How about multiplayer?

FriendlyStranger on 24/5/2009 at 16:10

Quote Posted by rainynight65

What I wonder about is, how could you possibly add to the game with a multiplayer mode?

Thief is by nature a single player game. Thieves are loners. I can barely get my mind around a co-op mode, nevermind a mode for more than two players. I think one thing the gaming world has to learn is that not everything needs to have a multiplayer component. Who's gonna play all that anyway? Make dedicated SP games and dedicated MP games, and otherwise do it where it makes sense. If I take a game like COD4 or GoW, these games sport incredibly well-penned stories, great atmosphere and voice work, and it's all wasted on people who just want to gang up on each other. Rather make the best SP Thief you can make, and leave the deathmatch to games where it makes sense.

Yeah but who decides where MP makes sense and where not? As I said above bow/sword MP is still a novelity - whos gonna play that? Well if done right it would definitely have the same amount of player-attention COD4 received. Its a pretty cool idea and where bow comes in ppl would need real skill for aiming etc. It's all a matter of how things are done - a well done Thief MP is in now way inferior to a RTCW MP.

But problems start when I think of the engine - never heard of a Tomb Raider Engine based MP game... this could definitely become a problem.

rainynight65 on 24/5/2009 at 16:20

Noone can really decide with absolute authority which MP makes sense and which doesn't. The main problem I see is that MP is often used to add fake longevity to an otherwise short SP game. What made the Thief games to a large extent was the combination of story and atmosphere. MP takes you out of the story. It has to have other means to keep a player focused and make him want to come back. That takes up time and resources, which in this case I'd rather see used on creating a great and immersive SP experience. I don't know how appealing a Thief MP would be. If it had to keep with the tense atmosphere of the SP game, it might just put a lot of people off because they rather want something easy that goes boom. I don't see it catering for a variety of playing styles, and that's one of the things a good MP game needs to do.

FriendlyStranger on 24/5/2009 at 17:59

Yeah but Dark Messiah could have owned big time if the code wasn't so crappy.

You should provide the MP isolated from main plot like RTCW did, like a second game. It doesn't pull you out of SP if you got a second icon on desktop...

Besides: I wouldn't rely that leaving an MP option out leads to a good SP experience either - which game was ruined cause they needed to implement MP, can you give me an example?

There are so many titles out there which focused on SP -Bioshock, Oblivion - they sucked big time compared to their predecessors and didn't even try to add MP. I regard Bioshock as one of the most dissappointing games of all time - they would have better added MP instead of the SP part, cause if you compare BS to SS2, you will see that Bioshock is a straight away shooter without brains / all this plasmids would have been nice in a DM, CTF whatsoever - but in SP they where just an ill-developed pseudo-RPG element. Bioshock MP could have at least added some long term engagement, instead we have a more or less crappy SP.
---
To sum it up: Concentraing on SP is by no means a guarantee for a good THIEF. So my suggestion: If EM wants to produce one of this 7 hour experiences, they better add in a nice MP option, to give us at least some value.

I don't say MP is a must, but hey as a bonus it would be much appreciated from my side.

rainynight65 on 24/5/2009 at 18:12

I didn't say that MP ruins a game. And you are right when you say that leaving out the MP does not necessarily mean a good SP game. There are examples of great SP games where MP was never a thought - The Witcher comes to mind as a prime example - and then there are those which just weren't up to the task either way. Bioshock is a good example of an overhyped game, in which the story and atmosphere failed to distract from the fact that it was just a linear, repetitive FPS title. The thing is, I play the SP part of any game first - and if that one fails to captivate me, then I will most certainly not try the MP part. In that sense, I don't see how adding some arb deathmatch would have added any value to Bioshock.

All I am saying is that I would like EM to concentrate on providing the best SP experience possible, without splitting up resources in order to tack on a MP mode which may or may not deliver. It is no guarantee for a worthy successor to the previous games, but I'd say the chances are a lot higher than the other way round. And if it turns out that the game will be one of those 7 hour experiences, then I will definitely not buy it - MP or not.

FriendlyStranger on 24/5/2009 at 18:19

Well I'm absolutely fine if they concentrate on SP and bring us a new T1,2 sequel... nontheless one has to face reality: The times in the industry with titles like Thief, System Shock, Deus Ex... they are long gone and over.

All you can get today seems absolute buggy, meager-content uninspired pieces of software crap. (Dawn of War 2 for an example is an insultation to the customer, ships with 7 maps to play on).

Titles like Fallout 3 let the last spark of hope live on but I fear the best we can get is a flatted out mainstream Thief. And then I would like to have at least a medieval multiplayer experience even if it has got nothing to do with Thief.

My wish for Mp results not out of the thought it's the Thief-Way to do Thief 4, it results out of observations in recent game history - one should take what you can get, I'm afraid we can't get a Thief 1,2 again.

rainynight65 on 24/5/2009 at 18:36

Honestly - I don't concur with the 'take what you can get' attitude. Because that's one of the factors that has enabled the industry to go the way it has gone. Ten years ago, gamers should have started protesting against half-finished, bug-riddled and patch-heavy games. Instead they just kept buying whatever the hype made them believe they had to have. That's one of the reasons why nowadays we have to deal with uninspired, buggy crap software. There have been very few exceptions.

I am an SP player, I play a game for its story and the way it is presented. It takes a lot to get me play MP, and even more to keep me captivated. Now there have been a few games in the last few years that catered for that, but the number of disappointments was higher. If Thief 4 is going to be an uninspired, streamlined and flattened SP game, then no amount of MP will make me buy such a piece of crap. And if the gaming industry choses to go down that road further and further, they will eventually lose me as a customer. I have enough interests besides gaming and enough good games on the shelf that I never finished or would like to play again.

The Magpie on 24/5/2009 at 21:00

Quote Posted by rainynight65

The main problem I see is that MP is often used to add fake longevity to an otherwise short SP game. What made the Thief games to a large extent was the combination of story and atmosphere.

That argument is easily turned on its head. A short SP campaign is slapped on a decent MP game just to snare in some disconnected peeps, cf. Q3A. Boo.

Games are notoriously short nowadays anyway, MP or not. (But I dare you to call StarCraft's or Quake's MP "fake longevity".) So if you're addressing the "main problem" in current industry trends, then you're missing the point.

The point being that EM is going to create a new Thief game, not just another decent, but run-of-the-mill shooter title. The trends should therefore be less relevant. Even if there might be a lot to be learned from them. Even if co-op gaming story mode has just started to become popular on the consoles. Even if times are different now.

And to a large extent, sure Thief was made by its story and atmosphere. I don't deny that. But I still maintain that other elements of Thief were even more important when explaining its popularity than story, atmosphere, OR Garrett himself. Elements which perfectly well may remain in MP gameplay, and create an unmistakenly Thiefish experience.

When you've replayed a lot of Thief missions, the story and atmosphere become familiar to you. A human friend will be someone to share that atmosphere with. A human enemy will always be able to outwit you in ways you don't expect from AIs. A human ally will desire to aid you when you're in a tight pinch more than a CPU is capable of. And a human victim is a lot more satisfying to gloat over than any blackjacked AI.

I'm so surprised to witness in these two weeks since the announcement what I perceive as a backlash against official Thief multiplayer, when on the old forums, when LGS was still alive, there were long threads enthusiastically dedicated to multiplayer suggestions. And when it's been known for such a long time that LGS didn't mind Thief MP per se:

This is Steve Pearsall from an interview with TUG*, April 3rd 2000:

Quote:

What is the current official word on Thief and multiplayer?

We don't want to put multiplayer into Thief just to be able to say that it has multiplayer. We want to be sure that any Thief multiplayer experiences are just as good as what we've been able to do with the single player experience. That said, I can confirm that we do have some people working on Thief multiplayer prototyping.

As you can see, this is NOT equal to the "I fret for the SP experience not being PERFECT 'cause they spent some resources on MP development". But like hexhunter points out, that is currently the only real argument against (well, for people who aren't opposed to MP in general, because of principle, tiny pipes, lack of knowledge, fear of bullying, or whatever reason).

And I find this line of thinking so very tedious and reactionary it bores me to tears, because what I hear is just another way of saying what I already know: That you love the game(s) as they are and prefer playing the way you're used to. Which is, necessarily, single player. As Garrett. With rope arrows. Blah blah.

But that argument is IMNSHO particularly worthless because it can be used for ANY new element that you're not entirely sure about, just to stay on the safe side. Imagine what you'd have said about TDP: "Oh noes, I fear LGS is gonna spend resources adding zombies and supernatural stuff while Garrett still lacks visible FEET! The immersion must be PERFECT! Or I'll blame the zombies."

I do of course wish for a superb Thief 4 single-player experience. Of course I do.

But at the same time, I actually wouldn't be disappointed at all if Thief 4 was multiplayer-only, with no Garrett anywhere. It's the one thing I've always missed the most about the official Thief series.

(Never tried ThieveryUT. Still waiting for T2 MP FMs to surface.)

--
L.
*Good old Thief Underground. Seems it's been lost in the move from 3DActionPlanet.com to RPGPlanet.com, I was only able to access the Google Cache, in any case. Dunno if it's been indexed at the Internet Archive yet.

hikikomori-san on 24/5/2009 at 21:25

Oh my god, you heretics! Multiplayer? Because shooting your friends with broadhead arrows in their asses would be new and awesome? Because it's the trend in the industry nowadays? Because system shock 2 had multiplayer? I can't believe my eyes... I clicked on this thread just to join the masses of the thief community lashing the ignorant buffoon who's talking multiplayer, but what I found instead was pure horror! 3 pages of responses, and only 2 people are against it? Did I come to the wrong forums? Can they be talking about another game? Deus Ex 3 maybe?

*very long sigh*... I need to calm down....

It seems what thief is to me is different from what it is to other people for them to be talking favorably about multiplayer. Thief was the best virtual experience ever, and the level of immersion it provided was (and still is) unprecedented. That's why a lot of people here (at least that's what I thought) used to play it with the lights off and their headphones on, alone, and only when they are in the right mood. It was a personal experience, more than just a game... it teleported me into its captivating world with its slower pace and perfectly crafted atmosphere. To me the sneaking itself and the objectives were secondary - they just provided a direction, but the real heart and soul of the game was exploration, and being there.

It is easy to miss that, as a lot of people have, but those who don't end up loving it, which is why thief is not especially popular but has a considerable "cult following". It was years ago, but the experiece of going down the maw of chaos was one of the most profound gaming experiences ever, rivaled only by other moments and places in thief 1 and 2. This is what the game is about; thrusting the player into a different world. Sure, most games try to do that, but they fail because at no point during gameplay do you forget that you are sitting in front of your computer playing a game and trying to get "your character" to accomplish something or get somewhere. I'm not saying all other games fail to accomplish that (Half Life does a good job at it, which I think explains its rightful success), but Thief excells at it beyond others with its atmosphere, pace... etc.

What I'm trying to say is that Thief is a personal experience, it's a secret garden... and is a lot more than just "watch this guard for 5 minuites and pick the best spot to ambush him" kind of game. Take your controller and your schoolmates and get away from thief... go play quake3 or something. shoo... shoo...

The Magpie on 24/5/2009 at 23:28

So you think single player exploration must be better because you haven't tried exploring a Thief mission with a friend.

BTW, I don't get the schoolmate/controller reference, unless you're implying that having a social experience around playing Thief is somehow immature. Are you?

--
L.

hikikomori-san on 25/5/2009 at 00:50

Quote Posted by The Magpie

I don't need to try anything to be able to tell that Thief is not the kind of game where multiplayer has a place. Thief is loved because of the rich single player experience it provides, and inotroducing multiplayer will certainly rob thief if the ability to provide THAT kind of experience. Why? Because a multiplayer game is completely different from a single player game. It feels different, it plays different, and it is designed different. The mere presence of another human would instantly change the mood, even assuming your partner will be as mature as you are and won't just run around stabbing the guards and tea-bagging them.

As for the schoolmate/controller reference, it reflects my suspicion that most of those in favor of multiplayer are the kind whose idea of the best gaming experience is sitting on the coutch with their buddies to kick each other's ass in a game until dinner is ready. There are games for that (A LOT I might add), and then there are games like Thief. And yes, having a social experience around playing thief is ridiculous. There, I said it.