Azaran on 9/1/2014 at 15:32
Quote Posted by Splashcups
No wonder they haven't released the actor's name haha.
They did, it's Romano Orzari
Tomi on 9/1/2014 at 15:56
Quote Posted by Splashcups
I've never played Assassin's Creed either, 'cause it just looks like a hyped up piece of s*%t.
Hmm. Just because it's a hyped up "mainstream" game and a lot of people like it doesn't mean that it's a bad game. Don't believe the elitists who probably haven't even played the game and hate it only because they think that it's "dumbed down for the masses and stupid console kiddies". Why don't you give it a go and decide for yourself? I found the second and third games in the series (AC2 and AC:Brotherhood) to be very enjoyable, even if (or because?) they can be very "gamey" and repetitive at times. I can't guarantee that you'll like them, these games do have their flaws, and I haven't played any of the newest games in the series so I don't know what they're like. But who knows, you might be positively surprised, like I was. :)
Quote:
i'd much rather they'd try implementing the type of free running presented in Mirror's Edge than this.
I can totally agree with this! The free running in Mirror's Edge worked really well and smoothly, and it proved that games don't need any of that 3rd person stuff to make the action bits look awesome.
Quote:
Surprisingly, because its not a combat orientated game, thw original Thiefs had the best melee combat system with a sword until Dark Messiah.came along.
I've always thought that the melee combat system in the original Thief games had the
potential to be the most awesome thing ever, but they kinda messed it up. Who needs the block button when you can just run circles around your enemy and poke them with a stick until they die? I don't find the sword fights in Thief particularly challenging or fun, which is a shame, because with some minor tweaks I feel that it really could have been something great.
Platinumoxicity on 9/1/2014 at 20:26
Quote Posted by Tomi
Hmm. Just because it's a hyped up "mainstream" game and a lot of people like it doesn't mean that it's a bad game. Don't believe the elitists who probably haven't even played the game and hate it only because they think that it's "dumbed down for the masses and stupid console kiddies". Why don't you give it a go and decide for yourself? I found the second and third games in the series (AC2 and AC:Brotherhood) to be very enjoyable, even if (or because?) they can be very "gamey" and repetitive at times. I can't guarantee that you'll like them, these games do have their flaws, and I haven't played any of the newest games in the series so I don't know what they're like. But who knows, you might be positively surprised, like I was. :)
I hate Assassin's Creed because its the opposite of Thief, and I love Thief. Everything that is directly under the player's control in Thief, is automated and/or totally unpredictable in AC. Thief is completely based around the immersion of being the character, and AC is trying to accomplish so-called immersion by focusing entirely on animations. (Just like Thief 4) Also, Thief is full of different choices, and AC has nothing of the sort. AC is also very gamey and repetitive as you said. AC2 fixed some of the issues that AC1 had, but unfortunately the PC version is not a PC game. The hard-coded mouse acceleration is so bad that there might as well not be mouse control at all. You can spin Ezio around 360° by just moving your mouse an inch, it just depends on how fast you do it, and it's impossible to adjust to. It's almost like they tried to replicate the unintuitivity of analog stick aiming, on a superior control platform, and actually surpassed their expectations. At least Ubisoft confirmed that "feature's" existence half a year before the release of AC3 so I could pass on that game completely. "We're going to release a version on your platform that we're intentionally designing to not function properly on that platform, and we're going to charge 50€ for it." Yeah, no thanks.
Quote Posted by Tomi
I've always thought that the melee combat system in the original Thief games had the
potential to be the most awesome thing ever, but they kinda messed it up. Who needs the block button when you can just run circles around your enemy and poke them with a stick until they die? I don't find the sword fights in Thief particularly challenging or fun, which is a shame, because with some minor tweaks I feel that it really could have been something great.
The sword combat in Thief is broken because the blocking is infinitely harder than just dodgin the enemy's attacks, and running around them and stunning them with overhead swings is way too easy. Instead of there being a stun when you block an attack, the enemy can instantly swing again without any effort as soon as your blades connect, and it also breaks your block. I also think that there should have been a stabbing attack, like for example when you double klick.
Blastfrog on 9/1/2014 at 23:09
Wasn't part of the reason they went with stealth is because they weren't satisfied with their sword combat mechanics?
Splashcups on 10/1/2014 at 08:07
Well, I have played a few hours of AC1, but I don't feel thats enough to really say I've played it. If I had only played half of Dark Project I couldn't say too much about Thief. But, I just wasn't impressed. I was told to try AC2, though I just have no interest, except for maybe the new pirate one, as it seems it might be interesting in skyrim/farcry 3 exploration kind of way.
The melee fights in Thief absolutely had the potential to be great, though the real purpose of carrying the sword was for those moments when you did end up face to face with a guard you could defend youself, 'cause unless you're playing on normal, you're not gonna kill anyone (except beasts and undead). And seriously, who plays Thief on normal. Same purpose as a shield, but you're not gonna just bring a shield with you.
If the combat system did really work better however, there would be alot of great arena style fan missions. Those Hammerite zombies were f*#king intense. So, the idea of the sword wasn't to kill, but to allow a moment to get a away if you had no flashbombs left. It needed some tweaking for it to work alot better, and maybe in the worst case scenario an option to simply injure the enemy, like a swing to the leg which would prevent them from being able to do much but fall to the ground and call for help.
Splashcups on 10/1/2014 at 09:04
The only thing that I still can't seem to find an answer for is: why is it a reboot? No one seems to be able to explain the reason for this anywhere. Its not a full re-imagining anyway. The art style mostly fits the originals, the city fits (even though its too heavily concerned with social class and nobility at the centre of the plot), some characters fit (still playing Garrett, the child at the end of Deadly Shadows fits as his protoge, and Basso), the eye fits (just that its a silly focus cheat device) etc. The only thing I can think is if people weren't happy with it, we can atleast be happy with the fact that it doesn't exist in the same universe as the originals. I wonder what his backstory in this one, because Garrett is not a Thief without the keepers.
Esme on 11/1/2014 at 01:08
Reboots are the flavour of the year, reboots mean you can ignore whatever you like from canon and skip any bits of the story you don't like.
You don't need to be terribly innovative as if you do get stuck for inspiration you can always use part of the original story and tell the fans it's a mark of respect rather than a moneymaking exercise.
Plus there's an established fanbase who, with a bit of luck, constiitute a guaranteed set of sales.
Plus it's been a long time since the originals were released, if they continue the story then there will be people who cannot run the originals and will miss out on the background to the continuation, so starting again makes sense from that perspective.
june gloom on 11/1/2014 at 01:22
If they were true fans they would've played the games when they came out.
Azaran on 11/1/2014 at 02:34
Quote Posted by Splashcups
The only thing that I still can't seem to find an answer for is: why is it a reboot? No one seems to be able to explain the reason for this anywhere. Its not a full re-imagining anyway. The art style mostly fits the originals, the city fits (even though its too heavily concerned with social class and nobility at the centre of the plot), some characters fit (still playing Garrett, the child at the end of Deadly Shadows fits as his protoge, and Basso), the eye fits (just that its a silly focus cheat device) etc. The only thing I can think is if people weren't happy with it, we can atleast be happy with the fact that it doesn't exist in the same universe as the originals. I wonder what his backstory in this one, because Garrett is not a Thief without the keepers.
Yeah, with enough imagination they could have easily continued the story after Thief 3.
Quote Posted by dethtoll
If they were true fans they would've played the games when they came out.
[video=youtube;obKLdou0LH0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obKLdou0LH0[/video]
Starker on 11/1/2014 at 08:04
Quote Posted by Azaran
Yeah, with enough imagination they could have easily continued the story after Thief 3.
I don't think it would be that easy. Aside from his character arc having been closed off, by the end of TDS Garrett went from being a master thief to being
the master thief, from being somewhat known in the criminal world to being the talk of the town. Not to mention that he's the ultimate uberkeeper now. I feel there would be too much of a risk of this turning into "yet another installment of Garrett and friends".
