Tomb Raider To Boast Multiplayer, "A Long Time In The Making"

128
Richard Walker

Tomb Raider will have multiplayer, it's been revealed today, with OXM set to sport the cover story revealing all of the salient details regarding the mode that's been "a long time in the making".

Secretly in development at Crystal Dynamics' sister studio, Eidos Montreal (known for its stellar work on Deus Ex: Human Revolution), Tomb Raider's multiplayer is apparently "inspired by the overwhelmingly positive response to co-op play in Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light."

Seems like a co-op mode could be in the offing then, possibly casting the second player in the role of that old bloke sharing the cover of OXM's big exposé. Either way, Tomb Raider will have multiplayer. Make of that what you will.

Tomb Raider is out on March 5th, 2013.

[Via Tomb Raider Blog]

Comments
128
  • O.o
  • Why do developers think we want multiplayer? Tomb raider has always been a single player game and should stay that way.
  • I just want to play the game for the single player aspect, but if they have been working at this secretly for quite sometime, maybe it will possibly be good? only time will tell.
  • o.O
  • Oh, come on. This is stupid.
  • Co-op, I can understand and welcome if it's done well. If it's competitive multiplayer, I just can't see it working. Seems they just tack this shit on every title now just to excuse bundling the online pass with the game. Sigh.
  • Hopefully its just coop becuase im fine with that but if its competive multiplayer then I dont know
  • :(
  • No idea why they decided they needed to do this but if they have co-op that could be fun if done right. On the other hand competitive multiplayer I feel is not needed at all for this type of game.
  • The only thing more predictable than games adding multiplayer is people bitching about it. If you don't want to play it, then don't. Don't give me this " they're taking away resources from the single player game" crap either.
  • Anything other than co-op would be questionable.
  • There's a way to do multiplayer in Tomb Raider right. But given that from everything I've seen they are taking the essence of the game and discarding it, I don't think they will be doing this the right way. Look at Portal 2 for how to make a single player experience into a multiplayer experience perfectly.
  • Coop is fine as others have said, but some tacked on 'Horde' mode, or competitive multiplayer sounds like a horrible idea.
  • Stop moaning ffs. If they want to put multiplayer in a game so fucking be it. Don't like it then don't play it!
  • @10, if the multiplayer is cheaply tacked on in a vain attempt to keep people playing the game long after they have mastered the campaign, then yes, the complaints are justified.
  • Only if it is Co-op. Tomb Raider is one of those games that should remain a single player experience, like Bioshock. Competitive multiplayer really isn't needed. That's not Tomb Raider.
  • Now are you saying online for this game is bad because you don't want to have to get online achievements? I think all games should have online competitive or co-op it adds replay value to games. Had this game pre-ordered about 3 months ago can't wait.
  • The thing with tacked on MP is that players feel that those resources could have been used to better the rest of the game, again, like Bioshock 2. Sry for the double post...
  • I'll end your post Richard...... FUCK! @OT Well didn't see this coming.
  • And cometh the moaning and inspiring paragraphs of people declaring: "We don't need multiplayer in our single player games. When will you learn Crystal Dynamics?.." Whatever all the ppl whine about.. It could have competitive mp for all i care it won't ruin how epic the single player game is looking nor will it keep me from getting this :)
  • @15 why? If it sucks then don't play it. Pretty simple. If the single player is great and the multi sucks this affects people in what way?
  • MP doesn't need to be in a game that has been a great experience how it has been in single player. If it's coop, that's fine, but make them separate optional levels. Read: Farcry 3
  • As long as its a separate campaign, or like what they're doing with Dead Space 3, then I'm ok with this. I don't want some AI telling me they need ammo randomly as I'm playing. This is also probably why the game has been delayed several times. Shoehorning in multiplayer that no one wanted, no one asked for and no one was expecting. Still, could be good, so judgement will be reserved.
  • @18 that is such a tired argument. Without "tacking on" multiplayer game companies would simply not use those resources. If they "tacked on" shitty multiplayer how can you be confident that these resources would have added anything beneficial to the single player.
  • The down fall of Laura begins.
  • Oh for fuck's sake. Multiplayer in Tomb Raider? WHY?!? So unnecessary. There better not be achievements and only be optional so I don't need to waste my time.
  • If your multiplayer is tacked on, don't put any achievements in it. I'm not getting to Level 50 or whatever the hell you'll cap it at.
  • What. The. Actual. F**k?
  • Co-op yes. Multiplayer no. It's really that simple.
  • @10 the problem with these is that they always stick achievements on them. These games should have multiplayer if want but leave achievements for single only. Ruined Assassins creed for me as the first 2 were all single then more and more achievements went to multiplayer forcing players who want to 100% to play. If no multiplayer achievements then I will still get this.
  • @18 Bioshock 2s MP wasn't tacked on and it didn't take any resources away from single player because a seperate studio made the MP. The single player experience would have been the same with or without it.
  • Coop was fine in Guardian of Light, but that was a completely different type of game. We don't want it in this!
  • Its bad and its a good thing. The bad- campain 80% my guess wont be as long. But the good- multiplayer make more playability.
  • Since it's being made by a different studio, I am fine with this. I just worried it might interfere with the single player campaign with is looking fantastic at this point. Hopefully there's no ridiculous time-consuming achievements for the online portion of the game though.
  • well thats me not playing it
  • Lol mp whine in yet another title :) Tip of the day: Get some friends
  • @36 its not about having friends or not or even it having multiplayer its them needlessly putting it into single player franchises
  • @21, "Don't buy it" is a better option. Why encourage developers to include something that no one was asking for? Or for that matter to do any of the things that they have done to the series. They took Lara from smart with a sense of humour about what she was doing to a scared little girl who is just trying not to get sexually assaulted. They took out a lot of the platforming and exploration, replacing it with a third person shooter mechanic (because there aren't enough of those on the market, apparently). They even took out most of the tombs. But who needs tombs when you can headshot a deer? The game may have been good, but it definitely is not a Tomb Raider game. And multiplayer (the "friend and foe" tag line says it all) is just the latest example of the fact that if the game wasn't called "Tomb Raider" you wouldn't recognize it as being connected to the previous games at all. It is a gritty reboot, because that's what developers think we want. There is nothing wrong with keeping the light hearted exploration and the sense of grandeur that the original games had.
  • This doesn't surprise me in the least, since I've been following this game quite closely (being a TR fan). If it ends up being something like 'deathmatch', they couldn't stray further from the original concept of Tomb Raider if they tried... But cool for those who are into this, I guess.
  • No achievements, no problem. Making MP achievements, big problem.
  • I think it should have co-op, but multiplayer... come on now. Plus, it's not going to be anything unique, just another multiplayer clone of another game im sure.
  • I don't know what everyone's talking about. I want multiplayer in every one of my games. =D
  • I'm just waiting for someone to put multiplayer in Solitaire. You know those mother fuckers would do it if it meant they could ring another $10 online pass and some DLC out of it.
  • love how ppl thumb you down but can't reply with a reasonable debate as to why.. so i mentioned the ppl that constantly whine about MP and you thumb me down because... you don't like it that i don't agree with you? I'm still glad to accept mp in this as it will only to it's life. Question: Was anyone playing resident evil 6 after 1k before the online modes were added? Answer: NO. So long story short when they do things like this like it or not it gives the game replayability and i doubt they give a shit about achievement hunters.. i'm pretty sure all they want is for ppl to play their game for a long amount of time.
  • @44: Yes, how dare someone hit the dislike/disagree button if they disagree with you. What a massive and quite childish abuse of the button, using it exactly as intended.
  • I hope its as good as the Dead Space 2 multiplayer.
  • i always thought that assassin's creed never needed multiplayer but actually found it enjoyable. the same rule applies to tomb raider but i can't and won't pass judgement till i have actually seen it.
  • Co-op yes. Multiplayer no.
  • i love bad bitches thats my fuckin problem and yeah i like to fuck i got a fuckin problem
  • Tomb Raider gets the Resident Evil 5 treatment:(
  • @31 ur correct it wasn't the same studio but if ur game gets 30 million dollar budget and then some finance guy says to make a few more sales lets add mp and they take say 5-10 million away to do mp that does affect single player, look at spec ops the same shit happened to them they had to cut some single player missions and some other stuff due to a risk management guy taking a portion of the budget and paying another studio to make a shitty mp add on.
  • Since I haven't played it I'm going to wait to pass judgement for when I get my hands on this game since I'm a sensible human being.
  • Oh dear this is not needed.
  • I wouldn't mind if this is co-op in the same style as Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light. I enjoy that game, and it's a lot of fun on local co-op. However, until more solid details are revealed, it would be pointless to really make up my mind about it now. There just aren't enough details.
  • Intrestering.... I won't knock it till I try it after all sometime mp on a single player game works like on bioshock 2 and sometimes it doesn't like on assassins creed (my opinion) it will either work and be amazing or it won't let us see
  • Why would they decide that we want multiplayer after 20 good single player years?
  • Tomb Raider multiplayer... whoever is playing as Lara is gonna get gang tea bagged.
  • What aspect of the ghost-town MP servers of so many games that didn't need MP makes these guys think it's a good idea to throw money away on a feature very few people seem to want. COD has MP and makes ten bazillion bucks, therefore we need MP. Well I got news for you, those guys playing COD, Gears, Halo or Battlefield online aren't doing it simply for the novelty of playing with random strangers. Maybe it'll be the rare success story like Assassin's Creed MP was, but I doubt it, hopefully when they see the only people online are Achievement boosters, that maybe they should have spent their money more on making a better game than shoving in some gimmick. Blame the publishers, vote with you wallet
  • @46 lol
  • Then play single player only #2, some us want the option to play with friends.
  • And once again, Square Enix fucks up another game as usual. Should never have bought Eidos, they're better off without Square Enix.
  • How good is the Guardian of Light? There's a weekend sale on it 50% off
  • Not stoked about it, but it is what it is. This day and age it's to be expected. I was pleasantly surprised by Mass Effect 3 and the Assassin's Creed multiplayer.
  • Sigh, As much as I love the tomb raider games, going in the direction of the uncharted series is just low...
  • @3 thats what they said about ACIII, but look at how buggy it is, even after several updates
  • *Looks at Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood* I'll reserve my judgement for when the game is actually released. It's being done by a sister studio so that means, im assuming, most of Eidos' resources weren't dedicated even caring about the Multiplayer. This could very easily be a hit or a miss. If this is co-op though, cool beans. I'm always done for co-op.
  • If it's coop, I'll take it. If it's just competitive multiplayer, then I don't care for it. Coop always makes a game better IMO.
  • I've 100%ed everything TR this gen and played every previous one to death, but this... I don't know. I really don't like to support games that do this. I've been pretty open-minded about some of the worrying changes to the TR formula and style, but this might be that one straw too many if there's even the whiff of SP not being up to snuff. If this sinks the franchise I'm going to be quite sad. If it sells like crazy but isn't proper TR, I'll be quite angry. Dumb decisions and dudebros killed Resident Evil, they better not kill TR. @66 Resources are finite, it doesn't matter if a second studio is doing MP. That's still money the SP team could have used for extra talent to craft a bigger and better SP. And Brotherhood is a horrible comparison. It had like 4 teams, and reused tons of assets from a previously built game. Maybe another TR or two down the road it'll comparable (not really, SquareEnix is not willing to put up a budget like Ubi did, ever), but not now. They need to prove that they can deliver on a SP reboot first. But that's just my opinion. We'll see I guess how it turns out.
  • I DON'T WANT OPTIONAL MODES IN MY GAMES. YEAAAAA! YEAAAAAAA!
  • I imagine the multiplayer in this will be similar to Uncharted on the PS3.
  • lol, If I were to buy this issue, I'd be to look at Page 46 and nothing else. Oh wait... Tomb Raider multiplayer was it? Um... yeah. :p Whatever.
  • Cheapest way to incorporate an online pass into the release.
  • WTF!!!!!! very disappointed with their decided to be made for MP in Tomb Raider. Very sad because it is all about single-player. Oh well let hope MP do not ruins a great single-player in this game. If MP is rubbish or ok or even many letdowns in MP then it would be below 85% for reviews scores for game. I look forward because many videos show awesome gameplay in singleplayer. Square Enix really want joined EA and Activision clubs now. :(:(
  • Do these guys even look around at what's happening in the gaming industry? They don't even realize that Assassin's Creed was basically ruined since the introduction of Multiplayer when it didn't need it, now Tomb Raider will be the next.
  • #74 There other games not AC is in first place. There GTA IV, Doom 3, Resident Evil 5 and name to some other games before AC Brotherhood did same thing. :)
  • I'm trying not to let this put me off. For me, I still consider this a day one purchase. However it may be a good excuse to rope the old man into playing it if there's co-op. The PS2/PS1 games used to waste a lot of our hours together; hopefully this could give a bit of nostalgia!
  • I prefer a great single player experience over Multi. Yet I look at Uncharted and thats a game that came and took Tomb Raiders spot while supplying great single and multiplayer experience. If they can do it right, then fine I'm cool with it but if it shoe horned in then please leave it out. I feel the same way towards Dead Space 3s Multi.
  • Here we go with again ::smh:: Multiplayer has as much business being in a Tomb Raider game as it does an Assassin's Creed or Resident Evil game.
  • Preorder cancelled. will wait and see what the MP stuff is all about before I cough up the cash.
  • Another developer jumping on the bandwagon of adding multiplayer to a game that doesn't need it. Ah well... too fuckin' bad.
  • @72 You hit the nail on the head. It's so they can charge for the online pass if people buy it second hand. No doubt another game that promises much and offers very little ala Assassin's Creed 3.
  • You guys know the reason multiplayer is added is because multiplayer shooters are the games that sell most. That's why that's all we get. Multiplayer and shooters. Or both as one thing. Unhappy with the direction games like RE or Dead Space are taking? Blame everyone buying up shooters and multiplayer games. Single player games have to compete with games that people will be playing long-term with multiplayer, and all people want anymore are shooters, thus killing off genres like survival horror and for the most part, platformers. And since that is where the money is, that's why we get multiplayer and multiplayer achievements and DLC. Multiplayer ensures less likely selling back for some people because they will keep playing that after the single player, and adding asinine achievements tied to it will keep achievement junkies playing since they can't stand the game being incomplete and MP DLC will bring them back and get them more money. And if you get the game used, they'll charge for a pass in some way. It sucks, but that's how it is and it's really hard to "do something about it" because for every person who speaks with their wallet and doesn't support this kind of practice or the downward spiral of less original games, there will always be 10 that just don't care/care more about getting achievements/care more about bitching than just skipping over a $60 game they don't HAVE to own. Having said that, I have been very -not- interested in this game anyway, so this doesn't affect me, but the actual addition of multiplayer doesn't bother me at all. I wouldn't do something so drastic as canceling my preorder over multiplayer being tacked on. That doesn't even make sense. If you wanted Tomb Raider, why does this magically change your decision? Ignorable co-op or multiplayer is ruining your single player experience how? And are you really not going to play the game if it has MP achievements? Just don't play the MP. God forbid you have a game that isn't 100% without going out of your way to boost. If you're not enjoying it, don't freaking do it.
  • @82 Well said, pretty much what I was thinking. If you don't like the multiplayer DON'T FUCKING PLAY IT!
  • @82. High five?!
  • For the love of.....ugh lame just lame. Another single player game that's going to waste disc space on multiplayer.
  • Fuck their are a lot of dickheads that post on here...
  • @87 its being said a lot recently... @2 what are the green blobs on your post?
  • @3 'Secretly being working on' could quite easily mean 'Tacked on, but we're not going to specifically say that'. OT: Sounds like it's specifically CO-OP, which I can relatively understand. If it's competitive, I highly question how they will get it work so that it feels unique and still 'feels' somewhat like Tomb Raider.
  • With the news surrounding the game, i wasn't about to pick this up anyways. It looked good at E3, but this was the final nail in the coffin.
  • @15 Yes the complaints ARE justified if thats the case. However you seem to have overlooked the fact that you have no f'ing idea what it's going to be so the problem is all this whining and complaining is NOT justified as it's purely predicting the worst. OT: If its done well and it adds to the overall enjoyment of the game then bring it!
  • played every tomb raider game over the years and loved them(I even bought my first xbox360 for it as underworld was crap on PS2), not pleased about this news at all!!!
  • @87 this thread is a great example of how shitty the community has got on here. bitch, moan, bitch, moan, insult each other, say games are shit, call someone ignorant. done.
  • @82 - Very, very true. I vote with my wallet now. If I disagree with what a publisher/developer puts out, I just don't buy their games. Not like there aren't plenty of games out their worth buying otherwise. I know full well it matters little in the long run, as multiplayer shooters do indeed seem to be the big sellers. That's why EA put Bioware on that path, despite them being the makers of some of the best RPGs in recent years. It's why Assassin's Creed has gone more and more down the MP route. It's also why I stopped buying them.
  • All of you whining about how they've changed the series singleplayer probably haven't even played the game! (I played it at Eurogamer and I thought it was fantastic - it's still very much Tomb Raider)
  • AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I liked GOL so if it's like that I'll enjoy it.
  • @04 Yeah, i've stopped buying the big name games as well. At least untill they drop down to a very low price.
  • @82 You are spot on. That is exactly why nearly all games pretty much have a multiplayer option because they are competing for play time against the millions of people playing Halo/CoD/etc. People shouldn't prejudge something before they have even had the chance to see what it's like. A lot of people have voiced very negative attitudes towards a mode they have THE OPTION of playing. No it's not time and money they could have invested into making the single player longer/expansive. As the final threads of 2012 whisp away it is going to be roughly 12 weeks til' the game is released and it's going to be in the post-production stage now. God forbid they want to make money so they can continue to advance the franchise! But hey what the hell do I know. I shall wait for the whingers to thumb down this post.
  • @82 It isn't hard to "do something" at all. I can play something else, I'm not hurting myself at all by making a decision with my wallet, even if it is a futile gesture in the scheme of things. Thinking like yours is why we have the shitty politicians we do (regardless of what nation constitutes "we"). Everyone can do something, and being apathetic simply due to the apathy of others is pathetic. I won't even touch the pathetic excuse of "what sells" that you use... TR Underworld, Anniversary and Legend sold just fine without multiplayer or shooting. Plenty of games this gen, hell, in the last year, have. What a weak way to justify decisions that by your own admission don't even effect you. Also, did it ever occur to you that being able to get all of the achievements IS part of the fun for some gamers? Especially on an Achievement website? I'm still in the wait and see category, but your reasoning is absurd. More so because you came here to tell off others for their preferences over a game you don't even care about.
  • People shouldn't start complaining about a thing when they don't even know what this multiplayer is going to be, how it is played etc. As for the MP achievements, I don't mind about them as long as they won't require hours and hours of boosting. That's not an achievement.
  • @95 What I've heard is that the actual tomb raiding is relegated to small caves/areas dotted along the way, but not the main focus. A bit like GoL with a different perspective. Is that true? GoL was a nice little surprise, but it was questionable in its level of Tomb Raider-ness as a whole.
  • @99 - They didn't sell well, which is part of the problem. They sold okay, but okay isn't deemed good enough.
  • Well said @82 my point excactly and we both share the same oppinion ;) I def not have anything against a good shooter or MP but i,m slowly getting enough of those modern war shooters and actualy would welcome a decent world war 2 game again. That Tomb Raider gets MP not realy comes as a suprice tho, for those not familiar with another game on the ermm..rival system PS3 called Uncharted, then we see they added MP and co-op aswell sinds Uncharted 2 and 3, a big discussion was going there aswell if a great game as Uncharted actualy need,should, get MP? Well it all turned out just fine because its actualy fun def the co-op modes. So mabye all the negative commotion thats going on about if Tomb Raider should have/not MP or co-op isn,t justified untill its finaly there and after we played it for the first time to see for ourselfs if its realy that bad or not :)
  • @102 Underworld sold over 3 million combined. That might not be Uncharted numbers, but who really believes Uncharted 8 or 9 will still be pulling such huge numbers as Uncharted 2? And TR always had a more modest budget. Sorry, I don't buy the sales problem... sales are only an issue if they have that same "we must sell 5 million or it's a bust" attitude that is ruining a lot of games and series these days. This is the last thing gamers should be shrugging off apathetically, it's killing/has killed mid-teir games which make up 99% of the games I've loved this and every previous generation before it.
  • Multiplayer? why not? TR is already dead since TombRaider:underworld anyway
  • @10 That is the oldest response in the book. How do you expect long time fans to simply just not buy a game that they have loved for years? You can't help but wanna buy it because it's one of your favorites. Everybody has the right to complain, it's called an opinion after all.
  • Actually it's not, 106. Long term fans who buy a game simply for the name on the box and not based on what they know of the game are idiots and deserve what they get. Everyone does have a right to complain, sure, but that doesn't mean they aren't dumb for doing so. Multiplayer is good. It's not taking anything away from the developer (it's being made by someone else), so single player is in no way inhibited by its existence. Complaining about multiplayer is like complaining that your combo at McDonald's comes with a soda when you're not thirsty. If you don't want it, don't drink it.
  • I guess I'm behind on my Tomb Raider news. This game is being re-made... again?
  • @107 thats just not true, even if another studio is making it its still taking resources from the disc and money that could have been used elsewhere its not just devs time that gets used up with these things no matter whos making it or how its made adding MP for the hell of it is always going to take away from the SP.
  • @109 Exactly my point!
  • Pre-order.....................cancelled.
  • @109 Every game is different. You're assuming that the extra money would be used on the SP portion of the game, when that might not be the case. When SE budgeted this game, they did it for 2 studios, one for the MP, one for SP. If they weren't doing MP, the game budget would not be as big because there wouldn't be 2 studios working on it. Also, throwing more money and people at something doesn't mean it will make it better. And I'm sure if the developers needed more resources they would get what they needed even with MP on the budget. And what do you mean by taking resources from the disc? If they can't fit it on one disc they can easily make it a 2 disc game so that shouldn't even be a factor.
  • @101 - I only got to play a 20/30 minute demo so I can't say about the whole game, but it depends what you class as 'tomb raiding' if you mean specifically in tombs, then I saw none of that on the demo, but there were lots of climby bits, puzzles, etc just out in the open so it all depends what you want from the game.
  • @112 budgets generally dont work like that, not saying they cant but generally you are given an overall budget then that is split up between resources after that and while yes they could go ask for more money and with a franchise like his square would probably give it but neither the company or the devs would want that, running over budget is never a good idea as for disc resources, you can split a game over multiple discs but when you do that resources are still needed across all the discs... kinda hard to explain in a comment box but disc resource management only becomes worse when your spread over multiple ones with anything, simply you need things such as shared menus , areas to swap them, shared world resources to ensure a smooth transition blegh but the point is resources are always shared at some point as you spread them out
  • Make sure to secure 30% of the total gamerscore for MP as well Eidos. Gotta make sure you get that 4% attach rate to your online mode before it dies in 3 weeks.
  • I don't really see "multiplayer" as including co-op, but that's just me. Would rather just see this as a single player game but I'm only interested in seeing co-op if it's a "join the single player in the MAIN campaign" sort of experience, not a separate co-op mode from the main campaign. They always tend to make it separate though, and it's always lame. If that's the case then I won't care much for it, also won't care much for adversarial MP in this as it doesn't fit. TR will always be a single player game to me, but would be very impressed if they could make a good "jump-into-the-main-campaign" co-op.
  • @116 - The whole point of a Tomb Raider game is that it's Lara's journey, not Lara and Tara. How would Lara end up in trouble if Tara was there to back her up? @104 - I suspect that's exactly the problem. Major publishers all want the huge sales that games like Halo and Gears deliver, so features from those games get tacked on in a blatant attempt to capture some of said audience. Problem is, those players all just bugger off back to Halo and Gears.
  • @117 - As I've said, "Would rather just see this as a single player game..." and "TR will always be a single player game to me...," so I think you see my standpoint on it. I'm simply saying that I would be impressed in the event that they DO pull a solid co-op out of their ass, which I more clearly...don't think they will. @115 - A single online achievement in this game would kill it in my opinion, let alone 30% of them. Really? That's how they messed up Turok royally in my opinion. Turok is good with MP of course but like 90% of that game is online achievements, if not 95%...totally killed it for me.
  • @118 - Oh I agree. I can't for the life of me figure out how the hell any form of MP, versus or co-op, can possibly fit into a proper Tomb Raider game. Guardian of Light was a completely different matter, being pretty much an isometric twin-stick shooter. Personally I'd say it looks they're taking way too much from Uncharted, a game I found hugely underwhelming.
  • ugh, sounds like they are being inspired by the crappy 2 character model that has dominated res evil over the last decade :(
  • It will be the same as Assassins Creed with multiplayer....it will end up a boring experience with nobody on it filled with DLCs....
  • input this URL: ( http://www.buy2me.net/ ) you can find many cheap and high stuff Believe you will love it. WE ACCEPT CREDIT CARD /WESTERN UNION PAYMENT YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
  • Wow just wow every game has multiplayer now, even games that don't fucking need it.
  • I only hope its co-op and not a pointless VS mode.
  • who cares about tomb raider anymore? single OR multi
  • I retract my first statement. those screens look pretty good
  • Not my cup of tea.
  • Hm...well, my knee jerk reaction is to be rather 'harumph-y' about it, but honestly, I thought the same thing when I heard ME3 was gonna have multiplayer too....and that turned out pretty damn awesome. So we shall see, it could have some pretty fun potential. Just no competitive multiplayer...it seems like that wouldn't work in Tomb Raider.
  • You need to register before being able to post comments

Game navigation