Do not listen to fans too much

[ThePlanner]

To Brian Fargo:

I put my money into Wasteland 2 because I trust you to create a great game. Full stop.

While I was too young for Wasteland, I was the perfect age for Fallout 1 and 2 and they became my all-time favourite computer games and have had a lasting influence on me.

The morning the Wasteland 2 Kickstarter campaign launched I put my money in and I've been taking great satisfaction in seeing the pledge tally quickly surpass the target and keep on climbing. However, I must say that despite my enthusiasm for this funding model and its promise of giving the most committed of fans a tangible role in the creation of the game they funded, I am also deeply wary of trying to please everyone.

With great respect to my fellow funders and the people on this forum, nearly all of whom have likely put money into Wasteland 2, and some of whom put a whole lot more than myself, I don't want to see the project get bogged down by trying to make us all happy at each step of the process. To those of us who contribute to the forum, let's keep our opinions and criticisms constructive and accept that what will be created for us may not exactly match what we may personally have in mind.

With 30 days remaining we're currently at 24,185 backers and $1,290,060 dollars pledged to Wasteland 2. Take this as an incredible mandate to create the game you have been waiting so long to make. We're your fans and financial backers, not your bosses or second guessing publisher. Ask for our input when you need it, keep us up to date, help us feel that we're a part of something special, but at the end of the day just make it great. Pleasing everyone is impossible. Thank you.

[Burt Gummer]

I bet many of us are hoping Wasteland 2 is a huge success and brings back this entire genre. Imagine Wasteland 3 with a $20 million budget.

I can almost guarantee that there are people here who would hate this. Some people need the feeling that they are special. Or at least that they are playing something "all the dumb masses" wouldn't appreciate. Wasteland 2 being a success and getting media acclaim would kill this feeling.

[krellen]

I bet many of us are hoping Wasteland 2 is a huge success and brings back this entire genre. Imagine Wasteland 3 with a $20 million budget.

I can almost guarantee that there are people here who would hate this. Some people need the feeling that they are special. Or at least that they are playing something "all the dumb masses" wouldn't appreciate. Wasteland 2 being a success and getting media acclaim would kill this feeling.

I would love a Wasteland 2 that was true to the original becoming a moderate success. I would probably have a heart attack if it became a wild success.

I still don't want a $20 million sequel. I don't think a big budget serves this genre very well.

[Oesophagus]

I would love a Wasteland 2 that was true to the original becoming a moderate success. I would probably have a heart attack if it became a wild success.

I would like it to be a success just to show all the big companies how it's done. Maybe they'd take the hint and not make every single game essentially identical.

If this were a success we'd probably also see the resurrection of a few cult titles. Publishers are a very volatile bunch

[Drool]

I put my money into Wasteland 2 because I trust you to create a great game. Full stop.

While I was too young for Wasteland, I was the perfect age for Fallout 1 and 2 and they became my all-time favourite computer games and have had a lasting influence on me.

The morning the Wasteland 2 Kickstarter campaign launched I put my money in and I've been taking great satisfaction in seeing the pledge tally quickly surpass the target and keep on climbing. However, I must say that despite my enthusiasm for this funding model and its promise of giving the most committed of fans a tangible role in the creation of the game they funded, I am also deeply wary of trying to please everyone.

Aside from the bit about age, this is pretty much exactly how I feel, except that I'm a bit more cynical about it. I'm not as worried about the team being pulled in multiple directions to please everyone, I'm worried that a lot of people have really dumb ideas and expectations.

[Gizmo]

I still don't want a $20 million sequel. I don't think a big budget serves this genre very well.

I wouldn't mind a $20 million budget... I just wouldn't want the typical strings that come attached to it; publisher mandates for multiplayer; for explicit tutorials, that it be first person, and have a teen or token 'M' rating... etc.

If they had 20 million to feed into it, with no obligations, then they could expand their designs as they wished and still allow for very good localized versions and maybe even some experimental gambles with the gameplay, cinematics, or other aspects and fine polish. * When the Star Trek movies were first made, they actually hired a linguist to invent a functional language for the native Klingon dialog; so that it would be consistent and sound believable; and it really did.

** Imagine if they set to work on W2 (and that it was essentially to be a Fallout 1 clone).
But with a chunk of this 20 million dollar (fantasy) budget; (Fallout cost about 3 million), they contract out a job to another developer to design modular code for an NPC chat-bot that would natively "speak" localized print, read an NPC profile of some kind that dictated mannerisms, attitudes, astuteness, and had access to a database of the recent events in the game as seen 1st hand, reported 2nd hand, and a mildly distorted 3rd hand; and the NPC's personal friends, acquaintances, and faction loyalties. And that this was used to control the NPCs in conversation... for a dynamic reputation and trust system; for 'partially generated' dialog.

IE. You could ask an NPC (with typed natural questions), things like "Where could I buy a diesel generator?", and if the NPC liked them they might say, "No where around here, but three days East there is a trading post and a feller named Quint; he's a mechanic there. He might know." ~And if the NPC really likes the party, it might add, "Mr. Quint collects antique radios, you might bring him one if you can; but don't mention my name to him if you want to stay on his good side". And If the NPC was devious, and had reason to dislike the party, it might instead say, "Nowhere around here....", and "Quint is a good guy to fence stolen goods through; just mention that you are a friend of mine and he'll take care of you".

Yeah, I'd like the game to have a $20 million dollar budget.

[sajber]

I wouldn't mind 20 million dollar budget on Wasteland 3. Just stay true to the originals in the series.

[ffordesoon]

20 mil wouldn't be a problem. The question is, if it came from a publisher, would they be forced to sink the budget into dumb things like graphics and sound, or would they be given free reign to reuse the W2 engine and simply make the game better?

Having a big budget isn't bad in and of itself. It's just a question of how much freedom would come with it.

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

Look what we're doing here! Creating a game together. If your ideas are not popular right now, take heart; with more attention and development we can turn every unique idea into a game concept. If they will not use some ideas that are generally considered good, because all of them won't work in one game, there will be more games in the future. If we decide to make it so, we can create offshoots and mods and expansions. So don't be afraid to suggest unexpected or unpopular ideas. The best thing a game can do is surprise you!

[TheEmissary]

I agree he should be able to make the game he wants to make. No one group of people are ever going have consensus on what constitutes a good video game. Lot of the best video games have come out of no where and indie teams with a clear vision for their game. We have seen what has happened to the industry when they mix generic ideas with popular trends. This has led to the creation of utterly soulless and forgettable games.

At the same time you can't discount or ignore the fan base as at the end of the day are the audience of your game. You have to try to give the players a satisfying experience. You only have to google the Mass Effect 3 fan problems to see what not to do.

[Epsilon]

Is a bad idea.

Since I started visiting these forums I've come across statements that people will withdraw their support if the game doesn't have feature x or doesn't include y.

As someone who's been working in game development since 2003 and unfortunately never got to work in game dev during the eighties and the nineties, I've spent a great deal of time reading about how people went about making games back then.
I've watched copious amounts of mattchat and been attending the various GDC's in the latter years and listened to what the greats of the industry have had to say.

It strikes me that over and over I hear developers saying that the reason that this or that game was a success was largely due to the fact that there wasn't a publisher or anybody else breathing down their neck and telling them what the game should or shouldn't contain or have.

Sean Cooper has talked about the early days of Bullfrog and how the development of Syndicate went, and it was just things they thought was cool that got included in the game everything from game mechanics to anime inspiration and the result of this we know and many fans has been crying bloody murder since EA decided that the new 'Syndicate' should be a First Person Shooter.

Chris Avellone has mentioned how being asked if he could do a game within the planescape universe/license and saying yes, then was basically let loose and just tried to think of cool locations, characters and other stuff that would complement the license the result being what is argueably one of the greatest CRPG's ever created.

Tim Cain has talked about the early days development of Fallout; nobody oversaw the development of the game to begin with and it was primarily Tim Cain working on the engine to begin with, whilst 5 other guys worked on the project when they weren't busy with other stuff.
At the time nobody at Interplay believed that Fallout was going to be a big product, it was just viewed as a B product.
The project almost got cancelled a couple of times as well, but the perseverance of the team and the belief in the vision of that deep rpg experience they wanted to create allowed them to finally release the game back in 97 - coupled with Brian Fargo liking the brutality and flow of it and coming up with the name "Fallout".

Markus Persson/Notch has talked about wanting a accessible version of Dwarf Fortress coupled with some elements of Dungeon Keeper and simply going ahead and making it brought forth Minecraft, argueably thats been a huge success for him, eventhough they're now trying to please a rabid fanbase which is nigh on impossible.


So if the Wasteland 2 teams read these posts on the forum, theres just one thing to learn from the experiences of developers / key members of these other great games; don't try and please everyone and don't listen to what the outside influences/fans on this forum says has to be or not be in the game - oxymoron I know.

Stay true to the vision that you as developers have and only get the stuff in the game that you yourselves think will be cool to have or will fit with the overall vision of the game design you have.

As fans we've already pledged our money and given you at InXile our trust that you will take care of it in the best possibly way and give us the game we've been wanting since the market changed and for all intents and purposes these types of RPG's died.
This is probably one of the last times that a development team will be given this amount of freedom to do what they want and create a great game without a publisher breathing down their neck, so don't just replace the publisher with a rabid fanbase or a few individuals who don't know the entire picture but just want their 'one feature' in.

[Pachterballs]

while I've posted on the forums; on this that. I agree with this. Design by community = ridiclous. Are you going to take all comments on equal measure? I kick started $150. Please listen to me more than the others who chipped in $15. anyhow... yeah. Do what you guys feel is right for the game that makes it wasteland 2. And NOT fallout 3.5

[Hiver]

Design by committee is one thing, listening to the fans and including them into some aspects of the game is quite another.

Ive said this already but you are talking to guys who have been through much worse on old Interplay boards.

And if you want a living example of how this type of dev-fan cooperation can actually work. Go to the forums of Iron Towers and read through "Age of Decadence" section. Turn based old school RPG with post-apocalyptic, grim, mature fantasy setting.


And stop panicking.

[Jasede]

Good grief, don't listen to anything someone says on these forums. It's overrun already by romance-lovers and people clamoring for quest-compasses. It's probably out of some kind of spite: Oh, so you didn't get a real RPG for two decades? Too bad, here we are lobbying for dog-marriage and a gay quota to ruin even your last glimmer of hope for a real RPG!

Let's not talk about combat systems or skill mechanics, nooo. Let's talk about pretty colors and mass effect dialogue wheels! Come on guys, it'll be ~immersive~.

[Orko]

Just want to voice, that there is probably a silent mass. And the few voices heard here on the forum's may look like that the majority wants x but in reality it's like 2% of all. And therefore a smal minority that just happens to be the loudest.
Always keep that in mind, and just use this platform to get inspirations and a feel for how the mood is on certain aspects of the game.
but i think the developers already know that, well i hope they do.

[Drool]

Too bad, here we are lobbying for dog-marriage and a gay quota to ruin even your last glimmer of hope for a real RPG!

Do you need someone to talk to?

[Hiver]

Read this people:

J.E. Sawyer

http://twofoldsilence.diogenes-lamp.inf ... -game.html


I started my career as a web developer for Black Isle Studios. I was the moderator for a number of high-traffic message boards. Facilitating interaction between the developers and community has always been important to me. You can't make everyone happy, certainly, but you can help the community understand what you're doing -- and why.

When the community gains this understanding, their expectations can be framed in a way that appreciates the process the developers go through. Not everyone will agree with the decisions developers make, but that's fine -- you can't make everyone happy, whether you're being funded by a publisher or the endusers.

/

Design isn't about asking a client what he or she wants and then doing it, verbatim. It's not about trying to make everyone happy. It's about understanding the myriad, often conflicting wants and needs of a defined, diverse audience and developing a product that brings them satisfaction.

/

Like anything worth our love and devotion, the process to achieve it is often a struggle. The worst we can do is disappoint our fans -- but that's always been the case. For crowd-funded games, it's just gamers and game-makers. It may not be the way all games can be (or even should be) made, but I'm so glad it's an option, and I hope that everyone involved embraces the potential for sincere collaboration and feedback it presents to us.

[TheEmissary]

Another element to design is to improve and eliminate problems to the workflow but in the case here it would be the gameplay. You still might find people that are rigidly attached to old ways of doing things even when better systems have long been in service. Think about the resistance to things like computer automation or databases instead of filing cabinets or going paperless.

I think the worst thing to do would be just make a exact replica of the original without understanding what worked and what didn't. That is where the postmortem analysis comes in to play in software development for future versions.

[Mort2]

I think that the developers must have their own vision of the game, here are two examples that have nothing todo with the topic, IMO portray the end result of to much user interference vs dev vision.

Most of you probably know about XCOM. My first example would be a a nice "remake" of the game called xenonauts, which similar to XCOM in all but the setting(moved to 1979) and some minor improvements. I intend to buy the game because it gives me what I want but I dont really see any real innovation.

On the other hand there is a re-imagining of XCOM, called XCOM: Enemy Unknown. Unlike xenonauts, I am not sure that this game is for me, but I suggest you guys to check its video. watch to the end, but you can skip skip the intro and if you are old timers, like me try to ignore the gag reflex due to 3D remakes, ignore what they say about the action points and about the sexy look and note all the little details.

Now, the point I wanted to make that I want W2 be the later game, this has NOTHING TO DO with its look or its mechanics(it's not even the same genre) but about a vision, the first one looks like one built on user pools, a an "HD remake", the last look like it has vision and considering that Fargo vision is happen inline with ours, I'd rather see them try and innovate, rather than make a rehash/crumble of ideas from various games. I'd rather see their game, their vision with our input, than this.

[dukem73]

Well I view this as experiment, but I want this to succeed (within its set goals) and set an example. The possibilities could be endless.
Imagine crowd funding in competition with legacy-investment, where studios leave their publishers because they are fed up. On topic, I think the whole idea is to give the team the freedom they need to be creative, not only pressure-wise (breathing down their neck) but also not forget the line between producer/creative and consumer. They made the games we love without our influence and I am sure they still know how to do that...of course there will be things I don't approve of and as whole I am sure something I can like a lot will come out of this, and I want to consume what they did, not what I or you think they should do.

With all this freedom, there is of course the risk that this production could suffer the Ultima9 fate (which I really hope won't happen, because in this case the crowd would not have the means of a publisher).

TD;DR

I want them do to the game, not us.