Does this game have connections to previous iterations?

[Khorne Flakes]

There are many threads on the Internet about it but I haven't found any consensus on what this game really is. Some say it's a fresh reboot without any ties to the original trilogy, others say it's a continuation centuries later.

[Siberian Software]

There is indeed a fairy tale that this game takes place in the same world and city as three original Thieves, but there is nothing in the game that supports it. There are no Keepers, no Hammerites and no Pagans in it, different technology level and visual style. Not a single mention of events from first three games.

Thus even if someone would manage to confirm that it's indeed officially considered to be continuation of Thief after a century or more has past, for all aims and purposes it's a reboot. Since there is nothing in the game that connects it to the first three Thieves.

[jack_of_tears]

The above statement isn't entirely true. There is mention of the Pagans in passing, as well as the creation of automatons like in Thief 2; not to mention a couple side missions that link to events and people from the previous games. I suspect they were going to flesh those out more in a potential sequel but the game crashed and burned so it never came to pass.

While the game is officially 200+ years in the future, with a different thief calling himself 'Garrett', if you watch all the cutscene compilations on Youtube, you see how this really feels like more of a prequel/soft reboot.

The City still looks pretty good and the new Garrett starts to get more sardonic and feel more like the original as the game goes on.

[Khorne Flakes]

Originally posted by jack_of_tears:

The above statement isn't entirely true. There is mention of the Pagans in passing, as well as the creation of automatons like in Thief 2; not to mention a couple side missions that link to events and people from the previous games. I suspect they were going to flesh those out more in a potential sequel but the game crashed and burned so it never came to pass.

While the game is officially 200+ years in the future, with a different thief calling himself 'Garrett', if you watch all the cutscene compilations on Youtube, you see how this really feels like more of a prequel/soft reboot.

The City still looks pretty good and the new Garrett starts to get more sardonic and feel more like the original as the game does on.

It would seem that developers weren't sure in which direction they should go.

Would you consider these connections you mentioned "fully-fledged" references or more like easter eggs? Are they significant enough to play the original trilogy or not?
Also, is there a fifth iteration coming somewhere in the future?

[jack_of_tears]

Originally posted by Vughenhal allkeyshop.com:

Would you consider these connections you mentioned "fully-fledged" references or more like easter eggs? Are they significant enough to play the original trilogy or not?
Also, is there a fifth iteration coming somewhere in the future?

They're easily skipped and without having played the previous games you probably won't even notice them for what they are.

If you like playing older games, the original trilogy is absolutely worth playing but I imagine it'd feel rather dated to a modern gamer.

After this game flopped, the developers stated, in no uncertain terms, that they were killing the IP and there'd be no more games in the franchise. With everyone remaking old titles lately, however, who can say what a company might do?

[Khorne Flakes]

Originally posted by jack_of_tears:

Originally posted by Vughenhal allkeyshop.com:

Would you consider these connections you mentioned "fully-fledged" references or more like easter eggs? Are they significant enough to play the original trilogy or not?
Also, is there a fifth iteration coming somewhere in the future?

They're easily skipped and without having played the previous games you probably won't even notice them for what they are.

If you like playing older games, the original trilogy is absolutely worth playing but I imagine it'd feel rather dated to a modern gamer.

After this game flopped, the developers stated, in no uncertain terms, that they were killing the IP and there'd be no more games in the franchise. With everyone remaking old titles lately, however, who can say what a company might do?

I tend to play older games but if their story is continuated in subsequent iterations (e.g. Age of Wonders). Small tidbits of references without any prospect for futher expansion of a series is not very appealing to me.

[Bankai9212]

I don't want the originals remade, despite better tech hardly anything comes close to the original games stealth mechanics.

[tigerpoetry]

I've at last downloaded and started to play Thief Deadly Shadows. I feel I can comment on your question, OP.

Imo, from what I've seen so far, there is one definite link that others have hinted at or missed entirely. Thief DS (Thief Deadly Shadows) is based in the same city, clock tower, areas such as Stonemarket and the South Quarter.

My guess is that as this was a reboot, the devs wanted to re-create the location, but with better graphics, more character development and new mechanisms that weren't possible in the earlier games. I think they did a pretty good job of this and the annoying loadscreens etc were the flaws that sunk the ship.

I don't think they tied up the lore very well... something that Elder Scrolls fans would foam at the mouth about... but they were more interested in creating a game that was fun to play, in the manner that gamers of 2014 liked, rather than continuing the series.

That may be right or wrong, in terms of their game design.

In short, they were going for a visually more appealing game, keeping Garret, but had no great desire to link all the games together. Mistake? Maybe. With the Tomb-Raider reboot series, the devs there did a great job of tying the earlier games into that series. Eidos, imo, should have done more along these lines than they did.

After all that word-wall, I think we should take this game as a 1-off, never to be repeated, fair-play attempt by Eidos to reinvigorate the stealth genre... it backfired... yet it clearly spawned the Dishonored series, for which we should be grateful!

Fair play to them for attempting it, though. I doff my cap to them for trying.

[Bankai9212]

Earlier games already had better character development and mechanisms. Only thing would be lock picking in 1 and 2 but that’s more of a engine limitation even then ds easily has the best out of all of them. The reboot regressed in many ways.

[Zoopy]

Originally posted by tigerpoetry:

snip

You seem to be missing quite a lot of context. Thief 2014 was poorly received even upon its original announcements. Fans and even many media outlets were negative about it, because right from the start the developers showed that they intended to deviate from what made the original Thief games so beloved. The devs kept rambling on about "retaining the DNA" of the Thief games while showing us more and more gameplay that had nothing whatsoever to do with why we loved the original Thief games, like gameplay videos of Garrett freerunning through the city to get to his objective in time (wtf, this isn't Thief).

They pretty much dug their own grave. They heard that fans weren't happy and still wouldn't course-correct. Probably also because they couldn't. The game had been stuck in development hell for quite some time by that point.

A similar thing happened with the DmC reboot. People did not like the changes to the series and the devs even mocked fans being resistant to change... just for the game to get very disappointing sales.

Long story short, both are games that tried to sell players something that they didn't want and failed accordingly.

Originally posted by tigerpoetry:

yet it clearly spawned the Dishonored series, for which we should be grateful!

Interesting that you say this, considering that Dishonored came out in 2012 and Thief 2014 wasn't even announced until 2013.

[We51nat0r]

I went with a theory that this was a descendent of garrets

[Bankai9212]

Down to the mechanic eye?

[jack_of_tears]

Originally posted by Bankai9212:

Down to the mechanic eye?

It's not a mechanical eye, in this game the eye effect is caused by getting a sliver of the stone stuck in it during the opening scene's failed theft and explosion.

[Bankai9212]

Shows how much I care for the plot.

[jack_of_tears]

Originally posted by Bankai9212:

Shows how much I care for the plot.

That's not really something to brag about.

[Bankai9212]

Why would I brag about the uninteresting plot.