New Horizon on 25/3/2006 at 00:27
Quote Posted by Shoshin
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.
Then what do you call it if it's not a continuity error? Neither is it a bloody interpretation. :laff: I'm representing why it's a continuity error with the videos of the first two games. That in itself, is a fact. It is also a fact that there are no scars represented in the videos, or on the character model ingame (scouting orb Garrett model in Thief 2). Based on 'those' facts alone, there 'is' a continuity error...or perhaps you would prefer, a concious decision by the devs to ignore continuity?
No matter which way anyone rubs it, it's a continuity error...by definition! I really don't give a rats ass one way or the other, I just can't stand it when people argue something that is so obvious. Just because you or anyone else chooses not to believe it's a continuity error does not make it so. There is physical proof. If you can't accept that, then that's your problem. Sweet Jesus.
jtbalogh on 25/3/2006 at 03:54
Interpretion to rewrite history just to explain some feature today? WTF
BTW, removing an eye would also cause damage around the eye socket and no more eye lids. Well, no damage at all. Magic also does not cause one scar to grow years later but leave all other scars in remission. Such a huge scar could indicate his forehead and cheek bones were split to reach his eye, but improbable.
Kovitlac on 25/3/2006 at 04:02
Quote:
It's completely possible to upgrade a character without completely rewriting the established history of the character.
They didn't completely re-establish Garrett - they gave him a fricken scar. That's it. Maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with his eye being removed. Perhapes is happened sometime in between Thief 2 and 3. What anyone says here is purely speculation, and since none of us were involved in the game's development, non of us can say for certain.
New Horizon on 25/3/2006 at 04:28
Quote Posted by Kovitlac
They didn't completely re-establish Garrett - they gave him a fricken scar.
Yes, I know that. I was simply trying to make the point that it was possible to take creative liberties with the character without ignoring things that were previously established in the series, and in turn show some respect for the original fan base that kept the series alive in the first place. I'm not trying to be an ass. :)
Little details like this don't mean a lot to some, that's ok, but it was the little details in the original Thief games that made a lot of us stick around here for years, waiting for the 3rd in the series to be released.
Soul Shaker on 25/3/2006 at 04:32
With the T2X mod...now, if t...i'll just cut myself off there, i realised that it's a different person...
But a solution to all these people who are kinda agro about it, would be fan fiction...yes, fill in your own gaps!
jtbalogh on 25/3/2006 at 08:49
There are no gaps to fill in after installing John P's texture pack to get Garrett with NO scar. Has Ion Storm given us a reason to believe they made the right decisions about scars or anything? Everything else in the game has required tons of tweaking to remove their decisions and we are not even close to done yet. Speculating on something that has a shady track record may not be a sane investment.
Dussander on 25/3/2006 at 12:07
Quote Posted by T-Smith
They wanted the game to stand on it's own, and they didn't want people to bother playing the other games. Still, they could have just made a note about it someone in the game or instructions.
They referenced it in the book at the base of the Forbidden library (\CONTENT\T3\Books\English\SM3aboutgarrett)
Quote:
Garrett pursued the life of a criminal, and with the Keeper training we had given him, he quickly became a master thief. His abilities did not escape attention of certain individuals, and he was lured into a Pagan plot that threatened the safety of the City. During that time Garrett's eye was removed and used to power The Eye, one of the Artifacts we are studying (see Ogilvy's Treatise on Sentients for more regarding the Artifacts).
DarthMRN on 25/3/2006 at 14:10
First off:
NH, don't sound so arbitrary about this. The obvious solution is as you say, it's a continuity error. But when you think of how Thief fans, members of this forum in particular, always have been able to conjure up plausible stories to explain errors that the devs could not possibly have thought of when they made the games, it is no far stretch to imagine Spector & Co counting on the veterans doing just that, giving them the opportunity to put in a cool scar for the XboXers whithout necessarily disturbing continuity. If the presence of a scar over his eye is a solid proof of an undisputable continuity error, then many facts about the Thiefverse this community takes for granted must be reevaluated. For they too, are results of interpretations that often are quite far fetched.
Secondly:
About they mech eye, if we assume people in the Thiefverse don't need connections between their eyeballs and the brain, or that the eye hooks itself up to the brain somehow, then I have a more prudent qestion for you:
Isn't an eyeball too big to squeeze in and out of the socket in the first place? Maybe it can be done with a natural eye, but with a lump of metal?! That was always what made me stop when I saw that T2 cutscene.
jermi on 25/3/2006 at 15:01
The lump of metal would be smaller than a natural eye. People with an old-fashioned glass eye have to pop that thing in and out of the eyesocket all the time.
Gestalt on 25/3/2006 at 15:22
Now you taffers have got me thinking about making an FM with a "How Garrett got his scar" story.
[CENTER]__________________________________________________[/CENTER]
As for how he's able to see out of the mechanical eye, I'd guess it's either magic or there's other hardware in the back of his eye socket that the eye interfaces with. That might explain why it works without any apparent connection to or replacement for the optic nerve.
