RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Aaannd... Out.
I have looked forward to the new thief, but what I've been able to gather pretty much has made me decide that I can spend my money in better ways than this.
Particularly disappointing is that "Erin" (like that name, btw) is dead before the game starts. Talk about a wasted opportunity here. Loved the "bookends" cutscene at the end of 3, hate to see so lame a canonical resolution. Killed off to justify a time laps... weak.
FALLOUT 3 also had significant numbers of CTDs in the first month of release (and actually quite a few BSoDs, which I never had with NEW VEGAS), it had Games for Windows Live forcibly installed with all its attendant baggage and crashes, and the DLCs crashed a lot as well (or, more randomly, the screen would go completely black but you could still move around).
Of course, both games were fixed and patched up within a few months, but I still get multiple problems with FO3 (when I can actually get it working with Windows 7) and only one recurring issue with NEW VEGAS (sometimes the game will freeze if you load from the main menu, so you have to start a new game and then load from the worldspace, which fortunately only takes about 2 seconds). Yet NEW VEGAS is the only one of the two that was criticised for its bugs on release. This is very curious.
I played both at release, but on the 360, not PC. New Vegas was by far the buggier game, at least as far as game breaking bugs went.
I never had a major game breaking issue with FO3, besides being unable to complete a certain sidequest (I think it was Riley's Rangers...quite frustrating given how balls hard that quest was).
I had pretty frequent crashes with New Vegas before the first patch came down, and much less frequent, but still common, crashes afterwards.
The indications are very clear.
1: You cannot jump at will.
2: You cannot use rope arrows in any wooden surface, only pre-determined 'trigger points'.
You get that only allowing rope arrows to be used on wooden surfaces was how they handled pre-determined latch points in prior Thief games, right? If they didn't want you to be able to climb up a surface, they didn't make it out of wood.
3: The first three games de-emphasised combat. The new game emphasises it by allowing multiple ways of killing and taking down enemies, even multiple enemies. There will probably be achievement awards for this. In the preview linked below, the reviewer disables three guards in simultaneous melee combat despite not knowing how to block.
And that's awesome. There's nothing "simplistic" about that. In fact, the game is opening up an entirely new playstyle as legitimate in addition to the sneak-thief playstyle that was already supported (read: mandated) by earlier Thief games. Literally the opposite of simplifying.
4: The game features dramatic, pre-scripted events that the player cannot avoid, avert or control.
In previous Thief games, we called those "cutscenes".
5: The game features apparently open levels with multiple paths to the objective. However, these are illusory, as the paths funnel back down to the same areas where unavoidable set-pieces/cut-scenes/QTEs take place.
What?
The fact that the paths ultimately end up at the same place does not make the existence of those paths meaningless. Each path represents a decision about how to proceed that the game actively supports, and the player's experience will be altered by the paths they choose to take.
There's more to a journey than the destination.
All of these point to significant 'simplification' of the game compared to the first three titles in the series, and taking away of player agency so the developers can shoehorn more 'exciting' scenes down the player's throat. [/mixed metaphor]
I disagree, and I've explained why. I think you're actively looking for evidence of simplification because you see that as a modern blight on game design.
In fact, the comparisons to DISHONORED seem to be off the mark: THIEF 4 seems to feature significantly less freedom and player choice than DISHONORED.
How would you even know that?
FALLOUT 3 also had significant numbers of CTDs in the first month of release (and actually quite a few BSoDs, which I never had with NEW VEGAS), it had Games for Windows Live forcibly installed with all its attendant baggage and crashes, and the DLCs crashed a lot as well (or, more randomly, the screen would go completely black but you could still move around).
Of course, both games were fixed and patched up within a few months, but I still get multiple problems with FO3 (when I can actually get it working with Windows 7) and only one recurring issue with NEW VEGAS (sometimes the game will freeze if you load from the main menu, so you have to start a new game and then load from the worldspace, which fortunately only takes about 2 seconds). Yet NEW VEGAS is the only one of the two that was criticised for its bugs on release. This is very curious.
It's not curious at all. Pretty much everyone - reviewers and users alike - agree that the bugs in New Vegas were much more detrimental to the play experience. You're the first person I've seen claim that they were comparable.
Why is THIEF a valuable property?
Because it's got a really solid combo of audience property recognition and nostalgia, and because stealth-based gameplay has been at least moderately in vogue in the last two years.
Because of its critical acclaim. Why is it critically acclaimed? The gameplay.
I fully expect that Thief will feature solid gameplay. Deus Ex proved that Eidos Montreal was more than capable of delivering on that promise.
Also, THIEF cannot simultaneously be both valuable and a niche.
That's fine, I'm not interested in Thief becoming a "niche" game.
If it's a niche, no-one would give a toss and Eidos wouldn't be interested in remaking it. It is valuable because it's a well-regarded, moderately well-selling series with interesting gameplay. So stripping down the gameplay doesn't make any sense, apart from one reason:
There is no evidence that the gameplay itself is "stripped down". In fact, it's abundantly clear that they have added a tremendous amount of gameplay to the existing Thief formula.
What actually appears to be happening is that Eidos is tapping the name-value of THIEF to create what is effectively a new, action-oriented gaming franchise with blockbuster production values and easy gameplay for a mass audience, whilst throwing a few bones to the hardcore fans. Since this worked with DEUS EX and FALLOUT - using those games' 'legendary' critical acclaim to hook a mass audience into a reboot - they clearly want to do the same with THIEF. The problem is that what they appear to be doing with THIEF is far more excessive than what they did with either DEUS EX or Bethesda did with FALLOUT.
He says based on a trailer. Your concern trolling here is no different than those who went all Chicken Little on forums when DX:HR and Fallout 3 were announced. They were wrong. Why should we believe you?
I don't need to jump a lot whilst wandering around in real life because I'm not a thief in a medieval fantasy city.
I'm not asking you to tell me how much jumping up you do in your everyday life. I'm asking you to go outside and look around you and ask yourself what use you could possibly have for jumping up to traverse any part of your environment.
OTOH, if I was a parkour free-runner I'd be able to tell you that running is an invaluable part of my skillset.
I am fairly certain that running will feature prominently in Thief.
So your raising of this comparison is inane.
No, it isn't. You haven't understood the comparison.
THIEF is a game where you have to avoid detection,
By jumping, obviously.
shimmy up buildings, hide behind walls and fences etc. Being able to jump in such a world at will and on a semi-regular basis is a logical and realistic thing to do.
Nope.
Here, better yet, go watch an action spy thriller. You can pick. I want you to count how many times the main character has to resort to jumping up in order to reach his goal. Seriously. Count them.
Sure, bunny-hopping on the spot for ten minutes might be unrealistic, but then that's up to the player. If the player wants to do that, why not? They are supposed to be playing the game in the manner they want, after all.
"Sure, hula-hooping for ten minutes might be unrealistic, but then that's up to the player. If the player wants to do that, why not? They are supposed to be playing the game in the manner they want, after all."
Out of curiosity, what button do you think they should bind the hula hoop to, by default?
That's a pretty faulty comparison, given that jumping actually has the potential to be useful and is something someone would conceivably do.
Jumping is a useful feature with potential for silliness.
A hula hoop button is just a silly feature.
That's a pretty faulty comparison, given that jumping actually has the potential to be useful and is something someone would conceivably do.
My whole argument is that jumping up isn't actually useful at all, and is something that people pretty much never do to navigate their environment.
Now, jumping across something (like a gap) is totally something that one might do to traverse their environment, but as I've already pointed out this is something that nearly every context-sensitive control system handles just fine.
Jumping is a useful feature with potential for silliness.
A hula hoop button is just a silly feature.
There are people out there who might take exception with your characterizing hula hooping as useless.
It's at least as useful as jumping jacks.
You guys do a great job avoiding each others points. Which would be useful in a sword fight... not so much in a discussion. Mostly Scott is correct here. Not about everything obviously but his main points are good. There isn't going to ever be a video game where you can always behave as you could in real life. The built in limits on where you can go will always be there.
It's like Soul Reaver. You couldn't climb up walls unless it had a specific graphic.
There's noting wrong with this, if it's a puzzle/action RPG.
I'm guessing no one remembers the release of the pitt and how it was so broken it wouldn't even let people play the game and broke save files and such. How mothership zeta still is considered the higgiest dlc of fo3 with a lot of people who can't even start the dlc.
I played fonv on 360 when it first came out and it wasn't no where near as buggy as fo3 was. AND even if people had problems with fonv, the patches have pretty much ironed out all the problems for 360 and pc users compared to fo3 right now after all their patches.
I don't mention ps3 because both games are still broken for the majority of ps3 players.
Long story short, EVERY bethesda game is buggy as hell. They get a free pass because everyone knows they are buying a game that's buggy. The reason why obsidian got the bad press was because it wasn't bethesda and their was the double standard. Plus with fonv u had to get into to really see the masterpiece of the story while bethesda focuses on the masterpeiece of the landscape which is earlier to reconize
It never ceases to amaze me, what people will argue about...
Its also amazing what people can agree too. Talking about aimlessly jumping is apparently Positive karma.
You guys do a great job avoiding each others points. Which would be useful in a sword fight... not so much in a discussion.
If you're talking about Scott and I, that's probably just because we're not exactly having a heated debate over this one. I agree with too many of both side's points to go down that road on this one, and it's more fun to just talk about jumping aimlessly and the merits of hula hooping.
I'm guessing no one remembers the release of the pitt and how it was so broken it wouldn't even let people play the game and broke save files and such. How mothership zeta still is considered the higgiest dlc of fo3 with a lot of people who can't even start the dlc.
I played fonv on 360 when it first came out and it wasn't no where near as buggy as fo3 was. AND even if people had problems with fonv, the patches have pretty much ironed out all the problems for 360 and pc users compared to fo3 right now after all their patches.
I don't mention ps3 because both games are still broken for the majority of ps3 players.Long story short, EVERY bethesda game is buggy as hell. They get a free pass because everyone knows they are buying a game that's buggy. The reason why obsidian got the bad press was because it wasn't bethesda and their was the double standard. Plus with fonv u had to get into to really see the masterpiece of the story while bethesda focuses on the masterpeiece of the landscape which is earlier to reconize
Talking about on release here, DLC is another kettle of fish. I personally had no problems with the Pitt, but that's because I didn't get that one on release (I skipped that one all the way up until all the DLC had been released, and snagged it on the cheap. Glad I waited, it was not nearly as good as the others). DLC adds a whole new wrinkle in that you can almost classify them as their own mini-game in some cases if a company does DLC right (which Bethesda does, for the most part, Horse Armor notwithstanding).
I actually had more issues with Broken Steel than Pitt or Zeta, but I also can't be the only one that had major issues with Dead Money as well. DLC IS going to be buggy, it's kind of the nature of the beast. They're basically company made mods, and we all know how stable mods are...
I'm guessing no one remembers the release of the pitt and how it was so broken it wouldn't even let people play the game and broke save files and such. How mothership zeta still is considered the higgiest dlc of fo3 with a lot of people who can't even start the dlc.
We were discussing Fallout 3's review scores, with Werthead arguing that it's suspicious that Fallout 3's bugs did not negatively impact its review scores to the same degree as New Vegas'. Review scores which were, natch, based on Fallout 3 as it was at launch. None of the DLC existed at that point. They don't factor into reviews.
I played fonv on 360 when it first came out and it wasn't no where near as buggy as fo3 was. AND even if people had problems with fonv, the patches have pretty much ironed out all the problems for 360 and pc users compared to fo3 right now after all their patches.
Yes, the game has been patched to be much more playable. Again, however, we're discussing these games in the context of their review scores, which were based on the games as of their launch.
Long story short, EVERY bethesda game is buggy as hell. They get a free pass because everyone knows they are buying a game that's buggy. The reason why obsidian got the bad press was because it wasn't bethesda and their was the double standard.
No.
Long story short, EVERY bethesda game is buggy as hell. They get a free pass because everyone knows they are buying a game that's buggy.
Yeah, it's kinda Bethesda's trademark. :)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take the movement capabilities of Mirror's Edge (note Free Jumping is in this game) without all the chase scenes. Take everything else of Thief - the NEED for stealth, the interesting equipment, the supernatural dark fantasy setting, and the main protagonist.
And Lo and Behold we have brought Thief into modern gaming with very limited Context-Sensitive controls (Is their a wall where you are jumping? Sweet, now you are wall running).
A game doesn't need realism. A game needs to be fun. The fun of the Thief series is STEALTH, GADGETS, FANTASY, and FREEDOM. Different series require different things as fits their identity. I haven't played much of the Thief series so I can't say for certain but I do think that the impressive parkour action of Mirror's Edge could be an excellent addition to Thief as long as it was kept in the context of what Thief was about (Think: Wall Running, Jumping, and Climbing through a trap and pit laden vault to get the delicious treasure and less Chase Scene).
Who cares about the realism factor? I don't think anyone mentioned that.No one did, you're right, but I got the impression from Hama's complaints that it was an issue of feeling like you ought to be able to do something that the game didn't let you. I was simply pointing out that jumping isn't really something that people do, and that it really just exists as a kind of holdover from back when games were universally two-dimensional and the ability to jump was one of the few ways the player could move in that second dimension.
Being able to jump whenever you want is a nice feature. Is it silly? Yes. Is it fun? Often so.I actually feel like it adds almost nothing to third-person games that wouldn't be better accomplished by a set of context-sensitive actions.
You haven't watched someone like my 15-year-old son play then. I don't think he realises he's doing it half the time. It seems to some sort of twitch. I think he's growing out of it a bit now, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You haven't watched someone like my 15-year-old son play then. I don't think he realises he's doing it half the time. It seems to some sort of twitch. I think he's growing out of it a bit now, though.
:(
I'm 40 years old, and I'm a jumpaholic.
<falls back into chair, relieved to finally admit it to the world>
You get that only allowing rope arrows to be used on wooden surfaces was how they handled pre-determined latch points in prior Thief games, right? If they didn't want you to be able to climb up a surface, they didn't make it out of wood.
Indeed, but it was a lot harder to argue that a medieval fantasy building wouldn't have wood in it or on its exterior, so it was more difficult to reduce player choice and freedom. In the new game they can just arbritarily place the arrow points where they like without logic or justification (that we know of so far). They logically integrated the setting and a game mechanic.
This time around - or so it appears right now - there is no such integration.
And that's awesome. There's nothing "simplistic" about that. In fact, the game is opening up an entirely new playstyle as legitimate in addition to the sneak-thief playstyle that was already supported (read: mandated) by earlier Thief games. Literally the opposite of simplifying.
If Garrett can beat up everyone in sight and smash his way into buildings without being stopped, why is stealth even an option? The whole point of the series is that Garrett is a thief who relies on stealth and the shadows. He can strike and even kill from the shadows (making the 'shadows' 'deadly', if you will) but he is not a tank. Rushing out and quickly killing/disabling three guards in melee without blocking and without the alarm being raised is against the ethos of the entire series. It is simplification: taking away the idea you have to painstakingly assess your target and then make your way in via stealth or a window because you can stroll through the front door and lay waste to everyone in sight in moments. Of course, and hopefully, the demo may not be representative in that area.
Given this was an early demo build, it's possible the AI was underperforming and the demo was designed to go easy on the journalists. The AI in particular seems to be an area where they still had a lot of work to do.
In previous Thief games, we called those "cutscenes".
The previous THIEF games did not channel you into unavoidable QTEs to avoid exploding buildings, at least that I recall.
I think you're actively looking for evidence of simplification because you see that as a modern blight on game design.
Is 'dumbing down' a modern blight on game design? Yes, especially in FPS games. However, 'streamlining' effectively is something I support and respect. HUMAN REVOLUTION streamlines the choices and freedom of the original DEUS EX down to something that is more approachable and user-friendly without sacrificing too much depth (and the things it sacrifices are unavoidable: the sheer cost of game development means that it's not practical to make modern games with the variety of endings and dialogue that DEUS EX had, regrettable as that may be). DISHONORED is actually a very good streamlining of some of the things that both DEUS EX and the original THIEF trilogy did in a modern gaming context.
Based on the previews so far - which I acknowledge may not be representative - THIEF 4 is aiming for 'dumbing down' much more than 'streamlining'. Hopefully these impressions are incorrect, and the game will end up much more effective than it appears to be right now.
Deus Ex proved that Eidos Montreal was more than capable of delivering on that promise.
But THIEF 4 is being made by a different team. The DEUS EX team did DE:HR, THE MISSING LINK, DIRECTOR'S CUT and are now hard at work on DEUS EX UNIVERSE. THIEF 4's team didn't even know what the gaming term 'ghosting' meant, which is bizarre given that DE:HR has an achievement of that name.
Speaking of DE:HR, I've been playing the new DIRECTOR'S CUT of the game and it's very, very good. I particularly enjoyed running down the streets of New Detroit and jumping on top of cars. It was glorious.
In fact, it's abundantly clear that they have added a tremendous amount of gameplay to the existing Thief formula.
The only thing that's abundantly clear right now is that they've added Quick Time Events to the game and taken away the ability to jump at will. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're basing that on.
He says based on a trailer.
We're discussing the pre-release materials based on the game, including trailers, game previews and hands-on articles from people who have actually played the game. Why, what are you basing your comments on? Have you been to Eidos Montreal and played the game at length?
As I said (my comments have been caveated more than a politician's promises), the pre-release materials may be unflattering to what actually might turn out to be a brilliant game. But based on what has been announced so far, there appears to be cause for concern for fans of the franchise.
Your concern trolling here is no different than those who went all Chicken Little on forums when DX:HR and Fallout 3 were announced.
The FO3 comparison may be apt. People were concerned that FALLOUT 3 would be OBLIVION with guns, with a lot of the actual RPG elements of the former games stripped out in favour of action. They were partially correct, but not as much as feared. FALLOUT 3 was also a reasonably fun game on its own merits.
As for the unwarranted trolling comment, you may wish to consider the black kettle and pot situation.
I'm not asking you to tell me how much jumping up you do in your everyday life. I'm asking you to go outside and look around you and ask yourself what use you could possibly have for jumping up to traverse any part of your environment.
I would need to jump to cross the fence, scale next door's wall and break through the window. Which I wouldn't do in real life, but I might do if I was, just speaking crazily off the top of my head, a fictional thief in a medieval fantasy city.
That said, I did need to jump up earlier to day to put a game back on the top shelf of my collection, and then again to get a tray down from on top of the cupboard.
No, it isn't. You haven't understood the comparison.
No, I've understood the comparison perfectly, despite your amusing attempts to retroactively change it (oh, it's jumping up now that's the issue, is it?).
Out of curiosity, what button do you think they should bind the hula hoop to, by default?
The one next to the button for hoisting the white surrender flag, which you just pressed with such a silly comment.
You guys do a great job avoiding each others points.
Only if by 'avoiding', you mean me addressing each of Scott's points in detail and Scott latching onto what he thinks is one single 'winning' point (jumping up) and repeating that every five seconds until everyone else gets bored and gives up. Which isn't really working.
Long story short, EVERY bethesda game is buggy as hell. They get a free pass because everyone knows they are buying a game that's buggy. The reason why obsidian got the bad press was because it wasn't bethesda and their was the double standard.
Yup, Bethesda Softworks (the publisher, not the development studio, which everyone seems to agree is actually a great comapany to work for) apparently let it be known they didn't have any problems with negative reviews of NEW VEGAS, or at least reviews that mentioned the bugs. The result of this was NEW VEGAS failing its Metacritic target by one point and Bethesda Softworks witholding a significant payment to Obsidian as a result, totally ignoring the fact that NV sold twice as many copies as FO3 on release. For making a game that's by now sold the better part of 10 million copies (and I believe is Obsidian's biggest-selling game and Bethesda's second-biggest-selling game, after SKYRIM), Obsidian received nothing more than a fairly modest one-off payment. Of course, there's also the murky circumstances under which Bethesda acquired Arkane and the recent double-bluff they pulled with Human Head which has backfired on them quite badly (and they are frantically trying to salvage behind the scenes before they get sued).
There's a reason that Bethesda are on a list of companies that many indie studios now refuse to do business with (along with Sega, though not EA who are apparently quite generous if you make a hit game for them). I was quite shocked when Obsidian fairly cheerfully recently said they'd love to make another FALLOUT game for them. I guess they love the franchise more than the hassles of dealing with the parent company.
If Garrett can beat up everyone in sight and smash his way into buildings without being stopped, why is stealth even an option?
If Korvo can beat up everyone in sight and smash his way into buildings without being stopped, why is stealth even an option?
If Adam Jensen can beat up everyone in sight and smash his way into buildings without being stopped (even funnier here, since Jensen can literally smash his way into buildings with an upgrade), why is stealth even an option?
If Batman can beat up everyone in sight and smash his way into buildings (also something Batman literally does in the Arkham games) without being stopped, why is stealth even an option?
Could it be that the developers are (gasp) providing players with a choice of how to play their game?
The previous THIEF games did not channel you into unavoidable QTEs to avoid exploding buildings, at least that I recall.
Like I said, before there were QTEs, games handled events that their normal gameplay design couldn't handle by using cutscenes.
Is 'dumbing down' a modern blight on game design? Yes, especially in FPS games.
Oh, look! I, too, can link to images of laughable disparity between level design complexity! Please, tell us more about how FPS level design is being "dumbed down".
I would need to jump to cross the fence, scale next door's wall and break through the window.
You would not need to jump to do any of those things (in fact, I doubt you could accomplish any of those things by jumping; you are, unless I'm very much mistaken, no Olympic athlete). You would climb the fence, climb the wall, and climb through the window. All of those actions are actions that context-sensitive control systems handle, and have been handling quite well, for years now.
And that was my point.
No, I've understood the comparison perfectly,
Obviously, you haven't (see above).
despite your amusing attempts to retroactively change it (oh, it's jumping up now that's the issue, is it?).
Of course jumping up is the issue. That's literally what a jump button does. And, as I've stated as far back as the first page of this thread, context-sensitive control schemes handle jumping over things (like gaps in walkways, for instance) quite well.
Only if by 'avoiding', you mean me addressing each of Scott's points in detail and Scott latching onto what he thinks is one single 'winning' point (jumping up)
We spent half of page 2 of this thread arguing over everything else. For some reason you've chosen to drive the discussion towards jumping, which is a silly decision because it's one of the weakest possible criticisms of context-sensitive control design.
You can keep arguing over jumping if you'd like, but I really suggest that you move onto a criticism that context-sensitive controls are more vulnerable to. Accuracy, for instance, would be a good choice; because context-sensitive control systems "guess" what the player is trying to do, they sometimes cause the player to take an action that they did not intend to take. Why not go with that, instead?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All hail Scott Betts, defender of literally everything other people don't like...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All hail Scott Betts, defender of literally everything other people don't like...
Just the particularly vocal, angry, or ignorant. But I appreciate the personal attacks all the same!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All hail Scott Betts, defender of literally everything other people don't like...
Who is "people"?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just the particularly vocal, angry, or ignorant. But I appreciate the personal attacks all the same!
I don't think it was intended as a personal attack, but it is kind of a noticeable pattern. While you do occasionally catch on to someone who's just irrationally hating everything, for the most part you come off as violently disagreeing with anyone who dislikes something (anything) for a reason you don't think they should have.
That may not be the intention, but it's certainly how it comes off. Repeatedly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I appreciate the personal attacks all the same!
Scott, I don't think it is a personal attack. However, if such a statement is considered a personal attack, please be aware that you make them too, with fair regularity. It's a thing that happens on the internet, it seems. I know I have (though I try and avoid it).
The point is, whenever someone doesn't like something (4E, Xbox, the wording of a comic contest, the changes to a beloved franchise) you often seem to be pretty much instantly there to tell them, "You're wrong for not liking the shiny new thing." and, to make it harder, you always come off as arrogant.
Partially it's that you insinuate things about the people you argue against. Whether it's things like, "Just the particularly vocal, angry, or ignorant."* or checking someone's posting history to (fallaciously) imply something they said was not true (as you did with me), it's not just the fact that you disagree - it's the fact that you often disagree by casting aspersions on the validity of those you are talking to (or against).
Sometimes you're right. Sometimes you're not. Either way, you can often come off as unpleasant.
EDIT: None of this is to say you're a bad person. Instead it's meant as a, "Here are some reasons people respond poorly too you, perhaps you may wish to change the way you present yourself to make your points more palatable to those you are attempting to talk to."
Oh, and on the jumping thing, grown men jumping is Awesome. :)
(I love Community. Also, yes, I see the difference between a trampoline and the preponderance of life.)
Anyway, I'm going back to lurking now.
* Which, why would you argue against the vocal or angry if they're not ignorant or incorrect?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People have no problem understanding whether or not they like a particular thing. That doesn't mean they're adept at articulating why. They get on the internet to vent, often using poorly thought out and/or expressed arguments, and a fight ensues.
Person A expresses opinion (often as fact)
Person B disagrees and refutes Person A
Person A is absolutely correct about their own opinion. Person B is often absolutely correct about why Person A's expression and/or logical reasoning is wrong.
Bottom line: They're both right and nobody is changing anyone's mind.
Scott often takes the role of Person B. He tends to be smarter and/or more articulate than those he argues with, and so comes off as a sanctimonious bully. That doesn't mean he's wrong, or that other folks shouldn't take more time to carefully articulate their opinions using a LOT less hyperbole.
Scott often takes the role of Person B. He tends to be smarter and/or more articulate than those he argues with, and so comes off as a sanctimonious bully. That doesn't mean he's wrong, or that other folks shouldn't take more time to carefully articulate their opinions using a LOT less hyperbole.
Its hard to read after the part where you tell someone that someone else is smarter than them. Is that irony?
Just the particularly vocal, angry, or ignorant. But I appreciate the personal attacks all the same!I don't think it was intended as a personal attack, but it is kind of a noticeable pattern. While you do occasionally catch on to someone who's just irrationally hating everything, for the most part you come off as violently disagreeing with anyone who dislikes something (anything) for a reason you don't think they should have.
If you read my posts and you takeaway is "violent disagreement", you need to give some serious thought to how you deal with someone disagreeing with you. If calm, reasonable disagreement suddenly becomes "violent" in your mind, there is a serious disconnect there that you need to address.
This is an especially ironic criticism given the level of vitriol that we typically see from those I'm often arguing against, which is far more easily characterized as "violent".
If you read my posts and you takeaway is "violent disagreement", you need to give some serious thought to how you deal with someone disagreeing with you. If calm, reasonable disagreement suddenly becomes "violent" in your mind, there is a serious disconnect there that you need to address.
Well, this right here is a good example. You just accused me of having mental problems because I used a word you didn't like. Obviously, I don't mean that you're taking a lead pipe to anyone you are disagreeing with. What I mean is that you're pretty strongly worded in your disagreement. Like, you know, just now.
This is an especially ironic criticism given the level of vitriol that we typically see from those I'm often arguing against, which is far more easily characterized as "violent".
That's really not ironic at all. Just because someone, somewhere on the Internet is a jerk, does not put you above criticism.
We're just pointing out a pattern. How you deal with that is really up to you: You can 'calmly and reasonably' explain to us that we're wrong and/or mentally unstable. You can shrug and ignore us. Or you can think about whether there's something to it.
That's up to you.
Well, this right here is a good example. You just accused me of having mental problems because I used a word you didn't like.
No, I said that there's a disconnect there. And, clearly, there is. Reading any "violence" into the tone of my posts is completely on you.
Obviously, I don't mean that you're taking a lead pipe to anyone you are disagreeing with. What I mean is that you're pretty strongly worded in your disagreement. Like, you know, just now.
I don't have much tolerance for thin arguments., but you already know that. We're going to have to agree to disagree on whether that qualifies as "violent".
That's really not ironic at all. Just because someone, somewhere on the Internet is a jerk, does not put you above criticism.
Of course not. It does, however, do very little to explain why you've come after me, as opposed to the other people you acknowledge are acting like jerks. I have some theories, of course.
We're just pointing out a pattern.
Sorry to disappoint, but you are not the first, second, or even hundredth person who has responded to disagreement with character attacks.
How you deal with that is really up to you: You can 'calmly and reasonably' explain to us that we're wrong and/or mentally unstable. You can shrug and ignore us. Or you can think about whether there's something to it.
I've thought about it plenty. But at the end of the day, you know what it boils down to? I like the way I argue with people on the internet. I've made my peace with any second guessing over my tone of argumentation a long, long time ago.
So, would you like to continue to make this about me? Or do you think you can discuss video games without embarking on a moral lecture over the tone of the person disagreeing with you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Korvo can beat up everyone in sight and smash his way into buildings without being stopped, why is stealth even an option?
Because Korvo is an assassin and a bodyguard in a much more high-tech, steampunk city. Violence and affinity for combat are in the job description. He also comes equipped with far more area-of-effect weapons (mines, grenades) and a more substantial range of lethal, long-range weapons (explosive crossbow bolt launchers, guns) for carrying out varying degrees of murdery. He is a versatile character built for both confrontational open combat and stealth, the steampunk equivalent of a special forces agent.
Garett isn't.
If Adam Jensen can beat up everyone in sight and smash his way into buildings without being stopped (even funnier here, since Jensen can literally smash his way into buildings with an upgrade), why is stealth even an option?
Adam Jensen is a mid-21st Century combat specialist in a vastly more high-tech cyberpunk city (several, in fact). He can be armed with missile launchers, miniguns, machine guns or explosive mines, and is capable of hacking networks to turn auto-turrets and robots against enemies. You also can choose to make him into a tank, a silent infiltrator or a hacker extraordinaire, just as you could with his predecessors in the previous games in the series.
He is a versatile character built for both confrontational open combat and stealth, the cyberpunk equivalent of a special forces operative (not to mention being a former SWAT agent).
Garrett isn't.
If Batman can beat up everyone in sight and smash his way into buildings (also something Batman literally does in the Arkham games) without being stopped, why is stealth even an option?
Because Batman doesn't use guns because of his personal moral/philosophical code, so cannot effectively engage enemies at range. He therefore requires stealth to close to melee before he can unleash violence. Actually, since Batman's self-appointed job is to put criminals behind bars, it'd actually be less true to the character and series to completely stealth past criminals without neutralising them.
Garrett isn't Batman.
Could it be that the developers are (gasp) providing players with a choice of how to play their game?
That's fine, when it makes sense. Taking a character who through three previous games struggled when confronted with more than one enemy at a time and turn him into a powerhouse who can take down three bad guys in seconds and then dodge massive explosions does not.
Oh, look! I, too, can link to images of laughable disparity between level design complexity! Please, tell us more about how FPS level design is being "dumbed down".
Sure. Modern FPS games throw infinite waves of enemies at you until you move on and do what the game wants you to do (CALL OF DUTY 4) rather than letting you wipe out the attacking force and then move on (MEDAL OF HONOUR: ALLIED ASSAULT), as you would in any real combat situation. Modern FPSs like sticking massive signs on the screen (like "FOLLOW") to ensure you follow the NPC in front of you who is actually doing most of the cool stuff in the game (all of the modern CALL OF DUTY) whilst you stand and gawp. Games in series which were previously open-world, or almost (FAR CRY, CRYSIS), offering tons of different paths and ways of doing things, are now closed-down, linear corridor shooters (CRYSIS 2 and 3). Games now have elaborate and often-badly-implemented 'sticky cover systems' rather than just letting you just 'duck' behind something (DE:HR actually gets props for having a cover system which also doubles as a really good stealth mechanic) which worked fine for years. There are also modern shooters where you spend more time in unskippable cut scenes than actually playing the actual game (MAX PAYNE 3).
And, in almost no modern FPS (DE:HR gets props for this as well, though some might not count it as an FPS) can you quicksave at will, instead often having to use questionably-placed save trigger points.
Against that, there are some very good modern FPS games: the METRO series (where the linearity has a built-in explanation and adds to the atmosphere), FAR CRY 3 (even 2, where the execution was poor but the ideas excellent) and the last STALKER. Also, despite their problems games like CRYSIS 2 are enjoyable despite being dumbed-down.
Scott often takes the role of Person B. He tends to be smarter and/or more articulate than those he argues with, and so comes off as a sanctimonious bully. That doesn't mean he's wrong, or that other folks shouldn't take more time to carefully articulate their opinions using a LOT less hyperbole.Its hard to read after the part where you tell someone that someone else is smarter than them. Is that irony?
I used the terms "tends to be" and "and/or", which you seem to have missed.
For the sake of argument, what if Scott is smarter than you (and I'm not saying he is)? Would that really be so insulting?
Garett isn't.
The idea wasn't for you to actually answer any of those questions. The whole point was that they can be answered, and plausibly explained, just as easily as one could do for Garrett. I was demonstrating how silly it is to ask a question like, "If X can beat up everyone in sight and smash his/her way into buildings without being stopped, why is stealth even an option?" and the only answer you need is that stealth gameplay is enjoyable for some people, and beating up everyone in sight is enjoyable to others.
That's fine, when it makes sense. Taking a character who through three previous games struggled when confronted with more than one enemy at a time and turn him into a powerhouse who can take down three bad guys in seconds and then dodge massive explosions does not.
Why not? This is a series reboot. Your stealth gameplay is still present. It hasn't gone away! If you want to go through the entire game as a ghost without being seen by guards, I'm sure that's an option. So, at this point, your complaint boils down to, "But someone else might play the game in a way I don't like!" which, I mean, come on!
Sure. Modern FPS games throw infinite waves of enemies at you until you move on and do what the game wants you to do (CALL OF DUTY 4) rather than letting you wipe out the attacking force and then move on (MEDAL OF HONOUR: ALLIED ASSAULT), as you would in any real combat situation.
Does it bother you that a video game does not accurately emulate a real combat situation?
Games in series which were previously open-world, or almost (FAR CRY, CRYSIS), offering tons of different paths and ways of doing things, are now closed-down, linear corridor shooters (CRYSIS 2 and 3).
So you mention Far Cry as an example of a franchise that used to be open world, without bothering to mention that Far Cry 3 (barely a year old) is still an open world game, and that Far Cry 4 probably will be, too?
Games now have elaborate and often-badly-implemented 'sticky cover systems' rather than just letting you just 'duck' behind something (DE:HR actually gets props for having a cover system which also doubles as a really good stealth mechanic) which worked fine for years.
Cover systems are awesome. The fact that you hate cover systems and prefer purely movement-based systems just seems like a matter of taste, not a genuinely valid criticism of poor design.
And still no acknowledgement that modern multiplayer shooters like Battlefield or ARMA have evolved into huge map, cooperative, squad-based tactical shooters with literally dozens of ways to approach objectives, maps that are not only complex but actually change over time, etc. Seriously, all of this makes it sound like you'd love Battlefield 4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Storyline trailer, complete with OTT voiceover. "Some call him 'taffer'. I call him...Garrett!"
Inevitable and possibly unfair photoshop job.
Interesting collection of quotes about the game from developers:
"Jumping, bouncing up and down, kind of broke the immersion,” says Schmidt. “We didn’t want you to be the master thief and you just tend to fall off stuff all the time."
-Schmidt justifying contextual jumping
—————————————————
"…By ‘ghosting’ do you mean, like, going through walls and stuff?"
-An Eidos spokesman at the Eurogamer Expo responding to a question as to whether the game will support Lytha-style ghosting
—————————————————
"Thief will no longer make use of an XP system because it was reducing the incentive to actually steal things."
[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/128774-Thief-Cuts-Experience-System]
—————————————————
"Infiltration is just fun, playing with them [the AI], driving them crazy, it’s just cool. But if I give you ice cream every day… you know. We want to change the rhythm."
-Stephane Roy justifying the exploding building QTE escape sequence
—————————————————
"If I give you the possibility to shoot the rope arrow everywhere…. I will have to reduce our intention for the narrative"
-Roy justifying the contextual rope arrows
————————————————–
"With the next-gen, with the smartphone, with the tablet, with the indie developer, it’s really, really cool because now we have a lot of different types of players. There is a type of people that like to have that kind of indicator, because… they don’t want to fight with all these mechanics. They enjoy the story, they want to progress, they want to feel that they are good."
-Roy explaining the need for magical slow motion highlight powers
—————————————————
If you want to go through the entire game as a ghost without being seen by guards, I'm sure that's an option.
Presumably not, if there's an unavoidable cut scene in which an entire building blows up with you sailing dramatically out of a window just ahead of a fireball. I suspect some guards might take notice of that.
Does it bother you that a video game does not accurately emulate a real combat situation?
When the game is supposed to be providing an emulation of a real combat situation, sure. It's not ARMA, clearly, but the whole appeal of CoD originally was that it nodded a bit more to real combat tactics than MEDAL OF HONOUR did.
More to the point, it's a major problem when previous games in the series did it better. CoD 1 and 2 didn't use this infinite wave tactic unless it made sense (i.e. in the middle of the Battle of Stalingrad with thousands of soldiers on each side, or announcements of reinforcements arriving in areas you'd previously passed through). CoD4, on the other hand, would have you on the roof of a building shooting at enemies pouring through a hole in a wall 20 feet in front of you. Logic dictates that you should eliminate the enemies in range, clear the area and then advance. The game instead had never-ending enemies pouring though until you advanced, out of cover and into a hail of their fire, and reached an arbritrary trigger point near the hole in the wall, at which point the enemy advance would cease and you could advance. This is poor game design, and similar things happened multiple times in both COD4 and MW2 (which is as far as I got in the series).
So you mention Far Cry as an example of a franchise that used to be open world, without bothering to mention that Far Cry 3 (barely a year old) is still an open world game, and that Far Cry 4 probably will be, too?
FAR CRY was made by CryTek, and CRYSIS is its spiritual successor from CryTek (CRYSIS, in a somewhat different guise, would probably have been FAR CRY 2 itself if EA hadn't paid CryTek a vast sum of money to lure them away from Ubisoft). So there is a clear progression of FAR CRY - CRYSIS 1/WARHEAD/2/3. They even have the same structure (a linear sequence of missions) that FAR CRY 2 and 3 (which are fully open-world games) do not have. So yes, CryTek have very much simplified their original game design. You can see that in the CRYSIS series itself, even leaving out FAR CRY. CRYSIS 1 and WARHEAD took place on large, open levels with multiple paths to objectives and CRYSIS 2 and 3 took place on closed streets and in corridors with only minor variances possible.
Cover systems are awesome
They've gotten a lot better recently. When they were first implemented in the mid-2000s they were rubbish. MASS EFFECT 1's is probably the worst I've seen, with multiple deaths resulting from the game simply not letting you let go of the wall. By ME3 it had become a better system. As I said already, DEUS EX: HR had a superb one, because it pulled double-duty as a stealth mechanic as well. MAX PAYNE 3's was also pretty good, even if it did defeat the point of the series (bullet-time being the already-existing mechanic for avoiding getting shot). MAFIA 2 and GTA4's cover systems were completely useless, however, and I never bothered using them and completed both games straightforwardly.
Presumably not, if there's an unavoidable cut scene in which an entire building blows up with you sailing dramatically out of a window just ahead of a fireball. I suspect some guards might take notice of that.
Maybe they'll blame the explosion on like... a ghost or something totally unrelated to Garret?
"Jumping, bouncing up and down, kind of broke the immersion,” says Schmidt. “We didn’t want you to be the master thief and you just tend to fall off stuff all the time."
-Schmidt justifying contextual jumping
It's almost as if game developers have noticed that people don't actually jump up and down to do anything in real life!
"…By ‘ghosting’ do you mean, like, going through walls and stuff?"
-An Eidos spokesman at the Eurogamer Expo responding to a question as to whether the game will support Lytha-style ghosting
I've played all three Thief games and I had no idea what "ghosting" meant. This sounds like a term that rose out of one niche of the Thief community years ago, and I'll be damned if I can find a website that makes reference to it that doesn't look like it was cobbled together in Geocities.
If someone brings up ghosting in a gaming context, the typical assumption is that they're referring to key ghosting.
"Thief will no longer make use of an XP system because it was reducing the incentive to actually steal things."
[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/128774-Thief-Cuts-Experience-System]
This sounds like a win for you.
"If I give you the possibility to shoot the rope arrow everywhere…. I will have to reduce our intention for the narrative"
-Roy justifying the contextual rope arrows
So, just like in the other Thief games, then.
"With the next-gen, with the smartphone, with the tablet, with the indie developer, it’s really, really cool because now we have a lot of different types of players. There is a type of people that like to have that kind of indicator, because… they don’t want to fight with all these mechanics. They enjoy the story, they want to progress, they want to feel that they are good."
-Roy explaining the need for magical slow motion highlight powers
How does allowing other people to play the game at their own desired level of skill impact you in any way whatsoever? Why do you care how other people have fun?
Presumably not, if there's an unavoidable cut scene in which an entire building blows up with you sailing dramatically out of a window just ahead of a fireball. I suspect some guards might take notice of that.
Notice of the building blowing up? Probably. Notice of the guy jumping out the window to safety? Probably not.
When the game is supposed to be providing an emulation of a real combat situation, sure. It's not ARMA, clearly, but the whole appeal of CoD originally was that it nodded a bit more to real combat tactics than MEDAL OF HONOUR did.
I don't think that was the whole appeal of CoD originally.
FAR CRY was made by CryTek, and CRYSIS is its spiritual successor from CryTek (CRYSIS, in a somewhat different guise, would probably have been FAR CRY 2 itself if EA hadn't paid CryTek a vast sum of money to lure them away from Ubisoft). So there is a clear progression of FAR CRY - CRYSIS 1/WARHEAD/2/3. They even have the same structure (a linear sequence of missions) that FAR CRY 2 and 3 (which are fully open-world games) do not have. So yes, CryTek have very much simplified their original game design. You can see that in the CRYSIS series itself, even leaving out FAR CRY. CRYSIS 1 and WARHEAD took place on large, open levels with multiple paths to objectives and CRYSIS 2 and 3 took place on closed streets and in corridors with only minor variances possible.
I think it's abundantly clear that Far Cry and Crysis are two very different franchises. Ubisoft continued the tradition of Far Cry through Far Cry 2 and Far Cry 3, and did not dumb anything down along the way. The gameplay in Far Cry 3 is a great deal richer than the gameplay in the original Far Cry.
You can certainly make the argument that Crysis is much more open than Crysis 3 - you'd be right. But that's one franchise, and it happens to have a connection to another example of the opposite occurring (the Far Cry series).
Presumably not, if there's an unavoidable cut scene in which an entire building blows up with you sailing dramatically out of a window just ahead of a fireball. I suspect some guards might take notice of that.Maybe they'll blame the explosion on like... a ghost or something totally unrelated to Garret?
I think there's a good chance that Garrett isn't responsible for the explosion in the first place. He has a nasty habit of finding himself trying to wipe out a treasury smack dab in the middle of someone else's conflict.
Introducing context-sensitive control schemes almost inevitably results in more design work, not less (as a terribly simplified example, it's really easy to give your game a jump button; it is much more difficult to teach your game to know when it is appropriate for your character to jump). But it tends to be worth it, because the experience ends up feeling more natural and immersive (done properly).
I did not get the point where you explained why it furthers immersion and feels more natural to not be able to jump at will?
I mean for me it feels totally natural (even if tiresome) to jump anytime I like as long as I like.And if someone thinks it looks silly to always jump you still have the option to not do it unless it seems appropriate.
To tell you when you can jump is metagamey because, most likely, the game will not let you jump unless it is a good idea to jump in the given situation.
I did not get the point where you explained why it furthers immersion and feels more natural to not be able to jump at will?
Because jumping all over the place is not something that anyone actually does, ever. We, as humans, jump things like gaps. That's fine, that's what jumping is for (and context-sensitive design handles that well). But we don't jump to get over things, or to gain elevation. For those sorts of things, we climb.
Imagine Counterstrike. Its maps have crates everywhere. And you need to jump to get on top of them. Now imagine a wooden crate in real life. If you had to get on top of that crate, how would you go about it? Jumping? Of course not. You'd probably grab the top of the crate and pull yourself up.
Game designers have recognized this, and have noted that, especially in third-person camera games where you can see your avatar at all times, it looks pretty silly to ascend obstacles by jumping. It looks much more natural to have a context-sensitive climbing action built into the game, and to simply climb obstacles instead of jumping on top of them.
The reality is that the idea of jumping as a way of bypassing obstacles (rather than merely passing over gaps) is a dinosaur of a holdover from the days of 2-dimensional games like Super Mario Bros., where jumping was a straightforward way for the game designer to be able to take advantage of the game's second dimension. For quite a while, jumping became one of the primary ways of interacting with a video game world (take a look at how many old school arcade games had two or three buttons, one of which was jump).
When game designers started moving into 3-dimensional design, jumping became an easy way for them to take advantage of the game's third dimension, and everyone was so used to it that no one really saw cause for complaint. Giving the player the ability to jump is fairly trivial to program (so trivial, in fact, that you can download Unity and create a game that lets you jump in about ten minutes). Developing a context-sensitive system that allows the player to realistically climb or otherwise bypass physical obstacles is, on the other hand, extremely difficult to program (and requires a host of other assets, like a wide array of hand-built animations).
I mean for me it feels totally natural (even if tiresome) to jump anytime I like as long as I like.
Really? You just go around jumping all over the place? That's your natural behavior?
And if someone thinks it looks silly to always jump you still have the option to not do it unless it seems appropriate.
Sure, but there's a difference between having the ability to jump and not using it (which is a poor solution) and implementing a context-sensitive control scheme that allows you to realistically bypass obstacles (which is a great solution).
To tell you when you can jump is metagamey because, most likely, the game will not let you jump unless it is a good idea to jump in the given situation.
That's the point of context-sensitive control design - that certain actions are possible only in certain situations; climbing, for instance, is an action only possible when the character is in front of something that can be climbed. "Metagamey" features are not bad by default. This, for instance, is an example of a feature external to the game world (the controls) that increases realism and immersion, rather than decreasing it.
Mind you, realism and immersion are not overriding priorities in game design. First-person shooters, for instance, still have at-will jumping because players like the ability to move freely and precisely in a competitive environment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... What's bad about giving people the ability to jump? the fact they can... Jump in place? Optionally?
Why do you care how other people have fun?
So... What's bad about giving people the ability to jump? the fact they can... Jump in place? Optionally?
I already answered this.
Sure, but there's a difference between having the ability to jump and not using it (which is a poor solution) and implementing a context-sensitive control scheme that allows you to realistically bypass obstacles (which is a great solution).
If a game implements non-context-sensitive controls, we don't get context-sensitive controls, and context-sensitive controls are great.
Come on. You and Tacticslion could have figured that one out if you gave it a bit of thought.
Well you can have both. I don't know why you think they're both mutually exclusive.
Come on. You and Tacticslion could have figured that one out if you gave it a bit of thought.
Hahahah! Including me.
So, sure. I'll bite.
If a game implements non-context-sensitive controls, we don't get context-sensitive controls, and context-sensitive controls are great.
Meh. Context-sensitive controls can be great. But they are not (as your statement above implies) inherently great.
Further, your assertion based on the idea that "any-time" controls render context-sensitive controls incompatible isn't true: context-sensitive controls are potentially compatible with non-context sensitive controls (pre-post-edit: ninja'd fairly significantly by MrSin; toddlers eat your time right up).
That said, it's interesting that this is currently revolving around that idea. I, generally, prefer the "anytime" controls. It's a style that I prefer. Context-sensitive is... okay, but not as awesome as you make it out to be, to me and in my experience.
Your assertion that one is a great solution and one is not doesn't really hold up to my experience.
Thus my approval of MrSin's comment.
Back to lurking.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Infiltration is just fun, playing with them [the AI], driving them crazy, it’s just cool. But if I give you ice cream every day… you know. We want to change the rhythm."
-Stephane Roy justifying the exploding building QTE escape sequence
Hah. I like that. "A game shouldn't be fun all the time. There gotta be some stuff in there that sucks, or you won't appreciate it when the game gets good."
That guy should be an MMO developer.
"Infiltration is just fun, playing with them [the AI], driving them crazy, it’s just cool. But if I give you ice cream every day… you know. We want to change the rhythm."
-Stephane Roy justifying the exploding building QTE escape sequenceHah. I like that. "A game shouldn't be fun all the time. There gotta be some stuff in there that sucks, or you won't appreciate it when the game gets good."
That guy should be an MMO developer.
~ROFLMAO~
"Infiltration is just fun, playing with them [the AI], driving them crazy, it’s just cool. But if I give you ice cream every day… you know. We want to change the rhythm."
-Stephane Roy justifying the exploding building QTE escape sequenceHah. I like that. "A game shouldn't be fun all the time. There gotta be some stuff in there that sucks, or you won't appreciate it when the game gets good."
That guy should be an MMO developer.
You have utterly failed to understand what he was saying.
He was not saying, "We can't give you ice cream every day. We have to give you dollar burritos every once in a while to make you appreciate the ice cream."
He's saying, "We can't give you ice cream every day. We have to give you other delicious foods on occasion so that our users don't become so accustomed to a single way of interacting with the game that it becomes mundane."
That should have been crystal clear from the quotation. Even a little bit of critical thought would have revealed to even the most cynical armchair game designer in this thread that, just maybe, he was making a point about trying to avoid monotony.
What is a problem with having context sensitive jumping when necessary but still leaving the ability to jump anyway?
I can think of a number of reasons - aesthetics, level design considerations, cost of development and testing, etc. - that would force the idea of including an arguably redundant feature to justify its value.
He was not saying, "We can't give you ice cream every day. We have to give you dollar burritos every once in a while to make you appreciate the ice cream."
I actually preferred dollar burritos, back when I could still eat them :)
Really missed not being able to get those when I got back to the UK, and had to start making batches to freeze myself.