Albert on 11/7/2009 at 23:09
I'd think it best that if anything, they use first person so as to keep nimrods from mistaking thief for an assasins creed ripoff.
Platinumoxicity on 12/7/2009 at 10:47
Quote Posted by Albert
I'd think it best that if anything, they use first person so as to keep nimrods from mistaking thief for an assasins creed ripoff.
I would like to hear someone actually say that. "This is an Assassin's Creed ripoff" -Then his head would get acquainted with my blackjack. :p
rplusj on 9/8/2009 at 02:59
Personally, I think that total 3rd person gameplay would ruin T4.
However, we can't deny the strong incentives developers face to showcase avatar animations and acrobatics. There is a large player base that wants to be able to see Garrett move and interact with his environment in a "stealth-like" way. They want to see their character shimmy against a wall, crawl across a thin ceiling beam, and clamber up his rope arrow.
The trick is to design the gameplay such that immersion isn't lost in any form of 3rd person omniscience (i.e., players scoping out a hallway in 3rd person). There are certain aspects of the Thief gameplay that might benefit from limited, 3rd person viewing, such as grappling and hoisting, or climbing rope arrows, or wall leaning/peaking. There are other areas where Eidos would miserably fail were they to try and force 3rd person entirely, like casing a room for small loot or any form of combat (provided its a traditional, non-target system).
To allow Thief 4 to turn into a medieval Splinter Cell would be a grave mistake, as would be modeling player experience after Assassin's Creed in order to satisfy demand for next-gen interactivity. Both of those titles reflect gameplay that is based more on moderate foreknowledge, simple strategy, and execution; whereas Thief has always been about limited foreknowledge, adaptive strategy, and reaction. Suspense and immersion in a Thief game isn't the result of the game's focus on stealth; it is created from the natural information myopia that the game forces on the player. Words that come to mind: realism, tactical.
In order to achieve the non-linear, tactical, and immersive gameplay that a Thief title demands, Eidos needs to focus on developing a blended POV paradigm that constrains player awareness to 1st person sensory fields while maximizing the immersive qualities of a ruthless (read: your character is weaker than the guards) and unpredictable (read: you never know where those guards might pop up) playing environment.
I'd suggest Eidos look into a camera system similar to the one Ubisoft devised for Rainbow Six: Vegas 2, which features limited 3rd person cover and climbing and 1st person everything else. Another 3rd person example that I could see working (if Eidos is absolutely Hell-bent on forcing the issue) is the camera system used in the recent Dead Space--close cropped, restricted over the shoulder.
Or, Eidos could show some spine and go 1st person, straight up... but, I won't hold my breath. I mean, could you imagine a 3rd person Half-Life? It would destroy the series.
jtr7 on 9/8/2009 at 03:13
The fact that 3rd-person has to default to 1st-person over and over again for basic traditional Thief mechanics, and the world has to be designed with larger spaces for the camera to follow unobstructed, and the camera bisects and glides through the hollow shells that are supposed to be the surfaces of solids (somehow without breaking immersion as it in-fact breaks the illusion), and makes the player an observer of self rather than putting the player in the character's boots, and allows the cheat of seeing above, below, and behind the player character, and that it's mainly an action-genre trapping, are enough reason to leave 3rd-person out of Thief. I did not include the things that could be fixed this time around, like making the body follow the camera, not the other way around, moving where the camera is pointed, and keeping the body and animations other than the arms out of the way, and things like animating a side-step lean that changes the player character's position instead of just leaning. Third person compromises far too much, though the new game could fix a few of those.
Iroquois on 9/8/2009 at 07:16
I'm perfectly content with first-person-only, but naturally I don't expect the console 'tards to be as welcoming.
Having said that, it really depends on the overall design; we might falsly assume they're rehashing the same mechanics. It's not unlikely they'll go for the new fad of third person navigation with over-the-shoulder attacking.
jtr7 on 9/8/2009 at 09:15
I expect the new game to have 3rd-person. It's heresy to me, but...
New Horizon on 9/8/2009 at 13:20
I can honestly say that if they put third person in this game, I will not buy it. I don't care if it's optional, so is my decision to buy it. Bioshock did just fine with 1st person only. Bioshock succeeded on excellent marketing. Word of mouth about the gameplay certainly didn't sell all those units so quickly, it was the marketing. So far, the marketing machine for Thi4f has been horrible. They should be trying to build positive buzz.
Dante on 9/8/2009 at 16:04
No need to keep recycling arguments. First person only. Option to turn off head-bobbing to minimize motion sickness. Case closed.
ToolFan2007 on 9/8/2009 at 21:57
Quote Posted by New Horizon
I can honestly say that if they put third person in this game, I will not buy it. I don't care if it's optional, so is my decision to buy it.
Nice to see you spouting the usual elitist nonsense after all these years!
We all know you'll buy it the week it comes out. :thumb:
I think they should have both views to cater for both preferences.
jtr7 on 9/8/2009 at 22:27
Oh god....:tsktsk:
