View Poll Results: To what extent do you want to see the Girl from TDS in T4?

Voters
65. You may not vote on this poll
  • The only playable character.

    2 3.08%
  • More or less playable alongside Garret.

    4 6.15%
  • Playable but not alongside Garret.

    4 6.15%
  • Part of the Story, but not much else.

    30 46.15%
  • Mentioned but not important.

    25 38.46%

Thread: The Girl Yes No Other

The Girl Yes No Other

  1. #51
    Originally Posted by Platinumoxicity
    No, actually we do. Every choice you make in life is selfish. Everything you ever do, you do for yourself. Yes, not all of those choices benefit just you, but in the end they all benefit you in some way. "Selflessness." doesn't exist.
    That's ridiculous. Tell that to a parent or a soldier and they'll tell you how wrong you are.

    Originally Posted by Hecateus
    The girl can be valid means of exploring changes for Garret. If so, here's hoping for multiple endings.
    Multiple endings? Eww, no way. Hard to make a part V when part IV had multiple endings. I like the Thief series being the saga of Garret. That means a solid storyline.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,540
    Originally Posted by ClashWho
    That's ridiculous. Tell that to a parent or a soldier and they'll tell you how wrong you are.
    I guess you've never been in the military then? It's good money and you can import a car tax-free when you return from a peacekeeping assingment.

  3. #53
    Originally Posted by Platinumoxicity
    I guess you've never been in the military then?
    You guess wrong.

  4. #54
    Hm, poll is closed. I vote for not having her at all.

  5. #55
    yep poll closed after 2 weeks. Sorry but it is time to move on. Likely EM has looooong since made a decision as to where to place the chit.

    Originally Posted by ClashWho
    That's ridiculous. Tell that to a parent or a soldier and they'll tell you how wrong you are.
    The Myth of 'Selfishness' suggests lack of concern for others, or even open hostility. Reality of selfishness is that one often includes others in one's (often subconscious) definition of self. Doing good deeds for those you care about makes you happy. A soldier's life risking love of country is ultimately a selfish love as the soldier has defined himself as a member of that country; it is much the same for a parent their love for a child is relative to their connection to that child. They have defined themselves as a parent of a particular child.

    To be truly altruistic one may not be allowed to feel pleased with the result of action, nor anything at all. It is to be a mindless-zombie servant for faceless masters.

    Even punishing one's self for one's sins is selfish as it defines oneself as a sinner.

    Being anything is selfish.

    Multiple endings? Eww, no way. Hard to make a part V when part IV had multiple endings. I like the Thief series being the saga of Garret. That means a solid storyline.
    Deus Ex managed.

  6. #56
    Originally Posted by Hecateus
    ...Being anything is selfish..
    Good explanation,but for convenience it can be easier not to dig so deep.

    Deus Ex managed.
    Barely and it needed a fudge.

  7. #57
    I am well read on Objectivist philosophy fwiw.

    Loved the first DE, didn't even bother with the second. Hopefully the third delivers.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,632
    That's pretty much not acknowledging the definition of selfishness that is intended and better understood. It has nothing to do with the "self" as a being, but just intent and motive for an action. Dying for someone can really be just for that someone, and any happiness can be totally subconscious to the point it never enters the mind as the body is moved into action, if it was ever there at that point in time. Later, if the person survives, sure they will have emotions about it. It's inevitable. Address selfishness without addressing the base self we are written upon, but the motives for the actions only, or you confuse the point, and muddle it in a philosophy few bother to think upon, nor have ever thought upon, when discussing actions and motives. In fact, it's alien to the common man, even after describing it. It's extremely rare to here the word used in any sense you described. Selfishness is often treated as kin to greed and conceit, a corruption--not the things people do for survival, but revenge, and social disease. Talk of the self is entirely off topic, when the mindset and drive are the crux.

  9. #59
    Another nice explanation!!
    The pair of you put me to shame.
    I tried to make the points you both made but they were pale shadows compared to these.
    Now this is a discussion I like rather than pointless arguing.
    It may not be on topic for this thread but it has bearing on Garrett and his role as an anti hero

  10. #60
    Platinumoxicity is still correct. Intents and motives are there to support a something. Something with a definition. A definition which can include more than one's own hide. The seemingly pedantic extrapolation of the Self is necessary to fully understand what it means to be. Part of understanding a philosophical position is to explore the fullest implications of it. In this case, there is more to the self than is commonly understood, and altruism/selflessness has a sinister extreme.

    Separately, I disagree with his dislike of multiple endings. A game needs multiple outcomes/endings or it is just a one track train/story. Solitaire would be much less of a challenge if one always knew that success was the result. Would you play Monopoly if the Hat always won? Story 'games' can often get away with it if there are things to do along the path with discoverable extras and variable substories.

    It's ok if sequels pick one ending. A good sdk-editor allows fanmissions to explore the alternate story lines.

    Thief doesn't need different endings either. I am just saying it would be nice. If it truly means several mediocre endings for the price of one good ending, I will pick the latter.

  11. #61

    Multiple endings

    Originally Posted by Namdrol
    Good explanation,but for convenience it can be easier not to dig so deep.

    1) Agreed. Usually I like very much to analyse characters' behaviour and reasons for being as they are, but the nature of gaming I think is demanding on that matter, unless u make a game for shrinks!

    Barely and it needed a fudge.
    2) I actually enjoyed very much the multiple endings for Deus Ex, but when I played the 1st I never thought devs would try to actually create subsequent versions. Multiple endings make very difficult to proceed coherently with a series unless the given choices won't actually alter in any way the final setting. Let's take for instance the end of TDS: supposing u could end the game as it did but also having the option to make Garrett actually finish off Gamall and by doing so killing the girl (this is just a very silly example for the sake of the argument btw). Then, whatever a player would decide to do it would not have made any substantial difference for the situation in which the City found itself and for what concerns Garrett becoming a Secret Keeper. Naturally, these typology of multiple endings do not, in my view, add anything at all to the game and it's a cheap escamotage to give the player the sensation they've actually got more choices.

    Of course, there is also the choice to transform a series like Thief in Final Fantasy situation where u perceive to have a series but in the end characters change in every episode and don't have anything to do with each other. I refuse this option! Impossible!

    So, overall, for what just said, I won't be happy to have a T4 with multiple choices, also because, dunno...dunno...to some extent...even if we play Garrett, the fact that he's a character so well defined...leaves me the sensation that he also kind of guide me...with multiple choices I fear I'd lose this.
    "The Essence of Balance is Detachment"
    Glyph07

  12. #62
    I was thinking/hoping more like ChronoTrigger

  13. #63
    Originally Posted by Hecateus
    To be truly altruistic one may not be allowed to feel pleased with the result of action, nor anything at all.
    You're expanding the accepted definition of altruism. Doing something that benefits others, without benefit to the self, or at the expense of the self, is altruism. To say such an action isn't truly altruistic if you happen to feel good about it, is pretty dang silly.

    Being anything is selfish.
    Seems like a bit of a cop-out, to me. You're basically saying that altruism is impossible. So the subtext seems to be, "So why bother?"

    A game needs multiple outcomes/endings or it is just a one track train/story.
    And what's wrong with that? Didn't seem to hurt the Dark Project, the Metal Age and Deadly Shadows, from my perspective.

    I've noticed that all the great novels are just a one track train/story. They don't seem to suffer for it. I'd rather Thief be The Grapes of Wrath than Choose Your Own Adventure. Funny, I initially selected a novel by Herman Melville for my example, but the ridiculous censoring on this website prevented me. What a joke.

    Solitaire would be much less of a challenge if one always knew that success was the result.
    Playing Thief sure doesn't mean that.

    Would you play Monopoly if the Hat always won?
    When I play Thief, I know the Trickster, Karras and Gammall are going to lose if I play successfully. And that sure doesn't stop me from playing them.

  14. #64
    i voted for only girl and really wanna see hot & deadly female thief.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,632
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHOHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEEEE!

    Lusty rogues unite!

  16. #66
    That would be too much of a departure for me. I still want Garret as the prime protagonist. With Velvet Assassin ( blegh! ), Wet, and so forth, the industry has a hard time making a quality female protagonist on par with Garret. (I will except No One Lives Forever from that list.)

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,701
    Originally Posted by kerrang
    i voted for only girl and really wanna see hot & deadly female thief.
    deadly ?

    I always thought the aim was not to leave a pile of bodies, if you kill them they can't go and earn more wealth for you to steal

  18. #68
    Like guards earn much anyway. Kill 'em all.
    But I'm right.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,701
    *sigh*

  20. #70
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,540
    Originally Posted by negative_len
    Kill 'em all.
    That is an imperative form. I'm going to have to speak for the majority of taffers here and respond: "No we won't. You go ahead."

  21. #71
    Originally Posted by kerrang
    i voted for only girl and really wanna see hot & deadly female thief.
    I lol'd..

  22. #72
    Originally Posted by Platinumoxicity
    That is an imperative form. I'm going to have to speak for the majority of taffers here and respond: "No we won't. You go ahead."
    Surely you're joking.
    But I'm right.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,632
    Nope.

  24. #74
    Originally Posted by negative_len
    Like guards earn much anyway. Kill 'em all.
    I'm sure neg_len was being sarcastic.
    (well I hope he was )

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,701
    well as long as killing guards isn't compulsory I guess I should let him have his fun

Page 3 of 4 First First 1234 Last