CloudOJD on 1/8/2013 at 11:03
Quote Posted by Chade
So now EM is faced with introducing all this history ... and their story doesn't even have anything to do with it! (Which I fully support.) It's just an insane amount of wasted time and effort to introduce these factions when there is absolutely no payoff to the story. So I sympathize with EM's decision to some extent.
I have an idea. How about making a good game that is not completely denying the existence of the old games and has the old factions in it. That way, if someone is genuinely curious, they should play the previous titles, as NewThief would show awareness it is Thief 4. There's your introduction.
Oh, but wait, I forgot. It needs to be mainstream. Well, I got nothing.
Chade on 1/8/2013 at 11:44
It's been a long time.
Anyway, I don't think any of that is necesary to introduce the old factions. I assume you read the rest of my post and realise that.
Springheel on 1/8/2013 at 12:10
Quote:
While players will have many more play style options than previously seen before in the Thief franchise
Can you give an example of a playstyle option you think is available in the new Thief that wasn't an option in the previous games? I'm having difficulty understanding what this could refer to.
CloudOJD on 1/8/2013 at 12:13
I get that, Chade. However, I feel like there is little to no proper justification to what they're doing and as such I feel frustrated.
I'll end the discussion here so as not to derail the thread.
New Horizon on 1/8/2013 at 13:28
Quote Posted by Springheel
Can you give an example of a playstyle option you think is available in the new Thief that wasn't an option in the previous games? I'm having difficulty understanding what this could refer to.
Me too. With the first two games, you could choose to play in so many ways. I think that's part of the reason why the originals have had so much longevity and replayability. To imply that "Thief" is going to be even more broad than those games is a rather interesting statement.
demagogue on 1/8/2013 at 13:35
My knee jerk interpretation is that b1skit is talking about playstyles the game "recognizes" and affords; the game is more consciously designed with different styles in mind and a broader array of tools or mechanics or whatever to cater to them, whereas what you guys I think are talking about is the more "hands off" style of the originals where they just simulate the world and it's up to the player to make something of the tools in however they like, but less is specifically afforded for it...
So I interpret that both sides are using the concept of "more playstyles" in a little different way, like flip sides of a coin, one about what the game affords (which also makes it less hands off), the other about the game being more hands off (which also means the game "cares about" what you do less / affords less).
jay pettitt on 1/8/2013 at 14:15
Oh. I presumed he was referring to button mashing Quick Time Events.
Actually, no I didn't. I assumed Adam is kinda unaware at the variety of ways you could play the LGS originals - whether it's sneaking, exploring, fighting or making daring escapes.
That Miserable Thief on 1/8/2013 at 14:28
It seems like many at EM have never played the originals...
or just did it so long ago they've forgotten.
Renault on 1/8/2013 at 14:56
b1skit might be referring specifically to the use of Focus and Swoop. Definitely couldn't do either of those in the originals. But having more playstyles isn't always a good thing - we don't want Garrett to be able to do a Mortal Kombat style combo for instance, that would just be silly.
jay pettitt on 1/8/2013 at 15:04
Wasn't there a Deadly Shadows sideways scroller already...
