The case for a sequel

[Lanatir]

That's what I want in Wasteland 2 - my old buddy Wasteland, in a new suit. I miss that guy.

Signed, agreed on. Love this post. Thank you. You put in words all i ever would wanna say about it.

[krellen]

They're exactly as reasonable as everyone that wants a hardcore survival simulator, or a deep tactical combat game, or any of a dozen other suggestions that have been made.

Well, sure, and those people are free to pull their money when they find out it's not a hardcore survival simulator. I'm not sure what your point is though. So you're saying you are being unreasonable?

You're not going into their threads and telling them they're unreasonable. (Well, you did tell those "main character" people such, but I don't think what I'm asking is on that level of out-of-bounds.)

The battles in Wasteland didn't have a camera perspective at all...

Hit space. You'll see this:

Right, krellen, cause the devs certainly should go against the wishes of 90% of their playerbase and eliminate any chance of their game being profitable just so you can get your nostalgia fix.

You work for Big Ass Games, don't you? Is red still big?

[Brother None]

Well, sure, and those people are free to pull their money when they find out it's not a hardcore survival simulator. I'm not sure what your point is though. So you're saying you are being unreasonable?

You're not going into their threads and telling them they're unreasonable. (Well, you did tell those "main character" people such, but I don't think what I'm asking is on that level of out-of-bounds.)

I've removed several threads with overly unreasonable requests (like way out of line, like "anime-style art!" and the like) and pointed out to many others when I think their requests or "demands" are unreasonable, this is no different. Obviously, I could well be wrong, we all could, but in this case you noted Wasteland 2 should be functionally identical to Wasteland after it's already been confirmed it won't be.

Maybe I misunderstood your post though. But it's pretty much a given the difference between Wasteland 2 and Wasteland will be bigger than Fallout 2 to Fallout, because those two games ran on the same engine and were released very close together, whereas these two won't be. Is your point that this is an issue, or did I miss your point completely?

[krellen]

Is your point that this is an issue, or did I miss your point completely?

I want to be able to recognise the game as Wasteland by looking at it. I want to nod my head and say, "Yup, that's Highpool" when I see it. That doesn't necessitate the use of the same engine and interface, though it would be easier to do without changing too much.

The three examples I gave all failed at this.

[CaptainPatch]

I don't understand why people say Mass Effect was 'turned into' a shooter.

With each iteration of Mass Effect more and more focus was placed on pulling triggers and less on doing other things. ME = @60/40. ME2 = @70/30. ME3 = @90/10. (I replayed the entire series, starting with ME in October, and finishing with ME3 in March, so the details are still relatively fresh.)

Right, krellen, cause the devs certainly should go against the wishes of 90% of their playerbase and eliminate any chance of their game being profitable just so you can get your nostalgia fix. The fact is that the flaws in the original game engine and mechanics are so blatant and so easily averted that Inxile would be doing a disservice to the series by NOT massively improving upon them.

And just where are you getting your statistics? Pulling them out of your...hat?

[Signal]

I want Wasteland 2 to be as close to Wasteland as Fallout 2 was to Fallout.

This isn't going to happen. And you already know that. Fallout 2 was a quick, "slam dunk" model sequel in the same engine and using the same assets. There was never any possibility Wasteland 2 would be as close to Wasteland as Fallout 2 was to Fallout.

inXile is not going to willfully ignore opportunities to improve on things like interface, AI, music, text and dialog mechanics, etc etc. Things that have simply been refined and improved upon since the first Wasteland, opportunities that will not be ignored.

But, and this is where the comparison to the likes of Fallout 3 and Dragon Age II falls apart, inXile is not focused on targeting a bigger audience by moving the camera much closer or using real-time combat or making the game a challenge-free, linear ride. It still has the same audience, the pen and paper-focused attitude, looking for a challenging, deep experience with choice and consequences.

It's to Wasteland what I had hoped Van Buren would be to Fallout 2, not exactly the same, including updates to things like camera works, character system and even combat (tho TB/RT was hardly ideal). It's not to Wasteland what Fallout 2 was to Fallout. And that's perfectly fine. To expect otherwise is unrealistic.

What Brother None said.

[Brother None]

I want to be able to recognise the game as Wasteland by looking at it. I want to nod my head and say, "Yup, that's Highpool" when I see it. That doesn't necessitate the use of the same engine and interface, though it would be easier to do without changing too much.

So...it's a visual/style thing?

I think you might be saying the same thing I said in the post quoted by Signal right above me, but I'm not sure.

Would you say Van Buren looked like a proper sequel to Fallout 2? From the incomplete glances we had.

[Lucius]

I'd like to see a deep tactical system. Tying that depth to skills can speed up combat and remove excessive micro management. This makes combat more skill based and feels more like an RPG.

As for Krellen. You have all the facts that the rest of us have. Its really a question of how much do you trust Fargo and the team he assembled.

[krellen]

Would you say Van Buren looked like a proper sequel to Fallout 2? From the incomplete glances we had.

It looked okay. But it didn't play okay - the camera moved, there was no more grid, and it was real-time. So no, it wasn't a true sequel.

Tweaks are okay. Might and Magic II was a true sequel to Might and Magic I even though there was a graphical update in between. The later Might and Magics that took away the true turn-based combat and put all the enemies out on the map were not. Fallout 2 made several interface tweaks - to inventory, to companion control, even just the little "push" option for characters in your way - that were fine (wonderful, in fact).

Updating the graphics will probably be okay. Making moving in combat less annoying and fiddly would be okay. Making it so I can no longer use small bursts to take out a group of enemies will not be okay. Making it so I have to plan and plot, sweep rooms and cover backs will not be okay. Making it so I have to spend a minute after every battle shuffling around inventory will not be okay. I'm not even sure I'll be okay with having to individually loot enemies.

[Infinitron]

Sounds like what you want is basically same-engine sequels (or faithful engine reimplementation sequels, like Myth III for example).

Have most sequels ever been that way? Except for rapid-release annual franchises, most sequels change things up. So most sequels aren't "true".

[krellen]

Except for rapid-release annual franchises, most sequels change things up. So most sequels aren't "true".

"Except for most sequels, most sequels change things up."

Aside from the examples I already provided (none of which were "true sequels"), where are you "sequels" that had legitimate major system changes?

[Mandemon]

I think krellen wants a remake, not a sequel...

[Infinitron]

Aside from the examples I already provided (none of which were "true sequels"), where are you "sequels" that had legitimate major system changes?

There are plenty, I'd say. You want me to make a list? But it depends on your definition of "major system changes". Different things matter to different people. For instance, most people probably wouldn't make a big deal out of a 2D game that had a 3D sequel with a moveable camera, as long the gameplay was fundamentally similar.

[Infinitron]

I think krellen wants a remake, not a sequel...

Nah. I'm a fan of sequels that reuse the original game's engine, myself. It allows the developers to really refine the formula that made the original game great.



But you can't do that all the time.

[Mandemon]

I think krellen wants a remake, not a sequel...

Nah. I'm a fan of sequels that reuse the original game's engine, myself. It allows the developers to really refine the formula that made the original game great.

But you can't do that all the time.

Definitively not here. Seriously, if Wasteland 2 would use the same goddamn engine as WL1, I would seriously question the money needed...

[CaptainPatch]

I think krellen wants a remake, not a sequel...

Not precisely. If the ONLY thing to change between Game I and Game II was the story, plot, locale, etc., then that would constitute "a sequel". For WL2, that would have been fine with me. I'd be just as fine with such sequels to Bard's Tale and Baldur's Gate. The fact that we will be getting a more user-friendly UI and sharper graphics is just icing on the cake. But I wouldn't be too happy to see WL2 be anything remotely like Fallout 3 of Mass Effect Any Number.

[paultakeda]

Aside from the examples I already provided (none of which were "true sequels"), where are you "sequels" that had legitimate major system changes?

There are plenty, I'd say. You want me to make a list? But it depends on your definition of "major system changes". Different things matter to different people. For instance, most people probably wouldn't make a big deal out of a 2D game that had a 3D sequel with a moveable camera, as long the gameplay was fundamentally similar.

Thinking about this, I've come up with my own little list.

Anything to do with the camera and the 2D/3D display engine is not a major system change. Changing the interface from heavily keyboard dependent to Kinect dependent is not a major system change. Having cutscenes and FMV added is not a major system change.

A major system change would be to alter the party mechanic.

A major system change would be to change out the core system (in this case, the WL-MSPE skill system) or marginalize it by substituting minigames and micromanagement screens in lieu of using the system's saving throw mechanic to perform a task.

A major system change would be to change the balance of a game's features (exploration, dialog and interaction with the game world, actions creating permanent game world results, combat (random and staged)) such that one overwhelms the other.

[Woolfe]

Thinking about this, I've come up with my own little list.

Anything to do with the camera and the 2D/3D display engine is not a major system change. Changing the interface from heavily keyboard dependent to Kinect dependent is not a major system change. Having cutscenes and FMV added is not a major system change.

A major system change would be to alter the party mechanic.

A major system change would be to change out the core system (in this case, the WL-MSPE skill system) or marginalize it by substitute minigames and micromanagement screens in lieu of using the system's saving throw mechanic to perform a task.

A major system change would be to change the balance of a game's features (exploration, dialog and interaction with the game world, actions creating permanent game world results, combat (random and staged)) such that one overwhelms the other.

I agree with you in principal. I think execution is mildly different tho.

The WL-MSPE could be modified without marginalizing it. Marginalizing is very very bad and I am not advocating that in any way shape or form.
When I went from Wasteland to Fallout, I must admit I just assumed that SPECIAL was just a natural progression of MSPE. (It wasn't until much later that I found out they were completely different systems) So I am not against changes the MSPE, so long as it still works essentially the same way, that being a value that can be improved and provides a basis for "testing" against to have a skill work or fail.

Some major changes to the balance would not be that bad. Using the reported "ranger Base" setup as an example. That could essentially change the way the flow of the game works, in that you now have a "base of operations" that you return to semi-regularly, rather than just "radioing back". That wouldn't hurt the gameplay too much and could provide more immersion as you deal with base related issues(or not), and it plays into the concept of changes affect the whole world, rather than you just roaming around never going back to some places.

[SDF121]

They're exactly as reasonable as everyone that wants a hardcore survival simulator, or a deep tactical combat game, or any of a dozen other suggestions that have been made.

Well, sure, and those people are free to pull their money when they find out it's not a hardcore survival simulator. I'm not sure what your point is though. So you're saying you are being unreasonable?

You're not going into their threads and telling them they're unreasonable. (Well, you did tell those "main character" people such, but I don't think what I'm asking is on that level of out-of-bounds.)

I think part of the confusion surrounding the possibility of Wasteland 2 having a main character was because of the existence of a particular sub forum entitled 'solo vs group, character import, etc' at the time. It didn't help that there was also a poll which featured several options in support solo play. Because of this, some of us were under the impression that the matter of group vs solo play was a matter that was still being actively considered. Because development had not begun and the kickstarter was in its infancy, some of us thought that it would be acceptable for us to- at the very least- discuss the matter.

What differentiates those of us who discussed the option of having a main character from you is that we were not offended when we were finally told that Wasteland 2 would not conform to our particular proposal as it would strictly be a party based game. Although we may have still discussed the matter, it was not until Brian Fargo's recent update that spelled out his vision for Wasteland 2 that we had finally come to terms with the fact that Wasteland 2 was going to be a party based game. As I said before in response to an objector in my thread concerning the option to have a main character,

We are not threatening to never play the game or withdraw our support simply because our ideas of what Wasteland 2 ought to be may never come to fruition. Like others have suggested, we are simply contributing to this discussion by providing our own insights and putting forth our own ideas on what we think would make Wasteland 2 great. We are not demanding that they be implemented, rather we simply ask that they be considered with the hope that we will have contributed to the games development. I trust Brian Fargo and his teams judgment and believe that they will be able to properly differentiate between the ideas that would compliment their grand vision from those that would detract from their overall goals. There is no need for any hostility. [...] The purpose of these forums is for a spirited discussion on these issues. Brian Fargo has a distinct vision for what he wants Wasteland 2 to be and these forums are nothing more than a litmus test to aid him in that vision. Again, there is no need for any hostility between fans of both camps. Let us continue to discuss these issues but with good will and reasoned discourse.

Again, I think these forums ought to be used to share and discuss any ideas that we may have regardless of whether they make it into the final game. I'll leave it to Brian Fargo and his team to decide which ideas, if any of them, that they may wish to adopt.

While you are well within your rights to withdraw your pledge for Wasteland 2, it seems rather unreasonable to do so simply because Brian Fargo and his team have a vision for Wasteland 2 that altogether different from what you expect the game to be. If you somehow feel betrayed, then by all means, withdraw your pledge. While we may have our own ideas of what kind of game Wasteland 2 ought to be, we must remember that the choice is ultimately one that is not for us to decide. This is Brian Fargo's baby and he is free to do with it as he pleases.

[paultakeda]

When I went from Wasteland to Fallout, I must admit I just assumed that SPECIAL was just a natural progression of MSPE. (It wasn't until much later that I found out they were completely different systems) So I am not against changes the MSPE, so long as it still works essentially the same way, that being a value that can be improved and provides a basis for "testing" against to have a skill work or fail.

Yes, I want WL-MSPE v2. I don't need v1, that was already done in Wasteland 1. We're looking for a 21st century, modified and enhanced MSPE -- but it's still MSPE.

Some major changes to the balance would not be that bad. Using the reported "ranger Base" setup as an example. That could essentially change the way the flow of the game works, in that you now have a "base of operations" that you return to semi-regularly, rather than just "radioing back". That wouldn't hurt the gameplay too much and could provide more immersion as you deal with base related issues(or not), and it plays into the concept of changes affect the whole world, rather than you just roaming around never going back to some places.

This depends on how it is implemented. I'll keep an eye on it and make sure it fits (in my eyes, which are totally biased) game balance. For now, ideas are ideas and there's bad, good, okay, awesome and WTF are you smoking?!