PDA

View Full Version : Does EM understand what the fans want?



KaiserJohan
16th Jun 2009, 13:42
Eidos is working on T4 because according to their research, Thief series is very popular, which is true. There's TONS of FM's and projects in the Thief universe. TTLG.com and thief-thecircle.com are testamonies of this.

The real question is-- did Eidos ever bother to find out WHY thief is still so popular? And why T :DS was so unpopular with the real fanbase?

Another concern is that EM will never have any contect with the forums, read the discussions or -- most importantly -- visit TTLG for feedback, because that's where the hardcore fanbase is, and they are numerous.

Basically, everything T: DS tried to do with the series, failed horribly. RPG elements, faction alliance, loading zones, plastic/clay figures, lame zombies, no swimming, etc... the list goes on indefinately.

The fanbase, the people who keeps the Thief series alive, don't want another mainstream game like T: DS, no matter what the Tomb Raider ppl will try to tell you.

Hamadriyad
16th Jun 2009, 14:10
They should understand.I hope so at least. Rene is reading this forum, and not just him.(look at Thief IV Dev Blog threat) I believe they will give us a great Thief game.
And I think TDS is a good sequel(in many ways), first of all, it has a great story. But of course it could be much better.

esme
16th Jun 2009, 14:45
well the video in this post http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=1026128&postcount=167 is suggestive of them looking at TDP as it's got a clip from the assassins mission in it, so it's possible they are looking at the original missions to get a feel for the game

on the other hand that may have been stock footage but I think it's interesting that TDS footage wasn't used

but without feedback there's no way to tell

Yotun
16th Jun 2009, 15:08
I think part of the problem is, do the fans know what they want? We don't seem to agree on all that much.

BTW I would hardly call Thief a 'very popular' franchise. Yes its not obscure or 'un'popular, but its hardly what you'd pick to get some easy cash...

Necros
16th Jun 2009, 15:20
The real question is-- did Eidos ever bother to find out WHY thief is still so popular? And why TDS was so unpopular with the real fanbase?
I consider myself a real fan and I liked Thief 3 too. :rolleyes:

Another concern is that EM will never have any contect with the forums, read the discussions or -- most importantly -- visit TTLG for feedback, because that's where the hardcore fanbase is, and they are numerous.
They know about TTLG too and they are reading what we post on both forums.

Basically, everything T: DS tried to do with the series, failed horribly. RPG elements, faction alliance, etc... the list goes on indefinately.
Wrong.

Platinumoxicity
16th Jun 2009, 16:06
I consider myself a real fan and I liked Thief 3 too. :rolleyes:

They know about TTLG too and they are reading what we post on both forums.

Wrong.

Mention 5 things that were done better in TDS and we'll refute those that are lies.

AbysmalGale
16th Jun 2009, 16:57
Mention 5 things that were done better in TDS and we'll refute those that are lies.

Yes. I would actually like to hear about even one thing that was made better in TDS. And I'm not talking about graphics and textures.

InGroove2
16th Jun 2009, 16:57
Mention 5 things that were done better in TDS and we'll refute those that are lies.

well i think TMA is way better than TDP but i don't think i could name FIVE things that were better.

i think that TDS was not "better" in anyway, really. it had somethings taht weren't in the other games that were very cool. But it's not really a comparison. The shadows in TDS were awesome, but i wouldn't compare them and say they were better... etc you get my drift.
it's not a fair thing to ask a question like that. ESPECIALLY when the OP is erroneously stating that "anyone who is a real fan feels that TDS was worthless". i mean, c;mon, that's not even in the same ballpark as "fair".

i think TDS had some good ideas and just didn't do them that well... the city hub idea, for example, coul have been really great, but the engine and the XBOXness made the area small and irritating.

i think it's a safe bet to say that "the hardcore... or REAL fans" don't number enough sales to help EM break even... so the nerds over there in "we're real fans-land" should get some perspective... namely, this OP. not that their desires are not warranted or even righteous.

IMO the bigest problems with TDS were 3rd person and small areas.

but i think EM needs to make a gamers game... which turns out to be more like the first two.... so that T4 will have that kind of lasting value... asoppose to going for trying to get alot of people to buy it immediately... it needs to be a labor of love... not for money. that is always what sets games apart... and if they understand that, i think the specifics will fall into place..

TheMasterBuilder
16th Jun 2009, 17:26
I've seen alot of bashing of thief3 for engine limitations and what i see as balance reasons. The loading, rope arrows, no swimming, the sword, etc. I don't know how a game could be soo despised by the community when they were such small changes. I also don't think bad rag doll physics, the inability to swim, and tiny maps with lots of loading is "main streaming".

It's not like the devs turned a hex grid, turn based RPG into a FPS with the ability to pause.

Necros
16th Jun 2009, 17:36
I didn't say T3 was better thant the first two anywhere. I just don't think it deserves all the hate. My favourite is T2 but I liked T3 a lot too, it was still Thief, with a great story, more or less the same gameplay and a few good ideas (most of them should've been done better though), and some limitations.

Flashart
16th Jun 2009, 17:49
And to turn the question around "Do the fans understand what EM want?"
Does anyone know how TDS was received "in house". Was it the game they originally envisioned?
Or were changes forced upon them?

Psi Yamaneko
16th Jun 2009, 17:56
I've seen alot of bashing of thief3 for engine limitations and what i see as balance reasons. The loading, rope arrows, no swimming, the sword, etc. I don't know how a game could be soo despised by the community when they were such small changes. I also don't think bad rag doll physics, the inability to swim, and tiny maps with lots of loading is "main streaming".

It's not like the devs turned a hex grid, turn based RPG into a FPS with the ability to pause.

With me, the issue wasn't so much any one of those things as much as it was all of those things added up. Put together, it is a substantial blow.

CaptainObvious
16th Jun 2009, 18:04
Hiya all...

The problem is that fans often don't know what they want themselves. Something new or something replacing a game mechanic mustn't necessarily bad just because it wasn't in the previous games.

Considering the engine problems TDS had it's a pretty good game, and as far as I remember(haven't played for ages now it since Vista doesn't like it) most of the changes weren't necessarily bad, just underused or limited by other factors(like the open city with the small level size).

And for all the whining about the third person camera, it was optional. First person view sure felt odd at first but I got used to it after five minutes. Maybe I'm special in that regard, though.

Direlord
16th Jun 2009, 18:09
Interesting question Flashart. While I don't know for sure i'd imagine the devs thought they did well with what they had to work with but probably felt it could have been better. They did what they had to do but some decisions were probably heavily pushed to them.

i would agree that the old fan base on some topics are rather split on certain issues. You can't please everyone all of the time it usually just leads to displeasing everyone. I personally didn't mind DS while it is not as good as my favorite of the series TMA i still had fun with the game and have replayed it a few times.

I do think EM knows what the fans want or can expect but they should also expect us to grudgingly accept any changes they deem necessary to the old formulas. At least till we play the game. The series maybe popular but it is also fairly old now. They will want to hook in fresh blood to bring in more people to the series to make this game successful.

kaekaelyn
16th Jun 2009, 18:16
I think that something along the lines of the first two Thief games with updated graphics and just a few loving tweaks would be able to hook in some fresh blood. Maybe not the die-hard FPS fans, but I think that a demographic for the series is out there and yearning for something refreshing.

KaiserJohan
16th Jun 2009, 22:19
Necros; No, the fanbase that keeps the franschise alive -- not the ones who randomly stumbles onto a T: DS and is mildy excited about a T4, only to play it once and then forget it -- is over att TTLG.com and boy, pop in there and see the discussion why T: DS failed.

Try to convince them otherwise if you dare.

Aristofiles
16th Jun 2009, 22:38
acualy... i dont think there is enough thief fans out there for them to give a damn :) lets say that there are 20,000 die hard fans out there (counting high here) well the fact is that selling 20000 games more or less dosent make a diffrent in the long run. If thay wanto earn money thay haveto make a new awsome game that speaks out to the mass puplic of casual gamers. thats why thay will ruin it and that why thay dont care about this forum :)

just a theory though

besides only on this forum over 50 % of the users seem to want to turn the game into something other than the 2 first games so if thay listen to us it will suck.

AbysmalGale
16th Jun 2009, 22:51
besides only on this forum over 50 % of the users seem to want to turn the game into something other than the 2 first games so if thay listen to us it will suck.

Hmm... I totally have to disagree on this. I would say about 10-20% on this forum want to change the game from the first two, at least based on those posts I have read. Check the polls and you'll find the opinions lean a lot towards the old titles.

Pyronox
16th Jun 2009, 22:57
Well obviously TDS wasn't perfect but while it removed stuff that worked well like the sword for instance, they added many interesting concepts, most of which were compromises due to technical issues and some were design decisions. This is my 5 things list if you will:

(Btw, I don't feel like starting a flame war. I just think TDS shouldn't have gotten that much hate)

5. So, they removed the sword and your ability to parry? It makes sense: you're a Thief, not a warrior; sneaking around with a sword that doesn't clink against your gear or the environment is kinda difficult. The dagger, if I remember correctly, permitted us to kill an enemy that couldn't be blackjacked, therefore trading a tough enemy for a corpse to deal with and a blood stain that could render other patrolling enemies suspicious. You're left with the choice of either using up a water arrow to clean the blood stain (sometimes you can be very short on those obviously) or risking rousing attention.

4. Open & Sprawly vs. Simple and Semi Linear: Obviously this was a choice for the console demographic and to permit the graphics engine to run properly without exploding your computer or console, but it's not a necessarily bad thing. See, while Open gameplay has taught us anything over time is that too much freedom without enough gameplay mechanics to render it interesting for decades will become a bit monotonous after a while. Farcry 2 suffered from this a bit. It wasn't a bad game--plenty of potential and many other redeeming aspects, but a more linear approach would have done better IMO. Semi-linear gameplay allows for a more finely crafted experience rather than the "choose your adventure" thing we're spoonfed so often. More attention can be given to maps to make sure they play properly, instead of having to rely on situational advantages to triumph. Both are cool, but it varies sometimes.

3. Climbing getting you down? Miss the rope arrow? This was probably more of a technical issue than everything else. Since there was such an emphasis on physics with the game engine, making a working rope arrow that didn't glitch in terrain or look like crap would probably have been a bit too complicated. If anyone's played Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, which was on the Source engine, they had to make the rope arrow's rope in 2d to look "ok" and even with all the physics tweaks they did to it, it still glitched in terrain and could make you fall off the world. The alternative of climbing gloves was relatively well implemented (even though detection and controls were crap) and properly limited. Even though it didn't give the same sense of freedom as the rope arrow, it served the same purpose of ascension and, if not good, at least works as a nice emergency tire.

2. The Cradle: Brilliant. Nuff said.

1. Dynamic Shadows: Now this isn't something you see everyday in games. Even with upcoming games like Alan Wake that get volumetric smoke, lighting and wind that seem from 40,000 years in the future, it's still a rarity. For a stealth-based game like Thief, this is insanely awesome. I think there will be no opposition here.

KaiserJohan
16th Jun 2009, 23:13
5. The sword was very much used as a tool in T1 and T2. To bash open doors that were locked, to bash down barricades of wood planks and you actually use it to draw attention! You can slash it into metal objects and then hide. It's a cheap melee-nosemaker if you don't want to spend one or a broadhead. The sword was a tool, not a weapon.

4. This I am leaving to fett @ TTLG, he explained quite well what was SO HORRIBLY WRONG with the T: DS world when you compared it to the previous games.
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126717

3. This is also mentioned in Fett's post quite alot; the rope arrow and exploring. Again, http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126717 is a must-read.
I would happily accept even a sloppy-implemented rope arrow at the expense of things like faction alliances, etc.

2. The Cradle is good, but I prefer Return to the Cathedral. The cradle could've been great, but what ruined it for me was the plot involving that girl (which really you can't blame on the mission itself), the patients who weren't scary in the least(like all the other creatures in T: DS, none were as scary as the ones in previous games) and the fact you could pull of a frontal assault easly since you were geared upp with a million holy water, broadheads, explosives, flashbombs, etc since it was all so very easy to aquire and stack up, unlike the previous games...

1. I would only compare the games technological parts to the time it was released. Of course T2 didn't have dynamic shadows back in those days. It's the sort of stuff you expect from a modern game today, but if you ask me, I could've done it with a updated dark engine, the dynamic shadows really didn't impact my game so much..

Pyronox
16th Jun 2009, 23:20
3. Ofc, but 4. is still arguable IMO

ToMegaTherion
16th Jun 2009, 23:21
The light and shadows system of Deadly Shadows did indeed kick ass.

I'm playing Metal Age for the first time in a long while and currently things that are annoying after Deadly Shadows are: inferior shadows; shadow effect on lightgem sometimes unintuitive; guards getting stuck; guards choosing bizarre paths, guards doing really strange things if they go to high alert; mantling is sometimes weird; flashbomb KO is overpowered and against the spirit of the device; guards sometimes don't seem to even notice bumping into me; the way in to Shoalsgate Station.

CurtX
16th Jun 2009, 23:23
I think we hardcore Thief fans need to have a little more open mind. If we don't, Thief 4 is guaranteed to be a disappointment. We shouldn't beg EM to clone our favorite things from the previous games. We can ask them to incorporate and improve on many of the core Thief features. But there is such a huge want list here and at TTLG, that it will be impossible for EM to develop a successful game by trying to make everyone happy.

And if I see one more post from someone asking for Cradle part 2 level, I'll vomit. Where's the originality in repeating past missions? We're so lucky that Thief 4 is being made at all. We should hope for a whole new story and new missions rather than rehashes. Time's too limited to repeat the past.

Platinumoxicity
16th Jun 2009, 23:26
Why the reversed order?
5. Ah, the dagger. Killed 2 stones with 1 bird. Took away the sword that was cool in the other games, and gave us a messy and noisy alternative to the clean and quiet blackjack. A thief can carry a short sword around, like the 2 burglars in T2 did. The other one was looking for valuables while the other was keeping watch with his short sword drawn. But enough about your so-called realism... There is not a single thing in T1 and T2 that the sword couldn't do that the dagger could. There were plenty of things that the dagger couldn't do what the sword could. So that change was for the worse

4.Simple&Semi linear is not the same thing as too small. The levels in T2 were big, but still had plenty of little details, even unnecessary ones. T2's engine limitations are much worse than the limitations in TDS. Actually, the levels were small because of console hardware limitations, not engine limitations. But, of course there is no question about this. The bigger levels were better.

3.The climbing gloves weren't a choice for the devs. They were the last resort, since they couldn't get the rope arrows working. Rope arrows in the previous games involved practice and careful planning, and they were simply more fun to use. The climbing gloves could have been good if they would've been as practical and well designed as the rope arrows, but they weren't.

2.Was there a "Shalebridge Crade" in T1 or T2? That answer is wrong, but I admit it. They managed to make a level even scarier than "Return to the Cathedral" Good job. :)

1. Dynamic shadows were a graphical feature that were impossible in an old engine like the Dark engine, so that was just progress in technology. Although, you know, Max Payne 2 had dynamic soft shadows and that game came out the same year. Why didn't they make soft shadows for TDS too then? The shadows in TDS were too jaggy and sharp. Also, the light sources were all fubar. Sometimes, the lamps casted their own shadows with the light they were emitting. I saw this all the way from the training mission. There were also ambient lights that were being emitted from empty spaces so the shadows bugged out when you stepped into one of these light sources.

Pyronox
16th Jun 2009, 23:27
I think we hardcore Thief fans need to have a little more open mind. If we don't, Thief 4 is guaranteed to be a disappointment. We shouldn't beg EM to clone our favorite things from the previous games. We can ask them to incorporate and improve on many of the core Thief features. But there is such a huge want list here and at TTLG, that it will be impossible for EM to develop a successful game by trying to make everyone happy.

And if I see one more post from someone asking for Cradle part 2 level, I'll vomit. Where's the originality in repeating past missions? We're so lucky that Thief 4 is being made at all. We should hope for a whole new story and new missions rather than rehashes. Time's too limited to repeat the past.

Agreed

&

Agreed

If anyone just wants a remake of the older games, someone should just start a petition for a SDK (lol) or just wait till there's a game engine out there that can do it properly.

Platinumoxicity
16th Jun 2009, 23:33
Have you noticed that the main reason why most of us want to go back to the basics is that Deadly Shadows was such a dissapointment? They changed too much to the wrong direction. They should use T2 as and example, and only take the storyline's continuity from TDS into account. We don't want another failure. If Thief 4 lives up to our expectations, or even exceeds them, TDS deserves to be left without the number 3 in the title, and it's flaws can be quietly forgotten.

Pyronox
16th Jun 2009, 23:39
Back 2 countdown (sry 4 double post if there is)

5. I never said realism, I just said it made more sense. Ofc a short sword would have a been better than sword or dagger, but no one did that.

4. At some point you're just re-pasting the same things if the levels are too big. While I agree that TDS' levels were a bit small, I do think the atmosphere and the size of the ROOMS was well done. Again, here we need a middle ground.

3. Yeah it's sad, but at least the playable area was well arranged for the climbing system. If they had developed the tech to make the rope arrow work without making a mess the dev time would have been an extra 6 months.

1. Didn't Max Payne come out much later that year though? A couple months can make a big difference in tech. Otherwise, visually the shadows were fine. If they had made them soft, the detection might have been problematic here too, idk. As for the light sources, hey, at least it wasn't as bad as Oblivion. Hell, they didn't even place the lights logically. You'd be standing in front of a fireplace in that game and the shadow would go INTO the fire because some idiot had placed the light source in FRONT of the fire. Lucky for them it looked nice...

AbysmalGale
16th Jun 2009, 23:40
No one is asking for a remake of the old Thief titles. We simply want the good things from TDP, TMA and TDS in the new title, and frankly, they were quite few in TDS. Even though it wasn't a horrible game it lacked a lot. We don't want that lack in Thief 4. And since they now decided they're gonna throw together a new Thief game, they'd better do a taffin' good job! We don't want the work to be in vain! We don't want old mistakes to be repeated! That's what we're trying to prevent, hoping that some of the DEVS might have a glimpse at this forum!

esme
16th Jun 2009, 23:49
I've said before I don't want a remake or a rehash of the original missions

I want an original storyline set in a universe that's evolved from the one I know and love, with all the tools that hooked me into the game in the first place with perhaps a few extras

Sierra Oscar
16th Jun 2009, 23:51
If they read the forums, they will have a fair idea I suppose!:D

I have faith in EM.

Flashart
17th Jun 2009, 07:44
I realise this thread isn't about TDS Vs T1/T2 but over the last week I've been playing TDS again.
Have to say, "Moira's" is even better than I remembered (haven't got to "Cradle" yet). My point was if TDS fulfilled the brief that the devs had at the start of the game, then in their eyes it was a success. I mentioned in another thread that regardless of all TDS's faults, "Cradle" came out of it, so the game WAS capable of brilliance. I'm no apologist for TDS, it doesn't compare to T1/T2. That's why I think if we can voice a coherent argument at this development stage, we stand a chance that more of the game's fundamentals will survive to completion. I, like many want to see innovation and surprise in T4 and if that means breaking a few eggs, then so be it.
Plus, I would hate EM to be hamstrung by the disparate wishes of everyone fighting for their own agendas. BUT! If EM and the fans start off singing from 2 different hymn sheets then no one is going to end up happy.

Platinumoxicity
17th Jun 2009, 09:19
5. I never said realism, I just said it made more sense. Ofc a short sword would have a been better than sword or dagger, but no one did that.


4. At some point you're just re-pasting the same things if the levels are too big. While I agree that TDS' levels were a bit small, I do think the atmosphere and the size of the ROOMS was well done. Again, here we need a middle ground.


5. Why did you say that the dagger made more sense if the short sword would've been better than the dagger. That isn't an improvement in your opinion then. Garrett's sword in T1 and T2 was a short sword. Dagger defenders need to know this. (Actually the only long swords in the entire series were used by the Kurshoks.)

4.There are games that have such huge levels that they suffer from detail loss. For example, GTA3 had plenty of huge, unused landscapes because the devs ran out of imagination or time. I don't know any examples where the levels were super small and filled with too much detail, but... All right, TDS had small levels, but at the same time, all the small and cramped rooms and hallways, plus rooms with lots of furniture in a small area were widened and made taller in order to fit the 3rd person camera. Again they killed 2 stones with 1 bird. They made the levels too small, but the areas in the levels too scarcely furnished or mispropotioned, that the level design really doesn't live up to it's predecessors.

Nate
17th Jun 2009, 09:44
Kurshoks used a two handed sword....definitely not a long sword.

AbysmalGale
17th Jun 2009, 11:19
Kurshoks used a two handed sword....definitely not a long sword.

A two handed sword is, as far as I'm concerned, basically the same as a long sword.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_handed_sword

fayfuya
17th Jun 2009, 17:36
The fans want Garrett, the city but 3 times bigger, better graphics of course, a smarter AI, the "back to wall super protection" shouldn't be too good and usefull, harder pick locking system, just like in TDS but without the HUD, and harder!, rope arrows, few kinds of shops and merchants, and fences, with a "backroom" with illegal stuff, few thugs and bad districts such as the docks, sellin' in dark corners intersting things.
And few other things but it would take me ages.

Nate
17th Jun 2009, 18:30
Careful Fayfuya, the poll so far shows that fans would prefer NO City Hub at all, and all that extra time spent on making the missions better instead.

Of course, if the devs think they can do both WELL, than all the better.

Belboz
18th Jun 2009, 15:17
there probably a chance they'll ignore most of the stuff on the forum because of stuff.

fraten
18th Jun 2009, 16:14
And why T :DS was so unpopular with the real fanbase?

So I'm not a real fan? How come you know the _real_ fan? You're one of the real fans?

InGroove2
18th Jun 2009, 18:02
So I'm not a real fan? How come you know the _real_ fan? You're one of the real fans?

the additional fallacy there is the very idea of "real" fanbase. are we to think that a company that makes video games of this magnitude are concerned with how this nebulous "real fanbase" prefers the game? they're concerned with their sales, short and long term... the DEDICATED fan base contribute to both helping word of mouth and initial sales. i would call those who would define themselves, and therefore distinguish themselves from those whom they consider less obsessed and less knowledgeable about the games, generally detached from the reality of the business of making games and the idea of what kinds of things are popular and how that influences business decisions... which if we're honest, we'll admit that a large portion of "design" descisions are also business decisions.
the "real" fanbase tends to rail against notions which miht make a game appeal to a wider audience. rThe concern, i think, is righteous, bercause companies by nature of the free market system have to hold profit above ALL goals. so there needs to be voices out there concerned with the specificcharacteristics of a game that maintain integrity.

however, the idea that some people are "real" fas and some are not is buts and whiny. and, in my view, hurt the case for most of the things the "real" fans argue FOR, because you come off as arrogant and part of a small group of people who aren't supportive of progress and new ideas/systems/items/characters/direction etc etc.

whether or not that is true, it comes off like that, and i'm so tired of reading whining posts that don't serve to help or discuss or to make progress... they serve to simply say that they're better and right and the voice of the few VERY VERY wise people who happen to ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND the essence of the game that, apparently, not too many folks have a clue about.

point is not that their ideas are wrong, but they present their case in suchn away that is easily dismissed and divisive, which is not what game developers of this size fwould be looking for since they're wanting to have THE WIDEST audience possible.

these are creative humans at the buttons and levers of this game, i'm not sure they will react well to whining and yelling and screaming by arrogant fans who think theyt know something the devs dont. the button pushers and lever operators want progress and to put their stamp on the game while still respecting it... what consitutes respecting the games is debatable (HIGHLY!), but arrogantly proclaiming that you're a "real fan" and somehow an expert on how T4 should turn out is easily dismissed.

Pyronox
18th Jun 2009, 18:34
5. Why did you say that the dagger made more sense if the short sword would've been better than the dagger. That isn't an improvement in your opinion then. Garrett's sword in T1 and T2 was a short sword. Dagger defenders need to know this. (Actually the only long swords in the entire series were used by the Kurshoks.)

4.There are games that have such huge levels that they suffer from detail loss. For example, GTA3 had plenty of huge, unused landscapes because the devs ran out of imagination or time. I don't know any examples where the levels were super small and filled with too much detail, but... All right, TDS had small levels, but at the same time, all the small and cramped rooms and hallways, plus rooms with lots of furniture in a small area were widened and made taller in order to fit the 3rd person camera. Again they killed 2 stones with 1 bird. They made the levels too small, but the areas in the levels too scarcely furnished or mispropotioned, that the level design really doesn't live up to it's predecessors.

5. Best of both worlds for the fans rather. Anyway, the sword didn't look short at all, and rather cumbersome in any case. You still need to stab sometimes. IMO, to add defensive functionality to the dagger, they could have added a backstep or dodge move (ie, with the dagger unsheathed and not crouching, taping the walk backwards key does a small jump backwards with like 1-2 secs cooldown).

4. I guess this is more opinion here. I thought level design was fine, except maybe for the occasional empty hall, which basically is "well, haven't I been here before?" and while I'll admit I did get lost once or twice, all they needed to do was add a table or a different texture on the walls of that hall. It certainly wasn't that cramped unless you were in places like the zombie ship or the museum storage area.

Pyronox
18th Jun 2009, 18:37
A two handed sword is, as far as I'm concerned, basically the same as a long sword.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_handed_sword

Two hands are long but not all longs are two hand.

Nate
18th Jun 2009, 18:49
One reason TDS levels didn't have much furniture was that it would get in the way of the 3rd person view....yet another reason why I don't want 3rd person view at all.

Nate
18th Jun 2009, 18:53
I've done alpha/beta/gamma testing on games before. I am presently doing so with Stardock's Elemental War of Magic.

I have to say I find it interesting just how dedicated the fans are with this game compared to others I've been involved with. Sure, there are a lot of arguments over certain issues right now, but we all just want a successful game.

Thief is a project of love for all of us....and it shows!

Terr
18th Jun 2009, 19:02
Of course, if the devs think they can do both WELL, than all the better.
Or that there's no distinction and the entire city is seamless. ;)

DarthEnder
18th Jun 2009, 20:08
A two handed sword is, as far as I'm concerned, basically the same as a long sword.Every RPG ever made disagrees with you.

AbysmalGale
18th Jun 2009, 23:34
Every RPG ever made disagrees with you.

Apparently a long sword can be either one OR two handed. So they can only half disagree.

CaptainObvious
22nd Jun 2009, 17:30
Well, fans most probably know better what made a game great since they devote more time to playing and understanding it. But then again, just looking all over the internet, fans also like to whinge over the most insignificant things, so sometimes it's hard to disperse the good stuff from the inane drivel.

Platinumoxicity
22nd Jun 2009, 18:32
5. Best of both worlds for the fans rather. Anyway, the sword didn't look short at all, and rather cumbersome in any case. You still need to stab sometimes. IMO, to add defensive functionality to the dagger, they could have added a backstep or dodge move (ie, with the dagger unsheathed and not crouching, taping the walk backwards key does a small jump backwards with like 1-2 secs cooldown).


If you examine the size of the sword, it is no doubt a short sword. And no, you don't need to stab in a Thief game, ever. (This is that time you need to remind yourself that you need to backstab haunts) Haunts, on the other hand are skeletons inside human clothing. You really need to kill them with an overhead swing, basically split their skull to have any effect, because stabbing them would only slide the blade between their bare bones. Also, backsteps and dodge moves are not for Thief. You, the player, move Garrett, not some pre-programmed dodge-moves.

It's funny how some of the things that were so simple in the earlier games, when being replaced with more realistic or reasonable things, need to be implemented with all these ridiculous compromises or additional stuff to work as well as the original.
Sword=parry, backstab, hit & overhead swing.
Dagger=backstab, err... quicktime-event counter-attack?, quicktime-event dodge-move?

And what's with all this nonsense about "It's more reasonable for a thief to carry a dagger." Do you mean that Garrett suddenly became more "reasonable" and started carrying a "stabby-kill weapon", while simultaneously forgetting to swim?

Dead horses are fun to kick because they don't fight back.

Flashart
22nd Jun 2009, 19:01
I think the "reasonable" comment was that it seems more in the style of a thief to carry a small, easy to conceal weapon, than say a bazooka and crate of rockets.
I take the point about having the zombies skull split, it probably would take a sword to do that. Unfortunately we don't know which way round the dev's decide to operate. Do they decide the weapons first, then how each enemy reacts when the killing blow is struck? Or perhaps the reverse, or maybe they decide Zombies can only be killed by a backstab, from a dagger, or holy water only. At this point it's all conjecture. Personally, I'd imagine a zombie as being only killable with a "specific" weapon (silver or somesuch) it makes them seem somehow more unique.

Lady Rowena
23rd Jun 2009, 01:21
I don't really understand all that fuss about the sword. If they gave Garrett a sword in the two first games, they have their good reasons I suppose. If someone doesn't like it, well he/she isn't obliged to use it.
You can use the sword to defend yourself by fighing against humans and haunts, (even if you can kill the zombies, but just put them temporarily to sleep).
You can also slash banners and wooden doors.
If you like ghosting and to avoid undeads instead of fighting them, then go for it, but let the other players free to play the way they like I like. :)

A dagger, on the other hand, is completely unuseful. Since you can's fight with it, nor killing the undeads, its only puspose is to backstab unalerted human enemies. But what's the use of killing people when you can just blackjack them?

Myth
23rd Jun 2009, 03:11
May i interject in this two handed sword - longsword discussion? Most, if not all, of your opinions are based on RPGs and fantasy games, and are thus uneducated (not flaming or picking a fight). For accurate data on medieval swords and their differences, go to thearma.org. There are a lot of articles and essays to read, and if you have a specific question you can ask on the forums. Just don't mention games/fantasy/dnd etc :)

A two handed sword can be anything, Claymores, Zweihanders, Grossemessers etc. Most, if not all, are actually wielded in a very different manner from a regular longsword. One usually grabbed the lower end and thrust forward similar to a spear. That is not to say they could not be used for cutting though. Overall the different types of sword designs sprung up in answer to different combat problems and situations.

Garrett does not need a massive Greatsword, that is for sure. A double edged longsword of a shorter length is best IMO.

Platinumoxicity
23rd Jun 2009, 08:12
I believe that the reason why some prefer the dagger is that when you backstab guards with and overhead swing, it would be very messy in a real world situation, that's why they need a small blade to kill people. Well, guess what? You've also got a goddarn blackjack don't you? Why the taff would you need to stab anyone from behind when you can knock them out?

Flashart
23rd Jun 2009, 08:17
My point was that if the game mechanics match the weapon that you're given, then it doesn't really matter, apart for the overall "look", what the weapon is. If Garrett had a 6ft greatsword it would be pointless to try and get him to "fence" guards with it, but if he needed that same sword to smash in the skulls of zombies, then, for as ridiculous as it would look dragging it behind him, that's what you'd have to do. I'm happy with a dagger if the game is designed for a dagger, or a sword ditto. It's not the weapon, it's the application of the weapon.

Flashart
23rd Jun 2009, 10:56
But unless designed with the same engine or pretty similar, the games always start from a "blank piece of paper" not "what has gone before".
As the title of this thread suggests. Before TDS, the majority wanted a city hub and rooftops, they got a city hub and rooftops, then everybody started moaning. It all depends what can be implemented in the best way. Say, in T4 water cannot be done, that's fine by me as long as something is put in it's place, (sand, snow, anything).What I don't want is some "token" water, that is completely useless, just because the majority demands water. I've said elsewhere, I don't mind a few "sacred cows" getting slaughtered if it means a better stealth game.
The climbing gloves were the perfect example of the devs getting in mess trying to please everyone.

Myth
23rd Jun 2009, 13:56
Take one look at Deus Ex to see how well they understand their fans. Don't be surprised to see Thief IV become a third person shooter in the vein of Gears of War. Eidos Montreal's game design is, to put it politely, mildly schizophrenic. Virtually every feature in Deus Ex 3 was implemented for a reason that is directly contradicted by another feature in the game, creating what looks to be a train wreck of software. We'll get a game that has first person elements here "to increase immersion", and then this over here will trigger an involuntary third person shift "because players want to play barbie and see their character lol". Stuff like that. This game is going to be disastrous. Don't get your hopes up, unless you're a glutton for disappointment.
*sulks* well i guess there will always be Thief 2 FMs and things like the Dark Mod.


But unless designed with the same engine or pretty similar, the games always start from a "blank piece of paper" not "what has gone before".
As the title of this thread suggests. Before TDS, the majority wanted a city hub and rooftops, they got a city hub and rooftops, then everybody started moaning. It all depends what can be implemented in the best way. Say, in T4 water cannot be done, that's fine by me as long as something is put in it's place, (sand, snow, anything).What I don't want is some "token" water, that is completely useless, just because the majority demands water. I've said elsewhere, I don't mind a few "sacred cows" getting slaughtered if it means a better stealth game.
The climbing gloves were the perfect example of the devs getting in mess trying to please everyone. Rooftops? In TDS? There is one room high above the streets and one place near the guardhouse that you can climb and jump off the level. That's all the rooftops i can remember. Compared to LOtP the city hub+rooftops in the entire TDS are severely lacking. And LOtP is 1 (one) level, made in DromED (a buggy and limited editor on it's own, if you haven't used it).

InGroove2
23rd Jun 2009, 14:16
*sulks* well i guess there will always be Thief 2 FMs and things like the Dark Mod.

Rooftops? In TDS? There is one room high above the streets and one place near the guardhouse that you can climb and jump off the level. That's all the rooftops i can remember. Compared to LOtP the city hub+rooftops in the entire TDS are severely lacking. And LOtP is 1 (one) level, made in DromED (a buggy and limited editor on it's own, if you haven't used it).

there's also a tricky one in black alley.... maybe it's not technically a rooftop.... though i can't remember all of them, i seem to have the number 5 in my head in he amount of possibly rooftop/really high city area to check out.

oh i remember climbing up that over hang between old quarter and... oy... i don't remember... the one that is to the right when you're coming out of garrets apartment. there's that over hang you can get up there and cross that area, which is normall fairly vulnerable... but also up there you can fall off into the video-game void and die if you're not careful.

i didn't mind climbing gloves... i minded not having to equip them. i found it really cheap to just buy them and basically be waering them all the time so you can just leap at a sold wall and have at it... i think it would have cut at least half of the... "i'll just climb this wall to avoid the guard" situations if you had to take a second to equip them gloves... At LEAST. .

ToMegaTherion
23rd Jun 2009, 16:19
Those at EM who build the levels need to play Framed and appreciate its awesomeness.

PJMaybe
23rd Jun 2009, 20:32
How much would it cost to make T4? Anyone any ideas? Does anyone know how much the rights to the franchise cost Eidos?

I've often wondered what I would want to spend my money on if I won the lottery but I think I know now :rolleyes:

I think the devs would look at these forums but I don't think our opinions would sway ideas. I imagine the people at the top have their own ideas about what they want and they may just look here for any other ideas. It would be great if the game was created by Thief fan rather than someone out to make a buck.

I know TDS had its good points but there were just sooo many things that were good in T1 and 2 that were removed - and in some cases were swapped for inferior alternatives. Some (eg rope arrows) were understandable due to the engine used (though perhaps that should be something that is condsidered more carefully in T4) but others were not. The frob highlight was something that was constantly in your face througout the whole game and really spoilt the architecture of the levels for me.

As the old addage goes: if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. I hope if the devs are reading this they at least remember that.

GATX
21st Apr 2011, 23:22
To the sword/dagger discussion:
Some people mention, that a sword is way to unhandy. Well, I can understand that, when you see, how big the sword in T1 and T2 was. But Garret is a swordsman. He learned how to fight with a sword, when he was trained by the keepers and in T3 you could see that he wasn't good in fencing.
Hence my suggestion is, that Garret might use a short sword like a roman gladius for example. It is short (40cm - 60cm), light and handy, but still a sword and thus IMO perfect for Garrett.

Nanoc
22nd Apr 2011, 03:01
What I hope EM understands is that the fans DON'T want more of TG or T2. That is why there are dozens of great FM's.
From what the untrained eye can see from reading this and TTLG, some may think that it is all about TDP/TG/TMA. Wrong.
Pick up on the trilogy, as well as in T2X and specially TDM and from there on create.

Does EM understand what the fans want?
Who are "the fans"? Aren't we all? Aren't we entitled to the have the same importance being given to everyones opinions? We fans want it all: some want undead, some don't. Some want a dagger, some a sword. Everyones opinion counts the same so...we want more of the same excellent gameplay we've had with the saga, me thinks.

fbdbh
22nd Apr 2011, 09:34
Okay, here's a question. I don't know, if it has been discussed here already.

So, everybody here agrees, that TDP and TMA are great games, and EM should keep their core values. But question is, what elements in those games are frightening to the average gamer (the target audience, sadly not us)? What could the developers remove from those games (but keeping T4 a true T-game)? What made them "unpopular" for the masses, and is it possible to change something in the first two games and still keeping the true fanbase?

xAcerbusx
22nd Apr 2011, 10:07
The real question is-- did Eidos ever bother to find out WHY thief is still so popular? And why T :DS was so unpopular with the real fanbase?

Oh, wow.

So... even though there are those of us that play and make FMs, who have been involved with the community nearly a decade, who make fan art, fan comics, participate in discussions, help with troubleshooting and the like... if we liked Deadly Shadows (which, judging by the game's scores, is not an uncommon occurrence) then we aren't members of the real fanbase?



Basically, everything T: DS tried to do with the series, failed horribly. RPG elements, faction alliance, loading zones, plastic/clay figures, lame zombies, no swimming, etc... the list goes on indefinately.

...fantastic atmosphere, possibly the best soundtrack of all three games, dynamic and realistic shadows, arguably the most acclaimed single video game level of all-time (The Cradle)...

Yeah, what a steaming turd Deadly Shadows was. :rolleyes:
Your elitism goes on 'indefinately'.


The fanbase, the people who keeps the Thief series alive, don't want another mainstream game like T: DS, no matter what the Tomb Raider ppl will try to tell you.

Pure, shadow-based stealth with a strong emphasis on audio and atmospherics is 'mainstream'?

Flashart
22nd Apr 2011, 10:36
I'd guess that the hard sell for non-Thief players would be "tension".
"Adrenalin" or "Excitement" are quite easy to portray (even in a screen shot). I'd guess that the Thief (stealth) community isn't as large as the FPS crowd so there's always going to be a temptation to include "cross-over" elements.
Speaking of genres, it's quite possible to imagine a typical Thief level being "tweaked" to attract players from RPG or Survival Horror or FPS. I'm not claiming any would be desirable or improvements, just that it would be possible to introduce "outside" elements to attract a wider audience.

Platinumoxicity
22nd Apr 2011, 12:39
There's also the option that if you make a better game, you can attract a wider audience.