But still, if the point of the game is to never kill anyone ever, why give the player the tools to do so? Batman doesn't kill, and so in the games, taking an enemy's gun and using it to kill the rest of them just isn't an option. Link would never beat up an NPC to avoid doing a fetch quest for an empty bottle, so it's not a gameplay option. If not killing anyone was so fundamentally important to the Thief games, why give the player a dagger and lethal arrows? Why make them standard equipment?
Because there are lower difficulty levels and because those tools are useful for other things.
Difficulty levels shouldn't matter if it's something that intrinsic to the character. There should be no killing on any difficulty setting. And so you need to kill monsters? Why not include some sort of supernatural weapon that hurts monsters that is relatively harmless to humans.
Difficulty levels shouldn't matter if it's something that intrinsic to the character. There should be no killing on any difficulty setting.
Doesn't work because the primary way you play at a lower difficulty setting in Thief is by being worse at stealthing.
If you enforce no killing on every difficulty setting, you have to do something else to lower the difficulty and there's not much else. Making the AI stupider would be a pain, as would changing the levels. The only other real option is lowering the number of guards but that's a tough thing to do in some cases, depending on level design.
It's just plain easier to give the player options that allow them to be worse at stealthing. Especially since it fits into already existing systems within the game. (ie - the objective system)
And so you need to kill monsters? Why not include some sort of supernatural weapon that hurts monsters that is relatively harmless to humans.
Because that seems really odd and weird and out of place when you could just carry a sword. Plus you need the sword for lower difficulty levels anyway.
The bow is a utility belt. Water arrows, moss arrows, rope arrows, vine arrows, noisemaker arrows, fire arrows. And then those shitty but numerous noisemaker-lite broadheads.
Steam / Xbox Live: WSDX NNID: W-S-D-X 3DS FC: 2637-9461-8549
Difficulty levels shouldn't matter if it's something that intrinsic to the character. There should be no killing on any difficulty setting.
Doesn't work because the primary way you play at a lower difficulty setting in Thief is by being worse at stealthing.
If you enforce no killing on every difficulty setting, you have to do something else to lower the difficulty and there's not much else. Making the AI stupider would be a pain, as would changing the levels. The only other real option is lowering the number of guards but that's a tough thing to do in some cases, depending on level design.
It's just plain easier to give the player options that allow them to be worse at stealthing. Especially since it fits into already existing systems within the game. (ie - the objective system)
And so you need to kill monsters? Why not include some sort of supernatural weapon that hurts monsters that is relatively harmless to humans.
Because that seems really odd and weird and out of place when you could just carry a sword. Plus you need the sword for lower difficulty levels anyway.
Thief did change the levels on higher difficulties, making it harder to get around. And changed the victory conditions, throwing additional objectives into the mix -- stealing more loot, additional treasures, freeing extra prisoners, etc. And generally on hard and expert you would have to get out after doing the deed.
You don't really need the sword on lower difficulty levels. The other options still work.
Orogogus on
0
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
Oh, and I’ve also missed rope arrows and they’re finally coming back as well.
The main points, as they stuck out to me:
The author is a huge Thiefanatic. He got to see a demonstration level -- a fucking brothel again, because what the fuck.
The City is huge and, as best he can tell, open-world. Sounds like Arkham City, but on a larger scale maybe? Verticality is a huge thing in this game, it would appear.
There is mention of one time-limit sequence in the demonstration, where the door to the brothel gets locked if you don't get there in time, but it's not a fail state. Just a 'find a harder way in' state.
The fire/smoke/weather stuff is apparently pretty impressive.
Focus can be used for combat, but is more useful for things like stealing earrings while the owner is still wearing them.
They've apparently removed the creative swearing, like "taffer" and such.
The plot involves an industrial baron using the Watch as his personal gang of thugs.
...they removed "taffer"...<twitch>...how could they remove "taffer"
taffing developers don't taffing know what the taff they're doing.
The other stuff, is pretty awesome I must say. The removal of "taffer" brings a tear to my eye, but the rest of it sounds pretty awesome.
Yea, most of that preview was actually really good. Though I'm still disappointed they aren't bringing back Garrett's original voice actor
Maybe if they include that Watch Guard voice actor who you hear throughout 3. You know, the one who had medical issues that you hear about over the course of like a half-dozen missions. He'll always have a special place in my heart.
Honestly I'm okay with this. I cringed every time I heard Garrett's voice because thieves.do.not.speak. EVER. I want him to be completely silent, so I never really paid any mind to what he said, or how he said it anyway.
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
Doesn't work because the primary way you play at a lower difficulty setting in Thief is by being worse at stealthing.
If you enforce no killing on every difficulty setting, you have to do something else to lower the difficulty and there's not much else.
You can't really have it both ways. Either not killing is an essential aspect of his character, and should be enforced on every difficulty setting, or you have to admit that Garrett is okay with killing in certain situations. Bringing back the Batman comparison, it'd be like Batman getting a silenced M4 with a scope on easy mode, so he can murder all the guards while perched on a gargoyle statue.
Doesn't work because the primary way you play at a lower difficulty setting in Thief is by being worse at stealthing.
If you enforce no killing on every difficulty setting, you have to do something else to lower the difficulty and there's not much else.
You can't really have it both ways. Either not killing is an essential aspect of his character, and should be enforced on every difficulty setting, or you have to admit that Garrett is okay with killing in certain situations. Bringing back the Batman comparison, it'd be like Batman getting a silenced M4 with a scope on easy mode, so he can murder all the guards while perched on a gargoyle statue.
Actually you can have it both ways. It's called "multiple difficulty settings".
You should be good enough to beat the game on expert. But if you aren't or if you just don't care enough, they accommodate you.
In a shooter, this would be accomplished by making the enemies less numerous and easier, to balance out your lesser ability to shoot them bitches in the face. In a stealth game, they accomplish this by lowering the requirements for you to be super-stealthy and taking away things that require even more stealthiness and thieving.
The Batman comparison fails because Batman refuses to kill. Garrett just doesn't want to kill and feels he shouldn't have to. He will kill if he must. He believes, and the gameplay deliberately supports this idea, that a good enough thief shouldn't need to kill. On lower difficulty levels, you aren't a good enough thief to accomplish that.
shryke on
+1
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
Batman is somewhat appropriate too, because he does have the capability of dispensing lethal force, he just chooses not to. Where the comparison fails is when you notice that Batman sees himself as a paragon of virtue, a squeaky-clean "good guy" as much as he can be, whereas Garrett really doesn't care where he falls in the good and evil scale. Garrett is True Neutral, so he brings with him all the tools necessary to keep him alive and well-fed. Dispensing lethal force is a negative to Garrett because that brings attention to him, and he doesn't want that. Batman is stricly Lawful Good, where he upholds his own moral conduct to a "T" and even when something is completely illogical (just kill the damn Joker already you tights-wearing pansy) he'll still go through with it if the alternative were to cause him to compromise his values.
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
Oh, and I’ve also missed rope arrows and they’re finally coming back as well.
The main points, as they stuck out to me:
The author is a huge Thiefanatic. He got to see a demonstration level -- a fucking brothel again, because what the fuck.
The City is huge and, as best he can tell, open-world. Sounds like Arkham City, but on a larger scale maybe? Verticality is a huge thing in this game, it would appear.
There is mention of one time-limit sequence in the demonstration, where the door to the brothel gets locked if you don't get there in time, but it's not a fail state. Just a 'find a harder way in' state.
The fire/smoke/weather stuff is apparently pretty impressive.
Focus can be used for combat, but is more useful for things like stealing earrings while the owner is still wearing them.
They've apparently removed the creative swearing, like "taffer" and such.
The plot involves an industrial baron using the Watch as his personal gang of thugs.
...they removed "taffer"...<twitch>...how could they remove "taffer"
taffing developers don't taffing know what the taff they're doing.
The other stuff, is pretty awesome I must say. The removal of "taffer" brings a tear to my eye, but the rest of it sounds pretty awesome.
Yea, most of that preview was actually really good. Though I'm still disappointed they aren't bringing back Garrett's original voice actor
Maybe if they include that Watch Guard voice actor who you hear throughout 3. You know, the one who had medical issues that you hear about over the course of like a half-dozen missions. He'll always have a special place in my heart.
Honestly I'm okay with this. I cringed every time I heard Garrett's voice because thieves.do.not.speak. EVER. I want him to be completely silent, so I never really paid any mind to what he said, or how he said it anyway.
Garret speaking was obviously just his thoughts being vocalized for the player. I'm pretty damn sure he didn't sneak past guards and then openly talk out loud to himself.
Steam / Xbox Live: WSDX NNID: W-S-D-X 3DS FC: 2637-9461-8549
0
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
Oh, and I’ve also missed rope arrows and they’re finally coming back as well.
The main points, as they stuck out to me:
The author is a huge Thiefanatic. He got to see a demonstration level -- a fucking brothel again, because what the fuck.
The City is huge and, as best he can tell, open-world. Sounds like Arkham City, but on a larger scale maybe? Verticality is a huge thing in this game, it would appear.
There is mention of one time-limit sequence in the demonstration, where the door to the brothel gets locked if you don't get there in time, but it's not a fail state. Just a 'find a harder way in' state.
The fire/smoke/weather stuff is apparently pretty impressive.
Focus can be used for combat, but is more useful for things like stealing earrings while the owner is still wearing them.
They've apparently removed the creative swearing, like "taffer" and such.
The plot involves an industrial baron using the Watch as his personal gang of thugs.
...they removed "taffer"...<twitch>...how could they remove "taffer"
taffing developers don't taffing know what the taff they're doing.
The other stuff, is pretty awesome I must say. The removal of "taffer" brings a tear to my eye, but the rest of it sounds pretty awesome.
Yea, most of that preview was actually really good. Though I'm still disappointed they aren't bringing back Garrett's original voice actor
Maybe if they include that Watch Guard voice actor who you hear throughout 3. You know, the one who had medical issues that you hear about over the course of like a half-dozen missions. He'll always have a special place in my heart.
Honestly I'm okay with this. I cringed every time I heard Garrett's voice because thieves.do.not.speak. EVER. I want him to be completely silent, so I never really paid any mind to what he said, or how he said it anyway.
Garret speaking was obviously just his thoughts being vocalized for the player. I'm pretty damn sure he didn't sneak past guards and then openly talk out loud to himself.
Good call! Still, it was grating to me because I want my protagonists to be absolutely silent. Spoiled by Zelda and Half Life and all the other games where the main PC never ever speaks, even to comical effect.
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
Oh, and I’ve also missed rope arrows and they’re finally coming back as well.
The main points, as they stuck out to me:
The author is a huge Thiefanatic. He got to see a demonstration level -- a fucking brothel again, because what the fuck.
The City is huge and, as best he can tell, open-world. Sounds like Arkham City, but on a larger scale maybe? Verticality is a huge thing in this game, it would appear.
There is mention of one time-limit sequence in the demonstration, where the door to the brothel gets locked if you don't get there in time, but it's not a fail state. Just a 'find a harder way in' state.
The fire/smoke/weather stuff is apparently pretty impressive.
Focus can be used for combat, but is more useful for things like stealing earrings while the owner is still wearing them.
They've apparently removed the creative swearing, like "taffer" and such.
The plot involves an industrial baron using the Watch as his personal gang of thugs.
...they removed "taffer"...<twitch>...how could they remove "taffer"
taffing developers don't taffing know what the taff they're doing.
The other stuff, is pretty awesome I must say. The removal of "taffer" brings a tear to my eye, but the rest of it sounds pretty awesome.
Yea, most of that preview was actually really good. Though I'm still disappointed they aren't bringing back Garrett's original voice actor
Maybe if they include that Watch Guard voice actor who you hear throughout 3. You know, the one who had medical issues that you hear about over the course of like a half-dozen missions. He'll always have a special place in my heart.
Honestly I'm okay with this. I cringed every time I heard Garrett's voice because thieves.do.not.speak. EVER. I want him to be completely silent, so I never really paid any mind to what he said, or how he said it anyway.
Garret speaking was obviously just his thoughts being vocalized for the player. I'm pretty damn sure he didn't sneak past guards and then openly talk out loud to himself.
Now I'm picturing the Thief games with the thief from "The Thief And The Cobbler".
Batman is a horrible example because the only damn way he doesn't kill people is by virtue of the Bat Computer being programmed to read corpses as "Unconscious". Play his last 2 games and you'll see. :P
And difficulty options better be in this damn game along with a proper save system. These are not negotiable Eidos!
Xeddicus on
"For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men. Not women. Not beasts...this you can trust."
+1
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
And it is arbitrary, by every definition of the term, despite your protestations.
Oh I'm not protesting. I was just, you know, reading a dictionary. I think you should do that too.
I swear if someone incorrectly uses arbitrary in this thread again I might need to go throw something at a wall. Stop fucking around with English to suit your arguments people!
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Eidos Montreal's next-gen take on Thief will cater those who prefer their pickpocketing to be nice, quiet and devoid of visual noise.
According to Thief's Lead Level Designer, Daniel Windfeld Schmidt, the game will feature an old-school mode of sorts. Activating it will disable elements on the heads-up display and tone down master thief Garrett's special abilities. If you want to sneak through unseen – sans notifications, contextual helpers and slow-motion swipes – this will be the way to do it.
+8
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
The bow is a utility belt. Water arrows, moss arrows, rope arrows, vine arrows, noisemaker arrows, fire arrows. And then those shitty but numerous noisemaker-lite broadheads.
Yes Garret has more methods of not killing than killing. Claiming the two methods of silent killing he does have are defining him as a character is flying in the face of the six methods of getting around obstacles silently he does have. Where most stealth games only have one or two tools for achieving no kills (Metal Gears tranq guns, I'm looking at you) Thief has many more non murder weapons than murder weapons. More if you add items. Most of those items for not killing people are contrived, difficult to put together, expensive and uncommon. They're things he goes out of his way to get, specifically for a purpose. If he really didn't mind killing he'd just have ten thousand arrows and a sword. Why bring a black jack at all? This whole argument is really silly. There's no way to swing this so that killing gets shoehorned in there. If you have to backflip like a circus acrobat to desperately scrabble a point together you really need to just leave it.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
+1
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
The bow is a utility belt. Water arrows, moss arrows, rope arrows, vine arrows, noisemaker arrows, fire arrows. And then those shitty but numerous noisemaker-lite broadheads.
Yes Garret has more methods of not killing than killing. Claiming the two methods of silent killing he does have are defining him as a character is flying in the face of the six methods of getting around obstacles silently he does have. Where most stealth games only have one or two tools for achieving no kills (Metal Gears tranq guns, I'm looking at you) Thief has many more non murder weapons than murder weapons. More if you add items. Most of those items for not killing people are contrived, difficult to put together, expensive and uncommon. They're things he goes out of his way to get, specifically for a purpose. If he really didn't mind killing he'd just have ten thousand arrows and a sword. Why bring a black jack at all? This whole argument is really silly. There's no way to swing this so that killing gets shoehorned in there. If you have to backflip like a circus acrobat to desperately scrabble a point together you really need to just leave it.
I always thought that Garret brought a Sword with him for looks purely. In that society everyone has a sword (like medieval Europe) or some sort of weapon, so he's doing it just to blend into the crowd. Yes, there are things that stare glaring in the face of that, like people walking around without weapons...taffers just forgot to dress themselves properly in the morning :P
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
The bow is a utility belt. Water arrows, moss arrows, rope arrows, vine arrows, noisemaker arrows, fire arrows. And then those shitty but numerous noisemaker-lite broadheads.
Yes Garret has more methods of not killing than killing. Claiming the two methods of silent killing he does have are defining him as a character is flying in the face of the six methods of getting around obstacles silently he does have. Where most stealth games only have one or two tools for achieving no kills (Metal Gears tranq guns, I'm looking at you) Thief has many more non murder weapons than murder weapons. More if you add items. Most of those items for not killing people are contrived, difficult to put together, expensive and uncommon. They're things he goes out of his way to get, specifically for a purpose. If he really didn't mind killing he'd just have ten thousand arrows and a sword. Why bring a black jack at all? This whole argument is really silly. There's no way to swing this so that killing gets shoehorned in there. If you have to backflip like a circus acrobat to desperately scrabble a point together you really need to just leave it.
I always thought that Garret brought a Sword with him for looks purely. In that society everyone has a sword (like medieval Europe) or some sort of weapon, so he's doing it just to blend into the crowd. Yes, there are things that stare glaring in the face of that, like people walking around without weapons...taffers just forgot to dress themselves properly in the morning :P
Nah man. It's because he isn't stupid. He knows there could be a situation he has no control over where he has to defend himself. It doesn't make any sense to not take a weapon just in case you need to. It doesn't automatically mean you always use it. There's no need to coddle that ridiculous argument at all. Also if you are dealing in the dark places where all the haunts, zombies, giant spiders and horrible forest monsters go, not bringing a weapon is silly. You are allowed to kill those in an expert run.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
And it is arbitrary, by every definition of the term, despite your protestations.
Oh I'm not protesting. I was just, you know, reading a dictionary. I think you should do that too.
I swear if someone incorrectly uses arbitrary in this thread again I might need to go throw something at a wall. Stop fucking around with English to suit your arguments people!
Indeed. It seems people have mistaken "arbitrary" for a word that means "gameplay design I don't like" or something.
+1
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
I think people generally think that arbitrary is equivalent to "useless", which isn't, technically, completely false. It's about connotations and whatnot.
As an ESL I have a very keen knowledge of the different connotations that words have, however I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.. however, the misuse of they're their and there will bring you full wrath of Morda :P
I won't say anything to you, but I will give you heinous eye-lasers from my computer screen if you misuse those words :twisted:
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
I think people generally think that arbitrary is equivalent to "useless", which isn't, technically, completely false.
Yes it is.
Useless has nothing to do with the definition of arbitrary. It's an implication you could pull out, potentially, via a separate argument, but it doesn't automatically follow on from the definition. It's not tied to the word.
I could arbitrarily decide to turn left instead of right on my daily walk. This is not automatically useless. I might encounter something interesting or new on that walk, even if it occurred by chance and my reason for turning left was not because I thought I might discover something new, but simply because I had decided on left out of whim.
Something that is arbitrary can, sometimes, be useless. Just as often, considering that randomness is a key component of the term, it could end up being something useful. Quite a lot of game play mechanics, classic ones, were created arbitrarily. Why does Mario jump on a mushroom to kill it? Could you really describe that as anything other than the personal whim of Miyamoto? Is that arbitrary? Yes. Is it useless or worthless or wrong? No. Millions of people have played these games and loved them. They gained great enjoyment from his whims.
Arbitrary is a neutral word that describes a lack of intent, a lack of reasoning. It doesn't automatically mean that thing is bad. It's not an automatic slur. Arbitrary is frequently tied to a negative meaning when people use it to describe games on these boards, and as a result people have incorrectly ascribed to it an automatic negative meaning, so that when they want to describe how much they don't like something they are selecting arbitrary. However it does not automatically have this negative meaning and using it in that manner where it does not apply is incorrect grammar.
Now, can we please stop talking about this damn word. I just want people to not dress up their opinions with words that don't apply. I don't think it's too much to ask that people say "I don't like it" instead.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
The worst way to get people to stop talking about something is to try to get the last word in.
I say arbitrary because, as a simulation, there's not anything in-game that fails the mission when you kill someone. Garrett doesn't like to kill people, sure. But he doesn't die if he does, so why does the game stop? (Or rather, why don't you get to advance to the next level?)
Someone brought up DOOM, saying that the game forces you to shoot bad guys or else you'll die. There's an apparent mechanism for dying -- the monsters shoot or eat you to death, you run out of health, the game's over. There's no equivalent mechanic in Thief. The closest thing in most shooters is an escort or defense mission where the game just ends if your target dies. You don't get to run off to lead the underground resistance, it's over.
DOOM also had par times, which meant nothing if I recall correctly. You don't get anything for meeting them, you don't lose anything for not hitting them. If Hard difficulty had enforced the par times by ending the game as soon as par was up, that would have felt kind of arbitrary. Nothing shot me, the keys are still there, why is the game over? If every level has a bomb or something counting down to obliterate everything, it feels less random. The game ended because the bomb blew up and killed me. And back on the first hand, if the explanation is just that DOOM Space Marine simply likes to get things done fast, that feels weird again.
Applied to Thief, it's the question of why you don't win a level if you kill someone on Hard or Expert. And I guess the answer is that you're not really playing Garrett, but a kind of a Garrett simulator putting you on challenge levels, and if you don't do what Garrett would have done the simulation fails you. Otherwise, as people have said, it would be pretty easy for the game to simply not perform non-Garrett like actions like hitting people with your sword or shooting arrows into their heads.
If you have a game where your character is established as a devout vegetarian, and yet the game lets you pick up a hamburger and eat it, immediately dropping you to Game Over and main menu, it could easily seem inconsistent with the rest of the simulation they've set up. The principle's not hard to understand, but it doesn't create the impression of a world functioning by normal rules.
I think you guys are kinda arguing at strawmen of one anothers' arguments.
No one is going to get up in arms if you're able to kill people. We'd certainly prefer it if higher difficulties required that you didn't, but having the allowance of death? Sure, whatever.
On the other hand, being able to kill doesn't mean that there needs to be combat mechanic systems specifically designed to make killing someone the easiest route, and (quite frankly, more importantly) level design should be made with non-combat in mind, not with making fun/interesting fight sequences.
The issue isn't what's in the game, the issue is where the priorities of the designers lay. Because if you spend a lot of time making a system which is cool and fun to use to kill people, you'll make levels which actively encourage its usage, and levels which are designed with combat in mind will more than likely not be designed in such a way that makes stealth nearly as fun.
What we want is a game which is designed with stealth and combat-avoidance in mind (albeit difficult, of course), where killing an enemy can be considered a "get out of jail free" card, but not the ultimate goal of getting through the area. And if combat is at the forefront of development, even if there is stealth included, it won't be the game which we're looking for.
I say arbitrary because, as a simulation, there's not anything in-game that fails the mission when you kill someone. Garrett doesn't like to kill people, sure. But he doesn't die if he does, so why does the game stop? (Or rather, why don't you get to advance to the next level?)
If you have a game where your character is established as a devout vegetarian, and yet the game lets you pick up a hamburger and eat it, immediately dropping you to Game Over and main menu, it could easily seem inconsistent with the rest of the simulation they've set up. The principle's not hard to understand, but it doesn't create the impression of a world functioning by normal rules.
If you are playing dodge ball and get hit with the ball do you complain that it is arbitrary that you should be out since the ball didn't physically move you out of the square?
It's a game and it has consistent rules. They are not random rules. They are clearly explained rules by the game itself. Your objection is only relevant if what causes the game over screen is randomised.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
The objectives you are given aren't arbitrary. They establish the goals of your gameplay experience. "Don't Kill" is no more arbitrary then "Steal X extra item" or what have you.
The objectives you are given aren't arbitrary. They establish the goals of your gameplay experience. "Don't Kill" is no more arbitrary then "Steal X extra item" or what have you.
In the context of the game your mission is to steal the items, to get out, etc., whereas not killing people is how Garrett rolls. It's not the game that's arbitrary, it's the simulated world. If running a mission is the same as a round of dodgeball to you, that's fair enough. But if you're looking at it as a simulation, it's a gameism that sticks out. If your mission objectives are to steal X loot, get the Maltese Falcon and not eat any hamburgers because meat = murder, then you eat a hamburger and the game just ends... in the post Half-Life world it just feels like the game world doesn't work by rules that make sense.
Since Morninglord wants a dictionary definition, this is one that looks applicable:
3 a based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
If you view the game as a simulation rather than dodgeball, a mission failing because you didn't steal as much loot as tasked can usually be understood as an actual mission failure (usually, since for the most part there are people giving you these missions). But the game implies that the no-kill rule comes from Garrett and not the mission givers, so it's less clear why the missions end... unless you view the whole thing as a challenge-mission style game. Again, if you do, fair enough.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited April 2013
I loved the Eurogamer side bar about the XBOX journalists being there for the good of their health
It also really does seem this game is designed to be like Dishonored quite a lot, which would be a good thing except this game is called Thief. Really wondering why none of these previews asked the obvious question about "Is expert difficulty or equivalent in the game".
The objectives you are given aren't arbitrary. They establish the goals of your gameplay experience. "Don't Kill" is no more arbitrary then "Steal X extra item" or what have you.
In the context of the game your mission is to steal the items, to get out, etc., whereas not killing people is how Garrett rolls. It's not the game that's arbitrary, it's the simulated world. If running a mission is the same as a round of dodgeball to you, that's fair enough. But if you're looking at it as a simulation, it's a gameism that sticks out. If your mission objectives are to steal X loot, get the Maltese Falcon and not eat any hamburgers because meat = murder, then you eat a hamburger and the game just ends... in the post Half-Life world it just feels like the game world doesn't work by rules that make sense.
Since Morninglord wants a dictionary definition, this is one that looks applicable:
3 a based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
If you view the game as a simulation rather than dodgeball, a mission failing because you didn't steal as much loot as tasked can usually be understood as an actual mission failure (usually, since for the most part there are people giving you these missions). But the game implies that the no-kill rule comes from Garrett and not the mission givers, so it's less clear why the missions end... unless you view the whole thing as a challenge-mission style game. Again, if you do, fair enough.
It's a game, not a strict simulation. It contains elements that simulate a real-ish scenario, but it is a game and is full of gamey things that exist to make it fun/possible to play. (see - light gem)
Just because these elements are not necessarily strictly simulationist does not make them arbitrary. They exist to promote a gameplay experience, which is the point of the damn game.
In the same way, Half-Life requires you to resolve all conflicts by shooting shit in the face. This is not an accurate representation of anything. Certainly not of a nuclear physicist's skill set. But it's a game, so you play by the rules of the game. It's not arbitrary.
Ya, but the way Half Life made shooting everyone a requirement was to set up a gameworld where you'd clearly die if you didn't. In a parallel fashion Thief would either have guards clown-car out of the woodwork whenever you killed someone, or there would be an indication that it's brought too much heat down, or something. Instead (if you're being simulationist) there's just an implication that Garrett's professional pride maybe takes a fatal wound.
----
This Focus business seems really, really unnecessary and shoehorned in. What does it add, other than the combat that almost no one wants? What exactly is the downside of making this game without a Batvision/bullet time mechanic?
EDIT: On a similar note, it seems like they could automatically cut a distinct percentage of complaints if they get rid of that veil on Garrett's face.
Orogogus on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited April 2013
Pretty sure I'm done talking about this, gonna move on now. Think whatever you like man. Clearly what anyone else says will never enter into it anyway.
Reading those previews, here's something from the Eurogamer one.
A lot of it can be summed up in a single scene: Garrett is on a rooftop in the midst of The City, on his way to break into a brothel called The House of Blossoms in pursuit of a nobleman wearing an expensive medallion, and in order to proceed on this path (others are available) he needs to bypass a couple of guards below him. Only problem: they're standing in a brightly lit doorway and one of them is facing outwards. Rather than waiting for them to move on, however, he does something awesome: he uses a rope to lower himself into the shadow behind the guard furthest from the door. What shadow? The dynamic shadow being cast by the lantern the guard is holding up in front of his chest. He then waits for the guards to move inside the door, follows slowly, and slips behind a stack of boxes to one side once they cross the threshold.
It's only a few seconds of gameplay, but it captures a lot of what sets this Thief game apart from the ones it follows: 1) Garrett is much more lithe and acrobatic and has new abilities, in this case a grapple-style device called The Claw that allows him to latch onto certain objects in the environment. 2) This is still a dark, tense game of stealth. And 3) this is a next-generation game, using the extra power of high-end PC, PS4 and the new Xbox to give the series a new hook. In this case, the shadows that were once baked into the environment to create avenues for stealth are no longer fixed - they move. I find the implications of that alone pretty exciting.
Sexy. I also think that's exciting.
Another thing I like is the talk of giving your enemies credible AI. Eidos wants to break the cycle of stealthy players screwing up and refusing to continue, so if you are spotted then the hope is you can derive pleasure from evading capture rather than going back to your last save or checkpoint. One way of encouraging this is guards who carry out systematic searches - rather than just probing areas repeatedly for the duration of a cooldown - allowing you to move into shadows they've already investigated in order to regain your anonymity.
Excited about this too.
The PC Gamer one is quite reassuring actually. It shows they take criticism very seriously and are being very careful about it.
eg
Oh, and one more new thing: Garrett can slow down time. I know, and Eidos knows too. The devs assured me that his Focus ability, which can be used in bursts to make master thievery a bit easier by highlighting important objects and aiding lockpicking, pickpocketing, and combat, will never be mandatory. I don’t accept the “it’s not a problem for traditionalists because they don’t have to use it” argument, because temptation counts as a problem, so I hope there’s an option to fully disable it. The team is still figuring out what we’ll be able to tweak, but I came away understanding that they know we want a lot of options.
When the demo ended, Producer Stephane Roy asked me, “So, is it a Thief game?” His insecurity is endearing. I can tell he wants to please fans, but he and Eidos have a tough road ahead. Reboots are intrinsically hard. They not only challenge the past, they challenge our perceptions of the past, and those are impossible to counter because they aren’t based in reality.
The last Thief will be 10 years old when the new one releases next year. By making a new one, something beloved is being ripped from its solidified place in history to be analyzed and criticized and improved on. It’ll take a lot of convincing, but Eidos showed me that they aren’t dismissive of the challenge. They have fear, and that’s probably a good thing.
I'm basically feeling a lot better about them knowing that they are going into this as worried as we are. They're treating it seriously. For example:
As for what's on that roadmap, there's lots of good stuff, a few things I could take or leave, and other parts I hope they allow you to turn off. For instance, Garrett has Lara Croft's annoying habit of talking about what he's doing in such a way that it spoils moments of discovery in favour of making sure you know exactly what to do. "I wonder if there's one in each room," Garrett says after finding his first medallion glyph. Oh well gee d'ya think?!
But talking to the people making the game is more reassuring. When I mention that I wish Garrett kept some of those thoughts to himself, they seem genuinely concerned and promise to look at it. They tell me his cynical commentary as you play is a big part of the character for them, but they clearly don't want to put people off by over-explaining things.
See what I mean?
Also from the start
Thief is about a guy with a bow, Garrett, who steals stuff. That’s definitely what the series is about, and that’s how I approached my first look at Eidos’ reboot last week at GDC. It better be about a guy with a bow who steals stuff, because aren’t we all afraid Thief will mess with those fundamentals?
Eidos knows this fear. When I asked a group of devs what they thought Thief fans were most worried about, they all said “that it’ll be too easy.” They told me their intentions are pure. They want Thief to be a Thief game, they say.
On the other hand it does have 3rd person deus ex style takedowns using focus.
It's first-person for the most part, although the action sometimes shifts to third-person to highlight Garrett using the claw, clinging onto a ledge or performing an optional takedown on an enemy - reminiscent of Deus Ex: Human Revolution and, you know, all games with takedowns.
Boy do I hope we can just turn off focus entirely. I'd really just rather not have the option, let me tick it off before I even start the game. Let scarab mess around with the takedowns and giggle about it.
But still, what I took away from these previews is what I didn't take away from that producer interview before. A sense that they are willing to accept having made a mistake, to accept criticism, and work to change it for the better.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
+2
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
I like this, letting my skepticism go away a little. Maybe, like a true thief, eidos will use this opportunity and backstabbing me by turning Garrett into a platformer with mounted combat :P
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited April 2013
One thing I really like is that they're making him much more tactile. When you peek around the sofa or whatever his hands are gripping the edge. You see his hands touching walls you are next to or steadying himself on the walls as you go down stairs. He also holds up loot he gets and inspects it before stashing it, like you get in all the thief movies you've ever seen in your life. That's a nice touch. Garret would totally inspect the goods.
Also they have given him a cool power without making it op. He can do a tiny dash from shadow to shadow, but it's only a few paces in length. It's not a blink. It's a way of quickly getting across a narrow patch of bright light. This is the kind of thing I was talking about when I said I wanted them to focus on improving the stealth, so it made me very happy.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Haha "Garrett speaks a lot through his eyes and that is massively important. And that was something that Romano was really good at doing..."
He's a VOICE actor guys. Ha.
"For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men. Not women. Not beasts...this you can trust."
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited April 2013
They mo capped him as well.
He's a movement/voice actor.
They even showed him doing this.
Also he really sounds like he did his research, so I'm pretty mollified by this guy. I'm behind him all the way after that video.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Boy do I hope we can just turn off focus entirely. I'd really just rather not have the option, let me tick it off before I even start the game. Let scarab mess around with the takedowns and giggle about it.
Or you could, I dunno, just not press the focus button? If you really lack the willpower to not use a feature you hate so much, you could just bind it to a key that's uncomfortable to reach.
Posts
Because there are lower difficulty levels and because those tools are useful for other things.
You know, what with the monsters and all.
Doesn't work because the primary way you play at a lower difficulty setting in Thief is by being worse at stealthing.
If you enforce no killing on every difficulty setting, you have to do something else to lower the difficulty and there's not much else. Making the AI stupider would be a pain, as would changing the levels. The only other real option is lowering the number of guards but that's a tough thing to do in some cases, depending on level design.
It's just plain easier to give the player options that allow them to be worse at stealthing. Especially since it fits into already existing systems within the game. (ie - the objective system)
Because that seems really odd and weird and out of place when you could just carry a sword. Plus you need the sword for lower difficulty levels anyway.
Thief did change the levels on higher difficulties, making it harder to get around. And changed the victory conditions, throwing additional objectives into the mix -- stealing more loot, additional treasures, freeing extra prisoners, etc. And generally on hard and expert you would have to get out after doing the deed.
You don't really need the sword on lower difficulty levels. The other options still work.
Honestly I'm okay with this. I cringed every time I heard Garrett's voice because thieves.do.not.speak. EVER. I want him to be completely silent, so I never really paid any mind to what he said, or how he said it anyway.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
You can't really have it both ways. Either not killing is an essential aspect of his character, and should be enforced on every difficulty setting, or you have to admit that Garrett is okay with killing in certain situations. Bringing back the Batman comparison, it'd be like Batman getting a silenced M4 with a scope on easy mode, so he can murder all the guards while perched on a gargoyle statue.
Actually you can have it both ways. It's called "multiple difficulty settings".
You should be good enough to beat the game on expert. But if you aren't or if you just don't care enough, they accommodate you.
In a shooter, this would be accomplished by making the enemies less numerous and easier, to balance out your lesser ability to shoot them bitches in the face. In a stealth game, they accomplish this by lowering the requirements for you to be super-stealthy and taking away things that require even more stealthiness and thieving.
The Batman comparison fails because Batman refuses to kill. Garrett just doesn't want to kill and feels he shouldn't have to. He will kill if he must. He believes, and the gameplay deliberately supports this idea, that a good enough thief shouldn't need to kill. On lower difficulty levels, you aren't a good enough thief to accomplish that.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
Garret speaking was obviously just his thoughts being vocalized for the player. I'm pretty damn sure he didn't sneak past guards and then openly talk out loud to himself.
Good call! Still, it was grating to me because I want my protagonists to be absolutely silent. Spoiled by Zelda and Half Life and all the other games where the main PC never ever speaks, even to comical effect.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
Now I'm picturing the Thief games with the thief from "The Thief And The Cobbler".
It's a glorious mental image.
And difficulty options better be in this damn game along with a proper save system. These are not negotiable Eidos!
Oh I'm not protesting. I was just, you know, reading a dictionary. I think you should do that too.
I swear if someone incorrectly uses arbitrary in this thread again I might need to go throw something at a wall. Stop fucking around with English to suit your arguments people!
Yes Garret has more methods of not killing than killing. Claiming the two methods of silent killing he does have are defining him as a character is flying in the face of the six methods of getting around obstacles silently he does have. Where most stealth games only have one or two tools for achieving no kills (Metal Gears tranq guns, I'm looking at you) Thief has many more non murder weapons than murder weapons. More if you add items. Most of those items for not killing people are contrived, difficult to put together, expensive and uncommon. They're things he goes out of his way to get, specifically for a purpose. If he really didn't mind killing he'd just have ten thousand arrows and a sword. Why bring a black jack at all? This whole argument is really silly. There's no way to swing this so that killing gets shoehorned in there. If you have to backflip like a circus acrobat to desperately scrabble a point together you really need to just leave it.
I always thought that Garret brought a Sword with him for looks purely. In that society everyone has a sword (like medieval Europe) or some sort of weapon, so he's doing it just to blend into the crowd. Yes, there are things that stare glaring in the face of that, like people walking around without weapons...taffers just forgot to dress themselves properly in the morning :P
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
Nah man. It's because he isn't stupid. He knows there could be a situation he has no control over where he has to defend himself. It doesn't make any sense to not take a weapon just in case you need to. It doesn't automatically mean you always use it. There's no need to coddle that ridiculous argument at all. Also if you are dealing in the dark places where all the haunts, zombies, giant spiders and horrible forest monsters go, not bringing a weapon is silly. You are allowed to kill those in an expert run.
Indeed. It seems people have mistaken "arbitrary" for a word that means "gameplay design I don't like" or something.
As an ESL I have a very keen knowledge of the different connotations that words have, however I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.. however, the misuse of they're their and there will bring you full wrath of Morda :P
I won't say anything to you, but I will give you heinous eye-lasers from my computer screen if you misuse those words :twisted:
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
Yes it is.
Useless has nothing to do with the definition of arbitrary. It's an implication you could pull out, potentially, via a separate argument, but it doesn't automatically follow on from the definition. It's not tied to the word.
I could arbitrarily decide to turn left instead of right on my daily walk. This is not automatically useless. I might encounter something interesting or new on that walk, even if it occurred by chance and my reason for turning left was not because I thought I might discover something new, but simply because I had decided on left out of whim.
Something that is arbitrary can, sometimes, be useless. Just as often, considering that randomness is a key component of the term, it could end up being something useful. Quite a lot of game play mechanics, classic ones, were created arbitrarily. Why does Mario jump on a mushroom to kill it? Could you really describe that as anything other than the personal whim of Miyamoto? Is that arbitrary? Yes. Is it useless or worthless or wrong? No. Millions of people have played these games and loved them. They gained great enjoyment from his whims.
Arbitrary is a neutral word that describes a lack of intent, a lack of reasoning. It doesn't automatically mean that thing is bad. It's not an automatic slur. Arbitrary is frequently tied to a negative meaning when people use it to describe games on these boards, and as a result people have incorrectly ascribed to it an automatic negative meaning, so that when they want to describe how much they don't like something they are selecting arbitrary. However it does not automatically have this negative meaning and using it in that manner where it does not apply is incorrect grammar.
Now, can we please stop talking about this damn word. I just want people to not dress up their opinions with words that don't apply. I don't think it's too much to ask that people say "I don't like it" instead.
I say arbitrary because, as a simulation, there's not anything in-game that fails the mission when you kill someone. Garrett doesn't like to kill people, sure. But he doesn't die if he does, so why does the game stop? (Or rather, why don't you get to advance to the next level?)
Someone brought up DOOM, saying that the game forces you to shoot bad guys or else you'll die. There's an apparent mechanism for dying -- the monsters shoot or eat you to death, you run out of health, the game's over. There's no equivalent mechanic in Thief. The closest thing in most shooters is an escort or defense mission where the game just ends if your target dies. You don't get to run off to lead the underground resistance, it's over.
DOOM also had par times, which meant nothing if I recall correctly. You don't get anything for meeting them, you don't lose anything for not hitting them. If Hard difficulty had enforced the par times by ending the game as soon as par was up, that would have felt kind of arbitrary. Nothing shot me, the keys are still there, why is the game over? If every level has a bomb or something counting down to obliterate everything, it feels less random. The game ended because the bomb blew up and killed me. And back on the first hand, if the explanation is just that DOOM Space Marine simply likes to get things done fast, that feels weird again.
Applied to Thief, it's the question of why you don't win a level if you kill someone on Hard or Expert. And I guess the answer is that you're not really playing Garrett, but a kind of a Garrett simulator putting you on challenge levels, and if you don't do what Garrett would have done the simulation fails you. Otherwise, as people have said, it would be pretty easy for the game to simply not perform non-Garrett like actions like hitting people with your sword or shooting arrows into their heads.
If you have a game where your character is established as a devout vegetarian, and yet the game lets you pick up a hamburger and eat it, immediately dropping you to Game Over and main menu, it could easily seem inconsistent with the rest of the simulation they've set up. The principle's not hard to understand, but it doesn't create the impression of a world functioning by normal rules.
No one is going to get up in arms if you're able to kill people. We'd certainly prefer it if higher difficulties required that you didn't, but having the allowance of death? Sure, whatever.
On the other hand, being able to kill doesn't mean that there needs to be combat mechanic systems specifically designed to make killing someone the easiest route, and (quite frankly, more importantly) level design should be made with non-combat in mind, not with making fun/interesting fight sequences.
The issue isn't what's in the game, the issue is where the priorities of the designers lay. Because if you spend a lot of time making a system which is cool and fun to use to kill people, you'll make levels which actively encourage its usage, and levels which are designed with combat in mind will more than likely not be designed in such a way that makes stealth nearly as fun.
What we want is a game which is designed with stealth and combat-avoidance in mind (albeit difficult, of course), where killing an enemy can be considered a "get out of jail free" card, but not the ultimate goal of getting through the area. And if combat is at the forefront of development, even if there is stealth included, it won't be the game which we're looking for.
If you are playing dodge ball and get hit with the ball do you complain that it is arbitrary that you should be out since the ball didn't physically move you out of the square?
It's a game and it has consistent rules. They are not random rules. They are clearly explained rules by the game itself. Your objection is only relevant if what causes the game over screen is randomised.
is that a thing that is happening
has thief really gone so far off the stealth-game rails that it's become a semantics and morphology simulator
In the context of the game your mission is to steal the items, to get out, etc., whereas not killing people is how Garrett rolls. It's not the game that's arbitrary, it's the simulated world. If running a mission is the same as a round of dodgeball to you, that's fair enough. But if you're looking at it as a simulation, it's a gameism that sticks out. If your mission objectives are to steal X loot, get the Maltese Falcon and not eat any hamburgers because meat = murder, then you eat a hamburger and the game just ends... in the post Half-Life world it just feels like the game world doesn't work by rules that make sense.
Since Morninglord wants a dictionary definition, this is one that looks applicable:
3 a based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary
If you view the game as a simulation rather than dodgeball, a mission failing because you didn't steal as much loot as tasked can usually be understood as an actual mission failure (usually, since for the most part there are people giving you these missions). But the game implies that the no-kill rule comes from Garrett and not the mission givers, so it's less clear why the missions end... unless you view the whole thing as a challenge-mission style game. Again, if you do, fair enough.
It also really does seem this game is designed to be like Dishonored quite a lot, which would be a good thing except this game is called Thief. Really wondering why none of these previews asked the obvious question about "Is expert difficulty or equivalent in the game".
It's a game, not a strict simulation. It contains elements that simulate a real-ish scenario, but it is a game and is full of gamey things that exist to make it fun/possible to play. (see - light gem)
Just because these elements are not necessarily strictly simulationist does not make them arbitrary. They exist to promote a gameplay experience, which is the point of the damn game.
In the same way, Half-Life requires you to resolve all conflicts by shooting shit in the face. This is not an accurate representation of anything. Certainly not of a nuclear physicist's skill set. But it's a game, so you play by the rules of the game. It's not arbitrary.
----
This Focus business seems really, really unnecessary and shoehorned in. What does it add, other than the combat that almost no one wants? What exactly is the downside of making this game without a Batvision/bullet time mechanic?
EDIT: On a similar note, it seems like they could automatically cut a distinct percentage of complaints if they get rid of that veil on Garrett's face.
Reading those previews, here's something from the Eurogamer one.
Sexy. I also think that's exciting.
Excited about this too.
The PC Gamer one is quite reassuring actually. It shows they take criticism very seriously and are being very careful about it.
eg
I'm basically feeling a lot better about them knowing that they are going into this as worried as we are. They're treating it seriously. For example:
See what I mean?
Also from the start
On the other hand it does have 3rd person deus ex style takedowns using focus.
Boy do I hope we can just turn off focus entirely. I'd really just rather not have the option, let me tick it off before I even start the game. Let scarab mess around with the takedowns and giggle about it.
But still, what I took away from these previews is what I didn't take away from that producer interview before. A sense that they are willing to accept having made a mistake, to accept criticism, and work to change it for the better.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
Also they have given him a cool power without making it op. He can do a tiny dash from shadow to shadow, but it's only a few paces in length. It's not a blink. It's a way of quickly getting across a narrow patch of bright light. This is the kind of thing I was talking about when I said I wanted them to focus on improving the stealth, so it made me very happy.
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
Haha "Garrett speaks a lot through his eyes and that is massively important. And that was something that Romano was really good at doing..."
He's a VOICE actor guys. Ha.
He's a movement/voice actor.
They even showed him doing this.
Also he really sounds like he did his research, so I'm pretty mollified by this guy. I'm behind him all the way after that video.
(Real post: that interview is encouraging in a vague-ish way.)
Or you could, I dunno, just not press the focus button? If you really lack the willpower to not use a feature you hate so much, you could just bind it to a key that's uncomfortable to reach.