2013 in Review: Tomb Raider Makes Us Ask, Do We Have to Kill a Classic in Order to Save It?

US Gamer: "Square Enix updated Lara Croft for the modern age of games, but the end result barely resembles Tomb Raider as we knew it."

The story is too old to be commented.
-Foxtrot1770d ago (Edited 1770d ago )

It's sad to see a franchise you grew up with change into a shadow of it's former self because the company behind it want COD sales...well expect them anyway. I mean the game sold like what, 4 million and they still considered it a failure. I'm guessing the sequel will be more action packed then the first one if that's the case.

I mean don't get me wrong it's a good game but thats the whole dilemma with these sort of things. Despite a game being good it clouds your judgement to what the game should be like, I mean if I was reviewing this for example I would of given it a 8/10 for what it is but since it's supposed to be TOMB RAIDER and has a name to live up to I would give it a 6/10...maybe even a 5. Now is that to say it's a bad game...course not but when a game has something to live up to I don't think I could give it a good mark despite being a good game because I'd rather of had this game as a new IP, not turn one of my old time favourite franchises into something which doesn't resemble it at all. Good reviews for what they do to a franchise sends out the wrong message, I never understood how the rebooted dmc got good scores when it was WORSE then DMC4

I've said millions of times I don't see why they didn't just go with the original Lara Croft Origin story. Her plane goes down in the harsh Himalayas, she's the only survivor, it's killed her parents and her fiancée, she's alone, hurt, traumatized and must battle her way through the harsh cold Himalayas mountains...they could of added animal predators, human hunters from small villagers, deep ancient secret tombs underneath the Himalayas until after 2 weeks like the story goes she manages to get to a small village to call for help. I don't see how that is not a good game in my opinion, it would be better then what we got and at least then it would hold up the Tomb Raider franchise. Hell least it would be the Lara we all grew up with not a new version of her.

Tomb Raider was a puzzle game with TPS elements while this Tomb Raider was a over the top TPS with small puzzle elements...hell the tombs were optional. Seriously with all the stuff that happened to her in this game, look at the next gen trailer for it which was shown at the VGX with all the gunfights, executions, gunfights etc it's like Uncharted on steroids...and thats not a good thing. Don't get me started on the voice aswell, I don't mind other characters not being that well voiced but Lara should be in my opinion, she sounded like a 14 year old girl at times

Anyway to answer the I don't think companies have to kill classic off to save it. They had the whole Himalayas origin story to go off and they didn't do it. They just do it for the sake of it because they try to bring in a bigger audience instead of working with the audience/fans they already have and gaining more slowly as the games go on.