Esme on 26/6/2013 at 20:25

---

In order for it to be thrilling there should be the possibility of failure, EM seem to be designing that possibility out

If there's no risk of losing what's the point in playing ?

EM could with a bit of work improve the sword fighting system, you'd still have to learn how to block, parry and attack but you wouldn't need QTE or focus, you'd still be able to lose.

Chade on 26/6/2013 at 21:35

---

For the rest of this post, I'm taking Stephanie's quote here in good faith and assuming it's an accurate depiction of the game. Never mind he keeps changing his description in every single interview ...

I think everyone in this thread, both "yea" and "nay" camps, are thinking about combat in entirely the wrong way. EM, on the other hand, may be thinking about combat the right way.

Before rushing in to describe how combat should work, you first need to describe what it should accomplish. What should combat do for a game about sneaking?

Well,

* Thief is a game about sneaking, and
* combat is the fail state.


Therefore,

* combat should return players to the sneaking game asap,
* on easier difficulty levels, the remaining stealth game should not be made even harder,
* players should not be rewarded for entering combat,
* on harder difficulty levels, players can be punished for failing to sneak.


Looking at these goals, combat in the older games sucks! Not because the mechanics are a clumsy exploitable mess (although that's true too and is another problem), but because combat in the old thief games completely screws up goals 1, 2, and 3:

* eliminates guards from a portion of the level, eliminating stealth in that section,
* whatever nearby guards are not eliminated are now harder to sneak past, and
* is extremely rewarding (and yes, punishing too, I'll get to that).


Combat in the earlier games completely screws up the goals of a stealth game. That's the only reason it has to be so punishing. Imagine if combat was not a completely viable way of progressing through thief, imagine it did not destroy stealth in whatever section of the level it occurred. The game could then afford to be gentler on players who screw stealth up, knowing that they'll just have to come back and sneak again until they get it right.

So how do you design combat in a thief game so that it actually works towards the goals of the game? Make the end-goal of combat all about escape. If the end result of combat is that the player runs back the way he came and the guards are still alive, then

* stealth gameplay has not been compromised, the player still has to come back and sneak through this section, or perhaps choose another route,
* whether or not stealth becomes harder after combat is entirely up to the way they tune their AI, they can do different things on easy and hard,
* the player has not progressed through the level as a result of failing to sneak, and has not been rewarded in any way, and
* you can still make the player likely to sustain as much damage as you want on harder difficulty levels.


And seeing as the player is not making any progress through the level as a result of entering combat, it's even ok to make it a little bit fun!

This is what EM have said they're doing on several occasions, and every time I hear it, I get a little more hope that they know what they're doing. Of course, Stephanie has also said other things in other interviews, so who knows what they're really aiming for? Certainly not me.

Finally, does any of this correspond to what we saw in the E3 gameplay video? Well, sort of. The blackjack attacks seem to do more to repel the guards then damage them, which is a positive sign. On the other hand, the E3 player used the opportunity to headshot the guards rather then run away, which is less positive. On the other other hand, it would have been very hard to repeat that move without focus, which is positive again. On the final hand, we've had reports that it's possible to strafe around wildly and win combat in the same way as earlier games. There are lots of good and bad signs out there.

Chade on 26/6/2013 at 22:54

---

They're not what you normally think of as QTEs, though, are they?

Lady Rowena on 30/6/2013 at 12:01

---

I played Fallout 3, and I only used VATS to see how it works and never used it again. I think it heavily breaks immersion, since it's not you the one who kill the enemies, but the game.
You can imagine how welcome would be a similar system in Thief, at least for me. :nono:

Chade on 30/6/2013 at 13:21

---

All I saw in the E3 gameplay demo was time slowing down, and three points being highlighted on each guard. The player hit those points with the blackjack, but he appeared to have to manually aim and carry out the attack himself. Of course this was quite easy with time slowed down. It wasn't clear what the points did for the player. Perhaps Garrett dealt extra damage (but it can't be too much extra because he still didn't kill the guards), or perhaps the guards were knocked back further, or something else. It also wasn't clear whether you could hit those same points without focus.