Torment:ToN - Interview @ RPGCodex

[Saxon1974]

I am a fan of the codex. Yes there are some stupid posters but I know how to filter that stuff. As Stingray said it's free speech zone and those seem rare these days. For me it's the most reliable site to get in depth information about games. I like this site too and go to them both.

Not sure if I will play this game though; reviews pretty mixed and not a big fan of the setting. Backed W2 and Bards tale IV though.

 

[Elwro]

Well, the Codex has more than a fair share of shitposters and people who are aggressive to others for a multitude of reasons of varying stupidity, but guys, seriously, don't you think you just can't read a similar interview anywhere else?

 

[TheSnarkyShaman]

I wish people wouldn't glorify the codex as a 'free speech zone' like it's actually a healthy representation of conflicting ideas and debate. That's all well and good in theory but we all know that when people are encouraged to speak their mind on the internet, especially gamers, with none of the social nuance of real life interaction, that it's just going to result in disproportionate amounts of racism and homophobia (particularly the latter). Throw in the fact that the whole website encourages this 'edgy' persona and essentially encourages bitterness, bigotry and negativity and it just becomes a horrible place for a gay person to visit because we know that any thread you go on there'll be someone saying something vile about gay people which will also have a ton of likes. But it's ok because they have a token gay moderator, right?

There's a difference in being offended because someone referred to a woman as a 'female' and being offended because there's a 30+ page dedicated topic about how Tim Cain is gay and how disgusting that is.

 

[you]

I thought the interview itself was informative. Didn't realize sales were so poor. they also answered one question - the count (100K) is 100K + kickstarter - so probably not a big $$ loss but still not very healthy. I suspect unless sales pick up there won't be a lot of support

 

[gabrielarantest]

Strawman argument. He never said that all that matters is the number of words. It's as if you never read the rest of the interview beyond the word count, duh!

Well, that's offensive, we don't need that buddy. It's hardly an argument. It was an observation because it is not the first time I read that kind of statement. Sorry if I offend anyone. Fargo is not the first to say "we have more than xxx million words". I think that Josh Sawyer said something similar about PoE some time ago. It bothers me. And no, I still think that it is not something to be proud of, even if no other game has done it before. Because the quality of the game is not about breaking the world's record. But if they speak about the number of words as an advertisement or as a reason to buy the game, it's because there are people who think that "#_of_words = quality". And that's simply not true.

I still haven't played ToN. I'm waiting to get cheaper since Wasteland 2 was a let down for me. But I have played PoE a lot, and IMHO I wish they had focused on delivering a better storyline than to focused in the number of words, even though I enjoyed PoE.

 

[Bumvelcrow]

But it's ok because they have a token gay moderator, right?

The Codex has gays, jews, muslims, people of many races, and even women (allegedly). And they all enjoy slinging mud at each other in between talking about RPGs. Nobody is forcing them to stay there. If it's so intolerant why has it attracted such a wide spectrum of contributors? Perhaps it's because they're not presumptuous enough to try and be offended on other people's behalf and don't take themselves too seriously.

If you don't like it then there are plenty of sites that will spare your feelings, like this one, but pretending it's unhealthy just because you personally don't like it is exactly the sort of attitude that will get you ridiculed on the Codex, not because you may or may not be gay, jewish, or from the planet Jupiter.

 

[Zloth]

In the future, we will be much more careful about detailing the specifics.

It's driving me nuts that every game dev on Kickstarter seemed to have to learn this themselves.

One of the complaints about the game is that you could get through it in 30 or 40 hours, right? Now, think about a normal roleplaying game and how much percentage of your time is spent in combat. Whether it’s fodder or trash mobs or bosses, it’s usually over half the game. In Torment, it’s negligible. So we have a game that is actually larger than most but in which you can get through it quickly because we don’t force you to fight all the time.

OH! That's a good point. Rip all but the 20 most important fights out Baldur's Gate and it's going to be a far shorter game. If the battle system is fun then the "trash mobs" should be pretty fun, too, but that isn't what Torment was aiming for.

Brian mentioned player impressions. It did indeed seem, during early access, that the feedback was overwhelmingly positive, even on the Codex. But currently, Torment holds a 70% Metacritic user review and a "mixed" review on Steam, with the entire first page of the Store page filled with negative reviews. How do you react to that? Do you think this was a consequence of your design decisions?

Now isn't that interesting? I'm pretty sure it was very positive in its early days, too, and the critics sure liked it. It sounds like the folks who got burned by all those dropped features really loved the game. It's the folks that came later that didn't. Were the early birds just more invested in the game? Were the late comers, as Brian said, expecting it to be like other games then trashed it because it wasn't what they thought?

But the bit I'm more interested in (and wasn't answered) was the fact that all the most helpful reviews in the past 30 days are all negative. I just checked and it's true today, too. Yet that "mixed" result is actually 69% positive and that is reflected over on the right with the 'most recent' reviews. I just checked a few of my own Steam games and they've all got a higher percentage of negative 'helpful' reviews than the most recent reviews. (The exception being Kerbal Space Program which has nothing but positives right now.)

That system of tracking helpful reviews is pretty easily abused and, given the space Steam gives to the 'helpful' reviews compared to the recent reviews, I think people are going to give more weight to those reviews. Tell people that a game is not going to be good and they are far more likely to find fault with the game.

 

[Moriendor]

In the future, we will be much more careful about detailing the specifics.

Cool. Then we're even because in the future some of the backers will also be much more careful about who they are giving their money to... especially if the pitch is intentionally kept vague. I, for one, will not back any inXile project again (nor any other crowdfunding project except for Larian's games ).

 

[luj1]

I really wanted to like the game, but it really is a failure.


Props to Codex for getting the interview, as always.

 

[luj1]

lol @ Fargo apologizing to the 'Dex xD

 

[Deleted User]

Now isn't that interesting? I'm pretty sure it was very positive in its early days, too, and the critics sure liked it. It sounds like the folks who got burned by all those dropped features really loved the game. It's the folks that came later that didn't. Were the early birds just more invested in the game? Were the late comers, as Brian said, expecting it to be like other games then trashed it because it wasn't what they thought?

But the bit I'm more interested in (and wasn't answered) was the fact that all the most helpful reviews in the past 30 days are all negative. I just checked and it's true today, too. Yet that "mixed" result is actually 69% positive and that is reflected over on the right with the 'most recent' reviews. I just checked a few of my own Steam games and they've all got a higher percentage of negative 'helpful' reviews than the most recent reviews. (The exception being Kerbal Space Program which has nothing but positives right now.)

That system of tracking helpful reviews is pretty easily abused and, given the space Steam gives to the 'helpful' reviews compared to the recent reviews, I think people are going to give more weight to those reviews. Tell people that a game is not going to be good and they are far more likely to find fault with the game.

We are also in the era of "bombing" review sites, forums and anywhere trolls can disrupt things with negativity. A lot of times it's not even related to the game, but rather a personal agenda or just something they find amusing. It is interesting, for sure. The trolls mess with people's money with an anonymous face. I wonder how long until powers that be crack down on such things.

 

[rjshae]

…game has not been a success…

This is a bit vague. Are they basing this on sales, reviews, or personal opinion? Maybe all three?

 

[Stingray]

Sales, it's discussed in the interview.

We should talk about sales. Everyone can look them up for Steam. It's currently sitting around 120,000. Can you tell us how many copies were sold from other distribution sources?

Brian: Negligible.


Were these sales expected?

Brian: No, I'm disappointed.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

Every game has trolls, especially popular ones, which provoke "retaliation" from fans of "rival" series.
But they have little impact, compared to how vocal they are. Recent games like Last of Us, Witcher or Horizon still have extremely high user ratings, despite the MC troll bombing.
They can lower the ratings, but not to this extent.

 

[Deleted User]

Little impact on hugely popular games with big budgets for marketing and tons of fans, maybe. For indie games like this, negative and trolling "bombs" on Steam forums and review sites are much more damaging.

 

[Saxon1974]

The Codex has gays, jews, muslims, people of many races, and even women (allegedly). And they all enjoy slinging mud at each other in between talking about RPGs. Nobody is forcing them to stay there. If it's so intolerant why has it attracted such a wide spectrum of contributors? Perhaps it's because they're not presumptuous enough to try and be offended on other people's behalf and don't take themselves too seriously.

If you don't like it then there are plenty of sites that will spare your feelings, like this one, but pretending it's unhealthy just because you personally don't like it is exactly the sort of attitude that will get you ridiculed on the Codex, not because you may or may not be gay, jewish, or from the planet Jupiter.

Props for this post, very well said. I don't agree with much of what the mainstream media reports but you know what? I just don't watch it. I guess I should deem it unhealthy then.

 

[Saxon1974]

Makes me wonder about Kickstarter to be honest. So far I have got a couple of good games out of it but now I don't have much time and with so many games coming out I have a backlog. So why back a game for 50$ when. I won't have time to play for years? Might as well wait if it's going to be made anyway.

I'll play wasteland 3 and Divinity OS 2 eventually but didn't back either. I guess the rewards are just not worth it to me personally.

 

[Stingray]

Lately I've mainly been backing to get collector's editions I guess. For some of these games, those aren't even available retail. Got burned with Torment though, the retail collector's edition was far better than the backer's collector's edition, and cheaper too, which is ridiculous. (This particular issue was also covered in this interview, Brian admitted it, but blamed it on Techland)

I also back to support true indie developers who probably actually need the money. Copper Dreams is one example of that.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

Little impact on hugely popular games with big budgets for marketing and tons of fans, maybe. For indie games like this, negative and trolling "bombs" on Steam forums and review sites are much more damaging.

It's the other way around. Smaller, more "niche" titles are generally bought/reviewed by people who are genuinely looking forward to playing them.
They are not considered a "threat" by fans of other companies, considering there is little mass public interest for them ( unlike recent "epizode" with Zelda fans attacking Horizon on metacritic, while ranting about some form of delirious persecution by them).
Nor do they have massive marketing campaign behind them that end up building unrealistic expectations. ( there are few exceptions, like No Man's Sky, but those are extremely rare).

 

[Deleted User]

The other way around? So you think that negative reviews on Metacritic and Steam affect big budget titles more? I don't see how that is so. Big budget titles can counter negative reviews with sheer amounts of money spent in publicity and marketing. Little indies are dead in the water if their game is reviewed poorly as they don't have access to those resources.

I think there are cases of both happening, but even No Man's Sky that got bashed in reviews still sold a ton of copies. Naturally the games with higher recognition are not going to need reviews to sell. IMO, of course. Because they already have recognition and spotlight. One of the hardest things about indie dev is getting people to even talk about the game. That is never a problem for big budget games as they can pump tons into PR and marketing.