Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Thief vs AAA gaming

ScummScumm Member UncommonPosts: 78

I recently re-watched this video and it struck me how the same lessons discussed about Thief are relevant to Pantheon’s design philosophy.  The way that the producers of the modern Thief reboot failed to understand what made the original so great is similar to the current state of MMOs; they accuse “old-school” fans of nostalgia and insist that modern mechanics have advanced the genre, while completely misunderstanding purposeful design choices the "old-school" mmo’s made.

Specifically this video talks about maps, gps mini-maps, quest markers, and linear level design.  It also discusses the importance of player strength vs. the environment, difficulty of gameplay vs. feeling empowered, and a general feeling of challenge (death penalties, anyone?)

I don’t think he mentions MMO’s specifically at any point in the video, but I thought Pantheon fans might appreciate it all the same.  And maybe it can shed some light on why we feel the way we do for others who don’t feel the same way.


«1

Comments

  • Hawkaya399Hawkaya399 Member RarePosts: 620
    edited May 2016
    It's streamlining in my eyes. They get more players, but the players who enjoyed the prior titles may not enjoy it as much, depending on whether their gameplay preferences changed.

    Basically failing to understand what made hte original good is not important because it served a smaller audience and their goal is to aim higher. What htey have to get right is what makes games good which serve larger audiences. For Thief (2014), they spent 16 years figuring it out.

    The mistake is to think your own preferences apply to everybody else. The video maker makes this mistake, like most people do. I'm not saying newer games can't still learn from old games now and then. It's just not nearly as simple and as extensive as the video maker implies.
  • ScummScumm Member UncommonPosts: 78

    By ‘aim higher’ than serving a smaller audience, I suspect you mean ‘appeal to a larger number of people’ and consequently make more money.  And in order to do that they need to ‘streamline’ the gameplay.  I thought this video did a good job explaining how the ‘streamlining’ process is often just watering down.

    This is exactly how I feel it relates to Pantheon and the MMO genre.  WoW has mass market appeal and has changed the perception of what a successful MMO is.  But they have done so at the cost of their gameplay and depth.  Their success has spawned endless copycats and left the rest of us craving something different.  

    This isn’t a case of assuming our preferences apply to everyone else.  Most of these preferences have been sardonically dubbed ‘old-school’, as though they were obsolete and nostalgic.  The video maker gave very concrete reasons for why he felt the way he did, on issues as seemingly simple as a mini-map.

    Also, they didn’t exactly spend 16 years learning how to make a new and improved Thief game.  Looking Glass Studios shut down and the Thief franchise was eventually passed on to Eidos.  Had the original LGS team been in control for this reboot, I honestly believe we would have a much better game.  It would include some modern advances, but still maintain the spirit of the originals.  Hopefully this is what Brad and the team will be able to do with Pantheon. 

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,825
    They seem to have taken a great old IP and made their own game using the title but not the gameplay. Just a marketing tool, which sums up what much of gaming is today.
  • KilsinKilsin Member RarePosts: 515
    edited May 2016
    DMKano said:
    It depends if Pantheon delivers on the old school experience - it's a niche game and it's squarely aimed at vanilla EQ1 players.

    It still has to deliver on what made eq1 great - and I hope they can deliver on that.
    That isn't entirely accurate man, while we include VG, EQ, UO, AC and other earlier games in our target audience we also want to open it up to those who have never played those games but enjoy what they stood for and the level of challenge, immersion, and social interaction that they came with. We love our EQ fans but we also want to attract a wide range of fans and age groups to our game so they can experience what we did :)

    Edit: Spelling
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    I think he is referring to oldschool games in a more generic way rather than specific mechanics. First gen MMOs were all more about social challenges and character progression with higher risk vs reward. Even if a game was more about PvP or more about a different type of gameplay specifically, there was a similar underlying philosophy. To describe it as succinctly as possible, your actions had more consequence.


  • ThebeastttThebeasttt Member RarePosts: 1,130
    With every interview they claim how "different" or "unique" Pantheon will be and it makes me worried for the game. Something the devs need to realize is that by 2016 standards even if they copy 90% of EQ Classic they are different by default. Don't over complicate things, your target audience simply wants a better version of early EQ.
  • carotidcarotid Member UncommonPosts: 425
    Kilsin said:
    DMKano said:
    It depends if Pantheon delivers on the old school experience - it's a niche game and it's squarely aimed at vanilla EQ1 players.

    It still has to deliver on what made eq1 great - and I hope they can deliver on that.
    That isn't entirely accurate man, while we include VG, EQ, UO, AC and other earlier games in our target audience we also want to open it up to those who have never played those games but enjoy what they stood for and the level of challenge, immersion, and social interaction that they came with. We love our EQ fans but we also want to attract a wide range of fans and age groups to our game so they can experience what we did :)

    Edit: Spelling
    Now I'm a bit worried.
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Dullahan said:
    I think he is referring to oldschool games in a more generic way rather than specific mechanics. First gen MMOs were all more about social challenges and character progression with higher risk vs reward. Even if a game was more about PvP or more about a different type of gameplay specifically, there was a similar underlying philosophy. To describe it as succinctly as possible, your actions had more consequence.
    No I think Dmkano is right, because what you just said is not the case. Neither the mainstay in SWG or DAOC was about risk vs reward, as there wasn't much reward in much that you did. They weren't games built on those principles, they offered some challenge sure, certainly not in most of the PVE though. They also weren't based (when popular) on some form of endless progression or gaining of personal power, especially games like SWG. Prorgression outside of one path was rather short. Itemization limited (one type of viable armor, few drops that were worth a damn outside of dot effects, and resources for crafting was about the extent of it.

    Those games were more based on forming a community and participating/defending in some form of ownership, or to a lesser extent (SWG) just straight up socialization (entertainers)... Who didn't want to face challenges at all. OR face anything at all, they just danced, made music and chatted. 

    Speaking as one of those who played for the community ownership, guild/realm warfare aspects of those games. PVE challenge, risk vs reward, etc means little to me. IF that's the type of principle Pantheon is built around it won't offer much that I want. Hence the issue with trying to cater to those types. As their core design would be focused on something they're not interested in.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • ShaighShaigh Member EpicPosts: 2,142
    Eidos Montreal took Deus Ex and made Deus Ex: Human revolution that had a solid reception, they took thief and made a game that was shit three years later just to make rise of the tomb raider that got good reception after another year.

    The question becomes whether we should judge AAA gaming on the merits of good games, or the shitty ones. If we pick the times when things go bad, then we can go ahead and say old game design is bad because vanguard turned out to be a failure.
    Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Shaigh said:
    Eidos Montreal took Deus Ex and made Deus Ex: Human revolution that had a solid reception, they took thief and made a game that was shit three years later just to make rise of the tomb raider that got good reception after another year.

    The question becomes whether we should judge AAA gaming on the merits of good games, or the shitty ones. If we pick the times when things go bad, then we can go ahead and say old game design is bad because vanguard turned out to be a failure.
    or do as this former AAA fanboy did just leave AAA games and discovery the absolute metric ton of amazing games in the indie market.

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • ShaighShaigh Member EpicPosts: 2,142
    SEANMCAD said:
    Shaigh said:
    Eidos Montreal took Deus Ex and made Deus Ex: Human revolution that had a solid reception, they took thief and made a game that was shit three years later just to make rise of the tomb raider that got good reception after another year.

    The question becomes whether we should judge AAA gaming on the merits of good games, or the shitty ones. If we pick the times when things go bad, then we can go ahead and say old game design is bad because vanguard turned out to be a failure.
    or do as this former AAA fanboy did just leave AAA games and discovery the absolute metric ton of amazing games in the indie market.
    There's no reason to ditch either type of games when you can play all good games.
    Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    edited May 2016
    Distopia said:
    No I think Dmkano is right, because what you just said is not the case. Neither the mainstay in SWG or DAOC was about risk vs reward, as there wasn't much reward in much that you did. They weren't games built on those principles, they offered some challenge sure, certainly not in most of the PVE though. They also weren't based (when popular) on some form of endless progression or gaining of personal power, especially games like SWG. Prorgression outside of one path was rather short. Itemization limited (one type of viable armor, few drops that were worth a damn outside of dot effects, and resources for crafting was about the extent of it.

    Those games were more based on forming a community and participating/defending in some form of ownership, or to a lesser extent (SWG) just straight up socialization (entertainers)... Who didn't want to face challenges at all. OR face anything at all, they just danced, made music and chatted. 

    Speaking as one of those who played for the community ownership, guild/realm warfare aspects of those games. PVE challenge, risk vs reward, etc means little to me. IF that's the type of principle Pantheon is built around it won't offer much that I want. Hence the issue with trying to cater to those types. As their core design would be focused on something they're not interested in.
    Ok, so DAoC was on par with WoW when it came to consequence? Because I distinctly remember your actions, your reputation and death mattering considerably more. I remember it taking 20 minutes to get back into a fight. Losing a keep could mean losing Darkness Falls. How many modern games do you know that you lose access to content because you lose a fight or fail to perform an action?

    Sure, those things changed over the years but still, the social challenges were still a thing. Rallying your realm in DAoC to take a relic was still a thing. That took time (risk), a cooperative social effort and offered your realm an advantage (reward). Your actions had weight and they had more effect on the world than you will ever see in a modern game.

    How about becoming a jedi in swg or becoming a master crafter? There was most certainly a different philosophy applied in first gen games, even if the goals differed.
    Post edited by Dullahan on


  • immodiumimmodium Member RarePosts: 2,610
    edited May 2016
    I think this is more to do with old vs modern. Seeing as Thief was not developed by an Indie developer. Looking Glass studios were an established company. Ultima Underworld 1/2 and System Shock being great games developed by them prior Thief.

    It was definitely not an Indie company.

    image
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Dullahan said:
    Distopia said:
    No I think Dmkano is right, because what you just said is not the case. Neither the mainstay in SWG or DAOC was about risk vs reward, as there wasn't much reward in much that you did. They weren't games built on those principles, they offered some challenge sure, certainly not in most of the PVE though. They also weren't based (when popular) on some form of endless progression or gaining of personal power, especially games like SWG. Prorgression outside of one path was rather short. Itemization limited (one type of viable armor, few drops that were worth a damn outside of dot effects, and resources for crafting was about the extent of it.

    Those games were more based on forming a community and participating/defending in some form of ownership, or to a lesser extent (SWG) just straight up socialization (entertainers)... Who didn't want to face challenges at all. OR face anything at all, they just danced, made music and chatted. 

    Speaking as one of those who played for the community ownership, guild/realm warfare aspects of those games. PVE challenge, risk vs reward, etc means little to me. IF that's the type of principle Pantheon is built around it won't offer much that I want. Hence the issue with trying to cater to those types. As their core design would be focused on something they're not interested in.
    Ok, so DAoC was on par with WoW when it came to consequence? Because I distinctly remember your actions, your reputation and death mattering considerably more. I remember it taking 20 minutes to get back into a fight. Losing a keep could mean losing Darkness Falls. How many modern games do you know that you lose access to content because you lose a fight or fail to perform an action?

    Sure, those things changed over the years but still, the social challenges were still a thing. Rallying your realm in DAoC to take a relic was still a thing. That took time (risk), a cooperative social effort and offered your realm an advantage (reward). Your actions had weight and they had more effect on the world than you will ever see in a modern game.

    How about becoming a jedi in swg or becoming a master crafter? There was most certainly a different philosophy applied in first gen games, even if the goals differed.
    I was referring to the stark difference between DAOC/SWG and EQ. It was just a different philosophy all together. Especially in the realm of "social challenges". As yes both games had them, but the payoffs and motivations were completely different. EQ's system was almost entirely based on the premise of gaining individually. Be it that hard to reach level, or that hard to find/attain item.

    Whereas DAOC was almost exclusively based on the idea of "realm pride" and collaboration in effort to keep your realm on top. Yes they were different than games today, there's no question about that. Yet my point had little to do with a comparison between old and new. 

    I think it's also important to note, It was bringing those EQ principles into DAOC (items of power, PVE grinds, etc) that drove most away back in the day. The same could be said for SWG as well. Which kinda highlights the issue DK was pointing out here. The player-bases spread between those games were into very different things. 






    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Distopia said:
    I was referring to the stark difference between DAOC/SWG and EQ. It was just a different philosophy all together. Especially in the realm of "social challenges". As yes both games had them, but the payoffs and motivations were completely different. EQ's system was almost entirely based on the premise of gaining individually. Be it that hard to reach level, or that hard to find/attain item.

    Whereas DAOC was almost exclusively based on the idea of "realm pride" and collaboration in effort to keep your realm on top. Yes they were different than games today, there's no question about that. Yet my point had little to do with a comparison between old and new. 

    I think it's also important to note, It was bringing those EQ principles into DAOC (items of power, PVE grinds, etc) that drove most away back in the day. The same could be said for SWG as well. Which kinda highlights the issue DK was pointing out here. The player-bases spread between those games were into very different things.
    Thats the point though, again, we aren't talking about the specific systems or mechanics (those aren't principles) but the fact that player actions had more consequence in every way. What you did in the game had an impact in the game world. You were known for your deeds good or bad and for how competent of a player you were. This aspect of the mmo has been lost as they've become lobby games with mega servers and replaced player interaction with systems of convenience. That is a the difference we are talking about.

    No, players who like that aspect of first gen MMOs won't all like Pantheon because even with those principles in place, it may not have the kind of gameplay they are interested in.

    Also, I don't believe it was PvE that "drove most away" in DAoC, but rather the way they did it. There was a lot of PvE from day one of DAoC. The entire leveling process was almost entirely PvE unless you decided to enter frontiers. I felt like DAoCs biggest failing had nothing to do with EQ or PvE, but their own mistake to allow players to progress without having to fight to do so. In reality, if they made DAoC more like EQ on PvP servers, I think the game would have been 100x better.


  • KilsinKilsin Member RarePosts: 515
    I am not sure why my post would worry anyone, maybe I worded it incorrectly?

    I meant open it up to like-minded people who enjoy games like EQ/VG/UO/AC but didn't have the luxury of playing like we did back in the day.

    How did you all find out about EQ before you started playing it? You would have had to of been marketed too, had a friend tell you, find out via gaming news etc. that is what we want to do with Pantheon, spread the word so more like-minded players can come and join our community and play our game the same way you all found EQ, it doesn't mean market the game to everyone it just means reaching a bit further to find some more gamers like you, folks! ;)
  • tarodintarodin Member UncommonPosts: 128
    As I see there is a dream of a lot of people how played eq1 when they were young and there is a "need" of something like the old good days.

    Obviously a new game that want to attract those kind of players needs to infuse their game with old flavour but players are now 20 years olders. Their life has change and nowadays life changed also.

    In the risk equation for the reward the TIME variable has to be changed (or re-evaluated) in some way because most of the future players are parents or have high demanding jobs.

    The point im trying to express is pantheon will sucess if they find the solution for attracting old players with their old dreams that doesnt fit in this days and deliver a new experience most based in the social aspect than in the time investing for in-game rewarding.

    Maybe your eyes are bleeding right now... sorry... i have "english language" at 50 and improving ;)
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    edited May 2016
    tarodin said:
    As I see there is a dream of a lot of people how played eq1 when they were young and there is a "need" of something like the old good days.

    Obviously a new game that want to attract those kind of players needs to infuse their game with old flavour but players are now 20 years olders. Their life has change and nowadays life changed also.

    In the risk equation for the reward the TIME variable has to be changed (or re-evaluated) in some way because most of the future players are parents or have high demanding jobs.

    The point im trying to express is pantheon will sucess if they find the solution for attracting old players with their old dreams that doesnt fit in this days and deliver a new experience most based in the social aspect than in the time investing for in-game rewarding.

    Maybe your eyes are bleeding right now... sorry... i have "english language" at 50 and improving ;)
    Thats the problem. Time was probably the most important factor. When you change that variable, you unequivocally alter the nature of the game. That said, they do intend to design the game around a "2 hour play session."

    Frankly, I felt like I got plenty accomplished in two hours in EQ, as that was often the most I could play on a daily basis. I think that goal may be a mistake. People either accept and appreciate what is accomplished in 2 hours or they don't. There is no condensing quality gameplay without taking away some of the meaning. The fact that we could never get what we wanted accomplished in 2 hours is what made us yearn to play longer.
    Post edited by Dullahan on


  • hfztthfztt Member RarePosts: 1,401
    I do think he is a bit black and white there.

    Personally I find last years Dying Light to be a wonder of a game, that most certainly have quite a few of the problems he mentions, but the greater sum, like the original Thief game, lifts it up and make those weaker parts really not matter all that much.

    But he does have a point that modern games rely too much on cut scenes and explicit exposition, instead of delivering knowledge through gameplay, and that trying to be everything to everyone is the doom of good gaming experiences.
  • ScummScumm Member UncommonPosts: 78

    That’s another good point, using cut scenes for exposition is even present in mmos now.  A game like Thief or Everquest 1 told story through real-time events and props in the environment.  I think that *especially* in an mmo, cut scenes really disrupt the flow and immersion;  One minute you’re in a fully living world with other players around you, and the next minute you’re in a personalized movie, unable to interact.  Guild Wars 2 is the most recent mmo I’ve played with an insane amount of personalized cut scenes.  Luckily, I don’t believe Pantheon is headed that direction at all. 

  • ScummScumm Member UncommonPosts: 78
    Shaigh said:
    The question becomes whether we should judge AAA gaming on the merits of good games, or the shitty ones. 
    I think we can reasonably do both.

    In this case, Thief is used as an example.  It isn't meant to be a condemnation of all AAA titles (perhaps the name of this thread is a bit misleading in that regard).  Vanguard may have had some problems, but from what I understand it had more to do with bugs and a poor launch than the core gameplay.  

    I don't see this discussion as just a comparison between an old-school classic and AAA flop.  I see it more as a comparison between the design philosophy of both eras.  The video maker might have made a more convincing argument if he had used a successful AAA title for his example, but I think the underlying point would remain the same.    

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited May 2016
    Shaigh said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Shaigh said:
    Eidos Montreal took Deus Ex and made Deus Ex: Human revolution that had a solid reception, they took thief and made a game that was shit three years later just to make rise of the tomb raider that got good reception after another year.

    The question becomes whether we should judge AAA gaming on the merits of good games, or the shitty ones. If we pick the times when things go bad, then we can go ahead and say old game design is bad because vanguard turned out to be a failure.
    or do as this former AAA fanboy did just leave AAA games and discovery the absolute metric ton of amazing games in the indie market.
    There's no reason to ditch either type of games when you can play all good games.
    I dont even have time to look at all the indie titles I want to get into so its not an option purely because the time does not exist for me to bother with the risk that another AAA title will be like Quantum Wake. Besides, me even knowing about Quantum Wake should be a clue that I am not completely disconnected although I often wish I would.

    I think I might play The Forest next

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • ShaighShaigh Member EpicPosts: 2,142
    Scumm said:
    Shaigh said:
    The question becomes whether we should judge AAA gaming on the merits of good games, or the shitty ones. 
    I think we can reasonably do both.

    In this case, Thief is used as an example.  It isn't meant to be a condemnation of all AAA titles (perhaps the name of this thread is a bit misleading in that regard).  Vanguard may have had some problems, but from what I understand it had more to do with bugs and a poor launch than the core gameplay.  

    I don't see this discussion as just a comparison between an old-school classic and AAA flop.  I see it more as a comparison between the design philosophy of both eras.  The video maker might have made a more convincing argument if he had used a successful AAA title for his example, but I think the underlying point would remain the same.    
    In the way he is doing the video he actually does a lot of condemnation, his examples on modern games is almost exclusively negative.

    I can't really relate to the quest marker complaints in skyrim because I went so far off the beaten path that I didn't find out about the Dovahkin destiny until after I had played 50 hours. I took the same approach when playing fallout 4 and it was a ton of fun.

    Its expected that games aimed at a casual market will have more focus on story and will have simpler combat while still retaining the fun and the batman arkham games get those aspects right. You also have plenty of modern games that allows for different approaches and actually make each style feel rewarding.

    I have no love for the modern military shooter but I still have a lot of fun with wolfenstein TNO and expect to have as much fun playing doom because they utilize good level design. I don't care if its unrealistic that weapon and ammo just lie around because there is nothing realistic about those games to begin with. Its not like doom and wolfenstein were realistic 20 years ago anyway.

    Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Shaigh said:
    Scumm said:
    Shaigh said:
    The question becomes whether we should judge AAA gaming on the merits of good games, or the shitty ones. 
    I think we can reasonably do both.

    In this case, Thief is used as an example.  It isn't meant to be a condemnation of all AAA titles (perhaps the name of this thread is a bit misleading in that regard).  Vanguard may have had some problems, but from what I understand it had more to do with bugs and a poor launch than the core gameplay.  

    I don't see this discussion as just a comparison between an old-school classic and AAA flop.  I see it more as a comparison between the design philosophy of both eras.  The video maker might have made a more convincing argument if he had used a successful AAA title for his example, but I think the underlying point would remain the same.    
    In the way he is doing the video he actually does a lot of condemnation, his examples on modern games is almost exclusively negative.

    I can't really relate to the quest marker complaints in skyrim because I went so far off the beaten path that I didn't find out about the Dovahkin destiny until after I had played 50 hours. I took the same approach when playing fallout 4 and it was a ton of fun.

    Its expected that games aimed at a casual market will have more focus on story and will have simpler combat while still retaining the fun and the batman arkham games get those aspects right. You also have plenty of modern games that allows for different approaches and actually make each style feel rewarding.

    I have no love for the modern military shooter but I still have a lot of fun with wolfenstein TNO and expect to have as much fun playing doom because they utilize good level design. I don't care if its unrealistic that weapon and ammo just lie around because there is nothing realistic about those games to begin with. Its not like doom and wolfenstein were realistic 20 years ago anyway.

    Doom and Wolf were crasy popular in the day because they were nearly literally the ONLY game in 3D. it was either that or side scrolls and text based games. So context of its popularity needs to be understood

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • immodiumimmodium Member RarePosts: 2,610
    edited May 2016
    SEANMCAD said:

    Doom and Wolf were crasy popular in the day because they were nearly literally the ONLY game in 3D. it was either that or side scrolls and text based games. So context of its popularity needs to be understood
    They weren't technically 3D.



    Also, you did have first person RPGs in the early 90's. Eye of the Beholder, Ultima Underworld 1 & 2, Hired Guns to name a few.

    Doom & Wolf were popular for more than just being "3D".

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.