Jump to content

Talk:Thief: The Dark Project

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThief: The Dark Project has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic starThief: The Dark Project is part of the Looking Glass Studios video games series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 21, 2009Good article nomineeListed
June 19, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Mission briefings

[edit]

Parts of the descriptions are taken almost exactly from Garret's briefing monologues in the game. Can someone clean these up?--Drat (Talk) 05:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract rewrite and other stuff

[edit]

I thought this page didn't really have much to say about the game so I thought I'd start a general rewrite. I've just tried a new opening plus a few minor changes just to see how they fly. The training mission description is how I'd basically continue with the rest (I'm not sure how the quotes sit with people). The abstract might be a little unweildy and making new sections in the article proper occured to me as it grew. I'm new at this and feel the need to put in as much info as possible to avoid unnecessary clicking around (I use my mum as the yardstick for what a good encyclopedia page needs to say) and left to my own devices I'd probably put in more about the engine (despite it having its own entry) and plenty of other semi reduntant stuff. However I notice many wikifolk think clicking around is great and this-is-the-Web-after-all etc etc, so I'm holding back on that kind of thing. I do think that a section describing the game structure is needed (briefings, objectives, loadout, missions, cutscenes etc) and will put that in at some point. I also altered the Viktoria entry, partly because the fact that she works for Constantine is a spoiler. I'd probably get rid of the character bit all together, myselfMuJoCh 16:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okie dokey. Added a game structure section. It kinda hangs out there by itself at the moment, but hopefully it will be complimented by the planned Gameplay and perhaps even Story and Setting sections (not that I know how these will work together yet. The mission write ups v. a Story section is still pretty up in the air to me). Other bits of info might stick out too without the planned Cast and Development sections. All of which will make use of a good swag of references. cheers MuJoCh 15:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see someone has basically put back all the old mission descriptions that I took out. Well, I must say I agree with Drat; there's no need for them to parrot the lines from the game. The English is uglier for shoehorning that kind of dialogue into a description like that. Also the Keeper Garrett meets is not named so calling him Artemus is inaccurate. I'd like to let my edits stay for a while to get some other views. I have the older versions stored MuJoCh 18:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted to your last version.--Drat (Talk) 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I think it was whoever wrote the old ones trying to get them to meet halfway. I sympathise. Its awkward overwriting other people's stuff, but thats the nature of this wikibeast, so they say. Anyway; some changes, mostly missions, plus my shaky first image upload. Other sections in process. I was thinking; once there are discussions on gameplay and setting, engine features, development, reception and legacy (with pictures) the missions are going to take up a lot of space and might warrant some hidable subsection(if such a thing exists) or separate article. MuJoCh 10:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to worry about writing about the engine here as there is already an article on the Dark engine.--Drat (Talk) 09:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A big edit. Probably some contentious stuff in there, but I'll see how it goes. Some of it is a little awkward and needs some work. It's probably rude to just remove the character bit like that, but I was thinking that stuff might be better on the series page. Once I get a reception and/or development & credit bits going I think I'll shift the missions to a separate article and replace it with a plot outline if there's no objections. Anyway, have at it. MuJoCh 16:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the occasional 'you'? yeah it is a tricky one. I find it is generally accepted as being neutral these days, sort of a shorthand for 'if the reader were the player' in this instance. It's also easier to write to a lot of the time, more acceptable than 'one' these days and reads a lot better than tying a sentence up in knots over 'the player' again and again. Maybe that's just me. MuJoCh 18:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another fairly major restructuring. Forgot to add a summary. Sorry'bout that. Missions have been moved to their own page and a shortish plot outline is there instead. Additional stuff in gameplay and there's a reception section now. It's a bit messy. I suppose I am going to have to move to a more 'chapter and verse' specific style of referencing aren't I. sigh. I thought I'd better get this up even though there are sales and development sections pending. Those are tough to find info on anymore and I want to let people have a go at this new setup ASAP to see if I'm on the right track. MuJoCh 14:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note on the last little edit. I can't find anything to suggest that the "small" spiders are specifically called sewer spiders. Spider beast is what all spiders are known as in Dromed (as everything not human is a '-beast'). I'm also content to assume that the red spiders spit venom rather than magic, even though its the same stuff that comes out of many, assumed to be magical, traps in the game. Hopefully this is ok with everyone. I expanded an entry or two as well, just for clarity. MuJoCh 22:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game guide-like content

[edit]

At the suggestion this article needs serious looking at it's probably worth discussing this topic. Most of the edit to-ing and fro-ing around the Thief pages concerns exactly this (though it's mostly anonymous editors who may not be interested in talking about it). I am a little hazy on where to draw the line myself at times and I can see why people might want to include some of it as many game articles have lots of info on enemy weaknesses, hitpoints etc (though its not the sort of thing I'd add). I generally consider this to be a matter of what there is to talk about in a game. For instance, there's not a lot more to Doom than the enemies and how you kill them, so sections (or sub-articles) on these topics seem appropriate. Thief has a lot more going on than that, so itemising the ways you kill foes seems a lot less important. However the eliptical nature of the game (and its age and lack of world conquering fame) can make writing about its other aspects difficult.
The opponents section the way it is looks rather vestigal at the moment and I think encourages game guide style expansion. This was never the plan, but even some of the rudimentry descriptions seem to lead this way (what the enemies attack with etc). So like I said, I'm hazy on where to draw the line (or how to re-work it). MuJoCh 12:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cut out a bunch of stuff that had been building up. Much of it seemed to be a "How to kill the Undead" section. Nobody cares guys, and the discovery of those methods is part of the fun so its a kind of a spoiler as well. I'm also never going to stand by and have people say this game is dumb enough to include magic slinging spiders. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. So hopefully the neutral alternative pleases folk determined to believe it so. There's also some speculation about how certain AIs work that got dropped. Some of it might be arguable, but it's not really necessary and largely game-guid-ish. I also can't find any reference to the mages in The Dark Project, but I might have missed it. Hopefully nobody is too mad. MuJoCh 21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh, yeah. The new note on the ratmen is a tricky one. Some might say it needs references for the info therein. I doubt references in a note makes a lot of sense so the whole thing might need a rethink. please discuss. MuJoCh 22:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The City

[edit]

Is it just me or did anyone else identify the unnamed 'City' with London in the Thief series? I'm not quite sure, but I believe that there is a section in London referred to generically as 'the City,' and the environments presented in the Thief series also proved congruent with my mental image of London during the late Middle Ages or Renaissance period. Any thoughts?-- User: Q 18:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I got the impression of London but set in the 1800-to-early-1900's. In the middle ages and Renaissance periods, they were still throwing bodily waste into the middle of the streets. There were actual sewer systems present (hell, you sometimes found loot in them and could use them to escape if needed) in the City :) Shadowrun 16:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Garrett's Jack the Ripper O_o --Kaizer13 00:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Who is the composer of the first two games? --Tudor Tulok 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Brosius 84.16.123.194 (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs

[edit]

I think we need a section on bugs and work-arounds. For instance, the Air tower in the Mages guild has a bug where one or more of the moving platforms disappear. To solve this one you have to reload to a save-game prior to coming within a hundred yards of (either?) of the Air tower entrances.

Tigerwolfen (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Unless the bugs and glitches are notable in some way, they have no place in here. Korodzik (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful sources

[edit]

That's all for now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cutscenes from all games (transcribed) are on the Resources page at Wikia, all pages linked on the Resources page can be assumed to be an accurate citable references from the game itself.--Sxerks (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just got around to checking out that link. It looks like it'll be a great help, thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got around to digging into that old, defunct fansite link. Found some very useful stuff:
    • [3] - Looks like an old, unreliable web review, right? Wrong. Look at the bottom: Strategy Plus, Inc. Did some Googling, came up with this: Computer Games Magazine. This makes it likely that the review appeared in the magazine itself, and at the very least, it was reliably published. Very usable.
    • [4] - You may not believe it, but the fabled PC Gamer review, that least accessible and most treasured of old-game-sources, was actually in those links. If we format it as a magazine ref, but use this review for the text, it'll give us another print source. Either way, the only other show-stopping review we need now is CGW.
    • [5] - The aforementioned Strategy Plus magazine interviews Doug Church. Contains helpful information, including details about Looking Glass design philosophy and, critically, this line: "Some people have pointed out that the games often require a fair amount of investment from the player to get maximal enjoyment, and are hard to just pick up and start playing. In Thief we specifically worked on that, though obviously I’m not the one to say how well we did on it..."
    • [6] - GameSpot circa 2002, discussing Thief from a horror perspective. Considering that this is an important angle that hasn't yet been covered, this should be very helpful. I think GameSpot should be considered a reliable source, since it's from 2002. We shouldn't have any trouble with the source sharks.
  • That's it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found this: [7]. Dev diaries from 1998. Haven't read through them all, but they might contain useful info. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archiving this from Reception:
===Reviews and awards===
*Gold Guide for  Thief: The Dark Project A page collating reviews of Thief and Thief Gold from the
defunct site Gone Gold (via the Internet Archive. Most review sites listed are also now defunct)
*Gamespy Hall of Fame entry for Thief
*Thief entry at  GameSpot's "The Greatest Games of All Time"
*3rd annual Academy of Interactive Arts and  Sciences Awards (2000)
:Thief co-winner of the award for Outstanding Achievement in Character or Story Development
:Nominee for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Design

Gameinformer question

[edit]

Does anyone own Gameinformer? I think they made a feature about it in an issue a couuple months ago. I've seem to misplace mine. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! I just found the issue and currently reading it. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Hope there's something good in it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thief Gold in Development?

[edit]

I'm not going to start undoing edits, and I know GamerPro means well, but I believe the Thief Gold section should go under development. Any information pertaining to re-releases, patches, enhancements, etc. falls under the development section. Thus, Gold should be moved back; it does not warrant an entire section by itself. Please discuss. -- Noj r (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't have any plans yet for the Thief Gold section; I was just leaving it there while I worked other sections up to respectable standards. However, I can understand your reasoning, and I agree. Thief Gold is not important enough to warrant its own article, and is not separate enough from the original Thief game's development to warrant its own section. I would say that it definitely falls under the concept of a "re-release". I'll trim it up so it makes more sense in the section, and then re-add it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we won't knife each other, I got an idea. Look at this part of Super Mario 64 and let me know what you think. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's another consideration. That would mean that we put it beneath Legacy, rather than Development. It really depends on whether we consider the game more of an overblown patch or a testament to the game's legacy. By comparison, Super Mario 64 DS is clearly the latter, released a significant amount of time after the original with many alterations. If we think of Gold as a patch, then it belongs in Development; if not, Legacy. However, as there is nothing presently in Legacy, I suggest that we leave it in Development for the time being. When all relevant sections are fleshed out, it will become clear where it belongs. Currently, we don't have enough information to tell. The ultimate decision, I would say, rests on the intent of the designers. Did they need to get a big patch out? Or was it Eidos letting them fulfill their original intent because of Thief's success? That's what we need to know. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about the Mario 64 DS release makes sense. Thief Gold was more like a Special Edition than a full blown remake/re-release. -- Noj r (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still say we wait until we find out why it was made before we make a final decision on where it goes. Like I said, it's a testament to The Dark Project's legacy if its success allowed Looking Glass to complete their original vision. If that's really what happened, then Legacy is where it belongs. Otherwise, it's just a patch or special edition, not so different from those Game of the Year Editions that used to be so popular in the PC market. If anyone has access to interviews/making ofs/features that might say for sure, it'd be great. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this article, IGN refers to Gold as a Special Edition and includes three new levels. According to the allgame review, the game's 12 original missions were tweaked and tuned to balance the gameplay. Gold was released in October '99. -- Noj r (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant a comment from the developers, specifically discussing why they made the game. I own Gold, as well as The Dark Project, so I already know what's different about it. What I think is the deciding factor is whether they intended it as a special edition or as the true form of their original idea. Is there anything like that? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, thanks. Looking Glass always had fascinating development cycles, When the section is done, I would like to go over it again and source the postmortem material using this book. Its the same article, only published. They're gonna want lots of print sources, come FA time, because the game is older. -- Noj r (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good idea. Hopefully we'll be able to find magazine reviews from around that time, most importantly PC Gamer and CGW. I've already put in a request for scans of the Next Gen Magazine review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Development redundancy

[edit]

How should we solve the problem of redundancy between the subsections of Development? The problem is that information relevant to Production - things which caused delays, for example - also appears in the other subsections, because once again, the information is relevant to the subject. I'm not really sure how to solve the problem. Any ideas? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jimmy, development looks really good now. Just a small observation, do you think AI and Sound need subsections below design? -- Noj r (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its a little redundant. Maybe it should be part of Production Design. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Noj. As for the question, they probably aren't needed. Merging them all together wouldn't change that much, except for a bit of added clarity. So yeah, the sub-headings might as well be removed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, did that. The next few hurdles will be Plot, Reception and Legacy. In order, I predict that these will be painless, painful and excruciating. Legacy is always the worst section, and the one that requires the most idle Googling. Reception will be a pain for two reasons: A) The critical reviews that we currently lack will need to be found before any serious work can be done; B) There's a lot of reviews compared to other old games, meaning that summarizing general reaction will be more difficult. After I put a little more work into Development, I'm going to dump a few more reviews into Reception and then move to Plot. That Wikia page contains all kinds of transcripts, so citing the plot with primary sources should be easy. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I like working on Legacy sections. I'll get a rough draft started very soon. -- Noj r (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to format this reference?

[edit]

All right, a couple of the "citation needed" tags in Development are because I have the source, but I don't know how to format it. It's that "making of Thief II" video, which came with Thief Gold. How, exactly, am I supposed to cite it? Does anyone know? I've never had to cite a video before. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I do it.

"ScrewAttack's Top 10 FPS Games Ever!". GameTrailers. Retrieved 2008-06-12.

The_Making_of_Thief_II--Sxerks (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would also work, except for the fact that Wikia is specifically mentioned as not being a reliable source for use as a citation. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Wikia in wp:cite, but that wouldn't matter anyway as all the "WP:" stuff are just guidelines and not rules. It really comes down to anyone wishing to challenge the source would need to do so on this articles talk page. If you are worried about "open wikis" as a source, I can Protect that page so no one can edit it.--Sxerks (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work that way. Our plan here is to send the article through several extensive review procedures. Wiki pages of any kind are not usable as citations, according to countless debates and guidelines, and as such will not be accepted during these procedures. Basically, if we use that source, it will remove any chance of this article reaching Good or Featured status. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just went ahead and sourced it without a template. If the people at GAN or FAC complain, then they can help to find or create something usable. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]

I'm sorry about the delays regarding the legacy section. I'm trying to get into college again and its become time consuming. I probably wont get to edit until the weekend. Regards, -- Noj r (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps

[edit]

The article looks pretty complete. I say that after Plot and Legacy are finished being cited, we send it to GAN. We can continue to expand the article—such as the horror paragraph for Design that I'm planning, and extra work on Reception—while waiting for a GAN reviewer. Peer review can come after that, while we finish up the article. The big problem after that will be finding a copyeditor—I'm going to copyedit the entire article once we've got the content together, but I've never been able to meet 1a without assistance. This step is always a pain, and it took me weeks on Ultima Underworld. Hopefully it'll go smoother this time. After that, I don't foresee any roadblocks during FAC. As a side note, reference checking during FAC has gotten extreme in the last year; they're checking for reliability and whether the text is "plagiarized" from a reference, or improperly attributed. I doubt we'll have any trouble with that, but I've watched a few recent FACs sink because of it; we'll need to be on our toes. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to decide how to format the references. I have placed some books in the bibliography and then cited page numbers, but then I also placed a web page in there and cited the page numbers. I'm not sure if that is the way to go or not. Should all web articles with multiple pages be there? Even then, what if only one page is cited? -- Noj r (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know. I have never used a Bibliography-type section before; I've just stuck with the standard templates. I do know that User:TKD, an excellent editor who has helped me out several times, exclusively uses a Bibliography/References setup for his articles. That includes web sources. However, I've never seen an article mix both systems. Basically, I think we'll need to go one way or the other. The hitch is that I don't know how VG quotes work in the latter system; the lack of page numbers for a few of the print sources might also be a problem. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also usually stick to standard templates, but the more I see the bibliography/references style, the more I like it. It is more complex, but much easier to digest as a source checker. For example, I noticed that standard templates may reference a 5 page web article, but it doesn't reference the specific page. This makes it difficult for people to find the actual source. There are issues like that in this article as well. -- Noj r (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to do it, go for it. I like how it looks, too, but it always seemed like a pain; plus, I'm not too sure about how it's done. The big problem, as I said, is the lack of page numbers for certain sources. The majority of these probably cannot be acquired. If the system works without page numbers, then it might be fine. Another problem might be the Next Generation reviews; they're anonymous in the magazine, so there's no hope of finding a name. Then there's the aforementioned VG quotes. But if these issues can be circumvented, then there's no reason not to. It'll probably give us an advantage at FAC, anyway, as it looks more professional. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: the time constraints thing was removed from Production because of some stuff I turned up. The accounts I've read are too conflicting to be used as references, and the only developer comment I could find on it was posted on a fansite's forum. There's nothing to guarantee its reliability. Basically, it was removed because it cannot be cited. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. We could both learn how to do the fancy citing. Finding the page numbers for the sources cant be that difficult, is it? Anonymous articles are sourced with the magazine staff e.g. Next Generation staff. I think the VG quotes could nest in between the notes. But really, Thief is your baby, so its kind of up to you haha. -- Noj r (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. I guess I'll take a look at the back-end of a TKD article, to see how he does it. The page numbers, however, are a serious problem. For example, the Computer Gaming World review text is stored on the web. However, I have all of its print information besides a page number, so I made it a print source. Same for the "fun of fear" article and the PC Gamer UK review. The CGW review's page number could be located, as it's stored on Highbeam; I could ask around for it. Unfortunately, I don't see the other two being accessible any time soon. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the same thing turning a web article into a print article. I'll do some looking around myself. Maybe somebody we could find somebody who could perform a quick lexus nexus search and get us the information. -- Noj r (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Hopefully those PC Gamer articles are available through there. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horror Paragraph

[edit]

I'm not sure the horror paragraph is going to go over well at FAC considering it is mostly quotes. -- Noj r (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Thief: The Dark Project/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Prose and MoS compliance are sufficient.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    There's a {{fact}} tag in the legacy section that needs addressing before the article can be passed.
    C. It contains no original research:
    Discounting the one {{fact}} tag mentioned above, references are fine, the article shows some impressive research.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    The fair use rationale on File:Baffscrn1.jpg is flimsy, it doesn't convey the image's purpose well at all. Try redoing it using {{Non-free use rationale}} with a purpose more substantive than "used to show the game's distinctive graphical style"—what elements of the game does it convey and why are these elements important?
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The article is good work, though I'm placing the review on hold pending resolution of the two minor issues listed above. -- Sabre (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference material

[edit]

Reviews

[edit]

Previews and other material

[edit]

I'll add more here as I find it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous state of development history

[edit]

Observation: The article has two statements that are at best ambiguous, and at worst, contradictory.

The third sentence in the third paragraph in the Main open states: "It was followed by three sequels [...] and 'Thief 4' -- developed by Looking Glass Studios, ION Storm and Eidos Montreal, respectively." (emphasis mine)

The first sentence in the third paragraph under the 'Legacy' heading states: "Thief was followed by two sequels and a fourth game is undergoing development." (emphasis mine)

Based on these statements, a reader unfamiliar with the development history and current development state of the newest release would likely be confused. Is the fourth game (the third sequel) in the series under development, or did it release, and if so, when?

Suggest omitting one or changing one (or both) of these sentences so that there is less ambiguation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgensternx1 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputing Thief's firsts

[edit]

I've noticed in the wiki overview that Thief is considered "the first stealth game to use light and sound as gameplay mechanics." This is inaccurate and should be addressed. Thief's innovations stem from the use of sound, light and shadow, but it did not set the abject precedent for those mechanics. As early as 1990's Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, stealth games were using sound and shadow as gameplay elements - and I'm not sure that even MG2 was the first to do so. I see this as a common misconception based on prejudices and Thief's exalted status, which, while arguably deserved, should be based on its individual merits. Any article discussing its place in the stealth canon shouldn't ignore the history of the genre in favor of one game.Chairkicker (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's referring to being the first in first-person-shooters to do so, not in all games.--Sxerks (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy section

[edit]

"Best of" lists and so forth are properly placed in a game's Legacy section. Reception is for the immediate impact in sales and reviews. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, it's reception. Also, stop reverting improvements indiscriminately - if you have a beef with this, revert it specifically, instead of destroying all the other work. --Niemti (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can go and copy-paste it back instead of reveryting everything indiscriminately. --Niemti (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, only the relevant part is in Legacy, as opposed to just awards & accolades. --Niemti (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you stop reverting indiscriminately only because you have a problem with a single issue 9which is not even a problem anymore, because all the revelant content about the impact is in Legacy section alright). --Niemti (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you know you're edit-warring, yes? Anyway, for now - it's in Legacy (which is completely illogical). Its middle paragraphs, that should be at the end of Reception (of course). --Niemti (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain either scenario is plausible, so it' really just a matter of finding consensus. I have no preference in this particular example. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, how is Ken Levine not even mentioned? --Niemti (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is now. Also Better Red Than Undead and some other stuff that was curiously missing all the time. --Niemti (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? Also, what is "Next Generation Magazine 1997a". (Oh, I found out. This "a" was apparently a sikret code-word for "27 (March 1997)". --Niemti (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pretty much had it with your attitude. Also, I see you've once again re-added the Legacy material to the Reception section without discussion. When User:Noj r and I collaborated to write this article, we used the earlier style. He's the one who wrote that section, and I thought it seemed fine—to the extent that I've adopted that style in articles I've worked on since. Your argument for changing it boils down to personal preference and bulldozing. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If reception has too subsections named "Critical Reception" and "Legacy", then lthose type of list should make it into Legacy or maybe if theres enough make an Accolades section.Lucia Black (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The A-class thread

[edit]

Best thread ever. --Niemti (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I liked the part where you nominated the article without consulting the other main editors first. For the reviewers who read this: as one of the two others who've worked on this article substantially (the other is User:Noj r, who left Wikipedia last year), I can say that this article is definitely not A-class quality. The recent edits by Niemti have fixed some (but not all) of the content issues, but they have also introduced a large number of prose errors in the process. This article still needs significant work and probably a peer review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its been nearly a month since someone has commented on this thread. I'm gonna declare the assessment closed and the article stay at GA status. GamerPro64 22:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Thief: The Dark Project. 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 02:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Thief: The Dark Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thief:_The_Dark_Project&oldid=1202274260"