Which is worse: To get an in-name-only remake that – while perhaps good – has nothing you liked about the original, or to get a remake that’s horribly flawed but retains glimpses of the original brilliance? Honesty, I still don’t know. These kinds of choices aren’t fun to make.
This new Thief reboot is clearly the latter. It’s deeply flawed, but occasionally good.
I have no idea what Square Enix is going to make of this. Given the complete hodgepodge of features in this game, it’s pretty clear the team didn’t know what kind of game they wanted to make. Was this supposed to be a power fantasy, like Dishonored? Or was it intended to be a slow-paced stealth game? Was the team even thinking about this distinction, or were they too preoccupied with the story?
And if the devs don’t know what they wanted, then I imagine the publisher knows even less.
The product of fandom run unchecked, this novel began as a short story and grew into something of a cult hit.
Game at the Bottom
Why spend millions on visuals that are just a distraction from the REAL game of hotbar-watching?
Juvenile and Proud
Yes, this game is loud, crude, childish, and stupid. But it it knows what it wants to be and nails it. And that's admirable.
The Biggest Game Ever
How did this niche racing game make a gameworld so massive, and why is that a big deal?
Marvel's Civil War
Team Cap or Team Iron Man? More importantly, what basis would you use for making that decision?