Moral Dilemmas

I recently gave an example of a very small cause and effect scenario involving a drowning boy and it created some confusion on whether that was an example of a moral dilemma. The tough morality decisions are ones in which the outcome is not a black and white scenario.  So in our drowning boy example, unless you are playing like a sociopath (which we’re ok with) a person is likely to save the boy unless there was personal risk involved. This is more about the ripples of cause and effect the events in the game can cause then a real example of a true moral dilemma.  To that end, I thought it appropriate to share one of the many scenarios which does comprise of a set of choices that are not black and white and also highlights the multiple choices the players will have:

The Kidnapped Wife:

The rangers come across a man whose wife has been kidnapped by raiders. He asks them to help him get her back, but these raiders bear the Mark of Titan, marking them protected by the Servants of the Mushroom Cloud. If the rangers attack the raiders, they will anger the Servants of the Mushroom Cloud and possibly jeopardize their main mission on the map, but if they don’t rescue the woman, she will be enslaved and endure a fate worse than death.  Adding to the dilemma is that without the rangers’ help; her husband is going to get himself killed trying to save her on his own.

 The easiest and most loathsome way to deal with the dilemma is to ignore the man and leave the woman to her fate. It’s also easy to go in guns blasting, but that will piss off the Servants and turn the map hostile, putting the Rangers overall mission in jeopardy.   It is much more difficult and time consuming to find a middle path, trying to steal her away without the raiders knowing, trying to buy her from them, or stealth killing them all without the servants catching on. 

This example illustrates two things that are of major importance to us in the development of Wasteland 2.  First, having moral dilemmas that are more than just good versus evil, and second, having multiple solution options to any scenario.  Setting up scenarios that tug on your emotions of right and wrong is what makes for the experience we are trying to deliver. We also want to allow people to play the game the way they want.  If they choose the evil path, then we need to let that happen. You might feel a little guilty when you hear about the havoc you are causing to innocent people but we don’t make the game impossible due to your play style. It is all about the player having a choice of and having multiple ways to solve any problem.

And on another note we are celebrating our 10th year anniversary by reducing the prices of our released games and in some cases giving them away for free. If you are on a PC, Max, iOS or Android device you might want to check it out.

http://www.inxile-entertainment.com/news/2012/10/15/inxile-celebrating-its-10th-year-in-business-with-a-digital-garage-sale

I hope this clears up any questions on our take on morality. As usual I am happy to keep our dialogue open so that I can stay on top of the pulse of things.

–Brian Fargo

PS Congrats to our friends at Obsidian for their Kickstarter campaign. They did an amazing job and once more proves that the passion for RPGs was never gone.

Help make this game 100% Fan-Funded, tell others:

58 thoughts on “Moral Dilemmas

  1. Pingback: Моральные дилеммы | Все по игре Wasteland 2. На Русском.

  2. I’m surprised nobody (I think) mentioned another way to make the situation more complex. Everything is transparent : the man is a good guy, the woman was captured without reason, the rangers are abusive and use her as they will. But she actually likes it better than her previous life. Everything is clear-cut and, though her work is sometimes exhausting, she just has to obey, not make hard decisions, plans or anything complicated. She is surrounded by powerful well-armed men and feels as safe as she possibly can from the dangers of the Waste. Maybe she has masochistic tendencies and just plain enjoys the whole thing. So when you find her she just tells you to go and tell her husband she’s dead.

    Will you decide that her reasoning is altered and force her to come with you or let her do what she explicitly wants to do ? Now that’s a dilemma which involves a number of important decisions on all sorts of philosophical and psychological matters.

  3. “Setting up scenarios that tug on your emotions of right and wrong is what makes for the experience we are trying to deliver.”

    If you are designing for emotional impact, I suggest that you use kinship bonds. A drowning “son” has more emotional impact than a drowning “boy.”

    If you are designing a framework for morality/virtue, I suggest taking another look at Spenser’s Faerie Queene. It’s whole structure is based on the subject.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_virtues

    Valour: Pursuit of Knowledge
    Generosity: Pursuit of Charity
    Liberality: Pursuit of Will
    Diligence: Pursuit of Ethics
    Patience: Pursuit of Peace
    Kindness: Pursuit of Love
    Humility: Pursuit of Modesty

  4. I suddenly have this strong feeling that we can include ‘sex’ option with a couple of NPCs, and a randomly assigned NPC will carry HIV. Then a quest is available to seek the cure.

    Then a radiated source in the wasteland has the cure. It could be a before-war science facility that contains a cure but before the cure was released, the bombs struck, or at the same time, a mutant creature’s blood contains antibodies to kill 100% of HIV variants.

    An infected character will be able to fight for X years (in game time) at normal efficiency but low resistance to poison and disease (Wasteland 1 got disease status, if not recall wrong) and slower healing rate. A storyline of infecting another NPC to (eg) take revenge or ‘assassinate’ may be possible.

    Wasteland2 can also promote safe sex (with the availability of condoms as in Fallout 2), and include current HIV vaccine and cure information (found in before war labs or books or terminals reaching ‘facebook’ and blogs). A cinematic can be designed when the character is infected showing the groom and doom… The player can choose to kill the NPC or help her find the cure and let her die (after X in-game days). Saving the NPC could lead to another quest.

    I am thinking of those infected players… HIV or STDs, that while they are playing Wasteland2, they can have the courage to hang on. And those gamers who usually stay at home can realize the risk of raw sex with strangers.

    If this line is possible, testing facility in the game should be available. Anti-viral drugs of different damage controls can be (scarce) items.

    Thank you.

  5. I think when you manage to get in there, kill a few people, hide the bodies etc when you finally find the woman dead in a pool of her own blood a button should pop up that says “go apeshit crazy!”

    lol

    • On a side note, I hope that when you choose to play your character a certain way (angelic hero or complete scumbag) the game adjusts. For example when you play “good” it opens some doors to talk to/quests/etc that would not happen when you play “bad”. That said, when you play bad, that should open some doors and have some questionable characters come out of the woodwork that the “good” player would never see.

      All to often games just shut the door to you when you play like a sociopath, everyone won’t talk to/deal with you and it just makes the game less enjoyable. I would like to play through the game twice, two different ways, and have it be completely different. Hell even different end goals would be sweet (save the world / rule the world).

  6. to take your dilema further :
    the recompense should be from :
    1 getting the husband to become ranger
    2 getting them both to rangers base as workers
    3 asking the woman for a quickie
    4 money
    5 gor fame and glory

  7. Hello! Fashion,novel style,low price, the good shopping places,
    free shipping and quantity discount,
    Air/ jordan /shoes(1-24) $33,
    Air/ max /shoes $35,
    Air/Force/one $35,
    handbags $36,
    Jeans $36,
    T-Shirt $20,
    sunglasses $16,
    (NFL MLB NBA NHL) jerseys $25,
    Accept credit card and cash payments
    ====== w/ww.gocntrade.c/om ======

  8. Hello! Fashion,novel style,low price, the good shopping places,
    free shipping and quantity discount,
    Air/ jordan /shoes(1-24) $33,
    Air/ max /shoes $35,
    Air/Force/one $35,
    handbags $36,
    Jeans $36,
    T-Shirt $20,
    sunglasses $16,
    (NFL MLB NBA NHL) jerseys $25,
    Accept credit card and cash payments
    ====== w/ww.gocntrade.c/om ======

  9. simply rescue the woman and tell it to the man shes been errr . the thing is wev’e done our part . or tell her join us kick some butte .

  10. Are there also events whereby:
    You do A, A has (eg) 4 factors B, C, D, E carrying randomity and influenced by (eg) karma or/and reputation to produce a consequence F (which hence will be totally unexpected, but inclined to B, C, D, E’s weighting).

    Which is, if a raider killed Fargo, if someone in the party is Fargo’s girlfriend, this factor contains a influence of 60% randomity to be true, then if the raider is of a faction, it carries 30% to be true, then if Fargo is gay it carries 40%, then if killed by melee it carries 10%, then an event F will be generated based on the factors.

    Normally a event is triggered by an event simply like a simple 0/1 mechanism… too predictable… especially with a game guide. We need to remake certain aspect of this genre of games, where yes… you can ‘expect’, that is, when you killed Fargo, F should be expected to happen (80% of the time by common sense) but F1 or F2 or F3 happen instead. Of cos, how F1 or F2 or F3 happen instead of F can still have some reasons stated in game.

    Supposedly other than the main quests, they should be other minor quests becoming random quests with really random consequences or sub-quests generated. This should also happen in Fallout 4, but I guess it should happen in Wasteland 2.

    It’d also be to challenge the police or authority where gamers can have reasons to wipe out the orthodox group. Plus there should be religions… underground cults in addition to raiders.

    We should also have real ghosts, an area of haunted psy situation. Nuclear raids could have amplified such ‘signals’.

    We could also include trendy fashion and culture in the game. This will help Wasteland2 to become a culture of its own among games and gamers. This can include the way characters interact, rap and their favorite slogans. Also we can have special buildings. How about the temple of Zeus being blown open by the nuclear war? Or the tunnel to a special place where VVIPs gathered and was so luxurious where it was as if war never happened?

    We should also have events whereby huge amount of enemies have a standoff with the rangers.

    One or two NPCs should have ability to play ‘guide’ when reaching a new place, talking about the current place or the quests or clues.

    Where there is moral decision, there should also be moral accountability via karma or reputation ratings. And since most people will kill the bad people (and since most enemies who fire at you are usually the ‘bad’ guys), we have to think about how to award moral points. Fallout 3 and New Vegas’s problem is simply, when you complete the starting quests or you kill people, it’s usually good things done or raiders…

    You easily become the good guys. LOL~

    If there should be moral, allow me to suggest in-game police… If you have low moral or you chose crime in an event, you’d be hunted down. There will be fine for you you need to pay first before purchasing at the GOOD shops. Of cos, you can have black markets.

    As every game that includes trading, there must be events you’d need to spend big money on.

    What do you think?

    I am hoping that the gameplay will be fantastic. The rangers can also ‘located’ before war spy bases in the wasteland, and before-war nuclear plants bearing warning of exploiting nuclear energy.

    If there are mafia groups, there should be random events of drug and weapon smuggling groups and routes in the map.

    Wasteland2 can also learn from Jagged Alliance, and gamers can defend towns by equipping partisans or friendly gangsters with weapons because the place could be attacked by robots or raiders or whatever.

    If there is any need for any idea for stories, please state in the blog. Gamers can come together and brainstorm.

  11. Brian, it would be extra cool to have an update on how you read Wasteland 2 forums and if you gathered a lot of ideas from there yet.

  12. I’d just like to point out that while it may not be much of a moral dilemma, it still sounds like a fun quest. Not every quest has to be a moral dilemma. :-)

  13. As many have said here, I’ll reiterate that the biggest problem with this example is that it really does not seem to be a moral dilemma in any way. Save the woman is clearly the choice that is morally “correct.” What would prevent you from following this option are not moral judgements, but practical ones: the problem that this move could cause in your mission.

    The fact is that “saving the life of an innocent person” is universally seen as something good. The question here then isn’t whether it is morally right to save it (because it actually is), but if you are able to do it for other reasons. There is a dilemma in question, but its background do not have much moral weight.

    A moral dilemma is one that does not offer an answer that is morally correct. Taking the same example, let’s say that the characters discover that the Raiders are not so bad as a group, they are the ones that are actually preventing the invasion of a really violent group that probably would decimate the entire population of the region. Their methods might be questionable, but without them, the invasion would be inevitable.

    But even better than that, to complete this scenario, we find that in fact the woman herself was not exactly a victim. She could be guilty of some serious crime, showing that she isn’t in any way a “good person.” To make the situation interesting, it could even be that her husband did not know about it and you won’t have the evidente to prove to him the true nature of his wife.

    Such a situation is now more complicated, there is no absolutely correct answer. Save the woman is not necessarily a gesture of “kindness”. The woman is not a good person, but if you don’t save her it will cause the death of her husband, an innocent. On the other hand, if you act, you would be facing a group that is not exactly ‘good’, but that guarantees certain security (albeit limited) to the residents of the region, not to mention you still would have problems in your mission.

    I’m not saying that my example is perfect, I know that is not, I just thought it here while writting. The point I try to illustrate here is that to be a moral dilemma you need to be in a situation where none of the options the sounds “100% correct”. Or to put in another way, a situation where even if you had infinite powers to resolve it as you wanted to, you could not pinpoint what would be the “correct” solution.

    • I’m not sure how to say it without raising any taboos, but in Fallout 3…
      *wave of rocks and arrows and dead horses*
      …in a certain game from Bethesda, which involves a certain franchise related to Interplay, you meet a family of cannibals at some point. They appear like a perfectly normal family, but a closer inspection will show some rather gruesome details about their everyday life.
      If you do try to do your own little research, they will find out about it and will explain to you that they only do that to feed the kids and survive. You may choose to accept this and let them live or put an end to their life, but no matter what you do, you’ll feel bad about it.
      And the worse part of it is that, since killing them is technically self defense, it doesn’t affect your karma.
      Moral dilemmas at their finest.

  14. I agree with the already pointed flaws of this quest’s moral dilemma.

    However, I’d like to call attention to something I think is missing from the plethora of quest solutions you give us (from the point of view of choice and consequence, not morality): there should be atleast one solution that allows me to get favor with the raiders and SoMC, thus making my mission in the region somewhat easier.

  15. “stealth killing them all without the servants catching on . .”

    I actually cringed.

    Please don’t let us do things like that without consequence.
    (Stealth killing whole maps of people, and the NPC’s never understand that they are under attack)

    • The brothers Grimm called, and they’d like to make it crystal clear that in the real world the only personal consequence of a crime executed with appropriate skill is a potentially guilty conscience. Evil deeds only get their fair punishment in fairly tales, m’kay?

  16. Song for my ears! I thing such attitude is one of the most interesting things in the game. It will be great using it in the game . I hope the story will be non linear and unusual one, with lot of imagination. I’m tited of “killing the final boss” things in the end of the game. Or the game begins slow and speed up rapidly in the end (I hate this) There must be variations – begin slow, than go faster and in the end slow down (or something) :)
    I love the things you do guys! BRAVO

  17. I’m really excited to see what the Wasteland 2 plot has in store as far as choices. Meaningful choices, especially, are sorely lacking in modern games and yet are something that everyone seems to love.

    My slight concern though is that the Wasteland 2 developers may use a lot of typical dilemmas, since very very few games really have the time to think of new and interesting ones. While that’s fine for lots of younger gamers, us older gamers have thought through the typical cases and it doesn’t really challenge us to think that much. Our community seems to understand the need for diversity when it comes to the design of the environments. Yet we stagnate with enemy design, moral choices, etc.

  18. Dear Brian. I really think that there really should be situations in which the outcome is bad despite the players efforts.

    It is evident that there is a vocal part of players who cannot accept the fact that they cannot always control everything if they do everything “right” (be it good or evil) and “make no mistakes” (i.e. test “all” the possible solutions). Nevertheless, modern day cRPGs and games in general seem to lack this sort of storytelling.

    Thinking of the most probable audience of the Wasteland 2, I am really puzzled why it is so hard for some to accept that they cannot make everything turn out their way. This sort of behaviour is something I would attribute to younger individuals as it is quite natural e.g. for children to act this way with games when they are still growing up and are not yet accustomed to dealing with defeat and emotions.

  19. These are great comments and I am reading it all. It is a delicate balancing act to allow players to solve situations as many ways as possible yet at the same time have scenarios play out with no good outcome. In this case the player is only presented with the two choices about saving of the woman so the ability of finding a middle ground is not presented. Do we reward the player for being clever and finding an alternate solution or make it such the scenario turns out bad either way?

    • being a fan of the true non-linear RPG games, I have to say the following:

      rewarding any kind of behaviour makes it harder for the player to identify himself with the character he’d created. There’s no immediate reward in real life (some times “noble” solutions only lead to further problems), so it shouldn’t be so in the game.

      the only result of taking the path player wants to should be shaping his charecter and all the crew towards the prefered style of behaviour which may has its own consequences: i.e., stealing, murdering and looting all the time will result in a crew which can rebel against the player none day, or at least rob him heavily.

  20. Hey, I know how to turn the drowning boy into a moral dilemma: Make him a notorious pick-pocket or similar annoyance that the player would be happy to be rid of. :-D

  21. I am wondering if you’ll manage to run some subtle NPC reactions in situations that aren’t predictable? For example, if I take kind of the evil path in a certain context and it triggers an event that should normally get an entire town killed, but I still manage to save like one person I had some affection for. Will she act like if I wasn’t even involved in this event or even notice it happened because I wasn’t supposed to do that or she was supposed to die in this case (regarding my previous choice)? Or will she be aware of it and still blame me because I caused it or at the contrary think that I am not so evil after all, or have mixed feelings since I saved her but get all her family and friends killed? That’s the kind of cause and effect that would amaze me (and that I imagine is as hard to implement as well…).

  22. Sorry Brian, but I don’t think you understand what a real moral dilemma is. It’s about picking “lesser of two evils” without really knowing which is which.

    What if the wife wasn’t really kidnapped but ran away from abusive husband? Or she was kidnapped but won’t return to her husband because she is treated better – so you essentially have been duped? What if the raiders may be an abusive bunch of assholes and murderers but also they offer the only protection for nearby villages from mutants attacks in exchange for “tribute” (e.g. slaves)?

    In you example, the answer is obvious – find a way for everyone to be happy: bail the woman out.

    Also on RPGCodex there’s a nice comment by Eric “sea” Schwartz I feel you should look into:

    http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/brian-fargo-on-moral-dilemmas-in-wasteland-2.77016/#post-2321286

  23. IIRC, the moral dilemma in the end of The Pitt is fairly not interesting, because whatever choice you make, it ends the same. Maybe you get slightly different bonuses, but that’s boring. The world doesn’t change.

  24. Solution?:
    - Sneak in wearing SotMC clothing
    - Convince the woman to have sex on the premise of being freed (a moral choise)
    - Implant an item from the local second in command
    - Sneak out and make an offer impossible to refuse in the name of the Rangers
    - Sneak back in and kill the woman

    End of line: Raiders lost the woman, their now invaluable trading asset. Due to the evidence, they can only claim SotMC. Thus many of them are irritated and voices are heard of resigning from SotMC altogeter. When SotMC finds out this development, Rangers can obliterate the Raiders together with the husband without SotMC becoming hostile. The non-curable sexually transmitted disease notwithstanding, situation cleared.

  25. Pingback: KICKSTARTER & CO. - I Progetti nati dal "basso" - Page 9 - Il Forum ufficiale di Multiplayer.it, con discussioni, sondaggi e le ultime informazioni

  26. As others already pointed out: i don’t think that this is a moral dilemma at all, because there is an obviously right thing to do: save the woman without the raiders knowing it.

    I would like to give an example of a moral dilemma from a contemporary game:
    In the first “The Witcher” game there are two opposing factions.
    On the one hand there is the Order of the flaming rose, a society of knights who have sworn to protect the city of vizima. Sounds pretty good, eh? But it ain’t that simple: many of those knights are actually racists who want to clear Vizima from all non-human races (mainly dwarfs and elves). They pen them up in ghettos and some even hunt and kill them. Not all of them are like this though. Some Flaming rose knights are good people who just want to protect the citizens, even the non-human ones.

    On the other hand there are the Squirrels. A band of non-humans who want to free themselves from the human supremacy. They see how their brothers and sisters starve in their ghettos while humans look down upon them like vermin. But like the Order of the flaming rose there are not only good people in this group: many squirrels started to attack human civilists in an act of revenge. Nowadays they would be called terrorists. But there are still the good ones who don’t want to harm humans. They just want to free their elven and dwarven brethren.

    Now let’s get to the moral dilemma for the player:
    In the last act of the game there is a situation where a few squirrels take small human settlement hostage. They are desperate because they are hunted by the Order of the flaming rose and they want to protect their women and children from them.
    The squirrels threatend to kill every settlere if they may not leave.
    The Order of the flaming rose arrives and threaten to attack the squirrels because there is no way in hell they will let them go.

    Now the player has to choose:
    1. If he helps the squirrels he will have to fight against the order, and kill them. Remember that not all of them are racist. Some just want to protect the settlers. Actually there is a good friend of the player in the midst of the order.

    2. If he helps the Order of the flaming rose, he has to fight against the squirrels. But remember: not all of them are terrorists. Some just want to save their family and leave this place. There is also a good friend of the player among the squirrels.

    3. The player stays neutral (witchers are normally absolutely neutral) but that means the order will attack and the squirrels will kill the hostages and everyone will probably die.

    There are no other options. No speech checks to talk everyone out of this.
    There is no good outcome. Good people will die, no matter what the player chooses to do.

    This is what i call a moral dilemma.

    • I agree with what numerous others have said: this example doesn’t actually pose a moral dilemma. There’s a clear right choice, it’s just more difficult. Difficult “best” solutions aren’t a dilemma.

      Think back to the original Wasteland. Read Liz Danforth’s blog article about the rabid dog. Someone (Pavlish?) said, “But you have to give them a way to save the dog!” She said no.

      Your example gives us a way to save the dog. That’s not a moral dilemma. Liz’s no-win scenario is.

  27. I don’t think this is a good example for a moral dilemma, this is basically making the Catholics distribute birth control when we really want the enforcement of China’s one child policy or the eugenics programs of the US in the early-to-mid 20th Century.

    As a quest line it works but it doesn’t challenge my moral sensibilities.

    If you could expand on the farmer, have the PC find out that the farmer only wants his wife back because she is an extra beast of burden and a child dispensary and has no emotional attachment to her at all, that would make the “Who gets the girl” quest more of a dilemma as there are no clear good guys.

  28. Actually the grey area solution to the quest with farmers wife would be making a deal with raiders by exchanging her for somebody else. Finding a new slave so they would release her. Could they find some other innocent person to replace her or maybe there is somebody that the Rangers would like to get rid of, maybe one of the Rangers would take her place and later on you could try to rescue him/her or he would escape the rangers and become vengeful npc that will try to take his revenge on the heroes?

  29. I have to agree with Quinn’s comment here, this is not the most challenging example of a moral dilemma. There is one storyline that comes to mind. The end quest of the Pitt addon for Fallout 3 has one of the hardest moral dilemmas that I have ever encountered in games. I believe you know what choice I’m talking about here.

  30. This is not what I’d call a dilemma because there’s a clear good guy and a clear bad guy and a clear right thing to do (I’m assuming difficult and time consuming are not real problems… we have save games for difficult and time limits went out of fashion back in Fallout 1).

    I think more compelling dilemmas would not be so clear cut, and not so well-contained:

    - Raiders threaten some independent farming communities. If they don’t unify and become disciplined real fast they’ll be easy pickings. Do you ride in and impose martial law? If you do, how harsh is too harsh, how soft is too soft? When a community leader has reasonable objections do you crush him for the sake of discipline or let him splinter the alliance? If you let the community fall they’ll be taken oven and there’s now a strong hostile presence close to home so you have to do something… but these guys could be forgiven if they have trouble telling you from the raiders. Maybe for the time being you’re not that different, but you tell them “in the long run we’ll be better”.

    - And then, no one told you why these guys are raiders. If you don’t think to look into it, they’re just raiders end of story. But someone else might think to ask why the sudden attack, travel around, do some research, send a spy to the raider camp. Maybe they were driven from someplace else. Something out there is nastier than they are. Maybe there’s another solution involving solving their problem.

    - Or heck, maybe they’re not super nice guys, but they’re more disciplined than those farmers. If you support their takeover you get a strong ally, maybe they’re just the leadership those farmers need. How nasty are they really and how much is exaggeration? If they become a strong ally, will they become *too* strong an ally?

    If every choice splits the plot it’s too much to manage. But they can weight the likelihood of things happening down the road. You turned on the farmers, the raiders upgraded to “lords”, set up a strict but ultimately stronger feudal system, and became a valuable ally. Good move. But much later, when a stronger force threatened, they remembered how you turned on the farmers, and seeking to avoid the same fate, sided with the invaders. Oops. Or at least, you increased that possibility, other things you may have done could decrease it.

    • Something else I thought of is much easier than the full-on “long term consequences” thing (which is admittedly very ambitious). I would get more a sense of making choices if all the choices weren’t obvious. So yes maybe you get the red “kill ‘em all” and blue “save ‘em all” dialog options, but the other options require you to actively find them. Nobody said to go to the raider camp, or that it was even a thing you could go to, but if you go out there you could find it. Or not… maybe you need someone with good tracking. Or maybe you could get in a fight with them and then follow them when they flee (as long as it’s not like “why does this enemy suddenly have a follow option?). When you get there maybe they just open fire, enemies do that after all. Nobody tells you that a sneak might get in alone, or that they’re more chill if you have weapons holstered or whatever. The main thing is that not every choice has a marked dialog option or a giant quest pointer. That way you actually feel like you thought of something clever and did your own thing, rather than just picking which track the minecart went along.

      Fallout did that a little, like where you could wipe out slavers at any time, but there wasn’t some guy saying “if only someone would deal with the slavers” and dropping a triangle on your map.

  31. Both of these examples are combat related quests ; I hope there are some that emphasize on exploration or dialog. One of the Wasteland’s strong point was definitely its non-combat skills.

    • It’s combat quest only when you choose it to be. You can steal her, buy her, maybe persuade them?

      Maybe you could pose as one of the servants, or convince one of them to steal her for you? Or maybe you could bribe him or blackmail him? You could do some favor to servants and get her as reward? Maybe you can convince them, that she’s useless? Or trade her for some information? Possibly kidnap different one and exchange them? Win her playing cards with servants leader?
      I hope inxile thinks of many various, even strange options :)

  32. Will we have the option to take less risky and more morally grey action: Assassinate the wife as an act of mercy, so that she will not have to endure sexual slavery and abuse?
    Less risk to our mission, to the rangers personally, and removes the husbands motivation for throwing his life away on a rescue attempt. He might not like it, but ultimately it’d mean that he was alive and could sleep at night.

    • C’mon, dude! So much trouble to sneak through the Servents settlement only to kill her? And what guy would sleep at night knowing his beloved wife is dead? You monster! :(

    • Good point! It`s like Boon choice in Fallout New Vegas, then he killed with sniper rifle his wife which was sold to slavery to Legion.

  33. I like the middlepath option. Makes it more challenging and movie-like. Maybe there could be a Negotiating option, too. Like talking to the leader and offfering money or a favor for the wife in return.

    • Hey, dude, can’t you read? :D

      “It is much more difficult and time consuming to find a middle path, trying to steal her away without the raiders knowing, TRYING TO BUY HER FROM THEM, or stealth killing them all without the servants catching on.”

  34. Sadly, the Kickstarter for a new Wizardry style game from the designer of Wizardry 8 is flopping, proving that people’s passion for old RPGs seems to stop in the mid 90s. I think WL2 did so well only because you constantly name dropped Fallout

    • I think the main problem with Shaker is that it launched right in the middle of Obsidian’s massive Kickstarter campaign, which has just completely overwhelmed everything else. They really should have waited a month or two, because Legend of Grimrock has proven that people do still want first-person party-based dungeon-crawler RPGs.

      • Just to add to Jonathan’s observation, while I can’t speak for anybody else, the reason I didn’t back Shaker was mainly due to what I felt was a hugely uninspiring announcement. Yeah, they kept saying “Old School RPG” as if they were magic words but I find it difficult to get excited over marketing speech. There was no substance, just a vague promise. To be honest it just looked like they were jumping on the KS bandwagon.

        Looking at their kickstarter page now I see that they’ve added a lot of stuff that I’m going to take another look at – some of it looks very interesting – but I think the damage may already have been done.

        I’ll certainly be giving it another look, though.

      • CLetus: Exactly! You´ve just summarized my own opinion about Shaker.
        I think they would do much better with Anachronox 2, since it´s no vague “Old School RPG,” but a concrete concept.

  35. I like the thought of having multiple ways to deal with situations. There isn’t a right way but as always, I’ll go in guns blazing and the Servants of the Mushroom cloud be damned. They can bring it on. I fear NOBODY.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>