Tomb Raider

[ThunderPeel2001]

Haha. Some great stuff in this thread

[lobotomy42]

Slightly relieved that it was just the thumbnails at that link that were cutting off her head, and not the magazine pages.

They already used that for the cover of Underworld.

[Nappi]

It's not a real reboot if they don't shorten the name to, say 'Raider'.

Seriously though, I hope that some day they will make a Tomb Raider game that I can get excited about (because they clearly need my money), but I'm not sure if that will happen any time soon.

[thorn]

Magazine scans are now out.

The story has her stranded on an island, struggling to survive, as an inexperienced, 21 year old Lara.

The setting does look interesting, but I'm still worried about the video game-grittiness mudding it up.

So... uhhh... the designers must have been watching the box set of LOST whilst putting together the plot of this one, right?

[lobotomy42]

So I just finished looking through the scans....color me unimpressed.

The appeal of Tomb Raider has always been its cartoonish Indiana-Jones-with-boobs-and-an-accent style. You jump in and...Oh! It's a video game! There are chasms to jump and non-sense puzzles to solve and weird animals to shoot. (And later, strange foreign mafia-dudes come to....mafia it up, I guess.) It was all very familiar and throwback - even when it was new, it was cliched and familiar-feeling. Never really a "great" series, but definitely unique, in its way.

This new one sounds....very generic? The general design decision seems to be to make the game...darker, grittier, more realistic, more open....more like every other game series out there. They're ditching the goofy switches and keys for...more physics-based and environmental puzzles. And crafting and upgradeable skills and some shooter bits. Uh, welcome to 2007? I'm sure Crystal Dynamics will execute it well, but it doesn't sound so far like it'll pull my lever.

[Nachimir]

So... uhhh... the designers must have been watching the box set of LOST whilst putting together the plot of this one, right?

This could be an extremely important* turning point for video games: The moment when, in developer interviews containing the question "What are your inspirations?", a third was found beyond Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. This could be the Citizen Kane of Tomb Raiders.

* this is a sarcasterisk.

[thorn]

This could be an extremely important* turning point for video games: The moment when, in developer interviews containing the question "What are your inspirations?", a third was found beyond Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. This could be the Citizen Kane of Tomb Raiders.

* this is a sarcasterisk.

That, and the dawn of a new epoch, where game designers spend their days attempting to fulfil their fantasies of being tv-show writers instead of film directors.

[vimes]

I'm not sure this pessimism is well deserved since the series went through 3 reinvention already, 2 of which were mostly successful : I found Legend/Underworld new climb, exploration and puzzles mechanisms quite nice and I had a bunch of fun with The Guardian of Life coop.

I don't see why the new direction seems so terrible : I see it as an opportunity to make a more accessible version of Lost in Blue gameplay, strongly mixed with with actions/climbing components and maybe with a hint of Myst for environmental puzzle?

[Roderick]

To be fair to all sides, I think a little scepticism about Lara Croft is deserved: she is one of the most milked and hyped characters of gaming (yesteryear). However, since no one here has played it, most of the criticism and scathing remarks are about the character and the media politics surrounding it. I don't think anyone here's already writing off the game itself, which may or may not be quite good and surprising.

[Nachimir]

I enjoyed Underworld, it being the first time I'd picked up a Tomb Raider game since the very first. Like Rodi says though, a lot of the things surrounding it bug me.

(Also the shitty motorbike sections and cutscenes).

[circadianwolf]

Legend, Anniversary, and Underworld were all quite good, if you like platformers. I really really enjoyed them. I believe Chris said somewhere that he enjoyed Underworld more than Uncharted, too (his opinion probably holds more relevance than mine).

The story is complete trash, of course, although it was interesting that the last game is basically a struggle between three superpowered women for control of the planet. Objectification is definitely still there, but that bit was a little neat at least.

Dunno about this new game. On the one hand, why is this a Tomb Raider game? I would be quite happy with further iterations on the formula of the recent games. On the other hand, island survival is a great theme that hasn't been done very well in games, and plays to games' current strengths (open world, no characters), so it could be really good. Cautiously optimistic indeed.

[baconian]

So far, this reminds me of 'Lost in blue' a DS game that came out a few years ago. Great stuff, I hope they take some inspiration from it.

If anyone's completed it, they'll know what I mean. It was basically a survive on an island game, you have to hunt and gather for food, craft tools to hunt and explore, and eventually once you have enough provisions and stuff you can trek to the other side of the island where you find ancient ruins with puzzles and a then team of baddies etc...

I completed Legend after never finishing a tomb raider game before and I honestly don't care that I missed the rest of them, this reboot sounds possibly more interesting to me than the originals.

[DanJW]

Same here. As someone who was never really that impressed by the franchise, a change of approach won't hurt in the slightest. I'm looking forward to seeing what they do. I'm hoping for something a tiny bit like STALKER with climbing.

As I said before though, I hope they keep the magical crap to a minimum. It's like Chris's comments on Assassin's Creed: history (and in this case archaeology) can be interesting enough without needing to hammer in ten kinds of sci-fantasy motifs. I was a little disappointed just to hear of the 'ship magnet' effect.

[lobotomy42]

<optimism>

Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light is pretty fucking good and everyone should go play it. It's probably the best Lara/Tomb Raider game ever made.

</optimism>

<bitter-rant>

This new web article has almost no information about the game, but already has me feeling pretty hateful.

Basically, it is two designery dudes being self-congratulatory about reducing their female lead's boob size. I GUESS THAT MAKES CRYSTAL DYNAMICS A FEMINIST HERO NOW.

Except, oh wait, no. The theme of the interview that both participants keep coming back to is how "weak" they've made Lara and how this is a Good Thing for Gaming:

"What dropped away pretty quickly was the hardness that she had."

"soften her up"

"We wanted a clear size difference. She isn’t going to be as tall as the men around her – about a head shorter."

"earthy and vulnerable quality"

"we thought about having her bones break and she would be crippled in some way"

This quote is possibly the best:

"It’s a way of saying that through these tough situations, there is a beauty and vulnerability coming through. I think that is sexy in its own way."

In other words, "In the 90s, we were all teenagers and wanted to bone a porn star, so she looked like a porn star. Now we're grown-ups and we just want to date younger, vulnerable women who don't threaten our sense of masculinity, so Lara is going to look younger and more vulnerable."

Seriously, this article is a travesty - the entire thing is ostensibly about how they're moving away from sex appeal, but all they're doing is swapping one one objectification for another. Didn't we all get over the "Lara has big boobs" thing 4-5 years ago when Crystal Dynamics took over the franchise the first time?

This "we need to make our women vulnerable" nerd-trend is infectious. Off the top of my head, Samus, Wonder Woman, and now Lara have gone through this transition over the past year. Would anyone claim that Link needs to be "more vulnerable?" Brag about how much shorter Solid Snake is in the new game? Or write a two-page promotional article detailing nothing but Master Chief's new body shape and choice of clothes?

This is all "same shit, different day," and I think that's what's really bugging me. Not much is being said about the games themselves - past, present, or future - because we all have to stop and give our opinions on how Lara looks first. The Crystal Dynamics games are good -- especially the new one! Why can't we just let them stand on their own?

</bitter-rant>

Ok, I promise to shut up now.

[Nappi]

"We wanted a clear size difference. She isn’t going to be as tall as the men around her – about a head shorter."

Seriously? What the fuck?

I agree with you. That sounds pretty sad.

[Nachimir]

All very, very well put Lobotomy

[Quanta]

"In the 90s, we were all teenagers and wanted to bone a porn star, so she looked like a porn star. Now we're grown-ups and we just want to date younger, vulnerable women who don't threaten our sense of masculinity, so Lara is going to look younger and more vulnerable."

This is only consequential. Lara Croft was never more than a sexed up Indiana Jones with less personality. I'm not surprised that this won't change in future. And I really don't think, that this is even desirable. Why eventually change her role after 15 years?

Yes, decent female characters may be scarce in video games. But they do exist (with Alyx Vance probably beeing the most popular nowadays). And that is why I don't care about the kind of changes made to Croft.

[Jayel]

So they want to make Tomb Raider: Other M?

[Roderick]

Next to Alyx Vance and Jade, my all-time favorite heroine is Heather from Silent Hill 3. You want a non-typical, non-whiny, non-oversexualized girl? There's Heather.

[Quanta]

Yes, Heather from SH3. She immediately came to my mind, too.

[Drath]

I love Mega 64:

ktNgVmySQ5k

[Quanta]

I accidentically my response in the wrong thread.

[miffy495]

Awesome things

indeed.

[ThunderPeel2001]

In other words, "In the 90s, we were all teenagers and wanted to bone a porn star, so she looked like a porn star. Now we're grown-ups and we just want to date younger, vulnerable women who don't threaten our sense of masculinity, so Lara is going to look younger and more vulnerable."

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. Let me offer a counter argument and see if it changes how you feel... How about this: The reason why we're not talking about making Solid Snake "shorter than everyone else" or Link "more vulnerable" is this: Nobody gives a rat's ass how men are portrayed in video games.

Why? Because there's a huge spread of them to choose from. There are weak, vulnerable males. There are walking chunks of cliché-spewing muscle. There are buffons. There are "regular guys". There are men with super-powers.

Women have historically been given a very short thrift, not only in terms of equal representation, but also in being reduced to cleavage heavy, sex objects. So it's only natural that when they do appear in games our attention is drawn to how they're portrayed. What decisions have been made and why.

That's why there's a discussion about her that wouldn't be happening if she was Solid Snake.

Also, it's a perfectly normal part of the writing process to think about who your character is, and what traits they have, and why. It's also perfectly normal to think about their looks, their hair, their lips, their clothing. All of these things were done, I guarantee you, for Solid Snake.

This is done for every character in every film, too. They have whole departments whose job it is to design clothing, make-up, hair-styles for a particular character. Decisions are made that help sum up who the character is by what they wear/how they look. And they can spend months casting a part, looking for that perfect actor that brings all the dimensions to the character they want. (Often including vulnerability.)

The only difference with this new Tomb Raider is that they're being asked about it... and that's because Game Informer thinks we want to read about it. It would be going on behind the scenes anyway.

But what about their decisions? Are they sexist ones? Are they making her "vulnerable" so she's not a threat to our masculinity? That feels to me to be putting words in their mouths.

You could argue, based on what I've just said, that because having a female character draws so much attention, that wanted to get this one right: Make her as human as possible. Make her as realistic as possible. Make her fully rounded.

Fully rounded people are vulnerable. If they're not, then please give me an example of a realistic character (male or female) from cinema who doesn't show vulnerability at some point in the story. Being vulnerable does not equal being weak... We're all vulnerable, but how we deal with situations when we feel like that defines whether we're "strong" or "weak".

If you want a character who isn't vulnerable, then what about Rubi from WET? Is this a portrayal of a real person, because she's impossibly tough? Not to me she isn't. She's just a female Duke Nukem.

If they make Lara have to rely on men all the time, and show that she's incapable of doing things by herself, then she's weak. Then she needs us to protect her. Then she's a non-threatening female.

Ripley, the classic action-movie heroine, has moments of despair, but what makes her strong is that she fights on beyond that.

Here's some quotes that actually show their heads and hearts are in the right place:

"We knew we wanted to make a young Lara Croft, and we wanted her be a blend of someone that has a level of vulnerability and inner strength. She has this aspirational quality."

"All of the character design decisions came from trying to make her believable. We didn’t want to make her a sexual object. She is a character that we want you to believe in."

"Ultimately, what I think is going to be compelling about this – and what our version of sexy is – is the toughness through adverse conditions."

"No unlockable bikinis."

And a quote that made me a little queasy (for balance):

"We wanted to make a girl that was somewhat familiar, yet had a special quality about her – something in the way her eyes look and her expression in her face that makes you want to care for her."

Edited December 10, 2010 by ThunderPeel2001

[DanJW]

Wait, didn't we in fact have a pretty close analogue with Solid Snake becoming Old Snake? Elderly (or at least elderly-looking) playable characters aren't common. Neither are game protagonists who shove a gun in their own mouth. I thought that was a pretty gutsy move.

I think I'm with Thunderpeel here. So yeah, they're still discussing how sexy Lara has to be. But seeing as they are going from a starting point of -100 fail feminism, they're making headway.