Design Decisions – Why Did We Even Have a Vote?

Over the last few weeks, we’ve seen some comments suggesting that we risked the quality of the game by putting the combat system up for a vote. After all, some have noted, we are the game development professionals and it’s our job to make Torment the best it can be. We should be in a better position than anyone to decide what will make the best game, right? Besides which, it would be ridiculous to try and appease every single one of our 80K+ backers (as the voting results attest).

This is all true. I assure you that we wouldn’t have compromised the quality or direction of Torment for anyone. We stated our vision for combat up front, noting that we could accomplish those goals with either system, and from those goals came our Crisis concept. We have a vision for this game, and it grows stronger each month. As we’ve communicated since the beginning, we intended this combat vote to be advisory in nature, knowing that we might sacrifice one solution if enough of our backers demanded the other.

Had we known in February what we know now about Torment’s design, we would have stated up front that Torment would have turn-based combat and we would have told you about our plans for Crises. But we didn’t know until more recently, when our design goals came into sharper focus through our prototype’s creation. Game development is an iterative process – and one which players generally don’t see this much of, this early on. Our ideas have solidified (and in some cases shifted) as we’ve progressed through preproduction and this is a common part of the process of creating video games. Every week, we learn more about how to make Torment better.

Some have asked why we carried through with the vote when we had a preference. Simple: we are making this game for you, and as part of our Kickstarter, we promised you that you’d have a say. If the vote had been skewed hugely in favor of RTwP, we would have expanded and modified our vision for Torment to provide the experience the majority of you wanted.

We also really wanted your comments and feedback. By understanding not just what you want, but why you want it, we can best guide our design to maximize your entertainment without compromising Torment’s vision or quality. In this instance, by learning about your biggest concerns about turn-based games, we will be better able to address them through the details of our system and encounter design.
A note on Communication along with a Thank You

While you’re here, I’d like to thank the many backers who have helped correct any misperceptions others have had during the recent combat discussions (and in general over the past months). We sincerely appreciate your efforts, your passion, and your overall civility in helping to communicate with other backers.

Over the last couple weeks, we’ve seen people say both, “I never would’ve backed this game if I knew it might be real-time with pause” and “I never would’ve backed this game if I knew it might be turn-based.” This misunderstanding occurred despite our best efforts to be very clear, even before the Kickstarter, that our combat system was undecided. We reinforced this ambiguity several times during the campaign, including Tony Evans’ Tales of Torment: Episode 7 on combat, but still were unable to reach everyone – and even here there was some room for miscommunication, with some interpreting the vote to be absolute rather than advisory.

We have always wanted every backer to know exactly what they should, and shouldn’t, expect from Torment (with the understanding that game development is a fluid process). This is why, for example, we announced before the Kickstarter ended that our overfunding would mean that Torment’s release would be in 2015 instead of the December 2014 date we initially had suggested. We wanted backers to have the opportunity to pull their pledges if the delay was a deal-breaker for them. But attempting to reach every backer is an uphill battle, so I am incredibly thankful for your efforts to educate other backers on the details of the project. Your comments on the Kickstarter updates and on UserVoice, your replies in community forums, your posts on articles providing coverage on the game – your energy in correcting misperceptions and pointing people to accurate information is necessary and greatly appreciated.

Many times I’ve seen this: a backer, given their current understanding of some aspect of the project, is justifiably frustrated or confused. Another backer speaks to their concern, giving them information that the first backer had missed or misinterpreted. The original backer, being at their core a reasonable person, now “gets it” and is no longer frustrated (or at the very least, is frustrated by the right thing instead of the imagined one). That so many of you communicate about the project in this way is awesome, and it helps us tremendously.

We greatly appreciate how you do this, how you help dispel confusion and misinformation. Truly, our Kickstarter wouldn’t have been as successful as it was without your dedication on this front. Thank you.

Kevin Saunders
Project Lead