Torment: Tides of Numenera - A Look Back

Colin McComb looks back at the development of Torment: Tides of Numenera:

Updated Our Journal (63): A Look Back on Development

tl;dr: Colin talks about Torment's development and the future; Monte Cook's novella now available; new Torment media

Hello Exiles,

Colin here. It's crazy to think that it's just about a month from Torment's release date. To start, we wanted to give you a taste of some of the game's quests in this interactive trailer. Hosted by, well, me, there's some early game side-quest spoilers, but it'll give you a taste of what the game has to offer if you haven't already jumped into the early access version.

A Look Back on Development

As our release date nears, we decided to look back on the game's development, to talk about where we are, how far we've come, and how we move forward from here.

When we set out to make Torment: Tides of Numenera, our vision was to make a thematic successor to Planescape: Torment. We’d explore a new setting, and use a new core question to explore a similar vein of philosophical thought. I am proud to say that the response from you, our backers, has been incredibly positive. I’ve told this story before, but it bears repeating: when Brian asked me to be the creative lead for Torment, I had to take some time to think about it, and I almost turned down the opportunity. I knew what Planescape: Torment meant to people, after all. For people to say that we have succeeded in creating a tonal and thematic successor is… well, it’s overwhelming, and I – WE – are grateful for the opportunity.

As with any creative work, game development is an iterative and uncertain process. When we over-funded at a higher level than we could ever have expected, that led to an increase in scope and size of the game accordingly. We went from one major city hub to two. We added new companions, more locations such as the Ascension, the Castoff's Labyrinth, new cults like the Dendra O'hur, and more. We added Meres to the game, whole text-based mini-stories that themselves have their own reactivity and many branching paths, and even more surprises to find. We have an expanded soundtrack that's longer than Planescape: Torment's by a decent margin, and a universe rich enough to fill multiple novellas.

During the Kickstarter, we had to move fast. We had to make decisions and add content on the fly. The problem is, as with any plan, some of those decisions looked great on paper but didn’t survive contact with reality. Building a game is not a straight line from start to finish. It’s not as simple as creating a design document, implementing it, and shipping it. It’s an endlessly iterative process, one where ideas must be thought up, discussed, prototyped, iterated on again, and tested in game. The cycle repeats frequently. Sometimes, these ideas don’t work out the way you intended or just don’t feel like they fit properly in the theme of the game. A lesson we've taken away since the Kickstarter campaign is to avoid being too specific in detailing early designs, locations, and characters – it's fun and exciting at the time for us and you, but…

Well, what can change the nature of a game? This is one (non-canonical) answer: Creating it. For instance, the story we launched with, while still being true to the vision of the game, has undergone at least seven major revisions.

Some of our players and community members recently pointed out that they noticed that some features had changed from what we initially detailed. The one that has come up the most is the companion roster. The early access version doesn't feature the companion list we initially had our sights on. This is true: for the release version, there will be six. While we laid the groundwork for more, while building the game we realized that we had to make a tradeoff between companions with depth, or a larger amount. We chose to focus on the added richness and personality that you expect with a smaller group. The game’s scope increased considerably over what we originally set out to build, and we underestimated the amount of time and iteration it would take to make our companions as reactive and branching as they needed to be.

We didn't want these characters to end up with storylines that felt incomplete. We didn’t want to force them into the late game. Focusing on a smaller number gave us the opportunity to add more banter, more voice-over, and deeper storylines and outcomes for them.

Crafting is another stretch goal feature that we did some initial design on, but that work did not mesh well with the rest of the game's systems. Rather than adding an element that felt tacked-on (and worse, out of place for Torment), we repurposed those resources. We added more cyphers and artifacts to the game. We also added some other, more story-based elements to further flesh out equipment and items. That helped the items fit with the structure and style of the emerging game.

Some of you have been asking about the Oasis, an area we talked about during the campaign as our second major city. Though we fully intended that the Oasis would be our second city, story changes, plus our growing fascination with the Bloom, turned that location into our second major hub instead. In fact, the Bloom and surrounding areas are much larger than we originally discussed building for the Oasis. This didn't adversely affect the length of the game – we’re still delivering a second major hub, and the Oasis will still appear in a smaller form. We feel this was the right move for the game creatively. It meant we could focus on a setting that felt darker and more distinctly Torment, and it improved the pacing immeasurably.

Changes like these happen in the development of any game. Speaking for inXile, I can tell you that we always undertake them to deliver you a better experience. To do anything else would be doing you a disservice.

But our focus on the game led to a different disservice. Namely, our lack of communication. We have always been major proponents of openness during development, but we did not communicate these changes earlier, and we should have done so sooner. For this, you have the entire team’s sincerest apologies. Going forward both with Torment and our future games, we hope to increase our efforts in making sure that you know the status and future plans for inXile’s projects.

So, you might be asking, what’s up after Torment releases next month? Fortunately, we're in the era of internet connections and ongoing post-release support. We still have plenty of ideas for Torment! We'll be thinking about ways we can restore some of the remaining ideas that work in the game. Of course, as our backers who helped make the game happen, any of these updates – such as DLCs and expansions – will be yours free of charge. This goes for both Kickstarter backers and those who backed through our website.

[…]

More information.

any of these updates – such as DLCs and expansions – will be yours free of charge. This goes for both Kickstarter backers and those who backed through our website.

While some are disappointed with something, this pleases me more than moaning over some cut away NPC.

I really don't like how dismissive they seem to be about cutting stretch goals.

Of course stuff changes in any creative project. If people can't understand that then they should stay away from kickstarter/fig. Dropping italian is disappointing but they are doing the right thing and offering refunds.

If companies don't understand that they have to communicate their decisions before their customers find out, they should stay away from kickstarter/fig as well.

Game development is not a grassroot democracy. But lending money for not developing what has been promised could also been interpreted as fraud, even if it's not indictable. For outsiders the difference only exists in the way things get handled. And from a morale PoV it is at least worth mentioning. Especially if you call your stakeholders "fans".

Well one tiny correction. It is not lending - it is giving (money for development). It is at best an early pre-order (sometime above and sometime below retail release price with no guarantee that a product will actually be released).

It's not lending or giving - it's a essentially a sales contract for future goods. If anyone could be bothered, they'd almost certainly get their money back in court if the contract is not fulfilled. But no-one does that over a few bucks in these cases.

Actually this is NOT true. Read the terms for kickstarter; there is no promise of delivery of goods and FURTHER it states that goods might not be delivered.

Originally Posted by Ripper
It's not lending or giving - it's a essentially a sales contract for future goods. If anyone could be bothered, they'd almost certainly get their money back in court if the contract is not fulfilled. But no-one does that over a few bucks in these cases.

Originally Posted by you
Well one tiny correction. It is not lending - it is giving (money for development). It is at best an early pre-order (sometime above and sometime below retail release price with no guarantee that a product will actually be released).

I must admit I never really read the T&Cs…but now that I have, it seems someone can simply collect all the money, on reaching their target, and then bolt with your money and everyone else's. And You'd have to mount a legal claim yourself to pursue them yourself. Actually quite a crappy system. Another reason why I pledge the minimum these days. When I pledge, I *do* expect a finished product at least - other's seem happy to "donate" very large sums and just say "ah well'. Fortunately I have never been placed in this position on KS, but I do think their should be greater accountability - for me KS was about funding accessibility, not providing an easy source of funding for unscrupulous people. Of which there are many.
Back on topic: I am a bit miffed at the changes, reductions, but at least a game will be produced and based on what I played so far, I'm sure I will like it.

Kickstarter may not provide protection, but as a customer you do get protection (until Trump removes that too I suppose). Several Kickstarters have been successfully sued over failure to deliver the product.

Waiting for Directors Cut, then I will have a blast for sure!

Originally Posted by you
Actually this is NOT true. Read the terms for kickstarter; there is no promise of delivery of goods and FURTHER it states that goods might not be delivered.

Unless the courts rule otherwise and say they statement has no legal binding. Just like a lawyer at a company that sends you a cease and desist order it doesn't mean it has any merit.

The courts, and it was reported here a few times, have gone back and forth on EULA's for example. There's already been a few cases of fraud charged against kickstarters, like the Russian playing card thing. (The recent jury award against Oculus Rift was for breach of contract for an NDA, not the actual kickstarter).

When a developer uses kickstarter to secure funding for a project, and then announces stretch goals as incentives to get more backers and more funding beyond the original target, there is at least a moral obligation (if not a legal one) to provide the promised features. Failure to do so undermines the entire concept of offering stretch goals for more funding.

"Could not provide promised localization because stretch goals expanding the scope" and "Could not provide the promised companions because they would not be fleshed out enough" means they either did not estimate the costs needed for their stretch goals properly; promised more than they could deliver; did not properly plan; OR the addition of the publisher forced a release date they could not meet; or some combination of these.

"Crafting didn't fit in properly so we ditched it" really sounds like an excuse.

Regardless, if you promise something in exchange for money, you should deliver it. At the very least, you shouldn't take an "oh well, that's just how game development works" attitude about it.

If you promised a publisher a feature set, you can be damned sure the feature set would be provided. In a kickstarter campaign, the backers (not a publisher) are funding development, so not meeting any of the promises of the campaign should be considered a Big Deal to the developer, not something you mention in passing after someone snoops your beta code and then just say "ooops, oh well, that's how it goes sometimes".

Originally Posted by you
Actually this is NOT true. Read the terms for kickstarter; there is no promise of delivery of goods and FURTHER it states that goods might not be delivered.

It is true. Kickstarter's terms essentially cover themselves, as the intermediary, but they also make it clear that the contract is between the creator and the backer. Legally, that is a sale of future goods. Even if the contract did say that the goods might never be delivered, that wouldn't stand up in court - the basic principle of the purchase of goods would override it.

Have a look here: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DanRo…iabilities.php

There is an assumption often made when these things are cut that the other aspects of the game weren't enhanced or improved in exchange. If not an assumption it is something that is rarely considered at all when this comes up. That has to count for something as they have provided the funds and resources to improve other aspects of the game, so it's not as if they just cut the content and pocketed the money. You're still getting close to, if not the same gross amount of "stuff", just in a different implementation. IMO.

The game is still going to be the best thing since sliced bread so enjoy it. We're lucky developers are still out there making RPGs like this.

I didn't see the need to back the game, so I don't even know what they've failed to do. I doubt anybody is going to court over it. I do think that these studios ought be a bit more cautious with the specific goals, and stick to things they know they can deliver. It just causes such bad blood with some backers when this stuff happens.

Fluent, you miss the point. I already expect a great game as described in the campaign, I wouldn't have backed it otherwise. But when the developer says "give us another $200,000 and we will do X", that doesn't mean "give us another $200,000 and we might do X, or we might use it in some other way as we deem appropriate to improve the game". If they wanted $200,000 to improve the game in other ways they should have said that.

In fact, "deeper story and reactivity" was a part of several of the stretch goals. If they had to cut features to accomplish it, they did not budget sufficiently for the stretch goals.

And since they didn't deliver X, who knows WHAT happened to the money, since there is no public accounting for the expenditures. It could have gone towards other facets of the game, it could have gone toward other games they are developing, it could have gone toward funding ports to consoles which was not part of the campaign, or it could have just gone in a general pool to fund the salaries of the studio. Who knows?

One thing we DO know is that $200,000 did NOT implement X as promised. Which means they did not deliver something they promised they would do if they reached the targeted amount.

Then when they not only didn't deliver X, but also not W, Y, or Z, that becomes a real integrity issue (to me, anyway). It is an abuse of the backers who funded the project believing they would receive everything that was promised.

And there is just NO excuse whatsoever for not providing the promised number of companions. They had over 4 million dollars and hired staff specifically to write some of the "extra" companions.

Regardless of the above, I am still highly looking forward to the completed game. But I think if someone is going to ask for money to provide something, then they should provide it. If for some reason it doesn't fit, they should have made a statement about it. And having multiple stretch goals not included is really pretty disrespectful to the backers IMHO.

Originally Posted by Fluent
There is an assumption often made when these things are cut that the other aspects of the game weren't enhanced or improved in exchange. If not an assumption it is something that is rarely considered at all when this comes up. That has to count for something as they have provided the funds and resources to improve other aspects of the game, so it's not as if they just cut the content and pocketed the money. You're still getting close to, if not the same gross amount of "stuff", just in a different implementation. IMO.

The game is still going to be the best thing since sliced bread so enjoy it. We're lucky developers are still out there making RPGs like this.

I'm not missing the point, just choosing to look at it in a positive way. They have said that several of the features they cut were because they weren't working like they wanted, so they in turn used the time and resources that would have been pumped into those systems to make other game systems better.

It's not perfect and I understand that people pledge to see those stretch goals achieved, but if the developers have tried to implement them and it's not going so well, then bolstering the other systems more in the game is a reasonable move to make.

I mean, what is the reasonable way to react to this? Put bamboo shoots under their fingernails or take legal action against them? Or just shrugging, being more careful about pledging for stretch goals in the future and just enjoy what's going to be a great RPG regardless?

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. They're making quality old-school CRPGs again. I think that's a good thing.

Originally Posted by Fluent
I'm not missing the point, just choosing to look at it in a positive way. They have said that several of the features they cut were because they weren't working like they wanted, so they in turn used the time and resources that would have been pumped into those systems to make other game systems better.

It's not perfect and I understand that people pledge to see those stretch goals achieved, but if the developers have tried to implement them and it's not going so well, then bolstering the other systems more in the game is a reasonable move to make.

I mean, what is the reasonable way to react to this? Put bamboo shoots under their fingernails or take legal action against them? Or just shrugging, being more careful about pledging for stretch goals in the future and just enjoy what's going to be a great RPG regardless?

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. They're making quality old-school CRPGs again. I think that's a good thing.

I think it's great to have a positive attitude about things, but I think you need to be careful. Being to accepting allows things to become a norm that shouldn't be the norm.

Originally Posted by sakichop
I think it's great to have a positive attitude about things, but I think you need to be careful. Being to accepting allows things to become a norm that shouldn't be the norm.

I'm not blindly "accepting" anything. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and actually believing them when they say they used those resources to make other elements of the game better.