Thread: REVIEWS & SCORES - Critical Reception for Thief

REVIEWS & SCORES - Critical Reception for Thief

  1. #876
    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.
    Totally agree. It makes absolutely no sense, they obviously didn't want to make a proper Thief game because of all the changes they put in, but at the same time, they DID make a Thief game by giving it the same name... and the references to the originals and customisation seem reluctant- they didn't put them in there because they wanted to, they did it because they knew that having no relation to the originals whatsoever would incur fanbase wrath. If you want to make a Thief game, you've got to make a Thief game. Going halfway and using a few ideas from the originals but essentially making a different game just doesn't work. Reviewers criticised it because calling itself Thief means it will be COMPARED to TDP, TMA and TDS, all they did is draw attention to the changes they've made, which are mostly for the worse. If they want to make their own IP that draws inspiration from Thief, then they should do that... but making a Thief game that draws too much inspiration from things that AREN'T Thief just seems crazy.

    A game that looks like it is staying faithful to its source material is Wolfenstein TNO. They've got BJ Blazkowicz, lovingly recreated in modern 3D graphics, they've got the exploration and the treasure hunting, they've got the ridiculous, over the top combat... all they need is a fight with a reincarnation of robo mecha-Hitler for the whole thing to be complete.

  2. #877
    Originally Posted by Skaruts
    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 in comparison.

    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 with Diablo 3 though).
    Only SC 2 was not a remake nor a reboot, but a sequel for the old game developed by the same studio.

    Yeah, I would have loved to see a complete remake of the whole Thief trilogy too. I still would love to see one, but if you want to make a sequel of some sorts (call it a reboot) you will ultimately create your own thing which may be a hit or a miss among old fans. We can see it happening right now.

    I think Thief's greatest problems lie in the execution and some of the decisions they made concerning the level/audio/mechanics design, and not so much in the idea of the "reboot" or the "not so direct sequel". My real probelm with this game is that if the devs. had a clear idea about what they wanted to do with this game and did not quarrel over the direction constantly and yes even would have dared to stick to some of the "goods" of the old games, this game could have been a great Thief game despite it being a reboot with a new Garrett in another age of the City. The game has lots of... well how to put it, unpolished and unfinished aspects and features. There's potentially a diamond in there, but it is covered with mud. That's why I wish to see a sequel for this game, because despite its zillion issues it still is a fun and very much likeable Thief game (even if it falls short of achieving what the old games could). I think EM deserves a second chance... and if they screw it up next time... well, then the gavel or the hammer of the Master Builder should be smashed down upon their work.

  3. #878
    Originally Posted by mrmooneyface
    What I have trouble understanding is why they bothered using the Thief IP at all.
    Basically, they wanted to use an existing IP to increase their sales chances. This is how I see it anyway.

    Originally Posted by mrmooneyface
    It seems to me that calling the game Thief (and the protagonist Garret) has really been more of a curse than anything else.
    It makes no sense that they used their protagonist based on the original character. Totally screwy!
    Oh wait, I understand now. By using the title 'Thief' and using a Garrett clone, this would draw in the fans of the original.

    I totally fell for it.


  4. #879
    Originally Posted by GimmeDaGun
    Only SC 2 was not a remake nor a reboot, but a sequel for the old game developed by the same studio.
    Indeed it was a sequel, but at the core it was SC proper.

    I failed to point out one important thing. I had it in my mind while typing my post but forgot to mention it, but knox140 did:
    Originally Posted by knox140
    (...) they obviously didn't want to make a proper Thief game because of all the changes they put in, but at the same time, they DID make a Thief game by giving it the same name... (...)
    Blizzard wanted to make an actual SC, sequel or not. EM didn't want to make a thief game, and they effectively didn't. At first they gave the impression that they did, when I first visited these forums I thought they did. When I saw the latest videos about it I realized I was wrong. They probably wanted to make a spin off, and it's effectively what Thief sums up to, mostly. They used the same character without the voice that made him who he was and the same name without much of the content that made it the name it was, among other things.
    You can hide, but you can't run.

  5. #880
    Originally Posted by NightStorm
    Basically, they wanted to use an existing IP to increase their sales chances. This is how I see it anyway.



    It makes no sense that they used their protagonist based on the original character. Totally screwy!
    Oh wait, I understand now. By using the title 'Thief' and using a Garrett clone, this would draw in the fans of the original.

    I totally fell for it.

    Thief is not such a big name that it generates bigger sales in itself. I think they wanted to make a Thief game, but they were undecided about the approach and it shows in the final product. Thief was not a very popular game. It generated a hard-core fanbase and "cult", but it was not the game of all games.

    I don't get where you get this whole idea about this "clone" thing. This Garrett is a completely different character who's also called Garrett. It's not such a big deal really.

  6. #881
    After years of wasting our time in hopeful anticipation, we can now conclude that this 'Thief' is not a part of the series.

    Hopefully one day we'll see the real Thief 4.

  7. #882
    Originally Posted by GimmeDaGun
    Thief is not such a big name
    Probably true, but admittedly when "stealth" is the subject, you can't go bigger than "Thief", I believe.

    Originally Posted by NightStorm
    After years of wasting our time in hopeful anticipation, we can now conclude that this 'Thief' is not a part of the series.

    Hopefully one day we'll see the real Thief 4.
    I foresee something similar to this.
    You can hide, but you can't run.

  8. #883
    Originally Posted by NightStorm
    After years of wasting our time in hopeful anticipation, we can now conclude that this 'Thief' is not a part of the series.

    Hopefully one day we'll see the real Thief 4.
    I'm very sceptical about this real Thief 4 you're talking about. That'd need the whole LG team get together again with Brosius, Spector and the rest of the bunch. No one else can do a "real Thief 4".

  9. #884
    Originally Posted by GimmeDaGun
    I don't get where you get this whole idea about this "clone" thing. This Garrett is a completely different character who's also called Garrett.
    Seriously, you think their Garrett is just coincidentally similar to the original protagonist?
    Of course they based it on him. This guy is just 400 years in the future, that's the only difference.

  10. #885
    Originally Posted by NightStorm
    Seriously, you think their Garrett is just coincidentally similar to the original protagonist?
    Of course they based it on him. This guy is just 400 years in the future, that's the only difference.
    It's similar in a few ways, but his characteristics are different, his motivations are different. If you play the game you find out that this guy is nothing like the old Garrett.

  11. #886
    Originally Posted by GimmeDaGun
    I'm very sceptical about this real Thief 4 you're talking about. That'd need the whole LG team get together again with Brosius, Spector and the rest of the bunch. No one else can do a "real Thief 4".
    No. I'm not specifically talking about a direct continuation of the series, (although I'd love it) I'm talking about creating a game with the same essential aspects that made the originals work. I'm sure there are good developers out there who could do it.

  12. #887
    Originally Posted by NightStorm
    No. I'm not specifically talking about a direct continuation of the series, (although I'd love it) I'm talking about creating a game with the same essential aspects that made the originals work. I'm sure there are good developers out there who could do it.
    Indeed. The dark mod team is a great example that there's still people out there capable of grasping the essence of the series. I wouldn't presume they're the only ones in the world.
    You can hide, but you can't run.

  13. #888
    Originally Posted by GimmeDaGun
    It's similar in a few ways, but his characteristics are different, his motivations are different. If you play the game you find out that this guy is nothing like the old Garrett.
    I like your passion for 'Thief' and your willing to defend it in a calm and intelligent manner. I don't think I could do the calm bit.
    Because of this I don't wish to get in a heated debate with you because I tend to disagree with you alot, but I find it hard to believe that you don't see the new 'Garrett' is based on the original.
    Yes, there are slight differences in his character, but that only relates to the world he now finds himself in.

  14. #889
    Originally Posted by Skaruts
    Indeed. The dark mod team is a great example that there's still people out there capable of grasping the essence of the series. I wouldn't presume they're the only ones in the world.
    I've heard alot of good things about the DarkMod. Unfortunately I have an old PC so it's gaming days are over.

  15. #890
    Originally Posted by NightStorm
    I like your passion for 'Thief' and your willing to defend it in a calm and intelligent manner. I don't think I could do the calm bit.
    Because of this I don't wish to get in a heated debate with you because I tend to disagree with you alot, but I find it hard to believe that you don't see the new 'Garrett' is based on the original.
    Yes, there are slight differences in his character, but that only relates to the world he now finds himself in.
    Believe me I'm not defending it. I have lots of problems with it. What I want to see is sequel where these guys get another chance to prove that they can make it happen. A great Thief game. I'm not pleased with the new one though there are many things I enjoy about it and I see lots of potential in it. I also like the setting and I think there's more to its lore (even related to the old games) which was not fleshed out properly. When I play the game there are many moments I scream... "how could you not bring this to a whole new level, it's clear that you had it in you!?". The biggest problem I have with this new one is the undecidedness and chaotic delivery. It has great Thief moments (even the story), but the next moment you find yourself slapped in the face. Next time the guys should listen to the feedback a lot more and should have a solid vision before they start producing the game.

    Concerning Garrett, certainly I see some of the similarities, but as a whole it feels like a different character which is influenced by the good old bastard.

  16. #891
    Originally Posted by NightStorm
    No. I'm not specifically talking about a direct continuation of the series, (although I'd love it) I'm talking about creating a game with the same essential aspects that made the originals work. I'm sure there are good developers out there who could do it.
    I hear you, but here's where I happen to disagree with you on a certain level, since I think that EM has everything to make a great Thief game and I still did not give up on them in this regard. Certainly I would not mind to see others to give it a shot too.

  17. #892
    Originally Posted by GimmeDaGun
    feels like a different character which is influenced by the good old bastard.
    One of the best lines I've heard in ages!

    I do see where you're coming from. I know you loved the game but were also annoyed by it's flaws.
    I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy some parts of the game, because I did. But I think where I differ from some people is that the glaringly bad aspects, which should never have been in the game, just make it very hard to enjoy the experience as a whole.

    My crime has been to enjoy the originals probably too much and then expecting this game to continue the experience.
    In a gaming sense, I feel betrayed.

  18. #893
    Originally Posted by NightStorm
    One of the best lines I've heard in ages!

    I do see where you're coming from. I know you loved the game but were also annoyed by it's flaws.
    I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy some parts of the game, because I did. But I think where I differ from some people is that the glaringly bad aspects, which should never have been in the game, just make it very hard to enjoy the experience as a whole.

    My crime has been to enjoy the originals probably too much and then expecting this game to continue the experience.
    In a gaming sense, I feel betrayed.
    Oh, don't worry, I get you. I'm somewhat dissappointed too, though Thief (the series) is not my ultimate, biggest favourite of all time. The Witcher is, but Thief is one franchise which I hold dear a lot as a game too and I want to see it continue and get to the place where it belongs: among the greats (not talking about AAA... but it can be AAA too, all I care, as long as I can get my pawns on a great Thief game).

  19. #894
    Originally Posted by GimmeDaGun
    Edit: I think you completely misunderstood what I was trying to say with that post. Anyway, nevermind...
    I don't care what you were trying to say. That is between you and whoever you were discussing it with. I was criticizing an argument that provoked me, namely the use of "it can't be as it was with LGS, therefore NuThief is somehow justified", which I am sick and tired of at this point. It got old with Adam Badke.

    There is such a thing as commenting on *how* someone tries to arrive at a conclusion, without necessarily saying anything about the conclusion itself. That is a big part of why you can quote individual pieces of a larger post, commenting on that specific thing. To take a popular example from the age of feminism: attacking someone for being sexist, without necessarily disagreeing with their point. Same thing.

    There are surprisingly many people who seem incapable of spotting the difference, their knee-jerk reaction being that any counter has to be about their larger point, and then being confused when the counter doesn't adress it.

    I'm very sceptical about this real Thief 4 you're talking about. That'd need the whole LG team get together again with Brosius, Spector and the rest of the bunch. No one else can do a "real Thief 4".
    After TDS I'd frankly be content with someone else, as long as they at least tried to follow the LGS formula. We have yet to see a non-LGS studio actually try to be faithful. And by try I mean a project that doesn't end up compromising important stuff for the sake of consoles or trends. An honest-to-godness attempt at ticking all the boxes, with the try part referring to plot and feel, at recapturing the magic. It would most likely fail, cause LGS is dead, and its devs seems uninterested in returning, so I am prepared for it to be worse than 1 and 2. But if I was able to pop a game in my machine and even for all its flaws I could say to myself, "well, at least they tried the best they could", that would be enough.

    And that is why I assert any claim that you need LGS is wrong. It isn't that black and white. I for one would be satisfied with a weaker knock-off, as long as it at least fulfilled the minimum requirements, with the questionable part being the artistry of the product. To draw a Batman analogy: Arkham Origins doesn't have to be as good as its predecessors, for at least it ticks all of the established boxes for the franchise. That is enough, with anything else being gravy. Arkham fans who whine about Origins doesn't know what it is like for Thief fans, who hasn't seen a sequel that fulfilled the minimum criteria since TMA.
    "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

  20. #895
    Originally Posted by IHaveReturned
    I don't care what you were trying to say. That is between you and whoever you were discussing it with. I was criticizing an argument that provoked me, namely the use of "it can't be as it was with LGS, therefore NuThief is somehow justified", which I am sick and tired of at this point. It got old with Adam Badke.

    There is such a thing as commenting on *how* someone tries to arrive at a conclusion, without necessarily saying anything about the conclusion itself. That is a big part of why you can quote individual pieces of a larger post, commenting on that specific thing. To take a popular example from the age of feminism: attacking someone for being sexist, without necessarily disagreeing with their point. Same thing.

    There are surprisingly many people who seem incapable of spotting the difference, their knee-jerk reaction being that any counter has to be about their larger point, and then being confused when the counter doesn't adress it.


    After TDS I'd frankly be content with someone else, as long as they at least tried to follow the LGS formula. We have yet to see a non-LGS studio actually try to be faithful. And by try I mean a project that doesn't end up compromising important stuff for the sake of consoles or trends. An honest-to-godness attempt at ticking all the boxes, with the try part referring to plot and feel, at recapturing the magic. It would most likely fail, cause LGS is dead, and its devs seems uninterested in returning, so I am prepared for it to be worse than 1 and 2. But if I was able to pop a game in my machine and even for all its flaws I could say to myself, "well, at least they tried the best they could", that would be enough.

    And that is why I assert any claim that you need LGS is wrong. It isn't that black and white. I for one would be satisfied with a weaker knock-off, as long as it at least fulfilled the minimum requirements, with the questionable part being the artistry of the product. To draw a Batman analogy: Arkham Origins doesn't have to be as good as its predecessors, for at least it ticks all of the established boxes for the franchise. That is enough, with anything else being gravy. Arkham fans who whine about Origins doesn't know what it is like for Thief fans, who hasn't seen a sequel that fulfilled the minimum criteria since TMA.
    If you don't care then why do you care to reply to my post and why are you so arrogant and antagonistic? If you mean to pick a fight, you're barking up the wrong tree, because I have no interest in arguments as such. I'm sorry to dissappoint, but I'm not willing to participate in a "you're wrong, I'm right" or "I will lecture you" kind of childish debate. I'm totally fine without them. So, since you're not interested, I'm not interested either. So I'm not going to read the rest of your argument, and will leave it without an answer. So, suit yourself.

  21. #896
    I don't know if I'm sticking my head in a hornets nest here, but...

    I'm sorta glad thief 4 didn't turn out to be "the darkmod3.0", however I am saddened slightly at times whilst playing through some of the measures employed in order to "appeal to everyone".

    My current estimation (so far) is they have simultaneously managed to make a much better "and" much worse deadly shadows all packaged into one game.
    Thief 5 creation instructions: Play thief 2, play again, pay UDK4 or idTech 6 licence, employ engine programmers who are able to code jumping physics, listen to fans not ubisoft

  22. #897
    Originally Posted by GimmeDaGun
    If you don't care then why do you care to reply to my post and why are you so arrogant and antagonistic? If you mean to pick a fight, you're barking up the wrong tree, because I have no interest in arguments as such. I'm sorry to dissappoint, but I'm not willing to participate in a "you're wrong, I'm right" or "I will lecture you" kind of childish debate. I'm totally fine without them. So, since you're not interested, I'm not interested either. So I'm not going to read the rest of your argument, and will leave it without an answer. So, suit yourself.
    This wasn't supposed to be a lenghty conversation. I shot in what I thought of the logic you were using at one point, with a single line of text, and apparently I was unclear about what it had to do with the conversation, confusing you to the point where we are still discussing it.

    As a tip, you best stay off the personal attacks. The mods are unusually sensitive around here.
    "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. #898
    Originally Posted by IHaveReturned
    This wasn't supposed to be a lenghty conversation. I shot in what I thought of the logic you were using at one point, and apparently I was unclear about what it had to do with the conversation, confusing you to the point where we are still discussing it.
    Ah, come on, please, lets just drop it already or if you are so keen on conversing with me about this line of thought we should go private, since it has nothing to do with the inital topic of the thread. It was a line you took out of its context and while I see where you were coming from, you misunderstood my point entirely. Also, I'm not too big on arrogant and antagonistic remarks and your reaction to my posts was anything but friendly.

  24. #899
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    3,412
    Originally Posted by GimmeDaGun
    ...lets just drop it already or if you are so keen on conversing with me about this line of thought we should go private, since it has nothing to do with the inital topic of the thread...
    Good idea.
    signature image
    Because boomerangs.

  25. #900
    Here's one of the best Thief reviews:

    Try my Thief 2 fan mission Old Comrades, Old Debts.
    signature image

Page 36 of 37 First First ... 26323334353637 Last