jtr7 on 4/12/2008 at 00:31
Agreed.
And no explanation other than the obvious bad swimmer getting stuck on the terrain.:D
Another (
http://www.sshock2.com/articles/11.htm) digression:
[10:51]
EvilSpirit I've got a date to go to REI (always an easy sell for me) and biking this afternoon, and then I'm playing D&D with Sara et al. tonight. I may or may not have IRC access.
[10:53]
Grundbegriff EvilSpirit: How's Sara? You're referring to Verrilli?
[10:54]
EvilSpirit Yes, the very same Sara. She's good. Spending a lot of time doing remodelling on her house, making ready to take an intro architecture course, being in a couple of shows with the MIT Gilbert & Sullivan players...
[10:55]
Grundbegriff Sara
"Sword" Verrilli is ....remodeling her house?! PH34R...
[10:55]
Daxim :D
[10:55]
ShadowJack heh
[10:55]
Grundbegriff Rich Carlson always refers to her as "the Spirit of Thief"
[10:55]
EvilSpirit As well he might.
Beleg Cúthalion on 4/12/2008 at 08:47
I think there are enough GFX possibilities to make the sword both visible and not at the same time (and also without that you really see the effect). Doesn't bother me honestly. Like a car without lights in the night when you just see some reflections of the passing lights. Well, I wonder why I've already seen two cars this winter driving without lights in the night. :erg:
About short swords, the thing is that no one would forge a sword with a significant disadvantage in combat (that is, in the same military context). There aren't many ways to fight with these things and the usual techniques do not require a barbarian-like strenght since you use the impetus of your enemy's blade or stab etc. (see some Hammaborg free fight videos on YouTube). The handling of a sword is more dependant on its balance point and thus the weight of the pommel. So a shorter sword in the same context is as useful as a knife or dagger - only bigger and less practical. Even if you say it's about fantasy I wonder how you would justify it. A better fighting style for short weapons? Magic? That's why (and also because I think it's a RPG invention) I'd give him a real sword if any.
The Shroud on 4/12/2008 at 09:47
Short blades are not an invention of rpg's. Unfortunately, due to their prevalence in many rpg's some people have begun to automatically associate them exclusively with that context. And no one ever forged a short blade for the purpose of providing a disadvantage to the wielder - that's just silly. The purpose of short blades is obvious: they're lighter, and therefore quicker in combat. There were (and still are) hundreds of different styles of short blades in all sorts of cultures, particularly in Asia and the middle east. Are you an expert on swords?
jtr7 on 4/12/2008 at 11:17
Considering the long history of the Roman gladius, is it the armor of the AIs that causes you to dismiss it, Beleg?
Also, Garrett's not a fighter. If it's preferable for a thief to have a dagger, and Garrett sucks at fighting with a sword, a Roman gladius has both aspects covered. Since Garrett also uses it for bashing, a gladius would have more weight to do that with than a dagger, and he could use the pommel for that rather than destroy the blade.
We know he uses daggers in TDP/Gold (CS06 cutscene) and TMA (Framed briefing), so he really just dropped the sword altogether by the time of TDS.
I still want to see a video of a taffer in combat, winning the fight without exploits such as circle-strafing, or the running away then charging (repeat) method. I want to see someone using the block key effectively. Until I see a serious and expertly-played sword fight in Thief, I won't believe Garrett's supposed to be trained to win a fight, but rather, survive one long enough to get away. The Keepers wouldn't train him to be confrontational, but evasive. The Keepers wouldn't train him to kill people, with the exception of getting caught and needing to survive and escape. But creatures and undead, which they are fully aware of and have fought and died by? Certainly! With zombies, stabbing is useless, and hacking is the only way when a sword is all he's got.
Garrett always has to get in close, anyway, discounting forward leaning.
Beleg Cúthalion on 4/12/2008 at 12:16
I didn't want to lead this thread so off topic, but just to satisfy my blatancy... :p
Quote Posted by The Shroud
Short blades are not an invention of rpg's. Unfortunately, due to their prevalence in many rpg's some people have begun to automatically associate them exclusively with that context.
Their coexistence with longer or normal swords (which is kind of nonsense from my point of view) usually
is artificial. I've never denied that there were shorter swords (due to e.g. horsemen needing longer ones or different sizes in general to make it fit the soldier) but that was a matter of a few inches OR a completely different context.
Quote:
And no one ever forged a short blade for the purpose of providing a disadvantage to the wielder - that's just silly.
Yes of course but that's the only result of doing so left aside a blurry idea of carrying less weight.
Quote:
The purpose of short blades is obvious: they're lighter, and therefore quicker in combat. There were (and still are)
hundreds of different styles of short blades in all sorts of cultures, particularly in Asia and the middle east. Are you an expert on swords?
I won't say I'm an expert but I have at least
some experience in that matter. As I said above, practically no fighting style depends too much on strength, so there is no need to make lighter weapons just for the sake of it, especially not with shortening the blade. But with all the stabbing there definitely
is an advantage for a longer blade and that's something I already notice in I.33 fencing (although my blade is only about one or one-and-a-half inches longer than those of my comrades). Plus, up to a weight of three pounds (which would be a lot for a one-handed sword) weight itself is negligible compared to a balance point. A longer blade with a balance point close to the cross guard can be much "quicker" than a weapon with properties vice-versa. [And I'm talking about one-handed weapons now. Long swords are a thing on their own and they also go along with better armour etc. etc.]
Shorter weapons, as mentioned in the linked post, always work as secondary weapons or tools and even if they do exist together with longer blades (e.g. Dussack along with Katzbalgers etc.) they are not meant to be put against each other. To make this clear: There would hardly be a chance against a "normal" weapon, left aside that the wielder of such a "normal" blade would probably be better trained as well. That's why you wouldn't take a shorter sword with you as a real weapon but only if there was nothing else left or you couldn't afford anything better. This might be the only case I'd agree with using a shorter weapon, but honestly – who would care to think about all the background?
As for Constantine's, just make it normal (maybe not with the prickly cross guard things in the artwork since Garrett would rather hurt himself... although this could fit Pagan religion). Looks better also.
And one more for jtr7: Hit and run might work with a monster but against a guard turning away after the first strike would be suicide. That's all about gameplay and if I was a filmmaker I would either take this in realistically or not at all. :erg: Not-hit and run probably.
The Shroud on 4/12/2008 at 22:12
Beleg, Garrett isn't going to be using Constantine's sword to battle guards. That's not its purpose in the plot and that's not how Garrett operates anyhow. Its usefulness lies in its stealth and magical properties. As for the vast range of short swords in the world and the differing fighting styles that go along with them (Japanese and Chinese blades, for example), you can't apply such categorical statements to all of them. It seems to me that your focus has been confined largely to medieval European blades, specifically those carried by soldiers.
jtr7 on 4/12/2008 at 22:44
Yeah, I would hope that Garrett would be shown as one avoiding personal combat. He's rather passive aggressive.
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
And one more for jtr7: Hit and run might work with a monster but against a guard turning away after the first strike would be suicide. That's all about gameplay and if I was a filmmaker I would either take this in realistically or not at all. :erg: Not-hit and run probably.
I agree, Beleg. I don't yet believe Garrett is even really capable of fighting with a sword in-game (and I believe that is intentional), without the player doing something silly, exploitative of the game-mechanics, or suicidal.
A site I like to peruse from time to to time, is this one:
(
http://www.thearma.org/)
They favor more recent history and fencing, so the mentions of the gladius are rare. There are articles by stage fight choreographers, too. Of passing interest is the (
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/tworealities.htm)
article about working on
Highlander and addressing the clash of different blades and techniques from different eras hundreds of years apart. Most of the articles are indeed a plea for historical accuracy, but with explanations that are very simple to understand, it's like hearing common sense, it seems obvious--even if one never knew the truth until that moment.
Since Constantine is a "collector" and is older than Garrett, and is in fact, the Woodsie Lord of ancient legend...a blade that predates the Middle Ages is also supported.
It is perfectly natural to have a backstory to work from, and anybody who's made a serious attempt to write a story knows that there's more background that isn't told than the story that is. The background grounds the plot. Exposition is usually background information that must be shared for plot elements to make sense. Your bias about the weaponry, armor, etc., are all derived from the background you've studied or experienced. Perfectly normal.
A philosophy I've heard elsewhere that seems to make sense, is that a person with the standardised, popular, and modern training of his/her day might not be prepared to go up against someone who is aware of it, but is trained mainly to exploit the styles' weaknesses. A guardsmen who is trained to fight the way most sword-wielders are expected to fight in his time, may not be at all ready for someone who's training is steeped in relatively ancient ways, who can attack from an unexpected angle.
The Shroud on 4/12/2008 at 23:15
One more point to add about Constantine's sword. In order to retrieve the Eye, Garrett will be venturing into the walled-off section of the Olde Quarter, which is haunted by the undead. Constantine, of course, knows this well in advance of hiring someone to steal the Eye for him. Therefore, he knows whoever he sends to retrieve the Eye is most likely going to need a weapon that can damage undead. The only undead who wield weapons are the Hammer haunts - and they're so fast that Garrett would be slain by the time he raised his blade to strike in the first place. So this sword is really not intended for frontal combat against armed opponents. It seems designed for sneak attacks more than anything.
jtr7 on 4/12/2008 at 23:32
We know that the backstab is the most effective method, and the manual even states: "Sometimes, thieving can be made easier by a measured application of force. Usually, this means a stealthy sword-blow from behind."
And that was before TDS made it very obvious.:sly:
Yeah, Con knew what was in there, so that should also all make sense, or be cleverly mysterious and seem to make sense anyway.:laff: Maybe anti-necromancy? That's how a single deep wound drops them? If they are alerted they are necromantically ( :eww: ) energized against attacks, but they are found bored and complacent and with defenses lowered when Garrett finds them? Yeah, sorry, sounds lame.
So Dark the Con of Maw Men. (War MD Shook At Fence Omen!)
I guess someone else could pipe up about the length of the sword at any time. :erg:
Now flashbombs versus undead require explaination or omission. It can't be ultra-violet light, unless the Old Quarter is perpetually shrouded in darkness. But as a device to blind opponents to escape into the shadows, is fine.
The Shroud on 4/12/2008 at 23:51
I don't think it's necessary for the haunts to be more vulnerable per se when they're not alerted to an intruder - simply that, so long as Garrett remains undetected, he stands a good chance of landing a strike without the haunt parrying it. A single well-placed blow will do whether the haunt is on alert or not. It's just that Garrett is highly unlikely to get a solid attack in if the haunt is alerted to his presence.
Regarding flash bombs, in the screenplay they don't actually damage undead - they just repel them temporarily due to the bright flash of light.
