Playing through the first two games, I was quite curious at how this one could be the least-good of the bunch, just going off Backloggd averages. Did they take a back step on the many improvements Rise brought? Is the story and characters worse than ever before? Is it just not a different game than Rise so its flaws are more pronounced? My answer to all of these is a very decisive "no".

I frankly do not get the mixed feelings on this game. The characters and story are better than ever with an ally faction I actually cared about, Lara getting some much-needed personality and internal conflict, a story with actual good turns to it, and the most beautiful setting of the games for sure. Trading out the wet, rainy island of the first game, the cold, achromatic mountain of the second game, and giving us a lush, vibrant jungle that's rich with culture and life. This setting was very befitting of a Tomb Raider game.

One thing that's somewhat disappointing in this one is a lot less of a focus on combat. Battles don't get started in town areas, and with the city of Paititi being easily the most content-dense area in the series, this means there's a stretch of time where you don't see any combat, assuming you go after even a little bit of optional content. It's a shame, too, because this is definitely the deepest the combat, weapons, and stealth have ever been. The amount of tools at your disposal is great, but there's just simply not enough action scenarios where these skills are put to the test.

I remember before this game came out, this was one of those that I would just roll my eyes at when it would take up valuable E3 time or whatever gaming event was happening - it always seemed to be there. "Who cares?" I would always say. Well, apparently I should have cared. This was a great experience.