PDA

View Full Version : Loot Gleam *please read first*



Hypevosa
1st Jun 2009, 19:58
I'm here to make a proposal about a different way to impose loot gleam in thief 4 from TDS.

I propose that loot gleam, instead of being constant, only occurs when the loot is within reach of the player. This way, if there's a hidden piece of loot say on the window sill of a house... it isn't shining at the player from the street going HEY TAKE ME, unless the player managed to spot it and got to within arms reach of it. This way someone can also be sure that what they're picking up is indeed loot, and not garbage, and they'll know when something that doesn't look like loot is indeed loot (like the donation plate from thief 2, that looks like a normal tin plate, but is actually loot).

EDIT: If you would rather have loot gleam be an option to be turned on or off, just say so in your post. And if you'd like it to be optional, but still only occur when loot is within arms reach, say that.

People who think it should be optional: 4

The poll stands at 55 to 54 for loot gleam/glint to reappear, majority wanting it only to appear at close range.

Not statistically significant. It's still either way.

LightWarriorK
1st Jun 2009, 20:09
I said yes, since there are those problems with distiguishing junk from loot. I agree that you'd have to be within pick-up distance for it to glint, though. Nothing is worse than being told where the loot is from the other side of a room or from the other end of a long hallway.

Of course, there are difficulty settings that could make it easier for the younger players. Maybe they could get a little more distance out of their glint. That's why easier difficulty settings exist.

Hypevosa
1st Jun 2009, 20:11
I agree, difficulty settings could come to play with alot of things in thief that they didn't before... loot gleam being one of them.

Platinumoxicity
1st Jun 2009, 20:14
I voted against because even in total darkness, if you highlight the item, you can examine it and see the gold and the jewels. If you're not sure, you can pick it up and set it down like in T1 and T2, steadily and silently back onto the table. Not like in TDS, drop it down so that it falls over, rolls off the table, falls to the ground, alerts the rats in the room and also, all the guards in 100m radius go to aggressive search mode.

Engine suggestion:
When you pick up a junk item, the model appears on the screen with the text like in T1 and T2, the game projects an "invisible crosshair" to the game world in the middle of the screen, in hand's reach. When you press "r", the object spawns to the place that the crosshair points to, onto the solid architecture of the game world. If the crosshair is pointing to a direction where there is no solid architecture in the game world, when you press "r" it spawns the object into the air, dropping it to the floor.

How many lines of code would it have taken to create a system described in these 3 lines of text? I believe that the system used in T1 and T2 is exactly like that one.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Jun 2009, 20:17
It's a 'no' from me, but its only my own personal preference. :)

Hypevosa
1st Jun 2009, 20:21
but why, if garrett knows it's junk, should the player not be warned to not pick it up? It's just inconveniencing the player expecting them to pick up everything in the world, just because that tin plate that's in the middle of the tin plate stack is actually an artisan's work and worth 10 gold... Or because of those cool looking hammers in the corner, one was actually the hammer of the first hammerite, so it's worth amazing amounts of money? Unless they actually make sure that all your treasure looks like treasure, there's no reason they should inconvenience the player by making them pick up everything because it MIGHT be loot. Loot gleam is really just a way of showing that Garrett knows it's loot, without him saying "hey, that's an awefully pretty tin plate over there, I should go pick it up."

DarthEnder
1st Jun 2009, 20:25
The poll really should have an option of "Yes loot gleam, but allow players to turn it off."

Even so, it's a good idea Hype. I was always picking up weird plates going "Is this loot? No?" *clink*

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Jun 2009, 20:25
I could tell the difference between treasure and junk just fine for the two earlier games.
Guess I just prefer the original method.

GmanPro
1st Jun 2009, 20:27
No loot gleam at all. And bring back the original sound effect too :thumb:

Hypevosa
1st Jun 2009, 20:28
The poll really should have an option of "Yes loot gleam, but allow players to turn it off."

I forgot to.

People here seem so diametrically opposed to people having options to customize their experience though that I don't know if it would matter... I can't edit the poll but I can edit my post.

I just said that if anyone thinks it should be an option they should say so, I'll keep a running tally in the main post

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Jun 2009, 20:33
I would have been happy to edit the poll for you, but unfortunately I don't have the buttons to do so. Sorry. :flowers:

jay pettitt
1st Jun 2009, 20:41
They should make options optional.

I'd certainly like loot to be clearly loot. I'm not sure you need a gleam feature per se, but if loot tended to be shiny and obviously loot looking it would help. I think one of the things T2 got wrong is it had lots of things that looked valuable that weren't (silver hairbrushes etc), lots of things that looked worthless that were (spice bags) and some things that were sometimes valuable and sometimes worthless (glasses). While T3's loot homing beacon was maybe just a touch over the top I felt.

Anyhow - I vote yay, make loot looty, but not so looty it could interfere with the navigation of seafaring vessels. Even though I'm not 100% convinced by the exact mechanics.

Hypevosa
1st Jun 2009, 20:51
They should make options optional.

I'd certainly like loot to be clearly loot. I'm not sure you need a gleam feature per se, but if loot tended to be shiny and obviously loot looking it would help. I think one of the things T2 got wrong is it had lots of things that looked valuable that weren't (silver hairbrushes etc), lots of things that looked worthless that were (spice bags) and some things that were sometimes valuable and sometimes worthless (glasses). While T3's loot homing beacon was maybe just a touch over the top I felt.

Anyhow - I vote yay, make loot looty, but not so looty it could interfere with the navigation of seafaring vessels. Even though I'm not 100% convinced by the exact mechanics.

I forgot about all that other stuff in T2 XD but you're right. I was so convinced by those hair brushes... they looked so nice.

And it's ok viktoria, I just don't understand why we can't edit things ourself like that. o.O

LightWarriorK
1st Jun 2009, 20:53
^I know another forum that uses this setup.

Preventing the editing of polls makes it so that the people who would have voted for the new option from getting left out. Adding new options after a poll has already started puts a bias against those new options.

In any case, it's better to just live with it (as this poll is doing), or close it and start a new poll altogether.

Hypevosa
1st Jun 2009, 20:56
^I know another forum that uses this setup.

Preventing the editing of polls makes it so that the people who would have voted for the new option from getting left out. Adding new options after a poll has already started puts a bias against those new options.

In any case, it's better to just live with it (as this poll is doing), or close it and start a new poll altogether.

You could just have there be a reset and edit poll button, so that the results get reset to 0 and you can edit it.

Blue Sky
1st Jun 2009, 22:57
but why, if garrett knows it's junk, should the player not be warned to not pick it up?

For the same reason that although Garrett knows he shouldn't go and jump around in bright light in front of three armed guards, the player CAN STILL go and jump around in bright light in front of three armed guards!

Really, loot should be identifiable from close quarters through what it looks like, and players should get used to identifying what is junk and what is not through trial and error and then thinking for themselves.

Any loot in the original games which looked like junk is - IMHO - an example of bad gameplay decision making.

Hypevosa
1st Jun 2009, 23:01
The only reason loot glimmer was implemented in TDS was because a ton of the textures in TDS were 'shared' to save memory space on ye'olde xbox. By shared, I mean that the very same texture on the call would be used to cover a plate, coin, or goblet. TDS then used the normal maps to give those objects different 'raised' details. There is no good need for loot glimmer. It was a side effect of compromised visual resources to save memory space for the tiny amount of ram used in the xbox.

With the tech available, there is absolutely no reason that the developers can't create a specific set of 'loot' textures. Especially since applying a nice, shiny specular map will make those loot items look valuable.

Loot glimmer is nothing but a crutch for half assed art direction.

While I agree that loot should have it's own textures, I feel that there's a risk run with taking that option. If you make the world dark like the first 2 games, and use textures from that area you still run the risk of loot not looking looty... but if it's brightly colored and very different looking from the other textures, then it ends up clashing and looking not so good. As I said before, loot glimmer is a way of letting the player know that it's loot, without Garrett coming out and saying it, but Garrett shouldn't know that vague figure 50 feet across the room is actually a gold candlestick until he's close enough to appraise it. By the same token, that golden candle stick shouldn't be sponge bob yellow bright to let you know it's gold either, but a dingy dark gold to fit the dingy dark atmosphere of the rest of the game. Distance seems a good compromise to me since it doesn't give away any secrets you haven't already discovered.

Hypevosa
1st Jun 2009, 23:07
For the same reason that although Garrett knows he shouldn't go and jump around in bright light in front of three armed guards, the player CAN STILL go and jump around in bright light in front of three armed guards!

Really, loot should be identifiable from close quarters through what it looks like, and players should get used to identifying what is junk and what is not through trial and error and then thinking for themselves.

Any loot in the original games which looked like junk is - IMHO - an example of bad gameplay decision making.

But the player is at least WARNED not to go into the light through the tutorial missions and other verbal ques by Garrett, "Loud metal floors, I better watch my step" I believe is a line from one of the games.

I do agree though, loot that looks like junk is bad decision making in terms of gameplay, but it kind of makes sense. Spice bags don't look looty in T2 really, but when all the plants have been dying and the prices of spices has gone up, it makes sense logically that it's loot -- despite not making sense gameplay wise.

I also do like the diversity of loot... Not all JUST gold silver and copper, but nice vases and other materials. I did like how you could steal art in TDS too, it was a nice addition to what could be considered loot.

theBlackman
1st Jun 2009, 23:52
[...] If the art direction in T4 is done well, there is no need for arcade game gimmicks.

Emphasis mine.

NewHorizon is correct as have been the many posters here and elsewhere who don't want, need, or even consider "arcade" and other "upgrades" that adulterate the game and the experience of THIEF as it should be.

K^2
2nd Jun 2009, 00:05
I can live with the glint if it's only activated when you stand right next to something and look directly at it.

Platinumoxicity
2nd Jun 2009, 00:14
On modern systems and pixel shaders, the loot glint seen in TDS is an obsolete system. Today, you can make textures that really shine like polished gold and even reflect the outside world. Now, if there is any bright light source in the vicinity of the golden object, a very bright reflection of the light can be seen on the object. This way you don't need an animated reflection-sprite floating outside the object to see it from 10m away. In complete darkness, you have to get next to the object, highlight it and if you still aren't sure, frob it and "feel" it. Just like a real houseburglar takes the silverware in his hand and checks it out before snatching it.

-Constantine-
2nd Jun 2009, 00:23
I voted against the loot gleam system. Never liked it in TDS, and don't want to see it again.

ZylonBane
2nd Jun 2009, 00:40
WTF, this the first time I've EVER heard it called "loot gleam". It's always been "loot glint", though "loot beacon" would be more descriptive.

And this poll is fundamentally flawed, because the loot glint in TDS served two distinct purposes--

1. It allowed you to spot loot from far away
2. It allowed you to easily distinguish loot from junk close up

Since it's extremely likely that T4 will have the texture resources to make loot look valuable (like Thief 1/2, and unlike TDS), that brings the question around to those misbegotten souls who actually liked that the loot beacon saved them from the trouble of having to hunt for loot. Yes, these people exist.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
2nd Jun 2009, 00:54
That collection plate from thief 2 is a good example. I grabbed it anyway and was surprised to see it was loot.

Ideally the loot would actually look like loot and look attractive on it's own. If not then having optional loot glint in close range might be ok. I'd much rather it just look like loot though.

edit. changed my mind. Just let me place items down and loot glint is pointless.

Thieffanman
2nd Jun 2009, 01:05
I say make it optional. I've always viewed TDS loot gleam as Garrett knowing what to steal just by looking at it; I found it pretty handy to help avoid the worthless junk :).

If Eidos makes it optional, you'll satisfy both camps: people who like it, and people who don't want to see it. Pretty simple.

Vote for 'make it optional', here: 1.

--Thieffanman

Zahr Dalsk
2nd Jun 2009, 01:07
There should be a loot gleam when you're right next to items, so you don't pick up something that looked valuable but in fact isn't.

Unless the loot is properly distinguishable from non-loot.

Either way, we need a visual cue. Not something to show us loot from across the room, but to show us if we should actually pick up that item we're standing next to.

-Constantine-
2nd Jun 2009, 01:12
I think that, with the advanced graphics of the game, we will be able to tell apart loot from non-loot visually, without the need of loot gleam.

Hypevosa
2nd Jun 2009, 01:12
There should be a loot gleam when you're right next to items, so you don't pick up something that looked valuable but in fact isn't.

Unless the loot is properly distinguishable from non-loot.

Either way, we need a visual cue. Not something to show us loot from across the room, but to show us if we should actually pick up that item we're standing next to.

I see this as the good medium between all camps when combined with the option to turn it off. Ideally, we should be able to tell if something is loot or not just by looking at it. If that's not the case, then there should be a means for us to know once we gain proximity. We should never see a candlestick blinking out of shadows at us though from across a room, we should need to hunt for loot, not have it all handed to us on a glinting silver platter.

Hypevosa
2nd Jun 2009, 01:18
WTF, this the first time I've EVER heard it called "loot gleam". It's always been "loot glint", though "loot beacon" would be more descriptive.

And this poll is fundamentally flawed, because the loot glint in TDS served two distinct purposes--

1. It allowed you to spot loot from far away
2. It allowed you to easily distinguish loot from junk close up

Since it's extremely likely that T4 will have the texture resources to make loot look valuable (like Thief 1/2, and unlike TDS), that brings the question around to those misbegotten souls who actually liked that the loot beacon saved them from the trouble of having to hunt for loot. Yes, these people exist.

Please excuse me for not using the exact term, but it seems that it still got the idea across, so I don't understand why you had to open with WTF.

And one of the reasons I suggested keeping it but toning down the distance factor was because (at least in T2) some of the items that were loot didn't look like loot, and some of the items that weren't loot looked like they were...

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
2nd Jun 2009, 01:21
God that candle holder loot in DS does not look like loot! argh i hate it so much. it's used so often too. It really can't be hard to just have a nice shiny texture that screams "I look different! I'm valuable!" I still can't believe TDS' loot looked so bad.

Hypevosa
2nd Jun 2009, 01:23
really they should probably just set up a whole series of pictures of different objects in game, some loot and some junk, and see if 9/10 times people can actually distinguish loot from non-loot just by looking at it... and that we don't think it looks garish and out of place in the thief environment.

That way they can see if their textures are good, and their ideas for what should and should not be loot is good.

MasterTaffer
2nd Jun 2009, 01:43
http://www.thief-thecircle.com/guides/keeperchapel/Interference/intsandbag.JPG

Behold, the flour bag. Worth 45 in goods, disguised as a ratty looking hemp sack.

It is the true enemy of man.

Hypevosa
2nd Jun 2009, 01:47
http://www.thief-thecircle.com/guides/keeperchapel/Interference/intsandbag.JPG

Behold, the flour bag. Worth 45 in goods, disguised as a ratty looking hemph sack.

It is the true enemy of man.

:D You're awesome .

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
2nd Jun 2009, 02:03
Hah that's another one. Yeah, that cursed thing drove me nuts.

Hypevosa
2nd Jun 2009, 02:11
No what drove me nuts was that one coin on the shelf of the staircase 2 meters from that photo, that gets stuck in the environment on that level, so you can never collect all the loot. When the game is finished, they need to install it on someone's PC, play it once through and make sure all the loot is visible and tangible. The amount of errors in T2 involved with loot drove me crazy

MasterTaffer
2nd Jun 2009, 02:27
I fixed that a long time ago in DromED. That and the gem in the lost City that's embedded in the ground.

I must have spent days int hat program aligning torches to walls, making sure all the loot was available, and in general polishing up the first two games. I still to this day can't find the last pickpocket on the first Thief 2 mission.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
2nd Jun 2009, 03:02
I went over that first thief 2 mission a whole bunch of times and never got all the loot. I got the bag on that table and the hidden coins above the stairs every time, but I seem to be missing like I dunno 25 loot or something. I gave up and just assumed it was buggy.

MasterTaffer
2nd Jun 2009, 03:26
I went over that first thief 2 mission a whole bunch of times and never got all the loot. I got the bag on that table and the hidden coins above the stairs every time, but I seem to be missing like I dunno 25 loot or something. I gave up and just assumed it was buggy.

There is a 3rd luck coin on the mantle above the kitchen stairs that got placed int eh wall by mistake, making it impossible to get without editing the level itself. I know about that one and fixed it. But somewher ein that damn level there is a extra pickpocket that can't be obtained and I can't find out where this guard or servant is in the level. I've scoured it in game and DromED and NEVER found the bastard.

Hypevosa
2nd Jun 2009, 04:22
Like...picking it up?

Thief isn't a game about 'instant gratification'...which is why these conversations make me want to :mad2:. Thief was made to be the opposite of every other game. The big, loud, actiony games had bright and obvious cues for everything, but Thief went against that philosophy. It was slow, thoughtful and required that you 'make freaking mistakes' in order to learn what was loot and what wasn't. Thief is not about finding every piece of loot the first time you walk through a map...thief is not a "yay everybody wins" type of game...unlike TDS would lead us to believe. Thief is about being thorough and perhaps stumbling upon a piece of loot weeks later on a 2nd or 3rd play through. It adds replayability and it requires skill. That was the magic and the reward of the original games. Something lost in a lot of modern games.

If the designers do their jobs well, there will be no need for silly loot glint. It's lazy...on both the part of the player and the designer to use such a cop out.

Why is this a case of instant gratification? you have to find the damn thing in the first place, how's that instant at all? Why should I pick up every object in the game to find all the loot? And what do you mean thief went against the obvious cues for things there are RED BARRELLS WITH FLAMES ON THE SIDE THAT EXPLODE... how not subtle can that be? Sure they aren't everywhere, but they are still there.

As a master thief I should automatically know it's not loot, and not be "makin freakin mistakes" anymore when it comes to knowing what's valuable and what's not. There's a difference between hiding loot well, and making it indistinguishable from crap. I'd rather have it well hidden than have it well disguised.

A thorough person should find all the loot, but not because they had to pick up every object they saw to find out if it's sellable or not.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
2nd Jun 2009, 04:24
oh god I didn't know there was supposed to be a third. What's the point in even having the max loot shown if the game wont be fair. I guess it doesn't really matter though. I hardly purchased anything. Looking at those stats though and spending hours looking for stuff that can't be found is very very lame.

Hypevosa
2nd Jun 2009, 04:53
yeah like I said, loot glitches at the very least need to be eliminated

Necros
2nd Jun 2009, 05:12
I can't vote because you didn't include a very important option:

Make it an option and tie it to the difficulty levels too. So, you can turn it on or off on lower difficulty settings but it shouldn't be avalaible on expert. And it should be off by default.

Rahl
2nd Jun 2009, 07:04
No loot gleam. If i pick up something worthless, next time i will know it isn't loot anyway.

Espion
2nd Jun 2009, 07:04
With current shader technology loot glint would be overkill. I can't imagine not being able to tell the difference in a modern game and it would look a lot nicer seeing light reflecting off an object realistically as I move around it instead of a very artificial looking twinkle.

As for more subtle loot like the collection tray, I think that kind of thing comes down to logical thinking. If you're in a church/chapel and you're robbing the place you can make up a mental list of places you're likely to find valuables/money. Collection boxes/trays should come up.

That valuable flour bag; if I recall correctly there were flour bags on most levels that were dull and grey but those valuable ones had a golden fancy version of the texture didn't they? The same way they had the cheap looking candlesticks and the expensive golden ones. Also, wasn't there a note from the chef about ordering it in?

I voted no as modern graphics will make it unecessary and it's no fun taking the thinking out of searching for loot.

MasterTaffer
2nd Jun 2009, 07:07
That valuable flour bag; if I recall correctly there were flour bags on most levels that were dull and grey but those valuable ones had a golden fancy version of the texture didn't they? The same way they had the cheap looking candlesticks and the expensive golden ones. Also, wasn't there a note from the chef about ordering it in?

Negative. That flour bag you see in that picture just looks like an old, hemp bag. Not golden, not grey. LGS pulled a fast one in Thief 2 by making some of the junk in Thief TDP/Gold into valuable loot. That plain looking bag right there was one of the dirtier moves on their part.

AbysmalGale
2nd Jun 2009, 08:25
NO loot glint! Not even optional.

Espion
2nd Jun 2009, 08:43
Negative. That flour bag you see in that picture just looks like an old, hemp bag. Not golden, not grey. LGS pulled a fast one in Thief 2 by making some of the junk in Thief TDP/Gold into valuable loot. That plain looking bag right there was one of the dirtier moves on their part.

Not even a note about it? Yeah, that's pretty cheeky.

I might be thinking of a set of flour/sugar cans. I remember there was a kitchen which had golden versions of generic objects in one of the games.

Herr_Garrett
2nd Jun 2009, 08:56
Loot glint is retarded. Do Rolexes gleam in real life? Nope. Next thing we'll have are huge red exclamation marks hovering over the loot, and when you look directly at it, the exclamation mark sprouts arms, eyes and mouth, starts jumping up and down, and then does a little jig singing "steeeeeaaaal me baby, I'm so valuable, yeah, touch me, I'm waiting just for yoooooooooooooou...!"
...

And I never saw the point in the looting locked into chests etc. having glint. You know, this is a thieving game. Locked chest = loot.* Period.

*unless, of course, some complete bastard puts in a huge mace/hammer which doesn't fit anyway...:D

ToMegaTherion
2nd Jun 2009, 09:09
Loot glint is probably unnecessary provided the designers are sensible, that is, either

a) having no difficulty level with a loot requirement that can't be achieved without finding spitefully disguised or hidden stuff
b) Disassociating loot requirement difficulty from general difficulty.

I think b) is preferred.

The long range loot glint is also unnecessary provided the designers stop spitefully placing tiny bits of loot in random places just to be assy (previous Thief designers seemed to be unable to control their urge to be annoying).

Platinumoxicity
2nd Jun 2009, 09:13
http://www.thief-thecircle.com/guides/keeperchapel/Interference/intsandbag.JPG

Behold, the flour bag. Worth 45 in goods, disguised as a ratty looking hemp sack.

It is the true enemy of man.

Garrett is a thief. A thief steals stuff. Valuable stuff. And that was a bag of valuable foreign spice, and as long as it just sits on the table, Garrett is unable to distinguish it as valuable. The thief really has to take the bag, smell/taste the contents and determine whether it's valuable or worthless. This bag is the worst candidate for loot glint, not only because in real life you can't be sure of it's contents, but because hemp bags don't shine in any light conditions.

If you were a thief, would you steal an armored money transport truck without even checking whether there's any money in the back or not?

Alex50
2nd Jun 2009, 09:31
I did not like in TMA to take set of useless things what to find among them a valuable thing. When among ten identical plates two appeared valuable. It did not cause problems, because it was possible to understand value of a thing on appearance.
But I liked shine in TDS more. Definitely it was by a part of an atmosphere of game - an Element kleptomanias XD. Feel by the thief to which difficultly to be kept from larceny. It would be desirable to take this tasty and flickering purse from the townspeople. This shine pulls to itself and difficultly to this to resist.;D. It is more interesting than to rummage on dusty corners, similarly to blind dog, defining value of a subject by teeth.

ToMegaTherion
2nd Jun 2009, 11:06
Does that have any intrinsic advantages, old chap? Being assy just for the sake of it seems a little bit of a waste of my time to me...

esme
2nd Jun 2009, 11:15
I would prefer no loot glint but some people like it so make it optional

huzi73
2nd Jun 2009, 11:37
I voted against because even in total darkness, if you highlight the item, you can examine it and see the gold and the jewels. If you're not sure, you can pick it up and set it down like in T1 and T2, steadily and silently back onto the table. Not like in TDS, drop it down so that it falls over, rolls off the table, falls to the ground, alerts the rats in the room and also, all the guards in 100m radius go to aggressive search mode.


:lol:

jay pettitt
2nd Jun 2009, 11:59
...real life...

...real life...

I don't know how to break it to you guys, but Thief isn't real life. It is (cover your ears Blackman) a video game. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest ways of making loot look like you might want to pick it up. Maybe it should be that loot looks really posh, or have some shiny specular maps or maybe a cheesy sparkle or clues in the readables - but trial and error is potentially frustrating and is likely to turn people off.



Again, you've missed the point. After you have played the game, you 'learn' what is loot and what is not. The game shouldn't tell you what is or isn't loot just to save you time. The player should have to learn how to distinguish them.

What, and you can't learn to pick up stuff if it's got a shiny effect? I'm not sure this is a one or the other dichotomy. If you've learnt that shiny gold candle sticks are looty you can probably learn to recognise shiny gold candlesticks by their size, shape and colour from across the hall and make a bee-line for them, even if you're too far away to make out the shinyness or glimmer or whatever it is. I suppose if the difference between loot and junk isn't clear other than a cheesy graphical effect, then fair enough - that'd just be cheap - but what I think we're talking about here (at least with the middle option) is what mechanism teaches the player what is and isn't loot in the first. Repetition and trial and error or a visual clue (to go with the overtly arcadey burrrlling! sound effect that already notifies you when you've picked up something precious). Maybe there are better ways of doing it, but I don't think trial and error is one of them - particularly for people new to the franchise.

Platinumoxicity
2nd Jun 2009, 15:22
I don't know how to break it to you guys, but Thief isn't real life. It is (cover your ears Blackman) a video game. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest ways of making loot look like you might want to pick it up. Maybe it should be that loot looks really posh, or have some shiny specular maps or maybe a cheesy sparkle or clues in the readables - but trial and error is potentially frustrating and is likely to turn people off.



What, and you can't learn to pick up stuff if it's got a shiny effect? I'm not sure this is a one or the other dichotomy. If you've learnt that shiny gold candle sticks are looty you can probably learn to recognise shiny gold candlesticks by their size, shape and colour from across the hall and make a bee-line for them, even if you're too far away to make out the shinyness or glimmer or whatever it is. I suppose if the difference between loot and junk isn't clear other than a cheesy graphical effect, then fair enough - that'd just be cheap - but what I think we're talking about here (at least with the middle option) is what mechanism teaches the player what is and isn't loot in the first. Repetition and trial and error or a visual clue (to go with the overtly arcadey burrrlling! sound effect that already notifies you when you've picked up something precious). Maybe there are better ways of doing it, but I don't think trial and error is one of them - particularly for people new to the franchise.

I can't understand what you're saying. It would seem that you're all against our suggestions, but somehow it looks like you also want to get rid of the cheap TDS loot glint too? Make up your mind. I think that loot can be recognised by it's shiny golden or silver texture, shiny jewels or fancy textures, all without using an animated sprite that hangs in front of the object. And when you're in the dark you have to get closer to highlight it and see it fullbright. There could also be those objects thet you really have to pick up to see if they're valuable because of this:

On the first time you play through the game, you probably won't find all the loot. Next time when you look at something that doesn't quite look like total junk, you pick it up and whoah! It was loot afterall! It's a pleasent surprise, not trial and error. You're playing it like this :mad2: when you were supposed to be playing like this :D.

Terr
2nd Jun 2009, 16:29
I think proximity-based loot glint/gleam is a good thing to have. No matter how fancy you expect the designers to make everything in T4, you have two problems which I doubt will be fully solved:

Firstly, texture and detail issues. The player isn't there, but Garret/whomever is. If you put a real candlestick near me I can quickly guess at it's worth, but we're still seeing it filtered through a video game, however high the resolution. Just like the light gem or ammo-count, it is simply common sense to add a UI feature for something you cannot reliably encode for the user in-game. A master-thief with the item in arm's-reach shouldn't need to guess between brass and gold the same way a player must. ("Is that a precious metal, or is it my monitor calibration?")

Secondly, I doubt either physics engines and control schemes will be where they need to be so that "put it back" is reliable. Instead you'll have "ham-handedly drop it and have it roll off the table and break and alert the guards", which will break immersion because because all of a sudden you're fighting the game controls and physics instead of being there.

jay pettitt
2nd Jun 2009, 17:26
I can't understand what you're saying. It would seem that you're all against our suggestions, but somehow it looks like you also want to get rid of the cheap TDS loot glint too? Make up your mind. I think that loot can be recognised by it's shiny golden or silver texture, shiny jewels or fancy textures, all without using an animated sprite that hangs in front of the object. And when you're in the dark you have to get closer to highlight it and see it fullbright. There could also be those objects thet you really have to pick up to see if they're valuable because of this:

Yeah, I probably didn't write what I wrote very clearly.

I don't much mind how you make loot looty, but I think it's good if it looks clearly loot-like and does so consistently for the vast, vast majority of the time and also that junk consistently doesn't look looty. I think it is good if loot can be readily differentiated from junk. I don't however think picking stuff up and putting it down again to do this is great gameplay. It's tedious and dull and contributes little toward making you feel like the worlds greatest thief. Who cares if it's more 'realistic'? Certainly not me and I challenge anyone inclined to think realism is a greatly desireable quality to name one realistic thing in Thief. So why start throwing sops to realism now...

Thief is an arcade game complete with cheesy arcade sound effects, great big comedy levers with bright red handles on, jolly guards and cheesy arcade gameplay mechanics. Granted, It's got a different spin on things compared to most other arcade games and it does it all with style and panache - but it's definitely a game and most certainly not a simulation - which means it's okay by me to make loot sparkle if that reliably differentiates loot from junk, I can live with that. I think there might be ways you could do that with style and panache and ways you can do it that would be ghastly - but the basic idea doesn't fill me with nearly as much dread as making decisions based on whether or not it's 'realistic.'

Fair enough, you could differentiate loot by making it shiny with a specular map or whatever the technical thing is that you do to make stuff look shiny - that would be one way of doing it, but as you point out, not all loot may benefit from a metallically shiny sheen - a hemp bag of valuable spices or paintings for example. Similarly it might be that some things should be metallic and shiny, but not loot. A cheesy sparkling effect (sprite based or otherwise) might be a better solution. There may be other ways to do this - more detailed models might allow you to notice the obviously valuable contents inside a hemp bag or spot a particularly ornate picture frame - that'd be fine, but I wonder how feasible it is. I seem to remember the extra detail being a double edged sword moving from T1 to T2.


On the first time you play through the game, you probably won't find all the loot. Next time when you look at something that doesn't quite look like total junk, you pick it up and whoah! It was loot afterall! It's a pleasent surprise, not trial and error.

I don't think the problem is so much missing the odd bit of loot while you learn the ropes, rather it's spending too much time having to pick stuff up, discovering it's junk and having to put it down again. That's just gets tired after a short while and I think you'd likely turn potential new players away like that; and for no particular gain. The 1st level of T2 was a classic example of how to get it wrong in that respect. I picked up silver mirrors. I picked up silver hair brushes. I picked up spectacles, I tried picking up the worthless golden candlesticks in the bathroom, I tried investigation the worthless crystal chandelier and so on and so on. God knows what I'd have been picking up to test its lootyness if I were new to the series. Oh and there was that spice bag. And if modern computing horsepower means there might be many more objects cluttering the universe in T4, then I think it might be even more of an important issue. I'd rather miss loot because it is hidden in clever and interesting ways than because it didn't look like I was supposed to pick it up. And I'd rather not spend my time picking stuff up because it looked like I should, only to be frustrated and having to put it down again if it can be helped.

And I do appreciate NH's point that you learnt to recognise loot in Dark Project and that was part of the craik, but I don't think repetition and trial and error is the only, or a particularly desirable way to go about it. A sparkly hint would work just as well in that regard, just as long as the sparkly hint isn't the only way to spot loot. That'd be bad too.

So yeah, in short I don't want to be patronised with loot beacon, I don't want to be frustrated by misplaced 'realism' or a bit of game design that just wasn't all that well thought through. A looty sparkle when you're very close or when you highlight a loot item seems like a fine idea to me. But the main thing is to differentiate loot items from junk items and minimise frustration in doing so.

Hypevosa
2nd Jun 2009, 18:59
this is clearly coming down to a "real life" vs gameplay mechanics argument. From the standpoint of real life, you may not know if something is vaulable or not unless you get a good look at it (which sometimes means picking it up, or using other sense to determine value, like biting on a coin to see if its fake). The argument that others are making is that for the sake of gameplay it would be a courtesy to let the player know what Garrett knows I.E. is it valuable. Because Garrett knows, that's why he either puts it in the loot bag, or just holds it in his hands.

If you're going to go for the real life argument, then Garrett should never know the EXACT value of anything he gets, or whether it's even sellable or not. The only things that he knows for sure is good is any form of coinage. Cups can be gilded and not solid gold, which when you're robbing a place you're not going to take the time to test given that guards are on your ass if you take too long. So really, any time you pick up an object it should go into your loot bag unless it's a key or a box or something too heavy to go in the bag like a hammerite's hammer, or something like that. Then, when you go to your fence, the fence will determine what's loot and what's junk, as well as it's value, like would happen in real life. Hell, it may even be to hot to immediately sell if it's a renowned item, so you may not get paid for it that day! That's if you want to go for the real life argument.

I could go with the system above, it would be cool, and it would give even less immediate gratification than instantly knowing how much something's worth or whether or not it's junk, since someone said we are supposed to not be immediately gratified in thief.

Since this would destroy the collect X amount in loot demand for missions, maybe it could be collect X number of loot.

theBlackman
2nd Jun 2009, 20:58
In the main, Jay P. makes a good point. But for me part of the fun in "Is it loot or not" was figuring out how to put it back down, on the table or whatever without sounding like a bull in a china shop.

On the other hand, I have often used a useless vase or plate in place of a Noise arrow to distract the guards.

No it is not "real". Yes, it is a "game". With its own rules of behavior and "How does it work (function)" aspect that I needed to learn. Just like learning the maps in Mario Bros, or Doom, or other such games. So "gleam-glint" whatever when I see an object I can pickkup is fine. It it is worthless, so be it. But "This is valuable, this is not" gleam I can live without.

Yaphy
2nd Jun 2009, 21:14
I voted yes for loot glints, but only when you come near it. Its no problem when you see a valuable item like a silver chalice or a ruby. You need to be a moron to not see that its loot.
But when you see a painting its inpossible to see if its valuable or not. I dont want to jump up and down every wall when there is a painting and just hope i got a valuable piece of art. And think how horrible it would have been when there is like 30 books in a shelf and one or to is valuable...No thanks, I want that loot glint at close , but it shouldnt be visible when its dark. Instead give the loot a real glow when the light falls over it. It shouldnt be tiny stars twinkeling around it, just a firm shine at the frame at paintings and the outside of the books can be in polished leather and the silver chalice can have this bright stripe from top to bottom that changes when you walk around it. Just a little touch to it that makes your eyes stick into those shiny stuff. Shine and glassy, not glittering.

I hope all fo you noticed this post.

Petike the Taffer
2nd Jun 2009, 21:18
It should, but from a close distance (or when the player frobs it). Being able to see it from a mile away is just silly.

Terr
2nd Jun 2009, 22:37
If we can manage to do it in TDM with a 15 team members working in their spare time, 4 or 5 of them being programmers...I'm sure a professional team working full time with 40 to 50 employees can pull it off.

For arbitrarily-placed full-fledged physics items in a game world that might even be found on truly flat surfaces? What're you doing, clamping them so that they have have a constant vertical axis of orientation like items in Deus Ex?

Or are you annotating areas on a table that can store, release, and receive items?

K^2
2nd Jun 2009, 23:36
There is a simple way to make put-back work reliably. Simply store object's position before interacting. If you restore it after the animation of putting object back, to the physics engine it's like nothing happened.

The Mental Age
3rd Jun 2009, 00:20
I think optional is a good idea, or maybe it just turns off automatically on different difficulty levels, like Expert. Other than that, within arm's reach would be a good time for that loot to start a-gleamin'. ;)

Hypevosa
3rd Jun 2009, 01:36
Why doesn't anyone believe that this is totally not necessary if the developers do their job right and make valuable items...look like valuable items? Seriously. Making it stand out with these silly arcade like contrivances is just lazy. With today's tech, it shouldn't be hard to make the non-loot items look like ****e. They did it in T1 and 2...once you're familiar with the library of loot items, it gets easier. Why are gamers so bloody lazy these days and need everything handed to them?

it's not that they don't believe the developers can do their job right and make loot look looty, it's the fact that the developers so far have not done that. You still say they did it in thief 2, when there are quite a few good examples in this thread of things that DON'T look like loot which are (spice bags, donation plate), and things which do look like loot, yet ARE NOT (shiney hair brush and mirror). More egregious are the things that are sometimes loot and sometimes are not, mainly the spectacles from thief 2.

People are not saying that they need loot gleam no matter what. It's just that there's no way to make a bag of spice look looty (although maybe you could tie it with gold lace or something), there's no way to tell that the shiney mirror you're looking at is just a piece of junk (it's inlaid with porcelain or mother of pearl or ivory from the looks of it in thief 2).

There's a potential problem, because if they only make things that are distinctly loot, loot... then the game loses some of it's depth. You can't have it all be gold or silver or copper, and an ancient stone statue of saint whatever should definitely not be gleaming, as it's valued for what it is not for what it's made of. Paintings don't necessarily look like loot, as there are many generic paintings in the game, but some are loot. Loot should remain diverse, but the problem with it's diversity is the fact that some of it should really not look too different from the rest of the game. That's why the glint at close range could tell you that Garrett knows a certain thing is indeed valuable. It's one thing to have the garish bling at you from across the room in TDS, but maybe a little shine or something when you're looking at it would be nice.

Overall, if the developers make good choices the need for loot glint could disappear. However, loot could end up clashing with the environment if they distinguish it too much, and if the diversity were decreased the game would lose some of it's depth. A little shine when it's within arms reach is basically Garrett's loot sense tingling, telling the player to pick it up, but won't end up giving away any big secrets.

K^2
3rd Jun 2009, 04:13
TDS also had a selection highlight. Why not make loot glint only when you highlight it for picking up? That would resolve all of the problems.

Hypevosa
3rd Jun 2009, 04:34
I actually meant it more that way when I said in arms reach. It's the same idea, except you need to be looking for it first. I like it better your way.

Platinumoxicity
3rd Jun 2009, 09:38
Thief 4 should have a cleverly designed training level that had those "loot-ish" objects on plain sight, so that the player is tricked to take them and notice that they're junk. This way the game can teach the player which valuable-looking objects are junk, and loot glint becomes completely unnecessary.

I still support the idea that you aren't supposed to get all the loot on your first playthrough. When you re-enter the mission, (if there's randomized loot) you find a suspicious metal plate on a table that used to be empty. You pick it up and you notice that it was silver afterall. It creates pleasant surprises and adds to the replay value. (a little)

Flashart
3rd Jun 2009, 10:38
I'm stuck inbetween two issues. I can live without the glint, but I'd like a huge level of exploration/ interaction so I don't want to have to pick up every item to gauge it's worth.
Some items are gonna be obviously loot, and some not, but a plate could be a rare antique or just a plate. This dilemma could be useful for creating extraneous noise, but if every item is frobbable it could get tiresome/ confusing, however if the item is "obviously" valuable it negates any reason for error, and may as well be lit up as it's announcing it's value by appearance.
How about Garrett saying something to himself?

"Nah!" Of no value
"Hmmm" Average item
"Nice!" Valuable item
"Very nice!" Special loot

If you made this occur at arm's length then you'd have to get next to the loot but not actually pick it up.

Necros
3rd Jun 2009, 10:46
NO loot glint! Not even optional.
:rolleyes: And why not? It won't hurt you if it's off by default. You won't use it but some gamers might want to. I didn't like it in T3 either but with a little bit of work it could look good and work better. I still wouldn't use it but as an option it should be fine.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
3rd Jun 2009, 11:01
Seems either way you automatically know what's loot or not. Just let the player gently place items down and you wont need to make loot too obvious and you wont need loot glint. Just pick it up. Though I still think loot should actually look like loot. Loot should never look EXACTLY like junk unless it's special and noted somewhere as being special (lord's antique xxx, famous artist's painting w/e, chef's expensive spice collection, etc.). I shouldn't have to guess that junk is loot just by picking it up. That doesn't seem fair. I'm more inclined to pick up that stupid sack if I read that a bag of expensive spices were around. I hate the random fake junk thing, it's stupid.

Really, if you think about it, loot glint in any form is pretty pointless. Just let the player set things down and learn about special stuff through notes. Done deal.

If a place being too dark is the problem then we can give Garrett flares or some sort of light. He did have flares before anyway.

Vae
3rd Jun 2009, 12:04
Like...picking it up?

Thief isn't a game about 'instant gratification'...which is why these conversations make me want to :mad2:. Thief was made to be the opposite of every other game. The big, loud, actiony games had bright and obvious cues for everything, but Thief went against that philosophy. It was slow, thoughtful and required that you 'make freaking mistakes' in order to learn what was loot and what wasn't. Thief is not about finding every piece of loot the first time you walk through a map...thief is not a "yay everybody wins" type of game...unlike TDS would lead us to believe. Thief is about being thorough and perhaps stumbling upon a piece of loot weeks later on a 2nd or 3rd play through. It adds replayability and it requires skill. That was the magic and the reward of the original games. Something lost in a lot of modern games.

If the designers do their jobs well, there will be no need for silly loot glint. It's lazy...on both the part of the player and the designer to use such a cop out.

What he said.

Loot glint is just one of a number of "dumbed-down" elements that was introduced into T3. Even though the process of treasure finding was perfectly done in T1/T2, I guess it was too much of a challenge for some. This is one of those " I can't believe we are having this conversation" threads.

ToMegaTherion
3rd Jun 2009, 13:11
We've already seen in this thread how the treasure finding process wasn't perfectly done, so perhaps rather than just quoting NewHorizon you would like to address the criticisms of that very post that have been raised?

Platinumoxicity
3rd Jun 2009, 13:29
We've already seen in this thread how the treasure finding process wasn't perfectly done, so perhaps rather than just quoting NewHorizon you would like to address the criticisms of that very post that have been raised?

No, the treasure finding process was actually perfectly done. An object that has an obvious shape and texture can be identified as valuable from a long distance. A metal cup with emeralds has to be observed from a little closer to see that it's valuable. A worthless looking hemp-bag has to be picked up and you have to see what's inside to determine if it's valuable spice or worthless flour. There was nothing wrong in the system in T1 and T2. Go ahead and mention one thing, that presented problems in all missions, that was wrong.

ToMegaTherion
3rd Jun 2009, 13:34
We have examples of valuable-looking things that didn't turn out to be valuable, and objects with exactly the same appearance as non-valuable things that turned out to be valuable in some instances. Further, appeals to realism (re: bag of Stuff) should probably be avoided, when they just cause frustration.

Platinumoxicity
3rd Jun 2009, 13:50
That's just it. Get rid of those "problems" and you have no need for loot glint. It's that simple. Also, if there are valuable paintings, they should have a golden frame or something to identify them as valuable. And with the spice bags, you remember the pirates' spice in T2 that was in red bags? If I remember correctly, there was only one instance in the game where a plain hemp-bag was valuable. Everything that's valuable can be made to look significantly more valuable than junk.

Vae
3rd Jun 2009, 14:15
Handling something once in a while in order to determine if it is valuable is a good thing. Making everything obviously valuable or not at first glance takes away from the intimacy and tension of discovering valuables. This is a subtle but persistent form of diminishing the mystery of the game. This lessens the true THIEF experience.

Hypevosa
3rd Jun 2009, 18:51
Handling something once in a while in order to determine if it is valuable is a good thing. Making everything obviously valuable or not at first glance takes away from the intimacy and tension of discovering valuables. This is a subtle but persistent form of diminishing the mystery of the game. This lessens the true THIEF experience.

You're wrong, there is no TRUE thief experience. Everyone gleans their own experience from any game they play, and not everyone wants to be frustrated by something that's supposed to be simple or they might end that experience and stop playing. You can argue that Eidos still sold a game, but I would rather that everyone can enjoy it. It flows logically that Garrett KNOWS what's loot and what's not or he would put everything he picked up in his bag and find out when he reached his fence. Thus, if we are supposed to be Garrett, we should know what is or isn't loot, and a little glint at close range would be Garrett communicating that to the player.

One aspect of the potential thief 4 community that would also benefit from loot glint is the color blind. If someone is red-green color blind, and lets say (for the sake of example) you have a plate that's made out of a giant ruby. It looks like a brown wood plate to them, and those would never be worth anything. On getting closer range, the little glint would let them know otherwise.

I think that no matter what loot glint should be at close range, not from across the room. But I also think that it should be optional so that people can make their experience the more desirable one.

Vae
4th Jun 2009, 02:27
You're wrong, there is no TRUE thief experience.

No, you're dead wrong, because you obviously don't understand what I am saying (I hope). At its core, the designers at LGS created the THIEF universe with a fundamental sense of mystery. This sense of mystery was designed to be expressed in many different forms in order to continually engage the mind of the player. In this case, the mystery takes the form of "curiosity" and "uncertainty" when dealing with potential valuables. This aspect is at the very heart of THIEF and is part of the TRUE THIEF EXPERIENCE.



Everyone gleans their own experience from any game they play, and not everyone wants to be frustrated by something that's supposed to be simple or they might end that experience and stop playing.

The THIEF experience teaches the player to become better at everything he/she does. Nothing is suppossed to be "simple" or have the narrow mindedness of arcade play. A good thief understands the value of patience, and delights in the treasure that he is discovering. Savor the moment.



It flows logically that Garrett KNOWS what's loot and what's not or he would put everything he picked up in his bag and find out when he reached his fence. Thus, if we are supposed to be Garrett, we should know what is or isn't loot, and a little glint at close range would be Garrett communicating that to the player.


This is neither logical, practical, or immersive.

It is not logical because most items such as spices, paintings, plates, goblets, etc. need to be handled in order be properly appraised. Even though something may be "shiny" at first (e.g. a polished tin plate that could look like silver), it would need to be handled by anyone in order to verify its value, especially so, given the typical lighting conditions in the game. Identifying the value of unique treasures would also be completely unknown to the player unless handled.

It is not practical because Garrett could not possibly fit every item he encounters into his bag during the the course of a mission. Garrett would also never be so indiscriminant.

It is not immersive. Superimposing an artificial "gleam" over valuables is visually and psychologically anti-immersive, the treasure doesn't look as it should and disengages the mind from "curiosity" and "uncertainty" when dealing with items.



One aspect of the potential thief 4 community that would also benefit from loot glint is the color blind. If someone is red-green color blind, and lets say (for the sake of example) you have a plate that's made out of a giant ruby. It looks like a brown wood plate to them, and those would never be worth anything. On getting closer range, the little glint would let them know otherwise.

On the contrary. The color blind are used to their condition and have adapted their lives accordingly. Giving them an artificial "gleam" is just as anti-immersive to them as to anyone else.

Terr
4th Jun 2009, 02:35
When you pick up a world object in TDM, it is held in front of you. You can then rotate it on different axis by holding down the rotate button and manipulating it with your mouse.

Are these large increments? How do you deal with putting a tall tippy candlestick on a slightly sloped surface? I can see it working fine for things like hand-mirrors and plates, but how to handle vases, candlesticks, etc? Just give them a very low center of gravity?

Zahr Dalsk
4th Jun 2009, 02:40
No loot glint is fine as long as we can set items back down quietly. Why would Garrett, having picked up something, examined it, and determined it's not worth anything, drop it carelessly to the ground, making noise? Unless he wanted to distract a guard, in which case there's the throw option.

Hypevosa
4th Jun 2009, 03:04
No, you're dead wrong, because you obviously don't understand what I am saying (I hope). At its core, the designers at LGS created the THIEF universe with a fundamental sense of mystery. This sense of mystery was designed to be expressed in many different forms in order to continually engage the mind of the player. In this case, the mystery takes the form of "curiosity" and "uncertainty" when dealing with potential valuables. This aspect is at the very heart of THIEF and is part of the TRUE THIEF EXPERIENCE.

The THIEF experience teaches the player to become better at everything he/she does. Nothing is suppossed to be "simple" or have the narrow mindedness of arcade play. A good thief understands the value of patience, and delights in the treasure that he is discovering. Savor the moment.

This is neither logical, practical, or immersive.

It is not logical because most items such as spices, paintings, plates, goblets, etc. need to be handled in order be properly appraised. Even though something may be "shiny" at first (e.g. a polished tin plate that could look like silver), it would need to be handled by anyone in order to verify its value, especially so, given the typical lighting conditions in the game. Identifying the value of unique treasures would also be completely unknown to the player unless handled.

It is not practical because Garrett could not possibly fit every item he encounters into his bag during the the course of a mission. Garrett would also never be so indiscriminant.

It is not immersive. Superimposing an artificial "gleam" over valuables is visually and psychologically anti-immersive, the treasure doesn't look as it should and disengages the mind from "curiosity" and "uncertainty" when dealing with items.

On the contrary. The color blind are used to their condition and have adapted their lives accordingly. Giving them an artificial "gleam" is just as anti-immersive to them as to anyone else.

I've never felt any curiosity or mystery when it pertained to loot in the game... all I've ever felt is "Yay more loot" when I picked it up, and "WTF, why isn't a porcelain mirror and hairbrush not loot?" and "What the hell isn't this set of glasses loot for? wait... then why was the other set loot?" and other thoughts. I do remember thinking it was clever that a bag of spice was considered loot, but I had to look that up to find it out, and by looking it up I also discovered that the reason I couldn't get complete loot was that one of the coins was stuck in the environment on that shelf >_<. The only time there should be mystery with regards to loot, is when you're opening a chest.... is it equipment? Is it coins? or Oh geez I hope it's not another hammer... so loud :(? or even... is it empty?

There can't be a true thief experience, or else everyone on these forums would be agreeing on things such as plot and story, and we'd all agree on if loot glint should exist in any form. You can't demerit anyone else's experience as wrong because it's different. My experience was for the most part not a mystery outside of the storyline. My experience was tense and suspenseful at times, calculated, cold and efficient at others, and remarkably peaceful sometimes.

The bag of spices I agree would need to be lifted and probably smelled to know what it was, but outside that Garrett (in my opinion) is seasoned enough a thief to know the shine of tin from the shine of silver. Ultimately though, Garrett's appraisals really mean nothing because his fence is the ultimate end when it comes to deciding what's worth what, what's actually sellable etc.

And how can you possibly argue practicality? I'm playing through TMA right now again in life of the party, and I've got over 2.5grand so far in stuff. All of which I know would take up all of santa's sack, and maybe part of a second, not to mention if there were any room in it at all it would be making so much noise every time I moved I would have to ditch it, and come back for it after everyone was out. If Garrett truly has the "Adventurer's Backpack" i.e. the one where volume and weight don't matter, and he apparently does judging by the amount of loot he can carry, then there's no reason he couldn't fit every item he encounters into it.

If you're going to argue for immersiveness, then there should also be no hud or light gem, because they completely remove immersiveness. The light gem should instead be sewn into the wrist of my right arm, and pressing a button I can look at said gem to gauge my depth of shadow. The compass should do the same. I should have to remember the buttons for all the items I select, and only know that I was correct when I draw my bow and indeed see my water arrow knocked, or watch my flashbomb fly when I throw it. I should also not be able to guage my own health except by my ability to move and how much blood I'm trailing, as well as my respiratory cues. THAT would be immersive. And really, I personally wouldn't mind playing that way, but I know alot of people would. Immersion is broken for the sake of others' ease of playing the game. Having a loot compass point you to treasure would be rediculous, but a subtle sparkle when you have it in arms reach isn't so horrid is it? Especially if you can turn it off.

Yes the color blind have adapted their LIVES accordingly. However, the game exists outside of their compensation, so it's up to the developers to aid them. Maybe a better idea than glint, is having the name of an item appear at the bottom of your screen when it's highlighted, and that way you have to be gauging it already... but wait, that would break immersion now wouldn't it. (unless maybe Garrett would utter what it was, but the sheer amount of data to record his voice for everything would render it impractical. That or the diversity of items would severely suffer for it.)

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
4th Jun 2009, 04:36
Speaking as a colorblind person, I don't want loot glint. I'm sure that ruby plate would look different from a plain brown plate in more than just color. Maybe they could make it react differently to light than a plain opaque brown plate. Really, with the graphics we have now, that plate should be identifiable to even me if it's not covered in dirt.

ps. I want flares and I want them to last longer.

Hypevosa
4th Jun 2009, 04:52
Speaking as a colorblind person, I don't want loot glint. I'm sure that ruby plate would look different from a plain brown plate in more than just color. Maybe they could make it react differently to light than a plain opaque brown plate. Really, with the graphics we have now, that plate should be identifiable to even me if it's not covered in dirt.

ps. I want flares and I want them to last longer.

While it was just an example, you bring up a good point. Instead of having different textures, treasures could also react to lighting differently. One of the things I did in TMA just a few minutes ago, was use a flare in the fountain on the 6th floor of angel watch so that I could find the lucky coins in it more easily. Dynamic reaction to light would be a better way of defining certain objects.

I was thinking instead of flares a lantern would be a good idea. Maybe have to replace oil for it once you use it enough.

Vae
4th Jun 2009, 07:19
I've never felt any curiosity or mystery when it pertained to loot in the game... all I've ever felt is "Yay more loot" when I picked it up...

Well, with a room full of "glint", you could do a gleeful "glint run" around the room and see how fast you could collect all the "loot", kind of like Mario Brothers. With the "glint" informing you of what things are, you close off creative possilbilties with items. For example, the item could be cursed or that it could trigger a trap if handled. Imagine if the "gold bones" in "Down in the Bonehoard" were "glinted" and the sarcophagus had a "glint arrow" pointing down over it. Now lets say the "gold bones" had no "glint" with T1 being a glinted game. Most players would have probably left those bones alone assuming they were worthless and never would have completed the puzzle, because the lack of mesmerizing "glint" told them that it wasn't worth bothering with when they looked at it. This is an example how a game mechanic like "loot glint" can tunnel ones mind and give them certainty about what something "is" or "is not" before even handling an item. This form of "certainty" undermines the "uncertainty" and "curiousity" (subtle forms of mystery) when dealing with items. This affects ones mind without one neccesarily being aware of it.



"WTF, why isn't a porcelain mirror and hairbrush not loot?" and "What the hell isn't this set of glasses loot for? wait... then why was the other set loot?"

Because items aren't generic. Perhaps there is an engraved silver handle on the hairbrush, or perhaps its just a common wooden handled one. Handling the items simulates a closer look and feel of the item and it is then kept or not, if deemed worthy.



I do remember thinking it was clever that a bag of spice was considered loot, but I had to look that up to find it out...

Yeah it was, wasn't it. But if there was "glint" on it, it wouldn't have been so clever now, would it? If there was "glint" on it, your mind would have just simplfied the item as generic loot without any thinking involved. Interactive thinking keeps you immersed in the game, rather then just mindlessly reacting to all the "glint" in the room.



There can't be a true thief experience, or else everyone on these forums would be agreeing on things such as plot and story, and we'd all agree on if loot glint should exist in any form. You can't demerit anyone else's experience as wrong because it's different.

When I say a "true thief experience", I am referring to how LGS intentionally designed THIEF to be. This is a reference statement that embodies the core design philosophy of THIEF. It is not about anyones particular personal experience with THIEF.

Hypevosa
4th Jun 2009, 07:32
Well, with a room full of "glint", you could do a gleeful "glint run" around the room and see how fast you could collect all the "loot", kind of like Mario Brothers. With the "glint" informing you of what things are, you close off creative possilbilties with items. For example, the item could be cursed or that it could trigger a trap if handled. Imagine if the "gold bones" in "Down in the Bonehoard" were "glinted" and the sarcophagus had a "glint arrow" pointing down over it. Now lets say the "gold bones" had no "glint" with T1 being a glinted game. Most players would have probably left those bones alone assuming they were worthless and never would have completed the puzzle, because the lack of mesmerizing "glint" told them that it wasn't worth bothering with when they looked at it. This is an example how a game mechanic like "loot glint" can tunnel ones mind and give them certainty about what something "is" or "is not" before even handling an item. This form of "certainty" undermines the "uncertainty" and "curiousity" (subtle forms of mystery) when dealing with items. This affects ones mind without one neccesarily being aware of it.

Because items aren't generic. Perhaps there is an engraved silver handle on the hairbrush, or perhaps its just a common wooden handled one. Handling the items simulates a closer look and feel of the item and it is then kept or not, if deemed worthy.

Yeah it was, wasn't it. But if there was "glint" on it, it wouldn't have been so clever now, would it? If there was "glint" on it, your mind would have just simplfied the item as generic loot without any thinking involved. Interactive thinking keeps you immersed in the game, rather then just mindlessly reacting to all the "glint" in the room.

When I say a "true thief experience", I am referring to how LGS intentionally designed THIEF to be. This is a reference statement that embodies the core design philosophy of THIEF. It is not about anyones particular personal experience with THIEF.

That's why I'm proposing it's only at arm's reach, so there is no "Glint running". Glint doesn't close any possibilities at all. Actually, you could set some very nice traps for someone just grabbing a piece of glinty loot without looking for a trap first, they have a kneejerk reaction and end up with purple spit in their face. I'd never think that a thief fan wouldn't pick up a set of GOLD BONES even if they weren't marked as loot... I mean, come on. Then when they were placed in your item inventory you at least knew they did something else. I'm only disappointed that I didn't get to sell the gold bones. I mean, sure all the extra holy water and other stuff for smiting the undead was nice, and I had fun making it rain body parts... but I'd have rather had all the money from selling an almost complete solid gold skeleton... we never got the ribcage pelvis or spine, but those were probably still in the sarcophagus. I contend that loot glint could be used to teach a player caution, to not instantly pick up every piece they see. It would also make people more aware of the things that do stickout for some reason, like gold bones. And those that aren't willing to do tactile exploration of the odd pieces out would miss out as they deserve to.

Glint being on the spice bag would just have saved me the frustration. I'd still have a WTF moment with the fact I just picked up a hemp bag, and probably gone to look up what it was supposed to be. Then I'd have been like "Spices, dude that's pretty sweet, I wonder what other wierd loot they'll throw at me if this is in the first level of the game..." Glint would have just ended up saving me frustration with some items. Really I like the idea of having things labeled now, at least in your inventory. That way when I picked up the spice bag I wouldn't have had to search outside the game to know what it was (mainly because I don't read code to find out it's name).

ToMegaTherion
4th Jun 2009, 08:39
The idea that we should appreciate being frustrated in order to make some abstract point that we don't really care about, reminds me of the concept taken to hilarious extremes by someone who made a mod for BG2 to increase the difficulty, and boosted up one particular confrontation to the extent that someone complained that with certain non-stupid character and party choices it might actually be impossible to win. The designer replied with the oh-so-helpful explanation "It is not obvious to me that the PCs should always win".

Edit: Yeah, I never knew why that bag was supposed to be valuable, I just had moved into "I need more loot, so I shall right click on everything" mode.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
4th Jun 2009, 09:52
While it was just an example, you bring up a good point. Instead of having different textures, treasures could also react to lighting differently. One of the things I did in TMA just a few minutes ago, was use a flare in the fountain on the 6th floor of angel watch so that I could find the lucky coins in it more easily. Dynamic reaction to light would be a better way of defining certain objects.

I was thinking instead of flares a lantern would be a good idea. Maybe have to replace oil for it once you use it enough.

I just said flares because they are already established. I would prefer something I could turn on and off.

Platinumoxicity
4th Jun 2009, 09:59
The spice bag in T2 was:

1. Put in plain sight on the route that you would go through at least twice in the mission, and it was the first pickable object that you would normally see in the game, that had a new model that wasn't present in T1. The game literally threw the new model at your face, so that you'd be intrigued to check what it is. At least that's what happened to me if I remember correctly. The game wanted you to know that there are new loot models that you've never seen before, and you need to look more carefully. "Running interference" was a training mission.

2. A rare instance of frustration for some. So what is the first and 5th missions in the game each have 1 piece of loot hidden in plain sight? So what?! There shouldn't even be the total amount of loot in the stats screen in my opinion so that you'd never be sure about the total sum. Your frustration caused by your inability to find 1 insignificant loot item only hits when you check the stats screen after the mission.

There wouldn't be any "frustration" if no-one told you afterwards that you didn't find something.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
4th Jun 2009, 10:21
There wouldn't be any "frustration" if no-one told you afterwards that you didn't find something.

WORD. I want that stat to die.

Flashart
4th Jun 2009, 10:26
I'm really not sure. Garrett will pick up a single coin, yet ignore a plate or vase that
is gonna be worth more than the coin. A grand piano is valuable but he isn't going to want to steal that, but will happily steal huge paintings (admittedly, he could roll them up).
The point I'm making is it depends how populated a level is going to be. Garrett would have a knowledge of if not all, at least the majority of values of items. So, whether the item is "obviously" valuable, or "lit up" valuable, it would be "highlighted" in some form. However, I'd like to "get it wrong" occasionally, (a rare bottle of wine among some cheaper plonk), and spice can be hugely valuable (saffron or truffels etc). What I don't want to do is search through an entire library to find the first edition, but if only one book is frobbable it takes away challenge.

jay pettitt
4th Jun 2009, 10:47
No, you're dead wrong, because you obviously don't understand what I am saying (I hope). At its core, the designers at LGS created the THIEF universe with a fundamental sense of mystery. This sense of mystery was designed to be expressed in many different forms in order to continually engage the mind of the player. In this case, the mystery takes the form of "curiosity" and "uncertainty" when dealing with potential valuables. This aspect is at the very heart of THIEF and is part of the TRUE THIEF EXPERIENCE.

I fundamentally disagree with everything you've said in that post. Not because I think you're wrong to want to be feel immersed in a game world or wrong to want player skill to be the principal mechanic whereby player earns rewards, but because I think you fail to understand that the sense of immersion is the result of layers of deceit built around 'gamey' elements, not the result of ridding the game of 'gamey' elements.

Vae
4th Jun 2009, 11:03
Well, enough of the longwindedness for now. I did my best to try to explain something that I thought was important. I hope some of you guys found something in there to appreciate.

Hypevosa, I know what you are trying to say overall and that your intentions are good, but I feel there's about as much of a chance of seeing "loot glint" in the game as there is not having rope arrows returning in T4.

Platinumoxicity
4th Jun 2009, 11:17
If you have the total loot stat, you get these results:
-You keep looking for the last pieces of loot that you didn't find.
-You get frustrated because you can't find them.
-You get pissed because when you finally do find them, they didn't look valuable to you.
-You require a system that points out all that is loot because you know that there's more loot, so you absolutely want to find it all.
=>Loot glint, please or the game sucks.

Get rid of the total loot stat and you get these results:
-You find a lot of loot and you're happy about it.
-You replay the mission, find more loot than you previosly did and you're happy about it.
-You get a pleasant surprise when you find loot that you didn't notice before because it didn't look valuable.
=>No loot glint but the game still doesn't suck.

jay pettitt
4th Jun 2009, 11:22
Well, enough of the longwindedness for now. I did my best to try to explain something that I thought was important. I hope some of you guys found something in there to appreciate.

Oh, I think what you're saying is important (accepting that we're not curing cancer here), I just think you're mistaken about how you arrive at the rich, immersive experience that you're after. I don't think there's a sliding scale with arcade games at one end and games like Thief at the other. It's not like I've got a Master's Degree in game design or anything (I'm not even a gamer, I just have a soft spot for thief) and I could be completely wrong, but I'll try and put a post together this evening on how I think loot can be an aid to immersion or a hindrance and why I think arguing over gamey special effects is a red-herring.

Vae
4th Jun 2009, 12:12
I fundamentally disagree with everything you've said in that post. Not because I think you're wrong to want to be feel immersed in a game world or wrong to want player skill to be the principal mechanic whereby player earns rewards, but because I think you fail to understand that the sense of immersion is the result of layers of deceit built around 'gamey' elements, not the result of ridding the game of 'gamey' elements.

That depends on which "gamey" elements are involved and how they are applied to a particular game. In this instance, "Loot glint" is in no way working in conjuction with other "gamey" elements that are part of any "layers of deceit" design matrix. It does not contribute to immersion within the game, even though a player might like it for other reasons. Nor am I wanting to get rid of any "gamey" elements, just because they are "gamey" elements. I think you fail to understand that your comment is too general to be accurate on every occasion. It needs to be taken on a case by case basis.

Hypevosa
4th Jun 2009, 19:04
Thanks Vae. I understand and respect your position too. I agree, rope arrows will probably be in thief 4 (YAY) and loot glint in the DS way will (hopefully) not. Mainly why I created this thread was to make sure that it was not made the way it was in DS where all loot was blatantly obvious and there was no need to search for anything anymore. I also wanted to give rise to the issue of loots lootiness, diversity of loot, and frustrations that (especially new players) might have with loot "deception".

With regards to platnum's comment, I think it's true, that the total loot stat at the end does add to frustrations. However, speaking from a perfectionist (in terms of gaming) point of view, if it wasn't there I'd be twice as likely to look up how much treasure was in a level. I started out playing platformers where you collect stuff (crash bandicoot, spyro, ratchet and clank...) and have always wanted to get everything a level has to offer because of it. Perfectionist style collection might not be so common (I'd say probably 10% of people who game feel this, 30% if you include people who feel the need to get all achievements), but denying them the acknowledgement of their achievement (2587 loot out of 2587) would be kinda not nice. And I really don't want to get rid of stats screens, I love seeing my double digit knockouts (58 in life of the party woo!)

I do like your assessment of the need for loot glint though based on what the game offers.

Vae
5th Jun 2009, 00:48
If you have the total loot stat, you get these results:
-You keep looking for the last pieces of loot that you didn't find.
-You get frustrated because you can't find them.
-You get pissed because when you finally do find them, they didn't look valuable to you.
-You require a system that points out all that is loot because you know that there's more loot, so you absolutely want to find it all.
=>Loot glint, please or the game sucks.

Get rid of the total loot stat and you get these results:
-You find a lot of loot and you're happy about it.
-You replay the mission, find more loot than you previosly did and you're happy about it.
-You get a pleasant surprise when you find loot that you didn't notice before because it didn't look valuable.
=>No loot glint but the game still doesn't suck.

I agree completly. The solution for players with the all consuming "loot frustration complex", is to eliminate the "loot stat" and to abolish any real time "loot percentage system" (:mad: SO WRONG) . This will preserve the immersion of the game and relieve those afflicted of their symptoms. :)

Hypevosa
5th Jun 2009, 01:21
Loot requirements per level are unnecessary since normally you're going to steal something good anyways, just let those who go out of their way to find extra loot feel rewarded with a sense of accomplishment and the ability to buy more/better equipment, and those who don't bother will suffer by not being able to buy more/better equipment and learn the folly of their ways.

I'd still like to not be decieved as to whether something is or isn't loot though. Unless there's a special note in the game saying why something that's normally not IS loot, they should never switch (like spectacles).

1N54N3
5th Jun 2009, 06:10
Even though most people voted for the system to change, I don't see why. Does it perhaps ruin the feel of the game? Perhaps. However, would someone like Garret be able to easily recognize items of value? Without a doubt. Anyone who is as good at what they do as Garret is, would be able to recognize valuable items from a distance. Love the old system or hate it, thats just the simple truth.

Nate
5th Jun 2009, 08:03
Forget about loot gleam, just make valuable items look valuable.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
5th Jun 2009, 08:14
Those damn spectacles.

Loot glint has been sentenced to hang. Majority rule.

next case; Loot stat is on trial for spoiling fun and stealing time. Either he goes free or he hangs. Somebody poll that loot stat.

:wave:Death to the loot stat!:wave:

Tear down the wall!

Vae
5th Jun 2009, 08:33
I'd like to see EM put an invisible key that would be randomly placed somewhere within any of the 15 missions in T4. Everytime you started a new game it would be hidden in a different place everytime. Then somewhere in the 15th mission you would come across a locked gate, and when you gazed through it you would see a large chamber with a hoard full of items, and from all of the various items came a beautiful symphony of "glint" and it was wonderful to behold. You knew at first glance that all of the items in the chamber were worthy of your hand, as they all "glinted" back with "gleam". It was utterly "glintastic". But it could only be opened with that elusive, hidden, invisible key. ;)

Vae
5th Jun 2009, 08:38
Yes, DEATH TO THE LOOT STAT !!!! :thud:

Yaphy
5th Jun 2009, 09:15
What if the loot was "selected" somehow when you use the mecanical eye? If you zoom in to a table with loads of stuff on it, the loot will get highlighted just a tad. It will shine like silver does. But it wount sparkle with stars like TDS.

Platinumoxicity
5th Jun 2009, 09:20
What if the loot was "selected" somehow when you use the mecanical eye? If you zoom in to a table with loads of stuff on it, the loot will get highlighted just a tad. It will shine like silver does. But it wount sparkle with stars like TDS.

No terminator digi-Garrett please.

ToMegaTherion
5th Jun 2009, 09:23
DEATH TO THE LOOT REQUIREMENT!!!! as well

Yaphy
5th Jun 2009, 09:34
No terminator digi-Garrett please.

But dont think the eye has any real function. If its not to any use, why bother even make it ingame visual. Why can you go into the eye and zoom if its for no use. Well, its has a use. But its so small that I didnt use it.

Platinumoxicity
5th Jun 2009, 09:49
But dont think the eye has any real function. If its not to any use, why bother even make it ingame visual. Why can you go into the eye and zoom if its for no use. Well, its has a use. But its so small that I didnt use it.

I use it constantly to see if guards are carrying keys or to see if a cup on a shelf is made of wood or silver. ...I know what you're thinking. Yes, some of us can distinguish loot from junk just by looking at the texture.

Vae
5th Jun 2009, 09:50
But dont think the eye has any real function. If its not to any use, why bother even make it ingame visual. Why can you go into the eye and zoom if its for no use. Well, its has a use. But its so small that I didnt use it.

Please...:lol:

Vae
5th Jun 2009, 09:54
I created a new thread called "Death to the Loot Stat".

Hypevosa
5th Jun 2009, 10:00
I think someone messed with the poll, the total in favor of loot glint was greater than against for a long while, and all the sudden there are like 14 more votes... wierd O.o

Well, I said earlier, it should be optional.

And including the people who said it should be optional in their posts it's only losing by one methinks.

Vae
5th Jun 2009, 10:34
No, I think it is as it should be.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
6th Jun 2009, 01:17
No terminator digi-Garrett please.

I'm looking for Lord Bafford's scepter. I'm a friend of his. I was told it would be here.

The eye had plenty of use just with the zooming. Without it, things would be a bit harder. I too use it to scout guards belts and check out large rooms and halls. The zoom function alone is just so useful.

MasterTaffer
6th Jun 2009, 01:37
But dont think the eye has any real function. If its not to any use, why bother even make it ingame visual. Why can you go into the eye and zoom if its for no use. Well, its has a use. But its so small that I didnt use it.

By that logic, binoculars are completely useless.

theBlackman
6th Jun 2009, 02:01
I think someone messed with the poll, the total in favor of loot glint was greater than against for a long while, and all the sudden there are like 14 more votes... wierd O.o

Well, I said earlier, it should be optional.

And including the people who said it should be optional in their posts it's only losing by one methinks.

Many, myself included often vote but DON'T POST. Our reasons are often not needed to be added to the conversation.

kaekaelyn
6th Jun 2009, 06:22
I think loot should look like loot, and make sense as loot. If it doesn't look like loot, there should probably be a note about it somewhere. I voted for loot gleam at a certain distance, but I'm starting to change my mind. I think that if loot is easily distinguishable from junk, (but also subtler than TDS' pulsar) it's a good way to reward players who look carefully and learn from their mistakes rather than people who pick up anything that shines. I know that we might not be able to steal paintings like in TDS with this mechanism, but seriously, I never really liked that anyway. I know putting ANY of that loot away without carrying around a huge clunky bag is unrealistic, but somehow picking up an enormous portrait and putting it away just like you'd put a coin in your pocket is just too much for me. If you had to have paintings, give them an ornate golden frame or something, or an obvious caption, like Mortimer the Mad. But I say nay to stealing such large items.

And add a better dropping system, for sure, to go along with the no loot gleam.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
6th Jun 2009, 08:10
Yea I changed my mind after I voted. Oh well, my fav is still winning. I've no problem with paintings as loot. They sure broke the monotony of those freaking candleholders. Like you and others have said, fancy frames should be enough to let a player know a painting is valuable. And considering how much Garrett can take, I have no problem believing he can roll up a valuable painting and cram it in his magic loot bag along with everything else.

Way too many valuable candle holders in TDS. They look absolutely plain to me. I hate them so much! (playing without loot glint. You can imagine how hard it is with the crappy looking loot in tds)

clock12345
6th Jun 2009, 18:14
Loot should Gleam but only if ur at a certain distance its should be like this like all of the other thief games.

Shadow Blade
7th Jun 2009, 10:31
I like the non loot glint/Gem/shine thingie .It makes things more challenging because you dont have everything handed to you on a platter (That shines in your face till your half blind).

Thugo
7th Jun 2009, 20:19
IF they can't make the loot look valuable and different than the standard junk....well then they are doing something wrong.

DarthEnder
7th Jun 2009, 21:17
Also, the mechanical eye lets you see in the dark in T3.

Not that that matters to me because I play with the brightness turned up till I can see in the dark anyway.

Vae
7th Jun 2009, 21:21
Not that that matters to me because I play with the brightness turned up till I can see in the dark anyway.


You poor thing...:(

DarthEnder
7th Jun 2009, 21:27
I tried playing it on it's "reccomended lighting" setting, honestly I did. But I literally just couldn't see where I was going. I'd walk into a wine cellar and my whole screen would just be black and I eventually just went, "You know what, this isn't any fun." And I went back to Rid**** mode.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
7th Jun 2009, 21:54
That Rid**** censor never gets old.

Different strokes for different folks. I've seen monitors that look pretty dark even with their highest settings. 'Brightness turned up til I can see in the dark' might not look as bad to him as it sounds to you. Unless DarthEnder really does like playing a game all gamma-grayed looking.

Vae
7th Jun 2009, 21:57
Well considering how he feels about the undead, being afraid of the dark wouldn't be out of the question.

Nate
7th Jun 2009, 22:29
Well, the 'Thief Minimalist' mod for T:DS was able to include a turn loot glint on/off option. I imagine it wouldnt' be that difficult for the devs to put a toggle in.

That said, I still don't even like the idea of loot glint. Make the valuable stuff look valuable instead.

Shuttlecat
7th Jun 2009, 22:31
No gleam whatsoever. That would make the player spend more time actually stealing things/breaking in than just happening by or seeing it through a window or something.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
7th Jun 2009, 22:39
Well, the 'Thief Minimalist' mod for T:DS was able to include a turn loot glint on/off option. I imagine it wouldnt' be that difficult for the devs to put a toggle in.

That said, I still don't even like the idea of loot glint. Make the valuable stuff look valuable instead.

Too bad turning it off shows you just how crappy the loot really looks. I'm having an annoying time trying to find out what's valuable. Are there any mods that improve the look of loot in TDS?

Nate
7th Jun 2009, 22:53
Hehe, yeah, better looking loot in TDS would have been very useful.

ChrisDS
8th Jun 2009, 20:06
Maybe on stupid mode! They should also let you blackjack guys with helmets on in stupid mode! Once you play normal mode, no gleams and no blackjacking guards with helmets!! This mean on expert... no blackjacking and no killing! can anyone say "Master Thief"!?

Myth
9th Jun 2009, 02:54
Unfortunately i was away for a while and now i can't read 6 pages of posts. My opinion: Loot Glint should grab the hands of his dear friends Fairy Dust and Loading Fog and they should all readily commit bloody mass suicide. We should then salt the remains and burn them (as to prevent them from ever returning to us in undead form).

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 03:33
That's the general consensus so far.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
14th Jun 2009, 23:46
Just a couple of screens I'd like to share. This is a couple of pieces of loot from my TDS. Without the loot glint it is (imo) hard to tell that they are valuable. And yet, it's still a lot more fun than playing with loot glint.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/8897/t3main2009061411000162.png
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9624/t3main2009061411133337.png

Look at that crap. Thief 4 should have more valuable (fancy) looking loot. This stuff is pretty F'ing hard for me to identify among all the other junk. And these were in rather obvious, fairly well lit places. Imagine trying to find them in a dark room somewhere. In the first picture, the bland cup with the pointy, bumpy, gemmy looking thingies on it is loot. In the second, that rather plain, wet looking bottle is loot. hrmm I should get a screen of the candle holders so you can really see my pain, but whatever.

I really hope the loot in Thief 4 wont be so hard to identify.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
15th Jun 2009, 02:38
Serious suggestion to echo what others have said: Make the frob-highlight just a brightening effect. It doesn't have to be full bright/no shadows like TDP/Gold & TMA, but it shouldn't be a blue shell that hides the beauty and detail of the objects, either--or any dang object, for that matter.

Yea, it is awfully bright. I'd like if it was just a brightening effect, just enough to see what is 'selected'.

Hypevosa
15th Jun 2009, 03:23
He see's loot and he's so in the zone he get's tunnel vision and that's all he sees till he picks it up.. XD Brighter=good

Platinumoxicity
15th Jun 2009, 09:12
Look at it this way: If the devs implement a system like "Frob highlight for valuables is different", then you know what that means? It means that the devs once again have an excuse to make loot that looks like junk and you still have to check every single object to see if it's valuable even if you've spotted it in bright light.The loot should look more valuable and the junk should look more like junk.

Hypevosa
15th Jun 2009, 09:18
Yes, we should hope they are competent enough to make it so. But if not, at least we could have a failsafe XD

Vae
15th Jun 2009, 09:20
Look at it this way: If the devs implement a system like "Frob highlight for valuables is different", then you know what that means? It means that the devs once again have an excuse to make loot that looks like junk and you still have to check every single object to see if it's valuable even if you've spotted it in bright light.The loot should look more valuable and the junk should look more like junk.

Exactly.

You are supposed to think about what you are looking at.

Brainlessness + Brighter loot = BAD
Thinking + Quality textures = GOOD

ToMegaTherion
15th Jun 2009, 09:23
I was playing Metal Age yesterday. Some of those Valuable Plates and Junk Plates are just spiteful.

Hypevosa
15th Jun 2009, 09:24
but wouldn't a truly good quality texture not make me have to think much about it? If it's a good texture I shouldn't spend more than 5 seconds looking at it to know it's gold.

Vae
15th Jun 2009, 09:28
but wouldn't a truly good quality texture not make me have to think much about it? If it's a good texture I shouldn't spend more than 5 seconds looking at it to know it's gold.

Yeah, that's 5 seconds of thinking versus an instant of reacting. It also wont be as easy to tell in darker areas.

Hypevosa
15th Jun 2009, 09:32
que flare, or if no light is available, que gamma increase :P

Vae
15th Jun 2009, 09:43
Hypevosa, I don't think we need to do this dance again. I just wish you enjoyed treasure hunting as much as I do.

Hypevosa
15th Jun 2009, 10:10
I did! :D finding secrets and things in little nooks was fun! ^_^ I really enjoyed the sense of accomplishment I got when finding well hidden loot. I hope well hidden loot makes a return, along with secrets.

Aristofiles
15th Jun 2009, 16:30
thief 3 did a bad job on this. However i remember back in T1 and T2 when you picked up a worthless plate by misstake and had no were to put it since throwing it away ment that you would alert the whole hallway. very iritating.

no glimmer but thay should design the loot so there its clear whats valuble and whats crap.

Platinumoxicity
15th Jun 2009, 16:57
thief 3 did a bad job on this. However i remember back in T1 and T2 when you picked up a worthless plate by misstake and had no were to put it since throwing it away ment that you would alert the whole hallway. very iritating.

no glimmer but thay should design the loot so there its clear whats valuble and whats crap.

There was an option called "drop item", usually binded as "r". If you had a junk plate in your hand and you pointed to the top of a table, (not just over the table), and pressed "drop item" Garrett would gently place the plate back on the table, without alerting anyone, except if someone was less than 20cm away. ;)

In TDS you couldn't choose where you dropped the item because it always fell from the same height, even when you were crouching. Dropping stuff in TDS always alerted everyone in a 100m radius.

Myth
15th Jun 2009, 20:44
Have the game done in three difficulty levels:

"11 year old GTA fanboi" "casual gamer" "Master Theif". On the first difficulty setting, make a bright, jumping red arrow a-la "Worms Armageddon" worm selection, point to any valuable object within 50 meters. Also, have Garrett collect hearts for more life points - added fun!

Sense/Net
15th Jun 2009, 21:10
Seems to me that the simplest solution would simply make Loot Glint a gameplay option that you can either set on or off.

ToMegaTherion
15th Jun 2009, 21:22
I don't think they should waste their time on it, really. The whole "is it loot/isn't it" issue is a nice fun debate but not really at all important. This assumes there will be no loot requirement as vicious as 90%, or at least the loot requirement is separate from other difficulties.

Second floor of Gilver's section in Shipping and Receiving is great... there are loads of plates, one of which isn't valuable. Anyone who successfully worked it out the first time is a genius.

Platinumoxicity
15th Jun 2009, 21:42
I don't think they should waste their time on it, really. The whole "is it loot/isn't it" issue is a nice fun debate but not really at all important. This assumes there will be no loot requirement as vicious as 90%, or at least the loot requirement is separate from other difficulties.

Second floor of Gilver's section in Shipping and Receiving is great... there are loads of plates, one of which isn't valuable. Anyone who successfully worked it out the first time is a genius.

Successfully worked it out? Whaddya mean? ...Touched only the valuable ones and didn't move the junk plate? Have you got something against touching junk? Are you germ-paranoid or something? :D

But you know, loot should look valuable, like it did in T1. Just look how golden all those golden plates look like compared to all the not-golden plates that don't look golden.
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6039/gob.png
How hard is that?

ToMegaTherion
15th Jun 2009, 22:29
Well yeah, my attitude to one of the plates was "well it doesn't look like loot, but it can't hurt to try can it?" and it turned out to be valuable.

And then there are the spectacles, that are only occasionally loot...

Hypevosa
15th Jun 2009, 22:43
If the gold plates were really that color, they'd completely clash with the environment I want.. but having a fundamental shape difference would be nice.. Really the only thing we don't pick up is wood, so make it look enough like wood that it doesn't seem like it isn't. Oh, and we don't pick up fancy china for some reason >_> only handmade glassblown super huge plates that should probably break the instant we put them in our bag.

Platinumoxicity
15th Jun 2009, 22:51
If the gold plates were really that color, they'd completely clash with the environment I want.. but having a fundamental shape difference would be nice.. Really the only thing we don't pick up is wood, so make it look enough like wood that it doesn't seem like it isn't. Oh, and we don't pick up fancy china for some reason >_> only handmade glassblown super huge plates that should probably break the instant we put them in our bag.

The reason why T1 amplified the gold color to stand out magnificently was because shiny objects were not possible to make in that technology back then. Now we have so many different shaders that we can make gelatinous cubes made of water, flames and bubbles. There is nothing that prevents making shiny loot stand out from grimy junk.

ToMegaTherion
15th Jun 2009, 23:08
I have no idea what you are talking about.

ToMegaTherion
16th Jun 2009, 09:02
No, I mean, I really have no idea what you were saying at all in that post. Some explanation would be helpful. I have tried, but cannot see where realism appeared at all in what I wrote. Or indeed a demand for anything.

Hypevosa
3rd Jun 2010, 08:06
EDIT: posted in the wrong thread XD

Vae
3rd Jun 2010, 08:10
Oh no, not loot gleam again...I thought we banished this idea forever.

Hypevosa
3rd Jun 2010, 08:17
It's been 50/50 basically since 2 weeks after it began if I recall right.

Again, I accidentally posted here, promise. I was looking at the numbers in the poll and going to bump the sword/dagger topic since fatherwoodsie was talking so much about it.

Then posted here by accident....

Well, maybe someone new will have something new to say XD

Vae
3rd Jun 2010, 08:21
No loot gleam ever...don"t even think about it EM...:mad:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Viktoria, please close this thread...for the sake of THIEF 4.

Thanks,

Vae

Hypevosa
3rd Jun 2010, 08:33
I think the conversations were best summed up as follows:

We shouldn't need loot gleam/glint/beacon. All loot should look looty and be distinguishable from non-loot before being picked up.

However, if we cannot tell simply by looks, loot gleam/glint/beacon is ok so long as it's only when the object is within frobbing distance, and as long as it's something that the player can turn off if they want to.

In all cases, picked up junk should be able to be placed on surfaces quietly - period.

Tryst
3rd Jun 2010, 16:33
Allow a player toggle from the options would be the best solution here.

Also, I agree that junk can be thrown if required to distract guards etc or placed down gently and quietly on a table as well as the floor.

Side note regarding placing stuff on the floor:
If they improve the AI for guards to make it harder to know if they are still searching for you, junk like plates etc could be used on the floor to make a noise if the guard steps on them. This can both distract the guard so you can slip past and also acts as advanced warning that someone is coming too close. It will also make a noise if Garrett steps on them so it should be used with care.

Hypevosa
3rd Jun 2010, 18:36
Laying porcelain plates down on the floor for guards to step on so that you know they're there?

You devious little taffer. That's an awesome idea.

I think that they should notice if the plates are in bright enough light though.

xDarknessFallsx
4th Aug 2010, 06:13
I'm with Viktoria. The first two games did it perfectly. And if I pick up a random object that I'm not sure if it's loot or not, so be it. It made for some interesting moments in T2 when you weren't quite sure if something was loot. I picked up a hammer hoping it was loot, but then had to gently set it down... but instead made a loud noise. I think T4 should do similar. Granted, I wish T2 allowed you to more gently set stuff down so experienced players could be quiet (while novice players could continue to make a racket and learn from their mistakes).

The game needs to tell us by an object's appearance whether or not it is valuable. We shouldn't need to rely on loot gleam, and devs shouldn't need to waste their time making loot gleam. They should instead spend their time fine-tuning objects and textures to give valuable objects more gold sheen, more ornateness, or whatever so that we can visually tell when something is probably worth picking up. And if a few random pieces of china or a hammer 'looks' like they 'might be' valuable but aren't, so be it. Learn how to gently set them down. Ideally, you should only accidentally pick up non-valuable objects like 5 or 10 times max during the game play. And as you learn what it is that makes an object valuable by its visual cues, your propensity to pick up worthless junk should diminish.

As to 'why' you need to pick something up? Maybe the weight of an item needs to be assessed by Garrett for him to do a proper value assessment. I personally don't care that Garrett has to pick something up... I'm just trying to help provide a reason.

There are far less 'gamey' ways to show a loot's value than loot gleam beacons.

Hypevosa
4th Aug 2010, 06:17
Sounds alot like my idea - and I know I've never seen that before since I never was on LGS forums really.

Makes me kinda happy actually.

Vae
4th Aug 2010, 06:43
I'm with Viktoria. The first two games did it perfectly. And if I pick up a random object that I'm not sure if it's loot or not, so be it. It made for some interesting moments in T2 when you weren't quite sure if something was loot. I picked up a hammer hoping it was loot, but then had to gently set it down... but instead made a loud noise. I think T4 should do similar. Granted, I wish T2 allowed you to more gently set stuff down so experienced players could be quiet (while novice players could continue to make a racket and learn from their mistakes).

The game needs to tell us by an object's appearance whether or not it is valuable. We shouldn't need to rely on loot gleam, and devs shouldn't need to waste their time making loot gleam. They should instead spend their time fine-tuning objects and textures to give valuable objects more gold sheen, more ornateness, or whatever so that we can visually tell when something is probably worth picking up. And if a few random pieces of china or a hammer 'looks' like they 'might be' valuable but aren't, so be it. Learn how to gently set them down. Ideally, you should only accidentally pick up non-valuable objects like 5 or 10 times max during the game play. And as you learn what it is that makes an object valuable by its visual cues, your propensity to pick up worthless junk should diminish.

As to 'why' you need to pick something up? Maybe the weight of an item needs to be assessed by Garrett for him to do a proper value assessment. I personally don't care that Garrett has to pick something up... I'm just trying to help provide a reason.

There are far less 'gamey' ways to show a loot's value than loot gleam beacons.

Agreed...No need for gleam if the textures are done correctly. Loot-glint was an ill-conceived notion that was destined to fail.

xDarknessFallsx
4th Aug 2010, 06:44
No glitter needed here. Just have us pick the object up, and if it's not loot, then oops -- we'll have to set it down. I don't need a 100% guaranteed way of knowing whether or not something is loot. That takes the fun out of experimenting to see what is and is not loot by trial and error. That takes the fun out of accidentally picking a worthless object up and having to set it down without making a noise. That takes some fun out of meeting the loot requirements. I'd just go around searching for loot sparkle, since apparently the objects wouldn't be crafted well enough to tell me that on their own 98% of the time. Apparently I need to know with absolute certainty 100% of the time whether or not something is valuable?

How about telling me exactly how many seconds it will take me to pick a lock, too, while we're at it :) A little countdown timer pop-up next to the lock while I press and hold the mouse button to pick.

I just feel it'd just be a creative way to hold our hand, and I don't really want my hand held.

Loot gleam would be a simple way for EM to make me start hating T4. We need some mystery, intrigue; we need to figure things out on our own!!! Don't give me answers to everything! Don't tell me make the key on a guard's belt or a coin purse have a glint sparkle. Let me see it on my own. Don't make secret switches obnoxiously large or existing only next to a light that can't be turned off so we're sure to see them. Each little thing that chips away at the mystery of the game, or solves problems for us via a gamey game mechanic will send me down the path of thinking more and more poorly of T4. Loot gleam chips away at the soul of Thief.

Vae
4th Aug 2010, 06:48
:thumb:...Exactly. Loot glint is a dumbed-down element that makes it more like an arcade game, and takes away from the immersion.


How about telling me exactly how many seconds it will take me to pick a lock, too, while we're at it :) A little countdown timer pop-up next to the lock while I press and hold the mouse button to pick.

:lol:

xDarknessFallsx
4th Aug 2010, 06:54
Yep. Too game-y. I wonder why ISA didn't even do it the original way if they were going to (sigh) do it at all?
The game engine probably wouldn't allow it :nut:

Hypevosa
4th Aug 2010, 15:31
The game engine probably wouldn't allow it :nut:

Actually, it could have been that they used it in an attempt to make sure there were no loot glitches like TMA was rife with. Then either forgot to turn it off afterwards or people liked it and so they kept it.

xDarknessFallsx
5th Aug 2010, 02:23
Hypevosa - I didn't have any problems with the T2 loot. No glitches from my shoes

Vae
5th Aug 2010, 02:36
Me either...What are you talking about?

Hypevosa
5th Aug 2010, 03:00
Hypevosa - I didn't have any problems with the T2 loot. No glitches from my shoes

You probably didn't try to get 100% loot.

If you did, you'd have noticed how the very first level has you missing 25 loot because one of the lucky coins on the shelf above the stairs leading out of the kitchen has been glitched into the environment.

Another level has a golden hammer on a grave that's invisible.

And there are like half a dozen from what I remember - I found an independent fan who made a bunch of patches that I had to upload to fix it.

Hypevosa
5th Aug 2010, 03:43
That's what I thought. What the heck does that have to do with loot glint or the engine at all?

I was making a sarcastic suggestion that they were using it for the game testers so they could be sure that 100% of the loot was collectible.

Making all the loot super shiny would make the play testing to determine if all the loot was indeed collectible go more quickly and easily, allowing the devs to be sure that the loot wasn't glitching into the map or invisible or anything like that.

I was suggesting that someone liked the feature or they forgot to turn it off before shipping the game once it was out of QA testing.

Haha - excuse my attempt to make someone chuckle -.-

AlexOfSpades
8th Sep 2010, 17:46
No loot glint at all.

When going over objects, you end up knowing whats loot and whats not. So it kinda makes you think like a thief - whats worth to grab?

Its immersive c:

Hypevosa
8th Sep 2010, 19:03
I'd have taken that mirror and comb set in the lady's bedroom rather than that hemp bag.

But Garrett knew he should take the hemp bag and not the mirror and comb.

So I don't really have any thought in the matter or choice, do I?

As others have said, should our textures, colors, and general design of the loot make it look like loot, or it's denoted somewhere when something that doesn't look like loot, is loot, then an effect when it's highlighted to confirm that is redundant.

Otherwise, should something be poorly done enough that it does become necessary to indicate what is loot and what is not -- a shine in arms reach is the way to go. Lest you have shining beacons from across the room, or just want to frustrate members of your player base with what's supposed to be the only really simple and instant gratification in the game turns out to be a chore that loses some of its joy.

AlexOfSpades
8th Sep 2010, 19:07
So make it glint only when highlighted, what about it?

Hypevosa
8th Sep 2010, 21:44
Yes, but I'd rather that if they make the wound in the first place that they bother to bandaid it up than let it fester, and that they use the right sized bandaid. We don't need a full body cast like what happened with TDS.

I'm also pretty sure there're better techniques than creating whole new objects that overlay existing ones like the quickfix in TDS.

AlexOfSpades
11th Sep 2010, 22:27
Well my vote is no loot gleam ever.

We could say that allowing all the objects to be picked, just like in Oblivion, but most of it being cheap and not worth would be nice. No loot gleam, only the player decides what to take - whats worth.

But then it would be nice to steal absolutely everything from the houses to make sure you would get rich fast, and then... well it would look silly and we would have to implement a inventory system and weight-per-object and...

... nevermind.

We could play TDP/TMA and grab a lot of loot ( And the game required a minimum loot fee ) without anything shining, so i suppose it would be nice just to have it gleam-less.

BigBoss
31st Mar 2011, 09:34
Just give it a toggle, everybody wins.

Vae
31st Mar 2011, 09:40
It's not like the "highlighting" issue with DX3.

There's not going to be any "loot glint", Bigboss...Because "loot glint" was something they slapped on to valuables in TDS, after-the-fact, because they didn't do the textures properly, thereby, not being able to identify valuables properly...Just like how the "climbing gloves" were a late development fix because they couldn't get the rope arrows to work.

xAcerbusx
31st Mar 2011, 10:38
Never underestimate the video game industry's propensity for dumbing things down just to sell a few more copies.

Hamadriyad
31st Mar 2011, 10:45
Please no loot glint, and no arrow trails.

Hypevosa
31st Mar 2011, 10:50
well this is back from the dead... and still there's only a 10% difference between the proximity idea and just not having it at all (though there's also a number of posts saying they want a toggle that throws a wrench in things).

I did love how decisive the rope arrow thread was - this is no where near as clear.

Vae
31st Mar 2011, 10:55
Actually, a lot of people voted before we figured out that there isn't any reason for any form of "loot glint" if you create the textures correctly.

Hypevosa
31st Mar 2011, 13:34
I still sympathize with my previous argument of Garrett being able to distinguish in the case of things that aren't immediately loot-like once he's gained proximity - the spice bags, glasses, procelain brush and mirror, etc.

However, I do believe the best situation would be to have loot that doesn't look like loot have related flavor text/dialog that distinguishes it as loot (such as overhearing the chef complaining at the outrageous prices of the spices), and thus signals to the player they should take it, and for normal loot to be textured in such a way as to make it seem more looty.

In all situations I've never wanted the beacon from across the room, but supported the idea of an option that simply turns off proximity based loot glint.

My view of the matter is... complex.

BigBoss
31st Mar 2011, 16:46
It's not like the "highlighting" issue with DX3.

There's not going to be any "loot glint", Bigboss...Because "loot glint" was something they slapped on to valuables in TDS, after-the-fact, because they didn't do the textures properly, thereby, not being able to identify valuables properly...Just like how the "climbing gloves" were a late development fix because they couldn't get the rope arrows to work.

They said this as a fact that there wont be?

TheYouthCounselor
31st Mar 2011, 22:46
I'd like the loot gleam it to be optional, but still only occur when loot is within arms reach.

And I'd prefer that treasure have their own unique models and shiny textures that will make it obvious that it is valuable.

Vae
31st Mar 2011, 23:00
If they make the textures right, then they won't need the glint...That's why it was ever there in the first place...to cover up a mistake. Why would anyone want anti-immersive, gamey "loot glint" superimposed over properly created textures?...This is childish, arcade-like thinking, being imposed on a deep, mature game ...A faint, frob-highlight, is the appropriate, unobtrusive solution.


Poll Options

Yes, all loot should gleam so it's easily found by the player .
Yes, but only at a certain distance so the player can distinguish loot from non-loot.
No, loot gleam should not be implemented in Thief 4.

By the way Hype...This is another misleading, distorted poll that you've made...as probably most of the people who voted for "close-range loot glint", fear that they won't be able to identify valuable loot properly without it.

"Yes, but only at a certain distance so the player can distinguish loot from non-loot."

This is a misleading statement which invalidates this poll, because you're implying that's why it's needed, when it's not. In fact, there's no need for "loot glint" at all...It's just a matter of liking the look of an artificial-looking, arcade-style glimmer on valuables...That's it.

Hypevosa
31st Mar 2011, 23:52
Vae, don't start this - why can't we assume that people have the basic cognizance to understand what they were choosing between? The poll isn't misleading save to those who didn't bother reading any discussions or didn't bother to think for themselves. I didn't deceive anyone into voting for anything with jargon or confusing sentence structure - this poll is not misleading or distorted, even to those who are hard of english.

Truthfully we discussed this for a period of weeks, the majority of the votes still coming AFTER the discussion of proper art direction and texturing.

I'm not some lawyer crafting a purposefully deceptive or obfuscating document, there's nothing wrong with this poll.

Vae
1st Apr 2011, 00:02
I never said you were purposely trying to be deceptive, Hype...I think it was unintentional misleading. Many who just played TDS may not have understood that, on top of the fact, that it took a while to figure out that "loot glint" isn't needed at all for identifying valuables, when you have the right textures...So yes, the poll is distorted, and biased towards "close-range loot glint"...even though you didn't do it on purpose.

Hypevosa
1st Apr 2011, 00:12
The most "distortion" that may have occurred was persuasion through the various discussions that were had on this thread, and that's the purpose of discussion on the subject is to persuade those on middle ground to one side or the other.

Poll takers may have been lazy or neglectful and not bothered to read any of the discussions, or not bothered to think how they felt about it themselves and just had a kneejerk reaction and voted, but all polls suffer these problems. I can't inspire laziness or neglect.

Vae
1st Apr 2011, 00:24
Poll takers may have been lazy or neglectful and not bothered to read any of the discussions, or not bothered to think how they felt about it themselves and just had a kneejerk reaction and voted, but all polls suffer these problems. I can't inspire laziness or neglect.

Yes, a lot of people do this...That's why it's important to make things clear in the poll itself, otherwise you'll get a biased result.

BigBoss
1st Apr 2011, 00:58
I'm curious if the second option only received 2-3% of the votes, if you would bother pointing out that the answer must be flawed or biased and are not just bringing this up because a large portion of the community voted for something that you don't agree with.

Vae
1st Apr 2011, 01:11
Yes, I would have still pointed it out...whether I liked it or not.

Hypevosa
1st Apr 2011, 03:58
Vae tends to have polls that are sometimes self defeating in the number of options they have, and I come from the school of forcing a decision with fewer options. It's just a different philosophy with polling.

I do wish I'd remembered to put a poll option for making it able to be turned off in the menu though.

Belboz
1st Apr 2011, 04:40
how about bright gold glowing line around all loot with an option in the menu to turn it on/off if you don't want it or not. although if your playing on the xbox this shouldn't be an option as those thick players should have it on at all times.

Hypevosa
1st Apr 2011, 06:45
Is this Belboz, or the troll that hacked Belboz's account? If this is Belboz, first of all, WTF? And second of all, did you ever talk to an admin. about blocking the offender's IP(s)?

This is disconcerting O.O