PDA

View Full Version : Do you prefer a City Hub OR better missions?



Nate
13th Jun 2009, 13:54
Which do you prefer?

Option 1: A City Hub where Garrett can run around and do business. There would be around 15 storyline missions.

OR

Option 2: No City Hub. Garrett does his business prior to missions on a purchase screen like the first 2 games of the series. HOWEVER, the 15 storyline missions are MUCH larger and MUCH more developed (could have more missions include part of the city like 'Life of the Party').

***ADDED AFTER THE FACT: Okay guys, this is an Either/Or question here. The point is to let the devs know what is more important for us, a city hub or better missions. Please do not answer 'I want a city hub AND bigger/better missions!'

***AGAIN ADDED AFTER THE FACT: Okay, there is a complaint that my poll question is loaded with the 'better missions' part. Let me explain where I am coming from here. Devs have limited time to work on City Hub AND missions. OR they drop the City Hub and focus all that time on missions (which logically means better missions).

kabatta
13th Jun 2009, 13:58
I want a city mission like in "Life of the party".

Nate
13th Jun 2009, 14:04
Yeah, that is what I was thinking. Instead of a City Hub, they could have some bigger missions that include part of the city.

Pieter888
13th Jun 2009, 14:08
I prefer the way it was in thief 3.
just make the world where the player can walk around bigger so there can be put more missions in it.

Nate
13th Jun 2009, 14:10
Hi Pieter888, just so we are clear. You choose to have a City Hub and regular sized/developed missions.

Remember, this is an Either/Or question.....you don't get to say 'I Want Both!'

Hamadriyad
13th Jun 2009, 14:19
But both should be an option.

Pieter888
13th Jun 2009, 14:21
Hi Pieter888, just so we are clear. You choose to have a City Hub and regular sized/developed missions.

Remember, this is an Either/Or question.....you don't get to say 'I Want Both!'

In that case I choose for the City hub

Nate
13th Jun 2009, 14:25
But both should be an option.

The devs have limited time and resources to put into this game. The point of the poll is to let the devs know what is more important to us (city hub or better missions).

Saying that you want 'BOTH!' means you missed the whole point of the poll.

Platinumoxicity
13th Jun 2009, 14:28
The problem with a city hub is this: If you have a loadout screen, you need to carefully choose what equipment you want to buy, and whether you want to spend money of special mission tips or not. If you have a city hub, you most likely have to have money and equipment that carries through to the next mission. This way the devs can't design a particular mission's equipment selection so that it suits the amount of loot you got from the last mission. T1 and T2 had a selection of equipment for sale, where for example, if you bought an invisibility potion, you couldn't afford 12 water arrows instead. And if you spent all your money on fire arrows, you couldn't get that extra rope arrow. Every loadout of equipment you chose was suitable for a specific strategy.

In TDS even when you could, you didn't even need to save money for hard times and you could always afford buying everything you could carry. And the worst thing, everything was always on sale and there were infinite amounts of them. Also if you ran out of money, you could just mug 15 civilians and go shopping again.

ToMegaTherion
13th Jun 2009, 14:31
Unless they can fix loot/equipment to work with the hub idea so that it is more like Dark Project and Metal Age, I choose option 2.

Even if they were to fix the loadout system, still probably option 2, don't really want to walk around the same area too much. But if they fix the loadout system adequately and the city hub doesn't require much/any going over the same ground twice, then option 1 might indeed become preferable.

Platinumoxicity
13th Jun 2009, 14:36
Unless they can fix loot/equipment to work with the hub idea so that it is more like Dark Project and Metal Age, I choose option 2.

Even if they were to fix the loadout system, still probably option 2, don't really want to walk around the same area too much. But if they fix the loadout system adequately and the city hub doesn't require much/any going over the same ground twice, then option 1 might indeed become preferable.

Yeah, Garrett could have little hideouts in many sections of the City, and he could move to a different section for each mission, where he could sell the loot, buy some equipment and crash in his hideout. This way you would never have to walk through the same part of the City over and over agin. :)

Nate
13th Jun 2009, 14:38
Not to mention you could fine tons of magic arrows just lying around the city hub.

Platinumoxicity
13th Jun 2009, 14:40
Not to mention you could fine tons of magic arrows just lying around the city hub.

Did you present that as a good thing or a bad thing?

If good, then :mad:
If bad, then :p

simlan
13th Jun 2009, 14:50
ill add that i always began to found it annoying going thorugh the city hub as after a whilst it just became chore to get from point a to point b, running through the city guard without a care which took the whole thief and stealth feeling away as i wanted to get to the next mission.

and having everything all the time just made things a bit too easy

Nate
13th Jun 2009, 15:01
Did you present that as a good thing or a bad thing?

If good, then :mad:
If bad, then :p

Haha, I was presenting it as a BAD thing. It was pretty lame that magic arrows cost so much in the shops...but the arrows literally grew on trees just outside the shop doors.


ill add that i always began to found it annoying going thorugh the city hub as after a whilst it just became chore to get from point a to point b, running through the city guard without a care which took the whole thief and stealth feeling away as i wanted to get to the next mission.

and having everything all the time just made things a bit too easy

Yeah, the constant back and forth between points in the city hub got a bit old for me as well after a while. I also started just sprinting past guards instead of taking the time to sneak by them after a while.

Hamadriyad
13th Jun 2009, 15:24
The devs have limited time and resources to put into this game. The point of the poll is to let the devs know what is more important to us (city hub or better missions).

Saying that you want 'BOTH!' means you missed the whole point of the poll.

Limited time? Why? I can wait for 10 years for a great Thief game.I have patiance. Because of this I love Thief. No rush.
But so be it, I choose better/bigger missions then.

Pieter888
13th Jun 2009, 15:25
Yeah, the constant back and forth between points in the city hub got a bit old for me as well after a while. I also started just sprinting past guards instead of taking the time to sneak by them after a while.

The constant back and forth walking shouldn't be a problem if it wasn't so boring.
They should have made more different events for the town so guards will change positions every time you had to go through it again. or a random event will happen like a horse cart accident, another thief, or a guard with mental problems:nut:

This should change the way people feel about having to travel back and forth all the time.

Tushaar
13th Jun 2009, 16:46
City hub for sure. Would like to see the locations where missions take place. Thief 1/2 had great missions but i didnt know jack **** about the city and it's locations.
City hub.

Nothke
13th Jun 2009, 17:08
hm, I don't know, either can be great, just if it is done in the right way

Icky6
13th Jun 2009, 18:31
I'd prefer for the devs to NOT focus on a city hub unless they have the time.

As someone said in another thread, the City should feel like home, not a hub. TDS' hub got tiring because it was just a place to traverse from Point A to Point B. It felt like filler. This wasn't helped by the fact that it felt very uncomplicated for being a city. If it's supposed to be the heart of an old city, it should have lots of alleyways, multiple paths... not for a particular purpose, just to add diversity.

What I'm getting at is that if they're going to make a "hub," it needs to have good level design; it is a level in and of itself, after all. My main gripe with TDS was that its levels were much simpler and therefore less interesting than either of the previous games. (Side note, also the reason I never picked up Frontlines: Fuel of War, both of the demo levels were sooooo much less interesting and varied than Battlefield 2.)

If the City hub feels large and complicated and interesting, then I'm all for it. But if implemented the way it was in TDS, where it felt like something included so they could have a bullet point for "City Hub!" on the box or whatever, then no.

xDarknessFallsx
13th Jun 2009, 18:34
City hubs are repetitive, laborious and boring for me. Just give me a cutscene, a store screen to buy stuff, and then take me to the next mission so I can get on with the game.

Slugo
13th Jun 2009, 19:02
City Hub got boring after a while in Deadly Shadows. I would rather better mission maps!!!!

Hypevosa
13th Jun 2009, 19:02
OK, I have issues with your poll since it would be stupid for someone to say they don't want better missions... really? you could be a little less biased if you're truly trying to take an accurate poll instead of skew the results.

Yes, I want better missions, but I also want a city hub. Just because Ion Storm was INCOMPETENT in their ability to make one, does not mean they are bad by default. I'd rather not have the size of my missions cut in HALF because I have to now travel all that distance too. Look at it this way... if every mission includes it's one half, or EVEN just a quarter of the mission is treking through the city or going by rooftop to get to your final destination, that means you've essentially created a city hub thats 7.5, or 3.75 levels in size! Why not just create a city hub at that point that's smaller so that the ACTUAL levels can be larger? Really I'd like to have large levels, but I'd like the part of the level that's important to be large! Life of the party was great, but getting to the party was 60% of the level and I don't want every level of thief 4 to be like that.

Hamadriyad
13th Jun 2009, 19:12
OK, I have issues with your poll since it would be stupid for someone to say they don't want better missions... really? you could be a little less biased if you're truly trying to take an accurate poll instead of skew the results.

Yes, I want better missions, but I also want a city hub. Just because Ion Storm was INCOMPETENT in their ability to make one, does not mean they are bad by default. I'd rather not have the size of my missions cut in HALF because I have to now travel all that distance too. Look at it this way... if every mission includes it's one half, or EVEN just a quarter of the mission is treking through the city or going by rooftop to get to your final destination, that means you've essentially created a city hub thats 7.5, or 3.75 levels in size! Why not just create a city hub at that point that's smaller so that the ACTUAL levels can be larger? Really I'd like to have large levels, but I'd like the part of the level that's important to be large! Life of the party was great, but getting to the party was 60% of the level and I don't want every level of thief 4 to be like that.
I like this idea.

fayfuya
13th Jun 2009, 19:14
No Thief without the city! the best part of Thief i that you can sneak around a free-roam city and breaking into homes, breaking to the armory, the prison...shops and fences...wtf is wrong with you guys?
The best part of Thief is that you find the missions by crossing the city, you got where to go...it's much more intersting...we need a city

fayfuya
13th Jun 2009, 19:15
No Thief without the city! the best part of Thief i that you can sneak around a free-roam city and breaking into homes, breaking to the armory, the prison...shops and fences...wtf is wrong with you guys?
The best part of Thief is that you find the missions by crossing the city, you got where to go...it's much more intersting...we need a city

Nate
13th Jun 2009, 19:32
OK, I have issues with your poll since it would be stupid for someone to say they don't want better missions... really? you could be a little less biased if you're truly trying to take an accurate poll instead of skew the results.

Yes, I want better missions, but I also want a city hub. Just because Ion Storm was INCOMPETENT in their ability to make one, does not mean they are bad by default. I'd rather not have the size of my missions cut in HALF because I have to now travel all that distance too. Look at it this way... if every mission includes it's one half, or EVEN just a quarter of the mission is treking through the city or going by rooftop to get to your final destination, that means you've essentially created a city hub thats 7.5, or 3.75 levels in size! Why not just create a city hub at that point that's smaller so that the ACTUAL levels can be larger? Really I'd like to have large levels, but I'd like the part of the level that's important to be large! Life of the party was great, but getting to the party was 60% of the level and I don't want every level of thief 4 to be like that.

Well, the question is actually pretty valid and to the point. The devs have a limited amount of time. They can either A) develop both a city hub and missions, or B) put all their time into making the missions (WHICH LOGICALLY WOULD MEAN BETTER MISSIONS).

I don't see how you think the question is biased?....unless you are saying more time put into making missions has no effect on the end result!

As for your second part, you complain that you want the city hub so the main missions will be bigger because you won't have to travel through the city to get to your destination....you kind of lost me there!?!

IF you were saying that you don't want any main missions to include parts of the city like 'life of the party'....well then I have to ask why? That was a very well liked mission. Some of us would like to see a couple of missions like 'Life of the Party'....but I can agree with you that we don't want every mission to have a run through to city to get to your destination (which a City Hub would force us to do, by the way!).

Also, we are talking about PC and Xbox 360 here....the devs have plenty of hardware capability here to avoid tiny levels (not sure how you thought a city hub would help in any case).

13LACK13ISHOP
13th Jun 2009, 19:42
No hub please. For me its just buy your stuff and then into the missions. No taffin around. The makers of thief should spend their resources on the missions themselves.

MasterTaffer
13th Jun 2009, 19:42
If I had to choose one or the other, I'de make the obvious choice of better missions. But I don't think there is any reason to not expect both.

xDarknessFallsx
13th Jun 2009, 19:48
I like this idea.
I don't. I'd rather have purple hazy load areas inside missions for crying out loud :) So yes, I really don't like any City Hub idea.


Fayfuya wrote: No Thief without the city! the best part of Thief i that you can sneak around a free-roam city and breaking into homes, breaking to the armory, the prison....wtf is wrong with you guys?
Save it for the missions! Free-roaming through a non-mission area is boring to me. And I don't want to have to traverse 1/2 a mile to get to my next mission. I don't understand what the appeal is to City Hubs. Ugh!!

jtr7
13th Jun 2009, 19:48
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1025263&postcount=32
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1024987&postcount=22
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1025258&postcount=16

Icky6
13th Jun 2009, 19:55
No Thief without the city! the best part of Thief i that you can sneak around a free-roam city and breaking into homes, breaking to the armory, the prison...shops and fences...wtf is wrong with you guys?
The best part of Thief is that you find the missions by crossing the city, you got where to go...it's much more intersting...we need a city

Except that in Thief: Deadly Shadow's it *wasn't* more interesting. Not terrible, mind you, and I sort of like the idea of it making the City feel more like a cohesive whole. But the only way it can feel like a cohesive whole is if it actually feels like a city (or parts of it), and not just, here's Main Street, it intersects with Main Street #2, and bam City Hub.

Also if there's a City Hub (I hate that word hub), then there need to be a wealth of buildings that you can break into, again to increase the feeling of it being a city. In TDS, part of the reason the hub seemed like a gimmick more than anything was that it was obvious where you were "supposed to" break in and steal stuff. It should be more that you stumble upon a thousand little apartments that are scattered throughout the city... like it would be in a real city. Obviously, I don't mean this too literally, there are limits to what the devs can/should do. But again, flesh the city out more.

Palmberg
13th Jun 2009, 20:01
Bigger and better missions for sure. City hub in TDS was terrible, and now I got reminded of the so called "Thieves highway" in Old quarter, now that was a disappointment. When Garrett first referred to it as so, I was all "Oooh!" but after a quick glance it was more "Aww.."

Reminds me of Fruit stripe gum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV_-O4nfT2U&feature=related

jtr7
13th Jun 2009, 20:06
There's no need for a hub if the city is designed after most real cities.

DiegoFloor
13th Jun 2009, 20:18
At first, the city was great. But soon became boring to play in the same set all over again, and again, and again, and again... Maybe if it's larger, WAY larger, it doesn't get that boring before the end of the game.

Btw, poll options cannot contain arguments in it! Make it only "I want city hub" and "I don't want city hub". I can't cast my vote this way.

Nate
13th Jun 2009, 20:29
Hmmmm, you are right. There is an argument in the poll question.

Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as do you want a city hub or not....that answer has a direct effect on how much time/effort they put into the main missions.

Hypevosa
13th Jun 2009, 20:32
Well, the question is actually pretty valid and to the point. The devs have a limited amount of time. They can either A) develop both a city hub and missions, or B) put all their time into making the missions (WHICH LOGICALLY WOULD MEAN BETTER MISSIONS).

I don't see how you think the question is biased?....unless you are saying more time put into making missions has no effect on the end result!

As for your second part, you complain that you want the city hub so the main missions will be bigger because you won't have to travel through the city to get to your destination....you kind of lost me there!?!

IF you were saying that you don't want any main missions to include parts of the city like 'life of the party'....well then I have to ask why? That was a very well liked mission. Some of us would like to see a couple of missions like 'Life of the Party'....but I can agree with you that we don't want every mission to have a run through to city to get to your destination (which a City Hub would force us to do, by the way!).

Also, we are talking about PC and Xbox 360 here....the devs have plenty of hardware capability here to avoid tiny levels (not sure how you thought a city hub would help in any case).

The question is biased because it says "City hub, or Bigger and Better missions". No person in the right mind doesn't want bigger better missions, but they may also want a city hub...

And you're wrong about time, as of this moment there is no date, hell, they probably haven't even pinned down a good story yet... there is no time constraint, and as long as they don't pull a duke nukem forever, then they'll be allowed as much time as they need. A city hub shouldn't be that amazingly different from a real mission. Let's say that life of the party is the mission size we're looking at, and instead of multiple levels to angel watch, those are all roof tops. That would make a nice large city hub, and all it would be would be basically one mission! Heck, if they're over achievers they could make it 2 missions in size. Just developing missions instead of missions and a city hub, does not logically equate to better missions, because they can create just as crappy missions without a city hub.

Ok, my second part... If I am "in a mission" I want to be "in the mission" not traveling to the mission. If I'm off to rob a mansion, I want to get there, and then be at the mansion, I want the MANSION to be the large level, not the trip there to take half of it. Because if the trip there is included, it's halving the potential size of the mansion. Understand? level design of 1/2 city treck + 1/2 mansion vs 100% mansion, I'd rather have 100% mansion.

I don't mind if there's one or two life of the party style missions, but my point was that if we included part of the city in every single mission, then we might as well have a city hub instead because the sum of all those "parts" of the city would meet or exceed what would be necessary to make a good city hub...

And I never questioned the ability for them to make a city hub or levels large, I'm saying if we go with what everyone's saying and "make them as large as TMA and TDP" but also include the trek through the city as part of it, then you'd end up with the equivalent of a TDS sized location as your destination, because you wasted half the level on traveling there.

Ion storm ****ED UP when they tried to make the city hub. It's their fault that it became a bad idea, and the locus of alot of fan hatred. A competent developer could make a city hub that was enjoyable, that the player didn't mind traveling through. Here's what I would do:

Size and Placement:
Take 2 "life of the party" levels and smack em into one... Ok, now you have a good size city hub, be sure to make sure the streets get the attention the rooftops got. Place the areas to go to for missions at the appropriate places at the edges of the city, and place some means to get to the rooftops at each one (rope arrow thing, fire escape, etc). Now make an easily navigable thieves highway (takes 5 minutes to get from one side to the other max if the player is smart about it and doesn't loiter). Put Garrett's home in the center of the city, top floor, with a rooftop hatch. Now place shops and fences at strategic locations in the city, and make them (at least a few) have a roof top entrance, and if not that, a fire escape or alleyway with something they could fire their rope arrow into so they can get to where they want to be. Don't place elemental crystals anywhere but a single time, after the player collects them once it's done, that way they don't feel the need to go to every sector to collect the gas arrow from there or something stupid like that.

Guards and Citizens Protocol:
Set guard patrols in logical places, guards don't respawn, but will be in the same patrols the next day. Anywhere crime was committed (knockout, mugging, murder), set one more guard on a randomly generated patrol of 50 feet in length. Set citizens in each home, give them a schedule, generate loot between 0-500gold worth in home, and generate a purse value 5gold-100gold on belt if male or noble, assuming we always travel at night, some are always asleep, some always hit the pub, some go do their shopping for tonight's job (randomly generate where they are shopping today), etc. If that citizen's schedule is interrupted (i.e. they're mugged, or knocked out) change their schedule to another one, after a second interruption, every interruption has a 20% chance they just sit at home in the fetal position talking about shadows moving and stuff, otherwise generate new schedule. If a citizen is murdered, next night if any family resides in the house hold they will be mourning in their house with randomly generated other family, the next day they'll be mourning at the graveyard (with randomly generated epitaft from list) and the next day they'll leave the city, the house is now empty, 30% each day chance that it's filled again.

The Purge Protocol:
If Garrett murders more than 5 people in the city the guards get thick helmets and better chainmail. If Garrett murders 10 people in the city, guards are now equipped with repeating crossbows and a plate on the back to prevent backstabs. If Garrett murders 20 people in the city, guards now use fire bolts (instead of arrows) in those repeating crossbows. If Garrett murders all the people in the district or more than 50%,of its population, upon completion of the next level the district is evacuated, all people aside from guards are gone, randomly generate guards equal to 25% of the population in random positions throughout the city, randomly generate number between 10 and 20 thieves who are being hunted throughout the city, all guards now have bulls eye lanterns and are automatically on high alert, close all shops and fences, generate 2 guards and place them in Garrett's home, and one on the roof. Note about next mission is pinned to inside of house door, sustain for 3 more missions, after which the old citizens move back in, and a few new ones are generated to replace the old.

Flavor and Fun:
Add flavor writings to parts of city, and give a few citizens journals to write down their experiences, usually meaning if Garrett does something to them. Create at least 5 different stories and place them throughout the city (think Benny's infected finger from TDS).

That would be an amazing city hub to me... the purging was fun to come up with if the player murdered people for no reason. Yes, it would take a while to create, but it shouldn't take much longer than any other 2 GOOD missions.

Hypevosa
13th Jun 2009, 20:36
Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as do you want a city hub or not....that answer has a direct effect on how much time/effort they put into the main missions.

It doesn't... there's no date set for the project. If eidos shafts them and says "Do it in 2 years" I'd forgo the city hub for missions, yes, but if they have 3 or 4 or 5 years to make it, like they could probably do a decent job as long as they don't take 3 month vacations at a time.

Nate
13th Jun 2009, 20:41
LOL, the point of the poll IS to make forum members choose which is more important to them....city hub OR bigger/better mission maps.....do you understand? I am trying to get you guys to say which is more important to you so the devs know how to make the best game possible.

As far as your 'the devs can take as much time as they need' to make this game......are you serious? You don't think they have deadlines or limited work hours for this project????

As far as 'Life of the Party' type missions where you have to travel a bit of the city to get there..we are only asking for a couple of those. Like the City Hub, it is something that would quickly get tedious if we had to do over and over and over and over again.

ToMegaTherion
13th Jun 2009, 20:48
Oh my... a paragraph that fills the entire screen :eek:

DiegoFloor
13th Jun 2009, 20:50
Yes, but those are not the only arguments possible. There may be other reasons for hub and not hub, and the thread should be open for that discussion. Also, there may be counter arguments for those of the poll.

Hypevosa
13th Jun 2009, 20:53
LOL, the point of the poll IS to make forum members choose which is more important to them....city hub OR bigger/better mission maps.....do you understand? I am trying to get you guys to say which is more important to you so the devs know how to make the best game possible.

As far as your 'the devs can take as much time as they need' to make this game......are you serious? You don't think they have deadlines or limited work hours for this project????

As far as 'Life of the Party' type missions where you have to travel a bit of the city to get there..we are only asking for a couple of those. Like the City Hub, it is something that would quickly get tedious if we had to do over and over and over and over again.

You're implying a lack of city hub means bigger and better missions, where it does not. There is no relation between the two. It's like me making a thread about "Better AI, or Bigger Better levels?" because AI takes alot of time to make work well.

And yes, they can take as much time as they need as of the moment. Once Eidos actually puts them on a time limit, THAT is when they are limited. Until then, they have the potential to work for as long as they need to make a good game. Let's hope they aren't slackers like the duke nukem forever people, and we may have an amazing game on our hands.

Spore took 9 years to make
Duke Nukem Forever was 12 years in production until it was canceled

Hypevosa
13th Jun 2009, 20:54
Oh my... a paragraph that fills the entire screen :eek:

Sorry, I was trying to make a good city hub. Be glad I didn't bother putting it in code ;D

There, I spaced it out, is that better?

Nate
13th Jun 2009, 21:14
Yes, but those are not the only arguments possible. There may be other reasons for hub and not hub, and the thread should be open for that discussion. Also, there may be counter arguments for those of the poll.

Absolutely! Please include your ideas, thoughts and suggestions concerning the city hub in this discussion.


You're implying a lack of city hub means bigger and better missions, where it does not. There is no relation between the two. It's like me making a thread about "Better AI, or Bigger Better levels?" because AI takes alot of time to make work well.

The devs have a limited amount of work hours and $ to put into making this game (I know you think that this isn't the case, but it IS). The City Hub is basically a massive super level that doesn't have much to do with the story (and is very repetitive by nature). Working on this massive super level will take MUCH more time than any of the other levels (probably more than 2 or 3 levels put together).

My point is how can you think that the City Hub super level won't take away time and effort from the other levels???

I don't think anybody here (except you) thinks that a City Hub doesn't take effort away from other parts of the game's development. Nobody else here thinks that the devs can take as much time as they'd like to make this game either....do you think your being the only one supporting your arguments is a coincidence?

Hypevosa
13th Jun 2009, 21:35
The devs have a limited amount of work hours and $ to put into making this game (I know you think that this isn't the case, but it IS). The City Hub is basically a massive super level that doesn't have much to do with the story (and is very repetitive by nature). Working on this massive super level will take MUCH more time than any of the other levels (probably more than 2 or 3 levels put together).

My point is how can you think that the City Hub super level won't take away time and effort from the other levels???

I don't think anybody here (except you) thinks that a City Hub doesn't take effort away from other parts of the game's development. Nobody else here thinks that the devs can take as much time as they'd like to make this game either....do you think your being the only one supporting your arguments is a coincidence?

They aren't limited as of yet, don't act like they are. Game publishers don't actually put a time limit on production until there's a feasible limit to place. When the game is still in the concept phase, there isn't a feasible time to place on it. I can say a city hub super level won't take effort away from other levels because all the levels should have equal focus placed on them, city hub included. It's like I said in the "classic" levels thread. There should be no number of classics, but each level should have the same effort put into it. You don't go into plans for making the levels of a game going "Ok, we have to have at least 2 AWESOME missions, what are they?" and then shaft the rest of them.

I think AI development takes away time from other parts of a game's development... I think story development takes time away from other parts of a game's development... I think that vacations take away from parts of a game's development. The issue I have is that you're focusing on a facet of a previous game that failed to meet expectations, you're focusing on a failure. A city hub won't necessarily detract from other levels, unless they're stupid and take everyone working on other things off and put them to the city hub.

The question shouldn't be "City hub and levels, or BIGGER BETTER LEVELS *wink wink*" so much as it should be "Would you enjoy a good city hub and levels, or would you rather just have levels?" and leave it at that.

"do you think your being the only one supporting your arguments is a coincidence?" Is just unnecessary, because I honestly, don't give a damn what other people think when I'm voicing MY opinion. Don't try to shut me up using the majority, it won't work.

My opinion is that I'd enjoy a city hub and larger better levels, and that if the developer is competent, these two aren't mutually exclusive.

Nate
13th Jun 2009, 22:03
LOL, so you are arguing that "City hub and levels, or BIGGER BETTER LEVELS *wink wink*" is biased....but your 'Would you enjoy a GOOD city hub and levels, or would you rather just have levels?" isn't?

Anyway, like it or not, but the team that makes the levels will be the same guys making a City Hub....and they will have limited time frames. So it does come down to EITHER time spent on a City Hub AND mission maps, OR that time spent on just the mission maps.

Hypevosa
13th Jun 2009, 22:18
No, my question has no bias because there is no choice in quality of the levels played. The qualifier of good is used merely to distinguish that it wouldn't be the city hub of old (usually synonymous with crap). Because if the question was just "would you like a city hub and levels or just levels" people would probably assume a city hub as in the crap city hub that already is. I could also word the question "would you enjoy having a city hub (not like TDS's, but actually good) and levels, or just levels?" with the same results.

I'd rather have 2 separate teams, one for levels and one for the city. Levels need to have intricacy, planning that far exceeds the city hub. The city hub shouldn't be the elaborate labyrinth that the levels are, the city hub should be straight forward in and of its own right. The point isn't to get the player lost between missions, but to give them a side trip if they should seek it, and if not, allow then quick access to the missions they want. What makes the city hub nice should be the little intricacies within it, like the conversations that go on, the events that occur between maybe a set of families, and the things that make a city a city.

Plus, they have no set time limit... here, let me elaborate:

When you develop a game, you approach your investors, and ask for money. You give them the basic concept (in this case "it's another thief game, you know... the ones with a huge following that made tons of cash?) and then they decide whether or not to give you the money. In this case they said yes, probably because of the popularity of the series and because of the security that it would make money. Next, 2 things can happen... either you use the money until you need to approach the investors for more, or they say "We'll see you in X months".

At that time, a representative of the investors arrives and you show him all the progress you've made. If you've made sufficient progress (i.e. aren't squandering their money) and can give him a general estimate of a time frame, and he/she deems that all is well, you get your next batch of cash for making the game, and use it up until you need more or until your next appointment with the representative... this cycle continues until the investors deem their investment bad, or until the game finally is produced.

At least this is normally how game development works from what I've read. I believe with duke nukem forever they were handed all the cash from the getgo, and then never checked up on (hence why they got away with it for 12 years... bastards).

Sierra Oscar
14th Jun 2009, 00:43
The best of both worlds, please.

Nate
14th Jun 2009, 01:25
Ok, now you are talking about them making TWO teams, 1 for the City Hub and 1 for the missions. You realize that you are now agreeing that the City Hub will result in resources being from other parts of the game, right?

Hypevosa
14th Jun 2009, 02:12
There isn't a finite amount of resources, that's why I bothered to attempt explaining to you the way money and time work developing a game... honestly, stop being so single minded. All the parts of the game can be good! why is it so hard for you to see that? As long as the devs use their time wisely and don't squander the money the investors give them, they have the ability to make good levels AND a good city hub. Alright... How is a city hub so drastically different from any other level in the game that it would drain resources? It wouldn't drain anymore resources than any other level they worked on. The only new things that a city hub would require are the system devised to purchase and sell items, the design of the NPCs running said stores. That's the only new thing the level would entail, and it's not going to break the bank to make it.

Someone is already going to be drawing up the general layouts for levels, they now have to design one more, and this one is more simple than the others despite being larger.

Someone is already going to have to create the textures used in all the other levels, meaning the textures for the city hub would already be created.

Someone is already going to be making the 3 dimensional computer models of the other levels' general structures, they now have a more simple albeit larger one to create.

Someone is already going to be making the surfaces for the other levels (tables, carts, things like that).

Someone is already going to be programming the AI used in other levels, which can then also be applied to people in the city hub.

Someone is already going to be modeling and texturing NPCs for other levels, which can be applied to the city hub.

Do you see where I'm going? The city hub is not a large piece of work. Creating good textures takes alot of resources, creating good AI takes alot of resources, designing surfaces like tables and other decoration takes alot of resources, designing NPCs takes alot of resources, but all the City hub needs that won't already need to be created for the rest of the game, is the merchant side of it. And that doesn't matter, because as long as the investors see progress, and see that they'll be getting their money's worth at the end, they'll keep giving EM money.

EDIT: it would also be nice for someone to come up with a few things to happen in the city like Benny's infected finger from TDS, but that wouldn't take much in the way of resources either.

Nate
14th Jun 2009, 02:36
?Now you are saying the devs have infinite resources to make this game?

Anyway, I suppose it doesn't matter. The point of this poll was to figure out whether Thief fans would prefer a city hub and regular missions, or no city hub but more effort put into the main missions.
To be clear, that last option means that the devs put the time it would have taken to make a city hub into the missions instead.

From the votes so far, I think it is pretty clear what most Thief fans think.

Although, if like you say, the devs already have this game mostly planned out, then they will have already decided on a city hub or not....making this poll rather pointless.

jtr7
14th Jun 2009, 02:39
Death to single hubs! Scatter resources about according to a mission's needs. And let Garrett start a mission with things he thinks he'll need and let him find whatever else he discovers he needs.

Hypevosa
14th Jun 2009, 02:43
The resources afforded to EM are only limited by their own ability to make progress in creation of the game, and the patience of its investors... If only peoples' patience was unlimited, there would be some kickass games... and if only some developers weren't lazy asshats (DAMN YOU 3D REALMS, I actually wanted to play duke nukem forever... >_> DN 3D was one of the first FPS's I ever played)

They're probably still at the drawing boards for everything, so this poll does matter, I just would have questions less biased... Sierra put it rather well. We can have the best of both worlds, and that's what I want personally, as I'd really enjoy a GOOD city hub, and well made levels, I refuse to believe they are mutually exclusive.

jtr7
14th Jun 2009, 02:49
The problem with a single city hub is redundancy, and if Garrett has to return to it from another city section, or pass through more than one city section, and how very small The City becomes when it actually goes on for miles. Again, make it like a real city, and spread the missions out over weeks and months and to the far reaches of The City. There are city sections we've only heard of that we should visit.

Hypevosa
14th Jun 2009, 02:54
That's what flavor and extra things are supposed to do if you take the streets... they make it less monotonous... Did you manage to follow the whole conversation between the 2 guards over the one guy's infected finger in TDS? I don't know if I'm at the end of it or not yet, but I thought it was a nice thing to happen across the thing occasionally while making my way to the next mission. I also really like that I'm being chased by the enforcers throughout the city, stuff like that could happen occasionally as well, to you and others in the city (but with guards, not enforcers of course). And if you just made sure the thieves highway was accessible from all the mission spots, then the people who wanted to get from mission to mission as quick as possible could do so.

Nate
14th Jun 2009, 03:51
Yeah, I found the constant running back and forth through the sections patrols got old after a while. 'Get back here you taffer!', 'Stop right there taffer!'.....sigh!

Hypevosa
14th Jun 2009, 04:51
yeah, sometimes I wish they could actually catch up with you... it would give someone more incentive to sneak than to just rush everything. I'm trying to get through the game without ever being "caught" and it's working so far, and alot more fun than just running away all the time. It's one of the reasons the enforcers were so awesome, they have infinite stamina from what I can tell, and their glyphs are deadlier than the bows.

Nate
14th Jun 2009, 05:05
Haha, even if they could catch up with you, the fact that Guards CAN'T attack while running means they were never a threat even when they saw you.

Hypevosa
14th Jun 2009, 05:24
I thought that was actually fixed in TDS? I haven't really entered combat on purpose more than to test how the dagger was combat style (it sucked compared to the sword in terms of fun, it wasn't anywhere near as dynamic). Most people wouldn't be attacking while running, it throws off your balance too much and anything that wouldn't would be too light an attack to do enough damage, EDIT: thinking about it, is what Garrett wears genuinely leather armor? because if it isn't then it probably would hurt him.... The only way I see someone attacking while moving is with Bows/crossbows, both losing considerable accuracy (they could just stand and shoot instead if they're smart, that way people just running in straight lines would learn to weave), and if someone got close enough that they could tackle you they could try to hit you, but if they miss they'd probably be making a headfirst dive into the road. Magic users would probably be fine with running and casting...

That's another question, should all magic users be forced to use wands like in TDS? I liked the idea of pickpocketing and hiding the wands to frustrate them XD I just never did it really. I also didn't see why we couldn't sell the wands, lookin at the craftsmanship and the honkin gems at the end of em...

jtr7
14th Jun 2009, 05:38
Garrett gets a lot more exercise with all his climbing and jumping and carrying bodies, and jumping while carrying bodies, and climbing while carrying bodies. :p



Non-Glyph Enforcer weapon:
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i106/jtr7/Enforcer_Weapon.jpg



I couldn't stand the wands and the idea of disarming spell-casters by taking their pretty sticks away, nor the fact that all three factions had them. Another break from continuity. The older titles had somatic spell-casting, and in the cutscenes the Keepers cast Glyphs with their hands. Now, the Pagan Shaman Necromancer's Wand makes sense to exist and to steal. And what the heck happened with Dyan's unique and sparkly staff? It was shown in TMA, and mentioned in a Keeper writing in TDS.

Garrett is armored already, and already can take up to three direct blows before going down, so that's not a new request.

Hypevosa
14th Jun 2009, 05:58
Yes, I believe the keeper enforcer weapon actually IS a glyph, it seems to either make an energized copy of itself to do damage when it strikes, or it's supposed to be thrown and return to your hand when it hits. I'm not requesting armor, merely enquiring if what he has is actually leather armor? (judging by all the buckles, I'd say yes... but I don't know)

Maybe if they have their wand they can cast more diverse and stronger spells, while without it they can still do weaker somatic spells? I like that idea more.

jtr7
14th Jun 2009, 06:04
The sickle's not a boomerang, and it lands on the ground when used. It may be conjured through Glyphs, though, but it doesn't go away once formed.

The armor looks like leather more than anything, with rivets, and he wears leather coats, too. But, like his face, his outfit changes from scene to scene.

Maybe wands for a new game, but in TDS, no wand meant no magic-casting at all.

Hypevosa
14th Jun 2009, 06:12
So jtr, assuming they actually could make an interesting and engaging city hub, would you like to have it? or would you rather just go at it and have it be missions only? While Nate seems to be blinded by the past and his own judgment of the lack of possibility for good levels and a good city hub, I seem to be somewhat blinded by the amount of possibilities I see when it comes to actually making a good city hub... I like the idea of loitering around if a city hub is well made, I don't need to be thrust into every mission.

Nate
14th Jun 2009, 06:29
Yes Hypevosa, you have me pegged! I am blinding by a dark past. Hate, fear and loathing have taken their toll on my once vibrant mind. Now, I am no longer able to see the reason behind your arguments.

I'll tell you what though. IF the devs could work on a city hub without taking time away from perfecting the main missions......sorry, can't do it! I tried to see it your way, but it just doesn't work that way.

Hypevosa
14th Jun 2009, 07:01
Yes, exactly, you are blind to possibility as I stated, just as I am blinded by it. Hence why I tried to ask someone else the question. The question should not be about the quality so much as the thing itself in this case. Would people enjoy a city hub? Some people would just want to get straight to the missions, no BS inbetween stuff, let Garrett handle the walk home and dealing with the goods and the traders. Some people would actually enjoy the jaunt if the city hub was actually made well, like to deal with the merchants and selling stuff, and having to evade the city watch. It's a question more of preference of play. You just think that them removing a component of production will magically double the quality of levels, when that's also not how it works, potential =/= results. They could just squander the extra time not developing a hub would give them (maybe just release it early), or maybe instead of working on the levels they'd work on the graphics or the AI, there are a hundred places they could spend the time, that won't be a direct improvement of level size or "quality". Your logic is flawed, and as you've admitted, you are blind to possibility.

I addressed JTR directly, I don't appreciate your interception. You're like FOX news when it comes to tact and bias.

jtr7
14th Jun 2009, 07:07
As I've said, what I don't want is to have to return to IT over and over, or walk back to it from afar. The design of any hub itself should be like a real neighborhood, and not scream THIS IS A HUB! through obvious hand-holding or quick and dirty design. Not only one hub, please. If the devs have no choice but to design the game that way, than I won't hold it against them.

But repeatedly, the original games had the template that a new game has the processing power and technology to flesh out. In the walled-off Old Quarter, there are a variety of locales, including a marketplace, and the home of a thief, and a home off by itself, and a power station, aqueducts, etc. Around Bafford's, there are shops and a tavern with a gathering of people inside, as well as dark, creepy, and empty areas, as well as the utility room in the sewers. Make these kinds of locations that have always been there before, only actually accessible this time, and occupied, not just set dressing.

Almost every city mission was built to have water, electricity, industry, food, lower-class and upper-class, people working late, people sleeping, places closed down for the night, places open into the wee hours, offices, utility places, scenic areas, watch stations, and as much of a full infrastructure as what would be required to sustain a population. All I'm asking is to take what was already shown to exist, and make it come to life, more accessible, and have all the Garrett-important locations spread around "naturally", as with real life, or at least as with Assassins, Ambush, Haunted Cathedral, Bafford's, Song of the Caverns, Shipping... and Receiving, where there were areas with shops that--instead of solid cubes and octagons--could be shaped, hollowed out, filled with shelves, counter-tops, chairs, wares, and the occasional person. Some were close together, and others were off by themselves.

There are a great number of nooks and alleys and doors or windows leading into interesting and mostly-empty spaces that could be meeting places. Garrett going through a utility room into a sewer to meet up with Giry is an old example that could be reworked. The OMs have all the answers, and we no longer have the technological limitations that forced so much to be empty, short on detail, lifeless, rows and rows of inaccessible solids, and all those other signs of making the best with what they had to work with--and the atmosphere and the devs' devotion spoke through all of it rather well.

There's no more logical reason, but time constraints, to have it all jammed unnaturally and ridiculously together (except within the underground Thieves' Guild hideouts, where it may be one-stop shopping, if only Garrett wasn't wanted dead by his egomaniacal competition).

Hypevosa
14th Jun 2009, 07:31
:D very well said JTR. So you're of the type that doesn't want to bother with the inbetween missions then? It's understandable. Like I said way back in my post where I was setting the basic makeup for a city hub, what they NEED to have if they do one, for people like you, is just make all the mission points have a quick close by access to the thieves highway, and make it a highway where it doesn't take 15 minutes to get from one place to the next, make rooftop easy access to some fences and shops if you feel the need to stop by. But that's if they HAVE to include a city hub (they would only HAVE to if the investors stipulated so... and considering the popularity of large sandbox style games like fallout 3 and GTA 4, it's s serious possibility)

jtr7
14th Jun 2009, 07:37
Yeah, not in-between missions, but things you can do while you are on your way to meet an objective. And yes, I think a real city distribution of homes, businesses, schools, parks, utilities, etc., are ready inspiration, and are better than retreading the same path. Keep the player seeing new things as often as possible, and retreading only when learning the territory or when coming around from another angle. The only real odd changes to a thoughtful and logical design should come from things that come up during beta-testing that the majority fumble over.

Platinumoxicity
14th Jun 2009, 10:44
Looking Glass + Impending bankrupcy + Iikka Keränen + Effort + Time = "New Market"
Ion Storm + Impending bankrupcy + Whoever level designer + Names of 6 City sections + Hurry + Hydrophobia = "City hub consisting of 7 levels"
These two combinations here in approx. scale:
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9418/cityl.png

Flashart
14th Jun 2009, 11:32
Depending up on the size of the average levels, if the city grew from a central hub (say, a marketplace) then spread in 4 quarters, how many houses (that you can actually enter) would you want? If we assume the rooftop highway will pass over some "dummy" houses, and also the sewers do likewise, then 10 houses in each seems quite reasonable to do. If you didn't return between every mission, but have the city open up in 4 chapters by the end of the game you'd have 40 houses (and the open areas to play around in).
(The initial 10 houses could make up the "training mission")
The thing that would help keep it fresh would be the randomizing of guards etc everytime you returned.

gpagonewest
14th Jun 2009, 11:42
Interesting poll.

I must say I prefer the T1/T2 way and not have a city hub. Although I thought the TDS city hub was fine, just way to small. If you are going to do a city hub, make it big like new market in the above map or Life of the Party size (before you get into the tower).

Aristofiles
14th Jun 2009, 14:04
better misssions definetly. Focus and consentrate. quality before quantity.

Hypevosa
14th Jun 2009, 19:58
Excuse me for using your images platinum, but I wanted to make a point. I drew up a better city hub than TDS by just ramming 2 of TMA's city map together. I even bothered to put in the shops/fences, mission locals, rooftop jumps (thieves highway) rooftop access, and Garrett's home.

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa18/Hypevosa/CityHub.jpg

Add flavor and presto, you have a better city hub than TDS (as long as you don't cut it into 50 loading sectors)

Nate
14th Jun 2009, 20:28
LOL, 50 loading sectors would make me demand a refund. If they are going to make a city map like that, make it ONE continuous map.

In all seriousness, nice map!

Hypevosa
14th Jun 2009, 20:32
yeah it shows how STUPID Ion storm was being when someone can create a better map jamming 2 of the same old one together... I mean really? Gameplay wins over graphics every time... and if I can run through the expansive barren hillsides in fallout 3 (which has better graphics than TDS) without a loading area, then you can make a city hub that doesn't have a single damn one.

Platinumoxicity
14th Jun 2009, 21:36
I made an "update map" for South Quarter, showing how it should have been at the least. I'ts about 4 times larger than the original and it's got many new and old places.
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/8968/southq.th.png (http://img189.imageshack.us/i/southq.png/)

Hypevosa
14th Jun 2009, 21:41
Very nice. If I had the time and the patience I might consider drawing a map for the entire city, you seem like you'd be able to do it rather well. Use your compass to figure out the directions districts are from eachother etc. It could work. I kinda am wondering where the hell all the warehouses that we robbed in T2 went when I visited the docks in T3?

Platinumoxicity
14th Jun 2009, 22:02
Very nice. If I had the time and the patience I might consider drawing a map for the entire city, you seem like you'd be able to do it rather well. Use your compass to figure out the directions districts are from eachother etc. It could work. I kinda am wondering where the hell all the warehouses that we robbed in T2 went when I visited the docks in T3?

The warehouses were in Wayside, west of the docks in TDS. ;) Eastport is on the east side of the river, and Dayport is east of Eastport.

Hypevosa
14th Jun 2009, 23:26
I don't know where you're getting all that but you have alot better sense of what the city should look like than anyone else I've seen on these forums. If you can make me a map of the city, I'd actually like to try and set up what I think would be a good city hub, if you wouldn't mind that is?

jtr7
15th Jun 2009, 00:57
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8631/herewego32tt8.gif

Fans have been trying to guess there way to a big City Map since 31st Jan 2001:
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10995

A lot of canon and fanon and educated guess work, and it's not over yet.

Hypevosa
15th Jun 2009, 01:34
dude that's insane, the city's about 10 times larger than I had expected... You could never justify turning the whole thing into a city hub, the missions would need to be within the city walls, instead of outside them or else travel would take too long... you would probably need a quick travel option too. Dude, the size of the city is nuts.

jtr7
15th Jun 2009, 02:21
Thus, the older games' style of starting at the appropriate city section and finding just what is needed with some extra goodies lying around for those who need more gear to survive, followed by a briefing. In a new game, each section could be at least as big as the older missions, but more richly detailed and alive. I wouldn't mind seeing two city sections next to each other, but it doesn't make gameplay sense for the player to wander off from the objectives and kill a couple of hours doing things that have no impact on the mission itself, plus it would require an insane amount of playtesting to try to account for all the possible ways a player can break the game.

I'd like to be able to look through a locked city gate into another city section and see old locations, like Bafford's, or the Opera House, but not really accessible just because we can see it, more like a cool Easter Egg for the geeks. It's a fortified city, so we just need to see more detail, more layers, bring back the sewers (the Thieves' Byway) and canals, and just give us more gates we can pass through into interesting areas, all within the thick walls as we see a portion of in Assassins. More guards near noble's manors, more City Watch near the lower-class areas, but with some overlap in between. I wonder if we could see a shipyard? We haven't been to EastPORT yet. Oh, and the part of Dayport we saw was two districts, north and south.

Hypevosa
15th Jun 2009, 02:40
people with PC will just turn clipping off and go to those places you see behind gates though :P it would be awesome if they were actually explorable or lootable. I'd love to run accross baffords place while on my way to a job and have it be EXACTLY like the old one, and actually robbable.

jtr7
15th Jun 2009, 02:59
Explorable means real life vs. the game and development limitations, but of course I wished the whole dang City and the wilderness and mountainsides and river and ocean were all explorable.

I don't have a problem with people going behind-the-scenes and breaking the illusion. :)
http://www.youtube.com/user/ehcmier

SneakyBarSteward
15th Jun 2009, 07:01
The city hub in TDS was one of the better ideas, shame it was poorly executed, if it came to a choice between larger and better missions or the hub then i'm for the missions but in my heart i wish they could do both.

Dragonera
15th Jun 2009, 21:42
NO! BOTH! Big missions and big city.... and many mini missions, which are NOT have to play... Little oblivion gate and thief mixed = good game, just not too much oblivion magic junk. magic su**cs

Hypevosa
15th Jun 2009, 22:39
I actually played oblivion as Garrett >_>

anyone else do that?

jtr7
15th Jun 2009, 23:32
Many have. :thumb:

Magic sucks, Dragonera? All of it, or to what extent? And mini-missions, of the kind you speak of, should not interrupt missions. I'm really beginning to loathe the Oblivion template suggestions.

Hypevosa
15th Jun 2009, 23:36
I kinda think I should make his magic skills better, and use them to simulate the arrows instead... you know, fire arrow and gas arrow (fire spell and paralysis spell). there is that one spell that puts out torches people are carrying, but it's part of a daedric quest and disappears afterwords...

jtr7
15th Jun 2009, 23:58
Yer taffin' me, you taffer! :lmao:

Xeo
16th Jun 2009, 00:42
Speaking as someone who considers TDS to be a brilliant game, but not without its flaws: removing the city hub is a horrible, horrible idea. One of the few issues I have with the original two games is that having no central hub that ties the world together forces the suspension of disbelief to a small degree; without the hub TDS would feel slightly more arcadish, which it certainly does not need. A better designed hub would be absolutely fantastic.

jtr7
16th Jun 2009, 00:50
It also shrinks the world to less than the size of one T1/T2 mission, and makes everything happen in a short period of time.

fayfuya
16th Jun 2009, 04:07
oooooohhhhhh only now i understood, so we will have a also a city and not JUST missions, i thought you meant ONLY missions and without city at all.
I think there should be a city larger than 3 times from the city in TDS, 15 storyline missions a bit bigger, not too much AND few side missions for your own profit, such as the golden dagger in TDS and so.

jtr7
16th Jun 2009, 04:14
What?!? BIG CITY is what I want, just not all bunched up and having us wander around so bored we have to have side quests to bide the time.

Nate
16th Jun 2009, 05:11
So, over 73% of voters so far prefer the devs spend extra time on mission maps then developing a City Hub sandbox.....that is a bigger majority than I thought it would be.

Hypevosa
16th Jun 2009, 05:24
yeah it's been staying a consistant 25% want a hub despite slightly smaller levels, and 75% want just bigger missions. It's probably closer to 50 50 if you just want to know if people would like just missions (the go getters who don't wanna f*** around in a big city like JTR) vs the people who would enjoy the existance of a city hub (the people who like to loiter and explore, like me). Looking at the kind of people who enjoy thief, I'd still say that the missions only would be in the slight majority...

Tushaar
16th Jun 2009, 05:34
I would like to have a huge city, Colossal city, every house can be robbed :P The kind of city that would take 72 hours + to even explore all the streets! xD Now thats what i want, i want to play thief 4 for a year until thief 5 comes out =))))

jtr7
16th Jun 2009, 05:35
I love exploring and being thorough, but not on my way to BEGIN a mission. And I love soaking up the atmosphere, listening to the sounds, taking in the sights, but I don't want a Thief Sims life. I want the missions to be thoroughly developed, which a deadline is not going to allow if they build a connected city to travel through. Maybe an expansion pack could fill in the mundane aspects of city life.

Hypevosa
16th Jun 2009, 05:46
I don't know how I'd feel about tushaar's idea. I really do enjoy oblivion and fallout 3, but they're mostly empty space... if instead of empty space we were in a city, I think I'd be amazed by it if they could pull off the entire city, everywhere being robbable, etc. I wouldn't like the idea of Garrett never having to sleep unless it was explained though...

Nate
16th Jun 2009, 05:56
Yeah, it WOULD be great. But we always come back to $, time and deadlines for the devs....

Hypevosa
16th Jun 2009, 06:13
There isn't a deadline! I keep explaining it doesn't work that way... Eidos Montreal has a payment source their investor(s). EM proposes a game concept, in this case Thief 4, and the investor(s) agree to fund the concept or deny funding. In this case they accepted. EM now has cash to spend where they see fit to create the game, and when that cash is about to run out, they approach the investors again. The investors send a representative to evaluate progress on the project, and if progress is going well, then the devs are given more funds... if they are squandering money, or the project is making too little progress, or if the game doesn't meet the investors requirements, the project is dropped. Occasionally there is a clause in the contract of a due date, but not usually until there is a reasonable time for the project to be expected to be completed. If there's a deadline on thief 4 right now, then we're going to get a crappy game, because T4 isn't even out of concept phase, so everything would be too rushed.

3d realms was given until October 22, 2012 to complete the game (and this was only after they asked for money too many times), until they decided to be stupid about it.

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1151

If EM is willing to take the time (and effort), and the investors are willing to put in the money, Tushaar's idea is actually a possibility...

jtr7
16th Jun 2009, 06:18
The only way the deadline will be extended is if the investors really like where the devs are going with it, and believe they will not lose money paying all these people and the operation expenses. Once the game development is underway, there is a typical 30-month/2.5-year period to make it. I've read somewhere that it's even less for Thief 4, but I hope that's wrong.

Hypevosa
16th Jun 2009, 06:39
If they've already made a deadline for a game that they don't know what direction everything is going in yet, we will be very lucky if we get a good product.... In that case, our best hope would be that deus ex 3 is fan-frickin-tastic and that they are basically given as much time as they want on thief because the investors trust more in them.

Nate
16th Jun 2009, 06:50
IF they have infinite time to perfect both the missions and a massive/detailed City Hub, then great.

IF they are pressed for time and have to choose between all their efforts on the missions, or their efforts divided between the missions and the City Hub.....they now know that around 75% of us would prefer this choice.

Hypevosa
16th Jun 2009, 06:58
Actually, if they're pressed for time and any part of the game becomes crap I'd rather they not release it... better to not have another disappointment...

jtr7
16th Jun 2009, 07:04
I'm so glad the completion of the Final Glyph / "Heart of The City"-centric story and missions are going to allow a return to the sprawl of The City and beyond!

esme
16th Jun 2009, 12:49
I actually played oblivion as Garrett >_>

anyone else do that? :o um yeah .... well morrowind not oblivion

esme
16th Jun 2009, 12:52
and why should having a hub mean that there are only 15 missions or that those missions will be poorer for having a city hub ?

Hypevosa
16th Jun 2009, 12:56
The OP doesn't believe it's possible to have both, that's why it's not in the poll.

Nate
17th Jun 2009, 00:55
The devs have limited time and $ to develop missions and/or a City Hub. By definition, working on a City Hub takes time and effort away from working on the missions.

It is also safe to reason that making a successful City Hub would take as long to make as 3 large successful missions.

So, the poll is meant to inform the devs whether we would prefer their time/effort divided between making missions AND a City Hub.....OR if we would prefer ALL their time and effort to go into making the missions (and therefore result in better missions).

BrendaEM
18th Jun 2009, 14:12
Yet another bad poll. I want both, and there's the two are not exclusive.

Nate
18th Jun 2009, 18:47
Hi BrendaEM, not saying that they are exclusive. The devs can take time to make a City Hub and the missions.....but that will mean less time put into the missions.

Platinumoxicity
18th Jun 2009, 19:02
The idea of this poll is not to convinve people that they're exclusive. The idea is that would you like the devs to spend more time on the missions to get them perfect, or do you think that the City hub is so important that they should try to have equal effort making it. (I'm not mentioning the possibility of concentrating more on the City hub than on the missions because nobody is stupid enough to think that.) In my opinion, the City hub isn't that important and the devs should really concentrate more on the missions. Why can't there be some finely detailed City missions, so that you don't get bored walking down the same streets over and over?

Hypevosa
18th Jun 2009, 22:09
Hi BrendaEM, not saying that they are exclusive. The devs can take time to make a City Hub and the missions.....but that will mean less time put into the missions.

they could also cut time put in AI, textures, etc etc to make better missions. If we want we could make a list of importance in terms of what we want to take priority.

1. Story
2. Stealth Gameplay
3. Tools of the trade (make sure they function as planned, where they are available, shops, Visuals, HUD, etc)
4. Combat Gameplay
5 AI (guards, personalities, monsters, undead, etc)
6. Mission maps intricacy, loot locations (make sure it doesn't spawn into map!), secrets, Flavor writings, etc
7. Voice Acting (not just having 3 people do everyone, bother to get extras off the street even)
8. Good City Hub
9. Good Models and Textures for everything
10. Multiplayer thieves

As you can see I pride story over gameplay, and gameplay over visuals. The multiplayer would be just a cool addon, so I put it for an even 10.

Inbred Pageboy
19th Jun 2009, 03:38
As proven in T1/T2 - a city hub is not essential to good gameplay or storyline. So I voted accordingly.

protoss.Ecorin
19th Jun 2009, 08:13
Eh.. where's the third option.. BOTH ? Don't tell me they are not capable of something like that. I'd rather wait extra years until its release rather than playing an unpolished mediocre game.

Nate
19th Jun 2009, 08:59
Errrr, that is great that you are willing to wait extra years for the game....but the financial backers might not be as obliging.

Which is the point of the poll. Do you prefer the time the devs have to make missions be spent on both the missions and the City Hub, or just focus all their time on the missions?

jtr7
19th Jun 2009, 09:10
Another strange MYTH. There is no "work until they get it done". The investors have to pay all these employees for the next 2 to 2.5 years, and then they will reach THE DEADLINE. If the investors trust the product will sell well enough for them to make their money back, and they feel like it's worth the risk to extend the deadline, they might extend it for a very short period. Without selling a product, there is a major limit on company expenditures and employee paychecks. EM has not sold one game, yet, they are making two games, and only one is getting closer to the release date, and the other has just begun.

They DON'T have all the time they need. MYTH!

Hypevosa
19th Jun 2009, 09:19
It really depends how their contracts were written. If there is a deadline in their contract, then yeah they're forced to produce by then. If there isn't and they just have X dollars, they just have to stretch the money for however long they can manage. We really don't know if there's a deadline or not, but with how 3D realms treated their investors (making them wait over 12 years for duke nukem forever, then not producing) I wouldn't be surprised if all games have a deadline built into the contract now... ****ing 3D realms...

Nate
19th Jun 2009, 09:22
Lol, those guys at 3D realms have made gaming history with the 'wait forever for Duke Nukem Forever' scam they pulled....it's almost like an April Fools joke!

Hypevosa
19th Jun 2009, 09:31
a 12 year long april fools joke.................. ****ing 3D realms......

jtr7
19th Jun 2009, 09:42
By getting their proof-of-concept approved, they are now in development and it will not be more than 3 years, and someone said it would be 24 months--which is less than the typical 30-month cycle. I hope when their time runs out, they are only polishing, not fighting with bugs that need post-release patches because the release date forced them to release an unfinished game (thus, the need for many patches).

Platinumoxicity
19th Jun 2009, 10:06
By getting their proof-of-concept approved, they are now in development and it will not be more than 3 years, and someone said it would be 24 months--which is less than the typical 30-month cycle. I hope when their time runs out, they are only polishing, not fighting with bugs that need post-release patches because the release date forced them to release an unfinished game (thus, the need for many patches).

STALKER did that all right. They missed the original release like twice, and still got an unfinished game out. The game was a huge succeess, even though it was quite buggy, but the devs kept releasing patches and modders have been making it better ever since. They are planning to make a sequel now with a new engine.

kkk1
19th Jun 2009, 16:50
OMG whatta useless idiotic poll. Just like many others polls and threads on this forum. I Want to ask the author : is that a devs told you, that they will make OR City Hub OR better/bigger missions?? WTF is this OR?! wtf is this ”15missions”? Where did you get that? Don't you think that they will make great hub AND huge missions?! Such a pointless poll and this makes many peoples think that HUB is something bad.

InGroove2
19th Jun 2009, 17:40
OK, I have issues with your poll since it would be stupid for someone to say they don't want better missions... really? you could be a little less biased if you're truly trying to take an accurate poll instead of skew the results.

Yes, I want better missions, but I also want a city hub. Just because Ion Storm was INCOMPETENT in their ability to make one, does not mean they are bad by default. I'd rather not have the size of my missions cut in HALF because I have to now travel all that distance too. Look at it this way... if every mission includes it's one half, or EVEN just a quarter of the mission is treking through the city or going by rooftop to get to your final destination, that means you've essentially created a city hub thats 7.5, or 3.75 levels in size! Why not just create a city hub at that point that's smaller so that the ACTUAL levels can be larger? Really I'd like to have large levels, but I'd like the part of the level that's important to be large! Life of the party was great, but getting to the party was 60% of the level and I don't want every level of thief 4 to be like that.

agreed. but if you read this thread you'd know that oth you and i and few others are CLEARLY morons, beause we don't "get the idea of this poll" which is apparently so tell EM which is "more important".

how ludicrous...

YOU CANNOT HAVE POLL ABOUT WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT IF THE TWO CHOICES ARE NOT EVEN COMPARABLE CHARACTERISTICS.

it's like saying

do you want rope arrows? or regenerating health?

this poll is erroneous and does not accomplish the explicitly stated intention of the author.


EDIT:
a better way to phrase this poll would be something to the effect of:

"If the CITY HUB concept important or usefull enough to warrant EM spending valuable development time? yes or no?"

Nate
19th Jun 2009, 21:42
By getting their proof-of-concept approved, they are now in development and it will not be more than 3 years, and someone said it would be 24 months--which is less than the typical 30-month cycle. I hope when their time runs out, they are only polishing, not fighting with bugs that need post-release patches because the release date forced them to release an unfinished game (thus, the need for many patches).

Well, since they are using the same engine as Deus Ex 3 they kinda have a leg up...although using the same engine suggests that Thi4f multiplayer might be a no go like it is for Deus Ex 3...not that I'll particularly mind.


OMG whatta useless idiotic poll. Just like many others polls and threads on this forum. I Want to ask the author : is that a devs told you, that they will make OR City Hub OR better/bigger missions?? WTF is this OR?! wtf is this ”15missions”? Where did you get that? Don't you think that they will make great hub AND huge missions?! Such a pointless poll and this makes many peoples think that HUB is something bad.

Hehe, okay buddy, deep breaths! The point of the poll is to get a 'feel' for fans who want the devs to spend all their time on improving the missions, or dividing their time between missions and a City Hub. Remember, in TDS they ran out of time and the game was released with a half assed City Hub and mostly average missions (a couple were really good ones though).

That said, IF the devs are confident they have enough time to perfect both the missions AND the City Hub, then great! However, if the devs think they are going to be pressed for time and need to decide between better missions or okay missions with a City Hub, this poll might be of use.


agreed. but if you read this thread you'd know that oth you and i and few others are CLEARLY morons, beause we don't "get the idea of this poll" which is apparently so tell EM which is "more important".

how ludicrous...

YOU CANNOT HAVE POLL ABOUT WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT IF THE TWO CHOICES ARE NOT EVEN COMPARABLE CHARACTERISTICS.

it's like saying

do you want rope arrows? or regenerating health?

this poll is erroneous and does not accomplish the explicitly stated intention of the author.


EDIT:
a better way to phrase this poll would be something to the effect of:

"If the CITY HUB concept important or usefull enough to warrant EM spending valuable development time? yes or no?"

Hey, I like your poll question....but it is a bit late to change it now. When I made the poll question up, I didn't have the benefit of all this discussion to modify my wording.

But the question IS still more relevant that you make it out to be. The team working on the missions/maps will be the same guys working on a City Hub. They have limited time/$ to get the job done = work on the City Hub by definition takes away from effort on the missions.

InGroove2
19th Jun 2009, 21:52
Well, since they are using the same engine as Deus Ex 3 they kinda have a leg up...although using the same engine suggests that Thi4f multiplayer might be a no go like it is for Deus Ex 3...not that I'll particularly mind.



Hehe, okay buddy, deep breaths! The point of the poll is to get a 'feel' for fans who want the devs to spend all their time on improving the missions, or dividing their time between missions and a City Hub. Remember, in TDS they ran out of time and the game was released with a half assed City Hub and mostly average missions (a couple were really good ones though).

That said, IF the devs are confident they have enough time to perfect both the missions AND the City Hub, then great! However, if the devs think they are going to be pressed for time and need to decide between better missions or okay missions with a City Hub, this poll might be of use.



Hey, I like your poll question....but it is a bit late to change it now. When I made the poll question up, I didn't have the benefit of all this discussion to modify my wording.

But the question IS still more relevant that you make it out to be. The team working on the missions/maps will be the same guys working on a City Hub. They have limited time/$ to get the job done = work on the City Hub by definition takes away from effort on the missions.

oh i understood your poll as you MEANT it, but that's just not what it appears to be in a literal sense., is all i meant.

Nate
19th Jun 2009, 22:01
That's cool! I see what you are saying. While the problem with the poll question doesn't totally nullify the information provided, it does lessen it somewhat.

Unfortunately, I can't alter it after the fact. Do you suggest a new Poll?

InGroove2
19th Jun 2009, 22:11
That's cool! I see what you are saying. While the problem with the poll question doesn't totally nullify the information provided, it does lessen it somewhat.

Unfortunately, I can't alter it after the fact. Do you suggest a new Poll?

i suggest that, with regards to this issue that, yeah, EM should have an idea of how popular the city hub idea is and how it figures into the dev time.

though, the way i see it, is that a city hub type thing will figure into the story at a pretty fundamental level... in that, level development and city hub development will be part of the same thing... i really just kind of assume they'll do a hub type thing.

i'd actually prefer the city to be more in the way of the Von Braun of SS2. While the different levels of the ship were broken up by loading zones, it really felt like one big ship that you could move around at will between levels etc etc. so it felt like a seamless adventure... so the idea of HUB is moot, in that the whole place is the gameplay area.

jtr7
19th Jun 2009, 23:45
The older titles' stories needed no Hubba Bubba, and a Hubble is only necessary when the city sections are like a run-on sentence. TDS needed a Hubert because the Final Glyph involved every city section we visited in that game. No Final Glyph, no need to lump all the missions together anymore.

Nate
20th Jun 2009, 00:38
The whole Final Glyph thing was a bit much in so many ways. I mean, what would have happend if the city decided to remove the fountain (or other glyph location) and put up a new building instead? Garrett would have been kind of screwed.

'The prophecy says that I have to put the eye in the fountain.....wait a sec, that was broken up and removed years ago.....hmmm, I wonder if there is still time to get on Gamall's good side?'

jtr7
20th Jun 2009, 01:20
I considered that too.

One of my assumptions, based on the writings and nature of the landmarks, is that the Keepers did everything they could to assure nothing like that would happen. I don't know if there's any glyph protection involved, too.

The Keepers worked very hard to have The City streets shaped that way, influencing city planning obviously, and the excuse for the city's officials to protect the landmarks as well comes from the fact that they are historical landmarks, and something to commemorate, memorialize, and celebrate proudly and solemnly.


"The Bradshaw Monument / In Memory of Sir Bradshaw S. Auldale, District Founder"
"The Cataclysm Memorial / In Memory of the Hundreds Lost in that Historic Catastrophe"
"First Landing Marker / Venerates the Location Where the First Settlers are Believed to have come Ashore"
"Stonemarket Clocktower / Erected by the Order of the Hammer to Glorify the Name of The Master Builder"
"South Quarter Fountain / Near This Site, the First Stone Was Believed to Have Been Laid in the Building of the City"

We can assume that since the Cataclysm happened roughly 55 years before TDP, that the Keepers had been maintaining the Final Glyph up to sometime after. It would be in keeping with that, then, for them to have been protecting the Markers and the streets through the Ages, especially the Metal Age. What's interesting to me, is that the Keepers themselves had apparently lost the knowledge of what the Markers and streets were for, even as they protected them. Not that it wasn't in their books, but because of the growing corruption, distraction, and hiding of the historic records which would give light to the meaning of the prophecies.

Interesting ideas overall.

A semi-parallel: In the unused journal of Karras about his projections regarding the extent of the "cleansing" of The City by Necrotic Mutox, he was particularly pleased that all thirty rust-storms would converge in the center at the heart of The City. The Final Glyph was at the heart of The City. We can't be certain that the Hammer Temple was at the heart of The City when the Trickster laid siege to it, but there's the possibility that the portal through which his army was heading into The City through was not even located at the Hammer Temple, but elsewhere.

CaptainObvious
21st Jun 2009, 14:28
Yes for cityscape. It was too small in DS, but it was a nice addition that made things more interesting and fluent. Most missions were not bad in DS so I doubt they'd suffer because of that in the next game, unless to blow that section out of proportion compared to the rest.

TheEye
4th Jul 2009, 11:44
missions should be focused on but a city hub will be a GREAT touch as well

jtr7
4th Jul 2009, 12:43
...........................

hexhunter
4th Jul 2009, 13:20
"One Hub? With the same places respawning loot, and with people walking around for no reason but to be pickpocketed and mugged, all for nothing but to harvest to fill your pockets with an inhuman amount of gold? Or do you have a new, better, and truly fun idea?"

One large city hub, where if you steal something it won't reappear in the next mission, people are doing what people do in the middle of the night, mainly sleeping, and obviously there would be a limit to the amount of gold you can get. Preferably the amount of loot you get in one mission won't directly transfer to the next.

jtr7
4th Jul 2009, 13:29
...........................

Flashart
4th Jul 2009, 13:57
I finished TDS a couple of nights ago and watched the end about 6X. It's probably common knowledge but the final glyph spells Thief 4, starting from the bottom reading clockwise with 4 in the middle. Kinda cheesy I thought.
Also, is Artemus dead? The Hag says "took his form" which implies mimicry rather than occupying his body. Is that supposed to be him reading the blank pages?

FriendlyStranger
4th Jul 2009, 14:09
No Thief without the city! the best part of Thief i that you can sneak around a free-roam city and breaking into homes, breaking to the armory, the prison...shops and fences...wtf is wrong with you guys?
The best part of Thief is that you find the missions by crossing the city, you got where to go...it's much more intersting...we need a city


The best part of Thief is A) Its unique setting B) Its level design C) The storytelling - but by no means it was the city hub from TDS. I remember the time before T3 was even announced man I always dreamed about a free roaming city where you could do lots of things... with a living environment, not devided into missions / a whole organic experience. When T3 announced it would contain free roaming city elements, man was I excited... that was only until T3 was released and set my head straight.

No city hub, no free roaming anymore - freedom is the natural enemy to excitement, good story telling and real atmo.

The only thing I could imagine as an idea would be to have a visit to Garretts hideout between the missions. This should also feature its immedeate neighbourhood. This neighbourhood should react to what you do there. And it should provide different events.

Example: After mission one you come to the hideout - you could now just move on to the next mission or you can leave into the neighbourhood. There you could overhear a conversation of citizen X with citizen Y, talking about where X has put this months rent for their apartment. You sneak into the apartment and steal their money....

After mission Two you return... and witness that the landlord is kicking X,Y out of their flat cause they couldn't pay their bills...

You could add a lot of such events into the neighbourhood... and make it voluntary to visit. But it should never serve as a transition area to / between missions etc. Maybe you could integrate the shop there.

Just an idea, but I voted for NO hub.

hexhunter
4th Jul 2009, 14:34
Of course the city wouldn't run out of cash in one night, if you steal from a store one night the next night they'll have more coins to steal, if you steal a painting from a mansion then, unless they steal it back, it's not going to be there the next night.

There should be an anti-hoarding method by having a minimum and maximum to each night's/mission's starting Gold and Equipment.

jtr7
4th Jul 2009, 14:40
...........................

Flashart
5th Jul 2009, 09:39
If only coins could be spent then any hub could contain just treasure to be fenced but not directly spent. This could give you an overall "loot total" without an everlasting supply of cash.
If the starting point was Garrett's home (a safe "non-combat" area) then you sort equipment/ mission briefings etc there. Then exiting though the door takes you directly to the mission, so you could imagine "traveling" to locations, while exiting through the attic takes you to the city rooftops.
The size of one large level (I imagine 40 buildings ranging from small sheds to churches etc), just accessible between missions (except concurrent missions)
It respawns random loot/ guards/dialogue after every mission completion, rather than city visit. Maybe, broadhead/water arrows only available so Garrett can't build up a vast arsenal. (Assuming he has an equipment cap)
This level size addresses development time, it allows the city to "be" a real place, and would provide a (slightly) different experience upon each visit. It's not a full living day/night cycle city, but enough of a "permanent place". Having the "safe house" as a base means you can by-pass the city completely if you don't want to go there.
It's very much a compromise, but if done correctly I think it would add to the Thief experience, the "done correctly" is the key.

FriendlyStranger
5th Jul 2009, 09:50
If only coins could be spent then any hub could contain just treasure to be fenced but not directly spent. This could give you an overall "loot total" without an everlasting supply of cash.
If the starting point was Garrett's home (a safe "non-combat" area) then you sort equipment/ mission briefings etc there. Then exiting though the door takes you directly to the mission, so you could imagine "traveling" to locations, while exiting through the attic takes you to the city rooftops.


If I understand you right, that's pretty similar to what I have been suggesting. But I think the money you earn there should be usable for mission load out.

Flashart
5th Jul 2009, 11:56
I didn't want to use the loot from the hub as it would penalize those who don't go there. With any (semi)perpetual world there's got to be limits somewhere, or you'll end up with vast fortunes or tons of gear. If Garrett had sensible inventory numbers then once it's filled that's another way to limit it.
Rather than a "hub" I think the city as one extra mission, but able to be played "between" missions, separate from the main story arc. Garrett's "house" would be the "hub".
I'm trying to find the middle ground between having a city and not.

Platinumoxicity
5th Jul 2009, 13:24
I'm trying to find the middle ground between having a city and not.

Simple: Big missions with a central mission area and a large portion of City/Forest/Wilderness around it to explore. No need to run back and forth through the same streets looking for fences or shops, but still lots of City, rooftops and environment to explore. ;)

FriendlyStranger
5th Jul 2009, 16:03
Simple: Big missions with a central mission area and a large portion of City/Forest/Wilderness around it to explore. No need to run back and forth through the same streets looking for fences or shops, but still lots of City, rooftops and environment to explore. ;)

But returning could add in more depth than a single mission could have. And regarding leaving the loot out from your purchasing loot - would an extra 400 gold really have that much of an impact?

Flashart
5th Jul 2009, 17:32
It depends if it 400 x the number of missions (returns). It's what TDS was criticized for, too much cash. Or make the gear more expensive, then people that don't do the extra exploration would get penalized. It's a difficult balance.

jtr7
5th Jul 2009, 23:15
...........................

Fatherwoodsie
6th Jul 2009, 00:50
what does hub mean?

jtr7
6th Jul 2009, 01:35
...........................

Fatherwoodsie
6th Jul 2009, 01:50
yeah well id rather each mission on a new level.... all that wasted memory goin back to "home"

jtr7
6th Jul 2009, 02:15
..................

Flashart
6th Jul 2009, 06:59
The way I imagine it is to have the option of city visit between each mission. You wouldn't have to go there. If the loadout screen was either Garrett's place or a map, or some abstract netherworld, you could go straight to a mission or the city.
If the city was seperate from the story arc then it would just be pure thievery. Randomize whatever can be randomized between missions, or get some unique loot and it would be slightly different each visit. It might not be vastly replayable but it could extend the length of a normal game quite considerably. If there were 15 normal missions and you made a city visit between each one it'd be like 30 missions, but at the cost of developing one extra (large) level. If you only went there once you'd still get the extra level (you could even use it as the training level, or for loot vs speed runs, or other uses (mp?)). The downside is it's development time, I suppose it's the choice of how much "replayability" you'd get out of a normal level vs the city level.
I've said before I'm not for or against this idea just trying to come up with a working middleground.

jtr7
6th Jul 2009, 07:16
.........................

FriendlyStranger
6th Jul 2009, 09:26
Thanks for trying to find something that works, but can someone explain why this is more desired than the missions themselves, and how this is more fun?

It adds more fun since you could observe the consequences of your actions. This was already present in T1,2 when returning to the levels you already visited... This could be cultivated as an optional open style side-quest. I think that's a fun bonus and could be used if you need some more cash for your mission.

jtr7
6th Jul 2009, 09:38
.......................

FriendlyStranger
6th Jul 2009, 09:43
If you could see the consequences of your actions in the hub, you could see it in subsequent missions. Still, why is this more fun than the missions? And no player should never need more cash unless they are trying to play as close to God-Mode as possible, and that's not something the game should be designed for. And again, larger missions in a game that can go bigger will contain most hub-like environments to explore outside the mission goals.

I don't say its better - and again I voted for no hub - I just wanted to line out that there are some things you can do with a reappearing hub, which are unlikely to be implemented into a mission. I stated my example of stealing from X-->Xgetting thrown out of apartment... thats what I mean. Of course if we get to visit the same area twice in two missions this could also be done. I just like these little gimmicks which especially DX provided.

jtr7
6th Jul 2009, 09:58
........................

FriendlyStranger
6th Jul 2009, 10:40
Sorry, I meant why do people here think it's better, not you specifically. :)


And yeah, the games already provided some of that, and don't need a hub to do it.

But I think that's what people around here think too about the hub... let me take part in the discussion *sniff* ):

The old redundancy discussion again? Already had at the armoury? I'm really excited how EM will solve the whole stuff.

jtr7
6th Jul 2009, 10:59
...........................

Flashart
6th Jul 2009, 11:40
The city could provide an area that is not "story-centric". A semi-perpetually existing "world" that could be purely thievery, rather than objective based. It could be an interface for FM's, or even Thief Vs Thief style Loot PvP contests. EM could even roll out new parts of the city every now and again, to republicize the game. It could be a place to introduce stories of the City rather than the "Thief " story arc. It could be used to house add-on missions that "run parallel" with the current game or ignore it completely, A "Thief Chronicles" or somesuch. Or, it could be a chance to give players a full working city to play about in. You could even use the same area in part of the main game.
I'd argue that the existence of any of these would have zero impact on the main game, apart from development time, however, if done correctly it's existence could greatly enhance the game. If it was done correctly, if it was optional, or at least not compulsory to visit between every mission.If it was only visited once you'd still get the experience of being in the city.
If it was suitably sized etc.
That's a lot of ifs, but I see no actual downside.

jtr7
6th Jul 2009, 11:51
.........................

FriendlyStranger
6th Jul 2009, 11:59
I think its save to say the WE don't think it's better than the missions. Its just the idea of a fresh new ADDITION to the Thief experience - a correction of what the TDS hub was lacking into a nice part of the game.

I had a lot of fun in games like Morrowind/Oblivion when stealing powerful artifacts or just loot from people to later sell it at a fence. There hasn't be to be an objective for this kind of entertainment. It's just the "hey I just fetched the daedric greaves while it's owner stood two feet away" sensation that would make it cool.

Flashart
6th Jul 2009, 13:42
After TMA the single addition most people wanted was for LOTP rooftops. They just liked being up there. It was a "Thievy" thing to do, the actual destination was secondary. People imagined being up on the roofs of the whole city just sneaking about, regardless of purpose, just taffing.
TDS's city wasn't what people had imagined it would be, not enough roofs, loading zones, pointless trips between missions etc.
Now I don't know whether it's the initial concept that was at fault, the execution of that concept, or simply trying to do the best with what they've got, that went so wrong.
But I still think that for most people the LOTP rooftops was the most "Thievy" experience in any of the games, regardless of the "Angelwatch" storyline.
I have to say I think the Oblivion comparison makes sense, sometimes it's just ignoring the plot and wandering about in the world. Now, I know Thief's world isn't like Oblivion, but having a "sandbox area" accessible from outside (but not necessarily separate) of the main plot, is still a very enticing prospect. But it is dependent upon good design. I wholeheartedly agree that whatever is implemented would still get tiresome after a short while, but wonder whether they could use this feature as the "Hub" for FMs
ie They make an editor for "buildings only" so the journey is via the city. Upon reaching the entry point your FM starts up. It's a cut-down editor so less work? Of course this means that FMs could only take place in the city, and I see a whole host of potential limitations, and I'm assuming an Official SDK would not be released. It's by no means a perfect solution but, once again, if done correctly I don't think would impact on the main game. (Even if it was released as a "Disc 2 add-on")

fayfuya
6th Jul 2009, 13:58
The 15 missions weren't THAT small

FriendlyStranger
6th Jul 2009, 16:11
btw I don't think 5 more water arrows per mission as a result of some sandbox loot makes you "godlike".

jtr7
6th Jul 2009, 23:32
..........................

Hypevosa
6th Jul 2009, 23:51
A hub is the one place where a player truly has freedom. Missions are just what they're called, you are on a mission, you MUST do something/alot of things. When you're in a hub, you have what yahtzee calls "D*ck potential", you can do whatever the hell you want. A hub provides a good bit of potential for the player to d*ck around if they so desire. Missions are far more restraining due to their inherently structured nature.

That's why some people would love to have a good hub and good missions, instead of just having good missions.

I've noticed that the poll has shifted 5 points to hubs. XD

jtr7
6th Jul 2009, 23:58
............................

Hypevosa
7th Jul 2009, 00:15
but if you tack that onto every mission then you're creating too much city, and detracting from the mission location. Why not just create a hub in that situation?

15 missions*3 times gervaisus' manor = too much city, I'd really rather have them put more of that time into missions, making the mission locals themselves larger, or at very least more intricate. Think 2x the widow moira's manor without the loading zone, and you've got the mission size I'd like (basically like one bonehoard or cragscleft sized mission).

I like a city hub I made just slamming two of "Ambush!" together. It's good sized, but provides quick routes (thieves highway) for those who want to get straight to missions, along with conveniently placed shops.

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa18/Hypevosa/CityHub.jpg

I'd rather have a more original map, but I illustrated the points I thought were important... convenience to all players to get where they want to be quick, but also the ability to d*ick around alot for those who so desire. And better yet, no constantly respawning arrows >_>.

jtr7
7th Jul 2009, 00:29
..........................

Hypevosa
7th Jul 2009, 01:01
So would your city intro to missions basically be an ever changing hub? I kind of like the sound of that more, where the mission does indeed start when I get there, but I can d*ick around and do what I want until I get there. You know, pickpocket the nobles who wear too much jewelry, mug someone, but only really start getting stuff toward the loot total or knockouts when I was actually in the mission area. I would like that more so than a hub because of the variety it would provide, as I enjoy variety more than familiarity in a case like this.

see when people talk about just having extra city outside the mission, I keep feeling like it's more place where I am forced to explore if I want to find all the loot in a level, or more people to knockout. I'm looking at this from my side of gameplay (slightly OCD in knocking people out and in collecting all loot).

I still liked to meet the fences and enjoyed their different personalities though, as well as the store keeps, which is why part of me still wants a city hub. But if we added fences and shops to the intro to each mission it would be a little much, and you could never revisit those people. idk, I see advantages to both sides of this argument, I just wish that the history of a city hub was better than TDS's example... argh...

Fatherwoodsie
7th Jul 2009, 07:40
are you tired of revisiting the same hub as a necessary part to complete a mission? are you tired of big blue loading portals? i know i am. thats why i suggest this new proposal. its called "free mode"! which will only be available after beating that levels story mode missions first. you can neander about the HUGE level youve just beatin and do whatever you want without worrying about a mission. this "free mode" has been used in many types of games.( for example "PURE", a quad racing game, soemtimes you dont wanna race in a tournament. sometimes you dont wanna beat a record time. sometimes you just wanna goof around and try things at your own pace). in TDS you can go around the city and rob people blind over and over and collect as much loot as you want and go on a freakin shopping spree at a fence before you start a mission.....but that is with a hub. so now you ask, "well ok but what about the loot and purchasing items in free mode?" heres how it works; whatever loot youve accumulated in free mode, will roll over to the next levels mission. this will enable you to neander around the levels youve just beaten at your own pace, without a city hub! no more hub, no more going back through blue loading portals, no more crossing through the city hub as part of completing the necessary missions, no more reloading to avoid pavelock prison. just simply revisiting each seperate level at your own pace without any restrictions, so you can stack up on cash, or just have fun.

(haha i know made it sound liek a commercial. i dont know if this would work or not what do you think? is it retarted?

Flashart
7th Jul 2009, 09:33
The "free roam" scenario is what I imagine, just not for every level, the City only. It's development time would be akin to one extra level. If you only played it once, you'd still have got the value out of the dev's time. The more you went there the more it would "extend" the life of the game. If you want the same area in a mission you could use the same area twice (saving dev time) but maybe change it's appearance (snow? fog? ruins?)
I'd not want to include it as solely part of a mission as then you'd get complaints, "I don't want to explore the city I want the "meat and potatoes" of the mission. At least if it's optional, you have the choice to go there or not.
As to what is fun? I know some people don't want to constantly play the missions in order, from start to finish, some want to do separate taffing, rooftop style, free from the objectives or the story. Is that fun? For some, yes, for others no. For me I wouldn't want anything in a hub to impact on the main story, unless it was via a "mandatory" first visit (say, the training level). After that, you wouldn't have to go again unless you wished to. The dev's wouldn't have wasted their time as it would have been built into the game, plus it's existence allows an extra dimension to owning the game.
Even, if it was lame as finding unique loot, to "display" back at Garrett's base, or seeing how much loot you could get in one hour, or how many guards you could KO, or just whether you could "ghost" through the entire area, or alerting every guard for an almighty showdown, this (for some) is fun. If you didn't find it fun, you would never know the place existed apart from your first play through. But it's being there would have zero impact on the enjoyment main game/story, no matter how many times you replayed them.
In Norway, they strip naked in the snow and hit each other with twigs. Is this fun? I have absolutely no idea.

FriendlyStranger
7th Jul 2009, 10:08
I also want to clear out this is not for replay value. The idea is to have somekind of "persistant mission" which changes at every (optional) visit and is open/reacting to your influence. This cannot be done with the normal missions, since you don't visit the Lost City or any other level more than two times.

Flashart
7th Jul 2009, 11:07
Here's a hypothetical situation, I repeat, I'm DELIBERATELY EXAGGERATING, this is not a suggestion.

Imagine T4 came as 2 Dvds. The 2nd DVD was just the City. A city comparable in size to New York or London. Every roof scalable, every lock pickable, every room taffable.Populated only by guards and townsfolk.I don't believe anyone would complain about it not being connected to the main story.
The forums would be filled with, "Have you seen the...?" "Did you visit...?", "Have you stole the...?" etc.
Now, if the dev's turned round and said the main Thief game was only 8 missions long because the rest of the time/ resources went on creating the City, then that is completely unacceptable.
If however they say "There's no city, NO EDITOR, just your 15 missions, see you in 5 years!" Then, I don't find that particularly satisfactory either.

To me, the City "concept" IS a good one, but it's the scale and implementation that is the important thing. If it's another "token" city, (4 houses and a guard with a limp) that you had to go through for every mission, then it's no good.
But surely there's a middle ground, where a city map (even if it's a "mission" map) can be used as a "free roaming" semi-permanent area that was free from story constraints, and just concentrated on taffing loot, or combat, or ghosting, or whatever you want to get up to.
It has to be of a suitable size to invite exploration, but not so big it takes away from the main game development. It should be enticing enough for those who wish a "quick couple of hours taffing" and don't want to play through an entire "Game level" or take the same level out of context. Yet, it doesn't want to be as predictable as a game level, so maybe should have randomized guards, loot etc.

If there's any "fun" to be got from the City "Hub", it has to be from a sense of place, it's real, it's in some way unpredictable or unique each time.It's a willingness to explore, just to see what's around the next corner, or behind the next door.
Otherwise, I agree it's just like one extra mission. TDS soured a lot of folks to the city experience, so much that I wouldn't want to make people visit the city between every mission, however I do think that Thief suffers from having "closed missions" that are the same each time.

Hypevosa
7th Jul 2009, 14:52
are you tired of revisiting the same hub as a necessary part to complete a mission? are you tired of big blue loading portals? i know i am. thats why i suggest this new proposal. its called "free mode"! which will only be available after beating that levels story mode missions first. you can neander about the HUGE level youve just beatin and do whatever you want without worrying about a mission. this "free mode" has been used in many types of games.( for example "PURE", a quad racing game, soemtimes you dont wanna race in a tournament. sometimes you dont wanna beat a record time. sometimes you just wanna goof around and try things at your own pace). in TDS you can go around the city and rob people blind over and over and collect as much loot as you want and go on a freakin shopping spree at a fence before you start a mission.....but that is with a hub. so now you ask, "well ok but what about the loot and purchasing items in free mode?" heres how it works; whatever loot youve accumulated in free mode, will roll over to the next levels mission. this will enable you to neander around the levels youve just beaten at your own pace, without a city hub! no more hub, no more going back through blue loading portals, no more crossing through the city hub as part of completing the necessary missions, no more reloading to avoid pavelock prison. just simply revisiting each seperate level at your own pace without any restrictions, so you can stack up on cash, or just have fun.

(haha i know made it sound liek a commercial. i dont know if this would work or not what do you think? is it retarted?

a hub doesn't need blue portals, if you've played oblivion or any kind of sandbox game you know very well that it's possible to load extremely large spaces... it was just the devs being stupid either in their design and underestimation of what consoles could really do, or in their choice of engine. Either way, just because some idiots screwed it up before doesn't mean that it couldn't be done well now. :P

As for free mode, it's basically like garrett going "oh well I'm done... let's **** around"? It doesn't quite feel right to me...

Fatherwoodsie
7th Jul 2009, 16:23
yeh theres no blue portals in oblivion but you still have to load between maps.

Hypevosa
7th Jul 2009, 22:45
but oblivion's huge expansive out doors would basically be your city hub. It would of course be considerably smaller than the outside world is in oblivion, but it would also have more depth since you're dealing with multiple stories, rooftops, underground passages, etc. If oblivion or halo or (insert game here) can have huge maps without loading zones, you don't need them in thief either. TDS made at least 1 extremely poor choice when making the city hub that led to loading zones, what it was I don't know, but they are to blame for the hub's crappiness.

jtr7
7th Jul 2009, 23:00
...........................

Tohtori
7th Jul 2009, 23:40
I prefer large levels. In T3 the city sucked really bad and maps were too small. Better solution could be a map where you could travel point and click style.


A city comparable in size to New York or London. Every roof scalable, every lock pickable, every room taffable.Populated only by guards and townsfolk.I don't believe anyone would complain about it not being connected to the main story.
Dude!! :D

Do you know how many locks or rooftops does London or New York have? You would need much more than just a DVD. And I believe that level designers would complain.

Anyway. It is a nice dream to have.

...

...I wonder how long would it take to rob the whole London ;)

jtr7
8th Jul 2009, 00:46
...........................

Flashart
8th Jul 2009, 10:11
The city hub suggestion was never meant to be a reality simulator. It was people wanted the "sneaking about experience", without having to be "in" the main story. I said my example was extreme to demonstrate it's a not a bad concept in of itself.
The idea that you can't separate the game mechanics from the main story is completely wrong as every stand alone FM proves. I'm not advocating a living breathing world, far from it. I think there was demand before TDS and I believe to a lesser extent now, to build more longevity into the game. The TDS design wasn't great but the dev's tried to give people what they wanted. (They didn't design the city to punish players)
Now, I'm just basing the whole of the City Hub idea on the assumption that there won't be a full editor, I hope I'm wrong. I've no idea of the numbers but I suspect a majority would still prefer "something" built into the game that allows a Thief experience now and again without having to constantly replay the same missions. I do not think having such a wish is a "cheapening" of the game, or a demonstration of being a "less devout player".
So if a halfway house between both poles is utilizing a new map or an already existing map, or "unlocking" all the levels, then as long as some *"randomizing of guards/ loot etc" takes place, I see nothing wrong in doing it. Then if it were an option and not compulsory it would have zero impact on the main game. I agree it's not about the buildings, but neither is it about the story. It's about the gameplay mechanics, lot's of people sneak about in Oblivion/ Fallout etc because it's the "Thief" experience.They even create "Garrett" to do it. You may not like it, find it fun, or believe that such a mindset of people actually exist, but the FM community and others consistantly prove that the Thief game and gameplay can live, thrive, and survive quite comfortably away from the bosom of the main game. I just think that if something can be built into or onto the game at the development stage then it's better for everyone providing, and I repeat, it does not impact on the game.

*It's this "randomizing" that is the key here. If the city was reasonably large, you still need sufficient differences to make it repeatable.

jtr7
8th Jul 2009, 10:56
............................

FriendlyStranger
8th Jul 2009, 12:43
It's the separation from Thief that worries me, and the fact that the story is getting crapped on, and that there's such rapid boredom with the missions. And still, I have not been told why these hub concepts cannot fit into the mission maps. If the player can choose the city district they want, once they've played them all to determine their favorites, similar to the older titles, then the larger non-mission areas should suffice. How is this not correct?
Mentioning FMs is a bad example. FMs don't even have to have a story, but a Thief game does. It's linearity in disguise. I don't have a frikkin' problem with, nor have I not been clear about it, people who like Oblivion, Assassin;s Creed, Dark Messiah, Splinter Cell, Hitman, and playing Thiefy in other games, but we're talking about Thief, here, and grafting the other games' concepts into Thief makes it something else. It's not a damn thing to do with the player preference, but what is right for the Thief brand. I have problems with players who cannot see what Thief is, and want to ruin it rather than go play other games and FMs that fit their culture. I like this. I like that. So what? Thief is what it is and you are invited to play the GAME, defined by rules and an ethos, and if you don't like what it is about, the GAME is not for you.


People who only like a fraction of the whole and dare request or demand concessions be made for them are being preposterous.

But enriching one game with good elements from another one is sometimes a good idea. A bad idea would be to implement the recent deveopment in ego-shooters to provide Thief with one of these regenerating health systems COD4 had. A good idea was to take over the unlockables/upgrades from COD 4 into other MP games - since it was an awesome system. Along that line the climbing system of assassins creed could blend into T4, since it was done really fine.

We are not only talking about Thief, we are talking about enhancing Thief to become a worthy Thief 4.

esme
8th Jul 2009, 12:47
...Along that line the climbing system of assassins creed could blend into T4, since it was done really fine...

only from a third person perspective which large proportion of players never use ... I feel a poll coming on
--EDIT--
poll done

hi I'm esme and I'm a pollaholic .... makes me sound like a stripper

ToMegaTherion
8th Jul 2009, 13:24
I am not an advocate of city hub ideas, but I think there are some interesting things to consider here. I find jtr7's question of why we might want the city portion of the game to be relatively separate from the missions, instead of integrating it into the missions. This is certainly something worth thinking about.

I think the reasoning could be based around recognising that "free-thieving" is quite a different experience and concept than missions. Now, I suspect that jtr7 would argue that this makes it a bad thing to include in a Thief game. But we have evidence that lots of Thief players really like Life of the Party and in particular the free-thieving aspect of it. Yeah, we are supposed to be on the way to Angelwatch, but to be honest that's almost secondary to the main appeal of the mission, which is to allow the player to taff around a lot.

So I think we can say that lots of Thief players are attracted to this sort of concept when it's done right. I'd like to take a little time out to address the "it's a nice idea but it's not Thief" reasoning that is sometimes employed. I can see where this argument is coming from. But it is surely somewhat reliant on their being the faintest possibility of these other concepts being formed into a video game at some stage. This possibility doesn't seem to exist. You can't say "nice idea, not quite Thief, make it into another game" because that other game is never going to be made. If someone had a great idea that was awesome-but-not-quite Thief, I think it would be reasonable to accept its implementation in a Thief game even if it dilutes the core Thiefiness a bit, because otherwise that great idea will never be realised.

Finally, jtr7 wonders why we shouldn't incorporate the free-thief idea into missions as we've seen done before. I would like it that way, but I suspect my reasons are somewhat different. I must say, though, that to me this is just as much a violation of his demand that the story is not "crapped on". If the mechanists were trying to murder me and I needed to find out their plans, I probably wouldn't stop to rob a random house on the way. From the point of view of story appeal and consistency, the main portion of Life of the Party seems to me to be a very frivolous experience. However, this frivolousness doesn't both me nor does it seem to bother many people.

Flashart
8th Jul 2009, 13:40
I do not see it as grafting anything from any other game. The way I understand it was the LOTP rooftop highway and city "taffing" experience just without the mission objective. Yes, it's linear, but then so are the regular missions, they have to be or you'd never finish them. My only stipulation would be doing something to "freshen" the city upon each visit.
The story isn't getting ruined as it's completely unaffected, you could view it as happening, before, during or after the main game's narrative. FM's storylines can veer wildly away from the Game story but they do no damage, a city level would have even less impact as there would be no story just Garrett getting loot, it's completely neutral.
I return again to the point of scale vs development/resource . If the city was large enough, (every roof scalable, every lock pickable..etc) and rich enough in terms of explorability the fact that it was "story-free" wouldn't concern most people. As long as it was a place worth returning to more times than any single mission from the main story then it's served it's purpose. If not, or even if you were forced there then it would clearly be of no greater value than any regular mission.
Or, put another way. If the player had a sense of the whole city (or a greater part) as a whole place, rather than existing for a small snapshot of time during a mission game. Being Garrett, in the city, on just a regular day, rather than faced with any story-centric imperative, was I think what most people wanted when this idea was first floated.
It's not about buildings, but if this were achievable it would have to be large enough, and versatile enough to be thiefy in over numerous occasions.
It's not a separation from Thief, it's what Thief delivered in abundance in LOTP. It's the same experience that people export to other games not vice versa.
Although, it may seem I'm arguing for the Hub to appear no matter what, actually I still remain undecided. If it was done well, I really believe it could be something fantastic, however done badly or compromising the main game and it would be a disaster.
But I do think that any aspect that can extend the thiefy experience should, at least be worth exploring.

esme
8th Jul 2009, 14:29
one thing if we do have a hub ... actually it applies to missions too

can we have it so that if we climb over the stonework surround of a gate we get to the other side rather than dropping into the void halfway or getting somewhere completely different, for example as you come out of the front door of Garretts apartment, turn right, go past the fountain and turn right again there's an archway with a grate in the roof and you can climb on top of this arch from the fountain square and drop down through the grate, it is possible though to climb over the arch completely, I seem to remember its only possible coming back to the square with the fountain, but you don't get to the other side if you do, you fall off the map

now I know we aren't supposed to climb places like that, but we are going to, it would be nice if the universe still worked when we do

dr_explodoh
8th Jul 2009, 17:59
Better missions.
I do like the kind of city hub game play, but I think better missions would make the game a TON more fun to play the first time through. Like a book you cant put down. Better missions would mean a better story line, I hope.

FriendlyStranger
8th Jul 2009, 18:31
I think you can take it for sure, that T4 will be developed for at least two from the three great gaming platforms today -- PS3, XBOX and PC. T4 will almost definitely contain a 3rd person view, altough the fans oppose to that. That won't be the problem, btw you also climbed ladders 1st person - this isn't much different. Im not talking about the exact same system showed on AC. I want that Garrett can use window gratings and such stuff even you and me could climb, I don't need a free climbing game...

jtr7
9th Jul 2009, 00:39
......................

gryphos
13th Jul 2009, 02:47
I was thinking that if you took the escape mission from T2, and just streched a Bafford sized area out of the middle, then you get the best of both worlds. Really, I think that the point of having a hub is to get the free play feeling; it's the Thief equivilant to a Sunday drive. Furthermore, it offers potentially more options for approaching missions if the devs make more entrance points. With a large surround of city for each mission, you can stroll as indirectly as you like, or go as directly as you like to get to the mission, and you can do it all just by doubling the area of each mission map, and ditching a separate city hub T3 style to compensate. If practically every level had some portion of rooftops and sewers, just think of how much sandbox fun as well as how much heist strategy you could gain, without having to bother with a clunky T3 hub? Worked well for Escape and LOTP.

Fatherwoodsie
13th Jul 2009, 02:51
are you implying that every level takes place on the streets? becuase they dont. what about the bonehoard, lost city, where there arent even "people"?

jtr7
13th Jul 2009, 03:43
........................

gryphos
13th Jul 2009, 20:38
>>are you implying that every level takes place on the streets? becuase they dont. what about the bonehoard, lost city, where there arent even "people"?

Of course not. But all the city missions would have city surrounding the target area. As for the Bone Hoard, I don't imagine that there would be as interesting a sand box around it's entrance, so it could be smaller. However, you could have a somewhat larger cemetary area than was actually used surrounding the entry mosoleum to make "getting there half the fun". As for the Lost City, that was kind of an exception for one, as it is buried in a cavern system making the surroundings only good for moles. Though it still had some exploration to get in, and getting in was part of the fun.

Hypevosa
13th Jul 2009, 22:34
actually in the lost city map (TDP/TGold), before you use the glyph to open the stone gate, there's a little section in the city part that you can only get into and out of using rope arrows that has some gold goblets and I believe a bottle of fine wine as well...

Nate
13th Jul 2009, 22:34
Yeah, what he is saying is that the mission map could include part of the area in close proximity to the mission zone.

So, you would start the mission a little ways off from the mission section, and would have to go through a part of the city or ruins or caverns or whatever to get to where you need to be. I REALLY like this idea.

I would even be happy to see this idea REPLACE any attempt at a persistent City Hub. As another bonus, it would make it much easier for the devs to manage Garrett's access to resources for game balance purposes.

jtr7
13th Jul 2009, 22:36
...................

Platinumoxicity
13th Jul 2009, 22:39
Yeah, what he is saying is that the mission map could include part of the area in close proximity to the mission zone.

So, you would start the mission a little ways off from the mission section, and would have to go through a part of the city or ruins or caverns or whatever to get to where you need to be. I REALLY like this idea.

I would even be happy to see this idea REPLACE any attempt at a persistent City Hub. As another bonus, it would make it much easier for the devs to manage Garrett's access to resources for game balance purposes.

Woot! \o/

Seconded. I wonder why it was so hard for some hardcore City-hub supporters to agree that this kind of system would be equally good if not better than a hub? Nobody liked that idea back then when I brought it up. :p

Nate
14th Jul 2009, 02:56
Well, your idea grew on me the more I thought about it. It really is the best of both worlds.

Fatherwoodsie
14th Jul 2009, 05:09
i suggested something similar as well..... i think there should be a forest level. but not start in the forest. start outside in the village so you can rape and pillage, then work your way to the forest. but anyway if thats soemthing like what your talking about, i think its a good idea and i agree that it could be the best of both worlds. although i dont think every level should be like that, most of them should be like that.

jtr7
14th Jul 2009, 05:30
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/thief/images/7/71/Garrett.gif

citywolfdreams
14th Jul 2009, 05:44
The expansive City surrounding a target locale would be the hub. Why the same one over and over when each mission makes it totally new, and if it's dynamic, based on player actions, it would be a different experience every time. I think it should be big enough to kill an hour of exploration, with the tradition of multiple paths to navigate and practice using tools and honing skills. Just the buildings surrounding Bafford's place would kill an hour if they were accessible.

I agree with this 100%!

kabatta
14th Jul 2009, 08:06
i suggested something similar as well..... i think there should be a forest level. but not start in the forest. start outside in the village so you can rape and pillage, then work your way to the forest. but anyway if thats soemthing like what your talking about, i think its a good idea and i agree that it could be the best of both worlds. although i dont think every level should be like that, most of them should be like that.

I agree that we could enter a village or paggan territory to steal, but burn, rape pillage and plunder? The protagonist is Garrett, not Conan the barbarian.

Fatherwoodsie
14th Jul 2009, 17:23
for me its a broad term that i used in place of the word "theiving"

Flashart
14th Jul 2009, 20:03
I'm going to play Devil's advocate again. Will these portions of the city only be available in a specific mission? In each mission how big will the city part be as a percentage of that mission? Dynamic in what way? Each visit or each new game? Can I access these areas at anytime or do I have to save my "saves". Will the game "unlock" these levels after completion?
I understand the premise of what's been suggested but I still think that when the game has been completed people will say "If only all these "portions" were all joined together."

kabatta
14th Jul 2009, 20:10
for me its a broad term that i used in place of the word "theiving"
I see...please explain next time the familial dialogue. It can be a little missleading. :p

jtr7
14th Jul 2009, 20:32
.................

gryphos
14th Jul 2009, 20:53
>>Will these portions of the city only be available in a specific mission?
As with TDP/TMA, I would think so, unless the story overlaps the same area.

>>In each mission how big will the city part be as a percentage of that mission?
That's an excellent question! As for me, about my favorite rule of thumb for most video games, is that I want about 1/5 action/violence, 1/5 puzzles, 1/5 exploration, 2/5 pure plot/character. Based on that, I'd dedicate about 1/5 - 2/5 on the surrounding cityscape, with the target taking up the rest. I'd think that makes sensen anyway... looking at the county courthouse, or the main branch bank I use, there is alot more vertical and horizontal space in it than the surrounding strip shops surrounding it.

>>Dynamic in what way?
Dynamic according to the player's actions. e.g. the more violent Garret is in game, the fewer people will be out to mug, and the more watch will be out. The more stuff he's looted, the more torches there will be lighting the streets, or some such.

>>Can I access these areas at anytime or do I have to save my "saves".
As with maps in TDP/TMA, anytime while you are in those missions.

>>Will the game "unlock" these levels after completion?
Why? Just make this available whenever you are on that mission.

>>I understand the premise of what's been suggested but I still think that when the game has been completed people will say "If only all these "portions" were all joined together."

eeeehhhh... I think that part of the charm of the levels of TDP/TMA is that they retained some of their mystery by never being completely available all the time. I think the DESIGNERS should be consistent, but leave the players satisfied, but wanting just a tiny taste more than they get.

jtr7
14th Jul 2009, 21:07
...................

Nate
15th Jul 2009, 06:49
So the player experiences different 'City Parts' for each mission...unless the devs think it makes sense to have missions share the same 'City Parts' plotwise.

Hell, they could even choose to partially share 'City Parts' sometimes. For example, mission 1 includes City Part A. However, mission 2 takes place near the same place as mission 1 = 1/2 of City Part A & 1/2 of City Part B....just a thought.

kaekaelyn
15th Jul 2009, 06:59
Due to too many conversations about the topic recently, I just thought "I'll be happy if I can enter this forum and not see the word 'rape.'" First topic I click on, and what do you know...OK, OK, not a big deal, it wasn't literal, got it, hate to hold ya back or be depressing. Just had to say.

kabatta
15th Jul 2009, 09:58
Oh, come on...it wasn't that exagerated. say som,ething topic related. :P

Flashart
15th Jul 2009, 10:32
I've never minded the idea of having parts of the city within the levels, but I still think a larger city area would still be a better experience. Okay, it doesn't have to be a "Hub" for other missions, howabout Mission 1 is as bigger city part as you can fit in one mission. You start in a "neutral, training" area, then are free to roam the streets/rooftops. If the only mission objective was a particular destination you could avoid that until you wished to continue the story, and you wouldn't have any other plot points in the way. Plus, if it was Mission 1 you wouldn't have to play through other levels to reach it, so could use it as a "Quickie".
As I've said before the key to the city would be scale, you could still have new parts within other missions, but I'd like the idea of explorable areas as far as I can see, if not all the city, at least a size better than 40% of a mission.
As far as reaching areas further away could the canal system be used as a navigation means?
Maybe a short cutscene to denote a boat ride, it's not ideal but it would allow the illusion of traveling several miles, yet still be connected to the city.(We see a barge disappear into a tunnel and reappear in a different area)

gryphos
15th Jul 2009, 22:52
>>You start in a "neutral, training" area, then are free to roam the streets/rooftops. If the only mission objective was a particular destination you could avoid that until you wished to continue the story, and you wouldn't have any other plot points in the way. Plus, if it was Mission 1 you wouldn't have to play through other levels to reach it, so could use it as a "Quickie".

It's not how I would do it as a designer... but I don't think that this would be a terrible idea either. I'd be OK with this as a second place design preference.

>>Maybe a short cutscene to denote a boat ride, it's not ideal but it would allow the illusion of traveling several miles

Ya know, I was kinda' thinking of something like this too when I first looked at the city hub thread. If we HAVE to have a city hub, then I want something like an interactive map with an Indiana Jones film style travel montage where you can just pick your destination points and we see the overlapping City images under the map and travelling red line. That way I don't have to walk incessantly for non-mission related stuff if I don't want.

However, I still think the best solution to satisfy the sandbox craving with mission focus is to just make every mission area surrounded by a larger urban ring.

Nate
16th Jul 2009, 00:16
>>However, I still think the best solution to satisfy the sandbox craving with mission focus is to just make every mission area surrounded by a larger urban ring.

Exactly!

Well, of course wilderness or ruins would start off with a larger 'wilderness or ruins' ring.

jtr7
16th Jul 2009, 02:51
.................

kungfuasaurus
16th Jul 2009, 03:13
My vote is for individualized missions. A city could be cool, though I'm not convinced it's the best concept for a Thief game.

However, IF they choose to go with the city, at the very least the size should be quadruple+ what it was in Thief 3. For once a city needs to feel like a city and not an over-sized neighborhood. If they go this route, then I'd say money needs to be scarce around the city, and limited quantities of arrows and such for each night. Thief 3 didn't have much variety in the city visually, or even in terms of things to do, so maybe add some side-jobs (e.g. Bafford's manor, Ramirez's mansion or what not that aren't set missions, but if you choose to, you can rob the place, but only once). But once again, my vote is to forgo the city.

Danie1
16th Jul 2009, 03:14
I haven't time to read this entire thread, but I'd like to add my personal thoughts. Thw world of Thief:DS felt very small. The fact that every mission, no matter how off worldish it was designed, took place only a stone's throw from Garrett's front doorstep was irritating. The mystical place I once knew only as "The City" lost a lot of it's mystical quality and felt more like a very packed sci-fi movie set. In the previous games, the setting could vary vastly and there would be no need to determine how to fit it into the City. The only exception I can think of is "the Lost City" in Dark Project.

Another thing, the way equiptment was handled in Thief:DS was pretty poor in retrospect. Having plenty of supplies all the time is laughable, and creating a city enviroment between missions will yield the same sort of set up. Losing all your equiptment isn't "realistic" but what's more important is gameplay.

Nate
16th Jul 2009, 05:59
I haven't time to read this entire thread, but I'd like to add my personal thoughts. Thw world of Thief:DS felt very small. The fact that every mission, no matter how off worldish it was designed, took place only a stone's throw from Garrett's front doorstep was irritating. The mystical place I once knew only as "The City" lost a lot of it's mystical quality and felt more like a very packed sci-fi movie set. In the previous games, the setting could vary vastly and there would be no need to determine how to fit it into the City. The only exception I can think of is "the Lost City" in Dark Project.

Another thing, the way equiptment was handled in Thief:DS was pretty poor in retrospect. Having plenty of supplies all the time is laughable, and creating a city enviroment between missions will yield the same sort of set up. Losing all your equiptment isn't "realistic" but what's more important is gameplay.

Exactly! Well put!

negative_len
16th Jul 2009, 07:37
There's only three ways this can work out.

1. Devs think they can do both, screw up missions.

2. Devs listen to old school fans and make missions better, nerf/eliminate city.

3. Devs think they can do both, get it right.

While I did like the city portions in TDS a lot, that was before I played the first two games and realized how much bigger the city should have been. I don't honestly think EM can make a good city without doing serious damage to the missions, so I'll vote for missions.

Sorry, after finding out that they made Max Payne old, fat, bald and bearded in a jungle, my faith in modern video game developers sunk through my shoes. That and the fact that Max Payne 3 and Thief 4 have a lot in common, and none of the old developers are working at EM.

Nate
16th Jul 2009, 07:49
It would seem that having an explorable 'zone' around each mission could be the best of both worlds....as long as they aren't crammed with loot and equipment. They should be more interesting and fun than anything.

Imagine starting a mission and having to meet a guard (one of Perry's contacts) on a street corner before he goes on duty. You could then pay him for info, or to leave a door open, or to leave loot unsecured, or to look the other way when you come through.

Or you could stop by the city archives and get a blueprint of your target to make your life easier.

Or you could climb a tower nearby and get a good view of patrols in your target's courtyard...maybe even see a hidden way through the patrolling guards

Anyway, having 'non mission' zones around the mission target could have a lot of potential....at the same time allowing the devs to bypass the City Hub concept (that can only disappoint by definition).

Nate
16th Jul 2009, 08:01
Some of you wonder why I am so anti City Hub. There's 2 main reasons for that.

1. The City Hub will always be far too small and limited to measure up to what The City is supposed to be. Be definition, the City Hub can only be a let down.

WORSE YET, IF the devs actually try to make the City Hub massive and full of encounters and events, they will have to spend a lot of time on doing so = that time might be better spent perfecting the missions.

The devs would probably be much better off having chunks of the city around missions than trying to make a City Hub. I just hope they don't block it all off artificially.....they could instead have streets/paths that lead out of the mission (if you try to walk up those streets/paths the game informs you that you are about to end the mission with a 5 second countdown for you to turn around and go another way).

2. The City Hub will always offer the player the chance to carry TONS of equipment from mission to misssion = a game that is sadly to easy to play through.

*Of course, this 2nd problem can be fixed by putting in a 'Carry Capacity' slider in regards to equipment. This would allow the more hard core players to be limited to how much equipment they can carry REGARDLESS of how much $ they collect in a City Hub.

jtr7
16th Jul 2009, 08:10
....................

Flashart
16th Jul 2009, 11:36
At the moment it's difficult to say what the game will be. I've played games with "areas" larger than TMA with buildings you can enter, (but not as detailed interiors as TDS). And I've played games with large "worlds" but buildings entered seperately. There's advantages for the Dev's in both ways, but I suspect most players prefer the former as it doesn't break immersion.

Gillie
16th Jul 2009, 13:44
I like the city missions where you have to do objectives in the city.
Going on to life of the party was just a great mission. TDS did lack a lot in the city really
More climbing would be good to get to other mansions maybe having to bypass caves like the bone hoard, going through sewers and canals rather than as it was in TDS, I loved the story but found it rather tedious going over the same all the time, I found that myself when I went on to play the first games, which were better. At least they led to somewhere else. I loved the different missions more in TMA, like trail of blood. No doubting a lot of the fan missions have many of great plots exploring. Like Lady Rowena's Seven sisters that is amazing. :scratch:

ElizabethSterling
17th Jul 2009, 18:08
Leave the city hubs, they're a distraction from the real fun, padding.

jtr7
17th Jul 2009, 23:03
.....................

Flashart
18th Jul 2009, 11:08
The way I understand it is an area that can be accessible AFTER the game is finished. So that's not distracting from anything. Some games have multiplayer does that distract from the single player game? Surely putting large areas into mission levels is more distracting if they are huge?
If it can be done I still favour as large a city as possible, although I'd still have smaller sections in missions. I don't mind if it's not a "hub", maybe even the final mission that stays unlocked after the games completion, a nice little bonus. Or maybe have the city in sections throughout the game but at the end join them together.
If anyone's played Hidden and Dangerous 2, I imagine a level the size of the French Village, full of buildings/rooftops, now that's a large explorable area. In that game the individual missions get unlocked at the end so you can play different styles ("Lone Wolf" etc).
Maybe do the same, and have a loot vs time challenge between an hour of the church bells or somesuch.
It would be a mission map so wouldn't take any more resources. The "free roam taffing" mode would be after the main game so it's not distracting from the main plot. All loot/items would be separate so wouldn't unbalance the main game. You might even sync it up via the net to allow Thief vs Thief challenges. I've said before it would be repetitious, but that's largely to do with scale.
Yes it's padding, but not padding the main game, simply extending the Thief experience, other games "pad" with multiplayer, co-op etc.

Nothke
18th Jul 2009, 22:54
Yes Hidden and Dangerous 2 is a great game, too bad so few people know about it. I really liked size and lenght of the missions, some of them reminded me of Thief. HaD2 were like first person Commandos 2 to me, and both are great games, and they both share the infiltration - exfiltration brainstorming.

And about Thief... well as I played Assassins, Courier levels, I always wished... wow, its so great, so big, I wish I could find a shop here to buy some arrows, and follow citizens to their homes to steal from their houses! And exactly that happened in T3, everything what I wished, but I was dissapointed, it was too small too few houses to get in... not really what I expected. I played some T2 FMs with big cities and houses, and these are awesome. It was one big level, I played for about 3 ingame hours... and I couldn't get enough... There were rooftops and sewers, everything missing in T3. And I'm trying to find more of these kind FMs! I wish T4 is like that.

kungfuasaurus
18th Jul 2009, 23:30
This is slightly off topic, but one thing I would like to see is more missions outside of the city, like in the original Thief (TDP). Kind of like the Cathedral, which technically was part of the city (or at least used to be) but was uninhabited, aside from the undead. That was another thing that bugged me a bit about Thief 3, almost everything was confined to the city (which seemed like the entire thing was about the same size as the aforementioned Cathedral mission). Granted there was the underground one where you stole the crown, and the outskirts where all the Pagans were, but they felt like they were just the next block over instead of in another place. Thief 2 also had a bit of an expedition out of the city when you were tracking the would-be assassin back to Victoria.

Basically, the whole point here is that with the City Hub, everything is confined to your city. Even in Thief 3, the missions that were outside of the city weren't really believable as being outside of its realm (one is underneath the well and the other is through a grate in the sewers). Having a larger outer-mission area to explore seems much more appropriate for Thief, and having some missions in a completely different place would be cool, too. And one other question is: what's outside of the City that we've always been in? There must be some other cities and areas than what we've seen so far.

jtr7
18th Jul 2009, 23:59
....................

Flashart
19th Jul 2009, 10:25
I think the thread is fragmenting slightly but the way I see it "Hub" meant a space to keep returning to and "springboarding" to various missions.
I'm NOT in favour of this. TDS proved the repetition drove people crazy, and I agree it could be a distraction away from the main story. And you get the problem of confining each mission to the city, unless the game moved locations halfway through.
My idea was a City or as bigger section that can be reasonably created to be available within the game, but also can be accessible "after" the game, for the free roaming experience. Again, it needs to be of suitable size to withstand a few visits to be fun, but if you'd already used the map in the game it wouldn't be a waste, just recycling a large level.
I'd like the city to feel like a real place, I'm not against having small parts in different missions, but one large area would be fantastic.
With regards to the unexplored areas, would you want to explore one new area over several missions or visit lot's of areas but only for 1 mission each?

deathshadow
19th Jul 2009, 20:21
If it were implemented in the same way as Deadly Shadows, the answer is a resounding OH **** NO, ARE YOU **** KIDDING ME?!? - for many of the reasons already listed like sheer boredom of seeing the same scenery over and over, and the inherent problem of how one's cup runneth over when it comes to gear.

Some heavy duty limits on how gear works and how it is retained would have to be put in place for me to embrace the idea. This would probably mean no 'respawning' of items every 'night' - you take the water crystals from the fountain, that's it... No giving the supply shops near endless quantities of items either, I'm thinking that if you based what was available at the shops on what you are already carrying...

For example, If you have more than the number water arrows the next mission designer had in mind for the level, have all the shops be sold out... and for good measure, make them not appear anywhere on that mission. That would solve that issue right quick.

... and lands sake, if it's going to end up being postage stamp sized levels divided up all over the damned place for the sake of hubs, then forget it. As I said when TDS was released, you look at it's contemporaries like Morrowind and GTA:SA, and Deadly Shadows was outright embarassing with the majority of area's being no bigger than your average city block.

Of course, you want to wow me, how about one-upping even recent games like Fallout 3 or Oblivion, and give us one giant world with NO 'loading' screens... and take a hint from both, and include quick travel to the mission areas so that people who could give a flying **** about the long walk between hubs could fly right past them.

Though again, my advice is that if it was in Deadly Shadows and NOT in either Dark Project or Metal Age, you might be best off not doing it, as the only thing that was remotely done well in DS was lockpicking - and other games have done that better now. (and bring back having multiple types of lockpicks)

Nate
20th Jul 2009, 03:54
The problem with the City Hub concept is that it is very hard to make a city both HUGE and FULL of encounters/missions/story. Thief Deadly Shadows had a City Hub that was tiny, fragmented and not particularly interesting.

IF the devs are 100% sure they can make an epic city and epic missions....then go for it.

If they can't, then concentrate on perfecting the missions. Those who want a City Hub can be mostly satisfied with explorable 'urban zones' around the mission target. Also, this way the devs can balance out equipment and loot more reasonably.

Hehe, in TDS I always laughed at how expensive elemental arrows were at pawn shops...WHEN THEY LITERALLY GROW ALL OVER THE PLACE.

jtr7
20th Jul 2009, 04:04
....................

KittyCatAngel
20th Jul 2009, 09:49
I'm between 2 minds here.

When I think of a city hub, I think of the Imperial City in Oblivion. Very large, tons of activities, tons of items. I'd suggest that if you can't go big, go home.

Otherwise I am perfectly happy with larger, longer missions with more exploration.

Dragonera
20th Jul 2009, 14:24
I like city hub, but missions should be bigger, AND! 15 is too litle...... I would like BIG city with many missions which are you own choose. Like: if you like haunted you go haunted missions, if you like pagans you go to pagans.... If you wanna play all, you play all.... Litle missions more....

KittyCatAngel
20th Jul 2009, 14:51
I like city hub, but missions should be bigger, AND! 15 is too litle...... I would like BIG city with many missions which are you own choose. Like: if you like haunted you go haunted missions, if you like pagans you go to pagans.... If you wanna play all, you play all.... Litle missions more....

Eeeeeh, I don't know if I agree with that... I mean, yeah I did mention the whole Oblivion thing myself, but even the Guilds in Oblivion had story progression within their quests.

Thief is just not a big enough game to have random missions, it wouldn't do anything for story progression. Even though they did dabble a little with that with your first 2 missions in TDS...

Perhaps an interesting idea to implement would be to have MAIN story quests and smaller inbetweeners? Or is that what you meant in the first place? 0_o

Kold
21st Jul 2009, 01:59
There could be a lot more subplots and gossip and info to glean that pertains to any one of the missions or just provides the continued City backstory that makes the world seem fuller and more alive. I'd prefer more texts than conversations since all that voice-acting, transcribing/subtitling, and sound editing will eat up so much of their time, money, and require extra discs of memory. News from other lands, rather than simple mentions. More newspaper articles. More ledgers and prisoner rosters. Crime lord dossiers. Receipts giving tip-offs for more places to hit. Secret correspondence. Love letters for the romantics and because it's good to show other sides of humanity. Acceptance speeches. To-do lists. Instructions (lots of them, with tip-offs). Tips from allies. And on and on. Unlike all the texts that were unused from TMA and all the conversations unused in TDP/Gold, little of it would go to waste but the continuity mistakes.


Id like the idea of both as well.

Better missions, while a team handles the "in-between" stuff... they could add a ton of side-heists in the City, and many other things to discover/uncover, mysteries to solve, etc. And all this could add to the backstory of Thief, enrich the world, make you feel more... idk. Fulfilled.