Torment Torment: Tides of Numenera Thread

[ArchAngel]

Among the IE games, I'd say BGII is best suited for new players.

Planescape Torment is the absolute friendliest given how knowledge of the rules is unnecessary and death is no object. Then Baldur's Gate. I'd even say Icewind Dale is more new player friendly than BG2 since it doesn't start you with multiple levels and a bunch of a spells you have to read up on all at once.

IWD starts you with a need to spend 1 hour making your characters (and probably fucking up leading to you dying a lot a bit later and quitting the game).

 

[Lacrymas]

Among the IE games, I'd say BGII is best suited for new players.

Planescape Torment is the absolute friendliest given how knowledge of the rules is unnecessary and death is no object. Then Baldur's Gate. I'd even say Icewind Dale is more new player friendly than BG2 since it doesn't start you with multiple levels and a bunch of a spells you have to read up on all at once.

Very much no. Torment is not a good introduction to D&D, lots of reading, requires too much attention. BGI is too non-linear, a newbie will be confused. IWD is too difficult with a non-optimized party.

PS:T not only requires too much attention, but also the context needed to fully appreciate it would be missing, since you need to have played at least one RPG before. I agree on IWD, also creating a party from scratch would feel overwhelming. I don't see why BG1 wouldn't be a good choice, the non-linearity is a plus in my book, it shows freedom and stimulates exploration drive, as opposed to being held by the nose. I don't have any willing victims to experiment on regarding this, though I think it would be interesting.

 

[Roguey]

Torment is not a good introduction to D&D, lots of reading, requires too much attention.

You can stumble your way through the critical path of Torment without thinking too much.

BGI is too non-linear, a newbie will be confused.

Considering it was the first multi-million selling D&D game, I'd say not. The game tells you where to go.

IWD is too difficult with a non-optimized party.

Party creation necessitates reading the manual though.

Additionally, a lot of peoples' first RPGs in the 80s had full party creation and they were also more difficult than Icewind Dale.

 

[AwesomeButton]

People who played games in the 80s were all computer geniuses.

BGI tells you where to go, but BGII is still easier - you already are where you need to be, and the game tells you how much money you need to proceed. The rest of the stuff just happens unto you/initiates dialogue with you by itself. It doesn't get easier than that :D

 

[Lacrymas]

Additionally, a lot of peoples' first RPGs in the 80s had full party creation and they were also more difficult than Icewind Dale.

The difference is that those RPGs were made for people who were already introduced to at least PnP and knew the mechanics. I wouldn't subject anyone to the Gold Box games, for example, now as their first RPG or even game.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

sear [developer] 2 Mar @ 9:18pm
It's interesting to see the discussion here about everyone's experiences! Length is always one of those things that's super hard to gauge during development, especially as those making the game are often so familiar with it that they go through much faster.

Our estimates based on testers' experiences prior to release were around 25-50 hours, with 50 at the long end. So the experiences people are having of around 30-40 on average seem about right to me, especially when considering that it lacks PS:T's filler combat and dungeon crawling.

Ultimately this is a game with a ton of side content, and while you can blaze through in a shorter time, you are likely missing most or all of the side content in doing so. And of course, Torment is build to be replayed as well - you won't see all the quests, resolutions and endings in a single play-through, and you might be very surprised by how events and quests can change based on what you do.
Last edited by sear; 2 Mar @ 9:20pm

http://steamcommunity.com/app/272270/discussions/0/133258593387359709/?ctp=4

Oh right, so the spiritual successor to PS:T has decided upon itself which aspects of PS:T were filler and which were not. Glad we sorted that out. I dunno about anyone else, but 'filler' combat is usually more engaging than 'filler' text... no? Assuming you're making a cRPG and not a CYOA obv.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Is this the spiritual successor to sea ?

 

[Lacrymas]

Ultimately this is a game with a ton of side content

And none of it relevant. "A ton" is also a bit of an overstatement.

 

[Habbonovio]

Is this thread only for complaining, cause I'm pretty undecided about creating a nano or a jack and I could use your wisdom.

I'd like to hear about your characters and builds.

Hahaha what characters and builds are you talking about man?? You pick Nano at the beginning of the game and......... well that is pretty much it.

Well, that's disappointing. I've read a lot of the opinions in this thread and also the negative Steam reviews, and it makes harder to play the game without prejudices cause it seems like there is a clear consensus about the failures and weak spots of this game.

Also, the cut content thing, that's inexcusable for a Kickstarter project.

 

[Repulsive]

http://steamcommunity.com/app/272270/discussions/0/133258593387359709/?ctp=4#c133258593388776905

 

[Roguey]

People who played games in the 80s were all computer geniuses.

And kids.

BGI tells you where to go, but BGII is still easier - you already are where you need to be, and the game tells you how much money you need to proceed. The rest of the stuff just happens unto you/initiates dialogue with you by itself. It doesn't get easier than that :D

BG2 is not easier than BG, and its difficulty will be exacerbated if you're completely unfamiliar with the spell system.

The difference is that those RPGs were made for people who were already introduced to at least PnP and knew the mechanics. I wouldn't subject anyone to the Gold Box games, for example, now as their first RPG or even game.

Josh Sawyer's first RPG was The Bard's Tale.

 

[Malpercio]

Among the IE games, I'd say BGII is best suited for new players.

Planescape Torment is the absolute friendliest given how knowledge of the rules is unnecessary and death is no object. Then Baldur's Gate. I'd even say Icewind Dale is more new player friendly than BG2 since it doesn't start you with multiple levels and a bunch of a spells you have to read up on all at once.

Yeah. BG2 entry barrier is absolutely high and unfriendly. Even just the first dungeon is a pain for new players.

Planescape doesn't even require you know D&D's rules and you can't even die.

 

[Lurker King]

Oh right, so the spiritual successor to PS:T has decided upon itself which aspects of PS:T were filler and which were not. Glad we sorted that out. I dunno about anyone else, but 'filler' combat is usually more engaging than 'filler' text... no? Assuming you're making a cRPG and not a CYOA obv.

It is easy to say this now, but I remember vividly that everybody thought this was a good idea, because what made PS:T good was the exploration, the companions and the narrative premise, not the combat. Avellone, though, was more realistic regarding player’s expectations and consciously added trash mobs because he was afraid that players would be bored. I think they wouldn’t, but ToN doesn’t have the relevant part that made PS:T great, so the result is even worse than would be if they have a bunch of trash mobs.

 

[Lacrymas]

Josh Sawyer's first RPG was The Bard's Tale.

Yes, you could brute force your way through them, but that requires dedication and motivation. Two things I doubt will be readily available to just random people trying to play this "RPG" thing nowadays, even then, especially on the recommendation of a friend. You are also painfully aware the Josh isn't a normie, so giving him as an example isn't very prudent.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Oh right, so the spiritual successor to PS:T has decided upon itself which aspects of PS:T were filler and which were not. Glad we sorted that out. I dunno about anyone else, but 'filler' combat is usually more engaging than 'filler' text... no? Assuming you're making a cRPG and not a CYOA obv.

It is easy to say this now, but I remember vividly that everybody thought this was a good idea, because what made PS:T good was the exploration, the companions and the narrative premise, not the combat. Avellone, though, was more realistic regarding player’s expectations and consciously added trash mobs because he was afraid that players would be bored. I think they wouldn’t, but ToN doesn’t have the relevant part that made PS:T great, so the result is even worse than would be if they have a bunch of trash mobs.

He was right, I was regularly bored in PS:T. I honestly couldn't recite you one piece of dialogue in the game and just have fond memories of enjoying both Ravel and Morte's dialogue and a strange sense of overall pleasure with how some things panned out, but most of that comes from esoteric sources, like Tattoos, gradual plot exposition, interesting loot and intersting companions wandering around a fairly abstract world. The text? Yes, most of it was filler crap IIRC.

Edit: and who the fuck is 'everybody'?

 

[FeelTheRads]

sear [developer] 2 Mar @ 9:18pm
It's interesting to see the discussion here about everyone's experiences! Length is always one of those things that's super hard to gauge during development, especially as those making the game are often so familiar with it that they go through much faster.

Our estimates based on testers' experiences prior to release were around 25-50 hours, with 50 at the long end. So the experiences people are having of around 30-40 on average seem about right to me, especially when considering that it lacks PS:T's filler combat and dungeon crawling.

Ultimately this is a game with a ton of side content, and while you can blaze through in a shorter time, you are likely missing most or all of the side content in doing so. And of course, Torment is build to be replayed as well - you won't see all the quests, resolutions and endings in a single play-through, and you might be very surprised by how events and quests can change based on what you do.
Last edited by sear; 2 Mar @ 9:20pm

http://steamcommunity.com/app/272270/discussions/0/133258593387359709/?ctp=4

Oh right, so the spiritual successor to PS:T has decided upon itself which aspects of PS:T were filler and which were not. Glad we sorted that out. I dunno about anyone else, but 'filler' combat is usually more engaging than 'filler' text... no? Assuming you're making a cRPG and not a CYOA obv.

That grinning emoticon... it's the face of a guy trying to keep a straight face when he knows he's talking shit.

Here's a hint, sea: Replayability it not only the result of having different values for a variable. What makes a good replayable game first is good content and second you need to avoid spoon-feeding the player everything. If I already know all that can be done then I won't care too much if I get a different text box by clicking a different line next time. Hidden content gives more replayability than binary decisions. Usually when I replayed PST or Fallout was because I heard someone say "hey did you know you can go to x and do y?" and thought..."woah, cool, I had no idea, gonna play it again, games has plenty of good content and I get to see something I had no clue about".
And to this day, I still enjoy reading the text in PST. Just thinking of wading through the mess of verbal diarrhea in TTON (seriously, the narrator completely kills it for me, absolutely retarded) makes me pretty sure I won't ever bother.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

I think that whatever reactivity that was in there, was ruined by unbalanced skill checks making you just blaze through it.

What they probably imagined is people going through the game, having some fails, some wins and getting that nice vibe that the game world is alive and everything varies depending on how you play. The way AoD works, basically. You can't run two identical playthroughs of AoD if you tried. But with T:TON that's obviously not what happens, because you win almost every skill check.

I'll give them a benefit of a doubt until I replay though, because that side content and branching outcomes definitely exist.

I don't know, it's like they don't understand their own audience and don't realize people are going to be gaming the system to open up everything possible in one playthrough.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Little details: the fact that dialogue options often consist of the same text - "Tell me about yourself", "I want to know more about the city", etc. makes me think these are all placeholder dialogue texts. Maybe the project was too mismanaged for the team to have the spare time to replace/think up more natural-sounding phrases, with more variation.

Also, things like being able to ask for example "what's a levy" so many different people, as if you haven't asked anyone yet, means that either this was not considered a problem, or there was no time or ability to add simple flags for "the player knows what a levy is".

I think that whatever reactivity that was in there, was ruined by unbalanced skill checks making you just blaze through it.

Yep, unless you impose rules on how you play, there is no cost to speech checks.

 

[Chamezero]

A developer has responded to this review
A developer has responded to this review
A developer has responded to this review
A developer has responded to this review
A developer has responded to this review
A developer has responded to this review
A developer has responded to this review

 

[AwesomeButton]

A developer has responded to this review
A developer has responded to this review
A developer has responded to this review
A developer has responded to this review
A developer has responded to this review
A developer has responded to this review
A developer has responded to this review

Please don't let this turn into a second SoD...

 

[Sentinel]

Not gonna lie, former Fargo supporter here. This is fucking hilarious watching InXile crash and burn. But in all seriousness we can't let this guy start another kickstarter.

 

[AwesomeButton]

What are "we" supposed to do? Except not give him money.

lol, this is my favorite so far:

Ah...

First encounter:
a) Avoid fight = 25 xp
b) Kill everyone = 150xp, plus their items, cash and weapons.

Characters that always fight = higher levels, more skills, more cash, more items.

Much better rewards = encouraging one path over the other.

How do I know when I get to a point in the game where the fight will be inevitable that I haven't screwed myself over by having a gimped character with less levels, abilities, cash and items?

Why penalize wits instead of brawn with such an unbalance in rewards? Doesn't that screw the whole idea of choice this game promotes?

Someone, please explain.

sear [developer] Posted: 1 Mar @ 11:39pm
Thanks for the review, Infinite!!

One thing to note in Torment is that combat encounters are fairly rare, and combat-focused players will likely be missing out on non-combat content more often than non-combat focused players. We want to reward players for their actions, and sometimes that can mean giving certain play-styles and paths different levels of rewards to help balance things out over the course of the game.

Torment's design philosophy is all about choice and consequence. Throughout the game you will experience many different outcomes in stories and quests based on how you solve them, and that also extends to combat, loot, and rewards.

We hope you try playing a little farther into the game - we strongly suspect you will not find yourself starved for loot, XP or money as a result of choosing non-combat paths.

 

[Lurker King]

I don't know, it's like they don't understand their own audience and don't realize people are going to be gaming the system to open up everything possible in one playthrough.

The impression I have in these discussions is that we are living in a a post-apocalyptical world:

- Most cRPG players died in an epidemics of infectious disease.

- The survivors are three kinds of people: developers that are cRPG-haters, players that are cRPG-haters, and codexers.

- Codexers can detect some facts about game design, but since cRPG-haters are self-absorbed people, these facts are disregarded as mere intellectual curiosities.

- cRPG-haters deliver a bad game that was supposed to be like an old game that was made before the apocalypse, because they want to write philosophical novels instead of developing cRPGs.

- Most codexers will point the obvious fact that the game doesn't work as that older game, but cRPG-haters will ignore the criticism, and close themselves in a protective cocoon of like-minded people.

 

[DeepOcean]

So how bad does it suck? Sum up in a few short sentences pls.

1 - Setting is barely developed beyond than "Numenera anything goes.", it is weird for weird sake instead of building a rationale behind that weirdness. You won't find the Sensate HQ or Dustmen Mortuary type of location here. You feel alienated of the whole thing.
2 - Everything is painstakingly explained to you on lore dumps more than one time and as there isn't a proper rationale behind it all like the Dustmen faith, Sigil as the city of the doors, alligment determining the plane you belong to, the Lady of Pain and all of that, you don't have enough of a context to make sense of all that deep lore that kinda become irrelevant and make talking with the NPCs a pain.
3 - Your companions lack alot on the interactive department, a Dakkon kinda of moment where you go on a deep conversation about his faith and his understanding and doubts about it grounded on Planescape lore won't happen ever. Like Fall of Grace moment where she kisses you and you die because she is still a succubus even if a cast one or deciding what to do with Morte and the Pillar of skulls. How about Vhailor and you convincing him he doesn't exist? There isn't enough context and interaction with the companions, they are one note characters that are barely connected with their enviroments, don't believe on anything, don't desire anything and are boring.
4 - Everything feels random, like a typical theme park setting where nothing connects with nothing.
5 - There is major sloppiness on the main plotline delivery, they just brush off on the necessity of giving you a plausible motivation, on the necessity of introducing you slowly to this setting and just bombard you with out of context exposition, creating a feeling of alienation with the whole thing making it impossible for you to immerse on the game. Things start getting worse as you proceed and Deus Ex Machina moments start being pulled out of ass without any beforehand explanation.
6 - The tides system was butchered and there is only a vestigial form of it on the game killing one of the few things that could give some structure of rules on this barely developed setting.
7 - There aren't strong characters anywhere on this game, there isn't a Ravel or a Trias moment on this game. You hear alot about the characters but on the actual interaction with you, they are as straight as you can get. Don't expect a Ravel kind of wits battle here. The characters you know very little about will just regurgitate alot of exposition on you, the game will assume you care then something will happen to push the plot forward. The End.
8 - There is very little creative reactivity that Torment was known for.
9 - There are very few actual quests on this game, with beginning, middle and end, most "quests" are actually minor meaningless encounters. Not that Planescape Torment didn't have small encounters but it had extensive story arcs too. You go doing minor tasks after minor tasks without anything relating with anything and feel disconnected of the whole thing.

 

[Sentinel]

So how bad does it suck? Sum up in a few short sentences pls.

PoE ended up doing Torment better than Numenera.