RavynousHunter on 20/3/2007 at 18:17
Quote Posted by sparhawk
I don't know, but that was certainly never a motivation for me to play shooters like Doom or Painkiller. What I like about it is to test my reaction speed against others. That's the fun of it for me. If I get shot in quake, it was because I was not fast enough and I have to work on my skills to improve them. I think I never once fired at one of the models thinking that this is my boss or somebody else I might be pissed off about.
It's just a contest as who is better in that particular game. Just like arm wrestling or any other sports.
'ey, were all different, man! I play FPSs both for competition and to let off steam (which can build up quick cuz for some reason, ppl like to fuck with me on bad days). I dont believe the crap that playing violent games as a form of releasing pent-up sadism and hatred is a bad thing, on the contrary, i think its a very, very GOOD thing! :thumb: I also like improving my overall skills in whoop-ass (as the Gunny puts it so well). :cheeky:
But inside, I'm a taffer, a true-blue taffer. :D
Zapmeister on 21/3/2007 at 10:22
Quote Posted by RavynousHunter
I think the main reason that the all-stealth genre hasnt rocketed off since Thief is mainly, as many others have said, most gamers simply DONT have the attention span.
That can't be it, IMHO. Thief was a huge hit, selling millions of copies. The marketplace spoke, and said we
do like this game. We have the patience.
The people responsible for dropping the ball are clearly not the gamers. For some reason, publishers and developers have chosen not to capitalize on the success of Thief's unique gameplay. More's the pity.
Vigil on 21/3/2007 at 11:16
Uhh, big hit? Millions of copies? Care to quote some sources?
Zapmeister on 21/3/2007 at 11:38
Quote Posted by Vigil
Uhh, big hit? Millions of copies? Care to quote some sources?
See the first page of this thread, and (
http://www.ttlg.com/articles/lgsclosing.asp) Reasons for the Fall: A Post-Mortem On Looking Glass Studios
Actually, it looks like I confused "sold millions of copies" with "made millions of dollars", but the central idea is the same. Thief was a commercial success.
RavynousHunter on 23/3/2007 at 02:39
Quote Posted by Zapmeister
That can't be it, IMHO. Thief was a huge hit, selling millions of copies. The marketplace spoke, and said we
do like this game. We have the patience.
The people responsible for dropping the ball are clearly not the gamers. For some reason, publishers and developers have chosen not to capitalize on the success of Thief's unique gameplay. More's the pity.
Well, by
gamers i meant the current generation of gamer, who generally dont have the patience for games like Thief. That or theyre cought in the preverbial pissing contest about wich MMO is best, which i do take part in, but only as a source of sarcasm and humor, poking fun at the little kids who think theyre "1337 cuz they beat da game in rekurd [sic] time." :tsktsk: Though, also, I do believe that a good deal of the blame goes to the publishers, etc. who are largely responsible for this shift in the definition of "1337ness" and making a large part of the gaming community impatient little cry-babies who are either too ADD to play games like Thief, or have the intellectual power of your common garden hose when it comes to solving problems with not only speed and skill, but finesse and strategy.
Wow... that kinda depressed me... Im going to go kill something now... :cheeky:
Jashin on 23/3/2007 at 04:45
Thief has never been anything but a hardcore game.
Vigil on 23/3/2007 at 09:56
yeah life was so much better under the old definition of "1337ness" which included me
nigga please.
sparhawk on 23/3/2007 at 13:15
Quote Posted by RavynousHunter
Well, by
gamers i meant the current generation of gamer, who generally dont have the patience for games like Thief.
I don't think that the "current" gamers are so much different from the "good old" gamers back then. But gamers buy what the deleopers offer, and it's safer for developers to develop a game that is easy to implement and a sure success. Even if Thief was a successfull game, creating the next shooter is so much easert, because the demands on AI is so much lesser. What does a shooter AI need to do after all? Call comrades, search cover, shoot back. That's about it. Even a three year old can implement this in a few weeks. But Thief AI has to be much more advanced, because the game will not work with stupid AI. In fact, the AI is one of the most defining game elements in Thief, which includes the infrastructure to support that AI. So if you have the choice to make a successfull game with a high effort or an equally sucessfull game with much lower effort, then which one will publishers choose? I think the answer is easy.
KingAl on 23/3/2007 at 13:46
In fact, a large number of areas require more work for a successful stealth game - e.g. level design: in shooters you can have great visceral fun in levels of the most basic design, whereas in Thief, a number of factors complicate this: shadows, patrol paths, placing of loot etc, etc - and the significance of sound in Thief highlights another area time had to be dedicated to. To put it simply, a competent stealth game requires a great amount of effort compared to a fairly good shooter.
SubJeff on 23/3/2007 at 17:42
I'm not so sure I agree. In order for a shooter to be any good it must fulfill more than just having guns, enemies and maps. And due to the nature of stealth games you'll likely have less enemies and more intimate maps. They are just different - to say that one requires more effort than another is a little condescending imo. The best stealth game I've played is Thief 2, the best shooter Half-Life 2. Are you telling me making Thief 2 required that much more effort? It may have, and I may be wrong, but it doesn't look like it to me.
