Give me a reason to finish Planescape: Torment (spoilers)
tritone
I finally got around to playing Planescape:Torment
(PS:T) this X-mas vacation.
I had purchased the game back when it was released in
(98? 99?). I fired up the game and was hit with
depressing, dark, graphics and an unknown gaming
system..I was turned off. I managed to get ouside of
the Mortuary, but got bored afterwards and left the game
alone.
Mind you, I was a newbie both to the Infinity Engine and
the D&D system (but not CRPGs).
So anyway, I started playing again recently after having
gone through all the Infinity Games, excepting BG. I
felt more comfortable with D&D (although for the most
part, I'm still not that fond of) and didn't have any
other CRPGs to play..so why not.
Well I played a bit longer this time and finally got my
way to Curst after finishing Ravel's maze.
I must say that the writing is very good and I have had
some enjoyable experiences...but in the end ... I just
don't want to continue. I don't *like* my character and
I don't like the whole "feel" of the game.
Likes
======
1) Good writing and moments of humor. Very detailed
(sometimes exessively so ) backstory on NPCs.
There is a *lot* to read in this game and I think that
some of it is a bit long winded. But, the writing is
well done and the dialog choices flow nicely with the
situations/conversations.
Morte's little injections are funny at times -- and seem
forced at others. The coffin seller thingy with the
pillow was hilarious, as was "Luis", the dresser with
the dirty mind.
2) Good idea of having the story based around amnesia.
It makes the game play a bit more compelling because you
want to unravel the mystery. Also, discovering your
tomb in Drowned Catacombs was a very cool, atmospheric
moment.
But...those major "likes" can't make up for these ...
Dislikes
========
1) I don't like the appearance of my character
Call me shallow, but I don't enjoy being a big, hulking
zombie running around with scars and tatoos.
2) Dark, depressing game world
Drab colors, and an unhealthy fixation with undead and
shadows. To be honest, I've never understood this
obsession D&D has with skeletons, necromancers, zombies,
and undead things. It's like they just love to
celebrate "death". The other thing is that it seems my
character wants to die -- to reach that final rest.
Well, I'm sure he's tormented by this -- but I don't
want to *BE* him. I don't want to *PLAY* him. I want
to play someone with a more upbeat spirit and outlook on
life.
3) Pathetic and soap-opera like love triangles.
I don't want to have these two women ( Falls from Grace
and Annah) pinning over me. It's not necessary to the
plot and it does not make the game more "fun" to me.
Beleive me, I love chicks in real life, but I don't need
some romance forced on me to enjoy this game. I felt
the same way about BG2.
I guess I'm kinda wierd. I'd prefer to imagine my
relationship with the party *away* from the game.. as I
would envision it. NOT as the game designer would.
And another thing ... why do the women who join always
have to be these HOT things? Why can't the women be
normal or even "rough" looking. Instead we get the
seductive temptress succubus and the fiesty young girl
who is still hot. Sheez. That's why I liked being
able to create your whole party in IWD/IWD2.
4) No bows
I keep waiting around, hoping I would find a merchant
with bows/arrows, etc. But I still haven't found any.
I even saved weapon proficieny slots in hopes that
someone could train me in ranged weapons. I cheated a
bit and searched the net to see for sure if there any in
the game and my suspicions were validated. No crossbows,
no arrows, nothing. WHAT? I love being a ranger type
and was upset that this path was not open to me.
5) Story is too heavy handed
The whole story is built around finding your lost
mortality. I just don't dig stories like this that rely
heavily on quasi-spiritual topics for plot devices.
Finding your mortailty, the whole Dustman debate about
getting the final peace, each death produces a shadow,
etc.. All this philosophical murk is just a bit much.
It's not that I don't enjoy "deep" stories. But I
prefer them to be a bit more grounded in the real world
-- of things we can sense and perceive. Like Gothic.
Here we have a simple story of a man trying to get his
freedom. That man is you. "You" are whoever you want to
be. The deepnes of Gothic comes from the human traits
of its characters.
BG2 had a bit of this problem as well.
6) Too much running around in just a few areas makes the
game feel restrictive ...
Doing all those quests within the Hive without having
access to anywhere else in the game was starting to get
a bit annoying. I was happy when I finally got to go to
the wards. A bit more freedom could have been used in
this game.
OKAY, so my point is. I'm not finished YET..but I think
I am at least 2/3rds done. Is there something GREAT,
surprsing, exciting that is going to happen in or after
Curst that will make me happy I finished game..
PS:T got tons of praise and I am beginning to think that
it ( like many games) is overrated!!!
Hong Ooi
>
>
>The whole story is built around finding your lost
>mortality. I just don't dig stories like this that rely
>heavily on quasi-spiritual topics for plot devices.
>Finding your mortailty, the whole Dustman debate about
>getting the final peace, each death produces a shadow,
>etc.. All this philosophical murk is just a bit much.
Bingo! Since so much of PST is basically dynamic storytelling, if you don't
like the story, you're not going to like the game. I suggest Icewind Dale
II.
--
Hong Ooi | "You mean Australia (and from your
ho...@zipworld.com.au | email address, I'm sure that was
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | just a typo."
Sydney, Australia | -- tW
Mike Webster
@news.supernews.com:
> OKAY, so my point is. I'm not finished YET..but I think
> I am at least 2/3rds done. Is there something GREAT,
> surprsing, exciting that is going to happen in or after
> Curst that will make me happy I finished game..
No.
> PS:T got tons of praise and I am beginning to think that
> it ( like many games) is overrated!!!
Why not just step back from "overrated" and just declare it not your cup of
tea? Some (many?) people, such as myself, enjoyed the philosophical nature
of the story. I liked the idea of a being plagued by immortality looking
for a way to end it all. But I like dark fiction anyway. I think it's
just a matter of personal preference.
Mike
Saint_Proverbius
> some of it is a bit long winded. But, the writing is
> well done and the dialog choices flow nicely with the
> situations/conversations.
My problem with the dialogue with the NPCs in PS:T was that they were more
like diatribes.
<3 minutes of NPC talking>
1.) Yes, go on.
2.) Okay, tell me the rest later.
<5 minutes of NPC talking>
1.) Tell me more.
2.) We don't have time for this.
<4 minutes of NPC talking>
1.) Enlighting, keep going.
2.) I think I've heard enough.
I mean, I *like* dialogue. I really do. However, when it's all one sided
like that, it becomes uninteresting to me.
> Dislikes
> ========
>
> 1) I don't like the appearance of my character
>
> Call me shallow, but I don't enjoy being a big, hulking
> zombie running around with scars and tatoos.
I didn't really mind this. I thought the Nameless One was pretty nifty
looking, thought it's kind of odd if you're playing a low strength
character. ;)
> 2) Dark, depressing game world
>
> Drab colors, and an unhealthy fixation with undead and
> shadows. To be honest, I've never understood this
> obsession D&D has with skeletons, necromancers, zombies,
> and undead things. It's like they just love to
> celebrate "death". The other thing is that it seems my
> character wants to die -- to reach that final rest.
> Well, I'm sure he's tormented by this -- but I don't
> want to *BE* him. I don't want to *PLAY* him. I want
> to play someone with a more upbeat spirit and outlook on
> life.
Well, that's why it's called "Torment". The guy you're playing is being
tormented by a number of things. He's cursed, after all.
I do agree with you that undead are overly used in Fantasy setting games
though. The impact of them has been lost because they're used to often.
"Oh, hmm, another lich. Oh well."
I think the only game recently that's had any impact on me with undead was
Pool of Radiance 2 with the undead orcs. After acres of orcs moving to one
end of the dungeon, and then being on the rim of their area and running
across orcs.. that moved oddly.. Then finding out they were fresh undead
ones. That's the only time in recent memory that I've gone, "Oooooooooh!"
to an undead.
> 3) Pathetic and soap-opera like love triangles.
>
> I don't want to have these two women ( Falls from Grace
> and Annah) pinning over me. It's not necessary to the
> plot and it does not make the game more "fun" to me.
> Beleive me, I love chicks in real life, but I don't need
> some romance forced on me to enjoy this game. I felt
> the same way about BG2.
I agree with you. I personally wish the silly romances would stay in
Japanese console games where they belong.
> And another thing ... why do the women who join always
> have to be these HOT things? Why can't the women be
> normal or even "rough" looking. Instead we get the
> seductive temptress succubus and the fiesty young girl
> who is still hot. Sheez. That's why I liked being
> able to create your whole party in IWD/IWD2.
I haven't seen too many men that were hideous in RPGs either.
> 4) No bows
No rangers in this game. There's just fighter, mage, and thief. No swords
either, but I tend to like axes and hammers, personally. :)
> 5) Story is too heavy handed
>
> The whole story is built around finding your lost
> mortality. I just don't dig stories like this that rely
> heavily on quasi-spiritual topics for plot devices.
> Finding your mortailty, the whole Dustman debate about
> getting the final peace, each death produces a shadow,
Perhaps, but the story is really the main thing going for the game.
> BG2 had a bit of this problem as well.
>
> 6) Too much running around in just a few areas makes the
> game feel restrictive ...
>
> Doing all those quests within the Hive without having
> access to anywhere else in the game was starting to get
> a bit annoying. I was happy when I finally got to go to
> the wards. A bit more freedom could have been used in
> this game.
That's my second biggest beef. It's way too linear, with gobs of choke
points that you have to pass through to get from one area to another.
If you're looking for a reason to finish it, though. I can't give you one.
If you don't like the story, then there's really no reason to go on. If you
don't like the limits on class, you're bound to be disappointed.
--
Saint Proverbius
http://www.rpgcodex.com - Putting the 'Role' back in RPG
Clogar
>
[snip]
> I must say that the writing is very good and I have had
> some enjoyable experiences...but in the end ... I just
> don't want to continue. I don't *like* my character and
> I don't like the whole "feel" of the game.
> PS:T got tons of praise and I am beginning to think that
> it ( like many games) is overrated!!!
Overrated? How can you say, "the writing is very good and I've had
enjoyable experiences" in one paragraph and then say "it.. is overrated"
in another? The game just doesn't seem to be your style, which is fine.
It is a dark, brooding game where you play a "hero" that is not
particularly good - and not everyone can get into that. The game as
a whole, however, delivers everything it promises and is one of the
best RPGs ever developed. Will everyone enjoy it? Probably not. But
in the same way I can say that GTA 3 is a revolutionary game even though
I DIDN'T enjoy playing it, you should be able to see why people praised
PS:T - instead of just slamming it because you got bored at the end.
NFLed
ever made (along with Wiz8 and BG2). It has a very different
atmosphere to it (dark and drab, as you say) and I consider
that a great thing (because it's so well done) but if you
consider it a negative then you will not likely enjoy the game.
Almost every aspect of the game I believe is top notch and
extremely enjoyable. However, if you don't enjoy it with as
far as you've gone then there's no reason to believe you'll
enjoy it further. The story completely draws me in and
makes me want to continue but if that's not the case for
you then it's just not the game for you.
As for your specific dislikes:
>1) I don't like the appearance of my character
Eye of the beholder; if the appearance of your character
counts as a negative then so be it; for me the appearance
fits in with the story which is great.
>2) Dark, depressing game world
Yeah it's way cool in my view. I guess it's a negative to you.
>3) Pathetic and soap-opera like love triangles.
Just say no to the love issues. If a woman wants you but you
aren't interested just say no and that ends the conversation
thread.
>4) No bows
I've enjoyed many games without bows. I don't hold a
preconcieved notion that in order for me to enjoy a game
I need to have bows.
>5) Story is too heavy handed
To each their own. In many rpg's I don't follow the story
because it's either only hinted at or it's too convoluted. I
had no such problem in PST.
>6) Too much running around in just a few areas makes the
>game feel restrictive
Yes the game is more linear in this way than BG2 but that's
a comment about BG2 and not PST. PST is less linear in
my view than most other crpg's although that's not saying
a whole lot.
As for being stuck in a particular area with a particular feel
that to me gives the game its distinct character. I can
understand feeling hemmed in but that fits in with the
character and the story much as it would in a Hollywood
movie.
>Is there something GREAT,
>surprsing, exciting that is going to happen in or after
>Curst that will make me happy I finished game..
Not in my view. The game is amazingly great throughout but
if it isn't your cup of tea then it just isn't.
NFLed
>like diatribes.
>
><3 minutes of NPC talking>
>
>1.) Yes, go on.
>2.) Okay, tell me the rest later.
That's how many conversations in real life occur when dealing
with strangers, it seems to me. I don't know how many times
I've had to sit through people complaining about their spouse,
their health, the government, etc.etc.
Luckily, in PST these diatribes are almost always fascinating
(unlike real life) and in PST I can just click through if I'm not
interested (which for PST was never) and then just read my
journal (unlike real life).
Invader Zim
"tritone" <elk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.187e3799f...@news.supernews.com...
>
> I finally got around to playing Planescape:Torment
> (PS:T) this X-mas vacation.
>
> I had purchased the game back when it was released in
> (98? 99?). I fired up the game and was hit with
> depressing, dark, graphics
read about games before you decide to buy them.
if you don't like games with philosophical stories, the ending of Torment
will most definitely piss you off.
you should have returned the game as soon as you saw what the main character
looked like, and as soon as you found out that the main character is
immortal. Also, notice the name, "Torment" ... the title even suggests that
the story of this game is about various forms of pain and suffering.
you noticed all the praise it got, but did you not read the praise itself?
it got praise BECAUSE it was absurd, brutal, deep, dark, gritty, depressing,
philosophical, and harsh - with little focus on combat.
you don't have to have any romances going if you don't want to. I didn't
first the time I played it.
Grace, for instance isn't throwing herself at you. Annah's in love with you,
yes, but Grace isn't.
You don't have to have Annah in your party. You don't have to have grace in
your party either.
There are what, 8 NPCs in total, it's not like you HAVE to have those two if
you don't want them, or if you don't like the interaction between TNO and
them.
and there ARE crossbows in the game, living ones at that haha, it's just YOU
who hasn't found them.
-Invader Zim
Grand Fromage
>I am at least 2/3rds done. Is there something GREAT,
>surprsing, exciting that is going to happen in or after
>Curst that will make me happy I finished game..
Since PS:T is my favorite game of all time, I hate to advise this, but...
If you don't like the story, don't bother. The game is the story. The two are
inseperable. If the universe and all doesn't draw you in, there really is no
reason to keep playing. I can't think of anything really different that
happens after Curst.
Spoiler space:
You do get to go to the Nine Hells, though. I liked that. And it's the only
CRPG I've ever played where you can commit suicide as an ending choice.
hmph!
"Grand Fromage" <ppk...@aol.communists> wrote in message
news:20030102165253...@mb-cg.aol.com...
You can do that in most CRPGs (though that usually gives you the load game
screen instead of an endgame movie). Suicide is the only way to finish
Ultima 9 (which is a damn sight better an ending than murdering the entire
population of Britiannia like in the original plot).
Russell Wallace
>PS:T got tons of praise and I am beginning to think that
>it ( like many games) is overrated!!!
I haven't played PS:T, and don't intend to, because while I like games
with well-written stories, I don't like dark stories.
However, I'm quite prepared to take people's word for it that it's as
good as it's said to be _at what the writers were trying to do_. If
that's not what you're looking for (as it's not in my case) then the
best thing to do is to look elsewhere.
Most people who have enough wealth and leisure time to play computer
games like dark stuff; I can explain my theories regarding why this is
the case if you're interested, but the upshot is that if you don't
share that taste, it's best to be aware of that when evaluating
recommendations of games (or movies, books, whatever).
--
"Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."
Remove killer rodent from address to reply.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
tritone
Thank you for the reply. I have some comments ...
In article <20030102140146.14130.00000384@mb-
ca.aol.com>, nf...@aol.com says...
> Planescape Torment is in my view one of the 3 very best rpg's
> ever made (along with Wiz8 and BG2). It has a very different
> atmosphere to it (dark and drab, as you say) and I consider
> that a great thing (because it's so well done) but if you
> consider it a negative then you will not likely enjoy the game.
We agree on Wiz8 -- a true gem. I finished it for
a second time recently. You see Wiz 8 was so good
I wanted to play it *again*. That's a decent
measure for how I'll rate a CRPG. I just couldn't
imagine playing through Torment for a second time.
BG2 was my first Infinity Engine game and I really
had a good time playing it. True, it shares some
D&D-(ism) that I didn't like --but there was enough
variety and excitement (esp. the combat) in that
game to make it a thumbs up.
> Almost every aspect of the game I believe is top notch and
> extremely enjoyable. However, if you don't enjoy it with as
> far as you've gone then there's no reason to believe you'll
> enjoy it further. The story completely draws me in and
> makes me want to continue but if that's not the case for
> you then it's just not the game for you.
>
[snip]
> >2) Dark, depressing game world
>
> Yeah it's way cool in my view. I guess it's a negative to you.
It's funny. There's just something about Torment's
atmosphere that's not my cup of tea. I've enjoyed
plenty of other "darker" games -- (Dues Ex, Fallout
(s), Arx fatalis, Ultima Underwold) but of course,
they've all had some sense of hope, know what I
mean.
I guess there is hope in Torment. But its a
different kind. Hope that your "Torment" will end.
>
> >3) Pathetic and soap-opera like love triangles.
>
> Just say no to the love issues. If a woman wants you but you
> aren't interested just say no and that ends the conversation
> thread.
Yeah, but I don't even wanna know that the love
issues are there. Just my beef.
>
> >4) No bows
>
> I've enjoyed many games without bows. I don't hold a
> preconcieved notion that in order for me to enjoy a game
> I need to have bows.
Yeah, this was kinda unfair. But I was
dissapointed. I just love seeing that long range
hit followed by a Critical hit screen "shake".
>
> >5) Story is too heavy handed
>
> To each their own. In many rpg's I don't follow the story
> because it's either only hinted at or it's too convoluted. I
> had no such problem in PST.
[snip]
Yes. Honestly I suppose PS:T just wasn't my kinda
game.
But I feel that it is possible to make an RPG that
satisfies a broad number of tastes without
sacrificing its artistic/technical goals. And when
a game accomplishes this, it should be rated
highly. I feel that PS:T, while rated very highly
by some, doesn't meet this standard. I mean words
like "masterpeice" and "best ever" should be thrown
around sparingly. I've played games for years and
you just can't throw out superlatives like that
unless the game truly warrants it.
Saint_Proverbius
news:av2cqe$434$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net:
> You can do that in most CRPGs (though that usually gives you the load
> game screen instead of an endgame movie). Suicide is the only way to
> finish Ultima 9 (which is a damn sight better an ending than murdering
> the entire population of Britiannia like in the original plot).
Fallout did that. Well, not really suicide, but close to it. If you joined
the Master, which means you were dipped and became a Supermutant, you were
treated to a nice movie involving Supermutants attacking Vault 13.
Originally, they planned to allow you to join the Master and keep playing,
but that was cut.
tritone
clog...@nospam.com says...
I say its overrated because while the story is of
high quality compared to other games, other aspects
of the game play don't add it. That's why as a
WHOLE RPG it cannot be a "masterpeice" or "best
ever" as some accolades say.
The fact of the matter is, there are games that
have it "all": Story, gameplay, music,
excitement... everything (Ultima 7, Wasteland,
Fallout 2). Torment ONLY has story and therefore
cannot win the WHOLE THING. Perhaps a "Best
Original Screenplay" or maybe even "Best Director".
But not "Best Picture".
tritone
hahano...@death.poo says...
>
> read about games before you decide to buy them.
> if you don't like games with philosophical stories, the ending of Torment
> will most definitely piss you off.
> you should have returned the game as soon as you saw what the main character
> looked like, and as soon as you found out that the main character is
> immortal. Also, notice the name, "Torment" ... the title even suggests that
> the story of this game is about various forms of pain and suffering.
>
> you noticed all the praise it got, but did you not read the praise itself?
> it got praise BECAUSE it was absurd, brutal, deep, dark, gritty, depressing,
> philosophical, and harsh - with little focus on combat.
Have you ever tried something you thought you might
not like with the hopes that you'd be proven wrong,
surprised, or even made a fan of. I took a risk.
Ever do that in life?
tritone
> >
> [snip]
> > I must say that the writing is very good and I have had
> > some enjoyable experiences...but in the end ... I just
> > don't want to continue. I don't *like* my character and
> > I don't like the whole "feel" of the game.
> [snip]
> > PS:T got tons of praise and I am beginning to think that
> > it ( like many games) is overrated!!!
>
it:
Heroes of Might and Magic II, Starflight, System
Shock, Ultima Underworld, Ultima 5, Fallout, Doom,
Quake ..etc...
Clogar
>
[snip]
> > Overrated? How can you say, "the writing is very good and I've
> > had enjoyable experiences" in one paragraph and then say "it.. is
> > overrated" in another? The game just doesn't seem to be your style,
> > which is fine. It is a dark, brooding game where you play a "hero"
> > that is not particularly good - and not everyone can get into that.
> > The game as a whole, however, delivers everything it promises and is
> > one of the best RPGs ever developed. Will everyone enjoy it?
> > Probably not. But in the same way I can say that GTA 3 is a
> > revolutionary game even though I DIDN'T enjoy playing it, you should
> > be able to see why people praised PS:T - instead of just slamming it
> > because you got bored at the end.
>
> I say its overrated because while the story is of
> high quality compared to other games, other aspects
> of the game play don't add it. That's why as a
> WHOLE RPG it cannot be a "masterpeice" or "best
> ever" as some accolades say.
Let's look at your list of "problems" here:
"1) I don't like the appearance of my character"
You said it before - this is a pretty shallow reason. The game
can't be good because you don't like the appearance of your character?
Very superficial.
"2) Dark, depressing game world"
This is a STYLE difference between you and the game designers - it
has NOTHING to do with the quality of the game. Period.
"3) Pathetic and soap-opera like love triangles."
Which, as others have pointed out, you DO NOT have to
participate in. I find it funny that you find an optional area of
the game that adds depth to be a negative point. That's like saying,
"The car has a hidden lighter built into the door that doesn't get in
anyone's way, doesn't draw any extra power, and doesn't alter the look
of the car.. but I STILL DON'T LIKE IT! I WILL NOT BUY THIS CAR BECAUSE
Of IT!"
"4) No bows"
There are bows in the game.
"5) Story is too heavy handed"
Again, this is a STYLE DIFFERENCE. If someone doesn't like
science fiction, does that mean that all SciFi RPGs suck? Of course not.
The same with this game.
"6) Too much running around in just a few areas makes the
game feel restrictive ..."
The only semi-valid point. Note that you don't have to finish
all of the little quest first, though.
As to your list of "games that have it all," well, there are
people that don't like them for style reasons. A lot of people WILL NOT
play the Fallout line of games because they are too dark and SciFi.
Does that mean they suck? No. Of course, I can go on and on about
the flaws in Fallout 2 and how it doesn't compare to the original,
but I'd be using reasons beyond "personal style choice."
Clogar
>
[snip]
> not like with the hopes that you'd be proven wrong,
> surprised, or even made a fan of. I took a risk.
> Ever do that in life?
I've done that. Of course, when it didn't turn out the way I
liked, I didn't complain about it afterwards. There's that whole
acceptance thing...
Clogar
>
[snip]
??? It was a fun game - and that's it. Nothing groundbreaking.
> Starflight,
Never play it.
> System Shock,
Didn't like it - not my style.
> Ultima Underworld,
Ugh. I have no idea why some people are so attracted to this game.
> Ultima 5,
It was better than 7, 8, and 9...
> Fallout,
Great game.
> Doom,
Groundbreaking FPS.
> Quake ..etc...
Disappointing. Very little story and RPG elements. truth be told, I
found the graphics disappointing, too. Truth be told, I never really
liked the Quake series until 3, when I think the graphics really
shined. Of course, if you don't like online play or playing against
other people, 3 would be a serious let-down.
Saint_Proverbius
> Let's look at your list of "problems" here:
>
> "1) I don't like the appearance of my character"
>
> You said it before - this is a pretty shallow reason. The game
> can't be good because you don't like the appearance of your character?
> Very superficial.
I wouldn't say it's shallow or superficial. Some people just don't like
being confined to being the Nameless One in all his scarred glory. It
didn't bother me, but I can see where some people might not like a
constraint like being the Nameless.
> "2) Dark, depressing game world"
>
> This is a STYLE difference between you and the game designers - it
> has NOTHING to do with the quality of the game. Period.
Likewise, I didn't have a problem with it. I really didn't think it was all
that dark, either.
However, if you don't like the setting of a CRPG, you're probably not going
to like the game regardless of it's quality.
Would you play a Pokemon CRPG if it was the best CRPG ever? I know it'd
have to blow my socks off to get me to play something like that. :D
> "3) Pathetic and soap-opera like love triangles."
>
> Which, as others have pointed out, you DO NOT have to
> participate in. I find it funny that you find an optional area of
> the game that adds depth to be a negative point. That's like saying,
> "The car has a hidden lighter built into the door that doesn't get in
> anyone's way, doesn't draw any extra power, and doesn't alter the look
> of the car.. but I STILL DON'T LIKE IT! I WILL NOT BUY THIS CAR BECAUSE
> Of IT!"
He doesn't have to participate in it, but that won't stop the advances
made. Romances in CRPGs are a pet peeve of mine. I really can't stand them.
Being flirted with by Annah and Grace annoyed me too.
Needless to say, I didn't participate.
> "4) No bows"
>
> There are bows in the game.
The Nameless can't use them, can he? I don't remember being able to use
them.
> "6) Too much running around in just a few areas makes the
> game feel restrictive ..."
>
> The only semi-valid point. Note that you don't have to finish
> all of the little quest first, though.
I would have prefered a more open ended CRPG in Torment as well.
> As to your list of "games that have it all," well, there are
> people that don't like them for style reasons. A lot of people WILL NOT
> play the Fallout line of games because they are too dark and SciFi.
> Does that mean they suck? No. Of course, I can go on and on about
> the flaws in Fallout 2 and how it doesn't compare to the original,
> but I'd be using reasons beyond "personal style choice."
I agree with you here, strongly. I didn't like Fallout 2 nearly as much
either. I've also known people who refused to play Fallout because it
didn't have elves, which really grates my craw. Fallout is still the
definitive CRPG in my opinion.
Lucian Wischik
>Most people who have enough wealth and leisure time to play computer
>games like dark stuff; I can explain my theories regarding why this is
>the case if you're interested, but the upshot is that if you don't
>share that taste, it's best to be aware of that when evaluating
>recommendations of games (or movies, books, whatever).
I'm interested!
I really dislike dark stuff. Especially hated Doom & Quake because of all
the yucky mystical demon stuff. But I loved PST. It didn't feel dark to me
at all. Granted, you start out in a mortuary -- but it's a funny mortuary,
with jokes and a wisecracking skull!
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
Knight37
> I must say that the writing is very good and I have had
> some enjoyable experiences...but in the end ... I just
> don't want to continue. I don't *like* my character and
> I don't like the whole "feel" of the game.
So don't play it. It's not a happy game.
> But...those major "likes" can't make up for these ...
>
> Dislikes
>========
>
> 1) I don't like the appearance of my character
> 2) Dark, depressing game world
> Well, I'm sure he's tormented by this -- but I don't
> want to *BE* him. I don't want to *PLAY* him. I want
> to play someone with a more upbeat spirit and outlook on
> life.
Hmm.. Mario Sunshine? :)
> OKAY, so my point is. I'm not finished YET..but I think
> I am at least 2/3rds done. Is there something GREAT,
> surprsing, exciting that is going to happen in or after
> Curst that will make me happy I finished game..
Well the game does not get more upbeat. At all. In fact the ending could be
a big downer for you if you're expecting a typical happy ending. The story
gets even more heavy handed and the game more linear.
But you are damn near finishing it. I'd say about 3/4ths done
maybe, if you don't dwaddle. Something I thought was pretty cool happens in
Curst at the end of that segment, and then I believe you go back to Sigil,
and from there you are able to open a gateway to the end game segment. I
don't think I had to do much of anything in Sigil after I got back to it
from Curst but there is a lot of optional stuff you can do. I think it only
took me about 2 hours after leaving Sigil to the "end game segment" until I
reached the credits.
Light spoiler in ROT13:
Or fher gb fgbpx hc ba urnyvat "cbgvbaf" orsber lbh yrnir Fvtvy. V zrna
guvf, rira vs lbh unir SST va gur cnegl. Lbh jvyy arrq vg.
> PS:T got tons of praise and I am beginning to think that
> it ( like many games) is overrated!!!
Or it's just not your cup of tea. A lot of your "Dislikes" were things I
enjoyed. :)
--
Knight37
"Groovy."
-- Ash, "Army of Darkness"
Knight37
Re: overrated PST.
> I say its overrated because while the story is of
> high quality compared to other games, other aspects
> of the game play don't add it. That's why as a
> WHOLE RPG it cannot be a "masterpeice" or "best
> ever" as some accolades say.
I could probably see your point there. Its combat wasn't as compelling as
other games. It was more linear than other games. Etc. But I still consider
it to be one of the most enjoyable RPGs I've ever played.
> The fact of the matter is, there are games that
> have it "all": Story, gameplay, music,
> excitement... everything (Ultima 7, Wasteland,
> Fallout 2). Torment ONLY has story and therefore
> cannot win the WHOLE THING. Perhaps a "Best
> Original Screenplay" or maybe even "Best Director".
> But not "Best Picture".
Ultima 7 had sucky horrible combat. It didn't have it all.
I can't remember enough about Wasteland but I think you may be right, for
its day it was probably a masterpiece.
Fallout 2 had too many freakin' bugs.
--
Knight37
"This is my BOOM STICK!"
Knight37
> FYI..other highly rated games that really deserve
> it:
>
> Heroes of Might and Magic II, Starflight, System
> Shock, Ultima Underworld, Ultima 5, Fallout, Doom,
> Quake ..etc...
I think all of those games were very good. I would put them in the same
league as PST. :)
--
Knight37
Our fathers were our models for God. If they bailed, what does that tell
you about God? You have to be prepared for the possibility that God does
not like you.
-- Tyler Durden, "Fight Club"
Knight37
> But I feel that it is possible to make an RPG that
> satisfies a broad number of tastes without
> sacrificing its artistic/technical goals. And when
> a game accomplishes this, it should be rated
> highly. I feel that PS:T, while rated very highly
> by some, doesn't meet this standard. I mean words
> like "masterpeice" and "best ever" should be thrown
> around sparingly. I've played games for years and
> you just can't throw out superlatives like that
> unless the game truly warrants it.
Well sorry, but we can agree to disagree about what games warrant a
masterpiece status. I do not consider what other people might like before I
judge a game as a masterpiece, I only consider what I thought about it. PST
to me was one of the few games to make me go "wow, this is really art."
That means for me, it was a masterpiece. Not a flawless game, but a truely
special game that is unlike any other. I don't consider any game to be
flawless.
--
Knight37
I don't even see the code anymore. All I see is blonde, brunette, red-head.
-- Cypher, "The Matrix"
Hong Ooi
>
>But I feel that it is possible to make an RPG that
>satisfies a broad number of tastes without
>sacrificing its artistic/technical goals. And when
>a game accomplishes this, it should be rated
>highly. I feel that PS:T, while rated very highly
>by some, doesn't meet this standard. I mean words
>like "masterpeice" and "best ever" should be thrown
>around sparingly. I've played games for years and
>you just can't throw out superlatives like that
>unless the game truly warrants it.
>
>
PST warrants it.
NFLed
>>satisfies a broad number of tastes without
>>sacrificing its artistic/technical goals. And when
>>a game accomplishes this, it should be rated
>>highly.
That is not at all my standard. Art cannot be judged by its
appeal to the masses. I certainly am no expert when it comes
to art (or most anything else) but I recognize PST as great art
and a great crpg. Tastes vary, though, of course.
Grand Fromage
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You do get to go to the Nine Hells, though. I liked that. And it's the
>only
>> CRPG I've ever played where you can commit suicide as an ending choice.
>
>You can do that in most CRPGs (though that usually gives you the load game
>screen instead of an endgame movie). Suicide is the only way to finish
>Ultima 9 (which is a damn sight better an ending than murdering the entire
>population of Britiannia like in the original plot).
>
Hm, I've never played a CRPG where suicide was a choice, beyond Torment. Of
course, I've never played the Ultima series--wasn't into RPGs in those days.
Grand Fromage
>the Master, which means you were dipped and became a Supermutant, you were
>treated to a nice movie involving Supermutants attacking Vault 13.
Yeah, that doesn't count. You get to be big and dumb and stinky! Ooga.
>Originally, they planned to allow you to join the Master and keep playing,
>but that was cut.
>
I was so disappointed the first time I chose to be dipped and found out that
was the end. I was looking forward to having fun being one of the Master's
evil mayhem men.
Grand Fromage
>at all. Granted, you start out in a mortuary -- but it's a funny mortuary,
>with jokes and a wisecracking skull!
I didn't think Torment was all that dark, but compared to most CRPGs I can
easily see the point... it's quite a bit darker than most.
Grand Fromage
>like "masterpeice" and "best ever" should be thrown
>around sparingly. I've played games for years and
>you just can't throw out superlatives like that
>unless the game truly warrants it.
>
In my personal view, there are only a couple of games that I'd call
masterpieces... Torment, Deus Ex, and Starcraft. Fallout 2 could probably
squeeze its way in there, but if you're going for one per genre, Torment beats
the crap out of it.
/throwing in two cents
Grand Fromage
>to me was one of the few games to make me go "wow, this is really art."
That's a good way to put it. Even if you don't like PS:T, if you look at it
from a completely objective standpoint of what it was trying to achieve and how
it did it, I think you have to agree that it did exactly what it set out to do.
There aren't many games that manage that--Diablo, Starcraft, Duke Nukem 3D,
for the ones I'd throw in there.
Grand Fromage
>have it "all": Story, gameplay, music,
>excitement... everything (Ultima 7, Wasteland,
>Fallout 2). Torment ONLY has story and therefore
>cannot win the WHOLE THING.
That's a point of personal opinion. I feel that Torment has it all, but the
story is the strongest and most integral part of it. The story is the only
part you can't remove and still have a game that works.
Grand Fromage
>it:
>Shock,
Give me SS2 instead of SS, and we agree. :) I didn't even think about that
one.
Clogar
>
[snip]
> I wouldn't say it's shallow or superficial. Some people just don't
> like being confined to being the Nameless One in all his scarred
> glory. It didn't bother me, but I can see where some people might not
> like a constraint like being the Nameless.
But, again, this has nothing to do with how well the game was
made. If you don't like being stuck to a single "character," then you're
not going to enjoy PS:T. That doesn't mean the game is crap, though -
just that said person's style doesn't match with the style of the
game. Another example would be: If you pick up an RTS game even though
you ONLY like RPGs, then say the RTS game sucks, the problem is
probably not in the game. ;)
>
> > "2) Dark, depressing game world"
> >
> > This is a STYLE difference between you and the game designers -
> > it has NOTHING to do with the quality of the game. Period.
>
> Likewise, I didn't have a problem with it. I really didn't think it
> was all that dark, either.
Well, the ending wasn't exactly happy... ;)
[snip]
> He doesn't have to participate in it, but that won't stop the advances
> made. Romances in CRPGs are a pet peeve of mine. I really can't stand
> them. Being flirted with by Annah and Grace annoyed me too.
>
> Needless to say, I didn't participate.
To an extent, I think it did. IIRC, if you select the "not
interested" style-option during the first advance, you don't see many
more. You're right, though - it doesn't stop the original advance.
[snip]
> I agree with you here, strongly. I didn't like Fallout 2 nearly as
> much either.
Yeah, that was a great game. If only 2 had been as good...
Of course, this also brings up another interesting tanget. Fallout:
Tactics was SLAMMED in this newsgroup for various reasons - mainly
because it didn't seem to be an RPG. The thing is, it wasn't SUPPOSED
to be an RPG. While I had some problems with the game, I just found it
odd how many people were trying to judge it as an RPG when it obviously
wasn't.
Saint_Proverbius
news:20030103052008...@mb-cg.aol.com:
>>Fallout did that. Well, not really suicide, but close to it. If you
>>joined the Master, which means you were dipped and became a
>>Supermutant, you were treated to a nice movie involving Supermutants
>>attacking Vault 13.
>
> Yeah, that doesn't count. You get to be big and dumb and stinky!
> Ooga.
Yeah, but you're not human anymore. That and you're sterile. D'oh!
> I was so disappointed the first time I chose to be dipped and found
> out that was the end. I was looking forward to having fun being one
> of the Master's evil mayhem men.
I wish they'd done it even if it was just for the sole purpose of being
involved in the attack on Vault 13.
Saint_Proverbius
> But, again, this has nothing to do with how well the game was
> made. If you don't like being stuck to a single "character," then you're
> not going to enjoy PS:T. That doesn't mean the game is crap, though -
> just that said person's style doesn't match with the style of the
> game. Another example would be: If you pick up an RTS game even though
> you ONLY like RPGs, then say the RTS game sucks, the problem is
> probably not in the game. ;)
He's not saying the game is crap. He's saying he wants a reason to keep
playing given his own personal tastes. He doesn't seem to like being the
Nameless One, which he'll be through the whole game.
> Well, the ending wasn't exactly happy... ;)
Depends on the ending. :D
> To an extent, I think it did. IIRC, if you select the "not
> interested" style-option during the first advance, you don't see many
> more. You're right, though - it doesn't stop the original advance.
I thought they'd still fight over you and squabble even if you picked that
one.
> Of course, this also brings up another interesting tanget. Fallout:
> Tactics was SLAMMED in this newsgroup for various reasons - mainly
> because it didn't seem to be an RPG. The thing is, it wasn't SUPPOSED
> to be an RPG. While I had some problems with the game, I just found it
> odd how many people were trying to judge it as an RPG when it obviously
> wasn't.
Fallout Tactics was slammed on most of the Fallout fan sites as well. It
doesn't have to do with whether or not it's an RPG. It's the fact it's not
a good game.
I've written this on many Fallout forums, but it's new here. So, here goes.
"Fallout Tactics is not an RPG." ceased to be an explanation a long time
ago and it became an excuse. For example:
Why have a world map when there's no point in revisiting towns? Why aren't
towns more like actual towns? How come I can't see towns until someone
tells me they exist?
"FALLOUT TACTICS IS NOT AN RPG!"
Well, that didn't stop Jagged Alliance 2 from making towns important to
revisit and interesting. How come the only useful skills are combat and
medical skills? Why aren't the other skills useful?
"FALLOUT TACTICS IS NOT AN RPG!"
Oh, so the army doesn't need scientists to figure stuff out? Or the
engineering corpes to do technical things?
See the point I'm getting at? Basically, a lot of the features that would
have made FOT a much better game were often dismissed by people screaming
it's not an RPG.
Invader Zim
"tritone" <elk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.187e8e27f...@news.supernews.com...
Fuck yes I've taken risks, and I've been near death more than a few times.
But you know what? I don't whine about it.
-Invader Zim
ItsAllJunk
"Mike Webster" <mdw*nospam*@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92F77E5F3...@216.166.71.233...
> tritone <elk...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:MPG.187e3799f90b47469896a1
> @news.supernews.com:
>
> > OKAY, so my point is. I'm not finished YET..but I think
> > I am at least 2/3rds done. Is there something GREAT,
> > surprsing, exciting that is going to happen in or after
> > Curst that will make me happy I finished game..
>
>
> > PS:T got tons of praise and I am beginning to think that
> > it ( like many games) is overrated!!!
>
of
> tea? Some (many?) people, such as myself, enjoyed the philosophical
nature
> of the story. I liked the idea of a being plagued by immortality looking
> for a way to end it all. But I like dark fiction anyway. I think it's
> just a matter of personal preference.
As a matter of fact, I only began playing the other Infinity engine
games like Baldur's Gate after completing PS:T three times. I
still haven't found the same quality storyline anywhere else, but
I keep looking. When I began playing PS:T I had the same thoughts
dark, difficult, strange environment, but it really didn't atke more than
a few hours to get me hopelessly addicted
Invader Zim
"Saint_Proverbius" <prove...@duckandcover.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92F84E22DAE9Epr...@216.148.227.77...
> ppk...@aol.communists (Grand Fromage) wrote in
> news:20030103052008...@mb-cg.aol.com:
>
> >>Fallout did that. Well, not really suicide, but close to it. If you
> >>joined the Master, which means you were dipped and became a
> >>Supermutant, you were treated to a nice movie involving Supermutants
> >>attacking Vault 13.
> >
> > Yeah, that doesn't count. You get to be big and dumb and stinky!
> > Ooga.
>
> Yeah, but you're not human anymore. That and you're sterile. D'oh!
>
or so you THOUGHT! haha!
-Invader Zim
mr bernard langham
"Hong Ooi" <ho...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:e6t81vocijjdumkrj...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:49:40 -0500, tritone <elk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >The whole story is built around finding your lost
> >mortality. I just don't dig stories like this that rely
> >heavily on quasi-spiritual topics for plot devices.
> >Finding your mortailty, the whole Dustman debate about
> >getting the final peace, each death produces a shadow,
> >etc.. All this philosophical murk is just a bit much.
>
>
> Bingo! Since so much of PST is basically dynamic storytelling, if you
don't
> like the story, you're not going to like the game. I suggest Icewind Dale
> II.
Or Counter-Strike. ;)
--
>^..^<
Bernard
www.cs.uwa.edu.au/~langhb01
"Acts of rebellious solidarity/Can bring sense to this world/La Resistance!"
Stereolab "French Disko" 1995
Russell Wallace
wrote:
>Russell Wallace <r...@vorpalbunnyeircom.net> wrote:
>>Most people who have enough wealth and leisure time to play computer
>>games like dark stuff; I can explain my theories regarding why this is
>>the case if you're interested, but the upshot is that if you don't
>>share that taste, it's best to be aware of that when evaluating
>>recommendations of games (or movies, books, whatever).
>
>I'm interested!
Okay, here's my theory: Just as our muscles and skeleton evolved under
the constant stress of gravity, and start deteriorating without it, so
the human mind evolved under conditions of stress - and deprived of
that, begins to destroy itself.
(If you live anywhere with a Usenet feed you can probably find plenty
of examples in your local news; I'll give you one from my own country.
Until recent years Ireland was effectively a Third World country -
children used to literally die of starvation in my parents'
generation. We've climbed out of that astonishingly rapidly in recent
years, enough so that people talked about the "Celtic Tiger".
Accordingly, the violent crime rate has also climbed at a staggering
rate in the last decade - you'd better not need hospital treatment on
a weekend night, because the hospitals are overflowing with casualties
of street violence. Not robbery committed for money - this is almost
people who kicked someone's head in, or got their own heads kicked in
in fights they deliberately joined, for absolutely no reason other
than that they felt like it.)
From this point of view, when people seek out dark entertainment, it's
a positive adaptation - in many cases, it just might provide enough
vicarious stress to keep their brains from switching to death-wish
mode.
>I really dislike dark stuff. Especially hated Doom & Quake because of all
>the yucky mystical demon stuff.
I guess this is an example of how complex individual preferences can
get. Because I liked Doom, and didn't find it dark at all. Oh, the
scenario _could_ have been used for a dark story, certainly - but as
it was, Doom wasn't at all about the theological implications of
encountering demons or whatever. It was entirely about having an
excuse to go around with a big gun admiring the graphics (spectacular
for their time) and blasting the crap out of everything that moved! :)
>But I loved PST. It didn't feel dark to me
>at all. Granted, you start out in a mortuary -- but it's a funny mortuary,
>with jokes and a wisecracking skull!
However, almost everyone I've seen comment on the game has said its
strength its is deep, well-written story, and to appreciate that one
would really have to pretty much immerse oneself in it; to me, the
jokes would only really compensate if I'm going to take it at a
beer-and-pretzels level a la Doom.
--
"Mercy to the guilty is treachery to the innocent."
Remove killer rodent from address to reply.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
Saint_Proverbius
news:av45hp$2ie$1...@news.cybercity.dk:
> or so you THOUGHT! haha!
Marcus lies! LIES, I SAY!
Hong Ooi
<speedw...@spammustdie.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Hong Ooi" <ho...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
>news:e6t81vocijjdumkrj...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Bingo! Since so much of PST is basically dynamic storytelling, if you
>don't
>> like the story, you're not going to like the game. I suggest Icewind Dale
>> II.
>
>Or Counter-Strike. ;)
Augh! The meme lives!
Hong "no, I DON'T recommend Counterstrike, really" Ooi
Joeaverage
> I am at least 2/3rds done. Is there something GREAT,
> surprsing, exciting that is going to happen in or after
> Curst that will make me happy I finished game..
>
> it ( like many games) is overrated!!!
I think you might as well finish it. Curst the town is pretty boring, but
there's some good combat in the areas below it, and you really are almost
done, because from this point on there are no side quests.
I'm curious to see what you think of the ending.
I also have a comment, you can shape the nameless one in many ways. He sure
as hell don't have to yearn for the silent embrace of True Death or
whatever. Some people *Tell* you about this. "Torment" and all that but what
the hell do they know? In practice you can kick ass and take names up to the
very end. Oh, and the ending wasn't all that dark to me :)
Lucian Wischik
>Give me a reason to finish Planescape: Torment
Reasons to finish PST:
(1) It will make you a better person
(2) You will win your state lottery next year
(3) PJ will ask you to do a cameo for the next LOTR film
(4) You too can be one of the cool people who post to csipg.rpg
about how PST is the best game ever.
tritone
If I went over the line here and I apologize. I have no
desire to get into a personal flame war.
After I sent this I wanted to delete the last line
because -- hey, I don't know you so why make that
statement. But that's the problem with the net. You
say stuff you don't mean sometimes but its too late.
Harri Polsa
known:
>1) I don't like the appearance of my character
>
>Call me shallow, but I don't enjoy being a big, hulking
>zombie running around with scars and tatoos.
I won't call you 'shallow'. I didn't like his appearance
either. Then again, I prefer to play female characters...
So having a big burly guy up there was a much bigger
problem than I imagined it would be.
> 2) Dark, depressing game world
I really don't understand why people think PST had a
'dark and depressing' world... I thought it was quite
'jovial' (for the lack of a better word). The undead seemed
to be happy about their current state, the demons and
devils seemed happy continuing their endless argument,
the various factions seemed happy spewing their
doctrines... The world may have -looked- depressing,
and it may feel depressing when comparing it to
our 'real world' ideals. But taken the setting on its own
and how the people in that setting behaved and talked...
I didn't see anything dark or depressing.
>3) Pathetic and soap-opera like love triangles.
These can be ignored. I kinda had to... I killed Annah (she
got hostile) and I always found Grace a bit pretentious,
so the romances never came up during my play.
>I guess I'm kinda wierd. I'd prefer to imagine my
>relationship with the party *away* from the game.. as I
>would envision it. NOT as the game designer would.
An interesting point... As a writer (of UA, DC and NWN
modules) I should stand up and shout 'how darest thou
question the actions of my characters?!' Instead, I find
this approach quite curious. I think it works like this with
certain characters who area not essential to the storyline.
NPCs who are more central to the story tend to get a
different treatment, and the PC is often forced (or given
two choices) to react and treat them in a certain manner.
Some players prefer to be told the story, some players
prefer to build it on their own... Finding a balance there
is difficult.
Funny thing is, I like to have these little romances in
CRPGs, but I rarely like the way they are written... The
best romance I've seen in a CRPG this far has been
in a user created NWN module... Shadowlords series.
It was subtle enough to allow room for imagination, and
it worked very nicely even if your PC is a female (the
romantic interest is a woman).
>And another thing ... why do the women who join always
>have to be these HOT things? Why can't the women be
>normal or even "rough" looking.
Sex appeal. Sex sells.
>It's not that I don't enjoy "deep" stories. But I
>prefer them to be a bit more grounded in the real world
>-- of things we can sense and perceive.
Agreed completely. I think it has something to do with
the setting, overall. In fantasy setting, people -expect-
some fantastic elements, like undead and eternal life
and stuff like that. So, if you write a story in a fantasy
setting that deals about more 'mundane' aspects of
life, people will wonder 'why did you put it in a fantasy
setting?' (in my defense, I will say this: my NWN module
happens in fantasy setting because I can't be bothered
to hack a modern setting into the game).
>Doing all those quests within the Hive without having
>access to anywhere else in the game was starting to get
>a bit annoying. I was happy when I finally got to go to
>the wards. A bit more freedom could have been used in
>this game.
I really liked the whole Hive part of the game. It had a
feeling of a 'real' city with its own comings and goings,
something that didn't really care whether or not you were
there doing your things. The city and its people had
personality, which made it more interesting.
>OKAY, so my point is. I'm not finished YET..but I think
>I am at least 2/3rds done. Is there something GREAT,
>surprsing, exciting that is going to happen in or after
>Curst that will make me happy I finished game..
I really can't say. I tend to finish games that I've played
that far (unless it's too difficult, which PST isn't). I don't
think the story gets any better. In fact, depending on your
character, the final parts of the game can be -very-
disappointing (somehow I managed to create a character
who couldn't survive the encounter with those three
incarnations... I had to cheat and alter the stats of
my character). Anyway, I felt a lot like you did about the
game (the story)... But I was interested enough to
finish it.
>PS:T got tons of praise and I am beginning to think that
>it ( like many games) is overrated!!!
It has its moments, but I think the story is overrated. Then
again, I think many other stories are overrated as well, so...
Whether one likes it or not is quite subjective, so I don't
get all freaked out when people praise it. And I do think the
quality of the writing is very good.
HtP
John S. Colton
>On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:49:40 -0500, tritone <elk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>PS:T got tons of praise and I am beginning to think that
>>it ( like many games) is overrated!!!
>
>I haven't played PS:T, and don't intend to, because while I like games
>with well-written stories, I don't like dark stories.
>
>However, I'm quite prepared to take people's word for it that it's as
>good as it's said to be _at what the writers were trying to do_. If
>that's not what you're looking for (as it's not in my case) then the
>best thing to do is to look elsewhere.
[snip]
I generally feel the same way. Yet, I loved PST. I consider it one of
my two favorite RPGs of all time (BG2 being the other). My
recommendation is to give it a go. If, after getting into it a little,
you feel the same way as tritone about the story, then don't waste
your time. As others have mentioned, it's really a story with a game
framed around it, rather than the more usual game with a story framed
around it. I'm guessing that 9 people out of 10 have a very different
response than did tritone.
John
*****
John's new usenet motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath:
but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****
Invader Zim
> Alright,
>
> If I went over the line here and I apologize. I have no
> desire to get into a personal flame war.
>
> After I sent this I wanted to delete the last line
> because -- hey, I don't know you so why make that
> statement. But that's the problem with the net. You
> say stuff you don't mean sometimes but its too late.
>
that's ok :)
I usually don't take offense to comments like that, but I've been having a
bad day, so I was a little edgy.
Sorry bout my outburst heh.
-Invader Zim
Knight37
consulted the bones and whispered:
> Funny thing is, I like to have these little romances in
> CRPGs, but I rarely like the way they are written... The
> best romance I've seen in a CRPG this far has been
> in a user created NWN module... Shadowlords series.
> It was subtle enough to allow room for imagination, and
> it worked very nicely even if your PC is a female (the
> romantic interest is a woman).
Shadowlords huh? Sounds interesting, I'll check it out. It's amazing how
much stuff there is for NWN now.
--
Knight37
I don't even see the code anymore. All I see is blonde, brunette, red-head.
-- Cypher, "The Matrix"
hmph!
The whole "FALLOUT TACTICS IS NOT AN RPG!" thing mostly started because most
of the early complaints against Tactics were because of the lack of RPG
elements. Lack of quests, dialog trees, (mostly a lack of all the things
that the Fallout RPGs did so well). Unfortunatly that became the standard
answer for any complaint against the game.
My major complaint against Tactics as a tactical combat game is that the
mission design sucked hard. They were too long and too puzzle like. I had
fun for the first few missions then I quit playing until I downloaded a
cheat program so I could finish the missions in a few minutes (instead of
hours) and see how the story turned out (crappy).
Grand Fromage
>> was all that dark, either.
>
> Well, the ending wasn't exactly happy... ;)
>
Which ending? :P
Grand Fromage
>>>joined the Master, which means you were dipped and became a
>>>Supermutant, you were treated to a nice movie involving Supermutants
>>>attacking Vault 13.
>>
>> Yeah, that doesn't count. You get to be big and dumb and stinky!
>> Ooga.
>
>Yeah, but you're not human anymore. That and you're sterile. D'oh!
>
Who needs to be human? I always wanted there to be a way to become a ghoul,
too.
>> I was so disappointed the first time I chose to be dipped and found
>> out that was the end. I was looking forward to having fun being one
>> of the Master's evil mayhem men.
>
>I wish they'd done it even if it was just for the sole purpose of being
>involved in the attack on Vault 13.
>
That would have been great. I wanted to see everyone in that Vault die a
horrible death. Bwhaha...
Saint_Proverbius
news:av4r2n$7q$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net:
> The whole "FALLOUT TACTICS IS NOT AN RPG!" thing mostly started
> because most of the early complaints against Tactics were because of
> the lack of RPG elements. Lack of quests, dialog trees, (mostly a
> lack of all the things that the Fallout RPGs did so well).
I agree. It's rather silly when you think about it because since when is
DIPLOMACY not a tactic? Even JA2 had speech abilities and dialogue.
> Unfortunatly that became the standard answer for any complaint against
> the game. My major complaint against Tactics as a tactical combat game
> is that the mission design sucked hard. They were too long and too
> puzzle like.
I hated the fact they were funnel missions. They just funnelled you from
start to finish without really much say where you went. Later on, they got
a little better, but those first ones were horrid.
Sam Jones
>
>Well I played a bit longer this time and finally got my
>way to Curst after finishing Ravel's maze.
>
>I must say that the writing is very good and I have had
>some enjoyable experiences...but in the end ... I just
>don't want to continue. I don't *like* my character and
>I don't like the whole "feel" of the game.
Just stop if you're not enjoying it. It's a game. And a story. If
it's not fun, Hong recommends Counterstrike.
For what it's worth, I thought that the conversation with Ravel was
the best piece of storytelling ever seen in a game. And I don't think
you're supposed to like TNO. He's just not a very nice guy, even if
you choose to play him as one. That, I can see could annoy those who
like more flexibility in their main character.
>
>3) Pathetic and soap-opera like love triangles.
>
>I don't want to have these two women ( Falls from Grace
>and Annah) pinning over me. It's not necessary to the
>plot and it does not make the game more "fun" to me.
>Beleive me, I love chicks in real life, but I don't need
>some romance forced on me to enjoy this game. I felt
>the same way about BG2.
Love quadrangle. See below.
>
>I guess I'm kinda wierd. I'd prefer to imagine my
>relationship with the party *away* from the game.. as I
>would envision it. NOT as the game designer would.
>
>And another thing ... why do the women who join always
>have to be these HOT things? Why can't the women be
>normal or even "rough" looking. Instead we get the
>seductive temptress succubus and the fiesty young girl
>who is still hot. Sheez. That's why I liked being
>able to create your whole party in IWD/IWD2.
You missed the subtext about Ravel then? You don't think a nighthag
is going to subvert the laws of the multiverse just because some guy
asks her nicely? I think she makes it fairly clear that there was
more between them than just him turning up and giving her the "answer"
she wanted, if you see what I mean, and I think you do. Or maybe she
took advantage of TNO's amnesia to have a dig at Annah and Grace.
That's evil, multiplanar old crones for you.
>
>4) No bows
>
>I keep waiting around, hoping I would find a merchant
>with bows/arrows, etc. But I still haven't found any.
>I even saved weapon proficieny slots in hopes that
>someone could train me in ranged weapons. I cheated a
>bit and searched the net to see for sure if there any in
>the game and my suspicions were validated. No crossbows,
>no arrows, nothing. WHAT? I love being a ranger type
>and was upset that this path was not open to me.
Nordom has bows, sorry *gear spirits*. His ranged attack makes him
useful in combat, especially when you've encouraged him to be more
than he is.
I liked the fact that they steered away from the trad fantasy
accoutrements, just for once. I don't understand why some people are
afraid to have something different once in a while. It was cool to
see the Infinity Engine used for a primarily story based game, and
they made very effective use of the stat checks to determine dialogue
options, something no other CRPG has matched yet. There's a lot of
replayability in Torment just from having a different arrangement of
stats, even though the game makes minmaxing futile in comparison to
BG2 or IWD due to the generous, in-context abuse of the AD&D levelling
system. A statpoint per level makes you pretty studly in no time
regardless of which class you choose.
>
>OKAY, so my point is. I'm not finished YET..but I think
>I am at least 2/3rds done. Is there something GREAT,
>surprsing, exciting that is going to happen in or after
>Curst that will make me happy I finished game..
There's a shitload of nice dialogue, but I suspect that's not what you
really want. Also, you get the opportunity to meet some of the
important characters you haven't spoken to yet and resolve some
unanswered questions. Plus, you get to see the poignant ending.
>
>PS:T got tons of praise and I am beginning to think that
>it ( like many games) is overrated!!!
No, it isn't.
--
"OMG! I LIEK U!!!!!"
Groovis
>
> > But, again, this has nothing to do with how well the game was
> > made. If you don't like being stuck to a single "character," then you're
> > not going to enjoy PS:T. That doesn't mean the game is crap, though -
> > just that said person's style doesn't match with the style of the
> > game. Another example would be: If you pick up an RTS game even though
> > you ONLY like RPGs, then say the RTS game sucks, the problem is
> > probably not in the game. ;)
>
> He's not saying the game is crap. He's saying he wants a reason to keep
> playing given his own personal tastes. He doesn't seem to like being the
> Nameless One, which he'll be through the whole game.
He *IS* saying, however, that the game is overrated. That means that
his personal preference in gaming style is supposed to be some kind of
standard in measuring whether a game is overrated or actually good.
I take overrated as meaning that those people who think it's a great
game are wrong or are exaggerating.
-Groovis
Groovis
> Saint_Proverbius wrote:
> > He doesn't have to participate in it, but that won't stop the advances
> > made. Romances in CRPGs are a pet peeve of mine. I really can't stand
> > them. Being flirted with by Annah and Grace annoyed me too.
> >
> > Needless to say, I didn't participate.
>
> To an extent, I think it did. IIRC, if you select the "not
> interested" style-option during the first advance, you don't see many
> more. You're right, though - it doesn't stop the original advance.
That's kinda an odd request though. How is a game supposed to know the
personal preferences of a gamer (whether he likes romances or not) if
it doesn't ask? Just the fact that it gives the option to refuse
should be enough.
What about this: in a graphical adventure game, at a certain point, a
character asks you if you want to pilot the
mega-funky-armored-speedboat or if you want him to take over. If you
pilot it, you get an action sequence. Would some people, who don't
like action sequences, be angry because the game hinted that there was
the possibility of an action sequence?
-Groovis
Groovis
> tritone wrote:
> > Starflight,
>
> Never play it.
I think it's a great exploration game, but I like Star Control II a
hell of a lot more.
> > System Shock,
>
> Didn't like it - not my style.
I find it very atmospheric (?), meaning that I felt dragged into the
game and the ugly things really freaked me out, as much or more so
than, say, Alone in the Dark. I felt the ending very rewarding.
> > Ultima Underworld,
>
> Ugh. I have no idea why some people are so attracted to this game.
Let's see, wasn't it like, groundbreaking during the times of
Wolfenstein 3D and such?
> > Ultima 5,
>
> It was better than 7, 8, and 9...
But Ultima IV was the best of the lot... and it just went downhill
from there in the music department.
> > Fallout,
>
> Great game.
Yeah.
> > Doom,
>
> Groundbreaking FPS.
I have the source somewhere. Really amazing stuff...
> > Quake ..etc...
>
> Disappointing. Very little story and RPG elements. truth be told, I
> found the graphics disappointing, too. Truth be told, I never really
> liked the Quake series until 3, when I think the graphics really
> shined. Of course, if you don't like online play or playing against
> other people, 3 would be a serious let-down.
I think nothing describes Quake better than this:
It's too damn BROWN. (maybe that's why I liked the X-Men mod so much)
That, and it's just me or do anyone feel that without a "use" key, you
feel like you're bumping into buttons with your head?
-Groovis
Groovis
> > >3) Pathetic and soap-opera like love triangles.
> >
> > aren't interested just say no and that ends the conversation
> > thread.
>
> Yeah, but I don't even wanna know that the love
> issues are there. Just my beef.
That's really odd. A bit like complaining about the "turn off
violence" option in some games because you don't even wanna know that
the violence is there.
How about a deaf person being pissed that the game has a "turn sound
on/off" button, because he hates to be reminded that the game has
sound? Or complaining that a movie is rated as "for the whole family"
because it reminds you of all the adult movies out there?
-Groovis
Groovis
> >
> > I finally got around to playing Planescape:Torment
> > (PS:T) this X-mas vacation.
> >
> > I had purchased the game back when it was released in
> > (98? 99?). I fired up the game and was hit with
> > depressing, dark, graphics
>
> read about games before you decide to buy them.
> if you don't like games with philosophical stories, the ending of Torment
> will most definitely piss you off.
> you should have returned the game as soon as you saw what the main character
> looked like, and as soon as you found out that the main character is
> immortal. Also, notice the name, "Torment" ... the title even suggests that
> the story of this game is about various forms of pain and suffering.
Wasn't all that, including the main character's face, and the
description of tormentous immortality, like, painted really big on the
outside of the box? ;)
Isn't that like the product tagline or something?
> you noticed all the praise it got, but did you not read the praise itself?
> it got praise BECAUSE it was absurd, brutal, deep, dark, gritty, depressing,
> philosophical, and harsh - with little focus on combat.
Yeah, kinda like complaining about a shooter because it has too much
shooting?
-Groovis
Saint_Proverbius
news:5e21c476.03010...@posting.google.com:
>> > Ultima Underworld,
>>
>> Ugh. I have no idea why some people are so attracted to this game.
>
> Let's see, wasn't it like, groundbreaking during the times of
> Wolfenstein 3D and such?
It came out after Doom 2, I think. Around the time ROTT and the other Doom
clones were in their hayday.
Invader Zim
> sergio_p...@hotmail.com (Groovis) wrote in
> news:5e21c476.03010...@posting.google.com:
>
> >> > Ultima Underworld,
> >>
> >> Ugh. I have no idea why some people are so attracted to this game.
> >
> > Let's see, wasn't it like, groundbreaking during the times of
> > Wolfenstein 3D and such?
>
> It came out after Doom 2, I think. Around the time ROTT and the other Doom
> clones were in their hayday.
>
You must be thinking of underworld 2, which I remember getting around the
time ROTT came out.
-Invader Zim
mr bernard langham
"Groovis" <sergio_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e21c476.0301...@posting.google.com...
> tritone <elk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<MPG.187e89389...@news.supernews.com>...
> > > >3) Pathetic and soap-opera like love triangles.
> > >
> > > Just say no to the love issues. If a woman wants you but you
> > > aren't interested just say no and that ends the conversation
> > > thread.
> >
> > Yeah, but I don't even wanna know that the love
> > issues are there. Just my beef.
>
> That's really odd. A bit like complaining about the "turn off
> violence" option in some games because you don't even wanna know that
> the violence is there.
Can you say, "crisis in hypermasculinity?" ;p
mr bernard langham
"Groovis" <sergio_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > you noticed all the praise it got, but did you not read the praise
itself?
> > it got praise BECAUSE it was absurd, brutal, deep, dark, gritty,
depressing,
> > philosophical, and harsh - with little focus on combat.
They should have put that tagline on the box! I'd have bought it in a flash.
....Oh, I did. ;p
Clogar
>
[snip]
> He's not saying the game is crap.
What Groovis said. ;)
[snip]
> I thought they'd still fight over you and squabble even if you picked
> that one.
Nope.
[snip]
> Fallout Tactics was slammed on most of the Fallout fan sites as well.
Because it was being judged as an RPG instead of a tactical
game. ;) RTS sites generally gave it an "average" rating.
> It doesn't have to do with whether or not it's an RPG. It's the fact
> it's not a good game.
We disagree - I find it simply an average game.
[snip]
> Why have a world map when there's no point in revisiting towns?
??? It has been a while since I played, but.. I thought you could
still visit old areas in order to "clear" them for XP/items/etc? Is
this not the case?
> Why aren't towns more like actual towns?
Maybe you want a Dairy Queen on every map or something? ;)
> How come I can't see towns until someone tells me they exist?
Because the game is done in a linear strategy style, not in an RPG
style. In such a style, you're generally placed on a playfield and
given an objective, then forced to complete that objective in order
to win. You can go down multiple paths on the playfield (and find
multiple ways to enter a building, ambush a guard, etc..), but you can
not just abandon a map and go onto another objective (something you
can do in an RPG).
> "FALLOUT TACTICS IS NOT AN RPG!"
>
> Well, that didn't stop Jagged Alliance 2 from making towns important
> to revisit and interesting.
It stopped JA1, Warcraft, Starcraft, etc, etc, etc.. from making
"towns" important to revisit and "interesting." Once you're done with
a map in one of those games, it is gone. That's the nature of many
strategy games.
> How come the only useful skills are combat and
> medical skills? Why aren't the other skills useful?
>
> "FALLOUT TACTICS IS NOT AN RPG!"
Exactlt. See, this is a squad tactics game, not a "build your own
society" game. This is like asking, "Why can't my Navy Seals in SOCOM
bake bread or paint landscapes during a mission? Why can't my avatar
in Quake 3 get a mop and sponge and clean up the bullets/blood during
a capture the flag match?" The reason is: those actions were deemed
not very important to the style of game, and so were not included.
> Oh, so the army doesn't need scientists to figure stuff out? Or the
> engineering corpes to do technical things?
Those people generally aren't sent on small-team "mop up" missions
to rescue hostages or destroy enemy camps.
> See the point I'm getting at? Basically, a lot of the features that
> would have made FOT a much better game were often dismissed by people
> screaming it's not an RPG.
Exactly. :)
I have problems with aspects of FO:T, but they deal more with
"strategy," "mechanics," and the "linear nature" of the game rather than
the RPG aspects you're talking about.
Clogar
>
[snip]
> > > Ultima Underworld,
> >
> > Ugh. I have no idea why some people are so attracted to this game.
>
> Let's see, wasn't it like, groundbreaking during the times of
> Wolfenstein 3D and such?
I don't recall it being that groundbreaking. The most
groundbreaking game of that style that I can recall is.. Dungeon
Master GS? I want to say some of the D&D "FP" games, but I think
they came later...
[snip]
> I think nothing describes Quake better than this:
>
> It's too damn BROWN. (maybe that's why I liked the X-Men mod so much)
>
> That, and it's just me or do anyone feel that without a "use" key, you
> feel like you're bumping into buttons with your head?
::Chuckle:: Ah, the memories.
Michael Albertsen
Honestly, I don't think Torment works very well as a computer roleplaying
game. It plays much more like an adventure, and that wasn't what I was
looking for when I got it.
The combat is boring and unbalanced (too easy). There is not enough
character customization. It uses a heavily modified D&D system, which goes
against the idea of using such an established set of rules.
The game is based primarily on its writing, which can work, and apparently
it did for a lot of people. I don't mind reading myself, but that's what we
have books for. I like my games to take advantage of the technology, and
tell a story through more cinematic means. I love finding books with lots of
text in these games, though, because I get to choose if and when to read
them.
The way dialogue is handled is very traditional, but this kind of system
strikes me as being a little silly. They give you very limited freedom in
how to respond, which means that the illusion of roleplaying is just that,
an illusion. Too quickly, games using this system end up annoying me because
I have to exhaust the dialogue tree to get to the point, which is too akin
to working for my tastes. I also strongly dislike being forced to respond in
ways I would never do, just so the designers can get their story out. I much
prefer a topic-based conversation system, though it's much harder to create
one that works well.
I'm probably being a little harsh, and in truth many of my favorite games
use the same kind of system, but since Torment is being hailed as this great
roleplaying experience, I just wanted to point out how limited the player
actually is. Also, there is a lot more to be said for freedom to act than
solely freedom to respond. All the Infinity games grant only extremely
limited ways in which to act. This is because they use rendered 2D
backgrounds with 2D sprites, and so allowing things like climbing, riding,
swimming etc. becomes much too cumbersome. Too bad they insisted on a
tile-based 3D engine for Neverwinter Nights, which presents much the same
problem.
Oh my, I'm starting to ramble here... Better end it now.
Torment is a wonderful book and a mediocre CRPG.
- Faramir
tritone
<5e21c476.0301...@posting.google.com>,
sergio_p...@hotmail.com says...
LOL.
I know it sounds strange. I just don't wanna be loved
unless *I* want it in the story. It's just a minor
thing. Not something that I would consider a "deal
breaker". I still think BG2 is the best of the IE games
despite its romances. Hell, that whole game just looks
pretty and I spent quite a while drooling over Jaheria's
potrait. :-). I mean, she is soo hot.
tritone
I need to follow up with more explanation about my love
for Jaheria. Probably because it seems to contradict my
statements about "too many hot chicks" made in my PS:T
tomrents.
You see, Jaheria is quite a looker, but if you study her
face, there is a sense of hardiness. A feeling that she
has experienced much in the world in the way of combat
and human interactions. She's not just some pretty
face they threw in there and made us beleive that she
could hold her own with a sword. You see I look at
Jaheria and I can beleive that she would have my back in
battle. That she would be loyal no matter what. She also
has a husky voice that is both vunerable and confident
at once. Quite a package.
In article <MPG.1880d3fe8dafbf9c9896a5
@news.supernews.com>, elk...@yahoo.com says...
Ykalon Dragon
>> Planescape Torment is in my view one of the 3 very best rpg's
>> ever made (along with Wiz8 and BG2).
>
>We agree on Wiz8 -- a true gem. I finished it for
>a second time recently. You see Wiz 8 was so good
>I wanted to play it *again*. That's a decent
>measure for how I'll rate a CRPG. I just couldn't
>imagine playing through Torment for a second time.
I played through Torment 4 times...
>
>Yeah, this was kinda unfair. But I was
>dissapointed. I just love seeing that long range
>hit followed by a Critical hit screen "shake".
Well Nordom the modron has crossbows....
>
>Yes. Honestly I suppose PS:T just wasn't my kinda
>game.
>
>But I feel that it is possible to make an RPG that
>satisfies a broad number of tastes without
>sacrificing its artistic/technical goals. And when
>a game accomplishes this, it should be rated
>highly.
I actually don't agree. Trying to satisfy everyone usually makes a bad
game. Look at Pool of Radiance 2 as an example. If they had stayed
with the second edition rules it would probably have been a better
game, but no the fans wanted third edition so they had to make a lot
of sacrifices to put that in.
>I feel that PS:T, while rated very highly
>by some, doesn't meet this standard. I mean words
>like "masterpeice" and "best ever" should be thrown
>around sparingly. I've played games for years and
>you just can't throw out superlatives like that
>unless the game truly warrants it.
>
>
It's just that Torment really DESERVES all those superlatives. It IS
one of the greatest games of all time, even surpassing Betrayal at
Krondor.
--
Metropolis has nothing on this
You're breathing in fumes
I taste when we kiss
-Depeche Mode "Stripped"
Ykalon Dragon
>> Ultima 5,
>
>It was better than 7, 8, and 9...
>
Maybe better than 8, possibly better than 9, but NO WAY is it better
than 7. If there is one Ultima everyone should have it's Ultima 7, no
competition.
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 23:43:46 GMT, Clogar <clog...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Ultima 5,
>>
>>It was better than 7, 8, and 9...
>>
>Maybe better than 8, possibly better than 9, but NO WAY is it better
>than 7. If there is one Ultima everyone should have it's Ultima 7, no
>competition.
What U7 really accomplished was to get the "baking bread" bandwagon
rolling, after U6 started it on its way. Personally, since I think baking
bread is almost, but not quite, as interesting as filling out tax returns,
I think U4 and 5 have it beat, especially when it comes to plot, combat and
sense of scale.
In fact I liked U4 so much, I turned it into a 3rd Ed D&D setting!
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/britannia/
Note: I'm _not_ a stickler for being faithful to canon, so if this is
important to you, it won't be to your liking. But I think it's true to the
_spirit_ of the game, nonetheless.
I'm DMing a campaign set in Britannia right now, and the PCs (who started
at 3rd level, just like in U4) have just reached 6th. After a series of
misadventures involving cultists of Mondain, undead warriors from the
Second Age of Darkness, an ancient artifact that they can't use, and other
such things, they're just about to start on the "quest of enlightenment".
One of the things I've always liked about Ultima was that it made heroic
combat a central part of its virtue system. It was right in the rulebook,
even; you're _supposed_ to kill monsters and take their treasure, if you
want to become an avatar. A very useful system of ethics for a combat-
oriented RPG, I must say. ;)
--
Hong Ooi | "You mean Australia (and from your
ho...@zipworld.com.au | email address, I'm sure that was
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | just a typo."
Sydney, Australia | -- tW
Hong Ooi
<prove...@duckandcover.net> wrote:
>sergio_p...@hotmail.com (Groovis) wrote in
>news:5e21c476.03010...@posting.google.com:
>
>>> > Ultima Underworld,
>>>
>>> Ugh. I have no idea why some people are so attracted to this game.
>>
>> Let's see, wasn't it like, groundbreaking during the times of
>> Wolfenstein 3D and such?
>
>It came out after Doom 2, I think. Around the time ROTT and the other Doom
>clones were in their hayday.
>
It came out before Doom. In fact, it was released about the same time as
Wolfenstein 3D, another first-person perspective game, but obviously with a
very different emphasis. UU was an incredible technical achievement, and
some of its features (fully 3D environments, for example) took years before
other games managed to emulate them.
Morgan Sales
God I love PS:T threads, but I don't have time to read through it all at the
moment.
One thing. Do you have an answer to the question yet?
If you don't know what the question is, then you're not getting into this
game and it probably not worth carrying on. Personally I loved it. But
it's my type of thing.
BTW, out of curiosity. If you do have an answer to the question, what is
your answer?
--
--
Morgan.
----
* When Call my Bluff becomes too racy for you then there's something wrong
really isn't there.
Mail: Msa...@tesco.net
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
Invader Zim
>
> I need to follow up with more explanation about my love
> for Jaheria. Probably because it seems to contradict my
> statements about "too many hot chicks" made in my PS:T
> tomrents.
>
> You see, Jaheria is quite a looker, but if you study her
> face, there is a sense of hardiness. A feeling that she
> has experienced much in the world in the way of combat
> and human interactions. She's not just some pretty
> face they threw in there and made us beleive that she
> could hold her own with a sword. You see I look at
> Jaheria and I can beleive that she would have my back in
> battle. That she would be loyal no matter what. She also
> has a husky voice that is both vunerable and confident
> at once. Quite a package.
>
:-O
I think you need to get out more.
-Invader Zim
Saint_Proverbius
> Because it was being judged as an RPG instead of a tactical
> game. ;) RTS sites generally gave it an "average" rating.
It's not an RTS, first of all. It's a SQUAD TACTICAL GAME. There is no
"strategy" in the game, it's a TACTICAL game. Notice that it's called
"Fallout TACTICS" and not "Fallout STRATEGY".
> ??? It has been a while since I played, but.. I thought you could
> still visit old areas in order to "clear" them for XP/items/etc? Is
> this not the case?
Uhhh.. You "cleared" them the first time through. Once "cleared", there's
no point in going back because there's nothing in those towns other than
things to kill for the most part.
> Maybe you want a Dairy Queen on every map or something? ;)
*Points to Jagged Alliance 2*
> Because the game is done in a linear strategy style, not in an RPG
> style. In such a style, you're generally placed on a playfield and
> given an objective, then forced to complete that objective in order
> to win. You can go down multiple paths on the playfield (and find
> multiple ways to enter a building, ambush a guard, etc..), but you can
> not just abandon a map and go onto another objective (something you
> can do in an RPG).
*Points to Jagged Alliance 2*
Considering they claimed that FOT would be like JA2 in the Fallout setting,
and both Fallout games had revisitable towns and JA2 did also..
Making towns similar to JA2 would have made the game nonlinear, which was
one of your complaints at the end of your post, was it not?
> Exactlt. See, this is a squad tactics game, not a "build your own
> society" game. This is like asking, "Why can't my Navy Seals in SOCOM
> bake bread or paint landscapes during a mission? Why can't my avatar
> in Quake 3 get a mop and sponge and clean up the bullets/blood during
> a capture the flag match?" The reason is: those actions were deemed
> not very important to the style of game, and so were not included.
OMFG! You actually said, "SQUAD TACTICS GAME". Amazing!
Also, your reasoning is utterly ridiculous. Did Quake 3 have a mop that
allowed you to mop anything? No? Well, then it's hardly the same since
Fallout Tactics certainly did have many skills that were totally useless.
Like someone said on the IPLY forum for Fallout Tactics, when you tag
anything other than a gun skill or a medical skill, a huge requestor should
pop up and say in big, red letters, "YOU HAVE JUST TAGGED AN UTTERLY
USELESS SKILL! DOING THIS IS POINTLESS! PLEASE TAG A GUN OR MEDICAL SKILL!"
> Those people generally aren't sent on small-team "mop up" missions
> to rescue hostages or destroy enemy camps.
They're certainly sent to blow up things, which would qualify as "destroy
enemy camp", don't you think?
> I have problems with aspects of FO:T, but they deal more with
> "strategy," "mechanics," and the "linear nature" of the game rather than
> the RPG aspects you're talking about.
They're not RPG aspects, there's a number of strategy and tactical games
that have used them in the past, including those that Interplay tried to
associate their game with.
Saint_Proverbius
> no, I distinctly remember playing it BEFORE I even got the Doom DEMO.
> You must be thinking of underworld 2, which I remember getting around
> the time ROTT came out.
Yup, you're correct. UU1 came out a month before Wolf3D did too.. heh
Saint_Proverbius
news:av6tgi$pkt$1...@news.cybercity.dk:
> I agree with most of what you said, except for the dislike of undeads
> :)
>
> Honestly, I don't think Torment works very well as a computer
> roleplaying game. It plays much more like an adventure, and that
> wasn't what I was looking for when I got it.
That was one of my faults of the game. I enjoyed it until it became combat
heavy near the end, but there was too much dragging the player through the
story, rather than letting the player make the story within the world
itself.
> The combat is boring and unbalanced (too easy). There is not enough
> character customization. It uses a heavily modified D&D system, which
> goes against the idea of using such an established set of rules.
I disagree here. The changes to the AD&D system are one thing PS:T did
extremely well. I liked the way it did alignment, for example. I liked the
way you picked up classes, rather than starting the game as, "I AM A MAGIC
USER" even though you have no experience at all.
I thought the way it handled the character system was probably the best
method of doing this in any AD&D CRPG to date.
> The way dialogue is handled is very traditional, but this kind of
> system strikes me as being a little silly. They give you very limited
> freedom in how to respond, which means that the illusion of
> roleplaying is just that, an illusion. Too quickly, games using this
> system end up annoying me because I have to exhaust the dialogue tree
> to get to the point, which is too akin to working for my tastes. I
> also strongly dislike being forced to respond in ways I would never
> do, just so the designers can get their story out. I much prefer a
> topic-based conversation system, though it's much harder to create one
> that works well.
Ugh. I'd much rather have the dialogue tree than how Morrowind did it.
> I'm probably being a little harsh, and in truth many of my favorite
> games use the same kind of system, but since Torment is being hailed
> as this great roleplaying experience, I just wanted to point out how
> limited the player actually is. Also, there is a lot more to be said
> for freedom to act than solely freedom to respond.
About the only thing that limited your freedom in PS:T were all the
chokepoints which were forced on the player because of the story. That made
PS:T a little linear, which I think was probably the major problem with the
title.
> All the Infinity
> games grant only extremely limited ways in which to act. This is
> because they use rendered 2D backgrounds with 2D sprites, and so
> allowing things like climbing, riding, swimming etc. becomes much too
> cumbersome.
Prerendered backgrounds make this hard. Sprites don't have much to do with
this so long as you have artists making the animations for them. After all,
there are a lot of 2D games where you can climb things, or swim, or ride
animals.
> Too bad they insisted on a tile-based 3D engine for
> Neverwinter Nights, which presents much the same problem.
Climbing and swimming would have been possible in NWN if they'd implimented
it. BioWare just didn't do it. Tiles actually make this rather easy, since
you can have a uniform type of tile with a standard on how easy climbing
and swimming would be on those tiles.
I think the main reason BioWare didn't impliment these things has more to
do with the fact that NWN uses walls and water as restrictive barriers for
the player. You can't go here yet, because Water/Wall/Barrier blocks you.
If you could just climb them or swim them, then they couldn't funnel you
where they wanted you to go.
> Torment is a wonderful book and a mediocre CRPG.
Well, it's a mixed bag really. All the mechanics for a great CRPG
experience were there, like the shift alignment, the attribute based
dialogue, and so on.
Mark Morrison
<msales...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"tritone" <elk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.187e3799f...@news.supernews.com...
>
>God I love PS:T threads, but I don't have time to read through it all at the
>moment.
>
>One thing. Do you have an answer to the question yet?
>
>If you don't know what the question is, then you're not getting into this
>game and it probably not worth carrying on. Personally I loved it. But
>it's my type of thing.
>
>BTW, out of curiosity. If you do have an answer to the question, what is
>your answer?
>
Deviant sex.
Well, it changed MY nature.
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Clogar
>
> Clogar <clog...@nospam.com> wrote in news:3E16F6...@nospam.com:
>
> > Because it was being judged as an RPG instead of a tactical
> > game. ;) RTS sites generally gave it an "average" rating.
>
> It's not an RTS, first of all. It's a SQUAD TACTICAL GAME.
Which, in fact, falls into the category of strategy. ;)
> There is no "strategy" in the game, it's a TACTICAL game.
So having good tactics is not a strategy? I disagree. ;)
> Notice that it's called "Fallout TACTICS" and not "Fallout STRATEGY".
Also notice that it isn't called Fallout: Jagged Alliance? ;)
> > ??? It has been a while since I played, but.. I thought you could
> > still visit old areas in order to "clear" them for XP/items/etc? Is
> > this not the case?
>
> Uhhh.. You "cleared" them the first time through. Once "cleared",
> there's no point in going back because there's nothing in those towns
> other than things to kill for the most part.
Amazing - that's what I wrote. ;)
> > Maybe you want a Dairy Queen on every map or something? ;)
>
> *Points to Jagged Alliance 2*
There was a DQ on every map of JA2? I was wondering why I started
eating so many Blizzards when I played that game. Stupid product
placement! ];)
[snip]
> Making towns similar to JA2 would have made the game nonlinear, which
> was one of your complaints at the end of your post, was it not?
I would have liked it a lot more if it had more options. Of course,
that's never been a requirement in a game (either strategy or RPG) -
it is, however, a style preference.
> > Exactlt. See, this is a squad tactics game, not a "build your
> > own society" game. This is like asking, "Why can't my Navy Seals in
> > SOCOM bake bread or paint landscapes during a mission? Why can't my
> > avatar in Quake 3 get a mop and sponge and clean up the
> > bullets/blood during a capture the flag match?" The reason is: those
> > actions were deemed not very important to the style of game, and so
> > were not included.
>
> OMFG! You actually said, "SQUAD TACTICS GAME". Amazing!
Poor form! Try keeping it civil. :)
> Also, your reasoning is utterly ridiculous. Did Quake 3 have a mop
> that allowed you to mop anything? No? Well, then it's hardly the same
> since Fallout Tactics certainly did have many skills that were totally
> useless.
My comments went directly to your complaint, and are completely
valid. :)
> Like someone said on the IPLY forum for Fallout Tactics, when you tag
> anything other than a gun skill or a medical skill, a huge requestor
> should pop up and say in big, red letters, "YOU HAVE JUST TAGGED AN
> UTTERLY USELESS SKILL! DOING THIS IS POINTLESS! PLEASE TAG A GUN OR
> MEDICAL SKILL!"
Right. In this respect, I'd say the developers screwed up by
including the additional skills. Of course, considering most people
figured this out after the first two missions, it wasn't that big of
a deal.
>
> > Those people generally aren't sent on small-team "mop up"
> > missions to rescue hostages or destroy enemy camps.
>
> They're certainly sent to blow up things, which would qualify as
> "destroy enemy camp", don't you think?
No, actually, they aren't. Members of a SEAL team are trained
in demolitions, but they aren't scientists or members of the engineering
corps..
[snip]
> They're not RPG aspects, there's a number of strategy and tactical
> games that have used them in the past, including those that Interplay
> tried to associate their game with.
And they are ROLEPLAYING aspects. Many strategy games (the
big recent title that comes to mind being Warcraft III) have tried to
incorporate these aspects to various extents into their games. Still,
they are NOT required to be in a STRATEGY game. In fact, sometimes
said aspects get in the way of the game, which is why hardcore
strategy gamers often HATE them. Regardless, though, strategy gamers
generally don't judge a strategy game by these sorts of RPG
features - RPG players, however, do.
Nostromo
wrote:
Well, Jaheira is a Druid - if he doesn't get 'out' enough already with her,
he'll never find the right chick!
--
"The measure of (mental) health is flexibility (not comparison to some 'norm'),
the freedom to learn from experience...to be influenced by reasonable arguments...
and the appeal to the emotions...and especially the freedom to cease when sated.
The essence of illness is the freezing of behavior into unalterable and insatiable
patterns." - Lawrence Kubie
To reply via e-mail *when solicited* and given *express permission*
to do so, please replace 'spamfree' with 'htnirybal'-backwards...
Nostromo
>
>I need to follow up with more explanation about my love
>for Jaheria. Probably because it seems to contradict my
>statements about "too many hot chicks" made in my PS:T
>tomrents.
>
>You see, Jaheria is quite a looker, but if you study her
>face, there is a sense of hardiness. A feeling that she
>has experienced much in the world in the way of combat
>and human interactions. She's not just some pretty
>face they threw in there and made us beleive that she
>could hold her own with a sword. You see I look at
>Jaheria and I can beleive that she would have my back in
>battle. That she would be loyal no matter what. She also
She's only interested in preserving her agendas & certain 'balances', with a
slight lean towards law & good. Don't bet on it matey! Plus, we've been
seeing each other as 'friends' for quite some time now, so may the best man
win! :-p
>has a husky voice that is both vunerable and confident
>at once. Quite a package.
I gave her that voice. After finding out exactly how short her rectum &
large intestine were. >;-p *duck*
tritone
109377.news.dfncis.de>, msales...@ntlworld.com
says...
> "tritone" <elk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.187e3799f...@news.supernews.com...
>
> God I love PS:T threads, but I don't have time to read through it all at the
> moment.
>
> One thing. Do you have an answer to the question yet?
More or less, Yes. I appreciate all of the
comments provided.
> BTW, out of curiosity. If you do have an answer to the question, what is
> your answer?
Well, I haven't took it up again. I am going to
keep it on my HD and one day finish it up. In the
meantime, I am playing Hitman 2: Silent Assasin.
Honestly, the CRPG I am really waiting for is
Gothic 2.
David Bilek
>In article <av7hev$cmfeb$1@ID-
>109377.news.dfncis.de>, msales...@ntlworld.com
>says...
>> "tritone" <elk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.187e3799f...@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> God I love PS:T threads, but I don't have time to read through it all at the
>> moment.
>>
>> One thing. Do you have an answer to the question yet?
>
>More or less, Yes. I appreciate all of the
>comments provided.
>
That's not the question he was referring to.
-David
David Bilek
>"tritone" <elk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.187e3799f...@news.supernews.com...
>
>God I love PS:T threads, but I don't have time to read through it all at the
>moment.
>
>One thing. Do you have an answer to the question yet?
>
>If you don't know what the question is, then you're not getting into this
>game and it probably not worth carrying on. Personally I loved it. But
>it's my type of thing.
>
>BTW, out of curiosity. If you do have an answer to the question, what is
>your answer?
>
Regret.
This undoubtedly says something about me, but I'm going to go get
drunk alone (again) so I don't have to think about it.
-David
Courageous
>Regret.
Son, let me tell you a thing about regret:
It's always better to regret something that
you have done than something you haven't done.
--From an Orbital song... I think.
C//
Aristotle
>OKAY, so my point is. I'm not finished YET..but I think
>I am at least 2/3rds done. Is there something GREAT,
>surprsing, exciting that is going to happen in or after
>Curst that will make me happy I finished game..
>
>PS:T got tons of praise and I am beginning to think that
>it ( like many games) is overrated!!!
You should definitely finish this game. It is (imho) the best CRPG ever made
for ANY platform.
It might help you to try and get immersed in the Planescape world and stop
trying to jam your preconceived notion of what an RPG is into PST (like the
crap about bows =P ).
-Aristotle@Threshold
--
THRESHOLD RPG - Where Roleplaying is not an option, it's a requirement.
Player run clans, guilds, legal system, economy, religions, nobility, and
more. Roleplay online with thousands of people from all over the world.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
Chris Proctor
news:3e15c3bc....@news.nrl.navy.mil:
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 22:38:55 GMT, Russell Wallace wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:49:40 -0500, tritone <elk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>PS:T got tons of praise and I am beginning to think that
>>>it ( like many games) is overrated!!!
>>
>>I haven't played PS:T, and don't intend to, because while I like games
>>with well-written stories, I don't like dark stories.
>>
>>However, I'm quite prepared to take people's word for it that it's as
>>good as it's said to be _at what the writers were trying to do_. If
>>that's not what you're looking for (as it's not in my case) then the
>>best thing to do is to look elsewhere.
> [snip]
>
> I generally feel the same way. Yet, I loved PST. I consider it one of
> my two favorite RPGs of all time (BG2 being the other). My
> recommendation is to give it a go. If, after getting into it a little,
> you feel the same way as tritone about the story, then don't waste
> your time. As others have mentioned, it's really a story with a game
> framed around it, rather than the more usual game with a story framed
> around it. I'm guessing that 9 people out of 10 have a very different
> response than did tritone.
Likewise. PS:T is my second favourite game of all time (my first being Star
Control 2, which IMO is still the best blend of resource management,
storytelling, action and exploration to date).
The setting is certainly gritty, but I wouldn't call it dark. There are
demons, heavy industry etc, but there are also some amazingly beautiful or
serene parts to it.
The music was pretty nice too, and the voice acting was superb for the most
part.
Chris
Chris Proctor
news:Xns92F9B71D4D4A4pr...@204.127.202.16:
> "Michael Albertsen" <m...@anarki.dk> wrote in
> news:av6tgi$pkt$1...@news.cybercity.dk:
>
>> I agree with most of what you said, except for the dislike of undeads
>> :)
>>
>> Honestly, I don't think Torment works very well as a computer
>> roleplaying game. It plays much more like an adventure, and that
>> wasn't what I was looking for when I got it.
>
> That was one of my faults of the game. I enjoyed it until it became
> combat heavy near the end, but there was too much dragging the player
> through the story, rather than letting the player make the story
> within the world itself.
>
>> The combat is boring and unbalanced (too easy). There is not enough
>> character customization. It uses a heavily modified D&D system, which
>> goes against the idea of using such an established set of rules.
>
> I disagree here. The changes to the AD&D system are one thing PS:T did
> extremely well. I liked the way it did alignment, for example. I liked
> the way you picked up classes, rather than starting the game as, "I AM
> A MAGIC USER" even though you have no experience at all.
>
> I thought the way it handled the character system was probably the
> best method of doing this in any AD&D CRPG to date.
I found it interesting that PS:T's character system ended up being
somewhere halfway between 2nd and 3rd ed D&D. I wonder whether that was
intentional (IIRC PS:T preceded 3rd ed quite significantly)?
I find 3rd ed's multiclassing more elegant than the system used in PS:T
though, it's one of the few things I find jarring about the game.
Chris
Clogar
>
[snip]
> It's always better to regret something that
> you have done than something you haven't done.
..said the man that had never done anything truly bad. ;) Ah, but
we're quoting lyrics, so...
"Ask the devil about regret."
Saint_Proverbius
> So having good tactics is not a strategy? I disagree. ;)
Only if you're not using the word "strategy" in a military sense. Any
"strategy" in the game is given to you. That's what those orders are at the
beginning of the mission. The BOS Elders got together and determined the
strategy. You're given that strategy and you're supposed to carry it out
through tactical means.
Strategy is knowing you need to take out a bridge. Tactics is how you do
it.
> Also notice that it isn't called Fallout: Jagged Alliance? ;)
One more time.. It's Interplay that made the claim that, and I quote,
"Fallout Tactics is like Jagged Alliance 2 in the Fallout universe."
>> > ??? It has been a while since I played, but.. I thought you could
>> > still visit old areas in order to "clear" them for XP/items/etc? Is
>> > this not the case?
>>
>> Uhhh.. You "cleared" them the first time through. Once "cleared",
>> there's no point in going back because there's nothing in those towns
>> other than things to kill for the most part.
>
> Amazing - that's what I wrote. ;)
No, what you wrote was that you could revisit towns and clear them for ph4t
l3wt and XP. That's not the case since you clear them when you do the
mission itself.
>> Also, your reasoning is utterly ridiculous. Did Quake 3 have a mop
>> that allowed you to mop anything? No? Well, then it's hardly the same
>> since Fallout Tactics certainly did have many skills that were totally
>> useless.
>
> My comments went directly to your complaint, and are completely
> valid. :)
No, my complaint was that there were useless skills, then you go off on
some idiotic tangent about mopping in Quake 3. There are useless skills in
Fallout Tactics, there is no mop in Quake 3.
> Right. In this respect, I'd say the developers screwed up by
> including the additional skills. Of course, considering most people
> figured this out after the first two missions, it wasn't that big of
> a deal.
Actually, a better idea would be to take those skills and find a use FOR
them. Use science to hack computers or doors like Fallout did. Use repair
to fix generators to power up certain areas. Use Outdoorsman to find
healing herbs and track enemies. Hell, just make Sneak actually work
because there's gobs of uses for that.
Things like that would have made the game a hell of a lot better because
they'd have provided options to the player rather than the simplistic, dull
gameplay Fallout Tactics had which was little more than march your guys
around the map on aggressive.
>
> And they are ROLEPLAYING aspects. Many strategy games (the
> big recent title that comes to mind being Warcraft III) have tried to
> incorporate these aspects to various extents into their games. Still,
> they are NOT required to be in a STRATEGY game. In fact, sometimes
> said aspects get in the way of the game, which is why hardcore
> strategy gamers often HATE them. Regardless, though, strategy gamers
> generally don't judge a strategy game by these sorts of RPG
> features - RPG players, however, do.
Just because there are swallow RTS games doesn't mean a squad tactical game
has to be just as shallow.
Michael Albertsen
> extremely well. I liked the way it did alignment, for example. I liked the
> way you picked up classes, rather than starting the game as, "I AM A MAGIC
> USER" even though you have no experience at all.
I understand that you liked it, but it could have been done without the aid
of the AD&D system. When I get a game that claims to be based on a popular
system, I expect it to follow the rules.
>
> I thought the way it handled the character system was probably the best
> method of doing this in any AD&D CRPG to date.
Naturally, I disagree strongly here. I felt very restricted in how I could
develop my character. I couldn't even change my appearance or my name, which
is one of the reasons it feels too much like an adventure game where you
have little influence on the story.
>
> > The way dialogue is handled is very traditional, but this kind of
> > system strikes me as being a little silly. They give you very limited
> > freedom in how to respond, which means that the illusion of
> > roleplaying is just that, an illusion. Too quickly, games using this
> > system end up annoying me because I have to exhaust the dialogue tree
> > to get to the point, which is too akin to working for my tastes. I
> > also strongly dislike being forced to respond in ways I would never
> > do, just so the designers can get their story out. I much prefer a
> > topic-based conversation system, though it's much harder to create one
> > that works well.
>
> Ugh. I'd much rather have the dialogue tree than how Morrowind did it.
Morrowind is a good example of how not to create a topic-based conversation
system. Honestly, I can't immediately recall a game which does it right.
However, I firmly believe it's possible to do when you're dealing with a
relatively limited amount of NPCs like in Torment.
> About the only thing that limited your freedom in PS:T were all the
> chokepoints which were forced on the player because of the story. That
made
> PS:T a little linear, which I think was probably the major problem with
the
> title.
I felt extremely limited.
Morrowind, as an example, is a game where I feel very free to do whatever I
want. Nothing seems forced upon you.
> Prerendered backgrounds make this hard. Sprites don't have much to do with
> this so long as you have artists making the animations for them. After
all,
> there are a lot of 2D games where you can climb things, or swim, or ride
> animals.
No, not really.
The problem with 2D in general, is that you have to pre-render everything.
Even using 3D Studio Max, it's still a lot of hard work to implement things
like horses or visible equipment changes etc.
Theoretically, when you're doing things in 3D, you only have to create the
model and you can then use mathematics to do anything you want with it.
Naturally, you still have to create all individual objects, but they're much
easier to manipulate and scale.
> Climbing and swimming would have been possible in NWN if they'd
implimented
> it. BioWare just didn't do it. Tiles actually make this rather easy, since
> you can have a uniform type of tile with a standard on how easy climbing
> and swimming would be on those tiles.
>
> I think the main reason BioWare didn't impliment these things has more to
> do with the fact that NWN uses walls and water as restrictive barriers for
> the player. You can't go here yet, because Water/Wall/Barrier blocks you.
> If you could just climb them or swim them, then they couldn't funnel you
> where they wanted you to go.
You have a good point here. I'm not sure what I was thinking, but there is
just something about having a tile-based engine that seems to go against
freedom to act. Somehow, climbing or swimming would feel fake or forced, as
opposed to using a seamless world like the one in, say, Gothic.
> Well, it's a mixed bag really. All the mechanics for a great CRPG
> experience were there, like the shift alignment, the attribute based
> dialogue, and so on.
I never liked the alignment concept, it's both illogical and restrictive.
Unfortunately it's an integral part of the rules, so we can't get rid of it
easily. Attribute based dialogue is fine, and certainly better than not
having it.
However, lacking such a basic thing as character customization (name,
appearance and class) is too much for me. I know you could eventually choose
between three classes, but that's still very limited. The main problem,
though, was the extremely heavy focus on reading text. That's what I believe
ultimately exhausted my interest in the game.
Naturally, this is all completely subjective.
- Faramir
Clogar
>
> Clogar <clog...@nospam.com> wrote in news:3E178D...@nospam.com:
>
> > So having good tactics is not a strategy? I disagree. ;)
>
> Only if you're not using the word "strategy" in a military sense. Any
> "strategy" in the game is given to you. That's what those orders are
> at the beginning of the mission.
If this were the case, almost NO computer strategy game would
be considering a strategy game. Take, for example, Warcraft 3 (or
Starcraft, or the Star Wars RTS games, etc, etc, etc..): You're given
an objective to accomplish such as "gather 1000 gold" or "destroy
the enemy base," and you have to achieve that goal to get to the
next level. While your system would lump those games into tactical
games, they're generally considering STRATEGY games by the masses.
Not that you don't employ the definition of "tactics" to achieve those
goals, but tactics are a part of strategy even in the military
definition. :)
> The BOS Elders got together and determined the
> strategy. You're given that strategy and you're supposed to carry it
> out through tactical means.
But you use tactics as part of ANY strategy - the two are not
seperate.
> Strategy is knowing you need to take out a bridge. Tactics is how you
> do it.
Strategy is knowing you need to take out a bridge, analyzing the
information given to determine the best approach, figuring out
what resources would best be used in the mission, concerning yourself
with your ammo, etc, etc, etc... Tactics is when your men move
crouched in a four-man squad. ;)
[snip]
> >> > ??? It has been a while since I played, but.. I thought you could
> >> > still visit old areas in order to "clear" them for XP/items/etc?
> >> > Is this not the case?
> >>
> >> Uhhh.. You "cleared" them the first time through. Once "cleared",
> >> there's no point in going back because there's nothing in those
> >> towns other than things to kill for the most part.
> >
> > Amazing - that's what I wrote. ;)
>
> No, what you wrote was that you could revisit towns and clear them for
> ph4t l3wt and XP.
After running that sentence through my 1331 to English translator,
I must say.. yes. :)
> That's not the case since you clear them when you do the mission
> itself.
Not true - you DO NOT have to kill all the enemies in order to
win a mission.
[snip]
> > My comments went directly to your complaint, and are completely
> > valid. :)
>
> No, my complaint was that there were useless skills, then you go off
> on some idiotic tangent about mopping in Quake 3.
The connection is there - it isn't my fault you can't make it. :0
[snip]
> > Right. In this respect, I'd say the developers screwed up by
> > including the additional skills. Of course, considering most people
> > figured this out after the first two missions, it wasn't that big of
> > a deal.
>
> Actually, a better idea would be to take those skills and find a use
> FOR them.
Depends - some people really don't like that sort of game. There's
also the additional development time, increased cost, etc, etc, etc...
If FO:T was supposed to be an RPG, I'd agree with you. Since it wasn't,
I don't - though full implementation wouldn't have been something I'd
have disliked.
> Use science to hack computers or doors like Fallout did.
But this isn't Fallout - Fallout was an RPG, this is a strategy
game. :)
> Use repair to fix generators to power up certain areas. Use
> Outdoorsman to find healing herbs and track enemies. Hell, just make
> Sneak actually work because there's gobs of uses for that.
??? Sneak seemed to work for me.
> Things like that would have made the game a hell of a lot better
> because they'd have provided options to the player rather than the
> simplistic, dull gameplay Fallout Tactics had which was little more
> than march your guys around the map on aggressive.
RPG <-> Strategy Game.
[snip]
> Just because there are swallow RTS games doesn't mean a squad tactical
> game has to be just as shallow.
It also doesn't mean that "squad tactic games" have to add
superfluous elements like the above to be good. :)
tritone
dbi...@attbi.com says...
> >>
> >> One thing. Do you have an answer to the question yet?
> >
> >More or less, Yes. I appreciate all of the
> >comments provided.
> >
>
> That's not the question he was referring to.
>
> -David
>
Oh, now I get it. :-) Yes, I do have an answer, or at
least I'll reveal the one I provided.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I take it that you are referring to the question asked
by Ravel and pondered on earlier in the game, "What can
change the nature of man?".
Well, I was sort of in a smart-alecy, detached mode when
Ravel asked me so I said: "Obviously you can, Ravel.
You made me immortal.". Of course, this answer is kind
of an easy out because you don't have to really think
about it.
Now that I *have* considered the question, I'll say that
definitely ANGER has the ability to change the nature of
a man. Not just everyday, brief moments of anger, but
deeply seated bitterness that could come from envy or
regret about how one views themselves.
tritone
I wanted to clarify my thoughts regarding this portion
of one of posts.
I do understand and agree that mass-appeal is not a good
measurement of quality for art.
But what I was trying to say was this: Within many
genres or disciplines of art, there are even further
divisions in style (Hell, and sometimes even divisions
with those divisons)
Let's take Jazz for example: We've got Dixieland,
swing, bebop, cool, hard bop, post bop, fusion, avant
garde, etc..
Or "classical" music: early, barqoue, classical,
romantic, impressionism, 20th-century, avant-garde,
etc...
Now RPGs:
Action RPGs, D&D based, sci-fi settings, fantasy
settings, "other" settings, turn based, real time, first
person, combat-heavy, non combat heavy, etc...
OK.
Every once in a while, a piece of art comes along that
is *so* exceptional, it brings everyone within the genre
together ( and sometimes, those from the outside) All
of those who maybe prefered one style of genre more than
others nonetheless loves this odd, strangely briliant
piece of work.
Now you see, when this happens, THAT's a masterpeice.
Let me give you another example from Jazz, as that is a
music I most familiar with.
"Kind of Blue" (KOB) by Miles Davis is a masterpeice.
It fits somewhere between hard bop and post bop style-
wise -- but nearly all Jazz fans love it. Those that
mostly like the earlier styles as well as those into the
more of the freer "avant garde" music.
You see, KOB has such great soloing and the tunes on it
are timeless. You don't think of it as "a jazz record".
It is pure magic in sound. Ask any true fan of jazz and
they can probably sing the first few choruses of Miles'
solo from "So What" with no problem. Or even Bill
Evan's brilliant, dreamy, opening chords for "Blue in
Green".
Now think about which RPGs changed your perception of
something. Maybe you said "I hate first person..etc' or
"I hate isometric views", ... or "D&D rules suck". OR
"I don't like too much combat." Did some game come along
that took a new approach to what you "hated" or
presented it such a fresh, innovative way that it made
you a "fan" - even if just for that game?
Likewise, did the same game *not* "sell out" to the hard
core fans of the mini-genere it belonged to.
You see what I mean-- it's that balance that makes the
difference between a masterpeice and an otherwise
excellent game that is perhaps a classic, but not a
MASTERPEICE or the BEST EVER.
In article <fknc1v4l9t60a1rcj...@4ax.com>,
yka...@softhome.net says...
Sam Jones
<msales...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"tritone" <elk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.187e3799f...@news.supernews.com...
>
>God I love PS:T threads, but I don't have time to read through it all at the
>moment.
>
>One thing. Do you have an answer to the question yet?
>
>If you don't know what the question is, then you're not getting into this
>game and it probably not worth carrying on. Personally I loved it. But
>it's my type of thing.
>
>BTW, out of curiosity. If you do have an answer to the question, what is
>your answer?
>
>--
There is no answer to the question. It's meaningless as TTO
explained. It's just a piece of bait that Ravel used to get TNO into
her bed.
--
"OMG! I LIEK U!!!!!"
Morgan Sales
news:5pig1vk1sdgv4jat5...@4ax.com...
Every question has an answer.
IIRC it was only meaningless to revel because she didn't really care about
the answer at all.
--
Morgan.
----
* Damn, just put my Polos in the bin.
Saint_Proverbius
> If this were the case, almost NO computer strategy game would
> be considering a strategy game. Take, for example, Warcraft 3 (or
> Starcraft, or the Star Wars RTS games, etc, etc, etc..): You're given
> an objective to accomplish such as "gather 1000 gold" or "destroy
> the enemy base," and you have to achieve that goal to get to the
> next level. While your system would lump those games into tactical
> games, they're generally considering STRATEGY games by the masses.
> Not that you don't employ the definition of "tactics" to achieve those
> goals, but tactics are a part of strategy even in the military
> definition. :)
The strategy portion of those games revolves around the resource
management/town development/infrastructure part. You know you're going to
have to take out the enemy at some point, so you're going to have to come
up with a strategy on how you manage everything to do it.
There's usually very little tactics in those games other than senting the
most number of best units you can to hold an area.
> But you use tactics as part of ANY strategy - the two are not
> seperate.
Strategy supercedes tactics, tactics are required to fulfill strategy, but
they are NOT the same thing. You need an egg to make a chicken, but a
chicken is not an egg.
> Strategy is knowing you need to take out a bridge, analyzing the
> information given to determine the best approach, figuring out
> what resources would best be used in the mission, concerning yourself
> with your ammo, etc, etc, etc... Tactics is when your men move
> crouched in a four-man squad. ;)
No, tactics is analyzing how to take out the bridge, what needs to be done
with the available resources, and actually doing it.
Strategy is knowing that it's important to take it out in the first place.
> After running that sentence through my 1331 to English translator,
> I must say.. yes. :)
Good, then you'll agree that the world map is useless because there's no
point in revisiting towns since you clear them when you do that mission.
> Not true - you DO NOT have to kill all the enemies in order to
> win a mission.
That "Mission Complete" thing often clears the remaining enemies, as well
as any secondary goals and submissions on the map. Didn't know that? Not
surprising.
>> No, my complaint was that there were useless skills, then you go off
>> on some idiotic tangent about mopping in Quake 3.
>
> The connection is there - it isn't my fault you can't make it. :0
No, if you weren't such a total dufus, you'd see that the analogy is
complete shit because there are useless skills in Fallout Tactics, but
there is no useless mop in Quake 3. That's why there is no connection!
> Depends - some people really don't like that sort of game. There's
> also the additional development time, increased cost, etc, etc, etc...
> If FO:T was supposed to be an RPG, I'd agree with you. Since it wasn't,
> I don't - though full implementation wouldn't have been something I'd
> have disliked.
One more time for the slow thinker, Jagged Alliance 2 did all that. Jagged
Alliance 2 was a squad based tactical/strategy game, not an RPG. The
developers and publishers both clearly stated the game would be like Jagged
Alliance 2.
And before you say anything about me including "strategy" in with Jagged
Alliance 2, JA2 had the ability to take over and garrison towns, as well as
using the economy and infrastructure of the town(mines, airports, etc.) to
further build your army.
>> Use science to hack computers or doors like Fallout did.
>
> But this isn't Fallout - Fallout was an RPG, this is a strategy
> game. :)
AND HACKING COMPUTERS AND DOORS IS A VALID TACTIC!
You want to use the example of the Navy SEALS, do you think they don't hack
security systems to gain entry to compounds? That's one of the uses of the
Science skill in Fallout's setting, disabling security systems. Science =
hacking.
This isn't an "RPG ELEMENT" at all, it's actually a tactical element. Yet,
rather than actually using it in the design, they just went with the whole,
"TACTICS = SHOOTIN STUFF" crap.
>> Use repair to fix generators to power up certain areas. Use
>> Outdoorsman to find healing herbs and track enemies. Hell, just make
>> Sneak actually work because there's gobs of uses for that.
>
> ??? Sneak seemed to work for me.
You'd be the only one.
>> Just because there are swallow RTS games doesn't mean a squad tactical
>> game has to be just as shallow.
>
> It also doesn't mean that "squad tactic games" have to add
> superfluous elements like the above to be good. :)
It does when they make comparasons between Fallout Tactics and Jagged
Alliance 2. The fact they implimented the full Fallout SPECIAL system and
left in skills which really had no baring at all in the game, which could
have been used to make the game have some actual depth to it rather than
the mindless isometric, automated kill fest it was.
Saint_Proverbius
>> I disagree here. The changes to the AD&D system are one thing PS:T
>> did extremely well. I liked the way it did alignment, for example. I
>> liked the way you picked up classes, rather than starting the game
>> as, "I AM A MAGIC USER" even though you have no experience at all.
>
> I understand that you liked it, but it could have been done without
> the aid of the AD&D system. When I get a game that claims to be based
> on a popular system, I expect it to follow the rules.
Then you haven't liked a single D&D CRPG ever made then, because they've
all taken liberties with the rules. PS:T just took liberties with the rules
to make things more interesting rather than dropping rules because they
can't be implimented well if at all.
>> I thought the way it handled the character system was probably the
>> best method of doing this in any AD&D CRPG to date.
>
> Naturally, I disagree strongly here. I felt very restricted in how I
> could develop my character. I couldn't even change my appearance or my
> name, which is one of the reasons it feels too much like an adventure
> game where you have little influence on the story.
So.. Because you couldn't pick the avatar and the name, even though you
could pick or choose everything else, it was an adventure game to you? That
makes very little sense. After all, you can pick attributes, you can pick
your class, and so on. You can pick your alignment, you just have to do it
through the choices that your character makes in the game.
Now, if you'd said it felt like an adventure game because of the
limitations of progression through the plot, either by area completion,
item gaining, and so on, I'd be in full agreement here.
> Morrowind is a good example of how not to create a topic-based
> conversation system. Honestly, I can't immediately recall a game which
> does it right. However, I firmly believe it's possible to do when
> you're dealing with a relatively limited amount of NPCs like in
> Torment.
I can't name one either, but I'll take a well designed tree over topic
selection anyday.
> The problem with 2D in general, is that you have to pre-render
> everything. Even using 3D Studio Max, it's still a lot of hard work to
> implement things like horses or visible equipment changes etc.
It can still be done. Depending on the type of 3D models the game uses,
frame based as opposed to skeletal, that artist is still going to have to
make all the frames for that animation.
Using overlayed sprites, which Diablo 2 did, you can do that visible weapon
thing quite readily.
> Theoretically, when you're doing things in 3D, you only have to create
> the model and you can then use mathematics to do anything you want
> with it. Naturally, you still have to create all individual objects,
> but they're much easier to manipulate and scale.
That "math" still has to be done by someone.
> You have a good point here. I'm not sure what I was thinking, but
> there is just something about having a tile-based engine that seems to
> go against freedom to act. Somehow, climbing or swimming would feel
> fake or forced, as opposed to using a seamless world like the one in,
> say, Gothic.
What about climbing in Jagged Alliance 2? It was 2D and tile based. You
could scale walls, hop over objects, and so on. I don't remember if you
could swim or not, but that wouldn't have been that more tricky to
impliment so long as there's places to use it. Once the animator has the
"swim scripting" done for the modeller, it can be fairly plug and chug.
Still, NWN could have easily implimented swimming and climbing. They just
didn't do it. Given that all the walls and water in the game are barriers
to the player, I'd say that's the reason.
There's really no difference between the water in Gothic and NWN in terms
of a graphical model, though. All they needed to do would be include the
support for swimming and check to see if the player was near or in deep
water just like how Gothic did it.