From what I've watched of Thief so far (and I haven't played it at all) it looks fun - it's not like the old Thief games in quite a few ways but it still looks fun. Isn't that ok?
No, that is precisely when you decide to use a new IP.
Look at the Bureau, that game actually had some neat ideas but the entire thing got bogged down on "Is this XCOM?". If it had been a new IP right from the start, it could have been a successful game and wouldn't have generated anywhere near the backlash it did. Minding, I will say in fairness to Thief that Thief is closer to Thief than The Bureau is to XCOM (especially on its first release). However Thief feels like someone made a non-magical take on Dishonored instead of Thief.
Is that a bad thing? I suspect for many it's not going to be, but it's immensely infuriating and tiring to have to explain why using an IP that people loved and cared about without really giving a shit about what made the original great is a bad thing.
I am willing to understand that people with no attachment to the original Thief don't give a shit what this game is like, why on earth is it so impossible for others to understand why fans of the originals might not be happy with this? After all if it wasn't for fans backlash/complaints about the initial things they were doing in Thief we'd still have stupid bullshit like headshotting guards with arrows to gain EXP and QTEs.
I liked the old Thief games, it just doesn't bother me that this one is different, and what's wrong with getting bonuses for headshotting guards or using QTEs in combat? There's still options to avoid combat entirely, it just means the combat is a bit more fun for people who want to do combat. I mean of course QTEs aren't the ideal - but in first person getting melee combat right is basically impossible, so QTEs are kind of a compromise that works. Then again I did enjoy Ryse so maybe it's just an unpopular opinion.
I don't want the people who only enjoy combat to enjoy Thief. They don't deserve it.
Well, they don't deserve the stories that made Thief and Thief II amazing. Deadly Shadows is sort of shrug on the whole.
wow
seriously, I just rolled my eyes straight out of my head. they don't deserve it? it's a video game, I'm pretty sure they "deserve" whatever it ends up being. this nostalgia circlejerk is pretty awful.
While the post had way to much hyperbole for my liking, at least you now know how I feel whenever someone dismisses the fact this game isn't taking the best things about the originals (theme, setting, certain factions*, the variety of exploratory options available in both size of levels and how different gadgets worked - such as rope arrows) as just being "Afraid of change" or something equally ridiculous.
Also "Nostalgia circlejerk" is almost as hyperbolic as the post you're complaining about, especially because I can't see anything at all wrong with "Why isn't a new game taking the best aspects of the original" as possibly being a remotely incorrect thing to argue.
*Though I am hoping they are trying to pull a Thief 2 marketing here and not reveal that there are some serious mythical or mechanical factions much later in the game so they are a maximum surprise.
One of the trailers definitely showed magic stuff and flashes of zombie/skeleton looking creatures so I'm sure there's some magical element to whatevers gonna be in the game.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited February 2014
@Jragghen Also entirely worth noting on Thief 3 that you can forgive many of the problems that Thief 3 had - such as the tiny cut up levels. They were doing the first multiplatform release of Thief and the huge, sprawling levels of the first two games just wouldn't have been able to work. Additionally Thief 3 got heavily messed up during development and had a lot of problems that held it back in many ways. There are reasonable issues that meant that fans had to put up with the dreaded "consolitis" of the title for its time.
These are not issues that the new Thief should be facing.
I am honestly amazed that there is even a discussion that the levels shouldn't be linear and so limited. It's so anti-thief and especially what made the second game stand out so well, it really shouldn't be any kind of limitation. The PS4 and Xbone can produce amazing visuals, with big open areas and still maintain an excellent frame rate (EG Killzone). Even though Dead Rising doesn't have the most stable frame rate, what that game accomplishes with a huge open world and so many zombies on screen is just a good example of the fact we don't have to live with tiny box levels.
Yet they seem to have specifically designed tiny linear box levels with a few "routes" built in, but ultimately a real sense of claustrophobia and being led down a series of scripted climbable object barriers. Again, I really hope later levels are huge, detailed and amazing, but the way the designers speak about the game and how they've set up the exploration mechanics doesn't give me any hope of that.
Plus, I genuinely feel that Thief should naturally have terrible combat - Garrett is not Corvo. He's not an assassin and he's not supposed to be able to out sword fight guards and trained mercenaries. He's meant to get around by stealthily avoiding his enemies and that's what the game should emphasise. Hence why every fan of the original game made sure Eidos knew an option to entirely turn off focus was needed (and to their credit, they totally provided that and it's the first thing I'm doing). I mean having played it, I can tell you that at least on normal you can run up to a long guard smash the blackjack button and trivially win without taking any damage. Two guards isn't much harder either.
If you want a stealth game where you stab the shit out of people? Dishonored is right here.
For those interested in some of my comments about the climbing button issues, at 1:52 - 2:00 minutes in you'll see him drop down on a rickety wooden ledge. If he was to try to turn around and go back the way he came onto the roof, he wouldn't be able to climb back up there. If you want to get back around there, instead of climbing up the literal 1 ft (or whatever, you can judge for yourself from the video) you need to climb up the area he did, turn around and there is a clear interactable region to climb back up then go back into the starting area.
It's a tiny example, but it's little things like that adding up over time that really make the levels feel much more claustrophic and directed than they may appear from say, watching that video.
Edit: Okay 3:10 Tara Long asks "Is this level linear or is there room for exploration", straight away there is silence from the developer before he begins fumbling an aswer of "So .... this is a... story driven game...".
That says a lot and as I mentioned from the demo I played, their idea of "multiple choices" is do I slaughter the guys right at the door (aggressive) or do I ghost (by going the obvious side route around).
Edit 2: Hopefully the city has some actual exploration to it.
And yet one of the most amazing levels of all time ended up being Return to the Haunted Cathedral.
I will agree that the human levels typically were the superior ones, but the supernatural ones had some amazing moments as well. The undead got a lot of heat but I always enjoyed them because it forced me all the more to be stealthy. Plus I like how those levels flesh out the setting of the world. I have such a vivid mental image of the City and the lore of it and just how absolutely insane you'd have to be to cross the wall to get into the Old Quarter.
I do hope for a little supernatural in this game. I'm still waiting to get into the Alarus section of the Bonehoard!
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited February 2014
He missed a lot of the spoons hidden in muck and so forth. People are very inconsiderate with where they leave their cutlery.
Edit: It's so worth noting that those difficulty options are the one thing I am genuinely happy with.
Edit 2: No alerts sounds really difficult! Also it's a very positive sign that it is possible.
Edit 3: All those options on and he fails within about 3 minutes on the second mission they were demoing.
Edit 4: There is a decent discussion on rebooting an older franchise and nostalgia in there about 30 minutes in. Neither host though seems willing to engage on the fact that level design is more linear and smaller than the original game by miles - a clear step back when we should be taking a huge step forward with much more powerful consoles/PCs than a 10 year old game had access to. I also feel Thief 2, even with some mechanical clunk, from a pure level and game design stand point still holds up better than many other stealth based games today. At the very least he acknowledges the whole EXP for headshots thing was completely stupid - thank god the group there that didn't want that won out.
This mission is so much better than what I played by miles, but even so it still feels awfully small compared to the originals.
From what I've watched of Thief so far (and I haven't played it at all) it looks fun - it's not like the old Thief games in quite a few ways but it still looks fun. Isn't that ok?
No, that is precisely when you decide to use a new IP.
Look at the Bureau, that game actually had some neat ideas but the entire thing got bogged down on "Is this XCOM?". If it had been a new IP right from the start, it could have been a successful game and wouldn't have generated anywhere near the backlash it did. Minding, I will say in fairness to Thief that Thief is closer to Thief than The Bureau is to XCOM (especially on its first release). However Thief feels like someone made a non-magical take on Dishonored instead of Thief.
Is that a bad thing? I suspect for many it's not going to be, but it's immensely infuriating and tiring to have to explain why using an IP that people loved and cared about without really giving a shit about what made the original great is a bad thing.
I am willing to understand that people with no attachment to the original Thief don't give a shit what this game is like, why on earth is it so impossible for others to understand why fans of the originals might not be happy with this? After all if it wasn't for fans backlash/complaints about the initial things they were doing in Thief we'd still have stupid bullshit like headshotting guards with arrows to gain EXP and QTEs.
I liked the old Thief games, it just doesn't bother me that this one is different, and what's wrong with getting bonuses for headshotting guards or using QTEs in combat? There's still options to avoid combat entirely, it just means the combat is a bit more fun for people who want to do combat. I mean of course QTEs aren't the ideal - but in first person getting melee combat right is basically impossible, so QTEs are kind of a compromise that works. Then again I did enjoy Ryse so maybe it's just an unpopular opinion.
I don't want the people who only enjoy combat to enjoy Thief. They don't deserve it.
Well, they don't deserve the stories that made Thief and Thief II amazing. Deadly Shadows is sort of shrug on the whole.
wow
Sorry man. Thief wasn't a combat game. Being able to win a fight in the original Thief meant you were very, very good at parry riposte and run away, rinse, repeat.
If you're only in it for the combat, I want you to be incredibly disappointed. Just like I want you to be disappointed with Mirror's Edge. To me that is mission accomplished. There are plenty of games that cater directly to what you want if combat is your aim. You don't need these games, which are admittedly niche, as well.
Which is why the entire idea of producing a Thief game on an A, or AA budget seemed pretty silly to me. I think with the team reboot it's into AAA budget territory. That forces these kinds of compromises. Which would be fine if this game was, say, "Ignoble" and not "Thief."
Edit: just to add, I suggested and, if I had been producing this game, would have insisted upon Garrett actually not having a weapon at the beginning of the game. Logically it would make sense for him not to carry one. He's a master thief, right? He doesn't even need a sword to use as a jimmy bar. He'll just climb around until he finds an unlatched window or a door he can pick the lock on.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited February 2014
The escape sequence, which I kind of hoped had been abandoned as a general idea with the "No alerts and alarms" thing. Obviously they make an exception for that when it comes to having buildings set on fire and rapidly running from the resulting mess.
Edit: The awkward pause about the magic/mysticism felt more like him thinking "How can I get out of that question without giving anything away" moreso than anything else.
These are not issues that the new Thief should be facing.
While I agree with you, the PS4 and XBone are not the reason for these issues. The PS3 and Xbox360 versions are. Which are exactly the same issues that were dealt with badly by Thief 3, porting it to the inferior memory capacity console(s) at the very end of their lifespans. I'd virtually guarantee that if the game had been made for next gen and PC only that the small level size wouldn't have been an issue. Unless it ends up coming out that the PS3/Xbox360 versions have a different level make up, different breaks in the level than the next gen versions, but I doubt it.
I don't really see the innate problem in having Garret punch dudes. The same way it's cool for Faith to shoot dudes or Sam Fisher to don heavy armour and a fuck off huge assault rifle to throw grenades at people. Having the option doesn't really hurt the purity of the game much. Especially in cases like Blacklist where you have to give up a lot of your stealth potential to be maximum fat Fisher.
Though the new Thief's combat does look kinda lame and un-inspired. If you're going to present the player character as 'the dude who steals stuff and strikes from the shadows' then all these situations where Garret gets seen and it doesn't seem to matter come across as wrong. More focus on stealth takedowns and darting about the map in and out of darkness would've suited better than 'Garrets happy arrow adventures co-staring Blackjack to armoured dudes faces'.
I don't really see the innate problem in having Garret punch dudes. The same way it's cool for Faith to shoot dudes or Sam Fisher to don heavy armour and a fuck off huge assault rifle to throw grenades at people. Having the option doesn't really hurt the purity of the game much. Especially in cases like Blacklist where you have to give up a lot of your stealth potential to be maximum fat Fisher.
Though the new Thief's combat does look kinda lame and un-inspired. If you're going to present the player character as 'the dude who steals stuff and strikes from the shadows' then all these situations where Garret gets seen and it doesn't seem to matter come across as wrong. More focus on stealth takedowns and darting about the map in and out of darkness would've suited better than 'Garrets happy arrow adventures co-staring Blackjack to armoured dudes faces'.
And that's precisely why some of the difficulty options like 'only stealth takedowns' will be some of the first things I enable in the game...
Yeah, you can easily use things like loadout options and difficulty modifiers (seriously, go play Blacklist which does this perfectly) to effect how much of a pure stealth game you wind up with.
I sure am looking forward to Dark Messiah of Stealth and Sneakery.
Man I wish someone would look into remaking Thief someday though. That would be pretty great.
Now you made me sad. That was one of the best early source games. It even had rope arrows!
You two are my bros. DMoM&M is a fucking masterpiece. Most satisfying knife kill animation goes to...
A great example of a game where combat is meant to be a real option. But also booting people into spikes placed innocuously on every single solid surface for people who didn't want to figure out all this new-fangled swording nonsense.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
There was something you could do in DMoMM that didn't involve booting people off cliffs?
Because I sure as hell can't remember it.
And that game had some great sneaky moments as well if you were a dagger type. Stabbing people from the shadows one after the other before kicking a dude off a ledge was great. Actually, there have been a lot of really great games based on combat that mix stealth mechanics effectively, which is just another reason why Thief should be doing something unique and not just copying Dishonored without the magic.
There was something you could do in DMoMM that didn't involve booting people off cliffs?
Because I sure as hell can't remember it.
And that game had some great sneaky moments as well if you were a dagger type. Stabbing people from the shadows one after the other before kicking a dude off a ledge was great. Actually, there have been a lot of really great games based on combat that mix stealth mechanics effectively, which is just another reason why Thief should be doing something unique and not just copying Dishonored without the magic.
You could mix magic and stealth to devastating effect in DMoMM: go stealth, charm things from the shadows. You never have to raise a finger My best character was a hybrid of heavy stealth mixed with light archery and magic.
I tried playing it the other day but Windows 7 hates my disc
Bulletstorm, aka my favourite FPS of all time, didn't have jumping, but that's because it was based on forward momentum and not exploring levels like thief, so that's kind of worrying.
Having never played a Thief game, I just caught that 17 minute playthrough of the "Lockdown" level and it looked pretty righteous, although my main concern is that times the gameplay seemed a bit dull.
From what I've watched of Thief so far (and I haven't played it at all) it looks fun - it's not like the old Thief games in quite a few ways but it still looks fun. Isn't that ok?
No, that is precisely when you decide to use a new IP.
Look at the Bureau, that game actually had some neat ideas but the entire thing got bogged down on "Is this XCOM?". If it had been a new IP right from the start, it could have been a successful game and wouldn't have generated anywhere near the backlash it did. Minding, I will say in fairness to Thief that Thief is closer to Thief than The Bureau is to XCOM (especially on its first release). However Thief feels like someone made a non-magical take on Dishonored instead of Thief.
Is that a bad thing? I suspect for many it's not going to be, but it's immensely infuriating and tiring to have to explain why using an IP that people loved and cared about without really giving a shit about what made the original great is a bad thing.
I am willing to understand that people with no attachment to the original Thief don't give a shit what this game is like, why on earth is it so impossible for others to understand why fans of the originals might not be happy with this? After all if it wasn't for fans backlash/complaints about the initial things they were doing in Thief we'd still have stupid bullshit like headshotting guards with arrows to gain EXP and QTEs.
I liked the old Thief games, it just doesn't bother me that this one is different, and what's wrong with getting bonuses for headshotting guards or using QTEs in combat? There's still options to avoid combat entirely, it just means the combat is a bit more fun for people who want to do combat. I mean of course QTEs aren't the ideal - but in first person getting melee combat right is basically impossible, so QTEs are kind of a compromise that works. Then again I did enjoy Ryse so maybe it's just an unpopular opinion.
I don't want the people who only enjoy combat to enjoy Thief. They don't deserve it.
Well, they don't deserve the stories that made Thief and Thief II amazing. Deadly Shadows is sort of shrug on the whole.
wow
Sorry man. Thief wasn't a combat game. Being able to win a fight in the original Thief meant you were very, very good at parry riposte and run away, rinse, repeat.
If you're only in it for the combat, I want you to be incredibly disappointed. Just like I want you to be disappointed with Mirror's Edge. To me that is mission accomplished. There are plenty of games that cater directly to what you want if combat is your aim. You don't need these games, which are admittedly niche, as well.
Which is why the entire idea of producing a Thief game on an A, or AA budget seemed pretty silly to me. I think with the team reboot it's into AAA budget territory. That forces these kinds of compromises. Which would be fine if this game was, say, "Ignoble" and not "Thief."
Edit: just to add, I suggested and, if I had been producing this game, would have insisted upon Garrett actually not having a weapon at the beginning of the game. Logically it would make sense for him not to carry one. He's a master thief, right? He doesn't even need a sword to use as a jimmy bar. He'll just climb around until he finds an unlatched window or a door he can pick the lock on.
Completely don't understand this point of view - why would you want someone else to not enjoy the game? On one hand you want more freedom in the game, more choice, but on the other you want some freedom or choice to be taken away from people who 'don't deserve it'. Some of my favourite moments in the Hitman games and Dishonoured were when I had tried to be stealthy and it all went wrong so I had to shoot/fight my way out of a terrible situation. That was exciting, that was fun. In Splinter Cell you can shoot your way through whole levels, but if you don't enjoy that you can stealth your way through instead. Surely that's more interesting than 'Stealth this or reload the game'.
In regards to how open it is I got the impression at the dev session at Eurogamer that there are more open sections and then there are more linear parts when the story requires it or there's some kind of set-piece. Like Hitman Absolution I guess. That's fine by me - even if I don't deserve it.
I get the impression that there are some 'hardcore' Thief players who want a game that will scan your computer, and if you have every copy of Call of Duty, just refuse to run. 'You don't deserve to play this game.'
I get the impression that there are some 'hardcore' Thief players who want a game that will scan your computer, and if you have every copy of Call of Duty, just refuse to run. 'You don't deserve to play this game.'
From what I've watched of Thief so far (and I haven't played it at all) it looks fun - it's not like the old Thief games in quite a few ways but it still looks fun. Isn't that ok?
No, that is precisely when you decide to use a new IP.
Look at the Bureau, that game actually had some neat ideas but the entire thing got bogged down on "Is this XCOM?". If it had been a new IP right from the start, it could have been a successful game and wouldn't have generated anywhere near the backlash it did. Minding, I will say in fairness to Thief that Thief is closer to Thief than The Bureau is to XCOM (especially on its first release). However Thief feels like someone made a non-magical take on Dishonored instead of Thief.
Is that a bad thing? I suspect for many it's not going to be, but it's immensely infuriating and tiring to have to explain why using an IP that people loved and cared about without really giving a shit about what made the original great is a bad thing.
I am willing to understand that people with no attachment to the original Thief don't give a shit what this game is like, why on earth is it so impossible for others to understand why fans of the originals might not be happy with this? After all if it wasn't for fans backlash/complaints about the initial things they were doing in Thief we'd still have stupid bullshit like headshotting guards with arrows to gain EXP and QTEs.
I liked the old Thief games, it just doesn't bother me that this one is different, and what's wrong with getting bonuses for headshotting guards or using QTEs in combat? There's still options to avoid combat entirely, it just means the combat is a bit more fun for people who want to do combat. I mean of course QTEs aren't the ideal - but in first person getting melee combat right is basically impossible, so QTEs are kind of a compromise that works. Then again I did enjoy Ryse so maybe it's just an unpopular opinion.
I don't want the people who only enjoy combat to enjoy Thief. They don't deserve it.
Well, they don't deserve the stories that made Thief and Thief II amazing. Deadly Shadows is sort of shrug on the whole.
wow
Sorry man. Thief wasn't a combat game. Being able to win a fight in the original Thief meant you were very, very good at parry riposte and run away, rinse, repeat.
If you're only in it for the combat, I want you to be incredibly disappointed. Just like I want you to be disappointed with Mirror's Edge. To me that is mission accomplished. There are plenty of games that cater directly to what you want if combat is your aim. You don't need these games, which are admittedly niche, as well.
Which is why the entire idea of producing a Thief game on an A, or AA budget seemed pretty silly to me. I think with the team reboot it's into AAA budget territory. That forces these kinds of compromises. Which would be fine if this game was, say, "Ignoble" and not "Thief."
Edit: just to add, I suggested and, if I had been producing this game, would have insisted upon Garrett actually not having a weapon at the beginning of the game. Logically it would make sense for him not to carry one. He's a master thief, right? He doesn't even need a sword to use as a jimmy bar. He'll just climb around until he finds an unlatched window or a door he can pick the lock on.
Completely don't understand this point of view - why would you want someone else to not enjoy the game? On one hand you want more freedom in the game, more choice, but on the other you want some freedom or choice to be taken away from people who 'don't deserve it'.
Is Battlefield going to be a better game if we have rigorous dialog with every terrorist to convince them of the errors of their ways? Perhaps Titanfall should be solved over a cup of tea.
The fact is, Thief is a game that isn't about combat and in the originals, on the highest difficulties your sword was practically pointless beyond killing random assorted wildlife. In fact one of the best changes in Thief (the new one) is the complete removal of the sword and dagger, which honestly didn't fit the kind of character Garrett was - whose weapons were not being seen. Combat to thief is what having a cup of tea and biscuits in Titanfall would be: Pointless and adds nothing to what the core game is.
The fact is you want stealth combat why don't you play Dark Messiash, Splinter Cell, Dishonored or many other games that do it? Why can't there be a game that actually completely deemphasises combat? There aren't many games that do - notably the original two are prime examples - so why shouldn't I ask why every single game has to be what you want?
The fact is by "freedom" we are talking about how the levels were designed, which in Thief/Thief 2 were often very open and could allow you to think out of the box. This meant even with restrictions on expert preventing you from killing anyone, the game never felt constrained or limited: In fact distinctly the opposite.
Thief lets you murder anyone you want (barring the optional difficulty adjustments) and just because it makes combat simplistic and easy to do (focus) does not mean it has more choices. Exactly the opposite in fact because all it boils down to is "Murder your way through the front door" vs. "Go around the side". You can even see that in the second mission, where a short linear rooftop section breaks into an obvious decision to take out the guards to go in the front way or go around the obviously telegraphed from 10 miles away side route.
Some of my favourite moments in the Hitman games and Dishonoured were when I had tried to be stealthy and it all went wrong so I had to shoot/fight my way out of a terrible situation.
Which is fantastic.
Why is this relevant to a game called Thief? If you want to talk about how awesome those moments are, I am pretty sure Dishonored will be getting a sequel. Unless I walked into the wrong thread?
Surely that's more interesting than 'Stealth this or reload the game'.
In the original thief, the knowledge that you couldn't adequately fight guards at all on expert if you got discovered was important in building the games tension and atmosphere. Guards were intimidating, instead of one meaningless QTE away from being rendered no threat.
From what I've watched of Thief so far (and I haven't played it at all) it looks fun - it's not like the old Thief games in quite a few ways but it still looks fun. Isn't that ok?
No, that is precisely when you decide to use a new IP.
Look at the Bureau, that game actually had some neat ideas but the entire thing got bogged down on "Is this XCOM?". If it had been a new IP right from the start, it could have been a successful game and wouldn't have generated anywhere near the backlash it did. Minding, I will say in fairness to Thief that Thief is closer to Thief than The Bureau is to XCOM (especially on its first release). However Thief feels like someone made a non-magical take on Dishonored instead of Thief.
Is that a bad thing? I suspect for many it's not going to be, but it's immensely infuriating and tiring to have to explain why using an IP that people loved and cared about without really giving a shit about what made the original great is a bad thing.
I am willing to understand that people with no attachment to the original Thief don't give a shit what this game is like, why on earth is it so impossible for others to understand why fans of the originals might not be happy with this? After all if it wasn't for fans backlash/complaints about the initial things they were doing in Thief we'd still have stupid bullshit like headshotting guards with arrows to gain EXP and QTEs.
I liked the old Thief games, it just doesn't bother me that this one is different, and what's wrong with getting bonuses for headshotting guards or using QTEs in combat? There's still options to avoid combat entirely, it just means the combat is a bit more fun for people who want to do combat. I mean of course QTEs aren't the ideal - but in first person getting melee combat right is basically impossible, so QTEs are kind of a compromise that works. Then again I did enjoy Ryse so maybe it's just an unpopular opinion.
I don't want the people who only enjoy combat to enjoy Thief. They don't deserve it.
Well, they don't deserve the stories that made Thief and Thief II amazing. Deadly Shadows is sort of shrug on the whole.
wow
Sorry man. Thief wasn't a combat game. Being able to win a fight in the original Thief meant you were very, very good at parry riposte and run away, rinse, repeat.
If you're only in it for the combat, I want you to be incredibly disappointed. Just like I want you to be disappointed with Mirror's Edge. To me that is mission accomplished. There are plenty of games that cater directly to what you want if combat is your aim. You don't need these games, which are admittedly niche, as well.
Which is why the entire idea of producing a Thief game on an A, or AA budget seemed pretty silly to me. I think with the team reboot it's into AAA budget territory. That forces these kinds of compromises. Which would be fine if this game was, say, "Ignoble" and not "Thief."
Edit: just to add, I suggested and, if I had been producing this game, would have insisted upon Garrett actually not having a weapon at the beginning of the game. Logically it would make sense for him not to carry one. He's a master thief, right? He doesn't even need a sword to use as a jimmy bar. He'll just climb around until he finds an unlatched window or a door he can pick the lock on.
Completely don't understand this point of view - why would you want someone else to not enjoy the game? On one hand you want more freedom in the game, more choice, but on the other you want some freedom or choice to be taken away from people who 'don't deserve it'.
Is Battlefield going to be a better game if we have rigorous dialog with every terrorist to convince them of the errors of their ways? Perhaps Titanfall should be solved over a cup of tea.
The fact is, Thief is a game that isn't about combat and in the originals, on the highest difficulties your sword was practically pointless beyond killing random assorted wildlife. In fact one of the best changes in Thief is the completely removal of the sword and dagger, which honestly didn't fit the kind of character Garrett was - whose weapons were not being seen. Combat to thief is what having a cup of tea and biscuits in Titanfall is: Pointless and adds nothing to what the core game is.
The fact is you want stealth combat why don't you play Dark Messiash, Splinter Cell, Dishonored or many other games that do it? Why can't there be a game that actually completely deemphasises combat? There aren't many games that do - notably the original two are prime examples - so why shouldn't I ask why every single game has to be what you want?
The fact is by "freedom" we are talking about how the levels were designed, which in Thief/Thief 2 were often very open and could allow you to think out of the box. This meant even with restrictions on expert preventing you from killing anyone, the game never felt constrained or limited: In fact distinctly the opposite.
Thief lets you murder anyone you want (barring the optional difficulty adjustments) and just because it makes combat simplistic and easy to do (focus) does not mean it has more choices. Exactly the opposite in fact because all it boils down to is "Murder your way through the front door" vs. "Go around the side". You can even see that in the second mission, where a short linear rooftop section breaks into an obvious decision to take out the guards to go in the front way or go around the obviously telegraphed from 10 miles away side route.
Some of my favourite moments in the Hitman games and Dishonoured were when I had tried to be stealthy and it all went wrong so I had to shoot/fight my way out of a terrible situation.
Which is fantastic.
Why is this relevant to a game called Thief? If you want to talk about how awesome those moments are, I am pretty sure Dishonored will be getting a sequel. Unless I walked into the wrong thread?
Surely that's more interesting than 'Stealth this or reload the game'.
In the original thief, the knowledge that you couldn't adequately fight guards at all on expert if you got discovered was important in building the games tension and atmosphere. Guards were intimidating, instead of one meaningless QTE away from being rendered no threat.
The fact is, you don't deserve shit just because you were a fan of the previous games, so don't tell other people what they deserve or you look like a giant fucking goose.
You can have good combat and intimidating opponents. Again see Blacklist (until you have late game rifles admitedly, at which point it becomes 'Sam Fisher silently kills dudes wearing heavy armour with zero effort').
Honestly the combat in re-boot Thief just looks dull, which is really the biggest sin. Though stuff like the captain and the dudes in armour might shake that up I guess.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
From what I've watched of Thief so far (and I haven't played it at all) it looks fun - it's not like the old Thief games in quite a few ways but it still looks fun. Isn't that ok?
No, that is precisely when you decide to use a new IP.
Look at the Bureau, that game actually had some neat ideas but the entire thing got bogged down on "Is this XCOM?". If it had been a new IP right from the start, it could have been a successful game and wouldn't have generated anywhere near the backlash it did. Minding, I will say in fairness to Thief that Thief is closer to Thief than The Bureau is to XCOM (especially on its first release). However Thief feels like someone made a non-magical take on Dishonored instead of Thief.
Is that a bad thing? I suspect for many it's not going to be, but it's immensely infuriating and tiring to have to explain why using an IP that people loved and cared about without really giving a shit about what made the original great is a bad thing.
I am willing to understand that people with no attachment to the original Thief don't give a shit what this game is like, why on earth is it so impossible for others to understand why fans of the originals might not be happy with this? After all if it wasn't for fans backlash/complaints about the initial things they were doing in Thief we'd still have stupid bullshit like headshotting guards with arrows to gain EXP and QTEs.
I liked the old Thief games, it just doesn't bother me that this one is different, and what's wrong with getting bonuses for headshotting guards or using QTEs in combat? There's still options to avoid combat entirely, it just means the combat is a bit more fun for people who want to do combat. I mean of course QTEs aren't the ideal - but in first person getting melee combat right is basically impossible, so QTEs are kind of a compromise that works. Then again I did enjoy Ryse so maybe it's just an unpopular opinion.
I don't want the people who only enjoy combat to enjoy Thief. They don't deserve it.
Well, they don't deserve the stories that made Thief and Thief II amazing. Deadly Shadows is sort of shrug on the whole.
wow
Sorry man. Thief wasn't a combat game. Being able to win a fight in the original Thief meant you were very, very good at parry riposte and run away, rinse, repeat.
If you're only in it for the combat, I want you to be incredibly disappointed. Just like I want you to be disappointed with Mirror's Edge. To me that is mission accomplished. There are plenty of games that cater directly to what you want if combat is your aim. You don't need these games, which are admittedly niche, as well.
Which is why the entire idea of producing a Thief game on an A, or AA budget seemed pretty silly to me. I think with the team reboot it's into AAA budget territory. That forces these kinds of compromises. Which would be fine if this game was, say, "Ignoble" and not "Thief."
Edit: just to add, I suggested and, if I had been producing this game, would have insisted upon Garrett actually not having a weapon at the beginning of the game. Logically it would make sense for him not to carry one. He's a master thief, right? He doesn't even need a sword to use as a jimmy bar. He'll just climb around until he finds an unlatched window or a door he can pick the lock on.
Completely don't understand this point of view - why would you want someone else to not enjoy the game? On one hand you want more freedom in the game, more choice, but on the other you want some freedom or choice to be taken away from people who 'don't deserve it'.
Is Battlefield going to be a better game if we have rigorous dialog with every terrorist to convince them of the errors of their ways? Perhaps Titanfall should be solved over a cup of tea.
The fact is, Thief is a game that isn't about combat and in the originals, on the highest difficulties your sword was practically pointless beyond killing random assorted wildlife. In fact one of the best changes in Thief is the completely removal of the sword and dagger, which honestly didn't fit the kind of character Garrett was - whose weapons were not being seen. Combat to thief is what having a cup of tea and biscuits in Titanfall is: Pointless and adds nothing to what the core game is.
The fact is you want stealth combat why don't you play Dark Messiash, Splinter Cell, Dishonored or many other games that do it? Why can't there be a game that actually completely deemphasises combat? There aren't many games that do - notably the original two are prime examples - so why shouldn't I ask why every single game has to be what you want?
The fact is by "freedom" we are talking about how the levels were designed, which in Thief/Thief 2 were often very open and could allow you to think out of the box. This meant even with restrictions on expert preventing you from killing anyone, the game never felt constrained or limited: In fact distinctly the opposite.
Thief lets you murder anyone you want (barring the optional difficulty adjustments) and just because it makes combat simplistic and easy to do (focus) does not mean it has more choices. Exactly the opposite in fact because all it boils down to is "Murder your way through the front door" vs. "Go around the side". You can even see that in the second mission, where a short linear rooftop section breaks into an obvious decision to take out the guards to go in the front way or go around the obviously telegraphed from 10 miles away side route.
Some of my favourite moments in the Hitman games and Dishonoured were when I had tried to be stealthy and it all went wrong so I had to shoot/fight my way out of a terrible situation.
Which is fantastic.
Why is this relevant to a game called Thief? If you want to talk about how awesome those moments are, I am pretty sure Dishonored will be getting a sequel. Unless I walked into the wrong thread?
Surely that's more interesting than 'Stealth this or reload the game'.
In the original thief, the knowledge that you couldn't adequately fight guards at all on expert if you got discovered was important in building the games tension and atmosphere. Guards were intimidating, instead of one meaningless QTE away from being rendered no threat.
The fact is, you don't deserve shit just because you were a fan of the previous games, so don't tell other people what they deserve or you look like a giant fucking goose.
Good thing I haven't done that then, meanwhile people are repeatedly dismissing the problems old fans of the game have with what Thief is doing with the IP constantly, while failing to acknowledge the numerous games that already completely cater to their tastes.
Funny that.
I can rattle off numerous excellent games that have great combat mechanics mixed with stealth in them. I am absolutely stuck at the original two thief games as being games that were solely devoted to the idea you weren't a complete combat badass capable of annihilating armed guards with ease. It was part of the charm and again, I am certainly going to be turning on the options to have no kills whatsoever in the game, but guards are ridiculously trivial to deal with.
How Garret trivially beats a guy in a straight up fight (yes, I did this) with a blackjack while that guy has a sword is really really dumb.
Garett Darkbloodninja isWUB WUBTHIEF <wubbing intensifies to the sound of explosions> AVENGE THE FALLEN WITH AVENGEANCE NOW AND POTENTIALLY MAYBE STEAL STUFF INBEWEEN THE KILLING!*
*Preorder now for exclusive gold plated automatic armor piercing hand crossbows and classic skin**
**Jump button not included
Lanrutcon on
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
+1
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
From what I've watched of Thief so far (and I haven't played it at all) it looks fun - it's not like the old Thief games in quite a few ways but it still looks fun. Isn't that ok?
No, that is precisely when you decide to use a new IP.
Look at the Bureau, that game actually had some neat ideas but the entire thing got bogged down on "Is this XCOM?". If it had been a new IP right from the start, it could have been a successful game and wouldn't have generated anywhere near the backlash it did. Minding, I will say in fairness to Thief that Thief is closer to Thief than The Bureau is to XCOM (especially on its first release). However Thief feels like someone made a non-magical take on Dishonored instead of Thief.
Is that a bad thing? I suspect for many it's not going to be, but it's immensely infuriating and tiring to have to explain why using an IP that people loved and cared about without really giving a shit about what made the original great is a bad thing.
I am willing to understand that people with no attachment to the original Thief don't give a shit what this game is like, why on earth is it so impossible for others to understand why fans of the originals might not be happy with this? After all if it wasn't for fans backlash/complaints about the initial things they were doing in Thief we'd still have stupid bullshit like headshotting guards with arrows to gain EXP and QTEs.
I liked the old Thief games, it just doesn't bother me that this one is different, and what's wrong with getting bonuses for headshotting guards or using QTEs in combat? There's still options to avoid combat entirely, it just means the combat is a bit more fun for people who want to do combat. I mean of course QTEs aren't the ideal - but in first person getting melee combat right is basically impossible, so QTEs are kind of a compromise that works. Then again I did enjoy Ryse so maybe it's just an unpopular opinion.
I don't want the people who only enjoy combat to enjoy Thief. They don't deserve it.
Well, they don't deserve the stories that made Thief and Thief II amazing. Deadly Shadows is sort of shrug on the whole.
wow
Sorry man. Thief wasn't a combat game. Being able to win a fight in the original Thief meant you were very, very good at parry riposte and run away, rinse, repeat.
If you're only in it for the combat, I want you to be incredibly disappointed. Just like I want you to be disappointed with Mirror's Edge. To me that is mission accomplished. There are plenty of games that cater directly to what you want if combat is your aim. You don't need these games, which are admittedly niche, as well.
Which is why the entire idea of producing a Thief game on an A, or AA budget seemed pretty silly to me. I think with the team reboot it's into AAA budget territory. That forces these kinds of compromises. Which would be fine if this game was, say, "Ignoble" and not "Thief."
Edit: just to add, I suggested and, if I had been producing this game, would have insisted upon Garrett actually not having a weapon at the beginning of the game. Logically it would make sense for him not to carry one. He's a master thief, right? He doesn't even need a sword to use as a jimmy bar. He'll just climb around until he finds an unlatched window or a door he can pick the lock on.
Completely don't understand this point of view - why would you want someone else to not enjoy the game? On one hand you want more freedom in the game, more choice, but on the other you want some freedom or choice to be taken away from people who 'don't deserve it'.
Is Battlefield going to be a better game if we have rigorous dialog with every terrorist to convince them of the errors of their ways? Perhaps Titanfall should be solved over a cup of tea.
The fact is, Thief is a game that isn't about combat and in the originals, on the highest difficulties your sword was practically pointless beyond killing random assorted wildlife. In fact one of the best changes in Thief is the completely removal of the sword and dagger, which honestly didn't fit the kind of character Garrett was - whose weapons were not being seen. Combat to thief is what having a cup of tea and biscuits in Titanfall is: Pointless and adds nothing to what the core game is.
The fact is you want stealth combat why don't you play Dark Messiash, Splinter Cell, Dishonored or many other games that do it? Why can't there be a game that actually completely deemphasises combat? There aren't many games that do - notably the original two are prime examples - so why shouldn't I ask why every single game has to be what you want?
The fact is by "freedom" we are talking about how the levels were designed, which in Thief/Thief 2 were often very open and could allow you to think out of the box. This meant even with restrictions on expert preventing you from killing anyone, the game never felt constrained or limited: In fact distinctly the opposite.
Thief lets you murder anyone you want (barring the optional difficulty adjustments) and just because it makes combat simplistic and easy to do (focus) does not mean it has more choices. Exactly the opposite in fact because all it boils down to is "Murder your way through the front door" vs. "Go around the side". You can even see that in the second mission, where a short linear rooftop section breaks into an obvious decision to take out the guards to go in the front way or go around the obviously telegraphed from 10 miles away side route.
Some of my favourite moments in the Hitman games and Dishonoured were when I had tried to be stealthy and it all went wrong so I had to shoot/fight my way out of a terrible situation.
Which is fantastic.
Why is this relevant to a game called Thief? If you want to talk about how awesome those moments are, I am pretty sure Dishonored will be getting a sequel. Unless I walked into the wrong thread?
Surely that's more interesting than 'Stealth this or reload the game'.
In the original thief, the knowledge that you couldn't adequately fight guards at all on expert if you got discovered was important in building the games tension and atmosphere. Guards were intimidating, instead of one meaningless QTE away from being rendered no threat.
The fact is, you don't deserve shit just because you were a fan of the previous games, so don't tell other people what they deserve or you look like a giant fucking goose.
Good thing I haven't done that then, meanwhile people are repeatedly dismissing the problems old fans of the game have with what Thief is doing with the IP constantly, while failing to acknowledge the numerous games that already completely cater to their tastes.
Funny that.
Yeah how dare people want different things from their games.
The irony in you saying this when Thief is being turned into every other modern contemporary in its genre (that it arguably created) is really exceptionally ironic.
I actually want something that IS different because what made thief truly great was how radically different in concept and game design it was. That was the point. It is you who want a homogenized experience that plays like everything else because "Being FPS badass is the best!" and not capture the essence of what made the original great.
I am the one who wants something different, you're the one arguing it should be just like everything else.
That's where we disagree on where the games direction should have gone. I feel it should have had more open, less linear levels with more options for free traversal and secrets/places to explore, with dangerous combat that you generally always want to avoid whenever possible (because unless Garrett gets the drop on someone he is not good in a fight and generally morally opposes killing people anyway). Some apparently feel Thief should be a very linear story driven experience, where Garrett is basically a ninja (focus makes you feel this way in practice) and you make dramatic escapes over rooftops to techno music.
One of these things I feel is much more unique and deserved to be preserved over the alternative.
From what I've watched of Thief so far (and I haven't played it at all) it looks fun - it's not like the old Thief games in quite a few ways but it still looks fun. Isn't that ok?
No, that is precisely when you decide to use a new IP.
Look at the Bureau, that game actually had some neat ideas but the entire thing got bogged down on "Is this XCOM?". If it had been a new IP right from the start, it could have been a successful game and wouldn't have generated anywhere near the backlash it did. Minding, I will say in fairness to Thief that Thief is closer to Thief than The Bureau is to XCOM (especially on its first release). However Thief feels like someone made a non-magical take on Dishonored instead of Thief.
Is that a bad thing? I suspect for many it's not going to be, but it's immensely infuriating and tiring to have to explain why using an IP that people loved and cared about without really giving a shit about what made the original great is a bad thing.
I am willing to understand that people with no attachment to the original Thief don't give a shit what this game is like, why on earth is it so impossible for others to understand why fans of the originals might not be happy with this? After all if it wasn't for fans backlash/complaints about the initial things they were doing in Thief we'd still have stupid bullshit like headshotting guards with arrows to gain EXP and QTEs.
I liked the old Thief games, it just doesn't bother me that this one is different, and what's wrong with getting bonuses for headshotting guards or using QTEs in combat? There's still options to avoid combat entirely, it just means the combat is a bit more fun for people who want to do combat. I mean of course QTEs aren't the ideal - but in first person getting melee combat right is basically impossible, so QTEs are kind of a compromise that works. Then again I did enjoy Ryse so maybe it's just an unpopular opinion.
I don't want the people who only enjoy combat to enjoy Thief. They don't deserve it.
Well, they don't deserve the stories that made Thief and Thief II amazing. Deadly Shadows is sort of shrug on the whole.
wow
Sorry man. Thief wasn't a combat game. Being able to win a fight in the original Thief meant you were very, very good at parry riposte and run away, rinse, repeat.
If you're only in it for the combat, I want you to be incredibly disappointed. Just like I want you to be disappointed with Mirror's Edge. To me that is mission accomplished. There are plenty of games that cater directly to what you want if combat is your aim. You don't need these games, which are admittedly niche, as well.
Which is why the entire idea of producing a Thief game on an A, or AA budget seemed pretty silly to me. I think with the team reboot it's into AAA budget territory. That forces these kinds of compromises. Which would be fine if this game was, say, "Ignoble" and not "Thief."
Edit: just to add, I suggested and, if I had been producing this game, would have insisted upon Garrett actually not having a weapon at the beginning of the game. Logically it would make sense for him not to carry one. He's a master thief, right? He doesn't even need a sword to use as a jimmy bar. He'll just climb around until he finds an unlatched window or a door he can pick the lock on.
Completely don't understand this point of view - why would you want someone else to not enjoy the game? On one hand you want more freedom in the game, more choice, but on the other you want some freedom or choice to be taken away from people who 'don't deserve it'.
Is Battlefield going to be a better game if we have rigorous dialog with every terrorist to convince them of the errors of their ways? Perhaps Titanfall should be solved over a cup of tea.
The fact is, Thief is a game that isn't about combat and in the originals, on the highest difficulties your sword was practically pointless beyond killing random assorted wildlife. In fact one of the best changes in Thief is the completely removal of the sword and dagger, which honestly didn't fit the kind of character Garrett was - whose weapons were not being seen. Combat to thief is what having a cup of tea and biscuits in Titanfall is: Pointless and adds nothing to what the core game is.
The fact is you want stealth combat why don't you play Dark Messiash, Splinter Cell, Dishonored or many other games that do it? Why can't there be a game that actually completely deemphasises combat? There aren't many games that do - notably the original two are prime examples - so why shouldn't I ask why every single game has to be what you want?
The fact is by "freedom" we are talking about how the levels were designed, which in Thief/Thief 2 were often very open and could allow you to think out of the box. This meant even with restrictions on expert preventing you from killing anyone, the game never felt constrained or limited: In fact distinctly the opposite.
Thief lets you murder anyone you want (barring the optional difficulty adjustments) and just because it makes combat simplistic and easy to do (focus) does not mean it has more choices. Exactly the opposite in fact because all it boils down to is "Murder your way through the front door" vs. "Go around the side". You can even see that in the second mission, where a short linear rooftop section breaks into an obvious decision to take out the guards to go in the front way or go around the obviously telegraphed from 10 miles away side route.
Some of my favourite moments in the Hitman games and Dishonoured were when I had tried to be stealthy and it all went wrong so I had to shoot/fight my way out of a terrible situation.
Which is fantastic.
Why is this relevant to a game called Thief? If you want to talk about how awesome those moments are, I am pretty sure Dishonored will be getting a sequel. Unless I walked into the wrong thread?
Surely that's more interesting than 'Stealth this or reload the game'.
In the original thief, the knowledge that you couldn't adequately fight guards at all on expert if you got discovered was important in building the games tension and atmosphere. Guards were intimidating, instead of one meaningless QTE away from being rendered no threat.
The fact is, you don't deserve shit just because you were a fan of the previous games, so don't tell other people what they deserve or you look like a giant fucking goose.
Good thing I haven't done that then, meanwhile people are repeatedly dismissing the problems old fans of the game have with what Thief is doing with the IP constantly, while failing to acknowledge the numerous games that already completely cater to their tastes.
Funny that.
I can rattle off numerous excellent games that have great combat mechanics mixed with stealth in them. I am absolutely stuck at the original two thief games as being games that were solely devoted to the idea you weren't a complete combat badass capable of annihilating armed guards with ease. It was part of the charm and again, I am certainly going to be turning on the options to have no kills whatsoever in the game, but guards are ridiculously trivial to deal with.
How Garret trivially beats a guy in a straight up fight (yes, I did this) with a blackjack while that guy has a sword is really really dumb.
Funnily enough (or not really considering how the mechanics are focused on disempowerment and tension) popular PC horror games are actually pretty good for sneaky mechanics where you don't want to be seen and combat is not an option. Amnesia and Outlast being the obvious choices.
So now there's obviously these other games are you going to stop presenting your opinions like absolutes handed down from the mountaintop? I mean there's other games for you to play so clearly your opinion is entirely invalid. At least, that's what you just said, and it sounds ridiculous.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
From what I've watched of Thief so far (and I haven't played it at all) it looks fun - it's not like the old Thief games in quite a few ways but it still looks fun. Isn't that ok?
No, that is precisely when you decide to use a new IP.
Look at the Bureau, that game actually had some neat ideas but the entire thing got bogged down on "Is this XCOM?". If it had been a new IP right from the start, it could have been a successful game and wouldn't have generated anywhere near the backlash it did. Minding, I will say in fairness to Thief that Thief is closer to Thief than The Bureau is to XCOM (especially on its first release). However Thief feels like someone made a non-magical take on Dishonored instead of Thief.
Is that a bad thing? I suspect for many it's not going to be, but it's immensely infuriating and tiring to have to explain why using an IP that people loved and cared about without really giving a shit about what made the original great is a bad thing.
I am willing to understand that people with no attachment to the original Thief don't give a shit what this game is like, why on earth is it so impossible for others to understand why fans of the originals might not be happy with this? After all if it wasn't for fans backlash/complaints about the initial things they were doing in Thief we'd still have stupid bullshit like headshotting guards with arrows to gain EXP and QTEs.
I liked the old Thief games, it just doesn't bother me that this one is different, and what's wrong with getting bonuses for headshotting guards or using QTEs in combat? There's still options to avoid combat entirely, it just means the combat is a bit more fun for people who want to do combat. I mean of course QTEs aren't the ideal - but in first person getting melee combat right is basically impossible, so QTEs are kind of a compromise that works. Then again I did enjoy Ryse so maybe it's just an unpopular opinion.
I don't want the people who only enjoy combat to enjoy Thief. They don't deserve it.
Well, they don't deserve the stories that made Thief and Thief II amazing. Deadly Shadows is sort of shrug on the whole.
wow
Sorry man. Thief wasn't a combat game. Being able to win a fight in the original Thief meant you were very, very good at parry riposte and run away, rinse, repeat.
If you're only in it for the combat, I want you to be incredibly disappointed. Just like I want you to be disappointed with Mirror's Edge. To me that is mission accomplished. There are plenty of games that cater directly to what you want if combat is your aim. You don't need these games, which are admittedly niche, as well.
Which is why the entire idea of producing a Thief game on an A, or AA budget seemed pretty silly to me. I think with the team reboot it's into AAA budget territory. That forces these kinds of compromises. Which would be fine if this game was, say, "Ignoble" and not "Thief."
Edit: just to add, I suggested and, if I had been producing this game, would have insisted upon Garrett actually not having a weapon at the beginning of the game. Logically it would make sense for him not to carry one. He's a master thief, right? He doesn't even need a sword to use as a jimmy bar. He'll just climb around until he finds an unlatched window or a door he can pick the lock on.
Completely don't understand this point of view - why would you want someone else to not enjoy the game? On one hand you want more freedom in the game, more choice, but on the other you want some freedom or choice to be taken away from people who 'don't deserve it'.
Is Battlefield going to be a better game if we have rigorous dialog with every terrorist to convince them of the errors of their ways? Perhaps Titanfall should be solved over a cup of tea.
The fact is, Thief is a game that isn't about combat and in the originals, on the highest difficulties your sword was practically pointless beyond killing random assorted wildlife. In fact one of the best changes in Thief is the completely removal of the sword and dagger, which honestly didn't fit the kind of character Garrett was - whose weapons were not being seen. Combat to thief is what having a cup of tea and biscuits in Titanfall is: Pointless and adds nothing to what the core game is.
The fact is you want stealth combat why don't you play Dark Messiash, Splinter Cell, Dishonored or many other games that do it? Why can't there be a game that actually completely deemphasises combat? There aren't many games that do - notably the original two are prime examples - so why shouldn't I ask why every single game has to be what you want?
The fact is by "freedom" we are talking about how the levels were designed, which in Thief/Thief 2 were often very open and could allow you to think out of the box. This meant even with restrictions on expert preventing you from killing anyone, the game never felt constrained or limited: In fact distinctly the opposite.
Thief lets you murder anyone you want (barring the optional difficulty adjustments) and just because it makes combat simplistic and easy to do (focus) does not mean it has more choices. Exactly the opposite in fact because all it boils down to is "Murder your way through the front door" vs. "Go around the side". You can even see that in the second mission, where a short linear rooftop section breaks into an obvious decision to take out the guards to go in the front way or go around the obviously telegraphed from 10 miles away side route.
Some of my favourite moments in the Hitman games and Dishonoured were when I had tried to be stealthy and it all went wrong so I had to shoot/fight my way out of a terrible situation.
Which is fantastic.
Why is this relevant to a game called Thief? If you want to talk about how awesome those moments are, I am pretty sure Dishonored will be getting a sequel. Unless I walked into the wrong thread?
Surely that's more interesting than 'Stealth this or reload the game'.
In the original thief, the knowledge that you couldn't adequately fight guards at all on expert if you got discovered was important in building the games tension and atmosphere. Guards were intimidating, instead of one meaningless QTE away from being rendered no threat.
The fact is, you don't deserve shit just because you were a fan of the previous games, so don't tell other people what they deserve or you look like a giant fucking goose.
Good thing I haven't done that then, meanwhile people are repeatedly dismissing the problems old fans of the game have with what Thief is doing with the IP constantly, while failing to acknowledge the numerous games that already completely cater to their tastes.
Funny that.
I can rattle off numerous excellent games that have great combat mechanics mixed with stealth in them. I am absolutely stuck at the original two thief games as being games that were solely devoted to the idea you weren't a complete combat badass capable of annihilating armed guards with ease. It was part of the charm and again, I am certainly going to be turning on the options to have no kills whatsoever in the game, but guards are ridiculously trivial to deal with.
How Garret trivially beats a guy in a straight up fight (yes, I did this) with a blackjack while that guy has a sword is really really dumb.
Funnily enough (or not really considering how the mechanics are focused on disempowerment and tension) popular PC horror games are actually pretty good for sneaky mechanics where you don't want to be seen and combat is not an option. Amnesia and Outlast being the obvious choices.
So now there's obviously these other games are you going to stop presenting your opinions like absolutes handed down from the mountaintop?
They are not the same kind of game as thief actually whatsoever. This argument is a complete non-sequitur, because while some levels in Thief are survival horror like, it is no way the same game as Amnesia or Outlast (both of which are also games I exceptionally enjoy - albeit Outlast - sunglasses on - outlasts it's game mechanics after a while). Thief is about avoiding combat, but that doesn't mean you are anywhere near as powerless or unable to affect your environment meaningfully as Amnesia and Outlast do.
Dishonored is literally the game you are wanting to argue Thief should be. It's entirely awesome, it's entirely there and it's entirely going to get another sequel on next gen consoles for certain. I again ask, why couldn't we have had a sequel that follows a genuinely unique kind of gameplay instead of being McNinja thief?
I mean there's other games for you to play so clearly your opinion is entirely invalid. At least, that's what you just said, and it sounds ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous if that is what I said.
What I did say was, "Maybe you should attempt to understand why people who loved the originals are disappointed with numerous gameplay mechanics that make it feel more like these other games, instead of the unique experience that the original offered that there hasn't been another one of in years".
Let me put it another way so you will hopefully understand: I do not want Dishonored to in any way turn into a game like Thief in the sequel where you wouldn't feel like a total magical awesome badass. I do not want Thief to turn into a game where you are burgler McNinja free running on rooftops from explosions.
I have Dishonored, it's one of my favourite games ever. I would like more Thief.
Edit: And I also don't agree with or think what people "deserve" is a worthwhile argument (pointless hyperbole). It seems to get missed, but from the impressions of the game when I played it I have stated I wanted to keep playing it. I don't want to keep playing games I think were shit generally, but that gets missed repeatedly.
From what I've watched of Thief so far (and I haven't played it at all) it looks fun - it's not like the old Thief games in quite a few ways but it still looks fun. Isn't that ok?
No, that is precisely when you decide to use a new IP.
Look at the Bureau, that game actually had some neat ideas but the entire thing got bogged down on "Is this XCOM?". If it had been a new IP right from the start, it could have been a successful game and wouldn't have generated anywhere near the backlash it did. Minding, I will say in fairness to Thief that Thief is closer to Thief than The Bureau is to XCOM (especially on its first release). However Thief feels like someone made a non-magical take on Dishonored instead of Thief.
Is that a bad thing? I suspect for many it's not going to be, but it's immensely infuriating and tiring to have to explain why using an IP that people loved and cared about without really giving a shit about what made the original great is a bad thing.
I am willing to understand that people with no attachment to the original Thief don't give a shit what this game is like, why on earth is it so impossible for others to understand why fans of the originals might not be happy with this? After all if it wasn't for fans backlash/complaints about the initial things they were doing in Thief we'd still have stupid bullshit like headshotting guards with arrows to gain EXP and QTEs.
I liked the old Thief games, it just doesn't bother me that this one is different, and what's wrong with getting bonuses for headshotting guards or using QTEs in combat? There's still options to avoid combat entirely, it just means the combat is a bit more fun for people who want to do combat. I mean of course QTEs aren't the ideal - but in first person getting melee combat right is basically impossible, so QTEs are kind of a compromise that works. Then again I did enjoy Ryse so maybe it's just an unpopular opinion.
I don't want the people who only enjoy combat to enjoy Thief. They don't deserve it.
Well, they don't deserve the stories that made Thief and Thief II amazing. Deadly Shadows is sort of shrug on the whole.
wow
Sorry man. Thief wasn't a combat game. Being able to win a fight in the original Thief meant you were very, very good at parry riposte and run away, rinse, repeat.
If you're only in it for the combat, I want you to be incredibly disappointed. Just like I want you to be disappointed with Mirror's Edge. To me that is mission accomplished. There are plenty of games that cater directly to what you want if combat is your aim. You don't need these games, which are admittedly niche, as well.
Which is why the entire idea of producing a Thief game on an A, or AA budget seemed pretty silly to me. I think with the team reboot it's into AAA budget territory. That forces these kinds of compromises. Which would be fine if this game was, say, "Ignoble" and not "Thief."
Edit: just to add, I suggested and, if I had been producing this game, would have insisted upon Garrett actually not having a weapon at the beginning of the game. Logically it would make sense for him not to carry one. He's a master thief, right? He doesn't even need a sword to use as a jimmy bar. He'll just climb around until he finds an unlatched window or a door he can pick the lock on.
Completely don't understand this point of view - why would you want someone else to not enjoy the game?
Because development resources are not free, and therefore they are not infinite. Therefore, every man-hour spent adding adding "awesome combat" to Thief is an hour not spent making the sneak-and-steal part better.
Because this is Thief, and Garret is a thief, not an assassin, not a warrior, not a wizard. As well ask why they haven't put in a complex spell crafting mini game.
Because there are lots of combat-focused games in both 3P and 1P out there - Dishonored, Assassin's Creed to name two that just came out, Deus Ex: HR for a slightly older one, Dark Souls - and there aren't any focusing on what Thief has traditionally done well: stealth-focused exploration of open levels.
Because the mechanics tell you what kind of game is getting made. An RPG with stats for wealth, media influence, and wardrobe variety is a far different game than one with weapon damage, spell power, and trap finding. A Thief game with super-developed combat mechanics tells you that the game is, in large part, about combat - and that's something that the Thief series has never actually been about.
So, why don't you want people who want to play wizards or race car drivers to have fun with Thief?
You pretty much dismissed the idea of combat ever being a thing in Thief not because it didn't suit the theme or mechanics but 'because you have Dishonoured for that now piss off'.
You know what, never mind. This is like trying to break a brick wall down with my face, hurts my head just about as much too.
+1
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
You pretty much dismissed the idea of combat ever being a thing in Thief not because it didn't suit the theme or mechanics but 'because you have Dishonoured for that now piss off'.
Um, I have pointed out numerous times that combat in thief doesn't fit the theme or mechanics, such as how in the original two games expert specifically ruled out killing people (making the sword rather useless outside of undead and animals). Not to mention how an important theme of the original was how Garrett dislikes the idea of killing people as a character and mentions specifically "I am not an assassin". Heck, I even made both of these arguments on this page!
I then pointed out the game that is like thief but with combat (and awesome) is Dishonored. You can look my posts from earlier and see I made all of these points multiple times in them. I have argued mechanics, theme and the presence of other games do justify asking "Why couldn't Thief be unique and stick to what made the originals unique experiences".
Seriously, you are making no attempt at all to argue in good faith or read anything I am writing, so I am not engaging with you any more in this thread.
Posts
One of the trailers definitely showed magic stuff and flashes of zombie/skeleton looking creatures so I'm sure there's some magical element to whatevers gonna be in the game.
These are not issues that the new Thief should be facing.
I am honestly amazed that there is even a discussion that the levels shouldn't be linear and so limited. It's so anti-thief and especially what made the second game stand out so well, it really shouldn't be any kind of limitation. The PS4 and Xbone can produce amazing visuals, with big open areas and still maintain an excellent frame rate (EG Killzone). Even though Dead Rising doesn't have the most stable frame rate, what that game accomplishes with a huge open world and so many zombies on screen is just a good example of the fact we don't have to live with tiny box levels.
Yet they seem to have specifically designed tiny linear box levels with a few "routes" built in, but ultimately a real sense of claustrophobia and being led down a series of scripted climbable object barriers. Again, I really hope later levels are huge, detailed and amazing, but the way the designers speak about the game and how they've set up the exploration mechanics doesn't give me any hope of that.
Plus, I genuinely feel that Thief should naturally have terrible combat - Garrett is not Corvo. He's not an assassin and he's not supposed to be able to out sword fight guards and trained mercenaries. He's meant to get around by stealthily avoiding his enemies and that's what the game should emphasise. Hence why every fan of the original game made sure Eidos knew an option to entirely turn off focus was needed (and to their credit, they totally provided that and it's the first thing I'm doing). I mean having played it, I can tell you that at least on normal you can run up to a long guard smash the blackjack button and trivially win without taking any damage. Two guards isn't much harder either.
If you want a stealth game where you stab the shit out of people? Dishonored is right here.
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
For those interested in some of my comments about the climbing button issues, at 1:52 - 2:00 minutes in you'll see him drop down on a rickety wooden ledge. If he was to try to turn around and go back the way he came onto the roof, he wouldn't be able to climb back up there. If you want to get back around there, instead of climbing up the literal 1 ft (or whatever, you can judge for yourself from the video) you need to climb up the area he did, turn around and there is a clear interactable region to climb back up then go back into the starting area.
It's a tiny example, but it's little things like that adding up over time that really make the levels feel much more claustrophic and directed than they may appear from say, watching that video.
Edit: Okay 3:10 Tara Long asks "Is this level linear or is there room for exploration", straight away there is silence from the developer before he begins fumbling an aswer of "So .... this is a... story driven game...".
That says a lot and as I mentioned from the demo I played, their idea of "multiple choices" is do I slaughter the guys right at the door (aggressive) or do I ghost (by going the obvious side route around).
Edit 2: Hopefully the city has some actual exploration to it.
I will agree that the human levels typically were the superior ones, but the supernatural ones had some amazing moments as well. The undead got a lot of heat but I always enjoyed them because it forced me all the more to be stealthy. Plus I like how those levels flesh out the setting of the world. I have such a vivid mental image of the City and the lore of it and just how absolutely insane you'd have to be to cross the wall to get into the Old Quarter.
I do hope for a little supernatural in this game. I'm still waiting to get into the Alarus section of the Bonehoard!
Edit: It's so worth noting that those difficulty options are the one thing I am genuinely happy with.
Edit 2: No alerts sounds really difficult! Also it's a very positive sign that it is possible.
Edit 3: All those options on and he fails within about 3 minutes on the second mission they were demoing.
Edit 4: There is a decent discussion on rebooting an older franchise and nostalgia in there about 30 minutes in. Neither host though seems willing to engage on the fact that level design is more linear and smaller than the original game by miles - a clear step back when we should be taking a huge step forward with much more powerful consoles/PCs than a 10 year old game had access to. I also feel Thief 2, even with some mechanical clunk, from a pure level and game design stand point still holds up better than many other stealth based games today. At the very least he acknowledges the whole EXP for headshots thing was completely stupid - thank god the group there that didn't want that won out.
This mission is so much better than what I played by miles, but even so it still feels awfully small compared to the originals.
Edit 5: Ah... fuck... 40 minutes...
If you're only in it for the combat, I want you to be incredibly disappointed. Just like I want you to be disappointed with Mirror's Edge. To me that is mission accomplished. There are plenty of games that cater directly to what you want if combat is your aim. You don't need these games, which are admittedly niche, as well.
Which is why the entire idea of producing a Thief game on an A, or AA budget seemed pretty silly to me. I think with the team reboot it's into AAA budget territory. That forces these kinds of compromises. Which would be fine if this game was, say, "Ignoble" and not "Thief."
Edit: just to add, I suggested and, if I had been producing this game, would have insisted upon Garrett actually not having a weapon at the beginning of the game. Logically it would make sense for him not to carry one. He's a master thief, right? He doesn't even need a sword to use as a jimmy bar. He'll just climb around until he finds an unlatched window or a door he can pick the lock on.
Man I wish someone would look into remaking Thief someday though. That would be pretty great.
The awkward pause about magic / mysticism, or the escape sequence?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Edit: The awkward pause about the magic/mysticism felt more like him thinking "How can I get out of that question without giving anything away" moreso than anything else.
Now you made me sad. That was one of the best early source games. It even had rope arrows!
?
I feel like these conversations are looping back on themselves.
Though the new Thief's combat does look kinda lame and un-inspired. If you're going to present the player character as 'the dude who steals stuff and strikes from the shadows' then all these situations where Garret gets seen and it doesn't seem to matter come across as wrong. More focus on stealth takedowns and darting about the map in and out of darkness would've suited better than 'Garrets happy arrow adventures co-staring Blackjack to armoured dudes faces'.
You two are my bros. DMoM&M is a fucking masterpiece. Most satisfying knife kill animation goes to...
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
And that's precisely why some of the difficulty options like 'only stealth takedowns' will be some of the first things I enable in the game...
Because I sure as hell can't remember it.
And that game had some great sneaky moments as well if you were a dagger type. Stabbing people from the shadows one after the other before kicking a dude off a ledge was great. Actually, there have been a lot of really great games based on combat that mix stealth mechanics effectively, which is just another reason why Thief should be doing something unique and not just copying Dishonored without the magic.
You could mix magic and stealth to devastating effect in DMoMM: go stealth, charm things from the shadows. You never have to raise a finger
I tried playing it the other day but Windows 7 hates my disc
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
Pretty game, though.
Steam: adamjnet
Completely don't understand this point of view - why would you want someone else to not enjoy the game? On one hand you want more freedom in the game, more choice, but on the other you want some freedom or choice to be taken away from people who 'don't deserve it'. Some of my favourite moments in the Hitman games and Dishonoured were when I had tried to be stealthy and it all went wrong so I had to shoot/fight my way out of a terrible situation. That was exciting, that was fun. In Splinter Cell you can shoot your way through whole levels, but if you don't enjoy that you can stealth your way through instead. Surely that's more interesting than 'Stealth this or reload the game'.
In regards to how open it is I got the impression at the dev session at Eurogamer that there are more open sections and then there are more linear parts when the story requires it or there's some kind of set-piece. Like Hitman Absolution I guess. That's fine by me - even if I don't deserve it.
'You don't deserve to play this game.'
I wish every OS did this :P
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
I don't know if the story is going any good or if the atmosphere will hold up, but damn do I miss thiefing around.
I'm capable of viewing this game on its own merits and I'm capable of being optimistic about the future of the franchise.
I'm a little too curious to see if Eidos Montreal's revival will pay off or if they're just cashing in on nostalgia.
Is Battlefield going to be a better game if we have rigorous dialog with every terrorist to convince them of the errors of their ways? Perhaps Titanfall should be solved over a cup of tea.
The fact is, Thief is a game that isn't about combat and in the originals, on the highest difficulties your sword was practically pointless beyond killing random assorted wildlife. In fact one of the best changes in Thief (the new one) is the complete removal of the sword and dagger, which honestly didn't fit the kind of character Garrett was - whose weapons were not being seen. Combat to thief is what having a cup of tea and biscuits in Titanfall would be: Pointless and adds nothing to what the core game is.
The fact is you want stealth combat why don't you play Dark Messiash, Splinter Cell, Dishonored or many other games that do it? Why can't there be a game that actually completely deemphasises combat? There aren't many games that do - notably the original two are prime examples - so why shouldn't I ask why every single game has to be what you want?
The fact is by "freedom" we are talking about how the levels were designed, which in Thief/Thief 2 were often very open and could allow you to think out of the box. This meant even with restrictions on expert preventing you from killing anyone, the game never felt constrained or limited: In fact distinctly the opposite.
Thief lets you murder anyone you want (barring the optional difficulty adjustments) and just because it makes combat simplistic and easy to do (focus) does not mean it has more choices. Exactly the opposite in fact because all it boils down to is "Murder your way through the front door" vs. "Go around the side". You can even see that in the second mission, where a short linear rooftop section breaks into an obvious decision to take out the guards to go in the front way or go around the obviously telegraphed from 10 miles away side route.
Which is fantastic.
Why is this relevant to a game called Thief? If you want to talk about how awesome those moments are, I am pretty sure Dishonored will be getting a sequel. Unless I walked into the wrong thread?
In the original thief, the knowledge that you couldn't adequately fight guards at all on expert if you got discovered was important in building the games tension and atmosphere. Guards were intimidating, instead of one meaningless QTE away from being rendered no threat.
The fact is, you don't deserve shit just because you were a fan of the previous games, so don't tell other people what they deserve or you look like a giant fucking goose.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Honestly the combat in re-boot Thief just looks dull, which is really the biggest sin. Though stuff like the captain and the dudes in armour might shake that up I guess.
Good thing I haven't done that then, meanwhile people are repeatedly dismissing the problems old fans of the game have with what Thief is doing with the IP constantly, while failing to acknowledge the numerous games that already completely cater to their tastes.
Funny that.
I can rattle off numerous excellent games that have great combat mechanics mixed with stealth in them. I am absolutely stuck at the original two thief games as being games that were solely devoted to the idea you weren't a complete combat badass capable of annihilating armed guards with ease. It was part of the charm and again, I am certainly going to be turning on the options to have no kills whatsoever in the game, but guards are ridiculously trivial to deal with.
How Garret trivially beats a guy in a straight up fight (yes, I did this) with a blackjack while that guy has a sword is really really dumb.
I will be disappointed if the first boss monster isn't fought to the sound of sweet, sweet dubsteb.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
*Preorder now for exclusive gold plated automatic armor piercing hand crossbows and classic skin**
**Jump button not included
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
The irony in you saying this when Thief is being turned into every other modern contemporary in its genre (that it arguably created) is really exceptionally ironic.
I actually want something that IS different because what made thief truly great was how radically different in concept and game design it was. That was the point. It is you who want a homogenized experience that plays like everything else because "Being FPS badass is the best!" and not capture the essence of what made the original great.
I am the one who wants something different, you're the one arguing it should be just like everything else.
That's where we disagree on where the games direction should have gone. I feel it should have had more open, less linear levels with more options for free traversal and secrets/places to explore, with dangerous combat that you generally always want to avoid whenever possible (because unless Garrett gets the drop on someone he is not good in a fight and generally morally opposes killing people anyway). Some apparently feel Thief should be a very linear story driven experience, where Garrett is basically a ninja (focus makes you feel this way in practice) and you make dramatic escapes over rooftops to techno music.
One of these things I feel is much more unique and deserved to be preserved over the alternative.
Funnily enough (or not really considering how the mechanics are focused on disempowerment and tension) popular PC horror games are actually pretty good for sneaky mechanics where you don't want to be seen and combat is not an option. Amnesia and Outlast being the obvious choices.
So now there's obviously these other games are you going to stop presenting your opinions like absolutes handed down from the mountaintop? I mean there's other games for you to play so clearly your opinion is entirely invalid. At least, that's what you just said, and it sounds ridiculous.
They are not the same kind of game as thief actually whatsoever. This argument is a complete non-sequitur, because while some levels in Thief are survival horror like, it is no way the same game as Amnesia or Outlast (both of which are also games I exceptionally enjoy - albeit Outlast - sunglasses on - outlasts it's game mechanics after a while). Thief is about avoiding combat, but that doesn't mean you are anywhere near as powerless or unable to affect your environment meaningfully as Amnesia and Outlast do.
Dishonored is literally the game you are wanting to argue Thief should be. It's entirely awesome, it's entirely there and it's entirely going to get another sequel on next gen consoles for certain. I again ask, why couldn't we have had a sequel that follows a genuinely unique kind of gameplay instead of being McNinja thief?
It would be ridiculous if that is what I said.
What I did say was, "Maybe you should attempt to understand why people who loved the originals are disappointed with numerous gameplay mechanics that make it feel more like these other games, instead of the unique experience that the original offered that there hasn't been another one of in years".
Let me put it another way so you will hopefully understand: I do not want Dishonored to in any way turn into a game like Thief in the sequel where you wouldn't feel like a total magical awesome badass. I do not want Thief to turn into a game where you are burgler McNinja free running on rooftops from explosions.
I have Dishonored, it's one of my favourite games ever. I would like more Thief.
Edit: And I also don't agree with or think what people "deserve" is a worthwhile argument (pointless hyperbole). It seems to get missed, but from the impressions of the game when I played it I have stated I wanted to keep playing it. I don't want to keep playing games I think were shit generally, but that gets missed repeatedly.
Because development resources are not free, and therefore they are not infinite. Therefore, every man-hour spent adding adding "awesome combat" to Thief is an hour not spent making the sneak-and-steal part better.
Because this is Thief, and Garret is a thief, not an assassin, not a warrior, not a wizard. As well ask why they haven't put in a complex spell crafting mini game.
Because there are lots of combat-focused games in both 3P and 1P out there - Dishonored, Assassin's Creed to name two that just came out, Deus Ex: HR for a slightly older one, Dark Souls - and there aren't any focusing on what Thief has traditionally done well: stealth-focused exploration of open levels.
Because the mechanics tell you what kind of game is getting made. An RPG with stats for wealth, media influence, and wardrobe variety is a far different game than one with weapon damage, spell power, and trap finding. A Thief game with super-developed combat mechanics tells you that the game is, in large part, about combat - and that's something that the Thief series has never actually been about.
So, why don't you want people who want to play wizards or race car drivers to have fun with Thief?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
You pretty much dismissed the idea of combat ever being a thing in Thief not because it didn't suit the theme or mechanics but 'because you have Dishonoured for that now piss off'.
You know what, never mind. This is like trying to break a brick wall down with my face, hurts my head just about as much too.
Um, I have pointed out numerous times that combat in thief doesn't fit the theme or mechanics, such as how in the original two games expert specifically ruled out killing people (making the sword rather useless outside of undead and animals). Not to mention how an important theme of the original was how Garrett dislikes the idea of killing people as a character and mentions specifically "I am not an assassin". Heck, I even made both of these arguments on this page!
I then pointed out the game that is like thief but with combat (and awesome) is Dishonored. You can look my posts from earlier and see I made all of these points multiple times in them. I have argued mechanics, theme and the presence of other games do justify asking "Why couldn't Thief be unique and stick to what made the originals unique experiences".
Seriously, you are making no attempt at all to argue in good faith or read anything I am writing, so I am not engaging with you any more in this thread.
Have you played it before, or is it new to you?
Apologies if you've answered this question earlier in the thread and I missed it.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]