|
And after this, i understand that my hatred for consoles is completely and totally justified.
They take Thief, and amazing stealth game and TURN IT INTO THIS?
For those of you who don't click links, here are just some of the things put there:
- Non-stealth combat will be much easier
- Enemy weapons will glow to indicate when you have to block
- They want to make a stealth game, without the stealth. Because stealth is haaaaaard[/whine]
- Main missions more linear in design
- Garret can no longer jump at will
- Rope arrows can only be used at pre-set points as context actions
- QTEs will be present in the gameplay
- No fantasy elements. That's right, no Hammerites, undead or Pagans
What. The. Hell.
Umm...part of the story I liked so well was the fantasy setting. As for the rest, I'll reserve judgement until I can actually play the thing, but...really? They're removing the world that created the best stealth game character ever? I suppose that means no more mechanical eye? Bummer.
Ewww, linear missions :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that's all true, Ben Croshaw will have an aneurysm.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This really hit one of my pet peeves. Someone trying to make a product more mainstream to attract more customers.
Yeah, I know, I can't really complain about a company trying to actually make money. It's still a kick in the teeth though for anyone who actually wanted that niche product instead of Generic 3D Adventure Game #63214
But wouldn't NOT changing it show that the developers don't have an original thought these days? ;)
That sucks.
Way to ruin an awesome game.
Man, if they have a level even half as good as The Cradle, I'd be happy.
That was epic...
Seriously. In my opinion, that's the best level ever made. It just works...so well. I want to go back to a time where I never experienced it. And play it again.
Seriously. In my opinion, that's the best level ever made. It just works...so well. I want to go back to a time where I never experienced it. And play it again.
I thoroughly enjoyed all three games, and the Cradle was a gaming standout.
So sad it has come to this.
Wait until it comes out to pass judgement. Swapping to a more action-y playstyle has worked out for stealth games before.
For those of you who like the Hitman games, look at Blood Money vs Absolution. We're leaving the ones before that out of it since Blood Money is pretty much universally considered the best game in the series (ahead of Absolution in most people's lists, but that one's still second best).
Absolution is undeniably more action oriented (and linear and story driven, much like this) than its predecessors, but was still a great game (on par with Blood Money overall in my opinion, though in different ways). Most people I know agree with this if they're able to look at it without their "They Changed It Now It Sucks!" glasses on.
Not saying it WILL work out that well, but it COULD work out that well.
|
|
It could be a great action-y game. Thief was about being sneaky and skillful if they move away from that then it wont be Thief. It will be Thief the assassin's creed version.
I agree I'll wait for release before deciding anything. Those developer quotes sound like the opposite of what I expect though. I am keeping my expectations low. Probably for the best.
Pass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's cool, I'll play it. I'm not in the habit of comparing modern games to standards set 15 years ago, just as I'm not in the habit of comparing games made 15 years ago to the modern standards of today.
But, seriously, all of you wiping your hands of the game months before it's released based on a (really poorly done) image macro just totally baffle me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's cool, I'll play it. I'm not in the habit of comparing modern games to standards set 15 years ago, just as I'm not in the habit of comparing games made 15 years ago to the modern standards of today.
But, seriously, all of you wiping your hands of the game months before it's released based on a (really poorly done) image macro just totally baffle me.
Eh, it just worries people to see their childhood or nostalgia stepped on. Sucks when something comes out using a franchise's name but has nothing to do with the franchise or radically changes it, especially if its just to be mainstream. Takes out a lot of the reasons you liked it in the first place, and it gives a feeling greed matters more than the art.
Eh, it just worries people to see their childhood or nostalgia stepped on. Sucks when something comes out using a franchise's name but has nothing to do with the franchise or radically changes it, especially if its just to be mainstream.
The last game in the series came out in 2004. There was no way you were going to get a sequel that preserved the mechanics of the original two games (or even of the third). The market has evolved, and people want more ways to interact with their AAA titles beyond just sneaking around.
Takes out a lot of the reasons you liked it in the first place, and it gives a feeling greed matters more than the art.
This is Eidos, the studio responsible for the Tomb Raider series. If you were under the impression that they value some mythical artistic vision over the ability to make money, that's on you. And this holds true for nearly every major software developer (yes, including the ones making those games that you like).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last game in the series came out in 2004. There was no way you were going to get a sequel that preserved the mechanics of the original two games (or even of the third). The market has evolved, and people want more ways to interact with their AAA titles beyond just sneaking around.
Didn't say a thing about mechanics. I have not actually played thief and have no idea what they are trying to do. I was just stating a reason why it might bother people. Plenty of elements might be kept though, such as the fantasy elements people mentioned. If you just throw those away well... why? Isn't that part of what made thief thief?
This is Eidos, the studio responsible for the Tomb Raider series. If you were under the impression that they value some mythical artistic vision over the ability to make money, that's on you. And this holds true for nearly every major software developer (yes, including the ones making those games that you like).
So... Are you saying I'm the bad guy here? Of course you want to make money, doesn't mean it can't be deplorable or greedy to use a franchise name, particularly in name only, to do it.
I'm not saying change isn't bad either. There are plenty of reasonable changes to make to something and still be successful and still keep what people loved about the game. Seems counterintuitive to remove the things people like about something, right? I mean unless that directly hampers it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day, they're free to make changes. People are also free to dislike those changes and decide not to buy it.
I'm more likely to buy a game that says it does the things I enjoy, than to see one says it does a number of things I don't enjoy and pick it up anyway just to find out if I'm wrong about it. If the Skyrim previews had said "NPC Conversations have been removed to streamline your game experience and we've replaced the open world with a more efficient linear model" then that particular preorder would have gotten pulled so fast I'd have created a vacuum in Amazon's database.
I only wish the capitalist model didn't encourage making products for the widest possible audience. Niche markets deserve some love too :)
So... Are you saying I'm the bad guy here? Of course you want to make money, doesn't mean it can't be deplorable or greedy to use a franchise name, particularly in name only, to do it.
They're not using it in name only. As a franchise-long fan of Thief games, I am confident from what I have seen of the game that I will feel like I'm playing a modernized take on Thief when it comes out.
Umm...part of the story I liked so well was the fantasy setting. As for the rest, I'll reserve judgement until I can actually play the thing, but...really? They're removing the world that created the best stealth game character ever? I suppose that means no more mechanical eye? Bummer.
Garrett didn't acquire his mechanical eye until the end of the first game. This is a reboot, so Garrett has both of his eyes intact. It remains to be seen if a situation that causes him to lose an eye will come up, or if the technology to have it replaced with a mechanical one exists.
No fantasy elements.
This isn't true at all. The world retains supernatural elements. The producers have described the game's feel as "mystical, not magical", but have emphasized that the supernatural still exists.
I think the problem I have is that this game (on paper) appears to be less in keeping with the gameplay and storyline experience I would expect from a game in the Thief line, and to some extent appears to be 'Dishonoured' in a different wrapper.
Nothing wrong with Dishonoured, in fact there is a lot to recommend it, but I already have the Dishonoured gameplay experience through that franchise.
I would love to see a DeusEx:HR in a fantasy or fuedal 'asian' setting, just saying.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last game in the series came out in 2004. There was no way you were going to get a sequel that preserved the mechanics of the original two games (or even of the third). The market has evolved, and people want more ways to interact with their AAA titles beyond just sneaking around.
Having more ways to interact doesn't have to mean turning the game into Assassin's creed. If the game centers around being a badass killing machine that will really be a shame.
Having more ways to interact doesn't have to mean turning the game into Assassin's creed.
Context-sensitive controls, climbing walls, and being able to perform takedowns doesn't turn a game into Assassin's Creed. If it did, Uncharted would be Assassin's Creed.
|
|
Sorry, i don understand a first person game where you're unable to jump. And context sensitive controls are just LAZY. It says
"look kids, we are lazy, we don't want to try too hard with level design, so we decided not to allow you to jump around where you wish and to climb only where we want you to do."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But, seriously, all of you wiping your hands of the game months before it's released based on a (really poorly done) image macro just totally baffle me.
The Paizo forums just wouldn't be the same without you being totally baffled at people who aren't you. ;)
But, seriously, all of you wiping your hands of the game months before it's released based on a (really poorly done) image macro just totally baffle me.The Paizo forums just wouldn't be the same without you being totally baffled at people who aren't you. ;)
I'm not the only person in this thread who thinks it's weird to judge a game so completely months before it comes out.
But yes, let's make this about me. I'm sure that will go well.
Sorry, i don understand a first person game where you're unable to jump. And context sensitive controls are just LAZY. It says
"look kids, we are lazy, we don't want to try too hard with level design, so we decided not to allow you to jump around where you wish and to climb only where we want you to do."
This demonstrates to me, pretty categorically, that you don't understand context-sensitive control design or why it is implemented.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not the only person in this thread who thinks it's weird to judge a game so completely months before it comes out.
No, but you're certainly the most consistent. ;)
In summary: People decide to like and dislike stuff based on various reasons. Some of these reasons will seem stupid to you. That's fine. Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong.
While I've never played Thief, I can certainly understand the sentiment of "they seem to have changed the core concept of the franchise so much that it's barely recognizable any more. I don't like that!" That's not nearly as alien a concept as you appear to want it to be.
(Don't get me started on Fallout "3". :p)
I know a few friends of mine are fans of the original Thief games.
One can only wonder what kind of reactions they've had to all of this...
|
|
This demonstrates to me, pretty categorically, that you don't understand context-sensitive control design or why it is implemented.Sorry, i don understand a first person game where you're unable to jump. And context sensitive controls are just LAZY. It says
"look kids, we are lazy, we don't want to try too hard with level design, so we decided not to allow you to jump around where you wish and to climb only where we want you to do."
By all means, enlighten me.
|
|
Having more ways to interact doesn't have to mean turning the game into Assassin's creed.Context-sensitive controls, climbing walls, and being able to perform takedowns doesn't turn a game into Assassin's Creed. If it did, Uncharted would be Assassin's Creed.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to pick on Assassin's Creed I was trying to make the point that making Theif in the triple A mold risks making it not Thief. I hope that is not the case. Some of those dev quotes are troubling to me.
I'm not the only person in this thread who thinks it's weird to judge a game so completely months before it comes out.No, but you're certainly the most consistent. ;)
In summary: People decide to like and dislike stuff based on various reasons. Some of these reasons will seem stupid to you. That's fine. Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong.
While I've never played Thief, I can certainly understand the sentiment of "they seem to have changed the core concept of the franchise so much that it's barely recognizable any more. I don't like that!" That's not nearly as alien a concept as you appear to want it to be.
(Don't get me started on Fallout "3". :p)
Fallout 3 is actually a perfect example of a game that refreshes a long-dormant franchise in a way that modernizes it and manages to be excellent in the process. It (and New Vegas) sold like hotcakes.
|
|
An amount of money a game earns (or the number of sales) doesn't determine whether a game is good. Just if it is very, very anticipated. Just look at any Call of Duty, Medal of Honor and Battlefield titles in the past 7 years. They are the same with minor Graphics improvements in newer titles. And to be honest, if there wasn't a really good multiplayer component, they would be total failures.
By all means, enlighten me.This demonstrates to me, pretty categorically, that you don't understand context-sensitive control design or why it is implemented.Sorry, i don understand a first person game where you're unable to jump. And context sensitive controls are just LAZY. It says
"look kids, we are lazy, we don't want to try too hard with level design, so we decided not to allow you to jump around where you wish and to climb only where we want you to do."
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). The view that you need a button dedicated to jumping at will is a really, really silly holdover from older school platforming games where this represented one of the primary ways of interacting with the game (Super Mario Bros. had one action button; guess what it did?). But this falls apart when your goal is to create a more immersive, believable play experience. Jumping like a madman just ends up looking silly (see: Counter Strike).
It would be pretty tough to argue that a game like Assassin's Creed features a movement system that is restrictive. On the contrary, the designers have made a concerted (and incredibly labor-intensive) effort to enable believable movement in all three dimensions across nearly the entirety of the game world. If there is a building you can see, you can almost certainly figure out a way to get to the top of it.
Now, I can understand your concern if you're using a game like Uncharted as an example of a "context-sensitive control" system. Uncharted is a very on-rails game (probably the best example of an on-rails game the industry has to offer). But that's not the result of its control scheme, just as on-rails game worlds existed prior to the advent of context-sensitive controls (it's really ambiguous where "context-sensitive controls" really came into being).
Assassin's Creed remains my go-to for any discussion of context-sensitive controls (in no small part due to the fact that it was one of the first games that hyped its control scheme as context-sensitive). One of its most defining control paradigms is the idea that you have buttons for body parts, and a toggle button for how "overt" you want your actions to be. This is at the same time a more nuanced and more natural approach to control than something as explicit as the jump button in Super Mario Bros. It doesn't result in less freedom, it just results in a more natural, more believable feeling of movement and interaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fallout 3 is actually a perfect example of a game that refreshes a long-dormant franchise in a way that modernizes it and manages to be excellent in the process.
It streamlined the game and made it more playable, sure. It also got reasonable reviews. However, it also took out a lot of the reactivity and player agency the previous games had. It also had a hugely-criticised ending as well.
NEW VEGAS, which combined the streamlined and more user-friendly approach of FALLOUT 3 but also restored the reactivity and player agency of FALLOUT 2 (unsurprisingly, as it was made by a lot of the same team), was better-received creatively (though the initial, long-fixed bugs caused more negative press) and outsold FALLOUT 3 by a considerable margin (almost twice as many sales in the first month, 5 million to 3 million).
That to me suggests that combining the old-school ethos of a franchise's core characteristics with more modern and more approachable gameplay is a more successful approach. DEUS EX: HUMAN REVOLUTION also did this very well (bossfights aside, and those have been fixed in the new edition that came out this week) by restoring some of the freedom and reactivity of the original DEUS EX in a modern and approachable gaming context.
THIEF 4, on the other hand, seems to have removed rather more from the core gameplay of the series than would be warranted. Introducing takedowns, a more intensive (or intrusive) storyline etc is fine, but not allowing jumping and use of rope arrows at will in a logical context seems highly limiting, and more down to creative problems than anything else.
In particular, it is partially the job of sequels and reboots to improve upon the original games and introduce more options, or reboot a convoluted mythology. THIEF 4 needs to answer why it is removing player agency and choice when that is the cornerstone of the franchise.
An amount of money a game earns (or the number of sales) doesn't determine whether a game is good.
No, but it does correlate strongly!
Just if it is very, very anticipated.
No, not just that. Sales are a function of more than simply anticipation.
Just look at any Call of Duty, Medal of Honor and Battlefield titles in the past 7 years.
Or what about these Battlefield titles?
They are the same with minor Graphics improvements in newer titles.
Except for the new maps, new play modes, new campaign, new weapons, new vehicles, new unlocks, new ranking systems, new perks, new scorestreaks, new soundtrack, etc.
And to be honest, if there wasn't a really good multiplayer component, they would be total failures.
You realize that the games you highlight above are primarily multiplayer titles, right? That's what they're designed for. You get that, right? You didn't miss that key piece of the equation, right?
It streamlined the game and made it more playable, sure. It also got reasonable reviews.
Metacritic scores that place it in the top 20 games of the last generation count as better than "reasonable", methinks.
(Super Mario Bros. had one action button; guess what it did?).
Two, actually. You can shoot fireballs (and speed up) too.
/pedant
Except for the new maps, new play modes, new campaign, new weapons, new vehicles, new unlocks, new ranking systems, new perks, new scorestreaks, new soundtrack, etc.
Waitwaitwait hold the phone. No.
This all sounds very nice but it's not nearly as extensive as this makes it sound. I can't speak fro Blops 2 because I haven't played it (and I hear this one tried a bit more than the previous) but I can speak for the Modern Warfares and Blops 1. Battlefield kinda ditto, I've only played two of 'em. But at the very least within the most recent iterations...
New Maps are nice. However, there is usually at least 2 or 3 (of the 10 or so the game starts with) that are rehashes of a previous game's maps. More to CoD's detriment than Battlefield's.
New game types? Rarely. I can't think of a single new gametype CoD has released in their previous 2 iterations, and one before that. Battlefield 3 had exactly ONE new gametype over Bad Company 2 at release.
New campaign? Has been pretty terrible the last few iterations. A lot of the reviews will likely back this one up ("Good multiplayer, single player was bad") besides those people who very obviously never played the story mode. Forgiveable because all of the focus is on the multiplayer portion.
New weapons? Ehhh...occasionally I guess. Battlefield 3 really had most of the same weapons from the last game unless you consider "Updated reskins of the same weapons" to be different weapons. And they took out the Carl Gustav. Instant bad points.
New vehicles? Only in Battlefield since CoD doesn't have vehicles. Jets were new. That's it.
New unlocks? As near as I could tell the unlocks in Modern Warfare 3 were completely identical to MW2's. Blops had some different ones, again being slightly ahead of the curve for the main(?) series. Battlefield 3 did not have many new unlocks. A Tactical Light and a laser target, and that's about it. Most of them were holdovers, again, from BC2.
New ranking systems? This is a tweak to a leaderboard. Please do not tell me that is a selling point.
New perks? CoD only here, from a MW3 perspective the perks were pretty much identical to 2 again. Except they nerfed Commando HARD.
Don't hear too much of a difference there besides a somewhat different tempo and some extra drums. The rest of the soundtrack I listened to was your generic "Orchestral Power Music" I always get deja vu hearing because I've heard it in movie credits and video games before.
Look, I likes me some Battlefield but I am under no impression that the games are in any significant way different from the previous iteration besides some extra polish. I can't stand CoD but that's less because of this fact and more because of the overwhelming lack of even an ATTEMPT to make a balanced game.
Waitwaitwait hold the phone. No.
This all sounds very nice but it's not nearly as extensive as this makes it sound.
I don't mean to make it sound extensive. It's an iterative upgrade. That's the point, and that's what people like.
But it's demonstrably more than "minor graphical upgrades". I'm tired of the ignorantly popular opinion that blockbuster shooters see no changes year-to-year. It's even worse when it's tied to an undeserved personal sense of elitism about gaming.
Fallout 3 is actually a perfect example of a game that refreshes a long-dormant franchise in a way that modernizes it and manages to be excellent in the process. It (and New Vegas) sold like hotcakes.
I know they did. And Fallout "3" was also a great game, so it deserved to sell well. And also, this thread isn't about Fallout, so I shall keep my thoughts to myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Metacritic scores that place it in the top 20 games of the last generation count as better than "reasonable", methinks.
Metacritic scores should be taken with a dash of salt, especially when you were actually arguing on the basis of sales.
NEW VEGAS outsold FALLOUT 3 and was certainly the better game; the review scores were slightly lower because, for reasons that remain satisfactorily unexplained, reviewers did not mention FALLOUT 3's significant bugs whilst they did mention NEW VEGAS's (and likewise, they would not mention SKYRIM's a year later). There is also irony here, as FO3 now doesn't work on Windows 7 or 8 (at least not for a lot of people, and not without faffing around), whilst NEW VEGAS works fine.
From a creative standpoint, NEW VEGAS was also certainly the better game, and better because it actually adopted so-called older, more 'hardcore' and old-fashioned styles of gameplay, such as having a much more reactive storyline which closed off entire quest lines if you annoyed the faction giving out the quest. So if it's a better game, and it sells better, whilst also being more 'old-fashioned', then that casts doubt on the idea that THIEF 4 will be good (or at least as good as the originals) when it is removing significant elements of the gameplay from THIEF 1-3, and also on the idea it is needed to make a game acceptable to a modern gaming audience.
The whole situation is more bizarre because HUMAN REVOLUTION (made by the same studio as THIEF 4, though not the same team) also stepped back from the more simplified choices of INVISIBLE WAR and institued some greater design choices and freedom harking back to the original DEUS EX. HR was of course a huge success.
tl;dr - I don't think that 'simplifying' or 'streamlining' a game for a modern audience is always necessary or always results in greater sales. FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS and DE:HR both seem to have benefitted from greater complexity, reactivity and freedom than their predecessors, so the argument that THIEF 4 needs to be dramatically simplified on the scale that Eidos have apparently carried out seems questionable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They take Thief, and amazing stealth game and TURN IT INTO THIS?
That stuff sounds exactly like the usual "appeal to a wider/modern audience"-dribble that ruined so many games lately. not only for the audience but also for the publisher.
They take a game that was marketed to fans of stealth games, because, you know, it was a stealth game and make being undetected unimportant, and limit the choices on how to complete a given level. Basically removing everything that makes stealth engaging in the first place.
All this will achieve is that no one will be interested in the game. Non-stealth game audiences will not buy it on the basis that it's supposed to be a stealth game, and stealth game audiences will not buy it on the basis that it fails at being a stealth game.
Really the only thing missing is that they port the franchise into a "realistic" modern military setting...
Metacritic scores that place it in the top 20 games of the last generation count as better than "reasonable", methinks.Metacritic scores should be taken with a dash of salt, especially when you were actually arguing on the basis of sales.
Metacritic? Ugh!
Metacritic is pretty much pointless, all it does is tell you what the average opinion of a game is, it doesn't tell you the opinion amongst the target audience.
Many games that should have scored a 80-90 for what they actually are get a much lower Metacritic score because of people that simply don't like that genre.
I can see why publishers love it so much, as it gives them an indication of the game's mainstream popularity. For many games though, they're never intended to be mainstream in the first place and a metacritic rating tells you nothing worth knowing.
As a customer, the thing that matters to me is the game itself, not how much the rest of the world liked (or hated) it.
Otherwise, it's like pointing out that an RPG rulebook isn't a New York Times bestseller.