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

[Harold]

The areas I did included Smoldering Corpse bar and its attendant quests and dialogues

Area with lots of infodump about plane-travel. I suppose it was necessary. The two baatezu were cool.

Many-As-One and the Warrens of Thought

Cool idea but horrible execution. Combat slog through dozens of bipedal rats. Very little detail/dialogue to make me want to side with the Many against the undead.

the Great Foundry

Ok, but again the actual quest content for that area was surpisingly banal compared to the rest of the game. Redeemed by the fact that the Godsmen were working on a war machine for the baatezu, but that plot-line didn't go anywhere.

some of the Lower Ward

Can't comment without specifics.

Lothar and the Bones of the Night

The single moment that totally pulled me out of the game. So, the player needs to be told about Ravel holding the key to his mortality. Of all the ways this could be accomplished, he went with an all-powerful unkillable npc that can also kill TNO, and the plot would not progress until you paid him a visit. Why would I care to do that? Because he sends rats to kidnap Morte? What if my TNO doesn't care about Morte?

Many-As-One

He was't that great as to warrant a repeat mention, you know.

Curst

By far the worst area of the game on all levels. Little to no opportunities for role-playing and the attempt to give it the atmosphere of a town of betrayers was laughable. You were repeatedly told by its residents that they are a town of betrayers, but the way this played out in quests was linear and dumb. You could also (accidentally) skip all of it by sliding down a poorly hidden hole, thus ruining the town's thematic relevance when you revisit it and are supposed to take it out of Carceri.

Under Curst

Horrible combat slog.

(and certain dialogue nodes with Vhailor)

???

Carceri

Horrible. You are either forced to role-play as a paladin and stop the chaos and evil, regardless of how you played thus far or, if you don't care about the town, go straight after Trias and lose a buttload of xp. Yay for punishing role-play. Also, iwhy does the town slide back regardless of whether you chose to end the chaos or just go after Trias.

Trias the Betrayer

Again, cool idea, sloppy execution. Voice actor made him seem a lot cooler than he was.

Fhjull Forked-Tongue

Genuinely cool character. Should've had the plot revolve more around him after Ravel instead of the Curst/Carceri crap.

I helped smooth out certain kinks in the flow of the game

By adding some combat slog areas, amirite?

and suggested some of the chaos that might ensue when Curst shifted into Carceri and helped design the mechanic that would allow the player to return the city to the Outlands.

That mechanic being suddenly having to role-play as a paladin?

I think I did some other stuff too.

I sure fucking hope so.

I'm willing to shrug all this aside as being the inexperince of the time, but how is writing a bunch of fantasy novels since then (no, I'm not gonna read them) supposed to convince me the dude now knows how to write & design a game that thematically will resemble PST? What's to make me expect anything different from the things above, which, with very few exceptions, were the worst parts of PST?

 

[tuluse]

Many-As-One and the Warrens of Thought

Cool idea but horrible execution. Combat slog through dozens of bipedal rats. Very little detail/dialogue to make me want to side with the Many against the undead.

I thought that was sort of the point. The living creatures were so alien that you would choose to side with the undead over them.

 

[Harold]

Many-As-One and the Warrens of Thought

Cool idea but horrible execution. Combat slog through dozens of bipedal rats. Very little detail/dialogue to make me want to side with the Many against the undead.

I thought that was sort of the point. The living creatures were so alien that you would choose to side with the undead over them.

They're rats that cast magic missile. On a blank slate, I should be as likely to empathise with them as with a city of undead. Why not make it fair game? I believe the reason is far more likely lack of ideas/time resulting in 'Fuck it! We'll just make it another combat area.'

 

[Grunker]

Again, you don't understand Roguey's point. Performance and experience doesn't matter. What works and what doesn't work is irrelevant. What is relevant is what hypothetical arguments makes sense for Rogeuy, and what they mean for the real world.

I don't think this is a fair characterization. I think 3E is a huge improvement over AD&D, but what Roguey identifies as flaws are real; there are plenty of sub-par options which can only be known to be sub-par through mastery of the system.

Roguey calls the system shit and hates it. Not a system with flaws, not a system with some problems. Shit. As proof, Roguey points to highly hypothetical arguments and cannot point to anything not shit.

My assesment isn't hyperbole, it's a fair characterization.

 

[Aeschylus]

If every choice in a system is equally good for everybody, what is the point of having a choice at all?

 

[Moribund]

Jumpin Jehovah, Harold. I can't believe I get called a troll by tards like infinitron but no one steps up to defend against retarded nitpicking like that. Looks like he had a very deep involvement with torment, and nothing in there was something anyone who isn't anal retentive would complain about.

Curst was good area, too. It's not his fault the idiots who made IE thought it would be nifty to control a full party using rtwp.

 

[Infinitron]

If every choice in a system is equally good for everybody, what is the point of having a choice at all?

Choices don't have to be equally good. Or rather, they don't have to be equally good for all purposes.

See, when you phrase it like that, you're oversimplifying what's really a much more complex system. Some choice made in an RPG might be better compared to another choice, for a player who likes to play a certain way, or if he's building a certain type of character, or something like that. That's true even if under some particular measure, all of the choices are "equally" useful.

tl;dr "Equal" doesn't mean much when you're talking about making choices in a very complex system. All choices should be useful. "Equality" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[SCO]

Opportunity to make combat good by reusing and tweaking existing TB combat engine: fail.

ALSO A SMALL NOTE TO THE PEOPLE SAYING A STORY GAME DOESN'T NEED ELABORATE COMBAT: RTWP SYSTEMS ARE FASTER THAN TB ONES. UNSURPRISINGLY, RTWP GAMES TEND TO HAVE A SHITLOAD OF COMBAT - I KNOW CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION*, AND THE REAL REASON IS THAT TORMENT USED THE IE AND THIS IS HOPING TO CASH IN BUT FUCK IF I WILL ACCEPT THAT HANDCRAFTED FEWER, BUT MORE DETAILED COMBAT ENCOUNTERS HAVE NO PLACE IN A STORYFAG GAME.

*Wiz 8 or Eador prove it.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

If every choice in a system is equally good for everybody, what is the point of having a choice at all?

I think the distinction is between choices that are sub-optimal in some contexts and useful in others (weapon focus for a mage), vs options that are simply sub-par all around and included for the purpose of rewarding system mastery (i.e., n00b traps).

ETA:what Infinitron said.

 

[ghostdog]

Anyway, aspie discussion aside, they obviously used the Torment license to create buzz for the game. This could backfire if they go for "hey gais we're making a direct sequel to PST", but if they stay to the "spiritual successor to Torment" line of thought, I'm fine with it. Especially when some of the original developers/writers are tyaking place, even if divineMCA(c) doesn't seem to want be part of it. I just hope they leave poor old TNO in peace down in the nine hells, at least as a protagonist. I wouldn't mind some references to him and other PST characters, like Ravel.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Considering the completely different setting references wouldn't make much sense. Maybe as easter eggs, or something vague, not direct references.

 

[SCO]

Many-As-One and the Warrens of Thought

Cool idea but horrible execution. Combat slog through dozens of bipedal rats. Very little detail/dialogue to make me want to side with the Many against the undead.

I thought that was sort of the point. The living creatures were so alien that you would choose to side with the undead over them.

They're rats that cast magic missile. On a blank slate, I should be as likely to empathise with them as with a city of undead. Why not make it fair game? I believe the reason is far more likely lack of ideas/time resulting in 'Fuck it! We'll just make it another combat area.'

The warrens of thought were not just a combat area. You could side with them against the necro, or if you played your cards right. There was some sort of unfinished content feel there (the wererat guard that wanted skulls, and the rat diplomacy on the MaO chamber).
Not quite sure if there is a way to prevent MaO betraying you at the end of the questline (had the idea it was possible i think).

 

[Aeschylus]

See, when you phrase it like that, you're oversimplifying what's really a much more complex system. Some choice made in an RPG might be better compared to another choice, for a player who likes to play a certain way, or if he's building a certain type of character, or something like that. That's true even if under some particular measure, all of the choices are "equally" useful.

tl;dr "Equal" doesn't mean much when you're talking about making choices in a very complex system. All choices should be useful. "Equality" is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, it was something of a devil's advocate argument in the context of the conversation. Not entirely though. Are choices that are entirely sub-optimal bad game design as a matter of course (simple 'noob traps', as Harg put it), or are they an extension of the complexity of the character creation process?

On one hand, I agree that the idea of 'system mastery' being desirable is not a great one. It leads to a lot of infuriating people who want nothing more than to munchkin-ize everything and play the perfect character within the system. But at the same time, if those sub-optimal choices are not there at all (and this is just my own opinion, not some sort of great truth of game design) then a system loses some of its depth and luster. To use Monte Cook's own example, just because toughness is never the best feat to take, should I be precluded from taking it at all if I *want* to make a character that is sub-optimal in some ways?

Maybe this is just my P&P background, but I don't derive as much fun from creating the perfect character as I do from creating a (potentially flawed) character concept and running with it. A system in which there is no potential for sub-optimal choices -- intentional or not -- feels like a boring one to me.

 

[Infinitron]

See, when you phrase it like that, you're oversimplifying what's really a much more complex system. Some choice made in an RPG might be better compared to another choice, for a player who likes to play a certain way, or if he's building a certain type of character, or something like that. That's true even if under some particular measure, all of the choices are "equally" useful.

tl;dr "Equal" doesn't mean much when you're talking about making choices in a very complex system. All choices should be useful. "Equality" is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, it was something of a devil's advocate argument in the context of the conversation. Not entirely though. Are choices that are entirely sub-optimal bad game design as a matter of course (simple 'noob traps', as Harg put it), or are they an extension of the complexity of the character creation process?

On one hand, I agree that the idea of 'system mastery' being desirable is not a great one. It leads to a lot of infuriating people who want nothing more than to munchkin-ize everything and play the perfect character within the system. But at the same time, if those sub-optimal choices are not there at all (and this is just my own opinion, not some sort of great truth of game design) then a system loses some of its depth and luster. To use Monte Cook's own example, just because toughness is never the best feat to take, should I be precluded from taking it at all if I *want* to make a character that is sub-optimal in some ways?

Maybe this is just my P&P background, but I don't derive as much fun from creating the perfect character as I do from creating a (potentially flawed) character concept and running with it. A system in which there is no potential for sub-optimal choices -- intentional or not -- feels like a boring one to me.

Well, personally I would argue that toughness isn't entirely sub-optimal in the way Monte describes. What if you NEED that extra boost of hit points now for a tough fight?

On the other hand, the "long swords are teh best" thing can get kind of lame. Can that be justified, too?

 

[Harold]

Many-As-One and the Warrens of Thought

Cool idea but horrible execution. Combat slog through dozens of bipedal rats. Very little detail/dialogue to make me want to side with the Many against the undead.

I thought that was sort of the point. The living creatures were so alien that you would choose to side with the undead over them.

They're rats that cast magic missile. On a blank slate, I should be as likely to empathise with them as with a city of undead. Why not make it fair game? I believe the reason is far more likely lack of ideas/time resulting in 'Fuck it! We'll just make it another combat area.'

The warrens of thought were not just a combat area. You could side with them against the necro, or if you played your cards right. There was some sort of unfinished content feel there (the wererat guard that wanted skulls, and the rat diplomacy on the MaO chamber).
Not quite sure if there is a way to prevent MaO betraying you at the end of the questline (had the idea it was possible i think).

There is, if you do what he says and avoid killing (m)any rats, he'll just let you be on your merry way. That's not my point though. There's little reason for the player to chose the rats over the undead, the rat society isn't fleshed out at all so for most players it is just another combat area. The thing is, that seems to be the case with most of the areas McComb designed: cool in theory, poorly or not fleshed out at all.
And if MCA ruined his health during development to add substance to the areas he designed, then so could McComb.

 

[ghostdog]

Considering the completely different setting references wouldn't make much sense. Maybe as easter eggs, or something vague, not direct references.

Yeah I was thinking about something like an NPC that *could* be a Ravel incarnation, but with no actual reference to her name and history.

 

[Lancehead]

They could also do something like the Worthless Mutt in Arcanum.

 

[Roguey]

Do you think it is more, less, or equal shit to previous editions?

Overall roughly the same. The only good things about D&D are the monsterz and the spellz. Everything else can go straight into the rubbish bin and Project Eternity will very likely prove this.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Why does this forum defend D&D so much. I do not understand it.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Do you think it is more, less, or equal shit to previous editions?

Overall roughly the same. The only good things about D&D are the monsterz and the spellz. Everything else can go straight into the rubbish bin and Project Eternity will very likely prove this.

With its Human/Elves/Dwarves/Orcs/Halflings and planetouched races.

Sure.

 

[St. Toxic]

Maybe this is just my P&P background, but I don't derive as much fun from creating the perfect character as I do from creating a (potentially flawed) character concept and running with it. A system in which there is no potential for sub-optimal choices -- intentional or not -- feels like a boring one to me.

Might be because balance tends to reduce content and even complexity, albeit we're talking about complexity that can be circumvented with basic meta knowledge, without ever actually fixing the problem.

With years upon years of extensive player-testing, competitive multiplayer-games continue their never-ending quest of making every available tactic as viable as another. It makes sense in a scenario like that though; we're talking about humans matching their twitchy trigger-fingers, tactical know-how and killer instincts (and, ultimately, system mastery) against other humans, which demands fair play to mean anything. Put them up against an AI, though, even a comparatively brilliant one, and the staleness of such a system becomes blatantly apparent. I mean, as long as you know what you're doing and are reasonably good at it, the challenge and the fun that (for some people) comes with challenge starts disintegrating.

But maybe that's just me. If I'm designing a game, I'm pitting my wits against whoever has the courage to play it, right? The AI is one of the tools at my disposal, naturally, but frankly it's as blunt now as it was 10 or 15 years ago. That means pitfalls, that means tricking the player into making mistakes, making suboptimal choices, moving the platforms around in a way that the player won't expect -- scripting fiendish devices to demoralize and defeat my opponent, locking doors and hiding keys in hard to reach places.

And sure, encounter design plays a major role, NPC's sending you on potentially lethal wild goose chases/ stabbing you in the back, etc etc -- every aspect of the game is (or at least should be) geared towards screwing you over, making you go back to the drawing board, forcing you to linger and gather your strength before you attempt a challenge again. So, why not character systems? We know there's going to be a setup in the meta that casts a long shadow on the other 'viable' options, which is almost the same thing -- why not purposefully add options which should, if you want to stay ahead of the game, be avoided entirely? Options that seem viable when in actuality they're little more than quirky gimps, perhaps picking up steam during the late-game once the player decidedly abandons them in favor of something more effective (for the added rage-inducement) as the previously effective options start to scale off and become useless.

There's always the option of caving in and reading a fucking walkthrough, as almondblight was complaining he had to do with Fallout, if all you care about is beating the game with the least amount of hassle (and by grinding quests so that you're always maxed out). Isn't that a fair price to pay for the sake of all those who want to see if they can pull a fast one on the DM, who never plays fair, using nothing but their God-given streetsmarts?

 

[Jasede]

Don't really care about this game until I see some writing.

 

[evdk]

Do you think it is more, less, or equal shit to previous editions?

Overall roughly the same. The only good things about D&D are the monsterz and the spellz. Everything else can go straight into the rubbish bin and Project Eternity will very likely prove this.

Jesus Christ, Roguey, I actually have a degree of trust in Josh, although I keep bitching about some of his irritatingly gamist design decisions, but to put him forth as a person that will show Gygax and his descendants how to do it right for a change is presumptuous to the extreme.

 

[almondblight]

There's always the option of caving in and reading a fucking walkthrough, as almondblight was complaining he had to do with Fallout...

No. You were talking about what the creators of Fallout intended without giving any evidence, so I pointed out a walkthrough written by Tim Cain that contradicted that. Your response was "LOL you use walkthroughs."

Learn. To. Read.

 

[Roguey]

Jesus Christ, Roguey, I actually have a degree of trust in Josh, although I keep bitching about some of his irritatingly gamist design decisions, but to put him forth as a person that will show Gygax and his descendants how to do it right for a change is presumptuous to the extreme.

Check the quotez in my sig.