Are burricks supposed to be an analogue to dragons in the Thiefverse ? - by Petike the Taffer
Beleg Cúthalion on 2/6/2009 at 15:56
Well, no. In fact we're providing the reason and arguments LG never thought of. It's the same with burricks, the City map, the factions and the Lost City/Precursors thing. :p Sometimes I wonder whether they read this and think: Oh, right, never thought of that but we must have had some great ideas. Or luck in avoiding discrepancies.
Namdrol on 2/6/2009 at 16:24
Beleg, I think that happens a lot in life.
I've said this before,
But is it our dreams which write the stories?
Or the stories which write our dreams?
I don't think any writer or inventor knows where they get their ideas.
Tesla invented the modern world with AC power, which came to him in a hallucination.
(It will steam engine when it's steam engine time - Charles Fort)
ZylonBane on 2/6/2009 at 17:16
It has never once even occurred to me to think of burricks as any sort of dragon. The only thing burricks and dragons have in common is that they're both fictional, and they're both reptiles. They aren't shaped anything like dragons, they don't have wings like dragons, and they don't breath fire like dragons.
So yeah, obviously intended to be runt dinosaurs.
nicked on 2/6/2009 at 19:30
But that's not quite the point. The idea presented is that burricks are to the world of Thief, as dragons are to the world of Tolkein (for example), not that they ARE any sort of dragon, just that they provide a counterpoint to large reptiles in other fiction that provides an anchor to show you what sort of world you're in, to contrast the world of Thief from other works of fantasy.
Whether this reasoning behind the design of burricks (or anything else in Thief) was intentional, or just a happy byproduct of good, consistent design, is another matter.
ZylonBane on 2/6/2009 at 20:06
By that logic, burricks could be treated as analogous to any of a dozen fictitious species from Tolkien's works.
nicked on 2/6/2009 at 20:27
Possibly so, although the superficial similarities (reptilian, cave-dwelling, breath-based attack) suggest dragon to me more so than any other fantasy creature.
ZylonBane on 2/6/2009 at 20:53
...and this is how people end up believing in The DaVinci Code.
jtr7 on 2/6/2009 at 20:58
If you don't get the joke, just say so.:laff:
Maddermadcat on 3/6/2009 at 03:00
Well, we know for a fact that Thief started out as a "Dark Camelot" game. The heroes became villains, that sort of thing. So really the idea there was to subvert standard fantasy fare. We can see evidence of this in quite a few aspects of Thief, which makes the idea of Burricks as sorry excuses for dragons plausible.
Personally I think they were just invented as a reason for the creation of tunnels. Tunnels are simple, low-detail, and they can serve as additional routes (or only routes when any additional detail might become technically problematic).
How the hell do Burricks manage to dig tunnels, anyway?
Namdrol on 3/6/2009 at 06:16
I maybe be totally wrong, but I always thought they sort of dissolved the tunnels with the poisonous breath.
Now I say it, it sounds dumb
(no change there then :D)
