Zero Punctuation: Thief - Stealing a Classic

[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.

 

[Marik Bentusi]

Every damn time i was sneaking about and some person started talking real loud as if they were right behind me, id shit a brick thinking i needed to hide...but 90% of the time i could never even find where it was coming from!

Oh yeah the sound design was really messed up for some reason. I can only assume they tried to do something clever with it and then in the general chaos of Thief's development they shelved the feature and didn't tidy up the code properly, so it produced weird bugs. It's a shame, too, because one of the things I instantly noticed upon replaying the old Thiefs after ages was how great the sound design was. You didn't need half an orchestra playing when swinging with your blackjack to have the moment have musical drama. A single loud step on tiles were able to give you goosebumps in ye olde games.

It's similar with the free running mechanics. Inbetween these interruptive micro-cutscenes and the old days of telekinetic first person ghosts, there's a big amount of games that do contextual ledge grabs perfectly fine by making the animations short, not touching the camera, giving you a frickin jump button that makes all these moves feel natural, and most importantly make everything you can can reach climbable by default rather than what seems to be Thief's level design where only certain objects are flagged to be climbable.

I reeaally wanted to give this game a chance, gave it multiple ones in fact, but beneath the shiny surface the core game design is just a big mess in my opinion. Doesn't bring anything memorable or new to the table either IMO.

 

[Llarys]

Now, I have never played the original Thief games, so if someone could enlighten me:

I watched a playthrough of the first chunk of the new Thief game, and from what I saw, it looks like an extremely unpolished, poorly made version of Dishonored with a boring "gewd graffix" art style that plagues every big budget triple-A game (rather than every character looking like a caricature from a political cartoon, which fit nicely into Dishonored's story). I could almost mistake it for someone stealing Dishonored's engine and game, then covering it all up with new paint and a terrible story.


A sneaking game with terrible AI and a non-functional sound system where walls don't hinder sound. Jesus Christ. Next you're going to tell me there will be a JRPG with no random encounters and no leveling up...




...goddamnit Sticker Star, a year and a half later, and you still haunt me.

 

[Squintsalot]

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.

Gameplay, graphics, level design, technical design, characters and story are what make up the game. Other things are secondary to that. Are you saying that because you have a vast options menu and cool lighting effects, that this is a "good" game? To whom?

I am only objecting you calling a ***whole game*** ***objectively*** bad. That just reeks of fallacy.

I didn't call a "whole game" objectively bad, I called a game objectively bad. It was a general statement. If you want to split hairs on whether it's 82% bad or 93% bad, go ahead. I'm not really interested in doing that, though.

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.

I know very well what objective means, that is exactly why I've used this term. You can level criticism at this game that is entirely free of personal preferences. As I said, criticism that can be backed by evidence and argued using logic. It's been my point all along.

Unless you live in a vacuum, good and bad are not entirely up to individual preference. If that were true, quality, value and art would be a meaningless concepts. We have standards. There is sound reasoning and fallacious reasoning, same as there is broken AI and functional AI, broken sound design and working sound design, and so on. Like I said before, let us try not to relativize everything.

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.

Sounds like you're splitting hairs again. If it fails what it set to achieve, then it's bad. Failing is bad. We can agree on this, yes? Whether it's "wholly" bad or "largely" bad or what have you, is a petty distinction to me. Bottom line, it's bad.

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.

Unless you can substantiate them, opinions based on personal preference alone are worthless in conveying the value of a game. I'll refer back to my original example - Saying that I don't like Arma 3, because I don't like tactical military shooters, conveys nothing about the quality of Arma 3. Everything can be held up to standards of quality, art included. In fact, everything of value is held to standards.

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

I'm pretty sure I've been coherent, but feel free to point out any lapses in logic on my part.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

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.

Gameplay, graphics, level design, technical design, characters and story are what make up the game. Other things are secondary to that. Are you saying that because you have a vast options menu and cool lighting effects, that this is a "good" game? To whom?

I am only objecting you calling a ***whole game*** ***objectively*** bad. That just reeks of fallacy.

I didn't call a "whole game" objectively bad, I called a game objectively bad. It was a general statement. If you want to split hairs on whether it's 82% bad or 93% bad, go ahead. I'm not really interested in doing that, though.

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.

I know very well what objective means, that is exactly why I've used this term. You can level criticism at this game that is entirely free of personal preferences. As I said, criticism that can be backed by evidence and argued using logic. It's been my point all along.

Unless you live in a vacuum, good and bad are not entirely up to individual preference. If that were true, quality, value and art would be a meaningless concepts. We have standards. There is sound reasoning and fallacious reasoning, same as there is broken AI and functional AI, broken sound design and working sound design, and so on. Like I said before, let us try not to relativize everything.

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.

Sounds like you're splitting hairs again. If it fails what it set to achieve, then it's bad. Failing is bad. We can agree on this, yes? Whether it's "wholly" bad or "largely" bad or what have you, is a petty distinction to me. Bottom line, it's bad.

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.

Unless you can substantiate them, opinions based on personal preference alone are worthless in conveying the value of a game. I'll refer back to my original example - Saying that I don't like Arma 3, because I don't like tactical military shooters, conveys nothing about the quality of Arma 3. Everything can be held up to standards of quality, art included. In fact, everything of value is held to standards.

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

I'm pretty sure I've been coherent, but feel free to point out any lapses in logic on my part.

I'm going to weigh in here. I think you stated your position very clearly indeed, and I think you're absolutely correct in what you say about "objective quality" versus "subjective opinion". In particular this:

"Unless you can substantiate them, opinions based on personal preference alone are worthless in conveying the value of a game."

That's EXACTLY the point that I was trying to make above. Again, I usually disagree with Yahtzee - I didn't like "Amnesia" at all, and I thought "Bioshock: Infinite" was an average game with a really good story and world - yet I still watch and enjoy "Zero Punctuation" a great deal. I'm not in any way offended by the fact that he or anybody else has enjoyed games that I don't.

What I DO get offended by is when I write up a fairly detailed description of exactly WHY I had problems with these games, and people turn around and say "Well, your opinion is totally subjective anyway, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the game." YES my opinion is subjective, and it's likely that not everybody will be bothered by the same flaws as I am. But that doesn't mean that I'm wrong about stuff that's not subjective! If I can point out factual instances of the game that just plain don't work, or game logic that makes no sense within the context of the game's world, then those are objective flaws. Don't turn around and tell me that they aren't just because my "opinion" is "subjective".

Again I would bring up my "Skyrim" example here - I know some people who hate that game for flaws that I absolutely acknowledge, but which don't bother me. That doesn't mean that I think the flaws don't exist - I know they do! If you point out that Skyrim is stuffed full of entirely one-dimensional characters, I'd say: "Yes, it is, but that's fine for me." Doesn't mean it'll be fine for everybody. If that particular thing bothers you, don't buy the game.

That's why a detailed review of a game should point these things out. That's what I mean when I say I don't care what the reviewer's OPINION was. Without knowing the factual basis for that opinion - what worked, what didn't, what are the strengths of the game - I can't decide whether or not the game is for me. And that's what I'm looking for from a detailed review. (Again, "Zero Punctuation" isn't and has never been intended to be this. It's Yahtzee's impressions of the game, coupled with comedy and insights. Which is just fine too - I enjoy it and I know what I'm getting.)

 

[Thanatos2k]

I don't understand how anyone can suggest that it's not an objectively bad Thief game. And for fans of Thief, that's all you need to know.

Dishonored wasn't trying to be nor was marketed as a Thief game, that's why it's judged on its own merits.

 

[Squintsalot]

I'm going to weigh in here. I think you stated your position very clearly indeed, and I think you're absolutely correct in what you say about "objective quality" versus "subjective opinion". In particular this:

"Unless you can substantiate them, opinions based on personal preference alone are worthless in conveying the value of a game."

That's EXACTLY the point that I was trying to make above. Again, I usually disagree with Yahtzee - I didn't like "Amnesia" at all, and I thought "Bioshock: Infinite" was an average game with a really good story and world - yet I still watch and enjoy "Zero Punctuation" a great deal. I'm not in any way offended by the fact that he or anybody else has enjoyed games that I don't.

What I DO get offended by is when I write up a fairly detailed description of exactly WHY I had problems with these games, and people turn around and say "Well, your opinion is totally subjective anyway, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the game." YES my opinion is subjective, and it's likely that not everybody will be bothered by the same flaws as I am. But that doesn't mean that I'm wrong about stuff that's not subjective! If I can point out factual instances of the game that just plain don't work, or game logic that makes no sense within the context of the game's world, then those are objective flaws. Don't turn around and tell me that they aren't just because my "opinion" is "subjective".

Thanks. And I agree, dismissive statements of the "well, that's just your opinion" kind, can be very frustrating. To avoid headaches, I try to keep in mind that they're not valid counterarguments.

 

[TJF588]

I see what you're saying, but the thing is, that reboot remained true to the elements of the story that made it good in the first place. The best parts of Thief were the engaging dialogue, clear stealth focus, wide open levels designed to be explored in a non-linear way, and Garret's character. If you ruin all those things, you're not making a Thief game. Dishonored, if you had completely rewritten the story and dialogue trees, would have made a better reboot than this. Dishonored took the ideas of Thief's gameplay and expanded on them. This just tosses those ideas out and starts all over again, with only token character names to connect it to the previous entries.

Some big company is gonna get ahold of rights for Rouge, and they'll "reboot" it, and it will not be a rouge-like, and blood will be shed as the pillars of Trippleaye come shearing down upon us and the tongue of man warps gnarled by the abandonment of sense from this mortal coil.

 

[Requia]

Yhatzee: This is your Karma for giving a positive review to Fallout 3.

 

[thewatergamer]

Ehh, after watching TB's WTF is Thief, I bought it and have to say I rather enjoyed it, it wasn't perfect but it was interesting enough and I certainly don't regret buying it, mind you I never played the original series

Then again this is ZP so you usually don't come to it for serious gaming critique, you come to laugh at how witty yahtzee is, and he certainly delivered