I need my sneaky/stealthy fix !

Walter Mitty wrote:
>
> It strikes me that Mr Cecil is more perturbed that his list of "no nos"
> was encroached and so it never had a chance of a fair viewing from
> him. The levels were not too small. The AI was good enough. The lighting
> and sound created an ambience rarely matched.
>

Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents...

I liked T3 better than T2, which in turn I liked better than T1. I also
happen to think T3 suffered from 'consolitis' but that didn't ruin it
for me, it just left me wishing it was even better than it was. That's
not necessarily a Bad Thing.

We ought to know by now, most of us being adults, that a game is never
"great" or "sucks" so much as our *reactions* to a game are positive or
negative. No matter how much any of us may hate a game, somebody
somewhere will probably love it; and vice-versa. Posts in gaming forums
which merely say "Game X sucks" or "Game X is great" have no influence
on my buying decisions because those are merely reactions from people
I've never met. If a game's content interests me, I'll track down
actual reviews. Don't you all do the same? So let's keep things in
perspective. If T3 failed to garner the greatest possible sales, I
don't think that's because of a few Usenet posts claiming it sucked.


Memnoch <memnoch.TakeThisOut@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> Just imagine how much better it could have been if they had decided not to do
> a console version. Or had decided not to just port it over and do a properly
> optimised and designed PC version.
>

Yeah, and I think the same thing about so *many* games these days!




--
"Any attempt to replace a personal conscience by a collective conscience
does
violence to the individual and is the first step toward
totalitarianism." - Herman Hesse

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 05:31:31 -0600, Michael Cecil <macecil.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 10:49:39 +0100, Walter Mitty <mitticus.TakeThisOut@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Spalls Hurgenson <yoinks.TakeThisOut@ebalu.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:55:05 -0600, Michael Cecil <macecil.TakeThisOut@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:30:05 GMT, Memnoch
>>>><memnoch.TakeThisOut@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:23:03 -0600, Michael Cecil <macecil.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Why did Thief 3 never have the same level of fan support? Last time I checked
>>>>>it was a good couple of years after the game had been released and there were
>>>>>still only a handful of missions.
>>>>
>>>>It's because Thief 3 sucked. Other than the soundtrack, I mean.
>>>>
>>>>Respawning guards, no 3D sound engine, small zones, having zones at all,
>>>>npcs that adjust themselves so their heads properly meet the blackjack, a
>>>>blackjack that is just a hard club, lack of swimming, no rope arrows...
>>>>
>>>>Going from Thief 2 to Thief 3 is like going from The Lord of the Rings
>>>>novel to a bubblegum wrapper cartoon. Just because it is newer doesn't
>>>>make it better.
>>>
>>> I actually preferred Thief3 to the first two, but I'm in the minority.
>>
>>I'm with you. Most people I know who said "Thief 3 sucked" never
>>actually played it. They just went with the "common misconception".
>
>I played it. It sucked. That's not a misconception. It's a fact.

No, it's an opinion. And we all know about those.

>T3 was to T2 as DX2 was to DX.

Not quite as bad but I see your point. It could have been better.