Sacred_Path

I'll repeat: this game could have been made into a half decent book. That is one of its merits. Heck, if choice is important to your enjoyment of the story, it could have been a Fighting Fantasy book or something. However, if you want to give an objective judgement of anything, you cannot focus on its merits alone and ignore its shortcomings. I'm not a DnD **** and I never owned a Planescape book. However, the game claims to be an adaptation of AD&D, and uses (and advertises) the Planescape setting. Who then could ignore how well it does at this? You misunderstand me. I didn't say your experience isn't valid; I'm even glad that you could enjoy the game so much. Good for you. What I say is that it's so subjective that - as a judgement - it's mostly invalid. yeah, didn't see that before. Scratch the above. I have to say I find it genuinely interesting that you could identify tenets of existing beliefs in Torment's dialogue/ factions/ gameplay, even if I was a bit sarcastic. Two things: 1) it's worthy of note if someone manages to translate an interpretation of an existing faith/ philosophy into a game. 2) I can understand that if, as you said, you feel that some of these belief contain truth/ apply to real life, then I can understand why you are ecstatic about it being contained and interpreted in this game. Still, there are a number of questions. Is the interpretation of these beliefs in the game valid or too simplified/ distorted? (I have no way of judging this). Secondly, if we look at them by the light of day and through our modern sensibilities, are those beliefs themselves a bit simple/ ridiculous? Thirdly, even if the answer to both previous questions is no, does that warrant making them into a game? And does the game profit from their inclusion in this way? I do not argue with the fact that your experience with the faiths that PS:T seems to draw upon helped your enjoyment of the game, while my ignorance of them (their specifics anyway) hindered my enjoyment. But as I've said so many times, this is only one aspect of the game. I think we've all seen the inside of a school, and we've all learned a bit about classical tragedies and existential issues and how they can be explored through art. We all have a rough idea of karma, even if we don't know the specifics of how either a Buddhist or a Hindu might interpret them. The thing is, the more existential a question is, the easier a thinking person can relate to and judge it, I'd say. Being steeped in any lore is, either way, not a prerequisite to judging PS:T. Let's not attribute a depth to it that it doesn't have.

from venturebeat: 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.

You do realize that this would be an extremely weak argument when discussing anything else where judgements rest on subjective sensibilities (say, ART)? "Your brains aren't wired in a way that would allow you to appreciate this splendor! Begone!" I would phrase it differently: me and a number of others have problems appreciating Torment as a game because it fails in areas expected of a game. The problem is Torment actually attempts to satisfy in these areas, but fails. This makes all subsequent attempts at capturing our attention/ admiration moot. About Gothic(2), I don't mind punishing games in principle. If games are still the topic here (not sure)

I must be so bored... When I say true RPG, I mean it to exclude action games like Diablo. Because if we include those, we can include all kinds of games that aren't pertinent to the discussion. Funny aside, did Diablo hold your hand? I guess it wasn't necessary when there's only one location where you proceed linearly. I have to say I've only played Gothic 2 with the Night of The Raven addon (or watchamacallit) and that is said to make things a little harder. I remember one "beast" in front of the city gate that you certainly didn't take out with a level 1 character. Also if you walk around the first city you get run down by wolves (2 out of 3 times anyway, if you can get to the guards they save you). Black bears only attack if you stay close to them IIRC (they're territorial I guess). The ogre could be circumvented (and if you scout you know it's there). The FA assassin casts spells IIRC and you can save/ reload him to death (until your guys manage to disrupt his casting two times or something). Now a no reload game in BG1 is tough considering your hit points, but I think we shouldn't include that because that's not what the game was balanced for. The spiders are a side quest, they are not on the main path, otherwise you would be correct about those ****ers. The temple area is also not part of the main path. And BG holds your hand quite a bit more than other RPGs of its time until Nashkell, because your party members (assuming you took those the game "defaulted" you to, Jaheira and Khalid) would bitch and moan for you to get your ass to Nashkell first. Oh, the only real exception to my claim would be the two ogres (I think they are ogres?) directly south of Beregost, on the road. Those can kill you easily unless you kite the **** out of them (which is trivial with a haste potion). I think I mentioned ambushes. Those were tough. In fact, at the lowest levels, they usually prompted a reload. edit: BTW if we talk about what IE game had the best outdoor areas/ "feeling" I think we should give the award to IWD2.

That happens all the time. I'm fickle I guess that even at that level, if you just consider walking around, talking to NPCs, solving the odd riddle, you can have the bare bones of a game - if it takes skill and thought to advance the story. But then Torment was/ strove to be also an adaptation of AD&D. Of fighting cranium rats, thac0, become-a-thief-to-pickpocket-the-shirts-off-NPCs herp-a-derp AD&D. The result was a legendary mixed bag. Hmm. Have you played only a few games, or did they all lack the attributes that strike you as art? Obviously, games feature things that are commonly denominated as art (graphic design, music). But especially role-playing games that strive to create worlds and usually give away quite a bit about their creators seem to me to have the potential to be considered art. The fact that you have fun playing them and that they were created with the intention to give you fun doesn't diminish that IMO. That would be like saying that all popular music cannot be art. What about relatively shallow music that comes with deep lyrics, or aims to mock shallow pop music itself? It's another mixed bag, but that's ok for a Torment successor. It bothers me a bit that they haven't even decided on a combat system, and I've raged against their samey stretch goals quite a bit (more writers, more novellas). I want mounts, strongholds and tactical combat in my story-driven game! I stand by my claim that if you produce a video game, you should attempt to make full use of the possibilities of the medium. It doesn't bother me that reputedly, you can skip all combat if you want to; more choice is to be welcomed. I'm also looking forward to the inevitable walls of text. Let's wait and see. Like you said, the number crunching will be very limited, but then I don't have any expectations in regards to the Numenera system, contrary to those I have in regards to DnD.

I also feel that what could be said has been said. It's been a while since I've played PS:T, and I suspect I could identify a lot more weaknesses about it (possibly also some strengths) if I had a better recollection of it. The dime novel thing is mostly not an insult. I'd call it common sense. If you think you have an interesting story to tell, maybe even a thought-provoking one, and you don't want to be limited in any way by more or less arbitrarily defined rules and mechanics, putting it into a book would be understandable. Of course, if you just happen to work in video game development, it's also understandable that you'll try to make it into a game. I don't mind ambitious ideas and I've actually backed Tides of Numenera in the hope that they will succeed where Torment failed (putting that story into a corset of solid rules).

Then why don't I have the option to choose to put on armor? Why don't Harmonium members have the freedom to get some awsum magic tats? Damn, now I wish it wasn't 14something years ago that I've played PS:T. I wish I could think of more instances to slap you with. lol, good weaseling (no really). Well that's just a LARPy explanation for bad design, rite? the problem are MY EXPECTATIONS, I get it. Shaped by the hours I've wasted in front of CRPGs. If I had expected a dime novel driven by a 2D engine, I would have been overjoyed. Being able to identify the serious flaws in a game = not getting it fanboying a game because it alludes to an obscure interest you have = passionate love Hmm, this is really revolving around the same thing all the time. I've said repeatedly that, if the content of PS:T had appeared in some other form (say, a bookor better yet a B movie), it could be judged completely differently. You either a) don't believe me or b) try to dodge this issue. There's also the possibility that c) you don't agree with me, but I can't believe that.

You're contradicting yourself. Either you are free to act as you wish, but are consequently shaped by these actions, or everything is pre-determined from the get-go. I get the gist of what you're saying is, "well, if you had gotten to play the Nameless One one thousand years prior, you would have had the chance to really shape him by your actions. But now, his accumulted karma baggage forces him to never wear armor, sorry." Which would, on the other hand, contradict the fact that I can continuously develop the Nameless One class-wise and statistics-wise. I hope you're seeing my point. well ****, that last sentence was certainly the most meta argument I've ever read in a games discussion. I do not see how this pertains to wether a character can get some armor to wear, except that it's possibly my own armor-laden karma that forces me to even look for armor in the game. I'm a bit confused now. Exactly! Game journalists would agree here. Raaaww, I'd prefer it if you left other media out of the discussion. Or maybe not, as that is my point (if PS:T was a book it might be half-decent, with bonus points if you happen to think that you can identify the smatterings of real philosophies and faiths behind its tenets). If by popular culture you mean regularly withdrawing to the darkest woods, sitting on trees during thunderstorms howling at the sky, feasting on pine cones and clear spring water, no. That's just how I spend my weekends. Problem? I'll admit that the point you're driving at is right outside my mental map. I think in categories like: "Gud gaem r gud. Bad gaem r bad. Must sepprate da gud from da bad." I feel the ultimate destination your argument is driving at is "this game is a masterpiece because it translates something like Buddhist beliefs into an onscreen, clickable scenario. Sure, the gameplay is ****, but damn it's artsy." At which point I'll just give up.

Hang on, people end up being Harmonium guards or unarmored tattooed undead because karma? And for that reason, noone who is destined to go about life unarmored could don a suit of armor and profit from it? Noone has a sword like Dakkon because noone is destined to wield it/ has accumulated enough sword karma? Ok. Not sure if the developers of PS:T would agree here (any feedback, Mr Avellone?), but I'll accept that for now (really horrible idea both logically and artistically though). Also, maybe the Queen of Pain places people with a Sorting Hat? Sorry. Still, even if we assume you arrived at a right conclusion, how are we to judge all this, gameplay-wise? How can you justify i.e. the class-changing of the Nameless One, or his constantly growing attributes (depending on your choice) with a completely deterministic universe? More importantly, has the game profited from all this?

The single player aspect has yet to convince me. I'm not sure it won't be sucky. Still, I think I need to cough up the money for this one. Ugh, I've blown so much on kickstarters already

Speaking about internal consistency: if in this world (= Planescape setting) tattoos generally make you stronger, then it's legit. I really can't remember any specifics about PS:T but I think it was only the Nameless One who benefited from tattoos. That's a weakness in the design. Secondly, others like the Harmonium guards are, or look like, wearing armour. Why don't they just get some tats? This is the sort of flaw I'm talking about. If tats are to take the place of armor, they need to be the same, or lead to the same outcome, mechanics wise. This bothers me a bit though, because Planescape was just another AD&D setting. Granted it was a bit weirder, but it wasn't a stoner's paradise. I load up an AD&D game, I want to get dat armor class and dat thac0, as I expect the game will require these. Furthermore, it gives players an anchor. The world might be crazy as heck, but a guy in heavy armor with a big sword can still walk the alleys relatively safely. I'm all up for reading that, since I could only wonder how much of the drivel writing in PS:T had its roots in actual philosophy. I think in a fantasy setting we want to have a balance of verisimilitude and **** that's just out there. An example: Tolkien was very concerned with verisimilitude. People have actually evolved languages. Hobbits are small, live in the ground and do not stray far from home, which is why most folk don't know that they exist. The rules of death and dying are well established, which makes Arwen's tough choice more relatable. Then, OTOH, we have things like the final battle in LoTR, where it's basically "And then the Eagles came out of the sky and scattered the hosts of evil and saved the day. The end." From a logical standpoint, that's definitely a "WTF is this ****?" moment, even if Tolkien made up some half-assed reasoning about the Eagles carrying out the orders of Manwe and he doesn't care a lot about the mundane world. Apart from this being a weak rationalization and Manwe never being mentioned by name in LoTR, this is actually an interesting/ nice metaphor from the author, who definitely believed in a higher power and was of the opinion that all shadows are passing with time. In a game though, this would have been a pretty ****ing bummer, now wouldn't it?

I think I'm getting it alright, but that statement is so broad that it's meaningless. It requires a case-by-case evaluation of what is gained by dismissing consistency vs. what is lost. It's blatantly obvious that you have "more freedom" if you abide by no rules other than the limits of your imagination, noone argue against that in principle. I cannot comment on Blade Runner, but in the case of Torment I'd like to see an example. That is not even mentioning that your argument is borderline fallacious. If they had gone for internal logic the whole game would probably have been designed differently. We simply have no way of judging that hypothetical product. I think you're tiptoeing around the fact I already asserted - that games are defined by their interactivity, and that they must live up to a consumer's expectations in this regard to be objectively called "good". What I read out of your last paragraph was "I wouldn't have cared about stats at all" which is, on second glance, not what you said. But as I read that the world immediately began to blurr and fade before my eyes. I also wanted to rant a bit. Sry

I stand by my assessment that fantasy, wether in literature or games, doesn't lose anything if they go for a degree of internal consistency. That is, unless your reason for enjoying the game is exactly its lack of internal consistency. We can't argue about subjective preferences, but in regards to PS:T emplyong "dream logic", let me illustrate this: A: "I'm going to make a game where everything abides by 'dream logic'. That means that weird **** is going to happen all the time for no good reason." B: "Don't you think that your game will be hard to play, or hard to enjoy as a game, without consistency on which good mechanics can rest?" A: "Maybe, but I just can't put any coherence into the twists and turns I have planned for the story. It's also much more artsy that way as it challenges a player's perceptions. Sometimes, you will walk on the same spot for 10 minutes without getting anywhere. It all serves to enhance the feeling that everything is a dream. Also sometimes you will choose a violent dialogue options and people will just explode. Other times, you hit them with a big sword and they won't be hurt a bit. Like in a dream." B: "So the game actually takes place 'inside' a dream? Is that the setting?" A: "Ummm... no." Or IOW, if you abandon internal consistency, I want you to be able to explain why this is necessary, and how the game profits from it. I haven't seen that happen with PS:T. You're a hipster. But that's ok.

I backed this and am hoping for better stretch goals. The community has suggested a few decent ones, I hope they respond to that.

Games aren't so different to other media like books and films in that they need to establish some degree of either realism or versimilitude/ internal consistency to be good. It's what draws you in and makes you summon up the attention you need to make sense of the details. The one thing that defines a game in contrast to these other media is that it's interactive. PS:T had no internal consistency or verisimilitude and was a worse game because of it (not only because of this, but in part). Why did the Harmonium dudes who were all elite fighters (= knew their stuff) run around in heavy armor while TNO never needed any? "Dream logic" sounds dandy, but a dream has no internal consistency, and making a game resting on that is a bad idea. This is not to say that people couldn't enjoy PS:T, it's just that they probably didn't enjoy it for its "gamey" aspects (= the obstacles that needed skill to overcome), but for its atmosphere and literary qualities. None of which would have suffered had there been more internal consistency, I'd wager.

I can't comment on JRPGs, but the true RPGs that came out closest to 1998 that I can think of are Albion and Daggerfall, and they didn't hold your hand one bit. Not to mention the many games before that. Go anywhere in the "open world" of Gothic with a novice character and you'll die. Walk around the first city in Gothic 2 instead of going through the gate and you'll die. Gothic games were the worst examples of punishing exploration that i can think of. You could get to level 3 IIRC just by sticking with the main quest until Nashkell (which was easy with plenty of hand holding, as I said). Also, if you don't "creep around" (= scout), and run into dangerous enemies, that's kind of self-inflicted, right? Most enemies were not immune to Stinking Cloud, especially the more dangerous ones (NPC adventuring parties/ mages). Near endless supply? Nop, one casting was more than enough. You didn't need advance knowledge, stumble across an enemy party, pause, cast. Easy. Is it cheesy? Overpowered is a better word as it's a completely legit "tactic".

Well, yes. A stack of healing potions bound to a hotkey, for example, doesn't make a cleric redundant (in DnD), but it's always ridiculous and does transgress into the cleric's sphere. One single very powerful potion that you save for that special encounter, not so much. Also there's the fact that they aim to make all kinds of party compositions viable. If that means giving the fighter the ability to cast fireballs from a wand (maybe via Use Magic Device), I'm actually for it; like you said, as an option. Just like the option to tank with your wizard if you build him that way. I guess noone has resolved the conflict between "make all parties viable" and "make each class unique" yet.

lol o noes here they go.

Since wizards will be able to use weapons and armor, there had better be some magical 'use' items for everyone, otherwise that would be a pretty dumb balance issue again, amirite? I dislike potion chugging as a practice employed by every peasant recruit in many ARPGs. OTOH if potions are a rare ressource that you want to hold onto as long as possible, that rewards good playing and adds additional choices. The same goes for scrolls, if they are rare (or better, gold to buy them is rare) they won't make your casters redundant.

How many RPGs that came out before 1998 were holding your hand? In Gothic 1&2, exploration = instadeath. BG was nowhere near as bad; first you had scouting (= completely invisible for all purposes), and if you followed the main story line, you had a safe path to travel: i.e., the shortest way from Candlekeep to Friendly Arm Inn is ok for your level, just like the way from there to Nashkell. It had nasty surprises - like the mercenary company waiting for you when you take the back entrance out of the mines - but to these points 1 and 2 apply. Hidden treasure and quests were far and few inbetween, though. That's exactly the point. Also, 3-5 bows and a Stinking Cloud: _me_ falls asleep on the keyboard safely. Moot to argue, but what exactly made you feel like you're taking on the great outdoors in BG? Actually the only real danger was when fast travelling between areas, since you couldn't scout and avoid these encounters, and you often were surrounded, bad luck for those squishy mages. Ok maybe also getting poisoned at a low level, because getting to a temple was an expensive nuisance. I wouldn't call BG's music bad, even though I prefer IWD's.

I was being sarcastic, mostly. But then, you can learn so much by just looking at the screen. If you want to hit the broad side of a barn with a dagger, you need to put points into the Melee skill, for example. The manual doesn't explicitly tell you that. OMAIGAHD SPOILER

But what if he feels spoiled by reading the manual?

Ok, will use spoiler tags from now on.

I don't know about you guys but so far conditioning hasn't made me unaware that I'm grinding when I'm grinding. Also I never play a packrat unless the game forces me to do so. Seems like I'm not Pavlov's dog after all. We shouldn't confuse behaviour people tend to rely on with conditioning; for example, people nowadays tend to rely on teleporting in RPGs, to the point where no mainstream developer would dare offering a game where you have to walk/ ride everywhere without fast travel. Add to this (laziness) that a lot of players seem to enjoy imbalance and loopholes in the system when it comes to RPGs. The prevalent opinion seems to be, "if I want to be challenged I'd play an RTS, an online shooter or an MMO, not a single player RPG". This makes lots of saleable junk basically a necessity, just like overpowered loot and unlimited gold on merchants. That said, P:E is a niche product and I'm venturing a wild guess that its audience is inclined to give better/ more balanced mechanics a chance. The knack simply(?) seems to be to create a cohesive experience. If players find that all magic items are potentially useful to everyone, they won't feel the urgent need to sell them. If you don't require players to grind up gold so they can buy the latest villain-squashing gear at the merchant's, it's not going to offend most people that they can't sell all of their junk. The player can be more easily funneled down the "right" path if he feels that what he's doing isn't suboptimal, even if you give him the chance to potentially game the system.

Not if we can believe the Might&Magic series, it isn't. The wilderness is actually a great place to conceal your treasure chests, fountains and crazy powerful hermits' huts, which is why you walk into one wherever you step. But if I had to choose between empty maps and high fantasy retardism, I'd choose the latter. Simply more fun.