Torment Torment: Tides of Numenera Pre-Release Thread [ALPHA RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Roguey]

After playing ToEE I wished that all the IE games could have been converted into that rule set with those mechanics.

That thought never occurred to me. Oh man. That would be amazing.

No it wouldn't. You'd have to change the encounters so much it'd be like playing a different game.

 

[Delterius]

After playing ToEE I wished that all the IE games could have been converted into that rule set with those mechanics.

That thought never occurred to me. Oh man. That would be amazing.

No it wouldn't. You'd have to change the encounters so much it'd be like playing a different game.

And, apparently, this is necessarily bad.

 

[Roguey]

And, apparently, this is necessarily bad.

These games would be better if they were [entirely different and more suited to my tastes].

You. don't. say.

 

[Delterius]

And, apparently, this is necessarily bad.

These games would be better if they were [entirely different and more suited to my tastes].

You. don't. say.

I don't quite understand what you wish to accomplish by repeating what he said in a different manner. Indeed, he displayed a specific taste in ToEE's implementation of a ruleset and would like to see it implemented in the IE games. Nothing particularly disingenious there.

As someone who couldn't stomach Hommlet, I can't really comment on the quality of his sentiment. But I don't think that there's anything particularly bad in changing one aspect of a game's design when you've already gone and changed its most fundamental superficial quality, from a RTwP to a TB game. Still, as far as encounter design goes, I'd say that at least BG1 could use a overhaul as it is. There are too few interesting encounters in that game. BG2 on the other hand, I'm quite satisfied with the way it is.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Jeez, get over Hommlet and play the game. Or start with an evil party. Do you even start in Hommlet with an evil party?

 

[hoverdog]

Check it out:

You can pause the game in TB combat, too. The difference is it's non interactive.

In TB, there's a different metaphysic. The narrative doesn't explain that. Inconsistency. Hence, problem.

Pausing, going to your Settings menu (which also pauses the game), selecting something in your inventory (also pauses), a dialogue system (pauses) -- these are all normal gaming interfaces for the player to control things. Aside from dialogue, they are not part of the narrative.

Showing a character in a level in real time exploration, and then showing that same character in the same level in turn based combat, is the problem. Both Exploration and Combat are part of the narrative.

Learning how to exploit a game system is learning how to beat a game. We could say the same of min/maxing in any RPG rule set.

A spiritual sequel should improve it: but that doesn't mean replacing anything. Plenty of people were expecting the same type of game play from P:T. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

Combat is avoidable in P:T...so? I've never avoided combat. I wanted TNO to be in combat, to see what he and his party could do. He was one of the most powerful humans in existence, and his incarnations spanned the ages. Near the end of the game his END healing was akin to Wolverine. He was more of a force than a person at that point. What would be the point of having an inventory screen, and stats, and spells, if you're not going to see them in action? And why would a player run away from 10 bats or so? Is TNO scared of bats? Or gods, or his mortality for that matter?

Combat was part of the game, even if a minor point. And it had problems. But it didn't need to be replaced just because Mr. Cook had a new setting and rule set

 

[Delterius]

Jeez, get over Hommlet and play the game. Or start with an evil party. Do you even start in Hommlet with an evil party?

I've been considering restarting the game with an evil party just to kill everyone in Hommlet. So I dearly hope so.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I can't wait to see the horror of the TB crowd when they'll see shit combat and will realise that now they will have to endure every fucking turn of it.

I hope it will be Septerra Core level of bad :D .

 

[hoverdog]

Jeez, get over Hommlet and play the game. Or start with an evil party. Do you even start in Hommlet with an evil party?

Evil party's beginning is p. much the same as any others.

However, with Circle of Eight's New Content, it's perfectly feasible to avoid fetch bonanza altogether.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Curious. I was under the impression that you start at the Temple. Or you just get there faster?

 

[Roguey]

You can just use the console to cheat everyone to level 2 and go straight to the moathouse.

I don't quite understand what you wish to accomplish by repeating what he said in a different manner. Indeed, he displayed a specific taste in ToEE's implementation of a ruleset and would like to see it implemented in the IE games. Nothing particularly disingenious there.

As someone who couldn't stomach Hommlet, I can't really comment on the quality of his sentiment. But I don't think that there's anything particularly bad in changing one aspect of a game's design when you've already gone and changed its most fundamental superficial quality, from a RTwP to a TB game. Still, as far as encounter design goes, I'd say that at least BG1 could use a overhaul as it is. There are too few interesting encounters in that game. BG2 on the other hand, I'm quite satisfied with the way it is.

If you ported BG 1/2 or IWD 1/2 content into ToEE's engine it wouldn't be very fun. The content of those games weren't created/designed/playtested/tuned for that kind of system.

Here's a cool thing that Patrick Mills said once

as to story being part of gameplay, you are totally right. The thing is that *most* games handle them separately, they do not integrate the two

take a game i worked on, NWN2, the gameplay and the story had nothing to do with one another. You literally had a bunch of verbage that could have come from anywhere combined with a dice rolling tactics game, and they really didn't mean anything to one another- you could have taken that story and put it in any other game, or the game with any other story, and got the same result

that's why I say that the game and the story are different things- because it's the very very rare exception that they aren't
...
I don't think PS:T had good gameplay, by which I mean that the non-verbal gameplay wasn't that good. It wasn't awful either, but it was not as good as IWD or even BG2 (which I didn't like). Obviously this is my opinion and not incontrovertible fact, but it is an educated opinion.

most games, like NWN2 or gears of war or COD or whatever, do not merge story and gameplay in any meaningful way, most do not have verbal gameplay at all.

a few games, bioshock, HL2, morrowind, ps:t , AP, utilize the specific medium of games to merge the story and the gameplay in a way that is cool and awesome and promising. of those that do this, only a few of them (the ones I've listed above, for example) manage to have stylistic depth, ideological content, metaphor, etc in the same way that good examples of other media have as well.

I don't think we should let games off the hook for being dumb just because they are games, nor do I think that we should let them off the hook for being unplayable because they are smart. but, and this is the part that I think made some people mad, when it comes down to it, I am more willing to accept dumb, fun games, than unfun smart games.

That might be some sort of fucking heresy, but I've never played a game that was as smart as a good book- i've also never read a book that was as fun as a good game.

we cannot let our desire for smart games (or, ugh, art) make us forget that they should be fun and engaging- otherwise it's not a game, it's just a fucking interactive novel and no one likes those except, apparently, rapey nipponophiles.

 

[hoverdog]

Curious. I was under the impression that you start at the Temple. Or you just get there faster?

Not sure. You can go from the Moathouse immediately to the Temple, or maybe from Nulb? I really have to replay the game.

 

[Delterius]

If you ported BG 1/2 or IWD 1/2 content into ToEE's engine it wouldn't be very fun. The content of those games weren't created/designed/playtested/tuned for that kind of system.

What you're saying is perfectly sound -- we've got to understand games as a whole of mechanics that all must work together. But with most praises of ToEE, a slight overhaul of the game's content is sort of implicit. Its all over the place when you realize that all people talk about is how its a great implementation of the 3rd ED. rules but little else. The same can be said about an IE game with the ToEE ruleset. Of course the game's content would be overhauled in many more ways.

I choose to read that post as a wish for another TOEE with better production values.

 

[Roguey]

Not sure. You can go from the Moathouse immediately to the Temple, or maybe from Nulb? I really have to replay the game.

You can go from the moathouse directly to the temple if you accept Lareth's (fake) surrender regardless of what kind of party you have but everyone has to clear the Moathouse first.

 

[Cynic]

Combat is not an intrinsic part of Monte Cook's Numenera and I'm pretty sure won't be in TToN.

TToN Vision Document

Seriously what is exciting about a role playing experience without combat? Isn't that just a choose your own adventure? There's no "gaming" to it, there's no strategy, no challenge.

It's retarded.

The game will have combat and a lot of it I guarantee this.

 

[Roguey]

Seriously what is exciting about a role playing experience without combat? Isn't that just a choose your own adventure? There's no "gaming" to it, there's no strategy, no challenge.

It's retarded.

The game will have combat and a lot of it I guarantee this.

Rest assured that combat is not, and never has been, our primary focus, as you can see in the four pillars above. Torment is very much about the story, the characters, the conversations, and the world, and we are focusing most of our efforts in those areas – it wasn't until six months after the Kickstarter that we even started talking seriously about combat in our updates.

I don't call 'em inEPTile for nothin'.

 

[Cynic]

I don't call 'em inEPTile for nothin'.

That's just marketing speak to appease the storyfags who they knew were a huge cash cow. I thought your Creep stat would have been high enough to score a critical on that roll.

 

[Roguey]

This is called denial. Massive denial. Someone who denies the facts when they're right in front of his face. Just sad.

"Combat is not one of our pillars, we don't consider it a core feature"

"It's going to be filled with lots of combat and it'll be great, you'll see!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Infinitron]

without combat

See, there's your mistake

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Combat is not an intrinsic part of Monte Cook's Numenera and I'm pretty sure won't be in TToN.

TToN Vision Document

Seriously what is exciting about a role playing experience without combat? Isn't that just a choose your own adventure? There's no "gaming" to it, there's no strategy, no challenge.

It's retarded.

The game will have combat and a lot of it I guarantee this.

"Combat is not the focus." is a codename for "Combat will be shit. And there will be lots of it."

 

[Cynic]

See, there's your mistake

I wasn't referencing just this game in particular but a general feeling I get from some people who claim to like cRPGs but not like combat and that just pisses me off because those people should fuck off and read a book.

This is a game. We need gaming elements. Combat is one of these and an important one. If you don't like combat and want to skip it or just put the game on auto play or something to get to the story bits, you're a retard.

 

[Zombra]

Seriously what is exciting about a role playing experience without combat? Isn't that just a choose your own adventure? There's no "gaming" to it, there's no strategy, no challenge.

Eh, I'm not willing to let it pass that every RPG must have combat systems to be fun and even exciting. Most good games (and all RPGs?) are about combat or heavily feature it, granted; but some don't. I see no reason for it to be mandatory if a designer has ideas for other stuff.

 

[Cynic]

"Combat is not the focus." is a codename for "Combat will be shit. And there will be lots of it."

This may have been true but there is hope now that they've decided to go TB. It's a step in the right direction.

I fear the butthurt from the morons may sway their decision if it gets loud enough though.

Remember this is kickstarter and the backers own the game and have the ability to demand changes as they see fit.

 

[Infinitron]

Yeah, okay, I get it. Torment however will not have combat outside of a limited number (a few dozen?) of "Crisis" set-piece encounters, which will also include puzzle-like non-combat elements.

 

[Mrowak]

See, there's your mistake

I wasn't referencing just this game in particular but a general feeling I get from some people who claim to like cRPGs but not like combat and that just pisses me off because those people should fuck off and read a book.

This is a game. We need gaming elements. Combat is one of these and an important one.

Eerm? What gaming elements? Combat? Well, adventure games disagree with you. PS:T disagrees as well - combat was so reduntant it was painful.

If you don't like combat and want to skip it or just put the game on auto play or something to get to the story bits, you're a retard.

Unless combat is really, really bad. Or so divorced from storytelling and contextless it is unappealing.