Share this project

Done

Share this project

Done
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.
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

210 likes

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.

Hello,

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.

Comments

Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Sam on

      @Helena
      Sorry that came out unclear, Divinity that I backed was turn based from the outset not the series

      I meant that only jagged alliance as a series was tb in that post

    2. ☆ dlux ☆ on

      @Sensuki:
      Yeah, I am not very fond of the idea of not receiving xp for killing trash mobs. TBH, there were a few other design decisions that I did not like either.

      Anyway, no, I never logged in again. I am still interested in Project Eternity and read the updates. I'd rather watch it's development and buy it later than be a backer.

    3. Sam on

      Oh and the devs for the new JA are different back in action was made by coreplay and published by kalypso and bitcomposer
      This is different to flashback which isis being made by full control who have also made the very good videogame adaptation of the space hulk board game

      But composer bought the rights to the JA series after their original owner which was sierra through another company iirc folded and have since released one terrible game and sat on it otherwise

      Flashback looks to be taking an X-Com style base system and returning to turn based in the same style as JA 1 & 2 for character movement

      Anything else you need correcting about?

    4. Helena on

      @ Sam: while I understand your argument in general, just to address one thing you said: the earlier Divinity games were RTwP, not turn-based. Curiously, there's been far less of a fuss about the sequel (Original Sin) switching to turn-based combat, even though D:OS is a direct sequel (or rather prequel) while T:ToN is only a 'spiritual successor'. Perhaps it's simply that RTwP fans didn't back D:OS in the first place, but I don't remember anyone even raising the issue during the Kickstarter campaign.

    5. tarasis on

      I had intended to vote, but failed to. My bad. Though really I would have voted for "Don't Care", I want the developers to choose what they think best fits the game and I'm happy to play using either.

      I am thoroughly bemused by the number of people who are wanting refunds because they didn't get their way in the vote, as if they think that the threat will somehow change inXile's mind. You took part in a democratic decision and based on the results TB won. Plain and simple.

      I certainly don't think they should give refunds. You backed the project, you put your trust in the devs and should now wait and see what they create.

    6. Missing avatar

      Filip Stamate on

      dlux and all other justice warriors, I have a question:

      Did you so valiantly defend the Fallout fans who were angry about the change to realtime in Fallout 3? Were you sympathetic to them? If not, why not? After all Fallout 3 was a sequel not simply a spiritual successor.

    7. manio on

      Nice post. Nailing every bias on TB through genuine responses on all those concerns. No matter the outcome it really has to do with encounter design. But oh boy, what are with those comment waterfall? Take heart inXile (and some Panadols extra) , if you are to read through all this ;)

    8. Sam on

      Never did I actually ask for a refund I said I would consider one and you missed about half the TB games I backed and implied I didn't like them because I didn't want this to be turn based

      Not only that but you acted like a dick through this entire update and by googling your name I am seeing more of the same trolling and baiting which I expect is the usual for you

      Maybe with a few more minutes to process what comes out of your head and you could make good points, as it is I would just say go back to /v/ they obviously are missing you

    9. Sensuki on

      whoops no they aren't that was Coreplay

    10. Sensuki on

      Feel free to google my name.

      From my skimming over the thread you probably have the most posts and seem quite upset that TToN isn't RTwP.

      The last JA (Back In Action) was pretty bad, and the company doing JA: Flashback are the people that did Back In Action, not the developer who did the older JA games IIRC.

      You answered my question though.

      I also said that some people need to check their comprehension skills as there are people that complained about TB ans are asking for a refund when they have backed other TB projects - that is pure irony.

    11. Sam on

      What's the matter Sensuki? Can't take people with actual answer so you need to resort to childish tactics? Thought so
      Bet if we went through your history there would be all sorts of douchebaggery we could dredge up to make you look bad

    12. Sensuki on

      @dlux HAHA how ironic, my bad

      Did you ever return to P:E after the no XP for kills thing? I sent you a PM after you RQ'd but you never came back

    13. IamHowie on

      If there is indeed really a refund. I will increase my pledge through paypal by 10 times if it's available, that's how much I believe inExile. I read the terms of Kickstarter as well as everything inExile had written before the campaign closed. Chris Avellone trusts them, I trust them. My money is placed on the right hands.

    14. ☆ dlux ☆ on

      @Sensuki
      I like turn based combat and am looking foward to a turn-based Torment game - I even wrote that very clearly. I also backed many TB based games, isn't it obvious that I like TB combat? xD

      I am however also sympathetic with the fans of P:T, who do not like TB combat at all. They bought the game because it was a RTwP infinity engine game and were hoping for an inifinity engine feel for the spiritual sequel. Which they will not really be getting. I can understand that many are upset about this.

      Learn to read before you waste your time making a ridiculous list of "TB-Heretics" and adding even more fuel to the file. There is enough drama here as it is.

    15. Sensuki on

      It is indeed RTWP but it's not the same RTWP style as the Infinity Engine games in which all characters had their own discrete rounds (6 seconds long @ 30FPS) ... of which rounds could be interrupted by any movement action.

      Project Eternity's combat will be more fluid like say DotA 2 or Aarklash: Legacy ... but it is possible that they are using a tick() system to control the intervals of game state so that it gives an IE feel (such as 50ms blocks or something).

    16. Sam on

      @Sensuki
      I didn't think I was the biggest complainer and most of my issues weren't even that it ended up tb but how
      But sure let's go through it again
      As I said earlier I don't mind either style I do believe that they each have their place however and I believed that as they wanted to make a spiritual successor to planescape torment anfand my own opinion of games revolving around groups that size in fantasy that it should be RTwP as that is part of what torment was and in my opinion made it great

      Divinity, xulima and most importantly JA were all always turn based and in the case of jagged alliance amazingly done turn based. These games I feel benefit greatly from that

      You did decide to skip that I backed many other genres and even though if isn't on my kick starter profile I slacker backed shadowrun returns and wasteland 2 knowing they were both turn based because that fits them perfectly

      Anything else San? Seriously I am here all week

    17. Missing avatar

      Tim on

      Yep. I backed that too ;) And I hope that they will stay there with RTwP. Otherwise I will loose a bit of faith ;)

    18. Sensuki on

      for the record the IE games are my favourite games too.

    19. Sensuki on

      Project Eternity.

    20. Missing avatar

      Tim on

      @Sensuki: I can only speak for me... I looked into all of my backed games and clearly saw what kind of system they will have. Mostly because of the predecessors. I simply assumed that Torment will have the Infinity Engine system... I know that this was a fault done by me ;) I also don't think that all of the people who are complaining really don't like Turn Based, they only really wanted a new Infinity Engine style game.... like me. :)

    21. Sensuki on

      Those aren't even all the turn-based games, just the ones I know from a glance.

    22. Sensuki on

      I find it very interesting how many people in this thread are complaining about turn-based combat - ****for the specific reason of not liking turn-based combat**** when they have backed at least one, but usually more than one turn-based combat game that will have WAY MORE combat than Torment: Tides of Numenera

      Let's go through the list

      @boxfetish - backed Divinity: Original Sin
      @mrwakka - backed Banner Saga and Divinity: Original Sin

      @Tiago Morelli - backed Banner Saga and Shadowrun: Returns
      @dlux - now this is controversial - backed Wasteland 2, Divinity: Original Sin, Jagged Alliance: Flashback, Lords of Xulmia and Deathfire - all turn-based
      @Andrew Fry - backed Jagged Alliance: Flashback
      @Igor Kieryluk - probably the most controversial so far - backed Massive Chalice, Jagged Alliance: Flashback, Dead State, Shadowrun Returns, Banner Saga, Wasteland 2

      @Sam - biggest complainer and backed Divinity: Original Sin, Lords of Xulmia and Jagged Alliance: Flashback

      @Dawn - backed Massive Chalice, Divinity: Original Sin
      @Luke Franklin - backed Wasteland 2, Banner Saga and Shadowrun Returns
      @Matthew Hall - backed Wasteland 2
      @armored_mammal - backed Massive Chalice
      @silvercross - backed Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns
      Dan L. - backed Divinity: Original Sin
      Siilk - backed Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns
      Chand Svare Ghei - Moonknight - backed Divinity: Original Sin

      Now sure there are some reasons for supporting such as supporting the underdog, backing for a friend etc but some people at least need to check their comprehension skills before they back a Project.

      I hope this post doesn't end up with a few Projects getting a bunch of refund requests! Wouldn't want that to happen now, would we.

      Peace out.

    23. Tobi (Crusader Kickstarter pls!!) on

      @Dominik Ludwicki - TB won the survey by 200 votes, tough luck. if the explanation in the update didn't alleviate your concerns then i am very sorry and wish you all the best. but saying "This is not what I pladged for" is just plain ignorant. as has been shown numerously in the comments (survey and KS) all this information was available before the KS closed, so you could have gotten out then. so IMO you are not entitled to a refund. but that is only my opinion and i wish you well nonetheless.

    24. Missing avatar

      Tim on

      I have to say, that I also backed this Kickstarter because I thought it would be a new Torment with Infinity Engine combat. (because I love this type of combat). I backed this with 70$ and I feel disappointed that I will get another turn based game from Kickstarter. But I still trust InExile to deliver a great game. And I will wait and see if I it is working out for me... I will not follow this kickstarter as ambitous as before this combat decision.

    25. Missing avatar

      descalabro on

      I voted for RTwP, mostly because the P:T was RTwP, but I'm ok with TB, I really like challenging TB games. In P:T I enjoyed fighting the smaller thugs in the streets, it helped breaking the stillness of the longer dialogues. So I wonder how inXile will manage to make a game with a good balance between dialogue and combat and still have a good fluid pace.

    26. Missing avatar

      Erik Johansson on

      I´m really looking forward to the game, no matter what combat system they chose. I didn´t pledge to fight anyway.

    27. Missing avatar

      Baudolino05 on

      *I would love if Torment were more lethal :p...

    28. Missing avatar

      Baudolino05 on

      Count me in the team of the guys pleased by the result

      @InXile: a good way to keep a turn based system visceral is a high-killing ratio (few hits needed to kill/being killed). I would love is Torment would be more lethal than your average D&D power RPG (even more lethal than Numenera P&P).

    29. Adrià Amor on

      Very interesting discussion (regardless of the not so respectful selfish nature of some rtwp supporters who seem like radicals trying to mark tb as something purely niche and oldfashioned). I really admire those ones that give an opportunity to Inxile to prove them wrong. I'm sure they will come up with a unique combat experience outlimiting those labels with the crysis system and the first adaptation of the Numenera rules with the focus on the narrative. Awesome work guys, can't wait to hear more from you!

    30. Missing avatar

      Mario Hofmann on

      1) Having 20% participation on a poll like this is huge, and statistically more than valid to base a decision on. Statistically it's incredably unlikely that a higher participation level would've changed the poll's outcome significantly.

      ****
      Thats not quite true. Looking at the numbers it is of course, but you re leaving out the point that the sample might not be representative. People with a high activity on kickstarter might tend to respond more than people who have less time to follow every project. The attribute "available time" might be connected to a persons gaming behavior - e.g. casual and core game, which might lead to different preferences.

      But I think its alright to go with 20%. Its a far higher sample than usually taken for product decisions.

    31. Missing avatar

      pioslik on

      I think every intelligent man knows that P:T was about story, characters, atmosphere and created world. The Kickstarter campaign was told exactly that, no mention about combat system which was the weakest part of Planescape: Torment. I'm glad that TToN will give us experience we expected from Torment with better battle system, aside that it was just an addon to game, not the main part of it. Every complainers always have Dragon Age 3 and many more real-time games they could play if they don't like turn-based which is true definitive cRPG system.

    32. Kevin B. on

      1) Having 20% participation on a poll like this is huge, and statistically more than valid to base a decision on. Statistically it's incredably unlikely that a higher participation level would've changed the poll's outcome significantly.
      2) Saying that it's inXile's fault that not more people voted is unrealistic. There was plenty of warning. They posted information about the vote well in advance on their website, on their forum, on their tumbler and here, which means that every backer got an email sent directly to them. And there was press coverage about the vote on gaming websites like RPS. If somehow people didn't see any of that, or choose to ignore it, well ... I fail too see what more inXile could've done.
      3) People knowingly backed a game in its earliest design stages. This was clearly stated. All the information about the game that was available at the time was up at the Kickstarter page. Some of it even got made up as the campaign came along. Everything was subject to change. This was clearly stated. The ambiguity about the combat system was also clearly stated. InXile's idea of a spiritual sucessor means a focus on story, theme and atmosphere. The combat system isn't a main part of that. They even said they were going to have this vote back during the campaign. Again, if people fail to inform themselves that's not inXile's responsibilty. They provided everything there was to know, everything they knew themselves. There was no lying, no switch and bait, no deception. All accusations on that account are either disingenuous or from misinformed people.

    33. Helena on

      @ Sam: Yeah, fair enough.

    34. Christian on

      @Khellian I wish I could upvote your post :)

    35. Sam on

      @Helena
      Thanks that is how I understood your comments
      I just feel that it is important to keep in mind that there are people overreacting but there is an actual issue that could be worked on or fixed next time as long as it is acknowledged

    36. Helena on

      @ Sam: As explained at the time, inXile hadn't made a decision on combat because the game was still in early pre-production and they didn't know which system would work best. As long as they are clear about the fact that major gameplay components are still to be decided (which they were), it shouldn't matter. If backers felt that either TB or RTwP combat would ruin the game for them, and knew there was a chance the game could end up with that system, they *shouldn't have pledged*.

      I do agree that inXile could probably have saved themselves some grief by deciding on combat in advance, and allowing that a vote was not necessarily a good idea. After all the furore it's caused, I imagine they probably will do that for future games. That doesn't change my opinion of people who - as Turk puts it - are throwing a tantrum now because things didn't go their way. (I'm not referring to you personally, by the way - your comments have been quite reasonable.)

    37. Missing avatar

      noir_desir on

      It's dammage...
      I prefer RTwP. I like play at bg1,2 and planescape. It's possible to propose 2 mode ? (sorry my english is very poor...).

    38. Sam on

      Themention of those specific games was because Arcanum had repeatedly been mentioned as if it was the only game to ever offer the option of turn based or real time in the same game

    39. Sam on

      @Jotun
      Well it seems to me that it would be more tactical given we are getting turn based rather than the alternative which always came across as quicker and easier to handle and get back into the interesting part of the game namely the actual roleplaying part

    40. Jotun - Tormented in Exile Twice on

      @Sam:

      I played XCOM, I know fallout tactics aaaaand... I don't want to play a tactical RPG when I will launch Torment. It's very simple. I don't want a tactical RPG, I didn't give my money to fund a tactical RPG. Tactical RPG are nice but I play only few of them and play these games only when in the mood. I wouldn't have spent 300+ hours on the Baldur's Gate saga if it has been a tactical RPG.
      To put it plainly: I don't really give a shit about the tactical options when I'm playing a cRPG but I do give a shit about the many ways you can solve a problem (and Torment will be, hopefully, statisfying on this, it has to).

    41. Turk
      Superbacker
      on

      the sense of entitlement is too much, those who are asking for a refund get it and then cancel their kickstarter accounts. All these projects have delays and developer / back input which will ultimately decide the product. On one hand they DID ask your opinion and made a decision . Now it would seem that those who did not get THEIR way is gonna throw a tantrum. Take your refund and gtfo, you do not seem to understand the concept of Kickstarter projects.

    42. Missing avatar

      Yaniv on

      I sent a refund request in hope that soon I will wave from a distance.

    43. Sam on

      @Helena
      Or maybe they decide and announce major gameplay components before they have finished their campaign.
      There is responsibility on both sides of this

    44. wererogue on

      Thanks for the thoughtfully-written update, Kevin!

      I respect the decision that the team have made, and I have every hope that the crises will be interesting to play despite not being my preference. I look forward to seeing how you integrate Numenera mechanics, and I have my fingers crossed for combat encounters that fit this game as well as in a game like Baldur's Gate 2. Good luck!

    45. Helena on

      I'm happy with the decision, though I do feel sympathy for people who would strongly prefer RTwP. I hope inXile do all they can to address your concerns.

      That said, for all the people who didn't pay attention during the Kickstarter, and are now throwing tantrums and demanding their money back: no sympathy whatsoever. Likewise for people who somehow managed to miss the fact that there was a vote, despite it being mentioned in the last TWO updates (and everyone who pledged will have got an email for both those updates). As for all the conspiracy theories about "they would have gone with turn-based no matter what people voted for!", that's just outright pathetic. They said they would hold a vote, they held a vote, and turn-based WON the vote (albeit by a statistically insignificant margin, but at the very least it's clear there wasn't a big majority in favour of RTwP), so it makes perfect sense for them to go with TB when they were leaning towards it anyway.

      Being unsatisfied with the outcome of the vote does not mean it was fraudulent. I very much hope that inXile refuses to offer refunds (and contests any chargebacks), though sadly I suspect they may issue a few just to avoid the negative PR. Either way, lesson learned: next time, make sure you understand what you're backing *before* throwing your money at it.

    46. Captain Shrek on

      Sam.

      Thanks for the discussion. Hopefully you will enjoy the game regardless.

    47. Sam on

      Anyway
      Shrek, you asked a question so I gave a summarised answer based on what most of the complaints seemed to say the majority of it isn't what I personally though but what I gathered from watching the comments since this update

    48. Nameless on

      I am amazed at the amount of people in here that thinks its fine to insult, belittle, be rude and just plain out attack other people just because their oppinions differ. Let the RTwP people be dissapointed, its only natural, no need to attack them and call names. Anyone using "buthurt" or "your tears taste sweet" etc just need to stop trolling and just be happy that you got the TB that you wanted. There is no right or wrong in this imo, only different perspectives and preferenses. I vastly prefer RTwP, but after a good nights sleep I have calmed down abit and now I am mostly just pissed the game will not be out sooner! ;)

    49. Will Herrmann on

      I didn't vote because there were too many hoops to jump through to be able to vote (needed to create a forum account and had problems with it so I needed to talk to tech support). I imagine that the relatively low turnout of 20% was due to other people being in the same situation I was. There should have been a one-click poll via SurveyMonkey or a similar platform. That way, the update has a link, I click on the link, I fill out the poll, and I'm done. Two minutes max and no registering for a forum account. Shadowrun Returns did this and had a majority of its backers vote. Had Torment done this, I think 50-60% would have voted, not 20%.

    50. Captain Shrek on

      Sam.

      Leaving the mechanics undiscussed, is indeed a fair point. But probably not in this argument. I do not really feel that it affected the decision severely. May be it did bias them a little towards TB since they already had a working mechanics from WL2. But then you have to remember that TTON came AFTER WL2 was in development. So this bias if at all, was always there. As I see it, any duration of declaring their decision on the combat mechanics, Inexile would have had the same bias after the first day Kickstarter ended. Till that point everyone donated with their minds made on the information provided during the campaign.

      As for your opinion on TB and RTwP, I am not sure our personal opinions make much sense in this discussion. I am for one an ardent TB fan. But I feel that it is irrelevent to the topic at hand.