Support NeoGAF

[Tuck]

Just want more Tomb Raiding, damnit!

Easily the biggest disappointment of the reboot, and I'm sure Crystal Dynamics is working to improve that. They kept on saying before the game came out that the tomb raiding would be substantive, but failed on that promise.

At least you get that isometric game. Lots of puzzles in that

 

[N7Slayer24]

Obligatory:

Ill never forget this reaction^ These deaths and Lara twitching for her last breath with a spear through her neck is not 'gritty' its unnecessary. Conan agrees.

And yeah these painful set pieces are laughable. Not even in the charming classic Tomb Raider way

Sure let's compare those scenes to the ones from Dead Space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1jE8HQk0U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGbPlTnipCg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR0Fe9Fu4HM

Non of the death scenes in Tomb Raider are as gruesome and brutal as the ones you see in Dead Space. (Either from enemies or the environment) Yet Tomb Raider gets so much criticism for their scenes and Dead Space pretty much doesn't get any.

Hmm I wonder why that is.

 

[jblank83]

I'll believe when I see it, and that won't be with a day 1 purchase.

 

[plantedunicorn]

While I enjoyed my time with TR2013, after I was done with it all I could say is it just felt totally empty. Everything that was in the game felt like it was there because they were ticking a checklist. The unnecessary XP bullshit that was there to make you feel like you were accomplishing something. It's possible to finish the game with just the basic bow and arrow and not worry about anything else.

My biggest problem is the game wasn't a challenge at all. The platforming did not get harder ( though I found it kinda fun), the enemies didn't really get harder. And I particularyl how at the beginning of the game they make a big deal about you finding something to eat and after that its never brought up again. What the hell was that?

And the so called Tombs were bullshit. I'm not gonna lie TR2013 was the first Tomb Raider game because I'd get somewhere in the old ones, get to a long winded 30 minute puzzle and just quit. But my God they took it way to the other side of the spectrum in the reboot. Most of the Tombs were solved in 2 to 3 steps. Crank this up, then wait for platform to come up, jump on it and bam Tomb completed. It felt like such a jip. The biggest problems with those Tombs were actually executing the jumps not solving the puzzles.

I did like the combat and auto platforming and I hope they improve on that in the sequel. I'm kinda hoping the only weapon you get is the bow and arrow and maybe the climbing axe. Also change that name cos it's freaking terrible.

Edit: Also screw that run towards or away from camera as everything is exploding around you. It stopped being fun midway through Uncharted 2 and can't believe developers are still using it.

 

[adelante]

The entire gaming landscape has changed since the old TR games, back when limited hardware capabilities and budget meant spectacle was achieved rarely through real-time set pieces but what you can actually do in the game (climb, jump...basically traverse around in 3D environments). Gamers were driven to such things (see Super Mario 64, MechWarrior, etc) so it's easy to understand why there was a lot of focus on the gameplay back then.

As the generation progresses and gaming machines get more powerful, developers enjoy being able to craft story-driven cutscenes seamless into their titles with relative ease and thus make them more... cinematic. The average cutscene in a game eventually grew to become pretty substantial so they infuse interactive elements like QTEs. Those then evolve into playable set-pieces that you find in Uncharted and many other games you see today. It soon becomes apparent that budget, and not so much technical limitation, has become the thing that's holding back the potential for games to be cinematic.

Unfortunately, Tomb Raider is being rebooted in today's era of gaming. And to the publisher, it holding the status as one of gaming's most lauded and beloved franchise means its return is deserving of a big-budget makeover.

The only way for gameplay-driven games to exist these days is when they're being made by a smaller, independent developer... moreso when it's not tied to huge franchise. Sighhhh...

 

[jimboton]

Yes, so much yes. Cara Ellison knows what's up. If Crystal Dynamics were to make the game she wants I would buy a xbone to play it. Unfortunately we all know it will never happen. In fact, the opposite of everything she described is what will likely happen

 

[atr0cious]

Sure let's compare those scenes to the ones from Dead Space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1jE8HQk0U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGbPlTnipCg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR0Fe9Fu4HM

Non of the death scenes in Tomb Raider are as gruesome and brutal as the ones you see in Dead Space. (Either from enemies or the environment) Yet Tomb Raider gets so much criticism for their scenes and Dead Space pretty much doesn't get any.

Hmm I wonder why that is.

Because Dead Space is a horror game where that kind of stuff is welcome. Tomb Raider for all intents and purposes was a 3D platformer, which CD turned into shootbang horror. The entire game is about Lara finally becoming a 'man,' which is made evident by the fact that her mentor is some grizzled old dude who is constantly saving her. It's a fucking sham of a narrative, and the entire plot is about Lara seeing horrible things done so she has reason to retaliate. She doesn't even have the skillset the multiplayer section has(melee at will being a big omission), which is usually the opposite of how single player goes.

 

[jimi_dini]

Non of the death scenes in Tomb Raider are as gruesome and brutal as the ones you see in Dead Space. (Either from enemies or the environment) Yet Tomb Raider gets so much criticism for their scenes and Dead Space pretty much doesn't get any.

I was disgusted by those scenes. I was disgusted by Manhunt, too. But at least Manhunt had an incredible atmosphere and both of those were new IPs and didn't use a video game character, that was created 20 years ago.

Hmm I wonder why that is.

Maybe because Lara Croft is a known video game character for ages. And she wasn't known for Manhunt-style executions and insane violence. There also was no attempted rape in the previous games.

If the game wouldn't have been called Tomb Raider and the main character wasn't Laura Croft, I think that there would been way less criticism. I personally loved the old Core games. Their main focus was adventure, exploration and actual platforming. Combat wasn't the focus. And there wasn't ultraviolence in them either.

If it was a new IP, I would has said "what the fuck is the games industry doing" (I said exactly that when I saw Manhunt + Dead Space 1/2 footage) and that would have been it. But this just hurts. It's sort of like Nintendo using Mario or Link in some Manhunt-like game. It hurts even more, when you think about it. They could have actually made an actual survival game. A proper one. Which would have been something original and interesting. Instead they just created an ultraviolent Uncharted with XP bars to fill.

Oh you meant that all the criticism is just there because "she is a female". Nope. I disagree. Totally. The videogame industry could create a game with a 12 year old female, that needs to hunt and eat other humans and I wouldn't give a shit. My reaction would be: "oh that's the new mature video games nowadays" and that would be it. I have given up on this type of industry a few years ago.

 

[Jobbs]

I read the article in the OP -- mostly -- and unless I'm misunderstanding something, she says what she wants in a tomb raider -- and describes a bunch of stuff that in pretty much every conceivable way is the exact opposite of what TR2013 was. And then she says she loves TR2013 and it was one of her top games of 2013. I don't follow.

 

[Emperor Bohe]

I really hope they go back to the atmosphere of the 1st game. There's nothing like the mix of horror and awe while you explore the tombs. And stop with the fucking human enemies. The first game had what, like 3 gunfights with a human throughout the whole game?

 

[BumblebeeCody]

I think some people forget that this is supposed to be an origin story for Lara so she obviously would be pretty crap at raiding tombs. I don't see the point in asking about "why this game doesn't have this or that" because that's what this new game is supposed to lead into. If Lara was able to dodge out the way of Dinosaurs in Tomb Raider 2013 as she did in the 90's games, then what's the point of the origin story and showing how she developed as a character. I really don't understand these types of criticism.

Make her older. Make her fucked off. Make her weary. Make her bad.

I find quotes like the reason why we have such a terrible set of movies, comics, games etc. We can't have a good outlook. We have to be "dark and gritty". We can't just have another good Spiderman film about Power and Responsibility. No it has to be what The Dark Knight did. We need dark and gritty films like Hansel and Grettel, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland the list goes on(though I'm getting off-topic).

The achievements systems have probably screwed this up, because of the power fantasy emphasis, action games have become more about How Many Guns Can You Ram Into Your Shopping Trolley And Still Push It. Video games have become the fucking Dawn Of The Dead model: commercialist shit, all about how many shinies you can collect and not about what they do and when and why. We just run around environments these days picking up stuff and lobbing it any which way because there’s so much of it. We have become overstimulated babies in a toy shop. There’s value in constraint sometimes. Sometimes you want to have the leather bound classic instead of twenty trashy novels.

No idea.

There was no point made in this entire Kotaku article blog. Make Lara this, instead of what we got, but what we got I loved and played 3 times over. Back seat game design on the Internet, HYPE!

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

While I enjoyed the game for what it was, the real head scratcher to me was Lara's Batman vision -- what was up with that?

Detective Vision means you don't have to as developers have to land the delicate nitty gritty of enemy AI, pack size, or sight 'n sound level design and flow. Note also silly people who say "BUR BUR DON USE IT DEN" as levels are not made to be seen without it. To develop the games for that playstyle is a waste of time.

In other words, bonesaw to save the whole from a potentially more disastrous misapplication of the above. Thing is, like the filmic take, it's gotten kinda stale and too many devs have latched it onto games that didn't have it before.

 

[Calabi]

I think some people forget that this is supposed to be an origin story for Lara so she obviously would be pretty crap at raiding tombs. I don't see the point in asking about "why this game doesn't have this or that" because that's what this new game is supposed to lead into. If Lara was able to dodge out the way of Dinosaurs in Tomb Raider 2013 as she did in the 90's games, then what's the point of the origin story and showing how she developed as a character. I really don't understand these types of criticism.


I find quotes like the reason why we have such a terrible set of movies, comics, games etc. We can't have a good outlook. We have to be "dark and gritty". We can't just have another good Spiderman film about Power and Responsibility. No it has to be what The Dark Knight did. We need dark and gritty films like Hansel and Grettel, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland the list goes on(though I'm getting off-topic).



No idea.

There was no point made in this entire Kotaku article blog. Make Lara this, instead of what we got, but what we got I loved and played 3 times over. Back seat game design on the Internet, HYPE!

She wasnt crap at raiding tombs, she was an instant expert at raiding crap tombs. I thought the consensus was it was a rubbish cliched origin story. Little meek weak Lara is told how to be strong by a man.

Why does everything need an origin story? Who actually cares about these characters, I'm betting not a lot of players, especially with this bad dissonant writing.

Back seat game design. Seriously? How dare us lowly internet denizens criticise this masterpiece, eh.

 

[Blader]

Sure let's compare those scenes to the ones from Dead Space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1jE8HQk0U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGbPlTnipCg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR0Fe9Fu4HM

Non of the death scenes in Tomb Raider are as gruesome and brutal as the ones you see in Dead Space. (Either from enemies or the environment) Yet Tomb Raider gets so much criticism for their scenes and Dead Space pretty much doesn't get any.

Hmm I wonder why that is.

Probably because Dead Space is a horror game -- a genre that trades in over-the-top violence and gore -- while Tomb Raider isn't.

 

[Superflat]

Hmm I wonder why that is.

You could have actually said why you think it is instead of just bringing a different game into the discussion and purposefully not contributing

 

[Mman235]

Why does everything need an origin story?

This seems to be one of points the article was making in that regard; why does being a Tomb Raider even need an origin story? Whether it's for riches, having genuine historical interest but no desire for the red tape of tradition archaeology, or the thrill of going to exotic and dangerous places (among several other things) there are plenty of real-life reasons why people have took up that profession. That contrasts with something like, say, dressing as a Bat and fighting criminals with super-technology, which actually needs some explanation to make sense. Of course the fact the TR universe basically requires superhuman skills to survive it's tombs is something, but given the reboot doesn't touch on that outside of Lara's action-hero endurance and some perfunctory supernatural stuff at the end that part ends up being kind of irrelevant.

 

[Shinta]

You could have actually said why you think it is instead of just bringing a different game into the discussion and purposefully not contributing

I thought it was obvious that he meant that it's a female lead that causes the big difference. That was my theory as well. No one cares if it's a guy.

 

[dr_rus]

Original Tomb Raider was an action adventure game with arcade acrobatics. I seriously fail to see much difference in all its sequels. The only things that come and go - and make a TR game good or bad - is the script and abandoned places exploration. The less there is exploration without shooting people in faces - the worse TR a game is. The smarter and more rooted in myths and legends the script is - the better TR a game is. It's really that simple and I don't know why it's so hard for all new TRs to find that truth.

 

[Superflat]

I thought it was obvious that he meant that it's a female lead that causes the big difference. That was my theory as well. No one cares if it's a guy.

If that's the case, I guess I disagree. While Dead Space is consistently showing you grotesque shock and gore throughout the game, while TR's most graphic content are pretty much isolated to Lara's death scenes. Even the brutal executions Lara learns later in the game are mild compared to some of her death animations. It was incongruous with the rest of the game.

That Lara is a lady could be just a coincidence, but the fact that females have had exploitable scenes similar to these for the sake of titillation in media didn't help of course, whether the devs knew it or not. Since it gets compared to UC so often, I guess I'll bring it up too -- if Drake had custom, gruesome death animations anywhere near the level of TR, it would be bizarre as hell and I'd bring it up as a highly negative point as well.

 

[N7Slayer24]

Because Dead Space is a horror game where that kind of stuff is welcome. Tomb Raider for all intents and purposes was a 3D platformer, which CD turned into shootbang horror. The entire game is about Lara finally becoming a 'man,' which is made evident by the fact that her mentor is some grizzled old dude who is constantly saving her. It's a fucking sham of a narrative, and the entire plot is about Lara seeing horrible things done so she has reason to retaliate. She doesn't even have the skillset the multiplayer section has(melee at will being a big omission), which is usually the opposite of how single player goes.

I was disgusted by those scenes. I was disgusted by Manhunt, too. But at least Manhunt had an incredible atmosphere and both of those were new IPs and didn't use a video game character, that was created 20 years ago.



Maybe because Lara Croft is a known video game character for ages. And she wasn't known for Manhunt-style executions and insane violence. There also was no attempted rape in the previous games.

If the game wouldn't have been called Tomb Raider and the main character wasn't Laura Croft, I think that there would been way less criticism. I personally loved the old Core games. Their main focus was adventure, exploration and actual platforming. Combat wasn't the focus. And there wasn't ultraviolence in them either.

If it was a new IP, I would has said "what the fuck is the games industry doing" (I said exactly that when I saw Manhunt + Dead Space 1/2 footage) and that would have been it. But this just hurts. It's sort of like Nintendo using Mario or Link in some Manhunt-like game. It hurts even more, when you think about it. They could have actually made an actual survival game. A proper one. Which would have been something original and interesting. Instead they just created an ultraviolent Uncharted with XP bars to fill.

Oh you meant that all the criticism is just there because "she is a female". Nope. I disagree. Totally. The videogame industry could create a game with a 12 year old female, that needs to hunt and eat other humans and I wouldn't give a shit. My reaction would be: "oh that's the new mature video games nowadays" and that would be it. I have given up on this type of industry a few years ago.

Probably because Dead Space is a horror game -- a genre that trades in over-the-top violence and gore -- while Tomb Raider isn't.

IIRC, the criticism wasn't because the scenes were out of context with the game/genre.(which isn't true anyway)

It just centered on the violent and graphic nature of it, so much to the point that people didn't want to play the game at all.

It was so wipespread and weird, since I never heard the nearly same amount of complaints regarding similar (and worse) scenes in Dead Space or similar games.

BTW the scenes aren't even that common to begin with, so it felt much ado about nothing.

 

[Galactic Fork]

I read the article in the OP -- mostly -- and unless I'm misunderstanding something, she says what she wants in a tomb raider -- and describes a bunch of stuff that in pretty much every conceivable way is the exact opposite of what TR2013 was. And then she says she loves TR2013 and it was one of her top games of 2013. I don't follow.

The idea is something like expecting a great steak, and getting a great banana split. I expect certain things out of steak, none of which are included in a banana split, but hey, that banana split might be delicious for a banana split.

 

[licktheenvelope]

While I enjoyed my time with TR2013, after I was done with it all I could say is it just felt totally empty. Everything that was in the game felt like it was there because they were ticking a checklist. The unnecessary XP bullshit that was there to make you feel like you were accomplishing something. It's possible to finish the game with just the basic bow and arrow and not worry about anything else.

My biggest problem is the game wasn't a challenge at all. The platforming did not get harder ( though I found it kinda fun), the enemies didn't really get harder. And I particularyl how at the beginning of the game they make a big deal about you finding something to eat and after that its never brought up again. What the hell was that?

And the so called Tombs were bullshit. I'm not gonna lie TR2013 was the first Tomb Raider game because I'd get somewhere in the old ones, get to a long winded 30 minute puzzle and just quit. But my God they took it way to the other side of the spectrum in the reboot. Most of the Tombs were solved in 2 to 3 steps. Crank this up, then wait for platform to come up, jump on it and bam Tomb completed. It felt like such a jip. The biggest problems with those Tombs were actually executing the jumps not solving the puzzles.

I did like the combat and auto platforming and I hope they improve on that in the sequel. I'm kinda hoping the only weapon you get is the bow and arrow and maybe the climbing axe. Also change that name cos it's freaking terrible.

Edit: Also screw that run towards or away from camera as everything is exploding around you. It stopped being fun midway through Uncharted 2 and can't believe developers are still using it.

As odd as it sounds another thing that took away from 2013 for me was all the "attempted rape" hype. I thought they might actually try to do something interesting with character development... but no... pretty bland. (Not saying I want to see actual rape in games, but the idea of someone trying to struggle through something so psycologically affecting might be interesting)...

Also where the hell was all the tomb raiding?

 

[Amir0x]

I read the article in the OP -- mostly -- and unless I'm misunderstanding something, she says what she wants in a tomb raider -- and describes a bunch of stuff that in pretty much every conceivable way is the exact opposite of what TR2013 was. And then she says she loves TR2013 and it was one of her top games of 2013. I don't follow.

I think she liked it, but was hopeful that the design was a foot in the door toward returning to a superior TR future where skill, meaningful puzzles, decent platforming and level design return.

 

[licktheenvelope]

I find quotes like the reason why we have such a terrible set of movies, comics, games etc. We can't have a good outlook. We have to be "dark and gritty". We can't just have another good Spiderman film about Power and Responsibility. No it has to be what The Dark Knight did. We need dark and gritty films like Hansel and Grettel, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland the list goes on(though I'm getting off-topic).
!

Uhhhhhh....

Hansel and Gretel (the fable) is pretty dark... (the movie is cheesey ...)

 

[Fehyd]

New TR could use some more platforming, so long as its not as terribly controlled as the originals. Or maybe a time trial mode of sorts ala Assassins Creed.

I definitely prefer new Lara to old Lara. New Lara is at least a bit more likeable, as opposed to old Lara who was just a rich woman who murdered people and stole things, without any of the change of heart "stop the badguys" that Nathan Drake tended to do.

 

[Sub_Level]

I actually don't mind the ultra violence of the newer game. It's not even that bad.

It's more the automatic platforming that annoys me. Something as simple as positioning Lara for a running jump off a ledge could be an ORDEAL in the older games, but in a really good fun kind methodical kind of way. Also the side characters are really dumb.

 

[Sayers]

She is spot on but what she suggests is a pipe dream. This game will be even more automated and have even less respect for the player's intelligence than the last one did.

 

[Xenon]

I got some of what she asked for back and looking for all the collectables. Exploring jumping around looking for collectables after clearing out the thugs was my favorite part of the game. Seeing someplace out of reach and trying to get there required more skill than going through the story of the game ever did. I died more looking for shit than from enemies.

I get that most collectables in games are shit. But CD took the time to hide some of them in creative places. They even have puzzles and platforming involved in getting them. Anyone who just played through story mode is missing a big chuck of the content CD put in the the reboot.

Sure it would have been nice if they put some of that into the main game. But they can't since they want to go after the largest market possible. That's why the tombs were optional . They wanted the people who want the Uncharted experience to have mindless fun. But added more content for those who want to look for it. It's the reason I plan to replay the TR2013. Anyone complaining about TR2013 who just went through the story mode, that's on you.

The fact that the bow is not mentioned at all in Cara's blog is criminal. BEST WEAPON IN THE GAME!

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Need some big ass innovative tombs.. it could be like a Zelda if it wanted to and i would eat it up

 

[senahorse]

Having just played Tomb Raider Anniversary over the weekend (what an amazing game), it greatly saddens me what the series has become. I enjoyed TR2013 but not as a Tomb Raider game, if they don't go back to the games of old (very doubtful) I hope someone else picks up the formula.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Lara Croft, "I hate tombs".

I wouldn't trust Crystal Dynamics to make good on anything with this sequel. They've used Microsoft's cash to hide from the next Uncharted release. Why would they need to, if they were actually making a Tomb Raider game this time?

The first game was fantastic, so... not sure what you're getting at. I expect game 2 to be just as good.

 

[SolidSnakex]

The first game was fantastic, so... not sure what you're getting at. I expect game 2 to be just as good.

He's talking about the original TR vs. TR2013. The original TR revolved around platforming and puzzle solving. TR2013 revolves around shooting. IGN made a video that showed the human kill count in TR vs. 2013. In TR the kill count was 5, in 2013 it's 434. The original was also longer on average (16h) compared to an average of 11 for 2013. That doesn't mean that TR2013 was a bad game. But the only thing that it really had in common with the original was that it starred Lara.

 

[10k]

If I were to do it, this is how I’d do it.

1. Invest in environment artists and level design primarily, and get narrative designers in at the start. Plan to have large, gloomy, labyrinthine levels that intimidate the player, that scare the player. Use the Silent Hill method: there’s not usually any kind of enemy over the horizon most of the time, but you think there is and so you’re ready all the time.

2. Lara Croft is a tomb raider. She probably works alone. So keep her alone. The original painted her as a bachelorette. There’s no way she gives two shits about coming home to a man or a woman. This is a person who fucks and leaves. She’s rich: she’s the Bruce Wayne model. And there is nothing well-adjusted about Bruce Wayne or Lara Croft.

3. Understand that Lara Croft doesn’t even need to speak to have her be an interesting person, and so I would make her terse, so that she only speaks when she has to. She raids tombs because she likes the silence. Have her personality come through in the choices available to her. Steve Gaynor used to talk about this: what if a certain action were available to the player that demonstrated what sort of player you wanted to be, choices that change no variables in the game, but that tell you what kind of feeling you should have about it. Steve’s example was you could press a button at certain points to pray, but Lara’d probably take photographs. She’d probably document stuff. She’d probably cover her tracks for people trying to pursue her. Maybe she’d lay traps for the next tomb raiders. Maybe she would decide not to kill anything in the tombs - she’s an archaeologist. Why would she want to eliminate the things she finds on sight?

If you want to introduce other characters, have them be dead on spikes in tombs, and have her recognise them, Alien-style. Or have Lara try to lure her enemies into being dead on spikes in tombs.

4. Man what would I give to have Randy Smith make a Tomb Raider level.

5. Do not start a reboot. Lara Croft has been young and in pigtails a number of times already. We can accept who she is because we have known who she is for a number of years. In many ways she is as ubiquitous as Mario, even outside of video games, and I couldn’t give a fuck how or why a plumber started rescuing a princess from a giant green whatever Bowser is.

6. Make her older. Make her fucked off. Make her weary. Make her bad. Make her the Indiana Jones you see after he thinks Marion’s dead. Make her really quite aware of what she’s doing. Make her the Godfather of games. She knows she’s stealing history and you still admire her. Lara’s not young any more. Why are we treating her like she is? For some dumb idea of female attractiveness? Fuck that shit. Lara’s probably had spikes through every part of her body and I bet she has metal pins holding her limbs together. She’s sturdier than Ripley. You know who I think is a hero? A woman who doesn’t care who thinks she is fuckable. She lives in the dark. Who’s gonna look at her? A mummy?

7. Make the puzzles absolute bastards. And make Lara traverse scary places to solve them.

8. Give her fluid, satisfying hand-to-hand combat. Lara has long legs. She is a rich girl with access to as many trainers as you like. She is built for krav maga. Give her a shotgun and a pistol so that she has them if she needs them. Make ammo scarce. Try not to give her a machine gun unless there’s some sort of implausible set piece at the end of the game. She is a tomb raider. It is implausible that she would be responsible for a large scale massacre, because she would literally rather run away with the goods than stick around to get shot.

slowclap.gif

 

[Laughing Banana]

It feels like Tomb Raider 2013 is of the same kin with DmC, where liking them means you should feel bad about yourself, hahaha.

For what its worth, I like it, although yes if it's more of a Tomb Raider Anniversary where puzzles/platforming are much more intricate then I *think* I would have liked it more. But Tomb Raider 2013 was and is not a "bad" game by any stretch of imagination.

 

[Emperor Bohe]

He's talking about the original TR vs. TR2013. The original TR revolved around platforming and puzzle solving. TR2013 revolves around shooting. IGN made a video that showed the human kill count in TR vs. 2013. In TR the kill count was 5, in 2013 it's 434. The original was also longer on average (16h) compared to an average of 11 for 2013. That doesn't mean that TR2013 was a bad game. But the only thing that it really had in common with the original was that it starred Lara.

that's what i'm talking about. in the next game they need to significantly reduce the human encounters. it's been stale ever since at least Tomb Raider Legend.

 

[grandwizard]

that's what i'm talking about. in the next game they need to significantly reduce the human encounters. it's been stale ever since at least Tomb Raider Legend.

Human enemies and combat should not be the meat of any Tomb Raider game ever. I find it crazy that when Legend came out, that game was heavily criticized by how much unnecessary combat it had and the direction Crystal was taking the series. For perspective I would say that Legend had about ~40% of it being combat. Now we have the Reboot where it is more like 95% combat.

The sad thing is it's not even interesting combat, its bog-standard cover based shooting.

 

[Emulated Hype]

Even though I have a zero percent optimism that they are going to smarten up and change their horrendous checklist-game-design-by-comittee abomination for the sequel, I hope you are right. I hope they used TR2013 to lure skill-averse gamers into the fold, so they can smack them upside the head in the sequel.

The interesting thing about TR2013, at least the only interesting thing as far as I am concerned, is that the actual platforming mechanics (that is to say, the way Lara Croft moves/jumps and her momentum) are drastically better than they were in any of the other Crystal Dynamics titles. But the entire game designed around those mechanics was atrocious. There wasn't a single need to get any better at anything. The window of error for jumps was so comically large that I probably could have closed my eyes and gained victory in all these obstacles. None of the levels were designed to challenge you or even interest you. As far as I can tell, they are there simply to provide pretty backdrops, because they certainly aren't there to demonstrate quality level design or anything.

In the original Tomb Raider games, you frequently had sprawling, brilliantly epic multiroom puzzles that didn't only require your brain - they often required your quick reflexes and application of your acquired skills to that point. You might solve a particularly hard puzzle, only to realize that now a clock is ticking and you have to navigate an obscenely difficult platforming obstacle course to make it an slide under the door before it closes.

There is nothing that even remotely comes close to the tension and rewarding nature of the best of OG Tomb Raider such as illustrated in that door example above. Bridges cinematically breaking around you to not threat of your own body as long as you press forward is not close. I don't know how anyone on Earth thought this was a good exchange, eliminating the only franchise left in the industry that still played this impressively for... that.... Uncharted/gore/AAA clone.

Back in the day, you didn't need the sounds of bullets echoing off the walls to be entertained. Tomb Raider 2013 thinks the only point to games IS to shoot bullets or arrows. 80% of my time in that game was spent navigating from one combat encounter to the next. OG TR fans used to mock whenever a TR game started bringing in too much combat, because we all knew that was never the point. The point was trying to use your wits and skills to navigate an ever increasing series of trap/obstacle courses and puzzle rooms whilst platforming in a very precise manner. People complain about the controls, but they were extremely deliberate and predictable, meaning the second you got a handle on them - and the learning curve was relatively steep, admittedly - the entire game benefited from the application of its precision. You jumped in a grid pattern, and so all your moves were able to be mapped out down to the second.

No, when OG Tomb Raider was around, the only thing gamers needed to keep them comfortable at night was the haunting screams of Lara Croft as she plummets to her doom for the 12th time after you yet again miss that swinging pole to get to the other side. Maybe you can't quite make that jump? But it's so close... I see Lara extending her hand to grab it. Maybe if I edge myself closer to the corner next time and--- ahhhh no. Dead again. And I loved every moment of it.



Like, I don't care that a franchise isn't for me. What I care about is when you appropriate a franchise for your own use, and then edit out every single thing that could even tangentially be related to that franchise - Tomb Raider - we know and love. At least have some respect for a cherished franchise and show you get what it's all about. What happened was the literal definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Anyway, I really enjoyed reading this article, I agree with a lot of the points, but think she needs to be even more definitive in the changes.

They can for example keep the actual Lara Croft physics/momentum of TR2013 and make a game that plays like the classics of old, if they so chose. It'd be a miracle at this point if it went down that way, but I'm always one or hope.

I grew up playing these games with my dad, it's been painful seeing the series repurposed over the past decade. I've always felt Eidos valued Lara more as an 'icon' than the games she starred in. If Lara Croft and the Temple of Osiris/Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light can get greenlit and released as small downloadable titles, then dammit so can traditional 3D Tomb Raider!

I'm still holding onto hope that one day an indie team will make a TR spiritual successor.

Spoiler

Though I'm 80% sure something like that would end up being a roguelike.

As far as the OP is concerned, Lara needs to go back to being a nonchalant badass that does what she does because she loves the thrill of it. They've retconned her into a truly insufferable character in the past two reboots, which is a shame. I didn't like her in TR2013 but there were moments, particularly when analyzing some of the artifacts, where her dialog really hooked me and even made me smile. Which was all awash as the very next corner I rounded she was mowing down the cast of Expendables 7, brooding in a cutscene or generaly doing a terrible VO of her own journal at a campfire.

 

[Piston Hyundai]

Spoiler

Though I'm 80% sure something like that would end up being a roguelike.

If you just made something like SLIGE for Doom but for, say, the Tomb Raider 4 engine, I'd pay sixty dollars for that alone.

 

[bumpkin]

I don't know... I agree with a ton of points in the article and the OP, but I didn't think there was anything hugely wrong with TR 2013. I can honestly say it was one of the few games -- in any IP -- in recent years that not only did I want to play it through to completion, but actually spent the time in the post-game tracking down all of the collectibles and doing all of the optional challenges and tombs. Despite all the enjoyment I got out of the campaigns in the Uncharted games, I didn't do the same as far as completion goes.

Although I will concede that the transformation from victim of unfortunate circumstances who felt guilty for killing that first animal washed away as she became the typical video game hero/heroine trope -- shoot first, ask no questions -- it's a video game, people. Combat is part of its DNA. Was she supposed to express remorse after every single kill? Would you have rather spent the entire game running/hiding from armed enemies out to kill you?

TR was a great example of the right way to reboot a series, IMHO. The game looked, sounded and played great. I enjoyed every moment of it. I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with Rise. I just hope they don't alter or abandon their plans because of a vocal minority; they clearly have a vision for the series, I'd like to see where they take it, un-compromised.

 

[Amir0x]

I don't know... I agree with a ton of points in the article and the OP, but I didn't think there was anything hugely wrong with TR 2013. I can honestly say it was one of the few games -- in any IP -- in recent years that not only did I want to play it through to completion, but actually spent the time in the post-game tracking down all of the collectibles and doing all of the optional challenges and tombs. Despite all the enjoyment I got out of the campaigns in the Uncharted games, I didn't do the same as far as completion goes.

Although I will concede that the transformation from victim of unfortunate circumstances who felt guilty for killing that first animal washed away as she became the typical video game hero/heroine trope -- shoot first, ask no questions -- it's a video game, people. Combat is part of its DNA. Was she supposed to express remorse after every single kill? Would you have rather spent the entire game running/hiding from armed enemies out to kill you?

TR was a great example of the right way to reboot a series, IMHO. The game looked, sounded and played great. I enjoyed every moment of it. I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with Rise. I just hope they don't alter or abandon their plans because of a vocal minority; they clearly have a vision for the series, I'd like to see where they take it, un-compromised.

I mean I get you enjoyed it, but think constructively about the problems with Tomb Raider. It is, contrary to your opinion, the absolutely wrong way to reboot a series.

Consider what we lost. There's really no way to argue that the puzzles were better than what we have before, that'd be madness. There are like a bare two handful of puzzles in the game, and almost all of them are infuriatingly simple to the point of basically insulting everyone's intelligence. The "tombs" are really just caves which lead you to said comically easy puzzles.

So... in a list of things that are rebooted positively...

1. Puzzles

But what else? I mean, there's plenty else that was good about the Tomb Raider series, so maybe they performed admirably there. Let's consider that the true focus of the old TR games were the exploration and navigation of elaborate tombs which contained traps and obstacle courses meant to test your skills. Surely this must be improved?

Again, not really. Instead of challenging gamers, Crystal Dynamics stuck to the modern AAA game design maxim of "doth shall not allow a gamer to get frustrated for lack of their own gaming talent." What this meant was that navigating the game had no reward to it. Lots of sparkling things were glittering on the ground, but there's no reason to actually feel an accomplishment for getting any of them. There is no level design that accommodates a steady skill curve that allows gamers who apply themselves to get a tangible sense of reward. Instead, you can basically "walk" yourself to each item, and to each area you need to go to continue your progress. You rarely if ever die because there is no challenge, and they intentionally made it that way, afraid gamers would be turned off by realizing they're not half as good as they thought they were.

In OG Tomb Raider, relics were frequently astonishingly difficult not only to locate, but were incredibly fun to try to actually reach. Most often, these were some of the most challenging things to do, because they were secrets meant to reward gamers who went above and beyond the call of duty. Instead, in TR2013 they were replaced with a playful pat on the head, as if you were some house cat, accompanied by the companies condescending "aw, aren't you so glad you got that shiny arrow head?"

Similarly, almost everything in the game is on an excruciatingly linear direction, and the few - and I mean few - divergent paths usually lead to abject garbage instead.

So..

2. Exploration/Navigation

But what else? I know! People complain all the time about OG Tomb Raider's controls, because let's face it gamers of today are no longer used to digital grid controls. This is the closest to a legitimate complaint the original series receives. I have frequently made the argument as to the deliberate nature of the controls, and I'll do so again. The controls were made obviously for the limitations of controllers that did not have analog sticks. This much is true.

But they designed a control scheme with this in mind, so that the result is precision so perfect that you could literally map out your steps down to the millisecond. That is to say, you could actually draw a grid map on graph paper and draw an arrow expressing the precise moment you are supposed to jump to make the gap, the exact point you need to sidestep or backflip in order to navigate at full speed, every last action or requirement can be pinpointed and accomplished by mere warrant of the control's razor sharp design.

The learning curve is generally huge, however, and this is a step back from the more accommodating controls that allows games today to be more accessible.

This is where TR2013 excels, and this is the one area where we can objectively say that,

 

[licktheenvelope]

I don't know... I agree with a ton of points in the article and the OP, but I didn't think there was anything hugely wrong with TR 2013. I can honestly say it was one of the few games -- in any IP -- in recent years that not only did I want to play it through to completion, but actually spent the time in the post-game tracking down all of the collectibles and doing all of the optional challenges and tombs. Despite all the enjoyment I got out of the campaigns in the Uncharted games, I didn't do the same as far as completion goes.

Although I will concede that the transformation from victim of unfortunate circumstances who felt guilty for killing that first animal washed away as she became the typical video game hero/heroine trope -- shoot first, ask no questions -- it's a video game, people. Combat is part of its DNA. Was she supposed to express remorse after every single kill? Would you have rather spent the entire game running/hiding from armed enemies out to kill you?

TR was a great example of the right way to reboot a series, IMHO. The game looked, sounded and played great. I enjoyed every moment of it. I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with Rise. I just hope they don't alter or abandon their plans because of a vocal minority; they clearly have a vision for the series, I'd like to see where they take it, un-compromised.

You realize you're talking about a game series where in the first one she maybe killed a handful of people?

 

[Amir0x]

I don't know... I agree with a ton of points in the article and the OP, but I didn't think there was anything hugely wrong with TR 2013. I can honestly say it was one of the few games -- in any IP -- in recent years that not only did I want to play it through to completion, but actually spent the time in the post-game tracking down all of the collectibles and doing all of the optional challenges and tombs. Despite all the enjoyment I got out of the campaigns in the Uncharted games, I didn't do the same as far as completion goes.

Although I will concede that the transformation from victim of unfortunate circumstances who felt guilty for killing that first animal washed away as she became the typical video game hero/heroine trope -- shoot first, ask no questions -- it's a video game, people. Combat is part of its DNA. Was she supposed to express remorse after every single kill? Would you have rather spent the entire game running/hiding from armed enemies out to kill you?

TR was a great example of the right way to reboot a series, IMHO. The game looked, sounded and played great. I enjoyed every moment of it. I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with Rise. I just hope they don't alter or abandon their plans because of a vocal minority; they clearly have a vision for the series, I'd like to see where they take it, un-compromised.

I mean I get you enjoyed it, but think constructively about the problems with Tomb Raider. It is, contrary to your opinion (and obviously in my own view), the absolutely wrong way to reboot a series. But in respect to your point of view, I am going to create the most elaborate point-by-point explanation of where it went wrong. I hope you find the time to read it, although it is so huge I will understand if you cannot. You don't need to respond, but I hope you do find it in your heart to really evaluate what it means when placed in stark contrast to your own views.

So... in a list of things that are rebooted, whether positively or negatively...

1. Puzzles

Consider what we lost. There's really no way to argue that the puzzles were better than what we have before, since there is a fraction of what there ever was before and they're all maddeningly simple physics/navigation puzzles. There are like a bare two handful of puzzles in the game, and almost all of them are infuriatingly simple to the point of basically insulting everyone's intelligence. The "tombs" are really just caves which lead you to said comically easy puzzles.

But what else? I mean, there's plenty else that was good about the Tomb Raider series, so maybe they performed admirably there. Let's consider that the true focus of the old TR games were the exploration and navigation of elaborate tombs which contained traps and obstacle courses meant to test your skills. Surely this must be improved?

Again, not really. Instead of challenging gamers, Crystal Dynamics stuck to the modern AAA game design maxim of "doth shall not allow a gamer to get frustrated for lack of their own gaming talent." What this meant was that navigating the game had no reward to it. Lots of sparkling things were glittering on the ground, but there's no reason to actually feel an accomplishment for getting any of them. There is no level design that accommodates a steady skill curve that allows gamers who apply themselves to get a tangible sense of reward. Instead, you can basically "walk" yourself to each item, and to each area you need to go to continue your progress. You rarely if ever die because there is no challenge, and they intentionally made it that way, afraid gamers would be turned off by realizing they're not half as good as they thought they were.

In OG Tomb Raider, relics were frequently astonishingly difficult not only to locate, but were incredibly fun to try to actually reach. Most often, these were some of the most challenging things to do, because they were secrets meant to reward gamers who went above and beyond the call of duty. Instead, in TR2013 they were replaced with a playful pat on the head, as if you were some house cat, accompanied by the companies condescending "aw, aren't you so glad you got that shiny arrow head?"

Similarly, almost everything in the game is on an excruciatingly linear direction, and the few - and I mean few - divergent paths usually lead to abject garbage instead.

So..

2. Exploration/Navigation

But what else? I know! People complain all the time about OG Tomb Raider's controls, because let's face it gamers of today are no longer used to digital grid controls. This is the closest to a legitimate complaint the original series receives. I have frequently made the argument as to the deliberate nature of the controls, and I'll do so again. The controls were made obviously for the limitations of controllers that did not have analog sticks. This much is true.

But they designed a control scheme with this in mind, so that the result is precision so perfect that you could literally map out your steps down to the millisecond. That is to say, you could actually draw a grid map on graph paper and draw an arrow expressing the precise moment you are supposed to jump to make the gap, the exact point you need to sidestep or backflip in order to navigate at full speed, every last action or requirement can be pinpointed and accomplished by mere warrant of the control's razor sharp design.

The learning curve is generally huge, however, and this is a step back from the more accommodating controls that allows games today to be more accessible.

This is where TR2013 excels, and this is the one area where we can objectively say that, if we had to cede anything to its quality, it is that they really translated Lara Croft's movement set well to this new generation. She has an enjoyable sense of speed, a great predictable level of momentum and her jumping abilities all translate very well. This is by far the most surprising thing to me, since I expected it to be a downer. The problem is, of course, that they did not design a game that actually needs to use this genuinely great redesign. However, I will say this is an example of a good aspect of the reboot.

3. Controls/Momentum/Jumping

So with all that controls, surely that means it must be an absolutely joy to navigate the world? Unfortunately, it is not. You see controls are only one part of the equation. The next part is providing a gradient skill curve that allows gamers to start easy and then end the game by having to consistently apply their acquired skill set. This game has no such curve. Instead, from the start to the end the window of error is so incomprehensibly huge that Lara Croft might as well have controlled as if she were an elephant and you still would have never required any skills to proceed.

Her grapple hook thing was an impressive addition to Lara Croft's arsenal, yet they never applied it even once in a creative way. Never once did any element or obstacle suggest that you might need to combine skills in an order that might in fact be difficult to accomplish unless you become better at the game. It was just there, another bulletpoint meant to somehow impress upon the gamers that you have options. You just never need to apply the options in any way that meant offer a sense of reward upon completion.

Jumping was most disappointing. The controls were genuinely good. They were such that if they had wanted to, they could have had some of the best platforming obstacle courses in the series. I could have thought up a million and one scenarios in which gamers, through the steady progress of the game, encounter harder and harder obstacles which are always fair yet require application of meaningful skills. Not once... not even once... was this the case. I mean, consider what that means. They were so terrified a gamer might die that they removed essentially any possibility that something might hinder your progress. Basically the only way to die is if you intentionally try to miss a jump or in one of the games many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many combat encounters, even on the hardest difficulty.

The best illustration of this is in one of the game's many cinematic moments. In the old Tomb Raider, you frequently encountered exciting moments where you were running, whilst simultaneously navigating tension filled platforming obstacles, while also avoiding traps and arrows and gun shots and raptors and all sorts of other menacing bits of greatness. Combat was never the point! In fact they were always a small fraction of the game. Such exciting moments that reminded one of the best of Indiana Jones were, in fact, the point. But TR2013 is filled with moments like the bridge, where if you basically press forward and jump occasionally, eyes all glazed over, you win. There literally might as well have been a win button for all it mattered in this game. If there was a gap you must traverse, the amount of space you were allowed to make the jump was astronomical. You could have made the jump any number of a hundred ways and you would still have been a success, because the game is built to not offend even the gentlest of sentiments.

So...

4. Platforming

But... but surely the combat was better? Yes, the combat was infinitely better than what came before. There's no doubt this is where the game is hugely more accomplished than in any of the other Tomb Raider games. You got your brutal execution moves, you got your arrows that are convincingly violent, you have your guns that blast holes in people's guts. You have the entire arsenal... that is in every one of the thousand third person action games that has come out since the start of last gen. Yet there is no denying, this is much improved from OG Tomb Raider. You can combine your weapons in interesting ways, and there's even some curious environmental interaction wherein you can pull down certain ledges and drop certain rooms on people.

Further, the game positively relishes in violence and gore. Blood splatters everywhere, there are cinematic deaths where you're gouged by pointy sticks or broken upon rocks or crushed. They have it all! You can view all the death scenes in order here. Warning: It's basically a snuff film. Old Tomb Raider didn't require this, because your brutal deaths were appropriate to the scale of your navigation. When you fell, Lara Croft would scream and you'd hear a horrifying crunch as her bones broke. But due to the limitations of hardware, it was more imagination than execution. Now, I don't mind violence whatsoever, and in fact I believe games for which gore is part of the point should make it a goal to provide gore that is shocking and appropriately detailed. I won't comment on if they have the right balance here, but I will say that when coupled with the themes the game went for, it certainly felt like the devs were relishing in the human eviscerations a little too much.

Here's the problem with this. In a world where we're arguing that this is a "good" reboot, we must consider what the series actually was. In OG Tomb Raider, combat was the end of every joke. Not because it was good or bad - even though it was mostly clearly bad - but because nobody wanted to actually engage in combat. That was not the point of the games. To change the focus of the games so dramatically not only suggests they never understood the series, but it actually highlights that they have a flagrant disrespect for what it once was. This is Crystal Dynamics at their most cynical. SquareEnix grabbed their chins and forcibly committed them to gaze in the direction of other series that they wrongheadedly felt was in the TR formula: Uncharted. Problem was, Uncharted was never like Tomb Raider. But it certainly had something they wanted more than the admiration of people who legitimately used to enjoy the series... sales numbers.

And that's what this whole mess amounted to, a series of corporate meetings where they pointed to a bunch of graphs, gathered the appropriate data, and began to design by checklist. Yes, it must have lots of third person action. Sure, it needs lots of "cinematic" climbing, where ledges break behind you. Certainly, add in tons of cinematic "gameplay" where it pretends you're engaging in something of merit but instead you're merely pressing forward in the most boring objectives imaginable. There's no tension, because there's no risk. There's no reward, because you're not actually accomplishing anything. You're "viewing" their halfhearted story and they feel it's one up from just viewing a cinematic during these moments and doing nothing at all. That may be true, but the reason OG Tomb Raider never needed cinematics like that was because it was not about story. It was about gameplay, phenomenal gameplay.

So what have we learned they actually exchanged here? Great gameplay for cinematics. While I certainly respect your right to believe this is an example of a good reboot, allow me to push back and express the other side of the coin. These is a reboot which shows the utmost disrespect for what the franchise was always about. We could not have possibly arrived at a point more distant from where the series started, not unless they turned it into a DDR clone or Gran Turismo. Even if one were to enjoy what it stands as now, it is demonstrably nothing at all like what people used to love the series for. It is in fact some pale, sad shadow of some dying tree, standing alone on some cavernous mountainside, waiting for the last bits of its bark to crumble to dust.

So the combat is way better. But it also killed the actual balance of what the series was. Before, 35% engaging puzzles, 55% challenging environmental navigation, 10% shitastic combat. Now, 65% decent combat, 30% simplistic environmental navigation, 5% hilariously easy puzzles. So we'll go half and half on this one.

5. Combat

Finally, we have the story. It is very similar to the problems with highlighting the improvements to the combat. The old Tomb Raider games were like little one note Indiana Jones-lite, you usually seek some sort of artifact, someone gets in your way because they want it more than you, and Lara Croft gets the best of them until she finally encounters in combat some supernatural demigod who utilizes the artifact in some way to evil ends. Pretty basic, not particularly memorable, but an excellent format for a game that is in all ways about engaging gameplay.

Tomb Raider 2013 is far more elaborate. There are multiple characters, none of which are built with any sort of compelling characterization. It's basically Lara's game, and that's probably for the best. But in a game which is supposed to show how Lara became who she is, I was not convinced. Consider this: Lara Croft's passion was always supposed to be hunting for artifacts. Part of it was inspiration from her mother, part of it was her fantastic intellect pushing her in this direction. If this game is supposed to place her on the road toward becoming the actual Tomb Raider, how is that possible? In the game it's basically one gratuitous bit of tragic human violence after another, non-stop, like some sickening treadmill. She is nearly sexually abused - although I think they exaggerated this in the media - she is brutalized, she is repeatedly beat and bled and cut and exasperated at essentially every turn. She has to witness as her compatriots die one after another.

How does she turn one of the worst events in the history of her then short life into a passion that drives her? Into something she loves? Do you think it makes sense that she would, after experiencing this, go on to saunter into the next tomb? Maybe she has the sort of terrifying fortitude of will that only serial killers have, right alongside a complete lack of empathy. But no, she seemed genuinely crushed when her friends died.

There's a million problems with the story, but the cinematics are impressively detailed, the expressions and writing certainly above that of the old Tomb Raider titles. I therefore have arrived at the same conclusion that I did with the combat. That an improvement is not necessarily an improvement the franchise should have had. I'm not even against them adding cinematics (as long as I can skip them, since they were terrible in all the Tomb Raider games including TR2013), but I am against them focusing on it to the exclusion of eminently more important gameplay qualities. And that is very really what occurred here. They were so intent on delivering a story that they felt would compel gamers, much like the desperation of the other thousand third person action games, and they did it to the point where they basically forgot what it means to make a game rewarding. And Tomb Raider is nothing without a palpable sense of achievement.

So, like Combat...

6. Narrative



I want to be clear that I am perfectly fine with you reaching different conclusions than my own. This post is meant to challenge conceptions you and others have about the game, and perhaps merit a bit of reevaluation. What we lost when we lost OG Tomb Raider was one of the last true original games in that mold. There are now zero games like it on the market, anywhere. Consider what that means and let it sink in. We replaced it with a new version of the franchise that was, to my great consternation, a sad echo of every other violent third person action game around.

My problem is not that it isn't perfectly fine appealing to people who like that sort of thing (I do like third person action games). Certainly they should have given it a new name and released it as a third person action game people would still have loved, if they were into that sort of thing. This would have allowed OG Tomb Raider, the last of its kind, to thrive on the side. And they could have still rebooted it, but instead emphasizing challenge, genuine exploration, platforming and puzzle solving. I made a post once detailing the very many ways they could have reinvented the series while still staying true to the "soul" of the franchise. Not a single person disagreed with the quality of the idea, because it was so simple in its respect to the franchise. It understood what made it great. It applied ideas that came in improvements in modern game design, while enlivening the aspects that made it such a compelling concept in the first place.

People should understand that I am not against newness. I do not have some nostalgia obsession with the past. In fact, very often I find it difficult to play older games due to the many mechanical improvements that have arrived over the years. But OG Tomb Raider had a spirit that could have been translated with modern ideals without destroying everything that once made people love it.



And that is why it makes me sad to see the hole we went down.

 

[Brianimaniac]

Tomb Raider used to be a unique series in the PS1 era. It was doing its own thing, not copying others.

The rebooted franchise has nothing of it's own to offer -- it's a "me too!" collection of elements found in modern successful AAA games. No one would describe any game as being "like Tomb Raider" because new TR is already an approximation of something else.

That's what was sad about the Lords of Shadow reboot of Castlevania. That's a prestigious series that should be paving new ground that other games should want to copy, but instead, it's Castlevania-flavored God of War or Devil May Cry. It's trying to capitalize on something other people are doing instead of being a creative endeavor.

 

[tokkun]

My problem is not that it isn't perfectly fine appealing to people who like that sort of thing (I do like third person action games). Certainly they should have given it a new name and released it as a third person action game people would still have loved, if they were into that sort of thing. This would have allowed OG Tomb Raider, the last of its kind, to thrive on the side. And they could have still rebooted it, but instead emphasizing challenge, genuine exploration, platforming and puzzle solving.

They are already producing multiple types of games with this IP. You have the "Lara Croft and the...." series with a different type of gameplay. The existence of TR2013 is not what's holding them back from making a game in the OG style.

 

[-tetsuo-]

It's a dynamic cutscene, just not a fixed one. The player has almost no input at all. Run down and a little to the left or run down and a little to the right and there is also the ability to die, which (I guess) just restarts the cutscene. Not as terrible as "press a button within 200 msecs and otherwise you die", but still...

I personally don't know if most people really like this part of Uncharted. There are other parts, that are 100% gameplay and then end in a sort of cutscene (Uncharted 2 train). At least those make some sort of sense. And then there is the regular shooting and "platforming".

Next New Super Mario bros should have not a single moment where you are doing nothing more than running forward I guess.

It is ok to like the old and new Tomb Raider games. The new one is one of the best games with the Tomb Raider name on it.

 

[Amir0x]

They are already producing multiple types of games with this IP. You have the "Lara Croft and the...." series with a different type of gameplay. The existence of TR2013 is not what's holding them back from making a game in the OG style.

Of course it is. Tomb Raider 2013 was insanely expensive, and the other Lara Croft series was not, despite being downloadable, cheap either.

SquareEnix has finite funds, and overcrowding the market risks competing with itself, diminishing overall sales.

Tomb Raider 2013, in its current form, is what is preventing a true OG Tomb Raider reboot from being a possibility.

 

[tokkun]

Of course it is. Tomb Raider 2013 was insanely expensive, and the other Lara Croft series was not, despite being downloadable, cheap either.

SquareEnix has finite funds, and overcrowding the market risks competing with itself, diminishing overall sales.

Tomb Raider 2013, in its current form, is what is preventing a true OG Tomb Raider reboot from being a possibility.

Would you be satisfied to get a game of the scale of the Lara Croft series, or to be a 'true' successor it also has to have AAA production values?

 

[SolidSnakex]

Would you be satisfied to get a game of the scale of the Lara Croft series, or to be a 'true' successor it also has to have AAA production values?

It'd actually be better if it were like the Lara Croft games. They could focus purely on the mechanics instead of trying to think of an engaging story for Lara. No one really cared about the story in the original games. They were there but the appeal was always on exploring, puzzle solving, and platforming.

 

[Amir0x]

Would you be satisfied to get a game of the scale of the Lara Croft series, or to be a 'true' successor it also has to have AAA production values?

I'd absolutely be satisfied with a game on the scale of the Lara Croft series. In fact, I quite like the Lara Croft series itself. But Lara Croft is a bit too multiplayer focused, and its levels more bite-sized arcade like. I'd want a Lara Croft game - in a world where it was set to be the true successor to OG Tomb Raider - to apply some modern innovations to the genre, whilst retaining the heart of Tomb Raider. So more solitary play, lots of secrets and hard-to-reach relics, huge tomb levels (not arcade-sized, in other words), sprawling multi-room puzzles and trap obstacle courses (Lara Croft got trap obstacles courses quite well, and puzzles pretty decently).

But sure, I'd take one with that budget and direction. Absolutely.

 

[Mman235]

Would you be satisfied to get a game of the scale of the Lara Croft series, or to be a 'true' successor it also has to have AAA production values?

This is actually why I'm disappointed that Temple of Osiris has calcified the "Lara Croft" series as an isometric co-op game. When Guardian of Light was revealed it was hinted that the "Lara Croft" line was going to be a way to experiment with ideas that couldn't be put in the AAA mainline series, with each game being heavily divergent, so regardless of how enjoyable TOO turns out it kind of feels like they're throwing away the potential of that series by turning it into a fixed concept.