Thick As Thieves

A Game That Isn't Quite the Game It Was Announced As

Thick As Thieves comes from OtherSide Entertainment, the studio behind Underworld Ascendant and the System Shock spiritual successor lineage, founded by industry veteran Warren Spector, one of the names behind the original Deus Ex and the classic Thief series. It was originally announced and marketed as an ambitious PvPvE stealth-thieving game, pitting player thieves against both AI guards and each other inside the same heist. Somewhere late in development, that PvP layer was dropped entirely, and the game shipped on 20 May 2026 as a solo-or-co-op-only stealth heist experience for a striking $4.99. This review draws on the full English review sample available at the time of research, 915 reviews out of 915 total, split 611 positive to 304 negative for an official "Mixed" rating, a figure closely mirrored by the broader all-language sample of 1,268 reviews split 828 positive to 440 negative. That split, and the specific reasons behind it, tell a genuinely interesting story about what happens when an ambitious multiplayer pitch gets quietly reshaped into something smaller right before launch.

What's Actually Here

Mechanically, Thick As Thieves plays as a stealth-action heist game in the lineage of Thief and Dishonored, tasking players with infiltrating guarded buildings, avoiding or incapacitating enemies, and extracting valuables, either solo or with a partner in online co-op. One reviewer sums up the appeal directly, describing it as playing "similar to Dishonored, big thumbs up," while another independently calls it a game that "runs smoothly, feels super polished, and plays exactly like Thief and Dishonored." Tools include a grappling hook (deliberately designed to require re-cranking between uses so it can't be spammed), smoke bombs for emergency escapes, and a thermal-vision-style gadget for spotting threats through walls. Guards react dynamically to previous break-ins within the same mission, with one reviewer specifically praising how "previously used gates, pathways, or vents are now blocked" on repeat attempts as "a cool little nod to the game seemingly reacting to previous break ins." At $4.99, several reviewers frame the game less as a full release and more as a tightly-scoped, high-quality taste of a much bigger original vision.

A Remarkable Price-to-Polish Ratio

The single most consistent theme across the positive side of the review sample is just how much game this is for the price. One widely-upvoted review opens by calling the discourse around the game "depressing," specifically because "you have a $5 game from Warren Spector who is an industry legend behind some of the most iconic games ever" being torn apart by negative reviews over missing options rather than judged on "the actual quality and content of the game (especially the incredible price)." Another reviewer independently writes, "this game is insanely good for 5 euros," while a third calls it "easily the best five-dollar game I've ever played." A separate reviewer frames the value proposition explicitly in the context of the game's troubled development, noting that "the low review score isn't down to the quality or length of the game, but to the marketing team's 'pump and dump' strategy," and that if reports of a downsized development team are accurate, "I love the concept of releasing a mini version of the games vision for 5 € instead throwing the whole thing away." This review finds that framing persuasive: judged purely as a five-dollar stealth game rather than a full-priced live-service pitch, the underlying quality of the moment-to-moment gameplay is real and consistently praised.

The Content Actually On Offer Is Thin

Set against that praise, the single most heavily corroborated complaint in the sample concerns just how little content the game currently contains. One reviewer describes the structure bluntly as attempting "to wring an absurd amount of playtime out of its only two (2) missions, which you're expected to keep replaying in order to gain access to the rest of its scant contents, such as one additional character, a couple of redundant tools, useless and weird cosmetics, and even the higher difficulties." A separate reviewer independently confirms the same shape of complaint, noting "there's only 2 maps, and everything in this game is walled out behind the mind numbing grind," while also criticizing the "character customization" as "a bloat of retextures and skins with an illusion of choice and progression," specifically citing a beard, then "the same beard and a top hat," then "the same beard and the same hat but also glasses" as an example of padding rather than genuine variety. Even reviewers on the positive side of the ledger raise this point: one writes the game "is a bit short on content, but for $5, it's easily the best five-dollar game I've ever played," while another asks explicitly for "2–3 more maps, some actual endgame unlocks, and at least one more character" to turn the game "from 'hidden gem' to 'why the hell is nobody talking about this?'"

Missing Options That Shouldn't Be Missing in 2026

A second heavily corroborated complaint concerns a set of options that reviewers broadly consider table stakes for a modern PC release. One reviewer, otherwise positive about the game's "good map design and mechanics," notes "the controls can't be rebinded (I'm sure they'll patch it in... hopefully) and the mouse sensitivity on the lowest setting is still too high," while a separate reviewer independently lists the game as "missing a lot of options? Like theres no brightness settings, fov, key rebinding," suggesting players "wait until they patch that stuff in." This is a rare case in this review sample where the complaint crosses ideological lines: it appears in reviews that are otherwise glowing as well as reviews that are scathing, suggesting it's less a matter of taste and more a genuine oversight in an otherwise capable release. Whether it stems from the compressed development timeline reviewers describe or simple launch-day triage, the reviews are consistent that it's a real gap rather than a nitpick.

The Ghost of a Cancelled Multiplayer Game

The most distinctive thread running through this review's negative sample is a specific, recurring diagnosis: that the game's current design still visibly carries the scars of its abandoned PvPvE ambitions. One reviewer, who had followed the game's development closely, writes "you can feel the corpse of the former PVPVE version throughout the game," pointing to mechanics that make little sense in the current solo/co-op context, like being able to "relock cabinets and turn on turrets, when there's no benefit towards me and my team." A separate reviewer independently makes the same diagnosis in starker terms, calling the current build "obviously the butchered leftovers of a cancelled live service game, sold cheap to at least recoup some cost." A third reviewer specifically criticizes structural holdovers from the multiplayer design, such as "a mandatory lobby screen before loading into one of the two game's only levels" and the fact that "the first mission has to be done solo too," before co-op becomes available, calling this evidence of "how much the game was initially tailored for a multiplayer experience." Whether or not that diagnosis is literally accurate, the fact that so many separate reviewers arrive at the exact same explanation independently is notable, and it gives the negative side of this review sample an unusually specific, well-reasoned character rather than generic dissatisfaction.

The Mission Timer Divides Opinion Sharply

A third recurring point of contention, somewhere between a design complaint and a genre-fit issue, concerns the game's mission time limits. One reviewer asks directly, "why does this game have a time limit? It's supposed to be stealth, a genre that's notoriously slow paced and methodical. Rushing through these levels doesn't feel good, and it's very hard to get immersed in the world if I don't feel like I have time to take in the environments or read the notes that are scattered around." A separate reviewer, who names Splinter Cell as a formative influence, independently criticizes the same system: "I really want to explore the environments, I want to reconnoiter the area and see what my options are before I commit to an approach. The time limit deters me from doing that." On the other side, a reviewer who reached the game's hardest unlockable difficulty pushes back directly on this class of complaint, writing "45 minutes is enough time to loot every room, stare at the walls, get lost twice, read every clue, make coffee, and still finish the mission. You are NOT supposed to fully learn the map in a single 3-hour caveman expedition. Play the maps more than once." This review reads the timer complaint as genuinely divisive rather than a simple bug or oversight, hinging on whether a player wants Thick As Thieves to be a slow, exploratory Thief-style crawl or a tighter, replay-focused challenge run.

Final verdict

Thick As Thieves is a small, genuinely well-made stealth heist game wearing the visible scars of a much larger, cancelled multiplayer ambition, and this review found its Mixed reception, 611 positive against 304 negative in English, 828 against 440 across all languages, to be an honest reflection of a real split rather than noise. The core loop, borrowing confidently from Thief and Dishonored, earns consistent praise, and at $4.99 it's genuinely difficult to argue the asking price doesn't match what's delivered. But the heavily corroborated complaints here, missing basic options like FOV and key rebinding, only two missions stretched thin across a grindy unlock structure, and mission timers that actively work against the genre's traditional pacing for a meaningful chunk of players, are real and worth weighing before buying. If you want a short, cheap, stylish stealth experience and can forgive some rough, unfinished edges, this is an easy recommendation at its price; if you're hoping for a full-length campaign or the ambitious PvPvE experience originally promised, temper your expectations, or wait to see whether the small team behind it can build this foundation into something larger.