Torment: Tides of Numenera - Post-Funding Update #25

It seems odd to me that they would even have such a vote this far into development. Imo, this is a decision that should have been made very early on. Combat is an integral part of the game, and I don't understand how they don't even know what style they're going with yet.

Originally Posted by booboo
They should have made this decision when they launched their KS - the combat system used has a profound impact on encounter types, frequency etc.

This ^

Well, the Torment Kickstarter did pitch it as a sort of "future project" that wouldn't go into production until after Wasteland 2 was finished (see the "Why now?" section in the original Kickstarter description). Since W2 was delayed, I guess that means we're still in the "pre-production" stage of Torment.

But yeah, should have made the decision before KS. Not deciding on something as important as combat style, in an RPG, until after people have already put around $4.5M into it is a bit odd.

Are they really "far into development" though ?
I get the feeling they are in the pre-production and design phase with most of the resources still tied up on Wasteland 2.

Perhaps Brother None can give us some insight into this one.

Also I get the impression that this poll was more about giving the backers/community a feeling that they have an active say in the development rather than really basing their decision on what the poll turns out (a PR stunt without wanting to color it too negatively ) hope it doesn't turn sour as I was saying…

edit: ninjah'd

Originally Posted by JDR13
And this is indicated where?

Just reading the part where they explain the advantages between TB and TBwP and you can clearly see that the devs are partial towards TB.

But yes, like others have said, it's very odd that backers can vote about this. The devs should have a very clear idea of what type of game they want to make. I'm not sure it's good PR to let backers vote about this decision.

Originally Posted by Brother None
We really don't want to do trash fights tho. Combat encounters will be carefully crafted and not too common. No wading through rats.

As long as I won't be facing endless respawns couldn't care less if enemies are rats or superAI overpowered bosses.

Originally Posted by rjshae
It wouldn't let me vote at this time… snort.

I had the same problem. Switched browsers and then it worked.

Apparently script blocking software like Ghostery can interfere.

Originally Posted by Nameless one
Another vote for turn based. I have no real preference but with PE going RTwP I like to have bit of mixed flavors.

I don't know how many RTwP games you've seen since NWN2 and Drakensang. Compare them to the number of TB games that have popped up since the last two years. I don't think there is a shortage of TB games.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I'm glad I didn't back this though. I've still yet to see anything that makes this a definite purchase for me, and the fact that they're even having this vote makes it seem like they're not completely sure what they want to do.

My feeling atm is that I backed them too much. I even increased my pledge, but at the moment I don't feel I get the game I hoped for and I should have saved my money for PE instead. It's not InXile's fault alone, they never said it would be RTwP or TB, Colin only wrote they would tend to RTwP. But the lesson for me is, I'm not goin to back a game in the future whose combat system I don't know for sure. My guess is, that this will be the last game from InXile that I paid up front. It seems they tend towards a type of games I don't like. Lesson learned, I had only hoped it wouldn't have been Torment to teach me.

Originally Posted by JDR13
The combat in PS:T wasn't bad because it was RTwP, it was just bad in general. As far as trying to "defend" RTwP, why would anyone need to do that?

I wouldn't say it was that bad. For me, the lesson of PsT was, that avoiding combat is always the best choice. The game rewarded you for being witty, you got more insight. On the downside it punished you for being a pure fighter. On the other hand, in most crpgs being witty is just a stat check and EXP/special item reward that helps you during the next battle/s, but nothing substantial, because it would hurt fighter aficionados too much. That's typical D&D grindhouse style of political correctness. I don't think any developer is able to create a whole game for two different styles of gameplay (combat/wits), just the same as they can't really create different experiences for bad or good characters. The only game in the past that succeeded in the good/bad area was Mysteries of Westgate, and the result was it had two completely different end game scenarios including different narrations, areas, quests, puzzles and boss fights. That's too much of an effort for a whole game.

The more I read the more it seems to me, the aspect of PsT that I'm most impressed off was an accident, because Interplay pressed them hard to get the game finished, so they haven't been able to revise it. *sigh*

Originally Posted by vurt
Just reading the part where they explain the advantages between TB and TBwP and you can clearly see that the devs are partial towards TB.

Yeah, that's quite obvious. They definitely discussed a lot about turn-based combat and found a lot of reasons for it. In comparison, arguments for RTwP clearly fall short of and their example doesn't really sound that interesting. If I wouldn't be committed from the beginning, from what is written TB is definitely offering more of a vision. But my guess is, most of the design is already predetermined to fit best with TB. The combat system is such an elemental thing that also influences area and quest design. You can't create a concept that fits both the same. So even if you don't decide actively for TB or RTwP the rest of your design concept is clearly going to lead into a specific direction. I think it is a subliminal process and determined by the preferences of the designers. The red/blue automata example simply does not work for RTwP, at least it can't offer a new experience that you haven't seen before. The TB solution sounds a little bit more like an innovation. That doesn't mean there is no other way that could fit better for RTwP. But you would need to begin from the scratch.

Originally Posted by JonNik
Are they really "far into development" though ?
I get the feeling they are in the pre-production and design phase with most of the resources still tied up on Wasteland 2.

Perhaps Brother None can give us some insight into this one.

In pre-production, yes. This is a good stage for us to figure out these questions.

Now in general: as systems go, combat was not the most important one to get hashed out, and the fact is that both RTwP and TB *can* hit the design goals we have in mind for combat, which is what makes us want to hear backers out. If this was a case of one system is clearly, without a doubt, must-have better, there wouldn't be a vote. And it is still an advisory vote. We like engaging people and you'd be surprised by the good ideas and insights that have popped out of the debate, heated though it's gotten at times.

We were open since the Kickstarter started that the combat system would be decided later and that we would have a poll on it and that the options included RTwP or TB. We never said or implied it'd definitely be RTwP. I can sympathize with people who assumed so, I can, but you can't really blame inXile for assuming something that we never said would be the case.

That sounds reasonable.

For me the important thing is that the target for a shift of focus from combat was evident from the start as you say.

It was for me but perhaps not for everyone that backed the game ?

Originally Posted by booboo
Well, it sounds like the intention was always to go with TB then - obviously if encounters are scarce it makes sense. I don't think,though, that this is the game that many were expecting or backed - PS:T had plenty of combat along with its great story and dialogue. I (and many others) just read "spiritual successor to Torment" (and looked the the dev team) and pledged. Yes, the RTwP combat was not brilliant, but going fully TB will mean this game plays out (and feels) very different. I probably would've backed it still, had I known, but not for the $80 I put in.

Originally Posted by Avantenor
My feeling atm is that I backed them too much. I even increased my pledge, but at the moment I don't feel I get the game I hoped for and I should have saved my money for PE instead. It's not InXile's fault alone, they never said it would be RTwP or TB, Colin only wrote they would tend to RTwP. But the lesson for me is, I'm not goin to back a game in the future whose combat system I don't know for sure. My guess is, that this will be the last game from InXile that I paid up front. It seems they tend towards a type of games I don't like. Lesson learned, I had only hoped it wouldn't have been Torment to teach me.

Like booboo, I also pledged $80, and like both of you I feel I probably put in a few bucks too much. I would've pledged regardless of combat type, but it would most likely have been a more common $20-30 tier just to get the actual game.

Originally Posted by Brother None
In pre-production, yes. This is a good stage for us to figure out these questions.

Now in general: as systems go, combat was not the most important one to get hashed out, and the fact is that both RTwP and TB *can* hit the design goals we have in mind for combat, which is what makes us want to hear backers out. If this was a case of one system is clearly, without a doubt, must-have better, there wouldn't be a vote. And it is still an advisory vote. We like engaging people and you'd be surprised by the good ideas and insights that have popped out of the debate, heated though it's gotten at times.

We were open since the Kickstarter started that the combat system would be decided later and that we would have a poll on it and that the options included RTwP or TB. We never said or implied it'd definitely be RTwP. I can sympathize with people who assumed so, I can, but you can't really blame inXile for assuming something that we never said would be the case.

Well first of all thanks for the reply, and as for combat I don't mind either one.

Now I have to ask this question though so sorry about this. It has been almost nine months. So why is the game still in pre-production?

As a consequence of this I'm guessing the release is going to be pushed back into late 2015-16 also. I do remember a few months ago you guys did announce a delay.

I'll end the reply with have you guys seen the comment section of the kickstarter. This looks to be dividing your backers. Not a good thing at all.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Now I have to ask this question though so sorry about this. It has been almost nine months. So why is the game still in pre-production?

As a consequence of this I'm guessing the release is going to be pushed back into late 2015 also. I do remember a few months ago you guys did announce a delay.

Our current release window is first half of 2015. Pre-production can mean different things, in this case all I mean is most of the studio is still working on WL2, and Torment team works on design, prototyping, early engine stuff. You can call that production if you like, in a way it is, it's just not "full-scale", if that makes sense?

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
I'll end the reply with have you guys seen the comment section of the kickstarter. This looks to be dividing your backers. Not a good thing at all.

'course we read the comments. People get passionate about this stuff. That would've been the case regardless, I mean, it's not great, but it's not exactly a huge problem. Hopefully there won't be too many people who assumed it would be one system and call "betrayal" if it's the other.

Originally Posted by Brother None
but you can't really blame inXile for assuming something that we never said would be the case.

I don't, but it doesn't make me feel better. No offense, Thomas. Good luck anyway.

This is the first time I've truly weighed Turn-based vs RTwP… never had a compelling reason to do so before.

And so I ended up going with turn-based. Too often RTwP failed to turn combat into anything but a jumbled mess with your trigger finger over the spacebar in the Infinity games.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Now I have to ask this question though so sorry about this. It has been almost nine months. So why is the game still in pre-production?

Already mentioned earlier in the thread, but the original Kickstarter description (under "Why now?" section) for Torment said that the game wouldn't enter production until Wasteland 2 was done.

Originally Posted by Brother None
Our current release window is first half of 2015. Pre-production can mean different things, in this case all I mean is most of the studio is still working on WL2, and Torment team works on design, prototyping, early engine stuff. You can call that production if you like, in a way it is, it's just not "full-scale", if that makes sense?

Thanks for the clarification Brother None I was just worried because as I said it has been nine months, and you guys still are calling it pre-production.

Originally Posted by Stingray
Already mentioned earlier in the thread, but the original Kickstarter description (under "Why now?" section) for Torment said that the game wouldn't enter production until Wasteland 2 was done.

I already knew that but read my reply above this. No other kickstarter has waited nine months to begin full production. I was just worried about their production schedule, and Brother None responded. No problem now.

Originally Posted by Drithius
This is the first time I've truly weighed Turn-based vs RTwP… never had a compelling reason to do so before.

I agree, either one has always felt good to me. And if I take a minute to think about what games I enjoy the combat most in, games from both categories qualify. What I don't want is somehing like DA:O, that never felt fun to me, compared to the infinity games or Fallout:Tactics, but that might be because of the lack of different classes.

Turn based is the same way, some real gems and som poor examples of combat.

Either way I'll be happy as long as it's challenging and full of interesting choices. No problem right?

Originally Posted by Drithius
This is the first time I've truly weighed Turn-based vs RTwP… never had a compelling reason to do so before.

Had to do that naturally several years ago. Why?

-Didn't like RTwP in XCom Apocalypse versus the TB mode in the same game. Among other things RTwP ruined all of the following XCom games (UFO Aftermath, UFO Aftershock, UFO Afterlight) until they switched back to TB with UFO Extraterrestrials and XCom EU.
-Fallout Tactics was the first game including RTwP as optional mode. And it was the first Fallout game were due to that even the TB mode felt compromised.
-Jagged Alliance was a traditionally turnbased Game which went RTwP when Bitcomposer was convinced that "the game had to be RTwP because it is 3D". Was the first Jagged Alliance Game which wasn't fun.
-Baldurs Gate had a nice atmosphere and the graphics and the voices gave it a nice atmosphere and kinda "new experience" compared to previous games. But I played another isometric D&D Game before: Dark Sun. And while the combat was kinda clumsy in Dark Sun I still prefered it to what they did in Baldurs Gate.