Thread: REVIEWS & SCORES - Critical Reception for Thief

REVIEWS & SCORES - Critical Reception for Thief

  1. #851
    Yeah. You can tell that the EM did not have a clear direction of where they wanted to take the series. One group wanted to make a classic Thief game, another one wanted to make an Assasins Creed free running third person game, and for some reason another group wanted to make an Uncharted/Tomb Raider cinematic set piece game. Rather than agreeing to one direction, we got a hybrid of all three, and thus it became a jumbled inconsistent mess.

  2. #852
    Originally Posted by NIB
    What might have prevented them from making a better game then?
    I don't know, I wasn't there. But I would guess some of the following factors are culprits:

    * Not having a clear vision of the game from the start.

    * Strong wills pulling in different directions.

    * False starts and changes in direction resulting in lots of scrapped work and rework.

    * Budget and time mismanagement resulting in having to push out an unfinished game.

  3. #853
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    936
    I absolutely agree with the 3 of you.

    But I have to add something infamous: in order to do better next time some people will have to leave EM.

  4. #854
    Originally Posted by NIB
    I absolutely agree with the 3 of you.

    But I have to add something infamous: in order to do better next time some people will have to leave EM.
    I think the very guys left EM whom you'd like to see gone. When Stephane took the helm the game started to take a direction back to the originals again: emphasis on stealth and stealing, first person view, no AC kind of gameplay, listening more to feedback etc..

  5. #855
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    936
    That's possible of course, but just speculating.

  6. #856
    True. But Stephane Roy also wanted linear levels, cutscenes interrupting gameplay, and contextual jumping for the sake of "immersion" so he is just as much to blame.

    I agree, the game could have turned out much worse if he hadn't took over though.

    They should have hired a different narrative director though. Someone who knows how to write a coherent story. Gallagher was terrible.

  7. #857
    Originally Posted by bjshepp
    True. But Stephane Roy also wanted linear levels, cutscenes interrupting gameplay, and contextual jumping for the sake of "immersion" so he is just as much to blame.
    That's true. They tried this new approach and while it did not fail per say, the reception of this direction is not generally positive. So maybe next time they will take the feedback concerning the level design and story telling into consideration. But as a whole they took the right direction compared to the other possibility which would have resulted in a total franchise killer game.

  8. #858
    Originally Posted by bjshepp
    Gallagher was terrible.
    I'm not sure how much of the blame is properly laid at Gallagher's feet. It feels like the story was sliced and diced to the point of incomprehensibility. That might not be Gallagher's fault.

  9. #859
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    936
    Originally Posted by GimmeDaGun
    That's true. They tried this new approach and while it did not fail per say, the reception of this direction is not generally positive.
    And I always thought this mistake was an anglophone thing only

    "per se"

    O tempora, o mores.

  10. #860
    Originally Posted by NIB
    And I always thought this mistake was an anglophone thing only

    "per se"

    O tempora, o mores.
    Yeah...

  11. #861
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,186
    Originally Posted by bjshepp
    True. But Stephane Roy also wanted linear levels, cutscenes interrupting gameplay, and contextual jumping for the sake of "immersion" so he is just as much to blame.

    I agree, the game could have turned out much worse if he hadn't took over though.

    They should have hired a different narrative director though. Someone who knows how to write a coherent story. Gallagher was terrible.
    They may be the ones to blame, or the ones taking the blame. They're on a PR leash and have to spin every decision in a positive way, even the bad ones that the were forced to make. Or certainly, it could be all their fault. We just don't know for sure.

  12. #862
    When I said Thief 4 is the best we can get, I didn't mean technical issues. I meant the setting, atmosphere, interface and controls of the game. Yes, the city's nightlife could be more alive, and some physics would have been nice and so on... The sound issues, stuttering and all these problems are not very helpful, I agree. Some problems are fixed now, let's hope they continue improving this game.
    I'm also looking forward to tweaks and mods... An oldschool interface would be nice or some more interesting particle effects. Things like that. We'll see.

  13. #863
    It appears to be true that Thief was disrupted by many goings on within the studio. However, I would rather none of the individuals who had senior roles and important decision making in this game, be present for any further Thief titles. Putting to one side the said issues, to me, it seems they never really had an understanding of what made the originals work so well. There's very little in the new game to suggest this. Or even worse, they just didn't care.
    IMO, their insistence on having a new Garrett within their 'vision', proves this.

    It's got to the stage now that I don't consider Thief 2014 to be a part of the series. The game won't live long in the memory and for me it may as well never have happened.

    My young sister used to adore TombRaider, but she's lost all interest in that series. This is what happens when you ignore a series roots.

  14. #864
    Originally Posted by NightStorm
    It appears to be true that Thief was disrupted by many goings on within the studio. However, I would rather none of the individuals who had senior roles and important decision making in this game, be present for any further Thief titles. Putting to one side the said issues, to me, it seems they never really had an understanding of what made the originals work so well. There's very little in the new game to suggest this. Or even worse, they just didn't care.
    IMO, their insistence on having a new Garrett within their 'vision', proves this.

    It's got to the stage now that I don't consider Thief 2014 to be a part of the series. The game won't live long in the memory and for me it may as well never have happened.

    My young sister used to adore TombRaider, but she's lost all interest in that series. This is what happens when you ignore a series roots.
    Yes, maybe, but copypasting an old favourite would not make a better game either. It would be a cheap rip off, and there would not be anything creatively challenging about it. People always want their favourites back. They tend to wish for the same thing over and over, because of their good memories associated to them. Most Metallica fans always expect another Master of Puppets or ...And Justice for All from the band, and that's why they can't appriciate the new material even if it is good. Thief will never be the groundbraking, innovative game that it was back then, because that was already done once. You can't go back and repeat history, you have to find a new way, or you will get totally stuck creatively.

  15. #865
    I love the logic: It can never be as good as it was, therefore it is okay no matter how much it sucks. Black and white worldview FTW. Who ever heard of gradients, right?
    "The chief problem is that once you take the name of a beloved franchise, you're assuming responsibility for upholding its legacy". -AusGamers Thief review

  16. #866
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,186
    Originally Posted by GimmeDaGun
    Yes, maybe, but copypasting an old favourite would not make a better game either. It would be a cheap rip off, and there would not be anything creatively challenging about it. People always want their favourites back. They tend to wish for the same thing over and over, because of their good memories associated to them. Most Metallica fans always expect another Master of Puppets or ...And Justice for All from the band, and that's why they can't appriciate the new material even if it is good. Thief will never be the groundbraking, innovative game that it was back then, because that was already done once. You can't go back and repeat history, you have to find a new way, or you will get totally stuck creatively.
    The only copy-pasting here is your repeated insinuation that anyone wants a copy of the old games without any innovation.

    The reboot, meanwhile, copy-pasted from several different franchises instead of one. You have to be a creative person before you can talk about getting stuck creatively.

  17. #867
    Originally Posted by GimmeDaGun
    copypasting an old favourite would not make a better game
    You can't go back and repeat history, you have to find a new way, or you will get totally stuck creatively.
    You seem to completely miss the point.
    I , and others, don't want a remake of the originals. What we want is for the series to continue using a similar style, mechanics and gameplay.

    Putting to one side the graphics, how does the new Thief compare to the originals? It lacks most of what made the series so immersive. Instead of progressing, EM took the series backwards. It became just another standard modern game.
    To create the game that they did, doesn't just relate to the problems within the studio, it states to me that they didn't have a full understanding or care for what preceded it.
    What is their excuse for small, linear levels, poor sound propagation, poor story/narrative and and.... I could go on. It seems alot of what went on was just bad decisions.

  18. #868
    Originally Posted by auricgoldfinger
    The only copy-pasting here is your repeated insinuation that anyone wants a copy of the old games without any innovation.

    The reboot, meanwhile, copy-pasted from several different franchises instead of one. You have to be a creative person before you can talk about getting stuck creatively.
    I'm a medical doctor, so I'm not a creative person per se, it's not a creative job, so I'm not in a creative mindset on a daily basis, but as a homo sapiens sapiens I have a certain level of comprehension of creativity. These guys wanted to add new things to the franchise and wanted to relaunch it in a creative way. They wanted to be innovative. I'm not saying that they ultimately succeded, but they did not fail either IMO.

    I don't know which franchises you talk about. I see people accusing this game with copy-pasting Skyrim, AC and Dishonored. Well, I bought Skyrim and since I did not like it I traded it in, but I find nothing Skyrim-like in Thief. I'm not an AC fan, but I own all of the AC games and enjoy playing them and again I don't see too many similarities there either. As for Dishonored. I never played it, so I can't compare the two, but as far as I know the Thief franchise was a great influence for Dishonored. So naturally there should be a few similarities between the two (even it's setting is a bit Thief-ish). But we should also take into consideration the fact that Thief was longer in development than Dishonored and its development started earlier. The only games I see here being a huge influence on this new Thief game are the old Thief games.

    Now back to the creativity side of things again. I'm not necessarily talking about gaming mechanics and the technical side of a gaming. I'm talking about it's setting, characters, lore and story. What I see is that many of the old fans can't accept that this game is not in the very same period with the very same characters, factions etc. as the old games were. What I'm suggesting is that a developer when puts its hands on an already existing franchise - while of course should respect the old game's legacy - should dare to be creative and take the existing setting and lore to a new direction instead of milking the old one and that way disrespecting it. I think that not all Thief games should use the same protagonist, the same factions and the same time period. There's much room for creativity in such a rich and textured universe as the Thief franchise's. I'm glad they dared to move forward instead of taking a root where they would have forced themselves to please the needs of the people who wanted to see another chapter of old Garrett's story (which in my opinion ended in a nice fashion) with the same everything, basically. I hope you get my point. And I hope this time it does not come off as a repeated insinnuation.

    Originally Posted by NightStorm
    You seem to completely miss the point.
    I , and others, don't want a remake of the originals. What we want is for the series to continue using a similar style, mechanics and gameplay.

    Putting to one side the graphics, how does the new Thief compare to the originals? It lacks most of what made the series so immersive. Instead of progressing, EM took the series backwards. It became just another standard modern game.
    To create the game that they did, doesn't just relate to the problems within the studio, it states to me that they didn't have a full understanding or care for what preceded it.
    What is their excuse for small, linear levels, poor sound propagation, poor story/narrative and and.... I could go on. It seems alot of what went on was just bad decisions.
    Well, with all due respect, I disagree with some of your points. While I agree that they did certain things wrong, I don't see why these guys would disrespect the Thief franchise by taking a few risks and doing some of the things in a different way. I certainly want to see bigger and less linear levels, hell of course I want to see the sound problems be fixed etc., but I don't see why should they go back and continue a story which was already finished. I think this game has lots of potential and I think that they got many of the things right, while they obviously made some not so pleasing decisions to some of us old fans and in general. But I think that these things can be improved in a potential sequel. I think they have it in them.

    Originally Posted by IHaveReturned
    I love the logic: It can never be as good as it was, therefore it is okay no matter how much it sucks. Black and white worldview FTW. Who ever heard of gradients, right?
    Maybe because to you it sucks and to me it does not. Or is it so hard to believe that not everyone thinks alike and want the same thing? And I don't see why my logic would be so black and white that I deserve this reception for my opinion.


    As it seems I made a few fans for myself here...

  19. #869
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    146
    "Blame" is being tossed around a lot, but it is the wrong word to use. One cannot blame EM for anything. They made the game they wanted, on their terms, using the people they wanted, and it turned out just as they expected. One cannot blame EM (accuse them of fault or error) when there is no fault or error. Heck, you might as well blame the birds for singing or the sun for rising.

    Now, let's make one thing clear, if you want to single out anyone to either be happy with or be upset with, that one person is Stephane D'Astous. D'Astous had the vision for what Thief was to become. D'Astous spearheaded the project, hired who he wanted, fired who he wanted, steered the various directors in the position he wanted, rubber stamped EVERYTHING, and was there for the vast majority of Thief's development. When he left at the end of July and turned over the reigns, it would be similar to a baseball pitcher leaving the game at the top of the 9th inning or a quarterback leaving the game with 5 minutes left in the game.

    If you loved Thief, D'Astous gets the credit. If you hated Thief, level your criticism at D'Astous.

  20. #870
    Does being innovative mean just doing what alot of AAA titles do?

    Originally Posted by GimmeDaGun
    should dare to be creative and take the existing setting and lore to a new direction instead of milking the old one and that way disrespecting it. I think that not all Thief games should use the same protagonist, the same factions and the same time period.
    While I loved the old lore and factions, I'm prepared for a new Thief to take a different direction if they design it properly. What is the point of a Thief title that severely lacks in level design, mechanics, sound and gameplay. Oh yes, but it looks nice.
    I've said this before, but it still baffles me why people accept the new protagonist as being a clone of the old Garrett. What is the point? If you don't want to use the old character then just create a new one. It makes no sense.

  21. #871
    Originally Posted by NightStorm
    Does being innovative mean just doing what alot of AAA titles do?



    While I loved the old lore and factions, I'm prepared for a new Thief to take a different direction if they design it properly. What is the point of a Thief title that severely lacks in level design, mechanics, sound and gameplay. Oh yes, but it looks nice.
    I've said this before, but it still baffles me why people accept the new protagonist as being a clone of the old Garrett. What is the point? If you don't want to use the old character then just create a new one. It makes no sense.
    What clone? I don't consider it a clone nor a reincarnation. And it's not all about the looks. I enjoyed many missions in the new Thief game despite its different level design and I liked many of the new features. Also I don't care whether its an AAA tilte or not. If I like a game, I like it, if I don't than I don't. It has nothing to do with its budget.

  22. #872
    Don't try the "opinion" thing with me. I'm talking about this:

    Originally Posted by GimmeDaGun
    Yes, maybe, but copypasting an old favourite would not make a better game either. It would be a cheap rip off, and there would not be anything creatively challenging about it. People always want their favourites back. They tend to wish for the same thing over and over, because of their good memories associated to them. Most Metallica fans always expect another Master of Puppets or ...And Justice for All from the band, and that's why they can't appriciate the new material even if it is good. Thief will never be the groundbraking, innovative game that it was back then, because that was already done once. You can't go back and repeat history, you have to find a new way, or you will get totally stuck creatively.
    About implying that the above is any sort of defense of anything. The only thing the above is relevant towards is if NuThief was a faithful sequel for the most part (or at least tried to be), it just lacked a little something to stand next to LGS!Thief. Then you can drone on about how things can never be as they was, recapture the magic etc etc. Your implication was that this was any sort of defense of this game, one that purposefully deviated wildly from the formula. The missing pieces here are not some nebulous magic or artistic touch unique to LGS, the missing pieces here are quantifiable by laypeople and largely agreed upon.

    Your or mine opinion about the game's quality or feel has nothing to do with an argument based on the logic that because it could never be as it was, anything is therefore justified, which is what you implied. And it is a highly flawed assertion. That is what I was commenting on.
    "The chief problem is that once you take the name of a beloved franchise, you're assuming responsibility for upholding its legacy". -AusGamers Thief review

  23. #873
    Originally Posted by IHaveReturned
    Don't try the "opinion" thing with me. I'm talking about this:



    About implying that the above is any sort of defense of anything. The only thing the above is relevant towards is if NuThief was a faithful sequel for the most part (or at least tried to be), it just lacked a little something to stand next to LGS!Thief. Then you can drone on about how things can never be as they was, recapture the magic etc etc. Your implication was that this was any sort of defense of this game, one that purposefully deviated wildly from the formula. The missing pieces here are not some nebulous magic or artistic touch unique to LGS, the missing pieces here are quantifiable by laypeople and largely agreed upon.

    Your or mine opinion about the game's quality or feel has nothing to do with an argument based on the logic that because it could never be as it was, anything is therefore justified, which is what you implied. And it is a highly flawed assertion. That is what I was commenting on.
    Okaaay. Then I stop "trying the opinion thing on you" and "droning on" about "things". It was nice chatting with you. *shrugs*

    Edit: I think you completely misunderstood what I was trying to say with that post. Anyway, nevermind...

  24. #874
    What I have trouble understanding is why they bothered using the Thief IP at all. Most poor reviews cite simple technical problems (how a stealth game ships with sound issues after 5 years of development boggles the mind) or are based on direct comparisons to the previous games. It seems to me that calling the game Thief (and the protagonist Garret) has really been more of a curse than anything else.

    From the outset the goal was to create a game that was completely divorced from the original series. The setting was standardised, the lore removed, the voice actor recast, agency and free movement replaced for body awareness and rails. And all of this is completely justified since it's their money, and if I don't like it I don't need to buy it. But what is the tangible benefit of using a franchise if you have no intention of making anything like the original games?

    The Thief community is small, and more people would know about Dishonored than Thief the Dark Project. So its not like they are buying a well known brand like in the case of the Tomb Raider series. The only thing that comes to mind is that the goal was that the Thief community would act as a kind of grass roots advertiser to produce a lot of positive sentiment about this game through social media etc. But again this doesn't make a great deal of sense because the goal was NOT to make a Thief game. The community was always going to be aggressive to a Thief game 'only in name'.

    Anyone?

  25. #875
    Originally Posted by mrmooneyface
    What I have trouble understanding is why they bothered using the Thief IP at all. Most poor reviews cite simple technical problems (how a stealth game ships with sound issues after 5 years of development boggles the mind) or are based on direct comparisons to the previous games. It seems to me that calling the game Thief (and the protagonist Garret) has really been more of a curse than anything else.

    From the outset the goal was to create a game that was completely divorced from the original series. The setting was standardised, the lore removed, the voice actor recast, agency and free movement replaced for body awareness and rails. And all of this is completely justified since it's their money, and if I don't like it I don't need to buy it. But what is the tangible benefit of using a franchise if you have no intention of making anything like the original games?

    The Thief community is small, and more people would know about Dishonored than Thief the Dark Project. So its not like they are buying a well known brand like in the case of the Tomb Raider series. The only thing that comes to mind is that the goal was that the Thief community would act as a kind of grass roots advertiser to produce a lot of positive sentiment about this game through social media etc. But again this doesn't make a great deal of sense because the goal was NOT to make a Thief game. The community was always going to be aggressive to a Thief game 'only in name'.

    Anyone?
    These and quite a few more things are the reasons why I keep saying that the best (and safest) way to revive a series is with a faithful remake, not with a full reboot. A remake brings back the nostalgia, keeps everyone happy and probably sells well. A spin off/reboot is a destructive way to do it, stains the series, disappoints the fans, delivers the wrong impression of it to the newcomers, and is often sub par even when in comparison to a 20 year old game (and it is the case, sadly).

    There's been plenty of examples of this happening in the past, I just don't understand why they keep doing it. Blizzard nailed it well with SC2. When examined closely, it's not much more than an improved SC1, retains the same feeling and kept everyone happy while delivering the right impression on the new people (they failed somwhat with Diablo 3 though).
    You can hide, but you can't run.

Page 35 of 37 First First ... 2531323334353637 Last