Talk:Shadow of the Tomb Raider/@comment-1500935-20181019090047/@comment-1500935-20181021122212

I feel we had that discussion before, and that it's straying from my initial post, so I'll just condense my opinion on characters and return to my first point.

In the end, yes, CD and SE Montreal played it safe with the cast of supporting characters, but I believe it was never their aim to be too deep about it. I believe keeping Lara Croft isolated is that aim. This is what the series as a whole always did and I don't blame the developers for keeping it that way. Even the Endurance survivors had few to zero involvement in the reboot's story, if not to toy with Lara's psyche throughout the game.

Back to what I was saying on gameplay and setting. I think it was done better in the reboot and Rise than in the overly linear Legend trilogy. However this new gameplay/setting formula is too focused to apply with the story and settings of the original TR games. Those were, quite honestly, all over place. As an example to sum up TR2: go to China without a clue as to how to get the dagger, and instead of a key, find clues about mafia involvement. Follow them from Venice to a platform in the Mediterranean Sea. Learn there about another key then dive to a shipwreck to retrieve it. Go to a monastery in Nepal to use that second key to find the first key, then get back to China. Four travels around the world for a dagger locked behind a wooden/stone gate.

In the Survivor games, you get to visit one or two locations thoroughly, and whatever clues you need can all be found there without much travels around the globe. So yes, having remakes of TR1 through 6 in the style of the Survivor trilogy can't work unless by changing a lot about the story and settings.