Blue Ghost
06-23-2004, 01:33 AM
I'm really glad to have a third installment of the Thief series. I think Eidos did the right thing in developing this title, and I'm glad the basic game play, formula and other basic elements were kept in the game. I liked hearing Steven Russell voice Garret, and I liked being able to sneak around again. It's a very good game, and much in the same tradition of the two previous games. :)
One of the things I liked over the previous installments were the more detailed player models. I remember Jedi Knight (Dark Forces II) went the same route of scaling down the textures and model detail for larger levels. But unlike Jedi Knight the Looking Glass folks used one color pallet, and made their maps fully explorable. This was another major plus. But where I like the explorability in Thief 3, as someone else stated on the "Did you like the Hub Setting" thread, I didn't get the sense of a large sprawling city. The "loading next sector" thing smacked of a previous generation of games (System Shock 2, Quake 2 and its various expansions, etc.). In the previous Thief games the maps were huge and fully explorable. In this installment the maps are dissapointingly scaled down, and hacked up.
Some examples, in the original Thief we could explore an entire crypt, catacombs and caves, or an entire sunken city. In Thief 2 I could explore an entire warehouse complex AND a fully rendered ship. Regrettably in Thief 3 I had to "zone" or "change sectors" when I went to enter the Abysmal Gale or went from one hub in the city to the next. Understandable, but rather dissapointing.
I'll also add that the maps seemed somewhat easy. Even with the AI in full "Expert" mode (patch and all) there just seemed to be too many convenient sewer tunnels, side nooks and other places to hide. The levels are thuroughly designed, but not quite up to snuff of the previous games. There were a fair number of hiding places in the previous Thief games, but they seemed and felt a bit more natural.
I think part of the lack of scale in Deadly Shadows is the fact that the game was slated for not only the PC market, but also the console market. It's an interesting take on bringing a game to market, but not one I would've taken. The scope and playability of the previous installments has suffered because of it.
I did like the fact that there were peasants in the streets, but the City Watch seemed almost hyper-alert to Garret's presence. It's as if they had medieval night-vision goggles and photographic memories. I think a better routine for the AI would be them to have to see Garret in propper light, and only then recognize him.
I liked the traditional animations, but disliked the use of game engine graphics (or whatever 3d renderer was used) for the additional cinematics (or cut-scenes). I assume it was done to cut down on cost, but I don't know for certain. A couple of other games used this technique to add story material, but it's never sat well with me.
The voice acting was good enough. In fact I liked it. Again there's always a "but," and mine is that Garret's speech seemed somewhat rushed on a couple of passages between missions. It was very out of character. I liked hearing the Hammers and Pagans. Good stuff :)
The story was good. Very intrigueing. I liked it. Good stuff :)
The equipment; the dagger was an interesting addition, but like I and others mentioned on another thread we would've preferred an option for either or both. I don't miss rope arrows, but I do miss not being able to climb ropes. I always thought Garret should be using a grappleing hook or high powered crossbow with a rope-bolt.
Finally; how is it Garret forgot how to swim? :( Again the console platform design criteria is probably rearing its ugly head... still, not that I was a big fan of Garret swiming it does seem odd that he's lost his water wings. :rolleyes:
On balance I did like this latest Thief installment. It had a lot of the right feel and air of the original, but lacked some of the scale. One of the real pluses was the atmosphere on the various missions. Very haunting on a couple of missions.
One of the reasons Looking Glass folded was because of the added overhead to help accomplish Thief 2. Adding a handful of people to the payroll, even to finish a surefire sequel to a hit game, adds a drain on company funds. It's pretty clear that what Eidos has done is to try and get the most bang for the buck by playing to PC and console markets with a cult-hit title. It's understandable, but the suits should keep in mind that one of the reasons the previous games were such hits was because of the entirety of their design; gameplay, levels, story, and other elements. A thing the Looking Glass folks understood. Thief 3, in my book, has dodged a bullet because of this, but just narrowly.
I'm hopeful that the next installment will have the bugs worked out of the current build, and will have some of the things I and others have mentioned here and on other threads. :)
That's all for now.
p.s. the faction thing (a game device taken from GTA 2), though interesting, seemed contrived, and didn't add a whole lot.
One of the things I liked over the previous installments were the more detailed player models. I remember Jedi Knight (Dark Forces II) went the same route of scaling down the textures and model detail for larger levels. But unlike Jedi Knight the Looking Glass folks used one color pallet, and made their maps fully explorable. This was another major plus. But where I like the explorability in Thief 3, as someone else stated on the "Did you like the Hub Setting" thread, I didn't get the sense of a large sprawling city. The "loading next sector" thing smacked of a previous generation of games (System Shock 2, Quake 2 and its various expansions, etc.). In the previous Thief games the maps were huge and fully explorable. In this installment the maps are dissapointingly scaled down, and hacked up.
Some examples, in the original Thief we could explore an entire crypt, catacombs and caves, or an entire sunken city. In Thief 2 I could explore an entire warehouse complex AND a fully rendered ship. Regrettably in Thief 3 I had to "zone" or "change sectors" when I went to enter the Abysmal Gale or went from one hub in the city to the next. Understandable, but rather dissapointing.
I'll also add that the maps seemed somewhat easy. Even with the AI in full "Expert" mode (patch and all) there just seemed to be too many convenient sewer tunnels, side nooks and other places to hide. The levels are thuroughly designed, but not quite up to snuff of the previous games. There were a fair number of hiding places in the previous Thief games, but they seemed and felt a bit more natural.
I think part of the lack of scale in Deadly Shadows is the fact that the game was slated for not only the PC market, but also the console market. It's an interesting take on bringing a game to market, but not one I would've taken. The scope and playability of the previous installments has suffered because of it.
I did like the fact that there were peasants in the streets, but the City Watch seemed almost hyper-alert to Garret's presence. It's as if they had medieval night-vision goggles and photographic memories. I think a better routine for the AI would be them to have to see Garret in propper light, and only then recognize him.
I liked the traditional animations, but disliked the use of game engine graphics (or whatever 3d renderer was used) for the additional cinematics (or cut-scenes). I assume it was done to cut down on cost, but I don't know for certain. A couple of other games used this technique to add story material, but it's never sat well with me.
The voice acting was good enough. In fact I liked it. Again there's always a "but," and mine is that Garret's speech seemed somewhat rushed on a couple of passages between missions. It was very out of character. I liked hearing the Hammers and Pagans. Good stuff :)
The story was good. Very intrigueing. I liked it. Good stuff :)
The equipment; the dagger was an interesting addition, but like I and others mentioned on another thread we would've preferred an option for either or both. I don't miss rope arrows, but I do miss not being able to climb ropes. I always thought Garret should be using a grappleing hook or high powered crossbow with a rope-bolt.
Finally; how is it Garret forgot how to swim? :( Again the console platform design criteria is probably rearing its ugly head... still, not that I was a big fan of Garret swiming it does seem odd that he's lost his water wings. :rolleyes:
On balance I did like this latest Thief installment. It had a lot of the right feel and air of the original, but lacked some of the scale. One of the real pluses was the atmosphere on the various missions. Very haunting on a couple of missions.
One of the reasons Looking Glass folded was because of the added overhead to help accomplish Thief 2. Adding a handful of people to the payroll, even to finish a surefire sequel to a hit game, adds a drain on company funds. It's pretty clear that what Eidos has done is to try and get the most bang for the buck by playing to PC and console markets with a cult-hit title. It's understandable, but the suits should keep in mind that one of the reasons the previous games were such hits was because of the entirety of their design; gameplay, levels, story, and other elements. A thing the Looking Glass folks understood. Thief 3, in my book, has dodged a bullet because of this, but just narrowly.
I'm hopeful that the next installment will have the bugs worked out of the current build, and will have some of the things I and others have mentioned here and on other threads. :)
That's all for now.
p.s. the faction thing (a game device taken from GTA 2), though interesting, seemed contrived, and didn't add a whole lot.