SubJeff on 7/5/2011 at 22:07
TDS got the entire movement mechanic wrong. The walking, the leaning, the mantling, all of it was inferior to the originals. Peripheral adjuncts to the sneaking that are arguably integral to it were borked too - the blackjack and the bow. So yes, the sneaking was genuinely worse.
Fafhrd on 8/5/2011 at 00:13
Apparently I need to replay it, because I thought the sneaking was just fine. It was the tiny levels and shit, engine rendered cutscenes that I hated the most.
Muzman on 8/5/2011 at 08:38
Oh god, the scripted blackjacking. So glad we got rid of that. In fact I've really forgotten what it's like un-modded, without the AI tweaked just right and all the stupid stuff removed as much as possible. Not sure I really want to go back.
The scary part is, if you go on RPS and other places you meet quite a few people who talk as if all that is normal. EM give me the impression that they're keen not to disappoint those people (can't recall where I got that idea though).
The level thing is an interesting part of the problem. It can be said TDS had quite capable AI, at least at a system level. But without the levels to go with it, what's the point? It becomes a series of discreet sneaking challenges: Get past this guy-->get past that guy-->. Thief 1&2 had these but that was never what made them great. It was the way the levels defied and concealed 'gaminess', combined with the AI, the character movement, the sound etc. It's not a case of just having big levels, or just having good AI or just having movement features, but not exactly the same. These things aren't as mix and match as they seem, if they really want to recreate Thief-ness. Recreating is technically possible. That's true. But will they recognise that or just see a guy in a hood who sneaks and shoots arrows?
TDSs development and some of the things Spector and others have said during and after have given me the impression that Thief 1&2, though beloved, carry no real respect or moral weight as game design with management (and with a lot of designers) because they were less than multimillion sellers and get criticised for being too hard or inaccessible etc. Any desire to recapture the magic gradually faded from the agenda as time and trouble wore on. The atmosphere there can't have helped any desire to really figure out what made Thief tick, what with Eidos basically looming over them saying "You're shipping on time so we can close this place down for good" (which I doubt was said, but I think everyone knew). But I think - I worry- that this has set a precedent for how to consider Thief. One game looks to Metal Gear and Splinter Cell for how to be more accessible and so it goes.
I can't honestly expect more than a superficial reproduction. And I think most people cite superficial things for what they want to see from a Thief game, even seasoned fans. There's no lore for how to make it left and no reason to go to the effort of reverse engineering the old game's mechanics. They'll make something that fits into the current culture. That's my general feeling.
SubJeff on 8/5/2011 at 09:02
Thing is Muz I don't see why one shouldn't be able to make some that both fits into the current culture but which is also a worthy successor to the originals.
This optimization of the PC controls in DXHR is one example of having an elegant compromise.
If you included a wealth of gameplay options it would be possible to have a wide range of gameplay experiences. One could have a set of predefined defaults, like Classic Mode where everything is set to run like the originals to Thief 4 Default mode which is a halfway compromise and then Arcade Mode which is much more action oriented. All in the same game, on the same levels. Sure, it's a bit more effort but if you want it to "fit in" that's one way of doing it.
Thor on 8/5/2011 at 09:30
I just hope they make a pretty good Thief-ish engine and a level editor.
As for the storyline, if they dismissed Thief 3 as a nightmare due to some drug overdose, that would give room for Garrett's further reign. :p
Well ok they won't do that, so I agree with those who want new, strong ideas and such.
Should be interesting to see what they come up with in the end.
To Answer the original question: Well, yeah, they announced it didn't they? Thas' good enough for me.
SubJeff on 8/5/2011 at 10:30
There is no need to write off Thief 3 - the plot was fine. It had great potential actually. I was surprised and disappointed that they couldn't pull of the Enforcers though. Anyone who has played the Equilibrium FM knows why.
Muzman on 9/5/2011 at 08:57
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Thing is Muz I don't see why one shouldn't be able to make some that both fits into the current culture but which is also a worthy successor to the originals.
This optimization of the PC controls in DXHR is one example of having an elegant compromise.
If you included a wealth of gameplay options it would be possible to have a wide range of gameplay experiences. One could have a set of predefined defaults, like Classic Mode where everything is set to run like the originals to Thief 4 Default mode which is a halfway compromise and then Arcade Mode which is much more action oriented. All in the same game, on the same levels. Sure, it's a bit more effort but if you want it to "fit in" that's one way of doing it.
Yeah, sure. But I'm a pessimist remember.
I don't really see a contemporary game design methodology and work flow being able to do that very easily however. They will want to make the levels more linear and with discreet challenges to accommodate newbs and idiots. You could have different modes and optional features and so on but the spaces themselves are still going to be rubbish by true Thief design standards, at least in the early stages (worth noting at this point that I think TDS contains only one level worthy to be called a Thief level. There's three or four others that are fun and atmospheric and in no way bad, but still on the cusp. Only one where I was saying to myself "Hey this is the real deal now").
The problem is somewhat illustrated in that Tim Stellmach interview that went up the other day. It's never said outright but you hear a bit about the LGS approach of world building first, gamedesign second. In Thief I think this amounted to; you don't build a level, you build a real freakin' house and then turn it into a level. To most gamedesign philosophies I'd say this is bass ackwards (or at least, while they are concerned with space, level design conventions still trumps).
It's too much like hard work, for one thing. Why build all that depth that needs more testing when a beautifully decorated, but essentially simple Splinter Cell, or even Assassins Creed, mission will do? So while they could make a Baffords for the first level, say, and then give the player all sorts of switchable options to make it easier for the unfamiliar (hell they could let G see through nearby walls, left4dead style, in a switchable option if they wanted to) but still have a decent map for the experienced...they won't.
deathshadow on 9/5/2011 at 18:36
For those of us who thought "Deadly Shadows" was a steaming pile of manure with little if any redeeming characteristics, the answer is likely a resounding no. As mentioned the current formula for games is "dumb it down, dumb it down, dumb it down" -- See Dragon Age 2 for example, which suffers badly from consolitus.
Other times you have developers who have no business whatsoever even TRYING to make a sequel doing so anyways, as they didn't "GET" the original. Lately I've had the feeling we need to start telling a few of these people "If you want to make something original and unrelated, have the balls to make something original and unrelated instead of just slapping something else's name on it."
It's also amusing when a company is FORCED to release a under development game NOT as a sequel -- really would Mass Effect have been as popular if it had been released as the original working title of "KotOR 3"? I doubt it.
Even when it's a decent game -- Take Arcania (aka Gothic 4) for example. If it was on it's own without any tie-ins to gothic, I'd be willing to bet you'd see more positive reviews for it -- it's certainly a better game than than unplayable train-wreck Assassin's Creed... If it had just a hair more character interaction it could be on par with Dragon Age. (It's certainly as linear)
But by putting the Gothic name on it, all they did was piss off long time Gothic players because linear gameplay has never been what Gothic was about.
Though at least Arcania is a GOOD game -- unlike say Deadly Shadows with it's jerky character animations, jerky movement thanks to "body awareness" nonsense and mere support for third person bull flushing the first person experience down the crapper, spiked billy club as a non-lethal weapon, audio issues galore, (thanks for making me have to buy new speakers after falling into *SHOCK* water), etc, etc... I'd be a lot more forgiving of the stuff that didn't even make it a Thief universe game (like the generic fantasy environment #2 graphics and lack of freedom to explore) had it even been a GOOD game...
So yeah, I'm going into this with REALLY low expectations -- They better have a demo because there's NO WAY I'm plunking down coin sight unseen like I did with TDS. They don't, I'm probably pirating it just to see if it's even worth money first...
Which with the increasing amount of "dumbed down for console player" bull fewer and fewer games are worth money to me. It's sad when I'm looking forward more to the next Elder Scrolls game than I am a Thiaf release.
But hey, I'm the joker who "all I want" in a new Thief game is a 1:1 copy of the first two games game-play with modern graphics. Hell, I consider T2X a better game than TDS... Most T2 fan missions blow TDS out of the water from a gameplay perspective.
Renault on 9/5/2011 at 21:03
Everything I heard about Arcania was that it was oversimplified and dumbed down (didn't play it personally though). Taking the "Gothic" label off it wouldn't change that. Bad games are bad games, period.
If Deadly Shadows had been released as a non-Thief title, it also wouldn't suddenly be a good game - it would have been ripped a new one for being an awful attempt at being a bad Thief clone.
Sulphur on 9/5/2011 at 21:22
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
Despite which, the majority of games critics
still couldn't find their way around the level. It's analogous to Thief because it's A: The second least cinematic core gameplay mechanic
ever (the first would of course be Thief) that has been honed to razor sharpness, and B: it is
completely unforgiving to anyone who doesn't adjust how they look at the game world to be more in keeping with the player character.
It is a platformer. The point is navigating from point A to point B and not breaking all 200-odd bones in your body on the way, just like in any other platformer. The intellectual breakdown required is purely in comprehending a mostly static and unpopulated environment and navigating it efficiently. You might as well replace someone playing ME for the first time with someone playing Super Mario Brothers for the first time and what you said would still ring true - ME owes plenty to SMB and its ilk for its razor sharpness.
Quote:
Runner Vision is designed to assist that, but it's
hardly 'follow the red bits and you'll always get where you need to go,' and the number of interactive environment elements that
aren't highlighted vastly outnumbers the ones that are. It also has the benefit of being consistent with the art style of the rest of the game
and has a (slight) story explanation for why it's there.
The game doesn't really have much in the way of
interactive bits though, does it? It's at odds with Thief/Deus Ex because it's a fundamentally less cerebral game to begin with. I get what you mean about multiple pathways through the environments that aren't bright welts of red jumping out at you from monochromatic starkness, but all those involve the same actions and objects: run, grab, jump.
At no point through my playthroughs did I see any real benefit to navigating one way vs. the other - it wasn't really about giving players freedom of choice or tools to create choice (and how could they have? It's a platformer) except for the semi-rare occasions when you were cornered by Blues.
Quote:
Dead Space, despite breadcrumbs (which, again, at least has a decent in-game fiction reason for existing, unlock BioShock's floating objective arrow), is still very heavily exploration based and set in an
extraordinarily well realized, detailed, and open game world.
There's exploration, and there's exploration. DS1 is not the latter, unfortunately, as much as I love it - it's well-realised and features fantastic level architecture all right, but it is in the end not a contiguous series of environments or, in fact, open. You're railroaded through most of it - the only choice you get on the odd occasion is whether you should do a) or b) first. a) and b) more or less each mean dealing with a boss, solving a puzzle, or both at the same time. It's SS2 with all the player choice removed, made much more linear, and crossed with Resident Evil's control scheme and set piece heavy-handedness.
Quote:
I'd also throw Dead Island into the mix, but it hasn't been released yet
Sly bugger. I've got questions, but I don't want you to trip over any NDAs or anything. Can you say or even give me a hint as to whether Dead Island lives up to the trailer/is otherwise any good? I'm curious, but I understand if you can't say anything.
