Thief 4

I don't get it, I loved all 3 thief games... what was wrong with the third?

I definitely thought the game an improvement on some of the levels from thief 1/2, especially the lost city (even though the concept is dear to me). Even if the loading times were long (I don't recall them being), and the levels small, I still think it has some great merits. The clocktower level and the cradle were amazingly cool, and easily up there among the best thief levels of all time (along with life of the party, assault on soulforge, the cathedral levels, casing the joint and the sword/escape).

The rope arrows were removed in favor for the climbing gloves - probably because rope arrows were deemed to powerful or disruptive for the third game. It's not really that much of a change - admittedly it could have been utilized more than it did - but even so I didn't miss rope arrows even once during any of my runs through thief 3.

Also, if you thought the economy was bad, then why make use of the excessive items? One thing is trash something because it wasn't balanced properly, but if it's balanced in your favor it doesn't mean you have to use it. Personally, I didn't really think of the economy of the game as any different than the first two, I had basically the same amount of items available.

My only gripe so far with Thief 4 had been the voice of Garrett, but admittedly in the latest trailer he sounds pretty convincingly like the old Garrett. I don't really give a fuck if they make it possible for people to fight and and win that way, as long as the stealth remains intact.

I understand your point shacky, but i'm pretty sure given the size of the team, the budget, and the japanese publisher; in no way you will be able to find back the charm and the atmosphere you liked in the old thief 1 & 2. Like HP said in a previous post, it's just made for a broader audience, not a niche for fans.

If you want to hate for no other reason than to hate (which is the case at least with the voice of Garrett in the new thief), then by all means go ahead. Just don't mask it as legitimate criticism of the game.

Like Kokos said, it's new times for new players. Games change because people change as well. Even IF the case was that the new game was like the old games, it would never evoke the same nostalgia as the old games - and rightly so.

As for the clocktower: Yes it was narrow and to some extent linear, but this was not the case throughout the entire level at all. To me that level always stood out because the way it showed how narrow space can be used well in a stealth game - something not seen very often.

To sum it up, Thief has lots its identity in the hope of attracting the same attention Dishonoured got and in doing so has alienated the true thief fans. And a lot of what Skacky said is true - he isn't "hating for no other reason" it's a legitimate criticism.

Ahh, bliss.

I was referring to your opinion about the new Thief 4.

Also, I consider myself a "true" fan of the series, yet I'm looking forward to this new game. Maybe it's not so much the game that needs to change, but the "true" fans that need to understand why things change.

You make it sound like they're able to design their games in a vacuum. While it's definitely possible to make a good (and niche) Thief game, it's undoubtedly harder to make a Thief game that will not make them go bankrupt. There's more to game development than just coming up with a design for a fun game (publishers/marketing oh god the horror ) . Just look at Splinter Cell, Hitman, Deus Ex. All of those had to aim to a broader market, more focus on progression systems, etc. I'd say they adapted quite well but you got to admit they lost some of their original flavor that set them apart so much back in the day. That's just how it is I suppose, niche doesn't cut it anymore when development costs are so big.

I'm willing to cut them some slack and hope they find a golden ratio. You might just have to look at this as a Thief-esque game and let's just judge the game by its content and not because "Thief" is slapped on the cover. I understand the butthurt though, I suppose not all games can see a new iteration in the current day climate and stay true to their roots.

Quote from Chimeray

You make it sound like they're able to design their games in a vacuum. While it's definitely possible to make a good (and niche) Thief game, it's undoubtedly harder to make a Thief game that will not make them go bankrupt. There's more to game development than just coming up with a design for a fun game (publishers/marketing oh god the horror ) . Just look at Splinter Cell, Hitman, Deus Ex. All of those had to aim to a broader market, more focus on progression systems, etc. I'd say they adapted quite well but you got to admit they lost some of their original flavor that set them apart so much back in the day. That's just how it is I suppose, niche doesn't cut it anymore when development costs are so big.

I'm willing to cut them some slack and hope they find a golden ratio. You might just have to look at this as a Thief-esque game and let's just judge the game by its content and not because "Thief" is slapped on the cover. I understand the butthurt though, I suppose not all games can see a new iteration in the current day climate and stay true to their roots.

But how much marketing and naive design is that in looking for a broader market? The game that is the same as previous could fail because lack of innovation but from the other hand I think some marketing guys wanna make as much unique selling points as possible so new games are a bit out of the spirit of it's previous part. There's a thin line between evolution of a title and that's the golden ratio you're talking about. Still I'd like to know how much it's a designer's fault to overdo the title so much that it makes the games too different. Is it the features' fault that actually hurt the fine developed gameplay?

I think there's many things that could be classified as the designer's fault - the game mechanics might not be well thought out in relation to what the premise of the game is, or the levels might not adequately make use of the mechanics to the point where the "fun" gets sapped out of the game. I think we're forgetting that the industry is young, and as such there are very few ground rules to follow. Designers do hits and misses constantly, which leads some games to succeed while others tank - even if those games may be similar in many respects.

The "golden ratio" will only be achieved when the industry matures so much that it begins to accept proper and established research, coupled with uncovering the tacit knowledge behind proper team collaboration and design. Until then we'll continue the same trend with designers not being secure enough in their knowledge to understand whether or not some effect will work or not. But at least we're slowly moving towards an equilibrium, as more designers enter circulation with different backgrounds and understandings of how to use mechanics, gameplay, levels, art, experience and whatever other factor and abilities they have to their advantage. The day will come... eventually.

I wouldn't even go as far as blaming designers for the bigger picture. I'm sure most people who work in this industry appreciate games that have a little more depth or unique features. When i read interviews with the Thief designers i can't believe how detached they sound but knowing this industry i assume they just try to sell something that was more or less forced on them. I think this "broadening the audience" is mostly pushed by publishers who assume a positive effect on their wallets.

And maturing of the industry won't fix that. Look at Hollywood. It's been around for way longer and all they seem to produce for blockbusters nowadays is one superhero movie after another. Who cares if ther's plenty people who want to see different movies when this one boring concept is a sure shot to make money over and over again. It's the same story with dumbed down, casualized, over the top AAA games unfortunately.

My point was that I was absolving a large part of the blame from designers - or rather pointing their faults out as necessary. It is the venerable price of progress.

And yes, maturing the industry will fix this. Hollywood is known for its blockbusters, but there are also more sublime films coming from there. Film theory is widely used and respected. However, it seems like your ideal position would involve the removal of a capitalist economy - which is likely to never happen unless there's a total world collapse. In the golden ratio mentioned, I assume that the capitalist society will continue. It doesn't mean we'll get rid of the Call of Duties, in the same way that we won't get rid of blockbusters. But we'll get more nuance and more depth, perhaps so much so that even Call of Duty 46 will pick up a thing or two. Evolution is slow, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Surely the 4th of anything isn't going to hit the right spot? Doesn't matter if you keep it the same, or change it, right?

If you keep it the same, people will complain it's a quick rip off, if you change it people will complain it's not the same. This is why sequels to brilliant games are such a royal pain in the ass to work on, if you want to make creative decisions run like a mile

time can heal this though, if you give it long enough people forget.

At this point, who knows? It's not like the fourth version of a game is a common occurrence. Street Fighter 4 turned out to be the best 2D fighter for years to come, but then maybe even that is not really comparable. Keep in mind I'm not hyping Thief 4 at all, I just want to give it a fair chance. Stealth games are pretty rare, so I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth just yet.

Still Quake 4 wasn't perfect but COD4:MW was a giant milestone in modern war shooters and one of my favorite FPP games ever. Do you remember the COD4 shitstorm before the release? Everyone was complaining but after the release it turned out to be a nice game. I don't remember Q4 having any complains but right now the title isn't mentioned as a industry example of perfect product. I guess it's all about the idea, that hook that will take you up or down...

Chris: Crysis 3 was OK, so 4th is next...

There will always be sequels, nothing wrong with them at all, as a gamer I enjoy them if done right. My problem is as a developer, not as a consumer.

If you get the chance to work on a new IP, or refine an old one, I'd know which one I'd go looking for

I think my biggest beef is when we make a newer version of a game, only to have less complexity and features than the original in hope that you attract a wider audience, this happens all the time, all over the industry. We have more experience, more tools, more powerful hardware, bigger teams with specialized positions and what do we do with it, simplify for the masses It's almost as if these days we think people are stupid, which is really disrespectful and not true at all.

Urg I'm sounding more like an indy developer everyday

PS: this has nothing to do with Thief 4, I've not played any of them D: