How come Tomb Raider gets away with it?

[Doom972]

In 2010, 2K games announced that they would be reviving the X-COM franchise in the form of a first person shooter. This was met with much rage, due to 2K taking a beloved old franchise and turning it into something vastly different that had nothing to do with the previous games except for its name and having aliens invade earth. As we all know, 2K received so much negative feedback that they decided to make a much more fitting game, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and the XCOM FPS was never heard from again to this day.

For some reason, Tomb Raider doesn't get the same response. Lara Croft is a completely different character - she doesn't look, sound or act like the way she was liked/disliked for (depends on personal taste), and the gameplay is now about on shooting and sneaking rather than platforming and puzzle solving - basically changing genre from action-adventure to third person shooter with stealth elements.

I'd like to say that this doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the game, but whether it was right to call it a Tomb Raider game, when it's different to the point where under a different name it wouldn't be seen as such. Can you imagine this game being called a Tomb Raider successor/clone/ripoff if it had a different name?

So, is it as similar to the X-COM case as I think it is? If so, why didn't it get the same reaction?

EDIT: It seems that most people's replies are about how awesome the new game is. As I said before, it's not about whether or not it's better, but whether or not it's actually Tomb Raider, or a completely different game using its name.

 

[Genocidicles]

They didn't scrap the XCOM shooter to make Enemy Unknown. Both were being made at the same time. The shooter is in development hell, and may already be cancelled, but they sure didn't do it to make Enemy Unknown.

 

[Doom972]

They didn't scrap the XCOM shooter to make Enemy Unknown. Both were being made at the same time. The shooter is in development hell, and may already be cancelled, but they sure didn't do it to make Enemy Unknown.

I never said it was cancelled, I said it was never heard from again to this day - which could mean development hell, but not necessarily. Until we get an official announcement we can only speculate.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Because as fun as Tomb Raider was, it was trapped in adolescent sex fantasy for far too long. It was about time they did something about that. The result is glorious. New Lara is better than the old one in every single way. And this is coming from someone who's played all Tomb Raider games.

 

[Doclector]

They didn't scrap the XCOM shooter to make Enemy Unknown. Both were being made at the same time. The shooter is in development hell, and may already be cancelled, but they sure didn't do it to make Enemy Unknown.

Actually, I believe recently they came out saying they were going to re-focus on it now that enemy unknown was out, and had been recieved so well. I think there was an article about it, but it's late and I honestly can't be arsed to search for it.

The crucial difference is that whilst this is a shift in style and in the focus of the gameplay, XCOM was going to be a complete change of genre. To fans who had been waiting for another XCOM turn based strategy game, this was a massive let down. A...betrayal, one might say. A spoony one, to be precise.

I guess a better question might be, why does "metal gear rising" get away with it?

 

[shrekfan246]

I was under the impression that Lara Croft wasn't much of a character to begin with, polygonal chest aside. And from what I've seen/heard, there's still plenty of platforming, at least. Not so sure about puzzle-solving, but then I never played any of the other ones either so I have no frame of reference. If Uncharted is an action-adventure game (which most people would probably classify it as), then this new Tomb Raider is one as well.

And going from "action-adventure" to "third-person shooter" isn't nearly as much of a jump as "turn-based tactical strategy" to "first-person shooter". The biggest difference between "AA" and "TPS" is generally just the mobility of the player character, and occasionally the weapons they use (and I was also under the impression that Lara always had guns). And considering New Lara is significantly more mobile than, say, Marcus Fenix or Commander Shepard, I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Cpt. Lozan]

The gameplay mechanics in the Tomb Raider reboot are still thematically cohesive with the original though. You still explore exotic locations, you still fight random goons (they took out T-Rex's though D, you still manage to magically find medical supplies and firearms which you tell yourself the goons brought with them because shut up its a video game, and you still solve easy puzzles.

The only real difference is that new Tomb Raider is a much more mature game, where Laura is no longer just an excuse to slap (impossibly large) tits on the box art, and the story is driven by actual writing and character development.

X-COM, on the other hand, (almost) went from being a tactical, squad based game, where player input had dramatic effects on absolutely everything you could have expected from a game made in 1994 by 9 people, to halo.

In other words, Square understood the point of the first game, and they sort of "re-imagined" it and made a game that was fresh and exciting, just like the original Tomb Raider was back in the day. Where as 2K looked at X-COM and said "It's got guns and aliens, that's obviously people liked the game, so lets just cut out the rest of this crap and make an FPS".

 

[Vault101]

because while new tomb raider may be different to old tomb raider its still very similar as far as alot of things go

an FPS and a turn based strategy are VERY different beasts

Because as fun as Tomb Raider was, it was trapped in adolescent sex fantasy for far too long. It was about time they did something about that. The result is glorious. New Lara is better than the old one in every single way. And this is coming from someone who's played all Tomb Raider games.

I think he's refering to gameplay....to which I's say shooting is popular thease days

otherwise "new lara sucks because she's different" <-*sigh* *facepalm*...yeah

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

because while new tomb raider may be different to old tomb raider its still very similar as far as alot of things go

It's also worth noting that new Tomb Raider is an origin story. Everything was done intentionally with a sequel in mind. Raiding tombs was secondary because it just doesn't work as a primary goal in the story. Lara is yet to become an actual tomb raider. I think the next installment will have more original Tomb Raider elements. Now they have a very large audience because both the old fans and newcomers love new Lara and they can do a lot more with the IP.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Both are fun games but from a design standpoint they both aren't so much focused on the adventure and puzzle but more to what a generic FPS fan would want which is cutting down hordes of enemies. Sure it is fun but is it a good game that makes you want to come back to? Or is it more of a game that you play once and just enjoy the experience?

I'm already replaying the game. It's a blast.

 

[Vault101]

This new Lara is just a female Nathan Drake, it's ridiculous. There are hardly any puzzles, the game is constant handholding and "Press X not to die" situations and the shooting is mediocre.

It's a very, very mediocre game, nothing to write home about if they didn't use the TR brand.

Lara is nothing like Nathan drake...

Nathan Drake is a shallow dumbass of a charachter who spouts "funny" lines through out the entire thing and whose problems/drama boil down to "I'M UNHAPPY NOW! WAAAAAAHHHH"

Lara is somone put into an extreme situation, she struggles and reacts like a normal person would, but has the strength to pull through

as far as gameplay goes its similar but better than uncharted

It's also worth noting that new Tomb Raider is an origin story. Everything was done intentionally with a sequel in mind. Raiding tombs was secondary because it just doesn't work as a primary goal in the story. Lara is yet to become an actual tomb raider. I think the next installment will have more original Tomb Raider elements. Now they have a very large audience because both the old fans and newcomers love new Lara and they can do a lot more with the IP.

my inner cynic tells me gameplaywise it would still remain very "unchartedy"

not that I mind too much

 

[BrotherRool]

How come Fallout 3 got away with it? Because it was a good change that made a satisfying game. Sure there will be lots of people who liked the originals better, but those games just weren't being made anymore and they weren't going to be either. Tomb Raider was in a pit of mediocrity with a handful of people who still played the games. As someone put it, the last Tomb Raider game was in 2010 and it was a spin-off. The last mainstream game was 2008. The last mainstream game that didn't suck was 2006.

It was a series with a lot of power and renown in a quagmire. Frankly even a lot of the originals were pretty sucky and the game industry has moved on (a little bit =D) from bewbs. The average gamer now is in their 20's going on 30's, standards have changed.


And besides, it did get hell for it, there were a lot of people giving it hate and then the game came out and the reviews tended to be good (or at least 'this sucks less than previous tomb raider games'). Devil May Cry DmC got a lot of hate and then it came out and it won some people over by being a good game. People were nervous about Fallout and then Fallout 3 didn't completely suck.

If the XCOM shooter comes out and it's not utterly bland and generic then people will let up and start talking positives. Thats how you 'get away' with it

EDIT: Was checking up to make sure that my vague memories of Tomb Raider games not being very fun was not unaccurate. It turns out the only game since Tomb Raider II that managed to receive 'high' praise was Tomb Raider: Legend which got praise like
"It?s good to see Lara back in top form and while her adventure is a bit on the short side and combat could have been handled a lot better, it?s hard to say no to a pretty girl that still has what it takes to show us a really good time. Fans of the series will certainly not want to miss this one."

When your franchise is 17 years old and you managed to produce a whopping total of 3 successful games, the most recent of which inspired reviewers so much they wanted to give it mystical totals as high as 8.5 and those reviewers made comments like 'at least it's pleasant to watch a pretty girl do her stuff' your franchise needed a reboot

 

[Saviordd1]

In 2010, 2K games announced that they would be reviving the X-COM franchise in the form of a first person shooter. This was met with much rage, due to 2K taking a beloved old franchise and turning it into something vastly different that had nothing to do with the previous games except for its name and having aliens invade earth. As we all know, 2K received so much negative feedback that they decided to make a much more fitting game, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and the XCOM FPS was never heard from again to this day.

For some reason, Tomb Raider doesn't get the same response. Lara Croft is a completely different character - she doesn't look, sound or act like the way she was liked/disliked for (depends on personal taste), and the gameplay is now about on shooting and sneaking rather than platforming and puzzle solving - basically changing genre from action-adventure to third person shooter with stealth elements.

I'd like to say that this doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the game, but whether it was right to call it a Tomb Raider game, when it's different to the point where under a different name it wouldn't be seen as such. Can you imagine this game being called a Tomb Raider successor/clone/ripoff if it had a different name?

So, is it as similar to the X-COM case as I think it is? If so, why didn't it get the same reaction?

Well, for one, the original Xcom was a huge classic whereas tomb raider was...yeah.

For two, Enemy Unknown and the shooter don't have much to do with each other, the strategy game wasn't created because of fan backlash.

And for three, the changes were overall for the better, not for the worse.

 

[daveman247]

snip

People have already talked about why. But lets also remind ourselves with the FPS sindicate reboot (i liked it but nothing to go crazy over) and comparing it to the original games. Yeah... didn't go down so well and didn't do well as a result.

I'm a little unhappy with how the new tomb raider has turned out. Some great set pieces and combat... but that WASN'T what tomb raider was about. The last game (underworld i think) was great but was hamstrung by awkward combat, camera and slightly clumsy controls. They fixed all that in the latest game, and made lara into an actual person now, but now the level design lacks! Even the "tombs" to explore have been cut back and are really simplistic :/

Hopefully they will now move forward with the good gameplay but less "uncharted" and more "exploration" and survival. But with how well this was received- i doubt it.

 

[Total LOLige]

snip

People have already talked about why. But lets also remind ourselves with the FPS sindicate reboot (i liked it but nothing to go crazy over) and comparing it to the original games. Yeah... didn't go down so well and didn't do well as a result.

I'm a little unhappy with how the new tomb raider has turned out. Some great set pieces and combat... but that WASN'T what tomb raider was about. The last game (underworld i think) was great but was hamstrung by awkward combat, camera and slightly clumsy controls. They fixed all that in the latest game, and made lara into an actual person now, but now the level design lacks! Even the "tombs" to explore have been cut back and are really simplistic :/

Hopefully they will now move forward with the good gameplay but less "uncharted" and more "exploration" and survival. But with how well this was received- i doubt it.

I know what you mean man. Where are the puzzles? The tombs are incredibly easy, so easy that I just don't bother. My favourite parts of Tomb Raider and Uncharted games are the puzzles and there just aren't enough in the reboot or uncharted(Only played 2&3). I wish there were more puzzles in Uncharted because they are so well done.

That said I love the new Tomb Raider and I look forward to the sequel(s), and hopefully some more challenging tombs. I think that the reboot "got away with it" because it's actually fun.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Was checking up to make sure that my vague memories of Tomb Raider games not being very fun was not unaccurate. It turns out the only game since Tomb Raider II that managed to receive 'high' praise was Tomb Raider: Legend which got praise like
"It?s good to see Lara back in top form and while her adventure is a bit on the short side and combat could have been handled a lot better, it?s hard to say no to a pretty girl that still has what it takes to show us a really good time. Fans of the series will certainly not want to miss this one."

Tomb Raider 3 and The Last Revelation were relatively well received but were considered to be getting stale.

I remember being surprised (and kind of happy ) when I first heard that the general opinion on the franchise was that it wasn't utterly perfect in every way. When I was younger, the only bit of gaming media I read was the Official UK Playstation (1) Magazine... which gave every Tomb Raider game a perfect score. Except Chronicles, which it gave a 9/10 to.

Still, this is the same mag that ran a "Final Fantazine" section in every issue.

A section dedicated to Final Fantasy. In every issue.

The Official UK PS2 Mag also gave Angel of Darkness an 8/10. But a couple of years later they ran an article about how that was a horrible thing to do.

 

[Doom972]

because while new tomb raider may be different to old tomb raider its still very similar as far as alot of things go

an FPS and a turn based strategy are VERY different beasts

Because as fun as Tomb Raider was, it was trapped in adolescent sex fantasy for far too long. It was about time they did something about that. The result is glorious. New Lara is better than the old one in every single way. And this is coming from someone who's played all Tomb Raider games.

I think he's refering to gameplay....to which I's say shooting is popular thease days

otherwise "new lara sucks because she's different" <-*sigh* *facepalm*...yeah

I didn't say she suck, I said that that she's different to the point of not having anything to do with Lara Croft except for her name. With all those changes, can you really say that it's the iconic character Lara Croft? In this regard, maybe I should've compared to DMC, rather than XCOM, where we get a completely different character which has nothing to do with its previous incarnation except for its name.

 

[jehk]

Because as fun as Tomb Raider was, it was trapped in adolescent sex fantasy for far too long. It was about time they did something about that. The result is glorious. New Lara is better than the old one in every single way. And this is coming from someone who's played all Tomb Raider games.

Agree with this. Now, Tomb Raider needs to release some kick butt puzzles / jumping around / I dunno. Hell, Guild wars 2 had more / better jumping puzzles than Tomb Raider.