Xard

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****

Have you ever played proper games of that type such as Ninja Gaiden, DMC or somethng a lot less extreme like, well, heck nearly any good hack&slash game in the marker or fightin game such as Tekken or DoA?

not again one of Gromnir's "PS:T COMBAT DOOMED THE GAME" rants... Can you really claim bad marketing and abnormal setting weren't the main reasons for game's "fall"?

Whatever is Atari's reason for not releasing MoW anyway?

Lucas is such a sad nutjob nowadays

November 21, 2008 That trailer was weak. Planescape Torment trailer was great. Them's fightin words I just checked out MotB's trailer. It was great actually. For D&D game (srlsy, only D&D game with great trailer is PS:T) edit: before MotB I mean. And no I don't contradict my previous post because I'm allowed to be fickle with my opinions. So nyaaaahh!

...I wouldn't call any of them good wee!

this Arcanum on the other hand has worst combat I've encountered in RPG's. Utterly abhorrent. Bloodlines was crap too edit: All those have better combat than Troika games.

oh god that's just so goddamn wrong

I laughed at the implication that RPG's haven't had good combat since Troika died which is silly considering how phail combat in Troika games were. Yeah, what we've actually seen doesn't seem to match at all the info I scoured from DA boards before trailers. Anyway, they could have MGS2 in their sleeve when it comes to marketing, that would be hilarious (but propably not) give me example of crappy uniquiness and why it is worse than crappy genericness And on these Freaky Humanoids thing I agree with Volo. They're not very orclike. Reasons why they seem such bad carbon cut copy of Uruk-Hai is due to other reasons

Please do that for great justice and lulz!

You had me up to this part LOL

whew

lol I'm not sure has this question been answered but the combat encounters on the overland map If we meet hostiles do we: A) get in Some Generic Combat Map (Fallout, Total Wars, JRPG's etc.) or B) fights happen on the overland map. I suspect and hope it is A because I don't see how B) could work out

Mechanics who hyperventilate or mechanics governing hyperventilation? It's an important distinction that will be relevant in the future. In this particular case the correct answer is the latter variable. DAKKADAKKADAKKA

well, it's hard to blame people after such LotR ripoff trailer

do you really want to know?

well, considering Will's looks he must be talking out of experience and in general and not about ME