SETTING: The City, or elsewhere?

[fbdbh]

And then we have to go deeper.

[zcapp96]

I have just three words to add........Thief: The Musical!!!!!!!!!!

[cGREGgo]

I read somewhere (forgot where now) that T4 will have a 70's New York style broadway atmosphere. I don't know if that's true or not, but it's easy to believe after viewing the concept artwork.

[contrarian]

I've said it a few times before, so I'll say it yet again. Stephen Russell was fabulous as Garrett, no doubt, but that chapter (the first trilogy) is done. Kaput. Over. In the can.

It's time to break new ground while not straying too far from the first two games. To say that Thief 4 will not be Thief without Russell...is naive, arrogant, misguided, superficial, wrong, etc. etc. etc.

True Fans just don't want more of the same old same old. If I came in and took over the project, I'd scrap it all, start over from square one, and make a prequel.

I see I am the only one putting forth serious plots, the rest are just wasting server space with notions like a musical, etc. and straying off topic. So, in an effort to put it back on topic, I will say again, YES, the city needs to be the dominant backdrop.

[tarvis79]

This has veered away from a discussion of the 4th game's setting, which is fine, but I see that someone voted to move the game somewhere new. I'm curious who did, and what they'd like to see instead of The City.

[Hamadriyad]

@contrarian

Could you please tell me why on the earth I want to play as a 12 years old kid instead of a master thief? What is good with that? There is a FM called "Garrett's Young Years" out there. Play it If you want to play as a kid so badly.
And please, don't say "true fans" every time you post. This is annoying.

[Platinumoxicity]

Originally Posted by contrarian

I've said it a few times before, so I'll say it yet again. Stephen Russell was fabulous as Garrett, no doubt, but that chapter (the first trilogy) is done. Kaput. Over. In the can.

Why? Really. Why? On what planet is it logical for someone to just decide the end of a series of something in an arbitrary point in the series, with absolutely nothing to justify it? You make no sense, and just thinking really hard about what your reasoning could be is enough to make ones head spin. Do you have some obsessive complusive disorder or something? That you can't accept the existence of things that appear in series smaller or larger than 3? That pure innovation is not only good, but takes priority over everything else and must be applied to everything, with the exception of preserving the notion that part of a series with the same title, with just as much devotion as in the attempts to change everything else previously established? Are you insane?

Yes you've said it a few times before. But you can't think about it, and you never have. Otherwise you would have a different opinion. You sound like you just want to repeat it as loud as you can so that you couldn't hear your own reason. The story isn't kaput, over or in the can. You just really, really, really want something to be in the way you want something to be, and have somehow convinced yourself that that's how things actually are.

Think about how crazy it sounds to want to change everything, but to insist that what you have is still called exactly what the original thing was called, despite the new thing having nothing in common with the original. If you don't want this game to be part of Thief, why is it that the game's affiliation to this series and the title are the only things you want to keep intact by all means necessary while wishing everything else to be different? You aren't fooling anyone with that "you true fans just want the same old always" rhetoric.

[contrarian]

HAMADRIYAD, in an effort to not be annoying, I will not use T#$% F&^ anymore. But it will still remain as my signature.

PLATINUMOXICITY, we must agree to disagree. I want the franchise to break new ground. I want a different protagonist. I still want The City, but I want less of it. I want most everything of the first three, just less of it--to make room for the new stuff.

EM won't prove anything by making Thief 2.5.

[Platinumoxicity]

Then your expectations are unrealistic because the changes you propose have no foundation. There's nothing that necessitates or even supports a change of protagonist. There's nothing that prevents the continuation of the story, on the contrary, there's the aftermath we haven't seen yet. And there's nothing that needs to be revealed, or even should be revealed in the time before the beginning because mysteries are sometimes better than knowing everything.

Frankly the only way for there to be a significant change in the story direction, would be out of necessity, if Stephen Russell couldn't play Garrett. The pathetic excuses, retcons and forced plot elements that would be used to outwrite Garrett would be excusable if it would be the only option. And looking at how he basically did half of the character voices in Skyrim, he is anywhere but gone from the videogame industry.

And as has been said, what you, or I or any of us wants is irrelevant. No matter how much you want Thief to be less Thief for it to suit your well defined and narrow wishes, that you self-depectively portray as open-mindedness to yourself while defining the opposite as purism to look down upon the rest, what you want to change is irrelevant.

Wouldn't it be better to wish for there to be the Thief we all love, but more on top, instead of what you suggested, less of the old and more of the... whatever as long as it's got nothing to do with the old? Wouldn't it be better to update, than to con customers to buy a different product under the same name? Or actually, wouldn't it be better to make something different and call it something different, rather than make something different and call it Thief for no reason?

[george12123]

HAMADRIYAD, in an effort to not be annoying, I will not use T#$% F&^ anymore. But it will still remain as my signature.

PLATINUMOXICITY, we must agree to disagree. I want the franchise to break new ground. I want a different protagonist. I still want The City, but I want less of it. I want most everything of the first three, just less of it--to make room for the new stuff.

EM won't prove anything by making Thief 2.5.

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.
We the many want Garett.
You the few want a new protagonist.

( for Star Trek reference

[BigBoss]

Originally Posted by contrarian

I will not use T#$% F&^ anymore. But it will still remain as my signature.

You must be mad jelly, bra

[Nightwynd]

Originally Posted by tarvis79

This has veered away from a discussion of the 4th game's setting, which is fine, but I see that someone voted to move the game somewhere new. I'm curious who did, and what they'd like to see instead of The City.

I haven't voted, but I could see T4 set not in the City.

If they [EM] need a fresh start, they could consider some other city. Wasn't Blackbrook the one the City was in war with? Should T4 take place there for instance, it would give an (maybe) interesting perspective to the City as we know it while taking place in the same universe.

Of course, the City as a setting is more than fine; there's still plenty to explore for us and the chance to revisit old sites is intriguing.

[Platinumoxicity]

DXHR was set in many places. US, China, Canada, Singapore. I don't see why Thief 4 couldn't have The City, Blackbrook, maybe some rural towns or mining settlements. etc. It would be cool to see the old guard towers of Cragscleft on a mountainside, looking up from the street of a mining village down in the valley, or to see the stone formations and mausoleum entrance decorations of the Bonehoard in the hills outside a rural village.

By the way, since TDS deliberately paid homage to the fan mission community by incuding The Golden Scales (from Thief2X), I don't see why Thief 4 couldn't do the same by having Lampfire Hills, or Sunnyport as mission locations.

[DarkDagger]

I think The City and its surroundings is the best choice.

[tarvis79]

I didn't quite phrase the poll correctly for my purposes. I wouldn't say another city in the same universe is too dramatic a shift; in fact, we've left The City a few times already (The Mage Towers, Into the Maw of Chaos, Trail of Blood, Precious Cargo). What I don't want to see is a full universe change, like setting Thief in the real world.

[contrarian]

Deep philosphical meanderings to follow:

There's a saying here in the USA: "Too big to fail." When we bailed out all these huge corporations because they were too big, too important, to let fall into bankruptcy.

I (surprise, surprise) adhere to the contrary view: If something gets too big to fail, if that something has so much power and influence that it would be a catastrophe if it failed, then it MUST and SHOULD fail. Nothing should ever get too big to fail. I also adhere to the principle that the cure for high prices IS high prices. Soon, when an item gets so expensive that no one wants it, the companies will be forced to lower the prices.

What's all this have to do with Thief? Listen up. There are people here who have the self-centered, arrogant view that Thief just wouldn't be the same without Garrett or the city. They launch huge attacks against any who oppose them, and then, as PLATINUM does, goes on to say, "Do you have some obsessive complusive disorder or something? Think about how crazy it sounds to want to change everything. Are you insane?"

These people then follow up with what they insist must happen in the storyline, and then add, "what you, or I or any of us wants is irrelevant."

This is thee very reason that Garrett must be written out, not used at all, or have a minor role. This is also why the city should have a starring role as the backdrop, but share it with another setting.


We must all respect others' viewpoints. I respect the purists who want the same old same old. I loved TDP and TMA. I'd know I'd love a Thief 2.5. But Looking Glass Studios was not built on following the same old formula and using the same old mold. No, they broke new ground with TDP, and that's why we're all here.

[fbdbh]

Originally Posted by contrarian

We must all respect others' viewpoints. I respect the purists who want the same old same old. I loved TDP and TMA. I'd know I'd love a Thief 2.5. But Looking Glass Studios was not built on following the same old formula and using the same old mold. No, they broke new ground with TDP, and that's why we're all here.

For a second, I thought I would agree. But let's consider:
- We don't know (or: we can't imagine) what direction would be so mindf.. blowing, that it can be a valid alternative to Garrett and same old same old. And still be called Thief.
- And then why call it Thief... TDP wasn't Ultima Underworld 3, nor King Arthur Stealth or stuff like that, it just evolved on its own, created its own myth. EM's job is to work with that. The Trilogy is already too big, any attempt to continue it, prequelize it, expand it... as you said, is a risky thing. No matter what, it will alienate many fans. They can't break (completely) new grounds since it will be something made intentinally under the main title 'Thief'.

[DJ Riff]

Originally Posted by contrarian

This is thee very reason that Garrett must be written out, not used at all, or have a minor role. This is also why the city should have a starring role as the backdrop, but share it with another setting.

We must all respect others' viewpoints. I respect the purists who want the same old same old. I loved TDP and TMA. I'd know I'd love a Thief 2.5. But Looking Glass Studios was not built on following the same old formula and using the same old mold. No, they broke new ground with TDP, and that's why we're all here.

Their Third Project matches exactly.

[DarkDagger]

@fbdbh Exactly. Making major changes isn't good for a continuation of any sort. Thief has some basis that shouldn't change, and my opinion is that Garrett is one of them. Prime example of a radical change is the fourth Indiana Jones movie...

[Hamadriyad]

I don't have any objections to a new protagonist actually. But not now. In Thief V, Thief VI maybe. (If they will ever be.) Thief IV needs Garrett, because now we have chance to see a Thief without prophicies, glyhps and such. And this is not the same old same old. Also I don't understad why the City will be the same old, since it has many unexplored areas and we don't even know how big the City is, what lies behind it. (travelig another cities would be nice though, but major setting must be the City.)
However, I strongely object to a prequel. What we'll do with a 12 years old kid? Or a 16-17 years old teenager. This is nothing but nonsense.

[contrarian]

Ok, ok. Never let it be said that I don't compromise.

I still want, demand a prequel. It's the best direction to go in. I will take back the part of Garrett being a young child and teenager.

Set the prequel directly before TDP. Don't be so naive that Garrett became Garrett in TDP. There's a heck of a lot of Garrett's backstory that needs to be explored before TDP and not much to explore of his story after TDS.

Now, if Garrett gets killed off in the second mission and the girl takes over, then I'd concede a sequel is the way to go.

Just say NO to Garrett as the protagonist for the entire game.

[Hamadriyad]

Originally Posted by contrarian

Set the prequel directly before TDP. Don't be so naive that Garrett became Garrett in TDP. There's a heck of a lot of Garrett's backstory that needs to be explored before TDP and not much to explore of his story after TDS.

Why everything should be revealed and how do you know exactly not much to explore of his story after TDS? I will answer (my second question )for you: You do not.

Originally Posted by contrarian

Now, if Garrett gets killed off in the second mission and the girl takes over, then I'd concede a sequel is the way to go.

Just say NO to Garrett as the protagonist for the entire game.

What? The girl? I am just glad you are not one of the devs.
I am beginning to think you are just messing with us. There is no other explanation what you said, other than you are out of your mind.

[BigBoss]

Originally Posted by contrarian

Deep philosphical meanderings to follow:

There's a saying here in the USA: "Too big to fail." When we bailed out all these huge corporations because they were too big, too important, to let fall into bankruptcy.

I (surprise, surprise) adhere to the contrary view: If something gets too big to fail, if that something has so much power and influence that it would be a catastrophe if it failed, then it MUST and SHOULD fail. Nothing should ever get too big to fail. I also adhere to the principle that the cure for high prices IS high prices. Soon, when an item gets so expensive that no one wants it, the companies will be forced to lower the prices.

I don't think you know anything about what actually happened.....

[Hungry Hungry Lilac]

Wait, I'm confused. Why would changing the protagonist be the only way for the series to break new ground?

I want to see both the City and Garrett again. The City is so fascinating in its corrupt, dirty, crime-ridden and all around horrible way. I think it would be very interesting to see how the City fares after all of what happened in Deadly Shadows because I like to think that having a huge, ugly immortal body-stealing... thing going on an open killing spree and a sudden glyph-shaped burst of light and an appearance of a big mysterious building appearing out of nowhere has SOME impact even in something as desentisized as the citizens of the City. And that was only the stuff that happened on the superficial level. But I also agree that it would be nice to also see some more of the world that surrounds the City at least in some ways.

[Platinumoxicity]

Nobody who insists on Thief 4 changing as much as possible realizes that the only reason to make a sequel is to capitalize on the success of a franchise, by catering to a customer base that already exists, instead of having to bring up something unique to popularity from the ground up.

It's insane to make a sequel that has so little to do with what it's supposedly a sequel of that it doesn't even make sense to have it under the same title. Because not only are you guranteeing the elimination of the customers who aldeady don't like the franchise by falsely releasing a game under that name, but you are also eliminating the fans who see through the deception, and the people who decide not to buy because of the negativity it recieves because of the opinions of those who know what they are reviewing. It's suicide for the product. Why not just try to make something good that people already expect to be good, and are lining around the block to buy

Originally Posted by contrarian

No, they broke new ground with TDP, and that's why we're all here.

You just don't understand that new doesn't mean good. TDP wasn't good because it was revolutionary. Sure it was revolutionary, but it was good because it was good. It's ridiculous to change something for the sake of changing it. Ion Storm already tried to improve upon Thief, and they failed in almost every aspect. So much so that it makes one wonder if they wanted change for the sake of change too.

The reason why Half-Life 2 is so similar to Half-Life is that Valve figured out what people liked about it. They couldn't improve on perfection. So they left the unimprovable aspects entirely intact with no changes whatsoever. In the case of Half-Life, it was the control. Both the games play in identical way because you simply can't make the system better. If Valve would try to "revolutionize" the game, it could only get worse, because revolutionization would mean that there would have to be some change. Whichever direction you step on the top of a mountain, you're going downhill.

Removing any of the aspects that people love about Thief translates directly to making things worse. Want change? Add something new that people would like too. That's what Valve did. With Havok and the gravity gun. I wonder why Half-Life 2 is always in the top 10 of best games ever made?