30 Years of Crystal Dynamics Documentary

[Vaskito]

Originally Posted by VictorXD

^ Still doesn't mean remakes were unheard of back then. They were rare, but they still existed. And even if it wasn't so, the concept of a remake is something that has existed in movies for decades already anyway.


What exactly am I mixing up though? I said that you have previously mentioned you don't see the big difference between TRA and DOX, which you have agreed to in your previous post. It is something you've mentioned in other discussions in replies to other people.

I just said that you expressed a certain view before, which you agreed to and said again in the current discussion.


I didn't even know you've said that. Not surprising considering your views of TRA, but it has nothing to do with what I said in this thread. This whole discussion about what CD messed up when remaking TR1, not about your personal opinion on the PS1 era classics.

I'm not talking about your TRA-Nico mantra. That's a topic we won't agree on, and on that topic I've simply stated that I personally enjoy what was made with TRA, and I think you're putting Nico's on a pedestal whem IMO you're over glamourizing it - but that's it.

And my original question to you was if you had missed context on what they've said, and why content was cut, because you were implying on your post they've decided to cut content just because, without any specific reason.


What I'm asking elaboration, now for the third post, is what you've stated here:

Originally Posted by VictorXD

Well yeah, I'm sorry but you have a rather superficial view of what made TR good back in the 90's,

As for:

Originally Posted by VictorXD

And highlighted part of your post is extremely condescending tbh. I've been nothing but clear with what I'm saying here, it really doesn't make sense to say I'm pulling something out of thin air for the sake of argument when I took the time to explain everything I meant.

See above please. And it's rather funny how you're now twisting into me being 'condescending' when you were the one who pointed yourself out for being so, and tried to justify it down. Anyways, the only answer I'm really looking for is what I've asked three times now, cuz that's got me interested on what you meant with that. I'm not interested in ad-nauseam on how you hate TRA, and how good Nico's project is, and whatnot. I'm not here to discuss your tastes either. I asked if you took an interview out of context, and you bamboozled me with a wall of text, including that specific portion quoted above which I want elaborated upon

[Gian Carlo]

Originally Posted by VictorXD

^ Still doesn't mean remakes were unheard of back then. They were rare, but they still existed. And even if it wasn't so, the concept of a remake is something that has existed in movies for decades already anyway.

Never said it was unheard, but that it wasn't a thing. You said that there were plenty, when there were not.

There were a select few remakes to take notes from. So TRA coming out the way it did with a lower budget is very understandable for a game in 2007.

[jeffrey van oort]

Originally Posted by Vaskito

. I get TRA was not what YOU wanted to be, but you also don't hold the voice for the whole fandom. I don't expect a 1:1 when games are being remade, and no game is flawless. Every game has filler stuff which can easily be removed in remakes.

To understand what is missing is like having to know all of their secrets. With a 1:1 remake no information is lost. Adding to this additional information is what is really interesting to a fan.

Sometimes remakes call themselves a remake when they don't cover the information from the original. To a builder it was vital to create all of these rooms. To a remaker, these rooms just look pretty and they somehow think they can rewrite the original story without punishment. The ones that played the original, and know what is missing will comment on the missing, possibly affecting the popularity of the remake, and that could affect the original.

Their craftmanship is appreciated, but not the lack of the missing information. And they will research what went missing, as they've earnt that.

[Xilurm]

Well this is just sad. Especially after they actually tried to put the game in a good light in the documentary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCt4Sr6AaO8

[Vaskito]

Originally Posted by Xilurm

Well this is just sad. Especially after they actually tried to put the game in a good light in the documentary.

That video is so senseless and he's completely clueless about the purpose of the character. The game is indeed lacking new content, and that's what should've been pointed out.

The character reusing assets is intentional though, as he's supposed to be a semi-clone character of Captain America/Black Widow, like Jane was almost a complete clone of Thor. And it was surprisingly well received by the actual playerbase.

Anyways, my hope for the game has mostly died down after the dev in charge was gloating about the "lots of new content" they've added to the game this year, and started enumerating a 90% clone character, a single new mission, and rework made on already existing content as if it was worth any mentioning.

[jeffrey van oort]

Maybe this character became like a wearable outfit, rather than a character of his own because of the recycling of animations.

Really

-------> $ <-------

Try again.

In the early stages of development, too much is shown before the actual release, and because this is seen they probably kind of went with these animations. It is a presentation flaw that would make it all the way to the release. And yes.
The reason.

-------> $ <-------

Not time, which is unlimited. Disney.

[jajay119]

I wonder how continuing to support Avengers will impact them now they've moved development to UE5. They're obviously committed to the game for a while, with it being live service, but do you think the transition will impact the amount of content the game will get now? I wonder if the update team are performing dual roles? I imagine constantly swapping between UE5 and the Foundation engine would be a nuicance.

[Vaskito]

Originally Posted by jajay119

I wonder how continuing to support Avengers will impact them now they've moved development to UE5. They're obviously committed to the game for a while, with it being live service, but do you think the transition will impact the amount of content the game will get now? I wonder if the update team are performing dual roles? I imagine constantly swapping between UE5 and the Foundation engine would be a nuicance.

They have separate teams. They were hiring for Tomb Raider, and for Avengers separately and specifically - but my guess is there's a pretty small team working on the Avengers, considering basically no new content has come out in the last 12 months other than clone characters, and like 1 or two new missions

[jajay119]

It's a shame - I think the Live Service model really had a detrimental impact on the game. I can completely understand why a large portion of the team working on it at the time were reticent to move the game over. I think it would have been a great single player experience.

[Vaskito]

Originally Posted by jajay119

It's a shame - I think the Live Service model really had a detrimental impact on the game. I can completely understand why a large portion of the team working on it at the time were reticent to move the game over. I think it would have been a great single player experience.

And apparently, it was started being developed as a single player experience and then morphed into GaaS