Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 23, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 23, 2014
PR Newswire
View All

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

Analysis: On Lara Croft And 'Relatable' Heroes
Analysis: On Lara Croft And 'Relatable' Heroes Exclusive
September 23, 2009 | By Tom Cross

September 23, 2009 | By Tom Cross
More: Console/PC, Exclusive

[Writer Tom Cross examines the appeal of mainstay character Lara Croft, and assesses where her characterization falls short -- what's keeping her from evolving into a truly compelling heroine?]

It's pretty obvious to most people that Lara Croft is not the "everyman" so many developers are mistakenly, humorously obsessed with. Never mind that this everyman is often a gravelly-voiced, shaven-headed, hugely muscled lout who kills lots of people. He is, after all, “relatable.” He cracks jokes while curb-stomping aliens!

So Lara Croft is not a guy, right? That's one step in a different direction. That already sets her apart from an unpleasantly large number of video game heroes.

Super Powered, Super Predictable

Really though, playing through Tomb Raider: Underworld, I'm constantly made aware of the fact that Lara is anything but average. She can kill anything, from tigers to giant, spitting lizards, to armed goons. She can escape ridiculously climbable, sinking ships, and she can face off against villainous winged ladies, all without a single wince, groan, or faltering step.

In other words, when it comes to adventuring and exploring, she's the indestructible badass to Nathan Drake's fallible, barely-makes-it-by-the-seat-of-his-pants joker.

Lara encounters two kinds of creatures during her travels: friends, who treat her with respect and care, and enemies who want to kill her, very badly (professionally, though). If it weren't for the fact that she's chasing after her long-lost (possibly Underworld-dwelling) mother, her emotional involvement in the story would be almost non-existent. Sure, she cares for her cutout-character sidekicks, Zip and Alister, but they're as emotionally resonant as a box of rocks.

Why should we care for them, when Lara can't really muster up more than a bit of amusement at their lack of knowledge/expertise in areas she excels in? When they're in danger, she furrows her brow, and looks a tad troubled. It's a bit like watching a James Bond or Indiana Jones movie: don't get too connected to the sidekicks and love interests, because they'll be gone soon enough.

Who Needs Friends, With an Attitude Like That?

Except that's not true: even in the most continuity-challenged, misogynist-riddled fictions, side characters at least attempt to perform a level of complexity and depth, along with a mild connection to the main character. Lara doesn't actually have to care about Zip and Alister, she just has to do a better job at pretending they matter.

At the beginning of the game, Zip attempts to kill Lara. The question this action evokes should go something like this: "Wow, why would Zip want to kill Lara?" Instead, it's something like this: "Oh, the stereotypically Black guy wants to kill his “friend". I wonder when during this game-long flashback we'll learn of her occult-inspired betrayal/possession, which encouraged his assault!?"

This is not the drama-inspiring, exciting beginning the designers wanted to create, but thanks to Lara's almost godlike disconnection from the world she inhabits it's hard to avoid such a let-down. Whenever she admires the beauty of a newly discovered temple or ruin, she just sounds so... bored. It's like she's reading the latest "Ancient Temples Quarterly," not experiencing the thrill of doing the job she loves.

After all, she’s not only doing what she does best (and what she lives for), she’s pursuing a lost mother, and following in the footsteps of a dead father. That should elicit just a tad more emotion, I think.

Then again, this is Tomb Raider, right? I should glad that they've created a real, mostly interesting character, I suppose. Think of the alternatives, think of the series' own history and Lara's past incarnations. I'm not even asking that she be flaw-ridden.

I don't need her to be like Nathan Drake, and I don't need her to be like April Ryan. One does not have to be filled with tics, flaws, and quirky habits to be an interesting, empathy-worthy character. But one does have to have more than "idle" and "ass-kicker" modes. Hell, even something more than Lara's steely cold action/British approach to everything would be nice.

Stiff Upper Lip, Stiff Dialogue

Sadly, players mostly see only one other side to Lara, and that's her "emotional" side. That's what happens when A) she's close to finding out new information about her Mom, and B) her "friends" are in danger. Once again, this is not a problem on its own. If Lara didn't feel compassion and worry for her friends and family, I'd find her to be even more of a weirdly emotionless automaton than I already do.

The problem is that she has no other noticeable character elements. She may enjoy spelunking and exploring, but she enjoys these activities like a cat enjoys the ministrations of its human: she can't quite dignify the game, or the world, with her complete attention.

It's hard to describe the things about Lara that are "off" because they're not horrible, glaring flaws. She's not a stupidly violent, senseless killing machine like Kratos and his ilk (though her disrespect for local flora, fauna, and ancient structures is, as always, extreme), she's a bit less of a pointlessly campy sex caricature than she used to be, and she's not a silent, vacant "character" (sorry Gordon, sorry Isaac!).

She's solid; she takes up space. In this way, she's infinitely superior to most "characters" in games who take up only as much space as their ill-written, game-necessary dialogue prescribes (for this, see almost every movie-game, most "story heavy" games, and most action games).

Somebody obviously cares about who Lara is, and they care about who we think she is. Still, it's as if this care was a reflection of the real thing, as if our Lara were some slightly-removed, shadowy reflection of the real one.

>As "Relatable" as Nate?

Lara's not connected enough to our world, and the ways in which she connects to it are always vague, slightly unfeeling, and less emphatic than they should be. Even the connections she has are simple, one-dimensional ones. I'll admit that when it comes to characters, I'm comparing her to Nathan Drake more than I should. He's the product of a pulpy, self-aware fiction that delights in painting him in familiar, broad strokes, and then taking those familiar facets to their extremes.

But he's over-the-top and cliche in a way that feels honestly relatable, if completely unreal. He may be foolishly disbelieving and mysteriously jovial in the face of certain death and dark magic, but he does it in a way that feels grounded in the world. He's a caricature of a caricature, a man lovingly, perfectly constructed from the leavings of older, less self-aware scoundrels, but he relates to his world as if he lives in it.

Lara, for all of her prowess and newly found pathos, approaches everything like an actor in a play, and a play she only half-likes at that. Lara doesn't need to be relatable, she just has to relate to something, anything; she needs to convince us she cares enough about her world and her quest, so that we can care.

Reborn, Stronger than Before?

All that said, I enjoy Lara's take on the action adventure genre, and on games. I love the intricate, humongous puzzles, the ludicrously vibrant and "explorable" settings, and the outlandish bad guys and set pieces. It's like a summer action movie, without the problematic "native danger" (well, sometimes) and without the Bruce Willis/Michael Bay racism (again, sometimes).

Plus, she's an interesting, strong character who has a long history in video games. As a character, she's older than almost everybody else out there, especially if you don't count "characters" like Mario.

I think she's important to video games for many reasons (some having to do with her gender and representational evolution), but specifically because she has pioneered many things, good and bad, and because she's still around to tell the tale, unlike so many of her competitors. I like her games a good deal, and it's too bad that despite Underworld's commercial success, a "reboot" was again deemed necessary.

Maybe it will be a good thing? Maybe Lara will reappear, more deeply invested in her own existence, and in the immediacy of her own adventures.

If there’s one thing Lara suffers from, it’s a strange combination of age and invincibility. It’s hard to take a character seriously who never falls in the mud, who is so terribly effective and successful, we never get to experience the thrill of bringing her back from failure, as strong as before.

It seems likely that the reboot will horn in on this issue specifically. Lara will be turned into a scrappy action hero (hopefully, one well-divorced from Mr. Drake's hapless adventurer in as many ways as possible), using her wits and skills to survive, not her private yacht and humongous mansion.

Then again, part of Lara’s character is subject to that same Bruce Wayne appeal: she’s skilled and smart, but she also gets to fiddle with loads of gadgets, thanks to her wealth. It’s no surprise that Batman is at his most popular when he “goes back to basics” and proves that even without his bag of tricks and money, he’s still a convincingly powerful, fun character. Here’s hoping Lara emerges from the ashes of her most recent series a better, more human action hero. Oh, and fix that gunplay while you’re at it, Eidos.

[Tom Cross writes for Gamers' Temple and Popmatters, is the Associate Editor at Sleeper Hit, and blogs about games at Delayed Responsibility. You can contact him at romain47 at gmail dot com.]

Related Jobs

Nexon America, Inc.
Nexon America, Inc. — El Segundo, California, United States

Localization Coordinator
Petroglyph Games
Petroglyph Games — Las Vegas, Nevada, United States

University of Texas at Dallas
University of Texas at Dallas — Richardson, Texas, United States

Assistant/Associate Prof of Game Studies — Hunt Valley, Maryland, United States

Lead UI Engineer


Jorge Garcia Celorio
profile image
Excellent article!!!! When playing Uncharted for the first time, I really thought it could have been the direction the Tomb Raider series should have pointed to first--an action-filled game with well-developed characters and sharp controls. However, that is Uncharted's magic. The problem with Lara is that she's too perfect. She's the femme fatale. She can do anything. She never gets hurt. IMO, Lara's mother storyline does not live up to its potential. It feels weak... and rushed; while Lara's character never changes. Even Lara's father semi-storyline from early Tomb Raider games feels more misterious and powerful.

Lara is definitely an interesting character, but it faces the same problem as Venom, Duke Nukem, Nariko from Heavenly Sword, (even Sonic?)---in the end, they are just cool designs. They are extremely efficient in what they do, but for some reason their storylines are not that appealing.

Now, consider Solid Snake. On paper it may seem like your average stealth hero--emotionless, effective, but the way the character was fleshed out is really notorious.

Like the article says... going to back to basics!! A Lara Croft adventure does not necessarily need to have out-of-the-top characters nor impressive QTE sequences. As long as Lara Croft jumps from platform to platform, in well-designed environments, and with accurate controls... we will be having fun for a long time.

Jorge Hebrard
profile image
Eidos won't fix the gunplay. But SquareEnix will add a gunblade. And the next TR will be a RPG.

Glenn Storm
profile image
A classic character, held up by some as the alternative to the generic game-version of everyman, but who's clearly detached emotionally, socially, and in many respects, physically from the world the player is supposed to buy into. Hey, you're preaching to the choir here. I also enjoy the puzzles and action in this series of games with Lara, but I believe you've honed in on the key aspect that's missing from this character: meaningful connections to the world she lives in; those connections one would expect from a compelling character, let alone from a real person. Why should we buy into the danger of the world if Laura can't? Why should we care about the sidekick if she doesn't? Just how involved am I expected to be as the player, if my avatar appears to be less immersed in the game world than I'm inclined to be?

Those moments of fallibility, expertly demonstrated by Lara's clear inspiration, Indiana Jones; are necessary for us to have a moment of relation to the character, maybe even feeling a little superior to the character, just for a moment of catching up before the next thrill ride of impossible action and luck. I don't think you're unfairly comparing Lara to Nathan. I think Nathan's character is clearly presented in this way with skill and grace. In my humble opinion, when the only adversity Lara faces is (literally) cleanly overcome and the concerns she has are only superficially addressed, without the messy entanglements brought on by true emotion, she becomes less the game character icon she has come to represent and more like the throw-away NPCs she ignores.

I think the series would do well to heed your argument, Tom.

Andre Gagne
profile image
But as a femme fatale doesn't that increase her sex appeal? thus her marketability to the 14-20 males?

She wasn't made for people to connect with, only to lust after.

profile image
The problem with lara croft is that she's an iconic character. She (and her environment) embodie perfectly the concept she was created for (skillfully explore dangerous lost tomb to find mystical artefact), she is litteraly the gameplay and the story. Any departure from this concept is only "hard to point" clumsiness.

To write such a character one need to align narratively with the concept. The fact is that in underworld, none of the character or the emotion align with the primary concept of the game well, leaving us with some bad taste.

Also a lot of people compare Lara to Indiana but, despite obvious inspiration, they are two different character. The concept of Indiana lie in a "misfit", the clumsiness of the main character (a brainy professor) in situation bigger than himself (environmental hazard). The Whip totally align with this, it is an unusual tools to face hazard that underlign the characteritic of the main character, as a "brainy" he musth find unorthodox answer to hazard (it make him look clever). On contrary lara's gun underlign her fearless. Where indiana can hesitate, lara just go.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Christopher Braithwaite
profile image
Great article. These issues have troubled me since the first Tomb Raider because there seemed to be a promise made to gamers that Lara's relationship to her world would be more fleshed out but that never happened.

As for Nathan Drake, I am in the group which finds him utterly revolting and I refuse to play Uncharted because of him. I find him alienating rather than relatable. This group may just contain me, but it is clear that a very specific section of the market was targeted with Nathan Drake and not being a member of that market I feel a clear separation from other gamers.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Christopher Wragg
profile image
I do believe it has been stated by Toby Gard that he didn't like the way that Lara was marketed, that she was always supposed to be the more relatable "female indiana jones" as opposed to what she was eventually made out to be.

Stephen Chin
profile image
I think that the issue, at least in part, with Lara as a character is the same reason Batman as a character can feel... hollow. They're -not- characters but simply fantasies personified. Lara is the epitome of the modern fantasy woman - strong, smart, skilled, sexy, so on and so forth. She's untouchable because she's unreal. Unfortunately, having already been established as what she is, it would be hard to change that without fundamentally changing the imagery. Now whether it's a good thing a bad thing or just a thing is debatable.

Ostercy Writer
profile image
It's a little unfair to compare a game character to a film/comic character. Great reams of time has been spent exploring the character of Batman, whereas we only usually find out about Lara ingame. I think even more Lara "characterisation" within a TR game would lead to more CD-type wholesome family mushiness. I was satisfied with Lara being a bit more mysterious, and I disagree with the majority of the TR fanship in that I don't think she has to be either a hero or even particularly likeable. The more they try to flesh her out as a character, it seems, the less convincing she becomes. Keep any exposition and back-story to a lean minimum, that's what I say. A cold cypher of an Englishwoman in a mysterious intricate world inbued with "epicness", black humour and horror sensibilities is what I like. Leave Indiana Jones-type Americanisms to Nathan Drake.

Jamie Roberts
profile image
Great article, and I totally agree with the problems with the current iteration of Lara Croft's character. Now, the comments, on the other hand...

"women can find sexualized images empowering"

Emphasis on "can". It *is* possible. Is it the norm? I'd say no. And when there is an overload of oversexed, caricaturized women in games (as is the case in fighting games especially), it's downright insulting and has a directly negative effect on body image. (The negative effect also happens to men, BTW. Overuse of sex stereotypes don't help *anybody*. But sexism inevitably places men in a position of power, which is why it's women that speak up about this.)

"That explains why all the games that sell well have content geared towards that specific demographic."

The best-selling PC game of all time (The Sims) is played mostly by women. An explosive new market (casual games) has been kick-started mostly by women.

There are two reasons games are still being developed for that teenage boy demographic: 1) The game industry itself is still dominated by men, and 2) Marketing and corporate culture has not caught up to the current reality.

Ron Newcomb
profile image
Good read, Tom, but I don't think it's Eidos's fault. Check this out:

That is the results of a game design contest in which you design a game around a pre-existing game's secondary character. The winner was based on a goomba -- not Goomba, but goomba, a race of minor creatures from Mario. The collective cast of Space Invaders won third. Also appearing is the helmeted creature from Megaman and a subboss from Metriod that I didn't even know was sentient.

My favorite bit was on the front page, which said the winners had "imagined how the surrounding game universe would change as a result of the narrative's shift in focus."

Yeah. The emotional development of goomba #53 was riveting. Absolutely riveting. Glad he got the nomination.

As this site purports to speak to students, someone needs to tell it that "character arc" does not mean that parabola the creature forms after a turtle shell knocks him (it?) upside down.

Lara Croft is the least of our worries.