PDA

View Full Version : Lara's killing: your thoughts



SethKoopa
25th Sep 2005, 18:33
From TR2 on, many seem shocked over Lara's killing because it has stretched onto human beings. Personally, I don't see much difference - I'm equally shocked when she kills a human as when she kills another animal.

It's why she kills when I get worked up, however. In TR3 in particular she really does seem to be killing just to get ahead with her quest. Especially in Antarctica, where she kills the RX-Tech workers, was I shocked at that. Still, if we look underneath the surface, why were the RX-Tech workers so hostile towards Lara? Besides, wouldn't Willard have told them that he'd been expecting Lara? This is, in my opinion, where we begin to get a clue of Willard's true intentions - with Lara dead, it would have been easy for him to order the satchel she was carrying to be brought to him.

Any thoughts on this?

dhama
25th Sep 2005, 22:08
Ain't pixel characters stoopid!! :D

Seriously, Just as it takes intelligence to realise that killing in the real world is not very nice at all, it also tells us that killing pixel characters is only bad if you see it as you would real life killing.
If you think about it, you are only looking at different coloured dots on the screen after all; dancing merrily before your eyes.
With this in mind you can either be entertained by it or you should leave well alone, what other choice do you have?

Sophia Leigh
25th Sep 2005, 23:18
Seriously, Just as it takes intelligence to realise that killing in the real world is not very nice at all, it also tells us that killing pixel characters is only bad if you see it as you would real life killing.
;) Exactly


From TR2 on, many seem shocked over Lara's killing because it has stretched onto human beings. Personally, I don't see much difference - I'm equally shocked when she kills a human as when she kills another animal.


This is true Seth buts its more a case of self defence.


It's why she kills when I get worked up, however. In TR3 in particular she really does seem to be killing just to get ahead with her quest.Especially in Antarctica, where she kills the RX-Tech workers, was I shocked at that.

I don't quite agree with this, its more a case of shoot or be killed. Have you tried playing the Antartica levels without shooting first? If Lara doesn't shoot them then she's dead and its game over.


Still, if we look underneath the surface, why were the RX-Tech workers so hostile towards Lara? Besides, wouldn't Willard have told them that he'd been expecting Lara? This is, in my opinion, where we begin to get a clue of Willard's true intentions - with Lara dead, it would have been easy for him to order the satchel she was carrying to be brought to him.

Thats possible or maybe a rumour got out about the artifacts that she was carrying and they wanted them for themselves. :p :D

Trinity34
26th Sep 2005, 03:48
Actually I don't mind shooting the people if they attack Lara first... its the endangered animals I did not like killing. :(

Rose662
26th Sep 2005, 07:02
For me, it's self-defense. Kill or be killed when the bad guys and monsters are trying to kill Lara.

In the situations where Lara has a choice to kill, I usually opt for not. Like in TR2 with the tigers, I don't kill the tigers. If you're quick enough you don't have to kill the first tiger. The second tiger is a choice. I usually choose to let him go.

CatSuit&Ponytail
26th Sep 2005, 10:27
For me, it's self-defense. Kill or be killed when the bad guys and monsters are trying to kill Lara.

In the situations where Lara has a choice to kill, I usually opt for not. Like in TR2 with the tigers, I don't kill the tigers. If you're quick enough you don't have to kill the first tiger. The second tiger is a choice. I usually choose to let him go.
That's how I play it too. No animals were harmed in the creation of this play. ;)

Deekman
26th Sep 2005, 12:59
Granted, there are some areas where Lara must kill a human or be killed herself. Or kill a guard to obtain a key.
These scenarios didn't have to be programmed into the game.
One of my favorite all time levels (after The Cistern) was the Bharkang Monastary, where the monks were friendly (if you didn't accidentally shoot them) and would kill the baddies for you whilst you watched from around a corner.

Trinity34
26th Sep 2005, 21:09
You know its possible to play the Jungle level of TR3 without killing any of the animals? :D :D

poufy
26th Sep 2005, 21:12
In the authorised books by tr folks she states how killing is her last resort.

SethKoopa
28th Sep 2005, 17:33
Just to make sure I'm not being greatly misunderstood here, I just want to point out that I don't consider Lara to be 'murdering', but rather killing in self-defence or other ways. Whenever I can get away with not killing, I try to. Like in TR2, I generally leave the other tiger... okay, that's a lie, I have killed him, but I'm not happy about it. I've stopped doing it now.

LuxAngel
28th Sep 2005, 22:34
When I was new to TR, I played TR3 after TR2. I'll never forget how strange it felt after I shot a monkey for the first time. His body appeared strangely soft; and his pose was saddening. My reaction surprised me, because I knew it was only pixels on a screen.

Didn't help that my boyfriend was watching, and he said, "Why did you shoot him? He was friendly!"

My boyfriend doesn't even play video games; how he discerned in a few seconds that the monkey wouldn't attack Lara, I'll never know. But I had become accustomed to shooting anything that moved. LOL

When I replayed any of the games, I tried to shoot as few animals as possible. But the men, they had to go! http://larashots.com/images/emote/laralaughing.gif Sorry, I didn't feel bad for killing them if they had weapons. There should've had more "I" in that "AI".

There was only one scene that made me wonder about Lara. In the ending of TR3, Lara goes up to the man in the helicopter, smiles, and then shoots him point blank. I think she should have played that a bit more friendly; maybe she would have had comp'ny on her way home. lolol

Mangar The Dark
6th Oct 2005, 19:49
She's a murderer.

Yeah, it could be argued that she kills in self-defense, but so do criminals when they shoot cops-- does that make it justified?

The VCI Tower levels of Chronicles were completely unjustified. She breaks into this guy's office to steal the Iris from him (no justitification is given), and when the security guards try to stop her (as security guards are supposed to do), she kills them.

Then there's the museum in TR3. Again, she's somewhere where she is not supposed to be, and the guards are after her. So, she murders them.

How about the chunnel in Lost Artifact? She was trespassing on a construction site, and killed the employees. Nice girl.

And what about that poor chef on the Russian submarine? Snapped his neck just because he had an item she needed. Was he an enemy? Nope (granted, he did pull a knife on her, but I would too if some crazy woman jumped down from a vent shaft and snuck up behind me. And, if you play it properly, he doesn't even have a chance to defend himself... he's just cooking, minding his own business, and then dead.)

And then there's Area 51. Clearly she was not supposed to be there. It's a restricted government site. Does she explain herself? Nope. She just runs around, guns blazing, killing anyone who stands in her way.

I know somebody is going to say, "Well, you're controlling her, so it's your fault if she's a killer!" I disagree. The game usually makes it impossible to play any other way. In an RPG like "Jade Empire," I often DO opt for a peaceful resolution.

So yeah, Lara is a murderer. I'm not complaining, because it's still fun, and I happen to enjoy games like Grand Theft Auto, but at least in GTA, they admit that you're a thug. Lara tries to pretend that she's a refined, cultured "good girl." Ha!

dhama
6th Oct 2005, 20:27
And what about that poor chef on the Russian submarine? Snapped his neck just because he had an item she needed. Was he an enemy? Nope (granted, he did pull a knife on her, but I would too if some crazy woman jumped down from a vent shaft and snuck up behind me. And, if you play it properly, he doesn't even have a chance to defend himself... he's just cooking, minding his own business, and then dead.)

And then there's Area 51. Clearly she was not supposed to be there. It's a restricted government site. Does she explain herself? Nope. She just runs around, guns blazing, killing anyone who stands in her way.

LOL, Was thinking the exact same thing when I played MTD. ;)

star girl
7th Oct 2005, 13:31
For me, it's self-defense. Kill or be killed when the bad guys and monsters are trying to kill Lara.

In the situations where Lara has a choice to kill, I usually opt for not. Like in TR2 with the tigers, I don't kill the tigers. If you're quick enough you don't have to kill the first tiger. The second tiger is a choice. I usually choose to let him go.

I don't know about self-defence. All I know that at times, when I'm really pissed off by anything, or am playing tomb raider and then get pissed of by anyone or thing, I kill people or animals whatever in the game, screaming :"DIE DIE DIE!"

The reason for that is because I'm the youngest in my family, and I respect my elders, or my parents at least. I can't go on hitting them, so I take out my anger on the animals or the people in the game. And I became even more angry when I tried to kill Kurtis in Cafe Metro (TRAOD, that is) and he wouldn't even look up! :mad: I was seriously not happy.

Mangar The Dark
7th Oct 2005, 15:02
The reason for that is because I'm the youngest in my family, and I respect my elders, or my parents at least. I can't go on hitting them, so I take out my anger on the animals or the people in the game. And I became even more angry when I tried to kill Kurtis in Cafe Metro (TRAOD, that is) and he wouldn't even look up! :mad: I was seriously not happy.

This brings up an interesting point. Some people think violence in games causes violence in real life, whereas I think it can actually be therapeutic.

After a bad day at work, nothing beats playing a game of GTA and just whacking the hell out of people with a baseball bat and stealing their money. And, because I can do it in the game, I don't need to do it in real life. TR usually isn't a good game for me to play when I'm in a bad mood because if Lara doesn't jump when I tell her to, I tend to take it a little too personally. But still, the idea of being able to destroy and kill things on a monitor or TV screen is definitely preferable to doing it in real life.

(having said that, I once spent all afternoon playing GTA, and when I stepped outside, there were two cops on motorcycles stopped at a red light, and my first thought was, "These guys will be easy targets!!" Then, fortunately, I quickly came to my senses.

Sophia Leigh
8th Oct 2005, 04:37
This brings up an interesting point. Some people think violence in games causes violence in real life, whereas I think it can actually be therapeutic.


Interesting yes, for some people it can be therapeutic but for others it just makes them agro. Its different for everyone.


After a bad day at work, nothing beats playing a game of GTA and just whacking the hell out of people with a baseball bat and stealing their money. And, because I can do it in the game, I don't need to do it in real life.

My husband would agree with you but I can't stand watching him play that game, it makes me angry but it is therapeutic for him. That doesn't mean I become violent if I watch it, that game just irritates me. I personally find GTA a lot of violence for no reason.


But still, the idea of being able to destroy and kill things on a monitor or TV screen is definitely preferable to doing it in real life

I have seen someone else smash a control pad before because they died in a game (yeah I know thats extreme :D ).


TR usually isn't a good game for me to play when I'm in a bad mood because if Lara doesn't jump when I tell her to, I tend to take it a little too personally.

Tomb Raider has always been my therapy, when I play tomb raider I enter Lara's world and forget about the hard day at the office that I had or whatever else is troubling me at the time. :thumbsup:

GeorgeMaciver
8th Oct 2005, 06:12
Yeah, I suppose Eidos could have Lara plant nice little flowers in her back garden instead eh. Yeah, what a wonderful idea! No more shooting anything, just running around looking for nice little exotic flowers then taking them home to plant them in her nice little garden at home.

If that's what you want, go away and stop playing Tomb Raider and leave us alone to enjoy our game.

star girl
8th Oct 2005, 13:25
My cousin gave me GTA. It didn't work on my P3, but it was four years old, but it also didn't work on the new P4 I bought! Anyway, I was not in a mood to install.

Talking of moods, I just get nicer when I play TR. Donno why, but it calms me down. And I can get very angry too, but I do my very best to control it till it's limit.

Oh, and by the way, George Maciver, I thought you were a descendant of Invincible, who I think has left the forums. He did good for himslef too, he WAS near his death.

Mangar The Dark
8th Oct 2005, 15:25
Yeah, I suppose Eidos could have Lara plant nice little flowers in her back garden instead eh. Yeah, what a wonderful idea! No more shooting anything, just running around looking for nice little exotic flowers then taking them home to plant them in her nice little garden at home.


Um, did anybody actually suggest anything like that, or are you just trying to be confrontational? If it's the latter, then how about playing a bit of GTA and whacking some people with baseball bats! It helps relieve frustration everytime!!

GeorgeMaciver
8th Oct 2005, 20:16
Heh heh :D

Sophia Leigh
9th Oct 2005, 06:26
Yeah, I suppose Eidos could have Lara plant nice little flowers in her back garden instead eh. Yeah, what a wonderful idea! No more shooting anything, just running around looking for nice little exotic flowers then taking them home to plant them in her nice little garden at home.

If that's what you want, go away and stop playing Tomb Raider and leave us alone to enjoy our game.

Who are you telling to go away :eek: ? A bit harsh don't you think?

GeorgeMaciver
9th Oct 2005, 07:02
*edited*

:D

GeorgeMaciver
9th Oct 2005, 08:27
I'm sorry if I appear antagonistic or uncaring. It's just that I deal with evil in ways most folks will never understand. We are surrounded by people who would gladly kill us, rob our goods, rape our women and murder our children. When you have to deal with men like this, social programmes are of no use. Real evil only understands a gun pointed at it's head with a will to pull the trigger behind it. Unless we get serious about dealing with life and stand up and face our problems and deal with them, instead of scuttling off to hide behind trite politically correct ideals like 'tolerance' our problems will only get worse. You cannot change the devil by being nice to him and offering him social programmes. If you think that way, you had better wake up or one day you will be marched into the gas chambers of the New World Order.

Personally, I think it's time we started teaching our kids how to use guns at school. It's not too late.

GeorgeMaciver
9th Oct 2005, 08:33
The dark night of the soul
That long and wearisome road.
Entombed inside my own head
Empty cold and alone.
Imprisoned in dungeons of time
Dreams screamed out of tune.
A world forgotten in thought
Each thought forgotten too soon.

My eyes look up to the skies
Some rhyme some reason to be.
Is this the sum of my worth?
Just nothing, not even to me?
Freed from my dungeon in time
Dreams sung sweetly in tune.
The peace, oh the peace that is mine
Forever is never too soon.

CatSuit&Ponytail
10th Oct 2005, 14:45
I'm sorry if I appear antagonistic or uncaring. It's just that I deal with evil in ways most folks will never understand. We are surrounded by people who would gladly kill us, rob our goods, rape our women and murder our children. When you have to deal with men like this, social programmes are of no use. Real evil only understands a gun pointed at it's head with a will to pull the trigger behind it. Unless we get serious about dealing with life and stand up and face our problems and deal with them, instead of scuttling off to hide behind trite politically correct ideals like 'tolerance' our problems will only get worse. You cannot change the devil by being nice to him and offering him social programmes. If you think that way, you had better wake up or one day you will be marched into the gas chambers of the New World Order.

Personally, I think it's time we started teaching our kids how to use guns at school. It's not too late.
I understand your experiences have made a negative impact on your higher goaled humanity. There is evil only in the mind of men, not in actuality. If you see evil, it is a construct, not real. People do unspeakable things, but the cycle must end somehow. Doing more unspeakable things in response seems to be making the "good" into the "evil" it's trying to resist.

There are lines that become blurred when you are too close to a problem, so that you lose sight of what is real. Violence and aggression have no place in civilization, but when it is artifice, it can be helpful to exorcise the violence and aggression within ourselves. History shows that those societies that allow real violence in a real way soon crumble.

robson001
10th Oct 2005, 17:47
I am one of those who were shocked by Lara's killing. I think it was overdone, exaggerated. But what really bugged me was the amount of ammunition the 'bad guys" took to fall down. I mean, when one of those guys with a stick come after Lara, and you begin to shoot at him, at close range, and he takes a lot of time to die...I felt it so unrealistic, it really changed my game experience.

WraithStar
10th Oct 2005, 21:00
I don't mind if Lara's killing bad guys who are up to something diabolical. She has to defend herself, of course. It made me a little uneasy that in some of the games, there wasn't really a justification for what she was doing or what was going on, it was just, "Here you are, shoot those guys, get to the next level." I don't think of Lara as an assassin or a mass-murderer, so I hope that in Legend, she has a good reason for any killing she has to do.

Also, I just replayed TR2 a little while ago, and I was laughing about how many bullets those guys could absorb without flinching. They didn't even look like they had vests :rolleyes:

Raven
12th Oct 2005, 02:12
MOST of Lara's killing is done in self-defense, fair enough. However, in some cases, and TRs 3 and 5 are the worst culprits, it's definitely murder. Someone already posted about Lara breaking into other people's property and shooting anyone who tries to stop her. In fact in Area 51, some of the guards don't even try to stop her directly, they run for an alarm pad instead and the only real option the game gives you is to shoot them in the back while they flee. This cannot possibly be considered self-defense. Nor can shooting a totally unwares guard in the head with a sniper rifle while hiding in a ventilation shaft (as in the VCI levels in Chronicles)

I liked those levels, but I was unhappy with the way Lara acted. There should have been more, non-lethal options with which to deal with enemies (something Chronicles admittedly attempted...I hope this is developed further in Legend)

Stuntbabe X
12th Oct 2005, 21:56
Its called Guerilla warfare, kids! In all reality, if you were to go Tomb Raiding (grave robbing) for your own wealth and gain, there might be some bad guys down there trying to do the same thing. But actually are they REALLY "bad guys" if theyre just after the same thing? Maybe their motives are different but theyre still doing the same thing Lara is doing. Raiding Tombs. Its a dog-eat-dog kinda situation. Murderer, hero, whatever. There are no rules or laws when ur in the jungle. Its kill or be killed.

Point made. :p

WraithStar
13th Oct 2005, 16:54
Even so, they don't have to go out of their way making Lara look "cool" (or whatever they were trying to do) by having her kill people left, right, up, down, and sideways without any sort of explanation. In TR1, I think the only people she fought were a few who opened fire on her first (Larson, Pierre, Natla, and that guy who stole her guns). In TR2, she's fighting thugs who are trying to create a dragon to cause massive destruction. In TR3, then, it's not so clear-cut. I suppose one could make the argument that the guards in Nevada are bad because they are doing something evil with alien technology, and the workers in Antarctica are evil because they all know what Willard is up to, but neither explanation is actually given in the game, so it makes me a little uneasy. Making Lara a wanton murderer doesn't enhance her image, it makes her a bad guy too. I don't want Lara to be a bad guy.

SethKoopa
13th Oct 2005, 18:19
I don't think the creators of the games were trying to enhance an 'image' per se for Lara. The levels are always created first. The storyline just needed to have been a bit stronger in those really offensive highlights.

GeorgeMaciver
13th Oct 2005, 19:03
Mayeb we should make it against the law for kids to play cops and robbers and cowboys and indians? It's just pretend murder, after all.

:rolleyes:

WraithStar
13th Oct 2005, 19:47
I didn't say it should be against the law. I merely said I don't like it, and if I think it is bad enough, I won't play it.

Raven
14th Oct 2005, 09:56
The main difference for me is that in TRs 1 and 2, Lara only really killed people who attacked her first. So for her to subsequently kill them is still self-defense, regardless of whether or not their motivations for being there were legit.
Like Wraithstar said, TR3 was where things got dodgy. In certain levels, it isn't a question of "kill or be killed", it's a question of Lara taking out anyone who stands in her way, even if they haven't attacked first, even if they're just doing their jobs. There's a world of difference between breaking into a tomb and taking something which belongs to no-one, and breaking into a building and taking something that already has an owner, just because you think it'd look nice in your trophy room.

John Carter
14th Oct 2005, 19:05
The general consensus would seem to be, (and seems to me as well) that the TR 3 writers/level designers created an atypically bloodthirsty Lara who gratuitously killed those who "didn't need killin'". There seems to be a bit of that in TR 5 as well. The oft-mentioned area 51 guards, well, they needed killin'. If you just have Lara stand still after she opens the door to her cell, the guards will beat her to death without provocation and in violation of all regulations pertaining to not beating to death prisoners who are not resisting nor trying to escape. Civilian museum guards, non-mad scientists, and helicopter pilots are another story, as they are either not in cahoots with evil forces or present no threat even if they are on the "bad guy" team.

In the rest of the games, Lara pretty much shoots the bad guys and girls who are the primary or in the employ of wicked mutant-empire creators, would be-dragon emperors, and other assorted fantastical menaces to the public well-being. That she defeats such enemies of law and order is usually an accidental by-product of her own illegal antiquity collection avocation, rather than the purpose of her actions. She will go out of her way to be a do-gooder in some cases even after she has her prize, though, TR4 being an example. Then Lara seemed to accept that she had responsibility for unleasing the wicked spirit of Set that she had inadvertantly and carelessly released, and went about fixing what she broke.

I would submit to you, however, that waiting to be shot at first by those you know seek your demise is not praiseworthy "good sportsmanship", but is rather just plain stupid. Those like Mr. Macgiver who have faced determined enemies on real battlefields instead of cyber ones know that such extravagent fair-mindedness is liable to result in one's own untimely demise.

Several pertinent George Orwell quotations come to mind from this whole thread of discussion, but I will leave those to the discovery of anyone who is so inclined, with one exception, which applies to whatever philosophical side of the "kill or be killed" argument you may find yourself on:

" If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. "

CatSuit&Ponytail
14th Oct 2005, 21:29
" If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. "
In racing games I often sideswipe other cars and run them off the road and such fun stuff I'd not do in real traffic......unless it was suddenly MadMax hour. A real pleasure I have in the new Eidos game Total Overdose is the frequent shifts in reality where suddenly anything goes. I can't bring myself to shoot innocents in games, though, it's just not entertaining.

"Times have changed
And we've often rewound the clock
Since the Puritans got a shock
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today, any shock they should try to stem,
'Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.

In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking
Now heaven knows, anything goes

Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four letter words writing prose
Anything goes

The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today
And black's white today
And day's night today
When most guys today that women prize today
Are just silly gigolos

So though I'm not a great romancer
I know that you're bound to answer
When I propose, anything goes..." ~~ Cole Porter!

Telling someone something they don't want to hear is an excercise in futility, and could very well get you shot for your good intentions.

GeorgeMaciver
14th Oct 2005, 21:55
It always amazes me how Tomb Raider attracts so many passionately intelligent people. The true original Tomb Raider essence! But isn't it true that what we believe may not necessarily be right?

dhama
14th Oct 2005, 21:55
Well we could all moan about the rights and wrongs of TombRaider, but we still play the game....why is that? If it were so important, then we shouldn't buy the game in the first place and then we shouldn't be here...... OMG, what if this is all real in another dimension, we would all be guilty..... :eek:

LOL, PING! back to reality guys.

John Carter
14th Oct 2005, 22:04
LOL, PING! back to reality guys.

dhama offers excellent advice. ;)

susan
15th Oct 2005, 18:47
When I first played TR1 and had to shoot the wolves I felt uncomfortable especially when they made whelping noises. I think a few animal lovers are going to feel "something" the first time they're presented with taking action like this in a game.

For me, there are moral issues in simulating experiences in games. When playing TR I accept that "Lassie hasn't really hurt her paw", and feel no qualms blasting attackers away (animal or human) because it's kill or be killed. It either doesn't feel realistic and/or the premise behind it is acceptible. But I wouldn't play a game which involved simulating unnecessary cruelties or torture, realistic or not.

WraithStar
19th Oct 2005, 15:44
I play TR3 because India and South Pacific are my favorite TR level sets. My point was merely that Lara shouldn't *have* to kill relatively innocent people in order for the player to win the game. The player should have a choice, like in TR2 with the monks. This *is* a game, not real life, so there's no reason for the lines to be so blurry when a few seconds of dialogue can justify Lara's actions. Even more generally, the next game should better explain what Lara's doing. For most of the levels in the previous games, I had no idea what Lara was doing there or what the point was until the very last bit where she gets whatever artifact she was looking for.

dhama
19th Oct 2005, 17:26
..........My point was merely that Lara shouldn't *have* to kill relatively innocent people in order for the player to win the game. .

I totally agree, but as I said, should we play a game that raise such thoughts?

WraithStar
19th Oct 2005, 18:13
I like exploring some of the levels enough that it overrules the uneasiness some of the other parts of the game cause, but still I'd rather that the whole game was enjoyable for me than only certain parts of it. I generally don't play games that require me to run around murdering relatively innocent people because I don't like that sort of thing, so I hope TR doesn't turn into that. I like games that make me think and examine things like good and evil, for example the Knights of the Old Republic games, but in TR3 and TR5, that obviously wasn't the purpose of the games. From the storyline perspective, it's as if it didn't even occur to the writers that they should explain who Lara is killing or why, they could just throw her down onto the map with a bunch of weapons and leave it at that. I'm not really too worried about Legend, though, since Crystal usually writes very involving stories. Some of their past games (Soul Reaver 1 and Blood Omen 2) have also given the player the option to not kill civilians, like in TR2 or the South Pacific levels of TR3, so I'm hoping that if there even are civilians in Legend, the player can choose not to fight them:)

maliki3
19th Oct 2005, 22:57
I dont have a problem with killing enemies in tomb raider games. if you leave them about they will eventually causing you problems. and lets face it - the game is not about how many kills you get - its about solving the puzzles and getting through the levels as efficiently and safely as possible. although i did feel slightly guilty in angel of darkness playing kurt during the asylum level. the crazies in the level ran away from you eventually but i killed them anyway. but it was more to do with the fact that at the time i didnt know wether i would end up going back past them and they would attack me again. its just more efficient to get them out the game. but i guess i do like to assume that during a game i dont want to kill innocents just for the sake of it. perfect example of a game that punishes the player who does --- tenchu stealth assassins - you cant kill innocents to reach the highest level of achievment - and they dont even fight back.

WraithStar
20th Oct 2005, 14:27
That sounds sort of like what I was trying to say--Lara shouldn't just stand there and let people kill her. However, the game designers shouldn't throw her into a situation where she *has* to kill innocents in order to progress. At the very least, the player should have a choice. Punishing the player for murder would be a nice touch, too :) I've never heard of Tenchu Stealth Assassins before. What system is it on?

Raven
20th Oct 2005, 23:11
I don't think Lara should necessarily wait to be shot at first; the problem as I see it as the situations the developers sometimes put her in, for the sake of an exciting level.
If you're in the VCI skyscraper in TR5, you have to kill guards with a sniper rifle from hiding, which is cold-blooded murder, really. Same goes for some (not all) of the Area 51 guards in TR3, particularly the ones who are running away from Lara rather than attacking her. Thing is that Lara had no business being in those areas in the first place.
If you break into someone else's property with the intention of stealing from them, then put a pre-emptive bullet in their head so they can't hinder you as you help yourself to their valuables...that, to me, is on a totally different level from defending yourself-even shooting first-in neutral territory like a tomb.
By trespassing and thieving, doesn't Lara put herself in the position of being the "bad guy"? Consequently, the people she kills in the process are the innocent ones who have the right to defend themselves against HER.

As for punishing the player for murder...as my dad pointed out while watching TR3 over my shoulder, killing Military Policeman gets you the death sentence :D

WraithStar
21st Oct 2005, 15:18
Exactly :) The only thing I have to add is that I don't seem to remember Lara killing anyone innocent while she was actually exploring tombs. The only ones I can remember her fighting were people who were also stealing from the tombs and intended to use the artifacts for evil.

FruitofEden
6th Nov 2005, 17:18
I dont have a problem with killing enemies in tomb raider games. if you leave them about they will eventually causing you problems. and lets face it - the game is not about how many kills you get - its about solving the puzzles and getting through the levels as efficiently and safely as possible. although i did feel slightly guilty in angel of darkness playing kurt during the asylum level. the crazies in the level ran away from you eventually but i killed them anyway. but it was more to do with the fact that at the time i didnt know wether i would end up going back past them and they would attack me again. its just more efficient to get them out the game. but i guess i do like to assume that during a game i dont want to kill innocents just for the sake of it. perfect example of a game that punishes the player who does --- tenchu stealth assassins - you cant kill innocents to reach the highest level of achievment - and they dont even fight back.
Hey, I'm new here and this is my first post but anyway. I guess I'll just jump right in, hope tis alright. I agree with what you said, maliki3. Though I can't exactly remember how I felt when I was playing TR1 and 2 about killing some of those "innocents"; I think I didnt like killing the monks, as someone pointed out, they would help Lara and that was almost a TR first, so it seemed. But now, I dont suppose that I even care, as sad as that may be. To me, TR is still just a game, and nothing near what GTA is, which I have played and enjoyed, because it's quite clear actually who are the "innocents" in that game. For instance, I hated getting the attention of the old ladies, I think someone would attack me with shopping bags even, but yeah, I didn't like killing some of those bystanders, though I would still go on murder sprees for the fun of it. It did get a bit boring, and sickening after a while, so the only fun thing was driving the very fast cars around the cities. But anyway, my point is, I do wonder if there is too much thought going into this thing about whom Lara kills, at least for the games that is, no offense. For the movies, I wouldnt like it. But these guys are just enemies as I see it, and they could come back to attack Lara later if she lets them live. I do recall that I didn't like killing the guards in the Louvre- it was just their jobs, making a living perhaps to care for families. She could have had the option of simply rendering them unconcious to achieve her goals. But the good thing was in that, at least Lara was hoping to get the Obscura painting, right? and that would have been used for evil later. I didn't feel to sorry for the Sanitarium guards when Lara was killing them; they should have known better to at least give thought to who it was they were working for, even if they didn't know all of the sorded details. But then again, how could those at the lower levels, with all of the cells now know? They were simply helping out evil people. No excuse. and in killing the crazies, maybe it was good, putting them out of their misery. I would have begged for such a thing if I were to be found in that state, and if there were any sane part of my mind rational enough to realize I didnt appreciate what had been done to me.
I liked what you said, John Carter, I believe. and Maciver, I thought that the flower thing was kind of funny actually. At least in the sense, well perhaps for its purpose but also just the thought of Lara stealing pretty flowers instead of her usual trophies. Hehe. :D

suzieq51
6th Nov 2005, 19:49
"Times have changed
And we've often rewound the clock
Since the Puritans got a shock
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today, any shock they should try to stem,
'Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.

In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking
Now heaven knows, anything goes

Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four letter words writing prose
Anything goes

The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today
And black's white today
And day's night today
When most guys today that women prize today
Are just silly gigolos

So though I'm not a great romancer
I know that you're bound to answer
When I propose, anything goes..." ~~ Ira Gershwin


Errr, actually it was Cole Porter who wrote this.

CatSuit&Ponytail
6th Nov 2005, 20:18
Errr, actually it was Cole Porter who wrote this.
Oh yes! Silly me, I often get artists confused with each other! :D Thanks! :)

These blonde moments, hehehe. ;) I went back and edited my post. :thumbsup:

Chris Daly
9th Nov 2005, 12:28
:) I have read most of the comments here and there are important points
that have relevance to content and writing of games. A game that
experiences expression of life and caring of life, whilst also finding on
occassion self defence and reason for taking another life is just so
much more as a game.

The differences have been explored in movies since the year dot. Back
to TR .. key elements are fear , does Lara fear things .. I would say no ... but the game then has left out a key emotion What Im trying to get to
is the passion and emotion elements have only just been touched on
Does Lara love anyone ??? No ( well perhaps and only just.. mislocated affection for Von Croy ie: opening scenes of Aod ) Does Lara feel pain
No she just renews her health pack or dies. Does Lara laugh Yes
occasionally ( the famous plane scene in TR2 ). Does Lara have
sexual affections ? Does she experience regret and loss, loneliness

Its easier for game developers to set minimum emotional content
bang bang shoot runaway as a simple example but much harder to
define life as it really happens - this is the challenge ahead.

Chris Daly
9th Nov 2005, 13:07
Lara I should add has to date has been developed as an independant super heroine with fearless attributes to find relics tombs and solve puzzles ..
but is she, and can she be more than that ?? Is it possible for more of
her character to be shown- or is it just task orientated again.

For example
ie: There is a door on the other side of the room that needs opening
and there is a health upgrade in there is- task orientated

but: Im angry and tired as I havent eaten in 4 hours and a cut
I received two hours ago from leaping off a wall is hurting,( shows pain)
but if I can get through that door its likely I can find a medipack.
Im missing home and would really enjoy a long bath
( could be shown as frustration and a wry smile )

Deekman
8th Dec 2005, 14:46
Also intersting to note that outside the games (comics and novels)
Lara has more of a choice and and only kills in self defense, and I
can't recall her killing any non-mythical/supernatural creatures in the comics or novels.
Credit that to the writers!

Lara Croft Wanna Be
31st May 2006, 00:19
like in the movie, when they were stealing her i forget amulet think they broke in and tried to kill her. The way i see it is that you take back what is rightfully yours, and i mean sometimes saving the world is more important, thought i can see it for just her needs, a little like legend her mother. but the bad guys could stay home and as for the animals they were at their homes hunting for food.

Sadly, FOOD = LARA

winston
31st May 2006, 09:33
Tomb Raider is not first and foremost a killing game; it is an adventure/exploration game.
There is not a lot of killing in say TR Last Revelation as there is in TR2 and also 3.
It just depends on the story and also the location i think.