PDA

View Full Version : Warning to Developers (Game Simplification)



Zahr Dalsk
4th Jun 2009, 19:40
I understand a lot of developers like to simplify games and make them easy so the console gamers and other casuals will take them and play them.

Stop and think for a moment.

These people aren't going to be big fans of Thief whether it's hard or easy. Period. By its very nature you won't appeal to them.

So don't try to appeal to them.

Make the game challenging. Make it detailed and complex. Make it require intelligence and patience to play. The fans will love this because we get a game in the spirit of the first two. The casuals probably won't like it but they wouldn't like it anyways.

Appeal to the existing player base and to other people with similar preferences (ie, for a good game, not easy simple next-gen trash) because these are going to make up the majority of customers for a Thief game either way, and you don't want to alienate them.

Hypevosa
4th Jun 2009, 19:51
yeah don't make the game simple. I am wondering though with the game just developing if they might find a way to integrate project natal into it.... that would be awesome, and amazing, and I'd play the game at least 50 times.

MasterTaffer
4th Jun 2009, 19:56
I understand a lot of developers like to simplify games and make them easy so the console gamers and other casuals will take them and play them.

A console gamer isn't by default a casual gamer.


Stop and think for a moment.

These people aren't going to be big fans of Thief whether it's hard or easy. Period. By its very nature you won't appeal to them.

You don't know that.


So don't try to appeal to them.

Disregard that, developers.


Make the game challenging. Make it detailed and complex. Make it require intelligence and patience to play. The fans will love this because we get a game in the spirit of the first two. The casuals probably won't like it but they wouldn't like it anyways.

You have a very poor outlook on console gamers. There are plenty of intelligent, challenging and thought provoking games on consoles that sell very well and are well recieved by players.


Appeal to the existing player base and to other people with similar preferences (ie, for a good game, not easy simple next-gen trash) because these are going to make up the majority of customers for a Thief game either way, and you don't want to alienate them.

Many of the people with "similar preferences" are on consoles, so I can stand by this statement right here.


yeah don't make the game simple. I am wondering though with the game just developing if they might find a way to integrate project natal into it.... that would be awesome, and amazing, and I'd play the game at least 50 times.

Please don't use that gimmicky piece of crap. It's just the PS2 EyeToy all over again. People will buy it, get some kicks out of it, then nobody will develop games for it and it will be lost to obscurity.

Zahr Dalsk
4th Jun 2009, 19:57
Presumably, since Thief's fans are virtually all PC gamers, they would not make the game rely on a 360 peripheral.

MasterTaffer
4th Jun 2009, 19:59
Presumably, since Thief's fans are virtually all PC gamers, they would not make the game rely on a 360 peripheral.

I can't tell you how many people recognize the word "Taffer" in my gamertag on Xbox Live. Don't assume so much.

Zahr Dalsk
4th Jun 2009, 19:59
A console gamer isn't by default a casual gamer.


If that's so, then why, when a PC series moves onto 360, does it invariably become simplified and lose features?


You don't know that.

Thief DS tried that and failed.


there are plenty of intelligent, challenging and thought provoking games on consoles[citation needed]

Do tell.


I can't tell you how many people recognize the word "Taffer" in my gamertag on Xbox Live. Don't assume so much.

I'd recognize it too; I own a 360, which I use when I want some mindless casual-gaming fun. Plenty of us PC gamers also own a console or two, but the majority of our games are PC and we do not identify ourselves as console gamers.

MasterTaffer
4th Jun 2009, 20:18
If that's so, then why, when a PC series moves onto 360, does it invariably become simplified and lose features?

Because dumb **** publishers force developers to rush products onto consoles instead of fully integrating it. Blameing the console gamers for that is asinine.


Thief DS tried that and failed.

Show me the poll of Deadly Shadows being poorly recieved by Xbox gamers and I'll believe that statement. You're making ignorant and baseless accusations and generalizing a group of people like some shallow, idiotic bigot.


Do tell.

Most of Ubisoft's Tom Clancey brand is not composed of run and gun frag fests, requireing thoughtful strategy to succeed in their single player campaign and team coordination in their multiplayer. Not to mention they tend to have interesting, political plots worthy of novel status. They tend to be best selling games, as well.

Mass Effect has a very well written and original plot and an innovative conversation system that provides a truly cinematic experience.

Metal Gear Solid, while too convoluted for me, has always been a hot seller, with very complex game mechanics and espionage stories that are so rich you have to wash it down with a glass of milk.

Jumping on console gamers and accusing them of being single minded action retards is ignorant scapegoating. That's like me accusing PC gamers of being arrogant, narcissistic pricks who's love of convoluted controll mechanics serves only to make themselves forget about their own social inadequecy. While it may be true for a small percentage, it's generalizing and a waste of time. Find a way to slake your rancor for console gamers instead of acting like a pompous, injudicious bigot.

Hypevosa
4th Jun 2009, 20:20
As an xbox peripheral they could easily design it tto allow you to hook it up to a PC, or a similar device. Just imagine actually reaching out to get treasure, or to pick a pocket... dude I'd be so hooked, it would be amazing! :D

EDIT: Dude this is getting pretty intense *pulls out collar a bit*

Yaphy
4th Jun 2009, 20:21
I would love to play Thief IV on my computer. But i dont think my computer can handle the new games for now and future. I have a PS3, and i think they can make a game like thief work on console now. I know that Deadly Shadows was on console, but that isnt the only reason that the game had some issues. They tried to make the game "new" again. It would be bad if they got stuck in old traces. So plz, make T4 for console to. I dont mind if you make it for PC first and changes some stuff that PS3 might not handle as well. I dont even think its nesesary to strip down the console version (though im not an expert), now adays, the consoles are better, and more like computers. Infact, companies take in PS3s instead of regular computers, install Linux and use them to calculate stuff.

And to all of you that thinks that console gamers are Imbecills: stop the harassment! Its assulting and doesnt base on any fact. Its actually proves the opposite. Dont blame console for all the bad stuff that happens in the world. I played DS on PC and I knew that It was for console to. But I didnt blame console for all the dull parts! So just stop the harassment right now! ****

ToMegaTherion
4th Jun 2009, 20:28
The original thief games are pretty fun for casual gaming anyway, in my opinion.

MasterTaffer
4th Jun 2009, 20:30
That's another thing. Out of all the stealth based franchises ont he market today, Thief is actually one of the most simplistic and accessable of them all. I love Splinter Cell, but learning all the moves, gadgets and mechanics of that game can take awhile. Hitman also has so many things going on in it, that it takes some dedication to get those Silent Assassin ratings. ANd don't get me started on Metal Gear Solid. Thief, out of all of them, is the easiest to pick up and play. It's the most simplistic, accessible, and CASUAL stealth games on the market.

Some people act like console gamers are so rabid and bloodthirsty that stealth is a concept beyond their comprehension.

Yotun
4th Jun 2009, 20:38
The thing is, Thief is not really that complex of a game! It's a very simple concept, its a very 'pure' experience, which is what made it such a brilliant game - it was VERY GOOD AT WHAT IT WANTED TO BE.

Problems will come if they try to do too much unneeded fluff, while failing to maintain the standards of the core gameplay dynamics (which to me, is why DS failed to live to the standards of the first 2).

MasterTaffer
4th Jun 2009, 20:41
Indeed. Hell, console gamers buy up far more complex stealth games like it's gold. Assuming those people can't handle Thief is like assuming a butcher can't handle the sight of blood.

Nikoladze
4th Jun 2009, 21:04
Seems like you wasted $200+ on a 360, casual games such as Call of Duty 4 and Bioshock are available for the PC platform and plenty of copies are sold for the PC.

Hypevosa
4th Jun 2009, 21:09
consoles don't have to be upgraded in order to play those games at their prettiest settings... and consoles play on a bigger screen :D potentially at least.

MasterTaffer
4th Jun 2009, 21:11
consoles don't have to be upgraded in order to play those games at their prettiest settings... and consoles play on a bigger screen :D potentially at least.

I know that's one of my biggest appeals for consoels. I do not have to constantly update my rig, fumble around with installers, seek out patches, etc. like I do on a PC.

Caranfin
4th Jun 2009, 23:05
Damn. It's a bit annoying reading a thread and thinking of things to reply on and then finding out Master Taffer has already posted everything I was about to say. :P

MasterTaffer
4th Jun 2009, 23:13
Damn. It's a bit annoying reading a thread and thinking of things to reply on and then finding out Master Taffer has already posted everything I was about to say. :P

I'm sorry, my good man. Rest assured, i'll recieve 10 lashings for the crime I have commited ehre today. ;)

GmanPro
4th Jun 2009, 23:18
I'd like to point out that PC's do NOT need to be constantly upgraded nor do consoles play games on their highest settings usually. And there is no rule that you cannot play PC games on a large screen TV, though I would never do it because it feels too casual and the resolution is lesser than that of my monitor anyway.

MasterTaffer
4th Jun 2009, 23:24
I'd like to point out that PC's do NOT need to be constantly upgraded nor do consoles play games on their highest settings usually. And there is no rule that you cannot play PC games on a large screen TV, though I would never do it because it feels too casual and the resolution is lesser than that of my monitor anyway.

Yeah, because when I see scenes like this:

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/884/884154/gears-of-war-2-20080625073948955_640w.jpg

My first though is, "These graphics have room for improvement."

GmanPro
4th Jun 2009, 23:27
They could be made better technically. But rather than that, I'd be content with just larger areas with more actors in the screen at a time.

Not to mention quicker (possibly seamless) load times/save times etc

MasterTaffer
4th Jun 2009, 23:30
They could be made better technically. But rather than that, I'd be content with just larger areas with more actors in the screen at a time.

Gotcha covered.

http://blog.pricegrabber.co.uk/buttonsmasher/files/2008/08/dead-rising-dead-rising-lots-and-lots-of-zombies.jpg

GmanPro
4th Jun 2009, 23:32
Your ignoring my point. A PC could do all that and more for less money.

MasterTaffer
4th Jun 2009, 23:36
Your ignoring my point. A PC could do all that and more for less money.

So, you want Thief 4 to be like Cryses, then? Perhaps you should explain more that repeating, "PCs can do more, so thar!" over and over. Especially since the current generation of consoles are capable of slick visuals, rendering tons of charecters on screen, and running huge environments with minimal slow down these days.

kaekaelyn
4th Jun 2009, 23:40
I like consoles. I feel immersed because I can use the controller very intuitively, without thinking about the controls, so I really feel like I'm there. I realize this makes me a filthy consoletard, but I played TDS on the XBox. I wanted to play it on a PC because that's the platform that makes me feel nostalgic about Thief, but I couldn't afford a PC that could run the game. So I used the Xbox, which was a free gift anyway, and guess what, I enjoyed it. I had fun playing it. I guess that's because the game was "dumbed down" for hormonal 13-year-old boys with an incessant desire to KILL and MAIM, just like me! Oh wait, I'm none of those things. Well, I guess I must be deep down, because I play Xbox!

Sorry for the sarcasm, but this board makes me really taffing angry sometimes ;) I still feel at home here, though.

*Flattens against wall to avoid inevitable flaming*

GmanPro
4th Jun 2009, 23:41
Again ignoring my point, you tend to do that a lot.


Especially since the current generation of consoles are capable of slick visuals, rendering tons of charecters on screen, and running huge environments with minimal slow down these days.

All of that can be done better and for less money on a PC.

kaekaelyn
4th Jun 2009, 23:42
I can't afford either one, but I don't think either is some sort of disgrace.

MasterTaffer
4th Jun 2009, 23:43
Again ignoring my point, you tend to do that a lot.

All of that can be done better and for less money on a PC.

I ask you to explain that "PCs can do it better" point so I can get a better grasp of it, and you reply by repeating it. Who's ignoring who here?

Or are you just repeating it over and over in hopes that I'll become bored and walk away?

Platinumoxicity
4th Jun 2009, 23:44
Let's not throw any more men to the frontlines of this console/PC war here. Just face the facts:

The developers should make the best game that they are capable of. They should attempt at making a masterpiece on the PC. If they come up with great ideas that can be done, they should do them. Only afterwards, when the game is close to completion , they should consider the consoles, see how the console meets the requirements of the game. If the game would work well on the console of their choice, by all means, make a working console port. If some of the fancier graphical or otherwise hardware related features exceed the abilities of the console, they should try to downgrade the system a bit so that the game works fine on the console, with minor graphical differences. In the worst case, if the game simply can't be downgraded slightly to work on the console, scrap the idea or take major features out and make a BAD console port if it's absolutely necessary.

Capcom did this with Resident Evil 4 when they ported it to PS2. They had to downgrade the graphics slightly and pre-render the cutscenes because the PS2 didn't have the processing power to render them in real time.

kaekaelyn
4th Jun 2009, 23:47
Yeah, I just hope that whatever I have to end up playing it on (probably a while after it comes out) doesn't have to be the BAD version.

GmanPro
4th Jun 2009, 23:48
Fine fine fine

[last post on this matter]

Your point sir is that consoles are cheap and don't have to be upgraded

My point is that PC's are cheaper and can be upgraded if you want to.

For the same amount of money, a PC will always give you more performance and utility. In short, the whole 'convenience' argument that consoles have going for them is completely unfounded

[/last post on this matter]

MasterTaffer
4th Jun 2009, 23:49
Let's not throw any more men to the frontlines of this console/PC war here. Just face the facts:

The developers should make the best game that they are capable of. They should attempt at making a masterpiece on the PC. If they come up with great ideas that can be done, they should do them. Only afterwards, when the game is close to completion , they should consider the consoles, see how the console meets the requirements of the game. If the game would work well on the console of their choice, by all means, make a working console port. If some of the fancier graphical or otherwise hardware related features exceed the abilities of the console, they should try to downgrade the system a bit so that the game works fine on the console, with minor graphical differences. In the worst case, if the game simply can't be downgraded slightly to work on the console, scrap the idea or take major features out and make a BAD console port if it's absolutely necessary.

See, GmanPro? Someone around here can make their point without accusing console gamers of being "retarded action junkies" like you have in the past. Isn't tolerance wonderful? Try it sometime, you might like it.

Unfortunately, game development does not work that way most of the time. The decision of which platforms the game will appear on is usually made before actual programing begins. If they are going to put it on a platform, it won't be done near the end of the development cycle.

MasterTaffer
4th Jun 2009, 23:57
Fine fine fine

[last post on this matter]

Your point sir is that consoles are cheap and don't have to be upgraded

My point is that PC's are cheaper and can be upgraded if you want to.

For the same amount of money, a PC will always give you more performance and utility

[/last post on this matter]

So, upgrading a PC to superior performance is cheaper?

Yeah, PCs can be cheap, unless you purchase it from the get go to play a "superior" performance. When purchasing an advanced PC capable of playing at a "superior" level, it can often cost anywhere from $800 dollars to $2,000 dollars. Add the price of the game, and it seems far more expensive than a $300 dollar console plus a $60 dollar game.

If I were to spend the money to play Thief 4 when it comes out, I'de have to buy more RAM, a new graphics card, a new sound card, and possibly a new processor. That would set me back quite a bit. ANd I'm not going to spend that much to play a game when I could just pay $60 bucks and pop it in a console.

And this "superior" performance you need seem to covet is redundant, considering most modern consoles deliver an experience that would be considered well above satisfactory by most people. Graphical whoreing is a very petty way to measure games when it should be about gameplay and fun factor.

Platinumoxicity
4th Jun 2009, 23:57
See, GmanPro? Someone around here can make their point without accusing console gamers of being "retarded action junkies" like you have in the past. Isn't tolerance wonderful? Try it sometime, you might like it.

Unfortunately, game development does not work that way most of the time. The decision of which platforms the game will appear on is usually made before actual programing begins. If they are going to put it on a platform, it won't be done near the end of the development cycle.

Well then... Maybe they shouldn't do it? :nut: No, I mean that whatever they decide about porting it to consoles, none of these should be downgraded:

-Overall complexity of gameplay, audio/visual and control/gameplay customization and game interfaces.
-Size of levels, amount of textures and different character models

TDS had worse gameplay, missing control- and visual options, lame scrolling menus, small levels, recycled few textures and too few character models on the all-so-obvious "PC port"

kaekaelyn
4th Jun 2009, 23:58
I don't think they'll have to. The only thing I'm worried about are the controls. I want them to be precise.

MasterTaffer
4th Jun 2009, 23:59
Well then... Maybe they shouldn't do it? :nut: No, I mean that whatever they decide about porting it to consoles, none of these should be downgraded:

-Overall complexity of gameplay, audio/visual and control/gameplay customization and game interfaces.
-Size of levels, amount of textures and different character models

Fully agreed upon, my friend. Consoles of the current generation are more than up to the task on delivering within those stipulations.

Platinumoxicity
5th Jun 2009, 00:01
Fully agreed upon, my friend. Consoles of the current generation are more than up to the task on delivering within those stipulations.

Witness the proof in Fallout 3 on X360.

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 00:01
I don't think they'll have to. The only thing I'm worried about are the controls. I want them to be precise.

DItto. Even on the Xbox the controls were rather stiff in Deadly Shadows. Having been playing first person games on consoles for sometime, I know they are capable of much more fluid and precise movements.

GmanPro
5th Jun 2009, 00:04
MasterTaffer you are wrong if you believe that it costs $800 to $2000 to build a PC on par with a console. If you had constructed your rig to be equivalent to the specs of the 360 you would not need to buy more RAM or anything else.

Hypevosa
5th Jun 2009, 00:05
I distinctly remember paying 300 bucks for a video card that would support TDS when it came out, because I didn't buy the computer that costs 1200 bucks. Your average console is cheaper than your average computer that could support how pretty they like to make games now.

GmanPro
5th Jun 2009, 00:15
Its cheaper to build one solid PC than to buy both a console and a weak PC. Also, the extra money you spend on 360 games will add up over the three or four plus years that you use it.

Hardware costs have gone way down over the past two years. You should look into it. To build a PC today with the specs of a 360 or better wouldn't cost more than $400 or so. OS included.

Platinumoxicity
5th Jun 2009, 00:15
MasterTaffer you are wrong if you believe that it costs $800 to $2000 to build a PC on par with a console. If you had constructed your rig to be equivalent to the specs of the 360 you would not need to buy more RAM or anything else.

Now stop that already! A console is like a "Steam Train" (No reference to obsoleteness intended) -it takes you right where you wanted to go, straight ahead. It never breaks down and it works fine in years to come without the need of upgrades. A PC is a modular land vehicle. It can go straight ahead and maybe steer also, but if you want to go offroad, you need new tyres and suspension. You need floaters and a propeller to travel on water and you need radiation shielding and jet engines to go to space and you still need to install more parts to land on different planets. You need to infinitely keep up with the times, but on the way, you can do infinite number of things beside just going straight ahead where you wanted to go at first. It's expensive, but you don't need to buy a new vehicle every few years.

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 00:15
MasterTaffer you are wrong if you believe that it costs $800 to $2000 to build a PC on par with a console. If you had constructed your rig to be equivalent to the specs of the 360 you would not need to buy more RAM or anything else.

And you have the specs on my rig right infront of you?

Let me just search for the components my computer needs, because it currently chugs while playing Deadly Shadows, a game that was on the original Xbox. Keep in mind, I'm aiming for the best performance possible while staying on a reasonable budget.

New video card: $90
More RAM: $36
New Sound Card: $110 (Already pricier than an Xbox 360 Arcade)
Quad core processor: $200
Thief 4: Likely $50


Yeah, already way more expensive for someone who does constantly update their rig. You combine this with the work of installing these components, and I (And a ton of other people) would rather just buy a console and play it there.


Its cheaper to build one solid PC than to buy both a console and a weak PC. Also, the extra money you spend on 360 games will add up over the three or four plus years that you use it.

Hardware costs have gone way down over the past two years. You should look into it. To build a PC today with the specs of a 360 or better wouldn't cost more than $400 or so. OS included.

Which instantly makes it more expensive than buying a 360 and a copy of the game.

GmanPro
5th Jun 2009, 00:17
Oh wow. Your serious aren't you? $110 for a sound card? That's ridiculous. And to think that you need a quad core processor to play a game that will run on the dual core cpu of the 360 is also a joke.


Do your research a little bit better before you start throwing numbers around. I have.


It never breaks down

Are we ignoring the fact that the 360 is known for overheating and HD failures now?

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 00:19
Oh wow. Your serious aren't you? $110 for a sound card? That's ridiculous. And to think that you need a quad core processor to play a game that will run on the dual core cpu of the 360 is also a joke.

Do your research a little bit better before you start throwing numbers around. I have.

Are we ignoring the fact that the 360 is known for overheating and HD failures now?

If that "$400 360 equivilant PC" is your number, you've already proven yourself wrong. Not even the Elite model Xbox 360 costs $400 dollars anymore.

GmanPro
5th Jun 2009, 00:20
No I have not. For the 10 to 20 extra you spend on the games for the 360, that money will add up very quickly.

And don't forget that a PC does more than just play games. You get what you pay for.

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 00:23
No I have not. For the 10 to 20 extra you spend on the games for the 360, that money will add up very quickly.

And don't forget that a PC does more than just play games. You get what you pay for.

So you get your PC games for free? What, are you pirating them?

You havn't really looked into modern day consoles, have you? All 3 current generation consoles are equipped to do more that just play games. They possess web browsers, video services, chat periferals, and hell, the PS3 can run freaking Linex.

GmanPro
5th Jun 2009, 00:25
*Linux

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16874105652

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832130242

That's a $22 difference. For just one game. After two games you've already paid for your RAM.

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 00:29
*Linux

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16874105652

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832130242

That's a $22 difference. For just one game. After two games you've already paid for your RAM.

http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=65253

It's called shopping around. Suddenly the difference is only 5 dollars. Not to mention I don't have to deal with absurdities like DRM, installation and incompatability problems and installing new components to my rig. For that convienence, I gladly pay a little extra.

My good friend bought Bioshock for the PC, a game he was waiting for for a very long time. It was unplayable at launch for him. Meanwhile, I just put the disc in my 360 and played it from day one.

GmanPro
5th Jun 2009, 00:38
... That's the 360 version and a used 360 version

Here's the PC version: http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=65231

Not to mention that DRM is the result of console marketing. And installation problems? What now?

If you are content to throw your money away for nothing then fine. That cannot be helped. I tried to show you the light but you are too proud to see. I for one enjoy tinkering with my PC though I hardly get the chance to do it. I haven't made any changes in almost two years. Except for the occasional dust cleaning.

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 00:56
Well then, do your shopping in smarter areas. Gamestop is an advocate of the consoles dontcha know ;)
If I buy a coke at a baseball game it will cost me a lot extra as opposed to buying the same coke from a convenience store.

Which is why I don't buy food at a baseball game. Or even go to them, for that matter.


Not to mention that DRM is the result of console marketing.

And here I thought it was put in place to prevent piracy of PC games. Wow, I should have seen the elaborate, console conspiracy there. I'm so blind.


And installation problems? What now?

Read the Bioshock story in my last post. I regret I added it after the fact and apologize.


If you are content to throw your money away for nothing then fine. That cannot be helped. I tried to show you the light...

What's the light? "PC's are superior and those who don't game on them are barely developed pond scum?"


...but you are too proud to see.

Dramatic much? I don't dog people for liking one format over another. Owning a gmaing platform is not a goddamn religion. I will look down on someone who does. And since you've been deadset on labelling console gamers as simplistic, action addicted, twitching idiots (which you've done quite a bit in other threads), I pretty much do look down on you, kid.

I for one enjoy tinkering with my PC though I hardly get the chance to do it. I haven't made any changes in almost two years. Except for the occasional dust cleaning.

Good for you! I'm happy you enjoy doing that. I don't. And I've had my 360 going on 3 years now with no problems. The part of my arguement you refuse to acknowledge is that consoles are far more convienent and accessible for some people. Not to mention I can have my friends over and play without them lugging over PCs. They are not lesser people or gamers for enjoying convienence. Hell, I'm not the only one in this thread who made that point, but you chose to ignore them too.

GmanPro
5th Jun 2009, 01:10
I wasn't sure if you saw this or not so I'll repost it here:

... That's the 360 version and a used 360 version

Here's the PC version: http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/Prod...oduct_id=65231

___________

What was wrong with your friend's Bioshock? Care to elaborate?
___________


And here I thought it was put in place to prevent piracy of PC games. Wow, I should have seen the elaborate, console conspiracy there. I'm so blind.

Dramatic much?

It's a marketing ploy. People buy their consoles, their games, their controllers, their everything. All profits go to Microsoft.


_________

Oh and stop trying to twist my words to make it look like I am insulting all console gamers. No, I am merely insulting those who honestly believe that their console is cheaper/more convenient than a PC and make an effort to shout that at everyone. Because they are misinformed. And I feel that if these people really cared about saving money and convenience, then they should be made aware of the error of their ways. The smart ones will listen and be grateful .... some others wont...

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 01:41
I wasn't sure if you saw this or not so I'll repost it here:

... That's the 360 version and a used 360 version

Here's the PC version: http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/Prod...oduct_id=65231

Yeah, I saw it. And like I siad, I'll pay more for convienence.


What was wrong with your friend's Bioshock? Care to elaborate?

Bioshock doesn't support pixel shader 2.0b video cards, so he couldn't run the game on that account. He was also locked out of his copy due to using up his SecuROM spots on the disc, making it impossible to play a game he payed full money for. In the long run, he ended up buying it for the 360.


Dramatic much?

It's a marketing ploy. People buy their consoles, their games, their controllers, their everything. All profits go to Microsoft.

And how does that have to do anything with Digital Rights Management?


Oh and stop trying to twist my words to make it look like I am insulting all console gamers.
You just like generalizing them with phrases like:

THEY DON'T WANT TO TRY NEW THINGS!

If you can't see that, then you are ignorant or blind. Or both.


No, I am merely insulting those who honestly believe that their console is cheaper/more convenient than a PC and make an effort to shout that at everyone. Because it is simply not true.
So if someone finds a console more convienent, they are wrong and deserve insulting? Do you like immediately contradicting yourself or do you find it's something out of your control? You can't debate and give contructive criticism without insulting and looking down on people?

Look, I know you're fresh out of high school and think you're world savvy already, but let me tell you that maturity is an asset in this world, my friend. If you can't take criticism or opposing viewpoints without looking down on someone, you'll quickly find yourself alienated with nobody taking you seriously.

Nobody has all the right facts in this world, expecially not you or I. But you need to realize that you liking the PC platform does not make it's superiority an unmitigated fact. People have different preferences, which is why there are different types of games and platforms. What fits one person does not fit the next. Insulting someone for that fact makes you wrong, not that you like PCs and PC games.

I have friends that like Xbox 360, Wii, PS3, and PCs. I don't look down on any of them for that fact, that's just what they like. I'm not superior or infereior to anyone. But if anyone looks down on them for playing on any of them, they are a wonderous turd of a human being who needs to get over themselves.

In short, people have different tastes. Get the **** over it.

Hypevosa
5th Jun 2009, 01:48
Computer gaming: Large initial investment if you want it to last 2-4 years without upgrading, at least 2000 bucks, means prettier better games than consoles, often being around 10 dollars less for a high end game, but sometimes install DRM which can cause slow performance or frustration.

Console gaming: Smaller initial investment for a platform nearly guranteed (it's not in your warranty) to last 4 years as they attempt to develop another, ~300-600 bucks. Games aren't as pretty necessarily, or as good, and often cost around 10 dollars more than their equivalent PC games. Never have DRM, no installation, no maintenance, just pop in the disk and play.

Consoles in my opinion have the edge. I don't care so much for the prettiness so much as the gameplay, so really that value is 1 dollar per game to me. Increased game depth, that's the fault of the developer not the console if a game isn't as in depth, so I'm not including that in the price. Assuming the most dramatic differences in price I've posted, I'd have to purchase at least 128 games over a 4 year span for me to have the PC be worth my while (that's including the 1 dollar edge for being prettier). I've never had a PC maintain the same awesome performance for more than one year, while my xbox is much more reliable.

GmanPro
5th Jun 2009, 02:27
My arguments are not about tastes or preferences. I am targeting specifiably the argument that consoles are cheaper, when in reality they are not.


And how does that have to do anything with Digital Rights Management?

It got you to buy console over PC didn't it? It got you to spend that extra $10 - $20 per game


Computer gaming: Large initial investment if you want it to last 2-4 years without upgrading, at least 2000 bucks,

This is a flat lie. I have proven this point already.

You make it seem like PC's magically get worse or slower over time on their own.

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 02:31
My arguments are not about tastes or preferences. I am targeting specifiably the argument that consoles are cheaper, when in reality they are not.


No, I am merely insulting those who honestly believe that their console is cheaper/more convenient than a PC and make an effort to shout that at everyone. Because it is simply not true.
Backtrack much?

And consoles CAN be cheaper, depending on the situation of the individual. It's not a hardened fact like you are painting it.


It got you to buy console over PC didn't it? It got you to spend that extra $10 - $20 per game

I was buying consoles and console games prior to SecuROM for convienence purposes. It isn't a marketing onspiracy like you think it is.

And if the purpose of SecuROM is to convince people to buy the console versions, then why do they put it on PC exclusives like Spore and Sims 3?


This is a flat lie. I have proven this point already.

You make it seem like PC's magically get worse or slower over time on their own.

They don't. They are only percieved that way because software advances and becomes more taxing as time goes on.

GmanPro
5th Jun 2009, 02:35
People who own consoles for gaming also own a pc for simple computing. Owning both is more expensive than just owning one solid PC. So yeah, PC's will always be cheaper.

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 02:37
People who own consoles for gaming also own a pc for simple computing. Owning both is more expensive than just owning one solid PC. So yeah, PC's will always be cheaper.

Okay, let's hypotheticly say that's true. (Which it is sometimes, other times it isn't.)

If that's true, then why do you give a rat's ass if people pay more for consoles? Nobody is forcing YOU to purchase one.

GmanPro
5th Jun 2009, 02:51
I know, but like I said, I'd like to help those who genuinely care about getting the most product for their money.

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 02:55
I know, but like I said, I'd like to help those who genuinely care about getting the most product for their money.

"The most product" is subjective and differs from person to person.

BramblesMarlow
5th Jun 2009, 03:08
Agree with: Master Taffer. All of this garbage about how complex PC games are and how dumb console gamers are needs to stop. It's self-fellating nonsense.


Presumably, since Thief's fans are virtually all PC gamers, they would not make the game rely on a 360 peripheral.

That's because two thirds of them were on the PC. Looking Glass was a good studio, the games would have been good on any platform that could handle them.

GmanPro
5th Jun 2009, 03:09
"The most product" is subjective and differs from person to person.

I'm still going to offer my advice and people are free to take it or leave it as they please.

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 03:11
I'm still going to offer my advice and people are free to take it or leave it as they please.

Just don't look down and insult on people who disagree with your advice and we'll all be kosher.

GmanPro
5th Jun 2009, 03:15
And don't you look down or insult people either. If I came across as rude or abrasive its only out of a self-defense reaction in response to similar tones being taken up against me.

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 03:19
And don't you look down or insult people either. If I came across as rude or abrasive its only out of a self-defense reaction in response to similar tones being taken up against me.

This was all triggered by you ignorantly generalizing console gamers in another thread. Keep in mind the reaction that brings about and you won't have to defend your stances.

GmanPro
5th Jun 2009, 03:27
I wasn't doing anything ignorantly. I have provided ample objective proof why I believe what I believe. Now, I am trying to man up here and end this bickering but you insist on throwing names around further. Let this end.

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 03:32
I wasn't doing anything ignorantly. I have provided ample objective proof why I believe what I believe. Now, I am trying to man up here and end this bickering but you insist on throwing names around further. Let this end.

Your "proof" was utterly subjective. However I agree it should end. Watch your generalizations in the future and we can avoid prolonged disputes like these.

Hypevosa
5th Jun 2009, 03:50
stop speaking on the matter, both of you please.

Gman - if people want your oppinion on PC's vs consoles they'll ask for it. Those who give advice never sought are often held in contempt for doing so. Just keep your comments regarding consoles, their users, or PC's and their users, to yourself, we're here to talk about thief, and specifically in this thread how we don't want the game simplified.

Master taffer - I value your opinion as it often coincides with my own, but you're only fueling Gman's fire. He doesn't exude any real power over anyone, so there's no reason to have a conflict that lasts over an entire page of a thread with him! Leave him to his opinion and let him be loud, people will just remember his rudeness and ignore his points valid or not. He thwarts his own efforts with his lack of tact, let him be his own undoing.

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 03:52
stop speaking on the matter, both of you please.

Gman - if people want your oppinion on PC's vs consoles they'll ask for it. Those who give advice never sought are often held in contempt for doing so. Just keep your comments regarding consoles, their users, or PC's and their users, to yourself, we're here to talk about thief, and specifically in this thread how we don't want the game simplified.

Master taffer - I value your opinion as it often coincides with my own, but you're only fueling Gman's fire. He doesn't exude any real power over anyone, so there's no reason to have a conflict that lasts over an entire page of a thread with him! Leave him to his opinion and let him be loud, people will just remember his rudeness and ignore his points valid or not. He thwarts his own efforts with his lack of tact, let him be his own undoing.

Aye aye, sir.

kabatta
5th Jun 2009, 07:05
If the computer is built carefully by a person who knows a thing or two abouth hardware it can last to 5-6 years withouth making it impossible to play all the games. Consoles can be cool too, allthough I only saw how a game of tomb raider worked on the PS2 and I must say the loading time was excruciating long (don't know exactly why. people who own consoles must know better the mechanics)

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
5th Jun 2009, 07:53
I don't really care about consoles. I just don't want them to ruin this game. I've yet to see anything good come of consoles to the pc. In fact, I've lost all hope after seeing Oblivion, Bioshock, Fallout 3, Thief: Deadly Shadows, Call of Duty 2 and every CoD after, Unreal Tournament, etc... It would seem that whenever consoles get a hold of a pc franchise....it dies. To pc gamers anyway.

They always dumb down/change games for consoles. They don't have to, but they do. Not just gameplay mind you, the game itself has to be designed around the gamepad and people sitting across a room from their tv's. So they become less complex and wind up feeling clumsy on the pc. Hell, often times we don't even get to remap the controls when we get a console game on pc.

If they make thief 4 available on the console, I have to assume it will have all the crap that console games on the pc have. What they do to make it work on the console doesn't work well on the pc. It is so inconvenient. It's bad enough that we have to deal with steam and whatnot.

I don't think we will see Thief 4 realized as a good fully working pc game. It's going to follow the same lame trends we see in every console to pc port. I just know we are gonna get clumsy controls, inconvenient control setup, third party software, and a bad interface. Hey, at least we wont get dumbed down gameplay...I hope. ugh we'd get third party sofware anyway. God I hope Thief 4 doesn't require steam.

I'm sure somebody COULD make a decent game for the console and pc, but they don't want to. They give us the consolized version and expect us to deal with it.

I'm bitter as hell because it hasn't changed much since it began. A game on console comes to pc - it is always bad. Be it gameplay or technical issues it will always be bad. Thief 4, is going to be a great console game. It is going to be a terrible or perhaps just 'bad' pc game.

:whistle:

sorry if I went off. All this arguing got me riled up. I don't want them to think it's okay to give pc gamers a console game.

yay I edited it. I think it can fit through the door now.

MasterTaffer
5th Jun 2009, 08:03
...

My head hurts.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
5th Jun 2009, 08:36
Look at those words go. Stretching and expanding. Give my words a hug :friends:

lemme see if I can give it a hair cut.

tadaa. My post is happy because it's no longer obese. I have removed most rambling and examples. and expletives~!

Hypevosa
5th Jun 2009, 09:37
I don't really care about consoles. I just don't want them to ruin this game. I've yet to see anything good come of consoles to the pc. In fact, I've lost all hope after seeing Oblivion, Bioshock, Fallout 3, Thief: Deadly Shadows, Call of Duty 2 and every CoD after, Unreal Tournament, etc... It would seem that whenever consoles get a hold of a pc franchise....it dies. To pc gamers anyway.

They always dumb down/change games for consoles. They don't have to, but they do. Not just gameplay mind you, the game itself has to be designed around the gamepad and people sitting across a room from their tv's. So they become less complex and wind up feeling clumsy on the pc. Hell, often times we don't even get to remap the controls when we get a console game on pc.

If they make thief 4 available on the console, I have to assume it will have all the crap that console games on the pc have. What they do to make it work on the console doesn't work well on the pc. It is so inconvenient. It's bad enough that we have to deal with steam and whatnot.

I don't think we will see Thief 4 realized as a good fully working pc game. It's going to follow the same lame trends we see in every console to pc port. I just know we are gonna get clumsy controls, inconvenient control setup, third party software, and a bad interface. Hey, at least we wont get dumbed down gameplay...I hope. ugh we'd get third party sofware anyway. God I hope Thief 4 doesn't require steam.

I'm sure somebody COULD make a decent game for the console and pc, but they don't want to. They give us the consolized version and expect us to deal with it.

I'm bitter as hell because it hasn't changed much since it began. A game on console comes to pc - it is always bad. Be it gameplay or technical issues it will always be bad. Thief 4, is going to be a great console game. It is going to be a terrible or perhaps just 'bad' pc game.

:whistle:

sorry if I went off. All this arguing got me riled up. I don't want them to think it's okay to give pc gamers a console game.

yay I edited it. I think it can fit through the door now.

Well isn't thief a PC to Console port? Eidos is primarily a PC game company I thought, so primarily thief should be created for PC, perfected on PC, then converted to Console. If there are too many buttons, then oh well, the people on console lose out because it was a PC game to begin with.

However, what could fix the control problem might be project natal. No buttons=ultimate freedom for controls. Since it's an xbox peripheral it would probably be available for computers too meaning we wouldn't miss out. Considering how long it SHOULD take to make thief 4, I'm hoping it can actually make use of Natal, though all that sneaking would probably be hard on our backs... yikes...

esme
5th Jun 2009, 13:04
does anyone seriously think Eidos-Montreal are going to read through all the PC vs Console vitriol in this thread to extract any salient points that will affect the development of Thief4 ?

good points may have been made on both sides, but it's very hard work finding them and I'll guarantee I haven't spotted them all, so why should a developer bother ? why shouldn't they simply dismiss this thread as a flame war and move on to something else losing anything of value you guys may have said ?

so you disagree, it happens, don't take it to heart, state your case and leave out the rhetoric, then E-M may actually read your points and do something with them

clock12345
5th Jun 2009, 13:13
we should not have the same spirits of thief 1 - 3 we want it to be way better Make the game challenging Make it detailed and complex. Make it require intelligence and patience to play. The fans will love this because we get a game that is complexed with all of the games and one more new. make it harder not simple!!!

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
6th Jun 2009, 01:30
Well isn't thief a PC to Console port?
If Thief 1 and 2 were ported to consoles it's news to me! I don't think they were, but if they were I'd like to hear how they came out! TDS though? No way. Every facet of the game screams "I was made with the xbox in mind!"

I only quickly glanced at this 'natal' thing you mentioned a couple times. I should read more. I took a quick look and dismissed it as some sort of 'eye toy'. I've seen the games for 'eye toy', they were silly.


does anyone seriously think Eidos-Montreal are going to read through all the PC vs Console vitriol in this thread to extract any salient points that will affect the development of Thief4 ?

lol, NOOOO.

I don't even think they look at this board one bit. Viktoria keeps spouting stuff about making it easier for developers and what not, but I really don't think they read anything here. They are going to do what THEY want to do. Any poll or discussion we make has absolutely no meaning. Especially considering how many people participate. What? Are we going to expect them to care what a few hundred fans think? They'd be more interested in what most people who don't even know the game think.

I'd imagine that the only thing that might be interesting to them would be a poll totaling thousands and thousand of votes. Which we do not have. Really, why should they care what we think. We're nobody. We will buy the game anyway. Just pray that it's not as bad as TDS.

Also, if they really do check the board, there's no way in hell they read anything. We should stick to polls. That gets the point across at a glance.

Neb
6th Jun 2009, 01:45
I don't even think they look at this board one bit. Viktoria keeps spouting stuff about making it easier for developers and what not, but I really don't think they read anything here. They are going to do what THEY want to do. Any poll or discussion we make has absolutely no meaning. Especially considering how many people participate. What? Are we going to expect them to care what a few hundred fans think?

You'd be surprised actually. I've been on official forums for a number of different games in the past, and some of the suggestions seemed to make it into the final game.

I know that a few hundred people won't be pandered to, but they're a free source of ideas which can be easily stolen, and they usually do represent a chunk of the target audience.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
6th Jun 2009, 02:45
I hope you're right. Will be neat when the game is released to see if any ideas largely discussed here are seen in the game. I'll just think it's a coincidence though :hmm: It would have to be something very specific. Like the Garrett victory dance.

esme
6th Jun 2009, 16:41
well as I posted here (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1014180&postcount=150) thief fans aren't going to rush out and lay down £25-£30 en masse for a game just because it has the Thief title on it, all the TDP/TMA fans learned that lesson with TDS already, it's a good game in it's own right but many TDP/TMA fans don't think it's a good sequel and is lacking in key elements

a small section of the fan base will buy the game when it hits the shelves, try it and then post on every board they can find about whether they think it's any good, and thief fans are very particular about what makes a good game, the rest of the fans will hang fire until they see some positive reviews from players they respect the opinions of, and if they see bad reviews then it won't sell until it hits the bargain bins and maybe not even then

so it's really in E-M's interest to read this board and build the game for us if they want us to buy it, but they aren't going to wade through page after page of flame wars to find out what we want

of course if they just want to throw some generic product together and slap the Thief logo on it to make a quick buck they can do, but I'll pretty much guarantee sales will be so disappointing it will kill the franchise

AbysmalGale
6th Jun 2009, 18:39
Can't say the developers of TDS listened very much to the fans on the Thief 3 anticipation board. Let me give you some examples:

The fans did NOT want loading zones.
The fans did NOT want 3rd person.
The fans did NOT want small levels.
The fans did NOT want climbing gloves instead of rope/vine arrows.
The fans did NOT want re-spawning enemies.
The fans did NOT want a knife instead of the sword.
The fans did NOT want stupid AI's.
The fans did NOT want the cloak to disappear.
The fans did NOT want an easy game.

All this was included in TDS. Many of those stupid features were to attract console players. The XBOX couldn't handle too large levels, and the developers wanted to attract a wider range of players. Sad but true. The game got dumbed down!

MasterTaffer
6th Jun 2009, 18:59
Can't say the developers of TDS listened very much to the fans on the Thief 3 anticipation board. Let me give you some examples:

The fans did NOT want loading zones.
The fans did NOT want 3rd person.
The fans did NOT want small levels.
The fans did NOT want climbing gloves instead of rope/vine arrows.
The fans did NOT want re-spawning enemies.
The fans did NOT want a knife instead of the sword.
The fans did NOT want stupid AI's.
The fans did NOT want the cloak to disappear.
The fans did NOT want an easy game.

All this was included in TDS. Many of those stupid features were to attract console players. The XBOX couldn't handle too large levels, and the developers wanted to attract a wider range of players. Sad but true. The game got dumbed down!

I don't remember there being respawning enemies in the missions in Deadly Shadows. Did I miss something?

The first Xbox could handle a lot more than a lot of people give it credit for. I've seen plenty of huge and sprawling levels on that box over the years that featured gorgeous graphics and physics. The blame rests solely on Ion Storm Austin for those. If they implimented those featues to attract console gamers, then they are just as ignorant to the capabilities of the box and the tastes of console gamers as a lot of people around here are.

And while I will always agree that Deus Ex: Invisible War was dumbed down (which is hilarious tragic, as it was their own franchise), Deadly Shadows wasn't. It's still the same simplistic stealth game it was on the PCs, just poorly implimented by comparison.

Hypevosa
6th Jun 2009, 19:12
If Thief 1 and 2 were ported to consoles it's news to me! I don't think they were, but if they were I'd like to hear how they came out! TDS though? No way. Every facet of the game screams "I was made with the xbox in mind!"

I meant the series was originally PC, but TDS was a port to xbox. That was my argument was basically they should have made it with the PC in mind, THEN ported it to xbox.


I only quickly glanced at this 'natal' thing you mentioned a couple times. I should read more. I took a quick look and dismissed it as some sort of 'eye toy'. I've seen the games for 'eye toy', they were silly.

Natal is basically supposed to allow for NO controller. It doesn't turn you 2d and have you act 2d, it has 3 dimensional perception of your body, meaning distance from screen, where your arm and hand are relative to your feet. ETC. So if thief could be played with it, you'd crouch down and move your feet up and down to walk forward, put your hands down and move your head forward to look around a corner. Reach out and make a grabbing motion to swipe some treasure, etc. It could be really, really cool, and (like I said) would remove the need to worry about an xbox's controller having limited buttons. Like I said though, your back would probably hurt after a while from all that crouch sneaking.

Looking at it though, for first person games they'd probably want to have a headset with visuals too, to allow you to turn your head and move it without moving your body. Leaning around a corner and trying to look at your TV or computer at the same time would just be slightly difficult.

AbysmalGale
6th Jun 2009, 23:34
I don't remember there being respawning enemies in the missions in Deadly Shadows. Did I miss something?

Not in the real missions, but guards, pagans etc in The City respawned frequently, which was extremely annoying.



And while I will always agree that Deus Ex: Invisible War was dumbed down (which is hilarious tragic, as it was their own franchise), Deadly Shadows wasn't. It's still the same simplistic stealth game it was on the PCs, just poorly implimented by comparison.

I am comparing Deadly Shadows with Dark Project and Metal Age, not TDS for XBOX with TDS for PC. Deadly Shadows was definitely dumbed down compared to the earlier Thief games, merely to suit a wider range of gamers (with a lower portion of patience.) I think most old Thief fans would agree with me.

Judging by your arguments you were introduced to the Thief games through Deadly Shadows. Am I correct?

And about XBOX and large levels. I don't know what it can handle, but the ONLY excuse we got to the loading zones (as far as I remember) when we were discussing Thief 3 with the devs on the anticipation boards, back in 2004, was the limited XBOX capacity .

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
7th Jun 2009, 02:21
ah I see what you mean Hypevosa.

That natal thing sounds kinda clumsy and gimmicky to me. Don't get me wrong, I like that people are at least trying to move gaming forward to another level. I just see that thing as the xbox's way of grabbing some wii gamers. I own a wii and I feel I can rightfully say that the motion controls are half gimmick and half fun. They'd be more fun if they worked 100% of the time and you never feel like you're struggling with it. Also, they tend to feel 'tacked on'.

You really can't have a fully motion controlled game. Stepping in place to move around would be so annoying. I'm interested in talking about this for a sec. How do I let it know I want to look behind me or pan my view? TrackIR style?

It's weird to see Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft trying to one up each other with this tech. On the PC I've seen TrackIR, OCZ's NIA thing (sounds extremely cool if it worked right. I believe they are trying to improve it.), and that pathetic Falcon thing. I wonder how this will all turn out in 3-5 years. Either some humongous breakthrough changes the way we game or it all turns out to be one huge expensive gimmick that people will look back on and say,"I can't believe they tried that." My money is on OCZ's Neural Impulse Actuator. If they can make that work right. Wow man, wow.

The one motion device that I've actually seen improve gaming so far is TrackIR.

MasterTaffer
7th Jun 2009, 02:29
Not in the real missions, but guards, pagans etc in The City respawned frequently, which was extremely annoying.

I didn't have any beef with that, but to each their own. If it had been in the actual missions, then I'de be inclined to agree.


I am comparing Deadly Shadows with Dark Project and Metal Age, not TDS for XBOX with TDS for PC. Deadly Shadows was definitely dumbed down compared to the earlier Thief games, merely to suit a wider range of gamers (with a lower portion of patience.) I think most old Thief fans would agree with me.

If you could elaborate beyond calling it "dumbed down" then I'de understand your arguement better. As far as I can say from my 11 years of playing the franchise, Deadly Shadows is no more simple and easily played than the first two. It certainly is the weakest entry in the series, but the term "dumbed down" does not ring in my head while I play it.


Judging by your arguments you were introduced to the Thief games through Deadly Shadows. Am I correct?

I've been playing Thief since The Dark Project was released in 1998. So you would be incorrect.


And about XBOX and large levels. I don't know what it can handle, but the ONLY excuse we got to the loading zones (as far as I remember) when we were discussing Thief 3 with the devs on the anticipation boards, back in 2004, was the limited XBOX capacity .

Poor excuse on the dev's part, then. Considering other developers managed to go above and beyond Deadly Shadow's level quickly on the Xbox, it sounds like excuse making and dare I say scapegoating on the dev's part at this point. This is just renforced by the fact that Ion Storm does not have the best track record as a development company.,

Hypevosa
7th Jun 2009, 02:32
you'd probably turn your body slightly one direction and then turn straight again if you're using a TV. Like I said, to be fully integrated into FPS's it would probably need a headset that displayed what was on the TV. From the demo they showed it has alot of potential, all because of the fact it has that 3 dimensional capability. But, unfortunately, it might just turn into a gimmick or be downgraded until it's basically an eyetoy.

Originally the device they were using was created by another company (whose name I forget) and apparently their demo was good. The people played a fighting game and it was actually able to tell what they wanted to do very, very well. If Microsoft does it right, this could be the innovation that precedes things like the holo-deck from star-trek. If it's done poorly, it'll just be another camera...

custodis
7th Jun 2009, 12:47
Thief DS & Deus EX IW were both aimed at the mainstream console tards and look at how swell those games turned out.

Hell the way most devs are talking about their brand spanking new earth shattering ...products we should have redefined gaming with every new tittle that descended from the publisher heavens at least one hundred times over since Thief TDS en Deus Ex IW were released.

You can nitpick about it till you're blue in the face, but fact remains that the target audience for a game determines the gameplay and that, (gameplay) is something that most new games just lack!

my 5 cents.

MasterTaffer
7th Jun 2009, 16:41
Thief DS & Deus EX IW were both aimed at the mainstream console tar-

And I stopped reading right about here, because anything after has become completely irrelevant and a waste of my time.

Platinumoxicity
7th Jun 2009, 17:40
Master_Taffer seems to fear the words "dumbed down" because no-one is bored enough to elaborate, so I'll try.

Thief 2: Several points of entry, mission specific special objectives, highly detailed explanations of objectives, useless but interesting details, huge missions, lots of secrets.
TDS: 1 point of entry, 3 special loot items without a nice backstory, "shopping list" objectives, readables only contained mission hints or plot explanations for the slow people, small missions, no secrets.

Thief 2: Over 20 different useable items, also unique mission specific items, manually used keys, 56 keybindings, mouse sensitivity option, no-kill and also no-knockout objectives, target trailing missions, eavesdropping, casing the joint, one-screen mouse-oriented individual menus for all options with small text.
TDS: 6 different useable items, automatically used keys and mission specific items, 40 keybindings, no mouse sensitivity option, no restrictions in killing or knocking out, "steal", "steal", "steal", "read" and "pull lever" missions, scrolling gamepad-oriented makeshift menus with HUGE FONTS.

Those are all the points I can remember just out of the blue.

MasterTaffer
7th Jun 2009, 17:45
Master_Taffer seems to fear the words "dumbed down" because no-one is bored enough to elaborate, so I'll try.

Thief 2: Several points of entry, mission specific special objectives, highly detailed explanations of objectives, useless but interesting details, huge missions, lots of secrets.
TDS: 1 point of entry, 3 special loot items without a nice backstory, "shopping list" objectives, readables only contained mission hints or plot explanations for the slow people, small missions, no secrets.

Thief 2: Over 20 different useable items, also unique mission specific items, manually used keys, 56 keybindings, mouse sensitivity option, no-kill and also no-knockout objectives, target trailing missions, eavesdropping, casing the joint, one-screen mouse-oriented individual menus for all options with small text.
TDS: 6 different useable items, automatically used keys and mission specific items, 40 keybindings, no mouse sensitivity option, no restrictions in killing or knocking out, "steal", "steal", "steal", "read" and "pull lever" missions, scrolling gamepad-oriented makeshift menus with HUGE FONTS.

Those are all the points I can remember just out of the blue.


I consider a simpler control scheme "streamlining" more than "dumbing down." Thief doesn't require every button on the keyboard to be used, as it actually has a pretty simple control scheme to begin with. If Garrett was a fighter pilot or mechwarrior, then I'de be more inclined to agree.
Same thing with the manual keys complaint. I'de rather not have to scroll through my whole inventory to find the proper key. Hell, some fanmission makes have addressed this in Thief 2 fanmissions the the "keyring" idea, so obviously I'm not the only one who feels this way.
And I do recall seeing "no killing" restrictions. They were for non-combatants most of the time, but they were still there.
Oh, and there usually were more than one entry points in mission starting locations. The first level had 3 (Put the lion's head torch out, the window on the opposite side of the building, and sneaking in the front door.) Thief 2's first full level only has one point of entry (The side door Basso unlocks)
What the hell does "shopping list" objectives mean?
The lack of flavor text and creativity in periferal loot is a complaint of mine as well.


But thank you for elaborating, Platinumoxicity. :thumb:

I don't fear the term "dumbed down." I'de just rather someone explain their views rather than use a tired phrase. And I also don't like people aswsuming someone playing on a console requires something "dumbed down" for them to even have an inkling of understanding of its mechanics (especially since overly complex games like Metal Gear Solid sell like hotcakes on consoles...)

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
7th Jun 2009, 18:11
Yea there were other entry points that I can recall in some TDS missions. The missions were small though.

Mouse sensitivity was mentioned. In TDS my Garrett does spins like crazy and I barely move my mouse. I had to turn the sensitivity way down outside the game to be able to play well. They should have had a simple option in the game.


highly detailed explanations of objectives, useless but interesting details

The lack of flavor text and creativity in periferal loot is a complaint of mine as well.

WORD.

It wouldn't kill them to tell me what 'special loot' is or at least give me a hint that something of great value is there. Just 'special loot'. how boring.

MasterTaffer
7th Jun 2009, 18:15
Yea there were other entry points that I can recall in some TDS missions. The missions were small though.

Mouse sensitivity was mentioned. In TDS my Garrett does spins like crazy and I barely move my mouse. I had to turn the sensitivity way down outside the game to be able to play well. They should have had a simple option in the game.

WORD.

It wouldn't kill them to tell me what 'special loot' is or at least give me a hint that something of great value is there. Just 'special loot'. how boring.

I can agree with these points whole heartedly, as they are far less trivial than others.

Hypevosa
7th Jun 2009, 18:59
I may have to go buy thief for xbox because even my new rig can't play it... and I have a feeling it's because I have a dual core, but can only use one core to play it or it won't go past the intro movie :( le sigh... is there still a way to lean around corners on the xbox version? That's really my only concern

ToMegaTherion
7th Jun 2009, 19:10
Hypevosa, you may want to google for a way to force TDS to use only one processor, I had the same problem but fixed it, I'll take a look when I get a few more minutes to see how I did it.

Yaphy
7th Jun 2009, 19:16
I may have to go buy thief for xbox because even my new rig can't play it... and I have a feeling it's because I have a dual core, but can only use one core to play it or it won't go past the intro movie :( le sigh... is there still a way to lean around corners on the xbox version? That's really my only concern

You cant play Thief DS with dual core. You need to disable one core when you play, I think yuo can do it in the task manager. My friend had the same problem, but now it works just fine.

Hypevosa
7th Jun 2009, 19:39
no no no, that's not the problem... I'm disabling one of the processors, BUT because of that downgrade in performance my frame rates just drop to the floor. I have tried putting it on lowest resolution, lowest light thing, lowest shadow detail, etc etc, but it still will randomly drop to a really low number of frames. It's actually making me feel like I'm creeping when I'm actually running. >_> Just like I said, is there any way to lean in TDS for xbox? if so I might just go for that because I can't have it slowing me down like that artificially.

Platinumoxicity
7th Jun 2009, 19:45
I consider a simpler control scheme "streamlining" more than "dumbing down." Thief doesn't require every button on the keyboard to be used, as it actually has a pretty simple control scheme to begin with. If Garrett was a fighter pilot or mechwarrior, then I'de be more inclined to agree.
Same thing with the manual keys complaint. I'de rather not have to scroll through my whole inventory to find the proper key. Hell, some fanmission makes have addressed this in Thief 2 fanmissions the the "keyring" idea, so obviously I'm not the only one who feels this way.
And I do recall seeing "no killing" restrictions. They were for non-combatants most of the time, but they were still there.
Oh, and there usually were more than one entry points in mission starting locations. The first level had 3 (Put the lion's head torch out, the window on the opposite side of the building, and sneaking in the front door.) Thief 2's first full level only has one point of entry (The side door Basso unlocks)
What the hell does "shopping list" objectives mean?
The lack of flavor text and creativity in periferal loot is a complaint of mine as well.


But thank you for elaborating, Platinumoxicity. :thumb:

I don't fear the term "dumbed down." I'de just rather someone explain their views rather than use a tired phrase. And I also don't like people aswsuming someone playing on a console requires something "dumbed down" for them to even have an inkling of understanding of its mechanics (especially since overly complex games like Metal Gear Solid sell like hotcakes on consoles...)

-My point about the keybindings was just and example of simplification, not exactly negative, but an example of fixing that which wasn't broken. ;)

-Scrolling the keys was exciting at times when you had to get the right key before a guard comes too close, this happened to me many times. I don't see the problem. It also gave you an idea about which key is used in what part of the building. TDS just had "one key" that opened all doors, it felt too easy.

-No killing means NO KILLING. People are equal. The guards have families too.

-The different entry points in TDS were all about 5 meters apart from eachother and you could see all of them while standing at one point. And the linear training mission in T2 doesn't really count.

-T1 and T2 always had a nice piece of background information about every special objective and special item you were supposed to steal. TDS had a shopping list.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
7th Jun 2009, 20:10
Hypevosa,d-pad is used to lean around corners in xbox version. I'm curious as to what specs your pc is running.

Also, when you say 'randomly drop to low frames' does that imply that normally the frames are fine? Are you measuring them? What kind of average do you get? Does this always happen at particular scenes or is it truly random? There are a lot of things you could look into. How about fragmentation on your drive? Have you defragged lately? Got any antivirus software running while you game? How about other processes?

Unless you're using ancient parts, TDS should at least be playable on lowest settings. Otherwise your computer just needs a little tlc.
I believe the min requirements for TDS are;
-1.5 GHz CPU
-256 MB RAM
-64 MB video card RAM
-4X CD-ROM drive
-DirectX 9.0b
-3.0 GB available hard disk space
-Windows XP (WIN)

edit. and recommened requirements aren't too harsh either.
Intel Pentium IV 2.0 GHz (or AMD Athlon XP equivalent)
128 MB video memory, Direct3D 9.0, and Pixel Shader 1.1
512mb ram
^^^pretty sure that's right.

Just saying, there's a lot of stuff you can look into before you give up (assuming you haven't looked into everything already). And if you go to xbox you wont have minimalist project:(

MasterTaffer
7th Jun 2009, 20:25
-My point about the keybindings was just and example of simplification, not exactly negative, but an example of fixing that which wasn't broken. ;)

Simplifying something that is already convoluted a bit isn't what I'de call "fixing", but to each their own good buddy.


-Scrolling the keys was exciting at times when you had to get the right key before a guard comes too close, this happened to me many times. I don't see the problem. It also gave you an idea about which key is used in what part of the building. TDS just had "one key" that opened all doors, it felt too easy.

I never scrolled through keys while standing in the open, so for me it was just tedious. I honestly don't know where these "pick/open door before guard comes back" moments were int he original Thief games, and I've played fully through them both atleast 20 times each. I guess I'm just more cautious than others.


-No killing means NO KILLING. People are equal. The guards have families too.

I'll have to check, but I think "no killing guards" was later in the game. Still, should ahve been earlier in the game. I guess I didn't care because I made it my own personal rule not to kill any humans in that game. Don't need the game telling me what I can't do.


-The different entry points in TDS were all about 5 meters apart from eachother and you could see all of them while standing at one point. And the linear training mission in T2 doesn't really count.

I wouldn't call the first mission in Thief 2 "linear" at all. There's one way in, but once you're outside you can go about it whatever way you see fit. The Keeper training and the Inn mission from DS are linear training levels. There are quite a few maps that have limited entry points in Thief 1 and 2: Bafford's Manor (2), Cragscleft (1), Bonehoard (1), Thieves's Guild (2), The Sword (2), Lost City (1), Undercover (2, one not designed), Strange Bedfellows (same as before), Running Interference (1), Framed (1 safe entrence).

Besides, the stuff I do on the inside of the mission area is what truly matters to me.


-T1 and T2 always had a nice piece of background information about every special objective and special item you were supposed to steal. TDS had a shopping list.

Ah. Then yes, I agree with that. I made a list of objectives for Lord Rutherford's Manor in another thread that would have been infinately better:


Rutherford Manor


Find a way into the Rutherford family vault to gain access to the Opal.
You're infiltrating the manor to swipe the Bloodline Opal, don't leave without it.
Lord Julian at the Inn mentioned Lord Ember had another Rutherford Medallion. A matched set will be twice as profitable.
Lord Arlek painted a portrait of Mortimer the Mad for the Rutherfords many years ago and would be valued by an Arlek collector. (Hard Only)
The Captain of the guard recently won a Gilded Helm in a competition that should be worth a pretty penny, take it.(Expert Only)
The Rutherfords are one of the oldest and richest of the noble families. They likely have many trinkests worth stealing. Steal atleast 2,500 in loot.
You're a thief, not a murderer. Don't kill anyone.
When you're done, leave by the front gate.


There, done. It just takes a bit of effort.

Hypevosa
7th Jun 2009, 20:29
Hypevosa,d-pad is used to lean around corners in xbox version. I'm curious as to what specs your pc is running.

Also, when you say 'randomly drop to low frames' does that imply that normally the frames are fine? Are you measuring them? What kind of average do you get? Does this always happen at particular scenes or is it truly random? There are a lot of things you could look into. How about fragmentation on your drive? Have you defragged lately? Got any antivirus software running while you game? How about other processes?

Unless you're using ancient parts, TDS should at least be playable on lowest settings. Otherwise your computer just needs a little tlc.
I believe the min requirements for TDS are;
-1.5 GHz CPU
-256 MB RAM
-64 MB video card RAM
-4X CD-ROM drive
-DirectX 9.0b
-3.0 GB available hard disk space
-Windows XP (WIN)

edit. and recommened requirements aren't too harsh either.
Intel Pentium IV 2.0 GHz (or AMD Athlon XP equivalent)
128 MB video memory, Direct3D 9.0, and Pixel Shader 1.1
512mb ram
^^^pretty sure that's right.

Just saying, there's a lot of stuff you can look into before you give up (assuming you haven't looked into everything already). And if you go to xbox you wont have minimalist project:(

I have 1.9 GHz dual core, does that mean each is 1.9 or that their total is 1.9?

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
7th Jun 2009, 20:36
each core is clocked with the full speed. So yes, each core is 1.9.

Generally, I've noticed that when it comes to gaming, if you meet some basic specs in proc, mem, etc. the biggest difference will come from your video card. I thought GTA 4 performed god awful on my comp. It's actually much better now that I replaced my x1900xt with a simple 8800gs. Everything else is the same and it ran terribly with my x1900xt.

Going from a single to dual core improved my experience in Oblvion. Going from 1 gig to 2 improved my experience in Battlefield 2. After getting a dual core and 2 gigs of ram everything else has been about my video card.

Hypevosa
7th Jun 2009, 20:44
Video card is an ATI Radeon Xpress 1250, don't know the specs on that thing, but I'm on a laptop... don't suspect it's that great.

Zahr Dalsk
7th Jun 2009, 21:08
Well I've come back to find the thread tossed way off-topic, but anyways, the final point is, Thief DS was probably meant to appeal to more casual gamers, but this is a bad idea because casuals won't like that sort of thing anyways. Better to make a TDP/TMA styled game and focus on sales to your actual customer base than to keep driving customers away.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
7th Jun 2009, 21:27
Yeah, sorry about that. I carried on in pm. Check your box Hypevosa. Take as long as you want with those suggestions and let me know if you ever get TDS working good.

esme
7th Jun 2009, 21:28
minor detail but it is possible to go in through the gate & front door in T2's first mission, you need to get the guards to come to you and steal their keys

it's a lot easier going through the side door

but I do take the point TDP & TMA were both very linear in places, generally the larger the level the more choice there was but there were always pinch points where your options were limited

nydusordos
8th Jun 2009, 00:10
Appeal to the existing player base and to other people with similar preferences (ie, for a good game, not easy simple next-gen trash) because these are going to make up the majority of customers for a Thief game either way, and you don't want to alienate them.

I seriously doubt Edios is going to take your advice on this. Given that the universally respected company behind Thief, Thief 2, System Shock 2 (considered by many to be some of the best games ever made) went bankrupt, no reasonable executive is going to doll out cash to a team that aims solely to please a "fan base" that wasn't sufficient to keep that company in business.

The best we can hope for is a game, like Deadly Shadows, that tries to find a middle ground between attracting new fans and keeping old ones happy. However, considering Ion Storm went out of business too, we might be in line for an even bigger departure.

- Ordos

Zahr Dalsk
8th Jun 2009, 00:26
I seriously doubt Edios is going to take your advice on this. Given that the universally respected company behind Thief, Thief 2, System Shock 2 (considered by many to be some of the best games ever made) went bankrupt, no reasonable executive is going to doll out cash to a team that aims solely to please a "fan base" that wasn't sufficient to keep that company in business.

So did Ion Storm, though, as you said yourself, so I'd say it's more like developing a Thief game at all is a risk :P

MasterTaffer
8th Jun 2009, 00:31
Looking Glass Studios was a victim of financing loss because of the money Eidos invested in Ion Storm's greatest blunder, Daikatana. Ion Storm closed due to their own incompetance.


Ion Storm Inc. (sometimes spelled ION Storm) was a Texas based developer of computer games founded by John Romero, a co-creator of the Doom franchise; Tom Hall; Todd Porter, and Jerry O'Flaherty, under the slogan "Design is Law". At the time it was founded, long before releasing a single title, it was an instant fan and industry darling for its collection of talent and promise of blockbuster games. Ultimately, Ion Storm never lived up to its hype, creating instead several famous missteps, late releases, and internal political turmoil.

It had less to do with Thief: Deadly Shadows, and more to do with their own crappy track record. They were not a good game company and what errors were made in Deadly Shadows rests firmly on their shoulders, no one else's.

nydusordos
8th Jun 2009, 00:39
Looking Glass Studios was a victim of financing loss because of the money Eidos invested in Ion Storm's greatest blunder, Daikatana. Ion Storm closed due to their own incompetance.

I agree with the latter part (if Deus Ex II was any indication, then Ion Storm deserved to close), however I think we are forgetting some spectacular financial failures of Looking Glass. Their most popular games were the Thief and System Shock series, but they had a list of other critically acclaimed titles (e.g. Terra Nova) that were HUGE financial flops.

If Ion Storm closed because it failed to live up to expectations, Looking Glass Studios failed because they constantly exceeded expectations (in terms of quality) at considerable financial expense. They also sufferred from bad timing, each of their revenue generating games was released in a year where a more mainstream revolutionary title was released (e.g. System Shock 2 the same year Halflife). They won the acclaim, but failed to compete with these titles in terms of mainstream appeal.

- NO

MasterTaffer
8th Jun 2009, 00:41
I agree with the latter part (if Deus Ex II was any indication, the Ion Storm deserved to close), however I think we are forgetting the some spectacular financial failures of Looking Glass. Their most popular games were the Thief and System Shock series, but they had a list of other critically acclaimed titles (e.g. Terra Nova) that were HUGE financial flops.

- NO

Which is why when Eidos needed to invest in Daikatana, Looking Glass ended up on the chopping block. The fact that Daikatana was the game Eidos invested in over Looking Glass Studios is the biggest insult to injury.

And it's truly pathetic that Ion Storm made such a ****ty sequel to Deus Ex, considering they were the makers of the first game.

nydusordos
8th Jun 2009, 00:47
And it's truly pathetic that Ion Storm made such a ****ty sequel to Deas Ex, considering they were the makers of the first game.

Not every company has the financial resources of Valve. Which essentially after Halflife 1 could afford to publish their own games and take their sweet time in developing a sequel (restarting development several times when the Design Leads declared the product to be unworthy of the original).

However, even given the limitations of the game engine, they made some design decisions that really irritated me, most of which served to dumb down the game significantly. And Thief fans complain about the climbing gloves! Fine, I didn't like those but they were tolerable!

- NO

Crypto
8th Jun 2009, 00:50
I'm late on this, but regardless of the controversial minutiae of the original post, this may be the single most important thread on this forum. Eidos Montreal developers, bookmark this page right now.

ToMegaTherion
8th Jun 2009, 09:12
To those wishing to change the special loot objectives in a more flavourful way: I see what you are trying to do, but you do realise that your proposed changes are not actually just flavour but would change the way the game works: forcing the player to find a particular special loot on lower difficulties rather than any they want, and telling them what the loot is rather than have them find out themselves.

Not that I care too much as long as there isn't another bloody Silver Fire Poker to deal with...

esme
8th Jun 2009, 11:11
my reasoning for thinking it's in Eidos-Montreal's interest to develop a game we like goes a little like this

Thief The Dark project was released and people loved the stealth aspect of the game, became fans, "if you can play Thief other FPS games get easy" was the thought and I certainly found it to be a true one, the game developed a following

Thief The Metal Age was released a few years later and the fans devoured it wholesale, it was an improvement on the original with extra features, word of mouth introduced new fans, the editors for both games allowed fan made missions and we ended up with a fan base that lasted several years thinking that that was it on the development front, that there would be no more Thief games released, yet it showed no signs of slowing down or failing, indeed it was inspiring new fan made developments like The Dark Mod

then Thief Deadly shadows was released, it was a good game but the existing fans were almost universally disappointed, key elements were missing, it felt clunky compared to it's predecessors, it seemed to emphasise killing and confrontation over stealth, it was something generic, thrown together to make money rather than be a good sequel to the series, it was a good game but it wasn't thief in a lot of minds

so as the early fan base have been bitten once I rather think they are going to be cautious over the release of Thief 4 and if it doesn't come up to their expectations they won't be buying it, going off the extremely limited statistics from http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=89520 that's well over half their target market gone in a stroke

so the question is not "are they going to listen to us" it's more "can they afford not to"

wimmy
8th Jun 2009, 16:34
I played the original three Thief games on the PC. I loved the first two and wanted to like the third one despite its many flaws. After years of avoiding consoles I finally picked up an Xbox 360 last year because I finally accept that PC games of the same complexity can now be played on that platform.

Fallout 3 is a prime example - it has sufficient complexity and depth to keep me hooked for months and the controller now feels like second nature even after years of using a keyboard and mouse. Fallout 3 is also superior to the first two Fallout games no matter what anyone says - the originals were buggy as hell and they had limited replay value. Visually they also were far too limited.

For me there is a simple test:

Could Thief 1 and Thief 2 be played on the Xbox 360?

The answer is resoundingly yes. There is nothing in the console makeup that prevents it from running "good" games.

PC or console is now a matter of preference, nothing more. Beyond the odd RTS with more keyboard shortcuts than common sense dictates the console platform is just as capable as the PC. Its up to the game developers how much complexity they want to build into the game design - just ask Bethesda.

So how about giving the developers the benefit of the doubt? I never expected to see another Thief game as none of the three originals were commercially much of a success.

Why not concentrate on the fact that we'll actually get another Thief game after presuming the franchise to be dead? I'll just be happy to play it, regardless of what platform it is on.

nydusordos
8th Jun 2009, 23:00
Fallout 3 is also superior to the first two Fallout games no matter what anyone says - the originals were buggy as hell and they had limited replay value. Visually they also were far too limited.

Sacrilege!!!! :) Did you play Fallout 1 and 2 when they came out? I'm sure Fallout 3 will be "visually limited" in 10 years. Better graphics doesn't equate to a better game.

Fallout 1 and 2 were FAR larger games, had FAR more sandbox value, were MUCH more complex interms of the RPG element, and were FAR less linear than Fallout 3.

They all sold VERY well, they all got VERY good reviews. Fallout 3 was a decent adaptation of the Fallout universe to a FPS style interface, and I enjoyed it, but it was not in any way shape or form "BETTER/SUPERIOR" to the original games.


For me there is a simple test:

Could Thief 1 and Thief 2 be played on the Xbox 360?

The answer is resoundingly yes. There is nothing in the console makeup that prevents it from running "good" games.

I agree that a console game can be a decent game, but I think the problem a lot of us PC traditionalists have is that games generally (not always) have to have their complexity (graphically and gamewise) curtailed to be played on a console. The limitations of TDS stem almost entirely from the decision to develop it for the console in tandum to the PC version.


PC or console is now a matter of preference, nothing more. Beyond the odd RTS with more keyboard shortcuts than common sense dictates the console platform is just as capable as the PC. Its up to the game developers how much complexity they want to build into the game design - just ask Bethesda.

Again, Fallout 3 is not as complex a game as Fallout 1 and 2. Less RPG elements, shorter game, with more linear gameplay. As for the graphics, Bethesda did a VERY good job at scaling up the graphic capabilities for the PC version.

PC games, whether you like it or not, have superior graphic capabilities than consoles. There is a reason a top-of-the-line graphics card costs MORE than any of the current consoles and that all of the games that redefine the standard in graphics come out on the PC first.


So how about giving the developers the benefit of the doubt? I never expected to see another Thief game as none of the three originals were commercially much of a success.

Why not concentrate on the fact that we'll actually get another Thief game after presuming the franchise to be dead? I'll just be happy to play it, regardless of what platform it is on.

Agreed.

- NO

MasterTaffer
8th Jun 2009, 23:50
The most important factor of a game is its fun factor. It's a GAME after all. Hell, I was playing Pitfall last night on my Atari flashback and having a blast. And that's just pixels and a joystick with 1 button.

Graphics, complexity, story, and all this periferal nonsense is secondary to fun factor. Metal Gear Solid 4 is complex, has a long story, and has gorgeous graphics. But taff it all if I'm not struggleing through it right now. it jsut isn't fun to play. Fun to watch, certainly, but dear god it isn't a fun game.

Was Deadly Shadows fun for me? Yes. Are console games fun? Yes. Are PC games fun? Yes.

Who gives a flying rat's ass who has more buttons to press better graphics? If I'm having fun, then I certainly don't. They can certainly enhance an experience for some people, but won't necessarily make it fun for others. I myself feel that having a keyboard full of 56 buttons for a first person game about moving slowly from one shadow to another is absurdly too much. It can be done EASILY on a console controller.

As for graphics, if they look good they look good. I don't need a game to look like goddamn Cryses to look gorgeous and neither does anyone else.


So how about giving the developers the benefit of the doubt? I never expected to see another Thief game as none of the three originals were commercially much of a success.

Why not concentrate on the fact that we'll actually get another Thief game after presuming the franchise to be dead? I'll just be happy to play it, regardless of what platform it is on.

Agreed as well.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
9th Jun 2009, 00:17
Fallout 3 is a prime example - it has sufficient complexity and depth to keep me hooked for months and the controller now feels like second nature even after years of using a keyboard and mouse. Fallout 3 is also superior to the first two Fallout games no matter what anyone says - the originals were buggy as hell and they had limited replay value. Visually they also were far too limited.

All hope is lost.

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 00:21
All hope is lost.

Lost to fun! :D

citywolfdreams
9th Jun 2009, 05:31
I agree with you about the oversimplification. Thief: Deadly Shadows was a disgrace, in large part because it tried to appeal to a console audience. That resulted in fancy graphics - but also those split-level loading screens that we all know and loathe.

That said, I wouldn't mind Thief 4 being on a console as well. The developers just have to recognize that Thief fans don't CARE about graphics as long as we get challenging, expansive missions. If the focus of their efforts is upon making a game with nice graphics, this sequel will be an epic fail.

wimmy
9th Jun 2009, 10:50
Sacrilege!!!! :) Did you play Fallout 1 and 2 when they came out? I'm sure Fallout 3 will be "visually limited" in 10 years. Better graphics doesn't equate to a better game.

Fallout 1 and 2 were FAR larger games, had FAR more sandbox value, were MUCH more complex interms of the RPG element, and were FAR less linear than Fallout 3.

They all sold VERY well, they all got VERY good reviews. Fallout 3 was a decent adaptation of the Fallout universe to a FPS style interface, and I enjoyed it, but it was not in any way shape or form "BETTER/SUPERIOR" to the original games.

I did play the original Fallout games "back in the day" :) I did love the originals but IMO they were far more linear and far shorter than F3 - a game I've now been playing on and off for more than six months! I'd encourage you to go back and give F3 another chance - just ignore the main storyline and you'll find tonnes of unique content that add depth to the Fallout universe. I agree better visuals don't make a better game but F3 by far has the most content of any game I've ever played since the days of the old C64! Except maybe Mercenary or Damocles (and now I'm showing my age, but I really wish someone would rewrite them).



I agree that a console game can be a decent game, but I think the problem a lot of us PC traditionalists have is that games generally (not always) have to have their complexity (graphically and gamewise) curtailed to be played on a console. The limitations of TDS stem almost entirely from the decision to develop it for the console in tandum to the PC version.

Historically yes consoles have encouraged games with less depth - however IMO that has now changed with the latest console generation. As for TDS I totally agree - I remember reading the Ion Storm post mortem and spending far too many hours on the TTLG forums...TDS tried to appeal to every audience and ended up satisfying no-one. However I still thank that was the fault of the designers, not the platform.



PC games, whether you like it or not, have superior graphic capabilities than consoles. There is a reason a top-of-the-line graphics card costs MORE than any of the current consoles and that all of the games that redefine the standard in graphics come out on the PC first.

Again no argument, PC graphics hardware is superior - but for most people hooking their PC up to a 42 inch HD flatscreen in the living room is a chore. Also trying to use a keyboard and mouse on a comfy couch is a nightmare! :) Add to that the old constant upgrade issue, driver issues and general suckiness of Windows and it can take some of the fun out of the gaming experience.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
9th Jun 2009, 14:08
Again no argument, PC graphics hardware is superior - but for most people hooking their PC up to a 42 inch HD flatscreen in the living room is a chore. Also trying to use a keyboard and mouse on a comfy couch is a nightmare! :) Add to that the old constant upgrade issue, driver issues and general suckiness of Windows and it can take some of the fun out of the gaming experience.

Sometimes the last argument is something like "well I just prefer laying on my comfortable couch, holding a controller." Well guess what, you can do that with a pc too.

I don't see why that would be a chore. It should be no different than moving your console to the tv and plugging it in.:scratch: Now controlling your computer in a 'living room' environment, you could just put the keyboard and mouse on the coffee table. Don't have one? wtf man. I've seen people get along just fine with little 'table' they set on their lap with compact mouse and keyboard. And it goes without saying that you can play your games with any of a huge selection of controllers. You wont have to use a keyboard and mouse all the time. Also, there are wireless kboard/mouse (Dinovo keyboards are great) to make things more elegant. Heck, you can even use a pointer mouse to control that pc. I've never gamed with one though, wonder how well it would work...

Other issues? Have trouble seeing it? Bump up the DPI and make icons/text/whatever bigger. You can also simplify the interface with Widgets for whatever you like. PC too heavy/big? Maybe you should get a smaller lightweight case. Too loud? get some quieter cooling. Hate cd tray? Get a slot loader. Really there's a lot of customization that can go into a pc. It's not the plain clumsy machine that a lot of people make it out to be. If you use an xbox controller and xboxlive it's almost the same experience.

Constant upgrades? How constant? You really don't need to upgrade that often if you make a solid machine to begin with. It's usually enough to just buy a new video card after some years. Doesn't even have to be a high end one for an improvement. Also, prices drop really fast. If you're just a little patient you can have the great stuff for far less.

Driver issues? Not sure what I can say about that. Some devices have crappy drivers and sometimes a certain driver can cause certain problems. Generally though, I can't say that pc's have 'driver issues'. Maybe when 64 bit OS' came out, but that's much better now.

As for general suckiness of Windows? I have to assume you are talking about Windows ME or an un-tweaked Vista. Vista isn't that bad when you get rid of some of it's more annoying features. Number one thing people seem to hate is the UAC. Perhaps it shouldn't be on by default. It really is annoying. You might have a nag about some incompatible software or how you might wish there was a way to do this or that, but generally speaking, I don't think Windows is sucky.

I wouldn't have bothered with this post if it wasn't for that ignorant statement. I could understand if it's just you, but you make it sounds like all users would have that trouble. Just leave it at "I like console better because it's easier for me" and I'll be fine. There are plenty of people who use their pc's on their large living room tv's while sitting on their couch. It's not hard.

Zahr Dalsk
9th Jun 2009, 16:39
Also trying to use a keyboard and mouse on a comfy couch is a nightmare!

Get a comfortable chair? I run both my computer and my 360 on the same HDTV (and I got one with a 66 cm screen so that I could use it as a monitor) and I use both of them sitting in my chair, which is soft but firm and is a swivel chair as well. Because I sit at regular monitor distance from my screen, I actually get a better image than someone using a large TV from across the room.


Add to that the old constant upgrade issue

I've had my current computer for three or four years now without upgrading it at all and it runs every game perfectly, including Crysis.


driver issues

Only with older games like Thief: The Dark Project, Thief 2: The Metal Age, Nox, etc.


and general suckiness of Windows

Whut? Maybe vista, but I use Windows XP Professional SP2 and I've never had a problem with it, ever, in four years. But my 360 did get the Red Ring Of Death, and also caused scratching on my GoW2 and Halo 3 discs. So much of consoles being more reliable and easy to use than PCs :)

hellwalker
10th Jun 2009, 08:54
That's another thing. Out of all the stealth based franchises ont he market today, Thief is actually one of the most simplistic and accessable of them all. I love Splinter Cell, but learning all the moves, gadgets and mechanics of that game can take awhile. Hitman also has so many things going on in it, that it takes some dedication to get those Silent Assassin ratings. ANd don't get me started on Metal Gear Solid. Thief, out of all of them, is the easiest to pick up and play. It's the most simplistic, accessible, and CASUAL stealth games on the market.

Some people act like console gamers are so rabid and bloodthirsty that stealth is a concept beyond their comprehension.

thats just ridiculous. All other stealth action games are liner. and thats the end of it.
Splinter Cell is more of a puzzle game then stealth, you enter room with only one possible "stealth route". Even supposed open endedness of later games was laughable next to what thief games have to offer.
Both Metal Gear and Splinter cell are "Timing Based" liner stealth games, and that in my oh not so humble an opinion is not Stealth. Its dumbed down version of it for masses to grasp.

The sheer volume of freedom in Thief games is what makes it best and most challenging stealth experience. You have to rely on your senses, use tactics, Improvise, FIGURE OUT objectives and solutions on YOUR OWN, develop your own style, and most importantly its has open ended gameplay. Freedom and need for creative thinking is what differentiates Art of deception from "Guessing and Timing" gameplay.

I agree with you that generalization is lame, and there are many intelligent Console gamers as well as many retarded PC gamers, but you have to be blind not to have noticed the trend to "dumb down" PC games everytime it gets ported to Console. They simplify PC-ish parts and every Consol-ish part introduced in game is already past the point it can further be simplified. Mini games for example, while 0.01% of them are acceptable at best, minigames like in Fahrenheit: Indigo prophecy are just plain mockery of players intelligence.

And console games in general are simpler intellectwise than pc games. Taking your Metal gear for example:

Thief Players: have to listen and observe guards reaction to guess their alert level and have to find their own way to escape their notice.
Meta Gear Players: have to wait for Giant ! or ? to appear above their heads to determine their alert level, then run to developer scripted hiding spots and watch onscreen timer to learn the EXACT time guard will stop their pathetic excuse of searching the player, and then return to fully reset level, with guards acting as though you were never noticed.

MasterTaffer
10th Jun 2009, 09:01
Out of curiousity, how much of Splinter Cell have you played? I'm guessing you played the first and maybe the second game and didn't bother with Chaos Theory.

hellwalker
10th Jun 2009, 09:14
first and chaos theory. and as I said..

Even supposed open endedness of later games was laughable next to what thief games have to offer.
[the reason I returned to series after disappointing first game, was reading review of chaos theory and more open ended gameplay it supposedly had. while the improvements were certainly there, it felt more like choice between several different railroad paths then freedom.]

Ubisoft just doesn't get how open ended works, look at Assassin's Creed, Prince of persia[ghost of time],

Caranfin
10th Jun 2009, 11:14
Metal Gear Players: have to wait for Giant ! or ? to appear above their heads to determine their alert level
Yeah, man. The exclamation and question marks are obviously there so the intellectwise simple console players understand they've been seen. And can you believe the idiots actually think it's a viable strategy to hide in a cardboard box!? :rolleyes:

wimmy
10th Jun 2009, 13:54
I wouldn't have bothered with this post if it wasn't for that ignorant statement. I could understand if it's just you, but you make it sounds like all users would have that trouble. Just leave it at "I like console better because it's easier for me" and I'll be fine. There are plenty of people who use their pc's on their large living room tv's while sitting on their couch. It's not hard.

Ignorant statement? Hardly. I just have a different opinion from you and I can debate issues without resorting to insults or condescension. I was rather enjoying debating said issues with nydusordos until you came along with your petty little rant.

Why you took my post as an attack on the PC as a gaming platform is the real WTF. If there was something you wanted to respond to you should have responded in a civil manner.

We get it - you don't like consoles. Now here's the funny thing about having an opinion - you are entitled to one but having one doesn't make you right.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
10th Jun 2009, 14:54
I wish I could apologize, but I can't. I see nothing wrong with my post. If you didn't say "most people" I probably wouldn't have called you ignorant. After seeing "most people" I figured I had to respond to the other parts.

I only played the first Splinter Cell, but I hated it enough to never try the series again. I enjoyed the great Metal Gear game on the psx, but I wouldn't really call it a good stealth game. Just a good game.

I do enjoy the Tenchu series. Even though they are pretty bad stealth games, the first Tenchu was kind of like my first stealth-type game. The most recent one seems to have tried to expand the concept of stealth based gameplay. They finally added shadows of sorts. It's a step forward for them.:hmm:

I don't think I've seen anything that did stealth gameplay as well as the Thief games did. And that includes TDS.

PiCroft
10th Jun 2009, 17:06
tbh as long as the levels are non-linear mammoths like in the first two, and at least retains the sneaking aspect of the first two, any additions are gravy as long as they don't detract from the story.

In principle the game isn't that complex; but then I think the reason why people are afraid is that it might end up less like Garret and more like Altair, which is where Thief stops being Thief.

Also, as a matter of course, PLEASE add lots of flavour text. Thief won't be thief without flavour text. Half the reason the levels were so immersiove is because the levels actually felt tlike people were living there - letters and memos and diaries and reports and stuff all made the levels much more "alive".

With this in mind, I don't particularly care if it comes out on consoles - I certainly won't be buying it for one, epecially if it is first-person.

Edit: to qualify my last statement, it isn't a feeling that consoles are beneath me, but I just don't feel comfortable with the idea of playing thief on anything but mouse and keyboard.

DarthEnder
10th Jun 2009, 17:33
My PC is hooked up to my HD TV.

MasterTaffer
10th Jun 2009, 21:04
I didn't reply in length last night because it was 4 in the ******* morning, so I'll do it here.

First of all, I am not a Metal Gear Solid fan, I was using it as an example. So refering to it as "your Metal Gear" is quite funny. It's a convolutedly complicated mess in every aspect of itself. If Hideo Kojima would hire a goddamn editor for his script, the game series would benefit and drasticly improve from it. I have a couple friends who adore the game series, and I understand their reasons for they do. It's just not my cup of tea. (The boss fight against The End in MGS3 was one of the most satisfying gaming experiences I've had, however.)

Linearity has become an industry curse word, and in all honesty I don't know why it has. There is nothing bad about a linear experience. Some games benefit from it and some don't. A game being linear does not and will never make it bad by default. Thief's massive, non linear levels work very well, so establishing linearity in the series is a poor idea. It does have some linear levels/moments in it, however (beginning of Lost City, Into the Maw of Chaos, and mission where you follow someone through the City, Trail of Blood). But other games benefit from it as it gives them direction that they would otherwise lack without it.

I actually consider Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory to be the best game I have ever played, which is quite a feat as it toppled Thief: The Dark Project's 7 year reign in that spot. I'm a political suspense fan, and Chaos Theory's winding story just sucked me in like a whore on shore leave. Let me go and do a side by side comparison, and please note that this is MY PERSONAL OPINION.

Story: Being a fan of political thrillers, Chaos Theory wins this one for me.


*Thief: The Dark Project - A quality story in a fantasy realm involving theft and betrayal with a fantastic twist near the end.

*Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - A political military thriller about information terrorism that has more twists and turns than Chubby Checker in a blender...

Protagonist: Sorry, but I like Sam more than Garrett. Since he has people in his ear to interact with, it allows him to flesh out his charecter a bit more and put his wit on display than the ever solitary Garrett.


*Thief - A cynical, jaded, sarcastic rogue voice by Stephen Russell.

*Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - A cynical, jaded, sarcastic rogue voiced by Michael Ironside.

Stealth Gameplay: Splinter Cell's is more fleshed out that Thief's with the addition of masking sound alone. Visual stelath basicly works the exact same, made more challenging in Chaos Theory as the guards actually go on alert when lights and equipment malfunction


*Thief - Based on light and shadow, measured by a light gem. It's possible to snuff out some light sources in the level to hide more efficiently, guards at most react with a comment about the torch going out. Footfalls make noticable sound sbased on what surface you are walking on.

*Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - Based on light and shadow, measured by a meter linked to photosensitive sensors on Sam's suit. It's possible to shoot out lights or temorarily deactivate them and other electronics with OCP, however guards will take notice of broken or seemingly malfunctioning lights and act accordingly. Footfalls are made noticable based on speed at which Sam moves, and he may mask his footfalls based on other noises in the environment, like machinery or thunder.

Enemies: Chaos Theory's guards are smarter and more proactive than Thief's, reacting to broken lights appropriately instead of ignoring them, and searching shadows and hiding places competantly.


*Thief - Varying species of opponents ranging from humans to talking monkeys, but on a base level can all be snuck around the same way. Give audio cues to their initial alert status, then a visual cues when they are actively searching. Will search the area they heard/saw an intrusion for a few moments then return to their patrol. WHen found, reaction differs depending on the type of foe, but all try to "kill they ass." When knocked unconcious, other guards assume they are dead.

*Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - Human opponents. Have alert statuses triggered from seeing/hearing the player and other disturbances, open doors, broken lights, and activated devices in the environment. When alerted, they give audio cues and will search the initial area of the alert, then surrounding shadows and hiding spots, often light a flare or using a flashlight to check shadows. When intruder is found, once again, "kill they ass!" If an unconcious body is found, they will wake the guard then trigger the alarm, making hiding bodies properly more important.

Levels: As much as I like Thief's non-linear levels, they exist as such predominantly for the purpose of loot searching, which can get tedious at times. Chaos Theory's levels, while a little mor elinear, have a more clear focus and thus don't feel like grinding as much as Thief can for me.


*Thief - Majority of the levels are large, non-linear in fashion. Encourage massive exploration by hiding loot within the level, though finding all of it can often be tedious. Often feature traps involving pressure plates, Mechanist security cameras, turrets and magic triggers. Some areas require 3 dimensional thinking.

*Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - Features loosely linear levels in that there is usually a set destination, however there are usually multiple routes to that destination giving freedom to deal with situations as the player chooses. Forced combat sections no longer exist in Chaos Theory. Levels feature cameras and laser trip wires as traps. Levels encourage exploration with optional objects that help to inprove one's rating at the end of the level. Largely 3 dimensional thinking is highly encouraged.

Equipment: Both games have perfect equipment for their gameplay, and I call this one a tie.


*Thief - Sword/dagger, blackjack, bow featuring a wide array of arrows for many situations. Garrett also uses mines, flashbombs, and various fantasy based potions.

*Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - Knife which can be used as a tool in the level, hand to hand techniques, pistol featuring an OCP (Emp that knocks out electronics temporarily), rifle capable of firing wide array of gadgets, from gas grenades to cameras, flashbangs, wall mines, uses first aid kits in level for injuries.

Ratings: I like that Splinter Cell gives a success rating, otherwise there's no real preference.


*Thief - Stats screen for the level

*Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory - Stats screen after the level, plus a success percentage based on the stats. 100% rating given to people who ghost the level and complete all objectives.

Combined with these aspects is Splinter Cell's great "Spies vs. Mercenaries" multiplayer that I've been enjoying since Pandorra Tomorrow, as well as the Coop campaign featuring six completely unique levels designed around two unique player charecters cooperating together featuring a story interwoven but largely independant from the singleplayer campaign. It even adds to the immersion that guards can audibly hear players talking to each other, so they must whisper to one another or be heard.

It's honestly the tightest package I've ever played and will always belong on my shelf. I also consider it a deeper experince than Thief, and often requires more 3 dimensional thinking and lacks the tedious grinding that looting often ends up being for me. I appreciate its loose level design, as it can have more focus.

Gameplay wise, it requires tactics to be well thought out while giving the player freedom to judge the best course of action within the game's perameters. While killing is allowed unless said otherwise, the success rating at the end of the level obviously frowns upon it. The guards and enemies int he game also have more fleshed out responses in the level, and cooperate more with one another than in all three Thief games, and will search the environment far more thoroughly.

The stealth system takes what Thief did well and expands upon it with the added sound meter, allowing the player to use sounds in the environment to mask their movements. It also allows more three dimensional movement that Thief with Sam's agile movements. Am I saying Garrett should move like Sam Fisher? No. One of Thief's strengths is the simplicity in its design. Its non-linear levels are huge and sprawling, which is another strength. The loot grind can often get tedious for me, as I get obsessive and compulsive about my stats page.

But linearity is not something that instantly labels a game flawed. And it also is not a a sign of simplicity. Thief is simple in that it doesn't have much to its stealth mechanics beyond the core concept, but that core concept is polished to a mirror sheen. Chaos Theory has a more complex system, but still maintains a high level of glossy polish in comparison to other stealth titles and still leaves tactics and choice up to the player. Simplicity is one of the things that makes Thief great, and calling it simple is not a bad thing.

kaekaelyn
10th Jun 2009, 22:23
I also love Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and in many ways it reminds me of what I love best about Thief. Thief could stand to borrow some aspects from Chaos Theory, at least AI-wise. (I would never want to see them become essentially the same game, however. When Thief grows, I want it, for the most part, to grow in its own direction, away from other franchises.) Chaos Theory is proof that consoles do have some of the most intellectually stimulating, complex games out there.

And I definitely didn't get a "railroad track" feeling from it.

MasterTaffer
10th Jun 2009, 22:25
I also love Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and in many ways it reminds me of what I love best about Thief. Thief could stand to borrow some aspects from Chaos Theory, at least AI-wise. (I would never want to see them become essentially the same game, however. When Thief grows, I want it, for the most part, to grow in its own direction, away from other franchises.) Chaos Theory is proof that consoles do have some of the most intellectually stimulating, complex games out there.

And I definitely didn't get a "railroad track" feeling from it.

Me either.:)

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
11th Jun 2009, 01:19
You made 'Chaos Theory' sound interesting. I might check it out:)

I noticed there's another one after it called 'Double Agent'. Is that any good?

Caranfin
11th Jun 2009, 01:43
Wall of text
I agree on loud sounds masking your own being a good possible addition to Thief, but I'm not sure about needing a sound meter for that. I also like the persistent alert levels in Splinter Cell as a punishment for screwing up. I don't agree with you on the tediousness of loot searching, the plot, or the character, but that's personal preference I guess.

My biggest issue with Chaos Theory was that the levels made me feel like I was just choosing from specific pathways the map designers had set for me. For some reason Thief rarely felt like that. I also prefer first person over SC's third, but that's a minor thing.

And I don't remember about CT, but at least the guards in the original SC were absolutely preposterous in how they instantly knew where I was when they were alerted. I remember this one time when I had set up a trap for a patrolling guard by removing the IFF from an automated turret. Then I went to hiding on the other side of the room. The guard came in, the turret fired at me, and the guard instantly turned and shot me even though I was perfectly hidden and nowhere near where he was getting shot at from.

hellwalker
11th Jun 2009, 02:51
@Master Taffer

please note that this is MY PERSONAL OPINION.
that sums it up, I can not argue with any points except to say I disagree with many. they are presented as personal preferences and I can't argue about what you prefer most :lol:

I don't like military themes, or anything Tom Clancy has written for that matter[based on his games]. I never liked story much in any "Tom Clancy" titled games so I prefer Thief story.

and quoting post above

I don't agree with you on the tediousness of loot searching, the plot, or the character, but that's personal preference I guess.
Thief never felt like this. Do you like any other Open ended exploration based game? some PC-RPG-s perhaps? [Fallout, Tes, Gothic etc]

and choosing several linear paths instead of true open ended did feel like design flaw to me.
Both Thief and Hitman are better games when it comes to choices and freedom in my opinion.

And I do think linerity makes Stealth easy as hell and more tedious. when you enter a room and there is only several predefined paths you can silently sneak through the level. they just don't allow you to spot and explore the level and have fun the way you want.

oh and if you miss that "timing spot" where guards are in a position you can take the stealth route, waiting for your next chance is just :mad2: I'll say nothing about several places in splinter cell 1 where ghosting was only possible if rushed though room the moment you entered it, leaving whole room and all the PC-s in it unexplored.

"Beat the game" approach rather then "Enjoy the game" approach just is not stealth for me. I want stealth to feel like art, like the Garrett feels about it. and this is only possible if there is a freedom left to player to find their own, not predefined solutions.

MasterTaffer
11th Jun 2009, 03:08
You made 'Chaos Theory' sound interesting. I might check it out:)

I noticed there's another one after it called 'Double Agent'. Is that any good?

The PC/Current Console Gen Double Agent is good, but not as good as Chaos Theory. They do feature these very interesting missions where you covertly act as a double agent within a terrorist cell and do missions for the NSA while keeping your cover. They are very unique and I thought they worked well. Sort of like the Undercover TDP mission if it had more mechanics and polish. The lack of coop kind of hurt it for me, and the current gen's story is a little thinner compared to the Xbox and PS2's version's story.

I do highly recommend Chaos Theory. If you don't like it, fine fine. But if you do, hey, new game to enjoy. What have you got to lose? There's a particularly fun mission where Sam infiltrates and robs a bank to cover up a physical information intrusion. You even plant e-mails on various computers ot make it look like an inside job.

MasterTaffer
11th Jun 2009, 03:11
"Beat the game" approach rather then "Enjoy the game" approach just is not stealth for me.

I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive, but if you don't like the series you don't like it.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
11th Jun 2009, 03:25
I don't like military themes, or anything Tom Clancy has written for that matter[based on his games]. I never liked story much in any "Tom Clancy" titled games so I prefer Thief story.

Agreed.

Anybody unfamiliar with this kinda stuff? Try the Tom Clancy Plot Generator
http://tcpgen.tripod.com/

hellwalker
11th Jun 2009, 03:45
I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive, but if you don't like the series you don't like it.

as long as game lets me play the way I want... That is a must for stealth action.

I can live with linerity in Prince of Persia, Legacy of Kain or Tomb Raider. it even compliments this games.

But in stealth? hell no!

and I almost forgot what was the original argument. Liner games are easier and less complex then Open ended ones, having to figure out stuff on your own requieres more tactic's then guessing what path developers had in mind, and more gadgets are hardly enough to tip the scales. You can easily beat splinter cell without them. [maybe thats just me, I always preferred skill to gadgets]

So the fact that ALL console stealth actions are liner and the fact that liner games are easier and more casual proves my point. :rolleyes:

you can call it my personal preference, but give players basic tools and drop them into the game to figure stuff on their own is delivers more complex, rewarding and enjoyable experience then "guess what solution developer had in mind" kind off mass oriented approach.

this depends on the genre of course, for example monkey island 2 open endedness was more pain in the ass then rewarding experience. Adventure games and "guess what liner solution developer had in mind" puzzles work well together.

ToMegaTherion
11th Jun 2009, 08:42
Personally I would consider being in a situation where you can do whatever you want and see what happens and it might work, to be more casual than a situation where you have to work out what you're meant to do and then do it.

Caranfin
11th Jun 2009, 10:59
So the fact that ALL console stealth actions are liner and the fact that liner games are easier and more casual proves my point.
You mentioned Hitman favourably in your last post. You do know that every Hitman game after Codename 47 has been released for consoles as well as the PC?

hellwalker
11th Jun 2009, 13:09
Personally I would consider being in a situation where you can do whatever you want and see what happens and it might work, to be more casual than a situation where you have to work out what you're meant to do and then do it.

figuring out the solution is easier with liner games. because there is only one thing you can do.

whats easier to play Racing game or Open ended RPG?


You mentioned Hitman favourably in your last post. You do know that every Hitman game after Codename 47 has been released for consoles as well as the PC?

so are all silent hill series on PC, does it make SH PC game?
Hitman is a PC baby

MasterTaffer
11th Jun 2009, 22:03
figuring out the solution is easier with liner games. because there is only one thing you can do.

If that's the case, then by your definition, Chaos Theory is not linear as there's multiple ways to deal with a situation and it ultimately is the full discretion of the player how to deal with something.

But you obviously feel the game is too linear for your tastes, so I won't argue that. I disagree with you, that's as far as it really goes.