Thief vs AAA Gaming

[skullcavity]

Video Games lost a huge degree of gameplay depth over the years in favor of a more cinematic, yet simplified gameplay.

Thief: The Dark Project is a prime example of this, in comparison to Thief 2014.

https://youtu.be/jPqwDGXxLhU

Any thoughts?

 

[Jerast]

Mostly agree. There are a few exceptions but yeah mostly I believe it to be the case.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I'm actually afraid to try new games because of this phenomenon. At least the most popular and noticeable ones.
I played and loved Deus Ex, but have no desire to play the rest of the series based on what I've heard.
I don't want Assassin's Creed self-gripping self-climbing gameplay, neither do I want Batman's one-button amazing moves battles.
I do not enjoy playing characters with arthritis who can't turn a simple corner without a wide berth.
And all the rest that I missed mentioning.
If it's not Art-graphics it's gritty or realistic graphics.
Where did fun, innovate and actual gameplay go?

Indie's.
That's where it began and where it has ended up again.
Let's hope it goes in waves/phases.

Having said all that though, I realize that there are fun, interesting and exciting games out there but all too often I keep coming back to games made between '95 and '05.
Could be because that's when I started gaming, or that it is the period right between when game companies began to get big and when steam first took off.

 

[gorfias]

neither do I want Batman's one-button amazing moves battles.

Blasphemy!

Seriously: Arkham City was one of the best video games I have ever played.

Captain America kind of ripped it off and was pretty fun as well.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I agree. First these kids ruined my lawn, and now they're ruining my hobby.

Damn kids! Get away off my lawn and away from my hobbies!

 

[The Madman]

I've seen this video before and I really like it, agreeing with most of the points made throughout. But I do think the creator also makes the mistake of comparing Thief and Thief's sensibilities to games where they don't really apply. As an example the comparison to Dishonored on the surface makes sense given how heavily influenced by Thief that game was, but there's also the key difference in that Dishonored you're playing a supernatural assassin, you're supposed to feel like a badass and much of the challenge stems from what sort of badass you are as opposed to Thief where you're playing a plain ol' fashioned guy who likes stealing stuff and nothing supernatural or deadly.

It's an opposing goal of gameplay that makes his whole 'power fantasy' argument fall a bit flat. Same with his comparisons to other games like Batman. Thief logic, great as it is, doesn't really apply.

With that said however I do agree on many of his points and really do like the video.

 

[Areloch]

It was an interesting video, but he lost me when he started complaining about some games feeling too 'gamey' by curbing to good pacing or rewarding exploration deliberately.

Thief4 may be a bad Thief game, and a poor game in general and so comparing to earlier Thief games makes sense, but using it as a springboard to complain about design choices in other games of completely different types waxes as "Not all games are designed how I like it, bluh bluh".

Sure, if you're making a game that's designed around getting the player heavily immersed in the world, then that's awesome. But if that's not the point or style of the game, then why would you do it that way?

Everything he complains about can be implemented totally properly without weakening the gameplay experience, and has been in different games. It's a conflation of 'some games do a poor job of ____, and so all AAA games must have failed in this regard', which is impressively weak reasoning.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

It's funny. I guess I came to games a year or two too late. There are a ton of games I played out of order and it really changes your view on them. I don't like thief. I have played it, but it wasn't my first stealth game. Going back to the original after you play the knock offs means the original is never as good as it sounds.

There is a lot in this video and I am not sure what to talk about. I am going to pick out just one bit for now. AAA games are blending together too much. Like when thief came out it's big deal was that it was different. When thief came out again it wasn't different anymore. It played a lot all the other stealth action games around at that time.

In the video there is a section talking about how game really big on selling empowerment. It's true, nearly every game out is about making you feel some form of badass. You might be a badass cyborg or maybe a badass batman, but that is more paint on the same toy then a new figure. Playing the badass fine on it's own, but it seems like every game is peddling this same feeling and things get well samey. The AAA market is kind of brittle as we have a lot of games all smooching into each other trying to be the same game with some slight differences.

What makes a lot of old games really good and really good is that they put effort into being different. Now it seems like a lot of games are trying to be the same.

 

[pookie101]

they cost so much to make these days especially with marketing that the only way to recoup money is to make them appeal to as many people as possible and once you do that you loose a lot. someone once said if you try to be everything to everyone you will end up being nothing to anyone.. and its true up to an extent.

the AAA games are the equivalent of the big summer action blockbusters, mindless fun to appeal to the masses and if you find something deeper with them you are doing well

 

[MysticSlayer]

What makes a lot of old games really good and really good is that they put effort into being different. Now it seems like a lot of games are trying to be the same.

To be fair, it is a lot easier to do something entirely unique when it has never been done before. Once games like Thief introduce a concept, it no longer becomes a matter of creating something new in that regard. It becomes a matter of improvement and making the experience as enjoyable as possible.

And even then, it isn't like older games didn't have a serious issue with copycats. The NES had a ton of platformers that were no doubt trying to cash in on the success of Mario. Plenty of FPS games were styled after DOOM, and, really fitting to this thread, Thief was unique and fresh for its time largely because it broke from the standard DOOM-inspired FPS. Plenty of JRPGs of the time were also clearly taking inspiration from Final Fantasy, even down to having an almost identical story.

It isn't like classic games lacked a serious issue with copycats. What they do have over AAA games of today is adequate time for those cheap knockoffs to fade into obscurity, allowing only the more original and better games to shine through.

Furthermore, today we still get plenty of games challenging the standards. Games like STALKER, Amnesia, and Dark Souls all challenge senses of empowerment. Portal differentiates itself from most FPS games by being based on puzzles rather than combat. And plenty of games are looking at what was lost in the past (e.g. turn-based combat) and trying to make it appealing to a modern audience while also giving it a unique twist.

So I would hardly say that today is lacking games trying to differentiate themselves from others. The major difference, again, is that time has allowed all the bad knockoff games from the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s to fade away, which hasn't happened for games of today yet.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

What makes a lot of old games really good and really good is that they put effort into being different. Now it seems like a lot of games are trying to be the same.

To be fair, it is a lot easier to do something entirely unique when it has never been done before. Once games like Thief introduce a concept, it no longer becomes a matter of creating something new in that regard. It becomes a matter of improvement and making the experience as enjoyable as possible.

And even then, it isn't like older games didn't have a serious issue with copycats. The NES had a ton of platformers that were no doubt trying to cash in on the success of Mario. Plenty of FPS games were styled after DOOM, and, really fitting to this thread, Thief was unique and fresh for its time largely because it broke from the standard DOOM-inspired FPS. Plenty of JRPGs of the time were also clearly taking inspiration from Final Fantasy, even down to having an almost identical story.

It isn't like classic games lacked a serious issue with copycats. What they do have over AAA games of today is adequate time for those cheap knockoffs to fade into obscurity, allowing only the more original and better games to shine through.

Furthermore, today we still get plenty of games challenging the standards. Games like STALKER, Amnesia, and Dark Souls all challenge senses of empowerment. Portal differentiates itself from most FPS games by being based on puzzles rather than combat. And plenty of games are looking at what was lost in the past (e.g. turn-based combat) and trying to make it appealing to a modern audience while also giving it a unique twist.

So I would hardly say that today is lacking games trying to differentiate themselves from others. The major difference, again, is that time has allowed all the bad knockoff games from the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s to fade away, which hasn't happened for games of today yet.

We aren't out of new stuff. I mean almost every game that comes out has one unique feature. It is simply that we aren't building games on the new ideas. Watch dogs was a horribly generic ubsoft game. (It's nuts, but when you think about it ubsoft only makes one game now.) But it did have a unique element in the hacking system. The problem is that the game didn't grow organically from the this hacking element, they went and added guns stealth and a ton of common features that didn't connect rather then expanding on the unique element of hacking.

 

[MysticSlayer]

It is simply that we aren't building games on the new ideas.

I'm not denying that. I'm saying that it isn't some unique issue that we face today. We've had this issue from the beginning and will continue to have the issue. People just tend to forget all the generic games of the past. And in the future, they'll forget all the generic games of today and then look back and wonder why games can't be as unique, experimental, and exciting as Portal and Dark Souls.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

It is simply that we aren't building games on the new ideas.

I'm not denying that. I'm saying that it isn't some unique issue that we face today. We've had this issue from the beginning and will continue to have the issue. People just tend to forget all the generic games of the past. And in the future, they'll forget all the generic games of today and then look back and wonder why games can't be as unique, experimental, and exciting as Portal and Dark Souls.

I would say it's new, Thief was a AAA game when it came-out, but they didn't try to cram in things that didn't really fit the theme. If it came out today, they would.. and they did. The thief reboot could have gone worse, but it did fall into the trap of adding in the standard features rather then building off it's own features. That is kind of the point I am making. AAA games now they go come up with a new idea (I think we have more of these new ideas now then then actually but rather then building off that new idea they just smash in all the standard features we see in games.

 

[MysticSlayer]

It is simply that we aren't building games on the new ideas.

I'm not denying that. I'm saying that it isn't some unique issue that we face today. We've had this issue from the beginning and will continue to have the issue. People just tend to forget all the generic games of the past. And in the future, they'll forget all the generic games of today and then look back and wonder why games can't be as unique, experimental, and exciting as Portal and Dark Souls.

I would say it's new, Thief was a AAA game when it came-out, but they didn't try to cram in things that didn't really fit the theme. If it came out today, they would.. and they did. The thief reboot could have gone worse, but it did fall into the trap of adding in the standard features rather then building off it's own features. That is kind of the point I am making. AAA games now they go come up with a new idea (I think we have more of these new ideas now then then actually but rather then building off that new idea they just smash in all the standard features we see in games.

But it was also just game in a sea of first-person games trying to chase DOOM. We remember Thief because it set itself apart. We don't remember Random FPS #309.

And I could just as easily point to Portal 2, Dark Souls, The Witcher, or Mirror's Edge and say we are living in the most unique and innovative time in gaming. I'm not going to go that far, but the bottom line is that big-name games today can still pull out unique concepts just like Thief did the late 90s. Sure, we have games like Thief (reboot) and Watchdogs, but in 20 years we'll forget about those and then look back on today with the same nostalgia we now look on the 90s with and ask why no games like Mirror's Edge are being made anymore and act like the problems that caused Watchdogs never existed today.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Video Games lost a huge degree of gameplay depth over the years in favor of a more cinematic, yet simplified gameplay.

We could also look at another game series that both predates and precedes Thief: Metal Gear Solid. Metal Gear Solid has arguably not lost gameplay depth over the years, but rather has constantly increased its' depth by adding more options for the players, more easter eggs etc. The first Metal Gear Solid is still a decent sneaking game (even though the shooting mechanics have aged badly), but The Phantom Pain is so much more complex in just about every way, from the enemy AI to the tools the players are given to the interaction between mechanics.

Or how about Grand Theft Auto? That game series has also been getting more and more gameplay depth ever since its' first 2D inceptions in the 90's. Grand Theft Auto V stands as arguably one of the most ambitious open world games of all times and the number of gameplay activities available is simply staggering.

Maybe we should look at the RPG genre? Baldur's Gate and Fallout were the epitome of great RPGs in the late 90's but both were slaves to their rules sets (AD&D and a GURPS rip-off respectively). Today we get games like Dragon Age: Origins and Divinity: Original Sin that both provide much the same experience but with systems far better suited for gaming on a PC or a console instead of being slaves to their system roots.

The RTS genre? Command & Conquer and Total Annihilation were the gold standard for RTS in the late-90's but looking at them today they are absolutely pitiful compared to modern RTS offerings like Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, Wargame, Supreme Commander etc.

I could go on like this, but my point is that Thief and Looking Glass Studio were the exception to the rule. LGS was way ahead of its' time, but produced niche-games that still aren't in all that much demand even today. Thief is so special because it was an uncompromising take on a genre that isn't economically viable for triple-A titles. But even the stealth genre has moved on, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory is a superior stealth game to Thief in many ways.

It is easy to get nostalgic about the games we used to play, especially those first gems that defined what kind of gamers we would grow up to be (Thief, Baldur's Gate, Fallout and Outcast for me), but the truth is that gameplay depth today is much better then it ever has been for most genres. That the occasional genre gets left behind (stealth, squad based turn based strategy) is due to the niche-appeal of that genre, not an indictment against games in general.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

It is simply that we aren't building games on the new ideas.

I'm not denying that. I'm saying that it isn't some unique issue that we face today. We've had this issue from the beginning and will continue to have the issue. People just tend to forget all the generic games of the past. And in the future, they'll forget all the generic games of today and then look back and wonder why games can't be as unique, experimental, and exciting as Portal and Dark Souls.

I would say it's new, Thief was a AAA game when it came-out, but they didn't try to cram in things that didn't really fit the theme. If it came out today, they would.. and they did. The thief reboot could have gone worse, but it did fall into the trap of adding in the standard features rather then building off it's own features. That is kind of the point I am making. AAA games now they go come up with a new idea (I think we have more of these new ideas now then then actually but rather then building off that new idea they just smash in all the standard features we see in games.

But it was also just game in a sea of first-person games trying to chase DOOM. We remember Thief because it set itself apart. We don't remember Random FPS #309.

And I could just as easily point to Portal 2, Dark Souls, The Witcher, or Mirror's Edge and say we are living in the most unique and innovative time in gaming. I'm not going to go that far, but the bottom line is that big-name games today can still pull out unique concepts just like Thief did the late 90s. Sure, we have games like Thief (reboot) and Watchdogs, but in 20 years we'll forget about those and then look back on today with the same nostalgia we now look on the 90s with and ask why no games like Mirror's Edge are being made anymore and act like the problems that caused Watchdogs never existed today.

We can still pull off unique ideas. It is just harder and some of the examples show that. Portal 2 took portal 1 and pushed in new standard features like Co-Op and big showy set-pieces. Mirror's edge was a neat idea, a first person chase game. The new game opens the trailer with a punch to the face. They are two games that are being made more generic as they go along.

It's a paradox. We are getting more unique ideas, but they are more often getting saddled with standard features. Some games are so saddled that you can't tell what the game is.

 

[MysticSlayer]

We can still pull off unique ideas. It is just harder and some of the examples show that. Portal 2 took portal 1 and pushed in new standard features like Co-Op and big showy set-pieces.

Personally, when I think of same-y, I would think of all games playing so similar as to make me feel like I'm just doing what I did in another game. Adding a Co-Op or bigger set pieces doesn't really come across as homogenization, just expansion on a game that was, ultimately, little more than a demo of a concept.

But if adding Co-Op and set pieces is the extent of our "being the same" nature today, I would say we've improved vastly in that regard.

Mirror's edge was a neat idea, a first person chase game. The new game opens the trailer with a punch to the face. They are two games that are being made more generic as they go along.

Except the first game also had combat sections, some of which seemed designed around forcing the player into combat. Which, actually, was also an issue with the first Thief - certain sections that I remember were designed to make it impossible to avoid combat. Both games almost seemed to suffer from a fear that their unique ideas couldn't carry the whole game, so again, I'm not really sure things have gotten that much worse.

 

[ap0cass1n]

Someone in the comments of the video said that the problem with trying to remove quest markers in such a huge map (eg Skyrim) is that the player would get lost very easily. I think one way to fix this is to place signs along the road like in Morrowind, but as a result there would be a LOT more roads in Skyrim. That and quest objectives would need to be designed/placed more specifically and not too far away from any landmarks.

Or, in the case of bigger quests (like when you have to go to the Throat of the World), maybe one of the guards outside would have said "So, I hear you're going to that huge mountain over there *points at it*. Well, good luck." It might not make sense for that guard to suddenly know you're going there if you just immediately leave after Ulfric tells you to go there ("Word sure travels fast in Skyrim..."), but solving that issue is another thing.

I hear that the Witcher just gives you directions on where to go without quest markers, but unfortunately I have only played an hour of the first one. (I have very bad specs.)

Relating to stealth games, I'd make it so that the difficulty setting only affected the difficulty of getting spotted. Combat would always be quick and brutal, no matter the setting.

Where did fun, innovate and actual gameplay go?

Indie's.
That's where it began and where it has ended up again.
Let's hope it goes in waves/phases.

It's true that a lot of indie games are innovative and push forward, but I think that placing so much faith in indies is kind of naive; look at all the bland retraux metroidvania nes-style platformers you can find on kickstarter. I mean, yeah, some of the best, most progressive games I've played have been indies, but I don't think they're the only place you can find innovation. Also, "that's where it began", I have to disagree with that too because the era Dom Giuca talks about didn't have indies (or at least, not many) and yet many big companies were innovating.

 

[Redryhno]

Where did fun, innovate and actual gameplay go?

Indie's.
That's where it began and where it has ended up again.
Let's hope it goes in waves/phases.

It's true that a lot of indie games are innovative and push forward, but I think that placing so much faith in indies is kind of naive; look at all the bland retraux metroidvania nes-style platformers you can find on kickstarter. I mean, yeah, some of the best, most progressive games I've played have been indies, but I don't think they're the only place you can find innovation. Also, "that's where it began", I have to disagree with that too because the era Dom Giuca talks about didn't have indies (or at least, not many) and yet many big companies were innovating.

Really gonna have to agree with this. Indies are far from the saviors of gaming people so desperately want them to be(to the point some have deluded themselves into thinking that anything not EA or Ubisoft is somehow indie). Sure, we get an Undertale every once in a while, but if you look at any release schedule, you realize how fucking insignificant a single good indie is in the grand scheme of things. It comes at like a 1 to 100 exchange rate in regards to good indies to trash indies.

I know the Escapist has a hard-on for AAA to the point that if it has and E in the company name people largely turn their noses up at it after pissing, but c'mon, it's not like people remember a huge amount of indies any given year. And half of the ones remembered are actually backed by AAA in some way. Both have largely the same problems, only difference honestly is that you can be guaranteed a largely polished experience with AAA because they've rubbed their worry stone so much it might as well be crystal.

Edit:
And this is ignoring that there's a startlingly large amount of indies that are just flash games from fifteen years ago with more levels.