Chade on 30/7/2013 at 01:53
That's the wrong reaction IMO. There's a lot more to the thief world then what we've been exposed to so far. I'd like to explore other parts of that world, and if it's genuinely important to elide or simplify older lore in order to do that then I think it's a trade-off well worth making. I just don't believe it's necessary to make as many changes as EM have.
Starker on 30/7/2013 at 10:55
There is something to say for respecting the game world of your source material. If I'd buy the rights of a popular book series, the readers will probably have certain expectations for how I handle the world, even if I was a professional and acclaimed writer. I couldn't just reboot things and change them any way I wanted to. When Neal Hallford was doing Betrayal at Krondor in Feist's Midkemia, he meticulously researched all the books and characters to get Feist's characters right and for his own story and characters to be in sync with the world that Feist had created. He did such a good job that people often think that Feist himself wrote the game. Now that's how you honour source material.
TTK12G3 on 30/7/2013 at 14:20
Quote Posted by Chade
That's the wrong reaction IMO. There's a lot more to the thief world then what we've been exposed to so far. I'd like to explore other parts of that world, and if it's genuinely important to elide or simplify older lore in order to do that then I think it's a trade-off well worth making. I just don't believe it's necessary to make as many changes as EM have.
I don't think that the Legend of Zelda approach is a good one to Thief.
Chade on 30/7/2013 at 14:26
Legend of Zelda is a bit different to what I described , wouldn't you say that...
TTK12G3 on 30/7/2013 at 20:45
Quote Posted by Chade
Legend of Zelda is a bit different to what I described , wouldn't you say that...
In terms of being loose with the lore and linearity, what you described is LoZ-like. The gameplay is more like GTA.
What EM is actually doing is ripping off Dishonored, which is an absolutely horrid idea. Dishonored was subtle, at least. This XP nonsense ignores who Garrett is, though EM has shown no problems with completely reinventing a character who was endearing to begin with. You know, since he is a shadow assassin who gets rewarded for murdering as many people as possible.
Chade on 30/7/2013 at 21:43
But what I describe, while looser then some may want, is still much tighter then LoZ.
And we weren't even talking about xp, but since you bring it up ... Look, I've seen valid arguments that xp will reward killing. Weak arguments IMO, but at least valid. I don't get the impression you're making those arguments. I get the impression you've just seen "headshot: here's some xp" and gone "whoah! xp rewards killing!". In reality, there are several good reasons to believe xp will punish killing: common sense, consistency with other design decisions such as optional no-kill objectives, statements from EM talking about stealth xp bonuses, and the precedent set by DX:HR.
Shinrazero on 31/7/2013 at 04:06
But Chade, they are supporting all players, not just stealth fans. Going on a killing spree will likely be just rewarding as a stealth approach would be. In fact, I wager killing enemies will garner more experience than stealth. A stretch? Sure, but with this new Thief game anything goes. Also, I don't think there is any merit in precedence of DX:HR and nuthaif.
With Deus Ex, they seemed to be more in tune with what made the DX series great and ran with it, expanded it but didn't entirely alienate hardcore fans and mostly respected the series predecessors. Alternatively, we are here, a bunch of glum chums, disenchanted, trying to reconcile each new disappointing announcement.
I started reading Masters of Doom by David Kushner, fantastic read and I highly recommend if you or anyone hasn't read it. While I'm not finished with it yet, the one thing that I have taken away from it so far is that the designers at Id wanted to make the most bad ass games ever! That was their purest desire in all of their endeavors. They wanted to flip off the status quo. It isn't surprising that I am reminded of LGS. Risk takers, visionaries, they too wanted to make awesome games that were against the molds of the time.
My point is that Eidos Montreal are not taking risks. If anything, they are taking the wrong risks. Anyway you approach their design decisions it is clear that this is a by the numbers AAA title. We, the players, are not in their minds as they develop. It is Square Enix, shareholders, what is going to sell the most copies, what is safest.
To be fair to EM, this is not a problem exclusive to them but many developers today. It is why indie games are brilliant and interesting (in my opinion at least) because the ditch The Rules of Triple A Gaming. They take risks, they put themselves into the game not for profit but for the love of games, to craft a tangible extension of themselves.
Chade on 31/7/2013 at 04:23
Quote Posted by Shinrazero
But Chade, they are supporting
all players, not just stealth fans. Going on a killing spree will likely be just rewarding as a stealth approach would be. In fact, I wager killing enemies will garner more experience than stealth. A stretch? Sure, but with this new Thief game anything goes.
There are lots of sources that suggest that action* will be more forgiving then it was before. But action being just as rewarding or more rewarding then stealth? IIRC, that's seriously stretching. I can't recall any sources that support you. If you were to gather all of EMs statements on action and rank them, I'm pretty sure you'd find that a) even the most gung-ho statement doesn't put action on an equal footing to stealth, although it comes pretty close, and b) stealth is definitely preferred in the median.
* I should say action rather then killing, as there are many more-or-less stealthy ways to kill someone in thief, something we (including myself) don't tend to talk about much in these discussions because we're all so used to ghosting and blackjacking.
EDIT: I also think people are white-washing the reactions to DX:HR while it was in development. Remember the time we had found out about all the extended third person action (much more then in thief)? The cover system? Regenerating health? Auto-highlighting? We had no idea how these elements worked in practice, or how well realized the world would be. IIRC, lots of people thought it would just be a standard console shooter and had pretty much given up on it. I certainly don't want to say the precedent is some kind of smoking gun (and indeed, DX:HR is my least favorite DX, although I still love it), but the precedent is surely better then nothing. There are lots of parallels.
TTK12G3 on 31/7/2013 at 04:56
Quote Posted by Chade
We had no idea how these elements worked in practice, or how well realized the world would be.
Whose fault is this?
DXHR has nothing to do with this. We are looking at the continued practices followed by EM. Legacy, as we well know, is virtually meaningless, in this industry more so than any other.
Chade on 31/7/2013 at 05:20
I don't know if it's a question of "fault". Firstly because it's largely irrelevant, and secondly because we're talking about details that can't be communicated without playing the game. I mean, how do you say "this works well in practice"? Do you say something like "don't worry guys, we're confident you'll love it when you get a chance to play it"? Pretty sure b1skit's tried saying something like that before. Why would anyone believe him?
And yeah, I only bring up DX:HR as one of many points. I would be a shame if the entire conversation started revolving around that.
