Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

What is this?

Planescape Campaign Setting (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons) [Box Set] [Paperback]

Is it a game that comes with a book to give the game direction and exposition?

It's an expansion for the Dungeons & Dragons game. As I'm not sure how familiar you are with this game, I suppose some explanation is in order. It's a role-playing game, which means the way it is played is that each player creates a character and then they create a story together. Usually, one of the players creates the story as they go along and all the others react to that.

There are different ways of playing it. For some, it's a game like chess or a videogame, where the point is to try to kill as many badguys and collect as much treasure as possible without dying, taking advantage of the rules and trying to 'win'.

But, you can also play it like an extemporaneous acting exercise, where everyone works together to try to create a story with interesting characters and twists. Playing this way, it's just another storytelling medium, like writing, but using live acting to create the story. Get together a group of writers and actors, and it's possible to create stories as deep and complex as any play.

Indeed, you can think of it as a type of participatory theater, where one person (usually) scripts out and directs the action, and all the others react and interpret the scenes through the characters they have developed.

Dungeons & Dragons is a system of rules that governs how you play, including the types of spells and abilities each character has, and how they work. All modern RPG videogames are based on the Dungeons & Dragons model, in fact of all time is set in the Planescape universe.

In a videogame, the rules there are all automated by the computer, which is the chief benefit of a videogame. The chief benefit of a 'tabletop' game, as they are called, is that there are no artificial limitations: your character can say or do anything, go anywhere. There are no arbitrary walls preventing them from going where they want to go.

So, there is a basic set of rules for how the game is played, and then there are books like this one, which give you new options for how to play with those rules. Planescape presents a new world for you to play in, with new types of creatures, spells, places, politics, and magical artifacts. There are many such different 'worlds' available to play in, and going from one to the other is like the difference between creating a story in the world of Harry Potter versus Tolkien's or His Dark Materials. Each one would be a very different setting for a story. So, this particular book tells you about what this specific world is like, giving you all the details necessary to create your own story set there.

And though Dungeons & Dragons is focused on fantasy, there are also games that take place in sci fi universes, in Lovecraft's setting, and many others. A book like this doesn't give you story exposition--you're expected to make up your own story--it just gives you a setting where your story can take place, a stage in which to set your play. Though there are 'adventures' which present you with a specific story scenario, if you don't want to develop one on your own.

There are also a lot of roleplayers on the internet, and many of them play their games by text instead of in person. I've been roleplaying since I was young and it's an interesting way to tell stories, with its own challenges and methods, and it has certainly informed the way I think about writing, character, world creation, and theater, as well.

Thanks for the detailed description. It sounds fun, if only I grew up with this kind of stuff. Games albeit fun are hardly this creative anymore.

Yeah, it was very much a formative experience for myself and a lot of the people around me. Not only did it introduce us to myths, history, economics, and mathematics, but it invited us to explore human psychology, to create and inhabit our own characters and worlds and to explore possibility in ourselves.

Though we didn't know it at the time, role-playing is a common psychological tool used to help patients put themselves into different scenarios to explore them in a safe, non-judgmental environment. With me and my friends, it allowed us to play out different aspects of our personalities, and to imagine scenarios we were curious about as we grew up.

Though there's a cliche about Dungeons & Dragons players being awkward and dorky, the guys and girls I played with all ended up being successful socially and in relationships--though of course we all knew some other, more awkward types outside our own group.

But hey, it's never too late, if it interests you. Of course, the most important part is to find a group that fits you and your needs, but they are out there. I mean, as an actor, director, and writer, I've borne witness to the fact that these kind of games are really invaluable to developing as a creative artist, whether they call them 'role-playing' or 'acting exercises' or 'brainstorming' or whatever.

Keely wrote: "Yeah, it was very much a formative experience for myself and a lot of the people around me. Not only did it introduce us to myths, history, economics, and mathematics, but it invited us to explore ..."

Haha, I'd like to try it. Though I'm going to have to do a lot of talking to convince my social circle.

Yeah, it does have a reputation of attracting less suave people, which makes sense, because a lot of them could benefit from being able to explore social interaction in a safe environment where they are allowed to take on different roles and explore ideas.

Of course, there are also those who just use it to live out power fantasies, to seek escapism and make themselves feel important and influential in a fictional world because they feel very powerless in the real world.

I remember I was working one year as an actor at a Renaissance Festival and some friends visited and asked me 'how does someone get to play the king?' They assumed that, since kings were more powerful figures historically, then it must be more prestigious to play the king.

But of course, the king is just a role, like any other, and the actor who plays the king is no more important or more skilled than the one who plays the beggar. Indeed, the beggar is often a more demanding role, because it requires a lot more interaction and creativity than the king, which is a fairly narrow role.

So, there are certainly a lot of roleplayers who want their characters to be 'powerful' because they are trying to fulfill some kind of fantasy. With me and my group of friends, it's more about having a character that's interesting, memorable, and well-constructed.

Anyhow, if you want to give it a try and are wary about your group of friends, you could always give it a try online. There are a lot of people who run text-based games, too, where you all collaborate with written stories.

Keely wrote: "Yeah, it does have a reputation of attracting less suave people, which makes sense, because a lot of them could benefit from being able to explore social interaction in a safe environment where the..."

Which sites would you recommend?

Hmm, good question. I haven't done a lot, myself, this past year. In general, I mostly just did it with friends, anyways, and used whatever forum they had set up for their game. There are a lot of sites out there that can be equally good or bad. As with theater or a writers' circle, it's mostly about finding the right people, which can take some time.

Since I'm with family right now and don't have my bookmarks handy, I don't remember which ones I used to use. I'll have to get back to you.

So, apprently one of the greatest computer RPG got a spritual successor announced.

They got most of the team back, minus Chris Avellone, though he might be join the team if we reached the goal.

Its a good thing I supossed (Bit worried though because Patrick Rothfuss will join the team, perhaps he would do better with game?) for RPG and fantasy. Too many modern games right now could hardly called RPG and fantasy while they promote too much open-ended gameplay with no apparent story at all and non existant pseudo-medieval universe. I always wondered myself the quality of video game storywriters. Which books did they used as influence (I'm even specualte that these "writers" just play video games without reading any book at all)? Because Chris Avellone design Planescape with influence on many things, book included and managed to pull one of the best RPG of all time.

I hope this "sequel" lived the name of Planescape: Torment.

"Bit worried though because Patrick Rothfuss will join the team"

Oh, man, that is depressing to think of. To tell the truth, I was already a bit concerned about the setting, as Monte name-dropped Gene Wolfe as an influence, so I'm already picturing 'Planescape as imagined by boring neckbeards', and the addition of Rothfuss certainly adds to that concern.

"Too many modern games right now could hardly called RPG and fantasy while they promote too much open-ended gameplay with no apparent story at all and non existant pseudo-medieval universe."

Oh, yeah, stuff like the Elder Scrolls series where its this absolutely huge world full of places and characters that are mostly all the same. It reminds me of this comic about one of the WOW expansions, where this whole team of people spends a year creating this new world, and then when the player gets there, its exactly the same as the old one.

"I always wondered myself the quality of video game storywriters."

Yeah, in a lot of cases, story takes a backseat to everything else: they don't hire enough professional writers, they give them an excessively short timeframe in which to work, and then there's always meddling from their bosses and executives. That's one of the reasons I have some hope for Brian Fargo, since he talks about making story a priority and giving the writers plenty of time, but then if you end up hiring crap writers like Rothfuss, it doesn't matter how much time you give them.

And besides that, I remember when Feargus Urquhart was making all the same promises about story quality with New Vegas, and ended up turning out a pretty lackluster product. I start to think that perhaps it wasn't the heads of these teams that made games like Torment, Baldur's Gate, and the original Fallout interesting, but all the various artists and writers who worked under them. when you have a huge project like that, it can be hard to figure out who was the real creative mind that made it remarkable.

But yeah, maybe it will turn out well, after all--I certainly hope it does--but if not, I can just go back and replay the original again.

Oh, man, that is depressing to think of. To tell the truth, I was already a bit concerned about the setting, as Monte name-dropped Gene Wolfe as an influence, so I'm already picturing 'Planescape as imagined by boring neckbeards', and the addition of Rothfuss certainly adds to that concern.

Premises can't go wrong I supposed. Its about the execution I hope that could make things right. Colin McComb, PS:T writer is with this one too.

And those neckbeards...Man, I never imagined that Rothfuss is neckbearded too. Is it somekind of a trend that modern fantasy writer must grown a neckbeard?

Oh, yeah, stuff like the Elder Scrolls series where its this absolutely huge world full of places and characters that are mostly all the same. It reminds me of this Penny Arcade comic about one of the WOW expansions, where this whole team of people spends a year creating this new world, and then when the player gets there, its exactly the same as the old one.

So true. Elder Scrolls actually have decent start being quite different with Morrowind. There, they showed many fantastic things, mix of culture and such. Then they went for bland pseudo-medieval setting in Oblivion and continue the trend till now.

Actually, beside Morrowind, Elder Scrolls have one other game that I deemed as interesting, and that is Oblivion's expansion, Shivering Isles. It is like Morrowind, full of actually fantastic thing and people. The drawline that I can make between them is that their focus on the Daedra Princes, another actually interesting thing in ES universe.

But like any other Fantasy RPG, ES fall into the same trap over and over, focusing themself on the bleak side and left the intereting one to rot. And they blatantly do the same thing with Fallout series.

And besides that, I remember when Feargus Urquhart was making all the same promises about story quality with New Vegas, and ended up turning out a pretty lackluster product

I think it was caused by Bethesda. I've heard that they wouldn't give Obsidian Entertainment funds for their project if the game doesn't receive critical reception. This must pushed the developer to rushed production and make them more streamlined, though its still better than Fallout 3.

But yeah, maybe it will turn out well, after all--I certainly hope it does--but if not, I can just go back and replay the original again.

Well, we could do that. But still wouldn't want my $45 wasted. If only they replaced Rothfuss with Chris Avellone right away! Why it should have to be Rothfuss from all the people!

The only downside of video game as medium of storytelling I can think of, is perhaps, to play the classics isn't just as easy as reading classic books. You know, graphic and compability stuffs. I can imagined my son or daughter could read classic books just fine while playing older classic games would make their eyes in world of hurt.

Oh yeah, did you play Fallout series too? I'm curious and want to know your opinion about the Fallout universe.

"Is it somekind of a trend that modern fantasy writer must grown a neckbeard?"

It is a strange thing for a bunch of grown men to do. I assume that it started with bad hygiene, that many fantasy authors are the kind of awkward dude who would forget to shave for a month, and then turn around and try to pretend that it was a deliberate fashion choice.

"I think it was caused by Bethesda . . . rushed production and make them more streamlined, though its still better than Fallout 3."

Yeah, that makes sense. If that is the problem, then kickstarter games should have better stories--we'll have to see how they turn out.

"still wouldn't want my $45 wasted. If only they replaced Rothfuss with Chris Avellone right away! Why it should have to be Rothfuss from all the people!"

Yeah, that's part of the reason I was cautious about funding this one--I wanted to see some of the concept videos as they revealed more about the process, since Torment is such a high mark to try to hit, and now I'm glad I didn't invest. I mean, it could still turn out well, but I'd rather save my money for more promising projects.

"The only downside of video game as medium of storytelling I can think of, is perhaps, to play the classics isn't just as easy as reading classic books. You know, graphic and compability stuffs."

Yeah, though gog.com does a good job of updating a lot of the technical specs for old games and making sure they work on new machines, plus the fact that games like Torment were based on painted backgrounds, not just rendered graphics, and those age much better.

But you know, for me, I actually had a problem getting into some older games due to older graphics, but now that I'm used to the throwback style of flash games and tablet games, I don't mind the look of Fallout or Torment--it's rather charming, really.

". . . did you play Fallout series too? I'm curious and want to know your opinion about the Fallout universe."

I have played all the games in the series, though I played the first two when I was younger and didn't beat them. I still intend to go back and finish them when I get some free time.

As for the Fallout world, like pretty much every setting, it depends on the writer. It can be really unusual and interesting in the hands of someone creative, but dull and repetitive under another author. One of the things I find most impressive about the Baldur's Gate and Old Republic games is that the view of the world was so interesting despite the fact that the original source material is pretty bland.

So yeah, I definitely like the throwback aspect of Fallout, and the idea of the vaults and all the changes that have taken place in the world, but then you get to Fallout 3, where every single vault becomes a unique experiment, and it was just so formulaic. But then, a lot of worlds end up like that: in the beginning they're unusual and inventive, but eventually they become stagnant and just end up repeating the same stuff over and over, until all that's left is self-reference.

Yeah, though gog.com does a good job of updating a lot of the technical specs for old games and making sure they work on new machines, plus the fact that games like Torment were based on painted backgrounds, not just rendered graphics, and those age much better.

Speaking of graphic, I heard Numenera will used not too sophiscated engine in order to keep the budget under mark. This is good of course, they should prioritize the budget on the game's gameplay and interactivity if they hope fulfill PS:T big name.

It is kinda saddening to me in recent world of gaming where developer pushes themselves very hard to create ultra-sophiscated graphic that could replicate reality. Video game no longer become medium of storytelling anymore. Now it just become the race to replicate reality, and in the end, to escape it.

As for the Fallout world, like pretty much every setting, it depends on the writer. It can be really unusual and interesting in the hands of someone creative, but dull and repetitive under another author. One of the things I find most impressive about the Baldur's Gate and Old Republic games is that the view of the world was so interesting despite the fact that the original source material is pretty bland.

Yeah, I could said that Knight of the Old Republic have good writing of it bland universe. It is one of the interesting side of Star WArs universe that got me hooked to it instead of the film. Yeah, I guess in a game we can't predict the outcome quality of the future releases. Video game is one complex medium to create.

But even as the Fallout 3 took the series into the wrong step, the setting as a whole is still interesting. The vault is experiment in nature from the start. The problem is, in Fallout 3 they shown us TOO many Vault that it started getting rather formulaic and boring.

I guess your rating for this book mean the same for the game. Good talking with you Keely.

You too.

Yeah, I'm actually working on a blog post explaining what roleplaying is, since it's a question I've gotten a few times.

Older WRPG tends to have humorous dialogue, strange odd world, and witty writing.I wonder where they goes now.

Hey Keely! Check out the new Torment: Tides of Numenera that came out a couple days ago? Apparently it's supposed to be the "thematic successor" to Planescape: Torment. I, unfortunately, am too broke and caught up with school and other readings check it out, myself.

Cliff said: "Check out the new Torment: Tides of Numenera that came out a couple days ago?"

I checked into it when it was first on kickstarter, but I saw one of the stretch goals was hiring on author Patrick Rothfuss, who I don't think much of, so I declined to fund it, hoping it wouldn't get that far. Unfortunately it did, so I'm wary about the writing quality of the new game. That's what set the original apart, so it seems to me that creating a worthy successor would require a very solid writing team.

I actually did fund Wasteland 2, but I got bored of the game partway through, in large part because of the lack of depth in the writing, particularly the dearth of party NPCs with compelling stories. At a certain point, I realized the brief backstories I'd written for the party members I'd made were much more interesting to me than the in game NPCs.

I've heard there is a similar fault in Pillars of Eternity, Numenara, and Divinity, which is sad, because party interactions were such a vital part of games like Baldur's Gate, Torment, Jade Empire, and Knights of the Old Republic. Without them, BG2 would be a mere shadow of itself.

I will likely give it a try, at some point, but my hopes are not very high that it will live up to the quality of those great games.

Hey Keely what do you think of Deus Ex? have you ever tried it before?

Faysal said: "Hey Keely what do you think of Deus Ex? have you ever tried it before?"

The original is on my list, but I haven't played it yet. I played Human Revolution, which was alright. It felt a bit generic, entry-level Cyberpunk, and the plot was also pretty basic.

The original is on my list, but I haven't played it yet. I played Human Revolution, which was alright. It felt..."

I see, well the original is still considered groundbreaking for mixing genres, that and it also has really good writing for a video game in my opinion. Invisible war is good, if a bit streamlined and dumbed down, but again it still retains some complexity for an action RPG. And the latest one, Mankind Divided, is also experimental in some ways, i guess the main story line is also basic, i don't think it's delves well into the main theme, which is racism. But it has a very solid lineup of side quests, most of the stories in these i consider them to be better then the main story actually.

Also have you ever played Silent Hill 2 before? it's one of my favorite video games, because of the storytelling, so i would love to see your thoughts about it.

I'm playing the game (the new Torment, that is) now, and it seems quite nice and Tormenty, although they really are trying too hard, IMHO. Pat Rothfuss' (or as I call him, WeirdBeard) contribution seems to be limited to one NPC Companion, and he seems to have managed that part without messing up too badly (but then, it would have been hard to). Mind you, I am still less than a third in, so my opinion might change later.

Faysal said: "Also have you ever played Silent Hill 2 before?"

No, I don't have any experience with that series.

On the subject of video games, I'm very curious as to what you'd think of Dark Souls and Bloodborne. I'm sure you've heard of them as they are probably the most lauded, not just RPGS in the past few years, but honestly video games.

Although you might be put off by them as they are known for their punishing difficulty, impenetrable plot, and a sort of plot where you have to piece together the story through in game dialogue with NPCS and reading item descriptions. All these might sound unappealing as a fantasy book, but honestly, I feel like what makes the series so well received is how the series takes advantage of the video game medium's strengths. Many exposition heavy games are glorified movies where they just bloat the games with cutscenes effectively destroying the pacing. Dark Souls makes use of environmental storytelling, and even gameplay elements are tied into the story. (You keep dying and resurrecting because of the Curse of the Undead, this probably isn't a big deal but it just goes to show how the developers had a vision of trying to every game component organically into the story. Multiplayer as well, you can summon people or NPCS for help during battles and the reason isn't disconnected from the world design).

Reading item descriptions to piece together the backstory of a defunct civilization is almost like being an archaeologist, and suits the post apocalyptic fantasy setting. As exploring the world and making sense of a decaying inhospitable land is part of the appeal, so too is the difficulty which lends credence to world feeling insurmountable. Though none of it would matter if the game had cheap mechanics meant to screw you over, if you play at a slower pace and observe your surroundings the game becomes much more manageable. The series, well Dark Souls 1 anyway, has a lonely atmosphere as there's no civilization, the closest thing is a bonfire in a central hub but otherwise there are no towns or cities.

I'm not sure if they're for you, but they're worth checking into Bloodborne honestly does Lovecraft better than Lovecraft and it's also set in a victorian setting. I should say it's a PS4 exclusive though, so I'm not sure if you have it, but Dark Souls is available on PC.

I should preface that they're "gamer's" games though, and kind of different from what you might expect in an rpg. Gameplay is a big part of why people love the series and combat is a big reason it's praised, unfortunately it's community can be pretty toxic as many tend to repeat the GIT GUD mantra.

I guess they're worth checking out as they're western fantasy (Dark Souls is Medieval Dark Fantasy;Bloodborne is Victorian and Lovecraftian) but done through the lens of a japanese man.

The 'reading different objects to piece together plot' works brilliantly in video games. It's a unique way of storytelling where you get a general image with a lot of holes you can fill in.

It's not just a case of escapism. It's a dialogue between the creators and the gamer. They give him a lot of pieces of information and, hopefully, he can construct an interesting story out of it. Video games allow the player to explore these pieces whenever they want, so the 'worldbuilding' actually works there. You literally explore a world.

It's not like a novel, which is linear. A video game is a mosiac medium, to use McLuhan's terminology.

Of course, the story isn't always good but I found it worked for Elder Scrolls and BioShock.

I kept away from Dark Souls because games being praised for difficulty is like a Hip-Hop artist being praised for being 'real'. The result is boring.

I remember Keely stating that he wasn't a fan of that in Morrowind and found the lore more interesting than the main plot. Dark Souls plot is skeletal and it's very easy to go through the game not knowing much about what's going on if you don't dig into the lore a bit. It'd be godawful as a fantasy book where you're playing Where's Waldo with trying to remember this character's name from three books ago, but the story is also told via details in the environment, item descriptions and NPC dialogue. The actual narrative is very thin. Game has great atmosphere and aesthetic and varied level designs though.

Game has great sense of exploration too, and imo, is much better than the Elder Scrolls in that regard. It's very possible to sequence break and end up in an area where enemies greatly overpower you, which would be the game's way of telling you that you're heading the wrong way, but since items are in fixed locations it makes exploration rewarding. I know oblivion had randomized loot, though Morrowind didn't. Though I doubt this talk about loot interests keely that much. The actual level design and interconnectivity is also a big draw for the game. There isn't fast travel for the first half, but areas frequently have shortcuts that lead back to the central hub or another area which makes running through levels not annoying, which is a massive feat since it lacks fast travel. Just like how Morrowind had to get creative with "fast travel" alternatives (Spells, levitating, super jumps, and using Stilt Striders) because it lacked conventional fast travel like Oblivion and Fallout 3.

Dark Souls difficulty is a misnomer, it isn't praised because it's solely difficult. It's praised because it balances difficulty well without being unfair or cheap, something that Das2 failed at. While I wouldn't want to undersell the difficulty and say it's easy like so many people do, the game has multiple ways to get over something if you're stuck. There's summoning NPCS or other plays for help if a boss is too difficult, you can get a decent amount of healing items mid to late game and even play a class which adds even more healing, using a greatshield (or any shield) with 100 physical damage reduction and good stability. Not that you have to rely on these, but if the game was really giving someone a hard time there's ways to make it more forgiving.

If anything if Dark Souls was easy, that would destroy the atmosphere the game was setting up which is a brutal and unforgiving world that doesn't care about you, and if you fail in your mission another undead will just take your place.

Kirbouh said: "I remember Keely stating that he wasn't a fan of that in Morrowind and found the lore more interesting than the main plot."

Well, it's more that the lore would have made a better plot than the one you actually get to play. In general I don't like lore, I'm not going to read item descriptions or codex entries, even in games I like. It's like appendices in fantasy books, where the author stuffs in all the pointless details that didn't fit into the story.

If a detail is important in a game, then let me play through it, myself. Make it into a conversation, or an experience, or a flashback. That's the strength of games as a medium, after all: they allow you to experience these things first hand, to play the active role at the center of them.

If I want to read a book, I will--I don't need my games to be structured like that. Of course, I understand with DS (and other games), that stuff gets put into lore because the designers are worried that the hardcore players who only care about gameplay will be bored by it. But if a game is designed around hardcore gameplay enthusiasts, at the expense of story and setting, then it's already specifically excluding players like me.

"I'm very curious as to what you'd think of Dark Souls"

A GR friend actually bought me a copy of the game, as he was curious about my reaction, too. I didn't last very long. While there were a few promising bits in there, in terms of story and design, they were far too few. It was just too repetitive, the way the same monster groups come back every time you go through, and so its just the same battles over and over.

Want to visit the smith? Fight the same dozen guys. Want to hit the store? Fight through them all again. Want to level up or repair your weapons or use your inventory? All the badguys just respawned again.

Far from the complex, tactical combat everyone promised, I found it was just a slog of killing the same mooks over and over again. It wasn't difficult, but it was dull. Of course, fans insist that the later game is better, and it's only the beginning that has these problems, but I just found the beginning so unrewarding and repetitive that I just stopped caring what the rest of the game looked like.

And of course, fans will say that's by design: 'a brutal and unforgiving world that doesn't care about you, and if you fail in your mission another undead will just take your place'--but is the best way to represent boredom and stupidity to write a book that is, itself, boring and stupid? I mean, if the point of the game was to make me feel that playing it was a waste of time, then I guess it succeeded, but that doesn't seem like a very worthy goal.

I'll probably give it another try, someday, if I can get my gaming rig up and running again, and see if getting farther actually makes the game into something interesting, but overall, my experience with it did not impress me.

"There's summoning NPCS or other plays for help if a boss is too difficult"

Yeah, that was another problem I had, that the game refused to play online. I guess it's a fairly common error, especially running an old game on a newer computer. So, no help for me, no notes or fellow players to work with.

I'm on my phone so I apologize in advance for not being able to quote each point.

Anyways I'd normally agree with you about lore dumps but it was appropriate here. It's not a linear fps shooter. It's a post apocalyptic fantasy one where you have to uncover the history of the setting yourself. I also generally dislike cutscenes because they feel lazy many times and are a crutch to move the story forward. Too many games have this structure where the game feels disjointed cause the cutscenes and gameplay pacing are off and it feels more like glorified movies.

Also how can you not appreciate the intuitiveness of the tutorial at least? You are given a broken sword and a giant demon jumps down but after reading a marker on the ground it says you're not supposed to fight him yet (I'm sure a lot of people skimped on that at first and you're strung along gradually getting better weapons and armor with tips that you can easily skip and isn't for force fed to you. In many other games the tutorial intro would be overblown and bombastic with signs telling you where to go or what to do next. It's respecting the players intelligence which many other games don't do ( I mean witcher 3 has spidey senses for quests) that make it appealing.

Enemies respawn because they're needed for xp to level up or buy equipment. I mean this is just a common things in action rpgs. You also don't have to fight them ( well most of them) it's easy to run past them if you just want to get to a new area.

The combat is praised because of the weight, responsiveness, and appropriate feel each weapon have on top of having to manage stamina with rolling or blocking. Using a giant axe or giant sword actually feels weighty as opposed to Oblivion or new Vegas where the heavy weapons never actually had the appropriate weight to them. It's actually decidedly simple you just have two attack buttons but can parry, backstab, riposte, do a rolling attack, or jumping attack.

This is going to sound interrogative and I don't mean to but if the reason the enemies kept respawning was because of you dying. You can't call the game not difficult, you can say it's tedious ( I don't find it that way as it's a way to punish the player plus they're needed for xp and are decent to practice moves on) but the enemies kill you for a reason. You have to respect their poise and many of them are quick to punish you if you overextend or leave a blind spot while attacking their friend. I had this argument with a friend who found it unfair that when he died to a boss he had to run past the enemies again and complained about the boss not being difficult. If you can just quick save before every boss, I claimed that that makes ANY game easier. A LOT easier, I don't even find it that punishing, it's a throwback to old school games like mega man. Except those were worse as bonfires are actually not that far apart from bosses and you don't have to restart the whole level.

I don't know, I died a ton early on and while it did cause me to scream a few times at my tv, I enjoyed it a ton. Most games are far too quick to make you feel like a god and you didn't have to respect your enemies at all. Here enemies actually do their best to kill you.


As for summoning not working did you talk to Solaire the Sun Knight? He gives you an item to summon. He's after the Minotaur demon. Were you also human or hollow when you tried to summon? You need to use a humanity to do so.

Kirbough said: "I also generally dislike cutscenes because they feel lazy many times and are a crutch to move the story forward."

I never suggested cutscenes were a good alternative. I mean, they are visual, unlike lore entries, but they lack the agency and choice that videogames give you. Instead of turning a game into a book, they turn it into a movie. Better to experience the story through your character's actions and experiences in the game.

"It's respecting the players intelligence which many other games don't do ( I mean witcher 3 has spidey senses for quests) that make it appealing."

Yeah, but there has to be a middle ground between holding the player's hand all along and just saying 'fuck em'. I mean, the whole process of character creation is so obscure, trying to figure out what all the stats actually do--especially since for some, the description doesn't actually relate to what the stat does in game. I'm just lucky I have some familiarity with tabletop games. It's hard to imagine what a player does who is coming upon this kind of character creation process without prior experience with that kind of system.

"Enemies respawn because they're needed for xp to level up or buy equipment. I mean this is just a common things in action rpgs."

Eh, I've never thought level-grinding was a very good system. It certainly doesn't represent the 'tactics-based, meaningful combat' that DS is meant to be built around. I mean, that's the kind of tactic the Final Fantasy games use to stretch the playtime to 60 hours: "kill the same enemies over and over in order to buy better gear to beat the next boss".

"This is going to sound interrogative and I don't mean to but if the reason the enemies kept respawning was because of you dying."

As I said, you don't even have to die for them to respawn, all you have to do is access your inventory, or repair a weapon, or level up, or refill your potions, or store some souls, or kindle a fire. Sure, I died sometimes, too, but it felt like pretty much anything I did was going to cause those same guys I'd just killed to reappear.

And it didn't even make any sense--why would switching my shield cause six random zombies to all reappear in exactly the same positions as before right behind me? I mean, this is supposed to be an engrossing story that sucks you in, but that felt blatantly artificial to me, just making you do the same level over and over because it stretches the game out.

"I had this argument with a friend who found it unfair that when he died to a boss he had to run past the enemies again and complained about the boss not being difficult. If you can just quick save before every boss, I claimed that that makes ANY game easier."

Sure, but then you can't say DS is a technical game about figuring out boss patterns and killing them through sound strategy. Instead, it's an endurance game where the difficulty is about not losing concentration as you go through waves of the same enemies over and over.

It's not that the mooks are hard to kill, it's that it's boring to kill them for the sixth time--and then you get sent back to fight them over again, not because they offered any challenge, but because you're still trying to figure out the boss. It's basically saying 'every time you want to fight this boss, we're going to tack on ten minutes of other stuff you've already done'. Sure, it makes it harder, but not in an interesting way--it's only harder because it's annoying to go through that every time.

"As for summoning not working did you talk to Solaire the Sun Knight?"

When trying to start an online game, it would kick me after a minute or so. I could only play the game in offline mode.

"Better to experience the story through your character's actions and experiences in the game."

But that's what the game does, the story is also fed to you through bits of dialogue with other NPCS (who also explain things like kindling a bonfire or how to gain humanity and turn human) . And even the placement of items at least make sense, the loot from a dead warrior character is located right next to a dragon gives a certain verisimilitude to the world. It isn't just items scattered about.

"Yeah, but there has to be a middle ground between holding the player's hand all along and just saying 'fuck em'. I mean, the whole process of character creation is so obscure, trying to figure out what all the stats actually do--especially since for some, the description doesn't actually relate to what the stat does in game"

I don't know. I mean it could have been clear but I just put two and two together for the stats. I mean upgrading strength lets you do more damage with strength based weapons and lets you wield heavier ones. Dexterity likewise is for speedier weapons. Even just "mock" placing points into say Vitality when you level up shows that you gain more health by placing points into that. Endurance likewise shows you gain points in fatigue and equip load. Intelligence is pretty much strength and dexterity for catalysts (mage staffs). You're starting character and gift doesn't really factor in much as you can spec points into whatever attributes and make your own class. They just make early game easier for new players and really it depends on what starting weapon, and armor you want.

"Eh, I've never thought level-grinding was a very good system"

Except Dark Souls isn't grindy at all. In fact people who are "good" or rarely ever die are more likely to be a lower level (up to thirty even or more) than people who constantly die. People who die continuously inadvertently gain more xp because of the backtracking to reclaim their souls on top of the souls from the enemies they killed on the way there. So it actually intuitively benefits people who are "bad" or struggling with the game actually. People have beaten the games as a level 1. Gear, equipment, and most importantly player skill are more important then actual levels. I mean being overleveled does make the game easier as you'll end up having more health, poise, stamina, and do more damage with weapons but most people who are overleveled aren't even trying to be overleveled.

"As I said, you don't even have to die for them to respawn, all you have to do is access your inventory, or repair a weapon, or level up, or refill your potions, or store some souls, or kindle a fire. Sure, I died sometimes, too, but it felt like pretty much anything I did was going to cause those same guys I'd just killed to reappear."

I think it's fair using a bonfire is a big advantage against the game. If you've ever had enemies run towards you and activate a bonfire it resets the area (which is why the enemies respawn if you just change a shield, just using a bonfire resets the area).

Also it forces you to weigh your decisions, if enemies respawning are that annoying you can just go back to Andre to repair your equipment. You have unlimited weight capacity so you never have to actually store items in a bonfire, but it does make your stash less cluttered.

As for leveling up, restoring your humanity, kindling a bonfire (I assume to get more potions), hell just using a bonfire restores your Estus Flasks, all these are very fair. If you want to get more bonuses than the game adjusts accordingly. If the enemies respawning are a pain than level up in a bonfire in a new area.


"Sure, but then you can't say DS is a technical game about figuring out boss patterns and killing them through sound strategy. Instead, it's an endurance game where the difficulty is about not losing concentration as you go through waves of the same enemies over and over."

The bosses are actually the easiest part about Dark Souls 1. They ramp up the AI and movesets in Bloodborne and Dark Souls 3. Many of them have predictable patterns themselves. Only a handful of Dark Souls 1 bosses (Ornstein and Smough, the Gargoyles, the DLC bosses) were what shook it up. For Ornstein and Smough you have to juggle between two giant enemies who are designed as a 2v1 fight. Without each other they falter, but they cover each other's lulls and trying to find an opening is what causes frustation. It's one of the most well designed fights in the series.

The rest of the bosses are more intimidating and impressive looking than they are downright tough.

It's honestly the levels (traps, environmental hazards, falling to your death, or enemies ganging up on you) that makes this game difficult.

"It's not that the mooks are hard to kill, it's that it's boring to kill them for the sixth time--and then you get sent back to fight them over again, not because they offered any challenge, but because you're still trying to figure out the boss. It's basically saying 'every time you want to fight this boss, we're going to tack on ten minutes of other stuff you've already done'. Sure, it makes it harder, but not in an interesting way--it's only harder because it's annoying to go through that every time."

I disagree, for an expirement play any old school NES "hardcore game" like Megaman, Ghouls and Ghosts, hell maybe even the old Zelda games and abuse a save state every 5 seconds so you don't have to actually worry about losing progress versus playing them the way they are intended. By doing the former it trivializes the games and ruins their design. Dark Souls 1 is like that, the bonfires and enemy placements really aren't that far from bosses and if you're fed up enough you can run past most enemies (though might have to face some if you're in a tight hallway) and the treking from a bonfire to a boss is really more like 4 minutes rather than 10. Either way it gives more tension and importance in a fight so you can't be on autopilot mode. If you were able to respawn right outside of a boss area, it'd be very easy to play recklessly and get killed and well you can respawn right away so what does it matter. With the bonfire placement, it forces you to be more conservative with your strategy in how to approach a boss. You can't just go gungho on them, and it's a game of patience to see all their patterns.

"When trying to start an online game, it would kick me after a minute or so. I could only play the game in offline mode. "

Unfortunately the pc port is buggy. Did you install DSfix, it's essential, as it improves the frame rate (it unlocks 60 FPS and if you're framerate keeps dropping below a certain threshold than the game boots you from online play), increases the resolution and textures. There's also a mod needed to fix the online as the online is still very active. If you just wanted to summon someone for help, than you need to do it before a boss area and you need to be human. I'd honestly recommend NPCS instead of humans though, as getting another human will probably do the bossfight for you. You also don't need online to summon npcs.

Also to reply to this point

"And of course, fans will say that's by design: 'a brutal and unforgiving world that doesn't care about you, and if you fail in your mission another undead will just take your place'--but is the best way to represent boredom and stupidity to write a book that is, itself, boring and stupid? I mean, if the point of the game was to make me feel that playing it was a waste of time, then I guess it succeeded, but that doesn't seem like a very worthy goal."

I'm not sure what you mean. In a video game, one of the best ways to showcase a hostile and unforgiving is in the gameplay, which Dark Souls does. I mean the difficulty isn't the only way that it shows it, just the tutorial level alone showcases it. You're given a broken sword and a giant demon drops down in the first like 5 minutes, he'll he's the first enemy you see. The level isn't actually difficult but it shows how much the odds are stocked against you and you are literally just a random undead that could just as easily be replaced. Characters mock you and are sarcastic, some can't be trusted, a lot of have obviously gone crazy from the world and it's taken a toll on the psychologically (Solaire), there's few actual "nice guys". There isn't a civilzation and firelink shrine is the closest thing to a "town" which provides a bit of solitude and respite, and by doing that it really hammers down the bleakness of it all.

Kirbouh said: "But that's what the game does, the story is also fed to you through bits of dialogue with other NPCS"

Eh, I've had people tell me you have to read the item lore to really 'get it', but if I can get the full game experience through NPC interactions, that works for me.

"Dark Souls isn't grindy at all. In fact people who are "good" or rarely ever die are more likely to be a lower level ... People have beaten the games as a level 1"

Yeah, but you can say that about most any game. There are always those speedrunner types who play the game on the hardest difficulty just to do it--and while that's impressive in a way, it holds no appeal for me. Just because it's possible for some people to beat the game this way doesn't mean the game is well-balanced, or well-designed.

It's like saying 'well, there is a medium difficulty, but to do it you have to spend hours grinding until you're overleveled'--which, again, sounds like a boring time to me. I mean, people like different things from games. Some like to collect all the lore and put it in wikis, some like to get all the achievements, or collect all the gear, some like to master the gameplay, some like to speedrun--I don't like any of those things.

I play for the story, the feel, the art, and the way the game explores space and movement. Yeah, combat is certainly part of that, and the feel of a particular game's combat is certainly important--but when a game starts focusing heavily on combat, and that's the main way you interact with the world around you, I tend to lose interest, especially if that combat is repetitive.

"for an expirement play any old school NES "hardcore game""

Yeah, I also find those games to be tedious. Again, it's not about 'can you solve this puzzle/make this jump/beat this boss?', instead it's 'can you keep playing for hours on end?' That sort of artificial difficulty doesn't interest me. It's like the old arcade mindset, where instead of enjoying playing a game, it was a big competitive challenge.

"I'd honestly recommend NPCS instead of humans though"

Huh, I've had other DS players tell me that playing with other people is a big part of the game, and you don't get the same experience without that.

"I'm not sure what you mean."

Oh, just something I've encountered in discussions of DS before, the idea that 'if you feel frustrated and brutalized, you're supposed to, that's what the game designers wanted'. But just because it was on purpose doesn't make it good. If a guy punches himself in the face and says 'it was on purpose', that doesn't make it less stupid.

"There isn't a civilzation and firelink shrine is the closest thing to a "town""

Huh, that's disappointing. And here I was hoping that getting past the Undead Burg would lead to new and interesting areas and a larger world.

"doing that it really hammers down the bleakness of it all"

Yeah, I suppose that's true, but I don't find 'bleak pointlessness' to be a very interesting starting point for a game. If I'm going to play a repetitious endurance game, I'll need something more interesting than that to motivate me to stick with it and not just play something else.

"Did you install DSfix"

Yeah, and I tried a couple other things, but no luck.

Hi Keely, maybe this question doesn't belong on this thread, but who do you consider to be your favorite artists and illustrators?

Faysal said: "who do you consider to be your favorite artists and illustrators?"

Joseph Clement Coll, Tony Diterlizzi, Gustave Dore, Arthur Rackham, Moebius, Frank Frazetta, Duncan Fegredo, Wally Wood, Winsor McCay, William Pogany, Hiroshi and Toshi Yoshida, Chris Bachalo, Mike Mignola, and Yoshitaka Amano.

J.G. Keely wrote: "Faysal said: "who do you consider to be your favorite artists and illustrators?"

Joseph Clement Coll, Tony Diterlizzi, Gustave Dore, Arthur Rackham, Moebius, Frank Frazetta, Duncan Fegredo, Wally ..."

Thanks for the response

Faysal said: "Thanks for the response"

No problem--and actually, this is a particularly apt thread to ask that question in, because this book is where I first discovered Diterlizzi's work.

J.G. Keely wrote: "Faysal said: "Thanks for the response"

No problem--and actually, this is a particularly apt thread to ask that question in, because this book is where I first discovered Diterlizzi's work."

Ah ok i see, yeah apparently i forgot to check if the book had any illustrations, since this is a game book. Do all game books have like some illustrations in case they want to help the players in imagining the areas or something i guess? this is coming from someone who has never played table top board games before, even though i'm planning on trying on some.

Faysal said: "Do all game books have like some illustrations in case they want to help the players in imagining the areas or something i guess?"

Yeah, gamebooks are usually extensively illustrated, to help players better visualize the tone and design of the setting. I mean, the games are built around using the imagination to picture these things, so it's quite useful to have some inspiration to draw upon when you start playing.

J.G. Keely wrote: "Faysal said: "Do all game books have like some illustrations in case they want to help the players in imagining the areas or something i guess?"

Yeah, gamebooks are usually extensively illustrated..."

I see thanks for the responses and apologies if the question sounded stupid.

Not at all.

Arc said: "I'd like to recommend a pretty well written "game" story I've found."

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll have to check it out.

*clicks on the link, goes to a random place in the video *

*sees graphic rape scene *

And that, folks, is why you shouldn't play Japanese "games."

Good God, Keely, I find your criticisms of Dark Souls to be seriously lacking in the most blue-balled way possible. Most of what you say is either false or can be explained away with examples you've either haven't considered or casually omitted. No, really, I feel the need to reply. I think Dark Souls is one of the most underrated masterpieces to come out in the last 10 years, and as an opinionated individual on the Internet I must defend it.

---

>Yeah, but there has to be a middle ground between holding the player's hand all along and just saying 'fuck em'. I mean, the whole process of character creation is so obscure, trying to figure out what all the stats actually do--especially since for some, the description doesn't actually relate to what the stat does in game.

That's called flexibility. The beginning classes you choose (knight, sorcerer, etc) are just to get you started. It's there so you have a way to start the game, to get you kicked off in a vague direction of your choosing.

As for stats, how are they vague? Explain to me how you didn't get it. Vitality is HP; endurance is stamina and burden load; strength increases damage; dexterity is how fast you cast spells; and intelligence and faith are for sorcery and miracles respectively. Some armor and weapons have certain stat requirements (i.e. must have 30 strength to use properly). A 10 year old could understand that.

The only way this can be confusing is if you've literally never experienced anything relating to an RPG in your life. Context based on other sources is found everywhere: movies, books, video games, and so on.

>Eh, I've never thought level-grinding was a very good system. It certainly doesn't represent the 'tactics-based, meaningful combat' that DS is meant to be built around.

First of all, enemies respawn in virtually every game. Second, you don't need to grind (unless you need to git gud, fam). I've beaten Dark Souls four separate times now; the latter two times I did with new characters, while only dying a handful of times, and only ever leveling up when I happened to have enough souls for it. I'm sure as hell not a speed-runner, and yet I managed just fine. Is it asking too much that a game requires you to have good hand-eye coordination? Do you only like easy games?

I've heard you say that you take no interest being good at games, only in their stories, which begs the question: what were you expecting? You're playing a game, not reading a book. You've got your presuppositions on what a game ought to be mixed up.

>As I said, you don't even have to die for them to respawn, all you have to do is access your inventory, or repair a weapon, or level up, or refill your potions, or store some souls, or kindle a fire.

Enemies only respawn if you access a bonfire or die (which brings you back to a bonfire). Where did you get the idea that enemies respawn if you check your inventory?

>And it didn't even make any sense--why would switching my shield cause six random zombies to all reappear in exactly the same positions as before right behind me?

Switching your equipment doesn't cause enemies to respawn. You sure you played the game?

>It's not that the mooks are hard to kill, it's that it's boring to kill them for the sixth time

Then stop dying to the bosses! Okay, look, Dark Souls has an absurd amount of enemy variety, something like 87 different enemy types, and that doesn't include bosses. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that you haven't even rung the first bell yet, which is only the first fifth of the game.

This actually reminds me of Yahtzee's review of Dark Souls: he hated the game at first because it felt like constantly hitting your head into a brick wall, and so he gave up on it. But after nonstop bickering from fans to keep playing he just decided to say "fuck it, I'll keep hitting my head on the wall till I turn into a masochist," and now Dark Souls is one of his favorite games. Check out the review:

And look, the game is filled with short cuts. A lot of the fodder you can just skip once you learn how.

"Then why have them respawn if you can just skip them?"

Because what would be the point of shortcuts? Getting past the levels faster? Then what's the point of the base levels? Why not just have the shortcuts be the levels?

>When trying to start an online game, it would kick me after a minute or so. I could only play the game in offline mode.

That's good. Co-op is the hidden easy mode. Although co-op is pretty great in NG+.

>Just because it's possible for some people to beat the game this way doesn't mean the game is well-balanced, or well-designed.

Except it IS well designed. Dark Souls has some of the best 3D level design in any game period. There's countless videos analyzing its interconnected design. Levels are extremely vertical, they stack and loop back on themselves; it's done in such a way that blows your mind once you find shortcuts that tie your current location all the way back to the hub area.

>It's like saying 'well, there is a medium difficulty, but to do it you have to spend hours grinding until you're overleveled'--which, again, sounds like a boring time to me.

No, you don't need to grind, and you don't need to be overleveled. You just need to get the rhythm and sooner or later you'll be cutting down bosses without ever getting hit. Your main criticism can't be that it's boring when you can't justify why it's boring other than "I don't like dying." You can't say a game is boring for being hard, otherwise hard-to-read books are boring for being hard to read.

>some like to master the gameplay . . . I don't like any of those things.

Dude, you're playing a game. What do you except? May as well say, "I don't like Citizen Kane because black and white movies don't appeal to me." You're not even judging the game, you're just fashioning out reasons to not like it.

>when a game starts focusing heavily on combat, and that's the main way you interact with the world around you, I tend to lose interest, especially if that combat is repetitive.

So you think the combat is repetitive because it's not complex/varied enough? Look, there's a difference between depth and complexity. Complexity is how many variables you have; depth is how many combinations of actions you can do with those variables. Dark Soul's combat is extremely deep, but if you call it repetitive, it's like me calling Pulp Fiction confusing just because I judged it at its surface. This video does a good job at explaining the difference:

>That sort of artificial difficulty doesn't interest me.

Dark Soul's difficulty is definitely not artificial. In fact, I can prove it. In virtually every interview done, the director of the game was always asked to comment on the difficulty, and he always said the same thing: difficulty was not the point; the point was to create an authentic game that did not artificially make you feel like a badass, because when games do that it feels cheap and unearned. "Difficulty" was a product of that philosophy.

>the idea that 'if you feel frustrated and brutalized, you're supposed to, that's what the game designers wanted'. But just because it was on purpose doesn't make it good.

Well, like I said, the point isn't to be sadistically brutal, the point is to treat the player with respect and let the world react realistically to you. The guy who made the game said so himself. It reminds me of this quote: "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you." Just change up the wording to fit a video game context: "If you make people think they're good at the game, they'll love it, but if you really make them earn the feeling of being good, they'll hate the game." Eh, perhaps something was lost in translation there, but you get the point.

Dark Souls isn't soft, it treats you as someone who's capable of learning and with a sufficient level of patience. If you keep dying it's because you keep fucking up somewhere. And if you don't want that and rather skip to all the lore and characters, just go read a book. Games are not books. There's a reason why games with too many cutscenes are criticized for being interactable movies.

>Huh, that's disappointing. And here I was hoping that getting past the Undead Burg would lead to new and interesting areas and a larger world.

You mean like this:

Or this:

Or this:

Dark Souls has significantly more variety in its levels than you probably think.

>Yeah, I suppose that's true, but I don't find 'bleak pointlessness' to be a very interesting starting point for a game. If I'm going to play a repetitious endurance game, I'll need something more interesting than that to motivate me to stick with it and not just play something else.

It's not a pointlessly bleak game. That's like calling Dostoevsky pointlessly bleak; his books are bleak, but it's for a reason. Same with Dark Souls. The game teaches you its semi-nihilistic philosophy of accepting death through this atmosphere (although that description barely scratches the surface).

I genuinely think you'll love the game if you force yourself to at least the middle point, Anor Londo. And you want to know why?
Because after feeling genuine accomplishment with every boss kill and level completed you'll grow obsessed with that feeling. Everyone does. It's like an antidote to constantly being fed victories from other games.

I know many people associate the monomyth with the virtuous hero defeating the evil Dark Lord, but it's not a requirement. A monomythic story doesn't have to involve only external conflicts, simplistic morality and a hero who is powerful or inherently righteous. You can tell a story about a selfish/cowardly anti-hero with internal conflict just as well and still mostly follow the monomyth. It's about a journey, be it about a literal or a spiritual one.

J.G. Keely wrote: "In other settings, one often must play the hero, or sometimes the reluctant hero, because there is no ideological journey for the disenfranchised, the self-serving, the cowardly, or the incompetently well-meaning."

I disagree. You can play these kinds of characters in other settings too if you want to.

Leonardo wrote: "Good God, Keely, I find your criticisms of Dark Souls to be seriously lacking in the most blue-balled way possible. Most of what you say is either false or can be explained away with examples you'v..."

You didn't have to roast his ass like that damn, he's an Ashen one now lol