Jump to content

Talk:Thief: Deadly Shadows

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tom's To Do list

[edit]

Gameplay Issues

[edit]

As promised, I've written a new Gameplay section, describing the entire experience like a summary, without commenting on the features. It replaces my disputed "Game Design" section. Tell me what you think! -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Transfer of Weapon lists to Wikia Gaming

[edit]

The sections Thief: Deadly Shadows#3 Weapons and Support Items and Thief: Deadly Shadows#4 Garrett's Passive Abilities are essentially weapon lists. I suggest that I move the weapons to their relevant pages here and the abilities here, at the underdeveloped Thief Gaming Wikia. Is this alright, do I have your support on this?

Tomjenkins52 (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. That page also needs to deal with the enemy list, which is unallowed on similar principles. I want to add that I appreciate your cooperation. DurinsBane87 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support DurinsBane87, my pleasure to contribute. I'm sure Garrett will be smiling in his grave :) And, I'm copying over this conversation to the Thief Talk page, you know, fanboys will have issues.
Tomjenkins52 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the Passive Abilities section to say exactly whats needed. All the original text is available here.
Of course anybody could add but I'd suggest they channel their efforts in condensing the text, not elaborating unnecessarily.
Fanboys, head to the Thief DS Wikia at Wikia Gaming.
Tomjenkins52 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rewrites

[edit]

Article neutrality

[edit]

OK, admittedly this article wasn't perfect beforehand, but firstly, the Thief series isn't notable as a first-person shooter or a third-person shooter. It's a 'first-person sneaker'; the aim of the game is stealth, in its purest form. Also, this article has gone from being game guide-like to review-like and I notice some lack of neutrality. Wikipedia articles are not meant to say that the game is "great," they're meant to quote what notable others have said is great, like GameSpot or IGN. Details of the game design can be given, but in the strictest factual sense. That is the essence of Wikipedia. What do you think? Tds247 (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. I'll do my best to correct the neutrality. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Details of the game design can be given, but in the strictest factual sense." -- Corrected whatever I could notice. Anything else you think can be improved? -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"..review-like and I notice some lack of neutrality" -- I made it as neutral as I could. Suggestions to improve it will be appreciated! Also, is the review-like style objectionable? I ask that you show me a game article that is, in your opinion, well written. I could learn from that! -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "lack of neutrality," I meant a few things like "pale in comparison," which could be considered a matter of opinion. I love the Thief series and this is my all-time favourite game, but in the Thief: Deadly Shadows#Reception section, I have quoted praise for the game and I'm even willing to add criticism of the game to this section, if stated by notable reviewers like GameSpot/IGN.
Also, I haven't read a lot of gaming articles on Wikipedia; all of them have their major/minor faults. The article for the BioShock game may be a good guide to follow - it's quite comprehensive and cites a lot of sources. I actually added sources (see Thief: Deadly Shadows#References) to the article because previously it had none! Anyway, thanks for correcting and leaving feedback! :>) Tds247 (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"most notably due to its solid gameplay experience and storyline," What's this backed up by? Seems quite biased. "Although the first Thief game is considered by many to have begun a new era of 'first-person sneakers', Deadly Shadows may be considered the defining game of the Thief series, being the most refined and technically advanced." Firstly, "considered by many" is weaselling out of providing evidence. Secondly "may be considered the defining game of the series" considered by whom? Why? Where? When?. Thirdly: Who says it's the most refined, and listing it as technically advanced when it came out 4 years after it's predecessor is just plain silly. The whole Game Design section is fairly bad, full of extraneous information and just phrased oddly. Storyline starts off with "It features a COMPELLING storyline". No-one else sees the problem? 79.97.7.33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I've already brought up the issue of the lack of neutrality. I have mentioned previously that stating the game "compelling," and "the most refined," is unnecessary waffle, with little evidence to support these claims. As I have also said, I provided some references to the article (which I originally added since there were none before), featuring professional editor reviews by GameSpot and IGN, who notably praise/critique the game. I realize that the whole Thief: Deadly Shadows#Game design section appears oddly-written, but the article did not feature this wording (or section) until User:Tomjenkins52 added them. I have already requested that he remove the bias and unverified claims. So in short, the whole article may either require a rewrite, or a revert to the state before these edits were made. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Tds247 (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the issues with the Game Design section that I wrote. I've already begun rewriting it.
"I have already requested that he remove the bias and unverified claims." - Rest assured that your request hasn't fallen on deaf ears, and I'm doing my best to correct it.
And don't revert it to a previous state because other notable improvements were made to other sections as well. Instead either leave the text as it as (which will be updated shortly), or, delete the Game Design section. Anyways, I'm rewriting it and when I finish doing so, I'll inform you on this talk page.
-- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the Development section. Hope you like it! The intro para and Game Design rewrites are on their way. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten the intro section, where I've condensed everything important about the game, organized into neat paras. Its much better than the earlier intro, though it can be improved. Glad I found the time. Tell me what you think. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making good progress on a new "Gameplay" section, closely following the example set by good game articles here on WP. It will describe the the player's game experience rather than just commenting on game features. So hold on until I complete it in a few days time. Cheers! -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see #Gameplay Issues above.
Okay, great. 79.97.7.33 has listed what he thought was wrong, I guess. I just responded, and I thank you for your rewrites, because I certainly don't have much time to do it! Cheers. Tds247 (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting! And, more than a rewrite, its a completely new section, written from the ground up! -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]

The Story section is kind of a mess. I'm referring to the 'Story' section at the bottom of the article that somewhat resembles the plot. Here's some possible ideas to consider to help make it better:

1: Change the heading to "Plot"
2: Move it higher up in the article
3: Reword it so that it's not just a list, but more like a plot summary.

Those are my thoughts on that section. Anyone agree? Disagree? Cloudy fox 001 (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on #1 & #2. Done changes as requested :)
But I didn't quite understand what you meant by #3. Could you please elaborate? Thank you! -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Initially what is now the "Plot" was a mission-list which had mission summaries. So I rewrote and condensed it heavily, transforming it into what it is now. Do you want be to condense it further? Is that what you mean by #3? -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of the Storyline

[edit]

I have added the rewrite tag to the article; the storyline is a mess, and not quite what I was expecting.. That's more of a 'brief look at the levels' than the actual storyline. Cheers. Unconscious 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the Mission Overview in order to make it more like a story than a Game-Guide. Hope that helps! Where should I remove the "rewrite tag" from? (If at all)
The original expanded text can be found here at the Thief Gaming Wikia.
Tomjenkins52 (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry List

[edit]

This article is too big! There are too many fiddly details, and the article should be cut down some to bring it in line with other gaming articles. --Edwin Herdman 06:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Condensing and reorganizing the Mission Overview should help cut down a bit, especially with understanding the complex story.
The original expanded text can be found here at the Thief Gaming Wikia.
Tomjenkins52 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Level overview

[edit]

The level overview needs to go. It's entirely unnecessary. It should be replaced by a paragraph or two-three on the story of the game, and that's all it should be. DDSaeger (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its gone :)
I've condensed the storyline as much as possible, leaving out all unnecesary details.
The original expanded text can be found here at the Thief Gaming Wikia.
Tomjenkins52 (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons section

[edit]

I've edited the weapons section quite heavily for its game-guide tone, but I'm not sure whether more needs to go to bring it properly up to scratch. I'd appreciate views on whether it is currently appropriate in its encyclopedic register. Thoughts? --PenguinCopter (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests

[edit]

The Shalebridge Cradle

[edit]

I know there's a link at the bottom discussing this rather infamous level, but shouldn't it be part of the article itself? It was a pretty significant part of the game itself, in terms of gameplay, level design/construction, shock techniques etc. I would have thought it would be a noteable part of the game. --86.148.76.44 02:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a good idea, since I'm writing a Gameplay section, maybe I'll be able to include some info about it there. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

Should there be any mention of the reactions of fans of the series to TDS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.164.130 (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually been copywriting such a para, which reveals the "few detours Deadly Shadows takes from the series' blueprint". Issues such as rope arrows, lock picking, the blue tint of loot, fencing loot, hoarding equipment, melee combat and the inclusion of full 3D model for Garrett (instead of just a hand) will be discussed. So hold on until I'm done! Can you think of a header for it? -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issues

[edit]

Is artisticness a word?

[edit]

i'm pretty sure it is not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.48.190 (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difference

[edit]

"Thief: Deadly Shadows was very different from the first two games in the series in both appearance and gameplay." I wouldn't say it was very different. The city exploration is the biggest change I can remember, otherwise it's pretty close to the previous installments. --80.186.158.146 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC) - Agreed, it has a very similar overall feel[reply]

Yes, but the gameplay is altered by a complete change in the game engine. I think it does has the same feel, however, it is noticably different. IronCrow 20:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passive

[edit]

I've changed "Garrett's Always Active Abilities" to "Garrett's Passive Abilities". Regicid3 08:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol '"Always Active" --Meridius 16:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's lol about that? Cloudy fox 001 (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Previews and other material

[edit]

More as I find it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Thief: Deadly Shadows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thief:_Deadly_Shadows&oldid=1205684609"