1979 - Atari saved gaming from the first Video game market crash with the Atari 2600

1983 - Nintendo saved gaming from the second Video game market crash with the Nintendo Entertainment System. This console would pioneer much of what we would know as gaming and is perhaps the most important stepping stone in video game history.

- No significant contribution period - Sega became the first legitimate challenger to Nintendo with the Sega Genesis, their third console. While losing to Nintendo, Sega's market push for "Hardcore" gaming forced Nintendo to reply by upping the anty and taking the video game in new directions of mature themes and mature content.

1994 - Sony came to the rescue of a market daunted by Nintendo's arrogance and Sega's incompetence. While exploiting a failed deal with Nintendo to make a disc playing addition to the SNES, the PlayStation would go on to breath new life into the market continuing not only Sega's push for "Hardcore" gaming but putting emphasis on convenience of gaming and affordability (A lesson lost on the PS3).

- No significant contribution period - Sony continues their dominance with the PS2, Nintendo sits on the back burner with the Gamecube and Microsoft enters the scene with the Xbox as the proverbial rich kid who wanted to join the football team so he had his dad buy him his own team.

2006 - Nintendo, having learned their lesson and reformating their company's structure and management, saves the market from stagnation by reinventing their approach towards video games and broading the appeal of the market with new genres and casual titles. As a result the DS and Wii are the most successful products Nintendo has ever had.

Nintendo has saved the market more times and in more significant ways than any other gaming company. Does that make them the most awesomest thing ever? Well that's really a matter of personal opinion, obviously there are people here with preference towards the 360 and PS3, so its far from unanymous that Nintendo is the best ever, but there is no arguing they've made the largest contributions towards gaming and have saved it more than anyone else.

Obviously you have no clue what you're talking about with the game so maybe you should just drop it.  If it was only breasts it wouldn't have gotten a 90-93% on Gamerankings.  Hell if it's all just about breasts please explain why Dead or Alive Extreme Beach Volleyball got a 73.2% or it's sequel got a 53.6%, they had a lot more breasts on display than Tomb Raider ever did.  A game doesn't have a sequel as anticipated as Tomb Raider 2 was if it was breasts attached to a poor or average game that was selling it.  And as far as it being the breasts that hooked people, I played the game and didn't give a damn about her breasts.  My girlfriend at the time played it as well and is straight so the breasts weren't what got her hooked on the game either.

Just as a comment to this heated discussion...

I played the old Tombraider games and they sucked.  They were clunky and painful to play.

Super Mario 64 obliterated them in the ease of control category IMO.

Tomb Raiders appeal above and beyond "just another decent game" was to some extent breasts. If it was a good game, it was a good game, but that doesn't change the fact that the one factor that kept it from being JUST another good game was the main character's feminine appeal. That does not mean that one much be a victim of this appeal to enjoy the game, but there is no arguing Tomb Raiders popularity above and beyond similar quality games thrived largely during that brief window when triangle polygon boobs could be considered "hot".

No

Tombraider. rofl.

@donwii are you saying no to the statement above you?  where you born under a rock?

Well lets see what Wikipedia has for the game's reception and you tell me if it sounds like "just another decent game" with breasts to you.

From Wikipedia:

"Upon its release in 1996, Tomb Raider was widely praised by gaming magazines for its revolutionary graphics, inventive gameplay, and involving storyline.^[10][11] The level of sophistication Tomb Raider reached by combining state-of-the-art graphics, an atmospheric soundtrack, and a cinematic approach to gameplay was at the time unprecedented.^[12] The resulting sales were consequential, topping the British charts a record three times,^[7] and contributing much to the success of the PlayStation.^[13] In the previous year, Eidos Interactive had recorded a nearly $2.6 million in pre-tax loss. The success of the game turned this loss into a $14.5 million profit in only a year.^[14]

As one of the top selling games of the PlayStation console, it was one of the first to be released on PlayStation's Platinum series, and its success made Tomb Raider II one of the most anticipated games of 1997. In 1998, Tomb Raider won the Origins Award for Best Action Computer Game of 1997.^[15] The Lara Croft character was prominently featured in the popular media outside the realm of video gaming, for instance on the cover of cutting-edge pop culture magazine The Face in June 1997.

Nevertheless, Tomb Raider received some criticism for minor camera and object glitches,^[16] as well as its difficult save system.^[4] Additionally gamers complained at the lack of action in favor of puzzle solving, although ironically, Tomb Raider II would be criticized for its over abundance of violence, especially against human opponents.^"

So Wikipedia is a credible source now, and a factor that should be weighed above all other facets of reality? If they present one view on something that must be the only view and of course the agreed upon view right? In fact Wikipedia seems to not really so much support or dismiss your claims but really just show that the game was popular for unanmed reasons.

Or were you just hoping to intimidate me with a giant wall of quoted text?

Why is thread talking about Tomb Raider? I thought it was about whether Nintendo saved the gaming industry back in the mid 80s.

You're new to this internet forum thing aren't you? 

I can tell; you expect threads to be about what's in the title.