Thief's Risky Reboot

[LoLife]

I doubt they are going to fire him and start from the beginning just because of an internet petition.

Nobody is asking for Romano to be fired, he would still be under contract to finish all the mocap, they just wouldn't be using his voice. Sending a strong message to Eidos is important, regardless of the outcome. I've worked as a VO artist on both sides of the mixing board. There is plenty of time at this stage for Mr. Russell to come in and loop his lines to the existing animations.

Dude I think I've been misquoted or there's an error or something because I didn't write that I wrote/posted:

Great article, IMHO I'm happy to watch Eidos Montreal hang themselves for cold shouldering their fans in while dropping an exuberant amount of cash for needless things into the project

But I will sign the petition =)

 

[Colt47]

I don't think people should be pointing the finger at motion capture tech being one of the prohibitive costs of game development. Other than that I tend to agree with Shamus.

 

[Areloch]

Snip.

I've never liked this kind of argument.
As an aspiring developer myself, and definitely a involved gamer, I'd like to say I could argue this from both perspectives.
The issue of it is that every detail we've heard of the game - that Garret will do more action moves, that we got rid of the old voice actor because he couldn't do full mocap scenes with other actors, most of the lore has been shuttered for the game, etc, etc - is much as you've said: a lot of stuff fans would be upset about, but we haven't seen any gameplay.

So my question to that is: why not? The entire point of this stage of marketing of the development coming from the devs is to get interest in the game built up due to bringing interesting facets of development or the game into light. But(and as you point out, they had to have known) everything they've said till now has basically been indicating it'd be nothing like a Thief game. This could be assuaged by getting some solid gameplay footage/demos out there, and show 'No, see guys? It's still a Thief game!' and that would very quickly calm the furor.

But they don't.

I'd err on the non-cynical side and think that it's because they don't feel it's ready yet, which is fine, but then why do they keep dropping all these details they almost certainly know will piss off the fans, who this game is almost entirely currently marketed towards(as non-thief fans won't likely care much about the game until more has come out about it).
They're putting themselves into their own little corner of pain because they aren't giving us any reason to NOT be upset with the changes, other than 'it's cool guys, don't be upset, it's still totally a Thief game!'

Also, you missed out the other concern with the article, namely how they're not just dropping old aspects of the prior games we liked, but also dumping huge amounts of money into the project for reasons of debatable merit.
This huge push to have full mocap performances with everyone gets very expensive very fast, and that's not the first thing I've read about them inexplicably dumping cash into for almost no benefit.
I've also read how to make sure the design for Garret's collapsible bow works, they drew the designs up, and sent them to a blacksmith to produce a working copy. Those blacksmiths had to spend hundreds of man hours working out the kinks, but eventually they made it work. Another is much the same situation, they worked with clothing makers to make a realistic take on garret's outfit to ensure it'd be a sensible sneak suit in real life.

So the question is, in paying for hundreds of additional man hours of work(thus inflating the game's development budget, making a success on return harder) how did this improve the game?
The bow never had to work in game, it just had to look plausible, and the same with his clothes. They're not going to sell them as merch, so there's never going to be a return on those investments other than it makes the developers feel neat that it'd work in real life. And they wasted development budget to do it, in a time when development budgets are becoming a huge concern.
His point was, it's been a confirmed problem in the past, and they're now getting to the point where they're so content with tossing this sort of stuff in that it's beginning to override stuff people liked from the old games. Not inherently a problem, but it doesn't exactly ooze confidence in their management skills.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I do not see how making it a shooter will help it...

 

[Colt47]

Snip.

I've never liked this kind of argument.
As an aspiring developer myself, and definitely a involved gamer, I'd like to say I could argue this from both perspectives.
The issue of it is that every detail we've heard of the game - that Garret will do more action moves, that we got rid of the old voice actor because he couldn't do full mocap scenes with other actors, most of the lore has been shuttered for the game, etc, etc - is much as you've said: a lot of stuff fans would be upset about, but we haven't seen any gameplay.

So my question to that is: why not? The entire point of this stage of marketing of the development coming from the devs is to get interest in the game built up due to bringing interesting facets of development or the game into light. But(and as you point out, they had to have known) everything they've said till now has basically been indicating it'd be nothing like a Thief game. This could be assuaged by getting some solid gameplay footage/demos out there, and show 'No, see guys? It's still a Thief game!' and that would very quickly calm the furor.

But they don't.

I'd err on the non-cynical side and think that it's because they don't feel it's ready yet, which is fine, but then why do they keep dropping all these details they almost certainly know will piss off the fans, who this game is almost entirely currently marketed towards(as non-thief fans won't likely care much about the game until more has come out about it).
They're putting themselves into their own little corner of pain because they aren't giving us any reason to NOT be upset with the changes, other than 'it's cool guys, don't be upset, it's still totally a Thief game!'

Also, you missed out the other concern with the article, namely how they're not just dropping old aspects of the prior games we liked, but also dumping huge amounts of money into the project for reasons of debatable merit.
This huge push to have full mocap performances with everyone gets very expensive very fast, and that's not the first thing I've read about them inexplicably dumping cash into for almost no benefit.
I've also read how to make sure the design for Garret's collapsible bow works, they drew the designs up, and sent them to a blacksmith to produce a working copy. Those blacksmiths had to spend hundreds of man hours working out the kinks, but eventually they made it work. Another is much the same situation, they worked with clothing makers to make a realistic take on garret's outfit to ensure it'd be a sensible sneak suit in real life.

So the question is, in paying for hundreds of additional man hours of work(thus inflating the game's development budget, making a success on return harder) how did this improve the game?
The bow never had to work in game, it just had to look plausible, and the same with his clothes. They're not going to sell them as merch, so there's never going to be a return on those investments other than it makes the developers feel neat that it'd work in real life. And they wasted development budget to do it, in a time when development budgets are becoming a huge concern.
His point was, it's been a confirmed problem in the past, and they're now getting to the point where they're so content with tossing this sort of stuff in that it's beginning to override stuff people liked from the old games. Not inherently a problem, but it doesn't exactly ooze confidence in their management skills.

Yeah, that's probably a better way to put it with regards to the motion capture technology. A technology like Motion Capture is meant to help reduce the cost of "required" animation that is needed to make a game function. The fact it is being used in Hollywood level proportions is borderline insane since games have a different cost structure than movies do. Also, the most memorable games I can think of are those that are bucking the trend, such as Dark Souls and Mark of the Ninja.

 

[Matthi205]

Actually, I WAS excited for the upcoming Thief game, until I noticed this (not the change of voice actor, but the reason for it). And the chance that they'll get it wrong is incredibly high now. Why would I want Gears of the Dark Project when I've got Gears which does its thing well and The Dark Project which does its thing well?

 

[bunnielovekins]

Wow, another reboot I won't be getting.

The real question is, why do they need mocap at all for garret? There was no point in the originals when it was needed and I fail to see how it could be now, unless they've made it third person. All I can see is a massive money sink designed to impress the sorts of people who happen to be impressed by this sort of thing, or in other words it's an attempt to widen the market. Which always works, as we know.

 

[Undomesticated Equine]

Excellent article pretty much the reason i will not buy this game on release if ever even if it gets good reviews. When i read that the full performance capture is the reason they will not go for the original Garrett voice actor I was asking myself why the hell they need that and if they are making a movie or a game about a master thief who rarely gets into conversation and usually prefers not to be seen. Why just why?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

A smart person will look at how much they can expect to make and devise the budget around that figure. But right now developers seem to be picking an absurdly high budget and then asking themselves how they can sell enough copies to cover it.

I think a part of the problem is the game industry trying to artificially accelerate the growth of the medium into the mainstream. Instead of letting potential gamers come into things via curiosity about what else is out there once they've done CoD/Madden/FIFA/whatever to death the industry has been pushing to make games more like other, more familiar media...and by that I mean 'more like movies'. So to do that they're pouring Hollywood Blockbuster levels of funding to game proects and not getting Hollywood Blockbuster levels of returns on the investment. Unless you're looking for a massive tax write-off that's pure idiocy.

 

[Cekil1]

Personally, I'm just glad it isn't an FPS. I'm always ready to embrace the new even in the face of fan outcry (which ALWAYS happens no matter what) and my own reservations. Not only am I hopeful for Man of Steel, I was also one of the many who walked into DmC: Devil May Cry wanting to love it. Just give it a chance guys & gals. If it's terrible or plain mediocre you can always boot up the original ones.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I don't understand why they can't go the route like Irrational Games went for Bioshock Infinite? Let Stephen Russell do the VO and get someone else to do the motion capture and then sync them?

I don't see a problem with that and with this it would make fans that want the real Garret's voice in the game.

As a fan of the Thief franchise in general I am a bit skeptical as well regarding this title, thinking they will make it more action`y and straying away from what made Thief, Thief, which was the stealth.

Consolizing it for the mass market is a very big mistake if you ask me. They should focus development primarily on the PC first then port it. Although Deadly Shadows (Thief 3) was released on X360 it didn't really do well as far as I know.

 

[Nurb]

So it's going to be another modern corporate-age, overblown fuck up not worth giving money to support.

Figured, but then SQUEENIX never did get subtley. And it's for next gen consoles, so it's more important it look good and show off the new tech than be a good game.

The next gaming collapse can't happen soon enough.

 

[grigjd3]

I don't know that this game will be good or bad. It might be very good. However, having played the first three thief games, it's starting to sound like they bought the IP solely to see if they could garner interest from old fans, rather than actually treating the game with some respect. If you want to make an action stealth game, do so. There's no need to beat up an old IP for that. Certainly Dishonored did this without any trouble. Why can't, oh wait it's squeenix.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

Large companies... See, when number of people involved in decision-making exceeds 3 the IQ of this hive mind is square root of IQ of the stupidest man/woman on the team.
Get a team of 100 people to make a thief game and you get ninja masks and dramatic per-rendered cinematics. Next thing - they'll add shotgun.

 

[Seneschal]

As much as I'm rooting for this game, they keep doing blunder after blunder. How much are they expecting it will sell? Dishonored sold about 2.5 million across all platforms, but, frankly, it didn't look particularly extravagant and expensive; everything was in-engine, from first-person, and had a limited number of game mechanics. It sold 2.5 million because it was good, fresh, visually stimulating, and appealed to an untapped market.

Thief has no fancy magical abilities and swashbuckling teleport-murderstravaganza-moments. It should be even cheaper to make.

 

[Not Lord Atkin]

oh yes, replacing the voice actor because of the cutscenes.

otherwise known as the 'let's ditch Michael Ironside for this prepubescent twat because of reasons' tactic. Glad to see that now all the major stealth franchises have done this and the circle is complete.

jesus, this is like a new trend of inexplicable decisions in all niche genres. first the coop in all major horror franchises, now this. what's next, remove guns from shooters?

huh. actually, that could be kind of cool...

 

[DTWolfwood]

Sacrificing something they do want for something they don't...

That is the battlecry for the next videogame crash.

Good job Developers and Publishers... <.<

 

[Shinkicker444]

I'm perturbed. The more I hear about the game, the more to me it sounds like they're going to make it some weird Assassins Creed rip off with all the free running and takedowns, except he's stealing more than the assassins would. It is quite unsettling.

 

[maninahat]

I doubt they are going to fire him and start from the beginning just because of an internet petition.

Nobody is asking for Romano to be fired, he would still be under contract to finish all the mocap, they just wouldn't be using his voice. Sending a strong message to Eidos is important, regardless of the outcome. I've worked as a VO artist on both sides of the mixing board. There is plenty of time at this stage for Mr. Russell to come in and loop his lines to the existing animations.

Why would Eidos, after paying a perfectly good voice artist and recording all of his lines, hire another one to do the same again? The cost isn't justified: only fans returning to the series give a shit, and their decision to buy the next game will be made by the many other facets beyond the voice acting anyway. Rehiring Russell seems like a step away from their efforts to redesign the character and reboot the series.

 

[IronMit]

I was excited when I heard it was the Deus eX team but now I hear it's the same studio but a different team?

Oh and Squareenix's recent releases of Tomb Raider and Hitman absolution were a joke to me. Sure they are not awful games but they seemed to have changed style and genre, to make it like a typical ubisoft AAA production.
Hitman is no longer about sandbox levels and Tomb Raider's more open area's are optional sidequests. Half of escapist will argue against my opinion here which is fine

When Thief comes out the same thing might happen. Most old school fans will hate it...new fans will shout 'GOTY'. Thus with heavy marketing it will sell 3 mill and it will be deemed a failure because of the ridiculous amount of cash spent.

Hopefully it's more like Deus ex:HR and fans of the franchise on the most part will like it