Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kaje]

Kotaku is significantly less forgiving than RPS.

Posted that above - I trust Kotaku on a lot of things, I think they've just ensured I do not buy the game.

[nenjin]

Kotaku is significantly less forgiving than RPS.

Posted that above - I trust Kotaku on a lot of things, I think they've just ensured I do not buy the game.

Oops. Missed that somehow.

I personally think Kotaku is scrapping the bottom of the barrel for game journalism, but every once in a while a writer seems on point.

I'm more inclined to accept the RPS review because there's less chest-beating butthurtedness coming through their review. Then again, RPS can be perfectly butt hurt too when they want to be.

About the only thing to be said with confidence is that Thief 4 isn't a true spiritual successor to their trilogy. It's a modern reboot with everything that entails. And while plenty of reboots are fun on their own merits, it seems like Thief 4 carries a lot of baggage and has all the typical, modern problems of a highly anticipated title that was shoved out the door too early and lacks the expected level of polish.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Yeah! And maybe someone will mod T4 to be more like what the stealth community wants.

[Gunner-Chan]

I just read that Kotaku review, that counts as butthurt now? It even seemed more reasonable and even less angry than even the Ars Technica review I read first, almost like they were giving it a better chance than it sounded like it deserved and knew it.

I know there was people complaining about doors closing behind you in the new RoTT, but in Thief? That's a lot worse and it apparently happens all the damn time. That's already a huge valid strike. So is the rope arrows not being really usable in any creative way.

I personally think I should get around to installing dark mod. Heh.

[sebcool]

 

You know, I actually thought it looked pretty good on TB's WTF is... It does look like it solves most of the hardcore crowds gripes with the preview, and it has a good port.

Don't hit me

[nenjin]

I just read that Kotaku review, that counts as butthurt now? It even seemed more reasonable and even less angry than even the Ars Technica review I read first, almost like they were giving it a better chance than it sounded like it deserved and knew it.

I didn't read the Ars Technica review, but the Kotaku one seemed to be the kind of indignant, insulted gamer piece. Some of it I can understand, other gripes seem a little entitled. (I can't remember the last 3d game I played where there weren't some doors closed.) Likewise, expecting an open city where you can enter buildings but don't have loading screens, in this day and age, is mythical thinking. Assassin's Creed does exactly what they're describing, which is any room that is more than 10x10 gets a loading screen when you go into it.

I didn't take away from the review that they were giving it more of a chance than it deserved. The top of the article reads like an angry rejection of the game, the bottom half reads like "well now that i've gotten that off my chest, let me talk about the game itself and the moments of fun I had."

I guess I should go read the Ars Technia article.

edit

See, the difference tonally between the Kotaku and Ars reviews is that, one isn't setting up the original games as the model that inevitably will not be successfully replicated. The Ars review really covers the game as it is, not what the reviewer is vocally wishing it was. Which, you know, I get it. Any fan of a rebooted game does. I'm just lately starting to reject reviews that embrace the attitude I can get on forums pretty much anywhere. I don't need a game journalist getting bitter for me, I can do that quite well on my own. I need them to tell me about the game as it is actually is.

[thegoatgod_pan]

The RPS review weirdly convinced me that this is going to be a disaster, while the Kotaku review merely provoked a "meh".

The Kotaku review accuses thief of not being the thieving simulator thewriter imagined. OK.

The RPS review says that the new Thief is good, maybe really good. But then it fails to explain what is good about it, instead dropping vague comments that seem to apply to any stealth game. Furthermore a whole section is about how great it is that you can turn off a bunch of features. I am not sure this is a compliment to the game, but it is presented as such.

Thief seems like it copies Dishonored (esp. the "swoop") but badly misses what made Dishonored fun (no free movement, not even real rope arrows). I didn't want a copy of Dishonored, I am still enjoying Brigmore Witches, thanks. I wanted a revamp of Thief, and I am pretty sure that this is ain't it. By sound of it a good part of the content is ripped off too: e.g. the list of female characters in the review were: murderous younger thief, wise old woman with mysticism, high society seductress. I am pretty sure that covers Billie Lurk, Granny Rags and Lady Boyle. If in Dishonored these were interesting characters, here they are explicitly criticized as cookie-cutter

Getting rather convinced this can wait until the inevitable gog sale ten years from now.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I don't think high expectations are out of bounds today. I think if you have a Windows game it should cater to Windows architecture and not console architecture; if you have to dumb down your game to the lowest common platform then people on the better platforms will feel like you're putting blinders and weights on them Harrison Bergeron-style.

Specifically, take Deus Ex 1. The opening level of Ellis Island was huge, with an interior to the Statue of Liberty. I believe the vault underneath which held UNATCO HQ was a separate load area but it might not have been.

Then we have DX2, which *spoilers* but whatever it sucked go play something else if you haven't ... in DX2 the end level was Ellis Island surrounded by sight-blocking ice walls which split the level into three or four parts - and the island was smaller besides, and lacked a statue interior.

I'd say, make the game as rich and complex and make the working parts of the game as grand and cool as you did before. At least. It's not ok to dumb it down. But the platforms we have now are faster and stronger, so you can have a grander game. With that extra you can choose to put it into graphics so it doesn't look like we're playing something from 2000. Or you can use the extra to make the game grander and tell the graphics to shove it.

What is not ok is using all that extra power for graphics, and then eroding the gameplay to make more room for graphics. While that may make the game more accessible to casual gamers, it destroys the game for anyone who played the first one and grew accustomed to its greatness. DX3 managed to walk that line and delivered better on gameplay than DX2 did, without compromising graphics too much. I personally feel that they could have shafted graphics processing more than they did.

This service to casual gamers is, I believe, a disservice. Through hardship we test and know our limits, through adversity we grow. If the games available to you are all casual, you will never develop higher quality gaming skills and more refined tastes. Give the casual gamer an Easy mode, rename it Normal so they don't feel pissed upon, but leave in the Hard for the grognards and Impossible for the masochists. And leave players to decide whether they want a game where each texture is high resolution and has six layers of processing filters, or a world 4x as vast and rich which looks goddamned good enough.

[sebcool]

But teh shiny graphics! 10/10

[lordcooper]

I don't see what consoles have to do with bad gameplay.

[Sonlirain]

I don't see what consoles have to do with bad gameplay.

Dumbing it down to be suitable to the inaccurate control offered by gamepads.
Usually translating to autoaim, bad graphics, crap optimization and dumbed down gameplay.

[lordcooper]

None of those things other than autoaim (which I've never seen in a PC game without the option to turn it off) have anything to do with gamepads.

[Sonlirain]

Well that and the fact consoles usually don't get hardware upgrades on the go and as they get outdated the developers have to use more and more sneaky methods of conserving power.
This is why bad PC ports have low res textures, small levels  cut up by loading screens, FoV set at around 75 and often terrible optimization.

[Kaje]

I think it's more to do with the fact that consoles generally require a far more simplified experience than PCs can provide, as such games tend to be 'dumbed down' so that there doesn't have to be multiple versions for each platform.

COD, for example, has killed modern gaming in the sense that now developers have to cater to l33t kiddies who can't think for longer than 5 seconds and have to have pew pew 24/7. Action and graphics are now far more popular than gameplay and thought. It's sad, really.

[sebcool]

Well, the pc port is completely without bad graphics, optimization and controls. It's well optimized, the fov slider goes above 100, it has some rather large levels (like the hub level, which is huge), and no weapon wheel. The only problem in the port is that it has a context sensitive jump button. The difficulty can be adjusted from l33t to fricking hardcore "get spotted and you have to start a new game" levels.

The gameplay doesn't look very dumbed down either, the "magic powers" are completely optional and can also be disabled, and you don't even have a sword. I doubt that the game could cater less to the CoD crowd than it currently does. I honestly don't get how people can honestly say that this game is shit, hell, I don't get how people think they can determine it's shit before they've even played it.