jtbalogh on 3/11/2013 at 06:12
Seems some people are satisfied that nextgen is a high level design with the contextual buttons that you press to get one animation. Like somehow a feature is automatically more evolved and advanced. Well, enjoy NuPeak from a corner at the same leaning distance and location every time. /yawn
Nextgen after 14 years should present us with a high level design with contextual zombie hand animations instead of the buttons. Being close to an edge is when zombie hands appear to hold the edge and even stretch a bit if farther. Otherwise you are not at an edge and the hands stay down. Interacting with the game world is more believable than EM's excuse for slotting you into a groove of the world. EM does not get a free pass when showing off and not smart enough to do it right.
Pertains to leaning, opening doors, looting, etc.
yxlplig on 30/11/2013 at 07:44
I realize this is kind of an old thread, but I forgot about it, and I think there is more to discuss.
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Regarding limitations, This has already been discussed a few posts above yours (and thanks to Chade a few posts below too) but we're limited by the number or buttons you've got and a gamepad, how many fingers you have and sensibilities about trying to provide intuitive, ergonomic, memorable controls. You're
always going to have to accept compromises there.
Again, I have to call shenanigans on this point. Look, I've mapped every action from Thief 2 onto a PS4 pad. I took the liberty of adding radial menus since those are a given these days, and I lifted the lean mechanic from Escape from Butcher Bay, because I think it's a good system for controller users and it saves a lot of buttons. Let me know if I forgot something because there are plenty of leftover buttons.
Inline Image:
http://i.imgur.com/cSAGgrB.pngjay pettitt on 30/11/2013 at 11:23
Coo that's a blast from the past.
But, that's not what I was saying at all. Try mapping every conceivable action a fictional human may make on to the controller.
Plainly you can't. Plainly compromise is both necessary and acceptable. Plainly the T2 scheme is a compromise. And given that we generally get on with games quite well and seem to enjoy them... compromise seems to work okay and we have little trouble adapting to them.
What you need to argue is that the T4 compromise is a bad one. Not that's it's different.
SubJeff on 30/11/2013 at 12:11
Seems to me that there are unassigned buttons on that scheme.
I disagree jay, I think you can map it all.
Give us an example of an action that a human might make that you can't map.
jay pettitt on 30/11/2013 at 12:42
I've got a better idea.
If you think you can map it all, go ahead. You map every conceivable human action onto a PS4 controller and then explain to the class why it's gonna be just awesome to play this way.
Only I think that it's an a-priori that it's neither practical or desirable. I think it's something so universally obvious that any thinking person can confidently see that it's true just by lying on their couch. But I'm always open to evidence to the contrary.
yxlplig on 30/11/2013 at 17:57
All I'm trying to say is there is nothing stopping Thief 4 from playing similarly to Thief 2. I would be a lot less resentful of this game if positioning Garrett was more player controlled. The "compromises" in Thief 4 are bad because it shifts the burden of positioning yourself correctly more on the character's skill than the player's skill. Having all leaning/hiding behind objects handled by a context sensitive button requires less player input. In a game that is largely about standing in the correct place and waiting, there should be more opportunities to make mistakes in that area of gameplay. If it is trivialized by one button press causing Garrett to automatically do the right thing for the given situation, the challenge is softened and the game is made less appealing to many fans of the originals.
Your counter to these arguments is that the changes are acceptable because a QWOP level of micro-managing Garrett's movement would be an unplayable mess. I agree, but nobody is asking for anything like that, you are sidestepping the issue. Jay, I think you need to explain why it's acceptable to have a movement system that is so overly simplified when there is no physical limitation of the input devices being used. This discussion of how much human movement can be mapped to a controller is not relevant at this time. Also the notion that because Thief 2's (or any game's) control scheme is a compromise, that we should be completely uncritical of whatever compromise Thief 4 uses is not compelling reasoning. It's a fallacious premise.
Mofleaker on 1/12/2013 at 04:53
I actually play fan missions with a PS3 controller! I say if it's a stealth game, it HAS to be played with a controller. I find myself constantly running full speed whenever I have a keyboard at my fingertips, probably because I'm so accustomed to playing fast-paced FPS on them back in "the day". Both controls have their issues and their merits:
Keyboard + Mouse:
* Tons of keys to work with, easy to hit any button to quickly navigate inventories, menus, ect.
* Superior pinpoint accuracy with the mouse. This is less critical in thief, where you have the luxury of time to line up your shots.
* Less comfortable, perched over the desk.
Controller:
* Lack of buttons means some creativity is required when binding them to Thief's moderately complex control scheme.
* The lack of buttons means I have to leave out some of the less useful commands, such as zoom and quicksave.
* Analog movement!!! This is probably the only reason I actually use a controller. Being able to move at full 360 rotation at any speed is extremely intuitive when you're sneaking about.
* Combat is a nightmare. Lucky we aren't talking about an action game!
Here's my controller layout:
Inline Image:
http://i.imgur.com/1lUJXQcl.jpgTo those who say mouse and keyboard is superior, I agree with you for the most part. The only upside, really, is the ease of use and the analog movement. BUT, in a stealth game like Thief where you actually benefit from moving slowly, you don't need the instant precision of the mouse and keyboard. You need something that lets you sit back and immerse yourself. Radial menus and all that crud don't concern me in the least, seeing as I'm probably doing a botch job if I'm being forced to make split second decisions anyways.
Even with the focus on controllers, THIAF is absolutely capable of playing just like the originals...but hell if I trust EM to manage that at this point in time.
EDIT: Here's a video of me playing Cragscleft with a PS3 controller! To show that it is perfectly viable.
[video=youtube;lHZamFqTzLc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHZamFqTzLc[/video]
jay pettitt on 1/12/2013 at 16:15
Quote Posted by yxlplig
Your counter to these arguments is that the changes are acceptable because a QWOP level of micro-managing Garrett's movement would be an unplayable mess.
Err, no. My counter to your argument is that you have no argument.
I completely agree with you though that there's nothing material at all from preventing Eidos Montreal from implementing Thief 2 style controls in a new game if that's what they wanted to do. Which they don't. So let's put that aside. We agree on it, but it's not relevant. It doesn't tell us anything about whether T4's controls might be good or bad.
You can't just argue that T4's controls are over simplified or that they don't let you do certain things because, and this is the point I've been making, you can say very similar things about every video game control scheme ever - including the one from T2 that you're commending. The detail might be different here and there, but fundamentally every control scheme is simplified and arbitrarily restricts the actions available to you. That's the nature of them.
So the question is, what is it about the detail of T4's controls that you think are going to actually ruin you day?
So far we've heard that contextual controls are bad because of civil liberties - (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142536&p=2218625&viewfull=1#post2218625) an argument that I hope I've shown is silly. But when it comes to brass tacks, the material complaints are minor. Stuff like 'I might no be able to attract a guard by jumping up and down' which might be true, but if the game supports other ways to solve problems, it's not a biggy. It's not actually stuff to write home about - even if the fora here and there are absolutely full of it.
And no, I don't buy it you when you say that leaning in T2 required player skill where as in T4 it doesn't. I think you just made that up.
I'm sure there will be issues with T4. I'm sure it will get plenty of stuff wrong. Probably it'll get some of the balancing of player vs fail states wrong. I'm sure some stuff will be too easy, or too risk free to be interesting. I'm sure there are places where the game won't engage with player skill. And The level designs might well be too restrictive. But these are balancing and other issues, not problems with contextual control schemes per se.
tldr version: I think you've got a big downer on T4, and everything you read or see is being filtered through gloom tinted spectacles. And (pretty graphics aside) it doesn't look great, so I sympathise. But I reckon contextual controls might end up being to T4 what cover based stealth was to DX:HR. Everybody screamed that it was blasphemy, but it ended up working quite well.
Err, and granted - it's hard for you to pin down exactly what might be wrong with T4s controls, given that it's not out yet.
yxlplig on 1/12/2013 at 23:55
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
You can't just argue that T4's controls are over simplified or that they don't let you do certain things because, and this is the point I've been making, you can say very similar things about every video game control scheme ever - including the one from T2 that you're commending. The detail might be different here and there, but fundamentally every control scheme is simplified and arbitrarily restricts the actions available to you. That's the nature of them.
Just because all games have controls that are simplified representations of actual movements doesn't mean any one game cannot justifiably be criticized for the controls it uses. You've made some good points but this is an absurd assertion to make.
Quote:
So the question is, what is it about the detail of T4's controls that you think are going to actually ruin you day?
... But when it comes to brass tacks, the material complaints are minor. Stuff like 'I might no be able to attract a guard by jumping up and down' which might be true, but if the game supports other ways to solve problems, it's not a biggy. It's not actually stuff to write home about - even if the fora here and there are absolutely full of it.
I must not have been paying attention when people were making civil liberties arguments, but I'll agree with you that that is silly. I just think sequels should cater to the personal taste of the people that enjoyed the previous entries. Obviously that tends not to happen these days, especially when it comes to publishers resurrecting their old IPs. And getting the minors details right as well as the major details right is usually the difference between a game I play once and a game I play once a year.
Quote:
And no, I don't buy it you when you say that leaning in T2 required player skill where as in T4 it doesn't. I think you just made that up.
...
But I reckon contextual controls might end up being to T4 what cover based stealth was to DX:HR. Everybody screamed that it was blasphemy, but it ended up working quite well.
It's more the degree of player input required. Leaning in Thief 2 involved positioning yourself behind a wall or object. AI only needed line of sight and a certain level of visibility to spot you so you had to be completely obscured. You had to be close enough to the edge for the lean to be effective. Compared to a cover hotspot that manages all those adjustments for you, the former invariably has more opportunities for mistakes. If you look at videogames as Stuff-Happening-Visualizers it might not seem like a big deal, but to me the latter is less satisfying gameplay. I'll admit there is a lot of subjectivity involved here, but again, I think if you are making a new entry in an old franchise you should cater to the tastes of the people who enjoyed it previously. In regards to DXHR, that game was enjoyable in spite of its cover system not because of it. There would constantly be situations where your head and one shoulder was plainly in a guards sight but because you were attached to an object in cover mode he couldn't see you. The game would have been better if you had to manage the space your body was occupying more.
jay pettitt on 2/12/2013 at 00:22
Of course a game can be justifiably criticised. Though it's tougher to justifiably criticise a game no one has played.
But all the same, your criticism can't just be any old bunk if you want to call it justified. Making a list of a bunch of things you think are bad about T4 (including some you might have made up) and comparing it to a list of a bunch of things you think are good about T2 (including some you might have made up) isn't a like for like comparison. What you need is a robust, justified methodology for collecting and comparing observations about both games.
If you're interested in player skill, methodologically go through each game noting each occasion that requires skill from the player. Find some justifiable scheme for weighting and scoring each example, tot the scores up at the end and then tell me which you think is best.
Claiming that single button takedowns are bad in T4 because it doesn't require player skill when your preferred example is a game so undemanding of the player that you could score a takedown by by hitting your opponent on the rump or the toe or anywhere vaguely on or close to their person (with a single button press) isn't being objective. And besides, the skill was always getting into position and setting up the strike, not performing it. As far as we know that's still true for T4.
What we do here is wild speculation, not justifiable criticism.
Quote:
I just think sequels should cater to the personal taste of the people that enjoyed the previous entries.
I neither agree nor disagree. But either way, Thief isn't a sequel. When EM say that they're rebooting the franchise, they mean it.
And given that you've not played the game and neither have I so I can't confirm it, perhaps you can share the source behind your claim that cover/peek hotspots take into account the position of enemy AI, so the player doesn't have to.
