PDA

View Full Version : What would AOD have been like had it not been rushed?



SonicDeeHedgehog
15th Jun 2009, 23:57
Let's say Core had another year to work on AOD? Heck...the rate they were going they probably would have needed another 5 years. Let's pretend that they had all the time they needed to complete Angel of Darkness the way they wanted it. How do you think it would have been different or better? And how do you think it still would have been the same?

One of my biggest gripes about the game was Lara's speed. She's so freaking slow. And you don't get her sprint until the end of the game. That wasn't Eidos' fault. That was Core's choice to make her slow all the way up till the end. She should have had the sprint at the start of the game.

I also hated the leveling up her strength crap. She never had to do that in any other Tomb Raider. Why make her weaker in this one? It didn't add to gameplay. It only added frustration. And I loved how whatshisface said "My Lara will be different from your Lara. My Lara will be able to go places your Lara can't." That's not true. Because every level up is mandatory in order to progress in the game. Again, this was a stupid idea.

It was also stupid to make you choose what Lara will say since it doesn't do anything except in one situation.

I think all these stupid things would have still been in the game had Core finished it the way they wanted.

A completed version of AOD, I think, would have had less glitches, hopefully less slow down, and maybe another level. And maybe even dual pistols. But I think the controls still would have been crap.

Basically, I don't think there was anything stopping AOD from being the worst in the series. Eidos rushing it out the door was only done to put it out of its misery quickly.

josh1122
16th Jun 2009, 00:07
ooo...this thread set itself up

''What would AOD have been like had it not been rushed?''

Playable


ouch sorry,had to do it lol

Pulse
16th Jun 2009, 00:21
people need something to blame, but it'd never be Core's fault. Oh no it must be Eidos, but Core had long enough. What was it 3 years? A lot of games made in that time are great, but AOD, in my opinion, would have been a failure even if it was less glitchy or more complete or whatever.

Underworld was rushed and even that was better than AOD.

Wlado.Srbija
16th Jun 2009, 00:29
Let's say Core had another year to work on AOD? Heck...the rate they were going they probably would have needed another 5 years. Let's pretend that they had all the time they needed to complete Angel of Darkness the way they wanted it. How do you think it would have been different or better? And how do you think it still would have been the same?

One of my biggest gripes about the game was Lara's speed. She's so freaking slow. And you don't get her sprint until the end of the game. That wasn't Eidos' fault. That was Core's choice to make her slow all the way up till the end. She should have had the sprint at the start of the game.

I also hated the leveling up her strength crap. She never had to do that in any other Tomb Raider. Why make her weaker in this one? It didn't add to gameplay. It only added frustration. And I loved how whatshisface said "My Lara will be different from your Lara. My Lara will be able to go places your Lara can't." That's not true. Because every level up is mandatory in order to progress in the game. Again, this was a stupid idea.

It was also stupid to make you choose what Lara will say since it doesn't do anything except in one situation.

I think all these stupid things would have still been in the game had Core finished it the way they wanted.

A completed version of AOD, I think, would have had less glitches, hopefully less slow down, and maybe another level. And maybe even dual pistols. But I think the controls still would have been crap.

Basically, I don't think there was anything stopping AOD from being the worst in the series. Eidos rushing it out the door was only done to put it out of its misery quickly.
Actually, I kinda liked her strengthening. I mean, since she was buried alive the last time (TR5 was just a recapitulation), she probably took a rest from tombs and so... She was out of shape. But it was frustrating indeed.

That's not correct, you can sprint as soon as you get the first "my legs feel stronger now".

That's not correct either. Almost every conversation can have an effect to the story, and. there are many situations where you must choose your words carefully in order to get information. The part where you choose what Lara says is definitely one of good things, and one of things I like about the game.

Eliminating dual pistols in the start was a good logical step (as I remember, you can get duals later in the game). I saw someone complaining how she doesn't have dual pistols at the start! Well, if that somebody (really can't remember who) has paid the attention to the story, and not just skipping every cutscene in the game, he would understand that Lara went to a friendly visit, and not on some tomb raiding, and that her backpack was taken from her while she was escaping.

The main problem are controls. I revamped them, and the game is easier to play, but Josh is absolutely correct (I love his sarcasm, lol :lol:)

Error96_
16th Jun 2009, 01:02
I love AOD as it is even though the controls are awful. It would have been a better game if Core had more time particually with the controls. The fundamentals of the game in story, music, atmosphere and gameplay are really quite strong. Maybe many more fans would have given the game a chance and got to really like it. Fixing controls would put AOD at or very near my fav TR game ever.

I don't know if longer spend on AOD would have saved TR in Core hands. In many ways there was more potential in AOD than shown in the recent CD games and it would have been great to see how Core followed on from AOD. Won't happen now so I won't speculate too much on it..

Treeble
16th Jun 2009, 01:48
"Sometimes it's hard to avoid letting people down.
Whether it's someone you made a promise to,
or someone you love,
or even letting down someone you barely knew at all.
In the end, it's the 'what ifs' that hurt the most.
Like, what if things had gone a little differently?"

(nothing strictly on topic too add, just thought this quote fits here)

rg_001100
16th Jun 2009, 05:43
One of my biggest gripes about the game was Lara's speed. She's so freaking slow. And you don't get her sprint until the end of the game. That wasn't Eidos' fault. That was Core's choice to make her slow all the way up till the end. She should have had the sprint at the start of the game.
I don't think it's that Lara is slow as much as Lara's movements are sluggish and delayed. When Lara is sprinting (which isn't quite so far near the end, but isn't exactly near the start either) she can run fairly fast.


I also hated the leveling up her strength crap. She never had to do that in any other Tomb Raider. Why make her weaker in this one? It didn't add to gameplay. It only added frustration...
Ah, but it does 'add' to the gameplay. Not necessarily positively, but it's another level of key/lock type gameplay that Core used so well in previous TRs. Essentially you cannot get passed an area if you have not 'upgraded'.. similar concept to not being able to get passed an area if you haven't opened the door.
I think the other TR games are more interesting, though, as they do have Lara's abilities fully "unlocked" at the start. In TR1-5, it means the player can get to know the limits of what Lara is able to achieve, and then perform much more complex moves at the end of the game (see TR2's China levels near the end..).


It was also stupid to make you choose what Lara will say since it doesn't do anything except in one situation.
I think all these stupid things would have still been in the game had Core finished it the way they wanted.
They probably wouldn't have been so half-baked, either. I wonder what the effect of these would have been. I don't think it would have been 'Classic TR' as it should have been, but I think it probably would have been more fun to play.


Let's say Core had another year to work on AOD? Heck...the rate they were going they probably would have needed another 5 years. Let's pretend that they had all the time they needed to complete Angel of Darkness the way they wanted it. How do you think it would have been different or better? And how do you think it still would have been the same?

''What would AOD have been like had it not been rushed?''
Playable
But probably not amazing.

Max 28
16th Jun 2009, 08:26
I think AoD had a a basis of good new ideas, but sadly wern't developped far enough and would have done well to go under a critical eye. But I still don't think more time would improve AoD's flaws.

The strength upgrades didn't come out well for me. It was frustrating to have to adjust to Lara's new strength. You would miss jumps and stuff because you weren't used to the new distance you could jump. I think it would have worked better if you learn't new skills, like the chimney jump. So this way you learn straight-off Lara's limits but keep the puzzle of having to first learn the new move to progress.

I think the choosing what Lara said in the end had too little effect on how the story progressed, like most games that have used this concept. I have never seen work well really. It just makes the game look like it doesn't have enough player control and has to resort to that pathetic method which ended up as very little ammount of choice that in a lot of places were the same things re-worded or if did have an effect on the story wasn't worth the effort.

Oh BTW, when do you get the dual pistols? I never got them and that was a big mistake. They are a part of Lara, her signature weapon. And who's great idea was it to make renders depicting Lara with them when you can't get them just adding to your frustration.

So no I don't think more time would have improved Aod's flaws. but it was still a good game that I very much enjoyed to play. :) :p

GeorgeMaciver
16th Jun 2009, 08:50
Perhaps playable . . . I mean, all we want is to be able to play Tomb Raider games right? It's not a lot to ask from a game we pay to buy is it? But were Core to blame or the Board at Eidos? That's what I'm unsure about . . .

:)

rg_001100
16th Jun 2009, 09:18
Oh BTW, when do you get the dual pistols? I never got them and that was a big mistake. They are a part of Lara, her signature weapon. And who's great idea was it to make renders depicting Lara with them when you can't get them just adding to your frustration.

The dual pistols can't be obtained without cheating for them. You can use the AoD SCU on the computer to get them, though.

Max 28
16th Jun 2009, 09:21
Oh yeah, I played PS2 and I didn't use cheats. Cheating to get them isn't passable either.

Wlado.Srbija
16th Jun 2009, 12:03
Man, I'm totally sure I have had the duals when I first played the game (I didn't have SCU then.....)
*checks Stella's site* What? I must been having amnesia or something. But, duals can be cheated in PS2 too. :)
But anyway....

milens
16th Jun 2009, 15:03
people need something to blame, but it'd never be Core's fault. Oh no it must be Eidos, but Core had long enough. What was it 3 years? A lot of games made in that time are great, but AOD, in my opinion, would have been a failure even if it was less glitchy or more complete or whatever.

Underworld was rushed and even that was better than AOD.

i m completely agree with you

Max 28
17th Jun 2009, 07:45
Man, I'm totally sure I have had the duals when I first played the game (I didn't have SCU then.....)
*checks Stella's site* What? I must been having amnesia or something. But, duals can be cheated in PS2 too. :)
But anyway....

But anyway what?!

John Carter
17th Jun 2009, 10:56
It would still have been a rather peculiar game that yeilded none of the old Core classic magic while still having an oddly deserted Paris and Prague instead of wilderness wonderland tombs. And it would still have had Kurtis Truck, just more of him. Ugh. On the plus side, the art direction of this game was a big step up in many ways.