demagogue on 22/6/2013 at 10:44
I bet part of it is to avoid confusing players too. It seems a lot of the contemporary gaming culture is that, if you give people options that are too open, they're paralyzed. If you give them rope arrows and they ask "where do you use these?" If you tell them attachment points made for them, they think, "ah, of course, so I need to find those to make progress. Let's go!" If you tell them any place made of wood and there's wood all over the place, they think "But where do I even begin?! Here or there or over there???" and curl into a fetal position and don't want to deal with them anymore... =L
I wouldn't doubt actual focus testing played out like that. We've read reports like it before.
By the way, speaking of the influence of Dishonored (this time what they should take from it), it had plenty of roofwork, and the reason it could do it was because they were very clever with the level design to always keep tall buildings on the outsides & blocking long lines of sight, but still having vertical paths within that. There are ways you can do it and keep vertical movement very open. I mean if Dishonored could allow very open teleport, Thief can allow very open rope arrowing. I don't think it was -only- a technical choice anyway. I think there were other reasons than just it's impossible to do technically, since I think it is possible.
Vivian on 22/6/2013 at 10:47
The most likely non-bullshit explanation I can think of is that rope arrows were only stuck in there as an afterthought and the levels were not designed to take them into account. Hence they need to restrict where you can use them. I mean, come on. The dark engine could do it and it's now 2013 and my computer does like 10,000 operations per second. Technical limitations my arse.
Starker on 22/6/2013 at 10:54
Quote Posted by Queue
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole Attachment Points thing, and I can't quite understand. If an object in the game is made of wood, shouldn't one be able to shoot a rope arrow into it, and the rope comes a dangling out like so many limp willies regardless of "where" the arrow hits? Or is that something only out-dated technology from the late 1990's can do?
Freedom to explore outside the designed path? What is this, a PC game? Why, if we had it your way, it would be no better than anarchy... Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
SneakyJack on 22/6/2013 at 14:03
Again - with the rope arrow thing it was nearly the same way in the previous Thief games as the entire mission wasn't built with wood borders nor was every structure made of wood areas you could actually sink an arrow into. I think people have nostalgia poisoning when they are trying to remember these things. Most Thief missions only had a few specific areas you could sink rope arrows into and the only difference was that they were a wood texture instead of being a highlighted glowing area. Many times when you thought something was a wood area you'd shoot a rope area into it only to hear a CLANG and lose your arrow because despite the texture it was not the proper surface.
It felt less like you were being guided because there were no visual prompts outside of the texture but in the same ways you were being guided as to what path you could take. There were a few specific missions that may have allowed for more freedom but they were much more rare than people let themselves believe.
I know the new game is going to have many faults and will most likely not be a perfect Thief experience but the rope arrow and data loading situations aren't nearly as awful as people are taking them to be. They're probably way down on the list of ways the new game breaks from the old. If they removed the visual prompts from the rope arrow locations and just added a different recognizable wood texture it would be very similar to how the older games gave us the illusion of freedom with them.
Queue on 22/6/2013 at 15:00
Quote Posted by Starker
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
What about the Nuns? If Nuns were no longer "off the table" then I'd be all for it.
--
I agree with you 100%, demagogue.
jay pettitt on 22/6/2013 at 15:07
I don't entirely disagree SneakyJack, LGS were clearly careful about where they placed wood textures and more often than not did a good job at stopping you from falling off the side level or whatever, but they were pretty liberal at lower altitudes - if you found places where an arrow broke it was probably a bit of broken level design that slipped though, not because LGS didn't want an arrow (broad head or rope) in there. There were plenty of occasions where you could rope up that wasn't obviously following a path to progress, but perhaps a player could improvise an escape/hiding place.
demagogue on 22/6/2013 at 16:42
I'm sure LGS was discriminating about where you could rope arrow. It wasn't just anywhere by design and probably a bit restrictive if you go back and check; they'd have to be. The same thing with teleport in Dishonored. Actually many vertical things didn't allow vertical teleport (many roofs & balconies) except what you could tell were lamp posts and walls and such with it in mind. So it's not like they can't be discriminating for design reasons.
The part I find off-putting in T4 is the packaging, because an "attachment point" doesn't even bother with trying to be consistent with reality. It just jams the GUI right into the world without a second thought. That's the part of it that rubs me the wrong way about them. At least keep the mechanic in the world's reality if you can & be discriminating with that reality, and leave GUI "game" stuff to the hud or "mind" if you must -- i.e., "in the player's head", like doors highlight when in range which are fine, rather than "in the world itself", like "game gizmos" actually out there in the world waiting to serve you. I'm trying to find a way to word the distinction there, but I think you can understand me.
Renault on 22/6/2013 at 19:34
Re: rope arrows - of course LGS limited where you could place them. They had to, any dev would, you can't have people escaping the game world (although that does happen).
But there's a big difference between having one single pinpoint area where your rope arrow will work, and giving the player some freedom on where to place their arrow to be get to their destination. How many times have you roped up somewhere only to realize when you got to the top that your angle for disengaging was wrong, or that you suddenly realized when you were finished with your task, there was no way to get your rope arrow back. So you'd improvise, lower down and either shoot a second one, or just decide to take a little damage - all while dodging a guard. Or maybe you'd string together several ropes to cross a wider chasm to get to where want from a different location. I've even roped up somewhere just to climb straight up and avoid a guard, not to actually go anywhere. Point being, there was a lot of freedom there on how to attack any given vertical situation.
Now, with New Thief, it's much simpler. One button to shoot your arrow, one button to attach to the rope, and one button to dismount. Nice and dumbed down - rope arrows for dummies.
Data4 on 22/6/2013 at 19:57
Quote Posted by demagogue
I'm sure LGS was discriminating about where you could rope arrow. It wasn't just anywhere by design and probably a bit restrictive if you go back and check; they'd have to be. The same thing with teleport in Dishonored. Actually many vertical things didn't allow vertical teleport (many roofs & balconies) except what you could tell were lamp posts and walls and such with it in mind. So it's not like they can't be discriminating for design reasons.
The part I find off-putting in T4 is the packaging, because an "attachment point" doesn't even bother with trying to be consistent with reality. It just jams the GUI right into the world without a second thought. That's the part of it that rubs me the wrong way about them. At least keep the mechanic in the world's reality if you can & be discriminating with that reality, and leave GUI "game" stuff to the hud or "mind" if you must -- i.e., "in the player's head", like doors highlight when in range which are fine, rather than "in the world itself", like "game gizmos" actually out there in the world waiting to serve you. I'm trying to find a way to word the distinction there, but I think you can understand me.
Totally agree here. If a game has this pretense of trying to immerse you in its world, yet reminds you every step of the way that you're just mechanically playing a game, it has failed.
sNeaksieGarrett on 23/6/2013 at 06:16
Quote Posted by SneakyJack
and the only difference was that they were a wood texture instead of being a highlighted glowing area.
Uh, but that's the point. We're not complaining because we're being given some sort of direction at all, we're complaining because there's a glowy visual guide that takes away from the immersion.
Quote:
Many times when you thought something was a wood area you'd shoot a rope area into it only to hear a CLANG and lose your arrow because despite the texture it was not the proper surface.
What? What are you talking about? When was there ever wood that wasn't rope-able? I'd be inclined to believe that was a mistake and not intentional.
