How come Tomb Raider gets away with it?

[Doom972]

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.

First of all, that was only one insult. And insulting in of itself is not immature. But I should respect the forum rules and refrain from insults.

You said that you were going to pass on a genuinely good game because it isn't like games that aren't as good. That just doesn't make sense. If you want to play the old Tomb Raider games, just play the old "Tomb Raider" games. Expecting a series to stagnate makes no sense. Of course they are going change what they can to improve it. No "Tomb Raider" game has outsold the first one yet, because it was stagnating for so long. Same with Mario games. Stagnating is harmful for a franchize. Inovation is part of good business in the video game industry.

Also, histarical that you call bringing in cover based shooting is lazy. That actually made a lot more work for them. They had to program the blocking turrain, make sure the fire fights had blocking turrain, make sure Lara would regester the blocking turrain and automatically take cover, make sure she wouldn't stick to the turrain so players could still freely move, make sure the NPCs would do the same but not without making the game to hard, and probably a lot of other things I haven't thought of. You know what actually is lazy? Copy-pasting the same broken-ass controls across a dozen games.

You are asking for the preservation of poor controls and uninteresting characters because of nostalgia. Sorry, but that's just silly. Its like asking car developers to start making cars with those old hand-cranks. There is no reason for them to continue doing stuff that just doesn't work.

Finally, it sounds like you want a satire game, which "Tomb Raider" was never meant to be. Try "Lollypop Chainsaw" or "Bayonetta". They may just be everything you ever wanted in a game.

I choose which games I play for various reasons. I don't see a reason to explain them to you and I don't appreciate being told which games I should and shouldn't play.

As for whether or not the game is good on its own or better/worse than previous TR games - that's subjective and doesn't have much to do with the topic. The topic is about whether or not this is a true Tomb Raider game.

Cover-based shooting is a lazy choice from a design perspective, since it just makes it another third-person shooter, of which we already have enough.

While the controls in the games made by Core are shitty by modern standards and should absolutely not be repeated in any game ever, I liked the controls in the previous Crystal Dynamics games. There was room for improvement, but replacing core game mechanics doesn't mean improvement, in the same sense that amputating an injured arm and replacing it with a robotic arm isn't healing the arm.

I'm not even sure I want another real Tomb Raider game, I just don't like the phenomenon of "rebooting" a series by making a completely different game that has little to do with its franchise. If a developer has a great idea for a game, then I think that they should start a new IP. While the X-COM shooter, and to some extend DMC suffered for that practice, it seems like Tomb Raider gets a free pass.

 

[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.

Well I do see something different from the reviewers. That's the benefit of playing the game myself. The implication from most of them was that Lara started going on some shooting rampage after she killed the first one. She didn't. Lara doesn't just kill without it being addressed. They didn't even bother to mention that it was she who was shot at first and injured before she fired a single bullet in retaliation. Not to mention how many subtleties, brief conversations and comments they missed regarding Lara's comfortableness with killing and even shooting. One review said regarding Lara's ability to shoot that she starts shooting like a military trained combatant. But seeing how she was taught how to shoot by a former Royal Marine, that really shouldn't be a shock especially when you later see how well he can shoot. The central core of the gameplay is survival. More to the point, survival on very hostile island hence that yes, you get upgrades for guns and killing abilities in order to more effectively fight. But like I said, the game itself involves Lara being on her way to this island to solve a puzzle regarding the Yamatai before she and the rest of the crew get shipwrecked. She has to solve that puzzle completely to get off the island alive. You do have to line your jumps and descents, and you do have to figure out where to go or what to do to get the hell out of a ruin. Sometimes it involves enemies, other times it involves escaping the elements or the environment and yet it also involves just getting out of a ruin. Saying that the puzzles involves no use of brains is something I couldn't disagree with more. Even if I hadn't played the game myself, I've seen enough YouTube walkthroughs to know for certain that is not the case. Not one walkthrough I've seen got through all the puzzles without error. The gameplay is great but to me, the real story is the character. People keep complaining that the game isn't different but don't realize just how different and better the character from the others of this genre.

The original story having Lara being stuck in the Himalayas having to survive the natural elements was revamped but not for mindless shooting. You have to figure out which weapons are best to use at a distance and which ones are best to use in close corners for starters. You can mindlessly shoot but that will just get you killed eventually as does just ducking behind one area. Also if you're paying attention in the game, you'll also notice how the challenges and difficulties Lara goes through starts to gradually change her character. She becomes more assertive like the original character and perhaps not quite as cold as the original Croft but Reyes mentions at one point that everyone who seems to hang around Lara too long dies. And Lara coldly replies, "well you better keep your distance then." In the beginning of the game, Lara really doesn't respond to those against her. This is not because she can swallow their criticism but because she isn't confident enough in herself to do so. The killing of mercenaries isn't about making Lara strong. Wanting to save her friends, being right about the island and getting knocked down five times by the island itself and getting up six does that. The killing of the mercenaries is what starts to make Lara more tough, distant and to a certain extent, indifferent if not cold. This game isn't getting it's praise because it's mindless action. It's getting it's praise because in spite of the appearance of mindless action, it has a real character with real depth. As I said, not a a strong female protagonist, but a strong protagonist who is a woman. That's far more great than the other characters we've seen recently.

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.

Well I do see something different from the reviewers. That's the benefit of playing the game myself. The implication from most of them was that Lara started going on some shooting rampage after she killed the first one. She didn't. Lara doesn't just kill without it being addressed. They didn't even bother to mention that it was she who was shot at first and injured before she fired a single bullet in retaliation. Not to mention how many subtleties, brief conversations and comments they missed regarding Lara's comfortableness with killing and even shooting. One review said regarding Lara's ability to shoot that she starts shooting like a military trained combatant. But seeing how she was taught how to shoot by a former Royal Marine, that really shouldn't be a shock especially when you later see how well he can shoot. The central core of the gameplay is survival. More to the point, survival on very hostile island hence that yes, you get upgrades for guns and killing abilities in order to more effectively fight. But like I said, the game itself involves Lara being on her way to this island to solve a puzzle regarding the Yamatai before she and the rest of the crew get shipwrecked. She has to solve that puzzle completely to get off the island alive. You do have to line your jumps and descents, and you do have to figure out where to go or what to do to get the hell out of a ruin. Sometimes it involves enemies, other times it involves escaping the elements or the environment and yet it also involves just getting out of a ruin. Saying that the puzzles involves no use of brains is something I couldn't disagree with more. Even if I hadn't played the game myself, I've seen enough YouTube walkthroughs to know for certain that is not the case. Not one walkthrough I've seen got through all the puzzles without error. The gameplay is great but to me, the real story is the character. People keep complaining that the game isn't different but don't realize just how different and better the character is from the others of this genre.

The original story having Lara being stuck in the Himalayas having to survive the natural elements was revamped but not for mindless shooting. You have to figure out which weapons are best to use at a distance and which ones are best to use in close corners for starters. You can mindlessly shoot but that will just get you killed eventually as does just ducking behind one area. Also if you're paying attention in the game, you'll also notice how the challenges and difficulties Lara goes through starts to gradually change her character. She becomes more assertive like the original character and perhaps not quite as cold as the original Croft but Reyes mentions at one point that everyone who seems to hang around Lara too long dies. And Lara coldly replies, "well you better keep your distance then." In the beginning of the game, Lara really doesn't respond to those against her. This is not because she can swallow their criticism but because she isn't confident enough in herself to do so. The killing of mercenaries isn't about making Lara strong. Wanting to save her friends, being right about the island and getting knocked down five times by the island itself and getting up six does that. The killing of the mercenaries is what starts to make Lara more tough, distant and to a certain extent, indifferent if not cold. This game isn't getting it's praise because it's mindless action. It's getting it's praise because in spite of the appearance of mindless action, it has a real character with real depth. As I said, not a a strong female protagonist, but a strong protagonist who is a woman. That's far more great than the other characters we've seen recently.

 

[jcfrommars9]

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.

First of all, that was only one insult. And insulting in of itself is not immature. But I should respect the forum rules and refrain from insults.

You said that you were going to pass on a genuinely good game because it isn't like games that aren't as good. That just doesn't make sense. If you want to play the old Tomb Raider games, just play the old "Tomb Raider" games. Expecting a series to stagnate makes no sense. Of course they are going change what they can to improve it. No "Tomb Raider" game has outsold the first one yet, because it was stagnating for so long. Same with Mario games. Stagnating is harmful for a franchize. Inovation is part of good business in the video game industry.

Also, histarical that you call bringing in cover based shooting is lazy. That actually made a lot more work for them. They had to program the blocking turrain, make sure the fire fights had blocking turrain, make sure Lara would regester the blocking turrain and automatically take cover, make sure she wouldn't stick to the turrain so players could still freely move, make sure the NPCs would do the same but not without making the game to hard, and probably a lot of other things I haven't thought of. You know what actually is lazy? Copy-pasting the same broken-ass controls across a dozen games.

You are asking for the preservation of poor controls and uninteresting characters because of nostalgia. Sorry, but that's just silly. Its like asking car developers to start making cars with those old hand-cranks. There is no reason for them to continue doing stuff that just doesn't work.

Finally, it sounds like you want a satire game, which "Tomb Raider" was never meant to be. Try "Lollypop Chainsaw" or "Bayonetta". They may just be everything you ever wanted in a game.

I choose which games I play for various reasons. I don't see a reason to explain them to you and I don't appreciate being told which games I should and shouldn't play.

As for whether or not the game is good on its own or better/worse than previous TR games - that's subjective and doesn't have much to do with the topic. The topic is about whether or not this is a true Tomb Raider game.

Cover-based shooting is a lazy choice from a design perspective, since it just makes it another third-person shooter, of which we already have enough.

While the controls in the games made by Core are shitty by modern standards and should absolutely not be repeated in any game ever, I liked the controls in the previous Crystal Dynamics games. There was room for improvement, but replacing core game mechanics doesn't mean improvement, in the same sense that amputating an injured arm and replacing it with a robotic arm isn't healing the arm.

I'm not even sure I want another real Tomb Raider game, I just don't like the phenomenon of "rebooting" a series by making a completely different game that has little to do with its franchise. If a developer has a great idea for a game, then I think that they should start a new IP. While the X-COM shooter, and to some extend DMC suffered for that practice, it seems like Tomb Raider gets a free pass.

Because the game doesn't have little to do with the franchise in my opinion. The franchise has always centered around the character far more than any other element of the series. It's the character that has survived all these years. And it's how they rebooted that character, they have succeeded in rebooting the franchise. Also cover-based shooting in Tomb Raider is different than most of the third person shooter games. The character automatically ducks when she finds cover and automatically stands when all the enemies are killed. Plus you can't just stay in one cover spot. You do that the men start fire bombing your location, forcing you to move so you have to think on your feet more often. The shields they have at times also forces you to adjust your combat.

 

[Doom972]

While the controls in the games made by Core are shitty by modern standards and should absolutely not be repeated in any game ever, I liked the controls in the previous Crystal Dynamics games. There was room for improvement, but replacing core game mechanics doesn't mean improvement, in the same sense that amputating an injured arm and replacing it with a robotic arm isn't healing the arm.

I haven't played the previous Crystal Dynamics games, so I can't say if an improvement was made by the change. But guess what? Neither can you, because you haven't played this new game.

I didn't buy it, but it doesn't mean I haven't played it. I played a small segment of it, and the changes (not to be confused with improvements), were too severe for this game to feel like a Tomb Raider game, to the point of me feeling mislead by its title into thinking that this is a Tomb Raider game. Change isn't improvement, since in improvement you make something better, not replace it.
You haven't played the previous Crytal Dynamics games? Tomb Raider Underworld is ree to play on Core Online. Give it a try.

I'm not even sure I want another real Tomb Raider game, I just don't like the phenomenon of "rebooting" a series by making a completely different game that has little to do with its franchise. If a developer has a great idea for a game, then I think that they should start a new IP. While the X-COM shooter, and to some extend DMC suffered for that practice, it seems like Tomb Raider gets a free pass.

Because the point was to make Lara into a more likable character. The most recognizable female character in video games should be a strong and well rounded character. Imagine, if you will, a female gamer buying a console game for the first time. Do you think "old Tomb Raider" or "new Tomb Raider" would be more likely to appeal to her? An exploited female character against an independant and strong female character? No brainer. This game is a long term investment to regain lost fans and gain new ones. They certainly gained me as a fan, and I have pretty high standards.

So all video game characters have to be role models now? Or just the female ones? It's starting to look like you're just making up arguments at this point. Again, whether Lara Croft was appealing to you is subjective and doesn't matter. The question is whether or not she is Lara Croft in anything but name.

 

[Doom972]

I didn't buy it, but it doesn't mean I haven't played it. I played a small segment of it, and the changes (not to be confused with improvements), were too severe for this game to feel like a Tomb Raider game, to the point of me feeling mislead by its title into thinking that this is a Tomb Raider game. Change isn't improvement, since in improvement you make something better, not replace it.
You haven't played the previous Crytal Dynamics games? Tomb Raider Underworld is ree to play on Core Online. Give it a try.

I fail to see how these complaints are reasons to pass on buying the game. Did you judge the game based on its own marits and determine that it wasn't worth it? As I said, you might enjoy it for completely different reasons than you enjoy saterical games.

"Luigi's Mansion" doesn't feel like a Mario game, but that doesn't mean it wasn't worth a buy.

Based on its own merits? It's a third-person shooter with quicktime events and not fully-implemented survival elements. I'll pass. And once more: This has nothing to do with the game being better or worse. If you like the game, great. I won't argue with you on whether or not this game is enjoyable.

So all video game characters have to be role models now? Or just the female ones? It's starting to look like you're just making up arguments at this point. Again, whether Lara Croft was appealing to you is subjective and doesn't matter. The question is whether or not she is Lara Croft in anything but name.

Did I or did I not reccomend two games to you that do not have those things? Actually, Lara being more appealing does matter, because hundreds of people were complaining about her protrayal before. Now you say that they shouldn't have changed her, offending hundreds just to satify you! No. Lara needed to be a more well developed character because of her popularity. You can complain all you want, she is Lara Croft. The game devs chose to make this change, doesn't matter if you don't like the reason for the change or the change itself. Oh they actually made the game good and a comarcial success! WHAT A CRIME!

Which bring me to my point: If this game is so great, perhaps even due to the severe changes, why does this game need to be called Tomb Raider? If you think that the gameplay was bad in the previous games and didn't like the protagonist, then I'm guessing that calling this game Tomb Raider probably didn't cause you to buy it in the first place or like it more. My point is that this is Tomb Raider in name alone, and you are pretty much helping me prove it.

 

[CheckD3]

Probably because those strategy folks are different from shooter folks on XCom?

Though the problem with pre-release talk is that it's all hype, speculation, and rumors. Until you get in your hand the finished, final product, there's a billion and twelve things that could happen or be said or changed.

Cult games I think also are treated differently than larger franchises. If there were valid reports that Psychonauts was getting a sequel or reboot, but instead of the platformer action whatever you'd classify that (great) game as, and was now going to be a RTS, some people would have a problem with it. But if Mario were to do the same thing, you'd be like, cool, new Mario game. Granted, both have different amount of age, fans, ect, but think about how each would make you feel.

Honestly, I think that while sequels are great, sometimes you need to let them die or sit around for awhile. Sly Cooper was an example of a game that got a sequel, and was actually quite good.

I could care less about Tomb Raider though, never played older games, no real attachment. Making it into an 8-bit rail shooter wouldn't have made me interested. But it's the fans, the legacy the game has built, and the quantity of lore the game has created that I think influences pre-release chatter, but again, chatter is chatter, and you can't fairly judge what you haven't fully understood/partaken in

 

[Doom972]

Which bring me to my point: If this game is so great, perhaps even due to the severe changes, why does this game need to be called Tomb Raider? If you think that the gameplay was bad in the previous games and didn't like the protagonist, then I'm guessing that calling this game Tomb Raider probably didn't cause you to buy it in the first place or like it more. My point is that this is Tomb Raider in name alone, and you are pretty much helping me prove it.

Its "Tomb Raider" because the developers chose to call it that. I fail to see how you didn't see this coming. When Eidos bought the rights to Tomb Raider, they said they wanted to make changes and improve Lara's image. The only reason TRUnderworld didn't have such a dynamic Lara was because they were actually failing to make her so.

Eidos were the original publisher for Tomb Raider. In fact, only the new one was published by Square Enix (after they bought Eidos). So what you described never happened.

The new game was developed by Crystal Dynamics, who also developed Legends, Anniversary and Underworld - it's them who wanted to make the changes in this game.

The fact that they decided that this is now Tomb Raider, doesn't necessarily mean that it was the right thing to do, and this is what this discussion is about - whether or not it was right to make this game, which seems to have little to do with the franchise, a Tomb Raider game, instead of a new IP.

 

[Doom972]

Eidos were the original publisher for Tomb Raider. In fact, only the new one was published by Square Enix (after they bought Eidos). So what you described never happened.

The new game was developed by Crystal Dynamics, who also developed Legends, Anniversary and Underworld - it's them who wanted to make the changes in this game.

The fact that they decided that this is now Tomb Raider, doesn't necessarily mean that it was the right thing to do, and this is what this discussion is about - whether or not it was right to make this game, which seems to have little to do with the franchise, a Tomb Raider game, instead of a new IP.

Yeah, I did get the publisher part wrong. Does that mean "Tomb Raider" has two publishers? This is so confusing.

Was it right to do? Uh, yes and DUH! Eidos owns this franchise and they can do whatever they feel like with it. You can't argue that this is "distroying the franchise", because you're in the minority there and they were up-front about the changes they were making. They said they wanted to make the series into something that people could take seriously, and you complain when they finally manage to do so? That'd just silly. People had a right to critize Anniversary and TRUnderworld because you couldn't take them seriously, when the dev team was trying to make serious games.

No, it just means that former publisher Eidos had financial difficulties and all its assets were sold to Square Enix.

I'm not arguing whether they can, or have the technical right to do so, but whether it should be accepted as a Tomb Raider game. The quality of the game has nothing to do with it (which you just don't seem to get, since you keep bringing it up), as the game could've don't just as well if it was released under a different name.

If they wanted to make a "deep and serious" game, why use a series that wasn't known for that? Again, my argument (which you seem to ignore in every post), is that it could have been released under a different name, be just as successful, and not change a franchise to something that it never was.

 

[bigman88]

Eidos were the original publisher for Tomb Raider. In fact, only the new one was published by Square Enix (after they bought Eidos). So what you described never happened.

The new game was developed by Crystal Dynamics, who also developed Legends, Anniversary and Underworld - it's them who wanted to make the changes in this game.

The fact that they decided that this is now Tomb Raider, doesn't necessarily mean that it was the right thing to do, and this is what this discussion is about - whether or not it was right to make this game, which seems to have little to do with the franchise, a Tomb Raider game, instead of a new IP.

Yeah, I did get the publisher part wrong. Does that mean "Tomb Raider" has two publishers? This is so confusing.

Was it right to do? Uh, yes and DUH! Eidos owns this franchise and they can do whatever they feel like with it. You can't argue that this is "distroying the franchise", because you're in the minority there and they were up-front about the changes they were making. They said they wanted to make the series into something that people could take seriously, and you complain when they finally manage to do so? That'd just silly. People had a right to critize Anniversary and TRUnderworld because you couldn't take them seriously, when the dev team was trying to make serious games.

And when did making a serious game require violent combat and gratuitous death throughout the duration of it's length? Gun battle, hand to hand brutality, cussing, and detailed, up close death scenes are not what makes something serious, there are a ton of content out there, game or otherwise, that have this, but is aimed anything but seriousness.
If you respond with the story of making Laura into strong woman, and showing a sorrowing tale of a person hewn into cold steel through enduring loss of others and brutality from madness, then i'll just respond with the devs choosing this reinvention of the story arc for the sole purpose of catering to today's violent shooty crowd; once again, direct weapons combat and gore is not needed to strengthen a person, and the devs of the first tomb raiders did not present any back story of Laura going through a primarily combat ordeal in order to become the character she was back then. I;m not saying that the story line must be followed exactly as it was; i only played the firs 2 and underworld, and i don't remember anything story wise. But making an origin tale where she becomes the Laura Croft we remember by her shooting, stabbing and exploding hundreds of violent men, while watching her being horribly killed in a detailed view while other's around her are horribly killed themselves, instead of another tale where she can become cold steal by having to survive the harshest of natures elements, discovering and figuring out TOMBS, while outsmarting and occasionally outgunning a crew of treasure hunters and predatory animals, shows that this was just a business move, and not a creative one.

 

[bigman88]

And when did making a serious game require violent combat and gratuitous death throughout the duration of it's length? Gun battle, hand to hand brutality, cussing, and detailed, up close death scenes are not what makes something serious, there are a ton of content out there, game or otherwise, that have this, but is aimed anything but seriousness.
If you respond with the story of making Laura into strong woman, and showing a sorrowing tale of a person hewn into cold steel through enduring loss of others and brutality from madness, then i'll just respond with the devs choosing this reinvention of the story arc for the sole purpose of catering to today's violent shooty crowd; once again, direct weapons combat and gore is not needed to strengthen a person, and the devs of the first tomb raiders did not present any back story of Laura going through a primarily combat ordeal in order to become the character she was back then. I;m not saying that the story line must be followed exactly as it was; i only played the firs 2 and underworld, and i don't remember anything story wise. But making an origin tale where she becomes the Laura Croft we remember by her shooting, stabbing and exploding hundreds of violent men, while watching her being horribly killed in a detailed view while other's around her are horribly killed themselves, instead of another tale where she can become cold steal by having to survive the harshest of natures elements, discovering and figuring out TOMBS, while outsmarting and occasionally outgunning a crew of treasure hunters and predatory animals, shows that this was just a business move, and not a creative one.

They wanted to improve Lara's immage and decided that the best place to start was square one. I fail to see the problem with this. Oh, you're under the impression that violence is only in the absence of intelligence? That's cute. Watch this movie please:
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/The-Dark-Knight-batman-581646_1280_960.jpg

Is it a stupid movie? No. It is one of the greatest character pieces ever. The violence is just the backdrop for the story. Concidering the point of Lara's backstory was to explain how she became so de-sensitized to killing, yeah I'd say violence would be expected. Same thing as The Dark Knight, though not quite as high in quality.

there is no implication of me having an opinion that violence is in the absence of intelligence within my post, i'm not of this opinion, nor did i touch it. Sometimes, and very unfortunately, violence is the product of an intelligent move.

I get that they felt they needed to reinvent her image, i won't argue with that becasue i don't remeber her character well enough from playing the PlayStation tomb raiders when i was 10 yrs old beyond her being a bit on the cold side with other people during the cutscenes. Really, if i go and look into the character eidos made, she probabely won't need an renovation but some added character depth. But the point i keep reiterating here is what is the need for grizzly and gratuitous violence for Laura's image improvement? Since when does square one require combat violence as condition for square 1?