• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Modern Lara Croft is such a dull protagonist

120v

Member
i went into ROTTR thinking she'd be battle hardened. kind of a "i've seen some shit" sort of attitude toward everything but yeah it's more or less of the same. not a big deal, as it's not a game i'd play for deep characterization but CD made a big fuss about "going places" with the character

Old Lara was triangular boobs with british accent and beggar shades.

and there's that. not particularly much there to begin with... lady indiana jones
 

m00h

Banned
I liked ROTTR gameplay wise, but everything in that game felt pretty empty. It was like a cartoon for audition in the age 6-12. No true, moving motives behind the actions, almost no rational thinking at all. Also the bad guys were just bad for the process of being bad, at least I felt that way.
 

UrbanRats

Member
Original Lara had a personality?

She worked well enough within context..
She wasn't supposed to be any deep, she was just the badass babe stereotype, kind of a less crass female Duke Nukem.

Probably not something that would've worked in the 2010s as it did in the 1990s, but what they replaced her with, was absolutely dreadful, unfortunately.
 
People saying "the original had no personality either" are missing the point. Rebooting gave CD a chance to build something new and unique with her and they whiffed it.
 

laxu

Member
I got to agree that Rise of the Tomb Raider is pretty badly written. Good thing it's a really fun game to play. The first reboot game wasn't quite as bad even though it was at odds with the gameplay and cutscenes where during gameplay she is a remorseless mass murderer but in cutscenes has trouble killing someone. I wish they had sequed the survival bit to killing people better.

With RotR it seems like the writers did not know what to do beyond coming up with the initial premise (prove daddy dearest wasn't a nut by finding the lost city/artifact). While the plot is not much different from a typical Indiana Jones movie, they have managed to add zero charm to the characters. Uncharted, even with its flaws, does this so much better. If they had used Jonah as a proper sidekick the game might've been more interesting.

RotR is also overly serious. There is almost zero humor in the game. While I don't think it needs to be a banter-fest like Uncharted, having some enemies do or talk something silly would be fun.
 

MilkBeard

Member
Don't really agree. Original Tomb Raider games didn't do much for me, and what I played, Lara didn't much personality other than being massively curvy.

The writing wasn't so great in TR 2013, but I felt Lara was a decent character, despite the dissonance.

I also don't understand the complaints about how she talks to herself or verbalizes actions. I know a lot of people that do this, it's not that unusual.
 
Even if the original Lara Croft wasn't the most fleshed out character, I much prefer her Bayonetta-like badass quips and demeanor over the angsty, dull and overly serious New Lara.
 

Harlequin

Member
When I think of classic laura croft, I think of like tomb raider 1-3... and she was pretty wooden there.

*Lara

When talking about Tomb Raider, the word "classics" is generally used to refer to the first five games (though some people use it to refer to all of Core Design's TR games, including the hugely underrated Angel of Darkness). As for Lara's characterisation during those games, you do need to read between the lines and consider her official bio back then (which has, unfortunately, been completely replaced with Hollywood drivel). (It's also worth noting that, beginning with the fourth game, there does seem to have been more of an effort on Core's part to give some more depth to her character.)

Classic Lara was an emotionally closed-off adrenaline junkie who had been disowned by her elitist aristocrat parents because she wanted to travel the globe and raid tombs rather than marry some wealthy high-society guy. She combined many admirable qualities like independence, confidence, strength, intelligence with some not-so-admirable traits and attitudes like selfishness, impatience, reclusiveness, a general disregard for the well-being of others (human or non-human) or the integrity of cultural heritage, even for her own health and safety, to form a consistent, well-rounded character.
All she cared about was the thrill of the hunt and the shiny souvenir that awaited her at the end. If she had to destroy an ancient temple, kill a few members of an endangered species and a couple of mercenaries to get that, she'd do so without giving it a second thought. Furthermore, she had very few friends and most would've probably considered her to be quite unpleasant company because she really wasn't a very friendly or outgoing person. Generally speaking, classic Lara wasn't a hero by a long shot, she was a thief, a killer and a vandal.

Now on the other hand, you have reboot Lara who studied archaeology (the actual, original Lara could not be further from a proper archaeologist) to follow in her father's footsteps, is friendly and understanding to a fault, constantly wears her heart on her sleeve and whines about her current situation and needs to reassure herself that she "can do this". They're two completely different persons and, personally, I much prefer the original. She has more depth, a lot of which is hidden beneath the surface (which only makes her more interesting - especially compared to reboot Lara who blurts out her every emotion), is more consistent in her characterisation (though, admittedly, there have been a few missteps, especially in the early games), has the less cheesy backstory and is just generally a less stereotypical and more original character.
 

jelly

Member
I like the new design look of new Lara but absolute hate her character. Can we have a positive adventurer without daddy issues. They've wasted it twice. I don't mind some anger or despair but there has to be a balance and good motivations. Ohhh and ahhhhs of pressing x to look at stuff is not a substitute.
 
When you take characters who are ostensibly normal and try to turn them into long running action franchisees, it never works. Because normal people don't regularly get into crazy action.

You know what modern Lara Croft is? John McClane in Die Hards 4-6. At some point being gritty and down to Earth results in a shrill dissonance that makes the whole enterprise seem misguided.

Other than turning her into a cartoon character like classic Lara or Drake, maybe they could turn her into a shitty screwed up psycho like the dude from Last of Us. Because I don't see how you keep trying to push the "look at this normal girl trying to make the best of a bad situation" when she keeps murdering fools with climbing axes
 

Asriel

Member
Original Lara had a personality?

LOL, right? NOW people are disappointed with her characterization? That being said, I do know that this is a prequel trilogy so Lara is still going through many changes. I like her and I like her grit, but I do hope her humor comes through in certain games.
 

Audioboxer

Member
Nah, she's alright. TR games have always largely been about game play as well. In terms of story it was really more about environment diversity and pretty graphics, mixed in with the pretty good gameplay/climbing.
 

Shredderi

Member
Yeah... She's pretty much this non-person with sound moral values. I just didn't care about the character at all. I cared about a goddamn cube in Portal!
 

Harlequin

Member
They've never cared on making her anything in terms of writing, I mean fuck early Tomb Raider games were all about how hot she was hence Eidos hiring out Models to dress up as her and sell the game.

The games never were about that. Eidos used it for their marketing campaigns (and yeah, her in-game outfits were impractically revealing) but Lara never ever used her sexuality in the games. She always succeeded by using her brains and brawn, not her breasts.
 

Harlequin

Member
When? Where?

I don't remember Lara complaining, wining, talking too much in ROTTR like: "I can do this", "I have to do that"... etc.

Well, she does. I don't know if she does it more or less often than in the first game but she definitely does say that sort of stuff in ROTTR.
 

NeoRaider

Member
Well, she does. I don't know if she does it more or less often than in the first game but she definitely does say that sort of stuff in ROTTR.

Maybe... few times, even i can't remember.
But i personally don't see anything wrong in that. I actually like it.
 

Shredderi

Member
Maybe... few times, even i can't remember.
But i personally don't see anything wrong in that. I actually like it.

image.php
 

RagnarokX

Member
I don't really agree.

Classic Lara was just pointy looking TnA with an English accent, because that obviously makes her even more masturbation worthy.

I quite liked her characterization in Reboot. For lack of a better word at some point I wanted to protect her, she showed quite some character growth and there was this semi interesting interaction with Sam where they were college dorm BFFs but maybe there was something more too.

ROTTR though, oy vey. She suddenly has daddy issues, gives constant exposition of her one dimensional state, and it doesn't help that none of it makes sense really. They had to drag in a late mcguffin to make sure we weren't killing all these people because Lara is pouting over her dad. Every time I press X at a campsite I'm like shut up, shut up, noooo why do you have start yapping again.
No, that was marketing.

Foremost the classic Tomb Raider games were not about Lara; they were about the tombs. That's the biggest problem with the reboot right away. Lara's character was a just a springboard for the game rather than the other way around that we have now. But still, they did a good job giving her enough character and it was good.

Tomb Raider 1 introduces us to Lara sitting in a hotel and rebuffing the advances of a man that approaches her. The man shows her a newspaper with the headline saying Lara had found Bigfoot and introduces her to Natla, who proposes hiring her. Lara states that she only hunts for sport, and only takes the job after Natla describes how daunting it will be.

This is the first game and right away Lara is a strong, confident woman who we know goes on adventures because she enjoys the thrill. And that's all we need. We don't need an origin story showing a weak and frail young woman who becomes Rambo 5 seconds after touching a gun who constantly talks about how unsure she is and how much unfun she is and tells us where to go and what to do. Why does she need to be following in her father's footsteps or trying to find her missing mom, CD? In her original backstory her parents disowned her because her adventuring lifestyle embarrassed them. Why does she need to be surviving rape island? Why can't she just be a strong woman who likes going on adventures?

The Last Revelation expanded the emphasis on story and character significantly without making Lara weaker. We were introduced to her mentor, Von Croy, and shown that she was a confident young adventurer even in her earliest days. She showed more emotion in the cutscenes. It was great.
 
I think too much blame is being placed on her character specifically, when really it's the general shift in tone that changed everything. When they decided that from now on, Tomb Raider games were going to be these dark, bleak and menacing outings that put a focus on survival and killing, she pretty much has to be the character she is.

It's a shame that the last reboot didn't do well for them, as I remember playing that level in Underworld where you start off on your yacht in a beautiful tropical lagoon and have to climb up this cliffside area, and thinking that this was precisely the kind of game I wanted the series to be (edit: this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0eTn6kZFX4).
 

Harlequin

Member
I think too much blame is being placed on her character specifically, when really it's the general shift in tone that changed everything. When they decided that from now on, Tomb Raider games were going to be these dark, bleak and menacing outings that put a focus on survival and killing, she pretty much has to be the character she is.

It's a shame that the last reboot didn't do well for them, as I remember playing that level in Underworld where you start off on your yacht in a beautiful tropical lagoon and have to climb up this cliffside area, and thinking that this was precisely the kind of game I wanted the series to be (edit: this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0eTn6kZFX4).

Crystal's LAU games maybe didn't have the all of the same problems the reboot games have had but they had many problems of their own, both regarding Lara's character (and the overall narrative quality) and regarding the gameplay.
 

kadotsu

Banned
I feel like they just swapped out one 2 dimensional character template for another. We had the femme fatale that is a snarky super archaeologist in the old titles til Underworld now we have the in over her head but rises to the challenge super archaeologist. It's James Bond vs.John McClane in action movie terms.

The real problem is the antagonist and lack of camp. Story doesn't feel as important if you are fighting dinosaurs and demons. It sticks out when you go mercenaries and generally grounded. Both games types have all of those but the focus in post reboot is definitely more on the grounded stuff.
 

jond76

Banned
Disagree. I think she's good with good perfornances by Ludington.

"I takes it that's a 'no'?"
"That's a 'no FUCKING WAY!"

Actually put a huge smile on my face.
 

RagnarokX

Member
I think too much blame is being placed on her character specifically, when really it's the general shift in tone that changed everything. When they decided that from now on, Tomb Raider games were going to be these dark, bleak and menacing outings that put a focus on survival and killing, she pretty much has to be the character she is.

It's a shame that the last reboot didn't do well for them, as I remember playing that level in Underworld where you start off on your yacht in a beautiful tropical lagoon and have to climb up this cliffside area, and thinking that this was precisely the kind of game I wanted the series to be.

It's that they made the games character and story driven at all. I didn't play the Tomb Raider games for those things. I played them to explore amazing environments, survive dangerous traps, and pull off challenging platforming. The reboot is very shallow in all of those regards because it wants to act like a movie. Everything is so scripted and simplified.

Surprisingly, navgtr, the guy who said in his TR2 review that TR3 should be about Lara dealing with breast cancer, got this much right in his TR3 review: https://youtu.be/KJBYQXufTjA?t=1m42s

"The real draw of Tomb Raider is not Lara Croft. The real star is the level design."

And what's really ironic is that the classic games ware waaay more about survival than the reboot. You may have infinite ammo in the dual pistols, but all other weapons are optional and missable, and ammo is fucking scarce. Health does not auto regen and you have to find medpaks. You need to find flares to light up dark rooms. You got actual rewards for exploring. Finding ammo or a new weapon or a medpak or even flares was a hell of a lot better than finding some XP and salvage points for a worthless upgrade system.
 
Crystal's LAU games maybe didn't have the all of the same problems the reboot games have had but they had many problems of their own, both regarding Lara's character (and the overall narrative quality) and regarding the gameplay.

No doubt. But there were these flashes in them where everything fell into place and just felt right. The new Tomb Raider games are a lot more consistent, but they're consistently bleak and dour.
 

Harlequin

Member
I feel like they just swapped out one 2 dimensional character template for another. We had the femme fatale that is a snarky super archaeologist in the old titles til Underworld now we have the in over her head but rises to the challenge super archaeologist. It's James Bond vs.John McClane in action movie terms.

Again, just no. Classic Lara wasn't a femme fatale whatsoever, she also wasn't an archaeologist, nor was she two-dimensional. (Though you do seem to be mixing up classic Lara and LAU Lara, who are two quite different charaters, so if you're talking more about LAU than classic Lara, the part about her being an archaeologist and two-dimensional may be somewhat more accurate. In no official, canon incarnation of the character, however, has Lara ever been a femme fatale.)

I mean, I can sort of see why people think that classic Lara didn't have much of a personality but it's still frustrating to have to read that piece of misinformation being repeated over and over every single time the topic of her characterisation comes up in a thread.
 
I thought TR 2013 was workmanlike, and at least they TRIED something with Lara there, even if it didn't always pan out. Rise is a horrible cliche fest with completely awful writing, and Lara herself is not the least bit interesting in it. Unfortunately I think Rhianna Pratchett is a very poor writer. Even within the confines of the game, she manages to make every line either a non-sequitur, a cliche, or a statement of the obvious.
 
I thought TR 2013 was workmanlike, and at least they TRIED something with Lara there, even if it didn't always pan out. Rise is a horrible cliche fest with completely awful writing, and Lara herself is not the least bit interesting in it. Unfortunately I think Rhianna Pratchett is a very poor writer. Even within the confines of the game, she manages to make every line either a non-sequitur, a cliche, or a statement of the obvious.
Pratchett is definitely a bad writer. TR2013 had some truly bizarre moments, like Laura telling everyone where to go on their ship when she was just some grad student not the person bankrolling a damn ship, or meeting up with one of the wreck survivors and neglecting to tell her that she was nearly killed in a cave by murderers and that she saw one of them crushed to death.
 

ItIsOkBro

Member
One of the problems I had with Crystal's first games was it was about Lara searching for her mom or some shit. I eyerolled hard when they made this one out to be her following in the footsteps of her dad. Stop with the parental motivation shit, it's not good characterization.
 

Rymuth

Member
There are certain concepts that shouldn't be over explained lest the entire premise falls apart.

Superman shouldn't be grounded and set in a gritty, ultra-realistic world.

Likewise, we don't NEED a reason to know why Lara Croft goes after tombs and treasures. Spending not one but two games over her motivations completely ruins the experience. This is a fun pulp, action adventure. The character's supposed to be a vehicle--saddling them with daddy issues and PTSD from near-death experience and it all just comes crashing down.
 

Javin98

Banned
I don't think modern Lara Croft is a bad character by any means, but she is not an interesting one either. As has been echoed in this thread, she goes on and on about "I must" and "I've got to" in addition to her ridiculous moaning. However, that's not the main factor which makes the character uninteresting.

The main problem is the writing in both games. It's pretty awful at worst, mediocre at best. The first game suffered from terrible ludonarrative dissonance, the sequel just doesn't seem to take its themes anywhere interesting, I feel. When the writing is bad, it's just hard to flesh out the character motivations and development.

Disagree. I think she's good with good perfornances by Ludington.

"I takes it that's a 'no'?"
"That's a 'no FUCKING WAY!"

Actually put a huge smile on my face.
Is this scene supposed to be an example of good lines or good voice acting? Spoiler alert, it's neither. You are free to like campy dialogue, though, I suppose.
 

Zakalwe

Banned
I loved it in TR2013 when she got pissed while charging into battle. I mean, it was silly but a lot of fun.

"I'M COMING FOR YOU!"

As a whole character though she's not great, some terrible VA at times too. It's doesn't too that the writing is just soulless, the VAs really didn't have anything to work with if we're being fair.
 

jond76

Banned
I don't think modern Lara Croft is a bad character by any means, but she is not an interesting one either. As has been echoed in this thread, she goes on and on about "I must" and "I've got to" in addition to her ridiculous moaning. However, that's not the main factor which makes the character uninteresting.

The main problem is the writing in both games. It's pretty awful at worst, mediocre at best. The first game suffered from terrible ludonarrative dissonance, the sequel just doesn't seem to take its themes anywhere interesting, I feel. When the writing is bad, it's just hard to flesh out the character motivations and development.


Is this scene supposed to be an example of good lines or good voice acting? Spoiler alert, it's neither. You are free to like campy dialogue, though, I suppose.

I thought it was great delivery.
 

Chrisdk

Member
I like the new Lara. It's not like the character will win any awards, but i don't think it's as bad as some people say. I would say an average to above average character. I have seen worse characters in games.

I do think that the story in Rise of the Tomb Raider was dull. Somehow it seemed way too familiar with the first game. Like they just copy pasted it. I think Jonah and Sam is the two most memorable characters from the games and i think it was a big mistake to not have sam in Rise of the tomb Raider. She was kinda the only interesting character from the first game.

I can see that there some kind of comic and audio files of her, but eh who wants to read that.

I wouldn't mind playing a 3rd game with the current Lara.
 

Henkka

Banned
The Tomb Raider reboot is one of the only games I've played in recent years where the writing is so bad it's actively harming my enjoyment.
 
Top Bottom