It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
"What does one life matter" huh?
I'm guessing you're a hive mind of some sort in this one. :p
...or maybe a bunch of rats.
avatar
ET3D: It's going to be in the Numenera universe, which is a SF game rather than a fantasy one. While the setting does allow for a lot of variety, I'm worried that SF will be limiting.

Still, the project text does promise "chart a course through bizarre dimensions", which is vaguely promising.
avatar
GameRager: Numenera Universe is just the devs. slick way of saying "This is totally not set in one of the Planescape Universes"...otherwise, it should be similar enough(but not enough to be boring or predictable, hopefully) for PS:T fans to enjoy.

Also, magic/scifi/etc...what's the big difference mechanics-wise? Both settings allow one to employ some sort of supernatural/uberhuman ability to effect the world/the PC/enemies in various ways.

avatar
Crosmando: I'm a little disappointed, Brian Fargo hinted in an interview after the Wasteland 2 kickstarter that he might look into doing a Bard's Tale 4, but the whole "Torment" name became available for trademark and he grabbed it, and this happened.
avatar
GameRager: I'm sure he can shoehorn in a bard skill path/class somewhere(along with some more "mature" bard-like humor). -_-
No no, I mean he hinted at a sequel to this:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bard%27s_Tale_III:_Thief_of_Fate]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bard%27s_Tale_III:_Thief_of_Fate[/url]
avatar
Crosmando: No no, I mean he hinted at a sequel to this:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bard%27s_Tale_III:_Thief_of_Fate]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bard%27s_Tale_III:_Thief_of_Fate[/url]
I was joking a bit with you. ;)
avatar
Adzeth: "What does one life matter" huh?
I'm guessing you're a hive mind of some sort in this one. :p
...or maybe a bunch of rats.
Or spiders......or howler monkeys.......
Post edited February 21, 2013 by GameRager
avatar
GameRager: Also, magic/scifi/etc...what's the big difference mechanics-wise? Both settings allow one to employ some sort of supernatural/uberhuman ability to effect the world/the PC/enemies in various ways.
The different isn't mechanic-wise. I think that the main difference between SF and fantasy is that SF is meant to be understandable. When something exists in an SF universe, there's supposed to be a rational explanation to it. In an SF universe something might look like magic, but you know it's not, you know there are some natural, logical rules which govern it. This makes suspension of disbelief harder.

In a magical universe a character's emotion may magically influence the world around them. It would be natural. If the same thing happened in SF, it would have to have an explanation of why this happens, and that can reduce its magic, as well as encumber the narrative. On the other side of the scale, when a magic missile gets you one missile per two levels, up to 5 targets, which strike unerringly, there's no reason to question it. Have that in SF, and suddenly it becomes a WTF. Is there a reason for these limitations? How are the missiles produced? How do they strike?

On one hand this can make SF worlds a lot better fleshed out, but on the other hand, it can limit them in what can be put into the story, and how much time is dedicated to explaining things vs. telling the story, or if left out, the feeling that things are incomplete.
avatar
Adzeth: "What does one life matter" huh?
I'm guessing you're a hive mind of some sort in this one. :p
...or maybe a bunch of rats.
avatar
GameRager: Or spiders......or howler monkeys.......
I think that's it! That's most definitely it. :D
Attachments:
avatar
ET3D: snip
Science <span class="bold">Fantasy</span> =/= Science <span class="bold">Fiction</span>
Science Fiction (aka SF) ignores the possibility (or existence) of magic, while Science Fantasy is indifferent. So no, I don't see any problems in having Magic Missile co-exist with robotic companions.
avatar
ET3D: The different isn't mechanic-wise. I think that the main difference between SF and fantasy is that SF is meant to be understandable. When something exists in an SF universe, there's supposed to be a rational explanation to it. In an SF universe something might look like magic, but you know it's not, you know there are some natural, logical rules which govern it. This makes suspension of disbelief harder.

In a magical universe a character's emotion may magically influence the world around them. It would be natural. If the same thing happened in SF, it would have to have an explanation of why this happens, and that can reduce its magic, as well as encumber the narrative. On the other side of the scale, when a magic missile gets you one missile per two levels, up to 5 targets, which strike unerringly, there's no reason to question it. Have that in SF, and suddenly it becomes a WTF. Is there a reason for these limitations? How are the missiles produced? How do they strike?

On one hand this can make SF worlds a lot better fleshed out, but on the other hand, it can limit them in what can be put into the story, and how much time is dedicated to explaining things vs. telling the story, or if left out, the feeling that things are incomplete.
I guess I used the wrong term...sorry about that.

Imo(to have a reasonable amount of fun with some games/other forms of media) it's often necessary to "turn off" one's brain for the duration of such an experience & not overanalyze everything. Yes(As you said), SF can cause some to question how any "magical" effects/items are made/used, but some people could just as easily question "magical" effects/spells/items in a fantasy setting as well if they were more "logic minded"(correct term???).

avatar
ET3D: snip
avatar
JMich: Science <span class="bold">Fantasy</span> =/= Science <span class="bold">Fiction</span>
Science Fiction (aka SF) ignores the possibility (or existence) of magic, while Science Fantasy is indifferent. So no, I don't see any problems in having Magic Missile co-exist with robotic companions.
Heck, many MMOs such as WOW/etc mix magic/science in their universes all the time.
Post edited February 21, 2013 by GameRager
avatar
JMich: Science Fiction (aka SF) ignores the possibility (or existence) of magic, while Science Fantasy is indifferent. So no, I don't see any problems in having Magic Missile co-exist with robotic companions.
You're right. I misread that in the description of Numenera. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Still, the overview of the setting does give the impression that it's leaning more towards science fiction. Things are bio-engineered, designed, there are devices, "magic" is put in quotes. Reading further, there's a blog post by Monte Cook on the subject, linked from the settings page.

He says: "My favorite slice of science fantasy, I think, is science fiction as fantasy. This is where the technology is so advanced, at least in some aspects, that it seems like magic." and "Perhaps it comes down to that idea that having limitations actually encourages rather than discourages creativity."

And this is exactly what I was saying. Science fiction is limiting. Seems like Monte Cook and I see eye to eye. To quote my previous post: "On one hand this can make SF worlds a lot better fleshed out, but on the other hand, it can limit them in what can be put into the story."

Which was my point to begin with. Monte Cook clearly agrees that science fiction (even "as fantasy") is more limited than fantasy. Personally I love rationalising, even in fantasy, but I think that good fantasy can more easily take me out of my comfort zone in a good way.
avatar
Tychoxi: It still irks me that they didn't call it "Numenera: Torment"!
And then for the spirtitual sequel tot he spirtual sequel they should have developed/found a completely new setting and name it [New Setting Name]: Torment. And so on and on.
You mean some kind of consistency in naming sequels? C'mon, it's in the best tradition of games like Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver (sequel of sorts to Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain) or Ultima Worlds of Adventure 2 (sequel to Worlds of Ultima). ;)

Anyway, like I said, I'd have preferred that they leave Torment out of the title, too, since it makes the concept sound quite unimaginative. I liked the word better when it had an actual meaning related to the first game, not as the brand name for a series.



avatar
GameRager: As post#5 points out, the Planescape setting is defined loosely enough that the title could still fit.
avatar
Darkcloud: Eh the D&D setting pretty much says what planes exist.
I might be mistaken, but I always thought the Prime Material Plane hosts all possible worlds in existence? Anyway, it's a moot point because they wouldn't be allowed to call the game Planescape due to licensing issues.
Post edited February 21, 2013 by Leroux
avatar
Leroux: I might be mistaken, but I always thought the Prime Material Plane hosts all possible worlds in existence?
Only if Numenera doesn't have a conflicting cosmology. If it features a blatantly non-PM location that can't possibly be found in one of the listed planes, it's not in the multiverse.
avatar
Adzeth: "What does one life matter" huh?
I'm guessing you're a hive mind of some sort in this one. :p
...or maybe a bunch of rats.
Six squirrels.
avatar
ET3D: The different isn't mechanic-wise. I think that the main difference between SF and fantasy is that SF is meant to be understandable. When something exists in an SF universe, there's supposed to be a rational explanation to it. In an SF universe something might look like magic, but you know it's not, you know there are some natural, logical rules which govern it. This makes suspension of disbelief harder.

In a magical universe a character's emotion may magically influence the world around them. It would be natural. If the same thing happened in SF, it would have to have an explanation of why this happens, and that can reduce its magic, as well as encumber the narrative. On the other side of the scale, when a magic missile gets you one missile per two levels, up to 5 targets, which strike unerringly, there's no reason to question it. Have that in SF, and suddenly it becomes a WTF. Is there a reason for these limitations? How are the missiles produced? How do they strike?

On one hand this can make SF worlds a lot better fleshed out, but on the other hand, it can limit them in what can be put into the story, and how much time is dedicated to explaining things vs. telling the story, or if left out, the feeling that things are incomplete.
avatar
GameRager: I guess I used the wrong term...sorry about that.

Imo(to have a reasonable amount of fun with some games/other forms of media) it's often necessary to "turn off" one's brain for the duration of such an experience & not overanalyze everything. Yes(As you said), SF can cause some to question how any "magical" effects/items are made/used, but some people could just as easily question "magical" effects/spells/items in a fantasy setting as well if they were more "logic minded"(correct term???).

avatar
JMich: Science <span class="bold">Fantasy</span> =/= Science <span class="bold">Fiction</span>
Science Fiction (aka SF) ignores the possibility (or existence) of magic, while Science Fantasy is indifferent. So no, I don't see any problems in having Magic Missile co-exist with robotic companions.
avatar
GameRager: Heck, many MMOs such as WOW/etc mix magic/science in their universes all the time.
You speak of le famous suspension of disbelief oui?
avatar
Tychoxi: It still irks me that they didn't call it "Numenera: Torment"!
And then for the spirtitual sequel tot he spirtual sequel they should have developed/found a completely new setting and name it [New Setting Name]: Torment. And so on and on.
avatar
GameRager: Dunno if you're serious or not, but IIRC the setting/series is titled Planescape & the original game's "subtitle" is Torment(referring to the main character & his life[lives] & their quality[or lack thereof], I guess). If this is correct, then wouldn't the correct naming convention be to call each game Planescape: X(Where x is each new game's subtitle)? -_-
hah, I'm very serious! They got the rights to the name "Torment", the Planescape setting is beyond *anyone* last time I had heard about it. So my rigid mind thinks that the sequel to "Planescape: Torment" should be named "Numenera: Torment" now that we have a new setting. And I think it's fitting too, the "Torment" of the characters was the driving force in PS:T, if this is a *spiritual* sequel then we should see what sort of "Torment" we have in Numenera... hence "Numenera: Torment".

avatar
Crosmando: I'm a little disappointed, Brian Fargo hinted in an interview after the Wasteland 2 kickstarter that he might look into doing a Bard's Tale 4, but the whole "Torment" name became available for trademark and he grabbed it, and this happened.
I'm not gonna say I know what went through his mind, but Fargo has had bad experiencies with "losing" (or never having) the rights to his games in the past, so I could see him finding out about "Torment" availability and just jumping in before he loses the opportunity for who knows how many years! And so they shelved Bard's Tale IV for later. There's probably a commercial side here, sure! but as long as they show the respect and care they did for W2 for this Torment project, I don't think we can fault him for doing this.
Post edited February 21, 2013 by Tychoxi
avatar
GameRager: Dunno if you're serious or not, but IIRC the setting/series is titled Planescape & the original game's "subtitle" is Torment(referring to the main character & his life[lives] & their quality[or lack thereof], I guess). If this is correct, then wouldn't the correct naming convention be to call each game Planescape: X(Where x is each new game's subtitle)? -_-
avatar
Tychoxi: hah, I'm very serious! They got the rights to the name "Torment", the Planescape setting is beyond *anyone* las time I had heard about it. So my rigid mind thinks that the sequel to "Planescape: Torment" should be "Numenera: Torment" now that we have a new setting. And I think it's fitting too, the "Torment" of the characters was the driving force in PS:T, if this is a *spiritual* sequel then we should see what sort of "Torment" we have in Numenera... hence "Numenera: Torment".
They need some way to show this is related to Planetscape: Torment...
avatar
Leroux: You mean some kind of consistency in naming sequels? C'mon, it's in the best tradition of games like Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver (sequel of sorts to Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain) or Ultima Worlds of Adventure 2 (sequel to Worlds of Ultima). ;)
-------------------------
Anyway, like I said, I'd have preferred that they leave Torment out of the title, too, since it makes the concept sound quite unimaginative. I liked the word better when it had an actual meaning related to the first game, not as the brand name for a series.
You forgot the Jedi Knight games.....Dark Forces, Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2, Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast, etc.
----------
I like it...imo it's a nice homage to the game that inspired/is inspiring it.