Sacred_Path

My favorite genre is RPGs, and I think my favorite games all give me detailed options to create diverse characters, then allow me to test those different characters in how well they fare in this setting. I think this places me somewhere between gamist and simulationist; I want a coherent world with consistently applied rules, but I also want gamey mechanics that make use of abstractions and challnge various skills, vs. ultra realism. So in short, I think I really like to roleplay and prefer games that give me the chance to do so.

You're right about this, and I think background traits, if they are detailed and fundamental, could take the place of starting vignettes.

I think you feel they are forgivable because you feel that the game makes good on them in other areas. I think that's what you said even. That's not a good basis to judge these aspects on though. I have to concede though that, say, combat in no IE game is terribly exciting. But Icewind Dale had interesting setups of combat, while BG2 had "combat puzzles" that you could either enjoy or loathe (I enjoyed them). I wouldn't say that PS:T's combat (a ****load of enemies just rushing at you) is up to par here. That's not exactly what I meant, sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I reiterate: Torment attempts to satisfy in all three areas. There are actual combat mechanics, the combat is not resolved via dialogue or something. I'm v. sure they attempted to make the combat fun, and that they didn't intentionally annoy the player. They failed (IMO). They also attempted to give a good depiction of a) the Planescape setting and b) of a convincing, coherent setting. As far as Planescape goes, they seem to have failed (not a Planescape buff), and I've already addressed a number of inconsistencies in the setting. I would say, they failed. It's not like Planescape only set out to be a game for a narrativist audience. This might be different for Tides of Numenera; heck, they don't even know what combat system they're gonna use, and combat is supposed to be skippable anyway. talking about it judgementally vs. reviewing it: nitpicking. I'm not talking about advertising vs. bashing the game, but I think the subjective reasons why people rave about Torment get on my nerves a bit. From what I've heard it comes down to this: Torment appeals to a number of people emotionally. Not many video games do that, and not many video games attempt to do that. That's why people think Torment is shpeshul and should be judged differently than other games, or is so fundamentally different that it's art while all other games are not. These people attest to having their judgement of PS:T's mechanics clouded by its qualities. It seems a bit like being in love; people can look right past obvious flaws because they hold that game dear. That's cool. But don't go overboard.

The link is interesting, but I think that only pertains to some subjective sensibilities on part of the consumer. I'm more interested in the product, as objectively as possible. Or, IOW, to fuse what I said with the contents of your link: Torment actually tries to satisfy all 3 gamers, so we should judge it on these grounds. What Torment does for "the 3 kinds" of gamers: Gamist: it fails. Simulationist: it fails. Narrativist: it's full of win and excellence and that's exactly why I have problems with people simply calling it a "masterpiece". I'd suggest the following: "this game is enjoyable if you happen to fall mostly into the narrativist category. Looked at it solely from that angle, it's a masterpiece". But things like i.e. review scores should never be based on such niche thinking.

Yes, I thought about that. However, I don't think it's very thrilling if we have yet again to assume that our character was a blank slate until he witnessed the events that mark the beginning of the game.

Just to make good on this... Dark Sun Pro: The AD&D ruleset is probably no one's favorite (in CRPGs), but the fact that multi-class characters in Dark Sun are very viable allows for some diversity in the party's composition. The world of Dark Sun was/ is notable in DnD for featuring more exotic playable races like Half-Giants, Thri-Kreen and Muls, who surpass the standard races in their physical attributes (Half-Giants get 2x hit points, Thri-Kreen have higher DEX and more attacks per round). Dark Sun is further notable for being the first DnD game to feature psionics and full-fledged druid and gladiator class characters. Single-class clerics are restricted in the weapons they can use depending on what element they are aligned with. The beginning is probably one of the most atmospheric parts of the game; your party starts out as a group of slave gladiators in an arena. Occasionally, you are summoned to fight in the arena; between these fights you can rest and explore the rest of the slave pens. It's notable that NPCs offer some reactions to the lead character's class, and there is some choice & consequence (like the option to align yourselves with one of two other bands of gladiators and break free alongside them). There are also some adventure elements with common items being 'usable' on the environment. Once you are out of the city for good, the different kinds of nicely painted desert landscapes along with atmospheric music really set the mood for this adventure, and from there on you basically have an open world to explore.Con: While there are many races to choose from, they distinction between them is blurry because you can ramp up every character's attributes manually, a feature in many older AD&D games I loathe and hate. This means that you'll probably pick your characters more on the basis of other factors and some races just lose out (Half-Giants get chosen for their massive hit points, Thri-Kreen for their extra attacks. Dwarves and Halflings are mostly useless due to their class restrictions). Clerics and gladiators are also mostly useless. Multi-class characters are definitely favored since you can grind for experience and there is a level limit rather than an XP limit (you can reach level 9 or levels 9/9/9). Psionics are very disappointing, instead of reading and manipulating minds they just function as another kind of offensive magic. Storytelling is almost non-existant once you're out in the desert. The big plot is "gather an army against the city", and that's what you do, by helping various people out, until you've finally amassed enough allies for the final battle. I think it might have actually been planned to make the final battle easier or tougher depending on how many allies you have, but if so, it was never implemented. Also choice & consequence as well as reactivity are existant but extremely rare, and the few 'adventure' style puzzles are obvious. Might & Magic VII Pro: In contrast to its predecessor you have four races and more classes to choose from. Contrary to DnD, no single class is really "required" to play the game, so you're absolutely free in your choice, although a party of four non-magic characters is still a pretty crappy idea. You have control over their initial stats and skills (which are also varied). You will find a wide variety of (magic) items in the game, and item hunting and stat building is an important part of gameplay. The world, as usual in an M&M game, is very colorful and cheerful; these games definitely don't take themselves too seriously, but they're also not a clown act. Your characters advance in power rapidly, and can achieve almost godlike status, which is expressed in i.e. being able to kill every single lifeform on the map by casting a single spell. The plot has some different layers to it and dips into the politics of the world, which you actually have the chance to interfere in. You'll also lord over your own stronghold, which gradually evolves. Later in the game you have to make an "ultimate" choice that will influence not only the story and quests but also character development.Con: The choice of race and initial stats hardly matters after the beginning, because your stats will improve very rapidly. Some monsters tend to attack certain races first, but this is hardly a reason to change your party composition. The character development, skill-wise, could have been very interesting, but mostly you'll just follow the designers' formula, since it's not very useful to develop skills your characters can only achieve "expert" ranking in. Take the ranger for example: he is the only character who can achieve "grandmaster" rank in the axe skill, and none of his other melee skills come close in usefulness to that. OTOH most other classes cannot raise axe past "expert" skill. This leads to all rangers being axe-fighters, and all axe-fighters being rangers (with the possible exception of the knight, for whom the axe is a good off-hand weapon). The world and system are over-the-top cheesy (as I said above, signified by ultra-powerful spells among other things, like the ability to fly). If that's a turn off for you, you should skip this game. The characters are all cardboard cutouts and have no semblance of depth. It's ultra generic fantasy, with forest elves and grumpy dwarves, and evil greenskins. NPC interaction is extremely limited. The player is very rarely able to make any choices. The world, while open, almost forces a fixed sequence of areas on you because of power progression. And while most of the game revolves around combat, the combat itself is less than thrilling or tactical; the interesting thing about it is simply keeping track of how your skill and equipment choices affect your characters' performance. Deus Ex Pro: The skill and enhancement system, as well as the ability to specialize in certain weapons, offers many options for character development and replayability. Wether you want to play a completely stealthy hacker or a lethal sniper, you can do it. There's a big enough arsenal to keep you entertained, without branching out into silly shooter territory. Using other tools, like lockpicks and hacking tools, is also fun. All mission objectives can be reached in different ways, reflecting the choices in character development you may have made. Personally I never "ghosted" a level, because it was so much fun to set up a post, take enemies out by sniping, then get a move on to avoid the hordes. The plot has enough twists to make you keep paying attention. I found the voice acting suitable, not needlessly dramatic-cheesy as in a lot of other "dark" games. The game consistently offers choices, and the plot depends heavily on player choice.Con: The game has several balance issues. Stealth and sniping are by far more powerful than a more ham-fisted approach. I played through the game as a sniper on the default difficulty with almost no reloads in my first sitting. Augmenting your arms, for example, is probably only a good thing for subsequent playthroughs when you have explored all other options. The plot is certainly nothing new for a dystopian setting, and what's maybe worse, rests on a popular conspiracy theory (man-made plague). The game also doesn't do much to make you emotionally invested in the plot; there's the affair with your brother, but the devil is in the details, and the dialogue never made me care about that much. The VA is a mixed bag, as I said I found it suitable, but certainly not engaging. It's mostly wooden and forgettable. I think I've done a bad job about Deus Ex, but I last played it like 10 years ago. Also I think to stay kinda on topic I should state how all this relates to IE games, but I'll save that for another post.

suffering through this right now. The ads don't help. He's pretty patronizing, but he's so blissfully unaware of it. "Moustache guy!" lol. Who else could get away with such a persona. Kudos to him, I guess.

lol ****. Have you seen this click

Deus Ex was 'blaah'? I actually had trouble coming up with exactly 3 games, and these aren't necessarily the games I like the most. I actually like a number of games, but I'm not ecstatic about any one of them. Too critical? Maybe. Also I can understand if people like Torment. Like I said above, people can like anything for any number of reasons. Some adults like to wear diapers. That's cool, as long as they don't try to sell me diaper wearing as the superior lifestyle and I'm just too plebeian to get it.

There have been a number of threads about the nuances of evil, but I think I've yet to see a thread about the nuances of good. Seems like people either want to play a savior of kittens or not good at all?

So anyone who has played Temple of Elemental Evil is familiar with those, if you haven't: Starting vignettes were little stories that acted as openers, and there were different ones for the nine DnD alignments (Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil etc.). They served as an introduction to the game and led to your first quests, thereby also giving you some direction without holding your hand. I'd love to see this idea picked up, possibly by P:E. DnD alignments are derpy of course, but a theme for the party that "explains" how it came to be is a nice roleplaying element (and possibly more). Some possible themes: - an unemployed mercenary company - a band of vicious bandits - a flock of humble pilgrims - a group of travelling scholars I know P:E doesn't start out as a party game, but I think a single character works fine as well.

I WANT MCA ALL UP IN DIS **** YO

Your relativism is kind of sucky, Mr Garriot. Out of the chute, you'd expect them not to get a cent, because their audience is already saturated. Also, does anyone else slowly get the creeps from his Lord British persona? It was ok in the goofy 80s, maybe the early 90s, but I don't enjoy hearing an old man talk about how he's lord of the realm and we are his good subjects. Saturated with ONE game? How many InXile games do you want to have on preorder before you've ever played one? 9000?

But that's actually been your point all along. Go back to your earlier posts. All people who aren't rabid Tormenters are so because they're unable to comprehend its AWSUMNESS, probably because they've been dropped on the head too often or they have Kaspar Hauser's.

I actually did that. ****ty movie = Torment in this analogy. Sry if that was too meta. I'm wondering why this should be the issue here though. So people like the story. Good. Never argued against that. Does that make it a good game? IMO no. I will offer you a hint why I'm so mostly unimpressed though: maybe I'm having trouble taking the video game medium very serious in existentialist matters. I've argued that all games could be considered art, so let me explain. I have no problem assigning the art monicker to a nice little painting of sunflowers. It may not look like much, it might not have any masterful technique in it whatsoever, it's certainly not any philosophical underpinnings. Still I appreciate the creativity that went into it. From my POV, it's art. You said you had problems calling video games art because you feel they're mostly for entertainment. I disagreed about this making them not art, but I actually agree about the latter. Games are supposed to be fun, and what's more, they're supposed to adhere to some expectations of mine (not just mine, mind you) in regards to what makes a game, when I put down my money for them. I like it when games supercede my expectations by delving into matters that could be labeled mature, but that doesn't mean that this would make me a rabid fan. It doesn't mean that I think about them when the PC is turned off. If this is because I'm a bumbling buffoon, or if it's because I'm a thinking person and not impressed easily, that's your guess (I know you have a character sheet of me with a low WIS, duh).

lolwut

Aww ****, this thread just won't stay dead/ inactive. I forgot that, must have been the walls of text in between. Anyways, how can you argue massively in favour of a game, then say "I'd never want to see this repeated!"? Granted, you say "not all games", but I do take this to mean "some games". you're entitled to your opinion, just like I'm entitled to find it silly. Can a game make up for one half of its entire substance being ****ty? IMO, with that handicap, it can never end up being better than mediocre, no matter how satisfying its other half is (to some). And that's how I judge PS:T, it's a mediocre game. I won't comment on the opera comparison, because frankly, I'd say that's not important. But as it being the only instance of a game that's art - I can't agree here. Torment doesn't differ from all other games enough to make such a distinction. What about the Deus Ex series and its exploration of dystopian themes like human "enhancement"? What about Darklands with its eclectic mix of historical accuracy and fantasy, which I'd put on par with listening to faux-Renaissance music? What about the social issues explored in Arcanum? What about all the literal art that flows into making an RPG? So many answers there. I can for instance enjoy a movie that's mostly ****, wooden acting, hilarious dialogue, filmed by an epileptic monkey. I can like it because it's bad but its badness is charming. I can like because, despite being mostly bad, there's a stroke of genius in the ending or the setting. I can like it because I have really weird priorities, where acting and dialogue do not influence my judgment at all.

cannot process overload OVERLOAD edit: Since I mostly play RPGs I'll mention 3 RPGs. I do play something else from time to time (played Counter Strike obsessively for a few years) but I don't play enough from other genres to judge them as objectively. 3 good RPGs from the top of my head: Dark Sun 1 Might&Magic VII Deus Ex - will elaborate later -

No, I just expect them to say "this game has a good story but not good gameplay" rather than "this is a masterpiece! All video games should follow this example. It's also a work of art".

I want MCA to clear this all up. I also want my lifetime back.

Nop Good job on taking my quote out of context. But let's play this game: You are arguing for a theater that has neither walls nor seats. You're not bothered by this, because your theater has other merits (to appreciate which you have to read all books by Aleister Crowley backwards and spend your life in a toga). You're only relegating the blame to someone else. That doesn't make the game better, however. And its creators knew the constraints/ supervision under which they'd work from the start, so they can't be exempt from guilt. I was still arguing for fantasy though. Occasional suspension of disbelief. A willingness to be swept away. But there needs to be some meat on the bones. Someone with noodle arms isn't going to lift me Dirty Dancing style, and a game with bad mechanics isn't going to draw me in by burying me in text. click click and I ain't even a literature ****. No, probably not. A borderline madman with an extremely strong vision of making a movie out of Aztec blood rituals where everyone is dipped into molten cheese isn't going to win me over, no matter how much freedom he has to realize his fantasies. Then how come that many thinking persons did not appreciate PS:T, if there's no specific learning required?

I'm quite assured I could write a "deeply insightful" short story without drawing on any existent set of beliefs (and I'm sure a lot of people who got an education could too). Like I said, only the writers themselves *cough* could clear this up. Uhm 1) it's a video game 2) there are lots of hostiles. In our case though, the composer of the opera also had the opportunity to create the theater from the ground. Or IOW, if you're going to create a game with a good story but ****ty combat, don't put in so much combat. The mythologies pertain to a historical age though. Or rather, they claim to harken back to an existant point in time (some time before they were written down). The written forms of the Edda themselves stem from the High Middle Ages IIRC. There is a connection here; good fantasy infuses a historical setting with fantastical elements. It is the consistency of the historical aspect that stops the whole thing from being a clown show gone awry. If you depict a convincing Dark Ages setting (which is where the historical events recorded in the Song of the Nibelungs probably took place), or a Middle Ages setting (which is when it was recorded), you could win my heart. Which might as well be a comment on the opera as an art form and its relevance. I think we looked at from a different angle though: someone throwing out the rulebook not to make the game more fun, but so they can stoically execute their artistic vision. Which makes for bad games/ movies/ anything, I'd wager. You don't really need to study neither Buddhism nor Western philosophy to arrive at/ appreciate some of these basic existentialist thoughts though.

You left out my best point, with which I sought to illustrate that possibly, your feeling of having stumbled upon some profound truths in PS:T might come solely from your own expectations and accumulated baggage knowledge, when the people who made the game might not have had exactly this in mind. Not really. Technically correct singing = key mechanic of operas. Solid combat system = key mechanic of a video game with lots of hostiles. I'd argue the Edda is as much a historical source as a mythological one, but anyways. See, maybe the same problem exists with Wagner (I never thought about that before, because I cannot into high culture). So he needed a vehicle for his artistic intentions, but did he therefore have to mangle both mythological and historical aspects? Wouldn't a rendering of the Song of the Nibelungs that strives for "authenticity" be, in some ways, a better opera, or at least not a worse one, but acceptable and appealing to more people? Broad generalizations that I could pull out of my ass would also be universally applicable (if you simply believe in their correctness) though.

Well, then we can agree that PS:T has two sides, even if we don't agree on how each side should be weighted. Better! Your analogy is way off though. It's more like the singing was completely off-key and terrible, for example. No, of course not. But I expected that that would be your answer after I'd posted it. Of course I mean the works whose influence you think you can identify in the game; after all, we're discussing the product, not the consumers. This situation reminds me of something else. I watch TV sometimes (because I cannot into high culture) and therefore I know that Forrest Gump was the inventor of the non-phrase "**** happens". Someone might feel particularly touched by this statement and go "D00d, you must have read your Classics as well as done extensive studying in the field of postmodernity. It all comes down to this, really!" Upon which the genius would reply "Momma said life is like a box of chocolates" and they would both have that fuzzy feeling of soul-journey fraternity. This is exactly why WE NEED MCA IN ON THIS. He actually lived in my corner of the woods, for what it's worth. And your boundless admiration for someone who couldn't into historical accuracy if his life depended on it doesn't exactly humble me. Also, I feel that fat women with horned helmets aren't exactly the epitome of metaphysical wisdom. :smug: So your point is that if more people visited operas/ were forced to do so, PS:T would have been a blockbuster. Is this a fallacy or rightout lunacy? I don't even. Your previous remark where you placed Buddhism over Freud sort of shattered my credulity though.

I think you are the only person in this thread who has claimed that PS:T is a work of art (even though I tentatively hinted that in that case, maybe all games are works of art). Coming from this arbitrary conclusion, you then claim that there can be no objectve judgment. Didn't you say you used to be a game journalist/ review games on a professional basis? Well ****. If that was your attitude (that nothing about a game can be judged objectively), I don't want to read those reviews. There are certain established rules of what a game has to fulfill. Do not get hung up by the word objective - clearly, it's not science. But claiming that "this game is art so it's all subjective!" is ridiculously wrong. Moot to argue, but it sounds that you didn't try to base your previous opinion on anything objective then. You have "opened my eyes" to the fact that the writing in PS:T isn't something that MCA came up with on the loo, but that doesn't change the fact that I've identified many weaknesses about this game before and that still stands. ****, this is the most arbitrary elitist BS I've ever read on the 'net. Well done, sir. We (or I) have been subjected to "high culture" at least through school and couldn't help it, which was my point. That is to say, the widely available commercial kind of "high culture", not the one that "is closed to" most people (to use your wording) and therefore nowadays gets labeled underground/ indie/ alternative. Anyways, try to cite the works of "high culture" that pertain to PS:T, please; be they musical, literary or even academical. Just don't tell me that "due to my prolonged exposure to high culture, my tastes have become so refined and my mental faculties so sharpened that I alone here can judge the merits of this vidya game. Sry." Emphasis mine. Hmm. You're assuming that you're the only one who has explored "existentialist" thought, absorbed works of "high culture" and met diverse characters in your life, while the rest of us is still living in caves and paint the walls with our feces. About the speculation about MCA's "road to enlightenment", well ****, I really want his feedback on that NOW. This is becoming completely esoteric ****, and I refuse to enter that sphere. My failure to absorb the game through my skin rather than controlling it through a mouse and keyboard is probably not the issue here. You've tiptoed around my point; that is, how well Buddhist beliefs hold up under scrutiny by the modern mind. What is their relevance, and what is their value? Is PS:T to be hailed as a savior to our modern apathy and mostly shallow lives? This begs an answer. Let's take a different example; if someone chose to make a game that is solely concerned with matter of astrophysics explored through dialogue, I'd still judge that game on common standards in the gaming business. It could possibly be that the gameplay is non-existant/ irrelevant/ not satisfying and therefore it fails as a game. It could also possibly be that there is gameplay, but it goes so far over my head that I don't have a realistic chance of doing anything more reflected than clicking around wildly. I would realize this, and I would give it some credit based on good faith, but it would still be a bit of a drawback; and this could not be rationalized by the developers, saying "this game is so indie, it's only aimed at professors of astrophysics!". PS:T doesn't even play in this league. It's an AD&D, Infinity engine powered RPG. WITH smatterings of dialogue influenced by existentialist thought. I might even do that, because I have to get behind this whole "high culture" thing. Surely at the end of this journey, my lowly self will morph into the form of a higher being that is actually able to enjoy Planescape: Torment.