HOME | DD
DanVzare — Less is More in Thief 4
Published: 2014-03-19 16:07:07 +0000 UTC; Views: 1390; Favourites: 17; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
Check out the official website for the latest 20 Quid Amusements comic strip!First Previous Archives Next
Overall, I remember really hating the new design for Garrett. Either they changed him a little without me realizing it, or I've gotten used to it. Whichever the case, I think it's mostly just that stupid handkerchief thing that bugs me now, because without that, he looks exactly like the Garrett I know and love. Although that voice annoys me to no end. As a matter of fact, all of the voices sort of annoy me, as well as the way they speak. In the original Thief games, the guards used to say "Taffer" a lot, and all of the guards also had the same voices (about three or five different male voices in total if I recall correctly). While I can understand adding more diversity to the voices, I still haven't heard any of those good old voices that I miss so much, nor have I seen that drunk guard that was present in all of the other games. Also, the original voice of Garrett was just so suave, but the new one is just so... plain, and boring. Also, maybe it's just me, but in the original Thief games, everyone sounded British, while now, everyone sounds American, which sort of spoils the mood as well.
Thankfully the game isn't as bad as it could have been. Apparently they were going to put in Quick Time Events, and a Leveling System. While those aren't terrible features, they are horrible for a Thief game.
Now you may be wondering why not being able to jump on the spot is a bad thing, especially since you can still climb on everything (actually, you can probably climb on more things now than before). The reason is simple. First, there are a select few places you can't jump across because of the new system, but that's minor. The main reason, is because me and everyone else I know, jump on the spot to get a guard's attention. Now you have to use bottles to achieve the same thing. Well, either that or run past them, which comes with it's own set of problems. But I mostly just mentioned this in my comic, because it's such a simple feature that was in the older games, but not in this newest one.
Something that has been really bugging me about the game though, is how the screen flashes every time you walk into the light. Yeah, I know I'm in the light, I can see the indicator to the side, you can stop reminding me now! Seriously, if you're just wandering about a little bit, going in and out of light, that flash is enough to give you an epileptic shock or something. Couldn't they have put it on a delay or something? Maybe check to see how long you've been in the dark, and if you've been in the dark for 5 seconds or more and have just gone into the light, then flash! Because most of the time when it flashes, you're just wandering about without needing to be sneaky (such as when you've knocked everyone out).
Well, enough complaining. The game isn't too bad. Personally, I would be enjoying it more if they had kept the original voice of Garrett, but the developers were too tight to pay for both a voice actor and another guy to do the mo-cap stuff, and as such settled on an all-in-one person. I don't care about their so called excuses, I know the real reason was because they weren't willing to hire two people when one would do.
You know something else? The zombies in Thief 1 (none of the sequels) are still the scariest zombies I've ever seen on a video game, even to this day they scare the living daylights out of me. I'm not kidding. I play and watch lots of Zombie Games and Films, and love them all. Zombies don't even phase me now. But the zombies on Thief 1... man those things are still scary!
I wonder if I'll ever get past level 2 of that first game?
Related content
Comments: 164
While Thief 1 and 2 don't really work on Windows 7 and 8, that's mostly due to the graphics card and processor the computer has and not the operating system. Or at least, that's been my experience.
Besides, there's plenty of fan mods that make Thief 1, 2, and probably even 3, work on any modern operating system. As for operating systems like MacOS and Linux, well I'm sure there's programs to make it run under those.
I'd be surprised if you got Thief working under AmigaOS though.
I get what you mean though. Thief should be playable under every OS under the sun.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hyea, can believe. Both of them seem to work nicely as long as you got them off GOG or (maybe) off Steam. But yeah, those are really old games, so I`m not surprised if they show issues when being in their full original glory.
Apparently you can get it work in Linux`s Wine system if you have Linux and you got it off GOG, but I had not tested it yet.
Indeed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think GOG uses one of the unofficial patches, to try and make sure it works on modern operating systems.
They usually do things like that, which is why I like them. It's like they go through all of the effort to make sure the game works, for you.
I don't think Steam does the same thing, but I can't be sure of that (so ignore that statement).
If I recall correctly, that unofficial patch was based on the leaked source code of an updated console version of the Dark Engine, which is the engine the Thief games use.
Wow, I really do find some trivial facts, don't I?
As for Wine, I think I could do a quick check to see its compatibility on Wine. Their website has a list of which games work on it (it's really comprehensive).
Actually, I just did a quick check, and apparently Thief 1 and Thief 2 run pretty good (not perfectly, as they apparently need a little setting up, but no apparent glitches). Thief 3 on the other hand, does work, but not brilliantly. Completable, and shouldn't effect you too much, but possibly noticeable.
Thief 4 doesn't really work at all apparently.
Of course all of this is probably subjective to which version of Linux you're using.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed, make it easier for you to enjoy the glory of them as soon as you get them 
Haha, nice one! I wonder when was this leak discovered
Hyea, since well, we have like tons of Linux versions nowadays from Kubuntu (which I use because it looks closest to Windows) to Xubuntu.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, Thi4f is a pretty bad game in my opinion.
If it wasn't a Thief game, I'd probably consider it mediocre, but since it uses the Thief title... I can't help but judge it as being worse than it actually is.
Hmm, I'm not sure when that leak was discovered. I suppose I could look, but that would probably be more effort than it's worth.
Yeah, so many different versions of Linux!
I personally prefer Linux Mint, but I must admit, I haven't used it much.
If I ever make a new computer, I intend to make it be able to duel boot between Linux Mint and Windows 7.
And if Windows 9 ends up being like Windows 8 (or ditching the desktop entirely), then I'm switching to Linux Mint, no questions asked.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Heh. Oh well, we still have the original trilogy
No problem at all. Or maybe someone else can look, someone that knows more about programming ...
Ditto, even though my little laptop is already dual-booting Kubuntu Linux (which is no different than Ubuntu except for some base programming (since it uses KDE), lawl) and Windows 7. Only beware, you need to be quite a computer geek to get this OS in its full potential, I still have trouble installing Windows programs into Linux through the wine system
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My favourite character from Thief would have to be Garret himself. And I'm usually not that fond on the main character in a game. So that's really saying something. As for my favourite enemy, that would have to be the Haunts, you know those skeletons that constantly say "Join us!"
But my favorite design, has to be the zombies from Thief 1. The way they sound and look, still scares me to this very day. No one has ever matched those zombies.
Thanks for the advice about Linux.
I'm sure I'd be able to figure things out eventually. I did manage to get Windows 7 to practically act like Windows XP, by merely changing the various settings (some were easier than others).
I even changed the permissions of a lot of files and folders, just to stop Windows from asking for permission all the time (I didn't want to use the administrator account, since I'd have to re-setup my desktop again).
The main thing that caused me to mess about with those permissions, was actually because it was preventing me from saving a file with a certain piece of software (this was due to it only being able to save after it had asked me if it was ok, and by the time I'd say it was ok, the save had been cancelled due to it taking so long to have to save).
How is that permission asking crap supposed to help anyway?
I don't recall ever being asked permission on whether or not I want to allow a virus onto my computer, so clearly viruses just bypass. So what's the point exactly?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well said about Garret, even though he is second on my fav characters list, as The Eye is being my ultimate favorite "character", if we can count it as a character (since well, where does the term "item" end and the term "character" begin on this little Sentient Artifact anyway?), 
Nice, they are my favorite foes too. Gotta love that eeriness they possess, even when they`re calm
No problem and good luck once you begin with this! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah yes The Eye. That thing would definitely be in my top five favorite characters on Thief (what the other characters are, I'm not sure). None the less, I agree with what you said. That eerie voice, mixed in with it's personality is perfect. What's more, I loved how it seemed to have gone a little insane in Thief 3, due to having been in a Museum for so long. Apparently the dead make much better company than a bunch of tourists.
When I think about Microsoft, the only decent thing I think they make are Operating Systems, and they're failing at that as well.
Maybe I'm being a bit harsh. But honestly, it's like everything they make is riddled with bugs and glitches, and either fails to work properly, or just doesn't work at all. And I'm talking about all of the software they've ever made.
I suppose the Xbox is one of those few things that was made correctly... but the Xbox 360 wasn't, considering how common the Red Ring of Death was.
I honestly can't be the only one who when he sees that something is made by Microsoft, goes "Well, that's probably a piece of junk."
Then again... I suppose DirectX works pretty wells.
And that XNA Game Studio is apparently quite decent.
And I haven't had much trouble with some versions of Microsoft Office.
I still believe that anything made by a different company, is almost certainly going to be better though. (for example, would how often do you use Windows Media Player, or Internet Explorer).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hahah, indeed. I would probably guess that it went a bit nuts because it didn`t knew anyone in the Museum (until Garret came) and who knows how would tourists react if it would attempt to talk to them. Heck, I think that it had already tried to contact tourists some time, but they either freaked out, thinking they were going nuts, or just swiftly left because well ... how would we, normal taffers, react when hearing that voice in our head? (even though according to my dream where it had contacted me when it was already in a fountain, I`m a pretty abnormal taffer, LOL. I blame it being my ultimate favorite for that XD) At least the undead do not argue with anything it says or does, lawl.
Speaking of it, in one playthrough video, someone had told that Sauron had left one of his eyes somewhere in Mordor and the other one apparently "here (aka in the Museum)", which is somehow strangely relevant, no matter if I started to literally cry from laughter. What say you about that comparison?
No problem at all, you can be as harsh as you can be. I`m not a big supporter of Microsoft either nowadays when more and more issues arise with newer things they do, including OSs and various software. I guess that the oldest stuff from them were the best stuff, except some "peaks" like Windows XP and all the software you had said there. But now that its support (for Windows XP) had ended~ *sigh*
(I admit, next to none! I loved VLC way more than WinMediaPlayer and IE was so damn slow, it was damn right frustrating.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's a pretty good comparison, saying it's Sauron's eye. It's slightly funny.
I like how that newest Hobbit film, showed that Sauron's Eye, was actually just his silhouette engulfed in flames. That was awesome, the pupil just being his silhouette. It sort of made sense as well, like he's trying to go through worlds or something.
Of course The Eye on Thief isn't an Eye at all. Well, it did have a rock as an eye at one point, and that got replaced with Garret's eye. But The Eye is actually just a claw like scepter (although you only ever see the handle of the scepter during cutscenes, and unused models). So unless Garret is Sauron, saying that it's Sauron's other eye, makes little sense.
Still a funny comment though (which I think was the intention).
You may not mind me complaining about Microsoft. But I still shouldn't go ranting about my dislike of them. I think I'm a bit too opinionated most of the time.
Also, why did they name it Windows XP. What was the XP supposed to stand for?
Was it supposed to be a cross between these two 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LOL indeed it was the intention of that comment to be really funny, no matter if I spotted similarities between both "eyes" being able to telepathically talk to people and, strangely, both being called the same (as some Orcs and Uruks had called Sauron`s eye "The Eye", heh.). And their usage of rocks in order to expand their influence (Thief`s gemstone design and LOTR`s palantirs). Even though I think that it actually never replaced its rocky shell with Garret`s eye, it only acted to the flesh eye as a sort of a brain, being hidden inside the black casing we see in DS and only being fully exposed during TDP.
And completely agreeing on how Sauron/The Necromancer appeared in The Hobbit as well, I was like "Whoa O.O" when I saw that until I literally got a flashback of his eye-guise from LOTR movies. I really hope that there will be more footage of him being like that ... and maybe the early ringwraiths.
No worries, we are still just human and hearing opinions from others is intriguing.
LOL maybe
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So your theory is that The Eye sort of absorbed Garrett's eye?
Good theory, and that does make sense with what the Museum people thought The Eye was made out of.
I hope that we get to see Sauron like that some more as well. I loved it!
Yeah, hearing other people's opinions can be intriguing (and I usually love to hear two people arguing on a forum about how their opinion is valid because it's an opinion). But trying to force your opinions onto others can be a bit annoying at times. Of course, in our case we have similar opinions, so it doesn't matter as much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hyea, in a way that it actually took control over Garret`s eye in order for it to "see" around, as The Trickster claimed in TDP that The Eye was "blind without functional flesh eye" while the biggest portion of its personality is still located in its original gemstone "shell". Just like we have eye-to-brain connection, with brain containing the biggest portion of our mental selves, apparently. At least, that`s my hypothesis, but it wouldn`t surprise me.
Indeed!
Completely. Even more, I`m both too tired and too old for those flame-wars, at that point I just shut up and read the stupid hilarity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your idea makes just as much sense as any.
I always thought that they threw away the rock eye, and put in Garret's eye to replace it. But your idea makes sense, since according the museum, the eye part of The Eye was thought to be made of Oynx. So unless they're completely ignorant of the fact that it's clearly a real eye, then it makes more sense that your hypothesis is true.
Yeah, I don't think I've gotten into one of those flame wars yet, although I think I have gotten close. I usually just end up leaving them gob-smacked when I apologize and agree with them, and end up making them look like an idiot for expecting me to argue my point with them.
Ah, the days when I could make go around a forum and make everyone get in a frenzy and then feel like an idiot for getting into that frenzy in the first place. Those were good days... Too bad that forum is a much friendly place now. (What can I say, I find it fun to infuriate people that are easily annoyed.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hyea. I was thinking that the "bloodstone" part was them trying to describe the flesh eye of Garret~ LOL.
Heh, believing you, since I had similar experiences here on dA.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That actually makes sense. I'm still surprised that those Museum people didn't just go touch the thing and realize it was actually flesh. Maybe Garret's eye got absorbed into the stone part, or got a glass shell around it or something.
I don't think I've actually had any problems with people on DA. Probably because I generally only talk to people who Favorite my artwork, Watches me, or leaves a comment for me to read.
I generally don't leave a lot of comments on things that I look at, usually due to a lack of things to say (and a lack of responses).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed. Unless this little SA spooked them out
Lucky one
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I completely agree with how The Eye controls Garret's eye, much like how a brain would. That's pretty much how I saw it too.
I suppose I must be lucky to have not encounter any bad people on DA. I've heard a lot of bad things happen to people, and seen some arguments happen, but so far, nothing's happened to me yet here on DA. Something probably will eventually.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed, thus it`s such an intriguing character, if it`s a character
Indeed, since well ... I had arguments happen to me and even today I cannot talk to people because they`re still holding their grudges for me being "immature" while at that time, life got the better of me and I was too young to stop. Oh well, we all were childish crybabies at least once.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think The Eye is a character. It does talk after all, and is sentient.
You should have seen the first time I used a forum... my god was I such a crybaby. I think that thread still exists, so I could dig it up and show you if you want, although most of my posts on that thread were deleted by the mods at the time.
Speaking about arguments on DA, one of my friends has been having some trouble due to people saying he was rude for not wanting them to thank him for faving their work. And now they're posting like mad on his profile saying how he's a so mean and rude and how his artwork is crap. Which by the way, I think his artwork is actually better than mine, and it's mostly his writing that's awesome anyway.
Some people eh?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I would agree there.
Oh gods, I can completely believe it. Not many of these survive the test of time, as much as I`ve seen, not even mine. But well, sometimes it`s preferable that way.
Ok, that thing with your friend and other people sounds like pure bullshit. It`s not like every single deviant wishes the thanks from the work`s creators just because they had favorited their work like favorites are the only thing they receive (which it makes me think that those rude assholes only received these and had never had their work mentioned or put on groups or commented on). Hell, I had already seen other deviants that consider those "thanks for the favorite" messages to be spam and I do not blame them, I mean, look at my own profile.
I`m feeling really sorry for your friend and I just wish to blow some fires of truth into the bodies of these ungrateful folk that seem to only get thanks for their favorites for appreciation and that seem to treat all other comments as crap.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So we're in agreeance with The Eye being a character.
I wonder what other people think.
Unfortunately my thread did stand the tests of time. It's just a few of my posts that were destroyed almost as soon as they were posted, that didn't. I'm glad the mods did that though. Considering how I was acting, everyone was remarkably polite.
The person who he originally offended, seems to have moved on. But thanks to her making two journal entries about it (to laugh if off), all of her watches have taken it upon themselves to annoy him and comment bomb him as much as possible. She's not asked them to, she's merely said that she doesn't care if they do or don't.
In all honesty, I think it's her watches that are causing the most harm, and not actually her.
I mean sure, I'm being bias since he's my friend, but they're harassing him, while he's just minding his own business and responding. And they have the nerve to call him the ass?
I'd like to get involved and say a few words, but I know it's best to avoid these type of conflicts, otherwise they'll start harassing me as well.
I also read the original comment that set it all off. In that same comment, he actually apologized if it sounded a bit harsh.
And if anything, the rest of that comment did sound like he was having a bad day or something, and I think we've all been a bit harsh in a few comments due to outside sources.
He's definitely not making things better though. He's starting to sound more and more like a grumpy old man in his responses. I can't blame him, but still.
Hopefully he stops responding and just blocks them. Otherwise I can see things getting much worse.
Although things do seem to be dying down slightly now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh man, I can so believe that maybe somewhere in the bowels of the internet, some people are arguing about that topic. Even though I don`t know much of Thief community, but with the coming of Thi4f~ ... yeeeeeeeeaaaahhhhh.
Can believe, the mods must have been great people there. Too bad I almost never saw these whenever I was on forums (rare), thus I don`t comment much on forums. If I would have forum accounts on the 1st place, I don`t remember having any of them.
Oh there we go again, the bandwagon effect. Gods, sometimes you must really hate it, especially if it carries bias and hate because other persons don`t actually know what`s happening, but still go in to comment rudely. I believe you, because I had seen the worst of in right here, but the offending account(s) are banned now and only few deviations with such fights on them survived, as well as journal entries. At the end, the owner of the offending account(s) got linked to a hidden virus and ... well ... you know the result.
I would agree there.
I would hope that too, or take some days off dA to unwind all this shitstorm of bad comments. Just my opinion, since many of my friends used to do it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know much about the Thief community either... hmm, it's strange how we're both fans of a game but have never gotten invested enough to be part of that game's fan community.
Sounds like you've had some pretty rough times on DA, as well as your friends.
Glad to hear you got through them. I've seen many people leave for good as a result of arguments and other nasty surprises.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Or had found them, at least in my case. I guess the true fans are hidden like Keepers, no matter if all glyph magic is gone, according to Thief 3. I only know of one website where they appear and it`s ttlg.
Indeed. After all, apparently I was around here in as early as 2009~ or at least, that`s what my older account screenies are telling me, since both of my earlier accounts got deactivated (so yeeaaahhh, I had two early accounts just to get deactivated while this 3rd account started life as my father`s account, but he never even used it, so ... yeah, I had kind of snatched it when I saw that it was literally abandoned).
Thanks and same. Tobi, for instance - I now know of 3 accounts she (?) had here, but now every single one of them is deactivated.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think I may have found one of them when I was looking up The Dark Mod... but I'm not sure if that's where the majority of the fan community hangs out.
I'm we'd be able to find them if we really looked though.
It seems as though you've been on DeviantArt as long as I have.
I'm still on my first account, and don't plan on deactivating it anytime soon.
Although what ever made you deactivate those other two accounts must have been pretty bad. Third time's the charm I guess... or is it bad things come in three. Those two sayings completely contradict each other.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hyea, agreeing there. I so suspect there are more of them on other websites.
Now that is some serious kudos, for surviving so many years on one account
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, chances are, there are whole websites dedicated to Thief. There's probably one dedicated to just Thi4f... I shudder at the thought of that.
Thanks, let's hope I keep this account for many more years to come.
Also, it seems as though it's time to move on from this depressing notion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed.
LOl totally. I`m gonna check more on you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Glad you agree!
Also, thanks for the fav.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Every gameplay feature in NuThief has been made worse, not because the designers didn't have the skills to program good game mechanics, or to dumb down the game. The reason is that they were 100% focused on visuals and animation, without actually having the skills to achieve their vision of visual perfection, or they simply didn't care if it negatively impacted the gameplay.
The jumping was made static to make simple static jumping animations fit better. Same with the rope arrows. You can't just shoot ropes anywhere, when the animations are only made to work somewhere. And on and on... you mention anything that worked perfectly fine in Thief 1, or in Dishonored, and its equivalent in NuThief was broken for the sake of animations. There isn't a single instance of the use of dynamic animations that actually react to the circumstances, and visualize the gameplay seamlessly without interfering with the player's freedom. Instead, the player's freedom is restricted to leave room for animations that just can't change. It's the opposite of Max Payne 3, -a game that although suffered from too little real gameplay, actually did seamlessly animate free movement.
So I think the biggest reason why NuThief sucks is because the developers wanted it to be more like a movie, by any and all means necessary, without having the skills or dedication to achieve that.
By the way, Dishonored took the movement mechanics of Thief the Dark Project, fixed all the bugs, and made good things perfect. And nobody tried to animate things. Not being able to see your own body is more realistic than seeing a body that refuses to do what you instruct it to do, yet still insists on the lie that the body is yours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dishonored was such an awesome game. I agree, it took Thief and improved. It's just too bad that it felt a little short. But I guess most games nowadays feel kinda short.
Still, Dishonored is closer to a Thief 4 than the New Thief game will ever be. Yeah I know, the two aren't related, but Dishonored is just so similar to Thief.
I agree, they did focus too much on visuals and graphics. But hearing how you describe it, just brings to light why such features were neglected. So thanks for that insight. Personally though, I think it was marketing and the project leader that ruined the game, and not the programmers. I think they were just doing as they were told. But then again, I could be wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dishonored was designed usign the original Thief's design philosophy, by some of the original Thief development team. The concept is basically that you need to create an all-encompassing free interaction system that allows player to do anything concievable in the game world, and very intricate simulation systems that act as the gameplay mechanics, between the AI and the player. Then the story of the game can unfold on its own around those systems, with little to no interfering with the player's ability to choose.
NuThief's design philosophy was nothing like what is expected of a Thief game. That game was built from the ground up to look a certain way and spoonfeed a specific linear narrative. How the game plays is secondary. The player is not allowed to explore. The game brings places to the player in order. The player is not allowed to look. The game shows things for the player. The player is not allowed to play. The game gives the player choices on what the player would like the game to show them next. (Press Space to see Garrett jump across a standard-width gap. Press E to see how a window is opened. Again and again. Press Space to get an illusion of a free rope climbing experience where your movement controls are actually just playback buttons on an animation. Press Q to make the game do the knockout that you would rather do yourself. Press the button used for picking up items to accidentally peek around the corner instead.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I completely agree. Thief 4 spoon fed you everything, while Dishonored gave you an open world, almost sandbox like environment.
Hopefully if they ever make a Thief 5, they take a few cues from Dishonored, but I doubt it, and as such hope there is never a new Thief game.
The main problem I think, is that a lot of games nowadays are as you described. "Press Enter to continue" and such. If things continue with how they're going, I suspect that eventually you won't even need to press a button to continue a game, and that it'll instead be indistinguishable from a film.
Actually, have you noticed how games have slowly been getting easier as the years go by. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as there are a lot of old games (Manic Miner) I can't even begin to complete. But the newer games just seem to have gotten so easy, that now they just hold you hand and guide you through the entire game!
Thief 4 is sort of difficult, but mostly due to poor game mechanics. For whatever that's worth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't think games have become entirely easy in general, but they have gotten far less complex. And it isn't like the games have given the players the ability to skip all the complexity. The games are designed from the beginning as simple creations, and maybe in the end it's thinly veiled with some illusion of complexity. Dishonored is guilty of the same to some extent. For example, some levels are designed with a long introductory infiltration, the main assignment playground, and a quick escape. The levels in the Thief series were designed to not have a quick exit. You would need to navigate back to the place you entered. Every guard you left alone was still there patrolling, and you needed to approach those puzzles from the different direction this time. Also, you would still be able to discover additional loot that you missed on your way through before.
In contrast, NuThief is so completely opposite of this, that the game is actually filled with one-way portals that give you no warning. The first one in the game does, but the rest are basically traps. You "Press X to do everything" in the wrong place, the game takes control away from your hands, and places Garrett on the other side of a secret door, with no way to return. That must be the reason why there are absolutely no objectives that tell you to steal loot. -In a game called "Thief". The "story-driven" way of design would break the whole game if the game would actually tell you to do what its name implies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well you've clearly never played a game on the ZX Spectrum. Simple and impossibly difficult (play Manic Miner, and tell me when you get past the second level... I still haven't). Games slowly became more complex and slightly easier, because they no longer needed to cover up the simplicity of the games with difficulty. Eventually games got to a decent amount of difficulty, and a reasonable amount of complexity (and that's when some of the best games came out I think). But then they started to get simpler, but continued to get easier, even to the point where the game holds your hand throughout the entire game. I remember playing Assassin's Creed 4, and at one point a giant rock fell in front blocking the path ahead and Anne Bonny screamed out that we would need to go around it. OF COURSE WE NEED TO GO AROUND IT! I DON'T NEED TO BE TOLD THAT! And that's just the tip of the ice berg, there's plenty more examples!
And you're right, games have been getting simpler lately, I remember when each level used to be a sort of mini-sandbox. Thief is a perfect example, but Rainbow Six and Perfect Dark are also pretty good examples. Nowadays, games like those are straight forward simple levels, indistinguishable from the levels in the original Super Mario Bros (which if you think about it, was from the simple but difficult days).
So yes, games have gotten simpler, but they've also gotten easier. And they only became simpler after they became both more complex and once again easier. Basically, I'm trying to say we hit a sort of peak when it came down to games. Hopefully we'll hit another peak when some much needed innovation is breathed into the gaming business.
Another major thing wrong with modern games, is that apparently, you've got to see everything on one playthrough now. Do you remember when the easier modes would not only make the game shorter, but also gave you less objectives (and less story as a result). Nowadays, the only companies willing to go out of this comfort zone, are the Indie Companies (and once again, I could give many examples)!
And this is something which I think has caused modern games to be more linear. The companies are afraid (for some strange reason) that players won't experience everything if the game isn't linear. And the best way to make sure people see everything, is by spoon feeding you a story-driven game.
And now we get to the reason why Thief 4 is such a terrible game. Modern gaming practices are terrible! and very few companies challenge these modern practices, and those that do, usually do it carefully by creating a strange mish-mash hybrid (which may or may not be good). Like you said, even Dishonored was guilty of a few things. Sure it was a great game, but I think Dishonored is a perfect example of one of those games that carefully tried to challenge the way modern games are made. Thief 4 on the other hand, stuck to that code as though it was gospel (and let's face it, it got pretty decent reviews as a result).
The only games that don't show you everything on a single playthrough, will tell you exactly how to get see everything else on the second playthrough. So you don't have to work hard to see everything, you just have to play the game twice. A good example of games like that, is any game with a Karma or Choice system. I mean come on, how many times have you wondered whether you're being good or evil on Infamous?
Games like those are just trying to artificially make themselves longer, by increasing replay value and essentially giving you two stories in one (which let's face it, you're going to either choose one or the other from the start).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Games need to show you everything, even by force, because the development studio spent way too much money and time creating all those assets required for the graphics. If the player doesn't see it, then that's wasted money. So either you are forced to look at everything, or the game only consists of things that you will see anyway. In other words, you will be spoonfed all the information required to "find" the "secrets" that are in places that would make you stumble upon them anyway, or that additional content just won't exist at all. It's just too expensive to produce.
Though the problem isn't really how expensive that high visual quality is. It's the consumers who are at fault. Everyone wants an even fancier Ferrari every year, but they are refusing to pay any more than they would for a VW Beetle. People constantly demand better graphics, which rises the budgets of AAA games to hundreds of millions, but when the product is actually out, they will insist that the price still must be the same as it would be for a game that cost only 5 million to make. The developer has no choice. They can't sell top-quality products to the specific audiences that like those products, because it's blasphemy to have to pay more for something that's actually worth more. That's why everyone needs to just ignore the niches, ignore fans, and sell literally average, deliberately mediocre products to the largest possible audience. That's the only way you can make profit when you sell your expensive product too cheap. That's the reason why games that sold tens of millions of copies are considered failures.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Agreed, one of the biggest things which has led to this downfall in gaming, is people wanting better and better graphics. I've seen people complaining that a game has bad graphics, and I've looked at it and thought to myself "It looks pretty good, what on earth are they talking about?"
It's like people of today don't realize that all graphics of today are incredible! If they want to see bad graphics, they should look to Minecraft.
And that brings me to another point. I've seen huge amounts of people complaining that a modern game (with decent graphics) has terrible graphics and is a bad game because of it. But when an Indie Company makes a game with even worse graphics, everyone is like "Oh, well graphics doesn't really matter." Talk about hypocritical!
I suppose you're right, companies are doing what they're doing because people demand graphics for some reason.
You could potentially reduce the amount of objects and stuff you have to produce, and increase the playability of the game, by using procedural generation, but then of course, people will complain that the game is samey, and that the graphics are also samey, and that the game must be crap as a result.
I can think of only one (realistic) way to fix this problem. Although there may be more. As I said before, with Indie Companies, people seem less inclined to buy the game based on graphics. So, why not create Indie subsidiary companies like the Movie Industry does. That is a real thing, big companies own smaller companies which work similar to Indie companies. It's just that only the Movie Industry seems to do this. A successful film made by one of these subsidiaries is Juno. I think Despicable Me was also made by one of those subsidiary companies, but I can't verify that.
If Game Companies did the same thing, we'd essentially get a selection of innovative games with crappy graphics, made at the fraction of the cost of the major games. These games in turn could be either successful or complete failuers. If they succeeded (a lot), they could be taken to the AAA section, where they would get a sequel which would follow much the same way the original did, and probably not even require as much money as any other AAA game (although it'll still cost more than the original cost), because it would have a cult following who would probably buy the game, no matter how it turned out.
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, maybe I'm wrong about how things would turn out and the reasons they would turn out that way. You clearly have a better understanding of these things than me, so I'll let you correct me. But I am fairly confident that If Game Companies tried to copy the Movie Industry in terms of business practices, and had Indie subsidiaries, it could help a lot with how things have starting getting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FYI, Minecraft can't really have fancy graphics. The game needs to process billions of objects simultaneously, and figure out which ones are closest to your eyes, so it knows which ones to draw on screen. Just because you can't see several hundred meters through solid rock, doesn't mean that every single one of those 1x1m blocks isn't there. They are. It also can't have things like pre-drawn shadows and lights, it needs to create all of that based on how the objects are oriented in relation to each other. All of those ridiculously many ojects. Games that are made on for example the Unreal engine can take all the shortcuts they need. Only the things you can see need to exist.
Speaking of Unreal static lights and Thief... NuThief actually took a step back in graphical technology compared to Thief: Deadly Shadows. NuThief has static lighting. Shadows pre-calculated into the world. I noticed this when I was getting confused about whether I was hidden or not, because apparently in a place that is dark enough to completely hide me, my shadow can still be clearly seen on the ground. So the dynamic shadow of my character was being cast on top of the static shadow built into the environment. Deadly Shadows took a huge leap forwards in graphics technology, following right behind Doom 3, by having only dynamic lights. All shadows from all light sources, calculated in real time.
Which really does make things just a little bit more depressing, doesn' it? Every worst problem that NuThief has is caused by visuals being prioritized over everything else. And still the game manages to be less advanced in the most important aspect of graphics, than the previous game, which came out 10 years earlier.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah I know that Minecraft can't be extremely graphical (Much like Dwarf Fortress, which struggles to run on even the most powerful of computers). It could still be more graphical than it is, by programming it in a more optimized language, heavily optimizing the game, and putting in a variety of cool effects. There is after all a huge range of mods for Minecraft that increase the graphical quality, but a good amount of computers struggle to play Minecraft even without such modifications.
But I wasn't complaining that Minecraft wasn't graphical. I actually rather like Minecraft's graphics. I was complaining about how people will complain that a rather graphical game isn't very graphical, but won't complain about Minecraft which is graphically inferior to any other game which they complain about. Sure, there's a good reason why Minecraft isn't graphical, but the majority of people don't realize that, they just put it down to budgeting. If people did realize that Minecraft wasn't graphical because of what it does, then maybe other more major games could go the same route. And sacrifice graphical quality for gameplay. But like I said, the majority of people only see graphics as a way to determine the budget the game had. And I suppose for most AAA games, they're right. But it's still a problem in my opinion.
I thought the lighting on Thief 4 looked a little... static. Although I didn't quite notice that. And with a game like Thief, you'd think shadows and lighting would've been the biggest priority, considering how the game plays. Heck, I remember Thief 1 and 2 having some of the best lighting in games for the time (ok, maybe not the best, but definitely good for the time), and Thief 3 was incredibly impressive in terms of lighting (the textures were a little small though). The fact that they went backwards is actually a little shocking.
Yeah, it is quite saddening. It's like adding insult to injury. They prioritized solely on graphics, and they even screwed that part up.
Lighting is one of the most important parts of a Thief game, that's the kind of thing you'd try and use the best technologies available on for a brand new Thief game. Such a shame really.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
But G. cannot carry more than a single bottle at a time, after a couple of minutes, he LOSES it (a milkman showed up or what?!), while jumping was... err... an always-have-it feature.
I enjoy MOST of the mechanics except for the things you described above AND the ability to tear tapestries to pieces (who would ever bother coming out without a knife or a dagger in the City?). The plot... Nope, we are not amused.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, ripping up banners has always been fun. Garrett the Vandal!
As for the bottle thing, what you said just made me think of Pokemon and Thief.
Garrett just learned "Carry Bottle" but Garrett already know four moves. Garrett forgot "Jump" and learned "Carry Bottle".
I have to agree though. I enjoy most of the mechanics as well. I just with these new mechanics were additions rather than replacements. Also, what's the the Fire Arrows being replaced with Sparklers?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I have fire arrows. Although I really see no point in most of the arrows. Everybody seems to carry a lightbox and dousing a fire lasts like... five seconds for me? The same with blunt arrows - they are cool (in FMs, I use broadheads for triggering just like Eshaktaar's Staff of Far Reach), but the guards light the lamp again almost instantly. I mean it's highly realistic and challenging, but to really set the things up with the ON-OFF button, I'd need to carry broadheads and even with quiver upgrades, I always feel there are too few of them.
Fire arrows, on another hand, are pretty multiple. I have the first quiver upgrade and I can have like 12 of them or so! There are also even more powerful counterparts, but I don't kill, so they're pretty useless. Or take gas arrows. In previous games, one was enough to knock out a group of opponents in a stealthy manner and there would dream sweet dreams 'till the end of the mission. Here, judging from the description, they only act as suffocators (just like moss arrows in T3). What the...?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Have you ever shot one of those Thief 4 Fire Arrows at a guard? All they do is make some sparks and noise, and annoy the guard who you shot it at. They're the equivalent of the noise arrows from Thief 3! And Fire Arrows used to be the deadliest arrows in the game (just behind Gas Arrows in terms of usefulness)!
Blunt arrows on the other hand can be quite useful. You just need to think outside the box when using them. And at least you can use a Blunt Arrow without wasting a Broadhead. Personally though, I don't think they thought through the whole "keeping things dark" part, when you use arrows. Maybe they just wanted you to use your arrows so that you can create a temporary opening for that spare of the moment, rather than a mission long opening, and that they didn't realize that that's not quite how Thief is usually played. But hey, at least they tried.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope, I never shot a fire arrow at a guard, only at combots, treebeasts and the undead. I guess I'll need to take some to the asylum. If the effect is similar to what you described, then... pathetic.
The blunt arrows seemed a great invention, but my plan to use them to trigger the lights off just doesn't work. I mean they get switched off, but, for instance in the crematory during the post mortem inspection, when I shot a button with that arrow, the guard just switched it on again before I could react 
And jumping to get one's attention - no longer...
I WANNA MY BENNY!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
On Thief 1, 2, and 3, they're incredibly effective at killing the undead. Only one or two fire arrows are needed to kill an undead creature (depending if it noticed you), and they make a good replacement to Water Arrows if you're lacking Holy Water. They're also quite useful for killing guards if you're not on expert. But on Thief 4, they're only good for shooting at barrels of gunpowder, or for annoying guards.
Yeah, I think they made the blunt arrows for turning light switches off, but it doesn't work too well for that. They're still useful though for interacting with the environment, such as shooting things attached to rope, so that they can fall.
I miss jumping!
Sigh, maybe they should have included a shout button or something...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A shout button? Incredible and seriously a decent idea! Frankly, I do not attack living opponents (except for blackjacking). I was furious when I saw that the mission at Xiao-Xiao's gave me some predator points: do you think somebody could have passed away after opium overdose 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks, a shout button would be a nice addition. I doubt such a thing would ever be implemented though.
Hmm, you might have gotten some of those points due to a bug in the game. Or maybe someone did accidentally off themselves. I'm not sure.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>