How come Tomb Raider gets away with it?

[Treblaine]

For some reason, Tomb Raider doesn't get the same response.

Initially, it did. People whined about the dirty look, the style, the lack of obvious implants.

Implants of what? Like a bionic eye? SHE'S NOT A CYBORG!

This isn't Deus Ex, why in the world would she have any cybernetic implants? Why would Tomb Raider fans possibly expect that in a series about mysticism rather than high tech cyber-punk.

And of course Tomb Raider fans would object to Lara being exposed to any amount of dirt, after all Tombs and jungles are notoriously clean and free from any type of grime. No, they expect a matrix like sheen to everything.

 

[Doom972]

From my understanding, it's because the old games were awful in Tomb Raider's case, so it was justified.
In XCOM's case the old games were fine.

Fine? The first one was a masterpiece but the sequels were awful. That's why we haven't had a new one for so long. Also, Tomb Raider was definitely more popular, since it sold much more copies - which is why it had so many sequels.

But fore the sake of the argument, let's say that the series was awful and there was no way to redeem the established franchise: Why keep the franchise at all? They changed so much of it that they could've made it the first game in a brand new franchise.

 

[Pulse]

The only thing tombraider had going for it to differentiate itself was an english action chick hero. No compelling story/universe, no challenging gameplay or unique mechanics, nor any striking asthetics.

So they get away with it because there was no "soul" of the series to "betray".

For example: DMC might be a good game, but they betrayed the tight as balls combat, character, and established story. Hence the backlash.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

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.

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.

I think what you mean is that Lara Croft is just a female Indiana Jones.

Nathan Drake is just a male version of Lara Croft.

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 am sorry, but couldn't we just skip the middle-man and call Nathan Drake just another Indy copy? Or is there a reason why you prefer to call him a Tomb Raider copy?


On topic:
Because people are strange that way, that's why.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

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.

The original Tomb Raider was pretty much about traversing the environment and shooting enemies. That's pretty much been kept in only it seems to flow better and is more intuitive in this one.

I agree it could have been more difficult but I don't think the idea of the original games has been completely abandoned to the extent of a strategy game becoming an fps.

I am a big fan of the original games and I really enjoyed this one. I do agree with the criticism that it's too easy though. There's certainly no areas to match St Francis' Folly.

 

[Vivi22]

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.

This pretty much. Tomb Raider had pretty much stagnated/all but left the public perception by the time the new game was announced. The update provided the opportunity to give the series a much needed shot in the arm.

But X-Com never really suffered from the same problem. Yes, there were a few games in the series, but most people probably only played the first, and UI problems aside, it held up well over the years as a great example of a turn based strategy game.

But perhaps more to the point (and maybe I'm wrong on this as I didn't play much of the original Tomb Raider games), the new Tomb Raider doesn't seem to have totally abandoned what the original games were about. There was always shooting, platforming, and treasure hunting as I understand it. And the new game looks to have simply taken those elements and updated them to more modern standards. The X-Com FPS wasn't/isn't doing that. When it was originally announced it was a completely different setting, genre, etc. Everything you could possibly make different was different aside from it having a group called X-Com dealing with aliens. That's not the way to update a franchise that hadn't gotten any love in years.

 

[Treblaine]

I think what you mean is that Lara Croft is just a female Indiana Jones.

Nathan Drake is just a male version of Lara Croft.

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?

That's the more recent Tomb Raiders. Core Design's Tomb Raider was extremely puzzle and exploration focused.

Crystal Dynamics was in an awkward middle ground. It had the characteristic "ledge shuffle" mechanic that Uncharted borrowed heavily, but Uncharted borrowed the cover based shooting very much from Gears of War with added things like "reach around cover" takedowns. Now Tomb Raider feels very much more like Uncharted in almost all aspects.

But just because the games are similar doesn't mean the main characters are.

My point is the Indiana Jones character doesn't "own" the concept of adventures based around ancient mysticism and hidden treasures, and having a completley different character do the same thing.

I mean if anyone is an Indiana Jones clone, it's Victor Sullivan. Nathan Drake is closer to Nathan Fillion

I am sorry, but couldn't we just skip the middle-man and call Nathan Drake just another Indy copy? Or is there a reason why you prefer to call him a Tomb Raider copy?

(You made a comment about Cyborg Lara not being cyborg... but it suddenly disappeared?)

Without mentioning any plot detail, how are their characters both clones of Indiana Jones? This is the red-letter-media test, don't tell me what they do in the broadest sense (adventuring to ancient artefacts) tell me how their character is identical.

I mean Jason Bourne and James Bond are both spies in Hollywood movies, that doesn't mean they are identical characters.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

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.

It's not as much of a shift. The original TR contained third-person shooting. TR2013 just has more of it. The shift from 4X to FPS is huge. The shift from puzzle-game-with-TPS to TPS-with-puzzles is much smaller.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaahhh... classic Tomb Raider was an "adolescent fantasy" it was one more interested in puzzles and exploration than "PREDATORY STEALTH KILLS OOORARG!".

Classic Tomb Raider was a "Sex fantasy" without any actual sex or nudity or cleavage. It was a step barley above Minecraft graphics and games that wanted sexy content got sexy content.

It was an "adolescent fantasy" that wasn't content being set in a single dirty and grey environment, but expected a world spanning adventure or at least hugely different environments in one locale.

Oh but now we've "grown up" with cover shooting from Gears of War and ledge-shuffling. Oh, and of course, quick time events.

I don't know what the hell Tomb Raider 2013 is supposed to be, but it doesn't make the original 90's Tomb Raider an "adolescent sex fantasy" just because it had a female lead character. For goodness sake these lewd jokes about Lara Croft are more forced than the gay jokes about "Solid Snake".

If there was any "Adolescent sex fantasy" it was not one indulged by the actual games, it was one indulged by the sniping pundits.

I posted this in the previous forum and it shut everyone up and they didn't respond to or reference my post, how struggling and unscrupulous Games magazines would shamelessly exploit Lara's sexuality as they didn't have any exclusives on the gameplay or content...

This kind of imagery wasn't made by the game makers, this imagery of Lara was made by the insecure people around it who can't deal with a female video game protagonist without taking it too far.... way too often.

Bottom Line: No fan of Tomb Raider can possibly explain why or how the original games were "Adolescent sex fantasies" they can only imply it from the duplicitous coverage by unscrupulous gaming "journalists".

 

[Treblaine]

Wait, we're complaining that they decided to actually turn Lara Croft, previously known as a pair of tits with a human body attached, into a realistic character with emotions AND a personality?

Some things actually DO benefit from being re-written.

For those who only knew Lara as "a pair of tits with a human body attached"... you never knew her.

 

[eberhart]

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.

Pardon my lack of knowledge (having not played any of them) but the new game seems to be a continuation of that sex fantasy, albeit perhaps for an older audience. The PR speeches didn't help with that image either. I'm sure the gameplay is solid, but the character aesthetic is.... pointed, it would seem.

There has to be a reason "new Lara" spends most of the time with her mouth half-open. I am sure it's all because being tired all the time, it has nothing to do with adolescent sex fantasy Current Lara was not even "upgraded" in comparison to that actress... oh, wait.

...not to mention instant transformation of a person, shown by all drama in the initial parts, into call of duty heroine against call of duty numbers of call of duty opponents in a Michael Bay movie of exploding environments that explode and crumble. Oh, well, at least it has little to do with sex, so it's all glorious... um, right?

 

[Calibanbutcher]

I think what you mean is that Lara Croft is just a female Indiana Jones.

Nathan Drake is just a male version of Lara Croft.

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?

That's the more recent Tomb Raiders. Core Design's Tomb Raider was extremely puzzle and exploration focused.

Crystal Dynamics was in an awkward middle ground. It had the characteristic "ledge shuffle" mechanic that Uncharted borrowed heavily, but Uncharted borrowed the cover based shooting very much from Gears of War with added things like "reach around cover" takedowns. Now Tomb Raider feels very much more like Uncharted in almost all aspects.

But just because the games are similar doesn't mean the main characters are.

My point is the Indiana Jones character doesn't "own" the concept of adventures based around ancient mysticism and hidden treasures, and having a completley different character do the same thing.

I mean if anyone is an Indiana Jones clone, it's Victor Sullivan. Nathan Drake is closer to Nathan Fillion

I am sorry, but couldn't we just skip the middle-man and call Nathan Drake just another Indy copy? Or is there a reason why you prefer to call him a Tomb Raider copy?

(You made a comment about Cyborg Lara not being cyborg... but it suddenly disappeared?)

Without mentioning any plot detail, how are their characters both clones of Indiana Jones? This is the red-letter-media test, don't tell me what they do in the broadest sense (adventuring to ancient artefacts) tell me how their character is identical.

I mean Jason Bourne and James Bond are both spies in Hollywood movies, that doesn't mean they are identical characters.

If Lara Croft is and Indiana Jones copy, as Tenmar stated, then I do believe that calling Nathan Drake an Indiana Jones copy is also valid, seeing as he zooms around the world, charms pretty women, shoots bad guys, punches bad-guys, has to deal with supernatural opponents and elaborate traps, has a bit of a racist undertone in his franchise and whatnot.
Nathan Drake also features a bit of stubble.
The only thing that really sets them apart is that Indiana Jones does what he does not for Indiana Jones, but Indiana Jones does what he does because he is Indiana Jones.
(South Park reference aside: Indiana Jones does his thing for selfless reasons, whilst Nathan Drake is just a greedy prick)


I do believe that the Bourne/Bond comparison are a bit off though, seeing as one is a "gentleman"-spy who does get full support from his government most of the time, whilst the other one is suffering from amnesia and being hunted by the guys that trained him.

And I took out the "cyborg-breast-implants"-comment, because after I posted my response, the video you posted finally became visiblec causing me to feel very stupid all of a sudden...

For future usage: Remember that Magenta is the official colour of sarcasm on the escapist[/colour]

 

[kasperbbs]

I didn't like the previous tomb raider games, therefore i'm glad that they turned the franchise into something that i can enjoy. As for climbing and puzzle solving, well there was a fair amount of it throughout the game. I assume there will be more of it in the inevitable sequels, since this game was mostly set up to explain how Lara became such a badass.

 

[McFazzer]

I'm going to do a thing. A thing I always do with "reboot comparison grumps". First we look at the "grump" in question:

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.

You see it? Good. Now I'll change the words "Lara Croft" with "Batman" and it will now talk about the Nolan Batman reboots compared to the Schumacher Batman movies. I'll keep the "DMC/XCOM" bit to be consistent. Prepare to be amazed!

"I didn't say he suck, I said that that he's different to the point of not having anything to do with Batman except for his name. With all those changes, can you really say that it's the iconic character Batman? 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."

This is simply something I like to point out. Maybe it'll change nothing. Maybe the internet will try to kill me because I used Batman in such a way (is the a "Godwins Law" for Batman? "Batwins Law"? I dunno). Or maybe, just maybe, people will stop getting so hot and bothered about reboots... pffft Nah. I have low expectations about that.

 

[Treblaine]

If Lara Croft is and Indiana Jones copy, as Tenmar stated, then I do believe that calling Nathan Drake an Indiana Jones copy is also valid, seeing as he zooms around the world, charms pretty women, shoots bad guys, punches bad-guys, has to deal with supernatural opponents and elaborate traps, has a bit of a racist undertone in his franchise and whatnot.
Nathan Drake also features a bit of stubble.
The only thing that really sets them apart is that Indiana Jones does what he does not for Indiana Jones, but Indiana Jones does what he does because he is Indiana Jones.
(South Park reference aside: Indiana Jones does his thing for selfless reasons, whilst Nathan Drake is just a greedy prick)


I do believe that the Bourne/Bond comparison are a bit off though, seeing as one is a "gentleman"-spy who does get full support from his government most of the time, whilst the other one is suffering from amnesia and being hunted by the guys that trained him.

And I took out the "cyborg-breast-implants"-comment, because after I posted my response, the video you posted finally became visiblec causing me to feel very stupid all of a sudden...

For future usage: Remember that Magenta is the official colour of sarcasm on the escapist

If Lara Croft is and Indiana Jones copy

Big giant "If".

seeing as he zooms around the world, charms pretty women, shoots bad guys, punches bad-guys,

That sounds more like James Bond than Indiana Jones. And Lara is notorious for shooting people who aren't particularly bad, like US military personnel, and even guards of the British Museum.

has to deal with supernatural opponents and elaborate traps

That's not a character attribute, that's plot detail. Indiana Jones is still Indiana Jones, even if he isn't dealing with supernatural elements of fiendish traps.

He may CHOOSE to pursue ancient artefact, but his character doesn't create the supernatural element nor traps.

Indiana Jones takes a very different approach from the other characters, even after seeing a lot of magic he is adamant in his denial of the supernatural while Lara Croft accepts it immediately.

Nathan Drake is in fact a lot more like Lara as while indy was only ever for "It belong in a museum!" logic, Lara Croft and Nathan Drake are in it to personally own the items. But they diverge in motivation again as Lara seems to seek them for their inherent value, Drake seems to want them only for their monetary value from how we see him lurching from riches to poverty, trying to earn his way back again.

has a bit of a racist undertone in his franchise and whatnot.

Hmm, Indiana Jones' allying with all sorts of non-whites against Nazis. And when he wasn't fighting Nazis he was on a noble quest for an impoverished Indian village.

Spielberg went out of his way to show Indy as anything but racist.

Lara Croft comes off more as... well you ever heard of the phrase "I'm not prejudiced, I hate everyone equally" before?

At least Nathan Drake had a load of white friends and absence of non-white friends (no idea where Chloe is from)

I do believe that the Bourne/Bond comparison are a bit off though

No, it's exactly right as you are doing the same forced equivalence with Lara Croft and Indiana Jones.

And I took out the "cyborg-breast-implants"-comment, because after I posted my response, the video you posted finally became visible causing me to feel very stupid all of a sudden...

It's okay. I really recommend you play the games, they are awesome with their old-school brain-challenging. It's not like games today that you can practically play blindfolded and rarely ever have to take any pause to line up any jump.

I'll also remember that the colour Magenta is *fabulous*!

 

[M920CAIN]

The old Tomb Raiders were pretty cheesy. The new seems... I dunno... a bit more seriousz?

 

[Calibanbutcher]

If Lara Croft is and Indiana Jones copy, as Tenmar stated, then I do believe that calling Nathan Drake an Indiana Jones copy is also valid, seeing as he zooms around the world, charms pretty women, shoots bad guys, punches bad-guys, has to deal with supernatural opponents and elaborate traps, has a bit of a racist undertone in his franchise and whatnot.
Nathan Drake also features a bit of stubble.
The only thing that really sets them apart is that Indiana Jones does what he does not for Indiana Jones, but Indiana Jones does what he does because he is Indiana Jones.
(South Park reference aside: Indiana Jones does his thing for selfless reasons, whilst Nathan Drake is just a greedy prick)


I do believe that the Bourne/Bond comparison are a bit off though, seeing as one is a "gentleman"-spy who does get full support from his government most of the time, whilst the other one is suffering from amnesia and being hunted by the guys that trained him.

And I took out the "cyborg-breast-implants"-comment, because after I posted my response, the video you posted finally became visiblec causing me to feel very stupid all of a sudden...

For future usage: Remember that Magenta is the official colour of sarcasm on the escapist

If Lara Croft is and Indiana Jones copy

Big giant "If".

seeing as he zooms around the world, charms pretty women, shoots bad guys, punches bad-guys,

That sounds more like James Bond than Indiana Jones. And Lara is notorious for shooting people who aren't particularly bad, like US military personnel, and even guards of the British Museum.

has to deal with supernatural opponents and elaborate traps

That's not a character attribute, that's plot detail. Indiana Jones is still Indiana Jones, even if he isn't dealing with supernatural elements of fiendish traps.

He may CHOOSE to pursue ancient artefact, but his character doesn't create the supernatural element nor traps.

Indiana Jones takes a very different approach from the other characters, even after seeing a lot of magic he is adamant in his denial of the supernatural while Lara Croft accepts it immediately.

Nathan Drake is in fact a lot more like Lara as while indy was only ever for "It belong in a museum!" logic, Lara Croft and Nathan Drake are in it to personally own the items. But they diverge in motivation again as Lara seems to seek them for their inherent value, Drake seems to want them only for their monetary value from how we see him lurching from riches to poverty, trying to earn his way back again.

has a bit of a racist undertone in his franchise and whatnot.

Hmm, Indiana Jones' allying with all sorts of non-whites against Nazis. And when he wasn't fighting Nazis he was on a noble quest for an impoverished Indian village.

Spielberg went out of his way to show Indy as anything but racist.

Lara Croft comes off more as... well you ever heard of the phrase "I'm not prejudiced, I hate everyone equally" before?

At least Nathan Drake had a load of white friends and absence of non-white friends (no idea where Chloe is from)

I do believe that the Bourne/Bond comparison are a bit off though

No, it's exactly right as you are doing the same forced equivalence with Lara Croft and Indiana Jones.

And I took out the "cyborg-breast-implants"-comment, because after I posted my response, the video you posted finally became visible causing me to feel very stupid all of a sudden...

It's okay. I really recommend you play the games, they are awesome with their old-school brain-challenging. It's not like games today that you can practically play blindfolded and rarely ever have to take any pause to line up any jump.

I'll also remember that the colour Magenta is *fabulous*!

For good measure:
Me saying that Nathan Drake and Lara Croft both borrowed from Indiana Jones was a response to someone else, so take the "Lara Croft is/isn't Indy" up with them, and I explained why I thought that Nathan Drake was a bit reminiscent of Indy Jones already.

But what makes you think that I have not played the (tomb raider) games?
I have played all of them (until Angel of Darkness that is) and I really liked them, too.

 

[Hoplon]

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.

It didn't totally gut it. It's still an action adventure game, still in third person but now with no shitty combat. The Island is the big puzzle, the tomb bits and platforming bits make up that puzzle and now there isn't only one way of finishing it.