×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

24 comments

FP? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10460737)

MEgaCool and stuff!

Nice! (3, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 9 years ago | (#10460992)

Planescape Torment remains to me one the finest RPG's I ever played and one of the best computer games around. Sadly I am one of the few who bought it when it came out and there is little chance of an official sequel. It is still popular on bittorrent sites but of course that is only extra proof to game studios that there is no money in a sequel.

However I am a bit worried about them using the PT engine to create their addon. PT did have a problem and that was the engine. It had a rather limited resolution and it does hurt. Yes the game was very very nice but nowadays we expect better pictures.

Good luck to them although I do have my doubts, any team that can lose so much work due to a simple HD failure might not have what it takes to truly make an RPG. An RPG is not like a Quake map or even a total conversion. It needs story telling but also needs various threads of stories to work together. Can someone who can't make a succesfull backup strategie really be counted on making a social RPG (lots of decisions affecting lots of things) work?

I hope so but won't get my hopes up.

I am also kinda puzzled why they are not using a more modern engine. To me Planescape was the story and the fact you could talk your way out of most scraps coupled with the detailed NPC's who were more then just an extra set of weapons on legs. The art was far less important since it was so low res anyway, couldn't they be done in the Neverwinter engine?

Re:Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10461168)

The art was far less important since it was so low res anyway, couldn't they be done in the Neverwinter engine?

That's kinda what I was thinking during the interview. Granted, I'm not fond of the Neverwinter graphics engine, and the game engine itself has its own share of headaches, but at the very least they'd have to potential to reach a broader audience.

Re:Nice! (1)

JackBuckley (696547) | more than 9 years ago | (#10461487)

Wow, what a great game PS:T was.

I would have to agree regarding the choice of engine. As I recall, pathfinding was pretty ugly (at least compared to BGII or BGII:ToB) and the PS:T engine had some other warts. I would rather see the game made using the BGII version of the Infinity Engine, as opposed to the Neverwinter one. I never really got used to the camera in NN--give me fixed isomorphic RPGs with great inside jokes ("I'm the skull of Vecna") any day!

Re:Nice! (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 9 years ago | (#10461523)

I disagree, I thought art was great. The only problem with the engine it didn't allow for missile weapons like BG and BG2 did. This would make it difficult to redo another game using this engine.

Re:Nice! (1)

Kirsha (201264) | more than 9 years ago | (#10462839)

Hmm its been a while since I last played Torment, but didnt the modron, Nordom, use crossbows as its only weapons? Those are missile weapons as far as I know....

Re:Nice! (1)

glowimperial (705397) | more than 9 years ago | (#10461756)

As much as I did enjoy the visual feel of the original engine, I think that gameplay might better be served by usign a modified version of the NN or BG2 engine. The question is, would the graphic style be totally impacted by the change in scale and the need to create so many new graphics or adapt existing ones to a different engine.

I wish them the best of luck, though. Planescape is one of the best adventure/RPGs in modern times, and the best of the AD&D ones ever. It's a high bar that they are going to be held to when they develop this project.

Harddrives and Game Engines (2, Insightful)

Humby (820021) | more than 9 years ago | (#10462897)

Just thought I'd clarify a few points here. The work that was lost was not due to just the HD failure. We had the extreme bad luck to find out that our backups had been corrupted as well. As to why we're still using the PS:T engine, we get asked this all the time - and the answer is in the interview:
The version of Infinity Engine used in Torment is the most difficult to mod. Why didn't you use BG2 version of Infinity which is the best for the modding? We're frequently asked this question, and the answer comes in two parts:
a) Firstly, the feel of using the PST version of IE is completely different than the feeling of using the BG2/TOB version of IE. One of the things that we wanted to make sure we kept from PST was the feel of the game, the style, that certain something that makes PST a completely different game from BG2.
b) Having said that, we are aware that it's becoming increasingly difficult to obtain PST, as it's out of print. Because of that we are looking into porting the game to other versions of the Infinity Engine and / or using a different engine altogether, such as the one being developed by the GemRB project.
We're not currently intending on creating a version for NWN. That's not to say that it won't happen, just that we have no plans to do so.

We're always interested in receiving feedback, so perhaps I'll see you on our forums: http://www.planescape-vengeance.net/modules.php?na me=Forums [planescape-vengeance.net]

Yeah but I am not getting your answer (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 9 years ago | (#10463457)

To me the feel had little to do with the engine. It was the gameplay. The story, the characters, the decision taking, the fact that I thought long and hard about what can chance the nature of a man despite knowing full well that it had no impact on the game what you choose(?). Could have done it with quake engine and it still would have been PST.

I have recently replayed it and the graphics are way past it. Not as bad as one of my other all favorite games, X-com apocalypse but still enough to distract. I also recently played Icewind dale 1 and 2 (wich started me on a replay of PST) and 2 definitly aged better because of the higher graphics option.

I just never noticed a real difference in the controls of the game, just totally different ways of doing an RPG.

Anyway good luck with the project, must be a hell of a job to do. Just hope you find someway to increase the resolution :P

Re:Yeah but I am not getting your answer (2, Insightful)

Humby (820021) | more than 9 years ago | (#10464842)

So you think that if the content (spells, items, chars etc) from PS:T was converted into the formats used by the BG2 Engine, you'd end up with a game that felt the same? They may use different versions of the same engine, but the tone of the games they power is too different.
For example, the bestiary added a new scope and depth to PS:T, and it's not something that could be easily repeated in BG2 - and not in a similar manner. As another example, the animated portraits of PS:T - actually seeing the characters move added something to them that was lacking in BG2.
Having said all that, we are looking at other engines, or other versions of the Infinity Engine. If we decide that we can make PS:V work with another engine, then we'll use it. If we can't then we won't. Simple as that, really. Although we'll still have the PS:T version....

Re:Harddrives and Game Engines (1)

Kirsha (201264) | more than 9 years ago | (#10464254)

I would like to add that there is something that I loved about the PS:T engine that I didnt see in the BG engine, though it may have been added in the BG2 engine which I havent played, and it was the ability to run. Oh the joy to scramble from one place to the other which was lacking in the original Baldur's Gate. Really made it enjoyable to explore fully all the maps instead of the drag that it was in BG.

On a personal note, thanks for trying to bring more Planescape goodness. As a fan of the original, Im very grateful.

Re:Harddrives and Game Engines (1)

illuvata (677144) | more than 9 years ago | (#10479359)

It'd be a lot more accurate to say that what was missing from BG was the ability to walk.
If it seemed like you moved faster in PS:T, it was just because the camera was a lot closer to the ground, so moving across the screen isn't as far.

Re:Harddrives and Game Engines (1)

Colazar (707548) | more than 9 years ago | (#10466447)

If you do end up using a different engine, I would request that you used one which has been ported over to OS X.

Re:Harddrives and Game Engines (1)

Humby (820021) | more than 9 years ago | (#10467880)

Not being a OS X user, I'm afraid I have no idea what has or has not been ported. Any chance of some examples?

The engine (2, Interesting)

travail_jgd (80602) | more than 9 years ago | (#10464006)

I'd rather see them use the Icewind Dale 2 engine. Not only is it the final incarnation of the Infinity Engine (with the latest features), it also supports D&D 3rd edition rules. A lot of P:T's clunkiness involved in levelling and skills would be handled much more gracefully.

Still, I am _very_ much looking forward to see what the team produces.

Re:Nice! (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 9 years ago | (#10468664)

From the FAQ:

"We're frequently asked this question, and the answer comes in two parts:
a) Firstly, the feel of using the PST version of IE is completely different than the feeling of using the BG2/TOB version of IE. One of the things that we wanted to make sure we kept from PST was the feel of the game, the style, that certain something that makes PST a completely different game from BG2.
b) Having said that, we are aware that it's becoming increasingly difficult to obtain PST, as it's out of print. Because of that we are looking into porting the game to other versions of the Infinity Engine and / or using a different engine altogother, such as the one being developed by the GemRB project."

This has been in the works for quite some time now actually, & I'm glad to see it's finally nearing completion.

Jaysyn

What I'd rather see ... (2, Interesting)

dougmc (70836) | more than 9 years ago | (#10463087)

I bought PST, still have it, but never got too far into it. I certainly liked the story behind the game, but I got it at about the same time as I got BG2, and it was painful going back to the old graphics resolution. (BG2, on the other hand, kept me riveted for a long time.)

I'd like to see somebody re-release PST with the original content, but a new engine. Not that I'm expecting y'all to do that, just wishing out loud :)

(And no, I don't really want a NWN version. I was as amazed as anybody by NWN's graphics, but I really really hated how you didn't have a party anymore. It was you, and usually a henchman who you didn't completely control. I want a party! I want fighters, mages, a cleric or two and a thief! (Though two jedi, a soldier and a scoundrel did make a nice subsitute in a recent game ...) Of course, if you can give me a party AND NWN-ish graphics, that would be nice ... though I really did dislike NWN's radial button thingee.)

Re:What I'd rather see ... (1)

Asmor (775910) | more than 9 years ago | (#10464504)

I believe in the first expansion to NWN, they allowed you to have one party member, and in the second you can have two. They also greatly improved the interface for party members in the second one; in the first one it was really just an AI that you were able to grossly manipulate through a kludged together dialog system. Those details could be wrong, though, been a long time since I've played. But the point is, if you're making a new game with the NWN engine, it's possible to have party members.

I'd really like to be excited about this (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#10463117)

But what we have is someone talking about a game that might have been if the team wasn't too incompetent to make sure they had backups, and a manga-esque pencil sketch of a character with big eyes. There's a lot of commentary about what might be, but right now they have essentially nothing. I'd be happy to see a demo when they have one, but until then I have a hard time getting excited about some speculation.

Re:I'd really like to be excited about this (1)

mink (266117) | more than 9 years ago | (#10464699)

Looks to me like they had backups, they just did not verify them, or they were damaged and rendered useless.

Re:I'd really like to be excited about this (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#10465353)

Sounds to me like they didn't verify them, which makes them useless :P Now admittedly I don't even DO backups, but no one but me cares about any of my data besides my ebook collection, which IS backed up.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...