as someone who's made a bunch of maps, models and some mods for free, the concept that someone needs to be paid in order for them to bother being creative is unbelievably stupid.

indeed, people being paid to be creative has done the exact opposite. 

If people bought my maps I'd probably focus a little more on it. Right now I just tend to mess about wasting a lot of time. But then I'm a capitalist slut. ;) 

indeed, people being paid to be creative has done the exact opposite.

Maybe that's the reason most modern games are so meh.

Lots of people spend their hours playing them though. I can't figure that one out %<. 

is entirely different from someone taking a paid position and then being told to make something according to someone else idea of a good game.

I'm sure if any number of mappers, or a combination of the best ones, from this community was paid to make the best quake episode ever produced we would get a pretty fine product indeed.
This is different from someone at EA or Infinity Ward being paid to produce the next iteration of an already popular franchise. That's their job, not their passion.

Money is a means to do what you love, some people love making games and some people make games to get paid to enjoy non-game related activities. 

What the hell, George Broussard is a dick. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/03/editorial-why-games-should-enter-the-public-domain/

For people like me who don't read the articles, i should clarify to them Broussard is speaking against games entering the PD.

Broussard - Insanity. Creators have a right to be paid indefinitely on their work if market is there. Period.

It would be great to see these old things entering the PD, but then that's just taking money out of *their* hands, so it's not going to happen. 

there are some "culture industries" such as music, for example, that would be massively improved if they were run purely on donations. Suits pander to lowest-common-denominator consumers by forcing talent to do what talent otherwise would not do, and/or just using non-talent. If no one made a cent, there would still be great music, books, and games. I will make an exception for films since it's pretty obvious that they cost money, but even then, if all movies had 1/10 of their budget, we might get more masterpieces and less pacific rims.

Agree with #23998 100%. 

a lot of great films were made on low budges... primer, cube, and moon come to mind. i'm sure there are more. 

Pulp Fiction's budget was minuscule. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_HEeHUmzjI 

They have taken out so many things that make it a thief game it's embarrassing. I don't buy their reasoning for not having Stephen Russell do the voice acting either 

...and so have no allegience to the series. Thus while I sympathise with the fanboiz concerns and alarms about rebooting the series full of vulgar consolised hand-holding, crazy camera angles, finishing moves and all that bullshit, apart from that the atmosphere and style looks great and if it turns out to be Dishonoured Ex : Thief Revolution in a dark fantasy world, I could be quite happy with that. 

This is a new Thief game taken in a different direction by a different team for a different fanbase. The franchise name is purely being used as a rubber stamp to indicate design pedigree to new fans who don't know otherwise. 

But briefly. What exactly has been taken out?

From what I can see in the video there's less undead and those hammer guys, but both could easily turn up later. 

Everything else is a disgrace. 

Are you basing that on the video or have you played it? 

Even thou is has a different vibe (seems more combat focused) I still love the new visuals and think the environmental traps are cool. From the video it looks like there is going to be a lot more stuff to play with. I am just wondering what platform it is really aimed at, because this will influence how well the controls are setup. 

Basing that on all the previews/interviews I've read + all the videos I've seen. It's more than enough to tell me this will suck. 

Here's a cool video on Dungeon Keeper, regardless of your liking or hatred for TotalBiscuit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DJmS7prcmE 

Are you basing that on it being a 'Thief' game, or being a game in it's own right?? 

Since it has the Thief title. If it were named something else I couldn't care less, but as a Thief title it stinks. 

for them to hijack the thief brand if they're going to dismiss everything. There'd be a shitstorm if DC sold the rights to Superman and they basically retconned the original storyline and villains. Yeah he's no longer from Krypton or called Kal-El, he wasn't raised on a farm and Lex Luthor is no longer the badguy. But he flies and wears blue spandex so he's still Superman.

How about no? If the main character was not called Garrett then fair game tell a new story and keep the name Thief, hell make Garratt a side character who taught the main character the Thieving craft. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water, FFS. 

"Whatever homie"

Maybe tippex over the box art and loading screens so it says something else instead??

People could and did say exactly the same thing about Doom 3 and Wolfenstein reboots, but they were still good games in their own right. 

Which was not a good game in its own right. I found it dull and boring gameplay wise. 

in a way.

It doesn't really have the problem of Thief as the game never really had much of a story. It was a horror game and I don't think at the point it was released it would have worked as a 90mph running shooter.
Looking back I think mistakes were made, id were trying to blow people away with tech (which is historically what id did best), but I think at the point when it was released that we were more than satisfied with the graphics of games of the day. Even Rage was an expensive and needless under-taking with the graphics, it was beautiful but the game wasn't there.
id should have been making lower risk games, like quake 3 was, to please fans. Even Carmacks favourite game is Q3. 

Is Q3A.