rpanons | Okay

Rundown:

rpanons is an anonymous community for role-play related topics. This place serves as a forum for game discussions, canon discussions, RP solicitations (ATP, game ads, open memes), and advice. The occasional off topic comment is inevitable, but please keep heated social and political topics to their respective communities. Posting them here will only get them frozen. Subsequent threads made to bypass a freeze will then be deleted.

Rules:

Do not post pornographic or shocking images.
Do not share private entries, plurks, chat logs, etc.
Do not use this community as your social/political/hatespeech soapbox.
Do not be redundant. One page does not need three or more threads on one topic/theme.
Do not treat this comm like your personal Plurk or Twitter. Off-topic happens, but it should be open for discussion and not just a play-by-play of your life. No one cares.

CONCERNS | RESOURCES

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

and i completely fail to see why you'd have played the old games and prefer to play new garrett aside from he's... marginally more attractive. or, well, only slightly in my opinion. he looks sort of like he's got undue eyeliner and shadow on, but okay, if that's your thing.

his personality is, imo, totally gone though. so i guess if you want to play some sort of vapid-model au then go for new garrett. lol.

I'm just grateful that they scrapped the black nailpolish thing, because Garrett pls you're a criminal not a poster child for Hot Topic.

~~And old Garrett will always win in the attractive category to me because of Stephen Russell. That man's voice is magic.~~

good god the nail polish.

ia on stephen russell's voice though! he was perfect for garrett and really gave him life.

Unpopular opinion time: I think the new Garrett is a fine character. He doesn't have quite the charisma or complexity of his predecessor but he has potential. That's keeping in mind the fact that the plot of the new game is a giant mess. The characters are not well defined but neither is anything else. If another game is made in this universe they might have the chance to clean that up a bit. It's obvious from playing that Thief went through development hell.

Thief has been in hell since Looking Glass went under.

That said, I agree that Garrett has potential but that's only if you compare him to the rest of the world. On his own, he lacks any time of nuance or depth. Could he be fleshed out by an rper? Sure. There's stuff to work with, but it doesn't stop me from cringing every time I see him just because of how awful the game was.

*type

I agree that the game isn't very good. I used to be way too into Thief but nowadays I'd hardly consider myself a purist and I'd still call the game problematic. It's buggy, unpolished and generally not quite finished. It's not just a poor Thief game it's a poor game in general (in my opinion, anyway). That said, I have to smile when I see someone RPing the new Garrett. At least the franchise is getting some attention. I mean, I've never seen anyone RPing the Garrett from the original trilogy even before the reboot. Including myself. This account is fairly old but I haven't used it in RP yet (maybe I should someday). Maybe some of the new fans will check out the old games and love those characters too. Imagine Father Karras in a game. A girl can dream.

Edited 2014-04-04 05:31 (UTC)

Father Karras would be fun to play. However, I would be afraid that he'd fall into the category of not having enough history if anyone wanted to put him in a game. But, man, his nasally, rambling diatribes would be amazing.

Yeah, that's true. Karras might be appable in having a very well defined personality, speaking style and set of motives, though. History is a trip-up but we know a bit. He was mentioned in Thief Gold as having sent someone to Cragscleft for breaking into Bafford Manor and he was the one that made Garrett's eye. It's not much of a history but if you put that in the context of Hammerite history maybe you can come up with something for some kinds of apps.

Edited 2014-04-04 05:50 (UTC)

Okay

+1

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

sa

Re: sa

no subject

no subject