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. Dawn_

      The important point is isn't that your preference for TB emerged before or after. It's the fact that it emerged at all which makes every people who wanted RtwP not feel at ease at all.

      Rather than give a vote you should have explain why you'd prefeered to go for TB without giving the option to vote knowing after that for you TB was the good choice only makes those who wanted otherwise bitter.

    2. Justice Pie on

      Excellent update! Congrats to all the voters, I have no doubt the final TB decision will still make this game spectacular!

    3. IamHowie on

      What people like does not change the FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY of a game. The core element of a game is defined by designers not players. You should place your own opinions a bit lower than the game design when you openly refute a game. It's not your game, it's their game. How you enjoyed the game is completely IRRELEVANT to the game design philosophy.
      Once you put you opinion on top of design philosophy, PS:T will be itself no more, and your kind of people who twisted Chris Avellone's initial intention that could kill the spirit of a game, not sincere designers like inXile.

    4. David Stewart on

      @Tane combat wasn't explicitly mentioned, so people assumed it would follow the same model that was used in Torment. This isn't an unreasonable expectation given that no indication was initially made that a different combat system was being considered. I think if these people look in the mirror they don't have all that much reason to be dissatisfied with themselves.

    5. Kevin Saunders on

      To clarify one point: we absolutely didn't have a preference on the combat system during the Kickstarter -- and for quite some time after it ended. Our initial design focus was on the elements that are more central to Torment, such as the dialogue, story, characters, and reactivity. Our discussion of combat only emerged as early as it did because, while concentrating on the other elements, we realized ways we could better tie combat to the core aspects of the game (through the Crisis concept). And our belief that TB combat would be provide the best experience for Torment emerged still later.

    6. Jibboom

      RTwP... I'm not sure what TRwP is :p

    7. Jibboom

      I voted for TRwP, not because of the original PS:T combat but because I hoped they could do something similar to BG2. I'm a bit disappointed but still very much looking forward to the game (and in all likeliness I will be playing a combat-avoiding character no matter what the chosen mechanic happens to be).
      I would really like to see is a video showing an example encounter (when they're at a point where that is possible) - show a little bit before combat begins and how that transitions into the turn based fight, then how the fight plays out. I think that would convince a lot of people.

    8. Brandon on

      @dlux, I don't know about those forums, I'm talking about here as this is where I have been paying attention. If the turn based people there were acting like spoiled brats then shame on them. All I know though is the turn based people here were not acting like children while the real time people were and if you just ignore people acting like children then they'll continue to think such behaviour is acceptable, when it's not.

    9. Dawn_


      Who would have pass on another PS:T?!
      I am not crazy and since the combat system wasn't clearly specified i maintained my pledge high. If the information had been clearly stated i would have pledge the same but way way less.

      And that's not gambling since i would have pledge the same only thing being is due to lack of complete information and trust (not stating THEY prefeered to go with TB) my pledge doesn't reflect my lowered expectation for the game.

    10. ☆ dlux ☆ on

      Sounds to me like you wanted T:ToN to have RTwP combat for nostalgic reasons, i.e. for that "Infinity Engine" feel. I can respect that and think you are absolutely right. If only this detail was important, then i'd say they should definitely go RTwP.
      On the other hand the designers are more comfortable with TB combat. They think it fits the game that they are designing better for numerous design (and cost) reasons. If I had to weigh out both combat systems based on these facts (RTwP for nostaligic reasons or TB for design reasons), then I'd say they should go with the system that helps them design a better game, which is TB combat. Maybe Inxile just really sucks at designing a RTwP game and they know it. Who knows.

      I feel with you guys, because I really enjoy RTwP combat myself. It does somewhat sadden me that practically every classic RPG on Kickstarter other than Project Eternity will have turn based combat, but that the way it is.

      In short: Respect the designers decision, Torment will be a great game even with TB combat. TB is fun @everbody, try it. :)

    11. Tane Norther on

      I think we're running circles here (and everyone including myself are to blame). But I'll just say this: if I was RTwP fan who hates TB, and I made assumption / wish that the game will be RTwP, I would be disappointed at this point, too. But in this case I'd have to take a look into mirror, as that means I'd have pledged for a game, knowing that there's no enough information about combat mechanics at this point, and this combat thing would be buy-or-pass decision for me. That means that I was gambling with my pledge intentionally, making my own assumptions or wishes that were not based on anything stated at kickstarter campaign page, and I was well aware of that. I could only blame myself for doing so (of course that wouldn't make the picture of upcoming game better for me). I just wish people were honest for themselves, even if disappointed. It's easy to point finger towards InXile and forget, that only you are responsible for the pledge, far as no false information was given.

    12. Dawn_

      I've see no one stating RtwP was the foundation of PS:T.
      It was part of the game though most people backed the game for nostalgia including the combat system. Naturally, their nostalgia is partly broken and if they had known from the start they would have pledge less money.

    13. Sam on

      Because there is only ever one right way to enjoy things correct?
      People like different things if this is so alien to you then I suggest you stop trying to speak in open forums

      Some people loved the combat in torment just like some didn't and nothing will change what those people liked about the game

    14. IamHowie on

      Whoever said RTwP is foundation of Planescape: Torment has absolutely no clue what PS:T is all about. PS:T is all about the 400+ pages of scripts written by Chris Avellone, not that outdated highly flawed (even by 90s standard) Infinity Engine which Bioware licensed to BIS and had backed off once they're done with BG 2. Every PS:T fan knows that the combat is pathetic and redundant at its core except like 3 major battles in the whole game. PS:T was regarded as more an interactive story book than a regular RPG. If you wish a classic BG style RPG, go for BG enhanced edition series.
      It's rather sickening to see some pretentious so call PS:T fans tried to argue with the fundamental philosophy of the game that they know nothing about.

    15. Missing avatar

      Quwi on

      The canned response from Avellone really put my mind at ease, as if he would go against the wishes of the team he's working for.

    16. Dawn_

      My point being (i clearly explains it because it seems it is easy to jump the gun and take what you want from it).

      If the original game had been a TB and known to be a TB and they would have gone for RtwP the same people who have shouted the same.

      Plus seriously TB supporter take a look at my profile and see how many games i backed who are TB. While i didn't see yet one RtwP on KS! TB fans are really getting the good side of the road i'd say and RtwP fans are getting the crap.

    17. Sam on

      Kickstarters all come with risk but this was a significant issue that undoubtedly affected the outcome of the project and how people feel about it and worse this was an acknowledged issue

      I am pretty sure the RPG book was scaled back because of something that came up later on and not something they hadn't decided on at the start and then kept ignoring until the couldn't any more

    18. Dawn_


      If what you jump is my example and not my can take any TB old school games you want story-centered as a good example after all there is legion of that. My point would be the same thing.

    19. Mirko Hess on

      @David: Ok, I can see your reasoning. has been stated and as you say for yourself, it was your decision to ignore the updates. So I think it kinda unfair to say here without any real evidence that it would have been TB no matter what.

      @Sam: Sure, could have been handeled better maybe. but there are many, many kickstarters that handle those things far, far worse. Few weeks agon I pledged on a RPG book that was clearly stated as 450+ pages black and white and after the end (with no clue in an update beforehand) became 280 pages color. Kickstarter isn´t buying a done product. If you want to know all the balls and whistles of a product, then wait and buy in store. I know it´s dissatisfying, but......that´s kickstarter.

    20. Tane Norther on

      @ Dawn_: What you're forgetting with your Jagged Alliance comparison, though, is that combat was not the heart of PST (story and character interaction was) - thus the heart of the "spiritual predecessor" isn't changed. However, JA2's heart is combat - it is a combat/strategy-heavy game in expense of other areas of the gameplay. It doesn't focus on the story, not character interaction or narrative side of things. If they changed something story / dialogue -related in sequel for Jagged Alliance, I wouldn't mind, as it was not the main focus of the series, anyway. Same, for me, applies in "spiritual successor" of PST: they're keeping narrative side of things and story-focus similar, "in the spirit of...". Changing combat with Torment doesn't change the core of the franchise same way, than chancing combat mechanics in Jagged Alliance series.

      I find it rather hilarious of some people complaining that "they're stealing TB engine from Wasteland 2 to save money!!1". They're now more experienced with TB system thus they can make it better than on WL2. Besides, they cannot just copy-paste the system into Torment anyway, since WL2 and Torment use totally different rulesets (WL2's own versus Numenera ruleset of Torment), thus InXile will have to tailor, modify, and most likely re-write big part of the turn-based engine and it's code. There may be some time-saving due development of TB combat-engine with Wasteland 2. They may be able to use parts of it, or at least, perhaps code it faster with previous experience. But is that so big deal it's relevant? It does have positive side of things, too. Experience with the system, perhaps some time-saving qualities, which means that the team can focus the saved time on shining out other areas of the game before the release...

    21. Dawn_

      @David Stewart

      It's clearly that. Personally if it would have been stated right away. I would have back to a single digital download at 20$ and not a hundred bucks. And indeed the fact that it wasn't clearly started clearly makes you doubt their intention.

      Because it's obvious they would have had way less money otherwise (like 3million maybe).

    22. Sam on

      Combat may have been a small part but to most everyone I know they said the combat was still a good point and many people fondly remember it
      Me I would have been happy with a clear decision either way earlier on but the way they handled it is my issue

    23. David Stewart on

      @Mirko I don't think anyone is saying it has to be RTwP. They are saying that's what they expected when they put down their money. They are saying that if the developers had said up front that this was going to be a TB game they would not have backed it. And people are questioning why the obvious preference of the developers wasn't more visibly signaled from the start.

      I didn't back out because I didn't know this was a question until after the Kickstarter closed. I back quite a few projects and don't read all the long updates projects send. That's obviously my decision, but I don't think hiding something this central in updates is a good call.

    24. Mirko Hess on

      @Sam: and they do or try to do in my book....cause, sorry, but "combat" always has been, is and always will be the least important part of PS:T for most of the people I know that loved this game....

    25. Sam on

      If the JA:F team had said they were going RT I would have been right with you

    26. Missing avatar

      Adunakhor on

      For me it was neither fraud nor deception by the devs.

      I was misled by my own perceptions and expectations. I am still disappointed, as this is not the game I wanted. Definitely no more nostalgia backing for me.

      InXile is entitled to their decision and I as a backer am entitled to my opinion.

    27. meganothing dread bard of torment BOSB on

      @Kelvin: If we accept their communication as true, they were undecided or leaning to RTwP for a long time. Not making it better, but their conduct was consistent with their communication and it was clear from their opinions as well as backer feedback that combat would not be important to Torment.

      And I completely agree that if PS:T had been turn-based, changing it to RTwP would have made the same storm, just reversed. We as a group are not a jota better than RTwP fans.

    28. Sam on

      That is a problem with your electoral system that needs fixing, while it is shocking it doesn't really apply as well here

      Possibly by how much they went on about being a spiritual successor which many people took to meaning keeping the same style in most particulars

    29. Mirko Hess on

      @David: So it is: "It was never stated to be RTWP but we THOUGHT it will be RTWP and so it HAS TO BE RTWP or it´s all fraud. And f**k those 7.267 suckers who think otherwise. What do they know?" ? Sorry, not trying to be polemic or something seems that the core of the problem is that you and others (and minority as it is) have assumed it would be RTWP on no data at all (aside that 15 years ago Torment was RTWP) and are now weaving conspiracy theories and crying havoc. Again I ask why have you not dropped out before the end of the kickstarter when you realized that the combat issue would not be closed before the end and if RTWP was so much of a do-or-die-point for you?

    30. Dawn_

      @Kelvin Baillie

      I think the exact same plus i backed already several TB, let's be fair every Rpgs going on KS is a TB for old-school sake i could name a dozen of dozen. Just by looking at my profile.

      While I can't name one RtwP i've backed in the hundred games i've backed.

      And as i am an honest person so the TB supporter would understand that they are the same as RtwP supporter.

      If it were Jagged Alliance (which is a TB game) and the guys doing it would have said "We're going for real-time" I would have shouted the same as most of the supporter of TB.

      What people are angered at mostly is that PS:T was a RTwP changing that for them is like changing the whole game for them what make they come here was nostalgia of a great game.

      And now it won't be exactly the same type of game so their nostalgia is partly broken. As is their expectation.

      Second thing they're angered at is the fact they acted "we wanted to go for TB in the first place but we didn't say it clearl coz' we were afraid to angered the backers and have less we don't say it clearly and let people vote but we're really happy the vote had gone for TB".

      Pretty sure the team developpement voted themselves for TB :P

    31. David Stewart on

      @Mirko the question of the combat system wasn't well publicized. It was in some later updates and discussion elsewhere on the internet, but if you weren't closely following the game it was all too easy to miss the fact that TB was being considered. Certainly everyone is responsible for their own pledges and RTwP was never explicitly promised, but it does seem the TB preference was kept more hidden than it should have been and there is a legitimate question of whether it is proper to launch such a large Kickstarter project with such a core element undecided (or unannounced). I think a lot of people probably learned a lesson about backing a game project like this on faith.

    32. Missing avatar

      Kelvin Baillie on

      @Dlux - I never knew of their preference for TB until the posts before the Poll. And I never said drama during the Kickstarter. I said they should have decided the combat system before even putting the Kickstarter together. So that when they launched the Kickstarter they already had the combat system in mind. That way everyone could know with clarity that it will be a 'TB' game rather than this whole. "Well we prefer TB, but we're going to let the community vote, but we're going TB unless RTwP snowballs TB".

      Its just made things really messy when all this could have easily been avoided.

      And despite what some TB people are saying, sitting on their high horses. Its easy to look down on others saying they're screaming and shouting. But if the result had wound up the other way I am certain there will have been just as many vocal TB supporters voicing their 'opinions' against the decision.

      Now I'm not saying I hate TB, I'll still play it and all. I play TB and enjoy TB, but I might not have been so keen on this game if I had known from the start it would be TB as I've already backed plenty of TB games and am interested in seeing games actually do something else on Kickstarter.

    33. Mirko Hess on

      @David: and if they did make such an assumption although this was stated.....who´s to blame?

    34. David Stewart on

      @Mirko This was never billed as a democratic process. If the numbers had been reversed it seems clear that they would have chosen TB anyway (because, as they say, it was statistically a tie and they were leaning towards TB beforehand).

    35. Mirko Hess on

      @David: Don´t know about could they (the RTWPpeople) make such an assumption when the kicksterter EXPLICITLY stated that this was not decided yet?

    36. Manjushri on

      Thank you for giving us the ability to participate so actively in the process of developing this game. I find it fascinating, though, how injecting a touch of democracy into a system instantly polarizes people into angry, hateful camps. Sometimes I wonder if monarchy isn't the better system.

      By the way, I chose not to vote because I knew that I would be happy with either system and I trusted inExile to tailor the encounters to suit the combat system. Also, those of you who say that 20% is not a large enough pool of voters clearly need to put it in perspective. In the US we typically only see about 6% voter turn out for local elections, for heaven's sake! And those consequences are vastly greater than the combat system in a video game. This was a surprisingly high percentage.

    37. David Stewart on

      @Brandon You could certainly find people in the TB supporters group who were the equal to those you pointing to in the RTwP group. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. There are differences in the arguments given the situation. I don't think there were many TB players who assumed this would be a TB game from the start, whereas there were a lot of RTwP players who made that assumption based on the tie-in with Torment. RT players had other points of view from which to argue their case from. The assumption of RTwP was common enough that it is a valid point (not that all arguments made about it or the manner in which they have been made are valid or realistic). In any event, the ad hominem attacks you are making aren't productive.

    38. Missing avatar

      Durante on

      So you think that they were unclear during the funding period in order to gather the maximum amount of funds, and you approve of that decision?

    39. ☆ dlux ☆ on

      The TB crowd was trolling just as much on the uservoice forums as the RTwP crowd. Get your facts straight.

    40. ET3D on

      I'm sure inXile are rolling their eyes and thinking "we knew that would happen". Really can't please everyone. As Kevin said in the update, combat encounters aren't the main thrust of the gameplay. I for one am happy that there aren't random encounters like in PS:T, and to me this has more impact than the decision of combat system.

    41. Mirko Hess on

      @David: You are right but still more people do not share them (as seen in the poll). Now....that´s democracy for ye.

    42. David Stewart on

      @Mirko I'm not assuming everyone feels the same thing I do. I have only stated my feeling and noted that my feeling are shared with a lot of people (as evidenced by the comments and the poll).

    43. Sam on

      Honestly dlux given how many people I saw pledging because of nostalgia I would not be surprised is they had gotten 500-1000k less.
      The name is what brought a lot of people to this project more than anythinganything at first

    44. Mirko Hess on

      @dlux: that may be right but assumes that the vote was rigged beacuse TB it would have been no matter what. I see no evidence for that.

    45. Missing avatar

      Igor Kieryluk on

      Well, regardless of what I think of this move, it serves as a valuable lesson.

      Never back a project based on assumptions, no matter how reasonable. Ask, and if no clear answers are presented, act accordingly.

    46. Dawn_


      I wasn't in the debate but what you say is completely wrong. Most of the people whined because the system used in PS:T was RtwP.

      If PS:T had been a TB game you'll have the opposite crowd whining.
      TB was maybe more mature (and i only say that assuming you're right) but it was only due to the fact that they were going with this huge disadvantage of PS :T not being a TB game before and had to fight and impose/try to convince others to their view.

      Was for RtwP people this system was just the normal way and what it was supposed to be, ever. For sure they feel wronged.

    47. ☆ dlux ☆ on

      Maybe I am wrong and there wouldn't have been any trolling during the kickstarter if they would have announced TB combat straight away. But I do agree with you that they would have collected less cash in that case. How much is hard to say, I am sure it would have still been a notable amount though.

    48. Mirko Hess on

      @David: for you it does this. It´s presumptuous to assume it does so for everyone.

    49. Sam on

      I argued the same thing earlier, whether it was intentional or not it has come across to me at least as underhanded to get more money

    50. Brandon on

      @David, I'm not belittling or insulting them. I'm stating a fact. It's a fact that people were on here trying to guilt trip turn based people into voting real time. It's a fact that real time people moaned and complained once they started getting behind in the poll. It's a fact we didn't see similar from the turn based crowd.

      Stating facts isn't me insulting and belittling them. Their immature reactions do that all on their own.