Share this project


Share this project

A story-driven CRPG set in the world of Monte Cook's Numenera.  We are deeply appreciative to all of you who made this possible. Torment: Tides of Numenera is available now for PC on Steam or GOG, as well as PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.
A story-driven CRPG set in the world of Monte Cook's Numenera. We are deeply appreciative to all of you who made this possible. Torment: Tides of Numenera is available now for PC on Steam or GOG, as well as PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.
74,405 backers pledged $4,188,927 to help bring this project to life.

Updated our Journal (26): Decision

Posted by inXile entertainment (Creator)

TL;DR: Combat vote results completed – statistically it was a tie! Torment: Tides of Numenera’s combat (and Crises) will be turn-based combat. We’ll address concerns expressed by Real-Time with Pause fans in our design.


Your participation in the combat discussion and vote has been terrific! Almost 20% voted and over 2000 comments were made on our forums alone. That’s twice the turnout I expected, and it’s great to see all of the passion our backers have for the project. I’d like to thank everyone who got involved.

It’s been an exciting vote! The leading system changed a couple times early on and the final tally is: 7,267 TB, 7,052 RTwP and 782 Indifferent. With the vote at 48% to 47%, and with those who voted “indifferent” being more than triple the difference between the TB and RTwP camps, it is essentially a draw.

As we explained in Update 24, we were leaning toward turn-based combat because we believe it’s better suited for the kind of tactical complexity we're looking for through our Crisis system. We believe it’s a stronger fit for bringing narrative elements, including dialogue with NPCs, into hand-crafted combat situations. We have considered the vote, but more important than the vote are the comments (not just in our forums, but on many of the community forums and articles on this topic). Your comments have helped us greatly in understanding why people have the preferences and concerns that they do.

We have decided to go with turn-based combat. Ultimately, there are no losers here. This is all part of the process of making an RPG we are all passionate about and we think you’ll like Torment’s combat even if you voted for RTwP. While we have not been looking forward to disappointing half of our backers, we were happy to find that many of the reasons people gave for disliking TB and preferring RTwP can be addressed through the details of our combat system and encounter design. I’d like to go over some of the more common comments we saw either for RTwP or against TB and explain how we will address them.

Comment #1: Turn-Based combat can be tedious

If one were to take Planescape: Torment and, changing nothing else, switch to TB combat, the result would be miserable for many. You'd be stopped midstride in every Hive back alley to perform the same boring actions on meaningless thugs and zombies.

This isn’t what we’re going to do.

Turn-based combat certainly can be tedious, but that comes down to encounter design. As we stated during the Kickstarter, Torment will have no trash mobs—those hordes of filler battles that require little thought from the player. That type of gameplay is at odds with our emphasis on the story and character development, so each Crisis in Torment will be hand-crafted. It will have narrative relevance and consequences. We'll iterate on them until each one is a quality encounter and provides the experience we seek for that moment in the game.

If any combat situation in Torment were tedious, it wouldn’t be because it's turn-based. It would be because we failed in our goal. And our Crises aren’t just combat. They contain exploration, dialogue, and time-relevant actions and events that can exist outside of combat, like pursuits, environmental puzzles, and application of special skills. You’re going to have to work throughout the game toward your goals, and the Crisis concept is a primary way that we put your intentions to the test.

We understand the importance to you of combat not being tedious. Emphasis on encounter design is important for any CRPG, but for Torment, the bar will be even higher – we believe that through well designed encounters, and extensive gameplay iteration on them, we’ll be able to address the majority of the concerns expressed by those who favored RTwP.

Comment #2: Turn-Based combat can break immersion

"Immersion" is a tricky term that can mean a lot of things, but generally this comment is referring to the jarring sense a player gets when they're walking through a town and suddenly the whole world stops because, say, a feral dog saw them coming down the street.

Again, this isn't what we're going to do. In general, we don’t plan to “surprise” you with a Crisis. Through the design of the areas and the pacing of the game, you’ll know when and where combat is a possibility. The situation will feel tense and in some cases, you will be explicitly initiating the Crisis. This doesn’t mean we won’t ever ambush you, of course, but if we do, it will be very deliberate and not an arbitrary event.

We get that you don’t want to be pulled out of the game in this way and we’ll look for ways to keep you in control and prevent Crises from disrupting the normal flow of the game.

That said, Torment isn’t an action game. Real time doesn’t pass in conversations, for example – you have as much time as you want to decide your choice. And while exploration occurs in real-time, it won’t include twitch elements. All of your decision-making throughout the game will consistently be free from real-time considerations. Torment is a game about thinking and deliberation and will not have any actual time pressure, so turn-based combat will maintain a more consistent feel.

Comment #2a: Turn-Based combat isn’t realistic

A variation of the concern about immersion is that TB gameplay isn’t realistic. In a real battle, you don’t patiently observe while your opponents orderly take turns one at a time.

This is true, but the lack of realism is inherent in most videogame combat and gameplay (again, turn-based conversations come to mind), and RTwP combat isn’t immune to this issue. What we strive for isn’t realism, but creating an immersive experience that allows you to suspend your disbelief. In other words, realism is not at the core of Torment’s party-based combat.

That said, we will strive to make the combats as dynamic and visceral as possible – attacked characters will animate appropriately when struck instead of standing lifelessly, for example, or perhaps having readied actions such as overwatch or interrupts to take actions on the opponent’s turn. We will maintain tension and flow, creating the sense that you are in actual danger and making your tactical and strategic decisions matter.

Comment #3: Controlling the entire party in Turn-Based can be boring

The idea behind this concern is that if only one character in your party is relevant to the combat (e.g., it’s in a narrow passageway or a specific skill/weapon is needed for some aspect of it, etc.) then gameplay gets bogged down. It’s not fun to have to skip most of your characters’ turns, cycling back to the one character who can actually do something.

This problem also comes down to encounter design, and we’ll be paying close attention to this aspect in our specific Crisis designs. Strong support of ranged combat will help, as melee-focused battles can exacerbate this problem. The Numenera rules also help here because skills, while beneficial, generally aren’t required to accomplish specific tasks, and Effort can be expended to give any character a better chance of success at tasks outside their character build. Adam discussed how this works in Update 21 (in the context of dialogue, though it applies to Crisis gameplay as well), but we’ll copy it here again so you don’t have to search for it.

Using skills will be different, too (side note: I say "will," but we're still in pre-production, so any of this can change). Say there's a difficult task you want to attempt—lying to a prison guard or deciphering the text on an ancient puzzle box. Typically, in D&D-style RPGs for example, if you don't have the associated skill, your chances of success are very low, or you might not be able to attempt the task at all. In Numenera, all such tasks are treated the same, and anyone can try them. Training in a related skill or skills will lower the difficulty of the task, but even if you're untrained, you can still apply Effort.

Effort is a concept from the Numenera tabletop game. Essentially you spend points out of the appropriate stat pool (Might, Speed, or Intellect) to lower the difficulty of a task. The idea is, even if you've never been trained in lock picking, a very smart or dexterous character can, with some Effort, increase their chances of cracking a lock.

Your stat pools are renewable with rest. And of course, all of this is balanced. If you're trying to crack a combination lock created by a culture that died out millions of years ago, which requires a combination of smells rather than integers, well . . . you'd have to have a high-level character specialized in the task, who spent all the Intellect they had on Effort, just to make the task possible. That character would still have to roll ridiculously well.

Effort provides more options to customize your character and tackle obstacles. If there's a task you want to attempt—even if it's something normally contrary to your character build—you still have a chance of succeeding if you can use enough Effort. On the other hand, someone who has trained or specialized in that sort of task will have a greater chance of success, and will maintain that edge in similar tasks throughout the game.

Note also that party members can “assist” others in particular skill-based tasks, boosting their chances for success.

In short, we’re fully aware that cycling can be a painful way to play, and that this aspect of gameplay is important to you, and we’ll design the Crises to keep your entire party engaged.

Comment #4: You should implement both RTwP and TB and make it a gameplay option

This solution may sound ideal, but it wouldn’t give anybody what they really want. Area and encounter design needs of the two systems are very different. Designing for both would dilute the quality of the encounters for one or both systems, and most likely require so much time and resources as to impact the rest of the game. In a deep RPG like ours, where combat isn't even the focus, trying to implement two combat systems would lead to an inferior game across the board.

Comment #5: Planescape: Torment had Real-Time with Pause combat, so the new Torment should too

This is a reasonable perspective and valid point of view. Shouldn't we stick with what made the original great?

But is RTwP combat what made Planescape: Torment great? For some of you, the combat may have been an important part of your PST experience, and we hope that you’ll find the combat in Torment: Tides of Numenera to be at least equally enjoyable. But we don't think PST’s combat system was what most players loved about the game.

We believe PST is considered one of the greatest RPGs of all-time, not because its combat was Real-Time w/ Pause, but because of its emphasis on the narrative and on role-playing your character. We explained this in the four pillars we described in the Kickstarter, which are the foundation for Torment: Tides of Numenera:

 1. A Deep, Thematically Satisfying Story
 2. A World Unlike Any Other
 3. A Rich, Personal Narrative
 4. Reactivity, Choice, and Real Consequences

We’re using all four pillars to influence and reinforce our Crisis and combat design. Throughout the campaign, we stressed that we would find an approach for combat that worked well with these pillars. With the approach we have planned – including turn-based combat – we hope to integrate more narrative and more choice and consequence into the combat experience.

Though Planescape: Torment is the starting point for many of our design decisions, Torment: Tides of Numenera was never intended to be a game that, by default, duplicates everything PST did. It is a thematic successor that is inspired by PST, not derivative of it. The themes we are succeeding are the things that made Planescape: Torment a classic – the four pillars and other elements as described in our vision document  – and we don’t see the specific combat system as core to PST’s legacy. We have several of the people from the PST team involved in the project and we hope that you continue to trust that we will deliver the type of CRPG experience you crave.

"The Planescape: Torment experience was never defined by its combat. In Torment: Tides of Numenera, the combat is intended to complement both the narrative systems and the basic gameplay mechanics. It is a challenging decision for the team to make, and I respect and support their decision to choose turn-based."

-- Chris Avellone, Lead Designer of Planescape: Torment; Creative Director at Obsidian Entertainment

Comment #5a: Why all this focus on combat? Planescape: Torment wasn't even about that

This is kind of the opposite sentiment as the previous comment, or rather it's the other side of the same coin. 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.

If it feels like we are suddenly focused on combat, it's only because our recent updates have had that focus. In a month or two we'll talk about something else—art creation or story design or exploration gameplay or something—and then it'll feel like we're 100% focused on that.

Moving Forward with You

We're excited about what we have planned, and as you see more of what we’re doing, we think you’ll be excited, too. We’ll be talking about other aspects of the design in the near term, but we’ll certainly be talking more about Crises and combat down the road. We hope that you’ll continue to trust our judgment and dedication to the project and to you. Remember that you’ll have future opportunities to influence the game’s development, including aspects of its combat. We’ll be seeking your feedback in the future and you’ll be able to weigh in on details later to help us hone the experience.

We're grateful that we can solicit your feedback and your input throughout this process. This style of development would never have been possible even five years ago, let alone fifteen. It's encouraging to see your interest and passion in what we're doing. We learn a lot from your comments and posts on these topics, and we come that much closer to creating something great.

We will not take for granted the trust that you placed in us this past spring. We are making this game for you, our backers. When you play Torment, we want you to feel you trusted us wisely. We’re not looking for mass market success – our only metric is your satisfaction, and we are working hard toward that goal every day. Thanks for your support and understanding,

Kevin Saunders
Project Lead

P.S. We have a couple more things to say, but they’re more about our communication and our gratitude, so we’ve put them on tumblr to keep this update focused on combat.

Wesley Hodgson, zmonkey, and 208 more people like this update.


Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Adrià Amor on

      Well maybe Inxile missed the shoot this time but I can understand, and value myself, all the feedback about both combat systems they have gathered from ourselves. Dont need to make any war of this discussion

    2. Dawn_

      Nah, it wouldn't have been that worse.
      People respect developpers decision, I do and most of us do.

      But putting a vote even advisory, it was bound to give a bitter taste to one side, to give resent, doubts and such.

    3. Gene on

      @dawn Having the vote was probably a dumb idea, unfortunately I'm pretty sure they promised to do it during the Kickstarter, so there was a chance the outcry would have been far worse if they didn't go ahead with it.

    4. Adrià Amor on

      @LC. It's actually funny what you have said about the Fallout saga TB combat because for me it's quite the contrary with the RtwP in Planescape Torment. I finished and enjoyed Fallout 1 and 2 while I was not able to continue PT because of its combat style which seemed to me too fast and chaotic(it happened something similar for me with Arcanum). With all its ups and downs I actually had a lot of fun with the Fallout combat which included a very interesting targeting system (legendary grin and eyes shot which were removed for the Bestheda VAT thing) and was able to keep me attached to the chair for hours and hours with its attack descriptions and even with its hilarious AI of your team characters (as Ian or Marcus who can easily commit friendfire). Moreover, you can't really talk about TB as a thing of the past because, as the developers have stated, in these game they will try to improve the old errors of the system of the past and its pretty unique regarding to be the first game with these combats presented as "crises"; so people should view this final decision more as a rebuild system closer to TB 2.0 than anything else they have tried in the past.

    5. Gene on

      @LC I was more addressing the point that turn-based is a relic that nobody uses. I certainly don't want Numenera to be combat focused.

    6. LordCrash on

      You can't compare XCOM EU to Torment. XCOM is centered around combat, it's 80% of the game. It's a combat-driven game while Torment will be a narrative-/quest-driven game. ;)

    7. Dawn_

      @Gene, i hope with my last message you understand better what i am saying.

      Setting that vote was the dumbest move ever. Period. I listen, understand, that doesn't correct their mistake though.

    8. Dawn_

      The best way should have been no vote, TB has a decision and a good reasoned explanation.

      Like that, no vote who would divide us, no little sentence said that would put half of us feel like our choice didn't matter, no doubts they wanted to go with TB since day one.

      But when you got no balls. You got not balls. It's better to set up an awful vote and make us spit at each others and cut each other throats with horrible accusation.

    9. Gene on

      @dawn Also the devs have already addressed all your points, stated the vote was advisory, and stated what they saw were the advantages and disadvantages of both systems, also showing why they felt TB was a good fit due to how pre-production evolved if you don't want to listen or believe them though that's on you and your friends here who choose to do the same.

      The combat system was never one of the 4 pillars they discussed as far as I'm aware.

    10. Dawn_

      And for having a system already they've worked on it since the end of KS.

    11. Dawn_

      Plus it doesn't matter what they said back then. Facts are they wanted TB in the end, they got it.

    12. Gene on

      @I'm not making anything up, apparently that's what Colin McComb said.

    13. Dawn_

      Plus, personally i don't care for the system. What i don't like was how they set that up.

    14. Dawn_

      They were favoring nothing they were undecided. Stop making facts on your own.

    15. Gene on

      @dawn If they picked something at the end of of the Kickstarter it would have been RTWP as that is what they were favouring at the time.

    16. Dawn_

      They only did that show of a vote because they didn't want to assume their choice.
      Pretty sure if the vote had been 48% for RtwP they would have gone either way for TB (since they were on it).

    17. Dawn_

      When it was to make more money i didn't see them have any trouble with the whole "spiritual successor". They use it, and use it, until the numenera became the new definition of it.

      As a system, i don't have any problem with TB. What i don't like was the attitude they had.
      They've never truly said it was gonna be a TB, until the end of the KS because they knew they will lose backers. They use and re-use the "spiritual successor" crap to make more money.

      They set up an awful vote system which divided the community. When the vote was done they've said "It was the system we thought fits the best" which is basically throwing mud at all who voted and wanted the other way. But money was stronger.

      They should have had the guts to stand for what they wanted to do in the first place. Because they might say otherwise, in a few months they already got a system, they only got to take from WA2. So even if they're saying we decided after..we weren't. Everyone knows it is BS.
      Being people from TB or RtwP side. They wanted it because it was simplier, a system they know and this whole vote was just a show.

    18. Gene on

      @JC Also I believe that devs should have more freedom with a spiritual successor, after all it's not a direct sequel. I believe the devs are correct when they say a spiritual sequel can be inspired by rather than derivative of Planescape.

    19. Gene on

      @JC The devs have stated that Numenera will have no trash mobs and only hand crafted encounters that will likely not be huge and most will be avoidable/have alternative solutions to combat (there will also be environmental interactions and narrative interactions to add more interesting elements). I suspect it will fall into your criteria for enjoyment but we'll have to wait and see.

    20. Outland 17 on

      @Gene - XCom is a great turn based game and the reason it works is because you are almost never presented with large waves of enemies. For most of the missions you move across the map fighting small pockets of resistance. This keeps that action feeling fast. It only breaks down once and again when you get to many aliens on the same screen, but thats rare.

      I appreciate that you like turn based, but for me if your making a game that is spiritual successor to classic game, it should play like the original game. If not it's not really a spiritual successor, it's more like a game made by some of the same people. Both XCom and Dark Souls got this right. LOL and DOTA are another example.

      And that might seem silly, but part of the reason I was interested in NUMENERA is because i was looking for a game that not only told a story the way the original did, but more importantly played the same way. If I wanted some turn based RPG there are plenty on the market. Thus my interest in NUMENERA has lowered.

    21. Gene on

      @Lastan You're likely correct, I understand the moustache Colin grew for Movember looked quite sinister and that's all the evidence one really needs.

    22. Lastan, The Penultimate Castoff on

      "For the record the devs started development favouring RTWP according to Colin McComb, but the shift to turn-based occurred later on in development as it fit better with some of their narrative focus and pre-production concepts."
      That is *obviously* just a spin to mask their true intentions. They'd been planning TB *all along*, and this is just a red herring.

    23. Gene on

      @JC I also forgot Divinity Original Sin, that game is looking great.

    24. Gene on

      @Yaniv For the record the devs started development favouring RTWP according to Colin McComb, but the shift to turn-based occurred later on in development as it fit better with some of their narrative focus and pre-production concepts. Don't know his exact words as I'm quoting someone who was paraphrasing him on RPG Codex.

    25. Roman Leser on

      *munches popcorn* Hm, all popcorn gone...welll....
      It's like...let me find a good analogy....ah, yeah, here you go:

      Guys...don't feed the troll. Well, the trolls.

      Everybody that is not a troll just do this:
      Take a deep breath.
      Read this out loud: TtoN will be fine. TB is a valid option. It is settled and the decision has been made.

      And now, to make this sound right, let's hear what the nameless one has to say about this discussion:
      "I plan on discovering the secrets of the multiverse by rubbing cottage cheese on my belly and eating vast quantities of fresh-water fish."

    26. Gene on

      @JC Santiago, Many modern games use turn based (or phase bassd) , the new X-com, Worms games, Blood Bowl, Frozen Synapse.

      My favourite Jrpg, Final Fantasy Tactics was turn based. Also you should try Age Of Decadence, the demo is free. Knights of the Chalice is also great if you can stand the graphics, and Underail is looking great and it's in early access. Daedalic is making Blackguards which is turn-based and is promising if they can get the difficulty right.

      I've also made points on how RTWP breaks down previously with a larger party at higher difficulties before in these comments.

      Turn-based is very much in vogue, it's definitely not just some relic of the past, it may never be as popular as military shooters but devs don't use it these days because it has to be done.

    27. Missing avatar

      Yaniv on

      "I do. I choose to answer them anyway. It amuses me to poke holes in the "arguments" of people who resort to rhetorical questions and have very little to say otherwise."
      The questions are placed to show that it is arguable but you too stupid to understand. now you can continue poking holes, enjoy.
      "I don't know. Do you understand how silly you look giving exaggerated importance to one aspect of the game you have very little idea what it's going to look like anyway?"
      You don't know? You poor thing, that sad. I on the other hand know how TB look like and in any case that was not the point. Yes I know it hard for you to understand.
      "I sure do. I wonder if you understand the concept of, say, artistic license.
      I also wonder if you understand the concept of minority, even if a vocal one.
      You do know?! good, here take a candy.

    28. Outland 17 on

      I understand that people voted on this. But I can honestly say that I am disappointmented by this decision. I loved games like Fallout 1 and 2, but the worst part of these games where the turn based game play.

      When dealing with a small number of characters it was ok. However when you had a large party then the fights would break down and take an unreasonable amount of time. This is part of the reason I had stopped playing the original Fallouts (and never finished the first one.)

      On the other hand the real time with pausing of Torment was refreshing and avoided this problem. No matter how large the battles it didn't bog down the game.

      Finally I feel turn based combat is a relic of the past. As system that we adopted not because it was ideal, but because it had to be done. Real time with pausing gives you the tactical control you need with without bogging down the game.

    29. Missing avatar


      Thanks for the reminder, Kermit! Hopefully everyone will calm down and wait for the game to speak for itself.

    30. Kermit Pls on

      "Be respectful and considerate."

      Looking at some of the comments here, I'm glad I only have to deal with some bad apples when I play wow. Some of you should be embarrassed with the way you are acting. That goes for both the TB and RTwP supporters.

    31. Lastan, The Penultimate Castoff on

      "I apologise if someone has written about this before, but I don't feel like reading through all 16 pages of comments. What I want to say is that there is a way to please both camps, and it has been done already, in Knights of the Old Republic (I & II)."
      KotOR is RTwP, really. Heavy on the P, the way I play it. PS:T, BG, IWD... also have turns, but they are more or less transparent to the player.
      Though really, there's not that much of a difference anyway.

    32. Missing avatar

      Ayse on

      I read the notification for this update through my e-mail inbox and came here to comment on how much the thoughtfulness and care of the developers delighted me... only to see that the comment field is filled with bickering and name-calling. What? What happened? How can such a great conversation about a difficult decision lead to such petty nastiness? Man, I just don't understand people sometimes.

    33. Lastan, The Penultimate Castoff on

      "But this is more the community turning on itself, which is never a nice thing to see."
      Nah. This is a vocal minority-within-a-minority on one side, and a couple of argumentative assholes like me on the other. It looks big, but it's a storm in a teacup.

    34. Lastan, The Penultimate Castoff on

      "We are paying customers voting about elements of our already payed product."
      As a matter of fact, no. We are not paying customers. We are patrons. While we do get something (and at certain layers even lots and lots of various somethings) in return, we all invested in a concept; inXile came with an idea and we threw our money at them because we wanted to see it happen. We did not purchase a finished product based on its own merits; we decided to fund someone's dream.
      If it should turn out to be crap (which I don't think it will; else I wouldn't have backed), we do not get to ask for our money back. Though we may decide not to fund any future projects.

    35. Lastan, The Penultimate Castoff on

      "Do you understand the concept of rhetorical questions?"
      I do. I choose to answer them anyway. It amuses me to poke holes in the "arguments" of people who resort to rhetorical questions and have very little to say otherwise.
      "Do you understand the difference between what matter to inXile as developers and what matter to me as a player?"
      I don't know. Do you understand how silly you look giving exaggerated importance to one aspect of the game you have very little idea what it's going to look like anyway?
      "Do you understand the concept of fair community decision?"
      I sure do. I wonder if you understand the concept of, say, artistic license.
      I also wonder if you understand the concept of minority, even if a vocal one.

    36. Missing avatar

      Yaniv on

      OK, maybe it is incorrect to use the word community but this is not the point. I also don't like the whole voting thing but this is what inXile decided to do. Once they decided to take that route, I expect them to do it in proper and honest way without tricks.

    37. 3xAmazing on

      I don't understand why people give money to support a project, but don't have faith in the developer's vision for their project. No one would yell at an author for writing in first person rather than third person, why do gamers feel so entitled about controlling videogame development?

      InXile, I'm with you for the long haul and I'm impressed that you were willing to have this discussion and discuss the points despite the conflict. Keep up the good work!

    38. Weresheep of Sin AKA Stefan

      Kelvin: Sorry then ... I did not notice those complaints. But I also did not look too closely, because while I have a preference for turn-based, I would still play (and hopefully) enjoy the game with Rtwp.
      I also (personally) can't understand this absolute "hate" for turn-based (or Rtwp either). Great games were made with those systems (Fallout, Realms of Arcania, Temple of Elemental Evil or ... to go way back those Gold Box Games ... on the other hand, those Infinity Engine games). While I like turn-based more, I can enjoy Baldur's Gate, too. I have yet to find a game that does not have anything in it that I would have preferred being solved in a different way ... so it's always a "compromise" (I really did not like Rtwp combat in Torment ... there were parts of the game I didn't like in Dragon Age I, though I think this was one of the best RPGs in recent years ... recent, huh?).

    39. Missing avatar

      Kelvin Baillie on

      @Stefan - On your Point G. There were people complaining during the Poll that it was a pointless Poll (I was one of them) because we knew before it even began that unless RTwP won by a huge-landslide it would be TB, so it felt like a waste of time even putting a Poll together.

      I'm going to play this game regardless, will enjoy it no doubt, but I just dislike the way InXile have handled things. With that in mind, I'm also getting tired of the argument that 'Combat is just a small part of the game'. What % is a 'small' part of the game? 5%? 10%? Regardless, even small parts of a game can distract from the enjoyment of the game if its not a persons preference. I've seen enough games where there are mandatory mini-games which are frustrating/people hate which gives the developer plenty of issues.

      Just because its small does not mean its not important. If its something people HAVE to play it influences their enjoyment of the game. And yes I agree that if you dislike it most people can push through it, but you shouldn't have to. A case in point is the Assassin's Creed series with its 'follow person X without being seen' sequences. I hate them, I wish they weren't in the game, but I push through the frustration because I enjoy the rest of the game (And I'm sure thats a lot smaller a portion of the game than Combat will be in Numenera).

    40. Weresheep of Sin AKA Stefan

      a) if it's about business and money: Why are people complaining? Inxile made a business decision ... so live with it. Happens all the time to games in development. I backed Shroud of the Avatar and have to live with the fact that it looks like a glorious in-game-spend-a-lot-of-money-on-housing store ...

      b) the fact that you "paid" for it: yes ... so did all the others. Still does not change the fact that Inxile is developing the game and free to make the decisions. In fact, we are not "paying customers", but benefactors helping kickstart a game and getting a "thank you" for it. Kickstarter is often seen as a pre-order service, but to me, this is wrong.

      c) "it never was a fair vote": Well, LC said it himself: no serious company lets its customer vote on product details ...

      d) "They said we, the customers, could choose what we wanted": Well, this contradicts the statement above (in all fairness, it does not come from the same person, but it's an argument used by the people who don't like the outcome): Yes, well ... they did. We voted, the result is in and there is a small majority for turn-based ...

      e) I never thought they would totally give us free reign concerning combat. And as far as I can remember, they said so before the poll started. They saw that a bit more than half of the people taking part in the poll supported the type of combat they wanted ... so they went with it. I think they would have chosen turn-based even if the result was split in the middle or Rtwp had won by a small margin. If 90% of the people had voted for Rtwp, they might have changed their position or included a compromise option.

      f) People backed, fully knowing that certain details were not hammered out yet - and in a game like Torment, combat is a detail, a small one.

      g) Simple fact is: At least half the people are fine with Inxile's decision. Maybe even more given the fact that some Rtwp folks said they could live (very well) with it. I didn't hear a lot of "oh, this is unfair" before the poll ... or when Rtwp was in the lead. It's only unfair now that the result is not what you wanted ...

    41. Adrià Amor on

      I just want to make clear that I vote for TB not for Inxile wrote but because I've always enjoyed more this kind of combat mode (for example activing its horrible equivalent in Arcanum). I think im not alone in my decission. Moreover, I think on the contrary, the fact that Inxile had given slightly more arguments for the TB, movilized all the RTwP supporters because they made more visible and vocal, and meet each other from day one of this small elections to convince the others (you can actually check the uservoice and see which of both sides had more comments and critics beforehand than the other). Just my 2 cents!

    42. Missing avatar

      Kelvin Baillie on

      I've been part of a few Kickstarters, this has to be the most divisive thing I've seen from a Developer. I've seen controversy, but its usually been a unified community against the Publisher for failing to deliver what was promised to its backers

      But this is more the community turning on itself, which is never a nice thing to see.

      @Emeraude - I'm not a backer of Wasteland 2 simply due to the fact that I was not on Kickstarter at the stage. But I've read most updates and they never had any issues like this because they had a vision, they pitched, people liked it. They were upfront with everything, there was no dramatic decisions that needed to be made. That seems to be the best way to do a Kickstarter. Decide everything before hand, then go to the community and then they can decide to throw money at the game if they want.

      Leaving a major decision (Even if its not the majority of the game) until later/after the Kickstarter as is clearly visible from this and previous updates, is an unwise idea.

    43. LordCrash on

      We are NO community here and this is no cummunity decision. We are paying customers voting about elements of our already payed product. And no, we can't vote on our individual product. It's a majority decision. This is just so wrong....

    44. LordCrash on

      I can only laugh about all the people arguing with the democratic principle of the vote. You guys must be joking. This is not about democracy, this is about business and money.

      The whole concept of this vote is so ridiculous in itself. No serious company let vote their paying customers on product details after they collected the money from them. That's dishonest and unserious business.

      I don't get it why so many people here argue against DRM and bad business practices in the gaming industry but welcome the way Inxile handles this. This is beyond my understanding, it's blind celeb following.

      "I trust in God and I trust in Inxile." What a BS...

    45. Missing avatar

      Yaniv on


      Do you understand the concept of rhetorical questions?
      Do you understand the difference between what matter to inXile as developers and what matter to me as a player?
      Do you understand the concept of fair community decision?

      BTW, these are also rhetorical questions.

    46. Zhivko Yakimov on

      I apologise if someone has written about this before, but I don't feel like reading through all 16 pages of comments. What I want to say is that there is a way to please both camps, and it has been done already, in Knights of the Old Republic (I & II).

      Both games have turn-based combat, but there is no pause after turns end, so it feels like combat is real time. There was an option to pause automatically after each turn, but I think few players used it. Nevertheless, the game was entirely turn-based, there were even some feats that could give you an additional turn (or two). The result was that combat still looked smooth enough for those who preferred it, but there was an option to play it turn-based, if you preferred. I think this is a good compromise for everyone, maybe worth taking a look?

    47. Marcin Wolny on

      Results of this voting were determined even before first vote was cast.

      They did everything to make Turn-Based look superior in every important (from RPG-point of view) matter. So to be honest - I'm surprised that RTwP got so many votes. My first thought after seeing the poll was that TB will win with good 70%. If anything - developers should think of it as a PR disaster - despite of doing everything they possibly could to convince people in Turn Based - still half of the community picked RTwP.

      Pathetic, horribly biased pool with rather surprising results even despite of that.

    48. Lastan, The Penultimate Castoff on

      "As since the thing really caught steam, the divide between people treating Kickstarter as pre-order, and those treating it as patronage is showing in the current debate.

      Personally I come from the latter. If anything, inXile didn't even have to discuss anything past the basic pitch of the game as far as I'm concerned. The idea of Kickstarter for me was to get rid of publisher/market influence to allow artists/craftsmen to produce a thing they felt the desire to make but couldn't because of constant meddling and market pressure.

      Replacing publishers by an army of demanding backers each thinking they have a right and a say to the creation process would be going from bad to worse if anything."
      Thank you for saying that. For a moment I thought I was crazy. ;)

    49. Lastan, The Penultimate Castoff on

      "You must be naive, or stupid, or hypocrite, or just blind from inXile idolizing to say that they did not prettified the TB combat system."
      You must be a poorer reader than I am if you still think I said inXile didn't try to present TB as alluring as possible. I merely said they had the right to do so.
      However, the RTwP side also tried to convince the voters their choice was better in some or all respects. If anything, inXile's campaign was a model of restraint: they summarized their arguments in one post and pretty much let us decide, with but occasional explanation of whatever issue was raised. I wish I could see a political campaign this restrained and this successful; I won't, in part because this decision wasn't the direct result of inXile's campaign for TB. Even before we were given the vote the camps were about equally large and vocal, and I remember several discussions on the merits of one and the other.
      "The arguments supporting the TB (as provided by inXile) are not objective."
      Sure they are. You just don't like them. There's a difference.
      "Truer to tabletop, advantage?"
      When transferring a carefully designed system to another medium, it is obviously better not to cut its parts out just because. I've seen a number of attempts of fixing this role-playing system or that, and most introduced more imbalances than they fixed.
      "Companion AI becomes less necessary, advantage?"
      Less work for programmers, who can then focus on other things. Also, given that no AI currently in existence can perform as well as most of us would like it to, it leads to less player frustration.
      "Adapt Wasteland 2’s combat system, advantage to who?"
      To inXile, of course. Adapting something that works takes less time and effort than making something from scratch. Depending on your point of view, this brings us the finished game a month or two earlier, or a better game at whatever publishing date they choose.
      Also, any bugs caught in W2's combat system after publishing can be fixed in T:ToN before publishing.
      And now let me once again quote your own words:
      "And you can repeat the bullshit claiming that with one combat system the game will be good and with the other not, the fact is that it is a subjective thing. inXile themselves said, in the combat video during the campaign, that the type of combat system does not matter and what really important are details (implementation, integration, etc.)."
      Please note that you have now said that this is a subjective thing and that the combat system does not matter. So why are you still going on about it, then? Not enough people like your favorite band?

    50. Stephan Krawec on

      Well, I picked TB and I'm glad it won but I also didn't really care too much in the combat as this game is mainly about story and decisions.

      As an RPG fan i'm quite disgusted in the discussion here. As one of this genre's enthusiasts I say this; Have some dignity we all voted for the combat and of course some are going to lose. If I lost It wouldn't matter because the real gem is this game is going to get made. Without us this game wouldn't happen.