Preferred party size in Wasteland 2 [poll added]

[paultakeda]

Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out… but does anyone else think it’s interesting that the new image Brian posted shows four rangers in clear detail, and then just the vague outlines of three other people?

I could be reading into things, but that lends a certain amount of credence to the idea of four rangers + three NPC companions.

Yeah, I noticed that too and it's left me quite optimistic about how things are going to shake out in the end.

Personally, I think Brother None put the poll up just to show that a significant number of people remember Wasteland 1's party system and want it to show up for Wasteland 2. Hint: it's the option with a clear lead.

Literally half this thread is me and others trying to tell Mort2 that the poll isn't about party interaction, because honestly, there isn't much to argue about in terms of what WL2 will have. You either like it or you don't, and the poll says that enough folks on here do remember WL's party system and want it back.

[Drool]

option 1 means keep the same setting as in W1.

Except it's not. Option 3 is the closest to the original Wasteland. You aren't required to create or use 4 Rangers. You can start with just one. And the only cap was that you could have no more than 4 starting Rangers, and no more than 7 members total.

option 5 means give focus to "npc" "companions" "premades" or "story elements"(you pick)

Um... what? "Six player-created characters, without any recruits" how does that give focus to companions when it explicitly denies any companions?

[Son of Max]

Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out… but does anyone else think it’s interesting that the new image Brian posted shows four rangers in clear detail, and then just the vague outlines of three other people?

I could be reading into things, but that lends a certain amount of credence to the idea of four rangers + three NPC companions.

Yeah, I noticed that too and it's left me quite optimistic about how things are going to shake out in the end.

Personally, I think Brother None put the poll up just to show that a significant number of people remember Wasteland 1's party system and want it to show up for Wasteland 2. Hint: it's the option with a clear lead.

Literally half this thread is me and others trying to tell Mort2 that the poll isn't about party interaction, because honestly, there isn't much to argue about in terms of what WL2 will have. You either like it or you don't, and the poll says that enough folks on here do remember WL's party system and want it back.

Glad to hear it.

There's an awful lot of people on here who want Wasteland 2 to be something other than a sequel to the original game.

Seems like they break down into two camps:

1. They want Wasteland 2 to be a new Fallout under a different name.

OR

2. They want [Insert RPG from the last 13 years here] set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland and called Wasteland 2.

It's frustrating as hell to try and explain (or even argue with them) that Wasteland wasn't any of those games and Wasteland 2 isn't going to be any of those games. Wasteland 2 is going to be Wasteland 2.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

[Thrin]

There's an awful lot of people on here who want Wasteland 2 to be something other than a sequel to the original game.

Seems like they break down into two camps:

1. They want Wasteland 2 to be a new Fallout under a different name.

OR

2. They want [Insert RPG from the last 13 years here] set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland and called Wasteland 2.

It's frustrating as hell to try and explain (or even argue with them) that Wasteland wasn't any of those games and Wasteland 2 isn't going to be any of those games. Wasteland 2 is going to be Wasteland 2.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

This is totally a tangent conversation but I figured I'd toss in my thoughts on this.

Wasteland came out a very long time ago. In the spanning years there have been a lot of technological advances and advances in how computer games are designed. Design methodologies have changed. Design concepts have grown. There is a greater understanding of "what the masses want" and there has been a wealth of ideas that have worked and haven't worked.

Creating a sequel 24 years after the -release- of a game is a lot of time. Many people weren't even born in 1988. Those of us who were around then were either really young (that'd be me! I was playing games far too early in my youth) or are now "bitter veterans" of the genre. Yes, that's hyperbole, I'm sorry about that but it's to illustrate the why you, Son of Max, think that the camps break into only two sections.

From everything I've seen in these forums there are a multitude of views and ideas that are popping like crazy. There is a great energy to these forums and a fairly good open-minded spirit. I hope the devs and coders are taking the time to read a lot of the discussions here if only to pick and choose some of the great ideas.

There are far more than two prevailing views in these forums. The viewpoints of some people who may espouse one of the categories you are slotting people into in one thread may change in another thread depending on their own individual tastes. As humans who are, for the most part fairly articulate and intelligent, the people who are participating in these forums are providing a valuable assortment of good discourse about the ideas being brought up.

In my view it would be a disservice to ignore all of the games that have come out in the past 24 years. I think that we can build upon them and the knowledge that they have generated. I also think it would be a disservice to ignore what someone may be saying even if you may not fully agree with them. Arguments from different perspectives and angles provides a great source of information for a third party to evaluate.

There is nothing wrong with proposing an idea that you or I may not agree with. Our role in the process is to point out why we may not agree with it in the best possible manner that we can without becoming emotionally attached (yes, that's very difficult to do) or feeling frustration if an idea is "clearly wrong."

This thread is a great example of the full ecosystem of this community. We have some folk who have a very different interpretation of information provided in the poll. We have a whole spectrum of understandings and remembrances of how the game itself was played and what it was like. We even have multiple connotations as to the terminology being used. But, would I change anything in this thread? Not at all, this thread has been a joy to read even if there were some moments of almost face palming or head to desk thudding. This is, to pop it into some happy fun ultra amazing internetz modern social media 2.1α greatness - crowd-sourcing.

While I tend to believe I am right (otherwise why would I even post otherwise? Clearly I want my point to be read and taken into consideration. I even have a misguided belief that I might be able to change opinions.. silly me.. but that's part of human nature) I also have to recognize that others also believe that they are right. So, once I set aside my emotional attachment to my point of view, I can read the other points of view and really give them some thought.

A lot of ideas in this forum were ones that I was like.. WHAT?? NO WAY! at first blush. Then I took the time to think about them and I was like.. hey, wait.. this might be cool. Then I'd continue to read the discourse after the idea being presented and would find myself thinking, yeah, that might actually work.

I just want Wasteland 2 to be fun, engaging, and true to the spirit of the original. However the designers do that is up to them but if we can help them along even if it is to play the devil's advocate or to present an idea they vehemently disagree with thus forcing them to coalesce their own view then I feel we, as a group of fans, have greatly succeeded.

[Woolfe]

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

This is totally a tangent conversation but I figured I'd toss in my thoughts on this.

Wasteland came out a very long time ago. In the spanning years there have been a lot of technological advances and advances in how computer games are designed. Design methodologies have changed. Design concepts have grown. There is a greater understanding of "what the masses want" and there has been a wealth of ideas that have worked and haven't worked.

Hold up, gotta clarify something for you. This is not a game for the masses. This is a game that is specifically being designed with certain elements that are a throwback to previous design concepts, and is being funded as such. It says so on the Kickstarter page. Not because these design ideas are fundamentally broken, but because they have been abandoned in favour of supporting the masses.

Creating a sequel 24 years after the -release- of a game is a lot of time. Many people weren't even born in 1988. Those of us who were around then were either really young (that'd be me! I was playing games far too early in my youth) or are now "bitter veterans" of the genre. Yes, that's hyperbole, I'm sorry about that but it's to illustrate the why you, Son of Max, think that the camps break into only two sections.

So aren't you willing to give something (old)new a try? If you have never played it before, then try it. It might just work. That said we are not expecting you to play the original. Once you have been spoilt by todays visuals and dialogue etc, it can be hard to step back. So let them build a game true to the old ideals, but with modern visuals and dialogue.

In my view it would be a disservice to ignore all of the games that have come out in the past 24 years. I think that we can build upon them and the knowledge that they have generated. I also think it would be a disservice to ignore what someone may be saying even if you may not fully agree with them. Arguments from different perspectives and angles provides a great source of information for a third party to evaluate.

We aren't ignoring them. This is the key thing. Most of us are expecting some massive changes, but we are also expecting certain key elements to stay the same (mostly cause they said it would). The obvious example being the party vs chosen one style play.

There is nothing wrong with proposing an idea that you or I may not agree with. Our role in the process is to point out why we may not agree with it in the best possible manner that we can without becoming emotionally attached (yes, that's very difficult to do) or feeling frustration if an idea is "clearly wrong."

Except when it is at odds with the rest of the thread. A thread talking about number of PC/NPC and combinations is not the place to be going indepth into the character backstories. Is it worth a mention, hell yes. But should we have 20 pages of it, when there are other threads available expressly for discussing that mechanic?

A lot of ideas in this forum were ones that I was like.. WHAT?? NO WAY! at first blush. Then I took the time to think about them and I was like.. hey, wait.. this might be cool. Then I'd continue to read the discourse after the idea being presented and would find myself thinking, yeah, that might actually work.

Agreed,

I just want Wasteland 2 to be fun, engaging, and true to the spirit of the original. However the designers do that is up to them but if we can help them along even if it is to play the devil's advocate or to present an idea they vehemently disagree with thus forcing them to coalesce their own view then I feel we, as a group of fans, have greatly succeeded.

Very much agreed.

[MikeC2103]

I'd go with 4 - 8 total characters in a party.

Depending on how big the battles are and how easy it is to control characters. Hard to say much more not knowing game mechanics, number of skills, etc..

1 custom character with a selection of recruits seems like the way to go. However some people would probably like a fully custom party. Which I don't see an issue with. I just always liked the recruits more. They always seem to be more interesting and have stories to follow.

My experience with turn based games, is the more characters you have to control the more awkward it becomes moving through areas.. But too few lacks tactical options..

It might be good to take a look at Fallout:Brotherhood of steel.. That game did a lot of things right despite the criticism for not being RPG enough. If you can combine that tactical aspect with a singleplayer fallout experience..

So maybe its like fallout but you are able to take direct control of party members. So you can run around and do all the RPG stuff without having to worry about directly controlling each individual until battle starts? They just kinda follow you.. Or stand in a formation like BG?

Maybe add in an auto-battle for random encounters.. make it look a bit like the battles from wasteland, all text and numbers.. Update the graphics.. throw in some cool effects and creature art..

I know this really isn't the subject of the thread.. Just hard for me to make a choice without speculating on how the game would actually play..

[Mort2]

This is totally a tangent conversation but I figured I'd toss in my thoughts on this.

Wasteland came out a very long time ago. In the spanning years there have been a lot of technological advances and advances in how computer games are designed. Design methodologies have changed. Design concepts have grown. There is a greater understanding of "what the masses want" and there has been a wealth of ideas that have worked and haven't worked.

Hold up, gotta clarify something for you. This is not a game for the masses. This is a game that is specifically being designed with certain elements that are a throwback to previous design concepts, and is being funded as such. It says so on the Kickstarter page. Not because these design ideas are fundamentally broken, but because they have been abandoned in favour of supporting the masses.

I think he speak of the majority of the backers, because admit it or dont, if given the option of Wasteland2 or real Fallout 3, there would be a land slide victory for one of them...

[Drool]

if given the option of Wasteland2 or real Fallout 3, there would be a land slide victory for one of them...

Irrelevant.

[BlackGauntlet]

Well, Mort2 can now safely have his 1 Ranger (which can be a Fallout 3 Vault-Dweller slipped into an alternate Post-Apocalyptic world) along with any 6 followers from the army of "companions"! Rejoice!

[Mort2]

but you cant control them, that wouldn't be much of party game then, would it? I'd stick with six, give focus to what I want and let the dev decide the 'right' balance.

[BlackGauntlet]

but you cant control them, that wouldn't be much of party game then, would it?

Why can't you control them?

I'd stick with six, give focus to what I want and let the dev decide the 'right' balance.

Eh? Not really getting what you mean. But... y'know, I think they know what you want actually. It's just that, we have different wavelengths and are unable to express what we are trying to say to each other, no matter how hard we try.

So, the only way is for you to play WL2 when it's out and be pleasantly surprised.

[Prometheus]

In reply to some of the more vocal posts here:

I've tried to play Wasteland some time ago; but as of 2012 the game is unplayable and I couldn't get into it. What's more, the story didn't feel particularly compelling and gripping enough at the beginning, and I didn't quite get into the world. I'm sure it was awesome circa 1988, but that year has come and gone. I'm sorry that I've been spoiled by dozens of other much better games since then.

Instead, I've played Fallout 1, 2, and Tactics -- and that's the primary reason I supported the Kickstarter. I didn't support it because it was called "Wasteland 2", I supported it because it had Brian Fargo and his team from Interplay/Black Isle working on it. I supported it because the Fallout series was essentially the spiritual sequel to Wasteland, since they couldn't actually acquire the IP for it at the time. And I supported it because I believe that Brian Fargo and his team can produce a grade-A gritty and hard-boiled post-apocalyptic RPG experience and sell well enough on the mainstream market to be able to bring in enough profits to fund their next projects.

I have no idea what segment of this forum I represent, and I have even less of an idea as to what segment of the "real gaming populace" I represent, but I'm sure there's more than just one of us who's here because of Fallout 1 and 2. I'm sorry if you hate me and others like me because we didn't find Wasteland and the 80s to be the pinnacle of gaming, and because we happened to like the Fallout series while it was under the direction of Black Isle. From the looks of it, it sounds like some of you are trying to tell the rest of us to "piss off" because Wasteland 2 is "your game" and the rest of us shouldn't have a say in it. That Wasteland 2 should be specifically an exact sequel to Wasteland 1, rather than something more like a modern day reboot of the game and genre. I can respect that Wasteland 2 is going to try to stick to some of its roots in Wasteland 1, but at the same time, maybe those among you saying this should accept the early Fallouts as the sequels in between.

I don't mean to pour gasoline on the fire, but the divisive and contemptuous rhetoric in some of these posts is maddening -- especially when it comes to aspects of the game that could easily be designed to satisfy everyone. For example, party characters: Wasteland 1 had blank slates with no personalities beyond your imagination -- Wasteland 2 could let you do the same thing -- but there's no reason why the rest of us couldn't pick our starting party from pre-made characters and then tweak their skills/stats according to our preferences. Similarly, there's no reason why you can't get an achievement for playing the game on the "maximum difficulty" while utilizing only a single auto-save -- while I play with an arbitrary number of save games.

TL;DR: Some of us are here because we liked the evolution from Wasteland to Fallout and we're looking for the next link in the chain (which was NOT Fallout 3) -- don't disparage us for not finding Wasteland 1988 as the pinnacle of gaming. Additionally, there's no reason why Wasteland 2 can't appeal to fans of both series.

[BlackGauntlet]

@Prometheus- You're right. But is there any posts in particular that you're pointing out? Would creating a separate thread be better? I'm a big fan of Fallout AND Wasteland myself. I love both of them for different reasons but with a few similarities.

Similarity 1: Freedom of Choice
Similarity 2: Post-Apocalyptic Theme
Similarity 3: Create customized characters

I don't get why people don't like to paint on a white canvas but would rather spray graffiti over a painting. I have never used a single Pregen before. I always felt that they were lame. So, sorry, Captain Shepard & Mr. Jensen... you're both nice and all but YOU already have a story and that story is not MINE.

Come to think of it, how many of you used the Pregens in FO1 and FO2? I'd have thought RPGers are some of the most imaginative lot (I know I'm one of 'em), so please don't prove me wrong like all those crappy MMORPGs filled with OOC waaaambulancing powergaming munchkins.

[Drool]

I've tried to play Wasteland some time ago; but as of 2012 the game is unplayable and I couldn't get into it.

Why?

No, seriously. Why do you find it unplayable? I still go back to it at least once a year, and have been playing it a lot since this project was announced. I find it extremely playable and just as enjoyable as I did back in 1988.

[Prometheus]

I've tried to play Wasteland some time ago; but as of 2012 the game is unplayable and I couldn't get into it.

Why?

No, seriously. Why do you find it unplayable? I still go back to it at least once a year, and have been playing it a lot since this project was announced. I find it extremely playable and just as enjoyable as I did back in 1988.

Interface and save-limitations aside, I didn't feel drawn into the world or story. Honestly, I'd like to give it a third-shot sometime [before Wasteland 2], but I just didn't get drawn in and held there the last time I played. The gameplay mechanics that I did like from Wasteland were all present in Fallout 1 and 2 (the open world, the grittiness, the ease of death, and lots and lots of other things I'm forgetting to mention, etc..etc..) -- so from a more "modern" gamer's POV, I didn't feel like I was missing out by skipping it.

I don't mean to condemn Wasteland '88 -- it IS the game that started it all -- but I don't think it's an easy game to get into if you completely missed out on it in the first place, and I don't think the Fallout series (collectively, e.g., including Tactics) is really lacking any features that Wasteland 1988 had.

@Prometheus- You're right. But is there any posts in particular that you're pointing out? Would creating a separate thread be better? I'm a big fan of Fallout AND Wasteland myself. I love both of them for different reasons but with a few similarities.

Similarity 1: Freedom of Choice
Similarity 2: Post-Apocalyptic Theme
Similarity 3: Create customized characters

I don't get why people don't like to paint on a white canvas but would rather spray graffiti over a painting. I have never used a single Pregen before. I always felt that they were lame. So, sorry, Captain Shepard & Mr. Jensen... you're both nice and all but YOU already have a story and that story is not MINE.

Come to think of it, how many of you used the Pregens in FO1 and FO2? I'd have thought RPGers are some of the most imaginative lot (I know I'm one of 'em), so please don't prove me wrong like all those crappy MMORPGs filled with OOC waaaambulancing powergaming munchkins.

Regarding the whole premade/blank-slate thing: To be specific -- as a Fallout player exclusively, I'd like to be able to create my own character from scratch, and then have interesting NPC recruits that I can command and go through the game with. I don't want a pre-gen'd "main" character -- as you say -- I want to create whatever character I want and roleplay him as I please. Maybe in one game I play a good guy, maybe in another I don't.

As Wasteland 1988 was a squad-based game, the way I see this being resolved is by having the option of recruiting pre-made characters with their own backstory and so on. If you don't want them, you'll make your own blank slates. For me, I'd like to make my own "main" character, and then have the rest pre-made and tweaked.

I really believe that the kickstarter is not the end, but the beginning of something big: a chance for guys like Brian Fargo to make good games that would appeal to a wider audience than just 46,000+ of us. I see it as an opportunity to show the publishers that it's possible to make a complex but fun game that can sell and can fund itself. And to me, the goal is not so much to make this project, but to see Brian Fargo and his group self-sufficient and able to produce more games like this -- games which conventional publishers are scared of touching because they depart too much from the "norm".

And I think in order to really do this, we have to accept that certain trends in modern gaming might have to be considered -- e.g., people being capable of having NPC party members with backstories and conversations and quests or whatever. No one who backed the kickstarter is looking to have Mass Effect style sex-on-the-irradiated-beach romance, but some of us would like to have more depth to our party members (maybe I'm less imaginative than other people) -- and this is something that probably would appeal to the wider audience as well.

Going back to the original point: Even though I really consider this as a spiritual sequel to the Fallout series (as they were the spiritual sequel to Wasteland 1), I think it's realistic to be able to achieve both "trueness to the original" -- while still making a game that takes some of the better (and theme-fitting) aspects of modern titles.

[Infinitron]

I supported it because it had Brian Fargo and his team from Black Isle working on it.

Other than Jason Anderson's work on the storyline, nobody from Black Isle was initially involved with Wasteland 2. Chris Avellone only became involved later on.

My advice to people with a strong preference for the classic Black Isle experience: Donate to Wasteland 2, but save your big bucks for the inevitable Obsidian Entertainment Kickstarter.
As for me, since I'm an eclectic sort, I'll be giving both of them big bucks.

[Prometheus]

Yeah, it's late, I edited it; that said, BI was Interplay's studio, and the Fallout series was intended to be the sequels to Wasteland.

I'm not aware of what Obsidian is planning on doing, but I suspect that for all intensive purposes -- Wasteland 2 is the sequel to the fallout series.

[Infinitron]

I really believe that the kickstarter is not the end, but the beginning of something big: a chance for guys like Brian Fargo to make good games that would appeal to a wider audience than just 46,000+ of us.

How wide? 100,000 people? 500,000 people? Millions of people? How much are you willing to sacrifice? Why do you want to tread on the same path that ruined gaming in the first place?

Kickstarter isn't the beginning of something "big" - it 's the beginning of something that's ours.
Because we funded it.

[Woolfe]

In reply to some of the more vocal posts here:

I supported it because it had Brian Fargo and his team from Interplay/Black Isle working on it. I supported it because the Fallout series was essentially the spiritual sequel to Wasteland, since they couldn't actually acquire the IP for it at the time. And I supported it because I believe that Brian Fargo and his team can produce a grade-A gritty and hard-boiled post-apocalyptic RPG experience and sell well enough on the mainstream market to be able to bring in enough profits to fund their next projects.

Then give them the chance to create the modern game from their old IP.

I don't mean to pour gasoline on the fire, but the divisive and contemptuous rhetoric in some of these posts is maddening -- especially when it comes to aspects of the game that could easily be designed to satisfy everyone. For example, party characters: Wasteland 1 had blank slates with no personalities beyond your imagination -- Wasteland 2 could let you do the same thing -- but there's no reason why the rest of us couldn't pick our starting party from pre-made characters and then tweak their skills/stats according to our preferences.

I think you'll find most of us agree with that. Several of us just don't agree with Mort2's particular brand of it. Thats why we created a separate thread, but everyone keeps getting drawn back into this one

TL;DR: Some of us are here because we liked the evolution from Wasteland to Fallout and we're looking for the next link in the chain (which was NOT Fallout 3) -- don't disparage us for not finding Wasteland 1988 as the pinnacle of gaming. Additionally, there's no reason why Wasteland 2 can't appeal to fans of both series.

I don't find Wasteland 1988 as the pinnacle of gaming. Especially as I have an idea about the technical restrictions of the day that heavily influenced some design decisions.
What I want to see is the same design ideas (including the party based mechanic) being givne the facelift with modern technology and styling.

And I agree, there is no reason why Wasteland 2 can't appeal to fans of both series. Most of us are constantly suggesting compromises that allow for both single player and party play.

This is the problem with the argument that keeps re-occuring here, it is distracting from the rest of it. And I for one wish it would stop.

[Woolfe]

Yeah, it's late, I edited it; that said, BI was Interplay's studio, and the Fallout series was intended to be the sequels to Wasteland.

I'm not aware of what Obsidian is planning on doing, but I suspect that for all intensive purposes -- Wasteland 2 is the sequel to the fallout series.

Nah, Fallout had a lot of aspects of Wasteland, but it was quite different.

Neither was the sequel to either.

Spiritual successor is used a lot. But both were quite different games in many ways.