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

[argan]

Too bad they didn't just decide on what they wanted, though.

[Hassat Hunter]

Me, I'm just glad I didn't back the game.

 

TB or RTwP, this poll and stuff doesn't show me remotely any confidence they can properly pull of a Planescape sequel. Oh well, I'll see after it's released. Buy it if they succeed, skip it if they fail. Something Kickstarter backers don't have the luxery of doing anymore.

[Bos_hybrid]

Meh I couldn't care either way. Both RTwP and TB can be good or bad, just depends on the quality of the devs making it.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Bos_hybrid

[Amentep]

I didn't care and thus didn't vote.

 

Still don't really care.  When I pledged money, I pledged money for them to make a "spiritual successor" to PST; beyond that the "how" I'm happy to leave to them.

[obyknven]

http://www.vg247.com/2013/03/07/torment-tides-of-numeneras-phase-based-combat-ties-in-to-the-narrative/

blah-blah

 

Colin McComb: "What we’re favouring for combat is a phase-based combat system. But how we’ve approached it is we want it to be a stronger combat system than Planescape: Torment had. We’ve defined the main characteristics, so we want there to be strategic elements.

[...]

So with all of these goals in mind for our combat, we think it’s agnostic of whether its real-time or pause-based like Planescape: Torment was, or if it’s phase based.

[...]

What we’re intending to do is lave that call to our backers. We’ll present what we envision a different options for combat, and see what kind of input we get."

 

 

 

P.S. Yet another game with phase-based combats

http://youtu.be/f1UiVw3m7zI

 

 

[Pandamaniac]

To be honest, I was disappointed that they chose to hold the farcical vote in the first place. They knew there was a turn-based contingent, and they wanted to make the game turn-based (I think the biggest reason was to recycle the Wasteland 2 combat system), and so they held a "non-binding" vote that would needed to have "been skewed hugely in favor of RTwP" in order to be successful. In other words, the outcome was in doubt as much as the presidential election in Azerbaijan (where the "results" were leaked before the vote took place).

 

Sure, they argue that 

[WL2 combat and Torment] Torment won’t be taking the WL2 turn-based system wholesale. We’ll certainly be paying attention to what people like and don’t like from WL2’s combat, but Torment has different needs anyway. We can use much of the foundation, but one shouldn’t draw conclusions about Torment’s combat from WL2’s as we’ll change quite a bit so that it’s what’s best for Torment. The experience the programmers have from developing WL2’s system is what will be most beneficial.

But to me this is disingenuous because of course they will change things (can't have guns, after all), but at the end of the day it is the same style of combat system for the same engine. This isn't to say that they can't make the game turn based: they reserved that right, and they chose to exercise that right. I just wish that they would have taken ownership in their decision and cancelled the vote in the best interest of the game, or just held the vote and made it binding (they managed to skew it enough with their commentary in the update that it won narrowly, so a binding vote would have given them their desired outcome). Doing what they did, hiding their decision behind a veneer of democracy, is simple cowardice.

[BruceVC]

To be honest, I was disappointed that they chose to hold the farcical vote in the first place. They knew there was a turn-based contingent, and they wanted to make the game turn-based (I think the biggest reason was to recycle the Wasteland 2 combat system), and so they held a "non-binding" vote that would needed to have "been skewed hugely in favor of RTwP" in order to be successful. In other words, the outcome was in doubt as much as the presidential election in Azerbaijan (where the "results" were leaked before the vote took place).

 

Sure, they argue that 

[WL2 combat and Torment] Torment won’t be taking the WL2 turn-based system wholesale. We’ll certainly be paying attention to what people like and don’t like from WL2’s combat, but Torment has different needs anyway. We can use much of the foundation, but one shouldn’t draw conclusions about Torment’s combat from WL2’s as we’ll change quite a bit so that it’s what’s best for Torment. The experience the programmers have from developing WL2’s system is what will be most beneficial.

But to me this is disingenuous because of course they will change things (can't have guns, after all), but at the end of the day it is the same style of combat system for the same engine. This isn't to say that they can't make the game turn based: they reserved that right, and they chose to exercise that right. I just wish that they would have taken ownership in their decision and cancelled the vote in the best interest of the game, or just held the vote and made it binding (they managed to skew it enough with their commentary in the update that it won narrowly, so a binding vote would have given them their desired outcome). Doing what they did, hiding their decision behind a veneer of democracy, is simple cowardice.

 

Wow that was a good post, it really made me laugh

 

But you've raised some relevant points. All I can say to make you feel better is lets wait till the first demo of combat for Torment and then comment? It will be more constructive that way

[AwesomeOcelot]

...so they held a "non-binding" vote that would needed to have "been skewed hugely in favor of RTwP" in order to be successful...

What's wrong with that? Nobody should have been under the illusion that the design of this game is democratic. The vote served a purpose, either there's a high percentage of votes for RTwP, thus InXile goes with the vote because the game is for the backers, or they go with TB because it's easier, better, and cheaper. Did we already know that RTwP wasn't going to get a large majority? No, it's only an educated guess, but in any case the vote serves another purpose, to show those who want RTwP that they're not in the majority.

[Pandamaniac]

I actually don't really care that much what combat they chose. If it is a terribly horrific god-awful experience that I rush through to get back to the story, it will be nostalgic because the original's combat was a terribly horrific god-awful experience that I rushed through to get back to the story. If the combat is actually decent/good/great, than it is a marked improvement and I will be grateful. At the end of day only masochists and sensates played PST for the combat, and I assume that will be the case for Torment: Tides of Numenera as well.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Pandamaniac

[Pandamaniac]

 

...so they held a "non-binding" vote that would needed to have "been skewed hugely in favor of RTwP" in order to be successful...

What's wrong with that? Nobody should have been under the illusion that the design of this game is democratic. The vote served a purpose, either there's a high percentage of votes for RTwP, thus InXile goes with the vote because the game is for the backers, or they go with TB because it's easier, better, and cheaper. Did we already know that RTwP wasn't going to get a large majority? No, it's only an educated guess, but in any case the vote serves another purpose, to show those who want RTwP that they're not in the majority.

 

 

But the vote was a farce.

Let's recall how the vote was conducted. First, they told us they really wanted turn-based, making their argument why it was best for the game. This meant that anyone who wanted them to pursue their vision would vote turn-based. Then they let us know the vote was advisory, setting the bar unattainably high. Then they held the vote. You are absolutely correct when you say that "Nobody should have been under the illusion that the design of this game is democratic". But by holding an vote after rigging the election, they implicitly sought to create the illusion that the design of this game is democratic, while avoiding the pitfalls of democracy (results they didn't agree with). That is what disappointed me about the vote.

[AwesomeOcelot]

First, they told us they really wanted turn-based, making their argument why it was best for the game. This meant that anyone who wanted them to pursue their vision would vote turn-based.

How is that a problem? It would be stupid and a bad decision not to. How is it right to deny people who want them to pursue their vision the opportunity of an informed vote?

 

...they implicitly sought to create the illusion that the design of this game is democratic...

They did not, and it would be stupid to think that. You'd have to not know what advisory means.

[ilhdr]

 

What's wrong with that? Nobody should have been under the illusion that the design of this game is democratic. The vote served a purpose, either there's a high percentage of votes for RTwP, thus InXile goes with the vote because the game is for the backers, or they go with TB because it's easier, better, and cheaper. Did we already know that RTwP wasn't going to get a large majority? No, it's only an educated guess, but in any case the vote serves another purpose, to show those who want RTwP that they're not in the majority.

 

 

These votes can be used to anything, except to say that one system has the preference of another. Just 20% of the backers voted and this is already a very small percentage of who would buy the game on release.

[AwesomeOcelot]

...this is already a very small percentage of who would buy the game on release.

Those people don't matter, the game is being made for the backers.

[AGX-17]

 

...this is already a very small percentage of who would buy the game on release.

Those people don't matter, the game is being made for the backers.

 

Technically speaking, it's being made for the shareholders. InXile isn't a charity, after all.

 

Also, I'd like to be able to do a ****y song-and-dance routine to taunt people, in turn-based form.

 

That's ****y as in "arrogant," not ****y as in "possessing the qualities of feces." STAY CLASSY, NAUGHTY WORD FILTER.

Edited December 11, 2013 by AGX-17

[Hiro Protagonist II]

But the vote was a farce. 

 

I wouldn't say the vote was a farce. What I would say is inXile probably knew the majority of backers wouldn't vote due to apathy which is what happened. 80% of people didn't vote. That means 80% of backers, the vast majority of backers don't care.

 

What was shown was the more passionate backers did vote and you'll find some rpg gaming forums are even quite rabid with their preference for TB combat. So it's no surprise to me that TB won the vote. All backers had the opportunity to vote, 80% didn't.

[melkathi]

What was shown was the more passionate backers did vote and you'll find some rpg gaming forums are even quite rabid with their preference for TB combat. So it's no surprise to me that TB won the vote.

 

 

If you look at how close the vote was, that theory does not hold up. TB won over RTwP by roughly 1.5% of the total votes. That is too narrow a margin to be explainable by a passionate following.

[khango]

 

What was shown was the more passionate backers did vote and you'll find some rpg gaming forums are even quite rabid with their preference for TB combat. So it's no surprise to me that TB won the vote.

 

 

If you look at how close the vote was, that theory does not hold up. TB won over RTwP by roughly 1.5% of the total votes. That is too narrow a margin to be explainable by a passionate following.

 

 

RTwP has a passionate following, too.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

 

RTwP has a passionate following, too.

 

 

Considering you were the one who started this thread and I recall RTwP was leading the poll by at least a couple of hundred votes when this thread started, opening this thread on the Obsidian forums had the opposite effect to what you wanted. And by looking at the response in this thread, the RTwP following would be in the minority.

[alanschu]

It's a bit presumptuous to assume that the results of the thread were skewed specifically because of a call out onto Obsidian's board.

 

Regardless, anyone taking conclusions from either this participation of this thread or the poll itself haven't really done enough to qualify whether or not the results are statistically valid from a variety of metrics (the various types of bias, statistical significance, and so forth).

 

At this point it's just a pissing match. Lets wait for the game to come out and hope that we enjoy it for what it is because ultimately we want games we can enjoy.

[Hassat Hunter]

Wait, the backers of the spiritual successor of BG2, who wanted their RTwP gameplay are the cause for Turnbased winning?

 

How does that work?

[BruceVC]

It's a bit presumptuous to assume that the results of the thread were skewed specifically because of a call out onto Obsidian's board.

 

 

 

Alan don't you think you are egregiously underestimating the influence these forums have on the direction that development companies take with there games. I am sure at Bioware the first thing they consider when it comes to any new game is " what do the people at the Obsidian forum think of this idea and if they don't like it we don't include it !!!! "

 

Come on, you know I'm right ?

 

[Humanoid]

 

" what do the people at the Obsidian forum think of this idea and if they don't like it we include it !!!! "

 

 

Fixed that for you.

[Hassat Hunter]

If they did... BioWare would make MUCH better games.

Sadly, they rather listen to their own degenerates pen forum... :/

[BruceVC]

 

 

" what do the people at the Obsidian forum think of this idea and if they don't like it we include it !!!! "

 

 

Fixed that for you.

 

 

I like it

[Keyrock]

So wait, I, as an active member of the Obsidian Entertainment forums, am largely responsible for the most welcome victory travesty that is turn-based winning the backer poll?

 

Sweet!