"THIEF" - Your current THOUGHTS & SUGGESTIONS & CONCERNS - All General Discussion

[Putkikameli]

Originally Posted by Juke

I didn't spend time reading every post but I'm going to assume most of the obvious things have been said already in terns of mechanics that are a must have to make a Thief game.

I'm not sure if this is taken for granted but the thing that struck me as the perfect thing for a first person stealth game is how Amnesia handles all door, drawer, etc. interactions with the mouse. For those who haven't dared play the game (I don't blame you) it's basically grabbing hold with the mouse and then dragging whichever way depending on the object.

So say you want to open a door you would drag the mouse towards you or push it away to pull and push the door on your own. Other objects such as wheels and levers would work the same way meaning you rotate them by moving the mouse in a circular motion or up and down.

This gives the player the feeling that they're touching the objects around them and while I wouldn't go as far as to have feather light barrels and boxes that can be tossed around like in Amnesia, I did enjoy the way you had to push and pull heavy boulders and timber to clear a path. The game did include a swift push/throw function when you left clicked while holding an object to allow you to slam doors closed in an emergency.

Essentially this would mean that in Thief 4 you yourself would affect how much noise you make by taking the time to close a door slowly and allowing you to leave a gap to peek through rather than opening and closing doors with a simple click like we've seen in all previous Thief games.

Really good idea, but I wonder how it would work on consoles?

[CosmicAsininity]

Originally Posted by Juke

So say you want to open a door you would drag the mouse towards you or push it away to pull and push the door on your own. Other objects such as wheels and levers would work the same way meaning you rotate them by moving the mouse in a circular motion or up and down.

This gives the player the feeling that they're touching the objects around them and while I wouldn't go as far as to have feather light barrels and boxes that can be tossed around like in Amnesia, I did enjoy the way you had to push and pull heavy boulders and timber to clear a path. The game did include a swift push/throw function when you left clicked while holding an object to allow you to slam doors closed in an emergency.

I really like that, it'd lend to the simulator and immersive qualities of Thief.

[Platinumoxicity]

Originally Posted by Juke

So say you want to open a door you would drag the mouse towards you or push it away to pull and push the door on your own. Other objects such as wheels and levers would work the same way meaning you rotate them by moving the mouse in a circular motion or up and down.

This gives the player the feeling that they're touching the objects around them and while I wouldn't go as far as to have feather light barrels and boxes that can be tossed around like in Amnesia, I did enjoy the way you had to push and pull heavy boulders and timber to clear a path. The game did include a swift push/throw function when you left clicked while holding an object to allow you to slam doors closed in an emergency.

Originally Posted by Putkikameli

Really good idea, but I wonder how it would work on consoles?

No, the real question is: How would it work at all with a stealth game? The object manipulation seen in Amnesia and Penumbra is incredibly unreliable and unpredictable. Sometimes the game has trouble processing what exactly it is that you're trying to do, and when you were trying to slowly open a door, instead it launches the door open at a hundred kilometers per hour. When you're trying to pick up something and set it down, you can end up stumbling all around trying to find the right angle and depth because 3d manipulation in a 2d screen with no alternate viewports is not something that the human brain is meant to handle. And rotating cranks and other things, well that's even worse. The game has no idea what you're doing, if you aren't standing exactly in front of the crank rotating your mouse in a circular pattern. Am I the only one who thinks it's incredibly immersion-breaking when my game character suddenly forgets how things are rotated? Such interactios are very strongly imprinted into our brains. We don't even need to think about them when we are doing them. That's what breaks the immersion when using the system of Amnesia. You need to aim all your concentration at doing something that in reality would require no concentration at all. Which is pretty much the same thing as desperately trying to play a game with bad controls. What should come naturally, is being forced.

In a stealth game, all basic game mechanics need to be predictable and reliable because you need to be able to execute complex plans reliably. It doesn't matter if you have thought up a nice network of scenarios and plans, if the basic mechanics you need to use are basically relying on chance. If you want more freedom in the manipulation in the game world, the free mouse manipulation of Amnesia is not the answer. It doesn't add immersion, it breaks it.

[Hamadriyad]

Different keys for different speeds wouldn't solve the problem? If you want to open a door slowly, while you push the mouse at them same time you press a key. Then there is no way you open it fast and wide.

[CaptainObvious]

I actually played the Penumbra games and Amnesia a few months ago, and most if not all complaints of Platinumoxicity didn't apply. Maybe I was just lucky or something; in any case I also thing something like this would be great for a Thief game. It's not strictly necessary, but it'd be a nice touch.

[Putkikameli]

Haven't had any problems with Amnesia either. All buttons, wheels etc. should work with a press of a button, but having way of opening and closing doors freely should be there imo. And that picking up objects and object manipulation worked fairly well in Dark Mod at least.

[Yaphy]

Why not map that door opening to the scroll wheel instead? A mouse can be maneuvered in two dimensions and that is what can cause problems when opening doors at an angle. But a mouse wheel only has one dimension so it will not matter if you stand at an angle. As long as the door is selected somehow you can use the mouse wheel to open it at whatever pace you want or simply left click to open or close it fully. This frees up the mouse for the intended use; camera control.

Now the only problem is how hard it is to make the AI cooperative with this. Say that a door is left open and a guards knows it. What happens if you close the door by just five degrees? Will the guard notice? 10 degrees? 15? How will a guard use the door? If it is open enough to pass trough would the AI see it as open and simply walk trough or will it interpret the door as closed and open it a few more degrees? I can see the glitches raking up. The mouse wheel would need to send a command to change the door angle at every degree so what would happen if a guard was to open the door that you are scrolling on? Weird stuff.

[Platinumoxicity]

By the way, one thing that most people fail to realize when they support a "slow stealthy alternative" for opening doors is that opening doors with unmaintained hinges with no grease in them is actually more noisy if you do it slowly. If you want to keep quiet, you need to open the door as quickly as possible, so that it can't squeak. If you have a door that squeaks, you can try this yourself. Open it slowly, and then open it really fast.

[Jace_Auditore]

Originally Posted by Platinumoxicity

By the way, one thing that most people fail to realize when they support a "slow stealthy alternative" for opening doors is that opening doors with unmaintained hinges with no grease in them is actually more noisy if you do it slowly. If you want to keep quiet, you need to open the door as quickly as possible, so that it can't squeak. If you have a door that squeaks, you can try this yourself. Open it slowly, and then open it really fast.

That is correct,even tough both ways are quite loud.

[Putkikameli]

Originally Posted by Platinumoxicity

By the way, one thing that most people fail to realize when they support a "slow stealthy alternative" for opening doors is that opening doors with unmaintained hinges with no grease in them is actually more noisy if you do it slowly. If you want to keep quiet, you need to open the door as quickly as possible, so that it can't squeak. If you have a door that squeaks, you can try this yourself. Open it slowly, and then open it really fast.

Door slamming is silent then? IMO door squeaking is risk worth taking. I'd rather peek through keyhole, then open door little and peek through gap if the room has anyone and then open the door. It would be real bummer to slam door full open and then notice it was full of guards, now wouldn't it?

[Platinumoxicity]

You know what would be a good, consistent way of opening doors stealthily? Frob the door by holding the interaction button, and then walk forward or backward. This way the game would never actually lock you in place and change some of your controls to do something else. You could still move sideways and look around just like normal. The problem with the "open door -stealth" thing seen in Chaos Theory is that it is a "mode" just like the wall hug or lockpicking in TDS. It places the player in a separate control mode, as if the player leaves the world and enters a different state of being. The controls change and the immersion breaks. The movement controls that should be fused to your central nervous system at this point, become detached from it because whenever you're is in this mode, your basic movement no longer responds. Imagine in reality if you were peeking through a doorway, but during that time you couldn't move your legs and get away from the door before pressing a "cancel" button.

One of the best things about Thief 1 and 2, and the one thing that contributes most to the immersion, even renders the unrealistic graphics irrelevant, is the lack of those modes. The controls never change, therefore the controls are part of your nervous system. The game is an extension of you. You don't need to concentrate on anything other than what you see and hear in the game world, because you are the person in that world. You don't feel like you're pressing buttons to move, you feel like you're really moving.

[AlexOfSpades]

Hey Plat, ever played Amnesia? The way to open doors and wardrobes and so on is amazing.

You have to "drag" it. So, you approach the door, click with the mouse and push it forward to open, and slightly to the right (like a real door) or, if the door opens in your direction you pull it closer doing a half-circle with the mouse to swing it open.

Its fantastic.

[Platinumoxicity]

Originally Posted by AlexOfSpades

Hey Plat, ever played Amnesia? The way to open doors and wardrobes and so on is amazing.

You have to "drag" it. So, you approach the door, click with the mouse and push it forward to open, and slightly to the right (like a real door) or, if the door opens in your direction you pull it closer doing a half-circle with the mouse to swing it open.

Its fantastic.

I have all the Frictional games. The doors are still based on a physics engine, and are 3-dimensional objects in a 3-dimensional world, but being manipulated with a 2-dimensional controller. There are too many variables, and so glitches are inevitable. In certain unpredictable conditions, the 2-dimensional mouse control will conflict with the function of the door object, and will cause it to slam open or shut. In certain unpredictable conditions the game is unable to interpret the circular movement of the mouse input to accurately manipulate a rotating object, causing it to wave back and forth instead of turning.

My point is that when you use standard classic interaction mechanics instead, it feels more natural because you don't need to actively concentrate on doing something so simple. You won't run into situations where your game character's muscles suddenly don't obey your input, and he forgets how a crank or lever is operated, breaking the immersive connection you have with the character. Even though you can find lack of realism in the way the door just opens when you press a button, or the crank just turns on its own, it's still better than the game suddenly throwing you a curveball and changing the rules. Making your character disobey your direct orders simply because the game engine's strict interpretation of your input technically didn't qualify to produce what you were trying to accomplish. Basic interactions shouldn't be a project that requires massive amounts of effort. There should be no room for unpredictability in things that are incredibly simple.

When was the last time you really concentrated 100% on the act of turning a door handle? When did you actually think about the forces that are in play when you open your refridgerator? When did you wonder how much you need to move your arm closer to take a sip from your teacup? We need to simulate the almost instinctual nature of these everyday things, with streamlining gameplay mechanics intelligently. And no, streamlining doesn't mean "even jumping through windows must be an automated animation sequence". Complicated things need complicated controls. Simple things need simple ones. And things that people don't even realize they're doing need to be automatic.

The fully dynamic interaction seen in Frictional's games is in the same developmental stage as motion control with the Kinect. As long as we don't have neurocontrollers that actually translate data directly from your brain activity and control the game exactly how you want, classic control systems will always be more reliable. The interface between man and machine isn't yet advanced enough.

[Putkikameli]

Originally Posted by Platinumoxicity

I have all the Frictional games. The doors are still based on a physics engine, and are 3-dimensional objects in a 3-dimensional world, but being manipulated with a 2-dimensional controller. There are too many variables, and so glitches are inevitable. In certain unpredictable conditions, the 2-dimensional mouse control will conflict with the function of the door object, and will cause it to slam open or shut. In certain unpredictable conditions the game is unable to interpret the circular movement of the mouse input to accurately manipulate a rotating object, causing it to wave back and forth instead of turning.

My point is that when you use standard classic interaction mechanics instead, it feels more natural because you don't need to actively concentrate on doing something so simple. You won't run into situations where your game character's muscles suddenly don't obey your input, and he forgets how a crank or lever is operated, breaking the immersive connection you have with the character. Even though you can find lack of realism in the way the door just opens when you press a button, or the crank just turns on its own, it's still better than the game suddenly throwing you a curveball and changing the rules. Making your character disobey your direct orders simply because the game engine's strict interpretation of your input technically didn't qualify to produce what you were trying to accomplish. Basic interactions shouldn't be a project that requires massive amounts of effort. There should be no room for unpredictability in things that are incredibly simple.

When was the last time you really concentrated 100% on the act of turning a door handle? When did you actually think about the forces that are in play when you open your refridgerator? When did you wonder how much you need to move your arm closer to take a sip from your teacup? We need to simulate the almost instinctual nature of these everyday things, with streamlining gameplay mechanics intelligently. And no, streamlining doesn't mean "even jumping through windows must be an automated animation sequence". Complicated things need complicated controls. Simple things need simple ones. And things that people don't even realize they're doing need to be automatic.

The fully dynamic interaction seen in Frictional's games is in the same developmental stage as motion control with the Kinect. As long as we don't have neurocontrollers that actually translate data directly from your brain activity and control the game exactly how you want, classic control systems will always be more reliable. The interface between man and machine isn't yet advanced enough.

I never ran in to any problems with doors in Amnesia. Every other interaction should work with press of a button. And I bet, that when you are sneaking in someones house without permission with intentions to steal their belongings you don't go flinging doors open. I'm sure that you will give most of your attention to that damn door knob so it turns silently and that door opens without making a sound. Garret is a professional and I bet he no longer suffers from "pipe vision" when being under stressful situations, and needing to to do such tasks as opening doors. But, I don't think he would just fling a door open and shut either.

As someone suggested mouse wheel could work as good control mechanism for opening and closing doors slowly.

[contrarian]

Whoa whoa whoa! Time for you guys to take a step back. Time out.

You're too close. You can't see the forest because the trees are getting in the way.

Methinks there's way too much overthinking going on. Hows about you click a button and the door opens. Imagine that!

[video]

contrarian, ur signature describes u perfectly as an ignorant, u know? but enough about u, enough.

[contrarian]

I take great offense when one insults Pink Floyd.

Anyway, first there was the scar debate....and just when I thought it couldn't get any more trivial, there comes this debate about doors.

Here's a thought/wish/suggestion regarding Thief 4....start acknowledging your fans in some official capacity. It's almost too late..but late is better than never.

There is an element of people out there that I belong to....and it's a small element...but we are very vociferous in our critique/review of companies. Our loud, brash statements usually drown out the silent majority, and we take great pleasure in saying "I told you so!" If Thief is anything less than a stellar game, EM and SE will take a beating unlike any ever seen before.

The complete lack of PR and zero fan acknowledgment over the last 4 years will give credence to our public lashing of said companies. I get all tingly inside just thinking about it.

[fbdbh]

Oh my, two contrarian posts in a row that I can agree with, nice job.

[Nightwynd]

Object manipulation is tied to gameplay mechanics, so it's definately more relevant than the scar issue.

I recall Frictional's object manipulation brought up in several instances here. I'd argue, however, that it's way too energy consuming as it is in Penumbrae or Amnesia. As Plat pointed out, simulating 3d action on a 2d plane can be awkward. Focus should be on the events of the game, not one's mousehand! For me, a good counter example on this can be found in Amnesia where the Kaernk chase the player...

and all the doors open backwards. On my many playthroughs, my attention too often focuses on getting the door-opening right - breaking immersion.

That being said, I'd really like there to be a way to precicely control, say, opening doors. But there also must be an action button which does the thing - opens doors et cetera. I really like the potential that comes from dynamic object manipulation, like having to actually try which way a door opens. As long as that can not be done in a non-cumbersome (or much less cumbersome, at least) way, the action button is the way to go.
I think what Plat suggested - that one needs to hold frobbing key when a door is active and then open it by "moving" forward or backward, is a good one, but still requires a button that opens the door straight.

[Platinumoxicity]

Originally Posted by Nightwynd

That being said, I'd really like there to be a way to precicely control, say, opening doors. But there also must be an action button which does the thing - opens doors et cetera. I really like the potential that comes from dynamic object manipulation, like having to actually try which way a door opens. As long as that can not be done in a non-cumbersome (or much less cumbersome, at least) way, the action button is the way to go.
I think what Plat suggested - that one needs to hold frobbing key when a door is active and then open it by "moving" forward or backward, is a good one, but still requires a button that opens the door straight.

Oh, I forgot to say... when you just click the frob button, the door opens. But if you hold it, you are holding the door, and you can open or close it incrementally by moving around.

And hey, how about this! When you hold the "sprint" button while frobbing the door, Garrett slams it open. If it's an old wooden door that opens the wrong way, you just bust through it. Otherwise you do it low profile, always opening doors with maximum subtlety. I always defend the idea of buttons only having one function, but who would use the sprint key at all times when trying to move around stealthily?

[Nightwynd]

Originally Posted by Platinumoxicity

Oh, I forgot to say... when you just click the frob button, the door opens. But if you hold it, you are holding the door, and you can open or close it incrementally by moving around.

Yeah, I thought as much. It's a pretty good idea, but how error-prone it would be? Accidentally clicking a door when one was supposed to hold the frob key. And what happens when one releases the frob after some time of holding it? Does the door open fully or just stay there? I think the idea needs some refining (obviously).

And hey, how about this! When you hold the "sprint" button while frobbing the door, Garrett slams it open. If it's an old wooden door that opens the wrong way, you just bust through it. Otherwise you do it low profile, always opening doors with maximum subtlety. I always defend the idea of buttons only having one function, but who would use the sprint key at all times when trying to move around stealthily?

I actually thought that, too. I think some kind of modality would be really good!

[auricgoldfinger]

Just been thinking to myself: wouldn't it be sweet if the game allowed you to play as more than 1 thief; both Garrett and a female thief? Maybe even drop it as a bombshell part-way through the game where you take-over as another character and it isn't even announced in the game's description that it contains this.

[Viktoria]

^

Yes, this idea has been suggested. I think somewhere in this thread:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=88919

[tarvis79]

I'd like to know in advance. I'd be annoyed if we relived the Metal Gear Solid 2 debacle. If you never played them, the game was advertised as starring the protagonist from Metal Gear Solid, but you only controlled him for a tiny portion of the start of the game. I don't want to be bait-and-switched regarding our protagonist.

[Platinumoxicity]

Originally Posted by auricgoldfinger

Just been thinking to myself: wouldn't it be sweet if the game allowed you to play as more than 1 thief; both Garrett and a female thief? Maybe even drop it as a bombshell part-way through the game where you take-over as another character and it isn't even announced in the game's description that it contains this.

So... exactly like Metal Gear Solid 2? First the game teases you by letting you play as Snake, but after the first level you will play the rest of the game as a whiny little girl. We all know how that turned out. People were not happy.

But I don't think a 2nd playable character or co-op should be part of the main campaign. The campaign doesn't need more player characters than Garrett, and anyone who has played Conviction knows how horrible it is to suddenly change to a different character who isn't nearly as skilled in stealth as the main one is. It's basically the same as just starting the game over, because you need to learn the mechanics all over again. If the other character can climb higher obstacles, you need to jump around all over the place to figure out which places are accessible, because it's not so self-evident anymore. If the other character is less stealthy, then damn. There is no hope because it's the same as completely resetting your skill back to zero. You have no idea how you need to play to stay undetected because you have gotten used to the mechanics of playing as the stealthier character.

And if the other character is equally stealthy as Garrett then we have a lore inconsistency because there's only one true keeper, and only one keeper trained himself to become a thief. Only one did, and only one did have ten years of experience at it. How would you go about shoehorning in this new unnaturally stealthy thief that rivals Garrett with their skills?

Other playable characters should be reserved for separate co-op missions. Or maybe even custom missions, that the players could make themselves using a simple level construction program. Not a real editor, but something more accessible.