13-03-20, 13:06 | #1 | ||
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 12,070
|
Was AOD a failure and who is responsible?
A direct continuation of conversation started in "TR3 graphics are ahead of its times" thread:
https://www.tombraiderforums.com/sho...223821&page=10 ^ if you need to learn more about what was already said I propose starting with THIS post and then up until #126 which is mine. Anyway, to continue: Quote:
Quote:
Besides we should remember that Core guys were actually switching TR between camps. When TR1-2 team was fed up they gave it to TR3-5 guys. Then they gave it to that new (inexperienced) team that messed up the first year of the production. Bad management was the most often brought up topic in all articles, as well as Jeremy's total absence during TRAOD production and him convincing TR guys to create new titles. I don't want to put all blame on poor Jeremy of course, he had an awful job to do as well and it backfired on him anyway; but we have to remember that in the end Core agreed to do all the TR games, they weren't slaves or anything. Also just to remind you, you shouldn't put all blame on Eidos either. They were going out of money by the time TR4/5 was released and they desperately needed a new hit. TRAOD was originally going to be released in 2002, but Eidos ultimately decided to postpone so Core had more time to fix it. As far as I remember TRAOD was postponed at least three times and they still couldn't manage to fix it entirely. You guys hate on Eidos but Eidos were basically dying back then. And they kinda did in the end, since SCi bought them. And also one thing to reconsider all the hate speech around Eidos: after TRAOD was released and Eidos was still running as a standalone corporation, they allowed Core to create new games anyway. It wasn't until SCi bought them and started restructurisation when all Core's work was halted and they were sold. I believe if Eidos wasn't bought by SCi Core Design would have had a chance. SCi had plans to cut GB£14 million from annual costs though and since Core had no strong IP by then they were just sold. Last edited by Caesum; 13-03-20 at 13:13. |
||
13-03-20, 13:44 | #2 |
Member
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 6,529
|
It was a mess on all sides IMO though Eidos were ultimately the one that sent it out to die, then they repeated it with Underworld/Anniversary if I remember.
Commandos 3 that same year (Also published by Eidos) also reeks of being heavily rushed. (Arguably worse than AOD even with it's bugs.) |
13-03-20, 14:24 | #3 | |
Member
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1,976
|
Quote:
I played Commandos 3 once and it gave me far more enjoyment compare to AOD. |
|
13-03-20, 14:46 | #4 | |||
Member
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,440
|
Quote:
Quote:
And even though being annual wasn't entirely Eidos fault, I still think the state of final release AoD was 99% Eidos fault. Quote:
Last edited by paulojr_mam; 13-03-20 at 14:48. |
|||
13-03-20, 15:56 | #5 |
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 17,962
|
Commercially? No.
Critically? Yes. What it was trying to do? Hell yes! |
13-03-20, 17:10 | #6 | |
Member
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 6,529
|
Quote:
In addition to being super-short compared to every other Commandos game. (Roughly the same as Chronicles now that I think about it, just using the really hard difficulty to hide it.) I enjoy C3 but it is a buggy unfinished, rushed mess and I actually have to load my saves occasionally because my entire supply of healing items (that I can't get more of as they're rare) just vanished from a single injury, I do not have to do that with AOD and The Mag Vega/Viper SMGs do not randomly fail to hit someone at all in AOD. Last edited by Samz; 13-03-20 at 17:11. |
|
14-03-20, 12:09 | #7 | |||
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 12,070
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Semantics matter. Otherwise we can just as well switch Eidos with Core and it wouldn't make a difference, because it's just a "mere change of name". |
|||
14-03-20, 12:31 | #8 | |||
Member
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,440
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But in the case of Eidos and SCi, I don't think much has changed, correct me if I'm wrong. I suppose the management might have been changed, but the personnel was probably all the same people, after all it's the same company, just under a different ownership. |
|||
14-03-20, 14:35 | #9 | ||
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 12,070
|
Quote:
Quote:
According to the interviews just 6 more months would have helped a lot. Judging by the differences between the reviewer's version (+manual) and the finished product a lot of cool features were cut out near the end of production. A lot has changed. For Eidos Core was still a company with many successful titles. Even after TRAOD Eidos allowed them to continue making new games etc. When SCi took over all that was important was cutting costs, and since Core had no strong IP at that time (and CrystalD were doing just fine with their new TR game and cool older games) they were just sold. If Eidos managed to stay afloat for longer I honestly believe Core would have had time to stand up again. Last edited by Caesum; 14-03-20 at 14:37. |
||
14-03-20, 17:00 | #10 | |
Member
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,440
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|