Jump to content
Solonik

Yo, BG, Arcanum, Fallout, IWD...

Recommended Posts

The BG series was enthralling to me. I do come from a heavy pen and paper background so that is what first shoved me into BG1. That being said I have a bias when it comes to the gameplay mechanics of the BGs vs other available RPGs. In reality though the entire Bhaalspawn storyline was what really kept me rooted to those games. It was gripping in a way that I couldn't let go, like a book that you just can't set down. I remember a post in a different thread about not wanting to start off as the "superhero" and not wanting a "save the world" questline, which is exactly what BG1 offered IMHO. Obviously this changed significantly in later titles. BG1s story was primarily based on your characters desire for answers to events that were affecting him(or her) alone. Until the last quarter of the game you had no idea that there was even something greater than yourself at risk and to me that elevated it rather than being used as a cheap opener. Instead of beginning your journey with "The world is in peril and only you can save it" you become fully invested in the adventure before you have any idea of the implications. Hell even at the end of BG1 you have no idea what is really going on.

 

That's something I miss.

 

Today's games are almost 100% catered towards instant gratification, and that leaves no room for story/character development. Ultimately what I want from PE is a game that (like BG) gives me a REASON to be the hero. Don't tell me the world needs saving and I'm the only one that can do it "just cause". Take me down a path that gives me a purpose. Follow the oldschool formula and let the simplicity of a selfish endeavor grow into a powerful and epic adventure.


Do not criticize a fish for being a turtle when it is, in fact, a fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I am real happy for you and ima let you finish, but Planescape: Torment was the best game of all time.

I laughed. I recently (like a month ago) finally let myself get convinced to buy and play Planescape: Torment, surely all the hype wasn't wrong despite everything I had read from a critical reviewer or knew from the liberties it took with the setting. Then I sat down and played the game and found out, nope, it is easily the most over rated game Obsidian has ever been involved in and has more bad gameplay decisions in it than you can shake an entire trees worth of sticks at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take it you never actually got that far in F2. It came from Navarro. It's called a Vertibird. You steal blueprints for them. From the guys who maintain them at Navarro. One of them is named Raul. Very mysterious.

 

I beat the game (both the security system and the squad backed me up too!), I know where it came from. However, when I first encountered it, I had no idea, and found this interesting.

 

I laughed. I recently (like a month ago) finally let myself get convinced to buy and play Planescape: Torment, surely all the hype wasn't wrong despite everything I had read from a critical reviewer or knew from the liberties it took with the setting. Then I sat down and played the game and found out, nope, it is easily the most over rated game Obsidian has ever been involved in and has more bad gameplay decisions in it than you can shake an entire trees worth of sticks at.

 

Privet. I couldn't have possibly have had any qualms with the gameplay, because:

1. I am not that familiar with D&D.

2. It felt exactly the same as BG, with way better spells.

3. I can't imagine making combat in Diablo, Arcanum, BG, etc "interesting." I can see how fallout gameplay can be made interesting because of cover, range, and flanking (potentially), but not a fantasy setting. You just grind away. In fact, Planescape was the only game I ever had casters in / played as a mage. All the other games I listed, I either back stabbed and/or bashed with my magic sword (everyone in the party got one!). As such, it didn't bother me.

 

They key to my love for the game is a disagreement with this statement:

 

If you're talking about the identity issue thing then even the BG series does that only in a slightly different way ("Do my genes make me who I am?"). I suppose one of the problems is i'm a lot older then I used to be back when this was released. I've already basically encountered media that does the identity topic *way* better then this game does.

 

I can't think of any media that did it better. I read a lot. I generally can't say I have been influenced / introduced to new ideas by anything I read for a while. Neal Stephenson's books are the only recent ones I can think of that made me change my perspective on certain things. I would like to see some examples. Not as proof, but genuinely out of curiosity.

 

I also think Planescape covered far, far more than identity issues. Mainly the ideas of willpower, causes for change, and full potential. I know that sounds like some 2nd grade ****, but the way the game did it was very indepth.

 

As far as Mebbeth's quest goes I generally don't need a game to patronize me about patience.

 

That's the thing - her quest wasn't about patience and diligence, it was about the fact that patience and diligence are all good, but eventually what they are applied to stops being something "difficult" and "productive," but becomes a comfortable habit that no longer serves any purpose, and can cause harm. It was these "lessons" that made the game for me. I have encountered 100s of people who laugh at me for even considering a game as something that can have lessons. E.g. "I just play for the game, it's just a game man." Ironically, most of them spend far more time with games than me, yet I completely disagree that a game is just a game. It can be so much more, and PST was.

 

As far as combat goes, every spell is instant cast and it's generally not worth your while to position Annah for a backstab. Combat is basic and trite at best and mind numbingly repetitive at worst. Your solution to the longest combat i've encountered yet was to skip it. That tells me much about it.

 

I combo-ed spells with TNO, Dakkon, and Fall-From-Grace for most of combat. Barely even used Annah.

 

He might've been someone once but he certainly ain't much now.

 

That's the whole point of his character. He is supposed to be a broken person now.

 

Slim pickings when it comes to companions *really* sucks.

 

I didn't feel that way at all - what, do you want everyone to want to join you? Maybe Lothar too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Privet. I couldn't have possibly have had any qualms with the gameplay, because:

1. I am not that familiar with D&D.

2. It felt exactly the same as BG, with way better spells.

3. I can't imagine making combat in Diablo, Arcanum, BG, etc "interesting." I can see how fallout gameplay can be made interesting because of cover, range, and flanking (potentially), but not a fantasy setting. You just grind away. In fact, Planescape was the only game I ever had casters in / played as a mage. All the other games I listed, I either back stabbed and/or bashed with my magic sword (everyone in the party got one!). As such, it didn't bother me.

1: Your lack of knowledge of D&D mechanics and the Planescape campaign world is hardly a defense for the game failing to be faithful to either.

2: Right, just like how in Bladur's Gate I needed an 18 int to get access to all the conversation choices. Or how in Baldur's Gate 2 I couldn't wear armor. Totally the same.

3: I am sorry you have never played a game with good combat and or didn't understand how to properly build a team and use tactics in the Baldur's Gate games. Again, this is no defense for the combat of PS:T being complete crap.

Edited by Karkarov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1: Your lack of knowledge of D&D mechanics and the Planescape campaign world is hardly a defense for the game failing to be faithful to either.

 

That's the thing - I am not saying that as a defense of PST. I am acknowledging the limitations of my perspective. I never really cared for games trying to be D&D (Vampire: The Masquerade) is another example. I just don't care, at all. I realize most people who play these games do, and I disagree with them, but that's just a matter of opinion.

 

2: Right, just like how in Bladur's Gate I needed an 18 int to get access to all the conversation choices. Or how in Baldur's Gate 2 I couldn't wear armor. Totally the same.

 

Combat-wise. It felt the same. In fact, I used more "strategy" in PST.

 

3: I am sorry you have never played a game with good combat and or didn't understand how to properly build a team and use tactics in the Baldur's Gate games. Again, this is no defense for the combat of PS:T being complete crap.

 

Give me an example of "tactics" in BG. Fighter in front of mage / cleric, use strength boost on fighter, cast magic missile from back?

 

My point is that this specific genre of games cannot have "exciting, varied" combat imo. There is just nothing to make it such. There are no terrain / cover bonuses, there is no flanking, there are no formations by the enemy, etc.

 

Edit: Anyway, I am absolutely willing to admit that "combat gameplay" was not a relevant metric to my overall opinion of PST. But it didn't feel worse than any other such game to me either. I am not claiming it's better than the other games based on that.

Edited by Solonik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't feel that way at all - what, do you want everyone to want to join you? Maybe Lothar too?

 

That's a pretty large leap of logic there. There's only 1 pure mage in the game (I think) which means that if your main character is not a mage you have *one* option to get one. How is me wanting say oh I don't know *two* choices for a pure mage "wanting everyone to join me"?

 

That's the whole point of his character. He is supposed to be a broken person now.

 

You can show loss and brokenness in a character while still maintaining the personality of the character quite distinctly (see below). Ignus has thoughts of fire... and that's about it. If that isn't an example of a one-sided character I don't know what is.

 

It was these "lessons" that made the game for me. I have encountered 100s of people who laugh at me for even considering a game as something that can have lessons. E.g. "I just play for the game, it's just a game man." Ironically, most of them spend far more time with games than me, yet I completely disagree that a game is just a game. It can be so much more, and PST was.

 

Limiting where you can learn things is almost as stupid as limiting *what* you can learn imo.

 

I can't think of any media that did it better. I read a lot. I generally can't say I have been influenced / introduced to new ideas by anything I read for a while. Neal Stephenson's books are the only recent ones I can think of that made me change my perspective on certain things. I would like to see some examples. Not as proof, but genuinely out of curiosity.

 

I also think Planescape covered far, far more than identity issues. Mainly the ideas of willpower, causes for change, and full potential. I know that sounds like some 2nd grade ****, but the way the game did it was very indepth.

 

I generally have to explore avenues outside my home country (the US) to get anything of merit anymore. It seems close to all of my favorite authors are British (Frank Herbert and Joe Ambercrombie to name a couple) or otherwise. But yes, I was actually thinking of one perhaps two series that kind of delve into "identity" but really don't make it a main theme or point. Thing is these forums tend to be the "unforgiving" kind when certain types of media are talked about. For example, said series might not be a book or a movie. Thinking about it... yes why not.

 

Let's say that there is a single character in a certain unknown series that has/had the occupation of knight. Let's say this character screwed up excessively at his job and watched the family he was supposed to protect aside from the youngest daughter get butchered by bandits. Feeling regret and remorse at his horrible failure he found himself in contract with an entity that could best be described as an inanimate object given sentience. The power he gained could erase things in the world that were essentially immortal and so he rampaged across his world feeding the sentient inanimate in an attempt to gain the power to rewrite the past. He ultimately failed and was cast into the world's "hell" which ironically was the residing place of the only being capable of fulfilling his wish. The being stole something from him that forever changed his... view. Right before the entity consumed him an event that would've occurred well outside the time frame the knight would've lived happened (wow that sentence was hard as hell... and probably not grammatically correct). It caused great pain to the entity and provoked a very human reaction from it because it once was... or maybe never was allowed to be... human. It had a simple favor to ask to the only man it had ever seen. The knight's wish had been granted... but he had failed once again. You see after he left the world's "hell" he went back to check on that only surviving daughter. The family was now entirely wiped out. Time had been rewritten and the bandits had never raided the family but it's political rivals in a move to destroy their competition had annihilated them fully to make sure they would never pose a threat. The knight had not been there to protect the daughter that had once survived because his decision to rewrite the past and return to the world had placed him many, many days after the political raid had taken place. There is one caveat to this story however. The power that knight had gotten was not cheap. It cost him his vitality. There was no "I wiggle my hands and then stop time." No, this power cost something... and it was a great deal of a cost. Though he had lived only a short time by human standards he didn't have much in the way of life left and that was before he ended up with a second contract with the inanimate sentient at twice the cost. He had things to do and he still needed power for it. That, my friends, is only half of his story...

 

That is only one of the supporting characters of said series. I'm kind of curious whether people consider that much characterization good or not.

 

I suppose I might find out after I post this.

Edited by Razsius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I am real happy for you and ima let you finish, but Planescape: Torment was the best game of all time.

I laughed. I recently (like a month ago) finally let myself get convinced to buy and play Planescape: Torment, surely all the hype wasn't wrong despite everything I had read from a critical reviewer or knew from the liberties it took with the setting. Then I sat down and played the game and found out, nope, it is easily the most over rated game Obsidian has ever been involved in and has more bad gameplay decisions in it than you can shake an entire trees worth of sticks at.

 

News Flash: That you don't like the game, doesn't mean that everyone else are wrong. To me, Planescape: Torment has the best story ever told in a computer game. No contest.

 

It may not be your thing, which is fine, but calling it "over rated" is just like saying that a lot of people don't hate it so they must be wrong.

 

We're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. yeah i konw

PS:T is the best of the IE lot...

after playin it, all other games of 'roleplaying' nature just seemed so... flat.

dull.

 

i think its all about the medium

computer games can be such an awesome way to tell a story or deliver a genuine message.

most of them dont. PS:T was a fresh reminder that one can say some-bloody-thing as a GameMaker - and surprisingly as a player as well.

still is, imho.

 

2. solonik, you should play BG2 when you get the chance.

it starts off slow (starting dungeon be boring as hell) - gets really good.

 

3. while we're at it:

there's a reason PS:T 's put on a pedestal in these whole cRPG fanbased discussions - it was nicely done, the gameplay wasnt too harsh on the player (came out jusy after BG1; most IE players didnt know any better), but its whole concept and writings were purely innovative and NEW.

 

moreover - the game took a complete roundabout turn from classic "save the kingdom/damsel in distress" RPG themes - was f@#!ing brilliant! who would'v thought such a marvell'd come outa the gaming industry?!...

 

for that reason alone - trashing the usual FantasyCrap concepts, and pullin off a mesmerising show of true, human, very deep fantastic themes - PS:T is far better then 90% of the "roleplaying" games.

replay value or no reaply value.

its still is the best experience one can get from a western roleplaying game.

Edited by efo11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baldur's Gate: My only explanation for people liking it is that they played it as a kid. Nothing wrong with that - I wouldn't recommend Quest for Glory to anyone over 12, but it was a great game. On the other hand, most of the characters weren't memorable (I remember the necromancer and the early thief girl - though I never quite got what her story was), and even the ones who were had very little dialogue. Combat was pretty boring. Eventually I got bored and dumped my party. Then I snuck around and backstabbed everyone, all the way to the end of the game. Actually, I don't think I ever finished. I got back to the library and was supposed to do something there, and there were some side quests before you go underground, and there was some drama going on, but the result was utter apathy.

 

 

 

BG1 no memorable characters? Misc and Boo are the most memorable characters of RPG pc gaming history.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozv1RcQJAHA

 

They are memorable, for being so incredibly, utterly moronic. And because the internet won't let you forget about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Privet. I couldn't have possibly have had any qualms with the gameplay, because:

1. I am not that familiar with D&D.

2. It felt exactly the same as BG, with way better spells.

3. I can't imagine making combat in Diablo, Arcanum, BG, etc "interesting." I can see how fallout gameplay can be made interesting because of cover, range, and flanking (potentially), but not a fantasy setting. You just grind away. In fact, Planescape was the only game I ever had casters in / played as a mage. All the other games I listed, I either back stabbed and/or bashed with my magic sword (everyone in the party got one!). As such, it didn't bother me.

1: Your lack of knowledge of D&D mechanics and the Planescape campaign world is hardly a defense for the game failing to be faithful to either.

 

The question of how closely PST adheres to DnD mechanics and the Planescape setting is irrelevant to how good it is as a game in itself. There doesn't need to be any defense.

 

2: Right, just like how in Bladur's Gate I needed an 18 int to get access to all the conversation choices. Or how in Baldur's Gate 2 I couldn't wear armor. Totally the same.

 

I admit I've lost the train of thought here.

 

3: I am sorry you have never played a game with good combat and or didn't understand how to properly build a team and use tactics in the Baldur's Gate games. Again, this is no defense for the combat of PS:T being complete crap.

 

There wasn't much *need* for building a team or using tactics in the Baldur's Gate games. It was messy and trivially easy, most of the time, only made interesting by the varied encounter and location design. In any case the combat, while flawed, is a secondary concern in PST gameplay, which revolves around dialogue and investigation.

Edited by centurionofprix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the whole point of his character. He is supposed to be a broken person now.

You can show loss and brokenness in a character while still maintaining the personality of the character quite distinctly (see below). Ignus has thoughts of fire... and that's about it. If that isn't an example of a one-sided character I don't know what is.

 

Now this right here is the beauty of P:T. I hated Ignus the first time through because he was a pain to talk to and didn't add anything obvious to any of the dramatic moments. After finishing the game and listening to the end boss comment on the crazed wick, I decided to go back and talk to him a bit more. Turns out his backstory is difficult to get access to, but the whole "Ignus isn't a person anymore" thing does serve a purpose and reflects on the central theme. That's about the most I can say without giving the game as a whole away.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News Flash: That you don't like the game, doesn't mean that everyone else are wrong. To me, Planescape: Torment has the best story ever told in a computer game. No contest.

 

It may not be your thing, which is fine, but calling it "over rated" is just like saying that a lot of people don't hate it so they must be wrong.

 

We're not.

PS:T is a great story I am sure. You not liking what I am saying also doesn't make what I say any more or less true. It is, by far, the most over rated "GAME" Obsidian has ever made. Note the word "GAME" as in, more than just "STORY". The fact that it sold badly and was outsold by both Baldur's Gates as far as I know also says the majority agrees with me, not you or the other fanboys who will hop out of the woodwork to reply.

 

Good story + bad gameplay + bad design decisions = bad game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS:T is a great story I am sure. You not liking what I am saying also doesn't make what I say any more or less true. It is, by far, the most over rated "GAME" Obsidian has ever made. Note the word "GAME" as in, more than just "STORY". The fact that it sold badly and was outsold by both Baldur's Gates as far as I know also says the majority agrees with me, not you or the other fanboys who will hop out of the woodwork to reply.

 

Or it might just say that BG's high fantasy adventure had more mass appeal than the weird PS:T. The fact that more people played BG doesn't mean the majority of those who played both agree (or that this would be particularly relevant anyway). In any case, the "game" in PST is not really separable from the "story".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News Flash: That you don't like the game, doesn't mean that everyone else are wrong. To me, Planescape: Torment has the best story ever told in a computer game. No contest.

 

It may not be your thing, which is fine, but calling it "over rated" is just like saying that a lot of people don't hate it so they must be wrong.

 

We're not.

PS:T is a great story I am sure. You not liking what I am saying also doesn't make what I say any more or less true. It is, by far, the most over rated "GAME" Obsidian has ever made. Note the word "GAME" as in, more than just "STORY". The fact that it sold badly and was outsold by both Baldur's Gates as far as I know also says the majority agrees with me, not you or the other fanboys who will hop out of the woodwork to reply.

 

Good story + bad gameplay + bad design decisions = bad game.

 

Care to explain the "bad design decisions" ?

If you mean the "no armor-no swords-18 inteligence for dialoge" i disagree. The game is the better for these

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or it might just say that BG's high fantasy adventure had more mass appeal than the weird PS:T. The fact that more people played BG doesn't mean the majority of those who played both agree (or that this would be particularly relevant anyway). In any case, the "game" in PST is not really separable from the "story".

Yeah.... maybe. If it weren't for the fact that I don't really like the Forgotten Realms as a universe and Planescape was by far my favorite campaign world I would agree. Let's just say one of my top complaints is how unfaithful Torment is to the source material. Using Berk in a sentence doesn't mean you are in Sigil, you could be in a crap dive bar in london too.

 

Care to explain the "bad design decisions" ?

If you mean the "no armor-no swords-18 inteligence for dialoge" i disagree. The game is the better for these

No not really. Also I can't help that you have no sense when it comes to game design. Removal of options in an RPG is never a good design move. Forcing the player to play a specific way in an RPG is never a good design move. PS:T does both without even leaving the character creation screen. Unless of course you don't mind being a subpar character who sees less than half the lore/story (only reason to even play it), being forced to get the bad ending since you missed half the story, or being forced to be a mage since it is literally the only viable class choice, too bad you have to be hours into the game before you can actually be a mage.

 

Why was it a game that took place in a city located at the center of the universe with doors leading literally everywhere had fewer options and more restrictions on where you could go and how you could play than one that started in a backwater keep in the middle of no where?

 

PS:T is the ultimate expression of "substance" over "quality". It doesn't wash for anything other than effete snobs and fanboys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I am real happy for you and ima let you finish, but Planescape: Torment was the best game of all time.

I laughed. I recently (like a month ago) finally let myself get convinced to buy and play Planescape: Torment, surely all the hype wasn't wrong despite everything I had read from a critical reviewer or knew from the liberties it took with the setting. Then I sat down and played the game and found out, nope, it is easily the most over rated game Obsidian has ever been involved in and has more bad gameplay decisions in it than you can shake an entire trees worth of sticks at.

 

Not to nitpick (or yeah, to nitpick), but Obsidian didn't exist when Torment was made. Some of the people working with Obsidian on PE also worked on Torment, but such situations you can find between a host of games and companies.

 

And just to say, when I first played Torment I thought it was OK, playing as a Fighter with good physical stats.. Then a friend told me to pump all stats in Wisdom Charisma and Intelligence, and the game became the best game I have ever played and double as long. It has no real replayability, but its story and writing shines.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh, ever play ToEE? Now that's some atrocious fetch-questing.

 

What follows is the -very accurate- template that can be applied to almost every side quest in ToEE: *enter craftsman X's house, take on solving a ridiculously trivial matter* > *stop by the druid's house* > *stop by the temple* > *go back to craftsman X's house* rinse and repeat ad nauseum. Best thing about them though was that they rewarded you with nothing 99% of the time. Nothing at all. They never paid you for the legwork, you didn't get exp or alignment shifts... Nothing. Mostly just opened up follow-up fetch quests.

 

True, the fetch quests at the start of that game are atrocious, but once you've gotten through them... oh, MAN. Tactical RPG combat BLISS!!! The Temple backdoor fight is the single most enjoyable battle in any RPG I've ever played.

 

Just thought I'd throw that out there for anyone scared off by the mention of fetch quests. If you like really well done turn-based RPG combat, then you owe it to yourself to pick this one up, and get the Co8 community patch too, of course.

 

BG2 is the king of cRPGs. How can you have not played it?

Edited by Ignatius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fallout, Arcanum and Torment are absolute masterpieces which stood the test of time. Especially Arcanum, even though its combat system is deeply flawed (unnecessary real time mode only made it worse).

 

Fallout 2 is unfortunately inferior to Fallout 1 because of one...no, two-three things:

 

- STUPIDLY high amount of easter eggs. I mean, what in the name of flying f--k. The sheer amount of dumb characters (Brain the Rat in Gecko, the Wizard summoning Deathclaws, the list goes on) and ominpresent references ("this is captain Pickard", skynet) is unbearable, especially on subsequent playthroughs and completely ruins the immersion. The game feels like one big, lazily written satire more of than not. Fallout 1 was much more serious, coherent and subtle in every way. Fallout 2 went overboard with jokes.

 

- shaman talking to PC in a dream. That is just... facepalm-worthy and feels like something pulled out from a different (fantasy) game

 

- mandatory boss fight in the Enclave. I liked that in Fallout 1, I could get a "not true" ending and join the Master or convince him to commit suicide. Fallout 2 has only one ending.

 

Also, something always bothered me about the conversation with the President. At first, he treats you like one of Enclave soldiers, then a few lines of dialogue later he addresses you as the villager from Arroyo. It feels random, as if that conversation wasn't finished.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or it might just say that BG's high fantasy adventure had more mass appeal than the weird PS:T. The fact that more people played BG doesn't mean the majority of those who played both agree (or that this would be particularly relevant anyway). In any case, the "game" in PST is not really separable from the "story".

Yeah.... maybe. If it weren't for the fact that I don't really like the Forgotten Realms as a universe and Planescape was by far my favorite campaign world I would agree. Let's just say one of my top complaints is how unfaithful Torment is to the source material. Using Berk in a sentence doesn't mean you are in Sigil, you could be in a crap dive bar in london too.

 

Care to explain the "bad design decisions" ?

If you mean the "no armor-no swords-18 inteligence for dialoge" i disagree. The game is the better for these

No not really. Also I can't help that you have no sense when it comes to game design. Removal of options in an RPG is never a good design move. Forcing the player to play a specific way in an RPG is never a good design move. PS:T does both without even leaving the character creation screen. Unless of course you don't mind being a subpar character who sees less than half the lore/story (only reason to even play it), being forced to get the bad ending since you missed half the story, or being forced to be a mage since it is literally the only viable class choice, too bad you have to be hours into the game before you can actually be a mage.

 

Why was it a game that took place in a city located at the center of the universe with doors leading literally everywhere had fewer options and more restrictions on where you could go and how you could play than one that started in a backwater keep in the middle of no where?

 

PS:T is the ultimate expression of "substance" over "quality". It doesn't wash for anything other than effete snobs and fanboys.

Torment was more linear and has fewer choices i give you that, but not in the degree you seem to think. I have completed the game with all classes.Sure, even with fighter if you want to have interesting dialoge options you have to raise your inteligence and wisdom at least to 16. And its true that the combat was the worst of all IE games except BG1.But in a game where the optimal way to finish it was to not combat anyone and finish the guests through dialoge and the end goal is not to kill an army but to rediscover who you are it make sense that the most important stats to be inteligence and wisdom. Like it or not the game was all about the story and the writing and not for combat. I understand if you want a combat focus character the game is not for you, but in what the game wants to achieve it does. And for most people who have played it its one of the best cRPG games of all time on par with BG2. Its not "overrated", it may not be the kind of game you prefer

Edited by Malekith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Torment was more linear and has fewer choices i give you that, but not in the degree you seem to think. I have completed the game with all classes.Sure, even with fighter if you want to have interesting dialoge options you have to raise your inteligence and wisdom at least to 16. And its true that the combat was the worst of all IE games except BG1.But in a game where the optimal way to finish it was to not combat anyone and finish the guests through dialoge and the end goal is not to kill an army but to rediscover who you are it make sense that the most important stats to be inteligence and wisdom. Like it or not the game was all about the story and the writing and not for combat. I understand if you want a combat focus character the game is not for you, but in what the game wants to achieve it does. And for most people who have played it its one of the best cRPG games of all time on par with BG2. Its not "overrated", it may not be the kind of game you prefer

You said what was wrong with the entire game without even knowing it. It has nothing to do with being combat oriented or not. I don't care if every single objective in PE can be cleared without drawing a weapon one single time. But to quote you "...in a game where the optimal way to finish..." is wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no "optimal" way to play a well made balanced RPG, that's the whole point of why I don't like PS:T. Creating your own character, making your own choices, and progressing through the game on your terms, not the games or the Developers terms. That is a "good" Role-Playing Game.

 

There is nothing wrong with a forced stealth situation, or a forced diplomacy/investigation section, or even forced combat. But when 50% + of your game is forced diplomacy/investigation you had best be making an adventure game or you are doing it wrong.

Edited by Karkarov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Torment was more linear and has fewer choices i give you that, but not in the degree you seem to think. I have completed the game with all classes.Sure, even with fighter if you want to have interesting dialoge options you have to raise your inteligence and wisdom at least to 16. And its true that the combat was the worst of all IE games except BG1.But in a game where the optimal way to finish it was to not combat anyone and finish the guests through dialoge and the end goal is not to kill an army but to rediscover who you are it make sense that the most important stats to be inteligence and wisdom. Like it or not the game was all about the story and the writing and not for combat. I understand if you want a combat focus character the game is not for you, but in what the game wants to achieve it does. And for most people who have played it its one of the best cRPG games of all time on par with BG2. Its not "overrated", it may not be the kind of game you prefer

You said what was wrong with the entire game without even knowing it. It has nothing to do with being combat oriented or not. I don't care if every single objective in PE can be cleared without drawing a weapon one single time. But to quote you "...in a game where the optimal way to finish..." is wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no "optimal" way to play a well made balanced RPG, that's the whole point of why I don't like PS:T. Creating your own character, making your own choices, and progressing through the game on your terms, not the games or the Developers terms. That is a "good" Role-Playing Game.

 

There is nothing wrong with a forced stealth situation, or a forced diplomacy/investigation section, or even forced combat. But when 50% + of your game is forced diplomacy/investigation you had best be making an adventure game or you are doing it wrong.

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I just say that the game is not overrated.Me(and i imagine the others who think this is the best IE game-for the record its my secont favorite, i slightly prefere BG2) acknowledge the game faults. I say that despite the flaws this game is a masterpiece. The only sin of the game is that as you say there isn't balance among the playstyles. But how many games truly are balanced? Fallouts? The evil choices were a joke. Evil players have 1/3 of the content a good character has.Many games offer a non combat approach, but without exceptions the combat approach was better in terms of XP and loot.Torment just has them the other way around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Torment was more linear and has fewer choices i give you that, but not in the degree you seem to think. I have completed the game with all classes.Sure, even with fighter if you want to have interesting dialoge options you have to raise your inteligence and wisdom at least to 16. And its true that the combat was the worst of all IE games except BG1.But in a game where the optimal way to finish it was to not combat anyone and finish the guests through dialoge and the end goal is not to kill an army but to rediscover who you are it make sense that the most important stats to be inteligence and wisdom. Like it or not the game was all about the story and the writing and not for combat. I understand if you want a combat focus character the game is not for you, but in what the game wants to achieve it does. And for most people who have played it its one of the best cRPG games of all time on par with BG2. Its not "overrated", it may not be the kind of game you prefer

You said what was wrong with the entire game without even knowing it. It has nothing to do with being combat oriented or not. I don't care if every single objective in PE can be cleared without drawing a weapon one single time. But to quote you "...in a game where the optimal way to finish..." is wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no "optimal" way to play a well made balanced RPG, that's the whole point of why I don't like PS:T. Creating your own character, making your own choices, and progressing through the game on your terms, not the games or the Developers terms. That is a "good" Role-Playing Game.

 

There is nothing wrong with a forced stealth situation, or a forced diplomacy/investigation section, or even forced combat. But when 50% + of your game is forced diplomacy/investigation you had best be making an adventure game or you are doing it wrong.

 

I think you are being a little rigid with genres here. P:T had a very specific purpose. You weren't playing someone with a poorly developed/inconsequential past and you weren't playing yourself. You were playing a specific, already developed character so that you could decide how he dealt with a past he didn't remember or necessarily feel responsible for. Restricting the player in this way had a point. TNO was restricted in this way and if you were to play his role, you needed to be restricted in the same way. Most of the ways P:T deviates from traditional D&D can be explained as specific choices meant to cause you to question those mechanics which the game expected you were familiar with. This is one of the reasons I think the game is brillant. This might mean that P:T is not a traditional RPG. Whatever the case, it should not be judged in exactly the same way as BG or IWD.

 

However, I do agree with a bit of your basic point. P:T was interesting, it was exciting, it was thought provoking. But I did not think it was fun, at least in the same way BG was. The constraint restrictions the game placed on you, purposeful though they were, were stifling. Combat was difficult and uninteresting at the same time. If you claim that these things make P:T a failure as a game, I wouldn't really argue with you. If you were to claim these things mean it would have made a better book than game, I would argue with you.

 

In summary, the fact that you were disappointed in a game so many people told you was the best game ever likely stems from a different definition of 'game', not a collective delusion.

(Not that you claimed people who liked it were delusional and thank you for not doing so. I'm just trying to explain the difference between the hype and game you played.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I just say that the game is not overrated.Me(and i imagine the others who think this is the best IE game-for the record its my secont favorite, i slightly prefere BG2) acknowledge the game faults. I say that despite the flaws this game is a masterpiece. The only sin of the game is that as you say there isn't balance among the playstyles. But how many games truly are balanced? Fallouts? The evil choices were a joke. Evil players have 1/3 of the content a good character has.Many games offer a non combat approach, but without exceptions the combat approach was better in terms of XP and loot.Torment just has them the other way around

Okay well any Elder Scrolls game from Morrowind up would be a good example. Morrowind itself is so open you can actually break the story and still beat the game, it is just really hard. Deus Ex Human Revolution released last year is another good example, you could shoot your way through that game but you could also kill no one outside of forced moments, get through entire levels without even being seen, and there were many moments where making the right choices in a conversation could make big changes for how you approach a level. Also the recent Fallout games like New Vegas were very open ended and had a very diverse set of playstyles you could use to get past most things.

 

Drakensang The River of Time which I recently played through even had multiple moments where you had different options on how to proceed. For example at one point you had to get a group of pirates to stop harassing an elf village. You could have done it by disrupting the crew and conning them into mutiny, you could have just walked up and started killing, you could even try to negotiate on the pirates behalf. I never tried it but theoretically you might have even been able to steal what the pirates were after directly.

 

I am sure there are plenty of other games out there to draw from.

 

If you claim that these things make P:T a failure as a game, I wouldn't really argue with you. If you were to claim these things mean it would have made a better book than game, I would argue with you.

Maybe not, but using Adventure game mechanics would have served the story far better than using D&D 2nd edition did.

Edited by Karkarov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like when someone more eloquent than me agrees with me and I can stop debating, because they got it covered - thank you Wirdjos. I guess this is just a testament to the fact that Obsidian should let the wizard of the party do the talking.

 

@Everyone: I see the error of my ways and shall definitely pick up BG2 at some point.

 

 

You said what was wrong with the entire game without even knowing it. It has nothing to do with being combat oriented or not. I don't care if every single objective in PE can be cleared without drawing a weapon one single time. But to quote you "...in a game where the optimal way to finish..." is wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no "optimal" way to play a well made balanced RPG, that's the whole point of why I don't like PS:T. Creating your own character, making your own choices, and progressing through the game on your terms, not the games or the Developers terms. That is a "good" Role-Playing Game.

 

There is an optimal way to play life though. Hellfire missiles from an A10 launched by a 120 lb female officer take out 200 lb, expert marksmen armed with Dragunovs and PKs. Take a step back for a second and forget D&D. Think of a world with magic in it - would any sane person really go for melee in that scenario, if they had a choice? I realize that sounds incredibly off-topic, but give it some thought. On that note, I disagree with the whole premise that wizards are necessarily far more intelligent than thieves/fighters. Intelligence (not knowledge) is really a measure of how quickly and efficiently one can process information. Magic, in all it's "historic" (I don't believe in magic) forms is a skill. A practice of meditation, a knowledge of rituals, a way of life...having little to do with the intelligence of the person. Note, this is a rant, not an argument in defense of PS:T. If I were to argue, it would be much more on topic and cover things that were already talked about.

 

From here on, these are, what I consider, legitimate arguments against your position:

 

There is nothing wrong with a forced stealth situation, or a forced diplomacy/investigation section, or even forced combat. But when 50% + of your game is forced diplomacy/investigation you had best be making an adventure game or you are doing it wrong.

 

I beat the game as a fighter on the first playthrough. It was a viable option. It's also VERY realistic that you don't get as much of what is going on in the world as a basher, rather than as an inquisitive soul. that standard D&D makes the mage out to be.

 

Unless of course you don't mind being a subpar character who sees less than half the lore/story (only reason to even play it), being forced to get the bad ending since you missed half the story, or being forced to be a mage since it is literally the only viable class choice, too bad you have to be hours into the game before you can actually be a mage.

 

In the ghetto (and that's clearly what the hive is), do you find more people willing to teach you to box and shoot a hi-point or teach you how to make a V2 rocket? "IRRELEVANT, THIS IS D&D, NOT REAL LIFE!" - I know, and that's where we disagree. I feel stories should reflect reality at least on some level. Not necessarily in abilities, etc, but in social conditions / human nature.

 

Also, you just woke up as an amnesiac - are you more likely to remember how to swing at people or the details of arcane languages? If anything, this is an interesting look to what happens to the upper class if they are placed in a situation where their status symbols are lost and their services are not in demand, as there is no large industry / need for delicate analysis. They have to survive on a primal level, which they may be **** at, even though generally, they are far "above" these people in society.

 

@ Razsius: That just sounds unecessarily convoluted, but I will check out the authors you mentioned.

Edited by Solonik
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I just say that the game is not overrated.Me(and i imagine the others who think this is the best IE game-for the record its my secont favorite, i slightly prefere BG2) acknowledge the game faults. I say that despite the flaws this game is a masterpiece. The only sin of the game is that as you say there isn't balance among the playstyles. But how many games truly are balanced? Fallouts? The evil choices were a joke. Evil players have 1/3 of the content a good character has.Many games offer a non combat approach, but without exceptions the combat approach was better in terms of XP and loot.Torment just has them the other way around

Okay well any Elder Scrolls game from Morrowind up would be a good example. Morrowind itself is so open you can actually break the story and still beat the game, it is just really hard. Deus Ex Human Revolution released last year is another good example, you could shoot your way through that game but you could also kill no one outside of forced moments, get through entire levels without even being seen, and there were many moments where making the right choices in a conversation could make big changes for how you approach a level. Also the recent Fallout games like New Vegas were very open ended and had a very diverse set of playstyles you could use to get past most things.

 

Drakensang The River of Time which I recently played through even had multiple moments where you had different options on how to proceed. For example at one point you had to get a group of pirates to stop harassing an elf village. You could have done it by disrupting the crew and conning them into mutiny, you could have just walked up and started killing, you could even try to negotiate on the pirates behalf. I never tried it but theoretically you might have even been able to steal what the pirates were after directly.

 

I am sure there are plenty of other games out there to draw from.

 

If you claim that these things make P:T a failure as a game, I wouldn't really argue with you. If you were to claim these things mean it would have made a better book than game, I would argue with you.

Maybe not, but using Adventure game mechanics would have served the story far better than using D&D 2nd edition did.

 

Different strokes for different folks. I thought all the Elder Scrolls games were horrible.Fallout 3 the same. New Vegas i give it to you, but exactly because it was open-ended the story suffered. In the end it comes down to preference.I thing the story and the themes are much more important in a game.This is the reason i hate sandboxes. I was bored in all of the Elder Scrolls games.Fallout 1-2 were excellent games but i prefer P:T and BG2 because of the story. All of the IE games were linear or semi-linear. I want PE to have more choices&concequences than most IE games but not at the expense of the story.Also different choices in the gameplay should have concequences in the story

Edited by Malekith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...