>/v/ shits on games all the time due to lack of gameplay, calling many "cinematic experiences"
>pic related is jizzed over on this board all the time
Why does this get a pass? Is it because you view reading as acceptable compared to sheer spectacle between segments of gameplay? This is obviously a game meant to be played for its story and the gameplay is few and far between and really shitty.
Someone explain this hypocrisy.
I realize /v/ isn't one person
It has a lot of dialogue and loredumping, that is not disputed at all.
However, unlike many cinematic experiences, it actually has gameplay to back it up. Most of the complaints come from 3.5/5e babbies who can't deal with 2e/AD&D rulesets and don't know how to properly wreck shit as a mage or rogue.
Comparatively, games like Asura's Wrath are 90% QTE cutscenes with sections of gameplay that are so basic that even God of War looks complex next to them. Those games get shit because they legitimately have barely any gameplay.
But while I love PST I openly call it a book, it's barely a game at all, it's much closer to a VN than a game.
The problem with cinematic experiences is that they are infecting everything and being shoved down our throat in places we don't want. I'd be happy with both but publishers think we all want only one thing at one time.
Cinematic games and gameplay games each have their place and they should not be forced into each other.
>lack of gameplay
You genuinely spend more time playing the game than reading dialogue, provided that you're at least a capable reader.
The same can probably be said about most 'cinematic' games, though. I don't know of many video games that have more cutscenes than gameplay.
Anyway, to address the 'hypocrisy', the dialogue itself is inherently interactive. The player can choose what to say, and this ultimately effects the world in some way.
Also, playing as a pacifist is a completely viable option, so players who just want to experience the story are able to without having to enter combat/kill people. It offers more freedom than modern 'cinematic' games.
What can change the nature of a game?
I've never heard anybody complement this games gameplay.
>the dialogue itself is inherently interactive.
While true, games such as Until Dawn give the player options to effect the world, many during cutscenes (QTEs) and while I'm certainly no fan of quicktime events, it's the same basic concept, just executed differently.
>That's because you're talking out of your ass.
Or do you just want to be "that guy" who starts shit flinging, since this game is apparently above criticism here.
Seemed like a reasonable discussion so far.
Are you referring to my comment about not seeing this game praised for its gameplay? If so, that's pushing anecdotal evidence as fact as much as the comment it was in response to:
>The appeal of the game is the story/lore, with gameplay.
If you think the gameplay in PST is praised or above mediocre, you're downright delusional.
Played this for 10 hours straight yesterday. I'm in the Clerk's Ward now. Doing my best not to be stymied by the choices this game gives me and going with what feels right in my gut.
Am I supposed to have more party members? I've only got Morte, Dakkon, and Annah.
What are the best magic spells? So far, I've been spamming Chromatic Orb and using Shield on Dakkon because he draws the most aggro for some reason. Haven't had a chance to try out all the level 3 spells I got yet but the axe and vampire draw or whatever were underwhelming.
lack of gameplay does not equal a cinematic experience
cinematic experience directly implies linearity and lack of player agency
PsT, while perhaps lacking in gameplay, always had sufficient player agency
>I realize /v/ isn't one person
Apparently you don't.
There are plenty of people who don't like PS:T. There are plenty of people who don't like cinematic games. There are plenty of people who like both. Just because a few people state their opinions doesn't mean absolutely everyone shares them.
Player agency means that the player can make meaningful decisions about their actions. Choosing to go left or right when you end up at the same place anyway with no impact on the story or game world is not player agency.
then it becomes a form of player agency sure, but QTE's are still binary choices at best
there are ways to do even QTE's right but generally speaking once you get to that level, the game stops being cinematic
>I never said it doesn't have gameplay, just not much of it.
It has shitloads. Typical PST quests have 10+ intermediate steps to complete them, with 4+ possible solutions, and that game has a fucking insane amount of quests. Only people who say PST has no gameplay are people who have actually never played it.
Have you played Alpha Protocol? It suffers sort of the same problem, the gameplay what there is of it is awful compared to the fantasy of being a spy. The trick with gameplay light games is the choices they give you. If the choices still feel weighty and interesting it can still be fun.
Games are muchly about the choices you can make more so than anything else, even if those choices are purely dialogue based, the fun of it is that you are allowed to choose a path through it.
Modern games have become glorified fetch quests with cutscenes where you are allowed only the choice to play or not.
Missile of Patience that starts out piss weak, but gets stronger and stronger as you continue to use it and changes form and control method.
Enoll Eva's Duplication basically doubled the effect of all magic or physical attack. (The name spelled backward is Avellone)
A lot of the endgame spells are basically final fantasy spells with the over-the-top animations to go with it.
What's so wrong about interactive dialogue being at the forefront of a game(interactive experience if you're an autist)? I guess it makes it more similar to virtual novel but that doesn't make it inherently shit.
>people approach this game as rpg
>having choices and meaningful decisions on how you want to approach the world is now not valued in a RPG anymore
>More important question that can an rpg have atrocious combat which you want to skip completely?
Of course it can. RPG means role playing game. A game in which you play the role of a character. Combat isn't a requirement at all, much less good combat.
>can an rpg have atrocious combat which you want to skip completely
yes, because the main focus of a RPG should be a variety and a consistency in how you decide to interact with the world and the choices you can make to influence it; not the combat.
>This fucking hyper apologism.
It''s inexcusable that the focus of the game is completely unavoidable no matter how you build your character is admittedly shit. The gameplay fails in this game because it's poorly suited for its medium. It wanted to be a pen and paper RPG.
Combat. What the discussion was about. Combat in PST is shit and it's an unavoidable facet of the game no matter how you build your character. There's no justifying it other than they let gameplay take a back seat to their novel.
Combat is not the focus of the game. Just because a game has combat does not mean that the game revolves entirely around it. It is merely one aspect of the game and even if it is bad that does not mean the entire game is bad. The quests, puzzles, dialog, setting, etc are all great and just because one part of the game is bad in your opinion you think the whole game is shit.
That's just retarded.
>Are QTEs not considered player agency?
No. They give no real agency unless you want to consider a fail state to be a valid optional outcome.
Either having the play do a long sequence again just to have the same option with the same possible repeat structure. Or by hurting their status and moving into the win condition state with a slightly reduced status but otherwise identical.
Add to that QTE take away from the enjoyment of playing the game and force the focus off the action and onto a hunt for prompts.
Simply put QTE are the worst gaming invention ever.
>it actually has gameplay to back it up
that's total bullshit and you know it. the "acutal gameplay" consists of the worst implementation of dungeons and dragons combat ever and watching your party walk back and forth on town screens. in terms of player interaction demanded you're pretty much on the same level as "press X to shaun." don't act like picking dialogue off a list is some incredibly complex system either when 90% of the time getting the best outcome just meant picking whatever the high wisdom option was.
Magic Missle does more damage, but Chromatic Orb has nice status effects. I seem to recall filling my spell book with half Orb half Missle. Only at level 12+ does Orb do more damage.
If you want to make a combat monster, play as a fighter and push your CON past 18. You start healing very large amounts. Take your STR up and rather than wasting point at creation to get 18/00 your level up point goes from 18 to 19. (or at least it did when I played it on first release).
Given that it's 2nd ed and you get a raw attribute state a level it becomes wildly broken about mid way through the game.
>npc literally lectures you on how people are shortsighted insects and why don't they look at the big picture
>agreeing with this gives you +1 wisdom
your average planescape fan right here
>he fell for the 'play as a wizard' meme
reroll as a high wisdom fighter so you can ez mode through all the shitty combat while still getting the dialogue options and realize what an overrated game this is
I'm enjoying playing as a mage, though. I tried the fighter route the last two times I picked up the game and never even made it past Ragpicker's Square. Casting spells is just interactive enough to be fun.
Another question, can I dump those four tomb keys I found in that weird teleporting murdertomb?
it doesn't get a free pass, at least from me
it's a cinematic experience first. the fact that intelligence, wisdom and charisma are the most important stats should make that obvious