🚀 go-pugleaf

Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> THIEF 4 Really is in Production  ;
> 
> http://www.gamespot.com/news/blogs/rumor-control/909119209/26849223/thief-4-rumors-reignited-by-eidos-montreal-teaser.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;2
> 
> Only needs a little imagining  to believe it.
> 
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(")  mouse (It might be True even !)
> 
Would have liked to find out what changes it might have.
Albert

Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> THIEF 4 Really is in Production  ;
> 
> http://www.gamespot.com/news/blogs/rumor-control/909119209/26849223/thief-4-rumors-reignited-by-eidos-montreal-teaser.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;2
> 
> Only needs a little imagining  to believe it.
> 
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(")  mouse (It might be True even !)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

well here's to hoping they dump the whole T3 junk and go back to how 
it's supposed to be.  blech....T3.  i still have a bad taste in my mouth.

Your comment J.H. illustrates the problem barrier any sequel comes up 
against.
You hate T3 ..many complained that it was 'not right'.

BUT I started the Thief games with T3 & (with some reservations) like it.
I went to T2 later & like it but don't have a need to compare.

T4 would be hated both by T3 & separately, T2 people  .
Its only hope for a good reception is if its just very good .
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse (can't please all of the people any of the time sometimes) 

Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:

> Only needs a little imagining  to believe it.

  Not too much -- wasn't it the Montreal studio who made Assassin's Creed?  That
game struck me as having serious Thief possibilities, except that it wasn't a
sneaker but an action game. The later parts of the city missions, where the entire
cities of Damascus, Jerusalem etc were open to the player struck me as reminiscent
of some of the larger fan missions of Thief , and the roofscape of the cities was
certainly an echo of 'the thieves highway' mission in Thief 2.  (Indeed, the 'city' of
T3 was fully there in several versions, and there was even a 'kingdom' that
connected them with each other, and provided some out-of-city gaming.)

  The only thing missing was getting into houses (with some mission-oriented
exceptions) to steal. Pickpocketing thugs had to make up for that. Guards were there,
and would go for you if your were discovered ... and reasonably intelligently
at that. Hiding-places were also there, even if they assumed serious brain-damage
on the part of the guards. But that would be fixable.

  Oh yes, darkness was missing. Seriously. Sneaking in broad daylight just isn't the
same thing.

  Of course AC is adapted to action style, so the roofscape was overdone
-- but with a little bit of restraint: not *quite* so many pathsways to cross
from one roof to another, and perhaps fewer routes from the street to the roof
(in Thief: roof and window) it would make a very nice replacement.  The climbing model
of AC does in some respect make up for the lack of rope arrows -- the only thing
is that it's third-person view, but that was probably more to give that sense
of vertigo when the higher church towers were climbed -- first-person would
hardly have provided that, admittedly.

  It would be something of a letdown if Montreal is really working on
Assassin's Creed 2, which will be called ... Thief's Belief? ... and be
AC1 with sneaking.

  But apart from that, I think a Thief built on the AC platform could make
sense.

-- 
Anders Thulin     anders*thulin.name     http://www.anders.thulin.name/

Anders Thulin wrote:
> Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> 
>> Only needs a little imagining  to believe it.
> 
>   Not too much -- wasn't it the Montreal studio who made Assassin's Creed?  That
> game struck me as having serious Thief possibilities, except that it wasn't a
> sneaker but an action game. The later parts of the city missions, where the entire
> cities of Damascus, Jerusalem etc were open to the player struck me as reminiscent
> of some of the larger fan missions of Thief , and the roofscape of the cities was
> certainly an echo of 'the thieves highway' mission in Thief 2.  (Indeed, the 'city' of
> T3 was fully there in several versions, and there was even a 'kingdom' that
> connected them with each other, and provided some out-of-city gaming.)
> 
>   The only thing missing was getting into houses (with some mission-oriented
> exceptions) to steal. Pickpocketing thugs had to make up for that. Guards were there,
> and would go for you if your were discovered ... and reasonably intelligently
> at that. Hiding-places were also there, even if they assumed serious brain-damage
> on the part of the guards. But that would be fixable.
> 
>   Oh yes, darkness was missing. Seriously. Sneaking in broad daylight just isn't the
> same thing.
> 
>   Of course AC is adapted to action style, so the roofscape was overdone
> -- but with a little bit of restraint: not *quite* so many pathsways to cross
> from one roof to another, and perhaps fewer routes from the street to the roof
> (in Thief: roof and window) it would make a very nice replacement.  The climbing model
> of AC does in some respect make up for the lack of rope arrows -- the only thing
> is that it's third-person view, but that was probably more to give that sense
> of vertigo when the higher church towers were climbed -- first-person would
> hardly have provided that, admittedly.
> 
>   It would be something of a letdown if Montreal is really working on
> Assassin's Creed 2, which will be called ... Thief's Belief? ... and be
> AC1 with sneaking.
> 
>   But apart from that, I think a Thief built on the AC platform could make
> sense.
> 

to be honest i thought AC was more thief-like than thief 3 was.  t3 was 
a poor imitation of the series.  AC had more goals, more enviornmental 
interaction and most definitely more playability than t3 could have ever 
been.  hiding in broad daylight would have added a multitude of new 
challenges for garett.  not all the time of course but a couple levels.....

if they're serious about t4 they'll use AC as the basis for gameplay.

Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> Your comment J.H. illustrates the problem barrier any sequel comes up 
> against.
> You hate T3 ..many complained that it was 'not right'.
> 
> BUT I started the Thief games with T3 & (with some reservations) like it.
> I went to T2 later & like it but don't have a need to compare.
> 
> T4 would be hated both by T3 & separately, T2 people  .
> Its only hope for a good reception is if its just very good .
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(")  mouse (can't please all of the people any of the time sometimes) 
> 
> 

i think they made it impossible themselves to be happy with any new 
thief game.  the ending was ridiculous!  the outcome of the main 
storyline meant we would never have our thief back (as we knew him). 
providing 3rd person view (mistake!!) as an option destroyed the feeling 
of being there, and gave garett an identity outside of the player.  we 
never really had a face before outside of shadows and some artwork.  and 
garrett turned out to be one *uuuugly* dude!

J.H. wrote:
> Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
>> Your comment J.H. illustrates the problem barrier any sequel comes up 
>> against.
>> You hate T3 ..many complained that it was 'not right'.
>>
>> BUT I started the Thief games with T3 & (with some reservations) like it.
>> I went to T2 later & like it but don't have a need to compare.
>>
>> T4 would be hated both by T3 & separately, T2 people  .
>> Its only hope for a good reception is if its just very good .
>> (\__/)
>> (='.'=)
>> (")_(")  mouse (can't please all of the people any of the time sometimes)
>>
> 
> i think they made it impossible themselves to be happy with any new 
> thief game.  the ending was ridiculous!  the outcome of the main 
> storyline meant we would never have our thief back (as we knew him). 
> providing 3rd person view (mistake!!) as an option destroyed the feeling 
> of being there, and gave garett an identity outside of the player.  we 
> never really had a face before outside of shadows and some artwork.  and 
> garrett turned out to be one *uuuugly* dude!

Lol....about the Ugly part.
  Even though it was optional, I disliked the option of siding with one 
faction or the other, or both, or neither. Garrett is a loaner.
  Haven't played it, but the subtitled game "Chaos Theory" starts off 
with a stealth only level. You can shoot out some lights with a silencer 
to keep it dark. It would arouse a few bad guys, but you were still 
being stealthy.
  Also had some lock picking in it similar to T3.
Albert
Albert

Albert Conklin wrote:
> J.H. wrote:
>> Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
>>> Your comment J.H. illustrates the problem barrier any sequel comes up 
>>> against.
>>> You hate T3 ..many complained that it was 'not right'.
>>>
>>> BUT I started the Thief games with T3 & (with some reservations) like 
>>> it.
>>> I went to T2 later & like it but don't have a need to compare.
>>>
>>> T4 would be hated both by T3 & separately, T2 people  .
>>> Its only hope for a good reception is if its just very good .
>>> (\__/)
>>> (='.'=)
>>> (")_(")  mouse (can't please all of the people any of the time 
>>> sometimes)
>>>
>>
>> i think they made it impossible themselves to be happy with any new 
>> thief game.  the ending was ridiculous!  the outcome of the main 
>> storyline meant we would never have our thief back (as we knew him). 
>> providing 3rd person view (mistake!!) as an option destroyed the 
>> feeling of being there, and gave garett an identity outside of the 
>> player.  we never really had a face before outside of shadows and some 
>> artwork.  and garrett turned out to be one *uuuugly* dude!
> 
> Lol....about the Ugly part.
>  Even though it was optional, I disliked the option of siding with one 
> faction or the other, or both, or neither. Garrett is a loaner.
>  Haven't played it, but the subtitled game "Chaos Theory" starts off 
> with a stealth only level. You can shoot out some lights with a silencer 
> to keep it dark. It would arouse a few bad guys, but you were still 
> being stealthy.
>  Also had some lock picking in it similar to T3.
> Albert
> Albert

do you mean splinter cell?

J.H. wrote:
> Albert Conklin wrote:
>> J.H. wrote:
>>> Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
>>>> Your comment J.H. illustrates the problem barrier any sequel comes 
>>>> up against.
>>>> You hate T3 ..many complained that it was 'not right'.
>>>>
>>>> BUT I started the Thief games with T3 & (with some reservations) 
>>>> like it.
>>>> I went to T2 later & like it but don't have a need to compare.
>>>>
>>>> T4 would be hated both by T3 & separately, T2 people  .
>>>> Its only hope for a good reception is if its just very good .
>>>> (\__/)
>>>> (='.'=)
>>>> (")_(")  mouse (can't please all of the people any of the time 
>>>> sometimes)
>>>>
>>>
>>> i think they made it impossible themselves to be happy with any new 
>>> thief game.  the ending was ridiculous!  the outcome of the main 
>>> storyline meant we would never have our thief back (as we knew him). 
>>> providing 3rd person view (mistake!!) as an option destroyed the 
>>> feeling of being there, and gave garett an identity outside of the 
>>> player.  we never really had a face before outside of shadows and 
>>> some artwork.  and garrett turned out to be one *uuuugly* dude!
>>
>> Lol....about the Ugly part.
>>  Even though it was optional, I disliked the option of siding with one 
>> faction or the other, or both, or neither. Garrett is a loaner.
>>  Haven't played it, but the subtitled game "Chaos Theory" starts off 
>> with a stealth only level. You can shoot out some lights with a 
>> silencer to keep it dark. It would arouse a few bad guys, but you were 
>> still being stealthy.
>>  Also had some lock picking in it similar to T3.
>> Albert
>> Albert
> 
> do you mean splinter cell?
That was it. Splinter Cell.
Albert

J.H. wrote:

> to be honest i thought AC was more thief-like than thief 3 was.  t3 was
> a poor imitation of the series.

  I'm not sure if I should take this as it stands, or only as an indication
of general dislike of t3. T3 showed what happens when a new team takes over
-- some good things happened (the city is surely a good thing), some bad
(water kills and no rope arrows), and some plain weird (shooting bugs and
street corners -- the bugs made it seem like some kind of platform game),
and as was usual then, and perhaps still is, technical complexity is taken
as an indication of advancement -- I still dislike the lighting of T3.
But that is to be expected -- only Looking Glass had the experience that
was required to make something fully in line with the series, and they were
not around to do so anymore.

  AC is nothing like Thief-like -- it's a different game, that happens to
share some of the same game elements. But ... some of those elements would
be right for Thief, and if they had been present in T3, they would have been
right there -- the 'climbing' in particular. The 'active' citizens are also
good thing -- a citizen who just runs screaming for guards is not quite
as satisfying as one who starts to throw things at you.

  Others elements would not -- Altair is 'on par' with the guards, and can
take om a group of them singlehanded. That is not Thief, and it is to my mind
very doubtful if it should be: Thief should be unbalanced in that particular
respect -- a thief that is discovered has very few options, and counterattacking
a group of guards is not among them.






>                             AC had more goals, more enviornmental
> interaction and most definitely more playability than t3 could have ever
> been.

  That is just exaggeration -- after all, T3 could have been made by
Looking Glass Studios.



  T3 is also story-telleing partly bottom-up.  AC is top-down: clear missions






  hiding in broad daylight would have added a multitude of new
> challenges for garett.  not all the time of course but a couple levels.....
> 
> if they're serious about t4 they'll use AC as the basis for gameplay.


-- 
Anders Thulin     anders*thulin.name     http://www.anders.thulin.name/