Platinumoxicity on 7/9/2009 at 14:19
Fixing all the mistakes and consolization of TDS would be a huge improvement already.
Consolization:
-Clumsy movement based on 3rd person animations.
-Inventory-, objects- and tools- system oversimplified.
-Completely unnecessary fancy hud elements
-Small levels that still needed to be divided to even smaller sections.
-Scrolling menus caused by HUUGE font sizes.
General:
-Absence of swimming, rope arrows and the majority of all tools.
-Badly hand-made character animations.
-No color in the game world. Every brick is gray, every shadow is blue.
-Full-motion cutscenes rendered inside a beta version of the game engine, no briefing videos.
-Hints: Flashing important items and loot. Loot percentage and requirements based on that system.
-No secrets.
-AI system took a step backwards.
Without these mistakes, TDS would've been a decent sequel to T2, and maybe it could've deserve to be called Thief 3. :) I'm fairly sure that Thief 4 can be developed without having any of these problems. LGS did it. Twice.
Jarvis on 7/9/2009 at 15:58
Quote Posted by Ostriig
Actually, that's the beauty of it all - there is no straightforward answer. If you don't buy it, the devs might want to improve, but there's a good chance that the
publisher won't want further risks and will just scuttle the ship. If you
do buy it, the devs may or may not want to listen to feedback and improve, but the publisher may now not want to risk allowing them to alter the golden-egg-laying formula.
That's why I say our voices are important. Negative feedback will keep the game from spreading. It becomes clear that the product is wanted, because we bought it. But because of our feedback it is also clear that the game would be wanted even more if certain problems were fixed.
Whatever strategy we pick, however, if we start settling for subpar quality then that's what we'll get. Because it's easier.
---
Amongst these lists of of things wrong with TDS, I want to add to it the "cartoonification" of the City. The first two games had their jokes and silly tertiary characters. Like Benny for example. But the City still had a feeling of maturity to it. The majority of the people you encountered seemed in context with their environment. Even the rare silly one.
In TDS it seemed like everyone in the city was a complete idiot, or a bad actor in a bad comedy. The nobles were voice acted with steroetypical lines and voices that sounded like some *mocking* nobility.
The Pagans all had ridiculous dialogue. It was an over-exaggeration of an occasional speech impediment in the originals. I got the impression in TDP and TMA that a lot of those speech impediments were sort of like "old pagan speech", similar to old english (which sounds like a completely different language, if none of you have ever heard it spoken). But for the most part, pagans met in TDP and TMA were fairly well spoken. Or at least no where near as ridiculous as in TDS. Plus, they too had "silly" voice acting. They were given lisps and voices that sound like a mockery of some sort.
I've talked plenty on here about Keepers being turned into cheap fantasy mages, and Keeper Enforcers being exactly contrary to everything the Keepers are supposed to represent. They too were made a mockery of, and made to look like idiots.
Don't get me started on the black market fences and shops. Black Market Bertha? How about this line from Heartless Perry, "Hey Garrett, how's the thievin'?"? Are you kidding me Ion Storm? Are you even trying? And here again, they were all given silly voices, all sounding like a mockery, or out of some Saturday morning cartoon. The dialogue and very premise of the "blackmart" in TDS was just so god-awful. It insulted my intelligence, and I didn't appreciate it at all.
In conclusion, if the developers can't take their fictional world seriously, then how can I? That's part of what I see when I think of the "spiritual successor" to TDS. It was written and designed at a middle school level. Maybe even a grammer school level at some parts.
New Horizon on 7/9/2009 at 16:49
Quote Posted by Chade
It's worth noting that T1 and T2 are fairly polished games, and I don't feel that you can significantly improve on either game if you decide to copy the exact same mechanics.
Of course you can. The mechanics behind those games(AI, Sound, Physics..etc), were products of the PC's at that time. Using the existing framework of T1/2 as a template, it just takes a little imagination and a lot of coding to enhance the mechanics of the game world.
Saying that T3 should be a starting point because it wasn't up to a higher standard is silly. If you're going to start somewhere, start from a solid base.
Hexameron on 7/9/2009 at 20:31
Quote Posted by Jarvis
And here again, they were all given silly voices, all sounding like a mockery, or out of some Saturday morning cartoon. The dialogue and very premise of the "blackmart" in TDS was just so god-awful. It insulted my intelligence, and I didn't appreciate it at all...
I agree with everything you said. Stephen Russell and Daniel Thron provided the only oasis from an otherwise dismal roster of voice actors. I especially detested that Garrett fan-girl fence who sounded like a phone sex worker trying to get Garrett's autograph.
Even the writing of the dialogue, which I expected to be top-notch, was just mediocre. Thief fans will always remember the Bear Pits, Raoul, LotP archers, and drunk Benny conversations, but I don't remember any unique or smartly funny dialogue from T3.
Chade on 7/9/2009 at 22:03
Quote Posted by Jarvis
What if had been a large area like life of the party? Well... it's still be a large area that I'd have to visit over and over again. Think critically about an "open city hub". It's a way for developers to reuse an area they made over and over.
Correct. Revisiting the same area is the only unique aspect of a city hub. And yes, there are problems that you'd need to solve to do it well. But there are also oppurtunities. For instance, here's a handfull of things that you can do with a city hub that you can't do with a linear sequence of maps (or at least, you can't do them as easily or as well):
1) Showing Garrett the consequences of his crimes.
2) Minor storylines that cut across mission boundaries.
3) Gradual unlocking of the map as Garrett acquires tools (keys from another map, climbing gloves/rope arrows, etc).
4) Highlighting how different guards affect your playstyle? Not so sure about this one ... the idea is that, say, over the course of the game you change the patrol routes, or increase the number of guards, or give the guards torches, or dogs, etc ... showing off how the player's strategies depend on these elements without any confounding variables like change in architecture.
Quote Posted by New Horizon
Of course you can. The mechanics behind those games(AI, Sound, Physics..etc), were products of the PC's at that time. Using the existing framework of T1/2 as a template, it just takes a little imagination and a lot of coding to enhance the mechanics of the game world.
Saying that T3 should be a starting point because it wasn't up to a higher standard is silly. If you're going to start somewhere, start from a solid base.
I regret saying that. People are focussing on that, but it's not my main concern, just an additional point I threw out there. Still, I hate to pass up a fight, so I'm going to continue the argument anyway. :p
Just have a look at the game mechanic suggestions on these forums. Where are the big ideas that everyone agrees we need to improve the T1/2 formula? We get minor suggestions like leaning issues, prone keys, more control over opening doors, more detailed surfaces, etc ... but nothing of any importance.
Mind you, it's not like T3 is a massive departure from the core gameplay either. But there's a few things they tried to do differently, and I personally think that it was a good direction to take the series, and I'd like to see them continue in that direction and do it better (yes, that means bigger levels, more non-linearity, etc ... if you think that makes it more like T1/2 then good for you).
My cynical side, however, says that they'll bring back the sword, rope arrows, and linear sequence of missions, and the game will be considerably more action orientated then any of the previous games. We'll all find out that the tools they give Garrett are far less important then the attitude behind the design of those tools!
Syndef on 8/9/2009 at 02:05
Me, personally, I don't know if I'll like it, but the thing is that I don't feel entitled to much, even as a fan. I'll probably still buy T4, and I bet the devs know I will.
I've been happy with spiritual successors before, though. It would be awesome if I get to experience the same feelings I had as a kid all those years back with TDP and TMA, but I guess if the devs are incapable of creating such a game, I suppose a different experience wouldn't hurt either.
I do agree with the fear of mediocrity, though. That, and bandwagon-jumping. I ask non-Thief fans what they think of when I say "stealth games", and they say things like "Assassin's Creed" and "Splinter Cell", which are are very action-y indeed...
Jarvis on 8/9/2009 at 02:11
1: Showing Garrett the consequences of his crimes is smoke and mirrors. TDS did it, and it was pretty uninteresting. Certainly not worth the trip back through the same old area.
2: TDP and TMA both had some very interesting minor storylines with a mission to mission progression. Many of the ones TDS had were very "side questy" and "gamey". I liked the old style of just having my exploration rewarded with a neat readable or an overheard conversation that fleshed out a story that had little to do with me or what I was doing.
3: This was a sorry TDS attempt to bank on the "leveling up" thing that's all the rage these days. It's jarring to me, but that's personal opinion. I'd much rather explore new areas of new maps as opposed to crossing through old areas again and again as I arbitrarily gain new access due to a pre-planned "power up".
I'll interject here and comment on rope arrows. I personally don't care if I have rope arrows or "climbing gloves" (Though it'd make a lot more sense if Garrett could just climb). But TDS made sure that climbing gloves were only useful exactly where they specifically designed them to be. Stealth games demand freedom of movement, and freedom of choice. If I climb a wall to gain access to an area because the developers made it plainly obvious that was the "stealthy" way in... then it sort of loses it's point.
However the climbing happens, I demand that it be intuitive in context to the gaming environment, and *not* a design path. If it makes sense that a wooden beam be there, then I should be able to rope arrow to it whether there's a tactical reason to or not. If the wall surface is climbable, it should be because of the architecture, not because I'm guaranteed to find a sneaky vent entrance up there.
4: I'm sure we can manage to figure out our strategies with out a static and repetitive environment.
Chade on 8/9/2009 at 02:38
1: I disagree with you here. I liked it, and I'd like to see more of it. (Smoke and mirrors is an odd choice of criticism in this context, too. :confused:)
2: T1/2 had some storylines that cut across missions, but it's an awkward thing to do within a sequence disconnected locations (disconnected both spatially and thematically). It was hardly the strong point of the series. I think my argument holds regardless of the specific implementation of side stories in T3.
3: What? I'm struggling to see how crossing into a new level or finding a key is less pre-planned finding a new climbing tool. Finding objects that allow you to access other areas is a core aspect of thief's gameplay.
Also, I see that comment on climbing gloves all the time here, and I just don't understand it. I could use climbing gloves on all sorts of stone surfaces for all sorts of reasons. The ability to move horizontally increased the flexibility of the gloves, although your inability to cross corners severely limited that. Want to sneak along the top of the wall? Is it stone? Are there no decorations in the way? Go for it! How is this any different to rope arrows?
4: I'm talking about appreciation, not education.
SubJeff on 8/9/2009 at 09:06
What do you mean "how is this any different to rope arrows"?
Only certain walls could be climbed with the gloves and they were in specific places you either were supposed to go or were useless. The rope arrows were sometimes essential but often they allowed freedom that felt less forced than specific textured walls.
The gloves are a great idea.
Implement it properly and we'll be cooking.
Bakerman on 8/9/2009 at 12:28
Quote:
Only certain walls could be climbed with the gloves and they were in specific places you either were supposed to go or were useless.
I'm digressing, but only certain walls can be climbed with rope arrows. It's just that LGS placed their wood textures in better and more places than IS did with their climbable stones - otherwise, there's no differene.
