No, not another "will there be thief4" thread, but... - by Flux
str8g8 on 9/4/2008 at 17:31
Quote:
That's interesting. I thought a lot of the stealth challenge came from Garrett not giving the impression of being particularly fast or acrobatic, unlike our heroes from other games.
That's a good point, but I don't mean Lara Croft style backflips and so on, just the ability to shin up a drainpipe. He's a master Thief after all! This ought to add to his options not take away from them. In the end, Garrett was "handicapped" not because of some design choice, but because it's really hard to do well.
Quote:
As long as the atmosphere there, I'm all good. Why would anyone need something more than a lock pick, blackjack and water arrows, that's beyond me.
Exactly. Incidentally I don't think The City needs to be recreated in it's entirety, GTA style. It just needs to be big enough, and alive enough, to feel that way.
jtr7 on 9/4/2008 at 21:32
Some of us really enjoy using rope arrows just to go up for the view, or stick a couple of them in a line and cross a room Tarzan style, heh heh. Being able to find the answer to the question, "I wonder what's up there?", adds to that sense of mastery and freedom. It shouldn't be baffling that the loss of explorable areas and alternate routes, afforded by rope arrows and swimmable water, was not appreciated. To look at the earlier Thief gameworlds and see five ways to accomplish a task is a joy, and it made me feel spoiled when I couldn't do the same in TDS. Freedom of movement, the illusion of non-linearity more than once in a while is a plus in all the games, to different degrees. Walking through the City streets and not being able to explore any more non-mission building interiors than the older titles was odd. I'm not familiar enough with the in-game, but I remember that there were LESS non-mission interiors.
Who keeps saying they want a Dark Project repeat? There's a core formula, leave it alone. You can build from that core in so many cool and crappy ways. I wish I could explain it. We want more of "what Dark Project got right", and it's hard to distill it. If the new game takes risks, it shouldn't change the core formula, but I would gladly see that it take risks against industry standards and break new ground. Not showing off technology, but using technology to show off intelligent ideas. Put brains and respect back in. Layers of gameplay and aesthetics and story that work shallow and deep according to the individual players. I want Thief to go new places, but it needs to earn the name "Thief", stay true to the core while exploring radical concepts without ever approaching GTA. One radical approach would be to eliminate the sword/dagger/backstab and broadhead arrows. How controversial that would be! That would kill sales for all the violent un-taffers who would buy the game just to be medieval.
Climbing Gloves and Rope Arrows: When I played through TDS, I only found the climbing gloves fun inside the Clock Tower. The only other place they were appreciated was in the Docks, to get those air crystals. Every other time, I just felt I had to use them, or I found them disappointing. I kept hoping I'd *click* "get" it, and I'd be Spider-Manning all over and finding vistas and interiors and loot and story. I didn't have the luxury of taking my sweet time, as would have been ideal, so I never discovered another way to get where I needed in those instances where I felt I had no choice.
This reminds me--and I'm just asking, not being snotty: Where's the Thieves' Highway in TDS? I've heard about it. I was on that roof, once, but I didn't find I could get very far. Is there a list of rooftop areas to explore?
Disturbation on 9/4/2008 at 22:00
Quote Posted by jtr7
This reminds me--and I'm just asking, not being snotty: Where's the Thieves' Highway in TDS? I've heard about it. I was on that roof, once, but I didn't find I could get very far. Is there a list of rooftop areas to explore?
It was a bit of a letdown, like the rest of the city. When I found it, I thought it seemed real cool, but I've never before seen a "highway" that short.
fett on 10/4/2008 at 02:40
Quote Posted by RavynousHunter
Ok, excuse me, I'm half asleep and listening to the third iteration of a playlist consisting of DevilDriver, Cradle of Filth, and Fear Factory.
Is this really something you want to admit in such a public arena? ;)
Gambit on 10/4/2008 at 02:55
Quote Posted by jtr7
Some of us really enjoy using rope arrows just to go up for the view (...) adds to that sense of mastery and freedom. (...) the illusion of non-linearity more than once in a while is a plus in all the games, to different degrees.
Quote Posted by jtr7
One radical approach would be to eliminate the sword/dagger/backstab and broadhead arrows. How controversial that would be!
Isn´t that a contradiction ?
Rope-arrows are not "necessary" for a Thief game, but as you said it adds a new gameplay, giving more freedom to how you do your mission.
Same thing with weapons... They are not "necessary", even less necessary than rope-arrows. But it also gives a new approach to do your mission. Surely it´s the most dangerous and messy but it´s there if you feel like it.
And if it isn´t there then how can we even speak about the freedom of playing without violence when violence is not even an option.
And if we all like playing Tarzan (hey, I love it :joke: ) with rope-arrows, then what´s wrong after ghosting 5 missions to go on a killing-spree and try to survive a battle with five guards...
jtr7 on 10/4/2008 at 03:47
Tarzan rope-leaping is entirely separate from a killing spree. One is fun stealth or avoidance, while the other...is not. An odd juxtaposition, there, Gambit. :sly: I don't have a problem with those killing moments. I have a problem with the industry and the consumers glorifying it so much that a game which asks you not to be excessively-cruel is mocked or ignored.
Those quotes are not a contradiction in the sense I meant them in the context I was speaking to. Playing sneakier than you have to in other games is part of Thief's speciality. Killing and climbing are not nearly as opposed to each other as killing and thieving. Alternate ways to infiltrate, avoiding confrontation, is what I like. How many different ways can I circumvent the AI? And it should be noted that the context of the aforementioned radical idea is to show that there are radical ideas that wouldn't gut Thief, but push the idea of anti-bloodshed.
There's no need for a sword or dagger to accomplish the job. Everything a player uses them for is noisy and messy, and/or confrontational. The one thing I really appreciate the sword for is something a hell of a lot of newer players DON'T know about: taking down undead with a backstab. But the consequence of using that is a reduction in tension and suspense. There are places made to give the sword something to smack that aren't AI: boarded entryways, icicles... but if one could pick up a hammer, mace, or some such object and chuck it, that eliminates the need to make reasons to use the sword.
The blackjack is the only violent weapon I would be pissed off to see taken out. I would certainly miss the sword, broadheads, mines, and fire arrows (they gotta stay in as part of the four elements). But if Thief is to remain true to the core, in a time where games are using stealth, but nearly or fully require violence as the primary means, and stealth as a means to violence, then I simply offer this as a possibility.
Increase where I can go and the ways I can get there, while simultaneously reducing the brutality. That's rebellious AND compliments Thief. I've been sick of games that are about brutality and atrocity, and which require those as primary game concepts, since the late '80's. When Thief came along, it was a dream. With the neverending stream of violent games, Thief provides a wonderful alternative, yet allows the violence, which I do engage in temporarily. Give the player consequences for the actions, which are felt in later missions. TDS had a little of that, but let's build it to where it's no longer easily-missed or ignorable.
In a better world, "Mature" would mean just that, in the other practical sense it usually is NOT used. I was pleased that Thief was not rated "M (Mature)" for cursing, or inescapable and excessive player brutality, or sex. Yes, I frikkin' know I'm in a minority.:p I was pleased that the bloodshed was mostly a way to tell the player that they had struck with or been struck by a sharp object.
You know, I'm always going to try to show people that there's another way of looking at things that isn't wholly invalidated, regardless of repsonse, though tailored to it. And I know it's driving people crazy that I make statements that are entirely separate from my beliefs and they can't tell when it's happened. I derive no pleasure from that, but I want to explore uncharted waters.
The Magpie on 10/4/2008 at 08:11
Regarding swordplay & violence. Not so much about Eidos Montreal. Feel free to skip.
I'd guess LGS when designing TDP felt they would have to allow the player something to fall back on once all the arrows were spent. This is mostly a legacy of the FPS genre back to the army knife of Wolf 3D, of course. Thief would in reality have worked almost equally well without the sword, but I have a hunch it would have to be a part of LGS's attempt not to put all of their eggs in the stealth basket. Besides, as you know, Dark Camelot would have involved quite a bit of swordfights. Melee mechanics already were in the engine and worked as well as any other at the time (which really doesn't say a lot), so it would really be quite silly to let that go to waste.
And it makes sense to at least give the player some melee blocking power and applied force so that an AI alert didn't have to mean a reload. Especially since Thief used to come with unbelievably long loading times. :p
Now... One often seems to forget the non-human adversaries in these debates. Suppose that I wish to play Garrett as a passionate burrick hater. (I have always suspected that the ability to BJ burricks is really a design oversight, but maybe I do so because I didn't realize it could be done until coming here to TTLG.) Or a righteous zombie hunter. That's all part of the role-playing/sandbox aspect of Thief. And come on. Toe-to-toe with the undead. The exhiliaration of at last successfully cutting down a shambling corpse... only to have it rise again.
The point is that violence towards non-humans (and spider bashing in particular) is a lot more acceptable to human players. On those grounds, a sword makes sense. Otherwise I'd have agreed with the dagger/unarmed people. I cringe when I see Thief played on Normal, because it clashes with my own mental image of Garrett. But that's entirely subjective, and incidentally perhaps the best argument against making the story of Garrett appear in other media. In the game, the player is free to shape a personal version of Garrett, and that is part of what we love about the game and which makes it so great. And scary.
Because I don't care about what the ratings said: Thief was arguably one of the cruelest games out there at the time. While murdering helpless innocents who desperately begged for their lives wasn't an option on higher difficulty levels, that was it. That's the sum of the discouragement the game offered. In the right (or wrong) hands, Thief, with all its lauded immersing features, would be a sadist's paradise. "Violence is the mark of an amateur," indeed. At least games like Carmageddon and Postal were honest about it. ;)
For the other side of the debate, ask in the SS2 forums how they'd feel without their large wrenches. ;)
Oh, and making a bow available without giving any access to broadheads really would appear quite daft IMO. Can't think of a good in-world solution to that one.
--
L.
jtr7 on 10/4/2008 at 08:30
Correct!!
And because I was struggling to find the words in a paragraph addressing missions of mostly non-human or entirely hostile AI, I cut it out. I'm glad you reiterated the idea that TDP was made with the devs not knowing what would work with players or not, so they threw in a bunch of concepts. Something I never forget. And nice touch with the evil King Arthur and good Modred fight possibilities. Since the devs included a weapon in one mission, why not give it a purpose in other missions? Keep in mind I'm looking at what Thief is to determine what another Thief could be.
A mission can be designed to utilise or require an inventory item, or it can be left out. We see this a lot, in all the games. You start out without certain things, and acquire or reacquire them. If the devs know they are going to reduce the players' options for a mission, they design the mission and pre-mission stores accordingly.
The bow is just a tool to launch the projectile. Change it to something else that launches the projectile, if only to remove the powerful psychological association between bow and arrow, even though bows are used for many other things in real life. Change the projectile to work with a different launching device.
How about having the fourth Thief game about the One True Keeper becoming corrupt and needing to be taken down, and the straggling Keeper remnants become redeemed by the end? And/or Garrett could be left alive, but a victim of karma. He may have saved The City on more than one occasion but he caused lingering suffering of the unwitting, and...as some would have it...murdered more than the Trickster and Karras and Gamall combined! Good thing Garrett stopped them! Not to mention all the sickness and death he caused by taking someone else's expensive health potions and meager savings.
_____________________________________________________________
SIDEBAR, thanks to another comment in another forum about Deus Ex 3:
I'm addressing the noisome ones who accuse people of being too conservative when that's not true, or being too liberal, when they can't judge motives very well. I'm more specifically addressing the current notion, in this thread, that we're afraid of change in a certain way, when we are not, but we are afraid of mainstreaming. Fear of mainstreaming and fighting against it is not a sign of denial that it will happen, nor is it indicative of fear of any or most change.
I swear these taffheads are popping into the thread, scanning for the pet keywords they peevishly hold suspect, and then they type grossly ignorant, hypocritical, and all too typical and shallow posts, with no sign of evolving thought or learning over the years, parroting themselves, and don't even see what asses they are making of themselves in their ridiculous attempts to make the rest of us sound petty and silly, at the wrong times, for the wrong reasons, out of context, and with no perception of the true emotional content, while rarely adding anything of true substance or depth. >Whew< :p
If a game is loved, you will see thousand of threads and tens of thousands of posts proving it. Even though a lot of taffers don't like TMA as much, the overall adoration overwhelms anything TDS has generated. The number of adoring threads and talks about the newer games is way less, nearly four years later, than the older games had in two years. If there are forums where those who love the newer more than the older exist, it really is hidden or less acessible. I don't see fans sifting through the storylines or speculating about the unknowns to the extent that the older games have generated. When I've asked for more information, on a wide variety of topics, to help me appreciate TDS, I generally get no response, or empty promises, or a teaser. That tells me there's some falseness to the TDS-specific fanbase. What I like about TDS makes a short list. When I've asked the fans that think TDS is the strongest of the three for their likes, it's never a long list, and few can state deeper reasons why they like things, and very few can keep from admitting the flaws they hate the other side to point out.
The splinter-group of naysayers against the naysayers, I find, are more negative and vehement and often blind. They believe their opinion is strongly validated and the others are crap. I don't like being lumped in with the TDS-hating trolls. I don't like their offensive manner, either. No one should ever quote them as the voice of all of us who found TDS disappointing. And when we make assurances that we are not HATING the game, but are...disappointed...and provide paragraphs of examples of what we liked, and what we wish was better...don't keep ascribing trollishness or extreme pettiness to the majority of us who aren't even like that. Whoever does that will be remembered as an ignorant ass, and if they cannot refrain from displaying their pleasure at being disruptive and personally insulting, they will be called a mystery word that begins with "T".
--
Wheee! I expect no comments and strange comments, but I hope this matters. I acknowledge my language skills suck. I know what I'm trying to say, but I know these words aren't quite right.
Gambit on 10/4/2008 at 12:03
Quote:
How many different ways can I circumvent the AI?
That´s the Thief spirit!
Freedom.
Freedom to decide how you spend your resources, freedom to decide if you take out the lights or wait the patrolling guard, freedom to sneak or blackjack.
Sneaking and ghosting are the classic way to play Thief. But, and here´s my argument, it can´t be forced to you. You must have the freedom to decide how to circumvent the AI or you don´t have freedom at all.
And let´s be sincere here, the game does already a good job discouraging violence. No killings at expert, and you´re dead when fighting more than one guard.
But the weapon, even if not very effective, still adds the option of violence. Sneaking and ghosting is more fun when you do it BY CHOICE not by obligation. You COULD blackjack/kill the guard, but instead you choose to sneak past him. And that´s how the Thief works for beginners, you start using all your firearrows, then you decide only using the blackjack, then after becoming good you can finally decide to ghost by choice.
-----------------------------------------------
I still think the answer to appeal most gamers is the NORMAL/EXPERT difference.
Let Normal be the mainstream. Yes, mainstream (at the way you play it, NOT with a mainstream story). Let it be the introduction to Quake players and newcomers. Let them have access to some fire arrows, and be a bit more forgiving in combat.
The sneak utopia can be left for expert. That´s where the game could follow all the good Jtr7 ideas (a sword/dagger would be still usefull to cut banners but they´re a joke against guards). :thumb:
Aditya on 10/4/2008 at 12:33
Quote Posted by jtr7
Wheee! I expect no comments and strange comments, but I hope this matters. I acknowledge my language skills suck. I know what I'm trying to say, but I know these words aren't quite right.
What is the point that you are trying to prove jtr7?? I can just as well produce a well-worded post from someone who loved TDS from some other random forum...what difference does it make? Your posting over and over about how much you hated TDS, in different ways, wont automatically convince everyone that it sucked coz its a matter of opinion. Some people liked TDS, some LOVED, some hated and that's same for any game out there.[I personally liked TDS more than Metal Age]. But most importantly, this thread is about discussing possibility of Thief 4, so I would appreciate if you stop derailing this into one more T3 vs T1-2 argument...
