Firetaffer on 15/4/2013 at 06:27
Given the information we know about Thief 4 now, what possible changes do you hope that the developers could potentially change around without redesigning whole elements of the game?
The purpose of this thread is to see what we can realistically be capable of achieving by complaining, I'd love for Stephen Russell to come back and I'd love for the more magical elements such as the Hammer Haunts and Burricks to come back, assuming they already aren't. But if the developers were to implement these now it could possible throw the whole development off course and waste a whole lot of the budget. So, what changes would you make?
sterlino on 15/4/2013 at 09:02
I don't think they will change anything.. i don't even think they consider any kind of suggestions or criticts written in the forums.
Also i don't think they will listen to our prayers at all.
May be with a correct kickstarter they will... but who can do it for us all ?
anyhow...
the most important things for me to correct and change are :
1 - no breaks (whatever kind) of the first person view. OR at least all the 3rd person view are optionals - BUT 1st person at all by default.
2 - NO extreme parkour, only basic movements, no impossible kung fu approach.
3 - Swimmable water (but may be this is just done .. at the moment i don't yet know)
4 - Of course , if possible, Stephen Russell back in the role of Garrett
5 - Burricks, and Hammerites (ghosts and zombies) appearances - if not fully implemented in the main script of the story - BUT if not possible at least a models appearance (just to use them later in the FMs)
Actually that's it ..for me..
But consider the fact that we didn't see yet a gameplay video.. that could change all our impressions and critics about the game.
i wonder how long we should wait to see a gameplay.
p.s. this community could be a very powerful help for EM, why they can't see it ?
jtr7 on 15/4/2013 at 09:45
Will they show us the game they think we will like? Or will they show the stuff we are hoping isn't there, suspect is, know is?
Dia on 15/4/2013 at 12:49
It's difficult to say what changes we hope will happen because thus far we haven't seen all there is to see. But from what little we do know I think I'll agree with everything sterlino posted. I'd also like to see more than just lip-service paid to the old factions in Thief; the Keepers may have disbanded (according to the TDS arc) but they, as well as Hammerites, Mechanists, etc., could still become integral parts of Garrett's continuing story. Once again, we just don't know enough yet. My own thoughts when I learned that the main arc of T4 will be Garrett taking on a corrupt Baron were that a plot like that seemed more of a sub-plot than main storyline. Garrett's saved the world more than once - Saved.The.World. - and now EM has him taking on a corrupt Baron? Oh please! He could do that in just a couple missions and be done with it. ;) There's just not been enough information released yet.
I agree with Jason. And I am concerned whether or not the gameplay video is going to be one illustrating how fans will actually be able to play the game (showing the things we need to see), or just a showcase for EM's artists and animators.
I still hold out hope that EM released the news it has a year in advance of the release of the game because they wanted feedback. One can only hope.
Captain Spandex on 17/4/2013 at 03:49
We're hearing the game has body awareness. Suggesting it has an in-game player model that casts a shadow, and so presumably has every requisite in-game body animation that goes with it.
Remove the jarring moments when the game forces you into third-person... and give me the optional third-person perspective I had in Thief III instead!
Every complaint about third-person ('it's extra work to do the animations', 'it's not immersive', etc.) become moot when you consider that A) They've already made a third-person player model, and B) If it's made 100% optional, then there's no cause for complaint.
Every other grievance ('the player model makes movement wonky', etc.) would already have been true of the game, whether the optional perspective were introduced or not, due to the body awareness! So at least make the act of moving from first to third a choice, instead of compulsory!
jtr7 on 17/4/2013 at 04:18
They made it a 3rd-person/1st-Person hybrid game, requiring the body-awareness. While they changed it in part, the body-awareness relationship choices with the camera and environment are likely still mostly intact since then. Without 3rd-person they have less reason for body-awareness. They are now having Garrett's hands in the frame most of the time, touching walls and surfaces or floating in front so the player doesn't feel like a floating eyeball, even though it's unnatural and a lot of us don't feel odd or notice when the hands aren't on screen. In Thief, the shadow and silhouette would kill the game if they mattered to the game. Movement will be affected, it's only a matter of how much. TDS 1P wasn't truly optional, as it did affect a great deal of things no matter what the setting was, and if you don't notice, that's your personal gift to yourself. If, while wall-climbing, Garrett has a range of vision to simulate a real range, then the need for 3P to see what the hell you are doing disappears. They've forced 3P wall-climbing for now, but hopefully they will change it. By forcing 3P lockpicking, Splinter Cell style, they've thrown out a lot of opportunities for the potential that was always there and never developed. By forcing protected beam walking to band-aid fix the relationship of animations to terrain to controls, and other examples of such forced relationships to be seen, they've turned infinitely variable situations into a few presets, have embraced handholding, have all but admitted the controllers and/or target audience leave something to be desired, and have made a habit of bandaging bad design rather than improving it fundamentally. It suggests that the navigational problems of TDS, where the camera was slave to the body, not the other way around, during basic movement, may still be the case here. Half the gamers, no doubt, won't notice, won't care, but the other half will not be happy, and no words on the Internet can fix the programming, tech, design flaws, and animations that are not natural or freeing to those players. As usual. The arguments against TDS aren't moot, and if those poor decisions are repeated at all, and some of them are at this point, then the complaints are extremely valid to those player types who can't ignore them. They haven't improved things if interaction is reduced or automated or constrained to accommodate the model. It's not an improvement if areas are less confining or less claustrophobic to give more room to in-game models. Having instances where avoiding getting caught means hiding in cramped or narrow places, or escaping or evading detection through inconvenient paths no one who isn't an intruder would consider, and amping up the feeling of vulnerability and taking crazy steps to protect the self, should be fundamentals in an improved game, since we've already seen these things in the games that happens to be older. In TDS, the animation for Garrett sucks in that it is made up of obvious keyframes, and when the framerate is sub-optimal, the camera locked onto the head shows every keyframe, click, lurch, click, click, click, lurch, and it's an unnatural gait. Looking at all the art for Thief[4], I rally hope his gait isn't similar to what's been depicted at all. By locking the camera to the model, people can't adjust the head-bob without affecting the gait, or loosening the camera from the head.
Captain Spandex on 17/4/2013 at 06:13
That's all perfectly true, which I wholly acknowledge. I'm simply saying that if they're going to continue with body awareness, and locking the player into third-person against their will when climbing rope, doing takedowns and every other situation they've described... it would be preferable to at least have the option to be in first-person or third at the press of a button.
Their argument for the third-person climbing segments was 'The only alternative is looking at a brick wall the whole time'. Which is ludicrous not only because nobody looks straight ahead when they climb, but because Thief is a game that's built around alternatives! Let the player choose! Don't tell them 'Okay, it's third-person time. Hope you like it!'
Vae on 17/4/2013 at 06:23
Do I detect something surfacing from the "good ol' days"?
I wonder what will happen here?...Please continue.
Captain Spandex on 17/4/2013 at 06:54
Ha! Not a chance. I respect jtr's opinion, we simply differ on the issue.
Dia on 19/4/2013 at 23:51
Quote Posted by Captain Spandex
Let the player choose! Don't
tell them 'Okay, it's third-person time. Hope you like it!'
Agreed. Though EM has said that forced 3rd person will be limited (they did say that, right?), the fact that it's still going to be included as not-an-option bothers me. I look for near-total immersion in the games I play because TDP (and then TMA) set that as a high standard for me. I don't recall becoming that immersed in any games before or since, and forced 3rd person would definitely be a hindrance to my immersion, no matter how brief the switch.
I know this isn't a very good example, but there were far too many times in playing Tomb Raider that I fell off walls, cliffs, ledges, etc., because suddenly the animators decided to change perspective on me. Annoying as hell.
