Garrett is not a role model....he must Die - CLOSED upon request.

[contrarian]

I'm not sure what you mean about my stances.

My stance on Garrett: He is evil. And I back that up by the way I play the game. I kill everything. I become evil. I get satisfaction from sneaking into the room of an innocent groundskeeper, raising my sword high above my head, and murdering him as he sleeps. I, of course, loot the room as any true thief would.

But, as we know, good triumphs over evil. Garrett must die both for the message he sends: Burglary, theft, and all-in-all lawlessness will get you ahead in life--as well as, he must die to breathe new life into the stagnating franchise.

My stance on ghosters is that they are thoroughly bored with the game and have sought to pervert it to their own style by adding artificial difficulty--even going so far as to say that is how Garrett would act if he were a real person. It's blasphemy!

There is no conflict, just pure logic. Garrett is no boy scout. LGS studios does not penalize me for killing, so therefore, it must concluded that killing is acceptable.

[Jace_Auditore]

Originally Posted by contrarian

He is evil

So evil he saved the world three times.
I wish more evil people were like him.

[Hamadriyad]

Originally Posted by contrarian

Don't bore me, Eidos.

Don't bore us contrarian.

[Yaphy]

Originally Posted by contrarian

I'm not sure what you mean about my stances.

My stance on Garrett: He is evil. And I back that up by the way I play the game. I kill everything. I become evil. I get satisfaction from sneaking into the room of an innocent groundskeeper, raising my sword high above my head, and murdering him as he sleeps. I, of course, loot the room as any true thief would.

But, as we know, good triumphs over evil. Garrett must die both for the message he sends: Burglary, theft, and all-in-all lawlessness will get you ahead in life--as well as, he must die to breathe new life into the stagnating franchise.

My stance on ghosters is that they are thoroughly bored with the game and have sought to pervert it to their own style by adding artificial difficulty--even going so far as to say that is how Garrett would act if he were a real person. It's blasphemy!

There is no conflict, just pure logic. Garrett is no boy scout. LGS studios does not penalize me for killing, so therefore, it must concluded that killing is acceptable.

Oh, I understand. Thank you for clarifying. I thought you somehow was against being the evil character yet chose to play like it. But you are right in the case that Garrett is not a good guy. He is not even arguably good for stealing; he is no Robin Hood. He steals from the rich and gives to himself.

But don't you think that flat out killing him of is the best way to show some sort of message? There should be some other way.
The City is in itself a way to show life for how it is in the real world. The city doesn't care for how the people got rich, powerful or important. Garrett is not the only rotten guy in The City. What about them?

If Garrett is the one that should be identified as evil. Then who is supposed to be identified as good? It is certainly not the people he robs. It's not the corrupt city guard. It's not the Hammerites, Mechanists, or Keepers. Maybe the Pagans? Bringing down The City and letting nature back might be good? But the only real "good guys" would be the residents with no ill intentions. Hard working people going about their lives trying to feed family and caring about other.

That is how I want to show morals of the story. Show us more of the simple citizens. Those that doesn't only provide for themselves. Those that trough a corrupt and evil city; tries their best to make it a little better. Then we don't have to bring Garrett down by killing him or anything else for that matter. By showing these people caring for others we will see that Garrett doesn't need to be struck down as the bad guy. He already is at rock bottom.

[Jace_Auditore]

Originally Posted by Yaphy

If Garrett is the one that should be identified as evil. Then who is supposed to be identified as good? It is certainly not the people he robs. It's not the corrupt city guard. It's not the Hammerites, Mechanists, or Keepers. Maybe the Pagans? Bringing down The City and letting nature back might be good?

In well written mature fiction,there is no good and evil,only different perspectives.
Take Assassins Creed 1,for example.In that game,the templars do horrible things to people,but only becouse they want to make a new world where everything is peacefull and everyone is happy,at the cost of free will.
Assassins want a world where humanity is completly free,with everything bad that comes with that(total freedom is not very different to total chaos).And their way of doing this is killing people who they consider is bad.
No "good guys" or "bad guys",just different opinions.

[Nitrobacter]

I truly believe if Garrett meets a dramatic/romantic death (at the hands of a woman) and the woman becomes the main character, then the Thief franchise will soar to new heights.

It's very funny u think the good should defeat the evil and this by killing the (anti)hero of the game? And then the game should go on as the murder? So the girl that kills a people and steals herself is "good"?

My stance on Garrett: He is evil. And I back that up by the way I play the game. I kill everything.

Now, if you people can even make the tiniest excuse for Garrett's behavior, then you are no better than he is...no better than a common, law-breaking Thief....you are on the same level. I'm sorry , but I never want be your friend in real life.

Doesn't the way we play a game show how we are? More than the way we excuse the behavior i would say...
I played the game without killing anybody i could let alive...


And in the name of the publisher: U can earn more with a Character that is alive for a sequel.

In my opinion its of course very dramatic if not epic to kill the main character of a game but pls do it in a game without a more or less loved (anti)hero who has survived 3 other games...

[Yaphy]

Originally Posted by Jace_Auditore

In well written mature fiction,there is no good and evil,only different perspectives.
Take Assassins Creed 1,for example.In that game,the templars do horrible things to people,but only becouse they want to make a new world where everything is peacefull and everyone is happy,at the cost of free will.
Assassins want a world where humanity is completly free,with everything bad that comes with that(total freedom is not very different to total chaos).And their way of doing this is killing people who they consider is bad.
No "good guys" or "bad guys",just different opinions.

I really dislike this way of thinking. You are indeed right that there are different opinions and the people that act on the opinions all see themselves as the good guys. All the holy wars fought because people think they are right and other people are wrong. But it doesn't have to be that complicated.

Killing people that you consider bad is precisely the problem. Killing people that doesn't agree with you is making you the bad guy. Even though Garrett is a subject of his surroundings and his lifestyle was forced upon him he will always be responsible for his actions just like everyone else. The world is not fair. Deal with it. I'm sure that a lot of people in The City is treated as badly if not worse than Garrett. They have as well been forced to the life they have. Life is not fair. But there should be good people in The City just as there are in real life. People that live in the worst cities on earth can still and are still, caring about other people. Those are the good people.

Can anyone honestly say that Garrett is a happy person? Is he enjoying his life. All we see is his "work" and fight for survival. That is how it should remain. If Garrett was to meet the love of his life and live happily ever after, then that would be bad morals of the story. Who would ever like Garrett? As long as he lives as he lives and does what he does, he should always remain miserable. Killing him would just put him out of his misery. Other people in The City have even less than Garrett does and they have happy moments because they care for others and others care for them. That is what Garrett is lacking. That is what I want to see more of in Thief 4. Show us more of the ordinary struggling people of The City. We don't need to kill of Garrett to make a point about his poor lifestyle. Just show us that sometimes. Not always, but sometimes; less is more.

[larix]

Originally Posted by contrarian

Good must triumph over evil. It is the way of things.

BORING, that's exactly what is boring with all movies and games. Why the would you want that in thief? Thief is about stealing, sneaking, knocking/killing. If you think that is going to have bad influence on children... then please HIT YOURSELF IN HEAD, kthx. It is parents responsibility to educate children and choose what they play. Other people shouldn't be punished with bad, boring games just because there is crapton of bad parents out there, its their responsibility not studios/producers.

Originally Posted by contrarian

I'm not sure what you mean about my stances.
I kill everything. I become evil. I get satisfaction from sneaking into the room of an innocent groundskeeper, raising my sword high above my head, and murdering him as he sleeps.

Sounds like personal problem to me.

Originally Posted by contrarian

But, as we know, good triumphs over evil. Garrett must die both for the message he sends: Burglary, theft, and all-in-all lawlessness will get you ahead in life--as well as, he must die to breathe new life into the stagnating franchise.

B, Its game and its supposed to be fun, go look elsewhere for moral education. Church as much as I loath it, seems like a good place.

Originally Posted by contrarian

My stance on ghosters is that they are thoroughly bored with the game and have sought to pervert it to their own style by adding artificial difficulty.

Or we just find that more fun way to play.

Originally Posted by contrarian

There is no conflict, just pure logic. Garrett is no boy scout. LGS studios does not penalize me for killing, so therefore, it must concluded that killing is acceptable.

They leave you choice how you want to play, if there was penalty for killing, then it would not be choice, since killing would be sub optimal - many people likes to play optimally. Also killing in thief as we all know has its advantages and disadvantages.


Also as I said already, I wouldn't mind including additional characters to the game, but flat out killing Garret, especially in "romantic way" sounds so much b, go watch cheap Hollywood movies for that

[Hypevosa]

I just love how he states he wants something revolutionary and then has the terrifyingly old and worn out good vs evil cliche going on here.

[negative_len]

As an enthusiastic fan of fiction, it disturbs me how often the good guys and the side of pure moral right tend to defeat the representatives of evil. This is highly unrealistic. In real life, the forces of evil always win. And they win because the two never come into direct confrontation. The forces of evil lord over our every moment, controlling and choosing for us even the ways we can rebel against them. They sap the life from us, shifting us from one predetermined social system to another as our years drain up. They distract us with fiction where "good" and "evil" are clear-cut and exaggerated stereotypes, all the better to mask the gray-shaded evil of reality that lies like a cloud over our own lives.

None of the factions in Thief are inherently evil: they are all equally insane, attempting to press their draconian and unsubstantiated beliefs on the universe for no reason other than that that's what they've been taught to do. We are forced to work with or for them because there are no alternatives. As in real life, we are locked on a single course with minimal options. We can walk here and hide in the shadows and pick up this moss arrow, but we cannot change the course of our own lives, which has already been decided for us by others.

I applaud the Thief series for giving an opportunity to be immersed in a fantasy universe where morals are as ambiguous and inscrutable as in reality, and where the best way the protagonist can find to succeed in life is to steal the table scraps of those who were born wealthy or themselves schemed and stole to accumulate wealth from the work of others. And even in Garrett's glory, having made away with much of the accumulated riches of an entire, boundless city, Garrett is, like us, forever penniless, himself the victim of a system that each month robs him of every stolen cent, no matter how great his triumphs or how low he had to stoop to get them.

[DJ Riff]

Originally Posted by negative_len

As an enthusiastic fan of fiction, it disturbs me how often the good guys and the side of pure moral right tend to defeat the representatives of evil. This is highly unrealistic.

It's realistic because the winners usually portray themselves as good. If you perceive the fiction not as an "absolute truth", but as it was written by the victorious side, you'll get more accurate picture.

[Tryst]

Originally Posted by contrarian

Now, if you people can even make the tiniest excuse for Garrett's behavior, then you are no better than he is...no better than a common, law-breaking Thief....you are on the same level. I'm sorry , but I never want be your friend in real life.

Damn... Maybe for the sake of my conscience I should hand in my SIA license then and quit being a security guard. YES, that IS my full time job.

OK, how about we go back to the game, better still right back to the beginning. You pick up a game off the shelf that bears the title of THIEF. I guess you must be one of those who immediately think this is a "My Little Pony" spin off or maybe another Super Mario game despite the obvious clue in the title.

Apart from the universal answer: "It's a game FFS."
We have many people who often cheer on the villain in a movie even though it's a foregone conclusion that they'll get caught in the end. I think the film "Swordfish" allowed both the villain and his female sidekick to walk away without being caught but that was an exception but I digress. There have been more than a few films and even games where the villain has been the main character. Thief is no exception to that and Garrett is only as evil as the player wishes him to be. If you want to go around killing everyone, that's your choice as a player. If you want to ghost the entire game, that's your choice too. To be honest, if you ghost it then you have no need to restock on anything except maybe a few water arrows, so money is not as important. Yes, Garrett would have to eat and pay rent in real life but the game doesn't require that.

In the end, it boils down to how the player wishes to play it as to how evil Garrett really is. Also, morality does not count for s**t in a game or first person shooters like Farcy, Crysis, Fallout and Deus Ex and so on, wouldn't exist at all. Who is more evil? The man who pinches a few items to feed and clothe himself or the man who guns down people for fun?

[contrarian]

So, the concensus is that Garrett should not die. I'm in the minority.

What would you say then if there was some sort of redemption on his part? That, after all , is the tried and true formula for a successful story. Darth Vader, The Grinch, Ebeneezer Scrooge, Shawshank, etc.

I truly do not want Garrett as the main character in Thief 4. I honestly want Eidos to come to the table with something new. This is the crux of my position. He has zero redeeming factors. I can't identify with him and am forced to do evil deeds and then get rewarded. If I become confused and irritated at this, imagine the young impressionables.

If Garrett is too sacred to die, then redeem him. If I am to play as him, then I want extreme conflict within him. I want him to hate every job he does. I want him to "eliminate" those that force him to steal. I want him to right the wrongs of the City. I want him to resteal some of the items he stole and return them to their rightful owners.

Eidos, I'm going to be very, very, very displeased with you if you make a Thief 2.5. I'll still buy it and like it, but I'm not going to be happy about it...and I like to be happy.

[DarkDagger]

I can imagine contrarian in his room playing Thief and crying over the evil character he is playing... sad days indeed... I say we kill the bas***d.

[negative_len]

Maybe contrarian is on the Eidos Montreal staff and this is their way of easing us into the new game mechanics.

[larix]

Originally Posted by contrarian

What would you say then if there was some sort of redemption on his part? That, after all , is the tried and true formula for a successful story. Darth Vader, The Grinch, Ebeneezer Scrooge, Shawshank, etc.

I truly do not want Garrett as the main character in Thief 4. I honestly want Eidos to come to the table with something new. This is the crux of my position. He has zero redeeming factors. I can't identify with him and am forced to do evil deeds and then get rewarded. If I become confused and irritated at this, imagine the young impressionables.

If Garrett is too sacred to die, then redeem him. If I am to play as him, then I want extreme conflict within him. I want him to hate every job he does. I want him to "eliminate" those that force him to steal. I want him to right the wrongs of the City. I want him to resteal some of the items he stole and return them to their rightful owners.

Why do you want to ruin completely fine franchise? Things you say doesn't make sense, also you are not reading responses to your posts. Again, it is not game creators responsibility for "youth", its their parents.

[Viktoria]

Originally Posted by Tryst

You pick up a game off the shelf that bears the title of THIEF.

This.

I guess contrarian should propose a change of game title too?

[joseywales1027]

^how about "Redemption of the Thief".........nah to cliche.

[Yaphy]

Originally Posted by Tryst

You pick up a game off the shelf that bears the title of THIEF. I guess you must be one of those who immediately think this is a "My Little Pony" spin off...

Originally Posted by Viktoria

I guess contrarian should propose a change of game title too?

Hint hint.

[larix]

Originally Posted by Tryst

OK, how about we go back to the game, better still right back to the beginning. You pick up a game off the shelf that bears the title of THIEF

How about "Thief - Rainbow Assault on Shiny Time Station"

[AlexOfSpades]

[contrarian]

As you know, I am the leading proponent of a PREquel with a young Garrett. However, seeing that that is unlikely to happen, I must follow a different path.

If I made the decisions. If was the Project Manager and called all the shots, here's what I'd do.

Mission #1 -- 15 years after TDS: The Girl at the end of TDS is under the tutelage of Garrett. This mission acquaints us with her and establishes their relationship. Garrett is passing the torch.

Mission #2: They embark on a cooperative mission (ala Leon and Ashley in Resident Evil)

Mission #3: On another cooperative thievery mission, Garrett and The Girl barely succeed with their lives. This foreshadows imminent doom.

Mission #4: Garrett and the Girl face insurmountable odds and Garrett sacrfices himself to save the girl. Garrett dies so that she may live.

The rest of the game you play as the girl. Sure, there are missions in which she gets to steal and lurk in the shadows and do everything we are used to with the first 3 games; however, the majority of the game is about the Girl seeking justice and avenging her mentor's death. The game draws moderately on the formulaic success of Assassin's Creed.


Thief: Vendetta

You know what? That game would be a contender for Game of the Year.

[fbdbh]

Also, Mario is evil. From now on, we play as the princess.

[negative_len]

Originally Posted by contrarian

Sure, there are missions in which she gets to steal and lurk in the shadows and do everything we are used to with the first 3 games; however, the majority of the game is about the Girl seeking justice and avenging her mentor's death.

If she is allowed access to the same weaponry Garrett had access to, surely your homicidal urges will pop up again.

It makes more sense for the game to take place from the standpoint of one of the many merchants or killers Garrett has robbed -- you can recruit guards and determine their patrol patterns, choose hiding places for valuable loot, write journal entries to disperse around the house, and walk around muttering.

[Yaphy]

Originally Posted by contrarian

As you know, I am the leading proponent of a PREquel with a young Garrett. However, seeing that that is unlikely to happen, I must follow a different path.

If I made the decisions. If was the Project Manager and called all the shots, here's what I'd do.

Mission #1 -- 15 years after TDS: The Girl at the end of TDS is under the tutelage of Garrett. This mission acquaints us with her and establishes their relationship. Garrett is passing the torch.

Mission #2: They embark on a cooperative mission (ala Leon and Ashley in Resident Evil)

Mission #3: On another cooperative thievery mission, Garrett and The Girl barely succeed with their lives. This foreshadows imminent doom.

Mission #4: Garrett and the Girl face insurmountable odds and Garrett sacrfices himself to save the girl. Garrett dies so that she may live.

The rest of the game you play as the girl. Sure, there are missions in which she gets to steal and lurk in the shadows and do everything we are used to with the first 3 games; however, the majority of the game is about the Girl seeking justice and avenging her mentor's death. The game draws moderately on the formulaic success of Assassin's Creed.


Thief: Vendetta

You know what? That game would be a contender for Game of the Year.

Well, the story competition that Eidos Montreal have to beat is not very high. They will come up with something better, but that isn't saying much.