jay pettitt on 3/9/2008 at 17:19
Quote Posted by Zillameth
He's being sarcastic...
Possibly, but I think not - caustic perhaps. Sure you could retire Garret as protagonist - he has after all character developed into not a thief anymore, which is a problem. The thing is, characters as well realised as Garret are few and far between in video games. The chances of happening upon another with quite the appeal as Mr G are smoll. You could also retire Lara Croft from the Tomb Raider games and replace her with her long lost brattish brother and assure your fan base that it's alright because he can still do that splits/handstand thnig and you'll hardly notice the difference. Still, you won't mind if I ask the admin if I can change my user name to unconvinced.
Digital Nightfall on 3/9/2008 at 17:21
Even if everything we've seen is in the name of proper character development and logical plot arcs, it doesn't mean we have to like it.
Zillameth on 3/9/2008 at 18:43
Yes, but what it is that you don't like: the story or the fact that you're not going to get more of the same?
jtr7 on 3/9/2008 at 19:09
If the game comes out, and it's called "Thief", no one is automatically obligated to enjoy it. Or hate it.
Each person will have their own reaction to it, and there will be common impressions--and extreme and unique impressions--and most people will think their own feelings about it are the most correct. To describe one's visceral experience to another with an opposing view requires exquisite command of language and psychological diplomacy. That is all.:cheeky:
The question of "Why" it's liked or not liked is rendered moot. It's never truly gotten anyone anywhere in fandom, though some would claim victory in converting another to their own views.:devil:
Syndef on 3/9/2008 at 20:23
So the best thing to do would to have no more of Garret?
jtr7 on 3/9/2008 at 20:34
I'm sure a great story could be written by someone, no doubt about it, but I don't have any reason to believe it will happen. If there was evidence for a great continuation of Garrett's story, I'd stand behind it. Let's see what we're teased with. Really, we just don't trust Eidos after the direction that was taken.
Digital Nightfall on 3/9/2008 at 20:36
Someone once said, a bad writer will give the fans what they want.
A good writer will give them what they really want, and that's <strike>almost</strike> never what they think they want.
jtr7 on 3/9/2008 at 20:50
I would love to be pleasantly surprised and watch another story unfold in that universe that fires me up like the early titles. It can be new and different if the story just has that undefinable magic!
And Syndef, you gotta read several pages in. The ideas grow, and change, and some are done away with, or reduced in importance as the thread continues.
I want to have my doubts proved wrong!:angel:
Solabusca on 4/9/2008 at 04:19
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
The story in Deadly Shadows was a travesty that reduced The Keepers, Thief Lore and our favorite protagonist to the immaterial and ridiculous; I don't envy anyone trying to follow it. I hope they don't. Garret at his best was nothing but a purely self interested thief and entirely fallible. Turning him into
SUPER KEEPER effectively killed off the character. I have no interest in Thief 4 unless it denies completely the existence of Deadly Shadows.
Unfortunately, sir, I don't think that you're correct in the slightest.
The Keepers weren't rendered immaterial and ridiculous - they were riddled with an insidious corruption - one that finally spilled through, impacting both their powers and their effectiveness.
Garrett spent the previous two games becoming less self-interested and more interested in what the Keepers were about. Watch the end of the second game again.
Finally, turning him into the LAST/ONLY Keeper (the capabilities of whom are never fully defined) is what happens when you seek to conclude a storyline. It's standard Hero's Journey stuff (or Anti-Hero's Journey, in this case). The writers had a chance that they never expected - the chance to finish the story they started telling in the first two games. They went with it.
Say what you will about the rest of the game - the storyline was fairly solid, was written by people who developed and were heavily invested in the first two games, and had a satisfactory ending that closed off the franchise.
Honestly, while I'm interested in the prospect of Thief 4, I have no idea where they're going to go with it.
Quote Posted by Digital Nightfall
Someone once said, a bad writer will give the fans what they want.
A good writer will give them what they
really want, and that's <strike>almost</strike> never what they
think they want.
Joss Whedon.
Serenity. Leaf. Wind. Soar.
Enough said.
.j.
jtr7 on 4/9/2008 at 04:58
My problem with the TDS Keepers was that, yeah, they were supposed to be corrupt, and there are many instances where they got it right, but I was almost literally stunned by how pathetic they were--aside from the corruption. The Enforcers could be explained by engine limitations, but the story told in the cutscenes? There were characters spanning several generations, and hardly anyone knew how to Keep any Balance! No checks and balances. The only justification I can think of is it was for a young audience--much younger than it's mature rating was for. If Gamall had been doing more than hiding key books... If the rogue glyph magic had been attacking the minds of the Keepers, erasing and twisting... If...
Also, I've been wanting to say this for awhile... The term "One True Keeper" existed in the prophecies before Garrett was revealed as such. It's not "One and Only Keeper" or "The Final Keeper" or "Last Keeper Standing", but "One TRUE Keeper". He became "The One" when his eye was used to fuel The Eye. I know I'm in a minority, but I firmly believe the term is not what people have been thinking it is. I also believe that if we can justify Garrett's imbalance with being the True Keeper of what was supposed to be Balance, we can conceive of how his story may continue. Does Garrett embody all the given definitions of a Keeper and Balance? Or do we say the Keepers have been wrong all along? Were they correct about what they pushed Garrett into in the first two games for the sake of the Balance, then?
