• Yes for the new one

    The new one is a lot more realistic. She has more emotions and she feel more alive than the last ones. She can kill thousands of people that's not really believable, but it could still be possible. When she climb she is not doing tricks and etc. Anyway from my point of view I'd say yes for the new Lara Croft

  • The new one is much more believable than the old.

    When you claim 'Lara Croft' there are "3 generations" i could think of... The oldest one from the video games, the Jolie from the movie, and the new Camilla Luddington for the newest game. The old video games i would easily say no, she isn't even human. In the movie that theme fits as well. But the newest Lara (the picture used for this argument) i felt you could actually bond with her and she wasn't super-human. She started off as a nobody physically and throughout the course of the game became the type of people she needed to become to survive. This of course happens way to fast to be 'realistic' but the essence of the character from the newest game is very plausible to be realistic.

  • Jumping the Shark

    Around first quarter of the story, it did a good job showing of Lara struggling to survive on the island (i.E. Facing near death experiences in the cave, remorseful on killing a deer in order to get food). This gave me an impression that the developers were going for a survival-drama game as in finding supplies and facing other survivors in a big heart-beating experience for hard choices.

    But 5 minutes after Lara Croft experienced her first kill, the game's tutorial taught me more ways to kill enemies such as giving me more ammo for the pistol, bow & arrow is a silent weapon to kill enemies without drawing attention, and stealth kill an unnoticed enemy by strangulation with her bow! (Yeah, the strangulation part really made me not sympathize with her at all.)

    My problem with this game is that the trailers and marketing kept painting Lara Croft that this is a character growth journey for her, but I don't see it. What I see is a woman who is psychotic during gameplay (from saying "Yes... Still... Alive!" to "That's right! Run you bastards!") yet in cutscenes, she's sad and emotional for the writing of the story.

    While I do have fun with the 3rd person shooter gameplay because of the automatic hugging to cover and more variety to upgrade guns and skills, it's like Uncharted 2.0! (in terms of gameplay mechanic), the story failed on the character development of Lara Croft that was promised so much on the marketing.

    This character development controversy wouldn't have happened if developers should've made the gameplay more harsh for survivalism to better suit the story (still need rewriting on though) rather than just making the gameplay fun.

  • Lara Croft is about as real as Indiana Jones.

    I don’t think that Lara Croft is a very realistic
    character. But, that is the point. Fantasy stories exist so that we can tell
    stories that never were in order to imagine what one day may be. Even if the things that happen in the fantasy
    story could never happen in real life, sometimes we just need to enjoy a story
    that will stretch our imaginations and give us a moment of joy. So, the fact that Lara Croft is not realistic
    is actually what I like about her the most.

  • Let's start with the basics.

    She is an english noblewoman. Nobility is a real thing, and it is perfectly possible she could be both nobility and english. She has no known close family, no one ever visits her, and has no partner or children.
    She also happens to be an archaeologist. A bit weird, but still possible. Noblemen traditionally get their money from land rent, but let's say she is doing it as a hobby.
    This is where it gets weird:
    She hunts down "magical" objects, and keeps archaeological items for herself. While doing so, she always faces, alone, "enemies". Be it animals or other humans. And she wins, every time.
    She takes unnecessary risks when doing so, and is always armed.
    This makes me reach some conclusions: First, she is insane, and a megalomaniac. It would explain many of her characteristics. Why she has no family, why she has only a few friends who rarely contact her, why she did not settle down yet.
    It also explains the risks she takes, why she thinks she is saving the world every time she steals a relic, and why she attacks every other living being she encounters on her "adventures". She even steals vehicles in some of them!
    Also, every time she "narrates" her adventures to us (every time we play a tomb raider game), she changes her story.
    First, her parents were alive and had disowned her. Then the story changed, and her mother had died when Lara was a child. Then the story changed again to both parents dead in her childhood.
    There is the issue of her "accident". First it was a plane crash, and she was the only victim. Later, it was her and an alleged "boyfriend". Then it was her and her mother.
    Later the accident changed to a shipwreck, but it was later in her life. After which she went on a killing spree to "save" her "friends" from "Russians" "cultists".

    Should I clarify that the ship sank because of the course Lara herself chose?

    She is not only an unrealistic character who always comes back, unaffected, from unbelievable heroic adventures, but unreliable and violent.

    Lara is just a crazy woman with a taste for lying, stealing and murdering, who for all we know, could not even be part of nobility.

    Posted by: Rafe

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.