SubJeff on 8/9/2009 at 13:14
There is a difference; it makes sense that only wood will take the arrow, it makes no sense that only certain walls can be climbed.
To add to that there was a lot more flexibility with where you could use the rope arrows because wood was just a feature of the architecture, and because of the level design exploring was much easier (no "body" that spoilt it) and fulfilling.
Its not that gloves are bad, but with nerfed use and nerfed levels they were weak. I'd love gloves that work, really.
Beleg Cúthalion on 8/9/2009 at 15:10
I just checked practically all brick wall textures of TDS. All of them were marked as "stoneclimb" except for two small and very greasy Cradle walls and one mansion wall used AFAIK only outside the seaside mansion. The few exemplary non-brick walls I just checked were of course only "stone" materials. So now you guys got three options:
1. You find yourself a brick wall texture in TDS which cannot be climbed for some reason and I promise I'll have a closer look.
2. You call it a logical inconsistensy that Garrett cannot climb plaster or metal textures with his climbing gloves and thus make a fool of yourself.
3. You rant about climbing gloves and how stupid they were implemented with even small trims or beams blocking the way but you please shut up about this surfaces-the-devs-chose-randomly issue. Thanks in advance. :p
Jarvis on 8/9/2009 at 17:18
I don't care how many types of surfaces were climbable. I tried *very* hard to find ways to use the climbing gloves in a unique or creative fashion to achieve stealth. The only times it worked were when there was an obvious design path to follow using it, and the many times it didn't work I found an arbitrary beam or ledge specifically stopping me.
The best I ever really managed was scampering up a wall when a guard thought he heard something. Then I'd climb back down when things cooled down.
This really isn't an argument against climbing gloves though. I think most people agree that a Garrett that can climb is a good thing. I think what most are trying to argue is this:
- TDS implemented climbing gloves poorly, giving us a very restricted range of exploration and movement. Climbing gloves are fine, but make it intuitive to the context of the architecture and not a design path. Let us be the thieves. Let us figure it out.
- There's no reason to take away rope arrows. We want them back. Having both rope arrows and the ability to climb walls would be great.
SubJeff on 8/9/2009 at 17:42
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
3. You rant about climbing gloves and how stupid they were implemented with even small trims or beams blocking the way but you please shut up about this surfaces-the-devs-chose-randomly issue. Thanks in advance. :p
Quote Posted by Jarvis
I don't care how many types of surfaces were climbable. I tried *very* hard to find ways to use the climbing gloves in a unique or creative fashion to achieve stealth. The only times it worked were when there was an obvious design path to follow using it, and the many times it didn't work I found an arbitrary beam or ledge specifically stopping me.
This.
I know TDS pumps your nads Beleg but I think you're the one who should be shutting up. I didn't say specific textures, I said specific WALLS. There is no point having a climbable texture if you can climb 3 meters up and 2 meters across and nothing else because some other bit of the wall blocks you. "Oooooooh, the texture of the whole wall is "climbable"!"
But it's been designed so that makes no practical difference to the gamplay.
That's not a climbable wall, its a climbable
bit of a wall. Dolt.
Quote Posted by Jarvis
Having both rope arrows and the ability to climb walls would be great.
QFT.
Beleg Cúthalion on 8/9/2009 at 19:04
There have been far too many assertions that walls which look alike are either climbable or not. Period. That's the only (!) point I was just arguing against and it has nothing to do with my attitude towards TDS.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
...often they allowed freedom that felt less forced than specific textured walls
Must be the language barrier which prevents me from seeing the difference between a certain texture and a "specific textured wall" which thus inherits all the properties of the texture, but what the hell... Just curious why both of you changed over to the climbing-blocked-by-objects argument only after I mentioned it. :p
Besides, I think things like the quality of TDS's side stories or the intentional design/free world elements fall victim to very personal taste. I wouldn't wonder if you considered a wall to climb up and jump across some beams to another entrance a "free world" element in TMA but an "obvious design path" in TDS. I had no problem messing around with climbable walls to get onto some rooftops or rafters or whatever.
Jarvis on 8/9/2009 at 20:05
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
Just curious why both of you changed over to the climbing-blocked-by-objects argument only after I mentioned it. :p
In my case, because that's what I'm talking about. Any change in language on my part is an attempt to breach the language barrier that may be between us. I hadn't even thought of your texture argument, because it's pretty beside the point to what I'm trying to get across. I just want to be sure that we're on the same page.
I assure you, my issues with TDS and it's restrictive environments are exactly the same as my problems with the early splinter cell games. Sam Fisher had a ton of fancy movement skills. Like the split climb, fence climbing, pipe climbing, ziplining, rappelling, ledge shimmying, and so on. But in at least the first two Splinter Cell games I felt cheated because whenever you used any of those features it was either "shoot everyone in a gun fight" or "climb this pipe to sneak by".
That's not exactly stealth game play in my opinion. That's my complaint with the climbing gloves in TDS. They were used as the only access to a sneaky loot cache or special item, or as the only other option to avoid a front door entrance. There's no player choice involved.
Where as there were plenty of times in TDP or TMA where I had to chose between a variety of ground shadows to use, a couple of other paths entirely through other rooms or streets, or rope arrowing up to that beam to see if I could find a way over the rooftops or across some rafters.
I don't care what the vehicle of my exploration is. All I care about is whether or not it requires some measure of awareness, skill, choice, and freedom on my part.
So to take this back on topic, it is clear that in TDS they placed beams and ledges specifically to stop your use of climbing gloves. They definitely didn't want us exploring very widely because they either wouldn't or couldn't design map areas to accommodate free range movement. That's what I don't want in a spiritual successor to TDS: an active attempt to restrict free range movement (which is a completely separate issue from large/small maps).
Petike the Taffer on 8/9/2009 at 21:22
Thief IV should be based on everything that worked or was improved from installment to installment. So, throw away the mistakes and bad decisions made in all three games, pick up the things that were done right, try to remake features that were intriguing, but unfinished, unpolished or flawed...
So, back to your original question : If it does what TDS did right, I won't feel dissapointed. I'll only feel dissapointed if the fourth game would just be a bland rehash of any of the previous three or repeat some less fortunate decisions made during gameplay design.
All three Thief games succeded in bringing something new to the already introduced formula - IV should walk this path too (mind you, I mean functional gameplay choices, not gimmicky ones, that you won't even notice).
Chade on 8/9/2009 at 21:31
The trouble is, Jarvis: you're just wrong. It is possible to use climbing gloves as an optional method of sneaking past guards. I've done it plenty of times. It's also not at all clear that decorations were placed deliberately to stop you using climbing gloves, and in fact, I'm damn sure they weren't*.
It's true that there were plenty of times I wanted to use the gloves when some decoration stopped me. The systematic climbing glove rules were overly restraining and frustrating. You needed an uninterrupted flat stretch of wall to use them, and with modern day graphics you won't find too many of those. But that's not evidence that your movement was deliberately restricted.
* Except of course for at the boundaries of the map, like every other game in existence including T1/2. Also, a handfull of locations in the game were probably carefully controlled: one room in the clock tower comes to mind.
stephenuk on 8/9/2009 at 21:46
I thought thief 3 was awfull, but thats what happens when games are made with consoles in mind, simplified inventory, control methods. Thief was always a pc, to be played with a mouse, just like what happend to oblivion compared to morrowind, totally stripped down. I hated thief 3 because they used a playing area that was split up into sections, classic example of having to cut it down to make it more console friendly because of memory constraints. This lead to terrible gameplay in that you could be chased by a guard only being able to escape because he can't travel through the portal you have just gone through, i suppose oblivion rectified this issue by allowing npc's to travel into new cells. Hopefully they will use a more realistic approach in thief 4. What i loved about the thief 1 and 2 was the dark and gothic feel about them which made them the games they where, which was lost in thief 3. Just as Ken Genious Levine stated " EA don't give a s*** about system shock 3" another amazing game, they just want to make bog standard first person shooters with no depth, if thats what people want then just play doom, but thief was different and still is to this day that coined the phrase sneak em up and wasnt about running in there swords blazin, it was about planning, stradegy and being given the total freedom of completing the situtation how you as the player wants, not on a set of train tracks.
Jarvis on 8/9/2009 at 22:21
I'm not trying to get into a right/wrong debate with you. I've used the climbing gloves to get past guards too. But not in a way that I came up with, it's always a design path, or a lame climb straight up and straight back down while a guard passed underneath. It didn't require any critical decision making on my part what so ever. I'm not interested in these contrived moments, no matter if they're happening on a rope, a wall, on the ground, or underwater.
Quote Posted by Chade
The trouble is, Jarvis: you're just wrong.
But if that is how you feel, then there's nothing more to be said. You are entitled to your opinion. I just hope EM disagrees with you.
