-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Torment Torment: Tides of Numenera Pre-Release Thread [ALPHA RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]
- Thread starter Infinitron
- Start date
buzz
Arcane
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2012
- Messages
- 4,234
Then why the fuck are you both still posting? My entire argument was that you could remove the combat from PT and keep the RPG mechanics focused on what truly counts in this game: dialogue, exploration, puzzles etc. In other words I was saying that since the game is basically an "anti-RPG", a game that tries to be different from a common RPG, it might as well drop the combat and also be consistently great.
My very first sentence in this thread accused nostalgiafags of being a sign of stagnation. I don't want the new Torment game to have turn-based combat, you're the one who do because you feel it is needed in a game that is about atmosphere, interaction with the environment, characterization, philosophy, subverting tropes and everything else you said.
BTW I love how you make the implication that Pool of Radiance and Wizardry are "combat simulator RPGs":patriot: .
Brother None
inXile Entertainment
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2004
- Messages
- 5,673
What? I'm explaining how Torment's combat will be different from WL2's, not claiming TB is not suited for it. TB has my preference.
You said Wasteland 2 having a working TB system is very important. I'm pointing out it is not so important because it would have to be reworked with very different goals in mind basically from the ground up. The experience is important, sure, but they have experience with RTwP too. WL2 being TB is a factor, but it won't determine their choice.
Heh, yeah. MCA's poor health as he worked himself near-death on PS:T is the stuff of legends. He has more time for sun-bathing and working out now.
Haha. Don't ask me why I do that. I just do.
Lancehead
Liturgist
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,550
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 3,876
What year did Avellone loose weight? How long did it take him?
hiver
Guest
Right, youre the one who is going to translate what im saying...
cmonn... give a Slav a break... ffs...
Im not sure should i thank you for that clarification...
tnx for the effort though.
I already know in what ways it will be different - obviously. Never though otherwise.
I never said it will be the completely same as Wasteland 2. Never even thought so. Its just Infinitrons misunderstanding, made because it seemed to fit with his preference for RtwP.
I didnt say it is the only factor either.
As Kevin said - it is an important consideration - considering it is easier and much cheaper to adjust already existing system then to build completely new one, and then test, and reiterate and then test and so on - all over.
Plus, people will already have a chance either to see a lot of TB from W2 or to even play it. That also means a lot.
It wont be the only thing determining the choice but it is an important factor when considering the combat system.
Suggesting TB isnt then just an empty nostalgia or just personal preference - it actually has or could have a real and direct positive effect on the development.
Confirmed by project lead, who understood what i meant.
Clever guy, that Kevin.
FeelTheRads
Arcane
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 13,716
Wait, Avellone wears glasses?
Tim Donley, for those who are unaware, was the lead artist on Planescape: Torment, as well as doing art for Fallout 2 (he told me years ago he created the Vertibird helicopter design for Jason Anderson in the early days of Fallout 2's design). He's been recently working at Vigil as the design director on Darksiders II, which certainly had a pretty striking aesthetic even if otherwise I didn't love it (well, to be fair, I did like it, but for some reason the inventory and map screens took like 10-15 secs to pop up and that made it unplayable for me).
Him and all of Vigil is on the market now after THQ failed to auction the studio offHope he lands on his feet, he's a really good guy.
Maybe he ended up at Crytek Texas, where a part of former Vigil staff went to (36 people).
What are they doing over there?
Excidium
P. banal
I think he wore them to complement the fat nerd look.
Really? They just seem to be saying that a combat approach as an option is nice and a better system could lead to it being an actually enjoyable part of the game, rather than a forced chore you want to blast through asap. If done well enough maybe a dumb fighter run could also be a fun playthrough? Get to engage in interesting encounters that you're character talked around last time in the interest of gathering more information or something.to summarize what hiver and Blaine are saying:
1. combat is mandatory in RPGs (and it should be turn-based)
2. everything else isn't because UNIQUE RPG X-PERIENCE
You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that it should be dropped completely just because it wasn't great last time.
Not much I think, Crytek did not get the Darksiders IP nor the "Crawler" IP (yet?).
They passed on the Darksiders property.
Listen, I like Torment and all that crap, and we can't lay this to rest. But it's worth reposting a few points you're too new to have read, since you seem to be willing to argue. I'm not saying RPGs should be defined by mechanics because I play RPGs for them, I'm saying they should be defined by mechanics because we can't define them otherwise. Every single trait that you could employ to define an RPG is useless because it will be in plenty other genres in no different way. Dialogue wheels, fantasy settings, exploration and blah-di-blah-di-blah. The only unique trait of RPGs are that they have complex and meaningful meta-concepts of character creation and attributes that mean something hand-in-hand with player skill. Indeed, when these exact mechanics are implemented into other genres, they are called "RPG-elements" precisely because they're the only defining and common trait of the RPG. This goes for P&P as well by the way, except for the entire systemless ones.
Now, does this mean I agree with Bizz? Hell no, the retard fails to understand that Planescape: Torment had quite decent RPG elements. A meaningful stat- and level-up system as well as a complex system of spells. It's a pity it's all rendered moot because the combat is so shitty most of the time, but the fact remains that it has RPG mechanics, there are many of them, and they are quite complex compared to many video games.
The people saying PS:T = Adventure Game have yet to explain exactly which adventure games has these fleshed-out RPG Mechanics. Like Bizz, Mondblut and his ilk define PS:T that way because they don't like the fact that it has RTwP combat and that that combat is quite bad. All the same it remains a faulty definition based on the subjective opinion that they think it sucks.
So when the fuck are they launching that Kickstarter? I want to throw money at that Day 1 pledge!
Yet even that definition is rather useless, because it's wide-open to interpretation. If "meaningful meta-concepts of character creation and attributes that mean something hand-in-hand with player skill" is the only defining trait of an RPG, it therefore follows that all games possessing such a trait must be RPGs. Some people, however, would almost certainly argue (as demonstrated by this very thread, albeit indirectly) that Game X isn't a true RPG because its character creation and attributes systems "aren't actually meaningful", or "are too simple/shallow", or "are poorly implemented", or "are simply 'RPG Elements'", or any number of potential criticisms intended to discredit the game's status as a "true" RPG. A defining characteristic upon which people cannot agree is a poor criterion, whether or not you decide that certain people's opinions don't count. Because who gets to decide that, exactly?
I may not have seen every relevant post on the Codex, but rest assured I realize in a vague way that these arguments have occurred and reoccurred over a period of years, and that certain ideas have been filtered and refined until we're left with a number of strongly-held beliefs that have stood the test of many arguments. Have you encountered this specific counter-argument of mine before, namely that your single defining characteristic is wide-open to interpretation, rendering it useless for its intended purpose as a defining characteristic?
We seem to agree, in a very general sense, on most issues (and I readily admit you've spent more time discussing and contemplating these sorts of issues than I likely have), but this one will take some convincing on your part.
hiver
Guest
It is not only important to have stats - but that gameplay is limited by those stats.
Which it is in PT.
(also, other types of games adopting some of RPG core features does not make any of those features less defining for a RPG game.)
my definition:
An RPG is a game where a player creates and controls one or more characters, whose capacity to affect quests, events, stories and gameplay of the gameworld are limited and governed by values of their primary and secondary skills or abilities in confluence with players skills.
While the story, gameplay and quests of the gameworld in turn can be changed to bigger or smaller degree and thus provide differing consequences and different gameplay - depending on confluence of player skill and skills and abilities of game characters he created.
The matter of not so good combat or lack of deeper C&C in PT all goes to development being done in very constricting circumstances. More than anything else.
Combat or lack of better C&C isnt there because devs wanted it to be like that.
It is there because Interplay didnt provide resources to achieve anything more.
The game was, like Fallout, mostly done behind everyone back. Its a small miracle it even exists in the form that it does.
Which it is in PT.
(also, other types of games adopting some of RPG core features does not make any of those features less defining for a RPG game.)
my definition:
An RPG is a game where a player creates and controls one or more characters, whose capacity to affect quests, events, stories and gameplay of the gameworld are limited and governed by values of their primary and secondary skills or abilities in confluence with players skills.
While the story, gameplay and quests of the gameworld in turn can be changed to bigger or smaller degree and thus provide differing consequences and different gameplay - depending on confluence of player skill and skills and abilities of game characters he created.
The matter of not so good combat or lack of deeper C&C in PT all goes to development being done in very constricting circumstances. More than anything else.
Combat or lack of better C&C isnt there because devs wanted it to be like that.
It is there because Interplay didnt provide resources to achieve anything more.
The game was, like Fallout, mostly done behind everyone back. Its a small miracle it even exists in the form that it does.
buzz
Arcane
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2012
- Messages
- 4,234
Grunker I never said that Planescape Torment is an adventure game. I recognize the RPG elements that it has. I just think that it is *gasp* overrated as fuck (edit: as an RPG). And I think that it would work better without the combat, a non-combat RPG rather than an adventure game. And I gave Call of Cthulhu as an example of tabletop RPG that works without combat (it has combat but it's not really essential) .
And sure, it is miles above everything Bioware did after NWN in terms of cRPG mechanics, I agree. Better than Lands of Lore? Sure. Just not impressive enough considering the entire history of cRPG games.
But if I were to make a spiritual sequel to Planescape Torment and I would have a limited budget, deep and engaging combat system would be the very last thing on my mind. I would rather focus on making the game work around a system based on exploration and dialogue, which was the selling point of the game in the first place.
Oh and just a random thought: the level-up system was actually gimped in PT because most of the experience was coming from quests and conversations rather than fighting monsters. Surely the game wasn't intended for the Int/Wis build.
Lord Andre
Arcane
Nigger did you play and finish the game ? 'Cause it sounds to me like you read some guides on gamefaqs, played a few hours then quit 'cause your dumb ass is to stupid to comprehend the fucking thing.
You keep bringing up Fallout, I bet you didn't finish that either. Fake ass, punk ass, little bitch take your dumb ass back to call of duty. Hypocrite little fag.
Silva
Arcane
Agree wholeheartedly. Specially with the non-combat part. I wonder how the game wouldve been without combats.
Moribund
A droglike
Lord Andre it's not whether guys like this one or exciditard played BG, Torment or fallout it's that they think these are super awesome old school RPGs that mean they are old skool rpg master. They played these games and whined about combat being hard (hard to believe but true) and never played any hard core RPGs of yesteryear then talk smack about how RPGs should be. It's fucking unbelievable.
The amount of people using the false argument that Torment would be better without combat because the combat wasn't very good baffles me. It is such an evident misnomer.
Hell, the fact that removing shit because it isn't perfect is considered decline is one of the central reasons this site exists. Don't remove central game elements because they didn't work to perfection; improve them. Torment would have been a much better game with combat more like the other IE-games; not by removing its combat entirely.
Hell, the fact that removing shit because it isn't perfect is considered decline is one of the central reasons this site exists. Don't remove central game elements because they didn't work to perfection; improve them. Torment would have been a much better game with combat more like the other IE-games; not by removing its combat entirely.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.