New Horizon on 24/3/2006 at 18:54
Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX
The scar doesn't need to provide backstory. If players want that, they can play the previous games (a subtle way to get players intersted in "dead" games, instead of just handing them everything).
Why are people arguing against the
fact that it's a complete contradiction in continuity, when it's as plain as the scar on Garrett's face in TDS?
A huge ugly scar isn't subtle at all. What's subtle, is playing the game and discovering that Garrett 'HAS' a glowing mechanical eye. Perhaps the player doing some research afterwards to find out why it's there in the first place.
I'll give you 'plucked out' bullshit, and a whole lot more. Kill Bill? It didn't even exist at the time of Thief:The Dark Project, so it's silly to compare the two. Watch the ingame video, Victoria's fingers are 'slender-pointy roots'...and she slips them into the eye socket and "PLUCKS" the eye out. It's not like they were some blunt instrument...they were part of a living thing, and she could manipulate/ grow parts of herself to be as large or as delicate as she wished. Simple as that. I'm not the one who made the video...I'm simply backing up that there was no justification to so obviously ignore the established content. I appreciate many things about TDS, but I think it's rather lame to have ignored so much continuity for the sake of making the game easier to swallow for newcomers. If a game is made well, and kicks some serious ass...it doesn't have to bend over backwards to invite new players. The quality of the game will sell the concept, not silly gimicks.
So, if adding that silly scar to an already established character isn't just handing everything to the player, then I don't know what is.
Brother Reginald on 24/3/2006 at 20:40
Good point, New Horizon. I always wondered about that eye...
Still, I just left it up to my imagination. I developed an explanation, while although complete bullshit, kept me happy.
There isn't a scar as soon as he gets the wound because it's not a normal wound. It's a wound from a strange pagan wood nymph, and pagan things seem to work differently to normal people's. (Plants growing from wine and blood etc.) So I like to think that the scar came over a long amount of time as a result of the trace of pagan magic inside his face left from the time he got his eye ripped out. I know this is wrong, but part of thief is up to your own imagination (in the first two games definitely.)
P.S Something tells me we've gone slightly off-topic....
Soul Shaker on 24/3/2006 at 21:17
What if the scar is completely irrelevant to the mechanical eye? It may just be a sword slash, even a physical feature to represent his fights etc. Not every scar etc is related to the story ya know.
Oh, and for the record on the scar when I first saw it (can't play dark project or gold cos of the NT problems but i'll find a work around...) suggested to me that it was from the mechanical eye, and he lost his own eye by choice.
Kovitlac on 24/3/2006 at 21:17
I agree completely with BlackCapedManX about Garrett's scar - something would be left after yanking out someone's eye. I didn't actually see the cutscene where this happened (I will, though) but my guess is that it was simply 'plucked out' to hide the gorier affects the scene would normally have (again, I haven't seen it yet, so I'm just guessing. I just can't see Thief with tons of blood and gore). Also, putting a mechanical eye in qould require hooking (for lack of a better term) the eye up to neurons and such. Not to mention the brain.
Quote:
If a game is made well, and kicks some serious ass...it doesn't have to bend over backwards to invite new players. The quality of the game will sell the concept, not silly gimicks.
Maybe I'm missing out on something here, but as far as I know, *every& game wishes to have new players. Ecspecially a game that isn't hugely popular to begin with (Thief). All character undergo changes to look different as games go on. When they stay the same it very often becomes boring. The makers of Thief III thought Garrett needed a simple upgrade. And hey, why not at the same time add something that goes along with his past (or, as Soul Shaker said, something that just comes with being a Thief)?
T-Smith on 24/3/2006 at 21:36
Quote Posted by Kovitlac
Also, putting a mechanical eye in qould require hooking (for lack of a better term) the eye up to neurons and such. Not to mention the brain.
You'd think so, but that may not be the case. In Thief 2, the cinema before 'Eavesdropping', Garrett is cleaning and tweaking his mechanical eye - with it out of his eye socket. Then when he finishes, he just sticks it back in and goes off with Artemus. The way he treats it during the cinema suggests that the use of the mechanical eye is somehow as simple as putting it in and taking it out.
Soul Shaker on 24/3/2006 at 21:44
These things could just be left their for speculation, a way to get people to make up their own stories...
New Horizon on 24/3/2006 at 21:45
Quote Posted by Soul Shaker
(can't play dark project or gold cos of the NT problems but i'll find a work around...)
Check the FAQ at the top of the page.
Quote:
Go to Start, then Run, then type d:\setup.exe -lgntforce, where d:\ is your CDrom/DVDrom drive. (note: that's -lgntforce, lowercase "L". If you're unsure, copy and paste it from here.) This problem arises because Win2K and WinXP are based on the NT kernel, which had DirectX support which was flaky at best. Thief needs DirectX to run, so, when the installer sees the NT kernel, it assumes that the game isn't going to be able to run and quits the installation. The -lgntforce switch tells the installer to ignore the NT kernel and install anyway.
Soul Shaker on 24/3/2006 at 21:52
Yeah, I was gonna look for a workaround anyway, i've done it with freespace...
But, thanks, i'll go do that...while waiting for my thief 3...ALWAYS ORDER EXPRESS!!!!
New Horizon on 24/3/2006 at 21:57
Quote Posted by Kovitlac
I agree completely with BlackCapedManX about Garrett's scar - something would be left after yanking out someone's eye.
It doesn't matter if you or I agree with him or not, it's what has been established as series cannon.
Quote Posted by Kovitlac
I didn't actually see the cutscene where this happened (I will, though) but my guess is that it was simply 'plucked out' to hide the gorier affects the scene would normally have (again, I haven't seen it yet, so I'm just guessing. I just can't see Thief with tons of blood and gore). Also, putting a mechanical eye in qould require hooking (for lack of a better term) the eye up to neurons and such. Not to mention the brain.
Not if the eye is magical/ mechanical...which it most likely would have to be in the Thief world, considering the majority of the world operates on magic/ steam/ mechanics. This is a firmly established world we're talking about here. If they had decided to add the scar in the second game, it would have been far more acceptable since we hardly saw anything of his face in the first game, but this was not the case...and since you haven't even seen the video...hmmm.
Quote:
Maybe I'm missing out on something here, but as far as I know, *every& game wishes to have new players. Ecspecially a game that isn't hugely popular to begin with (Thief). All character undergo changes to look different as games go on. When they stay the same it very often becomes boring. The makers of Thief III thought Garrett needed a simple upgrade. And hey, why not at the same time add something that goes along with his past (or, as Soul Shaker said, something that just comes with being a Thief)?
There is a huge difference between and upgrade and throwing the baby out with the bath water. What I have said numerous times already is that this should not be treated any differently than a movie character. It's completely possible to upgrade a character without completely rewriting the established history of the character. Imagine a movie series where the main character was the survivor of a fire, and a good portion of his body...except his face, was badly burned. This is followed in the first two movies, but then the producer of the third movie decides..."hey, he should have burns on half of his face, for people who haven't seen the first two movies". Okay, a bit extreme but the same idea.
Sorry to keep ranting on this, but it really annoys me when something so obvious has to be questioned, simply because we're willing to roll over and accept whatever a developer tosses at us. I don't eat table scraps.
Shoshin on 25/3/2006 at 00:07
Quote Posted by New Horizon
Why are people arguing against the
fact that it's a complete contradiction in continuity, when it's as plain as the scar on Garrett's face in TDS?
If I had to guess, I'd say it's because some of us don't think it's a fact. Your interpretation of the scar is that it's a continuity error. Mine is not. Since I clearly think it's open to interpretation, your statement that it's a fact that it's a continuity error isn't likely to sway me.
