Wasteland 2, not Fallout 4

[Mort2]

I just registered to make a sum of any argument about this game.

There's plenty of Fallouts.

There's only 1 Wasteland.

I would like to play Wasteland instead of Fallout now.

I think it sums up one side, the other side would be:

No one ever said it is Fallout3, it is wasteland2 set up in wasteland settings.
Wasteland2 is not Wasteland, we expect to see it improve.
There is no reason to upset just because the majority here can more easily refernce to FO, when discussing certain mechnics pro cons.

[krellen]

There is no reason to upset just because the majority here can more easily refernce to FO, when discussing certain mechnics pro cons.

Most people are talking about setting, theme and mood things, not mechanics. And Fallout has no place whatsoever in those discussions.

[Linsolv]

There is no reason to upset just because the majority here can more easily refernce to FO, when discussing certain mechnics pro cons.

Most people are talking about setting, theme and mood things, not mechanics. And Fallout has no place whatsoever in those discussions.

Wait right there. I see and respect that people don't want their fandom spoiled by another fandom trying to stick themselves into it, but trying to draw comparisons to another comparable game is actually quite possibly the most legitimate form of reference.

[krellen]

trying to draw comparisons to another comparable game is actually quite possibly the most legitimate form of reference.

Fallout and Wasteland have a lot of thematic differences, not to mention mood and setting. "This thing is in Fallout, it should be in Wasteland" is not a valid foundation for an argument; "I like this thing from Fallout, and from my experience it should fit pretty well in Wasteland" is better. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people making these sorts of suggestions have no reference point from which to judge what is and is not appropriate for Wasteland, because they have not played it, have not tried to experience it in Let's Play form, and in general know nothing about it other than "spiritual ancestor to Fallout" - which is a far cry from saying Fallout and Wasteland are the same.

[Drool]

Fallout - Ditto. And the layout of the military base was even the same.

...what? The layouts weren't even remotely similar.

[Hell Razor]

Yeah, Fallout had to forgo the 80s Cold War aesthetic. The 80s and the Cold War were over, so it wasn't contemporary, but it also wasn't retro-chic either (and still isn't). The 50s Cold War, however, was recognizable as a retro aesthetic, so Fallout went for that.

But even that was a bit tacked on... Fallout still had the "Skum Pitt" and the "Skulz" and other leather/spiked punks with high-tops and shoulder pads, and 80s references in names like "Gizmo" and "Decker," which makes me even question anyone who is claiming that the aesthetic and thematics elements were all that different.

The Rangers were replaced with Vault Dwellers. That's about it for any core differences.

Otherwise, the story, setting, quests, game mechanics, and tone of the game were extremely similar to Wasteland, with most of the core elements of the game directly in parallel to those in Wasteland. If you don't agree, you seriously need to do a quick play-through of each again. It seems willfully stubborn not to acknowledge that Fargo remade Wasteland as Fallout. Same basic game, but in a very worthy rebirth and reworking. The two games progress along the same routes, using two variations of the same general conflicts, characters and locations throughout. Every step of the way in Fallout, you can say, "oh yeah, this is just like the _______ from Wasteland."

Even if you don't agree that Fallout was a remake, I still find it ridiculous to suggest that they are so different from one another that there could possibly be Wasteland 2 that bears no resemblence to any Fallout. A game called Wasteland that bears no resemblence to Fallout would be a far cry from Wasteland. It would have to be Angry Birds using Army Rangers instead of birds. That's about the only possible game I can imagine that has anything in common with Wasteland but nothing in common with Fallout.

[EagleEyez]

I think this quote may be relevant here (from: http://www.ripten.com/2012/03/27/brian- ... fun-again/ )

MF: Do you think people who have never played Wasteland are expecting the game to be more like Fallout?

BF: The games are very similar. I think the things that drew people to Wasteland and Fallout are the similarities. It’s not like the top-down graphics are what grabbed people with Wasteland. There was this open sandbox world and we weren’t preaching to you as to how to behave, in terms of a morality perspective. The “correct” thing to do was never clear, and sometimes, there weren’t clear, correct things. There was also a lot of cause and effect and a lot of subtlety; layers and layers of gameplay in a post-apocalyptic world, with an interesting combat system.

Both of those games have the exact same things going for them. Really, it was the worlds that drew people in, without so much concern about “that one was top-down” and “this one is isometric.” Well, we’re probably more likely to be going with isometric, because, graphically, it looks more interesting. It’s all the things that the two games have in common that are going to be in Wasteland 2, except for the party system. Wasteland was more of a party-based game. You start off with your four main rangers, and you swapped NPCs in and out based on what particularly skills they had. All the things that people loved about those two games? Wasteland 2 will have all of those elements.

[undecaf]

I think this quote may be relevant here (from: http://www.ripten.com/2012/03/27/brian- ... fun-again/ )

MF: Do you think people who have never played Wasteland are expecting the game to be more like Fallout?

BF: The games are very similar. I think the things that drew people to Wasteland and Fallout are the similarities. It’s not like the top-down graphics are what grabbed people with Wasteland. There was this open sandbox world and we weren’t preaching to you as to how to behave, in terms of a morality perspective. The “correct” thing to do was never clear, and sometimes, there weren’t clear, correct things. There was also a lot of cause and effect and a lot of subtlety; layers and layers of gameplay in a post-apocalyptic world, with an interesting combat system.

Both of those games have the exact same things going for them. Really, it was the worlds that drew people in, without so much concern about “that one was top-down” and “this one is isometric.” Well, we’re probably more likely to be going with isometric, because, graphically, it looks more interesting. It’s all the things that the two games have in common that are going to be in Wasteland 2, except for the party system. Wasteland was more of a party-based game. You start off with your four main rangers, and you swapped NPCs in and out based on what particularly skills they had. All the things that people loved about those two games? Wasteland 2 will have all of those elements.

That, combined with the way he explains combat in that interview (plus the hints towards Fallout's mechanics in other interviews), makes makes me - if possible - even more interested in this game. The idea of a combination of Wasteland's way and Fallout's way, is really intriguing to me. I mean, it was evident that some of Fallout's mechanics were going to be used in some manner (major or minor), but there's something in the way he explains it there, that gives me the good vibes - perhaps it was the clarification on how they're going to meddle with it (I haven't seen anything this exact said about it before). Might even raise my pledge if the vision document clarifies things favorably further in this direction (resulting in a sensible and working compromise instead of copying either straight).

And the interview as a whole was really good too, people should read it.

[Leona]

Yeah, Fallout had to forgo the 80s Cold War aesthetic. The 80s and the Cold War were over, so it wasn't contemporary, but it also wasn't retro-chic either (and still isn't). The 50s Cold War, however, was recognizable as a retro aesthetic, so Fallout went for that.

But even that was a bit tacked on... Fallout still had the "Skum Pitt" and the "Skulz" and other leather/spiked punks with high-tops and shoulder pads, and 80s references in names like "Gizmo" and "Decker," which makes me even question anyone who is claiming that the aesthetic and thematics elements were all that different.

The Rangers were replaced with Vault Dwellers. That's about it for any core differences.

Otherwise, the story, setting, quests, game mechanics, and tone of the game were extremely similar to Wasteland, with most of the core elements of the game directly in parallel to those in Wasteland. If you don't agree, you seriously need to do a quick play-through of each again. It seems willfully stubborn not to acknowledge that Fargo remade Wasteland as Fallout. Same basic game, but in a very worthy rebirth and reworking. The two games progress along the same routes, using two variations of the same general conflicts, characters and locations throughout. Every step of the way in Fallout, you can say, "oh yeah, this is just like the _______ from Wasteland."

Even if you don't agree that Fallout was a remake, I still find it ridiculous to suggest that they are so different from one another that there could possibly be Wasteland 2 that bears no resemblence to any Fallout. A game called Wasteland that bears no resemblence to Fallout would be a far cry from Wasteland. It would have to be Angry Birds using Army Rangers instead of birds. That's about the only possible game I can imagine that has anything in common with Wasteland but nothing in common with Fallout.

Yes I agree with you totally those games have so much in common the only thing is party based vs lone wonderer theme.

[Leona]

I think this quote may be relevant here (from: http://www.ripten.com/2012/03/27/brian- ... fun-again/ )

MF: Do you think people who have never played Wasteland are expecting the game to be more like Fallout?

BF: The games are very similar. I think the things that drew people to Wasteland and Fallout are the similarities. It’s not like the top-down graphics are what grabbed people with Wasteland. There was this open sandbox world and we weren’t preaching to you as to how to behave, in terms of a morality perspective. The “correct” thing to do was never clear, and sometimes, there weren’t clear, correct things. There was also a lot of cause and effect and a lot of subtlety; layers and layers of gameplay in a post-apocalyptic world, with an interesting combat system.

Both of those games have the exact same things going for them. Really, it was the worlds that drew people in, without so much concern about “that one was top-down” and “this one is isometric.” Well, we’re probably more likely to be going with isometric, because, graphically, it looks more interesting. It’s all the things that the two games have in common that are going to be in Wasteland 2, except for the party system. Wasteland was more of a party-based game. You start off with your four main rangers, and you swapped NPCs in and out based on what particularly skills they had. All the things that people loved about those two games? Wasteland 2 will have all of those elements.

Thx for posting. Good explanation. It should truly take best from both worlds.

[paultakeda]

Yes I agree with you totally those games have so much in common the only thing is party based vs lone wonderer theme.

Which is why I am perplexed, gobsmacked and ultimately agonized by the many threads that try to make WL2 a lone wanderer/main character game.

[Brother None]

Which is why I am perplexed, gobsmacked and ultimately agonized by the many threads that try to make WL2 a lone wanderer/main character game.

Luckily, it doesn't matter.