what is your single most irritating pet peeve in a fan mission

[Bikerdude]

Geometry bugs and bad mantling.

[Arrowgrab]

I greatly dislike it when when loot items (or, for that matter, any sort of items) are hidden in an illogical place just to make them hard to find. One specific example I can think of in an otherwise great FM was a round ornamental window, the sort that cannot be opened, placed maybe some 10 meters up from the floor, and there was a ring sitting in its round windowsill. how did it get there? Who put it there? Why did they put it there? How did they get up there without a rope arrow (it was in a mansion with no logical reason for the household to have any rope arrows)?

[cavador_8]

Taking away my blackjack, a "do not alert anyone" objective, and forcing me to ghost are really the only things that immediately turn me off from playing a mission. And of course a poor frame rate.

[zappenduster]

Finding a scouting orb somewhere in the map. Isn't that an item that the Hammerites manufactured exclusively for Garrett? Why should a guard or a servant store it somewhere, they couldn't use it since they don't have an artificial eye ...

[nicked]

They're not exclusive to Garrett. Scouting orbs are all over the place in the original game too, and available to purchase in the store - I always thought they probably had some other purpose and Garrett was just hijacking them for his own ends.

[Zhickel]

Taking away my blackjack, a "do not alert anyone" objective, and forcing me to ghost are really the only things that immediately turn me off from playing a mission. And of course a poor frame rate.

Negative objectives. ie: DON'T do this, or that. Don't alert Lord Knyackybowla's cousin. Don't let the master's third cousin see you...

These are the objectives that seem to break the most frequently. Hard to enjoy a game when you don't know what you've done wrong and can't continue. No negative objectives.

[thehardyboyz]

I think most of the things have been said on this thread...

For me, the most annoying thing in a FM is when I can't complete it ghosting.

I don't mind if players want to blackjack everyone in the mission, but that's not my thing.
As it's been said several times in the original games (Thi4f is no original game to me), Garrett is a Master Thief, not a murderer.
He's living and operating in the shadows, as silently as he can. Invisible to the maximum.

I love when I am able to see without being seen. When I can listen without being heard.
It gives me a true sensation of power, difficult to describe but highly satisfactory.

So when I am forced by the author to blackjack a guard which is standing right in the middle of the only path I can take, it makes me mad and I usually stop playing.
Same with objectives implying I have to kill someone or something. I try to avoid combat as much as possible, and even simple contact.

In a word, I understand forced ghosting can be annoying to some players, but for me, forced violence is as much annoying.

[vincentlancon]

I hate non functioning buildings and doors. It just filler.

[McTaffer]

Having no compass probably irritates me the most because 1. I use it as a "reset" button on my inventory and 2. it can be one of the most useful tools for navigation in missions that have no map. It's also easily the peeve I encounter the most.

Many of the earliest missions have wide open spaces with absolutely nothing in them, and that also annoys me even though I know it's a product of the time. I've started working my way through my substantial backlog of Thief 2 missions and this is the number one problem I've noticed in the earliest released missions. In earlier Thief 1 missions it was also annoying, but at least you can bunnyhop through them if/when you have to backtrack. Also, needlessly obscure hidden objects are a major issue, especially when there's no hint as to where they might be or why. I played a mission called "Bathhouse" last night and its main objective was in a locked chest hidden behind an indestructible banner that you have no way of moving. It also featured mandatory crate-stacking inside a tall, narrow chimney. Absolutely painful, but at least that problem is more obscure.

[intruder]

I hate non functioning buildings and doors. It just filler.

I have to disagree to a certain extent:
It is often necessary to add "non-functional" buildings for creating the illusion that you're taffing around in a large city.
Having your primary building(s) surrounded by others helps create a more immersive mission.
You wouldn't want every mansion or city section just to be surrounded by a large boring wall.

The same goes for "texture doors": you want to provide players with a clear indication that there is no way in, yet at the same time you want to create a cohesive environment, which requires buildings to have windows and doors.

But I completely agree that "object doors" which can't be opened by any means shouldn't be added to missions.

[vincentlancon]

If you can reach it physically it needs to be a part of the functioning world.... background things you can't reach are fine.. but having things in your actual world that have zero function other than to give filler and space is poor level design.

[uncadonego]

If you can reach it physically it needs to be a part of the functioning world.... background things you can't reach are fine.. but having things in your actual world that have zero function other than to give filler and space is poor level design.

Also disagree. Very impractical from a design standpoint also. It would shrink the map like crazy.

[Random_Taffer]

Yeah, and rooftop missions are then basically impossible to do right. All the AI that live there would have to be able to teleport in and out of the upper rooms to get into them from the lower floors.

Fake doors aren't "filler." They're there so the player can pretend the AI that functions in the world can get in and out on a normal day to day basis. It's to make it feel lived in and believable. It makes the world feel bigger and is more immersive. It's not poor level design, lmao.

[McTaffer]

As long as they're not frobbable, they can only add to the atmosphere the way windows do. On the other hand, if they're frobbable unpickable locked doors with no key and a blank wall behind them, then yeah that is a problem because it causes actual gameplay interference.

[skacky]

I guess both Dishonored games, Bloodborne and other games praised for their incredible level design have bad level design then. What you're criticizing is set-dressing, not level design.

[Brethren]

This argument seems ridiculous. Is there a single Thief mission (OM or FM) where every door is frobbable and the interior is accessible? How about any other video game levels or mission? The answer is no, and there's a reason for that.

I'm playing around with making a medium sized FM where there are 4 locations of importance. Should I just make a short street and have all four locations right next to each other then? That would be pretty jarring, and not very immersive (or fun).

[Purgator]

Thought this was a "Pet Peeve" thread? Pet peeves don't have to make sense to others, hence the "Pet" qualifier. It's something personal, and can seem totally batshit crazy to those who don't share that view. If you're married you would have learned that by now!

[skacky]

Fair enough, but as Brethren mentioned, they must be irritated with pretty much every map for every game ever. Decor elements are fake by nature.

To elaborate a bit, there are a lot of reasons why, say, a corridor has fake doorways and nothing in it. These areas are usually just connectors and only serve this purpose, and having every little room accessible in a level spanning multiple locations/buildings is an unrealistic prospect both on a technical level (engine limits, etc) and on a level design perspective. Not only would that be extremely boring, but it would be confusing too because the level would then become unfocused and there is a good chance the player would be lost and bored out of their mind. Rooms with nothing in them are fine. Set-dressing that makes a basic, boring room look like part of a coherent whole is fine. It's when there's too many empty locations that don't serve any purpose that it becomes a problem.

[Brethren]

Thought this was a "Pet Peeve" thread?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm not saying they aren't. I'm just giving mine.

I think this particular peeve might be a situation of be careful what you ask for. Imagine a level like Assassins or Ambush that have what, 40-50 different buildings? And 45 of them have nothing to do with objectives, you just break in, steal a purse off a shelf or a coinstack on a table, and then move on to the next one. I think that's way more of the "filler" that Vincent mentioned than just having a blank facade.

[Galaer]

I think this particular peeve might be a situation of be careful what you ask for.

First, look at the title of this thread. It encourage people to say what's their personal irritating thing in FMs is. There is nothing like "Hey, let's discuss every opinion you disagree with". So already this disagreeing discussion feels completely pointless. And by the way, what exactly you want to achieve? Do you really want him to love something that he hates just because of technical stuff and engine limitation? That's really lame excuse. Instead you feel really agitated like his opinion is personal attack on your person. It's not. So you are making this pointless war of arguments just to prove how his opinion is stupid. That's childish. Everyone have rights to make their opinion. Bear with that.

Imagine a level like Assassins or Ambush that have what, 40-50 different buildings?

But let's just look at these missions:

Assassins - city part serves only 2 purposes: to follow thieves and if you get spotted in mansion, you must escape to Garrett's house. Exploring city itself is pointless, because it's empty. There is no loot, no items, no equipment (other than from starting shop), no readables, no nothing. I remember the first time I decided to go explore this city and find out that there is absolutely nothing there. That's really disappointing. The only redeeming factors are: fallowing thieves is creative gimmick and Ramirez Mansion is well designed and has lots of loot.

Ambush - big city mansion without special gimmick and without any mansion. Unlike city from Assassins, it has some content. But it's just not enough. There are few loot pieces, few places with food, few places with equipment, few readables and few conversation and that's all. It feels like there is only 5% of content in this mission and rest is just walking and KO-ing enemies. It's really boring. There are also some building that you can enter, but again they are empty, they are just passages. Because of this lack of content for me Ambush is the worst mission in Thief 2. It's really wasted potential.

If these empty cities would have these extra 40-50 buildings with loot, then it wouldn't be more boring. No, because finally there would be a point to explore them.

And 45 of them have nothing to do with objectives, you just break in, steal a purse off a shelf or a coinstack on a table, and then move on to the next one. I think that's way more of the "filler" that Vincent mentioned than just having a blank facade.

Since Assassins has loot objective I'm guessing you don't count it as main objective. Because of that and your last statement, I'm guessing that you didn't play too many Fan Missions in your life. Most of city missions have lots of extra building with loot. They are accessible via doors, balconies, windows, etc. And most of them isn't connected to main (non-loot) objectives. Even Life of the Party has a lot of optional building to explore and main objectives are located in Angelwatch. You didn't mention this as example. I guess you were aware that talking about LotP would backfire.

Another example - right now I'm playing Home Sweet Home by Lady Rowena. Mission is based on Ambush. There is a lot of new extra buildings with extra loot and no connection to main objectives. And I have a lot of fun visiting them. You want to tell me that this extra stuff is bigger filler than lack of it? You sure about that?

[FireMage]

Looks like you lost yourself in your argument, my dear Galaer.
Because you're saying the exact same thing that Brethren was saying to express his disagreement with vincent.

Vincent said "it's irritating when something like a door or a building is reachable but have no purpose."

Brethen said "it's not when it's made to emphasize immersion or add gameplay. Making sure that every reachable buildings or doors have purpose would just make none-sense places with nothing interesting to add."

It's just explaining to Vincent that he should not feel that frustrated when he sees building he can't get in or doors he can't open, because Brethren is an author and Vincent isn't, such a discussion can be done to explain why we, authors, add in our levels some buildings and doors you can't visit/open. And the reason is "because we need them to have a purpose in matter of gameplay or lore depending on the situation" and also because we can't make endless level and we can't make map limited with walls only, else the mission will be ugly or boring and also large for nothing.

By comparing Lady Rowena's mission and Ambush, you're saying the point of Brethren : in Ambush, the level designer made insides that add nothing interesting and doing more would just have make it even more boring. Rowena has added purposes and content so it becomes good, but she didn't made all the doors of the level openable nor all the buildings visitable because it's pointless to make a map telling more than it can nor adding content that adds actually nothing. Any author knows there's a limit in the world you're creating and this limit should be displayed with fake doors or fake buildings so the world become coherent.

Now the debate has been explained and the point are clear, you can wipe this salt from your lips and also express your opinion in a more friendly way.

...or just going back to the thread like you pointed it out instead of carrying on the debate....

[vincentlancon]

I'm not saying you can't have non functional doors, windows, etc... if it is just there to provide filler for lane after lane of non functioning streets or halls... is off putting. A city full of buildings with only 3 or 4 actual functioning buildings.... is not fun. This completely excludes functional buildings you have to find other ways in... I am just saying using a lot of useless filler is bad...not fun... call it what you want.

[uncadonego]

I'm not saying you can't have non functional doors, windows, etc... if it is just there to provide filler for lane after lane of non functioning streets or halls... is off putting. A city full of buildings with only 3 or 4 actual functioning buildings.... is not fun. This completely excludes functional buildings you have to find other ways in... I am just saying using a lot of useless filler is bad...not fun... call it what you want.

Okay, then say that in the first place....

If you can reach it physically it needs to be a part of the functioning world.... background things you can't reach are fine.. but having things in your actual world that have zero function other than to give filler and space is poor level design.

Because that's not what you said here...

[vincentlancon]

Sure it is... maybe you misunderstood. I stand by non functioning buildings is a poor design choice simply there to create the illusion of a level bigger than it is and needs to be. You may think otherwise and that's fine.... I like fully fleshed out worlds, as much as possible.

[uncadonego]

Sure it is... maybe you misunderstood.

Bullshit