Talk:Planescape: Torment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Lame extlinks

That the game rocks does not mean that a dozen websites about it need to be added as extlinks, especially when they have lame advertising text next to them. Chris Cunningham 10:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The related Planescape page has many more links than this, so that may be a good reason for you to attack it, too.
I can't do everything at once. I'll have a shot at reducing the links in there later if you'd like. Chris Cunningham 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic. You should NOT touch the Planescape page. --Jesse Mulkey 14:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
As was I. Someone braver than me will have to fade through that particular swamp, much of which should be shifted to the sub-pages. Chris Cunningham 14:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
These are not "lame" (which is most certainly NOT N.P.O.V., I might add)
It doesn't need to be NPOV, it's not in the article. The content might not be lame, but sticking it in Wikipedia is: WP is _not a link repository_ and links to resource sites don't make articles any more encyclopedic. Chris Cunningham 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The list of sites presented is merely the smallest fraction of sites existing, and are considered the "cream of the crop." --Jesse Mulkey 14:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of them are merely less famous, but are useful resources nontheless. I removed the "advertising" you percieved, though. --Jesse Mulkey 13:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
There are over ten extlinks on this article now. They can't all be uniquely useful. Please try to cut some of them out. The Underdogs and mobygames links are especially worthless, and I suspect the one which used to have "gave it 9 out of 10" is too. Chris Cunningham 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The list of sites presented is merely the smallest fraction of sites existing, and are considered the "cream of the crop." --Jesse Mulkey 14:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're not willing to do it, I will. Wikipedia is not a link repository, this article is not a portal and game review sites are not suitable further reading to be linked to from an encyclopaedia. Chris Cunningham 14:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm not averse to these links pointing to more fitting sources, but I am averse to random websites being tacked on. External links should be *rare* on Wikipedia, and I'm unhappy with fan portals being linked anyway, but so long as the list remains concise it's not that important. Chris Cunningham 14:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so people can still find these sites, I will put the link information here. --Jesse Mulkey 18:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as you keep sticking it back in the article, it doesn't need to be in here. Doesn't need to be in the article either, but I'm not yet irritated enough to seek arbitratrion. Please justify individual parts of this before continuing to throw it all back in. None of it is at all useful to the article. Chris Cunningham 16:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It us against wikipedia's rules to remove information from a talk page (incidentally, you yourself have violated those rules by removing text made by others from your own talk page early in its development, as evidenced by the page history). But seeing as you just can't accept having at least one external link on the page, I have placed an list of PS:T links at my user subpage, and I would kindly ask you not to delete them either. The thing is, when one removes a large number of external links from an article, one should place them on the talk page along with individuals reasons for their removal, and you have done neither or allowed others to do so. That is not an acceptable option. --Zenosaga 16:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Spam your own user pages as you see fit; it'd be nice to see something up there which isn't copyvio, even if you're still violating WP:EL. Removed content only needs to be debated in such a manner if it isn't obviously breaking community consensus, i.e. policy. Chris Cunningham 12:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stealth links

I've removed the commented-out list of extra resources. Comments are not for policy violations which editors want to sneak into articles. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/When_should_I_link_externally for recommendations on when and what to link, which says that one or two reviews might be a good idea. Five glowing ones isn't. Chris Cunningham 10:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And again I've removed them from the talk page. This is the most immature agenda-pushing I've seen in some time, and if it didn't before it certainly qualifies as "lame" now. Chris Cunningham 09:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

These are the links which the evil Chris Cunningham/Thumperward has removed from the article because he has no idea of their significance to the fanbase because he's never played the game. Everything was better before he came along and ruined it all. --Jesse Mulkey 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed them again. My net access is sadly too sporadic to have something down about this permanently. Chris Cunningham 15:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I see you've taken to trying to revert every change I've made to the article. Why you believe that such petty, immature vandalism is likely to swing consensus in your favour is beyond me. Chris Cunningham 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anyone agreeing with you, now do I? Unless you can get a lot more people to agree with you, you are out of luck. And why did you remove the more specific information, anyway, like the names of authors? --Jesse Mulkey 19:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I dare say that our respective editing histories speak for themselves. I will continue to revert POV fanboy additions to this article. Unofficial novelisations do not require anything more than a brief mention, authors do not need to be linked unless they are actually important (if you want to mention them, add them to a proper reference), and the vast list of fan resources is unencyclopedic. Chris Cunningham 10:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added a proper book cite tag for the official novelisation. Thanks for pointing this out. Chris Cunningham 11:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on board. I'd still rather limit the extlinks to a maximum of three or four resource / review sites maximum, as stated here. The other information isn't bad and should be integrated where possible, but there's no need to put a positive spin on it (people will visit linked reviews and find out what the reviewers thought themselves). Chris Cunningham 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future work

Aside from the fanboy spamming, this article is pretty nice now. We need better cites on the web references, and the end could still do with being tidied (I'm not sure if all those translation refs are okay, or even legal) but I don't see room for massive improvement. (useful) Comments? Chris Cunningham 16:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The CVG people have suggested that a Gameplay section be added. Chris Cunningham 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a different for the description of the plot, and that the Gameplay section will only include things like character-control, graphics, etc.. Also, doesn't revealing the Nameless One's immortality count as a spoiler? I'm gonna make a few changes in the "spoiler-free" plot summary under Synopsis. Tamuz (Talk) 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It says he's immortal on the box. If it doesn't, you get a full run-down roughly three minutes into the game. I'm putting that back in. Chris Cunningham 17:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite sure the box doesn't say that, but on second thought, you're right... Although you won't learn right at the beginning if you don't talk to Dhall or Dionarra, any gamer who would buy such a game is probably the kind of gamer that talks to all NPCs is the game ;-) Tamuz (Talk) 19:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, even though the quality of the dialogue is unquestionable, isn't the sentence "...noteable for the quantity (and quality) of textual dialogue..." (Literary aspects) a bit POV? (Yes, that sentence was intentionally oxymoronic.) Tamuz (Talk) 15:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it just needs referenced. I'm sure the article on Shakespeare makes some reference to his being a bit good. Chris Cunningham 17:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, if you can get a reference there it would be good. However, we should still write something like "many have noted the quality of dialogue", not just write as a fact that the dialogue is great (though it is. By the way, just to make it clear, Torment is IMO the greatest computer game of all times past, present and future). Tamuz (Talk) 19:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, an unsourced "many people would" is just a weaselly version what's written. Might as well call a spade a spade. Calling Einstein "exceptionally intelligent" could be seen to be POV by some, but it would widely be accepted as an objective observation.
As for the game, well, yeah. It and its contemporaries will probably remain the best games of their genre for a good few years now that Troika and Black Isle are no more. Chris Cunningham 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean we should write unsourced "many people would" - I meant that in addition to giving a reference, we should state that this is just an opinion (even if we don't know anyone who objects it).
Ah, Black Isle... *sniff* These guys knew what they were doing... Tamuz (Talk) 22:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Quality can be an objective property as well as a subjective one. Ferraris are higher-quality cars than Ladas, for instance. Chris Cunningham 09:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You can say that Shakespeare's writing had a good quality, because it's known worldwide and generally agreed to be good. Torment, however, didn't get tenth of the recognition it was worth, and so - even though among those who know the game there's a wide agreement that it's great - there aren't enough people who've heard of it to allow us to say objectively that it's good (or that its writing is good, for that matter). However, if we put sources stating that the text is great, and we don't find any source that says otherwise, we convey the same message, only in a truly NPOV, in my opinion. When people read a sentence like the one currently in the article, they think "This must have been written by some obsessive gamer who can't be objective"; when people read an external source saying that, and when they see how many halls-of-fame this game has entered, they see it's not like that. Tamuz (Talk) 10:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that there are some of us (well, there's me) who love the RPGs of the era and still think Torment, though certainly a good, commendable and unique game, is also deeply flawed and actually does not deserve to show up in "All-time Top 10" lists all over. The quality of writing is grossly inconsistent between areas, ranging from inspired, flavourful and idiosyncratic to dry, flavourless, unedited hackwork; character progression and inventory management are overlooked and in the end fairly irrelevant (due to the half-hearted integration of the combat-oriented AD&D system); the main backplot is ultimately less interesting than some of the side-tracks, and there's more than one plothole and inconsistency; there's much less choice-consequence divergence that it would appear, as rather few quests or quest options are locked or unlocked based on alignment or previous actions, and at several points you are railroaded into the fawning demeanour that CRPGs universally reward. The game also owes much more to the Planescape source material than most players are aware of, although this isn't really a flaw. Hmm... what's with the lack of external links? --Kaffedrake 17:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime

What crime did TNO commit that made him want to hide his mortality in the first place? Fcyoss 22:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's never revealed, it's only known that it far exceeded the combined total of all the crimes of his later incarnations. I suspect the developers decided that leaving it to the player's imagination would give it more power. Also, by not providing the details it would stop any attempt at moral equivocation. The ending doesn't quite work if the player could believe that the Nameless One was getting "a bad rap". (DrZarkov 17:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
The question is misleading. The original incarnation was initially evil, but his reason for seeking immortality was not to hide from his (unspecific) crimes, but to buy time to atone for them. "Regret" was his answer to Ravel's question, "What can change the nature of a man?" which is why his mortal soul (The Transcendant One) and the shadows dwell in the Fortress of Regrets.
That question seemed to be the central theme of the work, I was suprised not to see it quoted in the article. Mathiastck 15:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the chracters should be described briefly, i'll stickafew lines of text, if you don't want it or think its worhtless then feel free to delete it and performa minimum of damage on my artistic soul.

[edit] Tagline

As far as I remember, the sentence "What can change the nature of a man?" doesn't appear anywhere on the game box (I don't have it right now so I can't check). Unless anyone objects, I'll remove the tagline (I don't remember any other thing on the box that can be qualified as a tagline, either). Tamuz (Talk) 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

First line of the manual, IIRC. Chris Cunningham 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I'll just have to trust you on this. I bought the White Label edition of the game, so I don't have a manual except for the virtual pdf, which doesn't have the cover and - I believe - is a bit different from the original manual. Tamuz (Talk) 19:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rictusgrin

I saw Morte's last name was discussed in the archive, and looked at the referenced web site. It pretty much looked to me like a joke, and - seeing as it's not mentioned anywhere else in the site, in the game or in any other site that I know - I'm gonna remove it from the List of characters in Planescape: Torment. Tamuz (Talk) 23:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is actually given as Rictusgrin on the character biography cards that were shipped with the Collector's Edition of Planescape, which may or may not be considered canon. Please refrain from removing the name for now, or let me put it back in. --TheOtherStephan 22:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a taken name, most likely. I doubt that he was called "Morte" while he was alive... and giving yourself a name like "Morte Rictusgrin" sounds perfectly in character for him. As far as I know, what he was called in life is never revealed.Atzel 06:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I recently replayed the game and I'm fairly sure the name "Rictusgrin" never appears in it. Also, Annah is called "Annah-of-the-Shadows" maybe once or twice, if that. The statement that she's merely called "Annah" in the novel as opposed to the game looks very odd in light of that.--Kaffedrake 16:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ending cutscene

As is mentioned in the article, in the ending cutscene (if the Nameless One manages to rejoin with his mortality) he finds himself back in the Hells, moving on to fight in the Blood War. I have read somewhere, though, that there were originally supposed to be more FMVs (one each for good, evil and neutral) which had to be cut for budget reasons and I would like to put that info in the article. Has everybody read this anywhere too, or is my memory simply playing tricks on me? --TheOtherStephan 22:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's never been a confirmation of alternate endings from the guys at Black Isle. I suspect the reasoning comes from the track names on the official soundtrack. There are "good" and "neutral" ending themes which were never used. Unfortunately, that's all that's known. (DrZarkov 03:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC))
  • And the end! It can change! It's pretty great ending(s) too, so I won't even mention what happens thats what they say on Amazon I'm getting conflicting signals here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.135.175 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shortening the article

With the two other articles merged into this one, it's kinda huge right now. Though I do agree that the List-of-Characters and the Nameless-One articles should have been deleted and some information be added to here, I don't think merging them wholly was a good idea. We should start working on summerizing the article. Tamuz (Talk) 09:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll get to work on eliminating as much of this as possible. Talk about being acquired from below. Chris Cunningham 10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and good luck. I'll try to help, but I don't have a lot of time to spare for Wikipedia these days :\ Tamuz (Talk) 11:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How can we clarify this?

I was reading this, and I think this article needs to reflect the fact that PS:T is a game that, outside of hardcore gamers, nobody remembers it and/or takes inspiration from it. I wanted to write something along the lines of "Like most cult classic games, the critical praise of Planescape: Torment did little to appeal to all but the most devoted of fans", but I figured the diehard nerds would get offended at having that be visible.

Btw, aren't forums no-no, source wise? Especially given that the source is one of its developer, and if I made Torment, I'd claim I sold 400,000 worldwide too. There's a reason why everyone talks about how dismally Torment did, and it's not because it's a lie. Scumbag 01:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Errr, if you aren't able to come up with a single credible source which contradicts the forum link then it shouldn't be changed. Plenty of people think lots of incorrect things. Torment might not have been the best-selling game of the year like it deserved, but there's a reference which says that it did okay anyway and until that can be contradicted by a credible source it's the best information we've got. Chris Cunningham 07:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Given that the information comes from a non-credible source itself - according to Wikipedia policy - it should be removed. Scumbag 17:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
As I was saying in the edit summary, it's extremely difficult to find reliable sales data for a game that was released nearly seven years ago. I've made the edit to include Warner's contention, without claiming its truth or falsehood. We could also include an interview with designer John Deiley, who claims similar figures. Again, we can't verify these figures (unless you've got archived PC Data access), so basing information on the word of the creators of the game is the next-best solution. Snuppy 21:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Further to that, the point of forums and blogs being given as non-credinble is that usually said information comes from random guys on the Internet making stuff up. In this case the source personality is credible even if the medium itself isn't very. Chris Cunningham 12:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journal

The article says that TNO's journal is destroyed. That is not true, in fact the journal is the TNO's tomb, a place you can visit! --Guillaume777 20:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 10:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison

From the intro,

Unlike other computer role-playing games, such as Baldur's Gate, Torment places emphasis on conversation and storyline instead of combat.

I do not believe that Baldur's Gate is a good example of a game that does not rely on conversation and storyline. Anyone who has played it can tell you that it relies very heavily on it, while it's cousin, Icewind Dale would be considered the game that is more focused on combat, as is Diablo.

--Russoc4 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not make much sense as a comparison anyway. It could very well say the opposite, and be just as or more accurate. For example, "Like other computer role-playing games such as Fallout and Arcanum, Torment places emphasis on conversation and storyline instead of combat." Having a comparison to games with little storyline or decision-making is alternatively vague or false, depending on an unclear notion of "computer role-playing game". 64.89.150.19 08:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no, I think this is an important point to make. Torment is actively anti-combat in a way totally unlike the others. Even Fallout is almost impossible to play through without having to concentrate on physical ability to some extent. Compare to Throne of Bhall, which is basically all about having an Epic party who can beat up fire giants. Chris Cunningham 10:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. TV chump 09:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that Throne of Bhaal is vastly different from the Shadows of Amn campaign in this respect. Humanophage 20:03 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

I've gone through and eliminated most of the spoilers and obvious copyright problems again. With any luck this should be enough to stop it from being expanded again. Chris Cunningham 10:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There are still major spoilers listed in the plot section. I'm unsure whether to tag the section as containing spoilers, or remove the spoiling plot points. Being about 20 hours into the game, I can detail the spoiled portions once I finish, as I don't care to spoil the rest of my game by reading further than I already have. Shadar 21:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia's page on marking spoilers, it turns out I was incorrect in the assumption that a "Plot" section should not contain spoilers. So I retract my statement above. Shadar 21:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cant vs. Chant

Since we seem to get this misinformation frequently, let me pull out my Planescape setting box (on which Torment is based) and provide definitions directly from the source material. I hope this will provide the definitive answer. This is from the book "Sigil and Beyond" from the campaign setting, p. 95:

  • Cant - At the top of the page entitled "Knowing the Cant"; what follows is a glossary describing the terms found in the slang of 16th-18th century thieves, beggars, and swindlers. See also Thieves' Cant
  • Chant, the - Bottom right of the same page: "An expression that means news, local gossip, the facts, the moods, or anything else about what's happening. 'What's the chant?' is a way of asking what's latest information a basher's heard." (ed: yes, the original is missing the word "the").

Snuppy 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TNO and Ignus

I'm removing the comment in the TNO section that claims that the "practical" incarnation is the one that trained Ignus. "Practical", in fact, claims to have no idea what you're talking about when you mention Ignus, thus leading to the logical conclusion that he wasn't the one that taught Ignus magic. Ordinarily I wouldn't mention this, except that it appears that user Sn0wflake has just reverted someone else's edit removing mention of "Practical's" supposed training of Ignus. --Junior612 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters

Right now, the character section contains only brief introductions to NPCs' backgrounds (e.g. it's never mentioned that Practical Incarnation gave Dak'kon the disc). It'd be nice if someone added detailed explanations of their motivations. It'll increase the encyclopedic value of the article, too. :) --Koveras ☭ 11:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#PLOT, clogging up the page with incredi-detail probably wouldn't be the best of ideas. You might get away with it if you included a brief summary here and created a page called Characters in Planescape: Torment, or something. Remember that if you went down that alley then you'd need to cite everything you said: WP:OR prevents original analysis of characters (or anything else, for that matter) by run-of-the-mill editors from being added. Una LagunaTalk 16:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Development

I noticed the page lacks a development section. There's been a few great articles released lately that would be great source for a development section. Mainly RPG Watch's interview with two developers: Part 1 and Part 2. Plus RPS's retrospective [1] (there's not really development info in that, but a good read nonetheless). I would write it myself, but sadly I don't have the skills. --Mika1h 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorcerer's Place in external links

As suggested in a recent revert, I propose including external links to Sorcerer's Place for the following games covered by that website:

This excludes the following games covered by Sorcerer's Place, due to lack of resources at the website:

I only exclude Dragon Age because right now, with the game currently in development, there is not enough information at Sorcerer's Place to warrant a link. After the game's release, I suspect the website will have much more comprehensive coverage, and then a link will probably be needed. This website is a valuable resource for all sorts of mods, patches, tweaks, fixes, etc., both official and fan-created. I would also suggest an external link from Infinity Engine to the respective section at Sorcerer's Place. (Cross-posted to Talk:Baldur's Gate (series)) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Baldur's Gate#Sorcerer's Place link for ongoing discussion. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)