I don't think Planescape: Torment and Skyrim are any way comparable.
Pardon me if that's not what you meant, but I get that since you said things like this:
Eh, I was actually least impressed with Planescape: Torment's ending out of the entirety of the game. The game had a lot of wonderfully crazy bits like giving Morte to be buffed by the Prostitute, the Brothel of Intellectual Delights, the discovery your ghostly girlfriend was actually just a sucker to your manipulation, and the entirety of your conversations with Ravel Puzzleweaver in all of her guises.
.....
You'd probably do better to compare it to Skyrim's actual "emotional" moments.
Yeah, Planescape: Torment is better but I think the game's writing is better than many give it credit for.
and this:
I really felt the characters, their motivations, and their troubles. I think a lot of the characters had very coherent arcs and the story enriched their personalities while their personalities weren't wholly reliant on stories. I really was interested in the character of Ulfric Stormcloak and his character from his past to his death with all the contradictions thereof.
As if you felt all of those things in Skyrim, but none for PS:T.
I mean, sure, if you preferred the way Skyrim did it despite of obviously inferior narrative designs and messed up voice-acting, okay. But what you wrote above, gave an impression that, to YOU, Skyrim's was comparable to that of PS:T's.
Oh no, I think only a few of the Skyrim characters were acted well. They had a bunch of repeating actresses and actors to populate the vast map. That's got to be wearing on even the best soul. Annah, Falls from Grace, Morte, and I'm totally blanking on the Githzerai (I could look it up but this is how much I remember even years later) were all extremely well-written despite not really being "acted."
But the characters of PS:T was really being acted upon. Even if only some bits and pieces were actually voice-acted, with what little they did the voice-actors/actresses really DID acted like the characters written to the letter.
Why not try to boot up PS:T, play the first bit and listen to Morte, and then you try to boot up Skyrim and listen to
Jarl Balgruuf Vilkas Ralof speaks during the intro sequence?
I hope this is clarifying as I think we've both misunderstood each other at times. But yes, in Skyrim, I think the holds may not be accurate but are nice little villages with a lot of personality that conveys the size and feel of the holds despite being inaccurate and I prefer them to Novigrad.
Holds =/= little villages. And personality? What?
I also felt the Witcher had serious travel time issues for the sake of being big.
I take it you also think New Vegas were empty and boring to explore on foot because it's mostly empty desert?
I have no problem with Planescape Torment, just problems with its ENDING.
Except, the game had multiple ENDINGS. Like I said, you CAN'T get ALL of the content in one playthrough. You had to replay the game and explore other branch of possibilities. Sure, maybe you're talking about just that ONE ending but having the problem with it simply because you 'dislike' it? What did you think would be better for that ONE ending, then?
Otherwise, it has a far far worse ending than PS:T which isn't AWFUL by any means, just not to my taste. It's actually quite moving and one of the better examples of it even if I don't like it in general.
>Fawkes shows us he can soak up radiation just fine
>"
I’m sorry, my companion, but no. We all have our own destinies, and yours culminates here. I would not rob you of that."
>'Moving'
And no, the value of that part doesn't get any better with Broken Steel. If an extra money is needed to elevate the value of the game, that still means the game is not as good as you thought.
Oh, I love PS:T and think it's much better written than Skyrim but I enjoyed Skyrim much much more.
But if you enjoy Skyrim in an aspect where it's bad, and didn't enjoy PS:T in that same aspect where it's good....
Skyrim felt like a world which existed beyond the purposes of being there for your amusement and I loved it for it.
Except, there's NOTHING beyond what you can see. Like Crni said, "As wide as the ocean, but as deep as a puddle". At the very OP of this thread, you're practically making things up.
Okay sure but I think Ulfric's story is every bit as deep as Deionarra's. After all she's ONLY a ghost manipulated by Practical. Which isn't an insult, it's me saying I am confused why you think one is deep and one isn't. But, yeah, I understand we disagree on this.
Umm....what? How could Ulfric's story as deep as Deionarra's? Is he manipulated like Deionarra's? Is he betrayed by the one he loved?
There are reasons why PS:T is deeper. Among those reasons, is the fact that nearly everything written in the game was the reverse of everything you can find on other games. For example, Fall-From-Grace is succubus(!) who controlled and restrained the very basic instinct of her race (!) in herself.
But our arguments seem to be, "Skyrim has a lot of depth and intersting story." *invent and raised points where none exist, pretending stuff to be what it's not*
"Not, it's not, it is a shallow game with no depth." *proceed to points out all of those points were false and not the way you thought it was*
"It's STILL a lot of depth and intersting story." *insist on those false points*
"No it's not." *raised different points*
"Yes, it really is." *still pretending there are points where none exist*
Ftfy.
I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure how we could measure it.
Meh. You just haven't experienced True Beauty™.
But hey, like I mentioned above, when you dislike something you wouldn't even bother, and when you like something you tried to raise points where none exist and pretend it's something that it's not.
