• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Torment: Tides of Numenera Kickstarter by InXile [Complete; $4.3 million funded]

Midou

Member
People seem to have the right of it here. Full rights of Planescape: Torment (IP rights include characters and locations made in the game) belonged to Interplay, then reverted to Atari, then to Hasbro. Things like the Nameless One and Ravel Puzzlewel belong to them, and that's fine by us.

I've always been curious about how rights like this work. Like, if you had a skull named Morte, both those things are fairly 'general terms' I would say, would that combination cause copywrite infringement?
 

Lime

Member
@Brother None

Do you know what the backer-only poster will depict? Will it be concept art work and if so, which piece?
 
I've always been curious about how rights like this work. Like, if you had a skull named Morte, both those things are fairly 'general terms' I would say, would that combination cause copywrite infringement?

It can be a little vague and in the end is up to courts to decide, but yeah, that specific combination is way too close to the original. You could get away with a floating skull for sure, you might get away with a character named Morte, but a combination of the two? No.

Do you know what the backer-only poster will depict? Will it be concept art work and if so, which piece?

I don't think that's been finalized. We like offering options so my hope is we'll end up offering a choice of designs, or maybe multiple pieces on one poster if they fit together well. But yeah, this kind of stuff doesn't get finalized until down the line, so all I can say for sure is it'll have Torment art on it (that means concept art, yes)
 

dude

dude
Except that a setting is dependant of the core rule books. If you want to play D&D 4.0, the alignment system destroyed most of the gods, and made Planewalking way way more streamlined.
I doubt that D&D 5.0 will go back to planescape.
Huh? The core rulebooks describe elves as one thing. Does that mean Dark Sun can't change them into the marauding heartless killers that they are in Dark Sun? Setting overrides the rulebooks. Besides, no one is enforcing the rules in D&D besides the DM - So if he or she chooses to follow the rules as describes in a Placenscape setting, he can just do so and disregard other versions.


And I'll be holding out for Torment: Nobilis. Now that would be a feat! I dare you, InXile, do it.
 

Rubius

Member
Yes, but Wizard wont promote a setting that go totally against what they write in the books. They changed alignments which pretty much fuck up all the pantheons and the planes. You can play what you want, but there wont be much promotion for those other places.
 

My third tide would be gold or red though, so common ground there :D

Yes, but Wizard wont promote a setting that go totally against what they write in the books. They changed alignments which pretty much fuck up all the pantheons and the planes. You can play what you want, but there wont be much promotion for those other places.

Ugh, the simplification of alignments was such a horrible move.
 

duckroll

Member
I'm looking to pitch Torment: Bunnies & Burrows to Brian at some point.

It's just a natural synthesis of greatness.

Make it a stretch goal for this game. At 3.5 million, it is included as a forced prologue for the game. At 3.7 million, it gets turned into an optional minigame after being replaced by a real prologue!

Lol.
 

Eusis

Member
Torment: Star Wars
Lego: Torment
Sonic and Torment
Shin Megami Torment?

Actually, a game about self exploration for Star Wars WOULD be one of the most interesting things you could do for an RPG in that setting, I think KotOR2 sort of skirted that?
 

dude

dude
I'm looking to pitch Torment: Bunnies & Burrows to Brian at some point.

It's just a natural synthesis of greatness.

OMG, YES. I'm not even talking about the joke here, you have to make a Bunnies & Burrows isometric party-based RPG. The potential is endless.
 
OMG, YES. I'm not even talking about the joke here, you have to make a Bunnies & Burrows isometric party-based RPG. The potential is endless.

Haha, as someone whose favorite book is Watership Down I'd love to some day do a Bunnies & Burrows RPG. It would certainly be something out of the ordinary! Maybe a bit too out of the ordinary, tho.
 

Fou-Lu

Member
One thing I've found kind of frustrating in PS:T so far is that talking ALWAYS seems to give better rewards than fighting. It's a nice change since it's usually the other way around, but can't we have some balance?
 

dude

dude
Haha, as someone whose favorite book is Watership Down I'd love to some day do a Bunnies & Burrows RPG. It would certainly be something out of the ordinary! Maybe a bit too out of the ordinary, tho.

There are so many IPs I want to see done in ths RPG format :(
 
One thing I've found kind of frustrating in PS:T so far is that talking ALWAYS seems to give better rewards than fighting. It's a nice change since it's usually the other way around, but can't we have some balance?

Personally, I love it.
I say that Torment: Tides of Numenera focus more on the talking bit, as we have Project: Eternity to provide for a more combat-focused experience.
 

duckroll

Member
One thing I've found kind of frustrating in PS:T so far is that talking ALWAYS seems to give better rewards than fighting. It's a nice change since it's usually the other way around, but can't we have some balance?

Planescape isn't about fighting though. I think that's sort of the point. Combat is not the focus of the game, and it is actively discouraged. It is only available as an alternative option if either you don't like any of the non-combat options presented in a situation, or if somehow you failed to talk your way out of a situation.
 
Planescape isn't about fighting though. I think that's sort of the point. Combat is not the focus of the game, and it is actively discouraged. It is only available as an alternative option if either you don't like any of the non-combat options presented in a situation, or if somehow you failed to talk your way out of a situation.

Precisely.
I do hope that they keep that aspect of PS:T for T:ToN.
 
Add me to the camp that hopes there is some more combat to this game than PS:T. I hope, at the very least, that combat is more enjoyable than the original.
 

Instro

Member
Planescape isn't about fighting though. I think that's sort of the point. Combat is not the focus of the game, and it is actively discouraged. It is only available as an alternative option if either you don't like any of the non-combat options presented in a situation, or if somehow you failed to talk your way out of a situation.

Having to fight in Planescape felt like a punishment. That and the general item/magic system can definitely be improved upon.
 
The shit combat?

I am quite sure they will work hard to ensure that combat is good.

But sure, the emphasis will be on the alternatives.

Sure, the combat should actually be good unlike in PS:T, but I would still like to see less combat than in the original game.
Heck, I'd welcome even less combat if it meant more dialogue options.

To go even further, I wouldn't at all mind it if they completely removed combat and just turned it into 100% dialogue options.
 

Ciastek3214

Junior Member
Add me to the camp that hopes there is some more combat to this game than PS:T. I hope, at the very least, that combat is more enjoyable than the original.

While better gameplay would be great, I still think story and writing won't hold up to the magnificence of the first game.
 

duckroll

Member
Add me to the camp that hopes there is some more combat to this game than PS:T. I hope, at the very least, that combat is more enjoyable than the original.

I agree with your latter point though. The combat in Planescape really kinda sucked, which is extra incentive to avoid the fuck out of it. It was much more FUN to just play the dialogue trees even before taking into account rewards. If they improve the combat mechanics significantly here, then maybe we can start to discuss wanting more combat. :p
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
The shit combat?

I am quite sure they will work hard to ensure that combat is good.

But sure, the emphasis will be on the alternatives.
PS:T doesnt have shit combat. Its not the greatest combat ever but its also not the focus of the game.

edit:

Talking always meant more to me not because of some reward but the intangible benefits. Getting memories, shifting alignments, opening up new quest options.. that sort of thing. i cant really recall much need for money or loot in the game. Its just not that important.
 

Midou

Member
It can be a little vague and in the end is up to courts to decide, but yeah, that specific combination is way too close to the original. You could get away with a floating skull for sure, you might get away with a character named Morte, but a combination of the two? No.

Introducing Muerte the skull.
 

Nairume

Banned
Except that a setting is dependant of the core rule books. If you want to play D&D 4.0, the alignment system destroyed most of the gods, and made Planewalking way way more streamlined.
I doubt that D&D 5.0 will go back to planescape.
Not necessarily. Planescape was going to be brought back as its own setting in 4E at one point, but they ended up incorporating it into the core setting instead.

D&D Next is probably going to continue that.
 
Introducing Muerte the skull.

XV0W24y.jpg
 

Lime

Member
With the amount of combat that is forced into almost all mainstream games these days, the lack of it in any game would be a welcome antidote for me.

Nevertheless, considering this is a game played by different people, the best possible scenario would be to accommodate many different playstyles/preferences, so;

qerntbbgyy6c.gif
 
Top Bottom