Elerond

As others have stated before when placing my order. What browser you are using? For some reason when I try to check out with Avant Browser using chrome's engine I got that message, but when I switched to use Chrome itself I didn't have any problems and check out went through without any issues.

This update was worth of all the waiting. Teaser especially is very nice. Backer site seems to work, although check out didn't work with my chrome variant browser, but when I switched to chrome it worked.

Child supports idea is to make sure that parents disagreements don't effect child's welfare and it's cheaper for government and tax payers than paying support from government's funds. And child support is also often seen as punishment for those people who want have sex but don't want carry responsibilities that it can bring and also way to lower change that parent will abandon his or her child because it's too much work/something. In my opinion if there is option to parents get out from child support it should be only in extreme cases that include illegal actions from other party. Which would also mean that child should be taken to official custody. What comes to abortion rights, men should have such only if they are one who are pregnant or otherwise carrying baby, as abortion right is part of bodily autonomy right, which means that you only can dictate what is done to your body (like in most countries nobody can force you to donate blood or organs even if you are dead).

Just as example of such system. http://youtu.be/A9nZ43iwS-c Original TRPG use sequential turn-based system due limitations of gamers. Meanwhile video games don't have such limitations, computer can just simulate "reality" and perform all calculation without boring tabletop gameplay elements. Copypaste rules of tabletop games into computer games is just stupid. This is kind of system that I would have most liked see in TToN and it was too bad that they decided against even make a draft for this kind of system.

They will release definitive edition of the game to PS4 and Xbox One.

As all combat will be avoidable, so even if inXile can't get TB combat right even with their second try, at least it will not destroy whole game. And as they planed timed events in their combat encounters in their RTwP variant, which in my opinion cause high risk that combat encounters will need constant use of save and load functions when your encounter timer runs out, meaning that you many players probably would have bent more time trying get past combat encounters than what they would in TB system even though combat itself runs faster.

You tell yourself that, buddy. The DAO Camera control was really designed for PC first, you know, that whole bit where when you're in isometric mode you can't free look ... lol. DAO was designed to be PC only game before EA bought Bioware and decided that Bioware should also make console version of it (same time as EA decided that there should be PC version of Mass Effect). Which is reason why there is much bigger difference between PC and console versions than there is in DA2, that was from begin designed to all platforms.

I think that they mean that rogues and rangers can do great amount of damage in short period of time, but that don't mean that they can constantly do that damage. So rogues backstab and rangers similar abilities give them ability deal lethal amount damage against most enemies in one attack burst, but attacks after that will do much less amount of damage. Fighters, paladins and barbarians don't have similar high damage abilities, but their base damage level is probably higher in most cases. So when rogue uses his/her backstab ability s/he will have highest dps in party for that hit, but that don't mean that s/he can do that level damage constantly, like in D&D. Of course with right tactics you probably can use rogues abilities so that s/he deals only backstap hits to enemies. Like for example you build you fighter to be specialist to tie enemies in close combat so that your rogue has much easier time to backstab them or something similar.

I rather take a game that I enjoy for the full 15 hours it offers than a game that takes 80 hours to finish of which I only enjoy the first 40 hours before it starts to get boring. Everything can and will turn into **** if it just keeps on going and going, no matter how much you like it. I think that I would take 40 hours enjoyment over 15 hours even if it means that I don't finish the game. But I understand that some people don't like leave their games unfinished, in which case I also would pick 15 hours enjoyment option instead of 40 hours of dullness.

They already made their choice. It makes no sense to "consult" backers at this point, other than some lame PR. Do they really need outsiders making decisions for them? I thought they're supposed to be experienced game developers. During their kickstarter campaign they said that they will draft couple different combat systems that in their opinion will work fine in the game so that people can give their opinion about them and then most of the backers though that was good plan, which is reason why they now ask backers opinion about it. Although during drafting those said combat systems they have started to favor one over other, because in their opinion it's easier and faster to implement, which of course don't mean that it would be the best system for the game, which it is in my opinion, not because it easier to implement, but how they describe it to work versus how they describe other system to work.

That kind of tediousness comes from failed encounter design. Encounter is not well planed if it don't give player any challenge but exist only to make game longer. RTwP games aren't immune to this kind of encounter designs which PS:T works as fine example.

They have at least a designer appointment for both versions, but it is hard to say have they made prototype of RTwP version. Because I think that they will buy Obsidian's code for RTwP if they go that way, because that will save lots of time for them and Obsidian and inXile already do lot of code and asset sharing.

That is such a cop out, the only difference is that one group has the rights to the franchise and the other one doesn't. Both of the developers are using the names of the original games to get publicity and get public interest, otherwise the kickstarter would have said "from the creators of PS:T comes this and this game" and not "From the creators of PS:T comes the spiritual successor", but because one of the devs have the rights to the franchise and are working in a existing world they don't have the right to develop their vision of the game (change stuff). To be clear I am not defending Thief devs (never even played the game), but to defend Inexile because they are doing a spiritual successor is a lame excuse, especially when they are leaning so much on PS:T. inXile was quite clear in their kickstarter that they aren't doing successor for PS:T and their game will set in different setting (so no characters from PS:T will be in the game and world will be different) and it will use different rule system. And only thing that will be same as in PS:T is themes that game deal with. Thief was long time named Thief 4 and it set in same world than previous games and has same main character and some same side characters. And its developers have said that game will have same themes than previous ones and game play wise they want game have similar feeling than previous ones. So inXile wants to make Torment franchise to be similar to Final Fantasy series, where games are mainly linked together by their thematic feel and Eidos aims to make Thief to be similar with Batman franchise where setting, main character and many side characters are constant but story arc can rest itself or go new ways, etc, but still aim is to make product feel like it's Batman familiar but still there is every time something new to offer.

2/10, wouldn't read again. The new Thief has more in common with the original games than this Torment does with PS:T. As it should, as it is actual successor in Thief line using characters from previous games, where TToN only claims to be spiritual successor, meaning that its designers try to follow same over ideologies what PS:T but it is also new games without any narrative, mechanical, rule or setting ties to PS:T.

RTwP and TB are ways to control pacing of the combat and there is countless ways how they can be implemented in the game. Both them are excellent methods for player to control flow of the combat. But there is situations where one is better than other, for example RTwP is usually better solution if game has constant flow of small combat encounters to keep player on hos/her toes and TB is usually better if game combat encounters are mainly designed to give player tactical/strategic/etc. puzzles to be solved. Although you can make both systems work and feel good regardless of how combat encounters are designed and how frequent combat is. Another important thing to be considered is how game is overall paced, because if combat flow differ from overall flow of the game it usually causes combat feel that it over-glued in the game. For example in PS:T overall flow of the game was slow paced self searching adventure, but it combat encounters were mostly designed to be action heavy hack & slash feasts that felt like that they belonged in some other game. So at end there is no universal answer which mechanic is better, but when we speak about TToN, then in my opinion their plans to realize TB combat sounds that it better fit in their game than their plans for RTwP based combat. Due to nature of rules of Numenera P&P which they use as their baseline and how they would handle their crisis concept in said systems. Although both plans sound that they could work, but as I already said their plan for turn based combat sound better to me, which is reason why I voted it.

Doesn't PE share the same engine and resources? It would be hilarious to see it go down the TB road too. It would go against their description about the game in the KS, which would be quite bad thing to do.

And to me their concept for turn based combat seem better than their concept for real time with pause combat. Because I don't like real time combats that are limited by timer, but I am okay with turn based combats where you have only limited amount of turns to accomplish things.

May I counter that argument with thhe following: Just because you cannot stop save scumming, doesn't mean you can't discourage it.Save scumming is not the issue, it's the symptom of the real issue: game balance. If the only way to succeed is to save and reload often, something is wrong with the balance of your game. If the optimal way to defeat an encounter is too play it again and again until you have the correct solution, something is wrong as well. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to reload, even often. I'm saying you shouldn't have to, at least not often. I'm perfectly OK with failing, and then reloading, but it shouldn't be the go-to solution for dealing with tough obstacles. One way to deal with this is delaying notification of failure, or altering the outcome and progression following a failed encounter to represent your failure in a different narrative outcome. I'll give you an example. Fred wants to be the leader of an organisation, as a journeyman he's worked his way up the ladder to a position of power. The leader is old and gives all his lieutenants a task, and whomever succeeds can succeed him. Fred fails the task. rather than just end the story for him, instead, he now has to find a different path. He can coerce and manipulate, maybe even kill the competition. He can try to prove his worth a different way, by doing something even more impressive. He can discredit the person who succeeded. Or, he can accept his fate and forever be #2 in his organisation. His failure didn't end his story, and thus, there was no reason for Fred to reload and try again. Also harsh punishments when you fail in skill roll and big rewards on succeeding in said rolls also drive people to save and reload until they succeed in that roll. For example failing in pick pocketing roll causes in many games all neutral character to turn hostile towards your characters which usually also means that you have to reload or you can't finish the game. And succeeding in pick pocketing gives you often so good rewards that it justifies time that you spent in reloading until you succeed to pick pocket everything from everyone. Another example is fail once and lose opportunity permanently situations like lock picking safe/chest/door, in such situation failure usually means that you lose items of great value if you don't reload until you succeed to pick the lock. So like you said game should avoid such win or lose situations. For example if we take that pick pocketing example and change it so that failure don't cause people to turn hostile towards you but run away and maybe call guards, which will cause that you will get reputation to be thief which will eventually lead that you will be contacted by local thief guild or its equivalent. Which will open you new quest path in city but maybe close some other path that demands clean reputation. This kind of approach not only lower players desire to reload in case of failure, but actually encourage players to experiment what paths failures will open to them. So desire to save scum will greatly diminish if failure is valid, worthwhile and in some cases best option for your character/s.

And how does it work with skill tags? I remember being confused by Baldur's Gate I where you want to get into the bandit camp and you can say something like "Let me join you!" So I basically thought that my character was sincere and not lying. Thus, how about: "Let me join you!" [Lie] "Let me join you!" [Truth] i dont think it matters if it is a lie or not. the result will be determined by what you do after you "join". Let me join you! you act like a proper bandit and go along with them, you get result A you backstab them at the most opportune time, you get result B you fail to be convincing as a bandit, you get result C no matter what the reason behind joining, you asked to join them and you did, in order to get to the result you seek I'd say it matter skillwise. If you have to use a bluff skill, your bluff could fail. Other than that, I think your proposition is a bit too complicated. What if just joining me gives me certain reputational points that I didn't want to have in the first place? Just because the game doesn't differentiate between sincere joining and the lie? I have such vision in my mind that Josh or somebody else in PE team has stated that there is no diplomacy/speech skills in PE.

You don't say. Also it's worthwhile to remember this. If that's Brian Fargo's idea of bringing classic gameplay back to the modern audience then you'll forgive me if I don't take everything he says at face value. You dropped that part of where they tell what they mean with deep; "The philosophical underpinnings of Torment drive the game, both mechanically and narratively. Your words, choices, and actions will be your primary weapons." Because if you don't specify what you mean with deep story, it becomes absolute meaningless phrase as it can mean any story that has subsurface meanings, which is about every story that uses metaphors, political, cultural, sociological , etc. references. Hunted was modern take of classic dungeon crawlers (meaning that you go in dungeon and kill punch of monster with flimsy excuse) as Fargo says in that interview, it had better than average story (although character were quite bad), they had ok mechanics that where somewhat ripoff from Gears of War and cheesy character design. As typical modernization it had tunnel like level design and as typical Bethesda game it has tons of bugs (it don't seems to matter which developer makes the game, when Bethesda is publisher it is very high probability that game will have tons of bugs). And it should probably be noted that Hunted was the game that drove Fargo to seek self publishing options for inXile's games, so one could think that he wasn't very happy at end with the game and Bethesda's demands as publisher.

Oh? That is misstatement from me, as it is not stated in their goals but is more my own interpretation from things that Fargo has said in interviews concerning Wasteland 2 and Torment. Like this statement from one of his Wasteland 2 interviews “It’s not real reactivity unless we do that stuff. Otherwise it’s just a magician’s trick. You’re getting the same thing. It’s not that. It’s a virtual impossibility for two people to have the exact same experience of the game.” http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/07/30/wasteland-2s-delay-all-about-making-choice-matter/

Not really, I'm sure everyone wants their story to be deep, original, with a rich personal narrative and lots of player choice. No they don't (actually most of the games don't want to do such things) and your summary does too much generalization that it would do any justice to towards inXile's goals with Torment. Because their aim isn't "deep" story (what that ever means), but instead they want explore philosophical question "what one life matters", by giving player as much freedom as possible to go their own way and game works as soundboard that reacts to pc's actions. And they want to do this in universe (or multiverse) that is different than your typical game settings, as they want to be chained by players exceptions and they want to make players want to explore and learn how world works (similar plan as with Planescape setting). Typically in games story's focus is in event or conflict that moves story forward, but in Torment they want to make story about pc and what s/he does in world, so world/country/etc isn't in danger or something similar. Usually developers want to keep number of game paths slow for economic reason and because most players don't see more than one or two paths, which are reasons why games have usually only variations of same critical path, but in Torment they want every player to have unique path that is their own, which is reason why they have so many writers to do their story arcs. So they don't have some generic goals but very specific goals that they feel are the things that make game a Torment™ game.

So basically, Torment in name only? Snip The problem is that all of that can be summarized as "we're going to try and give it a good story." Hell, using their definition the Witcher series is a spiritual successor to Torment. That is quite simplifying and misleading statement. As they promise much more than good story, like philosophical approach to thematic topics, unique world with unseen wonders and places, character driven story arc, emphasis on different approaches to things. All things that made PS:T to be the game what it was. PS:T's combat system was least defining attribute in whole game.

So basically, Torment in name only? How Is Torment: Tides of Numenera Similar to Planescape: Torment? We’re crafting Torment with the goal of creating a gameplay experience like that evoked by Planescape: Torment (or PS:T). We want Torment to challenge, reward, surprise, and entertain you in ways that PS:T did. To do that, we examined PS:T carefully, and took these four pillars as our foundation: A Deep, Thematically Satisfying Story. The philosophical underpinnings of Torment drive the game, both mechanically and narratively. Your words, choices, and actions will be your primary weapons. A World Unlike Any Other. The game has a fantastic, original setting, with awe-inspiring painterly visuals, imaginative locations, truly offbeat items, and massive feats of magic. In Numenera, however, “magic” is actually something surprisingly different. A Rich, Personal Narrative. The story is thoughtful and character-driven—epic in feel but a deeply personal narrative, with nontraditional characters and companions who have their own motivations and desires that drive them throughout the game. Reactivity, Choice, and Real Consequences. The game emphasizes replayability and reactivity, and your choices will make a real difference. You can play the game with a different approach and discover entirely new pathways. Most important, we won’t tell you how to play. The best ending is the one you choose, flowing naturally from your actions throughout the game. These pillars reach through all aspects of the game design, including characters and dialogue, the overarching story, gameplay systems and combat, and aesthetics. Team. If you were looking for team continuity, you’ve got it. Many key members who played a role in the Planescape setting and Planescape: Torment are involved in Torment: Tides of Numenera. Colin McComb and Monte Cook were two of the three primary writers for TSR’s Planescape setting. Colin was also a key designer on PS:T, where he worked closely with lead designer Chris Avellone. For Torment: Tides of Numenera, Colin is leading the creative vision in the setting that Monte has crafted. The two are also joined by their long-time partner Ray Vallese, who edited and wrote for the Planescape setting and who’ll be editing Torment content. (That’s right – the quality of writing for Torment is so important that we have a professional editor on the team.) Our Project Director, Kevin Saunders, wasn’t on PS:T, but was the lead designer and producer for Mask of the Betrayer, regarded by many fans as the game closest to being a PS:T successor (until now!). We have the honor to work again with Mark Morgan, who composed PS:T’s music. You can hear his first piece in our Kickstarter launch video and in the concept art montage above. Other contributors to Torment in this preproduction period have included Adam Heine (a scripter on PS:T) and Aaron Meyers (an artist on PS:T). And, of course, it was Brian Fargo who originally saw the potential of Planescape: Torment at Interplay and who greenlit the project so that it could be made in the first place. And we’re going to bring on a lot more people-some of the Wasteland 2 team, or course, and other high-profile writers who can provide their own inimitable voice to the game. We’re excited to be working with them. Details. While we aren’t focusing on a direct story or setting connection between the PS:T story and Torment, we’ll include elements reminiscent of PS:T. That’s not to say thatTorment will be overflowing with inside jokes, but players familiar with PS:T will notice some nods to the original. But just as PS:T strove to defy RPG tropes, so too will Torment– including some tropes that were established by PS:T. So expect a lot of surprises. How Is Torment Different From Planescape: Torment? Torment is not a sequel to PS:T. It does not continue the stories of PS:T or its characters. Torment is set in Numenera’s Ninth World, a new tabletop RPG setting created by renowned designer Monte Cook (he and Colin wrote much of the material for the Planescape tabletop setting). Torment will use a new rules system that’s based on the Numenera system but adapted specifically for a computer RPG. We’ll strive to make Torment’s combat system and encounters an engaging and entertaining part of the gameplay. We’ll connect them narratively to the overall story. And, continuing the Torment tradition, we’ll make most if not all combat avoidable. http://tormentrpg.tumblr.com/story