The good, bad, and the ugly in Infinity Engine games

[Sacred_Path]

Sacred_Path -- exactly, that's what I've been saying all along: your failure to appreciate PS:T is due to your inability to approach it on its own merits.

I'll repeat: this game could have been made into a half decent book. That is one of its merits. Heck, if choice is important to your enjoyment of the story, it could have been a Fighting Fantasy book or something. However, if you want to give an objective judgement of anything, you cannot focus on its merits alone and ignore its shortcomings.

You expect it to be, as Karkarov put it, a faithful rendition of AD&D in the Planescape setting -- and when it isn't, you get conceptually stuck.

I'm not a DnD **** and I never owned a Planescape book. However, the game claims to be an adaptation of AD&D, and uses (and advertises) the Planescape setting. Who then could ignore how well it does at this?

There is no way I or anyone else can give you the experience we have had with it. But it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that our experience isn't valid -- or is even conspicuously out-of-the-norm -- given the huge success of the T:ToN kickstarter, bigger even than P:E's so far.

You misunderstand me. I didn't say your experience isn't valid; I'm even glad that you could enjoy the game so much. Good for you. What I say is that it's so subjective that - as a judgement - it's mostly invalid.

So yeah, totally subjective.

yeah, didn't see that before. Scratch the above.

I can only speculate about why you're unable to appreciate it and I am, just like I can only speculate why Razsius is able to appreciate BG and I'm not. One of life's little mysteries, I guess. But not something you can argue about, since, as you pointed out, it's all based on subjective sensibilities.

I have to say I find it genuinely interesting that you could identify tenets of existing beliefs in Torment's dialogue/ factions/ gameplay, even if I was a bit sarcastic. Two things:

 

1) it's worthy of note if someone manages to translate an interpretation of an existing faith/ philosophy into a game.

 

2) I can understand that if, as you said, you feel that some of these belief contain truth/ apply to real life, then I can understand why you are ecstatic about it being contained and interpreted in this game.

 

Still, there are a number of questions. Is the interpretation of these beliefs in the game valid or too simplified/ distorted? (I have no way of judging this). Secondly, if we look at them by the light of day and through our modern sensibilities, are those beliefs themselves a bit simple/ ridiculous? Thirdly, even if the answer to both previous questions is no, does that warrant making them into a game? And does the game profit from their inclusion in this way?

I do think, though, that being grounded in classic literature and opera helps appreciate PS:T.

I do not argue with the fact that your experience with the faiths that PS:T seems to draw upon helped your enjoyment of the game, while my ignorance of them (their specifics anyway) hindered my enjoyment. But as I've said so many times, this is only one aspect of the game.

It's based on tragedy archetypes and existential questioning, both of which have been explored a lot in them. Perhaps I felt immediately at home with PS:T because it wasn't the first time I encountered these themes; only the first time I encountered them in a game.

I think we've all seen the inside of a school, and we've all learned a bit about classical tragedies and existential issues and how they can be explored through art. We all have a rough idea of karma, even if we don't know the specifics of how either a Buddhist or a Hindu might interpret them.

The thing is, the more existential a question is, the easier a thinking person can relate to and judge it, I'd say. Being steeped in any lore is, either way, not a prerequisite to judging PS:T. Let's not attribute a depth to it that it doesn't have.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[PrimeJunta]

First, I'll get a couple of things out of the way.

And I'll repeat: there ain't no such thing as an objective judgment of art. The best we can do is intersubjective -- that is, find a collection of people who agree about it and to some extent about the reasons why they agree about it. So all we can do is share our experiences, and note whether we agree about them or not. The best possible outcome -- and this has happened to me, by the way -- is that someone points out something you missed, which then causes your perception to shift and suddenly it all looks completely different.

Second, "the inside of a school" -- again not what I meant. Some of us have gotten huge kicks out of what is commonly known as "high culture." Not just subjected to them, but really swept away by them. That includes me, and I got that same kick out of PS:T. If you have never gotten that kind of kick from "high culture," I believe it's less likely you would get it out of PS:T either. For some reason or another, that door of experience is closed to you. Maybe you haven't opened it yet, or maybe you're just not wired for it. I do know it takes work to open that door, unless you're exceptionally talented. Most people are unlikely to get anything other than extreme boredom out of, say, Wagner's Parsifal[1] -- but once you've built up enough experience about the art form, it can be an unforgettable, transcendent experience. But you do have to climb that hill.

About that question regarding the interpretation of notions like karma, rebirth, transcendence, and enlightenment in PS:T: no, they're not trivial at all. It's not an infodump. You're not expected to learn anything from it. You don't even need to be familiar with the concepts. But MCA gets them, at a deep, intuitive level, which is very rare even among people who have practiced that shyte for years.

I don't know anything about MCA's personal history, but I get the feeling that he must've hung around a lot of Buddhisty and Vedanta-y hippie types as well as the occasional and rare genuinely insightful teacher, and a lot of his take on the Factions is based on that. I've met most of that motley crew at the Dustmen bar IRL -- the old practitioner who's had a crisis of faith and is suddenly seeing everything in a different light (and is consequently way wiser than just about anyone else present); the one whose grasping for enlightenment (True Death in this case) is the very thing keeping him from getting there; the severe be-robed master who projects a lot of authority but doesn't have much insight to back it up; the old guy who really has made peace with it all; the young guy who's dressed up in the robes and talks the spiel but doesn't even realize that he just sees this as another career rather than a spiritual practice. Nowadays all these types are all over the Internet, but back when PS:T was written you actually had to wander into the temples or ashrams or zendos and hang out with the people -- as well as do a fruckton of reading. MCA did, I'm quite sure. (Unless he's just born enlightened, heh.)

I'm especially impressed by this because 99.9% of the time when you see concepts like self/identity, karma, rebirth, and transcendence turn up in pop culture, it's in a really trivial, stupid way, distorted by our Judeo-Christian-Freudian view of the personality, in which it just doesn't fit. Like your quip about the Lady and her Sorting Hat. PS:T is the 0.1% that does it right. They're slippery notions that are incredibly difficult to explain; you can only really absorb them osmotically as it were, I think, and PS:T does just that.

So no, PS:T's treatment was not trivial, at all. Especially that final twist -- you really have to get transcendence to be able to write that, in a way that communicates it to the player intuitively, without having to spell it out. Which would've ruined it.

But that's not really the point either. You don't have to know any of this beforehand. You do have to be open to being kicked in the gut by a work of art, and it takes time and effort to develop that openness. And then you can absorb it through the skin.

 

[1] If you have the time and inclination, check out Mark Twain's take on Parsifal. It's hilarious. It also illustrates the effort needed to get something like this to open up -- even if you are a true-blue genius like he was.

Edited March 9, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Malekith]

As for the ending. MCA had planed another ending that got cut due to budget reasons. You could accept  to not fight the Trascended One and just go away.

In the ending cutscene you would wake in the Mortuary,without memory, and you see a flying scull approach you. Morte looks at you sadlly and then smiles and greets you, and the game ends.

[Sacred_Path]

And I'll repeat: there ain't no such thing as an objective judgment of art.

I think you are the only person in this thread who has claimed that PS:T is a work of art (even though I tentatively hinted that in that case, maybe all games are works of art). Coming from this arbitrary conclusion, you then claim that there can be no objectve judgment.

 

Didn't you say you used to be a game journalist/ review games on a professional basis? Well ****. If that was your attitude (that nothing about a game can be judged objectively), I don't want to read those reviews. There are certain established rules of what a game has to fulfill. Do not get hung up by the word objective - clearly, it's not science. But claiming that "this game is art so it's all subjective!" is ridiculously wrong.

 

The best possible outcome -- and this has happened to me, by the way -- is that someone points out something you missed, which then causes your perception to shift and suddenly it all looks completely different.

Moot to argue, but it sounds that you didn't try to base your previous opinion on anything objective then. You have "opened my eyes" to the fact that the writing in PS:T isn't something that MCA came up with on the loo, but that doesn't change the fact that I've identified many weaknesses about this game before and that still stands.

>Second, "the inside of a school" -- again not what I meant. Some of us have gotten huge kicks out of what is commonly known as "high culture." Not just subjected to them, but really swept away by them. That includes me, and I got that same kick out of PS:T. If you have never gotten that kind of kick from "high culture," I believe it's less likely you would get it out of PS:T either. For some reason or another, that door of experience is closed to you. Maybe you haven't opened it yet, or maybe you're just not wired for it. I do know it takes work to open that door, unless you're exceptionally talented. Most people are unlikely to get anything other than extreme boredom out of, say, Wagner's Parsifal[1] -- but once you've built up enough experience about the art form, it can be an unforgettable, transcendent experience. But you do have to climb that hill.

****, this is the most arbitrary elitist BS I've ever read on the 'net. Well done, sir.

 

We (or I) have been subjected to "high culture" at least through school and couldn't help it, which was my point. That is to say, the widely available commercial kind of "high culture", not the one that "is closed to" most people (to use your wording) and therefore nowadays gets labeled underground/ indie/ alternative.

 

Anyways, try to cite the works of "high culture" that pertain to PS:T, please; be they musical, literary or even academical. Just don't tell me that "due to my prolonged exposure to high culture, my tastes have become so refined and my mental faculties so sharpened that I alone here can judge the merits of this vidya game. Sry."

About that question regarding the interpretation of notions like karma, rebirth, transcendence, and enlightenment in PS:T: no, they're not trivial at all. It's not an infodump. You're not expected to learn anything from it. You don't even need to be familiar with the concepts. But MCA gets them, at a deep, intuitive level, which is very rare even among people who have practiced that shyte for years.

Emphasis mine.

I don't know anything about MCA's personal history, but I get the feeling that he must've hung around a lot of Buddhisty and Vedanta-y hippie types as well as the occasional and rare genuinely insightful teacher, and a lot of his take on the Factions is based on that. I've met most of that motley crew at the Dustmen bar IRL -- the old practitioner who's had a crisis of faith and is suddenly seeing everything in a different light (and is consequently way wiser than just about anyone else present); the one whose grasping for enlightenment (True Death in this case) is the very thing keeping him from getting there; the severe be-robed master who projects a lot of authority but doesn't have much insight to back it up; the old guy who really has made peace with it all; the young guy who's dressed up in the robes and talks the spiel but doesn't even realize that he just sees this as another career rather than a spiritual practice. Nowadays all these types are all over the Internet, but back when PS:T was written you actually had to wander into the temples or ashrams or zendos and hang out with the people -- as well as do a fruckton of reading. MCA did, I'm quite sure. (Unless he's just born enlightened, heh.)

Hmm. You're assuming that you're the only one who has explored "existentialist" thought, absorbed works of "high culture" and met diverse characters in your life, while the rest of us is still living in caves and paint the walls with our feces.

About the speculation about MCA's "road to enlightenment", well ****, I really want his feedback on that NOW.

I'm especially impressed by this because 99.9% of the time when you see concepts like self/identity, karma, rebirth, and transcendence turn up in pop culture, it's in a really trivial, stupid way, distorted by our Judeo-Christian-Freudian view of the personality, in which it just doesn't fit. Like your quip about the Lady and her Sorting Hat. PS:T is the 0.1% that does it right. They're slippery notions that are incredibly difficult to explain; you can only really absorb them osmotically as it were, I think, and PS:T does just that.

 

But that's not really the point either. You don't have to know any of this beforehand. You do have to be open to being kicked in the gut by a work of art, and it takes time and effort to develop that openness. And then you can absorb it through the skin.

This is becoming completely esoteric ****, and I refuse to enter that sphere. My failure to absorb the game through my skin rather than controlling it through a mouse and keyboard is probably not the issue here.

 

You've tiptoed around my point; that is, how well Buddhist beliefs hold up under scrutiny by the modern mind. What is their relevance, and what is their value? Is PS:T to be hailed as a savior to our modern apathy and mostly shallow lives? This begs an answer.

 

 

Let's take a different example; if someone chose to make a game that is solely concerned with matter of astrophysics explored through dialogue, I'd still judge that game on common standards in the gaming business. It could possibly be that the gameplay is non-existant/ irrelevant/ not satisfying and therefore it fails as a game. It could also possibly be that there is gameplay, but it goes so far over my head that I don't have a realistic chance of doing anything more reflected than clicking around wildly. I would realize this, and I would give it some credit based on good faith, but it would still be a bit of a drawback; and this could not be rationalized by the developers, saying "this game is so indie, it's only aimed at professors of astrophysics!".

 

PS:T doesn't even play in this league. It's an AD&D, Infinity engine powered RPG. WITH smatterings of dialogue influenced by existentialist thought.

If you have the time and inclination, check out Mark Twain's take on Parsifal. It's hilarious. It also illustrates the effort needed to get something like this to open up -- even if you are a true-blue genius like he was.

I might even do that, because I have to get behind this whole "high culture" thing. Surely at the end of this journey, my lowly self will morph into the form of a higher being that is actually able to enjoy Planescape: Torment. Edited March 9, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[PrimeJunta]

I don't have my journalist hat on now. If I had written a review of PS:T back in my freelancer days, I would most certainly have pointed out its failings as a game.  (I'm pretty sure we agree about most of them btw -- shyte combat, horrible balance issues, breaks AD&D rules, doesn't respect the Planescape setting, puts tremendous restrictions on character development, yadda yadda yadda.)

 

Then I would've gone on to write about it as art. And probably gotten the review spiked by the editor.

 

You can most definitely write about PS:T in purely game terms. That's what Karkarov and you have been doing all along. I, however, am not interested in having that conversation, which is why I've been pointedly ignoring everything you have to say about it. I don't care. Any more than I care about how hard the seats are at the opera, if the performance kicks arse.

 

List the works of high culture that connect to PS:T for me? I already alluded to some: Richard Wagner's operas, in particular Tristan and Isolde, Tannhäuser, the Ring, and Parsifal. There are others, but those resonate with PS:T the most for me. I'm by no means saying "only I" am able to appreciate PS:T, or that you have to be a Wagner buff to do it. That would be silly; T:ToN would hardly have broken the "fastest to a million bux" record in Kickstarter if I was alone in this, and I very much doubt all PS:T fans are Wagner buffs.

 

But yeah, I do think that the huge kicks I've gotten out of Wagner come from the same place as the huge kicks I got from PS:T. If pointing that out offends your plebeian sensibilities, then that's just too bad. :monocle:

 

And if it is elitist to think that more people should have the opportunity to immerse themselves in high culture like opera, classical music, and classical literature -- and not as part of a forced curriculum -- then yeah, I guess I'm an elitist. One thing the USSR and the other Communist bloc countries did right IMO was to make these things genuinely accessible to the masses -- and as a result Russians and East Europeans tend to have a great deal more refined tastes in music and literature than most Americans or West Europeans. I think that's a part of the reason Poles are coming up with such interesting games these days actually. I live in a country which heavily subsidizes opera and classical music, which means that it's much more accessible than e.g. in the US -- you can get a ticket to Tristan and Isolde for about 30 euros, less if you're a student, pensioner, or unemployed, for example.

 

Oo, how well do Buddhist beliefs hold up under scrutiny by a modern mind? That's a very, very big topic and one very close to my heart. 

 

Short version: you're asking the wrong question, as Buddhism isn't really about belief at all. That's another very common misconception.[1]

 

But what Buddhist thinking has to say about the human condition holds up extremely well. The only parts in "standard" Theravada and Mahayana thought that I have trouble swallowing are explanations of the mechanics of rebirth -- that strikes as simultaneously irrelevant and wildly speculative. But when it comes to stuff like the the Four Noble Truths, the Three Poisons, the Six Perfections, karma and vipaka, what the self is and is not, what the mind is and is not, then hell yeah that holds up well.

 

The bottom line of what you're saying is still the same: you don't like PS:T because it's not what you think it should be, i.e., a solidly-designed AD&D computer role-playing game following the rules and conventions of the Planescape setting. I don't dispute that. It isn't any of that. Where we differ is what this "objective fact" to use your phrase means -- it kills the game for you, whereas for me it makes the game the unique gem that it is.

 

[1] Okay, caveat -- some Buddhist traditions are more about belief. Pure Land practice for example won't really work if you don't believe in Amitabha's Lotus Land, and much beginning Tibetan tantric practice probably won't work if you don't believe in rebirth in a very literal sense. (Although I have it on good authority that the role of belief shifts dramatically as you progress in Tibetan practice too.) But even Tibetan Buddhism has offshoots like Dzogchen and Aro which don't really care about belief, and Pure Land has a Zen twist by asking "Who chants the name of the Buddha?" Buddhism is about doing and knowing (in the same sense Dak'kon uses it), not believing. The big difference between the karmic religions and the monotheistic ones is that in karmic religions, nobody can redeem you. There is no sky-daddy who gives a shyte about what you believe, or don't believe, or do, or don't do. It's just you and your karma, and the only one who can redeem you is you. Teachers and fellow seekers and what have you can just point you in some direction which may or may not be the right one -- ultimately only you can make that call, too.

Edited March 9, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Sacred_Path]

I don't have my journalist hat on now. If I had written a review of PS:T back in my freelancer days, I would most certainly have pointed out its failings as a game.  (I'm pretty sure we agree about most of them btw -- shyte combat, horrible balance issues, breaks AD&D rules, doesn't respect the Planescape setting, puts tremendous restrictions on character development, yadda yadda yadda.)

 

Then I would've gone on to write about it as art. And probably gotten the review spiked by the editor.

Well, then we can agree that PS:T has two sides, even if we don't agree on how each side should be weighted. Better!

 

Any more than I care about how hard the seats are at the opera, if the performance kicks arse.

Your analogy is way off though. It's more like the singing was completely off-key and terrible, for example.

 

List the works of high culture that connect to PS:T for me?

No, of course not. But I expected that that would be your answer after I'd posted it. Of course I mean the works whose influence you think you can identify in the game; after all, we're discussing the product, not the consumers.

 

This situation reminds me of something else. I watch TV sometimes (because I cannot into high culture) and therefore I know that Forrest Gump was the inventor of the non-phrase "**** happens". Someone might feel particularly touched by this statement and go "D00d, you must have read your Classics as well as done extensive studying in the field of postmodernity. It all comes down to this, really!" Upon which the genius would reply "Momma said life is like a box of chocolates" and they would both have that fuzzy feeling of soul-journey fraternity.

 

This is exactly why WE NEED MCA IN ON THIS.

But yeah, I do think that the huge kicks I've gotten out of Wagner come from the same place as the huge kicks I got from PS:T. If pointing that out offends your plebeian sensibilities, then that's just too bad. :monocle:

He actually lived in my corner of the woods, for what it's worth. And your boundless admiration for someone who couldn't into historical accuracy if his life depended on it doesn't exactly humble me. Also, I feel that fat women with horned helmets aren't exactly the epitome of metaphysical wisdom. :smug:

 

And if it is elitist to think that more people should have the opportunity to immerse themselves in high culture like opera, classical music, and classical literature -- and not as part of a forced curriculum -- then yeah, I guess I'm an elitist. One thing the USSR and the other Communist bloc countries did right IMO was to make these things genuinely accessible to the masses -- and as a result Russians and East Europeans tend to have a great deal more refined tastes in music and literature than most Americans or West Europeans. I think that's a part of the reason Poles are coming up with such interesting games these days actually. I live in a country which heavily subsidizes opera and classical music, which means that it's much more accessible than e.g. in the US -- you can get a ticket to Tristan and Isolde for about 30 euros, less if you're a student, pensioner, or unemployed, for example.

So your point is that if more people visited operas/ were forced to do so, PS:T would have been a blockbuster. Is this a fallacy or rightout lunacy? I don't even.

 

Oo, how well do Buddhist beliefs hold up under scrutiny by a modern mind? That's a very, very big topic and one very close to my heart. 

 

Short version: you're asking the wrong question, as Buddhism isn't really about belief at all. That's another very common misconception.[1]

 

But what Buddhist thinking has to say about the human condition holds up extremely well. The only parts in "standard" Theravada and Mahayana thought that I have trouble swallowing are explanations of the mechanics of rebirth -- that strikes as simultaneously irrelevant and wildly speculative. But when it comes to stuff like the the Four Noble Truths, the Three Poisons, the Six Perfections, karma and vipaka, what the self is and is not, what the mind is and is not, then hell yeah that holds up well.

Your previous remark where you placed Buddhism over Freud sort of shattered my credulity though. Edited March 9, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[PrimeJunta]

Your analogy is way off though. It's more like the singing was completely off-key and terrible, for example.

In your view. Not in my view. Subjective opinion again.

 

No, of course not. But I expected that that would be your answer after I'd posted it. Of course I mean the works whose influence you think you can identify in the game; after all, we're discussing the product, not the consumers.

I haven't thought about that, actually. So sorry, can't help you there!

He actually lived in my corner of the woods, for what it's worth. And your boundless admiration for someone who couldn't into historical accuracy if his life depended on it doesn't exactly humble me. Also, I feel that fat women with horned helmets aren't exactly the epitome of metaphysical wisdom. :smug:

That would be a valid criticism if Wagner was a historian. But he wasn't. He was an artist who drew inspiration from mostly mythological sources -- not even historical sources, mythological ones. And then he rewrote those myths to suit his intent. Which is precisely what makes them so great.

 

Once again, you're judging someone based on what you think he should have done, rather than by what he actually set out to do. That's pretty lame.

 

 

 

So your point is that if more people visited operas/ were forced to do so, PS:T would have been a blockbuster. Is this a fallacy or rightout lunacy? I don't even.

No, I wasn't really making a point here; just responding to your accusation of elitism. And I by no means think anyone should be forced to attend the opera, perish the thought! That's the best way to kill off any enthusiasm for it!

 

Your previous remark where you placed Buddhism over Freud sort of shattered my credulity though.

I'm not a big fan of Freud. Or, perhaps more accurately: I'm not a big fan of Freudians. Freud did have an insight that was really important politically, as it recognized that most of what goes on in the mind does not happen at the conscious level -- but beyond that, naw, I don't think he's held up very well. His take on the personality is very much grounded in late 19th century bourgeois society, and is by no means universally applicable.

 

Buddhist insights, OTOH, are.

Edited March 9, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Sacred_Path]

You left out my best point, with which I sought to illustrate that possibly, your feeling of having stumbled upon some profound truths in PS:T might come solely from your own expectations and accumulated baggage knowledge, when the people who made the game might not have had exactly this in mind.

In your view. Not in my view. Subjective opinion again.

Not really.

Technically correct singing = key mechanic of operas.

Solid combat system = key mechanic of a video game with lots of hostiles.

 

 

That would be a valid criticism if Wagner was a historian. But he wasn't. He was an artist who drew inspiration from mostly mythological sources -- not even historical sources, mythological ones. And then he rewrote those myths to suit his intent. Which is precisely what makes them so great.

I'd argue the Edda is as much a historical source as a mythological one, but anyways.

 

See, maybe the same problem exists with Wagner (I never thought about that before, because I cannot into high culture). So he needed a vehicle for his artistic intentions, but did he therefore have to mangle both mythological and historical aspects? Wouldn't a rendering of the Song of the Nibelungs that strives for "authenticity" be, in some ways, a better opera, or at least not a worse one, but acceptable and appealing to more people?

>Your previous remark where you placed Buddhism over Freud sort of shattered my credulity though.

I'm not a big fan of Freud. Or, perhaps more accurately: I'm not a big fan of Freudians. Freud did have an insight that was really important politically, as it recognized that most of what goes on in the mind does not happen at the conscious level -- but beyond that, naw, I don't think he's held up very well. His take on the personality is very much grounded in late 19th century bourgeois society, and is by no means universally applicable.

 

Buddhist insights, OTOH, are.

Broad generalizations that I could pull out of my ass would also be universally applicable (if you simply believe in their correctness) though. Edited March 9, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[PrimeJunta]

You left out my best point, with which I sought to illustrate that possibly, your feeling of having stumbled upon some profound truths in PS:T might come solely from your own expectations and accumulated baggage knowledge, when the people who made the game might not have had exactly this in mind.

That's possible, but I find it unlikely. PS:T really is deeply insightful, unlike almost all pop culture that deals with these themes. I can't see how that could've emerged by accident.

 

More so because I'm clearly not the only one who got the same kick out of the game. No, Sacred_Path, there has to be something inherent in PS:T that speaks to us; it's not only us projecting our own thing on it.

Not really.

Technically correct singing = key mechanic of operas.

Solid combat system = key mechanic of a video game with lots of hostiles.

My point all along is that to treat PS:T as if it was "a video game with lots of hostiles" is exactly the mistake you're making. That's what's preventing you from enjoying it. That's not what it is. That's just the theater in which it plays. And yeah, I agree that it is a bit of a drafty theater and the seats are hard and you can hear the kitchen guys washing the dishes sometimes. But it's not central to what it is. In my opinion.

 

Incidentally, the biggest criticism I have about PS:T is most of the third act -- from Curst to the Fortress of Regrets it's mostly just... not very good. That is a genuine flaw in what it was trying to accomplish. 

 

 

I'd argue the Edda is as much a historical source as a mythological one, but anyways.

 

You're thinking of the wrong Edda -- the one that starts with Kringla heimsins and then chronicles the history of the Viking kings up to St. Olaf and beyond. Wagner drew from the other one: the one with Odin and Thor and Balder and Freya and Fafner and the Jötunn and the dwarves and what have you. Unless you're arguing that Sigurd's slaying of Fafner the dragon was an actuall historical occurrence? Next you'll be telling me there wasn't any Holy Grail either! :hmmm:

 

See, maybe the same problem exists with Wagner (I never thought about that before, because I cannot into high culture). So he needed a vehicle for his artistic intentions, but did he therefore have to mangle both mythological and historical aspects? Wouldn't a rendering of the Song of the Nibelungs that strives for "authenticity" be, in some ways, a better opera, or at least not a worse one, but acceptable and appealing to more people?

 

It would certainly have been a completely different opera. It would certainly not have been possible for Wagner to pursue the themes he was actually pursuing in that format, because they're not what the real Song of the Nibelungs is about. I certainly think The Hobbit was a better film for taking the liberties with the source materials that it did -- and The Lord or the Rings trilogy suffered for trying to cleave so closely to the books.

 

So on balance, no, I don't think it's very likely it would have been better, and it's extremely likely that it would have been far worse. There were lots of historical operas written at the time, you know, and most of them are justly forgotten!

 

Basically, if you're creating a work of art, I believe it's always better to attempt to do so on its own merits, rather than, say, trying to stay true to the franchise -- whether the franchise is an epic poem by Wolfram Eschenbach, a trilogy by some limey philologist, or a fantasy role-playing game setting.

 

So drawing inspiration from and adapting -> good. Slavishly striving for 'authenticity' or 'staying true' -> almost always a disaster. (Case study: Blade Runner/Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep vs. Dune/Dune. In both cases we had a great book. In one case we got a great film, in the other case, a shyte film. The shyte film was shyte because it slavishly adhered to the book. The great film was great because it threw out the book and used an original screenplay with some characters and themes from it.)

 

In my own D&D campaigns I certainly throw out the rulebook the instant it stops me from doing something that I think would be fun. You'd probably hate them.

 

Broad generalizations that I could pull out of my ass would also be universally applicable (if you simply believe in their correctness) though.

 

I'm not talking about generalities here. Quite specific things. And not "beliefs" again: observations.

 

For example: that what we call "I" is nothing more or less than an arbitrary label we've slapped on a bunch of habitual patterns of acting, that life is fundamentally unsatisfactory, that the cause of that dissatisfaction is grasping, aversion, and clinging, that there is a way to end that dissatisfaction, and that the way to do it is to actively cultivate and practice insight, morality, and mental strength.

 

From where I'm at that's way more useful and universally applicable than Freud's mostly sex-based ideas, which grow from the really twisted bourgeois world he lived in.

[JFSOCC]

Off topic, but that thing by Mark Twain was a very funny description of culture shock

Edited March 9, 2013 by JFSOCC

[Sacred_Path]

That's possible, but I find it unlikely. PS:T really is deeply insightful, unlike almost all pop culture that deals with these themes. I can't see how that could've emerged by accident.

 

More so because I'm clearly not the only one who got the same kick out of the game. No, Sacred_Path, there has to be something inherent in PS:T that speaks to us; it's not only us projecting our own thing on it.

I'm quite assured I could write a "deeply insightful" short story without drawing on any existent set of beliefs (and I'm sure a lot of people who got an education could too). Like I said, only the writers themselves *cough* could clear this up.

My point all along is that to treat PS:T as if it was "a video game with lots of hostiles" is exactly the mistake you're making. That's what's preventing you from enjoying it. That's not what it is.

Uhm

 

1) it's a video game

 

2) there are lots of hostiles.

 

 

That's just the theater in which it plays. And yeah, I agree that it is a bit of a drafty theater and the seats are hard and you can hear the kitchen guys washing the dishes sometimes. But it's not central to what it is. In my opinion.

In our case though, the composer of the opera also had the opportunity to create the theater from the ground. Or IOW, if you're going to create a game with a good story but ****ty combat, don't put in so much combat.

 

You'

re thinking of the wrong Edda -- the one that starts with Kringla heimsins and then chronicles the history of the Viking kings up to St. Olaf and beyond. Wagner drew from the other one: the one with Odin and Thor and Balder and Freya and Fafner and the Jötunn and the dwarves and what have you. Unless you're arguing that Sigurd's slaying of Fafner the dragon was an actuall historical occurrence? Next you'll be telling me there wasn't any Holy Grail either! :hmmm:

The mythologies pertain to a historical age though. Or rather, they claim to harken back to an existant point in time (some time before they were written down). The written forms of the Edda themselves stem from the High Middle Ages IIRC.

There is a connection here; good fantasy infuses a historical setting with fantastical elements. It is the consistency of the historical aspect that stops the whole thing from being a clown show gone awry. If you depict a convincing Dark Ages setting (which is where the historical events recorded in the Song of the Nibelungs probably took place), or a Middle Ages setting (which is when it was recorded), you could win my heart.  

 

 

So o

n balance, no, I don't think it's very likely it would have been better, and it's extremely likely that it would have been far worse. There were lots of historical operas written at the time, you know, and most of them are justly forgotten!

Which might as well be a comment on the opera as an art form and its relevance.

 

So drawi

ng inspiration from and adapting -> good. Slavishly striving for 'authenticity' or 'staying true' -> almost always a disaster.

 

In my own D&D campaigns I certainly throw out the rulebook the instant it stops me from doing something that I think would be fun. You'd probably hate them.

I think we looked at from a different angle though: someone throwing out the rulebook not to make the game more fun, but so they can stoically execute their artistic vision. Which makes for bad games/ movies/ anything, I'd wager.

For example: that what we call "I" is nothing more or less than an arbitrary label we've slapped on a bunch of habitual patterns of acting, that life is fundamentally unsatisfactory, that the cause of that dissatisfaction is grasping, aversion, and clinging, that there is a way to end that dissatisfaction, and that the way to do it is to actively cultivate and practice insight, morality, and mental strength.

 

From where I'm at that's way more useful and universally applicable than Freud's mostly sex-based ideas, which grow from the really twisted bourgeois world he lived in.

You don't really need to study neither Buddhism nor Western philosophy to arrive at/ appreciate some of these basic existentialist thoughts though. Edited March 9, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[PrimeJunta]

I'm quite assured I could write a "deeply insightful" short story without drawing on any existent set of beliefs (and I'm sure a lot of people who got an education could too). Like I said, only the writers themselves *cough* could clear this up.

Whoa, cool! Can I see? I couldn't. I've tried, and I'm useless at fiction. I can write a mean sestina though!

Uhm

 

1) it's a video game

 

2) there are lots of hostiles.

Uhm

 

1) it has walls

 

2) there are lots of seats.

 

In our case though, the composer of the opera also had the opportunity to create the theater from the ground. Or IOW, if you're going to create a game with a good story but ****ty combat, don't put in so much combat.

Did they, I wonder? I've understood that PS:T was made under extremely tight time and budgetary constraints, and they had TSR looking over their shoulders too. That, I think, explains most of its flaws -- there just wasn't enough time to wring them out. (And even so, given limited additional resources, I would've preferred that they spent them on fleshing out Curst and the rest of the endgame while keeping the shyte combat. Getting the gamey parts right would have been a much lower priority.)

The mythologies pertain to a historical age though. Or rather, they claim to harken back to an existant point in time (some time before they were written down). The written forms of the Edda themselves stem from the High Middle Ages IIRC.

There is a connection here; good fantasy infuses a historical setting with fantastical elements. It is the consistency of the historical aspect that stops the whole thing from being a clown show gone awry. If you depict a convincing Dark Ages setting (which is where the historical events recorded in the Song of the Nibelungs probably took place), or a Middle Ages setting (which is when it was recorded), you could win my heart.

Sure, nothing wrong with that. I like good historical fiction as much as the next guy -- the Rome TV series kicked arse for example, and that was very good in terms of authenticity. Or is it unacceptable for your high standards because Cicero was really whacked on the road somewhere rather than in his villa, the guy who whacked him wasn't named Pullo, and there were actually two assassins? If so, you have no hope.

Which might as well be a comment on the opera as an art form and its relevance.

Might be, if the same thing didn't happen in every art form. Look at a bestseller list from the 1930's. How many of those books are still in print?

I think we looked at from a different angle though: someone throwing out the rulebook not to make the game more fun, but so they can stoically execute their artistic vision. Which makes for bad games/ movies/ anything, I'd wager.

That would rather depend on the strength of that artistic vision, wouldn't it now?

You don't really need to study neither Buddhism nor Western philosophy to arrive at/ appreciate some of these basic existentialist thoughts though.

Never said you did. So?

[Sacred_Path]

Whoa, cool! Can I see?

Nop

Uhm

 

1) it has walls

 

2) there are lots of seats.

Good job on taking my quote out of context. But let's play this game: You are arguing for a theater that has neither walls nor seats. You're not bothered by this, because your theater has other merits (to appreciate which you have to read all books by Aleister Crowley backwards and spend your life in a toga).

Did they, I wonder? I've understood that PS:T was made under extremely tight time and budgetary constraints, and they had TSR looking over their shoulders too. That, I think, explains most of its flaws -- there just wasn't enough time to wring them out. (And even so, given limited additional resources, I would've preferred that they spent them on fleshing out Curst and the rest of the endgame while keeping the shyte combat. Getting the gamey parts right would have been a much lower priority.)

You're only relegating the blame to someone else. That doesn't make the game better, however. And its creators knew the constraints/ supervision under which they'd work from the start, so they can't be exempt from guilt.

Sure, nothing wrong with that. I like good historical fiction as much as the next guy -- the Rome TV series kicked arse for example, and that was very good in terms of authenticity. Or is it unacceptable for your high standards because Cicero was really whacked on the road somewhere rather than in his villa, the guy who whacked him wasn't named Pullo, and there were actually two assassins? If so, you have no hope.

I was still arguing for fantasy though. Occasional suspension of disbelief. A willingness to be swept away. But there needs to be some meat on the bones. Someone with noodle arms isn't going to lift me Dirty Dancing style, and a game with bad mechanics isn't going to draw me in by burying me in text.

Might be, if the same thing didn't happen in every art form. Look at a bestseller list from the 1930's. How many of those books are still in print?

click

 

click

 

and I ain't even a literature ****.

That would rather depend on the strength of that artistic vision, wouldn't it now?

No, probably not. A borderline madman with an extremely strong vision of making a movie out of Aztec blood rituals where everyone is dipped into molten cheese isn't going to win me over, no matter how much freedom he has to realize his fantasies.

Never said you did. So?

Then how come that many thinking persons did not appreciate PS:T, if there's no specific learning required? Edited March 9, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[PrimeJunta]

Jeez, Sacred_Path, now we're going around in circles. Also you're distorting what I said, either intentionally or out of laziness, and I don't feel like setting you straight. And I already gave you my answer to your last question -- you just didn't like it much. (I.e., it's because you made WIS your dump stat. If that's the case, it doesn't matter how high your INT is.)

[Sacred_Path]

I want MCA to clear this all up. I also want my lifetime back.

[Malekith]

Then how come that many thinking persons did not appreciate PS:T, if there's no specific learning required?

Matter of taste i suppose? Or are you saying that all the Torment fans out there had a mysterious specific learning? I have zero knowlege of many things Junta talks about.

I think Torment fans are the people who looked beyond specific rules or mechanics in Torment, and liked it for the atmosphere, the sense of discovery in a new and strange universe and the writting. They immersed themselves in the story of the Nameless One and not on the "gamey" aspects.

While others focused on what they thought D&D was about, solid mechanics, combat gameplay and found it lacking.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Malekith

[Sacred_Path]

Matter of taste i suppose? Or are you saying that all the Torment fans out there had a mysterious specific learning?

No, I just expect them to say "this game has a good story but not good gameplay" rather than "this is a masterpiece! All video games should follow this example. It's also a work of art".

[Malekith]

 

Matter of taste i suppose? Or are you saying that all the Torment fans out there had a mysterious specific learning?

No, I just expect them to say "this game has a good story but not good gameplay" rather than "this is a masterpiece! All video games should follow this example. It's also a work of art".

This game has a good story but not good combat. Happy?

But is a masterpiece.

 

 

 

Let me ask you a question. Tell me 3 games that you consider to have good gameplay according to you.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Malekith

[Sacred_Path]

cannot process

 

 

overload

 

 

OVERLOAD

 

 

 

edit: Since I mostly play RPGs I'll mention 3 RPGs. I do play something else from time to time (played Counter Strike obsessively for a few years) but I don't play enough from other genres to judge them as objectively.

 

3 good RPGs from the top of my head:

 

Dark Sun 1

 

Might&Magic VII

 

Deus Ex

 

- will elaborate later -

Edited March 9, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Malekith]

cannot process

 

 

overload

 

 

OVERLOAD

 

 

 

edit: Since I mostly play RPGs I'll mention 3 RPGs. I do play something else from time to time (played Counter Strike obsessively for a few years) but I don't play enough from other genres to judge them as objectively.

 

3 good RPGs from the top of my head:

 

Dark Sun 1

 

Might&Magic VII

 

Deus Ex

 

- will elaborate later -

Ok, i'll wait for it. I asked because the combat wasn't so bad.It wasn't stellar either, but it wasn't so much worse than BG1. The basic problem was that most of the combat was filler. P:T has high amounds of trash combat and in fact would be a much better game with less combat. That doesn't make it worse than DA:O which have the excact same problem. 90% of the combat is filler between the next cutscene.

Torment:ToN will improve by having LESS combat (but better). So in many aspects it will be more of a "visual novel" as some people like to say than Planescape:Torment ever was.

The other IE games had very similar combat but their combat was leagues ahead because of these problems.

Torment's worst sin  was that it had way to much combat in a game that it wasn't about combat.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Malekith

[PrimeJunta]

No, I just expect them to say "this game has a good story but not good gameplay" rather than "this is a masterpiece! All video games should follow this example. It's also a work of art".

Funny, that. Because earlier in this thread I explicitly said that I do not want all video games to follow its example. I do not want even P:E to follow its example. Are you even paying attention?

 

To make this perfectly clear -- and to clear up your misrepresentations, intentional or not:

 

- Planescape: Torment has huge gameplay problems, in particular shyte combat and massively unbalanced character development

- Planescape: Torment breaks the AD&D ruleset egregiously and materially deviates from the Planescape canon in many places

- IN MY PERSONAL FRACKING OPINION Planescape: Torment more than makes up for thse shortcomings with its thematic and philosophical complexity, unique story, and deeply insightful exploration of the human condition

- IN MY PERSONAL FRACKING OPINION Planescape: Torment is the only game I have played that can be seriously regarded as a work of art comparable to, say, Wagner's operas.

 

I do not understand what's so hard about these positions for you to understand or even accept, that you have to (a) misrepresent them and (b) go NO! YOU'RE WRONG! about them. Repeatedly.

 

So, let me ask you a question -- and I won't continue this discussion unless you're able to answer it, honestly and without that occasional sarcastic attitude of yours:

 

Why is it that PS:T has such a dedicated fanbase, since we all seem to agree about its failings in its gamey features?

[Sacred_Path]

Aww ****, this thread just won't stay dead/ inactive.

Funny, that. Because earlier in this thread I explicitly said that I do not want all video games to follow its example.

I forgot that, must have been the walls of text in between. Anyways, how can you argue massively in favour of a game, then say "I'd never want to see this repeated!"? Granted, you say "not all games", but I do take this to mean "some games".

- IN MY PERSONAL FRACKING OPINION Planescape: Torment more than makes up for thse shortcomings with its thematic and philosophical complexity, unique story, and deeply insightful exploration of the human condition

you're entitled to your opinion, just like I'm entitled to find it silly.

 

Can a game make up for one half of its entire substance being ****ty? IMO, with that handicap, it can never end up being better than mediocre, no matter how satisfying its other half is (to some). And that's how I judge PS:T, it's a mediocre game.

- IN MY PERSONAL FRACKING OPINION Planescape: Torment is the only game I have played that can be seriously regarded as a work of art comparable to, say, Wagner's operas.

I won't comment on the opera comparison, because frankly, I'd say that's not important. But as it being the only instance of a game that's art - I can't agree here. Torment doesn't differ from all other games enough to make such a distinction. What about the Deus Ex series and its exploration of dystopian themes like human "enhancement"? What about Darklands with its eclectic mix of historical accuracy and fantasy, which I'd put on par with listening to faux-Renaissance music? What about the social issues explored in Arcanum? What about all the literal art that flows into making an RPG?

So, let me ask you a question -- and I won't continue this discussion unless you're able to answer it, honestly and without that occasional sarcastic attitude of yours:

 

Why is it that PS:T has such a dedicated fanbase, since we all seem to agree about its failings in its gamey features?

So many answers there. I can for instance enjoy a movie that's mostly ****, wooden acting, hilarious dialogue, filmed by an epileptic monkey. I can like it because it's bad but its badness is charming. I can like because, despite being mostly bad, there's a stroke of genius in the ending or the setting. I can like it because I have really weird priorities, where acting and dialogue do not influence my judgment at all.

[PrimeJunta]

Edit: Oh, FFS. You didn't even answer the question. So (snipped).

Edited March 9, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Sacred_Path]

lolwut

[PrimeJunta]

lolwut indeed. I asked: "Why is it that PS:T has such a dedicated fanbase, since we all seem to agree about its failings in its gamey features?"

 

You went on a tangent about how you like shyte movies.

 

What I was asking you to do is to attempt to see PS:T through the eyes of one of its rabid fans, and imagine what merit it could possibly have to create such dedication. I know, I know, it needs a certain amount of WIS, but you can always try. But until you make an honest attempt at that, I'm assuming that you're here just to waste everybody's time, rather than to, say, exchange experiences and thoughts.