Interview inXile's Torment successor officially announced on RPS, will use Monte Cook's Numenera setting

[Infinitron]

And how the hell can RTwP make anything more complex? More challenging I can understand, if you equal challenge with some basic reflexes needed to press space. But more complex? WTF. How exactly?

I've explained this in the thread. In essence, realtime is equivalent to turn-based where every turn is infinitesimally small.

With infinitely more granular actions, the possibility space of things that can possibly occur on the battlefield is much, much larger. It's less predictable and, in a word, more complex.

You don't make much sense. Hey for me it's great, but let's see if PE can make it not annoying!!!

I didn't say it was annoying for me.

 

[Roguey]

To think I stood up for you when you where the target of too many strawmen. When have I said the IE games didn't? What I have said, however, if you were able to get it through your thick skull, is that that was one extremely small (and, indeed, shitty) part of the IE-games which was easily avoidable and that you didn't have to use that much. AoO's and flanking is for EVERY. SINGLE. CHARACTER no matter what you play. You will always have to deal with this system and you will have to deal with it often. Very often.

Well fuck if I can remember the specifics of these discussions. Josh has been pretty clear that if their ideas clash with reality they'll change their approach so I'm not concerned about this.

a) RTwP is not IE-like per definition. His specific problems with Torment's combat are the halfway house between "immediacy" and "true to p&p".

Doesn't sound all that different from a rtwp Numenera: Torment.

b) McComb isn't in charge of gameplay mechanics, Kevin Saunders is. McComb is the creative lead.

So he's the Jennifer Hepler of this project (ie "I hate this kind of gameplay but I'm writing this game anyway"). I recall arguing with you about this. Now we see the sexism inherent in the system.

 

[Brother None]

I've explained this in the thread. In essence, realtime is equivalent to turn-based where every turn is infinitesimally small.

Except it isn't. My only input is player actions, and I can not put in a new action when the character is in the middle of his current action. That means the granularity is no better than one turn = one action.

Doesn't sound all that different from a rtwp Numenera: Torment.

As I explained a few times already, Torment's combat system would be built from the ground up, it wouldn't be an implementation of a TB system running underneat a RTwP system. Going RTwP does not necessarily equate going Infinity Engine-style RTwP, all its flaws included.

So he's the Jennifer Hepler of this project (ie "I hate this kind of gameplay but I'm writing this game anyway"). I recall arguing with you about this. Now we see the sexism inherent in the system.

You're assuming McComb hates all RTwP and is arguing against it in the design back and forth? That's your assumption.

He doesn't have no input or anything, but he's not a system designer, he's the creative lead, ultimately design decisions rest with the project lead, all decisions do, in fact.

That kind of split is a far cry from employing writers who just don't like video games at all. inXile is very conscious of intermixing narrative elements with gameplay, including combat, and that is one of the things on the list of requirements for any combat system. It's just agnostic to that consideration if it's RTwP or phase-based or turnbased, as long as it works in the stated narrative and design goals.

 

[Infinitron]

I've explained this in the thread. In essence, realtime is equivalent to turn-based where every turn is infinitesimally small.

Except it isn't. My only input is player actions, and I can not put in a new action when the character is in the middle of his current action. That means the granularity is no better than one turn = one action.

Well, there can be actions in a turn-based game that take more than one turn to perform (such as a spell that takes several turns to cast) which is basically the same thing. Not sure how common that is.

In any case, I think my point still stands.

 

[evdk]

So he's the Jennifer Hepler of this project (ie "I hate this kind of gameplay but I'm writing this game anyway"). I recall arguing with you about this. Now we see the sexism inherent in the system.

Disliking one specific design feature in a game and wishing it used an alternative != Disliking the core gameplay wholesale

 

[Roguey]

Disliking one specific design feature in a game and wishing it used an alternative != Disliking the core gameplay wholesale

Yeah, that's Colin and Jennifer all right.

 

[evdk]

Disliking one specific design feature in a game and wishing it used an alternative != Disliking the core gameplay wholesale

Yeah, that's Colin and Jennifer all right.

I know, but it's nice of you to affirm it.

 

[FeelTheRads]

I've explained this in the thread. In essence, realtime is equivalent to turn-based where every turn is infinitesimally small.

With infinitely more granular actions, the possibility space of things that can possibly occur on the battlefield is much, much larger. It's less predictable and, in a word, more complex.

The hell? You're actually saying that RTwP is more granular than turn-based? I really don't see the granularity. What can possibly occur in RTwP that can't occur in real-time? Seriously. RTwP is just real-time WITH PAUSE so you can tell what the fuck is going on. There's no more thought put into it than that and there never was. You're just making up things. Infinitely more granular. The hell. Moar like Infinitron is more granular than usual.

Well, there can be actions in a turn-based game that take more than one turn to perform

CAN. Well, there can be actions in a RTwP game that you can't stop so you can start another one. Again, there's absolutely zero difference between real-time and RTwP except the possibility to pause the game to issue orders at your leisure.

 

[CappenVarra]

If you set up the Infinity Engine to globally pause every N seconds in combat, it would become phase-based.

Uhm, the thread has moved on but I can't let this one pass: it would most definitely not.

Phase based would require that: a) it's impossible to pause the game outside of the "planning phase" b) it's impossible to control your characters outside of the "planning phase".

Neither the player nor the AI adhere to these restrictions in IE, so auto-pause does absolutely nothing useful (especially when the engine bugs out and pauses separately for each individual character instead of being global like it should).

Incidentally, phase based would make the best AD&D implementation because that's exactly how the ruleset works: both the players and the opponents decide which action to perform that round, then initiative is rolled (and modified by weapon speed factors etc.) and actions are executed in 10 round segments, actions falling in the same segment happening simultaneously. All the benefits of character skill deciding the outcomes and player skill deciding what actions to perform, with fast and simultaneous resolution (and pretty animations for those who like them).

In RTwP, there is no global "planning phase" when both the player and the AI make decisions, but these decisions happen at two different discrete scales: a) "how fast can you click" for individual RT orders or alternatively "how fast you can push pause to give multiple orders" to escape the need to click like a maniac for the player b) how ever often the AI is set to "tick". And the AI needs to be set to arbitrary slowness since if the "turns become infinitesimally small" as you put it in another post, the AI will be able to adjust its decisions orders of magnitude faster than any player. Imagine your worst IE kiting and mid-action switching cheese, only with flawless execution. Right.

If they really wanted people who love combat to have the option to play detailed battles while leaving storyfags unhindered, they'd implement either turn-based or phase-based combat and add an auto-battle option. While RTwP is basically starting with auto-battle (just let your AI duke it out with enemy AI while you look at the pretty animations) and adding specific exceptions the players can use when it fails on top. In other words: meh.

 

[Infinitron]

If you set up the Infinity Engine to globally pause every N seconds in combat, it would become phase-based.

Uhm, the thread has moved on but I can't let this one pass: it would most definitely not.

Phase based would require that: a) it's impossible to pause the game outside of the "planning phase" b) it's impossible to control your characters outside of the "planning phase".

You're correct of course - I was oversimplifying.

"how fast can you click" for individual RT orders or alternatively "how fast you can push pause to give multiple orders" to escape the need to click like a maniac for the player

In my experience, this isn't a fair description of how these games actually play in practice.

While RTwP is basically starting with auto-battle (just let your AI duke it out with enemy AI while you look at the pretty animations) and adding specific exceptions the players can use when it fails on top. In other words: meh.

This actually doesn't sound that awful to me. I see myself as the combat manager, not as the actual person doing the fighting.

 

[almondblight]

I enjoy Hearts of Iron and the Total War games. Do I think their system would work well or better than turn-based for an RPG? No.

And do you feel that you need to have good reflexes to play HoI? Now, there may be some reason why RTwP doesn't need sharp reflexes in HoI but would with any RPG. But it's not inherent with RTwP, and unless someone gives a better reason than "they're different genres" I don't see why it should be inherent in RPGs that use RTwP.

Instead of saying combat in the IE games were lacklust so RTwP sucks, we should be seeing what can be implemented by games that did it well. And these are war games, which gave birth to RPG combat. It's not like someone's saying "RT works with racing so let's put it in an RPG!"

 

[ksaun]

Someone needs to incline obsolete chess by making gameplay simultaneous and real-time. Stop to have a think about where you're moving that pawn? Too slow bro, the opponent just nabbed your bishop and put you in check-mate. Guess you should have had your finger on the pause button.

The weird thing is . . . I want to play this realtime chess.

You might find Kung-fu Chess interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung-fu_chess

 

[CMcC]

So he's the Jennifer Hepler of this project (ie "I hate this kind of gameplay but I'm writing this game anyway"). I recall arguing with you about this. Now we see the sexism inherent in the system.

"not thrilled with" =/= "hate"

The IE combat was neither especially fun nor especially challenging. Fixing that is high on our list of design tasks, and Kevin and Adam have some interesting ideas about how to do it.

 

[Kirtai]

Hmm, aren't these arguments about hyper-detailed combat a bit excessive for a style of game where getting into a fight usually means you've failed a save vs stupidity somewhere? How many mandatory fights were there in PS:T? Three?

Of course we want decent combat but it's not so crucial to be the best evar than it would in something combat heavy like P:E or W2. Assuming they don't cock it up of course.

 

[Roguey]

"not thrilled with" =/= "hate"

The IE combat was neither especially fun nor especially challenging. Fixing that is high on our list of design tasks, and Kevin and Adam have some interesting ideas about how to do it.

I'm just goin' by what you're sayin' man, particularly "but I write this off to my predilection for the immediate rush of first-person shooters, and the fact that the AD&D rules are in themselves a shorthand for that immediacy as well. I have always felt that the biggest problem with tabletop gaming is the pure nitpickery of slogging through combat; entire sessions have been wasted on a single battle. Computer gaming should, in theory, create a seamless flow, allowing action to occur naturally and fluidly."

That says to me "I would rather play games like Mass Effect 2 or Deus Ex Human Revolution instead of some boring, slow turn-based slog or anything that makes you command units as more of an indirect observer" Fine with me, just odd that you'd return back to that same style of gameplay instead of say, making a King's Field clone like you were originally assigned to do.

Hmm, aren't these arguments about hyper-detailed combat a bit excessive for a style of game where getting into a fight usually means you've failed a save vs stupidity somewhere? How many mandatory fights were there in PS:T? Three?

Torment had those damn thugs in the hive always trying to get in your business if you got too close to them. The "avoid combat" solution in the majority of scenarios was "run TNO or a stealthed Annah to the exit." I usually didn't, because damnit, when playing a game whose reaction to combat is "Fuck this I'm running to the exit"?

 

[Kirtai]

Torment had those damn thugs in the hive always trying to get in your business if you got too close to them. The "avoid combat" solution in the majority of scenarios was "run TNO or a stealthed Annah to the exit." I usually didn't, because damnit, when playing a game whose reaction to combat is "Fuck this I'm running to the exit"?

Well, I was thinking more of how you could usually talk or think your way past any fights, not by running away from them.

 

[CMcC]

"not thrilled with" =/= "hate"
That says to me "I would rather play games like Mass Effect 2 or Deus Ex Human Revolution instead of some boring, slow turn-based slog or anything that makes you command units as more of an indirect observer" Fine with me, just odd that you'd return back to that same style of gameplay instead of say, making a King's Field clone like you were originally assigned to do.

Not at all. If I'm going to play a game that wants to simulate a fast-moving combat, I want to play a fast-moving combat. If I'm playing a game that wants to simulate the tactical and strategic nature of combat, then I want to play strategy and tactics. IE combat in general, and Torment's combat in particular, didn't seem to know what it wanted to do.

I mean, if you liked PST's combat, more power to you, but we're going to try to make it more fun for the new game and less like a chore. It will be tactically challenging, strategically interesting, and we're looking at quality of combat over quantity. Since Numenera doesn't reward grinding anyway, we want to make sure what combat we have is worthwhile.

 

[hiver]

It will be tactically challenging, strategically interesting, and we're looking at quality of combat over quantity. Since Numenera doesn't reward grinding anyway, we want to make sure what combat we have is worthwhile.

Great to hear this. Especially quality over quantity and no grinding part.

Whatever you guys decide in the end, i think this goal will be best served if combat was relatively rare and special care is given to encounter design. - And consequences of combat affecting the story and solutions to the quests. That is crucial i think.
Thats what i usually miss in RPGs of various kinds. All combat becomes trash mobs grinding.

Also, i notice a lot of people saying "nah dont worry about combat because combat wasnt the point of the original. Just give me a good story!"
Those same people will deride and criticize the game as CYOA adventure later on, as happened with original.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Okay.

I haven't been following this thread, but this reply from the dev is interesting.

Is the combat already known to be TB? Can someone please tell me?

 

[80Maxwell08]

Okay.

I haven't been following this thread, but this reply from the dev is interesting.

Is the combat already known to be TB? Can someone please tell me?

They are still brainstorming ideas for the combat so nothing is set in stone at the moment aside from they want it to be better than Torment's.

 

[80Maxwell08]

Okay.

I haven't been following this thread, but this reply from the dev is interesting.

Is the combat already known to be TB? Can someone please tell me?

They are still brainstorming ideas for the combat so nothing is set in stone at the moment aside from they want it to be better than Torment's.

Thanks.

Well, all that talk about tactical and challenging vs. Fast paced and actiony here seems to be going in the right direction.

If I'm going to play a game that wants to simulate a fast-moving combat, I want to play a fast-moving combat. If I'm playing a game that wants to simulate the tactical and strategic nature of combat, then I want to play strategy and tactics. IE combat in general, and Torment's combat in particular, didn't seem to know what it wanted to do.

This is exactly what I want to hear.

But still without more details one can say little.

Well they aren't even really doing much work at the moment nor will they be for a while. To quote the Wasteland 2 facebook page.

"You might have read the news that we have a pre-production team looking into a Torment game. The link is below for those interested. We are excited to be contemplating a project for the Wasteland 2 team to roll onto AFTER they are done. In the interest of over communicating, we want to make it quite clear that NO production would happen on Torment until after Wasteland 2 is near complete nor would any Wasteland monies be spent on Torment. You have given us a great opportunity to work on Wasteland 2 the way we want and we would never lose sight of that. We are feverishly working on an important update video that show off the HUD, combat, conversation and more."

 

[jewboy]

BG2ToB+SCS2 = detailed strategic combat = fun. Assuming autopause has been set per round. Is it as good as ToEE combat? No, probably not, but it was still damned good. With SCS2 I've had battles last an hour or more. Like that great mage battle at the bottom of Watcher's Keep or the various dragons. I want battles vs interesting foes to last a long time. I'm not looking for twitch popamole combat that is over in the blink of an eye. And it's not just because I have the reflexes of a salted slug. RTwaP when implemented well is like a kind of psuedo-TB.

 

[mondblut]

*Game is not representative of the genre.

Didn't most wargames use squares? Anyways, you had those, even if they were invisible.

Chainmail is not representative of wargames, but a computer RTS is. Sure thing, mate.

Does that mean you refuse to play any game with a clear objective and prefer Bethesda sandboxes?

Does the fact I don't find ladies over 35 attractive mean I am after boys below 10, by your logic?

Bethesda holds no copyright on having no clear objectives, nor does having no clear objectives expressly require being a closet FPS.

But Darklands indeed cockslaps all over the IE games, if that's what you're asking.

A genre focused on finding one true solution to one inescapable problem is lame.

Yeah, like chess.

Chess does have that puzzle vibe I find abhorrent, since past the opening, at any given time only a select few options are viable, not to mention the movement rules are retarded.

 

[St. Toxic]

Chainmail is not representative of wargames, but a computer RTS is. Sure thing, mate.

It doesn't represent the majority of the genre. It's certainly not representative of any wargames I've ever played.

Does the fact I don't find ladies over 35 attractive mean I am after boys below 10, by your logic?

You don't find ladies over 35 attractive? Then you probably are a faggot, no offense. Other than that, sure, if you specifically dislike games with clear objectives, you ultimately dislike being challenged or engaged, so you'd probably feel more at home with a hiking simulator. You certainly shouldn't be playing wargames.

But Darklands indeed cockslaps all over the IE games, if that's what you're asking.

I killed Baphomet though. Y'know, that game is pretty linear.

Chess does have that puzzle vibe I find abhorrent, since past the opening, at any given time only a select few options are viable, not to mention the movement rules are retarded.

That's the thing with challenge, knowing which option is the correct one for the situation. The more options you have, the greater the challenge, as each one inevitably leads you down a specific path which may not be the path to victory, but eventually you're either painted into a corner or have the jump on your opponent and it's down to binary choices. Wargames are bastard children of chess, sharing the same basic rulesets and mentality. Crpg's are not, they're more about individual journeys and the reasons behind them, than they are about conquest. For that, you got strategy games.

 

[Zakhad]

Does the fact I don't find ladies over 35 attractive mean I am after boys below 10, by your logic?

No, it implies you're either pretty young, or... a bit of a weirdo, actually.

You know, that was a pretty strange analogy all round, come to think of it. Maybe providing us with less of a vision into the darker regions of your psyche would be preferable in future.