Oskar Cruo on 11/9/2007 at 17:42
Hi
I think I bought Thief 2 about year later when it was released. It was the last copy of the game I saw since and it was on discount, so I guess I could call that a lucky shot. The game has been one of my dearest favorites ever since.
And since the game is so great, I always wanted to play the first one but never found it (they are hard to find) and I didn't want any ugly budget versions.
But now I spotted thief collection box and bought it since it was so cheap and looked pretty nice. :D But, to the point!
The first reaction was warm. Fuzzy even, like playing the old good thief 2 but with "new" missions. First few missions were very enjoyable, but more and more I played the game started to become oriented to supernatural, animals and fire ball guardians. I never minded supernaturals in thief 2, since they were more like rarity. They were something that you might crash into every now and then when you go deep enough. But in thief 1 they are way too overrused and it really starts to get dull and makes me numb.
Im currently at the "return to cathedral" and frankly, im really getting to the edge. I usually keep myself out of FAQ's unless I really need them, but with latest missions I have readed them continiously. I even sneak peeked the last missions and they really didn't impress me.
Thief 2 was full of excellent levels and missions. They were complicated, but didn't have these goddamn zombie runs, lever-switch runs and tomb raiding. While thief 2 had big goals as well, it concentrated more into stealing than running after some relics and getting all loot that you run into. I understand that dark project is the first thief and hence it is simplier and not as polished, but I really cannot understand how anyone could like this more than t2.
And sorry about my bad writing. I can't keep anything in one piece. Now you just have to read this chaotic pile of whining.
Thanks.
DudeMan. on 11/9/2007 at 18:19
I learned to like the supernatural levels, but I just can't stand the last Thief 1 levels, I love the lost city, the bonehard, the Cathedral was a pretty amazing quest (Haunts, best enemies ever) but the second run through the Constantine Mansion was frustrating, Strange Bedfellows was just a cheap re-run of Undercover but with boring caves, and the last level was awful to the point of run with WD and WA + Spacebar to the final confrontation.
Nevertheless, that was a very cool ending.
And without having played ANY Thief game, the first time I started with Thief The Dark Project I was expecting to see what Thief 2 came up to be.
Lovecraftian on 11/9/2007 at 20:20
I'd agree with you. The supernatural element was far too overused in Thief 1. Not really the Developers fault, as they wern't sure how much people would like the stealth bits, so that's why the made so many undead levels.
Just persevere and you'll do it. Thief 1 and 2 are both great games.
Goldmoon Dawn on 11/9/2007 at 21:03
Quote Posted by Oskar Cruo
I understand that dark project is the first thief and hence it is simplier and not as polished, but I really cannot understand how anyone could like this more than t2.
Back in the earlier days before Thief, Looking Glass was a lot like an "underground band". They never turned out a game that was short of excellent quality (not to mention replay), yet they also never were able to break out into the mainstream. Those of us who were Ultima fanatics in the late 80's recall their glorious efforts with the series, and most of us assumed that Looking Glass made rpgs. Indeed, this is one of the few companies who were able to never be pinned into any particular genre. It was a lot easier to be blown completely away by Dark Project if you played it in the 90's, when it was most relevant. The way Thief I morphs into an "rpg" towards the end is one of the main things I love about the game. A ton of it is similar to the Ultimas, Might Magics, and of course Wizardry. Time has not been kind to the game, but the underlying genius will always be there. Thief II was nothing more than a decent forgery, meant to "fine tune" things for their own perfectionist reasonings.
Illuminatus on 11/9/2007 at 22:23
Oskar, before you start arguing Thief 1 is "simpler and not as polished" or that "thief 2 concentrated more on stealing", stop and think for a moment. How many things did you actually steal in Thief 2? The cultivator, the recording device and... maybe Cavador? And (aside from the first 1-2 missions) when were you actually stealing for profit, for yourself, when were you actually being a thief? Thief 1 is all about actual thievery: practically every single mission, even the last 3, are centered around Garrett filling his pockets, working towards a way to fill his pockets, or getting revenge.
Don't get so hung up about the environments the missions take place in: there's no reason to toss stealth out the window just because you're up against a Haunt instead of a guard... in fact some may argue the non-human element contributes way more to the atmosphere and in-game immersion. You say the supernatural theme was overused in the first game, but take a look at the sequel. Practically every single mission in Thief 2 deals with guards/guards/mechanists/guards/mechanists. Thief 1 fleshed out the game world and the Thief universe with waaay more variety and style: from Hammers to the Trickster, guards to thugs, undead to lost cities, tombs to mansions.. you get the idea. You can't knock it for being dull.
Plus, come on man- just think about the Escape cutscene. Did that not shake you at all? I'm willing to bet Thief 2's 5 minute discussion between Garrett and Viktoria over the science of rust gas wasn't quite as exciting.
Oskar Cruo on 12/9/2007 at 05:48
Well, those are some quite good points but I still have to agree with myself and say that the mission and level designing was a lot better in t2. :) Look Glass indeed was a magnificent developer team that didn't stick too long with one thing. That is why I love it aswell.
And Who said I wasn't going stealth with supernaturals? Run-through might sound a bit misleading.. hmm..
Either way, I finished the game. Last missions were certainly lot more interesting that the few before and the ending / end demo was really well made. Im not furious about this game, it was a thief after all and you don't get that stuff everyday. I have to say thought, that I will take a long break after playing this again.
Jarvis on 12/9/2007 at 07:14
I didn't like bonehoard or lost city or other undead/creature stages either the first time I played through. I also liked Thief 2 more the first time I played it. (I played them all in order, btw). However in subsequent play throughs I changed my mind. Bonehoard is a great joy to me now, as well as lost city. Simply because I grew to love the exploration. I don't stealth zombies or fire elementals, I just want to see everything the stage has to offer.
Ultimately I came to feel the same way about Thief 2. It didn't matter if I was stealthing, so long as I was exploring. Doing both at the same time was of course preferred.
It came down to this: the story towards the end of Thief 2 becomes pretty weak. You spend the last half in this arduous build up with Viktoria that ends up as a let down. Even the stages get a little weak. Casing/masks? Soulforge? They can be taxing and the storyline pay off isn't much. It's the first half of Thief 2 that keeps me coming back.
Thief 1 is different. Even though it too gets dry in the storyline department mid-game, it picks it right back up with perhaps the greatest cutscene ever (When Garrett goes to get his payment from Constantine).
It's hard for me to say one is better than the other. Thief 1 is my favorite, but Thief 2 has my favorite stages. I guess my point is, don't pass judgment yet. You'll come to appreciate the creature stages I think. Definitely come back for another play through at some point.
nicked on 12/9/2007 at 07:47
The individual levels of Thief 2 are, for the most part, better designed. Whereas individual levels of Thief 1 don't hold up so well on their own, but give an (arguably) better overall experience. The reason being, that Thief 1 was designed around the storyline - they wrote the story, then strung it together with missions that fit. Whereas with Thief 2, they thought of a list of places that would make good levels, and then worked in a story. And it shows with both games.
So T1: Better story and atmosphere, worse level design.
T2: Worse story, better level design.
Although there's really not much in it if you ask me, they're both outstanding games.
Oskar Cruo on 12/9/2007 at 09:01
I will most definetly play thief 1 again one day, no doubt about that. Don't worry. ;)
Tintin on 12/9/2007 at 09:57
You might say that in Thief 1, Garrett was a tombraider, then Thief 2 - a detective, and Thief 3 - a Thief.
Personally I enjoyed them all (although Thief 3 the least).
Thief 1 had awesome atmosphere and lots of other stuff. Thief 2 was amazing level design-wise and in other ways (the more victorian steampunk style was awesome). Thief 3 lost the essense of steampunk altogether.
Thief 1 was very good but had too many supernatural foes (especially zombies - my how original of you LG) but great variety. Thief 2 had less supernatural foes which was good in a sense but could have had a little more.
A nice balance would be less supernatural influences than the first game and a little more than the 2nd game. The variety of the first with the stealth-orientation of the 2nd.
But all in all, they are still the best games ever (but not popcorn games).
