Third-Person Thief III

The Game That Pioneered Stealth in Gaming Reemerges in Eidos and Ion Storm's Thief: Deadly Shadows is the press release announcing the addition of a third-person perspective option in the upcoming installment in the stealthy Thief series. The announcement is accompanied by a few screenshots showing off the new point of view. Here's a bit:
In Thief: Deadly Shadows, gamers will be able to play in either third person or first person perspectives, and shift seamlessly between each on the fly. The new third person perspective will further immerse players into the role of Garret [sic] -- the master Thief. Sneaking through darkly lit environments, stealing riches and ambushing unwary targets in third person presents a new, visceral gaming experience to the Thief franchise. Still, the tension fuelled gameplay in classic Thief first person view is there for returning fans of the series and newcomers alike. Ion Storm's trademark dynamic lighting and shadow technology manifests in Thief: Deadly Shadows new levels of depth and tension to the game's environments. Characters and objects cast real shadows that effect stealth gameplay, requiring the player to manipulate darkness and light to create your own shadows to hide in.
View : : :
118.
 
Re: XBox vs. PC
Jan 23, 2004, 23:22
Re: XBox vs. PC Jan 23, 2004, 23:22
Jan 23, 2004, 23:22
 
PC KotOR sales haven't been as hot as you seem to suggest

For a roleplaying game, it sold well enough. That it doesn't sell as much as a Sims expansion pack, pff, those things sell 58million copies a day. David Gaider seemed well pleased with the sales of KotOR for PC on their boards, but yes, obviously it didn't sell as well as it did for the Xbox (which shattered all records). However, considering that it was the work of six months to do the port for the PC version, Bioware was very pleased with the sales numbers for that selfsame PC version.

I doubt seriously that Ion Storm is going to be so pleased about their numbers...


If Thief proves anything it's that you don't need to sell well in order to get a sequel.

You will note that in my original post I specifically stated "With Eidos at the helm."
Thief 1 & 2 were made by a developer who made games to make games, not to make money. They made games because they loved it, and they wanted to make the best game possible. They didn't have an Eidos, or an EA, or any other soulless corporate wh0re breathing down their necks demanding that they churn out another million selling Half Life Clone every three months.
They made the game THEY wanted to make, knowing full well it wouldn't resonate with a lot of gamers (let's be frank here, the majority of the PC gamers is the "U SUK D00D!! LOLOLOL!!!!111!!!!!1!1!" death matching bunnyhopper counterstrike cheatwhore. Well, ok, at least a large portion is anyways. They would NEVER play something like Thief, or Deus Ex, because it's not about being Teh K1NG!!!!)

When Warren put together Ion Austin, they were like that too, but since then Ion Dalles closed, Eidos has lost a shitload of money, and I just don't think they have that luxury anymore. Their games now HAVE to sell well, and thus they cannot be these specialised niche games anymore, and thus they have to pander to the lowest common denominator.
Unfortunately for them, Ex Deus didn't even resonate with the counterstrike gimps.

Again my point is that your belief that DX is now a dead franchise because of the IW poor sales has no basis.

I have no solid evidence, no. I do have poor sales numbers, and the fact that the franchise is in the hands of Eidos for you. Put two and two together, realise we still have no sequel to Anachronox, which was fucking DESIGNED to be a two game story, and perhaps you'll see what I'm getting at...

Incorrect, when LGS died they were programming the Siege Engine which was going to power Thief 3

I should have explained that better. Yes, LGS were working on Thief 3, however, they ran out of money, and couldn't finish it, even though they desperately wanted to. Their last two games before Thief 3, IIRC, were Thief and Thief 2. Had Thief (2) sold better, LGS wouldn't have been out of money, and would have been able to finish Thief 3. Undoubtedly much better than what Ion will make of it.


If Ion Storm hadn't been developing Deus Ex : IW, do you really think they'd have picked up the Thief franchise?
Yes.


Ok, fair enough. I don't think so, but obviously the only one who really knows the truth is either Warren or some corporate Eidos wh0re.

Creston

Avatar 15604
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
61.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
62.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
  Re: Ok
2.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
3.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
4.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
5.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
7.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
8.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
31.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
6.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
9.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
10.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
11.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
19.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
12.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
13.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
15.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
93.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
17.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
14.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
16.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
18.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
20.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
30.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
67.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
88.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
89.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
90.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
     Re: xbox crap
58.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
21.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
33.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
34.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
22.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
23.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
24.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
25.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
35.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
39.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
41.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
42.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
49.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
     Re: No subject
46.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
40.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
26.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
27.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
28.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
29.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
32.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
36.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
70.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
37.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
38.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
43.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
44.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
45.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
47.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
50.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
48.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
51.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
52.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
53.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
54.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
55.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
71.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
56.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
59.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
72.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
57.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
60.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
63.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
64.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
65.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
66.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
69.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
74.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
78.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
79.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
73.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
68.
Jan 22, 2004Jan 22 2004
75.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
81.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
76.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
77.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
80.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
82.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
83.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
84.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
86.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
92.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
94.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
95.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
     Re: No Romero
85.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
91.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
96.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
97.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
100.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
101.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
102.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
103.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
104.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
     Re: XBox vs. PC
105.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
      Re: XBox vs. PC
106.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
       Re: XBox vs. PC
109.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
110.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
113.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
114.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
115.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
     Re: XBox vs. PC
116.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
      Re: XBox vs. PC
 118.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
       Re: XBox vs. PC
119.
Jan 24, 2004Jan 24 2004
        Re: XBox vs. PC
120.
Jan 24, 2004Jan 24 2004
        Re: XBox vs. PC
121.
Jan 24, 2004Jan 24 2004
         Re: XBox vs. PC
117.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
     Re: XBox vs. PC
124.
Jan 24, 2004Jan 24 2004
     LGS sales
125.
Jan 24, 2004Jan 24 2004
      Re: LGS sales
99.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
107.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
108.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
111.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
112.
Jan 23, 2004Jan 23 2004
126.
Jan 24, 2004Jan 24 2004
  Bingo
127.
Jan 24, 2004Jan 24 2004
   Re: Bingo
128.
Jan 24, 2004Jan 24 2004