Preferred party size in Wasteland 2 [poll added]

[Prometheus]

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.

I don't see why a game has to suck if people like it.

Look, we might just disagree on the purpose of the kickstarter. I'm not with InXile and I'm not gonna make that call, but the way I see it is that a well done Wasteland 2 (a spiritual sequel to Fallout 1, 2, and tactics) -- with well done game mechanics, that looks and sounds pretty good -- would easily appeal to a lot of gamers.

Maybe it's not a game for twelve-year-old console players, but I don't think Fallout was supposed to appeal to everyone in the first place.

Anyways, I think if InXile can turn a profit on Wasteland 2 and become self-sufficient -- and be able to produce more (and bigger budget) games without having to cave in to publishers' demands, that would be an excellent outcome from all of this.

And again, I don't see a connection with "big budgets" and "selling well" with a game sucking. There might be a debatable correlation, but that probably has more to do with big name publishers hyping products and bankrolling everything.


@Woolfe

Yeah, I recall you making some very agreeable posts, so I hope you don't take mine the wrong way!

I made my case in the character thread, but I didn't see anyone echo it or comment on it.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Infinitron]

And again, I don't see a connection with "big budgets" and "selling well" with a game sucking. There might be a debatable correlation, but that probably has more to do with big name publishers hyping products and bankrolling everything.

And the goal of big name publishers is to sell to the largest amount of people - the lowest common denominator. What do you think, they make bad games because they're evil?

That said, my argument isn't that modern games suck. Some modern games are actually fun for what they are, and I even buy and play them. I say gaming has been ruined not because modern games suck, but because it's no longer producing the kind of game that I like the most.
I want my niche to be catered to, and not just by indie games - is that too much to ask?

[Woolfe]

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

I don't see why a game has to suck if people like it.

Look, we might just disagree on the purpose of the kickstarter. I'm not with InXile and I'm not gonna make that call, but the way I see it is that a well done Wasteland 2 (a spiritual sequel to Fallout 1, 2, and tactics) -- with well done game mechanics, that looks and sounds pretty good -- would easily appeal to a lot of gamers.

Maybe it's not a game for twelve-year-old console players, but I don't think Fallout was supposed to appeal to everyone in the first place.

Anyways, I think if InXile can turn a profit on Wasteland 2 and become self-sufficient -- and be able to produce more (and bigger budget) games without having to cave in to publishers' demands, that would be an excellent outcome from all of this.

And again, I don't see a connection with "big budgets" and "selling well" with a game sucking. There might be a debatable correlation, but that probably has more to do with big name publishers hyping products and bankrolling everything.

The Kickstarter was started with the express purpose of bringing back some of the old school RPG elements that have been "abandoned" by the mainstream publishers. What they are saying is that there is a market for these games, and they don't need to appeal to the lowest common denominator to sell well. This doesn't mean the game will suck, it just means it won't be whatever the current mainstream craze is.

@Woolfe

Yeah, I recall you making some very agreeable posts, so I hope you don't take mine the wrong way!

I made my case in the character thread, but I didn't see anyone echo it or comment on it.

It's late, so I'm checking out. Thanks for the feedback.

No worries....

[Mort2]

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.

Its amazing how hard is to get the "interesting NPC recruits" point through. I call them NPC they say we have recruits, I say companions they jump to ME3 comparison, I say pre-gens the say I can do this to *sighs*

I think that in most cases people intentionally claim ignorance, especially when they hear main character or fallout...

[udm]

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.

I barely made it through 15% of the game when I first played it many years ago, so I know where you're coming from. It was p. tough to play if you didn't know what you were playing, and the game's story isn't clear for the first half of it.

It is, however, one of those games where discovery leads to intrigue. If you can get over the interface (seriously, forget about the mouse, just use keyboard macros), you'll find a lot of fun to be had in the game's subplots and exploration.

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.

I know what it means to be nostalgic, but I still had more fun with Wasteland (which I recently completed for the first time) than I did with, say, Mass Effect (which I also completed, and somewhat enjoyed, but it was by no means anywhere near GOTY-quality for me). You are mistaking modern conventions for fun. Neither is mutually exclusive from the other, but that doesn't mean that certain elements from the former, which could be nice things to have when used appropriately (voice acting), are definitive of the latter.

[Mort2]

hmm... I am not sure how all this "mainstream" appeal discussion is relevant to the topic, I find it far more constrictive to discuss party size and composition and how it's good for W2.

Besides so far I havent seen any real "mainstream" suggestions, even though that every few pages or so someone mentions some new bioware crap, all the suggestion I seen are either Wasteland or a mix of Wasteland and FO.

[udm]

hmm... I am not sure how all this "mainstream" appeal discussion is relevant to the topic, I find it far more constrictive to discuss party size and composition and how it's good for W2.

Besides so far I havent seen any real "mainstream" suggestions, even though that every few pages or so someone mentions some new bioware crap, all the suggestion I seen are either Wasteland or a mix of Wasteland and FO.

My post was to quickly address Prometheus's point by postulating the difference between modern gaming conventions and fun gameplay features, which can be applied across the board for most suggestions, including NPCs with back stories as he mentioned. "Mainstream" can be leveled at a feature that is believed to be an essential trait of a good game by a significant portion of the audience, even if it's not (which was my point in the later part of my post); when someone brings up a suggestion that must be in the game under the imperative of mass acceptance, for example having a solo party member only (note: I am *not* suggesting solo party member is a mainstream idea per se, not yet at least), it invariably becomes abstracted as such.

With that being said, you're right, the discussion is deviating from its original intents, so let's get back on track.

[Kide]

Wasteland 1 will most probably be hard to get into for me as well, whenever I will try it in the close future. It is just unfortunate that I have never played a game that works as it does, if I would have then it would feel easy. So it is quite different for someone who plays it now and had played it previosly than to someone who is trying to get into it for the very first time. To my knowledge for example might and magic 7 did not have too great graphics for it's time, but I were always very happy with them as it was the first game of that style I played and it's still very easy for me to go and play when ever I feel like it. So yeah if I had the possibility to enjoy wasteland 1 before being used to more modern games I would think it would be fairly easy go and play it again, unfortunatly as said befor being way too young for it. =)

For me the only modern RPG game that I have even really played or finished has been dragon age origins as it at least felt like it tried to do some things more like they were done earlier, haven't even tried to touch mass effect and only played oblivion and skyrium a little bit.... Unfortunatly I know I am not happy with them and it only makes me feel saddness when I try to play them as I remember the older better games. And I just rather enjoy to play the old good games again than the new ones that make me just miss the old good times.

So yeah pledged together with my boyfriend 250 dollars to support this and love to see where they will take wasteland 2 whatever it may be. I am still 100% certan I will enjoy it way more than any other new games for a long time. ^^ The biggest reason to support this to me is the fact that I have missed these old style games for such a long time and did not even dare to dream of getting any of them ever again.... So having this change is a dream come true to me already no matter how mutch wasteland 2 will be like wasteland 1 or fallout or whatever. I really don't care as I think i's certanly going to be something I will enjoy greatly. ^^

And as said I will love to create all 4 ranger's, but just adding as mutch of personality to all of them as possibly would definitly make it even more awesome. I do not want premade ones though, never used those. Just as mutch personality to all of them as possibly and I will be happy.

But just wanted to say again where I come from in this, as I already have said sometimes it feels like I "should not" be supporting this game because I have not been able to play and know wasteland 1 at the time, but only the newer games. Whitch I think it is kind of a wrong message, as still everyone here wants to at least get the old good rpg games back. No matter even if they do have some different opinions of things. ^^

[krellen]

People have all sorts of motives for funding this game; some have come thinking they're going to get Fallout Redux. Some thing they're going to get Wasteland Redux. Some think this is Crowd-Designed Dream-RPG Project. Some think this is Tactical Combat Reborn. Most are going to be wrong - a game cannot possibly be all these things.

The major problems come from people posting suggestions that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Wasteland - the people posting "I don't care about Old School", the ones posting "I want to be a solo character", the ones posting "I don't want to be a Ranger" (to the latter two, I suggest you look up the Shadowrun Returns Kickstarter; that's going to provide a vision closer to what you're looking for (and for the record, I am supporting both this and that project equally)). There are people posting, explicitly, that they want Wasteland's design and vision to be changed because they prefer something else.

It's not about whether or not you have played Wasteland. It's about whether or not you are willing to support a game like Wasteland.

[Kide]

I agree krellen. But just wanted to say again how certan way of responses from people that have played the original wasteland might make and did make me personally feel. Educating people what was wasteland and such is a lot more efficient way of making us all exited of the game that we want to support and not argue or feeling less than the other people that have been able to experience wasteland originally. And I am glad that we are moving to that direction more than what it was in the beginning in my opinion.

Though some still can be too persistent of wanting more of a fallout 3 than wasteland 2, whtich I of course could not agree on either. Even if this is kind of a long waited old school rpg games for all, it is still wasteland 2, and it should be wasteland 2. There is no question about that.

[Gizmo]

The major problems come from people posting suggestions that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Wasteland - the people posting "I don't care about Old School", the ones posting "I want to be a solo character", the ones posting "I don't want to be a Ranger" (to the latter two, I suggest you look up the Shadowrun Returns Kickstarter; that's going to provide a vision closer to what you're looking for (and for the record, I am supporting both this and that project equally)). There are people posting, explicitly, that they want Wasteland's design and vision to be changed because they prefer something else.

It's not about whether or not you have played Wasteland. It's about whether or not you are willing to support a game like Wasteland.

[Mort2]

just wanted to say again how certan way of responses from people that have played the original wasteland might make and did make me personally feel. Educating people...

That because people confuse what it was, with what it would be, what they want it to be and mostly what they dont want it to be.

Though some still can be too persistent of wanting more of a fallout 3 than wasteland 2, whtich I of course could not agree on either. Even if this is kind of a long waited old school rpg games for all, it is still wasteland 2, and it should be wasteland 2. There is no question about that.

I dont subscribe to that notion, to me "more of a fallout 3 than wasteland 2" = I like that other option more but cant explain why it's better in terms of gameplay, so I am going to cry racist! err Fallout 3!

It would be wasteland 2, even if we borrow a good mechanic that fits, from angry birds.

[Prometheus]

I know what it means to be nostalgic, but I still had more fun with Wasteland (which I recently completed for the first time) than I did with, say, Mass Effect (which I also completed, and somewhat enjoyed, but it was by no means anywhere near GOTY-quality for me). You are mistaking modern conventions for fun. Neither is mutually exclusive from the other, but that doesn't mean that certain elements from the former, which could be nice things to have when used appropriately (voice acting), are definitive of the latter.

I agree with you 100% here; modern conventions for the sake of being modern is not what I'm looking for. On the other hand, where budget allows, there are certain things which I feel should be a part of Wasteland 2's production -- e.g., voice acting, and party members with personalities and backstories (if the player wants them that way).

I also could be wrong here, but Wasteland 2 seems more comparable to a Fallout: Tactics game with a better story, more rpg elements, and less linearity.

[Phaederuss]

I know what it means to be nostalgic, but I still had more fun with Wasteland (which I recently completed for the first time) than I did with, say, Mass Effect (which I also completed, and somewhat enjoyed, but it was by no means anywhere near GOTY-quality for me). You are mistaking modern conventions for fun. Neither is mutually exclusive from the other, but that doesn't mean that certain elements from the former, which could be nice things to have when used appropriately (voice acting), are definitive of the latter.

I agree with you 100% here; modern conventions for the sake of being modern is not what I'm looking for. On the other hand, where budget allows, there are certain things which I feel should be a part of Wasteland 2's production -- e.g., voice acting, and party members with personalities and backstories (if the player wants them that way).

I also could be wrong here, but Wasteland 2 seems more comparable to a Fallout: Tactics game with a better story, more rpg elements, and less linearity.

No voice acting please. What usually happens is that everyone ends up complaining about it anyways. Stick to text.

[Phaederuss]

People have all sorts of motives for funding this game; some have come thinking they're going to get Fallout Redux. Some thing they're going to get Wasteland Redux. Some think this is Crowd-Designed Dream-RPG Project. Some think this is Tactical Combat Reborn. Most are going to be wrong - a game cannot possibly be all these things.

The major problems come from people posting suggestions that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Wasteland - the people posting "I don't care about Old School", the ones posting "I want to be a solo character", the ones posting "I don't want to be a Ranger" (to the latter two, I suggest you look up the Shadowrun Returns Kickstarter; that's going to provide a vision closer to what you're looking for (and for the record, I am supporting both this and that project equally)). There are people posting, explicitly, that they want Wasteland's design and vision to be changed because they prefer something else.

It's not about whether or not you have played Wasteland. It's about whether or not you are willing to support a game like Wasteland.

Yet, what is Wasteland exactly? Yea post apocalyptic, turn based, party game. Ok. Can you really say much else from the one precedent that we have?

[Gizmo]

I dont subscribe to that notion, to me "more of a fallout 3 than wasteland 2" = I like that other option more but cant explain why it's better in terms of gameplay, so I am going to cry racist! err Fallout 3!

It would be wasteland 2, even if we borrow a good mechanic that fits, from angry birds.

How about point out that adopting mechanics from 'chutes & ladders', or attack moves from 'Checkers' would not be a good addition to 'Chess 2', and that such a game (were Chess owned) could be called 'Chess 2' but would hardly be a decent sequel to it [IMO]; at the very least, it would tick off the established fan-base.

Or, if that one is a bit out there... then how about pointing out that adopting extensive use of FO3's skill, and conversation mechanics into Angry Birds could seriously take away from the core (series) gameplay in an Angry Birds 3 (IMO).

[krellen]

Yet, what is Wasteland exactly? Yea post apocalyptic, turn based, party game. Ok. Can you really say much else from the one precedent that we have?

You absolutely can.

One of my principle pet peeves that's been happening around here is people using Fallout as a "fair example" of what Wasteland 2 "would have been". I don't think it is; firstly, Fallout was principally created by different people. Brian Fargo was involved with the company that published it, and probably had some input in its creation, but he's not one of the men whose name appears next to the credit of "Designer" on the game (and, in fact, his name appears no where in the game's credits, just in the intro of "Brian Fargo Presents"). Secondly, because of the way copyright and trademark works, certain things had to be changed to make Fallout a legal product - these things include the setting, as well as the mood and theme (well, mood and theme didn't have to be changed legally, but it makes your case far more defensible in court.)

Fallout is not "the Wasteland that could have been"; it's Fallout.

There are plenty of things we can take from Wasteland as indicative of what defines Wasteland. The visual style - contrary to popular argument, it looked that way because that was the way the designers choose to have it look, not because of "technical limitations"; there were a lot of options within those limitations they could have taken, the humour and tone of the writing, party mechanics (particularly the aspect of NPCs taking orders, but not necessarily following them exactly or at all), and especially elements of the setting and world. It's not like Wasteland invented the idea of "post-Apocalyptic"; the theme has been present in film and literature throughout history, and ways in which Wasteland differs from those earlier examples are signs of deliberate choices on the part of the games' designers (in particular, the relatively non-destroyed world, the presence of life and greenery, and the prevalence of robotics and cybernetics.)

[Gizmo]

Fallout is not "the Wasteland that could have been"; it's Fallout.

Just you wait, I'd bet money that the collector's box says, "Remember Fallout?"

[Mort2]

None of his initial suggestions were against the spirit of Wasteland. Since then he went into along Off Topic trying to explain that next iteration of the game =/= copy of the one before hand. While the rest went on OT to explain that a next iteration need to be true to the source.

IMO, we already seen that, the visual style, which might have been designers choice, wont be "updated" (based on iso and concept art), while Fargo has commented that party mechanics (in specific NPCs not taking orders) would be kept.

I really thought that we summed this up before:

some have come thinking they're going to get Fallout Redux. Some thing they're going to get Wasteland Redux. Some think this is Crowd-Designed Dream-RPG Project. Some think this is Tactical Combat Reborn. Most are going to be wrong - a game cannot possibly be all these things.

now can we back to the topic? because there are dozens of topic discussing fallout, Wastealnd and what sequel means.

[Son of Max]

The major problems come from people posting suggestions that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Wasteland - the people posting "I don't care about Old School", the ones posting "I want to be a solo character", the ones posting "I don't want to be a Ranger" (to the latter two, I suggest you look up the Shadowrun Returns Kickstarter; that's going to provide a vision closer to what you're looking for (and for the record, I am supporting both this and that project equally)). There are people posting, explicitly, that they want Wasteland's design and vision to be changed because they prefer something else.

It's not about whether or not you have played Wasteland. It's about whether or not you are willing to support a game like Wasteland.

Agreed to the Nth Power.