Tomb Raider Forums  

Go Back   Tomb Raider Forums > Tomb Raider Series > Tomb Raider The Angel of Darkness

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 30-03-21, 16:44   #1
Jathom95
Member
 
Joined: Jul 2020
Posts: 1,534
Default Do you think, going by the ending, Core knew their time with TR was over?

This has been discussed many times by many different people over the years, but in various other threads all strung about. Since AOD is the end of the classic era, I wanted to know what everyone thought about it.

Personally, I've always thought - yes. I think Core had definitely planned at one point to expand the AOD storyline for sure, and I'm sure they wanted to. But I think development of the game itself and the resulting fallout, which towards the end they were probably anticipating, made them come to terms that at least AOD itself would probably never be finished or expanded, if not having TR outright stripped from their hands.

I mention the ending because it's the most significant to me. Had Core even remotely hinted at there being the possibility of future adventures, in-game that is, I could've chalked any other occurrence up to coincidence.

But the ending itself is too poignant honestly. Lara as we knew her walks off into the dark, never to be seen again. The musical theme playing then as well presents the idea that something has reached its closing point. Add to that that Kurtis' survival is only hinted at, not stated outright. Likely because they knew that the addition of his character was tainted from having to strip out most of his gameplay, which would probably make anyone hesitant to play as him again if he'd even appeared in any supposed future games or spin-offs. Even though they've stated over the years since that his survival would've depended on how popular or not he was with the fanbase, I think it's clear they considered his character, the execution at least, a failure. So we end the Core era as it began, with Lara herself.

What are everyone else's thoughts?

Last edited by Jathom95; 30-03-21 at 16:48.
Jathom95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-21, 19:20   #2
CircusBabysGal
Member
 
CircusBabysGal's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 469
Default

I'm unsure of the answer to this question, I do think Core was aware the game may not be critically as highly rated as the previous games but I don't think they were expecting the series to be taken off their hands, my sort of truth bullet (totally not a Danganronpa reference) is that on the back of the PS2 AoD Copies they have written themselves: ,,This is the first part in a Trilogy of games'' Which I don't think would have been necessary if they anticipated that the Game wasnt going to have a sequel due to its critics claim.

Last edited by CircusBabysGal; 30-03-21 at 19:21.
CircusBabysGal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-21, 22:24   #3
jackraider
Inactive
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,289
Default

Core Design was basically giving Tomb Raider away to Crystal Dynamics given that the developers channeled Legacy of Kain: Blood Omen throughout the development of Angel of Darkness. You think Eidos Interactive wasn't trying to take Tomb Raider away from Core Design prior to Angel of Darkness? Core Design was surviving off of Tomb Raider money. Herdy Gerdy and Project Eden didn't generate profits as hoped for Eidos Interactive. Core Design was overshadowed by Crystal Dynamics' highly acclaimed Soul Reaver series at the time. Core had no choice but to bring Tomb Raider into its darker iteration by meeting the standards of their competition. Plus, Jeremey-Heath Smith was willing to pull the plug. Most likely Smith owned shares in Eidos Interactive and made a fortune when he sold Tomb Raider out to Hollywood. At least he tried to steer Core Design in the direction Eidos Interactive wanted to take their franchise in. Eidos Interactive wanted to give it to Crystal Dynamics, but the Smith brothers milked it for one last shot. The Smith brothers knew. Why do you think Core Design employees were so disgruntled? They all knew what was going on.

Last edited by jackraider; 31-03-21 at 03:32.
jackraider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-21, 01:42   #4
techraider
Member
 
Joined: Mar 2021
Posts: 1
Default The only tombraider I have not finished.

I remember when I purchased my brand new ait aiw 9800 pro and this game came with it. I played about 10 minutes and never played it again. I really should play it just to complete them all but it is so not like any other tr game.
techraider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-21, 01:53   #5
jackraider
Inactive
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,289
Default

The Brother Obscura and Boaz boss battles are treacherous. With that said, Angel of Darkness was the first Tomb Raider I actually completed. The darker story and settings were interesting enough for me at the time. It's really the broken control scheme that makes the game more difficult than it really is. Plus, it was cool how Eidos Interactive and Core Design attempted at an edgier look for Lara Croft that tied in with Angelina Jolie's portrayal of her. Core Design even replicated the pistols used in the film.

Last edited by jackraider; 31-03-21 at 11:34.
jackraider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-21, 01:55   #6
Jathom95
Member
 
Joined: Jul 2020
Posts: 1,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackraider View Post
...Eidos Interactive wanted to give it to Crystal Dynamics, but the Smith brothers milked it for one last shot. The Smith brothers knew. Why do you think Core Design employees were so disgruntled? They all knew what was going on.
I think it's a bit of a mixed bag all the way around. In the Smiths' case, I'd say it was Jeremy who was more on the "finished" side of things than Adrian. People have run into him in the years since, and he still talks about Tomb Raider in a favorable light, something someone who'd moved on a long time ago likely wouldn't care to do or even remember vividly. Jeremy though, it was incredibly obvious even during the development of AOD that he knew more than most the extent of a disaster (to most people) it was going to be, so yes it's likely he fully intended to cash in his bets and run.

As for the rest of Core, it's tough to say how many behind the scenes feel. Some besides the Smiths have come our over the years and explained how they felt about the whole situation, and several haven't. I could never say for sure, but I'm sure what started as a true attempt to reinvent Tomb Raider from the same old formula, even if drawing inspiration heavily from elsewhere, turned into a nightmare as time went on. That amount of stress and having to strip your own project so heavily is going to weigh on many. I wouldn't be surprised if that for many of ex-Core employees, the name "Tomb Raider" leaves nothing but a bad memory.

I mean, it goes back to the thousands upon thousands of conversations about who was more to blame for Angel of Darkness' failure as a whole. I've heard every thought and decision on the matter, but I think it can be boiled down to just this:

For AOD itself, Core's mismanagement certainly played the biggest part of it. I preferred their games and style, and always will. But to say that Eidos was the cause of all of their development decisions is a bit shortsighted. They definitely had a hand in certain things, like making AOD a Tomb Raider game despite Core's opposition from wanting to focus on Lara herself. But the indecision, the separate teams having no interaction until it was too late, Core changing and adding things right up until the late stages of development instead of settling on ideas and sticking with it - that's all on them.

Eidos is guilty overall of having them reach the point of where TR was no longer a passion project, it was a chore. Core was mismanaged, but saying that they didn't even try is also not exactly correct. Core's biggest fault is that they often bit off more than they could chew, so to speak, and didn't really know how to manage larger production themes. TLR is widely considered one of the best classics alongside 1 and 2, and that was 4 games in. By Chronicles, which was still operating on the yearly format, there really should've been something done at this point to eliminate that release schedule before AOD even started development. How Eidos didn't realize that is beyond me. You make people work like slaves to churn out new games, in the same series, yearly - of course they're going to grow disdain for it.

But if nothing else, I do have sympathy and respect for the fact that AOD tried to do something different, even if it's gone into the annals of history to most other people as how not to develop a game.

Last edited by Jathom95; 04-04-21 at 14:46.
Jathom95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-21, 02:01   #7
jackraider
Inactive
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,289
Default

The biggest problem with Angel of Darkness is that Core Design had an identity crisis. They were really pressured by other studios. It's like they tried making it Blood Omen, Metal Gear Solid, Monkey's Island, Shenmue, and not Tomb Raider. Core Design was sick of Tomb Raider.

Last edited by jackraider; 31-03-21 at 11:34.
jackraider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-21, 22:52   #8
Profc
Member
 
Profc's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,344
Default

The ending of AOD was kind of left open to interpretation. I feel that they didn't use a cliffhanger ending on purpose. They tied up multiple plot points in an awkward way just to conclude everything. The information about the 3 Nephilim Sleepers in the game files was changed to 1 Sleeper.

As for the other stuff, I think that the fans kind of complain about every single thing about the game. Game clearly had many issues, but the stealth mechanics didn't really hurt the game that much. I enjoyed the Louvre section, and had fun with the game. Some of the graphical issues were super glaring and I really hated the boss fights, but the music and the story kept me playing.

According to some rumours, Core Design wanted to end the series with TR II and that's why the mafia were invading her manor at the end. I can't even remember which interviews this info was in though. Someone should create a large YouTube video about all this stuff
Profc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-21, 14:37   #9
Jathom95
Member
 
Joined: Jul 2020
Posts: 1,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Profc View Post
The ending of AOD was kind of left open to interpretation. I feel that they didn't use a cliffhanger ending on purpose. They tied up multiple plot points in an awkward way just to conclude everything. The information about the 3 Nephilim Sleepers in the game files was changed to 1 Sleeper.

...

According to some rumours, Core Design wanted to end the series with TR II and that's why the mafia were invading her manor at the end. I can't even remember which interviews this info was in though. Someone should create a large YouTube video about all this stuff
Yes, I suppose so. Though you make some very good points. After all, they did say later that despite appearing to be destroyed at the end of the game, Karel himself would have lived through the end of AOD and appeared in the supposed sequel(s) later.

There's a lot of background knowledge about what happened during those several years at Core that most people don't know about unless they go digging (ha). It's funny you bring up TR2. Did you know when TR3 started development, Core was already sick of TR from being yearly installments and the then-current team threatened to resign if they had to make another one? Core had to gather up a new team just to make the game. It's true, look up the credits list sometime and see how little of the people that worked with TR1 and TR2 were with 3, if any.

The most damning in AOD's case though, is knowing that despite Core's mismanagement, they had a deadline set for November 2003 for getting the game published that was negotiated with Eidos. Had Eidos let them stick to it, the game likely would've been finished. A true case of what might've been for sure.

Last edited by Jathom95; 04-04-21 at 15:06.
Jathom95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-21, 15:02   #10
HarleyCroft
Member
 
HarleyCroft's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,360
Default

I'd say it depends on when the FMV was made, really



It definitely has a sad tinge to it Core lost their baby because they tried to do too many new things but also had to stick to the status quo somehow. What a mess. I wish it was the first Lara Croft game instead of the 6th Tomb Raider
HarleyCroft 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 08:02.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Tomb Raider Forums is not owned or operated by CDE Entertainment Ltd.
Lara Croft and Tomb Raider are trademarks of CDE Entertainment Ltd.