Torment:ToN - Review Roundup

[JDR13]

No the point is:
There is Option A and Option B.
Both options equally give you a bonus (which you don't know beforehand)
Why should you ever try to get Option A instead of Option B and invest your resources for it?

Would you prefer if the game was more predictable?

 

[ElderGnome]

Thoughts after 10 hours of playing the game:

First off, I haven't read any reviews, guides, etc. I love the Numenera tabletop game, I loved Torment and I knew I'd be getting this on release day from the moment I heard about it. I never played EA because that ruins the experience of the release for me. I've spent 10 hours in the game...

...all I can say is that it delivered on all of my expectations. I even enjoy the combat system, which is a very close adaptation of the tabletop game. The Numenera game system lends itself to more "non-combat" oriented approaches to adventures as opposed to the more hack 'n slash D&D adventures I grew up on, but it's a lot of fun. Without giving too much away, already in the game there was one fight my team had no chance of winning but careful use of stealth saved the day - without a single shot being fired. Much how I admired this ability on Age of Decadence, I admire it in Torment.

Absolutely amazing game, having loads of fun with this one. It's a real treat for me to see the Numenera world brought to life like this in a CRPG. My wife, who runs Numenera and also got a copy of this game said that visually it helps her conceptualize what a lot of the 9th World concepts actually might look like in a physical space. I can definitely see that.

Ten out of ten, from this gnome.

 

[Deleted User]

Thanks for the impressions, Gnome! Sounds like a good one.

 

[Kordanor]

Because that's not a universal rule in the game.
Sometimes failure is just failure.

Just stumbled over another option:
Success: 67 Shin
Failure: Cypher which you can use to permanently increase a skill by 1

Would you prefer if the game was more predictable?

Definitely. I am not a fan of "rolls" for such things in any case, as it incentivices save-scumming. In this case, there are just two results you'd need to test out.

Or you just accept whatever you get. But even in that case: why should you care to invest your points to get a success?

Personally I'd prefer an option like in Fallout 3, FTL or some other games:
If you have a special ability you can use it to get a better result. After that you feel good about having this special ability.
In Torment these checks are all more like "...whatever..."

And same goes for the XP gains btw.
What did they think when they implemented XP gains of 2 XP! which you get for small discoveries in dialogues. It's completely pointless if you need 180 XP to rise a level. And a quest gives maybe 100 XP. I guess it should show the player "here is some reward for discovering something cool". But in fact such low XP gains are as pointless as it gets.

 

[Deleted User]

Just a side note, but I'd prefer an option in RPGs like this that "forces" you to live with the results of choices, and that would include "bad rolls" and things like this. I think RPGs could be more interesting if you aren't encouraged (or even downright can't) save-scum.

Of course, it would be an option you'd set at the beginning of the game, so those who want to re-load after choices, etc.., could. But I just find that sort of thing interesting nowadays. I played Gothic 2 with the "house rule" of not save scumming and it was pretty fun.

A game like Gothic that throws odd curveballs at you and/or has dice roll elements in skill checks with a "No Save Scum" mode is really interesting to me.

Random thought.

 

[Kobu]

Would you prefer if the game was more predictable?

I don't think percent based checks in conversations work very well in a CRPG. Some of the failures are merely "interesting", while some are "LOL, sorry, you died". It reminds me of older games where you can jump down pits and some advance the game and some just kill you and you have no idea which are which until you try. I don't find it very engaging. Original Torment where you simply succeed if you have the requisite stat felt a lot better--I'm strong, so I can grab this guys wrist and literally strong-arm him. None of this do I spend points here and maybe lose out on something in this check, or not be able to force the next check, and being temped to reload when I don't like the result.

It's just not my cup of tea. And it's one of many disappointing factors that have me sitting here typing instead of going back to my paused game.

 

[Kordanor]

Just a side note, but I'd prefer an option in RPGs like this that "forces" you to live with the results of choices, and that would include "bad rolls" and things like this. I think RPGs could be more interesting if you aren't encouraged (or even downright can't) save-scum.

Of course, it would be an option you'd set at the beginning of the game, so those who want to re-load after choices, etc.., could. But I just find that sort of thing interesting nowadays. I played Gothic 2 with the "house rule" of not save scumming and it was pretty fun.

A game like Gothic that throws odd curveballs at you and/or has dice roll elements in skill checks with a "No Save Scum" mode is really interesting to me.

Random thought.

I absolutely agree. But even then Torment would have the problem, that a success doesn't mean a better result. So why should you try to get a success?

 

[Deleted User]

Because you never know how it's going to turn out, so you choose something you think is best and hope for the best?

I dunno, I like this sort of thing in RPGs. Sort of like the D:OS system where your partner could disagree and you play rock-paper-scissors to see whose idea wins out. It removes absolute control and throws a stick into the spokes, so to speak. I think stuff like this can make RPGs less predictable and more interesting.

 

[Aerth]

I absolutely agree. But even then Torment would have the problem, that a success doesn't mean a better result. So why should you try to get a success?

You have a definition of success as something utterly positive and failure as something totally negative. A game can implement more gray zones. And anyway you know than those choices were both good in your definition because you saved restored to check.
When I play I do not know, I have a choice, I hesitate, I ponder I choose and if the result is ok, I am glad and go on. Maybe the other choice was way better or a disaster, ok but that is not the choice I did.

 

[Kobu]

Because you never know how it's going to turn out, so you choose something you think is best and hope for the best?

I dunno, I like this sort of thing in RPGs. Sort of like the D:OS system where your partner could disagree and you play rock-paper-scissors to see whose idea wins out. It removes absolute control and throws a stick into the spokes, so to speak. I think stuff like this can make RPGs less predictable and more interesting.

I find that fun in tabletop gaming. Not so much in a CRPG where I want to control the direction of the narrative through my decisions. The die roll, and having no way of knowing what the actual better outcome would be anyway, takes away the feeling that my decisions in the game are really meaningful.

 

[pibbur who]

Regarding choices like this, I prefer to roleplay, in the sense that I choose the answers I think my character would choose, no matter the consequences. In general I don't powerplay, not seeking the best options, the best equipement and so on. More fun that way, methinks.

pibbur who admits that he doesn't always follow this principle, but won't tell how often he fails.

PS. It has to be said that generally I have problems choosing evil or sarcastic dialog options. I've tried to play evil, but it doesn't last long. I guess I put too much of myself into my characters. DS.

 

[Kordanor]

You have a definition of success as something utterly positive and failure as something totally negative. A game can implement more gray zones. And anyway you know than those choices were both good in your definition because you saved restored to check.
When I play I do not know, I have a choice, I hesitate, I ponder I choose and if the result is ok, I am glad and go on. Maybe the other choice was way better or a disaster, ok but that is not the choice I did.

But you cannot argue in the favor of the game by that. I mean would you be happy if in every single case there was exactly the same outcome, just in other words, just because you are not loading anyways. Like:
Spending 4 Skillpoints: Success, you smash the chest and find 50 Gold inside.
Spending 0 Skillpoints: Failure. You try to hit the chest, fail miserable, stuble over the chest. Hitting it by your weight it cracks and you find 50 Gold inside.

That said, I checked on 4 occasions in the game yet:
In two of them it didnt really matter.
In two other ones failing gave the better result.

I mean I will go on playing and trying to do successful checks. But instead of feeling positive when succeeding as in other games, either by having enough skill to surpass the minimum (Fallout, 3 FTL) or that I don't need to reload (any luck based games) I always feel somewhat bad, thinking "yeah…well, this is what I'd normally do…so be it, even if it sucks".

Regarding choices like this, I prefer to roleplay, in the sense that I choose the answers I think my character would choose, no matter the consequences. In general I don't powerplay, not seeking the best options, the best equipement and so on. More fun that way, methinks.

pibbur who admits that he doesn't always follow this principle, but won't tell how often he fails.

PS. It has to be said that generally I have problems choosing evil or sarcastic dialog options. I've tried to play evil, but it doesn't last long. I guess I put too much of myself into my characters. DS.

I am completely with you there. Well, I also chose sarcastic options. But only if I know what I am saying. Not as in Fallout 4 sarcastic, where anything totally unexpected might come out of your characters mouth.

 

[Deleted User]

I find that fun in tabletop gaming. Not so much in a CRPG where I want to control the direction of the narrative through my decisions. The die roll, and having no way of knowing what the actual better outcome would be anyway, takes away the feeling that my decisions in the game are really meaningful.

Why try to control the narrative, though? I would just roll with the game and play it "organically". More fun that way, IMO.

Think of it as real life, where there is a "random element". You never know how things will work out, even if you think you are choosing the best option.

Regarding choices like this, I prefer to roleplay, in the sense that I choose the answers I think my character would choose, no matter the consequences. In general I don't powerplay, not seeking the best options, the best equipement and so on. More fun that way, methinks.

Same here. That is why I am hoping in future games this sort of thing is explored more via options and modes.

 

[Aerth]

Maybe the first Torment had only one and same text behind every critical dialogue choice for what I know. You are the one who spoils himself testing each outcome and saying than they are all the same or nearly equal. We probably did not play the same game and we are certainly not playing the same way. Which is fine.
This kind of heavy choice 'you die' or 'you get 50 gp' is maybe better in an heavy fight game where death has a meaning. Here it does not.

 

[daveyd]

I haven't played very far into the game yet, maybe a few hours but so far I like it overall. It is certainly text heavy. I think in some instances they could have shortened the exposition a bit without losing anything of value, but the dialogue is rather well written and the first two potential companions seem interesting enough. I started as an intelligent Nano who is avoiding combat, but I think I may start a new game with a Glaive just to see what the combat system is like.

 

[Kordanor]

I am not quite sure, but I don't think that you necessarily need a Glaive for that.
Combat just doesn't happen that often. Played 7h now, and the only fight I had was the tutorial battle. I am playing a Jack and I think I avoided one combat so far.

 

[Kobu]

Why try to control the narrative, though? I would just roll with the game and play it "organically". More fun that way, IMO.

Think of it as real life, where there is a "random element". You never know how things will work out, even if you think you are choosing the best option.

I play games to get away from that.

 

[daveyd]

I am not quite sure, but I don't think that you necessarily need a Glaive for that.
Combat just doesn't happen that often. Played 7h now, and the only fight I had was the tutorial battle. I am playing a Jack and I think I avoided one combat so far.

That's true you at least have a chance to avoid combat with a Glaive but I figure if I am going to role-play as a belligerent character I may as well build one who specializes in weapons...

I got into the first non-tutorial fight. I think the combat seems pretty decent; definitely "good enough" considering this is not really a combat game. I'll probably resume playing with a nano though... Also, I like reading people's thoughts.

 

[JDR13]

Definitely. I am not a fan of "rolls" for such things in any case, as it incentivices save-scumming. In this case, there are just two results you'd need to test out.

I think you're assuming that everyone save-scums. Not everyone is so OCD that they need to know the result of every decision on the first playthrough.

I don't think percent based checks in conversations work very well in a CRPG. Some of the failures are merely "interesting", while some are "LOL, sorry, you died". It reminds me of older games where you can jump down pits and some advance the game and some just kill you and you have no idea which are which until you try. I don't find it very engaging. Original Torment where you simply succeed if you have the requisite stat felt a lot better--I'm strong, so I can grab this guys wrist and literally strong-arm him. None of this do I spend points here and maybe lose out on something in this check, or not be able to force the next check, and being temped to reload when I don't like the result.

It's just not my cup of tea. And it's one of many disappointing factors that have me sitting here typing instead of going back to my paused game.

To each his own. If a game feels too predictable, it's not even worth playing for me. Also, I was referring more to the rewards than the fact that rolls are involved. I don't get when people complain that the rewards aren't equal or that you have to use some resources to get one. If I get a lesser reward because of the decision I made, it doesn't bother me one bit, and I don't feel like I need to reload for something like that.

Now if we're talking about something major, like a decision that results in the death of a party member, then yeah I might reload for that.

 

[Kordanor]

I think you're assuming that everyone save-scums. Not everyone is so OCD that they need to know the result of every decision on the first playthrough.

Point is, a system with a fixed and hidden requirement (might show afterwards or be optionally shown), has the same effect for people who don't save-scum. And for people with OCD it's also great. No disadvantage.

Personally I have an urge to save-scum but I force myself not to (doing LPs is also helping with that). But in Torment a success in a check just doesn't feel as good.