No, not another "will there be thief4" thread, but... - by Flux
vurt on 8/4/2008 at 20:49
Quote Posted by jtr7
The game allows mugging, and other non-thiefy, non-sneaky, unstealthy behavior, yes. The games are loved for the way each person can play differently and win, yes. But the games' voice-overs and objectives also suggest quieter and less-deadly tactics.
It would be strange if they encouraged mass murdering since it's not very theif like, so it's totaly expected.
About the gfx, its all up to what you prefer i guess, i think the shadows, the extra polycount etc totaly makes up for the stiffer animations, and if you really think about it it wouldnt even make sense for the characters to move around like they were wearing gym clothes, infact they accutally wear armor (at least most of them :p ), and i bet you $100 that you dont walk like you're wearing underwear in most medieval armor...
If Thief 1-2 _truly_ wanted to be something totaly rebelious and different they should've left out killing and longswords completely. They're commercial just like anyone else. But yes, they did something which indeed was unique at the time, but it doesnt mean it wasnt commercial.
Suglasp on 8/4/2008 at 20:52
I don't want to go into many details, but T1 and more over T2 had a really good immersion. I mean the environment and sounds/music just made it appeal good. Whereas TDS has some funny moments to play with.
Like shooting mossarrows in a guards face or throw some oli on the ground that made enemys slide over the ground.
This regarding the first post, -if- the news would be true :)
Who does care actually if Garette would have a long sword or a dagger. Ask the question: in essence, does it matter to gameplay really? I count what fett wrote.
vurt on 8/4/2008 at 20:53
Quote Posted by fett
You've missed the point of those criticisms entirely vurt. The complaint is not that the animations and graphical effects look bad (although some of them surely do, though so did much of T1 and T2) - the POINT is what loot glint, glowing footprints, arrows, and faction symbols, etc. represent. In short, they represent a level of hand-holding and player direction that is more akin to linear/consolish shooter games, than they are to the original Thief games, which are non-linear, and assume a level of player intelligence that counts on them finding things on their own without neon signs pointing the way.
Who the hell used that shit anyways? I think it took like 2 days after release and there were posts about how to remove the stupid help-crap, how to tweak the movements and even the hud and AI . I'm _sure_ most of these people who complains didnt miss this, at least not if they were active in the Thief forum at the time of release or spent 10 sec on google to find a fix for it.
I can agree that the devs did a sloppy job with this and there's really no excuse for it at all, but at least it was fixed fast by the community.
vurt on 8/4/2008 at 20:58
Quote Posted by Suglasp
Who does care actually if Garette would have a long sword or a dagger. Ask the question: in essence, does it matter to gameplay really?
...well at least it wasnt a light sabre.
fett on 8/4/2008 at 21:13
Quote Posted by vurt
Who the hell used that shit anyways? I think it took like 2 days after release and there were posts about how to remove the stupid help-crap, how to tweak the movements and even the hud and AI . I'm _sure_ most of these people who complains didnt miss this, at least not if they were active in the Thief forum at the time of release or spent 10 sec on google to find a fix for it.
I can agree that the devs did a sloppy job with this and there's really no excuse for it at all, but at least it was fixed fast by the community.
Whether you *could* remove those things or not isn't an issue. The fact that they were even included speaks to the mindset of the developers who assumed that players would appreciate such things, and a large portion of the gameplay and design followed that same mindset. Again - you're missing the point - it's not the way those things looked or the fact that you could ignore them. It's what they represent in the thinking of the devs.
jtr7 on 8/4/2008 at 21:13
What Fett's been saying. :thumb:
What do you like and why, vurt? Why
are you here today?:sly:
Quote:
It would be strange if they encouraged mass murdering since it's not very theif like, so it's totaly expected.
But you said, essentially, that TDS was more Thief because it had a dagger, which is an unnecessary weapon. What ELSE do you appreciate? How many AI do you "kill" in a playthrough? How many murders would make the player a virtual mass-murderer? Why's the sword, which the player never has to use unless he/she wants to bash some wood to flinders, the most critical point?
The animations are stiffer because they are hand-animated (what's the correct term for the method?) instead of motion-captured, but the armor the Nobles and Thugs and Commoners and half-naked Pagans and Hammers are wearing cannot be causing such stiffness. I do appreciate the fanon attempt, though. I'm extremely guilty of making fanon excuses for all the flaws in all the Thief games I can.
Commercial, yes, but not in the same way. The original Thief was marketed generally because no one knew who would bite. Then with Thief Gold and TMA, they were made for the niche market of those who appreciated it and some things were adjusted to hopefully make it more appealing to those that were still unsure.
What did you like about TDS? In detail, please.:angel:
phide on 8/4/2008 at 21:23
Quote Posted by vurt
If Thief 1-2 _truly_ wanted to be something totaly rebelious and different they should've left out killing and longswords completely. They're commercial just like anyone else.
I for one thought the swordplay (which was pretty well-executed, really)
was adventurous and rebellious. I wouldn't be surprised if perhaps original iterations of the design documents detailed some sort of dagger, as it's more logical given Garrett's role and constraints, but the dagger was dropped because the prospect of swordplay was more fun (though I still liked the dagger in TDS). Not commercialism as much as it is "funism", a concept Looking Glass understood well.
By the same token, would you argue that the inclusion of the blackjack is "too commercial", and that players shouldn't have any sort of defense against sword-wielding adversaries (WOW SO NON-COMMERCIAL, SO REBELIOUS!)?
Many of my gripes with TDS are purely technical. A number of the simplifications are due to technical constraints and not because those elements were too complex to appeal to the console audience (though there are those as well -- obvious hand-holding elements as fett described).
Springheel on 8/4/2008 at 21:28
I'm constantly bemused by the fact that people who cry, "No thief would ever carry something as bulky as a *sword* with them!" seem to have no problem whatsoever with a thief carrying a bow and several dozen arrows.
vurt on 8/4/2008 at 21:32
Quote Posted by fett
It's what they represent in the thinking of the devs.
If you remember it was a console/PC release and yes it was badly tweaked for the PC crowd. It's nothing new that devs are often pushed hard by their publishers and sometimes (most of the time) games gets released in an unfinished state. I'm not so sure it was Ion Storm's intention to release it in this state for the PC.
jtr7: mainly what i liked MORE in TDS than in the previous games was the level design/themes, atmosphere/GFX (yes, i do appreciate nice gfx and i do think they have a impact on atmosphere). If you want more detail please search my previous posts, someone even made a link to a thread, im sure i explain it in more detail there lol
The stiff animations can not be excused for the characters that doesnt wear armor.anyways, it wasnt something that ruined the game for me, im so used to shitty animations in games ;( maybe i would've cared more if i had played thief1 or 2 just before.
Why im here?? why are YOU here?
why do we exist? ..and what's the meaning of life? ...< drifts off into space >
jtr7 on 8/4/2008 at 21:37
Hahaha! I really just want to make sure you didn't come in here to provoke people, vurt. Since you are posting in here, and making statements as you are, I'd like to know why you are in this thread, if it's not to make digs at people who make digs at a game you like? My question is not about what you, vurt, really think, but how your comments can be constructive. We can all say we like or don't like something, but the reasons are more important and useful. Saying someone is wrong without explanation won't change opinions, but even if a detailed explanation doesn't change opinion, it's much preferable and makes understanding possible.
I believe TDS suffers from the all the wasted time from the botched software, and trying to fix it, and having to come up with work-arounds and replacement ideas, and redesigning. I don't blame the devs for what they had to do under those circumstances, and what they couldn't do. I feel sorry for the guy who delivered the botched software. What's his untold story? I will reitierate that we don't want to see that happen again.
And LGS was not like any other company, but yes, they had to have a business plan and budget, producers, publishers, and all the marketing science, but the devs had more creative freedom and the departments could share ideas and technology.
