Editorial Planescape: Torment - Retrospective

[Clockwork Knight]

Maybe write a mini article about what you found interesting in more "gamist" rpgs? You know, raise awareness to your "side"?

As a matter of fact, by trolling these kinds of threads for the past couple of years I *did* raise immense awareness to my side. 3 years ago, a codexer who voiced that there were RPGs predating Fallout would be hunted down and killed. Now, the likes of Dicksmoker are crying that the Codex is overrun by "mondblutians" and nobody likes visual novels anymore. Victory at sea!

Just as planned.

 

[FeelTheRads]

I'm not sure his view is so narrow, except on adventure games for which I will hate him forever and ever. Mostly it looks like he hates how dungeon crawlers aren't considered RPGs by many fucktards around here because they have no "meaningful C&C" and that's perfectly understandable.

Also what "awareness" should he raise? Awareness that C&C is not needed for an RPG? You'd have to be pretty dumb to have to be made aware of that.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Awareness of dunjan crawlan > story developan, I think.

 

[Fomorian]

I'm not sure his view is so narrow, except on adventure games for which I will hate him forever and ever. Mostly it looks like he hates how dungeon crawlers aren't considered RPGs by many fucktards around here because they have no "meaningful C&C" and that's perfectly understandable.

Also what "awareness" should he raise? Awareness that C&C is not needed for an RPG? You'd have to be pretty dumb to have to be made aware of that.

I thought for a while that was considered the key element of an RPG around the Codex since it allowed you to define your character or some such nonsense.

Could just be talking out of my ass though.

 

[Sceptic]

I'm not sure his view is so narrow, except on adventure games for which I will hate him forever and ever. Mostly it looks like he hates how dungeon crawlers aren't considered RPGs by many fucktards around here because they have no "meaningful C&C" and that's perfectly understandable.

I agree with this. However I feel mondblut torpedoes his own position when he dismisses anything that isn't a dungeon crawler as "not an RPG and therefore shit". In this respect he's no better than Dicksmoker narrowing down RPGs exclusively to C&C. I agree with mondblut that C&C has nothing to do with it (and incidentally I think his taste in dungeon crawlers is excellent).

True that. You can call it an adventure game (with skills, classes and combat)

You do realize that all non-H&S RPGs (and even some of these) fall exactly under this definition, right?

 

[Phelot]

I'm not sure his view is so narrow, except on adventure games for which I will hate him forever and ever. Mostly it looks like he hates how dungeon crawlers aren't considered RPGs by many fucktards around here because they have no "meaningful C&C" and that's perfectly understandable.

I agree with this. However I feel mondblut torpedoes his own position when he dismisses anything that isn't a dungeon crawler as "not an RPG and therefore shit". In this respect he's no better than Dicksmoker narrowing down RPGs exclusively to C&C. I agree with mondblut that C&C has nothing to do with it (and incidentally I think his taste in dungeon crawlers is excellent).

Indeed, this reminds me of the ridiculous "What is punk?" arguments I used to hear about during the 90's on the internet were everyone has an opinion on what is and what isn't "punk."

In the end, it's a junk term, or at least it became so, just like "What is an RPG?" is now bullshit. The term has run its course so now if Bioware wants to call ME2 an RPG, then fuck it I say let them and let people determine if it's bullshit or not on their own.

But so many people want "RPG" to mean whatever their narrow opinion of it is.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Eh, I think it comes out in conversation when people say "What type of games do you like?"

"I like RPGs."

"Oh really? Me too! What do you think of ME2?"

 

[Phelot]

"What can change the nature of a man?"

 

[Alex]

Maybe awareness was a bad choice of word, sorry. What I was trying to say is that Mondblut knows a lot about these "dungeon crawlers". I think there is a lot to be discussed of their design and their strengths. In the past, it was common in the Codex to find threads discussing the design of games like fallout or PS:T.

Why not do the same with Wizardry and Dungeon Master? I am sure there is a lot of interesting design ideas in these games that we don't even realize yet. I think this would be far better at banishing preconceptions of people than trolling, and would be an interesting and useful topic to boot.

Phelot, Sceptic, Azrael, I am pretty sure we had a semantics argument about rpg not too long ago, but if you do not mind me repeating myself, I still think there is an underlying issue to this argument that merits discussion.

Sure, semantic arguments are useless in themselves, but I think there is something important about this hazy group we call rpgs. I think that the most defining characteristic about rpgs is "rpgs are games about choosing a role", that is, the gameplay of the game is about what choosing a role and making decisions based on that. There are different kinds of roles that create different kinds of games however. Like, in planescape, it is all about choosing your role in the story's drama, whereas Wizardry is about choosing the tactical roles of the members of your party.

These different types of roles then create different kinds of "narratives". For example, in Wizardry, it isn't so much about making tactical decisions. There is that too, but merely having some interesting tactical decisions doesn't make, for example, Panzer General an rpg. The important difference is that, in Wizardry, there is a kind of narrative, you know, the same stuff that MCA interview was talking about in emergent narratives? It isn't simply about maximizing your strategy in an abstract game, but seeing the kind of role you choose for your party members yield different imaginary scenarios.

And this is where I think this gets interesting, since rpgs are all about choosing some kind of role and seeing the effects it yield, I think there is a lot that rpgs that seem wildly different may learn with each other. For example, some people might mention as a dream rpg one that combined the story of planescape and the character and combat system of Wizardry 7. At first it may look pretty cool, but these are games that are very different. Since they have little in common, it probably would be conceptually the same as playing a little of wizardry and a little of planescape.

But if we understand that narrative is the thing that both have in common, we can actually make the roles in both games interact with each other. Make the skill and class decisions you made for your characters matter in the "story of the game". Make the story decisions you make matter in combat and in tactical decisions.

I think there is a lot that could be tried in that vein, a lot of different types of games we don't even know yet that could come from this. Which is why I think this kind of partisan argument to be silly. I think there are many kinds of possible rpgs that we haven't even begun to imagine yet and restricting our view to a small section of the rpgs that have been created, I think, doesn't help us any to get there.

 

[mondblut]

Mostly it looks like he hates how dungeon crawlers aren't considered RPGs by many fucktards around here because they have no "meaningful C&C" and that's perfectly understandable.

Not really. Someone who would claim Wizardry or goldbox series or KOTC "aren't RPGs" clearly has "RETARD" written over his brow in huge neon letters, and I would be silly to waste my precious hatred on retards.

What I do hate, is when games that belong to action/FPS/adventure/whatever alien genres are championed as staple RPGs due to having a bunch of fucking dialogue trees or some other equally irrelevant fluff. Particularly since the mainstream industry had realized that the daddy-tell-me-a-fairytale is much more casual and retard-friendly gaming activity than the proper RPG gameplay (hell, it is more casual and retard-friendly than ANY kind of gameplay, up to and including rotating falling tetraminoes or alternating between "accelerate" and "brake" buttons) and the "RPG=talkie-talkie" mindset helps them to market any kind of filthy vomit, from abysmal RPG hacks like NWN or KOTOR or DA to outright fucking homoshooters like VTMB or ME or AP as "awsum RPGs" for the great unwashed.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

outright fucking homoshooters like VTMB

...it's...rippling?

 

[Alex]

"Sigh"...

 

[Melcar]

 

[Xor]

Eh, I think it comes out in conversation when people say "What type of games do you like?"

"I like RPGs."

"Oh really? Me too! What do you think of ME2?"

"I fucking hate Oblivion. Don't talk to me about it."

"Oh, well, I can understand that you don't like RPGs."

 

[Gragt]

"What can change the nature of a man?"

Hahaha!

 

[Some Moron On Welfare]

Planescape Torment is the best RPG ever made because it's all text, not dummed down gamey bullshit for mouth breathers.

 

[Kosmonaut]

'Sup Drog.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Wrong one.

Anyway, I do agree with you Mondblut. RPGs have been linked with dialogue and story heavy, which I think is a shame. I personally have no problem with hybrid games in theory, and hell, a couple of my favorite games are hybrids, but two problems come with that.

a) What makes these games hybrids? Are Deus Ex and VtM hybrids because of their story driven nature and the way dialogue is handled? I would say no. But rather they are hybrids, or action RPGs or Shooter RPGs or whatever because they attempt to incorporate a more in depth than normal, or RPGish, if you will, skill system into the game. The dialogue and all that is great, but ultimately unnecessary in defining it's RPGness.

b) Since hybrids make the game more marketable to those that don't like RPG, it's naturally increasing the fan base for hybrids, which isn't in itself a problem, but I think it's also siphoning off interest from full blooded RPGs. An RPG fan will at least consider, in many cases, in giving Deus Ex 3 or Alpha Popamole a shot, while you'd be more hard pressed in getting an FPS fan to take a shot at a full blooded RPG. It hurts the RPG market as a whole, which in turn hurts RPG fans. It seems like classic Turn-based strategic gameplay is going to be forever relegated to JRPGs (blech) and indie developers. I mean, if the indie games take off, then there is a chance for a resurgence, but cRPGs are never going to bring in the millions in sales that most gaming companies expect out of their franchises nowadays.

Basically, popamole is here to stay.

 

[mondblut]

b) Since hybrids make the game more marketable to those that don't like RPG, it's naturally increasing the fan base for hybrids, which isn't in itself a problem, but I think it's also siphoning off interest from full blooded RPGs. An RPG fan will at least consider, in many cases, in giving Deus Ex 3 or Alpha Popamole a shot

And that's where the problem lies, I believe. Take wargamers - they wouldn't accept compromises like RTS or some other retard-friendly shit pushed down their throats in mid-90s, so the mainstream realized this niche isn't going to be swindled into buying their crap and wrote them off entirely. Outcome: a thriving indie community that fends for itself and enjoys dozens of quality releases per year, completely with their own publishers and distribution channels. Same with roguelike and IF enthusiasts circa 1990. Same slowly brews with adventure games these years.

The problem with "RPG community" is that it's too blurred, too amorphous and can't for the life of it decide clearly what is the kind of game they want to play. Worse yet, even the supposedly most "prestigious" and hardcore groups are drooling in anticipation of whatever next release bethesda, bioware or obsidian are promising, despite being fully aware it's going to barely qualify as RPG. We have had our chance to have our own underground scene like wargamers, it was developing nicely in around 1993-96, then BIS and Bioware and Troika brought the so-called "resurrection" (moar liek coup-de-grace) to the genre, and from then on, no two people can agree on what's an RPG they so want to play.

We need brutal cleansing of our ranks. Killing everyone who doesn't have a clear vision of the genre would be a good start. When there would be no RPGs produced by mainstream companies any longer, THEN we can build our genre back.

 

[Azrael the cat]

True that. You can call it an adventure game (with skills, classes and combat)

You do realize that all non-H&S RPGs (and even some of these) fall exactly under this definition, right?

Yes. Genres, to my view, are things that marketers use to sell games, and the insistence on the illusion of distinct genres is part of why game design has become less imaginative. There is a large overlap between adventure games and crpgs.

The point of my post, if you read on, is that different games can be good for different reasons, and it's silly to say 'but this doesn't mean the definition of a crpg therefore it's shit.'

What's more, I wasn't saying that PS:T is an adventure game. I'd probably call it a crpg with strong adventure game elements. I was responding to the earlier post that accused it of being an interactive novel. My point was that it is NOT an interactive novel, because it tells the story and creates the world in a way that no book or film can. I was saying that if you are going to make that kind of comparison, adventure games are a better analogue as, like PS:T, their story-telling is part of the gameplay.

 

[Alex]

Is this why you are always so eager to troll this kind of thread? You actually think that if your own vision of what rpg games should was important enough, publishers would go back to financing them?

Mondblut, I don't really think there is any hope for the current publisher model. As long money decides what kind of games gets made, it will always be in direct conflict with what is best for the game. And in something a long and complex as any decent sized game, this kind of conflict will lead to disfigurement even if creative vision comes on top.

I think the only rope for the genre rests with indie games, but even that is not enough. Making a game, even one with bad graphics and little sound still takes too long. We need better tools to make games, as the ones we have now are too primary. Once we have better tools, once creating a new rpg isn't matter of years, but months, then we will see people create games the same way people make short stories and books.

 

[Azrael the cat]

b) Since hybrids make the game more marketable to those that don't like RPG, it's naturally increasing the fan base for hybrids, which isn't in itself a problem, but I think it's also siphoning off interest from full blooded RPGs. An RPG fan will at least consider, in many cases, in giving Deus Ex 3 or Alpha Popamole a shot

And that's where the problem lies, I believe. Take wargamers - they wouldn't accept compromises like RTS or some other retard-friendly shit pushed down their throats in mid-90s, so the mainstream realized this niche isn't going to be swindled into buying their crap and wrote them off entirely. Outcome: a thriving indie community that fends for itself and enjoys dozens of quality releases per year, completely with their own publishers and distribution channels. Same with roguelike and IF enthusiasts circa 1990. Same slowly brews with adventure games these years.

The problem with "RPG community" is that it's too blurred, too amorphous and can't for the life of it decide clearly what is the kind of game they want to play. Worse yet, even the supposedly most "prestigious" and hardcore groups are drooling in anticipation of whatever next release bethesda, bioware or obsidian are promising, despite being fully aware it's going to barely qualify as RPG. We have had our chance to have our own underground scene like wargamers, it was developing nicely in around 1993-96, then BIS and Bioware and Troika brought the so-called "resurrection" (moar liek coup-de-grace) to the genre, and from then on, no two people can agree on what's an RPG they so want to play.

We need brutal cleansing of our ranks. Killing everyone who doesn't have a clear vision of the genre would be a good start. When there would be no RPGs produced by mainstream companies any longer, THEN we can build our genre back.

It's not just that Mondblut. Crpgs are much much more difficult to do well than war-gaming - in no small part due to the difficult of designing multiple solutions and decent writing. There's quite a few indie crpgs around - how are they working out for most folk here, do you think? Personally, I fucking love spiderweb software's games - I'd say the Geneforge series probabliy has 3 of my favourite 10-15 crpgs of all time, and the Avernum series and the Romans v barbiarians scenario is no slouch either. But most folks here refuse to pick it up due to the awful graphics.

And how many folk here are raving about Eschalon Books 1 and 2? Even though it's turnbased and theoretically the kind of oldschool game they're after. Having the right ideas isn't enough to make a good game.

The easiest ones to make are the pure dungeon crawlers. Now I've got a soft spot for Devil Whiskey, having started my gaming with Wizardry 1, but I don't exactly hear folk here raving about how great it is. And there's been a few other attempts at that style of game that the Codex has laughed at. Again, it seems like even a pure dungeon crawler is a little bit beyond the ability of indies to do well.

Will AoD be any better? Track record for indies says no, VD and quite a few here say yes. But look how long it takes for an indie to even ATTEMPT to produce a quality crpg. And we don't even know yet whether it will be any good.

Do you really think indies like that can carry the market? Taking 3-4 years per game, sitting on about 0 wins 15 losses so far in terms of indies that the Codex has loved. Maybe 1 win if we include Prelude to Darkness - I could never get that working, and it seems that I'm not alone in that. I don't remember many people listing it in their favourite crpgs of the 2000s when we did that poll.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Planescape Torment is the best RPG ever made because it's all text, not dummed down gamey bullshit for mouth breathers.

Is the location reference to 'mom's basement' a euphamism? I just can't help but put together the mental images of 'drog's mother' and 'downstairs'...

 

[mondblut]

Is this why you are always so eager to troll this kind of thread? You actually think that if your own vision of what rpg games should was important enough, publishers would go back to financing them?

Au contraire. I actually think that if my own vision of what rpg games should be was important enough, the rpg fans would boycott watered-down shit en masse, eventually making publishers write them off and forget about the genre altogether as a no-profit sinkhole. *Then*, out of desperation, an indie scene of our own would be reborn, which is much less likely to happen as long as mainstream keeps throwing us rotting scraps as we greedily devour it and beg for more. I want the genre to be forever gone from mass market.

I think the only rope for the genre rests with indie games, but even that is not enough. Making a game, even one with bad graphics and little sound still takes too long. We need better tools to make games, as the ones we have now are too primary. Once we have better tools, once creating a new rpg isn't matter of years, but months, then we will see people create games the same way people make short stories and books.

You can only do so much with a prepackaged toolset. From Bard's Tale Construction Set all the way to NWN2, you can only regurgitate the experience of the original, or intentionally combat it at every step and still come out soundly beaten.

 

[mondblut]

It's not just that Mondblut. Crpgs are much much more difficult to do well than war-gaming - in no small part due to the difficult of designing multiple solutions and decent writing.

And who's to blame an indie RPG nowadays is expected to waste shitload of resources on "decent writing"? That wasn't a problem in the days of Aethra, Nahlakh and Yendorian Tales.

There's quite a few indie crpgs around - how are they working out for most folk here, do you think? Personally, I fucking love spiderweb software's games - I'd say the Geneforge series probabliy has 3 of my favourite 10-15 crpgs of all time, and the Avernum series and the Romans v barbiarians scenario is no slouch either. But most folks here refuse to pick it up due to the awful graphics.

Curiously, half of those folks would take Exile over Avernum. Maybe the problem isn't with lo-fi graphics per se but with trying to jump over one's head with them?

The easiest ones to make are the pure dungeon crawlers. Now I've got a soft spot for Devil Whiskey, having started my gaming with Wizardry 1, but I don't exactly hear folk here raving about how great it is. And there's been a few other attempts at that style of game that the Codex has laughed at. Again, it seems like even a pure dungeon crawler is a little bit beyond the ability of indies to do well.

You conveniently forget about Knights of the Chalice and Tom Proudfoot's games. And, well, if Grimoire would be released anytime it was about to be (be it in 1998 or 2005), it would leave its mark as well. Not to mention all the good indies from pre-Fallout era. Devil Whiskey is poor because it's a Bard's Tale clone, and Bard's Tale was poor back in 1985. A Devil Whiskey quality clone of late Wizardry or M&M3-5 would be a blast.

Do you really think indies like that can carry the market? Taking 3-4 years per game, sitting on about 0 wins 15 losses so far in terms of indies that the Codex has loved.

Codex loves VTMB and Twitcher instead of RPGs. *That's* what should be addressed first.