Jerykk wrote on Jan 23, 2014, 04:40:

How often would you actually do that, though? And would it be more practical or useful than simply sneaking up behind him? Landing on the crates would generate a lot of noise and even if you knocked out your target, nearby guards might hear you. Also, we don't even know how the traversal system handles ledges or air control. The video establishes that you can walk off ledges but if you're holding down the traversal key, will you automatically jump like in AC? There are certainly questions left to be answered but it's silly to assume that the traversal system will be inherently restrictive and limited.

Why I would want to make that jump and whether it's wise or not is completely beside the point, and it only begs the question why the devs decided to remove players choice in such a way. I've been thinking about this subject more last night and early this morning. The traversal system does look good, albeit like Garrett is doing all the work for the player, like the combat-focus-system (which can be disables, I know), but why remove the ability to manually jump? It would keep the no-manual-jumping symathizers happy and the haters aswell. I could jump on my favourite crates and jump over my favourite metal tiles, while an obviously well developed climbing and vaulting system adds the cinematic mobility. Win-win. But why the hell did they remove the optiom to manually jump?! And we're back at the start of this discussion.

q[Thankfully, Thief doesn't have nearly as much platforming as AC. In AC, you spend about 70% of the game running, jumping and climbing. In Thief, it's more like 20% traversal, 80% stealth.
Thankfully, indeed.

I can't remember a game where I didn't know exactly where to go and what to do, either. What I couldn't know was how many routes there always were and were the secrets were. I tried to make a far jump to another rooftop, I quicksaved and loaded 4 times until I realized it was indeed impossible to get there. It's that kind of trial&error that made the games more fun and less on rails.

It's usually pretty obvious when you can't make a jump and a single attempt is enough to confirm any doubts. If Thief had more systems at work that affected variables like jump height and distance, then yes, there would be good reason to attempt jumps multiple times. The leg augmentation in DX increased your speed and jump height and could be upgraded multiple times, increasing these attributes further and creating more opportunities for emergent gameplay. But Thief's systems were never that complex.

Most importantly, there won't be any aimed and calculated jumps anymore.. like onto crates next to a guard from up high, knocking him down with a welltimed blackjack strike.

How often would you actually do that, though? And would it be more practical or useful than simply sneaking up behind him? Landing on the crates would generate a lot of noise and even if you knocked out your target, nearby guards might hear you. Also, we don't even know how the traversal system handles ledges or air control. The video establishes that you can walk off ledges but if you're holding down the traversal key, will you automatically jump like in AC? There are certainly questions left to be answered but it's silly to assume that the traversal system will be inherently restrictive and limited.

More mobility, maybe yeah. More cinematic too. Not an improvement per se. Like AC, it can get really fucking boring really quick.

Thankfully, Thief doesn't have nearly as much platforming as AC. In AC, you spend about 70% of the game running, jumping and climbing. In Thief, it's more like 20% traversal, 80% stealth.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 22, 2014, 02:53:

When you play CoD, do you need a blueprint of the map? No, because the map is obviously linear. If you see any kind of barrier, you know you won't be able to pass it. When you see a clearly designated path surrounded by said barriers, you know that's the only path you can take. When a level is linear, it's extremely obvious 99.9% of the time. I don't think I've ever played a game where I didn't immediately realize how linear the levels were. When I played Thief, I never had any doubts as to where I could and couldn't go even though the levels were relatively open-ended. The game's systems weren't expansive or flexible enough to make me believe that I could potentially go anywhere.

I can't remember a game where I didn't know exactly where to go and what to do, either. What I couldn't know was how many routes there always were and were the secrets were. I tried to make a far jump to another rooftop, I quicksaved and loaded 4 times until I realized it was indeed impossible to get there. It's that kind of trial&error that made the games more fun and less on rails.

Sure, except when you're jumping, mantling, vaulting, etc. You act like the new traversal system removes all verticality from the game. That's not the case at all. Watch that video I linked to again. Note the various maneuvers the player performs. Note how he even hops onto and off of a wagon at one point. There's no real reason to jump onto the wagon but the traversal system allows it. From what I've seen, the traversal system looks to provide plenty of flexibility.

I've watched your video today and it's a telling one. I'm very pleasantly surprised by what I saw. Still, it's obvious Garrett is now more like a magnet and I'm sure he'll sometimes be doing exactly what you didn't intend. Also, a great portion of player skill is removed I'm sure. Most importantly, there won't be any aimed and calculated jumps anymore.. like onto crates next to a guard from up high, knocking him down with a welltimed blackjack strike.

I'm pretty sure what will actually happen is that players will recognize that the traversal system offers just as much utility as manual jumping. As they're running across rooftops, pulling themselves up ledges and vaulting over obstacles, they might even feel a greater sense of mobility than the previous games provided.

More mobility, maybe yeah. More cinematic too. Not an improvement per se. Like AC, it can get really fucking boring really quick.

Unless you have an exact blueprint of a map, you don't know what the designers did or didn't intend.

When you play CoD, do you need a blueprint of the map? No, because the map is obviously linear. If you see any kind of barrier, you know you won't be able to pass it. When you see a clearly designated path surrounded by said barriers, you know that's the only path you can take. When a level is linear, it's extremely obvious 99.9% of the time. I don't think I've ever played a game where I didn't immediately realize how linear the levels were. When I played Thief, I never had any doubts as to where I could and couldn't go even though the levels were relatively open-ended. The game's systems weren't expansive or flexible enough to make me believe that I could potentially go anywhere.

The removal of manual jumping nails you to the ground like a magnet or train, and it'll give many of us exactly that sensation I think.

Sure, except when you're jumping, mantling, vaulting, etc. You act like the new traversal system removes all verticality from the game. That's not the case at all. Watch that video I linked to again. Note the various maneuvers the player performs. Note how he even hops onto and off of a wagon at one point. There's no real reason to jump onto the wagon but the traversal system allows it. From what I've seen, the traversal system looks to provide plenty of flexibility.

The removal of manual jumping nails you to the ground like a magnet or train, and it'll give many of us exactly that sensation I think.

I'm pretty sure what will actually happen is that players will recognize that the traversal system offers just as much utility as manual jumping. As they're running across rooftops, pulling themselves up ledges and vaulting over obstacles, they might even feel a greater sense of mobility than the previous games provided.

"If you know what you're doing is random and pointless, there's no illusion." Agreed. But if you don't know, it's not. And that's my point. Unless you have an exact blueprint of a map, you don't know what the designers did or didn't intend. Me shooting those rope arrows and jumping from one to the next wasn't just me trying to hit my own grenades. Who knows what I was thinking. Maybe there was a secret up there? A shortcut past enemy lines?

The removal of manual jumping nails you to the ground like a magnet or train, and it'll give many of us exactly that sensation I think.

If you know that what you're doing is random and pointless, there's no illusion. You don't feel like you're outsmarting the developers because you know you're just doing something random and pointless. Emergent gameplay needs to serve a purpose. You need to actually be solving a problem that the designers put forward. That's when you feel like you outsmarted the designers.

Manual jumping in DX was important because it allowed you to create emergent gameplay that solved problems. Manual jumping in Thief? Not so much. The levels were never as open-ended as the ones in DX and there were far fewer systems that could interact in emergent ways. You say that manual jumping makes it so much harder to tell what the designers intended for you to do but that's not true at all. CoD has manual jumping and it's always blatantly obvious what the designers want you to do. When it comes to creating the illusion of freedom and player agency, level design is exponentially more significant than manual jumping and the levels I've seen in the new Thief look pretty open-ended.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 21, 2014, 04:33:

Its too long ago to come up with any examples. However, I do remember shooting multiple rope arrows creating a path, I climbed on one and jumped to the other and so forth. Good chance it resulted in absolutely no progress, but that wasn't the point. The point was 1. that it was fun and 2. that even the mere illusion of "out-thinking" the developers made the game feel less on rails. After all, the removal of said illusion can maybe even be defined as a game being on rails. If you don't get that, I'm wasting my time here.

No offense but that was probably the worst example of emergent gameplay I've ever read. Random activities without meaningful results exist in every game, even the most linear and scripted. If I play CoD, I can hop backwards while throwing grenades in the air and then try to stab them as they fall back down. However, there's no real reason to do this and it doesn't accomplish anything. If the only benefit of manual jumping is the ability to do random and pointless activities, then its absence won't have any impact at all in the new Thief.

Watch this video from DX for some good examples of emergent gameplay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAGtiCRc_nQ

So I ACTUALLY wasted my time with that last comment. What the hell, Jerykk. You completely ignored my "illusion" argument. Remove said illusion, and you have a game on rails. When I make backhops in COD trying to stab my grenades, I do not in any way have the intention or goal to "outsmart" the designers to get past an obstacle. My entire point of my last comment was that with manual jumping it's so much harder to tell what the designers did or didn't intend you to do or where they did or didn't want you to go. It was easy to have the illusion of being "in control". I think it's the major difference between a game being "on rails" or not.

Again you're trying your utmost best to not see any valid point of the complaint of the removal of manual jumping. It's freaking mental. When the next game brings back invisible walls, put the decision on a pedestal and I wouldn't be surprised..

Its too long ago to come up with any examples. However, I do remember shooting multiple rope arrows creating a path, I climbed on one and jumped to the other and so forth. Good chance it resulted in absolutely no progress, but that wasn't the point. The point was 1. that it was fun and 2. that even the mere illusion of "out-thinking" the developers made the game feel less on rails. After all, the removal of said illusion can maybe even be defined as a game being on rails. If you don't get that, I'm wasting my time here.

No offense but that was probably the worst example of emergent gameplay I've ever read. Random activities without meaningful results exist in every game, even the most linear and scripted. If I play CoD, I can hop backwards while throwing grenades in the air and then try to stab them as they fall back down. However, there's no real reason to do this and it doesn't accomplish anything. If the only benefit of manual jumping is the ability to do random and pointless activities, then its absence won't have any impact at all in the new Thief.

Watch this video from DX for some good examples of emergent gameplay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAGtiCRc_nQ

This comment was edited on Jan 21, 2014, 04:43.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 22:59:

Quinn wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 15:31:

Beamer wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 11:09:

Verno wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 09:30:
I'm willing to give the new Thief a chance, manual jumping in Thief is really not a make it or break it feature. There are far more important things like AI, the stealth system functionality and so on.

Manual jumping will feel limiting at first, but it wouldn't break a game for me at all.

Someone complained that it just lets you go where a level designer wants you to. In some cases, this can be a good thing. If the level designer puts something in too weak to hold weight, then you can't go on it, whereas in the original Thief I remember running on things that would in no way be silent.

If it has a press-space-to-climb feature, like Far Cry 3, I can see it being fine. Disorienting for the first 30 minutes, then a non-factor.

This is the stuff I don't get. At all.

Because a game gets allot of critique for very ligitemate reasons, osme people decide to get uncharactistically tolerant. We're talking about the removal of manual jumping in a first person Stealth game here! Sure, the game can be alright, but the removal of manual jumping is still the most retarded decision ever. Also, finding your own crazy route was a huge factor of what made Thief 1 and 2 and even 3 so interesting. It motivated the player to explore and try all kind of crazy stuff to get past obstacles. If it ended up with Garrett doing something outright impossible.. who cares? It was fun.

Oh, but people get tired of the critique.. so even the most retarded decision isn't all that bad now. Its laughable.

Thief was never Minecraft. There were a finite number of ways to enter and move through any building and the paths you could take were explicitly defined by the designers. If they didn't want you to go somewhere, they'd simply add collision. If they didn't want you to use your rope arrows, they'd simply not place any wooden beams. I have yet to see a single example of genuinely emergent gameplay (gameplay that was never intended or foreseen by the designers) that resulted from the ability to manually jump. If manual jumping made Thief the pinnacle of emergent gameplay, surely you can list just one specific example of that? If we were talking about the original DX, I'd agree with you. But Thief was never as open-ended as DX and never had even a fraction of its emergence.

Out of curiosity, did you also complain about the lack of manual jumping in Bulletstorm? Or any other first-person game? If so, I think the issue lies with you, not the games. Demanding that every first-person game have manual jumping is about as silly as demanding that every first-person game have leaning, iron sights, sprint or whatever other mechanic you arbitrarily decide is essential.

Its too long ago to come up with any examples. However, I do remember shooting multiple rope arrows creating a path, I climbed on one and jumped to the other and so forth. Good chance it resulted in absolutely no progress, but that wasn't the point. The point was 1. that it was fun and 2. that even the mere illusion of "out-thinking" the developers made the game feel less on rails. After all, the removal of said illusion can maybe even be defined as a game being on rails. If you don't get that, I'm wasting my time here.

Quinn wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 15:31:

Beamer wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 11:09:

Verno wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 09:30:
I'm willing to give the new Thief a chance, manual jumping in Thief is really not a make it or break it feature. There are far more important things like AI, the stealth system functionality and so on.

Manual jumping will feel limiting at first, but it wouldn't break a game for me at all.

Someone complained that it just lets you go where a level designer wants you to. In some cases, this can be a good thing. If the level designer puts something in too weak to hold weight, then you can't go on it, whereas in the original Thief I remember running on things that would in no way be silent.

If it has a press-space-to-climb feature, like Far Cry 3, I can see it being fine. Disorienting for the first 30 minutes, then a non-factor.

This is the stuff I don't get. At all.

Because a game gets allot of critique for very ligitemate reasons, osme people decide to get uncharactistically tolerant. We're talking about the removal of manual jumping in a first person Stealth game here! Sure, the game can be alright, but the removal of manual jumping is still the most retarded decision ever. Also, finding your own crazy route was a huge factor of what made Thief 1 and 2 and even 3 so interesting. It motivated the player to explore and try all kind of crazy stuff to get past obstacles. If it ended up with Garrett doing something outright impossible.. who cares? It was fun.

Oh, but people get tired of the critique.. so even the most retarded decision isn't all that bad now. Its laughable.

Thief was never Minecraft. There were a finite number of ways to enter and move through any building and the paths you could take were explicitly defined by the designers. If they didn't want you to go somewhere, they'd simply add collision. If they didn't want you to use your rope arrows, they'd simply not place any wooden beams. I have yet to see a single example of genuinely emergent gameplay (gameplay that was never intended or foreseen by the designers) that resulted from the ability to manually jump. If manual jumping made Thief the pinnacle of emergent gameplay, surely you can list just one specific example of that? If we were talking about the original DX, I'd agree with you. But Thief was never as open-ended as DX and never had even a fraction of its emergence.

Out of curiosity, did you also complain about the lack of manual jumping in Bulletstorm? Or any other first-person game? If so, I think the issue lies with you, not the games. Demanding that every first-person game have manual jumping is about as silly as demanding that every first-person game have leaning, iron sights, sprint or whatever other mechanic you arbitrarily decide is essential.

harlock wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 16:36:

Jerykk wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 04:20:
Emergent gameplay is defined by unintended behavior within a game's systems.

Too narrow minded. Intentional behavior is also included.

Emergent gameplay refers to complex situations in video games, board games, or table top role-playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_gameplay

That's a vague definition without any specific citations. You also seemed to ignore the vast majority of definitions on that page, which included:

"In games with complex physics and flexible object interaction it may be possible to complete in-game problems using solutions that the game designers did not foresee."
"Unintentional emergence occurs when creative uses of the video game were not intended by the game designers."
"Emergent gameplay can arise from a game's AI performing actions or creating effects unexpected by even the software developers."
"In several games, especially first-person shooters, game glitches or physics quirks can become viable strategies, or even spawn their own game types"

There's a pretty clear trend in all of those definitions: lack of developer intention. Referencing that page did not help your argument.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 04:20:
Emergent gameplay is defined by unintended behavior within a game's systems.

Too narrow minded. Intentional behavior is also included.

Emergent gameplay refers to complex situations in video games, board games, or table top role-playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_gameplay

Quinn wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 15:31:

Beamer wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 11:09:

Verno wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 09:30:
I'm willing to give the new Thief a chance, manual jumping in Thief is really not a make it or break it feature. There are far more important things like AI, the stealth system functionality and so on.

Manual jumping will feel limiting at first, but it wouldn't break a game for me at all.

Someone complained that it just lets you go where a level designer wants you to. In some cases, this can be a good thing. If the level designer puts something in too weak to hold weight, then you can't go on it, whereas in the original Thief I remember running on things that would in no way be silent.

If it has a press-space-to-climb feature, like Far Cry 3, I can see it being fine. Disorienting for the first 30 minutes, then a non-factor.

This is the stuff I don't get. At all.

Because a game gets allot of critique for very ligitemate reasons, osme people decide to get uncharactistically tolerant. We're talking about the removal of manual jumping in a first person Stealth game here! Sure, the game can be alright, but the removal of manual jumping is still the most retarded decision ever. Also, finding your own crazy route was a huge factor of what made Thief 1 and 2 and even 3 so interesting. It motivated the player to explore and try all kind of crazy stuff to get past obstacles. If it ended up with Garrett doing something outright impossible.. who cares? It was fun.

Oh, but people get tired of the critique.. so even the most retarded decision isn't all that bad now. Its laughable.

I just don't think manual jumping is the single most important thing in a game. BulletStorm was fine without it, and I'm having a blast in Far Cry 3 without really ever manually jumping. Which is really what I'm using as my basis for comparison - the ability to climb in FC3 is far, far more important in the gameplay than the ability to jump.

Do I think that removing the ability to jump is a bad idea?
Yes, yes I do.
Do I think that removing the ability to jump means a game is a bad game.
No, no I do not.

For the record, I'm sure this new Thief will have plenty of examples of players creatively combining abilities. But there are also a few ways that they are compromising the Thief-style design, including the restriction of movement (no jumping), and the forced escape sequences.

I think what Jerykk is labelling emergent gameplay is better described as 'transgressive' or 'transformative' play (taking those terms from Aarseth and Salen & Zimmerman respectively if you're interested).

Beamer wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 11:09:

Verno wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 09:30:
I'm willing to give the new Thief a chance, manual jumping in Thief is really not a make it or break it feature. There are far more important things like AI, the stealth system functionality and so on.

Manual jumping will feel limiting at first, but it wouldn't break a game for me at all.

Someone complained that it just lets you go where a level designer wants you to. In some cases, this can be a good thing. If the level designer puts something in too weak to hold weight, then you can't go on it, whereas in the original Thief I remember running on things that would in no way be silent.

If it has a press-space-to-climb feature, like Far Cry 3, I can see it being fine. Disorienting for the first 30 minutes, then a non-factor.

This is the stuff I don't get. At all.

Because a game gets allot of critique for very ligitemate reasons, osme people decide to get uncharactistically tolerant. We're talking about the removal of manual jumping in a first person Stealth game here! Sure, the game can be alright, but the removal of manual jumping is still the most retarded decision ever. Also, finding your own crazy route was a huge factor of what made Thief 1 and 2 and even 3 so interesting. It motivated the player to explore and try all kind of crazy stuff to get past obstacles. If it ended up with Garrett doing something outright impossible.. who cares? It was fun.

Oh, but people get tired of the critique.. so even the most retarded decision isn't all that bad now. Its laughable.

Verno wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 09:30:
I'm willing to give the new Thief a chance, manual jumping in Thief is really not a make it or break it feature. There are far more important things like AI, the stealth system functionality and so on.

Manual jumping will feel limiting at first, but it wouldn't break a game for me at all.

Someone complained that it just lets you go where a level designer wants you to. In some cases, this can be a good thing. If the level designer puts something in too weak to hold weight, then you can't go on it, whereas in the original Thief I remember running on things that would in no way be silent.

If it has a press-space-to-climb feature, like Far Cry 3, I can see it being fine. Disorienting for the first 30 minutes, then a non-factor.

I'm willing to give the new Thief a chance, manual jumping in Thief is really not a make it or break it feature. There are far more important things like AI, the stealth system functionality and so on.

Qbex . wrote on Jan 20, 2014, 02:47:
Jerykk sorry dude, don't want to gang-up on you but your definition of emergent mechanic in game is not entirely correct. One would argue that all player in-game actions are an effect of planned range within game systems and simulation. Other would argue that none of those actions were foreseen by game designers in simulation type of game. Main problem with your Tribes example is that's Tribes is a multiplayer game and its a human vs human interaction in that game that's uses exploit or emergent by your definition. Do you have any other examples of emergent gameplay like this in single player game?

I already provided examples of emergent gameplay in single-player games. Deus Ex has plenty of it. The designers never intended for you to use LAMs to climb walls but you can do that. That is emergent gameplay. The designers never intended for you to run around, find every crate/trash can/barrel you can carry, stack them on top of each other and then climb up to areas you aren't supposed to reach. You can do that in the newest DX too. I even managed to reach an area where I could see outside of the level. Even HL2 has emergent gameplay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV-AWxqYAgc. Needless to say, Valve never intended for players to exploit physics bugs and fly across the levels. That is emergent gameplay. And yes, exploiting a bug does constitute emergent gameplay because a bug is simply unintended behavior. Emergent gameplay is defined by unintended behavior within a game's systems.

I'll give you example, in Thief I can shoot a broadhead arrow near a guard to distract him, is this planned or not planned by designers ? They given you noisemakers for that but i can even distract the guard by dumping blackjacked dude to the pond near by for the same effect, is this all planned by designers?

Yes, those were all planned. Broadhead arrows were designed to make noise. Dropping bodies into water is designed to make noise. The AI is designed to react to noise. That's no coincidence. All of these interactions were by design. As I've said, the Thief games had flexible systems that offer many solutions to any given problem. However, none of these solutions were unexpected or emergent. Also, you'd be surprised by the emergent gameplay that QA can discover. They spend all day testing systems and trying to break them so it's not uncommon for them to discover emergent solutions.

This comment was edited on Jan 20, 2014, 04:34.

I'm perfectly comfy agreeing to disagree with the exploit-accepting half of that definition. Just as long as you are aware that, if this community is any decent measure (and it usually is), you're in the extreme minority. Wall-hacks in Counterstrike, for example, are cheats... not emergent gameplay.

Wall-hacks were a cheat, yes. One could argue that they don't qualify as emergent gameplay because they require third-party software to perform. Wall-hacking is not an interaction between existing systems, it's an all new system introduced from outside the game. Skiing, on the other hand, was not, nor was it ever regarded as a cheat. Instead, it emerged from the game's existing systems and became the default way to the play the game.

As for automated traversal in Thief, I still don't see the issue. Thief was never a platformer. The focus of the game was never on platforming. On the rare occasions where you did perform platforming, it was very simplistic platforming that required little to no skill. If we were talking about Tomb Raider or Prince of Persia or Mirror's Edge, then you'd be right. Automatic traversal in those games would significantly dumb down the experience because those games focus on platforming. That's not true of Thief. The tension of Thief's gameplay comes from sneaking past guards and avoiding detection, not performing intricate precision platforming. It feels like you're complaining about this based solely on the principle of the matter rather than the actual impact on gameplay. The first few Splinter Cell games had manual jumping. The last couple of games made it contextual. Guess what impact that had on gameplay? None whatsoever because Splinter Cell was never a platformer, just like Thief was never a platformer.

You speak of the original Thief games as if the designers didn't provide explicit solutions for the player. If you wanted to enter a building, you could only do so where the designers let you. If you wanted to use a rope arrow, you could only do so where the designers let you. The designers specifically placed the guards and set their patrol routes. They specifically placed the entrances to buildings. They specifically placed wooden beams for you to use the rope arrows on. They specifically placed the torches and specifically scripted the ability to smother them using water arrows. All of those interactions were specifically designed by the developers, just like shooting a latch to drop a crate in the new Thief was designed by the developers. The existence of an interaction like that does not preclude having open-ended levels with multiple solutions. It just means that those solutions are not emergent, just like they weren't emergent in the previous games.

The Thief games have always had open-ended level design and numerous ways to solve problems. However, those solutions were never surprising or unintended. The designers created those systems in order to provide you with specific options. Using a noisemaker arrow to distract a guard so you can Blackjack him, using a rope arrow to reach an elevated platform, using a water arrow to extinguish a torch so you can sneak past a guard... these are all solutions that the designers thought of. From what I've seen and read, the systems in the new game provide just as many options as in the previous games.

Also, comparing the new Thief to AssCreed or the Arkham games is ridiculous. You don't run around pummeling/stabbing groups of enemies. At no point are you even required to attack anyone. As with the previous Thief games, the focus is on stealing loot while avoiding detection by hiding in shadows, keeping quiet and using distractions to manipulate the AI. That sounds like a Thief game to me.