Nuth on 18/6/2013 at 08:29
NuThief doesn't have a hyphen. :p Still a bit surprised and amused they called it that though.
Chade on 18/6/2013 at 13:34
Updated list. Thread seems to have slowed right down over at Eidos, so I imagine there'll only be one more update with a relatively small amount of information. The wall of text at the start of this thread is probably more-or-less as comprehensive as it's going to get.
Dia on 18/6/2013 at 21:01
Quote:
That said, goodness gracious great balls of fire, what were so many great balls of fire doing in my Thief game? [...] This section was essentially on rails, and sneaking wasn't even a factor. [...] There was also a fair amount of third-person during this section. I didn't hate it or anything, but any sort of climbing basically was Assassin's Creed. [...] Far more egregious, meanwhile, was an insta-death QTE involving a loose chunk of wall and a quick button-mash to give Garrett's grappling line a life-saving toss. I mean, really? In Thief? Why? Why at all?
Button-mashing. Reminds me of the TR reboot;
lots of button-mashing going on in that one. Not particularly pleased about that - really don't like button-mashing at all. I have to agree with the question. Why did EM feel the need to include that? Nevermind. I already know the answer.
*sighs and leaves the room ..... again*Chade on 18/6/2013 at 22:41
That was posted after my last update (as of the time of your post).
I was going to wait a little while before doing the next update, but there's been lots of interesting statements about the RPS article and the developers, as well as nuggets like guard relighting torches, stretch objectives, and so forth. So I've just updated the list again.
Not surprisingly, the eidos players claim the RPS article is horribly inaccurate.
Renzatic on 19/6/2013 at 00:59
Quote Posted by Chade
Not surprisingly, the eidos players claim the RPS article is horribly inaccurate.
If I were to come into this completely neutral, I'd probably trust RPS over the Eidos mods. While it's very possible they're telling nothing but the complete truth, the fact that they're an easily biased source makes it difficult to trust them unerringly.
Chade on 19/6/2013 at 01:08
I would too. The eidos players are clearly biased.
On the other hand, as I mentioned in the other thread discussing the RPS article, I do find some of the criticisms of the RPS article to be a bit screwy.
(Examples of funny criticisms: saying the AI awareness was bad because a guard didn't see him when crouched in full darkness, which sounds exactly like the original games. Complaining about a guard who just happened to glance in his direction while mumbling to himself, when both glancing around and mumbling are desirable characteristics. Complaining about guards having a level of alertness in which they call out suspiciously without going into search mode, again exactly like the original games. Etc.)
New Horizon on 19/6/2013 at 01:36
Quote Posted by Chade
I would too. The eidos players are clearly biased.
On the other hand, as I mentioned in the other thread discussing the RPS article, I do find some of the criticisms of the RPS article to be a bit screwy.
(Examples of funny criticisms: saying the AI awareness was bad because a guard didn't see him when crouched in full darkness, which sounds exactly like the original games. Complaining about a guard who just happened to glance in his direction while mumbling to himself, when both glancing around and mumbling are desirable characteristics. Complaining about guards having a level of alertness in which they call out suspiciously without going into search mode, again exactly like the original games. Etc.)
From my understanding of the article, these were in situations where the AI would see you in the original games. If you were practically bumping into an AI in the originals, full dark or not, they would hear/sense/ or feel you if you were that close.
I found the RPS article to be pretty even handed. RPS reviewed TDM and it wasn't all glowing either, although we did fare better than T4 I think.
Bakerman on 19/6/2013 at 01:42
Quote Posted by nickie
So doesn't look like quicksaves will be available.
Isn't 'a manual save game feature' a quicksave? I guess you can debate whether that means a single buttonpress to save/load versus opening up a menu to do it, but I don't think quicksaving is ruled out.
Chade on 19/6/2013 at 02:13
Quote Posted by New Horizon
From my understanding of the article, these were in situations where the AI would see you in the original games. If you were practically bumping into an AI in the originals, full dark or not, they would hear/sense/ or feel you if you were that close.
Depending on the situation at hand (e.g. presence of walls, alert level), you can pretty much walk right under their noses. I'm not convinced that Nathan is judging these situations right.
However ...
Quote Posted by New Horizon
I found the RPS article to be pretty even handed. RPS reviewed TDM and it wasn't all glowing either, although we did fare better than T4 I think.
Yeah, look, I generally trust RPS. I'm not saying that I definitely don't believe him, and have no concerns whatsoever as a result of his review. I am concerned.
All I'm saying is that there is a bit of a disconnect between the way he described the gameplay and the actual examples he used to illustrate it. That doesn't make me automatically assume he's wrong. Truth be told, I'm not sure what to think about it.
