Do you want a multiplayer option in thief 4?

jtr7 on 29/8/2009 at 01:57

Thanks!

Explanations like these really help with understanding.

It still doesn't address the desire for EM to take precious development time to build full-on multiplayer into Thief 4 proper, rather than as an optional expansion pack kind of thing, promised in the marketing to attract the interest.

Jarvis on 29/8/2009 at 20:36

Quote Posted by Queue

Why on earth would one want multi-player in a game of individualism and stealth--doesn't hearing the other person(s) you're playing with making farty noises and babbling inanely on the other end through the tinny speakers pull one of the immersive nature of playing Thief?

Mute the person making farting noises or babbling. Trying to sneak past living breathing people is immersive in a very different way than the singleplayer game. You'll find yourself clinging to your shadow, truly hoping and praying that they don't think to toss a flare your way, or bump into you in the dark inadvertently.

You'll be drawn into watching their every movement, carefully trying to calculate the best moment to move. You know you have to take it slow unless they hear your footsteps, but if they turn around at the wrong moment then you're busted. You'll have to truly understand the nature of your opponent, rather than the nature of his repetitive patrol path. You'll be trying to think like them, trying to stay one step ahead in a mental game of chess.

If that's not immersive, then I don't know what is.

Quote Posted by Taffer36

If thieves are quicker than guards, though, couldn't they just grab the trinket and outrun the guards?

Hell, I've never played Thievery. But I would assume that a great tactic would be to just rush into the building and run around, since you are quicker than the guards anyways. You could argue that guards could group together to corner you, but then you're taking up the attention of more than one guard. Mission accomplished right?

If the guards are quicker than the thieves, then this immediately kills the "tactic" of rushing. Other cool gameplay features might be necessary, though, such as being able to hand off "da loot" or perhaps being able to toss it a short distance to teammates so that proper coordination can still win out even if thieves are spotted.

Yes, some people did rush into the building and start nabbing loot on the fly. An even more popular tactic was to drink and invis potion, or blind the guards with a flashbomb and do the same thing. But then guards know this is a possibility. When they set out to guard a place, they factor it into their plans. Sometimes, they're even counting on a thief trying such tactics.

I've had guards wait until I run in, and while I was grabbing loot they tossed mines or caltrops in the doorway. That was my punishment for not being more careful.

I'm fine with thieves and guards being the same speed. Originally, that's how it was in Thievery. Eventually the thieves were given a slight speed bonus when they weren't holding a weapon. That's fine too.

But if the thieves are slower, trust me, the game *will* be stacked in favor of the guards. It's an unfortunate fact that guards will learn where all the hiding places are. They will check them. As a thief, you will be seen. So if you're slower than the guard, when you are inevitably seen you have only one choice left to you: try to fight. Everyone will try and fight, because the guard will always catch up if you run.

You need the escape option open to thieves. Even WITH the slight speed bonus of the thieves, it was *REALLY* hard to escape a good guard (bear in mind, in thievery all guards had a crossbow as well as a melee weapon, and they had "special" bolts suited to their roles just like the thieves had "special" arrows). I've been chased all over the map for minutes at a time because of the smallest noise I made at the wrong time, and the guards give a spirited chase.

Maybe that's part of your misconception. You've never played Thievery. In thief, running away was extremely easy. Even fighting was easy. Trust me, put a relentless and living mind behind that of your pursuer and the whole game changes. You really have to play it to understand what I mean.

Slow thieves is a bad idea. And as an aside, often those intense chases were incredibly fun. For both players.

Necros on 30/8/2009 at 08:55

Quote Posted by jtr7

Lay in the foundation so multiplayer can be modded in without too much work, but design the missions with only single-player in mind. It's not anti-multiplayer, it's anti-compromised single-player.

What he said. :thumb: I don't care about MP at all (there are only a few games that made me interested about their MP), but if the singleplayer won't be damaged in any way because of it, then I don't mind. But most of the time it does effect the SP's development, so either give the MP to an other studio or hire extra people to deal with it. Thief is about SP, get that part right, care about anything else later.

And forget about co-op! :tsktsk:

Malleus on 30/8/2009 at 13:31

Quote Posted by Necros

And forget about co-op! :tsktsk:

I'd rather have co-op than any kind of competitive MP.

Ostriig on 30/8/2009 at 13:31

Quote Posted by Jarvis

You'll be drawn into watching their every movement, carefully trying to calculate the best moment to move. You know you have to take it slow unless they hear your footsteps, but if they turn around at the wrong moment then you're busted. You'll have to truly understand the nature of your opponent, rather than the nature of his repetitive patrol path. You'll be trying to think like them, trying to stay one step ahead in a mental game of chess.

If that's not immersive, then I don't know what is.

It would also be very difficult and unlikely, what you describe. You won't get people "roleplaying" unaware guards, going about their nightly routine, you'll get fully prepared and OOC players compulsively running through every dark corner, swords a'swingin', playing "whack-a-thief". It will be like UT99 Assault with shitloads of Invisibility pick-ups lying around. In Thief SP, the AI is designed to mimic the concept of an unexpecting guard. In MP, players know you're coming.

Fun? Possibly. Immersive? Not a chance.

Jarvis on 30/8/2009 at 15:06

Quote Posted by Ostriig

Again, you're throwing speculation my way. I'm describing actual experiences. It's not difficult OR unlikely because it happened. A lot. This problem you perceive really wasn't a very big issue at all, and to judge the entire experience based on just that is frankly a bit ignorant. I wish you would give it a try before judging it with such finality.

Yes, guards know thieves are on their way. Yes they run through shadows looking for thieves (this is called shadow slashing).

But what you don't understand is human awareness, search patterns, and complacency. People toss flares and shadow slash in areas where they suspect a thief might be hiding. Yet there are areas where they assume it's safe.

For example:

Guards in thievery had traps. They had caltrops which did minor damage and slowed the thief, mines which did lots of damage, and whistlers that glowed and whistled when a thief was close by. Guards would often drop traps more as an indicator of whether a thief had been through.

After all, a thief can water arrow the whistlers, lockpick the mines to disable them, or moss arrow the caltrops. Sure that allowed them to bypass the traps, but it left a sign of their passing. Guards often put these traps in doorways where they were nearly impossible to bypass otherwise. Thus rendering the entire area "thief free".

-Well, a talented thief knew ways to get around this kind of stuff. He might disable the mine, but then put back exactly where he found it, making it look like he'd not been through (though the guard would know the ruse when it blew up on him if walked over it).

-Maybe the thief will carefully hop over the caltrops (difficult to do in a doorway, but often possible if you know the trick).

-Whistlers were trickier, since there was no real way to disable them discreetly and then reactivate them with out setting them off. But you could steal them and hide them elsewhere.

So anyway, if you can manage to slip by these types of perimeters with out leaving a sign of your passing, then guards are not very likely to use flares or shadow slash. This is only one such example. There are many cases in which you're safe from shadow slashing.

Again... allow me to emphasize that these are actual *experiences* that I've had. I played Thievery for several years. I know how people react to shadows and hidden thieves in a multiplayer environment. What you guys keep throwing at me is speculation.

So yes, you will get shadow slashed. But no, it does not ruin stealth, nor does it ruin immersion. You don't need guards "roleplaying" not being aware of thieves. Because sneaking past aware people is just as fun, and just as immersive. Sometimes more so.

P.S.

The psychological warfare described above is a real condition used by special forces or other sneaks in real life. I've trained this stuff at the Tracker School, and applied it all in real life many times. That's what makes multiplayer stealth games so unique and so engaging. Twitch skill will only get you so far. If you can't develop an understanding of human search patterns, then you won't get very far.

Ostriig on 30/8/2009 at 16:50

Quote Posted by Jarvis

Again, you're throwing speculation my way. I'm describing actual experiences.

No, I'm pretty sure this is the first time I'm throwing speculation your way. Which I admit - it is speculation, and since I had only read the part of your post that I was replying to, I had assumed your side of the argument was also speculation.

But I think we're bumping into a semantic barrier here. What you describe is an engrossing experience (fun, catchy, intense, whathaveyou), but it isn't what I identify as "immersive". To me, that means facilitating suspension of disbelief to the point I lose track of the fact that I'm playing a game, to the point I'm sunk into a believable model of a world. No matter how intense the experience you describe, seeing a guard randomly slash away at the darkness (which you identified as an actual play tactic) would not allow me to become "immersed" in the game world, simply because it is not something that I would realistically expect or accept from a real-world counterpart. It isn't the fact that it is not "realistic", but that it is not consistent with the game's own reality. Before you ask, yes, I don't think MP games can be immersive in the same way that SP ones can. Paradoxically, the manning of other game characters by real players instead of limited AI will typically result in ruining immersion, unless you're dealing with the hell of a good team of roleplayers.

Let me illustrate this a bit clearer - Bioshock. I'm slowly walking forward, Tommygun in hand, through the lush ruin of Rapture. Here and there puddles shimmer, and water trickles down expensive, intricate wallpaper. Over the running water and creaking hallways, I hear something, in the distance - Splicers, most likely - and I creep ever closer. The sounds get louder, clearer, muffled cries and the wavering steps of a human ruin to match its macabre tomb. And then... "WELCOME TO THE AMMO BANDITTO!" And it's all gone. A gratuitous gameplay element that is out of place in this game's setting, in its reality; a design decision that, as much as Levine has tried to justify, is simply bad and OTT. And as the ridiculous machine shouts its misfit greeting all I hear is "You're playing a videogame".

Quote:

It's not difficult OR unlikely because it happened.

And it comes down to this - bearing the above in mind, did you, when playing Thievery, feel that you were an actual character in a consistent world, as opposed to a player in a very intense game? Did you feel as "immersed" in the game's world as you did while playing SP Thief? Honest question, I'm not out to prove you wrong or anything.

Jarvis on 30/8/2009 at 23:03

Darn those semantics....

From the Merriam Webster online dictionary:

Immersion:

The act of immersing or the state of being immersed: as a : baptism by complete submersion of the person in water b : absorbing involvement <immersion in politics> c : instruction based on extensive exposure to surroundings or conditions that are native or pertinent to the object of study; especially : foreign language instruction in which only the language being taught is used.

If you follow that to the definition of "Immerse", it leads you to "Engross" and "Absorb". The general idea being "He was completely engrossed in his work". So your specific definition of immersion is a bit strained...

But fair enough. No, I did not feel transported to another fictional story or character in the way one does when reading a book. However, I did feel transported to another problem that demanded my engrossed (immersed) attention to solve. It was a "different world" in that nothing else mattered in those moments except avoiding the guards close on my heels.

As I said, I train stalking and stealth techniques regularly, and that's the root of my desire to play Thief. Thievery, or multiplayer Thief, reaches a head-space much closer to the reality of stealth than the singleplayer campaign. The tension is more real. The consequences of being caught are more visceral. Sure, you're still playing a PC game, but with in the boundaries of that game the experience is more vivid and real.

So in a way, I suppose we're looking at two sides of the same coin. You're speaking of immersion in as much of an escape from reality as possible. The immersion I speak of uses the reality inherent in the experience as it's strength.

Which is the better variety? I'd say neither, as I enjoy both. Either way, it's still "immersion". I would implore you to seek enjoyment in both, rather than condemn multiplayer Thief only in that it isn't *exactly* like singleplayer Thief.

jtr7 on 30/8/2009 at 23:05

Is that an up-to-date Webster's that incorporates industry lingo?

Jarvis on 30/8/2009 at 23:15

lol

I'm not sure. But I think it communicates the point well enough. Words are broad topics, and to chastise an object or subject based on a very specific and personal definition is a slippery slope. I'm glad Ostriig made himself more clear, because in his way he's right.

I just don't want to see multiplayer Thief condemned as "unimmersive" when that's not really true. Unnarrative might be a more effective term to describe what he means, I think.

Ultimately, immersion is a very personal experience, and nothing, not even Thief can be broadly labeled as "immersive" for every one. All I'm trying to accomplish here is to keep the door open for multiplayer Thief, even if it's not packaged in Thief 4. I think it's been misjudged based on preconceived notions, and I'll bet a great many of the people who are voting "no" in this poll would probably enjoy it a great deal.