Just to clarify I actually agree that the combat they've added to Thief seems out of character for a game about stealing. I just also get tired of the argument straying from 'here's why it doesn't work' to 'This game is my precious baby how dare people want something different from it to me'. It's just silly and not conductive to any discussion other than some massive circle jerk between people who own the originals.
I say it's about time a final fantasy character got his own spin-off. Good for him.
Roe on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited February 2014
Okay I am totally just going to quote myself:
In many ways though there is a clearly enjoyable game in here and the atmosphere/graphical look of this game is incredible (PS4 btw), but ultimately if you were hoping for another game worthy of being a sequel to Thief or Thief 2? You're still going to be waiting for it, because this update/reboot takes none of the strengths of the old games and adds a bunch of problematic ones. Even so, I enjoyed the demo and I would have continued to play the game even with the considerable flaws in it. So I feel that for people new to the genre and who aren't tied to what the original games were like, there is definitely a fun game about sneaking past guards and looting people's shit in here.
Also I did actually like the game - otherwise I wouldn't have wrote "And I wanted to keep playing". It's just not Thief and depending on if you are committed to the IP or not that statement is going to mean different things. Anyone reading my post needs to understand the bias I am coming from and determine if that has any relevance to them.
I actually do still want to play it, because what I did play was fun as I mentioned when I described it - but it just didn't feel like a Thief game. It felt like "Dark Rogue Stealy Man" and maybe it should have been called that instead.
I actually have two distinct opinions on this remake:
1) That by itself, Thief is probably going to be a good game and that I want to play it.
2) That depending on attachment to how the old games were designed, which I very obviously have, fans of the original may be quite disappointed in the direction of the gameplay.
These are independent: If it wasn't called Thief number 1 would be more relevant to me and not 2 (obviously). For many others number 2 is more important because who cares about a game you never played?
The difference is I can understand people entirely who hold position number 2, while you dismiss me as having a "circle jerk" and being afraid of change (even though I love some things they did, like remove the sword entirely). Which again, shows how disinterested in any actual discussion you have.
So all this back and forth has made me want to play Thief 1 & 2 again. Is there a list of required/recommended mods to modern these up a bit? I heard about the Dark Mod but is that just new missions altogether or do they go back and improve the originals?
I probably shouldn't find this so funny but after all the talk about how great the level design is and the jump button my first detection in Thief is as a result of an invisible wall getting in the way of backing out from a guard coming to investigate me having to jump up a one step high pit.
Old games are kinda adorable like that.
0
ShogunHair long; money long; me and broke wizards we don't get alongRegistered Userregular
I'm still kinda excited for the new one despite everything negative so far. Stealth games are kinda my thing. Have done no kill/ no alert runs of Dishonored and the MGS series(I've never played the other Thief games). Not like it's $60 either. Can pick it up on PC for like $36
You keep saying 'Garrett is...' - surely Garrett is whatever the creators deem him to be. The comparisons to other games come from none of us knowing for sure what this game will be like - they've shown off a level or two at press events and in trailers and we have the vague back and forth of marketing and PR to go on.
The whole argument seems to revolve around 'combat shouldn't be in a Thief game because that's now how I want to play'. What I'm trying to say is that you can still play how you want, and other people will play how they want and then everyone's happy. To be cross that someone else is playing the same game as you in a way you don't like is ridiculous. If you want Garrett to be crap at combat - brilliant, don't do the combat as you've said you won't. If I want Garrett to be like Batman and kick some ass occasionally - brilliant I'll be able to do that. Just because you can take down the guards with combat doesn't mean you have to, and the option shouldn't be offensive.
I can see how there'd be a problem if it was like Deus Ex where they forced combat boss fights in - that'd be annoying for sure. But it's their game, their franchise, they can do what they want with it and then we can judge it in a couple of weeks. Hopefully lots of different people will enjoy it in their own ways and it will make the studio lots of money so they can carry on making quality games.
Finished Baffords mansion. Blackjacked 2 guards, killed one who saw me with a sword and then for the guy in the throne room I decided to see if an arrow to the face would kill him. It did not. Thankfully he obligingly stood still for a second arrow for no apparent reason.
The game definitely suffers from it's age, I struggle to see which way a gaurd is facing without squinting at my screen and detection felt slightly weird at times. Regardless the thing that super impressed me was the sound design. You could hear where guards were based on footsteps and idle mutterings and it really added to the tension of feeling like you were somewhere you weren't meant to be.
Finished Baffords mansion. Blackjacked 2 guards, killed one who saw me with a sword and then for the guy in the throne room I decided to see if an arrow to the face would kill him. It did not. Thankfully he obligingly stood still for a second arrow for no apparent reason.
The game definitely suffers from it's age, I struggle to see which way a gaurd is facing without squinting at my screen and detection felt slightly weird at times. Regardless the thing that super impressed me was the sound design. You could hear where guards were based on footsteps and idle mutterings and it really added to the tension of feeling like you were somewhere you weren't meant to be.
I remember adoring moss arrows in that game to soften my footsteps - so few games have dealt with sound well even in the last decade. Although I never worked out if the 'clink' of arrows hitting things made a noise. Like sure the moss arrow would be self-defeating if the glass shattering made a noise.
I did the water way by sneaking in the sewers and pinching the guards key for the basement entry.
I then spent fucking twelve minutes on the first floor because:
1) Those staircases are clearly crafty and out to get me
2) It took me FOREVER for my mind to finally click that 'duh basement is a seperate floor stop looking at the second floor map'. Like seriously, I don't know why but I even acknowledged 'that's the main gate' before I realized I was still on the first floor
3) I didn't realize my map highlighted blue the area I was in until I got to the second floor.
Oh yeah, it was definitely more me being lost because of the rooms being a bit samey and not looking in the right places more than the maps really.
Like the Staircase up looks identical to another staircase that just leads to a small meeting room and also starts a 90 degree turn with a same proportions small meeting area.
I think the new Thief game looks great, and I can't wait to play it. I've never played any of the old Thief games but reading through this thread is so totally reminding me of all of the arguments over what is, and what is not, a Castlevania, when Lords of Shadow 1 was coming out.
I think the new Thief game looks great, and I can't wait to play it. I've never played any of the old Thief games but reading through this thread is so totally reminding me of all of the arguments over what is, and what is not, a Castlevania, when Lords of Shadow 1 was coming out.
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 see that at all. It's not just the size, it's the design. It would probably have just been a bigger linear corridor.
+2
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I think the new Thief game looks great, and I can't wait to play it. I've never played any of the old Thief games but reading through this thread is so totally reminding me of all of the arguments over what is, and what is not, a Castlevania, when Lords of Shadow 1 was coming out.
Minding there is actually a debate there, because Castlevania has a history of games that follow a standard platformer like levels and lives format and then a more open, "Metroidvania" like open castle where you need new powers/abilities to progress. The really old original games were set up like Lords of Shadow in many ways, so it's actually quite a different comparison because there really is a valid argument for Castlevania: Lords of Shadow having the spirit of the original games intact even if it isn't the Metroidvania style many associate with Castlevania. Lords of Shadow would be more akin to Thief in this discussion if it was always a Metroidvania and Lords of Shadow was the genuine odd ball having a traditional level structure and not a large freely explorable castle like some games.
And to reiterate my opinion again, I absolutely think you'll really enjoy this game if you don't care what the originals were like. It's really pretty good, even if I feel its limitations show the moment you decide to go off the track the designers want you to go down (EG the infamous 1ft high roof).
Are we still arguing about how Thief might not be the same game that people want to remember? *sigh*
I know right, who would have thought that a new game called "Thief" in an existing franchise called "Thief" would have people who liked the old games in the franchise talking about how it resembles the old games?
Making combat a focus in Thief just because it was already part of the game and because action games are popular is about as appropriate and thematic as having the karaoke minigame be a focus of the next Sleeping Dogs. After all, people still like Rock Band, right?
I hope you can understand as well that the genre of stealth games has historically had only a tiny fraction of the attention, funding, and actual titles in the game industry (compare with sports, sims, and action games). One by one, the few excellent game franchises in this category are either dying out (Thief, until recently) or sacrificing their roots to become more action-y (Splinter Cell). I can't believe, in fact, that we made it this far in a thread about a stealth game without mentioning the slow decline of Splinter Cell games, but I digress. The point is, fans of this barren genre are going to get defensive when the last real staple appears to just be going the same route as all of the others. And for what? To add to the ever-increasing glut of action games? Speaking as someone who loves FPS games, that doesn't need to be all there is.
After all that, I even hesitate to respond to this next quote - it doesn't quite flow well - but I hate having two posts back-to-back.
You keep saying 'Garrett is...' - surely Garrett is whatever the creators deem him to be.
To a small degree, that is true. Yet if in the next Mario game, we saw our mustachioed protagonist wielding two pistols and laying waste to koopas everywhere, you'd think the creators had completely lost the plot and that this character was not really Mario, because it differed significantly and unreasonably from what he's been established to be.
Also the game isn't out yet so there isn't a whole lot else to talk about. I have been following the thread with great interest and would love for there to be more meaty topics discussed, but I don't have anything. So if there is something thief-related you'd rather talk about, by all means, chip in!
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited February 2014
And technically Garretts creators have already told us what kind of character he is:
In Thief: The Dark Project and Thief 2: The Metal Age.
:P
I am just hoping that missions aren't all ending in Garrett the "Master Thief" being butter fingers or having some kind of explosion/dramatic escape because he keeps getting caught with his pants down by guards.
One of the first questions was "Is this like Assassin's Creed".
Sigh. He seems to be playing much more aggressively this time around, including showing off the ledge drop assas- I mean knockout Okay, I can't make light about that guys question when they are making it look that way.
Edit2: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh God, I just about spat my drink out onto my monitor.
So they get the safe behind the painting, which prompts Kevin to immediately go on a spiel about how do you make breaking into the safe fun and not just make it so there is a highly convenient note somewhere with the code. The guy playing, has picked up said convenient note, is reading the code and then inputs it into the safe the entire time Kevin is asking the question. The timing is brilliant.
Edit3: Direct confirmation in this that mission levels are more linear (around 13 minutes in), because of the story driven nature of the game (which has been confirmed multiple times really and what I inferred from the same sort of question with the Rev 3 playthrough) but that there is a freely explorable city portion of the game (where you also pick up the games sidequests).
I so hope that city portion has a good amount of stuff to explore I really do.
Edit4: COCK RINGS!!!!!!
I can't help but find this designer really likable with the way he handles some of this random shit thrown at him.
I really recommend watching this, because it's covering a lot of good stuff in relation to the original games because Kevin asks a lot more relevant questions from that PoV.
Just to clarify I actually agree that the combat they've added to Thief seems out of character for a game about stealing. I just also get tired of the argument straying from 'here's why it doesn't work' to 'This game is my precious baby how dare people want something different from it to me'. It's just silly and not conductive to any discussion other than some massive circle jerk between people who own the originals.
Does it really need to be explained?
Were you mad that DICE didn't bother to release a doctoral dissertation about why Faith is so bad at kung fu when she is clearly Asian?
Fuck guys. You think we're entitled? You're already on your high horse, so ride the fuck off.
My (most likely ill-thought-out) view is like this:
By naming this game Thief, as opposed to Stealthy McSneak the Jobbing Purloiner, the creators have co-opted 15 years of marketing. This immediately sets up expectations before the first bit of concept art is even out. In essence, the first three games are the concept art. Only we don't just have the concept art, we have concept gameplay features, concept atmosphere and concept... concept.
From that point, every feature can't just stand on its own merits: it has to stand against everything that's come before. Remember when the first concept art for Epic Mickey came out?
People were all, "I want to play that game," and they were disappointed. It wasn't entirely anybody's fault, it was just a function of releasing the vision before the product.
When you hear that an old IP is being brought back, you imagine that the creators are using the old games as the concept, and it's a similar feeling to seeing crazy construct Goofy: "I want to play that game." At this point, every new feature introduced is going to be removing a feature from the game in your mind, rather than adding a feature. If developers don't want that to happen (and they probably don't give a shit), they shouldn't take short cuts in creating first impressions of what the new game is going to be like.
Just to clarify I actually agree that the combat they've added to Thief seems out of character for a game about stealing. I just also get tired of the argument straying from 'here's why it doesn't work' to 'This game is my precious baby how dare people want something different from it to me'. It's just silly and not conductive to any discussion other than some massive circle jerk between people who own the originals.
Does it really need to be explained?
Were you mad that DICE didn't bother to release a doctoral dissertation about why Faith is so bad at kung fu when she is clearly Asian?
Fuck guys. You think we're entitled? You're already on your high horse, so ride the fuck off.
I uh, Faith disarms trained security guards before gunning down whole squads (incidentally fuck the server room). She's not bad at fighting at all. Never mind that the fact isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand.
But I'm done trying to point out the terrifying facts that 'names are marketing', 'game design changes' and all these other apparently mind boggling concepts in this thread.
0
ShimshaiFlush with Success!Isle of EmeraldRegistered Userregular
It's not that these concepts are "mind boggling", it's that this is not what is wanted from a Thief game for a lot of people.
Boy I sure am tired of every franchise I love being remade as an action game.*
I'm pretty sure that you could boil a lot of the issues people are having with the new Thief down to that sentence. If you want to make a fun semi-stealth based action game, that's rad, make one, it'll probably be good. But if you want to make a game where you are utilizing the franchise presence of a series that has been running for over fifteen years but completely disregarding the core essence of that franchise, don't get surprised when people who are fans of the franchise call you out on it.
I'm sure Thief will be a lot of fun (the videos I've seen look enjoyable, at least once they removed the BONUS XP HEADSHOTS! nonsense), but it's going to be a shitty Thief game, and all it's doing is contributing to the dumbing down/monoculture of videogaming, where everything slowly turns into an action shooter.
You keep saying 'Garrett is...' - surely Garrett is whatever the creators deem him to be.
To a small degree, that is true. Yet if in the next Mario game, we saw our mustachioed protagonist wielding two pistols and laying waste to koopas everywhere, you'd think the creators had completely lost the plot and that this character was not really Mario, because it differed significantly and unreasonably from what he's been established to be.
Man, reading this thread makes me feel old. I still remember arguing with KingCrimson in the PA thread for Thief: Deadly Shadows ten years ago, about the inclusion of third person perspective and the removal of rope arrows. It's funny that this game is first person only, and rope arrows have returned and yet we're still arguing about whether or not the game is "Thiefy" enough. I have no idea if the game will live up to the Thief games of old - in fact chances are good that it won't completely live up to them. But I'm more than willing to judge the game on its own merits, rather than assuming that the game should fulfill criteria from a 16 year old franchise.
Posts
Just to clarify I actually agree that the combat they've added to Thief seems out of character for a game about stealing. I just also get tired of the argument straying from 'here's why it doesn't work' to 'This game is my precious baby how dare people want something different from it to me'. It's just silly and not conductive to any discussion other than some massive circle jerk between people who own the originals.
I actually have two distinct opinions on this remake:
1) That by itself, Thief is probably going to be a good game and that I want to play it.
2) That depending on attachment to how the old games were designed, which I very obviously have, fans of the original may be quite disappointed in the direction of the gameplay.
These are independent: If it wasn't called Thief number 1 would be more relevant to me and not 2 (obviously). For many others number 2 is more important because who cares about a game you never played?
The difference is I can understand people entirely who hold position number 2, while you dismiss me as having a "circle jerk" and being afraid of change (even though I love some things they did, like remove the sword entirely). Which again, shows how disinterested in any actual discussion you have.
How about you stop clogging the thread up and go relax instead. It's apparently much more productive than discussing with me anyway.
Old games are kinda adorable like that.
Shogun Streams Vidya
The whole argument seems to revolve around 'combat shouldn't be in a Thief game because that's now how I want to play'. What I'm trying to say is that you can still play how you want, and other people will play how they want and then everyone's happy. To be cross that someone else is playing the same game as you in a way you don't like is ridiculous. If you want Garrett to be crap at combat - brilliant, don't do the combat as you've said you won't. If I want Garrett to be like Batman and kick some ass occasionally - brilliant I'll be able to do that. Just because you can take down the guards with combat doesn't mean you have to, and the option shouldn't be offensive.
I can see how there'd be a problem if it was like Deus Ex where they forced combat boss fights in - that'd be annoying for sure. But it's their game, their franchise, they can do what they want with it and then we can judge it in a couple of weeks. Hopefully lots of different people will enjoy it in their own ways and it will make the studio lots of money so they can carry on making quality games.
The game definitely suffers from it's age, I struggle to see which way a gaurd is facing without squinting at my screen and detection felt slightly weird at times. Regardless the thing that super impressed me was the sound design. You could hear where guards were based on footsteps and idle mutterings and it really added to the tension of feeling like you were somewhere you weren't meant to be.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I remember adoring moss arrows in that game to soften my footsteps - so few games have dealt with sound well even in the last decade. Although I never worked out if the 'clink' of arrows hitting things made a noise. Like sure the moss arrow would be self-defeating if the glass shattering made a noise.
I then spent fucking twelve minutes on the first floor because:
1) Those staircases are clearly crafty and out to get me
2) It took me FOREVER for my mind to finally click that 'duh basement is a seperate floor stop looking at the second floor map'. Like seriously, I don't know why but I even acknowledged 'that's the main gate' before I realized I was still on the first floor
3) I didn't realize my map highlighted blue the area I was in until I got to the second floor.
Which is great for the setting, aggravating for getting lost.
Like the Staircase up looks identical to another staircase that just leads to a small meeting room and also starts a 90 degree turn with a same proportions small meeting area.
Or DmC. Which turned out to be the best DmC game.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Yeah but mine was a joke.
I don't see that at all. It's not just the size, it's the design. It would probably have just been a bigger linear corridor.
Minding there is actually a debate there, because Castlevania has a history of games that follow a standard platformer like levels and lives format and then a more open, "Metroidvania" like open castle where you need new powers/abilities to progress. The really old original games were set up like Lords of Shadow in many ways, so it's actually quite a different comparison because there really is a valid argument for Castlevania: Lords of Shadow having the spirit of the original games intact even if it isn't the Metroidvania style many associate with Castlevania. Lords of Shadow would be more akin to Thief in this discussion if it was always a Metroidvania and Lords of Shadow was the genuine odd ball having a traditional level structure and not a large freely explorable castle like some games.
And to reiterate my opinion again, I absolutely think you'll really enjoy this game if you don't care what the originals were like. It's really pretty good, even if I feel its limitations show the moment you decide to go off the track the designers want you to go down (EG the infamous 1ft high roof).
XBL: GamingFreak5514
PSN: GamingFreak1234
I know right, who would have thought that a new game called "Thief" in an existing franchise called "Thief" would have people who liked the old games in the franchise talking about how it resembles the old games?
I hope you can understand as well that the genre of stealth games has historically had only a tiny fraction of the attention, funding, and actual titles in the game industry (compare with sports, sims, and action games). One by one, the few excellent game franchises in this category are either dying out (Thief, until recently) or sacrificing their roots to become more action-y (Splinter Cell). I can't believe, in fact, that we made it this far in a thread about a stealth game without mentioning the slow decline of Splinter Cell games, but I digress. The point is, fans of this barren genre are going to get defensive when the last real staple appears to just be going the same route as all of the others. And for what? To add to the ever-increasing glut of action games? Speaking as someone who loves FPS games, that doesn't need to be all there is.
After all that, I even hesitate to respond to this next quote - it doesn't quite flow well - but I hate having two posts back-to-back. To a small degree, that is true. Yet if in the next Mario game, we saw our mustachioed protagonist wielding two pistols and laying waste to koopas everywhere, you'd think the creators had completely lost the plot and that this character was not really Mario, because it differed significantly and unreasonably from what he's been established to be.
In Thief: The Dark Project and Thief 2: The Metal Age.
:P
I am just hoping that missions aren't all ending in Garrett the "Master Thief" being butter fingers or having some kind of explosion/dramatic escape because he keeps getting caught with his pants down by guards.
Edit: Here is a playthrough done with Gamespot similar to the Rev 3 one posted earlier.
One of the first questions was "Is this like Assassin's Creed".
Sigh. He seems to be playing much more aggressively this time around, including showing off the ledge drop assas- I mean knockout
Edit2: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh God, I just about spat my drink out onto my monitor.
So they get the safe behind the painting, which prompts Kevin to immediately go on a spiel about how do you make breaking into the safe fun and not just make it so there is a highly convenient note somewhere with the code. The guy playing, has picked up said convenient note, is reading the code and then inputs it into the safe the entire time Kevin is asking the question. The timing is brilliant.
Edit3: Direct confirmation in this that mission levels are more linear (around 13 minutes in), because of the story driven nature of the game (which has been confirmed multiple times really and what I inferred from the same sort of question with the Rev 3 playthrough) but that there is a freely explorable city portion of the game (where you also pick up the games sidequests).
I so hope that city portion has a good amount of stuff to explore
Edit4: COCK RINGS!!!!!!
I can't help but find this designer really likable with the way he handles some of this random shit thrown at him.
I really recommend watching this, because it's covering a lot of good stuff in relation to the original games because Kevin asks a lot more relevant questions from that PoV.
Right, but my joke was that the answer to your joke was the game the same studio made after Dark Messiah.
I can tell we're all going to have a lot of fun talking about it at some point.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
Oh hell no. Not going to spoil a damn thing. Besides, the ending is from a leaked copy so there are legality issues as well, I guess.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
That went straight over my head. I don't think very hard about jokes. :P
And I even knew that before! I forgot!
Were you mad that DICE didn't bother to release a doctoral dissertation about why Faith is so bad at kung fu when she is clearly Asian?
Fuck guys. You think we're entitled? You're already on your high horse, so ride the fuck off.
By naming this game Thief, as opposed to Stealthy McSneak the Jobbing Purloiner, the creators have co-opted 15 years of marketing. This immediately sets up expectations before the first bit of concept art is even out. In essence, the first three games are the concept art. Only we don't just have the concept art, we have concept gameplay features, concept atmosphere and concept... concept.
From that point, every feature can't just stand on its own merits: it has to stand against everything that's come before. Remember when the first concept art for Epic Mickey came out?
When you hear that an old IP is being brought back, you imagine that the creators are using the old games as the concept, and it's a similar feeling to seeing crazy construct Goofy: "I want to play that game." At this point, every new feature introduced is going to be removing a feature from the game in your mind, rather than adding a feature. If developers don't want that to happen (and they probably don't give a shit), they shouldn't take short cuts in creating first impressions of what the new game is going to be like.
I uh, Faith disarms trained security guards before gunning down whole squads (incidentally fuck the server room). She's not bad at fighting at all. Never mind that the fact isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand.
But I'm done trying to point out the terrifying facts that 'names are marketing', 'game design changes' and all these other apparently mind boggling concepts in this thread.
I'm pretty sure that you could boil a lot of the issues people are having with the new Thief down to that sentence. If you want to make a fun semi-stealth based action game, that's rad, make one, it'll probably be good. But if you want to make a game where you are utilizing the franchise presence of a series that has been running for over fifteen years but completely disregarding the core essence of that franchise, don't get surprised when people who are fans of the franchise call you out on it.
I'm sure Thief will be a lot of fun (the videos I've seen look enjoyable, at least once they removed the BONUS XP HEADSHOTS! nonsense), but it's going to be a shitty Thief game, and all it's doing is contributing to the dumbing down/monoculture of videogaming, where everything slowly turns into an action shooter.
*See Also: Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, Legacy of Kain, -Shock, Ghost Recon...
I'll stop arguing all this now for the sake of the thread but this might be amusing to you! http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-10-20-miyamoto-mario-originally-had-a-gun
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126