Thief IV and Assassin's Creed - by Somnus
Bakerman on 15/2/2011 at 01:13
Quote Posted by jtr7
Just make it easier (not automated so much or animated fancy) to climb what a guy in shape can climb, jump what can be jumped, reach up and grab what can be grabbed, and not have the character need to jump to step high, not be blocked by a window sill or molding, or a narrow beam, any kind of decorative fencing or railing, and so on.
This is, IMO, the most difficult thing to do :p. Adding more freedom is fine, but adding lifelike freedom is insane. I do want it, but I don't think we'll get it for many years.
Quote Posted by jtr7
The closest it should ever get to a platforming feel is during Thieves' Highway, sealed Old Quarter, and Lost City type terrain (however it's dressed up, and whatever the story)
I agree with this, too. But for the record, those missions were some of my favourites, because I could climb on things and find places where I felt like I wasn't supposed to be. I think any sort of parkour abilities would have to play to that desire. Thief already has jumping and mantling; that's most of what you need, but I'd add two things:
1. Wall-runs/tic-tacs.
2. Hanging from ledges instead of automatically scaling them. *Possibly* shimmying while hanging from them.
I think these two things would just allow players far greater access to the areas they want to get to, and don't require AC-style grid-layout level design.
Quote Posted by Somnus
It would be pretty difficult to implement from a FP perspective. That's why I suggested the optional 3rd person camera. I understand why Thief fans are opposed to the idea, but the reality is that you probably need it in a video game if climbing is going to be a major feature, as I anticipate it will be.
I don't agree - I think that with careful route planning and spatial awareness, FP climbing/"platforming" (note the heavy quotes, jtr :p) can work. Maintaining an invisible body would be a pretty decent solution, but the problem is then what to do with the arms. But as long as a player can free-look behind them while climbing, then I don't see much difficulty. Sure, if you want to be able to do super-free-running-awesomeness like in AC then greater environmental awareness is required, but I reckon not allowing that is a great way to enforce a little realism and prudence on players. They can't go all super-ninja, simply because they can't see behind themselves without pausing to actually look and make sure the jump they're planning on is feasible.
Quote Posted by Somnus
The first game isn't nearly as good as the last two, but maybe that's another discussion. I would give ACII and Brotherhood a try--especially the secret location missions (where you're after treasure, not killing someone)--before reaching a final conclusion about AC.
Yep, I've heard the latter games are better. How much is the platforming changed up? That was the main problem I was referring to - the repetitive side-missions and stuff are a different issue.
Personal nitpick: free-running and parkour are two different things, as far as Australia is concerned. I've heard in the US and UK they're trying to unify the two things, but I think the FR/PK divide is a useful one to maintain. Free-running typically refers to the artistic and creative side of movement - thus, it includes flips, spins, and whatever other tricks you like. The idea of FR is to move beautifully. Parkour is about moving with maximum efficiency and speed, but also safety. So no flips. I prefer to refer to game stuff as parkour, since at the moment it's all about getting from one location to another efficiently. Until we're handing out bonus points for flips, I don't think we're in FR territory.
That said, it doesn't greatly matter ,since all games so far have featured PK, not so much FR. But I just like to make things clear :p.
Boxsmith on 16/2/2011 at 15:22
Hanging from ledges seems like a good idea to me, but wall-runs are unnecessary.
Thaxlsyssilyaan on 16/2/2011 at 16:33
I think the main difference between AC and Thief, is that in AC, you can easily attack 3-4 guard from front, and beat them, like in AC1, when you have to kill 10 guys at the same time when meeting the king. In thief, it is much less a possibility.
AC is much more action oriented, and ninja-moves are much more in their place there, then in thief, where it is much more the brain and sight that are usefull to get into tricky area. (natural means, not the crate-stacking tactics). Btw, they should really improve the physics with object in thief.
I find Thief much more immersive, because i feel more human-like, than in AC, where i can climb easily and without fear whatever i want, it make me feel too much a super-hero. (I don't say AC is crap, i like both thief and AC, but AC is not really a stealth game, not as much as thief, splinter cell)
Queue on 16/2/2011 at 17:42
While Thief: DS is generally considered to be a better game (by reviewers) than Assassin's Creed, Assassin's Creed generated a ton of sales in comparison. Because of this, I'm anticipating a Thief that's more like Assassin's Creed.
...and am hoping to be pleasantly surprised that it's not.
Somnus on 16/2/2011 at 17:43
Quote Posted by jtr7
I hope the emphasis would not be on fight and acrobatic flight, but on sneaking, slinking, creeping, and a strong emphasis on light and shadow, infiltration, evasion, avoidance, not being seen or heard, not fighting but the systems in place allow for getting out of tricky spots when a mistake was made and the player got cornered, which can be used to play as a combatant, yet awkward and a with a high sense of vulnerability
An interesting idea for me would be relating momentum/movement speed with stealth. Instead of asking the player to just make a jump in AC, ask them to make it with some finesse. Then again, that runs the problem of making the controls too sensitive.
No forced established playstyles, but offering challenge for all of them. Anything added to movement should reflect a guy hauling a lot of stuiff around who doesn't want to get caught, yet moving well for it, and no encumbrance system, just a hint that he would be light on his feet if he wasn't weighted down. He should have the most excellent motor control in his hands, and the greatest strength in his upper body, for grabbing and holding and mantling and reaching, not leaping and spinning.
I agree 100% with the idea of no forced, established playstyles. That's what I loved about Thief. I could ghost a mission on the one hand, but if I got annoyed (and I was playing on normal) I could barrel around the corner and kill everything in sight. Not that that's what Thief is for, but it should still be a possibility for the sake of openess/realism.
Quote Posted by Bakerman
I don't agree - I think that with careful route planning and spatial awareness, FP climbing/"platforming" (note the heavy quotes, jtr ) can work. Maintaining an invisible body would be a pretty decent solution, but the problem is then what to do with the arms. But as long as a player can free-look behind them while climbing, then I don't see much difficulty. Sure, if you want to be able to do super-free-running-awesomeness like in AC then greater environmental awareness is required, but I reckon not allowing that is a great way to enforce a little realism and prudence on players. They can't go all super-ninja, simply because they can't see behind themselves without pausing to actually look and make sure the jump they're planning on is feasible.
Quote Posted by Judith
I'm not a fan of automatic 1st/3rd person switching as well. And you don't need TPP for climbing sections if the idea is implemented correctly: again see Mirror's Edge. You might have a problem with achieving the effect of "accessible parkour" though.
I didn't mean to imply that the 1st/3rd person switching would be automatic, just an option for players who feel uncomfortable sticking to a wall in FP, or who just prefer TP in general. TP does create a number of design problems, so if the game can work without it, then it should be done solely in FP. On the other hand, people whose first experience was Thief 3 might be expecting Thief 4 to have TP. I expect that it will be in the game regardless.
I haven't played Mirror's Edge, but I've heard a lot about it, so I'll have to check it out at some point.
Also, never really played AC for the immersion or the story--it's more of a quick-fix game when I need a few minutes to zone out and have fun, like Mario.
Quote Posted by Bakerman
Yep, I've heard the latter games are better. How much is the platforming changed up? That was the main problem I was referring to - the repetitive side-missions and stuff are a different issue.
The controls are a bit smoother in the final two games, especially Brotherhood. I haven't played the original in a long time, so I don't remember exactly what's different--the parkour/freerunning is more challenging and diverse in places, and there's more variety to climbable buildings.
Also, especially in the third game, there are a lot more historical locations and they're impressively realized. You can climb buildings like the Colosseum/Pantheon and it can be pretty fun to find new ways to scale them. I would just go straight to Brotherhood. You'll miss out a big piece of the story, but it's AC so who really cares. The gameplay in Brotherhood is superb if you enjoy these kinds of games.
My only nitpick would be that Brotherhood forces you into stealth situations at certain points, and that's not AC's strength. The stealth in these games feels less tense and a lot more tedious because I know I can kill practically everything I see. It's still fun to ghost a mission without killing anyone, but all it requires is memorizing patrol routes and taking cover at the right times.
Quote:
Personal nitpick: free-running and parkour are two different things, as far as Australia is concerned. I've heard in the US and UK they're trying to unify the two things, but I think the FR/PK divide is a useful one to maintain. Free-running typically refers to the artistic and creative side of movement - thus, it includes flips, spins, and whatever other tricks you like. The idea of FR is to move beautifully. Parkour is about moving with maximum efficiency and speed, but also safety. So no flips. I prefer to refer to game stuff as parkour, since at the moment it's all about getting from one location to another efficiently. Until we're handing out bonus points for flips, I don't think we're in FR territory.
Interesting. I thought they were different words that mean the same thing. In any case, Thief should be closer to parkour than freerunning.
Quote Posted by Thaxlsyssilyaan
I think the main difference between AC and Thief, is that in AC, you can easily attack 3-4 guard from front, and beat them, like in AC1, when you have to kill 10 guys at the same time when meeting the king. In thief, it is much less a possibility.
AC is much more action oriented, and ninja-moves are much more in their place there, then in thief, where it is much more the brain and sight that are usefull to get into tricky area. (natural means, not the crate-stacking tactics). Btw, they should really improve the physics with object in thief.
I find Thief much more immersive, because i feel more human-like, than in AC, where i can climb easily and without fear whatever i want, it make me feel too much a super-hero. (I don't say AC is crap, i like both thief and AC, but AC is not really a stealth game, not as much as thief, splinter cell)
Yeah, the orientation around action is clearly the biggest difference between Thief and AC. It would not surprise me at all if Thief 4 has a "smoother" combat system than the first 3 games. I hope that doesn't mean it becomes an combat-oriented game. If it does, the franchise will probably lose its fanbase; I know that while I'd like more climbing/freerunning/mantling options, the main reason I want them is for the purposes of having more movement freedom for stealth, exploration, and escape, rather than acrobatic combat.
I still think there's a market out there for intelligent stealth gaming. The first two Thief games were fairly successful, and while Splinter Cell is a different, far more linear example, it's still in a comparable genre. There isn't a lot of competition out there that I'm aware of. I think AC: Brotherhood tried to force the player into more stealth situations, but it wasn't nearly as satisfying as Thief.
Bakerman on 17/2/2011 at 00:45
Quote Posted by Boxsmith
Hanging from ledges seems like a good idea to me, but wall-runs are unnecessary.
Sorry, maybe I should clarify: most games have wall-running where you angle into a wall, and spend the next 5-10 metres running sideways on the wall to get over a gap or something. This is silly. What I meant was when running directly at a wall, you leap up and put one foot on the wall to propel yourself upwards. It allows you to grab onto higher walls than you could if you just jumped from the ground, 'cause you're using your forwards momentum. Like (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmNoU3cn5NY) this.
Quote:
I know that while I'd like more climbing/freerunning/mantling options, the main reason I want them is for the purposes of having more movement freedom for stealth, exploration, and escape, rather than acrobatic combat.
:thumb:
Jarvis on 25/2/2011 at 01:50
I'm not opposed to more acrobatic movement available to us than we've had so far in Thief. But there are a few contrasting examples I'd like to draw to illustrate how careful a balancing act such additions can be.
1: Assassin's Creed: I love the PK in Assassin's creed as much as the next guy. But let's be frank, we're three games in now and it's not changed much. Just about every single surface of every single building is a simple matter of climbing straight up. *NOT* being able to climb a wall is the exception to the rule. The occasional tower in the latter 2 games required you to climb laterally around different faces to advance farther up... but those amount to a design path up towers you are *probably* going to climb in order to achieve specific missions. But the average run of the mill building is climbable by a simple "hold these two buttons and press up" 99.9% of the time. In other words, there's way to MUCH freedom of movement. It's not special. When I reach to top of anything in AC, I hardly care. I can get to the top of nearly everything in AC, with no *real* thought or effort.
2: Splinter Cell: Splinter Cell has always had more movement options than Thief. In fact, the sort of athletic achievements Sam Fisher pulls off is somewhere near where I think Garrett should be (except Conviction). However, especially with the earlier Splinter Cell games, Sam's movement abilities were only useful in a very specific instances... to the point where that particular movement type is "the solution". Either you absolutely have to use it, or the alternative is to shoot everyone in the room. In other words, Sam's movement abilities were never free enough. It's the opposite problem from AC. It's not special because I had to do it there. TDS suffered from this in it's use of climbing gloves.
3: Thief 2: I like to use the Ambush stage from thief 2 as an example of how to do movement correctly. Spoilers here: Remember getting into Garrett's apartment? It's an embarrassingly small building, really. There were three levels to it, and the only room you can visit is Garrett's. Otherwse it's all stairs and hallways. HOWEVER, there were a ton of ways in there. The front door, two windows at the fire escape, one window on the side of the building, and leaping across the street in the front right over the City Watch heads. Each and every one of these entrances required the use of some skill you had to master as a player. In addition, the more advantageous entrances required more precise skill. In other words, if you had confidence in your abilities to jump carefully and use ropes arrows competently, it'd give you access to stealthier or more direct entrances. If you tried one of these entrances but lacked the skill, you payed for it in fall damage and alerted guards. Often in Thief, especially in my early days, I find myself turning away from potential pathways because I know I lack the movement skill necessary to be 100% sure I'll manage it Stealthly. I know Garrett can do it, the only question is whether I can make it happen reliably. As I've gained in skill, these pathways have opened to me.
So in conclusion, I'm all right with more movement abilities if they want to include them. I'm also all right if they keep it like the originals. Which ever they choose, it has more to do with how it's implemented in both control interface and map design. That's what will determine whether their movement scheme decisions fail or not.
jtr7 on 25/2/2011 at 02:07
You're talking more level design than player controls and model animations or the fiction. Multiple paths are a fundamental of Thief, and parkour has nothing to do with taking one route or another when the basic movement in a Thief game accounts for it all, minus player-character grace and über-skills, which are entirely dev-choice for piling on that extraneous workload, at the expense of so much more that could use the time and effort.
fett on 26/2/2011 at 01:19
Not once in Assassin's Creed were you required or even able to move as slow as Garrett needs to in order to look around corners, study guard patterns and shadows, survey the environment, read a book, or contemplate your next move. Not once.
Too Much Coffee on 26/2/2011 at 16:46
Here's an idea: have them make Thief IV be more like . . . Thief.
I also enjoyed the Assassin's Creed games. But that doesn't mean I want Thief IV to be like them. I prefer games that are capable of doing their own things without having to "borrow" a bunch of concepts from other games.
