MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
When a company panders to the masses, they make money, then make more games. If they don't then you get one release per decade, like we have with thief currently. I'd be willing to compromise some of my preferences to ensure thief survives and brings me more burgle goodness.
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Also, it's strange that people would want arbitrary restrictions enforced by the game. Such as not being able to kill anyone. Surely that takes away any impact that choice has. At least in Dishonored, if you don't kill anyone it is because you chose not to. Including assassination targets. Whether the consequences were tangible or not (in my opinion they were) is only half the story.
They aren't arbitrary: They are enforcing a kind of unique gameplay and secondly, also an important piece of characterization ("Thief, not assassin"). Thief is one of the only games I can think of that actively discourages people killing anyone on high difficulties (outside of monsters of course). It's a great gameplay feature because it adds to the characterization of Garret and means you have to think about levels in a different way than "Whatever, I'll just slaughter my way out of here". Again, this is something only found on the highest difficulty but IMO is entirely the only and correct way to play thief. I don't give a shit if anyone else thinks that it is a good idea, it SHOULD be something you get in a game called Thief.
When a company panders to the masses, they make money, then make more games. If they don't then you get one release per decade, like we have with thief currently. I'd be willing to compromise some of my preferences to ensure thief survives and brings me more burgle goodness.
Well, the other option is that we don't have ridiculous fucking AAA budgets on every game and we let companies make smaller more manageable games with riskier mechanics. Hell, people will do it for free - we have tons of amazing Thief fan missions, plus the entirety of Dark Mod, which prove that stealth is alive and well and that we don't need a travesty like Thi4f is potentially going to be if we want to be able to hide.
When a company panders to the masses, they make money, then make more terrible games. Because it's easier than actually making games that are good or challenging and they assume that the mouthbreathing public will buy the game anyway.
Fixed.
Just look at EA. We shouldn't reward this behaviour.
This is exactly what the X-COM FPS thread looked like - if you don't want us whining about how a Thief game isn't like the other Thief games then tough luck, it seems like a perfectly legitimate complaint. Rock Paper Shotgun said it best when talking about a change to the Thief formula that the developers defended on the grounds that to do otherwise "wouldn’t make sense for anything else other than nostalgia:"
Uh. They’re making a sequel to a series which began in 1998, after having already made a sequel to Deus Ex. Their current employment exists purely because of nostalgia.
People want a new Thief game because of the virtues of the old Thief games, and if they start getting rid of those, you have to expect some push-back.
+2
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited April 2013
Starting to go a little bit overboard here guys. The trailer has nothing new in it, nothing to raise alarm or reduce it. It's a nothing. Any increase in negativity is coming from you guys stewing over the previous stuff, reacting to each other and echoing it beyond where it deserves to be, and its beginning to go beyond the facts. Just take a little step back and have a think about where we were at before. A bit worried but nothing requiring statements of travesty. No need for outrage yet.
Moderation is good. We still haven't seen any decent gameplay after all. Don't let this to and fro discussion we are having impair your ability to judge fairly.
Cobalt60 that is not helpful man you'll just start a slap fight with that kind of statement.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Personally, until I see some actual gameplay footage that convinces me otherwise, I'm willing to give these guys the benfit of the doubt... This is the same dev company that made DX:HR after all, a game which IMO, other than the terrible boss fights, actually managed to live up to the original.
I'd be more inclined listen to anyone complaining about "how a Thief game isn't like the other Thief games" if you had actually seen ANY gameplay footage and hadn't just extrapolated your opinion from a minute long CGI trailer.
Well, they have made public statements about the game too.
It is too early to be freaking out, but it isn't unreasonable to express some disappointment over the way they're talking about the game. Given trends in games, I see little reason to disbelieve the game will change to a fair degree from the originals, but it's too early to tell by how much.
I'd be more inclined listen to anyone complaining about "how a Thief game isn't like the other Thief games" if you had actually seen ANY gameplay footage and hadn't just extrapolated your opinion from a minute long CGI trailer.
The teaser trailer with the candle was in-engine footage
Also, it's strange that people would want arbitrary restrictions enforced by the game. Such as not being able to kill anyone. Surely that takes away any impact that choice has. At least in Dishonored, if you don't kill anyone it is because you chose not to. Including assassination targets. Whether the consequences were tangible or not (in my opinion they were) is only half the story.
They aren't arbitrary: They are enforcing a kind of unique gameplay and secondly, also an important piece of characterization ("Thief, not assassin"). Thief is one of the only games I can think of that actively discourages people killing anyone on high difficulties (outside of monsters of course). It's a great gameplay feature because it adds to the characterization of Garret and means you have to think about levels in a different way than "Whatever, I'll just slaughter my way out of here". Again, this is something only found on the highest difficulty but IMO is entirely the only and correct way to play thief. I don't give a shit if anyone else thinks that it is a good idea, it SHOULD be something you get in a game called Thief.
If you want Dishonored, go play it.
They're kind of arbitrary, insofar as there's no explanation for why you can't kill anyone and no apparent consequences other than failing the objective.
But this whole thing is just the old achievements argument, which has been hashed out a million times already. Some people like it when games pat you on the head for jumping through a particular hoop, some people don't like it, and some people are actively offended that other people like it.
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited April 2013
It's Garret's characterisation. The guy has a personality. Expert difficult is approaching the levels as Garret the master thief would. That is an explanation. It's a good, lore based explanation. It is not even the least bit arbitrary.
Garret isn't a silent protagonist, or they wouldn't have him snarking about the levels all the time. He is his own man and we just happen to get a chance to play him. In thief 1 & 2, expert is "canon".
Hell the plot of thief 2 directly makes a reference to this. In one of the early missions Garret is being set up as a murderer. He's unhappy about this because he doesn't kill people so it's a bum rap. So he sets out to thief his way into getting back at them, without killing anyone, because, you know, what would be the point. He isn't an insane sociopath unhappy about being accused of the one murder he didn't do. He's a thief being accused of a different crime entirely, one he's never committed and takes pride on not committing.
It's not even the least bit equivalent to achievements, because achievements are a thoroughly meta mechanic that are pursued for the interests of the player himself, not the character he is playing.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
It's Garret's characterisation. The guy has a personality. Expert difficult is approaching the levels as Garret the master thief would. That is an explanation. It's a good, lore based explanation. It is not even the least bit arbitrary.
Garret isn't a silent protagonist, or they wouldn't have him snarking about the levels all the time. He is his own man and we just happen to get a chance to play him. In thief 1 & 2, expert is "canon".
Hell the plot of thief 2 directly makes a reference to this. In one of the early missions Garret is being set up as a murderer. He's unhappy about this because he doesn't kill people so it's a bum rap. So he sets out to thief his way into getting back at them, without killing anyone, because, you know, what would be the point. He isn't an insane sociopath unhappy about being accused of the one murder he didn't do. He's a thief being accused of a different crime entirely, one he's never committed and takes pride on not committing.
That seems arbitrary to me. Garrett doesn't like to kill, but in-game there's no societal damage incurred by doing so. It doesn't increase the number of guards. It doesn't mess with your fence. It's a moral decision, which in the context of the person playing the game is pretty arbitrary. Like if you were playing a Punisher game instead of a Thief game and the game rewarded you for killing bad guys, just like Frank Castle would, by simply requiring you to murder increasing numbers of guys on higher difficulty levels. Why am I killing all these guys? Well, Frank Castle would. Why is this game requiring me to murder all these random passersby and eat their kidneys? That's what you get for playing a Hannibal Lecter game. And so on. It's only weird when there's no mechanic in place making the action favorable, other than a game over screen or failing to get a pretty medal when you don't act in character. I'm not saying it's wrong or worse, but it does seem a little funny when I think about it.
It's not even the least bit equivalent to achievements, because achievements are a thoroughly meta mechanic that are pursued for the interests of the player himself, not the character he is playing.
Choosing to follow a characterization you're handed seems like a pretty meta player interest in and of itself. It's like Thief is an Assassin's Creed game, and you derez if your actions aren't corresponding properly with Garrett's.
But moreover, there are Thief players who like to take things further and beat levels without blackjacking anyone, and not being seen or detected, even when the game doesn't reward you for doing so. The real Garrett evidently has no moral qualms about clubbing people unconscious, so does this become a thoroughly meta mechanic pursued for the player's own interest? It's more thief-y, but apparently it's not Garrett thief-y.
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited April 2013
To be arbitrary is to be based on random choice or personal whim rather than any reason or system. There is a reason here. It is not arbitrary. Nor is there any wiggle room in the definition to play technicalities. You aren't going to pass it off as random.
(Just because you might try to attack whim, it means a sudden desire or change of mind, esp. one that is unusual or unexplained.)
The key thing you want to be looking for in "not arbitrary" is consistency. Is there a consistent reason for it. Yes. Then it is not arbitrary.
Somehow I don't think you mean arbitrary. I think you mean "not a very deep or meaningful reason", because you can't argue it isn't a reason, that it isn't explained within the game, that it isn't presented consistently across the lore of the story itself. That the reason doesn't have the game mechanical consequences you feel it should does not mean it fails to exist as a reason.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
There is an in-game consequence accrued for killing:
You fail the level if you do (on the appropriate difficulty setting obviously)
It's disguised somewhat in a story/character-based context, but it's also clearly a straight up gameplay restriction. They are telling you how you should play the game and it's not by sniping guards with a bow. In the same way that Doom tells you how to play the game is "Shoot things in the face" because any other method of playing the game leads to a failure condition.
The whole point is that even though Garrett has no problems with stealing for a living doesn't mean he doesn't have a moral code or that his reputation isn't important to him.
He doesn't care about property laws because he grew up on the streets with nothing and had to steal to survive. But he doesn't kill people to steal like amateur thieves would.
Garrett isn't just a thief. He is the best thief in the city. And he knows it.
And it's not just about ego. His job relies on his reputation. A reputation built on his ability to steal anything without being seen or having to kill.
I sure hope the developers realize they can make all these back and forth arguments meaningless with Expert Mode/difficulty options. Seems rather simple and obvious.
Xeddicus on
"For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men. Not women. Not beasts...this you can trust."
The real Garrett evidently has no moral qualms about clubbing people unconscious, so does this become a thoroughly meta mechanic pursued for the player's own interest? It's more thief-y, but apparently it's not Garrett thief-y.
Maybe it's so the guards don't get framed for the thefts. Hard to claim it's an inside job if all the guards are having a snooze in an out-of-the-way corridor cupping each other's arses (or maybe that's just something I do).
If Garrett is supposed to have a reputation for being a master thief, as someone who never kills, he's going to have to earn it. And if you can't make a decision in how to play, then it isn't earned. It's inherited.
Having a moral code that dictates you never kill someone is meaningless if you can't actually kill someone in the first place because of gameplay limitations. Because of a failstate.
Garrett's character should not be told to us in such a simplistic manner. That's poor storytelling. It should be a collaboration between player choice and developer intent. When I'm laden with loot and fleeing the scene of the crime, a guard spotting me and blocking my path should present a difficult choice. Killing him would make for a clean escape. No witnesses. No fuss. But it's wrong to kill, obviously, and especially when it's an innocent. So the challenge then becomes how does Garrett deal with that situation.
A moral code only matters if sticking to it actually makes your life harder. Having the game revert to a failstate in the event of killing someone does not make the game harder. It makes it longer, because you are forced to reload a previous save. You can't actually kill anyone, because the game won't let you. So not killing someone is not a choice. It's the only way to progress.
That's weak storytelling and even weaker game design. And it is arbitrary, by every definition of the term, despite your protestations.
0
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
Man, I love that there are Thief fans out there that are as passionate about the game as I am!
Okay, yes, I am defending this "atrocity" or whatever, but there's one fact about me: I have inhuman capacity for tolerance, as well as optimism and faith. Until I play the game, I absolutely refuse to make a decision that this will be a bad game, I don't care what they say, I am going to give this game a fair shake with my own hands. Still, I agree with just about everyone here (sounds stupid, but it is possible). You guys that are saying that it's stupid for them to do a Dishonored clone with ninja-Garrett, you're right! The other ones that are more in line with my arguments, obviously I think you're right too!
I don't want a Dishonored clone, I truly don't. However, I want this game to be produced, I want this game to be out there so that I could purchase it, play it, and either be overjoyed at being awesome thief, disappointed, or somewhere in the "meh" in-between. Either way, I want it, whatever wrangling they need to do to get this game to the proverbial shelf, let them. Shoot, i wouldn't be all that surprised if they gave Garret a flintlock somewhere throughout the story, just to try to make him more "awesome".
I'll weep for the death of the "true" Thief experience with you guys, but, first, I want to actually have the game and play it so that I can, at that point, know that it's a piece of shit. Until then, I will defend their decisions, because my faith leads me to believe that the developers would be too scared of pissing our beloved Garrett off.
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
I should point out that you did have a sword in the first two Thief games, and you could kill people with it, and it did not result in a complete fail state most of the time (though it did make things more difficult). The "ghost" approach was ultimately a player/community created standard by which one could judge just how good you were at the game. As an old thief player, if there are lethal options in the new game, it really won't bother me as long as their use isn't mandatory. If lethal options are strictly optional, then you have nobody to blame but yourself if you use them.
0
MordaRazgromМорда РазгромRuling the Taffer KingdomRegistered Userregular
MY self-imposed restrictions were pretty severe. My main point was to leave the place as close to exactly as it was at the beginning of the level as possible. Minimize blackjacks, minimize turning out the lights, and if I did turn out a light, I made sure it was one I could turn back on, so no water arrows. Make sure that I didn't even alert the guards to my presence at all. Although I did have one hilarious moment when I shot a water arrow into a guard's face. Reaction was priceless:
"GWHAA? Alright, taffer, I see you! Don't be hidin' from me, I'll find you! Where are you? Hello....hm, musta been rats I suppose"
Yes, it was a rat that pissed on your face, not a water arrow, nope, definitely not a water arrow, just rat piss :P
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
I should point out that you did have a sword in the first two Thief games, and you could kill people with it, and it did not result in a complete fail state most of the time (though it did make things more difficult). The "ghost" approach was ultimately a player/community created standard by which one could judge just how good you were at the game. As an old thief player, if there are lethal options in the new game, it really won't bother me as long as their use isn't mandatory. If lethal options are strictly optional, then you have nobody to blame but yourself if you use them.
No...on expert you cannot kill any humans or you get a game over. This was dropped in T3 and allowed you to kill guards.
The thing is, if you kill people there is no challenge in any Thief game, they are incredibly easy because stealth kills are simple and overpowered. Much of the easiness of Thief is due to poor AI, considering how much time has passed since the original and T4 I'm really hoping the AI will be so much more complex that the overall difficulty is greatly increased. I almost feel like the first Thief games shouldn't even have had difficulty levels because it doesn't make much difference - you kill everyone and it's simple or you don't kill anyone and have a challenge.
Steam / Xbox Live: WSDX NNID: W-S-D-X 3DS FC: 2637-9461-8549
I should point out that you did have a sword in the first two Thief games, and you could kill people with it, and it did not result in a complete fail state most of the time (though it did make things more difficult). The "ghost" approach was ultimately a player/community created standard by which one could judge just how good you were at the game. As an old thief player, if there are lethal options in the new game, it really won't bother me as long as their use isn't mandatory. If lethal options are strictly optional, then you have nobody to blame but yourself if you use them.
No...on expert you cannot kill any humans or you get a game over. This was dropped in T3 and allowed you to kill guards.
The thing is, if you kill people there is no challenge in any Thief game, they are incredibly easy because stealth kills are simple and overpowered. Much of the easiness of Thief is due to poor AI, considering how much time has passed since the original and T4 I'm really hoping the AI will be so much more complex that the overall difficulty is greatly increased. I almost feel like the first Thief games shouldn't even have had difficulty levels because it doesn't make much difference - you kill everyone and it's simple or you don't kill anyone and have a challenge.
YOu know, it's funny, I played expert mode in Thief 3 and was absolutely ignorant to the fact that you could kill guards. It said "don't kill" and I didn't kill anyone. I'm sure it's somewhere in the description that states that combatants are free game, I just never paid any attention to it. You guys were the ones that identified to me that a guard is free game even in Expert.
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
I can't view it, would you kindly post the last line? If you have the time, could you also post the main points of the article?
If not it's cool, I'll just wait till I get home to read it.
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
Oh, and I’ve also missed rope arrows and they’re finally coming back as well.
The main points, as they stuck out to me:
The author is a huge Thiefanatic. He got to see a demonstration level -- a fucking brothel again, because what the fuck.
The City is huge and, as best he can tell, open-world. Sounds like Arkham City, but on a larger scale maybe? Verticality is a huge thing in this game, it would appear.
There is mention of one time-limit sequence in the demonstration, where the door to the brothel gets locked if you don't get there in time, but it's not a fail state. Just a 'find a harder way in' state.
The fire/smoke/weather stuff is apparently pretty impressive.
Focus can be used for combat, but is more useful for things like stealing earrings while the owner is still wearing them.
They've apparently removed the creative swearing, like "taffer" and such.
The plot involves an industrial baron using the Watch as his personal gang of thugs.
Oh, and I’ve also missed rope arrows and they’re finally coming back as well.
The main points, as they stuck out to me:
The author is a huge Thiefanatic. He got to see a demonstration level -- a fucking brothel again, because what the fuck.
The City is huge and, as best he can tell, open-world. Sounds like Arkham City, but on a larger scale maybe? Verticality is a huge thing in this game, it would appear.
There is mention of one time-limit sequence in the demonstration, where the door to the brothel gets locked if you don't get there in time, but it's not a fail state. Just a 'find a harder way in' state.
The fire/smoke/weather stuff is apparently pretty impressive.
Focus can be used for combat, but is more useful for things like stealing earrings while the owner is still wearing them.
They've apparently removed the creative swearing, like "taffer" and such.
The plot involves an industrial baron using the Watch as his personal gang of thugs.
...they removed "taffer"...<twitch>...how could they remove "taffer"
taffing developers don't taffing know what the taff they're doing.
The other stuff, is pretty awesome I must say. The removal of "taffer" brings a tear to my eye, but the rest of it sounds pretty awesome.
Monster Hunter Tri code/username: 1MF42Z (Morda)
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
If Garrett is supposed to have a reputation for being a master thief, as someone who never kills, he's going to have to earn it. And if you can't make a decision in how to play, then it isn't earned. It's inherited.
Having a moral code that dictates you never kill someone is meaningless if you can't actually kill someone in the first place because of gameplay limitations. Because of a failstate.
Of course it's inherited. There are three fucking games with Garrett as protagonist before this where it is explicitly stated that Garret has a code of honour whereby he never murders and only steals. He's an established character, not some amnesiac unknown found in a prison somewhere who only remembers what starsign he is because his only possession is a personal ad with his face on it or whatever it is you are demanding the devs let you play.
If you don't want to play as the character established as the protagonist of the series there's a simple solution. Play another fucking game with some faceless everyman protagonist if that's what it takes so you can emotionally invest in it.
Would you demand that in the next Batman game, that Batman start using assault rifles and rocket launchers because that's how you want to play his character so you feel emotionally invested in his motivation for acting the way he does? Of course not. You know the character and know batman would never use guns.
It strikes me the reason you don't understand this is probably because you haven't actually played the games so have no real idea what Garret is like or what his history is. Here's a synopsis of the first games to try and help you past this desire to make this franchise shit so you can have feelings about it.
First Game:
Garret joins the Keepers (a mystical group who observe the city from the shadows and try to cause good prophecies their leader has had to come to fruition while stopping those prophecies they consider evil) as a boy. After receiving training in their shadow magics and use of glyphs, he is soon found to be their most promising acolyte but is highly disinterested in all their mumbo-jumbo so leaves the organisation to use his new-found powers for personal gain as a thief.
He quickly gains a reputation as a highly skilled thief and is targeted by a local crime boss who wants him to join his organisation. Garrett decides he doesn't need to join as he considers himself to be above all of the criminals in the local guild so rejects the offers. Eventually the crime boss responds by sending assassins to kill Garrett to assert his power. Garrett could easily have murdered the assassins or their boss with his powers over shadow and the unseen but instead chooses to rob the crime bosses mansion and steal everything of value there while the boss is in the house to send a message back.
Soon the entire city's underworld knows that Garrett has not only rejected the boss but also robbed him blind right under his nose. Garrett isn't just one of the best thieves in the city, he's also not a thief you ever cross if you expect to pay the bills next month.
Impressed by this, Viktoria approaches Garrett and offers him a job to steal from a nobles (Constantine) mansion. The job goes off without a hitch and Garrett finds out he was actually hired by the noble he just robbed as a test of his skill. Lucky he didn't just go around killing Constantines servants willy-nilly. It might have cost him his next job and Constantine is offering a fortune for it.
His next job is to steal some artifact called The Eye(TM). To do so he needs to break past some magical protections on the Chapel it is being held in. After a whole lot of work and a little help from the Keepers (who are still trying to entice him back to their organisation) he breaks into the Chapel and finds it full of undead. Like a boss he grabs the eye and goes to hand over The Eye for the fortune he has been offered.
After that Viktoria and The Trickster (Elder Nature God) leave him tied up in a basement so they can use him as a live sacrifice in the magic ritual they have planned later. Luckily for Garrett the Keepers have been watching him and come rescue him.
Now after that, you'd think it would be fair for Garrett to go on a murderous rampage right then and start killing the Tricksters servants left and right but no. That's not how Garrett works. They didn't pay him for The Eye(TM) and so he's going to take it back and get his own eye back at the same time.
Shenanigans ensue, Garrett retrieves The Eye(TM) with the Trickster none the wiser and replaces it with a non-functioning copy. Garrett returns The Eye(TM) in exchange for a magical-mechanical eye to replace his missing one from the Hammerites.
Meanwhile the Trickster goes to use his copy of The Eye(TM) for the ritual he is planning on using to destroy the city, without realising it's a fake and dies in the attempt. That's one Elder God dead but the important thing here is that Garrett didn't kill him. The Trickster committed suicide when he tried to use The (fake) Eye(TM) in the ritual. If he' been thinking clearly he should have known Garrett would have taken The (real) Eye(TM) back and attempting the ritual with a fake one would have been suicide.
See, Garrett doesn't even kill when people mutilate him. But he sure does know how to get revenge.
The Keepers then come to Garrett and tell him he will need them soon. He tells them to go get bent because that's the way Garrett rolls.
Game 2:
Now I could give you the full rundown but all you really need to know is this.
Midway through this game, Garrett is approached by Viktoria to work with her to prevent the villain of this games plans for genocide (yep that's right the chick that ripped his eyeball from its socket, the one that tried to destroy the entire city in a magic ritual, the one that was planning on using him as a live sacrifice for that ritual back in the first game).
Now Garrett doesn't trust her for obvious reasons but he bears her no animosity either. He's a professional and the genocide of all living things would be bad for business so he decides to let bygones be bygones and joins forces with her to try and stop the evil plot of the games villain (and maybe pick up a few nicknacks along the way).
Later when he finds out she is trying to stop the villain by herself he goes to rescue her (despite initially being against her plan because he thinks it's suicide) and then he gets feelings when she dies.
Now would your character - Mr "I killed a guard because it was too hard to work out how to get into a room he was guarding despite the fact I have magic powers" - have acted like that?
Of course not. He doesn't have those elements to his character. Garrett does. Garrett is already a fully fleshed out character with motivations and desires. His character isn't simple or two dimensional. There's no need for you to invent a character for him. He already has one.
He's sarcastic, witty, abrasive, not to mention a little narcissistic yet despite his protestations that he only wants to look after number one he always ends up doing the right thing when push comes to shove. Despite claiming to not want to have anything to do with the Keepers mumbo-jumbo he sure does let himself get sucked into doing things for them so that he can hear their prophecies. He may steal, but he never kills. Even when he faces the end boss of each of the three games he doesn't kill them, but instead sabotages their plans so that if they go through with their plans for evil they will die but he always leaves them the chance to turn back and not go through with their nefarious schemes.
To be blunt: Garrett is Thief. If you don't want to play Garrett, play another game. There's thousands of games that don't have Garrett in them. Pick one.
If you want a faceless everyman character with amnesia and the personality traits of a cabbage and fully customisable facial features so you can LARP while you play computer games well there's dozens of those too. Just pick one of them. Thief probably isn't for you.
+5
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Oh, and I’ve also missed rope arrows and they’re finally coming back as well.
The main points, as they stuck out to me:
The author is a huge Thiefanatic. He got to see a demonstration level -- a fucking brothel again, because what the fuck.
The City is huge and, as best he can tell, open-world. Sounds like Arkham City, but on a larger scale maybe? Verticality is a huge thing in this game, it would appear.
There is mention of one time-limit sequence in the demonstration, where the door to the brothel gets locked if you don't get there in time, but it's not a fail state. Just a 'find a harder way in' state.
The fire/smoke/weather stuff is apparently pretty impressive.
Focus can be used for combat, but is more useful for things like stealing earrings while the owner is still wearing them.
They've apparently removed the creative swearing, like "taffer" and such.
The plot involves an industrial baron using the Watch as his personal gang of thugs.
...they removed "taffer"...<twitch>...how could they remove "taffer"
taffing developers don't taffing know what the taff they're doing.
The other stuff, is pretty awesome I must say. The removal of "taffer" brings a tear to my eye, but the rest of it sounds pretty awesome.
Yea, most of that preview was actually really good. Though I'm still disappointed they aren't bringing back Garrett's original voice actor
Maybe if they include that Watch Guard voice actor who you hear throughout 3. You know, the one who had medical issues that you hear about over the course of like a half-dozen missions. He'll always have a special place in my heart.
The preview makes it sound pretty positive. Lots of caveats along the lines of "Assuming this isn't just smoke and mirrors...", but still hitting all the right notes.
The author of the piece is clearly a Thief fan, he knows what made Thief awesome, how and why, moreso than I expect other previewers to. So yeah, his writeup makes me interested, definitely.
EDIT:
What's particularly of note is level design. Because this is targeted for Next Gen systems = more RAM = they can FINALLY make levels that aren't freaking endless corridors with the odd side-alley. Which is important, because Thief's level design was typically very open ended in how you could approach things.
If Garrett is supposed to have a reputation for being a master thief, as someone who never kills, he's going to have to earn it. And if you can't make a decision in how to play, then it isn't earned. It's inherited.
Having a moral code that dictates you never kill someone is meaningless if you can't actually kill someone in the first place because of gameplay limitations. Because of a failstate.
Of course it's inherited. There are three fucking games with Garrett as protagonist before this where it is explicitly stated that Garret has a code of honour whereby he never murders and only steals. He's an established character, not some amnesiac unknown found in a prison somewhere who only remembers what starsign he is because his only possession is a personal ad with his face on it or whatever it is you are demanding the devs let you play.
If you don't want to play as the character established as the protagonist of the series there's a simple solution. Play another fucking game with some faceless everyman protagonist if that's what it takes so you can emotionally invest in it.
Would you demand that in the next Batman game, that Batman start using assault rifles and rocket launchers because that's how you want to play his character so you feel emotionally invested in his motivation for acting the way he does? Of course not. You know the character and know batman would never use guns.
It strikes me the reason you don't understand this is probably because you haven't actually played the games so have no real idea what Garret is like or what his history is. Here's a synopsis of the first games to try and help you past this desire to make this franchise shit so you can have feelings about it.
First Game:
Garret joins the Keepers (a mystical group who observe the city from the shadows and try to cause good prophecies their leader has had to come to fruition while stopping those prophecies they consider evil) as a boy. After receiving training in their shadow magics and use of glyphs, he is soon found to be their most promising acolyte but is highly disinterested in all their mumbo-jumbo so leaves the organisation to use his new-found powers for personal gain as a thief.
He quickly gains a reputation as a highly skilled thief and is targeted by a local crime boss who wants him to join his organisation. Garrett decides he doesn't need to join as he considers himself to be above all of the criminals in the local guild so rejects the offers. Eventually the crime boss responds by sending assassins to kill Garrett to assert his power. Garrett could easily have murdered the assassins or their boss with his powers over shadow and the unseen but instead chooses to rob the crime bosses mansion and steal everything of value there while the boss is in the house to send a message back.
Soon the entire city's underworld knows that Garrett has not only rejected the boss but also robbed him blind right under his nose. Garrett isn't just one of the best thieves in the city, he's also not a thief you ever cross if you expect to pay the bills next month.
Impressed by this, Viktoria approaches Garrett and offers him a job to steal from a nobles (Constantine) mansion. The job goes off without a hitch and Garrett finds out he was actually hired by the noble he just robbed as a test of his skill. Lucky he didn't just go around killing Constantines servants willy-nilly. It might have cost him his next job and Constantine is offering a fortune for it.
His next job is to steal some artifact called The Eye(TM). To do so he needs to break past some magical protections on the Chapel it is being held in. After a whole lot of work and a little help from the Keepers (who are still trying to entice him back to their organisation) he breaks into the Chapel and finds it full of undead. Like a boss he grabs the eye and goes to hand over The Eye for the fortune he has been offered.
After that Viktoria and The Trickster (Elder Nature God) leave him tied up in a basement so they can use him as a live sacrifice in the magic ritual they have planned later. Luckily for Garrett the Keepers have been watching him and come rescue him.
Now after that, you'd think it would be fair for Garrett to go on a murderous rampage right then and start killing the Tricksters servants left and right but no. That's not how Garrett works. They didn't pay him for The Eye(TM) and so he's going to take it back and get his own eye back at the same time.
Shenanigans ensue, Garrett retrieves The Eye(TM) with the Trickster none the wiser and replaces it with a non-functioning copy. Garrett returns The Eye(TM) in exchange for a magical-mechanical eye to replace his missing one from the Hammerites.
Meanwhile the Trickster goes to use his copy of The Eye(TM) for the ritual he is planning on using to destroy the city, without realising it's a fake and dies in the attempt. That's one Elder God dead but the important thing here is that Garrett didn't kill him. The Trickster committed suicide when he tried to use The (fake) Eye(TM) in the ritual. If he' been thinking clearly he should have known Garrett would have taken The (real) Eye(TM) back and attempting the ritual with a fake one would have been suicide.
See, Garrett doesn't even kill when people mutilate him. But he sure does know how to get revenge.
The Keepers then come to Garrett and tell him he will need them soon. He tells them to go get bent because that's the way Garrett rolls.
Game 2:
Now I could give you the full rundown but all you really need to know is this.
Midway through this game, Garrett is approached by Viktoria to work with her to prevent the villain of this games plans for genocide (yep that's right the chick that ripped his eyeball from its socket, the one that tried to destroy the entire city in a magic ritual, the one that was planning on using him as a live sacrifice for that ritual back in the first game).
Now Garrett doesn't trust her for obvious reasons but he bears her no animosity either. He's a professional and the genocide of all living things would be bad for business so he decides to let bygones be bygones and joins forces with her to try and stop the evil plot of the games villain (and maybe pick up a few nicknacks along the way).
Later when he finds out she is trying to stop the villain by herself he goes to rescue her (despite initially being against her plan because he thinks it's suicide) and then he gets feelings when she dies.
Now would your character - Mr "I killed a guard because it was too hard to work out how to get into a room he was guarding despite the fact I have magic powers" - have acted like that?
Of course not. He doesn't have those elements to his character. Garrett does. Garrett is already a fully fleshed out character with motivations and desires. His character isn't simple or two dimensional. There's no need for you to invent a character for him. He already has one.
He's sarcastic, witty, abrasive, not to mention a little narcissistic yet despite his protestations that he only wants to look after number one he always ends up doing the right thing when push comes to shove. Despite claiming to not want to have anything to do with the Keepers mumbo-jumbo he sure does let himself get sucked into doing things for them so that he can hear their prophecies. He may steal, but he never kills. Even when he faces the end boss of each of the three games he doesn't kill them, but instead sabotages their plans so that if they go through with their plans for evil they will die but he always leaves them the chance to turn back and not go through with their nefarious schemes.
To be blunt: Garrett is Thief. If you don't want to play Garrett, play another game. There's thousands of games that don't have Garrett in them. Pick one.
If you want a faceless everyman character with amnesia and the personality traits of a cabbage and fully customisable facial features so you can LARP while you play computer games well there's dozens of those too. Just pick one of them. Thief probably isn't for you.
I dont have the inclination to respond to every single point made here, and points well made I might add. But I did play Thief, all of them in fact. When they first came out. I know that doesn't mean diddly, and I'm not trying to claim some e-peen or anything. But I know what Thief is about. And more importantly, I know quite well where Thief fell flat.
Thief games were not about being a Thief. They were about being a burglar. There's a distinction. There are so many facets to thievery that it is excruciating when you claim that 'sneaking around a house stealing things from other people' is the true 'Thief experience'. No. That's all they could muster with the technology of the time. And they attempted to do more and it failed.
Thievery is an interesting subject and includes a broad range of human behavior. There are con artists. There are forgers. Burglars. Cat burglars. There are thieves for hire, there are pickpockets, cutpurses, muggers and a dozen other types of illegal activity that falls under the purview of thievery. In Thief 1-3 you played a burglar. That's all. You can say 'That's Garrett' or whatever. But it's true. Just as your point about Batman seemed to miss the mark also.
I don't want a Batman game where I can shoot men dead. Obviously that's not Batman's MO. But that doesn't mean the extreme opposite is the only solution, where Batman harms nobody and the game is a failstate if he does. There's a gradient to violence, and a gradient to thievery.
Garrett avoided violence. He had a strict moral code, just like Batman, whereby he actively tried to not kill anyone. But he also carried a bow, with pointy arrows. You don't carry that kind of weapon unless you envision a scenario whereby you might need to use it.
Batman doesn't carry a gun. But Garrett does carry a knife. There's an important difference between not wanting to kill someone and not being able to kill someone.
Garrett avoided violence. He had a strict moral code, just like Batman, whereby he actively tried to not kill anyone. But he also carried a bow, with pointy arrows. You don't carry that kind of weapon unless you envision a scenario whereby you might need to use it.
Obviously he planned on heading out to the woods after the heist to kill something for breakfast, duh!
If Garrett is supposed to have a reputation for being a master thief, as someone who never kills, he's going to have to earn it. And if you can't make a decision in how to play, then it isn't earned. It's inherited.
Having a moral code that dictates you never kill someone is meaningless if you can't actually kill someone in the first place because of gameplay limitations. Because of a failstate.
Of course it's inherited. There are three fucking games with Garrett as protagonist before this where it is explicitly stated that Garret has a code of honour whereby he never murders and only steals. He's an established character, not some amnesiac unknown found in a prison somewhere who only remembers what starsign he is because his only possession is a personal ad with his face on it or whatever it is you are demanding the devs let you play.
If you don't want to play as the character established as the protagonist of the series there's a simple solution. Play another fucking game with some faceless everyman protagonist if that's what it takes so you can emotionally invest in it.
Would you demand that in the next Batman game, that Batman start using assault rifles and rocket launchers because that's how you want to play his character so you feel emotionally invested in his motivation for acting the way he does? Of course not. You know the character and know batman would never use guns.
It strikes me the reason you don't understand this is probably because you haven't actually played the games so have no real idea what Garret is like or what his history is. Here's a synopsis of the first games to try and help you past this desire to make this franchise shit so you can have feelings about it.
First Game:
Garret joins the Keepers (a mystical group who observe the city from the shadows and try to cause good prophecies their leader has had to come to fruition while stopping those prophecies they consider evil) as a boy. After receiving training in their shadow magics and use of glyphs, he is soon found to be their most promising acolyte but is highly disinterested in all their mumbo-jumbo so leaves the organisation to use his new-found powers for personal gain as a thief.
He quickly gains a reputation as a highly skilled thief and is targeted by a local crime boss who wants him to join his organisation. Garrett decides he doesn't need to join as he considers himself to be above all of the criminals in the local guild so rejects the offers. Eventually the crime boss responds by sending assassins to kill Garrett to assert his power. Garrett could easily have murdered the assassins or their boss with his powers over shadow and the unseen but instead chooses to rob the crime bosses mansion and steal everything of value there while the boss is in the house to send a message back.
Soon the entire city's underworld knows that Garrett has not only rejected the boss but also robbed him blind right under his nose. Garrett isn't just one of the best thieves in the city, he's also not a thief you ever cross if you expect to pay the bills next month.
Impressed by this, Viktoria approaches Garrett and offers him a job to steal from a nobles (Constantine) mansion. The job goes off without a hitch and Garrett finds out he was actually hired by the noble he just robbed as a test of his skill. Lucky he didn't just go around killing Constantines servants willy-nilly. It might have cost him his next job and Constantine is offering a fortune for it.
His next job is to steal some artifact called The Eye(TM). To do so he needs to break past some magical protections on the Chapel it is being held in. After a whole lot of work and a little help from the Keepers (who are still trying to entice him back to their organisation) he breaks into the Chapel and finds it full of undead. Like a boss he grabs the eye and goes to hand over The Eye for the fortune he has been offered.
After that Viktoria and The Trickster (Elder Nature God) leave him tied up in a basement so they can use him as a live sacrifice in the magic ritual they have planned later. Luckily for Garrett the Keepers have been watching him and come rescue him.
Now after that, you'd think it would be fair for Garrett to go on a murderous rampage right then and start killing the Tricksters servants left and right but no. That's not how Garrett works. They didn't pay him for The Eye(TM) and so he's going to take it back and get his own eye back at the same time.
Shenanigans ensue, Garrett retrieves The Eye(TM) with the Trickster none the wiser and replaces it with a non-functioning copy. Garrett returns The Eye(TM) in exchange for a magical-mechanical eye to replace his missing one from the Hammerites.
Meanwhile the Trickster goes to use his copy of The Eye(TM) for the ritual he is planning on using to destroy the city, without realising it's a fake and dies in the attempt. That's one Elder God dead but the important thing here is that Garrett didn't kill him. The Trickster committed suicide when he tried to use The (fake) Eye(TM) in the ritual. If he' been thinking clearly he should have known Garrett would have taken The (real) Eye(TM) back and attempting the ritual with a fake one would have been suicide.
See, Garrett doesn't even kill when people mutilate him. But he sure does know how to get revenge.
The Keepers then come to Garrett and tell him he will need them soon. He tells them to go get bent because that's the way Garrett rolls.
Game 2:
Now I could give you the full rundown but all you really need to know is this.
Midway through this game, Garrett is approached by Viktoria to work with her to prevent the villain of this games plans for genocide (yep that's right the chick that ripped his eyeball from its socket, the one that tried to destroy the entire city in a magic ritual, the one that was planning on using him as a live sacrifice for that ritual back in the first game).
Now Garrett doesn't trust her for obvious reasons but he bears her no animosity either. He's a professional and the genocide of all living things would be bad for business so he decides to let bygones be bygones and joins forces with her to try and stop the evil plot of the games villain (and maybe pick up a few nicknacks along the way).
Later when he finds out she is trying to stop the villain by herself he goes to rescue her (despite initially being against her plan because he thinks it's suicide) and then he gets feelings when she dies.
Now would your character - Mr "I killed a guard because it was too hard to work out how to get into a room he was guarding despite the fact I have magic powers" - have acted like that?
Of course not. He doesn't have those elements to his character. Garrett does. Garrett is already a fully fleshed out character with motivations and desires. His character isn't simple or two dimensional. There's no need for you to invent a character for him. He already has one.
He's sarcastic, witty, abrasive, not to mention a little narcissistic yet despite his protestations that he only wants to look after number one he always ends up doing the right thing when push comes to shove. Despite claiming to not want to have anything to do with the Keepers mumbo-jumbo he sure does let himself get sucked into doing things for them so that he can hear their prophecies. He may steal, but he never kills. Even when he faces the end boss of each of the three games he doesn't kill them, but instead sabotages their plans so that if they go through with their plans for evil they will die but he always leaves them the chance to turn back and not go through with their nefarious schemes.
To be blunt: Garrett is Thief. If you don't want to play Garrett, play another game. There's thousands of games that don't have Garrett in them. Pick one.
If you want a faceless everyman character with amnesia and the personality traits of a cabbage and fully customisable facial features so you can LARP while you play computer games well there's dozens of those too. Just pick one of them. Thief probably isn't for you.
I dont have the inclination to respond to every single point made here, and points well made I might add. But I did play Thief, all of them in fact. When they first came out. I know that doesn't mean diddly, and I'm not trying to claim some e-peen or anything. But I know what Thief is about. And more importantly, I know quite well where Thief fell flat.
Thief games were not about being a Thief. They were about being a burglar. There's a distinction. There are so many facets to thievery that it is excruciating when you claim that 'sneaking around a house stealing things from other people' is the true 'Thief experience'. No. That's all they could muster with the technology of the time. And they attempted to do more and it failed.
Thievery is an interesting subject and includes a broad range of human behavior. There are con artists. There are forgers. Burglars. Cat burglars. There are thieves for hire, there are pickpockets, cutpurses, muggers and a dozen other types of illegal activity that falls under the purview of thievery. In Thief 1-3 you played a burglar. That's all. You can say 'That's Garrett' or whatever. But it's true. Just as your point about Batman seemed to miss the mark also.
I don't want a Batman game where I can shoot men dead. Obviously that's not Batman's MO. But that doesn't mean the extreme opposite is the only solution, where Batman harms nobody and the game is a failstate if he does. There's a gradient to violence, and a gradient to thievery.
Garrett avoided violence. He had a strict moral code, just like Batman, whereby he actively tried to not kill anyone. But he also carried a bow, with pointy arrows. You don't carry that kind of weapon unless you envision a scenario whereby you might need to use it.
Batman doesn't carry a gun. But Garrett does carry a knife. There's an important difference between not wanting to kill someone and not being able to kill someone.
In gameplay terms "not wanting to kill someone" means that if the player does end up having to kill someone, they've screwed up. You've done it wrong.
Garrett is a man willing to employ violence when absolutely necessary, but the games establish that he doesn't want to, doesn't like to and that in the context of the story in the games and how it plays out, he doesn't have to because he's good enough to avoid it being necessary.
But still, if the point of the game is to never kill anyone ever, why give the player the tools to do so? Batman doesn't kill, and so in the games, taking an enemy's gun and using it to kill the rest of them just isn't an option. Link would never beat up an NPC to avoid doing a fetch quest for an empty bottle, so it's not a gameplay option. If not killing anyone was so fundamentally important to the Thief games, why give the player a dagger and lethal arrows? Why make them standard equipment?
Posts
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
They aren't arbitrary: They are enforcing a kind of unique gameplay and secondly, also an important piece of characterization ("Thief, not assassin"). Thief is one of the only games I can think of that actively discourages people killing anyone on high difficulties (outside of monsters of course). It's a great gameplay feature because it adds to the characterization of Garret and means you have to think about levels in a different way than "Whatever, I'll just slaughter my way out of here". Again, this is something only found on the highest difficulty but IMO is entirely the only and correct way to play thief. I don't give a shit if anyone else thinks that it is a good idea, it SHOULD be something you get in a game called Thief.
If you want Dishonored, go play it.
Just look at EA. We shouldn't reward this behaviour.
People want a new Thief game because of the virtues of the old Thief games, and if they start getting rid of those, you have to expect some push-back.
Moderation is good. We still haven't seen any decent gameplay after all. Don't let this to and fro discussion we are having impair your ability to judge fairly.
Cobalt60 that is not helpful man you'll just start a slap fight with that kind of statement.
It is too early to be freaking out, but it isn't unreasonable to express some disappointment over the way they're talking about the game. Given trends in games, I see little reason to disbelieve the game will change to a fair degree from the originals, but it's too early to tell by how much.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
They're kind of arbitrary, insofar as there's no explanation for why you can't kill anyone and no apparent consequences other than failing the objective.
But this whole thing is just the old achievements argument, which has been hashed out a million times already. Some people like it when games pat you on the head for jumping through a particular hoop, some people don't like it, and some people are actively offended that other people like it.
Garret isn't a silent protagonist, or they wouldn't have him snarking about the levels all the time. He is his own man and we just happen to get a chance to play him. In thief 1 & 2, expert is "canon".
Hell the plot of thief 2 directly makes a reference to this. In one of the early missions Garret is being set up as a murderer. He's unhappy about this because he doesn't kill people so it's a bum rap. So he sets out to thief his way into getting back at them, without killing anyone, because, you know, what would be the point. He isn't an insane sociopath unhappy about being accused of the one murder he didn't do. He's a thief being accused of a different crime entirely, one he's never committed and takes pride on not committing.
It's not even the least bit equivalent to achievements, because achievements are a thoroughly meta mechanic that are pursued for the interests of the player himself, not the character he is playing.
The difficulties where you can kill are literally easier-mode for people who can't/don't want to stealth properly.
Choosing to follow a characterization you're handed seems like a pretty meta player interest in and of itself. It's like Thief is an Assassin's Creed game, and you derez if your actions aren't corresponding properly with Garrett's.
But moreover, there are Thief players who like to take things further and beat levels without blackjacking anyone, and not being seen or detected, even when the game doesn't reward you for doing so. The real Garrett evidently has no moral qualms about clubbing people unconscious, so does this become a thoroughly meta mechanic pursued for the player's own interest? It's more thief-y, but apparently it's not Garrett thief-y.
(Just because you might try to attack whim, it means a sudden desire or change of mind, esp. one that is unusual or unexplained.)
The key thing you want to be looking for in "not arbitrary" is consistency. Is there a consistent reason for it. Yes. Then it is not arbitrary.
Somehow I don't think you mean arbitrary. I think you mean "not a very deep or meaningful reason", because you can't argue it isn't a reason, that it isn't explained within the game, that it isn't presented consistently across the lore of the story itself. That the reason doesn't have the game mechanical consequences you feel it should does not mean it fails to exist as a reason.
You fail the level if you do (on the appropriate difficulty setting obviously)
It's disguised somewhat in a story/character-based context, but it's also clearly a straight up gameplay restriction. They are telling you how you should play the game and it's not by sniping guards with a bow. In the same way that Doom tells you how to play the game is "Shoot things in the face" because any other method of playing the game leads to a failure condition.
He doesn't care about property laws because he grew up on the streets with nothing and had to steal to survive. But he doesn't kill people to steal like amateur thieves would.
Garrett isn't just a thief. He is the best thief in the city. And he knows it.
And it's not just about ego. His job relies on his reputation. A reputation built on his ability to steal anything without being seen or having to kill.
Maybe it's so the guards don't get framed for the thefts. Hard to claim it's an inside job if all the guards are having a snooze in an out-of-the-way corridor cupping each other's arses (or maybe that's just something I do).
Having a moral code that dictates you never kill someone is meaningless if you can't actually kill someone in the first place because of gameplay limitations. Because of a failstate.
Garrett's character should not be told to us in such a simplistic manner. That's poor storytelling. It should be a collaboration between player choice and developer intent. When I'm laden with loot and fleeing the scene of the crime, a guard spotting me and blocking my path should present a difficult choice. Killing him would make for a clean escape. No witnesses. No fuss. But it's wrong to kill, obviously, and especially when it's an innocent. So the challenge then becomes how does Garrett deal with that situation.
A moral code only matters if sticking to it actually makes your life harder. Having the game revert to a failstate in the event of killing someone does not make the game harder. It makes it longer, because you are forced to reload a previous save. You can't actually kill anyone, because the game won't let you. So not killing someone is not a choice. It's the only way to progress.
That's weak storytelling and even weaker game design. And it is arbitrary, by every definition of the term, despite your protestations.
Okay, yes, I am defending this "atrocity" or whatever, but there's one fact about me: I have inhuman capacity for tolerance, as well as optimism and faith. Until I play the game, I absolutely refuse to make a decision that this will be a bad game, I don't care what they say, I am going to give this game a fair shake with my own hands. Still, I agree with just about everyone here (sounds stupid, but it is possible). You guys that are saying that it's stupid for them to do a Dishonored clone with ninja-Garrett, you're right! The other ones that are more in line with my arguments, obviously I think you're right too!
I don't want a Dishonored clone, I truly don't. However, I want this game to be produced, I want this game to be out there so that I could purchase it, play it, and either be overjoyed at being awesome thief, disappointed, or somewhere in the "meh" in-between. Either way, I want it, whatever wrangling they need to do to get this game to the proverbial shelf, let them. Shoot, i wouldn't be all that surprised if they gave Garret a flintlock somewhere throughout the story, just to try to make him more "awesome".
I'll weep for the death of the "true" Thief experience with you guys, but, first, I want to actually have the game and play it so that I can, at that point, know that it's a piece of shit. Until then, I will defend their decisions, because my faith leads me to believe that the developers would be too scared of pissing our beloved Garrett off.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
"GWHAA? Alright, taffer, I see you! Don't be hidin' from me, I'll find you! Where are you? Hello....hm, musta been rats I suppose"
Yes, it was a rat that pissed on your face, not a water arrow, nope, definitely not a water arrow, just rat piss :P
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
No...on expert you cannot kill any humans or you get a game over. This was dropped in T3 and allowed you to kill guards.
The thing is, if you kill people there is no challenge in any Thief game, they are incredibly easy because stealth kills are simple and overpowered. Much of the easiness of Thief is due to poor AI, considering how much time has passed since the original and T4 I'm really hoping the AI will be so much more complex that the overall difficulty is greatly increased. I almost feel like the first Thief games shouldn't even have had difficulty levels because it doesn't make much difference - you kill everyone and it's simple or you don't kill anyone and have a challenge.
YOu know, it's funny, I played expert mode in Thief 3 and was absolutely ignorant to the fact that you could kill guards. It said "don't kill" and I didn't kill anyone. I'm sure it's somewhere in the description that states that combatants are free game, I just never paid any attention to it. You guys were the ones that identified to me that a guard is free game even in Expert.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
...that last line.
I can't view it, would you kindly post the last line? If you have the time, could you also post the main points of the article?
If not it's cool, I'll just wait till I get home to read it.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
The main points, as they stuck out to me:
The City is huge and, as best he can tell, open-world. Sounds like Arkham City, but on a larger scale maybe? Verticality is a huge thing in this game, it would appear.
There is mention of one time-limit sequence in the demonstration, where the door to the brothel gets locked if you don't get there in time, but it's not a fail state. Just a 'find a harder way in' state.
The fire/smoke/weather stuff is apparently pretty impressive.
Focus can be used for combat, but is more useful for things like stealing earrings while the owner is still wearing them.
They've apparently removed the creative swearing, like "taffer" and such.
The plot involves an industrial baron using the Watch as his personal gang of thugs.
...they removed "taffer"...<twitch>...how could they remove "taffer"
taffing developers don't taffing know what the taff they're doing.
The other stuff, is pretty awesome I must say. The removal of "taffer" brings a tear to my eye, but the rest of it sounds pretty awesome.
WiiU Username: MordaRazgrom
Steam Username: MordaRazgrom
WoW/Diablo 3 Battlenet Battletag: MordaRazgrom#1755
Me and my wife have a gamer YouTube page if interested www.youtube.com/TeamMarriage
If you don't want to play as the character established as the protagonist of the series there's a simple solution. Play another fucking game with some faceless everyman protagonist if that's what it takes so you can emotionally invest in it.
Would you demand that in the next Batman game, that Batman start using assault rifles and rocket launchers because that's how you want to play his character so you feel emotionally invested in his motivation for acting the way he does? Of course not. You know the character and know batman would never use guns.
It strikes me the reason you don't understand this is probably because you haven't actually played the games so have no real idea what Garret is like or what his history is. Here's a synopsis of the first games to try and help you past this desire to make this franchise shit so you can have feelings about it.
First Game:
He quickly gains a reputation as a highly skilled thief and is targeted by a local crime boss who wants him to join his organisation. Garrett decides he doesn't need to join as he considers himself to be above all of the criminals in the local guild so rejects the offers. Eventually the crime boss responds by sending assassins to kill Garrett to assert his power. Garrett could easily have murdered the assassins or their boss with his powers over shadow and the unseen but instead chooses to rob the crime bosses mansion and steal everything of value there while the boss is in the house to send a message back.
Soon the entire city's underworld knows that Garrett has not only rejected the boss but also robbed him blind right under his nose. Garrett isn't just one of the best thieves in the city, he's also not a thief you ever cross if you expect to pay the bills next month.
Impressed by this, Viktoria approaches Garrett and offers him a job to steal from a nobles (Constantine) mansion. The job goes off without a hitch and Garrett finds out he was actually hired by the noble he just robbed as a test of his skill. Lucky he didn't just go around killing Constantines servants willy-nilly. It might have cost him his next job and Constantine is offering a fortune for it.
His next job is to steal some artifact called The Eye(TM). To do so he needs to break past some magical protections on the Chapel it is being held in. After a whole lot of work and a little help from the Keepers (who are still trying to entice him back to their organisation) he breaks into the Chapel and finds it full of undead. Like a boss he grabs the eye and goes to hand over The Eye for the fortune he has been offered.
Instead of me telling you what happens next go watch the cutscene.
After that Viktoria and The Trickster (Elder Nature God) leave him tied up in a basement so they can use him as a live sacrifice in the magic ritual they have planned later. Luckily for Garrett the Keepers have been watching him and come rescue him.
Now after that, you'd think it would be fair for Garrett to go on a murderous rampage right then and start killing the Tricksters servants left and right but no. That's not how Garrett works. They didn't pay him for The Eye(TM) and so he's going to take it back and get his own eye back at the same time.
Shenanigans ensue, Garrett retrieves The Eye(TM) with the Trickster none the wiser and replaces it with a non-functioning copy. Garrett returns The Eye(TM) in exchange for a magical-mechanical eye to replace his missing one from the Hammerites.
Meanwhile the Trickster goes to use his copy of The Eye(TM) for the ritual he is planning on using to destroy the city, without realising it's a fake and dies in the attempt. That's one Elder God dead but the important thing here is that Garrett didn't kill him. The Trickster committed suicide when he tried to use The (fake) Eye(TM) in the ritual. If he' been thinking clearly he should have known Garrett would have taken The (real) Eye(TM) back and attempting the ritual with a fake one would have been suicide.
See, Garrett doesn't even kill when people mutilate him. But he sure does know how to get revenge.
The Keepers then come to Garrett and tell him he will need them soon. He tells them to go get bent because that's the way Garrett rolls.
Midway through this game, Garrett is approached by Viktoria to work with her to prevent the villain of this games plans for genocide (yep that's right the chick that ripped his eyeball from its socket, the one that tried to destroy the entire city in a magic ritual, the one that was planning on using him as a live sacrifice for that ritual back in the first game).
Now Garrett doesn't trust her for obvious reasons but he bears her no animosity either. He's a professional and the genocide of all living things would be bad for business so he decides to let bygones be bygones and joins forces with her to try and stop the evil plot of the games villain (and maybe pick up a few nicknacks along the way).
Later when he finds out she is trying to stop the villain by herself he goes to rescue her (despite initially being against her plan because he thinks it's suicide) and then he gets feelings when she dies.
Of course not. He doesn't have those elements to his character. Garrett does. Garrett is already a fully fleshed out character with motivations and desires. His character isn't simple or two dimensional. There's no need for you to invent a character for him. He already has one.
He's sarcastic, witty, abrasive, not to mention a little narcissistic yet despite his protestations that he only wants to look after number one he always ends up doing the right thing when push comes to shove. Despite claiming to not want to have anything to do with the Keepers mumbo-jumbo he sure does let himself get sucked into doing things for them so that he can hear their prophecies. He may steal, but he never kills. Even when he faces the end boss of each of the three games he doesn't kill them, but instead sabotages their plans so that if they go through with their plans for evil they will die but he always leaves them the chance to turn back and not go through with their nefarious schemes.
To be blunt: Garrett is Thief. If you don't want to play Garrett, play another game. There's thousands of games that don't have Garrett in them. Pick one.
If you want a faceless everyman character with amnesia and the personality traits of a cabbage and fully customisable facial features so you can LARP while you play computer games well there's dozens of those too. Just pick one of them. Thief probably isn't for you.
Yea, most of that preview was actually really good. Though I'm still disappointed they aren't bringing back Garrett's original voice actor
Maybe if they include that Watch Guard voice actor who you hear throughout 3. You know, the one who had medical issues that you hear about over the course of like a half-dozen missions. He'll always have a special place in my heart.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
The author of the piece is clearly a Thief fan, he knows what made Thief awesome, how and why, moreso than I expect other previewers to. So yeah, his writeup makes me interested, definitely.
EDIT:
What's particularly of note is level design. Because this is targeted for Next Gen systems = more RAM = they can FINALLY make levels that aren't freaking endless corridors with the odd side-alley. Which is important, because Thief's level design was typically very open ended in how you could approach things.
I dont have the inclination to respond to every single point made here, and points well made I might add. But I did play Thief, all of them in fact. When they first came out. I know that doesn't mean diddly, and I'm not trying to claim some e-peen or anything. But I know what Thief is about. And more importantly, I know quite well where Thief fell flat.
Thief games were not about being a Thief. They were about being a burglar. There's a distinction. There are so many facets to thievery that it is excruciating when you claim that 'sneaking around a house stealing things from other people' is the true 'Thief experience'. No. That's all they could muster with the technology of the time. And they attempted to do more and it failed.
Thievery is an interesting subject and includes a broad range of human behavior. There are con artists. There are forgers. Burglars. Cat burglars. There are thieves for hire, there are pickpockets, cutpurses, muggers and a dozen other types of illegal activity that falls under the purview of thievery. In Thief 1-3 you played a burglar. That's all. You can say 'That's Garrett' or whatever. But it's true. Just as your point about Batman seemed to miss the mark also.
I don't want a Batman game where I can shoot men dead. Obviously that's not Batman's MO. But that doesn't mean the extreme opposite is the only solution, where Batman harms nobody and the game is a failstate if he does. There's a gradient to violence, and a gradient to thievery.
Garrett avoided violence. He had a strict moral code, just like Batman, whereby he actively tried to not kill anyone. But he also carried a bow, with pointy arrows. You don't carry that kind of weapon unless you envision a scenario whereby you might need to use it.
Batman doesn't carry a gun. But Garrett does carry a knife. There's an important difference between not wanting to kill someone and not being able to kill someone.
Obviously he planned on heading out to the woods after the heist to kill something for breakfast, duh!
In gameplay terms "not wanting to kill someone" means that if the player does end up having to kill someone, they've screwed up. You've done it wrong.
Garrett is a man willing to employ violence when absolutely necessary, but the games establish that he doesn't want to, doesn't like to and that in the context of the story in the games and how it plays out, he doesn't have to because he's good enough to avoid it being necessary.