PDA

View Full Version : 3 Factions - 3 endings?



Limesneeker
13th May 2009, 23:53
we had 3 factions and 3 games.

What about developing this principle so that this time there is only one game but with three different endings so that it depends on which faction we support and lead to its victory?

Still, maybe only the middle way of the keepers would lead to a harmonic, balanced, happy end, while the support of the extremists would lead to an equally extreme, apocalyptic ending. Either a karras-style or a trickster-style apocalypse of course.
Then again, when I think of Gamall even the middle-way can be world-devestating so maybe when choosing the middle path there should even be the possibility to follow in gamall´s footsteps (and succeed), instead of acting as a true keeper. I dont want to go too far but following gamall´s way could also mean that stealing objects could lead to new abilities...(role-playing SNEAKER + a new motivation for stealing- the possibilities are endless...hehe ;) )

Of course this would mean, that all factions have world-domination plans in one game.

The Possibility to choose would also make sense, because as a thief you aren´t bound to a philosophy...

What do you think?

Tohtori
14th May 2009, 00:04
I love this idea. There should definitely be choices that effect the storyline and different endings for different factions. But the choice should not only be limited to ending but there should be choices that enables some maps while disabling others. There are too few games with real choices nowadays.

Limesneeker
14th May 2009, 00:24
I love this idea. There should definitely be choices that effect the storyline and different endings for different factions. But the choice should not only be limited to ending but there should be choices that enables some maps while disabling others. There are too few games with real choices nowadays.

Right! For example, pagan-holy-grounds are only accessible for an individual who truely loves nature, otherwise tree-beasts will crush you instantenously or a hammer tomb is only accessible through faith (think of Indy 3)
Maybe even your equipment will be influenced: rope-arrows on one side, vine-arows on the other (ok thats not very remarkable). But in principle when supporting the hammers you will use more mechanical devices than natural ones. When supporting the pagans it will be the other way round.

Mr McGee
14th May 2009, 02:00
Yeah this would be awesome. I always like it when games have different endings. It always makes you feel like you had more of an impact.

Terr
14th May 2009, 02:05
There are generally two ways to do this kind of thing in a way that affects the story.

Absolutely brilliantly and with tons of effort and lots of luck.
Or a mediocre showing that actually detracts from other parts of the game.
Or a good but extremely limited "end finale" type, like the ending of Deus Ex.


I'd rather not, actually. I prefer one awesome storyline over three potential ones which are all so-so. I mean, TDS tried this a little bit with things like Fort Ironwood and the Pagans in the park, and frankly it wasn't really fun. It just felt like another boring "balance your reputation between two groups" meta-game.

cobak
14th May 2009, 02:23
we had 3 factions and 3 games.

What about developing this principle so that this time there is only one game but with three different endings so that it depends on which faction we support and lead to its victory?

Still, maybe only the middle way of the keepers would lead to a harmonic, balanced, happy end, while the support of the extremists would lead to an equally extreme, apocalyptic ending. Either a karras-style or a trickster-style apocalypse of course.
Then again, when I think of Gamall even the middle-way can be world-devestating so maybe when choosing the middle path there should even be the possibility to follow in gamall´s footsteps (and succeed), instead of acting as a true keeper. I dont want to go too far but following gamall´s way could also mean that stealing objects could lead to new abilities...(role-playing SNEAKER + a new motivation for stealing- the possibilities are endless...hehe ;) )

Of course this would mean, that all factions have world-domination plans in one game.

The Possibility to choose would also make sense, because as a thief you aren´t bound to a philosophy...

What do you think?

:mad2:

Garrett doesn't join factions. He is THE neutral balance of the city. The one true keeper.

Here's a nice quote for you:


Constantine: You are possibly... friendly with the Order of the Hammer?

Garrett: No... fanatics make unreliable friends.

So unless we won't be playing as Garrett in this game then I don't support this idea at all.

And if we aren't playing as Garrett then whatever choice we make should be foiled by Garrett so that the city remains in balance.

Limesneeker
15th May 2009, 01:16
:mad2:

Garrett doesn't join factions. He is THE neutral balance of the city. The one true keeper.

Here's a nice quote for you:


So unless we won't be playing as Garrett in this game then I don't support this idea at all.

And if we aren't playing as Garrett then whatever choice we make should be foiled by Garrett so that the city remains in balance.

Your´re right.

But then there should still be the option to choose the corrupt way of the middle path (like gamall) vs. a peaceful middle path...

On the other hand: if we aren´t playing garrett it would be nice to create the feeling of really CHOOSING his (neutral) way while we dont have to....

after all, I really think the freedom to choose is somehow a core element on which this medium should build...

DarthEnder
15th May 2009, 01:50
Thief doesn't really need that kind of thing. Thief's narrative has always been about telling a tight, linear, story. I don't want to be going into Thief 5, not certain which ending for Thief 4 the Dev's are gonna decide was the "real" ending.

ElizabethSterling
15th May 2009, 07:12
No, no, please god, no.
1 - The 'factions'/gangs/clans/army/insert other name idea is horribly overused.
2 - It didn't work in Thief 3
3 - Multiple endings ruin the idea that we are playing as Garrett and can only serve to compromise the depth of the main story and scope of missions.
4 - Thief is NOT an RPG, it's a brilliant linear story met with wonderful stealth gameplay that is both exceptionally hard and very rewarding.

GmanPro
15th May 2009, 07:40
I really don't want to pick a side in Thief 4. I disliked all of the factions in IW. And besides, Garrett is supposed to be all about taking care of himself. I love when the Keepers came to him for help in Thief 2 and he was just like, "how about you Keppers plant some shrubs around town, and I'll take care of me." And he just walks away. So pro.

Terr
15th May 2009, 07:42
I'd rather spent more energy from the "character development and trade-off budget" into things like equipment and skills, rather than alliances or social stuff.


...Crap, that sounds very geeky, doesn't it...

Alex50
15th May 2009, 08:50
No, should be one ending of a history. Let player has an opportunity to establish the friendly relations with fractions, оставться neutral to them or to be at enmity with them, as in T3. With all pluss and minuses. But the victory of any fraction is a loss Garrett as keeper. Any ramified ending this complete ending of a history Garrett. The continuation will not be possible any more.

Petike the Taffer
15th May 2009, 11:04
I wholeheartedly support the idea. :-)

Pushing minor factions (like the Mages or Kurshoks) into the main plot feels awkaward to me, the story should center on the three main factions, as usual. Of course, no one said that the minor plot players can't have important roles in the overall story. Exploring the ruling dynasty of City Barons along with the other noble families would be a nice touch. ;-)

Necros
15th May 2009, 11:53
Keep the multiple endings for Deus Ex 3, no need for them in Thief 4. ;)

Limesneeker
15th May 2009, 19:42
You should be able to feel the massive consequences of NOT keeping the balance...:D

if Garrett should be the main character in thief 4 then the support of fanatics wouldnt work of course.

But what about that: multiple endings (=victories of different factions) could happen not because of alignment but because of acts which do not support the balance? After all this DOES work for Garrett: when he isnt caring about any philosophy why should he consequently keep the balance?

Flashart
16th May 2009, 16:52
I'd like one single ending but howabout one of 3 unique levels that slightly swerve the story in the middle. It's encourage replaying the game, and if the choice was made early in the game
it would stop people saving just before the new level.
Maybe a violent "zombie" level, an ultra sneaky "bank", and a surreal "magical" place.
Maybe you could accept the choice of mission for payment from a messenger, they could explain what each mission would contain, and maybe part of the loot could be a unique item, like poison arrows, silent shoes, or smoke bombs. This would then have a slight impact on all the following levels.
As you can see I'm trying to tie various threads together here, I think this would work.

simlan
16th May 2009, 23:24
i like the idea of multiple endings but not necessarily ending that involve Garrett acting on behalf of one faction to another (but its not something i would dismiss, depending on the story). rather than the fact of different endings be something that changes through game play, it be something depending on a choice within the last mission.

huzi73
16th May 2009, 23:44
This sucks.Please god no!The whole ally with a faction of your desire in T3 as compared to being compelled to do so through persuasion in the first 2 games,is what made T3 suck.In T2,the hammers hardly featured!Ffs,in T3,the coolest faction ever,the mechanists,didnt feature!What about the hand mages?The kurshok?Oh wait?Why not throw in a pirate faction?And what about the undead?Zomfgimbanoobpwnhax!Guess what?Garrett doesnt give a damn about any faction,he hates the pagans for taking his eye!He only assisted them in Thief 2,because of his relationship with Viktoria.He only assisted the Hammers in Thief 1 to avoid total anhilation of the civilised folk,he doesnt care of balance,nor the keepers.Hes in it to make a quick buck for himself!And usually through his greed and arrogance,ends up being a catalyst for destruction.This is why T3 felt so wrong,because Garret played errand boy for 3 factions without any real threat of impending doom.ION STORM'S biggest downfall in T3 was portraying Garrett as a man who actually cared.This totally contradicted the 1st 2 games portrayal of Garretts character.

CurtX
16th May 2009, 23:51
I haven't been a big fan of multiple endings. People are always going to try each ending. And after that I usually feel like I am left with multiple personality disorder. Typically it's just a different short ending cutscene for each one, not exactly a big payoff. Instead, I just wished they'd focus on making a single, memorable gameplay and cutscene ending. Last impressions are just as important as first impressions.

Limesneeker
17th May 2009, 01:20
This sucks.Please god no!The whole ally with a faction of your desire in T3 as compared to being compelled to do so through persuasion in the first 2 games,is what made T3 suck.In T2,the hammers hardly featured!Ffs,in T3,the coolest faction ever,the mechanists,didnt feature!What about the hand mages?The kurshok?Oh wait?Why not throw in a pirate faction?And what about the undead?Zomfgimbanoobpwnhax!Guess what?Garrett doesnt give a damn about any faction,he hates the pagans for taking his eye!He only assisted them in Thief 2,because of his relationship with Viktoria.He only assisted the Hammers in Thief 1 to avoid total anhilation of the civilised folk,he doesnt care of balance,nor the keepers.Hes in it to make a quick buck for himself!And usually through his greed and arrogance,ends up being a catalyst for destruction.This is why T3 felt so wrong,because Garret played errand boy for 3 factions without any real threat of impending doom.ION STORM'S biggest downfall in T3 was portraying Garrett as a man who actually cared.This totally contradicted the 1st 2 games portrayal of Garretts character.

T3 plot was written by Terri Brosius who also wrote the first two. Apart from that: have you ever heard of character development?

Flashart
17th May 2009, 08:27
The idea that Garrett doesn't care is wrong. In TMA he goes to Soulforge to help Viktoria not get Karras. ("Viktoria, lets g....") ie "Get out of here" or perhaps "Grab a cheeseburger".
At the very end of TMA the "Tell me!" statement means he wants to know more, if he didn't care he'd just disappear.
I'd describe him as very wary, suspicious, and probably a little nervous of peoples (factions) motives.
Maybe "caring" is the wrong phrase, you could replace it with duty, destiny, obligation, compulsion etc. I'd agree that in any mission he still wants to get a little for himself, that's the "Thief" part of his nature. But the idea that everything he does is motivated by loot is completely wrong. He'd probably never join any faction, and it's questionable whether he'd accept ANY mission. (Would Garrett rob a beggar of his only belongings if he was paid handsomely?) Given the unavoidable choice of an alliance, he'd pick what worked best for him.

huzi73
17th May 2009, 09:23
The idea that Garrett doesn't care is wrong. In TMA he goes to Soulforge to help Viktoria not get Karras. ("Viktoria, lets g....") ie "Get out of here" or perhaps "Grab a cheeseburger".
At the very end of TMA the "Tell me!" statement means he wants to know more, if he didn't care he'd just disappear.
I'd describe him as very wary, suspicious, and probably a little nervous of peoples (factions) motives.
Maybe "caring" is the wrong phrase, you could replace it with duty, destiny, obligation, compulsion etc. I'd agree that in any mission he still wants to get a little for himself, that's the "Thief" part of his nature. But the idea that everything he does is motivated by loot is completely wrong. He'd probably never join any faction, and it's questionable whether he'd accept ANY mission. (Would Garrett rob a beggar of his only belongings if he was paid handsomely?) Given the unavoidable choice of an alliance, he'd pick what worked best for him.

I get what you're saying.Caring is the wrong phrase,but Garrett totally ignored the keepers warnings/prophecies in the 1st 2 games upto the "show me" point in Thief 2.He doesnt want to be the ont true keeper,he dislikes having duty and responsibility.Garrett is not Sam Fisher,he doesnt do work for agencies and at the same time,try to pick up loot!The game is called Thief,not Sneaker Cell:Featuring Garret "The agents sneak" Fisher.The only reason why T3 had the faction element was because it took a bit to much from Deus Ex.

Flashart
17th May 2009, 11:38
Yes, I agree, he might not WANT the responsibility, and certainly doesn't like it, I just think
it'd make for a more interesting tale if he had an internal conflict, which being the "one true keeper"
is a great chance to show. Maybe this could be a choice in which to direction to take the game.
Maybe not multiple endings, but a cutscene within the game.
Viktoria's "You are a good Thief, Garrett" you can take that phrase two different ways. (Robin Hood = a good Thief)

simlan
17th May 2009, 17:21
the whole Garrett taking sides (and by side i dont mean going under their order and doing as they say kind of thing, as he still does his own thing, but thwarting which ever opposition that effects him more) and makes more sense if the only reason he does so is to benefit himself in some way.

Smooogy
17th May 2009, 17:24
"(Robin Hood = a good Thief) " XD Awesome

Yeah, Garrett needs to have some conflict now that he's the one true keeper

MasterTaffer
17th May 2009, 18:55
I've always been a fan of Thief's linear stories, and feel that multiple endings would actually detract from the writing. Garrett works best as a cynical and jaded loner, and having him showing favor to the pagans, hammers, keepers, or whoever seems very antithetical of his charecter to me. He's self serving, and that's what makes him an anti-hero. He doesn't do what's right, he does what's right by him.

Aristofiles
3rd Jun 2009, 17:31
No, Garrett is his own and he dont support any fraction.... ever! he even despite them. One story and one way to go, Garretts own. Its the only option. Lets not get hooked up on the old fractions. in my eyes thay have alredy played out thier roles. Thier prsence in the thief world is a must but it would be more fun if thay made a new element and a new enemy.

Aristofiles
3rd Jun 2009, 18:15
or this will be the chapter were Garrett finaly realise the keepers place in the universe and finds the reason he need to start a new order of balance.

i dont think that pagans and hammers are the only two forces that the keepers had to balance. Everything is devided in 2 in thief, Nobles - pesants, City - Nature, Hammers - Pagans ec ec.

kaekaelyn
3rd Jun 2009, 21:01
One quality ending, so that it's easier to make more sequels.

Hypevosa
3rd Jun 2009, 23:06
I agree with kaek

Secondary
1st Sep 2009, 02:46
a cool idea but it leads to difficulty if EM wants to make another sequel. i know thats a far stone to throw at this point, as Thief 4 isnt even nearly made yet, but divergant endings make developing official canon difficult.

id rather have one ending, with several ways to achieve it.

Zahr Dalsk
1st Sep 2009, 04:55
we had 3 factions and 3 games.

What about developing this principle so that this time there is only one game but with three different endings so that it depends on which faction we support and lead to its victory?

Still, maybe only the middle way of the keepers would lead to a harmonic, balanced, happy end, while the support of the extremists would lead to an equally extreme, apocalyptic ending. Either a karras-style or a trickster-style apocalypse of course.
Then again, when I think of Gamall even the middle-way can be world-devestating so maybe when choosing the middle path there should even be the possibility to follow in gamall´s footsteps (and succeed), instead of acting as a true keeper. I dont want to go too far but following gamall´s way could also mean that stealing objects could lead to new abilities...(role-playing SNEAKER + a new motivation for stealing- the possibilities are endless...hehe ;) )

Of course this would mean, that all factions have world-domination plans in one game.

The Possibility to choose would also make sense, because as a thief you aren´t bound to a philosophy...

What do you think?

I'd love this idea.

One balanced option that stays canon; the other extreme options that represent what would have happened if Garrett actually chose a side other than himself. Sure, they wouldn't be canon, but it'd be really cool to see what it would have been like.

Siding with Pagans, for example: city collapses into ruin and returns to nature. Siding with Hammerites: Hammerites eventually take over full rulership of the city and wipe out the Pagans.

Herr_Garrett
1st Sep 2009, 06:25
How very stupid. Garrett should remain true to himself, not following the path of the guys he killed off (and thank the Builder he did). And Garrett would never side with anyone to help them gain world domination. Why? That means the end of his job, for gods' sakes! He would never want world domination for himself, either. Why? Because he only wants enough money so's he could retire, and steal only for the fun of it.

This obsession with wanting to ruin a game is fascinating, really.:mad2::mad2::mad2:

Davehall380
1st Sep 2009, 09:48
Now that the Keepers have gone, there are no prophecies to guide Garrett. The balance that was kept by the Keepers is under threat, the hammers and pagans threaten to take control.

If we want Garrett to remain 'introvert/single' (ive also heard loner), then something needs to replace the prophecies. It would take quite something for Garrett to percieve what is going on without help (in TDP and TMA Garrett only found out about problems from Keepers).

If the focus shifts from Garrett to another character, alot of people will be upset (though this option seems to make more sense). Another possiblity is that Garrett remains but his personality changes with the new burden.

N.B Now that the glyphs are gone, is Garretts role as 'brethern and betrayer' and the 'one true keeper' over with?

Yaphy
1st Sep 2009, 10:10
I think that different endings depending on how you play and make choices is good, the game is worth to play again. Well, the previouse games was good to play again to, but it would make it more intresting if it had different endings.
But I dont want a faction to "win" they should always be balanced because people like different factions and it wouldnt be fun to see your favorite faction to lose and stop existing after 4 games.
I definetly dont want Garrett to join or help a faction to "win".

Davehall380
1st Sep 2009, 11:32
I agree that Garrett shouldnt be pushed out of his personality arc - he should remain true to his existing character.

I think that lessons can be learnt from the original Deus Ex. In that game, the three different storylines didnt arc until the end of the game. In a similair way, the storyline can remain strong until the climax of the game, at which point the player can choose three different endings. The main problem however is the storyline continuation. Look at Deus Ex 2. Despite being a bastardisation of the original, it choose to follow one storyline. This breaks the immersion if it ran against the grain of your original adventure.

Multiple endings if executed well can add replayablity and depth to a story. Another idea that I have had concerns redisent evil 2. In that game, you could play as either one of two charcacters. Player A had 'game A' and player B had 'game B'. These involved two storys that happend simultaneously within the game, often intersecting and evolving around each other. Upon completion, Player could then play game B and vica versa. Just ideas on replayability and endings.

Secondary
1st Sep 2009, 16:03
another excellent point you guys brought up.

changing the story arc would probably throw Garret way out of character. Garret may take different paths to reach something, but that something he wants should always be the same no matter how he reaches it.

he can become wiser, older, more balanced as the one keeper. but he should remain the same witty, cynical thief he has always been.

13LACK13ISHOP
1st Sep 2009, 17:48
Keep it like one and two because the of reason stated above about a sequel. If it is the last in the series then you would have to make each ending true to his character which would be intersting. I dont know how it would work.