I can't say I didn't like Tomb Raider. In fact, I can't say I fully liked it either. The game is solid overall: the graphics are great, the cinematic action sequences are honestly amazing, the gameplay (though nothing overly original) is up to the task, the story is serviceable, the characters are (somewhat) likable, the length of the game is appropriate and the performance on PC shows a good porting job on Nixxes' part. That being said, I feel that its negative aspects weight more than its positive ones, though. Tomb Raider had the potential to be a true achievement when it comes to rebooting a stagnant (if not fully rotten) series. But some of the design choices made by Crystal Dynamics, if you ask me, noticeably set back the game and limit what would have otherwise been a contender for GOTY.
First and foremost: the story that Crystal Dynamics wanted to tell is not the story that answers to the gameplay they implemented. I won't delve into that oh-so-terrible marketing campaign that took place before the game was released (protecting Lara, anyone?), but it's clear that Crystal Dynamics wanted to portray their hero in a more relatable way. Humanize her and make players feel that they were going through her ordeal with her and through her, not acting as mere tool to get Lara from point A to point B. And that is a commendable goal. Too bad the execution was far from ideal. In one scene, Lara is telling a deer that she's sorry for having to kill it, but she needs to eat (a concept that never appears again throughout the whole game, to boot). The next scene, she's mowing down hordes of enemies with a bow that shoots flaming arrows. Granted, her getting accustomed to killing people doesn't reach Jason Brody levels of sociopathy, but the contrast is stark, to say the least. The same goes for her endurance and resistance: she falls from mountains, hills, temples, waterfalls, etc. countless times, she gets impaled through her stomach within the first 20 minutes of the game, gets shot (and has to go all Rambo and use a heated arrow tip to cauterize the wound!)... but nothing of that has absolutely any bearance in her performance. She's just shrugs it off as if nothing had ever happened. Why? Couldn't it have been better if she hadn't been so battered and bruised, at least not so many times, and the few times that it happened, that actually counted for something? I think that all of this undermines the idea the player has to make of Lara as a normal human being who founds herself in an exceptionally shitty situation. It breaks the illusion of Lara being a realistic portrayal of a person and turns her into yet another gun-totting, take-no-prisoners, power fantasy video game character.
This last bit brings me to my second point: "a survivor is born" is the tagline of the game, yet the gameplay is that of your average third-person shooter, à la Uncharted or Gears of War. Take cover, pop some headshots, back to cover. Crystal Dynamics should have emphasized the survival aspect of the game instead of throwing some many enemies, one after the other, at Lara. She gets hungry during the beginning of the game, but the player never has to hunt again, since there's no hunger meter (unless, of course, they want to get some cheap EXP from killing animals). Why not implement a thirst meter too? Or maybe even a system to apply field dressings to your wounds, to get extra health, recover your peak performance or get bonuses? The island has to feel as much as a threat (if not greater) than the enemies Lara has to face.
Finally, though related to the survival aspect, is the matter of exploration. Despite what the title may suggest, there is very little raiding of tombs. Most of them can be completed in a matter of minutes (in some cases, getting in and out of the tomb takes more time than actually solving the puzzle within!) and they yield no substantial rewards (most of them give you a larger amount of salvage than normal, a map that reveals the collectibles for that area and, sometimes, a part for upgrading one of your guns). And, worst of all, the vast majority of them are completely optional. Yes, let that sink. In Tomb Raider, raiding tombs is optional. They could have titled the game "Lara Croft Solid 3: Lost" and that would have been much more appropriate for the content they are presenting. Crystal Dynamics should have found a way to implement better the concept of "tomb raiding" into the main game. Less tombs would be OK, if that meant that the ones that do get into the game are larger and more rewarding. But then again, that's a general problem that the game has with exploration: there's just not enough of it. While it is true that you can go back to previously-visited locations to recover any collectible or raid any tomb that you may have missed, the map never feels really connected. I felt that it was more of a jump from one fast travel location to the other than an actual cohesive, unified map. Think of Batman: Arkham Asylum and you can get what I'm talking about.
So, in the end, I will concede and say that I did like Tomb Raider. Even if I dedicated 95% of my review at pointing out what's wrong with the game. But as Brad and the rest of the Bombcrew have said, it's just because the rest of the game is so well crafted that these flaws stand out so much. Make Tomb Raider II (or however they will be calling it) 50% more like the Arkham game and 50% less of an Uncharted game and you'll strike gold, Crystal Dynamics. At least, as far as I'm concerned.