Renault on 27/8/2013 at 00:44

---

He's saying "Not Satisfied At All" should be 0/10, not 4/10.

I'm guessing he's about a 6/10. I'm a 3/10 at this point.

Edit: Ninj'd by Queue, although I was much more concise (and less inflammatory).

SubJeff on 27/8/2013 at 00:53

---

On the money Brethren. I'm on 6/10.

I would be squarely on the fence at 5/10, pros being the art, the demo graphics/environments, the way DXHR turned out and cons being contextual movement and OTT design aspects.

It gets an extra 1 because some of the screens and videos look really good and because based on DXHR it might not be a disaster.

Dia on 27/8/2013 at 01:09

---

.05/10 only because the graphics look nice.


Btw Q, I believe Duckeh has a cure for what ails you. ;)


:ebil:

Baldur on 27/8/2013 at 06:25

---

Not satisfied with the manner developers have addressed the game and certain design decisions, so yeah it should be 0/10.
But, 0/10 erodes hope and support since there are some good aspects as well. My expectation is that, over time developers can still get to a point where we can have an opportunity to play another great thief game with little flaws as possible.
So, 4/10 :thumb:

Azathoth on 9/9/2013 at 22:28

---

So...long time lurker here. Quite long time, actually, so I'd just like to toss in my two cents.

No matter what anyone says I can't get this to not look like a darker version on Assassins Creed in my head. Its definitely trying to cash in on the neo-stealth movement that's been going on. That's a bit of a blanket statement so let me try to explain.

The way I see it the original Thief games (I, II and Gold) were completely built around visibility and sound or, what thieves actually gives a shit about. Essays have probably been cumulatively written on the way light and sound affect the Thief experience so I'll skip that.

The Original Games (lo those that stand unto them in the mockery of imitation shall be cast out through the veils of pain and fire) had an impressive audio-visual system paired with relatively simplistic controls utilized in an environment with top-notch level design which was well aware that it was taking place in a fantasy universe.

The way the audio-visual mechanics and the control scheme were paired was just perfect. The player had complete control over Garrett and what he did and it was not overly complicated to do so. It was understood that to accomplish what Thief was trying to do would require a certain range of controls. As will seen to be a running theme, third-person prevents this.

Now on top of this you had top-notch level design which is actually the key here. You may not have been able to explore every inch of the map but it looked completely reasonable that those areas could not be reached by a mere mortal in any event. Crate stacking aside.

A level in the original games was a self-contained system that the player was dropped into. Everything that happened in the level, aside from a few subtle scripted sequences and altered AI states, was at the whim of the player and his actions. The player was not forced to do anything. This all might be a long way to say that the games rewarded exploration while at the same time not punishing caution but it is a central tenet to the series which I feel is being broached in this installment. It could be expressed as Your actions have consequences versus Consequences regardless of your actions.

There was (and probably is) a debate about the pros and cons of third-person. Third person complicates the original formula of Thief to such a way that it is broken. The player cannot interact fluidly with the environment so freedom is curtailed. I mean this in the sense that if the way a player moves around the level looks 'hokey' or 'impossible' in third person then you either redesign the level, which is easy, or redesign the third person models movement system which means retooling every animation, physics model, etc., which is difficult and expensive. If the player model is a floating box with a dumb smiley face on it who cares if it clips through the level while mantling. If the player can only be seen through scouting orbs as an immobile...

Oh yea, Thief II had third person. But in what manner is third-person even remotely stealth? No real "stealth" character would ever be able to see himself from the outside and if he could he wouldn't be able to move precisely while doing so. Scouting orbs were an ingenious solution. But I digress.

The original Thief games did not try to furnish a realistic stealth experience. What they did provide heads and shoulders above any game that I could possibly name was an entertaining stealth experience that was completely immersive. And it accomplished this by eschewing anything that violated its core dynamics such as third person, unnecessary scripted events, and a willingness to sacrifice realism for entertainment.

I see the original Thief games like the first Stratocaster; pretty much perfect from the outset and only improving with age. This new game...I'm sick at what they're doing. It should not be that hard to recreate Thief with current technology, in fact it should be easier than ever. In trying to do that you would inevitably improve upon it in a positive manner. Not piss all over it with some kind of cash-in stealth title riding on the laurels of a legacy.

EDIT: I have plenty to say on the tone of the environment in the original games but I'll save that for some other time.