considered the born of Lara Croft as a survivor(followed by Rise Of the TR and Shadow of the TR). after years of training Lara becomes TR/Anniversary's Lara and the history continues in the others Tomb Raider that follow. ANYWAY they better do the new Lara with double guns,if they wanna keep this version of her😃
It's a pity that the developers of the Survivor timeline didn't connect it to the Legend timeline. In my opinion, two simple plot changes would have been enough. In the Rise of the Tomb Raider DLC, Lara finds out that her mother crashed in the mountains with the plane and that Lara's father brought the body home, leading him to fall into immortality myths. It could have been written so that Lara and Amelia crashed with the plane in Nepal. Lara's father then found Lara completely terrified and in shock, but not the mother. From Legend and Underworld, we know that she used the portal to Helheim. Because Lara was still so young and in shock, she couldn't remember afterwards and grew up without her mother while Lara's father tried to find the mother through various myths and legends. When Richard followed Norse mythology around Thor, he was killed in Thailand. The Survivor trilogy could have made the connection that Trinity or Dr. Dominguez killed the father in Thailand, and at the end of Shadow of the Tomb Raider, there should have been a hint that Natla Technologies appeared and was in contact with Trinity. This would fit with the Legend timeline where Natla said in Underworld that she killed Lara's father in Thailand.
I would be interested if they would remimaged the classic adventures Trinity becomes interested in Atlantis (or Natla just simply hires her) Natla hires Lara and promise she would help Lara with Trinity You go on these expeditions with a bunch of Natla’s goons At this point the story can go anywhere. Maybe you all eventually work together to defeat Natla, maybe Lara’s friend join her and have an epic showdown with Natla, maybe Lara in a shocking twist decides to work with Natla in the end for some reason I would like for the devs to go with this option since I never had the opportunity to play the classic TR games
Tomb Raider Legend was only ever a soft-reboot to begin with so it and Underworld could easily take place after the events of Angel of Darkness, however Tomb Raider 2013 was clearly a hard-reboot so fitting in the reboot trilogy would be more difficult, since the Survivor series is clearly an origin story you could have it take place before the first Tomb Raider/Anniversary but you would have to do a few retcons regarding the fate of Lara’s parents.
@@curious_one1156 it’s certainly doable with a bit of clever writing, we’ll just have to wait and see how the next game and the Netflix series handles it. Square Enix already has a basic timeline on their website, so they already have an idea of what order the games take place in.
I think all timelines in one is a whole new universe, like we have the classic universe, legend universe, survival and to combine all that its a new universe, that would make the most sense because classic games Play in the 90s and classic laras parents are still allive
I don't understand why you placed Legend and Underworld right after Anniversary and before TR2-6. Since 2006 fans know that Legend takes place few years after Angel of Darkness. And Legend takes place many, really many years after Anniversary/TR1. So after Shadow of the Tomb Raider TR Anniversary/TR1 should take place, then TR2-6, then Legend, Underworld and finally Lara Croft spin-off series.
Where does it say officially that Legend occurs after Angel of Darkness? I ask, because I honestly have never heard or seen anything that says that, but on the contrary. When I got my hands on Legend new back then, it was pretty clear that they wanted to distance it from the trainwreck of Angel. That's why they rebooted as a unique series not a sequel. Unofficially of course there are arguments for many different timeline sequences.
In Legend and Underworld Lara is using modern for 2006-2008 PDA, but in classic series she didn't use nothing like that, but she might, if these stories were set after LAU. That's why i guess that Legend and Underworld were the last stories
My guess is the first two series are connected because of similar game play and the fact that you find mythical/extinct creatures in both, but in the survivor time line it is alot more grounded and you see no depiction of mythical/extinct creature. The closest you get to this is the Boba yoga dlc, but that is just a hilusination.
but classic and lau/survivor are fundamentally different. in the former, she is disowned and she picks these adventures over her wealthy, aristocratic life, whereas in the latter, her whole motivation is to find her mother/finish fathers reaserch. different circumstances form the personality differently. i guess thats what the hardest part will be, making character development feel natural
But in the classics, we never really saw/heard from lara's parents, except in her background story(and that cuscene from TR5)-so even if they take one of the games and remake it, it may not change anything, becuase her parents were never there anyway
We don’t find any elements that say that she has been disowned by her familly and her parent are litterally absent from the original timeline. Whe don’t neither have lots of biographical elements
With how much of a wet blanket the new tomb raider is and how legends timeline and the original laras timeline had her as a badass with attitude as a child i dont see how you can relate them unless you intentionally skip out on parts we have been shown.
Hmm , I always remember her mom dying in a car crash and the journey Lara took back gave her the love of adventuring. I lso think it its more likely that they will remake the original games to make the games fit. I hope they redo Angel of Darkness and finish the trilogy
In order: 2013 Tomb Raider > Rise > Shadow > Legend > Underworld > Anniversary/TR1 > 2 > 3 > Last Revelation > Angel of Darkness. No need for Chronicles because it was a game full of memories. WHAT WE NEED is an Angel remake including the story of what happened in Egypt. Then, they can continue with seperate adventures just like the Classics. NO MORE dad mom or any emotional story please!
First, we get to witness a young lady named Lara Croft transform into the beloved Tomb Raider (2013, Rise, and Shadow) then she developes a bond for adventure and sport. Cue 2 and 3, where Lara takes part in independent, disconnected adventures. Then, she realizes something; the woman who her father attempted to resurrect was not Amelia, but rather, a doppelganger of her. The real Amelia disappeared in a portal leading to Helheim. The doppelganger was in fact generated by Jacqueline Natla, who saw potential in Lara Croft's abilities even as a child and planned to manipulate Lara into gathering magical artifacts for her later in life, before finally encountering Lara. Lara then sets out to find her mother. Then comes Legend, Anniversary (AKA Tomb Raider 1) and Underworld, the latter in which Lara finally defeats Jacqueline Natla for good and meets her doppelganger. After becoming aware of the fate that befall her mother, she continues to journey across the world. The Last Revelation is up next, and Lara dies at the end of the game unfortunately. Chronicles is a retelling of events from Lara's allies. Then, the doppelganger from Underworld would return as the new Tomb Raider, exhibiting loyalty towards the person who freed her, and the series would currently end with Angel Of Darkness.
I like the idea of TR2-TRAOD occurring after the Legend trilogy. Only problem with that theory is Croft Manor is completely destroyed in TRU. Could she have rebuilt it? Unlikely, seeing as all her material wealth and inherited/pilfered treasures were tied to that property. Plus, the manor in the Classic Trilogy contains small iterative changes between games, such as converting the ballroom into a gym, converting the hedge maze into a quad bike course, etc., which seems to imply simple renovations over a period of months, rather than a complete rebuilding of the entire mansion between TR1/TRA and TR2, which would have taken years and likely not resembled the original.
I'm personally not a fan of the current TR games. The original and Legend games are the only ones that truly exist as proper TR games. The Legend series feels like an extension of the original games, both in who Lara is, and gameplay. Not a fan of the Legend Croft Manor, but I can get past that due to the games being so well done. Even with minor discrepancies between the two storylines, they're minimal, and don't take away from the overall story being told. They flow and are believable. The current 2013 and newer TR games are very disconnected and feel like easy cop outs for the developers to make money off an established game title. The only way I can see the current versions redeeming themselves is to get back to Lara's roots from the 90's/early 2000's and bring THAT Lara back. This "new, origin" Lara doesn't make any sense when compared to the Lara I grew up with. I'm grateful for the release of the TRLE software, and all the effort fans put into creating fan made games (new games are still being created). It helps keep the Lara spirit alive!
Or we could just scrap the survivor series as cannon? Me, personally, am not a fan of the reboot series. Like you said, trying to intertwine the Legend and the classic Lara with the survivor Lara just contradicts the cannon way too much. If it was a MUST to intertwine the the 3 series into a timeline. I would rather much see the survivor Lara story line get adjusted to the fit the classic and Legend series. Not the other way around. That would be a major insult the OG Lara. :) Great vid! It really made me wonder what is next for Lara and the Tomb Raider series.
@@precurrentgaming5300 EXACTLY! 💯 Look at Capcom? They've already remade the first 3 Resident Evil Retro games. Breaks my heart seeing the Lara Croft I loved so much back in the day. Changed into something we can't even recognize anymore. 😭😭
@@StevieeRayy No they didn't. They remade Resident Evil 1 and they reimagined 2 and 3. Remake and reimagining are two different things. ruclips.net/video/QCG5UkJ1hgw/видео.html
@@giovannigiovanni.7220 LMAO?!?!? That's why you have 70 dislikes ,including me, on your video and everyone that commented is shredding you apart? Boiiii bye. 💅🏼💅🏼💅🏼💅🏼
Interesting video, but you've made one a huge mistake ;) Legend era takes place AFTER classic era, not before - it's canon. This is the proper chronology when we assume that reboot games are prequels: TR2013-Rise-Shadow-TR1 (and TRA)-TR2-TR3-TR4-TR5 (flashbacks)-AoD-TRL-TRU-LCGoL-LCToO
I’ve assumed the timeline is 2013->anniversary/1->tomb raider 2->Tomb raider 3->Tomb raider 4->5 if you count that I guess->angel of darkness->Legend->Underworld-> the Osiris duology, Rise and shadow are perfectly serviceable I guess but they don’t really service anniversary in a beneficial way. Even if you consider 2013 as the only canon game of that trilogy you could make the excuse that Lara refrained from killing after yamatai because she didn’t like that she liked her power on the island. And Larson reminded her of those horrors. Rise and shadow though? She would have no reason to shudder killing Larson. She’s killed armies of faceless mooks, and for less than him.
They should tweak the stories of the others games to fit survivor timeline in it. But im afriad they'll have a hard time connecting legend and underworld in it. Since its like the same premise but just her dad having different motivation. Connecting survivor timelime to classic timelime would be easy.
Hardly, the character has a completely different backstory, personality, look and motivations than the original lara. Shes couldnt be any more different.
We don’t need none of these time lines connecting, Survivor Lara is the worse version of Lara, her whole universe contradicts the classic and legend Lara Croft personality. The Survivor timeline is a reboot of the series and they should just leave it at that and move forward with that.
This. I don't understand why they're so hellbent on unifying the timelines. I'm playing TR2013 for the first time now, and frankly I don't like it at all story- and character-wise. Seems like a woke rehash orchestrated by someone who had issues with the original Lara. Thus far, it doesn't feel like a Tomb Raider game at all and there doesn't seem to be any reason at all why it should have been called one. They could easily have made it into another series, with a differently named character, and no one would ever have suspected it had anything at all to do with Tomb Raider.
Survivor Lara shouldn't be existed in the first place, so does the unborn Ascension as well. It destroys everything of what's make Lara Croft as one of the most iconic female game character and Tomb Raider series that survived through the time. This Survivor Lara has a completely different personality and will never grew up to be any close to LAU or OG Lara. You can't possibly change her character drastically to a complete opposite personality. Even human in real life also doesn't work like that. So unified the previous 2 timelines to this survivor timeline only make things worst and grew more hatred towards Survivor Lara.
Isn't Croft Manor destroyed in Underworld? So how could the classic games take place *after* that? Shouldn't Underworld be near the end of the timeline, with only stand-alone adventures where the manor doesn't appear set after it?
Basically, Tomb Raider Angle of Darkness did terrible. So, Eidos transferred development from Core Design to Crystal Dynamics around 2004 and essentially Legend was a reboot of sorts to revitalize the series vs a continuation of the original timeline which was running out of steam at the time.
Natla in TRU kinda looks like Ana from rise, so could it be that she’s just a resurrected version of Ana who’s there for revenge on Lara who was getting in the way of her trinity business 🤔
Fun fact: All three Laras we're born on Valentine's Day. The first Lara Croft was born in 1968, the Legend Lara was born in 1976, and the Survivor Lara was born in 1993, making her the youngest version of Lara Croft. The first Tomb Raider game is set in 1996 (obviously!), Angel of Darkness, the last adventure of the original Lara is set in the year 2003 when she was 35. Tomb Raider Anniversary is in 2007, Tomb Raider Underworld, the last main adventure of Legend Lara is set after Tomb Raider Legend, and Tomb Raider (2013) is obviously in 2013, so there is no way all the Tomb Raider games can exist in one timeline.
Please don't label the female Robin Hood survival trilogy as the TR origin trilogy. They just called the character Lara for more sales, no one would have noticed the "reboots" relation to Tomb Raider if they wouldn't have done so by naming it a Tomb Raider game.
@@curious_one1156 Not really. One is about shooting hundreds of enemies with a bow using a fearful character who just tries to survive somehow, while true Tomb Raider is about an athletic female with superhuman climbing abilities who can shoot with two guns at the same time and a badass mentality while exploring tombs at amazing places around the globe.
What I really want is for them NOT to unify the timeline. I want Embracer to hand Tomb Raider to a completely different development team that will just remake the classic games into a trilogy with 1 & 2 being a game, 3 and 4 being another and then the third game could be the AoD trilogy turned into a single game leaving Chronicles as a classic, untouched relic. Completely scrap Legend and Survivor timelines and bring Lara back to her glory days. Is this gonna happen? No. Will the new game be a mess hated by OG fans but probably loved by the general public? Yes.
AoD is debunked to be classic thanks to a cut cutscene showing she already was Emo when she fell instead of her normal light blue shirt. AoD is in the Emo timeline of itself.
what you said about Natla and Lara's mother-this is EXACTLY my fear realized. I think we have had enough of lara's family arc, and natla, as wonderful as she is(in both timelines) should be laid to rest, and not return every 10 years. it was said that the survivor timelnes and the core design games will be united, no one mentioning the legend tiveline-hopefully, thats the way it will be.
I hope they bring LAU into new timeline as well. Lara from LAU was Lara I grew up with (I was 5 years old when Legend was published). From my perspective only true Lara is LAU Lara. Without it, Lara is still not Lara, but some fake version of it. The same way those new Laras are fake Laras for you.
It would make sense if they were. When I began playing Tomb Raider games, I played Legend all the way down. I always viewed Lara as a woman in her late 20s to early 30s. For the survivor timeline, it makes sense. Lara usually doesn’t gain so many injuries, so the Survivor timeline makes more sense for it being her earliest days which you tell by her voice and youthful appearance.
You could possibly bridge classic and legend timelines but Survivor era is just too different. Not to mention the state of technology. Classic Lara was clearly rooted in the 90s and pre-social media/smart phones whereas Survivor era relies on the technology more readily available today. If they were going to bridge everything they should have just made Survivor Lara as the daughter of the classic version. I could reconcile the first two eras into a singular person but not the third.
Like in the Classics, the Anniversary timeline didn't directly state that Larson was Lara's first-ever human kill. But Larson's death affected her because she went over the moral line by not explaining to Larson Natla's intentions first before shooting him. So that's how it could be explained in the unified timeline.
@@corentinguillo5577 according to what I read the timing doesn't match cohesively for when Natla was imprisoned by the other leaders of Atlantis and then released for TR1 with Trinity's rise and there business with the Croft's. They could make it work. It just takes more re-writing.
@@precurrentgaming5300 Aaah I see! But yeah Natla had plenty of time to become a successful CEO between her defrosting and TR1/TRA. I can see them working around dates a bit more :) She doesn't have to have always been Trinity's big boss. She might have arrived late in the organisational
Great point about the Legend timeline. Although as a fan of the series since the beginning I feel like they should just somewhat retcon the Legend timeline entirely. I have nothing against those games per se, but I just don’t see a way around it. The suggestions you have made are cool and all but I’m honestly over Natla and Lara’s family as being the driving forces behind her adventures. I feel like we’ve seen so many versions of all these storylines and the LAU timeline is probably the most convoluted of them all (I thought it was a big mistake connecting Natla & her father, because as we can see now it’s made things difficult to unify the timelines going forward.) I would like them to do something like a time jump and as a way of unification, perhaps they could retell the story in the Last Revelation. It’s plausible Von Croy could have taken her on that trip in the survivor timeline. Obviously the story would need to change so it didn’t feel too much like Shadow, but I could see this being a good idea that would also bring a more hardened, actually faithful interpretation of Lara Croft back to Egypt. Basically, if they are going to retread old ground, I’d rather they did so with TRLR than anything from the LAU timeline. Mostly because I think that 4’s storyline is the best in the series (AOD being second.). I know Natla has written to Lara at the end of Shadow but honestly, keep that as an Easter egg of sorts and let’s draw upon other, more significant elements of the OG games. Like Von Croy. Even looking back at the classics, his and Lara’s story was clearly more in-depth than hers and Natla’s. There’s my essay on it 😂 great video 🤎 Otherwise, I think they should just move forward, do a time jump and start a brand new story. We need fresh blood. And I don’t see the practicality or even necessity to shove the Legend timeline in. They were fun games that gave the series a kickstart, but they weren’t exactly revolutionary and IMO they feel like “filler” games, even though I enjoy them.
Bad plotholes she gets trauma by killing in TR1 and TRA = cause shes not ready for it how if she is be doing it in Survivor, Rise, Shadow, Legend and Underworld bad plot
I'd do it a bit differently. I do think it's a bit of a travesty to take anniversary over the original but I'm squarely in the classics camp so I'd loosely reference it at most and let the player decide which version was correct. Indonesia in tr4 is first as that's the youngest Lara appeared, followed by Ireland from chronicles. Then survivor series followed by tomb raider 1-3, legend and underworld would follow. Then the last revelation, the overarching plot of chronicals and finally angel of darkness. The other chronicals adventures would have to slot in as appropriate depending on the characters involved in the mini adventures. As much as it's a cop out I would fast forward through Lara finding Kurtis and start with a fresh adventure from there as unless they remake AOD it can't be the jumping off point for the next game. The rushed release killed what was a very ambitious game but modern players couldn't be expected to go back and play it. The main thing would be setting an order and keeping it vague to allow fans of the respective series decide what the story is with Lara's parents. No answer will make everyone happy but after 6 games in a row focusing on Lara's parents and reason for adventuring maybe it's time to stop centering the plot around her family and letting her go back to playing for sport.
They should just not even try combining them and make two separate game series made by different developers with one that's more action packed and silly like the old games and one that's more serious and gritty like the new games and the two series of games can either live or die by their own merits. Combining the timelines can only piss off new or old fans if it leans in any one direction and if they don't lean towards one style of gameplay then the games would just be a bland mashup. This idea is fucking stupid and fully screams the actions of a developer trying not to lose access to working on the only series that has ever been successful for them.
I would just delete the Legend timeline and keep Classic and Survivor and connect those. The Legend timeline is mostly forgettable, in my opinion. Even Anniversary is a far inferior version of the original TR.
??? Nope. The gameplay was better in a way. It is like comparing fruits and vegetables. They could have created harder puzzles though, for legend timeline.
Not possible due to classic games 16 yea old Lara levels and manuals description. Lara was an actual strong woman until Crystal Dynamics gave her daddy and mommy issues and well killed her parents off (if we exclude the movies).
It's a pity that the developers of the Survivor timeline didn't connect it to the Legend timeline. In my opinion, two simple plot changes would have been enough. In the Rise of the Tomb Raider DLC, Lara finds out that her mother crashed in the mountains with the plane and that Lara's father brought the body home, leading him to fall into immortality myths. It could have been written so that Lara and Amelia crashed with the plane in Nepal. Lara's father then found Lara completely terrified and in shock, but not the mother. From Legend and Underworld, we know that she used the portal to Helheim. Because Lara was still so young and in shock, she couldn't remember afterwards and grew up without her mother while Lara's father tried to find the mother through various myths and legends. When Richard followed Norse mythology around Thor, he was killed in Thailand. The Survivor trilogy could have made the connection that Trinity or Dr. Dominguez killed the father in Thailand, and at the end of Shadow of the Tomb Raider, there should have been a hint that Natla Technologies appeared and was in contact with Trinity. This would fit with the Legend timeline where Natla said in Underworld that she killed Lara's father in Thailand.
An interesting approach but there is still the disparity of technology used in Classic Tomb Raider versus Survivor. It is clearly mid-1990s vs. post-2010s on a technology scale and that just doesn't square up. My opinion, of course.
I honestly don't understand how they can unify all three timelines. Lara's parents are either explorers like her or aristocrats that disown her because she refuses to marry another aristocrat; Lara's mother either went through a Portal to Helheim and died there or died of cold when her plane crashed in the mountains (or she's alive like in the Classic continuity); she either has a personal motive to explore all those tombs, or she does it as a hobby / for profit (as she writes books about her adventures); she either has sidekicks back at the mansion or she doesn't. Most of the key events in these three timelines are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. I don't think they can have a single unique timeline without leaving important elements that some people may consider important and ending up pleasing nobody with a Frankensteinian monstrosity.
I think the unifying is not going to work out and if it does its going to get hated or Not being counted as canon
@@Oop0101cant please everyone
I'm guessing they're just calling it a 'unified timeline' as a very surface level description and because Zelda did something similar, but that in reality it'll actually just entail the sequel to the Survivor games being closer in style to the old games. It doesn't mean the older games will somehow all canonically take place in the future of the Survivor timeline, just that Lara will look and act more like her old self in the next game. Maybe some events from the older games will be referenced as having taken place similarly in this timeline, but not much more than that.
Maybe they'll combine it with the timeline of the 'Lara Croft and ...' spin-off games? Haven't played those, so I don't know if any story contradictions already exist.
Unless they're planning a multiverse type story à la Crisis on Infinite Earths, where actual parallel universes merge together, but I doubt that, lmao. (There was a mobile game where different incarnations of Lara interacted, though, so who knows, lol. There's a precedent for it.)
@DaveGrean I think it's more like they're going to essentially make a 4th timeline by combining elements from the 3 other timelines
Building off of that-the sentiment that Survivor TL happens before Legend TL, her first kill from Anniversary doesn't hold as much weight when she spent years mowing down mercenaries and cultists, they'd definitely have to rework that or cut it completely unless they wanted to focus on how she sees him as a friend/rival/colleague I don't see it working the same
One thing you failed to mention is that both of Lara's parents are ALIVE in the original timeline, and that they disowned Lara for refusing to marry the Earl of Farringdon and going her own way. They even make a brief appearance at the beginning of Tomb Raider Chronicles. So no, you can't just insert anything you like from the Core-era timeline elsewhere. It does not fit, and these are different Laras with different histories and motivations.
True and they don't play a huge role in the games like the other two timelines were the cutscenes are significantly built around parents. So, Crystal Dynamics cuts those few frames in Chronicles and rewrites the manuals and they're good. It's not the first time nor the last time this happens to a series.
I honestly find the parent dying/going missing stuff boring, the classic origin was more interesting. Ironically it’s also a more empowering backstory than the modern changes because it was her choice to do what she does because she found it fun.
I love the films but I definitely blame them for them changing it in Legend (they even lifted the design of the house from the films and added Lara’s flipping moves so it was likely the inspiration for that too).
@@precurrentgaming5300 In what platform the manual talks about her parents? In my Chronicles manual, all it says is: "A tragic loss... I is a cold, dark, rainy day. With the memorial service for Lara Croft over, her old friends retire to the Croft Mansion.
As they sadly collect their thoughts, they reminisce about Lara's past adventures... Meanwhile... Hundreds of miles away, Werner Von Croy co-ordinates the frantic dig - searching for answers buried deep beneath the Egyptian desert..."
@@Frey_2026in the beginning of the chronicles there are a man and woman walking into her status looking at her it must be her parents then later we see her three friends talking about her and her adventures along the game
I would be amazed if they actually remade everything and cleared their name for AOD to actually redo it completely and finish that trilogy. But idk if that is really feasable with Square and the state of the gaming world rn
AOD had an interesting story imo and I wouldn't mind seeing it done well, but realistically I don't think they will remake everything, but who knows. Capcom is basically remaking everything in RE. TR could be the same.
Next tomb raider- ‘tomb raider and the multiverse of raiders’
😃
Tomb Raider and the Multiverse of "Runt" 😂
No
What folks don't understand is that this timeline is rebooted, essentially the last tree games are equivalent to the prequels in Star Wars.
As far as i know the goal is blend the new games in the older games.
So probably the next instalment would be the very first game of the franchise, with this Lara and the old timeline.
Tomb Raider: No Way Tomb
Just a thought - but would it make more sense to put Legend and Underworld after TR3 (i.e. bump TR2 and 3 forwards to be after the original). This explains why Croft Manor doesn't feature in TR4, and sets her mindset onto the path of isolation that TR4, 5 and then Angel of Darkness would extrapolate on. There's nothing in Legend that feels it would need to be before TR2 and 3 - in fact its a natural evolution for her to build a team around her after TR3, which then Underworld kills forcing her to go solo for TR4 and then Zip cameo in chronicles.
That could definitely work too.
LOVE THIS
Only that TR5 happened prior to TR2.
Makes sense, becuase if they actually connect all the timelines, the logical bridge to continue the timeline would be Angel of Darkness
"A Friend Remembers", I have to thank you. For a year now, I have been trying to create a single timeline with a coherent story. And thanks to you, I now know what I have been missing. I mean, I already knew I had to create a story arc for Lara, I just didn't know what it should be. But now I do. Her story, should be that of a woman who tried to gain control over her life by becoming the badass tomb raider we know, only to feel like she lost it because of all the loss she witnessed over the course of her adventures. At the end of her story, she understands that the pain she went through over the course of her adventures, even if unfortunate, was only a natural part of it, and her life was filled with purpose due to those adventures and the lessons she learned from them. But like every living being, it's time for her to sit back, relax, and pass down whatever knowledge she acquired to the future genarations. Maybe by writing books.
Survivor Lara as of now is 29, classic Lara was 28 in 1996, the first Tomb Raider and Anniversary states that, so it’s impossible to unify the timelines when the dates don’t add up, and let not forget that they look nothing alike, Survivor Lara is a whole different person personality and feature wise, The legend timeline was a soft reboot or reimagining, but they kept everything cohesive vs Survivor where they completely change everything.
At the end of “Shadow of the tomb raider” there’s a letter on the desk that says “ Jacqueline Natla”
Really ? Never noticed. Do you think her story is going to be more classic timeline, or Legend timeline ?
That ennding cahanged already. Theres no letter anymore :(
That was cut from the game and besides it was Larson who introduced Natla to Lara in both the Classic & LAU timelines
I just hope the next game lets Lara use BOTH guns! And that she's not basically 'old Indie'.
Dual guns would be nice!
I hope she doesn't. It's too cartooney.
tbh i kinda like the bow and arrow, its more stealthy and i really like the stealth possibilities of the survivor games
@@superpermabannedDane same
@@superpermabannedDane Not asking for the twin guns to be the main weapon but they are an iconic part of her character so it would be nice to see them again. Even though they are 'unrealistic', you know, unlike undead Sun Queens and such. ?;- )
I would love to see Natla come back she was honestly such an iconic villain
They did a good job with Natla. She was a perfect arch nemesis type to me.
I agree Natla is a good villain but I don't want to see her return. She's already been in 4 out of the 12 main Tomb Raider games, and for me that's enough.
@@Lunariant true lol... I wanna see new stuff
In the unpatched ending to Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Lara has a letter on her desk sent by Natla, sent from 'Scion Tower'. this was taken out and replaced with the different ending but you can still view it on youtube
I thought Trinty would tie back to Natla given she was a Trinity with Qualopec and Tihocan in Atlantis.
Just look how Lara looks at Underworld (2008)
How beautiful - sexy - awesome - cool - and realistic for a 2008 game
I think they could have done better job with Lara that we have nowadays due to the fact that the graphics have involved so much
Underworld has its issues, but it does look great.
Lara looks fine in the surviver timeline infact she looks incredibly beautiful.
The Survivor Timeline would have to be Set in 1989 ,
7 years Later, Lara Destroys Atlantis's Power station in order to Escape,
Second game would then have be about finding the Truth about Atlantis and the Power of the Scion where she later comes across the Dagger of Xian and later in that same year taking back the Iris that both have something in relation to the Scion.
Lara then returns to the ruins of the Atlantean Pyramid in "Unfinished Business" to take back the Scion to then discover its Origins from The Meteorite Artifacts that then lead to the Third game.
The Scion Arc ends after Lara collects the Hand of Rathmore.
The rest start to get personal
Chronicles is preety much a loosely "Gold" expansion to TR4 but with cutscenes this time and not to officiently limited to the PC. While Golden Mask is the only expansion that isnt very canon rather than What could be possibly Lara's Dream like estate while stuck in the pyramid after events of TR4.
Legend timeline is the best. The best compromise of graphics but also staying true to the spirit of who and what Lara is as an adventurer.
Don't let Melonie Mac hear that, she'll have a mental breakdown
I thought that Jonah can sit in the manor and talk to Lara from his microphone like Zip. I saw Zip's character bio in TRL and it says Zip is a kinda chef like Jonah. Thats why i am thinking like that.
Honestly Legend and Survivor timelines can mesh well with minimal effort. Both feature a plane crash into snow, a Mother's "Death" and an obsessive Father who's dedicated to the Mother's revival which leads to his death. Pretty analogous. I'm curious how Unified will do it
For me the classic and the Legend series work pretty well together. Personally I never actually regarded them two distinct timelines.
But I really hope they don't try to shoehorn the abomination the Survivor series is in.
LAU retcons TR1's storyline to give Larson more screen time and Lara mommy issues
@@0047sssss Having a personal motivation does not hardly detracts from adventuring and thrill seeking, there's room for all these elements
I want a lighter and a less serious tone, and a Lara with a fresh feeling personality that matches it.
With the unified timeline thing officially happening, i just hope they dont erase the Legend timeline.
The Legend games were a lot of fun imo.
I feel like the classic and legend timeline are close.
But the differences are catastrophic.
@@Thagomizer Only for the fanatical fans.
Just to help, Lara Croft and the guardian of light and Lara Croft & the temple of Osiris are apart of the legend timeline!
Yes, there are things that do contradict Lara's oast in the original timeline, like the fact that her first ever adventure in the original timeline was at 14 years old in Cambodia with Von Croy, not at 21. So she would be more experienced and confident in TR 2013 if the timeline was unified
They could spin it to work, because the fact that she shadowed Von Croy doesn't mean she becomes a pro in that moment and couldn't struggle in TR 2013.
She was actually 16 on her adventure with Von Croy. Her first big outing is kinda the time she was in Ireland with the family butler, Winston. Here she has a supernatural encounter and aids a priest. This happens in Chronicles. Just a little bit before she adventures out with Von Croy.
I remember playing the original Tomb Raider Pentium 166Mhz or something around there. Its amazing how far it has come. Watching this took my through memory lane.
The requirements are so minimal now days it can play on most everything.
Lara's parents were alive in the originals, so no, they don't mesh.
That is true and they don't play a huge role. A brief glimpse in Chronicles that most won't even recognize unless they've searched it and some manual references. Though manuals change. Just look at Capcom's Resident Evil manuals. People have been calling out minor changes since 1996. Capcom basically says, canon is what we say today, no matter the minor inaccuracies of the past. Crystal Dynamic's will likely do the same.
After surviving a plane in the Himalayas, a 21 year old Lara Croft, finds her sheltered and aristocratic life suffocating. She's disowned by her parents. Lara takes up travel writing to pursue her need for adventure. That is the back story to the original games. Such a brilliant tale, with Lara's independence on show.
The reboots, bizarrely, had the soap opera and cliché melodrama of her various parentals issues mar the story.
@@maxking235 Also, the second movie had Lara with a boyfriend...and that totally goes against that change she had in the Himalayas. She craves adventure, not love, and is a one woman show. That's the Lara I want to see. The one who went against her family and polite society and chose the wilds to play in.
@@AerkiJyr Lara having had a previous love interest isn't in any way contradictory with her backstory in Core's timeline, but the whole nonsense about her being an orphaned archaeologist's daughter is.
@@maryr.5815 Just watch Lara's body language during any scene where she interacts with Kurtis. It's fascinating.
i loved how og lara didn't need an origin story to be badass. it's such a boring trope that heroines start off weak and need suffering to become tough.
Now days, I kind of feel like that is a common trope that happens a lot with both female and male leads.
"SurfNinjas" failed as a movie because there was no character growth . Finding a magic time sword should not be the only priority.
Hey, it worked for Rey. She was widely accepted
@@DanChernikov hello sarcasm
For a year now, I have been trying to create a single timeline with a coherent story. But finally, thanks to a comment here, now I know what I have been missing. I mean, I already knew I had to create a story arc for Lara, I just didn't know what it should be. But now I do. Her story, should be that of a woman who tried to gain control over her life by becoming the badass tomb raider we know, only to feel like she lost it because of all the loss she witnessed over the course of her adventures. At the end of her story, she understands that the pain she went through over the course of her adventures, even if unfortunate, was only a natural part of it, and her life was filled with purpose due to those adventures and the lessons she learned from them. But like every living being, it's time for her to sit back, relax, and pass down whatever knowledge she acquired to the future genarations. Maybe by writing books.
The next game after shadow is going to be the re-remake of tomb raider 1, because on a deleted scene of shadow, Lara have a letter from Natla talking about Scion, in my opinion TR 2 and 3 aren't too inportant since it's not too much personal for Lara, except that in Rise have easter egg of TR 2, when play Croft Manor in Rise Lara grab a Dragon statue who's the same Dragon of TR 2 and she says "maybe I can go there someday" she's talking about China, where's TR 2 principal location.
God, no more reboots please, that's practically all we get anymore. Either that or prequels.
Instead of putting them all in a timeline, I think it would be so much more interesting if they put all 3 Laras in one Universe as 3 different people.
So I asked and answered my own question:
(I'll be referring to Legend Lara as LAU, this is also more of a fan canon and could more be interpreted as fanfiction)
What if by unifying they meant putting all 3 Laras in the same Universe by relating them as sisters?
Well it would be a mess but I TRIED to fix it
It goes:
Amelia and Richard live in the LAU Croft Manor
1968
Classic Lara was born
1975
LAU Lara was born
1979
TRC Black Isle (Ireland happened)
1984
Von Croy takes Lara to Cambodia
LAU Lara and Amelia are on a plane and crash in the Himalayas, Amelia goes missing
1986
TRC Russia happens
1987
LAU Lara had an accident whilst gymnastic training and went into a coma
1988
Amelia came back with the Excalibur somehow but she couldn't let anyone except Classic Lara and Richard know, LAU Lara is still a coma
1989
Classic Lara was arranged into a marriage but she declined expressing she wants to adventure into the world, she gets disowned and kicked out of her house forced to move into Croft Manor
At the same time, TRC Rome happens
1991
Amelia gets pregnant with Reboot Lara and together with Richard move into the secondary Croft Estate (Reboot Mansion)
1992
Reboot Lara is born and Classic Lara pays Richard and Amelia to be able to spend time/see her baby-sister.
1993
LAU Lara awakens from her coma and finds out Richard had another daughter, believing Richard had moved on and got another woman pregnant she cut ties with her father, moving into the LAU Mansion and only having distant contact with Classic Lara, Winston agreed to both work for Classic and LAU Lara
1995
TRC VCI happens
1996:
TR1 and TRA happen
(Classic Lara remained in the real world whilst LAU Lara was somehow altered into an alternative dimension for the time being until she somehow warped into the real world after TRA)
1997
TR2 happens and Reboot Lara is fascinated by Classic and LAU Lara, but more particularly with Classic Lara
Classic Lara goes to the fountain of youth (unreleased tr4 gold) and accidentally turns 16 again, though aging up again she only turned 21 again.
1998
TR3 happens
1999-2000
TR4 happens and Lara gets buried alive in Egypt
LAU Lara in an attempt to cover up Lara's death decided to claim to be Classic Lara, having survived Egypt, yet she gets massive backlash from the public and a funeral is held for Classic Lara (TRC opening) with Lara's parents and reboot Lara attending
a few days later Lara is actually discovered alive after having crawled out of the Egyptian tomb that buried her alive.
2001.
Amelia and Richard die, the funeral is held in secret and LAU Lara is not invited, only knowing Richard died but not attending his funeral out of anger, still not knowing amelia was alive.
Tomb Raider Movie happens
Classic Lara shares custody over reboot Lara together with Roth
Late 2001
Classic Lara retires from Tomb Raiding, due to no longer being able to force herself to continuation her life expedition from the Trauma she faced in Egypt
2002
AoD Trilogy happens
2003
Classic Lara decides to un-retire from tomb raiding and tr2003 cradle of life happens
2004-2006:
Revisioned Tomb Raider happens
(whether it was part of Classic or LAU or both is up for interpretation)
2006:
Legend happens
2008:
Underworld happens
2009:
Lau Lara has a mental breakdown over finding out Amelia was not dead and the Amelia she shot in Underworld was some zombie of a random abomination made to slightly resemble her mother
2013
TR2013 happens
2015:
Rise and Shadow
I tried to add some drama in between to fix the inconsistencies surrounding Lara's parents, which don't make any sense really, also Ana is missing but that's ok.
Interesting! As I read this, it got me thinking about 3 cousins with 3 different sets of parents born at different times going on adventures in the same world.
I don't think the Survivor games can fit with the others because Lara is far too different a character in those games, plus her past does not line up for so many reasons. As for the Classic and Legend timelines, in my head they are one, with Legend and Underworld simply taking place sometime after Angel of Darkness once Lara's name is cleared. One problem is that the backstories contained in the original PSX games' instruction manuals do not jive. For this, we must simply conclude that the Legend games make massive retcons to Lara's past, and that the information in those manuals is no longer canon. As far as I know, there is nothing in the games themselves that is not directly contradictory, at least not with a little imagination.
Despite the differences in the timelines, the order you put them in makes sense. I would be okay with the newest games being Lara's origin story as long as they did a remake of AoD and then continue the trilogy. That's a little risky to wish for though considering Crystal Dynamics' approach...
I always thought of legend as a sequel to angel of darkness just because there was no reason not to, they even brought back Zip from chronicles
I believe it’s all one time line. Just each game is another story, and each game is obviously a different part of her life. In Underworld, Amanda makes a comeback from Legend, and Natla from the classic Tomb Raider from 1996. I also believe they’re all connected as well to the survivor timeline. If you don’t know by now, in the unedited/original ending of Shadow of the Tomb Raider, a letter appears that includes the name “Jacqueline Natla”. This just proves that the survivor series is just a back story of how she got to where she was in the classic games from 1996-2003, as well as Legand and Underworld. I also believe that in Tomb Raider 1-3, she’s a little older. Maybe 30’s. And same with Legend. Underworld I believe she’s in her early 40’s. That’s just a theory.
There are a lot of conflicts they have to resolve to make it cohesive. Some small and some large.
@@precurrentgaming5300 that is very true.
It’s the most reasonable mashup I’ve ever heard of. Please let’s hope in something like this. I waited almost 20 years for a sequel of TRAoD, I can wait other 10 for something really well done. Actually Anniversary Lara seems the most close to the reboot, plus in your vision she would kill Larson without the blink of an eye.
I mean, she did mention intending to look into the Dagger of Xian if you click on something in her home when exploring in I think Rise? Can't find a refernece to it but I remember finding something.
i think it would be perfect if "Tomb Raider 2013" is considered the born of Lara Croft as a survivor(followed by Rise Of the TR and Shadow of the TR). after years of training Lara becomes TR/Anniversary's Lara and the history continues in the others Tomb Raider that follow.
ANYWAY they better do the new Lara with double guns,if they wanna keep this version of her😃
Dual guns is a must🤞
@@precurrentgaming5300 that was my only issue with the survivor timeline.
Can prequel the survivor timeline to the Legend one, but totally not include the classics, since they are completely different.
It's a pity that the developers of the Survivor timeline didn't connect it to the Legend timeline. In my opinion, two simple plot changes would have been enough. In the Rise of the Tomb Raider DLC, Lara finds out that her mother crashed in the mountains with the plane and that Lara's father brought the body home, leading him to fall into immortality myths. It could have been written so that Lara and Amelia crashed with the plane in Nepal. Lara's father then found Lara completely terrified and in shock, but not the mother. From Legend and Underworld, we know that she used the portal to Helheim. Because Lara was still so young and in shock, she couldn't remember afterwards and grew up without her mother while Lara's father tried to find the mother through various myths and legends. When Richard followed Norse mythology around Thor, he was killed in Thailand. The Survivor trilogy could have made the connection that Trinity or Dr. Dominguez killed the father in Thailand, and at the end of Shadow of the Tomb Raider, there should have been a hint that Natla Technologies appeared and was in contact with Trinity. This would fit with the Legend timeline where Natla said in Underworld that she killed Lara's father in Thailand.
I would be interested if they would remimaged the classic adventures
Trinity becomes interested in Atlantis (or Natla just simply hires her)
Natla hires Lara and promise she would help Lara with Trinity
You go on these expeditions with a bunch of Natla’s goons
At this point the story can go anywhere.
Maybe you all eventually work together to defeat Natla, maybe Lara’s friend join her and have an epic showdown with Natla, maybe Lara in a shocking twist decides to work with Natla in the end for some reason
I would like for the devs to go with this option since I never had the opportunity to play the classic TR games
Tomb Raider Legend was only ever a soft-reboot to begin with so it and Underworld could easily take place after the events of Angel of Darkness, however Tomb Raider 2013 was clearly a hard-reboot so fitting in the reboot trilogy would be more difficult, since the Survivor series is clearly an origin story you could have it take place before the first Tomb Raider/Anniversary but you would have to do a few retcons regarding the fate of Lara’s parents.
True, but that is it. The Survivor triology can prequel legend eitb those changes.
@@curious_one1156 it’s certainly doable with a bit of clever writing, we’ll just have to wait and see how the next game and the Netflix series handles it. Square Enix already has a basic timeline on their website, so they already have an idea of what order the games take place in.
I think all timelines in one is a whole new universe, like we have the classic universe, legend universe, survival and to combine all that its a new universe, that would make the most sense because classic games Play in the 90s and classic laras parents are still allive
I don't understand why you placed Legend and Underworld right after Anniversary and before TR2-6. Since 2006 fans know that Legend takes place few years after Angel of Darkness. And Legend takes place many, really many years after Anniversary/TR1.
So after Shadow of the Tomb Raider TR Anniversary/TR1 should take place, then TR2-6, then Legend, Underworld and finally Lara Croft spin-off series.
Where does it say officially that Legend occurs after Angel of Darkness? I ask, because I honestly have never heard or seen anything that says that, but on the contrary. When I got my hands on Legend new back then, it was pretty clear that they wanted to distance it from the trainwreck of Angel. That's why they rebooted as a unique series not a sequel.
Unofficially of course there are arguments for many different timeline sequences.
In Legend and Underworld Lara is using modern for 2006-2008 PDA, but in classic series she didn't use nothing like that, but she might, if these stories were set after LAU. That's why i guess that Legend and Underworld were the last stories
My guess is the first two series are connected because of similar game play and the fact that you find mythical/extinct creatures in both, but in the survivor time line it is alot more grounded and you see no depiction of mythical/extinct creature. The closest you get to this is the Boba yoga dlc, but that is just a hilusination.
I will like a tomb raider secuenci of tomb raider Angel of Darkness, I want to see kurtis again
Angel of Darkness was a great idea plagued by design errors. Seeing it done well would be cool.
but classic and lau/survivor are fundamentally different. in the former, she is disowned and she picks these adventures over her wealthy, aristocratic life, whereas in the latter, her whole motivation is to find her mother/finish fathers reaserch. different circumstances form the personality differently. i guess thats what the hardest part will be, making character development feel natural
Yeah, it will be a tough thing to pull off that's for sure.
But in the classics, we never really saw/heard from lara's parents, except in her background story(and that cuscene from TR5)-so even if they take one of the games and remake it, it may not change anything, becuase her parents were never there anyway
We don’t find any elements that say that she has been disowned by her familly and her parent are litterally absent from the original timeline. Whe don’t neither have lots of biographical elements
The time lines fit perfect. she is female, a female border on multiple personality disorder depending on the week, day or even hour.. .lol..
lol
With how much of a wet blanket the new tomb raider is and how legends timeline and the original laras timeline had her as a badass with attitude as a child i dont see how you can relate them unless you intentionally skip out on parts we have been shown.
Yes, I would make changes to the legends timeline to have the survivor timeline hold true so the entirety of Tomb raider can be combined.
Legend, Anniversary and Underworld - the best look! I like also Lara's from Tomb Raider 2 Remake fan, look cool!
TR2 fan remake looks amazing.
we need a sequel of traod 🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤😭😭😭😭😭😭
Just realized how much Natala from TRU resembled Ana. I thought it was Ana with wings, at first glance.
I think of it the other way around, but it's mainly physical resemblance because they are quite different characters with different roles.
Hmm , I always remember her mom dying in a car crash and the journey Lara took back gave her the love of adventuring. I lso think it its more likely that they will remake the original games to make the games fit. I hope they redo Angel of Darkness and finish the trilogy
In order: 2013 Tomb Raider > Rise > Shadow > Legend > Underworld > Anniversary/TR1 > 2 > 3 > Last Revelation > Angel of Darkness. No need for Chronicles because it was a game full of memories. WHAT WE NEED is an Angel remake including the story of what happened in Egypt. Then, they can continue with seperate adventures just like the Classics. NO MORE dad mom or any emotional story please!
Plot twist:Doppelganger Lara from Tomb Raider Underground is the original Lara croft from the Classic Timeline
First, we get to witness a young lady named Lara Croft transform into the beloved Tomb Raider (2013, Rise, and Shadow) then she developes a bond for adventure and sport. Cue 2 and 3, where Lara takes part in independent, disconnected adventures. Then, she realizes something; the woman who her father attempted to resurrect was not Amelia, but rather, a doppelganger of her. The real Amelia disappeared in a portal leading to Helheim. The doppelganger was in fact generated by Jacqueline Natla, who saw potential in Lara Croft's abilities even as a child and planned to manipulate Lara into gathering magical artifacts for her later in life, before finally encountering Lara. Lara then sets out to find her mother. Then comes Legend, Anniversary (AKA Tomb Raider 1) and Underworld, the latter in which Lara finally defeats Jacqueline Natla for good and meets her doppelganger. After becoming aware of the fate that befall her mother, she continues to journey across the world. The Last Revelation is up next, and Lara dies at the end of the game unfortunately. Chronicles is a retelling of events from Lara's allies. Then, the doppelganger from Underworld would return as the new Tomb Raider, exhibiting loyalty towards the person who freed her, and the series would currently end with Angel Of Darkness.
This completely falls apart when you realize that both of her parents are at her FUNERAL in Chronicles.
I like the idea of TR2-TRAOD occurring after the Legend trilogy. Only problem with that theory is Croft Manor is completely destroyed in TRU. Could she have rebuilt it? Unlikely, seeing as all her material wealth and inherited/pilfered treasures were tied to that property. Plus, the manor in the Classic Trilogy contains small iterative changes between games, such as converting the ballroom into a gym, converting the hedge maze into a quad bike course, etc., which seems to imply simple renovations over a period of months, rather than a complete rebuilding of the entire mansion between TR1/TRA and TR2, which would have taken years and likely not resembled the original.
She has 3 estatea according to a bio in "Legend". While the one destroyed was seen by her as her home, there are two others.
I'm personally not a fan of the current TR games. The original and Legend games are the only ones that truly exist as proper TR games. The Legend series feels like an extension of the original games, both in who Lara is, and gameplay. Not a fan of the Legend Croft Manor, but I can get past that due to the games being so well done. Even with minor discrepancies between the two storylines, they're minimal, and don't take away from the overall story being told. They flow and are believable. The current 2013 and newer TR games are very disconnected and feel like easy cop outs for the developers to make money off an established game title. The only way I can see the current versions redeeming themselves is to get back to Lara's roots from the 90's/early 2000's and bring THAT Lara back. This "new, origin" Lara doesn't make any sense when compared to the Lara I grew up with. I'm grateful for the release of the TRLE software, and all the effort fans put into creating fan made games (new games are still being created). It helps keep the Lara spirit alive!
Is the Legend Manor not more beautiful ?
Or we could just scrap the survivor series as cannon? Me, personally, am not a fan of the reboot series. Like you said, trying to intertwine the Legend and the classic Lara with the survivor Lara just contradicts the cannon way too much. If it was a MUST to intertwine the the 3 series into a timeline. I would rather much see the survivor Lara story line get adjusted to the fit the classic and Legend series. Not the other way around. That would be a major insult the OG Lara. :) Great vid! It really made me wonder what is next for Lara and the Tomb Raider series.
Yeah, I personally don't enjoy the survivor games either and would be happy to see the series go away from them and focus back on the roots.
@@precurrentgaming5300 EXACTLY! 💯 Look at Capcom? They've already remade the first 3 Resident Evil Retro games. Breaks my heart seeing the Lara Croft I loved so much back in the day. Changed into something we can't even recognize anymore. 😭😭
@@StevieeRayy No they didn't. They remade Resident Evil 1 and they reimagined 2 and 3.
Remake and reimagining are two different things.
ruclips.net/video/QCG5UkJ1hgw/видео.html
@@giovannigiovanni.7220 LMAO?!?!?
That's why you have 70 dislikes ,including me, on your video and everyone that commented is shredding you apart? Boiiii bye. 💅🏼💅🏼💅🏼💅🏼
@@StevieeRayy It's hard for people to accept the truth.
Interesting video, but you've made one a huge mistake ;) Legend era takes place AFTER classic era, not before - it's canon.
This is the proper chronology when we assume that reboot games are prequels:
TR2013-Rise-Shadow-TR1 (and TRA)-TR2-TR3-TR4-TR5 (flashbacks)-AoD-TRL-TRU-LCGoL-LCToO
I’ve assumed the timeline is 2013->anniversary/1->tomb raider 2->Tomb raider 3->Tomb raider 4->5 if you count that I guess->angel of darkness->Legend->Underworld-> the Osiris duology,
Rise and shadow are perfectly serviceable I guess but they don’t really service anniversary in a beneficial way. Even if you consider 2013 as the only canon game of that trilogy you could make the excuse that Lara refrained from killing after yamatai because she didn’t like that she liked her power on the island. And Larson reminded her of those horrors. Rise and shadow though? She would have no reason to shudder killing Larson. She’s killed armies of faceless mooks, and for less than him.
They should tweak the stories of the others games to fit survivor timeline in it. But im afriad they'll have a hard time connecting legend and underworld in it. Since its like the same premise but just her dad having different motivation. Connecting survivor timelime to classic timelime would be easy.
Hardly, the character has a completely different backstory, personality, look and motivations than the original lara. Shes couldnt be any more different.
But she cringed at her first kill in anniversary and the first survivor installation?
I never felt like the "legend timeline" was separated from the original.
We don’t need none of these time lines connecting, Survivor Lara is the worse version of Lara, her whole universe contradicts the classic and legend Lara Croft personality. The Survivor timeline is a reboot of the series and they should just leave it at that and move forward with that.
hopefully they will this time-i cant take it anymore with those reboots-just pick one lara and stick with it!
This. I don't understand why they're so hellbent on unifying the timelines. I'm playing TR2013 for the first time now, and frankly I don't like it at all story- and character-wise. Seems like a woke rehash orchestrated by someone who had issues with the original Lara. Thus far, it doesn't feel like a Tomb Raider game at all and there doesn't seem to be any reason at all why it should have been called one. They could easily have made it into another series, with a differently named character, and no one would ever have suspected it had anything at all to do with Tomb Raider.
Survivor Lara shouldn't be existed in the first place, so does the unborn Ascension as well.
It destroys everything of what's make Lara Croft as one of the most iconic female game character and Tomb Raider series that survived through the time.
This Survivor Lara has a completely different personality and will never grew up to be any close to LAU or OG Lara. You can't possibly change her character drastically to a complete opposite personality. Even human in real life also doesn't work like that. So unified the previous 2 timelines to this survivor timeline only make things worst and grew more hatred towards Survivor Lara.
Your ideas sound like they could work , with a few adjustments and rewrites to connect with the survivor timeline.
Isn't Croft Manor destroyed in Underworld? So how could the classic games take place *after* that? Shouldn't Underworld be near the end of the timeline, with only stand-alone adventures where the manor doesn't appear set after it?
Sorry my ignorance but what make legend timeline been a different one from classic timeline ?
Basically, Tomb Raider Angle of Darkness did terrible. So, Eidos transferred development from Core Design to Crystal Dynamics around 2004 and essentially Legend was a reboot of sorts to revitalize the series vs a continuation of the original timeline which was running out of steam at the time.
Anniversary retcons a lot of TR1's storyline to fit it in the LAU story arc
Natla in TRU kinda looks like Ana from rise, so could it be that she’s just a resurrected version of Ana who’s there for revenge on Lara who was getting in the way of her trinity business 🤔
They nerfed her. If you get what I mean. 😏😏
LOL if you get what I mean 😂
Fun fact: All three Laras we're born on Valentine's Day. The first Lara Croft was born in 1968, the Legend Lara was born in 1976, and the Survivor Lara was born in 1993, making her the youngest version of Lara Croft. The first Tomb Raider game is set in 1996 (obviously!), Angel of Darkness, the last adventure of the original Lara is set in the year 2003 when she was 35. Tomb Raider Anniversary is in 2007, Tomb Raider Underworld, the last main adventure of Legend Lara is set after Tomb Raider Legend, and Tomb Raider (2013) is obviously in 2013, so there is no way all the Tomb Raider games can exist in one timeline.
so i like the first 3 games because from the 4th they have changed A LOT the gameplay. My fevourite is TBII
Wait, they are actually trying to unify the three timelines ? I think I feel a little more alive, because I've been trying to do that for a time now.
Dope video 👍🏻
Please don't label the female Robin Hood survival trilogy as the TR origin trilogy. They just called the character Lara for more sales, no one would have noticed the "reboots" relation to Tomb Raider if they wouldn't have done so by naming it a Tomb Raider game.
But the character would have been very similar, given both their explorative and individual focused gameplays.
@@curious_one1156 Not really. One is about shooting hundreds of enemies with a bow using a fearful character who just tries to survive somehow, while true Tomb Raider is about an athletic female with superhuman climbing abilities who can shoot with two guns at the same time and a badass mentality while exploring tombs at amazing places around the globe.
What I really want is for them NOT to unify the timeline. I want Embracer to hand Tomb Raider to a completely different development team that will just remake the classic games into a trilogy with 1 & 2 being a game, 3 and 4 being another and then the third game could be the AoD trilogy turned into a single game leaving Chronicles as a classic, untouched relic. Completely scrap Legend and Survivor timelines and bring Lara back to her glory days. Is this gonna happen? No. Will the new game be a mess hated by OG fans but probably loved by the general public? Yes.
AoD is debunked to be classic thanks to a cut cutscene showing she already was Emo when she fell instead of her normal light blue shirt.
AoD is in the Emo timeline of itself.
Hmm, would the origin of Lara croft not begin when she was 16 in Tomb Raider Chronicles with Bram Patrick Dunston?
Both last revelation and chronicles use the young character model in flash backs.
yeah, we are not going to see a sequel to Angel of Darkness, that's for sure
what you said about Natla and Lara's mother-this is EXACTLY my fear realized. I think we have had enough of lara's family arc, and natla, as wonderful as she is(in both timelines) should be laid to rest, and not return every 10 years. it was said that the survivor timelnes and the core design games will be united, no one mentioning the legend tiveline-hopefully, thats the way it will be.
I hope they bring LAU into new timeline as well. Lara from LAU was Lara I grew up with (I was 5 years old when Legend was published). From my perspective only true Lara is LAU Lara. Without it, Lara is still not Lara, but some fake version of it. The same way those new Laras are fake Laras for you.
It would make sense if they were. When I began playing Tomb Raider games, I played Legend all the way down. I always viewed Lara as a woman in her late 20s to early 30s. For the survivor timeline, it makes sense. Lara usually doesn’t gain so many injuries, so the Survivor timeline makes more sense for it being her earliest days which you tell by her voice and youthful appearance.
Is not all in one timeline?
You could possibly bridge classic and legend timelines but Survivor era is just too different. Not to mention the state of technology. Classic Lara was clearly rooted in the 90s and pre-social media/smart phones whereas Survivor era relies on the technology more readily available today. If they were going to bridge everything they should have just made Survivor Lara as the daughter of the classic version. I could reconcile the first two eras into a singular person but not the third.
No, it's not
Great video
Lara's first human kill in TRA though
Like in the Classics, the Anniversary timeline didn't directly state that Larson was Lara's first-ever human kill. But Larson's death affected her because she went over the moral line by not explaining to Larson Natla's intentions first before shooting him. So that's how it could be explained in the unified timeline.
That was her first kill for someone she was friends with cause I’m
Sure they had a kinda a friend enemy type prior to him getting hired by natla
So Natla is gonna be at the head of Trinity?
I thought about that but it requires more re-writing than I wanted to try and explain.
@@precurrentgaming5300 does it? This way Natla and Trinity both kill Lara's father
@@corentinguillo5577 according to what I read the timing doesn't match cohesively for when Natla was imprisoned by the other leaders of Atlantis and then released for TR1 with Trinity's rise and there business with the Croft's. They could make it work. It just takes more re-writing.
@@precurrentgaming5300 Aaah I see! But yeah Natla had plenty of time to become a successful CEO between her defrosting and TR1/TRA. I can see them working around dates a bit more :)
She doesn't have to have always been Trinity's big boss. She might have arrived late in the organisational
Tomb raider dagger of xian remake please and thank you 👍🏼
very good!
Great point about the Legend timeline. Although as a fan of the series since the beginning I feel like they should just somewhat retcon the Legend timeline entirely. I have nothing against those games per se, but I just don’t see a way around it. The suggestions you have made are cool and all but I’m honestly over Natla and Lara’s family as being the driving forces behind her adventures. I feel like we’ve seen so many versions of all these storylines and the LAU timeline is probably the most convoluted of them all (I thought it was a big mistake connecting Natla & her father, because as we can see now it’s made things difficult to unify the timelines going forward.)
I would like them to do something like a time jump and as a way of unification, perhaps they could retell the story in the Last Revelation. It’s plausible Von Croy could have taken her on that trip in the survivor timeline. Obviously the story would need to change so it didn’t feel too much like Shadow, but I could see this being a good idea that would also bring a more hardened, actually faithful interpretation of Lara Croft back to Egypt. Basically, if they are going to retread old ground, I’d rather they did so with TRLR than anything from the LAU timeline. Mostly because I think that 4’s storyline is the best in the series (AOD being second.). I know Natla has written to Lara at the end of Shadow but honestly, keep that as an Easter egg of sorts and let’s draw upon other, more significant elements of the OG games. Like Von Croy. Even looking back at the classics, his and Lara’s story was clearly more in-depth than hers and Natla’s.
There’s my essay on it 😂 great video 🤎
Otherwise, I think they should just move forward, do a time jump and start a brand new story. We need fresh blood. And I don’t see the practicality or even necessity to shove the Legend timeline in. They were fun games that gave the series a kickstart, but they weren’t exactly revolutionary and IMO they feel like “filler” games, even though I enjoy them.
Bad plotholes she gets trauma by killing in TR1 and TRA = cause shes not ready for it how if she is be doing it in Survivor, Rise, Shadow, Legend and Underworld bad plot
I'd do it a bit differently. I do think it's a bit of a travesty to take anniversary over the original but I'm squarely in the classics camp so I'd loosely reference it at most and let the player decide which version was correct. Indonesia in tr4 is first as that's the youngest Lara appeared, followed by Ireland from chronicles. Then survivor series followed by tomb raider 1-3, legend and underworld would follow. Then the last revelation, the overarching plot of chronicals and finally angel of darkness. The other chronicals adventures would have to slot in as appropriate depending on the characters involved in the mini adventures.
As much as it's a cop out I would fast forward through Lara finding Kurtis and start with a fresh adventure from there as unless they remake AOD it can't be the jumping off point for the next game. The rushed release killed what was a very ambitious game but modern players couldn't be expected to go back and play it.
The main thing would be setting an order and keeping it vague to allow fans of the respective series decide what the story is with Lara's parents. No answer will make everyone happy but after 6 games in a row focusing on Lara's parents and reason for adventuring maybe it's time to stop centering the plot around her family and letting her go back to playing for sport.
Getting it back to Lara adventuring for sport is the key!
The survivor series is the best and underrated games ever. Both Uncharted and Tomb raider series are head to head.
Just because anniversary runs on the same timeline engine doesnt mean its the same timeline its just a remake of tr1 so it classic
They should just not even try combining them and make two separate game series made by different developers with one that's more action packed and silly like the old games and one that's more serious and gritty like the new games and the two series of games can either live or die by their own merits.
Combining the timelines can only piss off new or old fans if it leans in any one direction and if they don't lean towards one style of gameplay then the games would just be a bland mashup.
This idea is fucking stupid and fully screams the actions of a developer trying not to lose access to working on the only series that has ever been successful for them.
Maybe completely seperate the classics, but survivor can be, with a few changes, prequel legend.
What about spongebob?
Tomb raider 1,2,3 and 4 I enjoyed. After that I began to lose interest.
For me personally, that happened to me in 2013.
🔥👍
👍
Please enough with the multiverse stories 🙏🙏🙏
Only classic Lara is canon
I would just delete the Legend timeline and keep Classic and Survivor and connect those. The Legend timeline is mostly forgettable, in my opinion. Even Anniversary is a far inferior version of the original TR.
???
Nope. The gameplay was better in a way. It is like comparing fruits and vegetables. They could have created harder puzzles though, for legend timeline.
Multiverse is the best solution 🥹
Not possible due to classic games 16 yea old Lara levels and manuals description. Lara was an actual strong woman until Crystal Dynamics gave her daddy and mommy issues and well killed her parents off (if we exclude the movies).
We'll see what they can pull off.
This LOL
It's a pity that the developers of the Survivor timeline didn't connect it to the Legend timeline. In my opinion, two simple plot changes would have been enough. In the Rise of the Tomb Raider DLC, Lara finds out that her mother crashed in the mountains with the plane and that Lara's father brought the body home, leading him to fall into immortality myths. It could have been written so that Lara and Amelia crashed with the plane in Nepal. Lara's father then found Lara completely terrified and in shock, but not the mother. From Legend and Underworld, we know that she used the portal to Helheim. Because Lara was still so young and in shock, she couldn't remember afterwards and grew up without her mother while Lara's father tried to find the mother through various myths and legends. When Richard followed Norse mythology around Thor, he was killed in Thailand. The Survivor trilogy could have made the connection that Trinity or Dr. Dominguez killed the father in Thailand, and at the end of Shadow of the Tomb Raider, there should have been a hint that Natla Technologies appeared and was in contact with Trinity. This would fit with the Legend timeline where Natla said in Underworld that she killed Lara's father in Thailand.
An interesting approach but there is still the disparity of technology used in Classic Tomb Raider versus Survivor. It is clearly mid-1990s vs. post-2010s on a technology scale and that just doesn't square up. My opinion, of course.