Ironpants on 14/5/2009 at 19:58
Quote Posted by Go2doug
I actually don't think that the sword is a "must have" weapon. Think about it - being a thief with a long sword on your body would be cumbersome.
Seems to be a common misconception that carrying a (normal one hand) sword is cumbersome. I'd be glad to have a nice custom baldric so I could shift the position if I had to crawl through a very tight space, but otherwise what do we do in thief? Walk around mostly - interspersed with some ledge climbing.
More important is the fact that Garrett received enough sword training to use it as a sure defense. Inevitably, taffing about leads to trouble - and the sword is our life insurance. If cornered, at least you can block until seizing a window of escape. It's better for gameplay than being forced to reload because there is no chance of immediate escape.
Daggers are only useful for killing, and don't belong as a weapon in Thief.
Deadly Shadows confuses Garrett for an assassin; don't make the same mistake again!
You're a thief, not a murderer.
Dia on 14/5/2009 at 23:19
Very well said, Ironpants! :thumb:
kamyk on 14/5/2009 at 23:32
How is killing someone with a sword different from killing them with a Dagger? Dead is dead. Swords and Daggers both kill.
Personally I think I truly great Thief would need neither weapon. But of the two, a Dagger is more sneaky, which is what Thief is all about. (Yes, I know, sometimes I am a heretic).
ZylonBane on 14/5/2009 at 23:41
Quote Posted by kamyk
How is killing someone with a sword different from killing them with a Dagger? Dead is dead. Swords and Daggers both kill.
Do TRY to pay attention, would you? A dagger is an assassin's weapon, while a sword can be used for both offense and defense. That's the relevant difference.
Also, it's a gigantic pain in the ass to hack down banners with a dagger.
kamyk on 14/5/2009 at 23:51
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Also, it's a gigantic pain in the ass to hack down banners with a dagger.
Lol. Point.
As for the rest... I understand the difference in use of the weapons. That isn't my point. My point is that whether you kill someone with a dagger, or kill them with a sword, they are still dead. Which still makes you a murderer, seeing as how you aren't supposed to be in the place robbing things to begin with, and your opponent is only doing their job, or defending their home/business and valuables. This puts the player in the position of being morally incorrect regardless of how they kill their opponent, since if they weren't there robbing someone in the first place, the encounter wouldn't be taking place at all.
No matter how nice a "self-defense", "honorable fight" spin die hard fans of every element of the first two games put on things, the fact of the matter is you are still killing someone who didn't need to die.
Edit:Out on the city streets, I will agree it is another matter, what with the city guards irrational urge to kill Garrett on sight (which technically is because he is wanted, but I'll concede that anyway).
Dante on 15/5/2009 at 00:31
For me, the blackjack, water arrows, and flash bombs are the three crucial items. Blackjack is the iconic knockout weapon; water arrows fuel the darkness; flash bombs make for great escapes when the shit hits the fan. I'd also like the sword (would've preferred the dagger a week ago but Ironpants converted me on the Eidos forum) and rope arrows, but I could live and the game would work without them.
Quote:
Do TRY to pay attention, would you? A dagger is an assassin's weapon, while a sword can be used for both offense and defense. That's the relevant difference.
I don't know what you're talking about, but the dagger was a common medieval weapon borne by many peasants instead of an expensive sword. It's lightweight and easy to conceal, so it's a perfect match for both assassins and burglars. Assassins are just as well known for their use of the
sword, not to mention the bow, crossbow, silenced pistol, sniper rifle, poison. So I guess that means Garrett shouldn't have a dagger, shouldn't have a sword, and shouldn't have a bow. That leaves us with the blackjack. Splendid.
Ironpants' argument that the sword is a weapon of defense (as opposed to the solely offensive dagger) is, I think, the key factor here.
ZylonBane on 15/5/2009 at 01:07
Quote Posted by kamyk
No matter how nice a "self-defense", "honorable fight" spin die hard fans of every element of the first two games put on things, the fact of the matter is you are still killing someone who didn't need to die.
I suspect that if I try to explain the concept of "characterization" to you, you're just going to hear trombone noises.
jtr7 on 15/5/2009 at 01:11
In my experience, the die-hard fans are less likely to make excuses for killing, and feel that it's out-of-character for Garrett. Self-defense is for when the player screws up, or intentionally picks a fight. And the latter doesn't really count.
Ironpants on 15/5/2009 at 01:17
Quote Posted by kamyk
No matter how nice a "self-defense", "honorable fight" spin die hard fans of every element of the first two games put on things, the fact of the matter is you are still killing someone who didn't need to die.
No, the sword gives you the option to
not kill.
If you're cornered with a dagger, it's kill or be killed. With a sword, you are empowered to defend yourself WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO KILL.
I thought it was very clear that this is the point of my argument, but it seems utterly lost on you.
jtr7 on 15/5/2009 at 01:17
Oof.
