PDA

View Full Version : A personal opinion. If the shoe fits...



theBlackman
8th Jun 2009, 23:42
From what I'm seeing it seems that the bulk of you don't like THIEF as it was conceived and produced.

You (non-specific you) seem to be the people who use "Cheat codes" to complete the games you play or "Walkthroughs" so you don't have to think about the mechanics of playing "the game".

You seem to want the solutions handed to you on a platter, and if not that, then want the game to give you "Tools" that make it so easy that you can "fake" it.

I suspect that you would use "Cliff Notes" for your classes to avoid the personal responsibility of reading or studying an assignment and "Thinking" about it. If you can read.

You seem to want "Instant gratification", "Upgrades" that make no sense in the context of the game. Holler for "Reality" when, in fact, THIEF has none. You want to "Change" the game to "Improve" it, when the truth is if you see it that way YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!

Get over it and if you've not done so. Play the original games with the idea of PLAYING the game instead of "I BEAT THE GAME". In reality all you do with that attitude is BEAT YOURSELF, and completely miss the aspects of the THIEF games that make them outstanding, even after 11 years.

As I said. If this applies to you wear the shoe. If not, then ignore it.

imported_van_HellSing
8th Jun 2009, 23:48
Even if I don't agree with everything, we need more moderators like theBlackman. Character, not political corectness and smileys everywhere.

Nate
8th Jun 2009, 23:50
Awesome job in pointing out the diff between winning the game and experiencing the world of Garrett!

I get that a bit of that is directed towards my 'desire' for greater 'realism'. But my recent posts have toned down as I am coming back to what you've just said.

Hypevosa
8th Jun 2009, 23:52
I can't help but be reminded of the Chris Farley sketch due to the number of quotes he used

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/chris-farley/videos/1636608

Not to say the post is comical, or anything.

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 00:12
I can't help but be reminded of the Chris Farley sketch due to the number of quotes he used

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/chris-farley/videos/1636608

Not to say the post is comical, or anything.


S'Okay, Hype, you have a valid point. But quoting entire lines from a hundred posts is a bit much. So... quoting the key words will have to substitute.

Nate, no, not directed at you. You are definitely not alone in pandering that object. But face it THIEF IS NOT REALITY and will/should never be. :)

The Smilie is just for you.VH

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 00:17
Awww shucks, thanks man!

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 00:20
Devoting time and developing skill towards a game is the only way to truly beat it, agreed. Developers intend to make a challenging and fun experience for people to play, and if you find something you don't like about it it isn't your place to make demands. Either play it and have fun or don't play it at all if you're not.

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 00:21
Yeah it would be alot of work.

So where would you have the thief series go? I know at least a good deal of the post pandered to me... I've always been just someone who comes up with ideas. But what would you do for thief 4? Would you really just make it exactly like thief 1 and 2? Games should never betray their key mechanics, stealth being the most important in thief, but normally developers at least try to come up with new things for the game to have, outside of a few new items (like arrows and potions).

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 00:24
ALmost any developer in the industry will tell you that people who rely on old mechanics exclusively tend to die in this industry. Games that remain exactly the same tend to get stale quickly. I'm not going to name names, but a good example's initials are "Tomb Raider."

LightWarriorK
9th Jun 2009, 00:38
Probably one of the most honest and frank threads I've seen in a while. Well said. :thumb:

I take it the "Cheat Codes" bit is aimed at the "Ctrl+Alt+Shift+End" thread? If so, your opinion seems to be the same as mine, theBlackman.

Personally, all of the "who are you to tell me how to play the game?" posts sound suspiciously like "I don't wanna play the game as it was intended and you can't make me!" Cue rolling around the floor in a tantrum that the ghosts are too scary, or the loot is too hard to find, or the electric lights can't be turned off, or there are too many guards in this one spot, etc. It's funny that most of these people are probably playing the game on Expert and think that it being too difficult isn't their fault.

I'd say that as long as EM doesn't pander to the folk you refer to in the OP, Thief 4 will be a good game.

I really have no sympathy or respect for anyone who thinks they should have any glory of success (in Thief, or otherwise) without earning it.


Devoting time and developing skill towards a game is the only way to truly beat it, agreed. Developers intend to make a challenging and fun experience for people to play, and if you find something you don't like about it it isn't your place to make demands. Either play it and have fun or don't play it at all if you're not.

This is usually where the "I paid money for it, I have every right to complain!" argument comes in.

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 00:46
Well, while theBlackman didn't spell out everything on his mind, you can tell a lot from what he did post. He was pretty clear that he didn't like concepts 'upgrades', 'cheats' and 'power ups'...at least not for a Thief game.

As far as 'realism' goes, he was pretty clear that Thief ISN'T about realism....that's not to say he doesn't want difficulty settings, or game options limiting how much equipment Garrett is able to carry. But it almost certainly means he doesn't want to see game concepts like loot encumbrance penalties, guards waking up, or Garrett dealing with arthritis in his old age.

In the post he made today about TDS, he was clear that it was a fun game about thieving...but was not really in the Thief spirit. Interestingly, he posted that he thought the TDS story was okay (many thought it was really good). This 'probably' means he REALLY wants a great AND immersive storyline for Thi4f (which is a very good thing). It probably also means he prefers to focus on making amazing mission levels before putting work into a city hub....if he wants a city hub at all (the comments about TDS not being a Thief game, makes me suspect he isn't all that hot for the city hub concept...but I could be wrong about that) Let's face it, the hub might be a lot of work better spent elsewhere.

Anyway, I can extrapolate more from what he's posted so far...but the chance of error starts becoming significant = not comfortable doing that.

jtr7
9th Jun 2009, 00:46
\o/



Oh, and most games do repeat the same mechanics from game to game, across the FPS board, not just sequels--specifically, the very mechanics we are trying to keep out of Thief.



Don't bend and break the game to fit your tastes. Play another game, or find FMs you like.


Some of the changes being called for are like making it Official to allow the use of hands in Soccer, or to allow kicking in Basketball--but that the players can CHOOSE not to use this new feature!

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 00:47
The reason I created the thread was the fact that it's one of the things that the old games came with, and nearly everyone says the old games are far superior to the new one. However, TDS doesn't offer any easy cheats like this (that I know of, haven't researched it)... now the originals are remnants of a time where nearly all games had cheats, but I still wanted to highlight whether or not it was sometime we actually wanted from the old games. I tried to show in the post it actually has some more valid uses than just an invisibility cheat. When the game first came out, I wasn't mature enough of a gamer to actually sit and play through it, I just wanted the story. So when I found it out, I just used the cheat to watch all the movies and didn't play all the way through. Years later I've developed what was necessary to play... more patience. And so I went through and it was alot more fun than just watching all the cut scenes.

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 01:13
LightWarriorK

You could not be further from the truth. The sequence you mention is not to get you through a problem.

It has many more uses than letting you Skip a difficult mission. And it also handicaps you. If you use it you have no loot to buy tools with.

Most people use it to advance to replay a particular mission without having to play the 5 or 6 previous missions. Or editing the CFG.

As for what I want in the upcoming thief:
The various city divisions were interesting, but using load portals that FROZE everything on the other side when you left was a poor system. I realize that there is little that can be done about that. It was also a gift to the console players at the expense of the PC gamers.

Unless a DOOM or UNREAL type gate is used, a large city "hub" is impractical, and for my part the "you cannot go back" that results from the Doom/Unreal system sucks.

The original mission maps offered the player uncounted options and decisions that made you (the player) seriously consider the consequences of a choice, but did, in the main, give you an out if you were smart enough to find it.

What I would like would be the atmosphere, free movement, and spine-tingling immersion of the original missions. I know there will be changes. But as long as the story (past, future, inbetween in Garrett's carreer makes no difference to me), has a continuity between missions I don't care if it's just after he leaves the Keepers, between confrontation with Karras, or after Soulforge and before TDS.

The time in Garrett's history is of no consequence. The three weeks (plus or minus) that currently encompass the games -TDP-TMA-TDS- are not the possible sum total of Garrett's life. So the so-called THI4F could be any time period at all and would not offend me if it did not attempt to go beyond the final scene in TDS.

Ignoring Graphics (they don't need to be HD movie quality), the original games, equipment, handicaps were perfectly implemented. If the new game even comes close to the quality of the originals I will be happy. I won't be happy if it is crapped up with a super graphic presentation that approximates TDS and utilizes the "Hub-Portal" and "Faction" idiocy.

You could spend hours in one mission in the originals. You could re-examine every cobblestone in the street if you wished, you could go back for that last niggling coin if you were hyper about 100 loot. As long as you held back one objective you could wander the streets of any mission until you had a beard down to your knees. You could tease the guards for hours.

In other words, you controlled the game play. The game play did not control you.

But, to the point of pointless redundancy, the original conceptual factors, equipment, and learn as you go, aspects of the game should not be tweaked or simplified.

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 01:33
LightWarriorK

You could not be further from the truth. The sequence you mention is not to get you through a problem.

It has many more uses than letting you Skip a difficult mission. And it also handicaps you. If you use it you have no loot to buy tools with.

Most people use it to advance to replay a particular mission without having to play the 5 or 6 previous missions. Or editing the CFG.

Exactly... See, that's why for all 3 games I've been setting up saves right before the end of the previous level. That way I don't have to use the cheat to get to a level, I can just go to the save from the prior one. That way I have cash as well. :D I devoted my quicksave in TMA though to that argument between the lady van vernon's guards and lord wiley's... it's hillarious :D

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 01:36
I've always liked to play my missions where I am only allowed a save at the start....not asking for a cookie or bragging or asking Thi4f only allow saves outside missions, just saying I like to impose the extra challenge on myself. It makes tense moments even more tense..hehe.

Myth
9th Jun 2009, 01:38
Dear lord believe me when i say this, i was just about to make a similar, but much rantier thread! theBlackman i agree with you yet again, and i could care less weather you are a moderator or not. You are a true fan of the series and have the old games in your blood.

I personally became a bit disgusted with some of the posters here - too many kids with their minds twisted by other half-arsed titles like Asssasin's Creed, yelling and yipping, feeling insecure and shunned by the rest of us who truly love the old games. TDS this, third person that, Garret leveling up... Unfortunately they are too many and have too much time on their hands (hence they respond to every single thread here), and their voices are heard.

To everyone who is offended by my post - go cry me a river. Nothing you can say will change my opinion. You are brats and you don't get the Thief games.

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 01:41
"Truly love the old games."

...Wow. Had no idea that someone who liked TDS was incapable of liking the old games as well. Why doesn't someone tell me these things sooner?

Oh, and calling people "brats" is a class move.

nydusordos
9th Jun 2009, 01:49
ALmost any developer in the industry will tell you that people who rely on old mechanics exclusively tend to die in this industry. Games that remain exactly the same tend to get stale quickly. I'm not going to name names, but a good example's initials are "Tomb Raider."

Agreed, games do have to evolve. Like, I'd gladly play Thief 4 if it was made with the old Dark Engine, but part of me realizes that would be a total financial failure and the end of the Thief Universe.

I'm not happy with some of the changes in DS for example, and I'm sure Thi4f will have it's own little stupid changes, but I don't let a little thing here or there turn me off what can otherwise a decent game.

Don't let good be the enemy of perfection, or you are in for a life of disappointment.

- NO

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 01:50
Well Myth might not have been as diplomatic as he could have been, but his point still stands.

There are a lot of fans here who are looking for Thi4f to be something more like AC (with 3rd view), or D&D or GTA4 (with the city hub)....none of which is Thief or Garrett.

There is also quite a bit of argument over realism (guards waking up, encumbrance, sword vs dagger, carry capacity, loot gleam), that could easily diminish Thi4f's fun factor if embraced or poorly implemented by the devs.

So there really is a danger.

jtr7
9th Jun 2009, 01:52
A lot of times, the cheats are leftovers left in from the devs and playtesters need to test things without having to play up to the point they wanted to experiment with. As a deconstructionist, I use the editors to drop me in where I need to be, but before I could use the editors, I relied on cheats, and that had nothing to do with playing the game, and I won't lie or delude myself or others that it would be INCORRECT and IMPROPER to say I played the game having used a cheat. I broke the rules, and won't obfuscate the fact of it. I also don't flaunt arrogance and say "I played it the way I wanted to, as is my right!" Nearly every modification deviates from what Thief is and how it was designed to be played, and no one should feel they have the right to ignore that without consequence, when a simple admittance will suffice.

It was five years before I played Thief properly, but even then, I was spoilered to the point I was effectively cheating in my foreknowledge. Having played someone else's copies of TDP and TMA (starting with TMA before he purchased TDP), and having limited time, I used a walkthrough for TMA, because the day when I would have to leave Thief behind was coming, and it was so cool, and I wasn't going to sabotage my chance to experience the whole story. I didn't rely heavily on the walkthrough, but used it when I didn't have time to get lost or turned around. It was on a friend's computer, in his home. Fortunately, the walkthrough was inaccurate and even with the walkthrough I did have that unmatched first-timer experience. And when I was done with TMA, I had to play TDP (didn't know about Gold, yet), and that led me to TTLG. My friend bought TDP and I played it without a walkthrough, and again, had that unmatched first-timer experience, but I did get lost and turned around in Bonehoard and Lost City, heh heh. If it wasn't for the fact that my friend liked Thief, too, I never would've played TDP.

Then for over five years I only had memories and TTLG, and copies of the texts, maps, and conversations (untranscribed) to enjoy, as well as the crude beginnings of my comprehensive Names List, but only sporadically, since I still didn't have my own computer for most of it. I played TDS without a walkthrough, but again, I was spoilered, since it had been two years since TDS had been released when I finally got my own system and copies of all four games (TDP & Gold).

Having screwed myself of the ULTIMATE Thief experience, never to be, I still find the games perpetually fascinating, and do not advocate cheating first without a noble cause.

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 02:00
D&D or GTA4 (with the city hub)....none of which is Thief or Garrett.

I'm sorry but I think that whether or not there is a city hub is probably the smallest issue when it comes to what's Thief or Garrett.

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 02:09
Errr, I meant that there are some who would like the hub to have a bigger chunk of the game than the actual storyline and its missions. That is one of the threats I was referring to.

Is that clearer?

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 02:13
Do keep in mind that my expressed opinions are just that of a player. In the forums (This and all the others) I am just another player who posts a comment, an opinion, a hint. When I am a MODERATOR, you will hear from me via PM or Email.

So don't hesitate to jump on me (politely so we don't upset Viktoria) if you have a difference of opinion. That's the nature of the forums. I don't take offense very easily, and despotic, tyrannical old man that I am, don't abuse my Mod attributes.

But my opinions are never humble, and they are mine.


There is, as jtr7 mentions, a use for cheats and walkthroughs that don't involve "CHEATS and WALKTHROUGHS" in the normal context. I have no quarrel with those who use them. I just feel that (except for cataloging, or studying to understand the construction) the player is losing out on the game experience (any game GTA, TR, whatever). Using cheats to bypass the problem or get the bigger weapon, or in the case of THIEF, more money for the loadout, cheats the player.

To each his own. It's your game do with it as you will.

There are at least 10 different styles that have been adopted by the THIEF players over the years. And that is only because of the structure of the original game concept. Few, if any, of the styles adopted for THIEF could be used in any other game.

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 02:14
Oh yeah, that's alot better. As I said in a previous thread, if there is a city hub it should probably just be treated as 2-3 whole sized levels (like old game sized). And if they planed on making a game that was l8 levels, that's still leave 15 levels for the story side of the game, so it would still be the same number of levels as the old games.

Myth
9th Jun 2009, 02:16
Nate is right, i could have put it more eloquently. But to what end? I have posted huge and thorough posts, nothing changed really. You can't convert people who don't "get it" with eloquence. And Master Taffer, one can like TDS and the first two games at the same time. TDS had it's good moments, but it deviated too strongly from what i think was the truly winning formula of the original games.

Maybe it's not the gamers.. Maybe it's the developers - LGS are gone for good. How can we expect any other company to immerse themselves so much so they can deliver a true sequel in the spirit of TDP and TMA...

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 02:20
Nate is right, i could have put it more eloquently. But to what end? I have posted huge and thorough posts, nothing changed really. You can't convert people who don't "get it" with eloquence. And Master Taffer, one can like TDS and the first two games at the same time. TDS had it's good moments, but it deviated too strongly from what i think was the truly winning formula of the original games.

Maybe it's not the gamers.. Maybe it's the developers - LGS are gone for good. How can we expect any other company to immerse themselves so much so they can deliver a true sequel in the spirit of TDP and TMA...

I've long placed blame firmly on Ion Storm for TDS's errors. They were a poor company riddled with internal drama, delays, and poor ideas.

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 02:25
Hi theBlackman, as a fellow fan, what do you think about the discussion on encumbrance penalties for weapons/armor/equipment? I won't even ask about loot encumbrance (lol penalizing players for stealing = instant Thief game success!)

I was thinking a carry capacity difficulty slider could resolve this. For example, on Easy, you could carry 36 arrows and 5 items (like mines, gas grenades, holy water) total, but on Hardcore you could only carry 12 arrows and 1 item total.

Do you think this would be a feasible middle ground for players who want more realism/challenge, WITHOUT introducing a whole encumbrance system.

DarthEnder
9th Jun 2009, 02:28
I love how the OP lumps two COMPLETELY different groups of people under the umbrella of being douchebags.

Somehow, anybody who doesn't think the first two games were perfect the way they were deserves to be lumped into the same group of people who use cheat codes and walkthroughs.

These two things have NOTHING to do with one another but people are going, "Yeah! That he's right! **** those guys!" Without actually reading what was said.

Thief 1 and 2 are fantastic games, but they aren't perfect. They have a lot of flaws, most of which are most likely simply technology limitations. But of course sad fanboys are gonna go "Yeah! That was totally broken but that's the way the game was so that must be how the geniuses at Looking Glass wanted it! It's brilliant!" instead of the more logical, "Yeah, they made awesome games with what they had, I bet they could make even better stuff with the tools available to todays game designers."

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 02:39
Thief 1 and 2 are fantastic games, but they aren't perfect. They have a lot of flaws, most of which are most likely simply technology limitations. But of course sad fanboys are gonna go "Yeah! That was totally broken but that's the way the game was so that must be how the geniuses at Looking Glass wanted it! It's brilliant!" instead of the more logical, "Yeah, they made awesome games with what they had, I bet they could make even better stuff with the tools available to todays game designers."

YES! *Gives DarthEnder a trophy*

Myth
9th Jun 2009, 02:43
love how the OP lumps two COMPLETELY different groups of people under the umbrella of "Douchebags."

Somehow, anybody who doesn't think the first two games were perfect the way they were deserves to be lumped into the same group of people who use cheat codes and walkthroughs.

These two things have NOTHING to do with one another but people are going, "Yeah! That mod is right! those guys!"

Way to be a bunch of illiterate suck-ups. Try to read why we agree with OP mkay? And no one is sucking up to a god damn MOD, what possible gain could there be? He makes sure we keep it civil and deletes spam, it's not like he is giving out free candy or bow upgrades!

The first two games had "it", the perfect combination of factors to become the best first person sneakers to date. TDS would have been a decent game on it's own but it was unfortunate enough to follow behind the first two, hence the fans ripping it to shreds.

OP is generally referring to the group of immature little brats that want to "SHOOT AND WIN" and don't like the first two games because "OLOOLOLOL CRAPPY GRAPHIX" and "ZOMG TOO HARD NEED CHEATS NAO!" They are the same ones that are lobbying for downright moronic changes like bullet time and cameras following the arrow as you make a headshot?

Myth
9th Jun 2009, 02:48
Originally Posted by LightWarriorK View Post
Personally, all of the "who are you to tell me how to play the game?" posts sound suspiciously like "I don't wanna play the game as it was intended and you can't make me!" Cue rolling around the floor in a tantrum that the ghosts are too scary, or the loot is too hard to find, or the electric lights can't be turned off, or there are too many guards in this one spot, etc.
It's exactly this type of attitude that drives me bat sh1te crazy. It's the whole 'have it your way' mindset. We live in the fast food generation, where people want everything and they want it now. Video games are no different than a board game. There are rules and you play within those established rules. A game is designed to be played within a certain framework, not how 'I' like to play it. The odd time we get this type of thing on the Dark Mod forums, but at least there it's our domain and we can tell them to take their spoiled brat attitude and shove it up their arse sideways. You sir are voicing my thoughts. Well both of you actually. Zombies and Haunts are too scary? Go play lemmings! Loot is too hard to find? Go play Serious Sam. Leave THIEF to it's fans and to players who try

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 03:23
DarthEnder


I love the way you add condemnation terms that were never used. I also love the way you twist the expressed view to suit yourself and ignore the "IF THE SHOE FITS".

There are those who post opinions that are exactly as those mentioned. If you are not one. Fine.

But as the post makes VERY CLEAR IF THE SHOE FITS WEAR IT.

OTHERWISE IGNORE IT AS IT DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU.

I don't think the expressed opinion could state that any clearer, and you are the one who "Lumps" together out of context.

I'd say more, but I'm laughing so hard at your mis-reading and re-interpretation that my fingers fail to find the proper keys on the keyboard.

DarthEnder
9th Jun 2009, 03:40
I just want you to know that I think you're a super mature person.

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 03:45
:):flowers:

jtr7
9th Jun 2009, 04:01
Thief 1 and 2 are fantastic games, but they aren't perfect. They have a lot of flaws, most of which are most likely simply technology limitations. But of course sad fanboys are gonna go "Yeah! That was totally broken but that's the way the game was so that must be how the geniuses at Looking Glass wanted it! It's brilliant!" instead of the more logical, "Yeah, they made awesome games with what they had, I bet they could make even better stuff with the tools available to todays game designers."YES! *Gives DarthEnder a trophy*

Very scary in how narrow your views are, guys. We know they have flaws, but those aren't the things we're fighting to keep the same. You have no idea what we mean by perfect, and it would behoove you to stop thinking you know a tiff-taffin' thing about our points of view. Could you possibly make a list of these flaws you think we want to keep, and we can address each one, in detail, one by one? Seriously.

lefty
9th Jun 2009, 04:16
People like a slight variation on the old sometimes to keep it interesting. Sometimes these people are put in power. Thus TDS.

not that I'm saying anything needs to be changed in thief for it to be interesting. But it's unavoidable that some people feel that way. No matter what, people are going to play thief 4. And if they don't, the thief following is better off without them.

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 04:17
Very scary in how narrow your views are, guys. We know they have flaws, but those aren't the things we're fighting to keep the same. You have no idea what we mean by perfect, and it would behoove you to stop thinking you know a tiff-taffin' thing about our points of view. Could you possibly make a list of these flaws you think we want to keep, and we can address each one, in detail, one by one? Seriously.

Perhaps you could define "perfect" for us first. Becaus eby my definition, NOTHING is perfect. And I find it "narrow" to view any game as such.

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 04:25
Avoiding the request by turning the discussion around it amusing, but defining "perfect" is not the point.

What are your complaints about the game, as jtr7 asked?

Little is "perfect", but the concept and implementation of that concept and its parameters as designed are the point. In that regard the game comes near to being "perfect" given the tools of the time.

The game needs no improvements in those areas, neither in equipment, abilities, or length of life.

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 04:36
Hi theBlackman, I asked you this a little while ago, but you might have missed it. Or if you don't want to comment, that's fine as well.

So, you've probably read some of the discussion concerning encumbrance penalties for weapons/armor/equipment.

Do you think that having a carry capacity difficulty slider (separate from game or objective difficulties) would be contrary to the Thief spirit?

For example, on Easy, you could carry 36 arrows of your choice and 5 items (like mines, gas grenades, holy water) total, but on Hardcore you could only carry 12 arrows and 1 item total.

What are your thoughts about this?

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 04:42
You don't want to know.

I say again. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

lefty
9th Jun 2009, 04:43
Hi theBlackman, I asked you this a little while ago, but you might have missed it. Or if you don't want to comment, that's fine as well.

So, you've probably read some of the discussion concerning encumbrance penalties for weapons/armor/equipment.

Do you think that having a carry capacity difficulty slider (separate from game or objective difficulties) would be contrary to the Thief spirit?

For example, on Easy, you could carry 36 arrows of your choice and 5 items (like mines, gas grenades, holy water) total, but on Hardcore you could only carry 12 arrows and 1 item total.

What are your thoughts about this?

If you don't mind hearing my thoughts about this, I say that any kind of extra limitation the players want to put in other than "don't kill/KO people" type objectives, they could just do it themselves. It's about self control, and the best part is you can play the game any way without a slider telling you.

and if you don't want to hear my opinion on it you can skip this post :P

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 04:49
Very well, here are my PERSONAL complaints for the original Thief games. I'll try to keep them relevant to the time the games were released.

Thief: The Dark Project/Gold Complaints- I had less to complain about in The Dark Project, but it still has flaws that were relevant at the time of release, and not an effect of the game's age.

Level design, while over all good, very often lacked direction and became maze like. Bonehoard, Thieves Guild, Mages' Tower and Lost City were the worst in terms of this. Later Trickster levels also were very bland and seemed hastily designed.
Movement speed controls needed better streamlining. This was fixed in Thief 2.


Thief 2: The Metal Age Complaints- They addressed my two complaints for The Dark Project, but a few others popped up.

The story was very anticlimactic and felt like an after thought to level design. You knew who the primary protagonists was and basicly could piece together his plot by the 5th level if you put the puzzle together well enough. Heck, when Truart is murdered, I thought it would be interesting to solve a mystery of who did it. Instead you find Moseley's keyring right near the body, giving away "who dun it" TMA had the weakest story out of the 3 games.
There was an extreme lack of enemy variation, making many of the levels feel repetative. As interesting as the Mechanists bots were, I can only stomach the same enemies for so long before I get bored.
While the level design was top notch in comparison to the first game, there was significant lack of polish in many areas. This included torches sticking off walls, loot inside walls, mysterious missing pickpockets. I didn't notice as many of these problems in TDP, so I hold it against Thief 2 more so than the first game.
Forced blackjack objectives. Deadly Shadows has 1 the whole game, Thief 2 has atleast 9 on expert.


Over all, I've thought of the games as descending in quality since the first one. I don't consider the first two games perfect, even when I played them originally in 1998 (TDP), 1999 (TG), and 2000 (TMA). They are shining examples of the genre, but perfect by any stretch of the word they are not. And I consider it very narrow minded to ignore its flaws and stamp the word "PERFECT!" on the side without acknowledging its flaws. A perfect game is flawless, and therefore does not exist.

Deadly Shadows has the most flaws out of all three and I consider it the weakest of the series, but I still consider it a good game and very much a THIEF game.


I say again. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Just because something doesn't break doesn't mean it can't become obsolete.

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 05:28
Your points as listed are valid and I agree with you on most of them other than the repetative part regarding AI.

I did not find the same problem with "maze" layout as you seem to have, but then I never needed a map to find my way around. I always know where I am in a game, and the extra areas to explore were fun not boring.

I also have/had no problem with the controls or "Speed" use. I confess I did commit suicide once or twice because I went through an area in a crouch, and forgot to uncrouch (I know that's not a legitimate word) when I made a jump and ended up diving into a pool of lava or off a roof top or cliff. :lmao:

The errors you mention were a result of time constraints on the designers. And, to be honest, were so petty that they never impinged on the consciousness enough to cause a problem. The exception being the nearly useless "Casing the joint", which was cut short by the financers, of that which was desired. . Unlike TDS where light leaks through walls, a floor does not meet a wall and the light from the lower level seeps through which did irritate me no end the minor mistakes in objects etc were nearly unnoticeable.

The imperfect use of textures and objects is not part of the "It ain't broke". The "feel" of the game, its use of emotive immersion and other ethereal qualities are what made the game.

In this regard "It ain't broke".

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 05:35
The imperfect use of textures and objects is not part of the "It ain't broke". The "feel" of the game, its use of emotive immersion and other ethereal qualities are what made the game.

In this regard "It ain't broke".

Ah, then in that case we can agree whole heartedly. Keeping within the spirit and feel of the game is very important. But I think this can be achieved while still moving the game forward with some additional mechanics that fit into the theme and world created byt eh previous 3 games.

While not quite as thick as the first two games, I did feel DS had immersion to keep my head in the game. There were moments where the game would suck me out, but I could also say the same for the first two games. Constantly falling while trying to remove myself from a wall I was climbing pulls me out just as much as trying to mantle a surface and failing repeatedly off a rope arrow.

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 05:36
Today, 10:32 PM #46
NewHorizon
:thumb::thumb:
Well put, and more effort in the reply than I wanted to invest in MT


MT
As for "falling off", practice and more practice cures that. Where you put the arrow, how you approach it etc. After my first two or three tries I have never fallen off a rope since.

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 05:43
That's because it was an afterthought. The Dark Project was designed 'story first, levels second' but for The Metal Age they decided to experiment and design the story around the missions. Well known Metal Age history.

A history I know well. Perhaps I should have ommited "felt" from that sentence.


In response to everyone who whined about all the 'creatures' in The Dark Project, Looking glass focussed more on human based levels. Personally, I truly missed the variety of creatures from The Dark Project.

So did I, I felt they helped build a great, fantasy style environment that made it's setting unique from any other middle age/rennaisance (sp?) game.


The studio was under pressure and time constraints to finish the game. Things were not going so well. John Romero was sucking up all the funding with Daikitana. Looking glass barely managed to get a patch out for The Metal Age before they were shut down.

Yus, another history note I am VERY much aware of, and is the biggest reason John Romero is on my ****list.


Hardly a fault of the game concept itself, that's a fault of the designers. The concept of the game itself is quite sound.

Like I said at the beginning of my post, all these complaints were my own. That was a personal annoyance.


You're putting too much emphasis on the usage of the word perfect to describe the first two games. Despite their 'design flaws' the core execution and concept of the first two games is pretty close to being perfect...especially with the first game. Design flaws, such as controls or the AI needing to be smarter don't factor directly into the assessment of concept and execution. They're variables within the concept that can be tweaked, honed, enhanced. The Dark Project was very well balanced and I think a huge part of that balance came from not having fans making demands about what they think would make the game better. Looking glass made The Dark Project on their own, and it's clear that it made a difference.

Concept and execution was top notch, yes. But like I said, I have supreme issues with labelling ANYTHING perfect in the game industry, as I feel it is an excuse for not finding room for improvement. Labelling something perfect just seems narrow minded and dismissive to me.


The Technology running the game can become obsolete and not allow the concept to reach it's full potential, but I firmly believe that Thief's concept is as relevant today as it was then. We have the technology to make the AI far more alert than in 98...the way sound travels through levels can be done more accurately and efficiently too. The are many areas where Thief can be improved, but that does not mean adding things to it that defies the concept. There are few mainstream games that dare to do what Thief did and if Thief 4 doesn't dare as boldly...I'll be very disappointed. Thank goodness for the Penumbra series of games.

Like I said in my last post, any additions to the series need to be within the spirit and initial concept of the game series, otherwise they are pointless and make for a hack job game.

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 05:44
Today, 10:32 PM #46
NewHorizon
:thumb::thumb:
Well put, and more effort in the reply than I wanted to invest in MT


MT
As for "falling off", practice and more practice cures that. Where you put the arrow, how you approach it etc. After my first two or three tries I have never fallen off a rope since.

Been playing Thief for 11 years now, and to this day I still have some trouble with some mantles. :rolleyes:

Regardless, it'll still suck me out of the game when it happens.

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 05:45
Liek I said in my last post, any additions to the series need to be within the spirit and initial concept of the game series, otehrwise they are pointless and make for a hack job game.


In that I agree 100 percent. Not 110, as we know. all is all there is. You can't have more than all. Unlike the uneducated sports freaks who say 110%.

It ain't so Charlie.

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 06:04
You don't want to know.

I say again. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


If you don't mind hearing my thoughts about this, I say that any kind of extra limitation the players want to put in other than "don't kill/KO people" type objectives, they could just do it themselves. It's about self control, and the best part is you can play the game any way without a slider telling you.

and if you don't want to hear my opinion on it you can skip this post :P

You are both quite correct. I can simply choose to limit the amount of equipment I want to carry through missions. No need for sliders at all....

Hehe, I recently came to the same conclusion for the Sword versus Dagger debate. If I want to play the part of a full out thief, I can simply pretend I don't have a short sword and work my way through the mission without ever using it.

I really don't invest Ego into my ideas/suggestions. If somebody points out something that works in a more desirable way with better results, then I'll side with them.

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 06:16
You are right Nate, but there are occasions when you want to break a board, or cut something and a Blackjack won't do it. In TMA there are areas where you need to use the sword to remove boards nailed across a door.

Ignoring the "realism" aspect, the sword as a tool, is useful whether you use it to fight or no.

A master thief would avoid all confrontation, but unless someone tries to implement a "wonderbar" or "jimmy" or other such, the sword as supplied does the job. Even if it might be out of character for a master thief.

You could clutter up the equipment selection by adding "screwjacks", various prying implements, powders to use in place of the Flash bomb, and other tools of the trade. But, the equipment you get in the original games is more than adequate once you learn how and when to use them.

jtr7
9th Jun 2009, 06:25
Door-bashing, crate and barrel flinderizing, and breaking through boarded up openings (I daresay I wish we could see more of that in abandoned buildings), icicle-shattering, glass-shattering, crushing-vine and spider-web cutting, banner-slashing, getting AIs' attention, and knocking arrows out of the air were all possible, and more, even if there were other options most of the time.

A machete sounds better and better all the time, but I'm not seriously requesting it. :p Vine slashing in the woods would be nice to see.

A tool of multiple uses. Infiltration and travel routes should be the priority with one.

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 06:34
Excuse the length please:

Really in the first 2 games the sword was mainly a tool, and when shooting your bow was too slow and they were aware so a blackjack was out of question THEN it became a weapon. It was used for distraction, cutting banners, breaking down wood barring doors, smashing boxes and occassionally a tool for making someone run away (which they would if you did enough damage and if they were alone).

In thief deadly shadows the your weapon stayed a weapon. Your dagger was not used as a tool as your sword was in TDP or TMA, but it was only effective as a means of murder, and could be used in self defense to less avail.

In thief 4, whatever weapon they choose (sword to appease fans or dagger to appease stereotypes, or both to appease all) as long as they give it uses outside of being a weapon it will be a vast improvement over TDS. One of the things less accounted for in TDS was the fact that NOW we could take paintings as loot. Why? Because we have a dagger. When robbing a place there's rarely time to fiddle around with screws and bolts and picture frames. Instead we could now take our dagger and to a nice trimming, roll it up, and put it in our adventurer's bag where it would be perfectly preserved until time of sale. A sword was not fit for that purpose. But just as a sword is not fit to cut out a painting from its frame, so is a dagger not suited to breaking down entire doors or blowing open boxes. In my eyes because of their diverse uses as tools, both of them should be in the game. When you want to steal a painting, take out your dagger and cut the painting from it's frame. When you see planks of wood barring a door, bash them down (or if we're feeling fancy and want a little more stealth simply peel them off using the leverage your sword gives you.) and clear your path. If you want to force open a door either bash it with your sword or shimmy the dagger inbetween the lock and the door frame so the handle can be turned and the door open.

Why are we arguing about them as weapons? As fans of the thief series we should be arguing about them as TOOLS. TDS's dagger gets so much hatred because it was JUST a weapon. Both dagger and sword have their good uses as tools. If we look at their potential as TOOLS and not as weapons, we have to go with the dagger for it's applications as a tool are much more diverse due to its length and slenderness. However the sword still serves as a better tool for some situations. To appease all, and because it would give the developers a more diverse palette of situations where we could have to implement these tools (resulting in a deeper game), I think we should always carry both. A dagger in our boot and a sword at our side.

With regards to combat:

I don't think the goal should be to make combat unfair, unwinnable, and most importantly NOT FUN. Most people don't find having their ass handed to them to be fun, on the other hand, never having their ass at least nearly handed to them is also not fun. Combat is secondary to the stealth mechanics of the game. I wish to emphasize the importance of that fact. The direct penalty for failed stealth in thief is combat and therefore deserves the second most important focus in terms of how they look at gameplay. In my eyes at least, a truly good game should not have any of its primary mechanics be unfulfilling, or not fun. Sure, make combat hard, make it difficult, but it should never feel unfulfilling. All you can do with the dagger in TDS is try and maintain a close distance, and hold down the attack key, resulting in *pick pick pick pick pick ARGH* and they've in the meantime destroyed you. So yes, you have now had the player get their ass nearly handed to them... but it's nowhere near as fulfilling as the sword fights in the first 2 games, because they'd block your attacks and make parries, then you'd block theirs and parry. They'd try their amazing 123 punch and you'd intercept the second and 3rd blow with a block and have at them. The combat was much more dynamic, and was therefore, much more fulfilling, and that's why the sword is the best combat weapon for thief. It resulted in a fulfilling and fun experience, albeit you're bleeding, but it was fun.

They should not focus on combat like they do stealth, but it does deserve more focus than holding down a button and staying close to someone. Instead of making combat the a drooling, stupid, unfulfilling experience, instead make there be penalties for having entered combat. For example, make the health potions gradually restore health like in the old games, and make it so that as long as you're below half health, you leave a trail of blood that enemies can follow (not necessarily thinking it's you), and below a quarter health you limp and make more noise while moving and have a slowed movement rate. Make them not want to be in combat because of the consequences of it, NOT because combat isn't fun.

I hope it was worth the read.

Herr_Garrett
9th Jun 2009, 06:44
And, you know, imagine, that here sadly those are in majority who found Deadly Shadows too difficult. If EM caters for them, we have no hope.

Herr_Garrett
9th Jun 2009, 06:53
In that I agree 100 percent. Not 110, as we know. all is all there is. You can't have more than all. Unlike the uneducated sports freaks who say 110%.

It ain't so Charlie.

Sorry for the double post... You can have 110 per cents. You can even have 1400 percents, which was, I think, the top record of Stakhanov.

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 07:04
Sorry for the double post... You can have 110 per cents. You can even have 1400 percents, which was, I think, the top record of Stakhanov.


I'm sorry. When you have ALL of anything you have 100 percent. You can't have more of any single thing. If you have a quart of whatever you have 100 percent. If you double the amount you have you still have 100 percent, each quart represents 50 percent of the TOTAL you have.

All of anything is all there is, and by the standards, all of anything is one hundred percent ( in the decimal system). But regardless of what system you use, you can never have MORE than ALL OF IT. And if you are using percentages (tenths of) 100 percent is the most you can have.

DarthEnder
9th Jun 2009, 07:08
Very well, here are my PERSONAL complaints for the original Thief games. I'll try to keep them relevant to the time the games were released.For me, it's all about the running/climbing/jumping. In T1 and T2, those systems are, frankly, complete ****. Granted, they were pretty advanced for their time, but by todays standards, Garrett is a clumsy oaf.

Garrett is a Thief, you expect him to be fast, agile, to move fluidly. And there are many games these days, in either 1st or 3rd person that manage to achieve this perfectly. But any time you suggest that maybe he should behave like the characters in one of those other games fanboys immediately go, "No way! Garrett is SUPPOSED to move like a tank and fall off crates and ledges when you try and climb them, and get propelled face first off of ladders and ropes, and constantly get stuck trying to crawl under things! Obviously that's the way the designers intended! If they wanted their master thief character to move fluidly they obviously would have done that even though that would have been impossible with the technology at the time!"


Also the melee combat is balls. It was way more advanced than, say, Quake melee combat of the time, but it's a joke compared to what's possible today.

Herr_Garrett
9th Jun 2009, 07:18
I'm sorry. When you have ALL of anything you have 100 percent. You can't have more of any single thing. If you have a quart of whatever you have 100 percent. If you double the amount you have you still have 100 percent, each quart represents 50 percent of the TOTAL you have.

All of anything is all there is, and by the standards, all of anything is one hundred percent ( in the decimal system). But regardless of what system you use, you can never have MORE than ALL OF IT.

Nonono. The point is... well, have you heard of Stakhanov? Stakhanovism got named after him. He was a Soviet miner who so loved trudging knee-deep in refuse that he stayed in the mine on his free time, working. And what's more, he worked very efficently (like the Servants, haha... Yeah, a Soviet Servant. Anyway...), and his record was mining fourteen times his quota in a single shift. The CCCP lauded him as it was in those times right and proper, instead of chucking him into an asylum, and started using his phrases like "we will over-fulfill the plan by 150 percent!" in their propaganda.

I know my mathematics, thank you, but you can have, at least in rethorics, more that a hundred per cents. And rethorics filters down to the "commoners". Or commonests, perhaps.

Anyhow, this topic really isn't about this...

@ DarthEnder: If you're still reading this thread... That post was lovely. So in your style, you couldn't even deny you wrote it.
I'm not saying that I'm more of a hardcore Thief-fan than you. I actually don't play the games anymore, apart from the occasional FM, but that is not what matters. What matters is that some people here - including me - understood the spirit, the essence of Thief much better than you. That is not something to be ashamed of (?:D), if guess you understand Warhammer much better than us.
But please, don't try to force your Warhammer ideas on Thief, since Thief, as its name shows is Thief, and not, as its name shows, Warhammer. Agreed? Understood? And if we try to resist the changes you advised, don't try to tell us off, right? Because you can't. In this case, we're like the Hammers.
It's not that we want Thief IV to have the same bugs as DP, you see. We want Thief IV to possess the same spirit and essence already mentioned.

Edit: it was about your first post DarthEnder, but this new one is just as lovely...:hmm:

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 07:24
Again you are putting words in other peoples mouths. No one has mentioned Garrett's ability to move or not move.

The main thrust of the posts saying don't change have been aimmed at the concept of the game and the hopeful continuance of that concept and basic premise.

Movement of all characters in all games were cruder in the past, and will improve. That is a given. The first Character was a white rectangle in PONG. Then came PAC MAN, then Atari with River patrol, or the dumb knight in Dragon lair etc. Characters gained movement, ability and appearance and will continue to improve.

But the "feeling" of THIEF as presented in TDP and weakly in TMA cannot be improved upon.The main theme of how the game was immersive, engaging, and personal is the part that should remain as it was.

xDarknessFallsx
9th Jun 2009, 07:25
Thief 1 and 2 are fantastic games, but they aren't perfect. They have a lot of flaws, most of which are most likely simply technology limitations. But of course sad fanboys are gonna go "Yeah! That was totally broken but that's the way the game was so that must be how the geniuses at Looking Glass wanted it! It's brilliant!" instead of the more logical, "Yeah, they made awesome games with what they had, I bet they could make even better stuff with the tools available to todays game designers."

I love how when someone really likes T1 or T2 and they point out several flaws with TDS they are immediately labeled "fanboys" who think T1 and/or T2 are perfect with no room for improvement. LGS are certainly gaming Gods. (Fanboys surely don't realize it's the year 2009 and surely don't want to see any bit of improvement over T1 or T2 with Th4f. Fanboys are short-sighted, for sure.) And they will use that derogatory label over and over again along with the notion that fanboys think T1/T2 are perfect as if it's accurate to use.

I'm thinking MT or at least DarthEnder would label me as a T2 fanboy, yet I don't think T2 was perfect. I see considerable room for improvement. I don't think an oil slick that makes guards fall like it's a Hanna Barbera cartoon is an improvement; I hope you can understand that. Not having any nice secret areas wouldn't be an improvement. Encumbrance probably wouldn't be an improvement either, imo, as Thief is not an RPG -- it's not Fallout 3, Morrowind or Diablo 2 ("I'm overburdened!").

I think a new poll is needed to find out how many people think T2 was "perfect" in every respect, with absolutely no room for improvement. If answering honestly, I don't think there would be very many saying it was absolutely perfect. I could be wrong. (I'm being facetious; there are enough polls.)

Of course the risk of this poll is that several would probably say "yes it was perfect" for fear that saying anything else will mislead the devs into taking too much artistic freedom to screw Th4f up like what happened with TDS.

I'm probably a T2 fanboy, but it's because I loved the game and it has strong replay value at it's very core. That doesn't mean I feel it's perfect and wouldn't like to see some enhancements.

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 07:29
Which is exactly the reason I don't vote. :)

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 07:31
One of the most annoying glitches to me was when I'd knock out 2 people at one time they'd magically see the other's body when they were unconscious and scream about it. It was comical, but resulted in the bodies found stat going on my screen.

I just finished the kurshok level in TDS, and it said I had 3 bodies found... guess what bodies those were? the ones of the dead kurshok and 2 pagans at the library who'd fought eachother before I got there.... >_> argh.

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 07:43
Yeah, that sucked when that happened. Especially with the Minimalist Project installed and playing with 'no bodies allowed to be discovered'. You'd start the mission and in a minute, you'd get the mission failed screen because Pagans and Fish Heads were going at it.

imported_van_HellSing
9th Jun 2009, 08:23
Thief is not an RPG


The creative talent that pioneered 3D interactive role-playing has come together to create the most ground-breaking RPG yet. Featuring a fully-interactive "6D" world and an environment rich in object interaction, The Dark Project promises a new dimension in gameplay.

So yeah.

ToMegaTherion
9th Jun 2009, 08:31
Video games are no different than a board game. There are rules and you play within those established rules. A game is designed to be played within a certain framework, not how 'I' like to play it.

So if you are playing a board game with some friends and you all agree that a particular mechanic in the board game is stupid and could easily be improved, you would refuse to improve it on principle?

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 08:37
Improve or simplify the game for you players? I think the latter. Most board games are developed with many hours of experimentation and development and the "rules" are worked out very carefully.

Players rarely put enough time into a board game to even understand the basic rules let alone "improve" them. There are exceptions, of course, but we are not talking about the pros. We are talking about the casual gamers.

I find your question and implied argument specious in its entirety.

imported_van_HellSing
9th Jun 2009, 08:41
The argument is indeed flawed, but not because of the perfection of existing rules. The key here is player consensus. In ToMegaTherion's example, the players have reached unanimous consensus. Here, it is obviously not the case.

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 08:54
The argument is indeed flawed, but not because of the perfection of existing rules. The key here is player consensus. In ToMegaTherion's example, the players have reached unanimous consensus. Here, it is obviously not the case.

You are right. But I was ignoring the suggested arguement and addressing the mentality of the "players", who presumably found the "rule"(s) too restrictive or perhaps, beyond their ability to comprehend or properly implement the play as intended. :)

ToMegaTherion
9th Jun 2009, 08:59
I'm mainly just doing battle against the Designers Know Best principle that seems to be floating around. This doesn't seem to work in practice in video games: plenty of mods change gameplay mechanics and plenty of people enjoy playing them more than the originals. Plenty of people invent new rules to play by that make the game more fun for them.

Especially in the fourth episode in the series, it seems strange to demand that players either like a particular style of play, or they don't play at all. We are not so inundated with medieval stealth games that it's possible to find a game that perfectly suits me, so if I can tailor Thief to suit me more then why shouldn't I?

And theBlackman; I'd be fairly confident that a bunch of people who play a game in a particular way and enjoy certain things about it and are pretty clever are capable of making small improvements that make the game better for them.

Edit: I should also point out that I agree that generally people suggesting gameplay changes that are different from a simple progession and improvement over aspects of previous games, should be viewed with suspicion. it's quite clear to me that the overall design philosophy of the fourth episode in a series should be broadly the same as before (just eliminating aspects that were found not to work).

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 09:13
And theBlackman; I'd be fairly confident that a bunch of people who play a game in a particular way and enjoy certain things about it and are pretty clever are capable of making small improvements that make the game better for them.

In principle I agree. If the change makes the game more challenging and doesn't create shortcuts that break the game. The perfect example is Monopoly where the fines etc. are put on GO so any player who lands there gets the money. The point of the game is to Break the other player, and property and money management is the name of the game.

The addition of the "lottery" may entertain, but really pollutes the game. But then, that's only my opinion. I'm one of those learn the game, understand the rules and play.

Whether it's cards, board games, driving a car, whatever. Break the rules if you want, I don't care, but in my opinion that shows personal character weakness. The one exception being when playing with children (3 to 15).

But that's a personal view. No one need accept it, nor will I argue it.

DarthEnder
9th Jun 2009, 09:44
@ DarthEnder: If you're still reading this thread... That post was lovely. So in your style, you couldn't even deny you wrote it.
I'm not saying that I'm more of a hardcore Thief-fan than you. I actually don't play the games anymore, apart from the occasional FM, but that is not what matters. What matters is that some people here - including me - understood the spirit, the essence of Thief much better than you. That is not something to be ashamed of (?:D), if guess you understand Warhammer much better than us.
But please, don't try to force your Warhammer ideas on Thief, since Thief, as its name shows is Thief, and not, as its name shows, Warhammer. Agreed? Understood? And if we try to resist the changes you advised, don't try to tell us off, right? Because you can't. In this case, we're like the Hammers.
It's not that we want Thief IV to have the same bugs as DP, you see. We want Thief IV to possess the same spirit and essence already mentioned.I'm not really sure what this passage is about. But it certainly SOUNDS pretentious.

Platinumoxicity
9th Jun 2009, 09:50
This is probably the most unfriendly thread here so far.

DarthEnder
9th Jun 2009, 10:01
I love how when someone really likes T1 or T2 and they point out several flaws with TDS they are immediately labeled "fanboys" who think T1 and/or T2 are perfect with no room for improvement. LGS are certainly gaming Gods. (Fanboys surely don't realize it's the year 2009 and surely don't want to see any bit of improvement over T1 or T2 with Th4f. Fanboys are short-sighted, for sure.) And they will use that derogatory label over and over again along with the notion that fanboys think T1/T2 are perfect as if it's accurate to use.

I'm thinking MT or at least DarthEnder would label me as a T2 fanboy, yet I don't think T2 was perfect. I see considerable room for improvement. I don't think an oil slick that makes guards fall like it's a Hanna Barbera cartoon is an improvement; I hope you can understand that. Not having any nice secret areas wouldn't be an improvement. Encumbrance probably wouldn't be an improvement either, imo, as Thief is not an RPG -- it's not Fallout 3, Morrowind or Diablo 2 ("I'm overburdened!").No. Your definition of fanboy is the same as mine. Someone who refuses to see the flaws in something that is flawed. And I'm certainly not saying that people who point out TDS's flaws are fanboys. TDS is chocked full of flaws. I'm saying people who think Thief 1 and 2 are perfect in all aspects and that Thief 4 should be exactly the same in all respects as those games, but with better graphics, are being sad fanboys. Because there are things wrong with those games that Thief 4 would be stupid to try and emulate.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
9th Jun 2009, 10:18
On Garretts movement, I actually, to this day, think that TDP and TMA have very good and fluid movement. They were one of the few games that I felt had good head bob effects. There's one problem I had with them though. I can't seem to reliably control where Garrett goes after I jump. Especially when I jump off a ladder. Bonehoard was harder than it should've been for me because of that. So many deaths...


Yeah, that sucked when that happened. Especially with the Minimalist Project installed and playing with 'no bodies allowed to be discovered'. You'd start the mission and in a minute, you'd get the mission failed screen because Pagans and Fish Heads were going at it.

hah yea. I am so loving that mod though.

I wonder, will we need to mod Thief 4? Oblivion and Fallout 3 are games that I personally can't play without mods. I'd hate to think of Thief 4 being that way. I already dislike TDS without the minimalist mod.

Flashart
9th Jun 2009, 10:49
I just want the best stealth game possible. I want the feeling of playing TMA for the very first time.
T4 will not and cannot just be a rewrite of T2, and for all the definitions of "Thief's core aspects" I doubt there's one complete consensus.
There will be changes, some good and some bad, if possible I'd like the bad ones to be at least "configurable" so if I didn't like them I could turn them off. I don't have one single item that would be a "deal-breaker" for me, I'll play it come what may.
Personally, I'd like EM to surprise me with something, as long as I can creep in shadows and blackjack everything else is up for innovation. I don't want an FPS, RPG, or any other hybrid, but I see no reason why something fresh can't be bought to the stealth genre.

xDarknessFallsx
9th Jun 2009, 12:31
So yeah.
Meh. Taking a misguided Marketing quote from over 10 years ago won't convince me Thief is an RPG. Do you think Thief is an RPG in the sense we all talk about here? I don't see Garrett leveling up; befriending characters to join his party; learning new spells; conversing with NCPs with real-time 'choose your own adventure' responses; etc. FPSneaker, not RPG.

imported_van_HellSing
9th Jun 2009, 12:45
Not just marketing. The Looking Glass guys referred to Thief as an RPG too. Of course, this is partly because no one had invented the "First Person Sneaker" marketing moniker yet. :P

xDarknessFallsx
9th Jun 2009, 12:55
I appreciate the history lesson. Honestly. But really, are you trying to say Th4f should adopt typical RPG elements like encumbrance and level-ups simply because the original group referred to it as an RPG with the FPSneaker term not being invented yet? Sounds like it since you tried to blow my argument up.

imported_van_HellSing
9th Jun 2009, 13:19
I'm only argumenting that your view of RPG is quite limited. In the same way I'm argumenting against the "all anime is Pokemon" stereotype at the DX3 boards.

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 13:34
A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters

Garrett is a fictional character, and we assume his character playing the game. Therefore Thief is an RPG by definition, though we all know that it is not an RPG in that it doesn't follow RPG style gameplay.

As long as we avoid these: http://serpent231.tripod.com/cliche.shtml it's all good. What's ironic is that TDP follows the 8 bit RPG plot XD

huzi73
9th Jun 2009, 13:59
From what I'm seeing it seems that the bulk of you don't like THIEF as it was conceived and produced.

You (non-specific you) seem to be the people who use "Cheat codes" to complete the games you play or "Walkthroughs" so you don't have to think about the mechanics of playing "the game".

You seem to want the solutions handed to you on a platter, and if not that, then want the game to give you "Tools" that make it so easy that you can "fake" it.

I suspect that you would use "Cliff Notes" for your classes to avoid the personal responsibility of reading or studying an assignment and "Thinking" about it. If you can read.

You seem to want "Instant gratification", "Upgrades" that make no sense in the context of the game. Holler for "Reality" when, in fact, THIEF has none. You want to "Change" the game to "Improve" it, when the truth is if you see it that way YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!

Get over it and if you've not done so. Play the original games with the idea of PLAYING the game instead of "I BEAT THE GAME". In reality all you do with that attitude is BEAT YOURSELF, and completely miss the aspects of the THIEF games that make them outstanding, even after 11 years.

As I said. If this applies to you wear the shoe. If not, then ignore it.


Well well,here is now a solid thread.... Or is it?

Let me get this right, basically you want THI4F to be TDP/TMA with modern graphics?
I cant agree more, the game should not be changed for the sake of changing/making it easier/making it similar to Assassins Creed or whatever. No argument there.

But please explain to me, how the following will be detracting from the "thief experience"
in any way:

1)Upgradable weapons(well actually, Upgradable is the wrong term, people totally misunderstood Hype in that thread, what he meant, was Constantine's sword over the normal sword and Vine arrows over rope arrows.)

While people (Including me) disagree with some of his suggestions (silk strings? Teeth on the sword?), others are completely sensible (IF they are mission centered, or form part of the plot. Example TDP's Constantine's sword, TMA's vine arrows). So as long as they are not similar to the "super blackjack" from TDS, I dont see how they will detract from the "spirit" of the game

2)Rebalancing the sword or utilising the dagger as a tool, like the sword from the 1st was used, cant be a bad thing

3)Using rope arrows vertically? how will that kill the game?

4)Garrett being able to go prone? Or slip under beds/tables? How could that be a bad thing?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th Jun 2009, 14:11
From what I'm seeing it seems that the bulk of you don't like THIEF as it was conceived and produced.

You (non-specific you) seem to be the people who use "Cheat codes" to complete the games you play or "Walkthroughs" so you don't have to think about the mechanics of playing "the game".

You seem to want the solutions handed to you on a platter, and if not that, then want the game to give you "Tools" that make it so easy that you can "fake" it.

I suspect that you would use "Cliff Notes" for your classes to avoid the personal responsibility of reading or studying an assignment and "Thinking" about it. If you can read.

You seem to want "Instant gratification", "Upgrades" that make no sense in the context of the game. Holler for "Reality" when, in fact, THIEF has none. You want to "Change" the game to "Improve" it, when the truth is if you see it that way YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!

Get over it and if you've not done so. Play the original games with the idea of PLAYING the game instead of "I BEAT THE GAME". In reality all you do with that attitude is BEAT YOURSELF, and completely miss the aspects of the THIEF games that make them outstanding, even after 11 years.

As I said. If this applies to you wear the shoe. If not, then ignore it.

A fair post that should invite answers to questions that I'm curious to know myself.
I've highlighted the last sentence in case some people (whom the message does not apply to) forget. ;).

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 14:52
people totally misunderstood Hype in that thread, what he meant, was Constantine's sword over the normal sword and Vine arrows over rope arrows.

No... that thread is about using extra money you have for upgrading your current equipment. I don't mean a gradual upgrade, or changing to vine arrows, or constantine's sword, but a greater reward for those who're good at finding treasure, than buying equipment they'll probably never use. I was trying to emphasize that not all upgrades are combat intensive, and that they wouldn't be game breaking. How does silk strings or compound pulleys break a game or take any focus off of stealth? Really I don't understand (as I said, it's not like asking for an invisibility cloak, or a 2handed sword that kills anyone it hits...). I'd just like more places to put my money since there's no point in hoarding it.

People rant about becoming better with the tools you have throughout the game is a core philosophy... and I gotta say the bow already shoots where you aim and the sword/dagger already kills things on a backstab. All it really does is provide convenience, and it comes at a cost... so I don't see the problem.

xDarknessFallsx
9th Jun 2009, 15:25
Hypevosa, there must be a better definition of RPG than that. With that one, virtually any game is an RPG then. Halo, Turok, Doom, GTA, Bioshock, Goldeneye, Super Mario Bros, Mario Kart, etc. I'm assuming the role of these fictional characters. :) Okay, with this one, I realize the RPG discussion has run it's course. I'll move on now...

lefty
9th Jun 2009, 16:50
The creative talent that pioneered 3D interactive role-playing has come together to create the most ground-breaking RPG yet. Featuring a fully-interactive "6D" world and an environment rich in object interaction, The Dark Project promises a new dimension in gameplay.

Whoah. 6D? That's like 200% of 3D.

InGroove2
9th Jun 2009, 17:47
In that I agree 100 percent. Not 110, as we know. all is all there is. You can't have more than all. Unlike the uneducated sports freaks who say 110%.

It ain't so Charlie.

um. hello? that's what the roids are for, brah! the EXTRA 10 percent? cause Canseco, while riding pine for 3/4 of a game.. was truly giving much more than he was really capable of giving... i mean... what? did i just say?

InGroove2
9th Jun 2009, 17:48
Whoah. 6D? That's like 200% of 3D.

right... Canseco/roids style.

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 18:50
Hypevosa, there must be a better definition of RPG than that. With that one, virtually any game is an RPG then. Halo, Turok, Doom, GTA, Bioshock, Goldeneye, Super Mario Bros, Mario Kart, etc. I'm assuming the role of these fictional characters. :) Okay, with this one, I realize the RPG discussion has run it's course. I'll move on now...

Nope, that's the deffinition of an RPG. RPG now though is also associated with several different styles of game... 3rd person, party system, turn based combat, etc.

I think one of the reasons 3rd person is preffered in RPG, is it allows the player to isolate themselves from the character more which is normally the goal of the action. I have a friend Russell, and he plays RPG's. He creates a character who's not exactly like himself, and tries to approach situations from that characters point of view instead of his own. 3rd person decreases "immerision" allowing you to isolate yourself from that character more and thus be more likely to consider what their action would be, rather than instantly have your own reaction. Honestly that's how I play thief... "What would Garrett, a master thief do?" and I try to act accordingly.

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 18:53
RPG:

Role Playing Game
Rocket Propelled Grenade
Rebounds Per Game


There's a basketball court in the first game, so it's obviously "Rebounds Per Game."

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 19:02
:P you know I was talking about the game genre definition of the word

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 19:03
:P you know I was talking about the game genre definition of the word

Was making a joke, but apparently I failed.

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 19:10
No I got it, that's why I stuck my tongue out at ya :P

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 19:16
No I got it, that's why I stuck my tongue out at ya :P

:rasp:

theBlackman
9th Jun 2009, 19:19
A lie is a lie is a lie. Rhetorics not-with-standing.

Your example is interesting, but is a lie. He did not do 1400 percent. HE did 100 percent of what he was willing and capable of.doing.

The other workers did less than they were willing to do.

You can't compare apples to oranges as you are attempting to do. If a days work is XXX production and is considered a full day at 100 percent, and a man puts in extra hours and does XXX, he did not do 1400 percent. The amount of time for production measured against actual production is 100 percent.

His production was in excess of the "quota" perhaps, but was more than the other workers, but was HIS 100 percent. The fact that he worked longer and produced more, merely shows that more work produces more. But neither he nor the other workers can work harder or produce more than their individual 100 percent of effort and result.

Your example and convoluted logic tied up in it are ludicrous.

But a interesting twisted view of a faulty system of math, setting base standards, and using extreme examples of faulty reasoning.

ALL THERE IS IS ALL THERE IS. Establishing a figure to be produced by each laborer in a given period of time as a full (100%) amount and then using a single laborer who exceeds the time used and produces more as your proof is a mental process so screwed up as to make me worry about your sanity.

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 19:21
When did this thread go from being about the merits of completeing a game under your own power to a discussion of the mathmatical impossibility of going above 100%?

InGroove2
9th Jun 2009, 19:39
When did this thread go from being about the merits of completeing a game under your own power to a discussion of the mathmatical impossibility of going above 100%?

dont forget roids.

Crypto
9th Jun 2009, 20:59
"all anime is Pokemon"

they both suck tbh

DarthEnder
9th Jun 2009, 21:38
Blasphemy!

BoldEnglishman
9th Jun 2009, 21:42
I know I'm a little late into this thread (even though this thread isn't even a day old yet), but when on earth was John Romero responsible for influencing the Metal Age in a negative way? John Romero was (along with others) in charge of Ion Storm, yes, but Ion Storm created Thief: Deadly Shadows, not the Metal Age.

Somebody mentioned a couple of pages back that because John Romero was using up money to fund Daikatana, Thief II was rushed. How can that possibly be, when Looking Glass Studios was not related to Ion Storm at all? I agree that Thief II was rushed, and we are blessed that the game was actually released before Looking Glass folded - I recognise this. There are heaps and heaps of reasons why Looking Glass folded, the blame cannot be laid solely with one factor, but even so - John Romero is not a factor in Looking Glass' demise, and I really can't understand how people have gotten this into their heads.

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 21:44
I know I'm a little late into this thread (even though this thread isn't even a day old yet), but when on earth was John Romero responsible for influencing the Metal Age in a negative way? John Romero was (along with others) in charge of Ion Storm, yes, but Ion Storm created Thief: Deadly Shadows, not the Metal Age.

Somebody mentioned a couple of pages back that because John Romero was using up money to fund Daikatana, Thief II was rushed. How can that possibly be, when Looking Glass Studios was not related to Ion Storm at all? I agree that Thief II was rushed, and we are blessed that the game was actually released before Looking Glass folded - I recognise this. There are heaps and heaps of reasons why Looking Glass folded, the blame cannot be laid solely with one factor, but even so - John Romero is not a factor in Looking Glass' demise, and I really can't understand how people have gotten this into their heads.

Because they share the same publisher, Eidos. John Romero's epic flop, Daikatana, was sucking up crazy money during its creation. So Eidos pulled funding from Looking Glass Studios to fund Diakatana, causing the studio to go bankrupt and closing. And the post note to that was Daikatana was a criticall and commercial flop.

BoldEnglishman
9th Jun 2009, 21:49
Ahh OK, I had a nagging feeling that I must have been missing something big. Thanks for clearing that up.

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 21:50
Ahh OK, I had a nagging feeling that I must have been missing something big. Thanks for clearing that up.

Not a problem, my good man! :wave:

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 23:17
Nope, that's the deffinition of an RPG. RPG now though is also associated with several different styles of game... 3rd person, party system, turn based combat, etc.

I think one of the reasons 3rd person is preffered in RPG, is it allows the player to isolate themselves from the character more which is normally the goal of the action. I have a friend Russell, and he plays RPG's. He creates a character who's not exactly like himself, and tries to approach situations from that characters point of view instead of his own. 3rd person decreases "immerision" allowing you to isolate yourself from that character more and thus be more likely to consider what their action would be, rather than instantly have your own reaction. Honestly that's how I play thief... "What would Garrett, a master thief do?" and I try to act accordingly.

Wouldn't you rather play Garrett instead? I think that is one of the reasons Garrett is such a memorial character. Players were able to become him WITHOUT changing him into extensions of themselves......actually, they did an amazing job with the character and game immersion when you think about it.

Anyway, not a big fan of 3rd person (or the players who comment how great it is for cheating).

Crypto
9th Jun 2009, 23:37
Blasphemy!

Fanboy!

DarthEnder
9th Jun 2009, 23:42
Touche...

Hypevosa
10th Jun 2009, 01:12
Wouldn't you rather play Garrett instead? I think that is one of the reasons Garrett is such a memorial character. Players were able to become him WITHOUT changing him into extensions of themselves......actually, they did an amazing job with the character and game immersion when you think about it.

Anyway, not a big fan of 3rd person (or the players who comment how great it is for cheating).

No see, that's just what I'm speculating is the reason 3rd person is preferable in RPGs... it detaches you enough from the character that you can think about it from their perspective instead of your own all the time. I play thief in that way, because I do what I think Garrett a master thief would do, instead of just what I want to. I'm not saying thief should be 3rd person... it was just speculation as to the trend of 3rd person for RPG's. I enjoy looking through Garrett's eyes.

As to the conversation about giving 100% vs 110%, it depends on where you take your vantage point of percent. If you look at it as a percent total of your POTENTIAL max capability, then you can never exceed 100%. However, if you look at it relative to the percent total of either your average, or your maximum observed capability, then you can exceed 100%. "Giving 110%" would usually refer to giving more than what's actually demanded of you in a situation.

theBlackman
10th Jun 2009, 01:52
A game, especially of this type, should never divorce you from the character. 3rd person is you watching a movie. Hell if that's what you want, enjoy it.

But you standing and looking as a bystander is like watching a porno flick. A waste of your time and energy.

A overview of the entire playing field from the 3rd person view may be fun in Diablo, or Doom, but being the character (and you can still DWGWD) by being Garrett without seeing guy hiding around the corner, which same Garrett would never know without turning that corner (noises made by the character aside), and would not know who or what that thing around the corner was.

If you play TDS this way, have fun. Fortunately you cannot play TDP or TMA this way. You must use Garrett's "eyes" and ears to play.

From what you say your main, if not only experience has been with TDS, because THERE IS NO 3rd PERSON in the original offerings (TDP-TMA-TGOLD).

As a result I find your comments less and less interesting with every post.

Hypevosa
10th Jun 2009, 02:26
"I enjoy looking through garrett's eyes" put blatantly, means I prefer playing in 1st person. I've played each of the original games at least 2 if not 3 times at this point. TDS I only bothered playing once, and am on my second run through. I actually disabled the view change button so I don't accidentally do it.

I said, I was merely speculating why a 3rd person camera is ideal for those who actually Role Play in role playing games. I was also saying that inspite of there not being something divorcing my psyche from Garrett such as a 3rd person Camera, I still try to act as I believe Garrett, a master thief would act when I play the game.

Please bother reading every line, as each serves a purpose. And please stop being such a rid**** to me about it.

theBlackman
10th Jun 2009, 02:39
You are right, I misread your comment, and apologize.

I quote: [...]it detaches you enough from the character that you can think about it from their perspective instead of your own all the time. I play thief in that way[...] does tend to reinforce my original surmise.

It would help if you clearly differentiate your "speculation" from your chosen methodology.

Hypevosa
10th Jun 2009, 02:48
Alright so I didn't say "I play first person" I said "I like looking through garrett's eyes". When I write I tend to use metaphor, sorry. I just feel you always pick on me for stuff.

"Hype really doesn't get it and should stick to Doom, Diablo, or whatever other mindless pursuits he/she/it engages in. "

That's really probably the main reason I see you as an adversary in these forums. Yeah, I made the original thread suggesting weapons upgrades... I made a new one because I finally had an idea I thought was acceptable (hence all the limitations I put on it) and I wanted to see how people felt about it, so I made it a poll. You jumped down my throat within 20 seconds of me posting the topic, just because I wanted to poll everyone's feelings on it. The comment is not just a simple comment, it insinuates I don't understand anything about thief and shouldn't bother playing the game, and... basically, that people shouldn't put any thought to things I say. It wasn't cool, and was really not necessary at all. You don't have to try to make friends on these forums, but making statements that really could only create enemies isn't a wise decision.

theBlackman
10th Jun 2009, 02:55
Just to set the record straight. The original comment that started this post had nothing to do with you; Believe it or not you are not the only person with ideas that most seasoned THIEF players find offensive and game destroying.

If I was addressing you or any other individual directly I would do so in a PM.

A "what do you think about..." thread is common. Presenting an idea is expected. But the plethora of commonly used "upgrades" here and in other forums seem to be generated by the Xboxers and other console players, who have no contact with the original games.

As I said " If the shoe fits..." if it's not you, then forget it but your constant protests does tend to lead me to think that it might be you.

Hypevosa
10th Jun 2009, 03:01
"Hype really doesn't get it and should stick to Doom, Diablo, or whatever other mindless pursuits he/she/it engages in."

Again, that's the only reason that you bother me, and you and Myth have been the only ones to make posts like these towards anyone (that I've seen). It serves no purpose in that thread but to be discrediting and hurtful. I guarantee you don't love the games a damn bit more than I do. We just differ in how much we'd be willing to accept new ideas or change.

theBlackman
10th Jun 2009, 03:22
I've said before, and I say again. Anything that does not ruin the original tenor and feeling of the game is OK. But you don't seem to feel the same way. The point that has often been presented is that you can't improve on "the game". You can improve the graphics, you can improve the "controls" and manipulation of the character. You might even be able to improve the maps and add more to the architecture.

But you can't improve the equipment and add "upgrades" in ability to Garrett (whether it be equipment or skill enhancement), without changing the entire characteristic of the game itself.

That's the part you don't get.

Hypevosa
10th Jun 2009, 03:31
That still doesn't change the comment you made. I'm not here discussing weapons upgrades, I've already made it clear that I feel they aren't THAT important to a game. It's basically a reward for those who bother collecting more than the loot requirement, by having the convenience of a bow with a slightly more detailed sight for the bow, or the ability to scare off/distract opponents by disarming them instead of killing them, and they'd still go summon friends anyways.

But I'm just addressing the fact that I feel the comment was unjustified, because it was not a criticism of the idea, it was a criticism of ME. Attacking the poster isn't the way to respond to an idea you don't like. Attack the idea, let others read both sides and decide whose they agree with, but attacking the poster is not the most honorable thing to do. This may be the thief forums, but come on... a little honor amongst rogues.

theBlackman
10th Jun 2009, 03:38
You still don't get it. End of interaction. By the way "weapons" were not introduced into this except by you.

kaekaelyn
10th Jun 2009, 03:39
As much as I disagree with Hype on the upgrades idea, I still agree with him here. I know we all have certain expectations of Thief 4, and we don't want to see the franchise taking steps in a direction we don't want it to. But what that means to each of us differs, and that doesn't mean one person or another is some sort of retard who shouldn't be allowed to present his/her ideas or, as has been suggested before, shouldn't even be playing Thief in the first place. We all want Thief to grow. Some of us are more conservative about it than others, but we're all just trying to improve the game, so in my opinion the vitrol and hatred makes us really difficult for any devs to want to pay attention to.

I know I've succumbed to it too. I made a really sarcastic post about how I must be a "consoletard" because I played TDS on the Xbox. It was largely ignored, just as it should have been. And that's what this whole forum is going to become, if we're not careful. Just a bunch of angry blathering and bickering that's best ignored.

If you want to show that someone's opinion is not what the fans want and is not in the spirit of the game, you can say that, or make a poll to prove it (we have a few people here who aren't too familiar with the game, but most of us are die-hard fans so it provides a pretty good sample.) You shouldn't have to resort to personal attacks if your argument has any merit at all.

Enough with my disorganized and poorly worded rant, though.

Hypevosa
10th Jun 2009, 03:54
Alright so I didn't say "I play first person" I said "I like looking through garrett's eyes". When I write I tend to use metaphor, sorry. I just feel you always pick on me for stuff.

"Hype really doesn't get it and should stick to Doom, Diablo, or whatever other mindless pursuits he/she/it engages in. "

That's really probably the main reason I see you as an adversary in these forums. Yeah, I made the original thread suggesting weapons upgrades... I made a new one because I finally had an idea I thought was acceptable (hence all the limitations I put on it) and I wanted to see how people felt about it, so I made it a poll. You jumped down my throat within 20 seconds of me posting the topic, just because I wanted to poll everyone's feelings on it. The comment is not just a simple comment, it insinuates I don't understand anything about thief and shouldn't bother playing the game, and... basically, that people shouldn't put any thought to things I say. It wasn't cool, and was really not necessary at all. You don't have to try to make friends on these forums, but making statements that really could only create enemies isn't a wise decision.

The post was CLEARLY about what your first comment in the thread, and not about the main theme of the thread. Stop dancing around it like a ****ing politician, and justify the existence of your comment as to what games I should play.

Nate
10th Jun 2009, 04:57
Bah, nobody needs to get so upset over this. We are all trying to make the best Thi4f possible.

Ideas and suggestions shouldn't have so much Ego poured into them.

I am betting at the end of the day, the devs are going to do a back to basics with Thi4f and only implement the ideas/suggestions that mesh well with the game concept anyway. but the more constructive ideas they can choose from = the better.

Flashart
10th Jun 2009, 06:47
I can't see how an extra weapon or tool will change the integrity of the game. I never used invisibility or slow-fall potions, their very existence had zero impact on my game experience. I'm an original gamer playing a "semi-ghost" style, if I've got my blackjack and a handful of arrows I'm happy. But I'm willing to concede that other people want and do play the game in a different style, I'd like to see thought put into how each additional thing might affect the game. My personal fave is the ability to go prone and commando crawl, that would be fantastic! If it was introduced to the original games it would have no negative impact.

jtr7
10th Jun 2009, 06:50
The impact is time wasted on unnecessary things, when the classic play was already amazingly flexible and lean.


I still wanna know they can build a proper foundation before building up from there.




It's been my long time understanding that the added potions were not well-received and not merely ignored by players who didn't wish to work them into their playstyles. Who knows how much development time was wasted or influenced by their implementation, including discussions, arguments, concept sketches, model-building, and level design. Could be not much or too much, but we know TMA has flaws that could've been smoothed out with more time. All speculative, but not implausible. Although alchemy IS a part of the Thief Universe, giving Garrett invisibility potions seemed a break in continuity and a crutch. My favorite TMA moment came from the use of a slow-fall potion, but that was once, and I only ever use the potions to experiment with, knowing they are unnecessary, and generally disliked anyway. ISA was correct in not implementing the sound suppressor disc. Neat concept in its own right, it didn't need to be a part of Thief. Too bad the moss arrows were noisy, and the moss evaporated!

BoldEnglishman
10th Jun 2009, 10:20
because THERE IS NO 3rd PERSON in the original offerings (TDP-TMA-TGOLD).

This actually applies to all of the Doom games, apart from Doom III which had in-game cutscenes (but then again, many Doom fans are split regarding Doom III much the same way Thief fans are split regarding Thief: Deadly Shadows).

huzi73
10th Jun 2009, 11:06
You still don't get it. End of interaction. By the way "weapons" were not introduced into this except by you.



Actually,that might be partially my fault... (maybe im wrong)



Well well,here is now a solid thread.... Or is it?

Let me get this right, basically you want THI4F to be TDP/TMA with modern graphics?
I cant agree more, the game should not be changed for the sake of changing/making it easier/making it similar to Assassins Creed or whatever. No argument there.

But please explain to me, how the following will be detracting from the "thief experience"
in any way:

1)Upgradable weapons(well actually, Upgradable is the wrong term, people totally misunderstood Hype in that thread, what he meant, was Constantine's sword over the normal sword and Vine arrows over rope arrows.)

While people (Including me) disagree with some of his suggestions (silk strings? Teeth on the sword?), others are completely sensible (IF they are mission centered, or form part of the plot. Example TDP's Constantine's sword, TMA's vine arrows). So as long as they are not similar to the "super blackjack" from TDS, I dont see how they will detract from the "spirit" of the game

2)Rebalancing the sword or utilising the dagger as a tool, like the sword from the 1st was used, cant be a bad thing

3)Using rope arrows vertically? how will that kill the game?

4)Garrett being able to go prone? Or slip under beds/tables? How could that be a bad thing?

By the way, some of these were points you harshly criticised in other threads.

Herr_Garrett
10th Jun 2009, 14:33
The quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail... But hope remains, if taffers stay true.

:rolleyes:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
12th Jun 2009, 21:26
The quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail... But hope remains, if taffers stay true.

Absolutely, so let us pray. :worship:

Gillie
13th Jun 2009, 12:56
Great quotes there. So true even looking at a lot of the modern games, not a patch on Thief. There is the adrenalin rush the fear, the stealth,nothing can match.
Talking of Fan made missions once again there are no other games can reach this.
Playing Melan's sequel to bad debts "Disorientation", what a blast outstanding and if T4 is anything like this or other Missions, there will be no worry's. :cool:

So what is the point kill everything... Game over. :thumb:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
13th Jun 2009, 16:21
^
Yea, I've just finished Melan's latest mission, I mentioned it in our Chronicles thread.
What can I say, its nothing short of AMAZING. Loved every moment of it, such attention to detail, genius! :cool:
Bless the Builder(s) - fan mission makers are my heroes! :worship:

TheEye
15th Jul 2009, 18:24
..... IT'S JUST A GAME, YOU NERD! people should have the choice of seeing walkthoughs. nobody likes cheats and they should not exist in thief. BUT, not everyone can just spend their time in front of the PC all day. quit your whining. if you want so much atmosphere try being a thief for real. maybe then you'll have some sort of life outside you dark little room.

ToMegaTherion
15th Jul 2009, 19:38
Do you have to keep resurrecting threads like this? Why not let the lame threads wither away deep in the forum?

kabatta
15th Jul 2009, 19:40
Apparently this one follower is too zealous.

Nate
15th Jul 2009, 19:56
He must be a Hammerite.