Zero Punctuation: Thief - Stealing a Classic

[Squintsalot]

Only "critic" I've seen who actually enjoys this game is TotalBiscuit and his merits for liking a game, which effectively excludes story, characters, setting, sound-engineer and pretty much anything else that doesn't fit his narrow definition of gameplay, makes his opinion pretty much irrelevant.

I think you're one of the people this video was aimed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpmeOB0Zyu0

TB is misconstruing the issue. This isn't a difference of opinion, the game is just bad, objectively speaking. A matter of opinion would be saying I don't like Arma 3 because I don't have the patience for military themed tactical shooters.

However, there is legit criticism to be leveled at Thief. There are glaring technical issues and design mistakes that making it AT BEST a bad game with some average moments. The Telegraph review of Thief pretty much sums up what those issues are.

TB had admitted to not having played the original series, and to sucking at and not enjoying stealth in general, so we are in the right to think that he just doesn't really know what he's talking about here. Also, bear in mind that it was a "first impressions" video, not an actual in depth review. That being said, he is well within his rights to like whatever he wants, but that doesn't make it a good game. People can and do enjoy shit.

And lastly, this game cannot and should not be judged solely on its own merits because it was no created on its own merits. The game is using the Thief name and legacy to sell copies.

 

[Bindal]

Only "critic" I've seen who actually enjoys this game is TotalBiscuit and his merits for liking a game, which effectively excludes story, characters, setting, sound-engineer and pretty much anything else that doesn't fit his narrow definition of gameplay, makes his opinion pretty much irrelevant.

Yes, how dare he judge the gameplay SOLELY on the mechanics, which make the gameplay, right?
Wait, isn't that exactly what "judging gameplay" is supposed to be?

 

[VoidWanderer]

I did find it interesting how little you actually steal. The most common item you steal is worth less than 10 gold. It made me wonder if I was stealing or scraping the bottom of the barrel. The more valuable pieces were things Garret would keep for himself.

The one thing that did really annoy me is the end movie, where Garret performs the second dumbest move since The Prince in that drossy Prince of Persia game with Elikka...

But I am interested to find out if they do go for a sequel, and I hope they do... I figure, like most other people with more brain cells than Eidos thinks we have, is that the protege becomes the new Veronica. That would get me interested in the game. Oh and stealing things people would actually value in the double digits would be nice so I can buy NON-COMBAT UPGRADES. This is not a game where you should fight, STOP GIVING ME UPGRADES FOR MY DAMN BLACKJACK AND BOW AND QUIVER AND ARMOUR THAT DOESN'T IMPROVE MY STEALTHINESS TAFFITALL!

 

[Under_your_bed]

I remember losing all hope for the game initially when I watched what I think is the defining moment of the game in a stream [Emphasis added] (yes I've played the game since then). There's a slide puzzle in a crawlspace behind the wall of a brothel and it became clear at about this point that the game has no acoustic simulation so sound goes straight through all walls (something the Unreal engine has by DEFAULT so there's no fucking telling why this game doesn't have it). Meanwhile two NPCs were fucking in an adjacent room during the whole puzzle, resulting in the slide puzzle _itself_ sounding like it was yelling "OH GOD, OH GOD, PUSH IT PUSH IT HARDER, GIVE IT ALL YOU GOT GIVE IT ALL YOU GOT". After thirty minutes of laughing at the scene that was unfolding before us, we resigned to further have our childhood memories shat upon and continued the buggy linear mess until the ending.

Oh, were you there for that stream as well? Man, good times. That was totally worth staying up until 3 A.M. for.

Do you remember?

Spoiler

Cockrings
EH EH EH EH EH EH EH EH
Pinch my nipples! Harder!
"I'VE BEEN A GHOST ALL ALONG!"

Fun times...

Has anyone had the pleasure of unintentionally waiting at the beginning of the brothel level, only to hear a guard endlessly repeat the same line with about 2 seconds in between each repetition...to do with 'getting some freebie after his shift' sort of thing? It was funny in a depressingly brain-damaged to pure seediness, sort of way. Only for a short while though.

I think it was "maybe I'll get lucky after my shift". My god, he said that endlessly.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Is it my imagination or is the AAA industry getting exponentially worse?

Well let me put it like this, if this is your imagination then this must be one hell of a shared dream, my friend.

Don't you mean shared nightmare?

Yes I do. In fact, I think we're in some badly written comic universe where all the bad guys are extremely incompetent as well as malicious but still somehow get power.

Oh fuck we're in the resident evil universe.

Except instead of zombies and other bio-weapons, they hit us with a plague of bad video games.

EDIT: ...unless you count the mindless idiots who blindly defend their shity business practices and other bullshit as "zombies."

 

[Nazulu]

Haha, I saw this coming since it was announced. Great stab Yahtzee. I've watched many video's on it to guess what you would bring up, and I could easily tell the character would be the center complaint.

Was anyone else caught off guard when seeing the female character tied to a giant dick?

 

[Racecarlock]

Oh fuck we're in the resident evil universe.

Movie or video game universe? Both are stupid, but they're quite specific and well-defined levels of stupid.

From what I've seen of Thief, I don't think that it's necessarily as bad a game as some people think it is - it's certainly not Duke Nukem Forever levels of terrible - but the problem is that Thief has quite the legacy behind it, and unless you're going into Thief not having any prior experience with Thief (or hardcore stealth titles), it's gonna disappoint pretty hard. Given what's changed with this new Thief, this probably felt like a huge slap in the face to Yahtzee.

Seems like the review was rather cathartic for him, though. Lots of bite in this one.

Which one has a higher population of retarded, profit driven executives? That's probably the one we're in.

 

[Duncan Van Ooyen]

Is it just me, or was this episode much less 'witty' than they usually are...?

He sounded genuinely upset about this game, which is more unusual than you'd think. Usually he playfully picks apart a game, either because it's bad and it's fun to do so, or so stuff it in the faces of everyone who thought it was good. But this was an installment to a series that he really liked, and it sounds like it's really let him down, so I can understand his frustration.

 

[VondeVon]

I dunno. Garrett was pretty hot. If I could have zoomed out to leer at him, I'd have bought the game. (Actually I really did like the hand animations for switches, sliding through spaces and lock picking. Someone somewhere got that bit properly sorted.)

I'm surprised Yahtzee didn't mention the massive problem with de-synchronized subtitles.

 

[Schadrach]

Anyhow, I hear the Legacy of Kain series may be rebooted with Nosgoth. Can't wait for the bile from Yahtzee there.

...is there an active campaign to destroy things I love, or is it entirely coincidental?

Really guys -- all you need to do to LoK is release one more sequel that ties all the loose ends up nice and tight.

If you want to get frisky, then you can do "HD Remasters" wherein you leave the goddamned game play and level design alone, except to up the poly count, rendering resolution, and texture resolution.

That's it. Nothing more. It's really not that hard.

 

[JFSOCC]

Thank you for echoing my sentiments in such a eloquent way Yachtzee, people didn't care about my opinion on this game, but yours carries some weight.

 

[Darkcerb]

Every now and then some mysterious sense in my body emits an aura of menace when I consider buying a game that feeling's always been right...even if i wish it would speak up more often...seeing gameplay on youtube would have been enough to dissuade me though, It all just looked boring, the stupid sidekick and the ritual early on had me nodding off.

I own but haven't played the original thief games and from the sound of things that's for the best or I'd be incredibly dissapointed.

 

[shiajun]

So that's what, 1.5 out of four for Eidos recent entries into beloved franchises to work? DE:HR seems to have hit the sweet spot, Tomb Raider worked pretty well...except for you know, there not being any decent tombs or free exploring in the game. Then there's Hitman:Absolution, which kind of languished in its corner and now Thief, being all over the place, not knowing what to do with its premise.

Please Eidos, stop it. Give it up. Make up new IPs, this strategy isn't really giving you high praise.

I'll give them 2.5. DE:HR gets 1 and Tomb Raider and Hitman: Absolution get a combined 1.5. I actually had a fun time with Hitman Absolution. It wasn't nearly as good as Blood Money, but it was still a perfectly competent mostly Hitman game.

I'll admit, I haven't played Hitman:Absolution, I just went with an overall kind of lukewarm reception around gaming circles. Thief, on the other hand, has had itself slapped around a bit. So ok, 2.5 it is. Out of 4, that's dangerously close to being a coin toss to whether their remaking franchises will be true and enjoyable.

 

[Trilandian]

Only "critic" I've seen who actually enjoys this game is TotalBiscuit and his merits for liking a game, which effectively excludes story, characters, setting, sound-engineer and pretty much anything else that doesn't fit his narrow definition of gameplay, makes his opinion pretty much irrelevant.

I think you're one of the people this video was aimed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpmeOB0Zyu0

TB is misconstruing the issue. This isn't a difference of opinion, the game is just bad, objectively speaking. A matter of opinion would be saying I don't like Arma 3 because I don't have the patience for military themed tactical shooters.

"Objectively" bad? Really?

TB had admitted to not having played the original series, and to sucking at and not enjoying stealth in general, so we are in the right to think that he just doesn't really know what he's talking about here. Also, bear in mind that it was a "first impressions" video, not an actual in depth review. That being said, he is well within his rights to like whatever he wants, but that doesn't make it a good game. People can and do enjoy shit.

Again, that's your opinion. As TB said in the video, you can use your knowledge of his tastes and preferences as a guide. If, as someone who dislikes stealth games, he liked this game, then the viewer can conclude that this game does not put much emphasis on stealth elements.

And lastly, this game cannot and should not be judged solely on its own merits because it was no created on its own merits. The game is using the Thief name and legacy to sell copies.

That is, again, your opinion. Some people, like those who've never played a Thief game before, might not care about the franchise as a whole.

You really need to separate what are clearly your opinions and points of view from objective facts.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

And by the way, I'd apply almost none of what I've just said to "Zero Punctuation", which I regard as an entertainment show about videogames more than a serious critical look at them. Not that there isn't serious criticism involved, but you watch and episode of "Zero Punctuation" primarily for the humour and for Yahtzee's personality, not for an in-depth critical look at the games he's reviewing.

What you expect from a "review" does obviously depend on the medium and the intention of the critic.

Speak for yourself, of course. I personally find that he makes a lot more critical analysis than most other 'reviews'. The humour is just the icing on the cake.

I agree that the "primarily" thing is subjective, so I put that badly. My point (albeit rather badly put in my last post) is that one review size does not fit all. You go to different places to get different experiences from different people. I mean, there are two-hour video reviews of "Thief" already on the Internet. It's surely absurd to expect the same level of critical analysis from a Yahtzee video as from one of those!

I agree with Mavrik though, although I get your point too. Mine is that it's impossible to expect a completely "objective" review. It's not impossible for the reviewer to state what he thinks OTHER people would like or dislike about a game. If a reviewer is paid to give good buying advice to consumers (and again, that to me is half of a reviewer's job, the other half being providing honest criticism to the people who make the games) then that to me would be a reasonable thing to expect. There are games (and movies, and books) that I absolutely adore, but I completely get why other people don't like them as much. I wouldn't recommend the original "Total Recall" to my mum!

It's not "impossible" to expect that, it's just dumb, because it goes directly against part of what makes any game review interesting.
A reviewer's job is make a review according to his employer's demands. That's it. "Review" is a broad term. It's not his/her job to write a review according to your expectations. I consider a good reviewer someone who shares his honest opinion and justifies it with reasons.
And I think Yahtzee and Jim both do that.

I don't think we're arguing from different viewpoints here - rather, I think I put what I was trying to convey badly. With regard to "review" being a broad term, that's exactly what I meant. And as for "Someone who shares his honest opinion and justifies it with reasons", I wouldn't even go as far as that broad definition. Personally I don't give a crap what Jim or Yahtzee thought of a game (I tend to disagree with Yahtzee especially anyway). That doesn't mean that I find his reviews worthless, just that it's not what I personally watch them for.

There's a huge difference between "Zero Punctuation" and a two-page written review of the latest AAA game on "The Escapist", for example. I wouldn't expect too much in-depth analysis in a five minute video, again, whereas I DO expect that kind of analysis from a full-length written review. If "Zero Punctuation" is entertaining, it doesn't matter to me whether or not it gives me an idea of whether to buy the game or not - I watch it largely for Yahtzee's personality and insights anyway.

If a full-length written review doesn't give me enough information to make an informed purchasing decision or not, it's a bad review. I don't see any real controvery in this position. The reviewer has written two pages about the game, given it a star rating, and gone into its mechanics and highlights in great detail. If I still don't know whether the game is for me or not after properly reading and digesting all of that, the review has failed! And I don't see anything problematic at all in expecting more information from a two-page written spread than in a short video that's played for both insight and laughs.

And again, I really don't care what the reviewer's opinion of the game was, except as far as it's likely to agree or disagree with my own. I'm selfish that way. "Would it be worth ME paying for it?" is the question I want answered. Again, assuming I'm looking for information rather than straight-up entertainment.

 

[Squintsalot]

"Objectively" bad? Really?

Yes, really. ...Is there a problem? I already mentioned "technical issues and design mistakes", and suggested further reading.

Again, that's your opinion. As TB said in the video, you can use your knowledge of his tastes and preferences as a guide. If, as someone who dislikes stealth games, he liked this game, then the viewer can conclude that this game does not put much emphasis on stealth elements.

It's not just an opinion - TB actually said all of that in his video on Thief. He identified himself as a person who hates stealth, and as someone who has not played the original series. If "this game does not put much emphasis on stealth elements" then the viewer can also conclude that the game fails to achieve what it set out to do. Which was, you know, to be a stealth game. Can we agree on this very simple thing?

That is, again, your opinion. Some people, like those who've never played a Thief game before, might not care about the franchise as a whole.

This is, again, not just an opinion - the game was marketed as a return to form. The original series is something that the devs have explicitly referred to in every promotional material / interview for this game. Engendering nostalgia was a big part of that. It was also a stated goal of theirs to make this a true and satisfying Thief game for both the connoisseurs and a younger audience.

My words were "the game was not created on its own merits", not that everyone cares. Those who have not played the original series are still aware of the fact that this game is using the original series' name and legacy. Whether some people care or not doesn't change what transpired during this game's development and promotion, nor the stated intent of the devs.

You really need to separate what are clearly your opinions and points of view from objective facts.

Personal preferences notwithstanding, everything I said is supported by evidence.

 

[MeisterKleister]

I'm selfish that way. "Would it be worth ME paying for it?" is the question I want answered. Again, assuming I'm looking for information rather than straight-up entertainment.

Well, I watch Zero Punctuation for the laughs and because I'm also interested in Yahtzee's opinion. Information can be presented in an entertaining fashion too.
The single best way to determine whether a game is worth your money is still to play it yourself (renting, borrowing from a friend, etc). Because I don't think any review can adequately convey what it will feel like when you yourself play the game.
Anyway, if you think a review failed to give you enough information about a game, that's fine. You could point out to the reviewer what exactly they missed and why it's important. Though they might disagree.

Personal preferences notwithstanding, everything I said is supported by evidence.

But there are a lot of people who can and do enjoy "objectively bad" games, which makes those games "good" from their perspective, right?
Imagine there was an "objectively good" game, but you don't enjoy playing it for some reason. Would you be wrong to feel that way? Of course not.
I believe you can say that a game didn't meet certain goals or call certain aspects of a game "objectively bad", but not the game as a whole - at least not honestly. Because in that context the word "bad" is inherently tied to subjective opinion.
It would just be another way of saying "I don't like this game" (eg. because of objectively bad game design).
You can consider a game bad in one regard and consider it good in another regard.
The question "did your have fun?" or "did you enjoy this game?" is the context surrounding a game review and that is by definition subjective.

By the way, I'm only objecting to your use of the phrase "objectively bad [game]" here.

 

[Squintsalot]

Personal preferences notwithstanding, everything I said is supported by evidence.

But there are a lot of people who can and do enjoy "objectively bad" games, which makes those games "good" from their perspective, right?
Imagine there was an "objectively good" game, but you don't enjoy playing it for some reason. Would you be wrong to feel that way? Of course not.
I believe you can say that a game didn't meet certain goals or call certain aspects of a game "objectively bad", but not the game as a whole - at least not honestly. Because in that context the word "bad" is inherently tied to subjective opinion.
It would just be another way of saying "I don't like this game" (eg. because of objectively bad game design).
You can consider a game bad in one regard and consider it good in another regard.
The question "did your have fun?" or "did you enjoy this game?" is the context surrounding a game review and that is by definition subjective.

By the way, I'm only objecting to your use of the phrase "objectively bad [game]" here.

I never questioned whether or not some people had fun playing it, I merely pointed out that this is a bad game. There may be a few good things about it (lighting and smoke effects, options screen), but they are overshadowed by everything that's wrong with it. They barely warrant a mention considering how badly Thief fails in almost every other regard.

You can enjoy something and be fully conscious of the fact that it is shitty. People have fun watching all kinds of crappy entertainment. I might, for example, enjoy watching a Transformers movie, but I wouldn't recommend it as a valuable piece of cinema. Mind you, Transformers also did not set out to be a re-imagining of the Godfather.

However, when something fails to achieve what it sets out to do, then you can argue that it is objectively bad.
When something is plagued by glaring technical issues and design flaws, then you can argue that it is objectively bad.
When something's narrative is incoherent, then you can argue that it objectively bad. And so on.

Especially when you have examples of other stealth games within the same franchise that got all of that right.

If these things don't constitute "objectively bad", I welcome you to point out what does.

I already addressed the issue of personal preference in relation to quality. I gave the example of Arma 3 in my first post on this thread. I said the following: "A matter of opinion would be saying I don't like Arma 3 because I don't have the patience for military themed tactical shooters." This means that yes, you can not like something even though it's good, for personal reasons. If you don't like something, it doesn't mean that you can't see why that's a good piece of entertainment. It just might not be down your alley.

In this particular case, people seem ready to agree that this game is bad as a stealth game and bad as a Thief reboot, but for some reason god forbid we call it what it is - a bad game. Then it's all just "personal opinion". Am I missing something?

Why are we afraid of the term "objectively bad"? Or objective anything in general. Why this tendency to relativize everything? Do we not have standards? Don't we like having them? Isn't this what pushes quality forward?

(PS: I like Space Bunnies Must Die!, you know. Its only redeeming quality is that unlike Thief, this game doesn't take itself so seriously.)

 

[Arppis]

I WISH the games would let me play them MY way. Instead of just forcing me to do everything exactly like the game wants, because it's the only cool way of doing it.

So if this game actualy lets me play the game as I please, that's an upgrade.

 

[MeisterKleister]

In this particular case, people seem ready to agree that this game is bad as a stealth game and bad as a Thief reboot, but for some reason god forbid we call it what it is - a bad game. Then it's all just "personal opinion". Am I missing something?

Why are we afraid of the term "objectively bad"? Or objective anything in general. Why this tendency to relativize everything? Do we not have standards? Don't we like having them? Isn't this what pushes quality forward?

(PS: I like Space Bunnies Must Die!, you know. Its only redeeming quality is that unlike Thief, this game doesn't take itself so seriously.)

I'm not afraid of using it, and I don't think anyone else is. So why phrase it like that?
I just think you're using it wrong. I'm not contesting any of your points and I'm not objecting you using the phrase "objectively bad" to describe gameplay, graphics, bugs, design, etc.
I am only objecting you calling a ***whole game*** ***objectively*** bad. That just reeks of fallacy.
Objectivity is free and independent of emotions and opinions, and whether a game is considered "good" or "bad" is necessarily dependent on your (subjective) enjoyment of it, though it may be "objectively bad" in certain regards.
Also, whether the good outweighs the bad is still up to personal preference.

However, as I said before, I think you can honestly call it "objectively bad" if you add something like "in regards to failing what it wanted to achieve" or some other measure.

I just think the concept "objectively bad game" is nonsensical and contradictory. Unless you define "bad" to exclude any human thought and opinion, and if you consider games more as tools than entertainment.

I just think you're using those words wrong and in a manner that is incoherent, at least when taken literally.