Most Crucial Weapons/Items From TDP

The Shroud on 9/12/2008 at 14:09

Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion

As I said before, shorter swords like the gladius or the slightly longer spatha (late-Roman cavalry weapon and those of the Franks) were no short swords simply because there were no longer ones in the same context. Period. They were just normal swords. Since that you have no disadvantage in combat.

Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion

And if you want to do sneak attacks with a sword, why not take a dagger all the time? Why do you need sneakily-attacked monsters in cloistered areas to give this short sword a justification?

Well, that's rather backwards. I didn't conjure up monsters in confined areas so I could justify Garrett using a short sword. It's the other way around. There were already monsters in confined areas and it just makes more sense for him to use a short sword than the longsword which is currently written into the script.

Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion

Ah, do what you want. I believe I've pointed out quite reasonably why a short swords wouldn't make much sense even for a fantasy thief, but if you think you need it nonetheless, go ahead.

Beleg, from everything you've presented, my impression is that you simply like the longsword better. Have you ever fought with a short sword? Have you studied Roman gladitorial combat? You have been scoffing the notion of short swords as if they are inferior and useless weapons - even going so far as to claim they're made up by fantasy, yet history shows a different story - yes, even against longswords. Your perspective of short swords reminds me of a martial artist's biases toward his own fighting style when arguing which art is superior/inferior. It seems to me that your knowledge of swordfighting extends mainly to European longswords, but you have been making assertions about short swords as if you are an authority on all sword styles.

The Greeks and Romans could have fashioned their swords to be any length they wanted. The fact that they preferred shorter blades should be enough evidence that there were clear merits to that decision.

Beleg Cúthalion on 9/12/2008 at 21:06

Oh, actually I like all kinds archaic weapons and since Troy (well, even if movies aren't historically correct, they nevertheless show some kind of aesthetics) I also like those short rapiers from the Bronze Ages. It's not about liking or not liking, things I don't like are the non-logical ones. And although I believe I've tried to makes this clear several times now (maybe someone else could take that part, just in case it's a language issue) I'll give it one more try:

Quote:

I'm sorry but your facts are wrong here. The Greeks fought the Persians, who used both longswords and short swords. Greek and Roman armies actually carried short swords specifically for close combat when their spears were lost in battle. [...] The Greeks and Romans could have fashioned their swords to be any length they wanted. The fact that they preferred shorter blades should be enough evidence that there were clear merits to that decision.

Show me a Greek or Persian long sword. I've just checked some Ospreys and I haven't found a single sword or axe-like weapon that was significantly longer than, say, a Roman gladius. Greeks had straight short swords, they had falcatas also, the Romans had their gladii. They were all short compared to what came later, but they were not short at that time! They were just normal swords. They were not even significantly longer than the Bronze Age rapiers (which are called that way because the seem to be made for stabbing rather than thrusting). If the Roman horseman gladii were a little longer, this is just to make them a little more useful but we're talking about a few inches here as well. If they had been able to make them longer and robust at the same time, why have they not done this at least for the cavalrymen? Plus, the gladii carried by the ordinary legionaries were (not shorter but still) designed for the Roman way of fighting in the battle line, so even if they were shorter this would already be a different military context.

Quote:

Raise your hand above your head and tell me how much space there's left till you hit the ceiling. Man, fighting indoors is difficult with anything else than a dagger. And if you have sword than there's hardly a difference between a normal and a shortened one, left aside all the disadvantages I mentioned earlier (in a small room you rather stab I guess and voilà, one more point for a longer blade).

Quote:

It seems to me that your knowledge of swordfighting extends mainly to European longswords, but you have been making assertions about short swords as if you are an authority on all sword styles.

I've never claimed to be an expert (and I'm glad you didn't accuse me of saying so). But if you have a closer look at martial arts all over the world, you'll see that - stripped of their sports or safety elements if necessary - they are very similar just because there are only few ways to act with certain tools in certain situations. The way a Wing Chun fighter deflects his opponent's energy is about the same which a foil or epee fencer employs to deflect his opponent's blade. We are talking about blade lengths here and I have pointed out (#1797058) that some basic kind of combat logic applies to all over the world. Again, you have to prove me wrong instead of only suggesting that I might not cover certain (non-European) fields. Plus, I wouldn't want to know which consequences it would have to integrate a non-European element into Thief's usually European environment. Steampunk and the late Middle Ages alone are quite difficult to synchronize.

Again, there is no need for a shorter sword. You gain hardly any transport/handling benefit unless you transform it into a dagger but you pay with significant combat handicaps. Even against monsters (we're talking about creatures bigger than a dog here, aren't we?). Even in narrow old alleys. And there were no shortened weapons made for these reasons. Or if, their owners probably got killed quickly. This doesn't apply to a machete, though. In the (European) context of Thief Dussacks, cutlasses and maybe Katzbalgers were the only short(er) swords I know of. So go ahead and make Constantine's a farmer's training weapon, a short sabre for fencing beneath sails and rigging or a one handed weapon in the time of guns and two-handed swords. Or a machete. Otherwise I see no justification and I'd like to see you thinking about this one more second before constructing things like monsters in confined areas or presumed outer-European weapon systems.

The Shroud on 9/12/2008 at 23:36

Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion

It's not about liking or not liking, things I don't like are the non-logical ones.

There is nothing illogical about short swords.

Quote:

Show me a Greek or Persian long sword. I've just checked some Ospreys and I haven't found a single sword or axe-like weapon that was significantly longer than, say, a Roman gladius.

(http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Persian+swords&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title)

All I did was search google for "Persian swords".

Quote:

If they had been able to make them longer and robust at the same time, why have they not done this at least for the cavalrymen?

They didn't need to. You are approaching this from the presumption that longer is always preferable, and that's not the case. The Romans' swords worked very effectively in close combat. They forged their blades with Damascus steel, the strongest and sharpest steel ever made. These were not primitive swordsmiths. The two-foot length of their blades was a deliberate design choice - not a forging limitation.

Quote:

Man, fighting indoors is difficult with anything else than a dagger.

Fighting, yes.

Quote:

And if you have sword than there's hardly a difference between a normal and a shortened one, left aside all the disadvantages I mentioned earlier (in a small room you rather stab I guess and voilà, one more point for a longer blade).

In what way is that one more point for a longer blade? That's backwards. In a small room, you'd want a shorter blade. A backstab with a longsword would be quite a bit more awkward than with a short sword, especially if you're close behind your victim.

Quote:

I've never claimed to be an expert (and I'm glad you didn't accuse me of saying so). But if you have a closer look at martial arts all over the world, you'll see that – stripped of their sports or safety elements if necessary – they are very similar just because there are only few ways to act with certain tools in certain situations.

You're claiming martial arts all over the world are very similar? That's a strong claim. Strong claims require strong backup. Unless you've actually studied martial arts all over the world in depth, I don't think you're qualified to make that kind of a judgment. I wouldn't be either, for that matter. If you were to show me a statement by a martial arts expert that supports your opinion, you'd have more credibility. The burden of proof is on the prosecution - in this case, that's you. You need to back up your claims solidly rather than just pose statements and challenge me to refute them, since the claims you're making are very unorthodox.

Quote:

The way a Wing Chun fighter deflects his opponent's energy is about the same which a foil or epee fencer employs to deflect his opponent's blade.

I'm not sure whether that's true or not. I really don't know. Whether it's true or false, that is still only one example. You would need to compare a vast array of martial arts in depth to adequately assert the claim that martial arts all over the world are very similar - even taking into account the exceptions you specified. I believe your assertions are extending far beyond your actual knowledge. Therefore I perceive them as idle conjecture. It would take an awful lot of work on your part to prove the things you're claiming.

Quote:

We are talking about blade lengths here and I have pointed out (#1797058) that some basic kind of combat logic applies to all over the world.

That's a more reasonable statement. But when you start specifying just what that combat logic is, you have more work to do to back up your thesis. The basic principle in a debate is that the more general your claims get, the more encompassing your support has to be. Otherwise the argument remains weak.

Quote:

Again, you have to prove me wrong instead of only suggesting that I might not cover certain (non-European) fields.

That is a logical fallacy. The burden is not on me to prove you wrong, it's on you to prove yourself right. You have yet to do so.

Quote:

Plus, I wouldn't want to know which consequences it would have to integrate a non-European element into Thief's usually European environment. Steampunk and the late Middle Ages alone are quite difficult to synchronize.

Did you see the other items in Constantine's collection? Would you categorize those as European?

Quote:

Again, there is no need for a shorter sword. You gain hardly any transport/handling benefit unless you transform it into a dagger but you pay with significant combat handicaps.

We've covered the portability benefits of short swords versus longswords. There really is no contest. No one would want to have to do all the things Garrett does with a longsword strapped to their side. A short sword is more convenient. And if short swords worked for the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Arabs, and other cultures, a short sword can suit Garrett's needs just fine.

Quote:

Even against monsters (we're talking about creatures bigger than a dog here, aren't we?). Even in narrow old alleys. And there were no shortened weapons made for these reasons. Or if, their owners probably got killed quickly. This doesn't apply to a machete, though. In the (European) context of Thief Dussacks, cutlasses and maybe Katzbalgers were the only short(er) swords I know of. So go ahead and make Constantine's a farmer's training weapon, a short sabre for fencing beneath sails and rigging or a one handed weapon in the time of guns and two-handed swords. Or a machete. Otherwise I see no justification and I'd like to see you thinking about this one more second before constructing things like monsters in confined areas or presumed outer-European weapon systems.

I've said this before - the monsters in confined areas are already there. I didn't put them there to rationalize a short sword. I repeat, the screenplay currently features Constantine's sword as a longsword. I did not write it with a short sword in mind. But looking back through it, it's becoming painfully obvious that Garrett would be a lot better off with a shorter blade. All of the areas he gets into and out of, all of the athletics and acrobatics he performs, skulking, climbing, swinging, swimming, etc, etc. - a longsword at his side is going to be a terrible nuisance. After all is said and done, Beleg, surely you can apperciate this one, simple, plain point?

Beleg Cúthalion on 10/12/2008 at 08:51

Do what you want. If you're giving me medieval or even later Persian sabers as a proof for long swords while you were talking about the Ancient times with Greeks and Romans and don't get the idea by yourself that you're venturing into a completely different context by doing so (that is, late medieval times with of course longer blades), I get the feeling of talking to a wall. If you don't get the idea that even with a basic knowledge of martial arts you know a little more than someone just observing it from the outside, I cannot help you. Go ahead, do what you want.

The Shroud on 10/12/2008 at 18:33

So let me get this right - you're claiming that every single one of the Persian swords shown in those pictures are strictly late medieval? Prove it. Where does it say that? It doesn't. You challenged me to show you a Persian longsword. I showed you dozens of them. Usually this would be the part where a person would admit they were wrong.

As for a "basic" knowledge of martial arts, I have practiced goshokuryu, shotokan karate, and thai kickboxing. But that doesn't qualify me to make broad statements about every martial art in the world. I've been seeing some pretty bold claims from you throughout this discussion, but you simply haven't backed them up. I'm still waiting for you to do so.

Beleg Cúthalion on 10/12/2008 at 20:18

No, the other Persian swords were either fantasy or shorter probably ancient ones. You know, the same kind of ancient like the short Roman swords. Do you want to hear my opinion about giving "proof" with a blurry Google image search?

But you did notice that you asked me for this:

Quote Posted by you

Quote Posted by me

Again, you have to prove me wrong instead of only suggesting that I might not cover certain (non-European) fields.

That is a logical fallacy. The burden is not on me to prove you wrong, it's on you to prove yourself right. You have yet to do so.

This would mean I'd have to report all sorts of weapons around the world to prove that there is not the sort of short sword you want to see while you could be just sitting there instead of searching the only short sword that could contradict me!? Do you not notice that kind of argumentative absurdity? No, I'm out of this. Take it as a sign of surrender or whatever, I don't care. Heavens, and I already thought the last historical revisionist was intense.

jtr7 on 10/12/2008 at 20:55

It's gotta only happen once, and hopefully the sounds are satisfying, as well. And it should be played straight. It should be a steam explosion, not a booming fireball. Leather like a dried corn seed, exposed to heat, POPcorn! You cannot eliminate the absurdity and have anything left! Pick a mission, and remove all the absurdity, implausibility, magic, and you don't have a mission. Thief is what it is!:D

BUT we all agree that the stuff should be used minimally, and much of it not at all, yet I say it should all exist in the movie...simply be there, used or not.

The Thief universe contains no supernatural or metaphysical anything. (The people gasp!) All that stuff is normal and natural in that universe, it's only "out there" compared to our own existence.

Until someone comes along that has the talent and skill to glean from Thief to make an adaptation, and strip it down to a series of nebulous conflicts without anything that makes the games what they are, it will be a dark and campy fantasy/sci-fi flick. Blade Runner is a great example of the approach to a non-Hollywood template.

I want a Thief film, not a film about a thief. I'm not embarrassed by the games. The film will require not adhering to the corporate template, in the spirit of LGS, and not cater to a mass market. The film should be a film about Thief, or call it a loose adaptation. It will help if the silhouettes on richly-coloured background are used often. It will seem to be copying Sin City techniques, but we all know that the Thief cutscenes came first.

xxcoy on 10/12/2008 at 20:56

Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion

Do you want to hear my opinion about giving "proof" with a blurry Google image search?

Well, Osprey is a little more reliable and accurate than Google in that case, I think. :cheeky:

It's more reliable than wiki, too, but there also are no early Persian long swords mentioned at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword) there. Anyway, the form was quite popular around the 14th century, if I got it right.
If you look up sabers you might stumble upon the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamshir) shamshir which generally means "sword" (and was used quite some time before the middle ages) but the longer form the word now describes is not even medieval either. It's from the 15th century.
The early medieval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif) Saif was shorter also.

Any older Persian weapons seem to be more related to the shorter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acinaces) acinaces which was more of a dagger.

The Shroud on 10/12/2008 at 21:59

Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion

No, the other Persian swords were either fantasy or shorter probably ancient ones.

And you know they are fantasy how? I'm not saying they couldn't be fantasy. Hell, all I did was a 10 second google search, I'm no expert. I'd just like to hear how you know they're fantasy.

Quote:

I think something on the order of a gladius, spatha or xophis would be just fine. Like I said, it worked just fine for the Romans and Greeks. Why not Garrett?

ShadowSneaker, I agree with most of your points (with the exception of the rope arrow - or more accurately, "grappler arrow"). Incidentally, in the screenplay Garrett's fire arrows do not cause zombies to explode. Rather, they are incendiary. I actually figured out how they could work:

- a hollow glass arrowhead filled with liquid methanol
- a hollow metal arrow-shaft filled with napalm
- a gelatin seal between the base of the arrowhead and the arrow-shaft
- a short fuse behind the gelatin seal leading to the napalm in the shaft
- a pointed metal sodium rod extending through the arrow-shaft to the nock

When Garrett initially draws the arrow, the arrowhead won't be lit. Then he pushes firmly against the nock, which drives the sodium rod downward, piercing through the gelatin seal into the methanol contained in the arrowhead. On contact with the sodium, the methanol ignites, giving us the visual of that fiery glow inside the glass arrowhead. Then he fires the arrow at his target. Once the fuse burns through to the napalm, the target bursts into flames. Hence the arrows will behave just like the fire arrow from the cutscene of the "Tools of the Trade" TDP trailer, rather than the way they behave in the game.

I haven't tested it of course (heh). But I think it's reasonable enough. Fortunately the movie won't have to explain how the arrow works. Seeing is believing.

Update, as of the 45th voter:

Lockpicks: 45 (100%)
Blackjack: 44 (98%)
Rope arrow: 43 (98%)
Water arrows: 43 (96%)
Flash bombs: 42 (93%)
Broadhead arrows: 41 (91%)
Fire arrows: 39 (87%)
Constantine's sword: 38 (84%)
Compass: 37 (82%)
Holy water: 28 (62%)
Gas arrows: 21 (47%)
Noisemaker arrows: 20 (44%)
Moss arrows: 19 (42%)
Healing potions: 15 (33%)
Gas mines: 14 (31%)
Breath potions: 13 (29%)
Explosive mines: 11 (24%)
Speed potions: 11 (24%)

It's funny that throughout this poll, the 9 items I originally listed have remained in the top 15-18%. Then the vote suddenly drops dramatically for everything below those. Guess I picked the right ones after all.

jtr7 on 10/12/2008 at 22:53

While I have a fondness for a single zombie, just in-frame, in the background, rupturing, popping, and hissing like an ant under a magnifying glass, with its leathery quasi-exoskeleton, or like a hot dog bursting in a microwave oven, I trust you.:thumb: