Torment Torment: Tides of Numenera Pre-Release Thread [ALPHA RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Kirtai]

It sounds like they're going to save time by not needing to optimise the 3D models and maybe put a lot more work into the final rendering.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Not indicating the ability that is being used on the dialogue check is p. dumb.

Depends on what kind of game it is. Putting stuff like [Intelligence] or [Wisdom] next to dialogue options in PST would have made the game worse, and more specifically completely destroyed various "dialogue puzzles", like the Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon, which actually required the player to pay attention and understand the problem being discussed.

 

[Excidium]

Not indicating the ability that is being used on the dialogue check is p. dumb.

Depends on what kind of game it is. Putting stuff like [Intelligence] or [Wisdom] next to dialogue options in PST would have made the game worse, and more specifically completely destroyed various "dialogue puzzles", like the Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon, which actually required the player to pay attention and understand the problem being discussed.

That's because those games handle ability checks in a completely retarded manner.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Not indicating the ability that is being used on the dialogue check is p. dumb.

Depends on what kind of game it is. Putting stuff like [Intelligence] or [Wisdom] next to dialogue options in PST would have made the game worse, and more specifically completely destroyed various "dialogue puzzles", like the Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon, which actually required the player to pay attention and understand the problem being discussed.

That's because those games handle ability checks in a completely retarded manner.

So, putting those tags in the game would have made it better, had it handled ability checks in a different way?

 

[Excidium]

Not indicating the ability that is being used on the dialogue check is p. dumb.

Depends on what kind of game it is. Putting stuff like [Intelligence] or [Wisdom] next to dialogue options in PST would have made the game worse, and more specifically completely destroyed various "dialogue puzzles", like the Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon, which actually required the player to pay attention and understand the problem being discussed.

That's because those games handle ability checks in a completely retarded manner.

So, putting those tags in the game would have made it better, had it handled ability checks in a different way?

No, but taking them off doesn't help anything. It's just a lazy bandaid fix.

Actually I read your post wrong, had they handled ability checks in a proper way, then using abilities would be an active player choice and not an I WIN button handed on a plate.

 

[Grunker]

I'm in favor of sticking to PS:T's way, but the example is pretty awful. In his example, the "bad" turnout is completely random. The player uses the fact that that response clearly signifies knowledge, and is rewarded with a random "well fuck you, lol!"

Had the player been able to determine, through thinking, that the result would be shit, it'd be OK. As it is, the example is pretty shitty and I hope there won't be many of those types of random results in the final game.

Not indicating the ability that is being used on the dialogue check is p. dumb.

Depends on what kind of game it is. Putting stuff like [Intelligence] or [Wisdom] next to dialogue options in PST would have made the game worse, and more specifically completely destroyed various "dialogue puzzles", like the Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon, which actually required the player to pay attention and understand the problem being discussed.

That's because those games handle ability checks in a completely retarded manner.

So, putting those tags in the game would have made it better, had it handled ability checks in a different way?

No, but taking them off doesn't help anything. It's just a lazy bandaid fix.

I disagree. In PS:T, dialogue puzzles are made stronger by the fact that although stats are necessary for completion (character skill over player skill), player skill and concentration isn't made uneccesary.

For a game like Torment, hidden tags are best, methinks. There's a time and a place for both solutions. In P:E where it's a diverse field of attributes that are meant for quick solutions to dialogue, tags are better.

 

[evdk]

Not indicating the ability that is being used on the dialogue check is p. dumb.

Depends on what kind of game it is. Putting stuff like [Intelligence] or [Wisdom] next to dialogue options in PST would have made the game worse, and more specifically completely destroyed various "dialogue puzzles", like the Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon, which actually required the player to pay attention and understand the problem being discussed.

That's because those games handle ability checks in a completely retarded manner.

Highlighting ability checks is completely retarded.

 

[Excidium]

The whole system of handing a plate of dialog options is retarded. But I'd like to know when I'm making use of my active abilities.

 

[NotTale]

Not indicating the ability that is being used on the dialogue check is p. dumb.

Depends on what kind of game it is. Putting stuff like [Intelligence] or [Wisdom] next to dialogue options in PST would have made the game worse, and more specifically completely destroyed various "dialogue puzzles", like the Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon, which actually required the player to pay attention and understand the problem being discussed.

I'd say that it depends on the type of action and how it's presented, not just the type of game. I don't remember much about PST, my memory is a sieve, so forgive me if I speak too generally. A lot of things can be justified under a variety of different ability scores, as such can leave a player failing without a solid reason. I'd mostly say that it's important to be clear in some way about what you're using. Either through systems and consistency (a type of dialogue option always uses this attribute), through text ("You try to reason with him"), or through the tags.

As I recall about PST, it had a somewhat systemic approach. Something like wisdom is used for pulling up old memories specifically. I'd go so far as to say regardless of the type of game it is, consistency like that is good.

 

[Mrowak]

Not indicating the ability that is being used on the dialogue check is p. dumb.

Depends on what kind of game it is. Putting stuff like [Intelligence] or [Wisdom] next to dialogue options in PST would have made the game worse, and more specifically completely destroyed various "dialogue puzzles", like the Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon, which actually required the player to pay attention and understand the problem being discussed.

I'd say that it depends on the type of action and how it's presented, not just the type of game. I don't remember much about PST, my memory is a sieve, so forgive me if I speak too generally. A lot of things can be justified under a variety of different ability scores, as such can leave a player failing without a solid reason. I'd mostly say that it's important to be clear in some way about what you're using. Either through systems and consistency (a type of dialogue option always uses this attribute), through text ("You try to reason with him"), or through the tags.

As I recall about PST, it had a somewhat systemic approach. Something like wisdom is used for pulling up old memories specifically. I'd go so far as to say regardless of the type of game it is, consistency like that is good.

Up to a point. I find there is nothing worse than dialogue trees becoming the exercise of picking "[bluff] these are not droids you are looking for" to automatically succeed. It demolishes the gameplay aspect of dialogue completely, turning the most profitable options into no-brainers. In such case you don't even need to read those dialogues to win, which makes them a fluff divorced from essential gameplay component.

 

[Infinitron]

Relax everybody, they'll probably add a toggle like in PE.

 

[evdk]

Relax everybody, they'll probably add a toggle like in PE.

That's stupid, fence sitting, wishy washy solution. Either they design the dialogue to accommodate one approach or the other. Trying both will only bring pain, misery and butthurt posts from everyone.

Up to a point. I find there is nothing worse than dialogue trees becoming the exercise of picking "[bluff] these are not droids you are looking for" to automatically succeed. It demolishes the gameplay aspect of dialogue completely, turning the most profitable options into no-brainers. In such case you don't even need to read those dialogues to win, which makes them a fluff divorced from essential gameplay component.

If they will use the skill tags in dialogue, it would be nice if they could actually fuck you hard instead of helping you.

 

[hiver]

Nice update, although... two already seen pieces of art is very bleh.

bleh.




Effort:

I could accept that only if its effect is very, very, very, balanced and limited.

The part about not being able to open the super insane level locks - as an example - doesnt really inspire confidence since thats the least, most basic measure you can apply.

Effort provides more options to customize your character and tackle obstacles.

No, it actually blurs the lines between skills and different character builds. Whats worse - it allows players to experience more content then they should - in an RPG game of this sort.
PST was always criticized on account of its linearity - and if you allow the player to "unlock" majority of gameplay content in any given location - then you make it a much more linear experience.

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.

You see?

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.

Too weak, vague, insubstantial - again - the least one could expect anyway.
Having an edge is not enough.



Ergo, my opening comment about the need of balancing the holly jeebuz out of it.
If i can suggest anything - then i suggest allowing it to influence only smaller, secondary, or non essential gameplay options.

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.

Something like this is the most i can see it implemented as - except in very specific cases that are narrative-choice consequence-character build-specific skillset dependent so, different character builds get to stumble upon them, while other character builds and choices leading to different branches of quests and stuff - would not.

In some cases, if you fail a task, Effort can also be spent to gain a second chance.

Seriously, this better be really, really designed smartly, limited depending on your previous choices, things you did, or didnt do in that quest line and balanced so it only appears in places where you would expect your character build could have a "second chance" or another attempt allowed or possible.

But we have a whole category of Lore skills that represent your knowledge. These skills will enable certain response options in dialogue, giving you choices that a player without the skill wouldn't have. When this happens, there won't be a die roll, because the skill is being used without requiring effort on your part.

Great. Dialogue effects described after - great.

Active skills—that is, skills you choose to use and have the option to apply Effort to—will be done with die rolls.

Does this mean you will be able to use Effort only in specific skills, not all of them?
Exactly how this works?
How many skills can i choose and enable/use with Effort?


CMcC, Adam Heine, ksaun


- edit-
i get its a concept phase. thats why im asking, actually.
better to be early then sorry.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

There ideally shouldn't be a way to "win" at dialogue, just ways of achieving different results, some more difficult than others, and with different skill requirements. Ideally these should also demand that the player pay attention and employ a minimum of critical thinking in order to arrive at their desired outcome. Grunker complains that the example Adam brings up in the update is bad because of its arbitrariness, and I do agree. The player should have the ability to figure out that this might happen - the (Lie) option vaguely suggests it, but it's not enough in my opinion. Could also be that there's a followup where the player can attempt to obtain the artifact regardless, by buying it, manipulating the owner to give it away, or what else have you.

 

[Grunker]

It's fairly easy isn't it. If skill is an autowin, we need it displayed. If it isn't, it can be hidden, but this takes more effort and writing time since every dialogue needs to make sure the player, with enough effort, can discern the results.

 

[Infinitron]

There ideally shouldn't be a way to "win" at dialogue, just ways of achieving different results, some more difficult than others, and with different skill requirements. Ideally these should also demand that the player pay attention and employ a minimum of critical thinking in order to arrive at their desired outcome. Grunker complains that the example Adam brings up in the update is bad because of its arbitrariness, and I do agree. The player should have the ability to figure out that this might happen - the (Lie) option vaguely suggests it, but it's not enough in my opinion. Could also be that there's a followup where the player can attempt to obtain the artifact regardless, by buying it, manipulating the owner to give it away, or what else have you.

Any snippet of dialogue you post on the Internet as an example is going to seem context free and arbitrary because you don't have the rest of the game around it.

 

[NotTale]

Up to a point. I find there is nothing worse than dialogue trees becoming the exercise of picking "[bluff] these are not droids you are looking for" to automatically succeed. It demolishes the gameplay aspect of dialogue completely, turning the most profitable options into no-brainers. In such case you don't even need to read those dialogues to win, which makes them a fluff divorced from essential gameplay component.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Personally, I prefer that those kind of checks be some consistent system within the game or that the dialogue is straightforward enough that you know what kind of check it would be using. Either way, you have to read that dialogue to figure that part out without a tag.

The only time I think using tags is an ideal solution is when you're breaking from consistency, using the check in new or abstract ways and the player might not anticipate it from the text.

But then again, you're talking to a guy whose philosophy on the gameplay of dialogue is that dialogue should be used mostly for expression and not be adversarial. I don't believe in "most profitable options." At least not with a skill check. Interesting puzzles that are based on player knowledge are appealing.

 

[hiver]

It's fairly isn't it. If skill is an autowin, we need it displayed. If it isn't, it can be hidden, but this takes more effort and writing time since every dialogue needs to make sure the player, with enough effort, can discern the results.

What a stupid notion.

no we dont need to be allowed fake precognition for dialogue options because thats utter nonsense.
- which doesnt mean dialogue options should be completely insane and unrecognizable puzzles, no.

You go down that route and you end up seeing DA2 idiot icons in a dialogue wheel. ffs.

 

[Grunker]

It's fairly isn't it. If skill is an autowin, we need it displayed. If it isn't, it can be hidden, but this takes more effort and writing time since every dialogue needs to make sure the player, with enough effort, can discern the results.

What a stupid notion.

Youre stupid.

Weren't you just complaining about ad hominem in the other thread?


Oh wait... hi hiver

 

[Rake]

Not indicating the ability that is being used on the dialogue check is p. dumb.

Depends on what kind of game it is. Putting stuff like [Intelligence] or [Wisdom] next to dialogue options in PST would have made the game worse, and more specifically completely destroyed various "dialogue puzzles", like the Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon, which actually required the player to pay attention and understand the problem being discussed.

That's because those games handle ability checks in a completely retarded manner.

So, putting those tags in the game would have made it better, had it handled ability checks in a different way?

No, but taking them off doesn't help anything. It's just a lazy bandaid fix.

Actually I read your post wrong, had they handled ability checks in a proper way, then using abilities would be an active player choice and not an I WIN button handed on a plate.

Your proposed solution?

 

[evdk]

No but seriously Grunker even if the skill was autowin, why would you need to see it displayed?

 

[hiver]

its not an ad hominem. just expressing my thoughts about it in condensed manner. there. edited it a bit so you can grasp it.

- sorry. forgot the icons.

 

[Excidium]

Not indicating the ability that is being used on the dialogue check is p. dumb.

Depends on what kind of game it is. Putting stuff like [Intelligence] or [Wisdom] next to dialogue options in PST would have made the game worse, and more specifically completely destroyed various "dialogue puzzles", like the Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon, which actually required the player to pay attention and understand the problem being discussed.

That's because those games handle ability checks in a completely retarded manner.

So, putting those tags in the game would have made it better, had it handled ability checks in a different way?

No, but taking them off doesn't help anything. It's just a lazy bandaid fix.

Actually I read your post wrong, had they handled ability checks in a proper way, then using abilities would be an active player choice and not an I WIN button handed on a plate.

Your proposed solution?

What text adventures have been doing since forever.

 

[Lancehead]

Not indicating the ability that is being used on the dialogue check is p. dumb.

The game is going to be pretty heavily scripted, so it doesn't surprise me they've opted for the non-fix of hiding tags.

I disagree. In PS:T, dialogue puzzles are made stronger by the fact that although stats are necessary for completion (character skill over player skill), player skill and concentration isn't made uneccesary.

For a game like Torment, hidden tags are best, methinks. There's a time and a place for both solutions. In P:E where it's a diverse field of attributes that are meant for quick solutions to dialogue, tags are better.

What is a "dialogue puzzle"? Is it something to solve for best results?

 

[Grunker]

For a game like Torment, hidden tags are best, methinks. There's a time and a place for both solutions. In P:E where it's a diverse field of attributes that are meant for quick solutions to dialogue, tags are better.

What is a "dialogue puzzle"? Is it something to solve for best results?[/quote]

Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon:

Take the correct path - unlock the circle, get phat lewt.

Take the incorrect path - do not unlock the circle, do not get phat lewt.

No but seriously Grunker even if the skill was autowin, why would you need to see it displayed?

Not because autowin, but because not enough time is devoted during development to make sure dialogue is a "game" that is fully transparant so the player can discern the "correct" options with though. Autowin just compliments that because stat checks become "oh, I have a special out from this conversation" instead of Torment-style "Hmm, what do I pick, boggles the mind."