How come Tomb Raider gets away with it?

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I think the main difference is that the original Tomb Raider series, was..... well..... kind of shit towards the end.

Don't get me wrong, it's a landmark series with many excellent titles, but the games and the main character in particular had become kind of a parody in recent years.

Everyone knew she was a shallow murderer. Everyone knew how utterly implausible her outfit and look was.

She shouldn't have dressed like that if she wasn't looking for a re-design.

And in terms of the gameplay, I don't think anyone had an issue because it isn't drastically different. X-Com becoming a shooter was a HUGE deal because, from what I gather, it was one of the only hardcore turn-based strategy games left.

 

[jcfrommars9]

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.

I for one do have to take it seriously because in my opinion, this criticism misses something rather completely. What made this game different and better for me than the dozen others that some people are claiming did it better than this game was the character herself. I brought this up before but I loved how well they were able to combine Lara's vulnerability with her strength. Most other games that do third party shooting don't mix those things quite well. They're mostly alpha characters.

Furthermore, I love the Uncharted series but what I noticed was that others as well as myself never questioned Nathan Drake's behavior in any truly critical way. We also never questioned Nathan Drake's body count but we question not only Lara's body count but her ability to kill and this is deliberate. I read this recent article when Ken Levine was talking about how Casino Royale (the 2006 movie) where Vesper Lynd sees James Bond and this guy brutally fight each other until Bond strangles the guy to death right in front of her. Just like Lara, Vesper gets to see the lights go out. Bond later has to tend to her but like Levine, I liked that it addresses the unasked question: How can Bond be so charming and so brutal?

In Tomb Raider, it also addresses this with a brief exchange between Roth and Lara when he says it couldn't have been easy for her to kill and she responds, it was scary just how easy it was. Later, I noticed one of the journals where Lara's thoughts about one of the crew members who praises her "ass kicking" ability. She doesn't understand his wanting to be more like her; that the cost of surviving is too high. All those subtle things I felt many reviewers missed helped me connect to Lara's state of mind when she's killing all these men from her initial shock at killing the first one. Finally, this comic wonders when the decision was made to switch the focus of the franchise. I would answer it was when the old guard was nostalgically talking more about how the game was from fifteen to seventeen years ago when the franchise's most recent games were more like three to five years ago.

 

[tzimize]

Its totally tomb raider.

The only thing missing is bigger tombs.

They have been replaced with a more personalized story, and a more mature rating (thank god).

I'm a tomb raider fan and I love it. I wouldnt mind a bit more exploration/mystery in the inevitable sequel though.

 

[Harley Q]

Tomb raider just felt, lacklustre. I found myself not caring about the character or her comrades. It felt like playing Assassin's Creed revelations. Except with a girl.

Also, why do we need so many collectables? Maybe I have a low attention span but I really, really cannot be arsed searching for 10 mushrooms in a forest. I understand that they want people to continue to play the game for more than 3 days and as a result purchase the next game in Lady Croft's adventures. However, perhaps something more interesting than lighting a bunch of statues.

Do the GPS caches actually do anything?

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I think the next one is going to be more 'Tomb Raidery' mostly because I'm pretty much guess A. she will be alone (no more dead friends) and B. She will be deliberately going after something rather than just trying to escape.

 

[Timzilla]

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

Not sure if anyone else said this yet, but Metal Gear Rising actually was met with some backlash from the fan base. Not as much as Xcom, though, because Rising was just a spin off.

 

[RivFader86]

Think it pretty much comes down to this.
The XCom "community" or even number of players that played the original alot is smaller so the "seems like everyone hates this" is reached a lot faster and with classic games people are generally more vocal when things about them get changed. Although Tomb Raider is technically a classic game they have been putting out sequels (more or less) frequently so it was always kinda there, some played it/some didn't, some loved it/some hated it, but most people didn't realy care enough for the changes to matter to them.
And of course the change wasn't as radical as turning a turn based strat game into a shooter...that's like making CoD X (i actually lost track what the number should be by now ;P) a kinect dancing game...waaaaaait a minute...gotta go and talk to Actiblizz...brb...do not steal my awesome idea

 

[MiriaJiyuu]

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.

I never thought of it this way, but now I'm really looking forward to a sequel.

Honestly though? I liked this game a lot better than the previous ones. While I would have enjoyed a little more puzzle-solving and less shooting, I get where they were going with it, and overall the game was more solid than any of the previous games, both gameplay and story-wise.

 

[PirateRose]

Well, as an old school tomb raider fan I saw a lot of rage.

 

[Lyri]

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.

Because this TR is a reboot, its that simple really.
Same basic premise but they've been given liberty to change some things here and there, mostly to do with Miss Croft.
Simple answer.

 

[Awexsome]

One was a tactical turn based strategy game turned into an FPS, a genre that gets the most fanboy bashing for "generic"-ness and the other was an adventure game turned into... and adventure game.

And no OP it wasn't "drastically changed" by any stretch of the imagination. Laura's character herself is quite different but if you hadn't noticed almost everyone agrees that it's for the better. Cool story if you disagree but you'd be pretty wrong.

 

[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.

Because this TR is a reboot, its that simple really.
Same basic premise but they've been given liberty to change some things here and there, mostly to do with Miss Croft.
Simple answer.

So were the XCOM shooter and DMC. Both are reboots that changed the games to a point that they might as well have different names, and both suffered for it. The XCOM shooter is in development hell as far as we know.

They've been given those liberties, and I think that they abused them and just made a completely different game that has nothing to do with the franchise.

I suggest reading the original post fully before replying, and maybe the rest of the discussion because this has been discussed.

 

[Lyri]

So were the XCOM shooter and DMC. Both are reboots that changed the games to a point that they might as well have different names, and both suffered for it. The XCOM shooter is in development hell as far as we know.

They've been given those liberties, and I think that they abused them and just made a completely different game that has nothing to do with the franchise.

I suggest reading the original post fully before replying, and maybe the rest of the discussion because this has been discussed.

So you're just answering your own question then really?

I read your OP and you're honestly comparing changing a game and it's style
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

with changing one character and keeping core gameplay elements similar.
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.

Clue is in the name really, it is a reboot of the series and Lara didn't have to be the exact same Mrs Croft, hell look at how Peter Parker has done in the several different spiderman films.
Same old Uncle Ben story but different iterations of Pete.
They've gone from keeping Lara as "Wondertits:Explortation for hire" to "semi-relatable person in trouble", I don't think your comparisons are entirely justified honestly and neither are they similar.
Which is why Tomb Raider got away with it, a beloved and popular franchise got brought up to speed with a todays crowd.

Also no need to be snarky, keep your suggestions to yourself.
I read your OP and most of your thread, not writing a paragraph is not indicative of lack of reading.

 

[Doom972]

So were the XCOM shooter and DMC. Both are reboots that changed the games to a point that they might as well have different names, and both suffered for it. The XCOM shooter is in development hell as far as we know.

They've been given those liberties, and I think that they abused them and just made a completely different game that has nothing to do with the franchise.

I suggest reading the original post fully before replying, and maybe the rest of the discussion because this has been discussed.

So you're just answering your own question then really?

I read your OP and you're honestly comparing changing a game and it's style
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

with changing one character and keeping core gameplay elements similar.
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.

Clue is in the name really, it is a reboot of the series and Lara didn't have to be the exact same Mrs Croft, hell look at how Peter Parker has done in the several different spiderman films.
Same old Uncle Ben story but different iterations of Pete.
They've gone from keeping Lara as "Wondertits:Explortation for hire" to "semi-relatable person in trouble", I don't think your comparisons are entirely justified honestly and neither are they similar.
Which is why Tomb Raider got away with it, a beloved and popular franchise got brought up to speed with a todays crowd.

Also no need to be snarky, keep your suggestions to yourself.
I read your OP and most of your thread, not writing a paragraph is not indicative of lack of reading.

Am I supposed to read your mind? You previous reply made it look as if you just replied to the topic title.
Also, I wasn't being snarky, I was being sincere. I suggest that you calm down.

If it was only the extreme change of Lara, or only the change of core gameplay mechanics, I don't think that it would seem as different to me as it does - but with both of them changed, I see little resemblance to the rest of the franchise, as these were the franchise's identity.

 

[Lyri]

Am I supposed to read your mind? You previous reply made it look as if you just replied to the topic title.
Also, I wasn't being snarky, I was being sincere. I suggest that you calm down.

If it was only the extreme change of Lara, or only the change of core gameplay mechanics, I don't think that it would seem as different to me as it does - but with both of them changed, I see little resemblance to the rest of the franchise, as these were the franchise's identity.

Lara didn't have much of an identity until the later games where they tried to fill it in to some degree, she was always very bleh but mostly polygon tits.
The true sense of the game was the adventuring in the middle and from what others have said it doesn't seem to have changed as much as you believe.
This is still Tomb Raider, you're still looking at Lara Croft they just redid her origin story and brought the games forward. When I first saw the redesign of her a year or so ago I didn't think "Huh who is she?" I was pretty thrilled to see another title with the instantly recognisable leading lady.

I don't know what happened to XCom but honestly I'd never even heard of that game at all until maybe a year ago? Whilst I was playing Tomb Raider as a growing lad.
So I can only really relate in terms where a game like Dawn of War turned into Dawn of War II (if you know of those games?), I can understand the feeling of it being a different game but I never saw that insofar as TR goes.

 

[Doom972]

Am I supposed to read your mind? You previous reply made it look as if you just replied to the topic title.
Also, I wasn't being snarky, I was being sincere. I suggest that you calm down.

If it was only the extreme change of Lara, or only the change of core gameplay mechanics, I don't think that it would seem as different to me as it does - but with both of them changed, I see little resemblance to the rest of the franchise, as these were the franchise's identity.

You aren't expected to read Lyri's mind, but you are expected not to be a troll. When someone says something you don't like, don't pull a Sasuke Uchiha and say "you don't understand". You don't know this person, so you have no way of knowing if they understand what you're saying or not. Don't assume a response is made out of ignorance.

Also, was Tomb Raider really such a sacred thing that altering the main character for better appel would ruin it? This game has sold better at launch than any other Tomb Raider game. It is the top selling console game over other games that came out AFTER it. You are making an absurd argument. A lot more people had a problem with the old Lara, because of how explotive they were with her looks. Now that they've done away with that, you're complaining? That's frickin' childish.

Don't mistake improvements with changes. If you like playing a flat character with no personality and use broken contrlols, you aren't going to find a lot of games that appel to you.

A fine display of maturity by throwing insults and accusing me of being a troll.

As for the topic at hand - I guess that I have to mention again that this has nothing to do with the game being better or worse, but whether or not it's similar enough to other games in the franchise to be called a Tomb Raider game. I don't say that changing the main character alone makes it too different from other games in the franchise - I say that changing that, in addition to core gameplay elements to the point of changing genre, results in it having very little to do with the franchise. If either the protagonist or core gameplay elements had been preserved, I probably wouldn't have made this thread.

You're the one who shouldn't mistake changes with improvements. For example, I hardly see how cover-based shooting is an improvement over rolling and jumping around while shooting. To me, that just seems lazy.

I don't need every character to be Batman. I can enjoy playing a videogame with a protagonist who has a videogamey personality every once in a while. I never played the Tomb Raider games for the plot, but for the action.

 

[Adventurer2626]

As far as the Tomb-Raider goes: keep the rebooted character and plot (I'm super stoked that they made Lara into a person) and in the eventual sequels tone done the combat in favor of more of the puzzle solving. I know they can do it. Then they're golden!

 

[jcfrommars9]

Am I supposed to read your mind? You previous reply made it look as if you just replied to the topic title.
Also, I wasn't being snarky, I was being sincere. I suggest that you calm down.

If it was only the extreme change of Lara, or only the change of core gameplay mechanics, I don't think that it would seem as different to me as it does - but with both of them changed, I see little resemblance to the rest of the franchise, as these were the franchise's identity.

You aren't expected to read Lyri's mind, but you are expected not to be a troll. When someone says something you don't like, don't pull a Sasuke Uchiha and say "you don't understand". You don't know this person, so you have no way of knowing if they understand what you're saying or not. Don't assume a response is made out of ignorance.

Also, was Tomb Raider really such a sacred thing that altering the main character for better appel would ruin it? This game has sold better at launch than any other Tomb Raider game. It is the top selling console game over other games that came out AFTER it. You are making an absurd argument. A lot more people had a problem with the old Lara, because of how explotive they were with her looks. Now that they've done away with that, you're complaining? That's frickin' childish.

Don't mistake improvements with changes. If you like playing a flat character with no personality and use broken contrlols, you aren't going to find a lot of games that appel to you.

A fine display of maturity by throwing insults and accusing me of being a troll.

As for the topic at hand - I guess that I have to mention again that this has nothing to do with the game being better or worse, but whether or not it's similar enough to other games in the franchise to be called a Tomb Raider game. I don't say that changing the main character alone makes it too different from other games in the franchise - I say that changing that, in addition to core gameplay elements to the point of changing genre, results in it having very little to do with the franchise. If either the protagonist or core gameplay elements had been preserved, I probably wouldn't have made this thread.

You're the one who shouldn't mistake changes with improvements. For example, I hardly see how cover-based shooting is an improvement over rolling and jumping around while shooting. To me, that just seems lazy.

I don't need every character to be Batman. I can enjoy playing a videogame with a protagonist who has a videogamey personality every once in a while. I never played the Tomb Raider games for the plot, but for the action.

Maybe this reboot shouldn't be similar enough to other games in the franchise. Maybe Tomb Raider should get away with it simply because it deserves to. This Lara Croft isn't a completely different character from the original. She's still strong willed, intelligent, resourceful, athletic and not to be trifled with. I would think those were the more relevant qualities of her character. As far as looks go, minus the bust size (which clearly no one misses), Lara is still brown haired, brown eyed and wears a green tank top, brown pants and boots which is more than close enough to original that it barely warrants mentioning. Now I say isn't a completely different character because this rebooted character is better and not just better than the original Lara Croft, but the others she's compared to including Nathan Drake and Jason Brody, at least in my opinion. She's vulnerable without losing her power. She's filled with fear but she's not a coward. She's unsure of herself, but she never gives up. Rather than being a strong female protagonist, she's a strong protagonist who is a woman. Maybe those other characters should be more like her because she can be related to better than they are.

The gameplay involves shooting and sneaking but the game itself is about platforming and puzzle solving. This is an origin story. Even in the original history though not the first game, Lara being stuck in the Himalayas for two weeks, forced to survive is what convinced her to become the Tomb Raider we all know. This story is no different. Before they get into the puzzle solving the way the first game did, maybe it's best to see where this Lara Croft started since as you said this Lara Croft is nothing like the original (and yes, I still disagree with that).

 

[bigman88]

Am I supposed to read your mind? You previous reply made it look as if you just replied to the topic title.
Also, I wasn't being snarky, I was being sincere. I suggest that you calm down.

If it was only the extreme change of Lara, or only the change of core gameplay mechanics, I don't think that it would seem as different to me as it does - but with both of them changed, I see little resemblance to the rest of the franchise, as these were the franchise's identity.

You aren't expected to read Lyri's mind, but you are expected not to be a troll. When someone says something you don't like, don't pull a Sasuke Uchiha and say "you don't understand". You don't know this person, so you have no way of knowing if they understand what you're saying or not. Don't assume a response is made out of ignorance.

Also, was Tomb Raider really such a sacred thing that altering the main character for better appel would ruin it? This game has sold better at launch than any other Tomb Raider game. It is the top selling console game over other games that came out AFTER it. You are making an absurd argument. A lot more people had a problem with the old Lara, because of how explotive they were with her looks. Now that they've done away with that, you're complaining? That's frickin' childish.

Don't mistake improvements with changes. If you like playing a flat character with no personality and use broken contrlols, you aren't going to find a lot of games that appel to you.

A fine display of maturity by throwing insults and accusing me of being a troll.

As for the topic at hand - I guess that I have to mention again that this has nothing to do with the game being better or worse, but whether or not it's similar enough to other games in the franchise to be called a Tomb Raider game. I don't say that changing the main character alone makes it too different from other games in the franchise - I say that changing that, in addition to core gameplay elements to the point of changing genre, results in it having very little to do with the franchise. If either the protagonist or core gameplay elements had been preserved, I probably wouldn't have made this thread.

You're the one who shouldn't mistake changes with improvements. For example, I hardly see how cover-based shooting is an improvement over rolling and jumping around while shooting. To me, that just seems lazy.

I don't need every character to be Batman. I can enjoy playing a videogame with a protagonist who has a videogamey personality every once in a while. I never played the Tomb Raider games for the plot, but for the action.

Maybe this reboot shouldn't be similar enough to other games in the franchise. Maybe Tomb Raider should get away with it simply because it deserves to. This Lara Croft isn't a completely different character from the original. She's still strong willed, intelligent, resourceful, athletic and not to be trifled with. I would think those were the more relevant qualities of her character. As far as looks go, minus the bust size (which clearly no one misses), Lara is still brown haired, brown eyed and wears a green tank top, brown pants and boots which is more than close enough to original that it barely warrants mentioning. Now I say isn't a completely different character because this rebooted character is better and not just better than the original Lara Croft, but the others she's compared to including Nathan Drake and Jason Brody, at least in my opinion. She's vulnerable without losing her power. She's filled with fear but she's not a coward. She's unsure of herself, but she never gives up. Rather than being a strong female protagonist, she's a strong protagonist who is a woman. Maybe those other characters should be more like her because she can be related to better than they are.

The gameplay involves shooting and sneaking but the game itself is about platforming and puzzle solving. This is an origin story. Even in the original history though not the first game, Lara being stuck in the Himalayas for two weeks, forced to survive is what convinced her to become the Tomb Raider we all know. This story is no different. Before they get into the puzzle solving the way the first game did, maybe it's best to see where this Lara Croft started since as you said this Lara Croft is nothing like the original (and yes, I still disagree with that).

Even though it is a big factor to consider, the character of Laura Croft is something that is does need to be measured and evaluated as much as the gameplay elements in this game in my opinion. Even the the character and the story are what drives a game, it's gameplay is engine, wheels, frame, etc. I don;t remember the original Croft in the tomb raider games that well but from i can recall, she seemed to be pretty cold and terse, and at times witty; i think. I didn't give shit about her polygon box breasts in the game at that age; real breasts and so much more were in the next room and a few mouse clicks away. Didn't read too much from the character at that age back in the day. But what we should really be concentrating on is gameplay. You said the game itself is about platforming and puzzle solving, well i guess you see something different even from the reviewers who loved this reboot; they too themselves said that the gameplay is all fightinng. You get upgrades for guns and killing abilities in order to more effectively fight. The platforming and puzzling, instead of it being a central core of the gameplay where you have to line your jumps, and figure out where to go or what to do to get the f*ck out of a ruin, is used solely to get from point A to point B, where additional enemies are at. The puzzling is simple 1 2 3 fare, no brains needed. The tombs are just platforming corridors leading into a single, small room. I'm not gonna go around and depend on big industry reviewers (at all) for the worth of a game, but the fact that they like all the combat, and the shift to combat, means that what the game is about. You're probably saying platforming and puzzling is still primary with combat because that is the whole back drop of Tomb Raider; explorer who goes all around the world who searches for ancient items in ancient locations. In this game, it is minimally integrated into the gameplay. Being that the upgrade system is centralized on Laura's murder items and murder abilities, these are the facts.
The original story having Laura being stuck in the Himalaya's having to survive the natural elements was revamped for the mindless shooter hoard of today into Laura being stuck wherever having to survive an island full of murderous, violent gunmen seems pretty accurate. There are many ways of telling the story of the inception of a strong, tough, and cold woman through physical and emotional hardship; nature, its predatory creatures, ass poisonous plant life and a crew of amoral expeditioners with guns she has run ins with would have been enough. But to suit today's crowd and there need for constant, crazy, violent action, lets switch that to an army of bloodthirsty dudes. You really think they are going to switch focus on puzzling and platforming sprinkled with awesome flipping, rolling and duel wielding combat against occasional foes? Nope, bring on the mindless gunmen and don't you move from that chest high wall.