PDA

View Full Version : Thief : MULTIPLAYER? - General Speculation & Discussion



Pages : [1] 2 3

acridrose
11th May 2009, 14:42
I suppose one thing that hasn't really been spoken of is a potential multiplayer component. Now we all know thief is and always has been a focused single player experience, the "ultimate stealth experience". Let's discuss what you would like to see if there were to be a potential co-op campaign, or perhaps versus. We have seen how fun multiplayer stealth can be through T2 multiplayer, Black cat games, etc- so would you like to see multiplayer brought to thief? What would you like?
Peace.

Phaid_Min6Char_Sigh
11th May 2009, 14:46
Frankly, I don't see any reason why the devs should waste their time and effort on creating, polishing and balancing a multiplayer mode. :scratch:
Thief is a single player experience.

mister_riz
11th May 2009, 14:46
In my humble opinion this is a single player game first, and and MP element should probably only be attempted as an expansion after the SP component is successfully produced.

StalinsGhost
11th May 2009, 14:47
No.

Unless they give it to another team.

Bukary
11th May 2009, 14:53
Thief is a single player experience. Definitely.

Garrett is a lone wolf.

acridrose
11th May 2009, 14:57
Agreed- but Garrett is more than a lone wolf, he's hardly even physical- he's a shadow and a voice.
But being creative, mp could be completely separate.

UrUkUs
11th May 2009, 15:01
i wouldn't mind, if after T4 release, they'll make T4 Multiplayer addon

Nate
11th May 2009, 15:10
Well, multiplayer would bring in more gamers. It would also increase the re playability of the game and extend the game's lifespan. Finally, it would result in more $PROFIT$ for Eidos.

I (and my taffing friends) would personally love to see a multiplayer component. It could be custom multiplayer maps for team vs team games (Thieves versus Guards as in Thievery)....you would still need some standard AI guards and difficulty options in the mix though.

I would also love to see a 2 player Co-Op mode for the Campaign so my buddy and I could run through the game as a team....of course difficulty and # of guards would have to be increased for balance.

I know that this thread is going to see a lot of Thief 'purists' angry at any multiplayer suggestions. But multiplayer WON'T take away from the single player experience....so no need to get upset about it?

Instead, it will bring in a lot options for gamers, AND more $ for Eidos. This is a good thing for everybody. The better the game does, the more likely tools and add ons are made for it. Not to mention the better the chances of a Thief 5.

Vladimyre
11th May 2009, 15:41
Multiplayer would completely dilute the single player experience and IMHO be a complete waste of valuable resources that can really be an asset to this game. Put the time into sound, AI, and atmophere that's what this series embodies.

kin
11th May 2009, 16:02
The game editor for thief is equal with a multiplayer for other games.

column5
11th May 2009, 16:10
Single player only, please.

Garrett Vega
11th May 2009, 16:18
Single player should be the main treat, but a similar multiplayer to the Splinter Cell one would work.

BentlyTCow
11th May 2009, 16:21
Not to mention the better the chances of a Thief 5.

I assume you mean Thi5f.

I think Thief is a one-player game. Unless it's multiplayer hide-and-seek...

Nate
11th May 2009, 16:28
Like I said earlier, multiplayer doesn't have to threaten the single player experience......

Multiplayer can add so much more to the game and make it a bigger financial hit...all without hurting the single player campaign.

Necros
11th May 2009, 16:37
Frankly, I don't see any reason why the devs should waste their time and effort on creating, polishing and balancing a multiplayer mode. :scratch:
Thief is a single player experience.
QFT! :thumb:

Working on a MP mode would hurt the SP development. Giving it to an other team is also a bad idea because they can screw it up and it will reflect bad on the team and the game too. If the game will be anything like the previous entries in the series, there's no need for MP because it will replayable, many times. And the lifespan? People are still playing with Thief 1, and that's 10 years old now. ;) Just release an SDK and if some people want to do it, I don't mind.

Queue2
11th May 2009, 16:41
... absolutely HATE multiplayer (and on-line in general) games. It seems that so many games being developed/released focus more on the multiplayer experience as the primary factor driving the game, then include the single-player as an after thought just to shut up those who prefer "old-style" gameplay. Thief is about complete immersion into a world where stealth and cunning rules--not about who can reach a chunk of gold first, or which team takes out the Hammerite. I don't want to be assimilated into part of a team! I wanna steal stuff. :D

kiltin
11th May 2009, 16:43
If they take the approach like Metal Gear Solid 4 did I think it would be great! Single Player first and then Multiplayer elements completely separate from the game, have coop game play similar to splinter cell. Either way I do not care if it is implemented or not I still am buzzing with excitement that the the story will continue on!

Grimmy
11th May 2009, 16:44
I vote no for a multiplayer added to thief 4, waste of effort that can be put into the singleplayer game, really don't bother, if you want to play multi, go Thievery, and Dark Mod when it's released. ;)

Nate
11th May 2009, 16:56
Thievery is a bit long in the tooth. Dark Mod might be pretty damn sweet though.

I think multiplayer will be fine if they take the time to perfect the single player campaign BEFORE fleshing out Co-op and 'Sneakmatch'.

Thievingtaffer
11th May 2009, 17:03
Thief is a single player experience.
QFT

Any MP feature should be added by mods only. Methinks.

TheBlackBandit
11th May 2009, 17:04
No! No! No! No!

Danie1
11th May 2009, 17:05
Thief for me has always been a single player experience. I played Thievery UT for a very long time, and while BCG did an excellent job, it too a long time to iron things out and get a good balance to things. This isn't like other multiplayer concepts, where each team has access to the same classes and weapons. A Thief multiplayer would necessitate constant change and devlopement to the game to keep it interesting. I myself would rather see a more developed and user friendly SDK to promote fan missions in the community.

Nate
11th May 2009, 17:05
Yeah, but the game would still have to be made to be able to do multiplayer...so why not just have the devs finish off the multiplayer for us AFTER they are done with the single player story of course.

Vlad27145
11th May 2009, 17:34
Grrrr, I hate the modern world. My concession to this is, IF you really must, then add a Versus MP of some kind, AFTER having made sure the Single Player game is the best it can be. But please, for hell's sake, no co-op.

4B4a4n4d4i4t4
11th May 2009, 18:12
You say NO because you don’t understand how fun can be multiplayer in Thief.
If multiplayer and singleplayer will be separate subjects in Thief 4 then I say YES for multiplayer in Thief 4 and definitely agree with Daniel.

Thief for me has always been a single player experience. I played Thievery UT for a very long time, and while BCG did an excellent job, it too a long time to iron things out and get a good balance to things. This isn't like other multiplayer concepts, where each team has access to the same classes and weapons. A Thief multiplayer would necessitate constant change and devlopement to the game to keep it interesting. I myself would rather see a more developed and user friendly SDK to promote fan missions in the community.

Dominus
11th May 2009, 18:20
NO tnx, no multiplayer, modders can take care of that later but I don't find it necessary, Thief is a single player experience, don't waste time on multiplayer

_OskaR
11th May 2009, 18:24
Multiplayer is very interesting option. We are playing with real people and the gameplay is always different. How long we play singleplayer today? One evening? Two? And what after it?

Nate
11th May 2009, 18:25
I can agree with a multiplayer Thief 4, but only with a focus on perfecting the single player game prior to dealing with multiplayer. I would be happy with both 'sneakmatch' maps and a co-op campaign option.

qolelis
11th May 2009, 18:34
Please, focus all your time and money on making the single player perfect, and then, if there's any time and money left, maybe add multiplayer. I'd rather see it being left out completely, though; I want the single player experience to be as good as possible.

With that said:
A crazy idea is forming in my head, but it may not be realistic. If AIs, especially guards, could somehow be controlled by a human being (but not necessarily as in multiplayer), that could make it more challenging sneaking into for example a mansion (maybe too challenging, though). Other AIs could also be controlled by humans to make them act and react more like humans would.

The player could choose to upload as the main character or as any of the side-characters.
-If the player uploads as the main character, a separate instance would be created just for this player and the side-characters would be controlled by either the computer or other players (customers or employees) who've chosen to upload as a side-character.
-If the player uploads as a side-character, s/he can choose to do so in any ongoing mission (at the level the player has reached). The player could also choose to start a new instance, but would then have to wait for someone else to upload as the main-character.

-There would be exactly one instance per main character, leaving out co-op or sneakmatch unless the mission's story allowed for it.
-Something tells me that the main character should always be played by a human.
-Most people would probably choose to upload as the main character, so official people would be needed for the side-characters or else this would not add anything new to the player experience.
-Each player, main character or side character, customer or employee, would have their own set of objectives (dos and donts).
-Playing/controlling a side-character might be kind of boring depending on how good the main-character is.

Realistic? Fun? I don't know, but I think it could add to the experience at least for the main-character.

Nate
11th May 2009, 18:38
Sounds good!

WhatsHisFace
11th May 2009, 19:09
NO MULTIPLAYER! EVER! :mad2::mad2::mad2:

cobak
11th May 2009, 19:10
only if I get to play as a burrick.

AND only if they either A) give multiplayer to a different quality developer or B) do it after the game is finished.

i dont want them distracted from perfecting the single player!

otherwise, like it has already been said, fan modders can take care of making it if people want it afterwards

acridrose
11th May 2009, 19:26
Please, focus all your time and money on making the single player perfect, and then, if there's any time and money left, maybe add multiplayer. I'd rather see it being left out completely, though; I want the single player experience to be as good as possible.

With that said:
A crazy idea is forming in my head, but it may not be realistic. If AIs, especially guards, could somehow be controlled by a human being (but not necessarily as in multiplayer), that could make it more challenging sneaking into for example a mansion (maybe too challenging, though). Other AIs could also be controlled by humans to make them act and react more like humans would.

The player could choose to upload as the main character or as any of the side-characters.
-If the player uploads as the main character, a separate instance would be created just for this player and the side-characters would be controlled by either the computer or other players (customers or employees) who've chosen to upload as a side-character.
-If the player uploads as a side-character, s/he can choose to do so in any ongoing mission (at the level the player has reached). The player could also choose to start a new instance, but would then have to wait for someone else to upload as the main-character.

-There would be exactly one instance per main character, leaving out co-op or sneakmatch unless the mission's story allowed for it.
-Something tells me that the main character should always be played by a human.
-Most people would probably choose to upload as the main character, so official people would be needed for the side-characters or else this would not add anything new to the player experience.
-Each player, main character or side character, customer or employee, would have their own set of objectives (dos and donts).
-Playing/controlling a side-character might be kind of boring depending on how good the main-character is.

Realistic? Fun? I don't know, but I think it could add to the experience at least for the main-character.

ever heard of The Crossing? :rasp:

FadedEchos
11th May 2009, 21:39
What other game was primarily single player, then expanded into the best multiplayer experience ever in games?

Here's a clue: It's very similar to the thief series.

Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow's version of multiplayer was as hardcore, nuanced, difficult, and above all incredible to play as a game of Thief. One side took on a sneaking role as the agents, while another was tasked with guarding a variety of objectives. The most important part of this setup was that they played as completely different games. Developers! If you're even considering adding multiplayer, buy copies of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory for everyone on the team and play it against each other until your eyes bleed tears of ecstatic joy. (Note I'm not referring to double agent here, that version is still enjoyable but has been bastardized for consoles and is nowhere near as engaging.)

Then think about it. If you can make an experience as tense, exciting, and strategic I would love to play it and would love you for making it. Otherwise it might be better to listen to the OMGWTFBBQNO! crowd and skip it entirely.

Mshade
11th May 2009, 21:42
Multiplayer is completely unneccesary for a game like Thief. Now I know that market trends show that games with multiplayer generally sell better than games with no multiplayer but that does not mean that Thief IV needs multiplayer to be successful. Plus, the inclusion of multiplayer would definately take valuable resources such as time and money away from the development of the single-player portion. You can check out this articly for more info: http://www.gamespot.com/users/nocoolnamejim/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25665930&om_act=convert&om_clk=soapbox&tag=soapbox;subject;2

Perhaps if Eidos outsources the production of the multiplayer portion to a different studio focused on multiplayer games... But really I don't see multiplayer being too popular in a game like Thief. I like the Chronicles of Rid****'s multiplayer mode where one player plays as Rid**** and the rest are trying to kill him.

If they would include multiplayer it would obviously have to a guards vs. thieves with the thieves trying to steal as much loot while the guards kill them but I just don't imagine it being too fun.

Recent hits like Fallout 3 prove that you can have a great next-gen single-player only game that is successful. If it were up to me it would be singleplayer only.

Smiffydude
12th May 2009, 00:15
Just leave it out.

Nate
12th May 2009, 06:19
Just leave it in.

Necros
12th May 2009, 06:39
Okay, an MP mode could work but the devs should only start working on it after the game is out. And NO CO-OP, that would just ruin the gameplay. :mad2: ****

PB_Slayer
12th May 2009, 06:57
i can agree that Thief has always been a SP game, i do think the MP side of it could add value but is should be an addition and not a main feature.

Think of a Thief Vs.Thief, seeing who can steal the most in a set area and/or time limit , could be fun. Let the players decide what to do with it, have the option available.





or should that be a Thi4f Vs.Thi4f :P

hawk047
12th May 2009, 21:46
I say leave it in.

Seriously. If you dont like it, dont play it.
You people are forgetting that multiplayer has always been an addition for almost every game on the gaming market.
Right now, players are begging not to have multiplayer. But as soon as the games out, players will be pleading for that extra little feature.

You singleplayers elitists can have your singleplayer. I'll just go play both.

I'm a multiplayer gamer. I loved the singleplayer Thief games. But I would absolutely worship a Thief multiplayer game!
I've even been aching for a good stealth multiplayer game. Splinter Cell versus mode isnt stealthy at all. Stealth in multiplayer games should be enforced.


Garret is a lone wolf. But why should other Thiefs be?
Give it a chance!

vowdy
12th May 2009, 22:10
An idea I've had for a while now is:

In the singleplayer version there could be a thief-tournament to catch some grand price (others will cheat ofcourse, so it could be a nice challenge... setting up other thieves to get caught etc. ...)

This concept could be the basis of the multiplayer version. Which would basicly be a time trial against eachother. where players would try and get a maximum of loot and as less alarms going off as possible.

Nate
12th May 2009, 22:43
I am kind of surprised that 1/3 of the posts here are so vehemently anti multiplayer. I mean, if you don't like multiplayer....then don't play it.

It is almost as if these guys think that a multiplayer option will somehow automatically guarantee a reduced campaign story.

The 2 don't have to be mutually exclusive.

GmanPro
13th May 2009, 00:37
Yes they do. The opportunity cost of adding multiplayer is a reduced single player experience

Nate
13th May 2009, 02:06
Says you! Hehe.

GmanPro, I like your suggestions on how the game should go, but I think we'll have to disagree on this one.

GmanPro
13th May 2009, 02:17
Drat, killing me with kindness eh? I can't write an angry retort now ... that would make me look mean.

But let me just say this: With a fixed budget, and a fixed time frame allotted for this project, any kind of multiplayer is going to draw time and resources away from the single player. So its either wait an extra few months because of multiplayer, or put up with a weaker single player and get the game on time. I personally don't like either of those choices, so I say no to multiplayer.

Nate
13th May 2009, 03:55
Hmmm, I see what you are saying.

Here is a question for you. If they released the single player story/campaign first AND then worked on a multiplayer experience....would you be okay with that?

GmanPro
13th May 2009, 04:08
That's what Looking Glass did with System Shock 2 right? I have no problem with that. But it would probably mean that we'd have to pay for it separately. If it was a free patch, sure, but I don't think I'd want to pay for it.

Somehow I think EM will want to move on to other projects by this time though.

Tohtori
13th May 2009, 22:19
What's wrong with you people? I can't really see how could multiplayer ruin the single player experinence. What's wrong in sharing the fun? Thief multiplayer is the thing I've waiting since I found Thief the first time. Well yes there is Thievery but it isn't really Thief multiplayer. Just another deathmach with loot. Since Doom only multiplayer game I've really enjoyed has been Raven shield.

The multiplayer I'd like to see would be build up around co-operation and really require it. Like some doors that would need to have one player in some control room opening it while other goes thru or helping other player up like in Splinter Cell - Double agent. It would of cource need more work because of different thieves and different maps but I would be ready to pay more for it.

pants10
13th May 2009, 22:36
I don't see why any work on a multiplayer component should be done. The most I would be happy to have would be some sort of online stats system or achievements. And I don't really even want that. I want classic thief single player experience. If I wanted multiplayer, I'd go play a metal gear.

Sykyrys
13th May 2009, 22:52
multiplayer might make sense if Garrett had an apprentice

Mr McGee
14th May 2009, 03:08
The **** guys. It should be added once they've managed to perfect the single player. All you people screaming "Oh God NO!!!!" don't play the goddam multiplayer then. Thieves vs. guards has epic potential.

The Magpie
14th May 2009, 03:44
Not only that - the thief/guards mode implementation in the Thievery UT mod was of course fanmade, but various forms of Thief multiplayer have been planned before, for every previous Thief title. Deadline rushing the single player mode has been its bane every time. (So too for System Shock 2, whose co-op mode thankfully was added in a patch.)

And that might well become the case this time over, too, but I for one really prefer having the multiplayer capabilities ready out-of-the-box.


And NO CO-OP, that would just ruin the gameplay.

What I can't for my life fathom is what in the Maw people like Necros have against co-op gameplay in Thief. Some of you must have suffered some seriously bad company when trying co-op in general.

Just try anew, then. Find a good and mature friend who can behave him/herself and start playing System Shock 2 in co-op. Or even Thief II:TMA. You do know it's possible, right?

--
Larris

randomtaffer
14th May 2009, 03:56
Make the game openly compatible with multiplayer, but focus on single player.

The fans will handle the rest.

Thieves vs. Guards would indeed be awesome, but I don't want the devs to spend time on it. Perhaps as an add on patch or DLC later when the game is complete.

Corvin25
14th May 2009, 21:14
Would be interestnig to have multiplayer... but this really is the kind of game a person enjoys by him/herself. Multiplayer would just be a waste of effort on the devs' part.

Hypevosa
14th May 2009, 21:24
With regards to PVP multiplayer... I would have to say no. If you bought thief, you play the game as a thief. Turning a player into a guard, making him blind to thieves' presence and whatnot would not be fair. It's like handing a kid yo yo, letting him learn how to play for 8 hours, and then telling him that he'll be graded for his performance, but with juggling devil sticks instead... You'd either be shafting the thieves by removing their ability to be uber stealthy and their ability to knock out or kill guards, or you'd shaft the guards who would be knocked out or killed instantly, and couldn't see their opponents.

However, a cooperative multiplayer component could be executed moderately well... having all players be part of a thieves guild pulling a large job on some castle or something, the player to pull the most loot gets the highest rank. Loot can be randomly placed, points deducted for killing guards, more points deducted for killing innocents, none for creatures, points deducted for bodies discovered, points added for successful pick pocket. It could be fun, and competetive, and still THIEF (which is the most important fact)

ElizabethSterling
15th May 2009, 07:30
Multiplayer would ultimately and undeniably detract from single player, it's as simple as that. Falllout 3 has had great success without multiplayer so the money argument is invalid too.

GmanPro
15th May 2009, 07:36
^^ And BioShock. And Mass Effect. And Oblivion

DanielOcean
15th May 2009, 08:59
In one of the last cutscenes in Thief 2, Victoria presents her plan to stop Karras...

Garrett replies:

"Your plan is suicide. I think of a better way... And I work alone..."

So if you add multiplayer to the game, you break this (from Garretts point of view) important rule! Never forget that!

On the other hand, multiplayer could give a brand new feeling of playing together. But what i don't like to see are 4 Garretts sneaking into the same building through the same dor/window at the same time and rush the guards to death or something...

I would like to see missions, which you can do alone AND with others. In case you do it alone, it takes time and is extremely difficult. In case you do it with others, the sub-objectives become easier, but a group is easier to spot!

I would say: Make the single-player flawless. If you still have the resources and time, make the multiplayer flawless. If the multiplayer can't reach flawless standards, leave it alone and try to make the single-player perfect...

Altair
15th May 2009, 14:34
I don't think that Thief is even possible as a multi-player game. Think about it. When Garret is invisible, the guards and NPC's don't "see" him, but if you switch to third person view (in Thief 3) you can clearly see Garret. So what would happen in multi player, is tons of Garrets crouching in the shadows but are still seen by everyone else! So what's the point of that?

tender19
15th May 2009, 15:32
I just want to add, that if you read the developer's diary of The Dark Project, back in 1997, you see, that they intended to do Multiplayer mode in TDP. But then they realized that they would develop actually two games, multiplayer just doesn't fit into Thief.

Nate
15th May 2009, 16:07
Altair, they can make thieves harder to see in the shadows than that. They only allowed you to clearly see your own character...it was done on purpose.

I think Multiplayer Thief Teams, Thieves vs Guards and even Thief Team Campaign Co-op would be great (and a great selling point for the game).

PiCroft
17th May 2009, 10:16
No Multiplayer.

Please, for the love of god. The time taken to try and allow multiplayer and make it half-decent would be better spent on single-player. There are an enormous number of multiplayer games out there for every conceivable genre, please don't ruin Thief by adding multiplayer.

hawk047
28th May 2009, 09:00
For those that say Garret is a loner.
Ever thought about playing random thieves in multiplayer? You werent playing as Garret in Thievery UT now were you?
Have either of you ever even played Thievery? In Thieves vs Gaurds mode there is hardly any teamwork between the thief players. Going as a gang will get you detected and killed.

People where cheering when the Thief 2 multiplayer mod came out, so I see no reason to have it out of the question. You think the singleplayer will suffer under it?
Splinter Cell handled it perfectly. Why shouldnt Eidos be able to do such a good job?
Besides, theres still propably going to be lots of fan missions. And else you can always play The Dark Mod, unless you people cant live without Garrett.

Too bad not alot of people play Thievery anymore. Its good fun to play with your friends.

Think about it. Multiplayer mode will attract more players and it gives that extra replayability.
Dont like it? Dont play it.

Doubting Eidos can deliver before they've shown anything... Good way to help the developers, trolls.

You lot will be begging for it once you've finished T4's singleplayer for the 20th time. (I know I would.)

Jamesy
29th May 2009, 15:17
I think if that if they want to add multiplayer, they should approach it as an expansion. MP has some great potential in Thief, but the single player experience should be polished off way before they attempt it.

The SDK as a multiplayer equivalent sort of makes sense, except that it wouldn't work for console users all that well. Unless they used my idea for USB keyboard/mouse controls for consoles, which is something else entirely.

A sort of 'Fan mission database' would be cool though. If they did add MP later on, an SDK would also be integral, and would add a lot to the game's life. Get talking to the original Thief MP modders and see how it could be done well?

The main point is MP should come after everything else.

Sierra Oscar
29th May 2009, 15:24
Some games just should stay single player, the thief games are those in my opinion.;)

Although, I can see a multiplayer component being done well - but as long as development on the Single Player is not squandered.

Vladimyre
29th May 2009, 16:23
If there is so much demand do an expansion that adds multiplayer down the line, that way you can focus on each experience. If there is that much of a demand for MP, then those that want it can buy it. There is nothing stopping them from adding MP in an expansion.

V

MasterTaffer
29th May 2009, 18:26
Look outside the Thief franchise for 2 minutes over to the Splinter Cell franchise and you'll see that Stealth multiplayer and co-op is perfectly possible. Ever since Pandorra Tomorrow, they have had a GREAT multiplayer system of Spies vs. Mercenaries that has worked beautifully to this day.

And in Chaos Theory and the previous console generation versions of Double Agent, they had a co-op system that did NOT have Sam Fisher + Sam Fisher. It featured two other Splinter Cells cooperating on their own uniquely designed missions, specially tailored for co-op play. They were not just playing the primary story arc with Sam and some other random jerk.

The "Garrett is a loner" comment holds true, but there's no reason co-op couldn't be its own campaign with its own charecters. Especially when there are other games in the genre who have set a glowing precident for co-op and multiplayer play.

ozlay
5th Jun 2009, 18:43
Maybe for thief 4 unlike the rest have multiplayer so you can blackjack a city watch with you friends maybe 2 player I would love to see a war during the game that you cause maybe have the chick from thief 3 that is always flerting with you in her shop as a second player a female thief or as your second player:mad2:

Inspector Drept
6th Jun 2009, 03:35
Thief is fun and love. Thief Multiplayer is sharing this fun and love with your friends.

kaekaelyn
6th Jun 2009, 06:36
I think it would be wonderful to see some quality thief v. thief, guard v. guard, and well-tailored co-op play. I pray to the Builder that they can pull it off and make the single player game that we all want. I don't know their time/money/patience/whatever constraints, so I can't say. But EIDOS, if you think you CAN do it, DO it, and although single player is your first priority, this would be a great thing if it's possible at all!

Blade_hunter
6th Jun 2009, 10:02
Just play Thievery UT also I don't know why professionals wouldn't make something good
Thievery for a fan made mod looks very close to a professional game with thief 1&2 options.
There is pretty much well made mods for that game..

Knight
6th Jun 2009, 19:48
Multiplayer? Hmm.. Only coop. Lot missions like that, that only two people it is possible to make it.

razorstealth
9th Jun 2009, 18:51
I think they should go for a co-op setting. of course the guards would need to be more alert and at a higher difficulty. They would need to make sure there are no team symbols showing where your friend is though so that there would be the risk of accidentally taking out your partner and having to restart... that would make things fun and still quite difficult. maybe the com system like for xbox live would only work when nearby each other and it could alert the guards.

fayfuya
12th Jun 2009, 13:57
NO WAY, there should not be any multiplayer for this godly game, it would take a long time to create a multiplayer! i want this game now!!! i don't want to play this game when i'll get 18 years old, i want it as soon as possible, but still with the good taste and the magic of this best-game-ever.

Hypevosa
12th Jun 2009, 19:23
NO WAY, there should not be any multiplayer for this godly game, it would take a long time to create a multiplayer! i want this game now!!! i don't want to play this game when i'll get 18 years old, i want it as soon as possible, but still with the good taste and the magic of this best-game-ever.

That's a little unrealistic... it will probably take a minimum of at least 2 years to create the game, and even then it might not be good. I'd rather they take all the time they need to make it, and make it amazing (but don't pull a duke nukem forever on us), with or without multiplayer.

Nate
12th Jun 2009, 22:26
Yeah, 2 years sounds about right.

I figure if I come down with cancer or something like that, I now have a chance of surviving long enough to play Thief 4.....that is all that matters now!

Everybody go do your doctor check ups and be careful walking across the street....you have to make sure you live long enough for this game!

Helgeran
12th Jun 2009, 22:59
I think they should rush the singleplayer in favour of making a multiplayer mode which is all about headshotting each other with fire arrows.

MP would be kind of interesting, if several thieves compete for the same loot, sneaking carefully to avoid being ambushed by other players versus sneaking quickly to grab the most loot. Duel with sword without alerting the guards!

Nate
12th Jun 2009, 23:04
Don't get me wrong, I'll play multiplayer (both co-op and sneakmatch).

But I would rather have the devs focus on the single player experience first.

Gabriel
13th Jun 2009, 09:27
I vote no for the multiplayer, mostly because I think it has a very small chance of turning up to be actually good and enjoyable. That, and that it will dissipate the magic of the single player experience, IMO.

I have a feeling the people wanting multiplayer will be pleasantly surprised when Thief 4 comes out, as I tend to think this will be one of their "improvements" to the game. But, we'll see.

Xeo
16th Jun 2009, 12:18
I think that it would be a travesty if Thief 4 does not have a multiplayer component. Certainly, the single player campaign should have a much higher priority, but to allow for cooperative gameplay as well as thieves vs guards would simply be outstanding.

esme
16th Jun 2009, 12:20
I don't think it should be a part of the original missions, but if the capability exists in the engine for multiplayer already then leave it in for fan missions

TheEye
15th Jul 2009, 18:15
a multiplayer feature only as an expansion pack
Balance

Nate
15th Jul 2009, 19:48
Seriously guys, this Multiplayer topic really isn't an issue.

Thi4f is going to use the SAME engine as Deus Ex 3....and THERE IS NO multiplayer in Deus Ex 3.

It seems reasonable that'll be the same for Thi4f.

Albi
21st Jul 2009, 13:44
Ok no one has porbably seriously thought about the difficulties of making multiplayer for thief 4 but i realy want it so hopefully some1 at eidos will read this cuz ive given it some thought.

- 12-15 player maps
- 2-3 thiefs
- guards can only go first person, they have a short sprint with long regeneration (faster sprinters than thiefs), cant die from headshots but can go KO from blackjack
- Thiefs have limmited weapons, such as 5 broadheads, lots of water arrows, no gas items, 1-3 flashes
- maps consist of 3 or more items that can be stolen forcing the guarding team to spread out and patrol
- there should also be small loot around aswell
- the maps should have many extreemly dark shadows and obsticles for thiefs to hide in and behind as to avoid cheaters who turn brightness way up
- time limits depending on the map and regular rotation of players until all have had a turn at thief then the person with the most loot or quickest time or some mix of that win
- possibly ranks aswell to give more initiative

thoughts? is there some1 in eidos i could e-mail there suggestions?

edit: I understand that the majority of you thief fans dont want a multiplayer as it takes away from single player experiance and diverts the efforts of eidos. I understand that, but its just not as fun outwitting the computer than a human being uno? Perhaps and expansion or just keep it realy simple as to keep the single player ascpect as good as possible but i just want to try it, it would be like a game of spotlight or hide and seek and no doubt fun and add more play time. its a worthwhile venture

Albi
21st Jul 2009, 14:10
multiplayer might make sense if Garrett had an apprentice

he does, didnt u see the ending to thief 3? I bet u either play as that girl or she has some part in thief 4. and garrett is now a keeper so myb hes not theiving anymore i dunno lol.

Oh and guys ive figured out a simple cheap and fun way to make multiplayer for thief:

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?p=1071373#post1071373

Squid
21st Jul 2009, 16:02
Okay.... the absolute best single player experience I've ever had is Thief... in particular, Thief: The Dark Project.

The absolute best multiplayer experience I've ever had is the Thievery mod for UT. Bar None. For those who think that Thief can't or shouldn't have a multiplayer component... by all means, play Thievery. Play Thievery! It feels like Thief. Try it for awhile before you decide that Thief multiplayer can't work.

I want single player Thief to have all the chances it can... I want it to have every advantage it can possibly have. But if the developers can do multiplayer without detracting from the single player experience, by all means, do something similar to Thievery.

Squid

PJMaybe
22nd Jul 2009, 05:29
I think considering Thief is meant to be played at a slow pace (most of the time) it would either be a completely different game in multiplayer or be very boring for the guards players. I don't think having players as guards would work at all. The only possibility I see for multiplayer would be a co-op game and how would that be any different than the single player game - except you have someone else in there with you to speed things up?

Personally, I think Thief is inherintly single player and it would be a mistake to spend time on developing multiplayer unless they can think of a sure-fire way in which it would be a success. Best to code in the networking and let the fans waste time on that as jtr7 says..

negative_len
22nd Jul 2009, 06:52
I actually like the idea of free for all or team based sneaking. The background would be that a group of rival lesser thieves descend on a mansion or other various settings, and it plays out much like a regular Thief mission, complete with shared objectives, AI guards and loot, except that you have rival thieves who you can hunt or who can hunt you. The overall scores would be objectives completed, player and NPC knockouts, loot collected, and times detected by AI and fellow players. Negative points for killing. The level would end when all the objectives had been completed by various players, and such and such percent of all loot had been collected.

PvP combat would mostly involve gas arrows, etc, which put a player out of action for a while. Finally, a good use for those oil slicks. If someone kills a player, he gets warped back to the nearest servant's quarters or something and a few blood drops appear on everybody's map showing where the killer was at the point of killing, and a blood trail would follow it showing his movements for about 20 seconds afterward. So killing instead of knocking out would leave you wide open for attack by others. I do like the idea of sneaking up on and blackjacking a fellow player instead of an NPC.

Obviously, I'd rather they focus on the single player and release multiplayer at best as an afterthought. I would not however be surprised if they did include it, for financial reasons.

Blade_hunter
22nd Jul 2009, 08:36
There is thievery for UT99
An excellent model of a multiplayer thief game

Yaphy
22nd Jul 2009, 11:05
This could be good. I dont think I would use it, but as long as they do this after the game itself and they already have done the story and everything else that needs to be included, I dont bother if they do some extra thing for the mass. Just dont take to much time from the rest of the game to create something like this.

Nothke
22nd Jul 2009, 13:02
Isn't there already a thief multiplayer called Thievery UT? Its a mod for unreal tournament, just look for it on you tube

Nothke
22nd Jul 2009, 13:26
Thievery UT:

heres only video I found with sound, all others have music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxQo3lRrJo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB09KpjQg4U&feature=related

it has 2 playmodes "thieves vs guards", in which you choose between guards or thieves, in which thieves must infiltrate and steal, and guards prevent them (something like team deathmatch) and "thiefmatch", in which thieves fight over each others greed (like deathmatch).

But gameplay is very interesting, thieves are invisible/disappear when in shadow, so guards must use techniques such as flares and some kind of torches or whatever... It must be really fun to play.

Albi
22nd Jul 2009, 14:55
interesting, bit to fast and deathmatch style tho

TheJoker
22nd Jul 2009, 16:05
Look at SCCT.

With SCCT Ubisoft showed that both MP and SP can be great experiences. 2 Mercenaries vs 2 Spies. It's loads of fun and well, I guess Thief 4 could have something similiar.
If you've played it you know how it works, and I believe that that system works. So why have 15 guards versus 3 Thiefs when you can have 2v2, 3v3 and so on?

It's not something I'm sure I'd like though for Thief 4.

Nate
22nd Jul 2009, 23:19
I'd love multiplayer...but I doubt it will happen for Thi4f.

ZylonBane
22nd Jul 2009, 23:28
Ok no one has porbably seriously thought about the difficulties of making multiplayer for thief 4
Think again.

Nate
22nd Jul 2009, 23:34
I'd love to play Thi4f multiplayer! But not if it takes dev time away from the single player part of the game.

xDarknessFallsx
23rd Jul 2009, 02:46
Maybe the MMORPG Garretts could parachute onto the rooftops, for each to run off and go on arrow-shooting fragfests against multitudes of enemy guards.

Garretts vs. Guards: The MMORPG

... Please no.

clock12345
23rd Jul 2009, 14:52
guys u still didnt get it huh? so what if garret is keeper garret will always remain a thief the world needs him to steal things and give to poor money people he needs to stop the evil! joke. but it doesnt really matters if garret is a keeper he will always remain a single thief. but i really want multiplayer! in thief 4!

Themarvin
24th Jul 2009, 00:52
Would like multiplayer attached to the game as it is, mainly due to that I personally would get a much higher experience out of the game.. instead of just playing it... and 2-5 days after completed and then never playing it again :/

It has been a tendency with to many singleplayer games only to me for quite a while.. being a huge fan of the Thief universe myself I have always asked if there should not be added in more to it, such as CO-OP and other standard multiplayer ways of the game to enhance the experience after having done the singleplayer part over and over again.

As long as it does not hurt the singleplayer part of the game and well letting us have a CO-OP part is all I have ever wished for ever with thief, mostly for having more than one experience as well as.

Dunno why would a fan like me say all this? Well mostly for getting something more out of the game in general as it is.

And a final thing... do not down performance the game make it so it fit to a PC system rather than a console... mainly due to that we would get much better GFX on a PC as well as more depth put into the game that way.

Posted stuff in the CO-OP thread as well, it is listed here: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?p=1075483&posted=1#post1075483

negative_len
24th Jul 2009, 08:33
Thievery UT:

heres only video I found with sound, all others have music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxQo3lRrJo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB09KpjQg4U&feature=related

I don't like that at all. It's too fast paced and acrobatic, like, well, Unreal Tournament for Thief, which is what it is. If there's multiplayer, I want it to be at the same speed and pace as regular Thief. In fact, I want it to be regular Thief, just with opposition. Same exact engine, no speed or level design changes or anything like that.

But if it's a financial question and either way it'd equalize financially, costing a lot of time and money to make multiplayer but costing a bunch of sales to make only single player, I hope EM will take the latter.

esme
24th Jul 2009, 09:29
Thievery UT:

heres only video I found with sound, all others have music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxQo3lRrJo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB09KpjQg4U&feature=related

it has 2 playmodes "thieves vs guards", in which you choose between guards or thieves, in which thieves must infiltrate and steal, and guards prevent them (something like team deathmatch) and "thiefmatch", in which thieves fight over each others greed (like deathmatch).

But gameplay is very interesting, thieves are invisible/disappear when in shadow, so guards must use techniques such as flares and some kind of torches or whatever... It must be really fun to play.thank you for that, I was considering trying ThieveryUT out, now I know it's basically a fragfest I'm not, if that's what multiplayer gives you then I don't want any and I suggest the ones who do go play ThieveryUT instead of trying to get it into Thief4

Hamadriyad
24th Jul 2009, 20:37
I don't want a multiplayer mode for Thief.. They should focus to the game. Maybe later it could be a muliplayer mode. But for now, it is unnecessary.(Now or later it doesn't matter for me in fact. It is completely unnecessary If you ask me.)

hammerite
24th Jul 2009, 23:05
I think Albi's got some great ideas I wouldn't mind playing as a guard it could be fun. I also agree though, that the 1 player game should come first and only when thats done properly, should they implement a multiplayer mode. and about the cheating with turning the brightness up.... well they COULD make the players dissapear altogether when they're in full shadow and not moving

Just a thought :)

HungryHungryHippogriff
24th Jul 2009, 23:52
Here's one of the big difficulties with multiplayer for a Thief game: AI are stupid, people are clever.

A guard in single-player may not notice you when your lightness gem's at "almost invisible," but a human player would, and they wouldn't chock it up to rats if you then vanished. Hence the problem; human Guards are more clever and can't be forced to forget things for the players' convenience. Not to mention a player Guard won't be satisfied roaming the halls, patrolling until something happens.

The only multiplayer option that could possibly work would be a multi-thief co-op of the single-player levels (as has been recommended in the past, with individual players being assigned certain objectives that go together). As much fun as you may think that is, I can guarantee you that the game would fail if it used multiplayer support as a crutch to hold up a weak single player campaign.

Multiplayer does not lend itself well to slow-paced gaming, which is what Thief is all about. If you want multiplayer Thief, go play ThieveryUT, because that's the best it would ever get (except ThieveryUT is free).

Kold
25th Jul 2009, 00:33
Truth be told, I think that multiplayer plan would blow. Everybody would want to be a thief, not one of the guards.. I know i wouldnt play if I had to be a guard, I would quit out and keep searching for more games til I was a thief

Moosemoose
9th Aug 2009, 20:30
Multiplayer sounds nice at first, but when you think about it, it really isn't that great. Obviously the normal multiplayer modes would not work, such as capture the flag, deathmatch etc. and they are definitely not 'thiefy' like. The only option that I see left (correct me if I am wrong) is Guards vs. Thieves.

Guards (human) vs. Thieves (Human)
-the guards would be suspecting a thief/thieves unlike in the actual storyline. This likely means that they will just stand in doorways waiting for thieves to come instead of patrolling. This will force the thieves to either try and glitch through the walls or plain and simple, kill all the guards, neither of which make for a very fun game. Also it would mean that Eidos would constantly have to rebalanced stats based on how many people are playing what faction and what tactics they use, which would be a very large hassle to them.

Guards (human) vs. Thieves (AI)
-AI isn't smart enough. Period.

Guards (AI) vs. Thieves (human)
-Thieves win hands down. The AI is predictable, which is exactly the opposite of what you need in a multiplayer game. If they were smart enough, then they wouldn't fit into the storyline because they would always be alert (meaning you might not be able to blackjack them if they make the game have the same annoying 'glitch' as TDS where it doesn't do anything and the guard snaps out of it and starts attacking you), and/or would go purposefully looking for thieves.
-Also since the game will be bought by people other than thief fans such as you and I, there will be 12 year-olds (btw I have nothing against 12 year olds) who will just go around killing every single guard which consequently makes it no fun for the rest of us trying to actually play properly.

Lastly, most people won't want to play multiplayer unless there is stats/rewards which creates its own set of problems as seen here : http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=91267&highlight=stats specifically look at posts # 14 - 16,35

ToMegaTherion
9th Aug 2009, 21:15
I'm sure there are loads of cool ways to make multiplayer Thief work. Some of which would probably take way too long to programme (there would be ways that guards vs thieves would be able to work by restricting what the human guards could do / giving the guards player some sort of "dungeon keeper" powers, but that would be a lot of effort).

Here's one way I think might be fun.

- designers make it easy to mod in multiple thief multiplayer mode, but don't really create any content for it
- modders make some huge City-style missions for people to play in (randomisation powers for loot and guards would be useful here for replayability). There'd be small burglaries to do, as well as larger ones, and secrets hinted at by scrolls and so on, etc, etc
- unleash a number of Thieves into the mission. The goal is to make as much money as possible. Maybe if you die you count as getting 0, so it is also important to decide when you have thieved enough and need to go home. The winner is the player who gets the most money. Possibly other awars could be given to the chief blackjacker, most stealthy, best thief-killer, etc.

Squid
10th Aug 2009, 05:09
Multiplayer sounds nice at first, but when you think about it, it really isn't that great. Obviously the normal multiplayer modes would not work, such as capture the flag, deathmatch etc. and they are definitely not 'thiefy' like. The only option that I see left (correct me if I am wrong) is Guards vs. Thieves.

Guards (human) vs. Thieves (Human)
-the guards would be suspecting a thief/thieves unlike in the actual storyline. This likely means that they will just stand in doorways waiting for thieves to come instead of patrolling. This will force the thieves to either try and glitch through the walls or plain and simple, kill all the guards, neither of which make for a very fun game. Also it would mean that Eidos would constantly have to rebalanced stats based on how many people are playing what faction and what tactics they use, which would be a very large hassle to them.

Lastly, most people won't want to play multiplayer unless there is stats/rewards which creates its own set of problems as seen here : http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=91267&highlight=stats specifically look at posts # 14 - 16,35

Um... couple of points. Have you played Thievery? Or the Dark Mod? Have you even heard of them?

Theivery is Thief multiplayer. Yes, it's Guards vs. Thieves, but it works extremely well. No, the thieves are NOT forced to glitch through walls or run around killing everyone. Proper level design takes care of that. Multiple ways to the targets, more loot than there are guards... those are just two different ways around those problems. You're also discounting teamwork among the thieves or the guards.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Before you say the idea sucks, try Thievery! I would LOVE to have a multiplayer Thief because of my experiences playing Thievery.

Thievery didn't have a reward/stat tracking system today, and it's still popular today. Yes, there are people who love getting "high scores." But that's not true for most Thief players, and in my experience, that will hold true for multiplaer as well.

Squid

tarhiel
10th Aug 2009, 11:49
NO multiplayer I would like!!!
It ruins the stealth along with Third perosn view., Thief is no multiplayer game, if you want mulitplayer, go and play Medal of Honor or whatever nowadays crap!
Sorry champs, no multiplayer, I´m strongly against it.

ToMegaTherion
10th Aug 2009, 13:04
You know, the "you want a Thief game with some feature? Go play a game that's nothing at all like Thief" line is getting about as tiresome as "all you want is a remake!".

Acrid
10th Aug 2009, 17:04
MULTIPLAYER is one of best things!!! FANS,MULTIPLAYER is IMPORTANT !!!!

kabatta
10th Aug 2009, 17:11
Now I can only think of the announcement: "head-shot" when you blackjack an opponent in a thief vs thief loot match. (unreal tournament ex-player that spoils thief away)

Telex
10th Aug 2009, 17:59
I think multiplayer could be fun, but I disagree with those who have said 'it won't hurt the single player, so what's the problem?'

I'm afraid yes, it will haha. It'll cause EM to split their time and talent between the two modes leaving us with a half-baked single player and multiplayer. Unless they give it to another developer - which seems unlikely at this point, it can and will take away from the single player experience. We've seen this with Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow which had a lame single player and glitchy and frustrating multiplayer. The following game, Chaos Theory fixed these issues somewhat but I'm not willing to wait until Thief 5 to see them fix a game that is essentially broken.

That all being said, I'm not opposed to Thief multiplayer, it just can't
-detract from the single player experience one iota. This means a different developer or a release after the main single player package
-be a clone of Splinter Cell multiplayer. The multiplayer there was a lot of fun, but I want something different and unique for Thief.

the_fish
10th Aug 2009, 19:19
Co-op is the most sensible solution - looking at the AI for TDS it shouldn't even be that hard, as the guards there are capable of looking for enemies other than the player (various inter-faction conflicts). All that's needed is the networking, and personally I think it's worth implementing that just to allow this.

(I should stress I'm not talking about a co-op version of the single player campaign, because that would suck, I'm talking about individual co-op maps)

With regard to other types of multiplayer, there's a couple of games I'd like you to meet:

Hidden: http://www.moddb.com/mods/hidden-source
Iron Grip: http://www.moddb.com/games/iron-grip-warlord

These both illustrate how a '1 vs N' setup can work - the former has one 'thief' and lots of 'guards', the latter has lots of 'thieves' and one guard player, who controls their units like an RTS.

Now, both of these (especially the latter) are way too much work for the T4 team, but demonstrate it's possible to mod something like this later, if they build in networking support.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
10th Aug 2009, 19:30
Multiplayer brings in the masses, of course Eidos should implement it. At least Co-op campaign. Successful games like COD and GOW are made for multiplayer experiences and Thief should be the same.

Pieter888
10th Aug 2009, 20:00
As been said before:
"ONLY when the single player experience doesn't suffer from it."

Of course it will "bring in the masses" but I will buy Thief 4 mainly for the single player story, the multi player is like an extra for me.

Acrid
10th Aug 2009, 20:18
Telex has right.MULTIPLAYER for Thief4 is very very IMPORTANT.Multiplayer is one of best things.
Some gamers don't want multiplayer for Thief4, WHY?? You are finished the game and what NEXT?...........BORING! MULTIPLAYER has a lot of fun,where we can playing with gamers or friends.
If this game has not the multiplayer....this game will such SAD! Are you agree to the MULTIPLAYER?
Please AGREE to MULTIPLAYER.

Thank you...

Telex
10th Aug 2009, 20:24
As been said before:
Of course it will "bring in the masses" but I will buy Thief 4 mainly for the single player story, the multi player is like an extra for me.

QFE. It'd be great to see some new people picking up the game that wouldn't have otherwise, but at the same time I'd rather this be a cult hit than have the devs sell out in the hopes of attracting a wider audience.

Changes will and should come to the franchise, but if Thief doesn't remain true to what made it so great in the first place I guarantee you we'll see T4 in the bargain bin very quickly. Let's make sure we get the single player right before we go and start adding more stuff. TDS didn't quite manage single player, and there were no other game modes to distract the devs at all haha.

negative_len
10th Aug 2009, 20:34
he does, didnt u see the ending to thief 3? I bet u either play as that girl or she has some part in thief 4. and garrett is now a keeper so myb hes not theiving anymore i dunno lol.

Stop being so stuck in the past!

Anyway.. The big point right now is that no one knows what the EM devs will do. These are not the same people who made Thief, Thief 2, or even Thief 3. They are completely unrelated. It's not just not the same studio, it's completely different people. There is, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, literally a 0 percent carryover rate. It's likely that many of them have never played and never will play any of the existing Thief games. I just hope the lead story, level, and art designers have.

I don't know how many times I have to point to Max Payne 3 as an excellent example of a series completely wrecked when a new studio made up the premise for the new game while whacked out on absinthe.

Unfortunately there's next to no chance that they'll let any details of what they're going to do slip until it's way too late to change them. Therefore, if you're going to mount a protest, do it now, while there's still a chance for things to be changed.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
10th Aug 2009, 20:40
Some people have a lot to learn. Eidos are a company. They are here to make money. They are not here to cater to those stuck in 1998. In these troubled economic times Eidos need the capitalise on the situation and they will have to sacrifice some of the "hardcore" aspects to turn a profit.

Why would they make Thief The Dark Project again? Go back and play the game again if you're so attached to it.

Acrid
10th Aug 2009, 21:10
MaxPayne3 and has MULTIPLAYER ! But 1,2 hasn't.Thief IV can change too...multiplayer Thief4

Necros
10th Aug 2009, 22:22
Frankly, I don't see any reason why the devs should waste their time and effort on creating, polishing and balancing a multiplayer mode. :scratch:
Thief is a single player experience.
:thumb: This. An MP should only be worked on after the SP is finished or they could give it to an other dev team. I don't care, the important thing is that the SP has to be their focus.

And NO frelling co-op or versus mode!!! :mad2: They wouldn't make any sense in a Thief game. http://i31.tinypic.com/24l3l9x.jpg http://i30.tinypic.com/5n7vxj.jpg

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ, I'm not stuck in the past. But believe it or not, some games don't need MP, at all or it just wouldn't work well. Some games can be successful without it too. Bioshock 1 didn't have MP and it sold a lot of copies. Same with Oblivion for example.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
10th Aug 2009, 22:28
ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ, I'm not stuck in the past. But believe it or not, some games don't need MP, at all or it just wouldn't work well. Some games can be successful without it too. Bioshock 1 didn't have MP and it sold a lot of copies. Same with Oblivion for example.

I don't see Thief 4 as marketable as a futuristic, gore-heavy FPS like Bioshock or epic RPG like Oblivion, but whatever. It CERTAINLY won't be if they make it like Thief The Dark Project or Thief 2.

Acrid
11th Aug 2009, 16:28
Will Thief4 modern ?

Acrid
11th Aug 2009, 16:54
It's been hinted indirectly that it won't be, but no official word has been given.

I have a small proof of MODERN Thief4...thief.wikia.com/wiki/Unfinished_Thief_sequels
:)

Telex
11th Aug 2009, 17:18
Will Thief4 modern ?

I'm not sure there's an actual answer to that yet, the game is so early in development. Let's hope not - I love the City a ton and want to go back = /

Acrid
11th Aug 2009, 17:31
I'm not sure there's an actual answer to that yet, the game is so early in development. Let's hope not - I love the City a ton and want to go back = /

The modern will has too the city and NEW Garret as:
Prince of Persia 1,2,3 but in 4 there is a NEW prince the character...This is too good
:rolleyes:

canadianghost
12th Aug 2009, 03:25
online is always better, I myself would love to see a game where lots of people can jump in and take the roll of someone in a game like this, anything,,,from a owners of a market to a king

esme
12th Aug 2009, 10:37
online is always better, I myself would love to see a game where lots of people can jump in and take the roll of someone in a game like this, anything,,,from a owners of a market to a kingfor you it's better, for me it would stop me purchasing the game

Necros
12th Aug 2009, 18:05
I don't see Thief 4 as marketable as a futuristic, gore-heavy FPS like Bioshock or epic RPG like Oblivion, but whatever. It CERTAINLY won't be if they make it like Thief The Dark Project or Thief 2.
:hmm: Of course it can't be marketed like that. They have to come up with some clever marketing for sure, but it shouldn't be too hard.I mean, they could talk about the great story, the interesting characters, the gameplay that you won't see anywhere else, the new installation to the greatest stealth game genre, the medieval steam-punk fantasy kind of setting, the cool graphics, and so on... I'm sure they can sell it without MP or co-op. ;) Just throw in replayability and long single player campaign and those will get many people's attention.

Acrid
12th Aug 2009, 19:57
:hmm: Of course it can't be marketed like that. They have to come up with some clever marketing for sure, but it shouldn't be too hard.I mean, they could talk about the great story, the interesting characters, the gameplay that you won't see anywhere else, the new installation to the greatest stealth game genre, the medieval steam-punk fantasy kind of setting, the cool graphics, and so on... I'm sure they can sell it without MP or co-op. ;) Just throw in replayability and long single player campaign and those will get many people's attention.

But multiplayer has better a lot of fun then single player,there you have online with friends or
gamers,fans you can playing with alive gamers :)

ToMegaTherion
12th Aug 2009, 21:06
I don't really get on very well with other Thief fans, so I think I'd prefer to play on my own :p

fayfuya
12th Aug 2009, 23:38
Just create a Thieves VS. Guards, and I'm happy

Vae
13th Aug 2009, 02:40
Yep. Multiplayer could be a fun addition...as long as it wouldn't affect the development of the single player game. (which it unfortunately would :()

negative_len
13th Aug 2009, 10:29
When I said "stuck in the past", I was talking about the ending of TDS, not the first two Thief games.

Vae
13th Aug 2009, 11:13
But multiplayer has better a lot of fun then single player,there you have online with friends or
gamers,fans you can playing with alive gamers :)

You realize we are talking about Thief, right. :confused:

Acrid
13th Aug 2009, 17:42
You realize we are talking about Thief, right. :confused:
What.....:confused:

Secondary
13th Aug 2009, 23:08
stealth is not really condusive to multiplayer (besides, how exactly would two thieves cooperate).

unless...

the ending cutscene for TDS implies Garrett has an apprentice, this trainee may be available as a playable character, maybe in some sort of multiplayer?

minus0ne
13th Aug 2009, 23:57
Where do these people come from? Has someone at the AGMBMMOG.com's* forums created a petition for Thief 4 or something?

*AGMBMMOG= AllGamesMustBeMassivelyMultiplayerOnlineGames

*²= Ok, so I made that up :D. The WoW forums, then?

negative_len
14th Aug 2009, 01:14
Maybe they're all the same person?

ToMegaTherion
14th Aug 2009, 08:42
Yes, death to all people who discuss a multiplayer component in the "Thief IV: Multiplayer Component" thread!

Shadow Blade
14th Aug 2009, 08:45
Grap your torch and pitch forks!!!:D

ToMegaTherion
14th Aug 2009, 08:54
Raise the flag!
Sing the song!
Here we come, we're fifty strong
And fifty taffers can't be wrong
Let's kill the beast!
Kill the beast!
Kill the beast!

Shadow Blade
14th Aug 2009, 09:08
Bang the Battle Drum!
Scream our song!
The point of my pitchfork is fifty foot long!

esme
14th Aug 2009, 11:40
Grap your torch and pitch forks!!!:D

then walk purposefully towards the enemy encampment only to wake up in the gutter, with no money, no pitchfork, no torch, no clothes and a burrick urinating on you because you missed the shifty looking guy with one metallic looking eye standing in the shadows as you walked purposefully past :lol: ;) :flowers:

I'm in a frivolous mood today

Platinumoxicity
14th Aug 2009, 11:41
Thieves VS. guards will NEVER work. It's either co-op thieves VS. AI guards or no multiplayer at all. People who think that human players as thieves VS. human players as guards is a great idea, need to think a little once in a while. Imagine how you would play a game like that as a guard. That's all you need to do to recognise the problem.

Vae
14th Aug 2009, 11:48
Indeed esme, what has come over you? :)

esme
14th Aug 2009, 11:55
Indeed esme, what has come over you? :)

senility probably, my last neuron died peacefully in my sleep, may it rest in peace

Shadow Blade
14th Aug 2009, 11:57
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

It was an honour to be mugged by Garrett thats all I have to say

Nice one esme:thumb:

esme
14th Aug 2009, 12:01
:sigh: always the guard never the garrett

Vae
14th Aug 2009, 12:04
senility probably, my last neuron died peacefully in my sleep, may it rest in peace

Oh, I don't think so...look how happy you have made Shadow Blade. :)...It takes a lot of neurons to be so clever....;)

esme
14th Aug 2009, 12:08
flatterer, you'll make me blush

Vae
14th Aug 2009, 12:11
That's ok, I can take it...:o

Shadow Blade
14th Aug 2009, 12:12
You get my vote for Comedian of the Thief 4 forums esme!!!!!!!!!:)

esme
14th Aug 2009, 12:30
You get my vote for Comedian of the Thief 4 forums esme!!!!!!!!!:)...:sigh: and I was so hoping for prom queen too

wtf am I talking about, we don't even have prom queens in the uk http://www.ttlg.com/forums/images/smilies/nono.gif

Shadow Blade
14th Aug 2009, 12:36
The voting box could always be rigged:whistle:

esme
14th Aug 2009, 12:39
I'd be the wrinkliest prom queen ever :lol:

Shadow Blade
14th Aug 2009, 12:45
Imagin going to a prom and no one knows you and then you get voted prom queen and every ones like . . . huh?
HA Theres a multiplayer idea right there prevent the thief from rigging the prom box yes im sure they will love this one i can feel it:D itll be the biggest hit ever oh yes

ToMegaTherion
14th Aug 2009, 15:38
Thieves VS. guards will NEVER work. It's either co-op thieves VS. AI guards or no multiplayer at all. People who think that human players as thieves VS. human players as guards is a great idea, need to think a little once in a while. Imagine how you would play a game like that as a guard. That's all you need to do to recognise the problem.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it wouldnever work, but it would take a lot of thinking and a lot of designing to make it work I would expect. I would guess that it is far too much effort and too speculative to be worth official work, and probably too complicated for fan work to be slick.

Yaphy
14th Aug 2009, 16:48
Multiplayer without teams then?
The guards is cpu. There is some thiefs that play against each other on a big map, many guards one life and the one who collects the most loot wins. Many different maps and random loot.

Im not sure I like the idea myself, but I guess its good to post now when I thought of it.

kin
14th Aug 2009, 18:03
I like to play thief alone. Playing with others makes it like football.

Acrid
14th Aug 2009, 20:01
multiplayer: gamers can play versus in cradle or in city-there will people,animal,enemy and thiefs
THIEFS vs ENEMIES

Davehall380
14th Aug 2009, 20:05
Im hesitant about multiplayer - Thief DP, MA and to a certain extent DS were all claustrophobic - the player couldnt interact with individuals, conversations were pre-decided and most people reacted with hostility to your presence. Multiplayer is a community thing, and I strongly feel that you would end up with an experience more akin to Doom than Thief.

Acrid
14th Aug 2009, 20:07
MULTIPLAYER

gamers can play versus in cradle or in city-there will people,animal,enemy and thiefs
THIEFS vs ENEMIES and chat,write online with gamers

Davehall380
14th Aug 2009, 20:16
I would argue that as soon as you introduce more than one human player, you lose that feeling of what made the previous games special. It would look and sound like thief, but it would cheapen the experience no matter how much you tweak it. The game would literally have to FORCE you to play it like a single player experience to stop people rushing around, attacking each other and all of the other things that happen when people play multiplayer games for hours on end. Camping etc in Thief? Pfff. Muliplayer thief was tried with that Unreal mod and whilst it looked quite good, it still looked like a FPS of Thief. As ive said ive only seen what this mod had to offer, anyone who has actually played it is more than welcome to deservedly prove me wrong!

ToMegaTherion
14th Aug 2009, 22:57
If I were making a competetive multiplayer Thief level then I'd probably want to make it sufficiently large that there's not a great chance of the Thieves interfering with each other directly. This would hopefully keep generally the same atmosphere as a normal game of Thief, but with the faint possibility of something really unexpected happening at any given moment (I suspect this is quite a good thing if you've played Thief a lot and got used to the sorts of things that would happen).

Another interesting point would be that there would be no saving, and this might have interesting (or possibly dreadful, who knows?) impact on the way things go. It would also allow the level designers to do things such as alarm systems without having to worry "is everyone just going to quickload", because loading is not allowed. I would envisage that eventually a Thief decides when playing the mission that he's got sufficient loot to hopefully win the game and then go back to his home and end his mission. Having to decide "have I got enough or is this prize worth the risk" is not something that often crops up in the single player experience, so might be an interesting variation.

Squid
15th Aug 2009, 06:54
Wow... this got off topic quick.

Squid
15th Aug 2009, 07:41
Thieves VS. guards will NEVER work. It's either co-op thieves VS. AI guards or no multiplayer at all. People who think that human players as thieves VS. human players as guards is a great idea, need to think a little once in a while. Imagine how you would play a game like that as a guard. That's all you need to do to recognise the problem.

Wow, glad to know that I need to think... must explain the smoke coming out of my ears. Btw, I have played a game like that as a guard... found it to be a lot of fun.


I wouldn't necessarily say that it would never work, but it would take a lot of thinking and a lot of designing to make it work I would expect. I would guess that it is far too much effort and too speculative to be worth official work, and probably too complicated for fan work to be slick.

Wrong. Looked at the Dark Mod lately? Or Thievery? Or some of the other attempts out there?


I would argue that as soon as you introduce more than one human player, you lose that feeling of what made the previous games special. It would look and sound like thief, but it would cheapen the experience no matter how much you tweak it. The game would literally have to FORCE you to play it like a single player experience to stop people rushing around, attacking each other and all of the other things that happen when people play multiplayer games for hours on end. Camping etc in Thief? Pfff. Muliplayer thief was tried with that Unreal mod and whilst it looked quite good, it still looked like a FPS of Thief. As ive said ive only seen what this mod had to offer, anyone who has actually played it is more than welcome to deservedly prove me wrong!

So, Dave, you're saying it's a FPS without having played it? Kinda like seeing a giraffe and saying "There's no such animal..."

Since I have played it, extensively, I'll be glad to prove you wrong... and right.

Thievery, in essence, did play a lot like a single player game of Thief. For the most part, guards were much more adept at combat... a single guard taking on a cornered thief made mincemeat of them. So, direct combat TvsG was suicide for the Thieves. Guards generally camped, if you were smart, out at entrances to the major loot locations... but there were multiple ways to enter these locations, and you didn't have the manpower to guard them all. Yes, guards could "camp" all over certain spots, but then the thieves would merrily go somewhere else and loot to their heart's content.

Guards could NOT see Thieves when Thieves were hiding in shadows or dark areas. Guards could NOT hide in shadows like Thieves could... they were always visible under normal conditions. Thieves could also see other Thieves at all times. However, if a Thief was where a Guard could not see them under normal conditions (example: hiding in shadows,) they would look like red Thief shaped outlines to other Thieves.

Guards carried flares which they could carry or throw, swords, crossbows and health potions. Thieves carried bows, blackjacks, swords, flashbombs, flares, health potions... and, of course, loot. Both sides could relight torches with flares... Thieves could take a flare and douse it. Flares

Important note: Guards could NOT carry, nor move, loot! If they recovered loot from a dead Thief, it was respawned at it's original starting point. (Loot would also respawn if left on a dead Thief after a short time.) Therefore, Guards found it very difficult to create conditions where a Thief could not sneak up to grab the loot.

Both sides had a limited number of "lives." When you died or were KOed without a wakeup timer, you respawned, using one of the lives. If your side had no lives left, you could watch the rest of the game as a spectator. There were various ways to prevent cheating via voice or ingame chat, if you so desired.

Games tended to be long and tension filled, much like Thief single players missions. Maps were large with multiple ways to get around, and very much looked like Thief missions.

Squid

Squid
16th Aug 2009, 10:10
Squid, did you understand the point that as a guard, you're supposed to be at your post or on a patrol, otherwise you are really playing a different kind of role? I'm glad you've joined the discussion to give the uninformed, such as myself, the inside info. How is this addressed in multiplayer? Is "Guard" a loosely accurate term? Is it unfair to assume "Guard" is meant to be like the guards in Thief, only with brains? How does knowing thieves are coming change how the "Guard" does the guarding job? Thanks.

Hmmm... jtr7, I always though you had played Thievery... this explains much. Let me see if I can answer your questions.

Well, you weren't assigned a position or a route to cover. However, you lost if the Thieves met their objectives, so guarding loot was a priority.

Basically, almost all of the terrain of any given level was dark, making moving around for Guards risky. After all, while a Guard can easily take out a Thief in combat, Guards were still very vulnerable to Thieves by blackjacks if blackjacked from behind by a Thief. Basically, a very hard shot to make, but it's a one shot, one kill situation. So, a Thief playing the game like they were Garrett (sticking to the shadows, crouching, moving silently, etc.) could manouever around a Guard and take them out quickly and quietly.

I wouldn't say that it's unfair to say they're supposed to be like guards in Thief, with brains... but it's close. Even though we know the game has started, we don't know when or from where the Thieves will strike... and with large levels and lots of shadows, you can't just say, "Oh, yeah, Bob's right there, under that bridge." Unless a Thief slips up, it's very hard, most of the time, to even guess where they are. Also realize that there's no minimaps or other ways of revealing where the other players are, even ones on your team.

Basic tactics went like this: Both sides get their initial loadouts. Both sides spawn at the same time in their respective starting points. Thieves generally move as quickly and as quietly as they can out of their spawns to nearby shadows. (Note: Spawns were already shadowed for Thieves, but since experienced players knew where the spawn points were, it was safer to get away from them as soon as you could.) At the same time, Guards are either running to Thief spawns in hopes of catching them there or are moving to the big loot items to protect them. Once Thieves made their objectives, (not guaranteed by far!) they still had to return to either their spawn points or a designated "safe" area in order to win... they had to get away!

From there it's a game of cat and mouse. Thieves are hiding, moving slowly, making the best use of their abilities. Guards are either camping at important loot objects or choke points, or are patrolling short routes near them. Guards also might be heading to vantage points, to better see the terrain and spot moving Thieves.

Thievery was incredibly well balanced, and it really depended on the skill of the players as to what side won. Neither side had an overall advantage over the others... and I saw plenty of situations where you would say it was impossible for one side to win... and then the "losing" side pulled it off anyway.

For example: I remember one situation where I was a Thief and there were three Guards camping over a chest, which was the final loot item needed for us to win. The other Thief on my team darts out into the light, revealing himself, shoots at the guards, then takes off running. Two of the guards take off after him, while the third moves to the edge of the light. Him moving allowed me to slip back behind him and crouch down in the small shadow behind the chest.

The other two Guards return, having failed to catch my partner. After a couple of minutes, (average game legnth: over 30 minutes) my fellow taffer returns and jumps into the light again. While the Guards aren't fooled this time, they do move to the edge of the light... all of them. This gives me enough room to grab the loot and run!

Sine everyone is alerted when major loot items are taken, the Guards turn, see me because I'm currently lit up like a Christmas tree by torchlight, and run after me. I make it back to the spawn, thus winning the game, with about 1 hit of health remaining. A very fun game!


The other point is that when playing Thief, it seems odd to choose not to play a thief. It's unappealing to those of us who want to taff around, and it sounds like the missions are just playgrounds, not missions, no story, or any other fundamental of the game. It sounds like another game totally, sharing terrain and game mechanics, like an FM campaign built with the same tools. Why should EM spend so much time on that now, not afterward?

Your points about Thievery being about "playgrounds" is pretty much true. There was no story and no 'mission' per se. However, remember Thievery was a large fan made collaboration. It was a labor of love. This does not rule out EM from making multiplayer have a storyline or mission briefings or anything similar. After all, they have the resources we don't.

As for why... let me hit a couple of points.

1. When making a game, you want to hook your customers with your initial launch, not with patches or expansions. There has been research done that shows if a player is not hooked by the game upon initial release, they will not bother downloading any expansions, patches, extra content, or similar items, thus depriving your company of that extra revenue. Not to mention the negative press, bad word of mouth, etc.

2. Today's gamers love multiplayer... almost every game released today has some sort of multiplayer aspect to it. There are exceptions... Fallout 3 comes to mind, but for the most part, multiplayer is where the money is at. It is proven that multiplayer increases the time players are enthralled with a game, thus increasing shelf life... the amount of time a game stays at it's highest price. Example: Call of Duty, World at War, is still selling at it's starting price even though it's been out for almost a year. The main reason? Multiplayer. (I finished their single player game in a couple of days during a rental from Blockbuster... but as soon as I get Xbox Live Gold on my 360, I'll be buying the game for it's multiplayer experience.)

Also, multiplayer keeps the fan communities going... with some exceptions, of course. :D Think of Starcraft, Team Fortress, Counterstrike, Call of Duty, Command and Conquer, Warcraft... even Civilization all have their shelf life legnthed by a multiplayer fanbase.

So, it makes a lot of financial sense for companies to make their games multiplayer... and that's a very big reason why EM should do a multiplayer addition to Thief with the initial release. Is it about money? On at least their end, it has to be. Anything that increases that shelf life means more income, more return on your investment.

Also, Eidos just said a few days ago the Deus Ex 3 will be released "when it's ready." That's a very good sign... it means they're willing to put time into it and not rush things. They realize that they have two major franchises that have very loyal and vocal fanbases and that they want to do things right by us. So, if this attitude holds true for Thief, they will make the time to put in multiplayer.



Let me say here exactly what I think multiplayer will look like for T4.

1.) While the single player missions may be playable with co-op, (an up and coming version of multiplayer,) co-op will not be the central experience of Thief. The levels will have a rich storyline, engaging in depth gameplay, plenty of stealth and stealing,and everything we love about Thief.

2.) Multiplayer will consist of a separate experience, set in the Thief universe and The City. While it may have it's own storyline, it will not relate to Garrett in any way, other than sharing game mechanics. Garrett's story is his own, no one else's.

3.) Multiplayer maps will be large, but won't be designed for lots of players. This particular game calls for fewer players... I think the largest I ever saw for Thievery was 16 players. (Most games were fewer than 8, with some even being just 2 players.)

4.) Multiplayer will embrace the style and essence of Thief. Imagine playing a single player mission, say, Bafford's in the original, where there were fewer guards but they were much smarter, because they are true human opponents. Now imagine having some allies to help you. It's a somewhat different experience, but you won't feel that it wasn't Thief or Thief like.

I hope this helps people see what I'm talking about. I think some aspect of multiplayer, especially what I outlined above, will take Thief and make it one of the best selling franchises ever and give it the recognition it so richly deserves. Remember, we're not talking twitch fests, or who's better at the blackjack. We're talking having to truly outwit your opponents to succeed... a truly Thiefly experience indeed!

Squid

fayfuya
16th Aug 2009, 11:05
Multiplayer can go so damn good, imagine playing Thieves VS. Guards with your friends...omg i can't wait to buy Thi4f if that would be inside it.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
16th Aug 2009, 11:14
There is thievery for UT99
An excellent model of a multiplayer thief game

With about two people playing it (the veterans from 2002 who will decimate new players and castrate them for using broadheads as a thief).

Blue Sky
16th Aug 2009, 22:07
I don't like that at all. It's too fast paced and acrobatic, like, well, Unreal Tournament for Thief, which is what it is.

Oh hooray, someone else who thinks that!

I tried playing Thievery ages ago, and couldn't get into it; the other people playing were obviously tremendously experienced players who knew every inch of every mission, and everyone just ran and leapt around slashing at everyone else. It was basically deathmatch carnage.

On a different Thief forum I did once broach the opinion that Thievery did not offer a Thief-like experience at all, and was very quickly shouted down! But it really doesn't!

Not unless other people play Thief in a VERY different way to how I do!

Multiplayer could only work for Thief if it's co-op, which could potentially be very interesting! One thief could create distractions so the other could sneak past, they could help each other to get to difficult to reach places you couldn't get to with just one player, various tools could be combined to achieve new techniques... And if one thief is parrying with a guard, maybe the other one is able to knock the guard out with a blackjack (so long as the guard doesn't realise that there's two of them!)

But yeah, you definitely couldn't do a multiplayer version of Thief where players control guards... If you want proof of that then try Thievery. I'm not going to knock it as a game as I'm sure if you get into it it is really fun and enjoyable, but it is very VERY far removed from Thief.

imperialreign
17th Aug 2009, 00:09
I had an idea years ago that might be interesting:


have very large and detailed maps (think: larger than Assasins or Ambush!), with numerous buildings that one could explore or skulk in . . .

the object would not be to kill other players, but instead there would be random "major" loot locations . .. such as a specific object that everyone is trying to get too first - you're given very little information as to where the object might be located, but nabbing that object and getting it back to your "hang out" would win the match . . .

as well, there'd be the typical loot items laying around that re-spawn after a given amount of time, and looting these items would increase your overall "points" - literally determining one's standing amoungst the other players - one cold re-deem your "points" for equipment at your "hang out," be it water arrows, rope arrows, fire, gas, flash bombs or whatever . . .

There

Squid
17th Aug 2009, 10:55
But yeah, you definitely couldn't do a multiplayer version of Thief where players control guards... If you want proof of that then try Thievery. I'm not going to knock it as a game as I'm sure if you get into it it is really fun and enjoyable, but it is very VERY far removed from Thief.

Blue Sky, I don't know what server you were playing on... but my experiences playing Thievery didn't run toward deathmatch carnage. I was an active player for some time and rarely saw anything like massive combats erupt. So I don't think you can blame the game overall for that... just the people playing at the time on that server.

imperialreign, I like that idea... it could work as another version of multiplayer as well, with players on the Thief side and the computer playing the guards. I wouldn't mind trying that as well as something similar to Thievery.

Squid

Vae
17th Aug 2009, 11:32
Thieves VS. guards will NEVER work. It's either co-op thieves VS. AI guards or no multiplayer at all. People who think that human players as thieves VS. human players as guards is a great idea, need to think a little once in a while. Imagine how you would play a game like that as a guard. That's all you need to do to recognise the problem.

Agreed. Interesting idea, though low priority in the scheme of things when you consider limited developmental resources.

Albi
17th Aug 2009, 13:39
theres no use making these, no 3rd person, please have multiplayer threads beacuse there is just some things we have to accept. i thought for a time multiplayer could work but there just too many people against it and for good reason.

- Thief 4 will have to cater to the public and casual theif gamers so there will be 3rd person
- there is no chance of thief multiplayer
- there will be massive graphical increases
- gameplay will not be the same as metal age or dp no matter how much they try (not neccessarily a bad thing)
- AI likely to be better
- good chance of different cutscene and breifing styles alltogher (since its a new team of devleopers)
- etc.... (any more?)

not saying dont bother making suggestions or discussing possibilities just dont get ur hopes up and look at this realistically. Anything i missed?

PlumsieTaker
17th Aug 2009, 14:00
They call this a discussion board for a reason. Making threads like those are a good thing, people can discuss ideas, theories, etc. Although some people do get carried away, its no reason to stop the threads. What will the devs read when they pop by occasionally?

The Deadly Shadow
17th Aug 2009, 14:23
theres no use making these, no 3rd person, please have multiplayer threads beacuse there is just some things we have to accept. i thought for a time multiplayer could work but there just too many people against it and for good reason.

- Thief 4 will have to cater to the public and casual theif gamers so there will be 3rd person
- there is no chance of thief multiplayer
- there will be massive graphical increases
- gameplay will not be the same as metal age or dp no matter how much they try (not neccessarily a bad thing)
- AI likely to be better
- good chance of different cutscene and breifing styles alltogher (since its a new team of devleopers)
- etc.... (any more?)


Few games out today do not cater for multiplayer. This is the fourth game in the series now and its time to break out of the comfort zone and try something which is different. There's few games which have stealth multiplayer. Besides Splinter Cell I don't think there's any decent stealth games online and Thief should be the one to break that trend and present something new and exciting.

I personally only care for Co-op in terms of online play as I love the thought of joining friends to loot out a mansion and use teamwork to leave the premises with 100% loot. I think other players would feel the same especially those of us who like a challenge who could mod the gameplay to allow for not being sighted, no knockouts, no deaths etc.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
17th Aug 2009, 15:09
Multiplayer could most definitely work, its just a matter that lots of folks on here don't want the team to be taking time out of their single player development process to accommodate a multiplayer mode, which is understandable.

But if they had a second development team for the multiplayer mode, I can't see why it wouldn't be possible and quite successful.

2v2, 3v3 Thief vs Guard could be awesome!

esme
17th Aug 2009, 15:34
...But if they had a second development team for the multiplayer mode, I can't see why it wouldn't be possible and quite successful...true, but to the best of my knowledge they only have one team on this

if the base engine supports co-op and deathmatch and the devs don't butcher the engine to deliberately remove the feature, would you be ok if they then developed T4 as a single player game but allowed you to network extra players in if you wanted ?

I'm not sure what would be involved in networking players in to take the place of guard type AI rather than as thieves but I wouldn't think it would be a hugely difficult piece of code, basically select a different avatar with a slightly different toolset and attributes, I don't see it being a showstopper for one good coder to add the capability inside a week maybe two

and it would increase sales for EM and gameplay for those wanting co-op while not detracting very much from single player development

there's a couple of fairly large if's and the odd wild guess in that but I reckon co-op could be accommodated with minimal impact on the single player game

that said I personally still won't be playing multiplayer

--EDIT--

and before anyone asks, yes I have over 30 years solid analyst programmer coding under my belt in an engineering/science environment, in a variety of languages, on a variety of projects including graphics, modelling and some animation work, no specific game engine work though so if you know better please feel free to correct my wild guesses, I have made a T2 fan mission and am working on another so while I'm not far off, I'm not a complete noob at game design and do know something of the intricacies

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
17th Aug 2009, 16:05
thank you for that, I was considering trying ThieveryUT out, now I know it's basically a fragfest I'm not, if that's what multiplayer gives you then I don't want any and I suggest the ones who do go play ThieveryUT instead of trying to get it into Thief4

Ha, no. I'd rather not. It looks like it has lots of potential, but it is basically Unreal shaped for thieving and offers no real methodical stealth based intensity.

The Thief Multiplayer I have in my mind kicks ass and would most definitely offer a sensuously skulking thieving experience and paranoid, thrilling and ruthless guard experience.


Thieves VS. guards will NEVER work. It's either co-op thieves VS. AI guards or no multiplayer at all. People who think that human players as thieves VS. human players as guards is a great idea, need to think a little once in a while. Imagine how you would play a game like that as a guard. That's all you need to do to recognise the problem.

Ok, I thought about it...

I would play it myself in first person armed with a sword and have a choice between 5 shot crossbow that takes a long time to reload or a single shot heavy longbow that is less powerful but much faster overall rate of fire. I would be decked out in heavily clad armor that would make shooting me with arrows highly pointless so that thieves would not be able to stealth kill me from long ways away, but it would also limit my motion so I couldn't access certain areas that thieves could go, due to their lighter and more mobile nature.

I'd have several booby traps, of varying types (razor traps, prickle toes, bolt traps etc), at my disposal that I could place on points of entry into the AO that I'm guarding or else on doors inside the house that will auto kill any reckless thieves that don't check before they enter. I would also be able to affect the world around me to move items into various paths that thieves will take, such as chairs in front of doors and cabinets in front of windows. Any thief that moves them will make noise and if I am in the vicinity I will hear it. If I'm not, then when I return to the area and notice that it has been moved, then I'm aware that this was the initial point of infiltration of a thief and can begin to track them down.

I would have 3-4 single use keys that I could use to lock doors around the house, forcing thieves to have to pick that particular lock.

Blackjacking me from behind would knock me out. Blackjacking me from the front just makes me angry.

I would have a limited number of torches that would burn for a certain amount of time. To light these I would have to move to certain areas that have continuous fire, such as a fire place or an oil torch/lamp in a hallway. This would be used to illuminate dark areas that have no light of their own. While holding a torch, I would still be able to place traps/affect my environment. Taking out a weapon would force me to drop the torch to the ground and might possibly extinguish it or reduce the burn time left in it. I would also be able to throw this torch to illuminate dark corners that I suspect a thief might be hiding in, without having to wander into the darkness myself.

My pupils would also dilate, so if I spend enough time in the dark, there will be a very slight, but gradual light shift that might help me spot any sneaky thieves that think I'm about to leave.

My overall objective would be to guard the mansion's/museum's/castle's varying 3-7 important treasures (depending on level size/objective progression) and success is achieved if I kill all the thieves or manage to thwart their efforts to steal a minimum amount of items and extract them to a outside the AO.

The house would also be full of assorted loot that I would be aware of and over the course of my career, become familiar with. Stealing this extra loot is another way that a thief can increase their overall standing/ranking (apart from end of level success), but an observant guard would notice any missing loot and could use it to track a thief's progress through a mansion.

And I would be ruthless. Death to all Taffers :p

Davehall380
17th Aug 2009, 16:41
I would be disapointed if they implemented multi-player. Ive yet to hear a compelling arguement not as to how it would work, but how it would feel like a thief experience. Remebering that Thief is based around one player against the world, i remain sceptical that a multi-player mode would make the experience feel more like any other stealth game.

Zorrcell
17th Aug 2009, 17:06
i would definatly rather have them work hard for singleplayer and then make it easy for people to mod so the game becomes even better

xDarknessFallsx
17th Aug 2009, 17:23
theres no use making these, no 3rd person, please have multiplayer threads beacuse there is just some things we have to accept. i thought for a time multiplayer could work but there just too many people against it and for good reason.

- Thief 4 will have to cater to the public and casual theif gamers so there will be 3rd person
- there is no chance of thief multiplayer


You start your post by saying there's no use making request threads because we'll just have to accept some things. Yet you then say one sentence later that the reason there will be no multiplayer is because too many people are against it. How did you know there are too many people against it? Because there are the multiplayer request threads (or anti-MP threads).

It seems like the majority is saying there should be no 3rd person. So following the logic you outlined for multiplayer, it's good that we're talking about it, it's good there are threads for us to discuss it, and there will be no 3rd person because too many people don't want it. Right?

ToMegaTherion
17th Aug 2009, 18:01
If I were doing a multiplayer with player-controlled Guards I'd set it up like a sort of Dungeon Keeper game, where the Guard player (or if there are more than one, the team leader) sets up[ guard locations and patrols according to some rules set by the level designer, and maybe set guard responses to intrusions and alarms. The guard player would then be allowed to see everything each of his guards are seeing, and possess any of them at any moment. But unless the guard possessed has good reason to leave his post or patrol, doing so would lose the guard team points (or for simplicity, give points to the Thief team). The guard team should also have access to a few "free" guards who can be possessed to wander around at will, and perhaps give orders to other guards to tweak the defences.

The thief team would gain points for loot acquired and some form of stealth rating (so for example using a thief to distract guards while another thief stole the loot is a reasonable strategy, as is blackjacking all guards in sight, but you get more points for a more subtle approach), and if the guard players do unnatural things during possession. The thief team loses points if a Thief is eliminated, perhaps with more points if the Thief is carrying a lot of loot, to add to tension when escaping with a big haul. The thief team would also lose points for killing guards, and extra points for killing noncombatants.

Obviously this is a complicated system and nobody would ever make it, but it's fun to think about. Next thing I will think about for pure fun is Tomb Raider: Thieves vs Zombies.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
17th Aug 2009, 18:27
It seems like the majority is saying there should be no 3rd person.

Nah.

Only a fool would deny at least the console version having a third-person view. There's some awesome third-person shooters out at the moment. Why deny them of the option?

Why has every game have to be first-person only? :p

ZylonBane
17th Aug 2009, 19:03
There's some awesome third-person shooters out at the moment.
Octuple fail.

MULTIBALL! MULTIBALL! MULTIBALL!

xDarknessFallsx
17th Aug 2009, 19:28
Nah.

Only a fool would deny at least the console version having a third-person view. There's some awesome third-person shooters out at the moment. Why deny them of the option?

Why has every game have to be first-person only? :p

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Eh07rqWBM54/RqQMQYGzPSI/AAAAAAAAADM/OzJwIR2cMow/s320/missingthepoint.gif

I wasn't saying what I felt would be done. I was pointing out a contradiction in Albi's logic.

:)

Gillie
17th Aug 2009, 21:25
Nah.

Only a fool would deny at least the console version having a third-person view. There's some awesome third-person shooters out at the moment. Why deny them of the option?

Why has every game have to be first-person only? :p

Thief is not a shooter Yet! :rolleyes:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
17th Aug 2009, 23:09
Anything i missed?

Yes, this thread: "Keeper Diary" ( http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=88498 0)
:p

Please check through the list for existing discussion threads to avoid duplication.

Squid
18th Aug 2009, 07:38
Agreed. Interesting idea, though low priority in the scheme of things when you consider limited developmental resources.

What limited developmental resources? People keep posting about how the dev team is so restricted and yet nothing has been shown to the public!

How are you coming by this information? Do you have the game design document in your hands? Eidos Montreal's budget? IRS tax info? Anything? So, if you don't have this information, why are you assuming that EM is so restricted?

I'm trying to understand people's thinking on this... nothing has been said except "we're making the game." and yet everyone is assuming that Eidos is going to restrict development of this game. Why are you thinking this... what is your reasoning? :confused:

Squid

Squid
18th Aug 2009, 09:29
Simple. There's a budget, and there's a deadline, there are less than the full 80 people to fill out the team, with the present goal of 60. A 2.5-to-3 year development cycle is standard, but not set in stone. Until we hear otherwise, this is our starting point. Only very recently has there been news that EM has been given more time to work on Deus Ex 3 this late in the development. If they grant this to EM for Thief 4, then we can see more development getting done. It really doesn't mean a dang thing to wish for the moon. A sense of how the industry works and knowing EM has calendar milestones they've set for themselves--subject to change but not on a whim without investor permission--will help focus brainstorms. At the very least, try to distinguish from what you'd really like to see vs. what is likely, never forgetting the standalone genre Thief is in. The more time is spent making it, the more money is needed to break even, and if the delay doesn't mean a better pay-off, the profits are hurt. Right now, far more money is being spent than made.

jtr7, thank you. You're the 1st person to respond with some data to back up your conclusions. I haven't heard anything about how big the team is... and actually your data concerns me a bit. To my understanding, that team sounds small for a major franchise such as Thief. I believe average team size is around 120, is it not?

Believe me, I'm not forgetting the standalone aspect of Thief. I feel, however, that EM would be foolish to not implement some sort of multiplayer; and by jove, if they're going to have multiplayer, have it be worthy of Thief, or don't implement it at all. Thief deserves to be the best product it can be, of the highest quality it can be.

I'd love to see a financial breakdown of the costs of developing multiplayer for a title vs. how much extra revenue that mp brings in... is it worth it? For right now, only EM can say for sure, but I think they'll say yes.

Another question is how far along they are in the development cycle. A year? Half a year? I'm personally thinking a year, but I wish they would say something concrete. That we, we have a better idea of what to brainstorm about.

Squid

xDarknessFallsx
18th Aug 2009, 10:31
I've seen games that are meant to be single player have a multi-player component to it, and in the end it was just a wasted effort -- with hardly anybody doing multi-player even a month or two post-launch. A year later and beyond, good luck finding a multi-player match at all. It was interesting novelty at first, but I wish they had spend this development time focusing more on the single-player campaign.

I think Thief is meant to be single-player and adding multi-player is a big risk, and likely a wasted effort.

The only multi-player I'd partially understand for a game like Thief is co-op, but I don't personally want it. I'd probably use it once, then go solo forever afterward. None of my friends like Thief. Oh wait, there's one, but I probably wouldn't want to play more than one game with him. And I don't typically like to play multi-player games with people I don't know.

I think most Thief players tend to want to play the game by themselves. Any other type of multi-player beyond co-op seems way out of the question to me. Who would want to play a multi-player Thief frag fest, sneaking around at a snail's pace and shooting broadheads and moss arrows at each other, when they could go play Unreal Tournament or a WW2 ere multi-player game fancy guns and explosions that better suits multi-player? I sense pure boredom for Thief MP, and the servers would be dead within a year, imo. Only exception might be co-op, but even then -- how many people will want to sneak around a castle for 2 hours together. (Joe in MP co-op says: "Dude, I just found a gold wine bottle worth 250 in the cellar. I see a hole in the ceiling but I can't get through. I see a switch in that room that'll unlock a door in here to let me get three more gold bottles. Can you sneak up to the 2nd floor and flip that switch?" John says: "Sure, I'll be there in 15 minutes...") LOL.

Thief players are such a niche crowd of gamers. First, EM needs to make a game that suits Thief gamers. And then you also want them to try to convince us to play multi-player? Good luck! :) I think Thief co-op multi-player would be more for friends to play than strangers and it's not easy to get two 30-somethings together to play a game for 2 hours. Kids, life, family, work, etc. get in the way. (I have a feeling Thief has a lot of fans in their mid-20s and 30s.) Oh, and Thief is best played in the dark. So if it wasn't hard enough syncing these two people's schedules at any other time of the day, you also want them to get together after 9pm or 10pm? :D

ToMegaTherion
18th Aug 2009, 13:50
Well, the multiplayer in BG2 was nothing more than the SP campaign with multiple players, and that isn't particularly suited to multiplayer, but we still played it for a few years and had a lot of fun. Having a small multiplayer community is actually a lot more fun than a large one.

Nate
20th Aug 2009, 02:45
Well, doing the campaign with a couple of buddy thieves in multiplayer would be fun. You'd just need to be able to somehow increase the difficulty/number of guards to balance having a few thieves on the team.

Hypevosa
20th Aug 2009, 02:53
I think a major problem with co-op thieving would be choosing to have guards only be aware of one or both players... because if they're aware of just one, it would be sweet to have someone shake their butt for a guard while you konked em on the head... but it would be insane since you could take out tons of guards by doing that, and there would be no counter balance... but if you had the guard all the suddenly aware of all thieves, then it wouldn't be as fun....

I think levels would need to be designed with 2 thieves in mind (i.e. separate from normal campaign), and not be cheap and just separate them from the beginning and have them interact from a distance...

Co-op thief would be very very hard to balance properly...

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ
20th Aug 2009, 06:53
What
How are you coming by this information? Do you have the game design document in your hands? Eidos Montreal's budget? IRS tax info? Anything? So, if you don't have this information, why are you assuming that EM is so restricted?


Vae, jtr7, ZylonBane assure us they're all part of the development team. ;)

Squid
20th Aug 2009, 12:56
Vae, jtr7, ZylonBane assure us they're all part of the development team. ;)

Actually, you should have read the response, and you would have seen that my concern was answered. Here, let me quote it for you...


Simple. There's a budget, and there's a deadline, there are less than the full 80 people to fill out the team, with the present goal of 60. A 2.5-to-3 year development cycle is standard, but not set in stone. Until we hear otherwise, this is our starting point. Only very recently has there been news that EM has been given more time to work on Deus Ex 3 this late in the development. If they grant this to EM for Thief 4, then we can see more development getting done. It really doesn't mean a dang thing to wish for the moon. A sense of how the industry works and knowing EM has calendar milestones they've set for themselves--subject to change but not on a whim without investor permission--will help focus brainstorms. At the very least, try to distinguish from what you'd really like to see vs. what is likely, never forgetting the standalone genre Thief is in. The more time is spent making it, the more money is needed to break even, and if the delay doesn't mean a better pay-off, the profits are hurt. Right now, far more money is being spent than made.

I've been concerned about the how's of development, not whether something is possible. I just wanted people to put up some sort of data so that all of us can make beneficial suggestions.

Squid

Vae
20th Aug 2009, 23:42
Vae, jtr7, ZylonBane assure us they're all part of the development team. ;)

:lol:...Again, your conjuring of false information astounds me...you really should take a long look deep down inside yourself and find out where all of your delusion is coming from.

Phalanx114
1st Dec 2009, 04:35
Please God, no multiplayer!

I believe that Thief/Thief 2 are some of the greatest games ever created - simply because of the atmosphere - the mood.

I have very fond memories of turning off all of my lights and putting on headphones, becoming Garrett. It was the atmosphere that pulled me in the most. Having multiplayer would kill that mood.

My greatest concern about multiplayer would be the divided resources - instead of the dev team focusing on polishing and crafting an immersive and expansive single-player game, half of the team is removed and many resources are spent on a "mode" that is nothing more than a bulletpoint on the box.

I also cannot think of any multiplayer modes that would even fit into the Thief series. These are what I come up with:

1. Obligatory Deathmatch - This is laughably against everything that makes Thief Thief. How can you be slow, deliberate, and methodical when you rush at each other flailing your swords around? Its loud, its chaotic, and it is NOT Thief.

2. 2 Thieves Racing To Steal More Gold Than The Other - The very word "racing" defeats this purpose entirely. Garret is quiet and only chooses confrontation when there is no other choice. Having a game "mode" that says something along the lines of "Steal 1000 gold in 10 minutes!!!" is absurd. Thief is all about patience - watching the guard's movement patterns; waiting for that noble to turn his back so you can cut the purse from his waist; waiting with bated breath as the Hammerite investigates an extinguished torch - these things ring true to Thief.

I could go on, but I do hope that my great desire for a wonderful Thief game is evident through my thoughts. I'm eager for Thief 4, and entirely uninterested in multiplayer.

Just my $0.02 (Or $2.00 in this case :) )

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
1st Dec 2009, 04:54
Both of those modes are clearly not suited to Thief, because they're about faced paced frag action or else Thief vs Thief.

The whole beauty of stealth multiplayer versus is pitting your stealth skills against a tracker or a guard that can actually think for themselves and is not limited by the restrictions of AI, which quickly becomes predictable and easy to outwit. It exponentially improves the stealth experience because no two stealth experiences (even on the same map) are ever the same.

Guards vs Thieves is one, where Thieves are required to infiltrate into a location and steal a certain number of guarded treasures while guards are forced to patrol the area, set traps, track the Thieves and prevent the treasures being stolen. Thieves win if they manage to extract the treasures before a time limit/being killed.

Framing would be a slight alteraion, with the same principle as GvT, except that you're forced to plant evidence in various parts of the location to frame your mark. Thieves win when they manage to place X amount of items in Y amount of locations.

esme
1st Dec 2009, 12:12
has any thief successfully ghosted a mission in guards vs thieves ?

or is the winner more usually the one who rushes in, frags all the guards grabs the loot and rushes out in the shortest possible time ?

in all the youtube videos of guards vs thieves that I've witnessed I have seen not one shred of the beauty of stealth multiplayer as described here


The whole beauty of stealth multiplayer versus is pitting your stealth skills against a tracker or a guard that can actually think for themselves and is not limited by the restrictions of AI, which quickly becomes predictable and easy to outwit. It exponentially improves the stealth experience because no two stealth experiences (even on the same map) are ever the same.

I have seen the rush in, kill anything that moves, steal and rush out again, reaction fuelled fragfest type play many many times

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
1st Dec 2009, 13:58
Much like how SvM works in Splinter Cell. Spies can rush in and try to aggro the Mercs, but if they do so against a merc who knows how to handle himself then it's pretty much suicide. But against mercs who are illequipped or effectively ambushed, then they are capable of killing them.

Balancing dictates that stealth operators are severely disadvantaged in close quarters and are therefore LTL equipped, except when attacking from behind (backstab/blackjack). But that doesn't mean that some people won't try.

Of course those who do use stealth as their primary tool will have a much easier time of it than trying to play russian roulette with their limited life count by engaging the guards. So naturally the whole nature of the game means that it is definitely possible to ghost a mission and, in fact, preferable. Although the style of gameplay, with the guards tracking the thieves down, means that it's more poltergeisting than ghosting. This is because the very nature of the game is that the guards know that thieves are in the location and are actively hunting them.

If I was to design it I would have the environment fully interactive so things moved and "signs" were constantly left by careless, hasty Thieves who opened doors/windows/moved on creaky floorboards etc.. The environment would always be looking to give your presence away and the guards then use this to track the mindless rushers down more easily.

They'd also know from various small loot you pilfer from the places in the house which parts of the level you've already passed through.

GuardianBlade
17th Dec 2009, 00:46
What the Taf? Who's taffing about?

So, what do you think about multiplayer for this game? Could it add to the experience? or take away from it?

Personally, I was thinking it would be cool to have a multiplayer mode (aside from story) where you could link up with.....maybe just one other person and play a mission (from the story mode or unofficial maps that fans design. I think it would be really fun, not to mention hillarious I'm sure.....the possibilities are endless.
Additionally, there could be a meeting city, where players would spawn....you could talk to eachother there, use loot to buy goods, and enter into games. :thumb:

PlumsieTaker
17th Dec 2009, 02:45
Additionally, there could be a meeting city, where players would spawn....you could talk to each other there, use loot to buy goods, and enter into games.

I think, that would be the crossing the line from first-person-sneaker to RPG territory.

But I'm completely with jtr on this, it would have to be a separate entity to the Thief canon but still have Thief locations and elements. HL2: DM is a good example of how it could be done.

Platinumoxicity
17th Dec 2009, 05:15
HL2: DM is a good example of how it could be done.

:eek: Ohnono... many guards, hammerites, garretts and craymen running around the mission locations shooting eachother with bows and flashbombs!

...or what was it that you meant? :)

kabatta
17th Dec 2009, 06:09
Whose turn is for the sarcasm?

PlumsieTaker
17th Dec 2009, 06:36
:eek: Ohnono... many guards, hammerites, garretts and craymen running around the mission locations shooting eachother with bows and flashbombs!

...or what was it that you meant? :)

No, I was talking about how Valve managed to take HL2 and churn a multiplayer component out if it, without compromising single player gameplay and story. Both series here are similar as it wouldn't work to incorporate multiplayer simply from using single player perspectives and canon.

But you know, some people would prefer the Craymen and Hammerites going at each other with super blackjacks and enchanted bows in a deadly team deathmatch to the last man standing.. Not me!

Loup
17th Dec 2009, 08:28
No, I was talking about how Valve managed to take HL2 and churn a multiplayer component out if it, without compromising single player gameplay and story. Both series here are similar as it wouldn't work to incorporate multiplayer simply from using single player perspectives and canon.

But you know, some people would prefer the Craymen and Hammerites going at each other with super blackjacks and enchanted bows in a deadly team deathmatch to the last man standing.. Not me!

Valve has the big pile of money for what I know. They also has the source-engine which allows alot of different aspects to be implemented.

I don't get why you are using HL2 as an example since it is a run and gun fps with in game storydriven elements where the game areas are directly connected with each other.

Are you suggesting that the single player should have a co op feature?
If there are people who want's a crayman vs hammerites deathmatch feature, let the modders do it. The people that would prefer such a thing has probably mistaken Thief 4 with UT3 or some other matchoidiotic untasteful game.

Namdrol
17th Dec 2009, 08:34
Here we go again...

kabatta
17th Dec 2009, 09:01
I see the wheel spins very good screeching.
I want to play as the eye. I'll be watching you. muahahaa >:)

Hypevosa
17th Dec 2009, 17:42
An MMO thief is what this sounds like? No, not T4, it wouldn't make any sense at all o.O

Maybe, just maybe, an FPS MMO of sorts placed in the thief universe would be cool... maybe. It would be very refreshing since it would be a change from the run around and kill everything mentality or go train your mining and smithing skill kinda thing. Go and steal stuff, but try to be a little discrete about it...

I'd be willing to pay 5-10 bucks a month for unlimited, new anytime taffing. But I don't think it would be a good idea to make T4 into WOT (world of thiefcraft)

art2189
18th Dec 2009, 23:16
Hey hello, I'm from Russia and I am a huge fan of the Thief series of games, I have to developers, a small series of questions: Will you make a multiplayer in Thief 4? or make it a separate game, such as "Thievery"? or in your plans do not mean? I certainly apologize for such questions, but it would be great if we could play with friends and other people from around the world in multiplayer mode for example - "Thieves vs. Guards "again (as in a fan project" Thievery ") but with good graphics and other ... I mean no fighting between the thieves and guards, but all the same stelth-action as the original but in multiplayer, where the thieves (players) need to collect a certain amount of loot and perform several tasks on map, without getting catch by guards (other players)

* "Thievery" - a fan project with UT1 engine, where multiplayer gameplay is very good , but graphics is very bad

P.S. Sorry for bad english

Carlosoul
2nd Jan 2010, 17:49
What about two teams of 4 on each side, 4 Thiefs and 4 Hammerites and on the level there are 5 gold items that need stealing, so the Thiefs team set out to get as many as they can and the other team simply try to defend, because there are 5 items to steal and only 4 team members the stealing team need to wait and watch to see when there will be a chance of getting an item.
If a team member from the Thiefs team uses their blackjack or bow and arrow on the opposing team then they are out and watch the rest of the game without being able to communicate with their team mates.
And if a Hammerite is alerted by a Thief and gets within a certain distance of a Thief then they are out, when a Thief is detected all other Hammerites see that Thief on the map, of course they would have to be careful not to chase them every time as it might be a decoy.

And to prevent Hammerites from not moving around there is a time limit and if they do not find all Thiefs in that time limit then they lose and the Thiefs win.

In short a lot of hiding would be needed and team play.

Platinumoxicity
2nd Jan 2010, 22:21
And to prevent Hammerites from not moving around there is a time limit and if they do not find all Thiefs in that time limit then they lose and the Thiefs win.

Have you ever seen that kind of stuff in Thief singleplayer? The guards running frantically around looking for something even though they should be completely unaware of intrusion? It would be ridiculous. Guards that have been working for months patrolling a castle without any kind of incident are not going to be instantly alerted to "the possible presence of something" exactly during the night when a gang of thieves have quietly infiltrated the building. They don't have a 6th sense.

Guards VS Thieves will never work. It would require cybernetic implants that convince the guard-players' brains that "It's another quiet night in the castle."

Nate
2nd Jan 2010, 22:32
Well, Guards vs Thieves would still be fun...Thievery was very popular after all IN SPITE of the horrible graphics, lack of marketing and combat orientation of the mod.

Personally, I would even be happy if I could play 2 Thief players with my buddy against enhanced AI guards on a regular map.

Secondary
2nd Jan 2010, 22:51
i think that competative multiplayer sort of contradicts the essence of a stealth game

im not sure why multiplayer in thief is really even an idea, look back at stealth games that have multiplayer (splinter cell games and a few others). the only ones that were ever any fun were cooperative, and i guess i could live with that

if you had a convenient character to put a second player into for co-op, that might work.
but i think some sort of ill convieced GUARDS VS. THEIVES multiplayer mode would really detract from the game (not to mention the valauble time of the men and women working on the game)

Nate
2nd Jan 2010, 22:57
I like the idea of a 2-4 player option were EVERYBODY is a thief for exactly the reason you give.

The game could be co-op where everybody works as a team = LOTS OF FUN!

The game could also be a VS type where everybody tries to get the highest score (most loot/stealth points)....hehe, shooting a noise arrow at your buddies hiding spot = LOTS OF FUN!

This way, you don't have the silliness of human played guards sprinting around already knowing that the place is crawling with Thieves.

Nate
2nd Jan 2010, 23:16
Of course, jtr7 has a very good point. The single player experience IS Thief! That needs to be the focus of the devs.

If the devs or modders can add a multiplayer function to the game after they've accomplished their goals, then great.

Vae
2nd Jan 2010, 23:28
Yep, make it its' own co-op campaign/multi-player game, or make it an expansion for T4.

Nate
3rd Jan 2010, 00:17
I'd pay for a multiplayer expansion!

Taffer17
3rd Jan 2010, 07:47
Think of a Thief Vs.Thief, seeing who can steal the most in a set area and/or time limit , could be fun. Let the players decide what to do with it, have the option available.


forgive me if someone else has addressed this because i'm still only reading through the second page, but a timed mission would take away from the gameplay a LOT. if you're in a rush against time and against the other player, you'll be less willing to wait in the shadows for patrols to go by to knock them out or ghost them. it'll be just run in, kill (or try to outrun) and get the loot.

....drat, i had another point to make but its too early in the morning and it's slipped my mind.:scratch: oh well, maybe after reading more pages tomorrow i will think of it again :nut:

Taffer17
3rd Jan 2010, 07:57
The multiplayer I'd like to see would be build up around co-operation and really require it. Like some doors that would need to have one player in some control room opening it while other goes thru or helping other player up like in Splinter Cell - Double agent.

now i remember what i had to say. I was watching youtube videos of Thief 2 multiplayer which is a beta for those who have not heard of it. http://thief.procyonserver.com/ <--for those who want to download it...

:scratch: where was i?...ah yes, now the problem with co-op (not that i'm against it. I have yet to try thief multiplayer as it is hard to locate other players) that would need to be worked out, is precisely what Tohtori spoke of. By working together, the missions end all too soon and all the fun of sneaking and thieving is gone. observe this video of the Bank mission (forgive me for not remembering the mission title off the top of my head)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ4kBC-F6TU



I'm sorry, but a mission in Thief should never last only 3 minutes and 56 seconds. That's an atrocity. The missions are meant to be time-consuming. You are supposed to take everything in, not rush through it. That's why people love this game among all those shoot-em-up games. Now that I'm done with my rant (again, if this was already addressed, I apologise. I'm still only reading page 2), if they could find ways to prevent these problems from occurring, I wouldn't mind one bit...as long as it were created AFTER the single player game were as finished as finished could be, and I could care less if it was made my fans as a mod or by a professional developer...IMHO, if a fan made it, there would be less criticism of any faults one would inevitably find in it due to lowered expectations, and it could possibly be even more enjoyable as a result.:whistle: now with all that out of my system, i can go to sleep :thumb:

Oon Kuka Oon
4th Jan 2010, 18:23
Multiplayer based on Thief world might work, but not multiplayer Thief.
Maybe people could play as Keeper team on expedition, or as members of a Thieves' Guild, but no 20 Garretts on job. Or maybe burricks...

StephG
4th Jan 2010, 19:37
If you are here, that means you love Thief, if you ask this it means you don't.

Can't you see it's hard making a enjoyable single player experience that adding an online option too, forsure one of them will be crippled because the Devs just won't have enough time to make it good enough for release.

Oon Kuka Oon
4th Jan 2010, 19:45
I never said Thief IV should have multiplayer option. I said that they can, if they want, later create separate multiplayer games that are based on Thief's world.

Nephthys
4th Jan 2010, 19:49
I agree. No multiplayer, but if there was to be one, it should be a branch off..

Like Bioshock 2's multiplayer. I was impressed with their decision to do what they did, instead of directly tieing it into the story.

Nate
4th Jan 2010, 21:24
Lol, I always get a chuckle at 'US/THEM' arguments. If you aren't WITH US, you are AGAINST US!

IF you don't want multiplayer, You Love Thief! If you want multiplayer, You Don't Love Thief!

Sure it wins elections in the US, but does this kind of simple minded inclusive/exclusive aggressiveness ever really lead to anything constructive?

Thief team play would be fun and would be played by a lot of us. But I think we ALL understand that Thief's core is a rich single player story...and that it is what the devs need to focus on.

Nate
5th Jan 2010, 02:24
Yeah, that is the problem. Too many guys here who don't understand that the Thief 4 team is rather small, and only has so much $ and time to bring it all together. Well, I suppose they'll go through a hiring frenzy as the project passes the halfway point.

Giving them all sorts of 'wishlist add ons' to include take time/effort away from the main game. Of course, I am sure they will balance their time/effort to please the most people possible. Since multiplayer seems roughly 40% in favor, they might go ahead in include a limited multiplayer component (which I would be fine with.....if it doesn't take away from the core single player experience!)

Nate
5th Jan 2010, 02:55
Yup, agreed!

In fact jtr7, we agree on almost everything (except that VERY minor point of how to make a story based excuse for why Garrett can't have equipment carry over from past missions).

The only difference between you and I is while we both would prefer a very similar game concept, I am a bit more willing to entertain the idea of change (which I'll freely admit isn't always a good thing). ;)

Nate
5th Jan 2010, 03:49
Yup, and there lies the danger. The devs have to juggle trying to please the core players/fans with gearing the final product towards the largest market possible....a lot of very bad things could happen there.

Loup
5th Jan 2010, 15:55
For what we have heard of EM, that some of the members of the team is "working on what for them will be the masterpiece of their career of game development." And that they are "true fans of the old instalments". What will it mean for the game? I'm so worried for the first artwork, promo screens.

But when it comes to single player, let's look at what bioware's dragon age. I'm a rabid fanatic of a fan when it comes to the ol' oh beloved Baldurs Gate 1,2 , Planescape: Torment, Icewind Dale and yet they managed to get my approval. Yes it is a tad consolified and suffers from the uber big armor and small head type of aesthetics, but alot of the dialogue and the characters are simply stunning.

Sorry for the sidetrack...
To get to the point, it is -singleplayer only- and most suggest that it will sell good and will live on for a long time thanks to the very powerful toolset.
Even if it is a very different type of game compared to thief, I would like to make the point that multiplayer is not the only market for games. There are a lot of people who likes a good story, and how is that told? Singleplayer has always been a better medium than multiplayer installments.

acridrose
8th Jan 2010, 12:16
If you are here, that means you love Thief, if you ask this it means you don't.

That's a silly comment! :rasp: I personally want an immersive single player experience solely, but yet I started this thread. It's just a discussion, and a way the devs can hear our thoughts on a subject they could be considering.


There is no smart, intelligent, and mature mass-market template. Every smart, intelligent, and mature piece of entertainment has a small audience and the money is a steady trickle as long as the product remains available. We are few, my friend.

I don't think there's a taffer alive that can argue with Jtr7 when it comes to Thief. I think he should present himself to EM :D


For what we have heard of EM, that some of the members of the team is "working on what for them will be the masterpiece of their career of game development." And that they are "true fans of the old instalments". What will it mean for the game? I'm so worried for the first artwork, promo screens.

I'm worried about people worrying... Loup, lay your trust in EM's hands, they know what they're dealing with and above all, have faith! As far as the purists go, the trilogy is complete, incomparable, unbreakable... but just as The Dark Mod was a kind offering for my thievery passions, any additional thief games I will still buy and enjoy. Won't stop me going back and replaying T1&2 though!

beggarthief
8th Jan 2010, 15:46
:lmao: Hi my Comrades in the Shadow

I am very pleased to meet some Girls and Guys who like Garret with his Missions the most.

By the way - If i am right - many People would like to see the new upcoming thiefversion 4.0 with the option of a multiplayer mode and i am one of them. The reasons are numberous and simple.:D
Interactive games prosper throug out the internet ==> People love possibilities
(why not letting them share their feelings live in game with each other)

A multiplayergame could look like this:
Some players take the role of the Hammerites and some the role of the thiefes.
The maps which are going to be played might be time-limited, so that the thiefes
dont have all the time in the world to steal the treasure or whatever the aim is.:lol::lol
Just like counterstrike. The system would remain the same, but the environment and characters would be so much cooler!:cool:

But this is just the beginning. I have lots of different ideas and dont want to spam you with it. I just want to share them with some interrested people or eidos themself.:hmm:

Greetings
Your Beggarthief

P.S.: Multiplayer games connect very much similar thinking people, Some new communities and Fanversions might be built and some new patches might be applied.:lmao:

Platinumoxicity
8th Jan 2010, 15:55
A multiplayergame could look like this:
(Terrible idea with references to counterstrike)

Why do you newbies insist on embarrassing yourselves on your first post? :( It's disappointing to see old arguments going forever and new ideas being horrible.

Namdrol
8th Jan 2010, 16:01
Some new communities and Fanversions

There are over a 1000 fan missions for Thief.
Plus a whole rebuilt engine/toolset (based on the doom3 engine)
So there is quite a community already.

You say Thief multiplayer could be "...just like Counter-Strike..."
Thief is about slowly and carefully solving a stealth puzzle, it is not a fragfest.
Please beggarthief, read this thread, or at least skim it, and then offer some sensible reasons why your ideas should be implemented.
You'll not get a good reaction here if you don't.

Namdrol
8th Jan 2010, 16:03
Why do you newbies insist on embarrassing yourselves on your first post? :( It's disappointing to see old arguments going forever and new ideas being horrible.

Maybe they're not newbies Plat.

Platinumoxicity
8th Jan 2010, 16:08
Maybe they're not newbies Plat.

Maybe, maybe not. But they sure are acting like them, many of them. You can call me a newbie too. I'm not insulted, because it's not an insult. More like "an observative remark"

Namdrol
8th Jan 2010, 16:22
No, no, I meant maybe they're not as new to the forum as they appear.

beggarthief
15th Jan 2010, 14:26
Why do you newbies insist on embarrassing yourselves on your first post? :( It's disappointing to see old arguments going forever and new ideas being horrible.

Maybe i should look for some skillful gamedesigners instead of a kiddy group. The main thing is that if you want to justify about somebody, you should look at every aspect carefully, before you make a decission.
Disappionting is indeed that i am wasting my time with idea and fantasyless peolple who know nothing at all about the tread.:rasp:

But what annoyes me the most is the respectless ans unpolite manner, shown against forumusers, just because of the reason, that you seem to be anonymously.:mad2:

You just dont get better or more skillful if you just talk big with bold and blaming words.
:nut:
So lets please get adult and diskuss like reasonable people. Or is this too much demanded?

1. I declared the main idea towards multiplayer options.
(by the way: i am not an ego-shooter lover, but a fan of teamgames with roundbased system, which would suit perfectly to the thief-mission character. Just imagine if u get a theam of 18 Hammerites against 3 Thiefes. Both teams have different tasks. A timelimit might be given... ok, better i tell these ideas to some people who are really interrested.)
:confused:
2. I said clearly, that i would like to share some ideas with some people who look over the rim of their teacup (just like the idea of making the terrain more and more important for the success of the missions of Mr.Garrett.
e.g. 1.) You could open a window to let the candlelights in a room go out.
e.g. 2.) You could damage a window, to get an Enemy away from the window, perpaps its rainy weather outside and he might catch a cold....:scratch:
etc.
But as i said. These are things i will share only with people worth the time. :hmm:
Thank you for you generous and most polite reply.

esme
15th Jan 2010, 14:57
speaking purely personally, a multiplayer aspect to the game would have nothing for me that I want, I'm not interested in multiplayer games, the dormant multiplayer code for thief 2 has already been activated in FM's and while I appreciate the work that went into the project I don't want to play multiplayer Thief2, there's also ThieveryUT which I also don't want to play, every example I've seen so far is basically a reaction fuelled fragfest, this is not Thief for me

now as T4 is being built from scratch with a new state of the art engine (if the unknown EM guy in the park wasn't telling porkies), resources such as time and money are going to be tight, I would prefer these be used in developing a compelling and absorbing single player Thief game and I object to any of it being spent on developing a multiplayer aspect

that said if the engine they use supports multiplayer I see no reason for this code to be removed or disabled, so the fan community can develop multiplayer if they want

as to the idea of time limits, these go against the very core of thief which is about patience, planning, observation and then execution. time limits throw all these aspects out of the window and force you to rush headlong, without thought into situations you haven't made plans for

I do like your window ideas though, a candle going out or an AI moving away from the rain because the window opens is a nice idea, I may put that in my next FM, I'll give you a credit if I do

ToMegaTherion
15th Jan 2010, 14:59
I do not know how to respond to that. If it's a joke, then it's pretty awesome.

esme
15th Jan 2010, 15:28
no I think it's probably serious, though I'm always wary of people who use different colours and huge sized fonts to get a point across in the same way I'm wary of people who put lots of exclamation marks or add "muahahahaHAHAhaHAAAAAA" to the end of their posts

Black Vine
15th Jan 2010, 15:29
If you wanna multiplayer experience go play cod4 or something like that, but Thief? NA!!

Namdrol
15th Jan 2010, 15:47
In what way did I use bold blaming words beggarthief?
I thought I offered a "generous and most polite reply" to your original post.
Especially in my request for you to read through this thread.
Please quote any insulting words I used towards you.
Just because I disagreed with you it doesn't mean I was attacking you.

We have been discussing this for a long time.
In rl would you push into a conversation and start shouting your ideas with no regard for what was being said?

You offered only 1 example of why multiplayer should be implemented - because Interactive games prosper throughout the internet.
Well I'm sorry, so does pornography and I certainly don't want that in Thief.

You then went on to offer an example of how mp should be implemented. As a counterstrike type game.
Thief is a game about stealth and hiding in shadows, not running around killing.
Can't you understand why people reacted to your post?

The only person acting in a "respectless ans unpolite manner" is you, insulting the members of this forum with your last post, calling us a kiddy group amongst other things.
You say you want an adult discusion.
Look at this forum, look at how we write and post.
We debate and disagree and argue, but we try and form proper sentences and well constructed posts. (and this is nothing to do with english being a first or second language)

We do not shout and demand and throw our toys out of the pram if someone disagrees with us.
Again, the only one being childish here is you.
So, if you want to discuss things sensibly please read this thread and come back with some sensible ideas about why the devs should implement multiplayer in Thief 4

Oon Kuka Oon
15th Jan 2010, 16:48
:mad2:
Beggarthief has obviously never played Thief - TDS at most.
He doesn't know what Thief is about.
He has heard of game called "Thi4f" and has come here to shout out his crazy ideas and insulting everyone who doesn't agree with him.
Why can't we just ban him?

Loup
15th Jan 2010, 16:49
Namdrol +1 :thumb:



Why can't we just ban him?

People should get a chance to show that they can behave and contribute in a constructive way. Between the forum rules and Namdrol's last post he will know what is expected of him.
If he's not a troll that is.

When I'm finished with my exam and have a little more time to spend on the forum I'm gonna try to collect arguments in the threads and form compact lists of yet presented arguments in the various topics. It would be great to learn what progress we have made in our discussions. If there just was a way to edit the first posts. =P
That would really make it easier for new taffers to get into the discussion at the current level. If anyone knows a topic by heart, feel free to help me.

Vae
15th Jan 2010, 20:17
Maybe i should look for some skillful gamedesigners instead of a kiddy group. The main thing is that if you want to justify about somebody, you should look at every aspect carefully, before you make a decission.
Disappionting is indeed that i am wasting my time with idea and fantasyless peolple who know nothing at all about the tread.:rasp:
Give me a break...:nut:



1. I declared the main idea towards multiplayer options.
(by the way: i am not an ego-shooter lover, but a fan of teamgames with roundbased system, which would suit perfectly to the thief-mission character. Just imagine if u get a theam of 18 Hammerites against 3 Thiefes. Both teams have different tasks. A timelimit might be given... ok, better i tell these ideas to some people who are really interrested.)
:confused:

Sounds like you're pretty confused about a bad idea.



2. I said clearly, that i would like to share some ideas with some people who look over the rim of their teacup (just like the idea of making the terrain more and more important for the success of the missions of Mr.Garrett.
e.g. 1.) You could open a window to let the candlelights in a room go out.
e.g. 2.) You could damage a window, to get an Enemy away from the window, perpaps its rainy weather outside and he might catch a cold....:scratch:
etc.

:lol:.............................................:mad:



But as i said. These are things i will share only with people worth the time. :hmm:

Well since you just shared them with us, that would mean you think that we are worth the time.


Thank you for you generous and most polite reply.

You're welcome...:)

Loup
15th Jan 2010, 21:23
Or Vae decides to take it down to his level :D