Interview Info about Torment's Tides and Combat at VG247

[hiver]

I'm really concerned about all the fuss with PC 'gender'. Reading all the comments on InXile site there is a whole bunch of people who would gladly trivialize Torment theme with political correctness, gay sex, hair types and talking shit about equality between sex types. I wonder how devs will get out of this, cause if they want to please everyone I'm afraid Torment will no longer be a game about searching for universal truths and values, but some freaky interactive Harlequin

It is clear, at least to me, that sempiternal posthuman demigods who are used to switching bodies like we change jackets and prowl a far future in which every conceivable permutation of experience has been tried thousands of times must be staunchly heterosexual and stalwart defenders of traditional gender roles.

By that same logic there is no reason they should be anything at all, sexually - or that should be any kind of significant feature of the game.

Besides - there is only one body thief out there.

 

[Alex]

I understand that the defining feature of phase based combat is that it has, well, phases. That is, it divides time into individual chunks, and actions within these chunks occur simultaneously. An example of that would be old AD&D's segments, where a round has 10 segments, initiative determines which segment you use, and everything that happens in a segment happens simultaneously. So you can have, for example, two characters killing each other if they act on the same segment. But if one had acted earlier than the other, he would have lived. Old D&D had phases too! They worked differently, though, as the phases were determined by the kind of action you took (melee, ranged attacks, spells or something else).

Also, Wargames frequently use the term phases too, but they are used to differentiate between kinds of actions that may happen (troop movement, combat, magic, air-strikes, etc) in a turn. Phases in that context aren't simultaneous at all, but I don't think that is what they had in mind.

 

[CappenVarra]

I think the idea is just that people want to be able to role-play "themselves."

This is a horrible idea and the first Torment did a great thing by not allowing people to play as "themselves". Imaginationless morans, every last one of them

 

[Koschey]

Nitpick: As I understood it, the consciousness of the PC will only have recently come into being at the start of the game. I don't think you can talk about them being used to switching bodies like clothes in that case.

 

[tuluse]

I'm really concerned about all the fuss with PC 'gender'. Reading all the comments on InXile site there is a whole bunch of people who would gladly trivialize Torment theme with political correctness, gay sex, hair types and talking shit about equality between sex types. I wonder how devs will get out of this, cause if they want to please everyone I'm afraid Torment will no longer be a game about searching for universal truths and values, but some freaky interactive Harlequin

It is clear, at least to me, that sempiternal posthuman demigods who are used to switching bodies like we change jackets and prowl a far future in which every conceivable permutation of experience has been tried thousands of times must be staunchly heterosexual and stalwart defenders of traditional gender roles.

By that same logic there is no reason they should be anything at all, sexually - or that should be any kind of significant feature of the game.

Besides - there is only one body thief out there.

They've said that the PC can also take control of bodies. So that makes two body thieves (at a minimum).

 

[Gondolin]

They've said that the PC can also take control of bodies. So that makes two body thieves (at a minimum).

In before Biodrones demand the option of controlling two bodies at the same time so they can experience sex from both sides at once.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I'm really concerned about all the fuss with PC 'gender'. Reading all the comments on InXile site there is a whole bunch of people who would gladly trivialize Torment theme with political correctness, gay sex, hair types and talking shit about equality between sex types. I wonder how devs will get out of this, cause if they want to please everyone I'm afraid Torment will no longer be a game about searching for universal truths and values, but some freaky interactive Harlequin

It is clear, at least to me, that sempiternal posthuman demigods who are used to switching bodies like we change jackets and prowl a far future in which every conceivable permutation of experience has been tried thousands of times must be staunchly heterosexual and stalwart defenders of traditional gender roles.

burn that strawman bro

It wasn't that much of a strawman - the OP seems to be kind of mixing a criticism of Bioware-style inanity with a criticism of depicting deviations from traditional gender roles. Plus the universal truths and values thing was kind of a Lyric Suite Jr. move.

I could be reading it wrong, though. If that's the case, my bad. If its not the case, then fuck you, I want my billion year old dickgirls and manginas.

 

[JarlFrank]

People have different sexual tastes. News at 11.

That doesn't mean it should feature majorly in a game, beside maybe one or two minor side-things to add flavour. If I wanted to play bisexual fucking simulators, I'd play the current Bioware games.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

True, everything in moderation. Romance in games is inevitably lame and Bioware's consistent white knighting for PC brownie points is super annoying. But, one of the things I like about far future settings is the potential for outre concepts and characters, including concepts involving gender. Which can be done without descending into "everyone's a romanceable bi-sexual derpitude".

Personally, I think if you drop the romanceable NPC from games generally there would be no problems.

 

[hiver]

They've said that the PC can also take control of bodies. So that makes two body thieves (at a minimum).

Not at the start, no.

And its not taking over the body as such, not completely - but rather something like mind control for a limited time, if i understood it correctly. Which will also allow you to relive their memories - which is the concept of Meres.

I think thats about it, but we will see when further info about this is revealed through this week.

 

[MasPingon]

I'm really concerned about all the fuss with PC 'gender'. Reading all the comments on InXile site there is a whole bunch of people who would gladly trivialize Torment theme with political correctness, gay sex, hair types and talking shit about equality between sex types. I wonder how devs will get out of this, cause if they want to please everyone I'm afraid Torment will no longer be a game about searching for universal truths and values, but some freaky interactive Harlequin

It is clear, at least to me, that sempiternal posthuman demigods who are used to switching bodies like we change jackets and prowl a far future in which every conceivable permutation of experience has been tried thousands of times must be staunchly heterosexual and stalwart defenders of traditional gender roles.

Trying to be a smartass or did you just fail comprehension reading skillcheck? What does a gender discourse, being hetero or homosexual, man or woman have to do with sempiternal posthuman demigods who are used to switching bodies like we change jackets and prowl a far future in which every conceivable permutation of experience has been tried thousands of times(as you nicely put it). Yeah, that's right - nothing. And it should stay that way.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Interesting that Colin doesn't mention the option of turn-based combat at all...

Probably they don't expect it to win in the voting. Guess it will be down between RTwP and phase-based. Hopefully the Codex will make a difference...

I suspect they'll choose PB as a compromise.

PB is the same TB, but with a different name as I understand.

No. Read the thread.

Whatever. I just hope they will make toggle PB/TB possible...

 

[DwarvenFood]

Rather they concentrate on one system instead of having two broken ones.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Rather they concentrate on one system instead of having two broken ones.

In phase based, all actions are determined at the beginning of the round. Phase based can also be called "round based". Same thing.

In turn based, all actions are determined within the turn of the character.

There is one difference FFS, the choice of action before the round rather than during the round... Is making toggle button that hard?

 

[Infinitron]

Rather they concentrate on one system instead of having two broken ones.

In phase based, all actions are determined at the beginning of the round. Phase based can also be called "round based". Same thing.

In turn based, all actions are determined within the turn of the character.

There is one difference FFS, the choice of action before the round rather than during the round... Is making toggle button that hard?

Possibly not, but they might be tailoring encounters to work best with one system. A heavily scripted encounter (and there's reason to believe most of Torment's fights will be such) designed for phase-based might not work as well in turn-based.

Plus, they might be implementing a Frozen Synapse-style phase-based where the actions all happen simultaneously, and that wouldn't be as easy to convert.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Possibly not, but they might be tailoring encounters to work best with one system. A heavily scripted encounter (and there's reason to believe most of Torment's fights will be such) designed for phase-based might not work as well in turn-based.

I still don't see any difference between those two. By heavy scripted you mean AAAwesome QTE?

Plus, they might be implementing a Frozen Synapse-style phase-based where the actions all happen simultaneously, and that wouldn't be as easy to convert.

Why would anyone do that? RTwP would be miles ahead of this, besides this is not Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six. At least I hope.

 

[Infinitron]

By heavy scripted you mean AAAwesome QTE?

No, I mean heavily scripted as in "mages scripted to react to specific events by casting specific spells", or "monsters scripted to retreat to the next room when player does X".

Why would anyone do that? RTwP would be miles ahead of this

Would it? It has both the slow-paced thoughtfulness of turn-based and the complex simultaneous action of real-time. Sounds like a win-win.

I think that kind of phased based combat is interesting because the sheer unpredictability of it forces the player to play defensively and formulate robust strategies that don't rely on reacting to individual enemy maneuvers. In that sense it is more strategic even than turn-based combat.

 

[Globbi]

True, everything in moderation. Romance in games is inevitably lame and Bioware's consistent white knighting for PC brownie points is super annoying. But, one of the things I like about far future settings is the potential for outre concepts and characters, including concepts involving gender. Which can be done without descending into "everyone's a romanceable bi-sexual derpitude".

I don't think romance in games is inevitably lame, or inevitably anything for that matter. Romances are natural in any human interaction. If the writer has idea that romance should be part of interaction between certain characters, that's cool. Problem is introducing romances just for the sake of it and even asking "will this game have romances?" is stupid. I can imagine 2 characters in this game playing cards - writer may have interesting dialogue idea and important characters interaction during a card game. If dialogue will be good people will praise and remember it. However, no one is asking if there will be a card game with NPCs. Same should be with romance.

Personally, I think if you drop the romanceable NPC from games generally there would be no problems.

True, but again, this should not be a matter of dropping romances just to avoid certain cliché or to make some biofags sad. In the very same way as there should be no forced romance options to cater to mass market or to add controversy.

It's a very stupid problem. Very likely in some interview fans of Bioware RPGs will ask if there are romance options in Torment. There will be no reason to not answer this (well, they may try giving diplomatic answer like "we don't want to spoil character interaction", but that would be revealed anyway sooner or later) and either answer will cause some serious shitstorm.

 

[Infinitron]

Let me illustrate further.

Let's say you have two members in your party, and you're fighting an enemy group that has a mage.

Furthermore, let's say one of your party members, we'll call him party member A, did something that caused the enemy mage to begin casting a powerful and harmful spell.

In a straight turn-based system, after party member A did whatever he did and the mage began to cast his spell, it would now be party member B's turn and he would be free to react, perhaps disrupting the casting of the spell.

In a phase-based system, you used both party member A and party member B in your turn, and party member B might not be available anymore to react to the casting of the spell.

So you see, differences that may appear superficial actually have a deep tactical consequence, and may interfere with the intended workings of a scripted battle.

 

[l3loodAngel]

By heavy scripted you mean AAAwesome QTE?

No, I mean heavily scripted as in "mages scripted to react to specific events by casting specific spells", or "monsters scripted to retreat to the next room when player does X".

In TB they could do that, but faster as they would need to wait for the round to end or they could do that when their turn comes.

Why would anyone do that? RTwP would be miles ahead of this

1.Would it? It has both the slow-paced thoughtfulness of turn-based and the complex simultaneous action of real-time. Sounds like a win-win.

I think that kind of phased based combat is interesting because the sheer unpredictability of it forces the player to play defensively and formulate robust strategies that don't rely on reacting to individual enemy maneuvers. 2. In that sense it is more strategic even than turn-based combat.

1.Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six rogue spear - I was literally not impressed.
2. It is more strategic, but less tactics are involved. I would prefer to have both in combat, besides PST was never known for it's combat, so I don't see any reason for them to go overboard with this one.

 

[Excidium]

2. It is more strategic, but less tactics are involved. I would prefer to have both in combat, besides PST was never known for it's combat, so I don't see any reason for them to go overboard with this one.

Bullshit.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Let me illustrate further.

Let's say you have two members in your party, and you're fighting an enemy group that has a mage.

Furthermore, let's say one of your party members, we'll call him party member A, did something that caused the enemy mage to begin casting a powerful and harmful spell.

In a straight turn-based system, after party member A did whatever he did and the mage began to cast his spell, it would now be party member B's turn and he would be free to react, perhaps disrupting the casting of the spell.

In a phase-based system, you used both party member A and party member B in your turn, and party member B might not be available anymore to react to the casting of the spell.

So you see, differences that may appear superficial actually have a deep tactical consequence, and may interfere with the intended workings of a scripted battle.

Why not just use RTwP? What advantages does PB offer over RTwP in such a scenario? Also, this is entirely possible to and BETTER with the action points system in the TB where MOST spells take more action points than the round length (unless Quickened).

 

[Excidium]

You don't need action points for that.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Let me illustrate further.

Let's say you have two members in your party, and you're fighting an enemy group that has a mage.

Furthermore, let's say one of your party members, we'll call him party member A, did something that caused the enemy mage to begin casting a powerful and harmful spell.

In a straight turn-based system, after party member A did whatever he did and the mage began to cast his spell, it would now be party member B's turn and he would be free to react, perhaps disrupting the casting of the spell.

In a phase-based system, you used both party member A and party member B in your turn, and party member B might not be available anymore to react to the casting of the spell.

You lost me here. Why did member B lose a turn in phase based system? He could CS a mage before he would cast a spell if that's of any consequence.
Besides if it's turn of the mage, how will he be interrupted? Unless of course it takes all action points or more than round/phase to cast a spell.

So you see, differences that may appear superficial actually have a deep tactical consequence, and may interfere with the intended workings of a scripted battle.

I am not sure why scripted battles are better than non scripted. Are there any concrete reasons why it is not a gimmick?

 

[l3loodAngel]

2. It is more strategic, but less tactics are involved. I would prefer to have both in combat, besides PST was never known for it's combat, so I don't see any reason for them to go overboard with this one.

Bullshit.

Your reply sounds reasonable.