Go Back   www.tombraiderforums.com > Tomb Raider Series > Future of Tomb Raider

Thread Tools
Old 16-09-19, 05:48   #11
Persefone's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 510

wasn't she "poor" in tr2013?
Persefone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-19, 06:21   #12
Grizzly Bear
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,655

I mean, honestly, the fact that she would raid tomb just for money is kind of horrible to me (she would still be the same "cruel white XIX century explorer" you don't want her to be because she could just apply for a regular job and make money that way), the fact that at the end of Shadow Lara realised that finding ancient artifacts is her "vocation" and that she has to be their protector is much more "refined", from now on it's clear that she won't tomb raiding just because of her parents or anyone else, just herself.

And I didn't play Uncharted either but people love it because if its story so if you're looking for an example of a single player without a story I don't think it's the best example.

Personally I believe that a story is essential nowdays in a single player videogame like Tomb Raider, I mean, otherwise it would feel like a platform like Super Mario with just a basic premise and a basic purpose (instead of saving Peach, Lara at the end would find her artifact).
I believe that what we need is a better story or at least a new original story not based on Lara's parents or anything that's already been "explored" in the past.

But I agree on the gameplay, I'd want it to be amazing, but at the same time I think that it could be possible to have a great story and great gameplay at the same time!

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 16-09-19 at 06:27.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-19, 06:26   #13
Relic Hunter
Tyrannosaurus's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Hell Creek, Montana, Late Cretaceous
Posts: 6,888

Originally Posted by Cochrane View Post
There's no resolution here - as long as Lara Croft is rich. Lara Croft is the typical 19th century British explorer brought into the 1990s without thinking about it. She's entitled to do all the damage she does because, well, she's British and rich and that's what rich British people do. Also, she's opposed to the end of the world, which is the level the game's stories have to get to in order to give her any sort of moral high ground.
Typically, but she has her moments. Consider her disgust at the experiments of Willard and Sophia Leigh, her compassion for Yarofev, Sgt. Azizas, the Barkhang monk, and the Australian solider. Consider her willingness to put her life on the line to rescue Jean-Yves, or to hand over the last Obscura painting to Eckhardt to save Kurtis. Lara isn't very sentimental, but games made it clear that she has a heart.

There's a whole discussion to be had about how Lara Croft represents 100% standard colonial attitudes, but bringing that up would just give me another visit from the "political correctness is out of control police", who insist that we can't talk about these topics.
We can talk about it, but I really don't think it matters much. I'm fine acknowledging that Lara Croft is an anti-hero. The title of her franchise alone establishes this. Liana Krezner used a description of Lord Byron to characterize her: "Mad, bad, and dangerous to know." This is an apt description; Lara could possibly be described as a Byronic Hero (she ticks off some of the boxes but not all of them). These characters aren't necessarily supposed to be particularly moral anyway, but they are captivating and charismatic.

We know Lara is on good terms with at least a few archaeologists in the universe of TR, line Charles Kane and Jean-Yves, and she is world famous even by the start of TR1. We might pause to consider why. Does she ever donate artifacts she finds? Contribute toward the research of the academics she knows? Or does she help the people of any location she visits?

It might also be possible to argue that Lara helps protect certain artifacts she claims, much like the more controversial Egyptologists, such as E. A. Wallis Budge. There is an actual archaeological crisis in Egypt right now, given that there is much illegal artifact theft and trade, and the number of artifacts left to be excavated is diminishing at a rate faster than archaeologists can catalog it.

But here's the thing: We want Lara to be likeable and to have fun. We don't necessarily care if she's a bad person. Many fun video game protagonists are unrepentant bad people; thieves and murderers whose only saving grace is that at least their doing their crimes for an understandable reason, like clear their name or feed a starving family or something. Lara Croft, who is rich and does her crimes only because she'd be bored otherwise, doesn't have that. But if we take away her money and make stealing priceless artefacts her job, the whole situation changes immediately. Yes, she has no moral right to take that artefact, but she does it anyway because it gets money on the table and she's really good at it and enjoys it. She's still evil, but at least she's no longer chaotic evil, if you will.
I don't find the scenario you've outlined any more convincing, unless Lara is literally a thrall to someone else. There are expert professional thieves, illicit artifact traders, and artifact forgers in the real world, and these people aren't sympathetic underdogs any more than poachers or the leaders of drug cartels. Generally, these people aren't poor. A poor tomb raider/adventurer struggling to make ends meet works better if the setting actually justifies it, like Dungeons & Dragons.

OK, now about the use of the term "Chaotic Evil". In D&D, the Chaotic/Lawful axis exists independently of the Good/Evil axis. In other words, chaotic evil characters don't necessarily represent the baddest of the bad and lawful good characters don't necessarily represent the goodest of the good. A chaotic evil character could, in some circumstances, even be a dark anti-hero. An chaotic evil outlaw is often less contemptible than, say, a corrupt lawful evil sheriff who enjoys the same proclivities under the cover of hypocrisy.

In any event, Lara Croft is probably best classified as "Neutral" in D&D terms. Most rogues are.
By these jaws I rule!

Last edited by Tyrannosaurus; 16-09-19 at 06:30.
Tyrannosaurus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-19, 11:29   #14
Nigel Cassidy
Nigel Cassidy's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,837

Originally Posted by Krumpet View Post
Pretty much sums up my thoughts. I just want a return to the real Lara Croft character and backstory.
And so do I.
Nigel Cassidy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-19, 12:28   #15
Dennis's Mom
Dennis's Mom's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Rural NE Texas
Posts: 14,921

If you stick to the original backstory, you could still have both.

Lara's family clearly has wealth; one doesn't send one's children to Swiss boarding schools without it. However, once Lara refuses to be the proper lady her parents expect her to be by settling down and marrying, they disown her. (This could all be very tricky under English law when there's a title and possible entailments, but since an English person wrote it, I'm going to assume it's possible--unlike CD's totally fabrication for Blood Ties.)

So Vicky Arnold, in her emails with Brian of Tomb Raider Traveler's Guide, wrote, "... I like to think that while Lara's parents have disowned her, she has/had a couple of benevolent aunties who keep a look out for her. Aunties are always stereotypically the slightly insane and most liberal thinking relatives (never met any myself but...). One of them (a great-aunty in fact), left Lara the mansion -- while the other [...] helps expand Lara's mind a but more. Unfortunately, her vicious little Corgi doesn't like Lara's company..."

So Lara is cut off from the Croft wealth, but has other relatives she can turn to. Rogues like herself apparently. But while these woman are also aristocratic, they are not inheritors of the kind of wealth Lara came from. Perhaps they're spinster sisters, or married poorly, or were widowed and banished to a small, less desirable estate to live on a stipend. Old English estates are largely money pits. Having one does not mean you're rich.

In Lara's original bio, it does not give the impression she is independently wealthy. It says she pays for her adventures by writing books about them.

So, it's not really a stretch to make Lara need money. I don't want her picking up candy bars out of gutters poor, but you can't just replace the roof on a historic house out of anything. You have to replace it with expensive stuff contemporaneous to the time it was built.

So Lara needs money, but because Lara is Lara, she not going to get a day job. You can still have all the qualities that made Lara interesting and lose the bored rich orphan and savior complex Laras.

A thought: while we're rebuilding Lara, could we give her an eidetic memory? I think that should be a quality she should have and explain so much.
People who can’t communicate think every discussion is an argument to be won.
Dennis's Mom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-19, 13:09   #16
Zebra's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 26,191

Honestly, it wouldn't take much to change her original backstory in a way that could incorporate Lara being poor. She is disowned by her parents, after all. You could just leave out her benevolent aunt gifting her a mansion and you'd basically have poor Lara Croft. (Not that Crystal would ever even just entertain the idea of going back to Lara's original backstory.)

All that being said, I personally disagree with this whole notion that Lara needs to be relatable or needs to have a good reason for doing what she does other than her wanting to do it for fun. Her being a selfish, unlikeable adrenaline junkie just doing her thing, everyone else's opinion be damned, is part of what's so great about her IMO.
Wozu zuhören, wenn man reden kann?

Last edited by Zebra; 16-09-19 at 13:24.
Zebra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-19, 13:56   #17
Relic Hunter
ThatSassyKid's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8,444

Who even plays TR for the story? Give us good gameplay, not this trash.
Me: *breathes* Entire forum: ...
ThatSassyKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-19, 14:14   #18
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,933

Originally Posted by ThatSassyKid View Post
Who even plays TR for the story? Give us good gameplay, not this trash.
I play for both. Both gameplay, and story has an effect on how I play the games. Not saying I agree with the intention to make Lara poor, though. Even though, Lara did live a "poor" life, working her ass out to pay her bills, ignoring her inheritance until ROTTR
Vaskito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-19, 14:31   #19
TrustyBow's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Maryland
Posts: 3,568

Originally Posted by Tyrannosaurus View Post
In any event, Lara Croft is probably best classified as "Neutral" in D&D terms. Most rogues are.
Yeah I feel like OG Lara was Chaotic Neutral. What sets her apart from the old school Colonial way of thinking is that she stands on her own. LAU would probably be Chaotic Good and Reboot Lara would be Neutral Good.
"No thanks, BRO" - Leon Kennedy

Last edited by TrustyBow; 16-09-19 at 14:35.
TrustyBow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-19, 19:36   #20
jhons0529's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: London
Posts: 530

Why do something to stray from the character to even more?
They also completely trashed this opportunity and I think going to it would be pointless.

I wouldn't mind them playing on the classic Lara story with when she got disowned and how she funded her adventures, but that's not for this reboot. Not anymore after blood ties I think.

I really wont mind this being a light story element following another reboot though. But we really need to stop turning this into a story about Lara's social life and other problems.
There's a bit too much at play making her "personal" which is not working.
Hope only brings disappointment. It's a fact.

Last edited by jhons0529; 16-09-19 at 19:37.
jhons0529 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:06.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.