Ffordesoon

@PrimeJunta: Can we just be adults for a second and admit that the AD&D combat system kind of sucks for video games? I mean, it's not the best tabletop combat system either, but it's flexible and comprehensive enough that it covers most circumstances adequately. But it falls apart when there's not a real human there to adjudicate. Computers are crap DMs. EDIT: And I should note that that goes for 3E, 3.5, and D20-based games as well. 4E is, weirdly, a great video game design document that Wizards accidentally published as a tabletop game, which is why there's a lot of detectable 4E influence within Project Eternity's ruleset. It's certainly not because 4E is the best tabletop D&D system.

@Bonecrusher: Yes, which is exactly how they do it in Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect, and basically every game that has a codex. You have to encounter the thing before it's added to the codex; that's how the system works. The thing that no game with a codex of any sort does is integrate character knowledge and player knowledge, even though that's clearly the best way to do it. What annoys me in games with codexes is that they are clearly written for the player rather than the character, which means that I as a player learn stuff that my character never gets to bring up in the game. An admittedly extreme example: I might meet a merchant who seems shifty, at which point I'll get a codex entry that points out he was accused of murdering someone. Even if I read that codex entry, I'll never be able to ask that guy about the murder he may or may not have committed, because the writers have decided it's a background detail unworthy of further exploration. That's when codex entries can feel unfair. So it seems to me that simply letting the PC ask about relevant information only found in codex entries would eliminate the empty feeling you get from them in games like Dragon Age.

I love collecting codex entries and the like, but I can see the OP's point. I don't think the issue is codex entries per se, but how they're presented to the player. The OP's main complaint seems to be focused around the distribution of lore in a way that overrides character knowledge. I think there are ways around that problem that don't involve ditching the codex entirely. I don't have the time to enumerate them at the moment, but I will write a follow-up post proposing some solutions soon. @Bonecrusher: Funny you mention Torment, seeing as how it has an in-game bestiary and NPC guide.

@Lephys: Yeah, those last ten minutes... I've likened them in the past to watching an Olympic gymnast perform a flawless routine, dismount, and fling herself down some stairs. It was just bizarre. I mean, Bioware isn't exactly subtle or ultra-original at the best of times, but that ending was such a colossal miscalculation in every concievable way that I simply don't understand how it happened. The Extended Cut DLC did do a good job of building an edifice of quality around the Space Magic idiocy, but it's still a stupid Space Magic ending. The unpleasant EA wrapping paper around everything in 3 was also off-putting. That and the lack of exploration and real sidequests ultimately put it a notch below 2 for me, though still above 1. What annoys me about ME1 (which I did quite enjoy as well, though not as much as 2 or 3) is that, as with Alpha Protocol, you could see the great game underneath the unpolished prototype that actually shipped, and yet they removed a bunch of nifty but rough features for the sequel instead of iterating upon them and polishing them. The Mako sections were relatively uninteresting filler, for example, but the idea behind them was sound, and one I wish they'd explored in more depth in the sequels. But no, it was chopped entirely. @Prime: Eh. Didn't grab you. No shame in that. People have tried to get me into the show Jackass on multiple occasions, because it's exactly the sort of thing I usually like. And they're right; it is. I like dumb humor, I like videos of people getting hit in the junk with golf balls and so on, and I like toilet humor. But, for whatever reason, I find it dull, off-putting, and unfunny. Dunno why. Sounds like you have a similar problem with Arcanum. You like the idea of it, but the reality does nothing for you.

@Prime: 2 and 3 are far better games, whatever genre you want to say they're part of. I'd recommend trying a demo of 2.

Er, I like Obsidian games too. Thus my presence on the Obsidian forum. New Vegas, KOTOR 2, and Alpha Protocol are all games I love. Doesn't mean I can't also like Mass Effect for what it is, right? I'm acutely aware of the series' failings and limitations, and have discussed them in great detail with plenty of friends of mine over the years. But I still think they're pretty damn solid games overall, and that they do what they set out to do quite well. Not perfectly, but quite well.

Yes, as loath as I am to admit it given how disappointing the game was overall, D3 did a fine job with spell variety, at least visually.

Uh, why is it absurd? That's an honest question. I'm wracking my brain trying to figure out why a game with equipment presumably synthesized through processes dependent on crudely realized chemical reactions shouldn't have real-world chemical elements in it, especially if their properties are adapted to the game's universe. Those elements are in most fantasy universes, after all; I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure iron (swords, shields, etc.) and gold (coins) are on the real periodic table that exists in real life, right? Why shouldn't more interesting things be done with those elements than sticking their names on a weapon to denote how powerful it is? What valid, logical reason is there not to at least explore that idea? For that matter, I admit I haven't been here very long, but every post of yours I've seen has been one putting another person down for suggesting an idea. Do you have any of your own ideas to offer, or are you just here to put people down? Because the latter isn't exactly helpful, you know. :?

@Sacred_Path: I dunno if I'd call my tastes "fringe," given how many AAA "cinematic experience" games I play and enjoy tremendously (including the hated Call of Duty). And how many blockbuster popcorn films I like. And how many trashy thrillers with no redeeming qualities I've enjoyed. And the fact that I really liked "Die Young" by Ke$ha because it was a completely disposable pop song that knew it was a disposable pop song and reveled in it. I also love Dwarf Fortress, the films of Federico Fellini, Herman Melville's Moby-****, and Georges Bizet's "Carmen" (or, if you'd prefer some esoteric and relatively obscure songs to contrast more directly with the hyper-mainstream, candy-coated Ke$ha track I mentioned, I also like Big Star's "The Ballad Of el Goodo" and Townes Van Zandt's "Tecumseh Valley"). So, you know, I prefer the label "eclectic," thanks. Which, in a roundabout way, brings us back to the topic at hand. As I said in another thread, the only measure of quality that matters to me is whether or not a given work succeeds at what it's trying to do. I don't play Call of Duty expecting a an open-world sandbox RPG, I don't play Skyrim expecting a great or even good narrative, and I don't play a game built around dialogue and non-combat interaction expecting to love its combat.* To expect any of those things is, to me, like expecting the new Captain America film to not have any explosions, or being disappointed that Michael Haneke didn't cram a badass fight with CG werewolves into Amour. I like movies without explosions, and I like badass werewolf fights, but I don't go in expecting to see one in the other. That, to me, is where your one-size-fits-all takedown of PST rather falls apart. You're free to dislike it for the silliest reasons in the world, of course, but to complain that it doesn't offer things it was never meant to offer (a "living world?" Really?) strikes me as particularly silly. In light of the fact that some of your reasons are valid ones I can totally understand, to add such (to me) absurd criticisms to the pile only weakens your argument. Is PST a "masterpiece," whatever the hell that actually means? Maybe, maybe not. Is anything an objective "masterpiece," under your definition? I dunno, but I would submit that any measurement of "masterpiece" status that seemingly includes James Cameron's Avatar and any given Justin Bieber album (both had broad appeal, sold well, and did everything right technically) is not a system of measurement I feel comfortable believing in. * - Whether the combat should be in there in the first place is another question entirely. I'd argue it should, because one of the things I like about RPGs is that, unlike adventure games, I have the option to kill a dude if I don't like the way he's looking at me. There should obviously be consequences for that decision, but you should be able to do it. That being said, I don't mind if a game restricts me to a lethal option, and I wouldn't judge a game for not including a nonlethal one unless I felt it cried out for such an option (as in the case of Skyrim's idiotically suicidal bandits, who always refused to let themselves be spared despite some jerk putting in a begging-for-their-lives animation - for God's sake, that's half a nonlethal mechanic). I do have a pretty strong love of certain mechanics, but I'm not going to begrudge a great game the lack of them, is my point. With all of those qualifiers duly noted, however, I will fully admit that while a combat system should've been in PST, the one that shipped with it shouldn't have been, because it was mostly lame. It's a little better if you play a mage, because some of the spell effects were awesome, but it is very underwhelming overall.

Oh, I think I see what the problem is now! You have terrible taste. I kid, but Veronica Mars really is something special. It's Nancy Drew as written by Raymond Chandler and/or Ross MacDonald. It's okay if you don't like it, but I'd recommend giving it a look. Sorry for the triple post, but that was bugging me.

@leo: I think most of us get that. But a Kickstarted game is a perfect test bed for weirder, wackier spells, because it doesn't need to satisfy Joe Lowest Common Denominator to be successful.

Word. Parts and wholes, I'm telling y'all. EDIT: Whoopsie, sorry for the double post.

@Karkarov: I would say that's the pot calling the kettle black, except I'm not the kettle. The imaginary version of me you're replying to is. But keep it up! That version of me sounds like a real jerk!

Oh, totally. As some have said, I'd honestly even be cool with the typical elements only, as long as more entertaining things were done with them than Fireball and Lightning Bolt. Even simple crap like creating an ice floe underneath an enemy so they trip on it is better than Magic Missile But With Fire/Ice/Lightning. One of the most tremendously irritating things about basically every fantasy cRPG is that the offensive spells always boil down to a few Fire/Ice/Lightning AoE spells and a few Fire/Ice/Lightning Hit A Single Enemy spells. Where are the spells that make an enemy's blood literally boil, or the spells that warp enemies into pocket dimensions made of anguish, or the spells that create combat igloos for characters to hide in? It's magic, for God's sake! Go nuts! I get that melee and ranged characters have to be roughly equivalent to magic users in terms of effectiveness, but that too often translates to "Give everyone roughly the same abilities, but give magic users sparkly particle effects to make it look like they're not doing what the other two archetypes are doing." Each class should stand out, not blend in, dammit!

@Karkarov: No, that's not highbrow. In point of fact, that argument is the worst kind of e-peen-measuring garbage. The reason I didn't assume you were making that argument is because I didn't want to assume the absolute worst about you. "You don't really like things unless you play them the way I play them! You're just a poseur! I'm the one who's really actually cool, because I play video games multiple times like a real man! I'm hardcore, because I don't believe people love their video games unless they meet my arbitrary standards!" What are you, twelve? You can't just believe me when I say I love a certain game, the way everybody else does? Why would I lie about that? What could it possibly prove? As I said, if you like playing games multple times, good for you! I have plenty of friends who like the same thing. I don't get as much out of it as they do, so - shock horror - I don't usually do it. Where's the problem, again? How does this affect you in any way? What's so bothersome about someone you don't know and will never meet in person consuming an entertainment product as he sees fit? Why do you feel this bizarre need to question my credentials because I didn't pass an arbitrary test of yours I was never trying to pass? I've completed Final Fight around eleven times. I love that game, but there are games I can promise you I love more that I haven't completed more than once, because they represent a massive investment of time on my part. That's the only dividing line. Investing another huge chunk of time into a long game I loved wouldn't prove anything I didn't already know. I loved Persona 4 Golden, played it for 140 hours, and got the best ending. What would playing it again prove? That it's a great game? I already know that. Yes, it would still be great a second time. But it wouldn't be new to me, and there are great games that are still new to me. Why wouldn't I play those instead? Why try to step in the same river twice, as it were? Not to mention that I rarely replay RPGs anyway, because I tend to make the choices I make and live with them. So yeah. Finally, regarding your weird little comment reprimanding me for boasting: I never said I wouldn't boast about things I'm proud to have done. The whole point of the "playground boast" comment I made was to point out that I was aware how ridiculous "OH AND BY THE WAY I'M RICH" sounded. I don't really know how you got "Karkarov is a braggart" out of that, given that I didn't even mention you in the relevant post.

I backed it because I want it to be good, but you're right, I'm not exactly convinced.

What do you think I've been doing? Backed PE for a thousand, backing Tides of Numenera for $350, backed Wasteland 2 for $280, backed Shadowrun Returns for I-don't-know-how-much, backed Sui Generis, backed Shroud Of The Avatar for $30, backed Guido Henkel's dear departed Thorvalla, backed Old-School RPG neé Shaker, backed Legend Of Eisenwald, backed Expeditions: Conquistador, backed a TON of roguelikes... My KS account says I've backed almost a hundred projects, most for at least fifty bucks. Anyone who says I don't put my money where my mouth is is flat-out wrong.

@forfs: The time limit isn't actually real, you know. They removed the effects of it with a patch. I haven't played much of Fallout 2, but I believe the general feeling toward it among fans is that it's a lesser game despite being a better one in a lot of ways from a mechanical standpoint, because it's too jokey and unbalanced.

@Sacred_Path: I'm sorry you consider my definition "unacceptable." I don't, you know, care what you think of my opinions, given that they're mine and not yours, but I'm sorry they're frustrating to you. If it helps, my definition of a masterpiece is "a work of art that accomplishes its goal spectacularly well." Torment accomplishes what I see as its goal spectacularly well. That doesn't mean everyone has to like it. It's just what I think. Unless you were being sarcastic. I couldn't tell, I'm afraid. @Karkarov: The fact that you put scare quotes around "love" is bizarre. Is it somehow indecorous to admit that there are games I love? I'm not talking carnal or romantic love, you know. The only thing I'm saying is that there are games I really really like a lot. Is that particularly odd? I have to say, I've seen some weird responses to posts I thought were totally uncontroversial in the past, but I've never seen anyone implicitly question the very concept of "loving" a game. You're blowing my mind, a little. As to your point about my gaming habits, I don't really understand it. I play games once, try my damndest to see all the content I can see, and move on. Sometimes, I play them more than once, especially if they're short, but as a rule, I play them once. Is that bothersome to you? If so, why? I don't read novels more than once, either. I'll read passages again, but that's it. I watch movies a bunch of times, because they don't require a huge time investment, and I read comics multiple times for the same reason. Anything that requires a massive investment of time, I tend to commit to once, take what I can from it, and move on. I hesitate to say this, as it sounds like one of those "my Dad's uncle's sister's dermatologist works at Nintendo, and he says they're making Mario 1000000 for the SuperDolphin right now" playground boasts that kids throw around to get attention, but I suppose part of it is having grown up affluent. When you have essentially unlimited disposable income to spend on new things, you rarely linger on the old ones. Sometimes I wish I could do that, but it's simply not something I feel comfortable doing. If you like doing it, though, that's fantastic. Go nuts. I couldn't stop you even if I wanted to.

I liked all three Mass Effect games quite a bit, for what it's worth. Mass Effect 2 in particular was fantastic.

It's worth noting that how many times you've played a game isn't a reliable measure of how much you enjoy it, and certainly isn't a reliable measure of quality. For example, I rarely play games twice, even when I love them. There are too many others I haven't played yet. One game I did play twice was Alpha Protocol. I'd play it a third time, too. It's one of my favorite games, but is it a masterpiece? Not by any stretch of the imagination. In a lot of ways, it's completely broken. But I've gladly sunk a ton of time into it, and would gladly sink more into it. For my purposes, it's "endlessly repeatable and endlessly enjoyable." So am I wrong, then? Is it a masterpiece? Or is it just a game I like a lot? Is there a difference? Personally, I would ascribe the descriptor "masterpiece" to anything I think is a masterpiece. I don't care what other people think of it.

I did like Morrigan, actually. The problems with her writing are the problems with every character's writing in Origins, but the fact that she was made the fact that she kept following you around despite her objections far more sensible than pretty much anyone else's reasoning for being there. Except maybe Sten's. I also liked that she really did have her own agenda, and that She's not perfect, and the issues with her character that have been mentioned are totally valid, but I still think she's more interesting than some characters in that game. Give me Morrigan over Wynne any day.

@Karkarov: 1. Reviews aren't "objective" in the first place, I don't know how that myth got started. They're formalized opinions. A reviewer has to support his or her opinions with experiential evidenceso there is a necessary degree of intellectual rigor that goes (or should go) into a published review that doesn't have to be present in a simple forum post, but "I didn't care for this part of the game, because X, Y, and Z" is still an opinion. The only genuinely objective part of a game review is when the reviewer mentions facts about the game. "The combat in Skyrim assigns each of the player character's hands to a trigger on the controller" is an objective statement, because it is factual. "The combat in Skyrim is bad" is a subjective statement, because it is an opinion. "The combat in Skyrim is bad because X, Y, and Z" is an opinion supported by experiential evidence. 2. Where did I say people weren't allowed to post reviews or review-style musings regarding Planescape? I just told you how I would review it. The only thing I said was silly was the expectation of buyer's-guide-style critiques ("Players who like good stories in their games will like this game a lot, but players who aren't interested in the narrative may find less to love..." etc.) in a thread where we're just sharing our impressions of the IE titles with each other ("Really, you liked that part? I wasn't a fan of it..." etc.). If someone wants to post a formal review of PST here, more power to them. It's just silly to expect that to be the default mode of expression. 3. Why is it weird to say that a game with substantial flaws is nonetheless worth playing? I can think of many games with substantial flaws that are nonetheless worth any gamer's attention, and it's in no way ridiculous to point that out. Many of my very favorite games ever made have pretty big flaws, and there are even games with no substantial mechanical flaws that I nonetheless can't stand to play. 4. Regarding your joke: I misinterpreted it. My bad. EDIT: @Sacred_Path: See, those are fair points.

@Sacred_Path: I'm not sure you understand the difference between an opinion ("I like this! I think it's incredible!") and a formal assessment ("This was a good game, but the pathfinding was an irritant, the mechanics didn't always work as I wanted them to, blah-de-blah-de-blah."). I love Alpha Protocol to death, and I think it is a brilliant game, but if I was writing a review of it, I'd have to give it a six out of ten. Planescape, I'd probably give an eight, but make clear in the text that I thought it was a masterful game with a few aggravating issues that pulled the score down. Expecting people to give their formal assessment in a thread where we're discussing why we as individuals love/hate certain games is, frankly, silly. And I am still trying to understand why you felt the need to indirectly call Torment fans "autistic storyf*gs." That sort of meanness is uncalled for, assuming I'm reading it right. Which I can't be, because I don't see how my post could have incited such a vitriolic response. I felt it was pretty damn reasonable. EDIT: @Karkarov: Christ, man. Attack the post, not the poster. EDIT 2: Also worth noting? I don't think Torment is different from other games, because I consider all games (and movies, and comics, and novels, and albums, and...) art. I realize that a lot of people feel that art is only the cream of the crop, and there are solid reasons to feel that way, but I find such reasoning thin. It's my contention that any creative work is art, and that entertainment is merely a subset of art. I have many reasons for thinking that, but I won't bore you with them. Let it suffice to say that I don't mean to act as if PST is some sort of sacred cow. It's a game I like quite a lot, one I would consider a masterwork based on how well it does what it's trying to do, but it's not perfect. Nothing is. @Prime: I should point out that where MCA probably got a lot of the Buddhist-y musings in PST is from Roger Zelazny, whose work is a key influence on MCA as a writer. If you like the themes explored in Torment, I recommend reading some Zelazny.

There is only one question that matters to me when evaluating anything: Does it accomplish what it sets out to accomplish, and if so, how well? The games I like, then, are those that succeed at their goal, whatever that goal may be. This means I like games as diverse as Gunstar Heroes, Fallout, and Minecraft. I'm not going to provide a list of favorites (it changes by the day), but I will say that my favorite games usually possess at least three of the following attributes: 1. Tight, thoughtfully designed controls. 2. A perfectly balanced risk-reward mechanic. 3. Oodles of reactivity to the player's choices. 4. A well-written narrative, or at least a decently written one. 5. A content-rich world. Internal consistency and vastness are pluses, but optional. 6. Complex simulations of minutiae that impact gameplay in unexpected ways. 7. Memorable characters and world. 8. A good sense of humor. 9. Multiple approaches and solutions to problems (similar to "oodles of reactivity," but not identical). 10. Mechanics with a fair amount of elasticity to them (that is, no lock-and-key, should've-bought-the-walkthrough, you-can-only-beat-this-boss-through-trial-and-error design). In addition, there are a few smaller, less definable factors that aren't as crucial as the ten above, but which can be important to me nonetheless: 11. A spark of inspired lunacy. 12. The feeling I get when I'm playing an obvious labor of love on the devs' part. Call it "soulfulness," if there must be a name for it. 13. Polished mechanics. 14. No filler content. 15. Customization of some type. 16. Allows for mods or user-generated content. 17. Allows for nonlethal conflict resolution in some capacity. 18. The game is considerate of the player's experience with it. 19. No "innovative" features shoehorned into an experience in which they don't belong (e.g. Assassin's Creed's contextual control scheme, wherein you are often asked to perform feats of graceful, speedy movement that the loose, autopilot-heavy controls can't accomplish with nearly enough regularity). 20. The game tries something new, and succeeds at it. 21. I can murder every elf I see. Hopefully, that paints a picture of the sorts of games I like better than a list of favorites would. EDIT: Oopsie, two other ones I meant to include on the lower list: 22. Colorful graphics. 23. Great audio (music and sounds).