Talk:Himiko (Survivor Timeline)/@comment-86.32.140.25-20130714044525/@comment-142.129.185.99-20130716051659

Oh great. Another "historian" coming to call out the Tomb Raider series on its "inaccuracy." It's a game! A game about a young woman raiding tombs. Its setting is not supposed to be totally accurate. Heck, the first Tomb Raider had her discovering Atlantis...

The devs probably chose the legend of Himiko for a myriad of reasons, one among them likely being the fact that Himiko is shrouded in mystery. She -could- have existed, but there are not enough documents to prove this. What little data we have on her is one of the few reasons researchers don't dismiss her existence completely. All the devs wanted to do was make a good story. They used the legend of Himiko as a base for their work.

Tomb Raider  is a work of -fiction-. The average joe knows not to take history lessons from a video game. Any sensible person would do research on their own if they wanted to learn about Himiko, and hopefully with the guidance of someone who knows what they're doing. You back up your criticisms by pointing out that the game isn't historically accurate, and to be honest, it really isn't.

But you make two fatal flaws with this argument, both of which stem from the fact the game isn't historically accurate.

First off, you claim this game is a rape of history, when you yourself refer to Himiko's life through her -legend-, an account of events that may have little to no hard evidence backing said events transpired. Himiko is a more figure of myth than a person who existed. Until we can actually confirm she isn't a work of supersition, that's all she'll ever be. Not to mention Tomb Raider isn't the only franchise guilty of changing a myth (or in some cases actual history), for the benefit of the "telling a good story." Look at The Mummy, Assassin's Creed, Dyntasy Warriors - the list goes on! Yes, they are not accurate accounts of actual historical events. Does the fact that their stories are not true make them bad games? No, absolutely not.

From that flawed reasoning, emerges your argument's second flaw - you try to claim that since this story is "crap," the game itself (the whole) is "crap." Video games are a form of entertainment. This game is among millions of other games, and every one of those games was geared to someone's interests. "Tell a story, show me something with fast-paced action, show me drama" - the reason behind a video game's existence is as unique as the game itself. The process for making a video game is anything but easy. The devs come up with an idea, try to find a target market for their idea, and if their chances look good, will go ahead with making that idea into a game. The new Tomb Raider had an extra challenge to this process because the devs had to appeal not only to a new generation of gamer, but also to the fans of the older games. Did the game succeed? Yes. Did people enjoy it? Obviously. Is everyone going to like it? Of course not! Why bother searching for a target audience if you know every person is going to like your game? People have different tastes, and everyone has a right to like and dislike whatever they want. Can you think something is crap? Yes, you have a right to. Can you say it -is- crap? Unless you can prove it objectively and refute it entirely in this manner... no.

Unless you can offer constructive critiques, I suggest you keep your opinions confined to yourself, and not spread them on the comment page of a wiki. If you feel the need to express your opinion as fact, take it 4chan.