SubJeff on 5/9/2013 at 10:35
This discussion boils down to one thing - when is an action contextual?
In Thief 1 and 2 jumping and holding jump next to a mantle-able object causes a jump and mantle.
But if you do it next to a really high wall you'll jump but not mantle.
So was mantle situation contextual? In some ways it is.
Vivian on 5/9/2013 at 15:12
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
This discussion boils down to one thing - when is an action contextual?
In Thief 1 and 2 jumping and holding jump next to a mantle-able object causes a jump and mantle.
But if you do it next to a really high wall you'll jump but not mantle.
So was mantle situation contextual? In some ways it is.
Isn't it just when the you-box hits a stand-on-able geometric plane at the correct z-level (or within some permissible range) whilst in the air? All this talk of ooh geometric hotspots ooh is bloody stupid. The floor is a geometric hotspot. The entire environment of any videogame is a geometric hotspot.
SubJeff on 5/9/2013 at 15:14
That's what I mean. Where is the boundary between hotspot and "environment"?
Springheel on 5/9/2013 at 16:20
Quote:
Quote:
The "tap shoe" feature has got to be the silliest, most unrealistic element of the original games.
What makes you think that that "tap shoe" refers to the entire "footstep noise system", and not just the fact that your shoes sound like tap shoes on tiles?
Good question, considering the very next line in that quote about footsteps was, "While
the gameplay of choosing speed vs detectability and awareness of your surroundings is important , I welcome a more realistic way of approaching it. " My entire point was that EM's approach of "noise patches" and object collisions
might be such an approach (we haven't enough information to know yet).
You can argue that there IS no more realistic way of approaching it (I would welcome hearing that argument), but arguing that it is
already "quite realistic" is simply not going to fly, for reasons already spelled out by several people in this thread (please don't bother advancing an "it's a realistic portrayal of something unrealistic" argument...I don't have time for word games).
TriangleTooth on 5/9/2013 at 17:58
We need more people getting a chance to play this really, we'll not know for sure until some people do - and play with the goal of "break the game".
jtbalogh on 6/9/2013 at 07:03
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
This discussion boils down to one thing - when is an action contextual?
In Thief 1 and 2 jumping and holding jump next to a mantle-able object causes a jump and mantle.
But if you do it next to a really high wall you'll jump but not mantle.
So was mantle situation contextual? In some ways it is.
True. And just the mantle is contextual with the geometry. The jump is at least free in any geometry and eventually interrupted along the arc by a contextual mantle movement.
That contextual link can be reasonable and not jarring to the senses when a jump and mantle seem closely related in action. Both jump and a successful mantle give the player a familiar sense of expecting to go up and off the ground. Both jump and a failed mantle give the player a familiar sense of expecting to fall back down.
Quote Posted by TriangleTooth
... the game can detect how low a ledge is or how far a gap is automatically, meaning it doesn't matter what the environment is built like ... even player created (crate stacking) ledges and paths would work with the system.
Would be great. A hotspot generated automatically by the dynamic geometry can help keep an FM author from placing another redundant hotspot in addition to already laying out the initial geometry. It also helps us describe our actions in the more natural style of the old games, like, "I could not mantle to that secret location because it was obviously not low enough," versus the odd slang in the new thief like, "I could not mantle to that secret location because there was no hotspot". Something like that I guess.
Beleg Cúthalion on 6/9/2013 at 10:01
Quote Posted by TriangleTooth
We need more people getting a chance to play this really, [...] and play with the goal of "break the game".
The Thief community fabulously managed to spoil T3/T3Ed for themselves with this approach. If the experience you/we are looking for is not allowed by the game, the criticism is valid (and this should show up quickly IMHO). If you intentionally look for ways to be disappointed, you will always have them in your head. I never had the idea do dislike the movement controls in TDS before I read the complaints about it here. :erg:
TriangleTooth on 6/9/2013 at 12:37
True, maybe not so much break as at least test things like jumping to get to unusual places, finding water, trying out different tactics and seeing if there's any hint of emergent gameplay. Just trying clever things the devs didn't necessarily plan for and seeing if the game can cope. A well made game will, because the devs will have made the tools and left it to the player rather than force the player to use everything they can.
Renault on 6/9/2013 at 13:09
The problem is the knuckleheads that EM sent to E3 to playtest the game weren't really Thief fans (except for maybe Master Taffer, and even he's too young to be an old school, original Thief fan). Most were mods from the Deus Ex forum, and none of them really knew what to look for or how to test the limits of the game. That's why they came back with bright shiny reviews while the rest of the web was critical. They didn't know any better.
So in other words, they went out there to check out a new EM game, not to try out a new Thief game.
