Cronkhite on 5/3/2007 at 19:30
Right, but the golfing game industry specifically targets golfers. Can we say the same for Thief? TDS was a bag of mixed signals. For god's sake, the back of the damn case claims Thief has a "Variety of Gameplay -- Break & Enter, Steal, Combat, Ambush and Assassinate." Clearly that isn't a game targeted to stealth addicts who are looking for covert thievery. TDS's creators attemped to create an inclusive game that would appeal to everyone. Instead, in my opinion, it lost much of its potential target audience by deviating from its original nature. Essentially, TDS moved from specialization to generalization, thereby creating a game wonderful in no specific way, albeit arguably solid in many areas. But that's not how great games are crafted. Nor remembered.
As far as the whole "poisoned chalice" thing, I'm not sure. Can anyone cite reasons why the first two Thief teams disbanded? I doubt it was due to the financial failings of Thief 1 and 2 for some reason.
David on 5/3/2007 at 19:33
Quote Posted by Cronkhite
Can anyone cite reasons why the 2 first Thief teams disbanded? I doubt it was due to the financial failings of Thief 1 and 2 for some reason.
(
http://www.ttlg.com/articles/lgsclosing.asp) Reasons for the Fall: A Post-Mortem On Looking Glass Studios
Cronkhite on 5/3/2007 at 19:48
Thank you, David. Very informative article. I figured Thief sales didn't play a role:
"Poor sales of Thief did not kill Looking Glass. This hasn’t even a grain of truth. Thief sold well and, according to Tim Stellmach (Gamespy interview), Looking Glass made millions of dollars from it. If Thief had failed to be a hit, Looking Glass would have died. Instead, Thief kept the company going."
Zapmeister on 6/3/2007 at 00:07
Quote Posted by sparhawk
The only game, that really comes closer to a Thiefe style stealth experience is "Sniper Elite". It is a World War II shooter, like all the rest, but the nice thing is that it actually is really about stealth. You have to be carefull and observant to find your enemies.
Reminds me rather a lot of the movie "Enemy at the Gates" with Jude Law as the Russian hero Vasily Zaitsev and Ed Harris as his German adversary in a sniper cat-and-mouse game set in the siege of Stalingrad.
Is it possible that the movie was the inspiration for the game?
Zapmeister on 6/3/2007 at 00:33
Quote Posted by Cronkhite
Poor sales of Thief did not kill Looking Glass. This hasn’t even a grain of truth. Thief sold well and, according to Tim Stellmach (Gamespy interview), Looking Glass made millions of dollars from it. If Thief had failed to be a hit, Looking Glass would have died. Instead, Thief kept the company going.
Which returns me to the original point. Thief succeeded in the marketplace, yet nothing has emerged that reproduces the same kind of gameplay. That seems odd since, normally when something makes money, it gets ripped off from every direction.
Cronkhite on 6/3/2007 at 00:53
It's a good point. Perhaps gaming companies simply think they can make more money from a twitch FPS than they could from a stealth FPS. People have made good points already in terms of stealth being an integrated, subordinated option in many modern video games, which arguably adds an element that boosts sales. TDS undeniably took a more diversified approach to the genre than its predecessors, which gaming companies (at least Eidos/Ion Storm) probably think will attract a wider fanbase. Maybe they're right.
imperialreign on 6/3/2007 at 01:02
Is it just me, though, or has the number of 'military-style' games sky rocketed since 9/11? I mean, it just seems that 3 out of 5 games to hit the market (especially for PC) are some form of military game . . . right now, it seems to be the genre that sells, also.
theBlackman on 6/3/2007 at 08:34
Considering that most of the "market" is 12 to 18, THIEF as a genre requires thought, patience, and personal skill development.
The "Kill everything that moves" type games that really don't require "think it out" and "work" at solving the puzzle, are popular because they deliver instant gratification.
Witness all the "CHEAT" codes and books on "HOW TO BEAT..." that sell because the gamers don't want to have to figure it out themselves. They want to say "I beat XYZ" and did it in record time", instead of saying, "I played the game."
For me Thief is a contest between me and me. Can I get through the mission unscathed, undetected, and satisfied with my play and skill level development. Thief also requires that you pay attention to every detail and see what you look at, comprehend what you see, and then use your intelligence to put A B and C together to come up with a solution.
I can shoot out a torch at 300 yards because I developed the eye to judge distance and required angle and strength of pull. Not because I killed the bug-a-boo three scenes back and got the magic bow, BFG or impervious armour with the never fail medical kit.
sparhawk on 6/3/2007 at 09:48
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
That's pretty much the primary reason stealth games don't seem to be that popular with publishers / consumers -- or at least why stealth-type games generally also have a way for a trigger-happy rocket-launcher-wielding nutbar to finish the levels unpenalised. Which sucks.
I know. Funny thing is, when I read the report, it was written in a pretty negative way. The tester complained about the slow pace and and such, and this was the point where I knew that I had to have this game. :) So the bad rating had exactly the adverse effect to me. But I'm sure that a lot of people will be turned of, because the tester presented it in a purely objective way which didn't fit that particular gamestyle. Of course such tests always will have a personal note, but I think gamemags should be professional enough to try to exclude to much personal preferences, so that an objective review can be given.
Incidently the same tester also did a review for TDS, in a different issue. She made similar complaints about TDS. to slow to boring, etc., but more in a veiled way. I got the impression that she didn't dare to be to critical, because TDS was still a higher profile title then "Sniper Elite", so maybe she was hilding back a little. The most hillarious thing in the TDS review was that she claimed to be a fan of Thief, while the text plainly showed that she couldn't really understand Thief and it's gameplay, and looked at it from the perspective of a shooter. Which is even more plainly shown in her review of Sniper Elite.
Quote:
I'm actually a little surprised that there hasn't been a Myst-style game where you can punch things instead of solving the puzzles. For some (if not most) people, things that require patience or cunning or observational skills are apparently either boring or too hard.
Which also explains why there seems to be a new "lol I blows everything up!" game every quarter, and discriminating gamers like us are forced to develop our own stealth mods and such on our own time and without backing or interest from the publishing world.
Well, I think that one reason is, that shoot'em up style games are much easier to write, than stealth games. The AI doesn't really need to be advanced. If they can look for cover and have a few evasive moves in their reportoire, then you already get good ratings. The rest is mostly graphics and a flimsy excuse for a background story. So from the developer and publisher perspective, I can understand that they would prefer to push the gamers in the direction of such games. Creating a good adventure game requires more than just good graphics, because you need an actual story, and of course also good storytelling. For example I played "Scratches" which is a very good horror adventure and it also plays in an victorian mansion :). It has really great atmosphere, but the "problem" with it is, that it doesn't have action. The whole immersion is constructed with the atmospheric graphics, sound effects and MOSTLY the story, which means that the horror is more in my head then in the visuals. That's also a definite recommendation BTW. I think that many gamers probably don't have the capacity to create the immersion in their head, so they need to have everything excplicitly shown on screen.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I love games like Armed and Dangerous or Quake where the gunfire and the explosions pretty much solve every problem for you, but I greatly prefer games that require me to think a little harder than "where's the next bad guy and how much ammo does my shotgun still have?"
I wouldn't put Armed and Dangerous in the same category as Quake, or maybe I'm confusing it with another game. Isnt AaD "Hidden and Dangerous"? I liked that you could also play very stealthily with it, planning your advance and looking ahead scouting the area.
David on 6/3/2007 at 09:50
Armed and Dangerous is a very wacky game with all kinds of crazy weapons. Great fun too!
