130°

Lara Croft could have possibly been in PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale

Crystal Dynamics' Global Brand Director, Karl Stewart, recently did a question and answer session where he discusses various things about Lara Croft. Importantly enough, SuperBot had approached Crystal Dynamics about putting their character in PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale.

Read Full Story >>
eventhubs.com
RmanX10004083d ago

Something tells me she'd be to Nathan what Nariko is to Kratos... Either way itd be a nice addition via DLC.

Root4083d ago

Yet instead of that...which fans went on about for YEARS...Nariko vs Kratos they ignored us and put Nario against Dante.

This would of been a better fit, same goes with Lara and Drake.

Why is it now where hearing developers stating "Oh he/she could of been in All Stars" yet Omar said there was no chance of these being in the game.

I think they lied in my opinion. I think they could of got Classic Dante for example but chose new Dante because they would of gotten money given to them instead

KingKelloggTheWH4083d ago

They needed legendary characters like her.

Not having people like Snake,and Cloud Strife is what messed the game up.But instead we got some stupid cat >:\

Don't get me wrong I love the game it just needed a way bigger roster.

Megaton4083d ago

They don't have Snake or Cloud in that game? Yeesh.

4083d ago
r214083d ago

Hey, Toro is the mascot for Sony Japan! I do agree however that Snake should have been in the game. Maybe we'll get Snake from Ground Zeroes instead, seeing as Nintendo nabbed Solid Snake.

KingKelloggTheWH4082d ago

I would love to see Ground Zeros snake in there,but most of all I would love to see some Final Fantasy represented.

krazykombatant4083d ago

You do know where snake is in right?? In Super Smash.

SamPao4083d ago

I remember some guy at crystalD tweeting something pretty rude when Superbot approached them.
This is a stupid answer.
Dante is awesome in PSABR, also I think a lot people bought DMC because they felt dante was awesome.

Skate-AK4083d ago

Yeah right. Coming from the person that said this...

https://twitter.com/Crystal...

supremacy4083d ago (Edited 4083d ago )

Thats why ive always said Sony would be smart to promote their own franchises instead of pushing someone elses.

Sony still has quite a few characters they could bring to this game, i believe people want to see older generation based characters rather those of new multiplatform games. I know lara has been iconic since the 1st playstation, but even so with reactions like this is not even worth looking to it.

Like i said, Sony still has quite a few characters they could bring to this game; characters like...

Gabe logan- syphon filter
Jennifer tate-primal
Dart felt-The legend of dragoons
Nathan hale-Resistace
Leonard-White knight chronicles
Iota-Tearaway
Lil and laarg- escape plan
Mark hammon-getaway
Toan-dark cloud
Rudy knightrough-wild arms
Minamoto yoshitsune-genji
Qbert

And they have soul sacrafice coming out later in the year; god knows how cool this characters moves would be. If done right.

matgrowcott4083d ago

You know, the first time I ready that tweet I read it as "Yeah, no." I'm glad you reposted it, because it's actually far more mild than I thought.

I thought it was a genuinely rude comment on what they thought was a laughable game. Actually it's just a slightly misguided attempt at teasing the audience. Brief stupidity rather than maliciousness.

Hicken4081d ago

No, it's not "slightly misguided." It was an obvious snub. It's not even a joke. You don't joke about something like that unless you're either taking a shot at someone, or you're on good enough terms to do that.

Looking at your other comments here, I don't think you really understand the circumstances surrounding this game(which I just bought, by the way).

Jek_Porkins4083d ago

In my opinion they needed Lara Croft, Crash and Spyro. Even though they aren't exclusive, a lot of people who are long time Sony gamers remembered falling in love with the PlayStation brand while playing those original games on the PS1.

matgrowcott4083d ago

Do you honestly think people would genuinely buy the game for a single character? Even three characters? Even five, including Cloud and Snake?

PlayStation Battle Royale can be had now for less than £20 and it's STILL not selling. It goes deeper than what characters are included.

Jek_Porkins4083d ago

Those 3 plus Snake are the reason I didn't buy it, I did rent it via Gamefly and I think it did a lot right, but was far from perfect. It's just that when you think of Sony's icons fighting each other, I always pictured those four or five...

Baka-akaB4083d ago (Edited 4083d ago )

Of course it does matter , who the hell buy an all stars game , if he feels there stars arent actually in , at least most of them ?

It doesnt really go deeper than who's included and not included . Most account a truly good gameplay , wich only a few (like myself disliked) ... the problems are PR and the choices of characters

Gohadouken4082d ago (Edited 4082d ago )

Really ?

How many people would pick an all stars brawling game that propose you "Donte" instead of the real Dante (or Vergil) ?

How many would pick Raiden over any Snake from MGS ?

Big daddy over say Crash bandicoot ?

Most of the icons from all playstation era are absent from the games saves Kratos , Jake and Daxter ,, Heihachi and a few newcomers .

It would be like making a Jump superstar games without chars from one piece , dbz , saint seiya , naruto and only a few star like D grayman's and death note's heroes .

Or releasing a Smash bros without most of the mario universe save waluigi and less known or more recent chars .

I know it aint the studio's fault , but no matter the reasons for some of the notable folks missing , they are still gone and the game can only bomb except for a few that would care instead for the apparently nice gameplay .

matgrowcott4082d ago (Edited 4082d ago )

So the defense you're all giving me for the crazy assertion that a lack of a few characters, albeit important characters, made this game a failure is that YOU didn't buy the game because these characters weren't included?

Look, the vast majority of the gaming market don't have a clue what they're buying and don't put the stock in nostalgia like the core do. They probably don't know Crash is missing, don't know that he's not a Sony mascot to BE missing or don't really care that he's not. Cloud not appearing is neither here nor there, the same with Snake and Lara Croft. Cloud and Snake are gaming icons, but not widely known and Lara Croft can't sell her own games these days, let alone a spin-off fighter where she's not even the star.

It would have helped sell the game to a few stragglers who would have bought it for one character pre-owned or 6 months after launch, but if you were invested in the game to the level where you'd shell out full price on launch day, there's a good chance you were doing so regardless of final roster. At most you'd buy with the hope that said characters were added as DLC.

These are characters that would have helped sell to some of the core, but not enough that paying exuberant prices for the rights would have been worth it. If you honestly think those five characters not appearing had something to do with this game not selling MILLIONS of units more than it did, you don't understand the scale of purchases that we're talking about.

EDIT: And just for the sake of stopping going round and round in circles with whoever decides to tell me I'm wrong below, think of it like this:

An average gamer - plays a few hours a week - probably only heard about PLayStation Battle Royale after release with a review in a newspaper or an advert in a game store window. That average gamer is going to see a set of characters he's played as and loved RECENTLY.

Why doesn't that guy buy the game? Why aren't the kids who grew up on Ratchet and Clank's PS3 entries begging their moms to pick it up? Where's the support from fans of each individual franchise?

It's not because Crash isn't in it. The problem runs deeper.

Baka-akaB4082d ago (Edited 4082d ago )

It's your assessment i find crazy . It's a game about videogames stars and everyone thinks the most important are missing .

So of course it's about that .

" YOU didn't buy the game because these characters weren't included? "

You can CAP all you want . It's one of the main purpose of the game and concept and it aint delivering , at least not enough by most account .

That's like telling someone "seriously you are not going to buy XXX soccer game because XXX team r sar is missing ?"

Well yeah since it's one of the point of those games to deliver those officially or not .

"That average gamer is going to see a set of characters he's played as and loved RECENTLY.
"

Even by that argument , there are plenty big stars missing not just old icons .

"Cloud and Snake are gaming icons, but not widely known"

Seriously ? OK let's agree as you said to drop it instead of running into circles ..

matgrowcott4082d ago (Edited 4082d ago )

It is about gaming stars and without exception the characters in the game deserve to be there. What I'm saying is that It isn't about specific gaming stars. If it was, it would have sold better based on what's already there. You've said nothing about why this game would sell significantly more than it did if other characters were included, you've just repeated that more stars would be better.

No ones arguing bud, but we're talking the difference between the 600k units it shifted and the 3 or 4 million it should have done. Do you think Cloud, Snake and Crash would have bridged that gap or are you so used to complaining that you didn't really think it through? The lack of sales runs deeper than "there isn't a character I wanted there to be."

And your football game analogy sucks. People buy them to replicate the leagues as they are and if a team isn't there they can't do that. PS Battle Royale is still the same game regardless of a few missing characters and the point remains: if you were going to buy it day one, full price, one or two characters are unlikely to sway you. That's a lot of money JUST to play as a character you can already play as on Brawl.

And if you think Cloud and Snake (less so Snake, but certainly Cloud) are well known outside of the core, you're kidding yourself. That'll change with the MGS movie, but for now they're a long way from Mario, Master Chief or Lara Croft (of the 90s)

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4082d ago
Show all comments (23)
30°

Tomb Raider’s Risky 2013 Reboot Revived a '90s Gaming Icon

Crystal Dynamics' daring reboot of Tomb Raider brought Lara Croft back into the spotlight.

Godmars290396d ago

An attempt at a reboot with no momentum for continuance. Just a torture-porn trilogy about a poor rich girl with daddy issues reluctantly being pulling into a world of violence, versus say the adventures of a quipping Brit treasure hunter who solves ancient puzzles while gunning down rare and extinct animals that it originally was?

Honestly, don't have all that killing. If the devs had been truly clever, not focused on mangling a message about the senselessness of killing which was seemingly and quickly forgotten, they could have worked, if not bloodlessly then not directly by Laura's hand, dealing with enemies as part of the puzzle solving - they didn't have in the game in the first place...

badz149396d ago

"Revived a '90s Gaming Icon"

LOL

the only thing similar between the 2 is the name of the protagonist. if they would have given the game a different name, NONE would even think that it was somehow a resurrected Tomb Raider IP. the last game with the real Tomb Raider DNA was TR Underworld.

250°

The Tomb Raider Survivor Trilogy's Take on Lara Croft Deserved More Recognition

The Survivor Trilogy was a drastic reimagining of Lara Croft and Tomb Raider, and it provokes changes for the character that are truly fantastic.

Read Full Story >>
gamerant.com
isarai460d ago (Edited 460d ago )

Deserves less IMO, i think the 1st in the new trilogy was a perfect 1st step for the new direction. The next 2 games were half steps at best. Not only that, every character in the series including Lara is just annoying and doesn't make sense in terms of motive, like yes they have a motive, but none of it seems proportional to the lengths they are willing to go through for it. The most annoying thing is every one of the games say "become the Tomb Raider" yet 3 games later and we're still not there? No thanks. Then there's the mess of the 3rd game, massive skill tree that serves almost no purpose as there's literally only like 3-4 short encounters in the whole game, and they took till the 3rd game to finally manage some decent puzzles even remotely close to previous games in the series. Nah, the trilogy infuriated me to no end as a long time fan of the series, i hope we get better going forward cause that crap sucked.

Army_of_Darkness458d ago

The first in the trilogy was my favorite. I thought they were going into the right direction with that one until the second one came out and seemed like a graphical downgrade but the gameplay was okay. As for the Third, Graphics were really nice but it was kinda boring me to death with its non-stop platforming and exploring with not enough action! Well, for me anyway...

DeathTouch458d ago

Graphics on the 3rd one were abysmal. It’s more colorful and has more variety, but everything else was a noticeable downgrade.

The more open world with NPC quests was also handled very poorly, to the point I missed Angel of Darkness.

thesoftware730458d ago

I know it is your opinion, but she did progress as a character in each game, she even got more muscular and seasoned.

That is the thing, people first complained that there was not enough platforming and actual tomb raiding in the first and second games. Shadow remedied that and kept the combat elements.

3-4 encounters? huh? did we play the same game? there was plenty of combat and, the skill tree did matter, like being able to hang enemies from trees, set explosives traps on bodies, being able to counter, and that are just a few of the combat skills. The skill tree also had things like being able to hold your breath underwater longer, crafting upgrades, zipline upgrade, and climbing upgrades that all changed how you can approach situations.

Not knocking your opinion, but we definitely had different experiences. I had 98% completion on the shadow.

SoulWarrior458d ago (Edited 458d ago )

Sorry but i'm with him about the low number of encounters, the game throws loads of weapons and skills you're way with a comparatively low amount of places to actually use them, so they felt under utilised.

-Foxtrot460d ago

Yeah...no

It was awful, for THREE GAMES it was "become the Tomb Raider" where she went back to square one after each game. Not to mention after a huge reaction of killing someone for the first time she then becomes Rambo straight after and goes on a slaughter spree without a single other reaction. Her development was all over the place.

She was whiney, weak and in later game a little arrogant and selfish

Oh and the voice actress compared to the previous ones was not as good

Lara Croft deserved better and while they are decent games as they are, we deserved actual Tomb Raider games, we could have had better survival games if they just stuck with the original Lara Crofts origin about her plane going down. Surviving 2 weeks in the Himalayas...I'd have liked to seen that, who knows what mystical threat she could have faced in the mountains or underground some secret concealed cave.

Tacoboto458d ago

I thought Shadow of the Tomb Raider had better gameplay than Rise, but it annoyed me the most of the trilogy when I stopped to think about the story.

It's like they deliberately decided to make her unlikeable and did nothing to make the character you're playing as likeable or have even one sign of humility.

SoulWarrior460d ago

2013 I thought was a fine entry, but Rise and especially Shadow were painfully mediocre follow ups imo, I really didn't like how selfish and angry her character was in those two.

Terry_B459d ago

No. Please forget the crap completely.

northpaws459d ago

First one was decent, played through it twice.
Second one was okay, played through it once.
Third one was really bad, tried twice a year apart, still can't get through the first two hours, it is just really bad.

thesoftware730458d ago

Honest question, what did you find bad about it? the opening 2 hrs of Shadow were fantastic imo.

The opening was very similar to the first 2, what did you find really bad?

Not looking for an argument, just an honest question.

Starman69458d ago

3rd one just didn't feel like a tomb raider game. Possibly because the development was passed to another development team. Big mistake! Microsoft killed tomb raider making the first game a timed exclusive. Never recovered after that.

Show all comments (45)
40°

A Decade Later: 5 Things PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale Did Well

While Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale didn't get the best review, there are still some aspects of the game that deserve some credit.

Read Full Story >>
gamerant.com