MoroseTroll on 23/10/2013 at 05:48
Quote Posted by GodzillaX8
I was primarily referring to animated TV shows in that instance, but if you want a different example, how about Spartacus? They've repeatedly recast the lead in that show.
I think it's a bit different - "Spartacus" is a Peplum genre, where the main attractive part of the movie is not its hero(s) but epoch, costumes, and decorations. On the contrary, "House M.D." and "Breaking Bad" are focused on its main heroes, not epoch, costumes, and decorations.
Also, I'd like to notice about Thief 1&2&3: for its fans, these three games are just big movies released between the 1000-episode (FMs) saga that has begun 15 years ago and still continues. Now please imagine the feelings of a Thief fan, when in the fourth big movie, and after the 1000 episodes, the main hero's actor has been changed...:ebil:
jtbalogh on 23/10/2013 at 06:39
Quote Posted by GodzillaX8
I really enjoy T2X, Thievery, and TDM, but I don't really consider them to be any kind of evolution of the genre. They don't change the way the game is played in any significant way. That's why I'm excited to play a new game that takes a different approach to the series while keeping a lot of familiar elements.
They are evolution but slower. Evolution is safer when a slow and gradual process of mutating some features and graphics, and not changing every feature at the same time from one version to the next. Evolution slowly tunes features that work over the centuries, and deliberately reinforces their existence in more complex games - hence threads reminding EM of what those are.
The demand for faster significant changes require larger mutations and can either (a) accelerate evolution, or (b) risk killing the organism. Mutations are caused by errors in copying the DNA - of thief. The different approach for Thief 4 is a large mutation and may fade into obscurity under the weight.
jay pettitt on 23/10/2013 at 13:14
I don't think it's directly comparable with natural selection like that. Genetic mutations, big and small, happen all the time in vast quantities over eons. So there's always lots for nature to pick and choose from.
For a video game like Thief, which is one franchise amongst a genre with maybe less than 10 notable franchises in it... Maybe you have to be a bit brave. Maybe if Looking Glass hadn't been brave we wouldn't have had Thief at all.
I've maybe been giving Godzilla a bit of a hard time - but he's got a fair point behind the hubris - or at least a point that I agree with, so it's fair in my book: Change can be good. Not always of course, changes can be good, bad or neutral - so it's fair game to argue and discuss 'till the cows come home. But for me at least, there's not much I'd consider out of bounds. Just as long was the net result is fantastic - that's the standard T4 has to meet.
I guess where I deviate from Godzilla, is that I don't think it's realistic to demand folk explain what might often be a gut reaction when you've set your own self up as judge, jury and executioner. Sometimes folk will have a hard time explaining what might actually be a very good point. Sometimes you might not be very good at judging points of view that clash with your own.
Equally though, I'm sure lots of opinions opined by me and others amount to me and others being a bit precious. But pfft. It's the Internet. Worse happens at sea.
---
TLDR version: We're all fallible. Get over it.
MoroseTroll on 23/10/2013 at 15:22
Starker: Yeah! What the doctor orders:thumb:! I hope T4 Team will watch this video.
Shinrazero on 23/10/2013 at 17:23
@Starker, that video hit the nail on the head.
jay pettitt on 23/10/2013 at 19:23
Oh. I thought the vid missed. Not really knowing whether to strike on the side of 'innovation is bad' or 'I'm not saying innovation is bad'.
Neither am I very sure that can compare something out of left-field like Mirror's Edge* vs endlessly prating about with minor systems in JRPGs as some kind of equivalent.
Without innovation, we'd all be playing the same old same old over and over. No Tetris. No Doom. No Thief. We'd all be playing Pong. Except there wouldn't even be Pong.
Heck, that Jim had to sell it as 'his opinion' kinda guarantees that it's lazy and stupid and not worth publishing.
*I quite enjoyed Mirror's Edge as it happened. And I appreciate the role it played in helping reinstate 1st person as a perspective you could have in a video game.
FatSpy on 23/10/2013 at 19:57
Even if they saw that video and truely believe that it was true it still wouldn't change anything because like that video says "Innovation gets a free pass."
Starker on 23/10/2013 at 20:45
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Oh. I thought the vid missed. Not really knowing whether to strike on the side of 'innovation is bad' or 'I'm not saying innovation is bad'.
I thought the message was quite clear: innovation for just the sake of innovation is bad and not all games have to innovate. Sometimes taking what works and polishing it up can be a better choice for a game.
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Neither am I very sure that can compare something out of left-field like Mirror's Edge* vs endlessly prating about with minor systems in JRPGs as some kind of equivalent.
He is not comparing Mirror's Edge to JRPGs. He is using Mirror's Edge as an example of how innovation is regarded more important than making a good game. He is critical of the idea that people should like it because it's new and fresh. He uses JRPGs to make the same point.
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Without innovation, we'd all be playing the same old same old over and over. No Tetris. No Doom. No Thief. We'd all be playing Pong. Except there wouldn't even be Pong.
So when there's a gameplay formula that's really enjoyable you should change it? Because innovation is all that matters?
jay pettitt on 23/10/2013 at 21:45
Quote:
innovation for just the sake of innovation is bad
It is?
Do you really think Mirror's Edge innovated for the sake of innovation? Do you really think that Dice employees sat about the office flipping a coin trying to decide between making a good game or an innovative game. As if those two things are exclusive. As if formulaic games can't suck. Or innovative games can't be good.
Or that, over the long run, we don't benefit from innovation.
Quote:
Because innovation is all that matters?
Remind me when anyone's actually said that.
