PDA

View Full Version : Important! Sword/dagger? (read first!!)



Pages : [1] 2

huzi73
4th Jun 2009, 22:07
Since this has been frequently debated, have your say!

Remember, swords resulted in a stealth and movement penalty when wielded.
But allowed Garrett to block and take on guards in close encounters.
A sword also allowed Garrett to backstab from a further distance, although swords were slower to backstab with.

Daggers couldnt block, and rarely assisted Garrett in encounters, but did not result in a movement or stealth penalty when wielded.
Daggers were faster to backstab with, but required Garrett to be closer to his enemy.
(in which case it was pointless using a dagger,as Garrett could just avoid killing altogether and just use the blackjack instead)

Since Garrett had to be closer to his enemy,daggers therefore increased the risk of being cought.

Hypevosa
4th Jun 2009, 22:08
Dagger is the weapon of an assassin or a murderer, though a dagger could be used to open doors or disarm pressure plates. It has 0 defensive capabilities. To me, even if it seems more stealthy, it undermines the "not a murderer but a thief" aspect when you carry something that's only useful for murder, why not just knock them out so their kids don't become orphans. When it comes to undead, it's useless because they don't need the blood your spilling or the heart you just stabbed.

Sword is a weapon of your everyman, something that can be used to defend. It loses it's ability to be used effectively as a tool due to it's size. It's not stealthy, but it's not supposed to be, if you've pulled out your sword you have entered an OH **** situation, which is really the only time you should ever pull it out in thief (be it hammer haunts or getting cornered and having to fight your way out). This makes it a defensive weapon, because you're defending your life, not simply trying to take another's. And when it comes to undead, I'd rather hack off limbs so they can't hit me with em, and maybe do enough massive damage to the body to make the spirit depart from it.

That's my argument plain and simple.

That's if we're forced to choose one forever instead of having a choice during gameplay.

EDIT: looking at your choices though I'd like to carry both at once, and it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for someone to do so. Dagger in your boot, sword at your side. I also like not having constantine's sword anymore, because as I said... if you're pulling out your sword, it should be in a situation where your stealth is ALREADY compromised, or where the enemy you're fighting warrants it, i.e. undead.

huzi73
4th Jun 2009, 22:13
I agree with you whole heartedly, except ZOMBIES and PUPPETS MUST NOT DIE!

Hypevosa
4th Jun 2009, 22:17
I agree with you whole heartedly, except ZOMBIES and PUPPETS MUST NOT DIE!

Zombies are slow and kinda cute with the way they reach out and try to touch you (somehow inflicting massive damage). And puppets I don't think anyone should ever get close enough to touch (I know I used fire arrows and mines... That way I cold free their tormented spirits :D)

But I'm sorry, Hammer haunts must die. Every last one, even if there's five hundred of them. I will find someone with a sunburst device, and I will use it to blow every last one of them up I swear to the Builder.

Hypevosa
4th Jun 2009, 22:19
Of course, the problem with having both, or more weapons than the original games is the impact it has on keybindings, hotkeys, instantly bringing up up the weapon you want.

Yeah, there's already too many items for all the f keys to use in TMA. I'd be fine cycling through my items as long as they don't slow me down between cyclings.

AbysmalGale
4th Jun 2009, 22:22
Sword or short sword! With stealth and movement penalty of course. Mostly to use against haunts and such (I don't want to kill humans in Thief). I also would love if zombies could be chopped to pieces with it, kind of like in T2X.

The dagger is of no use at all. Bad idea!

Hypevosa
4th Jun 2009, 22:25
Sword or short sword! With stealth and movement penalty of course.

Then why did you vote for constantine's sword? it has no stealth penalty... o.O

Caranfin
4th Jun 2009, 22:42
Dagger is the weapon of an assassin or a murderer, though a dagger could be used to open doors or disarm pressure plates. It has 0 defensive capabilities. To me, even if it seems more stealthy, it undermines the "not a murderer but a thief" aspect when you carry something that's only useful for murder, why not just knock them out so their kids don't become orphans. When it comes to undead, it's useless because they don't need the blood your spilling or the heart you just stabbed.

Sword is a weapon of your everyman, something that can be used to defend. It loses it's ability to be used effectively as a tool due to it's size. It's not stealthy, but it's not supposed to be, if you've pulled out your sword you have entered an OH **** situation, which is really the only time you should ever pull it out in thief (be it hammer haunts or getting cornered and having to fight your way out). This makes it a defensive weapon, because you're defending your life, not simply trying to take another's.
This. This is what I came here to post.

Also, I voted "Sword", since including Constantine's sword in the second option makes it seem like I'd be voting for the sword not to make you more visible when in hand. I wouldn't like that. But I don't understand why the second one is specifically called "short sword", and the first one is not? Garrett's sword has always been quite short. I'd say it's quite close to an arming sword, and definitely not a longsword.

Platinumoxicity
4th Jun 2009, 23:20
Garrett's sword in T1 and T2 is a short sword. I took a screenshot recently and compared the scale of the hilt and blade on Garrett's sword to the scale of their counterparts on a real short sword and they match perfectly. Garrett's short sword is meant for quick defense. A longsword is a two-handed, very heavy sword used by armored knights on horseback in major battles, against heavily armored enemies. The City watch and private security companies in the City are not equipped with longswords because they don't expect to fight opponents in suits of armor, but lightly equipped criminals.

So I voted for the short sword, but I still want the stealth/speed penalty for it. Garrett stashed the Constantine's sword away or sold it in the end of T1. We didn't see it afterwards, did we?

Terr
4th Jun 2009, 23:23
I will find someone with a sunfire device, and I will use it to blow every last one of them up I swear to the Builder.What? Some sort of... Sun Device?



Juffo-Wup is the power of life... hot warmth in the cold Void. It flows through all things, binding them together, making them one. You are Non-Juffo-Wup, you cannot understand.

GmanPro
4th Jun 2009, 23:24
What? Some sort of... Sun Device?

A very large mine.


Garrett's sword in T1 and T2 is a short sword. I took a screenshot recently and compared the scale of the hilt and blade on Garrett's sword to the scale of their counterparts on a real short sword and they match perfectly. Garrett's short sword is meant for quick defense. A longsword is a two-handed, very heavy sword used by armored knights on horseback in major battles, against heavily armored enemies. The City watch and private security companies in the City are not equipped with longswords because they don't expect to fight opponents in suits of armor, but lightly equipped criminals.

Longswords aren't really two-handed. Two-handed swords get their own category.

Garrett's sword looked to me like it was probably three feet long or so. Which is definitely too long for what I am suggesting. Two feet should do it I think.

Platinumoxicity
4th Jun 2009, 23:26
What? Some sort of... Sun Device?

A Sunburst Device, a high-explosive combustion device created by the Hammerites. Used to break down heavy gates during a siege.

Hypevosa
4th Jun 2009, 23:52
long sword is a one handed and two handed weapon, mainly depending on it's weight and the preferences of the one wielding it. It's typically 3 feet long at the blade, 6 inches long at the hilt. Looking at garrett's sword (as we speak I'm playing TMA) It's already a short sword, probably 2.5 feet in length, with a handle that only barely fits his hand on it (probably custom made, and certainly improperly weighted, the center of mass being in the blade, meaning more power and less maneuverability for defense). We could probably fix it's overpoweredness in combat by moving the center of mass more towards Garrett's hand by adding a weighted pommel, allowing for greater maneuverability and defensive capability, while slightly decreasing the damage of each swing. It would also result in a slightly quicker swing.

The sunburst device was used in TDP as a giant mine that was set off by a fire arrow, and basically was supposed to be like a blast from the sun itself. In TMA you can find one in the hidden astronomers room in Life of the Party, and use it to open up the "indestructible" door at the Csomethingorother armory. There's a note hinting at it saying "Even the sun itself couldn't open the door". Setting off the sunfire device causes a very VERY large area of effect, probably ranging out to around 20 feet to either side of it. The best way to set it off in TMA is aim your firearrow and only pull the string a little so it flies slowly and RUN LIKE A ***** to get behind the corner. It's an awesome device, and I would love to see it used once more :D

Caranfin
4th Jun 2009, 23:54
A longsword is a two-handed, very heavy sword used by armored knights on horseback in major battles, against heavily armored enemies.
Not really. Longswords, also called "bastard swords" or "hand-and-a-half swords", weren't really very heavy at all. I think my practice sword weighs around 1,5 kg, and can be handled with one hand as well as two. And it's balanced to be blunt, so I imagine the sharp ones would weigh even less. They were also used extensively on foot, and I think most of the medieval and Renaissance manuscripts on longsword use focus on fighting feet on the ground rather than sitting on a horse.

GmanPro
4th Jun 2009, 23:54
I at least would like to see a note or other mention about "some taffer who stole my sunfire device!"

Hypevosa
5th Jun 2009, 00:11
I at least would like to see a note or other mention about "some taffer who stole my sunfire device!"

That guy left for the blue planet he saw in the sky if you read his journal. Or at least he attempted. If he indeed made the sunfire device, he may have been able to construct a one man rocket and the other things necessary to make the trip... that or we'll find a crashed rocket with his charred body in some crater in thief 4... which would be ABSOLUTELY EPIC.

Terr
5th Jun 2009, 00:12
A Sunburst Device, a high-explosive combustion device created by the Hammerites. Used to break down heavy gates during a siege.
Ah, yes, burst. I was trying to figure out what the explosive was supposed to be called and couldn't find any references to "Sunfire".

Anyway, it just made me free-associate with a different classic game ;)

Thieffanman
5th Jun 2009, 01:51
Why stop at just a dagger, sword, and bow with arrows? I say for T4, give Garrett a choice of *different* swords/ weapons: daggers, axes, shortswords, longswords, bastard swords . . .

And not only that, different types of missile/thrown weapons as well: crossbows, shortbows, longbows, break-down bows, shuriken, throwing knives, throwing axes . . .

That way, it's up to the player to arm Garrett the way they like, exotically as they like: katana with shuriken, longbow with longsword, two scimitars ;) , whatever.

--Thieffanman

GmanPro
5th Jun 2009, 03:00
I hope you are being facetious...

Lol, Two scimitars:
http://r.xtarsia.net/roph/img/random/drizzt.jpg

:lol:

Thieffanman
5th Jun 2009, 05:14
I hope you are being facetious...
Lol, Two scimitars:
:lol:

About the scimitars, yeah. I knew somebody would catch the reference :).

But I'm serious about the choice of weapons. It would add something to the game if the player could arm Garrett the way they wanted.

--Thieffanman

Hypevosa
5th Jun 2009, 05:59
About the scimitars, yeah. I knew somebody would catch the reference :).

But I'm serious about the choice of weapons. It would add something to the game if the player could arm Garrett the way they wanted.

--Thieffanman

But what about garrett arming garrett the way he wants... I mean, I don't see him lugging around a battle axe or anything. I'd say at least stick with the blades. As for bows vs crossbows all the elemental heads are arrows, and too long and fragile to be shot by something with 200 lbs of force behind it (your gas arrows would blow up in your face, and probably your fire arrows too). Unless it was a long crossbow, in which case it would be too bulky to conceal.... that and I'm just really biased towards bows.

jay pettitt
5th Jun 2009, 07:07
Neither.

huzi73
5th Jun 2009, 07:50
Ah, yes, burst. I was trying to figure out what the explosive was supposed to be called and couldn't find any references to "Sunfire".

Anyway, it just made me free-associate with a different classic game ;)

Everybody hush, I would like to hear more on the topic of the Sunfire device:o
Myabe the Mechanists have introduced a prototype remote controlled version

AbysmalGale
5th Jun 2009, 08:24
Then why did you vote for constantine's sword? it has no stealth penalty... o.O

Ehm... Because it contained the only proper option for short sword :wave: There is no option for "short sword only".

Hamadriyad
5th Jun 2009, 08:29
Dagger. Carrying a sword is meaningless for a thief. It is heavy, it limits your movement, you can't run fast. May be for strange and dangerous places(full of creatures etc.) sword is good.

huzi73
5th Jun 2009, 10:04
Dagger. Carrying a sword is meaningless for a thief. It is heavy, it limits your movement, you can't run fast. May be for strange and dangerous places(full of creatures etc.) sword is good.

Yeah,but the whole point of the dagger was pretty pointless, its was almost identical to the blackjack in terms of range and 1 on 1 confrontation damage.Usually, if I get that close to my enemy from behind,why would I kill when I can just Blackjack instead? The dagger was more of a "lethal blackjack" than it was a sword

Hypevosa
5th Jun 2009, 10:09
well so far it's 15 for both being available, 9 for just a sword, and only 3 people didn't read anyone else's post and voted for dagger.

ToMegaTherion
5th Jun 2009, 10:13
Yeah,but the whole point of the dagger was pretty pointless, its was almost identical to the blackjack in terms of range and 1 on 1 confrontation damage.Usually, if I get that close to my enemy from behind,why would I kill when I can just Blackjack instead? The dagger was more of a "lethal blackjack" than it was a sword

The dagger is much more effective in melee than the blackjack, and fulfills the role of last-resort weapon of choice. It could also be useful if you're trying to sneak up on someone but are worried about their turning round, then you are at least ready for them. I sometimes used the sword for this in the original games, I don't think I ever did in Deadly Shadows, but the option is there.

Platinumoxicity
5th Jun 2009, 10:30
The short sword: Use for defense, making distracting noises, breaking down wooden doors or planks, backstabbing unalerted enemies (Haunts), blocking incoming projectiles (Yes, I can do that. :) )
-Cons: Makes you more visible and slows you down.
-Pros: Long reach, high damage, blocking ability.

The blackjack: Use for quietly knocking unalerted enemies unconscious, making a distracting racket, kicking robots' ass.
-Cons: Not a weapon, but a tool for specific situations. Not to be used in combat.
-Pros: Doesn't kill the target, but takes out in one hit.

The dagger: Use for LOUDLY taking out unalerted enemies, making a bloody mess, dying in combat.
-Cons: See above.
-Pros: Small and concealable, good for assassins who absolutely don't want to leave anyone alive by using the blackjack instead.

ToMegaTherion
5th Jun 2009, 10:41
Don't forget to add "kicking robot ass" to the blackjack's uses!

Aristofiles
5th Jun 2009, 10:51
a sword is a pure combat weapon. useless unless you are fighting someone upfront. The knife on the other hand is a usefull tool aswell and thats why he should have one.

sword = encourage fighting = not Thief

Hypevosa
5th Jun 2009, 11:05
dagger=encourage murder=not thief

please read my first post (the second one of this thread) and reconsider

esme
5th Jun 2009, 12:03
the sword was useful for hacking down doors, opening crates, removing the un from the undead and at a pinch could be used for self defence

I found it a lot more useful than the dagger

as for encouraging fighting and confrontations wouldn't say it encouraged it any more than broadheads, fire arrows, mines or a dagger did, it's still the players choice

Hypevosa
5th Jun 2009, 13:18
If they tried to apply the dagger more as a tool than a weapon it could be more useful.

agrash
5th Jun 2009, 19:11
Dagger since its more thieflike

Direlord
5th Jun 2009, 19:19
I would go dagger only as to me that is more thiefy than carrying around a sword. Daggers can actually be fairly long. A Short sword could work but you might as well call it a long dagger.

This is one thing i thought they got right in TDS having a dagger instead of the sword.

I don't really get the talk of dagger = assassin but you're a thief not a murderer. Why is a dagger used for an assassination because it has concealability and is more stealthy. People are more likely to have a dagger than a sword. Also a swords only purpose is to be used to fight and kill someone you're a thief not a killer.

Dagger has more utility which I would like to see added into the game. If they are going to put development time into that it should be the only weapon. If they go a route of dagger has these pros and cons and sword has these then just make it so its a person choice.

If you go the whole thief not a murderer thing anyway you won't use either sword or dagger. You'll instead ghost, blackjack, or gas mine/arrow.

Platinumoxicity
5th Jun 2009, 19:58
The dagger doesn't deserve to be in this game because the sword is better. In every way, it's better. Play T1 or T2 and use the sword the same way as you would use it in TDS and you'll see the difference. Backstab with the sword, you'll make less noise than you'd make with the dagger. Fight using the sword and you can block attacks and your reach is far longer than with the dagger.

Why would Garrett, who's main objective in life is survival, use an inferior tool if he is in the possession of a better one, and has the skills in using it?

Hypevosa
5th Jun 2009, 20:06
Dagger since its more thieflike


I would go dagger only as to me that is more thiefy than carrying around a sword. Daggers can actually be fairly long. A Short sword could work but you might as well call it a long dagger.

This is one thing i thought they got right in TDS having a dagger instead of the sword.

I don't really get the talk of dagger = assassin but you're a thief not a murderer. Why is a dagger used for an assassination because it has concealability and is more stealthy. People are more likely to have a dagger than a sword. Also a swords only purpose is to be used to fight and kill someone you're a thief not a killer.

Dagger has more utility which I would like to see added into the game. If they are going to put development time into that it should be the only weapon. If they go a route of dagger has these pros and cons and sword has these then just make it so its a person choice.

If you go the whole thief not a murderer thing anyway you won't use either sword or dagger. You'll instead ghost, blackjack, or gas mine/arrow.

Dagger is the weapon of an assassin or a murderer, though a dagger could be used to open doors or disarm pressure plates. It has 0 defensive capabilities. To me, even if it seems more stealthy, it undermines the "not a murderer but a thief" aspect when you carry something that's only useful for murder, why not just knock them out so their kids don't become orphans. When it comes to undead, it's useless because they don't need the blood your spilling or the heart you just stabbed.

Sword is a weapon that can be used to defend. It loses it's ability to be used effectively as a tool due to it's size. It's not stealthy, but it's not supposed to be, if you've pulled out your sword you have entered an OH **** situation, which is really the only time you should ever pull it out in thief (be it hammer haunts or getting cornered and having to fight your way out). This makes it more of a defensive weapon, because you're defending your life, not simply trying to take another's. And when it comes to undead, I'd rather hack off limbs so they can't hit me with em, and maybe do enough massive damage to the body to make the spirit depart from it.

"thieflike" doesn't mean a damn thing. That's an appearance, a stereotype that Hollywood and other popular media put onto all medieval/fantasy thieves. If we were attempting to move quickly everywhere in thief I might agree, but for the most part Thief is a slow and deliberate style of play. You don't need speed, you don't need to murder people you can just as easily blackjack.

If you have pulled out your weapon in thief, it should be because your stealth and maybe your ability to escape have already been compromised, so what's the point of it being stealthier when the guard's already bearing down on you? For someone who's not seasoned in combat (because Garrett never sees it since no one sees him) bringing a knife to a sword fight is stupid.

For thief if there's one melee weapon only, it should be the sword. However, I would like to see both, and maybe use the dagger more as a tool than as a weapon.

Direlord
5th Jun 2009, 20:37
The dagger doesn't deserve to be in this game because the sword is better. In every way, it's better. Play T1 or T2 and use the sword the same way as you would use it in TDS and you'll see the difference. Backstab with the sword, you'll make less noise than you'd make with the dagger. Fight using the sword and you can block attacks and your reach is far longer than with the dagger.

Why would Garrett, who's main objective in life is survival, use an inferior tool if he is in the possession of a better one, and has the skills in using it?

In T1 and T2 i could sword fight with several guards and win wouldn't Garrett just throw a flash bomb and run away instead of even attempting to fight? If you are going to backstab someone silently both can work but the sword would be harder to use unless you are just going to do a massive decapitating swing.

Garrett is not supposed to get into fights and i think they went with the dagger in DS because if you get caught then get in a fight you couldn't just fence your way out of it like it was nothing.

If you want utility and killing power why not just give Garrett a small axe as it is a tool as well as a weapon.

Terr
5th Jun 2009, 21:01
Dagger is the weapon of an assassin or a murderer, though a dagger could be used to open doors or disarm pressure plates. It has 0 defensive capabilities.

OK, where the heck are you getting this from? I have to know. Daggers have a signifcant history as personal self-defense weapons, since most people didn't go about their day-to-day lives wearing a big sword.

ToMegaTherion
5th Jun 2009, 21:09
If you are blocking with the sword in Dark Project or Metal Age then in most circumstances this means you are choosing a suboptimal fighting technique.

Platinumoxicity
5th Jun 2009, 21:27
In T1 and T2 i could sword fight with several guards and win wouldn't Garrett just throw a flash bomb and run away instead of even attempting to fight? If you are going to backstab someone silently both can work but the sword would be harder to use unless you are just going to do a massive decapitating swing.

Garrett is not supposed to get into fights and i think they went with the dagger in DS because if you get caught then get in a fight you couldn't just fence your way out of it like it was nothing.

If you want utility and killing power why not just give Garrett a small axe as it is a tool as well as a weapon.

Well that doesn't change the fact that the dagger is still only a noisy, bloody and lethal alternative to the silent, clean and non-lethal blackjack. Why would you want to have a dagger with you anyway if you don't want to be a murderer but you don't want to defend yourself either?

Actually that's me. I don't use either of them 'cause I don't get caught or knock out or kill. :p

ToMegaTherion
5th Jun 2009, 22:21
The main argument for the dagger runs as follows: the thief requires some form of weapon that can allow him to fight an alert guard if necessary, however, this should usually eat health and be a last-resort action. It is probably easier to balance this when the thief has a weaker weapon than the guards, and so a dagger is a good idea. We have some evidence that the dagger was a good choice because combat in Deadly Shadows tended to be of exactly the form that we want: the thief can fight off the occasional guard, but it is dangerous and costly, and isn't a viable strategy.

Now, since we have no Thief game so far where there has been a sword implemented well, there's no way we can say that we couldn't easily get the same effect with a sword, as long as it is implemented well. But. 100% of Thief games using a dagger have had the sort of melee combat that we want. 100% of the Thief games using a sword have had a player-wins-instantly melee combat. Better to play it safe and stick with the dagger.

DiegoFloor
5th Jun 2009, 22:34
I don't think the point of the game is combat. I wouldn't encourage the player to think there is an option to stealth by giving him a weaponry to choose from :P It would be plain and simply bad gameplay design.

Btw, that poll is missing a "don't care" option. :]

Hypevosa
5th Jun 2009, 22:39
OK, where the heck are you getting this from? I have to know. Daggers have a signifcant history as personal self-defense weapons, since most people didn't go about their day-to-day lives wearing a big sword.

There's a difference between self-defense and a weapon that's able to be used defensively. When I say it has 0 capabilities defensively, I'm refering to thief, because a dagger cannot block or deflect the blow of a hammerite's warhammer, a mechanist's mace, or a guard's sword for that matter. In real life you could probably use it to defend against a simple melee weapon such as another dagger. It is a strictly offensive weapon in thief, as you can only slash or stab with it in thief. You can use it in self-defense, but you can't use it defensively. Maybe if Garrett had more combat practice he could learn to use it to deflect attacks or disarm someone, but as it stands he doesn't and doesn't need to, because he doesn't put himself in those situations, and because he's not altair or the new guy in AC2.

Please try not to pick apart the post, it's meant to be read as a whole. It's like taking parts of a sentence out of context.

Hypevosa
5th Jun 2009, 22:46
The main argument for the dagger runs as follows: the thief requires some form of weapon that can allow him to fight an alert guard if necessary, however, this should usually eat health and be a last-resort action. It is probably easier to balance this when the thief has a weaker weapon than the guards, and so a dagger is a good idea. We have some evidence that the dagger was a good choice because combat in Deadly Shadows tended to be of exactly the form that we want: the thief can fight off the occasional guard, but it is dangerous and costly, and isn't a viable strategy.

Now, since we have no Thief game so far where there has been a sword implemented well, there's no way we can say that we couldn't easily get the same effect with a sword, as long as it is implemented well. But. 100% of Thief games using a dagger have had the sort of melee combat that we want. 100% of the Thief games using a sword have had a player-wins-instantly melee combat. Better to play it safe and stick with the dagger.

I'm banking on the increased AI making up for the combat, rather than nerfing Garrett. In the old games they would always dance, and occasionally hit you. Sometimes I'd get 1,2,3'd by a guard, and it was pretty awesome, but it was very rare. If they made the guards actually competent when it comes to strategy and how to fight, it would more than make up for the fact that Garrett had his trusty short sword.


I don't think the point of the game is combat. I wouldn't encourage the player to think there is an option to stealth by giving him a weaponry to choose from :P It would be plain and simply bad gameplay design.

Btw, that poll is missing a "don't care" option. :]

How does a choice of weaponry imply that stealth is optional?

Thieffanman
5th Jun 2009, 23:58
As for bows vs crossbows all the elemental heads are arrows, and too long and fragile to be shot by something with 200 lbs of force behind it (your gas arrows would blow up in your face, and probably your fire arrows too). Unless it was a long crossbow, in which case it would be too bulky to conceal.... that and I'm just really biased towards bows.

Biased towards bows? I noticed :).

With different types of ranged weapons, the understanding would be that Garrett would have access to different types of ammunition as well (Arrows in a crossbow? Not happening :)). Each shop would (or *might*) have access to different types of ammunition (elemental, gas, moss, or plain) for different types of ranged weapons designed to take them . . .

Or, perhaps they would have elemental heads that could be adapted to fit on different types of bolts/arrows. Example: Garrett could buy four water elemental heads, three crossbow bolts, two pistol bolts, and four arrows at a dealer. He could then attach the heads as he saw fit to the different types of ammunition for what he needed, or perhaps pay the shop owner to do it-- because in reality, an arrowhead doesn't work on a crossbow bolt, much in the same way that an arrow can't be shot from a crossbow (but then, this *is* fantasy, so they might overlook that part :)).

--Thieffanman

DiegoFloor
6th Jun 2009, 00:43
How does a choice of weaponry imply that stealth is optional?

Do you want a powerful weapon? One that makes you more visible but stronger and doing more damage? There you go: an option for less stealth and more action. For the players that don''t know what they're doing playing Thief :P

Unless there are no options regarding some sort of trade-off between visibility (or sound, or anything involving stealth) and damage (or anything involving combat skill) there CAN be some sort of weaponry. This would be nice, as it adds a reward system (loot -> more equipment)

Yotun
6th Jun 2009, 01:29
I'm banking on the increased AI making up for the combat, rather than nerfing Garrett. In the old games they would always dance, and occasionally hit you. Sometimes I'd get 1,2,3'd by a guard, and it was pretty awesome, but it was very rare. If they made the guards actually competent when it comes to strategy and how to fight, it would more than make up for the fact that Garrett had his trusty short sword.



How does a choice of weaponry imply that stealth is optional?

Come on its really simple - because a sword is NOT just a 'defensive' weapon that a thief would take with them just for defense. A sword can and is an agressive weapon that you can use to kill people, and achieve your objectives the violent way rather than the stealthy way.
Think about it. Why would a Thief carry with him a sword? Its big, its unwiedly, there a bigger threat of it hitting walls and making noise and breaking your silhouette. If a thief wanted something as a last resort for violence, he'd take something that can easily be hidden and wouldn't hinder his primary job - stealing! Plus, a dagger is a MUCH more ergonomic as a small tool for cutting and opening up things than a sword!.

Also all that argumentation about the dagger being useful ONLY if YOU choose to initiate combat, and thus want to assasinate somebody. That's not true, as the dagger can also be defensive BUT remember that Garret has been shown to assasinate people in cinematics. If a thief is going to resort to violence to achieve his aims, it will much more likely be with an assasination rather than with a more brutal sword attack.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
6th Jun 2009, 04:19
As much as I like the dagger, it seems pretty pointless if we already have the blackjack to kill guards stealthily and the sword to slaughter them in melee combat.

If the dagger is to make Garrett less godly in combat then that might be going too far. Not only does it remove Garrett's god-of-war skills, it removes his melee ability completely because he can't block.

I've thought about this. If Thief remains a similar game, the only sensible solution is to make the guards better at combat and make Garrett not super badass with the sword.

Really, the dagger is pointless both ways. It makes Garrett unable to melee and the blackjack stealth kills better.

Hamadriyad
6th Jun 2009, 08:30
In T! and T2, not hard to defeat a guard with sword. But that is wrong. Guards are strong and well trained, you have a small chance as a thief against a guard. No matter carrying a sword. Also sword kill should be very noisy and bloody than dagger I guess.

Platinumoxicity
6th Jun 2009, 10:02
In T! and T2, not hard to defeat a guard with sword. But that is wrong. Guards are strong and well trained, you have a small chance as a thief against a guard. No matter carrying a sword. Also sword kill should be very noisy and bloody than dagger I guess.

If you compare the dagger in TDS to the sword in T1, the sword is quieter than the dagger when backstabbing. ;) But if you want realism, you really need to teach Garrett how to stab with the dagger, because he's doing it really wrong. You're supposed to stick the blade slightly to the side, under the arm so that it bypasses any armor, goes between the ribs and penetrates the trachea. This way the victim can't scream and the excess blood that normally would spurt from the neck if you slit a throat, fills the lungs instead, and you have very little to clean up.

Garrett didn't know crap about backstabbing in TDS so he should've just left the dagger home. If the dagger is going to be in T4, the devs should consult some SFOD-D operatives about backstabbing or something. The way Garrett stabbed in TDS was ridiculously stupid and noisy.

Hamadriyad
6th Jun 2009, 10:28
I want realism. Maybe you should teach Garret how o stab wih dagger.;) He didn't know because he is a thief right? And maybe he learned something during TDS. If he don't, time to learn:)

Shadow Blade
6th Jun 2009, 11:13
From my point of view the sword would give the player a feeling of security because at least you stand a chance to block an attack or 2 well at least that’s what I was thinking when i played the first 2 thief games.

With the dagger you have absolutely no chance to block which means you have to think about things before you do them and that makes getting caught picking a lock or just doing something down right idiotic a trickier situation to get out of (if you don’t have any flash bombs that is) because you cant just pull out a sword and be all manly like.

Id say if you get a dagger in thief 4 they should give opponents weak points that you can aim for that does massive to lethal damage (that cant be aimed for with the sword because of its size and slower speed) and if you don’t hit those points they just shrug off the blows which makes it an extremely risky fight. Maybe they can make a combat system where if you fight a guard u can lure them into making a mistake or a wrong move that will expose a vital area of the body that you can then have I split second to strike at and say if you stab a guard in the leg maybe give him a movement penalty to aid in escape which then gives you the hit and run for your life tactic (cheap but effective) but about the combat system you should have to execute the move correctly and not click a button and have it ALL done for you because that is basically watching a movie not playing a game.

If you get a sword you get the ability to block attacks and do much more damage. The sword should be more effective against Pagan creatures, the undead and heavily armoured gaurds (not that I would recommend attacking any of those things) and the dagger should be useless against those (and have its lethal kills drastically reduced against heavily armoured guards). The combat system with the sword should lacks instant lethal kills but make up for it in defence capabilities

Just a few ideas that could be used maybe it’ll be good maybe it won’t. Thief is not a hack and slashes all in your path kind of game but more emphasis on combat would be pretty kwl even if they make the guards insanely skilled to compensate for all the abilities you have

Platinumoxicity
6th Jun 2009, 11:17
I want realism. Maybe you should teach Garret how o stab wih dagger.;) He didn't know because he is a thief right? And maybe he learned something during TDS. If he don't, time to learn:)

Don't ask me how I know these things. :eek:

Hamadriyad
6th Jun 2009, 12:26
Don't ask me how I know these things. :eek:

I prefer not to ask, believe me.:)

huzi73
6th Jun 2009, 13:15
You guys are crazy, how the hell is garrett supposed to take on undead and creatures with a puny dagger? He simply doesnt stand a chance. Plus Garrett said before the bonehoard mission "i always go prepared". All the poeple complaining the sword is pointless since Garrett isnt a murderer ,remember, half of thief involves non humans, and please show me one instance where garrett killed someone in a cutscene other than using the occasional arrow?Swords are more practical in terms of the unkown danger garratt may come across

Hamadriyad
6th Jun 2009, 14:50
Garrett said it for holy water, not sword. You can't kill a undead with sword, dagger or something like that. And for creatures, yes, sword is useful only against creatures. But fighting against creatures is more dangerous than humans. You can't know how strong it is. And in that case, arrows, mines etc. are more useful than sword.

Blade_hunter
6th Jun 2009, 15:51
I think those weapons should be a player's choice.
I think all weapons should have some balancing tweaks I see some interesting things proposed to balance the sword in relation to the dagger :)

clock12345
6th Jun 2009, 18:06
if i can correct you huzi73 swords aren't based on stealth and fast movement daggers are based on stealth and fast movement and swords are based on action and close battling so if you wanna be stealthy then chose dagger if you want to be more battely then chose sword both weapons will have an upgrades

Hypevosa
6th Jun 2009, 18:34
Do you want a powerful weapon? One that makes you more visible but stronger and doing more damage? There you go: an option for less stealth and more action. For the players that don''t know what they're doing playing Thief :P

Unless there are no options regarding some sort of trade-off between visibility (or sound, or anything involving stealth) and damage (or anything involving combat skill) there CAN be some sort of weaponry. This would be nice, as it adds a reward system (loot -> more equipment)

Mainly if you were pulling out your sword, your stealth should have already been compromised. Why give someone a stealthier weaker weapon, when it should only be pulled out when they have lost their ability to hide to begin with? The only real reason was that you could pull it out and backstab someone with it since it didn't compromise your stealth, which made it against the thief dogma of avoiding murder at all costs.

Hypevosa
6th Jun 2009, 18:47
Come on its really simple - because a sword is NOT just a 'defensive' weapon that a thief would take with them just for defense. A sword can and is an agressive weapon that you can use to kill people, and achieve your objectives the violent way rather than the stealthy way.
Think about it. Why would a Thief carry with him a sword? Its big, its unwiedly, there a bigger threat of it hitting walls and making noise and breaking your silhouette. If a thief wanted something as a last resort for violence, he'd take something that can easily be hidden and wouldn't hinder his primary job - stealing! Plus, a dagger is a MUCH more ergonomic as a small tool for cutting and opening up things than a sword!.

Also all that argumentation about the dagger being useful ONLY if YOU choose to initiate combat, and thus want to assasinate somebody. That's not true, as the dagger can also be defensive BUT remember that Garret has been shown to assasinate people in cinematics. If a thief is going to resort to violence to achieve his aims, it will much more likely be with an assasination rather than with a more brutal sword attack.

Garrett isn't an ordinary thief though, and he's a thief with standards. At least in the first 2 games the only time he ever killed someone was the pagan that got locked in the freezer, and it was a mercy killing. And even then, the music stopped, there was complete silence, if you were playing on expert this was often the first and only time you had to kill anyone. Even the goals for the next level state "Violence is the mark of amateurs -- and mechanists. You are neither; don't kill anyone during your explorations." A thief would not carry a sword on a job for the very reasons you stated. Garrett, a master thief, would carry a sword because under the situations he would pull it out he would want a sword, not a dagger, as they tend to be far more dire than your average thief would fall into. He's not robbing a merchant, or some commoner's house, he doesn't have 4 other partners to help him in his fights. He takes on job that would normally require 5 thieves, just by himself. That's one of the reasons he IS a master thief.

Knight
6th Jun 2009, 19:34
Option to choose either before mission ( with bonuses/penalties for each )
That should be good: The penalti is for sword that you will be slow, enemys can see it. Bonuses to dagger that you can kill some1 from back, and u can use a guard as a human shield, and take the dagger to his neck, and the guards will not attack you, but the guard can breaks out after 15 seconds. And ofcourse u can only walk with him. And Garrett dont want to use the civils as a human shield, cuse hes just a thief, not a random gta bandit.^^

Hypevosa
6th Jun 2009, 20:10
Option to choose either before mission ( with bonuses/penalties for each )
That should be good: The penalti is for sword that you will be slow, enemys can see it. Bonuses to dagger that you can kill some1 from back, and u can use a guard as a human shield, and take the dagger to his neck, and the guards will not attack you, but the guard can breaks out after 15 seconds. And ofcourse u can only walk with him. And Garrett dont want to use the civils as a human shield, cuse hes just a thief, not a random gta bandit.^^

The way you present it really doesn't make it much of a choice ya know. You should only be slow while wielding the sword, not just for having it (it weighs less than most of the stuff you're stealing, gold is HEAVY). Enemies should also only see it when drawn, Garrett wouldn't be dumb enough to sport a shiny hilt, and could cover it in his cloak.

Hamadriyad
6th Jun 2009, 20:20
Why is sword obsession that I see in here?

Hypevosa
6th Jun 2009, 20:29
Why is sword obsession that I see in here?

Mostly it's probably nostalgia. Really, most of us never probably used the sword much if at all in the first 2 games except in jest.

TDS brought change with the dagger, and to alot of us it was a bad change. The not killing anyone was removed as an objective, and we were given a weapon which didn't decrease our stealth when wielded, meaning backstabbing was easier, where blackjacking could be done just as easily. It wasn't able to be used to back crates or boxes, or slash banners (that I remember). One thing I think it did result in was us stealing paintings, because we could actually cut them out of the framing now.

The reason alot of people like the idea of the sword is that we should be a weapon we don't WANT to pull out until the situation requires it, and a big shiny sword is that weapon.

Captain567
6th Jun 2009, 22:47
The reason alot of people like the idea of the sword is that we should be a weapon we don't WANT to pull out until the situation requires it, and a big shiny sword is that weapon.
To build on that, I'd just like to add something I realized today while playing Thief Gold for the first time (Started with Metal Age, played a bit of DS, decided to go through entire series starting today).

Because the Thief series promotes non-violence, the blackjack becomes your primary tool, and if you must take someone out and you are not close enough for a knockout, then you resort to your bow. Where does this put the sword? Well, due to what a sword is most commonly used for, we see it as a weapon, a method of murder, but in the Thief games, it's not a weapon, it's a tool.

That's right. What do I use the sword for? Cutting down banners to find secret passageways, use it to make a cheap distraction, a last, LAST resort to defend yourself. I feel that the issue isn't dagger or sword, so much as the ABILITIES DP/MA presented with the sword, versus the abilities that were in DS.

So... I say, it doesn't matter what the tool looks like, but what it can do.

Hypevosa
7th Jun 2009, 01:10
To build on that, I'd just like to add something I realized today while playing Thief Gold for the first time (Started with Metal Age, played a bit of DS, decided to go through entire series starting today).

Because the Thief series promotes non-violence, the blackjack becomes your primary tool, and if you must take someone out and you are not close enough for a knockout, then you resort to your bow. Where does this put the sword? Well, due to what a sword is most commonly used for, we see it as a weapon, a method of murder, but in the Thief games, it's not a weapon, it's a tool.

That's right. What do I use the sword for? Cutting down banners to find secret passageways, use it to make a cheap distraction, a last, LAST resort to defend yourself. I feel that the issue isn't dagger or sword, so much as the ABILITIES DP/MA presented with the sword, versus the abilities that were in DS.

So... I say, it doesn't matter what the tool looks like, but what it can do.

For being your first and only post so far, I really do like it, and agree with what you say. Really in the first 2 games it was mainly a tool, and when shooting your bow was too slow and they were aware so a blackjack was out of question THEN it became a weapon. It was used for distraction, cutting banners, breaking down wood barring doors, smashing boxes and occassionally a tool for making someone run away (which they would if you did enough damage and if they were alone).

In thief deadly shadows the your weapon stayed a weapon. Your dagger was not used as a tool as your sword was in TDP or TMA, but it was only effective as a means of murder, and could be used in self defense to less avail.

In thief 4, whatever weapon they choose (sword to appease fans or dagger to appease stereotypes, or both to appease all) as long as they give it uses outside of being a weapon it will be a vast improvement over TDS. One of the things less accounted for in TDS was the fact that NOW we could take paintings as loot. Why? Because we have a dagger. When robbing a place there's rarely time to fiddle around with screws and bolts and picture frames. Instead we could now take our dagger and to a nice trimming, roll it up, and put it in our adventurer's bag where it would be perfectly preserved until time of sale. A sword was not fit for that purpose. But just as a sword is not fit to cut out a painting from its frame, so is a dagger not suited to breaking down entire doors or blowing open boxes. In my eyes because of their diverse uses as tools, both of them should be in the game. When you want to steal a painting, take out your dagger and cut the painting from it's frame. When you see planks of wood barring a door, bash them down (or if we're feeling fancy and want a little more stealth simply peel them off using the leverage your sword gives you.) and clear your path. If you want to force open a door either bash it with your sword or shimmy the dagger inbetween the lock and the door frame so the handle can be turned and the door open.

Why are we arguing about them as weapons? As fans of the thief series we should be arguing about them as TOOLS. TDS's dagger gets so much hatred because it was JUST a weapon. Both dagger and sword have their good uses as tools. If we look at their potential as TOOLS and not as weapons, we have to go with the dagger for it's applications as a tool are much more diverse due to its length and slenderness. However the sword still serves as a better tool for some situations. I stipulate we should have both just for that reason. A dagger in the boot and a sword at the hilt.

DoomyDoomyDoomDoom
7th Jun 2009, 02:57
Excellent post Hypevosa. I now think that if they can introduce more uses for the dagger then they should keep both the sword and dagger in the game.

I can see Garrett prying jewels out of the eyes of a statue or something with his dagger. I'd love to see animations for when Garrett is using his 'tools'.

teehee I'm liking the dagger more now. :wave:

Hypevosa
7th Jun 2009, 02:59
Totally agreed, I actually enjoy the idea of the dagger more now. And your bit about prying the eyes out of a statue, very nice ;D

Flashart
7th Jun 2009, 08:11
I think it should be a dagger. Some (bayonets) are almost "small sword" size so you could parry the odd blow although you couldn't really "fence" with them.
I tend to think it goes along with Garrett's inherent weakness that if he couldn't land a killing blow within the first 4-5 strikes then he'd be done for.
Also good for removing paintings from frames, slicing tapestries, forcing small locks on chests/ jewelry boxes.

huzi73
7th Jun 2009, 14:26
I think it should be a dagger. Some (bayonets) are almost "small sword" size so you could parry the odd blow although you couldn't really "fence" with them.
I tend to think it goes along with Garrett's inherent weakness that if he couldn't land a killing blow within the first 4-5 strikes then he'd be done for.
Also good for removing paintings from frames, slicing tapestries, forcing small locks on chests/ jewelry boxes.

I might get flamed for this, but here goes..
People have been ranting about this topic mainly from a expert/stealth point of view. We should realise, that in todays gaming community, the money lies with the masses. If its only hardcore fans buying the game, THI4F will not be as financially successful as if many noobs/newcomers buy the game. Heck, I completed TDS on expert without ever needing to use the dagger, however, in the rare event of the odd slip up, I usually ended up reloading/quickloading, because getting into a fight with enemies resulted in certain death, or at least id be quite close to it. Which i hated, since I usually complete missions without getting injured or taking any health even. So newcomers may find this frustrating and thus avoid THI4F like the plague.The daggers use as a steath killer tool, contradicted itself, since TDP/TMA punished you not only for using the sword in close encounters ,but also the bow from afar, since both were messy and noisy, and it presented the player with a distinct choice of killing+noisy vs blackjack+stealth.In TDP, the fact that the dagger was stealthy, and use for killing, was an imbalance in itself. BUT I WOULD TO SEE BOTH FOR USE AS TOOLS AND COMBAT,SINCE THAT WOULD ANSWER ALL OUR COMPLAINTS.

ToMegaTherion
7th Jun 2009, 15:35
Perhaps I am reading your post wrong, huzi, but the dagger doesn't give a stealthy kill in Deadly Shadows; if you backstab someone then they make plenty of noise.

It is also not too difficult to defeat a guard on Normal with the dagger without taking too much damage (I have a suspicion that one may be able to beat guards 1v1 without significant loss of health quite reliably in Deadly Shadows, but I never tried too hard to learn how). Remember that on Expert in Deadly Shadows, guards are faster, healthier, and do more damage than on Normal, so I don't think it ought to be a huge problem... I would be surprised if new players found combat significantly harder in Deadly Shadows than in previous Thiefs on Normal difficulty

Flashart
7th Jun 2009, 15:45
I don't think people are arguing from an "expert" view, more from a stealth aspect.
I think a lot of people (myself included) see surrendering any ground to the FPS community as diluting the stealth experience.
While I'm not saying ignore the masses I do feel that presenting the best stealthy game possible is a better option than falling in between two camps and pleasing no one. I realize the choice between dagger and sword is a minor issue, but if you're sacrificing the "noise" aspect of combat you may as well arm Garrett with a shotgun.
In every detail I'd like the "Stealth" aspect to take precedent over the FPS.

huzi73
7th Jun 2009, 17:28
This


I don't think people are arguing from an "expert" view, more from a stealth aspect.
I think a lot of people (myself included) see surrendering any ground to the FPS community as diluting the stealth experience.
While I'm not saying ignore the masses I do feel that presenting the best stealthy game possible is a better option than falling in between two camps and pleasing no one. I realize the choice between dagger and sword is a minor issue, but if you're sacrificing the "noise" aspect of combat you may as well arm Garrett with a shotgun.
In every detail I'd like the "Stealth" aspect to take precedent over the FPS.


Is not my arguement .

This

"The daggers use as a steath killer tool, contradicted itself, since TDP/TMA punished you not only for using the sword in close encounters ,but also the bow from afar, since both were messy and noisy, and it presented the player with a distinct choice of killing+noisy vs blackjack+stealth.In TDP, the fact that the dagger was stealthy, and use for killing, was an imbalance in itself."

Is what im trying to say.


Perhaps I am reading your post wrong, huzi, but the dagger doesn't give a stealthy kill in Deadly Shadows; if you backstab someone then they make plenty of noise.

It is also not too difficult to defeat a guard on Normal with the dagger without taking too much damage (I have a suspicion that one may be able to beat guards 1v1 without significant loss of health quite reliably in Deadly Shadows, but I never tried too hard to learn how). Remember that on Expert in Deadly Shadows, guards are faster, healthier, and do more damage than on Normal, so I don't think it ought to be a huge problem... I would be surprised if new players found combat significantly harder in Deadly Shadows than in previous Thiefs on Normal difficulty

True, but still, TDP/TMA discouraged killing AND EVEN CONFRONTATION. Drawing your sword made you slower and more visible. Thus, when intending to backstab someone, these penalties alone, which were brought to my attention upon drawing the sword, made me think twice before going ahead with murder. On the contrary, TDS played out like a bad scream movie as there were no penalties for drawing the dagger, thus painting the picture that its perfectly ok to kill.The bottom line is, the big, bulky, non stealthy, shiny, unprofessional, clunky, non thief-like sword from previous games discouraged killing.while the stealthy, professional, concealable, thiefy dagger encouraged killing .

Hypevosa
7th Jun 2009, 18:27
Really in the first 2 games the sword was mainly a tool, and when shooting your bow was too slow and they were aware so a blackjack was out of question THEN it became a weapon. It was used for distraction, cutting banners, breaking down wood barring doors, smashing boxes and occassionally a tool for making someone run away (which they would if you did enough damage and if they were alone).

In thief deadly shadows the your weapon stayed a weapon. Your dagger was not used as a tool as your sword was in TDP or TMA, but it was only effective as a means of murder, and could be used in self defense to less avail.

In thief 4, whatever weapon they choose (sword to appease fans or dagger to appease stereotypes, or both to appease all) as long as they give it uses outside of being a weapon it will be a vast improvement over TDS. One of the things less accounted for in TDS was the fact that NOW we could take paintings as loot. Why? Because we have a dagger. When robbing a place there's rarely time to fiddle around with screws and bolts and picture frames. Instead we could now take our dagger and to a nice trimming, roll it up, and put it in our adventurer's bag where it would be perfectly preserved until time of sale. A sword was not fit for that purpose. But just as a sword is not fit to cut out a painting from its frame, so is a dagger not suited to breaking down entire doors or blowing open boxes. In my eyes because of their diverse uses as tools, both of them should be in the game. When you want to steal a painting, take out your dagger and cut the painting from it's frame. When you see planks of wood barring a door, bash them down (or if we're feeling fancy and want a little more stealth simply peel them off using the leverage your sword gives you.) and clear your path. If you want to force open a door either bash it with your sword or shimmy the dagger inbetween the lock and the door frame so the handle can be turned and the door open.

Why are we arguing about them as weapons? As fans of the thief series we should be arguing about them as TOOLS. TDS's dagger gets so much hatred because it was JUST a weapon. Both dagger and sword have their good uses as tools. If we look at their potential as TOOLS and not as weapons, we have to go with the dagger for it's applications as a tool are much more diverse due to its length and slenderness. However the sword still serves as a better tool for some situations. To appease all, and because it would give the developers a more diverse palette of situations where we could have to implement these tools (resulting in a deeper game), I think we should always carry both. A dagger in our boot and a sword at our side.

ToMegaTherion
7th Jun 2009, 18:29
Until I am presented with evidence that people actually used the dagger as anything other than a last-resort self-defence weapon, I won't believe that argument.

Why would you even consider backstabbing with the dagger instead of using the blackjack?

Edit: This is in reply to huzi, of course

Yaphy
7th Jun 2009, 19:11
Wow, this is a really even poll.

DarthEnder
7th Jun 2009, 19:39
I've been thinking a lot about the concept of melee combat in Thief and the argument of sword or knife and I've come to the conclusion that it should be both, and I don't mean either or. I mean simultaneously.

Essentially, Garrett should use the fighting style made famous by those of his type, Cloak and Dagger. I know most people believe that Cloak and Dagger is a synonym for spycraft, but it's actually a fighting style.

Essentially the wielder uses a sword in their main hand, basically fencing with the enemy meanwhile, in your offhand, you would have a dagger in your hand, hidden under(or sometimes even wrapped up in) your cloak. You would essentially use your sword to move your opponents sword out of position, then lunge in at a vital point with the knife.

In Thief it would basically work like this. You have the sword in your hand, that functions pretty much like it did in the first two Thief games. You could hold down the block button to parry attacks, you could slash with it, from different angles depending on how you were moving. But now, in addition, if you timed a block perfectly against an incoming attack, you'd basically be able to unbalance them by knocking their weapon to the side, and then if you immediately attack while they're still unbalanced, instead of slashing with the sword Garrett would stab the dagger into some vital organ.

This is essentially the same system Rid**** uses as far as controlling is concerned(which I think is the best use of first person melee I've played), but visually, its much more suited to Garrett.


And Sneak attacks would be context sensitive. Against guards, Garrett would backstab with the knife for a quieter, more precise kill. Against monsters and undead, Garrett would use the sword for maximum destructive force.

Crypto
7th Jun 2009, 19:47
My thing against the dagger is that the blackjack makes it obsolete. Both have the primary purpose of removing enemies before they see you (come on, no thief would use a dagger because they think it'll be a great defense against a guardsman's sword), and the blackjack is not only more humane but also cleaner. Leaving a pool of blood on the floor would (a) be somewhat obstructive to the mission and (b) condemn you to a harsher punishment if you're caught and sent to (medieval) court. The punishments for trespassing and theft are and were more lenient than the punishment for murder.

That, and Ironpants convinced me that the short sword totally pwns. :D

DarthEnder: I've heard of the cloak-and-sword/dagger style, and while it sounds cool, wouldn't a cloak interfere with movement while sneaking around narrow corridors and such? I imagine it would snag on a table leg or something, and then Garrett's screwed. Could be wrong.

I also love how Ridd ick is censored.

The whole thing about cutting down paintings, banners, etc. is silly. He could just bring along a five-inch knife. Folks, it doesn't take a sword to hack down a banner; likewise, you don't need a chunky dagger to grab a painting. In the meantime, give Garrett a short sword to smash through antagonistic doors.

Hypevosa
7th Jun 2009, 20:16
The only reason the dagger deserves so much hate in TDS is it was never utilized as a tool. And the dagger is by no means clunky, it's one of the most slender and elegant daggers I've seen in a game. It reminds me more of a stiletto (at least in the intro movie where he cuts the purse that is).

As long as whatever they choose has many uses as a tool, that's all that matters, as it will be a vast improvement over the previous game TDS.

Swords provide leverage for removing planks, and power for destroying doors and boxes. Daggers can be used to disarm pressure plates, open locked doors, cut out paintings, pry gems out of statues, etc. If we have both all these options and more become open to the developers, and really I like the idea of having all these things available to them for choices. That's why I want both at the same time.

Crypto
7th Jun 2009, 20:19
I didn't call the dagger clunky. I used "chunky" to imply that you don't need a foot-long blade to cut a painting from its frame.

Lock picks, not daggers, are for unlocking doors.

I don't think the game needs to be so complex as to force the player to use a dagger to chip a gem from a statue, but that's my opinion.

It would be cool if we could utilize a knife/dagger in some of these instances, but if a dagger is included it must also be available for backstabbing; otherwise it'd be like including a sword but only allowing the player to use it for chopping down banners. And I don't like the notion of the dagger obsoleting the sacred blackjack.

Hypevosa
7th Jun 2009, 20:35
Lock picks, not daggers, are for unlocking doors.

I don't think the game needs to be so complex as to force the player to use a dagger to chip a gem from a statue, but that's my opinion.

It would be cool if we could utilize a knife/dagger in some of these instances, but if a dagger is included it must also be available for backstabbing; otherwise it'd be like including a sword but only allowing the player to use it for chopping down banners. And I don't like the notion of the dagger obsoleting the sacred blackjack.

A dagger would be a quicker slightly noisier way to open a locked door, much like the way you use credit cards to open locked doors today.

Well, it's not complexity so much as I'd like to see it happen, at least watch garrett pry the gems out of the statue, instead of it just going "BLING thou has loots", much like I'd actually like to see him cut out the painting. It would also make people weigh getting caught vs getting the loot if there was a guard on patrol, and could be really fun for those who like ghosting.

Of course it should be available for backstabbing, but I'm just saying that T1 and T2 actually found uses for the sword outside of combat, and the uses for a dagger far outnumber the uses for a sword outside of combat. They just need to be creative.

Crypto
7th Jun 2009, 20:40
A dagger would be a quicker slightly noisier way to open a locked door, much like the way you use credit cards to open locked doors today.
I don't like it. Lock-picking is iconic and engaging and should stay.

As for the statue example, sure. But it could be done with a small knife rather than a dagger, which would also be used for backstabbing, which leads me back to my major point: I don't want backstabbing. It renders the blackjack obsolete, and Thief without the blackjack is as bad to me as Thief without Garrett.

DarthEnder
7th Jun 2009, 20:45
Garrett should honestly just have a pack of Thieves' Tools to handle all that crap. Lockpicks, prybars, chisels, glasscutters etc. He should have that stuff all rolled up in a toolkit like any halfway competent D&D Rogue.


Also, you CAN'T get rid of backstabbing because there are enemies that simply can't be blackjacked. There are guards with full helmets. And there are gonna be players that would rather kill him, then leave him wandering around.

Crypto
7th Jun 2009, 20:48
Right, but I'd rather have the old sword backstabbing than the dagger. It's feels more honorable. I guess that's just me, though.

huzi73
7th Jun 2009, 20:56
Until I am presented with evidence that people actually used the dagger as anything other than a last-resort self-defence weapon, I won't believe that argument.

Why would you even consider backstabbing with the dagger instead of using the blackjack?

Edit: This is in reply to huzi, of course



i cant understand why your post is aimed at me.But your arguement doesnt make sense.Why would garrett take a last resort weapon with zero defensive capabilities? If the daggers use is for last resort when going toe to toe with a guard,why choose a dagger rather than a sword? Because its more stealthy? Well that would be pretty stupid, using a stealthy weapon after the guard is already on your ass. and For the second part of your post.Well,if the dagger is not to be used for backstabbing,why does garrett lift his hand in the same way he does with the blackjack. I stated in my previous post,TDS had ridiculous balancing issues.Whereas previous games made using the sword for whatever sluggish and exposing, using the dagger in TDS, (which could only be used for killing) had not a single penalty of any kind. But i could live with both. Id probably just ignore the dagger.

Hypevosa
7th Jun 2009, 20:57
How is a screaming bloody mess at all preferable to a quick and quiet removal of a threat? Let those who want to murder murder and be killed for it when everyone in the compound rushes at the same spot they heard the scream from to find the player there.

Deathologist
7th Jun 2009, 20:59
Dagger>Sword

Makes so much more sense, that's really the only thing that irritated me about thief 1 and 2 is that damn sword. Made no sense for a thief to use one.

Edit: And I'm new. Hi

Crypto
7th Jun 2009, 21:01
We've already gone over the fact that a short sword isn't detrimental to a thief's mobility. From a legal standpoint, it'd probably be best to go in with a non-lethal weapon and completely ignore the dagger and sword. This means the blackjack (yes, I know it can be used to kill, but I don't think that's really the purpose). Of course this won't happen, so it's only logical based on other arguments that we go with the short sword and perhaps a small utility knife—not a combat-oriented knife/dagger.

DarthEnder
7th Jun 2009, 21:33
How is a screaming bloody mess at all preferable to a quick and quiet removal of a threat? Let those who want to murder murder and be killed for it when everyone in the compound rushes at the same spot they heard the scream from to find the player there.To be fair a dagger SHOULDN'T be any noisier than a Blackjack. Slitting a throat doesn't make any more noise than boffing them on the head. It probably makes less in fact since KO'd guards drop like a stone, while a throat slit lets you gently lower the body down afterwards.

A bloody mess for sure, but only screaming because the game is designed that way to penalize killing, not because a dagger is inheirently noisy.

Hypevosa
7th Jun 2009, 21:37
I vote for the utility knife that the spy carries in TF2, because it's awesome. XD

Nate
7th Jun 2009, 22:40
I kind of like the idea of having to chip gems from statues with a dagger. Or having the option to noisily force a door with a dagger instead of lockpicks.

I still think you should be able to choose either/or...with the Short Sword having a stealth penalty.

ToMegaTherion
8th Jun 2009, 09:38
i cant understand why your post is aimed at me.But your arguement doesnt make sense.Why would garrett take a last resort weapon with zero defensive capabilities? If the daggers use is for last resort when going toe to toe with a guard,why choose a dagger rather than a sword? Because its more stealthy? Well that would be pretty stupid, using a stealthy weapon after the guard is already on your ass. and For the second part of your post.Well,if the dagger is not to be used for backstabbing,why does garrett lift his hand in the same way he does with the blackjack. I stated in my previous post,TDS had ridiculous balancing issues.Whereas previous games made using the sword for whatever sluggish and exposing, using the dagger in TDS, (which could only be used for killing) had not a single penalty of any kind. But i could live with both. Id probably just ignore the dagger.

OK, I have some time so I can write a more detailed piece.

Let's start with "Why would garrett take a last resort weapon with zero defensive capabilities?". These are two points here to deal with. The first is "zero defensive capabilities". This is relatively meaningless. The dagger is there to let him kill an enemy in combat if necessary. It clearly has nonzero defensive capabilities because once you kill someone with it, they can't hurt you anymore. That's impressive defence.

Presumably you mean that the sword allows you to avoid taking damage via parrying. There are two points to make here. The first is that parrying in the earlier games was simply bad play in almost all situations. The second I'll come to a bit later.

Then we have "why would Garrett...". Frankly, I don't care here. It's not obviously absurd for a thief to use a dagger rather than a sword and that's good enough for me. As long as things aren't ridiculous, then realism has no place in discussions of a core gameplay mechanic.

And here we get to the core of the argument. Throw away all that nonsense about realism and stealthiness and What Would A Thief Really Use. That's basically irrelevant and serves only to confuse us. This is a reasonably important gameplay mechanic and so we should think about things with gameplay in mind. Let's think about what we want our melee weapon to do.

The first thing that they do is launch powerful sneak attacks. Why do they do this? One reason is that it would be weird if they didn't, and it doesn't really cause any big changes to gameplay to make this happen. Another reason is that it sometimes invites a choice between using the blackjack and using the melee weapon, in the particular situation where you're afraid the guard will turn round and be ready for action. The extra noise of the kill is a suitable tradeoff, and also means that in other situations it is always better to use a blackjack. The type of the melee weapon is irrelevant. Both the sword and dagger had the same theme: you can backstab someone, but it's almost always better to use the blackjack. Therefore there is no encouragement of killing in either situation.

The second thing a melee weapon should do is allow us to fight with guards in combat. The principle goal of this mechanic should be to make it unappealing to fight in melee combat. Obviously the noise is a factor, this is true of both weapons. The other factor is damage received. It's here that the argument that the sword is good because it allows defensive moves actually gets inverted. Remember: leave realism appeals outside for now. The defensive moves of the sword are not there to allow you to defend and then escape. That simply doesn't work. They are there to allow you to kill your opponent while taking as little damage as possible. Remember our goal is to make the player take damage during combat! We shouldn't give him the tools to make that not happen very often.

Think of how it sounds if you take the obscuring words away and write it in terms of the gameplay we want. "We should use the sword because in a situation where we want the player to take damage it allows the player to avoid taking damage".

This brings me on to another point about the sword that I've made frequently elsewhere. Obviously you could balance swordfighting so that, for a given level of gaming skill, I can win taking the same amount of damage as I'd take using a dagger in Deadly Shadows. But the point about the sword is that it creates a larger range of initial skill and also a larger range of potential skill because it has more options and is also a better weapon. Although I suspect there is some possibility for reasonable levels of skill in Deadly Shadows that I haven't had the inclination to find out about, it's definitely not as wide as the possible skill levels achievable in the first two games.

Since the game isn't focused on melee combat, it shouldn't be that the designers spend too much time working on this area. Trying to make sword combat good, balanced, and achieve the goals of melee combat is much harder work than with a dagger. We don't want them to waste that much time.

There is a third thing that we might want melee weapons to do that they haven't done in previous games. They could be useful for some manner of fighting withdrawal, using the weapon to defend yourself while you make your escape, rather than damage the enemy. For this purpose a sword would probably be a better tool. But if the designers were to go down this route they should really pursue it as the principal use of the weapon, and make it really poor at actually dealing out damage.

Crypto
8th Jun 2009, 10:52
I vote for the utility knife that the spy carries in TF2, because it's awesome. XD

A butterfly knife in a medieval city would be a little weird. :p

Flashart
8th Jun 2009, 10:54
I think that a dagger with say 10-12" blade and set of studded or metalled bracers would be able to parry a few sword blows giving Garrett say 5 chances to land a killing blow, it'd still be fighting but wouldn't be dragged out, plus it's a severe enough experience to not want to draw attention to you in the first place.

huzi73
8th Jun 2009, 14:46
Lets make it simple. answer true or false to the following 2 statements.

In TDS, the dagger could not be used as a tool, only a weapon.

The daggers only stealthy use, was to backstab someone, which was identical to the blackjack in gameplay mechanics except the opponent would die.

ToMegaTherion
8th Jun 2009, 17:12
I think the first one is true, although you might be able to use it to create noise if you want to, never tried.

Second is false; dagger assassinations are noisier than blackjack ones.

Platinumoxicity
8th Jun 2009, 19:12
I think the first one is true, although you might be able to use it to create noise if you want to, never tried.

Second is false; dagger assassinations are noisier than blackjack ones.

Yep, blackjacking someone in TDS= "Umpfh!" Backstabbing someone in TDS= Yyyeeearrrggghhhgrglbrlgblrlgb!!!

Crypto
8th Jun 2009, 19:20
Lets make it simple. answer true or false to the following 2 statements.

In TDS, the dagger could not be used as a tool, only a weapon.

The daggers only stealthy use, was to backstab someone, which was identical to the blackjack in gameplay mechanics except the opponent would die.

That's what I've been trying to say. As for using a sturdy dagger to fight off a swordsman, I think that's getting too liberal with Garrett's abilities—he's not an experienced fighter, so he shouldn't be able to pull stuff like that. Stick with the short sword: It's unobtrusive, but it's long and stout enough to be a brutally efficient weapon.

Hypevosa
8th Jun 2009, 22:53
Remember our goal is to make the player take damage during combat! We shouldn't give him the tools to make that not happen very often.

I don't think the goal should be to make combat unfair, unwinnable, and most importantly NOT FUN. Most people don't find having their ass handed to them to be fun, on the other hand, never having their ass at least nearly handed to them is also not fun. Combat is secondary to the stealth mechanics of the game. I wish to emphasize the importance of that fact. The direct penalty for failed stealth in thief is combat and therefore deserves the second most important focus in terms of how they look at gameplay. In my eyes at least, a truly good game should not have any of its primary mechanics be unfulfilling, or not fun. Sure, make combat hard, make it difficult, but it should never feel unfulfilling. All you can do with the dagger in TDS is try and maintain a close distance, and hold down the attack key, resulting in *pick pick pick pick pick ARGH* and they've in the meantime destroyed you. So yes, you have now had the player get their ass nearly handed to them... but it's nowhere near as fulfilling as the sword fights in the first 2 games, because they'd block your attacks and make parries, then you'd block theirs and parry. They'd try their amazing 123 punch and you'd intercept the second and 3rd blow with a block and have at them. The combat was much more dynamic, and was therefore, much more fulfilling, and that's why the sword is the best combat weapon for thief. It resulted in a fulfilling and fun experience, albeit you're bleeding, but it was fun.

They should not focus on combat like they do stealth, but it does deserve more focus than holding down a button and staying close to someone. Instead of making combat the a drooling, stupid, unfulfilling experience, instead make there be penalties for having entered combat. For example, make the health potions gradually restore health like in the old games, and make it so that as long as you're below half health, you leave a trail of blood that enemies can follow (not necessarily thinking it's you), and below a quarter health you limp and make more noise while moving and have a slowed movement rate. Make them not want to be in combat because of the consequences of it, NOT because combat isn't fun.

EDIT: I've been championing the use of the weapons more as tools, BUT I decided to look at it from the combat stance this time.

Nate
8th Jun 2009, 22:53
It would be best if the devs gave the player a choice between dagger and shortsword (or nothing at all).

Crypto
8th Jun 2009, 22:59
On second (more like fifteenth) thought, I'd love to see the dagger either as an option or as a replacement for the sword on two conditions: (a) backstabbing is somehow made vastly inferior to blackjacks and (b) you really fight off a sword with the dagger. The first point keeps the blackjack from getting the short end of the stick. The second adds a whole can of whoopass to general gameplay because the player knows that if he gets caught, he doesn't stand a chance and will have to run like the wind, lose the guard, and then backtrack in order to survive and continue with the mission. No more flimsy, self-imposed rules of ghosting; we now have a reason: If we're caught, we're boned!

Nate
8th Jun 2009, 23:34
Hmmm, so you mean the dagger would have a 'back stab' mode...but it would be more like a 2-3X damage shot instead of an instant kill?

So the blackjack would retain its very special place, the dagger would be the melee weapon with a 'backstab' extra damage attack, and the short sword wouldn't even be in the game?

Me likes!

Hypevosa
8th Jun 2009, 23:43
that'd be just a straight rip from DnD... plus, since garrett is a master thief he has 8X backstab damage easy.

I still think the sword is the better weapon for thief though.

Nate
8th Jun 2009, 23:54
I am fine either way now. Nobody forcing me to use the Short Sword = I can just pretend I don't have it. At the same time, people who want the sword will have it. A win for everybody!

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 00:05
I am fine either way now. Nobody forcing me to use the Short Sword = I can just pretend I don't have it. At the same time, people who want the sword will have it. A win for everybody!

aww, so you don't want banners to cut down or wooden planks to remove? :(

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 00:09
Sure I do, but in that case I'll just use the thing as a tool and not a weapon.

MasterTaffer
9th Jun 2009, 00:12
that'd be just a straight rip from DnD... plus, since garrett is a master thief he has 8X backstab damage easy.

I still think the sword is the better weapon for thief though.

Pfft, Garrett would cause 10D6 sneak attack damage with his 1D6+1 masterwork Shortsword. Plus X2 damage on a 19-20 critical. He can make it all subdual damage if he uses a sap. He's not a noob.

*Snort laughter* Am I right guys?*

*Twas all in jest

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 00:17
I was going by baldur's gate II where they use multipliers instead of dice. But yes, I believe you're correct.

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 00:19
Shhhhh, you'll get Eidos involved in a lawsuit with that kind of talk.

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 00:26
only if they're dumb enough to take the idea XD

Crypto
9th Jun 2009, 00:38
Hmmm, so you mean the dagger would have a 'back stab' mode...but it would be more like a 2-3X damage shot instead of an instant kill?

So the blackjack would retain its very special place, the dagger would be the melee weapon with a 'backstab' extra damage attack, and the short sword wouldn't even be in the game?

Me likes!

I don't know about not having an instant kill. It's hard for a professional to backstab someone and miss. I mean something like, the victim gives a resounding scream that alerts everyone within x feet of your general location. Something detrimental like that.

The dagger would suck at melee. The idea I have right now is that you can parry a blow or two, but your strength will fade as the attacking guard rains blows on you. This mechanic forces you to turn and book it.

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 00:50
I did like how guards tired out in TDS... it was a nice little touch, and a hint to run now.

Crypto
9th Jun 2009, 01:00
Yes. What's interesting, though, is I found that it actually took away some of the tension. In the previous games you basically had to outrun the guard, ideally lose him in a series of hallways, hide, and then backtrack. In TDS it was twenty seconds of running and then you could carry on.

Hmm. Dunno.

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 01:03
I think maybe if they didn't tire so QUICKLY like in TDS it would have been better. If you're flat out running, they gave up after 1 or 2 streets, like any lazy cop would when pursuing on foot. However, in a fight they'd take 2 or 3 swings and be like.. whew... let me catch my breath.

I think maybe if Garrett is straight out sprinting for 10-15 seconds he should also be out of breath, but not that he slows down running, so much has he has heavy breathing for like 5 seconds.

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 01:04
You liked how the guards tired out?!?!?! It was so silly! Maybe the fat guards I could understand if they did that. But all the others should have had the same stamina as Garrett.




I don't know about not having an instant kill. It's hard for a professional to backstab someone and miss. I mean something like, the victim gives a resounding scream that alerts everyone within x feet of your general location. Something detrimental like that.

The dagger would suck at melee. The idea I have right now is that you can parry a blow or two, but your strength will fade as the attacking guard rains blows on you. This mechanic forces you to turn and book it.

Hmmm, that's a realism argument. Misses happen in life no matter how good the professional is. The target turns unexpectedly at the last split second, or something else happens = a miss or non fatal hit. Armor (helmets, chain mail and leather armor) can also deflect a killing blow.

But I do like your idea that the dagger can parry a couple of blows while you angle to run away.

Crypto
9th Jun 2009, 01:09
I think maybe if they didn't tire so QUICKLY like in TDS it would have been better. If you're flat out running, they gave up after 1 or 2 streets, like any lazy cop would when pursuing on foot. However, in a fight they'd take 2 or 3 swings and be like.. whew... let me catch my breath.
Hm. Sounds good to me!


I think maybe if Garrett is straight out sprinting for 10-15 seconds he should also be out of breath, but not that he slows down running, so much has he has heavy breathing for like 5 seconds.
I like this idea, but the only downside is that if I want to hurry up and get through the boring/empty part of a level, having to slow down every so often will be frustrating. Also, he'll need to be fast enough to outrun the guards before slowing down.


Hmmm, that's a realism argument. Misses happen in life no matter how good the professional is. The target turns unexpectedly at the last split second, or something else happens = a miss or non fatal hit.
Oh, this is what you meant. I misunderstood your initial point. I'm hesitant because I think Thief is a great example of the player completely controlling the character's actions, but I do like where you're going. But wouldn't the chance to miss apply to the blackjack too? If so, the blackjack should be given a significantly higher rate of success in order to encourage use.

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 01:29
See there's a difference between general running and sprinting. Maybe instead of having an extra button you hit to sprint it would just be that under any circumstance where an enemy knows your there (has drawn their weapon and is pursuing you) you get the extra little adrenaline boost and you sprint instead of normal running.

I also want to revert to walking being the norm, and holding a button for running, instead of vice versa like it is in TDS

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 01:32
By chance to miss, do you mean miss completely, or not knock out the target? I mean, a hit is a hit. But I can go with a chance that the target won't get knocked out.

Same as the dagger, a backstab hit is a hit, but there is a chance of just 2-3x damage instead of fatality...chance would go up if target wears armor/helmet.

Hmmm, this kind of system would encourage people to ghost levels because players can't be sure their sneak attacks will work.

Anyway, the real question here should be 'would introducing a failure chance into sneak attacks make the game more fun and true to the Thief spirit?'.

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 01:39
By chance to miss, do you mean miss completely, or not knock out the target? I mean, a hit is a hit. But I can go with a chance that the target won't get knocked out.

Same as the dagger, a backstab hit is a hit, but there is a chance of just 2-3x damage instead of fatality...chance would go up if target wears armor/helmet.

Hmmm, this kind of system would encourage people to ghost levels because players can't be sure their sneak attacks will work.

Anyway, the real question here should be 'would introducing a failure chance into sneak attacks make the game more fun and true to the Thief spirit?'.

see, that's where you're definitely in a gameplay vs realism thing. If you made it a random chance that people would not be knocked out when you blackjack them, it would be a horrible game mechanic. The player would just end up saving before every knockout "just in case" because the random number generator felt like being a *****.

We should never enforce a gameplay style. Ghosting is a style, just as my method is of playing mister sandman. Our goals are the same, not be seen. Mine just removes threats while yours avoids them. If they wanted the game to JUST be ghosted, it would have the requirement to not be seen for every level.

Crypto
9th Jun 2009, 01:42
Dunno what I mean by chance to be honest. I'm thinking as I post. :hmm:

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 01:53
see, that's where you're definitely in a gameplay vs realism thing. If you made it a random chance that people would not be knocked out when you blackjack them, it would be a horrible game mechanic. The player would just end up saving before every knockout "just in case" because the random number generator felt like being a *****.

We should never enforce a gameplay style. Ghosting is a style, just as my method is of playing mister sandman. Our goals are the same, not be seen. Mine just removes threats while yours avoids them. If they wanted the game to JUST be ghosted, it would have the requirement to not be seen for every level.

Notice that at the end of my post I said that what really needed to be considered is whether or not it made the game more fun AND whether it was true to the Thief spirit = I was saying it probably wouldn't make the game more fun.

We are on the same page here...so stop arguing. hehe

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 02:02
XD sorry, I thought the last line was a SIGNATURE not actually part of the post so I didn't bother reading it. Sorry.

Nate
9th Jun 2009, 02:06
It's all good!

Huntress
9th Jun 2009, 02:40
Well just to put in my 2 cents. I voted for choice, determination of circumstance. I did not buy T3 due to all the gameplay changes that did not suit me as a Thief game. I did not like the idea of a dagger as my preferred method was the BJ. I am also not a good sword fighter, so I tried to avoid combat other than in self defence or killing Haunts/creatures etc. However, as a possible alternative weapon, a dagger might be necessary based on what the devs have in mind for a particular mission???

I do rather like the idea of the "Cloak/Dagger" idea of having a sword in one hand and dagger in the other if in a situation where Garrett would have to defend himself (like dual wielding) especially against trained armored guards or gets into some kind of bad situation, like an ambush, etc. However, I would also not want his noisy clumpy boots anymore! LOL

I did like Constantines sword for obvious reasons...when trying to move through Zombie terrirtory to have a weapon drawn in case you need it without being seen can be quite useful. You don't always have holy water viles or fountains around. I HATE "Z's"!!! :(

huzi73
9th Jun 2009, 09:59
Well i've been ****ed pretty badly in this thread, so I prefer not to argue where/when certain people are only arguing for the sake of contradicting other peoples statements rather than looking at things (posts) objectively, and then either agreeing or disagreeing with valid replies (which exclude"I dont care")...

But anyway, all seems quiet now, so, Based on my observations after reading this thread repeatedly, this is the basic demand every worthy thief player wants from a blade-type weapon...

1)First and most importantly,the ability to use their sword/dagger as a tool

2)A weapon which will HELP them get out of sticky situations, by neither making it too easy, nor impossible in terms of attack/defense

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 10:09
Yep, it is that simple. :D I'd also add though that combat should be more fulfilling than holding an attack button and maintaining distance like in TDS. In the first games it was dynamic, and fulfilling when done well, which is why it was superior. We don't just want to spam attack or time a button press to counter and kill anyone we fight. Or at least I would appreciate a more complex combat structure... no matter how rarely I have it.

ToMegaTherion
9th Jun 2009, 10:11
It would be difficult to argue with that, huzi.

huzi73
9th Jun 2009, 10:50
In fact,I'd go as far as to say, if these two requirements are met, i wouldnt mind even if garret ran around with the butchers cleaver or the blades of chaos or a light sabre or... (im taking this too far aint I?)

Hypevosa
9th Jun 2009, 10:57
I still say both would be best because the options would be very open.

hellwalker
10th Jun 2009, 09:20
I don't care, as long as I have my trusty blackjack they can remove all other equipment for all I care.

I prefer to rely on skills rather then gadgets.

Yaphy
10th Jun 2009, 09:43
In T4 the dagger could be used like a tool more. Open doors can you already do with the lockpick. But windows can be "picked with the knife. Garrett slides the knife in the window opening. It could be used to cut of the moneybag when you pickpocket someone. Cut down banners and paintings from the walls. Cut of ropes. You get the idea. More of a tool.

huzi73
10th Jun 2009, 11:37
I still say both would be best because the options would be very open.

By both, do you mean both sword and dagger, or both blades of chaos and light saber:o

kin
10th Jun 2009, 11:53
I like the idea of having them both but with some pros and cons for each one. For example you can't enter tight places with sword drawn but with a dagger you can deal potential dangers inside a confined place like a vent .

huzi73
10th Jun 2009, 13:08
I like the idea of having them both but with some pros and cons for each one. For example you can't enter tight places with sword drawn but with a dagger you can deal potential dangers inside a confined place like a vent .

+1 totally agreed

ToMegaTherion
10th Jun 2009, 13:13
I fail to see the advantage in implementing both sword and dagger and then letting the player choose. Melee fighting shouldn't be something they spend too much time developing, and if they can create balanced swordplay that is fun and fulfills Huzi's objectives then it'd be silly to have a boring dagger as well that is not so fun, and if they can't implement swordfighting suitably then the sword just should not exist.

Hypevosa
10th Jun 2009, 20:29
I agree with you mega on the having a choice being stupid if they make fun good swordplay. That's why I want to carry both, but I want to use the knife more intensely as a tool because of it's abilities to be used as such.

Terr
11th Jun 2009, 00:05
If Garrett wants an insurance policy for sticky situations, that would be the flashbomb, not the sword.

kaekaelyn
11th Jun 2009, 00:20
If there isn't an abundance of equipment like in TDS, you might not have any flashbombs, or you might run out. Then what do you do if you get completely cornered? You pull out your ol' trusty sword.

Nate
11th Jun 2009, 00:24
Hmmm, maybe we could try something totally different than anything we've done before...maybe we could try sneaking past the guards? I mean, I know sneaking in a Thief game might be a shocking concept to some of you.

Hypevosa
11th Jun 2009, 01:31
Hmmm, maybe we could try something totally different than anything we've done before...maybe we could try sneaking past the guards? I mean, I know sneaking in a Thief game might be a shocking concept to some of you.

Ok... I'm going to give an example, but it's going to make alot of assumptions... just bear with me...

Let's assume you aren't on expert difficulty... let's also assume that equipment isn't being shoved down your throat like with TDS, so you don't have any equipment at all on you (it's been a hard level), and let's assume you don't want to load an old save, and that you've been caught and cornered. Would you rather just hold down an attack button and try to keep distance (dagger in TDS), or would you rather have a more engaging and fun sword fight that's a little more dynamic than holding a button?

Crypto
11th Jun 2009, 01:47
In T4 the dagger could be used like a tool more. Open doors can you already do with the lockpick. But windows can be "picked with the knife. Garrett slides the knife in the window opening. It could be used to cut of the moneybag when you pickpocket someone. Cut down banners and paintings from the walls. Cut of ropes. You get the idea. More of a tool.

You don't knife someone's purse, unless you're going to cut a hole in the bottom and scoop up what falls out. I'm not sure what's so hard about just reaching up with, um, your HANDS and tearing down banners, but if a blade is necessary so be it.

If knife combat is done well—i.e., you really can't use it against more than one opponent for more than a few seconds, and instead it's used to buy you time to turn and flee—I'm all for the dagger. Otherwise, stick with the sword, because the consensus here is that it was far better than the TDS crap.

Nate
11th Jun 2009, 02:18
While I say the dagger is more 'realistic' than the sword for a Thief, I will agree that the short sword of TDP and TMA was more fun......

Hypevosa
11th Jun 2009, 02:46
See, the big problem I see, is that alot of us here are challenge whores... and I don't mean that as a bad thing, but your average player, even your average thief player is more interested in having fun than proving to themselves (or worse, attempting to brag to others about it) that they're the most uber thief player in ever. A sense of accomplishment is nice, but not when it comes at the cost of having fun.

Nate
11th Jun 2009, 02:55
So we should just go with the short sword then and make the devs live's easier?

Hypevosa
11th Jun 2009, 03:18
I would say so... as in where to focus for combat, but I've also said the dagger presents so many scenarios where it makes for a good tool that I don't want to completely abandon it either. I'd probably like it to be on the weapons selection. You know, for those who feel the NEED to backstab they can do it with that, but mainly it can serve as more of a tool like I've detailed before. I just like the number of scenarios where a dagger would make a good tool.

Nate
11th Jun 2009, 03:26
Hmmm, so dagger simply as a tool. That sounds alright!

As for dagger as a backstab weapon, you can do that with a shortsword just as well.

Huntress
11th Jun 2009, 07:03
If Garrett wants an insurance policy for sticky situations, that would be the flashbomb, not the sword.

I thnk flashbombs, except for use against undeads, are mainly useless, why(?) because don't forget they blind Garrett too. Trying to toss them while your trying to run is not so easy because you basically have to face your enemy so you then have to stop in order to aim it or run backwards and then somehow turn in the right direction to continue to run...eeeyaaa! :D Just dropping them as you run is a hit or miss affair at best but as I recall just dropping them doesn't work, they need to be tossed. Then another fact is also conditionary...it doesn't do much good to throw it if they're in light..to be effective enough needs to be dark, IMHO

But getting back to the subject..if push came to shove, I would prefer the sword over the dagger. If I can't lockpick it open, then maybe I can break it with a sword be it a door, crate, wooden planks or a banner. Banners/pictures can't really be torn as a rule...and sometimes banners, as an example, are out of reach at times so you need the added length of a sword to get at it.. plus another good reason for sword (when you aren't able to use bow/arrows) would be for spiders and the lilke. I just think they are many good reasons for Garrett to have a sword at his disposal in addition to his other usual equipment. :)

Hypevosa
11th Jun 2009, 07:13
Hmmm, so dagger simply as a tool. That sounds alright!

As for dagger as a backstab weapon, you can do that with a shortsword just as well.

Well I only say you should still be able to do it because really it's a cooler backstab than the sword... I mean, right now the sword's back stab is just an extreme knighting...

ToMegaTherion
11th Jun 2009, 08:32
I'm not sure what's so hard about just reaching up with, um, your HANDS and tearing down banners

Garrett couldn't do this in the first two games so it is clear that he doesn't REALLY NEED this ability, and so suggesting it makes you a heretic who must burn.

:p:p:p:nut::flowers:

Nate
11th Jun 2009, 14:17
Lol!

Platinumoxicity
11th Jun 2009, 15:25
I never go through the secret passage into Bafford's throne room because if I slash the banner, it counts as evidence. I don't like to let anyone know that someone ever was there.

Garrett should be able to just lift the banners and go under them if there's a secret area behind them, not slash them to shreds.

In other news: Sword FTW!

gpagonewest
11th Jun 2009, 15:47
I am slightly old school in that I don’t like to kill humans while playing the Thief games as the first two didn’t let you while playing on Expert difficulty, so I am not particularly bothered which, as I try not to use them.

But if I had to pick, it would be the dagger.

Vkmies
11th Jun 2009, 21:29
I picked the dagger. I just find it more a Thiefs weapon, when he has no places to hide. I always thought it was strange how Garret could go around slashing with a sword...

Hypevosa
11th Jun 2009, 21:33
I never go through the secret passage into Bafford's throne room because if I slash the banner, it counts as evidence. I don't like to let anyone know that someone ever was there.

Garrett should be able to just lift the banners and go under them if there's a secret area behind them, not slash them to shreds.

In other news: Sword FTW!

How can you say you don't leave evidence of your presence when nearly every piece of shiny in the whole building is gone? The guards have swords, they could have cut the banners too if they tried to steal anything? The only thing that ever would actually point to a thief is the fact that someone saw you, otherwise if it's done well enough it looks like an inside job. They aren't so stupid as to not realize they've been robbed when all the loot is gone.

Platinumoxicity
11th Jun 2009, 21:43
How can you say you don't leave evidence of your presence when nearly every piece of shiny in the whole building is gone? The guards have swords, they could have cut the banners too if they tried to steal anything? The only thing that ever would actually point to a thief is the fact that someone saw you, otherwise if it's done well enough it looks like an inside job. They aren't so stupid as to not realize they've been robbed when all the loot is gone.

That's just it. Nobody saw nothing, nobody got hit in the head, only one or two guards were drunk that night, The door to the wellhouse is somehow still locked, nobody got in or out, but every single valuable object in the house has vanished. Makes you wonder, eh? :D

Crypto
11th Jun 2009, 21:56
Garrett couldn't do this in the first two games so it is clear that he doesn't REALLY NEED this ability, and so suggesting it makes you a heretic who must burn.

:p:p:p:nut::flowers:

:lol: I'm not sure if I should type "LOL" or use this as an excuse to start a biased poll.

TheEye
6th Jul 2009, 10:48
guys i really think a dagger is better - it's more thief-like and garret's job is to sneak past guards, not engage them. sure, sometimes everyone gets caught but the dagger does not impede your movement and you can escape faster.

jtr7
6th Jul 2009, 10:51
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/thief/images/7/71/Garrett.gif

Platinumoxicity
6th Jul 2009, 12:47
Just think about it. If you're a thief, why would you have a dagger with you? You already have the thieve's tools that include a paper knife for tool usage, so dagger as a tool is out. You aren't supposed to stab anyone to death, and you have a blackjack for situations like that so that's out of the question too. You can't fight for taff with a little dagger so that's out too.

So, why on earth would you have something as useless as a dagger with you? There's absolutely nothing you can do with it that can't be done much better with another tool. :confused:

xDarknessFallsx
7th Jul 2009, 02:43
We've had the luxury of playing with both and I far prefer the sword. I enjoyed the sword experience much better than the dagger. I don't even want the dagger as an option.

dr_explodoh
8th Jul 2009, 18:09
every situation changes. Both should be carried in order to make the game more dynamic. I can use the sword if I feel like my best option is full out battle. I can use the dagger in stealth if I'm feeling mean, or black jack if I'm nice. I want realistic options in real time.

[PT] Garret [PT]
10th Jul 2009, 12:40
what about we pick up enemies weapons ( only in the missions when we finish them we would only have the blackjack and dagger )

Loup
7th Dec 2009, 18:29
You who have vote for the dagger. I must ask you what would you do if you are spoted and cornered? That was when I drew the sword. Garrett has the sword as the last resort because not carrying a sword means that your defenceless. The following situation is horrible in my opinion.

"Garrett enters a smal room with one door. A guard enters the room and spots him. Not being able to block the blows, Garrett resorts to gulping health potions until you reach the door."

Is this good gameplay?

Have you ever tried to fence with a dagger against someone with a sword? Try it and you'll get the idea. The orginal thoughts on the design was to have a tool to fend of attacks more than a tool to dispatch enemies in melee.
Flashbombs do allow us to get out of hairy situations, but those should be really scarce since they have a such dramatic effect on the situation.

Hypevosa
8th Dec 2009, 18:37
Have you ever tried to fence with a dagger against someone with a sword? Try it and you'll get the idea. The orginal thoughts on the design was to have a tool to fend of attacks more than a tool to dispatch enemies in melee.

Actually my friend tyrel can fend off fencers with a spoon (he has on a few occasions) as well as with the grip of a french foil. However, in thief no one actually fences, it's all overhead swings and powerful slashing instead of poking like it is in fencing (saber not included).

Loup
8th Dec 2009, 19:48
Actually my friend tyrel can fend off fencers with a spoon (he has on a few occasions) as well as with the grip of a french foil. However, in thief no one actually fences, it's all overhead swings and powerful slashing instead of poking like it is in fencing (saber not included).

now that is a good fencer ^^
Sorry for not using the word correctly. To be more precise I mean that try sparring with a dagger against someone with a sword utilising slashing and overhead swings and you'll realise that it is not a good defence. I don't know what someone trained for that situation would be able to do but I would also like to mention that Garrett has never ever shown any skills with weapons. Since the keepers has the role as the invisible observers, and we never get a hint at any exeptional skills with weapons, rather at stealth.

Hypevosa
9th Dec 2009, 00:11
I think it would be a fun twist to include an enemy (let's say the Lord of the manor you're robbing or someone of nobility) who actually fights Garrett in the style of fencing if you confront him. Getting poked to death might be a fun change :D

Loup
9th Dec 2009, 11:16
I think it would be a fun twist to include an enemy (let's say the Lord of the manor you're robbing or someone of nobility) who actually fights Garrett in the style of fencing if you confront him. Getting poked to death might be a fun change :D

Would be a real suprise. Though it would mean a strange mix of historical weapons but hey, Thief got medieval, renaissance and even art deco architecture so a mix of historical weapons isn't more strange than that. It all comes down to the players historical knowlege anyway. My opinion is that I don't like a to large variation in historical weapons. I can't stand games where you can wear a late medieval platemail while armed with a katana (which in the worst cases is even held by one hand).

We also got the steampunk elements which could give us a nice complimentation with fictional non historical weapons without the need to mash rapiers and medieval swords together.

Nephthys
10th Dec 2009, 01:50
I was thinking.

In the third game the dagger gave you the option of killing with it or just knocking out your enemy with the blackjack. Which could be good or bad, considering knocked out enemies would eventually wake up and resume their duties. In the first two, was there a stealthy way to kill someone, or was it only blackjacking?


I know the games were never focused on killing, but I can see where a stealthy, if not completely silent, kill would be helpful. Perhaps with repercussions for doing so?

Platinumoxicity
10th Dec 2009, 05:15
I was thinking.

In the third game the dagger gave you the option of killing with it or just knocking out your enemy with the blackjack. Which could be good or bad, considering knocked out enemies would eventually wake up and resume their duties. In the first two, was there a stealthy way to kill someone, or was it only blackjacking?


I know the games were never focused on killing, but I can see where a stealthy, if not completely silent, kill would be helpful. Perhaps with repercussions for doing so?

The devs of Thief 1 probably noticed that making knocked-out AIs wake up would make players hurry, afraid of not being able to finish the mission before they sound the alarm, so it was simply bad gameplay and the feature was removed. In the earlier games you could kill stealthily using the sword and bow but it was hard and you had to really know what you were doing. TDS didn't have that because the stealthy kill failed always anyway, screaming and lots of blood. Garrett isn't an assassin, so he doesn't know assassin-stuff.

Hypevosa
10th Dec 2009, 17:25
The real issue isn't the mix but the fact that the devs would have to put in just as much work for a single unique type of AI, with its own models and animations and settings, as for any other type, and it would be unusual if they only used the type once for all their trouble, without it being the end-game boss. Not to mention, it would be a specialized AI that only non-stealthy, non-Thiefy players would see without other players' screwing around or recklessness.

But yeah, it would be funny. :thumb:

Now I don't want to see clawmen fighting exactly like guards again as I did in thief 2 ;D but point well taken. I just think it would be a far more interesting spar given that you can't really block a thrust so much as you need to parry or dodge it. Maybe the idea could be introduced to non-combatant taffers by having one of the missions include two fencing nobles.

You'd probably just add it as a new fighting class, as I see no reason to not have the occasional guard (captain of the guard even) with a rapier instead of long sword. I think it would make for some very fun commentary as well.

Benny: 'ey captain... I gots a question for yuh...
Captain: Yes benny, what is it now...
Benny: How come you carries around that long thin sword? It doesn't seem like it would do as much damage as my big mean one...
Captain: Benny, fighting isn't always about how much damage you can cause... there's form and discipline, my rapier allows me these and the ability to attack my opponent at a greater distance, so it's safer for myself.
Benny: So, you're being a coward then?
Captain: What?! No... I...
Benny: Heh, well you and your little lady sword can have fun, I'ma take my big man sword and go back to my rounds...
Captain *under his breath*: If he wasn't the Baron's son I'd....

Oon Kuka Oon
10th Dec 2009, 20:14
Garrett's sword was clearly short sword in TMA. So I think the sword and shortsword in this poll should be counted as the same.
Short sword is best choice for thief who already has lock-picks and isn't going to murder anyone. Doesn't make him too visible as he can hide it under his clothes, and you can defend yourself with it. Remember the increased visibility when wielded!

Vae
11th Dec 2009, 04:22
Agreed. The sword is the superior weapon/tool for gameplay.

Some players still do not realize that Garrett's sword has always been a short sword.

xDarknessFallsx
11th Dec 2009, 04:57
I hope EM doesn't find it necessary to implement everything that wins in forum polls. Granted, I'd probably be happy if they did, since I think most of them probably end up going the T2 route But I just don't want them to mindlessly follow all our polls; feeling obligated that they need to implement everything dictated by the polls. Within reason, yes, they should :) ... but not in every respect. I guess that's my hope that they don't really find it necessary to implement the dagger. Though, I guess I wouldn't be too bothered if they did.

art2189
18th Dec 2009, 23:43
I think it would be better if the player had the opportunity to choose before the mission that he would take (or buy) - a sword or dagger. It is better to set up a panel discussion on "what to take to the player: the bag for the loot - big ,or small and mobile."))) it is not in one of the game in the series, do not show where Garrett puts loot )))))))

The Thief and the Assassin completely different things and Garrett is a ROBBER first, not a killer! So Garrett should go with the sword, if he want to live (block attacks from guards) , or without a weapon ,but to be able to run fast in case of danger ... and i think Garrett better wear a sword behind his back - it is more convenient and much more quietly than on a belt. And this must necessarily be a LONG sword, it is not compact but allows you to keep the enemy at a distance, hitting or stabbing stronger expense of weight (to cut a chain mail or plate armor) ,this is important! ...To block attacks ,sword, is comfortable too, tested thousands of fighters in the Middle Ages : )

PS. Sorry for very bad english, hope you understood what I wanted to say. ...Hello to you all ,from Russian fans )

Loup
19th Dec 2009, 19:09
About "long swords" Garrett did never use a longsword, nor did the guards. Check wikipedia and look at the swords in game, the movements etc. Dungeons and dragons and various fantasy is not a good source for knowlege of weapons and armour : / To even suggest that he would lugg around a longsword is hilarious.

I recommend you to read up about medieval armour before you state that a longsword is an effective weapon against plate and mail. You forgot the gamberson to.

Vae
19th Dec 2009, 19:52
Garrett uses a short sword.

art2189
19th Dec 2009, 23:52
About "long swords" Garrett did never use a longsword, nor did the guards. Check wikipedia and look at the swords in game, the movements etc. Dungeons and dragons and various fantasy is not a good source for knowlege of weapons and armour : / To even suggest that he would lugg around a longsword is hilarious.

I recommend you to read up about medieval armour before you state that a longsword is an effective weapon against plate and mail. You forgot the gamberson to.



I do not dispute that the sword has little effective for piercing armor, there are more weapons more efficiently, but more efficiently than a dagger in several ways: 1) a man with a sword does not need to approach very close to the opponent to hit him 2) can block (or parry) enemy attacks. .. if everything is as you say, then the developers should give him twohanded sword or a sledge hammer))) panel discussion on the "SWORD or DAGGER" if i'am not wrong. I do sport fencing, I know how painful blow of the sword even if u in a mail armor , yes i am not a historian but i know that sword is very effective weapon in a strong hand for attack and for protection, especially with shield in left hand))

and i am sure that in Garrett's hands not a short sword, maybe not long but just not short, if u press a "block" button u will see his sword in entire lenght and it is not short, man. i think sword's model from "thief 2" is cool and almoust realistic. I think if developers decide to give the sword to Garrett, it will be very good if they give him exactly the same , but i vote for both "sword and dagger" second weapon (especially stelth) can be surprise for enemy, but i think its better to run not to fight with guards)))

and yet - it's hard to express my thoughts correctly in a foreign language. i used an electronic translator to write here

Loup
20th Dec 2009, 10:14
t is not compact but allows you to keep the enemy at a distance, hitting or stabbing stronger expense of weight (to cut a chain mail or plate armor) ,this is important! ..

My answer was related to that you said "to cut a chain mail or plate armor", that was what I replied to since the effective way is to pierce or cause a crushing effect. But i gather that is what you meant? Think I didn't fully understand what you wrote. Sorry :p

No prob about the language, it was I who didn't read careful enough. So I think we think the same =)


What is your source for the term shortsword when you say that the swords in Thief can't be shortswords?
I'd guess it is a arming sword.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_sword

art2189
20th Dec 2009, 13:11
Thank you for your understanding. yes it may well be Arming Sword (blade lenght 73.9 cm) ... What is your opinion about the "Sword or dagger"? ...my source is my experience, i saw a shortsword. and in internet u may find many documental films about types of swords) and i played many "Thief 1 and 2" so that because i am sure that in Garrett's hand not a shortsword. maybe thats not enough for evidence,but i dont wont to prove it. if u want u may think as u wish.

CavaliereNero
20th Dec 2009, 13:30
I think the standard one handed sword is good for Garrett. Short enough to hide and not be cumbersome, but decent enough to defend himself with.

Although I would love to be able to pick up a hammerite weapon, if only to hear Garrett's snide comment once he goes Gallagher on some schmuck. ;-p

Loup
20th Dec 2009, 21:52
Although I would love to be able to pick up a hammerite weapon, if only to hear Garrett's snide comment once he goes Gallagher on some schmuck. ;-p

He could also wield a combination between the buster sword and the gravity gun.:eek:

CavaliereNero
21st Dec 2009, 02:26
He could also wield a combination between the buster sword and the gravity gun.:eek:

I'm just saying, the hammers have always been in the game, it wouldn't be unreasonable if you could do more than just pick them up, put them down, or throw them, you know?

CavaliereNero
21st Dec 2009, 04:13
I'd actually have to disagree with it encouraging rampages. Unless you have a load of flash bombs on hand, it's unlikely you'd be able to strike down a horde of armed guards and/or soldiers. Garrett's forte has never been direct combat, that much has been apparent in every Thief game. Even if he does pick up a hammer, he's still going to have to deal with a number of similarly armed opponents, which are best taken from behind while they are unaware of his presence. And he has trouble defending himself blade to blade, let alone hammer to hammer. Besides: This is a new game. They're going to have to come up with whole new animations and physics practically from scratch anyways, adding one or two more won't hurt the effort. And I'm not saying to make it a permanent part of his arsenal either, but even a limited use on a mission where they're featured would be an interesting addition.
That being said, back in certain Thief II missions, I feel a hammer would've succeeded against those helmeted guards where a blackjack failed.

CavaliereNero
21st Dec 2009, 05:03
Fine. People go on rampages. If that's how they want to play, that's how they'll play it. One of the best parts about this series is it's flexibility. And while Garrett, being a professional, would prefer not to kill, let's face it, he wouldn't be carrying blades and arrows if their only utility was to break down unpick-able wooden doors and/or push buttons from long range. He's a pragmatist. He'll kill if he has to, particularly if there is no other alternative. So it wouldn't be in the best interest of the game to take that option away from the player, would it?

Garrett may, as a rule, avoid murder where possible, but he's a thief. He won't walk away from a big payday if all that's standing in the way is the life of a guard. And besides, it's a game. Why give a kid a ball if you aren't going to let him bounce it?

massimilianogoi
21st Dec 2009, 07:05
I think they could both fits. If I could chose, I would the dagger and the sword, depending on what situation I am. The dagger is more stealthy, since you are able to backstab anyone from the shadow, even if I'm not into the violent playing. hehe >=) (even if sometime is liberatory killing alot of enemies

massimilianogoi
21st Dec 2009, 07:28
I see no practic difference doing both the weapons and animations, they cannot subtract alot of developing time.

Nate
24th Dec 2009, 06:40
Glad to see everyone finally agrees that Garrett used a SHORT sword in the past. As a thief, anything longer would have been completely counter productive.

I STILL HOPE that this game allows us a choice between dagger and short sword (with a tiny stealth penalty).

Platinumoxicity
24th Dec 2009, 08:19
Yes, let's have the choice between a bad weapon and a good weapon. And let's make it so that using the good weapon has penalties, so that both weapons ultimately end up being the bad weapon.

Oon Kuka Oon
25th Dec 2009, 11:41
The short sword is winning the vote, if we count the sword votes for short sword, and we should, because the sword was clearly short sword in Dark Engine.
Constantine's sword shouldn't be a possibility, because you didn't have it in TMA. I believe it disappeared when Constantine died. But I'm not saying you shouldn't find it again during the game, if it's part of the plot and makes sense.
Short sword isn't too big for cutting paintings from frames. And you won't use dagger to pick locks when you've got nice set of lockpicks. Dagger is assassin's weapon, not Thief's who might have to defend himself sometimes. There's blackjack for taking out enemies. Dagger has no future in Thief.

Platinumoxicity
25th Dec 2009, 15:06
Most, if not all newly introduced aspects of TDS were horrible and should be removed/replaced/improved. The dagger is the prime example of removing something good to make room for something bad.

Loup
25th Dec 2009, 19:00
Most, if not all newly introduced aspects of TDS were horrible and should be removed/replaced/improved. The dagger is the prime example of removing something good to make room for something bad.

Right you are!

As stated earlier in this post I think that the simple fact that if you are close enough to backstab someone, then you might as well blackjack them instead. Why would you want to risk not only something noicier but also something which leave blood all over? Since when did Garrett turn dumb?

And about cutting paintings, using a dagger for that kind of work would be a really horrible tool of choice. Garrett can carry around a much smaller knife which is made for that kind of work. Think scalpel.

Oon Kuka Oon
25th Dec 2009, 19:04
Having no sword at all would mean you're very defenseless. Yes you are not allowed to kill in most missions, and that's great, but you can still defend yourself if you have to. Without short sword you would be very defenseless, and you'd practically have to restart when you're caught... In proper Thief you won't be carrying 20 flashbombs all the time. If you can block enemies' attacks, you still have chance of getting out of corner and escaping.

dolvich
28th Dec 2009, 08:39
please, do not have two types of swords in every mission!
Thief has to have agility and dexterity, carrying many pounds of metal arsenal is just not very tactical.
I voted for short sword, as it is very realistic solution, however if people wish to have choice, let it be before-mission choice with penalties. Also if you have choice, it should be based on real circumstances and there should be different missions with different situations - in some of them u need sword and sometimes u need dagger. (disarming plate traps with dagger was great idea).

Namdrol
28th Dec 2009, 09:54
On paper it sounds like a good idea, a compromise, to have a choice, two types of weapon.
Until you start thinking about the implementation.
Time is limited, the team is small and they do not have an infinite Garrett loot bag of money.

Loup
28th Dec 2009, 17:06
There is simply no practical use of a dagger when you have the blackjack. Possible trap-disarming, yes. But that is the only thing which have come out of this discussion.

Oon Kuka Oon
28th Dec 2009, 17:08
We don't have to disarm traps. We have to bypass them.

Loup
28th Dec 2009, 17:25
We don't have to disarm traps. We have to bypass them.

As in avoiding them?

Oon Kuka Oon
28th Dec 2009, 18:32
Yes.
Remember in Constantine's manse that crate in a corner of a room and those fast magic going near ground level? You had to shoot rope arrows and climb to avoid avoid them, and pick the lock while still hanging from rope. The traps aren't there to be disarmed, they are to be spotted and avoided by awake player.

Voodoo
29th Dec 2009, 01:04
heres my take for what its worth. why not have the ability to poison weapons like blades and arrows and perhaps some sort of daggers or thrown blades to substitute the bow at some points suggestions welcome?

Oon Kuka Oon
29th Dec 2009, 10:56
When you have bow, any throwing weapons are pointless.

Voodoo
30th Dec 2009, 13:35
Maybe I should have been more clearer about my idea of poison even though Garrett is not an assassin say hes needed or acting as a merc for a faction Hammers for example and a Hammer priest asks him to poison a Pagan shaman for one reason or another so Garrett takes a vial of poison and drops some onto his plate of food or something like that im speaking hypethetical.

Loup
30th Dec 2009, 13:39
Maybe I should have been more clearer about my idea of poison even though Garrett is not an assassin say hes needed or acting as a merc for a faction Hammers for example and a Hammer priest asks him to poison a Pagan shaman for one reason or another so Garrett takes a vial of poison and drops some onto his plate of food or something like that im speaking hypethetical.

Why would Garrett work for the hammers? And what suggests that he would all of a sudden take on assassination jobs for one of the factions when he have been trying to be left alone and out of the factions business?

Namdrol
30th Dec 2009, 22:46
Hammer priest asks him to poison a Pagan shaman for one reason or another so Garrett takes a vial of poison and drops some onto his plate of food or something like that im speaking hypethetical.


In the first three Thiefs is there a single objective where you are expected to kill any living thing except Gamall?

Platinumoxicity
31st Dec 2009, 00:33
Maybe I should have been more clearer about my idea of poison even though Garrett is not an assassin say hes needed or acting as a merc for a faction Hammers for example and a Hammer priest asks him to poison a Pagan shaman for one reason or another so Garrett takes a vial of poison and drops some onto his plate of food or something like that im speaking hypethetical.

Garrett working for a faction? Please...

In T1 Garrett wanted to be left alone by everyone, and worked for the pagans' dark project without realizing it. Then he worked with the Hammerites in the end because he needed the ensure his survival.

In T2 Garrett wanted to be left alone again, but someone hired the sheriff to kill him. Circumstances led him to being forced to work with the pagans again to save his skin. (literally, from being burned alive by chemical WMD ;) )

In TDS Garrett suddenly willfully went to work for the keepers and because of that the Hammerites and the Pagans both "became hostile towards him" (As if they hadn't always been) -and the only way to "earn back their trust" (That never existed btw) was to do chores for them, as if Garrett ever had had any intentions of improving his relationship to any of the factions, especially the Keepers that he hates.

There's just no consistency with TDS. It's all wrong. Garrett doesn't work for factions or guilds. Garrett works for money.

Oon Kuka Oon
31st Dec 2009, 14:05
Except in the end of TMA Garrett showed some interest to Keeper texts, but TDS failed again, it didn't continue from that discussion.

Voodoo
31st Dec 2009, 16:17
Why would Garrett work for the hammers? And what suggests that he would all of a sudden take on assassination jobs for one of the factions when he have been trying to be left alone and out of the factions business?

left alone do you not remember in TDS the faction system please note I was speaking hypethitcally dont take it completely literal.

Voodoo
31st Dec 2009, 16:24
I see that the idea of poison was not welcome very well.

Platinumoxicity
31st Dec 2009, 17:21
left alone do you not remember in TDS the faction system please note I was speaking hypethitcally dont take it completely literal.

Err... but that was exactly the problem. TDS did it all wrong and it was completely inconsistent with the previous games.

In TDS Garrett suddenly willfully went to work for the keepers and because of that the Hammerites and the Pagans both "became hostile towards him" (As if they hadn't always been) -and the only way to "earn back their trust" (That never existed btw) was to do chores for them, as if Garrett ever had had any intentions of improving his relationship to any of the factions, especially the Keepers that he hates.

Garrett always takes from the rich and gives to himself without thinking which faction might get angry, because nobody catches him or knows that he stole the stuff, so they can't get after him. Garrett doesn't work for the factions, he works against everyone, and everyone works against him.

Dogar
31st Dec 2009, 22:17
I disagree that the TDS dagger wasn't useful in encounters. If you timed it right you could strafe past guards and nick them before they had a chance to stab you. Pull it off often enough and you could kill them off without losing any health. Imo the sword combat in Thief 1 & 2 was far too slow, cumbersome and inelegant. In TDS you felt much more dextrous and nimble in combat, more thiefy, so all in all I'd prefer the dagger over the sword.

Dogar
1st Jan 2010, 02:53
Garrett can be many things depending on the situation. He's been a jailbreaker, an eavesdropper, and a spy, among other things. There's no reason he shouldn't kill if he needs to.

As for the sword, I said it was an inelegant weapon, not a useless one, and it's pretty obvious me that the sword *is* meant to be used as a weapon. It may have other uses, but those are infrequently used (board breaking, drape cutting) or mostly useless (blocking)

And as far as the dagger goes, I don't know about you, but I never felt any raging blood lust whenever I equipped it. If anything it's the sword that encourages people to resort to violence, since its size might convince players that they've got a good chance in a fight. With the smaller dagger you might feel like you'd be overmatched in a fight.

Loup
1st Jan 2010, 03:29
Garrett can be many things depending on the situation. He's been a jailbreaker, an eavesdropper, and a spy, among other things. There's no reason he shouldn't kill if he needs to.

As for the sword, I said it was an inelegant weapon, not a useless one, and it's pretty obvious me that the sword *is* meant to be used as a weapon. It may have other uses, but those are infrequently used (board breaking, drape cutting) or mostly useless (blocking)

And as far as the dagger goes, I don't know about you, but I never felt any raging blood lust whenever I equipped it.

Ohh my...

Blocking was a lifesaver which is the whole reason for why Garrett is carrying a sword. It is so that he can defend him self if he needs to. It makes it possible to keep a enemy at distance, ward of blows, strike back and then run. Your idea of a sidestepping dagger wielding thief who lash out while lighting fast sidestepping each of a guards blows is something out of a anime series or a cheesy rpg. Garrett is no super human and keeping him from being that is what makes him an interesting character. Should we sacrifice the feeling of frailty for some kind of cliché image in which rouges/thiefs are portrayed in various media?

And do you seriously think that the way a dagger vs sword fight in TDS was good gaming compared to the fencing in TDP and TMA? It wasn't. In fact it was horrible, there was no feeling of blows connecting or any kind of tactical thinking.

You also miss the biggest reason why the dagger is obsolete. The very fact that if you are close enough to stab someone in the back, you are close enough to blackjack them.

Why, please explain why, would there be a point to make a gory mess and risking that the victim screams his lungs out when you can take them down in a quiet manner without making a mess?

And about Garret being alot of "things". Why do you think Garrett avoids killing? You can simply skip out the whole "Garrett does not care about anyone so he has no trouble killing" because it is not even about that. Killing means trouble. He makes alot of enemies as it is. By killing people it means that there is alot of people who are affected by the murders. In the long run, that means lots of enemies and also, very hard to keep a low profile and remain active in the city.

Hypevosa
1st Jan 2010, 05:54
If we're going to even start talking about elegance, please, fight in TDS and attempt to defend the "elegance" of holding down the attack button and keeping to within a foot of your opponent, ready to press the quick key for health vials. There was no elegance to the TDS close combat system, It was about as "elegant" as a cat hacking up a furball.

TDP and TMA may not have had the most beautiful close combat system, but it was by far more elegant, as there was variation, chance, and a very nice lack of the monotony present in the TDS system of close combat.

And if you want automatic counter attacking and what not, you are turning Garrett into an assassin. While he is dexterous, Garrett is by no means trained or experienced thoroughly in knife to sword combat - he has been trained in sword to sword combat. Even then he avoids combat so often he isn't the perfect tactician once he's in it. You need experience fighting people with swords to know how to counter them effectively, something which Garrett sorely lacks.

Psychomorph
1st Jan 2010, 08:51
Garrett is by no means trained or experienced thoroughly in knife to sword combat - he has been trained in sword to sword combat. Even then he avoids combat so often he isn't the perfect tactician once he's in it. You need experience fighting people with swords to know how to counter them effectively, something which Garrett sorely lacks.
I actually think that Garrett has a basic knowledge of sword fighting (as he practiced it in the TDP training mission) and his criminal energy (sounds negative, but you got to accept hes a criminal [while "criminal" is a stigmatization given by the society the individual is living in]) is what might make him slightly more effective with arms, compared to a normal guy (Garrett is a survivalist after all and he has a talent for it). All that said, that he should be effective enough to survive a sword fight, defense is his main focus with the sword, but a single city watch guard is probably way to experienced with the sword to be easily defeated (in a direct, fair fight that is).

The bow, is something I can imagine Garrett to excel in, as it is a tool crucial to his profession. I think if for combat, that Garrett would prefer distance and an arrow over a sword in close combat (I'd do if I were him and hence would prefer the bow to be an effective weapon in Garrett's virtual hands if need to be used as such).

What I mean to say is, make Garrett being rather weak with the sword (and any close combat situation, except for surprise attacks), but a skilled professional (marksman) with the bow and most other ranged weapons (he has experience with).

Loup
1st Jan 2010, 11:33
What I mean to say is, make Garrett being rather weak with the sword (and any close combat situation, except for surprise attacks), but a skilled professional (marksman) with the bow and most other ranged weapons (he has experience with).

This sound alot like how it feels to play TDP and TMA. :D
Apart from the strafing issue with the fencing, I think that the swordfighting was excellent. And hard. I to confront a guard on expert was not an option for me at least. Can't really come to think about any other games with a good fps melee system. It may not be the most realistic when it comes to the speed/ block etc, but it was still a thrill. I specially liked how the blows actually connected both with blocking and a satisfying chunky sound when you hit the opponent. I have really missed it ever since. All games these days you can see huge two handed swords who go straight though the whole character model and dealing "20 damage". "new generation gaming" bah!

Psychomorph
1st Jan 2010, 12:00
I was very surprised by the simplicity and elegance of Thief's sword (and bow) combat. It might need some bit of tweaking to near perfection, but it was very very well done.

Psychomorph
1st Jan 2010, 12:40
Just think how the combat would've been if they had actually made Dark Camelot, where the player was a heroic Mordred going up against an evil King Arthur.
The game would have been awesome. I love how Thief turned out to be, but the original concept would have made a great game aswell. I actually hope to see it someday.

Oon Kuka Oon
1st Jan 2010, 18:16
I love the way swordfighting is done in Thief. Garrett isn't experienced swordfighter, and his fighting is slow and clumsy. Regular guards aren't masters with sword, and their fighting is slowish too, and arming swords the guards use are medieval style, heavy and clumsy. But Hammer Haunts for example are excellent swordfighters, try beating one in fair combat - it's surprising how fast they swing their swords when they're warmed up.

Voodoo
1st Jan 2010, 19:36
im going to add my opinion whether its wanted or not... this has been an ongoing debate about the sword / dagger personally I feel that a dagger is more fitting for Garrett because no matter what way you look at it he is a stealth master and people with that kind of skill dont use a sword.

9 times out of 10 its a dagger or some short bladed weapon the sword did however have its uses but that was in the first 2 games now technology has moved on and the creators can better implement a weapon system for the dagger that works.

Are we clinging to the idea of the sword because of nostalgia and because TDS did a bad job of it?

Or something else agree or disagree its a valid point. whatever weapon the DEV'S decide to give Garrett it should have its uses and fit in with the game they are putting too much effort in for it not to.

Platinumoxicity
1st Jan 2010, 20:34
Are we clinging to the idea of the sword because of nostalgia and because TDS did a bad job of it?

The only reason we need for having the sword instead of the dagger is simply that:

Garrett doesn't need a dagger. In the same sense as an oil painter doesn't need a flak jacket. He isn't planning on getting shot in his work. It isn't part of his job, just like stabbing unaware people to death isn't part of Garrett's job.

Loup
1st Jan 2010, 21:37
im going to add my opinion whether its wanted or not... this has been an ongoing debate about the sword / dagger personally I feel that a dagger is more fitting for Garrett because no matter what way you look at it he is a stealth master and people with that kind of skill dont use a sword.

9 times out of 10 its a dagger or some short bladed weapon the sword did however have its uses but that was in the first 2 games now technology has moved on and the creators can better implement a weapon system for the dagger that works.

Are we clinging to the idea of the sword because of nostalgia and because TDS did a bad job of it?

Or something else agree or disagree its a valid point. whatever weapon the DEV'S decide to give Garrett it should have its uses and fit in with the game they are putting too much effort in for it not to.

The reason why people want the sword is not of nostalgia. The fencing of thief is still great gameplay compared to various attempts at fps melee. If you want to add something to the discussion, then explain how this system would work. You also haven't faced the fact that the sword has defensive capabilities that the dagger hasn't. What is Garrett supposed to do if he is cornered? Give us some examples.

And you have still not answered to the biggest argument that if you are close enough to backstab some one with the dagger, you are close enough to blackjack instead. A less noisier and less messy way to do the exact same thing.

Vae
1st Jan 2010, 22:01
Sword uses:

1. Cut down banners
2. Break boxes
3. Break planks
4. Pry planks
5. Backstabbing
6. Blocking
7. Hacking
8. Bashing
9. Cutting spider-webs
10. Crushing Earth Mage vines
11. Chopping away icicles
12. Knocking arrows out of the air
13. Cut Ropes
14. Push buttons just out of reach
15. Cutting away dense foliage

Dagger uses:

1. Backstabbing

Hypevosa
1st Jan 2010, 22:43
im going to add my opinion whether its wanted or not... this has been an ongoing debate about the sword / dagger personally I feel that a dagger is more fitting for Garrett because no matter what way you look at it he is a stealth master and people with that kind of skill dont use a sword.

I have one word that invalidates your argument.

Ninjas

"Stealth masters" don't need something to be small in order to hide it, they are perfectly able to hide and wield any tool in a stealthy manner.

Now, if we look at Garrett, he kind of is a steampunk ninja for his universe.

1. Melts into shadows
2. Uses a sword as well as deadly ranged attacks
3. Is rarely seen
4. Has multiple tools to aid in the job
5. Survives on stealth and deception.

The only real difference is his ethics, and what his profession demands (theft as opposed to murder). The glyphs could even be seen as a parallel to ninjutsu, the magic ninjas could wield. Garrett simply decided not to use them, and only depend on his other talents and skills.

Psychomorph
1st Jan 2010, 23:31
im going to add my opinion whether its wanted or not... this has been an ongoing debate about the sword / dagger personally I feel that a dagger is more fitting for Garrett because no matter what way you look at it he is a stealth master and people with that kind of skill dont use a sword.

9 times out of 10 its a dagger or some short bladed weapon the sword did however have its uses but that was in the first 2 games now technology has moved on and the creators can better implement a weapon system for the dagger that works.

Are we clinging to the idea of the sword because of nostalgia and because TDS did a bad job of it?

Or something else agree or disagree its a valid point. whatever weapon the DEV'S decide to give Garrett it should have its uses and fit in with the game they are putting too much effort in for it not to.
I had the same opinion as you before, a dagger would be a small blade fitting a sneaky guy better, but a dagger has little use as a tool and almost no defensive capabilities, it mostly is an offensive weapon, good for assasins. Does it mean Garrett should not have some sort of a knife? No, he must, but that is not an alternative to what the short bladed sword is there for.

A short bladed sword, as Vae nicely outlined, has more use as a tool than the dagger, think about a Machette that is more effective of a tool in dense jungle than a survival knife. I also think about it like people used to wear Colts in the wild west, it was a dangerous place and a Taffer had to defend himself, a short sword is a good defensive weapon, blocking off sword attacks in order to gain more time for escape.

So, the sword in my opinion must be short, lightweight, having a short grip and preferably a darker paint (the bright metal is to shiny and reflective). The sheath should be soft inside, so drawing the blade won't make lots of noise. A tool like this is easier to hide and doesn't affect your movement that much.
Hypevosa said it nicely too, Ninjas used to wield Katanas. Even if Katanas are shorter and lighter than a Japanese war sword, it is still fairly long and they could deal with it, though, they carried it for combat purpose, but to a great extent as a defensive option in mind, too.


Garrett doesn't need a dagger.
Wrong. False. Totally. Only because it makes good sense to use a short sword, doesn't mean there is no reason to carry a sort of a knife, as a last resort option. In the game it can become obvious, if you get stripped off of all your weapons, but can hide a knife somewhere, which might become handy. I understand that the term "dagger" usually suggests a blade longer than the one of a knife, but thats not always the case.

Namdrol
1st Jan 2010, 23:44
Garrett can be many things depending on the situation... ...There's no reason he shouldn't kill if he needs to.

The games were designed to be played on Expert.
(Unless you are under 11 years, why would you play them on less?)
And on Expert it is a requirement not to kill.

Hypevosa
1st Jan 2010, 23:48
I understand that the term "dagger" usually suggests a blade longer than the one of a knife, but thats not always the case.

Dagger implies 2 sharpened edges as opposed to one with a knife, though they are used interchangeably by some. My friend Tyrel is getting a forge this summer and can actually make knives, he asked me if I wanted one for my b-day, I said that would be cool but was wondering about a dagger, but daggers take more practice to create which he doesn't have yet.

As for not killing, if Garrett is backed into a corner, has no means of escape, and used all the aces left up his sleeve, I don't see him bending over and letting the guards cut off his head... I see him fighting. Now, I think that he would hold his own as long as necessary - even if that means killing someone, but I if one of the guards began to flee I don't see Garrett chasing him down and finishing the job. While it may not be his want to kill anyone, I believe that if he was cornered and had to choose his death or someone else's, he'd choose theirs.

Psychomorph
1st Jan 2010, 23:54
The games were designed to be played on Expert.
(Unless you are under 11 years, why would you play them on less?)
And on Expert it is a requirement not to kill.
Expert allows to kill, maybe sometimes it's necessary (beasts). Everybody decides who he wants to be, no need to pick on their age, I find it rather absurd and immature to force non-killing where it is (realistically) necessary/believable (edit: as Hypevosa explained above).
Funny is, that the TDP intro shows Garrett killing an unaware guard with the bow, explain that... personally I didn't like seeing it.

Hypevosa
2nd Jan 2010, 00:01
I like to think Garrett plays on expert, how about you all? lol

Dogar
2nd Jan 2010, 00:18
The games were designed to be played on Expert.

Have the Thief developers said this?


(Unless you are under 11 years, why would you play them on less)

I don't know, maybe because I don't like it when games enforce restrictions which may not be appropriate for every situation? I almost always play Thief non-violently, but I still like to keep all options on the table.

Sure, Garrett has his code, but dogmatically sticking to your principles regardless of the circumstances is something the Hammerites would do. I'd like to think a smart guy like Garrett would try and find a balance between principles and practicality, and sometimes murder has its uses.


As far as the dagger thing goes, I guess I agree that the sword has more practical uses than the dagger, but I'd still like it if the combat was a little more light footed than in T1 and T2. Yeah, the combat system in TDS wasn't exactly elegant, but at least you couldn't just rush forward and attack a guard without taking damage. You sort of had to use their charging movement against them, like a matador. In T1/2 it was usually a matter of "charging" your sword then rushing forward while slicing, then pulling back and repeating again.

Vae
2nd Jan 2010, 00:28
I like to think Garrett plays on expert, how about you all? lol

Well, at least we know that Garrett plays TITANIUM...;)

Namdrol
2nd Jan 2010, 00:29
maybe because I don't like it when games enforce restrictions which may not be appropriate for every situation?

Name one that doesn't.

Namdrol
2nd Jan 2010, 00:35
Garrett would try and find a balance between principles and practicality, and sometimes murder has its uses.


It's a violent world Garretts world.
We see evidence all around, armoured guards in every house of any size, waiting to attack and kill with no questions asked.
But is Garrett ever once required to directly kill another human being in the series?
Which suggests the character he is.

Platinumoxicity
2nd Jan 2010, 00:53
Have the Thief developers said this?


Actually, in TDS there's a part in a cutscene where the devs clearly have assumed that the players have avoided killing to a point where the only people dead in the entire series are Constantine and Karras. Orland says it during Garrett's "trial". ;)

Garrett doesn't need a dagger.


Wrong. False. Totally. Only because it makes good sense to use a short sword, doesn't mean there is no reason to carry a sort of a knife, as a last resort option. In the game it can become obvious, if you get stripped off of all your weapons, but can hide a knife somewhere, which might become handy. I understand that the term "dagger" usually suggests a blade longer than the one of a knife, but thats not always the case.

Garrett has a knife. It is shown in the intro cutscene of TDP. It's among his lockpicking tools. What Garrett doesn't have is an offensive-weapon that serves only a single purpose of killing unsuspecting people. And if btw Garrett still has Constantine's sword from TDP lying around somewhere, he could use it so he couldn't be stripped from all his weapons(As seen in "Escape!") because the only person that can detect his sword is the wielder, himself. ;)

Dogar
2nd Jan 2010, 03:22
Name one that doesn't.

Easy! Thief on normal difficulty. On normal Garrett isn't an irrational pacifist who never kills nor an obsessive greedo who scours the map looking for 5 gold coins to complete his arbitrary loot quota. The only thing holding you back is death. I'd say that's a pretty reasonable restriction.


It's a violent world Garretts world.
We see evidence all around, armoured guards in every house of any size, waiting to attack and kill with no questions asked.
But is Garrett ever once required to directly kill another human being in the series?
Which suggests the character he is.

Yeah, Garrett isn't forced to kill, just like he isn't forced to douse torches, blackjack guards, or hide in shadows. The point isn't whether these things are necessary, but whether they help him fulfill the job and stay alive. Dousing torches and blackjacking guards is useful sometimes, so is killing.


Actually, in TDS there's a part in a cutscene where the devs clearly have assumed that the players have avoided killing to a point where the only people dead in the entire series are Constantine and Karras. Orland says it during Garrett's "trial". ;)

I'm not too sure that scene really tells you anything about the dev's viewpoint. Constantine and Karras's schemes (and Garrett's role in stopping them) were of great concern to the Keepers. It makes perfect sense that the Keepers would talk about their deaths. I don't think they'd necessarily mention Garrett's other kills, since I doubt Bafford's malnourished rent-a-cops feature prominently in the Prophecies. :D

Loup
2nd Jan 2010, 13:04
You have still not given an example when killing is effective, specially with a dagger.
Please explain when it is preferable to backstab when you are in reach to blackjack. No blood, no possible scream.

About the combats you have still not given an example of how it would work. Respond to people arguments. Just saying that you think that something is good does not contribute to the discussion.

The difference between normal and hard/expert is to allow new players to focus on getting through the level, not worring about if they kill some one. Sure this does not hinder them from playing the game in that way but since the later difficulties do have the rule and also encourages the player not to since it states that "killing is for amatures".

I think that Garrett's general policy to not kill also goes back to the fact that killing means trouble. It is easier to keep a low profile if the town is not searching for the massmurdering burglar.

Helgeran
2nd Jan 2010, 17:26
I like fiddling and planning so choosing before each mission would be sweet.

Difference between dagger and blackjack in DS was that you could backstab guards you were on the lookout for you (but not seeing you) while you couldn't blackjack them. I'd like a bigger difference because only once in the entire game I ever had the need to backstab over blackjacking, having guards with helmets being immune to blackjacking would be one thing so you don't get the silly thing that usually happens that you blackjack every single guard and then run around like a madman just to find every single piece of loot. With helmed guards immune to blackjacks you would either have to swallow your pride (and hope nobody hears the scream/sees the blood) or simply let some danger be left. Especially if the guards have wider patrol routes or expand their routes if you are spotted once this would add to the challange.

Platinumoxicity
2nd Jan 2010, 22:13
only once in the entire game (DS) I ever had the need to backstab over blackjacking,

There weren't any guards with helmets in TDS. IIRC the only enemies that couldn't be knocked out were the treebeasts and the undead.

Secondary
2nd Jan 2010, 22:36
since the dagge isnt as good as a sword (short, long, whatever) in combat and has no real merit for stealth when compared to the blackjack id say that if the devs dont find some new way to make it a tool (not a weapon, its outclassed there) than its place in the franchise is gone

i suppose a knife or dagger could see some use for cutting purses or suchlike, but even there i would say that its not under the direct control of the player (pickpocketing isnt really a minigame or anything)


and for those who advocate throwing knives, well, a bow outclasses them. a knife wont always kill someone in a single guaranteed shot (which is almost never required anyway), and throwing knives cant douse torches and do all the thing s the bow can


im pretty sure the devs had alot of these same conversations when developing TDP, and considering what tools to give Garrett. ultimately lockpicks, a bow, a sword of some type, and the various bombs and potions are all thats needed



you dont need to complicate combat by giving Garrett an arsenal of knives, swords and daggers

you dont need to complicate stealth by cutting throats, stabbing backs and making a general mess

i think the bare minimum tool stet Garrett usually has suits him pretty well, the dagger is just simply superfluous

Nate
2nd Jan 2010, 23:01
I'm still rooting for the option of having a short sword for combat, OR leaving it behind for a tiny 5% stealth bonus increase!

Nate
2nd Jan 2010, 23:13
5% bonus to your stealth...so if WITH the sword your stealth meter would be at 50%, WITHOUT the sword it would be at 55%.

Sure, it is a minuscule bonus that would rarely make a diff, but it would be very nice way to acknowledge that Garrett doesn't have a 2 foot long piece of metal on his belt/back.

Nate
3rd Jan 2010, 00:12
Hmmmm, then I guess I would ask that leaving the short sword behind give a 1 increment stealth bonus (6.25% bonus effectively).

I always thought that behind the scenes it used a percentage calculation...my mistake.

Hypevosa
3rd Jan 2010, 01:12
i suppose a knife or dagger could see some use for cutting purses or suchlike, but even there i would say that its not under the direct control of the player (pickpocketing isnt really a minigame or anything)

It doesn't need to be a minigame, but having the dagger out and actually cutting the purse would mean garrett wouldn't neet to be as close for pickpocketing (wouldn't need to be close enough to undo knots and string, etc). It would also almost explain the insane distance he can pick pocket from sometimes, I mean... no one's arms are 5 feet long, he'd be dragging his knuckles if they were that long.

Hypevosa
3rd Jan 2010, 03:10
Good luck pickpocketing a moving AI. You'd just stab his buttock.

lol, if we go with my careful vs rash approach with the run and creep buttons, holding the run and pickpocket button will give a quick swipe but may result in stabbing of the buttocks. I wonder how well one could run with knifed buttocks.... XD They always talk about hammying someone, but surely doing enough damage to someones butt would also make them unable to run?

Sorry, my mind runs places rather quickly sometimes.

Psychomorph
3rd Jan 2010, 03:15
Attack the ass for incapacitation... why not? Better than killing.

Nate
3rd Jan 2010, 04:20
Stabbed him!! You proctocilly killed him!!

jtr7
3rd Jan 2010, 04:23
:lol: :thumb:

Nate
3rd Jan 2010, 04:26
Jesus man, I remember when you and I had roughly the same amount of posts......wow, somebody has been contributing!

Dogar
3rd Jan 2010, 05:32
You have still not given an example when killing is effective

I thought Hypesova gave a pretty good example with his "backed into a corner + no aces up his sleeve" scenario. But here's a few more:

A guard spots Garrett and heads for the alarm. Garrett doesn't have a chance of getting to him in time, so he broadhead/firearrows him in the back. A crude solution, one that could potentialy expose him, but it's probably better than the alternative.

A lone guard is guarding an objective in a electrically lit tile clad area. Garrett has no chance of blackjacking, and he only has basic equipment, no fancy gadgets or elemental arrows (maybe he didn't have money for them after the rent.) A broadhead arrow to the skull might be the best way to resolve the situation.

Ramirez's thugs came one step away from sending an arrow into Garrett's skull. Taking care of Ramirez might ensure that this doesn't happen again. It also might make other Wardens think twice before they try and press gang Garrett into their stables.



Please explain when it is preferable to backstab when you are in reach to blackjack. No blood, no possible scream.

But I never said it was preferable to backstab anyone with a dagger. All I said is that I preferred the dagger fighting style of TDS over T1/2.


About the combats you have still not given an example of how it would work. Respond to people arguments. Just saying that you think that something is good does not contribute to the discussion.

What haven't I given an example of? The fighting in TDS? I didn't just say I liked it, I mentioned why I did as well. What else do you want me to explain?


The difference between normal and hard/expert is to allow new players to focus on getting through the level, not worring about if they kill some one. Sure this does not hinder them from playing the game in that way but since the later difficulties do have the rule and also encourages the player not to since it states that "killing is for amatures".

Are you sure the easier difficulties were only there for new players? Maybe they were made for different play styles?


I think that Garrett's general policy to not kill also goes back to the fact that killing means trouble. It is easier to keep a low profile if the town is not searching for the massmurdering burglar.

I agree that Garrett doesn't want too much attention, but sometimes resorting to violence can the lesser evil, like I mentioned above.


Yeah. If you aren't playing on Expert, you are not playing as AN Expert Master Thief, and you are ignoring how the game equates Expert restrictions against killing with Expert Thieving.

I don't agree that expert difficulty means expert thievery. I think it's more vague than that. Suppose someone's playing on Expert and they can't find the one gold coin needed to complete their loot objective. Does that mean their Garrett is just some run of the mill cutpurse? Now suppose he ends up finding that one gold coin whilst mucking about in a nearby sewer. Is his Garrett now a expert thief on account of finding that dingy little coin?

Now suppose he plays on hard difficulty and manages to get the expert loot quota and doesn't kill anyone. Is he not a master thief because he didn't vow to fulfill those conditions on the outset of the mission?


Garrett has a reputation as a Thief, too. If he murdered all the time, his Thief status would be played down, as murdering is far worse.
Master Thieves who don't kill are usually not subject to manhunts on the level of mass murderers, and Garrett is not hunted after most of the time

I'm not talking about mass murder here, I'm talking about the rare occasions where Garrett might want to kill someone.

Also, murder in general might be a major crime in our civilization, but I'd say its severity in the Thief world largely depends on who is murdered. The City isn't a very just place. I'd wager that Valeruis and Bafford would be far more upset with the theft of their exquisite trinkets than with the deaths of a few hired goons. Hell, Valerius sent a bunch of her men to their deaths just because she was bothered by some pesky little spiders. Either way, Garrett's already pissed them off by stealing their favorite goodies, so a few guard deaths probably won't add much to their fury. From what we've seen of the city watch, it seems that they mostly exist to do the bidding of the Truart, who's far more interested ingratiating himself with the nobles and other powers of the city. Moseley's probably an exception, but a rare one at that.


Gamall influenced the unbalanced Orland to accuse Garrett of Caduca's murder, because he had not murdered enough up to that point to be brought to trial for those murders alone.

Who says the Keepers would put him on trial for other murders? They had a reason to try him for Caduca, she was one of their own. The Keepers are concerned with the destructive powers of nature and technology, I've never seen them show any concern for anyone but their own.



No one ever factually calls him a murderer in the story.

True, they also never reference any blackjacking assaults. Just because it's not mentioned doesn't negate the possibility that it happened.


Better to just admit one likes killing than to try to use the game to falsely justify it.

It's a bit of both worlds for me. I'll admit it, I like killing in Thief. Nonetheless, I think my justifications happen to be correct.. :rasp: :D


When Garrett is in Pavelock, and they are looking forward to executing him, what does his rap sheet say about him?


Nothing about murder.

Nothing they can prove. ;)

Anyway, I think we've gotten a little off topic. I'd be happy to continue later if someone made a murder thread or something. Me, I'm heading off to bed. Been a fun discussion though!

Namdrol
3rd Jan 2010, 07:03
I don't know, maybe because I don't like it when games enforce restrictions which may not be appropriate for every situation?



Name one that doesn't.


Easy! Thief on normal difficulty.

Seriously? It's a computer game, its inherent nature is to enforce restrictions.