Xard

Yeah, it's too dogmatic from certain pov. However I very much agree on those central dogmas and you didn't explain why those dogmas are false

Play some FPS's well there is your problem. might as well ask a Haredi Rabbi for fashion advice. HA! Good Fun! What's wrong with his ideas of what constitute good RPG mechanism and roleplaying in CRPG's? They're absolutely spot on. Only thing I disagree on is that I don't think only games who meet all those criteriors are RPG's. I view such games as ideal RPG's

Why the **** isn't this news post then?

and here i thought RPG meant 'Role Playing Game'. it's true that the first RPGs were mostly tactical combat rules for minatures. but so what? they've moved on since then. the fallacy that because X originated from Y, therefore X=Y should be pretty obvious. I'm well aware of the vast paradox that roleplaying games don't have to have roleplaying in them in order to be roleplaying games You do remember the thread (or more like phase in loong thread) that started from Patrick Millis (derp, memory falters) asking what is RPG? If however one takes revisionist approach vast majority of classic RPG's CEASE TO BE RPG's C&C is late comer into CRPG's And basis of RPG's never got changed, I don't merely mean very first miniature wargames. CRPG is best described as sort of an umbrella term with only those few basic elements linking them all together from Bio RPG's to dungeon romps to slashfests to Troika games not even to start the whole debate what consists roleplaying. Technically good rule is that you can CHOOSE what role you can play. But that is something you're able to do just well with only first part of C&C edit: I personally "follow" VD's mantras (yet that's all they are, mantras) on what consists proper and even awesome roleplaying, but his terms are way too limited to consist origin of RPG's and at least 75 % of recognized CRPG's in it

I'm going to kill you. I'm actually looking forward to AP/Aliens most for the story/writing/characters/C&C/etc, since that's what Obs does. However, that does not mean in any way that substandard combat mechanics are acceptable. Frankly, if a developer knows that one aspect of their game (especially one that'll probably take most of the usual player's time in that game) is subpar, it should be changed fundamentally. If you can't do shooters, don't do shooter RPGs. If you're aiming for a specific type of gameplay, you better deliver. it's not like I'm trying to get between you two and your relationship I'd too be more looking forward to those aspects but because we really don't know much about those ('cept C&C) and awesome quality is pretty much guaranteed - so I must have something else to hope having vast improvements and that is basic gameplay.

That's exactly why people accept piss-poor RPG's. Everyone concentrates on mechanics instead of content. The rest of your post is too meandering for me to attempt to answer it, please state your points more concisely. Yeah, that's what I get when writing post after getting barely any sleep or rest in last night and having busy day. Anyway, that's not reason why people accept "piss-poor RPG's". After all people accepted games such as Arcanum and PS:T in addition to JE's and ME's as good or even excellent RPG's That's what RPG means, RPG means tactical combat simulator with experience gaining and character building. For all I agree with Vince's philosophy it is not universal or fundamental truth despite what he may think Just read this again: this is honestly one of the stupidest arguments I've heard in a while and reason why I wrote this post (because you keep repeating this) Imagine that this place would be Codex or Iron Tower forums or whatever. You go there to praise Kotors rather simple combat because it allows most casual and newb players to assimilate game mechanics and that they are "sufficiently tactical" to make game fun for most people and not "too hard and complex" so it harms the game. They'd laugh and ridicule you to no end, lambasting you as typical retarted modern gamer who is too stupid to read through ****ing brick for a manual that comes with "da real rpg's" and lern teh system. There's ridiculous amount of hypocrisy and prejudice in "hardcore" RPG community. (I'm generalizing of coure) They view your typical action game as kind of retarted "button smashing" ADHD kiddie style game without any depth in combat. Funny thing is many "mere" action games require more skill and dedication, fast decision making capability + sense of tactics than your average RPG. Hypothesis : Player who has never bothered to learn how x equipments stack with Improved Dickery Sling spell etc. and thus fail in complex combat and goes to fora whine about too hard complex combat and gets ridiculed... And "real" RPG players scoff and humiliate him and his stupidity with righteousness. Guess what, they have just as much right to call "lern2play" card as your average gamer listening whining of RPG player about how he can't do this "stupid reflexe based ****". If JE is defendable by dumbing it down so that "RPG players" (lol) can "win" the game then those same people don't have any right to criticise e.g Oblivion's combat mechanics. If these "RPG players" can't learn to play the system properly why the **** should developers care? AND And I agree with Nick; getting combat and other game mechanics right are the biggest reasons why I anticipate AP and Aliens RPG, not story or writing (as we don't know anything about Aliens and not much about AP either ) or "choices and consequences" or whatnot. Alpha Protocol might be first RPG in long, long while that has awesome game mechanics and way it achieves it is by going Deus Ex. There's something very telling about it. Besides, by going with meaning of word RPG gameplay mechanics overrides anything else because it is ****ing game. I've also been playing old great platformers on PS1 and I can't help but admire the way developers for such titles have been forced to perfect their mechanics ever more. The brilliance in gameplay of fundamentally simple 3D platformers is vast. Yet CRPG's seem to nearly never ever get such basic things right. I'm really sick of all this RPG Apologists crap. "Well it's RPG!" "RPG isn't about gameplay, it is about writing and characters!" How one can criticize cutscene heavyness and basic gameplay of JRPG's with straight face and yet defend RPG gameplay mechanics in games like Arcanum or JE or [add random title here] is just... weird ------------------------------------------------------ Each time you now attack Kotor's, NWN2's or whatever game's combat mechanisms I can just use same hypocritical fallacy as you do

[quote name='H

WoD: RPG's are nothing more than tactical combat simulators with experience gaining and character building. That's how they started and that's their ultimate definitive meaning as far as etymology goes. lolwut "So it's not a button masher, and I disagree that those were poorly implemented. May be it's true if you compare it to NG, but that's supposed to be a pinnacle of action games, so the comparison is a bit unfair." They're poorly implemented compared to any decent action game. Heck, I've been replaying old ps1 titles lately and them > JE JE is really sad attempt if one compares it with masterpieces like God of War or Ninja Gaiden, but it is nearly just as sad when you compare it against any good action game. Heck, Metal Gear Solids of Splinter Cells > JE and they're not action games foremost. this is honestly one of the stupidest arguments I've heard in a while and reason why I wrote this post (because you keep repeating this) Imagine that this place would be Codex or Iron Tower forums or whatever. You go there to praise Kotors rather simple combat because it allows most casual and newb players to assimilate game mechanics and that they are "sufficiently tactical" to make game fun for most people and not "too hard and complex" so it harms the game. They'd laugh and ridicule you to no end, lambasting you as typical retarted modern gamer who is too stupid to read through ****ing brick for a manual that comes with "da real rpg's" and lern teh system. There's ridiculous amount of hypocrisy and prejudice in "hardcore" RPG community. (I'm generalizing of coure) They view your typical action game as kind of retarted "button smashing" ADHD kiddie style game without any depth in combat. Funny thing is many "mere" action games require more skill and dedication, fast decision making capability + sense of tactics than your average RPG. Hypothesis : Player who has never bothered to learn how x equipments stack with Improved Dickery Sling spell etc. and thus fail in complex combat and goes to fora whine about too hard complex combat and gets ridiculed... And "real" RPG players scoff and humiliate him and his stupidity with righteousness. Guess what, they have just as much right to call "lern2play" card as your average gamer listening whining of RPG player about how he can't do this "stupid reflexe based ****". If JE is defendable by dumbing it down so that "RPG players" (lol) can "win" the game then those same people don't have any right to criticise e.g Oblivion's combat mechanics. If these "RPG players" can't learn to play the system properly why the **** should developers care? Then play action games, RPG's are about picking a specific path. And I did have to vary my tactics during different encounters, so I don't see that complaint as valid. I did too, but not because there was any reason to. Game was just way too easy, stupid and repetitive if I didn't try to do something like "kill them with Matrix style" or "flame first enemy to death and hit second with stick and punch thirds teeth in while dancing polka and bunnyhopping" to increase challenge artificially. And even then it was easy. Bio TRIED to get some variety in game by making ghosts immune to fists and demons immune to magic, but as differences between combat methods were minimal it felt mostly just cosmetic. "ME has some more interesting (and very difficult) battles up front, but then it does degenerate as you say. It's still a decent shooter IMO, but doesn't compare to the best out there." ME's combat system is notch to right direction "If the battles are a little different depending on your skills, you wouldn't even notice most likely. That is in fact the idea, but because of game balancing issues, that never makes that much of a difference. You really need to provide different paths for different skill sets, but that's not what designers like Bioware and Obsidian do. Hopefully that will change with AP." another lolwut. And what exactly you mean with "different paths"? And how is it related to how crummy combat in RPG's tend to be? Totally disagree. If I want great combat, I'll play an action game. RPG's main focus should be on things other than combat, although having good combat certainly helps. The fact that most players and even designers can't see the horrible design flaws in Mass Effect is really making me despair of whether a good mainstream RPG will ever be made again. I havent' played ME but your hatred for it seems to be utterly irrational. I've read about many tough choices in it and a lot other good stuff too - I won't be surprised when I finally get my hands on it it'll be best Bio game since BG2. And what are ME's horrible design flaws? Is the game brilliant? I doubt it. Is it good? Most certainly And I agree with Nick; getting combat and other game mechanics right are the biggest reasons why I anticipate AP and Aliens RPG, not story or writing (as we don't know anything about Aliens and not much about AP either ) or "choices and consequences" or whatnot. Alpha Protocol might be first RPG in long, long while that has awesome game mechanics and way it achieves it is by going Deus Ex. There's something very telling about it. Besides, by going with meaning of word RPG gameplay mechanics overrides anything else because it is ****ing game. I've also been playing old great platformers on PS1 and I can't help but admire the way developers for such titles have been forced to perfect their mechanics ever more. The brilliance in gameplay of fundamentally simple 3D platformers is vast. Yet CRPG's seem to nearly never ever get such basic things right. I'm really sick of all this RPG Apologists crap. "Well it's RPG!" "RPG isn't about gameplay, it is about writing and characters!" How one can criticize cutscene heavyness and basic gameplay of JRPG's with straight face and yet defend RPG gameplay mechanics in games like Arcanum or JE or [add random title here] is just... weird edit: WTF is wrong with my writing. edit2: spelling and structure wise worst post in a while. Egad edit3: reason why I use " and quote tags both is because of stupid quote limitations

Epic material Anyway, I could've been awesome in germany if I hadn't arsed through all the years when I learned it, buuut.... ahh **** it, I'm not translating that

well, wasn't that what you said? edit: oh My beautiful formulations, all in vain :'(

this reminds me, whose clever idea it was to put in radial menus in ToEE!? Blergh Out of NWN1, ToEE and PS:T only latter one had passable radial menus, basically because there was only one of them

when did romance = sex? edit: so after marriage: romance = pr0n = sex sex = romance = pr0n pr0n = romance = sex sex = pr0n = romance A*B*C = C*B*A maths lol

well that's kinda gay solution: stop ignoring her, it'll work ...in theory

aww man that's nasty Guess what's even nastier? When it goes in reverse order from kissy kiss to friendly...hug why women love friend zoneing?

you've played lots of action games then I presume

just when it was about to get epic ahh who am I kiddin, better this way so, uhh, is there possibility we might get MoW in some deluxe version of SoZ? Pretty please?

so using philosophical terms makes something 'deeper', huh? that's like how putting fins on something makes it more aerodynamic, right? or racing stripes on a car makes it go faster? No, of course not. And that's point you and I both agree on!!! It doesn't make anything deeper. It is merely facade to make something seem more "deeper" than it really is. It is all just facade. What I mean is that facade must be build on something, and that something is nigh-universally utter crap philosophy. But eh, some sort of embryonic philosophy still. If there is nothing to build facade on then it isn't anything at all basically. It is just line of symbols. COGNITIO PLATO DESCARTES BRAINZ IDENTITY THEORY ONTOLOGY isn't anymore philosophical or pseudo-philosophical than ACASCASV AVC;AVA;

Well, then I was wrong. On the contrary. But PS:T's literature is for most part great. Of course it's not Hemingway or Milton or something (DUH), they're way beyond great, but it is infinitely better than generic novel I might pick up from library. There's only one really cler flaw in PS:T's prose that repeats often (and it is quite basic) - or at least used in early parts - and that's use of words (gahh, what they're called in english), ehh, I make up example: "Johnny said gravely" "she laughed happily" "creep snarled furiously" Well, you get the idea what I mean. The useless, crude use of those happily/sadly/quickly type words after verbs. It is poor usage of language as any good author would tell you. They should be used rarely and only when it makes impact, otherwise it just cheapens writing. Eventually amount of those went down a lot but every once in a while I encountered minefields of such sentence structures. oh? Not that big difference really, but I guess I must pardon you nonetheless. "and to be fair, we never suggested that ps:t were pretentious. have called it a "philosophy_for_dummies" approach, but Gromnir never calls pretentious. honestly am not thinking that chrisA were trying to be self-important or demanding. chrisA dummed ps:t down to kinda level that even anime fans could get. however, such a diminished approach were arguably flawed." Ahh, well that's plus. Though neither self-important or demanding are synonyms to pretentious. But you know that already. btw, tone down the snobbyism somewhat? Not all anime fans are retarted wapanese. "john gardner's approach with Grendel were indeed pretentious, but he were artful and did with self mocking aplomb. the hoity-toity dragon were not a likeable character, eh? the guy writing a novel which is for all intents and purposes a philosophy primer makes his mythological professor a pompous and irritable bladder o' hot air. 'course we don't believe Gardner's approach woulda' worked any better in a crpg than did chrisA's." I've not read the book so can't comment. *shrug* "robert e. howard did 180 degrees opposite. Conan never spouted Nietzsche quotes or reflected all philosophical. Conan actualized w/o all the intellectualizing and navel gazing. you wanna feed Nietzche to the average gamer/reader? don't have some greasy-haired goth wax philosophical... has a broadsword wielding ubermensch lop off some heads and have sex with beautiful slave girls. thats the kinda philosophy everybody can appreciate, no? " Don't be so hard on gamers. Somewhere everyone's "civilizing" (lol) must start. And I doubt reading Conan novellas (which are awesome) is good entry to Nietzsche "which approach is better? depends on your audience." Artist should and maybe has responsibility to demand something from his audience, at least once in a while. What if Bergman or Tarkovsky had decided to diminish their vision just to get movie audience in work? "chrisA tries some middle ground. much of his cliff's notes philosophy were childish and his writing were far too often the kinda maudlin introspection you sees only from young writers (and the aforementioned anime and comics books.) such a middle ground approach is bound to irritate the genuine snobs & bore folks who want straightforward." Wait what, "cliff notes"? I'd also like to know your superior approach to philosophy in games as you've by now couple of times scoffed at ChrisA's "approach" And you're selling anime, comic books and some abstract thing called young writers (wat aboot old writers?) short here. I wonder if you're one of these snobs? You know, art's purpose is never to be work of academic philosophy or science book in disguise (something some hard scifi authors should remember *cough* ), it is foremost art. Through art author tries through gimmicks and methods of his medium and his/her personal vision create emotionally and intellectually stimulating work that should leave imprints on people's minds and perhaps even make them think and come curious of these thoughts and their sources. And of course art is foremost artist's self-expression. And art also filters heavily author's puzzled mind in order to get the shining, pure essence of his thought/idea out of it. Sure, some of your "snobs" might scoff at Bergman's film because it doesn't exactly consist of the giant ****ing novel philosopher wrote academically and for academic purpose on meaning of death in human life and values. This doesn't cheapen a bit Bergamn's work and their depth. I already said fundamentally all philosophical thesises are rather simple. Artist's purpose (if he is inclined to philosophy and analysis of "human condition" like most "serious" artists are ) is to filter the core of these vast thoughts into one or few bright essences and make them affect people (and of course, himself in process of creating art). The storyteller's responsibility to get to the heart of whatever philosophical point they're pursuing and vindicately showcase its meaning for human being. Just because piece of art (whatever the medium might be) doesn't contain vast analytical depth of philosophical journal doesn't make its purified and crystallined philosophy any lesser. Art can have just as much depth, it does it only by different means (and with more reliance on audience than on logic) Not all works can be Sartre's Nausea, a utter marriage of philosophical journal and literature, but that doesn't make them shallow. ...what the **** I was trying to say with this latest rant? Ermm... I suppose what I try to say is that work can have just as much depth even if its quantitative amount of "philosophy" doesn't resemble the one on academic paper. Rather work of art does it through qualitative aspects. PS:T has genuine thoughts behind it and just because it isn't Russel's History of Western Philosophy doesn't make it shallow. Of course it isn't suitable for use in academic arguments, but that's different thing from it lacking all value. "sorry, but people far too often hold up ps:t like it were some kinda holy grail for crpgs. Gromnir loved the game, but am not gonna pretend it were well written from start to finish. am also not gonna pretend that it were flawless. is more than enough reasons why ps:t coulda' failed... other than marketing. marketing excuse is just a cop out after the fact. " Nor do I pretent it is flawless. However I won't go on some elitistic rampage because - heaven forbid - game doesn't hold the same quantative depth as this writing by Hobbes I hold in my hands right now!

simple, pseudo-philosophy is something pretending or masquerading as genuine philosophy. If i'm writing a science fiction story and make up a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about 'warp fields', 'tetrion particles' and 'cascade failures', then i'm offering a bunch of pseudo-science, not actual science. similarly, if i'm writing a fantasy story (or any kind of story) and i want to give the impression that one of my characters is a deep thinker, it's pretty easy to come up with a bunch of philosophical-sounding waffle ('hermeneutical', 'praxis', 'ontologically') to acheive that effect. unless the reader knows what 'hermeneutical' or 'praxis' or 'ontogically' means, they might be inclined to think that it's genuine. we use the term 'pseudo-philosophical', therefore, to refer to writing (or whatever) that seeks to acheive the appearance of philosophy, rather than actually involving the search for truth, etc. now you might generously extend the term 'philosophy' to anyone who sincerely engages, however badly, in any kind of broadly intellectual inquiry. but i can think of plenty of professional philosophers who would disagree: for them, philosophy is a serious exercise requiring proper training and calling stuff like PS:T 'philosophy' would be like me hammering a nail into the wall and calling myself a builder. yes, it really is. Most philosophical truths and debates are actually rather simple at their core. Who was it who said that most genius ideas are simple, so simple that afterwards people wonder it wasn't seen sooner? Rawls theories of justice and society are some of the most important philosophical writings released in 20th Century, but the essentials aren't complicated. Arguments and methods are complex but core thesises are simple. Same could be said about nearly all philosophical stances and questions. Yes, this might fall under "pseudo-philosophy" in its context. Pseudo-nature of philosophy stems from it not being much of philosophy but bunch of philosophical terms thrown together to make it cool deep. Then again it can be asked again can true pseudo-philosophy be case then either. After all meaningless use of words like ontologically must be build around some basic frame of text to masquerade its poor intellectual nature, but yet even then it "deepens" something and that something must be stray of philosophical thought, no matter how crude. Thus it is still philosophical to certain extent. Other way is to just throw bunch of philosophical and "wise"sounding words together, but that's just complete nonsense and isn't more meaningful than snow falling from sky. It isn't philosophical but neither it is pseudo-philosophical, it isn't anything meaningful from human pov As I try to show above I'm not sure if such thing can be done at all. There's some stray of philosophical thought under all the braveur of meaningess words or then it isn't anything at all from human pov. Humility should be one of core virtues of philosophy. Socrates walked among commoners and try to get common people think and practise philosophy. Everyman's capability and inclination towards it has always part of philosophy. Without it there wouldn't be philosophy, as even philosophers are common men. High level philosophy is really that. That's because philosophers love to shred each others arguments apart and be smug about their superiority, hehe. Reason it requires training is high level of talk and arguments. You must be well versed in manners and habits of philosophy or you'll be laughed out of their symposiums But basic nature of philosophy, wondering the world, our place in it etc. is never different. PS:T contains genuine philosophy in it quite a lot, but of course it's not the kind of that goes on in academic papers between Alvin Plantinga and naturalists or Free Will debates between Hodgson and Dennet.

He is in military. He is sneaky commando in black pajamas who stalk peo- *gurk*

how can something be pseudo-philosophical? It is simple as that At its basic "philosophy" means love of knowledge. After various translation starting from Greece the other "big" meaning for word became "system a person forms for conduct of life" after some writing by Cicero. Philosophical then again means: 1. Of, relating to, or based on a system of philosophy. 2. Characteristic of a philosopher, as in equanimity, enlightenment, and wisdom. Now as philosophy is pretty much all encompassing from morals and ethics to ontology and epistemelogy... even the Beatles's "all you need is love" is philosophy and from certain pov quite deep philosophy. Same with "**** happens", that too is philosophy of kind. Then again both of those can be seen as merely "postcard philosophy". Or aforisms. But aforisms are philosophical by their nature. As you can see all this kind of stuff - even the simplest life, hehe, philosophies - are philosophy. Now how you can add word "pretend" or "fake" in beginning of such word? "I think leaves turn yellow because they want to be yellow" is silly claim that can be easily lambasted as silly pseudo-philosophy. But there's nothing fake or pretending about that claim by itself*. It too can be seen in philosophical light. It is empirically (seeing leaves turn yellow) based reasoning (it must have some reason. Hmm, people do something because they want to do something. Ha! Leaves want to turn yellow! Yay!) Even religions are philosophical systems with certain exception - they're belief instead of rationality based, but core principles are same. Now how one can add word pseudo in front of word that containts things from deepest ontological ponderings to such childlish reasonings as my goofy leave example? How one can make human thinking "fake" by itself? * something can become pseudo-philosophical in context it is ment to make something be philosophical when it isn't philosophical by nature. Say, trying to make river philosophical being. Crap, this is getting kinda complicated.

That doesn't make combat system good. JE's system is horribly flawed by being repetitive, having stupid AI and having overpowered win buttons (Jade Golem for starters destroys everything). It is not good combat system although it was good attempt. Sawyer often criticises this thing that people forgive crappy combat because "it's RPG and RPG's have crappy combat!"

picture I got from interviews it was not merely breaking even, it sold well. That's different from merely getting back the money that was invested Long or wordy writing was hardly avoidable as nearly all action, characterization of NPC's etc. had to be done through text. And such texts must be descriptive by nature unless you want them to become uninteresting and mind numbinly average. I value clever usage of words, original passages etc. more than most other stuff in world. I don't like Jordan or other such crap and in literature certain balance between minimalism and spreading prose must be had (in favor of minimalism for me), but writing to game is very different from writing book. No other game has been so effective with mere text (Sensorium stones, memory of Pillar and Morte) and PS:T's writing leaves most books I've read behind (and it's not like my favourite author is Salvatore or something ) Anyway, it shouldn't come off as surprise that I abhore Bio's 3-lines rule. I don't care if most players aren't patient enough to read through frickin' dialogue options because they're busy to find skulls for crushing. It has nothing to do with taste. Claims that some movie, book etc. is pretentious are common yet nearly all this claims under scrutinization fail due to oversimplification, intellectual laziness or misinterprepting authors intent. I have no problem with people disliking PS:T if it doesn't suite their tastes (like with MC), but I damn sure have problems when one makes bold, silly claims without any clear justification Sorry mate, but that was exactly what put me off. It isn't a stupid criticism if you don't like eye-bleedingly small text full of pretentious (thought I'd get it in for you) mumbo-jumbo. When it comes to writing, sometimes less is more. This kind of criticism has value of 0 untill you (Gromnir, MC, Dark_Raven or whoever) A) Define "pseudo-philosophical" B) Define "pretentious" C) Reason how those two words are related to PS:T and D) why PS:T isn't philosophical but pseudo-philosophical instead All these reasonings must be well-rounded with solid ground to deflect criticism. Here's wordbook definition of pretentious for starters 1. full of pretense or pretension. 2. characterized by assumption of dignity or importance. 3. making an exaggerated outward show; ostentatious. 1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified. 2. Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious. See Synonyms at showy. So, proofs that PS:T is characterized by any of these? I don't hate any buzzword as much as pretentious. Pseudo-philosophical (which is oxymoron itself) is another.

Please, you really have to do this? "Pseudo-intellectual navel gazing" is about as stupid criticism as it can get without any substance in this regard. (In fact it rarely does outside pop music) Wonder were you forgot the oh so precious word "pretentiousness"? Anyway, I can see your other points (though I changed my opinion on combat in my recent playthrough. It was a lot better than I remembered, of course still being weakest in IE game. Plus what I quoted was just shameful), but were things like bugginess or memory leak issue well known before the game came out? Many of those flaws are such that they only tend to be found out only later as people progress in game further - such as many flaws of Oblivion which were such a hush-hush when it came out - and they shouldn't impact that much initial sales. Just see K2's sales for reference (and yes, I know it is Star Wars) And then there's stories by people like Tigranes who back in day didn't get the game due to its fugly cover art and people who were confused by its apparent dissimilarity with Baldur's Gate... btw, PS:T wasn't financial letdown as has been said often. It sold well over the time. It just wasn't sma****