Planescape: Torment

[Gromnir]

Has a D&D crpg game EVER had a good trailer? Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment etc all had meh trailers too.

PS:T had a meh trailer? Did we watch the same one?

 

True, it said bugger all about the gameplay or story, but the images and sheer atmosphere were unforgettable.

 

you must recall that raison dujour for ps:t failure is lousy marketing. sure, ps:t were heavily marketed in gamer magazines, and Gromnir even recalls one of those big cardboard displays at the local game store, but if you says that trailer sucked (a trailer which were included with every copy o' of baldur's gate) and that box art was horrible, or that overall marketing were insufficient, then you got a reason for failure that is complete removed from aspects of game itself. if marketing were the flaw, then you not needs find any mistakes in ps:t itself. given the high regard in which ps:t is held by fans and developers 'round here it is little wonder that peoples works so hard to find reasons for failure that were largely unrelated to developer contribution.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Xard]

not again one of Gromnir's "PS:T COMBAT DOOMED THE GAME" rants...

 

Can you really claim bad marketing and abnormal setting weren't the main reasons for game's "fall"?

[Gromnir]

not again one of Gromnir's "PS:T COMBAT DOOMED THE GAME" rants...

 

Can you really claim bad marketing and abnormal setting weren't the main reasons for game's "fall"?

 

 

actually, Gromnir invariably mentions the unusual setting as one of the reasons for failure o' ps:t. bugginess were also a problem as memory leak issues made game unplayable for many. pseudo-intellectual navel gazing turned some folks off and away from an otherwise great game. bad combat were a contributing factor. lack o' customization ('specially insofar as appearance o' player avatar were concerned) were discouraging for some... we can go on if you like.

 

ps:t were Gromnir's favorite crpg, but to pretend that it didn't have faults or that it were perfect for everybody is a big mistake.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps yeah, we claim that bad marketing had little to do with ps:t failure. pre-release hype for ps:t were extreme. virtual every gamer mag and notable gamer site were anticipating game and giving positive sounding previews. game was getting multiple-page advertisements at magazines such as cgw... along with multi-page articles.

 

box art? heck, ps:t even got additional pub because of box art as it were guido henkel, a producer on game, who were donning the make-up for box art... were an article or two 'bout that.

 

did box art turn away some occasional 70 year old woman buying games for her grandson? maybe, but is cheap to mentions advertising w/o acknowledging all the other more substantive (and probably more likely) possible and plausible reasons for ps:t failure with consumers.

 

oh, and the ps:t board monkey at ip at that time were a bit of an arse too.

 

kidding

Edited August 28, 2008 by Gromnir

[Xard]

pseudo-intellectual navel gazing turned some folks off and away from an otherwise great game.

 

Please, you really have to do this? "Pseudo-intellectual navel gazing" is about as stupid criticism as it can get without any substance in this regard. (In fact it rarely does outside pop music) Wonder were you forgot the oh so precious word "pretentiousness"?

 

Anyway, I can see your other points (though I changed my opinion on combat in my recent playthrough. It was a lot better than I remembered, of course still being weakest in IE game. Plus what I quoted was just shameful), but were things like bugginess or memory leak issue well known before the game came out? Many of those flaws are such that they only tend to be found out only later as people progress in game further - such as many flaws of Oblivion which were such a hush-hush when it came out - and they shouldn't impact that much initial sales. Just see K2's sales for reference (and yes, I know it is Star Wars)

 

And then there's stories by people like Tigranes who back in day didn't get the game due to its fugly cover art and people who were confused by its apparent dissimilarity with Baldur's Gate...

 

 

btw, PS:T wasn't financial letdown as has been said often. It sold well over the time. It just wasn't sma****

Edited August 28, 2008 by Xard

[Dark_Raven]

"a D&D crpg game EVER had a good trailer? Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment etc all had meh trailers too."

 

All the IE games had great trailers. Toee had a great trailer. NWN1, and NWN2 both had great trailers. Hell, even POR2 had a solid trailer considering the game was complete crap.

I agree. IWD and especially BG2 had awesome trailers.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I thought the Planescape: Torment trailer was really good. I see it every time I reinstall Baldur's Gate. I wish they'd hurry up and bring the NWN2 Planescape mod out.

[Gromnir]

for chrissakes...

 

breaking even over time is NOT success. if put your money in a mutual fund is a more lucrative investment, then your game development has failed. ps:t had to have multiple encheapened releases, including a dual release with soul caliber in a cardboard sleeve to finally break even? is not a financial success for a development company that has public traded stock.

 

and yeah, some (not all) of the writing in ps:t were terrible... and most o' it was pseudo-intellectual navel gazing that had a tendency to make some people groan with anguish. such were the nature o' the setting with the philosophical bent o' the factions and the Power o' Belief motif after all, but to imply that such stuff were embraced universal is stoopid. why you think everybody love such stuff just because you do? problem were compounded by manner in which chrisA presented his navel gazing: too wordy. after bg bioware came up with the dreaded 3-line rule. they learned that peoples didn't like to read through multiple dialogue options that were more than 3-lines each... start clicking through stuff that were too wordy. ps:t developers had not yet had time to learn this valuable lesson, and so bis developers failed to take short attention span o' crpg gamers into account with ps:t.

 

again, there is loads o' content related reasons why ps:t failed. some anecdotal nonsense 'bout box art killing sales notwithstanding.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 28, 2008 by Gromnir

[Dark_Raven]

PST's pseudo-intellectual navel gazing made me bored and fall asleep. It didn't fail that at least.

[Monte Carlo]

Please, you really have to do this? "Pseudo-intellectual navel gazing" is about as stupid criticism as it can get without any substance in this regard. (In fact it rarely does outside pop music) Wonder were you forgot the oh so precious word "pretentiousness"?

 

Sorry mate, but that was exactly what put me off. It isn't a stupid criticism if you don't like eye-bleedingly small text full of pretentious (thought I'd get it in for you) mumbo-jumbo. When it comes to writing, sometimes less is more.

 

OTOH, the slightly creepy, viscerally-scored, "WTF? - fantasy?" and generally awesome PS:T trailer was

 

I understand why so many people loved PS:T. For example, I thought the NPC concepts were superlative. Some people really dig all that extra-planar what-type-of-pasta sauce-they-eat-in-Sigil type stuff. However, it is a deeply flawed game for those of us who don't like interactive novels about meta-physical drivel. Personally, I didn't play 2E AD&D mcuh so I wasn't up on the Planescape setting. However, planar jaunts, Githyanki, hell and psionics are easily my least favourite parts of fantasy / D&D, belonging to my mond more to a science-fantasy type milieu. Ergo it was never really going to be for me.

 

Cheers

MC

[Wombat]

I don't think this is a big secret or grand-breaking discovery but you people seem to have been repeating more or less same arguments for years...

 

O.K. Despite of not accessing any game information nearly for a year, I guess I have gathered enough information just virtually in a few hours thanks to Google. I'm off now.

[newc0253]

However, it is a deeply flawed game for those of us who don't like interactive novels about meta-physical drivel.

 

It took me at least one false start before getting into PS:T but it wasn't metaphysical drivel or the box-art that put me off initially (I liked the architect scene in Matrix Reloaded so naturally I'm a big fan of metaphysical drivel). The main reasons was being locked into a single character with a pre-set appearance and class plus the sheer morbidity of the initial setting.

 

After giving it another shot (due in part to the appeal of the trailer), it became one of my all-time favourite CRPGs but it's pretty easy to see that the nonstandard fantasy setting and locked-in story was never gonna have the same broad appeal as the heroic fantasy stylings of BG.

Edited August 28, 2008 by newc0253

[taks]

you MUST have the same taste in games/writing/art/movies/etc. as ME else your opinion is stupid! wow... sometimes i am amazed in here. good retort, MC.

 

taks

[Xard]

for chrissakes...

 

breaking even over time is NOT success. if put your money in a mutual fund is a more lucrative investment, then your game development has failed. ps:t had to have multiple encheapened releases, including a dual release with soul caliber in a cardboard sleeve to finally break even? is not a financial success for a development company that has public traded stock.

 

and yeah, some (not all) of the writing in ps:t were terrible... and most o' it was pseudo-intellectual navel gazing that had a tendency to make some people groan with anguish. such were the nature o' the setting with the philosophical bent o' the factions and the Power o' Belief motif after all, but to imply that such stuff were embraced universal is stoopid. why you think everybody love such stuff just because you do? problem were compounded by manner in which chrisA presented his navel gazing: too wordy. after bg bioware came up with the dreaded 3-line rule. they learned that peoples didn't like to read through multiple dialogue options that were more than 3-lines each... start clicking through stuff that were too wordy. ps:t developers had not yet had time to learn this valuable lesson, and so bis developers failed to take short attention span o' crpg gamers into account with ps:t.

 

again, there is loads o' content related reasons why ps:t failed. some anecdotal nonsense 'bout box art killing sales notwithstanding.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

picture I got from interviews it was not merely breaking even, it sold well. That's different from merely getting back the money that was invested

 

Long or wordy writing was hardly avoidable as nearly all action, characterization of NPC's etc. had to be done through text. And such texts must be descriptive by nature unless you want them to become uninteresting and mind numbinly average. I value clever usage of words, original passages etc. more than most other stuff in world. I don't like Jordan or other such crap and in literature certain balance between minimalism and spreading prose must be had (in favor of minimalism for me), but writing to game is very different from writing book.

 

No other game has been so effective with mere text (Sensorium stones, memory of Pillar and Morte) and PS:T's writing leaves most books I've read behind (and it's not like my favourite author is Salvatore or something )

 

Anyway, it shouldn't come off as surprise that I abhore Bio's 3-lines rule. I don't care if most players aren't patient enough to read through frickin' dialogue options because they're busy to find skulls for crushing.

 

It has nothing to do with taste. Claims that some movie, book etc. is pretentious are common yet nearly all this claims under scrutinization fail due to oversimplification, intellectual laziness or misinterprepting authors intent.

 

I have no problem with people disliking PS:T if it doesn't suite their tastes (like with MC), but I damn sure have problems when one makes bold, silly claims without any clear justification

 

Please, you really have to do this? "Pseudo-intellectual navel gazing" is about as stupid criticism as it can get without any substance in this regard. (In fact it rarely does outside pop music) Wonder were you forgot the oh so precious word "pretentiousness"?

 

Sorry mate, but that was exactly what put me off. It isn't a stupid criticism if you don't like eye-bleedingly small text full of pretentious (thought I'd get it in for you) mumbo-jumbo. When it comes to writing, sometimes less is more.

 

 

This kind of criticism has value of 0 untill you (Gromnir, MC, Dark_Raven or whoever)

 

A) Define "pseudo-philosophical"

 

B) Define "pretentious"

 

C) Reason how those two words are related to PS:T and

 

D) why PS:T isn't philosophical but pseudo-philosophical instead

 

All these reasonings must be well-rounded with solid ground to deflect criticism.

 

 

Here's wordbook definition of pretentious for starters

 

 

1. full of pretense or pretension.

2. characterized by assumption of dignity or importance.

3. making an exaggerated outward show; ostentatious.

 

1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.

2. Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious. See Synonyms at showy.

 

 

So, proofs that PS:T is characterized by any of these?

 

 

 

 

I don't hate any buzzword as much as pretentious. Pseudo-philosophical (which is oxymoron itself) is another.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Xard

[newc0253]

I don't hate any buzzword as much as pretentious. Pseudo-philosophical (which is oxymoron itself) is another.

sorry, but how is 'pseudo-philosophical' an oxymoron?

 

'pseudo-' is just a modifier, suggesting something is fake or pretend. It doesn't suggest any paradoxical quality or essential contradiction in properties, e.g. bittersweet.

 

a 'genuine fake' would be an oxymoron, for instance. so would 'mindless philosophy'. but there's no essential contradiction involved in describing something as fake as opposed to genuine philosophy, just like a lot of science fiction tends to involve fake science.

Edited August 28, 2008 by newc0253

[Xard]

how can something be pseudo-philosophical? It is simple as that

 

At its basic "philosophy" means love of knowledge. After various translation starting from Greece the other "big" meaning for word became "system a person forms for conduct of life" after some writing by Cicero.

 

Philosophical then again means:

 

1. Of, relating to, or based on a system of philosophy.

2. Characteristic of a philosopher, as in equanimity, enlightenment, and wisdom.

 

Now as philosophy is pretty much all encompassing from morals and ethics to ontology and epistemelogy... even the Beatles's "all you need is love" is philosophy and from certain pov quite deep philosophy. Same with "**** happens", that too is philosophy of kind. Then again both of those can be seen as merely "postcard philosophy". Or aforisms. But aforisms are philosophical by their nature.

 

As you can see all this kind of stuff - even the simplest life, hehe, philosophies - are philosophy.

 

Now how you can add word "pretend" or "fake" in beginning of such word? "I think leaves turn yellow because they want to be yellow" is silly claim that can be easily lambasted as silly pseudo-philosophy. But there's nothing fake or pretending about that claim by itself*. It too can be seen in philosophical light. It is empirically (seeing leaves turn yellow) based reasoning (it must have some reason. Hmm, people do something because they want to do something. Ha! Leaves want to turn yellow! Yay!)

 

Even religions are philosophical systems with certain exception - they're belief instead of rationality based, but core principles are same.

 

 

Now how one can add word pseudo in front of word that containts things from deepest ontological ponderings to such childlish reasonings as my goofy leave example? How one can make human thinking "fake" by itself?

 

* something can become pseudo-philosophical in context it is ment to make something be philosophical when it isn't philosophical by nature. Say, trying to make river philosophical being.

 

Crap, this is getting kinda complicated.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Xard

[Kelverin]

It took me at least one false start before getting into PS:T but it wasn't metaphysical drivel or the box-art that put me off initially (I liked the architect scene in Matrix Reloaded so naturally I'm a big fan of metaphysical drivel). The main reasons was being locked into a single character with a pre-set appearance and class plus the sheer morbidity of the initial setting.

This is my exact experience as well, (I'll also add the fed ex quests were plentiful as well albeit with a little more imagination than most games) except it took me about 10 false starts until I forced myself to play and finish it last year. Best decision I have ever made about a game.

[newc0253]

how can something be pseudo-philosophical?

 

simple, pseudo-philosophy is something pretending or masquerading as genuine philosophy. If i'm writing a science fiction story and make up a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about 'warp fields', 'tetrion particles' and 'cascade failures', then i'm offering a bunch of pseudo-science, not actual science.

 

similarly, if i'm writing a fantasy story (or any kind of story) and i want to give the impression that one of my characters is a deep thinker, it's pretty easy to come up with a bunch of philosophical-sounding waffle ('hermeneutical', 'praxis', 'ontologically') to acheive that effect. unless the reader knows what 'hermeneutical' or 'praxis' or 'ontogically' means, they might be inclined to think that it's genuine.

 

we use the term 'pseudo-philosophical', therefore, to refer to writing (or whatever) that seeks to acheive the appearance of philosophy, rather than actually involving the search for truth, etc.

 

now you might generously extend the term 'philosophy' to anyone who sincerely engages, however badly, in any kind of broadly intellectual inquiry. but i can think of plenty of professional philosophers who would disagree: for them, philosophy is a serious exercise requiring proper training and calling stuff like PS:T 'philosophy' would be like me hammering a nail into the wall and calling myself a builder.

 

It is simple as that

yes, it really is.

Edited August 28, 2008 by newc0253

[Gromnir]

"picture I got from interviews it was not merely breaking even, it sold well. That's different from merely getting back the money that was invested"

 

your picture is wrong. took years for ps:t to break even. eventually ended up in black, but for the all important first 2 quarters, ps:t were a collosal disappointment.

 

"No other game has been so effective with mere text (Sensorium stones, memory of Pillar and Morte) and PS:T's writing leaves most books I've read behind (and it's not like my favourite author is Salvatore or something tongue.gif ) "

 

you don't read much, do you? in any event, others has already replied...

 

oh, and btw, Gromnir said, "pseudo-intellectual navel gazing"... not pseudo philosophical. 'least get subject matter o' your complaint correct.

 

 

and to be fair, we never suggested that ps:t were pretentious. have called it a "philosophy_for_dummies" approach, but Gromnir never calls pretentious. honestly am not thinking that chrisA were trying to be self-important or demanding. chrisA dummed ps:t down to kinda level that even anime fans could get. however, such a diminished approach were arguably flawed.

 

john gardner's approach with Grendel were indeed pretentious, but he were artful and did with self mocking aplomb. the hoity-toity dragon were not a likeable character, eh? the guy writing a novel which is for all intents and purposes a philosophy primer makes his mythological professor a pompous and irritable bladder o' hot air. 'course we don't believe Gardner's approach woulda' worked any better in a crpg than did chrisA's.

 

robert e. howard did 180 degrees opposite. Conan never spouted Nietzsche quotes or reflected all philosophical. Conan actualized w/o all the intellectualizing and navel gazing. you wanna feed Nietzche to the average gamer/reader? don't have some greasy-haired goth wax philosophical... has a broadsword wielding ubermensch lop off some heads and have sex with beautiful slave girls. thats the kinda philosophy everybody can appreciate, no?

 

which approach is better? depends on your audience.

 

chrisA tries some middle ground. much of his cliff's notes philosophy were childish and his writing were far too often the kinda maudlin introspection you sees only from young writers (and the aforementioned anime and comics books.) such a middle ground approach is bound to irritate the genuine snobs & bore folks who want straightforward.

 

sorry, but people far too often hold up ps:t like it were some kinda holy grail for crpgs. Gromnir loved the game, but am not gonna pretend it were well written from start to finish. am also not gonna pretend that it were flawless. is more than enough reasons why ps:t coulda' failed... other than marketing. marketing excuse is just a cop out after the fact.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Xard]

how can something be pseudo-philosophical?

 

simple, pseudo-philosophy is something pretending or masquerading as genuine philosophy. If i'm writing a science fiction story and make up a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about 'warp fields', 'tetrion particles' and 'cascade failures', then i'm offering a bunch of pseudo-science, not actual science.

 

similarly, if i'm writing a fantasy story (or any kind of story) and i want to give the impression that one of my characters is a deep thinker, it's pretty easy to come up with a bunch of philosophical-sounding waffle ('hermeneutical', 'praxis', 'ontologically') to acheive that effect. unless the reader knows what 'hermeneutical' or 'praxis' or 'ontogically' means, they might be inclined to think that it's genuine.

 

we use the term 'pseudo-philosophical', therefore, to refer to writing (or whatever) that seeks to acheive the appearance of philosophy, rather than actually involving the search for truth, etc.

 

now you might generously extend the term 'philosophy' to anyone who sincerely engages, however badly, in any kind of broadly intellectual inquiry. but i can think of plenty of professional philosophers who would disagree: for them, philosophy is a serious exercise requiring proper training and calling stuff like PS:T 'philosophy' would be like me hammering a nail into the wall and calling myself a builder.

 

It is simple as that

yes, it really is.

 

Most philosophical truths and debates are actually rather simple at their core. Who was it who said that most genius ideas are simple, so simple that afterwards people wonder it wasn't seen sooner? Rawls theories of justice and society are some of the most important philosophical writings released in 20th Century, but the essentials aren't complicated. Arguments and methods are complex but core thesises are simple. Same could be said about nearly all philosophical stances and questions.

 

simple, pseudo-philosophy is something pretending or masquerading as genuine philosophy. If i'm writing a science fiction story and make up a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about 'warp fields', 'tetrion particles' and 'cascade failures', then i'm offering a bunch of pseudo-science, not actual science.

 

Yes, this might fall under "pseudo-philosophy" in its context. Pseudo-nature of philosophy stems from it not being much of philosophy but bunch of philosophical terms thrown together to make it cool deep. Then again it can be asked again can true pseudo-philosophy be case then either. After all meaningless use of words like ontologically must be build around some basic frame of text to masquerade its poor intellectual nature, but yet even then it "deepens" something and that something must be stray of philosophical thought, no matter how crude. Thus it is still philosophical to certain extent.

 

Other way is to just throw bunch of philosophical and "wise"sounding words together, but that's just complete nonsense and isn't more meaningful than snow falling from sky. It isn't philosophical but neither it is pseudo-philosophical, it isn't anything meaningful from human pov

 

we use the term 'pseudo-philosophical', therefore, to refer to writing (or whatever) that seeks to acheive the appearance of philosophy, rather than actually involving the search for truth, etc.

 

As I try to show above I'm not sure if such thing can be done at all. There's some stray of philosophical thought under all the braveur of meaningess words or then it isn't anything at all from human pov.

but i can think of plenty of professional philosophers who would disagree

 

Humility should be one of core virtues of philosophy. Socrates walked among commoners and try to get common people think and practise philosophy. Everyman's capability and inclination towards it has always part of philosophy. Without it there wouldn't be philosophy, as even philosophers are common men.

 

for them, philosophy is a serious exercise requiring proper training

 

High level philosophy is really that. That's because philosophers love to shred each others arguments apart and be smug about their superiority, hehe.

 

Reason it requires training is high level of talk and arguments. You must be well versed in manners and habits of philosophy or you'll be laughed out of their symposiums

 

But basic nature of philosophy, wondering the world, our place in it etc. is never different.

 

and calling stuff like PS:T 'philosophy' would be like me hammering a nail into the wall and calling myself a builder.

 

PS:T contains genuine philosophy in it quite a lot, but of course it's not the kind of that goes on in academic papers between Alvin Plantinga and naturalists or Free Will debates between Hodgson and Dennet.

[newc0253]

Most philosophical truths and debates are actually rather simple at their blah blah blah blah blah blah

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

wuh?

 

oh sorry, dude, i nodded off reading your post.

 

please continue.

 

After all meaningless use of words like ontologically must be build around some basic frame of text to masquerade its poor intellectual nature, but yet even then it "deepens" something and that something must be stray of philosophical thought, no matter how crude. Thus it is still philosophical to certain extent.

so using philosophical terms makes something 'deeper', huh?

 

that's like how putting fins on something makes it more aerodynamic, right? or racing stripes on a car makes it go faster?

Edited August 28, 2008 by newc0253

[Xard]

"picture I got from interviews it was not merely breaking even, it sold well. That's different from merely getting back the money that was invested"

 

your picture is wrong. took years for ps:t to break even. eventually ended up in black, but for the all important first 2 quarters, ps:t were a collosal disappointment.

 

Well, then I was wrong.

 

 

you don't read much, do you? in any event, others has already replied...

 

On the contrary. But PS:T's literature is for most part great. Of course it's not Hemingway or Milton or something (DUH), they're way beyond great, but it is infinitely better than generic novel I might pick up from library.

 

There's only one really cler flaw in PS:T's prose that repeats often (and it is quite basic) - or at least used in early parts - and that's use of words (gahh, what they're called in english), ehh, I make up example:

 

"Johnny said gravely"

"she laughed happily"

"creep snarled furiously"

 

Well, you get the idea what I mean. The useless, crude use of those happily/sadly/quickly type words after verbs. It is poor usage of language as any good author would tell you. They should be used rarely and only when it makes impact, otherwise it just cheapens writing.

 

Eventually amount of those went down a lot but every once in a while I encountered minefields of such sentence structures.

 

oh, and btw, Gromnir said, "pseudo-intellectual navel gazing"... not pseudo philosophical. 'least get subject matter o' your complaint correct.

 

oh? Not that big difference really, but I guess I must pardon you nonetheless.

 

"and to be fair, we never suggested that ps:t were pretentious. have called it a "philosophy_for_dummies" approach, but Gromnir never calls pretentious. honestly am not thinking that chrisA were trying to be self-important or demanding. chrisA dummed ps:t down to kinda level that even anime fans could get. however, such a diminished approach were arguably flawed."

 

Ahh, well that's plus. Though neither self-important or demanding are synonyms to pretentious. But you know that already. btw, tone down the snobbyism somewhat? Not all anime fans are retarted wapanese.

 

"john gardner's approach with Grendel were indeed pretentious, but he were artful and did with self mocking aplomb. the hoity-toity dragon were not a likeable character, eh? the guy writing a novel which is for all intents and purposes a philosophy primer makes his mythological professor a pompous and irritable bladder o' hot air. 'course we don't believe Gardner's approach woulda' worked any better in a crpg than did chrisA's."

 

I've not read the book so can't comment. *shrug*

 

"robert e. howard did 180 degrees opposite. Conan never spouted Nietzsche quotes or reflected all philosophical. Conan actualized w/o all the intellectualizing and navel gazing. you wanna feed Nietzche to the average gamer/reader? don't have some greasy-haired goth wax philosophical... has a broadsword wielding ubermensch lop off some heads and have sex with beautiful slave girls. thats the kinda philosophy everybody can appreciate, no? "

 

 

Don't be so hard on gamers. Somewhere everyone's "civilizing" (lol) must start. And I doubt reading Conan novellas (which are awesome) is good entry to Nietzsche

 

"which approach is better? depends on your audience."

 

Artist should and maybe has responsibility to demand something from his audience, at least once in a while. What if Bergman or Tarkovsky had decided to diminish their vision just to get movie audience in work?

 

"chrisA tries some middle ground. much of his cliff's notes philosophy were childish and his writing were far too often the kinda maudlin introspection you sees only from young writers (and the aforementioned anime and comics books.) such a middle ground approach is bound to irritate the genuine snobs & bore folks who want straightforward."

 

Wait what, "cliff notes"? I'd also like to know your superior approach to philosophy in games as you've by now couple of times scoffed at ChrisA's "approach"

 

And you're selling anime, comic books and some abstract thing called young writers (wat aboot old writers?) short here. I wonder if you're one of these snobs?

 

You know, art's purpose is never to be work of academic philosophy or science book in disguise (something some hard scifi authors should remember *cough* ), it is foremost art.

 

Through art author tries through gimmicks and methods of his medium and his/her personal vision create emotionally and intellectually stimulating work that should leave imprints on people's minds and perhaps even make them think and come curious of these thoughts and their sources. And of course art is foremost artist's self-expression. And art also filters heavily author's puzzled mind in order to get the shining, pure essence of his thought/idea out of it.

 

Sure, some of your "snobs" might scoff at Bergman's film because it doesn't exactly consist of the giant ****ing novel philosopher wrote academically and for academic purpose on meaning of death in human life and values.

 

This doesn't cheapen a bit Bergamn's work and their depth. I already said fundamentally all philosophical thesises are rather simple. Artist's purpose (if he is inclined to philosophy and analysis of "human condition" like most "serious" artists are ) is to filter the core of these vast thoughts into one or few bright essences and make them affect people (and of course, himself in process of creating art). The storyteller's responsibility to get to the heart of whatever philosophical point they're pursuing and vindicately showcase its meaning for human being.

 

Just because piece of art (whatever the medium might be) doesn't contain vast analytical depth of philosophical journal doesn't make its purified and crystallined philosophy any lesser. Art can have just as much depth, it does it only by different means (and with more reliance on audience than on logic)

 

Not all works can be Sartre's Nausea, a utter marriage of philosophical journal and literature, but that doesn't make them shallow.

 

...what the **** I was trying to say with this latest rant? Ermm...

 

I suppose what I try to say is that work can have just as much depth even if its quantitative amount of "philosophy" doesn't resemble the one on academic paper. Rather work of art does it through qualitative aspects.

 

 

PS:T has genuine thoughts behind it and just because it isn't Russel's History of Western Philosophy doesn't make it shallow. Of course it isn't suitable for use in academic arguments, but that's different thing from it lacking all value.

 

 

"sorry, but people far too often hold up ps:t like it were some kinda holy grail for crpgs. Gromnir loved the game, but am not gonna pretend it were well written from start to finish. am also not gonna pretend that it were flawless. is more than enough reasons why ps:t coulda' failed... other than marketing. marketing excuse is just a cop out after the fact. "

 

Nor do I pretent it is flawless. However I won't go on some elitistic rampage because - heaven forbid - game doesn't hold the same quantative depth as this writing by Hobbes I hold in my hands right now!

[Enoch]

Man, Pink Floyd fans really are touchy about stuff that gets called "pretentious" and "pseudo-intellectual."

[Xard]

After all meaningless use of words like ontologically must be build around some basic frame of text to masquerade its poor intellectual nature, but yet even then it "deepens" something and that something must be stray of philosophical thought, no matter how crude. Thus it is still philosophical to certain extent.

so using philosophical terms makes something 'deeper', huh?

 

that's like how putting fins on something makes it more aerodynamic, right? or racing stripes on a car makes it go faster?

 

No, of course not. And that's point you and I both agree on!!! It doesn't make anything deeper. It is merely facade to make something seem more "deeper" than it really is. It is all just facade.

 

 

What I mean is that facade must be build on something, and that something is nigh-universally utter crap philosophy. But eh, some sort of embryonic philosophy still.

 

If there is nothing to build facade on then it isn't anything at all basically. It is just line of symbols.

 

COGNITIO PLATO DESCARTES BRAINZ IDENTITY THEORY ONTOLOGY

 

isn't anymore philosophical or pseudo-philosophical than

 

ACASCASV AVC;AVA;

Edited August 28, 2008 by Xard

[Gromnir]

"Though neither self-important or demanding are synonyms to pretentious. But you know that already."

 

no, but they is qualities of... can check the definition if you want. am not a fan o' webster, but that is easiest to access.

 

"Wait what, "cliff notes"? I'd also like to know your superior approach to philosophy in games as you've by now couple of times scoffed at ChrisA's "approach""

 

eh? bad logic there. most writers of fiction and of games is smart 'nuff to do like howard... if they got a philosophical agenda, they develop it as part of character and story without all the tedious speeches. is one of the great differences between arts and philosophy. a painting can be existential or postmodern, but it communicates w/o having to spell out. chrisA actually presented his half-arsed philosophy to audience much like a butcher slapping down so much bloody meat.

 

*shrug*

 

btw, am not selling anime and comic books short. 99% of anime and comicbooks is crap. if you remove any anime that includes the Godzilla (you messed with nature and now she has spat forth monsters to punish you,) and pinocchio (what does it mean to be human) themes, and/or the recurring buffy character (she has all those super powers and must save ______, but what she really needs is a hug,) a sizable portion o' anime disappears. the rest is typical terrible. some bad romance and ... "slice of life" (am not sure of terminology.) anime is so doggedly repetitive that fans o' anime characters can almost invariably categorize into genre wide recognizable roles w/o much difficulty. sure, the writers of anime keeps coming up with increasingly wacky plots, but the characters and themes and Story is all so damned repetitive it is painful. is there exceptions? sure... but very few.

 

is some quality graphic novels out there, but they is so rare that you can probably name all noteworthies on 2 hands.

 

oh, and the young writer bit...

 

HA!

 

year 1 of virtually all bfa english course o' study is a battle between professors and would-be artists. maudlin. excessive and overt introspection. inspiration w/o craft is what leads to that stuff people calls Modern Art... big splashes o' paint and razor wire wrapped around a manequin dressed as a clown. *groan* literary equivalent is just as terrible to behold. old writers can be just as bad as young ones, but young writers almost invariably lack craft... results in in the maudlin navel gazing stuff. old writers... well, most o' the old writers typically get out of the business of writing or learn at least some craft by the time they get old.

 

'course mostly we took newc approach as you really didn't say much new... keep saying that ps:t is fantabulous and is great philosophy. is crappy philosophy and lot o' terrible writing.

 

 

regardless, please note that xard is being a bit irrational.

 

Gromnir is a snob... is why he complains 'bout writing o' ps:t.

 

mc and kel and others simply didn't get it... is why they complain 'bout ps:t.

 

either way, ps:t is still great.

 

doesn't that seem unfair?

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 28, 2008 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

one quick side note:

 

the reason we likes ps:t so much is, in large part, because of ravel and her incarnations. she were a cleverly crafted and artfully included character that, as far as Gromnir is concerned, made ps:t more than just another crpg. ravel is a character that chrisA has pulled along with him in pretty much every game since... w/o the philosophy for dummies approach. kreia, and the crazy & blind cat lady in iwd2... as well as the hag in how... is all ravel inspired/linked.

 

perhaps chrisA also recognized what were actually great 'bout ps:t... keeps ravel, and has dropped much o' the fit-on-a-matchbook-cover philosophy.

 

HA! Good Fun!