Tomi on 23/8/2013 at 19:41

---

Thanks a lot for the report, Domey... and thanks to Beleg as well for the translation!

It's nice to read something positive about the game here for a change. My hopes and expectations for Thief 4 have raised a notch again. :cool:

xxcoy on 24/8/2013 at 11:25

---

As Beleg already told you, we had the privilege to speak to Steven Gallagher ourselves on Wednesday at GamesCom.

First of all, I have to say that I was impressed by the way the man presented 'his' new Thief to us. Was more of a theatrical performance than just a presentation. He's an outstanding narrator if he's allowed to be one in a conversation - that just as a sideline.

Concernig the story as far as it is revealed: Some magazines summarize it a bit to plainly as "loss of a loved one" driving our master thief to do what he's going to do in the game.
Also, they made it sound like he was suddenly some kind of pacifist, who condones killing for the sake of humanity. Those two points I could not deduce from our conversation with Mr Gallagher. I don't know if it is me or they who didn't listen closeley enough. But time will tell.

"Loss of a loved one" is hardly the right word for what the man has presented.
"Loss of a female protégé, to which there was an in the least very ambivalent relationship" is more like it.

Point not being the relationship itself - mostly because there isn't one at the time of the events (if there ever was one that tanscended an alliance of convenience) - but the circumstances surrounding the death of the young woman, who probably would still be alive, had the thief not intervened.

It's not about 'tragic love', if ever there might be a very subliminal "woulda shoulda coulda" (like it was with Victoria for some taffers) in Gallagher's Preview.
It's about guilt and consequence.
The no-kill-option still is a professional choice for Garrett - not a newly discovered love to the fellow human being. It's a trait of a master, nothing more, nothing less. A trait he wishes his student to gain - on which she fails deliberately and gladly.


However, even that's just the story's hook, not the impetus. Thus begins the story. Where it goes from there remains to be seen.


It is definitely a reboot, not a prequel or sequel.
It will involve Garrett mostly as we know him, but as with Batman and Tomb Raider, the previous history will be ignored and retold. Tabula rasa, so to speak, or parallel universe. That's btw the main reason for not taking Russel as voice actor. If you want a new start, you should want it completely, if you will.


Now before the whining starts: After TDS totaled the original story in the end by killing off one of the main parts that made it interesting, a complete restart may not be the worst idea.

If you wanted to start where TDS left of, you'd have to manage changing it back to what "Thief" was before that ending; not an easy thing to do even if your audience knows what you're trying to acomplish. For newcomers a complete turnoff - and therefore likely commercial suicide for the franchise.
As the boys hinted that there might be a future for Garrett on success of the game, I'd personally prefer a fresh start with opportunities to continue to the well-known that's doomed on release, because nobody but the community will be interested in it.

Gameplay looks very good, believable and fluent now, and yes, there will be concessions made to "casual players" or "mainstream players" - especially the focus function.
But although the Thief community is no more than a blip on the radar, a fraction of the intended audience - if developers want to make a profit from the game at all - an old-school mode without those perks will be integrated for this group of players. (Similar to "Give me Deus Ex" difficulty).

That's quite a big (and from developer's stance actually a completely unnecessary) courtesy.
Might wanna overthink some of the attitude. Just sayin. :sly:


I was skeptical about some of the things mentioned above myself.
But I can say that one thing was evident: For EM Thief is not just any franchise to be milked and waved through. The balancing act between old and new, in regard of audience, gameplay and story, is already strikingly well thought through.
There are major changes, mainly due to current requirements of the market as well as numerous possibilities of presenting a game today. There are equally strong allusions to the former game.


I see it rather optimistic, even if I realize that I will have to let go of some entrenched positions hailing from being one of those who have started out being a fan when thief was first released in 1998.
In my opinion, "our" game is in good hands.

Time has to tell the rest.

Starker on 24/8/2013 at 12:46

---

Why change the old game though? If they wanted to tell a new story without any constraints, they should have made a new story with new characters. Why reinvent what wasn't broken in the first place? Personally, I don't think they can outthief Thief with straying so far from what made the originals great. By making it more like modern games, they are also watering down the original potent formula. A lot of the things that many people here are so stubbornly holding on to, like freedom of movement, the stoic practical character of Garrett, slow immersive stealth gameplay, minimalistic storytelling, eschewing of metagame elements, etc, are in my mind integral to what makes Thief Thief.

If the game is going to be a cinematic dramatic experience a la Tomb Raider and its ilk instead of an immersive sim like what LGS was aiming for, then they can keep their old school mode. This old dog doesn't care about a bone in lieu of a rich meal.

Like the Russians say, cобака бывает кусачей только от жизни собачей (dogs start to bite only when their life has gone to the dogs).

xxcoy on 24/8/2013 at 13:04

---

A lot of these things were not really ready to be assessed on GC.
I don't like to judge before I have played it - and I don't mean played 5 mins but played it through. So, not much to say from me at this point.
I liked what I saw so far.
I also have been reading enough posts here to know that any discussion about details which may or maybe not essential is pointless with some users.

Present company excepted of course. ;)

Anyway, I won't be drawn into that so just stop right there. I don't see the point as it doesn't change a thing.

Thief was a great game. But frankly, as Deus Ex, it was a catastrophe from the economical angle, killing Looking Glass and Ion Storm in the process.

It would be nice if that wasn't an issue, but in reality, it is.

So we can rant and rave and burn Candian flags, but things are the way they are: Either you adjust a game to a bigger audience (and maybe honor the old one by an old school mod) or you can get your last paycheck by game release and look for a new job.

I personally don't give a damn if Garrett's able to jump like a cangaroo or if rope arrows can't be shot just anywhere - as long as these things are not essential to how I aproach a level in itself. Didn't look like there was much limitation to that in the GC-gameplay-trailer, short as it was. But I'm just not able to judge at this point.

I can see both sides. I think I'll cut EM some slack and rest my case the day I've played Thief 4.

TriangleTooth on 24/8/2013 at 13:19

---

Pretty sure this has been raised, but it was Thief 2 and 3 that were economic failures, TDP did well for the size of the studio in the year it was made. It's Thief sequels that kill people, not Thief.