Muzman on 30/3/2003 at 03:10
<b>Not the dreaded R word! NOOOOOOOOO!</b>
sailoreagle on 30/3/2003 at 03:23
Pardon me, how exactly does the lack of undead (save for a few exceptions) make a game containing a goddess of the woods with a plant body, a gas that turns all living matter into rust, magic-using priests, steam-powered intelligent bots, people stripped of all free will by a brass mask, water arrows, fire arrows, gas arrows, moss arrows, rope arrows, vine arrows, apemen, treebeasts, and other assorted things "realistic"?
Child of Karras on 30/3/2003 at 03:42
SE, I was talking more about the levels actually. Sorry, my mistake for not explaining further.
T2 had more realistic missions. As for the bots, they can be built in real life... not going to the cemetary, graverob and see the dead chase after you.
Osterman on 30/3/2003 at 05:00
Quote:
Pardon me, how exactly does the lack of undead (save for a few exceptions) make a game containing a goddess of the woods with a plant body, a gas that turns all living matter into rust, magic-using priests, steam-powered intelligent bots, people stripped of all free will by a brass mask, water arrows, fire arrows, gas arrows, moss arrows, rope arrows, vine arrows, apemen, treebeasts, and other assorted things "realistic"?
What are you talking about they exist. ;)
ZylonBane on 30/3/2003 at 05:05
Quote:
Originally posted by Child of Karras Burricks aren't undead, yes I know but because they're hard to take down and have great offensive moves, I consider them part of it.By that logic, combat bots and turrets are "undead" too. :rolleyes:
sailoreagle on 30/3/2003 at 11:54
Not to mention treebeasts.
---
The bots can be built in real life? Mhm. I'd love to see you build a small invulnerable golden child, a worker bot who intelligently runs to alert others when it spots an intruder, a combat bot who patrols and shoots cannonballs, and a spiderbot who shoots what appear to be little circular saws. Oh, have I mentioned they should be steam-powered, not run out of fuel, and you most likely wouldn't have today's technical advancements and discoveries available?
Oh, and "cameras" that are alerted both by movement and by somebody standing in front of them, and are able to distinguish between friends and foes.
(Oh, and there was a book summoning undead in Life of the Party. Nowhere near a cemetery. There also were a couple haunts in the basement of Eavesdropping, also nowhere near a cemetery. And I think some more somewhere else, but I forget. Very "realistic".)
As for "more realistic missions", I'd say if you can suspend your disbelief for all the things I mentioned (most of which are actually in the levels... oh and I forgot to mention invisibility potions, slowfall potions, speed potions, breathing potions, healing potions, food healing you immediately... and I think there's some things I missed), you can also suspend your disbelief for the undead.
---
I have no problem with anybody liking Thief 2 better than Thief 1. But if those people insist that Thief 2 is definitely better than Thief 1 and they can't fathom why people who prefer Thief 1 don't prefer Thief 2 instead, and moreover insist that Thief 2 is better because it's more realistic just because it lacks undead, excuse me, but I'm going to laugh in their face.
Handsome Devil on 30/3/2003 at 13:24
Man, this reminds me of reseaching any scientific thing in college. I love it. I must say that I liked TMA better. However I haven't finished TG either, so I really have no say. But I will say that silly as the idea of fighting undead and other mythical beasts seems - I can play Neverwinter Nights - a boiler-powered attack robot who could tell friend from foe and fell apart at a couple of sword-thrusts was laughable. But fun, sort of. TMA seemed more like what I had thought the game would be. TG had a few of those missions, which placated me, and I will agree with sailoreagle that there was nothing even remotely creepy in TMA, but, halfway through TG, I've had to pause more than once due to a hand so shaky that I'd fall into a precipice. That happens enough:tsktsk:
So not to sound like a huge suck-ass, but I see both sides' points, and while I have my preference, it may just be due to playing TMA first. But I doubt it.
Memo to Caped Eluder: You should go to Hollywood; that dialogue is better than the so-called drivel they put in 'comedies'
picklocke on 30/3/2003 at 20:49
Thief 1 scared the livin bejesus outta me. I'm scarred by it. I cant replay it just because I don't want to have to deal with the Bonehoard and I don't have my savegames from the first time I played through it. I prefer Thief 1 cause its been made into holy relic of video games in my mind: look but dont touch. ever. *shudder*
Thief 2 and the majority of FMs after its release have been straight-forward thievery so I've adjusted, but still look back on the good ol days, cowering in a corner, waiting for that haunt to pass by, then run like hell. plus i cant count the amount of times i've damn near had a heart attack playin T1. I'm a spaz now because of that game.
richardhamer_00 on 31/3/2003 at 10:06
So, from reading all this, It seems to boil down to:
People prefer the original Thief because it had a better plot, better levels, and was more interesting and was first.
In my eyes, all these points (except it being first) are wrong. Thief 1 just annoyed me most of the time...for whatever reason...it just really annoyed me, and thats the beginning and end of it.
Still, interesting debate.
Child of Karras on 31/3/2003 at 10:12
ZylonBane=That's because they're friggin easy to take down. The bots can be taken out with 1-2 watter arrows and I don't have to worry about some fucken timer and turrets don't chase me around.
sailoreagle=I don't know about you but I say building those bots are possible. Except for a few sections of course...
As for your last comment, laugh all you want. I know why people prefer TDP and I can't agree with them. So? It's my opinion isn't it? I like TMA better than TDP for many reasons and what I've posted so far is what goes through my head. I may be a fucking clueless idiot but that is of none of your business either. If you cannot agree with me or my ways, then the best thing for both of us is to ignore.
No I'm serious. Ignoring seems to be best way. You don't have to reply when you get annoyed after reading my posts and I don't have to get annoyed when reading your reply. If we do, then it becomes a never-ending cycle.
