Vae on 18/10/2009 at 10:06
Rate this as a game and not a THIEF game, if you can...;)
Chade on 19/10/2009 at 04:09
Is it my imagination, or is there only a weak correlation between the way a person talks about T3 and the way they rated it? I wonder what would happen if you normalised each persons votes so that their mean vote across all three games was zero.
mudi on 19/10/2009 at 05:03
I actually voted 9/8/7 for each successive game. Thief 3 was the weakest, but barring some dumb technical problems it was a fairly solid game. Thief 1 was a great great game (thinking back I probably should have voted 10), and I consider Thief 2 just a notch below.
Dan on 19/10/2009 at 11:08
Quote Posted by Chade
Is it my imagination, or is there only a weak correlation between the way a person talks about T3 and the way they rated it? I wonder what would happen if you normalised each persons votes so that their mean vote across all three games was zero.
That is a very interesting opinion and idea. You should do that and post the results here.
I tried to vote exactly how I feel about TDS. I voted 6 and that is exactly what I feel the game is - Good. I'm not a Thief 1 and 2 fan boy, or the "Thief 3 didn't live up to my expectations of a sequel" kind of person, as I bought the game the first day it hit our local market and even though in 2 days I had my arm injured in an incident I continued to play Thief 3 with one arm.
Its just that can't get myself to play TDS as much as the older games. I think it the majority of missions are somewhat annoying. The game animations and the game play as a whole feel choppy and wooden. The voice acting is horrible in many occasions, unlike the magnificent theatrical experience that is TMA or TDP. Still, TDS brings quite interesting new gameplay features, gives in depth view on the Keepers, and the storyline as a whole is not half bad. I'd say its a very nice average game.
In one thing TDS for me surpasses the older games and that is the cut-scenes. I have watched "Gamall Revealed" more times than "Vicky pulling Garrett's eye out".
malau on 19/10/2009 at 11:33
Why isn't there a '0' option ??
sNeaksieGarrett on 19/10/2009 at 16:01
lol, come on malau... It can't be that bad.:laff:
If you hate it, wouldn't the descriptor for 1 work for you?
Ostriig on 19/10/2009 at 18:08
Heh, look at that, seems like some of the local denizens had Thief 3 jump out of the screen to rape their dog.
Gets an 8/10 from me. Though I think the poll is splitting hairs towards the higher half, an 8 ranks as "very good" for me. I found it an engrossing, solid experience for the most part, with a superb high point in the delicious caek that was the Shalebridge Cradle, but also with a several shortcomings, some minor, some major, to keep it from rating any higher. I was undecided between 7 and 8, but in the end the Cradle tipped it for me.
Brian The Dog on 19/10/2009 at 19:55
Gets an 8/10 for me. Not as good as the first game, but better than Thief 2 (they were given 9 and 7 by me).
It all depends on what criteria you use to say whether a game is good. A lot of people don't like Thief III, but in my opinion it is still a good game, just not as good as the others. So why did I give it a higher score than Thief 2? Because I personally emphasise the quality of the story very highly. Thief 1's plot was OK but it introduced a large back-story, as well as being revolutionary in gameplay, so gets very high marks from me. Thief 2 had a weaker plot so gets lower marks. I really liked Thief 3's plot, so it gets high marks again. Sure, they messed up the game engine so we were left with a clunky thing to explore the story in, but I personally don't knock that many points off for that - Thief 3 is still better than a load of games out there (imo :ebil: ) .
sNeaksieGarrett on 20/10/2009 at 02:10
hmm, that's an interesting way to rate games... is that your only criteria, or is that just the major thing you look at ?
Brian The Dog on 20/10/2009 at 09:04
Probably re-playability and story/plot are the main things. I only really play a few games (Thief, Rome Total War with mods, Empire Earth/Age of Empires, Civ2, GhostMaster, Elite). None of these are famous for their graphics or audio (well, OK, Thief is!) but they all have original gameplay and/or a story other than "terrorists have stolen a nuke!", which is why I still play these old games and give the new ones a miss :) Some of the stories are silly, some are historical, but at least they're there.
Rome Total War is a good example - Empire and Medieval 2 look WAY better, but they messed up some of the game mechanics in the later games (cavalry charges don't work well for instance) and made it much more about the graphics, and I'm interested in the history of Rome and Greece, so RTW for me any day!
I do play some random FPS games such as Quake and Painkiller, but these are more for stress relief, so I only play them for 15min at a time before I get bored. The ones above I can play until the cows come home :)
Gamers are split into various categories, and I definitely am not one of the twitch FPS gamers. Different people will want different things in games, that's all I'm saying. I'll happily play Pong for a bit, but I'll get bored since it's a bat-and-ball game and there's not more to it than that, not because the sound effects aren't EAX7 and the graphics DX10...
