🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 13 May 2009 23:22:34 +0200, Walter Mitty <mitticus@gmail.com> wrote:

>Memnoch <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>>>Here we go again. Thief 3 was a GREAT game. There are always trade
>>>offs. And the usual suspects will hang off one perceived "dumb down" or
>>>weakness for ever and a day. Thief 3 looked and played superbly and was
>>>responsible for some the creepiest, arse clenching gameplay of all time.
>>
>> The tiny levels were a bit of a disappointment. And the fact that
>> guards
>
>The levels were NOT tiny. There were compact and full of atmosphere and
>action. But tiny? You sound like one of the supporters of the mythical
>"open ended huge area" games advocates which time and time again fail to
>impress.

Okay, tiny may be an exagerration but the my point still stands about the "not
quite tiny levels" and portals connection sections of them means that they are
an easy means of escape from guards. 

>> weren't able to chase you through those portals from one segment to another as
>> that would have somewhat mitigated this. But if the consoles couldn't cope
>> with larger levels that's what we end up with.
>
>What? A great game?

No, not a great game "in your humble opinion". A flawed, but enjoyable game
that could have been better if certain design concessions hadn't needed to be
made due to memory contstraints on the consoles. I enjoyed Thief 3 but it
wasn't as good as Thief 2 as far as I am concerned. I missed the rope arrows
for one thing.