Springheel on 15/11/2013 at 14:36
Quote:
But nothing you said then makes his answer "complete crap"
Ok, let's parse this down.
Schmidt:
"most of the game happens inside the City in an "autumn" setting, so water wasn't a big theme for us"
The following claims are at least implied:
1. Because the game happens inside the city, there isn't much water.
Crap. As I said above, we know at least one map takes place right over top of a giant river which cuts the city in half. There are also boats and, I would bet, sewers. We know water exists in the city.
2. Because it's an "autumn setting", there isn't much water.
Crap. Is there less water in autumn than there is in summer? I'd say this is a complete non sequitur,
unless it is reinforcing his first comment that:
3. Water would be too cold for Garrett to swim in.
Perhaps he was genuinely joking about that point, although the "autumn setting" comment makes no sense if so. If he was serious, then this is crap, for the rain reason I already mentioned (among others).
If he had said something like, "Well, we thought it was a bit unrealistic for Garrett to be able to swim around underwater and then sneak around without guards noticing trails of water or hearing him slosh about," I would have had an easier time accepting that reasoning (though I would disagree with it). But the answer he actually gave is ridiculous.
skacky on 15/11/2013 at 14:47
Good to see they're still going full damage control. The fun never ends.
Renault on 15/11/2013 at 15:03
I'm actually surprised A) that they answered the water question at all, and B) after deciding to answer it, they didn't have a better response prepared. The question has been asked a lot over in the Eidos forums, and they had to know after TDS that it's fairly important issue to some fans. Again, just like with b1skit, they seem really out of touch with the fan base.
So another part of the classic Thief experience has been removed. I think at least 75% of the OMs in T1/T2 had swimmable water - so much for "sticking to the DNA."
On a side note, after thinking on it a bit, I think it's funny that EM has been praised for removing bad things from the game - QTEs, XP system, and 3rd person climbing come to mind. This stuff never should have been there in the first place. Why give them credit for their awful design decisions? The only reason they're removing it is because of the fan backlash, not because they think these specific systems are bad.
Blastfrog on 15/11/2013 at 15:12
Quote Posted by Vae
Yep...It's just more bullshit from Schmidt.
Bullschmidt? :ebil:
suliman on 15/11/2013 at 15:17
Quote Posted by Brethren
Awesome, sounds just like airborne knockouts! Hopefully it won't cut to third person.
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T5mDUQFXSo) Check 1:27. It's literally 'press X to takedown'.
I think the removal of swimming has to do with EM's bizarre fixation on body awareness and animations- swimming, rope climbing, leaning and jumping are hard to model correctly in an uncontrolled manner, and since they value animations more than freedom of movement, all that stuff has been removed.
Rope Arrow on 15/11/2013 at 15:27
Hmm... No QTEs is a step in the right direction. A very small, wavering step, because now that just means that the overblown first-person cutscene where control is yanked away from the player in favor of flashy animations is still in there, there's just no arbitrary failure component that allows it to masquerade as gameplay. *Sigh* I know the aim is to make me feel like a badass, but... I continually get the idea that this will do the same thing that Arkham City and Assassin's Creed does for me: it doesn't feel like I'm controlling my character, just that I'm steering him. He does all the work, I just point my finger and jerk the reins.
Renault on 15/11/2013 at 15:28
Quote Posted by suliman
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T5mDUQFXSo) Check 1:27. It's literally 'press X to takedown'.
I think the removal of swimming has to do with EM's bizarre fixation on body awareness and animations- swimming, rope climbing, leaning and jumping are hard to model correctly in an uncontrolled manner, and since they value animations more than freedom of movement, all that stuff has been removed.
Yeah, I've seen that video many times, I just wasn't thinking (hoping?) that's what they meant by an aerial takedown. But it probably is. I should have known better since you obviously can't do a freefrom jump anyway! Just seems odd that they're taking something that's simply a button press and making it an optional objective. I can almost see ex-LGSers rolling their eyes in disgust.
Quote Posted by Rope Arrow
*Sigh* I know the aim is to make me feel like a badass
Not exactly what most people look for in a Thief game.
Blastfrog on 15/11/2013 at 15:32
Quote Posted by Brethren
Ironman mode, Ghost mode, and other optional objectives related to disabling traps, distracting guards, and using the environment. All of these sound very stealthy and thieflike. And these are all new options we
didn't have built into the original games.
Iron man: player will
Ghost: playstyle
Disabling traps: bonehoard boulder, Cragscleft skull
Distracting NPCs: noisemaker arrows an deco actors
Using environment: .....
I fail to see how any of this is new.
Renault on 15/11/2013 at 15:36
I didn't say it was new, I was just saying that it wasn't previously built into the structure of the game (i.e. through objectives, missions failing, etc).
Blastfrog on 15/11/2013 at 15:45
Quote Posted by Brethren
I didn't say it was new, I was just saying that it wasn't previously built into the structure of the game (i.e. through objectives, missions failing, etc).
Right, but it never needed to be that way. The beauty of the originals was how it just plopped you down into a highly explorable expanse and left you to your own devices.
I'd argue that codifying such gameplay elements used during the sim breaks immersion. The organic freedom was what made it so immersive to begin with.
