THIEF 2: new stuff that was left out of the demo
Eep²
> Further to various threads in this group about whether Thief 2 would be
> little more than a map expansion pack, here's Gamespot's poorly-rewritten
> press release (I'm sorry, that should read "preview'):
>
> "The AI of human guards has been reworked to be more realistic. Sentries no
> longer exhibit the "frustrated" behavior of those in the original Thief. If
> a guard can't dispose of you for whatever reason, he or she will run off to
> sound the alarm or get help. Pathfinding has also been improved to mimic
> reality, and guards will raise their awareness if level they come across
> something out of place, like a knocked-over plate. In fact, the sentries
> will even relight any lamps Garrett has extinguished with a water arrow.
>
> "To level the playing field, Thief 2 will have a handful of new items
> that'll help Garrett get through these new sticky situations. These items
> include a cat-fall potion, which allows Garrett to jump from higher areas;
> flares to light up darkened corners; a reworked noisemaker arrow; a vine
> arrow that spawns ivy leaves along grated walls for easy climbing; a remote
> camera that links directly into Garrett's mechanical eye (obtained halfway
> though the first game); and frog eggs, which hatch lizardlike creatures that
> attack the closest person they see, a la Half-Life's snark. For the true
> novice, Thief 2 will even include an invisibility potion that'll render
> Garrett invisible to anyone for a short period of time."
>
> http://www.gamespot.com/features/thief2_pre/page5.html
>
> Now if only guards will mantle walls in pursuit of Garrett...
Everything was fine until the stupid hatching frog eggs. That's just ridiculously unrealistic to me...about as annoying as the zombies. When will game developers ever learn to keep it realistically believable? Sheesh...
Werner Arend
Realistically believable? In a game world with sorcerers throwing
fireballs? You have probably missed the fact that the game world isn't
ours... and isn't ours in most computer games out there. Are zombies
believable? Well, in a world where necromancy works, certainly! The fact
that it doesn't appear to work in ours has nothing to do with that.
Werner
Eep²
Don't matter. Thief 2 is supposed to be more "realistic" in the sense of no ridiculously unbelievable animals/monsters/beings like zombies, bugbeasts, burricks, fire elementals/shadows, ghosts, etc. Keep it "real", Looking Glass...
Kevin McGuire
: Don't matter. Thief 2 is supposed to be more "realistic" in the sense of
: no ridiculously unbelievable animals/monsters/beings like zombies,
: bugbeasts, burricks, fire elementals/shadows, ghosts, etc. Keep it "real",
: Looking Glass...
Uh, no.
Return to the Cathedral was the single best level in Thief. If
you're not interested in a fantastic universe, why not Rainbow 6 and the
like? Admittedly, it is a different sort of fantasy, but at least you
don't have to deal with any of the elements that you listed above. The
dark, fantastic world of Thief works perfectly for the game, and I'm
looking forward to seeing what's in store for Thief 2.
--
Kevin McGuire
University of Pennsylvania
http://www.theenergyco-op.com/ <-- 100% Green Electricity in PA!
Kevin Goodsell
wouldn't need video games.
On a different note, the frogbeast egg grenades are actually present in
Thief 1... In DromEd, that is. They were intended as one of the Trickster's
attacks, but I've never seen it and I assume it got cut. In fact, it seems
that the entire endgame was rewritten.
-Kevin
Eep² wrote in message <3896C09E...@tnlc.com>...
Kevin Goodsell
good a job of ruining it as taking out all the humans would. Can you imagine
a Thief without burricks? I mean, com'on! Haunts? They're the reason I look
forward to the Cathedral levels.
-Kevin
Kevin McGuire wrote in message <876r8a$7ec$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
Eep²
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= (e...@tnlc.com) wrote:
>
> : Don't matter. Thief 2 is supposed to be more "realistic" in the sense of
> : no ridiculously unbelievable animals/monsters/beings like zombies,
> : bugbeasts, burricks, fire elementals/shadows, ghosts, etc. Keep it "real",
> : Looking Glass...
>
> Uh, no.
>
> Return to the Cathedral was the single best level in Thief. If
> you're not interested in a fantastic universe, why not Rainbow 6 and the
> like? Admittedly, it is a different sort of fantasy, but at least you
> don't have to deal with any of the elements that you listed above. The
> dark, fantastic world of Thief works perfectly for the game, and I'm
> looking forward to seeing what's in store for Thief 2.
Oh? Then why do most people feel the zombies detract from Thief's realism? What's fantastic to YOU may not be to someone else. If anything, the unrealistic elements like what I described above should be OPTIONAL.
Eep²
> > mr bernard langham wrote:
> >
> > > "To level the playing field, Thief 2 will have a handful of new items
> > > that'll help Garrett get through these new sticky situations. These items
> > > include a cat-fall potion, which allows Garrett to jump from higher areas;
> > > flares to light up darkened corners; a reworked noisemaker arrow; a vine
> > > arrow that spawns ivy leaves along grated walls for easy climbing; a remote
> > > camera that links directly into Garrett's mechanical eye (obtained halfway
> > > though the first game); and frog eggs, which hatch lizardlike creatures that
> > > attack the closest person they see, a la Half-Life's snark. For the true
> > > novice, Thief 2 will even include an invisibility potion that'll render
> > > Garrett invisible to anyone for a short period of time."
>
> Eep² wrote:
>
> > Everything was fine until the stupid hatching frog eggs. That's just ridiculously unrealistic to me...about as annoying as the zombies. When will game developers ever learn to keep it realistically believable? Sheesh...
>
> Hmmmm? The speed potions, the magic vine-sprouting arrows and the mechanical eye are believable, but the frog eggs are too unrealistic? Funny logic.... ;-)
To me the hatching frog eggs are the MOST realistically unbelievable elements.
Eep²
> People who clamor for more realism in a fantasy world never cease to amaze
> me. Why shouldn't there be fantastic elements in the Thief universe. It's
> not real life. It's not SWAT3 with a bow. There was a small group of
> people who disregarded Thief's use of fantasy elements. Those that did were
> simply more vocal than the much larger contingent that loved the game for
> what it was, a completely new world to adventure in.
>
> It's amazing how often the Usenet opinion of 3 or 4 heavy posters can make
> everyone believe that their opinions are facts.
Ah but according to GameSpot's Thief 2 preview (http://www.gamespot.com/features/thief2_pre/page2.html), Looking Glass "scoured" newsgroups and read emails, which implies a tad bit more (note sarcasm) than 3 or 4 "heavy posters" influenced LG's decision to lose the more ridiculous elements of Thief for Thief 2:
"While working on the sequel, Thief's developers listened to what fans of the original had to say by reading e-mails and scouring news groups. To nobody's surprise, most of the feedback was favorable toward the stealth aspect of Thief but looked down on the game's action sequences. As a result, Looking Glass is making Thief 2 a true 'first-person sneaker.' That means no more lurking around in caves or ducking away from ghosts. Like the first Thief, Garrett will have to contend with human guards, but the introduction of cameras and mechanical sentries will test his thieving skills on a whole new level."
How exactly do zombies, fire elementals, and hatching frog eggs contribute to making Garrett test his thief skills? These things seem like yet another rehashed attempt at FPS fluff to keep the player interested and paying attention. Thief doesn't need it. Thief is far beyond/advanced most FPS gameplay anyway. If you want knee-jerk, finger-twitch response type of gameplay, go play yet another rehashed FPS like Unreal, Quake, etc, etc, etc.
> BTW, if you make them OPTIONAL, you've basically asked Looking Glass to
> create two entirely different games. I don't think so.
OK, so kick all the fantasy-ridiculous-feature-seeking fans back to Unreal and Quake while us more realistic, immersive, plot-following, adventure-exploration-seeking fans can stick to REAL games that actually push the envelope of computer game design.
> Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:38976D82...@tnlc.com...
C B Brooks
instead! anyone else get tired of this!!!???
"Susan" <Sus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:2t1e9skejulf847bl...@4ax.com...
> I like the first person camera angle BUT when Garrett looks down at his
> feet he should be able to see them. Jumping with no way of knowing how
close
> you are to an edge to prevent falling can be very disorienting -- Garrett
> could take _some_ lessons from Lara Croft. Lara Croft could take some
lessons
> from Garrett regarding the first person camera though. Both would make
> jumping more realistic with the camera angle banging into walls -- looking
up
> you see fingers hanging onto a ledge with twisting around and up and down
to
> see everything else.
> >> place, like a knocked-over plate. In fact, the sentries will even
> >> relight any lamps Garrett has extinguished with a water arrow.
>
>
> >> a cat-fall potion, which allows Garrett to jump from higher areas
>
>
> >> a vine arrow that spawns ivy leaves along grated walls for easy
climbing
>
>
> >> a remote camera that links directly into Garrett's mechanical eye
> >> (obtained halfway though the first game)
>
> Unrealistic. Sounds like Thief has turned into a fantasy. Of course, I
play
> fantasies too. :)
>
> >> frog eggs, which hatch lizardlike creatures that attack the closest
person
>
> Unrealistic.
>
> >> invisibility potion that'll render Garrett invisible to anyone for a
short
> >> period of time.
>
>
> >> Guards [cannot] mantle walls in pursuit of Garrett.
>
> Unrealistic.
>
> >Everything was fine until the stupid hatching frog eggs. That's just
> >ridiculously unrealistic to me...about as annoying as the zombies.
>
> mechanical eye, and vine arrows just make it "stupid".
>
>
> >When will game developers ever learn to keep it realistically believable?
>
> _always_ pushes them to bite off more then they can chew. Water arrows
are
> bad enough. So far Lord Ballford's Manor was realistic and part way into
> Cragscleft Prison has been realistic too -- less the zombies and
electricity
> development. Somehow it sounds like it won't be getting any better then
it
> has been.
>
> *Susan* Sus...@concentric.net
> SETI & Beyond at www.delphi.com/setib
> SETIweb at http://setiweb.org
Josh Boardman
>
> > "To level the playing field, Thief 2 will have a handful of new items
> > that'll help Garrett get through these new sticky situations. These items
> > include a cat-fall potion, which allows Garrett to jump from higher areas;
> > arrow that spawns ivy leaves along grated walls for easy climbing; a remote
> > camera that links directly into Garrett's mechanical eye (obtained halfway
> > attack the closest person they see, a la Half-Life's snark. For the true
> > Garrett invisible to anyone for a short period of time."
Eep² wrote:
> Everything was fine until the stupid hatching frog eggs. That's just ridiculously unrealistic to me...about as annoying as the zombies. When will game developers ever learn to keep it realistically believable? Sheesh...
Hmmmm? The speed potions, the magic vine-sprouting arrows and the mechanical eye are believable, but the frog eggs are too unrealistic? Funny logic.... ;-)
--------------
Old Wolf
Jason McCullough
>
>: Don't matter. Thief 2 is supposed to be more "realistic" in the sense of
>: no ridiculously unbelievable animals/monsters/beings like zombies,
>: bugbeasts, burricks, fire elementals/shadows, ghosts, etc. Keep it "real",
>: Looking Glass...
>
>Uh, no.
>
>Return to the Cathedral was the single best level in Thief. If
>you're not interested in a fantastic universe, why not Rainbow 6 and the
>like? Admittedly, it is a different sort of fantasy, but at least you
>don't have to deal with any of the elements that you listed above. The
>dark, fantastic world of Thief works perfectly for the game, and I'm
>looking forward to seeing what's in store for Thief 2.
RTC was one of the better levels because of the way it was designed,
not the monsters in it.
Most of the other zombie-heavy levels stunk, though, because the map
was shitty.
Enemies are just a part of proper level design; it doesn't matter what
kind the level contains, as long as it's a good one, and properly set
up for them.
To respond by email, remove "blort" from the front of my email
address.
blort...@ou.edu
Jason McCullough
".....to identify Flavor Flav as a clown with a clock is to lose sight
of Public Enemy's goal to inspire, entertain and educate."
(from www.public-enemy.com)
David Long
me. Why shouldn't there be fantastic elements in the Thief universe. It's
not real life. It's not SWAT3 with a bow. There was a small group of
people who disregarded Thief's use of fantasy elements. Those that did were
simply more vocal than the much larger contingent that loved the game for
what it was, a completely new world to adventure in.
It's amazing how often the Usenet opinion of 3 or 4 heavy posters can make
everyone believe that their opinions are facts.
BTW, if you make them OPTIONAL, you've basically asked Looking Glass to
create two entirely different games. I don't think so.
--
Dave Long
da...@evilavatar.com
----------------------
Evil Avatar -- Gaming News with Attitude!
http://www.evilavatar.com
The Mighty MF
"Eep²" <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:38976D82...@tnlc.com...
> Kevin McGuire wrote:
>
> > =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= (e...@tnlc.com) wrote:
> >
> > : Don't matter. Thief 2 is supposed to be more "realistic" in the sense
of
> > : no ridiculously unbelievable animals/monsters/beings like zombies,
> > : bugbeasts, burricks, fire elementals/shadows, ghosts, etc. Keep it
"real",
> > : Looking Glass...
> >
> > Uh, no.
> >
> > Return to the Cathedral was the single best level in Thief. If
> > you're not interested in a fantastic universe, why not Rainbow 6 and the
> > like? Admittedly, it is a different sort of fantasy, but at least you
> > don't have to deal with any of the elements that you listed above. The
> > dark, fantastic world of Thief works perfectly for the game, and I'm
> > looking forward to seeing what's in store for Thief 2.
>
mr bernard langham
cases) and add 2 lines at the end or somewhere in the middle. It's very
annoying and you do it ALL THE TIME.
:)
>^..^<
Bernard
--
mr bernard langham . blu...@ii.net . perth, western ashtraylia
cassetteNET/DIY lo-fi punkarama/indie vs major FAQ http://ii.net/~blueboy
spiral scratch independent label show/RTRfm public radio http://rtr.fm.net
--
"Feel free to cite, sample, steal, sell, reference, borrow or plagiarize
anything that I have created, thought or said. Information wants to be free
and intellectual property is both anachronistic and wrong" -- Meme #96
mr bernard langham
What's fantastic to YOU may not be to someone else. If anything, the
unrealistic elements like what I described above should be OPTIONAL.
>
The zombie levels were looked down upon, not because they contained
"unrealistic" (your pet phrase) fantasy creatures, but because they seemed
to require more hack and slash gameplay than sneak and creep.
Mel C
> BTW, if you make them OPTIONAL, you've basically asked Looking Glass to
> create two entirely different games. I don't think so.
Unless you give the player a choice of next mission, let them pick their
own way through a tree of possible missions..?
It would mean a *lot* more maps, but that means it takes longer to
*completely* complete - yay!
Freedom Spice
mr bernard langham
> *completely* complete - yay!
I'd rather the game came out soon, though, not in three years time while
they design all the extra maps :)
Good maps are not made overnight. Crap ones... well, that's another story.
>
> Freedom Spice
>
>
mr bernard langham
and Quake while us more realistic, immersive, plot-following,
adventure-exploration-seeking fans can stick to REAL games that actually
push the envelope of computer game design.
What, and throw away the magical alternate reality elements which lend Thief
its marvellously romantic gothic fantasy atmosphere? Thanks, I'd rather not.
>
> > Eep² <e...@tnlc.com> wrote in message news:38976D82...@tnlc.com...
Werner Arend
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Eep² wrote:
> Kevin McGuire wrote:
>
> > =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= (e...@tnlc.com) wrote:
> >
> > : Don't matter. Thief 2 is supposed to be more "realistic" in the sense of
> > : no ridiculously unbelievable animals/monsters/beings like zombies,
> > : bugbeasts, burricks, fire elementals/shadows, ghosts, etc. Keep it "real",
> > : Looking Glass...
> >
> > Uh, no.
> >
> > Return to the Cathedral was the single best level in Thief. If
> > you're not interested in a fantastic universe, why not Rainbow 6 and the
> > like? Admittedly, it is a different sort of fantasy, but at least you
> > don't have to deal with any of the elements that you listed above. The
> > dark, fantastic world of Thief works perfectly for the game, and I'm
> > looking forward to seeing what's in store for Thief 2.
>
> Oh? Then why do most people feel the zombies detract from Thief's
> realism? What's fantastic to YOU may not be to someone else. If
> anything,
> the unrealistic elements like what I described above should be OPTIONAL.
Gah. OK. Remove mages throwing fireballs. Remove burricks and zombies.
Remove the whole Trickster thing, it's magical and I won't see it in
present reality, so it doesn't belong in a game. Gah.
I really don't see where you can go from your position and have any game
left.
BTW: What was annoying about the zombies wasn't that they weren't
"realistic", but that you couldn't blackjack them and had to avoid them
again every damn time you passed the same place. It got tedious, and
*that's* what was annoying.
I loved the Return to the Cathedral in Thief, including the zombies in
general - but I had to pass that spiral stairway about a dozen times, and
having to wait for a gap in the patrols a dozen times was bad.
Werner
Werner Arend
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Eep² wrote:
> How exactly do zombies, fire elementals, and hatching frog eggs
> contribute to making Garrett test his thief skills? These things seem
> like yet another rehashed attempt at FPS fluff to keep the player
> interested and paying attention. Thief doesn't need it. Thief is far
> beyond/advanced most FPS gameplay anyway. If you want knee-jerk,
> finger-twitch response type of gameplay, go play yet another rehashed
In another post I said it annoyed me, and it did at first, but having
opponents you must avoid and can't blackjack makes sneaking all the time
more important. The zombies presented a challenge that was very much
true to the style of the game, and you only got into hack&slash if you
hacked yourself a few more fire crystals or holy water flasks.
With some of the other monsters it wasn't so much the monsters themselves
that made it a running game with them, but the maps. There wasn't any way
to *sneak* past most of the fire elementals, and because of that the Lost
City map was less interesting than some others.
And talking about unrealistic: what about those steampunk robots that are
supposed to be in Thief 2? Just as "unbelievable" as zombies!. If I had to
choose between zombies and robots, I'd take the zombies every time - but
that's a matter of taste.
As a matter of fact, I probably won't like those exploding frog eggs ar
whatever they are, too - but that's because the idea seems a bit whimsical
to me, and so doesn't fit the style of the game. We'll see.
Werner
Eep²
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Eep˛ wrote:
>
> > Kevin McGuire wrote:
> >
> > > =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= (e...@tnlc.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > : Don't matter. Thief 2 is supposed to be more "realistic" in the sense of
> > > : no ridiculously unbelievable animals/monsters/beings like zombies,
> > > : bugbeasts, burricks, fire elementals/shadows, ghosts, etc. Keep it "real",
> > > : Looking Glass...
> > >
> > > Uh, no.
> > >
> > > Return to the Cathedral was the single best level in Thief. If
> > > you're not interested in a fantastic universe, why not Rainbow 6 and the
> > > like? Admittedly, it is a different sort of fantasy, but at least you
> > > don't have to deal with any of the elements that you listed above. The
> > > dark, fantastic world of Thief works perfectly for the game, and I'm
> > > looking forward to seeing what's in store for Thief 2.
> >
> > Oh? Then why do most people feel the zombies detract from Thief's
> > realism? What's fantastic to YOU may not be to someone else. If
> > anything,
> > the unrealistic elements like what I described above should be OPTIONAL.
>
> Gah. OK. Remove mages throwing fireballs. Remove burricks and zombies.
> Remove the whole Trickster thing, it's magical and I won't see it in
> present reality, so it doesn't belong in a game. Gah.
> I really don't see where you can go from your position and have any game
> left.
Um, Thief is about sneaking, stealth, and stealing, and can stand on its own QUITE well without all the fantastical/magical elements.
> BTW: What was annoying about the zombies wasn't that they weren't
> "realistic", but that you couldn't blackjack them and had to avoid them
> again every damn time you passed the same place. It got tedious, and
> *that's* what was annoying.
> I loved the Return to the Cathedral in Thief, including the zombies in
> general - but I had to pass that spiral stairway about a dozen times, and
> having to wait for a gap in the patrols a dozen times was bad.
YOU didn't like zombies for that reason. Other people didn't like 'em cuz they detracted from what Thief is about: sneaking, stealth, and stealing (sł). Still others thought zombies made Thief less realistic. Whatever the case, the zombies seemed to suck for most Thief players, which is why Looking Glass wisened up and removed 'em for Thief 2.
Eep²
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Eep² wrote:
>
Yea, it's too bad Thief 2 won't be more of an exploration-adventure where Garrett has to travel to another city, perhaps mugging and robbing travellers along the way, stopping to loot homes, castles (in the 19th century? eh...), etc. Thief needs more expansive outdoor areas for Garrett to explore. Perhaps Thief 3...
mq...@jacob.net
: Eep, I *really* wish you wouldn't quote entire messages (or threads in some
: cases) and add 2 lines at the end or somewhere in the middle. It's very
: annoying and you do it ALL THE TIME.
Please, you're talking to a guy who can't even figure out how to
wrap his text...
Morgan Sales
> Yea, it's too bad Thief 2 won't be more of an exploration-adventure where
>Garrett has to travel to another city, perhaps mugging and robbing
travellers along >the way, stopping to loot homes, castles (in the 19th
century? eh...), etc. Thief >needs more expansive outdoor areas for Garrett
to explore. Perhaps Thief 3...
Yep, that would be good. I liked sneaking down the dark streets
And I have to say that I didn't like the Zombie bit's either. Ok so
technically they aren't any more fantastic as the Mages or the Trickster for
that matter. The Mages just seem to fit better with the rest of the game
IMO. Ok so thief is a truly great game but ,in general I prefer the more
down to earth bits of the game, personally I think that I could've been done
better by going more towards the real world, the strange magical street
lights get my back up a bit. Granted it would've been more difficult to
have Constantine in if they'd have gone completely realistic.
Does anyone remember an old game call legends of valour, if they make thief
three more along those lines then it would be bloody near perfect.
--
Morgan.
-----
* ...When you participate in a sporting event, it's not whether you win or
lose, it's how drunk you get.
Kevin McGuire
: People who clamor for more realism in a fantasy world never cease to amaze
: me. Why shouldn't there be fantastic elements in the Thief universe. It's
: not real life. It's not SWAT3 with a bow. There was a small group of
: people who disregarded Thief's use of fantasy elements. Those that did were
: simply more vocal than the much larger contingent that loved the game for
: what it was, a completely new world to adventure in.
: It's amazing how often the Usenet opinion of 3 or 4 heavy posters can make
: everyone believe that their opinions are facts.
I find this interesting as well. For some reason (and I still don't
understand why) the zombies and other fantastic elements of thief really
seemed to chew some people up. Why? I don't know. I thought the game
was outstanding as is. A great, satisfying game. I didn't flood the
newsgroups with complaints or pester the Looking Glass folks because I
was happy: the game worked well, the design was great, and the gameplay
excellent.
Thematically, with the end of Thief, it makes sense that some of the
magical elements will fade out, and be replaced by elements of The
Machine Age. However, I would hate to see the very specific,
fantastic Gothic background of Thief be made into some generic mideval
sneak-around-castles-and-only-deal-with-human-guards-cause-god-
forbid-there-should-be-something-fantastic-going-on.
SpammersDie
>understand why) the zombies and other fantastic elements of thief really
>seemed to chew some people up. Why?
For me, I think it boils down to the supernatural elements being associated
with most of the badly designed levels in the original (Bonehoard, The
Haunted Cathedral, Lost City, Escape, Maw.)
Some of my favorite fan-made missions are actually "undead" levels
(Bloodstone, Shunned.) As long as a level retains the basic qualities of a
good Thief level (emphasis on sneaking, strategy, resourcefulness and good
planning rather than reacting to situations, solving obscure inventory
puzzles and running into traps), it doesn't matter so much whether your
enemies are human or not. One good enough about human opponents is that
there's usually more humor: funny arguments between guards, guards talking
to themselves and irreverent memos and scrolls. The non-human opponents are
rather dry by comparison.
Ronald Johnsen
made great enemies, especially in the Haunted Cathedral and RTC missions. The
monsters that annoyed me were the ratmen and other monsters from the last few
missions. Fire elementals weren't all that great either but weren't bad.
This is a game that is based on fantasy. There should be some fantastical
elements in it. I'm sorry to see that the monsters have disappeared to be replaced
with robots. But I'll love Thief 2 just the same.
Kevin McGuire wrote:
> David Long (da...@NOSPAMevilavatar.com) wrote:
> : People who clamor for more realism in a fantasy world never cease to amaze
> : me. Why shouldn't there be fantastic elements in the Thief universe. It's
> : not real life. It's not SWAT3 with a bow. There was a small group of
> : people who disregarded Thief's use of fantasy elements. Those that did were
> : simply more vocal than the much larger contingent that loved the game for
> : what it was, a completely new world to adventure in.
>
> : It's amazing how often the Usenet opinion of 3 or 4 heavy posters can make
> : everyone believe that their opinions are facts.
>
> I find this interesting as well. For some reason (and I still don't
> understand why) the zombies and other fantastic elements of thief really
Josh Boardman
> Um, Thief is about sneaking, stealth, and stealing, and can stand on its own QUITE well without all the fantastical/magical elements.
Yesssss, but it was also about zombies, haunted cathedrals, pagan worship and lost gods. All of these played an important role in Thief. It's pure conjecture that *your ideal version* of Thief would have been as successful as the actual one we all played and loved.
> YOU didn't like zombies for that reason. Other people didn't like 'em cuz they detracted from what Thief is about: sneaking, stealth, and stealing (sł). Still others thought zombies made Thief less realistic.
Again, you should probably say "....detracted from what *I wanted* Thief to be about....". You can't deny that the themes of wild Woodsie magic vs. solid Hammerite technology were a central part of the game. I really enjoyed the unfolding story, and believe that a game which was only about "...sneaking, stealth, and stealing (sł)..." would have
been very flat.
As Kevin McGuire said further up the thread - a generic medieval sneaking game would, IMO, be a lot more dull than the techno-Gothic-fantasy world of Thief.
---------------
Old Wolf
mr bernard langham
> there's usually more humor: funny arguments between guards, guards talking
> to themselves and irreverent memos and scrolls. The non-human opponents
are
> rather dry by comparison.
"When are they goin' to bring me my dinner, that's what I want to know? When
are they goin' to bring me my dinner?"
Kevin McGuire
: > One good enough about human opponents is that
: > there's usually more humor: funny arguments between guards, guards talking
: > to themselves and irreverent memos and scrolls. The non-human opponents
: are
: > rather dry by comparison.
: "When are they goin' to bring me my dinner, that's what I want to know? When
: are they goin' to bring me my dinner?"
It would have been great to hear some of the non-human's bitching about
things as well...
Haunt: Haven't had a fresh soul in years! Years! Maybe I'll just find a
nice quiet spot and lie down. Yes, that would show them, it would.
Morgan Sales
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100020...@commlink.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de
...
> Whatever the case, the zombies seemed to suck for most Thief players,
> which is why Looking Glass wisened up and removed 'em for Thief 2.
I admit they are an acquired taste. I didn't really appreciate what the
zombies did for the game until Return to the Haunted Cathedral. It didn't
help that the Bonehoard and the first Cathedral maps were not nearly as
good as the first city maps. This might be the main reason many players
didn't like them: the maps where they appeared were a bit on the tedious
side and not very interesting.
Well I still can't say that I like the Zombie bits, but they weren't so
bad in Return to the Haunted Cathedral, Mainly because they fitted in better
with the atmosphere I think, it felt like a haunted Cathedral, where as
Bonehoard felt like a confusing cave with noisy grey blokes. Still I'd
prefer Zombies to Robots anyway of the week.
I've hared that Thief 2 will include Night Vision ability due to
Garrett's Robotic eye, I don't like the sound of that too much, it'd spoil
the atmosphere.
--
Morgan.
-----
* The...Er...Stuff that dreams are made of. :- Sam Spade.
Werner
KaL
Josh Boardman <j.boa...@auckland.ac.nz> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:38989CCC...@auckland.ac.nz...
> Eep˛ wrote:
>
> > Um, Thief is about sneaking, stealth, and stealing, and can stand on its
own QUITE well without all the fantastical/magical elements.
>
> Yesssss, but it was also about zombies, haunted cathedrals, pagan worship
and lost gods. All of these played an important role in Thief. It's pure
conjecture that *your ideal version* of Thief would have been as successful
as the actual one we all played and loved.
>
they detract from gameplay. Since they are so slow I could just run around
them and where's the challenge in that? I loved all of the "(s3)" missions
and the zombies were just in the way. They were stupid, ugly and slow.
Considering all the board posts I have seen about Thief you are one of the
few that liked the zombies and the undead. Most posters said that the undead
were boring and they wanted more thieving missions so I have no idea where
you got the idea that Thief wouldn't have been succesful without the undead.
>
> > YOU didn't like zombies for that reason. Other people didn't like 'em
cuz they detracted from what Thief is about: sneaking, stealth, and stealing
(sł). Still others thought zombies made Thief less realistic.
>
> Again, you should probably say "....detracted from what *I wanted* Thief
to be about....". You can't deny that the themes of wild Woodsie magic vs.
solid Hammerite technology were a central part of the game. I really
enjoyed the unfolding story, and believe that a game which was only about
"...sneaking, stealth, and stealing (sł)..." would have
> been very flat.
Wrong. I could tell you why you are wrong but other people have already done
that.
>
> As Kevin McGuire said further up the thread - a generic medieval sneaking
game would, IMO, be a lot more dull than the techno-Gothic-fantasy world of
Thief.
>
There is nothing generic about Thief. They felt they had to throw in some
undead just because it was an FPS. They were wrong as so many people have
told them. You are an exception.
KaL
Luke Winikates
"KaL" <kalle.wa...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:Mijm4.4684$jg4....@nntpserver.swip.net...
>
> Josh Boardman <j.boa...@auckland.ac.nz> skrev i
> diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:38989CCC...@auckland.ac.nz...
worship
> and lost gods. All of these played an important role in Thief. It's pure
> conjecture that *your ideal version* of Thief would have been as
successful
> as the actual one we all played and loved.
> >
> If you want paganism go play Doom.
Actually, the baddies in doom are from Hell (or something like that),
they're not pagan gods or anything (pagan: a follower of an ancient
polytheistic or pantheistic religion).
> Undead are a part of Thiefs universe but
> they detract from gameplay. Since they are so slow I could just run around
> them and where's the challenge in that? I loved all of the "(s3)" missions
> and the zombies were just in the way. They were stupid, ugly and slow.
> Considering all the board posts I have seen about Thief you are one of the
> few that liked the zombies and the undead. Most posters said that the
undead
> were boring and they wanted more thieving missions so I have no idea where
> you got the idea that Thief wouldn't have been succesful without the
undead.
Thief without the undead and the Trickster= Thief without a plot= mixed
reviews= lower sales (JMHO). They could have substituted otehr things in to
fill the gaps, but whether the would have worked, as Mr. Boardman has said,
is pure conjecture.
> > Again, you should probably say "....detracted from what *I wanted*
Thief
> > to be about....". You can't deny that the themes of wild Woodsie magic
vs.
> > solid Hammerite technology were a central part of the game. I really
> > enjoyed the unfolding story, and believe that a game which was only
about
> > "...sneaking, stealth, and stealing (sł)..." would have
> > been very flat.
>
> Wrong. I could tell you why you are wrong but other people have already
done
> that.
You need to be more specific, I think. Are you saying that he's wrong that
the conflict between the pagans and the Hammers was central to the game? If
so, you're saying that the story was useless and unimportant. While the
comment about stealth only gameplay being boring is a little vague, and not
something that I agree with, the two warring factions are an important part
of the game. Thief has, possibly, the deepest, most believable universe I
have seen created for a game.
> > As Kevin McGuire said further up the thread - a generic medieval
sneaking
> > game would, IMO, be a lot more dull than the techno-Gothic-fantasy world
of
> > Thief.
>
> There is nothing generic about Thief. They felt they had to throw in some
> undead just because it was an FPS. They were wrong as so many people have
> told them. You are an exception.
<lengthy pause> okay, I agree that they threw in the undead because they
felt that they had to, LGS has said as much, but think about what he
actually said about the "generic setting," specifically that Thief doesn't
have one. His actual point, unless I badly misinterpret, was that a series
of completely unrelated sneaks through castle after castle wouldn't have
been as interesting. The story is an important part of the game to many
people, and the story in Thief included zombies, haunts, and pagan gods.
IMO, the deepest flaw in the undead in thief was that, though you could
sneak by them (with some unpleasant exceptions) the didn't provide the same
verbal feedback that the guards did, so you didn't really get the impression
that you had skillfully slipped past them, you just figured that you had
managed not to trip the AI response.
For example, you can sneak past zombies, with some difficulty, but you don't
get a "what was that?" from a zombie. Standing around, they go "Urghhh."
They hear you, they go "Arghhh." The decide to eat you, they go "Urghhh....
Arghhh....." So people didn't realize that you could sneak by them, and
just ran, using flash bombs, holy water, and fire arrows when necessary.
Josh Boardman
> Undead are a part of Thiefs universe but they detract from gameplay. Since
> they are so slow I could just run around them and where's the challenge in
> that?
Yes, you could run around them if you wanted to I suppose. But there's nothing
to stop you from sneaking past them. I mean, with a bit of practice, I bet you
could complete the whole of the first mission, "Bafford's Manor", by running
past guards and grabbing a bit of loot on the fly. But what would be the point
of that? It's bad form to criticize a game because of strategic decisions that
*you* make.
> I loved all of the "(s3)" missions and the zombies were just in the way. They
> were stupid, ugly and slow.
Undead are people too you know. They've got feelings. They can't help it if
they're ugly and slow. They didn't ask to be ressurrected by an evil
necromancer. ;-P Sounds like you've got a lot of ill feeling bottled up
against those zombies. Blaming them for all of society's evils. <jk>
> Considering all the board posts I have seen about Thief you are one of the
> few that liked the zombies and the undead.
Probably true. But don't forget that people who are happy and satisfied are
much less likely to post than those who are unhappy and having "issues".
> Most posters said that the undead were boring and they wanted more thieving
> missions so I have no idea where you got the idea that Thief wouldn't have
> been succesful without the undead.
Well, I've always believed that a good story is a crucial factor in a successful
game. I've been proven wrong many many times recently, when lame-ass no-plot
games shift thousands of units, so I'll concede this point. :-)
> > Again, you should probably say "....detracted from what *I wanted* Thief
> to be about....". You can't deny that the themes of wild Woodsie magic vs.
> solid Hammerite technology were a central part of the game. I really
> enjoyed the unfolding story, and believe that a game which was only about
> "...sneaking, stealth, and stealing (sł)..." would have
> > been very flat.
>
> Wrong. I could tell you why you are wrong but other people have already done
> that.
Aren't I allowed to have an opinion anymore? :-(
The cool setting for Thief was partly why I enjoyed the game so much - it would
have been far less interesting without it. IMHO, as usual.
> There is nothing generic about Thief. They felt they had to throw in some
> undead just because it was an FPS. They were wrong as so many people have
> told them. You are an exception.
Correct, there is nothing generic about Thief. That's why I loved the game.
But I never said that *Thief* was generic. I was talking about the
setting/background/themes of a game.
: THIEF = techno/fantasy world with undead = cool
: Hypothetical game = generic, no-magic, medieval world = dull
It seems that we both really loved the gameplay in Thief - creeping, skulking,
striking from the shadows. But we have differing opinions on the plot and
story. You, perhaps, didn't enjoy the unrealistic and fantastical elements ; I,
OTOH, thought they were "tops".
A matter of taste. Or lack thereof. <hehehe, just kidding old boy>
-------------------
Old Wolf
Josh Boardman
> Thief without the undead and the Trickster= Thief without a plot= mixed
> reviews= lower sales (JMHO). They could have substituted otehr things in to
> fill the gaps, but whether the would have worked, as Mr. Boardman has said,
> is pure conjecture.
Yes that's it. You said it so much better than me. :-) I *knew* I should
have used maths/logical progression equations to illustrate my point.
> Thief has, possibly, the deepest, most believable universe I have seen created
> for a game.
Agreed. There's always something "neat and tidy" about a Law vs. Chaos
storyline, particularly if you have a third party (the Keepers) keeping the
Balance. But in Thief, they went so much further. The story was so well
fleshed out through use of books, cutscenes, overheard conversations,
architecture, and so on and so forth. LGS really are the dogs bollocks of this
industry.
> <lengthy pause> okay, I agree that they threw in the undead because they
> felt that they had to, LGS has said as much, but think about what he
> actually said about the "generic setting," specifically that Thief doesn't
> have one. His actual point, unless I badly misinterpret, was that a series
> of completely unrelated sneaks through castle after castle wouldn't have
> been as interesting. The story is an important part of the game to many
> people, and the story in Thief included zombies, haunts, and pagan gods.
<nodding eagerly>
Yes! Exactly! I'm glad someone got it.
> IMO, the deepest flaw in the undead in thief was that, though you could
> sneak by them (with some unpleasant exceptions) the didn't provide the same
> verbal feedback that the guards did, so you didn't really get the impression
> that you had skillfully slipped past them, you just figured that you had
> managed not to trip the AI response.
True. And as someone ["Spammers Die"] said - they lacked the potential for a
humourous encounter, since their grunts weren't exactly meaningful.
Another point:
All of the undead were rather scary - they contributed greatly to the tension
and excitement of playing the game. Many posters agree that playing Thief was a
nerve-wracking experience, especially after dark, and this element would be lost
in a non-magical setting. Those guards and Hammerites are pretty cool and
funny, but let's face it - they ain't scary.
There is so much that would have been lost in a 'realistic' version of the game,
IMHO.
-----------------
Old Wolf
SpammersDie
Josh Boardman wrote in message <389A3A62...@auckland.ac.nz>...
>KaL wrote:
>
>> Undead are a part of Thiefs universe but they detract from gameplay.
Since
>> they are so slow I could just run around them and where's the challenge
in
>> that?
>
>Yes, you could run around them if you wanted to I suppose. But there's
nothing
>to stop you from sneaking past them. I mean, with a bit of practice, I bet
you
>could complete the whole of the first mission, "Bafford's Manor", by
running
>past guards and grabbing a bit of loot on the fly. But what would be the
point
>of that? It's bad form to criticize a game because of strategic decisions
that
>*you* make.
But it's not out of line to criticize for creating glaring temptations to
violate the 'sneak' aspect of the game. If you find yourself having to
eschew an obvious strategy that's three times more efficient and almost as
safe just to preserve a style of gameplay that sold you on the game,
something's wrong. It's like the old problem of wondering whether or not to
exploit an obvious and well known AI loophole to get an advantage - if you
do, you might spoil the challenge - if you don't, you might be screwed
because the game was balanced with the assumption that everyone will use the
loophole. Either way, you have a dilemma that has nothing to do with the
"real" business of your character alterego.
Slow-moving zombies aren't a loophole but they have a similar effect.
SpammersDie
>> they detract from gameplay. Since they are so slow I could just run
around
missions
>> and the zombies were just in the way. They were stupid, ugly and slow.
the
>undead
>> were boring and they wanted more thieving missions so I have no idea
where
>> you got the idea that Thief wouldn't have been succesful without the
>undead.
>
>reviews= lower sales (JMHO).
I don't see the basis for this assumption. I think the way it would have
turned out is:
Thief without the undead and the Trickster=*different* plot.
>His actual point, unless I badly misinterpret, was that a series
>of completely unrelated sneaks through castle after castle wouldn't have
>been as interesting. The story is an important part of the game to many
>people, and the story in Thief included zombies, haunts, and pagan gods.
I agree that the story is a valuable part of Thief. I don't agree that they
couldn't have had an equally compelling story without the supernatural
element.
mr bernard langham
That they are lad, that they are. :)
Werner Arend
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, SpammersDie wrote:
> I agree that the story is a valuable part of Thief. I don't agree that they
> couldn't have had an equally compelling story without the supernatural
> element.
But why should they? There's nothing in a story without supernatural
elements that makes it in any way preferable from a story including those
elements.
Werner
SpammersDie
Werner Arend wrote in message ...
>
>
>On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, SpammersDie wrote:
>
>> I agree that the story is a valuable part of Thief. I don't agree that
they
>> couldn't have had an equally compelling story without the supernatural
>> element.
>
>But why should they?
Because a large number of customers asked them to and LG listened to them.
That's what smart companies do.
> There's nothing in a story without supernatural
>elements that makes it in any way preferable from a story including those
>elements.
There's nothing in a story WITH supernatural elements that makes it
preferable to those without either. It's no news that you can't judge a
story simply by its presence or absence of ghosts and goblins. That's
precisely the point. Thief would be a different game without the fantasy
elements, but there is no reason to say it would be an inferior one.
Kevin McGuire
: There is nothing generic about Thief. They felt they had to throw in some
: undead just because it was an FPS. They were wrong as so many people have
: told them. You are an exception.
Is it just me, or are the zombie critics relying a great deal on
bandwagon type arguments? "You must be wrong because many people posted
to the Thief web page" isn't exactly a strong basis to prove your point.
This is particularly true when the question is a thematic and artistic one
(ie its about taste).
Thief without Return to The Cathedral would have been a lesser game, not
as interesting, not as compelling (as others have pointed out above, not
as scary either). Return to The Cathedral just doesn't work without the
undead, and the Thiefiverse (sorry) has a rich world that includes magic,
Woodsie Lords, Undead and all sorts of cool things that you generally don't
find in "reality".
Could you do Thief in a less fantastic setting? Perhaps, and when that
art heist game gets released we can all see how much fun it is.
Given the ending of Thief is makes sense that you will now face machines
rather than ghosts (I'm guessing here). Actually, I hope that some of
the fantastic elements survive in The Machine Age - it's always
interesting when old enemies become allies.
I still don't see how "Creepy-steampunk-machine-that-could-never-exist-
in-real-life" is any_more_ appealing than "creepy-undead-critter-who-could-
never-exist-in-real-life".
Kevin McGuire
: I agree that the story is a valuable part of Thief. I don't agree that they
: couldn't have had an equally compelling story without the supernatural
: element.
Probably for the same reason that most fantasy novels have something of an
epic scope. It is much more difficult to create compelling entertainment
in which the scope is modest. A humble farmer who doesn't turn out to
save the Empire from Foozle is just, well, a humble farmer. If someone
wants to be a farmer, they'll play SimFarm or whatever. Not too many
games about that.
Would you take away Garrett's various Green Arrow Surplus[TM] equipment?
I think you'd lose a lot of gameplay there. If you're willing to buy
into magical tools, why not the rest of the setting? If you prefer a
technological hand waving explanation to a magical one (steampunk robots
vs. haunts) then that's just a matter of taste. Perhaps the use of the
fantastic is one of the reasons we have many more fantasy RPG's than
RPG's based in other settings (not that I wouldn't love to see Fallout 3,
btw).
There _is_ a genre of more-or-less-realistic games (Rainbow 6 and the
like) and many people enjoy playing them. The whole point of fantasy is
the ease in which it can capture the imagination, and tell a mythic
story. Sure, you could tell a story in which Garrett is trying to steal
back the parts of his father watch, which was taken from him by some
unjust king or the like, but for me, the thematic interaction between the
various larger-than-life factions in Thief was a key point of the story. It
made the game more involving for me; more compelling.
Kevin McGuire
: IMO, the deepest flaw in the undead in thief was that, though you could
: sneak by them (with some unpleasant exceptions) the didn't provide the same
: verbal feedback that the guards did, so you didn't really get the impression
: that you had skillfully slipped past them, you just figured that you had
: managed not to trip the AI response.
This is an excellent point. It would have been kind of cool if Garrett
had picked up an ability like the Stories-Bones-Tell spell from
Planescape:Torment. He would then be able to "hear" what the zombies are
really saying - "Mooooorrreee braaaaaiiinnssss..." or at least audio cues
that are more easily readible than the ones the zombies give in Thief.
: For example, you can sneak past zombies, with some difficulty, but you don't
: get a "what was that?" from a zombie. Standing around, they go "Urghhh."
: They hear you, they go "Arghhh." The decide to eat you, they go "Urghhh....
: Arghhh....." So people didn't realize that you could sneak by them, and
: just ran, using flash bombs, holy water, and fire arrows when necessary.
I confess that the first time through RTC I did go all out with the
offensive devices in the Cathedral proper. Could I have sneaked
through? Yes. I was _intending_ to sneak through. But when I was out
on the floor of the cathedral, I made a misstep, and when it seemed that
every undead beastie turned to look at me, I just plain lost it. I
panicked. I through every flash bomb I had, every holy water arrow I
had, and when the smoke cleared, I was still (to my amazement) alive. It
is a great game that can scare the hell out of you the way Thief did.
Luke Winikates
> I don't see the basis for this assumption. I think the way it would have
> turned out is:
>
> Thief without the undead and the Trickster=*different* plot.
To quote myself, "They could have substituted other things in to
fill the gaps, but whether the would have worked, as Mr. Boardman has said,
is pure conjecture." (not backing myself up with my own opinion, just
trying to point out that I thought of this).
I just think that the undead would have been better had they been handled
differently. I agree that they were far from perfect in the game, and I
agree to disagree with you on how far they would have had to go to fix them.
KaL
> > Considering all the board posts I have seen about Thief you are one of
the
> > few that liked the zombies and the undead.
>
> Probably true. But don't forget that people who are happy and satisfied
are
> much less likely to post than those who are unhappy and having "issues".
A valid point but I see lot's of people recommending games they think are
good and they ususally write what they think is good aswell as what is bad
about a game.
> > Most posters said that the undead were boring and they wanted more
thieving
> > missions so I have no idea where you got the idea that Thief wouldn't
have
> > been succesful without the undead.
>
> Well, I've always believed that a good story is a crucial factor in a
successful
> game. I've been proven wrong many many times recently, when lame-ass
no-plot
> games shift thousands of units, so I'll concede this point. :-)
Well in my case the story is half the game and I liked the story in Thief. I
just wish they would have left the undead out of it.
> > > Again, you should probably say "....detracted from what *I wanted*
Thief
> > to be about....". You can't deny that the themes of wild Woodsie magic
vs.
> > solid Hammerite technology were a central part of the game. I really
> > enjoyed the unfolding story, and believe that a game which was only
about
> > "...sneaking, stealth, and stealing (sł)..." would have
> > > been very flat.
> >
> > Wrong. I could tell you why you are wrong but other people have already
done
> > that.
>
> Aren't I allowed to have an opinion anymore? :-(
Yes you are. I just didn't see any reason restating arguments that several
other people have posted already
>
> The cool setting for Thief was partly why I enjoyed the game so much - it
would
> have been far less interesting without it. IMHO, as usual.
I agree the setting was great and it was indeed interesting.
>
> > There is nothing generic about Thief. They felt they had to throw in
some
> > undead just because it was an FPS. They were wrong as so many people
have
> > told them. You are an exception.
>
> Correct, there is nothing generic about Thief. That's why I loved the
game.
>
> But I never said that *Thief* was generic. I was talking about the
> setting/background/themes of a game.
> : THIEF = techno/fantasy world with undead = cool
> : Hypothetical game = generic, no-magic, medieval world = dull
Thief was indeed cool and the hypothetical game would indeed have been dull
but the point I was trying to make is this. Undead are a part of the world
in Thief but they played a greater role than they should have played in
Thief. In the demo of Thief 2 we have the Necromancers tower complete with a
magic book which I read. Two zombies pop up and scare the shit out of me. I
run away and leave them. The point is that Garret is a thief, not a hero
that enters dungeons and battles undead, that's not what he does. He steals
and in Thief he ends up saving the world from a mad god but he is an
accidental hero. He doesn't seek out danger actively.
>
> It seems that we both really loved the gameplay in Thief - creeping,
skulking,
> striking from the shadows. But we have differing opinions on the plot and
> story. You, perhaps, didn't enjoy the unrealistic and fantastical
elements ; I,
> OTOH, thought they were "tops".
>
> A matter of taste. Or lack thereof. <hehehe, just kidding old boy>
I enjoyed the plot and story very much and the fantastic elements enhanced
the game a great deal, I just couldn't see Garret entering crypts and
fighting undead. That wasn't him. It is a matter of taste. I never said that
zombies shouldn't exist nor that I didn't enjoy the setting of Thief, I
merely said that the zombies were out of place in a game which had a focus
on stealing, and later on the Trickster. The zombies weren't implemented
well in the game, thats all. I did enjoy all of the pure stealing missions
more than the other missions but that's just me.
KaL
Scotty
>
> To me the hatching frog eggs are the MOST realistically unbelievable elements.
I aggree, what really sold thier was it's differnat than Doom, quake,
Quake2 etc etc... some poeple don't want all this monster and futuristic
crap... thats ws sold Thief.. sure thier is a fewe people on here who
say "give us the undead and monsters, but 99.99999% of the people who
bought thief wanted it for realisim...
the monster, ghost lovers can play Half Life, Quake1-2-3, Unreal.
For once someone give us a old times game without all the crap magic,
undead killers... give us a Dark Ages game even a 1870-80's weatern...
Thief 1 Demo was so CLOSE .. I bought the game so excited... when I got
it home and played it, I was pissed.. even level one they had to put in
giant Spiders.. level 2 sucked in the first part....
I managed to deal with it and like what it did have.. level 3 sucked...
I mean I like monsters in games sometimes, but I bought the game cause I
thought it would be like the demo all the way through with tons of
mansions to steal from..
There is some good human made levels out there that are totally
great...
Thief 2 demo might be great for now, they give you realisum but, bet me
the skinny neard star trek seince fiction loving role playing geek
Looking Glass programmers will F**k the real thing all up for the adult
people who want a action game that is part simulator.
(spelling sorry)
scott
Claude Martins
>>
>>
>> To me the hatching frog eggs are the MOST realistically unbelievable elements.
>
> I aggree, what really sold thier was it's differnat than Doom, quake,
>Quake2 etc etc... some poeple don't want all this monster and futuristic
>crap... thats ws sold Thief.. sure thier is a fewe people on here who
>say "give us the undead and monsters, but 99.99999% of the people who
>bought thief wanted it for realisim...
> the monster, ghost lovers can play Half Life, Quake1-2-3, Unreal.
> For once someone give us a old times game without all the crap magic,
>undead killers... give us a Dark Ages game even a 1870-80's weatern...
[...]
Well, just in case Looking Glass is still scouring the groups for
opinions, I really enjoyed Thief's alternate universe. It was one
of the most compelling and well-realised creations I've seen in a
computer game. In my opinion, if LG had decided to just make it
a straight medieval thievery game, it would have lost the unique
storyline that made it interesting to me.
The only complaint I have with Thief 1 is not that there were
fantastical elements in it, but that certain ones seemed ill-
designed. Garrett isn't a fighter, he's someone who keeps to the
shadows, and having hordes of burricks to deal with doesn't
sound right.
- Claude.
--
--
Claude Martins / Timberwolf / ICQ: 5304950 / York U, Toronto, ON, CA
mar...@cs.yorku.ca / The Wolf Lair http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~martins/
"Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail us now!"
C B Brooks
HardCore
> >> raise their awareness level if they come across something out of
> >> place, like a knocked-over plate. In fact, the sentries will even
> >> relight any lamps Garrett has extinguished with a water arrow.
>
> Good!
...
> >When will game developers ever learn to keep it realistically believable?
>
> Good question. I figure part of it is the 3D technology development that
> _always_ pushes them to bite off more then they can chew. Water arrows are
> bad enough. So far Lord Ballford's Manor was realistic and part way into
> Cragscleft Prison has been realistic too -- less the zombies and electricity
> development. Somehow it sounds like it won't be getting any better then it
> has been.
What grabs you about Thief is realism; we've all hidden from people
and had them looking for us (hide & seek), and had to sneak; tapping
into that and into a set of skills you already have is the thrill.
Maybe the rest comes from trying to stretch that experience out over
10+ levels.
When they said they were going for human, sneaking levels in Thief II
it looked like they'd caught on to that but with that blasted gadgetry
maybe they haven't after all. I can only think one of these must be
true:
1. They've found that you can only do a few small levels in the raw,
thievish way before the player gets exhausted / bored, so they make
the levels larger and go in for a more Tomb Raider style, with the
gadgets making it possible for Garrett to take on bigger & more
varied
tasks.
2. They fear being too realistic, for having someone sue them when
Thief inspires someone to thieve in real life.
3. They don't really get it; Thief is just a different style FPS &
they can't suppress their desire to decorate it with cool gew gaws,
or they believe their audience is mostly kids and that's what
it has to be, to sell.
4. What they say is true, that since in real life people couldn't knock
over a whole palace, to keep doing so with realistically smart
guards,
you have to have unrealistic aids.
You can't argue with 1 or 2, but if 4 is the problem, giving Garrett
similarly realistic abilities would balance it. For example, let
Garrett
dress in enemy clothes, or use other disguises. Let him crawl. Let him
climb up a step or two on stone walls when that helps him get out of
the light (thinking of places in Assasins). Let one or two arrows kill,
no matter how aroused the guard is. Have him use sound better, pressing
his ear to doors, or have an on-screen arrow telling the direction &
distance of a sound (in real life you could tell, you just can't get
the effect directly through a computer). Use light effects, such as,
when someone steps from light to darkness, for a split second
they can't see well; Garrett could take advantage of that with guards,
to make small dashes. Also, darkish areas near a bright light
(I'm thinking of the outside halls in Bafford's Manor) would be harder
to see into than you might expect because the brightness of the light
makes the eye less sensitive for someone looking in that direction.
But in general I think they don't have to give up so soon on realism.
The new unrealistic helps just make the game go from one departure from
thiefliness (making it like Tomb Raider) to another (magical thieving
tools).
Either way takes it from the experience it could be.
Luke Winikates
"HardCore" <HCT...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:389CFB1B...@aol.com...
> What grabs you about Thief is realism; we've all hidden from people
> and had them looking for us (hide & seek), and had to sneak; tapping
> into that and into a set of skills you already have is the thrill.
> Maybe the rest comes from trying to stretch that experience out over
> 10+ levels.
You mean what grabs YOU about Thief is realism. What grabs me about Thief
is a unique style of gameplay, a strong, well presented story, and an
amazing sense of tension. I like realism in the way I interact with the
environment, not necessarily in the environment itself. (JMHO, of course)
>
> When they said they were going for human, sneaking levels in Thief II
> it looked like they'd caught on to that but with that blasted gadgetry
> maybe they haven't after all. I can only think one of these must be
> true:
The "blasted gadgetry" adds to the challenge, and, according to some of the
previews, only appears close to the endgame.
The security cameras warn guards about your presence, the big automatons are
more advanced guards, and they're a whole lot easire to get rid of than the
undead, because all you need to do is fire a water arrow at the boiler in
the back.
If the fact that this is *unrealistic* bothers you that much, don't buy the
game. Magic, necromancy and steam powered automatons are part of the Thief
universe. I hear Rogue Spear is realistic and requires stealth; maybe you
would like that more.
<snip>
> But in general I think they don't have to give up so soon on realism.
> The new unrealistic helps just make the game go from one departure from
> thiefliness (making it like Tomb Raider) to another (magical thieving
> tools).
>
> Either way takes it from the experience it could be.
IMO is an abbreviation for "In My Opinion." Sprinkling a few of those
through your post might make it seem less confrontational. For increased
effect, "IMHO" means "In My Humble Opinion."
In addition, read a few more previews. You don't seem be fully informed on
how the new stuff works, or that it exists, for that matter. Computer Games
Online ( www.cdmag.com ) has a fairly detailed two part preview that you
might find interesting.
C B Brooks
you all just shut up and go back to having fun/not having
fun/wanking/thieving or what ever you all do!
If you're going to say something please take a quick look to make sure it
hasn't been argued to death already... or at least try to make it a little
constructive
"Luke Winikates" wrote in message
Larris Magpie
> I like the first person camera angle BUT when Garrett looks down at his
>feet he should be able to see them.
It's a heritage from the System Shock and Ultima Underworld forebears
of the Dark Engine, I believe.
*rattling can with coins, singing calypso-style*
"I have no legs, I have no legs.
I have no legs, I have no legs"
Just thought I'd add my support to the "Let's keep the fantasy world,
and the undead can be really scary" faction in the thread, thereby
making it more vocal. Heh.
(oh, and the song was from the movie "Kids")
--
Larris "If darkness is merely the absence of light,
Like evil, they say, is the absence of love;
Why is it, then, that the gloom of the night
Feels more tangible and opaque than rays from above?"
Werner Arend
On 4 Feb 2000, Kevin McGuire wrote:
> I confess that the first time through RTC I did go all out with the
> offensive devices in the Cathedral proper. Could I have sneaked
> through? Yes. I was _intending_ to sneak through. But when I was out
> on the floor of the cathedral, I made a misstep, and when it seemed that
> every undead beastie turned to look at me, I just plain lost it. I
> panicked. I through every flash bomb I had, every holy water arrow I
> had, and when the smoke cleared, I was still (to my amazement) alive. It
> is a great game that can scare the hell out of you the way Thief did.
This happened to me, too, only I ran. One of the most satisfying moments
in the game was a bit later, when I was walking on those beams, and the
undead saw me and became angry, but couldn't get at me. Hehe.
Werner
Werner Arend
On 6 Feb 2000, Claude Martins wrote:
> Well, just in case Looking Glass is still scouring the groups for
> opinions, I really enjoyed Thief's alternate universe. It was one
> of the most compelling and well-realised creations I've seen in a
> computer game. In my opinion, if LG had decided to just make it
> a straight medieval thievery game, it would have lost the unique
> storyline that made it interesting to me.
I second that. Just in case.
Werner
KaL
Claude Martins <mar...@tiger.cs.yorku.ca> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:87irkv$r15$1...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca...
> In article <389CE0...@pop.abcs.com>, Scotty <kr...@abcs.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> To me the hatching frog eggs are the MOST realistically unbelievable
elements.
> >
> > I aggree, what really sold thier was it's differnat than Doom, quake,
> >Quake2 etc etc... some poeple don't want all this monster and futuristic
> >crap... thats ws sold Thief.. sure thier is a fewe people on here who
> >say "give us the undead and monsters, but 99.99999% of the people who
> >bought thief wanted it for realisim...
> > the monster, ghost lovers can play Half Life, Quake1-2-3, Unreal.
> > For once someone give us a old times game without all the crap magic,
> >undead killers... give us a Dark Ages game even a 1870-80's weatern...
>
> [...]
>
> opinions, I really enjoyed Thief's alternate universe. It was one
> of the most compelling and well-realised creations I've seen in a
> computer game. In my opinion, if LG had decided to just make it
> a straight medieval thievery game, it would have lost the unique
> storyline that made it interesting to me.
>
> fantastical elements in it, but that certain ones seemed ill-
> designed. Garrett isn't a fighter, he's someone who keeps to the
> shadows, and having hordes of burricks to deal with doesn't
> sound right.
And hordes of zombies are that much better?
Garrett is not a graverobber.When do you hear of thiefs going down into
dungeons to steal from the undead? That's a fighters job.
Jeff Jones
> And hordes of zombies are that much better?
> Garrett is not a graverobber.When do you hear of thiefs going down into
> dungeons to steal from the undead? That's a fighters job.
Amen. And I thought that the undead were being dropped from Thief 2!
jeff
Claude Martins
KaL <kalle.wa...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
>Claude Martins <mar...@tiger.cs.yorku.ca> skrev i
>diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:87irkv$r15$1...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca...
[...]
>> The only complaint I have with Thief 1 is not that there were
>> fantastical elements in it, but that certain ones seemed ill-
>> designed. Garrett isn't a fighter, he's someone who keeps to the
>> shadows, and having hordes of burricks to deal with doesn't
>> sound right.
>
>And hordes of zombies are that much better?
Yes, they were much better. See below.
>Garrett is not a graverobber.When do you hear of thiefs going down into
>dungeons to steal from the undead? That's a fighters job.
^^^^^
I do expect a thief to steal from the undead. A fighter would go in
hacking and slashing. The levels with undead in them usually had
enough shadows to make sneaking past the zombies much easier than
confronting them head-on. When facing the burricks, you were usually
in well-lit caverns (bloody mushrooms!), so avoiding them wasn't
an option.
- Claude.
--
--
Claude Martins / Timberwolf / ICQ: 5304950 / York U, Toronto, ON, CA
mar...@cs.yorku.ca / The Wolf Lair http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~martins/
NOTE : I do NOT use RemarQ's Usenet services due to their ad policy.
David Long
ROB in there. As in, "to steal" or "to take what is not yours". A thief
would steal from the undead, the guy down the street or maybe even his own
Grandmother if she had something valuable. What he wouldn't do is get
caught doing it so that he would never have to defend himself.
Your questions and answer make no sense.
--Dave
KaL <kalle.wa...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:eeZn4.8476$jg4....@nntpserver.swip.net...
> And hordes of zombies are that much better?
Luke Winikates
>
> jeff
They're a lot less common, but they make appearances, I'm sure. (e.g.
necromancer's tower)
Luke Winikates
"KaL" <kalle.wa...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:eeZn4.8476$jg4....@nntpserver.swip.net...
> And hordes of zombies are that much better?
> dungeons to steal from the undead? That's a fighter's job.
<sarcasm>Right, because people generally aren't willing to go through much
effort in order to get money.</s> If we had undead in this little corner of
the universe, people would be trying to steal from them.
Werner Arend
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Jeff Jones wrote:
> > And hordes of zombies are that much better?
> > Garrett is not a graverobber.When do you hear of thiefs going down into
> > dungeons to steal from the undead? That's a fighters job.
*sigh*. Why, oh why must people always stick to stereotypes. Please, try
to *imagine* being a thief for a change instead of using the good old
stereotype! If you can sneak around undead why not rob crypts? The
probability that there's no one at home there is quite high <g>.
Werner
C B Brooks
party!
"Werner Arend" <kii...@mail.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.100020...@commlink.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de.
..
Iguana
<879fnd$in$3...@uranium.btinternet.com>:
>Yep, that would be good. I liked sneaking down the dark
>streets
This may be getting off on a tangent, but...
I'll say that I haven't played the Thief2 demo yet, and haven't
played the original Thief either. However, I played the Thief
demo, and also played SystemShock 2.
What this engine and slow play style might be handy for is
perhaps a scenario like late 1800's London/Jack the Ripper type
atmosphere. A fairly modernized, though not fully 'modern',
dingy, industrial bad-side-of-town type atmosphere, would also
produce lots of places to hide.
In fact, this makes me think of a game that might be based in
such an area. If you can travel between levels at will (most
engines allow this, like Thief), then you could have a city, or
part of a city, where the player must explore many buildings.
Maybe the goal is to be sneaky, and sneak into buildings and
such collecting 'evidence' and finding hints toward who a
murderer is (like your character is a detective), and in the
end, you can 'capture' the suspect by knocking him out and tying
him up or such (variation on the end-boss theme-- he's not
invincible by any means, the challenge comes trying to catch him
alive). Since your character is a detective, instead of having
all the law behind him/her, the 'monsters' would be such things
as building guards, residents armed against a stranger, police,
muggers, etc, that such a person trying to gather hints against
people's will might run into. Like Thief, perhaps the goal is
to try to avoid killing them, and you could be penalized for
killing them, except perhaps with muggers and other such bad-
guys.
This style would also be non-linear. The game would also
probably have 'characters'--NPCs with names that you are
introduced to, or run into, and may have a brief talk with. One
of these NPCs would be the killer. You would have to find out
which it was, then capture them, then, after summoning the
police, if you don't have enough evidence to convince the
police, you lose.
The hints and proof could be scattered, and some of it be rather
random. Like, maybe there are 20 pieces of proof scattered
through town, but you only need 10 to convince the police, so it
is not necessary to catch them all. Some proofs and such could
be, say, triggered by something, and only exist for a set
reasonable amount of time before it is 'destroyed'. But, as the
player does not need everything to be convincing, this will not
cause the player to lose the game alone.
This sort of game would perhaps combine FPS with some adventure
in a reasonable manner.
Ok, I need to wake up now. Too much thinking of stuff that
doesn't exist :)
>Morgan.
>-----
--
Iguana
bufomax
/AT/ yahoo ***dot*** com
Kevin McGuire
: What this engine and slow play style might be handy for is
: atmosphere. A fairly modernized, though not fully 'modern',
: dingy, industrial bad-side-of-town type atmosphere, would also
: produce lots of places to hide.
<excellent idea snipped>
Yes, this would be a quite a cool game to play. For recent fiction, you
could look to Caleb Carr's The Alienist for a New York City
turn-of-the-century environment.
That would be very, very cool.