Jump to content

Talk:Planescape: Torment/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Crime

What crime did TNO commit that made him want to hide his mortality in the first place? Fcyoss 22:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's never revealed, it's only known that it far exceeded the combined total of all the crimes of his later incarnations. I suspect the developers decided that leaving it to the player's imagination would give it more power. Also, by not providing the details it would stop any attempt at moral equivocation. The ending doesn't quite work if the player could believe that the Nameless One was getting "a bad rap". (DrZarkov 17:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
The question is misleading. The original incarnation was initially evil, but his reason for seeking immortality was not to hide from his (unspecific) crimes, but to buy time to atone for them. "Regret" was his answer to Ravel's question, "What can change the nature of a man?" which is why his mortal soul (The Transcendant One) and the shadows dwell in the Fortress of Regrets.
That question seemed to be the central theme of the work, I was suprised not to see it quoted in the article. Mathiastck 15:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the chracters should be described briefly, i'll stickafew lines of text, if you don't want it or think its worhtless then feel free to delete it and performa minimum of damage on my artistic soul.

Tagline

As far as I remember, the sentence "What can change the nature of a man?" doesn't appear anywhere on the game box (I don't have it right now so I can't check). Unless anyone objects, I'll remove the tagline (I don't remember any other thing on the box that can be qualified as a tagline, either). Tamuz (Talk) 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

First line of the manual, IIRC. Chris Cunningham 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I'll just have to trust you on this. I bought the White Label edition of the game, so I don't have a manual except for the virtual pdf, which doesn't have the cover and - I believe - is a bit different from the original manual. Tamuz (Talk) 19:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Rictusgrin

I saw Morte's last name was discussed in the archive, and looked at the referenced web site. It pretty much looked to me like a joke, and - seeing as it's not mentioned anywhere else in the site, in the game or in any other site that I know - I'm gonna remove it from the List of characters in Planescape: Torment. Tamuz (Talk) 23:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is actually given as Rictusgrin on the character biography cards that were shipped with the Collector's Edition of Planescape, which may or may not be considered canon. Please refrain from removing the name for now, or let me put it back in. --TheOtherStephan 22:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a taken name, most likely. I doubt that he was called "Morte" while he was alive... and giving yourself a name like "Morte Rictusgrin" sounds perfectly in character for him. As far as I know, what he was called in life is never revealed.Atzel 06:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I recently replayed the game and I'm fairly sure the name "Rictusgrin" never appears in it. Also, Annah is called "Annah-of-the-Shadows" maybe once or twice, if that. The statement that she's merely called "Annah" in the novel as opposed to the game looks very odd in light of that.--Kaffedrake 16:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ending cutscene

As is mentioned in the article, in the ending cutscene (if the Nameless One manages to rejoin with his mortality) he finds himself back in the Hells, moving on to fight in the Blood War. I have read somewhere, though, that there were originally supposed to be more FMVs (one each for good, evil and neutral) which had to be cut for budget reasons and I would like to put that info in the article. Has everybody read this anywhere too, or is my memory simply playing tricks on me? --TheOtherStephan 22:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's never been a confirmation of alternate endings from the guys at Black Isle. I suspect the reasoning comes from the track names on the official soundtrack. There are "good" and "neutral" ending themes which were never used. Unfortunately, that's all that's known. (DrZarkov 03:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Shortening the article

With the two other articles merged into this one, it's kinda huge right now. Though I do agree that the List-of-Characters and the Nameless-One articles should have been deleted and some information be added to here, I don't think merging them wholly was a good idea. We should start working on summerizing the article. Tamuz (Talk) 09:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll get to work on eliminating as much of this as possible. Talk about being acquired from below. Chris Cunningham 10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and good luck. I'll try to help, but I don't have a lot of time to spare for Wikipedia these days :\ Tamuz (Talk) 11:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How can we clarify this?

I was reading this, and I think this article needs to reflect the fact that PS:T is a game that, outside of hardcore gamers, nobody remembers it and/or takes inspiration from it. I wanted to write something along the lines of "Like most cult classic games, the critical praise of Planescape: Torment did little to appeal to all but the most devoted of fans", but I figured the diehard nerds would get offended at having that be visible.

Btw, aren't forums no-no, source wise? Especially given that the source is one of its developer, and if I made Torment, I'd claim I sold 400,000 worldwide too. There's a reason why everyone talks about how dismally Torment did, and it's not because it's a lie. Scumbag 01:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Errr, if you aren't able to come up with a single credible source which contradicts the forum link then it shouldn't be changed. Plenty of people think lots of incorrect things. Torment might not have been the best-selling game of the year like it deserved, but there's a reference which says that it did okay anyway and until that can be contradicted by a credible source it's the best information we've got. Chris Cunningham 07:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Given that the information comes from a non-credible source itself - according to Wikipedia policy - it should be removed. Scumbag 17:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
As I was saying in the edit summary, it's extremely difficult to find reliable sales data for a game that was released nearly seven years ago. I've made the edit to include Warner's contention, without claiming its truth or falsehood. We could also include an interview with designer John Deiley, who claims similar figures. Again, we can't verify these figures (unless you've got archived PC Data access), so basing information on the word of the creators of the game is the next-best solution. Snuppy 21:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Further to that, the point of forums and blogs being given as non-credinble is that usually said information comes from random guys on the Internet making stuff up. In this case the source personality is credible even if the medium itself isn't very. Chris Cunningham 12:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Journal

The article says that TNO's journal is destroyed. That is not true, in fact the journal is the TNO's tomb, a place you can visit! --Guillaume777 20:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 10:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparison

From the intro,

Unlike other computer role-playing games, such as Baldur's Gate, Torment places emphasis on conversation and storyline instead of combat.

I do not believe that Baldur's Gate is a good example of a game that does not rely on conversation and storyline. Anyone who has played it can tell you that it relies very heavily on it, while it's cousin, Icewind Dale would be considered the game that is more focused on combat, as is Diablo.

--Russoc4 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It does not make much sense as a comparison anyway. It could very well say the opposite, and be just as or more accurate. For example, "Like other computer role-playing games such as Fallout and Arcanum, Torment places emphasis on conversation and storyline instead of combat." Having a comparison to games with little storyline or decision-making is alternatively vague or false, depending on an unclear notion of "computer role-playing game". 64.89.150.19 08:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no, I think this is an important point to make. Torment is actively anti-combat in a way totally unlike the others. Even Fallout is almost impossible to play through without having to concentrate on physical ability to some extent. Compare to Throne of Bhall, which is basically all about having an Epic party who can beat up fire giants. Chris Cunningham 10:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. TV chump 09:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that Throne of Bhaal is vastly different from the Shadows of Amn campaign in this respect. Humanophage 20:03 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

I've gone through and eliminated most of the spoilers and obvious copyright problems again. With any luck this should be enough to stop it from being expanded again. Chris Cunningham 10:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There are still major spoilers listed in the plot section. I'm unsure whether to tag the section as containing spoilers, or remove the spoiling plot points. Being about 20 hours into the game, I can detail the spoiled portions once I finish, as I don't care to spoil the rest of my game by reading further than I already have. Shadar 21:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia's page on marking spoilers, it turns out I was incorrect in the assumption that a "Plot" section should not contain spoilers. So I retract my statement above. Shadar 21:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cant vs. Chant

Since we seem to get this misinformation frequently, let me pull out my Planescape setting box (on which Torment is based) and provide definitions directly from the source material. I hope this will provide the definitive answer. This is from the book "Sigil and Beyond" from the campaign setting, p. 95:

  • Cant - At the top of the page entitled "Knowing the Cant"; what follows is a glossary describing the terms found in the slang of 16th-18th century thieves, beggars, and swindlers. See also Thieves' Cant
  • Chant, the - Bottom right of the same page: "An expression that means news, local gossip, the facts, the moods, or anything else about what's happening. 'What's the chant?' is a way of asking what's latest information a basher's heard." (ed: yes, the original is missing the word "the").

Snuppy 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

TNO and Ignus

I'm removing the comment in the TNO section that claims that the "practical" incarnation is the one that trained Ignus. "Practical", in fact, claims to have no idea what you're talking about when you mention Ignus, thus leading to the logical conclusion that he wasn't the one that taught Ignus magic. Ordinarily I wouldn't mention this, except that it appears that user Sn0wflake has just reverted someone else's edit removing mention of "Practical's" supposed training of Ignus. --Junior612 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Characters

Right now, the character section contains only brief introductions to NPCs' backgrounds (e.g. it's never mentioned that Practical Incarnation gave Dak'kon the disc). It'd be nice if someone added detailed explanations of their motivations. It'll increase the encyclopedic value of the article, too. :) --Koveras ☭ 11:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#PLOT, clogging up the page with incredi-detail probably wouldn't be the best of ideas. You might get away with it if you included a brief summary here and created a page called Characters in Planescape: Torment, or something. Remember that if you went down that alley then you'd need to cite everything you said: WP:OR prevents original analysis of characters (or anything else, for that matter) by run-of-the-mill editors from being added. Una LagunaTalk 16:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Development

I noticed the page lacks a development section. There's been a few great articles released lately that would be great source for a development section. Mainly RPG Watch's interview with two developers: Part 1 and Part 2. Plus RPS's retrospective [1] (there's not really development info in that, but a good read nonetheless). I would write it myself, but sadly I don't have the skills. --Mika1h 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As suggested in a recent revert, I propose including external links to Sorcerer's Place for the following games covered by that website:

This excludes the following games covered by Sorcerer's Place, due to lack of resources at the website:

I only exclude Dragon Age because right now, with the game currently in development, there is not enough information at Sorcerer's Place to warrant a link. After the game's release, I suspect the website will have much more comprehensive coverage, and then a link will probably be needed. This website is a valuable resource for all sorts of mods, patches, tweaks, fixes, etc., both official and fan-created. I would also suggest an external link from Infinity Engine to the respective section at Sorcerer's Place. (Cross-posted to Talk:Baldur's Gate (series)) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Baldur's Gate#Sorcerer's Place link for ongoing discussion. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

400.000 copies

It says it sold 400.000 copies, Im guessing it should say, at launch, but it doesn't. Shouldn't we correct that? 201.235.80.89 (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it means at launch; just from launch to the time of the interview. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is ambiguity in the date of the sales numbers, maybe we should clear it up. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The date of the source is, ostensibly, 25 August 2003—but I can't verify this with the link provided because the information has been moved from the cited website. This means the 400,000 mark was claimed after just under four years on the market. I doubt the game has sold a substantial amount (e.g. another 50,000 units) in the four years since that interview, so I'm not sure a note is necessary. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Availability

Is this game available legally anywhere now? I mean, it has such a reputation, where does one get hold of a copy? 78.151.83.173 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The game is currently not available legally right now. While Interplay is rereleasing many of its old games now that it's back in operations, D&D games such as Torment also require a license from Wizards of the Coast. Interplay's license expired a while back, and so the company can no longer sell any of its games that use the license (such as Torment, Baldur's Gate, etc...).--Junior612 (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot

I've added back sessions to plot, and content to those sessions.

There were too many "meaningless lists" in the session. The list of characters, that said nothing about them, and a list of places (that has been kept because I did not know what else to do with it)

In general, the session seemed to add little to the article. I hope that, as it is, it gives a good notion of the game for those who haven't played it, without going into the previous detail.

There are many topical changes to be made.

In particular I don't know why the inspirations where on "plot", or where to put them.

Cold Light (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm largely unconcerned with the direction the plot section takes, as long as it remains encyclopedic and doesn't become the cruft-filled monster it was before. I fear that some of the recent edits, especially the ones to the settings section, are a small step in that direction. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think these changes should be reverted. Plot sections don't need to explain concepts to the degree that a review would. The "setting" section in particular now contains quite a bit of material which is only a wikilink away for people who take interest in it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted the plot section based on these concerns. Unless it represents itself strictly as a summary it is prone to being gradually expanded over and over until it's unmanageable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the logic behind the decision of reversion seems a bit weird ... There seems to have been no discussion whatsoever as to whether the additions made the article better. It has not been said "the information added is useless", just "it might make future editions problematic".

Also, I did not add a bunch of random stuff about planescape. I added facts that where relevant to the game. The rule-of-threes, for example, is of marginal interest in the game, and, therefore, was not there. The information added was meant to give the reader an understanding of the game, and was chosen deliberately for that purpose. I elaborate on what I asked earlier: what does "Other supporting characters include Dak’kon the Pariah, Annah of the Shadows, Ignus, and Fall From Grace, along with a few secret characters, such as Nordom Whistleklik and Vhailor." add of useful information, for someone who has not played the game. ? (or, for that matter, to anyone ?) It would be very sad if, to avoid a discussion as to what clarifies and adds to the article, we'd just choose to "keep it as small as possible". Cold Light (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the talk page archives and the pager history - this article has gone through a perennial cycle of extensive growth to the plot section over the years. I'm sorry to have undone your work; I'll see if I can take anything from it which can be re-incorporated. However, the player characters in a game are not necessarily essential to its plot, and I think there's more that enough that can be said about it without ever having to iterate over them. I'll see what I can do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to offer something in my own defense. I'm a complete outsider. I had barely heard of this game when I stumbled across this article. That's why there's lists in here that seem to just kind of "be there"; I was afraid to delete them. I'm unfamiliar with the culture in the Planescape part of Wikipedia, so I didn't know how people would react if their favorite character was deleted from the article. Heck, as is, I was half expecting to get reverted and spat upon by some guy who believes that what I was doing was a blasphemy most foul. (Don't laugh, it's happened to others) All that not to excuse the long lists, just to explain them. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Another try to get the plot session right

Tryed yet again to change the plot session into something more useful. That involved moving content to other sessions (when it did not belong) removing content, and also adding it.

I have avoided using lists, because, understandably, they stimulate the article to grow indefinitely.

I have tryed to justify, in the article, why i find the additions necessary. But I state here, to be clear: the unusual relevance of text, and of the things the player *might* discover, if he goes after then, though mentioned elsewhere, needed examples. So I tryed to insert them.

I'd like to think that the article is clearly better now, and that the format is has taken does not stimulate it growing into something worse. Cold Light (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Of all the changes, the subplots section seems the most prone to getting out of control. We'll just have to keep a special eye on it. Other than that, I accept. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What the heck happened to this article?

I had forgotten some details about a Planescape character, so I naturally opened Planescape's wikipage, only to find the entire thing was gutted about two years ago, ostensibly to reduce the amount of cruft by merging the character pages. An effort that apparently resulted in utter failure and basically everything being deleted.

Is any effort being made on this article (besides the above Plot argument) so that at least some of the older information is presented? I am so tempted simply to revert the character pages to 2006 and re-add the links right now. -Zyrxil (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would politely request that you not do that. It's possible that someone will misconstrue that as vandalism, especially if you revert to a cruft-filled monster version. Instead, try re-adding the missing data within reason. It's possible that the removed data you were looking for was simply misidentified as cruft. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It's just as likely that it was cruft. What makes Torment a notable game is not trivial character detail, nor even most of the plot. There are external wikis to cover all the little bits and bobs of in-universe detail that enthusiasts may wish to use for reference. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Having more than the barest bones of information doesn't mean having 4 page plot summary and dissertations on all the characters. As it is, the article is less useful than an IMDB page. I've looked over the page history and it was simply cut and streamlined over and over since June in almost an anti-cruft backlash/witchhunt (and that was already after all the character pages were wholesale eliminated) simply because it's an article with a cult following that had so much to write. -Zyrxil (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"Less useful than IMDB": depends on what you're looking for. If your looking for specific information on a character, then it may fall under WP:PLOT or WP:TRIVIA, possibly both. If, however, you're looking for information on gameplay, development, reception... i.e. anything a n00b (for lack of a better word) would be interested in, then it darn well better be here, or we've dropped the ball. Any fansite can give a biography of a character, and I think we link to a few; only an encyclopedia will give you out-of-universe meat. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the right thing to do is trans wiki a good older larger version to a more suitable wiki for such content. Mind you I can 't think of what wiki that would be. Perhaps a planescape wiki. Mathiastck (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can find such a wiki, let me know how I can help with the transwiki. All the data is still accesible from the article history. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, seriously: what the hell?

Links to the VITAL official patch and fan patch are removed, even though the game is barely playable without them, but passages about what languages the game has been translated to stay on? Would the people who for some reason hold a grudge against this game kindly bugger off and go vandalize some bloated jap-rpg page instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Man On The Street (talk • contribs) 01:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that it used to have a section discussing these patches. The probable reason for its removal would be its tone; since we are not an advertising service, it could have been deleted for having an advertising tone. If you can provide a sourced, neutral treatment of these patches, it will probably be welcome. It would probably work best beneath the languages section you mentioned. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

the ending

I am writing this more to start a discussion than to state an opinion, because I am not yet sure of what would be best.

I am not sure why this article spells out the game's ending. It adds little to answering the questions "what is this game?" and "what is it about?", that seem to be the reason why one would read this article.

Yes, I know wikipedia does not censor itself and, therefore, does not warn or avoid spoilers when relevant. My question then is: Is the ending relevant to the article ? Is it a defining characteristic of the game, so that it is worth mentioning ?

My main objection, then, is this: knowing the end (of this particular game) does not give me a better notion of it (but still takes away a lot of the fun that I could have from it) Cold Light (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks to be yet another symptom of article trimming. The old longer version [2] had spoilers as well, but mostly focused on the themes of the game, with only a two word reference to the ending. With the reduced length, there wasn't enough space to do anything more than an actual plot outline, of which an ending spoiler is almost required. -Zyrxil (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hm, I quite like that earlier version you cite, though I don't think it constitutes the "plot", but rather a "general overview" or something of the sort. Since the second paragraph of that older "plot" is now in the themes section, we could put that first paragraph of the older "plot" in a "setting" section (or maybe the themes section?) and have a slightly rewritten third and fourth paragraphs of the older "plot" section as a new plot section. Presented as such, I don't think it will be too long of a plot summary, and it'll be a better read (with less emphasis on spoilers). TheSlowLife (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Article?

I think we can do it. This article seems to have a lot of supporters, so let's figure out what needs addressing, and then nominate it. BOZ (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

According to here, there are a couple of links that either need to be excised, or fixed to point to their current location. BOZ (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll probably work on reception and references, though I'll help out everywhere I can. I'll try and take care of the external link problems as I work through the refs. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Cool; I just finished some general cleanup otherwise. I'll look into making some notes on more specific stuff when I get the chance. BOZ (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
You know... I think that it might actually make more sense on my end to focus on the rest of the article. I've seen the VG reception sections, but don't really know how to write a good one, especially not being familiar with the websites. Maybe someone from the VG project can work on that section and the refs? -Drilnoth (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I can hit the Reception section - I'll make it look like corresponding sections from current VGFAs. — Levi van Tine (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I addressed my initial concerns with the article (see the edit history); I probably doubled the citation needed tags though! ;) But, if we can get things cited (or removed, when a cite can't be found and the info really doesn't add to the article) then I think we can get a solid GA here. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and in some cases I may have been a hit hasty and/or sloppy, so if you catch something I shouldn't have done, please do fix. BOZ (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the article is on its way to B-class. We could probably flesh out the plot with a couple more paragraphs, though. This section was gutted last July, but now it seems disproportionately small. Looking back in the history, this is how the article stood immediately before being compacted. It might be best to rewrite the plot from scratch and just use that old version to supplement what you might have missed. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who gutted the plot. At the time, it was called "de-crufting", because it was a bloody fan site. If you can improve it by making it longer, please do so, but please be careful not to let it become the cruft-filled monster it once was. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Can do. That's why we have List of characters in Planescape: Torment, isn't it? -Drilnoth (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How close is this one for a nomination? I'd consider it a B-class at this point, and probably ready to hear some outside input from a reviewer. BOZ (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was just a question. ;) But, there should be some time to fix anything else remaining before it gets picked up, and a reviewer will generally put the review on hold for a reasonable amount of time to fix anything they come up with. BOZ (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't see your post when I nom'ed it. :) I think that it's pretty good right now, and the reviewer can point out any remaining issues. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reception

K I overhauled the Reception section. I followed the format of Grim Fandango, a featured article about a game in the same boat as Torment (good reviews but bad sales). I added fresh, working links for every review I used, and cleaned up the lead's reception paragraph to read better. I made the reviews infobox "plain" (uncollapsed) and had to remove the PC Gamer UK score because I simply could not find a source for it. I was able to fix the Game Pro score, though. I also removed the Awards table in the infobox because I wrote a short paragraph on the game's awards. The game has more awards than the ones listed, but I could not find good sources for the others. I removed old reception-related citations that were dead or unreliable (one was to a forum) and replaced others as I was able. Also, I changed the citation templates on the sources I kept to make them more uniform and cleaner in the References section. I also removed the "References in other games" section because it didn't seem particularly notable and it had no sources. Oh, and fun fact - if you use the link checker, the Allgame review comes up red, but if you click on it, it works just fine.

Let me know what you think! — Levi van Tine (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The "References in other games" section actually had citation-needed templates on it, and someone just removed them! So, good deal. I believe this one needs some additional cleanup and rearrangement, which I will try to get to today if I get the chance; but, I won't feel the least bit bad if someone beats me to it. ;) For example, there are a lot of one sentence paragraphs, which are a no-no. BOZ (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Awesome work! Personally, I think that the awards should be listed both in the sidebox and in the prose itself, but that's really just a matter of personal opinion. I hope to have time today to really get to work on the other parts of the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I pulled the PC Gamer UK score from the Game Rankings metascore. The Game Rankings website is currently down, but you can see the reviews that went into their metascore here, provided by GameSpot. I wanted to use the actual magazine article as the reference instead of that link, but didn't know which issue it was. It says January 1, 1980, but I have a feeling that is wrong—maybe the January 2000 issue? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, great job so far with those references - all the citation needed tags are gone. :) If it's not a B yet (is it?) then it's almost there. I may not be able to help much more, because I got some pretty bad news today... I'll say more about it later tonight. BOZ (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
(for future readers; this diff shows the followup to this statement) -Drilnoth (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh... well, I hope everything's alright (or will be). -Drilnoth (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
You should also clean up any remaining "bare URL" citations per the boilerplate.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Technical issues section

I'm not sure that sources from message boards can be used or verified, heck, the issues could have been caused by hardware problems. I think the section about graphics issues should be removed.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bugs are described in reviews for the game; as long as there are refs, we should keep the section there. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Box art

The box art for the article is clearly pre-release, as evidenced by the "RP" notice from the ESRB. Should we try to find an actual retail shot, or is this one adequate? — Levi van Tine (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not up on my image guidelines, but if I had to guess, I'd say that it's only neccessary if the retail box art is significantly different from this box art; I don't think the ESRB rating would make it significantly different. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter whether a pre- or post-release image is used, so I'd just leave the current one. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


Plot summary needs work

OK, if you haven't already read the GA review, the plot summary is incomplete. Obviously, we want to keep from overdetailing the plot, but underdetailing it is also a disservice. Please see the GA review for the concerns raised thus far, and which items need addressing. I think if all relevant subjects are at least addressed in part, we should be good; it would help if someone who has played the game through would give it a look and see if the plot is comprehensive enough. BOZ (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've copyedited the plot section and polished the prose. Drilnoth said he'd look for more details on the plot itself; I'll let him do that because I have also never played the game. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I actually haven't played it, either. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can offer little help, as I know less about this game and the universe it takes place in than any of you could imagine. All I can say is this; I know of no GA articles with a characters section in list format. Reviewers tend to prefer paragraphs. I think for this article, you could have one paragraph for the Nameless One, one or two for his companions, and one for any relevant antagonists and/or other major characters. I think his mortality might count as an antagonist; does Puzzelwell? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the characters section shouldn't be in a list format; I considered putting them all into one big paragraph, but the paragraph looked too big, so I decided to leave it alone and look again later. BOZ (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Good point; I'll look into it later if BOZ doesn't beat me to it. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I probably won't, although I'm going to run a spellcheck in a moment. :) BOZ (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good; I'll work on the formatting this evening. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh. Irony of ironies here. I've played the game back to front and count it as one of my faves but... am in absolutely no position to expand the plot section (which I've periodically and heavily trimmed back over the years). FWIW I think the current synopsis is an excellent kernel; it needs more on Sigil, as pointed out in the GAR, and some on the Factions, and definitely more on reincarnation being a key game dynamic (the player actually has to kill himself to advance several sub-plots, and cannot "die" in the sense of most RPGs). Fortunately these are all things that reliable sources loved to cover when discussing the game. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

For reference, I'm quoting Novil Ariandis here from the GA review on specific items he felt should be included:

  • "dialog and interaction with NPCs is an integral part of the game
  • "no mention is made of the question "What can change the nature of a man?" which is the hook of the whole story"
  • "(roughly) the first half of the game takes place in Sigil and the second half in various planes"

Also, don't forget the Chris Avellone interview... I'll help if I can, but it might not be for a little while. BOZ (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary; it's on my plan. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the way that this thing is going. I think the characters could hold a small paragraph about the anagonist/s of the game (assuming, of course, that there is an antagonist). Also, considering the way the data is arranged, it may be a good idea to move the characters in front of the story, but this could just be personal taste.

There is one more thing I've been wondering for a while. What the bloody is a pregnant alleyway? Is it an alley where people get pregnant "for some unknown reason"? Is it an alleyway with a bulge in it that, in a few months, is going to give birth to a baby alleyway? If so, who or what is the father? I'm confused! Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the alleyway is literally pregnant with a baby alleyway. Until the player helps it out by giving it room to grow, the player is unable to leave Sigil's slums. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes... welcome to Sigil. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Surrealism + D&D = awesome. ;) BOZ (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Great work, by the way, Drilnoth. :) BOZ (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm trying my best with my fairly limited knowledge of the game. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the "Story" section of the plot still needs to be expanded. Right now there are only two paragraphs (one very short) describing the plot—the last two paragraphs in the "Story" section just give examples of how dialog is highly important to the gameplay. If anyone is up for expanding this section, but forgets exactly how the story unfolds, this walkthrough is useful—it has many images, too, which should be doubly helpful in refreshing your memory. The areas the player visits are somewhat user-decided, however, so we can't follow this walkthrough too strictly. But we can describe the broad path the Nameless One must take, which is linear: e.g. the Mortuary is where it begins; you must visit Pharod before accessing the Wards; you must visit Ravel's Maze before accessing areas outside of Sigil, etc. (I think that's how it goes.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good; I'd like to have a full description of the story without getting mired too heavily in details. BOZ (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. We don't want this or this. Dreadful. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah; great find! I'll add a bunch more story info (but not too much) into the article a little later today using that walkthrough. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully it's ready now. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You've mentioned some places he visits, but we also need to describe what he does: major quests and in-game events, important NPC discussions, etc. Basically, there needs to be a more detailed explanation of how the story unfolds. I'll put some work into it tomorrow (it's been several months since I last played), but I'm off for now. Cheers. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay; I've done most of what I really can with the walkthrough and my extremely limited knowledge of the game's plot... interestingly, I know more about the game's critical reviews than about the game itself! :) -Drilnoth (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is looking good. As a man who knows nothing of this game but what is on this article, I can think of nothing new to suggest, except for this (and I really am leaving this to your discretion): please explain the pregnant alleyway bit in the article itself. I have a rough grasp on the idea because of the statement above, but the unexplained line in the summary is currently just a throw away line that only serves to confuse the layman who is unfamiliar with the concept of an non-living, inorganic object being capable of reproduction, sexual or otherwise, especially when the object is defined by its borders rather than its own existence. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I added an explanation. The reason the alleyway is mentioned is to illustrate the strangeness of Sigil (and indeed the entire Planescape universe), so maybe it was just as effective when it was left unexplained. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I just made some big changes to the story section. I think I only added the vital steps in the game, i.e. things that happen no matter what. IGN's walkthrough was amazingly helpful and this Sorceror's Place walkthrough was also quite handy. It turns out that the RPG Classics walkthrough I suggested earlier wasn't as helpful as I thought, as it only told you what to do in the game, without really explaining what dialog has been exchanged and other things you learn. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome work! Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's cool that so many people are currently working on improving the article. If we’ll work on it in the same way for the next days I believe it can finally become a really good article not too far away from “featured article” status. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice; thanks! Your review has been great so far; it's been comprehensive and has brought up numerous important points. Thanks for taking the time to do a full review of the article! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for giving us a second chance. :) BOZ (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether or not this edit should be reverted. Opinions? -–Drilnoth (T • C) 13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted them for now to allow for further discussion, since there seems to be consensus already here about the length. -–Drilnoth (T • C) 14:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Next step: Development section

After we've figured out the plot section (and it looks like it's coming together quickly), we should probably add some more to the development section. It's probably adequate now for "good" status, but that shouldn't stop us from aiming higher. Already the article looks close to the same quality as the featured article for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, but looking at other featured video game articles (BioShock, Portal, etc.), this article is seriously lacking in its coverage of the game's development. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The RPG Watch interviews ("Tales of Torment, Part 1" and "Part 2") listed in the external refs section are interviews with the two main designers on Torment, Chris Avellone and Colin McComb, and they've got some juicy dev nuggets. The developers also kept developer blogs outlining their various tasks, starting from early 1999 to later in 2000. You can find those here, at the bottom of the page. Assuming you want primary sources, that is. Snuppy 01:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice. I haven't checked them yet, but when I get time I'll work on that (tomorrow maybe)... unless someone else gets to it sooner. But for now, I'm off. Cheers. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! I'm really starting to think that we might have an FA on our hands. –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Still haven't check those developer logs... the sheer number of them is intimidating. I added what I could from other sources, though. But there's still a lot that I intentionally skipped. Not really sure what stuff should be mentioned. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
There's dozens of VG FA's, and this one has potential. Still... one step at a time. :) BOZ (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, now that that step is out of the way... heh, sky's the limit.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting pretty close to a nomination at WP:FAC. The only major thing unresolved from the peer review seems to be a problem with references... the gameplay and plot sections need a lot more. A number of the game's reviews can probably source the gameplay, but we probably need someone who has either played the game (or can play the game soon) or access to a website which had a good number of quotes which we could use. I'm thinking q:Planescape: Torment... thoughts? –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The gameplay looks good and really needs a couple more citations, in my opinion. As for Plot, for video game articles a lot of references aren't necessarily required. More important is that everything is accessible to a non-gamer—it basically needs to be readable to someone walking in from the street who's never heard of video games, Dungeons & Dragons, or the Planescape setting. The prose has to be good and avoid fansitey "cruft". I'll trawl around for more references and see if I can add inlines to Plot, but it looks decent already. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay; so gameplay can use a few more, and the plot section would just benefit from some, but they're not required. Sounds good! –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone find a source for that unofficial soundtrack mentioned in Development? I can't find one anywhere, and as a result I'm tempted to remove the sentence altogether. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 14:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
If you can't find a good ref, I'd just remove it. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be sources which verify that CD Projekt released the soundtrack as a bonus disk (e.g. [3] and [4]), but they don't seem to be WP:RS. Google turns up search results for a lot of Russian websites (I searched "planescape torment" soundtrack "cd projekt" -witcher), but I didn't bother checking any except the first link I provided. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A-class nomination

I propose that this article be rated A-class. Per the criteria, two independent editors who have not contributed significantly to the article must agree before it can be listed as such (with no significant opposes). — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Continued community development

I was surprised not to see mention of the users community driven attempt to fix bugs not fixed in the official patch ( e.g. http://www.bootstrike.com/Torment/files.html ) They have been very active in the past and still continue to produce minor fixes, even reinstating features that were written but not activated in the release version,. I'm not sure but I seem to remember when I patched my game the developers actually put a link up to these patches. L∴V 22:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This information was in the article earlier. It was removed (I'm pretty sure) during the March drive to move the article up to GA. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It can be restored with a proper source. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe that it was removed because all of the sources were primary; there need to be reliable secondary sources in order for it to be included, especially in a Featured Article. I'd like to have it back in, but I don't think that it is generally acceptable without a better source per the FA standards. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Primary sources can be used if they are only being used to make statements of fact (e.g. "The game is in 3D"). They cannot be used to make any sort of interpretations or subjective claims (e.g. "The game is in 3D to immerse fans in the game world"). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This is only if the subject being described passes Wikipedia's numerous notability guidelines. If primary sources could be used for anything, I could go write an article about "Fred (from accounting)", and use his Facebook, Myspace and Blogspot blogs and bios for references. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with stating that there is an active community writing modifications - with the link being the community itself, as long as any statements as to the quality of such modifications are limited to the reference e.g. ' who claim to have fixed a number of bugs not included in the last official patch'. It is ok to use primary references if there is consensus and with editorial jusgement when no suitable secondary ones are available. I believe active bug bashing by a community 10 years after a game's release deserves mention so would support this. L∴V 22:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The mods are not covered by any reliable secondary sources, as far as I can see. As such, they have no claim whatsoever to notability or verifiability. Would it be fine for me to use, for example, this random hate-thread as a citation for a statement of fact? "On November 13, 2003, user 'noyhauser' posted a thread on jref.com, entitled 'Why Final Fantasy Sucks'. In it, he outlined his reason for disliking the series, and several users agreed with his assessment." Those are facts. Final Fantasy has an article. Should I put this in it? Of course not. That is why Wikipedia has guidelines about verifiability and notability. Until a reliable, secondary source about the mods can be found, they shouldn't be included. As helpful as the mods are, and as worthy a cause, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not all information has a place here, and the suggestion that it does, as long as it is with the support of "consensus and editorial judgement", is a dangerous one for the stability of the encylcopedia. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Is that a serious comparison? How can you see no distinction between the continued community development on a game with a rather low profile, compared to a one-off forum rant about a wildly popular game? Or are you making this wretched comparison sarcastically, as a way to strengthen the argument made by leevanjackson/L∴V? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
JimmyBlackwing, you are correct we need to avoid situations as in the example you have given, but that is an example of a controversial fact, continuing development seems to be true by the mere existence of the website given, and I don't believe the patches they are applying or their usefulness are controversial, or do you disagree? Another thing to remember is that every rule isn't intended to cover every situation, they are more of a general guide L∴V 09:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(Undent) To Twas Now: it's the same idea. No need to bite. To LV: I could provide the same example without a controversial fact, and it wouldn't change the point. But let's consider this from a closer angle: the perspective of my recent FAC, Ultima Underworld. It's an old game that has a significant community dedicated to preserving it. There have been numerous attempts to port it, update its engine, mod it, etc. Yet, they have not been covered by reliable, secondary sources. On the other hand, Through The Looking Glass, a major fansite, has a subforum dedicated to the game; should I cite TTLG as proof of a continued "cult following"? That UW has a cult following is not a controversial fact, and neither is its extensive community development. However, neither of them are included in the article. As I said, the Torment patches are helpful. Unfortunately, if Wikipedia existed to be helpful on that level, FAs would have minutely detailed plot sections, external links sections filled with modding communities and fansites, and gameplay sections that might as well be game guides. This would basically amount to Wikipedia-as-fansite, which is somerhing I don't think any of us want. The patches aren't notable, they aren't useful to the average, non-gamer encyclopedia reader, and they don't have any claim to a guideline loophole. Why don't we take this to Talk:WPVG and let a larger group decide? It's the best way to settle policy disputes. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Your argument has become even more absurd. We allow one statement without a secondary source, and suddenly the floodgates open: plot sections become obsessively detailed, ELs get packed with fansites, and gameplay sections become game guides? I'm not following your logic. In this article, we mention both the novelization and two Neverwinter Nights mods, using only primary sources as references. But me saying "this article already has some" and you saying "the UW article doesn't have any" is irrelevant. My point—and I think you would agree—is that this is "verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". If we come to a consensus that some information is significant enough to surpass the "primary source threshold", then we may use it. This is why the novelization and the NWN mods are still in the article. (And don't worry, I'm not biting you, just your argument.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You're taking what I said out of context. Obviously, one deviation from the rules will not cause Wikipedia to crumble. I was describing what kind of site would find this kind of non-notable information to be worth including in an article. It's clear that Wikipedia is not this kind of site, so why use its standards? Also, I hadn't noticed that the NWN mods had no secondary sources. Those have same problem, and should be removed. As for the novelization, it was published. It doesn't apply. For reference, though, the fan novelization was removed. Anyway, I'm going to put a note about this on the WPVG talk page; it's clear that neither of us will be able to convince the other, so we'll leave it up to consensus. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Have you considered the possibility that reliable secondary sources for these things might exist? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I wasn't able to find any when I looked. If you can find some, though, then there's no need to bother the WPVG folks with the issue; I hadn't gotten around to it yet, anyway. I guess I'll wait and see if they exist. Impressive job on those translation citations, by the way. I checked for those, too, when I called for their removal during the FAC, and I couldn't find anything. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are a few vaguely reliable links: [5], [6], [7], [8]. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, good job on those translation cites! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice finds. I had found "Planescape Landscapes" (your third link), as well as this article (which is being used elsewhere in the article). Where does "Retrospective: Planescape Torment" (your second link) mention the modding community? I would also omit "PC Powerplay", since it is a blog. Your first and third link, as well as my second link, should all be fine though, since they have editorial oversight. The combination of these sources is enough to warrant adding this information back in. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
(Undent) I thought the second one mentioned it, but I guess I was wrong. While you're in the process of adding those, I recommend removing the NWN mods; I doubt any sources for those exist, and they are significantly less noteworthy than the patches. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Characters section

Was browsing through the characters section and noticed that the character "Annah" was erroneously labeled as "Annah-of-the-Shadows". No problem, one simple edit, problem solved. Much to my amazement, it was reverted! Several times! Fancy that! Has anyone here actually PLAYED PS:T? Not one SINGLE TIME is Annah EVER referred to as Annah-of-the-Shadows. I honestly wonder at people who determinedly and repeatedly strike correct, easily verifiable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.202.244 (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was assuming in good faith that the people who wrote this article and got it improved to Featured Article got the name right, whereas you decided to go on a rampage undoing several of my edits as if you were a vandal or troll. Why you did not receive a vandalism warning for this, I do not know. Anyway, I will leave it up to the regular contributors to this article to determine whether they have made a mistake with the name, or if they got it right the first time. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
To the contrary. Please see [9] for a screenshot that specifically mentions her name. Snuppy 12:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Step 1. Don't be a dick and just assume everyone else is wrong. Step 2. Google it. -Zyrxil (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Link 7 is an item that is found in the game, not the character's name. Notice how in the item description her name is given as "Annah"? I'm not assuming everyone else is wrong: the person who did the characters section IS wrong. Period. 100% fact. 71.116.84.55 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, the lunatics are clearly running the asylum here. Quality control is a thing of the distant, cherished past. 71.116.84.55 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If the name is "Annah", why are there all these hits on the longer name? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a moment to review the editor's contributions, and it looks like the majority of what they've done around here consists of vandalism. I see no reason to take this person's claims at face value unless they can come up with some evidence that what they say is true. BOZ (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Her name is Annah-of-the-Shadows but she is more commonly referred to in the game simply as Annah. Just as Fall-from-Grace is usually called "Grace" in the game. I think the full "Annah-of-the-Shadows" is only used a few times. It doesn't matter if we use "Annah" or "Annah-of-the-Shadows" in this article, as long as her full name is given in the "Characters" section. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
That sounds fair enough. I'll be keeping an eye on this article for any more hijinks. ;) BOZ (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The difference is that Fall-From-Grace's name is actually Fall-From-Grace. Play the game, talk to her, look at her, hover your cursor over her, look at her character information screen and you'll see "Fall-From-Grace." Do that to Annah and you'll get "Annah," not "Annah-of-the-Shadows." It's simply incorrect to refer to her as such, and it's obstinately ignorant to not even bother to verify this information by, I don't know, playing the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.148.204 (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If your name is Robert Thomas Johnson-Smith but everyone at the office calls you Bob, is your true name Bob? Maybe you should be replaying the game, seeing as how the entire Internet is against you on this one. Hell, you'd probably debate Chris Avellone on what the "real" name is. -Zyrxil (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Can someone with an account edit out the many, many spoilers on the page? People who haven't played the game are going to find out about all the characters, main plot points and the secret of what the Shadows are. Seriously, it's meant to be an encyclopedia not a fansite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.130.178 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is chock-full of plot spoilers, all over the place. If a player doesn't want to know what happens before it happens, then they shouldn't read this article. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The fact it is "an encyclopedia not a fansite" is the exact reason the 'spoilers' are here. Don't read the sections where there might be plot information if you don't want to be spoiled. --Izno (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that both Black Isle and Interplay have shut down since this title was released, and it is not on sale for close to a decade. Does it mean that this game may be legally distributed over the internet? 85.65.104.254 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. The rights would have likely been auctioned to another company when Interplay and Black Isle shut down. Also, Interplay is back in business. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

TFA?

As soon as a spot becomes available on the request page, I'd like to make a request for Dec 12. :) Here is the blurb I came up with:

Caucasian male sitting in front of a laptop; he has brown hair, a black shirt, and a red lanyard

Planescape: Torment is a computer role-playing game (RPG) developed for Windows by Black Isle Studios (lead designer Chris Avellone pictured) and released on December 12, 1999 by Interplay Entertainment. It takes place in Planescape, a Dungeons & Dragons fantasy campaign setting. The game is primarily story-driven; combat is given less prominence than in most contemporary RPGs. The protagonist is an immortal who has lost his name, lived many lives, and forgotten them. The game focuses on his journey to reclaim his memories of these previous lives. The game was not a significant commercial success but received widespread critical praise for its immersive dialog, the dark Planescape setting, and the protagonist's unique persona, which shirked many characteristics of traditional RPGs. It was considered by many video game journalists to be the best RPG of 1999, and as a cult classic continues to receive attention long after its release. (more...)

BOZ (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You're not likely to get the box art on the front page, as it isn't free content. --Izno (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh right, I forgot - how about Avellone's pic? BOZ (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to include an image for the front page, that would have to be the one. Most video games go without images though. --Izno (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to use Avellone's picture, you probably should mention him in the blurb and say "(pictured)", else readers won't know how he is related to the article. BlazerKnight (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Good point - I can probably toss out mention of the Infinity Engine in preference for a mention of Avellone, as the game engine isn't super important for the blurb; I think the rest of that stuff is basically essential though. BOZ (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
This'll have 3 points by the looks of it (10-year anniversary is 2 points, major contributor [I'm second on the list, it looks] not having gotten TFA is 1 point). I really don't know how that stacks up. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you're not dead. :) In order for that third point to stack on, wouldn't you have to be the one to add it to the request page (not that I mind in the least if you do it instead of me)? BOZ (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
TFA would be great! Good luck. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - it's ready! :) BOZ (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
BOZ just pointed out to me it's the TFA for December 12. Congratulations! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Good deal! Now, I have a question for someone who's actually played the game. Should the Brothel of Slating Intellectual Lusts actually be the Brothel of Slaking Intellectual Lusts? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

According to this, it was supposed to be "Slaking", but the original game mostly uses "Slating". This was fixed in one of the unofficial patches ("Restoration Pack by Cilantro"). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I guess it can be left as-is then - but be prepared to have a few dozen extra edits to this page today with the TFA! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Given that "slating" is, essentially, a typo - in context it's quite clear he meant "slaking" instead, "slating" makes the phrase entirely nonsensical and as far as I know isn't even a verb - I think it is probably more correct to use slaking.--99.150.241.219 (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It *is* a verb, it just doesn't make much sense in context. I've added a (sic) to it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tenth Anniversary Re-release

Hi. I was flipping through an imported copy of Retro Gamer, issue 73, and I noticed their review of Planescape: Torment mentions a tenth anniversary re-release of the game. I searched for more information online but none of the top results (including this Wiki article) mentioned anything about it.

I saw a few online shops that carry an apparently unpatched DVD re-release (Amazon UK and Game Outlet), but I also found this forum thread where Interplay says that they are not involved in the re-release. According to Amazon UK, it was supposedly re-released on Nov 20, 2009. Has anyone seen any promotional material relating to this? Alternatively, has anyone seen an actual copy of the re-release in a store? Also, does anyone know which publisher might be involved?

If this is a legitimate re-release (even if it is limited) that is documented somewhere, we should add this information to the article along with citations. I cannot fathom why there would be so little information about it if it is legitimate, but I also cannot believe there could be such a large con/scam going on for so long. Thank you.

aibyou_chan (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if you can find any decent sourcing, please feel free to add it to the article. :) BOZ (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible additional reference

Just found this. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3166/death_and_planescape_torment.php. The website seems reliable; the author has written a few books and is a freelance game designer, so seems reliable to me. Sorry; don't have time to add the ref myself. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Planescape now available on GOG.

On September 28, 2010, Planescape became available for purchase and Download on the Good Old Games Website. I presume this means the outstanding copyright issues with the D and D licence have been resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.92.254 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Character section: Big spoiler

"Each time The Nameless One dies, another person in the multiverse dies to fuel his resurrection. These dead turn into ghosts that seek revenge on him.[19]"

I know more than one person, me including who accidentally read this spoiler while trying to get a feel of what this game is about. As I understand it you only get this knowledge after playing through a big portion of the game, so putting it on the top of the plot section isn't a very good idea. Can someone move it further down perhaps? -Scully 16:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah thanks a lot for spoiling it for me man...Really dude. Still, I agree with you. It's annoying as hell when articles have spoilers in them so high in the article. It would be better if this one had something similar to IMDB's, which is simply having a warning in the bottom of the page "WARNING HERE BE SPOILERS" and then spoilers below it. It would make our lives so much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.217.206 (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed that sentence. Might as well delete this section, if you thing the spoiler's that horrible. Oh and by the way, it was his sled. And Aeris dies. --Illythr (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:SPOILER, which specifically states, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." BOZ (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Note that I deleted them because they add unnecessary detail (Pharod's death is mentioned before the reader even knows who he is, for example). The specific locations of the individual party members are also not needed - Wikipedia is not a game guide. In short, my removal of spoilers did not reduce encyclopedic content of the article. Per WP:SPOILER: When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. --Illythr (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
No objections? --Illythr (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, BOZ objected. I do too. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Care to provide a counter argument? Such as, what encyclopedic purpose is served by providing exact in-game locations for all potential party members? Or the spoilers mentioned above? --Illythr (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
(full discloure: I was notified of this discussion by somebody off-wiki). I can see how that first part about The Nameless One could be spoiler-ish. My feeling, though, is that it falls within the encyclopedic scope of Wikipedia. Now, I haven't actually played this game, but I get the feeling that it could be causing a significant moral dilemma for the player and character, and so may have a major impact on how the player views the world and the death of The Nameless One. Perhaps, to reduce spoiler-ish-ness, moving it to the plot section would make sense, but I feel that it better belongs in the characters section because it really is focused on The Nameless One, and not the rest of the plot as a whole. (that is assuming, of course, that there hasn't been some drastic change to spoiler policy since I was really active). Some of the details, like the specific locations of party members, could probably be removed as excessive detail. (just my opinion, note I might not be around to follow-up on anything). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't exactly see the consensus here to remove the material that was removed, but perhaps I'm just missing something. BOZ (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a consensus for removal to me. I'm slightly sympathetic to Scully's concern, but honestly I have to say that from an encyclopedic standpoint that's one of the more interesting things about the character and the ethical dimension of the game, so I can't support removal as undue or excessive detail, or burying. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see any encyclopedic value of providing all the character locations (except Morte and Grace).
As for the shadows spoiler - another problem is, while you find this out relatively late in the game, the article makes it look like you start out with this knowledge (it's pretty much the first thing you learn about the Nameless one right now, after the mandatory "immortal amnesiac" thing), thus devaluing this information and actually misleading the reader. It's like writing "Planescape: Torment is a game about an immortal amnesiac who remembers his past and claims his mortality" (or, for a different game, "...about a hero, who saves the world and marries the princess") - while certainly important, provided without context as it is, this information gives no insight on the ethics of it at all. In other words, by playing just the first and last chord together, you miss out the whole tune. --Illythr (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
An exhaustive list of character locations seems like WP:GAMEGUIDE material to me; don't see any reason to keep it. Your point about emphasis is meaningful; perhaps some framing along the lines of "Near the end of the game, the Nameless One discovers that..." would be in order? —chaos5023 (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, since there seems to be a consensus to keep this significant plot point, it should be presented as one. Not sure about the placement and wording though. --Illythr (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I oppose most of the removals by Illythr. They contained interesting information. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information someone happens to find interesting. See WP:DIRECTORY. --Illythr (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Torment: Tides of Numenera

I think it should be split off into a separate article, now that it's fully funded and a fast track to be produced... Unfortunately, I am too busy with the Dreamfall Chapters to maintain another one, especially during an active KS campaign, so someone else would have to do it. --Koveras ☭ 20:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh, thanks for posting this, I was afraid I'd miss the campaign. I'll start the article sometime this week, if no one heads me off. --illythr (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I threw together a skeleton article at Torment: Tides of Numenera. I'll start compiling contents from the Kickstarter project page into the blanks tomorrow. Feel free to pile on links or whatever other stuff that might prove useful. --illythr (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, we really only need a sentence or two here at most. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Project Eternity

Project Eternity is the other spiritual sequel to Planescape: Torment. So shouldn't it also be mentioned in this article? --RPGuest (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you have some reliable sources which confirm this. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 45 external links on Planescape: Torment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Planescape: Torment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Planescape: Torment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planescape:_Torment/Archive_2&oldid=1031351971"