Ideas for thief 4 multiplayer [Archive]

LightningSS

09-26-2009, 08:06 PM

Ahhh, naaaa, I'm not talking about run & gun multiplayer.

You mean run & slash MP? Seriously Thief is not a MP friendly game no matter how MP is designed.

This isn't 5 years ago,

It isn't? Sure feels like it.

multiplayer is pretty much a "must have" for high quality games for next-gen systems bro...

Why is it a must have? There's plenty of SP only titles on the consoles that do very well and are way more suited for MP than a Thief game.

We already know Thi4f will have an excellent single player.

Do we? I hope so, but i wouldn't go so far as to say i know.

Now that Thi4f is going to step-up to the next-gen systems,

Is it only me that's tired of hearing the term 'next gen' to describe these consoles?

it's gotta have multiplayer elements in there somehow.

Why? Thief is not meant to be a MP experience without drastic alterations from the core gameplay. Why make T4 even more distant from the originals than even TDS was? Why do this just to appease the people who have short attention spans and get bored of SP even before the game rentals due?

Co-op missions would be kewl too! :nut:

Yeah, that's what every lone master thief wants while hiding in nooks and crannies, some partner tagging along blowing his cover and taking half his loot. Come on.

Seriously, the core essence of Thief does not translate well into MP gameplay. We don't need a tacked on MP that will not only change what Thief is but will also detract from a better quality and longer SP experience.

cGREGgo

09-27-2009, 05:43 AM

LightningSS

09-27-2009, 06:18 AM

Did someone pee in your wheeties or something? If you don't want multiplayer, don't play multiplayer... it's that simple...

Sure there's other games that aren't multiplayer. You play them once, you get to the end, and you never play it again. It ends up getting traded in at gamestop for $15 toward your next purchase...

Who wants to see Thi4f take that route?

(not me)

:rasp:

The only route i want to see T4 take is that of a true thief sequel, which means no tacked on MP. Todays games take what like 3 years to build? Why would anyone want at least half that time being wasted on a new unproven and unfit mode for this game? All the while allowing less resources and time to develop a true quality thief SP experience. A lot of game companies now outsource their MP component to another studio because of time constraints. I seriously doubt they would consider the extra funding for this action on a thief title instead it would be developed in house and ultimately hurt SP development.

Sure a MP thief game might work if the time was spent to develop it properly but that should not be a concern up front. Theres to much other work that needs to be done first without the extra headache of this task. A MP mode should be done by interested fan modders or at minimum an official add on, which is what a MP mode would most likely feel like for thief, an add on.

I'm not trying to be an *** or anything, i'm just trying to be realistic.

Namdrol

09-27-2009, 07:15 AM

Did someone pee in your wheeties or something?
Why say this? Because someone disagreed with you?

If you don't want multiplayer, don't play multiplayer... it's that simple...
No it is not that simple, it's 1000's of man hours of programming and development time which isn't being used on the core elements of the game.

Sure there's other games that aren't multiplayer. You play them once, you get to the end, and you never play it again. It ends up getting traded in at gamestop for $15 toward your next purchase...

Who wants to see Thi4f take that route?

The evidence proves you wrong.
Thief has a strong, devoted fan base, with many many mods, fan missions, works of art, stories etc and it shows no sign of going anywhere.
Thief was a niche game when first released and developed and yet here we are, still talking about it,with the 4th episode about to be released.
And there was no multiplayer released. (although the code was present inside the 2nd, which for me is the proffered solution. Leave it as an option for building on)

And in response to your earlier remark about next gen systems, if you mean consoles, have a look at this (http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/9/11/cryteks-cryengine-30-set-to-debut-next-month.aspx) article found by LightningSS, which shows just how backward consoles are compared to their PC cousins. It basically says that consoles released in 2012 will have hardware specs locked into place in 2010

kewl
And while we are pissing on each others wheaties, what does this word mean?
I looked in the dictionary and couldn't find it.....

cGREGgo

09-27-2009, 07:42 AM

LMAO... Wheaties is a breakfast cereal. :lol:

And...

They shouldn't leave something out because someone doesn't want to wait any longer to play...

:eek:

-

-

LightningSS

09-27-2009, 08:53 AM

LMAO... Wheaties is a breakfast cereal. :lol:

And...

They shouldn't leave something out because someone doesn't want to wait any longer to play...

:eek:

-

-

It's kinda hard to leave this useless feature out when it wasn't there in the first place.

demagogue

09-27-2009, 11:23 AM

I'll just chime in to say playing multiplayer/co-op FMs in Thief 2 (now that it's working (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124169)) has been a lot more fun than I expected. It's fun because you get to explore a level with another person, and when you find something new or interesting, there's someone there to share it with you ... or when you do something particularly dumb or awesome, they'll notice.

And I don't buy the argument that the other person is only there to blow your cover -- maybe if the other guy doesn't know what he's doing. But if both people are Thief fans and know how to play properly, then I've found that you sneak *better* with them there. You aren't as lazy with them watching; you can show each other a better way to sneak through something; and one person can scout for the other. So I would be happy if there was multiplayer in T4. I also don't think they need to water down singleplayer missions to do it, since co-op with singleplayer T2 OMs and FMs has been a lot fun.

cGREGgo

09-27-2009, 11:28 AM

Now there's a man with integridy! :wave:

Well said...

There's so many directions they can go with multiplayer. I think it'd be stupid NOT to have it in there somehow.

Those other two are just creepsies... :lmao:

Namdrol

09-27-2009, 11:46 AM

.........(although the code was present inside the 2nd, which for me is the preferred solution. Leave it as an option for building on)..............

.............. I think it'd be stupid NOT to have it in there somehow.

Those other two are just creepsies... ....

Maybe if you read other peoples posts rather than insult them with juvenile digs you would see what they were saying.
Show me one place in this thread were I said multi player definitely shouldn't be implemented. I questioned it, yes, as did you in a previous post

- MULTIPLAYER - I'm not sure about multiplayer. Thief would turn into a run & gun fragfest & you'd loose all your old time fans (like us). After all, the title is "THIEF", not "QUAKE ARENA". If you go multiplayer, please be carefult not to ruin it!

Same as you I just don't want it ruined..

Like you it seems, I have fixed ideas on nothing. Some of my thoughts are far more likely never to be changed and some I may change every hour..
Flexibility and an open mind pal, can't beat it ;)

cGREGgo

09-27-2009, 11:54 AM

If they add multiplayer, I don't think it should be a multiplayer where we kill each other (fragfest), that's all.

Multiplayer coop or some competition to see who can get a "special loot" item hidden in a map. Or even a competition to see who can steal the most valuables without getting busted.

All that other multiplayer "I got a gun and I'm going to shoot you" style is VERY OLD. We've been there & don't that. Time for something new for a change!

:whistle:

kabatta

09-27-2009, 11:55 AM

Yes, i want a Thi4f multiplayer where i can watch long sunsets with my partner, make love in the cripts, cold cobblestoned castles and mysterious glades and have public at the same time. Also I want to customize my character with an anime human kitty so i can be recognized.I want to make people distracted so i can get all the loot for myself to show how leet I am. But not without a nice prize on a web-site board. Multy-player is the best thing next to sliced bread and as good as my native american apple pie. :-*

cGREGgo

09-27-2009, 12:04 PM

Namdrol

09-27-2009, 12:13 PM

I do not the world designed with multi player in mind.
If there is to be multi player, I think it should be released as an expansion pack.
A separate game built and based on the Thief engine and style.
And wouldn't this be better for multiplayers as well? So it's not a bastardized version, neither one thing nor the other.

Taffer 1

09-27-2009, 12:16 PM

Multiplayer would be awesome! I'd love to call my friends up & go thieving with coop!

PUT MULTIPLAYER IN THIEF 4 EIDOS! PLEASE!

Pieter888

09-27-2009, 12:58 PM

Multiplayer would be awesome! I'd love to call my friends up & go thieving with coop!

PUT MULTIPLAYER IN THIEF 4 EIDOS! PLEASE!

the core of this reply has moved me in many ways:rolleyes:

The thing is that Thief isn't a MP based game, BUT I bet there are some ways that MP can work.

Normally MP in a game is translated to: if it moves, shoot it!
I think MP in Thi4f CAN work but it will be very hard to implement, knowing that it already takes a long time releasing thi4f in general (that's just the single-player mode), I don't think they should focus on a MP element.

Apart from that, I think MP can work, but not the way we are used to seeing MP.
I'm not going to give an example because I simply can't think of any right now. It's hard because even though it's another mode of playing, it should stick to the core of the game. Players should be restricted on certain aspects like preventing players from running in the building, do what you have to do, and run back out again in 2 minutes.

Again, It will be hard but not impossible and I'm totally open for it, but won't be disappointed without it either.

jtr7

09-27-2009, 01:30 PM

Don't put it in thief 4, Eidos, please! Provide it as an expansion or separate version!

cGREGgo

09-27-2009, 01:45 PM

Thief was the first stealth game (I think, I could be wrong) and invented a new style of gameplay. Making multiplayer teams would be a disaster, those guys I've been bickering with are right & I'm not bashig'em, just thowen'em a hard time cause it's fun. :nut:

But it could be awesome if they invented something new again. These new eidos guys from that picture in the other thread have to come up with something awesome for multiplayer coop to work.

I think having a friend there with a noise arrow to destract the guards, while the other went in to do some thieving would be freaking GREAT!

Or have a drawbridge where one guy has to hold the switch while the other crosses, then he has to hold it for his teamate (all while trying to stay hid). MAKE EXPERT LEVEL A ZERO KILL LIMIT so you can't kill anyone.

:nut:

(how do I make my background color white? this black background sux)

:hmm:

OxymoronicalWorldPeace17

09-27-2009, 04:46 PM

Hahaha, I was just thinking the same thing. When I saw the gameplay for Thief 3 I wondered if there was a multi-player. But, that's JUST ME. There's nothing wrong with wanting a multi-player just like there's nothing wrong with wanting to playing single player, either. Everybody is different and even if they made it an option it shouldn't "ruin it " for anyone simply because they would have the option to play Solo- ANYWAY. :P

jtr7

09-27-2009, 05:01 PM

The issue is not preference.

It's development time.

There's a limit on the time, barring an extension granted by the investors.

Thief 4 should be single-player. Multiplayer should come afterward, so the traditional Thief experience is not affected. If single-player has level design with multiplayer in mind, it will show. You can't seriously think two quality games in one is possible in the same development cycle, with a finite number of developers. I'd much rather have a single-player experience that is the best it can possibly be given the time and resources, and multiplayer developed separately. The single-player Thief (not Thieves) cannot be the best it possibly can if the devs have to split duties between to vastly different games in one. No one is saying you can't have your multiplayer. We're saying it's not Thief, it's a different game altogether, and great Thief is not possible if the devs have to make two games. The solution is for the multiplayer version to be developed separately later, as with Dark Messiah. If I purchase Thief 4, I expect Thief 4, I don't want to pay extra for something I'm not much interested in, and an expansion pack for you leaves the traditional experience unscathed. You can have your multiplayer, if you can keep it out of our Thief. Thief is all about the songle-player experience, story-driven, role-playing, thematic, with cutscenes and briefings and actors. Multiplayer is about turning the maps into a mere playground with your friends, minus character, story, cutscenes, and you can comfort each other during the tense and horrific scenarios. It's not Thief.

jtr7

09-27-2009, 05:41 PM

Thief has great replayability, without changing a thing, but if changing something to spice it up is wanted, the community has created a hundred ways to do so. If we get the editor, and the game pleases the majority, there will be another hundred ways to add replay value. Even if we don't get the editor, mods will still be possible. As a fan, I have yet to get tired of Thief as is. If you're burned out, perhaps you should seek something else, but if not, then WTF? :D

Since I advocate that multiplayer, if it exists at all, should be a separate purchase only, it should also come with a headset version, with the software to connect and talk to the other players who have headsets. Although, I'd love it if there was a way to make the player talk sound in-game, and a part of the player characters, with AI that can hear the speech, and talking loudly would be like yelling for when players are at a virtual distance, so it's more realistic and a technological breakthrough in gaming. Or really, just a taffin' headset and software to hook players up.

cGREGgo

09-27-2009, 07:06 PM

Na, that's too much hastle... bundle it all up, make everyone happy :)

PlumsieTaker

09-27-2009, 07:32 PM

Since I advocate that multiplayer, if it exists at all, should be a separate purchase only, it should also come with a headset version, with the software to connect and talk to the other players who have headsets.

I tend to agree with you there Jtr - Take Valve for example, how they released HL2 Deathmatch as a stand-alone multiplayer pack for Half Life 2. It was released a few weeks after Half Life 2. It had no implications on the main storyline, you couldn't play any major characters and the maps were totally different to the ones in the main campaign.

Implementing multplayer for Thief IV only means more production times, labour and costs. Which will without a doubt, reduce the quality of the single player and the core values of the games we loved so much.

LightningSS

09-27-2009, 08:29 PM

I think many do not really grasp the amount of time and expense it takes to develop a game nowadays and many people also seem to think more is always better. Take for example your current average FPSer which normally on average has less than 6 hours of SP gameplay at the cost of 3yrs dev time. Much of the cause of such limited SP is a direct result of the MP aspect eating up much of the games dev time and resources. Yes, some companies that have more resources to allocate on a sure bet title can outsource MP development. But that doesn't always produce a good result (ex. Wolfenstein) and it will still require some resources being allocated to the MP from the core dev team. Thief was never a MP game nor does it really lend itself to the idea very well regardless of what some think. Also Thief being in a niche market will most likely guarantee that a MP aspect will not be outsourced and would have to be developed in tandem with the core game. A MP component consisting of a co-op mode for the SP game would result in the whole SP campaign being developed with that in mind. So it would alter the SP game in more ways than just less dedicated time and resources.

Yes i do think it's possible to develop an engaging co-op MP Thief experience, but it would be a huge undertaking that will eat up valuable development resources and still be an unproven gamble on this particular IP. Too many games today have MP with an unsatisfying SP element tacked on. I've read too many posts on forums where people state that all they care about is MP and the SP will just be played through quickly one time and forgot about. This mindset might work ok for certain titles but it's a horrible idea to advocate for the Thief franchise. Make a list of all the current SP only titles and there would be a valid argument that all of them could have a successful MP component, but my money says that Thief would be on the bottom of that list, if at all.

esme

09-28-2009, 03:50 AM

... Considering there are over 400 Fan Missions for Thief 1 and 2...

Thief The Dark Project - 120 fan missions
Thief The Metal Age - 607 fan missions including several multi mission campaigns
Thief Deadly Shadows - 19 fan missions

this is just the missions at thiefmissions.com (http://thiefmissions.com/) and may not be a complete list there are other archive sites which may have missions not in these lists plus people are still building new ones TTLG has regular competitions to stimulate development

cGREGgo

09-28-2009, 05:05 AM

You guys (or gals) are crazy! :nut:

Once the single player is done, adding multiplayer to that is a snap. After all, the maps & most of the coding will already be complete. Instead of waiting a few days/weeks for that, you're willing to pay extra $ for an expansion pack!

COME ON PEOPLE. Think about what you're saying here... Think about it from Eidos point of view.

The only multiplayer element that would work is some sort of co-op unless they come up with something we've never heard of. Team vs team multiplayer wouldn't work unless it was something like a scavenger hunt. Making team vs team deathmatch type multiplayer would simply destory the Thief atmosphere of being "sneaky" & staying out of site.

We're not as stupid as the guards & citywatch in thief (most of us anyway, hehe). Hiding in the shadows works against them, but wouldn't work against each other.

Since being limited in multiplayer (if they have it at all). They should just put it all together. We wouldn't have to spend more $ just to play online (which to me is crazy).

If they release the editor, remember, it's the same editor they use to make the levels.

:wave:

Namdrol

09-28-2009, 05:10 AM

Multiplayer would be awesome! I'd love to call my friends up & go thieving with coop!

PUT MULTIPLAYER IN THIEF 4 EIDOS! PLEASE!

I wonder if we'll ever see another post from this one, and maybe the mods could check the IP address.
(unless of course a decent proxy was used but even then, if they have the kit, it will not hide you.......)
:hmm:

cGREGgo

09-28-2009, 05:17 AM

Sup Namdrol... :wave:

"Taffer 1" is my daughter. She's 16yrs old so stay away from her! :eek:

esme

09-28-2009, 05:21 AM

I've said this before but I'll say it again

if the engine already supports multiplayer then leave the code intact and let the modding community do the multiplayer thing, but the game should be developed purely for single player use

Namdrol

09-28-2009, 05:22 AM

:hmm:
:thumb:

cGREGgo

09-28-2009, 05:32 AM

Hecateus

09-28-2009, 05:45 AM

The only multiplayer element that would work is some sort of co-op unless they come up with something we've never heard of
> Thievery UT < (http://www.thieveryut.com/) Check it out.

esme

09-28-2009, 05:52 AM

> Thievery UT < (http://www.thieveryut.com/) Check it out.

I have and for me that hair trigger reaction fuelled fragfest is not thief in any shape or form I ever want to play

kabatta

09-28-2009, 05:56 AM

Multi-player was a blast in Unreal tournament. Nowadays it is just milked in just about every new game on the market.It is so used that it is just not fun to play with some persons that have memorized every little detail of the 2-3 popular maps and random spawn place. They start exploiting things. Take starcraft for example: a fine game that had it's multi-player ruined by the people that only played maps like lost temple, moon and another one who's name slips me a the time. Counter Strike is knows for the fact that people just play a few maps (not to mention the language I have heard from prepubescent kiddies in the netcafe while playing multi-player). Postal, a great violent game that satisfies every person's need for gore, has some greats maps, but horrible games (popular capture the bag). Not to mention that last time I have played UT people shot at every little thing moving (took a half of hour to get the 3rd place). Multi-player in games left a bad history in my mind. Not to mention the most noticeable figures that play it (surely you have seen the foul mouthed kiddies that find it fun to play a map for 5-10 straight hours/ 30-40 matches). I do not know of your opinions, but I for one would go insane from playing the same map over and over again.I heard that there are good reviews about the multi-player Left4dead provides and the co-op Resident 5 gives. Until now 3 titles have a good system that allows a person to play a game with another one. The rest of the games are just an excuse of multi-player. (no disrespect for the Thief2 multi-player, didn't get the time to find a game with someone)
And with those odds, I prefer to not have a game accomodated to a console or for multi-player for the sole purpose of getting the best playing experience in single-player.

cGREGgo

09-28-2009, 06:13 AM

:nut:

They can come up with something awesome & new, not repetitive... hopefully...

Hecateus

09-28-2009, 06:28 AM

I have and for me that hair trigger reaction fuelled fragfest is not thief in any shape or form I ever want to play

It needs work, but it did the job.

cGREGgo

09-28-2009, 06:36 AM

That's why we're here fellaz, to help come up with something kewl!

So lets get our heads thinking! :scratch:

How about something like this...

3v3 example: You can do very large maps now on systems like PS3. That's kewl because each team could have a goal to meet. The goal can require 3 pieces of a lock to get thru a door (finish line).

It's up to the team to figure out how. We can all go our seperate ways & get one piece each & meet at the door. Or we can all go together 1 piece at a time. The team to get to the door first wins.

We obviously can't kill each other & to make it really interesting. We can't kill any guards. But we're all on the same map at the same time & have no idea how the other team is doing with their progress. If you get busted... you're back at the spawn point outside empty handed.

:nut:

Hecateus

09-28-2009, 06:44 AM

I think Thief 4 should be single player, or at most 2 player co-op, as we seem to have The Girl (from the end of TDS), it could work...or fail badly.

Regardless, the multiplayer capability should be a part of the engine and editor from the beginning, even if nothing is done with it in Thief 4. I am sure we can all agree on that basis.

I would like to see a full set of multiplayer levels and missions in an expansion pack (which include Thief 1 & 2 rebuilt...and maybe TDS too, but the first 2 deserve some limelight, and the third would need major re-visioning).

p.s.
If there are in microphone inputs for talking in game, the in range AI must be able to hear when we chit chat too loud.

LightningSS

09-28-2009, 08:14 AM

Executive producer Pete Wanat says studios spend too much time and money shoehorning feature into games that don't need it.

When Wanted: Weapons of Fate arrives for the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and PC next month, gamers who pick up the interactive sequel to last year's action film will get the chance to try out their bullet-curving technique on the game's many assassin adversaries. However, they won't be able to twist lead into one another, given that the third-person shooter lacks a multiplayer mode.

During an appearance on the latest installment of GameSpot's HotSpot podcast, Universal Pictures Digital Platforms Group's Pete Wanat--the executive producer on Weapons of Fate--explained the reasons behind that decision. Wanat said that most people who play multiplayer games just play the best of the bunch, and that developers spend too much effort putting multiplayer modes into games that don't need them.

"For the most part, we waste our money and our time building multiplayer levels," Wanat said. "And why do we do this? Because a couple years ago the press was all about saying, 'This game has to have multiplayer, there's no replayability.' F*** that. That's a bad joke."

Wanat added that oftentimes the pressure to make a multiplayer version of a game comes from a publisher's marketing department. Just having that feature on the back of a box, the argument goes, makes it easier to sell a game.

"What it does is it hurts the single-player game," Wanat said. "You don't get to add multiplayer [at] no cost. If you're going to make a multiplayer version, you take people, time, and money away from the single-player experience. And that all goes to hurt the single player. ... Not everybody is Bungie. Not everybody can have 100 guys working on their multiplayer. The Call of Duty 4 guys? If they want to do multiplayer, then do multiplayer. We'll play the f*** out of multiplayer in Call of Duty. We'll play co-op in Left 4 Dead. There are places and times to do it and do it right."

SOURCE: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6204470.html

Namdrol

09-28-2009, 08:41 AM

Thank you Lightning, evidence to put in front of excitable children.
That quote is going to get used a lot in the next couple of years as this will come up again and again and again and again and again and again............

cGREGgo

09-28-2009, 03:24 PM

"During an appearance on the latest installment of GameSpot's HotSpot podcast, Universal Pictures Digital Platforms Group's Pete Wanat--the executive producer on Weapons of Fate--explained the reasons behind that decision. Wanat said that most people who play multiplayer games just play the best of the bunch, and that developers spend too much effort putting multiplayer modes into games that don't need them."

Ok. Here we have "Pete Wanat", he produced a game called "Weapons of Fate" and thinks that "most people who play multiplayer games just play the best of the bunch, and that developers spend too much effort putting multiplayer modes into games that don't need them."

Although this may be an amazing game. This new idea they have sounds phat. I don't see Eidos in there anywhere and what they think. You're telling us it doesn't matter what they think? This game belongs to Eidos. Not Universal Interactive.

I do agree with him about not wanting "games to feel so gamie". And just because he took one route to get what he wanted, doesn't mean eidos has to follow him. After all, this is about new ideas, right?

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/03/10/joystiq-interview-wanted-executive-producer-pete-wanat/

:nut:

How about taking a poll. With the question; "Should Eidos come up with a new style for multiplayer stealth co-op?"

:nut:

cGREGgo

09-28-2009, 04:00 PM

Oh.. I almost forgot...

"Dear Eidos.."

"I'm playing thru Thief 3 again, just for the heck of it. I'm at the point where the fish guys are walking around. Please... leave these guys out, they're sooooo stupid... lol"

:nut:

:nut:

Namdrol

09-28-2009, 04:04 PM

The reason I found it to be an interesting article was that this was some guy who works in the industry. As an executive producer no less.
And do you know what that is? A glorified bean counter.
Someone who has to be obsessed with the bottom line because that's their job.
And he's saying, implementing multiplayer costs money, the point that keeps getting made again and again.
This money has to be diverted from somewhere else.

How about taking a poll. With the question; "Should Eidos come up with a new style for multiplayer stealth co-op?"
I wouldn't trust the result, I already suspect that this thread has seen someone double register, just to cause arguments.

What are you up to cGREGgo?
.....those guys I've been bickering with are right & I'm not bashig'em, just thowen'em a hard time cause it's fun....
Dangerously close to trolling pal..

cGREGgo

09-28-2009, 04:11 PM

Sir yes sir...:nut:

That poll doesn't allow 2 votes from the same IP. Hook us up! :wave:

:wave:

jtr7

09-28-2009, 04:30 PM

Thief is a single-player game and that should be the priority. Damn near all the support for Thief 4 to have multi-player built in is at the expense of every single thing Thief is about. The only Thiefy things they really want are the weapons and gear and stealth. Nothing else. They want another game altogether at the expense of Thief itself and at the expense of single-player, period. Their excuses are fantasy notions and lame assumptions, which they adhere to as truth, and the lack of merit is waved away as unimportant. They are living in a dreamworld where time, money, and level design for two different games in one are not real considerations. Wishful thinking will always fall under the wheels of reality if it's not firmly rooted in what is actually possible.

cGREGgo, you're losing ground, credibility, and your welcome. Keep going the way you are and find yourself ostracized. You're making less sense as you go and we're hoping you'll knock it off.

cGREGgo

09-28-2009, 05:14 PM

I'm going to go kill some walking fish guys, you all are total "Meansiee Creepsies" :tongue2:

:wave:

:wave:

jtr7

09-28-2009, 09:55 PM

By the way, what protections are there nowadays against "griefing"?

jtr7

09-30-2009, 03:43 AM

While looking up stuff on rope arrows, I came across this (http://www.ttlg.com/thief/html/october.htm) old word on multiplayer from Tim Stellmach, himself:
Tim Stellmach explains why the choice to remove multiplay was made....

Is there multiplayer?
Nope. Sorry. If Deathmatch is what you're looking for, you're kinda barking up the wrong gameplay tree, anyway. Any game which concentrates on run-n'-gun combat is going to do deathmatch a whole lot better than a game which concentrates on sneaking around and stealing stuff. Doing Thief deathmatch just because it was "the thing to do" and not because it would be a fun game would be like showing up to a gunfight with a knife: better to not show up at all.

Look at it this way: Thief is an action/adventure game, not a shoot-em-up. How many people are out there crying out for internet deathmatch Tomb Raider?

Now, that said, we did originally have multiplayer plans for Thief, which is a plan that's still being quoted in the press by people with some outdated information. We made that plan because multiplayer play _was_ such a big selling point. For a while there, if you didn't have a multiplayer mode (whether it really worked or made sense or not) you'd get pilloried by the press, and that's the environment in which we made our initial plans. That no longer seems to be the case, and we didn't want to take development effort away from our single-player game to support multiplayer. We _certainly_ didn't want to risk coming out with a half-baked multiplayer mode just to put a bullet item on the box, the way we had seen in some games out there.

Thief is, in many ways, a big experiment. It plays like no game I know of, and it's been a big challenge to break that new ground. We do think that the ideas we had for multiplayer play were good ideas, but ultimately decided that trying to develop _two_ brand-new styles of gameplay was just too much.

I'm sorry if that means we've lost a customer. I really am. But I figure we'd lose a whole lot of 'em if our core gameplay didn't get the attention it needed because we were dividing our efforts.

God that sounds familiar...

LightningSS

09-30-2009, 07:25 AM

God that sounds familiar...

It sure does, great find jtr7.

ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓔⓡ

10-02-2009, 08:31 AM

Why? Thief is not meant to be a MP experience without drastic alterations from the core gameplay. .

You are the developer are you?

LightningSS

10-02-2009, 03:39 PM

You are the developer are you?

If you mean the game developer, i wish i was, although a lot of people on this forum wouldn't.

jtr7

10-02-2009, 03:57 PM

What is this forum about, ⓣⓐⓕⓕⓨ? Seriously, what do you suppose this forum is all about, and why would it be set up years before the game will be released, and without telling us what they are planning for any aspect of it? Why would they encourage us to talk about it, and then take the time to go over our dialogue? Don't sarcastically "assume" we don't know we aren't the devs, or assume we don't know we aren't insiders, and don't assume we haven't done research, or gained experience, before we're typing anything here.

As usual, you offer nothing of weight to say, and resort to empty clichéd insults instead of making a real point. No attempt is made on your part to bring knowledge to the discussion. Inform the opposition of their mistaken notions with arguments rooted in facts and historical accounts. Do your research and read up on how devs describe the process, what they all go through as a normal part of game development. Read GDC transcripts and watch the videos of these developers teaching one another about how to make better games, and how playtesting and focus groups can cause radical changes, changes so radical that months of work is discarded. Then use simple logic and math to realize the finite resources the devs have, unless the investors grant more, based on the numbers the companies give about team size and development time. Listen to the devs when they step in to a discussion between us outsiders and correct false notions. Build up your knowledge base from whatever real life insider stories they share. Listen and read about what the devs discuss with each other, as people who work in the industry, the things they discuss not with us, but with peers, in their language, and the advice, encouragement, and warnings. Do your research and say something informed. :thumb:

Lost Taffer

10-02-2009, 04:09 PM

I know its been said already but my 2 cents is that absolutely no time, effort or resources should be spent by the dev team for MP. Include a robust editor and let the mod community go nuts with MP.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo

10-02-2009, 08:01 PM

And I suppose then that the console community can be left to rot

Screw em, they're not real gamers anyway!

Crypto

10-02-2009, 08:41 PM

You are the developer are you?
No, that's me.

jtr7

10-02-2009, 08:44 PM

I knew a guy that worked in one o' them li'l cramped Kodak One-Hour Photo booths at the edge of a shopping mall parking lot, developing film, of course.

Crypto

10-02-2009, 08:49 PM

I agree?

jtr7

10-02-2009, 08:50 PM

Say it like Garrett, hesitantly and uncomfortable:

"I... ...agreeee."

Crypto

10-02-2009, 09:07 PM

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3458/3401503649_c1a9d6cf78.jpg

Lost Taffer

10-02-2009, 09:37 PM

And I suppose then that the console community can be left to rot

Screw em, they're not real gamers anyway!

I don't know if I'd use the word "screw'em" but, yeah, I could care less what consolers want. Being released for consoles is one of the reasons why TDS was not up to par. Were it up to me, T4 would never see the light of day on a console. Then again, I'm not a dev so what I think doesn't really matter, does it?
I haven't owned a console in a long time so I may be a tad ignorant as to exactly what consoles can and cannot download. I know that in the past it was a fact of life that consolers did not have access to fan missions, mods and other goodies PC users have enjoyed for years. You want access to fan community mods? Go buy a PC, no one is stopping you. But, the issue is MP so let's stick with that.
The gameplay of Thief is not geared toward a MP format. 95% of the Thief commuity does not care about MP because they are fans of the SP missions. Also, Thief is not exactly a household namebrand. Sure, we all love Thief but, the Thief series has not made Looking Glass and Eidos truckloads of cash. Companies don't tend to use valuable resources developing a MP component for an unproven (so to speak) SP focused game. If EM wants to go back and make a MP component for T4 after it comes out and turns a profit, that's fine. Consoles can download stuff like that right?:scratch:

oO_ShadowFox_Oo

10-02-2009, 09:58 PM

Splinter Cell fans felt the exact same way and then Pandora Tomorrow was released and the multiplayer turned online gaming on it's head and blew people away.

Chaos Theory's multiplayer is still, to this day, the greatest multiplayer of all time (IMO) and I just think that Thief itself really has the potential to create something fantastic.

But, of course, if it comes at the cost of single player I can understand people's hesitance.

jtr7

10-02-2009, 10:14 PM

If only console gamers demanded more integrity, respect, and intelligence from the devs, rather than settling for any dumb thing, and defending dumb things, there wouldn't be a schism.

No, stop expecting and accepting superficiality and wanting Thief to be more like the fast-food crap all around. If consoles would adopt the moddability of its files, and they could be downloaded from the usual file-sharing services or copy/pasted from a forum, then there wouldn't be many of these demands and worries.

We want the consoles, gaming companies, and gamers to reach high and down deep, with brains and respect for brains. No more catering to the happily dumb masses.

Hypevosa

10-03-2009, 07:54 AM

[...] Being released for consoles is one of the reasons why TDS was not up to par[...]Go buy a PC, no one is stopping you.

I've said it a billion times before, but god damnit there's no reason to dumb down and destroy a good game for a console - us console users have brains too. TDS was not up to par because of the engine it used, and we know that because of the developers blogs that JTR posted somewhere (I'm not going to bother finding them, though I really should save them for every time someone says it was the consoles' faults).

While no person is stopping me from buying a PC, the fact that I have to fork over 2 grand for a machine that will only last me 2 years until I need to start investing in it again if I still want to play games on their medium graphics settings, is. That's why my laptop right now only has OLD-er games on it, because it can run them without issues (though having to turn off the second processor for some to run right is annoying).

I'm living proof that thief 4, and any other game, does not need to be drastically changed for console users. Some study somewhere showed that console users tend to be people who have less time to invest in games (joe or jane schmoe who works a 10 hour day and gets only a few hours of gametime outside his or her other responsibilities) and so games that are more "actiony", or that can be picked up and put down like puzzle games, are more popular because they provide good stimulus in that short time frame. While thief isn't inherently supposed to be actiony - if it has enough tense suspenseful moments you can get enough out of someone to have the same effect. Also, making missions at least feasibly completed in 2 hours is important... and not jamming that time full of LOADING ZONES (which looking at the devs blog is partly fault of the being made for console... but it's still mainly the engine's fault despite that.)

oO_ShadowFox_Oo

10-03-2009, 08:28 AM

If only console gamers demanded more integrity, respect, and intelligence from the devs, rather than settling for any dumb thing, and defending dumb things, there wouldn't be a schism.

No, I'll have to disagree with you there. If MORE console gamers demanded what you stated, not console gamers demanding more. Everyone on here is very quick to tar them all with the same brush. Plenty of us out here who like our games up to the highest standard possible and who are constantly seeking a deep and engaging experience. To say that those should be demanding more is putting people like myself into a bracket of making unreasonable demands from gaming companies.

But, the simple matter of the fact is that alot of console owners just aren't that into video games and only look to them for some mild entertainment as video gaming has become a mainstream and acceptable medium of entertainment. If PCs were as widespread as a mainstream gaming platform they would suffer from the same effects, but they're not due to their cost and the level of technical know how needed to buy, maintain and operate one.

No, stop expecting and accepting superficiality and wanting Thief to be more like the fast-food crap all around. If consoles would adopt the moddability of its files, and they could be downloaded from the usual file-sharing services or copy/pasted from a forum, then there wouldn't be many of these demands and worries.

I don't think I have heard a single person on these boards asking for Thief to be more like fast food gaming at all. Please point me towards one post that says the above. I think you'll find that it's your pre-conceived notion that adding a multiplayer would have that effect.

Modability of files may be one thing, but that is far beyond console gamer's realm of control and console gamers would then be dependant upon PC gamers for the possibility of developing a MP game, that would more than likely have far more controls than could be mapped onto a control and developed in such a manner that would completely disregard them, which would then have to be submitted to Eidos and Microsoft for quality testing and publication and distribution.

We want the consoles, gaming companies, and gamers to reach high and down deep, with brains and respect for brains. No more catering to the happily dumb masses.

:thumb:

LightningSS

10-03-2009, 09:17 AM

I've said it a billion times before, but god damnit there's no reason to dumb down and destroy a good game for a console - us console users have brains too.

Yes a game can be built for consoles without dumbing it down but there is a reason why they do it. Games are developed for their intended audiences. The average console gamer is prolly around 13 or so and the average pc gamer is prolly over 30. This giant age difference will affect overall game design. Plus theres other aspects of console game development that will always come off as dumbed down on the pc.

TDS was not up to par because of the engine it used, and we know that because of the developers blogs that JTR posted somewhere (I'm not going to bother finding them, though I really should save them for every time someone says it was the consoles' faults).

Yes i'm sure the engine was a big part of TDS's problems but it is far from being the only one. To say the only reason TDS was not up to par was because of the engine is naive.

While no person is stopping me from buying a PC, the fact that I have to fork over 2 grand for a machine that will only last me 2 years until I need to start investing in it again if I still want to play games on their medium graphics settings, is. That's why my laptop right now only has OLD-er games on it, because it can run them without issues (though having to turn off the second processor for some to run right is annoying).

This train of thought is no longer valid anymore. Building a gaming pc to play games released today on high settings is very cheap because all games today are built around the 2005 360's hardware. Also laptops are really not designed for gaming regardless of what anyone tells you, plus they are way too expensive for what you get.

I'm living proof that thief 4, and any other game, does not need to be drastically changed for console users.

I wouldn't say that because i doubt you fall into the majority of consolers.

Some study somewhere showed that console users tend to be people who have less time to invest in games (joe or jane schmoe who works a 10 hour day and gets only a few hours of gametime outside his or her other responsibilities) and so games that are more "actiony", or that can be picked up and put down like puzzle games, are more popular because they provide good stimulus in that short time frame. While thief isn't inherently supposed to be actiony - if it has enough tense suspenseful moments you can get enough out of someone to have the same effect. Also, making missions at least feasibly completed in 2 hours is important... and not jamming that time full of LOADING ZONES (which looking at the devs blog is partly fault of the being made for console... but it's still mainly the engine's fault despite that.)

No matter how you slice it a game will be developed for it's intended audience which will normally be the majority. Game companies follow the money. If the shoe was on the other foot then the game would be designed and developed for the more mature average pc gamer and it would be a drastically different game.

Hypevosa

10-03-2009, 12:37 PM

Yes i'm sure the engine was a big part of TDS's problems but it is far from being the only one. To say the only reason TDS was not up to par was because of the engine is naive.

Here are some of the engine's faults as I remember from reading what the devs wrote:
- Didn't allow for use of water physics
- Didn't allow for Rope arrows due to physics issues
- Hogged too much memory, meaning large maps needed to be cut into loading zones
- Hogged too much memory making the City need to be quartered in size or have more loading zones than already are.

Someone else brought up in another thread, that a possible reason for loot glint was the fact that you couldn't drop items in TDS without making noise, unless you dropped them on moss. That would also be a fault of the engine.

Now, as for the artistic approach, that probably wouldn't be the engines fault, can't misconstue that. However, a great deal of the number of problems were a DIRECT result of the engine that they had some random guy make before they fired him. Would TDS have been perfect if the engine wasn't so botched? HELL no. Between the dagger, instant health potions, permaspawning supplies, infinite supply stores (the idea of scarcity and CONSIDERATE use of resources was gone when you could buy everything back), and other things, the game was not a true and perfect thief experience. But, it would have been a ****load better if the engine hadn't been so messed up...

I'ma go find that post >_>...

LightningSS

10-03-2009, 02:23 PM

Here are some of the engine's faults as I remember from reading what the devs wrote:
- Didn't allow for use of water physics
- Didn't allow for Rope arrows due to physics issues
- Hogged too much memory, meaning large maps needed to be cut into loading zones
- Hogged too much memory making the City need to be quartered in size or have more loading zones than already are.

Someone else brought up in another thread, that a possible reason for loot glint was the fact that you couldn't drop items in TDS without making noise, unless you dropped them on moss. That would also be a fault of the engine.

Yes you are right that the engine really hurt TDS overall but the game had tons of consolitus. This is evident from the minute you load the game and continue throughout. As with many games today, the dumbing down did hurt the game tremendously regardless if some like all those aspects or not. Many of TDS's downfalls were a direct result of consoles and their users being the main target for development. Take for example 3rd person view, this was implemented for console players and it caused lots of problems with movement, level design, etc.. Also the memory issues you mention is another result of the consoles shortcomings that affected the game. I'm not too up on all the problems the engine had but i would reckon some of them might have been a result of the xbox's limited capabilities. The game was really just a mess and i believe was brought down more so because of being a console game rather than just to engine problems. Many, many games over the past few years have suffered greatly from cross development and TDS just happens to be one of them.

Now, as for the artistic approach, that probably wouldn't be the engines fault, can't misconstue that. However, a great deal of the number of problems were a DIRECT result of the engine that they had some random guy make before they fired him. Would TDS have been perfect if the engine wasn't so botched? HELL no. Between the dagger, instant health potions, permaspawning supplies, infinite supply stores (the idea of scarcity and CONSIDERATE use of resources was gone when you could buy everything back), and other things, the game was not a true and perfect thief experience. But, it would have been a ****load better if the engine hadn't been so messed up...

I'ma go find that post >_>...

Personally i wasn't too crazy about TDS's artistic approach but it really was a minor complaint overall. The overall game play was changed quite a bit from the original games and i'm sure some of it was because of the targeted audience. But even with all of it's faults i did enjoy TDS. I also think it did do several things well and it did capture the overall feel of a Thief game for the most part. Yeah i hated the abundance of resources and supplies, etc., it kinda changed the feel from the original games. Also i might be in a small minority here but i liked the idea of a dagger instead of a sword, to me it seems a more realistic weapon for a Thief. But for those who enjoy more combat oriented game play i can see why they might not dig not having a sword. But i'm an old D&D nerd so a Thief with a dagger just feels more natural. I don't know but I'm assuming it replaced the sword because of the 3rd person view, or that might have had something to do with it.

jtr7

10-03-2009, 07:45 PM

Ah. Hypevosa's saying the relation between loot glint and dropping was to make it clear what was loot so players wouldn't pick up a worthless junk object and thus need to find a way to drop it quietly. That's a secondary "benefit."

If the dropping and visual evaluation of items aren't improved, I've suggested that another way to help the player determine valuable items would be that the frob-highlight was different somehow. Junk could highlight dimly while loot could highlight full bright, or something.

Vae

10-03-2009, 08:17 PM

You know, that still is hand holding and really isn't necessary. Proper item/loot design is the answer...and sometimes handling the object is necessary, especially if rare or small, in order to determine value.

jtr7

10-03-2009, 08:51 PM

Yep. Reduction of hints and hand-holding all around should be the goal. I'd much rather they did it correctly the first time, so hand-holding fixes wouldn't need to be added in when playtesters complain and grow frustrated, and take more dev time away from other things. I wonder what percentage of console gamers still own television sets that do games an injustice, and do game development an injustice, as well. Maybe by the time the game comes out, the gulf between PC and console builds will be reduced greatly. It's too bad that a recommendation on the box to play with the lights off, with headphones, and at a closer distance to be able to read a smaller font size (meaning other items could be reasonably smaller), would have a negative impact on sales, even though it really enhances the experience.

It would be nice if we could see what we imagine, but there are too many handicaps killing it, so my suggestion is an attempt to reduce the hand-holding, but not eliminate it, since (sigh) I fully expect at least the same amount of hand-holding as TDS.

Vae

10-03-2009, 09:24 PM

Please...Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!...:mad:

I hate hand holding...we should create a petition while there still is time.

jtr7

10-03-2009, 09:31 PM

It's the television sets and living rooms we are petitioning against--as well as the people who want things to be easy so they can say the "beat" the game, entirely missing the point, among a hundred others points. :mad:

PCs and PC monitors first! o7

Hypevosa

10-03-2009, 09:41 PM

These points are incorrect.

The engine doesn't hog memory. The reason the levels were cut up is because the xbox only had 64 MB of DDR SDRAM. It was a limitation placed upon the developers by the console, not the game engine. TDS fan missions have already far exceeded the technical limitations of the original missions.

If I can play grand theft auto 4, or oblivion, or Halo, or fallout 3, and never run into a loading screen, I blame the engine for using so much memory that it couldn't make a decent sized map. (really, go play TDS, it isn't bad... it's just plain pathetic how much content fits in half the castle of the first level...)

If halo can place 20(-40) enemies, and 70(-140) guns and ammunition boxes, and 30(-60) crates, have functional physics, etc etc, all on my map at the same time - then there's no reason I can't have 10 guards, 40 various loot items, and 30 interactible objects or more on the same map without a loading zone...

The engine is the difference, the engine is at fault - more so than the memory limit on the xbox 360.

Vae

10-03-2009, 09:43 PM

oO_ShadowFox_Oo

10-03-2009, 10:00 PM

As for buying a PC...where in the hell do people get the idea that you have to pay $2000 for a PC to play games? I built my own PC 8 years ago for less than it would cost for an Xbox 360 when it was brand new. I made sure I bought a good motherboard that would have a reasonable roof for upgrades. Over the last 8 years, I have waited for the faster ram and faster CPU's compatible with my motherboard to come down in price. In 8 years, counting the original cost of the computer and upgrades, I have spent under $1000 in total on my computer. You don't have to buy the latest and greatest to play games...that's just for the hardcore players. Get a modest system and you'll be able to buy updates that are a few months to a year old for much lower prices. You just have to be smart about it.

I still play lots of old PC games on my current laptop, as it is powerful enough to hack some of the older gen games, but I like to play alot of the latest releases, personally, and if I was to do this it would take much more time and effort on my behalf to stay on top of what's needed to play these games coming out for release on PC.

There is also the hassle of drivers, updates etc.. as well as installation. These aren't massive issues for me personally (now), but when I departed from PC gaming it was at a time when technology was advancing too fast for my wallet to keep up and I was required to be updating components constantly (due to 1-2 mis-informed purchases etc..) and it's just not possible when you're 15-25 to be doing this, especially if computer technology is not your forte, luckily for me it was, but there are many people out there who enjoy playing computer games for whom it is not.

There is also a complete lack of standard on PCs, which leads to alot of personal conflicts etc.. that take technical know how and savvy to troubleshoot and fix (not to mention time), which not only eats into time that you want to be spending playing your new game, but is all completely avoided with consoles, which is what makes them so attractive to people who are not competent in these areas.

This is not to say that every PC gamer has to deal with these issues, but they are all a very real part of the realm of PC gaming some people just do not have the time or interest in technology to be dealing with them. That doesn't make them any less of a gamer or any less worthy of receiving Thief 4 for their preferred platform.

The only problem that will occur if Thief 4 is designated for multi-platform development is if the team decides to start targeting the game at gamers who are not inherently interested in that style of gaming and start altering the game style to suit their needs, rather than those of Thief fans. If they stick to the plan and just develop the game as available for consoles then they are just maximising their potential target market without reducing the quality of the game.

Thief being on consoles is not going to make it a worse game.

The Thief development team changing their target market and altering the game accordingly is a different story.

jtr7

10-04-2009, 01:05 AM

There's also the way the environment is loaded as the player goes through it. The whole level might exist at once, or the unseen could be left out. Were the games mentioned running under 64 MBs of RAM? Games that came out months or years after TDS and were released for different platforms cannot be used to compare engines with in this particular debate. Halo 2 came out the same year and it doesn't have dynamic shadows, which I understood to be heavier on processing and memory. Halo 2 has large open areas, large barely-detailed building blocks, and not a lot of small interactive objects packed into smallish spaces. The games you listed came out years later, for systems with bigger memory, built with much advanced tech, so they can't even be argued against the Flesh Engine this way.

kabatta

10-04-2009, 10:19 AM

We'll know when the main target wears a full glittered pink tutu or a Freddy Mercury concert costume.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo

10-04-2009, 11:50 AM

Well, proper loot design...proper junk design, proper dropping of items. That should pretty much take care of it.

All kinds of hand holding in games these days. I was watching an assassins creed 2 video, and your target glitters like they have fairy dust flying off them. I mean, just how easy do developers really need to make games for the players of today? It's getting ridiculous.

That has more to do with the fact that there is no means of direct aiming and often there are several targets standing in the same locations, so it is necessary to highlight to the player which target they are actually aiming at.

jtr7

10-04-2009, 04:05 PM

jtr7

10-05-2009, 04:56 PM

YES! :thumb: :p

We didn't need it for the older titles and the newer titles should be even better at not needing it.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo

10-05-2009, 06:10 PM

That's a load of crap. It's console hand holding. With the amazing graphical detail games are capable of today, there is no good reason for that kind of crap.

YES! :thumb: :p

We didn't need it for the older titles and the newer titles should be even better at not needing it.

Well, if you can tell me an alternate way for how a player, in a 3rd person game, is supposed to aim at a specific target, with no means of direct aiming, then I'll concede to your point.

I'm completely objected to alot of the console hand holding that goes on today as I really feel it detracts from the enjoyment of the gaming experience and sense of accomplishment when you finish a gaming experience

But the example you've given is a poor choice and, while the graphical indicator might be a bit more flamboyant that your tastes would like to endure, I am telling you that in such a situation where the player cannot directly aim at the target then you must mark the target for the player so they know when a target is locked and which specific target they are aiming for.

Namdrol

10-05-2009, 11:21 PM

Well, if you can tell me an alternate way for how a player, in a 3rd person game, is supposed to aim at a specific target, with no means of direct aiming, then I'll concede to your point.....

................I am telling you that in such a situation where the player cannot directly aim at the target then you must mark the target for the player so they know when a target is locked and which specific target they are aiming for.

Which is a very good argument against 3rd person in Thief.

Vae

10-05-2009, 11:38 PM

Exactly. In every way 3rd person is bad for THIEF...so is multiplayer...

oO_ShadowFox_Oo

10-06-2009, 05:44 AM

Which is a very good argument against 3rd person in Thief.

Exactly. In every way 3rd person is bad for THIEF...so is multiplayer...

Wow, you really are clutching at straws here. :rolleyes: That's a terrible argument against 3rd person Thief. The only argument that holds any water against 3rd person is if it affects 1st person mechanics. This has no implication on 1st person at all so therefore cannot be an argument against 3rd person.

Have you played many 3rd person games?

Every 3rd person shooter I've ever played, if you have need to launch a projectile be it an arrow or a bullet or a rock or a can has an alternative aiming mode that either returns the camera to first person to aim your weapon directly or else moves the camera to an over the shoulder view to accomodate for the aiming process.

The Assassin's Creed example is implemented because it is strictly a 3rd person game that has no shooting mechanics, yet there are ranged attacks (which are aimed automaticaly, which would be called hand holding) and huge numbers of people walking on the streets, with guards often patrolling in groups of about 3-4. The player needs to be aware which character they have targetted to allow them to initiate any sort of attack.

It is not a 3rd person mechanic that would find it's way into Thief at all.

LightningSS

10-06-2009, 06:30 AM

Thief just doesn't lend itself to 3rd person game play very good. It's not designed to be an action/ fighting/ platform type game. It is suppose to be an immersive, stealth based, first person sneaker. Yeah it's great to say, lets have both views, more options the better or say i don't care if it has 3rd person as long as 1st person doesn't get affected. Well the fact is this won't work with good results. TDS was negatively affected with the implementation of 3rd person. Seeing as 1st person was not desirable on the consoles back then and the devs were making a console game then i can see why they took a gamble on 3rd person. But it failed, thats not to say a similar approach on T4 wouldn't be better but it still will fail as well.

You can not build a 1st person game and then add 3rd person to it. You will have to build a 3rd person game and tack on a 1st person camera view to it, there's no way around this fact. The result will have most if not all of the shortcoming that TDS suffered from regarding this issue. Yes they could spend extra time developing a true 1st person mode with body awareness that will be separate from the 3rd person mode. The user could select the mode he wishes to play in at game start. But this will only rectify the movement issues. You will basically be playing a completely 3rd person designed game in 1st person view. All aspects of the game design will have to be built ground up for 3rd person. No matter how 1st person view is implemented it will not be a 1st person built game.

Same thing goes for cross developing a game. The end result will be a console game, seeing how it makes more sense to develop for the lowest system. TDS is a console game and T4 will most likely be as well. But i can't see why it has to suffer being a 3rd person game again. 1st person games are now very successful on the new consoles, there's no point in ruining T4 with this. There's many games that are very acceptable in 3rd person, Tomb Raider, Overlord, Assassins Creed, etc... Thief just doesn't work good with it at all, and it's retarded to want T4 to be seriously hampered as a Thief game just to accommodate consolers wish to play in 3rd person. 1st person as well as 3rd person views are a players preference. But the final decision on what view a game should be designed around should go to what's best suited to that title.

I can fully see why the Thief series is now a console game, it's money, i get it. But why does it have to turn into a 3rd person game that will harm the whole design and detract from the essence of Thief. A 1st person developed T4 will not only produce the best overall Thief experience but it will be way, way easier on the devs to build and allow them plenty of additional resources to dedicate on the game. Why doesn't the new console Thief fan base that TDS introduced not want the best possible T4 game there can be? T4 will already be compromised badly by being developed as a console game, why have it hampered any further? It makes no difference what preferred view someone has, T4 will be damaged from being developed as a 3rd person game.

Hypevosa

10-06-2009, 06:39 AM

oO_ShadowFox_Oo

10-06-2009, 06:47 AM

LightningSS

10-06-2009, 06:57 AM

Thief being on consoles is not going to make it a worse game.

The Thief development team changing their target market and altering the game accordingly is a different story.

YAY! someone else with similar sentiments. I don't feel so alone anymore >_>

Yes TDS was damaged by changing their target market, but it will continue this way because they will want to target the average user on their targeted platform. Just like they don't want to exclude all the consolers money, their not gonna want to exclude the majority of the users on those consoles either.

How is Thief being on consoles not gonna make it a worse game? I can come up with many valid reasons why it would do just that. I can not however think of any way that it won't make it a worse game. Not only is it easy to list reasons why but it's easy to list tons of other game examples to back it up. Yes there are a few mult-plat games that are good, but even they are worse off from being developed for the consoles.

I'm not going to respond in here because this really belongs in the 1st/3rd person thread but your first point here is purely based on speculation and a biased assumption about a game that hasn't come out and you know nothing about.

Much like alot of the l33t posts around here.

Everyone is always talking about "But it will waste valuable time that can be better spent else where on things we already know will work"

Some of the most un-imaginative fans I've ever come across reside on these forums.

Wasting valuable time is just one problem with building T4 as a 3rd person game, there's many more serious problems than just that.

cGREGgo

10-06-2009, 06:59 AM

The entire world can go on and on about these type of things & the discussion would never end. Everyone has their favorite type of game & play style. Example... watching my kids play a game on the PC is funny compared to the controller they're used to with PS3 & XBOX.

Anyway...

Multiplayer WILL work with THI4F if they did it right. Playing against each other & trying to kill each other (IMO) WILL NOT WORK with Thi4f because we can see each other in the shadows better than the guards can see us. Being able to hide from one another in the shadows would be a "must" & that's basically impossible.

But co-op gameplay is possible & (IMO) they should come up with something along those lines. Simply make a rule for the map "don't kill anyone" & all the "run & gun" crap would be gone wouldn't it? Thief (IMO) would suck as a run & gun type game. We need to be able to sneak around & hide.

Come on Eidos! Come up with something awesome! I know you can do it! :nut:

oO_ShadowFox_Oo

10-06-2009, 07:08 AM

How is Thief being on consoles not gonna make it a worse game? I can come up with many valid reasons why it would do just that. I can not however think of any way that it won't make it a worse game. Not only is it easy to list reasons why but it's easy to list tons of other game examples to back it up. Yes there are a few mult-plat games that are good, but even they are worse off from being developed for the consoles.

Give me 10 valid reasons so, without speculation, why Thief will automatically be a worse game if implemented on a console. Capabilities for graphical improvement aside.

cGREGgo

10-06-2009, 07:11 AM

I can give you one real fast... THIEF 3 :nut:

But hey, they have to make it console ready. Look at the market. I just hope they do it right....

LightningSS

10-06-2009, 09:34 AM

Give me 10 valid reasons so, without speculation, why Thief will automatically be a worse game if implemented on a console. Capabilities for graphical improvement aside.

You can just read mine and others previous posts on the subject. If you don't wanna accept all those things listed then i can't convince you. If you don't trust what anybody says then all you need to do is look at all the multi-plat titles that's been released. Many popular franchises are all but dead because of it. Cross development is not only affected by the limited hardware present in consoles but also by catering the gameplay design for the average console user, which is most likely around 13 or so. Not only this but the game will be designed for gamepads and TV's. The kinda gameplay aspects that are greatly damaged with cross development are outdated subpar graphics/ effects, limited physics and AI. Also great emphasis on hand holding and generally non thought provoking and easy gameplay. Complete lack of immersion with the included large obtuse huds, crosshairs, item flashing/ glowing, large helper text on screen, warning indicators, health regen, etc... Many other immersion aspects are hindered because of the limited hardware including the duration of corpses, items, blood decals, etc... Not to mention limited levels, excessive loading, etc... Combine all that with horrible consolish menu design and bad or non existent mouse support, etc...

I can name even more adverse effects from console development such as longer development times revolving around building games for 3 systems and greater opportunity for bugs and other issues because of lack of focus/ resources on one platform. Not to mention the higher development costs from purchasing licenses for console, larger trained teams, etc... Theres really nothing good about cross development except more money in the publishers pockets. Overall game quality has suffered greatly. A lot of people don't realize the downward spiral gaming has been in. Theres no doubt in my mind that they would see it if there was any true groundbreaking pc only games coming out. Unfortunately there isn't, once again thanks to the advent of consoles. Pushing the tech boundaries have all but stopped. Crysis ratcheted up the capabilities of modern tech but it stopped there, now their developing a console engine. Crysis is 2 years old and it's sad to think that even in 2013 people are still gonna be hailing it as the game with the most groundbreaking tech available.

Every multi-plat game has been hampered, even games that were released when the xbox360 had current hardware. All pc users get nowadays are consolized outdated ports. Don't believe it when anyone tells you there not ports, cross developed games are always a port from the lesser system. This was TDS's main problem and it will most likely be T4's as well. Every game thats been released in the last several years have been consolized horribly on the pc. Some games suffer less than others, normally more arcadey games suffer less by consolization. Just because some games sell really well doesn't mean they haven't been affected greatly by being console developed. Thief is just not designed to be a console oriented game. Also please don't make the assumption that i'm talking only 'bout graphics, because that's just a small part of it.

I could go on all night with this, i haven't stated everything, but seriously this stuff is not some leet pc nerd blabbing, this stuff is facts. The proof is right there with almost every mult-plat game thats been released. It'd be great if you could give me 10 reasons why Thief being on consoles won't make it a worse game, capabilities of the publisher earning more money aside.

I can give you one real fast... THIEF 3 :nut:

But hey, they have to make it console ready. Look at the market. I just hope they do it right....

I'm hoping so to because i really think T4 will make or break the series and TDS almost killed it.

Vae

10-06-2009, 09:57 AM

Hypevosa

10-06-2009, 10:25 AM

Why are you comparing games released for the latest generation xbox console to the previous generation console?

See, I always confuse which it was released for given that I played it on PC... Actually, Halo 2 was for original xbox, and I found those levels moderately expansive. The AI however was alot poorer. Point taken.

If JTR didn't have over 2.5k posts though, I could probably actually find those dev blog quotes he posted (ARGH!)

So true...the pursuit of excellence has been replaced with the pursuit of money, regardless of qualitative standards. The reasons against consoles are based in fact and not on preference, and have been explained on this forum numerous times.

I'm sorry, but pursuit of money has ALWAYS been the driving standard in nearly every industry. The very reason that games worried about qualitative standards in the beginning was that it meant MORE MONEY. Innovation, quality of play, graphics, etc- meant more money. Now, games have become too expensive, and unfortunately that means that they have to depend on money from investors now. Investors want security, and only see security in copying old ideas.

Wallstreet is the very same reason that technology as a whole is actually many years behind where it could be. Research and development requires risk, and your innovation/invention might not turn a profit (even if it does do something beneficial) - and that doesn't work for investors who want money out of their investment.

You can't even blame the consumer really - just because they enjoy the product they buy. So what if they've seen it before? It's a game, it's designed to entertain, and if it does that much, then most of them are content with that. You (and I) have higher standards than the average person, you just need to realize that. Start your own game company and dedicate it to the pursuit of excellence, then find investors who are willing to take RISK instead of just trying to turn a profit. Invest yourself in your business as well, and maybe get some help from the bank (which I hope to do some day).

You can't blame consoles for the lack of developers "pursuing excellence". You need to blame investors who only look to make sure that the bottom dollar of their investment is in the black and not the red - who'd rather see a game make money than do something awesome or new. Until developers find new ways of getting money, or until there are enough investors with cash to spare that they don't mind risking losing some of their investment, things won't change.

(console vs PC is an utterly craptacular argument, games are games no matter what medium they're made for - and making a game for the masses does not excuse making a piece of **** on a disk)

oO_ShadowFox_Oo

10-06-2009, 11:14 AM

So true...the pursuit of excellence has been replaced with the pursuit of money, regardless of qualitative standards. The reasons against consoles are based in fact and not on preference, and have been explained on this forum numerous times.

That is true, but that's not something new. That's been the way of the world since the business began.

The primary difference is in the developers attitude based on the need to create money to give shareholders a return on their investments. It has nothing to do with console computers. I've read all of these "reasons" why the game will be worse if it is released on a console and they are all based on speculation and biased opinions. Lightning SS practically covered them all and there is still not one thing that he mentioned that is a direct result of the game being developed for a console computer.

They are all of a direct result of the evolution of gaming to mainstream medium. Blame it on consoles if you like, but that just shows ignorance towards what is actually happening.

But a game being on a console is not bound to any of these limitations, so to say that Thief 4 is going to suffer because it is on a console is non-sensical. The only thing that will hamper Thief 4 is if the development team have resurfaced this title in order to bring it into the mainstream of gaming.

If they have, well then...everyone suffers. If they haven't then it will be on consoles and it will be none the less of a game because of it because that particular version will be aimed at fans of Thief and stealth gaming who happen to own a console and the developers will have brought this title back to the world of gaming with the attitude of etching out another fantastic title in this series legacy.

Apart from hardware limitations, which, frankly, is a minor issue with regards to current gen development, as current gen console tech has reached a level that can create practically any environment imaginable, there is no difference between consoles and PCs. An Xbox 360 is basically a PC anyway.

Sure, using this tech advantage could push the envelope to make truely huge maps, but that doesn't make a difference on a game like Thief, especially when the majority of your PC l33ts only want single load out missions.

There is not some magic factor inside a PC's workings that allow it to execute more fantastic styles of gameplay, which is, essentially, what makes a game great or not. The game being made strictly for PC does not automatically make it a better game.

PC fanboys seem to miss this point alot.

LightningSS

10-06-2009, 12:23 PM

That is true, but that's not something new. That's been the way of the world since the business began.

The primary difference is in the developers attitude based on the need to create money to give shareholders a return on their investments. It has nothing to do with console computers.

I completely agree, money is the goal, quality art is secondary. Just look at the music industry.

I've read all of these "reasons" why the game will be worse if it is released on a console and they are all based on speculation and biased opinions. Lightning SS practically covered them all and there is still not one thing that he mentioned that is a direct result of the game being developed for a console computer.

Very little of what I said is speculation or bias, it’s a fact that occurs over and over in every mult-plat game that’s released. Nearly everything I mentioned is a direct result of games being developed for the console.

They are all of a direct result of the evolution of gaming to mainstream medium. Blame it on consoles if you like, but that just shows ignorance towards what is actually happening.

Yes, some of what I said is the byproduct of mainstream gaming, but not all of it. Consoles are cheap, easy & mainstream. Most gamers today are cheap, easy & mainstream. Game companies target the mass for greater sales. I’m not blaming anybody for the crappy mess we are in but blaming the limited consoles for games shortcomings is not ignorance but fact. It’s ignorant to pretend gaming is not in a stagnated toilet because of this. It’s also ignorant to pretend all this consolitus is not the direct result of designing a game for the consoles & their users.

But a game being on a console is not bound to any of these limitations, so to say that Thief 4 is going to suffer because it is on a console is non-sensical. The only thing that will hamper Thief 4 is if the development team have resurfaced this title in order to bring it into the mainstream of gaming.

I have no idea how you can say T4 will not suffer from being developed as a xbox game. T4 can easily be a good mult-plat game, I’m not arguing that, but it will suffer for it. You can’t compare it with other games today, you need to compare a T4 xbox360 game vs. a T4 pc only game. Or you can just figure if T4 was a pc only developed game and took advantage of pc’s current power, etc… and designed like T1/T2, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation because it wouldn’t even run on consoles. It would have to be thoroughly detuned, cut down, dumbed down, etc… to make it work on xbox. That alone shows you that the multi-plat game will be worse, or if it makes you feel better, different.

If they have, well then...everyone suffers. If they haven't then it will be on consoles and it will be none the less of a game because of it because that particular version will be aimed at fans of Thief and stealth gaming who happen to own a console and the developers will have brought this title back to the world of gaming with the attitude of etching out another fantastic title in this series legacy.

I agree, T4 will be released for everyone and hopefully it will bring the title back from the dead. But like I’ve said it still will suffer, how much will it suffer, who knows. It might be a good multi-plat game, it might be another TDS, it might be so god awful and consolized that it destroys all hope for the series, etc… I would never go so far as to say it might be great, simply because I don’t think that’s possible with cross development.

Apart from hardware limitations, which, frankly, is a minor issue with regards to current gen development, as current gen console tech has reached a level that can create practically any environment imaginable, there is no difference between consoles and PCs. An Xbox 360 is basically a PC anyway .

Yes hardware limitations are a minor thing that mostly just results in stagnation of the gaming industry, but how can anyone say there’s no difference between pc’s and consoles. Yes the xbox is like a pc, but it’s a very old and dated pc nonetheless. Also some aspects of it was dated even when it just was released.

Sure, using this tech advantage could push the envelope to make truely huge maps, but that doesn't make a difference on a game like Thief, especially when the majority of your PC l33ts only want single load out missions.

Using the current tech will produce much more than just larger maps, in fact that’s the least of it.

There is not some magic factor inside a PC's workings that allow it to execute more fantastic styles of gameplay, which is, essentially, what makes a game great or not. The game being made strictly for PC does not automatically make it a better game.

I agree with this to an extent. No, games developed for the pc will not magically make gameplay better. But it will be far easier to achieve better gameplay, especially immersive gameplay on a game targeting the pc. You could build very realistic and immersive environments and effects with pc tech. Higher graphic capabilities, textures, weather effects, etc… Modern pc’s are not held back by memory, graphics and cpu constraints. Developing for the consoles will result in all of it’s shortcomings being dumped over to the pc users.

PC fanboys seem to miss this point alot.

I don’t miss it because it’s not much of a point. No not all games developed for the pc are guaranteed good, but at least they have a fighting chance. Also I don’t consider myself as a pc fanboy, I would just rather have a Porsche than a bug. Most of all i'm a gamer that wants the best gaming possible and that would be on the pc. It's just very disconcerting to see how game quality is taking a constant nosedive.

Vae

10-06-2009, 01:09 PM

That is true, but that's not something new. That's been the way of the world since the business began.

I don't think you understood what I said:

"So true...the pursuit of excellence has been replaced with the pursuit of money, regardless of qualitative standards."

Meaning that in the electronic gaming business (context), where once was the pursuit of excellence (or the spirit of cutting edge development, obviously in conjunction with making money), has now been replaced in large measure with the pursuit of money making without the high standards being there.

This has happened because a new, younger, casual gaming market was created with a new delivery system (consoles), which allowed the game developers to create technically sub-standard games that mommy or the unsophisticated would still buy regardless of the quality.

The XBOX 360 can handle only DirectX 9. By the time T4 comes out, we will be in mid-cycle DirectX 11 development. This creates inherent limitations beyond just map size...and what of EAX 5?...they may now disregard it because the consoles do not use EAX extensions. Now we have to pray to the builder for T4 to be pure and be developed on the PC first and then port it over to the lesser and limited XBOX 360, rather than a more likely co-development which will use the console as the lowest common denomenator...:mad:

Hypevosa

10-06-2009, 01:16 PM

The XBOX 360 can handle only DirectX 9. By the time T4 comes out, we will be in mid-cycle DirectX 11 development. This creates inherent limitations beyond just map size...and what of EAX 5?...they may now disregard it because the consoles do not use EAX extensions. Now we have to pray to the builder for T4 to be pure and be developed on the PC first and then port it over to the lesser and limited XBOX 360, rather than a more likely co-development which will use the console as the lowest common denomenator...:mad:

Graphical issues I can handle, as long as the game remains Thief and not some other offshoot. If they ever think of porting it to XBOX they would NEED to consider that from the get go, otherwise the editing process would be rather... destructive. Aside from cutting graphics and what not, whole levels might be cut, which would suck alot (for my lot, assuming I can't get a decent game playing PC or Laptop when T4 comes out).

Really, I'd rather have the game look like the old ones as long as I still had all the content.

Namdrol

10-06-2009, 03:02 PM

Wrong thread for this.
We're way off topic.
I'm going here (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?p=1198578#post1198578) to reply

oO_ShadowFox_Oo

10-07-2009, 08:26 AM

Posted in other thread :)

Lost Taffer

10-07-2009, 10:46 AM

Multiplayer WILL work with THI4F if they did it right.

Come on Eidos! Come up with something awesome! I know you can do it! :nut:

Come one Eidos. Don't waste valuable time on multiplayer. We know you won't do it!:rasp:

jtr7

10-07-2009, 05:12 PM

"If they did it right" is irrelevant to the realities of time and resources.

SlashDementia

10-09-2009, 09:42 AM

I think that if it's not too much, to add a multiplayer game-type, similar to Left 4 Dead (where it's using the campaign maps). I would say to have some players play as guards and others to play as thieves that are infiltrating the area and have to steal the item and leave. It would force people to work together and distract the players that are using guards.

But of course, I wouldn't mind Thief not having any multiplayer because it's great as it is.

clock12345

10-09-2009, 02:24 PM

You mean run & slash MP? Seriously Thief is not a MP friendly game no matter how MP is designed.

It isn't? Sure feels like it.

Why is it a must have? There's plenty of SP only titles on the consoles that do very well and are way more suited for MP than a Thief game.

Do we? I hope so, but i wouldn't go so far as to say i know.

Is it only me that's tired of hearing the term 'next gen' to describe these consoles?

Why? Thief is not meant to be a MP experience without drastic alterations from the core gameplay. Why make T4 even more distant from the originals than even TDS was? Why do this just to appease the people who have short attention spans and get bored of SP even before the game rentals due?

Yeah, that's what every lone master thief wants while hiding in nooks and crannies, some partner tagging along blowing his cover and taking half his loot. Come on.

Seriously, the core essence of Thief does not translate well into MP gameplay. We don't need a tacked on MP that will not only change what Thief is but will also detract from a better quality and longer SP experience.

LightningSS your very annoying and this is a new gen game face with it i got solution for those who dont want multiplayer here it is : Just dont play multiplayer!!!. this is a very good solution now why cant you get that in your mind? that people who dont want thief multiplayer just should not play it multiplayer and people who want it multiplayer will play it multiplayer
i dont get what the big deal is???!!?!??!

jtr7

10-09-2009, 03:27 PM

clock12345: You've skipped over the oft-repeated and major point that building in multi-player WILL affect single-player. It's two separate games for the developers to make. Two games to make in only 2-years! What do you mean you don't get what the big deal is? We've stated it so many times it makes you look silly for not seeing it. It's not a choice! You can have your multi-player as an expansion pack, and it will be better for being developed separately, so the traditional Thief game, story, objectives, voice-overs, single-player level design, and Garrett, and all won't be affected by the massive time spent on multi-player. Can you not fathom the playtesting it will take? Multi-player can easily surpass the proper Thief game in playtesting time. Leave it out of Thief 4, and provide it as a separate product, otherwise you expect everybody to pay for two dumbed-down games in one when they'd rather have one great Thief game. It's called Thief "4" because it's another game about one Thief. Multi-player would be Thieves, and no "4", a very different story, interface, level design, etc. Do you think that EM can spend all the time and money they want to make everything? No. They have limited time and funds--deadlines. One great game is better than two games that spoil each other. If you don't get what the big deal is, yet, we can't help you. Imagine yourself having one hour to do one big complex project vs. one hour to do two very different complex and big projects. Imagine having assistants to brutally scrutinize every detail and look for flaws, which you have to fix, all in the same one hour. How can you expect that two big projects will have the same quality as the one? It's scaled down and simplified, one intense hour vs. two intense years, on a deadline, with a moderate-sized team.

cGREGgo

10-10-2009, 05:50 AM

Hecateus

10-10-2009, 07:32 AM

Having done beta testing for a few multiplayer games, I agree with jtr7. It's rough to get right; not a few games never see the laser light of a sales counter due to the difficulty involved.

Although there are examples of shooters done right as both single and multiplayer (Outlaws! ftw) Sneakers are a whole 'nother type of game. I can't imagine how to just make a singleplayer sneaker and just slap on multiplayer capability without much extra effort and have it be fun in both contexts. I have a hard time imagining a multiplayer sneaker done right fcol.

I do think that there should be basic multiplayer capability in the editor (should we be so blessed...Praise the Builder!), and the fan base can play with it, while Eidos M. ponders which expansions, remakes, spinoffs are worth their effort and lucre.

jtr7

10-10-2009, 02:05 PM

I don't agree...

AND

I do not eat green eggs & ham... :nut:

You act like it's going to take 2 more years added on to the 2 years you claim it's going to take to make the game.

I think starting outside one of those giant castles with about 4-5 other players, all trying to get the same treasure would be awesome! If you get busted by the guards, you're kicked to spectator mode until the next round.

Same maps & same graphics. I'm thinking that wouldn't take much development time at all. :scratch:

Add it as an add-on?

NO WAY!

Why pay more to play a game that I've already purchased? That's just CRAZY! :nut:

-

Nope. An extra year. More time is in fact needed for playtesting and debugging, as well as terrain considerations.

It wouldn't simply be the same maps if single-player was developed with multi-player in mind. Make an FM and then tell me multi-player's something closer to an option, rather than a a separate game. Game designing is far more than terrain building, so of course that wouldn't have to be built from scratch, just tweaked according to trouble spots the playtesters find and all the triggers Garrett would set off that would not apply to multi-player. All the AIs and triggers would have to be redone to give the game a flow. The story would have to be stripped out...but wait, I'm frikkin' repeating myself. Garrett's voice-overs, briefings, movies, anything to do with Keeper-types, sidekicks, anybody that talks to Garrett...can you figure it out, yet! Similar and same terrain is only half of it. Do you want a new companion story to Thief 4 proper, too? Multiplayer would mean that players could enter a scenario from the opposite end that Garrett would. The linearity will have to be taken out where it can, otherwise every player on the map will have to progress through the same passages at times.

Multiplayer is not the same game, and I don't want to pay for a game I don't want. You want it that bad, and I want Thief. Two different games, you buy the expansion, it ain't gonna be a patch. You are grossly underestimating playtesting. Grossly.

I do not give a hoot how fun it is, it compromises Thief, make it separately, after Thief itself is nearing release. How fun it would be is irrelevant to these arguments and I can't understand why it's being brought up as an argument to make a crap Thief game in favor of multi-player. Get rid of the "4" in the name, 'cause it's not a sequel.

Vae

10-10-2009, 03:24 PM

Yeah...the only way to do it without affecting single player development, would be to release it as an expansion a year later. This could be done with a Gold release...a few more integrated missions plus multiplayer for those interested.

jtr7

10-10-2009, 03:51 PM

And to add to the list of considerations that will be forgotten in only a few posts or less from now, objectives will have to be changed and the story behind them, the triggers for ticking off objectives will have to change, the way objectives are ticked off for one player will have to be changed to allow for any one of multiple players to do it, none of the players should have the mech-eye or they should have a handheld or mounted gadget that does the same thing, difficulty levels are moot, loot percentages are moot unless loot respawns, the layout of a single-player Garrett mission will mean all thieves spawn at the same point and have the same two or three routes the levels are designed for Garrett to take, or the thieves start at different preset points and the levels have to be built to accommodate very different approaches. There would have to be two full sets of the levels, with the different markers for all the triggers for traps, objectives, different conversations, and different scripted events, and also the different AI setups. Any fences and stores would have to be mute (easiest method) or given new sets of voice-overs for generic thief commentaries. Special Garrett mission items could not be for sale. Since it would make no sense for players to be running around many types of maps, new maps would be needed, or else the maps become a jungle-gym playground, without a real foundation.

With just all the changes built into the maps, without a second set, I wonder if it would mean another disc in the package?

Dark Messiah had two teams for the initial single-player release, and for the multi-player release. Physics in single-player are intensive and are often cut to allow for handling several players instead. There are so many considerations, and once again, the team will eventually be 80 people, it's going to eventually be 60 people for the majority of the development time, and they have a projected two-year cycle--and too many of you think any of it is simple and think time taken to build in multi-player won't impact single-player. Ludicrous. It would be best to have two years dedicated to the traditional Thief game, to make it as strong as they can make it, and then to take the terrain and build the massively different multi-player and make it as strong as they can make it. It's sucj\h a different experience and level build, it is a separate game and you should pay for it separately, so we who don't want it don't have to, nor have to endure a compromised EM debut.

sNeaksieGarrett

10-10-2009, 05:39 PM

I don't agree...

AND

I do not eat green eggs & ham... :nut:

You act like it's going to take 2 more years added on to the 2 years you claim it's going to take to make the game.

I think starting outside one of those giant castles with about 4-5 other players, all trying to get the same treasure would be awesome! If you get busted by the guards, you're kicked to spectator mode until the next round.

Same maps & same graphics. I'm thinking that wouldn't take much development time at all. :scratch:

Add it as an add-on?

NO WAY!

Why pay more to play a game that I've already purchased? That's just CRAZY! :nut:

-

If multiplayer is so important to you, then you wouldn't mind buying multiplayer as a separate component. You're argument is flawed anyway. Just look at games like Oblivion. You have to pay for some plugins that Bethesda made, but people still buy them. Fallout 3 has paid DLC but people still buy it, don't they?
It's not "Crazy" to pay for extra content. People work their asses off to get you extra content, so when we fans complain that we had to pay for it it's like we're acting like they have an obligation. They don't owe us anything, but since they do give us stuff, we should be thankful and be happy with knowing we get free content at all. There is nothing wrong with wanting a singleplayer only game, especially when we are discussing Thief. As everyone keeps saying over and over again, developing multiplayer takes time and money. Wouldn't you rather have a singleplayer game with it's full potential, rather than a multiplayer game in which the singleplayer experience isn't as good as it could have been?

I think multiplayer would be great, but it has to be done right first of all, but it also shouldn't take away from the singleplayer.. So I have to agree with jtr7 here.

I do think that there should be basic multiplayer capability in the editor (should we be so blessed...Praise the Builder!), and the fan base can play with it, while Eidos M. ponders which expansions, remakes, spinoffs are worth their effort and lucre.

This actually seems like the best solution. IF they have time, they could add code in the game for multiplayer, but they don't have to build a whole multiplayer component.

jtr7

10-10-2009, 08:03 PM

Seriously.

Something that works fine in the SP game will bugger things up in MP and vice-versa.

Vae

10-11-2009, 12:28 AM

Indubitably!

cGREGgo

10-11-2009, 06:40 AM

I still don't agree with you guys... :rasp:

You guys can sit here and bash multiplayer all ya want...

Bang your heads against the wall... :mad2:

Pray to eidos for a seperate download for multiplayer... :worship:

Compare what will happen to things that happen in other games... :gamer:

When in reality... when you think about it... :scratch:

All you're really wanting is to play the game sooner. :tongue2:

We all want to play ASAP! We hate waiting for things! :whistle:

It's human nature, we're all crazy! :nut:

Multiplayer isn't that big of a deal! I have the same attitude as you guys, believe me! If it's going to jeopardize the quality of the single player game then I'd rather not have it at all.

That's why this thread is here fellaz! Eidos can come up with something that's never been seen before! They can give the world the "shock & awe" they gave us 10 years ago! Theys did it when they created the first thiefsie game (stealth) & they can do it again! You're missing the entire pointsie!

What would we have to have in a game to make multiplayer stealth be a success! If we have to download an expansion pack, then fine!

The question is.... WHAT IS THE EXPANSION PACK GOING TO HAVE IN IT! :rolleyes:

Example: I'd love to hit some of you over the head with my blackjacksie, take a rope arrow & stick it in the wallsie. And then tie you up so I can get all the treasure on my ownsie!

HA! :rasp:

-

jtr7

10-11-2009, 04:18 PM

There's something very very wrong with people who can't hear us pushing for quality and don't seem to know they are strongly disagreeing with a demand for integrity and quality. Very...very...wrong.:mad2::mad2::mad2:

It's true. We are NOT bashing MP. We're bashing watered-down games!:mad2::mad2: There has GOT to be a reading comprehension issue, here.

You can't have two great experiences in one with one team in a short development cycle. What's wrong with you?

Vae

10-11-2009, 08:23 PM

Exactly...

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/842/scaredkid.gif

DarknessFalls

10-11-2009, 11:19 PM

The only multiplayer I want to see for Thief IV is where multiple players are simultaneously playing their single player Thief IV game campaign offline and alone. There. Settled. It's a new form of "multiplayer."

No need to hold hands and find gold medallions together; no need to blackjack and pickpocket a guard at the same time together; no need to wait 90 minutes for your friend to crouch from one end of the Thief level to the other to help shoot a water arrow at a torch because you are out of water crystals.

Thief is meant to be played alone.

And in general, I'm getting tired of seeing how co-dependent our civilization is becoming. Someone can't go to the kitchen to get a cup of water without feeling lonely and having to have a friend join them to keep them company. Nobody can busy themselves for one hour alone anymore and it's getting annoying.

cGREGgo

10-11-2009, 11:29 PM

And in general, I'm getting tired of seeing how co-dependent our civilization is becoming. Someone can't go to the kitchen to get a cup of water without feeling lonely and having to have a friend join them to keep them company. Nobody can busy themselves for one hour alone anymore and it's getting annoying.

Wow, you have more issues than single player THIEF... lmao :nut:

sNeaksieGarrett

10-12-2009, 06:44 PM

I don't get you cGREGgo.... First you disagree with what's said, and then in the very same post you act like you agree. In your last post, you said that people were bashing multiplayer, etc. But then later in your post you change gears and say that it could be an expansion... Even after you clearly stated in a previous post that it's a "crazy" idea. Can you make up your mind please?

Thief is meant to be played alone.

Oh really? Are you the one that decides whether a game gets multiplayer or not? You may not want to play with a friend, but some others might. And anyway, if you dislike the idea of multiplayer, then just stick to the singleplayer. Simple solution. I don't understand why people have to force their opinions on others simply because they have this preconceived notion on what should or shouldn't be. While a lot of people agree with you, some don't. Now, what I DON'T want to see is EM making it like left 4 dead, where it is totally focuses on co-op play, to where the singleplayer experience is practically non-existant.

We're all arguing over whether to have multiplayer or not when it's really not up to us. I thought this thread was supposed to be about Ideas for thief 4. Rather, it's turned into a debate about whether thief 4 should have multiplayer or not. Which is fine, but shouldn't this be a seperate topic?

jtr7

10-12-2009, 06:58 PM

It would just be a list of the same two or three ideas applied to different FM-sounding maps, anyway. :hmm:

Now if someone came up with a concept that broke out of the two or three common ones, that would be interesting!:cool:

The emotional root of loving or hating (or seeking the best compromise) multiplayer in the initial Thief 4 release is something that makes any discussion of it at all inextricably bound to a YEAs vs. NAYs debate.

None of our wishes or suggestions in these forums are up to us, but you know they set these up for a reason, and it's to hear what we have to say.

sNeaksieGarrett

10-12-2009, 07:01 PM

I know that, but I just don't get why it took over this thread. The title of the thread is "ideas for thief 4 multiplayer." It's more like "reasons why or why not to have thief 4 multiplayer mode"

Just so I'm actually on topic and don't look like a total hypocrite,
it'd be interesting to have a Timelimit game-mode. This is actually a mode I thought of for thief 2 - because of Tos' multiplayer patch. This got me to thinking about multiplayer.
Note: I don't mean simply just a turn on of a time limit and racing to beat the clock, I mean a timelimit focused mode. (Though just a simple turn on of the time limit is definately a mode in itself because you have to race against the other player and the clock...)

Here's how the game-mode would work:
The mode would be based around a set time limit to get a certain task (or tasks) completed. I was thinking 2 players, but it could probably work for more than two. You would have the same goals as a singleplayer game, but each player who picked up loot would only get counted for themselves, and would be weighted against the other player's loot totals by the post-game screen. I.e., post -game you'd see something like
Player 1 Stats:
Total loot: 1,000

Player 2 Stats:

Total loot: 2,000
As it stands, for thief 2 multiplayer, each player's loot totals are not calculated because it was not implemented.

Also note that in this mode, it would still be a stealth game. Player 1 would start off at a different part of the map, player two would start off at the other end of the map. (Or whatever you'd like...) All the same problems you are faced with in singleplayer would translate over to multiplayer. This means that if you alert a guard it may have consequences. You're not a tank, you are still just a thief. Same goes for the other players you are pitted against. The added challenge to this mode is that you wouldn't know where the other player is, and whether they already stole some loot that you wanted... This means that you have to be very stealthy and careful because you never know what will happen. There even could be some forced restrictions for those players who feel the need to be combat oriented. I.e., don't kill anyone. Or, don't get caught (assuming it's the kind of mission that would fail if caught... Such as the alarm going off causing a chain of events that would ruin things...) Or simply everything you could do in singleplayer you could do in multiplayer. So, if you wanted to kill someone you could. I think this portion of it might be a bit tricky because some people have a problem with forced restrictions. So I don't know, it's just an idea of mine.

Also, if say the major goal for this mission was to steal a precious scepter, whoever got it first would win, and it'd be over. Remember, this is a race to finish the level before time runs out, but more importantly, to beat the other player at getting things done.

I realize that people have a problem with a thief multiplayer mode because they have these notions that the other player is going to be an ass who only screws things up. Unfortunately, this could very well happen. But why say no to multiplayer simply on that fact? What if you played with someone who was a reasonable person and agreed not to make chaos?

jtr7

10-12-2009, 07:10 PM

Yep. It'll go off in that direction every single time. As long as taffers keep suggesting it should be released with Thief 4, the tendency is to kill that notion for all the myths it perpetrates about game development. Like I said, any discussion of MP in T4 proper is inextricably bound to the emotional root.

razorstealth

10-12-2009, 07:31 PM

i would agree with everyone that says no multiplayer, if the schedule was already set.. they are still HIRING people for the project until November (at least according to their site), what schedule are they already on? So far the only thing relatively close to set in stone with the game is the story, so they have time to integrate Multiplayer into the game, IF thats what WE want. personally i think it would be great, i recall switching off with my friend playing levels of thief, and places like the Shalebridge Cradle are surprisingly scarier with another person. Co-op would be interesting methinks. the most valid argument against any multiplayer has been distracting from what's important Thief 4 solo. i agree that multiplayer at the same time would distract from this unless EM has the resources to create two full teams. Otherwise i say they put a quick and sucky multiplayer along with it that they can then for xbox 360 users update in a few months after the games release, as well as the ability for PC users to have FM. That way everyone's happy and there is not the distraction from the story we all crave for.

sNeaksieGarrett

10-12-2009, 07:31 PM

Well, if it's that way, why not just add a disclaimer or warning in the OP that says "this would be a separate version of thief 4 from the singleplayer experience..." Something like that.

Otherwise i say they put a quick and sucky multiplayer along with it

Hmm, now that's an interesting idea. They could focus development on the singleplayer, but still work on multiplayer... I'm not too sure of it, I think it's probably better to just have the code in the engine for multiplayer, but don't actually use time and resources to develop the multiplayer portion into the core game.

jtr7

10-12-2009, 07:37 PM

That would be up to the OP if the OP agreed it was best not to have the devs building it into Thief 4 right now, but no one who brings it up agrees. They almost all want Thief 4 to be primarily MP and 3rd-Person, and think the traditional gameplay can be a mere option. I can also guarantee the OPs will not be able to put in a disclaimer sans that emotional root.

cGREGgo

10-13-2009, 05:21 AM

I don't get you cGREGgo.... First you disagree with what's said, and then in the very same post you act like you agree. In your last post, you said that people were bashing multiplayer, etc. But then later in your post you change gears and say that it could be an expansion... Even after you clearly stated in a previous post that it's a "crazy" idea. Can you make up your mind please?

I'm not bashing multiplayer, and I would rather have a multiplayer option in the game when purchased. Not as an extra add-on cost. But I seem to be outnumbered here...

If the only way to get it is to pay extra money for it (which is stupid IMO), then fine, whatever. As "SneakyGarret" said a few posts ago, everyone has turned this into reasons for/against it and not "ideas". I think we're the only one here who's put up ideas?

If multiplayer in THIEF is going to be like Quake Arena, I'm like you guys, just leave it out. Thief multiplayer will work if it's done right, now get some ideas before it's too late people! :nut:

ToMegaTherion

10-13-2009, 06:27 AM

It would be so nice if we could have just one multiplayer thread where people suggest ideas and we discuss them and nobody starts a debate about whether there should be multiplayer at all. Just one thread. That isn't too much to ask for, is it?

razorstealth

10-13-2009, 08:43 AM

I think co-op would be fun, it would bring in dual perspectives of a mission, areas of the map that would remain unexplored in single player would be not more easily explored but if both players start in different areas they would have to find their way to each other. For this reason I would say no shiny callsign over your teammates head and I believe jtr7 mentioned a com set that the A.I. can hear. These two factors would actually make multiplayer more challenging rather than the assumed bloodbath. As for multiplayer it should definitley be competition.. What do you guys think about teams? I was thinking maybe multiplayer maps could be "remastered" versions of levels we have seen in the past? This could sorta eliminate those that profess to be the best or the authority on particular levels by creating a true leaderboard system. As for gametypes, I think you can have different difficulties as the different types. Eg. Since you can't kill on expert generally discretion and stealth are more used. If expert were used for multiplayer then say there is no killing but taking a hit from an A.I. means that player is out of the game. What do ya think bout them idears? Bes they good? Bes you thinks of any other multiplayer ideas?

Legion420

10-13-2009, 11:40 AM

Have 5-10 players outside the castle/cathedral with a target item to steal on the inside someplace. Whoever comes out of the building with the item wins. If you get busted by the guards, you're out & have to spectate the rest of the round... :lmao:

rofl. and how would you fool a human? with a noisemaker arrow? ahhahaha. it would never work cause there are only so many entrances to a place and if the defenders are human you cant exactly sneak past somoene who never looks the other way. maybe if you could dig tunnels and cut holes in wood etc over time or something then it could be plausible...

good idea tho, but like someone else said. thief is a single player game. and its build that way for a reason.

-----HOWEVER----

that doesn't mean that a co-op mod with much larger and in-depth fully-interactive landscapes and harder missions with extremely aware enemies etc etc wouldn't be really really really fun with lots of replay value IF it had lots of options for customization and making your own missions for friends to play etc

maybe like a setup where one person is the head of a house and has the AI guards that he can order around while the other 7 people try to rob him? idk :P