Torment Torment: Tides of Numenera Thread

[Luckmann]

It is a bad game.

I kinda hate to say it, because at the end of the day I feel like I'm shitting in inXile's face and despite W2 and ToN I want them to do good, but this is really all that needs to be said. It's not any one single thing in Tides of Numenera that's problematic, it's practically everything in some way. It did basically nothing well, in what appears to have been an attempt at appealing to everyone and fundamentally misunderstanding the appeal of Torment to begin with. It's a fucking train wreck from start to finish, and the thread was actually pretty thorough at picking the issues apart, from the infodump introduction to the combat mechanics and character development, all the way to the modernist pandering or the fundamental issues of core lore concepts simply not mattering.

It's quite simply bad. And it would've been bad with or without the Kickstarter promises and with or without the Torment name.

You give this gave even more grief than you would have otherwise because it failed commercially.

If that was true, this thread wouldn't just be 210ish pages and laid practically dormant for weeks. The game picked apart and analyzed as any other, with the difference that it was so bad that it was discarded and largely forgotten. Not a single one complaint that I've seen have not been warranted, and I have seen zero evidence of bandwagon-by-popularization in regards to the awfulness of Tides of Numenera.

The only thing that has been done was the fact that people laughed at the failure of the game because it was so bad, whereas if it would have been popular, we would've raged. That's the only difference. I'm not sure how we even could have given the game more grief simply because it failed, because the issues are so flagrant, so big, that I cannot imagine that we would not have reacted to them any other way than we did, no matter the popularity.

We see largely the same discussions with D:OS2 or ELEX, with the caveat that those games do not fail on practically all counts and, despite their issues, still manages to appeal to their core audience. I think that Elex is shit, but I'm still playing it, because at least it's not ToN.

 

[Prime Junta]

The above sentence is relevant to this. 2/3rds of people who backed it and 2/3rds who people who bought it directly on Steam liked it. It merely lost a 1/3rd of those players. A 2/3rds majority is pretty good, it's not as great as a 3/4ths, 4/5ths, or 9/10ths majority.

Yet there's nobody left playing it.

 

[Roguey]

Then how come there's nobody left playing it?

As I said, they hit the ceiling of potential players interested in a pseudo-iso, text-heavy role playing walking sim. People who like walking sims want first or third person perspectives with fully-voiced audio. People who like pseudo-iso role playing games want plenty of combat to break up the text; one Torment was enough for them. It's the fillerphobes who ultimately lose here.

 

[Luckmann]

If it was good by its own particular parameters it will have the status of cult classic quite quickly. But it doesn't. Because it's not. Do you think there was a realistic possibility it wouldn't have flopped this hard had it had a RTwP combat system? That sounds incredibly far fetched to me.

You mean like PoE? Maybe, but is turn-based combat so universally despised that PoE can sell so much more copies than Numanuma simply because it has RTwP combat? There are a lot of other factors that decrease the potential audience with each layer.

I mean, I don't think it would've improved the game immensely or anything, because many of the core issues would remain, but let's not kid ourselves here; any implementation of CTB combat would've been an improvement compared to the turn-based combat utilized in Tides of Numenera. You could literally have nothing but guys whacking eachother with swords with no added meaningful input and it would still have been an improvement, and yes, I believe it would've improved reception a little.

But, on the other hand, any implementation of turn-based combat that wasn't as painfully bad as Tides of Numenera would have had the same effect. D:OS2 shows that people as a whole are not averse to the concept of turn-based combat at all, even if we can quibble about various implementations. Retards in Steam reviews will whine about the turn-based combat, but the turn-based combat wasn't the issue, it was that it was a particularly bad implementation of turn-based combat. I would go so far as to say that it's the worst TB combat that I've ever experienced in gaming.

It's harder to fuck up CTB combat, I think, and even when implemented in a lackluster fashion or as an intermittent "break up" mechanic (such as in PS:T), it works

Then how come there's nobody left playing it?

As I said, they hit the ceiling of potential players interested in a pseudo-iso, text-heavy role playing walking sim. People who like walking sims want first or third person perspectives with fully-voiced audio. People who like pseudo-iso role playing games want plenty of combat to break up the text; one Torment was enough for them. It's the fillerphobes who ultimately lose here.

I see no reason why a successor to PS:T would not be successful at all. I think that the market for it is massive, especially since it does something nobody else really does already. The issue isn't that the customer base is too small, it's that Tides of Numenera is in no way a successor to Planescape: Torment. It's much like people saying that the customer base for turn-based games is too small, until something like D:OS2 shows up and pushes their shit in.

It's just a fucking excuse for the fact that a game is awful, like people defending the terribad combat of Elex by saying "It's an RPG! If you don't like RPG:s, go play a shooter!". You can do almost anything, and if you implement it well, people will play it, and appreciate it, but some things are easier to fuck up than others. There is absolutely no reason to think that you cannot make a good Planescape: Torment successor in 2017 and also have it be commercially viable, even though it will obviously not appeal to everyone - and that's OK, that's the deal with niche products. Understanding that is paramount to the success of the project. If you instead try to appeal to people that would never be interested in your project, trying to score political brownie points or fundamentally misunderstand the appeal of your core audience (hint: it's not words words words words words words words), well then surprise, you're going to get fucked.

 

[Roguey]

"any implementation of real time with pause would be better than this turn based"

 

[Luckmann]

"any implementation of real time with pause would be better than this turn based"

Yes. If there's any implementation of CTB combat that is worse than the implementation of TB combat in Tides of Numenera, I have yet to experience it.

 

[Roguey]

"I'd rather play NWN2:OC, Storm of Zehir, and every Dragon Age instead of Tides of Numenera" is peak

 

[StaticSpine]

RTwP is utter shit. I really hate it. But I'd still prefer PS:T's combat system to TToN's. Seriously.

 

[Kalin]

Shilly Shillington still going at it. Give it a fucking rest already.

 

[Roguey]

RTwP is utter shit. I really hate it. But I'd still prefer PS:T's combat system to TToN's. Seriously.

Combat in Torment was obnoxious and frequently got in the way of my enjoyment. Combat in New Torment was just there, no negative or positive feelings about it.

 

[Luckmann]

"I'd rather play NWN2:OC, Storm of Zehir, and every Dragon Age instead of Tides of Numenera" is peak

No, for real, I sincerely would. You try to leverage this as an insult, but I'm dead serious when I say that I would rather play the entirety of the Dragon Age series with a 6 inch vibrating dildo up my ass than to play Tides of Numenera again unless significant changes would be made. NWN2 might be shit, and the narrative awful, but the combat is eons better than Tides of Numenera and much less psychologically and existentially painful to go through. Storm of Zehir may be of questionable quality, but within the limitations of it's own system, the elements it introduced and the things it attempted, it actually pulled off, whether we like them or not.

Planescape: Torment may have lackluster combat, and IWD1/2 may be pure dungeon-crawlers, but the encounters are well-designed and the narrative of the former is great, and the latter two were always designed as dungeon-crawlers and they actually do what they set out to do - be dungeon-crawlers. Again, I have n e v e r experienced as a bad implementation of CTB in any game as bad as the implementation of TB was in Tides of Numenera. But, also again, I also have never experienced as bad TB as I experienced TB in Tides of Numenera. Never-ever-forever, pinky-swear.

This doesn't mean that Tides of Numenera is "the worst game ever" on all counts and in all situations, but would I take literally any implementation of any CTB combat that I've experienced over the TB combat of ToN? Fuck yes. Any day of the week, anywhere.

 

[Roguey]

I thought we had hit peak nostalgia derangement when we got "Planescape Torment has better combat than Dragon Age: Origins" back in 2009 but I was way off, there are untold depths yet to plummet.

 

[Infinitron]

I thought we had hit peak nostalgia derangement when we got "Planescape Torment has better combat than Dragon Age: Origins" back in 2009 but I was way off, there are untold depths yet to plummet.

Could be the combat has improved in the version of the game you played.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

"any implementation of real time with pause would be better than this turn based"

The idea is that RTwP with quick high-octane action would serve as a counterbalance to TTON's walls of text and the sluggish exploration.

RTwP is a spawn of satan and should be killed with fire, but in this case I think the logic is sound.

 

[FeelTheRads]

RTwP and high-octane action...

 

[Roguey]

I see no reason why a successor to PS:T would not be successful at all. I think that the market for it is massive, especially since it does something nobody else really does already.

Going to break this down clearly outlining what's fact and what's speculation.

Fact: Only 33% of of Torment's players hate it. This is reflected through not only the Steam scores, but metacritic (where negative user reviews make up just 23% of the votes. Though the mediocre scores do bring it down, a majority (58%) still give it a positive score). GOG doesn't give this kind of breakdown, but I'm confident it'll be nearly the same, particularly since its overall score is 3.5/5. That's above average.

Fact: Hundreds of thousands of crpg players have no interest in even giving Tides of Numenera a try, even though they were willing to purchase all three Shadowruns, Blackguards and its poorly received sequel, Dragon Age and its sequels, all the Dungeon Sieges including the third one by Obsidian that made DS purists mad, two fucking South Park games (the sequel has already outsold ToN by a bit in just two weeks), Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity, and so on. Regardless of the individual quality of these titles, we're not exactly dealing with people who have sky-high standards.

Speculation: Why those hundreds of thousands of crpg fans don't want to bother. Some people in this thread want to believe that it's because those 33% of haters have made a convincing case to keep them away, yet that didn't stop 227,594 ± 14,363 from buying Blackguards 2 with its 63% user score or 780,456 ± 26,582 from buying Dungeon Siege III with its 58% user score.

Some would say it's because of the setting, but this doesn't make much sense to me given the settings of the RPGs listed. You really want to say Numenera has a significantly worse setting than Dragon Age, Dungeon Siege, South Park, and so on and that this would make enough difference to hundreds of thousands of people that they wouldn't even bother?

I've made my case for how it's because they're flat out not interested in this particular subgenre of role playing games, and I've used the sales figures for Age of Decadence and Torment: Beamdog Edition as supporting evidence. The argument against this is that Torment ultimately sold 400,000 after four years. However, we have no idea how many of those 400,000 actually enjoyed the experience and are open to playing another RPG like it. What I'm seeing is "Well, if a Torment-like game had nigh-perfect writing, combat, and graphics it'd totally sell that much or more" but lemme tell ya, I'm feeling extreme doubt. And if a RPG has to have nigh-perfect everything just to sell hundreds of thousands (not even millions), it's not worth it to any game developer.

 

[Lacrymas]

Fact: Only 33% of of Torment's players hate it.

You are saying that like *everyone* that played it left a review somewhere, but that's not the case. I, for example, didn't and I'm 100% certain I'm not the only one. What the "positive" (compared to other games it's actually not that positive) Steam and GOG ratings prove is that they don't influence sales that much. It doesn't prove that it's a good game, nor does it prove how many players are interested in such a game if it was good. You have to realize that AoD didn't have as massive a coverage as Numenera, nor did it have the Torment name to boost its pre-release prestige. AoD was a comparative financial success only due to word-of-mouth, not because it had "star" developers, a Kickstarter PR campaign and a manipulative name. Numenera flopped despite having all these advantages over AoD. If AoD can succeed due to word-of-mouth, Numenera can fail due to the same. I don't think there's any mystery here, nor is there a black hole which no RPG can escape from because there is no interest. If you squander a massive PR hype then it's because you overwhelmingly failed, if snake oil can be a financial success due to PR, then so can a game. The implications here are obvious.

 

[Prime Junta]

People review something if (a) they really love it or (b) are really upset about it, usually over something trivial. That means that reviews will skew heavily positive unless there's a scandal of some kind that gets people seriously riled up.

In all fairness, this may be the contributing factor with T:ToN.

 

[Roguey]

Lacrymas cannot into statistics.

By the by, ratings aren't "reviews." It's just clicking thumbs up or thumbs down on Steam, or clicking on a number or a star rating on Metacritic/GOG. Writing a review is unnecessary.

 

[Lacrymas]

Believe it or not, the reviews aren't a microcosmic representation of the entire player-base. Taking them at face-value as such is disingenuous.

 

[Roguey]

Believe it or not, the reviews aren't a microcosmic representation of the entire player-base. Taking them at face-value as such is disingenuous.

They're the most accurate possible indicator of measuring audience satisfaction.

Going by what I was saying above, Steam has 1622 reviews, but 2180 ratings.

 

[Lacrymas]

They are most accurate possible indicator to which we have access, not as an all-encompassing and universal measurement. Like Prime Junta said, they tend to skew on the positive side, only really angry AND willing to post reviews people will post a negative one. Like I said, the game is garbage, but I didn't go out of my way to rate it on Steam or GOG.

 

[Ismaul]

Fact: Only 33% of of Torment's players hate it.

You are saying that like *everyone* that played it left a review somewhere, but that's not the case. I, for example, didn't and I'm 100% certain I'm not the only one.

Same here. I don't review games, even if I paid big money on Kickstarter for them. I talk about them on the Codex, and with my friends.

Roguey The fact is, the number of Steam owners is almost the same as the number of backers. If we take your numbers at face value, and since early access required Steam, that means near 30% of Torment's backers hate it, and it might well just be those who spent the most money on it, and who would've spread the word far and wide. Truth is, there would most likely be a higher % of negative reviews if every owner reviewed it, and if negative reviews weren't taken down regularly, "invalidated" because they're review bombing of hate speech or whatever.

 

[555]

I want to point out that if you check the steamspy that it shows only %75 of the owners played the game. So %25 of the people who own it didn't even play it. I wanted to paste the steamspy link here but mobile posting is fucked up, just look it up yourself. Meaning that %33 stat is wrong obv. Trying to calculate how many people liked the game from a system which most people don't care about is stupid imo. I never used ratings on either metacritic or Steam and I don't know anyone IRL who did
Also lol at Cliff Bazinga the first thing that came up when I googled steamspy was Lawbreakers

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Other games on Gog with a 3.5 rating:

Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader
Inquisitor
Ultima 8

To get anything below 4 on Gog is a real achievement, even these two would be 'better than average' if you consider 3.5 a lot better than average:

Might and Magic 9 - 3 stars
Ultima 9 - 2.5 stars