Azaran on 4/4/2013 at 01:14
Quote Posted by jtr7
They shoulda just went with a pure reboot in every sense and skipped the Garrett, Keepers, Hammer vs Pagans, elemental/necromancy, lines entirely!
At this point, I think they should have just left the series alone. We have 3 good games (not to mention TDM and T2x), we're still making FM's; I'd rather have that without Thief 4, if it's going to be an insult to the Thief legacy, like it's looking more and more.
jtr7 on 4/4/2013 at 01:24
That's why we've been asking for an official legal release of the source codes, so we wouldn't be held back, and could make the full-out Thief titles we've always wanted. Even with more tools than ever, we are still held back by legality. Hand it to us and we will be content! I will still always hope to learn more about the creation of the games, and the backstory, and all that. By rebooting the franchise, they not only have no reason to care about anything they make with regards to anything outside of sales, but they hold onto the secrets we've always wanted to know (especially those things that don't spoil any delicious mysteries). They are sitting on design documents from TDS and who knows how far back, and I would get more value from looking at those than the new game.
It's too bad people are too stubborn to allow themselves to comprehend how simple it all is:
(
http://www.incgamers.com/2013/04/why-thief-4s-decision-to-drop-stephen-russell-is-a-big-mistake/)
That article echoes many things we've been saying since before TDS hit shelves, yet, it's so simple it goes right over the heads of the masses. That doesn't include the article's need for another set of eyes. Oof.
Renault on 4/4/2013 at 02:05
Just for fun - the YouTube description is somewhat prophetic, speaking of SR in the past tense in regards to his role as Garrett:
[video=youtube;cHyPS6b4thQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyPS6b4thQ[/video]
Renzatic on 4/4/2013 at 02:34
Quote Posted by jtr7
it's so simple it goes right over the heads of the masses.
JTR, I'd find your opinions much more palatable if you didn't always do the appeal to we elite few thing.
The new guy doing Garrett's voice. They're not necessarily doing it to dumb down Thief. They're not doing it to spite us. They're not doing it because they don't care. They're doing it because they have some idea in their head they think might work better for their version of Thief.
Once again, you don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it. But let's not try to construe it into something it's not.
Too Much Coffee on 4/4/2013 at 02:51
This depresses me. Stephen Russell was necessary not because of nostalgia. He was necessary because he made Garrett one of the most memorable game characters. Few game characters have had the personality depth that Stephen was able to give Garrett. And despite Stephen "getting old" he still is a voice talent that has been actively working in games. This goes into the "don't fix what isn't broken" category.
Captain Spandex on 4/4/2013 at 03:01
Quote Posted by Too Much Coffee
This depresses me. Stephen Russell was necessary not because of nostalgia. He was necessary because he made Garrett one of the most memorable game characters. Few game characters have had the personality depth that Stephen was able to give Garrett. And despite Stephen "getting old" he still is a voice talent that has been actively working in games. This goes into the "don't fix what isn't broken" category.
Absolutely.
Eidos Montréal are missing the point with aplomb.
It's not about nostalgia. It's about hiring the most talented man for the job. I've heard Ezio's dad. He's nothing special. Now we've heard him 'playing Garrett'.
Still nothing special.
Stephen Russell is arguably the most talented voice actor currently active in the industry. His work in Skyrim, in the early BioShock Infinite trailers, in Fallout 3... it's all fantastic.
Hire the most capable man for the job!
We're being told to 'wait and see', but we have all the information we need! How far does this logic extend? Do we now have to wait for the game to
release, get all the trophies and achievements and then...
maybe... we can divulge our opinion?
We've heard the new guy, and he bites. We've heard Russell, and he doesn't. This isn't rocket science.
Vigo on 4/4/2013 at 03:09
Quote Posted by Too Much Coffee
Few game characters have had the personality depth that Stephen was able to give Garrett.
I like Garrett as much as anybody, but I disagree.
Cmon, he was basically just the cold stoic anti-hero trope for 99% percent of the game, with very little character change over the series. His characterization was quite well done, but it wasn't very deep or complex.
Nuth on 4/4/2013 at 03:09
I'm disgusted. I wanted Thief. What they're offering me is Identity Thief.
jtr7 on 4/4/2013 at 03:24
Quote Posted by Vigo
I like Garrett as much as anybody, but I disagree.
Cmon, he was basically just the cold stoic anti-hero trope for 99% percent of the game, with very little character change over the series. His characterization was quite well done, but it wasn't very deep or complex.
And some players never read the readables, or watch the cutscenes, or really look at the goals before the mission starts. Not our fault you don't care to pay attention. What he did with the writing was give it subtext and a sense of history. You can hear him smiling in his sarcasm, cynicism. Only when you generalize the character and ignore the stakes and life-story and his goals can you think of him in cookie-cutter terms. Blowing off all the details will certainly give you a shallow experience. Not our fault.
Too Much Coffee on 4/4/2013 at 03:30
Quote Posted by Vigo
Cmon, he was basically just the cold stoic anti-hero trope for 99% percent of the game, with very little character change over the series. His characterization was quite well done, but it wasn't very deep or complex.
Yet, you still cared about the cold stoic bastard, didn't ya? What is that old saying about still waters?
