• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

OldBoyGamer

Member
Dec 11, 2017
525
I like Angel of Darkness and y'all can @ me. Is it good? No. Is it surprisingly imaginative and creative at a time when the series needed it? Yes. Who crippled it? Not Core. It was Eidos. And it was distinctly different than other AAA games on the market at the time.

Mind you, it's not good and I don't want to play it today. Mostly because the beginning SUX so FUXing much. But I won't stand for this!

The claim by the guys at Core was that the publishing guys at Eidos forced them to release the game before it was ready. It's not clear as to why it wasn't ready - I assume it was a mix of Eidos demanding features and mechanics and Core not developing within their means (this was a HUGE issue in those days for most AAA games - still is today for some, but back in the PS2 era, almost all AAA games promised more than the teams could deliver which is what resulted in such shameful crunch times for these big games).

Having said that, AoD was a travesty of a game. I've no idea how you managed to play it. It was shocking. It wasn't that it was a bad game, it was just that Lara controlled SO badly that the game was almost impossible to play.
 

TheWordyGuy

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,623
Wait a minute... a reviewer scored this game a 4 out of 10... and then said this could be fixed with DLC?

That's literally the silliest statement I've read from a reviewer all year.
 

Y2Kev

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,834
The claim by the guys at Core was that the publishing guys at Eidos forced them to release the game before it was ready. It's not clear as to why it wasn't ready - I assume it was a mix of Eidos demanding features and mechanics and Core not developing within their means (this was a HUGE issue in those days for most AAA games - still is today for some, but back in the PS2 era, almost all AAA games promised more than the teams could deliver which is what resulted in such shameful crunch times for these big games).

Having said that, AoD was a travesty of a game. I've no idea how you managed to play it. It was shocking. It wasn't that it was a bad game, it was just that Lara controlled SO badly that the game was almost impossible to play.
I think she controlled relatively similarly to how she controlled in the other games. I'd say the biggest change—and it's meaningful— is that the jump has a less palpable delay to it. It's much harder to gauge. Feels more like input lag.

Let me know when we get a AAA game that lets you walk around seedy slums and talk to French whores!
 
Oct 28, 2017
16,773
I like Angel of Darkness and y'all can @ me. Is it good? No. Is it surprisingly imaginative and creative at a time when the series needed it? Yes. Who crippled it? Not Core. It was Eidos. And it was distinctly different than other AAA games on the market at the time.

Mind you, it's not good and I don't want to play it today. Mostly because the beginning SUX so FUXing much. But I won't stand for this!
Angel of Darkness is NOT my least favourite Tomb Raider game, and I'd take it over Legend any day of the week. Legend was the game where Tomb Raider turned in to something else entirely, almost to the point it wasn't even the same genre. AOD has some good ideas and the story is straight up the best in the series.

Some AOD fans are weird though. I was around on Tombraiderforums back in the day and there was a Kurtis Trent appreciation thread that had lots of shirtless Kurtis pics.
 

TheWordyGuy

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,623
The nuance being that the DLC actually comes with a lot of content like new tombs and so.

A game that scores a 4 out of 10 is a game that has fundamental problems.

If such a game could actually be fixed by DLC then the damned DLC shouldn't be DLC to begin with - it should be a free patch.

The absurdity here is obvious. "Thanks for buying our 4 out of 10 game, and for supporting us! Please know that we can make our game an 8 out of 10 for you... but you're going to have to pay for it by purchasing DLC. Again, thanks for supporting us!"

Any reviewer who supports such an anti-consumer policy clearly does not have their readership's interest in mind.
 

Y2Kev

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,834
Angel of Darkness is NOT my least favourite Tomb Raider game, and I'd take it over Legend any day of the week. Legend was the game where Tomb Raider turned in to something else entirely, almost to the point it wasn't even the same genre. AOD has some good ideas and the story is straight up the best in the series.

Some AOD fans are weird though. I was around on Tombraiderforums back in the day and there was a Kurtis Trent appreciation thread that had lots of shirtless Kurtis pics.
Lol kurtis fans.
 

KingSnake

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,968
A game that scores a 4 out of 10 is a game that has fundamental problems.

If such a game could actually be fixed by DLC then the damned DLC shouldn't be DLC to begin with - it should be a free patch.

The absurdity here is obvious. "Thanks for buying our 4 out of 10 game, and for supporting us! Please know that we can make our game an 8 out of 10 for you... but you're going to have to pay for it by purchasing DLC. Again, thanks for supporting us!"

Any reviewer who supports such an anti-consumer policy clearly does not have their readership's interest in mind.

She obviously doesn't support the policy since she scored it 4/10, thus she's rating the main game for what it is. Supporting the policy would have been to give it a better rating because of the DLC: Stating that the DLC is actually good it's not such a bad thing. You practically make an informed decision, nobody is forcing you to buy the game nor the DLC.

The obvious logic here is that the whole content would have been in the main game the total experience might have been better.
 
Oct 28, 2017
925
I hope that now that Freedom = $1.05 and NeoRaider have clarified their comments, we can all just move on and get back to arguing about why the PS4 version got scored lower. Wait, no, best not do that either.

Has any 'third game in a franchise from a different studio' ever been the best received? I mean, Eidos Montreal have a bit of history here with Human Revolution (which not as well received as the original Deus Ex was really bloody good). They always feel a bit weird to me. Like, a cover version. Taking an engine and tried and tested formula and riffing on it a bit.
Before the game release I was wondering if Eidos Montreal could implement the same level of procedural animation as Crystal Dynamics did with Rise. I thought that was really well done in Rise, and added a lot to the ambience of the game. Theyve been working with CD on this so hopefully some their animation work has carried over.
 

Equanimity

Member
Oct 27, 2017
14,990
London

ghostcrew

The Shrouded Ghost
Administrator
Oct 27, 2017
30,334
I like Angel of Darkness and y'all can @ me. Is it good? No. Is it surprisingly imaginative and creative at a time when the series needed it? Yes. Who crippled it? Not Core. It was Eidos. And it was distinctly different than other AAA games on the market at the time.

Mind you, it's not good and I don't want to play it today. Mostly because the beginning SUX so FUXing much. But I won't stand for this!

From my completely anecdotal experience, I think Core were probably tired of Tomb Raider by the time Angel of Darkness came round despite it being their absolute bread and butter.

I visited Core Design when they were developing Angel and got to excitedly play an early - and super crashy - demo. I remember the first thing I asked someone when I got in. "So how's the new game?!". The reply was simply "*shrug* it's a Tomb Raider game".

The nonchalent attitude was so surprising to me that it's stuck with me ever since. I don't think they meant it totally brutally. It was one person who worked on one specific part of the game (although, to be fair, they were in a super important senior role). They were clearly tired. But still, 'it's a Tomb Raider game' says a lot.

Had an amazing day anyway. The offices were amazing. RIP Core.
 

plagiarize

Eating crackers
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,489
Cape Cod, MA
From my completely anecdotal experience, I think Core were probably tired of Tomb Raider by the time Angel of Darkness came round despite it being their absolute bread and butter.

I visited Core Design when they were developing Angel and got to excitedly play an early - and super crashy - demo. I remember the first thing I asked someone when I got in. "So how's the new game?!". The reply was simply "*shrug* it's a Tomb Raider game".

The nonchalent attitude was so surprising to me that it's stuck with me ever since. I don't think they meant it totally brutally. It was one person who worked on one specific part of the game (although, to be fair, they were in a super important senior role). They were clearly tired. But still, 'it's a Tomb Raider game' says a lot.

Had an amazing day anyway. The offices were amazing. RIP Core.
Growing up in Derby, it was hard not to be proud of Core and to a lesser degree Eurocom. 2010 was a sad year for game developers in Derby.

There's still a bit of pride in seeing Lara continue to thrive.
 

ghostcrew

The Shrouded Ghost
Administrator
Oct 27, 2017
30,334
Growing up in Derby, it was hard not to be proud of Core and to a lesser degree Eurocom. 2010 was a sad year for game developers in Derby.

There's still a bit of pride in seeing Lara continue to thrive.

Derby crew represent *internet high five*

You know they named a new street here Lara Croft Way?
 

plagiarize

Eating crackers
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,489
Cape Cod, MA
Derby crew represent *internet high five*

You know they named a new street here Lara Croft Way?
Yup. Followed that whole thing with some interest, and paid it a visit when I was visiting England next.

I'm really struggling to convince myself not to buy this at launch, even though my PC upgrade is only a couple of weeks away, and even though I haven't finished Spider-Man.
 

60fps

Banned
Dec 18, 2017
3,492
Guys, are all alternative costumes available through buying stuff (Special Edition content etc)? Or are there unlockable costumes by playing the game as well?

I hate the modern trend of making costumes available simply by buying them, which is exactly what Tomb Raider 2013 and Rise of did. In the past costumes always added a great, if not the best, amount of replayability, like in old Resident Evil games.
 

psychedelic

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,317
NeoRaider, you have my sympathies, internet can be harsh sometimes. As far as that 4/10 review goes, that's just.. ridiculous? I mean, I get it, it's the reviewer's opinion, but I'm sure if the game was that terrible and that unplayable, we would have been more aware of it by now. I'm willing to accept that it's an average or a good game over that, because more reviewers are leaning towards that idea.

Maybe a 4 in the reviewer's scale isn't meant to be perceived as a broken game, but she's talking about issues like broken mechanics and jumps not registering properly, that's kinda concerning. Maybe the poor person received a faulty copy or sth.
 

Badcoo

Member
May 9, 2018
1,605
Is there a PC performance thread? Looking to see if I should get this on my X1X or for my gtx 1080.
 

texhnolyze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,143
Indonesia
Guys, are all alternative costumes available through buying stuff (Special Edition content etc)? Or are there unlockable costumes by playing the game as well?

I hate the modern trend of making costumes available simply by buying them, which is exactly what Tomb Raider 2013 and Rise of did. In the past costumes always added a great, if not the best, amount of replayability, like in old Resident Evil games.
I'm pretty sure that in the previous games you can unlock costumes throughout the game. Yes, there are DLC costumes as well but they're only a few compared to what you can get by playing.
 

TheWordyGuy

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,623
She obviously doesn't support the policy since she scored it 4/10, thus she's rating the main game for what it is. Supporting the policy would have been to give it a better rating because of the DLC: Stating that the DLC is actually good it's not such a bad thing. You practically make an informed decision, nobody is forcing you to buy the game nor the DLC.

The obvious logic here is that the whole content would have been in the main game the total experience might have been better.

You don't seem to understand how absurd this reviewer's logic is.

This reviewer scored the game a 4 out of 10, and then stated that the game could be fixed with DLC.

Okay - just stop right there. That's insanity. If a game that scores a 4 out of 10 can be fixed, then the developer has no right whatsoever to make its most loyal customers pay for the fix via DLC. That 'fix' absolutely has to be free, as a patch.

Obviously games can be improved with DLC - but we're talking about a 4 out of 10 here. A fundamentally broken game. And we're supposed to pony up even more money for the fix? Screw that.

What's particularly egregious about all of this is that none of this is even real - this is all being 'made up' by the reviewer. No other reviewer has scored this game a 4 out of 10. No other reviewer has said that Eidos will be charging its customers to fix its fundamentally broken game.

I get it that that everyone is entitled to their opinion... but I'm also entitled to mine... and in my opinion this reviewer is off in la la land.
 

JustinH

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,379
Is there a PC performance thread? Looking to see if I should get this on my X1X or for my gtx 1080.
I feel like this may or may not affect your choice.
Iu6fnll.jpg

But yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing PC performance too. Even before the RTX update is added, I'd think it would be interesting to see because Nixxes is doing the PC port. They seem to have been the ones with the best versions of the games (I might be mis-remembering this, but the Xbox One version didn't get its input lag fixed until they fixed it for the Xbox One X enhancement patch, right?).
 

kpaadet

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
1,741
You don't seem to understand how absurd this reviewer's logic is.

This reviewer scored the game a 4 out of 10, and then stated that the game could be fixed with DLC.

Okay - just stop right there. That's insanity. If a game that scores a 4 out of 10 can be fixed, then the developer has no right whatsoever to make its most loyal customers pay for the fix via DLC. That 'fix' absolutely has to be free, as a patch.

Obviously games can be improved with DLC - but we're talking about a 4 out of 10 here. A fundamentally broken game. And we're supposed to pony up even more money for the fix? Screw that.

What's particularly egregious about all of this is that none of this is even real - this is all being 'made up' by the reviewer. No other reviewer has scored this game a 4 out of 10. No other reviewer has said that Eidos will be charging its customers to fix its fundamentally broken game.

I get it that that everyone is entitled to their opinion... but I'm also entitled to mine... and in my opinion this reviewer is off in la la land.
The problem is you think a 4/10 means its broken, just because a lot is used to the 6-10 scale where 6 means its a bad game. A 4/10 just means its below average, or that is what it should mean if we want to use the entire scale.
 

Wowfunhappy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,102
An interesting and alarming review from John Walker at RPS. While he does point out the apparently bonkers story and the attempts to dress down the white savior trope while still employing it, he also seems to have had a decent time, if it were not for gamebreaking issues on PC during his playthrough. Maybe the Day 1 patch will remedy the problem, but I'd hold off from any preorders and wait to see how PC performance is just in case.

Okay, after reading that I am officially quite concerned about the PC version of this game.

How the heck could there be this many bugs, in the PC port only? Nixxes has such a good track record, I'm pretty astonished.
 
Last edited:

TheWordyGuy

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,623
The problem is you think a 4/10 means its broken, just because a lot is used to the 6-10 scale where 6 means its a bad game. A 4/10 just means its below average, or that is what it should mean if we want to use the entire scale.

The reviewer in question clearly doesn't use the entire scale though, so this opinion is obviously moot.

The real problem here is not with me - but with the reviewer, who clearly believes that games with scores below 50% (an obvious fail) can be fixed, but that we gamers can pay for this fix via DLC.

$60 is a lot of money to spend on a game. I start from the position that most Reset-Era members work damned hard for their money and don't want to 'purchase DLC' to fix a game that was awarded a score of 4 out of 10.

What kind of a reviewer has such little regard for their own readership that they would even dare to suggest such a thing? It's appalling, and quite frankly offensive, to suggest that we who work so hard for our money should now have to pay to have our games fixed.

This is seriously the first time I have EVER seen a reviewer even suggest that a broken game can be fixed via paid DLC.
 

Lord Error

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,353
I like Angel of Darkness and y'all can @ me. Is it good? No. Is it surprisingly imaginative and creative at a time when the series needed it? Yes. Who crippled it? Not Core. It was Eidos. And it was distinctly different than other AAA games on the market at the time.

Mind you, it's not good and I don't want to play it today. Mostly because the beginning SUX so FUXing much. But I won't stand for this!
Yep, I'm 100% on the same page with you. I really liked AOD. Heck, I liked the beginning as well. I nicknamed that game Shenmue Rider. There are disctinct similarities between the two games in terms of how the closeup detailed scenes are, how you explore sometimes mundane stuff, talk to people even when there's no story progression triggered by it etc. I'm a fan of that kind of stuff, and can look over a lot, if the game can get that right.
 

JustinH

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,379
Is there a PC performance thread? Looking to see if I should get this on my X1X or for my gtx 1080.
Ah, oh yeah... in PCGamer's review (link here), they have this in a sidebar where they detail the settings and hardware on which they ran the game.

They say that on a system with an i5 and a 1080 they could play at 1440 maxed out with drops from 60, "but never frequent enough to make me lower any settings."
 

kpaadet

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
1,741
The reviewer in question clearly doesn't use the entire scale though, so this opinion is obviously moot.

The real problem here is not with me - but with the reviewer, who clearly believes that games with scores below 50% (an obvious fail) can be fixed, but that we gamers can pay for this fix via DLC.

$60 is a lot of money to spend on a game. I start from the position that most Reset-Era members work damned hard for their money and don't want to 'purchase DLC' to fix a game that was awarded a score of 4 out of 10.

What kind of a reviewer has such little regard for their own readership that they would even dare to suggest such a thing? It's appalling, and quite frankly offensive, to suggest that we who work so hard for our money should now have to pay to have our games fixed.

This is seriously the first time I have EVER seen a reviewer even suggest that a broken game can be fixed via paid DLC.
Sounds like your familiar with her reviews if you know how she uses the scale. Either way don't bother responding to me, not gonna bother discussing reviews with someone that believe 4/10 means broken. God knows what 1-3 then means.
 

More_Badass

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,621
You don't seem to understand how absurd this reviewer's logic is.

This reviewer scored the game a 4 out of 10, and then stated that the game could be fixed with DLC.

Okay - just stop right there. That's insanity. If a game that scores a 4 out of 10 can be fixed, then the developer has no right whatsoever to make its most loyal customers pay for the fix via DLC. That 'fix' absolutely has to be free, as a patch.

Obviously games can be improved with DLC - but we're talking about a 4 out of 10 here. A fundamentally broken game. And we're supposed to pony up even more money for the fix? Screw that.

What's particularly egregious about all of this is that none of this is even real - this is all being 'made up' by the reviewer. No other reviewer has scored this game a 4 out of 10. No other reviewer has said that Eidos will be charging its customers to fix its fundamentally broken game.

I get it that that everyone is entitled to their opinion... but I'm also entitled to mine... and in my opinion this reviewer is off in la la land.
You're acting as if 1) the score means "broken" and not "I really disliked it" which it does because she said it does, 2) saying that DLC could "fix" the game is literally saying that DLC is like a paid patch or something, not merely the suggestion that DLC might add more content or plot that she would enjoy, and 3) that because other people liked the game more than her than it's all "being made up" by the reviewer

She never said that "Eidos will be charging its customers to fix its fundamentally broken game". She said that the DLC could make the game better for her because the optional tombs and crypts were the best parts of the game to her and the DLC adds more of those

You're making insane leaps in logic not supported by anything but your own perspective on things, rather than anything she wrote or what reviews are
 

daniel77733

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,639
Signed up for the site and read the review. She never seems to be into the game from the start as if something else set her off and she took it out on the game instead. She complains about the story which while not great isn't anywhere as bad as what she's hinting at and she doesn't like the Lara character despite the fact that she's been the same for all three games. She says that the upgrading is useless based on the structure of the game and that there's only a handful of combat encounters but most of them rely heavily on stealth context based melee kills. She then says that when you string up an enemy in a tree or use fire arrows, it's few and far between until you get to do that again. She says that the platforming and climbing is haphazard with Lara often failing to register ledges or jumps for no apparent reason with the grapple rope only initializing 50% of the time often leading to death. She says the game is a bloated, frustrating, irrational experience that feels like three parts of a game haphazardly stacked together.

---

She never mentioned anything about the DLC in her review. She does like the tombs and crypts but comes across as maybe not finishing the game since she never clearly says that she did and seems to be turned off by the lack of combat encounters where as the first two games had a high combat encounter. I wouldn't be surprised if the exploration problems is on her by possibly having the difficulty on hard even though she never mentions this which is weird because it's of the game's excellent additions before you even start the game.

It's obvious that she didn't like or enjoy the game but to me, it seems weird because she gave Rise a 9/10 and Shadow doubles down on what Rise was but with less focus on combat and more focus on exploration and puzzles. Don't know why she would mention the DLC fixing the game in a tweet when the DLC has nothing to do with the main story of the base game. The DLC is cosmetic items, more tombs and minor side quests that have nothing to do with the main story so I don't know why she said that in a tweet as it makes no sense whatsoever especially when im guessing the DLC is on the disc and just needs to be unlocked.

Regardless, her review does seem out of place with the others I have read or watched. She simply didn't like or enjoy the game but despite her complaints, I don't see those complaints being worth a 4/10. To me, a 4/10 is below average but these are scores for games like Immortal Unchained and just games you know aren't that good. I would like to know if she finished the game's story, what her completion percentage and hours played was as well as what difficulty she was playing on for all three aspects of the game.

Either way, I have my copy already pre-ordered and will pick it up on Friday. Expectation wise, im expecting an easy 9/10 for me personally because I loved ROTTR and Shadow seems to double down on everything but with less combat encounters.
 

OldBoyGamer

Member
Dec 11, 2017
525
She complains about the story which while not great isn't anywhere as bad as what she's hinting at and she doesn't like the Lara character despite the fact that she's been the same for all three games.

I don't know enough about how the story is relaid to the player but this is subjective - if she hates the story, she hates the story. If you think it's not that bad, you think it's not that bad. Either way it's irrelevant. She really didn't like it. It's her review.

Regarding Lara. Again I obviously haven't played it yet, but everything I've seen and read indicates that this isn't the same Lara as in either of the previous 2 games. This Lara seems lost with her morals and ethics. She's a cold killer. She's angry, frustrated. She's a destroyer. That's not the Lara of the previous 2 games. Not saying that's better or worse, just saying your comment on that particular point doesn't seem right at this time.
 

ArmGunar

PlayStatistician
Member
Oct 30, 2017
6,527
Does anyone know why Metacritic only has about 40 reviews for each PS4/One versions while Spider-Man got 70+ reviews in 1 hour or so ?

Guardian/Digital Spy are counted for PS4 version, not for One
Dualshockers/VideoGamer are counted for One version, not for PS4

Fortunately, OC has 92 critics
 

Switch

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,021
Wales
I really don't get what is Eurogamer issue with the current Tomb Raider games. Not only is this game brilliant it's also a technical showcase for the One X and HDR.
 

Shark

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,126
Raleigh, NC
I really don't get what is Eurogamer issue with the current Tomb Raider games. Not only is this game brilliant it's also a technical showcase for the One X and HDR.
It helps if you read the review. The author spells it out pretty clearly.
We're promised a darker take on both Lara's personality and her treasure-hunting impulses, but it never pays off and things quickly take on the same narrative beats we've seen before in the previous two games. This interpretation of Lara already felt far too one-note, and it turns out taking an already stony-faced character and then loading them with the guilt of causing the death of hundreds of people does not a dynamic, relatable or likeable heroine make. It only serves to render Lara more morose, which would be fine if the game ever found an effective channel for her grief other than the two extremes of murderous rampage and awkward sulk.
All this is good if predictable stuff if you're just here for the tombs, which makes it more of a shame that those hoping for a stirring final act to close out the trilogy will likely be disappointed. The script is littered with trite cliches, clanking dialogue and predictable plot points we've not only seen multiple times before, but multiple times before in this very series. More than one climactic moment is completely derailed or undermined by bizarre staging, and try as it might with soft-focus flashbacks and a couple of rictus-like grins, Shadow just cannot make this Lara Croft likeable or relatable.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider's big problem, much like the two previous games, is that there's far too much darkness and not enough levity to relieve the tension and allow us to actually enjoy these characters or get to know them beyond their current predicament. What food does Lara like? What music does she listen to? How much could she absolutely clean up if she decided to chill out, open an Instagram account and be #blessed? I'm only half joking with the last one, but you get my point. Lara is athletic, she's smart, and she's unwaveringly heroic, but if she acted more like an actual human being and less like the Terminator with a Rosetta Stone plugin, the series would be much better for it.
tl;dr: It's more of the same, Lara is a one-note character that isn't that likable or relatable and the story didn't do much for the author for various reasons.
 

ElephantShell

10,000,000
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,909
Does anyone know why Metacritic only has about 40 reviews for each PS4/One versions while Spider-Man got 70+ reviews in 1 hour or so ?

Guardian/Digital Spy are counted for PS4 version, not for One
Dualshockers/VideoGamer are counted for One version, not for PS4

Fortunately, OC has 92 critics

It's always been dumb that Meta separates different platforms when the game is essentially the same on both. I really like that Opencritic just combines them.

Opencritic has become my go-to recently. I hardly ever look at Metacritic anymore.