imperialreign on 1/3/2007 at 00:25
all-in-all, I don't think this is worth a flame war over; everyone is entitled to their own style of play, as they see fit. If one prefers to employ WMD's to complete a mission, than so be it; or if you prefer to be sight & sound - unknown, by all means. Me, I've been a major fan of the game for a long time, but I've never really much enjoyed ghosting a mission. I mean, I can though, if I really wanted, but I just found it to be a little too . . . bland. The onlly reason I ended up joing the forum, though, was because of a tech issue I was having with TDS and EAX. Honestly, if it weren't for that, I'd prob still be in the shadows. I'll say this much, though; with skulking for so long, this community has been a source of entertainment with certain threads (how to tell you played Thief too much, the Thief parodies, etc.), and the theroizing of different aspects of the game have always been intriguing; plus, The Circle has been a great source of information and software for the series, too. Honestly, the reason I ended up joing here over Eidos' forum, or any of the others out there was that most of the regular members here seemed more intelligent and open to things, and plus held Thief in reverence (some things I've read on the Eidos forum, for example, I would consider Thiefly blasphemous and sacriligious, ha!) and respect.
Even though I'm relatively new here, I'll have to say flame wars should be left at the doors.
Muzman on 1/3/2007 at 02:40
The tragedy about the whole thing is that LGS presumably made Thief2 more difficult to catch up to where they thought player skill was at. But it kinda backfired in a big way.
Hey I'm no ghoster by any stretch. I get caught all the time playing the games, but the sheer volume of whinging about Casing the Joint (the mission in Thief 2 you basically have to ghost) was startling. It would seem that a huge percentage of thief players don't sneak at all well and routinely clear out the levels and preventening them from doing so (even in a level as sparsely populated as Casing is) becomes a massive problem. (Strangely, much fewer complaints about the severe knockout limits in Framed appeared back in the day).
Cronkhite on 1/3/2007 at 17:15
Quote:
And as a general point, it is a good idea to feel out the peculiarities of a forum before you dive in, both as a general courtesy and to save embarrassment on your part.
And as a general point, I don't believe in conforming to name-calling proclivities you and some others obviously have. What an asinine assertion it is to require one to know the "peculiarites" of a forum (or any community) before making an opinion known. Or what--you'll make fun of me? *chuckles* The weight of an individual's argumentation should not be reduced due to the opinions of a community. Perhaps if I were a politician trying to become elected, my rhetoric would require me to cowtow to the community's beliefs. I'm not, though.
Quote:
Me, I've been a major fan of the game for a long time, but I've never really much enjoyed ghosting a mission. I mean, I can though, if I really wanted, but I just found it to be a little too . . . bland.
What I don't understand is that there are literally scores, if not hundreds, of FPS games out there that allow for extremely intense, frenzied gameplay (e.g., Doom, Duke Nuke'Em, Battlefield, Counterstrike, Quake, etc.). The definition of Thief, according to the Merrian-Webster dictionary, is "one that steals especially stealthily or secretly." Stealth and secretness are thrown out the door in TDS at the player's discretion. Moreover, doing so has no impact on the game. Why is this? Why name the game Thief, if thievery is a sidebar and not the
objective? It seems to me, according to a few people here, that it's because the players didn't want it! Perhaps the game should be renamed then, a name more indicative of what the current game allows: Medieval Do What You Want As Long As You're Happy.
It's clear that Garrett is not super-human. The gamelore repeatedly points out that Garrett's the best
thief (not assassin, not thug, not murderer). So why should he logically have the power to easily kill? Well, Dia and Ercles seem to indicate it's because people want it! Great logic.
I'm not at all against
allowing the player to kill or bludgeon his victims. I just think it should: 1. be difficult to do, which it isn't 2. have ramifications, which it doesn't. This thread's main topic actually high-lighted how insanely stupid the AI is in the game, and I remember how easily I set traps to kill 3, 5, 7 guards in one fell swoop due to the game's numerous murderous and disabling weapons.
Given the game's nature, Thief should allow Garrett to be a master thief and not a master-Do What You Want. I realize this game is "dear" to many a heart. I don't think sentimental feeling replaces logic, however. I find if odd that if so many people wanted Garrett to essentially be a Medieval assassin/thug, why the market hasn't given much of a response to such demands. Instead, Thief has seemingly morphed (?) into a product that is meant to cater to
all playstyles, even if those playstyles fall outside the realm of the game lore and indeed the definition of thievery.
Dia on 1/3/2007 at 20:53
Quote Posted by Cronkhite
And as a general point, I don't believe in conforming to name-calling proclivities you and some others obviously have.
As was previously stated, there was no name-calling; an observation was made in a humorous vein. As in harmless teasing. Now if you'd been called a pompous ass or egotistical, obsessive moron, then that would have been reason for objection on your part. But that never happened.
Quote:
What an asinine assertion it is to require one to know the "peculiarites" of a forum (or any community) before making an opinion known.
This has nothing to do with your opinion, rather than how your opinion was delivered. There's nothing asinine about knowing forum members well enough to be able to determine whether or not they're teasing you. As in having a sense of humor. And there's certainly nothing asinine about knowing a group of people well enough to have a general idea of how your opinion is going to be received. If a member who's been visiting these forums for a longer period of time would have posted an opinion such as yours in precisely the same manner in which you did, said member would most likely have been prepared to take some heat from, not umbrage at, the general response of their fellow forum members. The fact that you seem to be surprised at your overall reception is an obvious indication that you really might benefit from lurking more. Unless, of course, you prefer to continue being surprised in this manner.
Quote:
The weight of an individual's argumentation should not be reduced due to the opinions of a community.
Once again, it had less to do with your opinion and more to do with how it was delivered. Most people don't like feeling as though they're having the weighty opinions of others shoved down their throats sideways.
Quote:
I don't think sentimental feeling replaces logic, however. .....Instead, Thief has seemingly morphed (?) into a product that is meant to cater to
all playstyles, even if those playstyles fall outside the realm of the game lore and indeed the definition of thievery.
You can't honestly tell me that you're looking for logic and authenticity in a series of games that a.) take place in a fictitious universe during a fictitious time (a dark age which is evolving directly into an industrial age - I mean - when did THAT really happen?), and b.) have zombies, haunts, and high priests that launch fireballs at your head with their fingers????
:laff:
:weird:
Cronkhite on 1/3/2007 at 22:23
Quote:
Most people don't like feeling as though they're having the weighty opinions of others shoved down their throats sideways.
So I shoved my opinion down your throat because I...made a post. Don't read it? Don't read this one? Yes, you
can do that. My opinion is not shoved down throats, because it need not be read by anyone caring not to read it. Don't act as if I entered your private home and started ranting about politics. I entered a public forum and wrote a firm opinion.
Quote:
If a member who's been visiting these forums for a longer period of time would have posted an opinion such as yours in precisely the same manner in which you did, said member would most likely have been prepared to take some heat
Oh, I am always ready to take some heat. I'm not complaining about the heat, just its form: name-calling and xenophobia. Perhaps instead of relying on logical fallacies that attack my person, you could focus on breaking down my opinion, which you admittedly tried to do with your latest post. Thanks. I'll respond to that now.
Quote:
OH MY GAWD. You can't honestly tell me that you're looking for logic and authenticity in a series of games that a.) take place in a fictitious universe during a fictitious time (a dark age which is evolving directly into an industrial age - I mean - when did THAT really happen?), and b.) have zombies, haunts, and high priests that launch fireballs at your head with their fingers????
You improperly mix logic with imagination. Fantasy has its own logic that accounts for existential assumptions in form of game lore. While the assumptions are unsound in relation to our own reality, they are still valid, for the logical relationships are valid.
In simpler terms, the game presents new information (e.g., gas arrows, zombines, etc.) and explains how the new information works (e.g., gas arrows explode upon contact and knock unconcious individuals nearby, zombies are killed by holy water, flashbombs, etc.), and then consistently and logically connects the new information with the game lore so that causality is understood to occur in a logical way (e.g., when a player places an explosion mine, it will explode whenever someone steps on it--consistent cause and effect). There really is nothing illogical within the imaginative world of Thief per se concerning the existence of certain spells, tools, technologies, etc.
This holds true for the social structures and personal characteristics. Are Garrett and Keeper Orland so far removed from our own world that we cannot identify with their traits? Cynicism, greed, megalomania, etc. exist both within real life and the Thief world. The social structures also mimic real life social structures. The ideological factions of the Pagans and the Hammerites, the former in rebellion of technology (check out the Luddites in our history), the latter holding onto a fundamentalist interpretation of religious lore (the parallels to human history are numerous).
So how exactly is it wrong to expect that murder would be viewed negatively by social structures in thief and thus have ramifications? The game operates logically, the game mirrors real-life social structures, but because it's a fantasy world we should just accept that murder is tolerated as an understandable abberation? Flimsy reasoning.
P.S. And as far as a medieval time transforming into an industrial age, take a look at the Renaissance and Age of Reason periods of our own human history, both periods that presented technological innovations and methods that bridged the medieval and industrial eras.
Dia on 1/3/2007 at 23:27
Oh Lord. You either get it or you don't. :rolleyes:
End of discussion.
Imperialreign; sorry we messed up your thread, dear. ;)
Cronkhite on 1/3/2007 at 23:48
Thanks for playing.
imperialreign on 2/3/2007 at 00:19
Quote:
Imperialreign; sorry we messed up your thread, dear.
Hey, it's alright . . . although I can't believe what it digressed too . . .
Anyways, I guess I'll throw my thoughts on it . . .
Quote:
I'm not at all against allowing the player to kill or bludgeon his victims. I just think it should: 1. be difficult to do, which it isn't 2. have ramifications, which it doesn't. This thread's main topic actually high-lighted how insanely stupid the AI is in the game, and I remember how easily I set traps to kill 3, 5, 7 guards in one fell swoop due to the game's numerous murderous and disabling weapons.
Actually, as best I remember, T1 and T2 were much more harder than T3 - in which case, I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that T3 was being designed for a console at the same time, and would be introducing many new gamers to the world of Thief; whereas we would expect difficult, they wouldn't be able to find the game as enjoyable (PC users seem more willing to be patient and wait on events to happen, mostly because the majority of us run WIN and are used to waiting on things :cheeky: ). Also, the difficulty settings of the first two games, under 'expert' mode you weren't allowed to kill, and as best I remeber it, certain tools were harder to come by (for example, gas arrows were insanely expensive, and you usually didn't find one during a mission, so one would only use them when you REALLY needed to - you didn't have the option of wandering the city in between missions and 'stock-up' on stuff you couldn't afford). Plus, with equipment being more expensive, you tried to hoard what you had unless it was necessary to use it - you were never sure exactly what you might need in the next mission. So, IMO, T3 was dumb-downed for the majority. I thought the AI in T3 was lacking, yes.
Now, I'm not going to say the AI in T1/T2 was by far the greatest; there were many instances where you could creep right up on a guard that's standing in the dark, and stand up directly in front of him and the AI didn't take notice . . . but the AI seemed to cover a larger area searching after being 'alerted' and seemed more responsive after that first alert, too. Plus, if you were noticed, they would give chase a hell of a lot lot further than in T3 - sometimes it seemed like you'd have to run clear across the map just to lose them.
If T3 would've been developed solely for the PC, maybe we would've seen a more challenging game. I still think T3 was graphically great, and was fun to play; but I'm not going to denounce it simply because I found it easy.
If T3 was developed by the same exact teams that did T1/T2, maybe we would've seen a more challenging game . . .
If T3 . . .
If T3 . . .
what if's and what if's won't change what has happened. Thief is Thief, and you can make it out to be any way you like. If you don't want to kill . . . then don't. If you want to not be noticed by any . . . then don't. Play it as you want, as you enjoy, and leave everyone else to their own vices.
Cronkhite on 2/3/2007 at 00:29
Interesting info, IR. I only briefly played T1 and haven't yet played T2, but it makes sense to water the difficulty down if you're seeking a wider audience. To me, they also watered the concept down when they gave the option to play a thug and an assassin, even on expert difficulty.
My problem with "leaving people to their vices" is that new games come out, and the consumer base more often than not dictates the market. I think it'd be wonderful to have an FPS medieval fantasy game that allows for wanton slaying and mayhem; I simply don't think Thief, given its game lore and title, is the appropriate venue for what T:DS allows--and indeed encourages. I doubt a Thief 4 will ever come out, but if a Thief-esque game ever does enter the market again, I hope it's closer to the roots of thievery and farther from the indulgences of an assassin and thug.
DarkThiefsie on 2/3/2007 at 07:40
what turned out to be such a humerous thread has turned mega serious.
Swell.
Speaking of suicidal guards - no i don't remember any. The funniest things about the guards, imh, are what they say: "OK I QUIT. KEEP RUNNING DON'T LOOK BACK!"
