Azrael's Tear and Thief: The Dark Project compared [LONG]
Larris Magpie
eh? And for the Builder's and the Vision's sakes, do snip when
replying. I don't really wish to be responsible for even more waste of
bandwidth.
Herein I set out to compare Looking Glass Studios' Thief: The Dark
Project (Eidos 1998) and Intelligent Games/Worldscape's Azrael's Tear
(Mindscape 1996). The reason? I love them both and can't decide which
one I like the best. Perhaps a critical analysis might penetrate the
strong feelings I have for each.
I only recently bought Azrael at a 75% discount, making this the third
grail-questing adventure I've played, the first two being Indiana
Jones and the Last Crusade (Lucasarts 1989) and Broken Sword: Circle
of Blood (Revolution/Virgin 1996). As for Thief - well, let's just say
I'm not called Magpie for nothing.
First the obvious likenesses. In both games the player takes on the
role of a thief, and the 3D adventuring environs of both are darkened
and gloomy in the extreme. The story in both games is mainly something
left for the player to piece together (literally) from various notes
scattered around. Additionally Azrael uses dialogs, but more on this
later. Azrael's story really shines in those, as it does in its
medievally-styled pages of illuminated text (no pun intended). More on
this later as well.
The open-endedness of each mission structure is astoundingly similar.
Even when considering that Thief has one very linear set of missions
(no branching, or anything resembling a story tree), when you're
inside a mission, you're generally free to solve the mission in
whichever way you see fit. One must really consider Azrael to be one
gargantuan Thief mission in this respect, and Thief a series of small
Azrael games.
However, Azrael doesn't place much emphasis on stealth, unlike Thief,
where the lighting (or more precisely, the shadowing) and availability
of hiding places play a crucial role. Also, Azrael is a lot more
puzzle orientated than Thief is. That in itself calls for slightly
more linear gameplay than that found in Thief, but oddly enough it
never feels that way. In fact, Azrael seems refreshingly nonlinear.
It's all very confusing, especially when taking into account the
strong storyline of Azrael. I mean, weren't we taught that nonlinear
gameplay is disproportional to a strong story?
I think a clue might be found in the fact that in Azrael, a large
number of choices _may_ carry potential influence over later events,
yet a small number actually do so. Keep the player guessing!
And while on the subject of gameplay: The gameplay interface of Azrael
has been criticized, and justifiably so, because the default key
config setting also happens to be the only possible setting, and IMO
it's a long shot from being optimal. The upside of this is that one
rather nifty static graphic may be used to depict the entire user
interface. However, while I know I would have appreciated being able
to customize and fine-tune my keyboard settings as usual; to tell the
truth, it's not important.
That's right, clumsy gameplay is of no consequence in Azrael, because
extremely little in the game is time-dependent. And in those rare
cases where timing _is_ important, clumsiness and resulting panic only
feels natural. Call it realism.
OTOH, I sorely missed being able to jump in Azrael, and Thief
introduced the fantastic new control, leaning, which I find myself
attempting (and failing) even when playing regular FPS'es nowadays.
That was IMO a slight failure of Azrael. Point to Thief.
I played Azrael on a P120 of the same vintage (1996), and I suffered
from choppy graphics at the highest resolution. On my K6-2 300 there's
not much of a problem, though. Funny enough, when running Thief on the
same P120 (no hardware 3D acceleration), the lowest resolution is even
choppier. Man, what could Azrael have been with a D3D or
Glide-enabling patch... One cannot really blame Worldscape for this
shortcoming, though.
The disk caching of Azrael was at times very irritating. When there
was a sudden molto ritardando from the MIDI currently playing I knew
it was time for a short break. But then, Azrael is a native DOS game.
Not that Windows is any better, but at least it's an excuse.
Limited saving is a design utility used to force player paranoia and
conservative playing style. With only five save game slots available
in Azrael I was forced to do agonizing choices more often than I
really liked, and this narrowed down my opportunities for exploration.
Which, I suspect, is what the designers intended. In Thief, this is
really redundant, since the load times in themselves are as long as
they are. Again, it's about making the player feel uncertain about
which choices to make. Points withheld.
I liked to keep one savegame for each level in Thief (12 in all), but
I started to experiment a lot more once the patch was released
(enabling selection of which level to play from a config file). Azrael
never got past V1.0 in that no update patches were ever made that I
know of, though I did encounter a (small) number of bugs, errors,
and/or inconsistencies. Point to Thief.
Thief has been touted for its high level of immersiveness. Well, yeah.
It's possible, although somewhat exhausting, to ironman through all of
Azrael in one sitting without ever leaving the MS7 helmet interface.
This can't be done in Thief, where between missions there are
extra-engine cutscene movies (Thief's main medium for conveying its
story, a.k.a. mission briefings) and "shop" screens where accumulated
loot may be traded for tools of the thieving trade. Tentative point to
Azrael.
Azrael has cutscene movies too, but here they are magnificently
blended into the gameplay, typically as "What You Spied In The
Spyglass While Spying". Clearly, Azrael is the more immersive on this
point. It never, ever, leaves the first-person perspective until the
outro movie. Point to Azrael.
However, IMO Azrael doesn't quite measure up on the character
interaction level. Rationalizing having a computerized helmet suggest
your lines via a HUD whenever you're talking to someone is, well,
straining the suspension of disbelief, if not downright cheesy. Then
again, it remains the most widely accepted way of character
interaction (if not the best) adventure games have had to offer since
Ron Gilbert introduced the SCUMM storytelling system in the early
Lucasarts games.
To quote Jonathan Chey, project manager of System Shock 2 and former
LGS employee: "System Shock eschewed living NPCs because the
technology of the day was simply inadequate to support believable and
enjoyable interactions with them. It's been four years, and that
technology is still not available." (Game Designer magazine, Nov 1999)
That, I should think, also reflects the LGS view of things. So Thief
doesn't even make an attempt to provide in-game character interaction
(except for robbing, cudgeling, or otherwise tricking the unsuspecting
souls), but its NPCs still seem very much alive, thanks to their
personalized lines, humorous conversations between them, and very
human reactions. Add to this a great AI and you don't really miss the
conversations. (Although at times it would have come in handy to be
able to say "I'm the plumbing guy. Where's the kitchen?". :)
Besides, efforts of conversation is simply not Garrett's style. He
doesn't work that way, unlike the nameless raptor in Azrael who
cheerfully engages in dialog with just about any body (this time, pun
_is_ intended). Being able to question people is cool, but it does IMO
detract somewhat from the immersion factor. Point to Thief.
On the other hand, you _could_ talk to someone. Point to Azrael. When
adding the fact that said characters were tremendously well drawn and
memorable, Azrael scores another point. Do you understand my confusion
yet?
Story is not, however, absolutely dependent upon character
interaction, like many adventure game designers seem to think. Luckily
the many pages of paper accumulated by the player in the course of the
two games Thief often contain many hints as well. The long term jigsaw
puzzle of figuring out what was really going on was something I really
appreciated. All the pages in Azrael were lovingly and authentically
pictured, while the Thief clues were a lot more ad-lib in their form,
presumably because of space and other development considerations.
Still, one more point to Azrael.
Music - ah. Some of the pseudo-medieval MIDI tracks in Azrael are
seriously well-composed. Thief lacks the same kind of in-game music,
but plays some tough tunes during movies, well suited to its flavor of
industrial steampunk fantasy. Also, Thief's ambient atmospheric
in-game "music" works very well when it does appear. Voice acting is
good in both games. Tie.
Both games are very much replayable. In Thief one can change the
difficulty setting, attempt to find all the loot, and vary the style
of play in lots of ways. In Azrael there is a multitude of unanswered
questions upon completion, so many that one wants to replay the entire
game just to see what would have happened if one had done just one
thing different early in the game. Tie.
On the subject of story: I would say that Azrael's overall story is
the stronger, but the forte of Thief lies in its attention to detail.
Again it's a draw between the two games. It's not just the story, it's
how you tell it (free approximation of McLuhan's axiom "The medium is
the message").
I thought Thief was a genuinely innovating game, but after playing
Azrael I realize how much of the inspiration to Thief could have been
drawn from Azrael. And in Thief 2: The Metal Age, there could even be
opportunity (story-wise, too) for implementing a more HUD-like
interface, much like the one found in Azrael. I personally believe
this to be a coincidence, but you never know...
At heart, Azrael is really an adventure game of the Myst genre,
believe it or not, only with the limits (and liberties) of realtime
graphics rendering imposed on it. The first prototypes of Thief were
almost indistinguishable from any other fantasy FPS. Still, I propose
the two games are more akin to each other than to their respective
genre fellows. I feel that anyone who likes one of them will have lots
of fun playing the other.
In the end, though, Thief has one thing going for it which ultimately
places it atop Azrael for me: More is coming along, both as fan-made
missions and as official sequels. It's still alive. More is the pity
for Azrael, whose tears now fall largely unheeded by the great public.
Thanks for reading. I just had to get this out of my system.
--
Larris "If darkness is merely the absence of light,
Like evil, they say, is the absence of love;
Why is it, then, that the gloom of the night
Feels more tangible and opaque than rays from above?"
Daniel A. Stephenson
--
Dan Stephenson
(Remove the nospam from my email address before replying with email.)
mmarko
>Herein I set out to compare Looking Glass Studios' Thief: The Dark
>Project (Eidos 1998) and Intelligent Games/Worldscape's Azrael's Tear
>(Mindscape 1996). The reason? I love them both and can't decide which
(snip)
Thanks for that. I loved Thief, and I bought Azrael's Tear a few
months ago because of the good things I heard about it, although I
knew absolutely nothing about the game. Glad to hear if it at least
resembles Thief. I haven't had time to even install AT yet, too many
other games in progress.
Azrael's Tear was damn hard to find though! I think I looked for it in
discount bins and second-hand ads for several months, but at last I
saw someone selling it cheaply, so I went to buy it instantly. Then
again, just two days ago I also happened to see it second-hand in one
shop for a mere few dollars, but my copy appeared to be in much better
condition (the box was falling apart in that version, at least).
Dark Earth was also damn hard to find, as was Reap. There is still one
older PC game I am looking for but haven't been able to find anywhere:
Neverhood.
BGBlouse
>
>
> Herein I set out to compare Looking Glass Studios' Thief: The Dark
> Project (Eidos 1998) and Intelligent Games/Worldscape's Azrael's Tear
> (Mindscape 1996). The reason? I love them both and can't decide which
> one I like the best. Perhaps a critical analysis might penetrate the
> strong feelings I have for each.
>
One point in Azrael's favour I don't think you mentioned is that it is
easier to finish and therefore ultimately provided a more satisfying
experience. Thief was too difficult, for me at least.I gave up at the
return to the cathedral mission. Those zombies just got too tiresome!
Azrael's Tear was a gem of a game which came out of nowhere and
unfortunately then seemed to return to it.Like the original System Shock
it was a brilliant game which sold poorly.
Does anyone know what other games the Tear developer's made?
Regards,
BG
Larris Magpie
>One point in Azrael's favour I don't think you mentioned is that it is
>easier to finish and therefore ultimately provided a more satisfying
>experience. Thief was too difficult, for me at least.I gave up at the
>return to the cathedral mission. Those zombies just got too tiresome!
Substitute "challenging" instead of "too difficult" - even though the
Normal skill level does crave its share of arm-thalamus coordination
(and cold-bloodedness), almost anything can be accomplished with a bit
of patience.
Zombies represent only one problem. You can outrun them, but the
haunts... brr! I hid my face in my hands and sobbed uncontrollably on
more than one occasion. :) After I found out that the undead don't
like bright light, it became somewhat better, though. Take that as a
hint.
>Azrael's Tear was a gem of a game which came out of nowhere and
>unfortunately then seemed to return to it.Like the original System Shock
>it was a brilliant game which sold poorly.
Funny thing, marketing and distribution...
>Does anyone know what other games the Tear developer's made?
I found the website of Intelligent Games at
Worldscape seems to have been the same as, or at least to have
collaborated with Mindscape Bordeaux, which was bought up and
transformed into Kalisto Entertainment in 1996:
No mention of Azrael's Tear there, though. The most adventure-like
title they've produced is Dark Earth. Now, I've never played Dark
Earth, nor do I really know anything of it beyond the reviews I've
read on the web, so I can't verify if it really was made by some of
the same people who created Azrael; but from what I gather the main
engines seem suspiciously similar. However, the relatively short
interval between the release dates of the two games suggests
otherwise. I'm still in the dark. (pun, haha.)
The man credited with the original design for Azrael, Ken Haywood, I
have found no trace of.
Charybdis
Actually System Shock sold pretty well.
- Richard
BGBlouse
As I understand it, it sold poorly at full price but then over time did
well as a budget game as word-of-mouth conveyed its true greatness. Of
course I am getting this information secondhand via UK gaming magazines
so we're hardly talking written in stone.
By the way Dark Earth was earlier mentioned as perhaps having the same
engine as Azrael's Tear. I've played both but they seemed pretty
different, and not just because Dark Earth was third person.It was quite
a good game and was worth playing but I would not compare it to Azrael's
Tear, System Shock or Thief,
BG
Charybdis
> well as a budget game as word-of-mouth conveyed its true greatness. Of
It didn't do spectacularly at full price, but wasn't a Terra Nova style
flop.
> By the way Dark Earth was earlier mentioned as perhaps having the same
> engine as Azrael's Tear.
I don't think so - they're completely different.
- Richard