Eidos: Thief's Going To Overcome Fan Resistance

[oldtaku]

Well, maybe. But it's certain I'm not pre-ordering this thing.

Also, you guys have a higher hurdle to get over now, because you sat on Thief for too long and now Dishonored exists.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The team that is making it, also made Deus Ex: Human Revolution and I was pleasantly surprised by that, so maybe that Koury guy is right.

That is the sole ray of hope in this. I was hoping Squeenix was going to do a bit more with the Deus Ex continuity they worked so hard to reinvent (seriously, look at all the promotional material going into DX:HR leading up to launch; it was nuts), but no. Instead they decided to just shit out some tablet game.

I'm definitely doing a wait and see approach.

 

[fluxy100]

I'm not sure why the fans are so resistant of the new Thief game. It has two outcomes, both come with a nice effect. Either the game rocks and fans are happy, or the game sucks and fans are happy that a game they shit on from the beginning is bad. Either way this game renews interest in the Thief franchise and might get more people to check out the old Thief games. I've never seen a fan base so rabid in hoping that a game sucks, so less people join in the fan base.

 

[Brian Tams]

I'm not sure why the fans are so resistant of the new Thief game. It has two outcomes, both come with a nice effect. Either the game rocks and fans are happy, or the game sucks and fans are happy that a game they shit on from the beginning is bad. Either way this game renews interest in the Thief franchise and might get more people to check out the old Thief games. I've never seen a fan base so rabid in hoping that a game sucks, so less people join in the fan base.

You're completely mistaking people here. We want the game to be a success, but everything we've heard has made it sound like its going to suck, and we're angry. We're angry that the Devs feel the need to fuck with a formula that was extremely well designed, the fact that the game isn't going to be as open as Thief 2 (which is the only logical explanation for no jump button), and the fact that the Devs are trying to give us the runaround.

 

[Grabehn]

I played the 3rd game, liked it but never finished it. While I couldn't say I care about this one, it just looked bland since the beginning and they haven't done anything to make it look better, aside from throwing out some guy saying "HEY! it's gonna be good" But I couldn't say I'm surprised about a guy working on a game and him saying it's good.

 

[ShakerSilver]

Spoiler: Their insistence on changing so many things despite fan approval reminds me of a certain other reboot.

 

[Werewolfkid]

I have no experience with the Thief, so it's difficult for me to build expectations. If they make it essentially like Dishonored then I'm all for it. Hopefully they don't piss too many fans of though; convincing fans is fine, just don't antagonize them or say their criticisms are wrong.

Thief will be a good game, maybe even a great game, a masterpiece even. I just want us to stop being so cynical about the future and instead look at it with cautious optimism, instead of letting some guy's comment of wanting fans to like the new game convince us that the new game is already dead on arrival.

No, Aiddon, that is the one thing that they, and their fanboys, will not do. You can see that here. Ironically enough, defenders of this sort of thing will project all of their negativity onto people they're claiming are being negative.

Again, the key problem here is that the company is lying. If the company is going to make a triple-A fps clusterfuck that handles like a fat, diseased buffalo and offers nothing but photorealistic gore with no plot, challenge, or engrossing theme, then they can totally do that.

But if they did that, and advertised it honestly, it would not sell.

That's the dirty secret. That's the Big Lie behind raping franchises, attacking used games, encouraging contempt for old-school fans, and on and on.

The industry is geared to create triple-A games. If a triple-A company can make better money by NOT doing this, it will, instead, do it anyway, and lie about it.

Why? Consider the cost of not doing so. You'd have to make deeper, richer games that meet consumer expectation. This would require a change in the nature of management.

Management doesn't make sacrifices for you. You make sacrifices for management.

Why should managers embrace the Real World? Why not live in a fantasy where they can pretend they can capture the CoD audience and the WoW audience and the GTA audience and every other acronym floating through their dreams? If they're wrong, they'll just blame the devs, fire them, and hire more. Why should they ever evaluate their strategies?

Most people here watch the Jimquisition. Why do you think management doesn't? Because they don't have to. Corporate America has its head up its own ass.

But that dog won't hunt. They make insipid triple-A garbage and they lose their core audience -- and fail to get much of a new audience as well. So what do you do?

Simple. You lie. You lie your ass off. You tell the customers that they'll get what they want. When the grassroots groundswell says "no, we won't get what we want, you're not giving it," you respond by telling them what they want and that it's really just a variation of what they always wanted.

Problem is, this sort of thing breeds contempt. And passive-aggressiveness. And we're all sick of it. Worse, trolls come out and criticize the customer for Not Liking What I Like, dishonestly claiming that a customer who has been mislead by a publisher is to blame for that publisher's bad products.

So it's not the bad games. If Thief -- seriously, if you can't come up with a title, you should not be making games -- if Thief is terrible, that's a pointless tragedy. . . but the market will deal with that fairly by making its sales low. The problem is the hype around it will be noxious misinformation, as usual, and when customers complain about that and reject the game, there will be a social backlash against them.

Devs can feel free to make whatever game they like -- e.g., whatever game the publisher demands they make. But be honest about it. If you're making a Dishonored clone that has so little to do with Thief that it doesn't even count as being in the same genre, that's fine -- so long as you don't obfuscate. Don't piss on my leg and call it rain.

There is no "fan resistance", there is only a failed product, a bastard of a game that does not deserve to be in the same series.

But yeah, lets wait till it actually comes out to see how horrible it truly is. The time of weeping will come soon enough.

Until that time it would be nice if they just shut up about it.

So what you guys are saying it that this game, which isn't even out yet and no one has had a chance to play all the way through yet is dead on arrival, and that my attempt to be optimistic about this game and, dare to think it might actually be good, is just me blindly defending the short sighted and greedy development practices that have been slowing choking this industry to death for years. I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. I have two good reasons to believe that Thief will be a good game. Reason Number One, it is that this game being made by Eidos Montreal who brought us the wonderful Deus Ex Human Revolution, a game of the year for many gamers back in 2011. Was it perfect? No, it had horribly designed boss fights, long loading times, a poorly designed final level, and very lazy multiple endings. However, I think that most gamers can forgive problems like this if the rest of the game is great and that Deus Ex Human Revolution certainly was. It also seems that Eidos has learned from their mistakes and are trying craft an overall better experience with the Director's Cut which I feel will be a much better, more well rounded version of the game. Another reason, I feel that Thief will be a good game is that Square Enix is in a bad position right now, where one big screw up in the console game market right now can destroy the entire company. Their recent financial failures with the Final Fantasy series and their other triple AAA titles have likely left them very cautious in developing their games. While it is very likely that they have designed the game to appeal to as many people as possible, if done right there is nothing wrong with that. Video Games are not just for hobbyists anymore, gaming is for everyone now and one of the consequences of this development is that designers and publishers alike have to appeal to a wider audiences and it not like this development will neuter games. If anything it will make them better, but only if it is done right and only if we are willing to embrace it. Maybe you guys are right, maybe Thief will be a horrible game and I said all this for nothing. After all, we have dealt with a lot of disappointment lately. Duke Nukem Forever was terrible after years of waiting and was only released to make a quick buck, the terrible ending of the Mass Effect trilogy was undeniably the result of a corporation's greed, Aliens Colonial Marines tricked us into thinking it was worth our money by lying to us about the experience that we would be getting, and 2K Games made that XCOM shooter even though no one wanted it and that they would rather have a sequel to XCOM Enemey Unknown(which they are actually getting in the form of an expansion pack), and I'll agree it is easier to just see everything good thing told to me about a game I haven't played yet by some PR man working for a multimillion dollar company as a lie and attack it for even trying to make me want to play it. But, I refuse to give into cynicism, I refuse to believe that every game made today is being made to solely rip me off, I refuse to believe that gaming is dead and that the corporations killed it. The indie community is brimming with new life and the triple AAA industry's exploitative business practices will catch up to in the end. And I believe and will continue to believe that Thief will be a good game, maybe even a great game; a masterpiece even, until I finally can play it and decide the final verdict for myself. If by chance the game is indeed horrible as you naysayers already seem to believe, I will admit that it is indeed bad, but I will not sulk and find someone to blame. I will admit that it was short sighted of me to point the finger of blame for the cynicism that has been consuming the gaming community for years toward old school gamers that simply refused to embrace something that they loved being presented in a form they did not like, they were entitled to that opinion and it was wrong of me to try and change it by telling them that they were simply blinded by nostalgia and their hatred of the new generation of gamers. My true foe is the cynicism that has been plauging the gaming community in general and finding its source is no easy task, because it comes from so many places. But, as I was saying before if Thief does end up being a bad game I will admit my optimism was wrongly placed, but I will will not stop being optimist. Because if I were to stop being optimistic about the future of games, I would have nothing to look forward to, and who wants that in their life? We have five months until the game releases and only when the game has been played will we truly know if it is worth our time and money. I'll see you all then.

 

[mirage202]

"Our as yet unreleased game is going to be bad" said no developer ever.

With all the negative stories that have worked their way out about Thief I just can't see how they are going to pull it off.

"There's a lot of people that remember things differently for the first Thief, and what they like about the first Thief games," That whole comment is basically "We are right and you are wrong". How much arrogance do you need to presume better knowledge of everyone's memory than they have themselves?

 

[Racecarlock]

*Just came back from two episodes of Zero Punctuation*

Yeah eidos, we'll see. You've basically painted a target on your back for, well, you know who.

 

[Evonisia]

I'm willing to give the game a chance, but if the game has got so much good stuff, WHY didn't you show it in the trailers?

So far it looks like a darker (which is good I guess) Dishonoured clone. If we all remember Dishonoured was Thief 1 + BioShock = Disappointing yet well put together game. I don't want to play Thief 1 + BioShock divided by Dishonoured.

 

[Mr.Amakir]

I'm still giving it this game the benefit of the doubt.

The team that is making it, also made Deus Ex: Human Revolution and I was pleasantly surprised by that, so maybe that Koury guy is right.

Time will tell.

It´s not the same team behind Deus Ex: Human Revolution it´s a different team from the same studio.

 

[bafrali]

Why do I get DmC flashbacks after reading this.

Best case scenario: It will be decent and be forgetton in a month like all the recent examples.

Worst case scenario: It will be so polarizing that it will divide odls chool fans and new comers and get less than favourable sales regardless of the reviews. Result is either a long hiatus or death of the franchise.

In any case, I will still firmly believe that reboots are stupid. There may be an exception or two now and then but it really is not worth the pain.

 

[keserak]

So what you guys are saying it that this game, which isn't even out yet and no one has had a chance to play all the way through yet is dead on arrival, and that my attempt to be optimistic about this game and, dare to think it might actually be good, is just me blindly defending the short sighted and greedy development practices that have been slowing choking this industry to death for years.

I only read your first sentence because it contained either a strawman, a lie, or both, and because the rest of your text was unparsable and it's completely unfair to expect anyone to have to pay attention to that.

I never said the game was "dead on arrival." Ironically enough, for someone who expects everyone to read completely unreadable, unformatted text, you don't seem to be too keen on reading the text you quote.

I pointed out that the problem is that the devs are lying. The game they are developing is not the game that the customers say they want, so they lie and say it is. It doesn't mean it isn't a good game for someone besides the ostensible target audience. It means that the ostensible target audience is being lied to -- to their face, shamelessly -- in order to gin up sales. The problem is the misdirection. I said as much before.

I also said a large number of people will obnoxiously defend the devs and maliciously mischaracterize the honest concerns of the customers and accuse those customers -- in another irony -- of behavior they, themselves, are guilty of. Case in point.

 

[Hazy]

Edit: According to this article, EXP has been removed and the game has apparently been altered, now not condoning a "blood and guts" playstyle.

I still remain skeptical, but if this is true, it's a step in the right direction. What still concerns me is that the levels don't seem to accommodate freedom of movement, and most likely won't, since it's been said that they have been "feature locked," and stuck strictly on polishing.

 

[Seydaman]

Well.

You removed Stephen Russel. Unforgivable. No matter what, -500 points for that. My resistance will not waiver.

 

[Dragonbums]

What does he mean by overcome fan resistance? Now I am no thief enthusiast in anyway, but...wouldn't you want to convince your fans that this is the game they've been waiting for?

They are, after all, the people who will make up the bulk of the purchases of your game.

 

[seditary]

Haven't shown us all that thief has to offer?

So you just decided to hide all the good stuff and reveal all the fucking shit you've done to it?

Get the hell out Khoury. No one believes your spin. We're in a post Aliens Colonial Marines world now.

 

[KimonoBoxFox]

Quick thought: Rather than 'overcoming fan resistance', why make the 'new' Thief about Garrett to begin with, if you're honestly trying to do something new with an IP whose last installment was /nine/ years ago? Why dredge up fond memories only to hammer them down again?

I think the problem is not so much that Orzari seems content to suckle his own nether regions with every cliche one-liner he delivers--that could be forgiven in the appropriate role--but that was never exactly something 'Garrett' required. It was the player's job to make the Thief bad-ass, while Russell stuck to the shadows calling out the ironic stuff to our nodding approval as we bashed drunk guardsmen and snobby clerics over the head; a scarred, leathery street urchin who happened to nab some magic and stealth tricks from the Druidic Librarian equivalent of the Illuminati, and took to sticking it to Ye Righteous Authority. What caused the series to culminate was the buildup from robbing fellow scoundrels, to getting screwed over, to finding yourself fighting either fanatical madmen with giant steampunk robots, or Pagan Satan.

Moreover, it wouldn't 'hurt' to bring back some of the religious cults, spooky magic, and warring factions that dominated the first three games; you can only do so much to look more like a Dishonored-knock-off what with the witchy old crone, the baldy cabal and the uniform style of the guard NPCs.

This strikes me as one of those brilliant marketing decisions along the lines of "John Romero is About to Make You His *****", that the studio touts until it realizes how deep it's stuck its foot in its mouth.

Tread lightly, Eidos--you've put yourself in a needlessly stupid position, by making Thief too in love with what it 'isn't' anymore, and rubbing it in our faces to boot.