Taffer36 on 14/8/2008 at 04:32
Quote:
Some of the most fun I've had was messing around with my equipment.
Sorry, I just wanted to see this sentence on its own.
Quote:
My biggest problem with all 3 games is that Garrett seems to wear tap shoes on his missions. It would only be good sense to wear soft shoes in his line of work. I understand it was done as a measure of difficulty, but it's still silly.
The way I see it, people can hear extremely well. So much so, that even that noise that you hear when you're walking on the carpets would be heard from a ways away. I always rationalized it by the fact that it's as if we're being given a hightened sense of sound, so that things sound louder than they really are so we can adjust our movement speed accordingly.
Beleg Cúthalion on 14/8/2008 at 06:37
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
The reason T1/T2 throw away your inventory and cash between missions is precisely so you'll use them instead of hoarding them. It may not make sense from a logic perspective, but it was absolutely the best thing to do from a
gameplay perspective.
I can see no great advantage in that gameplay-wise, at least not more than in a system like TDS (which felt only imbalanced since it was so easy to get the weapons etc.). What's the problem with using one's gear carefully? Honestly, having almost all of the water arrows after playing a mission (and I don't mean ghosting or one of the everything-the-way-it-was-before ways of playing) and losing them right afterwards felt a little unsatisfying. I don't say that it's bad in any way, but it's imho not
better then the "continued" system of TDS.
New Horizon on 14/8/2008 at 14:09
I would have to agree with Zylon, from a gameplay perspective it is definitely the better choice. I don't know how you can't see an advantage to a system that allows more creative/mapper control over a mission.
Also, creatively with the continued system in TDS, there is no sense of a life going on between missions. In the first two games, we were left to wonder what was Garrett up to between missions. Why did he now only have 'this many' arrows...or this much gold? What was he doing? It's like he had no life between missions in TDS...that could have been dealt with by having 'stuff' for the player to do between missions in TDS, but then here we go again with filling in all the blanks for the player...like the 'sprawling' :tsktsk: city in TDS does.
Controlling the players inventory allowed the developers to properly balance the gameplay and give the player some better challenges in resource usage. TDS was the opposite of the originals in many ways. I give it points for attempting new things, but if the game had been properly play tested...then it wouldn't have been released with such an imbalanced system.
Taffer36 on 14/8/2008 at 16:19
Quote:
Controlling the players inventory allowed the developers to properly balance the gameplay and give the player some better challenges in resource usage.
Yes, yes, and yes.
Quote:
What's the problem with using one's gear carefully?
He never said that the TDP or TMA system allows you to fire off water arrows randomly as you please, you still have to be careful about it. But if a game encourages ammo conservation, then the player is going to hold out until they are forced to use something. The thing about Thief, though, is that you never
need to use an item. Because of that, most players would seldom use the tools given to them and, as others have stated several times, it simply hampers creativity. As the player, I feel much more free knowing that the cutoff for my current items is the end of the mission, and NOT the end of the game.
Goldmoon Dawn on 15/8/2008 at 04:14
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
I can see no great advantage in that gameplay-wise, at least not more than in a system like TDS (which felt only imbalanced since it was so easy to get the weapons etc.). What's the problem with using one's gear carefully? Honestly, having almost all of the water arrows after playing a mission (and I don't mean ghosting or one of the everything-the-way-it-was-before ways of playing) and losing them right afterwards felt a little unsatisfying. I don't say that it's bad in any way, but it's imho not
better then the "continued" system of TDS.
Look dude, these systems are all in place for the sole purpose of enhancing the Mission itself. If the Mission is flawed, the system is useless anyway. The Missions in Dark Project were enhanced by the inventory system. If you notice, when you start a new Mission, the loadout has its own quantity of "carryover" loot that you can add to by purchasing more equipment. The inventory system in Deadly was a joke, which is fine since the Missions themselves were perfectly suited. Once again, comparing Deadly Shadows to it ancestors is such a bad idea and increasingly awkward. In other words, you cant make Deadly seem better by comparing it to Dark Project. So quit making Dark Project look bad by comparing it to Deadly! Why try to tarnish a classic game like this?
Chade on 15/8/2008 at 04:47
GD, you are being unreasonable. I'm a fan T1/2's inventory system, but it is definately not unambiguously better then TDS's system. Both have different pros and cons, and while I lean slightly towards T1/2's system, ultimately I think it is a very subjective preference that will vary a lot depending on the player.
Jashin on 15/8/2008 at 05:03
This is all hair-splitting, it's stupid. A restraint system like Thief takes some of the immersion out of the game. Yes, it does. Stuff I bought and collected are taken away by the game. I WANT my stuff!!! :erg:
In the end it's all preferential. As long as you did what the game wanted it's not that challenging. Heck, just KO all the guards. The so-called challenges are mostly all self-imposed by fans.
Beleg Cúthalion on 15/8/2008 at 07:37
Still some more hairs to split... :p
Quote Posted by New Horizon
I would have to agree with Zylon, from a gameplay perspective it is definitely the better choice. I don't know how you can't see an advantage to a system that allows more creative/mapper control over a mission.
On the one hand people think this system leaves the player with more freedom, on the other hand you want the mappers to have a better control over the levels (' gear). OK, we'll leave that one out, maybe it's apples and oranges.
Quote:
Also, creatively with the continued system in TDS, there is no sense of a life going on between missions. In the first two games, we were left to wonder what was Garrett up to between missions. Why did he now only have 'this many' arrows...or this much gold? What was he doing? It's like he had no life between missions in TDS...that could have been dealt with by having 'stuff' for the player to do between missions in TDS, but then here we go again with filling in all the blanks for the player...like the 'sprawling' :tsktsk: city in TDS does.
And now you are using TDS's system of how it uses the missions as a counter argument in a discussion about the inventory. Whether you like that system or not, in TDS's case it fits the missions better and losing the inventory would be ridiculous. So a "continued" inventory is the only consequence and not
per se a target of criticism.
Quote:
Controlling the players inventory allowed the developers to properly balance the gameplay and give the player some better challenges in resource usage. TDS was the opposite of the originals in many ways. I give it points for attempting new things, but if the game had been properly play tested...then it wouldn't have been released with such an imbalanced system.
IMHO the only inventory imbalance was that there were too many/cheap items to get. I never had the feeling that there were either tools required that I did not have or that I felt like I don't need them at all.
Quote Posted by Taffer36
He never said that the TDP or TMA system allows you to fire off water arrows randomly as you please, you still have to be careful about it. But if a game encourages ammo conservation, then the player is going to hold out until they are forced to use something. The thing about Thief, though, is that you never
need to use an item. Because of that, most players would seldom use the tools given to them and, as others have stated several times, it simply hampers creativity.
Not using one's gear is an issue of experienced players rather than new ones, I believe; and those already know what they can do with their tools. TDS does not encourage ammo conversation, there are too many pickable weapons and tools around for that, but it gives the benefit of keeping a precious weapon for the time to come. And it would not even make sense for the dumbed-down console TDS to require careful handling of the tools.
Quote:
As the player, I feel much more free knowing that the cutoff for my current items is the end of the mission, and NOT the end of the game.
Ah, so you're feeling free to know that you will definitely NOT have these items rather than knowing that there can only be more of them (and thus giving you possibilities to experiment with the gear etc. etc.)...? Maybe I'm playing the wrong game.
Quote Posted by Goldmoon Dawn
The Missions in Dark Project were enhanced by the inventory system. If you notice, when you start a new Mission, the loadout has its own quantity of "carryover" loot that you can add to by purchasing more equipment.
This is quite a contradiction to what New Horizon said (although he won't agree I guess) because it abrogates the idea of an unknown space of what happened between the missions. So Garrett gets rid of his gear but keeps exactly the same amount of money? That's a bad match I think. Oh, and by the way, everytime I write "I guess" or IMHO or something similar I want to express that my own opinion is by no means the absolutely right one or that I want to give that impression. I could write "it is...", but I won't present myself as the best analyzer in these forums. :rolleyes:
Quote:
The inventory system in Deadly was a joke, which is fine since the Missions themselves were perfectly suited.
It's simply the other way around. The missions were glued to each other, like it or not, and as I wrote above this system was the only consequence. You cannot say the system was different than in TDP/TMA and thus worse, which would be (impertinent and) not exact.
Quote:
Once again, comparing Deadly Shadows to it ancestors is such a bad idea and increasingly awkward. In other words, you cant make Deadly seem better by comparing it to Dark Project. So quit making Dark Project look bad by comparing it to Deadly! Why try to tarnish a classic game like this?
I did not tarnish it, you will probably have read this one:
Quote Posted by myself
I don't say that it's bad in any way, but it's imho not better then the "continued" system of TDS.
But I think it would be most ridiculous to ignore the flaws of TDP/TMA but keep harping on those of TDS which have the same quality - or analyzing things in an imprecise way. And of course I dislike this "elitist" thinking (it was called that way, wasn't it?) that the earlier games were better just because they were, without looking into details and using blurry subjective impressions instead.
If you say: "I don't know what it was but I did not like it", I won't disagree because I simpliy cannot.
theBlackman on 15/8/2008 at 09:30
With the mindset developed over the years with most of the KILL IT IF IT MOVES and the I got more goodies than you did games that were, and are prevalent, I'm not surprised with the I WANT IT ALL mentality.
In my, never humble, opinion. Thief makes you THINK. What gear to use, when, where and "how many xxx do I need" (all of which the briefings clue you to), I much prefer the original system.
As I developed skill (and the operative is "developed" as opposed to was given by the "prizes" I accrued), I now do nearly all the FMs and original missions using NONE of the equipment except the keys and picklocks and the always useful (recovered to re-use), rope arrow
There are, of course, exceptions where the AI are imobile or never look away from the approach area where you need to put out a torch or use a noise arrow, or broadhead to make noise to lure them away.
But I still don't need 500 water arrows, an armory that will supply a battalion, or a purse full of money to feel good, or to make the game easier to play.
And, unless my memory is failing, all the missions and games including TDS, have enough gear laying around that you needn't buy a thing. In nearly every mission, the object you need as you go around the corner is available someplace near the problem or just before you get to where it is a "Must have" item.
Beleg Cúthalion on 15/8/2008 at 10:37
Well, but when you DO use the old system and know how it works, you are - as mentioned before - encouraged to use it in the mission. The lot of weapons in TDS is not a consequence of being able to hoard them in the first place, but to use them not while there are so many around at the same time.
And since Thief - even TDS - doesn't encourage you to KILL IT IF IT MOVES, that IMHO doesn't go with the WANT IT ALL mentality (to then kill everything...) and I believe those who like to keep their equipment DO consider themselves to be careful because of that. By the way, the question of mentality leads us into even weirder directions anyway. We cannot blame the game if someone feels himself encouraged to e.g. blackjack everyone just to continue his tour in peace.
