Torment: Tides of Numenera?

[alanschu]

Yet no other RPG had them.(except perhaps MotB) Even the other IE games (BG and IWD), Fallouts, Arcanum etc fall way short because they had other priorities.

 

So?  Then be a pioneer and show that an RPG need not be called "Torment" in order to have deep, well written characters and great writing.

 

Torment had a lot of combat as well.  It's just not memorable because it's not very good, especially compared to the rest of the game.

 

 

We can disagree all day whether or not other games had the "themes" that Fargo detailed for what makes a game a "Torment" game.  Things like deep, well written characters are what I prefer in almost all my CRPGs.

 

A reminder of what Fargo feels is a torment game: "overturning RPG tropes; a fantastic, unconventional setting; memorable companions; deep thematic exploration of the human condition; heavy reactivity (i.e., choice and consequences); an intensely personal (rather than epic) story."

 

One of those things (emphasis mine) is something that I would consider to be "uniquely torment" and even then, I don't really consider it something that must be unique.  Even if you take ALL those settings together.  I don't think that Torment would require an unconventional setting (I consider that one a reach), I am pretty sure that the games like Baldur's Gate, and heck even Fallout, have memorable companions.  Heavy reactivity is something we all want in all of our games.  Heck, I bet Wasteland 2 has it too.  Same goes for personal stories.  The most ironic, however, is the overturning RPG tropes, which (by definition) would require this "Torment" game to overturn the tropes that itself has established.  Which is somewhat of a contradiction.

Edited February 26, 2013 by alanschu

[alanschu]

 

I can see that, but I wouldn't call it so much publisher as producer. He does still run a company, and he has to be aware of risks, costs and production cycles. The truth is that a production cycle where WL2 is out, polished up and modkitted up and only *then* can you move on to pre-production of Torment or WL3 or Bard's Tale 4 or whatever is next, well, it creates a very negative workflow: it means you have to fire the writers and artists now, and it means you're going to have a problem giving your programmers and modelers much to do in the pre-production period of the next game, since a lot of the basic work was already done on this engine.

 

I have no problems with him working on another game before Wasteland 2 is completed.  As you say, it makes sense in terms of how manpower is allocated.

 

The issue is that for all the posturing (follow him on Twitter) that Fargo does about how amazingly awesome Kickstarter has been in terms of liberating him and other developers from publishers, he's still taking a "safe" approach, much the same way that publishers do, but leveraging the title of something that some (evidently myself) consider borderline sacred.

 

 

My critique has nothing to do with the fact that his studio is looking at starting another game prior to Wasteland 2 being released.

[BruceVC]

 

Based on how they've been trying to sell this even if MCA was involved I'd still be leery; it just feels too much like a cash grab.

 

After all, as Warren Spector has shown us, making one or two amazing games does not guarantee much.

 

 

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

 

“If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is around to hear it, and it hits a mime, does anyone care?”

― Gary Larson, The Complete Far Side, 1980-1994

 

Edited February 27, 2013 by BruceVC

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't have a problem with them making a game and claiming it is the spiritual successor to PST. I think it has the potential to be an amazing game that will be remembered as fondly as PST is. I do think that the name choice sucks though. It doesn't roll of the tongue and feels quite awkward. Also, from what I have read, Numenera is a pretty cool setting, and I think that it can easily stand on it's own without trying to emulate another game.

[BruceVC]

I don't have a problem with them making a game and claiming it is the spiritual successor to PST. I think it has the potential to be an amazing game that will be remembered as fondly as PST is. I do think that the name choice sucks though. It doesn't roll of the tongue and feels quite awkward. Also, from what I have read, Numenera is a pretty cool setting, and I think that it can easily stand on it's own without trying to emulate another game.

 

 

So you have an issue with how the name sounds? Tough crowd, I'm glad we don't nitpick on these forums

 

If the game offers an immersive, enjoyable and complex gaming experience do you think you get over the name or would this still be an issue for you?

 

 

( I'm teasing you Kaine but your criticism does sound a little fatuous )

[Rostere]

 

Does it matter if a games origin is as a "cash grab" if the game turns out to be good?

 

The biggest problem I have for it is is that, for all of Fargo's bluster about how it's great to be free of publishers, he's just doing the same thing that publishers do (leverage a sequel to get additional money).  It's one thing to do Wasteland 2 since it's a game he's wanted to make since Fallout was released (it's also a true sequel), but this one just rubs me the wrong way.  His actions come across more as former CEO of a big Publisher rather than former game developer.  Just my opinion on the matter.

 

As for if the game turns out to be good, IMO there's already a level of expectation that would be otherwise more difficult to achieve then had it not been titled Torment.  In other words, I think it will be more challenging for the game to be considered "good" simply because of its title.  Unfortunately, whether or not games are considered good is not done in a purely objective sense.

 

You forget how a game like Torment allegedly has a small chance of financial success. By securing the name "Torment" he effectively raises the chances of Kickstarter success, it makes perfect sense to me.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Rostere

[alanschu]

You forget how a game like Torment allegedly has a small chance of financial success. By securing the name "Torment" he effectively raises the chances of Kickstarter success, it makes perfect sense to me.

 

So did Wasteland 2, or even Project Eternity - games that also "allegedly [have] a small chance of financial success" that still had no trouble at all making their goals via Kickstarter.  In fact, your statement is misleading because even Feargus notes that Torment eventually made money, even using the publisher model.

 

The problem bigger publishers have is usually one of opportunity cost.  EA or Activision could easily make these more niche games, and probably still turn a profit doing so.  The problem is whether or not it maximizes their profit.  Making a Torment presents an opportunity cost (that I feel is overstated, but alas... only so much I can change at any given time even from the inside).  So if Project Eternity takes $4 million and ends up bringing in $8 million in revenues, you get pretty good return on investment.  But if you take the Obsidian team, through $40 million at them, and they bring in $70 million in revenues, while the ROI is not as high, the absolute revenue is much, much, much higher.

 

Unfortunately it's not as simple as just creating 10 different projects for $4 million a piece.

 

 

What you do illustrate, however, is that the cries of "too many sequels" is pretty disingenuous by gamers.  They have no problems with sequels, as long as they are sequels of games that they like.

Edited February 27, 2013 by alanschu

[Brother None]

 

You forget how a game like Torment allegedly has a small chance of financial success. By securing the name "Torment" he effectively raises the chances of Kickstarter success, it makes perfect sense to me.

 

So did Wasteland 2, or even Project Eternity - games that also "allegedly [have] a small chance of financial success" that still had no trouble at all making their goals via Kickstarter.  In fact, your statement is misleading because even Feargus notes that Torment eventually made money, even using the publisher model.

 

Indeed they didn't. Because they used existing properties or leveraged connections to existing properties like Baldur's Gate. They're both games they really wanted to make, but they're also relatively safe pitches because they hinge on nostalgia. Torment really is no different from them, nor is inXile in a position to take greater risks right now. I mean, Torment is a game inXile really wanted to make, one for which we like to think we have some great concepts in place to lay the foundation for a thematic franchise, and one in the hands of a lot of people with ties to PS:T or Planescape. It's not like inXile slapped the name Torment willy-nilly on something that really doesn't deserve the name, at least I don't think so.

 

Still, this is a matter of impressions. If you feel there's just not enough there to warrant the usage of the name in a legitimate, creative sense, then yeah, not surprising it feels a little off to you. But from our perspective, it's no different than previous Kickstarters, a combination of a title we really creatively believe in with the "VIP" value of name-dropping developers and titles so we have a good chance to fund it and be able to make it.

[alanschu]

Indeed they didn't. Because they used existing properties or leveraged connections to existing properties like Baldur's Gate. They're both games they really wanted to make, but they're also relatively safe pitches because they hinge on nostalgia. Torment really is no different from them, nor is inXile in a position to take greater risks right now. I mean, Torment is a game inXile really wanted to make, one for which we like to think we have some great concepts in place to lay the foundation for a thematic franchise, and one in the hands of a lot of people with ties to PS:T or Planescape. It's not like inXile slapped the name Torment willy-nilly on something that really doesn't deserve the name, at least I don't think so.

 

I think there's a fundamental difference between saying "We want to make a game in the style of Torment" and "We're making the next Torment."  Or in the case of Project Eternity, "we want to make a game in the style of the Infinity Engine games" as opposed to "We're making Baldur's Gate 3/Torment 2/Icewind Dale 3."  Project Eternity's analogue (which garnered them huge amounts of money) still allots them a ton of freedom for what to do from a narrative aspect.  The type of freedom to experiment that a game like Torment had during its creation.  The moment you say "We're making Torment 2" then you create a measuring stick against Torment 2.  If it is okay but not quite good enough, that's different than had the game had limited expectation in its narrative content.

 

The same way that people that disliked Dragon Age 2 have often told me that they would have been more receptive to the game had it not been billed the sequel to Origins.

 

In my opinion, part of what made Torment amazing is that I had little context on what to expect.  All I had was "D&D game in Infinity Engine" so maybe it'd be like Baldur's Gate.  There was nothing like it I could compare it to, narratively.  Project Eternity's analogue is from a mechanics and gameplay perspective, which gives me an idea on what type of restrictions Obsidian will and will not have in creating content.  It doesn't dictate what type of narrative content will be in the game.

Edited February 27, 2013 by alanschu

[Dream]

But from our perspective, it's no different than previous Kickstarters, a combination of a title we really creatively believe in with the "VIP" value of name-dropping developers and titles so we have a good chance to fund it and be able to make it.

Except W2 is an actual sequel and P:E isn't called Baldur's Gate: Eternity. On the other hand this new Torment is you taking a 15 year old game and deciding that NOW it's apparently a "thematic franchise" just so you can make a sequel to it that has absolutely zero link to the original game outside of a set of elements you arbitrarily picked which can basically be summarized as "good writing."

 

Outside of that I can totally see how they're the same thing.

[TSBasilisk]

Considering how much vitriol this game has managed to inspire in gamers just by existing as a title and a handful of pre-pre-production interviews, I can only imagine any actual material shown for Kickstarter will ignite riots, and the actual game will result in the collapse of the entire industry.

[Brother None]

Except W2 is an actual sequel and P:E isn't called Baldur's Gate: Eternity. On the other hand this new Torment is you taking a 15 year old game and deciding that NOW it's apparently a "thematic franchise" just so you can make a sequel to it that has absolutely zero link to the original game outside of a set of elements you arbitrarily picked which can basically be summarized as "good writing."

 

The elements are all cited directly from the original Torment vision doc, and "zero link" is a bit much considering there are several people working on this that worked on the original (and/or on the orginal's setting).

 

 

I think there's a fundamental difference between saying "We want to make a game in the style of Torment" and "We're making the next Torment."  Or in the case of Project Eternity, "we want to make a game in the style of the Infinity Engine games" as opposed to "We're making Baldur's Gate 3/Torment 2/Icewind Dale 3."  Project Eternity's analogue (which garnered them huge amounts of money) still allots them a ton of freedom for what to do from a narrative aspect.  The type of freedom to experiment that a game like Torment had during its creation.  The moment you say "We're making Torment 2" then you create a measuring stick against Torment 2.  If it is okay but not quite good enough, that's different than had the game had limited expectation in its narrative content.

 

Ah. So, if I'm reading you right, you are arguing against sticking with sequels and the creative constraints that come with it? To that I say: yeah, I can see that. People do like and want sequels but there is a creative constraint. I can't say we're suffering much under it though, Torment: ToN is definitely doing some very interesting things narrative and game design wise that PS:T did not do. It creates a measuring stick more than a creative constraint. It's a challenge, but I don't think it being a challenge is a good reason not do it. Would it be nice to see inXile branch out more into fully original properties? Yeah, it would, but the time for that might not be quite there yet.

 

Anyway, I'm not really lookin' to get embroiled in an argument, and it makes sense that the Obsidian forums would be less receptive to the notion of not-Obsidian doing a Torment follow-up than other places. Just hope you'll check out our pitch and see if it works for you.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Brother None

[Undecaf]

A game that genuinely tries to deliver similiar experience to PST made largely by people we "know", what's not to like (on a conceptual level)?

 

I know I will support this.

[Zoraptor]

I will too, inevitably. End of the day the list of "Torment" features is what I want to see more of in RPGs. I'll just have a slight feeling of needing to shower afterwards.

[Rostere]

 

You forget how a game like Torment allegedly has a small chance of financial success. By securing the name "Torment" he effectively raises the chances of Kickstarter success, it makes perfect sense to me.

 

So did Wasteland 2, or even Project Eternity - games that also "allegedly [have] a small chance of financial success" that still had no trouble at all making their goals via Kickstarter.  In fact, your statement is misleading because even Feargus notes that Torment eventually made money, even using the publisher model.

 

The problem bigger publishers have is usually one of opportunity cost.  EA or Activision could easily make these more niche games, and probably still turn a profit doing so.  The problem is whether or not it maximizes their profit.  Making a Torment presents an opportunity cost (that I feel is overstated, but alas... only so much I can change at any given time even from the inside).  So if Project Eternity takes $4 million and ends up bringing in $8 million in revenues, you get pretty good return on investment.  But if you take the Obsidian team, through $40 million at them, and they bring in $70 million in revenues, while the ROI is not as high, the absolute revenue is much, much, much higher.

 

Unfortunately it's not as simple as just creating 10 different projects for $4 million a piece.

 

 

What you do illustrate, however, is that the cries of "too many sequels" is pretty disingenuous by gamers.  They have no problems with sequels, as long as they are sequels of games that they like.

 

It's could be hard to relate to the issue when you're a very active gamer who hangs out on forums and so on.

 

What I'm trying to say is first that I support the idea of a spiritual sequel to Torment. Too many times have I heard in interviews that such games attract a "niche audience" and are not very profitable. For the record, I believe that is true in the context of modern gaming, including all genres.

 

Suppose then a guy like Brian Fargo says that he wants to produce a spiritual sequel to Torment. Of course I trust him and support the project, Brian has been behind Wasteland and he's also the guy who greenlighted (besides all the classic Bioware and BI games) Sacrifice, Messiah and Giants. Clearly, he's been very lucky or he has a sense for genuine quality.

 

So if he want to use the "Torment" name for this sequel, regardless of the fact that it takes place in another setting and is not connected to the original Torment game is perfectly fine by me, because all the other people out there who don't stalk 1000 forums for information daily will hear "oh, a new Torment" and give all their monies I simply want Fargo to use every possible tool at his disposal to get as much money as possible for the game, and I believe using the "Torment" name will catch the attention of those who DO want a sequel but aren't as actively seeking out information themselves. If I was the only person paying for the game, I would be indifferent, but that's not the case.

[Dream]

The elements are all cited directly from the original Torment vision doc, and "zero link" is a bit much considering there are several people working on this that worked on the original (and/or on the orginal's setting).

Under those elements Crysis could qualify as a Torment sequel.

 

Also I guess Quake should have been called Doom 3 if being made by the same people is enough to justify calling something a sequel. Or hey, maybe instead of Epic Mickey they should have called it Deus Ex: Cartoon Mouse instead because, you know, Warren Spector and all that.

 

People do like and want sequels but there is a creative constraint. I can't say we're suffering much under it though, Torment: ToN is definitely doing some very interesting things narrative and game design wise that PS:T did not do. It creates a measuring stick more than a creative constraint.

How can you say that when one of the very first things we were told about the game was that there's going to be a deep sounding pseudo-philosophical question at its core, and the very first location we were told about was a living city with connections to other dimensions.

[alanschu]

 

Torment game is perfectly fine by me, because all the other people out there who don't stalk 1000 forums for information daily will hear "oh, a new Torment" and give all their monies

 

That's just it though.  They'll see "a new Torment."  And they'll judge the game based on Torment, so even if the game is good, but just not Torment good, you increase the chance that gamers feel jilted because they actually helped fund the thing.

 

At least with a DA2, you can go "Sorry EA, you wasted your money building this game that I don't like" and not buy it.  It's the people that flock to 1000 forums stalking the game that will be better informed as to what the game will actually deliver, instead of simply going "Cool another Torment game!"

[alanschu]

Ah. So, if I'm reading you right, you are arguing against sticking with sequels and the creative constraints that come with it? To that I say: yeah, I can see that. People do like and want sequels but there is a creative constraint.

 

What I love about Kickstarter is that it provides additional avenue to being risky.  I am a big Obsidian fan, and I trust them implicitly based on the previous experiences I have had with their designers (people like Tim Cain, Chris Avellone, and Josh Sawyer).  There's a very good chance that any game that they want to make, is one I'll probably enjoy, since it just seems that on some level I see eye to eye with what they consider fun game stories and mechanics.  So I love that they are taking their expertise, and making something that is completely new from a narrative perspective.  I see that as being very similar to the way that Torment itself came around.  It was an Infinity Engine game, which I was somewhat familiar with (through Baldur's Gate), that went in a completely different and unexpected direction and I absolutely loved them for it.

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm not really lookin' to get embroiled in an argument, and it makes sense that the Obsidian forums would be less receptive to the notion of not-Obsidian doing a Torment follow-up than other places. Just hope you'll check out our pitch and see if it works for you.

 

Eh, I don't know if my opinion has much to do with whether or not I post on Obsidian.  There's a few boards that I have posted on, I just in general tend to like the gaming discussion that goes on here.  I started posting here mostly because I was a KOTOR fan and they were making KOTOR 2.  I have come and gone but as time has gone on, I tend to appreciate the works that Obsidian delivers (AP and FONV being some of my favourite RPG experiences in recent memory).

 

I will check out your pitch.  I frankly hope that you knock it out of the park and that the game is completely off the wall amazing, because it's what I hope of all games.  I just have reservations about Kickstarter being just a different avenue of "sequel factory" that big publishers already are.

 

I know it's easy to pitch as sequel because with that comes all the positive associations.  It's easy for fans to imagine the game's potential.  I mean, I loved Torment... and you want to make more stuff like that?  Yes!

 

Thing is, imagine that a sequel was made instead of Planescape: Torment.  Imagine that a sequel was made instead of Psychonauts (since I saw a ton of people hoping Schafer's game would be Psychonauts 2).  Imagine Shattered Steel 2 was made instead of Baldur's Gate.  Imagine if a sequel was made instead of Alpha Protocol.  Imagine if a sequel was made instead of the original Wasteland?  Heck, we got Fallout because there couldn't be a Wasteland 2.  Would System Shock 3 been as good as Deus Ex?

 

Maybe they would have, but for me there's that novel feeling of trying something new that really made those games resonate with me.  I understand it's not the same for everyone, but that's my initial reservations with Torment being Torment 2.  It seems like a reach to me for it to be a sequel, and I do worry that content will be held to Torment's standard during creation.  As in: "This is good, but is it Torment good?"  "Is it worthy of the Torment name?"

Edited February 27, 2013 by alanschu

[maggotheart]

 

Torment game is perfectly fine by me, because all the other people out there who don't stalk 1000 forums for information daily will hear "oh, a new Torment" and give all their monies

 

That's just it though.  They'll see "a new Torment."  And they'll judge the game based on Torment, so even if the game is good, but just not Torment good, you increase the chance that gamers feel jilted because they actually helped fund the thing.

 

I'm sure when they do the Kickstarter for it, they will explain about the title. There will be really no good reason not to be informed about what exactly is being proposed, unless people don't bother to even read the Kickstarter page to see what they are funding.

[Oerwinde]

 

 

Torment game is perfectly fine by me, because all the other people out there who don't stalk 1000 forums for information daily will hear "oh, a new Torment" and give all their monies

 

That's just it though.  They'll see "a new Torment."  And they'll judge the game based on Torment, so even if the game is good, but just not Torment good, you increase the chance that gamers feel jilted because they actually helped fund the thing.

 

I'm sure when they do the Kickstarter for it, they will explain about the title. There will be really no good reason not to be informed about what exactly is being proposed, unless people don't bother to even read the Kickstarter page to see what they are funding.

 

I generally read the page but often skip the video.

 

Anyway, I think the main thing here is that they aren't calling it Torment because Torment is a big bankable name that will get them more recognition, they are calling it Torment because they feel its going to be a worthy successor and they wanted to do a game like it. That it brings some name recognition is a bonus.

 

Its the difference between "I have an idea for a Torment sequel" and "I have an idea: A Torment sequel".

[Brother None]

The tiers, based on feedback from the UV, are up now, for those interested.

[Dream]

"Digital Version of Cloth Map"

 

That may be the most retarded thing I've ever read.

[TSBasilisk]

Well, not backing to the level required, but something caught my eye on the $5,000 tier:

 

[...]a structure recognizing your greatness will be unearthed in the Valley of Dead Heroes - a surviving obelisk from a lost empire. Work with the Torment team to specify some of the obelisk's characteristics and design, including the Tides represented by this monument to your future self. What Legacy will you have left behind?

 

"Tides represented by this monument" is what caught my eye. I guess there's a bit more of a story to the name than it might have seemed.

 

---

 

Cloth maps are most likely mass-produced based off a digital design. The digital copy will have all the art and character of the physical copy, without the wear and tear or the additional cost of a physical good to ship. And if you're going to claim it's not worth the extra $15, keep in mind that's just the additional final reward, and everyone values such things differently.

Edited February 28, 2013 by TSBasilisk

[entrerix]

i still dont understand why they are doing a kickstarter when they haven't released wasteland 2 yet

 

prove to us you can make a good game before asking for more money....

 

 

i'll probably still end up buying the 25$ version, but i would have dropped WAY more than that if I had more confidence in them as a developer (confidence that could be earned with a good game!)

[Dream]

Cloth maps are most likely mass-produced based off a digital design. The digital copy will have all the art and character of the physical copy, without the wear and tear or the additional cost of a physical good to ship. And if you're going to claim it's not worth the extra $15, keep in mind that's just the additional final reward, and everyone values such things differently.

Yea no ****, but calling it the digital version of a cloth map?

 

Also I find it cute the boxed copy doesn't get beta; way to milk people.