The case for a sequel

[Emmy Lou]

As someone who has yet to play WL1, I feel timid about weighing in on this Nostalgia v. Progress topic, but hell, I'm an investor and I have a voice!

As I said, I haven't played WL1 yet (didn't even know it existed until the Kickstarter) so I don't have these rose-tinted glasses for some old DOS game. Yes, "some old DOS game", I'm calling it that. Because being "old" and being "DOS" isn't what made WL1 what it was, was it? It was Brian Fargo. It was the storytelling. It was the dream of what happens when a world goes mad and you are thrown into it and need to survive.

The Fallout franchise wasn't Wasteland, but it was the game Brian wanted to make. After all, he made it. He had to change things due to EA owning the Wasteland name and world, but he still had dreams of a post-apocalypse he had to let out. He saw the technology had moved beyond floppy disk and could become so much more and he leapt at it. He added tactical movement, he added Action Points, he put his heart and soul into it as much as he did Wasteland. Even if Wasteland was his firstborn, his true baby, Fallout was every bit as much his dream, but with a decade's worth of advancement.

Now, as has been mentioned, it's 24 years later. Brian has been dancing with little Wasteland Sugarplums in his head for every minute of every day of those years, haunting him. He has watched the industry shift since Wasteland. Since Fallout. He's seen graphics improve, he's seen gaming enter the mainstream, he's seen digital distribution take off, he's seen costs reduce as the indie revolution took place, and finally he saw Tim Schafer raise millions and said, "My god, it's time... My baby! MY DREAMS!!"

And now here we are. A cool $2mil later and rising, and it's really happening. All those dreams, those schemes, those plans that he has been stewing that he never thought would come to fruition. They're really here. You don't think in those 24 years he hasn't looked back at Wasteland, at Fallout, and seen everything he doesn't like about it and plans on cutting off like so much chaff to make something incredible? That's the thing about artists. We look upon their works and gape in awe, while all they can see is what they couldn't include, what they had to cut, what it could have been.

I'm sorry, but to ask Brian Fargo to just remake WL1 in it's original image is a crime against his soul as an artist.
Remember, once he knew his kickstarter was a sure thing, the first thing he did was hire this guy to draw him the most kick ass, grizzled, dusty Rangers possible. And Andree didn't disappoint. I highly doubt Brian's reaction to this piece was "could you add a bit more neon pink and blue?... you know, retro it up a bit?"

There is going to be plenty of throwbacks to the game you WL1 vets all love, but this isn't going to be the same game. It is going to be something much, much better. It is going to be the game you love, from the man you admire, but with 24 years of story thrown into it. With 24 years of art and design thrown into it. With 24 years of technological advancements thrown into it.
It is going to be the oldschool, lovingly crafted CRPG that we have been waiting to see, in overdrive.

You may disagree with some of the things Fargo chooses to put into it.
But you will not be disappointed.
I guarantee.

[krellen]

Just one tiny little thing: Brian Fargo did not create Fallout. He published it, he certainly had input on its creation, but it was a creation of entirely different men, none of whom are working on Wasteland 2 (though one did provide writing for the basic plot before leaving inXile.)

[Emmy Lou]

Whateverrrrrrrrrrrrr
Get ready for some rad shit like you can't believe in WL2.

[Brother None]

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.

It was going to be TB or RT, actually, like Arcanum, the demo only has RT but TB was going to be implemented.

But fine. You have an extremely narrow definition of sequel, that I think would strangle progress that needs to be made in any genre, including the party-based, turn-based one. There's a big difference between progressing within a genre (as Van Buren did) or abandoning the genre wholesale (as Fallout 3 did). This distinction does not exist for you. That's your good right. Personally I'm more with how Paul outlines it here, and believe Wasteland 2 is a sequel that will move the genre forward - and hopefully resuscitate it - rather than just being a retro release.

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.

Oh no? I must have imagined the multi-page discussion with a person who withdrew her pledge and accused inXile of false advertising once she knew it would not be a main character-having game.

[SDF121]

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.

Oh no? I must have imagined the multi-page discussion with a person who withdrew her pledge and accused inXile of false advertising once she knew it would not be a main character-having game.

I must have missed that particular persons post, my bad. Perhaps I should have simply referred to myself instead of using the all encompassing term of 'we'. However, I know that there were a few others, like myself, who were not offended or threatening to reduce or withdraw our pledges but I suppose I really can't speak for everyone as you've pointed out.

[paultakeda]

Also, i am against phase-oriented combat. It is dull and in W1 there was too much of it, making game quite a grindfest.

Interesting. I think phase-based combat is faster than turn-based since you get to provide all commands at the beginning and on action just watch everything play out (I do not see the need for an action interrupt, the turn should not have that many actions per combatant). In turn-based each you will put in far more thought per action per character, deliberating on last-minute adjustments in the turn.

[Brother None]

This isn't a BioWare forum, and the topic of this thread is not Mass Effect. Let's not derail it by discussing the failings and successes of the Mass Effect games.

Not a suggestion. If you want to frame the discussion of what makes sequels by using examples from BioWare, fine. If you want to discuss Mass Effect/Dragon Age specifically, go to the BioWare forums, or - I suppose - the other RPG forum. Y'know what? Here. Keep it there.

PS: Paul I split your post into there tho it fits here too. Just figured it'd distract too much, hope you don't mind.

[Van Der Muchbetter]

Interesting. I think phase-based combat is faster than turn-based since you get to provide all commands at the beginning and on action just watch everything play out (I do not see the need for an action interrupt, the turn should not have that many actions per combatant). In turn-based each you will put in far more thought per action per character, deliberating on last-minute adjustments in the turn.

That is the case. I love taking full control in party actions, down to fine positioning, stances and defining number of AP spent on aiming to parts of enemies' body. This defines my desire for less encounters that are finely tuned to make every one challenging and memorable. I still remember my first X-COM tank action, it ended killing 2 of my men by a stray shot. I've watched let's play video, adn feel of W1 combat is not exactly appealing to me.

[paultakeda]

Interesting. I think phase-based combat is faster than turn-based since you get to provide all commands at the beginning and on action just watch everything play out (I do not see the need for an action interrupt, the turn should not have that many actions per combatant). In turn-based each you will put in far more thought per action per character, deliberating on last-minute adjustments in the turn.

That is the case. I love taking full control in party actions, down to fine positioning, stances and defining number of AP spent on aiming to parts of enemies' body. This defines my desire for less encounters that are finely tuned to make every one challenging and memorable. I still remember my first X-COM tank action, it ended killing 2 of my men by a stray shot. I've watched let's play video, adn feel of W1 combat is not exactly appealing to me.

This obsession with the combat aspect of an RPG is weird to me and I'll say it again: overemphasis of one feature at the marginalization of the other features of the game is a major system change and would not be considered a sequel.

If Van Buren actually got released it would not have the same depth in combat as Fallout: Tactics. Similarly, a Wasteland sequel, by my definition of sequel, will never have as deep a tactical combat system as a tactical RPG nor will it have as detailed a resource management (outfit, plan, deploy) system as a strategy game like X-COM.

RPGs will have more encounters, many of them random. You will be in a lot of combat, so micromanaging down to stances and aiming at enemy parts will take a lot of time if you control 4 and semi-control 3 characters. So I would say prepare to be disappointed and to wait for Wasteland: Tactics.

PS: Paul I split your post into there tho it fits here too. Just figured it'd distract too much, hope you don't mind.

Not at all. Though there I might get posts moved/deleted anyway because my main beef about "not-sequels" is DA2.

[CaptainPatch]

This obsession with the combat aspect of an RPG is weird to me ...

To me also. To me, "roleplay" means that the player is trying to keep his gameplay as close to "Reality" as possible. Make it believable. In Reality (as I see it) people try to avoid combat as much as possible. (With the exception of commanders that is. They seem to be universally of the opinion that one must engage the Enemy in order to defeat him.) [Or those that have not yet "seen the elephant". Seeing blood and guts and your buddy's brains splattered all over the landscape tends to make those people have a change of heart.] Combat is where you may get killed or maimed. "Boring is good. People aren't trying to kill you when things are boring." But there is a distinct LARGE block of gamers that avidly seek out combat, and many of them actually describe themselves as RPGers.

[krellen]

You have an extremely narrow definition of sequel, that I think would strangle progress that needs to be made in any genre, including the party-based, turn-based one.

Maybe I do, but so far it doesn't sound like Wasteland 2's in much danger of breaking out of it. We already know it won't be realtime, so there's one of Van Buren's strikes gone. The AMA on Reddit today confirmed that Fargo's pretty sure the camera won't move - that's two. I could probably live without the grid, if I absolutely had to. Van Buren probably could have gotten away with one-and-a-half of those things to still count for me (probably the camera and the RT+TB combat, or RT+TB and gridless, but stationary camera. Changing all three is really the break-point.)

As I said, tweaks are fine. Fixing things that are actually broken are fine (moving in combat in Wasteland was broken; that needs a new system). Radically changing the design is out-of-scope for a sequel.

[Infinitron]

This obsession with the combat aspect of an RPG is weird to me and I'll say it again: overemphasis of one feature at the marginalization of the other features of the game is a major system change and would not be considered a sequel.

Obsession, you say? On the Codex, we call that persuasion "Mondblutianism" - named after a rather infamous poster who's made it his raison d'etre.

There's a logic behind it. The very first RPG systems were the direct descendants of tabletop wargames. The reason they were called "roleplaying games" is because what set them apart from the regular wargames was the ability to "roleplay" a single character, instead of controlling entire units of troops.

Mondblutians believe in the ideal that this should be the only thing that sets RPGs apart from wargames. That is, that just like wargames, RPGs should be entirely or almost entirely focused on combat and tactical maneuvering, only on a smaller scale.

[Drool]

The AMA on Reddit today confirmed that Fargo's pretty sure the camera won't move - that's two.

Now, now... a movable camera is fine. As long as it stays where you put it. I don't mind being able to tweak the angle as needed, but when the game thinks it knows better than me what angle I want, and constantly resets it, that's when there's problems.

[Van Der Muchbetter]

This obsession with the combat aspect of an RPG is weird to me and I'll say it again: overemphasis of one feature at the marginalization of the other features of the game is a major system change and would not be considered a sequel.

If Van Buren actually got released it would not have the same depth in combat as Fallout: Tactics. Similarly, a Wasteland sequel, by my definition of sequel, will never have as deep a tactical combat system as a tactical RPG nor will it have as detailed a resource management (outfit, plan, deploy) system as a strategy game like X-COM.

RPGs will have more encounters, many of them random. You will be in a lot of combat, so micromanaging down to stances and aiming at enemy parts will take a lot of time if you control 4 and semi-control 3 characters. So I would say prepare to be disappointed and to wait for Wasteland: Tactics.

First, it is, like, your opinion. Second, no one ever told that they will abandon some of w1's core features like the world reacting to your actions, so this 'marginalisation' you talk about is non-existant until proven otherwise.

About combat derpth. Brian Fargo already stated that considerable portion of fans demands it. Even it won't be on JA2 levels of complexity, it is unlikely that we will have phase-based one. Most probably, combat won't be more intricate than F1's combat was, just because teamplay will add a new layer of complexity on it, just like Incubation that didn't had any overtly complicated mechanics, but its simple and efficient take on team-based combat was incredibly captivating.

By the way, i consider reliance on random encounters as a evil of RPG design. When they are overdone, even a game with good, fluid and deep system becomes tedious and frustrating, combat by itself can get player only this far, you'll need some other core mechanics to keep game fun. My take on it is make encounters scarce enough, whilst creating them in a way that they pose reasonable challenge and be enjoyable. Taking out 3 hordes of rats is way worse than 1 tactically sound road ambush.

Also, i try to avoid battles as much as possible, especially random-generated one. I have no qualm with concept, i just hate when it is overdone. While it makes an illusion of habitated game world, but usually running is a sound choice when i have no intention to waste my time for needless bloodshed.

[krellen]

If each combat comes down to a Fallout: Tactics-like tactical affair, the game will lack the old-school feel of these older games. Random encounters are not just a mistake of design; it's the method of advancement present in the game. Remove random encounters and you are forced to rebalance the game such that starting characters are basically capable of completing the game.

[paultakeda]

First, it is, like, your opinion.

What's this obsession with falling back on saying that's just my opinion? Of course it's my opinion, what else would I be stating on a fan forum?

Second, no one ever told that they will abandon some of w1's core features like the world reacting to your actions, so this 'marginalisation' you talk about is non-existant until proven otherwise.

That marginalization is called feature creep and it is all over the boards. Each little toggle, each little "I think it would be cool if" has the potential of compromising the resources for the game. We get to hash it out here where it's free, and if even as little as 10% of the things we write influence the devs I would consider that an impressive contribution and be thankful for it.

About combat derpth. Brian Fargo already stated that considerable portion of fans demands it. Even it won't be on JA2 levels of complexity, it is unlikely that we will have phase-based one.

Did I dispute this? I was noting your preference for micromanaging stance and body part aiming as potentially too deep for party-based CRPG combat.

By the way, i consider reliance on random encounters as a evil of RPG design.

It's not reliance but it is an aspect of RPGs to have non-quest conflict. Whether or not you can avoid it is your style of play, but it is present.

[Hiver]

Great Op and i like krellen opinion generally on lots of things and desires in this case, very much.

I would just like to point out that having a good combat system isnt your enemy here.
Having one does not mean other RPG elements will be downgraded or forgotten about.
It wont make the rest unbalanced or in any way subpar.

Nor having a good combat system will make any encounter a long time trudge and bother - just by itself.
Encounter design will - on the other hand.

I have enough faith in capabilities and expertise and general knowledge of guys working on this (which are NOT people who ruined Fallout so called sequel which was really just a spinoff or any other similar example), to believe they can deal with this in appropriate ways.

And after all... were here to help.

[Van Der Muchbetter]

That marginalization is called feature creep and it is all over the boards. Each little toggle, each little "I think it would be cool if" has the potential of compromising the resources for the game. We get to hash it out here where it's free, and if even as little as 10% of the things we write influence the devs I would consider that an impressive contribution and be thankful for it.

So, are Fargo and his team are unable to filter fan feedback? I consider them professionals that won't try to cater every fan opinion, including my own. They already have some conceptions about W2, and if our debate here can affect the game, i will be surprised.

Did I dispute this? I was noting your preference for micromanaging stance and body part aiming as potentially too deep for party-based CRPG combat.

It is not. I have enough expirience with different squad-based tactics and party-based CRPGs and find them quite similar. The derpth of game's combat system has nothing to do with role-playing. Good RPGs provide better ways to flesh out your characters by providing more options in interacting with game world, but opening more tactical possibilities for CRPG combat seems beneficial for me. Besides, usually there is a difflicuty slider-turn it from 'full contact' to 'easymode', so you just won't need much time to mop baddies up.

It's not reliance but it is an aspect of RPGs to have non-quest conflict. Whether or not you can avoid it is your style of play, but it is present.

My wording might have been unclear. What i want to see is not a total extermination of random encounters, but making them appropriate to situation, varied and fun.

P.S. Great points, Hiver. Good system won't make battles tedious and sluggish.

[krellen]

What i want to see is not a total extermination of random encounters, but making them appropriate to situation, varied and fun.

So you don't want to eliminate random encounters - you just want to make them not random.

[Van Der Muchbetter]

So you don't want to eliminate random encounters - you just want to make them not random.

As i stated it, appropriate. Like being ambushed by highwaymen near trade routes, found by enemy (guardians maybe) patrols in their territory, attacked by desert lizards near their hatching grounds.

Having means to avoid those or going in prepared and with beneficial position would be much appreciated.