I think the problem is the different expectations that certain tones set for a piece of media.
With something that's a piece of pulpy action entertainment, I don't think most people are expecting the most well-written drama or unique plotlines. I think what most people are looking for is something that has an energy to it, which is usually sustained by quippy, "fun" characters. That's kind of the Marvel/Uncharted 1-3 side of media. Your piece of media embraces the general ridiculousness of superheroes, or treasure hunting or globe-trotting and just goes for a kind of "fun" angle with a few "human elements" sprinkled in.
On the other hand once you start to take yourself seriously, whether fair to not, I think that expectations grow. This gets you more to a DC/Tomb Raider 2013 issue of characterization. You're taking this really fantastic concepts, say superheroes or some kind of Japanese mysticism/ritualism, and you want an audience to take it seriously? That's asking a lot, and it needs to be anchored by even better narrative writing to earn that belief. Tomb Raider in particular did very little to earn my interest in Lara, in the characters around her, or in the world they created. It's almost tirelessly dark and brooding, but without any substantial character drama or charisma to carry you through the darkness.
Nailed it. "The old ones had bad writing too!" misses the forest for the trees. The earlier games (AOD aside, but, well, it's AOD) had few pretensions of being anything other than light-hearted pulp adventures, and the story and characters only existed to facilitate that. The reboot
really wants you to believe that it's something more than that, when it just isn't. The real issue with this is that other aspects of the design are compromised to support this new direction; tombs are small because giant tombs full of traps and puzzles would be "unrealistic", supernatural enemies are nigh-indentical to other human enemies because actually giving them proper supernatual abilities or appearances wouldn't be "believable". The new approach compromises aspects of it's game design for the sake of story and then does it badly.
Most of her personality is in the mansion dlc tbh. Even though it was mostly walking simulator, it gave her character some depth unlike the main game.
They're still nothing special, but I noticed that there was more personality in the DLC's very quickly, even the non-story focused ones. I mean, there's even a few jokes there!!
The fact that Rhianna Pratchett wasn't involved in them makes it feel like more than a coincidence.
Haven't played RotR, but how can the story be even worse than the first game? Boggles my mind.
People need to stop giving Rhianna Pratchett work...
I don't think it is. It's only incrementally better, but still better. Lara at least occasionally seems like she wants to be there, and the relationship of the villains is *almost* interesting. It's not, but it could have been, unlike the first game where I can think of no character who's anything more than a pack of shallow cliches.
Also, while I do hope she manages to prove me wrong someday, I fully agree with your second part. There's only so many times you can say your writing is bad because of the nature of game development, when some of the best stories in the history of games have come out of incredibly messy development cycles.