Captain Spandex on 28/10/2009 at 23:18
The point I'm making is that third-person animation doesn't add all that much to development time if you're already using a good engine. Period. While I stand corrected about Assassin's Creed's dev time (although technically the project didn't get an official green-light and marketing push until 2004, making my original statement somewhat accurate) it's not a stretch to assume that at least half of their overall dev time was spent creating a new engine from scratch.
Would Thief's team need to do this? Certainly not. So we're talking a maybe 2 year development cycle at the end of the day. 3 at the most? 80-man team and all.
Ergo third-person would not detract from dev time.
Bakerman on 28/10/2009 at 23:38
What Wormrat was saying, I imagine, is that other aspects of the game weren't all they could be. Ergo, if they hadn't spent so much time on third-person, they could have improved the rest of the game.
New Horizon on 29/10/2009 at 17:39
Quote Posted by Captain Spandex
The point I'm making is that third-person animation doesn't add all that much to development time if you're already using a good engine. Period. While I stand corrected about Assassin's Creed's dev time (although technically the project didn't get an official green-light and marketing push until 2004, making my original statement somewhat accurate) it's not a stretch to assume that at least half of their overall dev time was spent creating a new engine from scratch.
Would Thief's team need to do this? Certainly not. So we're talking a maybe 2 year development cycle at the end of the day. 3 at the most? 80-man team and all.
Ergo third-person would not detract from dev time.
The engine you use is really a moot point...regardless of whether or not it already has a system in place to handle a player model. The developers still have to create a complete set of full body animations for the third person body. They have to play test the game in both 3rd and 1st person perspectives. They are two separate systems, and one will often create different issues than the other. That takes extra dev time.
With a Thief game, even when you have an engine to start with, you're still essentially creating 3/4's of the engine from scratch...because not many games require the type of AI, trigger scripting, sound propagation...etc...that a Thief game does. Even if they were similar, it would likely require a lot of work to customize it.
It's not just the coding of the game that takes time, it's killing the bugs in the code afterward that takes even more time.
IanEternal on 30/10/2009 at 16:58
I'm a FIRST PERSON only guy. why? because it is more immersive and immersion is why Thief has always been one of my favorite games ever. I don't like 3rd person even being an option.
I want to see with my character's eyes and hear with his ears. I only wish I could feel with his hands and smell with his nose, etc.
Vae on 30/10/2009 at 23:15
...and taste with his mouth...me too...:D...cant' wait for THIEF 8 on a quantum computer...:thumb:
KoHaN69 on 4/11/2009 at 20:26
Mirror's Edge had great body-awareness (arguably better than any Thief game, when I performed a 'run and mount' i didnt have to quicksave beforehand because my angle might be slightly off and I'd fall to my death) and remained first-person only.
ZylonBane on 4/11/2009 at 22:32
Quote Posted by Captain Spandex
The point I'm making is that third-person animation doesn't add all that much to development time if you're already using a good engine. Period.
You're really quite the technically clueless idiot.
Kethoth on 4/11/2009 at 22:54
3rd person view breaks immersion in Thief. End of worthless thread.
firedance99 on 27/5/2010 at 14:22
I don't mind having both, as long as the movement isn't clunky and doesn't feel stunted.
neudera on 7/6/2010 at 05:48
First person. T3 ruined the stealth mechanics by enabling third person.
