How come Tomb Raider gets away with it?

[Netrigan]

I think Tomb Raider got away with it because the last several Tomb Raider games weren't exactly doing the job.

People were extremely skeptical when it was first announced and that skepticism grudgingly gave way to positive reactions when it proved itself a better entry into the franchise than most.

 

[SwampCandle]

It's supposed to be different to the old ones though. It's supposed to be her becoming the Lara of the originals.

 

[bigman88]

So you're wondering why people weren't out-raged about replacing a pair of tits on a stick for an actual three-dimensional character?

Anyone who rages over that are horny little idiots who need to grow up. From what i read so far from comments on various sites, is that people do not care for the fact that the publisher and devs revamped the tomb raider franchise into a bloody shooting game. 85% of current gen titles are shooters, some really good, some shitty Watching the gameplay vids, this looks like a good shooter, but why the frig make it into a shooter? Aren't there enough of these? It's a very jarring, unneeded change. Keeping the exploration, puzzling and occasional enemy encounter intact from the first 3 tomb raiders would have been a fresh, welcome change to all these shooters. I love to pull a trigger just as much as any other gamer, but when a game is able to stand out from all the trigger pulling that consists of today's games and do something different, it trly is appreciated. To take a game like tomb raider and make it into another trigger pulling fest is the source of the out-rage.

What are you talking about? The game has plenty of puzzles (in the optional tombs) and platforming. Even the originals had some gunplay in them.

From what i hear, including from those who like this game alot, reviewers, or people who played previous tomb raiders, is that this game's puzzle's are an added break in between the army of men you shoot and stab in the game. I also here from the above people that they are VERY easy. And i know the tomb raiders on playstation did have gunplay, but was placed at various times throughout the bulk of platforming and exploration; if you read the post you replied to, you would see that.


[/quote]And you can't expect a publishers nowadays to release a non-combat AAA game unless they're Valve.[/quote]
That, to me and the tons of other whiners with this sentiment, be sum bullshit. What changed in 2006 where the games having people shoot each other and nothing more is the most successful? I got my theories, but it'll eat up this whole board, so i'll save that for nother time.

 

[jcfrommars9]

Well, considering that the original Tomb raider series was never good to begin with, I dare say hitting the reset button with a reboot making Lara an actual character wouldn't have gone down that offensively.

The idea of XCOM being remade into some FPS was offensive because it was completely alien from a series that could be considered good. I know that the backlash died down when it was revealed that was a spin off, but that was understandable.

This is what I mean in regards to reboots and new fans, the newbies have no respect for the originals and for your information the old tomb raider games were the pioneers of puzzle/platformers so they were good enough to be at the top of their genre.

I was actually planning on getting the reboot but after seeing how the game is more shooter and less puzzle solving/actual tomb raiding I'm gonna have to pass on it.

I'm so fucking sick of seeing shooters every goddamn time I go to a game store I want some variety for crying out loud. Surely it gets boring playing the same types of games?

Not really. Games may be the same types as far as first person or third person shooter is concerned, but they don't have the same tone, atmosphere or story. That's why I could never truly associate Uncharted with Tomb Raider. In my opinion, superficially they're alike. But the tone and atmosphere on both games very different from each other.

As far as respecting the classics, I don't think people are showing lack of respect for the original Tomb Raider. I think just like some people didn't like it's recent reboot, those people didn't like the original series. We all have our preferences.

 

[bigman88]

It's a tomb raider game more in line with the boring ones like underworld; those were third person shooters. The ones on playstation were primarily platformer/ puzzler games with combat to break up the platforming and puzzling. The new tomb raider is only an "explorer" game in the context of the story and environments; Lara's stranded on an island, she has to traverse it and survive. I would say the "explorer part" has taken a considerable back seat in this one when from what i'm seeing and hearing, their is a clear, obvious indicator for the path going forward.Being that the tomb's are an optional, short side distraction, and does not require any thought or skill to get through them, i'd say this was added only as an illusion to keep the tomb raider name legit and relevant. This is a third person shooter, pass.

 

[jcfrommars9]

It's a tomb raider game more in line with the boring ones like underworld; those were third person shooters. The ones on playstation were primarily platformer/ puzzler games with combat to break up the platforming and puzzling. The new tomb raider is only an "explorer" game in the context of the story and environments; Lara's stranded on an island, she has to traverse it and survive. I would say the "explorer part" has taken a considerable back seat in this one when from what i'm seeing and hearing, their is a clear, obvious indicator for the path going forward.Being that the tomb's are an optional, short side distraction, and does not require any thought or skill to get through them, i'd say this was added only as an illusion to keep the tomb raider name legit and relevant. This is a third person shooter, pass.

The explorer aspect game is both optional and in the story and environments. That's not taking a backseat at all. The tomb raiding is simple only in the respect that they're not too time consuming which in my opinion should be favored rather than criticized. It's a third person shooter game but it's within the spirit of the franchise.

 

[Something Amyss]

I dint think that most people who are hating on this particular reboot are hating simply because they are rebooting a series they like. I think they are just hating because they are rebooting the series into your everyday shooter, which this game is. I'm not going to argue with the fact that this is an origin story, and the dev team decided to make Lara Croft's inception into the Lara of the PlayStation happen through bloody, brutal small arms combat with armed men; that's fine. But guess whatever sequel's coming out for this game will be? Even the ones that reaches or surpasses the timelines of the tomb raider games on PlayStation? Everyday shooters. That's where the hate comes from.
You can say that the criticism for the gluttony of shooty games in the 1st or 3rd person on the market is a poorly substantiated, annoying complaint, but no matter how you look at it, it's there, whether some of you are cool with it or not. A few of us wold just like a bit of variety retained in AAA titles like previous generations; and this game going from a platformer/ adventure/ puzzler with shooting in it, to a SHOOTER, and a regular one at that, is a bit annoying.
You can say my criticism of this being a regular shooter is subjective but... compare this to other shooters. See how different this is.

People were hating this game before we saw a single frame of gameplay footage. We had like one image and a top fifty list of reasons this game was going to suck. While you may insist a followup will be a shooter, I find that hate to be as premature as the "this game will suck, sight unseen" crowd.

 

[JediMB]

And on the narrative side, I have no problem suspending disbelief but it was still kind of jarring how suddenly capable Lara became when handling her first human enemies given the way she was characterised up to that point. If her combat expertise was explained in an audio log or something, I must have missed it.

Early on, Lara talked a bit about how Roth had trained her. She also mentions (to Roth) how frighteningly easy it was for her to start killing people.

But most of her combat expertise, including all the abilities you invest skill points in, are supposed to be what she picks up on the island. The process of acquiring those skills just has to be sped up so that the game plays well.

 

[bigman88]

It's a tomb raider game more in line with the boring ones like underworld; those were third person shooters. The ones on playstation were primarily platformer/ puzzler games with combat to break up the platforming and puzzling. The new tomb raider is only an "explorer" game in the context of the story and environments; Lara's stranded on an island, she has to traverse it and survive. I would say the "explorer part" has taken a considerable back seat in this one when from what i'm seeing and hearing, their is a clear, obvious indicator for the path going forward.Being that the tomb's are an optional, short side distraction, and does not require any thought or skill to get through them, i'd say this was added only as an illusion to keep the tomb raider name legit and relevant. This is a third person shooter, pass.

The explorer aspect game is both optional and in the story and environments. That's not taking a backseat at all. The tomb raiding is simple only in the respect that they're not too time consuming which in my opinion should be favored rather than criticized. It's a third person shooter game but it's within the spirit of the franchise.

If the explorer aspects are an optional side track instead of the main focus of gameplay like the tomb raiders on playstation, and instead is now supplanted by third person shooting and up close fighting, then yeah, that is what anyone would call a back seat taken. I agree that exploration is in the story, but from what i am seeing and hearing, it doesn't seem to be in any way a focal point of gameplay. There is no figuring out how to progress here, the way forward is right in front of you. The tombs, based on reviews and other peoples descriptions of the game, are these side path's you can run along. You don't have to figure anything out except some of the very simple puzzles.

 

[Toxic Sniper]

The new Tomb Raider game doesn't have dinosaurs. Apparently, they got hunted to extinction because they were too big to fit behind chest-high walls.

 

[jcfrommars9]

It's a tomb raider game more in line with the boring ones like underworld; those were third person shooters. The ones on playstation were primarily platformer/ puzzler games with combat to break up the platforming and puzzling. The new tomb raider is only an "explorer" game in the context of the story and environments; Lara's stranded on an island, she has to traverse it and survive. I would say the "explorer part" has taken a considerable back seat in this one when from what i'm seeing and hearing, their is a clear, obvious indicator for the path going forward.Being that the tomb's are an optional, short side distraction, and does not require any thought or skill to get through them, i'd say this was added only as an illusion to keep the tomb raider name legit and relevant. This is a third person shooter, pass.

The explorer aspect game is both optional and in the story and environments. That's not taking a backseat at all. The tomb raiding is simple only in the respect that they're not too time consuming which in my opinion should be favored rather than criticized. It's a third person shooter game but it's within the spirit of the franchise.

If the explorer aspects are an optional side track instead of the main focus of gameplay like the tomb raiders on playstation, and instead is now supplanted by third person shooting and up close fighting, then yeah, that is what anyone would call a back seat taken. I agree that exploration is in the story, but from what i am seeing and hearing, it doesn't seem to be in any way a focal point of gameplay. There is no figuring out how to progress here, the way forward is right in front of you. The tombs, based on reviews and other peoples descriptions of the game, are these side path's you can run along. You don't have to figure anything out except some of the very simple puzzles.

The main focus of the gameplay is survival. But one of the aspects of that besides killing mercenaries is also Lara using her archaeological knowledge, instincts and learning to trust both as part of the story and character development. The third party shooting doesn't supplant the exploring aspect of the game, it complements it. However it is also optional because the more you explore, the more you will find out about the history of the island and the Yamatai. I don't share the opinion of those who say there isn't any figuring out how to progress. Even with the use of 'Instinct' vision, you only see the parts that are vital, but not how they fit together and that takes thought. Not everything is right in front of you. And I've seen more than several walkthroughs. Not one of them figured out how to progress without failing a couple of times and I don't mean dying. But as I said, it's simplicity isn't a negative. It's meant only as to not to take up too much of your time from the story and gameplay which makes sense. Exploring isn't the sole vocal point, but it's not the secondary one either. From what I read from places like here and watched on YouTube in the reviews, people had questions that the game more or less answered, but you would only know if you bother to explore the island.

 

[Treblaine]

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".

Except for the countless "nude mod" that where available pretty much since day one.

[HEADING=2]"why or how the original games..."[/HEADING]

There is no what you misread that.

There is no way you can't realise that mods are Completely separate from what the creators do. Such nude mods are not authorised, not approved, and it's part of the rules on Tomb Raider fan-sites to perma-ban anyone who links in any way to them.

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=181343

An impressive feat for a time when modding was nowhere near as accessible.

....

I had to take a breather after that one... boy. You have no idea how madding you are being saying such things. Have you never heard of Team Fortress?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Fortress

It mod made before even the first Tomb Raider games came out and it was a TOTAL CONVERSION mod, it was an ENTIRELY NEW GAME. All the models were new, all the weapons were new, much of the AI was new, new sounds, new interfaces, new everything.

in 1996

And there are nude mods for almost every game that has ever been made! Just because someone writes some slash-fiction of Agent Scully, that doesn't say anything about that character in the creator's eyes.

Have you not heard of Rule 34?

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rule-34

 

[Exius Xavarus]

I haven't gotten to truly play any of the earlier Tomb Raider games, but I have played a little bit of just about every title(I've never personally owned any TR titles and only got to play a little). But honestly, I'll take this Lara over starting Lara or mid Lara any day. Physically(good God, the shit this girl goes through makes Drake look like a pansy) and personally. Also dem eyes. Dem eyes are hot.

Also, the gameplay is pretty damn fun.

 

[lechat]

yup this comic sums it up pretty much perfectly

Spoiler

any puzzleing or platforming is so watered down that it basically boils down to "walk into room. look around. press switch. walk to exit". what is worse is the combat is pretty bland as well, anyone who has played any type of stealth or shooter based game will easily breeze through it and the weapon and skill upgrades come in so fast that there is almost no reason to hunt the collectables or farm the tombs/mobs for xp.

i really don't want to give the impression that it is a bad game but everything has been done before and better by a couple dozen other games so what you are left with is some meh gameplay and a fairly decent story. by no stretch of the imagination is this a tomb raider game that any fan would be happy to see

 

[Doom972]

So you're wondering why people weren't out-raged about replacing a pair of tits on a stick for an actual three-dimensional character?

I've never seen a thread where so many people completely do not read the opening post. . .

I didn't make a TLR paragraph because I wanted to make sure my point gets across, but I guess people are just that lazy.

It's supposed to be different to the old ones though. It's supposed to be her becoming the Lara of the originals.

That's a good point, but it doesn't explain all the cover based shooting, Lara stabbing people in the throat, and the lack of platforming and puzzle-solving.

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.

Tomb Raider (the latest version) is still a Tomb Raider game. It's still a third-person shooter/explorer game, albeit with perhaps more cutsceney-bits than the originals.

The XCOM remake however was taking an isometric strategy game and turning it into an FPS.

These two situations are entirely dissimilar.

No Tomb Raider game before this one was a TPS. Watch some videos of the games on YouTube and see for yourself.

I'm sorry but I have to post this because I found it freaking hilarious and yet a good criticism on how a lot of the old guard with the Tomb Raider franchise felt about the game. Don't take to too serious though, yes the new Tomb Raider is a good game or so I'm told but even from looking at the game from afar the last panel in the comic just explains it all.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts.

 

[WoW Killer]

The thing with the X-COM FPS was that the people it was marketed towards (the kind of people who would rather it be an FPS than a TBS) are exactly the kinds of people that would have never heard of X-COM and therefore wouldn't care about the name. Furthermore, the idea that a TBS wasn't viable in today's market obviously turned out to be false. So it was a pretty stupid idea to begin with.

With Tomb Raider, it's a name that absolutely everybody has heard of, even people who didn't play the originals, and even people who don't play games at all. The name can sell it even if it's not really in the same style as the earlier games.