Jackson64: I would also like to say that some of my wording was intentionally hyperbolic and incendiary to get people riled up and maybe attract more hits. Make of that what you will.

LousyTactician: “Like I said though, I totally understand the criticism. There’s some stuff in that trailer I’m not going to touch with a ten-foot pole like the “near-rape.” I’m neither a woman nor a victim of any sort of sexual assault and therefore not anywhere near qualified to address those subjects.”

I don’t think the problem people have is the idea of a game having rape in it. It is a very taboo subject, yes that only a handful of games in my opinion have ever handled well, but it can be handled well if done carefully.The problem people seem to have is the way the game’s developers have marketed the game. They’re practically using the inclusion of rape or at least attempted sexual assault as a selling point or something worth being praised for. I don’t think I’m the most qualified person to discuss this issue either, but this is what I will say on the matter. Any writer who thinks rape should be used as a promotional point for their story, needs to give up their writing career. Maybe the game will be a rare example of something that tackles the issue well, but the trailer and marketing isn’t making me hold my breath.

"However, there is one particular recurring comment that’s bugging me. I’m referring to the women who watch this trailer and say they’re disappointed that Lara isn’t a “strong, independent woman” like she used to be and therefore they can’t project themselves onto her like they did in the old games. And to those women I only have this to say.
You are part of the problem.
The problem of video game narratives and characters being routinely boring because audiences don’t want real characters with actual development, but rather one-dimensional empowerment fantasies. "

I’ve read several articles on this subject and I don't think the problem these people have is wanting to be empowered all the time, I think it's a matter of Croft being a character who these people have projected onto throughout her 10+ years of existence and the idea of a development team suddenly wanting to add a new personality to her. You can complain about this all you want, but I have to ask why exactly the character in question NEEDS to be Lara Croft? Outside of the obvious answer that, "A new IP wouldn't sell as well, so we need a brand name attached to this idea". It seems strange to try and give this character that has existed for so long a completely new personality, despite the assortment of problems that come with trying to wrestle it in with the rest of the series’ canon.

Like you I've never cared for the Tomb Raider games or Lara Croft as a character and I admire the idea of making her more fleshed out, but I don't blame fans who do like the series for being skeptical at this.

“People who say that they don’t want Lara to show any sign of weakness really aren’t much better than the wankers who buy Call of Duty because of a weird military fetish.”

I also think there is a world of difference between imagining a character as bold and adventurous and just having a giant gun fetish. And I NEVER have interpreted the Cod character I played as in that matter and I usually don’t has such creepy fantasies even in the most goofishly violent of games like Saint’s Row 2. Just because people project onto characters doesn’t mean everyone turns their video game experience into a giant power fantasy.

"Let me explain a little something about storytelling. Without any characters, you have no story. A story is only as compelling as the people in it, and in my estimation this is the crux of the problem with video game narratives. We have too many avatars and not enough actual characters."

NO, NO, AND NOOOO! That is completely, 100% untrue! There is a thing such as stories driven by things other than characters in both games and other forms of media! Portal, a game endlessly praised for its writing has a main character that is literally nothing, but a blank slate for players to jump into. Some of the greatest literary stories I've ever read have had relatively blank, uninteresting characters, but incredibly well fleshed out worlds and plots that made them interesting, I'd use Fahrenheit 451 as an example of this. Hell, if you want to see examples of good storytelling where the protagonist is nothing, but a characterless narrator meant to be a window between the reader and bizarre twisted worlds go read anything written by H.P Lovecraft!

I’m no literary expert, but I’m on my way to being an English major and most professors of mine say there are 4 things you can focus on in a story: The plot, the world/world-building, the symbolism/thematic tones, and the characters. Seeing as how there are 3 other options left I think a game could deliver a fantastic story even with relatively uninteresting or undefined characters, so long as they aren’t the focus of the story. Look at Amnesia: The Dark Descent, it has a bland and often times flat out unlikeable protagonist, but the events (in other words the plot) and the way they’re delivered through diary pages and supernatural occurrences is very well done and in my opinion an example of good storytelling in gaming with no true characters or at least no interesting characters.

Shadow of The Colossus has been, in my opinion sometimes undeserving, praised for its narrative, but there is no way in hell you can convince me Wander is anything, but an unnamed slate for players to kill giant monsters with. But that’s fine because it’s the pretty world and giant monster killing that makes the game interesting. Alice in Wonderland can also be considered a good story with no interesting characters, just a bat-shit insane world and by far the worst interpretation of that story (the Tim Burton one, ugh) was the one that added the most to Alice’s personality. I could go on to give other examples of excellent, characterless stories in both games and other forms if media if you want, but I think I’ve made my point.

It is especially easy for video games to get away with uninteresting protagonists because the player is the one doing all the work anyways. So long as the world around them is fascinating a player-avatar can be a completely 1-dimensional in my eyes and a game can still deliver an interesting narrative. I'm not saying well-rounded characters are bad. Many of my favorite games feature fleshed out protagonists, but it's worth noting the more you flesh out a player character the more potential there is to have the player be separated and disconnected from their avatar. The claim that, “We have too many avatars and not enough characters” is becoming less and less true every day and I think revealing too many details about characters is taking a turn for the worst when it comes to video game characters.

"Some people will take a look at my examples and notice that those three characters are not game characters. I can already hear some of the responses, “But it’s a game so it’s different than movies! The gameplay changes everything!” Good try, but sorry, that’s not true. The only time that applies is if you’re playing an open-ended RPG like Fallout or Skyrim and you’re customizing your character’s abilities and personality, in which case you can make your female protagonist as strong as you like."

So the ONLY way a player and their avatar's personality can affect one another is if the player can create and make certain choices for that avatar that effect the story in a manner similar to open world RPGs? I have no idea how you reached that conclusion especially since comments you make later on suggests the exact opposite. No, even in linear titles where a player only controls a character in action segments, the connection between what the player does in those action segments is vital. That is why it is common to have a video game protagonist silent/blank even in games with linear narratives.

It's also why many franchises that do flesh out characters and give them definitive personality traits can fail miserably if their personality doesn't reflect how a player plays the game. You specifically mention the dissonance between Other M’s story and gameplay, which is a good example. To use another example when playing Grand Theft Auto IV did you ever wonder why Niko, a character who is supposedly trying to make amends for his past also commits mass genocide every time he drives to the corner for some milk? That's called 'Ludonarrative Dissonance' (a pretentious word, I know, but it’s an important one to game design).

http://theplayvault.com/wp/2012/04/30/why-the-ludonarrative-of-dissonanc...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH1wXRvhSNA

In other words this is an example of how player interaction can affect the narrative and how one feels about said narrative even in a linear, choice-less game.

Not to mention people have been altering game’s stories by projecting themselves into the shows of characters for years. If a character is blank a player will project into that character with or without the ability to flesh them out through personal choice and projecting into a character is a player affecting a game’s story in and of itself. People have analyzed the body language of Samus Aran and projected themselves into her for years despite her games clearly not being 'open-ended RPGs' and people have done this with similar characters like Link.

By now this comment has gotten side tracked from the Tomb Raider franchise and more towards the idea of Silent Protagonists VS. fleshed out characters, but I’m going to continue this. I’ll admit, there are benefits to having a character with a personality that differs from the player's, but from the way you keep banging on about how you don't like blank avatars makes it sound like you're saying ANY characterization is better than none, which is COMPLETELY FALSE!

"Maybe none of that is compelling enough evidence for you. Maybe ICO is a sexist game, but I don’t care. Because it’s also a beautiful, well-designed, unique piece of art that does a great job of making you empathize with its two leads."

This seems to contradict all the ranting you’ve been doing about how you don't like lead characters who are under-characterized and easy to project into in a linear game, which is EXACTLY how I would describe Ico.

With all that said, this Tomb Raider reboot is the closest I've come to being interested in the franchise, I want to see what the game has to offer, and I agree it would be best to wait for the finished product before judging it. However, if this reboot ends up being to the Tomb Raider franchise what Other M is to Metroid I don't care how noble their attempts to make Lara a more well rounded character are, I'll still consider it shit. I also completely disagree that games have too many avatars, if anything there are too many, badly written, overly-defined, and over-talkative characters these days.

http://www.destructoid.com/the-future-the-silent-protagonist-will-win-16...

I just know I’m going to turn one of my long winded comments into a full blog one of these days.