Quote from ChimerayYou 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?