Anyway, I don't see the fuss, the reboot wasn't that good, and the franchise itself has been on life support for years.
You think so? I still hold the clunky Tomb Raider 1-4 in high regard as far as games and atmosphere go, but anything post PlayStation generation was quite terrible. I felt the reboot was the first game in years that actually offered a very solid experience, solid gameplay mechanics that seemed on par with what NaughtyDog delievered with Uncharted.
My only flaw with the Tomb Raider reboot was perhaps part of the story, the fact that Lara as an inexperienced little girl moaned a bit too much, and that IMO - it falls behind what the original game delievered in terms of exploring, adventuring and "tomb raiding". With the reboot, to me, the shooting was a bit too much (even if the gameplay mechanics in itself were very good) - at times it felt too much survival game. I think I would have prefered a game that offered way more exploring and less shooting. Less is more in my book. Which is exactly why the original game was so great - battling wilde animals to apes, gorillas to some very small numbers of enemy soldiers is what made it such an atmospheric experience.
I definately prefer A to B to C ... to Z traversing, then being stuck on a singular island where you might traverse different areas twice.
All in all, as a game and from a technical perspective though, it was IMO probably the best Tomb Raider game in a long time. I'm not even going to compare it to the earlier Crystal Dynamic attempts which were just so bad - both from a story and from a gameplay perspective. This Tomb Raider was actually a very polished game (up on the same level as Uncharted) which IMO is a high feat in itself - even if you didn't like the story or the focus on shooting and survival.