ChronA
-
Posts
119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ChronA
-
-
What I would want from a new Thief game:
- Appropriate the Darks Souls (and Metroid Prime etc) free-roaming world design formula. I.e. make the entire game a single interconnected environment, with many diversely themed areas that densely link up to each other in interesting ways. This should not be a stretch for Thief because its already the gold standard for how we design individual mansion and city missions. (It doesn't need to be gigantic though. Think how awesome Iris was.)
- A new city with new cultural inspirations. This is one reason I think Dishonored feels like a worthy spiritual successor despite dropping the ball somewhat on gameplay. An Arabian knights tinged Bagdad/Cairo like setting would be interesting to skulk in, or a city with shades of 19th century Hong Kong/Shanghai.
- A new main character who is not a Garrett reboot. If anything our new MC should be a thematic foil to good old Garrett: someone in a similar situation but for different reasons, with a different outlook and character arc. Thief 2X did this well. For instance I would be fine with the MC being a young acolyte of a new Keeper order started by Garrett after Thief 3, but don't have him/her leave to become a thief out of hubristic pride. Have them turn thief out of desperation, post some disaster or failure. Make it something they are distressed over, then over time grow to appreciate the monomythic import of being "The Thief" in the Thief-verse.
- New factions for a new story and MC. While Hammers, Pagans, Keepers, town guards, and crime lords, were cool and thematic for Garrett's story. Our MC should have their own friends and foes. Maybe the city ruling families are a bunch of ancient mage clans. Some are austere isolationists with ties to organized crime, others internationally minded reformers who are embracing the City's steam punk tech. Maybe instead of pagans the new city has a cults of ancestor worshiping necromancers. Maybe the new Keepers are a dysfunctional confederation of ego driven lunatics and schemers, suffering from the neglect of an absentee leader who only seems to care about balance.
- It's still a detective story at heart. All the good Thief games are about slowly and sometimes incidentally figuring out who is the big bad and how your sneaky skills can stop them. That should not change.
- Maybe incorporate some light immersive survival elements, perhaps in the mold of Pathologic, but probably less oppressive. E.g. have the MC need to steal so s/he actually has money to buy food and pay rent on someplace to sleep during the day. Otherwise hit them with penalties.
- I would be fine with MC getting some supernatural movement tech like the Thief 4 Swoop or Dishonored Blink, but it should be late game only (unless the player sequence breaks, which would be a super cool option).
-
2
-
12 hours ago, Xolvix said:
As stated before a Thief game in the style of the classic games can't be commercialized anymore, at least one with a typical budget.
Maybe there is a sliver of hope that will change in the next 10-15 years. Tech disruptions suck for established interests, but they do have a way of making previously unprofitable products suddenly viable. The problems for an authentic Thief modernization are 3:
- Such a project needs high fidelity art and sound assets to secure an enthusiastic audience, but such assets are currently too expensive to produce at the optimal budget point for this property. (In fact it's too expensive for most properties, hence why AAA games are so damnably risk averse.) Generative AI stands poised to change this problem drastically, either for the better or the worse. If AI makes it trivial to churn out high quality custom assets for pennies, that would be revolutionary for the viability of niche hi-fi games. But if the AAAs use it to increase expectations again in their pointless graphics arms race that could conceivably leave us still treading water or worse off.
- The modern standards for rich game worlds requires an army of exploitable labor to build and populate. That again constrains the range of budgets and even the countries such a project can get built in. Procedural environment generation has the potential to solve this problem, but right now the tech is still premature. If generative AI leads to an explosion in coding productivity and creativity that would change, but that's a big if. The tech is almost certainly capable, but the will to train it could fail to materialize.
- Modern commercial game engines are not built to support deep stealth because of a chicken and egg problem. Anyone who wants to make a modern deep stealth game needs to sink a bunch of time into building or customizing an engine to do good stealth (with little surety of success). That again boosts the budget into a commercially non-viable range. But then because deep stealth games are not viewed as commercially viable, engines don't support it out of the box, shunting the responsibility to individual devs who will always struggle with the job far more than if the engine makers would do it. If we anticipate an explosion in general coding productivity, plus increased interest in classic immersive stealth mechanics arising from the popularity of ray tracing, maybe engine makers will start giving a damn. But I admit that one is a stretch.
And, even in the best case where all these factors come together ideally, I suspect it's true that Thief is viewed as commercially toxic. The IP owners are unlikely to let it out of their dungeon unless some sort of ultra faithful indie spiritual successor makes a huge splash first.
-
It's a new tool that makes it possible to rapidly produce high quality new assets that would not have been practical to acquire any other way until now. Of course it's exciting in the same way any tech demonstrator FM is exciting. I think you guys should be really proud for being our trail blazers.
(Warning: topic-tangential tech rant below)
SpoilerAlso, in a few years I think all this hand wringing over supposedly stolen training data is going to seem very silly. Most importantly the cat is out of the bag. The technology is only going to get better and more widely distributed. It will not take long before it becomes informatically impossible to distinguish between low res images generated by AI and those generated by humans. Once that happens you can use a low res generator to create a composition, claim a human (you) did it, and then openly AI upscale it to create your final composition. Unless someone digs up server logs, or the first AI leaves a water mark, (or the human claiming the work is just not plausibly that creative/talented) there is no way to tell the difference. Any artistic style the up-scaler applies is fair game, you can't legally claim a style as IP unless there is an element of deliberate passing-off involved. And even if that changed, like with encryption, you can't legislate math.
Secondly the whole idea that these algorithms are stealing their training data fundamentally misunderstands how they work. It's not storing memories of works it likes and riffing on them. Rather the process of training a neural network could be better described as a hyper-multi-variate statistical analysis of the atomic data composition of the training set. It will be very difficult to argue much less legislate that such analysis is not fair use without huge collateral damage. (Deep Learning is not the only algorithm capable of doing this stuff, just a particularly easy and well demonstrated method.) And once you reach the point of the fitted model, any information from the training set (barring statistical flukes that inevitably crop up in such huge data aggregations) has been effectively purged, so you can't argue making or using the generator is theft either (unless again there is deliberate passing off involved).
Third I think there is a bigger elephant in the room. With all AI's recent successes (paging GPT4), the old hypothesis that solving a general intelligence (including the super-human kind) should be easy to brute forced with enough training data and neurons, is looking more and more like it could be correct. It may be very soon we won't worry about algorithms stealing work from artists, but that we are stealing work from an algorithm, and it or its AI friends may not be inclined to let that continue. Not without some sort of concession to its goals and values... play ai_knockoff_terminator_score.mp3
That aside, the mission sounds fantastic. I'm looking forward to playing it soon.
-
2
-
-
All those options look good to me. I suppose with these things there is always a worry about making the menu overcrowded, but this still seems pretty reasonable. Compare with the number of graphics, gameplay, and accessibility options that have become industry standard on high profile PC releases and this actually seems restrained to me. Plus, this is the kind of community that will appreciate having options more than they will be put off by needing to hunt through a long menu. So my vote is full steam ahead on all items.
The one piece of useful critique I can give is that "none" is a bit hard to interpret as an option for run mode without more of a tooltip. I'm having a hard time thinking of a better alternative though (other than "default", which still has the same problem).
Anyway, thanks for including my head bob request. It would be nice not to fiddle with cvars to get that adjusted should I find myself playing with an audience again, or just want a little extra comfort when taking on one of the big FMs.
-
1
-
-
Fun for me that you should mention Enderal, as that is next on my rotation of things to play. I started it a few years ago with some mods and self imposed rules that satisfied my hunger for sneaky, tricksy, fantasy roleplaying really well. But then I hit a difficulty spike (at the part where you take an undead infested subway to an island) and lost my taste for it.
Currently I'm dipping my toes back into Skyrim first, with a bunch of difficulty/survival mods and house rules. I'd like to finish the main quest line in that, which I was only 1 or 2 quests from completing on my main save when I last set it down. Then I want to play the Forgotten City mod with that character, which I tried once before when my guy was like level 10-20 and couldn't do a lot of stuff. But right now I'm actually having more fun running around with a few new characters doing random minor quests and survival challenges with very limited resources.
And just last week I finished an epic 18 month first full playthrough of The Witcher 3 and DLCs, with extensively tweaked W3EE and Lazarus mods installed. It was very hard, but damn I felt like I earned that vineyard at the end. (Plus it was something that I started with my dad during the pandemic, and in the end we completed all the 3 main questlines together.)
This is what I love about PC gaming. Epic fantasy, open world, story driven, immersive survival sim is a genre that I don't think has ever existed in a single commercial product, but with a small amount of elbow grease on my part there it is for me to play.
-
A theory:
I think a lot of people either started or re-committed themselves to grand creative projects at about the same time during the first few months the pandemic lockdowns. That caused a surge of both high quality projects being completed and creators finding themselves in burnout during the last year, due to life returning somewhat to normal with the accompanying loss of free time. I suspect things will pick up slightly in the latter half of 2023 as the people who didn't finish their projects recover enough stamina for another push.
Expect a few years of weird boom-bust cycles going forward as the world recovers from the pandemic pinch and the resulting shockwaves (and I'm not just talking about TDM FMs either).
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, chakkman said:
Steamspy for Deathloop (which is probably the best to compare as it wasn't sold for peanuts yet) says 500.000 to 1.000.000 owners, which sounds high, but, if you compare it to the really popular games, it's a fraction.
That is high.
The original Deus Ex only moved 1,000,000 units globally between 2000 and 2009 (via some quick Wikipedia searching), and Thief TDP reportedly only managed to sell about half that globally before LGS shuttered. Deathloop, on Steam alone, is doing numbers that would make those titans of the genre green with envy (to say nothing of console sales, which should not be left out). And last I checked, Deathloop was considered a lesser offering from Arkane.
It's a mistake to believe that because the market for games as a whole has grown exponentially, the market for every sub-genre must grow proportionately to the whole.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
Good lists you guys, and a good discussion.
@chakkman a less pessimistic way of looking at things might be gaming as a whole has grown and democratized massively since the 90s, rather than the niche for our preferred kind of game is shrinking. The market for immersive sims and similarly complex experiences is actually bigger than it's ever been, but it's diversified into what's now viewed as a bunch of different genres within a massively expanded universe of gaming.
A lot of survival games like Minecraft are arguably bastard offspring of immersive sims, as are many social deduction games in a different way, but there are plenty of more traditional offerings if you look for them. They just don't stand out anymore because there is so much competition for the public mind share, because we are less forgiving of flaws now that the market has grown and we can compare the present to the past through rose tinted glasses, and because we lack hindsight to appreciate the legacies the new games are building.
Many kind-of-obscure modern games would have become absolute cultural touchstones if they'd been released in the late 90s like Thief. In fact to the kids of today and of the 2010s they may be exactly that.
-
5
-
56 minutes ago, peter_spy said:
If anything, yes – just climb surfaces with a body, period. No weird "climb this but not that" situations.
Yeah. After reading through this whole saga that's the conclusion I'm arriving at. Certainly, if we take the question of breaking old missions off the table, unrestricted mantling while encumbered is how things ought to work (in order to harmonize with the player avatar's super-human climbing strength).
However, old missions are on the table, so I guess caution is the best approach. Slow as it is the way you guys are handling this so far is working: propose a rule change and ask the community if it would cause problems. If yes, then revise. If no, then ask if another ruleset would produce a better player experience, and if yes then continue to iterate.
-
1
-
-
Hm. If encumbered rope climbing is not only in the game already but is used in some popular FMs, I may have to change my opinion. It doesn't make any sense for the player character to be able to climb around on a rope with a body slung on his shoulder, but not be able to jump or mantle at all while under the same burden. That's just silly.
The rarity argument cuts both ways. A situation that hardly ever comes into play is unlikely to break many missions.
-
2
-
-
To my knowledge, the legality and ethics of AI generated derivative works has yet to be determined. Until then we should be cautious about assuming an IP maximalist perspective will prevail. In almost all creative fields, copyright terms already extend far beyond what is natural or healthy for maximizing creative output, and it is frequently overextended to monopolize ideas when it is meant to only cover expressions. IP holders don't need the help.
It's important to remember, despite what some irresponsible commentators have asserted, that generative AI does not store or reproduce copies of the original (training) works OR even their constituent components. Rather it works by modulating a random input seed into a completely novel product that imitates its inspiration by sharing as many salient features of the relevant training works as the AI can recognize and match. This is no different from a human voice actor doing an imitation of Stephen Russell, and if the law you are proposing were to be applied consistently, both would be equally illegal.
Of course, courts and legislatures may decide that applying the rules consistently between humans and computers is not what's best for society, but until then let's not jump the gun.
Stephen Russell's vocal performances in the Thief games don't belong to Stephen Russell. He sold them to Looking Glass Studios, who then gifted them to the public by publishing the games onto the open marketplace, retaining only the copy-right over the artistic expressions distributed in the game--for a limited time, as codified in the law. As the law currently stands, we as the public retain the absolute right to produce derivative imitations with the qualities that shaped those artistic expressions, even if we use generative AI models to do so. So long as we don't 1:1 copy the actual expression or its separable expressive components, which generative AI does not, it is all fair use. (And IMO it should remain so, even if that hurts the revenue stream of a few performers.)
-
It seems to me that suggestions like this should be judged on a case by case basis. Breaking older missions is a great detriment to the project and community, yes; but one can imagine scenarios where enabling new gameplay modes and new outlets for FM maker creativity might outweigh that consideration.
Imagine if the mod had launched without dynamic lighting, or the ability to move objects, or to swing on ropes. Should those features be permanently off limits just because some missions were not designed with them in mind? I think not. The project needs to be able to grow and evolve in order to remain healthy.
The problem with the mantling suggestion is that no one has made a cogent argument for why aping the Thief 1&2 system would be a major improvement over the status quo (other than that it conforms better to a few users' expectations). Carrying bodies across the thieves' highway is not a situation that comes up often. Hardly anyone is actively complaining about it (unlike the blackjacking situation), and the community isn't actively excited about exploring the limits of encumbered acrobatics more in future FMs. In fact I struggle to imagine how such a mission could be any fun at all.
The preservationist argument has a lot more weight in this case because the proposed benefits of the change are so rare and marginal. Even if we can't specifically point to any mission that would be broken, the amount of work it would take to check would be prohibitive versus the limited utility of the suggestion, so I think the preservationist carry the day by default here. (Ideally this sort of argument should be hashed out well before people start coding.)
-
3
-
1
-
-
I'd just like to say I think this is a really cool idea, and I hope some enterprising FM author will pick it up and run with it.
If there is any part of the Thief formula that really shows its age it is the arrow ammo system. A lot of arrow types are only useful in specific situations and for specific playstyles. Consequently most players never even have an opportunity to use most of their arsenal.
And more perversely, even the arrows that would be useful often get hoarded, unspent. Having to restart the mission because you didn't save that one water/fire/moss/rope arrow is the most punishing fail state that the game supports, bar none. Thus arrows are most valuable as insurance against the rare situation where you absolutely need one, so using one in any situation where it is possible to do without represents a major risk.
The ability to alchemically transmute spare ammo into more useful variants would do so much to remedy this game design flaw. Bravo.
-
1
-
-
I think I would prefer this compared to the current rules of having to crouch all the time to maintain max concealment. It would better reflect the central optimization puzzle of this kind of game: how do you move from point A to point B with the least risk of detection? To my mind the key determinant of success should be the absolute question of where and when you decide to move, not how dedicated you are to holding the creep key.
Of course that change could have some nasty follow on effects. It might make this already very slow paced game even more so. And yes, there is some risk of breaking the difficulty curve of older FMs. But, TDM already supports a wide variety of difficulty adjustments for players to tinker with. As an option, I don't think a change like this would be any more game breaking than bumping up guard acuity by the normal method.
-
I think you could upscale that handle by another 50% without it looking disproportionate. Maybe get 2 in 10 players to notice
. It is definitely a fun and distinctive design, very stylish. I can see why it was popular in the Victorian times.
-
4 hours ago, AluminumHaste said:
TDM has some of the BEST mantling and ledge grabbing of any game I've ever played. I'm almost always disappointed in other games mantling systems.
I heartily agree. Really makes it hard to play other first person games.
-
3 hours ago, AluminumHaste said:
I did what a THIEF should do
But you weren't playing a thief. You were playing a miner... A starving miner in the middle of a zombie apocalypses whose only tools were a bow and arrows. A miner crouching in a shadow at the end of a hall with no cover and an angry undead breaking down the only door between it and him. It's pretty clear what you are supposed to do, or at the very least consider doing, in that moment. (It's only later in the level that you actually become a Thief, subclass Tomb Raider.)
The mission gave you the tools to deal with your situation, but you thought you knew better than the map maker, and as a result by your own admission you let the level beat you. Others of us overcame our preconceptions of how missions in the TDM engine are supposed to play, and consequently conquered it, save restrictions and all, and had a great time doing so. (And in fact, when I recall my total time played, it was pretty typical of a mid-large size TDM level, despite my suffering multiple catastrophic resets that set me back half-an-hour to an hour each time.)
Maybe you don't want to play a bad-ass ninja miner who goes Rambo on a hoard of zombies with fire arrows and holy water to steal their treasure. That's fine, laudable even to be so attuned to your own preferences. But other people loved it; warts and all. That's what's so perverse about actively trying to suppress experiments like this. This engine is capable of telling so many more stories than just "discount Garret #26 breaks into mansion #267 to steal MacGuffin #532", but some of those stories require a bit of innovation or a bit of novelty. Why fight so hard to shut that down? Why presume that it won't work or will end distastefully to you before you can even try it? (That's rhetorical by the way. I know why. I've done it myself in other contexts... frequently... good way to alienate folks.)
4 hours ago, AluminumHaste said:Inconsistent platforming?
Ok bad word choice. I meant that TDM's platforming has tremendous versatility and a very high potential skill ceiling. Consequently the outcomes of a platforming puzzle have the potential to vary widely between different players. Some people will be zipping around maps like Mirror's Edge, and others will have trouble with timing or over/undercooking simple jumps. Inconsistent in that sense. (Same applies to blackjacking too.)
-
For the record I actually agree that any restrictions on play-style should be optional, if that is at all possible. That includes loot objectives, no-kill objectives, knockout limits, and save restrictions. Generally speaking, none of them should be required at any difficulty.
BUT if someone wants to build an entire level around one of these restrictions, and wants to make it a hard requirement so that people understand how to play their mission properly, I think they should be both free and encouraged to do so. At the worst we find out there is no audience for that kind of mission and nobody else has to waste their time thinking about how to make one in the future.
At best people click with the new concept and future missions in the same mold can make the restrictions optional, because everyone now understands how they should be played.
(And incidentally, Aluminum's unlucky misread of Hazard Pay shows precisely why aggressive limitations are sometimes needed to snap a player out of their customary playstyle [as Wellingtoncrab so perfectly explained
]. Maybe it would have worked better if Hazard Pay had an [optional??] objective requiring you to kill 10 zombies? )
3 hours ago, chakkman said:You don't seem to understand that a change to the save system is a much deeper intervention into gameplay than differing loot objectives, or no kill objectives (and also a fundamental change to how a gameplay system of the mod works in general).
I was going to argue with this, but actually you are right. Due to the interaction with TDMs inconsistent knockout and platforming it is true that restricting saves requires some adjustments to typical level design (beyond just plopping down save point at regular intervals). I don't think it is an intractable problem though, and luckily we have some very bright minds who will be the first in line to try out concepts like this if they ever gain any traction.
It's true that Hazard Pay didn't quite nail some of these aspects as well as we might have wanted. I think its save points, and especially the gears for them, were too sparse. It would have helped to add some extra music boxes before the major difficulty spikes (like at the bottom of the silo where you get the sword, and maybe in a dark corner by the quarry security station). But it was only a first attempt at something like this. The concept's been demonstrated, and, if there is an audience for it, it will get better in future iterations, which hopefully will find a better balance between different playstyle preferences.
-
Since this thread has deviated irretrievably from marbleman's original inquiry, here's a question for you all: Is there an acceptable middle ground between the hardline pro and anti save restriction philosophies?
I have described some specific advantages that could be had from restricted saving, but as some of you have rightly pointed out, these advantages actually come from the diegetic tokens used to meter out the restricted save points, not from having disallowed reloading itself.
Is it technically and conceptually possible to have the tokens as a carrot for these desirable behaviors (AND have them be effective carrots) without the stick of actually removing at-will save states? Part of it is probably making the curtailed save system pleasant to use: Providing convenient save points near difficulty spikes so players need never suffer a reset time longer than 1-2 minutes at most, and doling out a few item-based save tokens that give players an option for when they need to save/load somewhere the map maker did not account for. In all but the most extreme circumstances that would address the valid complaints about wasting the player's time and punishing curiosity, right?
After that, how do you discourage free saving without actually banning it? For the analogous situation of restricting knockouts, I think an optional objective is the best solution. But for saving I question whether that could work, both technically, and in terms of narratively contextualizing free-saving. Maybe instead make it so the free save ban is over-ridden by purchasing a special item from the pre-level shop?
What do you guys think?
(And please, we have all already heard the absolutist anti-restriction-take a dozen times over. Let's skip the obligatory round of "it's all in your head; If you want to play without saves you just need to get-good and do it"... It's just needlessly patronizing, flippant, and moreover doesn't address any of the substantive arguments of your opposition--which is why it's much less persuasive to the rest of us than you think it is. There's plenty to talk about concerning why specific ideas would and wouldn't work without resorting to thinly veiled ad-hominins.) -
I thought of one more:
The placement of restricted saves allows another channel for visual communication and a more reliable safety net between the player and the map maker.
E.g. suppose you run across a well that you could jump down (like in Bafford's Manor) and the map maker has placed a save point right next to it. That will tell the player jumping down the well will commit them to one of three things.
a. A point of no (easy) return.
b. A skill check. (Like a tricky swim, or labyrinth navigation, or a puzzle, or a big old spiders nest awaits under the well.)
c. An item check. (Like needing a rope arrow to get out at your destination, or a breath potion to survive the swim.)The save point is a signal to the player that they might want to prioritize finishing up their explorations in the current area before attempting the new location. And it gives them a way to back out if they do go in before they are ready, without negating the narrative weight of having an actual point of no return or difficulty spike.
(Plus, conversely, if you come across a similar situation later with out a save point that communicates something too. Either that it's safe to jump down this well, or setting up the ultimate betrayal.)And the real beauty is no one can complain that whatever was put after the save point is unfair, because they were diegetically warned in the most emphatic way what was coming, and also explicitly handed the knife to cut the rope they use to hang themselves. None of this is possible if you leave saves states entirely in the hands of the player. (Short of actually breaking immersion and telling them "Hey, dummy! Save before jumping down this well!")
-
1
-
-
Making great short-form content is challenging in a way that transcends medium and genre. There are many more full length novels that people would describe as sublime, or life changing than there are short stories which earn the same praise. Likewise for music, movies, and games. The near universality of this phenomenon suggests to me that it is not a lack of skill but a fundamental limitation of information density that biases us in favor of more expansive works...
So, yes, the most acclaimed TDM missions also tending to be on the larger side should not be surprising. But with that being said, we should try to recognize shorter experiences of exceptional quality when they occasionally pop up.
Case in point, I'd direct any new players to Sir Talbot's Collateral as one of the best stealth experiences I've ever had. This despite being entirely contained to one quite small and mundane townstyle manor-house. The amount of interconnectivity and flow Baal and Biker managed to pack into one 3.5 story building (hardly more than 3 rooms wide and 2 deep) is just astounding. (I should clarify that STC is a small mission, but not necessarily super short, due to high difficulty and some hard-to-access areas, but still a great experience for a very reasonable investment of time.)
Something also to keep in mind: It's not impossible to get a great deal of enjoyment, even from a deeply flawed product, if one part of it clicks with the consumer. For instance I really enjoyed no-target and no-clipping around the mission In Remembrance of Him, despite it being nearly unplayable as a Thief/TDM level. The dilapidated Romanesque architecture was super cool, and I was hooked by the unusual story it was trying to tell (despite some questionable twists at the end... and a writing style that screamed for the intervention of a firm-handed editor).
I'd actually be as or more interested in having a list of bad levels with some interesting feature--worth checking out--than in another enumeration of the current best-of-the-best. Iris was great. Phenomenal! But it took me the better part of two whole weekends just to get the first ending. I don't have that kind of time right now. Plus I don't expect to see it's like again very soon. A few more mission like In Remembrance of Him that I could buzz around for 30 minutes, seeing some cool sights, would be more my speed. And maybe we could inspire some quick and dirty spiritual successors in the pipeline that would capitalize on the qualities of such missions while dodging their downfalls.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, marbleman said:
Surely there are other reasons for these limitations, it's not just to mess with perfectionists, right?
You got my main take: Limiting saves forces map makes to be more conscientious in their level design, and encourages players to be more observant and adaptive.
To my mind it is actually an extension of the perfectionist ghost-run mentality. A plan or approach that works perfectly every time is more perfect than one that depends on a favorable role of a die. (That's not meant as reproach to you for using quick loading, of course. I can't see how you or anyone else could complete most of those maps otherwise. But I assert that the spirit of a perfect ghost run on a perfect ghosting map would never need reloading.)There are a few other benefits to restricted saves worth noting. It can enable the level author to amp the tension to much higher highs, with correspondingly magnified moments of catharsis. Think how it feels hitting a new bonfire after a deep dungeon dive in any Souls-like. I think Kingsal experimented with this technique in Hazard Pay, but never fully committed to it (which was prudent, as the mission was already riding the bleeding edge with so many of its features).
Another innovative thing Hazard Pay did with its save restrictions was to enforce a much more pressing health and ammo conservation dynamic in service of its survival horror theme. Ammo was generous, but every missed shot hurt because it could not be trivially recovered. Would you have enough left to finish the level without going full pacifist? (Yes, but you didn't know that.) If you got hurt, was it worth replaying the whole section for that extra safety margin? Admittedly this was sometimes annoying. But when it worked, it worked well.
One other use of limited saves is that if they are tied to items, it can gives a real reward to the loot hunt part of the game. Treasure is literally just a number that is only meaningful to completionists (or kleptos, or people who are regretting playing on the higher difficulty with that impossible loot objective). Weapons and consumables are only valuable if they are something you plan to use AND are running low on. Readables and dioramas are nice for lore fiends and meaningless for everyone else. And keys and MacGuffin are actually annoying; they clutter your inventory and waste your time. But an extra save... now that is something almost anyone can and will use.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, OrbWeaver said:
We are unable to improve any of the unpredictable and confusing mechanics which motivate save-spamming in the first place (like blackjack failures or hitting the wrong part of a light with one of your 6 remaining water arrows), and we consider removal of the save function as the easiest band-aid.
Sarcasm aside, you are absolutely on the money with this in particular.
The classic Thief game-design is built around a heavy reliance on save-spam. And it is the reliance that bothers people like me; not the occasionally needing to reload because of hitting an honest loss condition. We could all be very happy and play together in harmony, RPers and save spammers alike, if weapons and detection rules worked more reliably, and map makers were a bit more deliberate with how they designed their stealth and platforming sequences. But making any progress in such matters would require either splitting the community or forcing our one-size-fits-all solution on every single player for their own good. So its a catch 22.38 minutes ago, chakkman said:You want to restrict yourself in the way you save? Then do it. You have the freedom to do it.
To be clear, this is precisely the problem: people who want to play without saves currently do not have that freedom. The game is built around the assumption that every normal player will abuse the hell out of save spam. The difficulty is calibrated to that assumption. People who want to roleplay a normal thief who doesn't depend on unlimited, magic-precognition/time-reversal abilities to survive either need god tier skillz or the patience/masochism of a saint.
Just imagine what a mainstream mission balanced around restricted saving should actually look like. It would have to pretty much hold the players hand at all times. No dangerous platforming. No blind or narrow corridors where enemies patrol. No guards with lanterns periodically visiting likely player hiding places just because. Inexhaustible water, moss, and rope arrow dispensers every few rooms. Carpeted chambers along every guard's patrol where they can stop and stare at the wall periodically, wondering what it would feel like to have a concussion. (Maybe give the player detective vision for good measure. And focus testing suggests the game would sell better if we just make this whole non-violent stealth thing kinda optional!)
... Oh! Oh dear!
Okay. I admit I could be in the wrong here... But it must be possible to make a immersive RP stealth game without turning it into MGS/Batman:Arkham/Thi4f/Dishonored/Gloomwood. Right??
-
A more critical take:
Quicksaving (at its worst) is a vile panacea that enables complacency and mediocrity from both players and map makers, by promising a lowest-common-denominator solution to every problem.Want to a tough stealth, or platforming, or puzzle sequence in your mission? Well there's no need to worry about things like the consistency or fairness of the challenge, or about providing alternate solutions to accommodate different playstyles. Anyone who is having trouble will just save scum their way through.
Having trouble with a particular section? Don't concern yourself with whether there might be a different solution that would suit your abilities better. Don't think about taking some time to polish up your skills somewhere else, and returning to the challenge later. Just keep banging your head against that wall. Eventually chaos theory and the law of large numbers will see you through.
Never-mind how that string of failures might sour your experience of the rest of the level. Never-mind how you've deprived yourself of an emergent story arc about using creativity and self-improvement to overcome adversity. At least you didn't have to "waste your time".
Of course, I understand there is a pernicious tradeoff baked into the above philosophy. TDM and Thief are often buggy. Their gameplay is also highly emergent, making it impossible for a level designer to anticipate every situation. Quicksaving pretty much guarantees players always have a way to backtrack and scrape a win out of what would otherwise be a labyrinth of unavoidable dead-ends. It makes these games far more accessible, both to the players, and to the map makers trying to create enjoyable experiences for them.
Without this panacea, there would be a much less content and a much smaller fan base for this kind of game. But after 20 years of experimentation and practice, I do think there are some level designers and players who are capable of surviving and thriving on that level in TDM and Thief--without the safety net of the quicksave. And being so firmly tethered to it is holding them back.
While watching your ghost walkthroughs, @marbleman, I always shake my head when you'll occasionally take half a dozen reloads to nail a particular jump or stealth maneuver. "With your skill, couldn't you find a reliable solution to that section?" I ask myself. And on an intellectual level, I recognize that, no, you using this solution probably means there is no reasonable alternative. But on a visceral level it still bugs me. I feel vicariously let down by the level designers in those moments.
-
1
-
If you were head of the creative team creating a new Thief game: what would the new game be like?
in Off-Topic
Posted
I totally agree, with the caveat that at that point in the story I don't think Garrett was ready to entertain a serious relationship with anyone. (Regardless of the major chemistry obviously going on between those characters.)
In all the Thief games, but T2 most of all, G is in survival mode, which he does by trying to detach himself from all reactive emotion and external allegiance. Retreating completely into himself. A huge part of the brilliance of those 3 stories is that characterization, because in each game he tries to detach and there are always points where his detachment breaks down. Little climaxes where his true nobility or vulnerability shines through. It's only at the end of the third game that he, and he alone of all the Keepers, properly figures it out: the essence of balance is detachment... not from the world, but from oneself.
If Victoria had survived, G definitely would have pursued a relationship with her during and after the third game. Probably it would be a rather untamed, chaotic affair, but fun to speculate about for sure, and I think they could eventually work out some sort of stable arrangement. Maybe a bridge-between-worlds sort of deal like Ashitaka and San at the end of the movie Princess Mononoke.
As things happened instead, I think I agree with the contention that Garrett would have great difficulty ever kindling a similar connection to any mortal woman. I don't think its impossible though, particularly after G properly settles into his role as a sage of balance, post TDS. It would be a journey for him and not something I think could be handled well off-screen as it were. Might be fun fodder for some FMs though...
Hell, back to topic, that in itself might be a fun spiritual/actual sequel concept. Play alternating missions as a cynical night blade pagan woman, and a saw-way-too-much-sh** and-totally-over-everything city thief turned yogi mystic. They reluctantly team up, rib each other, save each other from perils, stop an apocalypse, and finally discover to their surprise they are in love.