Help! why don't I like Thief 2?
Gez
"Get Thief 2, its brilliant!"
£4.99 later here's.....Garret!
I played through the first mission and it was okay, but I cannot
seem to generate any enthusiasm to continue, I love the idea of
the game but it seems to fall a little flat somehow.
I tried to cleanse the palette with "Medal of Honour" but a staighter
piece of *liniality would be hard to find. (*possibly a made up word)
Am I doing anything wrong? Is there anything I can do to "jazz" things
up a little. Deus Ex at least seemed to provide at least 3-4 solutions
to any one problem, Thief seems just constantly refer to timing.
Greger Hoel
Thet sneaking in Deus Ex is *trivial* compared to the Thief series. In
Deus Ex, sneaking will help out some times, but in Thief sneaking is
what you do. Timing is a crucial tactic in Thief 2, but timing alone
won't get you far. You have to pay attention to your own visibilty -
ie use the light meter extensively and how much sound you make, all
the time.
And yeah, the fisrt Thief 2 mission is mediocre at best. It's moreso a
training mission for new taffers than a real mission. Trust me, it
gets a lot better :)
--
Greger
______________________________________________
What's up Chuck?
To email me, replace everything after @ with softhome.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Burgess
Hi Gez,
The first mission of T2 was very linear and purposely made a bit easier than
what I think you would find later on in the game. I think this was simply
designed to ease people into the controls and gameplay that may not have
played the prequel, Thief: The Dark Project or its tweaked version, Thief
Gold.
Believe me, the action picks up considerably as you get further into the
game--stick with it for a few missions and see if it doesn't grow on you!
I've played entirely through Deus Ex myself (several times for each mission
to try out various tactics) and liked it a lot, but I keep returning to
Thief (and the multitude of excellent fan-made missions) simply because the
challenge really is there. Many levels of Thief are designed in a very
non-linear fashion, and can have very different play to the game, depending
upon what routes or tactics you take. It's possible to replay any given
mission and use a more conservative or aggressive approach than the first
play-through, with the difference in overall experience depending upon your
approach.
Timing is important in Thief, but so is the plot and the overall feeling of
immersion and the total experience of exploration that is so much a part of
the Thief universe. If you find yourself liking the game after a bit more
experimentation, I'd recommend getting ahold of one of the above-mentioned
prequels (Thief Gold is preferable to TTDP, though) and run through the
"early years" of Garrett's experiences to put T2 more in perspective. I did
notice that DX was very heavy in the way of explicit plot (heavy handed IMO)
and scripted dialog, so it is definitely a slight change of venue when
crossing over to the more subtle but intricate Thief, which develops the
plot more indirectly, through discovery rather than raw exposition. But I'd
say overall Thief is deeper since you aren't spoon fed everything via
constant external communiques and overly long conversations like in DX.
Sometimes, after getting used to the way one game plays or after being
immersed in its own peculiar environment for so long, it can taint your
experience for new games, until you become immersed in *their* environment.
Stick with it a bit more and let us taffers know whether Thief works for you
or not. If you get stuck on any missions, a lot of people here will jump in
with clues.
Cheers,
- Steve
Mika Latokartano
"Gez" <gez...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bj5atl$943$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> Just finished "Deus Ex" and loved the sneaking. Everybody said
> "Get Thief 2, its brilliant!"
> £4.99 later here's.....Garret!
> I played through the first mission and it was okay, but I cannot
> seem to generate any enthusiasm to continue, I love the idea of
> the game but it seems to fall a little flat somehow.
Considering Thief 2 has a storyline that unfolds over 15 greatly varied
missions, of which you've only played the first one (which is supposed to be
more of an introductory mission anyway, a simple, short and sweet mission to
get you familiar with some basic playing skills, rather than a mission
closely tied to the main plot), don't you think that you should play the
game a bit further to see what it has to offer?
> I tried to cleanse the palette with "Medal of Honour" but a staighter
> piece of *liniality would be hard to find. (*possibly a made up word)
> Am I doing anything wrong? Is there anything I can do to "jazz" things
> up a little. Deus Ex at least seemed to provide at least 3-4 solutions
> to any one problem, Thief seems just constantly refer to timing.
Thief is a unique experience in its immersiveness and storytelling, and in
the way it allows for multiple approaches to most challenges. The gameplay
in Thief is highly emergent, meaning that complex, non-scripted situations
and game dynamics arise from the choises that you as the player make over
the course of the gameplay, and the way the world around you reacts to
things. This means a high replay value for missions, since although at the
end of the mission you've always accomplished certain goals, the process of
how you get there and what takes place during the mission is never quite the
same.
Timing is important in Thief, but only a fraction of what Thief is about.
Timing doesn't define Thief's gameplay.
You can choose to approach the objectives in various ways, and the tools and
the equipment that there are for you to use support your style of playing.
There are always several ways of achieving your goals. Thief is about
stealth, to the highest degree, and most Thief fans choose to remain
completely unnoticed, and even go as far as to self-enforce certain playing
rules that wouldn't be required by the game engine (Ghosting, for example).
If you like, you can choose to fight it out with the guards and the AIs, and
use deadly force (unless you play on Expert, which doesn't allow you to kill
anyone -- after all, you're a thief, not an assassin), but that's not quite
what Thief is about. Thief has a calmer, more reflective pace, so to speak,
but not the less intense for it -- quite the opposite.
Thief can and has been called an immersive simulation, an adventure and an
experience, with an anthropologically rich gameworld and a solid storyline.
It's radically different from most everything out there, even today. It's
especially different from most 3D shooters and action games. Like a good
book, reading the first few pages doesn't mean that you know the rest of the
book and what's going to take place. It keeps surprising you, offering
twists and turns and new and exciting things that make you want to turn that
page to see what comes next. Thief is like that. It requires you to put in
a little effort, but rewards you hugely for doing that. It's not instant
coffee, or a three-frame comic strip, but the real thing.
Then again, Thief may simply just not be your kind of a game. Still I'd
suggest you give it a couple of more missions before deciding.
- Mika L
SpammersDie
> "Get Thief 2, its brilliant!"
> £4.99 later here's.....Garret!
> I played through the first mission and it was okay, but I cannot
> seem to generate any enthusiasm to continue, I love the idea of
> the game but it seems to fall a little flat somehow.
"Running Interference" is a dud. Good example of why you shouldn't combine
basic training with the opening mission. It gets a lot better.
Thief _is_ stealth based so you won't get quite the variety of approaches
that Deus Ex offers but the missions aren't nearly as linear as "RI" would
lead you to think.
Vanguard
first mission *is* the training mission.
Stop killing everyone thus making the mission progressively easier to
complete. Some authors do spawn AIs but usually as an effect from some
trigger. They don't keep spawing more and more AIs to make up for the
ones you have killed.
If you're really brave, you could play in anti-stealth mode. Don't give
a damn about who sees you and end up running away alot. If you don't
alert them, the "pace" will be slow[er]. If you want to pick up the
pace, alert 'em. The reason you can avoid alerting them, unlike other
games where you have no concept of well you are hidden or you can't hide
at all, is why you can control the pace of the game.
After completing Thief 2, or even before then, you might want to
download Darkloader and play some of the fan missions. Some of them
have a quicker pace and are often far more difficult to keep from
getting injured or killed or to solve.
By the way, "linearity" is the word you were looking for; see
http://snurl.com/28m3.
--
____________________________________________________________
** Share with others. Post replies in the newsgroup.
** If present, remove all "-nix" from my email address.
____________________________________________________________
JJ (UK)
And as an antidote to the more serious response you've received so far, I
think you don't like Thief 2 because you're a freak of nature, you freak of
nature, you...
;-)
JJ (UK)
Gez
itself, I just expected it to "grab" me more quickly.
I should have said that normally I'm a RPG'er, so perhaps that's
part of the problem, it's unlike every other game I've played before.
Don't worry it's still on my drive so maybe I'll have another go at
it soon.
Rich 舶俺
Did you play with headphones on and lights off? Makes all the difference.
And yes, that first T2 level is dull... Try Thief 1 and Return to the
Cathedral for a real experience.
Steve Ashton
(not many, but it happens) you know what's going to have to be done from
the start, so yes it's pretty linear - except that it's up to you to
decide how to get from A to B, both in the plot and on the ground. It's
very rare for there to be only one way of getting anywhere or stealing
anything. I will admit that there is probably a better chance of
enjoying it if you have *some* thief in your soul :>
--
Anything not nailed down is mine;
Anything I can pry loose is not nailed down.
- Thinzad, Dwarf Cleric-Thief
miss calm
"Steve Ashton" <sjames...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Bzdib.27724$La.3402@fed1read02...
> Except for the few missions where your objectives change in mid-game
> (not many, but it happens) you know what's going to have to be done from
> the start, so yes it's pretty linear - except that it's up to you to
> decide how to get from A to B, both in the plot and on the ground. It's
> very rare for there to be only one way of getting anywhere or stealing
> anything. I will admit that there is probably a better chance of
> enjoying it if you have *some* thief in your soul :>
Thief: The Dark Project was a true classic even in literary terms. It was
sublimly better than Thief II.
Thief II is a big dissapointment for me and lacks real storylines. As you
say it is just a matter of finding your way around a map with little sense
of mystery or suspense.
The first two missions were extremly poor and were excused as 'learning' by
dropping the training course.
Of course the real reason was that the team were very poor in comparison
with the DP team and had lousy writers, also they leared on the job in the
early missions and we paid the price with poor gameplay. The architecture is
one of the biggest let-downs and interiors often resemble one of those 1930s
movies of clubs and clipjoints. The guards conversations are
one-dimensionmal and never reach the greatness of lines like "Here I am in
the cold and the dark...."
Where Thief II went wrong was to stick a whole lot of bits and pieves
together to make up a game. The Dark Project involved you deeply in a
mystery from the first moment you began playing.
But the biggest disapointment of all was the failure to build on the
intellectual capital of DP. I had hoped that inter-personal-character
relationships would be more meanigful and better developed. I knew that
would not be the case after taffing away for hours to release a girl from
imprisonment who never once even looked in my direction or said thanks.
I hope that III is going to be at least as good as Dark Project.
Greger Hoel
wrote:
>Thief: The Dark Project was a true classic even in literary terms.
No it wasn't. TDP was a computer game, not litterature. You may salute
an apple's greatness to kingdom come, yet it won't ever become an
orange.
>It was sublimly better than Thief II.
>Thief II is a big dissapointment for me and lacks real storylines. As you
>say it is just a matter of finding your way around a map with little sense
>of mystery or suspense.
Please do elaborate. Unless I've completely overlooked the essence of
the story in TDP, what you say here is complete rubbish.
>The first two missions were extremly poor and were excused as 'learning' by
>dropping the training course.
There was nothing "learning" about Shipping & Receiving. In fact, it's
probably the most popular original mission among the peeps here, TDP
included.
>Of course the real reason was that the team were very poor in comparison
>with the DP team and had lousy writers, also they leared on the job in the
>early missions and we paid the price with poor gameplay.
Where do you get this stuff from? I - as I suspect most sane people
will - fail to see how minimal staff changes in a big dev team can
make it go from great to "lousy." Most of the people who worked on T2
worked on TDP before that. In fact, they learned stealth-game
development in TDP, and we benefitted from it with better gameplay in
Thief 2.
Whenever we discuss the merits of TDP vs. T2 here, those who favour
TDP never - AFAIK - claim better gameplay in TDP.
>The architecture is one of the biggest let-downs and interiors often resemble one of those 1930s
>movies of clubs and clipjoints.
The inclusion of modernized fashion in dress, architecture, ,
decoration, etc. and modern 'appliances' like security cameras,
fighting mechs and widespread use of electric light, strongly
underlines the technological (r)evolution that's happened with the
coming of Karras & the Mechanists' reign.
>The guards conversations are
>one-dimensionmal and never reach the greatness of lines like "Here I am in
>the cold and the dark...."
LOL! Rubbish.
>Where Thief II went wrong was to stick a whole lot of bits and pieves
>together to make up a game. The Dark Project involved you deeply in a
>mystery from the first moment you began playing.
What mystery was that?
>But the biggest disapointment of all was the failure to build on the
>intellectual capital of DP. I had hoped that inter-personal-character
>relationships would be more meanigful and better developed. I knew that
>would not be the case after taffing away for hours to release a girl from
>imprisonment who never once even looked in my direction or said thanks.
?
Have you even played past the first two missions, or did your
technical ineptitude stop you from fixing the indeo codec problem
somewhere along the line?
Spud
<gre...@spamblock.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:50:12 +0100, "miss calm" <nos...@cat.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Thief: The Dark Project was a true classic even in literary terms.
>
>No it wasn't. TDP was a computer game, not litterature. You may salute
>an apple's greatness to kingdom come, yet it won't ever become an
>orange.
>
>>It was sublimly better than Thief II.
>>Thief II is a big dissapointment for me and lacks real storylines. As you
>>say it is just a matter of finding your way around a map with little sense
>>of mystery or suspense.
>
>Please do elaborate. Unless I've completely overlooked the essence of
>the story in TDP, what you say here is complete rubbish.
>
>>The first two missions were extremly poor and were excused as 'learning' by
>>dropping the training course.
>
And so on.....
Has Miss Calm been bitten by a infectious troll ? I think they are
both good, but prefer II because the bots are more fun than the
zombies and the textures are much better.
Spud
Mika Latokartano
"miss calm" <nos...@cat.net> wrote in message
news:bmkiu8$gb0$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Thief: The Dark Project was a true classic even in literary terms. It was
> sublimly better than Thief II.
While I do regard Thief TDP and Thief II: TMA something more than just
games, at the end of the day they are just games, not comparable to classic
literature. People seem to prefer one Thief over the other quite often
based on whether they prefer more supernatural elements, or less. I prefer
Thief II over Thief TDP, but consider both games brilliant.
> Thief II is a big dissapointment for me and lacks real storylines. As you
> say it is just a matter of finding your way around a map with little sense
> of mystery or suspense.
Of course you're titled to your opinion -- as anyone is -- but I completely
fail to understand how anyone could argue that Thief II doesn't offer
neither mystery nor suspense, or that taffing through the missions is just a
matter of finding your way around the map, as you put it. I just don't see
there are grounds for such claims.
> The first two missions were extremly poor and were excused as 'learning'
by
> dropping the training course.
I grant that the first mission is clearly an introduction or a refresher,
and doesn't score very high even on my scale (although I don't consider it a
failure by any measure), but I don't understand how the second mission,
Shipping...and Receiving, could be criticized as being "extremely poor". I
think it's a fantastic mission with great atmosphere, and one in which the
first hints of the storyline begin to unfold.
> Of course the real reason was that the team were very poor in comparison
> with the DP team and had lousy writers, also they leared on the job in the
> early missions and we paid the price with poor gameplay. The architecture
is
> one of the biggest let-downs and interiors often resemble one of those
1930s
> movies of clubs and clipjoints. The guards conversations are
> one-dimensionmal and never reach the greatness of lines like "Here I am in
> the cold and the dark...."
No offence, honestly, but I begin to doubt that we're even talking about the
same game here. I'm amazed that you should find the two games so radically
different from each other. I don't agree with your critique at all.
> Where Thief II went wrong was to stick a whole lot of bits and pieves
> together to make up a game. The Dark Project involved you deeply in a
> mystery from the first moment you began playing.
I thought that the role of the Mechanists and that of Karrass was well
played out. I certainly didn't get the impression that Thief II had been
put together from "bits and pieces". On the contrary, I thought that the
storyline progressed quite nicely. The ending was rushed, I grant that, but
apart from that I don't see that the two games differ all that much.
> I hope that III is going to be at least as good as Dark Project.
I hope it harks back more to The Metal Age and its take on thievery: going
against the living as opposed to all sorts of supernatural beings, and
emphasizing actual thievery more than adventuring in strange places. I
enjoyed Thief TDP, but have always felt that Thief II got more things right.
All things considered, at least there's some variety between the two games,
not simply rehashing of the same things and ideas.
- Mika
Paul Harris
> both good, but prefer II because the bots are more fun than the
> zombies and the textures are much better.
Both zombies and bots piss me off. I hope we don't have to suffer either of
them in T3.
BTW. I also prefer T2.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09/10/2003
Anders Thulin
> What mystery was that?
Thief I had a great advantage over Thief II -- it came first.
A Thief I player had to discover not only the game, but the
ideas behind the game: the different factions, the odd mixture of
hi- and lo-tech infrastructure of the city, as well as the
'gamecraft' and the psychology of Garrett. That is a major part
of Thief I, and it's something that passes by almost unnoticed.
Nothing like it in Thief II: the world is known, and what changes
there have been in game subject and game technique are comparatively
small. So Thief II does feel 'smaller' in that respect at least,
even though the game has a far larger world.
The fundaments of the stories are also quite different: perhaps
this is the real nub? Compare the heavies of the two games: The Trickster
on the one hand, and Karras on the other, a malevolent force of nature
on the one hand and a lisping head of the mechanists on
the other.
A good villain is an important part of a game. Karras was a bit
of disappointment in that respect: I was reminded more of Fu Manchu
than of ..., well, say, Norman Bates.
--
Anders Thulin a...@algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath
Mika Latokartano
"Paul Harris" <pa...@spam-me-and-diestudham74.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bmmlfj$2ps$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Both zombies and bots piss me off. I hope we don't have to suffer either
of
> them in T3.
I'm fine with the zombies and the other undead, just as long as they play
the niche part that they're best suited to play, in my opinion. They add to
the mood and belong in the world of Thief, but they are nowhere near as
interesting characters as humans are. The undead's range of emoting is
rather limited (yet agreeably effective), and they are relatively easy to
deal with. I much rather go against the living, but wouldn't want to do
away with the zombies, either. They belong in the world of Thief.
Bots, on the other hand, I've grown to love! Their soliloques are
brilliantly written, and I find them almost endearing, in a way, at least
the Children of Karras: "When I was very young, Karras took me away from the
foundry-mother and said "Thou art the child of my endeavours, follow me and
thou shalt inherit the earth."" , "I detest the tongue, and abhor the lips,
for lips and tongue can twist truth into lies. I am a child of Karras and no
lips or tongue have I.", "Blessed are the welded, for they will know the
Builder's love - the Builder's love - blessed are the welded."
That's just brilliant stuff! :)
- Mika L
Mika Latokartano
"Anders Thulin" <a...@algonet.se> wrote in message
news:7iBjb.29491$mU6....@newsb.telia.net...
> A good villain is an important part of a game. Karras was a bit
> of disappointment in that respect: I was reminded more of Fu Manchu
> than of ..., well, say, Norman Bates.
I always felt, and still do, that Karras was an ideal antagonist. He's
believable as a religious fanatic. To me, his voice paints a picture of a
man who's grown bitter and has isolated himself. Perhaps he was a former
Hammerite acolyte. He speaks with a lisp, and I always imagined that he
also might be physically frail, somehow 'different'. Because he wasn't like
the others, he might have been shunned by the other Hammerite acolytes, shut
out from the inner circles, left alone -- an outcast among his own. A
brilliant mind that grow bitter, and saw a way for his revenge in forming of
the Mechanist movement and appointing himself as the highest of that order,
a status that he was never able to reach with the Hammerites. In time he
began to believe in his own deception, believing that he was the Builder's
chosen one, perhaps at times believing he was the Builder himsef. Slowly,
but surely, his grip on reality began to slip, and finally he clearly lost
his mind.
In my opinion the character of Karrass couldn't have been written much
better. He has a real personality, and is certainly not a cardboard
villain. He's different and unpredictable, and I think it works perfectly.
- Mika L
Gez
Can I state (again) that I have now finished TMA and liked it alot.
What irked me initially was getting to grips with the gamma and controls
and the not so great 1st level.
I'd now put Thief 2 in my all time Top 10 games for several reasons
1, In this months PCGamer they talk about difficulty levels and Thief
gets it right in that it doesn't get harder as the game progresses but
instead
gets "wider" and more involved.
2, Some of the levels were perfection (Sheriffs/Masks etc) I would replay
these
over again.
3, Mood and atmosphere
4, Didn't really like the Zombies (too unreal) but the Robots were a great
idea.
I'd also say that Karras was a great villian in that he's obviously weak
physically,
but dangerous in mind and intent.
Paul Harris
> believable as a religious fanatic. To me, his voice paints a picture of a
> man who's grown bitter and has isolated himself.
To me, his voice paints a picture of a complete prat. Surely they could have
chosen a slightly less ridiculous voice???
miss calm
> > I always felt, and still do, that Karras was an ideal antagonist. He's
> > believable as a religious fanatic. To me, his voice paints a picture of
a
> > man who's grown bitter and has isolated himself.
>
> To me, his voice paints a picture of a complete prat. Surely they could
have
> chosen a slightly less ridiculous voice???
I think Karras was losely based on Richard III.
miss calm
"Mika Latokartano" <mika.lat...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:bmma93$c9$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
Thief II is still better in my mond than any other computer game tan DP. I
was disapointed academically with the game because I had hoped that it would
extend the boundaries.
>
Terry Pratchett
<mika.lat...@kolumbus.fi> writes
>
>Bots, on the other hand, I've grown to love! Their soliloques are
>brilliantly written, and I find them almost endearing, in a way, at least
>the Children of Karras: "When I was very young, Karras took me away from the
>foundry-mother and said "Thou art the child of my endeavours, follow me and
>thou shalt inherit the earth."" , "I detest the tongue, and abhor the lips,
>for lips and tongue can twist truth into lies. I am a child of Karras and no
>lips or tongue have I.", "Blessed are the welded, for they will know the
>Builder's love - the Builder's love - blessed are the welded."
>
intrigued when I heard those little catechisms in Karras' own voice.
Already you can see he's dangerously crazy.
--
Terry Pratchett
Terry Pratchett
<pa...@spam-me-and-diestudham74.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>
>
>To me, his voice paints a picture of a complete prat. Surely they could have
>chosen a slightly less ridiculous voice???
It's all down to associations.. To me the Trickster is just a pantomime
monster while Karras is a truly evil, manipulative, power-hungry little
sod in the mould of Hitler and his chums, or some of the more famous
Inquisitors. That prim little voice makes him all the more unpleasant.
--
Terry Pratchett
Anders Thulin
> "Anders Thulin" <a...@algonet.se> wrote in message
> news:7iBjb.29491$mU6....@newsb.telia.net...
>> A good villain is an important part of a game. Karras was a bit
>>of disappointment in that respect: I was reminded more of Fu Manchu
>>than of ..., well, say, Norman Bates.
>
> I always felt, and still do, that Karras was an ideal antagonist. He's
> believable as a religious fanatic.
Oh, yes. But a religious fanatic is not a threat, unless he has power.
In order to get that power, something more than fanaticism is needed,
I think. Karras makes sense as a fanatic ...
> also might be physically frail, somehow 'different'. Because he wasn't like
> the others, he might have been shunned by the other Hammerite acolytes, shut
> out from the inner circles, left alone -- an outcast among his own.
> [...] In time he
> began to believe in his own deception, believing that he was the Builder's
> chosen one, perhaps at times believing he was the Builder himsef. Slowly,
> but surely, his grip on reality began to slip, and finally he clearly lost
> his mind.
... and as a loner: if the story was about an ingenious madman who alone
threatened the Thief world out of revenge, I don't think I would
complain. But he is the leader of the Mechanists, a group large enough to
be a distinct threat to the Hammers, and strong enough to change the city
without being stopped. How did he end up in that position? He must have been
trusted, he must have been admired, he must have had the charisma and the cheek
of a Napoleon to recruit all these followers, to set all these projects
and building in motion, and end up where we find him, on the brink of
actually taking over. How did all that happen? Surely there is a story here
that 'makes' Karras?
This story is not told. The stories I can think up don't end with the
Karras I meet. Well, at least not so far...
Mark Morrison
<pa...@spam-me-and-diestudham74.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Has Miss Calm been bitten by a infectious troll ? I think they are
>> both good, but prefer II because the bots are more fun than the
>> zombies and the textures are much better.
>
>Both zombies and bots piss me off. I hope we don't have to suffer either of
>them in T3.
>
>BTW. I also prefer T2.
>
I liekd both of them, but in small doses, to add flavour or an extra
element of danger toi a mission.
I hate it when there's a pile of them in a level...
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Greger Hoel
wrote:
>Greger Hoel wrote:
>
>> What mystery was that?
>
> Thief I had a great advantage over Thief II -- it came first.
>A Thief I player had to discover not only the game, but the
>ideas behind the game: the different factions, the odd mixture of
>hi- and lo-tech infrastructure of the city, as well as the
>'gamecraft' and the psychology of Garrett. That is a major part
>of Thief I, and it's something that passes by almost unnoticed.
Sure, but that's not the same as "The Dark Project involved you deeply
in a mystery from the first moment you began playing," which is the
issue I was adressing.
> Nothing like it in Thief II: the world is known, and what changes
>there have been in game subject and game technique are comparatively
>small. So Thief II does feel 'smaller' in that respect at least,
>even though the game has a far larger world.
Actually, when I first played T2, I found it to have enough new things
about it to still keep it surprisingly fresh. OTOH, I didn't play T1
FMs until after I'd played T2, so YMMV.
Terry Pratchett
<a...@algonet.se> writes
>Mika Latokartano wrote:
>. How did he end up in that position? He must have been
>trusted, he must have been admired, he must have had the charisma and the cheek
>of a Napoleon to recruit all these followers, to set all these projects
>and building in motion, and end up where we find him, on the brink of
>actually taking over. How did all that happen? Surely there is a story here
>that 'makes' Karras?
>
> This story is not told. The stories I can think up don't end with the
>Karras I meet.
I can. He's risen by manipulating-- ruthlessly bullying those weaker
than himself, sucking up to those he can't bully until he's in a
position to blackmail them, setting factions against each other, finding
the 'natural' leaders and either bringing them down or suborning them to
his side and keeping files on *everybody* -- and all of this is so easy
to do in a hide-bound, vengeful, paranoid Church, where rooting out
heresy is a godly duty and mere accusation is enough proof. And so
people find it politic to be friends with Karras, and keep their
thoughts to themselves.
No one who knows him trusts Karras but they want him to think he can
trust them. The rank and file, on the other hand, take all the
propaganda at face value and are willing to die for him. He's willing
for them to die for him, too. History has seen many men like Karras.
--
Terry Pratchett
Anders Thulin
> I can. He's risen by manipulating-- ruthlessly bullying those weaker
> than himself, sucking up to those he can't bully until he's in a
> position to blackmail them, setting factions against each other, finding
> the 'natural' leaders and either bringing them down or suborning them to
> his side and keeping files on *everybody* -- and all of this is so easy
> to do in a hide-bound, vengeful, paranoid Church, where rooting out
> heresy is a godly duty and mere accusation is enough proof. And so
> people find it politic to be friends with Karras, and keep their
> thoughts to themselves.
That is one Karras. But it seems to be a Karras who doesn't need the
Mechanists -- he would just take over the Hammers. He wants power. But
the Mechanists need a reason for coming into being. If he was stopped
half-way up the ladder, the Mechanists might begin, but I can't
really see him attracting so many Hammers ... unless he was stopped
by very dubious means.
Another Karras is the clever mechanist, who believe his particular work
and studies to be supported by Hammer scriptures, but finds
that the Hammers decide it to be heretical, destroys it and
whatever scriptures he found important, and expels him. From there
the Mechanists can grow, based on his resentment against Hammers,
and half-remembered lines from the destroyed works, pushing
up Karras as the top man. This is Karras the slightly unhinged scientist
-- he can't be totally mad, or he would get no followers. I doubt, though,
that he could hold the Mechanists together: a small group of them, but
not the large organization I believe it is. This one needs some strong
'helpers' behind him who manipulate unseen.
Yet another is the religious Karras, who finds another reading of
the scriptures, and for that reason gets expelled. But this one
is not a mechanist, and so that part must come from somewhere else.
But he will be the type who can convince people that he is preaching
the right scripture.
... I feel I'm getting slightly silly. How many children *did* Lady
Macbeth have? And where was Watson's war wound?
Mika Latokartano
"Terry Pratchett" <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LI$3y$+y8Dk$EA...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
> No one who knows him trusts Karras but they want him to think he can
> trust them. The rank and file, on the other hand, take all the
> propaganda at face value and are willing to die for him. He's willing
> for them to die for him, too. History has seen many men like Karras.
Indeed. And despite Karras' physical frailties, he was strong in one area:
he was obviously technologically very talented. Such a skill, knowledge of
the new in the world of Thief, could be imagined to have given Karras just
the sort of impetus he'd have required in order to gain the interest and
leadership over the others. As Arthur C. Clarke put it, any sufficiently
advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Karras' technological
aptitude would've given him a way to manipulate the Hammerites, those who
joined his Mechanist movement, and even the population of the City by
instilling awe and even fear in them by presenting them with something they
could not understand. His knowledge would've seemed magical in the eyes of
the ranks.
His technical gifts to the City, its wealthier inhabitants and power
brokers, would've gained him admiration and influence among those who
control the City. By weaving his real technical skills into a form of a
religious scripture he further mystified the technology already largely
beyond the understanding of the people of the City. A clever trick, by
which he'd have been able to put the idea that perhaps his technological
knowledge was indeed the message from the Builder to Karras into the minds
of the people. People would've began to believe that Karras indeed was "the
mouthpiece of the Builder". It would also have been easy for him to control
the information that his followers have, to limit their knowledge of the new
technologies by allowing only the higher clergy, those loyal to him, to have
access to it, to the "Scriptures". As the people at large would've remained
ignorant of the technology, it would also have been easy to manipulate them.
Karras would've been seen as a benefactor by the wealthier inhabitants
because of his gifts to them. The City that benefitted from his gifts such
as the security machinery and the robots, would've remained indebted to him.
His closer circle would've seen the value in supporting Karras through the
benefits and higher living standards gained by it. To the lower ranks
Karras became an icon and a mysterious leader, and dissidents were severely
punished. In the eyes of dissatisfied Hammerites Karras' Mechanist movement
would've offered an opportunity for a change. Fed by the propaganda of the
Mechanists, the Hammerite order would've been weakened inside by creating
confict and seeding doubt among its members. Karras would've controlled
everything and everybody, either directly or indirectly.
Well, isn't this is fun :)
- Mika L
Gez
Graham Thurlwell
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:46:23 +0100, "Paul Harris"
> <pa...@spam-me-and-diestudham74.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Has Miss Calm been bitten by a infectious troll ? I think they are
> >> both good, but prefer II because the bots are more fun than the
> >> zombies and the textures are much better.
> >
> >Both zombies and bots piss me off. I hope we don't have to suffer either of
> >them in T3.
> >
> >BTW. I also prefer T2.
>
> No undead or robots in T3. Only hundreds of metalhead guards you
> can't knock out. Also, every floor is made of marble or metal plates
> and every room has Lost City style glow lights.
"Beware the dawn of the Glowlight Age!" ;-)
--
Graham Thurlwell.
Jades' First Encounters Site.
http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
Graham Thurlwell
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:46:23 +0100, "Paul Harris"
> <pa...@spam-me-and-diestudham74.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> >Both zombies and bots piss me off. I hope we don't have to suffer either of
> >them in T3.
> >
> >BTW. I also prefer T2.
> >
> I liekd both of them, but in small doses, to add flavour or an extra
> element of danger toi a mission.
>
> I hate it when there's a pile of them in a level...
The huge pile of canon bots in the last level of Theif 2 really got on
my nerves, and I still haven't got round to finishing it. If that
wasn't bad enough, they also unleash hordes more of them if you get
spotted by a camera. Probably my least favourite Thief level of all
time.
I don't actually mind zombies.
Mika Latokartano
"Graham Thurlwell" <ja...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:77e85843...@d.thurlwell.btopenworld.com...
> The huge pile of canon bots in the last level of Theif 2 really got on
> my nerves, and I still haven't got round to finishing it. If that
> wasn't bad enough, they also unleash hordes more of them if you get
> spotted by a camera. Probably my least favourite Thief level of all
> time.
Funny how people feel differently about some missions. I thought the final
mission was pretty interesting. Taking place in an industrial building it
wasn't aesthetically as pleasing or varied as some other missions, but in
terms of the gameplay I thought it was fun. The bots are easy to deal
with -- just be careful about choosing when to move, and when you do so in a
tricky spot, inch your way forward, crouched down. I never felt that the
final level was overly difficult by any means (playing on Expert). Just
don't rush forward, and things'll go just fine.
> I don't actually mind zombies.
I don't either, anymore. They used to really creep me out, but generally
they are as so easy to deal with as are the bots, or simply to avoid
altogether (ghost), that I don't mind them much. They seem to add a certain
whatsit to the mood, anyways.
- Mika L
Harri Hirvelä
> No undead or robots in T3. Only hundreds of metalhead guards you
> can't knock out. Also, every floor is made of marble or metal plates
> and every room has Lost City style glow lights.
>
Add doors that take minutes to lock-pick and thats it for me then.
Harri