bartekb81 on 15/10/2013 at 12:52
I think that more significant problem is balance of this new equipment/upgrade system.
I remember how poorly it was resolved in Deadly Shadows... You simply grew very strong in the middle of a game, with dozens arrows and gadgets because there were nothing else to do with your money. So simply later in the game I didn't even feel any hunger for loot. Shopping in TDP and TMA was much more interesting because your money didn't accumulate and spending them after each mission was always linked with tough decisions to be made.
Shopping in T4 bothers me a bit: upgrades are expensive and this is good, but equipment on the other hand is very, very cheap.
SubJeff on 15/10/2013 at 15:56
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Sure. But I think that simulated skill is generally a poor cousin to player skill in the context of a Thief game.
Then you misunderstand both.
A game is defined by it's simulated skills - in Thief you have the basic simulated movement skills (walk, run, jump) and some extra ones like mantling and leaning. Then there are the special simulated skills - stealth in shadow, stealth in silence. The player skill is only
how well the player uses those simulated skills. Without simulated skills Thief is nothing.
The problem comes when the simulated skills reduce the amount of player skill needed to play the game successfully.
Scenario 1: You need to sneak past a guard who patrols past two pillars.In Thief 1 and 2 you'd need to time your movement between the pillars and select the proper speed for minimal noise on that surface. This in turn affects the tightness of your timing because you might need to crouch creep in order to not alert the guard and you might need to time the move to the split second.
In Thief 4 you've got an extra simulated skill - the Swoop. It's fast and quiet and it doesn't matter if the guard catches you out of the corner of his eye as it preserves some visual stealth.
The challenge is greatly reduced, if not destroyed, and the amount of player skill required is next to nothing. This is not a rewarding part of the game anymore as it required no player skill.
Scenario 2: You need to fire two gas arrows to take out two guards who are too far apart for one arrow. Alerting either of them will cause them to shout for help and there is a some uber-guard who will be activated and who will definitely smite thee.In Thief 1 and 2 you'd need to fire the arrows in quick succession so that the second guard hasn't turned to see his colleague on the floor. There is no way to make this easier, you either get it or you don't. You can't speed it up, you can't slow down time.
In Thief 4 there are three ways this can go.
a. You man up and do it like Thief 1 and 2.
b. You use focus to slow time and do it with ease.
c. You use your upgraded bow with faster draw time to do it with more ease than in case a but less than in case b.
Now here is the interesting bit - it might actually be impossible to do it the Thief 1 and 2 "way" (even in Thief 1 and 2!) because
there might just not be enough time to fire, draw and fire again. Taking them both out with gas arrows like this might
necessitate method b or c. If we extrapolate this further it might actually be
hard to do it using method b or c - the time might still be very tight and it may still require a high degree of player skill.
In that particular case, and cases like it, the addition of simulated skills does not reduce the amount of player skill required.
And, ladies and gents, is how
I roll. BOO YAH!
ZylonBane on 15/10/2013 at 18:54
Quote Posted by NuEffect
If we extrapolate this further it might actually be
hard to do it using method b or c - the time might still be very tight and it may still require a high degree of player skill.
Yeah... no. The sole reason these abilities exist is to make the game easier for Joe Couchgamer. If Eidos wanted Thief to require a high degree of player skill, they wouldn't have added swooooop and !!FOCUS!! in the first place.
Nobody gives a shit how you roll, get over yourself and stop changing your username.
SubJeff on 15/10/2013 at 20:11
I never said that it worked like that in this game, it won't.
And I've only changed my name once, in honour of Thief 4.
Chade on 15/10/2013 at 21:58
Quote Posted by LoucMachine
If my memory is right, in T1-2 when you shot a ''1 shot kill'' with an arrow the guard started to scream while dying and died from a very tragic manner. soon you would see 2-5 guards arrive and start searching for you.
No, there was a scale ranging from very loud (an alerted guard dying in combat), to not too loud (an unalert guard being sniped), to completely silent (blackjacking someone). Sniping would only alert guards that are very close by, and is a perfectly valid
stealthy strategy for low to mid level players (e.g., snipe someone and then rush in and hide his body before his friend comes back).
Quote Posted by NuEffect
A. You don't know that xp encourages stealth without knowing exactly when and where it will be given in relation to the number of headshots you can get.
I know that EM claimed that you would get the most XP points for being stealthy. I know that this was how it worked in DX:HR. Finally, it's just common sense that you'd want it to work that way. Pending more info, that's enough for me. What more do you want?
Quote Posted by NuEffect
B. You're abstracting things to the nth degree to prove a point again. And failing.
This seems like a bizarre argument to me. As far as I can see, I'm simply describing the system. The only thing I haven't described is the specifics of how you get XP rewards for stealth and how that's communicated to the player, which of course is very important, but we don't know anything about it.
Where's the abstraction?
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
For example: a potential problem with ramping up the security level in the City as a response to violent play styles to try and encourage more strategic/stealthy/non-violent play would be that you also make it much harder for the player to then be stealthy and non-violent.
Within the city hub, I think it might be appropriate to vary the number and wealth of merchants. More wealthy merchants means more guards, and more loot. Violence scares wealthy merchants away, actually reducing the challenge of the game, but also reducing the amount of loot you can receive. As you get better at sneaking, the streets become harder to sneak around, but the amount of loot you can steal grows as well. This can tie into the city hub side quests: retrieving certain items might require certain merchants to feel safe enough to set up shop in the district.
It should be possible to communicate this to the player. Conversations, closed signs, etc, could all be used to tell the player that people are leaving because they are scared.
Xorak on 15/10/2013 at 21:59
Quote Posted by NuEffect
In Thief 4 there are three ways this can go.
a. You man up and do it like Thief 1 and 2.
b. You use focus to slow time and do it with ease.
c. You use your upgraded bow with faster draw time to do it with more ease than in case a but less than in case b.
See I still disagree that these are the only basic options. Another option is for the player to actually get better at the game so that the player can better act/react to the different challenges presented:
option d. find a more ingenious way of solving the problem.
Relating to the XP system, I have no problem at all with an rpg, where leveling up simulates the advancement of a character from a nothing to a hero. But Thief doesn't need to be an rpg. And not being an rpg should free Thief from the trappings of rpg mechanics, allowing designers the freedom to pursue new mechanics and designs. Thief should be the pinnacle of game design anyways, considering it's such an open-world open-level game, where every other game is so constricted by level design. Instead the designers are lazy and they fall back on mechanics from other genres, but then they try and flip it around and tell us its a good thing what they're doing.
SubJeff on 15/10/2013 at 22:42
I'm talking about an encapsulated event comprised of specific mechanics. Option d is irrelevant.
What you've just done is the equivalent of saying "contextual jumping? I don't mind, I'll find another way around".
The Shroud on 17/10/2013 at 03:35
I'd just like to get something off my chest. I had a debate with a friend of mine today (via texting of all things) about the course Thief is taking, and thought I'd post it here for others to see:
Quote:
Mike:Thi4f is getting rid of the XP system, now leveling based on how much you loot? This is good, yes?
Me:I read about it a few days ago. Getting rid of XP is a step in the right direction, but it's not very meaningful unless they also ditch skill upgrades.
Mike:Well that won't happen, and it shouldn't. Skill upgrades are great.
Me:Skill upgrades ARE great. In games that are about advancing a character, like RPG's and Deus Ex. Thief is not that sort of game. Garrett is already a master.
Mike:He WAS a master, but isn't this a kind of reboot? It's all about player empowerment. Gamers want to feel that they're making physical progress. They want rewards. It's basic sporadic positive reinforcement, the same psychology that makes slot machines addictive.
Me:Getting better at the game was always enough advancement and positive reinforcement (along with new items and thieving accessories) for players before. And by the way, though it is a reboot, they haven't rebooted Garrett's mastery - in fact, he's even more uber now than he ever was. The feeling that YOU, the player, are gaining higher skill, becoming more clever, resourceful, gaining faster reflexes and timing -- that is what's most empowering above all. LGS knew that, and that's part of the reason people loved Thief so much in the first place. The game was about your skills, not Garrett's.
Mike:It WAS good enough, once. But games have changed. GAMERS have changed. Since CoD4 came out, even multiplayer has had leveling added. And you know what? People enjoy it more. Hell, even Arkham Asylum, a game that has you playing as the Goddamn Batman at peak strength, had upgrades. I've read dozens of opinions about that game, and not once has someone complained about leveling. Just because you're good, doesn't mean you can't be better. As long as an appropriate narrative framing is provided, people will be okay with it. I'm sorry, but I think you're stuck in the past. No one complained when Rayman or Meat Boy got rid of "lives." Some gameplay mechanics evolve. It's like cinema. As techniques and technology got better, movies changed how they were made.
Me:I agree with the principle - SOME gaming mechanics do evolve and some are even abandoned altogether once people realize they were never necessary in the first place, with the absence of limited lives in Meat Boy and Hotline Miami being a perfect example. I happen to think powerups and healing items are also mechanics that are "stuck in the past" and should be discarded. The reason I hold the opinions I do about Thief is not because "the old days were better", despite your assumptions about me and the way I arrive at my beliefs. It's because I really think Thief's gameplay mechanics, specifically, WERE more evolved than what we have now. I believe this is a step backward - not back in time but back in quality. Ultimately, what came before and what came later is irrelevant. It's what's better and what's worse that matters - some things in the past were inferior and some were superior. Just as some things in the present are superior and others inferior. It's not all black and white, with "old stuff outdated, present stuff better" the way your philosophy appears to work.
Mike:Right, because I'm not the biggest old school gamer you've ever seen. Definitely. Don't resort to the same flawed debate tactics you accuse me of.
Me:My point is that it's not whether something is old or new that matters, it has to stand on its merits. And you know what? Thief 1 and 2 REMAIN excellent games today, in 2013, despite their outdated graphics and boring lockpicking (notice I just cited a flaw in something I love? omgwow yes I can do that) because the developers got so many things right. The core gameplay of Thief, i.e. the design philosophy behind it, is what remains superior while other elements have become outdated.
Mike:Agreed, but if you're not willing to innovate, you might as well make an HD re-release and just cash in.
Me:Eidos Montreal DID innovate. The city looks stunning. But movie directors and game developers alike have a problem with restraint when it comes to knowing where to -stop- innovating and infusing one's own (perceived) creativity into something that is amazing just the way it is. It's why so many novel adaptations in movies are shit.
Mike:Actually, those have more to do with the need to expand upon a 2 hour narrative that is not your own creation, while being under a tight deadline and dealing with a constantly shifting plot, deleted, added and reshot scenes, and alternate endings.
Me:It's both. Directors have an arrogant need to infuse their own vision into something, and that tends to override their ability to stand back and acknowledge, "Okay, the original was better than my stuff". When a new game development team takes over a franchise like Thief, the same thing happens. And that's what's happening with Thief's new Narrative Director. His first idea was to give Garrett black fingernails and gothic makeup to pattern him after the Crow.
Mike:You would prefer he had no ideas at all? Because you can't have it both ways.
Me:I would prefer he understood precisely -what- needs improving and changing and what doesn't. Sadly, he doesn't. Believe me Mike, I've done a LOT of homework on this. I know what I'm talking about. This isn't conjecture or hearsay, I'm speaking from what is verified fact. Regardless, people like what they like. I recognize that you and I have very, very different tastes and that's not something a debate can reconcile. So that's where I'll leave it. You have your preferences for a Thief game and I have mine. There is no one to prove you right or wrong, it's subjective.
Mike:And yet, apparently, you are the one true fan, the only one with the true vision to save the franchise. Do you think the director of the new game doesn't think EXACTLY as you do?
Me:Well I never said (or believed, sorry you're wrong) I was THE one with that kind of sensibility or insight, but I definitely am one of a large group of fans with similar opinions about this subject. The frequent polls and the petition to bring back Stephen Russell shows that, besides my day to day discussions with fellow Thief fans. So yes, I think I have a better perspective of Thief than he does. But it makes sense that remaining "true" to Thief would matter less to someone who never fell in love with it in the first place than to someone who loved it and has been playing it since 1998. I'm actually surprised you even care about this game at all since the previous titles were not quite your cup of tea. It would be rather like you having an argument with someone who never really cared for Batman before about drastically altering what you perceive to make Batman Batman. Unfortunately, Steven Gallagher, Thief's narrative director, is no Christopher Nolan.
This is the kind of thing I have to deal with all the time.
Chade on 17/10/2013 at 04:22
Garrett did get "upgrades" in the previous games, as the designers slowly handed out new equipment to you granting completely new abilities. It was different in many details, of course, especially from a narrative pov: the designers did it quietly without drawing too much attention to it (with a few exceptions). But the general idea that the player slowly has more abilities to juggle over the course of the game remains.
Anyway, one part of your argument stood out to me:
Quote Posted by The Shroud
I would prefer he understood precisely -what- needs improving and changing and what doesn't. Sadly, he doesn't. Believe me Mike, I've done a LOT of homework on this. I know what I'm talking about. This isn't conjecture or hearsay, I'm speaking from what is verified fact. Regardless, people like what they like.
Here you seem to be saying that:
1) A set of changes to a game can be "needed".
2) The set of changes a game "needs" is an objective verifiable fact.
3) The "objective" criteria for coming up with the set of changes that a game "needs" has nothing to do with what people like.
I could grant (1) for some particularly poorly done games, but not for the thief series. (2) seems absurd. As for (3), I guess I would like to ask what objective criteria you think we should be using to judge what changes the thief series needs?
The Shroud on 17/10/2013 at 05:58
Quote Posted by Chade
Garrett did get "upgrades" in the previous games, as the designers slowly handed out new equipment to you granting completely new abilities. It was different in many details, of course, especially from a narrative pov: the designers did it quietly without drawing too much attention to it (with a few exceptions). But the general idea that the player slowly has more abilities to juggle over the course of the game remains.
I actually did make that point earlier in my debate with my friend when I mentioned, "Getting better at the game was always enough advancement and positive reinforcement (along with new items and thieving accessories)" so we have no disagreement here. As you pointed out, the way previous Thief games handled this was different in many details, especially from a narrative point of view, and for the most part, they did it quietly without drawing too much attention to it. And I'm all for that -- acquiring wire cutters, a ratchet, etc., that all makes perfect sense and is in keeping with the spirit of Thief. So again, we don't disagree on this.
Quote Posted by Chade
Anyway, one part of your argument stood out to me:
Quote Posted by The Shroud
I would prefer he understood precisely -what- needs improving and changing and what doesn't. Sadly, he doesn't. Believe me Mike, I've done a LOT of homework on this. I know what I'm talking about. This isn't conjecture or hearsay, I'm speaking from what is verified fact. Regardless, people like what they like.
Here you seem to be saying that:
1) A set of changes to a game can be "needed".
Yes, I believe there were imperfections in each Thief title, some of which were addressed (like TDP's and TMA's boring lockpicking, which TDS improved upon, and which Thief 4 seems to handle at least as well, if not better) and some of which weren't (which I could go into, but that's a separate discussion). I do indeed think changes to a game can be needed, unless that game is perfect in every single way.
Quote Posted by Chade
2) The set of changes a game "needs" is an objective verifiable fact.
Here I should explain myself a little better. When I was talking about doing my homework, knowing what I'm talking about, and it not being based on conjecture or hearsay but rather verified fact, I was referring to what is known for certain about the upcoming Thief game, as opposed to rumors, suspicions, guesses, cynical imaginings, etc. I wasn't saying that I've somehow gathered factual, objective proof about what does and doesn't need improving in Thief. But I can see how what I said could be interpreted that way. This basically goes back to Mike doubting that I've actually done enough research on the new Thief game to even be in a position to argue about its features in the first place. That's where the "homework" comes in (watching gameplay videos, reading interviews and articles about Thief 4, etc).
Quote Posted by Chade
3) The "objective" criteria for coming up with the set of changes that a game "needs" has nothing to do with what people like.
The criteria for coming up with the set of changes that a game needs is not objective and has a great deal to do with what people like. Again, this extrapolation you've made about my viewpoint on this was drawn from a misinterpreted statement of mine. I don't hold that viewpoint at all.
Quote Posted by Chade
I could grant (1) for some particularly poorly done games, but not for the thief series.
I don't think a game has to be particularly poorly done in order for it to need changes. TDP was my favorite game of all time, with TMA being a very close second. I absolutely adore those games. That doesn't mean I don't see room for improvement in them. Obviously, their graphics are now outdated. Lockpicking was very uninteresting and its role in the gameplay was limited to just timing
when to pick a lock, rather than the challenge of actually picking it. I always felt ropes should trail from rope arrows as they're being fired rather than sprouting from their shafts upon impact. I wanted Garrett to have a visible in-game body (in 1st person) with his cloak rendered in-game, and see his hands when he opens doors and picks up objects (Thief 4 got those things right). I wanted to be able to peer through keyholes (another thing for which Thief 4 deserves credit I think). I could cite lots of examples like these. The point is, yes, even the best things can often be improved in some ways. But it's equally important to recognize what
shouldn't be changed, what belongs in the game, what's integral to the spirit of the series, and what is already working perfectly well. That's where I feel a developer has to have a sense of restraint -- an insight into the point at which their innovation and alterations to the game should stop. And that's where I very strongly feel that they've gone overboard.
