www.tombraiderforums.com  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 15-12-19, 20:57   #41
TRExpertgamer
Explorer
 
TRExpertgamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Home
Posts: 919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dg1995 View Post
Yeah, the main mistake both of them did was that they knew that the project isn't going smoothly and yet they decided to advertise it as the best game of generation.(Maybe they became too arrogant to realize of the disaster that was coming their way.)

They should have worked on AOD in secret without any advertising And should have cancelled it if they saw that it isn't going well.(or reveal it once they were sure that they could deliver the project.)
Yes I understand like they should of implicated to them when they were planning to work on developing this game.
__________________
We all create destiny. Not just you!
TRExpertgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-19, 04:27   #42
michaeldt
Tomb Raider
 
michaeldt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia, WA
Posts: 16,445
Default

I find it a bit childish to solely blame one party for what happened. There is no black and white here, only shades of grey .

Eidos:

What they did: Set a deadline for Core on Tomb Raider The Next Generation, but also wanted one more PS1 Tomb Raider Game in the meantime.

Why they did it: The company was near bankruptcy, and Tomb Raider was their most lucrative franchise. Understandable that they needed another PS1 game to stay afloat, possibly to gain more funds to throw at Core for the production of AOD.

What could have been done: Tomb Raider Chronicles should have been outsourced. Eidos had their own development team for the Tomb Raider Gold expansions- this could have been their time to shine and create a full game- not without the supervision of Core Design, however. If this were done, AOD could have had a better, more organised management from early on.

Core:

What they did: Split into two teams, experienced people working on TRC and newbies working on AOD.

Why they did: This decision was probably based around efficiency, perhaps Core were overly trusting of their new employees, but they probably also felt that leaving TRC to the veterans would have the project go faster- and thus those people be able to spend more time on AOD.

What could have been done: Majority of TRC should have been the new employees from Core, working under the supervision of TR veterans- giving the new employees a taste of how TR is designed and developed, getting their feet wet before delving into AOD.

The control scheme of AOD is another grey area. Core were obviously comfortable with developing games that used the 'D-Pad' for main control, and during the main development cycle of AOD had no reason to believe that they should change- it was just something that was a given for them. But Sony were also right in creating their new rule that all PS2 games use the analog stick as that was the direction they felt gaming was going.

Well, if AOD weren't delayed so much due to mismanagement from EVERY party, they actually could have avoided Sony's 'no D-Pad' rule that came into effect in 2002/3 .
__________________
"I keep touching things that i shouldn't, I can't help it" - atlanta73, 2014
michaeldt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-19, 07:56   #43
dg1995
Explorer
 
dg1995's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 602
Default

Another mistake of both parties was this that they allowed AOD to become too over ambitious.
-Next gen engine
-Stealth
-Second playable character with different gameplay.
-Hand to hand combat.
-City areas and npcs.
-Shops.
-The first story focused TR game.
-Improved platforming and combat.
-Ability to make dual pistols with different pistols.
-Stamina bar for climbing sections.
In no way this project could succeed imo.(They should have removed half of these ideas)

AOD is similar to Resident Evil 6 in this regard that it bacame too big that developers couldn't deliver a polished product.

These are what RE 6 tried to add to RE 5 formula but ended up with an unpolished gameplay.
-7 main characters, 4 campaigns.
-Multiplayer modes.
-Vehicle sections.
-Set pieces.(It's the only RE game with them)
-Zombie enemies alongside Gennados enemies.
-A nemesis type boss for 1 campaign.
-Stealth.
-Hand to hand combat alongside having dodge moves.
-Double times longer than RE 5.
-Swimming sections.

tl;dr , Core Design and Eidos messed this game up during planning/gameplay design phase.
In no way the game could deliver the hype.(At best it would be recieved as well as RE 6)

Last edited by dg1995; 16-12-19 at 11:38.
dg1995 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-19, 14:01   #44
paulojr_mam
Archaeologist
 
paulojr_mam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2,114
Default

Yes, I can't disagree that putting the veterans in Chronicles instead of in AoD was a mistake from Core. A tiny one.
__________________
#BringClassicLaraCroftBack - a Twitter campaign.
paulojr_mam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-19, 07:49   #45
Nerdy
Historian
 
Nerdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 450
Default

Isnt it unfair to fire core design for this mistake?
Nerdy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-19, 21:32   #46
Kidd Bowyer
Hobbyist
 
Kidd Bowyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 92
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerdy View Post
Isnt it unfair to fire core design for this mistake?

Yep, just like it was unfair that Team Silent was fired/disbanded, or why various Legacy of Kain projects got cancelled...the games industry can be absolutely vicious sometimes, especially when it comes to these larger publishers. (Remember when CD/Squeenix said that TR2013 selling 3.4 million was "disappointing"?)
Kidd Bowyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-19, 22:11   #47
CheshireBitch
Archaeologist
 
CheshireBitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerdy View Post
Isnt it unfair to fire core design for this mistake?
Well, they released two games that were badly received by the press in 4 years and they sold really less than the first 4 games that were released in the same amount of time.

Not saying it's fair, but money-wise I understand why Eidos gave the franchise to another developper at the time. Especially since Core wanted to continue the AOD story with the same engine, it would have been a marketing disaster. Nobody would have bought the game, having it looking like AOD...

What saved TR7 is that it looked nothing like AOD and had a new developper name on it. Same game with AOD Lara and Core name on it wouldn't have made it for the GP imo.
CheshireBitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-19, 23:20   #48
TRExpertgamer
Explorer
 
TRExpertgamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Home
Posts: 919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerdy View Post
Isnt it unfair to fire core design for this mistake?
Yes. You're absolutely right about that. Because Eidos have made the mistake themselves by insisting to rush that game right out of the door like that for no stupid reason.
TRExpertgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-19, 06:30   #49
dg1995
Explorer
 
dg1995's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidd Bowyer View Post
Yep, just like it was unfair that Team Silent was fired/disbanded, or why various Legacy of Kain projects got cancelled...the games industry can be absolutely vicious sometimes, especially when it comes to these larger publishers. (Remember when CD/Squeenix said that TR2013 selling 3.4 million was "disappointing"?)
It's unfair to compare Core Design to team silent.
Team Silent just made 1 successful game which was Silent Hill 1.(which sold 2 million copies)

After that they made SH 2-4 which each one sold less compared to previous one.(SH 2 sold 1 million copies, 3 sold less than 2 and then 4 sold less than 3.)

On the otherhand Core's TR 1-4 were some of the most successful games of PS1. And even AOD sold 2 million copies.
dg1995 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-19, 11:40   #50
Caesum
Tomb Raider
 
Caesum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Poland, Warsaw Gender: Male
Posts: 11,638
Default

To be honest I don't think TRAOD was overly ambitious. I mean, yes, they started grand with 4 main locations, but if you read Murti's documents it's pretty obvious they went on a cutting rampage pretty early on. Both Turkey and Germany were removed already during initial level outline planning.

While the articles promised new cool stuff, like the game being released in chapters, having multiple playable characters or overly complex upgrades system, the post-release interviews mentioned that a lot of that was never meant to be in the game and it was only mentioned by Jeremy Heath-Smith or PR so the game seemed more fancy.

I'd say the idea itself for the game was not too ambitious, it was perfectly possible to make it. There are PS2 games which are far more complex than what TRAOD wanted to be.

I think that the real reason why TRAOD failed was not the amount of content they planned, but the technology and team. There were two things during early engine planning that messed up the rest of development. Firstly, they overestimated the power of the console and secondly, they decided not to use streaming engine. This forced them to cut big levels into smaller pieces and remove some more cool content (like the knight statue jump) otherwise they'd run out of memory.

Then, there was that big, inexperienced team consisting of new members who never worked on an AAA title. According to the interviews the team would split into smaller groups that worked on their own stuff without communicating with other team members. This resulted in things falling apart or being left partially done (or never even started) for a long time. Some people would come to work only to find out they have nothing to do. The project management was messed up and Jeremy would only occasionally visit the team to scream at them and then run away to do nothing again.

Last edited by Caesum; 24-12-19 at 11:42.
Caesum is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 17:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.