# Talk:Tomb Raider: Chronicles

The official website of the game from 2000 (archived here) gives "Tomb Raider: Chronicles" with the colon as the official title of the game. The use of "Tomb Raider Chronicles" without the colon for the game seems to have arisen due to a confusion with the Tomb Raider Chronicles website which was started in 2000, the same year the game was released, and which, however, is not the official website of the game Tomb Raider: Chronicles but a fansite whose aim is to collect key news and other information and material about the whole Tomb Raider series. Æo (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
P.S. Also the official game manual for the PC version (uploaded here) gives "Tomb Raider: Chronicles" with the colon as the title (n.b. the uploaded file's title does not use the colon, probably due to a simplification made by the person who uploaded it).--Æo (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The article's title has been changed on 22 September 2023, at 15:47, from "Tomb Raider Chronicles" to "Tomb Raider: Chronicles" according to the foregoing.--Æo (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tomb Raider: Chronicles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Rhain (talk · contribs) 00:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this one! Expect some comments shortly. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


### Lead and infobox
Remove full stops from footnotes, as they are sentence fragments
Consider listing the platforms with {{ubl}}, per template documentation
The PlayStation, Windows release dates should probably be split per platform, considering the different EU and NA dates
Unlink video game
Windows and Dreamcast → Windows, and Dreamcast


### Gameplay
Unlink video game
four locations; → four locations:
Link Tomb Raider in the first paragraph's last sentence, and unlink in the second paragraph's first
She can search the area → Lara can search the area
far off areas → distant areas
themes and mechanics; → themes and mechanics:
Russian levels includes → Russian levels include (or Russian level includes)


### Plot
I don't think the reference is necessary in the first paragraph
Unlink Rome
submarine and wounding → submarine, and wounding


### Development and release
speaking in a 2016 retrospective on the Core Design Tomb Raider games → speaking in 2016 or remove entirely
Consider removing In a different interview,
Final Fantasy IX and Dark Earth → Dark Earth and Final Fantasy IX
gameplay theme; Rome → gameplay theme: Rome
PC version → Windows version
second disc. This was done as → second disc, as
There were several continuity errors—unless I'm missing something, the ref only explicitly refers to one
not referring to the original game's script beforehand—according to Sandham, it seems more like he didn't refer to it "properly", not that he didn't refer at all
very short → short
Windows and Dreamcast → Windows, and Dreamcast
Consider removing of that year
promotional ads → promotional advertisements
November 24 → 24 November
December 15 → 15 December


### Reception
GameRankings is generally discouraged if Metacritic is available per WP:VGAGG, but these scores are quite different so I'll leave it to you
Review table:
Replace {{Rating}} with plain text (e.g. {{Rating|3|5}} → 3/5) per WP:VG/REC
done.
The table seems to imply Edge gave three scores per platform, not one overall; consider removing
The Next Generation and X-Play reviews either need to be added in prose or removed from the table
They were being used. They were the NextGen and Extended Play reviews. I've adjusted them to be more obvious.
Oops, that's my bad—I wasn't aware of their name changes. Feel free to restore the original version—perhaps even consider custom parameters to use the contemporary names. ☔
These paragraphs appear to be grouped by platform, but it's a little confusing to follow
The second paragraph doesn't make it clear that it's discussing the PlayStation version until the second sentence
The third paragraph starts with PlayStation reviews, but has two non-specific reviews in between
I've done my best to better deliniate; general reviews in their own paragraph, PlayStation paragraph clearly shown.
That's pretty much exactly what I was looking for, thanks! ☔
Second paragraph:
despite having improved graphics and a good story, the controls → the game had improved graphics and a good story but the controls
graphics, praising its details and level design → graphics, details, and level design
but again noted → but noted (or but similarly noted)
Third paragraph:
varied opinions; → varied opinions:
Reinier → Reiner
Mcnamara → McNamara
very negative → negative
releases. All reviewers → releases, and all reviewers
Fourth paragraph:
the Dreamcast version of The Last Revelation → The Last Revelation's Dreamcast version
praised it as graphically → praised the Dreamcast version as graphically, and from the PlayStation version → from the PlayStation
Official Dreamcast Magazine (UK) → Official Dreamcast Magazine (UK)
Fifth paragraph:
Eurogamer, → Eurogamer's John Bye
mixed on of → mixed on
grown up → grown
positive generally → generally positive
every year → yearly
its series decline and its formula → its decline and formula


### Legacy
Italicise (or, rather, unitalicise) Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness in the hatnote using |l1=
The Angel of Darkness released in 2003 → The Angel of Darkness (2003)
reception and lead to Eidos taking the property → reception, leading Eidos to take the property


### References
From this revision:
Ref 2: consider adding the English title using |trans-title=
Ref 2: author is Seiji Nakamura
Ref 14, 44: remove |author=
WHy did you want me to remove the IGN interview author? The multiple authors for the EGM one I get, but the other's credited at the bottom of the article.
Nothing wrong with either of those; I was referring to "Edge staff" in the two Edge refs (now #13 and 43 in this revision). Looks like you've addressed the first; I'll catch the second on my way out. ☔
Ref 21 and 22: author is Ash Kapriyelov, consider removing (fan site)
The reason I used these is because they were accepted in the article for Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation, and the policy on fan sites as I've experienced it is that they're usable for interviews with original staff members. I can remove them if absolutely necessary, but it would part-gut the development section.
Sorry, I should have been clearer; I was specifically referring to the mention of "(fan site)" in |website=, as it looks inconsistent with the other refs. Considering using Core-Design.com instead. ☔
Ref 34: author is Amer Ajami, date is 18 August 2000, add |url-status=live
Ref 40, 41, 42: considering combining using one link, add |publisher=
Ref 66: italicise Tomb Raider in parentheses
Some changes to publishers:
Ref 5, 28, 30: add |publisher= (whether you add the contemporary ZDNet or current Fandom, Inc. is up to you)
Ref 7, 8, 29: add |publisher=Ziff Davis
Ref 20: Ziff Davis → ZDNet and link
Ref 24: remove Irish Times Trust, considering adding |agency=PA Media
Ref 31, 62, 65: replace |website= with |publisher=
Ref 32: add |publisher=Eidos Interactive
Ref 33, 44: Future Publishing → Future plc
Ref 35: consider adding |publisher=Aetas Inc.
Ref 36: add |publisher=Aspyr
Ref 37, 38, 39: add |publisher=CBS Interactive
Inconsistent linking (no need to avoid duplicate linking here):
Ref 9, 51, 52, 64: link GameSpot and Red Ventures
Ref 11, 43, 57: link Ziff Davis
Ref 23, 53, 54, 55, 67: link IGN and Ziff Davis
Ref 25: link PlayStation Store
Ref 44: link Edge
Ref 45: link Electronic Gaming Monthly and Ziff Davis
Ref 46: link Game Informer and FuncoLand
Ref 50: link GamePro and IDG Entertainment
Ref 56: link Imagine Media
I think I've addressed everything here aside from the one comment I made.


### Images
File:Tomb Raider - Chronicles.png and File:TR Chronicles gameplay.jpg are non-free works with sufficient rationale and commentary to justify their usage


### Result
That's it for now! Mostly minor stuff, with lots of nitpicking—as before, anything written like this is purely a personal suggestion that can safely be ignored without impacting the review. Putting this on hold until my comments have been addressed. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rhain: Did my best to address everything. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Looks great, thanks! I've responded above, but I believe you've addressed everything. My only recommendation would be to italicise titles of works in references per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. I'll make some minor edits on my way out, but this is yours: ‍! Great work. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)