jtbalogh on 2/12/2013 at 02:58
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
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.
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
And given that you've not played the game, 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.
That is a valid question as to how much the AI will see the subtleties of peaking a little or a lot from a corner in thief 4. If the AI responds the same, then there is no special skill as you noticed and EM wins.
However, a feature is not just about skill or AI spotting us. It is also about how much we are placed into a groove or slot of the game world. The contextual button for peaking from the demos shows one basic animation with the same leaning distance, angle and location from a wall corner every time. Alternatively, different placements of the body with free-leaning in the old thief games gave us a variety of views to enjoy. I used to compromise and accept the lack of advanced AI and still roleplay to obscure myself differently around each corner with free-leaning. It is not appreciated when thief 4 replaces roleplaying with cookie-cutter views to make it blatantly obvious that players were stupid to believe that it ever mattered to stupid AI in the old games.
yxlplig on 2/12/2013 at 05:37
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
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.
I don't think I have been doing that.
Quote:
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.
Who would go to that extent to justify their reasoning for not liking a videogame?
Quote:
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.
I tend to agree.
Quote:
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.
You're right, I didn't mean to imply that.
I'm pretty sure I don't like the gameplay that results from cover hotspots. I don't like the way it plays in other games, but if you won't accept my authority to argue that, then we'll just have to continue this conversation after the game comes out.
Chade on 2/12/2013 at 06:08
Quote Posted by jtbalogh
The contextual button for peaking from the demos shows one basic animation with the same leaning distance, angle and location from a wall corner every time. Alternatively, different placements of the body with free-leaning in the old thief games gave us a variety of views to enjoy.
Dunno about the videos, and can't be bothered to check them right now, but IIRC B1skit stated that you could move your head around while leaning. I imagine that you'll be able to move the mouse around and have your head respond appropriately (possibly within limits).
Quote Posted by jtbalogh
I used to compromise and accept the lack of advanced AI and still roleplay to obscure myself differently around each corner with free-leaning. It is not appreciated when thief 4 replaces roleplaying with cookie-cutter views to make it blatantly obvious that players were stupid to believe that it ever mattered to stupid AI in the old games.
I don't think it is fair to criticize EM for not anticipating every imaginary mechanic that someone somewhere might have wanted to pretend Thief had. That said, I do appreciate that free-form movement in general gives people leeway to role-play a wide array of things that the game might not directly support. In this case, though, I believe EM are letting you move your head around while leaning.
Starker on 2/12/2013 at 11:17
Personally, I enjoy simulation more than scripted content. It's not about "civil liberties", it's about certain design philosophies that I would like to see continued.
jay pettitt on 2/12/2013 at 12:33
Contextual controls aren't 'scripted'. They're a system and you should be able to reliably predict outcomes - much the same as any other. I too prefer systemic games, but contextual controls are not the enemy here. Other things might be. The way they implement their control schema or the movement model in the game might be terrible. But that's a different issue to whether T4's peek mechanic or the jump/swoop thing is fundamentally bad.
Mantling in Thief is an example of a contextual control. The actual mantling mechanic was a bit finicky in the first two games, but most folk seemed to get on exactly just fine with the contextual component.
But yeah - (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acAxcAEKcOg&feature=share&t=17m55s) watching NuGarrett shift crates out the way in what looked like a scripted animated sequence in the EGX demo did make me wince. I'd rather those crates were physical objects that
you interacted with by you doing the pushing and pulling.
demagogue on 2/12/2013 at 12:49
I might not use exactly the term "scripted", but I think there's still something to the point, and I'd distinguish it from mantling. I think about it in terms of map design, or the process of mapping. For mantling, it's contextual in the sense it only happens when you're in range of a platform, but all the mapper does is place architecture at various levels and if a player can reach a platform they can mantle it, even if the mapper didn't intend for it. So there's still a simulationist element to it.
The difference with contextual jumping or other zones is in that case, as I understand it, the mapper would literally be marking zones where the player jumps in that zone, so they can control when and where it can and can't happen. The issue is that it's creating a world that cares about what the player does or is "authored", down to the very structure and architecture. That's against a simulationist spirit. One might reasonably argue it's splitting hairs, but I can sense when a game-world feels "authored" from one that feels "open" when I'm exploring it, and it makes a difference to me at least. Not that I can't enjoy the former, I can, but it's a factor in the mix of how free or immersed I feel in the world.
Vae on 2/12/2013 at 12:50
The "civil liberties" assertion is just a red herring...as that incorrectly suggests an arbitrary, emotional need for freedom, prioritized above the actual impact on game design.
The design philosophy of Contextuality runs contrary to THIEF gameplay, because it objectively diminishes the player's creative application....which is of course, fundamental to the THIEF Experience.
Unscripted, granular freedom, provides the highest possible value of freedom, due to the multitude of variables in any instance...which in turn, generate the highest variance and quantity of emergent possibilities.
SubJeff on 2/12/2013 at 13:44
It actually depends on the nature of the contextual movement.
I'd argue that mantling is contextual and if all contextual movements were as a result of that same type of interaction that'd be fine, wouldn't it Vae?
jay pettitt on 2/12/2013 at 14:04
Quote Posted by demagogue
The difference with contextual jumping or other zones is in that case, as I understand it, the mapper would literally be marking zones where the player jumps in that zone, so they can control when and where it can and can't happen.
I'm pretty sure they've said it's a system. So just as mantling happens automatically because there's a ledge. Jumping (rather than swooping) happens automatically when there's an other sort of vertical obstruction. (though wasn't there word that jump/swoop had been changed anyway?)
Either way, in your example it'd be mark-up (and insufficient mark-up particularly) I'd have a problem with, not contextual controls per se.
Vae, your creative faculty seems unusually fragile.
demagogue on 3/12/2013 at 10:46
Well it's better if it's a system than designated jumping-zones, though there are still designated rope arrow nodes (and TDS had climbing glove zones... They always want to control z-axis movement, though I can understand it more having made some maps, z-axis can be hard to design for.)
For the record though, one of the improvements I liked in Darkmod was making mantling a separate key just so you didn't have to use contextual mantling if there was a risk of failing & having the player stamp the floor. So the mantling analogy still isn't the most convincing to me.
