Game News Torment: Tides of Numenera announced for PS4 and Xbox One, gets new trailer

[iZerw]

Thank God I never wait for something positive in my life since Fallout 3.

 

[Naveen]

*Hmm, I have not followed this game, but let's watch the trailer anyway*

-Those are some weird hairstyles. Ah, shit, it's Numenera.
- Epic trailer music. Well, OK, that's something to be expected these days.
-"I believe there's something special here, something unusual, something different." That's a special, unusual, and different piece of non-information, thanks.
-"It's bloody well-written." POLYGON



Consolization may be something to be afraid, but you should be terrified of Polygon endorsing the writing of this game.

-Balls of light, balls of light everywhere.


-"And find YOUR answer to the ultimate question: What does one life matter?" That's the ULTIMATE question? Meh, sounds pretentious and boring, the answer is probably just the number of people you end up offing so whatever. "What can change the nature of a man" was better.

Looks nice, though, I guess I'll play it in 10 years or so.

 

[Latelistener]

Is Brian Fargo immortal?

 

[AwesomeButton]

I'm as close to an authority as someone can be really, excluding john carmack I guess. And more honest then someone like carmack would ever publicly be.

I pointed out half a dozen things already but all I need to see is the main interface and you can tell it's shit. Just compare that minimalist bullshit to something like Jagged Alliance 2.

Yawn. Another failed web designer who wrote javascript once joins the ranks of armchair game developers.

 

[Melcar]

I was purposely avoiding news on this game, but oh man. Everything is shit indeed.

 

[Grotesque]

 

[Excidium II]

Now anything that sucks on tworment will be excused by "because consoles".

Wasteland 2 had a PC-only launch and sucked just fine. Sure, it's a different team and different style of game, but I doubt that if anything in Tworment ends up shit it will be because of cuntsoles.

 

[jungl]

the reason why they make it for consoles is because sony and microsoft pay big bucks for developers to make games on their consoles. Modern consoles are completely irrelevant and not a excuse if the game sucks because they can play isometric baby shit graphics just fine.

 

[Azrael the cat]

*Hmm, I have not followed this game, but let's watch the trailer anyway*

-Those are some weird hairstyles. Ah, shit, it's Numenera.
- Epic trailer music. Well, OK, that's something to be expected these days.
-"I believe there's something special here, something unusual, something different." That's a special, unusual, and different piece of non-information, thanks.
-"It's bloody well-written." POLYGON



Consolization may be something to be afraid, but you should be terrified of Polygon endorsing the writing of this game.

-Balls of light, balls of light everywhere.


-"And find YOUR answer to the ultimate question: What does one life matter?" That's the ULTIMATE question? Meh, sounds pretentious and boring, the answer is probably just the number of people you end up offing so whatever. "What can change the nature of a man" was better.

Looks nice, though, I guess I'll play it in 10 years or so.

I can see it being interesting from the right angle. Like: compare the answer you give if it's someone else's life, then you want to be a good person so you admit that you should be treated equally, then does it matter if you're the unwilling sacrificial lamb.

But still, the classics are the best, and surprisingly untapped in gaming.

Take one that every first year philosophy student has heard. There's a bunch of kids in the way of a rail car. You're the driver, and you can switch tracks to one where there's only one innocent kid in the way. Easy fucking decision, right? 3 lives vs 1, simple as you can get.

Now, let's say you're not the driver, but a horrified observer looking on from a bridge directly above. The system is automated, so there's no way of changing tracks and saving the 3 kids....except that standing next to you is another horrified onlooker, who happens to be very fat. Fat enough to stop the railcar in it's tracks. And he's leaning over the edge in horror - everyone is looking at the 3 kids, so nobody is going to notice if you push the guy off the bridge into the path of the rail car.

Still as easy? Most people answer no...but 3 lives v 1, isn't that supposed to be an easy decision, wasn't that what we thought in the first version, right?

Let's take another version (my preferred pair of examples). You're a doctor working in emergency, and 5 horribly injured people get rushed in to the ER from a horrific rail-car accident. 1 of them can be saved without any organ transplants, but it's going to take your undivided attention for 12 hours. The other 4 can all be saved in that time, but they each need a healthy organ that the first guy has. Easy decision, right? In fact, it's how every hospital operates - normal triage procedure, you prioritise the 4 lives over the 1.

Now let's say that there's those same 4 people who can be saved but only with organ transplants. The hospital is clean out, there's been a wave of nutjobs pushing fat people in front of railcars, and it's taken up all the available organ transplant resources. In the waiting room is a perfectly healthy guy who has just come in for a check-up. Probably the healthiest guy you've met...his organs are likely to be in mint condition. And he's nodded off to sleep while waiting, he won't even notice if you creep up behind him and jab him with a needle....

4 lives v 1, just like before. Easy decision, right? Right?

There's been countless books and movies based on this very paradox. Yet I can't think of a single game that's used it. And it's one that's far better suited to gaming, where you have to make the calls, and there's no deus ex machina on hand to magically allow you to save everyone.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Fargo keen to hear this feedback in person:

 

[Parabalus]

They went full Bioware.

 

[a mod]

I can see it being interesting from the right angle. Like: compare the answer you give if it's someone else's life, then you want to be a good person so you admit that you should be treated equally, then does it matter if you're the unwilling sacrificial lamb.

But still, the classics are the best, and surprisingly untapped in gaming.

Take one that every first year philosophy student has heard. There's a bunch of kids in the way of a rail car. You're the driver, and you can switch tracks to one where there's only one innocent kid in the way. Easy fucking decision, right? 3 lives vs 1, simple as you can get.

Now, let's say you're not the driver, but a horrified observer looking on from a bridge directly above. The system is automated, so there's no way of changing tracks and saving the 3 kids....except that standing next to you is another horrified onlooker, who happens to be very fat. Fat enough to stop the railcar in it's tracks. And he's leaning over the edge in horror - everyone is looking at the 3 kids, so nobody is going to notice if you push the guy off the bridge into the path of the rail car.

Still as easy? Most people answer no...but 3 lives v 1, isn't that supposed to be an easy decision, wasn't that what we thought in the first version, right?

Let's take another version (my preferred pair of examples). You're a doctor working in emergency, and 5 horribly injured people get rushed in to the ER from a horrific rail-car accident. 1 of them can be saved without any organ transplants, but it's going to take your undivided attention for 12 hours. The other 4 can all be saved in that time, but they each need a healthy organ that the first guy has. Easy decision, right? In fact, it's how every hospital operates - normal triage procedure, you prioritise the 4 lives over the 1.

Now let's say that there's those same 4 people who can be saved but only with organ transplants. The hospital is clean out, there's been a wave of nutjobs pushing fat people in front of railcars, and it's taken up all the available organ transplant resources. In the waiting room is a perfectly healthy guy who has just come in for a check-up. Probably the healthiest guy you've met...his organs are likely to be in mint condition. And he's nodded off to sleep while waiting, he won't even notice if you creep up behind him and jab him with a needle....

4 lives v 1, just like before. Easy decision, right? Right?

There's been countless books and movies based on this very paradox. Yet I can't think of a single game that's used it. And it's one that's far better suited to gaming, where you have to make the calls, and there's no deus ex machina on hand to magically allow you to save everyone.

This is what we get for taking sartre antiphilosophy seriously. Only in liblol 'morality' can you trade the life of one person for others. The fat guy didn't get on the tracks, and the other kid only got onto the tracks while they were safe. Fuck those other kids, they are probably cunts anyway and they may even have got on the tracks just to force you into such an action for all we know. And if you did do either of these things then you would be going to jail.

 

[Bumvelcrow]

Fargo keen to hear this feedback in person:

Any Codexers stopping by for a chat?

 

[Neanderthal]

I can see it being interesting from the right angle. Like: compare the answer you give if it's someone else's life, then you want to be a good person so you admit that you should be treated equally, then does it matter if you're the unwilling sacrificial lamb.

But still, the classics are the best, and surprisingly untapped in gaming.

Take one that every first year philosophy student has heard. There's a bunch of kids in the way of a rail car. You're the driver, and you can switch tracks to one where there's only one innocent kid in the way. Easy fucking decision, right? 3 lives vs 1, simple as you can get.

Now, let's say you're not the driver, but a horrified observer looking on from a bridge directly above. The system is automated, so there's no way of changing tracks and saving the 3 kids....except that standing next to you is another horrified onlooker, who happens to be very fat. Fat enough to stop the railcar in it's tracks. And he's leaning over the edge in horror - everyone is looking at the 3 kids, so nobody is going to notice if you push the guy off the bridge into the path of the rail car.

Still as easy? Most people answer no...but 3 lives v 1, isn't that supposed to be an easy decision, wasn't that what we thought in the first version, right?

Let's take another version (my preferred pair of examples). You're a doctor working in emergency, and 5 horribly injured people get rushed in to the ER from a horrific rail-car accident. 1 of them can be saved without any organ transplants, but it's going to take your undivided attention for 12 hours. The other 4 can all be saved in that time, but they each need a healthy organ that the first guy has. Easy decision, right? In fact, it's how every hospital operates - normal triage procedure, you prioritise the 4 lives over the 1.

Now let's say that there's those same 4 people who can be saved but only with organ transplants. The hospital is clean out, there's been a wave of nutjobs pushing fat people in front of railcars, and it's taken up all the available organ transplant resources. In the waiting room is a perfectly healthy guy who has just come in for a check-up. Probably the healthiest guy you've met...his organs are likely to be in mint condition. And he's nodded off to sleep while waiting, he won't even notice if you creep up behind him and jab him with a needle....

4 lives v 1, just like before. Easy decision, right? Right?

There's been countless books and movies based on this very paradox. Yet I can't think of a single game that's used it. And it's one that's far better suited to gaming, where you have to make the calls, and there's no deus ex machina on hand to magically allow you to save everyone.

Divine Divinity plague quest, 3 infected, 2 potions of curing. Sounds similar.

Oh one o infected is the spoiled brat of a filthy rich powerful noble, still doesn't really carry it through.

 

[Lurker King]

"And find YOUR answer to the ultimate question: What does one life matter?" That's the ULTIMATE question? Meh, sounds pretentious and boring, the answer is probably just the number of people you end up offing so whatever. "What can change the nature of a man" was better.

I can see it being interesting from the right angle. (...) Take one that every first year philosophy student has heard. There's a bunch of kids in the way of a rail car. You're the driver, and you can switch tracks to one where there's only one innocent kid in the way. Easy fucking decision, right? 3 lives vs 1, simple as you can get.

The connection with the Trolley dilemma is just indirect, though. There is a serious philosophical discussion specifically about the meaning of life that has nothing to do with the popular imaginary about this topic, i.e., Dalai Lama's empty gibberish or a mysterious unanswerable question. This discussion is also more sophisticated than PS:T superficial remarks about human nature. See this and this.

 

[Grotesque]

Fargo's attire for such event

 

[ArchAngel]

*Hmm, I have not followed this game, but let's watch the trailer anyway*

-Those are some weird hairstyles. Ah, shit, it's Numenera.
- Epic trailer music. Well, OK, that's something to be expected these days.
-"I believe there's something special here, something unusual, something different." That's a special, unusual, and different piece of non-information, thanks.
-"It's bloody well-written." POLYGON



Consolization may be something to be afraid, but you should be terrified of Polygon endorsing the writing of this game.

-Balls of light, balls of light everywhere.


-"And find YOUR answer to the ultimate question: What does one life matter?" That's the ULTIMATE question? Meh, sounds pretentious and boring, the answer is probably just the number of people you end up offing so whatever. "What can change the nature of a man" was better.

Looks nice, though, I guess I'll play it in 10 years or so.

I can see it being interesting from the right angle. Like: compare the answer you give if it's someone else's life, then you want to be a good person so you admit that you should be treated equally, then does it matter if you're the unwilling sacrificial lamb.

But still, the classics are the best, and surprisingly untapped in gaming.

Take one that every first year philosophy student has heard. There's a bunch of kids in the way of a rail car. You're the driver, and you can switch tracks to one where there's only one innocent kid in the way. Easy fucking decision, right? 3 lives vs 1, simple as you can get.

Now, let's say you're not the driver, but a horrified observer looking on from a bridge directly above. The system is automated, so there's no way of changing tracks and saving the 3 kids....except that standing next to you is another horrified onlooker, who happens to be very fat. Fat enough to stop the railcar in it's tracks. And he's leaning over the edge in horror - everyone is looking at the 3 kids, so nobody is going to notice if you push the guy off the bridge into the path of the rail car.

Still as easy? Most people answer no...but 3 lives v 1, isn't that supposed to be an easy decision, wasn't that what we thought in the first version, right?

Let's take another version (my preferred pair of examples). You're a doctor working in emergency, and 5 horribly injured people get rushed in to the ER from a horrific rail-car accident. 1 of them can be saved without any organ transplants, but it's going to take your undivided attention for 12 hours. The other 4 can all be saved in that time, but they each need a healthy organ that the first guy has. Easy decision, right? In fact, it's how every hospital operates - normal triage procedure, you prioritise the 4 lives over the 1.

Now let's say that there's those same 4 people who can be saved but only with organ transplants. The hospital is clean out, there's been a wave of nutjobs pushing fat people in front of railcars, and it's taken up all the available organ transplant resources. In the waiting room is a perfectly healthy guy who has just come in for a check-up. Probably the healthiest guy you've met...his organs are likely to be in mint condition. And he's nodded off to sleep while waiting, he won't even notice if you creep up behind him and jab him with a needle....

4 lives v 1, just like before. Easy decision, right? Right?

There's been countless books and movies based on this very paradox. Yet I can't think of a single game that's used it. And it's one that's far better suited to gaming, where you have to make the calls, and there's no deus ex machina on hand to magically allow you to save everyone.

This is not how this works. Number is not only value, neither is age. Maybe the fat guy is a genius level doctor that will find a cure for cancer and 3 kids will blowing themselves up while screaming Allah Akbar.
There is a reason it is not allowed in any civilised country do sacrifice people without them deciding to do that themselves.

 

[a mod]

Fat guy's life is his own. I can't just off (((Crispy))) just because he is a sad virgin and I can sell off his stuff and support 60 african children for a decade lol

Logic and morality, how the fuck they work?

Also, they don't mention the race of the people involved so the 'greater good' equation is asolvent anyway.

 

[Excidium II]

It's missing the 3rd option of recording and posting on liveleak.

 

[Fenix]

Take one that every first year philosophy student has heard.

Dunno what is taught at the philosophical faculty, in case fat guy who you can push under car, the outcome is - instead of accident a murder happened, that's all.
Also I would be really glad to hear more about medic ethic if you don't mind, just want to know what depths of decline reached modern medicine.

You're a doctor working in emergency, and 5 horribly injured people get rushed in to the ER from a horrific rail-car accident. 1 of them can be saved without any organ transplants, but it's going to take your undivided attention for 12 hours. The other 4 can all be saved in that time, but they each need a healthy organ that the first guy has. In fact, it's how every hospital operates - normal triage procedure, you prioritise the 4 lives over the 1.

I mean this part.

 

[cherry blossom]

What if the fat guy is a filthy rich philanthropist who donates huge amounts to charities, helping save innumerable lives? Or what if one of those three kids grow up to be a serial killer or a human trafficker, another a rapist father and the third a corrupt politician who takes money from militiary corporations to help them have their way, spreading death and misery around the world? What if the reason all the kids are one the tracks is because the three of them are out to rape the single one?

 

[Fenix]

rapist father

Why it is always that? For variety reason, for example you could say "rapist mother".

 

[Viata]

 

[a mod]

Plz dont push the fat man on me, I will get off the tracks sir.

Just imagine azrael pushes the fat man and his bulk kills all three of us, At the same time infinitron switches tracks and hits the other passenger. Then azrael jumps off the bridge out of guilt.

Everyone dead now. Oops sozzy.

 

[prodigydancer]

https://forums.inxile-entertainment.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=15950&p=174354#p174354

Note how sea completely dodged the tough question about backers' money subsidizing the console port development. And inXile fanboys still say "Fargo didn't lie." Well, lying isn't necessarily saying 2x2=5, kids. Lying is also deliberately withholding critically important information that could significantly change the attitude of the audience. I wonder how many people would still give Fargo their money if he honestly said in the KS pitch: "we're going to spend it on making a console port, bitchez."