Publishers are eying Thief again...

Beleg Cúthalion on 29/2/2008 at 20:42

With that new studio-based policy at Eidos that I read about today there might be a chance for an era of higher-quality games. Not sure though if it pays out for us.

piano-sam on 29/2/2008 at 20:48

Sounds interesting. Do you have a link to an article or something? I sure hope something like the 97/98 - 00/01 period rolls in again.

jtr7 on 29/2/2008 at 20:54

If they put the budget into time and not the latest gimmick, we'll have a better chance. It'll help if they make it possible to add things in after its release, for those who want bloom, and other whistles and bells.

And one of the things that works against role-playing Garrett in the games (easily overlooked, but there are reminders), is that Garrett knows The City very well, and the first-time player doesn't know it much at all. It's not a problem when Garrett goes on a mission to places he admittedly has never been to, but running him through the streets, especially in TDS around his apartment and places he'd obviously had to have been to, when you aren't familiar with it yourself, makes me feel like Garrett should be talking to the player: "Take a left, it's not too far...."

ToolFan2007 on 1/3/2008 at 11:38

Quote Posted by shadowthief

:(

Yes, it's true... Our baby may again be in danger of being mutilated for the masses all in the name of profit. :mad:

This time the culprits may be Bethesda...

So far it's just a rumor, but how long that will last I can't say.

"With Fallout in its pocket and Fallout 3 earning well-deserved hype, what beloved dormant IP is next on Bethesda's shopping list? Whispers inside the studio suggest they'd love to get their hands on Thief..." (October Issue of OXM Pg. 90, Rumor Mole)

Though Bethesda is a great developer and they have been responsible for many great games I've lost faith in them. What they've done to the newest Elder Scrolls game is sad. So many of the things that made The Elder Scrolls amazing were toned down, taken out, shrunk, simplified, made easier, and for no other reason than to sell more copies. Lets not get started on how they started charging for small mods they made...

I wish I could trust Bethesda and I know they still have Emil with them, but what is one man against a vicious machine that is a corporation? I fear even he can not do much when greed gets in the way. I know Ion tried their best at Thief, and they did a really great job but look at all the tweaks and fixes WE, the players, the hardcore Thief fans, had to develop to fix it, and not everything was fixable. Why were most those things there anyways? The Xbox and the desire to sell as many copies as possible.

Now give our baby to a company that has already butchered their own baby for the masses and I don't think its fate will be much brighter...

I don't know my friends... I hope this stays just a rumor...

Not another load of elitist bullshit mouthed by someone who thinks he owns the series because he played Thief in December 1998.

Oh, and Oblivion is also one of the best games of this decade. All the garbage about being "dumbed down" is typical of the elitist massives. Yeah, it's not as complex as the others in the series, but it's more fun, and that's what the game is about. And as far as I know it sold plenty more than the previous games.

I don't know if I'm the only person to have played Thief in 1998 and have enjoyed all three in the series, without bitching about how it isn't a remake of The Dark Project.

"CHANGES??? IN *MY* GAME?!?!?!?"

Judith on 1/3/2008 at 15:24

Quote:

And as far as I know it sold plenty more than the previous games.

That's the "Eat shit! Billions of flies can't be wrong!" kind of argument, dude :ebil:

And this is no "elitist" either, rather "frustrated". Games were a bit more ambitious and challenging a few years ago, while now they're mostly "gorgeous-looking" and challenging (more or less). I don't think Emil P. has to fight with anyone, same goes for Todd. Oblivion was just the path they decided to take, like many other developers for X360. The console itself didn't "dumb down" the games, it was developers who did it. For me games could be as they were on the PC, if something changes here it's the controller.

IMHO the problem is: for a few years we've been witnessing a constant evolution in technology, graphics, physics, sound, etc., but there was little or no almost no evolution of thought, or it was mostly on paper (see W. Spector, K. Levine, R.& H. Smiths, etc. thoughts or lectures on their games/design and compare it with final results).

incal on 1/3/2008 at 16:19

It seems like none of the newer games i could play or see were as complex as the older games i like (Thief , System shock , Morrowind, Fallout and so on) , which is sad.

I like a hard and complex game , a challenge , that makes me feel proud when i complete it ; meaning it was also good enough to make me go over my more than ocasional frustration.
Looks like most people just see games as ... well , games or maybe just some kind of toys , they juge it all by the graphisms.

Gameplay is an art form too...
When the masses finally realises that ...

Zillameth on 1/3/2008 at 17:23

Quote Posted by Judith

And this is no "elitist" either, rather "frustrated". Games were a bit more ambitious and challenging a few years ago, while now they're mostly "gorgeous-looking" and challenging (more or less). I don't think Emil P. has to fight with anyone, same goes for Todd. Oblivion was just the path they decided to take, like many other developers for X360. The console itself didn't "dumb down" the games, it was developers who did it. For me games could be as they were on the PC, if something changes here it's the controller.

I'm afraid it's more complex than that. True, console as a piece of hardware doesn't dumb anything down. Console as a business model does (if only sometimes). See, those consoles have business plans. And they have target groups. And they get profiled so that all games on a given console try to appeal to those groups. So if you want to make something original, you run into console maker who says: "sorry, you can't release this game on our console, because it's not the kind of games we would like to have in our offer". And then you can either stick with PC, and make any game you want, or conform to console producer's wishes and make money.

The tragedy is, you cannot really blame either the developer or console producer. They just want to make money, and that's the most efficient way. In case of a console producer, it's not even a monopolistic practice. Every modern product, from cars to food, is being targeted. In case of developer, it's just the question of survival. One game out of five breaks even, they just don't sell well enough when compared to develoment costs. Here's my big thanks for nothing to all the software pirates.

[Fun fact: development costs af a mainstream game have risen about 10-fold since Dark Project, and 100-fold since 80s.]

Personally, I support PC as a gaming platform (ideologically, that is, because professionally I will work with any platfrom my employer decides to use). PC does not have a business plan, because it's not even a product. It's a standard that governs a huge set of products. So PC developers are free to make any kind of game they want to; it just needs to bring enough profit so they can make another one. Give them enough sales, and they will make as complex a game as you want.

But that's something most people don't really care about.

Judith on 1/3/2008 at 21:03

Quote:

See, those consoles have business plans. And they have target groups. And they get profiled so that all games on a given console try to appeal to those groups.

I'm aware of that, no worries, but the topic itself is so broad that I simply didn't have time to grasp it all in one post. Sometimes people have to work, you know ;)

Speaking of target groups, one thing always makes me wonder. In my region PC gaming market is still very strong, console titles are considered a bit too expensive and belief, that an average current-gen console owner is a 15-year old kid is quite popular. I'm browsing through Western-European and American gaming sites everyday, so I know that the situation is quite the opposite - it's more like male in his 20s-30s. Why someone would like to simplify gameplay for grown-up men, then? Or is it just the desire to blend in as many target audiences, as possible, making the game accessible to "everyone", or "family"?

Currently I'm supporting PC only, but I plan to get a nice LCD TV plus X360 and support both platofrms. It's not really because love X360 or sth, I just work as a translator and localisation tester (sometimes testing lead) in the game industry, so I'd be more versatile, as this market keeps growing in my region :)

jtr7 on 1/3/2008 at 23:25

My interjection: TDS selling more has to do with an established fanbase anticipating the final chapter of their beloved trilogy, an increased public awareness, and marketing, not to mention established company names attached to the game, and dual platforms--yes, marketing. There were also more households with PCs and X-Boxes than when TMA came out. That TDS sold more doesn't mean it was a better quality game. I'm differentiating between presentation and the actual game wrapped within the eye-candy and higher-resolutions of everything.

Zillameth on 2/3/2008 at 18:43

Quote Posted by Judith

Speaking of target groups, one thing always makes me wonder. In my region PC gaming market is still very strong, console titles are considered a bit too expensive and belief, that an average current-gen console owner is a 15-year old kid is quite popular. I'm browsing through Western-European and American gaming sites everyday, so I know that the situation is quite the opposite - it's more like male in his 20s-30s. Why someone would like to simplify gameplay for grown-up men, then? Or is it just the desire to blend in as many target audiences, as possible, making the game accessible to "everyone", or "family"?

I guess it's the usual principle of lowest common denominator. Generally speaking, when people grow up, they start to appreciate some new things, but they don't stop enjoying things they liked as kids (well, at least not all of them).

Besides, kids do less talking and more playing. :) And they buy more games. Adults have more money, but also more expenses and less time. They are less vulnerable to marketing, and they have seen a few games already, so they are not as easily amused.

One thing one needs to remember is that modern stationary console market is just some 30-40 million customers worldwide. That's a lot of people, but it's also nothing when compared to world population. I mean, there are 500 million people in the European Union alone. So it's safer to presume console games appeal to certain tastes, rather than certain age.

Also, I have a rant routine about console marketing and how it brainwashes people, but I've recently noticed I dislike marketing to the point of being biased, so I won't say anything this time.

Next time I see some marketeer claim that PC games require disk shuffling and continous clicking of a "Yes" button, I'm going to kill someone. Or at least rob their office, if I feel like doing this on Expert.

jtr7 - what you say is true and I'd like to believe it's also obvious. Sadly, I've never had a boss who would understand the distinction between what game is and how it is perceived. They say: if it sells, then it's good (as in "morally good").

I've met a guy, who is a relatively well known game developer in my country, has a lot of experience. And he's thinking like this: why do so many people insist on liking Deus Ex, or Thief, or Fallout! These are bad games! They didn't sell!