I feel like fewer kills would be a good idea in a lot of games. Red Dead Redemption, for example, would have been much better if you didn't kill hundreds of men in the progress of the story.
Tomb Raider Writer Halved Lara's Kills For Narrative's Sake Update: No, She Didn't
- Thread starter Karloff
- Start date
Crystal Dynamics did make something new and interesting. They managed to breathe life back into a franchise that, let's be honest now, hasn't exactly been relevant in the game industry for a while now. Oh sure there were Tomb Raider games but the series had kind fallen out of the spotlight by the mid 2000s.Proverbial Jon said:
Does the combat feel kind of like Uncharted? Sure, but you have to remember that you don't fix what isn't broke. Uncharted's combat system was actually good so them using a similar system is a plus in my book.
As for the story I found Tomb Raider to have one of the better stories I have seen in a game in the last couple of years. I thoroughly enjoyed the mystery behind the island and all the hidden documents that expanded on the story of the island were great and worth my time in finding. I honestly can't wait to see what other kind of supernatural stuff they use if they explore another culture's mythology and history.
Could there have been a better focus on raiding tombs? Sure. Could the tombs that were available have been made a bit more expansive? Absolutely. That is perhaps my only complaint about this game is that the tombs aren't expansive enough. I am willing to accept the fact that this is first and foremost an origin story. This is about how she eventually becomes a Tomb Raiding badass, solving the world's mysteries. I have a strong feeling that the next installment in this new series will have a stronger focus on raiding tombs while still maintaining the satisfying combat, explorations and story.
Edit: While I can see why people find it strange that she goes from crying her eyes out and having killed a fellow human being to brazenly killing them by the dozen, I don't see it as that big of an issue. Let's be real here, yeah you'd probably be fucking upset and having to kill people. I know I would. But it's either fight back and not have them kill you or stand there and let them unload into you with an assault rifle.
Sometimes survival takes precedence over morality. If guys are trying to actively kill me I would at least try and fight back. I would probably fail but I wouldn't let them kill me because it'd make me feel upset. There is only so much one person can take before they've had enough.
Well if you didn't try to stuff your Hollywood story under another IP you might be able to do the gameplay and story properly, but as you did this ended up being two disconnected games.
The really strange thing is none of the previous Tomb Raiders had this much slaughter in them, so I doubt you really tried on that front.
The really strange thing is none of the previous Tomb Raiders had this much slaughter in them, so I doubt you really tried on that front.
You could just combine "survivor", "shooting people" and the "loss of humanity" plot points and make Lara Croft a remorseless cannibal.DVS BSTrD said:
Yeah, too bad that your writing didn't account for Lara Croft murdering everyone she ever met, maybe next time you go take a look at the gameplay beforehand.
The way I see it, they didn't fail at making a good game; they failed at making a game worthy of the Tomb Raider moniker.Jorec said:
This is more than just an origin story; it's a full-on franchise reboot. So you can forget the past 16 years of Tomb Raider games because this one renders them moot. That Lara has gone. For all we know this might be the Lara we are going to have to love now. No more tombs, no more puzzle solving. It's all set pieces, constant head-shots and press X to not die.
If that's where the franchise is headed, then I'm out. It's not a "rage quit" moment, I'm not throwing my toys out of my entitlement pram, I'm simply stating that this franchise no longer has the elements that made me love it back in the day. I'm not going to feed Crystal Dynamics money simply out of misplaced loyalty for something that once was and no longer is.
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
Maybe they like, didn't need to make it a 3rd person action game? It's basically like every single other game. You fight like 3 enemies at a time in super slow paced combat because consoles can't handle more, you have a crafting mechanic, the new default "go to" for all AAA games. You have stupid collectables and you just follow a linear shooting gallery with some story segments, and OPTIONAL TOMB RAIDING.
Meh, good enough excuse for me.
I loved this game, turned out to be everything I hoped it was after all--Resident Evil 4 meets Uncharted.
I wish she hadn't moaned and whined so much the first two hours, though, I was starting to wish she'd grow beard stubble and put on a french sweater. Boobs coulda stayed.
I loved this game, turned out to be everything I hoped it was after all--Resident Evil 4 meets Uncharted.
I wish she hadn't moaned and whined so much the first two hours, though, I was starting to wish she'd grow beard stubble and put on a french sweater. Boobs coulda stayed.
Interesting thought - Die Hard is a classic violent action movie. John McClane's final kill count at the end of it? Ten.
I'd like to think that action games in the future, through better AI and clever design, could replicate something like Die Hard, where each individual enemy presents a unique challenge, the action enhances the narrative, and the narrative enhances the action.
Probably not easy to do, though.
I'd like to think that action games in the future, through better AI and clever design, could replicate something like Die Hard, where each individual enemy presents a unique challenge, the action enhances the narrative, and the narrative enhances the action.
Probably not easy to do, though.
Wait, the main draw is combat? I thought the main draws were exploration and puzzle solving. They certainly were in the original. Let's kill more bears and wolves, and fewer people.
P.S. Thanks
P.P.S. Tomb Raider's main combat responsibility is to make PETA angry. They don't give two shits about humans, just animals.
P.S. Thanks
P.P.S. Tomb Raider's main combat responsibility is to make PETA angry. They don't give two shits about humans, just animals.
Well despite that I still felt like game was too combat heavy and that it switched to full-blown action game rather abruptly. I played it on hard and it kept feeding me ammo and weapons which, combined with precision of PC controls practically destroyed all challenge and created that jarring distinction between player's skill and what Lara can actually do in cutscenes.
I would have respected developers a lot more if they emphasised survival aspect, limited the amount of ammo pickups, added some kind of nourishment mechanics, put more thought into skill trees and characterization and maybe accomodate those players who just want to sneak through level killing as fewer enemies as possible. This way it's just an average third person shooter.
I would have respected developers a lot more if they emphasised survival aspect, limited the amount of ammo pickups, added some kind of nourishment mechanics, put more thought into skill trees and characterization and maybe accomodate those players who just want to sneak through level killing as fewer enemies as possible. This way it's just an average third person shooter.
Couldn't agree more. With all this discussion around the franchise and Lara's character, we forget that she is essentially by nature a tough, strong willed character. She doesn't like killing, she isn't a sociopath. But when pushed into a position that means either her life or the lives of her friends, she's going to throw the first punch. This topic is exactly why this franchise in my opinion desperately needed a reboot. When people here and other places are talking about what they enjoyed about the franchise, they're not even talking about the games released this millennium. They're only talking about what the first game did. Whatever the original Lara Croft or Tomb Raider became, it seems no one identifies with either anymore or haven't in a long time. What I also liked about this reboot is that when Lara kills, it doesn't just go unnoticed. Not by Lara, Roth, the mercenaries, etc. It's actually addressed. The average third person shooter doesn't do that.Jorec said:
In turn, I also have a feeling that the next game with involve more puzzle solving. When the game ended, Lara wasn't talking about finding more men to kill, she was looking through her book full of archeological locations, information and facts. This was an origin story. It was about how Lara would become everything the original was. A smart, resourceful, confident, tough, strong willed survivor.
Dear Miss Pratchett,
dear Square Enix,
did you understand / grasp AYNTHING of what Tomb Raider 1,2,3,4,5 and Underworld was about?
dear Square Enix,
did you understand / grasp AYNTHING of what Tomb Raider 1,2,3,4,5 and Underworld was about?
This is exactly why I'm still a bit skeptical about the new Thief "reboot" (I'm still pissed at the notion that it's going to be a reboot... Deus Ex: HR, Fallout 3 & NV aren't reboots, goddamit!), although Eidos Montreal swears it'll retain that classic hardcore feeling of the older titles, I'm wondering how far could they go this route without sorting to appeal to "modern audiences".
It's a strange disconnect, you wonder why they try to force these things together.IronMit said:
Are they making such an action focused game because they feel obliged to? Publisher pressure?
I get it that guns feature heavily in Tomb Raider marketing, but is that their basis? Are they trying to revive Tomb Raider for the people who enjoyed the games... or for the people who enjoyed the advertising?
Well they are trying to have it both ways then, they want an action backed killing-is-fun shooter because shooters are popular, yet also want elements of story that clash with that.Fasckira said:
If they knew the traditional formula wouldn't sell well... why are they using the Tomb Raider licence? Why were they using the licence?
In later Tomb Raider games, Lara's kill-count got pretty high, but rarely was she doing things like silent takedowns sneaking up behind unaware people and silently throttling them, she was reacting very much in self-defence to an immediate threat. Things like sneaking around and shooting them through the back of a cranium with a bow and arrow, that's pretty cold-blooded and ruthless. It's something the classic Lara would be more likely to do than this young unsure reboot.
PS; I don't think the survival aspect matters much. You don't need to eat that much every day, water would be the main thing you need for such an active game over a relatively short game. And really do we need to cover every bodily function? We don't need a peeing and pooping mechanic as in "I can't take this jump till I've taken a dump... oh no, I caced myself, now they can all smell me"
To be honest, I think basing the game on tomb raiding would have kind of missed the point of the story... It's about Lara becoming the woman who raids tombs, but as far as she's concerned here all she wants to do is get off Yamatai. Having her spend hours searching for ancient treasure wouldn't have made sense. I'm sure it will all happen in the sequel. And although the narrative/gameplay disconnect was pretty jarring, everyone seems to be making significantly more of it than there actually is.Proverbial Jon said:
Combat has never been a necessary or wanted part of Tomb Raider, so it's not much good pretending they were strong-armed into it when the latest iteration has way more than previous entries.
There's a dissonance between the narrative and the gameplay because they were unimaginably unimaginative when it came to making the game. That's all there is to it. This is not an example of gaming's limited storytelling abilities versus what writers want to communicate, this is an example of designers wanting to have their cake and watch it slip sensually down their gullet too.
There's a dissonance between the narrative and the gameplay because they were unimaginably unimaginative when it came to making the game. That's all there is to it. This is not an example of gaming's limited storytelling abilities versus what writers want to communicate, this is an example of designers wanting to have their cake and watch it slip sensually down their gullet too.
Xcom's gameplay wasn't relevant from about the same time, Yet Xcom: Enemy Unknown last year very well captured that gameplay style that had its heydays in the 90's and lost relevance in the early-mid 2000's. And it was a big success.Jorec said:
Also, you kind of contradict yourself:
One paragraph later:
I don't know, it's just kind of going one way then the other.
It's just I don't think they really did breathe new life into a franchise they inflated a BRAND that they are using very detached from what the franchise actually was.
Not that I hugely care, Star Wars has conditioned me to franchise corruption and disappointment. I don't care if they are making a mess of things trying to have Lara young and naive yet more bloodthirsty than she'd ever been.
The original games didn't need to dedicated and entire game to that. We don't need an entire game introducing a person to being a person who raids tombs. This not some far-out superhero.
The original series had in Last Revelations and Chronicles two flashbacks to a teenage Lara exploring mysticism and ancient sites. But they were just small parts of the original.
More than that. I wouldn't be able to throttle and unsuspecting person to death without any hesitation. They are trying to be real and unreal at the same time, it's jarring. I'd just run away to some corner of the island and hide for weeks hoping help will come.
The original Tomb Raider had a very unreal style. It was almost a comic-book like alternate reality, everything was taken to extremes, it's the kind of world where guards in the London History Museum are armed with handguns and shoot intruders on sight. The characters were over the top, it all fit with enjoying he fun without being held down by "this is real".
It's not morality, it's simple squeamishness, to squeeze the life out of someone, to not even tremble as you pull back an arrow to bury into a person's skull. I have no moral objections to someone killing a mouse, even myself, yet when I caught a mouse to spite knowing exactly how to kill it... I couldn't do it. To a little smelly mouse.
It's not the fighting back. It's how often Tomb Raider 2013 has Lara killing in Cold Blood.
To be honest I like the shoot outs in this game. I don't see them as being too many compared to other games. What was a bit of a dissapointment was that:
1. It's short. I would love a more RPG-Exploration type thing with Lara keeping action and discovery balanced.
2. The tombs aren't really tombs. The only notable tomb was the one in the main mission, sidequest tombs were very simpleish and very small, the game needed more diverging path ways.
3. Some of the collectables didn't add anything. GPS caches are useless, the relics don't always seem relevant (although I liked them), maps were a good idea but they shouldn't be tomb prizes, they should just be scattered around.
1. It's short. I would love a more RPG-Exploration type thing with Lara keeping action and discovery balanced.
2. The tombs aren't really tombs. The only notable tomb was the one in the main mission, sidequest tombs were very simpleish and very small, the game needed more diverging path ways.
3. Some of the collectables didn't add anything. GPS caches are useless, the relics don't always seem relevant (although I liked them), maps were a good idea but they shouldn't be tomb prizes, they should just be scattered around.