Was PS:T "pseudo-philosophical?"

[NocturnalMe]

I was reading that MoTB review on this board, and it mentioned PS: T was "pseudo-philosophical" or "quasi-intellectual." Who here thinks this? I'd like a wide range of opinions, if possible. Anyway, my opinion is a bit shaky concerning this. I thought, at it's core, PS: T was insightful at certain points. Although, I'm not exactly educated in philosophy, so I don't necessarily trust my gut reaction.

 

 

Also, I believe games can become Art, and whether or not PS: T should be considered that, it still went farther down that direction than any other game IMO. So, I guess I'll end this post now and let the discussion begin. And sorry if this has been discussed before.

[Walsingham]

I think it's rather harsh to criticise PS:T as pseudo-intellectual. If it had been a genuinely formal intelectual philosophical work it would have sold like frozen rock cakes at the Kalamazoo winter festival.

 

I thought that for the ime, and the genre it was tremendously philosophical. I Have replayed it at least once just to get more into the books, and backstory of the characters.

 

I think it is worth adding that for me - someone who is interested deeply by such things - the presence of this philosophical material sicked me far further into the game than quests to rescue a stuffed cat.

[Cantousent]

"....sorry if this has been discussed before."

 

Hahaha

 

Seriously, though, this is an important question if we're ever to take games as legitimate literary vehicles.

[Walsingham]

I think it's worth pointing out that in the time of Buster Keaton no-one took movies seriously.

[Pop]

I always found PST to be limited by the D&D system in regard to philosophy, but not by much. Chris Avellone is a crazy philosophy **** (not really, he seems okay), and it really feels like he threw everything he had into that game. Whether or not it amounts to anything, well, some people think 2001:A Space Odyssey is boring and empty, so it depends on your outlook, I'd say. I was impressed by PST.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Pop

[Humodour]

Some of the focal themes of the game were belief, change and regret. These themes are inherently philosophical and I think PS:T approached them from that perspective. "Pseudo-philosophical" makes it sound like it was hollow; like it covered its themes without really covering anything at all, which I don't think is true; I felt quite moved as I journeyed through the game... emotionally, yes, but also spiritually in a way. I felt enlightened when I finished it, so I would definitely call PS:T philosophical.

 

Philosophical material needn't be essays and books. I think anything which causes you to question fundamental things in your world in an insightful way should be considered philosophical... the medium isn't really important.

[Cantousent]

Having been the person who used the term "pseudo-philosophical" in the MotB thread, I'd like to stipulate that the term is, indeed, pejorative. It literally means false wisdom love, or false philosophy. I hate the very term. I warn you that, being unable to sleep, my posts will probably be less than coherant. I'm sure you won't be able to tell the difference.

 

At any rate, this is my take. Krezack is entirely right. The medium shouldn't dictate the value of philosophical discourse. It is for this reason that novels, plays, and movies play such an important part in expressing wide assortment of philosophical points of view. Plato didn't write a text book. He wrote dialogue between interlocutors, some of which I have translated for my own personal reading. It is silly to suggest that game cannot express philosophy. Games can be viable literary vehicles if we only allow.

[Istima Loke]

I don't like the word "philosophical" (let alone "pseudo-philosophical"). I mean, ok the game uses some (mostly eastern if I'm not mistaken) philosophical patterns (which also appear to be connected with the setting - with which I am not familiar) like the change through belief and regret as an important part to reach the afterlife but I wouldn't prefer to call it "philosophical" (not because I don't think that it was deep, moving etc - I don't even like these words) because it feels like saying that it teaches philosophy, something that is not the point (as I see it) and it makes it look like some kind of textbook. PS:T, I think, showed that a game can tell a nice story, has nice characters, good witting. It presented a very beautiful and touching personal story. I think the "questions" presented in Torment (on the nature of a man, on regret, on who are we, on good and evil) are questions that bug most (if not all) humans. It was not a game that tried to give answers to that questions, it just shared them and some points of them with us. And I think that this is what makes this game what it is.

 

I also think that PS:T showed that videogames are not inferior to other mediums. I think PS:T is what it is not only for a story well done but also for a game as a whole. I sometimes try to imagine how it would look like if it was a book or a movie and it looks to me that it would be much worse. Of course this could be said about other games (actually about almost every game with some "adventure" titles as exceptions) but some people (like Ebert) will appear to say that the are not a complete story or there is not authorial control or whatever (and I disagree, but anyway). The difference with Planescape is that it is a linear game which doesn't gives you a lot of options, that is better played by a charismatic-intelligent-wise character than anything else, that it is extremely story-driven etc. (things that make it look as easily adapted to more "sophisticated" mediums) but again when (imagined) adapted into these it looks vastly inferior. (I know there is a book out there, I haven't read it, but I have heard that it's worse than the game)

 

Now whether or not games will be considered as art. I think in time they will. As Walsingham pointed, movies used to be considered as mindless entertainment when they first appeared. Though nowadays games are considered (at least by some) worse that killing puppies. O tempora O mores (as they say)...

Edited September 13, 2007 by Istima Loke

[Nocte]

Psuedo-Philosophical = "Why?" "42?"

Quasi-Intellectual = Dan Brown.

 

I see no connection to Planescape: Torment here.

[Pidesco]

I wouldn't call Dan Brown quasi-intellectual. Unless you mean dumb, pedestrian and vaguely insulting.

[Tale]

I think the most important supposed "pseudo-philosophy" of PS:T was the power of belief. However, contextually speaking it was a reality in Planescape and it served more to describe the setting than to try to demonstrate, educate, or convince of the concept.

 

If a game features people with wings, do we automatically draw that it is an allusion to human achievement? Or perhaps it is just a facet of the setting? Several of the abilities belief granted to people are just too outlandish to be taken with a seriousness required to think it's even attempting philosophy.

[Monte Carlo]

Games can be art, and good art too. If half a shark encased in a plastic tank of phormaldahyde can be art then so can a game. That's the way I see it. It can only be a matter of time before somebody enters a game into an art competition, after all it would basically be a digital installation project. A rendering of a Taliban fortress using a gaming engine that you can explore a la Quake has already been entered into an exhibition.

 

As for PS:T, it's subjective, of course. I didn't enjoy PS:T as much as others because the "interactive novel" approach, requirement to understand elements of the Planescape setting (which sort of leaves me cold) and that game's propensity to take itself rather seriously all run against my personal tastes (tactics, humour, hack'n'slash).

 

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that a game as different as PS:T was so popular and that so many people were inspired by it. It just didn't do it for me. It's musings on deep and meaningful stuff left me cold.

 

Cheers

MC

[mr insomniac]

I think it's rather harsh to criticise PS:T as pseudo-intellectual. If it had been a genuinely formal intelectual philosophical work it would have sold like frozen rock cakes at the Kalamazoo winter festival.

Some will maintain that this is a fairly accurate description of PS:T's actual sales figures.

 

(I know there is a book out there, I haven't read it, but I have heard that it's worse than the game)

There was a book that was based on the game as it existed well before its actual release, iirc. The in-game story wasn't complete and the author took a lot of liberties with the material, apparently. That's not to say it wasn't bad, heh.

 

But anyway, yeah, I think Krezack nailed it. Philosophical or not, I felt a little more enlightened after thinking about the themes of the game, when I finished it.

[samm]

Does it matter wether the game itself is philosophical? It got me thinking, it inspired thoughts about questions not only directly asked in the game, but also questions coming up associatively. That's more than any other game (and most books and films) has managed. It made me philosophical - and I think a game itself as something rather abstract cannot be philosophical anyway. All a game can do is what Torment has done, be it by philosophical NPCs (they are pseudo-philosophical, as figures in a game can't really think) or situations constructed by the designers.

 

Yes, games can be art. "Art" has to be defined, of course, but I don't think it's violating a common feeling of what "art" is, when the definition is chosen such that certain games fit in.

[Walsingham]

I always found PST to be limited by the D&D system in regard to philosophy, but not by much. Chris Avellone is a crazy philosophy **** (not really, he seems okay), and it really feels like he threw everything he had into that game. Whether or not it amounts to anything, well, some people think 2001:A Space Odyssey is boring and empty, so it depends on your outlook, I'd say. I was impressed by PST.

 

Hey! Why are you poking me?