Writer of Tomb Raider addresses narrative dissonance

@brodehouse said:

I don't necessarily think the first part is true, that's just lack of imagination. But my point wasn't to judge Tomb Raider as something it's not, but speculate what it could have been. Because I just don't necessarily buy the "well, we have guns in the game so we obviously have to give you a bunch of stuff to shoot", and most of the things I was looking forward to about this Tomb Raider was the ideas brought forth when the game was announced. That being said, I don't have anything against an Uncharted clone (unless every enemy encounter is a "let's stay here for 15 minutes shooting dudes coming from their holes until we can move on"), and I have no issue looking past the combat in order to enjoy a good story (that's what I do with Uncharted). I was merely speculating how they could have focused the game in order to lessen the disconnect.

None of those popular shooter franchises have a story that makes any sense, or at least any more sense than the story in Tomb Raider. Tomb Raider is fucking up no worse than Gears or Halo or CoD and, unlike those games, has characters that are actually engaging.

any sort of rationale they have has already been trumped by the walking dead, there is literally no excuse for video game writing to be this bad

@videogamesarenotart: Have you even played the game? I found the writing and acting to actually be quite good, significantly better than most other action/shooters out there. That's what makes the tonal dissonance notable in the first place. If Tomb Raider had a shitty story with shitty characters, no one would have given it a second thought. It's only because the game does such a good job of painting Lara as inexperienced and vulnerable that it feels a bit out of whack to have her gunning down a dozen guys.

?

The Walking Dead is an example of gameplay in the service of story. Tomb raider is the opposite, but there's nothing wrong with that.

If they'd had made the game actually about raiding tombs like the original with the huge environments to explore and puzzles to solve, this wouldn't have been an issue. There was way less combat in the original than there seems to be in this game, and back then you were mostly shooting wild life: bats, wolves, the TRex.

Did people want Mirror's Edge on an island?

?

I was talking specifically about Brad's problem with the game where you kill lots of dudes and stab them with arrows while during the cut scenes she's really having an issue with killing one person. Mirror's Edge gave you the option to not kill people didn't it?

Yeah, you could. She didn't have a problem with it though. That wasn't even an aspect of the game that I can remember. I mean in Tomb Raider she has an issue with killing people but the game does enough to let you know that she's putting that aside to do what is necessary to survive and help her friends. Mirror's Edge's story really doesn't compare to this at all and even though you could not kill people that was barely a thing in Mirror's Edge.

I wasn't meaning to compare the story's of the two. I'm just curious if people would be happier with Tomb Raider if it was more like Mirror's Edge in that you are actually given a choice on who you kill. I think that could work, I just don't know if it would sell as well. People like their bombastic games with explosions and guns. But then you look at Dead Space 3 which had tons of guns and killing and it didn't do well.

Ok. Yeah, I could see that but I think that those mechanics would have a short shelf life. I mean the team is setting up for a new series of Tomb Raider games and I'm not sure avoidance would be fun 3-4 games down the line.

Playing through the game I didn't find any particular issue with it at all. In fact, it was rather shocking to me how much my perception of Lara actually changed.

It just seems like a lot of over-examination being taken more seriously than it should.

True. They want to make Lara into the Lara we know from the previous games eventually and she can't do that without getting her hands a bit bloody.

I've got no problem with them doing what they are doing. Bought the game but haven't played it yet. I'm just trying to understand what people wanted the game to be.

I said it before but these people who are complaining about this remind me of the comment Ryan made in the latest podcast comparing Brad to a kid in Disneyland who doesn't know what he wants but he knows he wants it all. Lara Croft just can't win man.

Seemingly. "This game's great and a lot of fun but...". Man all you have to say is the first part. I'm on board.

Pretty sad commentary, one way or the other.

"No matter what we tried or designed, when you give players a gun they just start shooting stuff."

Stop giving them guns?

Oh yeaaah. Sorry, I forgot. It's impossible to make games without guns.

@geraltitude: I know, right? The new xbox controller should have a dedicated gun button marked KILL in bold red lettering around the circumference of the button. :D

Would you say 'red ring that guy'?

I dunno, wouldn't be much of a Tomb Raider game if there weren't any guns.

Well this is certainly a more positive approach to this issue than the one the creative director for Splinter Cell: Blacklist demonstrated on that interview with Kotaku.

Did Drake or Marcus fall to their knees crying after they first killed a man ?

Although I agree with the engaging characters part, there's some pretty decent stuff in there. I'm shocked that I'm hooked on the story as much as I am.

I don't find Tomb Raider's characters to be particularly engaging, so that seems like crazy talk but, sure, Tomb Raider is not the worst offender in shoe-horning an ill-fitting story into a game. I would certainly prefer an action game not to stop every few minutes for a cutscene but then I'd also prefer for "exploration" to consist of something other than pre-ordained and highlighted climbing paths yet plenty of people are fine with that too. Opinions.

However, by way of example; There is a moment in Tomb Raider where you get a radio message from one of your party expressing their urgent need for rescue, the cutscene ends with a sweeping camera move which points you in the correct direction to continue the story, to rush off and play hero. However, you as the player are better served by turning around and exploring the a fresh crash site behind you, where you can pick up a ton of crafting materials and previously inaccessible collectibles. It's glaring conflicts between story and gameplay like that one which make me not care in the slightest about the "driving narrative" of a videogame.

@slashdance: Having her show fleeting remorse makes a lot more sense to me, and is a lot more humanizing, than having Drake or Marcus walk around completely oblivious and unmoved. All Drake is good for is delivering one-liners and I have an active dislike for the entire cast of Gears. I can appreciate what Crystal Dynamics was trying to do and meet them halfway by suspending some disbelief where the narrative and gameplay don't match up perfectly. Naughty Dog and Epic were content to fill their game with assholes, which is probably why I was only able to play the second entry in either franchise to completion.

@oraknabo said:

You kill about 4 people in the first Tomb Raider, no joke. Good points also.

Not particularly. I mean I guess it was a little more challenging (I was playing on the hardest difficulty, which isn't very hard). For a more immersive experience, I resorted to using a lot of cover and blind firing to stay alive and given the lack of experience with guns, I didn't feel like the character should be aiming so accurately so I mostly fired from the hip. The one thing where I felt was cheating a little was that I bought a silenced pistol to act stealthily but I guess the character might be roleplaying and wants to play James Bond.

Not particularly. I mean I guess it was a little more challenging (I was playing on the hardest difficulty, which isn't very hard). For a more immersive experience, I resorted to using a lot of cover and blind firing to stay alive and given the lack of experience with guns, I didn't feel like the character should be aiming so accurately so I mostly fired from the hip. The one thing where I felt was cheating a little was that I bought a silenced pistol to act stealthily but I guess the character might be roleplaying and wants to play James Bond.

I don't really mind when games have this kind of dissonance. I understand that it's all a means to an end and that a lot of the emotional narrative legwork is going to need to happen in my head, if I want it to happen at all.

The only game I've ever agreed with this sentiment on is GTA4, in which your character constantly belittles everyone else, and complains about his life. When really he is the worst person of all, and he chooses to do all of these things. Eventually, I started to see it as a trait of the character. That he was just delusional, like a sociopath in his position probably would be. So even then I was able to pull something out of my ass and make it work if I wanted it to.

I just don't know if it's the problem we make it out to be.

I agree ! That's why seeing her completely unphased in front of 3 dudes she just set on fire is weird, and that's why these gruesome finishers are so jarring, too.

@starvinggamer: That's fine, but they should be able to go an hour (at least) without guns. That shouldn't be the roadblock in design.

Sleepy Dawgs was a game I played recently that wasn't made any better by gunplay. It's pretty fun actually, but I much prefer the melee, and it's a bummer when the game forces your hand. Uh, trigger finger.

I can think of three different sections in the first few hours of gameplay where you have to stop and think about which way you're going to progress because of the multiple paths the area is presenting to get where you want to go. Of course, this being an exploration game you're going to want to take all of them to find any hidden stuff, and with the items you receive chances are the next time you pass through those areas the number of possible paths forward will have doubled.

Which makes your second complaint seem a bit, well, self-fulfilling I guess. If you're the type of person who really focuses on collectibles and you're playing a game that's full of collectibles then you're always going to be coming through every area no matter what sort of impetus the narrative is placing on progression. Hell, even in driven action games like DmC and MGRising have the same effect on a player like me. That's the thing though, I enjoy action games, and I enjoy collecting hidden stuff. I enjoy collecting hidden stuff so much that I find it enriches the experience of most gameplay driven games I play. So as a player who enjoys these things, it's my responsibility to suspend my belief a little bit because there is no way they are going to get me to move forward without throwing a timer up or putting a giant moving wall of fire behind me on screen, and doing that afterf every battle would feel trite and artificial.

The driving narrative and open gameplay of Tomb Raider may not mesh up perfectly, but a completely linear game wouldn't be as fun and a storyline without forward tension would be completely uninteresting.

@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;

I think the writers were completely out of touch with what the game was about. It's not something they get to decide. Gameplay largely determines what the game is about. They should try to write to that instead of ignoring it as they did in Tomb Raider.

spot on. they made tomb raider into a 3rd person shooter. i mean, consider that simple fact for a second. why even call it TOMB raider, when you primarily spend your time ending lives. i mean- i'm glad the writers recognize the disconnect- but you can't toe the line between mass murder and emotional distress without some sort of consequence. if they want to tell a realistic and "gritty" story, why not have the sequel be a heavy rain style game where lara spends her time in and out of therapy while battling flashbacks. it would be more believable.

and of course i recognize the "games need to be games at a certain point" argument...but don't set her up to be realistically vulnerable then! stick with the old lara! we'd be back to a ridiculous character- but isn't that more appropriate for ridiculous circumstances?

The old Lara wasn't selling copies anymore. And was old. They had to try something different. I mean at least give them credit for doing something different with the formula. Going through this thread I really wonder how many people have actually played the game. I know it's not true because it's doing critically so well but I get the impression that only a few people are playing the same game I am. Which is nuts cause why would dudes speak to a game they haven't played. Maybe I'm just buying into this game more then other people.

I think the game does a very good job of introducing you to enemies slowly so that Lara isn't taking out waves of dudes from the get-go. In fact, you don't really fight anything except for a wolf or two in the first hour and then you

hide

from enemies until you slowly make your way to defeating hordes of them. It's a very natural progression that has been greatly exaggerated on the bombcast and everywhere else in my opinion.

Also, the combat is great and feels very messy in all of the right ways. It's very apparent that Lara isn't a fighter at all, mostly scrambling through enemy fire and throwing dirt in there face almost as if she's very new to the whole idea of being ambushed.

i'll certainly give them credit for trying something new- but let's not go crazy. they took some modest risks (effectively changing the characterization and genre of the game)- but those 'risks' manifest as a shooter ($$$) and they were rebooting a franchise with SUBSTANTIAL brand-recognition. that's a lot of pressure, but it's also a bit of a cash-in. had this been an entirely new franchise or IP, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all- for better or worse.

I guess I'm not seeing it that way but that's fine. I mean a cash-in game to me was Halo 4. That was a really good Halo game. But it was a Halo game. Lara Croft takes cues from Uncharted but only at face value does it feel like an Uncharted game. The shooting and mechanics feel really different. There's more variety to how you can handle the action sequences compared to an Uncharted game (minus maybe a few Uncharted 2 and 3 sequences). I mean I have a hard time comparing the action sequences to another game because the feel is really different from anything else. Mix that with an upgrade system, fairly open environments and fast travel to several locations all of these things lead to a game that is very unique feeling. To me anyway (but again I'm seeing things differently apparently).

The game, minus the name appeal (which does the Tomb Raider name really have a huge appeal anymore?), doesn't have a cash-in feel. If anything it has the feel of a game that should be widely like but wouldn't sell well because the audience for the game is relatively small (like a Sleeping Dogs).

I really don't get the big issue people are raising over this game. It's supposed to be fun, first and foremost. Far Cry 2 is a perfect example of a game that tried a lot of realistic stuff and look how that turned out. Then we have Far Cry 3, which scrapped a lot of that stuff and it was a ton of fun. I don't really take issue with Lara mowing down countless dudes because THEY ARE TRYING TO KILL HER. She's fighting, not because she enjoys killing them, but because she wants to live to see another day. She never cracks wise and doesn't make corny one liners like Nathan Drake.

The problem most people have is that they should not have talked up how they wanted to make Lara a vulnerable character who was just trying to survive if they were going to make her into an over the top mass murderer 10 mins after she feels remorse for one kill. Like Brad said on the Bombcast, is her shoving a gun in a dude's stomach and essentially shooting him in half really necessary from a survival standpoint?

I think all of this talk is very good for the first time in a long time I can see were games might be going, and it's something bigger then Call of Duty and that crap, this game for the first time in awhile gives me hope for the future of Video Games. I am very much enjoying this game :)

Plenty of people who haven't played the game are talking out of their asses. That much is certain reading through these threads and seeing people post false information about Lara killing hoards of enemies as soon as she gets weapons or claiming that its linear with little exploration when you can spend a good amount of time using new skills to explore areas.

I'm tempted to make a thread to see who is actually playing the game and who is simply repeating opinions they heard.