Yes... and you couldn't even change his hair color or dress him up as a pretty princess! The nadir of roleplaying.

In retrospect, though, if they could've afforded to put even more time into the development, there was no reason for TNO to not be female.. It would've required some optional replacements to a few key lore elements (such as Deionarra) but ultimately it wouldn't have been very hard to let you play either six.

Goalless? I'd create my own goals. In FO3, for example, in one of my playthroughs, my goalw as to hit level cap without turning in any quests. That i could do that in FO3 and not, in say, Dragon Age, is a preetty clear differentiation between a story only game and a sandbox game.

Goalless as in it bears no ingame meaning. It's just random pastime activity that I find boring in the long run and can't get involved in as much as I can with a good story and stuff revolving around it.

ditto

PS:T early on is not entirely goalless (Find Pharrod, etc.) but it is completely directionless as you leave the mortuary. Which is something I like a lot. You really don't know what the next step is and just wander the city of Sigil at random, while keeping the goal of finding out what happened to you in mind. You explore the city, hoping to find information about your past, with no hints as to where they could be.

It's nice to see a game with a main quest that is not presented to you in a way like 'Welcome to the game, I'm the main quest! Whenever you're bored with all your unrelated side quests I'll be right here if you want to start me.'

Of course, despite being quite big and having portals going to all sorts of places, that part of the game took place in just a city. I don't know how well such a concept would translate to a Fallout game, which has a larger and more open game world.

+1. Well said.

Technically, Sigil can be a very massive environment to base a fantasy story in, by its very nature of having portals that can lead to anywhere in the Multiverse. You can also make each of the six Wards as big as you like for your game.

and then, there is Undersigil... :drool:

I'm a bit confused here, except to note the downward spiral of this thread. I do hope that reasonable people can disgree and that tastes do vary. I told you the kind of game i like to play. I'm not here to argue that you should repent and lay aside your heathen ways. Youa re entitled you your likes as am I. Lets leave it at that.

your first post wasn't reasonable

PS:T was awesome. It was hands down one of the best games I've ever played. As far as for the next Fallout however, I'll pass the the whole Amnesiac thing, its such a video-game cliche. However, I do feel that the folks over at Obsidian will do a much better job with the dialogue in FO:NV.

Yeah the amnesiac thing is way overdone. PS:T is the one of the few games to actually pull it off right and have it as one of the key parts of the story.


Of course. I meant Sigil just as it was in the game, not what it could be.

Ah Planescape??anyway it is dated true, but is still one of the best. Why there wasn't another one?..I'm stumped. I don't know if it would work with the way Bethesda does things. Planescape in full 3d would be a trip that's for sure. Not to get banned or stoned or killed for saying it but I almost think Bioware should do it because Dragon age was pretty darn good. Bethesda?..should?.if we are going Retro to remake talk here think about doing Arcanum 2. It's another dated and way flawed by today's standards but it's a steam punk setting. So you get guns, magic, orcs, and mutton chops. It's a good idea I think?.plus it rivals Red Deads setting of the old west somewhat. Now what would be cooler than a gang of half drunk bandit orcs with guns trying to rob a train. Then again if Bioware didn't do Planescape Bethesda might as well....its really instant bank if you ask me as long as they don't butcher it like FASA did to Shadowrun........please don't defend that game.

That's exactly what i disliked about it: TOO much story...TOO much characterization...TOO much plot, and TOO LITTLE variety. It felt more like a JRPG than anything else.

Too much characterization in an RPG?.... Too much Plot? The games you've put on a pedestal over the years have for the most part been simulators that *simulate* a fictional environment in real time FPP ~and you fault games that impose a character on you [Like The Witcher and KotOR series].

Games like Planescape are few, and are the pinical of cRPG's for the very reasons you fault them ~They have an involved plot, and encourage the player to assume a given role and accept the consequences of their choice of actions.
(The character ~whether assigned or otherwise should really make no difference IMO).


I disagree here... While I usually don't like an RPG with a sparse storyline, I do consider the story and the game as distinctly separate.

One learns [the mechanics] to become proficient at the activity of the game; One continues to play (even after mastering the rules) to expose the plot and to see their characters develop ~as a result of it. This applies to every RPG I've ever played...but at it's core, this is even true of games like Quake (where the introduction of progressively more powerful weapons change the tactics used in later levels).

IMO a "game" that is all story is essentially a movie and not much of a game ~yet the reverse is not true; The game of Checkers has no story (and Chess has only that a war was fought... but it has consummate game mechanics). As for RPG's, You don't need a story at all to have a solid game, but its no fun roleplaying a PC locked in a Jail Cell that they never escape (which could be done with Oblivion and a simple mod).

Does not Fallout 3 already have every kind of play that you could ask for, depending on your choices and imagination of play. Seems it does to me.

A Planescape:Torment-like game ? ....... Just swap your choices of play that's close enough.

Wha...? No, it really doesn't. :laugh:

Agreed. :thumbsup:

Swap magic for guns and Planescape could be likened to the old Fallout type of game-play.

Yes and No...
First... What does Planescape-Like mean in this case? (Like Fallout 3 but set in the Planescape universe? Or plays like Planescape, but is set in the Fallout universe.)

Between the two [Planescape and Fallout 1], I consider Planescape the better RPG, but Fallout as the better game. (This does not take either one's story or setting into account)

Both are extreme personal favorites and both have great dialog interaction; however...
Planescape revovles around the Nameless One's plight and personal fate. Combat is actually somewhat discouraged and he can't really change the places he visits that much (with two notable exceptions).
In Fallout the Vault Dweller not only changes the towns, but alters their futures for better or worse by direct and indirect consequence of their actions; and combat is a major [and better developed] part of the game.

The two titles are very close in some ways, close enough that the settings & stories could be swapped, but still... certain major elements of the gameplay would still remain very dissimilar (aside from the ISO perspective used in both games; Simply swapping out magic for guns is not enough ~and I can't... not.. point out that that is essentially just what was done for Fallout 3 from Oblivion ).

Fallout conflicts are about harsh odds, where the player tips the balance ~using the system... (meaning that the greatly out numbered PC would usually die if it just randomly attacked opponents). Some may fervently disagree with this, but think about how the game actually plays, and not the RPG ideal of "Its the PC not the Player". This is something that I truly liked in Fallout 1 & 2 (and TB mode Fallout Tactics).

[Unless you like to use the pause a lot] Combat in Planescape is the typical "everybody at' him" affair*, just like Baldur's Gate and even the TES series. Now its funny... come to think of it... but Fallout 3 would seem [to me] to have more in common (combat-wise) with Planescape than Fallout 2. Funnier still when you take into account the high level "VATS-Like" (and often insta-kill) cutscene combat spells. [swapped out for guns]

If a new Planescape game was done I'd be open to it being like MOTB or the Witcher; but I could see it even being like FO3 and being very good.

As for the topic..I agree, it could be very amazing. {IMO} FO3 should have been a lot more like Planescape than Oblivion [IMO], but then the same should be said of it being a lot more like Fallout than Oblivion.

I thought that would stir you up ... and no, there are far too many other incomparables to claim that it was done for Fallout 3 from Oblivion, changes that would impact so much on every other aspect of the game that it makes that concept nonsense... Fallout 3 needed to be built from scratch, and if only it were that easy to just swap, we could have a new game every 4 months instead of every 4 years.

It needs to be understood the depth of considerations underlying game-play when making a game. Play Fallout 3 for any length of time and it will be realised what went into it. The more you immerse into the game you will come to realise what went into it. No game-play is ever the same either, even during a playthrough, go back and reload a save and events are different. More went into this game than at first glance.

List one :shrug:

[In the GECK] If you type Tamriel into the filter for any area in Fallout 3, you will find a reference. That wouldn't happen if they built it from scratch.

It also doesn't make sense to build it from scratch. They built the game that they wanted, and that game is mostly Oblivion... Oblivion is already made, it is silly to reinvent the wheel without a good reason, and looking at Fallout 3, there doesn't seem to have been one. Its a great game, but its not different enough to reinvent it from scratch.

The sad part [for me] is, that if you look at Gamebryo's strengths, and you look at its limitations... They could have just as easily (EASIER I SAY), cloned Fallout 2 outright, but with all the detail possible in Oblivion or beyond... Better in fact, because if the NPC's did not have to wear the same face up close as in passing, they could have had Dialog faces rivalling the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B0i7sgk3Xo.

Regardless of its Oblivion roots, its an impressive work ~no dispute possible (or deserved), but it IS Oblivion re-skinned with a few minor tweaks. The consideration was apparently TES Fans take precedence, and Shooter fans cannot be alienated... So that leaves the Fallout Series fans out in the cold as far as gameplay goes... as far as art design and atmosphere... I still say in that, they did about as good as the art team that worked on the movie BladeRunner (Though Emil might not take that as compliment :sadvaultboy:) .


I have to admit (willingly... "props" where due), if Bethesda did do a Planescape title, I have no doubts at all that it would look the part to even the most dour skeptical Planescape fan. I would buy it on looks alone.

Well, when getting into the game, I had the 'ah-this-is-Fallout-ok' feeling of satisfaction, and that my concerns that Bethesda might have somehow mess it up were unfounded. OK, but a few don't get that get that feeling, for whatever reason, which has always puzzled me, but not to worry.



... but would really be just Oblivion with swapping some a few things ?



That's kind of saying that Oblivion play is a copy of Fallout play, Fallout with magic ... it didn't seem like I was playing Fallout to me when playing Oblivion.

Of the numerous games out there, they often use a similar game frame-work, what goes into the frame-work can make game-play totally different (to Oblivion), or the same (as Fallout). Both, was my experience when playing this game.

Fallout had some of the same frame-work as Oblivion ... the freedom to go anywhere ... do anything as and when you liked ... big map and many locations to explore. There's no need to reinvent the frame-work of the game, only the need to invent what goes into the frame-work, into the style of Fallout, which in my view was what they did, in 'spades'.

"Finally someone who sees"

~in a word... Yes. ("Of course" is two words )

No it isn't... or I should say, ''Please explain".


There's no reason not to use the same engine, but its unconscionable (in this case) to use the same game.
Point of fact, Morrowind and Civilization4 and Kohan 2 and LOKI all use Gamebryo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf-8R4UAD1w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taUXszPUKWU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVR1tJwiKyw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxHnqMgtSFI

These games are different franchises with different gameplay goals and methods, but they all utilize the Gamebryo engine just like Oblivion and Fallout 3; Yet these titles are not clones and have vastly differing gameplay.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Planescape game using the Gamebryo (or perhaps elements of Id tech 5?) engine could look fantastic, and need not be related to the Nameless One at all.
Sigil suits Bethesda's style of world building, and I think a believable bustling inter-dimensional fantasy metropolis is something they could pull off well, but they should not call it Planescape: Torment 2, unless it falls in step with that particular series.

"Finally someone who sees"

You could claim that all games are really just the same as each other ... but with swapping things about ... Baulders Gate, Planescape Torment, Neverwinter Nights ... all the same. Though there comes a point when so much has to be swapped, that really all you have done is swapped one game for a different game. It's true that Planescape is more in line with Oblivion than Fallout 3 is even remotely in line with Oblivion.

If one thing only has to swapped in a game to be the same as another, then the case for same-ness holds true. If any or much more is different that needs to be swapped, then the case progressively fails to hold true, ending as really being completely different games. When claiming that Fallout 3 is Oblivion with a swap or two, the argument fails because there are just too many differences that need to swapped ... too many differences that make them really different games and game-play.

Differences that totally and utterly alter the tactical and strategic needs in game-play, as in the case of Oblivion v Fallout 3...
Such as swords/bows-and-arrows V guns ... utterly different tactical/strategic game-play.
Such as magic V no magic ... utterly different tactical/strategic game-play.
Such as alchemy V no alchemy ... utterly different tactical/strategic game-play.
Such as teleport gates to other worldly planes ... utterly different tactical/strategic game-play.
These are some of the differences that are just too much between Oblivion and Fallout 3, to allow the claim of being the same game but for a swap or two. Too many differences needed in game-play.

The content (wheels) of both games are so different ...
... and the wheels finally fall off your Oblivion v Fallout 3 argument.

Planescape ... that now that is much, much more closer to Oblivion.

Not after you've played enough games...
Those three in particular are also rather supposed to be very similar; They each are ISO-style RPG's using the same rule sets, and are crafted for players that seek out D&D based cRPG's. :shrug:
(Can you say the same of Fallout and Fallout 3?)

Well lets see...
Oblivion and FO3 both start you off in a cage; A man comes along and lets you out; You spend the next ? an hour doing a contrived tutorial to learn the basics of play (which amount to stealing and fighting). Suddenly you are attacked, and must flee to the outside through a big round gate, but the game stops you first and asks you if you'd like to recant any or all of your past commitments, then starts you outside on a hill, just a short walk from town... It goes on quite a bit you know... (Both games send you on a manhunt of crucial importance to the fate of the land...)

The topic is Planescape-like game. Planescape starts you off dead ; but no... a Planescape-like game need not even be set in the Planescape worlds; It just needs to be responsive, and have a PC affected dialog tree with deep roots and long branches (that eventually bear fruit).
A TES style game set in the Planescape universe could be really neat, but could not be Planescape 2.

How exactly again?
What's the difference between a mace and a nail board? The difference between a rocket and Fireball? The difference between Potions and Drugs (or stims!)? These are the same games and they play i-d-e-n-t-i-c-a-l-l-y below the cosmetic changes.
** And Teleport Gates and Other World Portal have no tactical/or strategic affect unless you can use them against an enemy in a battle...Which you can't in these games (but you could in Baldur's Gate ).

Content is moot; Its the activity of the game that matters. Bethesda would never make a Planescape-Like game, though I can see them making a Planescape setting game, and it being one I might like ~Unless they name it Torment 2, Rise of the Nameless Wanderer.

I don't see it, unless you reduce it to "Special person, goes on a special quest". Remember... In Planescape the PC can level up over lunch. Gameplay between PS:T and any TES game to date is quite dissimilar in both obvious and subtle ways. Both are good, but both are inextricably different.