The Last Revelation (slight spoilers for LR, Amulet of Power and Lost Artifact)

[Faye]

When was the Egyptian new millenium? Because I think of the sunrise at the end of the game as being 1 January 2000, but it just occured to me that the Egyptian new millenium may have been on a different day. By the English calendar, what day would it have been? Would it have been the same day? It was just confusing me that, in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider: The Amulet Of Power, it took Lara several months to get back to England, yet she was in England on 21 January 2000 (see Tomb Raider III: Adventures Of Lara Croft: The Lost Artifact). I was thinking maybe the ancient Egyptian calendar having a different day could explain it, or maybe it's just a plot inconsistency, as The Lost Artifact was written before The Amulet Of Power.

[Sophia Leigh]

The time line is a bit all over the place because the levels in Chronicles are Lara's friends reflecting on her past. The Lost Artifact happened straight after The Adventures of Lara Croft (I believe she went straight from Antartica to Scotland), next came the VCI levels in Tomb Raider Chronicles and then came The Last Revelation and then the Amulet of Power.
The plot's timeline seems to be a bit messy, look back to the debate about which happened first, TR1 or the Rome Levels in TR5 as Larson and Pierre are in both and appartently die in both

I'd be interested to know about the Egyptian calendar thing

[Faye]

Yes, she went to Scotland straight after Antarctica (after a quick stopoff in London first), but the level Shakespeare Cliff is meant to be set 21 January 2000. I'm guessing she went home after finding that the Hand Of Rathmore wasn't in Willard's castle, and then about a year later, 21 January 2000, she read about the explosion in the Channel tunnel in UK Today newspaper. I noticed the date of the newspaper on the loading screen for Shakespeare Cliff, so I guessed that there must be a gap of about a year between the two levels. It all makes sense, until you read The Amulet Of Power and see that she's meant to be in Africa then! Ah, silly Tomb Raider timeline...I suppose if the Egyptian millenium was a few months earlier than 1 January 2000, it makes a bit more sense as it allows Lara time to get home and then find out about the explosion and then get to Shakespeare Cliff, and the Lost Artifact is resumed. I know! Maybe Lara did get home a few months into 2000, and Winston saved the newspaper for her, knowing that it would be of interest? Hmm....

[Sophia Leigh]

Originally Posted by Faye

I know! Maybe Lara did get home a few months into 2000, and Winston saved the newspaper for her, knowing that it would be of interest? Hmm....

Now theres a thought!

[Beechwell]

Just a note on the Egyptian new year: Since Egypt is today an islamic country, they have the year 1427 (I think) right now, so still around 600 years till their next millenium. Their new year always falls on different dates of our calendar. If I understood it correctly the one in our year 2000 would have been in the beginning of April.
Sorry for wisecracking - I'll stop now.

[Faye]

No need to apologise Beechwell, it's very interesting. Now that we know it couldn't have possibly been the Islamic millenium, it must be the date that the ancient Egyptians had as their millenium...? I would have thought so, what with it being all about Seth and Horus and all that. Then again, I get the feeling that Core Design just did use the Christian millenium, as that was the one most players would know about...(and also to cash in on it...TLR was released November 1999!). I suppose then we'll have to go with this...

On 21 January 2000, the headlines of UK Today caught Winston's eye (all alone in Croft Mansion ...no Lara ). It was about an explosion in the Channel tunnel. Lara would have been interested in this. He couldn't bear to throw it away...just in case there was still hope for her...and of course there was...and then when she got home, he gave it to her, she got out her old sample of the "goo" from Willard's castle, compared it to the photographs in the newspaper, and off she went!

That's the only explanation I can think of, lol.

[Faye]

As for Pierre and Mr. Larson, the Rome section of Tomb Raider: Chronicles definitely happened before Tomb Raider, as they definitely died in Tomb Raider. I know it seems weird that Pierre survived that fall in the coliseum level, but stranger things have happened! We heard a crunch, yes, but I think that was just his leg or something, not his neck or back, or maybe even just weak rock cracking under the impact. Still, Core Design should've made him go "argh, my leg!" or something, to clear up any confusion. As for the VCI levels, I'm not so sure about them happening after Tomb Raider III. I know the Official Tomb Raider Files states them as being afterwards, but it makes no sense because Lara had the Iris in the her mansion in Tomb Raider III. I think that might just have been a mistake when doing the Official Tomb Raider Files. I think the timeline makes sense, when two things contradict you just have to work out which one is more likely. Like if the games say "VCI, then Tomb Raider III" by putting the Iris in the mansion, but the Official Files say "Tomb Raider III, then VCI" it's best to go with what the games say.

[Faye]

Oh, another thing about Pierre and Mr. Larson. A lot of of people say it makes no sense because in Tomb Raider, Lara doesn't act like she knows Larson, but we have to let that slip because when they made Tomb Raider, they didn't know that eventually they would want them to have already known each other. Although I actually they were lucky, because if you play Tomb Raider, it still sort of fits, although it was obviously a lucky coicidence with the script. When Lara talks to Mr. Larson in the intro, there's no "Hello, I'm Mr. Larson". They sort of talk like they've met before. And when Mr. Larson tells Lara that "Miss Natla put Pierre Dupont on that trail" there's no explanation of who Pierre Dupont is, like Lara already knows about him. Maybe Core Design spotted that later and thought "hey, actually, we can work with this. We can say they already knew each other, and it'll make sense, because the script allows for it!" And the "Pierre, you litterbug" comment. It all fits, at least to me.