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. David Stewart on

      @Mordred Yes, those who prefer RTwP are the worst. Worse than murderers, tyrants, slavers, everyone. The absolute worst…

      Let's at least pretend to be mature here. RTwP is simply an attempt to make a more realistic combat system which works seamlessly with the non-combat movement system. It was designed to provide a more immersive experience. I fail to see how it is at all hackneyed.

    2. Federico on

      I played a lot of rpgs with turn-based combat and i loved them. I'm sure Torment will be no different!

    3. Mirko Hess on

      Strange how some are highly displeased with the kind of combat resolution being decided months after the end of the kickstarter ONLY AFTER the decision is one they do not like. Would you have been as voicy about it being months after the end of the kickstarter if the decision would have been RTWP (= the deciison you would have liked)??
      Why didn´t you drop out before the end of the kickstarter when the decision about combat was not yet done near the end and it was clear it would not be done till after the end? You knew then and there that it was not decided yet and could be decided as TB.

    4. Dawn_


      Exactly, and do you think that not saying since the start that they were leaning towards TB in the first place just to have more money isn't what you can call misleading people for money?

    5. David Stewart on

      @Brandon Resorting to belittling and insulting those who disagree with you is at least as bad as whatever you consider whining.

    6. meganothing dread bard of torment BOSB on

      @David: Correct. I just don't know how they could have done more. They can't force people to vote. The only valid critisism I heard was that you needed an account, but on the other hand that was one way to make sure only backers could vote and only once. I'm not sure how save popular voting platforms are with this, surveymonkey seems not to have any features for this (at least they don't advertise it)

    7. Sam on

      Aaaand I am really starting to hate my new phones autocorrect doubling up words on me

    8. Sam on

      You know what would have happened had they mentionedmentioned leaning heavily toward TB during the campaign?
      Sweet F A
      There would have been less money raisedraised because less people wanted it and nothing else
      Thinking there would be trolling during the campaign is ridiculous and it would have been far better a result than they have had by now months after the campaign is over deciding it

    9. Brandon on

      @Tim, I'm not so sure we would have gotten the same whining from the turn based crowd as we're getting from the real time people. The reason I say this? When turn based was behind in the poll? Turn based people weren't on here trying to guilt trip real time people into voting turn based. Nor were they whining and crying about it. One side showed plenty of maturity and the other didn't. Perhaps if turn based had always had the lead I would have agreed with you that they would have responded the way the real time people are, however since we saw how the turn based crowd acted while behind in the poll? I can't help but disagree with you.

    10. Mordred on


      Rtwp is nothing more than a hackneyed attempt at making and action game and appealing more to dudebros. You rtwp people really are the worst.

    11. ☆ dlux ☆ on

      >"Its why I believe they should have started the Kickstarter saying "Hey guys, this will be a TB game". No controversy created, people can then decide openly if they want that or not."

      Inxile wanted TB combat right from the beginning. Having a drama after the kickstarter is definitely better than having a drama with excessive trolling during the kickstarter.

      There will of course be some TB haters who feel betrayed and will troll through the internet, but I think most RTwP fans can live with decision and will eventually get over it and just accept it.

    12. Missing avatar

      Adunakhor on

      Sadly disappointed in the result of the combat system decision...
      I backed this project within the first 2 minutes of it going live, without ever reading the description or watching the video. I did vote for RTwP in the poll. While it´s true that the devs did not promise RTwP in the Kickstarter I assumed naturally it would be a Post Infinity Engine game and a kind of sibling to P:E (obviously my fault). I personally back and play TB RPGs occasionally, but for me TB combat (since Ultima II in 82) is just something I endure and suffer through to get to the next bit of story. I was so sick of TB RPGs at the end of the 90´s that I stopped playing RPGs altogether. BG rekindled that love with it´s (not flawless) RTwP combat system.
      I highly doubt that this game will change my perception on anything TB. I don´t want a refund (since it was my fault to back at this level) and I will play the game once it is out, but for me this is not the game I expected and backed…sorry

    13. David Stewart on

      @meganothing I didn't make any assumptions about which way the non-voters would have gone. I was simply pointing out that the poll wasn't a representative sample which could be statistically used for extrapolating the view of the entire population.

    14. meganothing dread bard of torment BOSB on

      @Kevin: I'm not contesting this. But a lot of people said before and after that they trust inXile to do the right thing and would defer their decision to them. They have the same right to express their opinion through vote which they only can do if they know what inXile thinks. They are the impact you are critical of. You are practically saying that they should not vote like they want.

    15. Mirko Hess on

      @David: That´s a rather strange reasoning in my opinion. As you yourself stated "Only those who saw the email and cared enough to click through vote". That´s quite right. So, what makes you think that people who do not care enough to even click thorough will get in any other category than "I couldn´t care less" in the most positive event to the RTWP side, More likely they would have been swayed to the TB side, cause if they don´t really care, they´ll just say: "ok, if the team who makes the game says TB is better suited, WTF?".

      I for one don´t really care cause I would have bought into this either way but have voted for TB cause I like that more than RTWP. I also do not really understand how some people claim that TB will destroy their "submersion" but clicking pause every 0.5 seconds to correct something will not.......or do they just let the battles run as they do and be finished with it?

    16. Missing avatar

      Kelvin Baillie on

      @Meganothing - I'm not saying they are not allowed an opinion as they are making the game, putting in the hard work. But if they wanted to get a true perspective of their community they would not have shown which system they preferred before the Poll as it definately would have had some level of impact (Impossible to truly judge how much) on the results.

    17. Nameless on

      @Lord - Prepared to be flamed and personally attacked for having a negative opinion if TB.

    18. Lord Drakonor on

      TB is nothing but a glorified chess game! I would not have pledged for this turkey if TB was known!
      I loathe despise hate TB and even more so since a large quantity of conteporary RPGs games have TB which I wont touch!!

      Not going to touch this game!! You can have my $ considering the firm is ethical !
      Striking this game off my anticipated list!

    19. meganothing dread bard of torment BOSB on

      @Kelvin: Favouritism is when someone voices their opinion who should be impartial. This isn't the case, inXile isn't an impartial party and people who are of the opinion that the company should use the system it favours have the same right to vote as you have. And for them inXile's opinion matters.

    20. meganothing dread bard of torment BOSB on

      @David: You may be right about the 20% not being a faithful representation of everyone, but you can't just assume that the silent majority would support your view. People on the fence might just trust InXile's view that TB is somewhat better for this and create a landslide win for TB.

    21. Missing avatar

      Kelvin Baillie on

      @Helena - Yes they're making the game... with our money. They using their own money, couldn't care less what they decide, I'll then decide to purchase the game or not when its released. This is a Kickstarter where they are funded by a community of people and people are usually divisive and have preferences. Its why I believe they should have started the Kickstarter saying "Hey guys, this will be a TB game". No controversy created, people can then decide openly if they want that or not.

      The basic game mechanics are so fundamental to a game, to have not decided them going into a Kickstarter was an unwise move. Sure let us have input on things, but something as base as that? It was always going to create issues.

      @Davie - Its hard to judge how much their favouritism skewed the results but it would have had SOME effect. Theres 4% of people who are indifferent. I'm sure there were others who were like them, but seeing the developers preferences as well as their rather skewed 'Pro's and Cons' for each system chose TB based on this. I'm not saying that without this it would have ended up like 60 - 40 or anything, but it would have had an impact.

      At the end of the day, I will still play this and likely enjoy it, but I just know I would have enjoyed it that much more with a different combat system. I feel all this unnecessary drama could have been avoided if something as fundamental to a game which radically changes its experience was decided before they started this Kickstarter.

      Though I'm guessing after this, if the developer ever does come to Kickstarter they will have likely have learnt this lesson. Though if their 2 games go well enough they might be able to fund themselves in the future.

    22. olpika on

      Reading all the hate on this update makes me realize how crazy and asocial most RPG fans are. I'm proud to be a backer of this game. But I'm not proud to be associated with all the havoc I see in those comments.

    23. IamHowie on

      You gotta be kidding me. I would have voted RTwP if I didn't miss the vote, but admitting myself to be in that crowd shames me after reading so many refund outrage. I full heartedly hope inXile would just move on with other game designing process which is the real jewel of PS:T and ignore everything commented in this update.

    24. ☆ dlux ☆ on

      I have read many comments full of disappointment about the decision, but only a handful of backers are actually demanding a refund. Lets not blow this out of proportion.
      I can only recommend to those who hate TB combat to sell their game when they receive it. Maybe they will even make a small profit. :)

    25. David Stewart on

      @Kevin B this wasn't 20% taken through a random sample. This was 20% taken via self-selection. Only those who saw the email and cared enough to click through voted, this will tend to preferentially select those who are following the game more closely or who have a strong preference one way or the other. It is quite probable that if everyone had voted the vote would be different.

    26. Helena on

      @ Durante: but inXile *were* completely open about the fact that the combat system was still up in the air. It's not like they've lied to anyone. I'm not buying the idea that they would have gone with TB anyway no matter how strong the vote for RTwP; that would have been extremely foolish of them, since they'd be pissing off a large majority of their fans rather than just a few die-hards on one side or the other. Regarding the discussion at RPG Codex, they'd already said they would prototype both systems before the vote, so asking for ideas is perfectly reasonable - it doesn't mean they'd already made a decision and weren't going to budge from it no matter what the backers voted for.

      And what was wrong with the options in the poll? They even put RTwP above TB in the options list, which might well have caused a few people to accidentally vote for it because they weren't paying attention. Yes, inXile had expressed a preference for TB, but why shouldn't they? This wasn't a vote on the objective merits of TB vs. RTwP, but on which would work better for this particular game. They're the ones actually making the game, and if they felt TB combat would suit their design better they had every right to say so.

    27. David Stewart on

      My main issue is that turn-based combat is so transparently artificial that it takes me out of the story and world. When I play an RPG I'm looking to be immersed in the world. Real-time combat can be fun, but it is fun within its own artificial construct. I really enjoy the challenge of chess, but it isn't an immersive experience by any means. Likewise games like XCOM are fun, but I never feel like I'm doing anything other than solving tactical challenges.

      For a game sold as an immersive experience, choosing turn-based combat destroys that experience for me (and a lot of others). Minimizing combat and not having trash mobs is great, but it does nothing to mitigate the completely artificial nature of turn-based combat.

    28. Slobodan Obrenovic on

      Let's summarize the chain of events:

      1. During the Kickstarter campaign, Inixile stated that they are considering three combat systems (TB, RTWP and PB) and that the combat system would be put to advisory vote.

      2. In spite of the clear indication of (1), the vocal opponents of TB pledged for the game.

      3. Advisory vote was undertaken, and majority of those who participated voted for the Turn based combat system.

      4. Inixile has decided to use turn based combat system.

      5. Vocal opponents of turn based combat deny the development team the decision about the combat system, although that decision was also supported by the majority vote.

      6. Spoiled vocal opponents of TB combat try to blackmail InIxile to force them to accept the minority option of RTWP combat, threatening pledge withdrawals.

      7. Given the chain of (1) - (4) has not contradicted any premise of the Kickstarter campaign, refund requests are baseless and should be denied.

    29. Missing avatar

      Kelvin Baillie on

      I'm definately in the crowd of the dissapointed people. Sure I don't mind a TB game here and there, but RTwP has always been a preferred combat mechanic for me over TB, its just theres not too many RTwP games on Kickstarter. Tons of TB ones though.

      At the same time I knew this result, this whole vote felt pointless. Firstly it was influenced by InXile showing blatant favouritism towards one system, influencing the vote. And secondly RTwP would have had to have won by a landslide to mean anything.

      I think something as important as the basic combat system needs to be decided BEFORE a Kickstarter so people know what they are getting. Because regardless of whatever else is said, combat does make up a significant portion of any RPG. They should have said TB from day one and it would have avoided all this drama. Probably wouldn't have drawn as much funds though.

      I'm not demanding a refund, just dissapointed in the result. Theres too many TB games on Kickstarter at the moment and really was hoping for a new RTwP one to shake it up a bit. All my hopes for that rest on Project Eternity then I guess.

      I do find it amusing how the 'RTwP' people have been labelled as all sorts of things. Yet I bet if the result had been the other way round the TB lot would be just as 'vocal' and unhappy. Just because you got the result you wanted does not mean everyone has to accept it.

    30. aratuk on

      Bunch of griefers up in here, yo!

      I can tell you right now that they're not going to offer refunds over this, because of the potential to undermine significant aspects of the whole project. There are plenty of people who would ask for their money back just because they want money and they know they are relatively anonymous members of a large group.

      Ain't no way it's gonna happen. Stop whining.

      There's also the consideration that everyone signed up to support a project whose design had not been finalized, and which was clearly described as not having been finalized. It's unethical to attempt to withdraw the pledge you made knowing that this decision had yet to be taken — there was talk of a "combat vote" all through the Kickstarter.

      Suck it up.

    31. Sensuki on

      Me too actually.

    32. ☆ dlux ☆ on

      People who loved the originals are not happy about how Bethesda mutilated Fallout. I certainly am not. The switch to first person wouldn't be all that bad if Bethesda could actually make a good game. Which they can't IMO. It is a complete mystery to me why people like their games... but to each their own I guess.

    33. Sensuki on

      Indeed but the majority of the people I flagged were complaining about not liking turn-based combat, and some even requesting refunds.

      Now you have to admit that that doesn't quiiite make sense.

    34. Missing avatar

      Petar on

      I voted RTwP and I post this to express my support for InXile for their decision to go forth with what they deem is best for the game, as well as for the sensible way they handled the situation (and it's obvious to me that the 'refund' comments are outside the notion of 'sensible'; unfortunately, there's no way around it and I'm sure there' would be people like that on both sides of this fence, no matter which way the decision went).

      Also, from what I remember and appreciate PS:T for, I can at least be honest with myself and admit that I would've backed a new Torment even if they said upfront the battles will be FPS combat.

    35. Missing avatar

      Durante on

      Well, I will have to reconsider my pledge levels for future inXile projects Not because of the decision, but because of how it was arrived at. Making an internal decision, and then presenting the options in a poll in such a fashion that it will be selected (and actually updating them when this looks like it couldn't happen) is simply not the type of conduct I want to support.

      Also, @Sensuki, just because someone backed a (or many) turn-based games doesn't mean they want all games to be turn-based. For a PST-like experience, I think RTwP is vastly superior.

      And @Helena, the reason why there was no "fuss" about D:OS is that they were completely open, during the crowdfunding period, about what the game they were making will be like. They didn't try to (and succeed in) trying to have their funding cake and eat it too.

    36. Sensuki on

      @Sam I think their communication on the topic was just fine. They said they were not 100% sure at first, and then they posted that they were going to have an advisory vote and stated that after initial testing they were looking at turn based. Certainly a lot better than the communication of the Obsidian Entertainment devs on the reasons for the delays of their Backer Website.

      Although haha, I don't think it was ever going to be RTWP as as I said earlier, Kevin Saunders (the guy who did the update) and some of the other devs are actually RPGCodex forum members and they were asking about ideas to make TB combat really good.

    37. Missing avatar

      Tim on

      Also it is hillarious that we would have exactly the same rants and dissapointments when RTwP had won ;)

    38. Sam on

      I think the big difference is Filip once people heard Bethesda got their claws on fallout everyone just gave it up for dead and stopped caring

      I know I did

    39. Missing avatar

      Filip Stamate on

      It's goddamn hilarious that another team can change everything and it's great, but the "same" team is not allowed to. Talk about making stuff up.

    40. Missing avatar

      Filip Stamate on

      Plus this game was always claimed to be a spiritual successor in the focus on story telling sense. It doesn't use the same universe, it doesn't use the same ruleset, it doesn't use the same characters, it's not related to that story. But OOOOH they dared change the combat so horrible.
      Just admit it's simply a case of not liking TB. All these pathetic motivations you're trying to bring are simply hilarious. More fair to say "i don't like it", don't you think?

    41. Sam on

      Ah well see still an online community and so I am not that interested
      My main issue was how this was handled because while I prefer the idea of torment being RTwP I see in a game like this to be immensely immersion breaking.
      I think that a lot of issues revolving around this would not exist with a bit more planning from inXile and generally things would have been smoother without them waiting 9 months to decide on what is still a core component of gameplay regardless of how much of the game it actually takes up because it exists and so it will be one of the main points it is judged on

    42. Sensuki on

      forgot Mark Morgan on the music as well.

    43. Sensuki on

      @Adria Amor

      Torment isn't being made by the same team either. It does have a lot of the same people, but it's not literally the same team.

      IIRC the people that are the same are Brian Fargo - the Executive Producer, Adam Heine who was a designer or something on Planescape Torment, Colin McComb and Chris Avellone. I think there might be like one or two other people I'm not sure, but PS:T was built by more people than that.

      It does have *most* of the people who matter, at least to our knowledge. But it's not the same distinction. Chris Avellone also has a much smaller role in this game.

    44. Missing avatar

      Filip Stamate on

      It's absolutely a valid comparison. The claim here is that people were lied (even though it was never said that this game will be RTwP). Similarly Fallout fans were lied by Bethesda when they said they're gonna do a sequel.

      What man behind what tabletop? Colin McComb? He's not the "man behind". He worked on it, he's not the creator. I don't even know why you would bring up the tabletop as that's turn-based so you shoot yourself in the foot.

      I have no idea about what blame and chance you're talking about. Maybe you misunderstand my post?

    45. Sensuki on

      I'm actually from the RPGCodex. The community that probably has the largest following of turn-based fans on the internet.

      I actually like RTwP just as much as turn based but I just find it hilarious how some people are so mad over turn-based in this game, when it's combat is literally going to be like 5% of it's gameplay.

      It's also hilarious as Helena stated how no one has brought up how other games such as Fallout 3 abandoning turn-based for real-time due to the Bethesda engine & the popamole console crowd, yet no one seems to have had a problem with that at least here in this thread.

      The most hilarious thing I have seen on this subject is from that secondrate youtube celeb smudboy who specifically stated that ACTUAL successors (ie Fallout 3) can differentiate the combat style of the game, but SPIRITUAL successors MUST have the same style of combat as the game they are paying homage to.

      What a ridiculous notion.

    46. Adrià Amor on

      Fallout 3 was not made by the same team that had brought us the first two gems so your comparison is totally invalid. In this case, the brains behind the original game (including the man behind its tabletop predecessor) has came up with this TB decission so please stop blaming and give them the chance they deserve.

    47. Sam on

      No thanks, I avoid reddit
      I am not a big fan of most online communities and kickstarter is actually about as involved in them as I get, even then I keep most my interactions to a minimum

      Most the time I am working away so I don't keep any sort of regular schedule to go to them, "i'm here all week" was literal, I leave for work again Friday

    48. Sensuki on

      @Sam oh sorry bro you seem mad

      I didn't actually say that you asked for a refund, I grouped you in with a bunch of people that were unhappy with the decision and specifically complaining about the nature of turn-based combat.

      I have a reddit account, but I've only made it to post in the Project Eternity AMA. Google it ;)