Talk:Planescape: Torment/Archive 1

message: Does anybody feel up for making one of those nifty infoboxes for this article?
: Done. --Goblin ›talk 11:28, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
::I need to make an infobox for Forgotten Realms, but I don't know how to do it (i read the instructions, but it made no sense). More info. — Reply to David Latapie 01:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Something I would really is to have this game come open source in one way or another.  Not that I am interested in the game engine, but some plot could be improved. For instance:
* The object you find on the Glabrezu corpse is bugged—it doesn't give you the abillties it is supposed to give you
* When you come back to the Mortuary, you can speak with a skeleton that seems to have been killed by Ignus. That would be great if you could reply something like “I am Ignus' master“, even better if the events could change if you are travelling with Ignus.
* I guess there would be a lot of thing to do with Adahn's appearance.Reply to David Latapie 09:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Black Isle still exists on paper (unlike some of its parent companies) and owns PS:T insofar as anyone owns it, but all the most important personalities to its development have moved elsewhere.  I'd say there's less than no chance of source ever being released.  Having said that, a lot can be done with Infinity Engine game content and scripts without having access to the source itself.  Platter has traditionally been the big kahuna in that department, but hasn't been very active lately.   For IE modding info and discussion, you might consult the Gibberlings3 forums --Yst 14:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Source/Improvements 

message: I've tried to clean up the article so there's less POV, less weasel terms, and a clearer and more focused plot summary concentrating on themes and such, as opposed to random factoids, bland storytelling, and incorrect (but barely noticable) information. Who knows, maybe I might even succeed.  —shoecream 07:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
:I made text flow corrections and such, but I do prefer this version of the article. --Sn0wflake 20:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Minor change in the name of greater semantic clarity: I changed "Black Isle (which disbanded in 2004)" to "Black Isle (closed in 2004)", as the prior appears to suggest or at least leaves open the possibility that Black Isle closed itself, i.e., of its own volition, subject to an internal decision, whereas in fact it was closed by Interplay subject to an external decision by that parent company.  The latter seems to me to better reflect that reality, while not belabouring a rather peripheral point. --Yst 07:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I removed the reference to Final Fantasy X, as it had no place within the article. The spells in PS:T aren't at all comparable to the Aeons in FFX, and PS:T predates FFX by several years.
: Hm, there was an in-game reference (credits) to FF8, not FFX. Also, it's the general appearance of the spells, that's comparable to those in FF: the "timestop" during casts, the movie sequences (high-level), and the general 'epic' look of magic. Compare Torment with BG for instance. Magic from P:T looks better by far than even those in BG2. --Illythr 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Fantasy? 

message: I removed
: The Modron Maze is arguably a spoof of the popular hack-and-slash game Diablo.
This seems to contradict developer comments on the modron cube, most recently by Chris Avellone, indicating that, as seems evident, it's merely a parody of D&D/RPG clichés in general. --Yst 06:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diablo Analogy 

message: I've removed the commented-out list of extra resources. Comments are not for policy violations which editors want to sneak into articles. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/When_should_I_link_externally for recommendations on when and what to link, which says that one or two reviews might be a good idea. Five glowing ones isn't. Chris Cunningham 10:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And again I've removed them from the talk page. This is the most immature agenda-pushing I've seen in some time, and if it didn't before it certainly qualifies as "lame" now. Chris Cunningham 09:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed them again. My net access is sadly too sporadic to have something down about this permanently. Chris Cunningham 15:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see you've taken to trying to revert every change I've made to the article. Why you believe that such petty, immature vandalism is likely to swing consensus in your favour is beyond me. Chris Cunningham 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anyone agreeing with you, now do I? Unless you can get a lot more people to agree with you, you are out of luck. And why did you remove the more specific information, anyway, like the names of authors? --Jesse Mulkey 19:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dare say that our respective editing histories speak for themselves. I will continue to revert POV fanboy additions to this article. Unofficial novelisations do not require anything more than a brief mention, authors do not need to be linked unless they are actually important (if you want to mention them, add them to a proper reference), and the vast list of fan resources is unencyclopedic. Chris Cunningham 10:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a proper book cite tag for the official novelisation. Thanks for pointing this out. Chris Cunningham 11:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking this on board. I'd still rather limit the extlinks to a maximum of three or four resource / review sites maximum, as stated here. The other information isn't bad and should be integrated where possible, but there's no need to put a positive spin on it (people will visit linked reviews and find out what the reviewers thought themselves). Chris Cunningham 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stealth links 

message: These are the links which the evil Chris Cunningham/Thumperward has removed from the article because he has no idea of their significance to the fanbase because he's never played the game. Everything was better before he came along and ruined it all. --Jesse Mulkey 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed them again. My net access is sadly too sporadic to have something down about this permanently. Chris Cunningham 15:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see you've taken to trying to revert every change I've made to the article. Why you believe that such petty, immature vandalism is likely to swing consensus in your favour is beyond me. Chris Cunningham 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anyone agreeing with you, now do I? Unless you can get a lot more people to agree with you, you are out of luck. And why did you remove the more specific information, anyway, like the names of authors? --Jesse Mulkey 19:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dare say that our respective editing histories speak for themselves. I will continue to revert POV fanboy additions to this article. Unofficial novelisations do not require anything more than a brief mention, authors do not need to be linked unless they are actually important (if you want to mention them, add them to a proper reference), and the vast list of fan resources is unencyclopedic. Chris Cunningham 10:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a proper book cite tag for the official novelisation. Thanks for pointing this out. Chris Cunningham 11:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking this on board. I'd still rather limit the extlinks to a maximum of three or four resource / review sites maximum, as stated here. The other information isn't bad and should be integrated where possible, but there's no need to put a positive spin on it (people will visit linked reviews and find out what the reviewers thought themselves). Chris Cunningham 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links