jtr7 on 19/4/2013 at 12:35

---

What NH said.






Money is not at stake between forum members. I'm only interested in buying a product I know the value of and agree upon, and have no interest in salespersons' manipulations, nor the persuasive efforts of consumers who feel it's their duty to buy whatever just 'cause. The system is manufactured and not fixed. We are not trapped in it without a choice, but by stubborn fearful people. EM are not entitled to my money, and yes I am entitled to know what I'm paying for if I do not agree to a gamble up front. If they want my money--they don't, really--then I want a product to match. They are reading the forums for some reason, and the first Community Manager told us our opinion mattered. I never saw much evidence of it, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt and defended his statements until the cracks formed, were tested, and collapsed. Thief is just another awesome video gaming product. So what?

jtr7 on 19/4/2013 at 13:11

---

To this day, we are being told that out opinions are being taken into account. Until this year, the official forums were not the only forum to express ourselves in and be "heard". Now they are telling us that expressions given at TTLG don't matter unless we go through official channels. The years of opinion at Eidos didn't seem to matter either, so it's just insult to injury at this point. What we see in the articles and media are that the opinions of people who had unpopular views on the board (and I use the word "unpopular" quite literally, outside of my own contrasting opinion), are getting their way, and the more broadly shared opinions are getting placed second, or are not included, or are some big secret, which is weird, since it's the fourth game, so common points across the series shouldn't be secrets. Further words from the devs have shown favor for gamer opinion that confirms decisions they've already made amongst themselves. The opinions they don't censor on their home-site are mostly about how EM can do no wrong, which is unhealthy and makes them look insecure, not just highlighting nicer comments.


And why are we putting a lot of focus on Garrett's new hands, here? Simple. EM is putting a great deal of importance on Garrett's hands, going so far as to imply they are the best thing about going next-gen. Since 2010, they've emphasized his hands, and they haven't stopped. They actually believe, or are expecting us to swallow, that Garrett's hands are really neat and natural and intuitive and they will be as our own hands. I'm hoping that means his hands aren't guessing what I want to do from moment to moment, and waiting for me to click before they act. His hands are more important than his voice.

I knew years ago, as the silence dragged on and on, that EM was gong to develop things too far, be too invested emotionally and financially, and show us things that make no sense for the series, and be surprised at our disappointment, too late to fix, to late to avoid doing to begin with except for the part where we told them why they shouldn't to begin with. Even Roy had to question what the team had been doing with their time. I'm glad he saved us from some mistakes, but he really likes things that have nothing to do with any Thief experience, and aren't even near the core. There are some things I was glad to hear them say, but they've been buried under things that leave me no choice but to doubt the words they chose mean what the fans mean when they say them.





When they say that they've heard an opinion and are going to tweak something because of it, that's the whole point of speaking up. They've said it twice. I just hope the end result is a big enough tweak that we can appreciate how they endeavored to tune it to our ear, outside their box. We are kind of filibustering so no one can ever think we got it out of our system, or they can finally forget it, and it is important for that to continue until the product is clearly past the point of patches and Director's Cuts.

Dia on 19/4/2013 at 15:19

---

Ref: Page 29 of the Stephen Russell Petition thread (though I think it's only stated once in this vid?).

gigagooga on 19/4/2013 at 15:55

---

I think Russells voice sounds too old for Garrett, as i kinda imagine Garrett weren't really that old. New voice resembles old voice much enough with a bit younger tone.
I think this is improvement.

Renault on 19/4/2013 at 16:09

---

Huh? Considering that SR is the only one who has ever voiced Garrett, how did you come to that conclusion? :confused: