Don't "niche" yourself out of business

[mindx2]

Man, you are TOTALLY missing the point of this whole Kickstarter. As a "fan" of W1 you sure seem to want a 2012 style game.

Then do educate me. What IS the point of this kickstarter? And do educate me on what a 2012 style WL2 is supposed to be like? You seem like the elder around here, I'm gonna shut my noob mouth now and let you clarify things for me.

Jasede said it quite well:

"We were promised a classic, old-school game. A game most current generation people will despise because of
the complex combat, the lack of virtual "romances", the focus on character-building and exploration and a lack
of hand-holding. We don't want a 2012 game."

I would add that W1 was based on 1980s paranoia and will hopefully stick with this lore setting and "vibe". With the budget they are at it will not be a AAA-looking graphics & voice-acting bloom-fest nor should it be. I'm hoping that they stay close to a Fallout 1 or 2 "look" with lots of exploration (with clues and text as your only "quest compass!) and turn-based goodness.

[Jasede]

Just in case you misunderstand what we are trying to say:

We are not saying the game needs to look like 1980's game. We're not saying it should have MIDI music. We're not saying it should have the clunkiest interface known to man.

We're saying it should be like the old RPGs in spirit. Perhaps the graphics have improved - perhaps the skills are a little more complicated this time around, and perhaps the interface has become a little more accessible- but the heart and soul are still in the right place, the priorities are still what made RPGs great and what we remember them for.

We're saying we don't want real-time combat. We're saying we don't want flat dialogue and romances. We're saying we don't want any of the things that water down the modern RPG experience in an effort to make my mother and my frat bro enjoy them, such as a "quest compass" or obnoxious "QTE"s.

We don't mind evolution. But not the way the RPG genre has evolved in the last years. We want it to evolve in the direction the great old classics laid out and from which the big companies have deviated dramatically.

[Clockwork Knight]

Then do educate me. What IS the point of this kickstarter?

To have a RPG that is not for the "IT'S [insert current year], WAKE UP GRANDPA" crowd, since almost all of the RPGs made in the recent years were made for these people.

If Fargo wanted to make a game for the next-gen crowd, he could just talk to a big ass publisher instead of bothering with Kickstarter.

I mean, do you think he's doing this for the lulz, or what

[Tel Prydain]

Then do educate me. What IS the point of this kickstarter?

To have a RPG that is not for the "IT'S [insert current year], WAKE UP GRANDPA" crowd, since almost all of the RPGs made in the recent years were made for these people.

If Fargo wanted to make a game for the next-gen crowd, he could just talk to a big ass publisher instead of bothering with Kickstarter.

I mean, do you think he's doing this for the lulz, or what

I think there could be a breakdown in communication here. This whole discussion might be going off track depending on how you define ‘classic’ and how you define ‘modern’.
Wasteland 2 is obviously not going to be modern if your benchmark for classic is Wasteland 1 and your benchmark for modern is Fallout 3 or Skyrim.
But if your idea of classic is the gold box games and your idea of modern is Fallout 1, than for better or worse, it does sound like Wasteland 2 will be ‘modern’.
There IS a new view (isometric rather than top-down) and it does sound like the combat system will be more modern (not menu based).


Obviously at this budget a First Person action game isn’t possible… but that’s okay because a First Person action game isn’t what ANYBODY wants out of this.
But besides the view, the rest seems to be up in the air. For example, Brian was saying that he was surprised about how the forum didn’t want fully-voiced dialogue. In fact, the way he talked about it, it sounded like a possibility that was nixed only after recent forum feedback.

We don’t know what WL2 will look like – but I think it would pay for everyone to brace themselves for a hybrid of Fallout and WL1, because that’s the talk we’re hearing from inXile at the moment.

[Lucius]

Wow so we went from an art direction discussion to this. Ok. Art direction has nothing to do with modern or not. I expect an RPG that plays like an old school RPG. None of these chosen one mechanics. None of these KO'd characters that get back up in 2 minutes. None of these streamlined stats and mechanics. These are the kinds of things that I feel Brian Fargo is promising. Not freaking art direction or graphics style.

Art direction, as I understood from this project, is entirely in inXile's court. Nowhere did Brian Fargo promise a game that will LOOK visually like something from 15 years ago. Nowhere was an 80's vibe promised in art style. Having guys in mohawks, mullets, leather and makeup would have been cool I guess, but it's far from game ruining. Also, I don't think this artwork necessarily dismisses the possibility for 80's influence.

Now look at Wasteland's artwork. Especially on the box (not sure where else you would find original Wasteland concept art). It was going for photo-realism. You could argue stylized with the orange coloring, but clearly you could take that art and put it in today and it wouldn't look any less modern. Look at other images posted in this thread and compare that to Wasteland's box art? Similar? Not in the slightest. I think I just can't wrap my head around why the hate for this piece of art. Now we have Wasteland 2 artwork and what is the issue seriously?

[Keaton]

"For example, Brian was saying that he was surprised about how the forum didn’t want fully-voiced dialogue. In fact, the way he talked about it, it sounded like a possibility that was nixed only after recent forum feedback."
Sure he wants to cut full voice over? Can't say I like that decision.
Could you please give me the link.

Grrr...
Somehow I wished I could just put all those elitist snobs ranting about "console kids" and the "mainstream crowd" in a time machine, send them to their past selves from 1988 who were drooling over the shiny new graphics and all the awesome gameplay possibilities Wasteland offered and sure ass hell wouldn't have dreamed that games would be an experience similar to cinema 24 years later (and if they would, they would have wet their pants in joy). But I guess becoming an elitist snob is somehow related to growing older. You think you become more mature and develop a more refined taste while all you are doing is changing into a rancorous old fool feeling all wise and superior for no reason.
I play games for 21 years now and I never forgot that gamers always wanted the shiniest graphics, liveliest sound and most immersive gameplay possible. Old games are still fun to play but they are NOT better just because back then designers valued gameplay higher than presentation. The majority of them never did. The better ones valued both. And every artist working for a game company would call you a moron if you tell him that the way his concept art from 1988 was reduced to low res EGA graphics is better than todays possibilities to reproduce it in the game.
No voice over? Seriously, wtf?!
*keeps on ranting incomprehensibly*

[Thorium]

Grrr...
Somehow I wished I could just put all those elitist snobs ranting about "console kids" and the "mainstream crowd" in a time machine, send them to their past selves from 1988 who were drooling over the shiny new graphics and all the awesome gameplay possibilities Wasteland offered and sure ass hell wouldn't have dreamed that games would be an experience similar to cinema 24 years later (and if they would, they would have wet their pants in joy). But I guess becoming an elitist snob is somehow related to growing older. You think you become more mature and develop a more refined taste while all you are doing is changing into a rancorous old fool feeling all wise and superior for no reason.
I play games for 21 years now and I never forgot that gamers always wanted the shiniest graphics, liveliest sound and most immersive gameplay possible. Old games are still fun to play but they are NOT better just because back then designers valued gameplay higher than presentation. The majority of them never did. The better ones valued both. And every artist working for a game company would call you a moron if you tell him that the way his concept art from 1988 was reduced to low res EGA graphics is better than todays possibilities to reproduce it in the game.
No voice over? Seriously, wtf?!
*keeps on ranting incomprehensibly*

I dont think that the graphics or sound are the things old players are complaining about. It's the simple fact that most main stream games dont evolve in gameplay, they are actualy going back. Beeing a beta tester in one or the other game i saw often that gameplay features was been cut because of time and money. However they keept introducing new graphics features that add nothing to the game. Like physics for wind that blowes leaves from the ground. I dont mind that feature but it makes me angry to see vital gameplay feature beeing cut out for that.

[Prometheus]

I think there could be a breakdown in communication here. This whole discussion might be going off track depending on how you define ‘classic’ and how you define ‘modern’.
Wasteland 2 is obviously not going to be modern if your benchmark for classic is Wasteland 1 and your benchmark for modern is Fallout 3 or Skyrim.
But if your idea of classic is the gold box games and your idea of modern is Fallout 1, than for better or worse, it does sound like Wasteland 2 will be ‘modern’.
There IS a new view (isometric rather than top-down) and it does sound like the combat system will be more modern (not menu based).

[...]

We don’t know what WL2 will look like – but I think it would pay for everyone to brace themselves for a hybrid of Fallout and WL1, because that’s the talk we’re hearing from inXile at the moment.

This sums up my position too. Thanks.

No voice over? Seriously, wtf?!

Quoted for truth. If you don't like voice overs, just turn it off in the options.

[Keaton]

But that simply isn't true, Thorium.
Atm I'm playing ArmA 2 for example, an incredible ambitious war game with lots of gameplay features.
Or Witcher 2, a game with a whole big chapter full of quests and cutscenes entirely dependant on the choices I made before.
They didn't cut anything out of this game, they even give you free DLC to add bonus content months after release.
Skyrim wasn't half bad either, considering that it's a Bethesda game.
Marriage was a joke and the civil war atmosphere not convincing at all, but they really really tried to add a lot of gameplay features so you can LARP the hell out of it. Heck, they even added free roaming dragons which is a very brave move with all the possible game breaking consequences. Wished they would have had the courage to let me kill every NPC too. But then again I even wished they would have cut out content. Skyrim is too ambitious and if you look closely many of its features are half baked. And the reason isnt that they rushed it or didnt care but that they just set the bar too high.

Developers still are ambitious, they still want to make the best games possible and not every publisher tries to streamline everything to get the earliest possible release date or tries to milk the players with DLC bullshit.
Today I actually have a greater selection of ambitious, original game experiences than I ever had before.
And with kickstarter it becomes even more diverse. Horaaay!
Games were always flawed in execution, most of them mediocre at best. That didn't change to the better but it also didn't change to the worse imo.
The thing that doesnt evolve is story telling. Same old good vs evil stories with cliché NPC and clear cut unambiguous and easy decisions for the player like 20 years ago, with everything revolving around the player, just like 20 years ago. But sadly that's the way people want their pulp. Killing main characters or getting rid of the good evil dynamics just isnt mass appealing enough, it never was.
...
edit: Just thought about Mass Effect 3 and I realized that if you want to tell a not that clear cut, morally ambiguous story you really have to know what you are doing. You must be very good at writing fiction or else you screw it. The reaper revelation in Mass Effect 3 is one of the worst deus ex machina endings ever created and the Mass Effect story would have been infinitely better if they just would have sticked to the good vs evil thing. So if you don't know what you're doing then better keep it simple. ^^

edit 2:

Beeing a beta tester in one or the other game i saw often that gameplay features was been cut because of time and money.

And you really think they didnt do exactly the same thing 20 years ago? Btw the reason isn't always time and money it's often balancing issues (which would take unreasonable time to fix).

[Drool]

Quoted for truth. If you don't like voice overs, just turn it off in the options.

Turning it off in the options doesn't take that chunk of the development budget and put it towards things like storytelling or game mechanics. With a highly limited budget (roughly one tenth the standard for a AAA game), every penny counts. It's less a matter of hating voice acting and more hating the thought of the already small pie being divided again for something that's a frill.

[Prometheus]

I wouldn't call it a frill; it does add to the immersion of the game -- certainly less than music and sound effects, but it's part of it. I'd rather have a world that's a little smaller in exchange for other details that are done a little better, and it's also something that has come to be expected of more polished games.

This isn't a make or break thing for me, but the background of this decision is depending on how you view the point of the kickstarter. My comment was in response to this:

For example, Brian was saying that he was surprised about how the forum didn’t want fully-voiced dialogue. In fact, the way he talked about it, it sounded like a possibility that was nixed only after recent forum feedback.

If the goal of the kickstarter is to appease 46,000 fans and make something exclusively for them, then -- by all means -- the forums are as good as it gets. But if the goal of the kickstarter is to fund a game that could sell hundreds-of-thousands (or more!) copies to a general audience that otherwise wouldn't see such a game -- then maybe the direction of certain features should be more "main stream" -- like having voice acting, which was present in Fallout 1 and 2.

I don't know how much it costs to get voice acting done, and I don't know how much money Wasteland 2 will raise before it's done -- but if there's money for it, I sure as hell want to see it in the game -- tastefully done as it was in Fallout.

[Keaton]

Prometheus, Fallout 1 and 2 didn't have "fully-voiced dialogue".
Some key dialogues were fully voiced, but most were not.

I for one want fully voiced dialogue. If it's done right it adds immensely to the atmosphere and I just want to listen to all the crazy folk I meet out there in the wastelands.

[Infinitron]

If the goal of the kickstarter is to appease 46,000 fans and make something exclusively for them, then -- by all means -- the forums are as good as it gets.

Yes, this is the goal, although it remains to be seen whether there are only 46,000 of us or whether there are more, who just aren't interested in paying for a game that doesn't exist yet. Consider it an experiment.

Also, if you think Wasteland 2 is going to be niche, might I suggest you check out Age of Decadence? ;>

[Prometheus]

Prometheus, Fallout 1 and 2 didn't have "fully-voiced dialogue".
Some key dialogues were fully voiced, but most were not.

I for one want fully voiced dialogue. If it's done right it adds immensely to the atmosphere and I just want to listen to all the crazy folk I meet out there in the wastelands.

Yes, I'm aware that Fallout 1, 2 (and tactics) did not have fully voiced dialogue. I'm also perfectly happy with just getting that in Wasteland 2.

That said, I can't complain about more.

@Infinitron

Addressed this in the other thread :p

[mindx2]

If the goal of the kickstarter is to appease 46,000 fans and make something exclusively for them, then -- by all means -- the forums are as good as it gets. But if the goal of the kickstarter is to fund a game that could sell hundreds-of-thousands (or more!) copies to a general audience that otherwise wouldn't see such a game -- then maybe the direction of certain features should be more "main stream" -- like having voice acting, which was present in Fallout 1 and 2.

I don't know how much it costs to get voice acting done, and I don't know how much money Wasteland 2 will raise before it's done -- but if there's money for it, I sure as hell want to see it in the game -- tastefully done as it was in Fallout.

For the hundredth time... this game was not proposed as, designed as, or kickstarted as a game to "sell hundreds-of-thousands (or more!) copies to a general audience"!!! This game is targeting old-school party-based, turn-based, tactical combat, choice & consequence, exploration heavy gamers who don't get these type of games made anymore!!!!! So please take your voice-overs (which limits written text), your QTEs, graphics intensive bloom-fest, twitchy cover-based, gamepad using romance simulator style of games as far away from Wasteland 2 as possible!!!! Brian is NOT making this game for you and has said so many times. This one (finally) is for old school Wasteland fans

[Mort2]

fully voiced dialogue is a blight upon old school RPGs but there is no reason why not to voice some key phrases like in FO1/2.

I wouldn't call it a frill; it does add to the immersion of the game -- certainly less than music and sound effects, but it's part of it. I'd rather have a world that's a little smaller in exchange for other details that are done a little better, and it's also something that has come to be expected of more polished games.

Yes, but I think that most of use will disagree about full voice overs contribution to better game.

[Keaton]

Oh no, please don't mention that streamlined, railroaded, noninteractive, metagamey Choose You Own Adventure Book AoD!
That's as much fun as playing Fallout 1 as an Int 3 character (there: 90% quests unavailable, dialogues not half as funny as they should be given that most of them consist of a few words only, AoD: same boring experience like FO1 with Int 3 for every fucking class you choose).

This game is targeting old-school party-based, turn-based, tactical combat, choice & consequence, exploration heavy gamers who don't get these type of games made anymore!!!!!

What has any of that to do with voice overs (which doesn't limit written text, there are even audio books), bloom effects, cover mechanics and romances? Exactly, nothing.
3 Millions is a huge budget for an indie developer.
Witcher 2 had 10 millions if I remember correctly and noone in their right mind would expect anything even nearly as fancy looking from inXile.
So please calm down and don't be that narrow minded!

[Clockwork Knight]

No voice over? Seriously, wtf?!

Plenty of modern games have no voice acting. I really don't understand why rpgs MUST HAVE VOICE OVERS OR ELSE. Who decided this?

[Thorium]

Beeing a beta tester in one or the other game i saw often that gameplay features was been cut because of time and money.

And you really think they didnt do exactly the same thing 20 years ago? Btw the reason isn't always time and money it's often balancing issues (which would take unreasonable time to fix).

It depends on what time frame we are talking about. Of course if was different 20 years back and 30 years back it was even more different. There are 2 major differences: Today it's a multi million dollar industry controlled mainly be people that just care about money. It's no longer controled by developers. It's controled by publishers. Second graphics and sound of today are without limit. You can put as much as you want into it. Back in the day that just was not possible. You couldnt switch 100+ discs.

30 years back the developer decided what to include in the game and what to cut out. Today it's the publisher.

Just look at all the early games, even the very early ones like Benath Apple Manor from 1978. You will be surprised how sophisticated game mechanics was and how little they are changed. Put Diablo and Beneath Apple Manor side by side, there is not much of a difference if you put aside graphics and sound.
Games did evolve but that stopped in the late 90's, after that i dont see any improvements other than graphics and sound.

[Infinitron]

Witcher 2 had 10 millions if I remember correctly and noone in their right mind would expect anything even nearly as fancy looking from inXile.

The key difference being that Witcher 2's developers were being paid Polish wages. ;> inXile is located in Southern California...