Zero Punctuation: Thief - Stealing a Classic

[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

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

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

Heehee, you're the third or fourth person I think to make that point in this thread alone. Poor Yahtzee!

 

[paulbnet]

What is with all the Escapist videos suddenly getting sub titles? "stealing a classic"or "more boring the Nascar". It's fucking dumb. Pack it in.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I think Thief was a pretty fun game but the most frustrating part is that it could have clearly been a GREAT game but they couldn't quite bottle lightning.

 

[TomWiley]

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

So you're saying that he made a 20 minute video dedicated to explaining why people should feel bad about disagreeing with him? That's kind of ironic.

 

[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

So you're saying that he made a 20 minute video dedicated to explaining why people should feel bad about disagreeing with him? That's kind of ironic.

Wow, you really have a knack for missing the point.

He made a video saying that even if you disagree with someone, you can still use their opinion to help you decide whether you'd like something or not.

 

[TheUnbeholden]

Triple A can't do survival horror (hoping that The Evil Within changes that, now that we've had good new survival horror with Outlast).. it appears triple A can't do Thief either. (another genre that requires subtlety). Slow methodical thinking, emphasis on nuanced sound design and layered witty writing, gameplay based around non-combat... Did anyone actually think that even Eidos Montreal could pull that off? Yeah we've got Dishonored, why not mention the Dark Mod.. which feels like a much more faithful and nuanced thief game that has become Stand Alone (and its still free to play).

 

[meunkin]

All I'm seeing when I try to view this is an ad for escapist's youtube channel. Did someone mess up the link?

 

[Lazule]

Well fug.

You can tell Yahtzee is disappointed, I was kinda disappointed as well especially with the "sense" super power Garret got.

 

[drivetheory]

yeah... the completely incompetent sound design in this game ruined it within the first 30 minutes for me, after that it was uninstalled and never completed...