In an age where every successful franchise is getting rebooted, it’s now extended into video games with a new origin story for Lara Croft in a game rather unimaginatively called Tomb Raider. Though from what little has been revealed so far, there doesn’t seem to be much raiding of tombs going on, as this story is apparently primarily about survival.
Young Lara is shipwrecked and alone, and has to survive and escape off an island. Details revealed in this month’s Game Informer magazine include:
[li] Lara is 21 years old[/li][li] The game is going to be a complete reboot[/li][li] The game is far more brutal than before[/li][li] There are new weapons, like a bow for example[/li][li] The lock-on target-system was completely removed. Instead, you are going to shoot like in “Uncharted”[/li][li] Lara will be able to use different items and tools; and will gain athleticism to be able to reach areas she couldn’t before[/li][li] There are different camps on the island, where she can combine items or set her skills via a “skill system”[/li][li] Lara needs to eat and drink to survive[/li][/ul]
I think they should have made the title “Lara Croft” as it seems so different, and that there’s no need to change her origin story (this can just be an early adventure), if that is in fact what’s really happening (details are scarce).
I’m going to be honest here. This whole post confuses me. I’m pretty sure something like 98% of gamers have no idea what Lara Craft’s back story even is. I certainly don’t and I’ve played it. Tomb Raider isn’t even a well-regarded series. She was known for one reason. Well, two reasons, if you know what I mean. winkwinknudgenudge
And even then, the original games were connected together as convolutedly as you’d expect for a 90s platformer plotline. Not to mention that the story was already redone with Tomb Raider Legend, then redone again for the movie, and then redone again for the digital title Lara Croft and the Light of Dawn (or whatever). The booth babe has better continuity than the game series.
I think you’re absolutely right though, that they should have called it Lara Croft. That was the branding they used for the “Okay Crystal Dynamics, let’s get it together finally” Lara Croft and the Guardian of Forever (or whatever). People seemed to like that game and the same guy is directing this new project. They shouldn’t sour perception of his work with the tired “Tomb Raider” label.
The back story doesn’t matter, crucially, but it is something that has been relatively consistent from the start. I brought it up because I think it’s unnecessary to change it, even if you are planning on restructuring the gameplay.
Having said that, I’ve onltly ever liked the first two games. All subsequent sequels failed to sustain my interest, and then they completely revamped the control system into one that my clumsy lack of dexterity can’t cope with, so I suspect that by changing the fundamentals, these new games will be so different as to not really be Tomb Raider as I know it.
That isn’t clear yet, but they have implied a few things.
The original back story was that her parents both died in an accidental plane crash in which Lara was the only survivor (though that changed to only one parent, later on in other games), and the implication is that it’s that part they’re changing. This story involves a shipwreck, so perhaps her parents will have been either murdered, or die in this wreck somehow.
Or maybe they’re changing something else; transplanting her from the UK to America, or making her less of a tomb raider and adventurer, and more of a fugitive in fear of her life. Or something.
I recently purchased a PS1 from a fellow on EBay just to play TR II (and a few other games, but mainly TR II). It is in my top 5 all-time favs. However, I’m not very excited about the reboot as every iteration since TR II has had it’s immense expectations outdone only by it’s immense failure. I stand cautiously hopeful. I hope they bring back Judith Gibbins and return to a more puzzle-oriented game style.