Risquit on 28/3/2003 at 05:18

---

I think one factor for many of us is that we had become completely comfortable with Garrett's capabilities by the time T2 came out. It wasn't as much of a challenge knowing that you could get away with more risky maneuvers than when we played TDP (with much more trepidation and fear).

I spent waaayyy more time in TDP crouched in corners waiting for guards to pass or turn around than I did in T2 when I could almost run up to most of them and just whack them on the head.

Hopefully T3 gets a bit more intense.

zacharias on 28/3/2003 at 08:32

---

Yes, it certainly did.
(Just out of interest, you played his missions? If not, check 'em out, he's a master story teller.)

Back on topic, yeah somehow you missed the Karras hiring Truart thing Forje, which is made pretty clear (at least i seem to remember it being so).

Also, nice post Francine..i enjoyed reading your thoughts but i think you've been a bit harsh on the T2 designers..some a little respect man ;)

The point is, to steal yet again from Purah's thread, a valiant attempt was made with T2..sometimes i think people forget that, or that all the effort in the world doesn't necessarily guarantee quality..Art doesn't work that way. That is to say, with any creative effort, i don't think you can ignore the luck/serendipity factor which ultimately plays a big part in how good something turns out. Another way of saying this is that T1s different environments seem to have stemmed from the team hedging their bets somewhat (pure thieving missions mixed together with more traditional fantasy/monster romps) whereas when the design document became more evolved and streamlined (with T2) many taffers complained, in retrospect. Who'd be a designer eh ;)

Francine on 28/3/2003 at 09:52

---

No. If what you said above was true, then that argument could be extended to any FM and I would have found them boring as well because I "knew what to expect." In Thief 2 I knew what to expect (to a certain degree) in terms of gameplay, but I did not know what to expect in terms of story. The story in Thief 1 felt as if it changed do to my interaction with the world. The story in Thief 2 did not. Ergo, for me Thief 2 lacked an aspect of ermergent gameplay.



No. If the mission doesn't connect with the story then it serves no purpose and should be eliminated. Everything in game should drive the story because the story is the only thing that fuels the game. For me, story is the end all, be all, bottom line, which is why I bore quickly with twitch and click games like UT2003.

My problem with Thief 2 was that the events in one mission seemed to have no relation to the events in the next mission until I got to the end and could see the big picture. I want missions to flow from one to the next. If you're going to make missions that don't flow, then provide me with some sort of clue that there's a significant time gap between them so that I don't worry so much about a lack of connecting storyline.



True, LotP is a good example, and I stand corrected about my assertation above. However, Dromed will only let you use a finite number or resources to build things, so reusing worldspace is good building technique. In addition, it further immerses the player because it proveds them with more of a chance to interact with the world. If gameplay and/or player emotion change before worldspace is reused, then a feeling of "I've been here before, but now things are different" is created. Player interaction with the world can change entirely at that point, and IMHO that's a good thing because it means more choice for the player.



Evokation of emotion in the player is a critical factor in game immersion. Without emotion, you feel no connection to the character you're playing as. Without emotion, there is no driving force behind your actions as that character. As humans we are ruled by our emotions, and I think good games reflect that. So I'd say it's a factor by which I can judge (to some degree) the immersiveness of a game. For me, Thief 1 was more immersive because it evoked emotion. The fact that I found myself asking "What am I doing here?" or "Why am I doing this?" during parts of Thief 2 is, I think, a symptom of poor level design. As a player I should want to keep playing a computer game, and it is my emotions that drive me, so it is a level designer's interest to tap those.



Thief 1 offered me the illusion of choice. Thief 2 did not. I still maintain that Thief 2 was nothing more than a scripted movie. A player should feel that whatever occurs next in the game world is either a result of their actions or inactions, or is do to a cruel or not so cruel twist of fate. They should never feel that they are being forced into one particular direction by the level designer. The game should always maintain the illusion that the player is the one in control.



That possibility does exist. Thief 2 as Thief 1 would have been new and fresh in terms of the gameplay. However, I don't know if the story would have held up. Would I have become as absorbed in this world as I am now? Probably not. For me, the method that Thief 1 used to tell its story was more immersive then that used by Thief 2. However, I could just be looking at this world through dark colored glasses.

Both games have their pros and cons and I love both games. But my bottom line, the one by which I now judge all other games I play, is still story, and I think the original had a better story and a better method for telling that story than the sequel did.

Muzman on 28/3/2003 at 11:15

---

I see the bi-monthly tradition where a Thief2 fan shows up and says "Waitaminute, you people like Thief 1 better ?! You've seen Thief 2 right?" is on schedule.
I echo the chorus; Thief 2 was visibly one kludge after another. Flimsy story, poor characterisation and <i>tooo little undead!</i>. (it might even have made the world of difference if they'd mentioned mechanist efforts to clean the place up or something).
The robots were ok, just boring (and we know they had interesting ones planned, which only makes things worse). The art was certainly inferior too.
Sure T2 had great levels, but compared to the way the first game segued everything together and drew me into whatever it threw at me (I typically don't like undead and monsters, even in fantasy settings like Thief, but they turned me around. I love Robots and steam punkish alt-history, but T2 turned me off. Both of these things are hard to do), There's no contest.
Sure we're fighting over the top .001 percentile of gaming, but people keep bringing it up like Thief 1 fans are blind or crazy. So the debate rages

sailoreagle on 28/3/2003 at 11:48

---

Mith: the treebeasts "scared" me... but not because I woke them by accident and they whacked me. The first time through Trail of Blood I was nervous, because I'd read a spoiler on this forum and knew that there were treebeasts at the end of the level. So I ran around nervously trying to find the pagan and simultaneously trying not to run into any treebeast.
Trail of Blood is my favourite level in Thief 2 (that, and Framed in Expert, but for entirely different reasons), but it definitely can't hold up a candle to the genuine scariness of levels like Return to the Cathedral. in Thief 2, I've never been so scared that I had to hit esc to go back to the menu, sit back and take a break before continuing. On the other hand, I've lost count of the times that has happened in Thief 1, and not just on my first time through.

---

Oh, and another thing that put me off Thief 2 a bit were the gimmicky weapons/potions. The vine arrow rocked, but that's about it (and it was simply an improvement of the rope arrow). And the invisibility and slowfall potions... :eww:

---

Also, uh, yeah, what Francine said. :thumb:

---

calis: level skip is ctrl-alt-shift-end, but only works on patched TDP and TG. As for the undead, you don't have to kill them. Sneak. Or in the case of zombies, run. Just don't try to outrun haunts.