Torment: Tides of Numenera Backers Vote For Turn-Based Combat

[Genocidicles]

I don't how anyone could get upset about this.

It's combat! If this is anything like Planescape: Torment then the combat should be the most unimportant part of the game!

 

[Baresark]

Here is the thing... it is decidedly not at all any kind of successor to Planescape Torment if you change the combat. It's a completely different style of game now. Just to clarify: It's not the same universe, doesn't have the same characters, and the play style is now completely different. This is not a successor to a beloved game. I don't care, I can take either one, to be completely honest. I'm sure the game is going to be fine. Just... stop calling it what it no longer is.

 

[Genocidicles]

Here is the thing... it is decidedly not at all any kind of successor to Planescape Torment if you change the combat. It's a completely different style of game now. Just to clarify: It's not the same universe, doesn't have the same characters, and the play style is now completely different. This is not a successor to a beloved game. I don't care, I can take either one, to be completely honest. I'm sure the game is going to be fine. Just... stop calling it what it no longer is.

It's a successor because it follows the same kind of themes as the other game.

1) A more personal storyline than the typical 'save the world' RPG storyline, focusing on life and death.

2) It's in a very bizarre setting, instead of a generic Tolkien-esque fantasy land.

3) An emphasis on conversation over combat

A game doesn't need to have the same characters or gameplay system as it's predecessor to be a successor. The Final Fantasy games don't share characters or storylines (aside for the sequels to specific entries, like X-2), and they usually change the combat system between games... but because all the games tend to follow the same sort of style, they count as successors.

Or take System Shock and Bioshock. There are no characters shared between the two, and despite both being in First Person the gameplay is radically different between the two. But Bioshock is still a spiritual successor because it follows the same kind of themes as System Shock.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I don't mind if it's turn based to be honest, although I would of preffered a Baldur's Gate`esque combat system with a full time combat and active pause instead.

Oh well regardless, I will play the hell out of this game once it gets released. Hope to see more news about it soon.

 

[Robeltu]

They could try to implement both systems a la Fallout Tactics and give the player a choice in the options menu. I personally voted for the turn based but I wish they wouldn't neglect the other 47%'s opinion.

 

[[REDACTED]]

*sigh* Damn morons, don't they understand that they can make a combat system that can handle both forms and please either side on this issue?

They actually specifically addressed this idea in their blog.

 

[spartandude]

ehhh

I would have much preferred it to be like Planescape Torment and be real time (but with fixed path finding), its by no means a deal breaker but a little dissapointing.

I mean heck in those 2nd AD&D games you could easily set it up so that it would pause at the end of each turn and that pleased both the real time lovers and turn based lovers.

 

[Blarg Blargson]

]

*sigh* Damn morons, don't they understand that they can make a combat system that can handle both forms and please either side on this issue?

They actually specifically addressed this idea in their blog.

They are wrong, all you need is a combat system that handles identically in both turn based and real time. You essentially have one combat system which is real time, however all of its elements are made to fit turn based combat, all you have to do to switch between the two modes is how time flows. In real time mode things flow normal, in turn based time skips along set increments.

If its done right you would not even need to develop a separate AI.

...And then you get a combat system like that of Neverwinter Nights which was... okay. When you divide real time into rounds, you still get awkward pauses in which no one is really doing anything, which is normally what you want to avoid with real-time combat.

I'm a Torment backer, and I voted for TB. At first, I thought the same as many other people in this thread did - Planescape and Baldur's Gate were in real-time, easy battles are slow and boring in TB (as opposed to fast and boring in RT), etc.

But then I remembered the hardest fights I had in Planescape and especially Baldur's Gate, the ones where I had to micromanage like crazy and basically mash the spacebar every in-game second to make sure everyone was alive and under control. I remembered how much of a pain it was to manage a party full of NPCs whose AI was basically good enough to do default attacks and not much else (don't get me started on spellcasters). I remembered fighting dragons in battles that took under a minute of in-game time but easily twenty minutes of real time.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but TB is really easier in most situations. Yes, it can be slow, but I'll take a slow, methodical fight over a hectic frenzy. Besides, we're adapting a tabletop roleplaying system, and Numenera, like most TTRPGS, is made for turn-based combat. Having the videogame be turn-based too makes for simpler rules conversion.

 

[Talvrae]

And that seriously, pissed me off... well i'm exagerating, but i am disapointed... I was sold a Planescape: Torment spiritual sucessor... and that game had real time with pause options combats, not turn based, like Fallout... (and yes i backed the game and i did vote) Well i'm disapointed, but heh will see how it turn out

]

*sigh* Damn morons, don't they understand that they can make a combat system that can handle both forms and please either side on this issue?

They actually specifically addressed this idea in their blog.

They are wrong, all you need is a combat system that handles identically in both turn based and real time. You essentially have one combat system which is real time, however all of its elements are made to fit turn based combat, all you have to do to switch between the two modes is how time flows. In real time mode things flow normal, in turn based time skips along set increments.

If its done right you would not even need to develop a separate AI.

...And then you get a combat system like that of Neverwinter Nights which was... okay. When you divide real time into rounds, you still get awkward pauses in which no one is really doing anything, which is normally what you want to avoid with real-time combat.

I'm a Torment backer, and I voted for TB. At first, I thought the same as many other people in this thread did - Planescape and Baldur's Gate were in real-time, easy battles are slow and boring in TB (as opposed to fast and boring in RT), etc.

But then I remembered the hardest fights I had in Planescape and especially Baldur's Gate, the ones where I had to micromanage like crazy and basically mash the spacebar every in-game second to make sure everyone was alive and under control. I remembered how much of a pain it was to manage a party full of NPCs whose AI was basically good enough to do default attacks and not much else (don't get me started on spellcasters). I remembered fighting dragons in battles that took under a minute of in-game time but easily twenty minutes of real time.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but TB is really easier in most situations. Yes, it can be slow, but I'll take a slow, methodical fight over a hectic frenzy. Besides, we're adapting a tabletop roleplaying system, and Numenera, like most TTRPGS, is made for turn-based combat. Having the videogame be turn-based too makes for simpler rules conversion.

you ralise you could just have set the option to pause at the end of each turns?

 

[Blarg Blargson]

you ralise you could just have set the option to pause at the end of each turns?

Yes, but I don't believe that would have made things faster or more convenient. Essentially, that would turn RT gameplay into awkward TB gameplay.

 

[[REDACTED]]

...

I don't disagree with you but look at it from this way, this is a kickstarter project, their backers are divided on this as evenly as you can get, they are disappointing 48% of their backers with this move and are going against how the original game worked.

Wouldn't you rather see them push boundaries in game design and develop something that can do both?

The problems you mention stem from poor design rather then an inherent disadvantage from a real-time combat system, spent enough time and effort on solving those issues and you'll have a much better game, rather then going the easy way out and provide an safe experience thats just ok.

EDIT: After all, its not like these guys can be short on cash for this since they raised like 4 times the money for this project.

They did raise a helluva lot of money, but you shouldn't confuse that with "Unlimited Funds". Just look what happened with Broken Age. Since it looks like combat will be a very small part of the finished game, I'm glad that they're focusing more on the other aspects.