Thread: Fan/player reviews - reactions (Spoilerific)

Fan/player reviews - reactions (Spoilerific)

  1. #326
    Originally Posted by ThePTSDPenguin
    creepy reptilian moneygrubbers.
    And in four words (technically five, as "money grubbers" is not one word), you ruined your entire argument. Not that there was much to it, but I pretty much stopped at that point. Was that really necessary?

  2. #327
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The highest ground...
    Posts
    23,047
    ThePTSDPenguin, part of your post edited as it violates the ToU. No racial slurs please.
    signature image
    You are only minimally modified. Omar can help you correct this...

  3. #328
    Originally Posted by Viktoria
    This is exactly what I think EM have in mind...
    WANT IT ... NOOOOOW!

  4. #329
    Just spent a couple hours playing the game, and all I did was explore the City and complete the last four Basso missions. This game is freaking awesome.

  5. #330
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    12

    I was on here a few years ago...

    So, I was on here a few years ago talking with everyone about how the game might not feature Garrett. I'm someone who actually first played thief when I was about 8 or 9 years old. I never could get past the first level, and I've always been an instant fan after that. The thief games are my favorite games of all time. My ALL TIME favorite games.

    Next, after I heard Garrett would be featured in the game, I thought old fans of the game won. But that wasn't until I heard that Stephen Russell wouldn't be in the game, no this is not a new thread to complain by the way, I instantly thought it was a major blow to the game. So what's this thread about? Well Eidos should have listened to the fans. The game was a colossal failure. NO I'm not trolling, this is someone's opinion on the game.

    The moment my brother and I learned that Eidos obviously wasn't bothering to listen to actual, longtime fans of the series disappointed both of us, and we both accurately predicted an obvious, mediocre game. I'm sorry if you bought this and are going to disagree with me.

    But let's face it, even Thief 3, which was considered to be a back step for the series did better, according to the critics, than this game. Everyone knows about the thief series, so don't act like the people who were reviewing this game didn't notice that they were giving this game a lower score.

  6. #331
    1) As it turns out.... I'm glad Russell is NOT in this game.

    2) The game as a whole, actually isn't as bad as many of the most vocal haters would like people to believe. It is easily worthy of a 70-80% score, over that is arguable.....
    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

  7. #332
    This game already sold more copies than part 1, 2 and 3. 3 was a disaster because of the engine. This one at least has some new gameplay to it but it was slowed down by consoles in terms of level size.

    However the PC gamers are a really small %. The most units were sold on PS 4 followed by Xbox One. So all the whining etc people don't even pick up the game and support the game. (On PC)

    Consoles is were the money is at, too many people don't buy the PC version or just download it illegally :0.

  8. #333
    Originally Posted by Unstoppable
    However the PC gamers are a really small %. The most units were sold on PS 4 followed by Xbox One. So all the whining etc people don't even pick up the game and support the game. (On PC)
    To be fair, most people didn't buy the PC version *because* of the consolization factor. The limited rope arrow usage, the contextual jumping, the "instant win" knockouts (that DX:HR also suffered from), etc. The lack of Stephen Russel didn't exactly help, either. If they wanted that PC percentage to climb, they should have listened more to the fans.

  9. #334
    Originally Posted by Unstoppable
    This game already sold more copies than part 1, 2 and 3. 3 was a disaster because of the engine. This one at least has some new gameplay to it but it was slowed down by consoles in terms of level size.
    It was released on five different platforms. Of course it sold nor copies.

    The level size was toned down because EM wanted to make everything story driven and scripted. Deadly Shadows had larger levels than this game. Can't blame consoles for this one.

  10. #335
    Originally Posted by Unstoppable
    This game already sold more copies than part 1, 2 and 3. 3 was a disaster because of the engine. This one at least has some new gameplay to it but it was slowed down by consoles in terms of level size.
    OK. I'm a PC gamer myself, but I'm sick of seeing this "it's because of consoles" argument used to explain the constrictive size of the levels. It has nothing to do with the hardware, it depends entirely on how willing the developer is to make compromises. If a game that ran of what is now ancient hardware can have levels the size of a small town, then even last-gen consoles can mange something similar without any problems. I believe the reason for the small level design is down to EM allowing cutting-edge graphics to take precedence over gameplay mechanics. This was a problem in the 360/PS3 era, and it'll still be a problem in the PS4/XONE era.

    Obviously it's not always that simple, the engine can also potentially limit the developers since they're not designed to render large, seamless environments. But I still believe it would be fairly easy for modern-day developers to make a game akin to the original Thief if they focused on level design first and didn't allow graphical fidelity to compromise it.

  11. #336
    Originally Posted by Jito463
    To be fair, most people didn't buy the PC version *because* of the consolization factor. The limited rope arrow usage, the contextual jumping, the "instant win" knockouts (that DX:HR also suffered from), etc. The lack of Stephen Russel didn't exactly help, either. If they wanted that PC percentage to climb, they should have listened more to the fans.
    To be fair, PC sales are pretty much always the lowest by a good margin compared to consoles for just about any multiplatform release. I don't think it's necessarily all about the changes from the original series, as many newer PC gamers may not be familiar with it anyway. You just have a smaller market of gamers on PC for big AAA releases that require a decent rig to play right.

    As a huge fan of the original series and lifelong PC gamer, I didn't particularly like those gameplay mechanics you mentioned either. But I have to echo another post in this thread where I am actually *glad* Russell was not involved, after playing it.

    I also must say I had some fun with the game, it wasn't all bad.

  12. #337
    It is not selling that well becasue it's an unkown title to most gamers (for the greater audiances it's a completely new title, the don't know the old Thief games), plus it is a hard-core stealth game (whether old timers agree with it or not), so it does not please the tastes and needs of casual gamers (I've seen many complaining about how slow and tedious the game is because you can't fight and rampage in it). Also add to this the mixed reviews, though it's a double edged sword, since if the reviews are very contradicting it may raise people's attention, so it has good marketing value as well.

    Lets face it people, this game would not sell much even if it was a game which would be praised by the old fans. It's a niche game for stealth fans.

  13. #338
    Originally Posted by taff
    1) As it turns out.... I'm glad Russell is NOT in this game.

    2) The game as a whole, actually isn't as bad as many of the most vocal haters would like people to believe. It is easily worthy of a 70-80% score, over that is arguable.....
    70-80%? To me, a grade in 70-80% range is quite a good game, because when I grew up and read PC Game magazines, "good" games got around 60-70%, and mediocre ones around 50-60%. But of course, that was long before the grade inflation that we see today.

    From what I have seen so far, I would put nuThief in the 40-50% range, but that's just me.

    Lets face it people, this game would not sell much even if it was a game which would be praised by the old fans. It's a niche game for stealth fans.
    Agreed. Which is exactly why it should never have been a AAA title to begin with.

  14. #339
    Originally Posted by argan1985
    70-80%? To me, a grade in 70-80% range is quite a good game, because when I grew up and read PC Game magazines, "good" games got around 60-70%, and mediocre ones around 50-60%. But of course, that was long before the grade inflation that we see today.

    From what I have seen so far, I would put nuThief in the 40-50% range, but that's just me.



    Agreed. Which is exactly why it should never have been a AAA title to begin with.
    To each their own. It's a very controversial game. To many it is a 70-80% game, to many it is 40-50% game, there are people who hate it so much that they wouls give it a 20-30%. I can only speak for myself, but to me it's a 65-75% game.

    It can be an AAA title, but it should offer more than hardcore stealth experience then. I'm not talking about non-stealth features, I'm talking about a great, intricate and epic story, great characters, very charismatic main protagonist, more varied locations, better and smarter level design, a lot more player freedom, wider variety of activities and side missions, a smarter hub-world... etc. etc.

    But if you want to go strictly to the direction where the old Thief titles were, then it should not be an AAA title, yes.

  15. #340
    Alright, just curious.

    I agree with you on the better and smarter level design and player freedom, but not really on the epic story and great characters. To me, that's always just been a little bit extra; the gameplay is what really should take precedence in all cases. I would actually think that these things are detrimental to the game as a whole.

  16. #341
    Originally Posted by taff
    2) The game as a whole, actually isn't as bad as many of the most vocal haters would like people to believe. It is easily worthy of a 70-80% score, over that is arguable.....
    Yes, unfortunately.
    "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

  17. #342
    Originally Posted by argan1985
    Alright, just curious.

    I agree with you on the better and smarter level design and player freedom, but not really on the epic story and great characters. To me, that's always just been a little bit extra; the gameplay is what really should take precedence in all cases. I would actually think that these things are detrimental to the game as a whole.
    Oh, again that's up to the type of player you are. To me it's the setting, atmosphere, the design, the story and the characters what make a game great. Concerning the gameplay or the mechanics they are secondary to me. The game should be playable and one should be able to adapt to it (that's all I need), the gameplay should keep me interested and give me a level of enjoyment, but it should serve the story and the main goal of the game (eg. a stealth game should revolve around stealth).

    For example one of my greatest favourites is The Witcher 2. I just love it even if the mechanics aren't the most user-friendly. Another big favourite of mine is the ME-series: it's gameplay is heavily action oriented which can get repetitive and tedious after a while, yet I loved it due to its setting, story and characters.

  18. #343
    Originally Posted by InDIGnation
    I believe the reason for the small level design is down to EM allowing cutting-edge graphics to take precedence over gameplay mechanics. This was a problem in the 360/PS3 era, and it'll still be a problem in the PS4/XONE era.
    I don't understand this, there are games coming out, like Witcher 3, on the same hardware with what looks to be like graphics as good as if not better than Thief, which claims to have a 50 hour storyline with the entire game taking up to 200 hours to finish, and 36 endings. How can they manage it if Thief can't?

  19. #344
    Originally Posted by IHaveReturned
    This is why I hate scores. They are subjective as hell, yet people tend to treat them as an objective reflection of the given product's value.

  20. #345
    Reviews are subjective by their nature. Having a sum of a given person's overall preference seems entirely reasonable to me. I just wish scores 1-5 wasn't about technical competence, with the actual worth of a competent product starting at 6 and up. It basically guarantees an AAA title a 5 or 6 by grace of cash and talent. It's like reviewing fan films on YouTube by the same scale as Hollywood blockbusters.

    This is a fun article.
    "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

  21. #346
    Originally Posted by argan1985
    70-80%? To me, a grade in 70-80% range is quite a good game, because when I grew up and read PC Game magazines, "good" games got around 60-70%, and mediocre ones around 50-60%. But of course, that was long before the grade inflation that we see today.
    AAAAH the days of 80% being a glowing score! Remember that well.

    Let me put this a different way without quantification:

    "This game (as a whole) is not terrible, is not bad, is not excellent, it's sits somewhere between ok and good, but is more on the side of ok than good"

    Let me just pull out the ol' taff-o-matic-ascii-scorer-tron:

    |Terrible----------Bad----------OK----<Thief>-------Good----------Excellent|

    HOWEVER, if we were not doing this holistically, I would say "certain" parts of the game score a very strong:

    |Terrible-<Thief>---------Bad----------OK----------Good----------Excellent|

    And other parts score a very strong:

    |Terrible----------Bad----------OK----------Good------<Thief>----Excellent|
    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. #347
    Originally Posted by InDIGnation
    If a game that ran of what is now ancient hardware can have levels the size of a small town, then even last-gen consoles can mange something similar without any problems.
    Such a comparison can only be sensible if the amount of assets and poligon count is near the same. Turns out level design these days is much more cluttered and embellished and full of fog and all sorts of effects (and screen effects such as DoF have to be considered on top of it all), which potentially help hindering the developers' freedom to make larger maps.

    And the fact that the new consoles aren't still throughly studied to the point that they can squeeze in a bit more with a good performance, as they could with the last gen consoles, is probably going to factor into it as well.

    But even if it doesn't factor into that, it will factor into other things, such as the UI design, the gameplay controls design, the (horribly) low FoV, the frame rate, etc.

    And again, the old games had large levels at the cost of less content. I've made quite a few maps with the Source engine (and recently started mapping with The Dark Mod's editing tools - and I've messed around with many other dev tools), and there come many times when you have to sacrifice something you planned to favor performance. I don't know any game where this isn't the case. Making a map is a constant struggle to balance content and performance, and many times you need to do some trickery to get things done in a consistent manner. T4 has one such trickery, where windows close behind you to control the amount of stuff the engine has to render.
    You can hide, but you can't run.

  23. #348
    Originally Posted by knox140
    I don't understand this, there are games coming out, like Witcher 3, on the same hardware with what looks to be like graphics as good as if not better than Thief, which claims to have a 50 hour storyline with the entire game taking up to 200 hours to finish, and 36 endings. How can they manage it if Thief can't?
    If we were talking about The Witcher 2, I would argue that it's because most of that playtime is spent listening to dialogue and reading the journal. For TW3 though, I'm honestly not sure. My best guess is that CD Projekt have a very clear goal in mind when designing their games: they know exactly what they want from the the level layout, sound, aesthetics, narrative etc. So with a more efficient development cycle, they would have more time left over to develop and optimise their own in-house engine built specifically for the game they're creating. It could also be that the actual levels in TW3 aren't that detailed in terms of their layout, but we won't know that until it's actually released. I'm just guessing here of course, I admit I don't know that much about what exactly is involved with building a game engine.

    Originally Posted by Skaruts
    Such a comparison can only be sensible if the amount of assets and poligon count is near the same. Turns out level design these days is much more cluttered and embellished and full of fog and all sorts of effects (and screen effects such as DoF have to be considered on top of it all), which potentially help hindering the developers' freedom to make larger maps.
    Very true, although I still think it's possible to achieve similar level design to the original if you're willing to sacrifice a few graphical bells and whistles. I mean, developers are hardly being forced through some sort of law to have a minimum amount of graphical fidelity.

    I understand level design isn't always as simple as "take X out and put in more Y", but I'd be more than willing to see a game that has a more sprawling level design at the expense of graphical fidelity.

  24. #349
    Originally Posted by InDIGnation
    Very true, although I still think it's possible to achieve similar level design to the original if you're willing to sacrifice a few graphical bells and whistles. I mean, developers are hardly being forced through some sort of law to have a minimum amount of graphical fidelity.

    I understand level design isn't always as simple as "take X out and put in more Y", but I'd be more than willing to see a game that has a more sprawling level design at the expense of graphical fidelity.
    It's certainly possible indeed, but I do believe devs are actually under a certain pressure, not sure if from the designers or the consumers or the competition. From the consumers I've seen it too often games being bashed for allegedly having bad visual quality. I've disagreed often too. Bethesda seems to be an exception to the rule, though. For some reason (maybe because they don't care - fair enough to me ). Some people do complain about low res textures (I'm fine with them, I only complain about lousy animations and stupid gameplay design decisions) but that's one way how they manage to have huge open areas performing reasonably well and still looking really good.

    There's also this trend that people seem to expect over the edge graphical fidelity when it comes to full priced titles ($50+), and if it doesn't have flawless textures, someone's gonna say it's not worth the price... (this probably doesn't happen on console players community)

    I'm still not sure where the developers have the pressure coming from, but they certainly seem to be catering to it, as every new release seems to be even more beautified than the last, and I wouldn't be surprised if big chunks of their budget are going right into it, to the detriment of many other things.

    T4 looks great (quite overdone in my opinion, though, but still great - except the NPC animations), and I have to wonder how much of that contributed to the detriment of the rest of the game.

    EDIT: I forgot to mention that the AI is also one thing mappers have to consider when designing and play-testing maps. I wonder if that's why T4's streets are mostly deserted... Also, dynamic lights are one of the most resource intensive things, and I have to wonder if that's why I don't remember seeing any of them in T4's levels so far (I may have just missed them, but I usually notice them easily at a glance... :S) If my thoughts on these things are the case... then T4's levels are unreasonably unbalanced...
    You can hide, but you can't run.

  25. #350
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The highest ground...
    Posts
    23,047
    Finished the game now; thoroughly enjoyed playing it.
    I will complete my review after the weekend.
    signature image
    You are only minimally modified. Omar can help you correct this...

Page 14 of 30 First First ... 410111213141516171824 ... Last