@geraltitude: Tomb Raider went like 2 hours without guns.
But action is what sells, and Sleepy Dawgs gets away with it (it didn't sell, but not because of poor gameplay) because it has lots of bone-breaking action, which would be even more inconsistent with the narrative of Tomb Raider than having her bust caps in hundreds of guys is. It's not the guns that are the issue. It's the taking on hundreds of opponents over a short period of time, as mandated by the genre, that's the issue.
Yeah the Sleeping Dogs comparison doesn't work. If the increase of skill so quickly is the issue then why would it be any better for her to learn how to fight with her fists over guns? If the issue is the violence Sleeping Dogs was violent as hell with or without guns. Remember the Giantbomb Quicklook? Here, for reference, are some highlights;
The comparison to Sleepy Dawgs is not about violence. It's about lethal/non-lethal option, no matter how thin. SD *does* have bone-breaking action, but nearly all the violent kills are optional geometry in the level. I spent as much time as I could just punching peeps (that's what was fun for me) and KOing them, and I lamented the places I was forced to shoot guys.
About Tomb Raider: I'm not talking about violence. And @StarvingGamer: 1 hour, 2 hour, 3 hours, 4 hours whatever. It *sucks* that we live in a world where removing guns from a game creates an incredible design difficulty, and jeopardizes the whole existence of a game. No matter how long it goes - are you really cool with that roadblock? 100% agree that sometimes taking out 1500 dudes in 15 hours is mandated by the genre, but this just brings us back to problem no 1: Tomb Raider was never this genre until now. I can accept the realities of the big-budget games world but could they meet us half way from the old Tom Raider and the new one next time?
My thought is that I would like to live in a gaming world where designers can chose not to put a gun in the players hand (either in hour 1 or hour 10) and still, you know... make a game (again, not saying TB2 has to necessarily have zero shooting of any kind in it - but it doesn't have to be the focus). Here's to hoping Tomb Raider 2 eases off the action throttle a little.
@JasonR86 That's not the point I was bringing up - the quick increase in skill - but you made me realize something. It would have been more realistic for there to be more emphasis on unarmed, especially if they tied it to steatlh. Then we could knock guys out with heavy objects or the butts of weapons or put them in choke holds, etc. Having a 100% passive run-through in something like TB seems natural to me. Plus it's way easier to imagine an archaeologist knocking guys out with a dusty book than dual wielding pistols and diving through the air. :P
Ok, maybe that's a misrepresentation but, like I said to the starver, I'm looking for compromise.