DeusXIncognita

Ran through the reworked mission today. Was fine, although a few issues I had with St. Lucia still persist. But being able to pick up things without alerting everyone definitly helped in the experience.

Quite a few food items are eatable, but I think none of them are transportable in TDM, at least I can't remember them. For example big pieces of cheese, apples, carrots or turnips are things I regularly eat in missions - for the fun of it - and I think I never got them in the inventory.

My Mind just crashed. Trying a reboot.

If the usual levels in TDM would be larger, it might be interesting. The way it is, a reasonably trained thief should be able to sprint through most levels without much problems. If it was used though, the guards, at least those in heavy uniforms, would have to be affected by it as well, and more than the player (since the thief usually doesn't wear chain or plate).

Did you mean Outlast? I know an Outcast, but its nothing like being horror or unarmed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcast_(video_game) While Outlast seems to fit the bill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlast

I am not sure we played the same Thief 1. I never had a big problem hiding from zombies - if I wanted to. The big difference to human guards for me were a few things, but hideability was not among them: -) They dropped, but were not entirely dead, they would rise again -) They were slow and could easily be outmanouvered -) Not really exactly bound to the enemy: You were allowed to kill them on expert. And since they were no humans, I did. They hindered me in exploring so much. I dropped them where I could, if I had a chance permanently. What changed in TDM a bit was their vulnerabilities. They are hard to drop with a sword. After my first try I thought its not even possible. To me that really changed how to approach them, but they still had a comparable scarity

I can only find a "TheDarkMod.exe" in the main directory, that is the one, right? More performance is always welcome, and after all my Thief senses are tingling again.

I was aware The basic version still includes many restores and additions that some might not want as extra change. Thats what I mean with different approaches, where even the way the people think is different, in a way that one thing is too much a change for some, while it is no change for others. The way I felt it, in TDM, the mapper is king+. I do not always like that. There are inconsistencies, where I would really, really, really wish that outstanding parts are mentioned in a helptext. Like: Are vines usually climbable in this map? Are some pipes climbable... etc. But on the other hand, that means, whatever the mapper wants to do with his map, he can be sure that the development of the mod will not change that. If I can extinguish an oil lamp - and that wouldn't even need to be pinched, it could be turned down with a wheel stopping the fuel in some cases - it changes the way a map could be played. A path were I have to pass a lighted lamp, is suddenly cut in half for example, because half along the way, I just turn out the lamp - without a need to use a water arrow, thereby keeping my equipment for later. The rest of the way I can sneak, because its dark long enough at least. Not to mention that maybe the AI isn't set to light that lamp again, because the mapper "knew" there would be only the possibility to extinguish for example 5 lamps, and he wanted that those also stay unlit, if you use your equipment for them. If i ever manage to get forward with my project, there probably will be some way to extinguish some torches or lamps without a water arrow. Because I think that would be useful. But it makes the way I have to think about maps different, if that is possible. If someone later thought, it isn't realistic that a character can extinguish type X of a lamp, I really would like it to stay the same for my project, since I planned with that in mind. Recommendations for mappers, and options, are something thats really helpful on the other hand.

Abso frelling beautiful The age still shows, but the difference is easily noticed. That will be the time to replay it - AGAIN. The story and athmosphere of Deus Ex was, and still is, one of the best in a game. Since your decisions had impact, influenced what happened later in some ways, and you really had so many approaches - and if it was difficult, it was up to you to make it still work.Lethal - Non lethal - nearly entire pacifistic - it was your decision.And, really missed in many games: The realistic mode. One shot to the head, your (normal) enemies are dead. And you too. That really gets you thinking. But if you are good, you still can go in guns blazing.Don't want to fight a "boss"? Run away. Do your objective regardless.i have played that game so much that I can still say the intro, with few mistakes. Thanks for the hint, I am looking forward to another playthrough.

This dicussion reminds me a lot of the Vampire Bloodlines fan patches. In essence, as far as I saw, there were two main lines that tried to improve the main game: One tried to stay as close to the developers Version as possible, while fixing bugs and keeping it playable. The other additionally (to fixing bugs) dug through the files, included found conversation lines that were for some reason not used, included found items in the data, and as it grew rewards were shifted around, items changed location, some rewards were given on different points in the story line, items were reskinned, rewarded sooner, there were options to get a reward AND safe someone (where you had to choose before, although you didn't know), and such... Between those two lines, at least it seemed that way, there was a big trench. Both had its merits, although to different kinds of players. And I think the goal of both was to keep the original vision of the developers. One by keeping as close as possible to the delivered version, the other by including everything that the developers for some reason "missed" to include (the game was rushed to release), or which might enhance the feeling closer to the assumed vision of the developers. Those are very different approaches, one reluctant to change, and one leaping to change. Those same approaches clash again here, at least it looks to me like it. Communication between those approaches is, to say the least, difficult.

If it works that way, I think testers and mappers should definitly be able to see it. More information = easier debugging and optimizing.

Finally finished. Needed the help of DarkRadiant though. I love assassination missions, and this one had some high points, and a few low ones too, all in all it was worth it, but I think I like Ulysses 1 better.

Never change a running system. Never play on patch day (for windows versions I make that at minimum release year) Usually with a new windows something that worked before stops working, and I have yet to see a real feature of a new one that is really worth it. I checked new features of the new windows 10, and there seems to be absolutly nothing thats makes it a bit worth changing. To me there are two reasons for changing sometimes: -) There are big security holes, that are not in new versions (usually because of lacking support fot that version) -) Something new I like to try really requires the new version (happens with games sometimes) I'll stick with Windows 7, thanks. Every small TDM update has more significant new useful things than the jump to the third next windows, as far as I can see at the moment.

Since I have a broken safegame in nearly all missions, I use a "fix" to always have a backup safe handy when it happens. I describe it here: http://forums.thedarkmod.com/topic/17052-tdm-203-crashes-on-f4-save/?do=findComment&comment=368580 It requires a small bit of work and then always works without the player having to do anything additional. After you safe twice in a mission you have a backup safe when something comes up. The solution is not from me, I found it here in the forum but could not locate it again to credit the original author.

Better would be the action of the AI starts to ignore things. While the AI giving up is probably easier to do, usually the player is responsible somehow when such things occur. And that shouldn't be "rewarded". A door that should be closed for example, should close. Then again, the cases were it would be helpful for the player and he wouldn't have already had a possibility for what he wanted are probably few, might be that ignoring just does the job. I just have to think of the cases I did myself, of using gameplay techniques to trick AIs (in several games), that shouldn't have worked (like stapling boxes around entrances to stop them, and them walking mindlessly against them, using carried boxes as shield against visual contact and the like). Those are always a bit weird to me, thus my initial instinct of not having AI stopped of doing something by things the player leaves in the world, when in reality that would be no issue for them.