Planescape EE by Beamdog?

[woo1108]

Problem is, that the PS: T isn't just a good RPG.
It is called as a model of good CRPG, ideal CRPG for century or something.
so, to be the best CRPG ever or ideal model for CRPG, I should be harsh on PS: T.

So my opinion about PS: T is, it's not a good model for a CRPG.
nothing to learn as a model.
And maybe that is the reason why the new Torment is criticized.
and that is a huge problem: many people learn wrong element from wrong game.
and maybe, that is the reason why so called new old school RPGs are not as good as a real old school RPGs.

but personally, I enjoyed PS: T
PS: T it isn't that bad game at all.
World of PS:T look awesome, dialogs are cool and writings are great.
It's actually enjoyable and better CRPG than most of modern RPGs and BG1.
but it's not that great as it's own fame.

 

[Gizmojunk]

1. Linear quest line
2. Infinity engine
3. construction of game.
4. side quests.
5. attribute.
Fallout also have the same problem, but PS: T did worse than that.
6. nothing new
7. having too many text doesn't mean it's good.

That's a good post/reply.
I don't agree with all of it [some polar opposite in fact], but I appreciate the clear points of opinion, and do not entirely disagree with most of it.

Problem is, that the PS: T isn't just a good RPG.
...and maybe, that is the reason why so called new old school RPGs are not as good as a real old school RPGs.

'New school' RPGs [and new games in general] are selling to a 'New School' manner of player. An often impatient player, a naturally [conditioned to be] overly entitled player; and one that of late has the misguided power to return the game 'no questions asked'. So the 'New School' games are fast becoming simplified empowerment fantasy... Yet RPGs were traditionally built around the limitations of the PC(s) —and of saying "No" where appropriate.

Where once the Player Character was part & parcel —the ultimate lens and implement into the game world, the character is now commonly vestigial and 'in the way' of a player that has no interest in roleplaying; but merely want's to experience the setting for themselves [as themselves]; empowered with various character abilities...
[and to click past the dialog text in order to see who to go shoot next]
Take FO3 /Oblivion/Skyrim for easy examples. Oblivion most notably casts all credibility to the wind, by ignoring reasonable limitations, allowing any character to become the leader of any guild. It would seem that servility to the player is more important that anything else at all, in the design.

Mainstream game development seems to be no longer about making great & challenging games, but rather it's seemingly become about the placation and mere entertainment of the player; even at the expense of genre contradictive gameplay*. [IMO that's toxic to RPGs]


*Like adding an RT/w Pause button to an established RTS series —to remove the stress of having to be quick & decisive with commands to the army; to ostensibly make it turn based for those who might need or prefer it that way; (or be unable to WIN otherwise).

Sadly, there were developers at E3 alongside Bethesda's promotion of FO3, that were touting "You can WIN playing our game!".

 

[Risewild]

I have to disagree with some of your points because they seem more of a personal preference than actually game flaws or problems.

1. Linear quest line
The best part of PS: T is finding Pharod, which has various information to find him.
after that, the game strictly directs where to go and whom to talk.

All RPGs have a linear quest line, you have the main quest and follow it, usually by having someone or something telling you or directing you to the next location/NPC.
How else would you know where to go next or what to do? How would you have done it?

2. Infinity engine
There isn't much interaction with infinity engine: combat and dialogue.
From what I see, the engine is not for an RPG but RTS. I'm not saying that real time combat is not for an RPG, but real time D&D rule is strange as hell.
I played Knight of the chalice which have great D&D rule combat and after that, I really can understand what D&D should be an RTS.

This sounds more like personal preference than a real flaw of the game.
Also, Infinity Engine is a RTS engine? That is nonsense to be honest.
Any Infinity Engine games released in the past worked quite well, I would have preferred a real turn based game but I can't complain about the combat in any Infinity Engine.

3. construction of game.
In Fallout, you are free to find everything.
and that freedom means a lot.
there are a lot of ways to achieve goals in Fallout while in Torment, there aren't much way to achieve the goal.

You are free to find everything in Torment too, you find everything that the character you're "roleplaying" would be able to find. You seem to forget on several of your points that this is a story intensive roleplaying game. No character should be able to find and do everything possible in a RPG in just one playthrough, otherwise we get the horrors that are Skyrim and Fallout 4 in terms of RPG.
Also I have to say that I don't know what game you played but in Planescape Torment you can resolve stuff usually in different ways, that was one of the main points praised by critics back in the day.

4. side quests.
Since there isn't much interaction in games, quests are end up with doing combat or reading dialog.
and what you can do is doing simply delivery, fighting and talking. and even the talking isn't that complicated.
Finding good answer is too easy. why should I choose evil when good gives you more story and exp?
There aren't much choice either.

In a cRPG without skills how would you want quests to be? They can only be combat, dialog and you have a few fetch quests thrown into the mixture. What more quests would you have made?
Again you are forgetting that this game is a cRPG made for RPG players. You don't choose the good answer, you choose the answer that your character would choose. You choose evil because your character is evil, it's as simple as that.
In terms of Planescape Torment, choosing the evil option when you're roleplaying an evil character is the "good" answer. In this game the reward is not exp and more story, but the freedom to roleplay your character. Choosing the evil option is very rewarding in this game because it doesn't treat evil as a two dimensional side. That was again one of the things this game got praised for in the past, the rewarding experience of roleplaying an evil character like most cRPGs of it's time never did.

5. attribute.
Fallout also have the same problem, but PS: T did worse than that.
In Fallout, starting attribute determines the whole game play.
and in PS: T, only intelligence and wisdom determines the whole game play.
without increasing those two attribute, there isn't much choice: combat.

Again, this is all about roleplaying, if you make a character and invest your attribute points in anything besides intelligence and/or wisdom, then how will you resolve things by being an idiot that doesn't have a silver tongue? Violence is usually the option.
Again it is called roleplay, your character has it's attributes and you should play depending on it's strengths and limitations. That is also a very good thing in classic Fallout games. No character can do everything, you have to play with the character YOU choose to make.
Don't blame a cRPG for limiting what your options are depending on what your character is good or bad at... That is the golden rule and system of every RPG game (computer and otherwise) ever made.

6. nothing new
Many masterpiece RPGs have it's own good element.
For games like Fallout and Wasteland, using skill to solving problem is still great element.
Games like Arx Fatalis have good interactions and using them to solving problem is still fresh element for RPG.
In Arcanum, dialog is really good. you can distract assassins if you done good job on hiding yourself, can be polite to noble to earn thier trust or being rude or arrogant to earn credit from thugs, etc..

but In Torment, there aren't many things to learn.
even dialogs are, eh.. actually, it's good, and I like it.
but as a game, it's plain. dialog options are not that great.
finding the best solution is too easy.

Have you ever played any cRPG with better writing while complemented with such beautiful environment, more believable NPCs, more deep story? Because I haven't. Even the music is fantastic. The full package is just so great that the cons of the game are all small and easily forgiven compared to the whole.
Those things are what distinguish this game from all the rest.

7. having too many text doesn't mean it's good.
Text adventure game which I am playing now, Zork doesn't have that much dialog but still it's a great game. reading text and finding clue and answer is also a part of game.

but in Torment, most of dialogs are just story.
reading story isn't that bad, but it's nothing new nor innovative.
actually, that's what JRPG for.

You're really comparing Planescape Torment's writing with a jRPG writing?
Why would it be new? The game is 18 years old, a bit late to make new stuff compared with today. And back then it was pretty damn innovative, hell it still is.
I asked before if you ever played a cRPG with better writing and I ask again. I would also like to ask how that game's (if any) writing is better.

@woo1108 I would like to add something else to your list, namely alignment. In P:T you pretty much need to be lawful good to get the most rewards, followed by chotic evil (if i'm not mistaken). So a lawful good, intelligent and wise character is the best (get the best rewards, and get to use the best items). Neutral characters doesn't get anything.

Well, at least depending on what you do and behave in the game you alignment might change.
Also like I said up there in this post, this game is all about roleplaying. If you make an evil or neutral character you shouldn't care if it will get less rewards ingame, the roleplay is it's own reward, and the game does it quite well.


And to finish, I will just leave some review quotes from the gaming media from when the game was released and some a few years later (when the gaming media was serious and not the joke it is today):

The game's level of detail and its emotional impact have prompted some players to cast about for literary peers.

Planescape: Torment has quite possibly the best implementation of role-playing an evil character ever to appear in a computer or video game to date.

Black Isle Studios went way over the top for this one, crafting an utterly unique experience that has yet to be equaled by any RPG since.

Torment offers the best RPG gameplay anyone can find on store shelves, hands down.

Planescape: Torment proves that it is possible to make an inventive, fun and refreshing game in this "sea of clones". Creating a computer edition of Planescape system is another triumph for Black Isle Studios.

[Planescape Torment's] limits are elusive. [...] Even small choices have multiple and unpredictable results, leading players to incidents, to confrontations or to nothing much. The game resists resolution or even comprehension. A rambling text like Planescape Torment bounces when you try and nail it down, it resists totalisation. It has its moments of "rush" and of confrontation, but it wants to be savoured, wandered through, in the company of armed companions.

... we were swept away by Planescape: Torment. It wasn't the effective engine, demented characters, or lavish lands that won us. It was the rich storyline. This tale is more a reflection of your true self than any game ever made.

Allowed players to ... influence the plot to an unheard-of degree for 1999.

 

[woo1108]

Writings.. writings.. writings..
then developers should hire better writers from better genre than a game.
why should they hire game writers?

paradoxically, CRPG didn't start by RP.
is there any RP in Wizardry?
It was Fallout which tried RP in CRPG and I don't think it's that successful to be a model of RP but the game itself is good.
not many game tried real RP. the games that are success to try RP are Fallout 1,2, NV and Deus ex 2.
DE 1 is a fun game, but every element are broken including RP because there aren't much choice in plot.

In Torment. there aren't much real choice for the whole plot.
it is clear whom to meet and what to do.
Its writing is surely good, but it's not a good construction as a CRPG.

The quest doesn't mean small part of the stories.
it was about the whole plot of the game and real player part of the CRPG.
JRPG started by removing real game part:quest from CRPG.
and BG1 did the same thing with poor engine for CRPG: Infinity engine.
CRPG isn't only about combat, it's about solving huge plot itself or huge dungeon mystery.
while the plot itself is complicated in PS: T, the plot isn't the part of the game.
it's just separated part of the game. if you follow the quest "line" you will be rewarded with full of stories and writings.
and that is the construction of a JRPG.

 

[Gizmojunk]

... BG1 did the same thing with poor engine for CRPG: Infinity engine.

Why —specifically I mean?

There is a world of difference between an unsuitable engine, and unsuitable use.
(For instance: The engine used for FO3 is not unsuitable for RPGs... it's just unsuitably used.

 

[woo1108]

Because there aren't much interaction in this engine.
and while D&D is about turn-based combat, engine is for real-time.
I think interaction is the most important part of CRPG and huge difference between CRPG and JRPG.
so that is the reason why I think Infinity engine isn't suitable for CRPG nor D&D.

and for Fo3, actually, engine itself is really good.
I mean it has sneak, interaction and lots of stuffs that makes world alive.
but game design is terrible.

 

[Risewild]

Writings.. writings.. writings..
then developers should hire better writers from better genre than a game.
why should they hire game writers?

Are you saying that writing in a cRPG doesn't mean anything?

paradoxically, CRPG didn't start by RP.
is there any RP in Wizardry?
It was Fallout which tried RP in CRPG and I don't think it's that successful to be a model of RP but the game itself is good.
not many game tried real RP. the games that are success to try RP are Fallout 1,2, NV and Deus ex 2.
DE 1 is a fun game, but every element are broken including RP because there aren't much choice in plot.

I think you have no idea what roleplaying in roleplaying games actuall is.
Wizardry does have roleplaying in a RPG style, yes.
Roleplaying in RPGs is not about choice, that is one of the factors that enriches a roleplaying game. Roleplaying games is about your character using their flaws and strengths to overcome the obstacles that the game world throws at him/her. There are two types of roleplay, there is the one where the player can do it in his head (pretend to actually be the character and do and say what that character would do) and the character roleplay (where the character is suited to live and interact with the world he exists on) which is the roleplay of RPGs. Great RPGs allow for both types of roleplaying to exist at once, and Planescape Torment does that.
Here, have an old post I wrote quite a while ago where I explain how we can see what a RPG is (be analyzing what all the RPG genres have in common):

Where's the line between an RPG and an action game?

The line has always been there since the first roleplaying game and the first adventure game.
First roleplaying game was Dungeons and Dragons (Pen and Paper) and so we can see what a roleplaying game is by looking at how it worked.
Then we can see through history what other RPGs share in common with the first and we can define what a RPG is by seeing what all of those games share in common. And no, controlling a character, leveling said character up or do quests are not the only things that make a RPG. Pretty much 99% of games have you controlling a character in some way, today most games have some kind of leveling up and/or quests, but that does not make a RPG, those are elements that were first encountered in roleplaying games, but are not what made that genre being a specific genre.
We also need to deconstruct all of the RPG genres too, because RPG has subgenres:

• cRPG
• Action RPG
• Tactical RPG
• jRPG

Why are these genres also RPGs? Because all RPGs have the same base element:
-The character or characters you roleplay use their own skills, strengths, abilities, weaknesses, and faults to interact with anything in the world. A RPG uses the character to interact with the game world, not the player. That is the fundamental rule of what a RPG is. From P&P to cRPG, Action RPG, Tactical RPG, jRPG, etc, It is always what they all have in common.
Your character(s) have stats and values and those are used in everything (usually using some kind of "dice roll" or RNG), from hitting the enemies to convincing someone that a lie is truth, from unlocking a locked door to sneak past enemies, etc.

People say that what is important in a RPG is good choices and story, a good and reactive world, believable characters, good combat system, action, dialogue, and whatever else people prefer, but that is still not what a RPG is. That is all what makes a good RPG for each of us, not what makes a RPG.

For example World of Darkness RPG system didn't have character levels, characters do not level up. World of Darkness is a RPG and has one of my favorite RPG systems ever (it is the same used in Vampire the Masquerade cRPGs too). So leveling up is not what a RPG is.
For example people say that a RPG needs quests. But quests are just objectives, and pretty much most games have objectives in one way or another. Quests are not what makes a RPG.
Etc.

Those things are not what makes the RPG genre but what enriches it instead.

TL,DR:
What all RPG genres and games have in common since the first one was created is: It's the characters stats and values that are used to interact with everything in the game world, not the player skill.

Sorry for derailing the thread... But I still don't understand why people keep making it sound like it's hard to know what a RPG is when it's the same it always was in any platform (computer/video games and P&P) and in any subgenre (cRPG, Tactical RPG, jRPG, Action RPG, etc)... Character stats are used for everything in the game, the players only decide how the character act while the rest is out of their control.

Since Planescape Torment follows that essential line of using your character's strengths and flaws to interact with the world, it is a RPG.
Also it does a damn good job of allowing for the player to rolepay (like deciding what the character's personality is and how it acts, etc) because it gives us options and dialogues for the player to roleplay the kind of character they want to.

The quest doesn't mean small part of the stories.
it was about the whole plot of the game and real player part of the CRPG.
JRPG started by removing real game part:quest from CRPG.
and BG1 did the same thing with poor engine for CRPG: Infinity engine.
CRPG isn't only about combat, it's about solving huge plot itself or huge dungeon mystery.
while the plot itself is complicated in PS: T, the plot isn't the part of the game.
it's just separated part of the game. if you follow the quest "line" you will be rewarded with full of stories and writings.
and that is the construction of a JRPG.

You know, real RPGs do not even need quests, or exp or level up. Depending on the type of RPG system they use. As long as they use character's skill and abilities like I said before, they are genuine RPGs.
Again jRPGs have nothing in common with Planescape: Torment. What you wrote confused me because I can't really figure it out what you mean in it.
You know that in Planescape Torment you have almost no combat during the entire game if your character has the strengths to avoid combat and tries to do it? I don't understand where you came to the idea that this game is all about combat .

Because there aren't much interaction in this engine.
and while D&D is about turn-based combat, engine is for real-time.
I think interaction is the most important part of CRPG and huge difference between CRPG and JRPG.
so that is the reason why I think Infinity engine isn't suitable for CRPG nor D&D.

and for Fo3, actually, engine itself is really good.
I mean it has sneak, interaction and lots of stuffs that makes world alive.
but game design is terrible.

I don't understand what you keep saying about this engine doesn't have much interaction... Because the game has all the interaction it needs.
You then say that Fallout 3 game engine is really good because it has sneak (which Planescape Torment also has), interaction (still can't get what you mean by this) and lots of stuff that makes the world alive (which pretty much everyone here will tell you that the world in FO3 is not alive) which Planescape Torment does a much better job too.

Again, you're saying the game is not a worthy cRPG by personal preference and not by what a cRPG is.

 

[lazlolazlo]

Great RPGs allow for both types of roleplaying to exist at once, and Planescape Torment does that.

I agree with your post. However, the huge problem with Torment is that encounters and challenges is made through stats checks, mostly Int, Wis and some Charisma based. This design is limiting, and either cripple or boost your character based on which class you choose. A highly intelligent Mage is great, but a highly intelligent, very wise and charismatic fighter, that can't dodge shit, hit shit or take a blow is doomed to fail. So you either pick the mage that can solve any quests, and do his thing, while the average intelligent fighter can't do anything else then killing monsters. This is bad design, since some classes (which are the weaker classes) are more stat point dependent than others, while the mage can excel in his class, yet reap all the benefits. Its a game designed purely for an intelligent, wise and charismatic mage!

 

[woo1108]

Writing mean nothing if the game's construction is bad.
I don't play games for reading book, but for playing game.
even one of the oldest and greatest adventure game which is also an ancestor to RPG, Zork have less words and worse writing than PS: T but that means nothing.

Same logic is used in JRPG: good JRPG is chosen because it has a good story and writing.
game like The Legend Of Heroes Ⅲ: Prophecy Of The Moonlight Witch, has bad combat and linear story line, but this game treated as a one of best JRPG ever or something.

no combat? are you kidding me? after the cast there are tons of combat encounters and you have to fight in final stage alone with a strong but stupid enemy.
and avoiding combat just feel more like a glitch than proper game play. Yes, you can avoid certain combats by dialog, but most of combats can only be avoided by just running. and if you fail to increase intelligence or wisdom more than 21, you are failed to achieve non-combat solution.
there aren't much reason to increase intelligence or wisdom more than 18 if you don't choose the mage. and that means attributes are not working properly

While fo3's world looks dead not because of its engine, but because of lazy design, PS: T's world isn't alive because the engine have little function of living world or RPG. even the Morrowind has more items to use in quests, more things to read and more things to talk than PS: T. PS:T done good job on make game more interactive and feel alive with dialog. but dialog alone have it's own limit.

RP is about roleplaying. The game gives you a role and you have to follow that role to finish the plot.
In Fallout, you have chosen one from the vault or village. you have a goal to save your hometown and that is the plot you have to solve with your given role.
and the role is given by you, increased by you and used by you. and the plot itself is played by your action, not by given situation or story "line".
most of so called RP is just making player watch characters play, it's already given role.
and I think it's not an RPG, but it's just a game with RP show.

in PS: T, the Nameless one isn't about the player. he has his own history. what actually I can choose is increasing intelligence or wisdom.
Except, that is just wasting stat point for poor combat. and the plot itself is too linear. the game is about following given story in following order.
the game gives you find A, after finding A, you have to find B, then you have to find c..d..e... there is no freedom for this plot.
ah... yes, you can be cursed if you play bad guy, but what is the point?
in Arcanum, playing evil provides another plot than normal plot. but in PS: T, no.
what ever you do, the plot is fixed.

JRPG is the genre which is about reading story and combat.
and CRPG is the genre about adventuring dungeon or world for achieving goal and the process to achieving goal is the quest of a CRPG.

I'm not saying it's bad or not enjoyable but I think PS:T is not a good model for CRPG.
it's better CRPG than BG1 for sure but it's not great as older CRPGs.

 

[Risewild]

I agree with your post. However, the huge problem with Torment is that encounters and challenges is made through stats checks, mostly Int, Wis and some Charisma based. This design is limiting, and either cripple or boost your character based on which class you choose. A highly intelligent Mage is great, but a highly intelligent, very wise and charismatic fighter, that can't dodge shit, hit shit or take a blow is doomed to fail. So you either pick the mage that can solve any quests, and do his thing, while the average intelligent fighter can't do anything else then killing monsters. This is bad design, since some classes (which are the weaker classes) are more stat point dependent than others, while the mage can excel in his class, yet reap all the benefits. Its a game designed purely for an intelligent, wise and charismatic mage!

But that is what a cRPG is supposed to be. If you want to gimp your character then you can, if you want to play a more wise and smart character you can too, you can even have a wise and smart fighter if you want to.
I beat the game several times in the past (I should play it again since I haven't played it in many years now) and I never played as mage because I am not attracted by mages in games like this, I usually like rogues. I always managed to beat the game and I could even avoid combat many times too.
It is up to the player how he wants to play and what character he wants to play. The game makes it possible and if the player wants to play a character that will not have as many options or rewards he can. If you can do and receive everything with one character that is bad RPG there. What would be the point of playing a sneaky rogue if you get the same rewards and dialogues as a mage or a fighter?
If that was the case RPGs would get rid of skills and attributes and classes, the player would play with a character that could do everything, there is no point in giving it limits (which goes against what a RPG is).

Writing mean nothing if the game's construction is bad.
I don't play games for reading book, but for playing game.
even one of the oldest and greatest adventure game which is also an ancestor to RPG, Zork have less words and worse writing than PS: T but that means nothing.

See, personal preference. If you don't play a game for it's writing then you shouldn't play cRPGs and not specially old ones.
Also the game construction is not bad, it is awesome and that is why it is regarded as one of the jewels of cRPGs. Just because you prefer less text and a different type of game doesn't make this game a bad cRPG.

Same logic is used in JRPG: good JRPG is chosen because it has a good story and writing.
game like The Legend Of Heroes Ⅲ: Prophecy Of The Moonlight Witch, has bad combat and linear story line, but this game treated as a one of best JRPG ever or something.

I never even heard of that Legend of Heroes game before. I will give you an example of a good jRPG: Final Fantasy VI.
Why do I say FFVI? Because it's a great game in a complete package, it has nice story, great music, awesome mechanics, interesting character, etc.
A jRPG is not great because of just the story, it is great because of the full package just like any other game.

no combat? are you kidding me? after the cast there are tons of combat encounters and you have to fight in final stage alone with a strong but stupid enemy.
and avoiding combat just feel more like a glitch than proper game play. Yes, you can avoid certain combats by dialog, but most of combats can only be avoided by just running. and if you fail to increase intelligence or wisdom more than 21, you are failed to achieve non-combat solution.
there aren't much reason to increase intelligence or wisdom more than 18 if you don't choose the mage. and that means attributes are not working properly

Yes, it means attributes are working as they should. If you want to avoid hard combat you will have to have high attributes to avoid them.
Running from combat is also a good thing, if you are forced into combat you can run. What is wrong with running? If you don't choose a mage you will be a combat oriented class and will fight more, is that so wrong?
Even me as a rogue can fight and defeat the enemies, sometimes I don't want to spend time fighting so I run, it's the players choice.
Now having a rogue with low intelligence or wisdom should allow my character to say the right things to avoid all the combat? That is ridiculous. But if I want to avoid most of the combat I will increase my Wisdom to 21, it's my choice. Also the game is so flexible that it lets you change class during playing it. It's player's choice, it's good.

While fo3's world looks dead not because of its engine, but because of lazy design, PS: T's world isn't alive because the engine have little function of living world or RPG. even the Morrowind has more items to use in quests, more things to read and more things to talk than PS: T. PS:T done good job on make game more interactive and feel alive with dialog. but dialog alone have it's own limit.

So you're saying that a game world is only "alive" if the game engine allows you can use more items during quests? Which to be honest Morrowind only allowed a few quests that had quest items. You just said that this game has too much text and now you say Morrowind has more things to read and talk about? You are very inconsistent.
The dialogue and the world, those are both very good in Planescape. Way better than on Fallout 3 and even Morrowind (specially the dialogues, Morrowind doesn't even has dialogues in that sense, it has wiki topic links as I call them).
The world to feel alive it has to make sense and have believable NPCs, that is all. Planescape does that, Fallout 3 doesn't, Morrowind does in one sense and not much in the other.

RP is about roleplaying. The game gives you a role and you have to follow that role to finish the plot.
In Fallout, you have chosen one from the vault or village. you have a goal to save your hometown and that is the plot you have to solve with your given role.
and the role is given by you, increased by you and used by you. and the plot itself is played by your action, not by given situation or story "line".
most of so called RP is just making player watch characters play, it's already given role.
and I think it's not an RPG, but it's just a game with RP show.

I guess you didn't read my quote in my previous post where I show what is a real RPG. Planescape does not really give you a particular role and that is one of the things it is very good at, you are the Nameless One and that is all, during your actions and choices you define who the Nameless One is at the moment. The thing is, this character has done and seen almost everything in it's many lives but in this playthrough you define who he is by what you do and say. That is pure player roleplaying right there, you create your role while you play (remember that there are two types of roleplaying like i mentioned before, the player roleplay [deciding how the character acts and says] and the character roleplay [how the character interacts with the world using it's strengths and weaknesses]).

in PS: T, the Nameless one isn't about the player. he has his own history. what actually I can choose is increasing intelligence or wisdom.
Except, that is just wasting stat point for poor combat. and the plot itself is too linear. the game is about following given story in following order.
the game gives you find A, after finding A, you have to find B, then you have to find c..d..e... there is no freedom for this plot.
ah... yes, you can be cursed if you play bad guy, but what is the point?
in Arcanum, playing evil provides another plot than normal plot. but in PS: T, no.
what ever you do, the plot is fixed.

Read what I wrote just above.
No cRPG ever has a main quest/story that is not linear, you say that playing evil in Arcanum gives a different plot but what it does is offer a difference of three quests, where you do something to show how evil you are so you get the approval of the other evil one instead of talking to the good one, then another quest where it is a bit different and then at the end you still have to go to the ruins and find the device and go to the void and confront Arronax and then defeat Khergan. It is a different 3 steps of the main quest that lead exactly to the same ending.
In Planescape you have different things by being evil which is the actions you do and what you say, during the entire game, not just 3 steps of the main story. Also your objective being good, neutral or evil is always the same, finding out who you are and why you don't die, and you do that in different ways through the actions and dialogue.

JRPG is the genre which is about reading story and combat.
and CRPG is the genre about adventuring dungeon or world for achieving goal and the process to achieving goal is the quest of a CRPG.

You are totally wrong there mate. A cRPG doesn't even need quests or dungeons if it is made to be like that. Many Rogue-Like cRPGs have no story or quest at all, a few even go forever with random generated maps over and over. cRPGs are about having a character with strengths and weaknesses and using those in the world the character exists. I said that so many times already but you just ignore it. Please read the quote from my previous post, it explains very well what a RPG (and not only a cRPG, it even talks a tiny bit about jRPGs too) is.

Again, you're saying Planescape Torment is not a good cRPG because you don't like the game, mechanics, writing and engine. You're saying it is a bad cRPG by personal preference which is all good, everyone likes and hates different stuff. But it is not a bad cRPG at all, it is just not a cRPG for you.

 

[woo1108]

I think it is you who personally think PS: T is good CRPG.
to check whether PS: T is good or not, it is necessary to check each element.
games like Fallout have multiple solutions for many parts.
and older games like Wasteland also have multiple way to solve many problems.
and quest games like Ultima series have decent quests and systems


Writing? I think This is the personal preference. how can I or you judge writing is good or bad?
Seriously, I have no clue how to judge writings objectively or relatively.
for the quest, it's not that hard: is it have multiple solution?, is process to solving problem challenging? and do you have enough tools, information and problems?
PS: T 's quest is bad because it's too simple, crude and linear.
for dungeon.. eh.. I don't know much about dungeon, but I think PS: T's dungeon is worse than JRPG.
Yes, I'm serious. I see better dungeons from JRPGs.
so what makes PS: T great? quest? dungeon? combat?

and for the plot, if go A then B then C.. is good quest line why modern RPGs like Skyrim is bad?
I think PS: T's quest construction is nothing better than modern RPGs.

What about system? is a system of Torment good?
nope, system is as bad as combat.

and for roguelike genre, it's far different from CRPG.
They are roguelike, not CRPG.
I'm not saying CRPG is better thand roguelike, but I can say the goal and elements of both genre is very different.

And every CRPG has a linear quest line?
Seriously? than what is the difference between JRPG and CRPG?

And make this clear, I don't hate PS:T.
I actually enjoyed it and I think it's better than BG1.
but I can't think that PS:T is good model for CRPG.

 

[Risewild]

I think it is you who personally think PS: T is good CRPG.

Me and pretty much most of the entire gaming community (players, developers, critics, writers, journalists) for 18 years.

What about system? is a system of Torment good?
nope, system is as bad as combat.

Yes, Planescape's RPG system is a solid RPG system. The combat is clunky (which is one of the flaws in the game) but it is not awful either, it is enough for what it's supposed to do.
A game system is not only combat, there is a large number of things about it. Combat is like 1% of the entire of RPG systems. Unless it is a action RPG, then combat has a much higher value.

and for roguelike genre, it's far different from CRPG.
They are roguelike, not CRPG.
I'm not saying CRPG is better thand roguelike, but I can say the goal and elements of both genre is very different.

I think the problem is once again you have no idea what a cRPG is. You know that Rogue (the first roguelike of course) is a cRPG? It is a simple one but it is a cRPG, you control the character that has a few abilities and perform better in different areas (mostly combat though) depending on the value of those abilities. It was inspired by text based games mixed with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.
If you want a more modern one then look at Dungeons of Dredmore for example. They are Roguelike RPGs.

And every CRPG has a linear quest line?
Seriously? than what is the difference between JRPG and CRPG?

Gameplay is usually the big difference between the genres.
Usually and following the history of them, jRPG's usually have turn-based battle systems, using a menu to select attacks, skills, items, etc. Don't focus as much on character creation or stat attribution (and usually don't allow the player to choose where stats are attributed, it is made automatically on level up by the game). Skills are more combat oriented too (special attacks). They also have a preference for random battles. jRPGs usually have most of the lore of the game's world explained during the main quest.
While cRPG's are more about character development, customization and creation, more focus on the character's attributes, more skills that aren't only special attacks and usually have a richer lore to them and you usually learn it from sources external from the main quest (talking to NPCs, reading books, etc).
Of course there are now a tiny fraction of games from both genres that might have a mix of stuff from eachother.

I pretty much would be repeating myself over and over if I keep writing more posts (I already repeated myself a few times), so this is my last post on this subject. If you still don't understand what I meant than it is obvious you will never do.
It was nice having this discussion with you though so thanks for the opportunity.

 

[woo1108]

With your definition, both Ultima and Wizardry are also JRPG.
congratulations!
You defined that the real ancestors of CRPGs are not CRPGs.
and that is the reason why BG1 and PS: T should not be a model of the CRPG.

You'll never understand what is CRPG before you try more different kind of CRPG rather than Fallout and other infinity D&D crap.

Difference between JRPG and CRPG is actually ambiguous.
JRPG started from copying Ultima 1,2,3 and Wizardry.
And that is the reason why JRPG looks like CRPG.
but while copying CRPG, they remove non-linear quest and dungeon from CRPG.
and that is the reason why PS: T should not be a model of the CRPG.
it doesn't have a non-linear quest, nor decent dungeon which is the main part of the CRPG.
it only has combat and story and that is what JRPG for.

Rule doesn't mean nothing if the game itself is simple.
both fo3 and NV have actually same rule.
but NV surely is CRPG while fo3 is GTA crap.

TB is for JRPG? what about action RPGs?
even the Final Fantasy series are about half realtime and half TB just like BG and other infinity engine games. thats very funny.

and roguelikes are different genre with Wizardry, Utima and most of CRPGs.
CRPGs are focused on fixed stuffs: item location, enemy or enemy encounter location, NPCs, etc.
and roguelikes are about randomness. almost everything is random on roguelike.
So difference between CRPG and roguelike are actually very huge.

 

[burn]

and that is the reason why PS: T should not be a model of the CRPG.
it doesn't have a non-linear quest, nor decent dungeon which is the main part of the CRPG.

What kind of stupid argument is this? It doesn't have a decent dungeon, it's not a crpg... A crpg is literally an rpg that you play on a computer. An rpg can be based in any setting, it doesn't need no freaking dungeons.

 

[Black Angel]

For some reason there's this some kind of divide among the older, ancient fans of cRPGs (and RPGs in general), regarding the authenticity of the genre between the 80s RPGs (Wizardry, Ultima) and the 90s RPGs (Fallout, BG, PS:T). Having seen it happen more intensely right here, I've come to realize the same has been happening in the Codex for who knows how long.

and that is the reason why BG1 and PS: T should not be a model of the CRPG.

You'll never understand what is CRPG before you try more different kind of CRPG rather than Fallout and other infinity D&D crap.

Since I'm a newfag, so I don't know shit about Ultima and Wizardry, but ain't the roots of cRPGs were from Pen&Paper RPGs, mainly D&D? That they were trying to emulate P&P in computer gaming?

Anyway, deducing from your statement, I take it you'll be agreeing with a kind of new 'school of thoughts' that cRPGs should stop trying to emulate P&P and design better system for computers, no?

Difference between JRPG and CRPG is actually ambiguous.
JRPG started from copying Ultima 1,2,3 and Wizardry.
And that is the reason why JRPG looks like CRPG.
but while copying CRPG, they remove non-linear quest and dungeon from CRPG.

Err, I thought the differences is pretty clear? Most (Western) cRPGs I've played had put some emphasis on dialogue interactions, and lots, LOTS of Stats&Skill checks. Meanwhile, jRPGs I've played like Breath of Fire 2, Sword of Mana, Suikoden 5, Radiata Stories etc etc mostly put emphasis on adventuring, following linear story, and had much, much more focus on dungeons. So yeah, basically what you said, except they're not really copying cRPG and they still have dungeons, with the only thing they don't have are non-linear quests.

Rule doesn't mean nothing if the game itself is simple.

What the fuck does this even supposed to mean? What constitute a game as a 'game' is the rules and system. Without rules and system, games are not games. The game is simple IF the rules are simple, so it's more like "The game itself means nothing if the rule is simple" instead of the other way around.

both fo3 and NV have actually same rule.
but NV surely is CRPG while fo3 is GTA crap.

And PS:T is more cRPG than NV, that's for sure. The combat relies completely on the character's skills, instead of player's skills like in NV.

CRPGs are focused on fixed stuffs: item location, enemy or enemy encounter location, NPCs, etc.

And Fallout had that, too, no? Haven't tried BG games, but Fallout certainly had that. So why are you stating things like, "You'll never understand what is CRPG before you try more different kind of CRPG rather than Fallout and other infinity D&D crap."?

 

[Risewild]

With your definition, both Ultima and Wizardry are also JRPG.
congratulations!
You defined that the real ancestors of CRPGs are not CRPGs.
and that is the reason why BG1 and PS: T should not be a model of the CRPG.

You'll never understand what is CRPG before you try more different kind of CRPG rather than Fallout and other infinity D&D crap.

Difference between JRPG and CRPG is actually ambiguous.
JRPG started from copying Ultima 1,2,3 and Wizardry.
And that is the reason why JRPG looks like CRPG.
but while copying CRPG, they remove non-linear quest and dungeon from CRPG.
and that is the reason why PS: T should not be a model of the CRPG.
it doesn't have a non-linear quest, nor decent dungeon which is the main part of the CRPG.
it only has combat and story and that is what JRPG for.

Rule doesn't mean nothing if the game itself is simple.
both fo3 and NV have actually same rule.
but NV surely is CRPG while fo3 is GTA crap.

TB is for JRPG? what about action RPGs?
even the Final Fantasy series are about half realtime and half TB just like BG and other infinity engine games. thats very funny.

and roguelikes are different genre with Wizardry, Utima and most of CRPGs.
CRPGs are focused on fixed stuffs: item location, enemy or enemy encounter location, NPCs, etc.
and roguelikes are about randomness. almost everything is random on roguelike.
So difference between CRPG and roguelike are actually very huge.

I knew this was going to evolve into this kind of stubbornness and tried to end it before it reached it, but now it's too late...
How old are you? Why do you assume I don't play other RPGs?
I played as a player and as DM/GM/Storyteller Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Dungeons and Dragon 3 and 3.5 and 5, Pathfinder, Star Wars RPG and World of Darkness for around two decades, I created entire worlds and dimensions for my players to adventure, I created entire lore for those worlds and dimensions, I created modules and many other things during those twenty years. I also played tons of jRPGs, tons of cRPGs, tons of Action RPGs, tons of Tactical RPGs, tons of turn-based RPGs, tons of ATB RPGs, played all the RTS with RPG elements, played first person RPGs, played third person RPGs, played isometric RPGs, played them on consoles, on computer and many different handhelds, I make mods for RPG games and worked on two different RPG systems as a hobby.

I could give you a humongous list of all kinds of RPGs I played but that would just make this post too long. Just so you have an idea I played all the RPGs and RPG series (except for a few japanese ones that no one ever made a translation) made for Sega Mega Drive, NES, Super NES, GameBoy, GameBoy Color, Gameboy Advance, PSX, PS2, Dreamcast, Sega Saturn, Nintendo64, PSP (before Vita) and Nintendo DS (before 3DS). I played almost every RPG made for computers since they started being made till the late 90's (I am sure I missed a few during the years).
I self taught myself English so I could understand what the characters were saying while playing a platformer/adventure/RPG called Faxanadu and a exploration/adventure/RPG called Sid Meier's Pirates! when I was nine years old.
I live and breathe RPGs, mate.

You go around and misunderstand my words and I don't know if it is on purpose but you need to read and understand what I say. Here is a tip, just because you misunderstand/distort what people tell you, it won't make it real like magic, it only happens in your head.

I tried but what's the point in trying when the other side just shuts themselves in a cocoon and dismiss everything people say to them? Well, you won, you're right and the rest of the world is wrong .
You totally destroyed me and my arguments, have a nice day .

 

[Gizmojunk]

Writing mean nothing if the game's construction is bad.
I don't play games for reading book, but for playing game.

But not everyone shares that preference.

in PS: T, the Nameless one isn't about the player. he has his own history.

To be clear for all... Is it your opinion that this is a negative or a positive feature?

 

[valcik]

What say you NMA hive?

Gonna ignore it. Finished another run this year, put Qwinn's Fixpack + UB + Tweaks in vanilla, worked like a charm in 640x480px on my 19" screen.

 

[woo1108]

To be clear for all... Is it your opinion that this is a negative or a positive feature?

For PS:T, it's not a good thing. PS:T start with make player and the Nameless one on same state: don't know anything about world what have I done and etc..
First part of game, Hive is the best part of game and experience in there is about learning world. but after Hive, the game and story is about learning history of the Nameless one and there aren't much choice for player.

Spoiler

The only thing I can do is helping the Nameless one to abandon immortality rather than finding other way to solve his own sin.

. and that is the reason why I can't think PS:T is better RPG than Arcanum and Morrowind. both game have decent plot and it's plot of myself.

What kind of stupid argument is this? It doesn't have a decent dungeon, it's not a crpg... A crpg is literally an rpg that you play on a computer. An rpg can be based in any setting, it doesn't need no freaking dungeons.

It's not that simple problem. crpg means a genre that is moved to computer and developed from computer. now, platform doesn't matters but it's construction matters. many CRPGs and C--adventure games are also move to console. you can play NV with Playstation or Xbox but that doesn't mean NV is not CRPG.

How old are you? Why do you assume I don't play other RPGs?

Sorry for being rude for your experience.
but you also underestimate my experience.

and from what I see, even CRPGs are started from D&D or PnP, it's far from them.
rule is simplified and actually, the method to solving problem isn't that free compare to PnP.
but while D&D is about real time problem and solution making, CRPG is about how to solve given plots and situations with given tools.
that is the reason why CRPG was actually not about RP.
the types of CRPG that you defined is only for Fallout and Wasteland.
they tried to use PnP rules in CRPG and RP in CRPG.
but not all CRPGs are about that.

And even with your definition, PS:T is still broken game.
Balance between attributes are broken.
there aren't much situations that requires various attribute.
and for the lore, the game is mainly about the Nameless one's story not about Planescape itself. same thing happens on fo 3. the story is about you and your father and there aren't much option rather than speech check or combat.
of course PS:T's plot is far much better than fo3 but both have same problem.

What the fuck does this even supposed to mean? What constitute a game as a 'game' is the rules and system. Without rules and system, games are not games. The game is simple IF the rules are simple, so it's more like "The game itself means nothing if the rule is simple" instead of the other way around.

That means even with good rule, games can be bad. and even with bad rule and system, games can be good CRPG.
Think about Fallout, it's a rule, SPECIAL and skill system isn't perfect, there are lots of flaws, but that doesn't make Fallout a bad RPG. and even with D&D rule, the game can be bad.
even with JRPG-like rule, games can be decent CRPG.

 

[Gizmojunk]

For PS:T, it's not a good thing. PS:T start with make player and the Nameless one on same state: don't know anything about world what have I done and etc..
First part of game, Hive is the best part of game and experience in there is about learning world. but after Hive, the game and story is about learning history of the Nameless one and there aren't much choice for player.

Spoiler

The only thing I can do is helping the Nameless one to abandon immortality rather than finding other way to solve his own sin.

. and that is the reason why I can't think PS:T is better RPG than Arcanum and Morrowind. both game have decent plot and it's plot of myself.

I like this answer. [Again] I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do understand it. I get it that you [like me] want to be able to understand the character enough to know how they should react in a situation. Personally I usually find it difficult to endure [so called] RPGs, with blank-slate Player Characters; meaning a 'roleplaying' game with no role... just a skill-less adult (infant) PC with no past, no past acquaintances, and no apparent means of surviving to their present age.
PC's that just fell out of a hole in the sky, and started wandering around aimless; typically asking questions and murdering strangers.

Spoiler

But in my book, Planescape gets an epic pass... Though it shamelessly uses the amnesiac trope(s), it sets up an interesting 75+ level [cursed immortal] D&D character that honestly cannot remember his name, and doesn't know how he should act. This was someone that we might easily imagine as having had drinks with the Lady of Pain ~but probably doesn't remember it.

It's a bit 'Meta' —as the term is now often used... but the game does allow the player to start him anew, and begin to unRavel his history. Eventually realizing how his current incarnation decides to live and behave.

By contrast, the Witcher 2 does not get the same pass for trying to do the same thing with Geralt.

I think we differ in the preference and opinion that an RPG needs choice and [perhaps demands] player agency. I see these aspects as positive, and welcome to have in an RPG, but not as defining characteristics of being an RPG. Oblivion could have qualified as an RPG if the prisoner was never able to leave their cell. IMO Oblivion failed as an RPG, because it opened the cell to a world of possibilities that ultimately didn't matter a damn thing, regardless of what actions the player chose.

In any case, we don't agree about the engines being unsuitable. I think that you see the usage of the engine as less than you'd like. Myself I see that a lot, in many titles... but I think that it's rarely fault of the engine design itself... rather it's the way the developers chose to use it that creates the disappointment of [lamented] lost potential.

I would say that even the ZORK engine could be used suitably for an RPG; if given to creative individuals that could spin a good tale, and devise appropriate (if perhaps unconventional) use of the engine's commands.

I don't play games for reading book, but for playing game.

I have actually read books [short novels] that were games, and even involved dice to determine certain outcomes. The protagonist in the [paper printed] book had hitpoints and could die mid-story. I enjoyed the books, just as I enjoyed Planescape:Torment.