ZylonBane on 12/3/2007 at 21:03
Quote Posted by Gvozdika
I like how in T3 minor movements only make Garrett turn his head while the rest of the body remains right in place. Just what I would do in reality to keep my profile low. It feels more real, less gamy.
In real life you have direct conscious control over which way your feet are pointing when you decide to start walking. I certainly never drift off sideways when I stop and change direction. So no, you're wrong, it's not more realistic.
New Horizon on 12/3/2007 at 21:15
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
In real life you have direct conscious control over which way your feet are pointing when you decide to start walking. I certainly never drift off sideways when I stop and change direction. So no, you're wrong, it's not more realistic.
I suppose it is if you're drunk.
nicked on 12/3/2007 at 21:33
I think the fact is, Thief 3 was very different to the first 2 games. Not necessarily better or worse, but so different that many fans of the first game couldn't get to grips with it. If Thief 3 had been the first in the series, and Thief 1 and 2 released afterwards, we'd have a totally different fanbase that would make threads moaning about how bad Thief 1 and 2 are because they strayed away from the original (Thief 3) concept.
However, I don't think you need to be a hardcore Thief fan to appreciate that Thief 3 had many shortcomings. It was easier and less punishing to just kill people in the 3rd game. In the first games, I actually feel bad killing people, because the world is so believable. You feel sorry for the poor guard's wife back home, who's gonna get the news that her beloved husband was hacked to death by a crazed burglar. In Thief 3, it doesn't feel like a real world, it feels like a video game, so you don't care.
I can't pinpoint any one reason it doesn't feel like a real place, but the level size may have had something to do with it. It's hard to suspend your disbelief when the entire City suddenly turns out to be not much bigger than my old school. As far as I can remember, there wasn't even any effort to disguise this. If size was an issue, they should have blocked off more areas, to at least make it feel like you were part of a bigger world.
It also made light of the first two games for the same reason. It's the same city, so where is the ruined Soulforge cathedral? Where's the walled off section of the old quarter? Where's Bafford's place? Or Ramirez'? Or Gervasius's? Why is there no Baron's castle? What happened to Angelwatch? And where did the Hammer clocktower spring from? It's supposed to be visible from anywhere in the city, so why isn't it visible in the first games? The city is unrecognisable and insulting to people who really got deeply into the mythology of the first two games. I guess it was to make it newb-friendly - remove any reference to the first two games so as not to confuse X-box players.
Apologies for the long rant. Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed Thief 3, and as a standalone game it's very good. But Thief 1 and 2 were great.
snowcap21 on 12/3/2007 at 21:52
Quote Posted by nicked
It was easier and less punishing to just kill people in the 3rd game. In the first games, I actually feel bad killing people, because the world is so believable. You feel sorry for the poor guard's wife back home, who's gonna get the news that her beloved husband was hacked to death by a crazed burglar. In Thief 3, it doesn't feel like a real world, it feels like a video game, so you don't care.
This is exactly what I think. It doesn't matter, that you can kill in T1/2 maybe as easily as in T3, because it feels different (at least to some players). I even have problems to steal from poor people in T1/2.
edit: Not to stray too far from the topic: T3 was for similar reasons not as scary for me as T1/2. I can't explain it well, but I think it was a combination of the unsolid feel of the architecture/textures, the bobbing movement and little things like the new blackjacking. But T3 is still a good game - can't make it perfect for everybody.
Gvozdika on 12/3/2007 at 22:17
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
In real life you have direct conscious control over which way your feet are pointing when you decide to start walking.
And if they do not point in the direction you chose to walk to you have to turn instead of instantly moving that way. Thats exactly what happens in the game.
Aja on 12/3/2007 at 23:07
Actually I'm quite capable of pivoting. If human movement really were like Garrett's, we'd all have a hell of a time getting out of a bathroom stall.
New Horizon on 12/3/2007 at 23:10
Quote Posted by Gvozdika
And if they do not point in the direction you chose to walk to you have to turn instead of instantly moving that way. Thats exactly what happens in the game.
That's great for third person, but in first...it doesn't translate realistically, it translates as wobbly bobbly movement. I can turn on a dime in real life, my body compensates for all the movement going on, that's why first person needs to be a bit more precise than it was in TDS. In TDS, even though the body movement may have been more accurate since it was tied to the model...our eyes are not attached to the game...we see this movement on a screen, therefore, our body does not compensate the way it does in real life.
Gvozdika on 12/3/2007 at 23:11
"Actually I'm quite capable of pivoting. If human movement really were like Garrett's, we'd all have a hell of a time getting out of a bathroom stall."
No, because we could just strafe to compensate for this effect.
Just try to perform a 90 degree turn without any forward(before)/sideward(then) movement. Than try that again without this restriction. Then tell me which is faster and which feels more natural.
Of course one can always argue wether this effect is too much in how it is modelled in the game. Its different for everybody in real life, too. Depends on leg length for instance. Garrett seems to have quite long legs. Which also explains how he can run so fast and jump that far.
Oh, and noone seems to take any offense of how he can steal keys from peoples belts and grab stuff from insane distances. Long fingers indeed.
imperialreign on 12/3/2007 at 23:12
I thought the movement in TDS was a bit odd, too; but really it's seems that it's just the 3rd POV camera moved in to represent 1st POV. It didn't bother me too much, just took some time to get used to, really. It was kind of funny, though, Garrett has a 'turning radius' in TDS.
Quote:
It also made light of the first two games for the same reason. It's the same city, so where is the ruined Soulforge cathedral? Where's the walled off section of the old quarter? Where's Bafford's place? Or Ramirez'? Or Gervasius's? Why is there no Baron's castle? What happened to Angelwatch? And where did the Hammer clocktower spring from? It's supposed to be visible from anywhere in the city, so why isn't it visible in the first games? The city is unrecognisable and insulting to people who really got deeply into the mythology of the first two games. I guess it was to make it newb-friendly - remove any reference to the first two games so as not to confuse X-box players.
I agree, seeing as how if all these places and all were alluded to, newbies would've been confused. But, in defense of TDS on this issue, they were able to make the game fully understandable for the newbies, and yet, still make a lot of references that the long time fans would get right off the back; it's hard to write a story for two audiences like that.
IMO, though, I'm in a way glad that I wasn't able to play TDS when it was first released (even though I had bought it then :D ), I think not having a computer capable of running any of the series for well over a year allowed me that chance to take TDS from a clean perspective. It's good, but I was just dissapointed with certain things. Oh well . . .
ercles on 13/3/2007 at 01:36
Quote Posted by New Horizon
Take note...'monster levels'. Nobody denies that. The point often made in T1 and 2, is that you weren't a killer. You can't really kill what's already dead...or undead. It's not a simple matter of non-aggression...it's non-aggression towards humanoids.
Just stop for a second and look at how you are clutching at straws to try and prove your point, its fucking horrible.
I personally found that the killing in TDS was no less of an easy way out than the running blackjacks that you can pull off in the first two.
