str8g8 on 17/1/2005 at 17:08

---

I'm glad you brought up Randy's quote, because one of the other things I don't like about Doc_Brown's layout (sorry!) is that it makes the City very unbalanced, with only Auldale and Eastport now on the right bank of the River. I understand that it was an attempt to make South Quarter more central re G's comment, but surely that's a rather thin argument - for instance South Quarter doesn't have to be the exact geometric centre of the City, just the spiritual or emotional crentre (ie the point at which it was founded).

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v398/Doc_Brown/Miscellaneous/Crapmap.jpg) Doc_Brown's map

To me, Doc_Brown's river doesn't "split the city in 2", it goes down one side.

And in context,



ie, the River is only alluded to in cryptic ways (like the keeper/grotto map!) which is why everyone missed it at first.

Going back to the observation that the river in the ThiefDS map looks bigger than the one in keeper/grotto map, I really don't think too much store can put in this; for a start, it looks as though the width of the River in the new map is determined solely by the old illustration which they clearly based it on!

cheers
str8g8

Mugla on 17/1/2005 at 22:01

---

I've always thought that the City never ended into the few districts that were referred to; it continued atleast 2.5 times northward from T3 map, atleast once the current width to the east and atleast half to the west.

Anyways, as I look backwards a bit, I think that's it;
We've gathered all the material there is, we've made the possible solutions (around 2 and half) and we've debated on them arduously.
All that is left is to decide where to 'bend the rules'... Do we alter minor canon material (ex. flip compass) or go against strong suggestion (ex. SQ center of the City)? Then to gather all the evidence and decisions into one post for all to see...

What do you think?

Mugla on 18/1/2005 at 12:05

---

Also I noticed from that map that;
-G.'s tenement is again in SQ ('if' we consider that Ambush! took place around New Market... So basically that T2 market place would come between T3 SQ and Docks (perhaps the canals there were the 'octopus'? :laff: ).
-This way the New Market could be an extension to the 'old' Stone Market, kindof a middle ground between the Docks and Stonemarket?
-And then there is the Shalebridge Street (Ambush! -map, right side), that now would line in with going on the west bank of the River, turning inland through Stone Market/New Market towards middle-docks (in the previous Doc-Brown map New Market was much more inland, on the otherside of SQ.)
-Then we would need more balance between HighTowne and Downtowne, which would place New Quarter to west side of the City, perhaps even Dayport (which was a rich part of town), and thus balancing SQ into the middle of the City...
-Auldale could had been an actual separate town up until few centuries, thus retaining it's own name as a massive piece of town (and having both Downtowne and Hightowne on the other side would mean they got their names before Auldale was conjoined to the rest of the City) (an example of this would be Budapest, which consists of the two cities of Buda and Pest, respectively on each sides of Duna).
-Thanks to that that most of the maps are about the same small region, we would get nice scale of the overall layout, AND the other quarters would have nice unmapped space for anyone to use.
-And as a finishing touch to confirm the double rivers/streamlets, if we consider the usual City-silhouette (T3 start-menu, T1/T3 last cutscenes, T1-T3 intros plus numerous artworks) we see many 'layers' of silhouettes, as if there would be many hills on which the houses are (and if we remember how Lost City got lost (the scrolls); it was the volcano that got too heated up becuase the sacrifices weren't timely enough; swallowed Karath-Din, the main stream of lava left a crevice for the River, the smaller streams made the smaller streamlets...)

This far it would seem to be a good solution. Am I missing something crucial? :weird:

Doc_Brown on 20/1/2005 at 09:04

---

OT: I agree. It would explain why, in spite of the potential mountain of loot he can bring home from any one mission, he'd still be strapped for cash. Renting at least two different apartments in different districts is a smart, albeit costly move, one in sync with a master thief. The fact that Garrett specifically runs to Shalebridge during Ambush lends credence to the theory.


The problem I have with rotating the Keeper map is twofold:

•First, these are the Keepers we're talking about here. Of all the people in the City, at least as they were presented in the first two games, the Keepers would seem to be the most reliable source of accurate information, and we have no reason to doubt this doesn't extend to maps.

(Though the Assassins map does not exactly line up, while we can trust Garrett isn't being deceitful we should note that his map is not going to be as accurate. It's a sketch done by hand through observation.)

•Second, the Keeper map was the work of Looking Glass Studios. We know for a fact Ion screwed up some of the continuity, even with ex-LGS members working on the project, but the original Looking Glass crew gave no indication they dealt with City Cartography in a haphazard manner.

Taken together, these two reasons make me believe that the Keeper map is correct, and certainly wouldn't require so drastic a change as rotating it 180 degrees.


And to counter, nor does Randy's statement say that the river splits the City into 2 equal halves. Though, to entertain the idea and perhaps make the dual rivers look a bit more natural, consider this suggestion: What if the major river, after it leaves the TDS map, makes a significant bend in the NW direction? This would mean the smaller river would branch off of it more naturally, and would put more of the City on the other side of the river. Of course, this will likely ruin the notion of Shalebridge as a sort of island, but this was always conjecture to begin with.

Tough Decisions: Where to Bend, and Where to Break
Here's my personal stance on the matter: I'm very much into making this work, and to that extent I usually like to avoid settling on answer A or answer B. For instance, whether or not the river in the Keeper map is the river. If we say it is, the TDS map contradicts it. If we say it isn't but don't address it, then anyone who looks at the Keeper map will think we've screwed up.

But, as suggested, if we do both, our map holds true in the face of seemingly contradictory information. The same holds true for the Old Quarter. If we trust TDS map, we contradict the Keeper map, and vice versa. Splitting it may seem like an awkward solution, but it would appear to be the only solution that doesn't result in ignoring some piece of evidence.

The idea is, to me at least, to create an all-inclusive map that is accurate when possible, but takes the safest course of action when presented with such dilemmas. Will it be correct in the sense that it matches the official LGS map? No, highly doubtful. But it's the best alternative available to us.

And while I wrap this post up, I just want to proffer some thanks. Hogwash, I appreciate your... appreciation. :joke: Seriously, thanks for the kind words. Mugla, jtr7, et al: glad to have you with us, it helps to have as many people contributing as possible. And str8g8te, cheers to you mate. Even if it's just you and me playing forum tag, we're bouncing ideas back and forth and that's something. Maybe not progress in the traditional sense, but we're accomplishing something nonetheless.

:thumb:

str8g8 on 20/1/2005 at 10:04

---

Thanks for being so specific in your reply. The Keepers, as you say, are dependable sources of information, which is why the keeper/grotto map is one of my primary sources. However, they are also known for there secrecy and obfuscation ... like any secret society, they can be obtuse or even intentionally misleading, as in for example the prophecies.

Now, what I find really interesting about their map is that it omits the ocean or a compass rose or any way of orientating it. In fact, the only thing that "proves" it's orientation is the Assassins map, or more accurately, the fact that it corresponds in large part to the Assassins map, which isn't as reliable a source (which I've outlined in previous posts). IF the keeper map had an arrow saying up is North, then I'd agree with you 100% ... as it is, I think it's more characteristically vague than you have implied. My reasoning is that it's better to simply discard one piece of poor evidence (the Assassin map), than to fudge all of the evidence a bit.

As for LGS, I never thought that they would be haphazard with the city layout - Randy's post makes that clear. But they would be more than capable of playing games with us.



That, and maybe move some other districts back across the river, like Dayport, whose placement is also conjecture?



But splitting the Old Quarter ignores the cumulative evidence of all three games that there is only one Old Quarter. To me, this seems a far greater liberty than, for instance, discarding the Assassin's map.

But anyway, in the interests of making it work, what about the(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/str8g8/thief_city_map_alt1.png) alternative layout that maintains the keeper map orientation, and maintains a unified Old Quarter?

cheers
str8g8