Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Sometimes I wish TDM were harder


AluminumHaste

Recommended Posts

You're on an island. Oh and by the way, you are committing a formal fallacy by insisting that "inspired by" is the same as "clone of". That you insist on not learning the new blackjacking mechanics because you're convinced they're going to be changed, because they're somehow "wrong", speaks volumes about your ego and hubris... and might even be verging on chutzpah. I don't want to you leave the community, everyone is and should be welcome here. What I do want you to do, which you are free to not do, is stop making false claims about what was presented (inspired by and not clone of), and realise that things are not the same, and the thing that is going to change will your be skill set, not blackjacking. You are not important enough to reconfigure blackjacking to the detriment of everyone else who has learned how to do it the TDM way. If that is unacceptable to you then I am sorry, but that is how it is, and how it will stay for the foreseeable future. You might also want to stop with the persecution complex and straw-manning you're showing by trying to paint AH as a developer who's picking on you.

 

In all sincerity, please do adjust to the new mechanics and stick around, as a long time Thief fan you no doubt have a ton of FM experience that can only enrich the community here if you choose to make your own mission. If it really bothers you so much, this may help. You can open the offending mission in the editor and change the heads until you reach your desired ratio of helmets:no helmets, and it only affects your local copy. Shouldn't take longer than 5 minutes per map.

Intel Sandy Bridge i7 2600K @ 3.4ghz stock clocks
8gb Kingston 1600mhz CL8 XMP RAM stock frequency
Sapphire Radeon HD7870 2GB FLeX GHz Edition @ stock @ 1920x1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're on an island.

I don't get it.

 

Oh and by the way, you are committing a formal fallacy by insisting that "inspired by" is the same as "clone of".

That would only be the case if I was pretending to have found some sort of factual error. All I have done is criticize an implication, which in all likelihood impacted on a whole lot of peoples' reason for trying TDM in the first place. And lack of fidelity to the source material, at a time when the target audience is at its most sore towards that sort of thing. These are affective concepts, not factual ones. Naturally, I thought that was obvious by now, but I guess you just gotta reach for what you can.

 

That you insist on not learning the new blackjacking mechanics because you're convinced they're going to be changed, because they're somehow "wrong", speaks volumes about your ego and hubris... and might even be verging on chutzpah.

Personal attacks (that will be reported) aside, am I not allowed to feel that a Thief clone not permitting Thief gameplay, and involving an unprecedented luck component, is wrong? That represents hubris on...my part, does it?

 

I bet EM agrees, though.

 

I don't want to you leave the community, everyone is and should be welcome here. What I do want you to do, which you are free to not do, is stop making false claims about what was presented (inspired by and not clone of), and realise that things are not the same, and the thing that is going to change will your be skill set, not blackjacking.You are not important enough to reconfigure blackjacking to the detriment of everyone else who has learned how to do it the TDM way. If that is unacceptable to you then I am sorry, but that is how it is, and how it will stay for the foreseeable future.

The thing about presentation and perception and expectation, is that they are inherently subjective. So trying to claim factual authority over them is about the least convincing thing you can do. I, at least, am content to see if enough people feel like I do, before expecting anything to change. And if you are as tolerant as you paint yourself, maybe you could get off my back for doing that, so those people can speak up without fear of getting mobbed by fanboys.

 

You might also want to stop with the persecution complex and straw-manning you're showing by trying to paint AH as a developer who's picking on you.

Cause it isn't like he admitted to trolling me right after I accused him of starting this thread with me in mind or anything. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

In allsincerity, please do adjust to the new mechanics and stick around, as a long time Thief fan you no doubt have a ton of FM experience that can only enrich the community here if you choose to make your own mission. If it really bothers you so much, this may help. You can open the offending mission in the editor and change the heads until you reach your desired ratio of helmets:no helmets, and it only affects your local copy. Shouldn't take longer than 5 minutes per map.

In other words, you still think this has to do with helmets. Clearly you haven't read a word I have written since. You just disqualified yourself from being listened to any further. Good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay give it up, it's NOT a clone of Thief and never has been. It was always inspired by the original Thief games. To clone something is to make an identical copy of, which anyone can see, is not the case with TDM. Your argument is spurious.

Continuing to claim that you have been led astray by the claims of the project and team is a bit disingenuous. No one has ever said this was a clone or copy or mirror or facsimile of the Thief series.

I always assumed I'd taste like boot leather.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I never played Thief (so I didn't have any previous expectations as to how TDM would play), but I think I have a couple of solid things to bring to the table, so that's why I'm replying to this discussion.

 

Think of TDM as a sequel (of sorts) rather than a clone. It has all the properties of a sequel: new engine, new dev team, slightly changed mechanics, but core ideas remain the same. The dev team wanted to provide a more realistic stealth experience in the spirit of the Thief games. From the moment I heard about TDM, this was absolutely clear to me, and it's part of the reason why I got here, precisely because of it's promised realism.

I mean, I like the way blackjacking works a lot with the arc being calculated and people only passing out if you hit them in the head, but not on the helmet. Sure, I suck ass at it and it makes me want to punch someone in the nuts from time to time, but I still think it enhances the experience, because I would just be piling up bodies left and right if it were easy, and I would end up being able to sprint through the levels because all the guards were having a slumber party in the basement. And I definitely think that it'd be less enjoyable if it were any easier.

What I'm trying to say is that I think blackjacking was changed for the better rather than the worse.

 

Anyhow, I still think this discussion is indicative of a problem, namely that IHR got something different from the description than what was intended. Rather than thinking IHR is just stupid for reading it like that, we could think about ways to fix the miscommunication from our end, in order to prevent this from happening again. You're going to attract a lot of Thief fans, so it'd be a good idea to give them an idea of the differences between TDM and Thief (which are numerous) before they dive in. Managing expectations is pretty important in ensuring the success for the mod because you don't want people to be disappointed.

A good idea would be to list differences between TDM and Thief somewhere, as well as to change the wording on the main page to reflect that there are significant changes over the Thief gameplay, because right now, it doesn't communicate that.

 

And I also think we could be a bit nicer to IHR:

"Thief is a big inspiration for us, but we do not want to be Thief. We changed blackjacking and AI senses/behaviour because we thought it'd make for a more realistic and better playing experience. So if you came from a Thief background, not all your skills may carry over, though there is a decent amount of overlap."

Just overall not being harsh about a miscommunication helps.

 

 

I'm spending way too much time at writing this post while I should be studying, so I'll just leave the loose ends hanging and reply if someone takes issue with it.

You can call me Phi, Numbers, Digits, Ratio, 16, 1618, or whatever really, as long as it's not Phil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it.

 

"You're on an island" is a quote from a certain developer who shall remain unnamed (who is not from this team or anything connected to this game, Lowenz would probably get it), that basically implies you are alone in holding your opinion. It's kind of like "you and what army?". Now, maybe you aren't alone, but then there's the whole "silent majority" thing which also hasn't been working in that developer's favour.

 

 

That would only be the case if I was pretending to have found some sort of factual error. All I have done is criticize an implication, which in all likelihood impacted on a whole lot of peoples' reason for trying TDM in the first place. And lack of fidelity to the source material, at a time when the target audience is at its most sore towards that sort of thing. These are affective concepts, not factual ones. Naturally, I thought that was obvious by now, but I guess you just gotta reach for what you can.

 

No, that's not correct at all. You clearly do not know what that is. You are making a series of correct deductions and assumptions based on an incorrect starting point. Kind of like when that multinational team was working on that space probe, and half the team were using metric, the other imperial. One side mistook the other side's numbers as being the other measurement set, and the probe was lost. Correct deduction from incorrect start point. You ARE committing that fallacy.

 

 

Personal attacks (that will be reported) aside, am I not allowed to feel that a Thief clone not permitting Thief gameplay, and involving an unprecedented luck component, is wrong? That represents hubris on...my part, does it?

 

Telling you that you aren't going to change your skillset because you think the things affected by said skillset are going to change, as if you represented some critical mass of opinion, based on stuff that YOU said, as if that wasn't somehow massively egotistical, if not verging on just plain going too far, is a personal attack now? I would have figured that was an accurate statement, based on available evidence! Where oh where have I been, that I missed THAT memo. Here's the problem with you. You cannot accept the possibility that you may not be correct. It is NOT a Thief-clone. You have been told this multiple times, and still persist in this delusion. Hence, the fallacy. If you stop basing your points on this erroneous assumption, you will stop being fundamentally incorrect.

 

 

I bet EM agrees, though.

 

What does this have to do with anything? That EM thinks all the old fans are wrong, so they can do whatever they like? See, there's a problem with that assertion. TDM is not calling itself the new Thief game. EM's offering is. TDM is only claiming to be inspired by Thief 1 and 2. Just more proof (as if we needed any) that you really don't get it, fundamentally do not understand the difference between "clone of" and "inspired by". Just stop.

 

 

The thing about presentation and perception and expectation, is that they are inherently subjective. So trying to claim factual authority over them is about the least convincing thing you can do. I, at least, am content to see if enough people feel like I do, before expecting anything to change. And if you are as tolerant as you paint yourself, maybe you could get off my back for doing that, so those people can speak up without fear of getting mobbed by fanboys.

 

It's not about me being on your back, and never has been. It's always been about you coming here, and complaining that something isn't how you expected it to be, and trying to imply that it's all a matter of perception, and that you have perceived that this is a clone of, instead of inspired by, Thief, and you aren't getting the clone you think was being offered. That's it. That's all it's ever been. We wouldn't be in disagreement if you didn't persist in this falsehood. Nobody is being mobbed by fanboys, and isn't that a personal attack? Sure is getting hypocritical in here.

 

 

Cause it isn't like he admitted to trolling me right after I accused him of starting this thread with me in mind or anything. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

Whether or not he admitted to trolling you, doesn't suddenly make him a developer. Is everyone who "trolls" you a developer? Am I suddenly a developer now (if I'm even trolling you, which by now I probably should be, as attempting to discuss with you rationally is a massive waste of time)? That'd be news to me and everyone else. The only person embarrassing themselves is you, and the only person who doesn't realise it is you. Sure is entertaining watching you flailing around, desperately clutching for anything to grab a hold of.

 

 

In other words, you still think this has to do with helmets. Clearly you haven't read a word I have written since. You just disqualified yourself from being listened to any further. Good day.

 

The majority of your arguments have boiled down to either "this isn't the clone I think I was promised" or "blackjacking is too hard (read different) because of helmets, and rather than accept that things are different, I'm going to claim this is done for elitists and insist that somehow my pride has been injured because I can't just pick this up and be a master at it straight away". If I've disqualified myself, you have never been qualified from the beginning. Have a nice day.

Intel Sandy Bridge i7 2600K @ 3.4ghz stock clocks
8gb Kingston 1600mhz CL8 XMP RAM stock frequency
Sapphire Radeon HD7870 2GB FLeX GHz Edition @ stock @ 1920x1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My one issue with the AI is that, at alert level 4, it doesn't really try to search for the player. Frequently I'm hidden in a pretty medium-sized shadow and can still feel safe, because the AI will just stand on its edge and turn around in place, sometimes doing one or two steps forward and back. Heaven forbids if there are two shadows and thr AI decides to search the other one - I could as well be in the neighboring city. Is this the matter of AI vision settings (I play on challenging), or any other difficulty settings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My one issue with the AI is that, at alert level 4, it doesn't really try to search for the player. Frequently I'm hidden in a pretty medium-sized shadow and can still feel safe, because the AI will just stand on its edge and turn around in place, sometimes doing one or two steps forward and back. Heaven forbids if there are two shadows and thr AI decides to search the other one - I could as well be in the neighboring city. Is this the matter of AI vision settings (I play on challenging), or any other difficulty settings?

Yeah, it would be nice if the guards would more actively search the shadows.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guards turn and look at spots, but if their vision isn't blocked by anything, they don't walk all the way over there. I think that's something we want to look at further, as it does mean you can escape a search pretty easily if you have a deep enough shadow.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a totally sporadic TDM player was never a old thief player and i have no problem black jacking the guards. :mellow:

Same here, never played old Thief games. Been smacking everyone I could with a blackjack in the beginning, but the more I play, the less I want to smack them. :mellow: I guess Thomas Porter series are making me let go of a blackjack because one of the objectives on highest difficulty requires you not to use it. :D

 

It said: "You are not a common burglar, you are a master thief."

My response was: "I'm not a common burglar, I'm a master burglar!"

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never really understand such discussions. If I'm new to a game, even if I know the games its mechanics are based on, I would never expect that I would be good in everything from the beginning. Some things must be different and challenging for me in the first place, or why else should I play such a game, if I already know a good one with similar mechanics/gameplay? (This is a rhetorical question ;) )

 

Personally I found a solution to the blackjack "problem" which works out pretty well for me: I just don't use it. :) (Or very rarely).

 

You don't have to take out the ai, and if you think you have to, you don't have to use the blackjack for that purpose, you have a sword, broadhead arrows, mines etc..., and if there is a no-kill-objective standing in your way under the highest difficulty level, you can choose a lower one.

 

And if all this seems unexceptable to you, you can always play Thief instead. ;)

FM's: Builder Roads, Old Habits, Old Habits Rebuild

Mapping and Scripting: Apples and Peaches

Sculptris Models and Tutorials: Obsttortes Models

My wiki articles: Obstipedia

Texture Blending in DR: DR ASE Blend Exporter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i miss a lot of times with the blackjack, i just wait till they come around again and take another shot.

Hm, that screams for an implementation of an AI reaction on the air draft from the blackjack. :) Or the sound when it swooshes through the air. Like "Huh! What was that!" "Oh well... just the wind i guess..."

Edited by chk772
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guards turn and look at spots, but if their vision isn't blocked by anything, they don't walk all the way over there. I think that's something we want to look at further, as it does mean you can escape a search pretty easily if you have a deep enough shadow.

 

They should, at least, try to enter deeper into the shadow they are currently in and traverse its borders. This could be done quite easily - just set the player's supposed position as some random place inside the same shadowed area. Corners and niches could be weighted more, as these are the most obvious hideouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

@AluminumHaste:

 

"Okay give it up, it's NOT a clone of Thief and never has been. It was always inspired by the original Thief games. To clone something is to make an identical copy of, which anyone can see, is not the case with TDM. Your argument is spurious".

You trying to tell me you've never heard of a "clone" of a famous game or series? A CoD-clone. An Assassin's Creed clone. A GTA clone. Please. These have never once referred to a game that was an identical copy of the template game.

You should give up yourself, for your persistence in trying to eel your way out of a reasonable inference through the use of technicalities and semantic loopholes, while pretending haughtily that I must be crazy for having made such, is getting old. You are being contrarian instead of acknowledging my point. You are free to disagree with it, subjective at its core as it is, but not even acknowleding how easy it is to arrive at my interpretation of the facts robs you of all credibility. You are trying to tell me an entire dev team spent years on this project, and never once did it occur to anyone that the playerbase might be coming into this expecting a Thief-clone, just because it says "inspired by" on the tin? Something explained by its lack of lore alone, BTW, without anyone having reason to think the mechanics would be different to such a degree as well.

Hell, I'm hard pressed to imagine the team not actively counting on the inference I've been making, let alone never even considering it. Talk about spurious arguments.

 

 

@161803398874989:

 

"Think of TDM as a sequel (of sorts) rather than a clone. It has all the properties of a sequel: new engine, new dev team, slightly changed mechanics, but core ideas remain the same. The dev team wanted to provide a more realistic stealth experience in the spirit of the Thief games. From the moment I heard about TDM, this was absolutely clear to me, and it's part of the reason why I got here, precisely because of it's promised realism".

This is the best counter I've heard so far. It still has a couple of problems, though.

 

1) Since TDM is fanwork rather than official, its ability to use the sequel excuse is questionable at best. By its nature, the canon-fanon divide is always more lenient on the canon side of things. TDM is in practice being used as the unofficial Thief 4 in all forums I read, and for good reason, but that title comes with expectations, not just advantages, no matter how many vague semantic disclaimers are included. Relying on the power of a brand commits regardless of supposed intent, as EM can well attest by now.

 

2) More importantly, though, this isn't a sequel, or even strictly a clone. Don't get me wrong, it could be a clone, but that is out of Broken Glass' hands. They have cloned the mechanics only. Made a toolset. A toolset. Something users are supposed to make their own stuff from, in a clear continuation of Thief DromEd. A toolset needs flexibility, and can be evaluated on whether it has that. It needs to accomodate users so that they can create missions for other users to play. TDM cannot be a sequel to a prequel that never existed. It is a sequel only to Thief, and the modding efforts spawned by those games. So there really is no excuse for gameplay and mechanics found in those games or its FM's not to be at least possible in this new, refined toolset. Added difficulty options and greater realism are clearly stuff that fans want, so of course accomodations for such are acceptable. But for a toolset used by Thief fans not to permit Thief gameplay is completely off-keel in the first place. It makes no sense, except as a product made exclusively for a hardcore crowd for whom Thief gameplay is long obsolete. Namedropping and aping Thief to "sell" such a product is always going to be questionable, no matter the excuses and fine print being thrown around. Using the label as a springboard commits, and there is no avoiding that.

 

"Anyhow, I still think this discussion is indicative of a problem, namely that IHR got something different from the description than what was intended. Rather than thinking IHR is just stupid for reading it like that, we could think about ways to fix the miscommunication from our end, in order to prevent this from happening again. You're going to attract a lot of Thief fans, so it'd be a good idea to give them an idea of the differences between TDM and Thief (which are numerous) before they dive in. Managing expectations is pretty important in ensuring the success for the mod because you don't want people to be disappointed".

Well, I certainly support this, considering what I now know. But it feels like nothing more than a band-aid. An excuse to save what must have started as a hardcore project but grew so big its creators grew ambitious, and wanted to appeal to the entire Thief audience, forgetting the foundation, unspoken or not, they had started from.

I still hope against hope that once more people from the outside start noticing the glaring changes in difficulty and raise their voices, the veil will fall from Broken Glass' eyes, and they will see that a project like this ought to have Thief compatibility as an effing core feature, not to mention have it at all.

 

And since the FAQ still says this...

 

"Q: Is this the same thing as Thief?

 

A: The gameplay is very similar, yes. However, The Dark Mod takes place in a different setting. We make no references to any Thief trademarks or Eidos’ intellectual property–there is no Garrett, no Keepers, no Mechanists, etc. However, since both Thief and The Dark Mod are based on a steampunk version of our own history, there are plenty of similarities".

 

...in spite of several devs reading this thread, I can only suspect that the thought of openly admitting "we have changed gameplay to be more hardcore and realistic than Thief" is something they fear. And rightly so, for it smacks of "fanpack for veterans" rather than an accessible game. Better to deny, deny, deny.

 

 

@Xarg:

 

Alright, since you seem to at least be trying to counter my points, I guess I won't ignore you after all.

 

""You're on an island" is a quote from a certain developer who shall remain unnamed (who is not from this team or anything connected to this game, Lowenz would probably get it), that basically implies you are alone in holding your opinion. It's kind of like "you and what army?". Now, maybe you aren't alone, but then there's the whole "silent majority" thing which also hasn't been working in that developer's favour".

Ah. Good thing I don't believe in ad populum, then. Especially not on the home turf of the people I am being critical of, seeing as in all likelihood, the mentality of this turf is what permitted a toolset like this to exist without even the possibility of Thief-level difficulty in the first place.

Also, you sound like you are critical of the dev in question, yet here you are, using his argument against me.

 

"No, that's not correct at all. You clearly do not know what that is. You are making a series of correct deductions and assumptions based on an incorrect starting point. Kind of like when that multinational team was working on that space probe, and half the team were using metric, the other imperial. One side mistook the other side's numbers as being the other measurement set, and the probe was lost. Correct deduction from incorrect start point. You ARE committing that fallacy."

Dude, you really shouldn't go out on a limb that rickety. First off, a "formal fallacy" is the same damn thing as a logical fallacy. If you are using it to refer to some sub-type thereof, you need to explain it too. And since you admit my logic is reasonable, which is the exact opposite of a logical fallacy, you really are just blowing smoke here. The only way I can be wrong here, is if I had said "TDM literally promises to identically clone Thief mechanics" when that isn't what it promises and not what I have claimed. THEN you could attack my reasoning, because I'd be basing myself on factual events that never happened.

 

One last time: I am criticizing an implication not delivered upon, and the creative intent that managed to produce a product like this without it containing one of the most obvious core pillars such a product can have!!! This is an emotional response to a subjective interpretation of the facts, not a flawed line of reasoning. Except humans aren't so different that it is an unreasonable interpretation unique to me. And the fact that no disclaimer or clarification has come forth in the months since, further suggests the devs are painfully aware of this interpretation, know they benefit from it, and dread letting that benefit go. Instead of y'know, earning it by letting TDM players play something as radical as Thief with it.

 

"Telling you that you aren't going to change your skillset because you think the things affected by said skillset are going to change, as if you represented some critical mass of opinion, based on stuff that YOU said, as if that wasn't somehow massively egotistical, if not verging on just plain going too far, is a personal attack now?"

Ego and hubris are personal attacks.

 

You know how else I know I'm right? Because instead of telling me why I'm wrong to expect TDM to permit Thief gameplay, why that is somehow not the first thing a toolset like this should provide its users, you are instead focusing all your efforts on excuses for why it isn't there. Leaning again and again on the literal wording of what I quoted above, pretending the most obvious thing about TDM isn't actually the case because it doesn't explicitly say so anywhere. It's pure contrarianism, and unless you have something better to add in your reply, I'll just have to assume I was right about you the first time.

 

"You cannot accept the possibility that you may not be correct. It is NOT a Thief-clone. You have been told this multiple times, and still persist in this delusion".

No, you are the one that is incorrect. It isn't a Thief-clone. It markets itself as such. It looks like it is. it is treated as such. It pretends to be, for all practical intents and purposes. It lacks only specific words to that effect. But you are right, it very much isn't. Only that technicality doesn't matter when it carries all the benefits of being one in the eyes of users. THAT is the point. THAT is why it is worthy of criticism. And no amount of throwing disingenious fine print at me is going to change that.

Coming into this, I thought that was simply a mistake, a beta bug to be squashed. But now that I have learned the truth, I am instead criticizing it. But instead of accepting that criticism or trying to counter it on its own merits, the fanboy crowd have gathered to do what defines them, namely rely on semantics and diversions, tryiing in vain to tear down the fundamental point by burying it in garbage, because that is really all they can do.

 

"What does this have to do with anything?"

Well, if I have to spell it out to you, the EM comments are a not-so-subtle accusation of hypocrisy, since I am pretty sure Broken Glass are as critical of EM using the Thief brand to sell an inferior knock-off as the rest of us. All the while neglecting the fact that they have deviated quite substantially themselves, without having the excuse of some money-grubbing publisher breathing down their necks. Fanworks are supposed to be fuelled on purism for the source material that greedy suits can't appreciate. For all my appreciation of TDM, I feel Broken Glass falls far from this ideal.

 

Hell, I can just imagine Stephane Roy giving an interview justifying NuThief lack of difficulty or accomodation of aggressive playstyles: "Have you seen what the fans want? Have you tried The Dark Mod? That thing is so hard it makes even the original Thief games seem easy by comparison. Does anyone expect us to make money catering to that crowd?". The worst part being, I am dead sure Thief fans don't generally yearn for TDM level difficulty. Only the hardcore crowd that made it does.

 

"TDM is only claiming to be inspired by Thief 1 and 2. Just more proof (as if we needed any) that you really don't get it, fundamentally do not understand the difference between "clone of" and "inspired by"

You mean proof that you don't understand the difference. "Inspired by" and "clone of" are degrees on a communicative line, one denoting extreme similarity, the other only perihperal similarity. Dishonored is inspired by Thief. Stealth in Dark Messiah is inspired by Thief. TDM is a clone of Thief in all the places it can be, namely the mechanics and general setting. Since there is no iron-clad definition to rely on for this difference, I am as powerless as you to claim factual correctness. But I can submit with some certanity that the degree to which TDM is similar to Thief, is far closer to "clone of" than "inspired by". TDM is closer than even NuThief -the reboot-, as far as mechanics go, and still you try to pretend that "no no, its just inspired by Thief, definitely not a clone, that would be ridicilous".

 

"We wouldn't be in disagreement if you didn't persist in this falsehood. Nobody is being mobbed by fanboys, and isn't that a personal attack? Sure is getting hypocritical in here".

A falsehood requires a factual right or wrong, and those don't apply to interpretations. Especially not reasonable ones. You would be wise to not try to dispute that so hard, since yours is the most far-feched one by a longshot.

 

You act like a fanboy, yes. In my experience they are defined by trying to tear down legitimate criticism not by countering the idea being presented, but by using every sophistic debate trick in the book to bury the complaint in misdirection and semantics, all the while making an example out of the complainer, insuring others will think twice before doing the same. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if that sort of social mechanic has contributed to the fact that this obvious problem hasn't been adressed yet even after all these years. I can't have been the first person to come up with the radical idea that a Thief clone toolset made by Thief FM makers, for Thief FM makers, should actually replicate Thief gameplay.

I know I can eat fanboys like you for breakfast if I can just be bothered to waste my time, but most can't, so they'll stay silent out of fear. Extremely common in any fandom I'm familiar with.

 

Yeah it kinda is. I have my own standard there, where I won't sling legitimate abuse, but I will follow your logic, a critical comment regarding the opposition, if they qualify factually for it. Since it is your logic, maybe you shouldn't accuse me of hypocrisy for using it myself. It might look hypocritical. I figured, since people have been slinging all sorts of personal attacks at me in this thread, it was fair game for me too.

 

"Whether or not he admitted to trolling you, doesn't suddenly make him a developer. Is everyone who "trolls" you a developer?"

Nice piece of fanboy misdirection. This has nothing to do with Aluminum being a Contributor. It has to do with you defending him as a legitimate replier to my criticism after he admitted to trolling me.

 

^^Watch and learn how fanboyism is practiced, people! At all costs, try to deflect attention away from the core criticism being made against your object of fandom, even if it means deliberate misrepresentation. The more off-point nonsense you can pile on the discussion, the less clear and transparent it becomes for readers. The less likely it is that more people become aware of and start to independently consider the flaws of the object.

You should hold a course, Xarg.

 

EDIT:

Oh, and one more thing. I found this video of Warren Spector and Doug Church on TTLG a while back, and beyond being an interesting watch for any Thief fan, it has an early segment where Doug elaborates at length about how Thief AI and level design were all about stretching out player tension, because being completely safe and hidden or assaulted by guards to the point of failure were both not very interesting game states. So they did everything to stretch that middle ground between "not safe but not screwed either" to encompass as much of gameplay as possible. He even says at one point they could have made the AI harder, but chose not to because an AI that gives you a chance to screw up without immediately coming to cut you up is more interesting than one that does. Broken Glass has failed in that regard with TDM's much harder and more realistic AI. Realism and challenge have trumped enjoyment, which is a typical hardcore veteran mentality to have.

 

So yeah, I'm pretty pleased to have the authority of Doug Church backing my stance on this. Doesn't get much better than that.

Edited by IHaveReturned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@IHaveReturned : all the time you spend with long winded replies you could've gotten quite a bit of practice getting better with TDM style blackjacking and figure the differences.

 

And about TDM and the sequel / clone argument...I will bet that the mechanics to NuThief will require a bit different of blackjack technique. Will we scream that NuThief isn't a true sequel / reboot / etc. even though legally it carries the Thief name? If anyone disagrees, then it's only more fuel that says that it is not a sequel / clone. Man, even TDS had a slightly different blackjacking mechanic then TDP/TMA.

Edited by Deadlove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't mind him, he's convinced he's got some kind of noose around the TDM team's necks when for all intents and purposes, it's really tangled around his feet, and he keeps tugging on it, unable to understand why he keeps falling over. Nice to see that he came back, and 3 months later he's still mad.

  • Like 1

Intel Sandy Bridge i7 2600K @ 3.4ghz stock clocks
8gb Kingston 1600mhz CL8 XMP RAM stock frequency
Sapphire Radeon HD7870 2GB FLeX GHz Edition @ stock @ 1920x1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, I was more than ready to let the issue rest until Aluminum started this obvious counterthread. Everything else has been attempts to clarify my position against endless misunderstandings and misrepresentations, some probably deliberate. I am more than happy to let the issue rest unless the opposition keeps pretending not to understand what I have been saying

 

So your definition of "happy to let the issue rest" is to come back three months later and post a wall of text about it?

 

Give it some time to let the glitz and glamour wear off. I remember at least a few of those articles admitting that the author was still in the process of downloading or barely done with the training mission.

 

If few or none of the reviews mention anything, I'll start considering that the problem is with me. Not holding my breath.

 

And how many reviews have you found that share your concern?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't mind him, he's convinced he's got some kind of noose around the TDM team's necks when for all intents and purposes, it's really tangled around his feet, and he keeps tugging on it, unable to understand why he keeps falling over. Nice to see that he came back, and 3 months later he's still mad.

These kinds of statements have no place in any discussion. You're just insulting IHR, not contributing anything of value, except maybe a cheap laugh for the audience. If you don't want to debate with him, then shut up and move on. Being a dickweed helps nobody.

You can call me Phi, Numbers, Digits, Ratio, 16, 1618, or whatever really, as long as it's not Phil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...