Cradle. Dear God... - by mol
tiger@sound.net on 15/4/2007 at 00:54
But, Dia, for pushing a bit more of T3's "ghosting attitude", into the various players of the Cradle, this re-incarnating Boss idea might just help that along? :thumb: (And this would be a traveling-puppet, all though out that mission, and not just for the ending like a standard Boss.)
Tch on 15/4/2007 at 23:59
This boss idea sounds like the sort of thing in Silent Hill 4: The Room, where there were only a few ghost-disabling items, so these immortal ghosts would always chase you around, going through walls, flying after you. It was just annoying. And then there was Walter, who would appear randomly in many areas, laughing and shooting at you, and no matter how many times you kill him, he always comes back. Not fun.
But then, in that game there was no way to hide in the shadows or sneak around. The enemies just saw you no matter what.
Dia on 16/4/2007 at 02:15
Yes, tiger; the roving Boss would encourage ghosting, but even if you don't kill/k.o. him that means he'll still be following you around throughout the entire mission instead of remaining stationary (so you'll know where he is & how to avoid him). Which means he'll end up just being a major pain in the ass for the duration one way or another. I have to agree with Tch on this one; imo it would just be tedious. Just a personal preference here, but I don't care for Bosses period, let alone one that keeps respawning randomly to plague you throughout the entire mission. Once I k.o. or kill an AI, I'd like him to stay that way.
It's one thing if AI respawn towards the end of a mission where Garrett has to make it back to his starting point; this could add a certain challenge. But to have a Boss-level AI do that it just makes the mission like all the other games that have the 'You-have-to-kill-the-Boss-before-you-can-go-any-further' platform type gameplay. One of the reasons I love Thief is because it doesn't have Bosses.
Again, just a personal preference.
Aja on 16/4/2007 at 03:14
I just finished Shalebridge in my second playthrough of TDS. It is as intense as I remembered it, and as far as level design is concerned, it is extremely well crafted.
The problem is that the Cradle is disruptive to the game as a whole, and to the Thief fiction in general.
After Shalebridge, I almost forgot I was playing Thief. I see no reason why an orphanage or asylum could not exist in the Thief world, but Shalebrige felt too much like a modern horror movie, some twisted version of Awakenings. As an individual level, it was extremely immersive. Within the context of the game, it felt very misplaced.
The horror atmosphere of Return to the Cathedral was perfectly conducive to the Thief aesthetic - dead hammerites, finding talismans, lost keeper messages, etc. With the Crade we see that Null really wanted to make a horror level but was forced to operate within the confines of a Thief game, resulting in scenarios that are un-Thieflike.
I wouldn't hesitate to rate the inclusion of Robbing the Cradle as among the worst decisions in Thief 3. It is excellently designed, but its obvious inconsistency with the rest of the Thief canon left me with a lasting negative impression for the remainder of the game. The Cradle would've been far better used in a dedicated horror/suspense title.
Tch on 16/4/2007 at 03:30
I disagree. Thief has always been a mix of widely different styles and aesthetics, because the Thief world is not our history. Thief 2 was full of Victorian elements, architecture and victrolas, and ROBOTS for crissakes. And security cameras and automatic cannon turrets. The cradle was downright ancient in comparison. I see no reason to suppose that the Cradle's look, architecture, and items found within could not exist in the Thief world. If the visual style is different than what we've seen before, I think it's fair to chalk it up to a period of Thief history that had not previously been addressed. It's no more out of place than the volcanic ancient Egypt-style Lost City.
And the plot of the Cradle mission mirrored Return to the Cathedral's plot almost exactly: A ghost sending you around doing errands in dangerous territory with only the undead.
tiger@sound.net on 16/4/2007 at 03:52
Thank you, very much, Dia and Tch for your views about a Red-Puppet Boss.
So, no more talk of "Cradle Bosses" from me, okay? :angel:
(Just some off-topic stuff about Silent Hill games, below.)
[SPOILER] And Tch's reference to Silent Hill, doesn't surprise me with its over-used ghosts and monsters and especially that nuisance of a Boss. (To me, SH4's general gameplay fell from my graces in too many ways, after that excellent and mature scenario within the physical SH4 Room, itself. And then, it became just too much like any other "action-oriented game", when compared with SH2's excellent introduction to the PC community. Btw, SH3 was also showing some signs of this action-game shift, but at least it "finished" the Silent Hill story, very nicely and with a good amount of respect to the original SH1 storyline.) [/SPOILER]
And I have to agree with Aja, about The Cradle being an almost seperate world, far away from T3's feel and tempo. (But for me, that is a "strange blessing" in its own special way.) :thumb:
Tch on 16/4/2007 at 04:03
Definite agreement there, Tiger@sound, about the other games.
Aja on 16/4/2007 at 07:00
It's not so much the setting: the building itself could exist alongside other Victorian elements in the Thief series. My problem is with the plot. Though elements of it are similar to Return to the Cathedral, the execution is quite different. The Cradle is full of horror-movie cliches, while Cathedral places all of its horror elements completely within the established canon.
The way I see it, Robbing the Cradle could've easily been adapted to fit in a game like Shadowman, whereas Return to the Cathedral works only in a Thief context.
You're right: Thief doesn't take place in our history, and that's WHY things like Robots and mechanist cameras are believable in that world. But the Cradle is obviously (and admittedly - see null's posts) inspired by modern horror movies, and as such it feels to me less like a Thief level and more like House on Haunted Hill. It comes too close to our history (and present, through films) to be comfortably immersive as part of the Thief universe.
Dia on 16/4/2007 at 13:07
I absolutely agree Aja. I remember muttering 'WTF? Why did they do this?' pretty much throughout that level. I'd always thought including zombies & haunts was stretching it before, so the Cradle was pretty much over the top imo.
To me it also seemed as though the authors of T3 finally gave their horror-genre-addicted member (who at that point hadn't really contributed much of anything to the game design) a chance to finally contribute. It was almost as if they were saying, 'Yeah, we can't go any further because we don't have any new ideas (or we're totally bored with this thing) so let's let Mikey design that mission' and then realized that they'd also be appealing to yet another type of gamer by doing so.
SirBlade on 25/4/2007 at 09:11
I think the Cradle designed to direct the players emotions in a certain direction. Garrett (and thus the player) isn't very fond of the keepers when he arrives at the Cradle. The idea of destroying the Keepers might be....attractive. While exploring the Cradle he learns that not only was it an orphanage (something he might be familiar with) and an asylum. It was both at once. Then add some special undead, Lauril's voice, some unsettling details such as the blood that's still warm and liquid after all those years. And to finish it of you have to commit suicide to end the level. Then when you're sufficiently shaken the horror of what the Hag has done to Lauril and all the other victems. All the fear and hatred that has been building inside you suddenly get directed at 1 clear target: the Hag.
They used the same trick in Thief 2. When you walk through the pagan village and see the ghosts of the villagers who were butchered by the mechanists and the girl-ghost gives you her doll it becomes extremely clear who the enemy is.
