Improve Graphic ? - TTLG Forums

New Horizon on 5/2/2006 at 00:38

Quote Posted by ToolFan2007

Yes because Looking Glass Studios didn't make the game for money at all.

The Oversimplification Continues. :nono:

There is a difference between 'making money' and developing a game to get a quick return off your investment. Make a game for a target audience...and if it's done well, it's a long term investment. Make a game for the widest audience possible, push it out the door before it's finished...on multiple platforms and it's a 'grab the money and run'. See the difference?

Thief was designed with a narrow target audience in mind. This paid off in the long term, but obviously not in time to save Looking Glass. Perhaps if Eidos had of supported Looking Glass, instead of Daikatana...they may still be here. The result was a long term pay off for Eidos, as Thief still sells quite well today. I see new copies of it coming in all the time and they always sell. I don't know who is buying them, but it's still making great sales from what I can tell.

242 on 5/2/2006 at 00:39

Quote Posted by ZylonBane

Yes, because TDS did so well. :rolleyes:

Improper sarcasm. It did so well, that Thief4 was in pre-production stage when Ion was closed.

ZylonBane on 5/2/2006 at 01:02

Exactly. It did so well that Ion Storm was closed.

Jashin on 5/2/2006 at 01:19

People who played TDS first don't have much of a problem with it. It's a good game. ISA made it easier to approach in general so more people would play the game and more people'd play through it. If they duplicated Thief 2, it wouldn't have brought in as many players.

The game industry is a business, don't think I need to remind anyone here that lack of money is what brought down LGS. They made great games, but they only made great cult games with limited appeal.

242 on 5/2/2006 at 10:19

Quote Posted by ZylonBane

Exactly. It did so well that Ion Storm was closed.

Thief 2 did so well that LGS was closed when T3 was in pre-production. Your logic.

ToolFan2007 on 5/2/2006 at 11:24

Quote Posted by New Horizon

Could you elaborate on this please? Actually don't because this will turn into another "Thief 3 sucks because it's not T:TDP or T:TMA" thread, exactly what the admins don't need. I'm quite sure this is just your opinion and you construe this as "not finished".

You forget that without Ion Storm that T3 wouldn't even have been produced. That they produced a game which was not their franchise to begin with, and turned it into a great game is an achievement in itself.

OrbWeaver on 5/2/2006 at 12:09

Quote Posted by ZylonBane

Yes, because TDS did so well. :rolleyes:

That does not invalidate the presumption that the TDS compromises were undertaken with the intention of making a quick buck. We know now that they were unsuccessful, but they didn't at the time.

New Horizon on 5/2/2006 at 13:45

Quote Posted by ToolFan2007

Could you elaborate on this please?

Just do some research on the web. It's obvious that different ideals were at play. That is not meant to completely shoulder the burden of those ideals upon Ion Storm, as the changing market definately forced their hand in the matter. Quick returns are the norm these days...just look at the crap realilty shows on T.V. It's the modern mentality.

ZylonBane on 5/2/2006 at 13:53

Quote Posted by 242

Thief 2 did so well that LGS was closed when T3 was in pre-production. Your logic.

And TDS did so well, that Thief4 was in pre-production stage when Ion was closed. Your logic.

So neither of your points really prove anything.

deadman on 5/2/2006 at 18:54

Quote Posted by Jashin

The game industry is a business, don't think I need to remind anyone here that lack of money is what brought down LGS. They made great games, but they only made great cult games with limited appeal.

Quote:

Looking Glass died because a series of problems compounded each other into a financially lethal situation. No single factor is to blame. No single person or entity killed Looking Glass. No one problem was enough, on its own, to kill the company. Nonetheless, the problems were deadly when combined.

If you want to simplify that to say "lack of money," be my guest, but that can be deceptive.

Quote Posted by ZylonBane

And TDS did so well, that Thief4 was in pre-production stage when Ion was closed.

Hmm, isn't is also true they were already developing Deus Ex 3 when DX2's success was dubious? Or perhaps I wrongly assumed all the complaints I read meant the game didn't sell well. Wasn't it true most game reviewers gave it (along with Thief 3) such shining reviews it caused more to buy it than would if the problems were pointed out? I just read that april fool's thread by whoever-it-was, and feel sorry Ubisoft hasn't tried to purchase the Thief franchise from Eidos. They've made some quality games. Wait, is Eidos still alive? I recall discussions earlier about possible purchases from Murdoch, among others.

Thief likely won't live on. It seems most fans are fine with that, either because they don't want to see it dragged on too much, or think it'd be better dead than with crappy sequels (which I agree with, though I still don't think that means we should just give up the possibility of a good sequel).