Charles Harold of "The New York Times" called the game a "refreshing alternative to games that glorify violence". He found its story to be "slight", but he lauded its world as "amazingly alive" and its AI as a "remarkable impersonation of real intelligence". Writing for "GamePro", Barry Brenesal commented that "Thief II" "provides a solid gaming experience" but "doesn't startle like its predecessor". He wrote that its missions featured a "great deal of variety", and he praised their "ability to casually suggest a much larger world", but he complained that they were linear. He considered the game's writing to be "among the best in the business". While Brenesal enjoyed the game's textures and lighting, he noted the low detail of the game's human models, whose animations he found to be "arthritic". "PC Zone"s Paul Presley wrote that the game's levels were larger but easier than those of "Thief", and he considered their objectives to be somewhat linear. He found "Thief II"s graphics to be dated and wrote that its lack of real-time lighting "tends to give each environment a sort of 'false' quality". However, he believed that the game "still has enough atmosphere to immerse you", and he praised its sound design. Presley considered the game to be a straightforward rehash of its predecessor, and he finished, "A more clear-cut case of sequel-itis there has never been."