Torment Sequel Q&A with Brian Fargo

[alanschu]

I was just chatting about this with a friend and I think he summarized my verbosity nicely:

 

I get the impression that a Torment 2 is akin to saying "I want to copy PST because the thing that made PST special was that it didn't copy anyone else!"

 

"Inspired by Torment" would make me a lot more confident and optimistic than "The sequel to Torment." JMO.

Edited January 10, 2013 by alanschu

[Keyrock]

I don't get what the issue is. No one complains about Final Fantasy sequels. Every game has an entirely new setting with new game mechanics, characters, etc. but they had to make one an MMO before people complained that they weren't real sequels.

 

If Numenera: Torment comes out and has:

• deep, intense, personal story
  
• memorable characters
  
• characters growth is based more on my dialogue choices and the interactions I have with others rather than how many beasts I can slay
  
• unconventional setting and cultures
  
• Anything like the stuff with the unbroken circle with Dak'kon (scads of dialogue discussing things important to a character where my character's arguments and points can make a difference in their beliefs and outlook)
  

I will be satisfied that it is a Torment sequel.

My thoughts exactly. I look at this as a spiritual sequel in the vein of what Bioshock is to System Shock 2. Many of the same creative talents that worked on Planescape: Torment will be working on this, so it's not like Brian Fargo just randomly threw together a team and used the Torment name to garner interest. On that matter, I have no problem with him using the Torment name. Sure he could just call this Game X and apply the same theme's he's going for, but that's not likely to get the same level of interest, and thus the same level of funding, as if he incites the Torment name. And, let's face it, the more funding this draws the better, for everyone involved.

 

I'm not one of these people that's worried that this could "soil" the Planescape: Torment name if it winds up being not as good, which there is a definite likelihood of considering how high PS: T set the bar. Did Deus Ex: Invisible War soil Deus Ex for me? Nope, I still think it's one of the greatest games ever made. Did Master of Orion 3 soil Master of Orion 2 for me? Nope, I still consider MoO2 to be a fantastic game. Did the new Syndicate reimagining, remake, bastardization ruin the original Syndicate for me? Nope, sure didn't. If Numenera: Torment winds up being a dud I will still regard Planescape: Torment to be the best RPG ever made. But if it winds up being even 75% as good as PS: T, it will be a great game and one definitely worth playing. Plus, you never know, they could actually surpass the original, however unlikely that is. As great as PS: T was, there was definitely room for improvement.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Keyrock

[Mamoulian War]

Oh noes, InExile announced that they want to make an awesome cRPG... So let's bitch into oblivion until it's released, because we already know it will suck...

 

 

Sheesh... go play **** Effect 3, Turd Age 2 or something and don't spoil our happiness that someone has still guts to make good games...

[alanschu]

Oh noes, InExile announced that they want to make an awesome cRPG... So let's bitch into oblivion until it's released, because we already know it will suck...

 

 

Sheesh... go play **** Effect 3, Turd Age 2 or something and don't spoil our happiness that someone has still guts to make good games...

 

They don't need to call the game "Torment 2" to make an awesome CRPG. Furthermore, simply because a game is called "Torment 2" does not make it an awesome CRPG. Imagine what you'd think if EA came out with the exact same press release.

 

The problem is that Fargo is doing exactly what you hate about devs like us. He's leveraging an established property simply because it gets him more money. For as much as people **** all over BioWare and EA (and other companies for doing nothing but making sequels of other games - you just don't happen to like them). You hate DA2 because it changes too much from DAO? Well imagine your perspective if Torment 2 doesn't deliver. Though they would have gotten your money (and more of it) because they called it Torment 2.

 

Frankly, I'm not surprised that you think I'm crapping on your happiness. I wouldn't at all be surprised if you're a hypocrite like so many others that lambasts other companies for doing nothing but making sequels, but once it's a sequel of a game that YOU like suddenly such restriction does not apply.

 

 

Here's the thing about Planescape: Torment: it wasn't a sequel. For all the people that go "GIVE ME PSYCHONAUTS 2!" to Tim Schaefer, or "GIVE ME PLANESCAPE: TORMENT 2" to people like Avellone, imagine what we would have missed out on if, instead of making Psychonauts or Planescape: Torment, they had decided to make a sequel instead. It'd mean we wouldn't have gotten either game. We probably would have still gotten a good game (since Schaefer and Avellone are good game designers), but the glory of Kickstarter is it lets you actually try something new. At least with Wasteland 2, it's something Fargo has wanted to do for decades (even then, he's still including a taste of Fallout, much to the chagrin of some Wasteland purists).

 

If you genuinely just want sequels to games that you like, you're not really being any better than the people you insult that want sequels of games that you don't want (that ultimately take money away from trying new things, like Planescape: Torment). You want MORE games like Project Eternity? Show the publishers that new IPs with game mechanics that you like are what you want. Torment 2 runs the risk of saying to publishers "Lets buy up old IPs and try to revive them." A game inspired by Torment that delivers on the gameplay that Torment has, but isn't Torment, can only say "Hmmm, games like that can be pretty successful."

 

I don't see "someone that still has guts to make good games." I see someone that wants to leverage a near iconic IP because it'll get him more money than otherwise. Naming a game "Torment 2" has no bearing at all on whether or not the game will be any good, nor whether or not InXile has the "guts" to make a good game.

 

 

I look at this as a spiritual sequel in the vein of what Bioshock is to System Shock 2.

 

Exactly, though this comparison is a detriment to Bioshock. Bioshock is a fun game, but as a spiritual sequel to System Shock 2, it falls flat on its face. DAO was successful, but there's plenty of Baldur's Gate fans that hate that it's considered a spiritual successor. Project Eternity has the advantage that it's not going to be a sequel, spiritual or otherwise. It draws inspiration from the Infinity Engine games, in terms of presentation and what can be done. But it's not a new Baldur's Gate. it's not a new Icewind Dale. It's not a new Planescape: Torment. Even though a part of me feels it has the best chance at dethroning a game like Planescape: Torment. It has all the advantages that Torment had (plus a few extras, like Sawyer), of a unique/unfamiliar setting, and limited expectation on what themes it will deliver on. I have some ideas on what they are thinking they are going to do with souls and whatnot.

 

Torment 2 has already decreed "We have a vision for what the important themes are that make a Torment game." You better damn well hope they line up with yours because if they don't, the game isn't going to be as well received.

Edited January 11, 2013 by alanschu

[Mamoulian War]

Oh noes a sequel after 15 years of waiting... that is obvious sign, that they are planning to milk the franchise to death and ruin it... shame on them!!!

Edited January 11, 2013 by Mamoulian War

[Dream]

In Torment's case, this is far better than a direct sequel/prequel/etc featuring TNO.

 

If the game sounds good in the details I'll back it. If not, then I'll start to get pissed about the marketing.

 

Normally I'd agree, but when the marketing is so suspect from the very get go I tend to get leery. What I'm reading from that interview is either he doesn't have the confidence in his own product to let it stand on its own so he's using the Torment name as a crutch, or he's just trying to make as big a cash grab as possible.

[Spider]

Oh noes a sequel after 15 years of waiting... that is obvious sign, that they are planning to milk the franchise to death and ruin it... shame on them!!!

 

But they couldn't have done it before now. From what I udnerstand, the rights to the franchise has lapsed somehow, so now it's free to make. So having waited 15 years has nothing to do with anything.

 

Remember, Inxile as a company had nothing to do with the original.

 

I still have faith in Colin McComb as a designer, and am choosing to belive that this game about from a brainstorming session between him and fargo, where McComb said "What if we do another Torment?" rather than as a cash grab from fargo's side.

 

Alan is choosing to believe otherwise, which is also fine. It's going to be interesting to see how tings play out none the less.

[Tigranes]

What Torment game would have been acceptable under those definitions? E.g. is it a problem because Avellone is not masterminding it? Is it a problem because of the Planescape setting? Or is it because it doesn't feature the same story and cast?

 

The last is clearly not the case, since many series don't do that, Avellone would not want to do that, and the idea of TNO featuring again is silly. The second I agree is an issue and I love the Planescape setting, but it's a practical limitation - so there the choice is either no Torment game or a non-Planescape one. One might choose either. The first is really the only one I have an issue with, not in the sense that only Avellone could do a Torment, but that I really want him to work on it substantially, if not as a lead. (e.g. McComb as lead and Avellone as senior writer would work just fine for me, sort of reversing the roles they had last time round.)

 

Whether this is a shameless cash-grab, to me, really depends on how good the game is and how well it evokes the thematic 'feel' that they are talking about. I think they could do it, and if they do, hell, great! Count me in. If they don't, whether from disingeniousness or incompetence, that's when it becomes a cashgrab.

[Dream]

Why does it have to be a Torment game at all is my question. Say it's inspired by the style of Torment and leave it at that; don't try and make it out to be something it clearly isn't.

[alanschu]

Oh noes a sequel after 15 years of waiting... that is obvious sign, that they are planning to milk the franchise to death and ruin it... shame on them!!!

 

The real question should be "why were people waiting for a sequel?" The disappointing thing is that, to me, all you are saying is "I am just like any Call of Duty fan, except I like a different type of game. Give me my sequels, because then I can be assured that I will like the game. Please don't bother making something different, even if it's possible I may like that even more."

 

 

What Torment game would have been acceptable under those definitions? E.g. is it a problem because Avellone is not masterminding it? Is it a problem because of the Planescape setting? Or is it because it doesn't feature the same story and cast?

 

It's because it's like saying "I'm going to make a sequel to Citizen Kane." My question is "Why? What purpose would you have in making a sequel to a classic that doesn't really make sense for a sequel to be made?"

 

 

Whether this is a shameless cash-grab, to me, really depends on how good the game is and how well it evokes the thematic 'feel' that they are talking about. I think they could do it, and if they do, hell, great! Count me in. If they don't, whether from disingeniousness or incompetence, that's when it becomes a cashgrab.

 

The thing that gets me is more:

 

Take the description of the game. That sounds like something that I want. Now, how many people are in line with that, but got MORE excited because it was told it was a sequel to one of the greatest RPGs ever made. Why did you get excited? Because from there you can not only go "Oh yeah I like those things," but your memory of "OH WOW, they want it to be LIKE THAT!? THAT GAME WAS SO AWESOME!" If you support this decision, then you can't lambast big name publishers for utilizing sequels to increase their bottom line either, because this is former CEO of Interplay Brian Fargo talking here, especially since he's going to be leveraging this enthusiasm to get people to fund the game for him.

 

 

Furthermore, I've lost count of how many people have said "DA2 wouldn't have been as poorly received if it wasn't billed as a sequel to DAO. Heck, even if it was called DA:Kirkwall or something would have been better." Someone mentioned Bioshock, a game that I enjoyed but ultimately didn't continue playing past the first one, because I always have that feeling of "It's good, but System Shock 2 is quite a bit better..." There's no shortage of people on this forum that don't care for Dragon Age 2. Imagine that the only reason why DA2 came into being was because YOU funded it.

 

 

If you're truly just wanting cool kickass RPGs, ask yourself why you're more excited about this game, given its description, because it's called Torment 2? If you just want cool, kickass RPGs, and have faith that inXile can deliver, the title should be irrelevant. But it's not.

 

 

Obviously simply because it's a sequel doesn't mean that it'll be poor (I've mentioned System Shock 2 a few times now, and I'd say BG2 is superior to BG1), but 15 years is no longer sequel development as an iterative process. They're going to be starting from scratch, with a whole new setting, a whole new set of characters, and a boat load of restrictions that will prevent them from even trying to link it to the Planescape setting (so IMO, the Final Fantasy comparison doesn't work as well). Though Final Fantasy is a decent analogue, it's important to note that there hasn't been 13 years between titles.

 

They took an existing IP that has an exceptionally devout following, and the only reason for doing so is that it drums up excitement and brings in the dollars. Exactly the same thing that the big publishers do.

 

 

I'd have less issue with it if Fargo wasn't looking on getting funding directly from gamers in order to do so.

Edited January 11, 2013 by alanschu

[Tigranes]

I don't see my position as being contradictory in that aspect. I was fine with DA:O proposing to be a spiritual sequel for Baldur's Gate, or for The Black Hound taking the BG name. I considered each game to do its best to carry on the spirit of their predecessors in their specific, prescribed ways. I thought Fallout 3 was a bunch of crap because (1) it was a crap game even if it wasn't a Fallout game in my view, and (2) it didn't carry on the spirit of Fallout in the very way that they said they would. In other wise, I always judge on the terms they set.

 

So there are two questions here. First, would it have been better in these circumstances to have no Torment game at all? Second, will this Torment game be a worthy Torment game by its own stated definition? To me, if the second turns out to be Yes, then it was worth it, and vice versa.

 

It would be quite another thing if there was some active deception going on, but Fargo/McComb have been very upfront about what they mean by a Torment game, and I assume they will be similarly clear in the Kickstarter. If they're not, it would be a problem, yes.

[Dream]

I don't see my position as being contradictory in that aspect. I was fine with DA:O proposing to be a spiritual sequel for Baldur's Gate

Would you have been fine with it if they called it Baldur's Gate 3?

 

So there are two questions here. First, would it have been better in these circumstances to have no Torment game at all?

Yes, it would be better to have no sequel than this. Make it a spiritual successor if you want, but don't latch onto the name just to rake in the money.

 

Second, will this Torment game be a worthy Torment game by its own stated definition?

What made PS:T great was more than a few buzzwords that can basically be summed up as "good storytelling." The characters and the setting played a very significant part in making Torment memorable and without those things I can't imagine any game being a worthy "Torment game." This game may be a good game by its own stated definition, but it wont be a Torment game.

 

It would be quite another thing if there was some active deception going on, but Fargo/McComb have been very upfront about what they mean by a Torment game, and I assume they will be similarly clear in the Kickstarter. If they're not, it would be a problem, yes.

And the problem is what they mean by a "Torment game" is bull**** marketing hype.

[Tigranes]

You do know that The Black Hound had zero narrative / setting relation to Baldur's Gate, Sword Coast or BG1&2? Obviously, it could only use the name Baldur's Gate unless it used the D&D and Forgotten Realms - just like a Torment game can only use the Planescape prefix with WOTC's permission.

 

If for you the definition of a Torment game must include TNO, Dak'kon, Morte, Sigil, for instance, then yes, you will never have another Torment game. Fine, I have no problem with that viewpoint. I, on the other hand, think it's perfectly reasonable to strive to create a game is Torment in theme and style. Whether the Numenera setting and whatever else they create actually fulfills that is currently unknown. I would certainly want to get quite a bit of information before I make any substantial Kickstarter pledge, though - at least as much as PE gave by the end of its campaign.

[Dream]

If for you the definition of a Torment game must include TNO, Dak'kon, Morte, Sigil, for instance, then yes, you will never have another Torment game. Fine, I have no problem with that viewpoint. I, on the other hand, think it's perfectly reasonable to strive to create a game is Torment in theme and style. Whether the Numenera setting and whatever else they create actually fulfills that is currently unknown. I would certainly want to get quite a bit of information before I make any substantial Kickstarter pledge, though - at least as much as PE gave by the end of its campaign.

 

Why does the game have to be called Torment though? The Torment name came from a very specific element of the plot; is this new game going to share the same plot, or is the name just going to make no sense (aside from a marketing standpoint)?

[Oerwinde]

If for you the definition of a Torment game must include TNO, Dak'kon, Morte, Sigil, for instance, then yes, you will never have another Torment game. Fine, I have no problem with that viewpoint. I, on the other hand, think it's perfectly reasonable to strive to create a game is Torment in theme and style. Whether the Numenera setting and whatever else they create actually fulfills that is currently unknown. I would certainly want to get quite a bit of information before I make any substantial Kickstarter pledge, though - at least as much as PE gave by the end of its campaign.

 

Why does the game have to be called Torment though? The Torment name came from a very specific element of the plot; is this new game going to share the same plot, or is the name just going to make no sense (aside from a marketing standpoint)?

 

You have a bunch of guys who both worked on and love PS:T wanting to do a game they consider in the same vein and worthy of being considered a sequel. Why wouldn't they use the Torment name if they can?

[Malekith]

I was just chatting about this with a friend and I think he summarized my verbosity nicely:

 

I get the impression that a Torment 2 is akin to saying "I want to copy PST because the thing that made PST special was that it didn't copy anyone else!"

 

"Inspired by Torment" would make me a lot more confident and optimistic than "The sequel to Torment." JMO.

Oh noes a sequel after 15 years of waiting... that is obvious sign, that they are planning to milk the franchise to death and ruin it... shame on them!!!

 

The real question should be "why were people waiting for a sequel?"

 

It's because it's like saying "I'm going to make a sequel to Citizen Kane." My question is "Why? What purpose would you have in making a sequel to a classic that doesn't really make sense for a sequel to be made?"

 

Take the description of the game. That sounds like something that I want. Now, how many people are in line with that, but got MORE excited because it was told it was a sequel to one of the greatest RPGs ever made. Why did you get excited? Because from there you can not only go "Oh yeah I like those things," but your memory of "OH WOW, they want it to be LIKE THAT!? THAT GAME WAS SO AWESOME!" If you support this decision, then you can't lambast big name publishers for utilizing sequels to increase their bottom line either, because this is former CEO of Interplay Brian Fargo talking here, especially since he's going to be leveraging this enthusiasm to get people to fund the game for him.

 

 

Furthermore, I've lost count of how many people have said "DA2 wouldn't have been as poorly received if it wasn't billed as a sequel to DAO. Heck, even if it was called DA:Kirkwall or something would have been better." Someone mentioned Bioshock, a game that I enjoyed but ultimately didn't continue playing past the first one, because I always have that feeling of "It's good, but System Shock 2 is quite a bit better..." There's no shortage of people on this forum that don't care for Dragon Age 2. Imagine that the only reason why DA2 came into being was because YOU funded it.

 

 

If you're truly just wanting cool kickass RPGs, ask yourself why you're more excited about this game, given its description, because it's called Torment 2? If you just want cool, kickass RPGs, and have faith that inXile can deliver, the title should be irrelevant. But it's not.

 

 

Obviously simply because it's a sequel doesn't mean that it'll be poor (I've mentioned System Shock 2 a few times now, and I'd say BG2 is superior to BG1), but 15 years is no longer sequel development as an iterative process. They're going to be starting from scratch, with a whole new setting, a whole new set of characters, and a boat load of restrictions that will prevent them from even trying to link it to the Planescape setting (so IMO, the Final Fantasy comparison doesn't work as well). Though Final Fantasy is a decent analogue, it's important to note that there hasn't been 13 years between titles.

 

They took an existing IP that has an exceptionally devout following, and the only reason for doing so is that it drums up excitement and brings in the dollars. Exactly the same thing that the big publishers do.

 

 

I'd have less issue with it if Fargo wasn't looking on getting funding directly from gamers in order to do so.

If for you the definition of a Torment game must include TNO, Dak'kon, Morte, Sigil, for instance, then yes, you will never have another Torment game. Fine, I have no problem with that viewpoint. I, on the other hand, think it's perfectly reasonable to strive to create a game is Torment in theme and style. Whether the Numenera setting and whatever else they create actually fulfills that is currently unknown. I would certainly want to get quite a bit of information before I make any substantial Kickstarter pledge, though - at least as much as PE gave by the end of its campaign.

 

Why does the game have to be called Torment though? The Torment name came from a very specific element of the plot; is this new game going to share the same plot, or is the name just going to make no sense (aside from a marketing standpoint)?

But its clear that it is not a sequel. It won't be Torment 2 or something,except if Fargo is really stupid. Its way more possible that it will be called Numenera:Torment.

Fargo wants to make it a francize,but it will be with stand alone games,with no conection to each other except that they will focus on story,philosophical themes and will use text as the primary narrative tool.

Do you guys have a problem with that? I think is a cool idea. IF he names it Torment 2 and it is marketed as a direct sequel then yes, i will have a problem with it as well. But i don't think it will happen

Edited January 11, 2013 by Malekith

[Keyrock]

You hate DA2 because it changes too much from DAO?

I hate DA2 because it's a poor game that clearly shows lack of effort and corner cutting. While I wasn't a fan of them taking a more action RPG oriented approach to the game, I disliked it because they tried to make both an action RPG AND a tactical RPG and partially failed on both accounts. I didn't dislike the change simply because it was a change. What really bothered me about DA2 was the cookie cutter lather, rinse, repeat combat (heck, even the boss fights followed the exact same worn out formula of bunch of mobs spawn all around you, kill them, bunch more spawn out of thin air all around you, kill them ,bunch more...) and the blatant recycling of dungeons. To me this made it clear that Bioware was in a rush to get this out the door and they cut corners. If they had made a game that changed a bunch of stuff, but showed that clearly effort and care had been put into it, I would have been fine with that. I'm all for change. You have to constantly try to improve. If you keep things the same just for the sake of keeping things the same, then you wind up with stagnant games.

 

It seems the issue most people are having with this is that Fargo is leveraging the Torment name so he can get more funding. I'm not disputing that at all. I also don't have a problem with it whatsoever. More funding means a bigger and better game. Don't we all want a bigger and better game?

 

If you don't believe in the project, it's pretty simple, don't support it. I believe in the project and I intend to support it. Simple as.

[BruceVC]

RPS has an interesting Q&A here: http://www.rockpaper...el/#more-137374 - discussing the new Torment "sequel" sans Planescape. Not a bad read - thought it might be of interest here.

 

That was an informative interview around the background to this project, nice one. I am very excited about this game. Many of the key people who were involved in PS:T are involved in this game so I am confidant it will be successful. Fargo also does explain that even though it won't be set in the actual Planescape universe it will share the metaphysical concepts and narrative idea's so I have no issue with them using the name Torment. I'll be supporting them on KS as I don't see any abuse of the name for funding purposes

 

For me this is really exciting as I will be playing Planescape for the first time this weekend

[Amentep]

So your objection is less that this game has tenuous ties to the original game but that you'd like it to have less ties to anything and be more original? Because a lot of people in this thread are arguing the game can't be "good" unless it has more ties to PST (in fact many seeming to have wanted a direct sequel with the same characters).

 

My objection is that (especially given the restraint), there's no point in naming the game Torment aside from tugging on the heart strings since people highly regard the game Torment. For the same reason I'm not a fan of Interplay reviving the old Black Isle Studios name. It's manipulative and not necessary.

 

Stating that they want to make a torment style game would be fine. But noooo, they are naming this game Torment straight up, and have said "Torment games have these themes." What made Torment amazing was that it was new, fresh, and unexpected.

 

He's already handicapped himself for what the game's themes can be (i.e. a rehash of the same themes explored in Torment, so what was surprising and unique in the original game is now being leveraged to acquire more money, all the while undermining the potential for being surprised and unique in the same way that the original game could be."

 

How has he handicapped himself? If he'd said that he was making a "torment style game" and said it'll have "these themes because we see this as the thematic aspects of Torment that will make a torment style game"...how does it matter what they name it?

 

Your problem still seems to boil down to "I don't like them using the name" for no other reason than, apparently the name is sacrosanct.

 

Yes, PE has expectations based on its comparison, but they have some wiggle room in still doing their own thing. Torment 2 has handicapped themselves to have the same things that Torment had. The irony of suggesting "breaking down RPG tropes" like the first game, all the while mandating that the game has to have the same RPG tropes established by the original game. Project Eternity has more freedom because they can take what they want from the "inspired by Infinity Engine games" comment. A lot of it mechanical (which is just a means of delivering an experience, with it's strengths and weaknesses).

 

But they're still doing their own thing; they've defined Torment 2 within a context, but they could have defined that same context without calling it Torment 2; the idea that they've limited themselves is ridiculous because they've only limited themselves in ways in which they'd have to limit themselves - to define what it is they want to do.

 

My objection is that this seems like a pretty blatant attempt at grabbing more money for a Kickstarter by latching on to one of the greatest RPGs ever made and milking the title for additional funds. The idea they have is fine, but this isn't the same as "I've been wanting to make Wasteland 2 for decades now." This is "I want to make an RPG that has some of the gameplay elements that Torment established. I might as well name it Torment 2, and all the pitfalls it comes with doing so, because it will get me more money." This coming from Brian Fargo, who allegedly hates big name publishers and all they do, and their sequelitis because sequels are safer, known commodities. And yes, I understand that I work for a company (and on a project) that is a sequel as well. He's underutilizing the kickstarter angle which allows him the creative freedom to try new things, by latching on to such a powerful franchise because it will get him more money.

 

And doing Wasteland 2 isn't? Doing Project Eternity and mentioning Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale (and yes, PLANESCAPE: TORMENT) isn't? All of these kickstarters have used a hook, a way to boil down the essence of what the pledge is going for.

 

And really Planescape: Torment is a "powerful franchise"...that never got a sequel back when the original Black isle could have done it?

 

PST is pretty much sacred to me, and I suppose I'm a hypocrite because I was okay with things like Fallout 3 and so forth. But none of those games were developed under the guise of using a novel new funding mechanism that frees developers from their creative shackles and lets them try new and riskier methods.

 

But how does development of this game effect PST at all? Is Fargo going to use the kickstarter to hire a bevy of break-in artists to snatch every existing copy of PST from the houses and vaults of the unsuspecting?

 

Seriously, how has the "novel new funding mechanism that frees developers from their creative shackles" really done in terms of inventiveness?

 

Project: Eternity - sold as a successor to IE games, heavily promoted BG, IWD, PST

Wasteland 2 - sequel

Shadowrun Returns - sequel and adaption of existing game system

Star Citizen - sold on strength of connections to Wing Commander and Privateer / Freelancer

Broken Sword - sequel

Leisure Suit Larry - sequel

Grim Dawn - spiritual successor to Titan Quest (using some of the same assets)

 

and so on. Even most of the non-sequels are usually setting themselves up as "like [thing x]".

 

So again, how new/novel is the stuff we're getting? Not much to my mind. Doesn't mean it isn't good or worth supporting, but I haven't seen anything that is shackle freeing (in the sense that defining a project will always shackle it in some fashion).

 

As a developer that works for a big name publisher, what excites me about PE (and even WL2) is that it provides the avenue to make games that are considered "too risky" for big name publishers, and has the potential for them to be home run knockouts that force big name publishers to take notice. Project Eternity is taking general game concepts from a mechanical point of view to proof out that those mechanics are viable for a game dev to focus on. Torment 2 is saying "lets make a game and get more money by associating it as a sequel, while also increasing the intrinsic risk since the idea of satisfying the fans." Project Eternity isn't ACTUALLY an Infinity Engine game (and even then, it's just an engine). If Project Eternity had been "Baldur's Gate 3" then the expectations grow immensely.

 

And yet there are already arguments over things like power cool-downs, romances, level scaling and things like that and whether that makes Project Eternity a "real" successor.

 

Anytime you frame a new creative endevor as "like" something else, there are going to be people who don't like it.

 

And there are going to be people who dislike something - regardless of its quality - because they don't like the name.

 

Maybe the game will be good. Maybe it'll be bad. But I'm not going to sweat the fact that they've decided to call it "Torment" of some kind.

 

The game that (may) get made will be his (and his teams) perception. That's not limiting - but if you want to see it as such, any game they made would be limited by the creative group's perception of what the game "is".

 

It is limiting, because we as gamers already know what the game is going to be about - the new and fresh themes that were established in the original. Which is completely contrary to what PST delivered (since Torment 2 is bound to attempt to recreate what PST delivered, lest it be a failure). Might as well just say "we're going to wow you just the same as PST did!" and step on your landmine right from the get go.

 

No we don't know what its going to be about because we haven't played it.

 

And again, had Fargo came out and said - "yeah we're doing a game and its going to have these themes" you wouldn't be saying he'd limited himself, because at some point he has to define what the game will be. The problem here is that they're calling it "Torment" and you see that as a slap to the face of torment fans. And that's fair enough. But I figure a game needs to be evaluated on what it is and whether it works for what it does, not for what its called or not even what the game its supposed to be like was.

[maggotheart]

It seems the issue most people are having with this is that Fargo is leveraging the Torment name so he can get more funding. I'm not disputing that at all. I also don't have a problem with it whatsoever. More funding means a bigger and better game. Don't we all want a bigger and better game?

 

If you don't believe in the project, it's pretty simple, don't support it. I believe in the project and I intend to support it. Simple as.

 

P:E is also leveraging the Torment name so that it can get more funding, which no one has a problem with... I think the problem is the perceived dishonesty in using the word sequel, because the game clearly will not be a sequel.

 

I took a second look at the interview and Fargo doesn't actually use the word, the interviewer/article did. I checked a few other sources and they actually use the terms 'spiritual successor' and so forth as they properly should. Maybe too much is being made of this, it's not Fargos fault the article used the wrong word to describe what he is doing.

[Valsuelm]

Maybe too much is being made of this.

 

I think far too much negativity is indeed being made of this. For all those who are bent out of shape about it, consider that Chris Avellone gave it his blessing. Also consider that Fargo has an excellent relationship with Obsidian and that he oversaw Interplay in it's golden years. While I'm not a huge fan of everything he's done, I'm not aware of anything he's ever done that really falls into the evil greedy suit category, poster boyed by EA and Vivendi. Can you name one? If so then maybe an argument can be made, if not then very unfair criticism is being levied. The resumes of the folks involved so far as I know them do not warrant much of the criticism in this thread.

 

Do you think Chris is a dishonest money grubbing guy? Nothing I've ever seen him say or do gave me that impression (quite the opposite), and neither did anything in that interview make me think Fargo et al were. The worst thing I see happening here is maybe they'll make a bad or not awesome game. Hopefully of course that doesn't happen.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Valsuelm

[Volourn]

"Chris Avellone gave it his blessing. "

 

Contrary to what soem think, Avellone - even as I like some of the games he's made - is not a god, and I don't base my opinion on what he thinks.

 

Bottom line is Obsidian handled PE hyping right and Fargo is handling PS'2' hyping wrong. This is FACT.

[Nordicus]

I wonder if Bioshock's reveal incited discussions like this

[Dream]

Also consider that Fargo has an excellent relationship with Obsidian and that he oversaw Interplay in it's golden years. While I'm not a huge fan of everything he's done, I'm not aware of anything he's ever done that really falls into the evil greedy suit category, poster boyed by EA and Vivendi. Can you name one?

Yea, this.

 

If this was a PR guy from Activision reviving the Torment "franchise" by saying the exact say **** Fargo's saying people would be screaming bloody murder.

[Malekith]

Also consider that Fargo has an excellent relationship with Obsidian and that he oversaw Interplay in it's golden years. While I'm not a huge fan of everything he's done, I'm not aware of anything he's ever done that really falls into the evil greedy suit category, poster boyed by EA and Vivendi. Can you name one?

Yea, this.

 

If this was a PR guy from Activision reviving the Torment "franchise" by saying the exact say **** Fargo's saying people would be screaming bloody murder.

And if EA said that they wanted to make an IE inspired game i wouldn't have given them 1$. If this was a PR guy from Activision reviving the Torment "franchise",i wouldn't give a **** about the game. If Obsidian or inXile had the Fallout franchise i would be happy. For Beth's i don't care.

 

In the end, it comes to which company you trust and which you don't. I wouldn't trust Bioware for example to make a Torment game because the current Bioware wouldn't stay faithfull to the original by choice. Their fan base cares for different things from what Torment had. I expected Fallout 3 to be completelly diffirent from the first 2, and i knew i wouldn't have liked it, because it was made with a diffferent aim and for a diffirent audience in mind.

I trust inXile because i think they will try to make a game in the vein of Torment and with the same audience in mind. If they will be succesfull is another matter. But the intent at least will be there