How come Tomb Raider gets away with it?

[IronMit]

Developer Crystal Dynamics made 3 Tomb Raider games prior. They were good compared to the the last few the original Tombraider developer made. So it's not like another developer came along and pulled a Ninja Theory.

That and I don't think Tomb raider was loved as much as Hitman Blood money, DMC3-4, XCOM etc. People regarded these as their favourite games of all time. Tomb raider actually started to slowly die out losing some of the die hard fans.

And there is still some criticism of the new Tomb Raider; QTE reliance, jarring narrative to gameplay and a leveling system that does nothing issues that people point out.
Machinima, pcgamer, rock paper shotgun and rev3games rated it from 6 to 7.5/10, which is low for an inflated game score.

Oh and this video was funny

 

[Psylumin]

She is a completely different character, but she also isn't?
Look, its not THAT much of a stretch; its certainly not as much of a stretch as DmC's Dante was, and that game was actually released.
That aside, its still an adventure game, you still solve puzzles, and the mechanics are only better without taking away from the old.

A XCOM first-person shooter defies everything that XCOM stood for, at least in concept. The Devil May Cry reboot was developed on opposite day which is why the new Dante is the opposite of the old Dante. You could argue that that's the same thing that happened with Lara, but I think she was just toned down instead of completely changed.

Trust me, I was the first to complain that badass Lara was gone, but it turned out... Okay. Don't get me wrong though, the Tomb Raider reboot would have been far more pleasant for me if it wasn't a Tomb Raider game at all, and just a different game called The Adventures of Sharon Pare, or something.

Also, even though many of us hate resetting our minds when playing reboots, if a game is as well-done as the new Tomb Raider, you kind of want to accept it.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

Because as fun as Tomb Raider was, it was trapped in adolescent sex fantasy for far too long. It was about time they did something about that. The result is glorious. New Lara is better than the old one in every single way. And this is coming from someone who's played all Tomb Raider games.

Pardon my lack of knowledge (having not played any of them) but the new game seems to be a continuation of that sex fantasy, albeit perhaps for an older audience. The PR speeches didn't help with that image either. I'm sure the gameplay is solid, but the character aesthetic is.... pointed, it would seem.

 

[gigastar]

I think the new Tomb Raider got away with it because, regardless of reboot or not, it was the first truly good Tomb Raider game people have seen in the last decade.

And like Squeenix's other major publication from last year, Hitman: Absolution, it was completely misrepresented by the dipshits in marketing.

I guess a better question might be, why does "Metal Gear Rising" get away with it?

Because its not Metal Gear Solid.

Because it was still written and directed (in part) by Kojima.

Because its an action game developed my Platinum Games.

And because its fucking awesome. The soundtrack is great too.

And another one is expected soon enough, the game sold fairly well (~900k copies by now i expect) and Kojima himself tweeted that he would like to work with Platinum again.

 

[gigastar]

Because as fun as Tomb Raider was, it was trapped in adolescent sex fantasy for far too long. It was about time they did something about that. The result is glorious. New Lara is better than the old one in every single way. And this is coming from someone who's played all Tomb Raider games.

Pardon my lack of knowledge (having not played any of them) but the new game seems to be a continuation of that sex fantasy, albeit perhaps for an older audience. The PR speeches didn't help with that image either. I'm sure the gameplay is solid, but the character aesthetic is.... pointed, it would seem.

One thing that might as well be accepted is that if theres a female character, someones going to fap over her picture. Might as well be a picture of a young girl with realistic proportions instead of Fluttershy.

Dont search that on google by the way, youll wish you hadnt.

 

[bafrali]

Because there aren't many expectations from the franchise it aside from having a british lass named Lara and being good as far as I know.

That is not the case with neither Xcom nor DMC, as they are known to be better examples of their respective genres and are subjected to specific standarts and higher expectations. They are obliged by their history.

 

[shrekfan246]

But you're right, most people say Mario.

Pfft, Mario. That's so mainstream.

Dig Dug is where it's at.

[sub][sub][sub]I was originally going to just go with Sonic, but that's pretty mainstream too.[/sub][/sub][/sub]

OT: Having just started the new Tomb Raider... Lara looks enough like "Lara Croft" to me.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I've bought the game but haven't started it yet. Seen a few reviews though. The only thing I don't really care for is her new voice. Doesn't sound British/English/whatever-you-want-to-call-it enough. Also lacks the confidence that the old voice actress had. I know that this new Lara is fresh out of the box in terms of adventures and stuff, so I'm hoping she'll have a chance to grow into the old version.

 

[Weaver]

They took a 3rd person game and made a new 3rd person game.
Not sure why people would be mad?

I think it's because, really, X-COM fans were waiting like 17 years for a new X-COM game, and a shooter isn't what they had in mind. Tomb Raider games have still been coming out, even though they weren't that good.

 

[Something Amyss]

For some reason, Tomb Raider doesn't get the same response.

Initially, it did. People whined about the dirty look, the style, the lack of obvious implants.

Then more info came to light and it looked like this might be an improvement.

NOBODY thought that about X-Com.

 

[Altorin]

I think probably because the genre that tomb raider was has evolved into what it is now, and xcom is the exception, not the rule.

 

[Treblaine]

For some reason, Tomb Raider doesn't get the same response.

Several reasons:

For one this is the SECOND time Tomb Raider has been rebooted. Arguably it is even the THIRD time as Angel of Darkness was such a departure as well in character, lore and gameplay. So fans are quite used to the idea. Lara Croft has even been killed off once already and implausibly brought back to life.

For two, XCOM (the first person shooter) was so completable and utterly different from Xcom the RTS, even the biggest Xcom fan would not have the slightest clue it had anything at all to do with Xcom till the "XCOM" logo appeared at the end. While Tomb Raider 2013 is in principal the same kind of game.

For three, Tomb aider (2013) is an "origins story", so it's understandable that Lara is different as 17 year old as opposed to the 30-something Lara seen in the 90's era games. The original Series says little of Lara's origins except in the game manual it's stated she used to be pampered till she was stranded in the wilderness and fought to survive and also where she got her taste for adventure.

For four, Crystal Dynamics HAVE NOT gotten away with it. It's just any fuss over that has been drowned out over shriek cries that the game dared to have a groper in the cast of villains, and repeated bonehead comments that a someone acting like a sexual predator says ANYTHING AT ALL about the victim's character. That was the "response" to Tomb Raider.

Me personally: I really really REALLY miss the original Tomb Raider... they seemed to have such an epic scale and vision, not in cinematic terms as so many games are viewed today, you really needed to apply your grey matter to navigating the environment and it wasn't simply a case of continuously ploughing forward.

 

[Treblaine]

For some reason, Tomb Raider doesn't get the same response.

Initially, it did. People whined about the dirty look, the style, the lack of obvious implants.

Implants of what? Like a bionic eye? SHE'S NOT A CYBORG!

This isn't Deus Ex, why in the world would she have any cybernetic implants? Why would Tomb Raider fans possibly expect that in a series about mysticism rather than high tech cyber-punk.

And of course Tomb Raider fans would object to Lara being exposed to any amount of dirt, after all Tombs and jungles are notoriously clean and free from any type of grime. No, they expect a matrix like sheen to everything.

 

[Doom972]

From my understanding, it's because the old games were awful in Tomb Raider's case, so it was justified.
In XCOM's case the old games were fine.

Fine? The first one was a masterpiece but the sequels were awful. That's why we haven't had a new one for so long. Also, Tomb Raider was definitely more popular, since it sold much more copies - which is why it had so many sequels.

But fore the sake of the argument, let's say that the series was awful and there was no way to redeem the established franchise: Why keep the franchise at all? They changed so much of it that they could've made it the first game in a brand new franchise.

 

[Pulse]

The only thing tombraider had going for it to differentiate itself was an english action chick hero. No compelling story/universe, no challenging gameplay or unique mechanics, nor any striking asthetics.

So they get away with it because there was no "soul" of the series to "betray".

For example: DMC might be a good game, but they betrayed the tight as balls combat, character, and established story. Hence the backlash.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Because as fun as Tomb Raider was, it was trapped in adolescent sex fantasy for far too long. It was about time they did something about that. The result is glorious. New Lara is better than the old one in every single way. And this is coming from someone who's played all Tomb Raider games.

This new Lara is just a female Nathan Drake, it's ridiculous. There are hardly any puzzles, the game is constant handholding and "Press X not to die" situations and the shooting is mediocre.

It's a very, very mediocre game, nothing to write home about if they didn't use the TR brand.

I think what you mean is that Lara Croft is just a female Indiana Jones.

Nathan Drake is just a male version of Lara Croft.

Both are fun games but from a design standpoint they both aren't so much focused on the adventure and puzzle but more to what a generic FPS fan would want which is cutting down hordes of enemies. Sure it is fun but is it a good game that makes you want to come back to? Or is it more of a game that you play once and just enjoy the experience?

I am sorry, but couldn't we just skip the middle-man and call Nathan Drake just another Indy copy? Or is there a reason why you prefer to call him a Tomb Raider copy?


On topic:
Because people are strange that way, that's why.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

In 2010, 2K games announced that they would be reviving the X-COM franchise in the form of a first person shooter. This was met with much rage, due to 2K taking a beloved old franchise and turning it into something vastly different that had nothing to do with the previous games except for its name and having aliens invade earth. As we all know, 2K received so much negative feedback that they decided to make a much more fitting game, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and the XCOM FPS was never heard from again to this day.

For some reason, Tomb Raider doesn't get the same response. Lara Croft is a completely different character - she doesn't look, sound or act like the way she was liked/disliked for (depends on personal taste), and the gameplay is now about on shooting and sneaking rather than platforming and puzzle solving - basically changing genre from action-adventure to third person shooter with stealth elements.

I'd like to say that this doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the game, but whether it was right to call it a Tomb Raider game, when it's different to the point where under a different name it wouldn't be seen as such. Can you imagine this game being called a Tomb Raider successor/clone/ripoff if it had a different name?

So, is it as similar to the X-COM case as I think it is? If so, why didn't it get the same reaction?

EDIT: It seems that most people's replies are about how awesome the new game is. As I said before, it's not about whether or not it's better, but whether or not it's actually Tomb Raider, or a completely different game using its name.

The original Tomb Raider was pretty much about traversing the environment and shooting enemies. That's pretty much been kept in only it seems to flow better and is more intuitive in this one.

I agree it could have been more difficult but I don't think the idea of the original games has been completely abandoned to the extent of a strategy game becoming an fps.

I am a big fan of the original games and I really enjoyed this one. I do agree with the criticism that it's too easy though. There's certainly no areas to match St Francis' Folly.

 

[Vivi22]

Because as fun as Tomb Raider was, it was trapped in adolescent sex fantasy for far too long. It was about time they did something about that. The result is glorious. New Lara is better than the old one in every single way. And this is coming from someone who's played all Tomb Raider games.

This pretty much. Tomb Raider had pretty much stagnated/all but left the public perception by the time the new game was announced. The update provided the opportunity to give the series a much needed shot in the arm.

But X-Com never really suffered from the same problem. Yes, there were a few games in the series, but most people probably only played the first, and UI problems aside, it held up well over the years as a great example of a turn based strategy game.

But perhaps more to the point (and maybe I'm wrong on this as I didn't play much of the original Tomb Raider games), the new Tomb Raider doesn't seem to have totally abandoned what the original games were about. There was always shooting, platforming, and treasure hunting as I understand it. And the new game looks to have simply taken those elements and updated them to more modern standards. The X-Com FPS wasn't/isn't doing that. When it was originally announced it was a completely different setting, genre, etc. Everything you could possibly make different was different aside from it having a group called X-Com dealing with aliens. That's not the way to update a franchise that hadn't gotten any love in years.

 

[Treblaine]

I think what you mean is that Lara Croft is just a female Indiana Jones.

Nathan Drake is just a male version of Lara Croft.

Both are fun games but from a design standpoint they both aren't so much focused on the adventure and puzzle but more to what a generic FPS fan would want which is cutting down hordes of enemies. Sure it is fun but is it a good game that makes you want to come back to? Or is it more of a game that you play once and just enjoy the experience?

That's the more recent Tomb Raiders. Core Design's Tomb Raider was extremely puzzle and exploration focused.

Crystal Dynamics was in an awkward middle ground. It had the characteristic "ledge shuffle" mechanic that Uncharted borrowed heavily, but Uncharted borrowed the cover based shooting very much from Gears of War with added things like "reach around cover" takedowns. Now Tomb Raider feels very much more like Uncharted in almost all aspects.

But just because the games are similar doesn't mean the main characters are.

My point is the Indiana Jones character doesn't "own" the concept of adventures based around ancient mysticism and hidden treasures, and having a completley different character do the same thing.

I mean if anyone is an Indiana Jones clone, it's Victor Sullivan. Nathan Drake is closer to Nathan Fillion

I am sorry, but couldn't we just skip the middle-man and call Nathan Drake just another Indy copy? Or is there a reason why you prefer to call him a Tomb Raider copy?

(You made a comment about Cyborg Lara not being cyborg... but it suddenly disappeared?)

Without mentioning any plot detail, how are their characters both clones of Indiana Jones? This is the red-letter-media test, don't tell me what they do in the broadest sense (adventuring to ancient artefacts) tell me how their character is identical.

I mean Jason Bourne and James Bond are both spies in Hollywood movies, that doesn't mean they are identical characters.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

In 2010, 2K games announced that they would be reviving the X-COM franchise in the form of a first person shooter. This was met with much rage, due to 2K taking a beloved old franchise and turning it into something vastly different that had nothing to do with the previous games except for its name and having aliens invade earth. As we all know, 2K received so much negative feedback that they decided to make a much more fitting game, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and the XCOM FPS was never heard from again to this day.

For some reason, Tomb Raider doesn't get the same response. Lara Croft is a completely different character - she doesn't look, sound or act like the way she was liked/disliked for (depends on personal taste), and the gameplay is now about on shooting and sneaking rather than platforming and puzzle solving - basically changing genre from action-adventure to third person shooter with stealth elements.

I'd like to say that this doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the game, but whether it was right to call it a Tomb Raider game, when it's different to the point where under a different name it wouldn't be seen as such. Can you imagine this game being called a Tomb Raider successor/clone/ripoff if it had a different name?

So, is it as similar to the X-COM case as I think it is? If so, why didn't it get the same reaction?

EDIT: It seems that most people's replies are about how awesome the new game is. As I said before, it's not about whether or not it's better, but whether or not it's actually Tomb Raider, or a completely different game using its name.

It's not as much of a shift. The original TR contained third-person shooting. TR2013 just has more of it. The shift from 4X to FPS is huge. The shift from puzzle-game-with-TPS to TPS-with-puzzles is much smaller.