qolelis on 12/8/2007 at 19:10

---

What I oppose the most is for some greedy money-making suit trying to milk the concept. Fans working together is something completely different, but still, the story feels as if it is at its end. What is left to tell that could fill a whole sequel? The story would have to be really mind-blowing in order to break out of the (inevitable?) loop, and if it did, would it still be Thief?

Zillameth on 12/8/2007 at 22:22

---

I'd like to object to the notion of "milking the concept". To make money is the main objective of every company. Even if someone is only interested in their art or craft, they need to make at least enough money to retain the ability to perform their activity of choice. Computer games are quite sensitive in this regard, because currently they need to make more money than any of us is going to earn in a lifetime. They are "bigger than us".

Both TDP and TMA were created, because someone thought it would be a good business opportunity. These decissions were made by "greedy suits", too. This is the part we actually shouldn't get rid of, because that's where the passion meets the reason. One needs them both, if one chooses to stay alive and achieve something at the same time. We need those guys so that they don't let us fly too far away.

The problem is not with suits who make greedy decisions. The problem is with people who make decisions they're not suited for. Unfortunately, "greedy suits" are not the only ones.

(By the way, they're actually hurting their business. If they did that greedy stuff of theirs properly, they wouldn't make some of the most outrageous decisions.)

Game developers (and gamers) are so often miserable, because game design is commonly seen as a privilege, whereas it's a responsibility. It's a job. It requires an uncommon combination of certain skills and talents one doesn't meet every day. But it's also what many perceive as positon of power. You get to decide, what the game is going to look like! You're going to call yourself an author! You're going to leave your mark on the game! It's going to be your game! You're going to do the important stuff!

(By the way, this is a misconception. Game desing is largely a group effort. One of crucial designer abilities is to give up all that "power", when someone else has got a better idea.)

"Greedy suits" are used to acting from position of power. They have the money. They pay your bills. That makes them think they're important. This, in turn, sometimes makes them think the privilege of game design is rightfully theirs. They shouldn't even touch it, because they don't know how, but they try nonetheless.

And they're not the only guilty of the sin. Game studios, especially small ones, have the same problem with their founders. The founder is usually the "top" person in a company - the most important one. So they want the "top job", too, which is, of course, game design.

The problem is, all the companies I've known personally were started by programmers. Sometimes graphic artists are also involved, but not a single level designer. Maybe that's just the local flavour, but I have reasons to suspect otherwise.

Statistically, programmers are just as poor game designers as businessmen. They focus on objects, methods and somesuch, which is great, because it makes them great programmers. But it also makes it difficult for them to get the whole picture. Some important decisions are just minor details to them. For instance, from a programmer's standpoint, it's not important what kind of decision tree a (simple) AI uses. It's only important if transition between tree's decision nodes is performed correctly and efficiently.

But they try and do game design anyway, because they believe they deserve the privilege. They just don't realise what this "privilege" is about. Neither do the suits.

Amateur teams fail at this point, too. Usually they refuse to dwell too much on questions of self-importance and hierarchy, and that's very commendable of them. But the conclusion they get in the process is that everyone is going to be the author. Everybody is important! Not only everyone can be a game designer. Everyone can be the game designer: all team members participate in a "collective mind" of sorts.

They aren't completely wrong, because, as I said, game design is a group effort. But someone has to keep things together. Somebody has to have the last word. Somebody has to make a decision when the team cannot agree over a detail. All the decisions need to be made in a consistent manner. When one decision is made, someone needs to keep track of all the others and how they influence each other. Everyone can have ideas, but there can only be one vision. Someone has to guard the vision, and it cannot be the project starter, it cannot be the most charismatic team member, it has to be a competent person (of course, if that person is also the project starter and the most charismatic member of the team, it makes things so much easier).

Let's reiterate: game design it's not really a matter of who's "important". But fans don't recognise the fact, because game design is oh - so - glamorous. It's something everybody wants, because it's something one can dream about.

So, you see, a devoted fan is no better than a devoted programmer, who in turn is no better than a devoted businessman (they are all devoted, it's just a matter of what they're devoted to).

People just don't get it. Sadly, it's not their fault, it's just the way human mind works. Game design is not what human mind perceives as a "real" job. Concept artists have a real job, because at the end of their work they can show you a neat piece of concept art. Programmers have a real job, too, because when they finish their work, they can start the program and show this new shader or AI behaviour ("look, the dots are moving!"). Game designers perform a "meta-job", because they take the concept art someone else has drawn, the source code someone else has written, and so on, an make them all work together. At the end of their work day they can only tell you about this wonderful abstract idea they've had, and you can't know whether whey are right until everybody else finishes their work and puts everything together.

It doesn't mean people cannot recognise a designer when they see one. It also doesn't mean they don't respect designer's job (although this happens, and happens very often, at least in my part of town). The real problem is that the idea of design doesn't occur to them at all, even when they make actual design decisions. They take on the role of a designer, and they don't even realise that.

jtr7 on 12/8/2007 at 23:28

---

Teams have tried to fix TDS and some good stuff's come from those projects, but anybody and everybody who's done something to reach that goal has found themselves in over their head and/or without the time, energy, patience, or resources to do it.

sparhawk on 13/8/2007 at 07:44

---

You are right that a company needs to make money. But creating art is not about making money. Any good art was done with a passion for it, and not with money in mind. If you make art while havibng the money in mind, you create what we see now constantly as mainstream. Somtimes it might coincide and even become art, but usually you create art because of a vision and a passion, which is not about money.



So what? Michelangelo had the same problems. Getting marble with enough quality and big enough for sculptures were also quite expensive. Artists always had to find rich sponsors to do what they need to do. Some arts are more expensive in production than others, so artist have to find a way around this.



They were funded for this reason, but the game itself was made because of a passion for making good games.



You are completely wrong on this. :)




Again this is wrong. You make a game because you have a vision. People who start to make games, because they want to be in the "top-position" usually fail, because this is quite a large undertaking, and if you don't have the passion your motivation will inevitable fail. It's already hard enough even if you do have it.





You sound as if these traits were mutualy exclusive.

cyclops1101 on 13/8/2007 at 09:52

---

That does read like a great idea but I remain skeptical of its success. Thief 2x Shadows of the metal age (although I am currently only on the third level((Thanks Thief circle and the dark engineering guild)) is a fantastic continuation of the Thief Universe and I think for Fans this would be the way to go i.e not creating a sequel to Thief DS but working towards bringing new stories and creations to an already popular and fantastical creation of Garretts (and Zaya's) world. Where else in time could noble thiefs make a difference?
I am all still for a Thief 4 but I believe that process would call for developers like EIDOS to do the proper research and tests in order to be successfull! Who else would be able to hire Stephen Russell, without him would Garrett really be Garrett?

So in closing I really do enjoy the idea of there being a development team on these forums, that could bring new life to the Dark world (Anybody know whats happend to cosas, Ive been on there site but it has not been updated for about a year or so?)

What do you all think, am I just being a Taffer or what? :wot:

p.s If a Thief 4 does arise (this isnt a suggestion, just consider it mumbling if you so like) A new twist on the Bretherin and Betrayer prophecy sounds cool to me - Garretts first and only Disciple to the new keeper order(like a Thieves guild) plots of Garretts downfall and to rule the newly established Keeper guild, without Garrett. Can he, will he care. Would Garrett hand over the keys freely?
Yeah just a couple of mumbles? :bored: