Chade on 26/5/2013 at 21:52
This really all depends on how the integrate their changes into the world. I doubt we'll know until we play it.
At worst: "Hey, what's this hammer symbol on the wall? Is that an add for the CrisCo's Construction Company or something?" (Probably not canon.)
At best: "Baron has squeezed out all other power bases in the city. They still exist in the history books and in the shadows as small persecuted groups trying to survive. As the series progresses they regain some of their lost power and come out of the shadows. Indeed, part of the point of this new story arc turns out to be a way of introducing players to the factions." (Probably canon.)
LATE EDIT: I should add, my requirement for being considered Canon would probably just be 1) the new factions have their roots in things mentioned at least briefly in previous games (this seems to be true), and 2) that there is some plausible story leading to the destruction of the older factions and the emergence of new factions (no idea if this is true yet).
Dia on 27/5/2013 at 01:03
Quote Posted by Chade
At best: "Baron has squeezed out all other power bases in the city. They still exist in the history books and in the shadows as small persecuted groups trying to survive. As the series progresses they regain some of their lost power and come out of the shadows. Indeed, part of the point of this new story arc turns out to be a way of introducing players to the factions." (Probably canon.)
I could handle this scenario if it were done properly and the T4 devs re-introduced the old factions in this manner. Great idea! We can only hope.
antihero276 on 27/5/2013 at 08:25
Quote Posted by Dia
The only way in which EM has 'deliberately placed itself in the history of the previous games' has been to call the game 'Thief', to name their protagonist 'Garrett', and to refer to the area where NuGarrett lives (and steals) as 'The City'. After that, their premise that T4 is just like the old Thief falls apart, imo. Haven't you read any of the information released by T4, or seen any of the video interviews with D'Astous, Cantin, and Roy? They've made it pretty clear that their NuThief will be different in just about every way possible; and yes, they've also indicated that they've changed the 'history' of Thief to suit their reboot, reinvention, or whatever you choose to call it. Oh but wait: T4 will be called Thief and Garrett The Master Thief still likes to steal stuff in The City. Yeah, that's about the only 'history' of the original games EM has chosen to keep in their T4 game.
The first three Thief games deviated from each other only in, as you call them, 'cosmetic differences' and improved gameplay and graphics, but the
continuation of the main arc set forth by TDP
was there. I.E. The Keepers, their prophecies, the involvement of the Hammerites, Mechanists, etc. The 'connection to the old story' is the very continuation of which I'm referring. Granted there were new aspects introduced in TMA & TDS, however the continuation of the main storyline (from TDP) was still strongly evident in the latter two games. But in T4 EM has changed all that as has been revealed in the T4 information released to date. EM has 'hinted' that they'll be providing an entirely new story as to how NuGarrett lost his eye, that in their NuThief world, the Keepers, Mechanists, and Hammerites are things of the past, and that the magic will be replaced by the mechanical, that which is more realistically functional. Though they've been more cagey regarding the Keepers, I'll admit, and may still choose to include that faction in T4, EM has already stated that they intend to make their NuThief more realistic, as in minimal magic (which is played a major role in the first three games). It's a pretty fair bet that the Keepers won't have any major roles to play in NuGarrett's quest to defeat the evil Baron. So just where is the continuation of the main arc of the first three Thief games, then? How can T4 be deliberately placing itself in the history of the first three Thief games if the continuation of the Thief saga is absent, along with the factions that contributed to that saga? If the magic of glyphs is reduced to nothing more than signposts and lipservice to that which contributed to the mystique of the first three games, then the only way in which T4 can be termed a Thief game is by its title and the name of the main character. If EM has indeed invented an alternate history for their NuThief (as indicated by their hinting about the NuReason NuGarrett lost his NuEye in T4), then it can't really be steeped in the history of the first three games, can it?
In the first three Thief games Garrett played the major role in prophecies to be fulfilled; in T4 he gets to fight an evil Baron. Where's the continuity from the first three games in that?
Ugh... just the idea of them reinventing how Garrett lost his eye infuriates me to no end... the eye was a perfect symbol of everything that is Garrett, and now it has been defiled for no reason. Garrett himself was a walking symbol of all three factions, he lost his eye to Viktoria the Pagan and carry's that scar, received the eye from Karras the Hammerite/Mechanist as a gift and he himself who carry's it is the One True Keeper. How did he lose it in this Reboot abomination? My guess is either Nugarrett lost it when he was jumping and swinging around a mansion and failed to dodge a guard's sword, or tripped while parkouring about The Nucity. Either way, I'm sure all he had to do was drop by his local thieving shop and buy a new one so cheap that it periodically begins to smoke. I don't know about Nugarrett, but if my mech eye started smoking I'd throw it away before it... you know... exploded? Nugarrett probably has no time to learn how to maintain, repair and clean mechanical devices like true Garrett did, he's too busy laying around his clocktower brooding and playing with all those trinkets he isn't going to fence. "Those dirty coppers aint gonna take my precious necklaces and rings at the first OPPATUNITY! Myahhh, See?"
Who needs money when you have a challenge, right?
Brian The Dog on 27/5/2013 at 20:45
I always wondered with this - the parallel would be does the Batman reboot or the upcoming Superman reboot lie with the fans of those series? Or, more closely related to the Thief reboot, how does the Tomb Raider reboot fit with their fans?
Personally I'm sitting on the fence until I see the story, since it's the story and readables that would be the main driver of canon.
jtr7 on 28/5/2013 at 02:58
I don't think T4's canon will be ignored unless it's kept away, and that's not gonna happen. It'll be oil and water and very little emulsifier. We'll also have lots of people breeding the two together to make a new baby, and it will be quite a mess, okay for FMs but no for discussion or debate.
SubJeff on 28/5/2013 at 05:12
But you're not going to know about it directly, only through actively seeking it out and reading about it so why do you care?
It's like someone who doesn't drink alcohol getting in a tizz about a new beer that they will never have.
Dia on 28/5/2013 at 14:17
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog
Or, more closely related to the Thief reboot, how does the Tomb Raider reboot fit with their fans?
As far as the TR reboot,
this long-time TR fan was
seriously disappointed and hopes the 'reboot' trend dies a quick and quiet death - asap! If the TR reboot was any indication of things to come, then I won't be wasting money on too many of the games released in the future. I had to keep reminding myself that TR 2013 was a reboot and even then ended up walking away from the game in disgust and frustration too many times to count.
TR 2013 had a NuLara who only vaguely resembled the Lara we've all come to know & love, with a NuVoice (that wavered between a British and American accent - which was actually a tad distracting) and though the actress voicing Lara may be a decent actress, she was NOT Lara, imo, nor did the character really
look like Lara. The original TR music was also noticeably absent, much to my serious disappointment. There were
FAR too many cutscenes, auto-action sequences, & even takedown scenes wherein the controls were jerked away from you, your immersion was immediately shattered, and you were forced to just sit there and watch/wait until the devs/animators gave the controls back to you - even though you could skip some of those cutscenes, your immersion was still broken. I'm not exaggerating here; I'd say well over a quarter of the game (if not more) consisted of cutscenes & auto-action sequences. I didn't pay money to watch the damned game; to be forced to sit there while the TR animators showed how very talented and clever they are! Granted, there were basic TR moves, weapons, and puzzles which were reminiscent of the original games (before TR was ever ported to the PC), but the puzzles were geared towards simpletons and the blatant 'mash (E)' and 'hit (F)' instructions (when Lara was forced to defend herself sans cutscene/action sequence) were annoying and didn't always work. I'm no quitter, but the final Boss-battle is so ridiculously difficult that I have yet to muster enough enthusiasm to justify spending any more time on the game just so I can say I finished it.
Sorry about the rant, but does anyone see any correlations here? The TR reboot dev team seems to have made quite a few of the same changes that EM has stated they are making to their version of Thief. If EM is doing to Thief what Squeenix/Crystal Dynamics did to Tomb Raider and justifying said major changes by calling T4 a reboot, then you can throw 'canon' right out the window.
Renault on 28/5/2013 at 15:27
Imagine if the new Thief has quicktime events like the new Tomb Raider does... :wot:
Briareos H on 28/5/2013 at 16:31
Dia, while I agree with you on the gameplay side, I think you're being a bit too harsh with the new Tomb Raider with regard to the 'canon'. As far as the lore went, I think TR 2013 didn't break anything since it was very self-contained. I could be wrong, but I saw it as telling some of the events that happened before TR: Legend, focusing more on Lara's memories of her father rather than the mother arc which was already told in the Crystal Dynamics trilogy.
The new game may be a reboot in terms of gameplay, but since it fits with the rest as far as the story goes, it didn't ruin the series for me. It was just pretty disappointing because it put 9 games worth of gameplay mechanics behind, doing its own thing which wasn't always bad, but often at odds and not really memorable either.
I'd be pretty okay with a mediocre Thief doing the same. Bad game, but nothing is ruined.
I'd be less okay with a mediocre Thief decidedly contradicting lore elements from the original games or reinterpreting the Thief universe as something it is not.
Starker on 28/5/2013 at 17:31
I was never a fan of Tomb Raider and I don't know anyone who was either. I liked the first two TR games somewhat... there was something oddly relaxing about running around old tombs while robbing the dead and murdering all the wildlife. I stopped after the third, though, as they went downhill fast.
The new one is a nice enough interactive movie, but it doesn't exactly explain how Lara came to be the psychopath that she is. She goes basically from a person who wouldn't hurt a fly to callously murdering dudes left and right in the blink of an eye. One thing I don't like about the new one is the confusing title. I hate it when movies and games do that cough*Prince of Persia*cough.
