www.tombraiderforums.com

Go Back   www.tombraiderforums.com > Tomb Raider Series > The Angel of Darkness

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 21-10-19, 00:29   #1571
TRExpertgamer
Explorer
 
TRExpertgamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Home
Posts: 684
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dg1995 View Post
Really it's disappointing that that fight was disappointing. Eckhardt is one of the best and most interesting villain in the history of TR.

BTW I found a bug today. Whenever Lara sprints, she will un-equip weapons. But if you do a 180 degree turn before sprinting she will hold the weapon in her right hand during the sprint.
I understand that. Anyway, I wish I could even have the balls to tell Core Design Hey!! Eidos Interactive is rushing to get that game published right out of the door!! You have to do something to prevent of Eidos being so impatient so you'll have more than enough time to develop this game properly. But we can't turn the time back unfortunately. Eidos was a stupid dramatic cheapskate to get that game rushed like that way way back. lol.
__________________
Through the spirit of the keeper behold the truth.
TRExpertgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-19, 02:55   #1572
Boobandie
Professor
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,807
Default

Core did have enough time to make Angel of Darkness, they started work on Next Generation Tomb Raider (as we knew it at the time) in 1999. Eidos even gave them an extension from the original 2002 launch to 2003.

The project was grossly mismanaged, their other PS2 titles before AOD came out fine. Though we may be able to blame Eidos for pushing TR5 onto the veterans causing the root problems, they weren't the only ones at fault.

- Core's TR staff went from half a dozen to nearly 40 people, they had no idea how to handle a project that large.

- The first year of development was basically wasted due to the new team working on the wrong PS2 Dev Kit.

- The new team appear to have spent their time recreating the classic engine on the PS2 (maps all loaded at once, recreating all TR4 moves with many left unused), this would cause major issues with the scope of the game. It needed to have a streaming engine according to interviews like Legend onwards (load areas as you play), but being locked into this decision was the reason for so many loading screens and an ultimately smaller game from inefficient space management. How could they have room for four locations when the hundreds of sound files associated with Lara alone are copied into every single level? There isn't enough disk space.

- Sony forced them to change the controls from D-Pad to Analogue stick in the last year, screwing up the controls (Though Core not using the Analogue Sticks for movement from the outset is a their own fault, most late PS1 games used them and they were standard for PS2 games)

More time would really only let them fix up the controls and glitches, resulting in basically the game we can play right now thanks to fanmade patches. (Though I assume they would have fixed the 'combine' feature which is completely missing from the games code)

Last edited by Boobandie; 21-10-19 at 02:58.
Boobandie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-19, 03:07   #1573
LaraCablara
Professor
 
LaraCablara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,119
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boobandie View Post
Core did have enough time to make Angel of Darkness, they started work on Next Generation Tomb Raider (as we knew it at the time) in 1999. Eidos even gave them an extension from the original 2002 launch to 2003.

The project was grossly mismanaged, their other PS2 titles before AOD came out fine. Though we may be able to blame Eidos for pushing TR5 onto the veterans causing the root problems, they weren't the only ones at fault.

- Core's TR staff went from half a dozen to nearly 40 people, they had no idea how to handle a project that large.

- The first year of development was basically wasted due to the new team working on the wrong PS2 Dev Kit.

- The new team appear to have spent their time recreating the classic engine on the PS2 (maps all loaded at once, recreating all TR4 moves with many left unused), this would cause major issues with the scope of the game. It needed to have a streaming engine according to interviews like Legend onwards (load areas as you play), but being locked into this decision was the reason for so many loading screens and an ultimately smaller game from inefficient space management. How could they have room for four locations when the hundreds of sound files associated with Lara alone are copied into every single level? There isn't enough disk space.

- Sony forced them to change the controls from D-Pad to Analogue stick in the last year, screwing up the controls (Though Core not using the Analogue Sticks for movement from the outset is a their own fault, most late PS1 games used them and they were standard for PS2 games)

More time would really only let them fix up the controls and glitches, resulting in basically the game we can play right now thanks to fanmade patches. (Though I assume they would have fixed the 'combine' feature which is completely missing from the games code)
Yeah I know we are in the minority, but I agree and think they could have come up with a decent game if they managed the project better.

Last edited by LaraCablara; 21-10-19 at 03:41.
LaraCablara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-19, 03:17   #1574
Boobandie
Professor
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,807
Default

If it were managed better from the start? Certainly, we might have even gotten all four locations. But by the time we got to 2002 those issues with the engine were locked in, they basically had to tidy everything up as well as they could so you wouldn't notice the cuts. AOD bit off more than it could chew, and no one was managing.

More time would result in a more polished game, but not a longer one or the AOD with all that cut content we crave.

Now what happened after AOD we can lay at Eidos's feet no problem, it was unproffessional to pit Core and Crystal against each other like that, to cancel TRAE when it was 60-80% finished, and basically destroy 'Core Design' as a company.
Boobandie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-19, 08:22   #1575
dg1995
Student
 
dg1995's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boobandie View Post

- Sony forced them to change the controls from D-Pad to Analogue stick in the last year, screwing up the controls (Though Core not using the Analogue Sticks for movement from the outset is a their own fault, most late PS1 games used them and they were standard for PS2 games)
Why Core removed the controls from D-Pad when they could basically just map the controls to analog alongside keeping the d-pad mapping?

Capcom's RE 4 had tank controls and you could play it either with D-pad or analog stick.
dg1995 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-19, 09:35   #1576
annacroft
Explorer
 
annacroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Cabot Cove
Posts: 581
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dg1995 View Post
Why Core removed the controls from D-Pad when they could basically just map the controls to analog alongside keeping the d-pad mapping?

Capcom's RE 4 had tank controls and you could play it either with D-pad or analog stick.
I think turns would need to be changed and a lot smoother with the analog stick. They didn't factor this in until they were told they needed to change the D-pad to the analog stick. Most likely in RE 4 development, they factored in the choice between D-pad and analog, to give players a choice. Last minute chopping and changing is what resulted in the control system we got. Although I don't think the controls are any where near as bad as it's infamously said to be
__________________
Proud DAS and TRS backer. Classic/LAU/Survivor fan.
annacroft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-19, 10:26   #1577
dg1995
Student
 
dg1995's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 153
Default

Yeah. The only part of the controls that were bad for me was side stepping during aiming on pc version.

But since they really didn't change the controls that much(Just changed movement from d-pad to analog), why they changed the tutorial level from the beta version ? The beta version tutorial was imo better since at least it had less ladders.
link

Last edited by dg1995; 21-10-19 at 10:49.
dg1995 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-19, 09:05   #1578
dg1995
Student
 
dg1995's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boobandie View Post
- The new team appear to have spent their time recreating the classic engine on the PS2 (maps all loaded at once, recreating all TR4 moves with many left unused), this would cause major issues with the scope of the game. It needed to have a streaming engine according to interviews like Legend onwards (load areas as you play), but being locked into this decision was the reason for so many loading screens and an ultimately smaller game from inefficient space management. How could they have room for four locations when the hundreds of sound files associated with Lara alone are copied into every single level? There isn't enough disk space.
Am I the only one that thinks non streaming engine was not a problem of this game?
If they used a streaming one, then we would get lots of empty hallways similar to Legend.(and I also think that the game loads faster with a non streaming engine.)

I don't think AOD would have 4 locations even if it didn't face any development problems. At most it would have a longer prague level with more npcs.(and maybe more rooms in paris&prague)

From what I know, every video game in concept is far bigger than the final product.I have seen a design document of Grim Fandango that in there you can see that that game was supposed to have more characters, more puzzles, another ending and more story compared to what it finally turned out.

I think Eidos is the main reason that this game failed since they also forced Core to add some features to the game like talking with npcs.(maybe they also forced them to add stealth and Resident Evil like sections which we know are the weakest sections of AOD.)
dg1995 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-19, 10:20   #1579
Samz
Relic Hunter
 
Samz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Helheim
Posts: 5,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dg1995 View Post
Am I the only one that thinks non streaming engine was not a problem of this game?
If they used a streaming one, then we would get lots of empty hallways similar to Legend.(and I also think that the game loads faster with a non streaming engine.)

I don't think AOD would have 4 locations even if it didn't face any development problems. At most it would have a longer prague level with more npcs.(and maybe more rooms in paris&prague)

From what I know, every video game in concept is far bigger than the final product.I have seen a design document of Grim Fandango that in there you can see that that game was supposed to have more characters, more puzzles, another ending and more story compared to what it finally turned out.

I think Eidos is the main reason that this game failed since they also forced Core to add some features to the game like talking with npcs.(maybe they also forced them to add stealth and Resident Evil like sections which we know are the weakest sections of AOD.)
I admittingly have no idea of the limiations of loading but I didn't mind the mini-loading screens in AOD? not sure if they massively restricted the textures and such in levels but give me over those Crawl spaces and forced walking from the Reboot any day.
__________________
"What does it mean to be a Tomb Raider?,It means to collect artifacts for sport"
Samz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 05:48.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.