Updating Missions...worth it?

[Springheel]

This isn't referring to bugfixes, but updates that add more content to a mission.

 

I'm curious about what the general opinion is on this issue. We've had a number of missions already that have had updated releases (RttC, Winter's Harvest, Business as Usual).

 

To me, TDM missions are like watching a TV show. Once I've seen the episode once, I'm not keen to watch it again even if more content has been added. But I'm curious what others think.

[Shadowhide]

To me, TDM missions are like watching a TV show. Once I've seen the episode once, I'm not keen to watch it again even if more content has been added. But I'm curious what others think.

well,it depends on mission itself

i played T2 "Life Of The Party" mission few times and i wasn't bored because of different ways you can go.

It depends on mission and the update.

Sure thing updated version of RttC deserves replaying.

If wasn't the author of winter harvest,i would never replay an updated version of it,because its linear mission

Edited November 16, 2011 by Shadowhide

[Bikerdude]

In my case I think that its worth is. I firmly beleive the Business As Usual version 2 is in a different league compared to the original. And when I updated Rttc apart from the needed perf optomizing the extra content that Melan and myself added, gave the mission even more depth and atmosphere. Winters Harvets still needs updating to v3, as the story etc need way more polish and fleshing out. And then finally there is the buggy mess that is Dragons claw, had I not be constrained my a deadline version 1 would have been much better. So version to will be infinitly better.

[Shadowhide]

Winters Harvets still needs updating to v3

You can make that update if you still interested

[Sotha]

If the mission is good and has multiple ways to complete, has elements improving replayability and it has been significantly improved, why not. I could play it again with new content. But probably not if it was constantly updated.

 

Also I would like the missions be as well polished when they are first released. Not microsoft style: release broken version 1. Then semi-broken version 2. Then just working version 3, and finally the version 60 is the excellent one.

 

If the mission is linear and severly below-average, it's not worth it in any way. It is better to learn from the mistakes. Let the ship sink. Build a new, better one.

[Tels]

While I am in the "only play it once" camp, there are a few books/movies I have read/seen more than once, and I guess there would also be FMs that I'd play twice if they offer some replay value. And if they are redone, that it even better. However, for most I probably would not play them twice.

 

OTOH, I have maybe played 1/3 of all missions, so if you update them before I even played them once, all the better! Bringt it OOOON!

[nbohr1more]

The worth depends on the type of improvement offered:

 

1) Visual improvement > Not worth it. Unless the mission is really ugly. Some missions have gotten visual boosts with revised textures from the TDM team too. (Nice to have though...)

2) Performance improvement > Worth it! More players can enjoy the mission. Caveat: Don't sacrifice new or interesting stuff for performance.

3) Larger mission > This is an author indulgence. Players would rather have a new mission but the author wishes to complete his\her "vision". It's still appreciated though.

4) Better AI patrols > Worth it. Dynamic patrols can make replaying favorite missions an even better experience.

5) Better Story > Not worth it. A great story is good to have but the mission itself tells a story and if that wasn't good before readables and cut scenes won't help too much.

6) New scripted events > Worth it. More than a visual boost, seeing new events happen throughout a mission can boost the emotional impact of the mission immensely.

[jaxa]

I've explicitly waited in cases where I hadn't played the mission yet and the author publicized a v2. I'd play Dragon Claw v2 since I didn't get too far, but I still need to play all the missions for voting, so I'll probably finish v1 and judge it based on that.

[SiyahParsomen]

An updated fm can never take the place of total new fm.

[lost_soul]

I'm in the first two categories. I like to replay my favorite missions, especially if there are new things to find. Some of the mission updates have made the world feel much more alive, like having female characters in St. Alban's Cathedral.

 

With television, the same thing always happens in an episode, whereas multi-player games are very dynamic. Fan missions for TDM and Thief fall somewhere in between these two opposites.

Edited November 16, 2011 by lost_soul

[Professor Paul1290]

As I've probably said before, I replay a lot of missions anyway. I almost always play a mission again whenever it gets an update of some kind, so I support the idea of updating old missions whenever it is convenient to do so.

 

On the other hand, new missions take priority of course.

[Springheel]

To me, TDM missions are like watching a TV show. Once I've seen the episode once, I'm not keen to watch it again even if more content has been added.

 

That might have been a bad analogy, as I do enjoy playing certain missions more than once. However, I admit I haven't really enjoyed playing any of the updated maps thus far. I quite enjoyed the original RttC, but couldn't get through the updated one. I can't even explain exactly why...I think it's because I can't really be immersed in the mission because I already know most of the map. The new areas create an "oh, neat" moment, but I know that they can't be very important to the main storyline.

[fxdwg]

I definitely replay missions. However, there is usually a large amount of time in between replays. This would fit in well for me because then there would a greater chance that my replay could be on an update/rewrite. This was especially true for T1, T2, and T3 only because of the amount of time require to go once through a cycle before hitting replays.

[7upMan]

Speaking of analogies, I think the best way to see an update on a mission as some kind of Director's Cut. If you're a movie buff (or just love a particular movie), you watch the theatric version in cinema and buy the D.C. when it comes out later. At least I did that (LOTR, Pitch Black, Riddick, etc.). Releasing an updated FM ist like releasing a DC this way, because sure the mission is the same, but done correctly, the new version should feel more "rounded".

 

Just my 2 cents. Back to work. :-/

[plasticman]

Thinking of people who will discover TDM in the upcoming years: the more polished the mission catalogue is, the better will be the overall reception of the project.

 

So updating is definately useful.

[demagogue]

I think it's definitely worth it, but like something that can happen under the radar a few years later. When I replay something, it's usually a few years later, and it's nice to see improvements.

 

One thing though, I think the update should NOT make it into a new experience, but it keep the spirit of the original, like features the author was already thinking about for the original but didn't get to, or gaps that were felt in the original and really called for the improvement to make it complete. If they wanted to really create a new experience, they should make a new FM.

[PranQster]

I voted for preferring new missions to updating old ones, even though I did updates to siegeshop. My original release of that mission was not up to par and was in need of fixing if it were to remain in the mission downloader.

[Melan]

I am usually against it. Actually, I am still ambivalent about the update on RttC. It is objectively better - better performance, better architecture, more varied gameplay, more places to explore - but a voice in the back of my head tells me all that effort should have gone into something new, while the original should have been left intact, warts and all. So, hard choices.

[Baal]

You'll have to be sure a change actually improves the mission.

I think cosmetic changes are no problem in that regard. Changing gameplay, on the other hand, could easily make it worse instead of better. ( Just think of George Lucas for the directors cut analogy. )

 

@Melan:

The RttC update was necessary. I can't even compare both versions because the original was unplayable for me. The technical problems with it were not just "warts".

[plasticman]

+1

The original RttC gave me a constant 15 FPS and despite several attempts I never got very far. The updated version was quite rewarding and is still one of my favourites.

 

In general I agree that updating means bugfixing, performance optimazations and a little more polish here and there. Changing the plot and turning it into a different experience can also be nice (like revisiting a place in a campaign, for example), but that's not updating.

[Hogwash]

I'm not much of a re-reader of books or a re-watcher of films or a re-player of missions. I have to wait a long time until I have forgot enough about the work before I revisit it so that there is still an element of the unexpected. For example, I hadn't played the original Thief games (TDP and TMA) for a few years until a few months ago when I played through them again in order. It was quite fun because although I remembered certain things like the order of missions, plots etc. I hadn't remembered every last secret and puzzle. I felt like I was discovering parts of the Thief world all over again. If you told me to play through The Dark Project again right now it would feel like a chore to slog through. Even if there was an update that changed the missions slightly.

 

I'd rather mission updates be just for things like performance optimisation and bug-fix improvements. If you start putting in additional objectives, more secrets, new areas or other such content then for me it starts getting 'messy'. Walkthroughs for the old version(s) might no longer work properly, you don't know what versions different people have played when they talk about it, review it, ask for help, and so on.