PDA

View Full Version : Why the TR series almost ceased.



Mr.Croft
29th Oct 2008, 04:34
---Information in this thread contains words from the creators themselves, in which the Lara series has endeavored.---

Tomb Raider, a 300 Million Dollar+ Franchise, one of the most popular and demanded games on the marketing business, had once almost ceased believe it or not. First of all, Eidos made it firm to the creators of Tomb Raider that they would not allow any violent imagery of extreme gore, therefore when you play Tomb Raider, you don't see blood spray everywhere when she is injured, or a bone pop out here and there. Sure there was a little blood graphics in Tomb raider PS1 Series, but nothing extreme.

Anywhoo, let us discuss about TR AOD. (Short for : Tomb Raider Angel Of Darkness)
Many new players in the gaming world had given TR AOD negative reviews..Why? Well, if you haven't followed through with the Tomb Raider series since the first and decided to play AOD for your first TR game ever, you'll easily be persuaded to never buy another game involving Lara Croft and her adventures. From playing AOD myself, I was completely unaware that Lara's adventures would take place inside a city..Hello? It's called Tomb raider? What the hell was Eidos thinking signing over like that!?

AOD of darkness had tainted Tomb Raider's appearance, causing less and less people to ever consider telling a friend about it. I don't know a whole lot, my memory is still vivid on the whole "Tomb raider signing over to a different company." But one thing I do know is, we Tomb Raider fans know for a fact that we will never influence our gaming friends to purchase AOD -ever-. That is one reason why TR AOD sold such mere copies, due to the reviews it recieved. A Tomb Raider belongs in a Tomb, not on the streets. (Certain exceptions apply =P) Oh and not to mention, the traps and puzzles were insanely notched up, to the point where everyone had to go online and look up cheats just to get a jist of the storyline, which in my opinion, was rather displeasing.

Once AOD had failed to meet it's potential, TR was given back to Eidos, in which Eric L. and his elite crew of game designers were given a tough yet rewarding challenge, how to revive the TR series back to it's original state it was in before AOD. Hence came Tomb Raider Legend, a game so immerse with action and adventure, tombs and mobs, even traveling across the whole globe to different remote locations! THAT my friends, is a Tomb Raider. The reward, Lara was revived alas! What if Lara was to be ceased? All because of one Tomb Raider collection - a rotten egg of the coop. Can you imagine the tension that the Designers of TR endured when they realized that AOD could of been their downfall to something they strived to perfect for almost a decade? All because of a sign over, the stress and money-wise problems..It's all to hectic people! So you'd best thank the Tomb Raider Legend case that is sitting next to your game console, for it has saved us gamers from complete insanity. Gaming without Tomb Raider? You've got to be kidding me!

-Cody Hathaway

PS: Please correct me if I am wrong on any inaccurate data I have discussed when typing out this thread, it is much appreciated. I tend to babble and sometimes make A LOT of false statements, and there is nothing wrong with a simple correction. Even debate with me if you'd like, your shared time with me is well appreciated.:o

Side note: Thank you for corrections, it's always welcome and -well- appreciated. Yes, I had a biased attitude, when I compared Legend to AOD, some words I chose in my statements may seem like slandered opinion to some, but truths to others!

rg_001100 has also pointed out : Eidos are the publishers of the TR series. I'm pretty sure TR didn't leave their hands... although they did change developers from Core Design (TR1-6) to Crystal Dynamics (TR:L, TR:A, TR:U...).
which I wish to include!

Alyss
29th Oct 2008, 04:44
Wow, that was a great read! Thanks for this. I'm so happy for Legend right now. :D

Bampire
29th Oct 2008, 04:48
Not much to say but I do agree, and it makes complete sense. TR:L have saved the TR franchise. Let alone Legend was a new engine.

(What's funny, is that the TR:L case is next to my Ps2 :lol: )

Alyss
29th Oct 2008, 04:49
(What's funny, is that the TR:L case is next to my Ps2 :lol: )

Funnily enough, my TRL case is ALSO beside my PS3. :D

josh1122
29th Oct 2008, 04:56
Funnily enough, my TRL case is ALSO beside my PS3. :D

Funnier enough,my TRL case is above my head(no literally it is because its on my shelf)


sorry i just had to join the ''funny'' phrase craze :lol:

rg_001100
29th Oct 2008, 04:56
Seems to be bias pro-TR:L, anti-TR:AoD...

Bampire
29th Oct 2008, 04:59
Seems to be bias pro-TR:L, anti-TR:AoD...


True, but it does hold a valid point.

josh1122
29th Oct 2008, 04:59
Seems to be bias pro-TR:L, anti-TR:AoD...

whether the article is Pro-TRL or not, It's true.

rg_001100
29th Oct 2008, 05:03
True, but it does hold a valid point.


whether the article is Pro-TRL or not, It's true.

In the sense that "TR:AoD killed off the franchise for a lot of people, and TR:L brought a lot of people back", sure. It painted AoD worse than it deserved, though. I think the given descriptions of TR:L and TR:AoD were superlative, not exactly as it is either way as stated. TR:AoD had a few redeeming features, and TR:L wasn't perfect.
Some of the other finer details were a bit off ("TR was given back to Eidos"...)

josh1122
29th Oct 2008, 05:07
In the sense that "TR:AoD killed off the franchise for a lot of people, and TR:L brought a lot of people back", sure. It painted AoD worse than it deserved, though. I think the given descriptions of TR:L and TR:AoD were superlative, not exactly as it is either way as stated. TR:AoD had a few redeeming features, and TR:L wasn't perfect.

no TRL was not perfect, there is no such thing as a perfect game.

But it was way ahead of AOD in terms of quality.

theres a reason why people say AOD is so bad, people aren't just saying stuff about to pick on it.

no, AOD wasn't the worst game ever made(Bulletwitch, im looking at you!), but It was by far the worst in the series and put Tomb Raider on its death bed.

Which is what I agree with this article on, AOD almost killed the franchise entirely then TRL was made and while it wasn't the best game ever,wasn't the best game in the series or anywhere near perfect, it actually brought interest to the franchise back to people.

Mr.Croft
29th Oct 2008, 05:08
Wow, that was a great read! Thanks for this. I'm so happy for Legend right now. :D

Thank you! I just always wanted to post a Thread, so I decided to discuss the possible cease of TR as my first thread for any people aware or unaware of what could of happened. You're comments are appreciated, especially any debates!
-Cody:D

Mr.Croft
29th Oct 2008, 05:10
Seems to be bias pro-TR:L, anti-TR:AoD...

Yes when I was writing it out, I noticed that I had a very biased attitude, I'm not going to even hide it..

It is -VERY- biased, pro and anti, I tend to do that when comparing things.

I'm glad someone has mentioned it, because like people say, nothing is perfect.

But I'm just so rejoyced that Legend saved TR from possible ceasage :D

and even though Legend compared to AOD, most people say that L blows AOD out of the water, which I also find true.
But then again, others said too that new features were introduced in AOD. Wasn't the whole slow motion shooting introduced from AOD? And Legend tweeked it a little after it was given back to Eidos? My memory could serve me wrong, but we cannot hide AOD from the community, we all make mistakes, and even some of those mistakes are good! And we learn from them ya know. :]

Bampire
29th Oct 2008, 05:12
In the sense that "TR:AoD killed off the franchise for a lot of people, and TR:L brought a lot of people back", sure. It painted AoD worse than it deserved, though. I think the given descriptions of TR:L and TR:AoD were superlative, not exactly as it is either way as stated. TR:AoD had a few redeeming features, and TR:L wasn't perfect.
Some of the other finer details were a bit off ("TR was given back to Eidos"...)


I wasn't looking at those minor details, in the article. I was looking more towards the point of how people generally thought of both games. I admit I never liked both from the start. I still dislike Legend more then AOD, but surprisingly I play Legend more then AOD.

The quote "TR was given back to Eidos" was a bit harsh. Though, I don't want to go into detail about it, since I'm sure others would. Like Josh has posted a few minutes ago.

rg_001100
29th Oct 2008, 05:20
But it was way ahead of AOD in terms of quality.

theres a reason why people say AOD is so bad, people aren't just saying stuff about to pick on it.

no, AOD wasn't the worst game ever made ... but It was by far the worst in the series and put Tomb Raider on its death bed.

Which is what I agree with this article on, AOD almost killed the franchise entirely then TRL was made and while it wasn't the best game ever,wasn't the best game in the series or anywhere near perfect, it actually brought interest to the franchise back to people.

I think TR:L matches TR:AoD in terms of TR-quality.
I can understand that complaints against TR:AoD are somewhat justified. (Some reviews/articles bash it just because it's "cool"). TR:AoD had poor gameplay. I don't really need to elaborate on that so much. But games need good gameplay, and AoD didn't have that... beyond the poor controls + other undesirable aspects of gameplay, it wasn't so bad for "Core Design" (Core)-TR fans (once they saw past the controls).
TR:L, in contrast, had great gameplay. Where AoD did it wrong, TR:L did it brilliantly. There were aspects to it that weren't so satisfying to Core-TR fans. It's common consensus that TR:L is the "easiest" TR game. (and shortest). There wasn't enough "raiding" gameplay in it to satisfy a lot of the Core-TR fans.
TR:L failed TR in the same way that TR:AoD failed games. TR:L just succeeded where it counted.

I would disagree that TR:AoD was the sole reason for the (temporary) demise of the TR series, although it did play a large part.

N.B. Eidos are the publishers of the TR series. I'm pretty sure TR didn't leave their hands... although they did change developers from Core Design (TR1-6) to Crystal Dynamics (TR:L, TR:A, TR:U...).

josh1122
29th Oct 2008, 05:24
I think TR:L matches TR:AoD in terms of TR-quality.
I can understand that complaints against TR:AoD are somewhat justified. (Some reviews/articles bash it just because it's "cool"). TR:AoD had poor gameplay. I don't really need to elaborate on that so much. But games need good gameplay, and AoD didn't have that... beyond the poor controls + other undesirable aspects of gameplay, it wasn't so bad for "Core Design" (Core)-TR fans (once they saw past the controls).
TR:L, in contrast, had great gameplay. Where AoD did it wrong, TR:L did it brilliantly. There were aspects to it that weren't so satisfying to Core-TR fans. It's common consensus that TR:L is the "easiest" TR game. (and shortest). There wasn't enough "raiding" gameplay in it to satisfy a lot of the Core-TR fans.
TR:L failed TR in the same way that TR:AoD failed games. TR:L just succeeded where it counted.

I would disagree that TR:AoD was the sole reason for the (temporary) demise of the TR series, although it did play a large part.

Yeah I think the main thing we should focus on, hey, were still getting Tomb Raider games and getting to go on some Tomb Raiding with good ol Lara still. Thats the most im thankful for :D

But CORE fans will never be satisfied with anything CD does, oh well their loss :lol:

As long as I'm happy at the end of the day with the product thats put out there, im good to go

Bampire
29th Oct 2008, 05:25
Let's all agree to disagree. Some of us loved AOD, and hated Legend. Some of us loved Legend and hated AOD. Then there's those who dislike both, and love both.

josh1122
29th Oct 2008, 05:27
Let's all agree to disagree. Some of us loved AOD, and hated Legend. Some of us loved Legend and hated AOD. Then there's those who dislike both, and love both.

Yeah as stated above as long as we all enjoy our own Tomb Raider experiences, then that justifies everything in my opinion :D

I'm with ya all the way with agree to disagree

Natla
29th Oct 2008, 06:34
Of course, it helps Legend and Crystal Dynamics if you go around saying again and again how bad AoD was :) For me AoD was the better game, but then what do I know?

rg_001100
29th Oct 2008, 06:37
Of course, it helps Legend and Crystal Dynamics if you go around saying again and again how bad AoD was :) ...

I think that's the case for game reviews, but I'd doubt Mr.Croft has the ulterior motive of trying to sell more TR games...

Natla
29th Oct 2008, 06:44
I didn't mean that :) It's just that if you paint AoD bad, then it helps to overlook the shortcomings of Legend ... I'm not for CD or Core - as far as I can see they are both Eidos.

Anyway hopefuly one day Natla Tech will get into games and buy the francise. Are you ready to play as me? :) Natla: the World Domination Sim.

josh1122
29th Oct 2008, 07:44
Of course, it helps Legend and Crystal Dynamics if you go around saying again and again how bad AoD was :) For me AoD was the better game, but then what do I know?

You know what you like, thats all :)

There is no wrong in your statement lol.

I,however prefer Legend over AOD :D

and no, i don't want Natla Tech to take over :mad2: :(

Bampire
29th Oct 2008, 07:48
I'm so up for Natla taking over.

Oh, and we lost the game. :rolleyes:

Natla
29th Oct 2008, 07:52
Aw. Surely a Management Sim where you start in Atlantis (storing up stuff for the future) and then get to run Natla Tech in the 20th Century would be a giggle, surely? Unlease centaurs in small town USA :)

josh1122
29th Oct 2008, 08:07
Aw. Surely a Management Sim where you start in Atlantis (storing up stuff for the future) and then get to run Natla Tech in the 20th Century would be a giggle, surely? Unlease centaurs in small town USA :)

Hmm. Actually sounds pretty interesting :lol:

Veppie
29th Oct 2008, 08:12
I thought the series had already died by the time "last revelations" came out. Thats why they killed Lara in the end. LR was such a succes that they decided to make chronicles. With chronicles came the level editor: this was really supposed to be the last TR.
Again...big succes, along came TRAOD and we've read what happened next.

Natla
29th Oct 2008, 08:13
Hmm. Actually sounds pretty interesting

Thanks :) Actually, not all my idea. Credit goes to the ghost writer writing my autobiography (and who is about to get a fireball for not finishing it yet.)

Tihocan
29th Oct 2008, 09:47
I can't entirely agree with you.

Tomb Raider was groundbreaking. It hooked in many differing market segments, and was genuinely a great release. TR2 added many new aspects of gameplay.

Tomb Raider 3 was described as a good game, but lacked any great innovations. Some described it as harder to play, due to the greatly complex graphic style - thus alienating some gamers. The falter began here.

The Last Revelation was a mixed result. It brought back some players that the original games enticed, but again - it was also taken as not entirely original.

Chronicles was received as an intermediate game keeping the string going until the next installment. Fun, but plagued with bugs and odd gameplay (and again un-originality).

Enter Angel of Darkness. You are correct in saying that this game was poor. But it wasn't the first dent in the armour. It just openly displayed the franchises desperate move for innovation, and priority of their tight schedule. I personally hated this game - I'm still yet to finish it.

Legend, Anniversary and (hopefully) Underworld are the saving grace for a series that was steadily declining in popularity against stiff competition.

Good post though, got me thinking :)

Natla
30th Oct 2008, 17:13
The Official Playstation Magazine score for Underworld is 8. If I searched the web correctly, that's the same score they gave Angel of Darkness in 2003.