Captain Spandex on 14/4/2013 at 12:31
Quote Posted by Vae
You fail to understand the situation...There isn't any victimization, whatsoever.
Yeah, I don't understand the accusations of self-styled martyrdom.
Because we blew the whistle on Eidos Montréal attempting to silence detractors? That's to be expected when you ban otherwise creative and constructive members of the community for linking to a harmless petition.
It's completely uncalled for. But no one's being fitted for a crucifix or anything.
CloudOJD on 14/4/2013 at 12:33
Quote Posted by thiefessa
I thought the petition was to get them to change their minds, rather to repeat a question.
My bad. Sorry, what is the petition for and what is the question?
Are you really taking it literally? Not only that, but throughout the thread, it's been stated what the petition is for (sometimes in reply to you). It's in the title of the petition, as well.
Let me put it like this.
Us: Can we have Russell back?
Eidos: No, because motion capture.
Us: Can we have Russell back?
Eidos: No, because motion capture.
Us: Can we have Russell back?
Eidos: No, because motion capture.
Us: Why is your excuse laughable at best?
Eidos: Because motion capture.
Quote Posted by thiefessa
I gave you an answer; read everything Renz said, not just the bitch reference, and you'll understand. :)
I have. He's criticizing us. You're supporting it.
jtr7 on 14/4/2013 at 12:43
The petition has multiple purposes, but we've told you that. :smiley:
thiefessa on 14/4/2013 at 12:44
^
Introduction post requires an update then as the 'multiple purposes' isn't clear at all.
Quote Posted by CloudOJD
Let me put it like this.
Us: Can we have Russell back?
Eidos: No, because motion capture.
Us: Can we have Russell back?
Eidos: No, because motion capture.
I have. He's criticizing us. You're supporting it.
Okay, so the petition is to repeat a question. I've got it now. :thumb:
I agree with the salient points Renz said, yes.
Starker on 14/4/2013 at 14:15
Quote Posted by thiefessa
I agree with the salient points Renz said, yes.
And what would those be, exactly? That we are all hysterical, self entitled know-it-alls? Is that how you see us?
Has anyone here really wished the death of developers' children? Do you think we all are willing to go that far?
Tomi on 14/4/2013 at 14:25
Quote Posted by CloudOJD
And why not, exactly? These people define the characters they play.
Voice actors only provide the voice for a character, but we both know that a character is so much more than just the voice. Appearance, emotions, gestures, facial expressions, etc. Movie actors portrait the character as a whole, so I think that there's a pretty big difference. If the filmmakers had only changed Frodo's voice for the last LotR film, would it have ruined the whole movie experience or Frodo's character for you?
Quote:
Now look at this situation. LGS
made Thief. They didn't base it off a book that is free for anyone to make their own vision of it. They already defined the elements of Thief, and these elements were in there throughout the first three games. Stephen Russell is one of those elements that Eidos is changing. They are pretty much replacing the foundations that made the series what it is. (And it's not just Stephen Russell either. Take Hammerites and Pagans for example.)
Yeah, I get your point, and it's indeed a tricky situation. I'm not saying that Stephen Russell's voice isn't an important part of Garrett, of course not, he is
the Garrett voice for me as well. But is his absence enough to destroy the whole character
if many of the other characteristics remain the same? I don't think so.
For me, Garrett has always remained quite a mysterious character. Using your film comparison from before, the game gives the players the core elements (of Garrett), but the rest is up to the them to add and interpret. That's how I see it anyway. I don't really see Garrett as some kind of an anti-hero like a lot of people seem to do, but I guess that's because of how I play the game. Some people probably see Garrett as some ruthless thief who would mug old women on the streets and steal their valuables if he needed the money for something, but
my Garrett would never ever do such a thing. My Garrett could even save the next door neighbour's kitten from a tree, while someone else would see that as the ultimate desecration of Garrett's character. :p And that's cool, no one's wrong and no one's right, Garrett is what we make of him. As long as Garrett still remains somewhat mysterious in the new Thief, I'll be satisfied.
Quote:
Basically, what Eidos are doing is making a LotR movie in which there are no elves, dwarves, and the main character is Frodo, who is now an orc instead of a hobbit. It might as well be called something else entirely, if they're going to change so many things.
Well... I think you're exaggerating a little. :p (You do know that you won't
really be playing as a Burrick in '70s New York in Thief 4, right? ;)) Anyway, a LotR movie should follow the existing story in the book, but EM are making a new story for the new Thief game. Their own story. We don't know yet whether the Hammerites and Pagans (etc) are gone for good or not. If they are gone, perhaps there are good reasons for that. However, I agree that it would suck if they had all just disappeared without a trace and without any kind of an explanation.
Tomi on 14/4/2013 at 14:40
Quote Posted by Vae
Your . . . projections are nonconstructive and unwelcome.
Heh, when did
you become the forum police? You've mentioned it many times how you were being unfairly treated on the Eidos forum "only for having a differing opinion" (not a direct quote) or something, but here you are trying to silence Renz for having a differing opinion.
Quote:
it's called standards...
...double-standards, in this case.
I think Renz is pretty much spot on, by the way, even though he's obviously exaggerating (on purpose) in his post.
Quote:
"You fail to understand the situation..."
"If you understood the core design of THIEF..."
"...objective evaluation..."
"No, we're commenting constructively on what has been given."
It's a good thing we have True Thief fans like you here who know what Thief
really is all about then, unlike us casual fans who don't understand anything. :sweat: In all honesty, I think that your commenting is more destructive than constructive.
Starker on 14/4/2013 at 14:59
Quote Posted by Tomi
I think Renz is pretty much spot on, by the way, even though he's obviously exaggerating (on purpose) in his post.
Do you really think it's a fair description of everyone who doesn't like where EM is going with Thief?
thiefessa on 14/4/2013 at 15:02
^
You have taken things far too personally. No need.
Think objectively and not subjectively and you will understand. There's even humour in Renz's post.
Quote Posted by Starker
And what would those be, exactly? That we are all hysterical, self entitled know-it-alls? Is that how you see us?
Has anyone here really wished the death of developers' children? Do you think we all are willing to go that far?
Renz was referring to the twitter post and the imagined rude response. Maybe you genuinely don't get the subtlety (judging from your questions) - but he deliberately used hyperbole to say that this is pretty much what he reads from some of the most overly-vocal here. Hyperbole. I agree with this.
Honestly, I'm all up for explaining my posts... but it would help enormously if you try not to focus on the negative descriptives. The point is to look deeper into the glyph to see the true message behind it.
Starker on 14/4/2013 at 15:04
Quote Posted by thiefessa
^
You have taken things far too personally. No need.
Then stop taking what one person is saying and applying it to the whole group.
