Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time

[Stark]

Thinking about trying this for the cross buy feature, but I've never played any of these games. What is the gameplay like?

It's awesome! It's like a Jak and Daxter or Ratchet ad Clank with stealthy bits thrown in like nougat. You have this cane thing that you can hook on wires while jumping and sometimes you play one of the other characters for different gameplay. Gamerforlife should be able to tell you more though as he just recently played through the HD collection.

[Gamerforlife]

Thinking about trying this for the cross buy feature, but I've never played any of these games. What is the gameplay like?

It's awesome! It's like a Jak and Daxter or Ratchet ad Clank with stealthy bits thrown in like nougat. You have this cane thing that you can hook on wires while jumping and sometimes you play one of the other characters for different gameplay. Gamerforlife should be able to tell you more though as he just recently played through the HD collection.

Yeah, you covered some good points there. I would say it's closer to the first Jak and Daxter game than any of its sequels

I guess I might compare it to the Assassins Creed games. There's stealth mixed with platforming, but it's fancy platforming. Sly can walk on tightropes, perfectly balance his body on spires, swing from hooks, etc. The Sly series was doing this sort of stuff even before Prince of Persia and Assassins Creed came around.

Each chapter has a hub area that you sneak around avoiding guards while trying to get to the location of your next mission. Guards can be pickpocketed or stealth killed if you want, and there's collectibles scattered about to be found if you choose. Missions consist of a mix of platforming and stealth, but the series is known for mixing things up. So you may encounter a variety of mini-games that can be anything from 2D shooters, to rhythm games, to races, to flying stages, to pretty much whatever the developers want. There was even a chapter in Sly 3 where you were on a pirate ship dueling with over pirate ships in canon based sea battles before boarding them and fighting it out with the captain and his crew. You never really know what these games will throw at you. Plus, different characters mix up the gameplay in different ways. Murray's missions feel sort of like a beat 'em up. Carmelita's missions are like a third person shooter. You also can purchase various character abilities and upgrades as you collect money from smashing objects or pick pocketing guards.

That's the series in a nutshell I think. The characters are pretty funny and charming, and the series has a distinct cell shaded look that's really nice. It goes very much for the feeling of a Saturday Morning cartoon. The humor is not quite as over the top as the Ratchet and Clank series, but funny nonetheless.

[Gamerforlife]

I finished chapter 2 and I'm having a lot of fun. This is a quality platformer. The only things I can fault it for are that the writing isn't quite as sharp as previous installments. It feels like Sly 4 leans a bit more heavily towards a young audience than the previous games did, so the writing is not as clever as it used to be. It has its moments though. There are a few parts that made me laugh the way the old games used to. So far it hasn't been especially challenging either, but fun to play. The second boss fight was pretty cool. They put a lot of effort into those it seems. Tenessee Cooper is a blast to play for. He has all of Sly's abilities, but he packs a six shooter and a quick shot ability that lets him momentarily slow down time as he lines up his targets, before quickly blasting them all in quick succession. So you can sneak around the map with him Sly style, or just blast everyone in sight with your gun. He's like a Sly/Carmelita hybrid. His missions are a cool mix of third person shooting, and rail grinding segments that should feel very familiar to Ratchet and Clank fans. And I don't know if I mentioned it before, but Bentley has these cool Forgotten Worlds style hacking mini games

Now that I've read more reviews, I see a lot of people have given it good 8 out of 10 scores, and a 9 from Game Informer and 4 out of 5 from The Escapist, but like with every single game in the series there are always the haters. To my surprise, Adam Sessler who has always claimed to be a Sly fan gave it a scathing review on youtube with a 2 out of 5. Douche. I never did like him or Morgan Web. Seriously, there is no fucking way you can justify a score like that. You're essentially saying that the game is utter crap, and obviously a lot of effort went into this game. I can't imagine what kind of school teacher he'd be. Kid turns in a paper that he clearly put a lot of effort into and is handed it back with a big, fat D on it just because the teacher had a few issues with it. He's on my shit list, along with every reviewer who gave it a 6 out of 10.

[Menegrothx]

Well, those douchy 6 out of 10 scores from Eurogamer, EGM, Polygon, and Playstation Lifestyle won't help. What irritates me is that those reviews can all be summed up in one sentence, "It's just like the PS2 games...which is why it sucks." I'm gonna get a little ranty here, apologies.

It wasn't that long ago that I played the HD Collection of the PS2 trilogy, and I found those games every bit as fun today as they were years ago. I don't see how anyone in his right mind can call them dated. If reviewers would like to see the series innovate or evolve a bit more, fine...but a 6 out of 10? That's quite harsh. With new developers behind the wheel, I'm sure their main concern was just showing fans that they can make a proper Sly game, not reinvent the wheel. Plus, those reviewers act like 3D platformers are so common now and that Sly is behind its peers. Really? I don't see that many cutesy, 3D mascot platformers out there right now to even compare it to, and it's probably because of douchy reviewers who give them 6 out of 10s. This game is actually a breath of fresh air given the current state of the industry and its obsession with war, guns, and its dislike for all things Japanese (which probably includes cutesy mascot platformers). I just don't get a 6 out of 10 vibe from the demo I played. I'll happily eat crow if I feel differently once I play the whole game, but I doubt I will. Rant over.

Haven't played this yet and given it's a Sly Cooper game, I doubt it's bad but I think there's no reason to use a 1 to 10 scale if you'll only give out 8s and 9s to 85% of reviewed games. Video game scoring in general is stupid, but during this generation scores have been inflated badly. If 1 is the lowest score, 6 doesn't mean that a game is bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zOKUTzN9Wk&t=3m3s
3:03-3:14

It can be a very well made game, but still be stale and unsurprising. Top scores should be reserved to games that are not only extremely well made, but games that are also innovative in some way. Fanboys who don't know the fine line between a really enjoyable game and a really enjoyable groundbreaking video game really annoy me. I agree that there's no need to reinvent the wheel in cases like this, but I'm so sick of hearing people throwing hissy fits every time a reviewer has the audacity to not give the best possible score to the 8th sequel of their favorite game series' latest game, when those highest scores should only be given to extraordinarily good games, not games that play it safe and do nothing new or special.

[Weekend_Warrior]

Seems strange that Move support wasn't added after it being a feature on the Sly Collection

Sony really must be losing their ass on Move. But at least Bioshock Infinite will be supported! Maybe that will renew some interest?

[Gamerforlife]

Seems strange that Move support wasn't added after it being a feature on the Sly Collection

Sony really must be losing their ass on Move. But at least Bioshock Infinite will be supported! Maybe that will renew some interest?

The game has some six axis stuff in it too. You'd think they could work in Move support

On another note, I'm almost done with chapter 3 and the game gets better and better. There's a hilarious segment featuring a classic montage that is fully interactive, and it even features appropriately cheesy eighties music as you watch one of Sly's ancestors getting whipped into shape Rocky style. I take back what I said before about the writing. It's getting really good and is now starting to feel very much like previous games. There's some real funny stuff in chapter 3

[Gamerforlife]

Well, those douchy 6 out of 10 scores from Eurogamer, EGM, Polygon, and Playstation Lifestyle won't help. What irritates me is that those reviews can all be summed up in one sentence, "It's just like the PS2 games...which is why it sucks." I'm gonna get a little ranty here, apologies.

It wasn't that long ago that I played the HD Collection of the PS2 trilogy, and I found those games every bit as fun today as they were years ago. I don't see how anyone in his right mind can call them dated. If reviewers would like to see the series innovate or evolve a bit more, fine...but a 6 out of 10? That's quite harsh. With new developers behind the wheel, I'm sure their main concern was just showing fans that they can make a proper Sly game, not reinvent the wheel. Plus, those reviewers act like 3D platformers are so common now and that Sly is behind its peers. Really? I don't see that many cutesy, 3D mascot platformers out there right now to even compare it to, and it's probably because of douchy reviewers who give them 6 out of 10s. This game is actually a breath of fresh air given the current state of the industry and its obsession with war, guns, and its dislike for all things Japanese (which probably includes cutesy mascot platformers). I just don't get a 6 out of 10 vibe from the demo I played. I'll happily eat crow if I feel differently once I play the whole game, but I doubt I will. Rant over.

Haven't played this yet and given it's a Sly Cooper game, I doubt it's bad but I think there's no reason to use a 1 to 10 scale if you'll only give out 8s and 9s to 85% of reviewed games. Video game scoring in general is stupid, but during this generation scores have been inflated badly. If 1 is the lowest score, 6 doesn't mean that a game is bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zOKUTzN9Wk&t=3m3s
3:03-3:14

It can be a very well made game, but still be stale and unsurprising. Top scores should be reserved to games that are not only extremely well made, but games that are also innovative in some way. Fanboys who don't know the fine line between a really enjoyable game and a really enjoyable groundbreaking video game really annoy me. I agree that there's no need to reinvent the wheel in cases like this, but I'm so sick of hearing people throwing hissy fits every time a reviewer has the audacity to not give the best possible score to the 8th sequel of their favorite game series' latest game, when those highest scores should only be given to extraordinarily good games, not games that play it safe and do nothing new or special.

I don't know why people make video game scores seem more complicated than they are. A 6 is just barely above mediocre. That IS a bad score. No one wants to waste time on a slightly above average game when there are tons of high quality ones out there, unless the game in question is from a genre that the player has a hardcore interest in. I don't think a 1 to 10 scoring system is stupid at all. It can perfectly reflect how one feels about a game. 5 is mediocre, nothing special or noteworthy about it at all. 6 is just above mediocre, meaning that the game may have ONE redeeming quality. 7 is a good game that just has some annoying flaws that hold it back from greatness. 8 is an excellent title with a few flaws that are easily balanced out by the many things that it does well. 9 is a spectacular game with flaws so minor they are almost not worth mentioning. 10 is perfection, or something that simply represents the best in the genre for its time. Anything below a 5 is just different degrees of shittiness. Basically the lower you go within that range indicates just how awful the game actually is, with something like Superman 64 probably being a 1. And there are plenty of games that get scores under 8 or 9. See Aliens: Colonial Marines. So I don't agree that the system is dumb because people only use 8s and 9s.

The idea that high scores should only be given to games that are ground breaking or very innovative seems wrong to me. A great game is a great game. Granted, I do prefer games that innovate in some way, but to say that a game deserves a 6 just because it's not groundbreaking despite being an extremely well made, well designed, fun title with a lot of personality is a rather harsh view. And that whole 8th sequel statement doesn't apply here. You have to look at stuff like this on a case by case basis. The Sly games have a unique formula that we've not seen in nearly a decade, since the release of the last Sly game, which was only the third game in the series. When you consider how Sly 2 dramatically changed the formula, it sort of makes THIS game feel like the third game of the series rather than the fourth one. That's not a case of sequelitis. Also, 3D mascot platformers are rare now. So a game like Thieves in Time doesn't need to be that much different from its predecessors to stand out and feel fresh in the current gaming environment. And for the record, it DOES do some new stuff with the formula. Nothing major, but still stuff that makes it feel a bit different from its predecessors.

But I've complained enough about the issue. Most of the scores for this game are great, so I'm not gonna keep complaining about the few people who scored it low. Just irritates me a bit to see the overall averages on Metacritic and gamerankings take a big hit because of a few haters. This game should at least be in the eighty percent range. Sessler's score in particular annoys me with his 2 out of 5. I've watched his youtube review twice now and it baffles me. As someone who just finished the game, I'm not kidding when I say that almost everything he says is complete and utter bullshit. I feel like someone paid him to do a scathing review of the game because he is trying really hard to find things to bitch about and a lot of it comes off as complete and utter nonsense. He's just babbling and spitting out inane comments that don't mean anything. Like a guy talking about the ex girlfriend he used to love like crazy until she did something that hurt him in some way that he is bitter about. I remember this guy being a big Sly fan and suddenly he's a hater

[ZeroAX]

Haven't played this yet and given it's a Sly Cooper game, I doubt it's bad but I think there's no reason to use a 1 to 10 scale if you'll only give out 8s and 9s to 85% of reviewed games. Video game scoring in general is stupid, but during this generation scores have been inflated badly. If 1 is the lowest score, 6 doesn't mean that a game is bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zOKUTzN9Wk&t=3m3s
3:03-3:14

It can be a very well made game, but still be stale and unsurprising. Top scores should be reserved to games that are not only extremely well made, but games that are also innovative in some way. Fanboys who don't know the fine line between a really enjoyable game and a really enjoyable groundbreaking video game really annoy me. I agree that there's no need to reinvent the wheel in cases like this, but I'm so sick of hearing people throwing hissy fits every time a reviewer has the audacity to not give the best possible score to the 8th sequel of their favorite game series' latest game, when those highest scores should only be given to extraordinarily good games, not games that play it safe and do nothing new or special.

Part of the problem is the different mentality of scoring across the pond (5 means a bad game, not an average game).

The other problem is that when this industry keeps giving Call of Duty which is the same game for 5 straight years now perfect scores, and it doesn't give above average to good scores to games which we at least have not seen in a while, you feel it's kind of unfair

[AppleQueso]

The problem with percentage scales and out-of-ten type stuff is that people have different ideas on what "5/10" should mean. Some consider that straight up bad, while others think it should be 'mediocre'. There's no consistency in exactly how the scores are distributed, which makes stuff like Metacritic pretty useless if you ask me.

At least if you do out-of-five or out-of-four, everyone can agree that 2/4 or 2.5/5 is "mediocre"

[ZeroAX]

The problem with percentage scales and out-of-ten type stuff is that people have different ideas on what "5/10" should mean. Some consider that straight up bad, while others think it should be 'mediocre'. There's no consistency in exactly how the scores are distributed, which makes stuff like Metacritic pretty useless if you ask me.

At least if you do out-of-five or out-of-four, everyone can agree that 2/4 or 2.5/5 is "mediocre"

Mediocre has a negative vibe to it though, right? Shouldn't 5 mean average?

And I agree that with less "points" to be given, people don't complain as much as when it's a out of 10 or out of 100 scale