Decline The new Thiaf game is MASSIVE decline - Eidos Forum Refugee Camp

[mindx2]

Virtually every major triple-A game comes with a "review guide" these days. They tend to ostensibly be things like hints and tips on difficult parts of the game, explanations of the mechanics, sometimes save files to let reviewers skip through the game.

But yes, they can also include lists of "forbidden" topics. This is usually covered under the NDA already - you're not allowed to publish the review if it mentions those things until that NDA has expired, effectively allowing publishers to exercise some control over initial information about the game and, thus, presumably, improve sales. It's pretty "standard" practice and it's another reason I tend not to touch reviews from any major site anymore (just see EA categorically asking the press to not talk about glitches and bugs in reviews of Battlefield 4 for a full month after its release).

REALLY?!



That just seems totally unethical and unbelievable that any so-called journalist would accept that, let alone follow those dictates. That would be like the US press not covering Obama's mistakes while he's been in office because he asked them.... oh, yeah, never mind...

 

[sea]

For the record, I never personally saw any "review guides" during my time covering games, but I assume that's because GB is a small enough site that nobody really cares (though we did get blacklisted by some publishers due to negative reviews). Ultimately what I'm saying is hearsay, though based off of what other reputable journalists have said on the topic before (like Jeff Gerstmann), so I tend to believe it.

 

[80Maxwell08]

Virtually every major triple-A game comes with a "review guide" these days. They tend to ostensibly be things like hints and tips on difficult parts of the game, explanations of the mechanics, sometimes save files to let reviewers skip through the game.

But yes, they can also include lists of "forbidden" topics. This is usually covered under the NDA already - you're not allowed to publish the review if it mentions those things until that NDA has expired, effectively allowing publishers to exercise some control over initial information about the game and, thus, presumably, improve sales. It's pretty "standard" practice and it's another reason I tend not to touch reviews from any major site anymore (just see EA categorically asking the press to not talk about glitches and bugs in reviews of Battlefield 4 for a full month after its release).

REALLY?!



That just seems totally unethical and unbelievable that any so-called journalist would accept that, let alone follow those dictates. That would be like the US press not covering Obama's mistakes while he's been in office because he asked them.... oh, yeah, never mind...

No he's not wrong. If you can stomach the site on the Escapist one of the very first episiodes of Jim Sterling's show there, The Jimquisition, where he talks about video games not being films he mentions the review guide for Heavy Rain I'm amazed that everyone just ignored that he outright said they told him what to say.

 

[sexbad?]

No he's not wrong. If you can stomach the site on the Escapist one of the very first episiodes of Jim Sterling's show there, The Jimquisition, where he talks about video games not being films he mentions the review guide for Heavy Rain I'm amazed that everyone just ignored that he outright said they told him what to say.

That's because he went back to following review guides afterward.

 

[Baron Dupek]

cd action still reviews?

They throw letters over pages on cheap'n'soft toilet paper material and seal some number at the end so... objectivly - yes.

Spoiler

Spoiler

my humble add to objectiv/subjectiv rumble

 

[sexbad?]

I'd like to get a review guide and post the specifics of it on the internet as long as the consequences aren't "Activision will take your house from you."

 

[Caim]

What happens when a reviewer ignores a review guide that did not require a signature of some kind? Can you get sued for all your everything? Or will they stop sending stuff to your site to review? And what if everyone collectively started to give this concept the finger? I know it won't because publisher money, but still. Will it be signed NDAs for the rest of eternity?

However, I was just informing codexians (or whatever the people here call themselves)

Codicks.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

i love review guides from paradox: they send me the manual, explaining all the features i'm going to explore and a hint sheet with simple suggestions on how to get the most out of those features, something along the lines of "if you want to try the crisis mechanics [in whatsitsname vic2 expansion] play with greece and attempt to gain indipendence from ottoman empire".
simple as it is, i don't feel treated like a retard nor as a puppet, that's all i need.

on the other hand, when we receive "pressure", like for swtor review, most of the time it's just a minimum score needed, because people are going to bitch whatever you say and because nobody really cares for a well written and argumented article.

 

[Shadenuat]

He makes some very good and relevant points about that in his video. tl;dr version is subjective opinion != objective fact

"It's like ur opinion man" is not a good point, it's what people generally fall back to when they are out of arguments. Placing something like hysteria about new Garrett's voice aside (although their reasoning for it is ), Thief 4 vs originals is not apple vs oranges, there is a clear degeneration in mechanics, setting and level design. I am playing through Thief 2 now, finished Thief 1, I am not an old Thief fan - it's first time for me, and even I can see clearly now why exactly Thief fans are so pissed off.

 

[sea]

He makes some very good and relevant points about that in his video. tl;dr version is subjective opinion != objective fact

"It's like ur opinion man" is not a good point, it's what people generally fall back to when they are out of arguments. Placing something like hysteria about new Garrett's voice aside (although their reasoning for it is ), Thief 4 vs originals is not apple vs oranges, there is a clear degeneration in mechanics, setting and level design. I am playing through Thief 2 now, finished Thief 1, I am not an old Thief fan - it's first time for me, and even I can see clearly now why exactly Thief fans are so pissed off.

Here's the thing. There is no "inherent value" in mechanics save for what they accomplish with respect to the game as a piece of interactive entertainment/narrative. You might say "Super Mario Bros. is a worse platformer than Super Mario World because it's easier, has fewer secrets to find, has inferior graphics, etc." but that's ignoring the fact that the simplicity and coherence of Super Mario Bros' design could itself be seen as an advantage, and because, since both games are exceptionally well made, one's personal preference and past experience with the series factors a hell of a lot into the decision. Same goes on for, say, Super Mario 64 - it's a vastly different game and I'm sure someone who hates 3D platformers might well hate it, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

You're not wrong that some mechanics in the new Thief are simpler and that many narrative elements, level design elements etc. are not as well done as the originals. On an objective level, many of those things can be compared and they do not compare so well in the new Thief vs. the originals. What I'm saying is that the game is not fundamentally, objectively bad just because it is different from the previous Thief games. The old fans are bound to have different standards and frames of reference for enjoying content than those going in without that same experience, but that does not mean that the new work is inherently worse, even if it is simpler and more limited in some respects. That's the point being made.

 

[adddeed]

He makes some very good and relevant points about that in his video. tl;dr version is subjective opinion != objective fact

"It's like ur opinion man" is not a good point, it's what people generally fall back to when they are out of arguments. Placing something like hysteria about new Garrett's voice aside (although their reasoning for it is ), Thief 4 vs originals is not apple vs oranges, there is a clear degeneration in mechanics, setting and level design. I am playing through Thief 2 now, finished Thief 1, I am not an old Thief fan - it's first time for me, and even I can see clearly now why exactly Thief fans are so pissed off.

Here's the thing. There is no "inherent value" in mechanics save for what they accomplish with respect to the game as a piece of interactive entertainment/narrative. You might say "Super Mario Bros. is a worse platformer than Super Mario World because it's easier, has fewer secrets to find, has inferior graphics, etc." but that's ignoring the fact that the simplicity and coherence of Super Mario Bros' design could itself be seen as an advantage, and because, since both games are exceptionally well made, one's personal preference and past experience with the series factors a hell of a lot into the decision. Same goes on for, say, Super Mario 64 - it's a vastly different game and I'm sure someone who hates 3D platformers might well hate it, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

You're not wrong that some mechanics in the new Thief are simpler and that many narrative elements, level design elements etc. are not as well done as the originals. On an objective level, many of those things can be compared and they do not compare so well in the new Thief vs. the originals. What I'm saying is that the game is not fundamentally, objectively bad just because it is different from the previous Thief games. The old fans are bound to have different standards and frames of reference for enjoying content than those going in without that same experience, but that does not mean that the new work is inherently worse, even if it is simpler and more limited in some respects. That's the point being made.

Agreed. As bad as Thief 4 is compared to the originals, it doesn't mean it's a bad game in itself.

 

[Martius]

Of course, Thief has plenty of problems even without comparing it to the originals (terrible AI, terrible story, context-sensitive everything, excess linearity and lack of decent exploration, poor level design, poor pacing, technical incompetence and bugs, misleading marketing and gameplay demos prior to release, etc.) which probably just renders it a poor game outright.

I am just surprised. DmC had a lot of problems (lack of balance, color coded enemies, brain dead AI, bugs and so on), yet nothing of that was mentioned. I suppose Thief is similar to DmC, while compared to original or on its own its just mediocre game at best. Its strange that Thief is getting mixed or even negative reviews, while DmC was praised pretty much anywhere. Thats probably just case of people hating Donte for white hair.

 

[TripJack]

someone liking a game you don't doesn't mean they're an idiot

bullshit

 

[sea]

I am just surprised. DmC had a lot of problems (lack of balance, color coded enemies, brain dead AI, bugs and so on), yet nothing of that was mentioned. I suppose Thief is similar to DmC, while compared to original or on its own its just mediocre game at best. Its strange that Thief is getting mixed or even negative reviews, while DmC was praised pretty much anywhere. Thats probably just case of people hating Donte for white hair.

Shrug, I never played any of the Devil May Cry games. From what I gather Thief is not as good as the Devil May Cry reboot though, taken on its own terms.

 

[Shadenuat]

Here's the thing. There is no "inherent value" in mechanics save for what they accomplish with respect to the game as a piece of interactive entertainment/narrative

Sea why do you try to find something deep where there is nothing of a sort? From my point of view, in that video (which was already posted by Infinitron somewhere I believe... or maybe not him, but you know, *everything* is always posted by Infinitron... and that's when I watched it) TB was trying to prove that his opinion is valuable as anyone else's, by saying that... his opinion is valuable because it's his. And I already seen videos like that. "I just liek, let's all chill". Well I don't care if he just "likes", neither do I care if he dislikes. For 20 minutes he plays a victim to angry fans and talks how he "likes". That's all.

What I'm saying is that the game is not fundamentally, objectively bad just because it is different from the previous Thief games.

There are many ways of judging quality of a game, or anything else, and comparison is as valuable as any.

"Super Mario Bros. is a worse platformer than Super Mario World

SPM is not a sequel to SPW, right? And we're not judging 2d vs a 3d game here.

There are things which Thief accomplished and then polished in the stealth genre, things which define stealth genre, which make it different from any other genre. The originals have suspension, they have vulnerable character, they have complex dangerous enviroments to navigate, and they even catch an essense of what it is, actually, to be a thief, a rogue in down to earth D&D-like, living between powerful fanatics and spellcasters and forces of nature... surviving. One game captures the spirit of it's name, while other doesn't.

 

[Martius]

Shrug, I never played any of the Devil May Cry games. From what I gather Thief is not as good as the Devil May Cry reboot though, taken on its own terms.

I just think that situation around both reboots is similar. Both games had big backlash from original fanbases and gaming press tried to defend them. How I said, I am just surprised that end result in case of Thief is drastically different. Maybe DmC is bit better than Thief, but not so much to give it near perfect score or call it one of best game in genre or series. Later last year Rising was released and oh surprise! With that game reviewers could point out bad points.
Also in both cases I think making these reboots was big mistake. It should be new ip or spinoff at best, probably at lower budget. With DmC Capcom thought that fans will buy anything plus they will gather many new (5 millions sales, yeah...). No idea how it looks with Thief but I suppose it will be like Tomb Rider if not worse thanks to budget and development time.

 

[Broseph]

Remember that adrenaline rush you used to get while playing hide-n-seek at your cousin’s place, where you’d find a nice elusive spot to hole-up and you kind of whizzed your pants a little? Thief is like that, but it won’t let you change your underwear.

 

[Lancehead]

[Thief] captures the spirit of it's name.

Perhaps the best way to describe the Thief's in a single sentence.

 

[Caim]

Remember that adrenaline rush you used to get while playing hide-n-seek at your cousin’s place, where you’d find a nice elusive spot to hole-up and you kind of whizzed your pants a little? Thief is like that, but it won’t let you change your underwear.

The result is a fantasy world so parched of vision that it needs rely on its pastiche, severing any immersion, and forcing the player to wonder, “Who’s really getting fleeced here: the NPCs behind the screen or the PC in front of it?”

Thief is made to steal money from the people who pay for it.

Huh, that's a bit more meta than I had expected it to be...

 

[tuluse]

sea I would argue that if a game is a sequel or a reboot it should not be judged solely on how good of a game it is, but it should be asked to justify the use of the name.

Why call your game Thief if the only thing it takes from the series is stealing things?

 

[J_C]

For the record, I never personally saw any "review guides" during my time covering games, but I assume that's because GB is a small enough site that nobody really cares (though we did get blacklisted by some publishers due to negative reviews). Ultimately what I'm saying is hearsay, though based off of what other reputable journalists have said on the topic before (like Jeff Gerstmann), so I tend to believe it.

I've seen 2 reviews guides/NDAs during my "career" of covering games. One was for Battle Worlds: Kronos, and it was actually funny. It was basicly a "if you are a casual mainstream reviewer, this is what a turn based strategy game is" type of introduction.

The 2nd one was from Naughty Dog, covering The Last of Us. They only wrote that I shouldn't spoil specific story moments in the review, and I shouldn't make videos from those scenes.

You're not wrong that some mechanics in the new Thief are simpler and that many narrative elements, level design elements etc. are not as well done as the originals. On an objective level, many of those things can be compared and they do not compare so well in the new Thief vs. the originals. What I'm saying is that the game is not fundamentally, objectively bad just because it is different from the previous Thief games. The old fans are bound to have different standards and frames of reference for enjoying content than those going in without that same experience, but that does not mean that the new work is inherently worse, even if it is simpler and more limited in some respects. That's the point being made.

Well you can look it this in 2 ways. If you are a guy who never played the Thief games before, and you review Thiaf, you might find that it is a working, although not too complex game, which is fun. But if I review Thiaf, and I played the previous games, why should I accept this game, and give it a positive rating, when it is mechanically inferior to the old games. Sure Thiaf works, it has stealth, but is it OK to ignore that it is a step back from the games 15 years ago?

 

[adddeed]

Sure Thiaf works, it has stealth, but is it OK to ignore that it is a step back from the games 15 years ago?

If you're enjoying the game and having fun, then it's not fair to mark it low just because it's simpler than Thief 1. I think it's fine for a review to point out that a game is simpler, more linear etc, but if the game is well made and enjoyable then it deserves a good score.

 

[Shadenuat]

If you're enjoying the game and having fun, then it's not fair to mark it low just because it's simpler than Thief 1.

Yes it's fair. You can both enjoy simplier things but also rate them lower opposed to standards of the genre. Everything has standards; everyone tries to live up to them or exceed them. Apparently not true for modern game developers though, who think backwards.

 

[Haba]

I dunno, I thought the idea in journalism was to include the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability...

I know that vidya game journalism is the lowest form of journalism known to man, but still...

Writing about your subjective experience does not journalism make.

"I like dick piercings, this game talks about dick piercings so it is automatically fun for me. 10/10"

 

[sea]

Well you can look it this in 2 ways. If you are a guy who never played the Thief games before, and you review Thiaf, you might find that it is a working, although not too complex game, which is fun. But if I review Thiaf, and I played the previous games, why should I accept this game, and give it a positive rating, when it is mechanically inferior to the old games. Sure Thiaf works, it has stealth, but is it OK to ignore that it is a step back from the games 15 years ago?

The point is that, all other things being equal, both opinions are valid.

sea I would argue that if a game is a sequel or a reboot it should not be judged solely on how good of a game it is, but it should be asked to justify the use of the name.

Why call your game Thief if the only thing it takes from the series is stealing things?

That is fair. But at the same time I am not sure a sequel vs. reboot should be judged the same way. Reboots inherently are done in order to relaunch a brand that has lost momentum or value in the marketplace (whether that is true or not). If not, they'd be making a sequel instead.

I dunno, I thought the idea in journalism was to include the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability...

I know that vidya game journalism is the lowest form of journalism known to man, but still...

Writing about your subjective experience does not journalism make.

"I like dick piercings, this game talks about dick piercings so it is automatically fun for me. 10/10"

I'm not sure reviews and journalism are the same thing.

Yes it's fair. You can both enjoy simplier things but also rate them lower opposed to standards of the genre. Everything has standards; everyone tries to live up to them or exceed them. Apparently not true for modern game developers though, who think backwards.

Thief was kind of always its own thing and "pure stealth" died out after Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (which even then basically just removed most insta-fail conditions and made combat options decently fun to play, and did not mandate total stealth or mastery of mechanics). The history of stealth games basically is stealth action, with Thief being important but still kind of an anomaly in the grand scheme. And in that respect, you are correct: Thief's only standard to live up to is its own.