Chade on 18/6/2013 at 05:32
I'm not sure what to think of that article. On the one hand, I think pretty highly of RPS. On the other hand, the two main complaints are:
* Garrett can't be seen in full shadow, even when guards are right next to him, and
* running around guards in is a winning combat strategy.
Both of these complaints describe the earlier thief games perfectly.
And before you say I'm just trying to whitewash the article, a number of RPS commentators mentioned the same thing too ...
Still, a reporter that I usually think highly of not liking the game is bad news, however you want to spin it.
KoHaN69 on 18/6/2013 at 06:17
Wow... I wasn't expecting it to be this bad.
This is pretty terrible... especially the UI. Pausing the game to switch weapons, floating indicators of enemy state alerts, the 'special vision', VATS?! especially echo location?! these are all tricks used by a poor game designer.
Do they not remember the outcry of the community for adding loot glint in E3?
This isn't Assassin's Creed or even Deus Ex, this is supposed to be *THIEF*
Watching the interview:
Quote:
This game, obviously there's a stealth element to it, but blending together stealth and action, how are you thinking about that for this game?
How can you even ask that fucking question?!
Zewp on 18/6/2013 at 07:49
Quote Posted by Chade
I'm not sure what to think of that article. On the one hand, I think pretty highly of RPS. On the other hand, the two main complaints are:
* Garrett can't be seen in full shadow, even when guards are right next to him, and
* running around guards in is a winning combat strategy.
You missed the part where a guard got suspicious at the end and then instead of investigating, did absolutely nothing. Then there's also the main complaint about the completely horrendous and out of place escape scene which is basically cut directly from Assassin's Creed. Seriously, **** QTEs and whichever developer still thinks they're welcome in modern videogames.
Also, I'm pretty sure in the previous Thief games if you sneaked by mere inches from a guard, you'd get discovered. You had to keep your distance from the guards. Often when sneaking up to a guard (especially moving guards) to blackjack him I'd get discovered, which forced me to adopt the strategy of standing up and rushing the last few feet to the guard before he could turn around and see me.
mothra on 18/6/2013 at 08:08
Quote Posted by thiefinthedark
I really wish people would stop perpetuating this nonsense. Not a single member of the DX:HR team is involved with Thief, at all. You'd be better off comparing the design of the original Assassins Creed or Kane & Lynch, since that is where the lead dev team is from.
I know that is not the same team, but it is the same studio.
I would like to make it more clear then. CDPR developed the Witcher games, which I hold very dear and while it is not the same team working on their new IP, Cyberpunk 2077, I somehow expect the same dedication, excellence in design/art and adherence to certain ideals in development, interaction with their community and marketing/sales/after-launch support from another team in the same studio. This approach has become a kind of a "trademark" for their studio. They want to live up to the reputation of the studio, not the individual projects their members worked on before joining this studio/team. Just like I think the Thief team will try to live up to Eidos Montreal's reputation of delivering a smart, faithful new adaptation of an old franchise like their previous project, DX:HR did (no matter how I or others personally feel about the game).
Zewp on 18/6/2013 at 08:22
Then you're pretty naive, sorry to say. Just because they share a name does not mean that they will go about game development in the same way. Two entirely different development teams will more than likely have two entirely different ways of developing a game. It's not so much about wanting to 'live up to the name' as it is trying to create a name for yourself.
mothra on 18/6/2013 at 08:30
I thought they wanted to go that way. You know, creating a reputation for their studio, which they are employed at, not themselves personally.
Like "it's a new CDPR/Valve game, it will be AWESOME, I must get it. I don't even know what it is about, I just played their previous games and I trust them."
Just like e.g. Apple does.
I dont think they will put "from the team that did assassins creed/kane &lynch" in their marketing since they do not own those games, I would rather expect "from the studio that brought you DX:HR, winner of 1000000 industry awards comes the new vision for Thief"
in that regard I can see similar patterns to DX:HR, like: putting in one-button takedowns, switch to 3rd person, uninterruptible animations etc etc
Zewp on 18/6/2013 at 08:45
They might say that as a marketing blurb, but that's all it is. Marketing. It's two entirely different development teams with entirely different design philosophies and entirely different ideas and motivations. The games likely won't be very similar in quality.
bartekb81 on 18/6/2013 at 10:42
I'm starting to like new Thief. There's some new good info on it:
- most of things may be turned off (markers, helpers, ui elements, focus, shroud)
- player has a choice with lockpicking mechanics (it depends on you're using focus or not)
- very T1/T2 method of lockpicking (without using focus)
- not every takedown must be automatic
- Garrett is more agile (easier climbing. Swoop option)
- They're still working on balancing the swoop.
- hands are present while collecting a loot.
New Horizon on 18/6/2013 at 12:47
Quote Posted by bartekb81
I'm starting to like new Thief. There's some new good info on it:
- most of things may be turned off (markers, helpers, ui elements, focus, shroud)
Don't assume that this will make the game play in a 'good' way. It's all about how the game is designed and balanced.
_Atti_ said it best on the TDM forums.
Quote:
Whereever i go i keep hearing this. No it is not about options. It is about design.
If a game is designed with these features in mind then all you'll be achieving by disabling stuff is you will 'pretend' that you're playing a better designed game.
I for one am tired of this.
Dx HR, Syrim. It is optional to turn off objective markers, but since they designed the game with them in mind there isnt sufficient alternative information for you to find them manually, so you will most likely stumble upon them and pretend you found them logically.
This decision also shows in level-design:
Dx air-vents are perfect example.
Entering original Dx airvents you could guess where they would lead by their directions.
Dx HR vents are like snakes in a bulding, and are just shortcuts between two points.
For me there is a certain difference in climbing through an (dx)airvent faintly knowing where it would lead, navigating it accordingly and getting to my goal,
and getting into a (dxHR)vent because there is a challenge ahead, wrigling around in it until popping up behind the challenge and pretending how smart i was choosing this path.
There is a huge difference between roleplaying and pretending to be in a role.
Especially since its a single player game , it is meant to force rules on the player, it is no fun if you have to make it all up.
Its like playing with dolls, or football against imaginery people. I dont need a new Thief game so i can pretend i am a thief. I could use ANY game to do that.I need a new Thief game so i can play AS a thief.
All these 'options' were called cheating in better times, and yes there were cheats that made the game harder but they didnt claim it was design-brilliance or a selling point.
