Because the author doesn't mention it, I will: Spoiler alert. This article gives away a few of the essential plot points of Planescape: Torment. However, I'm going to talk about this article a bit so read it right here:

http://kotaku.com/5989197/why-people-love-planescape-torment?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

I both like and hate articles like this. I love the fact it brings attention to the game, but the way the writing is slanted annoys me. The writer talks about Planescape like it is this relic of a long forgotten age, a product of a more chaotic time. It bothers me because he mentions design decisions, like the Isometric view, like they are archaic and no longer used. I remember having a conversation about 'old' design ideas with someone (In this case turn based combat and the adventure game genre) and how ideas weren't out dated but just rarely used any more... in the console and Pc space. I've been seeing many new turn based and adventure games in the handheld and mobile markets for years. However that changed last year, didn't it?

Low and behold, two of the best games of 2012 were the new X-com and The Walking Dead. Go figure, right?

It's the same idea as the isometric view. It isn't a bad and ancient design principle, but just another way of presenting a world. Just because something has that POV doesn't mean it isn't immersive. Look at a relatively new game, Bastion, for example.

The author also mentions the game doesn't hold up well. I'm not sure what he means, exactly. The look and the art style of the game is so unique and inventive that many designers are still looking back to it for inspiration. In 20 years, I bet PS:T will hold up better than many of the newer games...

I could go on. The biggest gripe I have is this article seems to be a backhanded compliment to the game. It lists many good things about it, and then speaks as if game design has somehow become so much better in the intervening years.

I don't think it has, at least not in the AAA space. The success of Wasteland 2, Project Eternity, and the new Torment game obviously show there are people wanting more from their games than the current crop give. I'm glad there are people out there finally making the RPGs I want and am glad Kickstarter is allowing them to fund these projects.

Of course, maybe i'm not young and hip enough to realize how great game design is now...

I got a different impression from the article - the comment about ageing is followed directly by mentioning the high-res patch, so I assumed that's what they meant. And the amount and weight of compliments in such a short article doesn't make this a "backhanded" compliment in my opinion. I can't see any bit that actually bashes Torment's game design (and mind you, the combat was criticised even in 1999).

Honestly I think your view about game perspective is really lost on most people. A lot of people just think every game should have 3d freely rotating/zooming camera and fully detailed environments from every angle. I think those people are trying to watch an art gallery when they should be reading a book.

A game is about playing, and no amount of graphics will help that. When a designer focuses on the game and decides to limit the perspective, because they don't want to waste valuable resources making every nook and cranny look good, that is the sign of a game made to be played.

Those games are essentially always better than games meant to be looked at.

And still, so many are so lost as to wonder how I could even say such a thing.