InExile is plotting to ruin Torment by making it turn-based

[AwesomeOcelot]

So Torment's "thematic sequel" will not only have completely different characters and setting, but now completely different gameplay as well? At least they got the name right I suppose.

 

Also could someone tell me why AAA devs get crucified for reviving decade old franchises as completely different games, but inXile gets a pass?

That's what "thematic sequel" means, it's not that hard to understand. For example, if you stick the words "Tactics" on the end of a game name, you're doing a TRPG game, changing the gameplay of the franchise, it doesn't mean you have to change to Final Fantasy's characters and setting. "Torment" is a reference to the theme, if they don't stick to that then you have a complaint, but it doesn't mean they have to stick to the same gameplay, characters, or setting.

 

inXile gets a pass because they also have the right to make a spiritual sequel because they have enough of the people who made Planescape: Torment, especially thematically. It's not like they're a group of devs that make games that are wildly inferior, or they don't get what P:T thematically was about, they're not exploiting a franchise for a quick buck. Fallout was a spiritual successor to Wasteland, that's one of the analogous situations to TToN and P:T, another would be Goldeneye and Perfect Dark.

 

They've been clear from the start that apart from the themes TToN is going to be its own game.

[Sarex]

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.

 

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.

[Elerond]

 

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.

 

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. 

[melkathi]

 

Both suck if the devs don't get them right...

That said, at least in TB you aren't weighed down with terrible party AI.

Arcanum would like to have a word.

 

 

Arcanum had terrible combat period.

A great example with which to prove that both kinds of combat can be terrible. Also though a great example for proving that regardless what combat is chosen and how bad it may get, the game's other qualities can outshine the problem and still provide a great, memorable experience.

 

So all that a word with Arcanum would result in is me feeling supported in my vote of "don't care"

[Zeckul]

 

 

 

In addition I would also argue that if combat is not something you care much about, then you should also vote RTwP, as it will allow for quicker resolution of fights. TB will force you to think a lot more about your actions during combat.

 

 

Heh, so I should argue for the game mechanic that you like because in your mind I would prefer that more?

 

At this point I'm more inclined to vote Turn-based almost out of spite.

If combat is not something you care much about, then you should not want to spend much time fighting in the game. RTwP will allow you to spend less time fighting in the game. RTwP would therefore be more in line with your tastes.

 

I don't know what goes on in your mind; I'm making a logical argument. You can point out flaws in it if you want, but reinterpreting it as some kind of personal attack, and even suggesting to pick a side just because you don't like the argument, now that is what I would call disingenuous.

 

While I may have granted your defense about not being disingenuous with other features, asking posters to do this leaves an absolutely sour taste in my mouth and does much more for pushing me away from your perspective.  You might as well just say "If you don't care, please vote for what I like because I do care a lot."  I'd give you points for just being honest.

 

That's obviously not what I'm saying.

Mechanics is most definitely not orthogonal to focus.

So how do you explain that PS:T and Baldur's Gate 2 could have the same mechanics yet a very different focus?

 

 

Every feature represents an opportunity cost.  And if they don't have any sort of RTwP system implemented, but already have a working model for turn based combat, then you're completely overlooking that cost.

 

How much other things are you willing to sacrifice in order to get RTwP combat?  What story features are you okay cutting?  What areas are you okay not visiting?

The premise that implementing a RTwP combat system would be more expensive is purely hypothetical. The developers did not even suggest that idea. Even though they have a working turn-based system, it is completly unknown how much of this system could be re-used for TToN. In addition, a turn-based combat system could allow for more complex combat mechanics, meaning more resources put into combat as opposed to story features or areas, as you mention. We can discuss ifs all day, but in the end I don't think we have good reason to think your premise is true, and therefore the argument against RTwP combat doesn't hold.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Zeckul

[melkathi]

Now disregarding preferences in combat. For those of us who will try to play the game with as little combat as possible, a vote for "turn based" is probably the way to go:

a) the devs can benefit from work already done for the Wasteland 2 combat system -> less time needed to spend on the Torment combat system -> more time for other cool stuff

b) the player will play all party members themselves -> no party AI needed -> the devs can spend more time on other cool stuff

c) the game is based on a pen & paper ruleset, which is turn based -> abilities/spells/etc can more easily be adapted for the PC/whatever version -> more time for other cool stuff

[AGX-17]

Fixed.

[Zeckul]

Also, for what it's worth, I'm not 100% certain they ever said "whichever system wins, even if its just by 1 vote, we'll implement THAT system, no matter what." I mean, how are they factoring in the "indifferent" votes? Those wouldn't even matter if it was just a flat out "most votes wins!" thing. I think the vote just further helps their decision, rather than decides for them. I'm sure if it ends up being 15,000 to 3,000, they'd go with the 15,000. But, if it's close, they might still go with the loser. *shrug*

 

Or maybe they said "this vote decides, no matter what." I don't recall. Again... still makes me wonder what the "indifferent" votes do.

They've explicitely stated that the poll was advisory only, and since they've expressed preference for a turn-based system already, I think only a crushing majority in favor of real-time could sway their decision. At least Brian Fargo says he's surprised at the near-perfect 50-50 split.

[BruceVC]

The more I think about it the more I realize that the best combat option of the new Torment is an automated combat system  where the game just randomly calculates who wins and you see a "win" or "defeat " within  seconds of the battle starting

 

Lets forget this RT with Pause and TB debate. Lets start to vote for automatic combat outcomes !!!!

 

Who is with me !!!! 

[rjshae]

Total troll of a title...

[Drowsy Emperor]

I think all of us want to play a game as good as PST again. That's really why people gave their money to InXile.

 

But when you stop tugging the nostalgia strings, it seems obvious that this project was a case of brand (ab)use from the very beginning. This game shares only the title and vague thematic similarities with PST. That's like saying my Abibas sneakers are your Adidas because they share most of the name and have 3 stripes on them. They may be just as good but you'd be a fool to take that for granted.

 

Therefore nothing is really obligatory, and nothing has to be included for the game to be "true" to PSTorment, because this game is already as far removed from PST as possible. All the positive associations used to sell this product were from day one, only in the minds of the players and in Fargo the salesman's mouth.

 

And I still hate turn based.

 

And it may still end up being a good game. 3.5% chance according to my latest estimates

 

 

YEEAAAHHH!

[Monte Carlo]

Ha ha ha... all of the wordiness of Torment and all of the thrills'n'spills of turn-based combat.

 

Given that combat isn't really the point of the Torment experience, it's a bit like adding mustard to a d1ck flavoured popsicle.

[Mamoulian War]

The more I think about it the more I realize that the best combat option of the new Torment is an automated combat system  where the game just randomly calculates who wins and you see a "win" or "defeat " within  seconds of the battle starting

 

Lets forget this RT with Pause and TB debate. Lets start to vote for automatic combat outcomes !!!!

 

Who is with me !!!! 

 

But I need my QTE and I win button!!! Else Ze immershun iz brokn!!!

[melkathi]

 

The more I think about it the more I realize that the best combat option of the new Torment is an automated combat system  where the game just randomly calculates who wins and you see a "win" or "defeat " within  seconds of the battle starting

 

Lets forget this RT with Pause and TB debate. Lets start to vote for automatic combat outcomes !!!!

 

Who is with me !!!! 

 

But I need my QTE and I win button!!! Else Ze immershun iz brokn!!!

 

 

I think we should start a petition to force inXile to stop developing the game in-house and to pass it on to Telltale

Edited November 23, 2013 by melkathi

[Keyrock]

 

Therefore nothing is really obligatory, and nothing has to be included for the game to be "true" to PSTorment, because this game is already as far removed from PST as possible. All the positive associations used to sell this product were from day one, only in the minds of the players and in Fargo the salesman's mouth.

 

I would argue that "as far removed from P:T as possible" would be a multiplayer-only, microtransaction-based, first-person view flash kart racer set in the present real world and running in a browser. 

Edited November 23, 2013 by Keyrock

[melkathi]

 

I would argue that "as far removed from P:T as possible" would be a multiplayer-only, microtransaction-based, first-person view flash kart racer set in the present real world and running in a browser. 

 

 

Nordom and kart wish to go in search of race track

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Therefore nothing is really obligatory, and nothing has to be included for the game to be "true" to PSTorment, because this game is already as far removed from PST as possible. All the positive associations used to sell this product were from day one, only in the minds of the players and in Fargo the salesman's mouth.

 

I would argue that "as far removed from P:T as possible" would be a multiplayer-only, microtransaction-based, first-person view flash kart racer set in the present real world and running in a browser. 

I would probably try that.

 

Ha ha ha... all of the wordiness of Torment and all of the thrills'n'spills of turn-based combat.

 

Given that combat isn't really the point of the Torment experience, it's a bit like adding mustard to a d1ck flavoured popsicle.

I didn't realize spotted D1ck came in popsicle form.

[Humanoid]

The more I think about it the more I realize that the best combat option of the new Torment is an automated combat system  where the game just randomly calculates who wins and you see a "win" or "defeat " within  seconds of the battle starting

 

Lets forget this RT with Pause and TB debate. Lets start to vote for automatic combat outcomes !!!!

 

Who is with me !!!! 

I'd support and genuinely use a full autoresolve playthrough if implemented, assuming it's reasonably fair (unlike say, Mount and Blade's terrible one). But really, there doesn't need to be any resolving at all done for a Torment type game, it'd be perfectly reasonable to just have automatic successes when you use violence to solve a problem. Just choose the option "kill this guy" and the guy dies, no need for a complicated combat system. Naturally some attempts would be automatic failures as well, such as trying to stab the Lady of Pain analogue.

[PrimeJunta]

So Torment's "thematic sequel" will not only have completely different characters and setting, but now completely different gameplay as well? At least they got the name right I suppose.

 

Also could someone tell me why AAA devs get crucified for reviving decade old franchises as completely different games, but inXile gets a pass?

 

Pop quiz: name the Four Pillars of Torment the inXile explained in great detail during the Kickstarter. No peeking.

[Bester]

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGHH........ Story? Legacy? something, something.

[Walsingham]

I've given it some very serious thought and I think that voting on this would be a collossal mistake.

 

What you are really advocating - albeit with good intentions - is shifting your user requirements after development has begun.

 

Shifting user requirements after development has been planned and started is a recipe for disaster.

 

You may think saying "Oh, but it has to work in real time." is OK to throw in. But that's what people think about "Oh, but it has to work on mobile devices." or "oh, but it has to have a tutorial component." Or "it has to be available for sale in Australia."

 

They all sound innocuous, but they have multiple inferential links to architectures, coding, quality control, project management...

 

I'm taking the trouble to explain this precisely because I believe you care and want a good delivery. And I'm telling you with the greatest possible kindly emphasis to shut the **** up.

[PrimeJunta]

@Walsingham, they haven't started developing the combat system yet. They're still prototyping. What's more, they said from the start that this is the way they want to do it. I.e., there is no requirements shift. This is all planned.

[Keyrock]

@Walsingham, they haven't started developing the combat system yet. They're still prototyping. What's more, they said from the start that this is the way they want to do it. I.e., there is no requirements shift. This is all planned.

Exactly, they haven't started production yet, and likely won't until Wasteland 2 ships, or at least gets to the point where they can pull most of their production team off of it.  So far they've been purely in pre-production.  I surmise the point of this vote is to make sure that turn-based won't be overwhelmingly negatively received.  inXile plans to make the game turn-based, but before they start production they want to make sure they wouldn't be pissing off the majority of their backers.  My guess is they have a rough plan of how to adapt the Wasteland 2 combat system to the Numenera ruleset, and as long as the vote doesn't wind up being overwhelmingly skewed toward RTwP, and that looks very highly doubtful at this point, they will move ahead with it.

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2013 by Keyrock

[PrimeJunta]

They've already prototyped Numenera mechanics on the W2 combat engine (and said that it works surprisingly well). I don't know if they've prototyped a RTwP system as well; if they have I haven't noticed them saying so.

[Bester]

They haven't because they never intended to use rtwp and aren't going to even consider it. The only reason they didn't say so from the beginning was to get 2 million more of rtwp people money.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Bester