Am I the only person that thinks Planescape Torment is pants?
Richie
I have played just about every RPG since 1980, and I found PT to be really
tedious. I loved the first half of Baldurs Gate, and was so looking forward
to a much "better" game as everyone described it. What I found was a game
with conversation threads that last half an hour each, most of which are
lacking in atmosphere. I liked talking to the female apparition in the
mortuary, and seeing the flaming wizard in the tavern, but that is the only
really atmospheric conversation I found. Also the combat is so tedious, with
no ranged weapons!
For reference I favour atmosphere and a feeling of immersion. My favourite
RPG is probably Ultima 7 (I loved the way the waves crashed onto the beach),
and that you could wander around the countryside and stumble upon something
interesting. PT feels so small, cramped and linear. Am I the only one that
wants to feel as if he is in a living, breathing world of some size? I
really enjoy exploring the surrounding area, and not being stuck in a
cramped town. I liked MM6, but 7 & 8 were so similar I was not impressed.
Oh well.. I bought PT purely because of posts on this newsgroup, but I guess
sometimes the majority are not right.
Surely there must be someone out there that agrees with me?????
Rich.
MsJudi
<r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>Oh well.. I bought PT purely because of posts on this newsgroup, but I guess
>sometimes the majority are not right.
>
>Surely there must be someone out there that agrees with me?????
I do. I, too, bought PT after hearing on this
group how wonderful it was. I felt claustraphobic
playing it, and bored sensless. I have wasted so
much money lately on 'puter games, been burned to
the point of toast, so now I'm just saving my
money and waiting for DII.
MsJudi
Richie
MsJudi <mc...@mastnet.net> wrote in message
news:UVEQOUuZP9xKp=XV4QK0z...@4ax.com...
I've wasted far too much money as well! I got fed up and haven't bought
another game since I got fed up after buying PT, and am only going to buy
something that I KNOW will be outstanding. The original Diablo had so much
atmosphere. OK the game was relatively simple for an RPG, but the few
characters that were there had excellent voice acting and the whole thing
was so polished. The only games on my shopping list now are Diablo2 and
Shogun:Total War. I just wish Diablo 2 was more than 640x480!
Rich.
Marcus J. Maunula
that I prefere
Sci Fi settings to fantasy.
PS:T has it all, awesome storyline, great action and lot's of gaming time.
The MM series are just plain boring
in my opinion, just mindless hack'n slash. BG was tedious in the end I have
to admit but at least it had a storyline I could relate to.
Diablo was kind off fun but I got tired after the same alll over again.
I would like to add that I have played most paper RPG:s at least once and
plenty of CRPG:s so I have some XP :).
Now I am looking forward to NWN, IWD, Arcanum and probably Arachnox.
Marcus
Richie <r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8epkia$3n6$1...@susscsc1.reading.ac.uk...
Richie
Marcus J. Maunula <marc...@mbox301.swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:fMYP4.16225$uJ1....@nntpserver.swip.net...
> PS:T is superior to anything I have ever played on computer so far.Mind
you
> that I prefere
> Sci Fi settings to fantasy.
>
> PS:T has it all, awesome storyline, great action and lot's of gaming time.
> The MM series are just plain boring
> in my opinion, just mindless hack'n slash. BG was tedious in the end I
have
> to admit but at least it had a storyline I could relate to.
> Diablo was kind off fun but I got tired after the same alll over again.
>
> I would like to add that I have played most paper RPG:s at least once and
> plenty of CRPG:s so I have some XP :).
>
> Now I am looking forward to NWN, IWD, Arcanum and probably Arachnox.
>
> Marcus
Yes, I have a feeling that PT appeals to pen&paper role players. I never
really got into pen&paper 'cause of the slow progress of games, and the
arguments when everyone decides they want to do things their way. Hmm maybe
I just found an annoying bunch of people to play with.
Don't you think though that the conversation threads were pointlessly long?
I do like an elaborate conversation tree, and don't mind long conversations,
but sometimes in PT I just found myself clicking continue over and over
after I asked a simple question. Remember the guy that talks about the
nature of the universe in the flaming wizard bar (sorry leaky memory for
names). I want INTERACTION, not people npc's spewing monologues at me. I
remember in the original Monkey Island games the conversations were long but
enjoyable, so its not just the length that bothers me. I liked the Fallout
games btw.
To be honest, after wandering around the PT starting town I thought to
myself, OK I'll leave the town and wander to a more cheerful one. Needless
to say, you can't do that, you can just portal to another drab and
depressing town. Surely there are some planes where people are happy, and
not permanently depressed??? I just felt like telling everyone to bloody
cheer up and stop feeling sorry for themselves hehe
Oh well..
Rich.
Marcus J. Maunula
Richie <r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8epm51$48d$1...@susscsc1.reading.ac.uk...
(snip)
>
Overall it just boils down to personal taste and preference so I focus my
reply on this one.
> Yes, I have a feeling that PT appeals to pen&paper role players. I never
> really got into pen&paper 'cause of the slow progress of games, and the
> arguments when everyone decides they want to do things their way. Hmm
maybe
> I just found an annoying bunch of people to play with.
I can't stress enough (and I think I'm not alone on this) the importance of
a good DM/GM. A bad one can
really ruin a good RPG. Call of Cthulhu for instance is very dependant on
this, the mood was everything.
I seem to recall that Paranoia was one of the harder games to GM properly.
Having bad roleplayers in your team (ie people who can't role play someone
else) ruins a game more than anything else.
I was lucky to get introduced to AD&D by one of the best DM:s I have ever
encountered :).
> (snipped good points)
> Oh well..
>
> Rich.
Marcus
Christoph Nahr
<r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>I have played just about every RPG since 1980, and I found PT to be really
>tedious. I loved the first half of Baldurs Gate, and was so looking forward
>to a much "better" game as everyone described it.
No offense, but if you're basing a purchasing decision on Usenet posts
it might be a good idea to actually *read* those posts... okay, you
don't like reading monologues so this might be a problem. <g>
Seriously, I've seen plenty of posts and even more reviews that
pointed out the exact things you are now complaining about: there's a
lot to read, there are no ranged weapons, there's a linear story.
Frankly, if you read what "everyone" said you shouldn't be surprised
by what you found.
>What I found was a game
>with conversation threads that last half an hour each, most of which are
>lacking in atmosphere. I liked talking to the female apparition in the
>mortuary, and seeing the flaming wizard in the tavern, but that is the only
>really atmospheric conversation I found. Also the combat is so tedious, with
>no ranged weapons!
It seems you absolutely must see animated graphics in order to feel
any atmosphere (the woman had a transparency effect, the wizard was
burning, and later you say you liked U7 because of the waves). While
Torment's graphics are good, they really just play a supporting role.
Most of the gameplay takes place in the text window. IMO most of this
text was extremely well-written and conveyed tons of atmosphere, all
on its own. But yes, playing Torment is a lot like reading a book on
the computer. Matter of taste, I guess.
--
Chris Nahr (christo...@uumail.xxde, remove xx to reply by e-mail)
Please reply either on Usenet or by e-mail but not both!
Visit http://uuhome.de/christoph.nahr/ for Might & Magic information
and game projects with source code for download: Star Chess & Hexkit
FS
>
>Oh well.. I bought PT purely because of posts on this newsgroup, but I guess
>sometimes the majority are not right.
>
>
majority", doesn't mean you, or "the majority" is right or wrong..
It's all about opinions, eh? :)
L.J. Wischik
>I found PT to be really tedious... a game
>with conversation threads that last half an hour each, most of which are
>of immersion.
[I respect your opinion on the dialog, and agree with you about U7 open
spaces, so my post isn't an attack on yours -- mainly just a
comment on immersion, which you used partly in justification.]
"IMMERSION". A word that most newsgroup people use in describing many
sorts of games. I don't believe in it -- or, at least, I think that the
word is too frequently used as a replacement for careful thought.
*Immersion* is when you are totally absorbed in an activity. You can be
immersed in a novel or a game of chess or watching the clouds float
past. It's a complete emotional engagement, and non-intellectual. Why is
this a good thing? Why do people want it? I don't know. (but like it all
the same).
But people often talk about something totally different: they want an
entire world or part of it to be recreated on computer, with every sort
of interaction possible, and everything consistent. If the recreation is
complete, interactable and consistent, we might call it a *believable*
virtual world. Why is this a good thing? I'm sure it is in many cases,
but I bet every single gamer in the world enjoys at least some immersive
non-believable games.
Do waves lapping at the shore make a game more immersive? No, not at
all, no more than having chants of a bishop praying make chess
immersive. Do they make the virtual world more complete and consistent?
Yes.
If immersion is your stated goal, then it does no good to criticise a
game's believability! [I personally found PS:T totally immersive, in
that I found myself unable to draw myself away from the computer for the
five days it took to play it through. In the same way as a good novel,
only better. But I accept that immersive to some might be dead boring
to others. e.g. theoretical computer science...]
Part of believability is realism. I think there are two sorts of
realism. *Physical realism* is when you demand that the raw physics
and physical mechanics that make up the game world obey realistic and
consistent laws of physics or magic.
*Emotional realism* is when you demand that the emotion and story line
and subjective experience obey exciting and dramatic laws of
story-telling and drama.
The two sorts of realism are often in conflict. Physical realism might
make you pick up every individual item of loot after a conflict;
emotional realism might automate the process, but have unexpected sorts
of loot (e.g. no one has any clothes that you can take, or perhaps they
have rusty daggers even though alive they were fighting with sharp
swords).
Emotional realism makes for an *immersive* game. Physical realism makes
for a *believable* game. I much prefer the former.
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
Richie
Christoph Nahr <s...@sig.invalid> wrote in message
news:vlr0hss9drb7lqhr8...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 3 May 2000 16:58:44 +0100, "Richie"
> No offense, but if you're basing a purchasing decision on Usenet posts
> it might be a good idea to actually *read* those posts... okay, you
> don't like reading monologues so this might be a problem. <g>
Hehe - I did read the posts(mostly). Its just that I was convinced that the
overall usenet responce to a game was accurate. Normally there is at least
*some* diversity in opinion, but for PT *everyone* seemed to love it. To be
honest I have enjoyed nearly all of the rpg's I have played before (except
Ultima 8 which everyone bashed anyway), and so I was surprised that I seemed
to be the only one that was not enthralled by this game. Anyway I still
trust usenet way more than any magazine reviews, but will be more careful
from now on! I think the point of my post was to say to people, hey - a good
usenet responce is not a guarantee of a game you will like.
> Seriously, I've seen plenty of posts and even more reviews that
> pointed out the exact things you are now complaining about: there's a
> lot to read, there are no ranged weapons, there's a linear story.
> Frankly, if you read what "everyone" said you shouldn't be surprised
> by what you found.
Yes you are right there, but *everyone* seemed to like it!
> It seems you absolutely must see animated graphics in order to feel
> any atmosphere (the woman had a transparency effect, the wizard was
> burning, and later you say you liked U7 because of the waves). While
> Torment's graphics are good, they really just play a supporting role.
> Most of the gameplay takes place in the text window. IMO most of this
> text was extremely well-written and conveyed tons of atmosphere, all
> on its own. But yes, playing Torment is a lot like reading a book on
> the computer. Matter of taste, I guess.
It's not just about the graphics - I actually felt some emotion when the
woman spoke, and empathised with the torture the wizard was undergoing, yet
that he was determined and powerful enough to still cling to life.. I did
like the story, and do like story based RPG's. But I found a lot of tedium
getting at the story with PT. Also I guess the general setting was too grey
and miserable for my tastes. As you say, a matter of taste.
Serg
then "real" CRPG.
> PS:T is superior to anything I have ever played on computer so
far.Mind you
> that I prefere
> Sci Fi settings to fantasy.
>
> PS:T has it all, awesome storyline, great action and lot's of gaming
time.
> The MM series are just plain boring
> in my opinion, just mindless hack'n slash. BG was tedious in the end I
have
> to admit but at least it had a storyline I could relate to.
> Diablo was kind off fun but I got tired after the same alll over
again.
>
> I would like to add that I have played most paper RPG:s at least once
and
> plenty of CRPG:s so I have some XP :).
>
> Now I am looking forward to NWN, IWD, Arcanum and probably Arachnox.
>
> Marcus
>
> Richie <r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> skrev i
> diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8epkia$3n6$1...@susscsc1.reading.ac.uk...
> >
> > MsJudi <mc...@mastnet.net> wrote in message
> > news:UVEQOUuZP9xKp=XV4QK0z...@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 3 May 2000 16:58:44 +0100, "Richie"
> > > <r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >Oh well.. I bought PT purely because of posts on this newsgroup,
but I
> > guess
> > > >sometimes the majority are not right.
> > > >
> > > >Surely there must be someone out there that agrees with me?????
> > >
> > > I do. I, too, bought PT after hearing on this
> > > group how wonderful it was. I felt claustraphobic
> > > playing it, and bored sensless. I have wasted so
> > > much money lately on 'puter games, been burned to
> > > the point of toast, so now I'm just saving my
> > > money and waiting for DII.
> > >
> > > MsJudi
> >
> > I've wasted far too much money as well! I got fed up and haven't
bought
> > another game since I got fed up after buying PT, and am only going
to buy
> > something that I KNOW will be outstanding. The original Diablo had
so much
> > atmosphere. OK the game was relatively simple for an RPG, but the
few
> > characters that were there had excellent voice acting and the whole
thing
> > was so polished. The only games on my shopping list now are Diablo2
and
> > Shogun:Total War. I just wish Diablo 2 was more than 640x480!
> >
> > Rich.
> >
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Peacedog1
>Hehe - I did read the posts(mostly). Its just that I was convinced that the
>overall usenet responce to a game was accurate.
How can you say it wasn't accurate? Its all based on opinion. Your not liking
it is perfectly fine, but to say that Usenet's liking it when you didn't is
wrong is nonsense.
>Normally there is at least
>*some* diversity in opinion, but for PT *everyone* seemed to love it.
Well, there have been a few, but I agree its less than you'd normally see. But
you have to remember, the slice of life represented here is far from "normal".
> and so I was surprised that I seemed
>to be the only one that was not enthralled by this game.
Well, you aren't the first but there haven't been many.
> Anyway I still
>trust usenet way more than any magazine reviews, but will be more careful
>from now on! I think the point of my post was to say to people, hey - a good
>usenet responce is not a guarantee of a game you will like.
I don't know that a good Usenet responce is necessarily more valid than a good
"mass market" response either. Even here there are those that gravitate in
certain directions. Some people think Diablo was the height of roleplaying (I
thought it was fun, but not the height of roleplaying). Some didn't like
Fallout. It should go without saying to take everything with a grain of salt.
>It's not just about the graphics - I actually felt some emotion when the
>woman spoke, and empathised with the torture the wizard was undergoing, yet
>that he was determined and powerful enough to still cling to life.
Actually, I think that he was clinging to life was not something based on
sanity :)
>. I did
>like the story, and do like story based RPG's. But I found a lot of tedium
>getting at the story with PT
but alot of peole didn't experience that tedium. Just opionions, not right or
wrong (as you go on to say).
Durham Dragon
liked Torment precisely *because* it featured some of the best things about
the classic Ultimas (a series that's been a favourite of mine for years).
There were very few conversations in Torment that I didn't find very
interesting, and the characters really came to life (something I like from
Ultima).
IMO, one of Torment has tremendous atmosphere and immersion. From the
unique characters and locations themselves, the interesting storylines, to
the music, and the great use of ambient sound effects. I was always right
there. Maybe you're just not big on reading. :) It's a lot of reading,
but very worthwhile IMO, and the writing is where the character of the game
really shines through. *shrug*
DD
Richie wrote in message <8ephls$fv$1...@susscsc1.reading.ac.uk>...
>
>I have played just about every RPG since 1980, and I found PT to be really
>tedious. I loved the first half of Baldurs Gate, and was so looking forward
>to a much "better" game as everyone described it. What I found was a game
>with conversation threads that last half an hour each, most of which are
>lacking in atmosphere. I liked talking to the female apparition in the
>mortuary, and seeing the flaming wizard in the tavern, but that is the only
>really atmospheric conversation I found. Also the combat is so tedious,
with
>no ranged weapons!
>
>For reference I favour atmosphere and a feeling of immersion. My favourite
>RPG is probably Ultima 7 (I loved the way the waves crashed onto the
beach),
>and that you could wander around the countryside and stumble upon something
>interesting. PT feels so small, cramped and linear. Am I the only one that
>wants to feel as if he is in a living, breathing world of some size? I
>really enjoy exploring the surrounding area, and not being stuck in a
>cramped town. I liked MM6, but 7 & 8 were so similar I was not impressed.
>
>Oh well.. I bought PT purely because of posts on this newsgroup, but I
guess
>sometimes the majority are not right.
>
>Surely there must be someone out there that agrees with me?????
>
>Rich.
>
>
Durham Dragon
>
>I've wasted far too much money as well! I got fed up and haven't bought
>another game since I got fed up after buying PT, and am only going to buy
>something that I KNOW will be outstanding. The original Diablo had so much
>atmosphere. OK the game was relatively simple for an RPG, but the few
>characters that were there had excellent voice acting and the whole thing
>was so polished. The only games on my shopping list now are Diablo2 and
>Shogun:Total War. I just wish Diablo 2 was more than 640x480!
>
>Rich.
Well your shopping list suggests Torment is the wrong type of game for you
anyway. I'll be playing Diablo 2 as well, but if all you're interested in
is a visceral action/graphical experience (which I thought Torment did a
pretty decent job at in it's own right) it's no wonder you didn't like PST.
I could have told you that you wouldn't like it. Naw...I would have
recommended this game to anyone. ;)
About the voice acting...excellent? In Diablo 1? I thought it was
decidedly average. You might be getting Diablo 1 confused with the acting
in the Diablo 2 trailers. :) If you want excellent, look no further than
Torment. Not a lot of it, but at least as much, if not a fair bit more than
Diablo, and it's probably the best I've ever heard in a game.
DD
Durham Dragon
the shoes of a fictional character, in a fictional world, and decide how
he/she talks to people and accomplishes tasks within the framework of the
given story and setting.
Precisely why Torment is more RPG than say Baldur's Gate or Might and Magic
or Diablo, games where usually the only decision was which weapons/spells do
you equip for the next fight you get into.
DD
Serg wrote in message <8epvo5$o1n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> > > >Oh well.. I bought PT purely because of posts on this newsgroup,
>but I
>> > guess
>> > > >sometimes the majority are not right.
>> > > >
>> > > >Surely there must be someone out there that agrees with me?????
>> > >
>> > > I do. I, too, bought PT after hearing on this
>> > > group how wonderful it was. I felt claustraphobic
>> > > playing it, and bored sensless. I have wasted so
>> > > much money lately on 'puter games, been burned to
>> > > the point of toast, so now I'm just saving my
>> > > money and waiting for DII.
>> > >
>> > > MsJudi
>> >
>> > I've wasted far too much money as well! I got fed up and haven't
>bought
>> > another game since I got fed up after buying PT, and am only going
>to buy
>> > something that I KNOW will be outstanding. The original Diablo had
>so much
>> > atmosphere. OK the game was relatively simple for an RPG, but the
>few
>> > characters that were there had excellent voice acting and the whole
>thing
>> > was so polished. The only games on my shopping list now are Diablo2
>and
>> > Shogun:Total War. I just wish Diablo 2 was more than 640x480!
>> >
>> > Rich.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Waylander
> <r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Oh well.. I bought PT purely because of posts on this newsgroup, but I guess
> >sometimes the majority are not right.
> >
> >Surely there must be someone out there that agrees with me?????
>
> I do. I, too, bought PT after hearing on this
> group how wonderful it was. I felt claustraphobic
> playing it, and bored sensless. I have wasted so
> much money lately on 'puter games, been burned to
> the point of toast, so now I'm just saving my
> money and waiting for DII.
>
> MsJudi
Weird I kinda feel like that about Baldurs Gate. But I just love PST, the only
thing which bugs me is the Inventory system ie. one ring taking one slot which
was the same in BG. Even a oldie like Darksun had containers.(But I can live with
that, since the story and playability and is so good and the different options
to do things in PST.) Anyway BG is gathering dust on the shelf along with TSOC(I
have just bought it, not long ago) haven´t really played it that much. I do
however plan to install both and play through them sometime after I have finished
PST, and have the hardisk space to do a full install like I have done with PST.
Hopefully I will have finished BG before BG II comes out, unless I jump at BG II
directly. :)
Waylander
In case anyone wonders why I asked some questions about BG earlier in the bg
newsgroup and now say thats its on the shelf gathering dust, well its not enteriely
true since my brother is playing it on a another compuer. And he ran into some
problems like the same movie looping over and over and ov............ well you get
the idea. :)
Brad Thomas
>woman spoke, and empathised with the torture the wizard was undergoing, yet
>that he was determined and powerful enough to still cling to life.
And he is pretty *cool* he starts throwing flames around too. One of the
*coolest* npcs in the game. Ok, let me have it. I know I was really asking
for it. ; ) B
"And the seraphs, all haggard and wan,
Uprising, unveiling, affirm
That the play is the tragedy, "Man,"
And its hero the Conqueror Worm."
Edgar Allen Poe
Jason McCullough
>> <r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Oh well.. I bought PT purely because of posts on this newsgroup, but I
>guess
>> >sometimes the majority are not right.
>> >
>> >Surely there must be someone out there that agrees with me?????
>>
>> I do. I, too, bought PT after hearing on this
>> group how wonderful it was. I felt claustraphobic
>> playing it, and bored sensless. I have wasted so
>> much money lately on 'puter games, been burned to
>> the point of toast, so now I'm just saving my
>> money and waiting for DII.
>>
>> MsJudi
>
>another game since I got fed up after buying PT, and am only going to buy
>something that I KNOW will be outstanding. The original Diablo had so much
>atmosphere. OK the game was relatively simple for an RPG, but the few
>characters that were there had excellent voice acting and the whole thing
>was so polished.
Alright, you're an idiot. Diablo was not even remotely "atmospheric,"
unless the term is redefined to mean "not putting hax0r talk in an
RPG."
Jason McCullough
http://zebco.home.dhs.org/
Patrick Mcginley
: >something that I KNOW will be outstanding. The original Diablo had so much
: >atmosphere. OK the game was relatively simple for an RPG, but the few
: >characters that were there had excellent voice acting and the whole thing
: >was so polished.
: Alright, you're an idiot. Diablo was not even remotely "atmospheric,"
: unless the term is redefined to mean "not putting hax0r talk in an
: RPG."
Man, I saw this coming...
: Jason McCullough
: http://zebco.home.dhs.org/
--
-
television: where toothpaste and cars are sex objects...
Bob Perez
"Richie" <r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8epm51$48d$1...@susscsc1.reading.ac.uk...
>
> Marcus J. Maunula <marc...@mbox301.swipnet.se> wrote in message
> news:fMYP4.16225$uJ1....@nntpserver.swip.net...
> really got into pen&paper 'cause of the slow progress of games, and the
> arguments when everyone decides they want to do things their way. Hmm
maybe
> I just found an annoying bunch of people to play with.
Nah, I'm another one of those guys who never played the pen and paper role
playing games and I love PS:T. I really didn't think I'd like it because I'm
more action oriented, and I *hate* conversation trees. But in the end, I was
sucked into it in a way I could never have predicted. I'm actually playing
it a 2nd time right now, something I *never* do. I loved Diablo, played it
on opening day (Jan 3, 1997) and didn't stop for months so I hear you loud
and clear on the action, the pacing, the atmosphere (god, the music of
Diablo....whew). Hey, these things are far too subjective, you may just have
a far lower tolerance for this type of game than others here. But I can say
without any question in my mind that the posts are substantiated. The game
may not offer something that everyone can relate to, but it's very very
special (and a lot more fun imo than Baldur's Gate was).
One thing I guess I like is that I can gain experience running around doing
things and learning things. There are so many bazillion games out in the
world that are based on combat, aren't you *tired* of it? I am. For me, PS:T
offers me the opportunity to use my mind, and think about problem solving.
I'm not going to put down clickfests, I love a good clickfest as much as the
next guy, but there must be fifty ways to play a clickfest when you want to.
There aren't many RPGs that are so focused on rewarding pure discovery.
BP
Mook
>
> Richie <r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> skrev i
> diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8epm51$48d$1...@susscsc1.reading.ac.uk...
> (snip)
> >
> Overall it just boils down to personal taste and preference so I focus my
> reply on this one.
>
> > really got into pen&paper 'cause of the slow progress of games, and the
> > arguments when everyone decides they want to do things their way. Hmm
> maybe
> > I just found an annoying bunch of people to play with.
>
of
> a good DM/GM. A bad one can
> really ruin a good RPG. Call of Cthulhu for instance is very dependant on
> this, the mood was everything.
> I seem to recall that Paranoia was one of the harder games to GM properly.
>
> Having bad roleplayers in your team (ie people who can't role play someone
> else) ruins a game more than anything else.
> I was lucky to get introduced to AD&D by one of the best DM:s I have ever
> encountered :).
>
> > (snipped good points)
> > Oh well..
> >
> > Rich.
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
pigtails and lollipops.
Then the world would a much nicer place.
sbe...@dowco.com
Scott Bennie
mr bernard langham
of
> a good DM/GM. A bad one can
> really ruin a good RPG. Call of Cthulhu for instance is very dependant on
> this, the mood was everything.
> I seem to recall that Paranoia was one of the harder games to GM properly.
>
And, extending this analogy: PS:T == great, wise, splendiferous GM, BG == 13
yr old Monty Haul kewl d00d GM.
Niko Wellingk
> I have played just about every RPG since 1980, and I found PT to be really
> tedious. I loved the first half of Baldurs Gate, and was so looking forward
> to a much "better" game as everyone described it. What I found was a game
> with conversation threads that last half an hour each, most of which are
> lacking in atmosphere.
When everyone has been saying how the plot was important
in the game, not fighting, you still bought it and expected
it to be something else? You really should have read more
reviews on the game before buying it. If you want hack and
slash kind of action, then PST is not for you.
I always enjoy a good story over action and PST had plenty
to offer. The interaction between NPCs was great, they didn't
just join you and tag along, without having any other function
than shoot arrows/cast spells at umpteen targets.
Really, read some reviews of the games you are going to buy
or ask around what they are like. You obviously don't like
games where you have to read stuff, so stick to pure hack
and slash (sorry for being a bit aggressive, but I'm sick
of people with short attention span, it seems to be the norm
in today's world).
--
Niko Wellingk n...@niksula.hut.fi
Richie
> I always enjoy a good story over action and PST had plenty
> to offer. The interaction between NPCs was great, they didn't
> just join you and tag along, without having any other function
> than shoot arrows/cast spells at umpteen targets.
>
> Really, read some reviews of the games you are going to buy
> or ask around what they are like. You obviously don't like
> games where you have to read stuff, so stick to pure hack
> and slash (sorry for being a bit aggressive, but I'm sick
> of people with short attention span, it seems to be the norm
> in today's world).
>
> --
> Niko Wellingk n...@niksula.hut.fi
Hmm... The funny thing is I do like reading and good story lines - and the
gradual uncovering of the characters past was very interesting.. And, I
pretty much liked every other RPG I played before, not just the hack and
slash ones. I guess I just like exploring and a bit more variety of
locations. I thought WOW, I can go through portals to other worlds and
they'll all be different.. But all of them are grey and drab. I guess its
similar to my Eastenders aversion (Eastenders is a depressing UK TV
Programme that has huge audiences but is bloody depressing for me).
I think my main curiosity was why *everyone* seemed to like it so much -
Normally even for the best games someone is nitpicking at minor faults, but
for PT nothing.. hehe
Oh well - I was not slagging off people who liked the game, as its obviously
just not my cup of tea, but was just wondering if anyone out there agreed
with me!
I'm glad you all enjoyed it, and reading your posts I'm almost tempted to
reinstall it and give it another try - until I remember the wandering around
the mortuary talking/examining every bloody skeleton/zombie just because one
of them had something I wanted. hmm surely you guys didn't find that
fun????????
Rich.
L.J. Wischik
>But all of them are grey and drab.
I think that it was mainly the graphics that were grey and drap. The
characters and the interaction seemed to me mainly funny or emotional,
but never drap. I hate Eastenders too, and for the same reason as you!
>reinstall it and give it another try - until I remember the wandering around
>the mortuary talking/examining every bloody skeleton/zombie just because one
>of them had something I wanted. hmm surely you guys didn't find that
>fun????????
I did :) But actually, as far as I remember, you don't have to examine a
single skeleton or zombie in the mortuary. You can fight and kill the
ones in the first room, and then leave without talking to any more of
them.
Sheitan
> I have played just about every RPG since 1980, and I found PT to be really
> tedious. I loved the first half of Baldurs Gate, and was so looking
forward
> to a much "better" game as everyone described it. What I found was a game
> with conversation threads that last half an hour each, most of which are
> mortuary, and seeing the flaming wizard in the tavern, but that is the
only
> really atmospheric conversation I found.
Obviously you never got to the Deionarra sensory stone in the Festhall. Or
Ravel. Or talked to Morte or Dak'Kon about their previous knowledge of you.
Or talked to Aelwyn about what she knows of your past. Or Trias' final
speech. Its sounds like you never got into the game.
The game is more chock full of meaningful and atmospheric conversations than
any other game I have ever played.
Also the combat is so tedious, with
> no ranged weapons!
Bah, the combat isn't great, but its fairly unimportant.
> For reference I favour atmosphere and a feeling of immersion. My favourite
> RPG is probably Ultima 7 (I loved the way the waves crashed onto the
beach),
> and that you could wander around the countryside and stumble upon
something
> interesting. PT feels so small, cramped and linear. Am I the only one that
> wants to feel as if he is in a living, breathing world of some size?
You're _supposed_ to feel like that. They call it The Hive for a reason,
y'know! It feels living and breathing too though, to me, but it would be
disappointing if it wasn't cramped.
I
> really enjoy exploring the surrounding area, and not being stuck in a
> cramped town. I liked MM6, but 7 & 8 were so similar I was not impressed.
But all that space was just empty. There was nothing to do there.
> Oh well.. I bought PT purely because of posts on this newsgroup, but I
guess
> sometimes the majority are not right.
Or more appropriately you have a different set of preferences to the
majority, its not a matter of "right" or "wrong", its just that you don't
like the type of game that Torment is.
> Surely there must be someone out there that agrees with me?????
Maybe, but not me.
- Sheitan
Sheitan
> IMO PS:T is more like interactive book(or film) of the future
> then "real" CRPG.
>
What, you mean it has plot and detail and motivated charcters rather than
just FedEx quests and stat improvements?
- Sheitan
Sheitan
>
> Alright, you're an idiot. Diablo was not even remotely "atmospheric,"
> unless the term is redefined to mean "not putting hax0r talk in an
> RPG."
Sure it was. Obviously you don't have a subwoofer ;-)
Diablo had heaps of atmosphere (lights turned out, windows curtained, sound
way up). Being along in those dark corridors beneath the earth was
certainly atmospheric, just not in a way you're comfortable with.
- Sheitan
Brian H.
"Richie" <r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> I have played just about every RPG since 1980, and I found PT to be
really
> tedious. I loved the first half of Baldurs Gate, and was so looking
forward
> to a much "better" game as everyone described it. What I found was a
game
> with conversation threads that last half an hour each, most of which
are
> lacking in atmosphere. I liked talking to the female apparition in the
> mortuary, and seeing the flaming wizard in the tavern, but that is
the only
tedious, with
> no ranged weapons!
>
(*snip*)
Frankly, some dialogs inside PS:T can't interest me, like the Gith
history & Zerthimon's cliche. I just scroll through the text and
listen for the funky sound of getting exp. :)
But there are other dialogs I'm interested, like the stories heard from
the brothel, some background stories of the Nameless One, etc.
I think you can play PS:T like Diablo by restarting the game and lower
the Chr, Wis, Int stat to as low as 3 and then bump the STR, DEX & CON
stats up to 20+. You won't get many dialog options and with high CON
your HP will regen like madness. This way you'll become a highly
formidable killing machine. Just kill everything that can move on
screen and become a chaotic evil character. Wouldn't it be fun? ;)
--
Brian.
Human beings can send to bh1234...@nospam.please.ismart.net.
Spammers can send to bh1...@my-deja.com because I never use it.
who...@wherever.com
: I have played just about every RPG since 1980, and I found PT to be really
: tedious. I loved the first half of Baldurs Gate, and was so looking forward
: to a much "better" game as everyone described it. What I found was a game
: with conversation threads that last half an hour each, most of which are
: lacking in atmosphere. I liked talking to the female apparition in the
: mortuary, and seeing the flaming wizard in the tavern, but that is the only
: really atmospheric conversation I found. Also the combat is so tedious, with
: no ranged weapons!
There's a rather large group of players who wouldn't quite catch the wonders
of games like PS:T, and those would be the ones with less than stellar know-
ledge of English language. There aren't localized versions for each and every
corner of the world, yet there are plenty of RPG players anywhere. I happened
to read a 3/5 stars review of PS:T where the reviewer obviously never quite
realized, and couldn't appreciate, the quality of plot and writing, apparently
due to his lacking language skills. The review was all about graphics and
combat as if the game in question was Dungeon Hack XXVIII or something.
A friend of mine with a poor grasp of English loves all kinds of RPGs inclu-
ding but not limited to M&M series, Diablo, Fallouts, (and even BAK with a
lot of help from a dictionary), but BG and PS:T left him indifferent simply
because there was too much complicated reading required.
L.J. Wischik
>What, you mean it has plot and detail and motivated charcters rather than
>just FedEx quests and stat improvements?
In a lot of cases I don't think it makes sense to complain about FedEx
quests. In essence, every single quest in every single game is like this:
1. do something
2. go somewhere else and do another thing
3. go somewhere and do another thing
and so on.
If you remove the FedEx aspects, then all quests become
1. do something
2. do another thing in the same place
3. do another thing in the same place
which would get a bit boring! But would mean at least that the designers
needn't bother with different locations, since they could have absolutely
everyone and everything in the same single room.
(whether you're fedexing objects, or information, doesn't really make much
difference -- they're both still fedexing).
Wilhelm Elmore
Most quests in CRPGS boil down to Fedex'ing.
The backstory to each quest may make things interesting but most of the
time, they come down to three things:
1) Kill "fill in the blank".
2) Deliver, "fill in the blank" to "fill in the blank".
3) Talk to "fill in the blank" about "fill in the blank".
Sure many quests involve combinations of the above. Example: deliver
something to someone so he'll talk to you about something so that you can
kill whoever. I don't mean to deride CRPGs. I like them. A well-developed
game with a great story and outstanding dialog will allow most players to
look beyond the basic-ness of quests. Also, a great CRPG (IMHO) needs to
have a highly customizable stat system. I like to taylor-make my characters.
W. Elmore
"L.J. Wischik" <ljw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8es1iu$goc$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
drocket
wrote:
>Most quests in CRPGS boil down to Fedex'ing.
>
>The backstory to each quest may make things interesting but most of the
>time, they come down to three things:
>
>1) Kill "fill in the blank".
>
>2) Deliver, "fill in the blank" to "fill in the blank".
>
>3) Talk to "fill in the blank" about "fill in the blank".
Really though, what else is there? Not just in what a game can do,
but in real life also. Ultimately, everthing you could ever possibly
do pretty much boils down to the above 3 things. Heck, there's really
only 2 at that: Do something with an item and do something with
information, and if you consider information a non-tangible item, then
there's really only 1. :)
kromm
<r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
Pants? What about trousers? Blouse, flannel shirt, vest, or spring
jacket? hehehe just kidding.
>
>For reference I favour atmosphere and a feeling of immersion.
>RPG is probably Ultima 7 (I loved the way the waves crashed onto the beach),
>and that you could wander around the countryside and stumble upon something
>interesting. PT feels so small, cramped and linear. Am I the only one that
>wants to feel as if he is in a living, breathing world of some size? I
>really enjoy exploring the surrounding area, and not being stuck in a
>cramped town. I liked MM6, but 7 & 8 were so similar I was not impressed.
>
Immersion.....hmmm, here's my wish. I would like to see an RPG in the
spirit of PS:T or BG, using the surreal animation from Riven. The
Riven environment provided a wonderfully immersive game. Exploration
was quite interesting. Unfortunetly, for my tastes, there was
virtually no interaction in that game, pushing buttons and pulling
levers notwithstanding. Now if they could just combine the two
genres......
kromm
Knight37
Yeah. Why can't RPG's have other quests beside "Do Something." ;P
--
Knight37
"Innocence torn from me without your shelter.
Barred reality. I'm living blindly!" -- Metallica "Dyers Eve"
Knight37
>>From: "Richie" r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk
>
>>Hehe - I did read the posts(mostly). Its just that I was convinced
>>that the overall usenet responce to a game was accurate.
>
>How can you say it wasn't accurate? Its all based on opinion. Your
>not liking it is perfectly fine, but to say that Usenet's liking it
>when you didn't is wrong is nonsense.
Well I don't know about Richie, but MY opinion is far more "righter"
than Usenet's. ;P
--
Knight37
"That was just pillow talk, baby."
-- Ash, "Army of Darkness"
Knight37
>> A friend of mine with a poor grasp of English loves all kinds of
>> RPGs
>inclu-
>> ding but not limited to M&M series, Diablo, Fallouts, (and even
>> BAK with a lot of help from a dictionary), but BG and PS:T left
>> him indifferent
>simply
>> because there was too much complicated reading required.
>>
>
>And we're not just talking about people with English as a second
>language here, either... (glances sadly at statistics about falling
>literacy rates in the USA)
Actually everything I've been reading indicates that literacy (ie.
number of people reading and things being read) is at an all time high.
I think the main problem is that the language is being "dumbed down" to
a level so that anyone can read it... So it's not the quantity of
readers that is falling, it's the quality...
--
Knight37
"There are two kinds of spurs, my friend. Those who come in by the
door, and those who come in through the window."
-- Tuco, from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
L.J. Wischik
>Yeah. Why can't RPG's have other quests beside "Do Something." ;P
There is a class of quest, present in PS:T, that is essentially "Do
Nothing". (or at least: "don't do the wrong thing"). Where the game gives
you possibile courses of action or possible dialog trees and you don't
take them. (e.g. talking to Vhalior, and avoiding certain topics so that
he doesn't kill you).
Any sort of detective problem is a bit like this, where the game gives you
the opportunity to accuse anyone but you must accuse the right person for
the right reasons.
Richie
Knight37 <knig...@gamespotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8F2A9E42Aknigh...@209.30.0.14...
> peac...@aol.com (Peacedog1) wrote:
>
> >>From: "Richie" r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk
> >
> >>Hehe - I did read the posts(mostly). Its just that I was convinced
> >>that the overall usenet responce to a game was accurate.
> >
> >How can you say it wasn't accurate? Its all based on opinion. Your
> >not liking it is perfectly fine, but to say that Usenet's liking it
> >when you didn't is wrong is nonsense.
>
> Well I don't know about Richie, but MY opinion is far more "righter"
> than Usenet's. ;P
Heheh - anyway what I meant by "accurate" was "accurate for me", i.e. when a
game receives a glowing usenet response, I normally find it is good *for me*
as well. But what the hell, I am "righter" than you Knight 37 so there!
Anyway, didn't anyone find the PT forces you to powergame more than other
RPG's? Since you know that if you had 3 more charisma you would get another
conversation option and have a char join you, or 2 more dex would let you
follow another plot path, I found myself feeling that I *must* get every
advancement possible.. And one of the problems I had with the conversation
paths was that I knew something would happen sometimes if you said the right
thing. And if there is a choice of what to say really far down the
conversation, sometimes you would have to trawl through the entire tree just
to try another option, and then again until you found the right one..
Oh well, I think I must like eye candy and combat 'cause I am thinking of
buying Starlancer despite it getting a mixed response hehe..
Rich.
ps I guess in the US "pants" means trousers, which is not quite what I meant
:-)
.
ironchef
and the ending absolutely SUCKED!
"MsJudi" <mc...@mastnet.net> wrote in message
news:UVEQOUuZP9xKp=XV4QK0z...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 3 May 2000 16:58:44 +0100, "Richie"
> <r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >Oh well.. I bought PT purely because of posts on this newsgroup, but I
guess
> >sometimes the majority are not right.
> >
> >Surely there must be someone out there that agrees with me?????
>
Peacedog1
>Anyway, didn't anyone find the PT forces you to powergame more than other
>RPG's? Since you know that if you had 3 more charisma you would get another
>conversation option and have a char join you, or 2 more dex would let you
>follow another plot path, I found myself feeling that I *must* get every
>advancement possible.. And one of the problems I had with the conversation
>paths was that I knew something would happen sometimes if you said the right
>thing. And if there is a choice of what to say really far down the
>conversation, sometimes you would have to trawl through the entire tree just
>to try another option, and then again until you found the right one..
I didn't find this at all. I found that if I was playing a certain way, that
the game supported it so to speak. You don't have to get those Cha points, you
can put them else where and have it have other effects in the gameworld. I
don't call that powergaming at all. As for conversations, I didn't feel there
was much in the way of "Right/wrong", which I much prefer.
Brian Robinson
>>1) Kill "fill in the blank".
>>2) Deliver, "fill in the blank" to "fill in the blank".
>>3) Talk to "fill in the blank" about "fill in the blank".
> Really though, what else is there? Not just in what a game can do,
> but in real life also.
>
Well, having sex in real life is a lot different from "You have
sex with the harlot." And doing any number of physical things in real
life are much different.
One of the things I liked about Fallout was that quests were
usually more general than in P:T. Your quest wasn't "talk to x about the
problem" it was "solve the problem." You could solve the problem by
killing everyone, blowing something up, talking to people, or whatver. In
P:T all the quests I remember involve essentially the same steps; even
though you can pretend to be Juliet's lover or just tell the guy that you
are playing, the end result is the same. In Fallout you actually have a
number of different options available to solve a quest, independent of
what convo options someone may give you.
--
Brian Robinson
brob...@ist.ucf.edu
Institute for Simulation and Training
John Carey
Brian Robinson <brob...@figment.ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
news:8esmn...@news1.newsguy.com...
> One of the things I liked about Fallout was that quests were
> usually more general than in P:T. Your quest wasn't "talk to x about the
> problem" it was "solve the problem." You could solve the problem by
> killing everyone, blowing something up, talking to people, or whatver. In
> P:T all the quests I remember involve essentially the same steps; even
> though you can pretend to be Juliet's lover or just tell the guy that you
> are playing, the end result is the same. In Fallout you actually have a
> number of different options available to solve a quest, independent of
> what convo options someone may give you.
>
I don't believe the end result of the Juliet quest is the same. I advised
the lover to pretend indifference to her and never wound up with this quest
involving letters and stuff that I've read about here. It DID, however,
spice up Juliet's love life and I gained experience.
I thought Planescape generally did offer multiple solutions to the same
problem--the endgame being a particularly good example of that. It can
involve no combat (other than with Ignus), lots of combat with other selves
and a one-on-one with TTO, or even a wholesale slaughter of TTO by a party
of six which I'm told is possible though I couldn't get that conversation
tree.
Similarly, regaining the keys of what's her name's heart can be easily done
without even talking to the guy who has it.
L.J. Wischik
>I thought Planescape generally did offer multiple solutions to the same
>problem--the endgame being a particularly good example of that. It can
>involve no combat (other than with Ignus), lots of combat with other selves
>and a one-on-one with TTO, or even a wholesale slaughter of TTO by a party
>of six which I'm told is possible though I couldn't get that conversation
>tree.
It suddenly struck me that this final conflict -- which you'd expect to
have been the hardest part of the game -- was actually one of the easiest,
with all the different possible solutions tripping over each other to
suggest themselves to you. Odd.
mr bernard langham
Allienne Goddard
wrote:
>Richie <r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>*Immersion* is when you are totally absorbed in an activity. You can be
>immersed in a novel or a game of chess or watching the clouds float
>past. It's a complete emotional engagement, and non-intellectual. Why is
>this a good thing? Why do people want it? I don't know. (but like it all
>the same).
I find it interesting that you specify that immersion is a
"non-intellectual" experience. I am frequently am entirely absorbed
by purely intellectual pursuits without any apparent trace of emotion.
Would you care to elaborate on your notion?
>But people often talk about something totally different: they want an
>entire world or part of it to be recreated on computer, with every sort
>of interaction possible, and everything consistent. If the recreation is
>complete, interactable and consistent, we might call it a *believable*
>virtual world. Why is this a good thing? I'm sure it is in many cases,
>but I bet every single gamer in the world enjoys at least some immersive
>non-believable games.
I agree with your distiction, but I think that many people require a
certain realism in order to become immersed. It appears that many
people require a sustension of disbelief in order to remain immersed
in a computer game. When people complain about a game's lack of
immersiveness they frequently relate an occurance in which the player
was unable to do something that would be possible in reality. The
realization of the game's limitations pulls the player out of the
game. This isn't really surprising, since many computer games are
intended to be alternate realities in a way that Chess isn't.
[snip]
>If immersion is your stated goal, then it does no good to criticise a
>game's believability! [I personally found PS:T totally immersive, in
>that I found myself unable to draw myself away from the computer for the
>five days it took to play it through. In the same way as a good novel,
>only better. But I accept that immersive to some might be dead boring
>to others. e.g. theoretical computer science...]
I, too, found it to be quite immersive, but my immersion might have
been ended had something completely absurd for the game's reality
occured. Luckily, since the game is based on the concept of a meeting
of seperate dimensions, it was virtually impossible for any such
incongruity to appear.
Yours -- Ally
Sheitan
> >I thought Planescape generally did offer multiple solutions to the same
> >problem--the endgame being a particularly good example of that. It can
> >involve no combat (other than with Ignus), lots of combat with other
selves
> >and a one-on-one with TTO, or even a wholesale slaughter of TTO by a
party
> >of six which I'm told is possible though I couldn't get that conversation
> >tree.
>
> It suddenly struck me that this final conflict -- which you'd expect to
> have been the hardest part of the game -- was actually one of the easiest,
> with all the different possible solutions tripping over each other to
> suggest themselves to you. Odd.
The game wasn't supposed to be *hard*. It was supposed to be fun and
absorbing, which it was.
- Sheitan
Led Mirage
wrote:
>Actually everything I've been reading indicates that literacy (ie.
>number of people reading and things being read) is at an all time high.
>I think the main problem is that the language is being "dumbed down" to
>a level so that anyone can read it... So it's not the quantity of
>readers that is falling, it's the quality...
This generation of kids are heavily influenced by TVs. Just check out
the quality of TV programmes and you can see why people's language
skill drop. It's unlikely that kids today watch Peter Jennings, or 60
Minutes. Add to the influence of Internet and languauge will only get
worse.
John
cut-offs, but it's definitely not pants.
John
Sheitan
> >just FedEx quests and stat improvements?
>
> In a lot of cases I don't think it makes sense to complain about FedEx
> quests. In essence, every single quest in every single game is like this:
> 1. do something
> 2. go somewhere else and do another thing
> 3. go somewhere and do another thing
> and so on.
>
> If you remove the FedEx aspects, then all quests become
> 1. do something
> 2. do another thing in the same place
> 3. do another thing in the same place
> which would get a bit boring! But would mean at least that the designers
> needn't bother with different locations, since they could have absolutely
> everyone and everything in the same single room.
>
> (whether you're fedexing objects, or information, doesn't really make much
> difference -- they're both still fedexing).
There is considerable lattitude in the definition of a FedEx quest. In its
worst form, its simply to deliver a package to someone else and then return
to the original quest giver (as in say MM7, some guy in Erathia gives you a
letter to take to Tatalia). But even a seemingly dull quest like this can
be made _much_ more interesting through interesting ideas, conversations or
similar. For example, while the Moridor's Box quest in Torment seems like a
FedEx at first, it is soon discovered to be much more than that.
A true FedEx quest requires no decision making. If you have to talk to
several people making decisions in those conversations (and choosing how to
react) then it isn't just a FedEx quest - but if you just have to talk to
them and click on the conversation topic (eg "I've delivered your letter" or
similar in M&M) then there is no real player input. There's a quest in
Torment to talk to a collector's sister (who is a prostitute), and she gives
you some money to take back to him - by appearances a boring FedEx quest.
But by putting in player-defining role-playing decisions (to I keep the
money or give it over? Do I admit to the guy his sister is a whore or lie?)
the situation is made much more interesting.
Though admittedly in terms of transport, all quests amount to "go somewhere
and do something", the decisions that need to be made by the player in doing
so determine how interesting and how much fun the quest is.
I see your point, but I don't agree with it.
- Sheitan
Sheitan
> i hit the walkthru halfway thru it. bored silly.
> and the ending absolutely SUCKED!
No offense intended, but maybe you didn't understand it? There is a lot of
religious and philosophical depth in Torment's numerous endings.
Try reading some of the previous threads in this NG on interpreting the
ending and see if you can get a bit more out of it.
- Sheitan
L.J. Wischik
>I find it interesting that you specify that immersion is a
>"non-intellectual" experience. I am frequently am entirely absorbed
>by purely intellectual pursuits without any apparent trace of emotion.
>Would you care to elaborate on your notion?
(Me too... entirely absorbed by proofs in my theoretical computer science
PhD). But when you're engaged in it, even though the subject itself is
intellectual, your absorbment into it is not analytical or critical or
thinking. There isn't a bit of your brain sitting there and analysing the
mode of your engagement in it. You might suddenly stop, sit back, and
think: "I am absorbed for reason X, Y and Z", but the moment you do this
you lose the absorbtion.
Brian Robinson
> I thought Planescape generally did offer multiple solutions to the same
> problem--the endgame being a particularly good example of that. It can
> involve no combat (other than with Ignus), lots of combat with other selves
> and a one-on-one with TTO, or even a wholesale slaughter of TTO by a party
> of six which I'm told is possible though I couldn't get that conversation
> tree.
>
However, in most cases all of the "quest" was in the dialogue, and not
much mattered how you were playing. In Fallout, if you had a weak
scientist character, you'd definitely fix something before killing
someone. In P:T you rarely have a choice. You can be nice or mean but
not much else.
> Similarly, regaining the keys of what's her name's heart can be easily done
> without even talking to the guy who has it.
>
Yeah, I heard about that one and was pissed because that quest was
hard for me...
Brian Robinson
> It suddenly struck me that this final conflict -- which you'd expect to
> have been the hardest part of the game -- was actually one of the easiest,
> with all the different possible solutions tripping over each other to
> suggest themselves to you. Odd.
>
really expected a non-violent ending to P:T, but I was disappointed. I
basically hated the game from Ravel's maze on... It was all combat and
non content.
Allienne Goddard
wrote:
>Allienne Goddard <nihi...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
I agree that it is the very nature of immersion to lack a conscious
self-awareness of the experience. However, I still don't understand
why you qualify it as an "emotional engagement". I see the
maintainance of immersion as a process of filtering out perceptions
exterior to the phenomenon being experienced -- in other words, a
resticting focus on attention. If such focus flows from a firm
interest, and this interest is intellectual, then would this not be an
intellectual engagement?
Or do you believe that all interest flows from emotion? I'm actually
somewhat partial to this idea myself, but if one assumes that all
intellectual interests arise from, say, the pleasure in knowing, or
perhaps the desire for the feeling of power one experiences in knowing
the world and people more profoundly, would that not merely define all
intellectual experiences as also emotional ones? In any case, this
line of thinking in no way contradicts the idea that immersion might
be an intellectual experience, unless "interest" as I used it above is
a non-intellectual entity in your view. I suppose it all comes down
to my understanding of interest as an intellectual faculty which might
be motivated by emotion directly, or might be motivated by an
intellectual pursuit which itslef on some level was motivated by a
desire which could be called emotional.
On the other hand, can one simply define desires as emotional
experiences? Actually, I think not. It seems to me that desires
drive our psyches at a most fundamental level, whereas our emotions
are the spurred reflections of the conflicts which erupt when our
desires contradict each other, or are contradicted by reality. If it
is justifiable to distinguish between desire and emotion, then there
might be intellectual experiences which are not in themselves
emotional, though emotion might be present in its own right.
Well, whatever.
Yours -- Ally
L.J. Wischik
>I agree that it is the very nature of immersion to lack a conscious
>self-awareness of the experience. However, I still don't understand
>why you qualify it as an "emotional engagement". I see the
>maintainance of immersion as a process of filtering out perceptions
>exterior to the phenomenon being experienced -- in other words, a
>resticting focus on attention.
Quit right. I meant "emotional" only in the sense "not-analytical", rather
than "involving passions". I ment "intellectual" only in the sense
"conscious awareness and analysis".
>On the other hand, can one simply define desires as emotional
>experiences? Actually, I think not. It seems to me that desires
>drive our psyches at a most fundamental level, whereas our emotions
>are the spurred reflections of the conflicts which erupt
I got entirely confused about this when reading some philosophy of
various schools of Greek thought, and then early Christian thought.
Desires, passions, emotions, "ripples in the mental calm", ...
One particular school of thought made the distinction between *desire* and
*will*. Desire, they said, is when our minds are slaves to passion.
Will, they said, is when our minds are in charge and can shape the
world around us. Sounds a bit like Planescape: Torment !
Ykalon Dragon
Your Wis score was too low I would guess. I have played through the
game
5 times, 4 of those times I defeated TTO without combat.
--
My games for trade http://ugtz.com/users/Patrik.html
ICQ # 45086408
Marcus J. Maunula
right "great novel" ending that I want.
Combat just feels petty somehow given the epic story :).
I am going to try the sword next time though, want to see how that looks.
Marcus
Ykalon Dragon <yka...@SoftHome.net> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3913FF98...@SoftHome.net...
(snip)
Richie
Mook <jmcl...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:8eq6re$j0l$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> >
> >
> I think all RPG's should have little fluffy bunnies in them and girls with
> pigtails and lollipops.
> Then the world would a much nicer place.
Yes I couldn't agree more with you Mook. If Planesape Torment had you
playing a cute girl with pigtails in a frilly dress, wandering about a
pretty town full of flowers and playing with bunnies it would have been a
much better game. The lack of pigtails and bunnies was one of the games
fatal flaws IMHO.
Rich.
Marc de Vries
<r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Marcus J. Maunula <marc...@mbox301.swipnet.se> wrote in message
>news:fMYP4.16225$uJ1....@nntpserver.swip.net...
>> PS:T is superior to anything I have ever played on computer so far.Mind
>you
>> that I prefere
>> Sci Fi settings to fantasy.
>>
>> PS:T has it all, awesome storyline, great action and lot's of gaming time.
>> The MM series are just plain boring
>> in my opinion, just mindless hack'n slash. BG was tedious in the end I
>have
>> to admit but at least it had a storyline I could relate to.
>> Diablo was kind off fun but I got tired after the same alll over again.
>>
>> I would like to add that I have played most paper RPG:s at least once and
>> plenty of CRPG:s so I have some XP :).
>>
>> Now I am looking forward to NWN, IWD, Arcanum and probably Arachnox.
>>
>> Marcus
>
>Yes, I have a feeling that PT appeals to pen&paper role players. I never
>really got into pen&paper 'cause of the slow progress of games, and the
>arguments when everyone decides they want to do things their way. Hmm maybe
>I just found an annoying bunch of people to play with.
Heh heh,
I never played a pen&paper game, but I still like Torment ...
>
>Don't you think though that the conversation threads were pointlessly long?
>I do like an elaborate conversation tree, and don't mind long conversations,
>but sometimes in PT I just found myself clicking continue over and over
>after I asked a simple question. Remember the guy that talks about the
>nature of the universe in the flaming wizard bar (sorry leaky memory for
>names). I want INTERACTION, not people npc's spewing monologues at me
In the first hour playing time I thought the conversations of SOME
npc's was too long too. I guess this is because this world is new to
most players, and this way to want to give you some idea of how the
planes are build up.
Lucikly the important npcs didn't have those long conversations. Still
the long conversations about the dustmen were not always boring. I
quite liked the theory about live they had given the dustmen.
But I do have the feeling that the game improves about the time you
have found Pharod. The conversations later on in the game (I remember
those better) become very interesting and meaningful.
Normally I don't like to read long descriptions and long conversations
(I always hated them in MUDs) and I hated the books in DF, but in
Torment they didn't bother me. (except for he first hour)
> I
>remember in the original Monkey Island games the conversations were long but
>enjoyable, so its not just the length that bothers me. I liked the Fallout
>games btw.
>
>To be honest, after wandering around the PT starting town I thought to
>myself, OK I'll leave the town and wander to a more cheerful one. Needless
>to say, you can't do that, you can just portal to another drab and
>depressing town. Surely there are some planes where people are happy, and
>not permanently depressed??? I just felt like telling everyone to bloody
>cheer up and stop feeling sorry for themselves hehe
>
>Oh well..
>
>Rich.
>
>
>
>
Marc de Vries
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>
>"Richie" <r.j.ha...@reading.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:8epm51$48d$1...@susscsc1.reading.ac.uk...
>>
>> Marcus J. Maunula <marc...@mbox301.swipnet.se> wrote in message
>> news:fMYP4.16225$uJ1....@nntpserver.swip.net...
>> Yes, I have a feeling that PT appeals to pen&paper role players. I never
>> really got into pen&paper 'cause of the slow progress of games, and the
>> arguments when everyone decides they want to do things their way. Hmm
>maybe
>> I just found an annoying bunch of people to play with.
>
>Nah, I'm another one of those guys who never played the pen and paper role
>playing games and I love PS:T. I really didn't think I'd like it because I'm
>more action oriented, and I *hate* conversation trees. But in the end, I was
>sucked into it in a way I could never have predicted. I'm actually playing
>it a 2nd time right now, something I *never* do. I loved Diablo, played it
>on opening day (Jan 3, 1997) and didn't stop for months so I hear you loud
>and clear on the action, the pacing, the atmosphere (god, the music of
>Diablo....whew). Hey, these things are far too subjective, you may just have
>a far lower tolerance for this type of game than others here. But I can say
>without any question in my mind that the posts are substantiated. The game
>may not offer something that everyone can relate to, but it's very very
>special (and a lot more fun imo than Baldur's Gate was).
>
>One thing I guess I like is that I can gain experience running around doing
>things and learning things. There are so many bazillion games out in the
>world that are based on combat, aren't you *tired* of it? I am. For me, PS:T
>offers me the opportunity to use my mind, and think about problem solving.
I agree wholeheartedly.
The ones I liked best were in Curst. Like trying to figure out what to
to with the will, and what to do with those two persons that want to
frame each other for a murder I think it was? and try to pay you more
then the other.
Normally there is always some options that is best, or that you are
expected to choose. Here I couldn't see that.
>I'm not going to put down clickfests, I love a good clickfest as much as the
>next guy, but there must be fifty ways to play a clickfest when you want to.
>There aren't many RPGs that are so focused on rewarding pure discovery.
>
>BP
>
>
L.J. Wischik
>The ones I liked best were in Curst. Like trying to figure out what to
>to with the will, and what to do with those two persons that want to
>frame each other for a murder I think it was? and try to pay you more
>then the other.
>Normally there is always some options that is best, or that you are
>expected to choose. Here I couldn't see that.
In fact, everything I did in Curst, even though I thought it was for the
best, turned out bad for some people.
[spoiler]
Saving Trias, sorting out the will, carrying the message about the
junkyard, ... Very negative, and brilliant! Really conveyed effectively
how betrayal and mistrust warp even well-intentioned acts to evil. Like St
Augustine said: "heed not the words of the devil, even though he speaketh
the truth."