PDA

View Full Version : MORALITY: You're a thief, not a murderer.. (Combat vs Stealth Discussion).



Pages : [1] 2

Pangalactic
11th May 2009, 23:43
*Moderator Edit*


June 2013


something new to nibble on...

Thief Project Lead Says a New Game Needs New Combat
(http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/125399-Thief-Project-Lead-Says-a-New-Game-Needs-New-Combat)





UPDATES: (March 2013)


LOL I freakin' LOVE broccoli!

I just posted this:
http://community.eidosmontreal.com/blogs/Going-Rogue

There's some clarifications around Garretts design in there, plus an answer to a big question: Can you play Thief without KILLING anybody?



___




One of my favorite aspects of Thief 1 and 2 was the restrictions it had on killing people. I loved the fact that if you played through it the way it was meant to be played (on expert) you weren't allowed to kill anyone.

Even on 'easy' difficulty, where you were allowed kill anyone it was messy, noisy, and more trouble than it was worth. The restriction on killing made you have to be creative and smart in dealing with guards and added integrity to Garrett's character. I was really disappointed that in TDS they rolled back the restrictions to 'Don't Kill Unarmed Bystanders.' I hope they add the 'You're a thief, not a murderer' back into T4!

Watcheratthegatesofdusk
11th May 2009, 23:48
I fully agree.

Garrett21
11th May 2009, 23:51
Could'nt agree more

xXFl4meXx
11th May 2009, 23:52
I fully disagree, you may not like gore but some of us do. Its fun to sneak up behind someone from the shadows and slit their throat, or stab them in the back. Dont ruin the game for me.. I enjoyed killing manfools..

Edit: I didnt carefully read the post by Pangalactic, I thought his point was that removing the ability to kill would make the game better & blah blah... So my pardons..& may the Woodsie Lord bless you.. So basically all my posts from here on.. are a bit of a miscommunication.. & a rant about how much the game would suck without be able to kill.. Well at least for me :D

CurtX
11th May 2009, 23:53
Technically, you're a taffer.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
11th May 2009, 23:56
I prefer the stealthy use of my blackjack, much more compassionate. :D
Its easier to play the game too, if I found myself in combat - I would often die.

The choice must remain with the player though. Not everyone has the patience to ghost, some simply don't enjoy it. Each to his own.

Watcheratthegatesofdusk
11th May 2009, 23:56
xXFl4meXx

Ever heard of assassins creed? That might be a game worth checking out.
Anyway, do you think its reasonable that Garrett is a mass murderer and still is referred to as a master thief (and/or "the true keeper)? Answer truthfully.

NewUser2
11th May 2009, 23:57
I think killing should be restricted in higher difficulty, and not restricted in easier difficulty.

Palmberg
11th May 2009, 23:57
I fully disagree, you may not like gore but a lot of us do. Its fun to sneak up behind someone from the shadows and slit their throat, or stab them in the back. Dont ruin the game for me.. I enjoyed killing manfools..

Then you can always play at "normal" difficulty. But remember, killing is the mark of an amateur (atleast when it's in a Thief game) :D.

GmanPro
11th May 2009, 23:58
Just so long as it is hard to kill someone. Physically challenging. Thief and Deus Ex were great because they discouraged the player from direct confrontation. Which is what you would all do in real life because you don't want to die. Its all about immersion

Garrett21
11th May 2009, 23:59
I think killing should be restricted in higher difficulty, and not restricted in easier difficulty.

This however give the players who can or choose to ghost a reward something special.

xXFl4meXx
12th May 2009, 00:05
Hey, its not like I like killing all the time when I play, its just when I get bored or annoyed by a guard, you know. I think it was unrealistic when youd blackjack a guard, and like he would never revive, I think using a blackjack should just temporarily knock the guard unconscious, & killing the guard will remove him permanently. Sounds reasonable? No?

Its not like thieves never kill, all thieves carry weapons with them, its only realistic to do so. Thieves dont care if they kill a person, I mean they chose the profession, every thief knows that they will have to kill someone in sticky situations.

maddermadcat
12th May 2009, 00:08
I think using a blackjack should just temporarily knock the guard unconscious, & killing the guard will remove him permanently. Sounds reasonable? No?

Getting knocked out by a club would last for a pretty damn long time, I think.

Pangalactic
12th May 2009, 00:24
Its not like thieves never kill, all thieves carry weapons with them, its only realistic to do so. Thieves dont care if they kill a person, I mean they chose the profession, every thief knows that they will have to kill someone in sticky situations.

I'm not so sure. If a thief kills someone while robbing them, it just attracts more attention to the robbery (which any thief DOES NOT want), causing guards to raise more alarm, facilitating a bigger and more in-depth investigation, increasing our taffer's chance of being caught. And it seems that only a crazy fence would risk dealing in the possessions of a murdered nobleman....But I suppose I digress from the actual gameplay...


I think killing should be restricted in higher difficulty, and not restricted in easier difficulty.

Yeah you're right....that's how it was in TDP and TDS. If you really want to rampage, just flip it to normal and go hog wild. But I think that if you're looking for a game where you can sneak up on someone, slit their throat, and watch the blood gush from their jugular like a fire hose, go play Tenchu or something. I think that Thief done right should shun killing wherever possible.

Watcheratthegatesofdusk
12th May 2009, 00:26
One option could of course be that the developers actually makes killing having consequences, like opening up more dark story lines while closing others and having people refer to "that murderous Garrett" instead of "the master thief/Keeper). I would of course champion the idea that playing like a "master thief" would lead to subtly more giving/favourable rewards. :)

Yandros
12th May 2009, 00:38
Hey, its not like I like killing all the time when I play, its just when I get bored or annoyed by a guard, you know.
...
Its not like thieves never kill, all thieves carry weapons with them, its only realistic to do so. Thieves dont care if they kill a person, I mean they chose the profession, every thief knows that they will have to kill someone in sticky situations.
It's clear to me that you understand neither the fundamental gameplay principles of this game nor the character of Garrett.

Foilist
12th May 2009, 00:46
Call me soft, but I never could get into Assassin's Creed cause my conscious just kept getting in the way. I couldn't enjoy it because it was killing for killing's sake.

GmanPro
12th May 2009, 00:49
Hey, its not like I like killing all the time when I play, its just when I get bored or annoyed by a guard, you know. I think it was unrealistic when youd blackjack a guard, and like he would never revive, I think using a blackjack should just temporarily knock the guard unconscious, & killing the guard will remove him permanently. Sounds reasonable? No?

Its not like thieves never kill, all thieves carry weapons with them, its only realistic to do so. Thieves dont care if they kill a person, I mean they chose the profession, every thief knows that they will have to kill someone in sticky situations.


Getting knocked out by a club would last for a pretty damn long time, I think.

Yeah, depending on how hard you were hit, you'd probably be out cold for a day at least.

xXFl4meXx
12th May 2009, 00:53
It's clear to me that you understand neither the fundamental gameplay principles of this game nor the character of Garrett.

I do understand the gameplay principles.. & that is if you want to make the game more challenging you should kill, because killing = attracts the attention of the guards = takes more skill to avoid them etc. & just makes it more exciting. Not everyone likes to ghost the whole time... I never said that it should be an all out massacre like assassins creed, no action etc. Just like stealthy kills & stuff...

& who sais Garrett never kills? He would have a knife if he was against killing, or a bunch of broadhead arrows.. Sure he likes to avoid it, but hes not against it when he needs to do it. & who sais you need to play exactly as Garrett? Its up to the player to decide..

Do you really think a person with morality like you guys, who are all like " Oh no killing is to hardcore", do you think someone like that would even steal from someone? I dont think anyone that thinks that way would take up a profession like that.

randomtaffer
12th May 2009, 01:03
make the game more challenging you should kill, because killing = attracts the attention of the guards = takes more skill to avoid them etc. & just makes it more exciting.


No. Ghosting takes much more skill than killing. Especially in TDP and TMA. IMO the tension from trying to ghost is more exciting and, once completed, is infinitely more rewarding to a player in the end.

Killing guards when you get in a bind, though acceptable, will not make you a better Thief player. Learning to improvise and think on your feet in order to avoid or distract guards is much more thief like than simply stabbing them in the stomach when they find you.

In TDP and TMA it was fun to fight guards because you could fence and actually stood some sort of chance against them. In TDS, you were pretty helpless with that little poker. Although I appreciate that fighting was discouraged, I at least want to screw around every once in a while and try it.

Garrett21
12th May 2009, 01:13
I'm a fan of if you are in a stealth game stealth when i play thief or splinter cell im on the hardest diff and trying to avoid as much as possible imho thats what stealth is being there but not being there but i understand frustration caused by certain guards or patrols who just like to screw with the player maybe implement where you can kill but with penalties like increased city watch instead of 2 guards there is 3..just brainstorming and my 2 cents

hem dazon 90
12th May 2009, 01:23
it shouldhave a system shock 1 esque batch of setting on difficulty such as-


-death restrictions
-puzzles
-combat difficulty
and so on

xXFl4meXx
12th May 2009, 01:32
Yeah I agree, it is more challenging to ghost, but also very time consuming. Sometimes you just wanna finish a certain mission & go to bed, so thats when you kill. Or when your just bored and want to make things more exciting.. Hell to each his own right right? :D

About the title of this topic, " You're a thief, not a murderer." It doesn't mean however that a thief is a Saint, right? Cause it seems some people (Yandros) view Garrett as someone who cares about if someone lives or dies, I mean ffs, Garrett stole from a schizophrenic widow in the Overlook Manor mission.. Do you think someone who would do the things that Garret did IRL would care about killing someone?

Oh & randomtaffer reminded me about Garret using a sword in Thief I & II or so... I think it was in II cant remember.. But what ever happened to Constantine's Sword?

Espion
12th May 2009, 01:47
I fully disagree, you may not like gore but some of us do. Its fun to sneak up behind someone from the shadows and slit their throat, or stab them in the back. Dont ruin the game for me.. I enjoyed killing manfools..

Sorry, but going by your attitude, people like you ruined the game for us. Bring back the no killing on expert difficulty.There's no challenge to a game where you can just shoot everyone in the face with a broadhead arrow. If you just want a gory shooter, play a different game. Thief was a thinking game first, and it should be a thinking game again.

Smiffydude
12th May 2009, 01:51
I think easy setting should allow killing, and expert setting should forbid it. But even though easy setting allows for killing, doing so should be a real challenge and have consequences. If you get bored and just wanna go postal (lets be honest, we all will), you can just type in a cheat to become invunerable and go slay everyone on the map.

abr4
12th May 2009, 01:54
I'm all for a no kill rule on the highest (gladly even the two highest) difficulty, but for the love of god bring back the sword.

Wielding a sword was so much more fun than wielding a dagger.

xXFl4meXx
12th May 2009, 01:55
Sorry, but going by your attitude, people like you ruined the game for us. Bring back the no killing on expert difficulty.There's no challenge to a game where you can just shoot everyone in the face with a broadhead arrow. If you just want a gory shooter, play a different game. Thief was a thinking game first, and it should be a thinking game again.

I never said I was against no killing on expert difficulty, I am just fighting against the idea of no killing at all... Like in Thief III, I never really killed much in missions, only when necessary... However when roaming around in the city, I do, like hammers etc. Because I dislike them... & enjoy killing them..

I really see no fun in ghosting though, because then theres like no interaction whatsoever between you and the enemy etc. Its fun to have interaction sometimes and getting into sticky situations right? I mean you dont want to ghost all the time do you?

Wouldnt you enjoy playing hide & seek with a guard? & then stab him in the back when you get bored of him? Ofcourse it wasnt as fun in the older Thief games because the AI wasnt all that impressive... But I am sure in Thief 4 the AI should be much better, which should make ghosting a lot harder, & killing them a lot funner..

xXFl4meXx
12th May 2009, 01:58
I'm all for a no kill rule on the highest (gladly even the two highest) difficulty, but for the love of god bring back the sword.

Wielding a sword was so much more fun than wielding a dagger.

I agree, but wouldnt it be nice if there was an option where you can choose to either buy a sword or a dagger? Like start off with a blackjack only & then as you pass missions & get more gold you can buy different weapons? That way those who want daggers can have daggers, and those who want swords can have swords, and everyones happy.

Sorry do forgive me, I went off topic.

Espion
12th May 2009, 02:11
Wouldnt you enjoy playing hide & seek with a guard?

Heh, I do play hide n seek with the guards :D Not all the time, but if I had a situation where I needed to split up and take out a group of guards (with the blackjack, thank you very much) I'd use a broadhead arrow and shoot it into the wall near them, or off something metal (cheaper than a noise maker.) Then then start to investigate (ie walk directly towards me - old AI) and as soon as they enter the shaodws I'm hiding in I'd swing round behind them and take them out (making sure to get the last one whilst airbourne :cool:)

I never ghosted missions, i just never killed anyone either.

Like I said, no killing on expert, no killing innocents on normal, and kill all you like on easy. That's how it was in the original... Hell, I don't mind if they have a flagable option to allow killing or not on normal/easy, just so long as on expert level there is no killing.

xXFl4meXx
12th May 2009, 02:18
Yeah that would be great if they had an option, where you can choose if you want no killing to be part of the difficulty.. But hmm.. Do you really need objective to tell you to not kill, in order not to kill? I mean I dont even see why not killing has to even be part of the objectives in expert.. I think not being seen at all by the guards should be the objective on expert? That makes more sense...

xXFl4meXx
12th May 2009, 02:28
Then play another game. That's not what Thief was meant to be about. On lower settings you could kill with no consequence, but on higher difficulty...it should be disallowed as it was in T1 and 2.

Dude ffs... Read other replies on the thread before you post again ty.. :mad2:

Espion
12th May 2009, 02:38
Yeah that would be great if they had an option, where you can choose if you want no killing to be part of the difficulty.. But hmm.. Do you really need objective to tell you to not kill, in order not to kill? I mean I dont even see why not killing has to even be part of the objectives in expert.. I think not being seen at all by the guards should be the objective on expert? That makes more sense...

By having it imposed as an objective, it adds the "oh balls" element of not only having to not kill people or risk failing the mission, but also being careful how you knock someone out or hide their body, etc. For example, I shoot a gas arrow at a group of guards, then scoot off on my way without thinking about it, failing to notice that one of the guards has fallen into a fire and slowly burnt to death.

Having it as an objective basically forced you to by hyper aware of what you were doing. You couldn't just charge through. You had to be sure of your every move because one false step and you're looking at a smokey skull.

Regarding the people burning in fires, one of the fairly sadistic things I did when I was stressed out playing the levels in the Trickster's realm, was to knock his feline followers unconscious, then toss them into things that would kill them (fire, lava, etc.) Highly amusing hearing them shriek "Cuuuuuuurse yooooour eeeeeeeeyeeeeeeee!" :D Evil, I know, but if your perfectly set up plan fails on some trivial thing, it was a good way to vent the stress before a reload.

randomtaffer
12th May 2009, 03:36
his feline followers

I think they were supposed to be apes. (Though they're normally known as "ratmen" in the Thief community)

Yandros
12th May 2009, 04:35
No. Ghosting takes much more skill than killing. ...
Killing guards when you get in a bind, though acceptable, will not make you a better Thief player. Learning to improvise and think on your feet in order to avoid or distract guards is much more thief like than simply stabbing them in the stomach when they find you.+1 :thumb:


About the title of this topic, " You're a thief, not a murderer." It doesn't mean however that a thief is a Saint, right? Cause it seems some people (Yandros) view Garrett as someone who cares about if someone lives or dies, I mean ffs, Garrett stole from a schizophrenic widow in the Overlook Manor mission.. Do you think someone who would do the things that Garret did IRL would care about killing someone?That you would jump to such a conclusion only serves my argument. To the contrary, I see Garrett as a thief who avoids killing as a general rule, not out of any ethical sensibility, but because it makes his life much more difficult if he leaves a trail of bodies behind.



if you want to make the game more challenging you should kill, because killing = attracts the attention of the guards = takes more skill to avoid them etc. & just makes it more exciting. ... He would have a knife if he was against killing, or a bunch of broadhead arrows.

Do you really think a person with morality like you guys, who are all like " Oh no killing is to hardcore", do you think someone like that would even steal from someone? I dont think anyone that thinks that way would take up a profession like that.

Yeah I agree, it is more challenging to ghost, but also very time consuming. Sometimes you just wanna finish a certain mission & go to bed, so thats when you kill. Or when your just bored and want to make things more exciting..

I never really killed much in missions, only when necessary... However when roaming around in the city, I do, like hammers etc. Because I dislike them... & enjoy killing them..

I really see no fun in ghosting though, because then theres like no interaction whatsoever between you and the enemy etc. Its fun to have interaction sometimes and getting into sticky situations right? I mean you dont want to ghost all the time do you?

Wouldnt you enjoy playing hide & seek with a guard? & then stab him in the back when you get bored of him? ... But I am sure in Thief 4 the AI should be much better, which should make ghosting a lot harder, & killing them a lot funner..
Your honour, I rest my case. :rolleyes:


But seriously... you just made so many statements that I disagree with that, rather try and engage in a witty repartee, I think it's best if we just agree to disagree. So I hereby invoke the First Law of the Internet, which be, "Thou canst never win an argument."



Besides, I run the risk of looking like a complete hypocrite since I'm the guy who made Hammerite Deathmatch.

randomtaffer
12th May 2009, 04:39
"Thou canst never win an argument."


I disagree!

tee-he-hee!
:rasp:

DarthEnder
12th May 2009, 04:54
The way Thief already does it is perfect the way it is.

Normal lets you do it however you want, and it gets more and more restrictive the harder the difficulty gets.

xXFl4meXx
12th May 2009, 04:59
+1 :thumb:

That you would jump to such a conclusion only serves my argument. To the contrary, I see Garrett as a thief who avoids killing as a general rule, not out of any ethical sensibility, but because it makes his life much more difficult if he leaves a trail of bodies behind.





Your honour, I rest my case. :rolleyes:


But seriously... you just made so many statements that I disagree with that, rather try and engage in a witty repartee, I think it's best if we just agree to disagree. So I hereby invoke the First Law of the Internet, which be, "Thou canst never win an argument."



Besides, I run the risk of looking like a complete hypocrite since I'm the guy who made Hammerite Deathmatch.

Blah.. I miscommunicated a few things.. & I am to lazy to.. edit them xD But yeah... If I got it right.. Are you saying that your completely against allowing people to kill in Thief IV? Or not? & if you are for, would you be against having more gore than the other 3? :poke:

randomtaffer
12th May 2009, 05:05
Not allowing any killing at all would be silly, but it shouldn't be encouraged. Not allowing the option at all would be ridiculous and I don't think anyone is suggesting it.

I.E.,
You can jump off the roof, but it's not encouraged as you'll likely die. But that doesn't mean that they should make invisible walls to prevent it. Then how could the game be fun and challenging?

xXFl4meXx
12th May 2009, 05:49
Not allowing any killing at all would be silly, but it shouldn't be encouraged. Not allowing the option at all would be ridiculous and I don't think anyone is suggesting it.

I.E.,
You can jump off the roof, but it's not encouraged as you'll likely die. But that doesn't mean that they should make invisible walls to prevent it. Then how could the game be fun and challenging?

Do you think making beautiful gorey animations when you kill someone would be considered as encouragement? I mean im all for making the game harder when you try to kill someone.. That would be fun... All I really want is more gore..

Nate
12th May 2009, 06:06
The Minimalist mod for Thief DS addressed the game difficulty issue perfectly. Mission difficulties were sorted by genres. You had Ghost, Cut Purse, Assassin and Thief (I think that is right, it has been a while).

Anyway, each 'difficulty' setting had its own type of requirements. Ghost required you not be seen or caught, Assassin required you kill a few people but don't let any of the bodies be discovered, Cut Purse (I think) required you find all the loot, and I think Thief was an easier setting.

The Magpie
12th May 2009, 06:27
I think it was unrealistic when youd blackjack a guard, and like he would never revive, I think using a blackjack should just temporarily knock the guard unconscious, & killing the guard will remove him permanently. Sounds reasonable? No?

That is indeed not unreasonable, but the incentive to not kill 'em all "just to make sure" would be a lot higher in order to promote challenging and fun gameplay. Because we do agree that not killing is harder than killing. The concept of knocked-out AIs reawakening has been discussed since before Thief Gold.


Its not like thieves never kill, all thieves carry weapons with them, its only realistic to do so. Thieves dont care if they kill a person, I mean they chose the profession, every thief knows that they will have to kill someone in sticky situations.

Except Garrett, who knows that his skills are great enough that he can get out of sticky situations without killing people. As you can read from the Expert briefings. The sword is great for parrying attacks, and for dispatching certain nonhuman enemies.



That's not what Thief was meant to be about. On lower settings you could kill with no consequence

Neither of these two statements are entirely accurate.

Said Ken Levine in this 2006 Bioshock interview (http://www.bioshock-online.com/interviews/irrationaljuly06.asp):
"...I remember back when we were working on Thief…the original version of the mission where you're supposed to kill a local crime boss had you being hired by a bunch of merchants to assassinate the guy. They didn't like him because he was shaking them down and they wanted him dead. So your mission was to go into the guy's home and murder him, taking what you will along the way.

There were a lot of people at Looking Glass who were uncomfortable with this. So they insisted that the mission be rewritten that Ramirez tried to kill you first. I thought it was a cop out. Garrett wouldn't need to be motivated in self defense. He was motivated by money. That's what defined him."

And regarding consequence - There were consequences in-game of killing - other AIs would get very upset over discovering a corpse. Remember the shocked wails of the grieving servants, unable to comprehend their sudden bereavement of a loved one.

That's a little like of Ken Levine's design philosophy was like in BioShock, wasn't it? To attempt to encourage the player to experience the emotional consequences of acting like a monster?

--
Larris

THIEF
12th May 2009, 07:52
I can't understand why this discussion keeps going on.

Do it like Thief 1 + 2, expert = can't kill.

If you wanna kill play it on easy or normal.

Simple as that ^^

Jables_Kage
12th May 2009, 07:58
too true i loved sneaking through a lvl not killing made me feel like a thief!

StalinsGhost
12th May 2009, 08:09
Pretty simple really. Just make it a no-no on the hardest difficulty.

I wouldn't say make it a mission end thing mind - but perhaps killing more early in the game dramatically increases patrol sizes later on, depending on how many you kill.

LaMOi
12th May 2009, 08:28
I TOTALLY DISAGREE.... If you dont want to to kill people.. then dont ! (Problem solved)

I think if you want they could give a bonus at the end of each mission for not killing fools...

That was the only thing I wanted to see in the other Thief games, more killing, and since T3 more stealth kill animations... More ways to lay traps and kill people... Theres nothing like slitting medieval fools throats, i loved T3.... I DEMAND MORE KILLING


I think players should always have the ABILITY TO CHOOSE HOW THEY WANT TO PLAY...So i say to all thoughs girls out there that dont want to kill, then I say dont...

mister_riz
12th May 2009, 08:31
Agree with OP. There is no need to change an excellent formula.

Easy - Kill anyone
Medium - Can't kill innocents
Expert - Can't kill anyone

LaMOi
12th May 2009, 08:47
I think it should never be absolutes... I think ok, maybe be penalised for the amount of killing you do? Maybe penalties on cash earned, no bonues etc... Or a REP decrease... But never should there be, YOU CANNOT KILL... That means the game is dictating the way I wanted to play...

Theres only one Medieval Stealth game out there... I cant get my fix from SC.

So i want the option of killing people if i want.

Why not let the player customize his own difficulty setting like;

- AI Difficulty , easy, medium, hard
- Mission parameters Difficulty ,
- Penalty Difficulty , killing / no killing - Cash bonues

Terr
12th May 2009, 09:12
It's was a while ago, but I think I went through TDS and manged to avoid killing people. (Barring zombies, golems, etc.) And I mean to the extent that I didn't even knock out any of the Hammerites in the clock-tower. (After all, I had to give them a chance to escape.)

Anyway, here's the thing: As I see it, Garrett isn't morally opposed to killing people, but he is two conflicting things: A pragmatist ("what makes life easiest for me") and an egotist ("I'll show him who's the master thief!")

This gives the character enough flexibility to be interesting while also being understandable. Garret will kill if:
The enemy represents either an unavoidable and direct threat.
Or there are no repercussions and he wouldn't lose any ego or reputation from it.


In terms of your average guards, Garret's ego is such that killing them is almost an admission that he's not a master thief. Garret's ego also compels him to leave certain enemies alive, because while they may harbor a grudge he prefers to shame them.

___________________________________

IMO I think a good cue can be taken from the Splinter Cell : Chaos Theory here: There are multiple levels of accomplishment. From easiest to hardest:

Discovered, has fatalities.
Discovered, has knock-outs.
Discovered, no fatalities or knock-outs.
Stealthy, has fatalities.
Setalthy, has knock-outs.
Stealthy, and you made you way through with distractions and timing. Except for mission-requirements, nobody even knows you were there. (Or even has a headache when they wake up.)


In SCCT you can get through a huge amount of the game without even knocking enemies out, through distractions and careful timing. I would like to see that as the difficult (but potentially possible) stretch-goal for Garret.

Velecost
12th May 2009, 12:10
Agree with OP. There is no need to change an excellent formula.

Easy - Kill anyone
Medium - Can't kill innocents
Expert - Can't kill anyone

Agreed

randomtaffer
12th May 2009, 13:16
But never should there be, YOU CANNOT KILL... That means the game is dictating the way I wanted to play...


So, basically, you're saying that you want to play the game on expert, but you don't want to be restricted from being a mass murderer?
Although the player chooses their own play style, you are still playing the game as Garrett. And on expert, there should be no killing (Of humans) because it makes the game more challenging.
Rewards/penalties, be damned. I'm not sure that will be enough to discourage killing. As soon as players get in a tough spot they'll be like "Oh, alright I can just kill him and not get the reward this time."

Where is the skill in that?
As it's been said many times, if you want to kill everyone, play on Normal. If you want a challenging Thief experience, play on expert and try to ghost.

xXFl4meXx
12th May 2009, 17:01
It would really suck if I would only be able to kill on Easy difficulty, I mean its just.. When you kill a guard that has smarter AI you feel more fulfilled? Accomplished? It feels great.. But if its to easy, whats the fun in killing? What im wondering is what are the features of the difficulties?

Like is it:
Easy - Dumb AI
Normal - A little smarter AI
Hard - A bit more smarter
Expert - Smartest AI

I mean cause that would suck you know? I think thats what they did in T3, where the awareness of the guard would increase & all making it harder. I think they should keep the AI equal on all difficulties, just different goals? Or hell they shouldnt call the difficulties easy/normal/hard/expert, cause it makes you think easy is like for noobs or something.. Instead they should have "difficulties" based on the persons play style? Like someone mentioned earlier, I think it was Thief/Assassin/Cutpurse/Ghost or something like that..

What do all you manfools think?

randomtaffer
12th May 2009, 17:19
It would really suck if I would only be able to kill on Easy difficulty, I mean its just.. When you kill a guard that has smarter AI you feel more fulfilled? Accomplished? It feels great.. But if its to easy, whats the fun in killing? What im wondering is what are the features of the difficulties?


Personally, I would feel much more accomplished if they didn't see me at all. Especially with a "smarter" AI.

If you back stab a "smarter" AI, you really haven't given the "smarter" aspect a chance to come into play at all. If a guard has his back turned, you can back stab him just as easy as you could back stab a dumb one.

Pangalactic
12th May 2009, 17:38
I definitely think they should make the goals different on the different difficulty levels. In T1 and T2 the harder difficulties had extra objectives (i.e. Easy = "Rob the mansion," Expert = "Rob the mansion, but on the way, there's a bank with some diamonds, get them too.) And yes, easier difficulties should have less restrictions on killing (expert should still be NO KILLING.) But I think that whatever difficulty you play on, killing should have major consequences and attract a lot of attention. I hated TDS's inclusion of 'stealth kills.' In T1 and T2 when you killed someone they made a lot of noise and left blood everywhere and generally attracted a lot of guard's attention. Killing someone should lead to consequences (which I agree..mostly was Garrett's motivation for avoiding killing people.) However, I think it's ridiculous to allow someone to kill people and then expect it to have no effect on the mission, the other guard's dispositions, and the mission's outcome.

ToMegaTherion
12th May 2009, 17:49
I am strongly against any policy of tying zero killing with top difficulty. The highest difficulty level always has more and superior guards, and that's what I want to face. I do not, however, want to be forced to choose between more and superior guards and not being able to use all of my destructive toys from time to time. A top difficulty level that is exactly the same as the immediately lower one, but with killing restrictions, is OK by me. But the T2 model is too restrictive and does not give the player sufficient control over his gaming experience (T1 was OK because more of the missions featured nonhumans).

I'm much more in favour of making events such as being caught, blackjacking people, and killing people have some sort of non-immediate influence on the game world, so the more circumspect thief is faced with a different world situation than the bloodthirsty one (this doesn't even have to be that the sneakier thief gets an easier ride, although it could be, but it could just be that if ghosts are operating then people take security precautions against ghosts, whereas murderers are pursued by other means). Natually in my list above, being seen is less influential than killing people. If judged necessary it could be that higher difficulties amplify these effects.

Fundamentally, I think that game difficulty options should be placed more in control of the player (with several recommended default settings to suit the preferences of most people who don't want to customise too much). Forcing the player to choose between a small number of options that vastly change all sorts of things is unnecessarily restrictive.

Terr
12th May 2009, 17:59
I would like to see three measures of achievement that you can see at any time during the mission. (It sucks finding out some action in the very beginning was rated "unstealthy" until you finish.)


How many story-objectives did you complete / loot items did you get?
How often were you detected? How much of a ruckus did you cause?
How many humans have you killed?


Difficulty implications

More/Better guards (At sensing, combat)
More objectives, or optional objectives become required
Stealth requirement


______________

TL:DR version: You can complete the mission and advance even on Hard despite killing people, but if so there must be a metric so that pacifist players can challenge themselves to do it like a ghost.

Gorephazer
12th May 2009, 18:09
For some reason my experience with all three games seems to be the opposite of everyone else's. One of my few gripes with T1 and T2 is that it is way too easy to kill people. The fact is, it is much more efficient to simply shoot arrows at everything (which doesn't pose much of a problem because you get plenty of arrows without even having to buy any) and, if the enemy gets close, walk around them in circles bashing them with your sword. I could kill almost anything without taking any damage, so there was never any reason to run away, especially since enemies look for you a lot longer than in T3. Unfortunately this meant that playing the game in the most efficient fashion basically ruined it because that's not the way the game is meant to be played. In T3, however, whenever I got caught I would usually throw a flashbomb and go hide somewhere because it was the only way to avoid dying. So in regards to stealth/combat mechanics, I prefer TDS

NathanGPLC
12th May 2009, 18:21
I have to admit, the big reason I liked Thief was that I could set it to Expert and see the 'Don't kill anyone. You're a thief, not a murderer.' objective added to the lists. It made the game harder, yes, but the real point--the reason it was raved about in reviews, when it was--is that this requirement is what separated Thief from a first-person shooter, and earned it the title 'first-person sneaker.'

If you can kill the humans and guards on expert, you're not really playing Thief any more. I understand that some people argue that this is the game 'telling you how to play,' but that's the point. The difficulty in Thief stems from, in some cases (but not all; those requirements weren't 100% universal), being forced to avoid combat specifically because Garrett doesn't like killing. To him, unnecessary death IS mission failure.

Blessed be,
~Nathan

Pangalactic
12th May 2009, 18:33
Totally, NathanGPLC. It couldn't have been said better!

StalinsGhost
12th May 2009, 20:12
Perhaps mission failure is a bit to far. "Unnecessary Complications" certainly :D

I'd love to see killing guards result in increased guard presence - hell, if guards start disappearing through being knocked out someone should start to notice. Perhaps a (hidden) "spooked" gauge that increases with the number of guards that "disappear", the number of torches mysteriously being blown out or when the guards just can't keep attributing things to rats any longer.

Teasza
13th May 2009, 14:46
I have to admit, the big reason I liked Thief was that I could set it to Expert and see the 'Don't kill anyone. You're a thief, not a murderer.' objective added to the lists. It made the game harder, yes, but the real point--the reason it was raved about in reviews, when it was--is that this requirement is what separated Thief from a first-person shooter, and earned it the title 'first-person sneaker.'

If you can kill the humans and guards on expert, you're not really playing Thief any more. I understand that some people argue that this is the game 'telling you how to play,' but that's the point. The difficulty in Thief stems from, in some cases (but not all; those requirements weren't 100% universal), being forced to avoid combat specifically because Garrett doesn't like killing. To him, unnecessary death IS mission failure.

Blessed be,
~Nathan

Yeah, I'm just going to quote this again in the hope that EVERYONE sees it. This is 100% correct.

Sure, this places constraints on your gameplay. That's the point. Each person's Garrett may be slightly different. but he still has a basic personality dictated by the gameplay, and this is a huge part of it. Garrett is not an assassin. The people who are all grousing "BUT I WANT TO SLIT PEOPLE'S THROATS" are just going to have to either sacrifice their difficulty settings or play another game. Making Garrett's attitude to killing more casual butchers his character, imo.

DarthEnder
13th May 2009, 14:58
You guys realize that the higher difficulties NEVER had smarter AI right? The only difference between the difficulty modes was 1. Less health 2. Less equipment 3. More/harder objectives, which includes "no killing non-gaurds" on medium and "no killing humans" on hard.

BoldEnglishman
13th May 2009, 15:41
As it's been said many times, if you want to kill everyone, play on Normal. If you want a challenging Thief experience, play on expert and try to ghost.

This. Giving the player the option of either playing for killing or playing for no-killing is the best idea I think.

acridrose
13th May 2009, 16:10
The choice must remain with the player though. Not everyone has the patience to ghost, some simply don't enjoy it. Each to his own.

Ohhh dear, lol :mad2:
we want the game to give its full attention to stealth and the capacity of ghosting, not let it branch out like most games where you can choose- because then it doesn't go into the amount of depth thief does. The genre isn't just "steath", it goes into loads of different areas of stealth, such as infiltration, ghosting, exfiltration, scouting, etc etc etc. To then offer less stealthy routes for the people who have not the "patience to ghost" is to then take a step back from the divine focus the original thief games had.
thief is "the ultimate stealth simulator" to quote.

Tohtori
13th May 2009, 16:10
This is a bit like my other post on blackjacking thread but this is better thread to say this (:

I think Thi4f should encourage not to kill. But I don't think it would be good idea to prevent killing on every level. It should just have sever consequences. As someone said people could refer u as murderous instead of master thief. Also shopkeepers would refuse to deal with you so you would get less money and tools. And guards and city watch should be more alert and angrier. Perhaps even when killing too much you could be fully abandoned by the underground community.

And since the Thief serie is about sneaking, IMO blackjacking should have also a bit sever disadvantages or perhaps there could be some advantages for not to knock out people in some levels.

And the difficulty. I personally hate different difficulty levels in games. I would like to see more optional tasks to make game more difficult. Maybe some optional objectives like "Enter the mansion from front door" or "Don't get seen at all". There could also be different goals for loot. Like you could get pass level with 30% of loot but there would also be optional objectives for more loot. Perhaps there could also be loot level needed to keep up the master thief status.

xXFl4meXx
13th May 2009, 16:45
I think Thi4f should encourage not to kill. But I don't think it would be good idea to prevent killing on every level. It should just have sever consequences. As someone said people could refer u as murderous instead of master thief. Also shopkeepers would refuse to deal with you so you would get less money and tools. And guards and city watch should be more alert and angrier. Perhaps even when killing too much you could be fully abandoned by the underground community.


Yes, I think this would be the best thing for this issue. Very realistic, no one would really wanna deal with a murderer, or buy valuables paid with blood.. & if people start calling you a murderer instead of a Master Thief that will make the player reason if he/she should avoid killing as often as they do, & thus they will start playing as Garrett really would be.. Well closely as to how he would be acting.. or w/e... :poke:

ToMegaTherion
13th May 2009, 22:37
To those wishing to force everyone to play in only a few restrictive difficulty levels: don't you think it's reasonable that, given we've played three Thief games already and know how we (individually) prefer to play by now, we ask the designers to give us the freedom to play Thief how we (individually) enjoy most? I can understand having default difficulty settings to introduce new players to the most common ways to play Thief.

But basically if the designers are very restrictive in difficulty they are telling me that they know better than me how I prefer Thief. And if you are advocating they behave like this, you're telling me that you know better than me how I prefer Thief. I can understand this if it's a new game in a new series for me, but I think after playing three Thief games, people should be gracious enough to accept that I know better than anybody how I want to play.

Out of interest, can we really find evidence, outside of the expert mode objectives, that Garrett would refuse to kill anybody ever?

randomtaffer
14th May 2009, 02:59
But basically if the designers are very restrictive in difficulty they are telling me that they know better than me how I prefer Thief. And if you are advocating they behave like this, you're telling me that you know better than me how I prefer Thief. I can understand this if it's a new game in a new series for me, but I think after playing three Thief games, people should be gracious enough to accept that I know better than anybody how I want to play.

Out of interest, can we really find evidence, outside of the expert mode objectives, that Garrett would refuse to kill anybody ever?

You have to remember that there's still a story involved. It's always been one of Thief's strongest qualities. This isn't a "build your own Thief" game. You play Garrett.

I don't think anyone is saying that Garrett would never kill someone ever, he just wouldn't do it if it isn't necessary. Garrett is known as a professional Thief, not an Assassin that steals stuff.

Again, that's why the difficulty levels are there. If you don't want to be restricted on kills, then simply play on normal. Does it really take much of the game from you if you can't play on expert and kill without restriction? After all, we've already decided that it is indeed more difficult to ghost, than it is to kill everyone.

Pangalactic
14th May 2009, 03:09
You have to remember that there's still a story involved. It's always been one of Thief's strongest qualities. This isn't a "build your own Thief" game. You play Garrett.

Hear, hear!

Sapare
14th May 2009, 04:53
No. Ghosting takes much more skill than killing. Especially in TDP and TMA. IMO the tension from trying to ghost is more exciting and, once completed, is infinitely more rewarding to a player in the end.

Killing guards when you get in a bind, though acceptable, will not make you a better Thief player. Learning to improvise and think on your feet in order to avoid or distract guards is much more thief like than simply stabbing them in the stomach when they find you.

In TDP and TMA it was fun to fight guards because you could fence and actually stood some sort of chance against them. In TDS, you were pretty helpless with that little poker. Although I appreciate that fighting was discouraged, I at least want to screw around every once in a while and try it.

To your last part, that was just because you got the idea wrong. In TDS it was WAY to easy to fight, you just needed to do it differently. You need to run a way a few steps, then run at the enemy again slicing wile moving past. In the right timing the enemy will not hit you but you hit them.(I fought 2 guards at the same time like that)

randomtaffer
14th May 2009, 05:00
To your last part, that was just because you got the idea wrong. In TDS it was WAY to easy to fight, you just needed to do it differently. You need to run a way a few steps, then run at the enemy again slicing wile moving past. In the right timing the enemy will not hit you but you hit them.(I fought 2 guards at the same time like that)

Yes, of course, but it isn't truly a question of skill.
There's still the fact of not being able to block or deflect at all. The dodge and slash tactic was dangerous, time consuming, and just plain awkward.

I could fight and kill a guard, but it wasn't fun to do so. Blocking and parrying attacks was much for fun for me than frantically leaping out of the way and flailing about awkwardly with the dagger.

Corvin25
14th May 2009, 13:16
Definitely. Even some of the easy mode missions should discourage needless killing. If you just go around and slaughter everyone, you're missing the whole point of the Thief series.

Botlas
15th May 2009, 21:48
I just wanted to point out that Garrett kills someone in the intros for the first two games. It's actually kind of ironic that he blackjacks the guy in the intro to Deadly Shadows, when Deadly Shadows encouraged killing more than the first two games.

The point is that it's not really a foregone conclusion that Garrett is not a killer. He just prefers not to kill. So there is really no reason that the "no killing" limitations should extend farther than it has in the prior games.

NathanGPLC
15th May 2009, 22:03
I agree that it shouldn't be forced on all missions, even at Expert--but keeping to what Thief 1 & 2 did is probably the best bet for a Thief game, considering that they were the most (commercially, and thus measurably) successful. Which means that, on average, Expert Difficulty has more restrictions on killing. Even, in some cases, being seen could cause mission failure; the level where you frame a Watch officer required absolutely NO interaction with the guards (being seen at all caused mission failure) on Expert. Which makes logical sense.

Again, I know it seems like the game is trying to tell you how to play on Expert. But that doesn't mean it's saying you have to prefer to play on Expert; no one is going to show up and wag their finger at you if you play on Normal or Easy. Removing the restriction on killing ala most of Thief 3 makes the game more like Street Thug: The Guy with the Knife than Thief.

And yes, I always thought it was extremely bizarre that Garrett kills people in the intro videos to T1 and T2 :-) But, again, the point is that he's not a pacifist--just a master thief. And a master thief would be smart enough not to be a murderer; it draws too much attention.

Blessed be,
~Nathan

DarthEnder
16th May 2009, 01:01
I think it's more a simple matter of Garrett simply doesn't care.

kaekaelyn
16th May 2009, 05:29
I like the satisfaction of shooting guards with arrows, as well as trying out different things with my weapons/toys. Sorry, I might be playing a "murderer" Garrett, but I enjoy doing that. However, I also enjoy the extra objectives and gameplay challenges offered by switching to "Expert" mode. I feel like if you want to play without killing anybody, just decide to start over from your last save whenever you kill somebody. I'm sure you'll notice when you do so. Are you really so tempted to break your own rules that you need an "official" Game Over screen to give you a point of no return?

I mean, granted, this is just because I personally like to have all the tools I need, even deadly ones, at my disposal during a mission, so I want to have that option on Expert difficulty without an automatic mission fail. I feel a little differently about the no killing non-combatants rule because I don't kill non-combatants, whereas I do kill guards--so maybe I'm biased about this, but I do feel a little cheated, because whenever I used to play Thief 1/2 I always tried putting it on Expert difficulty, but would soon feel frustrated that I wasn't even allowed to fight to save my life. Therefore, I often found myself playing on a lower difficulty setting and trying to make things more difficult in other ways.

ToMegaTherion
16th May 2009, 07:55
Exactly, like I said, there's nothing wrong with having a highest difficulty level that is different only in that it doesn't allow you to kill anyone, but it's rather annoying to have to miss out on the other Expert stuff just because I want to occasionally use some of my more destructive toys, and I would like to be able to kill a guard when I have no choice.

We still have no evidence, outside the Expert mission objectives (and claiming Expert objectives are canon is a stretch, I think) that Garrett would never kill anyone. We also have evidence that Garrett does kill people. So saying I should avoid killing anyone because I'm playing as "Garrett" doesn't do the job: as far as we can tell, Garrett will kill people should the need arise -- exactly what I want to do and exactly what some people don't want me to be allowed to do.

As I've said on a previous thread, I'm more in favour of "no more than x guards incapacitated" as in Framed!, or more complicated and deep versions of the same idea.

But I'm still curious as to why everyone thinks that they know better than me how I want to play, or that I shouldn't be allowed to enjoy myself on some strange "principle".

Terr
16th May 2009, 09:52
But I'm still curious as to why everyone thinks that they know better than me how I want to play, or that I shouldn't be allowed to enjoy myself on some strange "principle".

Oh come off the victimhood thing already.

Easier modes in games virtually always give you more flexibility in how you play the game compared to harder modes. Even if the only change is enemy stats (that is, nothing qualitative) it still changes the number of techniques you can use to plausibly win.

It's may or may not be a matter of "principle", but it is definitely a matter of game design. Thief has a fine balance in the mission scenarios, and stealth is far more binary than combat. It's easy to tweak combat-related stats for difficulty, but comparatively hard to tweak and balance stealth-related stats. (Witness the crappy implementation of stealth in DXIW.) Surviving a fight with 10,50,100% health is easier to manage than 10,50,100% detection.

Therefore the better way to add difficulty is to add map, goal, and method objectives, and there's nothing wrong with those harder-objectives including things like not simply shooting all the guards with arrows to the face.

Are you potentially missing out on using certain lethal gadgets? Sure, if that bothers you then it sounds like you're already a little bit bored with beating the game on hard anyway.

Flashart
16th May 2009, 09:54
I think Garrett killing in the cutscenes was more to do with attracting the
first person shooter crowd, than stating Garrett's personality.

I like to Semi-ghost KO's only. For the Garrett I play I think killing is inappropriate,
however I wouldn't deny anyone the option of the reverse.
I like the level selection from Splinter Cell etc, taken to extremes this could even be
taken as far as a "load-out" screen, selecting different dress and weapons and equipment
depending on gameplay style.
Studded leather for combat, black silk for stealth, maybe a chloroform pad instead of a blackjack.

How much of this is true to the spirit of Thief is very debatable.

TeoRocker
16th May 2009, 10:07
The first time I played the Thief games it was on normal difficulty. I'd avoid killing guards, but sometimes I was just too lazy and just went on a killing spree, or simply got rid of a single enemy with an accurate arrow shot.

I liked the idea of having some sort of "customized" difficulty. Some players might want the extra objectives but not the killing limitations.

ToMegaTherion
16th May 2009, 10:13
Is it really such a big deal to have two top difficulty levels, one of which with killing and one of which without it? It's the fourth title in the series, we're probably better at making the game fun for us than the designers could be with a couple of difficulty levels, what's controversial about giving more control to the player?

It amused me that in Deadly Shadows they successfully removed unnecessary killing restrictions but added the ten-times-more-annoying 90% loot requirement.

Personally I'd rather have a system that encourages, but does not necessarily require, a low number of kills and even KOs and even detections on any difficulty level. But that might be a bit too unconventional to satisfy both (or even either) the fans and the designers.

CavaliereNero
16th May 2009, 10:29
I say we should take a page from the book of Hideo Kojima here. Garrett has a blackjack, gas mines, gas arrows, all perfectly non-lethal weapons and toys. He doesn't have to kill to take a guard or non-combatant out of the way, and he'll still have to hide the body regardless. Stealth means remaining hidden, and while half the challenge is in keeping out of the guards sight, if all else fails, it would make for an easier job to get rid of him. That's how Solid Snake does it, that's how Garrett does it, and it's worked out pretty well for me. Ghosting should be rewarded, anyone that can make it through without sight, sound, or a fight has my respect. But we, as players, shouldn't be punished for pragmatism.Unless you're stupid enough to hide the body someplace were it would be discovered, like a toilet stall or in the fireplace. Although being able to prop it up in a chair next to a cup of tea would make for an interesting scene... At least until someone sounds the alarm. ;) There's a lot of potential here! Just keep in mind, it's a game, and regardless of individual gameplay styles, it should, above all, simply be fun.

And for the record, while I do prefer to ghost, I am an excellent shot with the broadhead arrow, and would love for more opportunities to use them.

Necros
16th May 2009, 11:09
Agree with OP. There is no need to change an excellent formula.

Easy - Kill anyone
Medium - Can't kill innocents
Expert - Can't kill anyone
:thumb:

NathanGPLC
16th May 2009, 12:42
But I'm still curious as to why everyone thinks that they know better than me how I want to play, or that I shouldn't be allowed to enjoy myself on some strange "principle".

As I said, it's not that the game is telling you how you should enjoy the game; it's merely telling you what it was designed for.

And the reason I (and others) bring it up is that we prefer to play in a game where the rule is, on Expert, 'no killing.' That's where the satisfaction comes from, for me; knowing that I just did something that a lot of other people wouldn't have the patience or dedication for. 'You're a thief, not a murderer' defines what made the games worth playing. If the restriction is merely self-imposed, the feeling of awesometasticness at having beaten the game on Expert is lessened.


Exactly, like I said, there's nothing wrong with having a highest difficulty level that is different only in that it doesn't allow you to kill anyone, but it's rather annoying to have to miss out on the other Expert stuff just because I want to occasionally use some of my more destructive toys, and I would like to be able to kill a guard when I have no choice.

I understand that part, but I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand, I like the idea of having a game where part of the reward of playing like thief--no killing--is a greater set of other objectives, too. It makes the game feel more dedicated to the playstyle that is so unique to it.

On the other hand, in the interest of being more generally accessible, we could have separate difficulty sliders/settings for Mission Complete and Mission Difficulty:

Mission Complete
Easy: 50% loot (or X Amount), Basic Objectives
Normal: 75% loot (or Y Amount), Basic Objectives, 'Also do X while here.'
Expert: 90% loot (or Z Amount), Basic Objectives, 'Also do XY while here, and grab Z on your way out.'

Mission Difficulty
Street Thug: No restrictions.
Professional: Don't kill any non-combatants.
Master Thief: You're a thief, not a murderer. Don't kill anyone.

Prince_VLAD
16th May 2009, 13:13
I think you're overreacting...This is a game and we, who play it, are mature people who know, generally, the difference between good and wrong...So if I choose to kill them all that doesn't mean I'm a bad person, does it ? It just means that this is one way I can have FUN! A game is made with the idea to be fun ...not MORAL, mainly.Game industry is not exactly the ...church..:)

NathanGPLC
16th May 2009, 13:22
I don't think Garrett's a pacifist, and he doesn't kill because he thinks it is morally wrong--

He just doesn't kill people because it is inconvenient in the long run :D

I don't think most people arguing for restrictions on killing are doing so because of moral reasons; they're arguing it on the basis of fun and thematic gameplay.

I'm not saying that if you have fun fighting in Thief, then you're a bad person; I'm just pointing out that a lot of people have more fun when you can't.

Blessed be,
~Nathan

Flashart
16th May 2009, 13:43
Yes I agree, it's a thematic reason for me. Garrett is a thief, he doesn't want to draw attention,
so killing (humans) is certainly out, it just doesn't seem right.
Do I kill in other games? Yes, it seems the right thing to do.
I know a balance has to be struck, but Thief has to concentrate on the sneaking side, not the killing side. There's plenty of other games that do the killing better.

HellionKal
16th May 2009, 13:54
As the game manual of TDP reminds us, "YOU ARE NOT A TANK". IMO going around on killing sprees, fun as it may be, is just not what THIEF is about at its core.

Playing on Expert without having to kill anybody required almost completely different tactical approaches on certain missions and was a unique experience that counts among the things which made me adore THIEF in the first place.

If Eidos ABSOLUTELY MUST ALLOW players to kill on higher difficulty...then they could probably add a "THIEF" difficulty level after "Expert" that offers the same objectives as "Expert" but forbits killing and offers greater rewards.

tender19
16th May 2009, 14:42
As a beginner, I played with murder possibilities, but now I'm playing on expert, would be boring to just kill every enemy, I like to observe their patrol routes, to sneak and quickload over and over again :D

HellKittyDan
16th May 2009, 16:04
Garrett never offers his views on killing because that choice is left up to the player. Perhaps one players version of Garrett will go out of his way to avoid killing, while another players version will kill any who stands in his way without a thought.

I used to think objectives should be kept the same as T1 & T2, with no killing on expert, but now that I think about it, I'd prefer if there were no restrictions, instead the player is given different ranks depending on how they complete the mission, and ultimately the entire game.

For example, at the end of each mission you'd be given a title based on how you played that mission. Something along the lines of what is in Hitman: Blood Money, where you get a Silent Assassin rank if you complete your objectives with no mess, clean kills and no witnesses, or a Murderer rank if the mission ends in a bloodbath.

At the end of the game you get a number of titles based on how you played through, like the emblems in MGS4, except rather than emblems you earn glyphs.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/4950/rank.jpg

DarthEnder
16th May 2009, 16:14
MGS4's emblem system would be pretty damn sweet for Thief.
Garrett never offers his views on killing because that choice is left up to the player. Perhaps one players version of Garrett will go out of his way to avoid killing, while another players version will kill any who stands in his way without a thought.Yes. This exactly.

huzi73
16th May 2009, 17:29
The killing,and health from food,and ai awareness,as well as objectives and loot requirement need to be completely user controlled,with the ultimate ghost emblem being rewarded when all sliders are at maximum

kaekaelyn
16th May 2009, 17:50
I think it would be awesome to see some sort of ranking system based on how you played a given mission/trends throughout several missions. It'd give some in-game validation to "ghosting" while also recognizing other viable playstyles. I think it'd be a good way to please everyone.

It's definitely unrealistic to be "Game Overed" the moment you kill someone. Sometimes you get in a sticky situation and you have to do regrettable things to get out--that doesn't mean you have to commit suicide. I think a ranking system would be a good way to please everyone--hardcore ghosters would have to see a row of "Ghost" symbols to show for their efforts, while not forcing the rest of us to give up other objectives. It might also increase replay value if these "trophies" had some sort of effect on the game.

DanielOcean
16th May 2009, 22:49
I think it would be awesome to see some sort of ranking system based on how you played a given mission/trends throughout several missions. It'd give some in-game validation to "ghosting" while also recognizing other viable playstyles. I think it'd be a good way to please everyone.

It's definitely unrealistic to be "Game Overed" the moment you kill someone. Sometimes you get in a sticky situation and you have to do regrettable things to get out--that doesn't mean you have to commit suicide. I think a ranking system would be a good way to please everyone--hardcore ghosters would have to see a row of "Ghost" symbols to show for their efforts, while not forcing the rest of us to give up other objectives. It might also increase replay value if these "trophies" had some sort of effect on the game.

Totally agree. I would like to see such a ranking system. Because even if you have played through the game and found all secrets or whatsoever, there is still the chance to improve yourself. I like the idea of playing the same mission again, just because i want the "ghost" trophy :D.

What is the point of killing someone if nobody knows you are there :rolleyes:

kaekaelyn
17th May 2009, 00:23
Yeah, and there could be different awards for different things, like finding all the secret areas, stealing all the loot, or even KO'ing all the guards!

Whenever I played on Expert mode, I always felt a little peeved whenever the situation would (I felt) force me to kill someone, and the game would end. I might have been in the mood for no-killing, but it's a little unrealistic to be pulled out of the mission just for that. Garrett may not like killing, but he'd still have to cut his losses and move on with the mission. I think the trophy system is a great way to give everyone's playstyle the recognition it deserves, because with a game with so many solutions to any given problem, I think it's unfair to limit us to just one, even on Expert mode. :)

CurtX
17th May 2009, 00:30
I remember when I first started playing Thief, I did attempt to kill a guard or two using my sword or bow. But it was just too hard. So from then on I stealthed my way through the rest. And I'm glad I did, as it made be a better player, and made for a much more enjoyable, and memorable experience. You can kill in every other game out there, so that's not so memorable.

kaekaelyn
17th May 2009, 01:08
Don't you think it's awesome how you could do that? You switched from one gameplay angle to another in the blink of an eye, because Thief gives you the choice and the mission design is so in-depth that it allows you a lot of options--and you may be able to come up with your own awesome idea to get through a certain area that the creators never even imagined. That's really the beauty of Thief. It rewards creativity.

NathanGPLC
17th May 2009, 01:52
Exactly; and setting the Difficulty to prohibit killing will encourage just that sort of creativity! :D

Blessed be,
~Nathan

BlooferLady
17th May 2009, 03:34
I can with 100% honesty say that I didn't notice that TDS took out the "no killing" rule. I never killed unless I had to as an objective requirement. I guess that puts me in the self-imposed group. I can understand how people feel who want killing allowed, though. Thief has a marvelous number of ways that it can be beaten, and, yes, sometimes it means that people prefer to go around killing instead of sneaking. I prefer a ghost/semi-ghost technique, myself, but I also enjoy replaying missions and seeing just how many bodies I can stack up after laying oil down on the stairs. :) If I felt like killing on the previous games, I would simply play on Hard. Can't think why I didn't notice the difference, now that you all point it out.

I agree with some of the previous ideas. I think an achievement system, where you are rewarded for completing a mission without killing, but not penalized if that one guard just WOULDN'T turn around, and you got tired of waiting and gave him an arrow to the throat. Yes, a noisemaker/distraction would have been classier and given you less trouble when next the watch came looking for you, but to each his own. After all, as 360-ers know, you sometimes just can't help but stay up till 3 a.m. getting those Achievements filled in. They are a great incentive for some people.

Just remember, there are many ways to play Thief. If they can give you options for your personal playing style without disrupting the hardcore stealth aspect, why would you complain?

Caranfin
18th May 2009, 20:48
As I said, it's not that the game is telling you how you should enjoy the game; it's merely telling you what it was designed for.

And the reason I (and others) bring it up is that we prefer to play in a game where the rule is, on Expert, 'no killing.' That's where the satisfaction comes from, for me; knowing that I just did something that a lot of other people wouldn't have the patience or dedication for. 'You're a thief, not a murderer' defines what made the games worth playing. If the restriction is merely self-imposed, the feeling of awesometasticness at having beaten the game on Expert is lessened.

I understand that part, but I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand, I like the idea of having a game where part of the reward of playing like thief--no killing--is a greater set of other objectives, too. It makes the game feel more dedicated to the playstyle that is so unique to it.

On the other hand, in the interest of being more generally accessible, we could have separate difficulty sliders/settings for Mission Complete and Mission Difficulty:

Mission Complete
Easy: 50% loot (or X Amount), Basic Objectives
Normal: 75% loot (or Y Amount), Basic Objectives, 'Also do X while here.'
Expert: 90% loot (or Z Amount), Basic Objectives, 'Also do XY while here, and grab Z on your way out.'

Mission Difficulty
Street Thug: No restrictions.
Professional: Don't kill any non-combatants.
Master Thief: You're a thief, not a murderer. Don't kill anyone.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said there.


I don't think Garrett's a pacifist, and he doesn't kill because he thinks it is morally wrong--

He just doesn't kill people because it is inconvenient in the long run :D
I feel there's some amount of pride there as well. He's a master thief. THE thief. And killing is for the people who can't get past the guards in other ways.



For example, at the end of each mission you'd be given a title based on how you played that mission. Something along the lines of what is in Hitman: Blood Money, where you get a Silent Assassin rank if you complete your objectives with no mess, clean kills and no witnesses, or a Murderer rank if the mission ends in a bloodbath.

At the end of the game you get a number of titles based on how you played through, like the emblems in MGS4, except rather than emblems you earn glyphs.

This is an awesome idea. I'm going to ghost the game regardless of the game requiring me to or not, just for the feeling of achievement, but having the game recognise the achievement as well would be nice.

WVI
18th May 2009, 20:50
I think it's a bit pompous to say Thief 2 was meant to be played on Expert.

Just saying.

-Constantine-
23rd May 2009, 21:14
I agree with the OP. Garrett may not be the most morally-endorsing character in history, but his job is not that of a killer. Granted, he has done it in his life and will do it when the need arises, but generally speaking, the more you kill, the higher the chance for the bodies to get found, the guards to get alerted, and basically the risk of ending impaled by a sword grows greater. In real life it would have been the same, so immersion dictates that restricting killing in most Thief missions is a good thing :).

GmanPro
23rd May 2009, 23:11
I think it's a bit pompous to say Thief 2 was meant to be played on Expert.

Just saying.

Maybe, maybe not. There was a fair amount of extra material that only the players on expert difficulty got to experience.

chagnampra
26th May 2009, 20:56
I completely agree. Garrett is a master thief who shouldn't have to kill anyone to achieve his ends.
I quite liked the difficulty settings from Thief 1 & 2, linked to objectives regarding (on the higher levels), not killing anyone.

However, what I'd like to retain is the opportunity to make mistakes in a level and STILL be able to get back on track and complete the mission.
Splinter Cell's fatal flaw is that often, if you make a mistake, it's 'game over, man'...
Plus, if you CAN kill people, then making a choice NOT to kill them (or doing so due to being awesomely stealthy) is hugely satisfying...
...possibly even leaving you with a fuzzy feeling inside! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ueVMwkNFY

ToMegaTherion
26th May 2009, 21:15
From a gameplay point of view I'd be more interested in a system that restricts the total amount of "fuss" you can cause on a level, where being spotted is bad, blackjacking people is worse, and murdering is worst of all... I can't think of any plausible explanation for such a system in every mission, though.

Stath MIA
27th May 2009, 04:54
I think that killing should never be required and should be generally discouraged, however the option should still exist. That's what I always loved about Thief, the fact that you could generally play how you want and the only restrictions on your actions are self-imposed.

Slickleg
27th May 2009, 13:13
I agree with Nathan on the whole 'dual difficulty setting' idea, but wanted to bring back what Nate mentioned about the minimalist project.

Having one difficulty setting for AI awareness and then another for Playstyle would be great. So wether you want to play the assassin or ghost or thug, you can do it with whatever level of difficulty you like. I also liked the Cut-purse (I think it was) option where you had a time limit to complete the level and needed to get a certain percentage of loot. It feels like a different game while still being challenging and interesting.

But on the subject of morality in the game, I'd like to see more of it left up to the player with on-going consequences. The keepers are always talking about detachment from being wrathful or compassionate but theres no real effect on the player.

I liked what they started in TDS though, where you could decide not to steal from the widow Moira or bring her wine and depending on what you did, hired goons showed up at your door later on. And in the keeper Library when you are told not to steal anything: I never tested it but always thought that if anything went missing, the keepers would know it was Garrett. I'm not saying that there should only be consequences for immoral acts either. Maybe in an instance that the player decides to let someone live or not steal, they end up paying for it later on.

Leaving it up to the player rather than saying 'Garrett would do it this way' makes the game feel more personal.

Iscor
27th May 2009, 16:27
Yeah I agree, we're thieves not mass murderers, though I reckon it could be flexible based on difficulty levels so that the option of killing is still there to some degree, but mindless slaughter should be discouraged. Great way to draw unwanted attention to yourself!! Something no thief wants.

Aristofiles
3rd Jun 2009, 16:10
think this is one of the big decisions of the game that Eidos must take. Will it be a thief game or a assasin game. Seeing that there are a few other games out there that have taken the assasin role i dont think the choise is that hard...

perhaps G will be forced to assasinate someone but its mutch more his style to frame them, plant evidence, ruin them ec ec.... Gareth is not evil for 1 sec... he is a joker. If someone crosses him he teatch them a lesson thay wont forgett. he dosent kill them.

if you like gore you should play Assasins creed or hitman.

HorseManDemon
15th Jun 2009, 05:12
You know, I was recently playing through TDP again, and saw the whole "You're a thief, not a murderer" bit phrased differently in a mission objective. It said "Violence is the mark of an amateur. Don't kill anyone."

Damn right. Heavens forbid that a higher level of difficulty is unplayable with amateur tactics like killing. Garrett is a master thief BECAUSE he doesn't have to kill. He doesn't kill because he has the skills necessary to avoid his pursuers! Killing your foes is an admittance that you DO NOT have the skills necessary to get past without doing so, and without said abilities, you shouldn't be PLAYING on the higher difficulties.

Hypevosa
15th Jun 2009, 05:32
I found out where the title comes from! :D the deadly shadows are the enforcers. In the keeper library there is a book about the coming of the dark age that talks about the deadly shadows filling the streets.

But yeah, there was alot more encouragement of murder in TDS than in the other games. "That Gear looks precarious, someone might have an accident..."

HorseManDemon
15th Jun 2009, 05:37
Thanks for all that, jtr. Never realized that there was such a difference between the messages in TDP/TMA and TDS. Probably has something to do with the fact that I only played through TDS once.


"That Gear looks precarious, someone might have an accident..."

Well... Clearly that's uhmmm... Legitimate concern... For another's well-being. Yeah! That's it! >.>

jtr7
15th Jun 2009, 05:40
Heh heh. Yer welcome. :D

Flashart
15th Jun 2009, 06:25
I don't kill as Garrett, however what about the undead? They are after all, er...already dead.

Hypevosa
15th Jun 2009, 06:56
yep, I always kill every undead I come accross...

HorseManDemon
15th Jun 2009, 07:00
Yeah, the undead are abominations, and they must be destroyed :p

gpagonewest
15th Jun 2009, 08:03
First time I played TDP way back when it first came out, I played the first couple of levels on the easiest difficulty. I found it far too easy so I started again on hard and completed the game. I then decided to play through it again straight away on expert; it was only then that I got hooked.

So I always played them on expert after that. I don’t think it’s pompous or elitist to think you should only play them at that difficulty level, I just think it’s the ultimate thief challenge that everyone should try.

On the morality issue of killing, I don’t, but I do think it should be a choice that each player makes at the very start of the game. Once the choice is made it sticks for the whole of the single player game. That way those of us who like the old way expert difficulty played get what they want, and those who want extra difficulty without the ‘No Killing’ rule also get what they want.

fayfuya
15th Jun 2009, 13:08
Killing isn't for noobs and not a bad thing at all, and it shouldn't be "you may not kill on Expert", wtf?
You should be able to kill just like in TDS, but a bit harder that's all.

Aristofiles
15th Jun 2009, 13:13
i like the way the first games were presented. Sure i have sneaked through them all stealth style and it was way more fun but ive played through the game assasin style aswell and killed of everyone aswell :D

Focus on the stealth game but why take out the possibility? no point.

Platinumoxicity
15th Jun 2009, 13:21
Eidos has one series for sneaking and stealing and that's called "Thief".
Eidos has another series for sneaking and killing and that's called "Hitman".

Putting your favorite hobbies together doesn't make the best possible hobby, it makes a mess. Try juggling and go-kart racing. Bad results.

ToMegaTherion
15th Jun 2009, 13:26
Yep, that's why all three games have had all those tools for killing things.

Hypevosa
15th Jun 2009, 13:31
Yep, that's why all three games have had all those tools for killing things.

You know very well that in the first 2 games the sword and broadheads served much more diverse purposes than murder. :P They were just there to tempt you while playing expert into slipping up and getting the dreaded game over jolly roger! *que evil laugh*

ToMegaTherion
15th Jun 2009, 13:52
Even on expert, there were only two missions in (non-Gold) Dark Project where you're not allowed to kill anything.

gpagonewest
15th Jun 2009, 13:58
Killing isn't for noobs and not a bad thing at all, and it shouldn't be "you may not kill on Expert", wtf?
You should be able to kill just like in TDS, but a bit harder that's all.

No one said killing was for noobs.

Not killing on expert is what Looking Glass Studios vision of the game was. It was their game and their choice, I just happen to agree with them on this particular game series.

Ion Storm had a different viewpoint with TDS, again their decision.

The Thief 4 devs may have a different vision again, personally I hope they try and accommodate both, and thus keep everyone happy.

gpagonewest
15th Jun 2009, 13:59
Even on expert, there were only two missions in (non-Gold) Dark Project where you're not allowed to kill anything.

True, but the T1/T2 rule was no killing of Humans, monsters you could kill till the cows come home.

Platinumoxicity
15th Jun 2009, 18:59
No one said killing was for noobs.

Uhh... Garrett said it many times in T1 and T2, on the objectives screen. :scratch:

ToMegaTherion
15th Jun 2009, 19:03
And then he went and shot someone in the intro. What a hypocrite!

Fire_Is_Born
15th Jun 2009, 19:11
Opinion is always going to differ on this it seems, because it is essentially a personal choice as to how you play the game. It would be silly to force the player to either ghost every level or to kill every guard... As in TDS, we should have the choice: knife or blackjack? Broadhead or gas arrow... We should all be allowed to decide for ourselves, IMHO.

Platinumoxicity
15th Jun 2009, 19:28
And then he went and shot someone in the intro. What a hypocrite!

Now that I think of it, yeah. The games contradict eachother. In T1 and T2 you couldn't kill on expert, but he did in the intro videos, and in TDS you were permitted to kill on expert but he blackjacked that dude in the intro. :scratch:


Opinion is always going to differ on this it seems, because it is essentially a personal choice as to how you play the game. It would be silly to force the player to either ghost every level or to kill every guard... As in TDS, we should have the choice: knife or blackjack? Broadhead or gas arrow... We should all be allowed to decide for ourselves, IMHO.

Yes, it's the players choice whether you want to kill or knock out, but in higher difficulties, it's no longer the player's choice. You can't choose to play the game the easiest way in expert difficulty, you need to play the expert way in expert difficulty. If you can't do it, expert is not for you. It's that simple.

P.S and did you see a choice between Dagger and blackjack in TDS? There was the crappy murderweapon and the non-lethal silent weapon. No choice, really.

ToMegaTherion
15th Jun 2009, 20:03
I'm sorry that you feel that way, old man.

Deathologist
15th Jun 2009, 20:04
One of my favorite aspects of Thief 1 and 2 was the restrictions it had on killing people. I loved the fact that if you played through it the way it was meant to be played (on expert) you weren't allowed to kill anyone.

Even on 'easy' difficulty, where you were allowed kill anyone it was messy, noisy, and more trouble than it was worth. The restriction on killing made you have to be creative and smart in dealing with guards and added integrity to Garrett's character. I was really disappointed that in TDS they rolled back the restrictions to 'Don't Kill Unarmed Bystanders.' I hope they add the 'You're a thief, not a murderer' back into T4!

Highly disagree. Garrett is not a "good" guy, he does whatever it takes to get what he wants, regardless of what happends. That was actually one of the few redeming factors of thief 3 was that you COULD kill people. I say, keep the don't kill innocent's rule but guards should be fair game. It's not like they would, you know, not kill garrett if they caught him. If you don't want to kill people, then don't, but I highly disagree on restricting players from killing the guards.

Helgeran
15th Jun 2009, 21:23
"The character of Garreth", isn't the player supposed to determine what sort of character he has? What if you want to have challangin guards (better hearing etc) and be able to kill them? Do you think it's fair to rob people of that experience because they have badwrongfun? Not having a kill limit doesn't ruin anything since you won't have to kill people unless you want to.

Helgeran
15th Jun 2009, 21:50
Well, my post was an answer to a post on the second page but my guess was right and the discussion wouldn't have come any further than that. A nice way to handle difficulty yet leaving a playing experience that both lets people make their own challanges and still stroke themselves about playing it right because the game says so is having many levers for difficulty, much like Mount&Blade were you can fiddle with how much damage you take from getting hit to how good the AI was, if all the parameters were maxed out the difficulty level would be "100% percent", in Thief purist terms I guess that would mean steal most of the loot, no killing and very alert guards while people like me who likes challanges but also likes having the choice of backstabbing dangling in front of my nose would only have 95% difficulty to brag about.

Since I guess what you're really on about is pointers to how the story is "supposed" to go so the new generation doesn't get the impression that Garreth is a sloppy assassin/robber.

Deathologist
15th Jun 2009, 21:52
Doing what it takes to get the goods is one thing, the player going after an AI for gleeful killin' is something else. Since stealth is what it takes to get the goods, killing is what the player is allowed to bring to the situation, but never necessary except to rid The City of an inhuman threat, but even then, he never kills the "bosses" himself. Again, the character of Garrett and his story in opposition to the players' sadism. No, he's not a good guy, and he can and will kill, but killing is not the game nor his hobby. Is there a T1/T2 OM where he kills for fun?

That's what Im getting at. But you should still have the OPTION to kill if you wish. Garrett won't kill unless needed, but some situations killing can be more efficent then just simply knocking someone out.

Platinumoxicity
15th Jun 2009, 22:06
For those who think that the game should give you the right to play any way you want on every difficulty setting:

Playing missions with few objectives any way you want is easy. Playing them with 1 extra objective and some limitations is harder. Playing them with many extra objectives and strict killing restrictions is expert.

The main thing is that if you play on easy (medium), you are permitted to do pretty much anything you want, but you're still playing the game the easy way. Playing on expert is the whole game, without anything taken out of it, like the extra objectives and hidden areas. But you can't expect to have the right to play the hardest difficulties the easy way! You need to learn to play them the hard way, or you need to settle for the easier difficulties.

:mad2:

ToMegaTherion
15th Jun 2009, 22:15
All the argument is removed if you separate loot requirement, adversary quantity, special objectives, and kill/ko/caught restrictions in the difficulties. Like it ought to be.

Edit: of course I believe it is rather easy to circumvent no-killing requirements in Metal Age at least, and to enforce no killing in Deadly Shadows, so there isn't really a problem as long as config and ini edits are still allowed in Thief 4.

Deathologist
15th Jun 2009, 23:06
For those who think that the game should give you the right to play any way you want on every difficulty setting:

Playing missions with few objectives any way you want is easy. Playing them with 1 extra objective and some limitations is harder. Playing them with many extra objectives and strict killing restrictions is expert.

The main thing is that if you play on easy (medium), you are permitted to do pretty much anything you want, but you're still playing the game the easy way. Playing on expert is the whole game, without anything taken out of it, like the extra objectives and hidden areas. But you can't expect to have the right to play the hardest difficulties the easy way! You need to learn to play them the hard way, or you need to settle for the easier difficulties.

:mad2:

There are plenty of harder objectives that can be given for higher difficulty levels then, restricting a THIEF (Ie someone with very little MORAL CODE AT ALL) from doing whatever the hell they want to get what they want. That IS GARRETT. To put it frank Garrett just dosen't give a s#it about anyone else but him.

Hypevosa
15th Jun 2009, 23:31
I think the reason Garrett kills in intro videos is just to show off the tools at his disposal, it lets people know he has a bow, and if you feel the need you can use it, proficiently. Something for the FPS fans to appreciate, even if it's not as quick as a normal bullet. Plus... it just looks badass.

Helgeran
16th Jun 2009, 07:36
For those who think that the game should give you the right to play any way you want on every difficulty setting:

Playing missions with few objectives any way you want is easy. Playing them with 1 extra objective and some limitations is harder. Playing them with many extra objectives and strict killing restrictions is expert.

The main thing is that if you play on easy (medium), you are permitted to do pretty much anything you want, but you're still playing the game the easy way. Playing on expert is the whole game, without anything taken out of it, like the extra objectives and hidden areas. But you can't expect to have the right to play the hardest difficulties the easy way! You need to learn to play them the hard way, or you need to settle for the easier difficulties.

:mad2:
That is utterly ridiculous, how does allowing the option for killing on expert take away your fun if you play it on expert + no killing?

Hypevosa
16th Jun 2009, 07:48
It's not that it takes away his fun, it's that it's the way you're meant to play on a harder difficulty... look at thief more as a puzzle for each level that needs to be solved, in easier difficulties the puzzle is alot simpler because the pieces are fewer (number of guards), larger pieces (stupid AI), and are even allowed to be in the wrong place (killed). In expert, all the sudden there are more pieces, they are smaller, and they are not allowed to be placed incorrectly.

It was a weird metaphor, but the disallowance of murder in higher difficulties makes the puzzle harder... because you can't just fill everyone with broadheads and waltz around anymore... understand?

ToMegaTherion
16th Jun 2009, 08:48
Platinum seems to be saying that it is correct for guard quantity, special objectives, and killing restrictions, to be linked to a single difficulty control setting. This seems to be a rather strong ideological position to take without further justification.

Hypevosa
16th Jun 2009, 08:53
that's just why the difficulty settings work that way though, because all become more difficult. Making slider options would make the experience TOO customizable... we're all supposed to be playing the same game, expert should be the same for all who play it, and normal should be the same for all who play it.

How about when you complete the game you earn the ability to make a custom difficulty mode? That sounds like it would suit all parties...

ToMegaTherion
16th Jun 2009, 09:11
I'm against things that require completing the game before I'm allowed to do them. If they're worth doing I want to do them the first time!

If we're all supposed to be playing the same game then let's not have any difficulty settings at all and make ini and cfg files uneditable.

Hypevosa
16th Jun 2009, 09:32
It makes people who have never played the game before get the experience that's supposed to be had first... then they can forge their own experience afterwords.

ToMegaTherion
16th Jun 2009, 09:37
If a particular difficulty level is an experience they're supposed to have then that difficulty level should be enforced.

I'm not really sure what it is you're demanding. It can't be that three difficulty settings are in principle correct and that any more or any less are ideologically inferior. Is it that it's preferable to have difficulty settings where each setting is no easier than the last one in every respect, rather than a more multi-dimensional relationship between the different difficulty levels?

Edit: If I recall correctly, you were able to kill people in the last mission of Metal Age, even on expert.

Platinumoxicity
16th Jun 2009, 10:24
Platinum seems to be saying that it is correct for guard quantity, special objectives, and killing restrictions, to be linked to a single difficulty control setting. This seems to be a rather strong ideological position to take without further justification.

It's actually quite simple. If you have the skills to play on expert, you get extra stuff. If you suck, you don't get any of that. But that seems to have been only fair until the year 2000. But there could be customizable difficulties like this:

Normal customized: All special objectives, guard skills and quantities customizable, no killing limits.
Hard customized: All special objectives, guard skills and quantities customizable, no killing limits for innocents.
Expert customized: All special objectives, guard skills and quantities customizable, killing restricted.

This way you can make the missions suit your playstyle, but as long as you've not finished the mission with all the sliders on full, (all objs, max guards, no killing) you haven't finished the mission on expert. When you have max objs, max guards, max guard sensitivity, but all killing permitted, the difficulty is just called: Medium/custom.

ToMegaTherion
16th Jun 2009, 10:50
I'll drink to that.

Hypevosa
16th Jun 2009, 11:00
I'm saying if you make the experience customizable from the get-go, then people all have a different experience with your game... by enforcing 3 difficulties, where each is always the same, you make all the players of that difficulty have the experience you want them to have first. Then if it's customizable afterwords, they can play the way they think would be most fun, but at least they had the experience you wanted them to first, the main experience you want people who play your game to have.

esme
16th Jun 2009, 11:20
the movies were produced on "easy" ;)

TheEye
4th Jul 2009, 11:47
i completely disagree. you've killed so much up until now, it does not matter. the "innocent" bystanders are quite the bit of trouble when they start yelling and calling the guards

esme
4th Jul 2009, 12:13
i completely disagree. you've killed so much up until now, it does not matter. the "innocent" bystanders are quite the bit of trouble when they start yelling and calling the guardsI've never killed any human AI in a mission unless it was an objective

Secondary
31st Aug 2009, 15:53
one of the many reasons we need to keep our opinions known to EM

the fps genre is a monster (is both scale and morals), way too many games are jsut being produced as violent garbage to appease a massive fanbase built around a culture of death. these games are simple, wanton, primitve, and repetative.

unfortunately the market for such games is bigger than ever, its the same with movies. studios are just marketing them to the crowd they know will buy into violence,


what i love about the Thief games is the lack of personal violence. if your killing people than you arent douing your job right. if you dont like the fact that patience and intelligence is required for this type of game then dont play them, am i right?


in todays market, we need to make sure that EM doesnt betray the fanbase in order to market the game to a more violent generation than the one we grew up on. im not bashing on EM here, nor am i saying i believe they will sell out. im just saying that its really up to the fans to preserve the spirit of gmaing as much as it is up to the devs.


sorry if i rambled.

kabatta
31st Aug 2009, 16:11
Cheers to ye olde difficulty settings. They are concise, fair and make enough differences to be set appart.

Davehall380
31st Aug 2009, 16:55
On expert the sword and broadhead arrows became almost defunct (apart from tools). That blackjack saw quite a bit of action, let me tell you!

ToMegaTherion
3rd Sep 2009, 11:29
Well, in Dark Project the killing tools are still extremely useful on Expert over the course of the game.

Davehall380
3rd Sep 2009, 15:32
Yeah. Anything that even remotley had the tricksters touch upon them met a swift and stealthy death. Actually, thats a lie.

minus0ne
3rd Sep 2009, 15:57
I loved how you could even run past most of the burricks (and other creatures) instead of killing them, if there were no shadows to be found. I felt guilty enough after stealing the Horn of Quintus and thereby putting and end to their peaceful everlasting concert :p. Actually you could do the same with zombies, although I've always had the strong overpowering urge to wipe out any zombie which poses a threat or is in the way of mission objectives, equipment allowing. I just have very little tolerance for their creepy sickly mumbling and groaning :D

Davehall380
3rd Sep 2009, 16:02
I loved how you could even run past most of the burricks (and other creatures) instead of killing them, if there were no shadows to be found. I felt guilty enough after stealing the Horn of Quintus and thereby putting and end to their peaceful everlasting concert :p. Actually you could do the same with zombies, although I've always had the strong overpowering urge to wipe out any zombie which poses a threat or is in the way of mission objectives, equipment allowing. I just have very little tolerance for their creepy sickly mumbling and groaning :D

There does seem to be an irrational urge to put the undead to sleep :D

matdmcc2
7th Sep 2009, 03:43
Ok so heres my take on this sitch. First off, I found levels too be easy once I went through and blackjacked everyone on the map. The only time I resorted to Killing (speaking specifically about TDS cause I recently played it again) I only killed the keeper enforcers. I had no compunction with slamming that dagger in the backs of their heads. I rather say they deserved it. But during levels I only used blackjacks, not sure why really, i guess it was just faster and quieter (and they were specifically gunning for Garrett). BUT. I would like to see a stealth hit with an arrow to be fatal, providing that the hit was in a vital area. I suppose factors such as armor should be taken into consideration. However, if anyone here has ever seen an English longbow or a crossbow fired, they would know that most armor doesnt stand up to the magnificence of a fast-flying razorsharp edge of a broadhead. For instance a bucket of sand will stop a bullet, but that same bucket will be transfixed by a well placed arrow. Anyway. I have always enjoyed the thief style where the level of difficulty reflects a players style. I usually play on hard (make jokes go ahead) but I like to have the freedom of killing if it deems necessary. Usually it doesnt, but sometimes I assist others in the sloughing of their mortal coil. ;) Perhaps there could be a reward ingame for ghosting a level, that might provide me with the impetus to keep my hands and bow to myself.

Platinumoxicity
7th Sep 2009, 06:16
No rewards for ghosting, please. If I want to play on expert ghosting every mission, I don't want the game to get easier on me. For example some kind of "notoriety level", it works against the expert difficulty. If I ghost every mission, the notoriety will stay at 0 and make the game easier for me. I don't want that.

windwalker
8th Sep 2009, 09:08
Hello All,

Please remember that Garret, while being a master thief, is also the "true keeper" now. While this will not stop him from stealing things, this is an additional principle that weighs towards not killing.

Yet still, Garret follows his heart. He is not a saint either. It is possible that he is going to kill when he needs to. BUT

For people out there who want to use mines, fire arrows, swords and arrows to kill things AT EXPERT level, claiming these level guards are harder targets: please target ghosts, many kinds of undeads, spiders, burricks and anything alike for your destructive purposes. You can always and freely kill them using your tools. In fact it is wiser to keep your mines for these targets than guards.

If you still want to kill guards, play on medium level, or maybe the programmers will make a twin-expert settings where killing is allowed or not.

If you reward the player for stealth, ghost style and not killing anyone, this will be better. I know I am telling this for the third time, but maybe there should be a "stealht point" award for each level, where you use it to use glyphs next level. Or maybe to work with some - best - fences you must have a high stealth rating.

Again for those people who want to slaughter every now and then: either play in medium setting -or any difficulty setting that allows you to kill- but please:Thief series were never made for this. If programmers try to include a killng spree possible in hardest setting, they will have to make balance modifications which can ruin a stealth-runners game experience.

Thief community was happy with the fact that they did not kill anyone, in fact they invented methods that made them play like they never were there. Like closing the doors behind you, not changing the place of anything in the game, igniting the dosed torches back etc etc. So when they were done with the level. they knew that someone will notice EVERYTHING was gone and NO ONE EVER noticed ANYTHING at all. This would feel supernatural for them, right?

Yet, after all these being said... I would be glad if the programmers implemented killing into game with a balanced method. Because I want the game to sell. I normally would like the feeling of being a part of "elite" gamers who play a game most others dont because they cant. However, this is what happened to LGS. they made the best games, and they are closed now. Because this is about money, taffers.

Half of the current community wants killing, so to sell the game EIDOS will prolly have to include the killing.

wish them luck(y hand of glory)

Platinumoxicity
8th Sep 2009, 09:46
Half of the current community wants killing, so to sell the game EIDOS will prolly have to include the killing.

wish them luck(y hand of glory)

Of course. Why would they not include the killing? Those who want to play the game how it's supposed to be played, don't kill anyone because it's possible. But even if it's possible to finish the game without killing anyone, those who's playstyle includes killing have the option to do it, it just makes the game a bit easier if done correctly.

windwalker
8th Sep 2009, 10:20
There is more than "no one can impose how to play the game to me" thing here. (or was) It is like, trying to play tetris by killing all the turtles in mario. If you want to kill turtles and use their shells to kill other enemies, you go play mario, not tetris. If you want to kill someone, you can play another game, there are good stealth/killing games out there. What many thief players believe, is that this game is not "mainly" for killing, but for stealth actions. When they say "no killing" they try to say that this is the essence of the game.

There is still enough room for killing, though. You could always kill in easier levels. You could always destroy undead, burricks, spiders, constructs, pagan beasts etc.

I hope I could tell what I wanted to. I am not against killing in thief, I just hope it won't ruin the balance for players like me, stealth - lovers. It can be ruined by many ways : story-wise, programming-wise, gameplay-wise. Did you notice most of the players did not love t3 as they loved t1-2? One of the aspects were the ability to kill without consequence.

Thief series introduced the power and joy of stealth, not assasination. Killing was possible, but difficult and consequences. It might be kept so for good.

Davehall380
8th Sep 2009, 10:30
The mission designer gives the player the tools to complete the objective. The way that the player achieves this objective is up to the player (including killing). However, when the difficulty level is raised, then so to should the restriction upon the player (no innocent kills up to no-kills). This worked very well in TDP and TMA and should be incroporated again.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
8th Sep 2009, 13:39
Both sides have good arguments IMO, but I have to agree that higher levels of difficulty do (or at least should) result in more guards and better AI and further objectives, leading to more content, and if people have tendencies to kill while on a mission, whether it be a stress relieving rampage or else just a curious "could I make that shot" then there is no reason why they should be limited to the lower difficulty levels to do this.

But I do also see that it is harder to complete a mission without leaving a pile of corpses behind so I think that there should be an extra difficulty in place to have it something like:

Street thug: Basic objectives and loot requirment
Cat burglar: More objectives, more loot required, tighter and smarter security
Expert Thief: All possible objectives, greater loot requirement, tightest and smartest security. (Don't kill innocents?)
Master Thief: All possible objectives, greatest loot requirment, tightest and smartest security. Don't kill anyone.

That way I think everyone could be happy.

Platinumoxicity
8th Sep 2009, 16:12
Objectives on Easy:
[ ] Press Esc
[ ] Click "Exit"
[ ] Click "Quit"
[ ] Start a game that has an "Easy" difficulty option. :)
[ ] Don't kill anything that doesn't move.
[ ] Get back to playing Thief when you think you can handle the "medium" -difficulty.

Objectives on Medium:
[ ] Find a way inside
[ ] Steal X object
[ ] Steal 500 in loot
[ ] Get back to the City streets

Objectives on Hard:
[ ] Find a way inside
[ ] Steal X object
[ ] Steal 800 in loot
[ ] Don't kill any innocents
[ ] Don't trip any alarm systems. Disable the system if possible.
[ ] Get back to the City streets

Objectives on Expert:
[ ] Find a way inside
[ ] Steal X object
[ ] Steal 1200 in loot of which at least 200 in goods
[ ] Don't kill anyone
[ ] Don't let anyone see your face
[ ] Don't trip any alarm systems. Disable the system if possible.
[ ] Frame the guard captain of stealing X object. Leave the safe key to his room and some incriminating evidence to the treasure room.
[ ] Find the secret passage that takes you under the street to the other side and use it to escape

Hypevosa
8th Sep 2009, 17:21
Objectives on Expert:
[ ] Find a way inside
[ ] Steal X object
[ ] Steal 1200 in loot of which at least 200 in goods
[ ] Don't kill anyone
[ ] Don't let anyone see your face <--Only certain levels please
[ ] Don't trip any alarm systems. Disable the system if possible.
[ ] Frame the guard captain of stealing X object. Leave the safe key to his room and some incriminating evidence to the treasure room. <--- Don't tell me all this, let me find my own way of framing him ;D
[ ] Find the secret passage that takes you under the street to the other side and use it to escape

Yeah, I liked an intermittent mission where I had to remain unseen, but I'd rather that only be special occassions.

Unless we're going with the idea of recognition and having people see faces at X distance when you're facing them - I am ok with that idea. I had a similar idea in one of my posts from the beginning of this forum.

Platinumoxicity
8th Sep 2009, 17:39
Yeah, I liked an intermittent mission where I had to remain unseen, but I'd rather that only be special occassions.

Unless we're going with the idea of recognition and having people see faces at X distance when you're facing them - I am ok with that idea. I had a similar idea in one of my posts from the beginning of this forum.

when you have a difficulty level that doesn't permit killing, you get a new problem. You need to knock out your enemies, but when they wake up they remember most of what's happened. That means if you have been seen from up close at some point, the guard that knows what you look like is still alive to tell about it the next day. This problem is absent at lower difficulties where you can get rid of witnesses in case someone sees you.

The idea of the blackjack is to strike when the enemy doesn't know you're there. From behind. They'll never know what hit them. In this case you don't need to worry about witnesses.

Davehall380
8th Sep 2009, 19:22
when you have a difficulty level that doesn't permit killing, you get a new problem. You need to knock out your enemies, but when they wake up they remember most of what's happened. That means if you have been seen from up close at some point, the guard that knows what you look like is still alive to tell about it the next day. This problem is absent at lower difficulties where you can get rid of witnesses in case someone sees you.

The idea of the blackjack is to strike when the enemy doesn't know you're there. From behind. They'll never know what hit them. In this case you don't need to worry about witnesses.

Spoke like a true ghoster! :D

Hypevosa
8th Sep 2009, 20:47
when you have a difficulty level that doesn't permit killing, you get a new problem. You need to knock out your enemies, but when they wake up they remember most of what's happened. That means if you have been seen from up close at some point, the guard that knows what you look like is still alive to tell about it the next day. This problem is absent at lower difficulties where you can get rid of witnesses in case someone sees you.

The idea of the blackjack is to strike when the enemy doesn't know you're there. From behind. They'll never know what hit them. In this case you don't need to worry about witnesses.

See, but if they saw you you become that much more infamous. Not that Garrett needs it, but technically NO ONE should know he exists if he didn't screw up every now and then. What makes Garrett awesome is the fact that he gets out of said situations *shhhka shhhka shhhka FLASH* I don't want expert to not include the escape artist part of Garrett's abilities.

Bossnagger
25th Sep 2009, 00:50
If they do implement killing as a theme, rather than simply killing objective "A", I would like to see a more creative approach to murder. For example, you must kill Nobleman A but can only in a certain place at a certain time in a certain way. Also moving bodies around to setup false evidence would be nice.

Namdrol
25th Sep 2009, 01:39
No killing, absolute fundamental, As far as I'm concerned this is what the underpins the whole game.
Garret is not an Assasin.
This was the biggest betrayal in TDS

Namdrol
25th Sep 2009, 03:50
Yea .to clarify, no killing humans. If I have to, anything else is fair game if needs be.
Spiders particularly get the treatment!
And despite the fact I love chimps and one of my best days out is Monkey World,(a monkey, chimp, etc rescue centre) I've got a thing against the ape dudes!!

zhunt
25th Sep 2009, 07:51
personally i never kill any, i blackjack everyone, but not kill. i disabled the mechanical servants on occasion, but thats about it.
if its really an issue for people if they kill or not, blackjack or not etc then have difficulty settings easy, medium, hard etc, with the usual "get blah object" , "get blah ammount in loot" etc, any objectives you like, but make "dont kill anyone" and "dont blackjack anyone" as requirements u can select or not, that way, people can customise the games difficulty in that respect to their liking. some people can then go nuts, slaughter the guards and innocent cook, staff etc, others can get in and out undetected.

problem solved.

Eother
27th Sep 2009, 01:46
Killing should obviously be restricted. The name of the game is literally "Thief".

I understand people want free choice in how they play the game, but there have to be limits on that. Want skill points, and level up options? Play Deus Ex, or Oblivion. Want strategy? Civilization IV. Want to kill? Play Unreal Tournament. Want to sneak? Play Thief.
Thief is an RPG. You play the role of Garret, master thief. The gameplay and objectives should reflect this. As somebody said earlier, Killing random people can be fun, sure, but that's why I bought Half-life 2 and Assassin's Creed.

Like this guy said, pretty much.


I have to admit, the big reason I liked Thief was that I could set it to Expert and see the 'Don't kill anyone. You're a thief, not a murderer.' objective added to the lists. It made the game harder, yes, but the real point--the reason it was raved about in reviews, when it was--is that this requirement is what separated Thief from a first-person shooter, and earned it the title 'first-person sneaker.'

If you can kill the humans and guards on expert, you're not really playing Thief any more. I understand that some people argue that this is the game 'telling you how to play,' but that's the point. The difficulty in Thief stems from, in some cases (but not all; those requirements weren't 100% universal), being forced to avoid combat specifically because Garrett doesn't like killing. To him, unnecessary death IS mission failure.

Blessed be,
~Nathan

Pyronox
29th Sep 2009, 21:05
I think killing people should have setbacks, not flat-out restrictions. This is one thing TDS did right IMO. You kill someone=Blood stain guards can see. Penalty: Lose a precious water arrow you might need later in order to clean it up and avoid suspicion.

The only problem with that however is that by limiting your stealth arsenal, it engages a vicious cycle of having to kill to escape and go back into stealthiness, so the penalty can't be something related to your stealth arsenal. They tried to fix this cycle by switching the sword to a dagger in TDS, limiting your fighting prowess, but ultimately it didn't work since all it did was make you lose health, forcing you to buy more potions, and again taking money that could be used towards stealth arsenal.

Namdrol
29th Sep 2009, 22:44
I think killing people should have setbacks, not flat-out restrictions. This is one thing TDS did right IMO. You kill someone=Blood stain guards can see. Penalty: Lose a precious water arrow you might need later in order to clean it up and avoid suspicion.

The only problem with that however is that by limiting your stealth arsenal, it engages a vicious cycle of having to kill to escape and go back into stealthiness, so the penalty can't be something related to your stealth arsenal. They tried to fix this cycle by switching the sword to a dagger in TDS, limiting your fighting prowess, but ultimately it didn't work since all it did was make you lose health, forcing you to buy more potions, and again taking money that could be used towards stealth arsenal.

I experimented a lot with guards and bloodstains and not once did they notice them.
Resources? TDS was ridiculous, I had more money and equipment than I knew what to do with.
Fighting prowess? All you had to do was crouch and swing your dagger and if you were in the right place the guards barely touched you. It was far easier to kill guards in TDS (and if I remember right you could also go into the menu and equip a health potion during a fight.).

It's why I fell in love with Thief, the fact you couldn't kill. (or shouldn't)
And yes, this is on expert, which to my mind is the only way to play. I'm bored witless with fragfests...

esme
30th Sep 2009, 00:17
I hated respawning AI, ko them and put them somewhere and they should damn well stay there or at least get up at the point where you put them so they can be imprisoned

Pyronox
30th Sep 2009, 01:40
Well obviously TDS wasn't great in that regard, but still consequences is better to me. If not, an active checkpoint system autosave or whatever, so if your finger slips, or you have an... "accident", it's not frustrating enough to smash your keyboard.

While I'm at it I'd like to add: a special difficulty mode that insta-fails you if you don't figure out the PERFECT way to do the mission. For the vets, ofc.

Ice1019
30th Sep 2009, 03:01
A perfect Thief game has no perfect way of doing the mission, but has multiple ways, as the vets, in all their diversity, understand and respect, realizing it's a major strength of Thief. Taking on the role of Garrett, the proud Master Thief, just makes more things fall into place and align with the story and hints in the objectives.

I agree. The best thing about Thief was the way that you could play really any way you wanted to. (except for killing on expert) I definitely feel more awesome when I can bust through the Mechanist Cathedral without even being noticed, but some people do it differently.

GarrettSoul
7th Feb 2012, 12:15
Hi, about the first TDP intro where garrett shot an arrow into a guard.

Back in those days the hype was all about the ability to implement different body part damage. So the ability to have accurate arrowshot to the head was a big thing. I believe the intro was to show that the game was more definitive than the mass cloned doom game out there. It did really look bad ass. Also I wish they can implement a way to quickly slide down the rope arrow like they did in the DP intro that would be so cool.

Furthermore, those time, morality choices in gaming was still at an infant stage. There was a very old video, if someone still has it please post it that before the release of the The Dark project (which also was original tittle planned before they finally added "Thief: TDP", showing dev playing Dark project with garret fully on with a horizontal held bow in his hands playing lord bafford mansion. Also not to forget a short video of garret taking out a guard with a fire arrow using human actors. This all was done during the fragfest 1stt person period thus promoting thief game in a way to appeal to alternative players as well as shooters and it worked well. Of course now players are getting more morally concerned so its different now.

I still say TDP video was the best of all. All mystery, badass, showing off its breakthrough stealth system, dark and tossing in an evil trickster in the midst cool music. Back then, it was really unlike any other game.

I'm definately wanting the No killing back in thief on expert level. I ghost every level. But i wasnt always like at the start. Then i too liked throwing that stooopid apemen into the lava out of pure frustration for making me reload the game so many times.

But stealth should be rewarded nontheless. Its about Garrett and his values and being a professional thief. I read about the ranking system I thought that was a really good idea too. This would then push newcommers to be better than just being a brazen assassin as people love to see their names on some kind of "top score" list. But then on the otherhand if it was too easy to kill the guards, why bother seaking around. I bet some ignorant new players will ask "there must be a reason for all this stealth nonsense - If the guards act like fools and cant even climb the ladder to reach you, no consequences for killing every guard on the map, etc then why not just then take the easy option and kill everyone and be done with the game calling myself a master thief. Put the settings on easy so to have low loot achievement and finish the game in a day.".

No, there must be a law in thief that defines thief to be thief. We have to show these guys the meaning of the phrase "you are not a tank!". Just because veteran taffers has some unwritten code of honour to impose on new commers doesnt mean newcommers could be prevented from exploting thief's flaws.

I liked that principle having the underworld cast you out as a murderer. Thats one of a possible consequence. With the advances of video gaming nowadays, I expect more than the guards to be walking around normally resuming his duties few minutes after discovering his best buddy benny has just been blackjack.

I expect the AI system to have been evolved to the level where guards can bring in reinforcements. and i mean REAL reinforcements, not the next benny wannabe available in the next room. I expect he'll bring in a throng of guards looking for the murderer or bludgeoner and smoking out dark rooms. They would report to the captain, and maybe the captain will have much more efficient but expensive weapons like crossbows or maybe some renaisance revolutionary hidden gun (just kidding abut the gun).

Maybe you'll see 3 or 4 group of guards in the city start poking around in pubs asking about you and your whereabouts. Richer residence may reinforce their house with extra guards at the doors and in the house making it really hard to burglar. Prices of fences rise higher than normal due to the increase of security and the ability to aquire thief like weapons. Guard patrols are doubled, stronger guards now wearing heavy armour, helmets and carry long pikes and hammerites bring out the big deadly hammers. Some more, the guards will never want to face you alone, they'll must have least someone to watch their back, one guard face the front while the other constantly watches his mate's 6 o'clock. The guards chase you (a bit slower than you of course) but have no problems going up ladders, grabbing you and tossing you to the ground (sort of a stun) or setting up a human barricade. They have no problems to ask the archer to shoot you down to slow your escape then to walk into your trap.

Guard AI should be much smarter and more human like. Maybe guards have the ability to rush and escort their rich masters out of their house just to flood the whole house with guards, litteraly flushing out closets, nooks and cranny and surrounding the house with guards. probably even noticing your rope arrow and search around it and climbing up the rope arrow, thats when you go whoops! and remove that rope arrow seeing the guard falling onto the ground. But this will give the AI a good sense of your positioning. Maybe even shoot that light bolt they had in thievery UT on your behind and now you're really in a tight spot.

for killers and bludgeoners you can also maybe chase and kill that last guard who is about to slip away to warn its captain about your intrusion before things gets out of hand and they bring in the army. Non-killers can use their gas arrow and traps. Guards, especially captains and best buddies really take notice when benny goes missing and start searching around. Low-paid guards will not care less only later to be replaced by higher paid guards after once or twice the master's house being burglared.

guards AI should be a fighter not someone learning to fight. Just because hammerites have big hammers doesnt mean they're unskilled and slow at using it. skyrim's AIs did a very good job at blocking your attacks. Its really hard to kill a whiterun guard being a thief character. They even able to block you strafing from side to side preventing you from circling them.

also, its harder for fences to trust you as you are "bad for business" so they wont want to trade with you, you could trade at your standard shop for standard weapons but no flash bomb and other thief like equipment. You wont be getting tips for the hidden loot for a certain area as people are afraid to deal with you. I think it will get a bit complicated if i start saying keepers to start punishing you in different ways too.

This said, there must be a system where city guards are on alert or not. And to decrease your noteriety you have to lay very low and be very stealthy for a long while or reduce it in some other way. please please don't do silly things like remove wanted posters to reduce it. The idea is to make it harder for killers yet fun as they can go around killing guards, especially when they're doubled, but will almost alays result in becoming a matyr. But also possible to ghost all these elite troops on high alert, but at a high price having to use most of your tools ,weapons, knowledge of the map and by the time you get to your missions, you may find that all important flash bomb unavailable.

Maybe at a really high noteriety they'll hire assassins much like the keeper elite out to get you, but with better AI fast agile and terrifying if you're not careful and maybe hidden in the dark as well stalking you. I hate spawning enemies too so its ridiculous to have a keeper elite spawning behind you with no warning whatsoever. If they stalk garrett, this will give the chance of the observant player to say "halt! who goes there!" or "come out come out wherever you are taffer!"

Maybe morality choices can affect the stories too something like what was discussed about that upcomming game dishonored? the game evovles around the choice you make? however this is focused down to garret, the keeper council, hammerites and thieves guild etc?

My opinion on having the difficulty levels. i'd say leave the AI as smart as it is on each of the easy, normal and expert levels. So if they can get AIs to be that complicated as i mentioned above, then people have the option to kill or not however not missing out on clever AIs.

I havent thought about what to reward the expert level players, only the ranking system but i'll stop here for now.

All in all with a good AI, killers can try killing and they will have fun doing so, but knowing that there are high consequences thus increasing the value of stealth. A good security team should act like one and work like one. Thats why garret has the title of being a master thief. not some ordinary thief wannabe.

Thanks for reading, just had a lot of ideas after reading you guys comments...

Platinumoxicity
7th Feb 2012, 14:48
No, there must be a law in thief that defines thief to be thief. We have to show these guys the meaning of the phrase "you are not a tank!". Just because veteran taffers has some unwritten code of honour to impose on new commers doesnt mean newcommers could be prevented from exploting thief's flaws.

The extreme rules of non-lethality are not there just because of some "unwritten code imposed by veteran players." It's part of the Thief-canon. Most people don't seem to realize, but Garrett is a pretty disturbed individual. He is a misanthropic sociopathic narcissistic egomaniac. He can justify to himself taking what he doesn't deserve by letting others live, when all he does is destroy their lives, and he pats himself in the back for being just as great as he wants himself to be even though nobody cares but himself. The reason why the expert difficulty imposes those rules on the player is that the player is playing as Garrett, who is obsessive-compulsive about the things he does, for better or for worse. Sometimes it does make sense to kill someone if they are a threat. Not for Garrett it doesn't, because he wants to feel good about himself being able to pull of ridiculous jobs without violence. Garrett is his own only friend, and everyone always wants to be better than their friends at something, right?

GarrettSoul
8th Feb 2012, 08:59
I'm all for some missions to have the ability to kill, its not a problem with me. If i can remember in TDP you had a mission at the end where you were allowed killing. yeah sure, some instances where the only tactic is to kill i dont mind that, if it the game was all about no kill we might as well just play that upcomming Dishonored game.

Its just where devs should try limit the possibility of garrett being a tank in the end, maybe a skilled assassin at most. After all, you are striking from the shadows, up close and if done right, can kill a person instantly. Thats like reality. But to be running around the map willy nilly with a knife in one hand flash bomb in another, killing every full armored guard on the map? some kind of consequence need be applied. otherwise, as in every thief game, anyone could blackjack every single guard on the map and benny would give up searching and continue his normal routine as always.

that unwritten code of honor thing was just a pun of mine, excuse me if the words didnt end up reading as one. What i meant there was we all want the stealth system to be pushed and give players to stop and think before he does something that could spiral his game out of control.

just a few ideas..

Putkikameli
8th Feb 2012, 14:43
I've been thinking about all that blackjacking thingy. In my opinion when Garrett ko's a guard it should be temporary. Killing should be the permanent way to get rid of guards. However I'd like to suggest these mechanics for blackjacking:

- Unconsciousness lasts only couple of minutes. Max 5 minutes. Really, if you ko someone and he's out longer than 5 minutes call a freaking ambulance. He most likely has severe concussion or he is bleeding in to his brain. Needless to say all those symptoms mentioned are kinda unhealthy.

- After initial unconsciousness passes guard is very groggy and of course wouldn't function really well. He wouldn't really be paying attention what would happen around him. Just to make sneaking around him easier.

- Maybe give Garrett some rope so we could tie up ko'd guard and we could hide him in to closet or something? That way he would be out of the way for rest of the mission.

Caranfin
8th Feb 2012, 15:29
If we're talking realism, a previously-unconscious guard would sound an alarm upon waking up and gathering his wits. Obviously you could counteract this by having the rope you mentioned, but would there be any reason not to tie up a guard after blackjacking? Not very many so, since Thief is not a simulation game, why complicate the process by including a practically mandatory new action to the blackjacking process?

Putkikameli
8th Feb 2012, 15:51
Hmm, I guess so. I thought it as a mechanic for countering people knocking out every guard and then freely running around and thus making the game easier than intended.

Oh well, back to the drawing board

Lady_Of_The_Vine
8th Feb 2012, 16:24
Hmm, I guess so. I thought it as a mechanic for countering people knocking out every guard and then freely running around and thus making the game easier than intended.


The current system works well provided the actual act of knocking them out is not easy.. requiring the player to be patient and study guard patrols and civilian activity etc before moving in - particularly in lit areas where the player must adopt impeccable timing to pick up guards/civilians and conceal them in shadow before someone returns and notices you! :eek: I love all the tension this creates. :D

Thereafter, its a bit like a "reward" (for me) to be able to freely run about in areas that are now "cleared" ... hopefully discovering secret switches and other goodies in the process.

Putkikameli
8th Feb 2012, 16:47
The current system works well provided the actual act of knocking them out is not easy.. requiring the player to be patient and study guard patrols and civilian activity etc before moving in - particularly in lit areas where the player must adopt impeccable timing to pick up guards/civilians and conceal them in shadow before someone returns and notices you! :eek: I love all the tension this creates. :D

Thereafter, its a bit like a "reward" (for me) to be able to freely run about in areas that are now "cleared" ... hopefully discovering secret switches and other goodies in the process.

What I meant knocking out every single guard there is in the level. But if you need to knock someone out and make him stay out of the way, then tie him up. Although I guess it would make regular blackjacking rather useless. Could be nice mechanic to have in expert difficulty levels though

Lady_Of_The_Vine
8th Feb 2012, 23:45
Oh right, I see what you mean; my bad. Yes, I can see possibilities there. :)

GarrettSoul
9th Feb 2012, 00:33
then what about if you have the vine arrow, you could easily shoot it at the guard and vine would "grow" around him thus ending up tying him. You can'd do this with normal rope arrow as it doesnt "grow". so to purchase a vine arrow will be much more expensive as it has 2 jobs now, tie a guard and act as a rope arrow with the ability to stick to metal surfaces.

matahari
9th Feb 2012, 09:56
I agree with the original post: what made Thief 1 & 2 unique was the limitations put on violence as a problem-solver. I would like Thief 4 to continue this idea. There are plenty of games out there to satisfy violent urges: if Thief 4 goes the same way then it will be very, very sad. Basically I see Garrett as a weedy type who couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding--something that makes him a unique hero in gaming.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
9th Feb 2012, 09:58
I agree with the original post: what made Thief 1 & 2 unique was the limitations put on violence as a problem-solver. I would like Thief 4 to continue this idea. There are plenty of games out there to satisfy violent urges: if Thief 4 goes the same way then it will be very, very sad . . .

I concur. I hate to have to use my sword for any form of combat. :(

GarrettSoul
9th Feb 2012, 10:56
I concur. I hate to have to use my sword for any form of combat. :(

in that case, I hear the idea of a thief Bo comming into the picture...

Evantine
11th Feb 2012, 03:12
I concur. I hate to have to use my sword for any form of combat. :(

Me too. Only on rare times do I use it.

Moreth
12th Feb 2012, 14:54
A while back I played a game called "Planescape". It was a strange and fun game (d&d rules), I mention this because it was one of few games that actually had different outcomes based on the players choices. I played through as a thief a couple of times. Of coarse in both times I ended up in some sort of hell. But that's not important. The main thing in T4 I'd like to see is real consequences for actions. Thieves carry very specific tools. A dagger is for cutting things that obstruct the goal. A barbed arrow can be used to break windows, distract guards (minor) and maybe some other purposes, but the truth is the barbed is made to remove either people who block a goal, or a target that requires removing for the well being of the Keepers, or woodsies or whomever can convince the "Player" to make that moral choice. Killing a guard might be justified and perhaps a mystery to the local officials, killing ten guards means there's a serial killer that's declared war on the guards and there would a heavy response even door to door searchs etc. Remember the guards are there to do a job most remain fairly neutral in the city's politics, more worried about the next flagon then what a nobleman is plotting at most times. Every choice should have a reasonable response and the outcome really could be the gallows for those poor unfortunate brothers and sisters who made a wrong play. The plain truth is we're Thieves with a capital T. Each of us know the score. Money, trinkets, even specialty gear are only a means of keeping score, the goal is always the same; to be the best. What path one takes to that end is up to them, but being the best means nothing when you dance the gallows jig.

Moreth
12th Feb 2012, 14:56
P.S.; If you're fighting with guys wearing steel and swinging bigass swords, you are really doing something wrong.

Steveo
13th Feb 2012, 09:01
P.S.; If you're fighting with guys wearing steel and swinging bigass swords, you are really doing something wrong.

I always thought that Garret wearing, what seem to be tap dancing shoes, was doing something wrong. Granted you didn't have any control what shoes you wore, but come on now!

I only bring this up since I got Thief: Gold off GoG a few days ago and am starting a ghost play through, and i had forgotten just how much I hated those shoes! Though I must admit the forced slow downs this causes to make you think is much appreciated since very few games even attempt to do this anymore :/

Platinumoxicity
13th Feb 2012, 10:08
I only bring this up since I got Thief: Gold off GoG a few days ago and am starting a ghost play through, and i had forgotten just how much I hated those shoes! Though I must admit the forced slow downs this causes to make you think is much appreciated since very few games even attempt to do this anymore :/

Those shoes are there for a reason. Not realism, but gameplay. With a little practice, you can connect the volume of your footsteps exactly to the probability of you being heard by enemies at a certain distance, in a certain mode of alertness. The shoes are so loud because there needs to be player feedback on a gameplay mechanic.

...Because Thief has no "stealth meter" or "stealth crouch mode". You really need to determine yourself how well hidden or how silent you are. In every modern game, and I do mean every single one of them, footsteps are generic and serve no purpose for the gameplay, and they are barely audible. Because all new games have either a stealth meter or a stealth mode. In Thief the footstep sounds are an essential part of the gameplay, and that's why they are so loud.

I remember that in the original Splinter Cell 1 there was a silence exercise in the training mission, where you needed to navigate a room with different things on the floor, like broken glass. Still, the floor type noise was a mechanic that was never used in the actual missions, and the player was always forced to move as slowly and silently as possible.

And Garrett's shoes do not actually make tapdancing- or high-heels sounds. It's just a gameplay mechanic. The tile floor footstep sound is just very distinct and sharp, so that it would warn players of high-echo environments. Garrett wears shoes. Big empty halls with tile floors have a lot of reverb, and noises carry a long way. In the military, barracks are these long buildings with long wide halls with nothing in them but doors on both sides. As the designated company night guard, I experienced that echo first hand. It's really hard to move quickly but silently while wearing boots, in big open hallways. That's what the high-heels tile floor sound effects in Thief are trying to simulate. High-echo environments where footsteps carry a long way.

Steveo
13th Feb 2012, 10:14
Those shoes are there for a reason. Not realism, but gameplay. With a little practice, you can connect the volume of your footsteps exactly to the probability of you being heard by enemies at a certain distance, in a certain mode of alertness. The shoes are so loud because there needs to be player feedback on a gameplay mechanic.

...Because Thief has no "stealth meter" or "stealth crouch mode". You really need to determine yourself how well hidden or how silent you are. In every modern game, and I do mean every single one of them, footsteps are generic and serve no purpose for the gameplay, and they are barely audible. Because all new games have either a stealth meter or a stealth mode. In Thief the footstep sounds are an essential part of the gameplay, and that's why they are so loud.

I remember that in the original Splinter Cell 1 there was a silence exercise in the training mission, where you needed to navigate a room with different things on the floor, like broken glass. Still, the floor type noise was a mechanic that was never used in the actual missions, and the player was always forced to move as slowly and silently as possible.

And Garrett's shoes do not actually make tapdancing- or high-heels sounds. It's just a gameplay mechanic. The tile floor footstep sound is just very distinct and sharp, so that it would warn players of high-echo environments. Garrett wears shoes. Big empty halls with tile floors have a lot of reverb, and noises carry a long way. In the military, barracks are these long buildings with long wide halls with nothing in them but doors on both sides. As the designated company night guard, I experienced that echo first hand. It's really hard to move quickly but silently while wearing boots, in big open hallways. That's what the high-heels tile floor sound effects in Thief are trying to simulate. High-echo environments where footsteps carry a long way.

Oh I am aware of WHY they made the sounds act like they do, it's just funny because they DO sound like tap dancing shoes! It's also been kind of a joke on the TTLG forums for a long time, so that's why I said it.

Moreth
13th Feb 2012, 15:40
LOL Steveo. I thought the same thing when I stepped on a marble floor for the first time.

zcapp96
13th Feb 2012, 22:04
I have often found the 'no kill' rule detracts from the immersion I feel in the game as it leads me to try things that are more risky and, if caught, make me have to reload a few times. I find it more enjoyable and keeps me in character if I am watching a guard's patrol looking for weakness, knowing if I don't find one I may have to kill him. I try to avoid killing but if a guard is between me and my objective I will do what is needed. This is my interpretation of Garrett.

The choice should be left to the player but there should be consequences, both good and bad. In my ideal game you would have maybe 30 or 40 missions of which only 15 or so would be available through any one play through. The first few missions would be standard but how you do them would determine what types of mission you get latter. If you kill lots of people you may get some assassination type missions where as you would get robbery contracts if you steal a lot of loot. For the ghosting player there would be espionage levels where you have to get secrets from an embassy or something without leaving any trace. Imagine the replay value!!!! If you think this cannot be done, it already has been. Colony wars, a space shooter on the PS1 did this exact type of thing some 15 years ago.

Yaphy
13th Feb 2012, 23:42
I have always wondered why Garrett doesn't use a better weapon. Both the sword and the dagger is unsuited for the kind of combat that you usually find yourself in. The weapon needs to be small enough to not be in the way, yet big enough that it can properly parry a two handed sword or a hammer. I'm not an expert in weapons but aren't there short swords that are made to parry. Not the fencing swords but the Japanese swords with three tips. Why doesn't Garrett use something similar?

Then there is the problem with the assassinate vs knock out. Why would you ever kill someone instead of knock them out? One thing that has been mentioned is that the guards could wake up again after some time when you knock them out. The problem is how would they react when they wake up ? They could either be alerted by the fact that they got knocked out and go into pursuit. Another possibility could be that they simply though that they clumsily fell and knocked themselves out. Although that sounds highly unlikely.

A better way to keep some sort of use for the assassinating would be if some well placed guards had helmets that made them immune to the black jack. Then the options would be limited to sneaking past or killing the guard.

I think that Thief 4 should of course make it clear to the player that you are not supposed to go rambo on everything. Yet it should not limit you to only use stealth. I play thief as a ghoster and sometimes i clear out all the major threats with the black jack. But I do not think it's a good idea to make it the only option. So what can you do instead? Well, it is going to be costly to kill all the things. So you have to make the player think on how he/she uses the gear available. Something that the devs could use as a way to discourage murder is making it expensive. Not just in the usual way of killing=equipment=money. Let's say that the devs put a "tolerated number of kills on a level" that they make depending on what they think is suitable for each level. This number of kills will not be displayed to the player so that they cannot try to keep just under the line. The player should be oblivious of the tolerated number of kills. If they exceed the tolerated number of kills on a level it will be harder to play the next level. They could simply add more guards on the next level and give players hints to that it is because they killed to many people. So these extra guards will show up on the next level and the extra guards could have a conversation about how they where called to duty because there was a massacre the previous night. The loading screen could have some tips that says that the city guard awareness will increase if you kill to many people.

I don't want a no kill rule. I want the player to feel that themselves. If they don't it's going to be a very hard game and they will not be able to use the more expensive gear like vine and rope arrows. That will lead to that they wont find secret rooms, extra loot, shortcuts and all the good stuff. They should feel themselves that they should change play style.

Let's not forget that Garrett is a Thief. He is a hardened criminal. Just because you are a thief it doesn't mean that you automatically cannot be a murderer. Even though the main focus of Thief is to be a thief it does not mean that you will be a pacifist.
Don't get me wrong. I really never use violence in Thief games and am not supporting gore or kewl kill cams in Thief. I just want it to be open so that many play styles can be used. It adds to the game that you are free to use the means you find necessary.

Caranfin
14th Feb 2012, 08:05
I agree with most of what you said, though I would still like the killing restriction on the highest difficulty setting. It's, in my opinion, quite well established in the games that Garrett looks down on killing while on the job. His reasons haven't been elaborated on (though I bet the it's something like what Platinum posted), but regardless of the fluff it's an interesting mechanic that sets Thief apart from the majority of games.

Oh and it's entirely possible to defend against a heavier weapon with an arming sword since generally you will be trying to direct your opponent's blade aside instead of applying straight-up force against force to stop it.

Platinumoxicity
14th Feb 2012, 08:55
I have often found the 'no kill' rule detracts from the immersion I feel in the game as it leads me to try things that are more risky and, if caught, make me have to reload a few times. I find it more enjoyable and keeps me in character if I am watching a guard's patrol looking for weakness, knowing if I don't find one I may have to kill him.

If you are trying risky things like that, you are doing something wrong. Sometimes you just have to leave something be because it's too improbable to get there without being spotted. If your mission includes a scenario where the odds of success are 5% and you need to reload saves multiple times, you have brought the "breaking of immersion" on yourself. Rethink your strategy. If that doesn't help, play on a lower difficulty. In the whole Thief series, even in T2X, there has never been a scenario where an unavoidable enemy is not susceptible to any of your vast arsenal of non-lethal tools. There is only one person in the whole series that you absolutely can't knock out in any way, and you can avoid him entirely. The Mechanist frog-man on the deck of Cetus Amicus can only be killed because he is using a rebreather and he wears a metal diver's helmet so the blackjack and sleeping gas are both out of the question. But you never need to lay a finger on him to actually get on board the ship. Rethink your strategy. Sometimes the only option might be to knock someone out. But sometimes the only option is to sneak past unnoticed. If you can't figure that out, Splinter Cell: Conviction is right there for you. It gives you no choices. Kill, or just sit there and don't play.


Let's say that the devs put a "tolerated number of kills on a level" that they make depending on what they think is suitable for each level. This number of kills will not be displayed to the player so that they cannot try to keep just under the line. The player should be oblivious of the tolerated number of kills. If they exceed the tolerated number of kills on a level it will be harder to play the next level.

Let's not forget that Garrett is a Thief. He is a hardened criminal. Just because you are a thief it doesn't mean that you automatically cannot be a murderer. Even though the main focus of Thief is to be a thief it does not mean that you will be a pacifist.
Don't get me wrong. I really never use violence in Thief games and am not supporting gore or kewl kill cams in Thief. I just want it to be open so that many play styles can be used. It adds to the game that you are free to use the means you find necessary.

As I have said before, making the next mission more difficult based on killing in the last mission makes the game harder for those who need it to be easier, namely those who can't seem to get through without kills, and it makes the game easier for those who want it to be harder, namely those for whom even blackjacking is too easy. This would force the veterans to exploit the system by deliberately mucking up all missions once, just so that they could play the next missions after those ones, with increased difficulty. That isn't fun.

And let's not forget that it's Garrett we're talking about. Garrett's non-lethality and manic adherence to his own self-imposed rules and goals are an important part of the story canon. And making it possible to "successfully complete missions" even though you killed everyone, would made the story inconsistent because it would mean that Garrett suddenly abandoned all that he believed in. Just like with the continuation of the story that the 10-year-olds with attention disorders propose over and over. People just don't change that radically, that quickly.



Oh and it's entirely possible to defend against a heavier weapon with an arming sword since generally you will be trying to direct your opponent's blade aside instead of applying straight-up force against force to stop it.

I think it would be nice to have a working defensive technique, where when you would succesfully direct your opponent's overhead swing into the floor using your sword, you would use your left hand to give him an uppercut and knock him off his balance, giving you a valuable extra second or two to turn around and escape. And of course if this would happen with more than one guard, in a staircase, hilarity would ensue. :D

Yaphy
14th Feb 2012, 10:19
As I have said before, making the next mission more difficult based on killing in the last mission makes the game harder for those who need it to be easier, namely those who can't seem to get through without kills, and it makes the game easier for those who want it to be harder, namely those for whom even blackjacking is too easy. This would force the veterans to exploit the system by deliberately mucking up all missions once, just so that they could play the next missions after those ones, with increased difficulty. That isn't fun.

And let's not forget that it's Garrett we're talking about. Garrett's non-lethality and manic adherence to his own self-imposed rules and goals are an important part of the story canon. And making it possible to "successfully complete missions" even though you killed everyone, would made the story inconsistent because it would mean that Garrett suddenly abandoned all that he believed in. Just like with the continuation of the story that the 10-year-olds with attention disorders propose over and over. People just don't change that radically, that quickly.

Yes, making it harder for the bad player might not be that good. But I don't understand your thoughts on killing everything. That was possible in previous games too. I just think that you underestimate the normal gamer. Non thief players that are new to the series will understand the concept pretty quickly and they will probably understand what they are doing when they buy a game called Thief. The thing is that most people start of playing trough the game. Then they will often try to test the games limits. Test the engine and test the level design. Try to find glitches and secrets. Many new players will get the games style immediately. But when they are done with that they will try to kill everything, ghost trough it and all the other stuff that the game might allow for.

So about the fighting mechanics. What if you could parry a blow directly by just blocking. This could decrease the damage taken to about 20%. Alternatively, you could redirect the blow by timing the block to a certain time in the swing. If you succeed you will redirect the blow and not take any damage. If you fail you will take the full blow. That would make for some interesting choices. But we all know that you wont be standing there and fence with an armored guard. So you will eventually throw out a flash bomb. Instead of having it so incredibly overpowered we could change the effect. Instead of making the victim completely useless it could remove the guards vision. He will still feel threatened by the armed Thief so naturally he will try to defend himself even if he is blinded. He could try to hear where you are. He could also try to swing the sword around and try to get a lucky hit. All while screaming for help and covering his eyes with the other hand. This is also where the euphoria engine could kick in (if they use it). He could stumble around and if he hits some furniture or a wall he will fall over.
So this would be a great way to make the player less overpowered and discourage fighting.

BigBoss
14th Feb 2012, 11:06
I think they should just give the option to be able to kill, and that it is the players discretion as to whether or not they want to add the extra challenge of non lethal. The cutscenes shouldn't address this kind of thing anyway. In splinter cell 1-4, the vast majority of the missions allowed you to kill anyone and it just isn't really mentioned in the cutscenes. And why would it? It wouldn't make sense for someone to say "by the way Garrett/Sam way to not kill anyone on that last job!" nor do they say "That sure was a bloodbath!!!" that would be stupid. In SC, they just kind of assume that you don't kill anyone, and if you do it doesn't matter because at some point that's the job and has little to do with what is happening in the plot.

I understand thief is different, but if you are all as 'expert' players to the game as you claim to be, it really shouldn't matter if they allow it or not because if you don't do it, it isn't in the cannon, right? So why take away an option for others if it has absolutely no effect on how you play?

Putkikameli
14th Feb 2012, 11:23
IMO killing should be allowed, but on expert difficulty it should be and instant mission failure. That's why it is called expert. Killing is a mark of amateur.

And what comes to the blackjacking and backstabbing, I still think that blackjacked guards should wake up on expert difficulty. However when they wake up they won't immediately sound alarm. Maybe they are confused for a while about what the heck happened and try to get their bearings back. After that they start to stagger (and I do mean stagger) to nearby guards to sound alert. Of course this could result in blackjacking being inferior to killing, but that's why I suggested having some rope with you to tie them. And I don't think vine arrows should tie up guards. It would kick price too high and thus make it really not useful compared to rope arrows.

Caranfin
14th Feb 2012, 12:21
I think they should just give the option to be able to kill, and that it is the players discretion as to whether or not they want to add the extra challenge of non lethal. The cutscenes shouldn't address this kind of thing anyway. In splinter cell 1-4, the vast majority of the missions allowed you to kill anyone and it just isn't really mentioned in the cutscenes. And why would it? It wouldn't make sense for someone to say "by the way Garrett/Sam way to not kill anyone on that last job!" nor do they say "That sure was a bloodbath!!!" that would be stupid. In SC, they just kind of assume that you don't kill anyone, and if you do it doesn't matter because at some point that's the job and has little to do with what is happening in the plot.

I understand thief is different, but if you are all as 'expert' players to the game as you claim to be, it really shouldn't matter if they allow it or not because if you don't do it, it isn't in the cannon, right? So why take away an option for others if it has absolutely no effect on how you play?
That's a pretty good argument, to be honest. I guess I haven't really given it much thought beyond "it was in the previous games", which is a pretty silly thing to base an argument on. You're going to get told that the Expert difficulty is the "true" canon, and "the way the game is meant to be played", but I don't agree with that. The game is meant to be played on any of the difficulties available and, if you're playing on a lower difficulty, the Garrett of your playthrough is obviously not placing such restrictions on himself.

I guess it's just a question of challenge. The higher difficulty levels are obviously meant to challenge the player more. You can fiddle with the guards' senses and such only so much and so the easiest ways to up the challenge are extra objectives and restricting what the player can do. Sniping guards with the bow is an extremely easy and risk-free to deal with the challenge of sneaking past them, and so it makes sense to force the players into the more challenging way of sneaking past or knocking out the guard. The fluff of the narcissistic Garrett who looks down on killing, while cool, is just an added bonus.


IMO killing should be allowed, but on expert difficulty it should be and instant mission failure. That's why it is called expert. Killing is a mark of amateur.

And what comes to the blackjacking and backstabbing, I still think that blackjacked guards should wake up on expert difficulty. However when they wake up they won't immediately sound alarm. Maybe they are confused for a while about what the heck happened and try to get their bearings back. After that they start to stagger (and I do mean stagger) to nearby guards to sound alert. Of course this could result in blackjacking being inferior to killing, but that's why I suggested having some rope with you to tie them. And I don't think vine arrows should tie up guards. It would kick price too high and thus make it really not useful compared to rope arrows.
What would be the point of having to tie up guards? Knocking out guards is fun because of the challenge of timing the strike properly so you have time to move the body to a safe location. Once you are at a safe place, why prolong the effort by adding another mandatory (since it would make no sense not to tie them up) action after the tension and the fun of the challenge is gone?

Putkikameli
14th Feb 2012, 13:02
What would be the point of having to tie up guards? Knocking out guards is fun because of the challenge of timing the strike properly so you have time to move the body to a safe location. Once you are at a safe place, why prolong the effort by adding another mandatory (since it would make no sense not to tie them up) action after the tension and the fun of the challenge is gone?

If you tie up guard he will be incapacitated for the rest of the mission. Unless of course other guard stumbles upon him and frees him. Amount of ropes would of course be limited. Point in this is to force people not to knock out every guard in the mission and thus making the game too easy. I mostly have thought this as expert difficulty level mechanic. Although I guess this could be achieved easier and without hassle with just limiting the amount of knock outs you can do per mission.

Hypevosa
14th Feb 2012, 14:08
If you tie up guard he will be incapacitated for the rest of the mission. Unless of course other guard stumbles upon him and frees him. Amount of ropes would of course be limited. Point in this is to force people not to knock out every guard in the mission and thus making the game too easy. I mostly have thought this as expert difficulty level mechanic. Although I guess this could be achieved easier and without hassle with just limiting the amount of knock outs you can do per mission.

I'd rather have the knocking out part be made harder by having guards actually notice someone sprinting behind them and turn before getting KOed and little fixes like that to AI. A taffer should EARN the peace they get when KOing everyone in a level, it should be about player skills with sneaking and stalking and not about how many ropes I have left.

Putkikameli
14th Feb 2012, 14:34
I'd rather have the knocking out part be made harder by having guards actually notice someone sprinting behind them and turn before getting KOed and little fixes like that to AI. A taffer should EARN the peace they get when KOing everyone in a level, it should be about player skills with sneaking and stalking and not about how many ropes I have left.

You are right. I guess they could really ramp up the blackjacking difficulty by giving guards better situation awareness. It would be nice if this time around guards would start to notice people are going missing.

Rieknor
15th Feb 2012, 08:46
You are right. I guess they could really ramp up the blackjacking difficulty by giving guards better situation awareness. It would be nice if this time around guards would start to notice people are going missing.

somehow my "thief" game got bugued and the guards were REALY awared of everything, that make the game a ral pain in the ass.
But without it it's just too easy

zcapp96
15th Feb 2012, 09:48
If you are trying risky things like that, you are doing something wrong. ............. If you can't figure that out, Splinter Cell: Conviction is right there for you. It gives you no choices. Kill, or just sit there and don't play.. :D

But that's just it I don't take the risk and I clearly am NOT doing something wrong as I complete the missions! And have, in fact, completed all three games. It is also somewhat arrogant to tell people that if they do not play the game in the way you play then they should go and play something else. If I complete the mission then I am playing it correctly.

I do not understand why people that do not kill are so anti having the restriction removed. If you do not want to kill just don't do it! Does it really matter to you how OTHER people are playing the game?

I would point out that there is clear indications that Garrett would not be adverse to killing anyway. The level difficulties (on T2 at least, don't have T1 or T3 loaded at the moment) are labelled as Expert, Hard and NORMAL (not easy!) which tells you that it is this last setting that the developers expected you to play and would expect to be canonical. Also in the T2 mission 'Running Interference' Garrett is explicitly told not to kill anyone in case it upsets the girl. Nothing about morals or how it is wrong to kill. If he had such morals why would he need to be told not to kill anyway?

It should be noted that you are allowed to kill in TDS and although some people, rather strangely, like to think the third game as not being canon, rest assured it most definitely is!

Putkikameli
15th Feb 2012, 11:17
But that's just it I don't take the risk and I clearly am NOT doing something wrong as I complete the missions! And have, in fact, completed all three games. It is also somewhat arrogant to tell people that if they do not play the game in the way you play then they should go and play something else. If I complete the mission then I am playing it correctly.

I do not understand why people that do not kill are so anti having the restriction removed. If you do not want to kill just don't do it! Does it really matter to you how OTHER people are playing the game?

I would point out that there is clear indications that Garrett would not be adverse to killing anyway. The level difficulties (on T2 at least, don't have T1 or T3 loaded at the moment) are labelled as Expert, Hard and NORMAL (not easy!) which tells you that it is this last setting that the developers expected you to play and would expect to be canonical. Also in the T2 mission 'Running Interference' Garrett is explicitly told not to kill anyone in case it upsets the girl. Nothing about morals or how it is wrong to kill. If he had such morals why would he need to be told not to kill anyway?

It should be noted that you are allowed to kill in TDS and although some people, rather strangely, like to think the third game as not being canon, rest assured it most definitely is!

Why not to keep the "no kill" rule on expert level? Besides it has always been about not to kill humans. And it adds nice layer of difficulty when you can't just snipe guards away or whack pursuing guard to death with your sword.


Nothing about morals or how it is wrong to kill
"You are thief not a murderer" Sounds quite moral to me and Garrett also considers killing unprofessional as proved by "Killing is the mark of an amateur. Don't kill anyone."

zcapp96
15th Feb 2012, 11:48
Why not to keep the "no kill" rule on expert level? Besides it has always been about not to kill humans. And it adds nice layer of difficulty when you can't just snipe guards away or whack pursuing guard to death with your sword.


"You are thief not a murderer" Sounds quite moral to me and Garrett also considers killing unprofessional as proved by "Killing is the mark of an amateur. Don't kill anyone."

I think others have said it here, if that was the only difference between hard and expert Then that would be fine but usually their are other objectives that I would want to do such as the 90% loot one. I would argue that Garrett has no morals against killing, just professional pride. But we must remember that what we are told about him is just an outline, it is our actions as we play the game that actually define his moral code. I want to play him as primarily a thief but would occasionally kill if needed. I would point out that, at most I might kill one or two guards on a level but usually there would be none. I just want to have the option. I agree, though, that if it was possible to fight your way through it would be ruined.

I have no problem with people who like to ghost it is just not the way I like to play. It may well be the 'purest' way of doing it but I wouldn't enjoy it so much. I find it fun to watch a guard, plot his movement and blackjack or snipe him and then hide the body. It may not be the 'Garrett' some people identify with but it is 100% the one I imagine. The great thing about thief is that the game allows many different styles, if we limit this to one or two then it will not be a success and there will be no Thief 5 (Assuming there will be a thief 4 of course!).

tarvis79
15th Feb 2012, 13:31
I don't think there was anything wrong with the difficulty levels in the first 2 games. The implication was that the more skilled a thief you are, the less need there is to kill people. I personally agree with Garrett's morality; the poor guards are just some dudes trying to put food on the table. They don't deserve to die.

zcapp96
15th Feb 2012, 13:58
I personally agree with Garrett's morality; the poor guards are just some dudes trying to put food on the table. They don't deserve to die.

But what does Garrett think will happen to these guards when the property owners come home and find all their stuff stolen? Tortured and killed probably. If anything I am doing them a kindness by shooting them in the face with a arrow! ;)

Putkikameli
15th Feb 2012, 14:01
I think others have said it here, if that was the only difference between hard and expert Then that would be fine but usually their are other objectives that I would want to do such as the 90% loot one. I would argue that Garrett has no morals against killing, just professional pride. But we must remember that what we are told about him is just an outline, it is our actions as we play the game that actually define his moral code. I want to play him as primarily a thief but would occasionally kill if needed. I would point out that, at most I might kill one or two guards on a level but usually there would be none. I just want to have the option. I agree, though, that if it was possible to fight your way through it would be ruined.

I have no problem with people who like to ghost it is just not the way I like to play. It may well be the 'purest' way of doing it but I wouldn't enjoy it so much. I find it fun to watch a guard, plot his movement and blackjack or snipe him and then hide the body. It may not be the 'Garrett' some people identify with but it is 100% the one I imagine. The great thing about thief is that the game allows many different styles, if we limit this to one or two then it will not be a success and there will be no Thief 5 (Assuming there will be a thief 4 of course!).

I've always viewed expert difficulty as the ultimate canon version of Thief. I've also always thought that Garrett's view on killing is that if he starts killing he would be nothing more than ordinary thief, not a master thief.

And if Garrett starts deviating from his moral and professional code (on expert difficulty) then quite frankly I'd rather have either different protagonist, the franchise dead or at least not considered canon. I just don't believe for a second that Thief 4's success is dependent of whether or not you can kill on expert difficulty.

Platinumoxicity
15th Feb 2012, 14:05
In Thief 1 there were things that encouraged players to get better, and less lethal in their playing styles, because on harder difficulties there were more objectives, and more limitations. Some missions were entirely different on all 3 difficulties, like Bonehoard. Loot items are all in different places on different difficulty levels, because the higher the difficulty, the larger amount of the total loot is bound to the 2 special items that have been introduced into the extra objectives.

So instead of discouraging killing by giving bad players negative consequences, the game should encourage non-lethality, by having more killing restrictions on higher levels, but also more objectives and unique stuff on higher levels. So that No kills = More stuff. And more doesn't always mean "more". Like in the Bonehoard, on the Normal difficulty, there is a lot of loot to find, and it encourages thorough exploration. On Expert there are less loot items, but there are two extra challenges in the form of entirely new explorable areas with special treasure. Even though I always play Thief on Expert, I sometimes revisit those special missions on lower difficulties just for the joy of finding all those loot items. :)

About the Normal-difficulty players not having those extra objectives like "get lots of loot, with lots in gems", how about this... on Normal and Hard, there would be extra bonuses for getting loot way past the required amount? In Thief 2 there was a bonus objective in Trail of Blood that congratulated the player for finding 500 worth of loot in an unknown hostile environment. There could also be extra bonuses for any Normal- and Hard- difficulty players who actually stick to non-lethality. No such bonuses for Experts. Doing well is not the exception for those.

I can't help but to feel like everyone who is against the expert level killing restriction, just wants to feel good about being able to finish missions on expert, without actually playing like experts.

fbdbh
15th Feb 2012, 14:30
About the Normal-difficulty players not having those extra objectives like "get lots of loot, with lots in gems", how about this... on Normal and Hard, there would be extra bonuses for getting loot way past the required amount? In Thief 2 there was a bonus objective in Trail of Blood that congratulated the player for finding 500 worth of loot in an unknown hostile environment. There could also be extra bonuses for any Normal- and Hard- difficulty players who actually stick to non-lethality. No such bonuses for Experts. Doing well is not the exception for those.

I can't help but to feel like everyone who is against the expert level killing restriction, just wants to feel good about being able to finish missions on expert, without actually playing like experts.

It's basically an achievment-system.

zcapp96
15th Feb 2012, 14:45
I can't help but to feel like everyone who is against the expert level killing restriction, just wants to feel good about being able to finish missions on expert, without actually playing like experts.

But I LIKE killing guards! I find ghosting dull. I have done it on occasions and had no problem with the keepers library section where you couldn't even blackjack. I just prefer to have the option to kill. This is a game made for enjoyment purposes so I want to be able to enjoy it the way I want to play it. I am not cheating, I am not altering the ini files or using level skips. I am using the tools the game provides me with. The only way for people like me and people that want to ghost can do that is if the restriction is removed.

Having a restriction is just lazy development anyway, the better way to discourage killing would be to design the levels to make it too hard to kill. Expert should have more overlapping patrols, others within earshot and so on rather than a game over screen. Give a ranking after each mission where you can only get 100% if there are no kills. If you get all levels at 100% then you get a bonus level, an incentive to do it 'properly'.

Should point out that bashing someone over the head with a blackjack would probably result in brain damage or death anyway!

Putkikameli
15th Feb 2012, 14:56
But I LIKE killing guards! I find ghosting dull. I have done it on occasions and had no problem with the keepers library section where you couldn't even blackjack. I just prefer to have the option to kill. This is a game made for enjoyment purposes so I want to be able to enjoy it the way I want to play it. I am not cheating, I am not altering the ini files or using level skips. I am using the tools the game provides me with. The only way for people like me and people that want to ghost can do that is if the restriction is removed.

Having a restriction is just lazy development anyway, the better way to discourage killing would be to design the levels to make it too hard. Expert should have more overlapping patrols, others within earshot and so on rather than a game over screen. Give a ranking after each mission where you can only get 100% if there are no kills. If you get all levels at 100% then you get a bonus level, an incentive to do it 'properly'.

Should point out that bashing someone over the head with a blackjack would probably result in brain damage or death anyway!

And I LIKE ghosting and find killing guards to make thing easier dull. Heck, you already have blackjack, gas arrows and gas mines to take people down if needed on expert level. If non-lethal approach isn't enforced on expert anymore what would the point in it? There's already 2 difficulty levels which allow killing, why not to have one ultimate canon experience where you follow Garrett's professional code?

zcapp96
15th Feb 2012, 15:08
And I LIKE ghosting and find killing guards to make thing easier dull. Heck, you already have blackjack, gas arrows and gas mines to take people down if needed on expert level. If non-lethal approach isn't enforced on expert anymore what would the point in it? There's already 2 difficulty levels which allow killing, why not to have one ultimate canon experience where you follow Garrett's professional code?

But you don't have to kill anyone, and that is my point. The restriction forces me to play in a way I don't want to but removing the restriction does NOT force you to do the same. Ghosting will still be an option to you. I am just suggesting there should be tangible reward for for doing it the 'pure' way.

It is actually harder to kill a guard than to use a gas arrow or mine. You aim (if sniping) has to be perfect otherwise they just go straight into pursuit mode, you have to make sure that no one else is within earshot and you have to dispose of the body and any blood stain that appears. Gas arrows are silent and do not leave a mess. It seem strange that you are still allowed to do something so easy on expert. More guards, closer together on expert would make it much harder to kill.

Putkikameli
15th Feb 2012, 15:29
But you don't have to kill anyone, and that is my point. The restriction forces me to play in a way I don't want to but removing the restriction does NOT force you to do the same. Ghosting will still be an option to you. I am just suggesting there should be tangible reward for for doing it the 'pure' way.

Expert level dos not even require ghosting to be honest. You still have options to take people down, just not lethal ones.



It is actually harder to kill a guard than to use a gas arrow or mine. You aim (if sniping) has to be perfect otherwise they just go straight into pursuit mode, you have to make sure that no one else is within earshot and you have to dispose of the body and any blood stain that appears. Gas arrows are silent and do not leave a mess. It seem strange that you are still allowed to do something so easy on expert. More guards, closer together on expert would make it much harder to kill.

Expert mode is considered canon and it has been established that Garrett refuses to kill on job. There's been exceptions of course (Constantine, Karras and Lotus), but considering circumstances I guess those kills have been justified. And more guards closer to each other would easily lead to point where mission is not either ghostable or killing guard would lead to 100% chance of alert and defeating the point of making the kill.

Platinumoxicity
15th Feb 2012, 15:36
But I LIKE killing guards! I find ghosting dull. I have done it on occasions and had no problem with the keepers library section where you couldn't even

You can say "I like killing guards" as much as you want, but you can't say that "I like killing guards and still consider my mission succesfully completed, with Expert difficulty." Wouldn't it just be convenient if everyone would just win every game, even though they lost? Wouldn't the world be just a wonderful place if games actually had no rules to follow?

You kill a guard and complete the other objectives, and you have completed the mission. But not according to the Expert-standards. You kill the cook and complete the other objectives, and you have completed the mission. Just not according to the Hard- or Expert standards.

Tell you what, what if on Expert there wouldn't be an instant "Game over" if you killed someone, but instead the game would let you play all the way to the end, and only afterwards it would tell you "Mission failed, please restart." and would not let you continue to the next mission?

zcapp96
15th Feb 2012, 15:44
Expert mode is considered canon and it has been established that Garrett refuses to kill on job. There's been exceptions of course (Constantine, Karras and Lotus), but considering circumstances I guess those kills have been justified. And more guards closer to each other would easily lead to point where mission is not either ghostable or killing guard would lead to 100% chance of alert and defeating the point of making the kill.

I've not seen anything official that says expert is canon, if anything the exact opposite would be true as people could go through the entire series without ever playing on expert. You have hit the nail on the head with that last point, that was exactly what I was saying. Make it too hard to kill, not 100% but 80-90% probability of getting caught. That way if you did pull it off you could not be accused of making it too easy! But it does take more inventive level design so they would probably take the easy 'No Killing' restriction route.

zcapp96
15th Feb 2012, 15:58
You can say "I like killing guards" as much as you want, but you can't say that "I like killing guards and still consider my mission succesfully completed, with Expert difficulty." Wouldn't it just be convenient if everyone would just win every game, even though they lost? Wouldn't the world be just a wonderful place if games actually had no rules to follow?

When I have completed the missions on expert I have done so without killing guards (in T1 and T2 anyway) so I do know how to do it and can actually do it very well. I just find it fun to knock one off every now and then! And I can do that within this game as there are no rules to follow. I would like the game to follow real life a bit more. If I go out and accidently kill someone in real life I will not get a loud bit of music and a skull telling me to restart the level. I will just be able to carry on until the crime is discovered and that is what I would want with the game. In game consequences that effect the direction of my game, not sum arbitrary restriction placed on me at the start of the mission.

In Balders Gate I seem to remember that you could do what you want but your reputation would go down, eventually to the point where the game became unplayable and you would have to start again. Something like that would work much better.

Putkikameli
15th Feb 2012, 16:06
When I have completed the missions on expert I have done so without killing guards (in T1 and T2 anyway) so I do know how to do it and can actually do it very well. I just find it fun to knock one off every now and then! And I can do that within this game as there are no rules to follow. I would like the game to follow real life a bit more. If I go out and accidently kill someone in real life I will not get a loud bit of music and a skull telling me to restart the level. I will just be able to carry on until the crime is discovered and that is what I would want with the game. In game consequences that effect the direction of my game, not sum arbitrary restriction placed on me at the start of the mission.

In Balders Gate I seem to remember that you could do what you want but your reputation would go down, eventually to the point where the game became unplayable and you would have to start again. Something like that would work much better.

Meh, why can't we just have a hardcore mode with rule set similar to first two Thief games? You know something to please the older fans? I still see no reason why Garret would abandon his honor code and not give a damn about killing.

Baldur's Gate is RPG Thief is not. Two different things and two different rule sets

Yaphy
15th Feb 2012, 16:11
Isn't it part of Thief canon that Garrett is rarely seen and never caught? We could just have instant game over every time a guard sees you. Because that is how Garrett is. If it's to hard for you, you could just play on easier difficulty.

zcapp96
15th Feb 2012, 16:17
Meh, why can't we just have a hardcore mode with rule set similar to first two Thief games? You know something to please the older fans? I still see no reason why Garret would abandon his honor code and not give a damn about killing.

I agree, but this can be done with a 'no kills' check box that could be selected right at the start of the game so could be used on ALL difficulties. I personal would prefer the solution I offered a little while back of the missions tree with available future missions determined by how you play the game but that would take years more development and I think if Eidos Montreal take too much longer some people on here will be revising their 'No kill' rules!

Keeper_Riff
15th Feb 2012, 16:18
I've not seen anything official that says expert is canon, if anything the exact opposite would be true as people could go through the entire series without ever playing on expert.So do you imply Garrett getting out of Bafford's manor is non-canon? Garrett helping Basso out of the prison non-canon? Mystic's Heart & Soul gems in the Bonehoard non-canon? Garrett destroying Chaos Portal non-canon?

BTW, less than half of people play the action game to the end at all nowadays. Does it make the entire second half of any game non-canon?

Putkikameli
15th Feb 2012, 16:26
Isn't it part of Thief canon that Garrett is rarely seen and never caught? We could just have instant game over every time a guard sees you. Because that is how Garrett is. If it's to hard for you, you could just play on easier difficulty.

Just because you were seen does not mean you got caught. And rarely does not mean never.

zcapp96
15th Feb 2012, 16:28
So do you imply Garrett getting out of Bafford's manor is non-canon? Garrett helping Basso out of the prison non-canon? Mystic's Heart & Soul gems in the Bonehoard non-canon? Garrett destroying Chaos Portal non-canon?

BTW, less than half of people play the action game to the end at all nowadays. Does it make the entire second half of any game non-canon?

No not at all, but none of the examples you give contradict actions that take place on normal or hard settings. Someone said expert was canon we should follow, I just said I do not recall this every being made official. Although I do wonder why Garrett feels the need to help rescue Basso's girlfriend to make him owe him one if canon says Garrett has already helped him escape from prison.....

Keeper_Riff
15th Feb 2012, 16:34
No not at all, but none of the examples you give contradict actions that take place on normal or hard settings.They do. Basso will drown if you don't have a task to rescue him but try to, there are no rooms for Mystic's gems in Bonehoard, you don't have the coins for Watchman's grave, no tips on how to destroy the Portal and no knowledge if it can be destroyed at all.

I'm all for making killing harder. And mass-killing even more hard so that no-kill would be not only an obscure goal, but a necessity. And… there are undead and beasts and animals, which are allowed to kill and no one seems to oppose it. Why so many gamers insist on killing people?

zcapp96
15th Feb 2012, 16:49
I'm all for making killing harder. And mass-killing even more hard so that no-kill would be not only an obscure goal, but a necessity. And… there are undead and beasts and animals, which are allowed to kill and no one seems to oppose it. Why so many gamers insist on killing people?

Absolutely agree! I don't want it to be easy to kill, I want it to be extremely hard. I just want to have the option so it is my choice to do it or not. It should be noted though that currently If you are going to eliminate a guard it is actually harder to kill him then to just knock him out.

I too have been puzzled why no one seems to mind killing the non human sentients, even when they seem to have a sophisticated culture and have not even attacked Garrett previously! Kind of makes him a bit xenophobic!

Yaphy
15th Feb 2012, 16:49
And rarely does not mean never.

The same thing can be applied to the killing. Garrett has killed before. Even if it's rarely it doesn't mean never.

All I mean is that setting a rule for killing is a very sloppy way to make the person play as a Thief. What if you want the game to be harder but still want to be able to kill? There is no option for that. If you want to be able to kill you will also have to deal with stupider AI.

zcapp96
15th Feb 2012, 16:53
They do. Basso will drown if you don't have a task to rescue him but try to, there are no rooms for Mystic's gems in Bonehoard, you don't have the coins for Watchman's grave, no tips on how to destroy the Portal and no knowledge if it can be destroyed at all.



Yet both Basso and Garrett seem to have forgotten the rescue come Thief 2.

Keeper_Riff
15th Feb 2012, 17:09
If you want to be able to kill you will also have to deal with stupider AI.Erm… there's a difference between "Smart AI" and "Hard AI". The hardest AI is a hive-mind which is always aware of player's presence or triggered to be at some moment. We've seen that hundreds of times and it is obviously stupid and looks like blatant cheating. Implementing more complex behavior like AI reacting on their vision and sound, collecting evidences and truly communicating with each other makes them actually easier to kill or even kill themselves.


Yet both Basso and Garrett seem to have forgotten the rescue come Thief 2.So do you think that Basso, being near death when Garrett arrives, managed to escape on his own? As for owing two favors instead of one Garrett clearly says "And in this line of work, you can never have too many of those."

zcapp96
15th Feb 2012, 17:27
So do you think that Basso, being near death when Garrett arrives, managed to escape on his own? As for owing two favors instead of one Garrett clearly says "And in this line of work, you can never have too many of those."

But it's by no means clear which is canon, Garrett rescuing Basso or not. Which is important because people are using the argument that expert is canon so Garrett must not kill. I don't see this as the case and would say that as each one of us controls his every move throughout the trilogy it is us who are determining the points of canon and it is just the overall arc that is predetermined. As such we are also the ones who determine his morality through the actions we make him do. We will all have a different Garrett as individual as ourselves because they ARE ourselves. The full range of actions should be available to us and we should make the choice ourselves as to the exact extent of Garrett's morality. By all means reward the less bloodthirsty of us but allow us the choice.

Putkikameli
15th Feb 2012, 17:29
The same thing can be applied to the killing. Garrett has killed before. Even if it's rarely it doesn't mean never.

All I mean is that setting a rule for killing is a very sloppy way to make the person play as a Thief. What if you want the game to be harder but still want to be able to kill? There is no option for that. If you want to be able to kill you will also have to deal with stupider AI.

2 people Garrett has killed were threatening innocent peoples lives. Easily justified kills. And Lotus' killing was mercy kill. Easily justified too. However I see no way Garrett could justify killing a guard that is standing between him and little bit of coin.

And as I have stated before that expert is pretty much considered canon. Garrett does not kill for light reasons, ergo no killing rule on expert.

Yaphy
15th Feb 2012, 20:24
And as I have stated before that expert is pretty much considered canon..

Where have you gotten that information from? Is just your opinion, is it many peoples opinions or is it simply a developers statement? It seems awfully undefined when you say "pretty much considered".

Hypevosa
15th Feb 2012, 20:34
I think it's safe to assume that Expert is canon given that Garrett is supposed to be a master thief, the game is hardly a challenge at all on the other difficulties, and that there is extra content when the game is played on expert.

I don't know if it's like Bungie coming out and saying Halo was meant to be played on heroic or not.

BigBoss
16th Feb 2012, 01:19
Bungie also took their one good novel (Reach by Eric Nylund) and said it didn't happen in favor of the horribly cliche story that they told in the game Reach written by Joseph Staten, who is an atrocious writer.

Hypevosa
16th Feb 2012, 04:28
It's unfortunate, but I can't blame them for wanting to make reach a videogame. It's really hard to translate the book into a halo experience.

BigBoss
16th Feb 2012, 04:37
you mean the fps halo experience? Agreed, which is why I think they should have just done something different. It wasn't a numbered title, so its main appeal was to those who read the fiction and are probably the same ones who bought halo wars and odst.

Hypevosa
16th Feb 2012, 08:35
you mean the fps halo experience? Agreed, which is why I think they should have just done something different. It wasn't a numbered title, so its main appeal was to those who read the fiction and are probably the same ones who bought halo wars and odst.

Yeah, I just don't feel it would have the same spirit as the other games. I love the books for their lore, I've always loved a good bit of depth, but it would really need to be a very different game.

I bought and played ODST and loved the hell out of it - it's one of the few games I actually got the same feeling from that I do playing thief. I avoided combat and felt vulnerable (well, I'm also a challenge whore and played on legendary...), and really loved the exploration aspect of it, and it was awesome and challenging.

Personally, I also liked how Reach played out. There was a bit of deus ex bull****, like how the gal (Kat?) got needlessly killed by a needler rifle round... but I liked the characters portrayed, and felt the deaths of each was appropriate (again, ignoring Kat's).

Platinumoxicity
16th Feb 2012, 08:35
I've not seen anything official that says expert is canon, if anything the exact opposite would be true as people could go through the entire series without ever playing on expert.


Where have you gotten that information from? Is just your opinion, is it many peoples opinions or is it simply a developers statement? It seems awfully undefined when you say "pretty much considered".

There is no evidence to support the notion that Expert and "killing is for amateurs" is canon, but the writers and developers made it damn sure that there is no evidence against it. Remember, in those ridiculous wanted posters that should not even exist, Murder is not mentioned because the games have never specifically requested it from the player. Assault is mentioned, because there is one confirmed case in the trilogy, in the Crippled Burrick, when Garrett throws the flashbang and beats up the two cops.

And during Garrett's trial, when Orland is trying to convince the council that "Garrett is no stranger to murder", he only manages to list Karras and Constantine as Garrett's previous kills, because those are the only canon deaths that Garrett is confirmed to have caused.

So, saying that Garrett not killing anyone is canon, is wrong because there is no evidence for that. But the deliberate dancing around the issue, and refusal to link Garrett with any previous unconfirmed deaths really does say something. I think the developers wanted the non-letality of the Expert difficulty to fit the story better than the possible lethality of the lower difficulties.

BigBoss
16th Feb 2012, 10:30
you pretty much just answered the whole debate. I think it's pretty obvious that the devs intentionally left his whole possibility of murder a mystery and for it to be left to player interpretation or style of play for obvious reasons.

Caranfin
16th Feb 2012, 10:50
^^ That.

Garrett's feelings on killing are left intentionally ambiguous in everything shared by all the different difficulty levels. "Killing is for amateurs", while a piece of cool fluff, is a device meant to challenge the players on the higher difficulty levels.

Yaphy
16th Feb 2012, 10:58
And that is the reason why I do not like the forced no killing rule on expert. It's a sloppy way to make it harder. I would never kill anyone in a Thief game yet it still bothers me that I don't even have a choice on the matter when I play on expert. I want to be the one that is responsible for what is happening. Not some dumb rule. I think that they should change the gameplay somehow so that the player would feel themselves that they should not kill or at least kill as few as possible.

I read something interesting on askscience recently about blacking out due to head injury.


Much more worrying are acute complications and long term consequences, a blow to the head that causes blacking out can cause intercrainial bleeds which is a "get to the hospital and get a hole drilled in your head or be dead in an hour" situation. Anyone blacking out for more than a few seconds should probably be getting a CT or MRI real quick. Long term consequences can also be dire, lots of regions can get damaged during a head injury: hippocampal damage can cause transient or permanent amnesia, motor cortex damage can cause tremors, dorsal striatal damage can cause gambling addiction, and damage to visual cortex can cause you to see stars (sometimes permanently). These complications can take years to appear, but people with frequent head injuries (boxers, hockey enforcers, rugby/football players) often have brains in their 40s and 50s that resemble the brains of 80 year old alzheimer's patients.

This makes me wonder if Garrett really hasn't killed any guards. It seems logical that the majority would be dead or crippled for life. Remember that askscience is a very serious place and they have very strict rules. Here is a reply to the qoute above.


Traumatic Brain Injury researcher here, I concur with Majidah's post. in addition: the subject of current debate in the literature is the extent to which mild traumatic brain injury (aka concussion where you're blacked out for less than 30 minutes) can cause lasting cognitive changes like memory loss, heache, sleepbproblems, attention problems, etc. See Vanderploeg 2009 for a review. For a more specific experimental paper see Niogi ey sl. 2008 "Extent of Microstructural White Matter Injury in Postconcussive Syndrome [...]". That paper is a bit more technical but I would be happy to discuss it with anyone who is interested.

Link to the thread, for those that are interested. (http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pqpuf/what_happens_inside_your_body_when_you_get_hit_on/)

Putkikameli
16th Feb 2012, 11:33
I've suggested before that blackjacked guards wouldn't stay down forever. I don't think it would work in practice though. It would discourage blackjacking and non lethal approach too much. Heck, if we really start to go real life approach even gas arrows could be lethal. Too little gas and subject is just going to feel dizzy, too much and subject will slip eventually in to deeper coma and can't breathe themselves anymore.

So I guess rules of realism needs to be bend for the sake of gameplay.

And for making killing harder, how about:

- Shoot in the chest and the guard goes down yelling and dies.

- Legs: He's going to start limping and if shot in both legs he's going to fall over and can't walk anymore.

- Knee: No more adventures

- Arms: Renders arm(s) useless

- Throat: Goes down fairly silently with nice drowning-in-my-own-blood-gurgling sound. Would however leave fair amount of blood everywhere

- Head: Insta-kill. However, I guess it would make any other shot useless so why not to share effeck with throat shot.

- When moving bodies, corpses would drip blood now and then to leave small trail?