@MirkoS77:

Which complaints are "pushing it", I'd like to know - especially as you seem to agree with most of what I said. I already admitted the torch relighting is realistic, but given the limited resources available in this game (unless I missed something - the old games you could always find water arrows in water features, fire arrows in fireplaces or things like that, etc.), that's a big deal. If I only have a handful of water arrows and they (guards) are constantly relighting what I'm trying to extinguish to get through an area, that is problematic (to me at any rate). It may be petty, but it does affect the gameplay.

Yes, you can engage bad guys with your blackjack, but if you're being attacked by more than one, you're not going to come out of it very well if at all. Again, the original games always allowed you a sword as a back up, why not here? Pretty much every stealth game I've ever played has always given you the "lethal force" option should you chose to use it (and I'm not talking about the arrows here since they are ranged) and this game franchise has never been any different. I'm well aware that this is meant to be a stealth game, but if you are going to be in a position where you are engaged by hostiles, you should be able to defend yourself better than either simply running (and hoping you happen to be near enough to a pre-designated grapple point to get off the ground) or having to hit them over the head several times with the blackjack. If not, it may as well just end the game there with a "you were noticed" message and restart your last checkpoint.

I'm playing on the normal difficulty and I'll be damned if I ever have enough money to buy a few replacement arrows, let alone anything else (like the tools that cost hundreds of gold pieces each to buy). I'm picking up everything that I can find (well I was when I was still playing it which I've stopped at this point) and none of it seems to be worth hardly any money at all. The really "collectible" items get you nothing monetarily because they just go on display in your hideout.

I'm on the 360 and I would not call simply running to keep up with the girl in the beginning of the game a "tutorial" of any kind. When I finally did find the merchant, I didn't have enough money to buy tools and had no idea I needed them anyway (since there was no mention anywhere that they were needed). I picked up a side quest to steal a painting and once found, I couldn't steal it because I didn't have the razor. Why give me a quest when I don't even have the tool to complete it with or the money to buy the tool that I need? How about a "you lack the tools to complete this quest" message or something rather than wasting my time (which is all this game is anyway).

I don't know anything about the designers issues and that's not my concern. With the heritage that this game has (it practically started the whole stealth genre to begin with) and the games that have come out since, how can you put out something like this? I may have been able to forgive much of what I said if I could simply navigate around the world freely if nothing else, but you can't even do that unless the level designer wanted you to get up a particular crate or not. This game has too many negatives (to me at any rate) to allow it any forgiveness, especially with so many other games out there that execute what this game tries to do so much better. I'm glad that you enjoy the game, but I'm as far as I am concerned it's an epic fail.

@MirkoS77:

I really wonder if the people that have liked this game played the originals as I did. I got this game on Tuesday and I'm not going to even bother finishing it and here is why:

The game is too linear with regards to its navigation. You are surrounded by ledges, boxes, crates, rooftops, pipes, etc. and unless the game makers have designated it as a point where you are allowed to go up them, you can't. After a game like Dishonored came out that reinvented this type of thing, I don't see how they failed so miserably at this in Thief. So you could be looking at a reasonably low ledge, but forget it if the makers didn't want you going up there.

You can't control your jumping and by that I mean that unless it, again, is a designated "jump" point set up by the makers, you cannot jump. Jumping is carried out simply by engaging the run feature and if you happen to hit a spot that is "jumpable", your character will automatically do it. I could have overlooked this if the world was truly open, which it isn't. I don't know how many times I was facing an easily reachable ledge, roof, pipe, crate (whatever) and simply couldn't get over to it by jumping.

In the original games, anything wooden could have a rope arrow shot into it, you could climb up, and then jump off to explore. In this game, you can only shoot arrows into pre-selected mounting points (which glow blue under "focus") which is just dumb seeing as how you are surrounded by wooden structures. You could also recover your rope arrows in the old ones, something you can't do in this one either. So again, you could be looking at a window that can be opened (apparent by the blue glow), a ledge in front of it, and a rooftop with exposed beams on top, but unless it's a designated anchor point, you can't get up there. It's the same thing with getting off the ground in general - unless you come across a grate or something on a wall (again, it will glow blue under "focus") for you to wall run/use your claw to get up, you can't get off the ground. I also find it amazing that are certain parts of the game, it switches to third person mode so you can scale a wall using a grapple line, but you can't do it anywhere else in the game.

Combat - in the old games you always had a sword as backup to the blackjack and how you played was up to you (kill or knock out). In this game, all you have is the blackjack and if you get into a fight with a guard, you're expected to basically run away or continuously bat at him with the blackjack until you get the "hold button to takedown" prompt. Sure, you have your arrows, but it takes like three arrows to their head to kill them, so they're basically pointless and won't do you any good in a face to face fight anyway. Of course the point of the game is to sneak, but should I be discovered, let me be able to do something about it besides run.

Windows - why oh why oh why do I have to first hold a button to initiate opening a window, then have to button mash a few times to actually pry the dumb thing open on EVERY SINGLE FREAKING WINDOW in the game world? Once I get through the window, should I decide to leave right away, I turn around and find the same window that I just came in from is closed again. So I have to press and hold button, then button mash again to get back out - just dumb and a waste of time.

While we're talking about windows, let's talk about what you get to explore, or rather don't get to explore, once you get inside the windows. With very few exceptions, all I got as a reward for fighting my way off the ground to get to a window was a single freaking room. No full house to explore, no multiple floors, nothing - just one freaking room. While we're talking about the rooms, let us also talk about all of the doors you may see in the room that can't be opened either, what's the point?

Exploration - every door has to have the lock picked which I get, but it just gets tiresome. It also doesn't help that after I bother to pick a lock to a door, I am once again greeted with a whole whopping single room to loot and not be granted access to a full house to explore like so many other games on the market (Dishonored, Elder Scrolls, etc.). This is further rendered cumbersome by the fact mentioned above that simply trying to get around is just way too difficult. There are times when you are prompted to look into a hole in a wall or window just to see loot behind it, but I'll be damned if I could ever do anything about it since there was no window to open, no door, no way in, etc. If you are going to allow me to play a thief in a world like this, I need to be able to get around without having to use your pre-established rail lines you've scattered around the world.

People - the townspeople walking the streets couldn't care less that you are there sneaking around, but the if the guards are within a mile of you, they see you and charge you. What's the point of populating the world with NPC characters that don't react to, that you can't interact with, and in the case of this thieving game, why in the world can't I pickpocket the people walking the streets? Unless they're a guard, all they are is an empty body wandering the street - what's the point? Many times you will hear phantom voices coming out of nowhere talking about hidden loot or something along those lines, but I'll be damned if I could find any of it since the world is just so inaccessible. Sometimes you see a crate and it will let you get on top and then around the corner, the exact same crate is not climbable, etc.

Resources - There was no tutorial and no book for the game (360). I had no idea that focus required something to restore it (poppy) and after I burned out the meter in the first few seconds of play, I had no way to refill it (which you don't really have to do anyway because when you hit the focus button, even if you're out, you'll still get a focus boost for about a second or so to see the glowing blue things). I only came across a poppy in the world one time, other than that, I had to buy them from a vendor. I also found myself to be lacking in funds since so many of the items in the game are so expensive. For example, I had no idea that I needed to buy a razor, wrench, wire cutter, etc. to get around certain parts of the world. After I did, I had found that I had spent all my money on arrows. It's also stupid that I am given a side quest of retrieving a painting, only to find that once I get to the painting, I can't complete it because I didn't have the money to buy the razor. Some kind of hint or prompting early on would have helped so that I could have bought those tools rather than waste them on arrows that I really couldn't use either. It was also nice to know, once again after I had spent all of my money, that I could donate money to the old croon in the graveyard for bonuses as well - thanks again for the heads up game makers.

Arrows - as in the original one, you've got water, fire, rope, and choke arrows. The rope arrows are useless unless you have a mounting point (see rant above). Water arrows are fine if you extinguish something that a guard doesn't just walk back up to to relight, something that happened quite a bit (realistic yes, but for gameplay it was kind of dumb) and you only have so many arrows. I never got to a point where I could use the fire or choke arrows and won't since I stopped playing the game.

Save game - you get one, that's it, just one. So if you figure out that you screwed up earlier and you've saved your game (or it's auto saved) since then, you can't go back to an earlier point.

I'm sorry, but this game just fails on just about every level that once made it, and games that have come along since the originals like Dishonored, great and a joy to play. This game is nothing but a wooden on rails snatch fest (and why exactly are there random gold candle holders, jewelry, lock boxes, etc. scattered around outside on barrels or on ledges? And while we're at it, why is a gear so valuable?) and if you really like this game, you owe it to yourself to go play something like Dishonored or even find copies of the originals.

I've said it in other posts and I'll repeat it here - what FPS really needs is a swift kick in the head and the reset button pushed. Here is what I think needs to be done to breathe a bit of fresh life into it:

1) Worlds/maps - instead of only being able to play the exact same handful of maps over and over again (so that all the campers know where to hide, etc.), how about a game that creates a random map/world every time? Think something along the lines of Minecraft, but obviously not as large because it wouldn't be playable. Every time you start the game, it's a totally fresh experience. Fresh buildings, fresh vehicles, fresh landscapes, etc.

2) Interaction - this goes with #1, I want to be able to interact with the world I'm playing in and this goes doubly so for an FPS. If I am walking around in a two story mech packing crazy firepower, if I shoot at a building, I expect to see it explode, get smashed to bits, collapse, something/anything besides just see a pre-rendered explosion on the wall, but the wall stays intact. Battlefield tried it with some limited success, but it didn't go far enough. Think along the lines of Mercenaries where you could call in an air strike on an area or building and got to stand by and watch that building get leveled to the ground. Same thing with that Mars game (can't remember the name off the top of my head - Faction or something or other). If I know you are sniping at me from the roof, I should be able to crumble the floor beneath you. If I see you run into a building and close the door, a rocket/missile launched at that door should blow that portion of the building off and you with it - not just see a flash and a bang and then the guy Halo jumping away unscathed. If I have air support coming with planes, helicopters, drones, satellites, whatever, I want to see them be effective and not just catch a few people who happen to be exposed in the open. Be able to fortify a building once you get inside, etc. If the graphics need to get dumbed down a bit to handle this, I'm totally cool with that. What's the point of creating all these beautifully rendered worlds when you can't do anything to them besides walk/run through them?

3) Realism - this can both ways, but I'm talking about getting rid of stupid perks. If I hit you point blank with a bazooka, you shouldn't be able to laugh it off because you have the "reduced explosives" perk (or whatever). If I hit you, you go down and don't just laugh at me after I emptied 60 rounds into you (I now hardcore modes deal with this better, but humor me). This goes with #2 as well with regards to the ballistics. If I get you in the leg or arm, you go down or loose that limb, etc. If I get to pilot a vehicle, let me feel like I'm actually doing some damage rather than just driving or flying around in circles unleashing insane amounts of firepower with little to no effect, what's the point?

Put all this together for something like Titanfall. You're able to walk around in randomly generated cities fighting each other. Every rocket/missile, bullet, and energy blast begins to tear apart the buildings and landscapes. By time your done playing, the city should look like that flooded map of Ghosts or something similar. Enough firepower on one building should crumble it to the ground along with anyone who is inside or on the rooftop. Anyone flying in with air support should be able to level entire city blocks, knock limbs off of mechs, etc. I just really think there is so much potential out there and nobody wants to mess with it for one reason or another.

How is it disruptive? It's their opinion and one that I also happen to agree with. Regardless of what little bit of novelty that the maker managed to inject into Titanfall, it is exactly what the guy said - shoot all that moves, die, respawn, repeat ad nauseum. Every year the same games keep getting recycled into new packaging with a few new maps, weapons, and killstreaks. Titanfall just adds mechs and jump packs to the mix and while it may be successful, it's still just another FPS game that many of us are sick to death of playing. Had they really gone the full monte with it, I may have been impressed. I'm talking large scale maps, full world destruction (what's the point of piloting a large mech packing insane firepower when you can't even take out walls or enemies on rooftops? Even Battlefield tried to do this with a bit of success. Dumb the graphics down if you have to - what's the point of an ultra realistic world when you can't do anything with it?), more than six players, etc. There is so much unlocked potential in the FPS genre that I really don't understand why nobody has done it yet. Maybe after Titanfall makes a trillion dollars some other company will come along and knock it up a notch.

@Joedgabe:

The issue I have with the digital pricing is that, when you look at a new game, it's the same price as the physical game. Now, there is an added cost when producing a physical copy of a game (regardless of how low it gets when stamping them out by the millions, but still). You have to buy blank discs (or have a factory making them yourself), print the booklets and package cover, buy/make the plastic box, etc. If I'm paying $60, I'll buy the physical copy that I can either trade back in or resell to someone else at a later date. If I buy the same $60 game as a digital download, I can't do anything with it other than play it and then have it taking up space on my console/PC or delete it after having played it.

It gets even worse when it comes to older games. Take Xbox Live for example, they are still selling relatively old games at full MSRP when you can go to a secondary store like Gamestop and buy the same game for like half the price. After a certain amount of time, they should mark the games down to keep up with what they are selling for in stores (even new copies are often sold cheaper than they are for digital download).

I will say that for the Xbox at least, they do offer daily and week long deals on digital download games that are usually priced pretty good. They'll have a fairly popular title available for one day only for like $15 (like Dishonored the other day) or other games at 75% that are older - for that price, I think it's worth going the digital route. But I also agree with someone else who said it's interesting that you can get many PC games online for a significant savings over their retail counterpart, so I don't know why the consoles haven't adapted. For example, if it's the latest Droll of Duty game that is $60 at the store, you should be able to download it for like $45 or something - make it worth my while to download.

I'm with others - I am not on board with the whole motion sensing thing that started with the Wii and made itself over to Sony and Microsoft. The Kinect sensor is pointless and is just as gimmicky as the Wii controllers are/were. I can just as easily use my Xbox with my controller without having to wave my hands around or talking to it. While I have seen some interesting private and third party work done with the Kinect sensor, I doubt any of it will ever make it to production by Microsoft. I have seen no games for either the Xbox or Xbox One that have any need for the Kinect sensor and the ones that do were pretty poor or novel (novel being games like Just Dance and bad being the Steel Battalion reboot). I talk to more people that do NOT like the whole motion sensing craze than do, so I really don't know why the companies are pushing this stuff. The Kinect sensor is around $100, so by dropping it off the Xbox One set, it would get it down to the same price as the PS4 and might help to sell more units.

I just bought a Wii U for my kids and it's the same nonsense all over again. While it's kind of neat that I can play some games with the pad with the TV playing something else, it's not really necessary. Games that utilize the gamepad screen AND the TV tend to get a bit confusing because you are constantly having to switch back and forth between them. I haven't come across a game yet that really utilizes it well with *maybe* the exception being Zombie U, but even then it affects gameplay because you have to basically give up control of the game to swipe stuff around your inventory, etc.

Sony and the Blu Ray player was also about more than games (since someone brought it up). When that first came on the market, Blu Ray players were crazy expensive and Sony offered the PS3 at a price point quite a bit lower than other manufacturers. Many people were simply buying the PS3 to use as a Blu Ray player and not for games. As an added bonus, a Blu Ray disc could hold more information than a standard disc, but I never saw any games made that really made any use of it (i.e. I never saw an Xbox game that had to be on two or more discs that could be done with one on the PS3). The whole high def DVD versus Blu Ray war was still going as well and Sony sided with Blu Ray while Microsoft sided with high def DVD - guess who won. Now that you can get a Blu Ray player for like $50, it's kind of a moot point anyway.

I don't hate them necessarily, but after having played them for over 20 years (since when the first ones like Wolfenstein made the scene), the overall premise hasn't changed. It's run around killing everything and there is only so much of that you can do before it starts to get really old. I prefer something along the lines of Elder Scrolls and Fallout because, while at their heart they are an FPS, there is a story, there is an open world to go explore, you are in control of what you want to do when you want to do it, etc. It's not just run through the building/street/jungle shooting at everything that moves while stuck on a linear/rail system. This also extends to multiplayer, I am just so sick to death of it. The most popular games like Battlefield and Call of Duty just keep repackaging the exact same game with maybe a few graphical tweeks, new guns, new maps, and maybe a new killstreak or something. But at their heart, it's the exact same freaking game over and over again - run around (or camp in one spot as the case may be) trying to kill everyone else, it's just been beaten to death. Why people keep flocking to them over and over again is beyond me.

What would really get me back into the swing of things regarding FPS games would be a total remake of the genre. I'm talking open world, randomly generated maps/worlds to play on so you aren't just playing the same dozen maps over and over again, truly fully destructible worlds (none of this shooting at someone behind a wall with a tank or helicopter just to see the rounds or shells magically bouncing off the walls, ground, piece of tarp, or whatever), no goofy perk systems, etc. There is so much that could be done to breathe some fresh air into the genre that I really can't believe non of the major developers have taken a stab at it. I don't even care if you have to dumb the graphics down a bit to do it, just make me something new that isn't just another Call of Duty or Battlefield frag fest. This is one of the main reasons why I'm considering going back to the PC.

@Randolph:

Exactly - I was around when the Atari 2600 came out and I had one of the first Pong consoles before that. I'm going on 41 and still play, but I've definitely gotten away from the FPS nonsense that seems to permeate gaming. I don't play online anymore because of all the annoying people (I don't have any friends who game to make closed games with) that tend to be on there (not just the kids either), so the novelty is completely lost on me. It's also the exact same formula that has been around for over 20 years now and I'm talking from the viewpoint of someone who played the very first FPS games when they came out. It's run around a small map trying to kill the other guy, there is only so much of that that I can tolerate anymore. They've added objective based maps/scenarios, but of course nobody bothers with the objectives and still just run around trying to rack up their kill ratios.

The games that keep coming out just push that further and further, take the Call of Duty series. There is nothing new about any of them, all you get are a few new guns, maps, and killstreaks - other than that, it's the exact same freaking game that's been around for years. When and if someone comes along with a really refreshing multiplayer game, I may bet back into them (I'm talking like randomly generated maps/worlds, fully immersive and destructible worlds/buildings/elements, etc. so that if I'm shooting at some guy with a freaking tank point blank and he hops behind a canvas tarp, the shells don't just magically disappear or explode causing no damage, etc.). In the meantime, I stick to games with solo campaigns that have an interesting story. I'm seriously considering going back to PC gaming, but I'm still on the fence about it.

@skipper847:

Most games allow you skip through them or just hit an "escape" button to get away from them, so I don't really care. If I want to read it, I'll read it and sometimes they add to the game. Like Elder Scrolls - you get a lot of history about the world from the books, sometimes you can get clues, I got a quest by reading a random book one time. If they are just thrown in the world for the sake of having something to interact with, I think they are pointless. But as long as I don't HAVE to read them to progress when I don't want to read them, I'm cool with it.

@louisfoxton:

I think success has to be rated by more than just the number of units sold. They can sell billions of the things, but that doesn't necessarily make it a successful system when people get rid of them within days, weeks, or months of purchase (because there is no software for it) or they sit on the shelf collecting dust or waiting for that occasional party game to get dusted off.

I bought my kids one a week ago and figured I'd find something to play on the thing, but there is nothing I have any interest in. I'm not getting games like Call of Duty for the Wii U when I can get them for my Xbox. I don't care about Nintendo's cutesy games (that even my kids don't want to play because at 7 and 9 years old, even they think they are lame) like Mario, Kirby, and the like (Mariokart being the exception, I've always enjoyed that one). I also thought that they were going to have their entire Nintendo catalog available for download (their old NES and SNES titles), but there are only a small handful available. There isn't jack on their marketplace to download that I can't get for at least 50% cheaper from Gamestop or Amazon. There are hardly any indie titles available (not even something like Minecraft or similar cult status games that are out now), etc. I'm actually more OK with the system itself than I thought I would be, but there is jack squat to play on the dumb thing when compared to what you can get on other systems.

So they can keep selling them, but just because they still sell a few, I don't think it's been successful in the least.