Talk:Planescape: Torment/Archive 1

Correct Dialog options?
Here's another quibbling point:


 * It has been argued that the wordy nature of the game turned many potential players off from the game, realizing that the bulk of the game often focused on picking the "correct" answer out of 1-6 presented conversation sources

The vast majority of the presented dialog options are "correct"--which one you pick is a reflection of your character's worldview/alignment and will advance the story in its own ways. When there are "wrong" choices it tends to be pretty damned obvious, and much like the battles, there are only a handful of "crucial" dialogs that you must deal with a certain way.

The line about the game's 'wordy nature' being a possible issue is apt, as both Urquhart and Avellone have suggested this in interviews, but I tend to agree the wording of the latter part should be changed to make it clear that, as you say, responses are not divided into 'right' and 'wrong'. There are only two points in the game that I can think of at which a dialogue response results in TNO's quest ending finally and absolutely by virtue solely of dialogue choice, and in both cases, it's made fairly clear you're choosing the fate in question by doing so. It's arguable even those two cases don't constitue a 'wrong' choice if that's how you want the story to resolve itself. --Yst 21:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright, well, I rewrote the bit about the selection of 'correct' dialogue options, clarifying the situation. I also changed the "four" required combat encounters to "three", as, unless someone can correct me, I maintain that Ravel, Trias and Ignus or Vhailor (depending on alignment) are the only three. --Yst 04:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The zombie in the mortuary needs to be killed to get the key to leave the first room.   &mdash;shoecream 05:21, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh, good point! You've got me there.  Though now I'm not sure which is closer to the truth, as the Zombie's a trivial semi-tutorial sort of encounter.  Well, if anyone cares to change it back to "four" in recognition of the zombie, feel free.  I don't know that I can find grounds to favour one over the other --Yst 06:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Four Battles
Maybe a quibbling point, but I'm somewhat doubtful of this part


 * "There were very few (four) required battles throughout the entire game, as all others could be avioded through the correct choice of dialogue."

Trias, Ravel and either Ignus or Vhailor must be fought. But that only makes for three compulsory battles. Whether or not Curst Prison is considered a 'battle', it can be beaten without fighting. Is there a fourth I'm missing? --Yst 00:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Why do you say Ignus _or_ Vhailor must be fought? As far as I know Ignus must ALWAYS be fought, whereas Vhailor is an elective combat...


 * If TNO's alignment is Evil, Vhailor must be fought rather than Ignus at the FoR, though under identical circumstances. It's one or the other, but not both.  --Yst 21:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Guys, I think you have some mistake... first of all, you also need to fight a zombie to leave the preperation chamber in which the game begins. However, you don't have to fight Ignus nor Vhailor if you don't take them with you. If they weren't members of your party when you entered the Fortress, you don't fight any of them. So, there are three battles - the zombie at the beginning, Ravel, and Trias. As for Curst Prison, I don't think it can be considered as a battle. Tamuz 17:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it is 4 though, because I freed Ignus, but didn't take him in my party. Furthermore, I killed him just to see if I will be fighting him at the Fortress of Regrets. It turns out that he will be revived anyway be the Transcendant One and you will have to do battle with him. I also talked Vhailor into killing himself, so even if you end up getting both Ignus and Vhailor killed, they will be revived and you will have to fight either one of them depending on your alignment.


 * Well, I'm quite sure that when I freed Ignus and Vhailor and didn't take them with me, I didn't have to fight either in the fortress... Probably because I didn't kill them. I don't have my CD of the game right now, but I'll check it out sometime and I'll let you know. I'll leave it as 4 battles for now. Tamuz 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You also have to kill a guard that carries a key you need in the Curst prison, AFAIR. --Illythr 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder, why was the synopsis cut down to such a short fragment of its original length? Victor Gijsbers 01:28, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that most of the other synopses on the wiki were much shorter than the one I had originally written, so I cut down on its length to match the precenedent. If you feel that the information is not enough, feel free to edit it--after all, it is a wiki. Shoecream 04:00, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe build an external web page and link to it? Goblin 08:23, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Why is this game called Planescape: Torment as opposed to just Torment? Nobody refers to Baldur's Gate as Forgotten Realms: Baldur's Gate or to The Temple of Elemental Evil as Greyhawk: TToEE... --Anym
 * Because Planescape: Torment is the name of the game. That's what it says on the box, and that's how it's known. Baldur's Gate is set in the Forgotten Realms, but its full name is Baldur's Gate, and not Forgotten Realms: Baldur's Gate; this is just how it might be called, for consistency. Complain to Black Isle Studios if you disagree. :-) Articles should be named according to the most common use, and while the game is often simply named "Planescape", "PS:T" or "Torment", the full name is the most common. Google if you don't believe me. It may just have to do with the unwieldiness of long names for BG and TToEE, but nevertheless, the full name of PS:T is the most commonly used. --Anon
 * The 'actual' name of the game is Torment. The first part of the full name is the setting/universe. However, since no other game was ever published in the Planescape setting, you can as well use the full name without being ambigous or redundant. Compare with 'Vampire:The Masquerade:Redemption', for example. The name 'Vampire' was usually used for the game, until the second one, 'Bloodlines' was published. Now they're referred to as just 'Redemption' and 'Bloodlines'.

So, my point is: Duh, whatever... :-) --Illythr 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

trivia
While considered one of the greatest computer role-playing games ever made &mdash; I have objections with this bit. Specifically, it sounds like a weasel phrase. Perhaps it would be better to omit this portion entirely. --Shoecream 03:10, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I changed the wording slightly --Anym 19:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Planescape actually sold nearly 400,000 copies worldwide, and Diablo sold several million. In fact, Planescape sold far more copies than the Fallout series.


 * Yes. This "Planescape is the most underrated game ever" meme is quite persistent, however. Taking total sales into account, it didn't do all that bad. Of course it still deserved to have sold much, much more... but that's POV. :-) --Anon


 * Yep, CRPGs were never a large market, after all. In CRPG terms, by any era's standards, Planescape sold fairly well.  Only in the shadow of BG's then quite recent virtually unprecedented success and unheard of CRPG sales figures does Planescape seem a poor seller.  --Yst 14:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Infobox
Does anybody feel up for making one of those nifty infoboxes for this article?


 * Done. --Goblin &rsaquo;talk 11:28, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I need to make an infobox for Forgotten Realms, but I don't know how to do it (i read the instructions, but it made no sense). More info. — Reply to David Latapie 01:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Morte Rictusgrin?
Can you please tell me where morte's last name is mentioned in this game? I don't recall bumping into this name although I've finished this game several times. Yuval madar


 * is a mirror of the official Torment site. Scroll to the bottom and you'll see his last name.   &mdash;shoecream 19:02, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Open Source/Improvements
Something I would really is to have this game come open source in one way or another. Not that I am interested in the game engine, but some plot could be improved. For instance:


 * The object you find on the Glabrezu corpse is bugged—it doesn't give you the abillties it is supposed to give you
 * When you come back to the Mortuary, you can speak with a skeleton that seems to have been killed by Ignus. That would be great if you could reply something like “I am Ignus' master“, even better if the events could change if you are travelling with Ignus.
 * I guess there would be a lot of thing to do with Adahn's appearance.Reply to David Latapie 09:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any idea who sould I contact?


 * Black Isle still exists on paper (unlike some of its parent companies) and owns PS:T insofar as anyone owns it, but all the most important personalities to its development have moved elsewhere. I'd say there's less than no chance of source ever being released.  Having said that, a lot can be done with Infinity Engine game content and scripts without having access to the source itself.  Platter has traditionally been the big kahuna in that department, but hasn't been very active lately.   For IE modding info and discussion, you might consult the Gibberlings3 forums --Yst 14:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've tried to clean up the article so there's less POV, less weasel terms, and a clearer and more focused plot summary concentrating on themes and such, as opposed to random factoids, bland storytelling, and incorrect (but barely noticable) information. Who knows, maybe I might even succeed. &mdash;shoecream 07:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I made text flow corrections and such, but I do prefer this version of the article. --Sn0wflake 20:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Minor change in the name of greater semantic clarity: I changed "Black Isle (which disbanded in 2004)" to "Black Isle (closed in 2004)", as the prior appears to suggest or at least leaves open the possibility that Black Isle closed itself, i.e., of its own volition, subject to an internal decision, whereas in fact it was closed by Interplay subject to an external decision by that parent company. The latter seems to me to better reflect that reality, while not belabouring a rather peripheral point. --Yst 07:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Final Fantasy?
I removed the reference to Final Fantasy X, as it had no place within the article. The spells in PS:T aren't at all comparable to the Aeons in FFX, and PS:T predates FFX by several years.
 * Hm, there was an in-game reference (credits) to FF8, not FFX. Also, it's the general appearance of the spells, that's comparable to those in FF: the "timestop" during casts, the movie sequences (high-level), and the general 'epic' look of magic. Compare Torment with BG for instance. Magic from P:T looks better by far than even those in BG2. --Illythr 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Diablo Analogy
I removed


 * The Modron Maze is arguably a spoof of the popular hack-and-slash game Diablo.

This seems to contradict developer comments on the modron cube, most recently by Chris Avellone, indicating that, as seems evident, it's merely a parody of D&D/RPG clichés in general. --Yst 06:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Misc
I added a bit of information about the Incarnations faced at the end and also of Deionarra's background. This is as far as i can figure out based on what was revealed in the game. I did some research, but i could have para-phrase certain points. All in all, i think they are fairly accurate, feel free to change and edit what is incorrect and any inaccuracies.

"Goth"
I changed the word "goth" to "mature", as goth is a meaningless term, whether you like goths or not. The term "mature" seems more NPOV.

Theories on Memory
A second take on The Nameless One's memory is that very early in the game, Morte had him start a new journal so that the incarnation that awakens will simply re-read the journal, becoming the same incarnation.

^Isn't that proven false within the game itself? Conversations with both Nordom and The Transcendant One make it very clear that TNO does, in fact, remember everything since he woke up in the Mortuary. So I'm gonna go ahead and take that part out, and add a note about the conversation options. --Cronodude360 06:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He only learns that later. At first it's assumed he'll lose his memories upon death.

Zerthimon
The practical incarnation states he tricked Dakkon by writing the unbroken circle of Zerthimon, to make use of his karach blade. If this incarnation was a Githzerai, he could have used the blade for himself instead of relying on Dakkon. He could have lead the people to true victory instead of refusing to wage war on the planes along with Gith, or dying in Limbo. Zerthimon doesn't have some great regret over a past crime that would damn him for eternity. Zerthimon doesn't seek immortality, he simply dies. If the practical incarnation was Zerthimon, he would have spent all his time shaping Limbo into his will, using the Githzerai for his own purposes, extending his life, creating paradise, or any number of things.

Instead, the practical one only wants Dakkon to fight alongside him, because of his blade. If he had created the Githzerai, he would have used this to his advantage, telling Dakkon more about the Githzerai, calling himself a prophet, or trying to create more belief based weapons like the karach.

I believe the point of having the Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon as a forgery is that it shows the nature of faith and belief. Either the circle was written based on studied knowledge of Githzerai myths and history, or the myth itself was made up and written down, to be passed on and believed in. This calls into question the truth behind the myth, much like the Bible- did any of it actually happen, or was it simply created for others to believe in? Dakkon shows that even if something has the possibility of not being true, it can still be believed in, it can still inspire faith in others, and it can make someone more powerful by their own will.

Serious rewrite
This article, as it is now, would be great in a fansite of the game. However, if you want it to appear in Wikipedia, you must write it in a way that anyone - whether or not he's played the game - will understand. A few examples: explaining the meaning of the word "incarnation" in the game the first time that word appears in the article; explanations about other characters when they are mentioned (such as Ignus, Dak'kon and Zerthimon in the fourth-to-last paragraph under Biography), as well as about other expressions (such as Baatezu); explanations about items such as the Bronze Sphere, and places like the Maze of reflections; and giving context to several of the paragraphs and statements (upon reading about the good incarnation, the layman reader wouldn't understand why and how the hell is he supposed to merge with TNO).

The fact I don't do it myself is that - although Torment is undoubtedly THE greatest game ever created - I do not think there should be a whole article just about the main character. If anyone disagrees, prove that you can give it the quality that is expected in Wikipedia. If you want a good example, look at the Lara Croft article - I've barely played Tomb Raider and never took much interest in the background story, and yet I understood each and every word mentioned in that article.

P.S. I don't remember hearing the name Lum the Mad in the game. Does he appear there, or only in outside sources? Please tell me who exactly is he, but without spoilers, thank you. Good luck with the article, Tamuz (Talk) 13:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also can't remember Lum to appear in Torment. Lum is a character in BG II:ToB, who created a machine in Watcher's Keep, which for example can change your stats. 80.140.92.46 16:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Lum the Mad is mentioned near the very end of the game by The Transcendent One. Apparently The Nameless One "danced sorceries" with him at some point.


 * I agree, the Nameless One should be put back into the Character of Planescape:Torment page. I think the only reason it was moved to its own page was because the section was getting too large and fragmented. There's also the point that, unlike Lara Croft, Mario, et cetera, TNO and P:T are inseprable, TNO will never be in any other game (from Chris Avellone's own lips: his story was finished), therefore a page to the character seems unnecessary. (DrZarkov 06:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC))


 * Actually, I think neither this page nor the List of characters in Planescape: Torment should exist. Both of them will probably be great in one of the game's fan-sites, but seem to me to be pretty much redundant here. While the main article about Planescape: Torment contains a lot of real-world information as well as enough "in-universe" info for whomever may be interested in the game, this two pages contain only fictional information about it; and, as you said, Torment is but a single game with no sequels or movies or whatever. Now, I can't start a vote for deletion of these articles because I don't have enough edits in the English Wikipedia for that, but... what do you think? Tamuz (Talk) 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)