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

[Infinitron]

But the dialogue is how interact with the world in this game. There literally isn't an "attack" button in your UI, that's all there is.

So somewhere, at some point in a conversation, there needs to be a place where you select a dialogue option for "kill" or "not kill" and that decision is final.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Not what I was talking about, if you notice.

"I will solve your quest" doesn't have to be a final decision. Unless they want to reduce their work. Which is what they said they wanted to do and I can understand that. I just don't particularly like the way they went about doing it.

 

[Kem0sabe]

I liked how PST allowed me to kill people through dialogue, sometimes it felt more satisfying snapping ones neck through a dialogue choice than actual combat.

I dont mind them not having the ability to attack anyone, i just think they backed themselves into a corner with the very limited number of combat encounters, and now during development they realized that there were too few combat encounters and needed to design around their self imposed limitation on how combat works.

 

[Infinitron]

"I will solve your quest" doesn't have to be a final decision. Unless they want to reduce their work. Which is what they said they wanted to do and I can understand that. I just don't particularly like the way they went about doing it.

Well, I don't see why you would be mad about that particular example, and not at the fact that you don't have, say, a "Kill this person" dialogue option that is always available at any point in a conversation. In the end, it's sort of the same thing.

And having that option would be effectively the same thing as having an "attack at will" option (except for background NPCs with no conversations, I guess), and we know the game doesn't have that.

and now during development they realized that there were too few combat encounters and needed to design around their self imposed limitation on how combat works.

That interview is from June 2014, when the game was still in pre-production.

 

[Kem0sabe]

and now during development they realized that there were too few combat encounters and needed to design around their self imposed limitation on how combat works.

That interview was from June 2014, when the game was still in pre-production.

Ah, i thought it was more recent than that.

 

[FeelTheRads]

I don't see why you would be mad about this particular example, and not at the fact that you don't have, say, a "Kill this person" dialogue option that is always available at any point in a conversation. In the end, it's the same thing.

Why are you still talking about killing at will? I'm talking about any situation where you say you will do something being definitive (except for when you get a reconsider option). Suppose you say you will solve a quest from where you'd get an item. What happens then? Will the game expect me to have that item as some point and I can't progress unless I solve that quest?

And no, it's not the same thing.

See this:

TTON doesn't use Truth/Lies to determine your Tides. That's because Truth/Lie is about player motivation, and the Tides don't care about that,

The Tides don't care about it, but the game does. And I don't see why the game should care about player motivation. Motivation should come from the character's actions not from what the player might think at some point or another.

 

[FeelTheRads]

It's like telling a GM:

"OK, I will save the kitten from the tree!"

But upon reaching the tree you find the tree is kinda too tall so you say fuck the kitten I'm out here and have the GM say:

"Nope, you said you will, you must do it!"

 

[Infinitron]

Why are you still talking about killing at will? I'm talking about any situation where you say you will do something being definitive (except for when you get a reconsider option). Suppose you say you will solve a quest from where you'd get an item. What happens then? Will the game expect me to have that item as some point and I can't progress unless I solve that quest?

It might! What I'm trying to say is, if the dialogues aren't to some degree putting you "on rails", then you eventually end up with something that's more or less equivalent to being able to attack people from outside dialogue anyway.

You can think of it in the same way as you might think of making large-scale "plot branching" choices in games like Witcher 2 or Alpha Protocol. You select the dialogue option that you puts on the path of a particular storyline, and then to some degree you're locked on to that path.

Of course, the more intersections between the paths we get, the better; all I'm saying is, stuff like this is a logical outcome of rejecting at-will killing.

 

[FeelTheRads]

And what I'm saying is that doing a choice in the game world and being "rail-roaded" as a result is not the same as just expressing intent.

- I kill someone. Game world should react to that accordingly.
- I just say I kill someone but either I do or I don't shouldn't matter in any way at the point I said it, unless as a result he finds out what I said and gets more guards etc. But to be actually forced by the game to live up to what I said makes absolutely no sense in the game world.

If they want to rail-road you they should rail-road you through the character's actions, not through "divined" player intent.

 

[Infinitron]

And what I'm saying is that doing a choice in the game world and being "rail-roaded" as a result is not the same as just expressing intent.

- I kill someone. Game world should react to that accordingly.
- I just say I kill someone but either I do or I don't shouldn't matter in any way at the point I said it, unless as a result he finds out what I said and gets more guards etc. But to be actually forced by the game to live up to what I said makes absolutely no sense in the game world.

If they want to rail-road you they should rail-road you through the character's actions, not through "divined" player intent.

By "expressing intent", you're telling the game you want to be placed on that particular path/rail. It opens up a new dialogue node that contains the options to act on that intent - a dialogue node that you won't have access to otherwise. That's how dialogue trees work!

Of course the writers should try to make it feel as natural as possible, but that's the basic principle.

 

[Lord Andre]

any RPG is weaker for losing such a feature.

Says who ? Sorry to break it to you, but that ideal RPG doesn't exist anywhere but in your imagination, whereas those guys are constrained by a budget and the constrictive philosophy that will enable them to reach some very precise design goals.
They HAVE TO make these choices.

Listen you retarded fanboy, I'll explain it like in kindergarden:

1. Tabletop RPGs are fun because emergent gameplay is only limited by the players imagination and a framework of game rules that act as guidelines.
2. CRPGs are very limited in emergent gameplay because the number of actions / tools available to the player outside of scripted events is limited.
3. Force attacking who ever you want is one of those tools.
4. If you take it away, there are less tools to create emergent gameplay, thus the rpg IS weaker for missing that specific feature.
Clear now ?

It seems to me that more and more developers are relying on scripting instead of object oriented programming which just shows the continuing decline of the industry. RIP.

 

[FeelTheRads]

By "expressing intent", you're telling the game you want to be placed on that particular path/rail.

But to be actually forced by the game to live up to what I said makes absolutely no sense in the game world.

I don't care what I'm telling the game nor should the game care what I'm telling it. Expressing intent is just that and should only have as consequence the game world reacting to that intent. It's only a choice in that I'm taking responsibility for what might happen if I say a certain thing.
However, forcing me to do what I said makes no sense for the game world and it's completely different with say joining a faction and then being cut off from joining an opposing one.

It's extremely mechanic and to make it feel "natural" then the game would have to make you stumble upon the quest objective and forcing you to complete it on the spot (as in you just happen to meet the guy you said you'd kill and the combat starts and there's no way around it) rather than the game simply waiting for you to go about it because hey you said you'd do it don't be such a flip-flopper.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't care what I'm telling the game nor should the game care what I'm telling it. Expressing intent is just that and should only have as consequence the game world reacting to that intent.

How do you define "consequence"? Is entering a new dialogue node with a distinct list of options a "consequence"?

Simple example: a dialogue with some kind of faction representative who wants you to come with him to his headquarters or something. Let's call him Bob.

First dialogue node:

1) Yes, I'll come with you. [Truth]
2) Yes, I'll come with you. [Lie]
3) No, I'd rather stay here.
4) ...
etc

Select option 2, and you arrive at this new node:

1) Follow slightly behind Bob, and when he's not looking, stab him in the back.
2) Attempt to drag Bob into a nearby alley and beat him unconscious.
3) Try to lose Bob in a crowd and disappear.
4) ...
etc

And possibly:

5) Reconsider, go with Bob to the faction headquarters.

But that's not essential. Because you've already decided you're not going to go with him, by lying. If you had wanted to go with him, you'd have selected the first option in the first node.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Is entering a new dialogue node with a new list of options a "consequence"?

Obviously not. A consequence is something changing in the game world. If the person I'm talking to does something as a result of what I said that's a consequence.
Giving me a different list of dialogue options is not a consequence. Not in the game. It's a metagame consequence.

If you had wanted to go with him, you'd have selected the first option in the previous node.

That's what I mean. In this game that might be the case. It's not how it has to be. I might say I want to come, but then something happens and I don't want to anymore. Well, fuck you, you already told the GAME you want to, now do it!

 

[Infinitron]

That's what I mean. In this game that might be the case. It's not how it has to be. I might say I want to come, but then something happens and I don't want to anymore. Well, fuck you, you already told the GAME you want to, now do it!

Well, that would just be poor/unfair design. Although you might of course find yourself in a situation where it's too late to change your mind (from an in-game narrative perspective). Choice and consequence, bitch, etc.

 

[tuluse]

Listen you retarded fanboy, I'll explain it like in kindergarden:

1. Tabletop RPGs are fun because emergent gameplay is only limited by the players imagination and a framework of game rules that act as guidelines.
2. CRPGs are very limited in emergent gameplay because the number of actions / tools available to the player outside of scripted events is limited.
3. Force attacking who ever you want is one of those tools.
4. If you take it away, there are less tools to create emergent gameplay, thus the rpg IS weaker for missing that specific feature.
Clear now ?

It seems to me that more and more developers are relying on scripting instead of object oriented programming which just shows the continuing decline of the industry. RIP.

It's true the game will have weaker emergent gameplay, but emergence isn't the end all be all of a game. TToN specifically stated their goal is to deliver a branching narrative, this is partially at odds with emergence.

 

[Cosmo]

Listen you retarded fanboy

It seems to me that more and more developers are relying on scripting instead of object oriented programming

What approach is preferable depends on the project's focus : in ToN it's on narrative depth like the first Torment, that's why scripting will be the first solution you'll look at.
As why it's impossible to satisfyingly combine emergent gameplay and deep writing, it's because covering all options offered by said gameplay while being satisfying in both domain would mean an exponential, near-infinite increase in cost and workload.
The middle ground they chose, to mitigate the pitfalls of writing, scripting and linearity, is implementing C&C, branching paths and crises, but that doesn't mean the main focus of the game isn't narrative depth.

 

[Lord Andre]

You can deliver a narrative focused experience while maintaining player agency. Narrative and emergent gameplay are not at odds with each other, they work together to create a strong experience.

Perhaps people can't tell the difference anymore between an rpg and a choose your own adventure book.

Like I said, I loved both recent Shadowrun games, I'm half-storyfag, but it can't be denied that current developers are unable to deliver features that were taken for granted 15-20 years ago.
This "we don't have time", "we don't have money", "our design goals", "our scope" etc. is nothing but PR speak for "we don't know how, we have no idea how you code/implement that".

 

[tuluse]

You can deliver a narrative focused experience while maintaining player agency. Narrative and emergent gameplay are not at odds with each other, they work together to create a strong experience.

Perhaps people can't tell the difference anymore between an rpg and a choose your own adventure book.

Like I said, I loved both recent Shadowrun games, I'm half-storyfag, but it can't be denied that current developers are unable to deliver features that were taken for granted 15-20 years ago.
This "we don't have time", "we don't have money", "our design goals", "our scope" etc. is nothing but PR speak for "we don't know how, we have no idea how you code/implement that".

PST had multiple instant gameovers for attack the wrong person. So no, TToN isn't failing to deliver something the original did.

 

[Infinitron]

I am pretty sure that in the IE games, quests would just break if you killed people. Nobody would acknowledge that the person was dead, etc.

 

[Athelas]

PST had multiple instant gameovers for attack the wrong person. So no, TToN isn't failing to deliver something the original did.

Well, if the reception to D:OS and WL2 is any indication, I don't think many Codexers actually want something like those old games - they want something new and better. Which is a reasonable thing to demand.

That being said, PS:T did have some interesting things that could have led to some more interesting emergent gameplay, like the death/revival mechanic. I don't see those why those couldn't have been expanded upon.

 

[tuluse]

That being said, PS:T did have some interesting things that could have led to some more interesting emergent gameplay, like the death/revival mechanic. I don't see those why those couldn't have been expanded upon.

It's almost like they're doing exactly this

 

[Athelas]

I mean in a more emergent way.

 

[tuluse]

I mean in a more emergent way.

If you expect an apple to taste like an orange you will frequently be disappointed.

Never at any point in their was there a focus on emergence or systemic interaction. This is more like scriped interactions: the game.

 

[MRY]

The fondness for the "kill anyone" feature is something I've never understood -- did it ever have any role other than lulz or, occasionally, a tie to looting civilian homes/shops? Like I don't recall any game where you could use it to move things in a surprising, meaningful direction. At most it was a way to convert good alignment to gold, which is the classic blah Biowarean choice.