rainynight65 on 25/5/2009 at 12:54
Quote Posted by FriendlyStranger
Black and White !? That was the reason why I stopped buying these magazines... man I was pissed about the creature. Funny though they never stopped kissing Molineux' ass... this man is mainly hot air -every game the same.. think of the Fable announcements...
The next possibility to get reliable infos would be sites like metacritic, but I don't think they are immune to manipulation either, additionally the users seem to take part in hypes happily.
In the past I spent quite some time counter arguing these "wrong" reviews on forums etc. But when trying so, you do not only have to quarrel with the editors, no there are also the fanboys of the magazines/companies which are not open to reality and perform die-hard company-defense for free(<--?).
I think I will wait a bit longer and look what they make out of Thief, but recently I'm thinking about getting a new hobby anyway - gaming was funny back then, when not everyone was doing it, when there were lots of fresh ideas. Nowadays it has became crowded and uninspiring - here on the internet and everywhere else ... and "crowded" is something a real thief-fan isn't too fancy of - I guess.
But Thief 4 could still get one of the rare exemptions like F3. Bethesda learned from Oblivion (random/scalable loot tables - bah) EM could learn from what Ion Storm did. So there definitely is some hope.
You're making some interesting points there.
Firstly Molyneux - yes the man is a lot of hot air. I'll have to say that I loved Fable 2, but the circus surrounding Tabula Rasa was just ridiculous. And remember his protege Demis Hassabis? 'Republic - The Revolution'? Hargh!
Metacritic is a bit more reliable because it compiles two scores, the user score and the review metascore. I usually read a crossection of two or three reviews and glance at the user opinions, that normally gives you a relatively clear picture. Yes, those ratings can be distorted, that's why the figures alone don't cut it.
I don't play nearly as much as I used to, and that's not due to the lack of games in my collection. As I said in a previous post, there are lots of good games on my shelf that still wait for me to finish them. But I have other interests too, and I am no longer a care-free teenager or student with enough time on his hands. The gaming market rarely ever caters for my taste and preference anymore - story-heavy adventure games, immersive single-player experiences, the odd space game - so I have shifted my focus elsewhere. I hope that Thief 4 will be a game that brings me back to the PC which I so rarely touch these days. I hope it will be a game that keeps me busy for a good 20-30 hours, and entices me to play it at least a second time. But if all this doesn't happen - well, the world won't end because of it. I still want to try out Thief 2 with the widescreen patch anyway, and maybe I'll even give Shadows of the Metal Age a bash...
Bakerman on 25/5/2009 at 19:05
On multiplayer. I would cautiously embrace the possibility. However, I'd ask: in what situations is multiplayer necessary? Why does it make sense to have co-op burglary? What can two thieves do that one alone cannot, in the context of the Thief gameplay we love? It might only make sense if you could 'specialise' your thief - so you might be better at shooting, whereas your companion is a genius lockpick. I'm starting to like that idea, actually ;P.
I'd also say that a 'guards vs thieves' mode would be a terrible idea. Any humans playing as the guards would learn the maps, and learn all the possible thieve's patrol routes, and be too schitzophrenic and hyperactive to be realistically guarding anything. Like someone said earlier - the only realistic way to do it would be to only spawn a thief in 1 out of every 30 matches :P. But I doubt that would be very fun.
Quote:
And I seriously hope that EM will try to make the best game possible, not the game with the broadest appeal possible.
Aren't those the same thing? Is a game good if it only appeals to a niche? Just playing devil's advocate here - I agree that Thief shouldn't try to pander to the market, but I think it's incorrect to say that games that have broad appeal are 'bad'.
EDIT: More about the skills idea. It doesn't have to be implemented in a retarded RPG way, where you get points that tell you how good you are at a certain job. It could be done naturally by making each individual system so complex that, while anyone can get the basics of a system, you really have to put time and effort into being really
good at it. So with lockpicking, you might introduce very complicated safe locks that are randomised each game, so only a true safecracking expert will be able to pick them with any speediness. Or you might develop a complicated ballistics model that will give reliable results over short enough ranges for most players, but really requires a lot of dedication to be proficient with at long range. Or make rope arrow behaviour more complicated - if the arrow isn't fired into the wood correctly, then there's a chance it'll fall out when you jump on it. Stuff like that. Then, by virtue of intimately knowing your chosen aspect of gameplay, you become a specialist in that area.
Of course, it'd be no short order to develop such a depth of content that players couldn't just master all skills in a few weeks :P.
Taffer36 on 25/5/2009 at 19:33
Quote:
I'd also say that a 'guards vs thieves' mode would be a terrible idea. Any humans playing as the guards would learn the maps, and learn all the possible thieve's patrol routes, and be too schitzophrenic and hyperactive to be realistically guarding anything. Like someone said earlier - the only realistic way to do it would be to only spawn a thief in 1 out of every 30 matches :P. But I doubt that would be very fun.
That's where balance comes in. By sporadically rushing around the map, they aren't guarding the necessary places. The smart team will guard the loot, guard doorways, etc.
The stupid and broken team will have players running around the maps "hyperactively", thereby letting thieves camp, wait until the guard runs away from the doorway, and let them sneak on by.
I think it's all about just creating gameplay that supports defensive instead of offensive play.
Bakerman on 25/5/2009 at 19:43
Edited my last post :P.
Taffer36 - I see what you're saying. But then does it become too easy for guards to camp at the known entrances to the objective, assuming there is one objective? I think the problem comes from the guard players knowing where the thieves are likely to be, and the likely ways they'll approach. Because if you can cover those, then the game boils down to a confrontation at these locations. I guess it'd be possible to just put in many more possible routes through the map than there were guards available.
Oh, and by hyperactive, I was trying to refer to the usual multiplayer movement. Humans won't patrol in sensible and realistic-looking ways: they'll strafe and sprint all around the place :P. Which, I guess, can also be solved with balance, as you say - a stamina meter, and slow strafing.
What I'd like to see would be one player as the thief, and the other as the master of the guards, or the household owner himself, who can set up patrol routes and guard posts, etc. Then the thief player is pitting their abilities against the planning of the guard player. It'd be tough to make this engaging for the guard player, though, and not too broken :P.
Taffer36 on 25/5/2009 at 20:00
Quote:
Oh, and by hyperactive, I was trying to refer to the usual multiplayer movement. Humans won't patrol in sensible and realistic-looking ways: they'll strafe and sprint all around the place :P. Which, I guess, can also be solved with balance, as you say - a stamina meter, and slow strafing.
Yeah my point about this was that this should be very easy to overcome, given that the game is well-balanced. Imagine you're playing as a thief and you want to get thru a doorway. You're hiding in the shadows near it, and a guard RUNS THRU, sprinting around the room. I think it'd be pretty simple to simply find the right moment to slip thru the door while the guard is spazzing out.
I don't really think a stamina bar is necessary, I just think that the overall speed of the game should be kept relatively low. I've seen clips of Thievery and it appears to be WAY too fast. Why do players need to be able to sprint so quickly? Have a low overall movement and attack speed, which I think generally forces tactics over individual skill (a good thing in a game like this).
Quote:
But then does it become too easy for guards to camp at the known entrances to the objective, assuming there is one objective? I think the problem comes from the guard players knowing where the thieves are likely to be, and the likely ways they'll approach. Because if you can cover those, then the game boils down to a confrontation at these locations. I guess it'd be possible to just put in many more possible routes through the map than there were guards available.
This would definitely be a key problem. On one hand we don't want a full throttle sprint-fest, but on the flip side a camp-fest is no better. I think it would 100% depend on the level design, the maps definitely need to be smart. Not small to the point that the guards can block a few select pathways and win the game, but not too large that it becomes impossible.
I think light should play a key role. Maybe have several open areas, but have a lot of light, forcing the thieves to use water arrows, which then alerts the guard players (observant ones could see where the arrow flew from). For example, guards could gather in the main hall where the loot is, but there could be vantage points from the second floor to douse lights. If no guards are places up there then thieves can get in position and put out the lights, yet if they split up and put guards up there then they will have less in the main hall and those guards could get overtaken easily.
I think the key is DEFINITELY low numbers in a thieves vs guards game. Maybe even 4 v 4 small, that way you really force a tactical approach yet you keep the gameplay tight, with short rounds and trial and error gameplay.
And the biggest difference between a guard player and a guard AI is that the guard player can do unexpected things, like continuously switch their view around so that it is difficult to blackjack them in the back of the head, but I think this is fair because blackjacking should be very difficult to pull off, otherwise the gameplay would become rather boring.
Quote:
What I'd like to see would be one player as the thief, and the other as the master of the guards, or the household owner himself, who can set up patrol routes and guard posts, etc. Then the thief player is pitting their abilities against the planning of the guard player. It'd be tough to make this engaging for the guard player, though, and not too broken :P.
I really like this idea :) This shouldn't be the main draw of the multiplayer as it's only 1 v 1 but it'd be a very interesting offshoot and IMO would probably be more played by the PC crowd, specifically the TTLG crowd.
Queue on 25/5/2009 at 22:56
Welcome to the party, hikikomori-san!
Bakerman on 26/5/2009 at 20:11
Quote:
like continuously switch their view around so that it is difficult to blackjack them in the back of the head, but I think this is fair because blackjacking should be very difficult to pull off, otherwise the gameplay would become rather boring.
Which, again, is like my badly-explained hyperactivity complaint: no real guard would act that way, but when you put a player in a situation where they know there could be a thief sneaking up behind them, they'll act in the way that offers a better chance of survival. To me, the joy of Thief was sneaking around guards who were completely oblivious to my presence. I guess that's just a paradigm that would have to change in a multiplayer environment. That's also why I advocated a mode where most of the patrolling is done by AI characters - precisely because I think they're more fun and immersive to play against that humans would be in this context.
In a 4v4 Thieves vs Guards mode, would you include AI guards?
Quote:
I've seen clips of Thievery and it appears to be WAY too fast. Why do players need to be able to sprint so quickly?
I don't want to bag Thievery, because I haven't played it and I know many people praise it highly, but I always wondered the same thing :P. [Maybe it comes with the engine... all Unreal games have big feet and fast movement? :weird:] But I'm coming to agree with you here. *Done well*, a thieves vs guards mode could be fun... of course, not in the way Thief was fun, but fun and providing some sort of a similar experience. But I wonder whether EM will be able to pull it off ;).
And I still say: why are multiple thieves necessary? I guess it gives you more water arrows and more chances if one of you is caught, but it does mean you have to share the profits... :sly:
I guess you're right - 1 on 1 competitive multiplayer probably isn't going to be a draw for many people. In that regard, I'm sure that if we do see multiplayer, it won't be like I described. I just wouldn't want it to be any other way :P.
rainynight65 on 27/5/2009 at 06:17
Quote Posted by Bakerman
Which, again, is like my badly-explained hyperactivity complaint: no real guard would act that way, but when you put a player in a situation where they know there could be a thief sneaking up behind them, they'll act in the way that offers a better chance of survival. To me, the joy of Thief was sneaking around guards who were completely oblivious to my presence. I guess that's just a paradigm that would have to change in a multiplayer environment.
That is actually a very good argument. Pitting human guards against a human thief takes away the very premise of the SP portion. Garrett is not supposed to be there in the first place, and if he does his thing right, noone knows that he is there. And not giving away your presence is one of the things that makes the game so thrilling. That would fall away in a MP game. Your presence is known and the opponents will act that way, making it that much more difficult to evade and/or incapacitate them. An AI guard will patrol on its path and only deviate from it when there is a reason. A human guard in a Thief MP game will purposely search every dark corner at any time, because he knows a thief might come his way.
Another paradigm of Thief SP is that a guard can virtually be on top of you and not see you when you're hiding in the dark - because the game is built that way. It would be almost impossible to translate that into MP.
FriendlyStranger on 27/5/2009 at 08:29
I thought about player vs player (guard vs thief) quite a while - and came to the same conclusion: If you don't have appropriate mates to play like "Thief-like" guards, things will become different from the Thief experience - my suggested solution to prevent the guards roaming around freelance would be:
Don't give direct control over guards to the human-players unless Garrett has been spotted by a guard. To entertain the counterpart of the Garrett-player during the level, you could add in a kind of commander mode like in BF 2. In the pre level preperation, you give him some time to set guard patrol routes, cameras/traps. (All limited in count per area). During the mission he has to try to "mark" Garrett - which he can only do if Garrett gets out of the dark and is seen by the AI. After marking he can take direct control of the guard... and chase Garrett.
What do you think of this?
Platinumoxicity on 27/5/2009 at 09:05
Yes, making players control the guards at all times would be hide and seek with weapons. The guards would be constantly in seach mode and not just any search mode, but more like "run like hell around the level waving your sword at every shadow until you hear a stab" -search mode. There wouldn't be sneaking involved, only survival and escape. The guards would heve to be able to ignore slight disturbances and walk around calmly without being paranoid.
