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

[Sacred_Path]

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.

I actually did that. ****ty movie = Torment in this analogy. Sry if that was too meta.

 

I'm wondering why this should be the issue here though. So people like the story. Good. Never argued against that. Does that make it a good game? IMO no.

 

I will offer you a hint why I'm so mostly unimpressed though: maybe I'm having trouble taking the video game medium very serious in existentialist matters. I've argued that all games could be considered art, so let me explain. I have no problem assigning the art monicker to a nice little painting of sunflowers. It may not look like much, it might not have any masterful technique in it whatsoever, it's certainly not any philosophical underpinnings. Still I appreciate the creativity that went into it. From my POV, it's art.

 

You said you had problems calling video games art because you feel they're mostly for entertainment. I disagreed about this making them not art, but I actually agree about the latter. Games are supposed to be fun, and what's more, they're supposed to adhere to some expectations of mine (not just mine, mind you) in regards to what makes a game, when I put down my money for them. I like it when games supercede my expectations by delving into matters that could be labeled mature, but that doesn't mean that this would make me a rabid fan. It doesn't mean that I think about them when the PC is turned off. If this is because I'm a bumbling buffoon, or if it's because I'm a thinking person and not impressed easily, that's your guess (I know you have a character sheet of me with a low WIS, duh).

[PrimeJunta]

Edit: aw, frackit. Never mind. :end:

Edited March 9, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Sacred_Path]

But that's actually been your point all along. Go back to your earlier posts. All people who aren't rabid Tormenters are so because they're unable to comprehend its AWSUMNESS, probably because they've been dropped on the head too often or they have Kaspar Hauser's.

[PrimeJunta]

Edit: frackit, I really should develop more self-control. Bad PrimeJunta! :END:

Edited March 9, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Sacred_Path]

I WANT MCA ALL UP IN DIS **** YO

[maggotheart]

*puts on ref hat* ok boys that's 10 rounds. No one got knocked out but I have to give this to PrimeJunta on points. All proceeds of todays match will go directly to fund the Torment kickstarter. Good night.

[Elerond]

 

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 -

 

Funny that I enjoyed PS:T very much but these were bit blaah.

[Sacred_Path]

Funny that I enjoyed PS:T very much but these were bit blaah.

Deus Ex was 'blaah'?

 

 

I actually had trouble coming up with exactly 3 games, and these aren't necessarily the games I like the most. I actually like a number of games, but I'm not ecstatic about any one of them. Too critical? Maybe.

 

 

Also I can understand if people like Torment. Like I said above, people can like anything for any number of reasons. Some adults like to wear diapers. That's cool, as long as they don't try to sell me diaper wearing as the superior lifestyle and I'm just too plebeian to get it.

[Elerond]

 

Funny that I enjoyed PS:T very much but these were bit blaah.

Deus Ex was 'blaah'?

 

 

I actually had trouble coming up with exactly 3 games, and these aren't necessarily the games I like the most. I actually like a number of games, but I'm not ecstatic about any one of them. Too critical? Maybe.

 

 

Also I can understand if people like Torment. Like I said above, people can like anything for any number of reasons. Some adults like to wear diapers. That's cool, as long as they don't try to sell me diaper wearing as the superior lifestyle and I'm just too plebeian to get it.

 

Yes it feel more like first person shooter with ****ty shooting gameplay than real rpg. It story is better than in fps games at general, but nothing special to compared to other rpgs or adventure games. So at in the end it was better than average some aspect, but same time some aspect were below average and any aspect of game didn't shine briliance. So final verdict it is bit blaah.

[PrimeJunta]

I quite liked DX, actually. Thought it was pretty good for what it was. Played it through several times. Great gameplay variety. Loved sticking LAMs to walls and making things go splat.

 

But it didn't even come close to giving me the 'art' kick. It was entertaining and had some rather cool social and political satire and commentary, but that's about it. Also the stereotypes were incredibly grating and it had some of the worst voice-acting in any game, ever.

 

Hated DX:HR. Better gameplay and production values, but the story was rubbish and the game totally missed what DX1 was about. Even DX:IW wasn't as bad.

Edited March 9, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Sacred_Path]

lol ****. Have you seen this

 

click

Edited March 9, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[PrimeJunta]

Colin McComb on what they were thinking when writing PS:T.

[Sacred_Path]

Just to make good on this...

3 good RPGs from the top of my head:

Dark Sun 1

Might&Magic VII

Deus Ex

- will elaborate later -

 

Dark Sun

 

Pro:

• The AD&D ruleset is probably no one's favorite (in CRPGs), but the fact that multi-class characters in Dark Sun are very viable allows for some diversity in the party's composition. The world of Dark Sun was/ is notable in DnD for featuring more exotic playable races like Half-Giants, Thri-Kreen and Muls, who surpass the standard races in their physical attributes (Half-Giants get 2x hit points, Thri-Kreen have higher DEX and more attacks per round). Dark Sun is further notable for being the first DnD game to feature psionics and full-fledged druid and gladiator class characters. Single-class clerics are restricted in the weapons they can use depending on what element they are aligned with.

 

• The beginning is probably one of the most atmospheric parts of the game; your party starts out as a group of slave gladiators in an arena. Occasionally, you are summoned to fight in the arena; between these fights you can rest and explore the rest of the slave pens. It's notable that NPCs offer some reactions to the lead character's class, and there is some choice & consequence (like the option to align yourselves with one of two other bands of gladiators and break free alongside them). There are also some adventure elements with common items being 'usable' on the environment. Once you are out of the city for good, the different kinds of nicely painted desert landscapes along with atmospheric music really set the mood for this adventure, and from there on you basically have an open world to explore.

Con:

• While there are many races to choose from, they distinction between them is blurry because you can ramp up every character's attributes manually, a feature in many older AD&D games I loathe and hate. This means that you'll probably pick your characters more on the basis of other factors and some races just lose out (Half-Giants get chosen for their massive hit points, Thri-Kreen for their extra attacks. Dwarves and Halflings are mostly useless due to their class restrictions). Clerics and gladiators are also mostly useless. Multi-class characters are definitely favored since you can grind for experience and there is a level limit rather than an XP limit (you can reach level 9 or levels 9/9/9). Psionics are very disappointing, instead of reading and manipulating minds they just function as another kind of offensive magic.

 

• Storytelling is almost non-existant once you're out in the desert. The big plot is "gather an army against the city", and that's what you do, by helping various people out, until you've finally amassed enough allies for the final battle. I think it might have actually been planned to make the final battle easier or tougher depending on how many allies you have, but if so, it was never implemented. Also choice & consequence as well as reactivity are existant but extremely rare, and the few 'adventure' style puzzles are obvious.

 

Might & Magic VII

 

Pro:

• In contrast to its predecessor you have four races and more classes to choose from. Contrary to DnD, no single class is really "required" to play the game, so you're absolutely free in your choice, although a party of four non-magic characters is still a pretty crappy idea. You have control over their initial stats and skills (which are also varied). You will find a wide variety of (magic) items in the game, and item hunting and stat building is an important part of gameplay.

 

• The world, as usual in an M&M game, is very colorful and cheerful; these games definitely don't take themselves too seriously, but they're also not a clown act. Your characters advance in power rapidly, and can achieve almost godlike status, which is expressed in i.e. being able to kill every single lifeform on the map by casting a single spell. The plot has some different layers to it and dips into the politics of the world, which you actually have the chance to interfere in. You'll also lord over your own stronghold, which gradually evolves. Later in the game you have to make an "ultimate" choice that will influence not only the story and quests but also character development.

Con:

• The choice of race and initial stats hardly matters after the beginning, because your stats will improve very rapidly. Some monsters tend to attack certain races first, but this is hardly a reason to change your party composition. The character development, skill-wise, could have been very interesting, but mostly you'll just follow the designers' formula, since it's not very useful to develop skills your characters can only achieve "expert" ranking in. Take the ranger for example: he is the only character who can achieve "grandmaster" rank in the axe skill, and none of his other melee skills come close in usefulness to that. OTOH most other classes cannot raise axe past "expert" skill. This leads to all rangers being axe-fighters, and all axe-fighters being rangers (with the possible exception of the knight, for whom the axe is a good off-hand weapon).

 

• The world and system are over-the-top cheesy (as I said above, signified by ultra-powerful spells among other things, like the ability to fly). If that's a turn off for you, you should skip this game. The characters are all cardboard cutouts and have no semblance of depth. It's ultra generic fantasy, with forest elves and grumpy dwarves, and evil greenskins. NPC interaction is extremely limited. The player is very rarely able to make any choices. The world, while open, almost forces a fixed sequence of areas on you because of  power progression. And while most of the game revolves around combat, the combat itself is less than thrilling or tactical; the interesting thing about it is simply keeping track of how your skill and equipment choices affect your characters' performance.

 

Deus Ex

 

Pro:

• The skill and enhancement system, as well as the ability to specialize in certain weapons, offers many options for character development and replayability. Wether you want to play a completely stealthy hacker or a lethal sniper, you can do it. There's a big enough arsenal to keep you entertained, without branching out into silly shooter territory. Using other tools, like lockpicks and hacking tools, is also fun.

 

• All mission objectives can be reached in different ways, reflecting the choices in character development you may have made. Personally I never "ghosted" a level, because it was so much fun to set up a post, take enemies out by sniping, then get a move on to avoid the hordes. The plot has enough twists to make you keep paying attention. I found the voice acting suitable, not needlessly dramatic-cheesy as in a lot of other "dark" games. The game consistently offers choices, and the plot depends heavily on player choice.

Con:

• The game has several balance issues. Stealth and sniping are by far more powerful than a more ham-fisted approach. I played through the game as a sniper on the default difficulty with almost no reloads in my first sitting. Augmenting your arms, for example, is probably only a good thing for subsequent playthroughs when you have explored all other options.

 

• The plot is certainly nothing new for a dystopian setting, and what's maybe worse, rests on a popular conspiracy theory (man-made plague). The game also doesn't do much to make you emotionally invested in the plot; there's the affair with your brother, but the devil is in the details, and the dialogue never made me care about that much. The VA is a mixed bag, as I said I found it suitable, but certainly not engaging. It's mostly wooden and forgettable.

 

 

I think I've done a bad job about Deus Ex, but I last played it like 10 years ago. Also I think to stay kinda on topic I should state how all this relates to IE games, but I'll save that for another post.

[Ffordesoon]

I'm playing through PST right now, so I think I can bring a fresh perspective to this discussion.

 

I think Torment is a masterpiece. I also think it has serious deficiencies as a game, and even some minor deficiencies as a narrative. I just, you know, don't care.

 

On the other hand, I totally understand why some people find the game a chore. The combat (the most obviously "game-y" part of it, which is why so many people get it confused with "gameplay") is uninteresting at best, the interface is janky and weird, the pacing is annoyingly uneven, it's ultimately a bit too wordy even for me, the characters move too slowly for my tastes (that's a flaw with the engine, though), the area design is sometimes too self-consciously weird for its own good, and the sheer volume of dour philosophizing occasionally grows tedious.

 

I can't speak to any adherence to or deviation from AD&D, but I wouldn't give two f**ks either way, because I hate it when square pegs are judged by their inability to fit in round holes. Also, house rules, mofos.

 

Anyway, the game is, all things considered, a bit of a mess.

 

It's also a masterpiece.

 

How can this be?

 

Simple: there are people who judge games by their parts, and there are people who judge games as a whole. Neither group is any better or worse than the other, nor is either group wrong, but only one worships PST as a masterpiece: those who judge it as a whole rather than the sum of its parts.

 

Its parts, in many ways, are deficient. Sometimes, those deficiencies are endearing. Other times, they're irritating. But for people like PrimeJunta and myself, they are quirks that make the experience what it is. Those who judge a work as the sum of its parts, however, are likely to come away wondering what all the fuss is about.

 

This is not a failing on their part, any more than it is a failing on Prime's part that he (she?) judges the experience as a whole. It does not imply deficient intelligence or imagination, though it is quite easy for people like Prime and myself to fall into that trap. PST is the sort of game you get unhealthily attached to. But it's not a failing on anyone's part that they feel differently.

 

EDIT: Also, I don't know how to embed links in text here, but a quick study of GNS Theory helps to contextualize what I'm saying, I think. It's kind of astonishing it's never brought up in cRPG discussions, because much of it is more applicable to said discussions than any tedious "dumbed down for the filthy casuals" rhetoric.

 

EDIT 2: Oops, forgot the link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory

Edited March 10, 2013 by Ffordesoon

[Razsius]

I go away for a bit (work... /sigh) and the thread turns into this.  I'll be breaking one of the internet golden rules today.  I'm going to make this thread a little... personal.

 

So a little history about Raz (considering Prime's put out a few of his tastes i'll oblige).

 

Once upon a time and a half ago back when I was a senior in high school I had forgotten about a writing assignment that involved composing a poem using the letters of your name.  As I recall, you got one "cheat" letter that you could add so in the remaining 2 minutes and 14ish seconds I had to do this assignment I wrote a four line poem that consisted of maybe 20 total words.  When the teacher got around to calling on me I read my poem and then *boom* the "usual" dead silence.  I had inadvertently written something that given them just a single moment of pause and enough time to give me "that" look.  The look that said "I didn't realize you were this smart what the hell are you doing in here?"  The only thing I could think of was "Why were you impressed... with that?"  You see I was quite literally the only kid that I knew of that when asked "Do you like math or English more?" I'd simply reply "I like both" and I did for two completely different reasons.  It was a strange kind of pain to have to always realize that if I ever dropped my guard i'd inevitably get that particular look even worse that i'm still the only one that I know of that enjoyed and excelled at both math AND English.  I perhaps had more "paths" open to me in life but the only thing it really gave me was utter confusion... and a whole lot of pain.  It took me YEARS to figure out what I actually liked and wanted to do with my life and even to this day i'm not doing what I actually wish and perhaps need to do.  So, I guess what i'm trying to say is well... i'm a slow learner but I *can* learn.  However, I'd like to think i'm not the only one and i'd like to perhaps *know* I am not the only one that can learn.  I don't believe in destiny, I never did.  I'd like to see what's beyond our hill so i've got a proposition.

 

@Prime and anyone else who feels like *knowing* what an RPG truly is

 

There's obviously at least two groups of people here that have their own views on what makes an RPG what it is so here's the proposition.  If you didn't find PS:T all that compelling for whatever reason then you can join me in starting a fresh new game of it using a character that should give you the best experience of it.  I, for example, never actually got the full disclosure of why the first incarnation did what he did.  I'm going to go back with a build I know will "beat" the game to get him to cough up some much needed answers.  That's just one of my goals but the main thing is i'm going to be stepping back and letting The Nameless One give me his own answers because let's face it... it's not actually my story is it?

 

On the converse, for those that find Baldur's Gate comparably lame for whatever reason again I shall state the exact same thing i'd like Prime to "lead" a fresh new game with a different set of eyes then he's used to using.  The thing with Baldur's Gate is ironically it is *your* narrative not some other characters.   Baldur's Gate is the start of *your* (it is your own) coming of age "ceremony."  You start out as a wide eyed, sheltered, naive individual who really doesn't even know much about themselves.  The only home you know of is a citadel of books and the only parent you know is an venerable old wizard by the name of Gorion.  Your closest childhood friend is a spunky and slightly annoying young lady by the name of Imoen on occasion you feel as if you have to take care of her as if she were your little sister.  I'll give one's who dislike Baldur's Gate a little hint to "playing" it (perhaps "experiencing" is a better word).  I have a little sister myself who's often much more of a handful than Imoen could ever be so abandoning Imoen is the equivalent of abandoning my sister.  I've played through the series 4+ times and Imoen has ALWAYS been in my party even at the cost of party efficiency.  If one of my "family" dies I get PISSED.  If I don't like a quest i'm given I leave it for later or I skip it.  If I find an area slightly bland I move on to the next one.  If I find a hermit in the middle of nowhere griping about life I open the biggest can of verbal whoop ass I can find on him because i'm tired of idiots like him.  I enjoy every minute of every adventure I have because i've chosen them all.

 

The general idea of this is very simple for both sides.  Remember when playing with mud was one of the best things ever?  Yea I realize it's just mud to us now but it's not like we can't do it all over again.  Make the game you can't love your "mud."  Play with it again and don't gripe about what you can't make it do.  Instead, do what you can with it and make something awesome.  Hopefully, at the end of this we can all gain some fresh perspective.

 

Any takers?

 

Edit: Thanks for the link btw Ffordesoon.  You're pretty good guy that's for sure.

 

PS:T is more Narrativist isn't it?

Edited March 10, 2013 by Razsius

[PrimeJunta]

That was a very sweet post, Razsius. 

 

I think my problem with BG may be... a mirror image of your problem with PS:T. With PS:T, you're unable to switch off the critical part of your brain when it comes to game aspects, and so the "gamey" flaws are constantly jolting you out of the experience and frustrating you, so you're never able to get to the parts of the game that make it worthwhile.

 

With BG, OTOH, I'm unable to switch off the critical part of my brain when it comes to the writing aspects, which means I can't make myself care about any of the characters. They just don't come alive for me.

[Razsius]

That was a very sweet post, Razsius. 

 

I think my problem with BG may be... a mirror image of your problem with PS:T. With PS:T, you're unable to switch off the critical part of your brain when it comes to game aspects, and so the "gamey" flaws are constantly jolting you out of the experience and frustrating you, so you're never able to get to the parts of the game that make it worthwhile.

 

With BG, OTOH, I'm unable to switch off the critical part of my brain when it comes to the writing aspects, which means I can't make myself care about any of the characters. They just don't come alive for me.

 

Exactly.  Though I think we can solve this problem of ours.  Math and English do rock after all... just for two entirely different reasons.  Care to take the plunge Prime?  I got Planescape:Torment sitting right here ready to be fired up.  I've already played it once so I can avoid the pitfalls that might get me if I need to but I really won't go into it expecting I need to.  The game only generally has as much control over me as I give it anyways.

 

For you, about the only thing you'd "need" to do is simply write *your* story.  Baldur's Gate is generally sandbox enough that it allows you to.  I rarely for instance beeline to Nashkel.  Instead, I usually wander all over the place.  I head up north toward Baldur's Gate occasionally picking up a companion or two, quest around the Friendly Arm then head toward Beregost.  After that, I hit up the areas around there and take care of a certain pesky cleric.  Then and only then (ie generally when I feel like it) do I start on the chapter 2 stuff.  As I recall in Enhanced Edition I believe you can write your own journal entries.  Maybe write about how you're absolutely sick of seeing bland looking trees.  Fall into the world.  "Mud" is only whatever you make of it.

 

I'll do it if you do it .

 

Then we can come back to this thread at a later date... or make a new one and see if we've learned anything.  At least for me, *knowing* is believing we can actually do this.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Razsius

[Sacred_Path]

EDIT: Also, I don't know how to embed links in text here, but a quick study of GNS Theory helps to contextualize what I'm saying, I think. It's kind of astonishing it's never brought up in cRPG discussions, because much of it is more applicable to said discussions than any tedious "dumbed down for the filthy casuals" rhetoric.

 

EDIT 2: Oops, forgot the link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory

The link is interesting, but I think that only pertains to some subjective sensibilities on part of the consumer. I'm more interested in the product, as objectively as possible. Or, IOW, to fuse what I said with the contents of your link: Torment actually tries to satisfy all 3 gamers, so we should judge it on these grounds.

 

What Torment does for "the 3 kinds" of gamers:

 

Gamist: it fails.

 

Simulationist: it fails.

 

Narrativist: it's full of win and excellence

 

 

and that's exactly why I have problems with people simply calling it a "masterpiece". I'd suggest the following: "this game is enjoyable if you happen to fall mostly into the narrativist category. Looked at it solely from that angle, it's a masterpiece". But things like i.e. review scores should never be based on such niche thinking.

[Ffordesoon]

@Raz:

 

Hey, thanks! :D

 

Indeed, PST is pretty firmly a Narrativist game, for better or worse. I would call it a cRPG rather than a visual novel for a number of reasons, not least because your stats actually matter (there wouldn't be a "right" way to play the game if they didn't). But in terms of its appeal, the game's pleasures are chiefly novelistic (memorable companions, lovely prose, a wonderfully bizarre world, etc.)

 

@Sacred_Path:

 

As someone who sits right on the border between Narrativist and Gamist, I disagree on a couple of counts.

 

First of all, I would argue that PST doesn't fail in its "game-y" aspects. Most of its mechanical deficiencies are, I feel, forgivable, or at least tolerable. They are "B-minus" aspects of the game, not "F" aspects, if you catch my drift. They're niggling annoyances, not unforgivable sins.

 

Secondly, you're acting as if a game must satisfy all three player types to be considered successful, even though those player types are often diametrically opposed from one another. You say that "review scores" should never be based on "such niche thinking." I disagree with that, a little, but it's also not a relevant point, because nobody in this discussion is reviewing the thing. Those who love it are talking about why they love it, and those who don't are talking about why they don't. Nothing more, nothing less. Why do we need to conform to a buyer's guide mentality in this discussion?

[Sacred_Path]

First of all, I would argue that PST doesn't fail in its "game-y" aspects. Most of its mechanical deficiencies are, I feel, forgivable, or at least tolerable. They are "B-minus" aspects of the game, not "F" aspects, if you catch my drift. They're niggling annoyances, not unforgivable sins.

I think you feel they are forgivable because you feel that the game makes good on them in other areas. I think that's what you said even. That's not a good basis to judge these aspects on though.

 

I have to concede though that, say, combat in no IE game is terribly exciting. But Icewind Dale had interesting setups of combat, while BG2 had "combat puzzles" that you could either enjoy or loathe (I enjoyed them). I wouldn't say that PS:T's combat (a ****load of enemies just rushing at you) is up to par here.

Secondly, you're acting as if a game must satisfy all three player types to be considered successful, even though those player types are often diametrically opposed from one another.

That's not exactly what I meant, sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

 

I reiterate: Torment attempts to satisfy in all three areas.

 

There are actual combat mechanics, the combat is not resolved via dialogue or something. I'm v. sure they attempted to make the combat fun, and that they didn't intentionally annoy the player. They failed (IMO).

 

They also attempted to give a good depiction of a) the Planescape setting and b) of a convincing, coherent setting. As far as Planescape goes, they seem to have failed (not a Planescape buff), and I've already addressed a number of inconsistencies in the setting. I would say, they failed.

 

It's not like Planescape only set out to be a game for a narrativist audience. This might be different for Tides of Numenera; heck, they don't even know what combat system they're gonna use, and combat is supposed to be skippable anyway.

You say that "review scores" should never be based on "such niche thinking." I disagree with that, a little, but it's also not a relevant point, because nobody in this discussion is reviewing the thing. Those who love it are talking about why they love it, and those who don't are talking about why they don't. Nothing more, nothing less. Why do we need to conform to a buyer's guide mentality in this discussion?

talking about it judgementally vs. reviewing it: nitpicking.

 

I'm not talking about advertising vs. bashing the game, but I think the subjective reasons why people rave about Torment get on my nerves a bit.

 

From what I've heard it comes down to this: Torment appeals to a number of people emotionally. Not many video games do that, and not many video games attempt to do that. That's why people think Torment is shpeshul and should be judged differently than other games, or is so fundamentally different that it's art while all other games are not. These people attest to having their judgement of PS:T's mechanics clouded by its qualities. It seems a bit like being in love; people can look right past obvious flaws because they hold that game dear. That's cool. But don't go overboard.

[Malekith]

 

First of all, I would argue that PST doesn't fail in its "game-y" aspects. Most of its mechanical deficiencies are, I feel, forgivable, or at least tolerable. They are "B-minus" aspects of the game, not "F" aspects, if you catch my drift. They're niggling annoyances, not unforgivable sins.

I think you feel they are forgivable because you feel that the game makes good on them in other areas. I think that's what you said even. That's not a good basis to judge these aspects on though.

 

I have to concede though that, say, combat in no IE game is terribly exciting. But Icewind Dale had interesting setups of combat, while BG2 had "combat puzzles" that you could either enjoy or loathe (I enjoyed them). I wouldn't say that PS:T's combat (a ****load of enemies just rushing at you) is up to par here.

S

econdly, you're acting as if a game must satisfy all three player types to be considered successful, even though those player types are often diametrically opposed from one another.

That's not exactly what I meant, sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

 

I reiterate: Torment attempts to satisfy in all three areas.

 

Maybe that's why we disagree. I enjoyed IE combat more than any other game i played, to the point that i prefered it from Turn Based( i loath realtime twitchy combat).Maybe that's way i don't have a huge problem with P:T combat. Yes, it was unexciting compaired to the other IE games, but it was way more fun than combat in WItcher,DA:O,NWN2,Vegas and other games that i also liked.

 

As for the other,NO game attempted to satisfie All 3 categories of gamers. It cannot be done. That a game has combat doesn't mean that it's a priority. Sure, they want what combat there is to be fun, but that's it. Diablo 3 has story,and i don't believe that the makers intended for that story to be terrible. But that doesn't mean that Diablo 3 was ever intended to be a game for a narrativist audience. P:E was aimed for a narrativist audience and not for a gamey one.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Malekith

[Sacred_Path]

As for the other,NO game attempet to satisfie All 2 categories of gamers. It cannot be done.

Uhm, it can be done very well; only, in most cases, to different degrees.

 

Take Icewind Dale: it didn't have a particularly strong story, but an atmospheric one, and I enjoyed that. I don't think I would have enjoyed the game as much as I did if it had featured as lackluster a story as Diablo. Still, the main draw for me was the relatively interesting combat and party building. The good portrayal of an AD&D setting was another bonus.

 

I think, in regards to "kinds" of gamers, we should state the following:

 

- most people are not one-trick ponies

 

- most people are not idiots

 

- most people don't suffer from autism

 

and therefore most people will recognize and evaluate such different aspects of a game as story, mechanics, and setting, and they may all contribute or subtract from their enjoyment of a game. If a game's story and dialogue are so ridiculous I constantly have to facepalm myself, it ruins my immurshun and I probably won't play that game for long.

 

The other point being, CRPGs are a niche product as is; you don't want to narrow down your consumer base even more by saying "combat and setting are **** in this game! Hope you like the story!". Even companies that have reached their goal of being able to finance their game (say through Kickstarter) usually attempt to placate any fears. Look at Tides of Numenera; while they cater to storyfags by saying that combat can be resolved by "other means", they still want to have that aspect in there, and in a way enjoyable to their audience (which is why they leave the combat system open to discussion).

[PrimeJunta]

You have a deal, @Razsius. However I'm still in the middle of Icewind Dale, so it'll have to wait until I finish that. I'm liking it more all the time by the way -- it's completely straightforward and unpretentious, the atmosphere is great, and the combat challenges are just the right mix of easy hacking mixed with tricky situations. It's challenging without being frustrating, which is a tricky balance to hit. Right now I'm playing at a bit of a handicap as I just dualed my thief to mage so I have nobody in the party able to disable traps, but a couple more levels ought to sort that out.

 

If you need any tips on playing PS:T, please let me know.

[Iucounu]

Question is, would a PS:T-IWD hybrid have worked? I doubt it. I'd argue that good intelligent combat, often generates a feeling of epicness, and epic just doesn't fit in PS:T. And even if not, it would be at best a distraction. Imagine how Franz Kafka's "The Trial" would have been if the protagonist had to solve some riddle every now and then, to get ahead in the story, or if there would be combat that is emphasised as if the book was written by Salvatore. Just out of place. 

If you try to make the best out of every aspect of a game, you may find out that these aspects are incompatible to each other. 

 

@PrimeJunta

I guess it's obvious that PS:T was inspired by Buddhism and Hinduism (even though there are other philosophical influences as well). However, the notion that you need to be a buddhist to create true art, or to have grasped the concept of reality, is imho a bit far-fetched.

I have yet to see a buddhist, new ager, or whatever, who isn't full of himself, especially when it comes to people with a monetheistic worldview. 

The world can be interpreted in more than just one way, as can most games, books, or art in general. 

Edited March 10, 2013 by Iucounu

[Malekith]

 

Question is, would a PS:T-IWD hybrid have worked? I doubt it. I'd argue that good intelligent combat, often generates a feeling of epicness, and epic just doesn't fit in PS:T. And even if not, it would be at best a distraction. Imagine how Franz Kafka's "The Trial" would have been if the protagonist had to solve some riddle every now and then, to get ahead in the story, or if there would be combat that is emphasised as if the book was written by Salvatore. Just out of place. 

If you try to make the best out of every aspect of a game, you may find out that these aspects are incompatible to each other. 

 

@PrimeJunta

I guess it's obvious that PS:T was inspired by Buddhism and Hinduism (even though there are other philosophical influences as well). However, the notion that you need to be a buddhist to create true art, or to have grasped the concept of reality, is imho a bit far-fetched.

I have yet to see a buddhist, new ager, or whatever, who isn't full of himself, especially when it comes to people with a monetheistic worldview. 

The world can be interpreted in more than just one way, as can most games, books, or art in general. 

It can be done. Baldur's Gate 2 had a fine balance between the two, and that's why almost every person who liked the IE games liked it.

Yes, the writting aspects of the game were way behind Torment, but that was because Bioware writters weren't in the same level than Black Isle's. P:E is trying to do just that. Baldur's Gate 2 with Torment's narratiive focus and writting and Icewind Dale dungeons. And i thing the majority of the backers want excactly that.