PS Torment and endings...

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"What are you talking about?

 

TNO looked for immortality to escape going to be send to the lower planes, even the most evil person does not want to be send there."

 

Yes, but unlike you claim, him being send to Lower Planes has nothing to do with signing any contracts.

 

"There is nothing to "atone" to, you are evil and you get send to the lower planes."

 

Durr... Get this: original TNO was like hella evil. Then he goes like, w00t, "I'm going to hell when I die! Oh noes!" Then he realizes "If I do enough good, I don't go to hell." Too bad one life time isn't going to cut it - therefore, he seeks out a way to make himself immortal. Get it? It ain't that difficult.

 

The good incarnation says so in the game.

 

"The core of the game is also how belif changes things, how you think Trias managed to make that city to slip into the lower planes."

 

Yes, but what this has to do with you being wrong, I don't know.

[Drakron]

Were you got that idea?

 

You think what, that TNO is going around "Oh I am a evil bastard but if I do good I go play harp with the devas".

 

Sorry, TNO takem the way out by seeking imortality and when Ravel did her trick it did not work as advertised.

 

Besides what i wrong about TNO making a contract with demons, he was evil and could not care less until his time was up to make his part of the deal.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"Were you got that idea?"

 

Playing the game and checking out the .dlg files to see if I missed anything.

 

"You think what, that TNO is going around "Oh I am a evil bastard but if I do good I go play harp with the devas"."

 

Highly simplified, but, yeah, that's pretty much it.

 

"Sorry, TNO takem the way out by seeking imortality and when Ravel did her trick it did not work as advertised."

 

Quite curiously, the Good incarnation (aka, the original TNO), seems to disagree with you. He didn't intend to stay immortal forever.

[Drakron]

The original TNO?

 

Come on, those are simply fragments of TNO past incarnations, the good one might be the older there but it was likely the same one that tried to stuff Morte back in the pilar and lets not forget that Morte was taken off the pilar by TNO himself.

[Ivan the Terrible]

No, you'll get to know plenty bout what the "practical" incarnation did but as to the original nameless one, no one knows diddley squat. Not even himself, as he forgot after Ravel's treatment.

 

There is no way to find out what TNO's big crime was, the one that got him sentenced to hell = Plot hole. Missing link. Loose end

 

You might as well say Pulp Fiction had a Plot hole. Missing link. Loose end for not letting us see what was in the briefcase. Yet, over a decade later, people are still debating what they thought it was. If they had shown, would anyone remember or care?

 

They can and should leave a big question like that unanswered, for the very simple reality that anything they could come up with just wouldn't be as interesting as whatever the individual player's imagination allows.

 

All we know is that, whatever it was, it was truly horrible, enough to render every other incarnation's crimes a pale shadow in comparison.

[Ivan the Terrible]

The original TNO?

 

Come on, those are simply fragments of TNO past incarnations, the good one might be the older there but it was likely the same one that tried to stuff Morte back in the pilar and lets not forget that Morte was taken off the pilar by TNO himself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Good Incarnation tells you he's the original if you pursue the dialogue far enough.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You might as well say Pulp Fiction had a Plot hole. Missing link. Loose end for not letting us see what was in the briefcase. Yet, over a decade later, people are still debating what they thought it was. If they had shown, would anyone remember or care? .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"Don't blink now because your about to see something very rare.

 

By leaving a question you leave a lasting impression. Remember the briefcase in Pulp Fiction ? "

 

Ok, after reading what Crazy-Ivan wrote, I got what Shadow Paladin was talking about - and now I can laugh: SP, in case you didn't notice, I'm not the one calling it a plot hole.

[Noceur]

I have to say that I agree with Ivan the Terrible... there just isn't a need for those details. The "why" is that he did something extremely horrible.

 

And if they told you what, you might go "Well, I did that yesterday!" or "That ain't so bad?"...

[Ivan the Terrible]

     

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At first I couldn't tell what you were laughing at. I thought for a moment, given that you're not a PS:T fan, you were mocking the insinuation that the briefcase from PF and the evil deed from PS:T were comparable.

 

Then I read the thread completely.

 

Ok, ok, so you thought of the comparison first. A good point made twice is still a good point.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"I have to say that I agree with every human being who has more than half a brain and has played PST."

 

Fix'd.

 

Seriously.

 

"Ok, ok, so you thought of the comparison first. A good point made twice is still a good point."

 

On the other hand, you got your quotes right. SP didn't.

[Ivan the Terrible]

And if they told you what, you might go "Well, I did that yesterday!" or "That ain't so bad?"...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well.....if anyone on this board ever did something so horrible that it makes all the assorted crimes of TNO's past incarnations look like a drop in the bucket in comparison, I'd guess that someone on this board is Pol Pot, Stalin, or Hitler.

 

But yeah, if they had mentioned what it was, I'm guessing I would end up thinking 'that's it? That's the uber-evil thing that no amount of good deeds can redeem? Meh.' Whether it be incinerating a planet or subsisting on a diet of live baby flesh for most of his life, I'm guessing anything the writers could have dreamed up for the first incarnation's crime would have been underwhelming.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

At first I couldn't tell what you were laughing at. I thought for a moment, given that you're not a PS:T fan, you were mocking the insinuation that the briefcase from PF and the evil deed from PS:T were comparable.

 

Then I read the thread completely.

 

Ok, ok, so you thought of the comparison first. A good point made twice is still a good point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It just struck me funny that we both came up with the exact same example.

[Noceur]

And if they told you what, you might go "Well, I did that yesterday!" or "That ain't so bad?"...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well.....if anyone on this board ever did something so horrible that it makes all the assorted crimes of TNO's past incarnations look like a drop in the bucket in comparison, I'd guess that someone on this board is Pol Pot, Stalin, or Hitler.

 

But yeah, if they had mentioned what it was, I'm guessing I would end up thinking 'that's it? That's the uber-evil thing that no amount of good deeds can redeem? Meh.' Whether it be incinerating a planet or subsisting on a diet of live baby flesh for most of his life, I'm guessing anything the writers could have dreamed up for the first incarnation's crime would have been underwhelming.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hehe... and either way, it wouldn't have actually added anything substantial to the story.

 

Interestingly enough, I read that the ending (probably the CGI sequence, though) was done at the very last moment in the production pipeline.

Scott Warner on The Ending of PST

[Kaftan Barlast]

You might as well say Pulp Fiction had a Plot hole. Missing link. Loose end for not letting us see what was in the briefcase. Yet, over a decade later, people are still debating what they thought it was. If they had shown, would anyone remember or care?

 

 

That was a very bad example. What was in the case have no relevance for the story, we get to know all we need to know.

 

 

 

TNO's crime however, is very relevant to the story. It is where it all started, its consequences is what made him chase immortality. If it had not been for that unknown crime, TNO would have had a name, he'd been mortal, he'd known who he was and so on.

 

Given how the game builds up tension around gradually revealing more and more about TNO's past, we come to expect to have our questions answered in the end... but we dont. Not in a mystical climactic "there isnt an answer to everything" scene but a character(the "good" incarnation- who as i recall it isnt even voice-acted) just tells you he doesnt remember and thats it. The audience is effectively robbed by bad storytelling.

 

Why? We dont know(hah) perhaps they intended it like that, perhaps they ran out of time, perhapos they didnt think it was important.

 

 

 

I wish Chris Avellone would just swoop in here and give us the hands down.

[Noceur]

You can apparantly admit that you are "to blame for the death of many innocents across the planes" at some point during the game. Which you apparantly could say to the Dustmen Mourners (only if you had replied "I don't know" to Ravel's question "What can change the nature of a man").

 

Not sure that's what the original Nameless One did that was so bad, however.

 

Although, I personally don't feel it's bad storytelling that they don't give you the details on the crime. That's more a matter of taste.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if they just felt it wasn't important (or if it's hidden in the code but not available due to some obscure dlg bug ;P ).

[Antagonist]

They never tell you about his crime for the same reason they do not tell you his name. In the moment of revelation he wouldn't be TNO anymore but Brianna for instance. It would totally destroy the mystery that surrounds the character in replays.

 

Imagine Stanley Kubrick had given a detailed explanation about the ending of 2001.

[Noceur]

I did some research into the matter of his crimes:

 

 

"The sphere wrinkles in your hands, the skin of the sphere peeling away into tears and turning into a rain of bronze that encircles you. Each droplet, each fragment that enters you, you feel a new memory stirring, a lost love, a forgotten pain, an ache of loss - and with it, comes the great pressure of regret, regret of careless actions, the regret of suffering, regret of war, regret of death, and you feel your mind begin *buckling* from the pressure - so MUCH, all at once, so much damage done to others... so much so an entire FORTRESS may be built from such pain.

 

And suddenly, through the torrent of regrets, you feel the first incarnation again. His hand, invisible and weightless, is upon your shoulder, steadying you. He doesn't speak, but with his touch, you suddenly remember your name.

 

...and it is such a *simple* thing, not at all what you thought it might be, and you feel yourself suddenly comforted. In knowing your name, your true name, you know that you have gained back perhaps the most important part of yourself.

 

In knowing your name, you know yourself, and you know, now, there is very little you cannot do. The first incarnation's hand is gone from your shoulder, and he is watching you with a slight smile.

 

NAMELESS ONE TRIES TO SPEAK: "That was my name all along? But if I was-"

 

The first incarnation holds his finger to his lips, silencing you. He nods at the symbol at your arm, as if indicating you should make use of it."

 

 

I'd say that it states pretty clearly what the original Nameless one did, without going into gross details.

[Dranoel]

Personally I think his name was Trevor - hence the reason why the previous incarnation didn't want you to use it... he was too embarassed!

 

 

Personally I think the game is way too short - leave mortuary head to Ragpickers square - meet Pharod - enter catacombs - go to Dead Nations - become Silent King

- Game Complete in what, 5 hours or so!

[Noceur]

Hehe, in Fallout 2 you could head straight for the end station as soon as you could leave the first camp. Though you'd probably die big time. I've seen someone finish the game in 20 minutes or so, though.

 

As with both games, I think it's as short as you make it, meaning both had a lot of things you didn't have to do to finish the game.

[EUIX]

They never tell you about his crime for the same reason they do not tell you his name. In the moment of revelation he wouldn't be TNO anymore but Brianna for instance. It would totally destroy the mystery that surrounds the character in replays.

 

Imagine Stanley Kubrick had given a detailed explanation about the ending of 2001.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

2001 does have a ending, read 3001.

 

The only name for TNO that is plausible is Adahn, but even that is a pretty thin theory.

[Noceur]

  The only name for TNO that is plausible is Adahn, but even that is a pretty thin theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

On the Nameless One's true name, by Chris Avellone and co

[Tanuvein]

Oh, man, I think Planescape had the best ending. Ever. It simply blew me away.

 

I've only read this in brief, but I figured I should say this since it looked like a few people missed this point in the game: You convince Ravel to grant you immortality because you are an evil bastard. You just don't want to go to hell for it, but you do want to continue being an evil bastard. Except things don't work out like you planned.

 

I love my PS:T. Everything about the game is still with me. Its one of the few games I've replayed, and the only one I've replayed more than twice (I've played it all through about five times). Excellent game, unbelievable writing.

[Ivan the Terrible]

That was a very bad example. What was in the case have no relevance for the story, we get to know all we need to know.

 

TNO's crime however, is very relevant to the story. It is where it all started, its consequences is what made him chase immortality. If it had not been for that unknown crime, TNO would have had a name, he'd been mortal, he'd known who he was and so on.

 

Given how the game builds up tension around gradually revealing more and more about TNO's past, we come to expect to have our questions answered in the end... but we dont. Not in a mystical climactic "there isnt an answer to everything" scene but a character(the "good" incarnation- who as i recall it isnt even voice-acted) just tells you he doesnt remember and thats it. The audience is effectively robbed by bad storytelling.

 

I disagree entirely. I didn't consider it important exactly what he did, anymore than I considered it important exactly what his original name was; in fact, the aura of mystery that was created to surround the first incarnation, from his actions right down to his name, would have been crippled by any real look at what happened.

 

After all, how much do we really learn about the first incarnation? He fought in the Blood War. He did something horrible, or many horrible things, and later came to regret them. He petitioned Ravel to grant him immortality, and then was murdered by Ravel to see if she succeded, ending his independent existence and ushering in the second incarnation.

 

Compared to the Practical and the Paranoid incarnations, we know next to nothing about the guy. I think BIS intended him to be a complete mystery from the start, without any intention of revealing who he was.

 

You consider this a flaw; I consider in-depth knowledge of the first incarnation's actions to be unimportant, even harmful to the atmosphere. We're unlikely to proceed any further given that difference of opinion.

[themadhatter114]

They never tell you about his crime for the same reason they do not tell you his name. In the moment of revelation he wouldn't be TNO anymore but Brianna for instance. It would totally destroy the mystery that surrounds the character in replays.

 

Imagine Stanley Kubrick had given a detailed explanation about the ending of 2001.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

2001 does have a ending, read 3001.

 

The only name for TNO that is plausible is Adahn, but even that is a pretty thin theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

3001 is the ending to Arthur C. Clarke's vision of how 2001 would have continued, not Stanley Kubrick's.

 

While Arthur C. Clarke was writing the book, Kubrick was himself writing for the movie himself. I would not take 3001 into account when watching Kubrick's film, nor will I ever watch 2010 as a sequel to his film. 3001 is the end of Clarke's vision, and 2010 is the film version of Clarke's sequel to his book.

 

Clarke's 2001 and Kubrick's 2001 are not exactly the same and should not be considered as a single entity.