Shotguns and leather armor versus futuristic arsenal

[Takamorisan]

Yes, did you? I understand what was in Fallout 1&2, but can't this be it's own game? Can't we have one post apocalypse game without alien technology? Can't we separate from that tired cliche?

You know its awesome that you donated to WASTELAND 2, but hell you are not getting the spirit of the game at all

[Solomize]

You guys want to cut the progress of challenge due to " I want to look cool".

Hello Takamorisan. I would like you to explain, if you agree, what you mean by "cutting the progress".

I did not want to feed the war on "roleplay" definitions. I wanted to have a discussion about "mood", ambience. Some people think that leather jackets all the way is "looking cool". Some people thing that "laughing as bullets bounce off my Rangers" is "looking cool". Maybe we should forget the "looking cool" thing and think about immersion.

I like the kind of "struggling in the sand", with broken equipement, "ragtag" (please, someone confirms this word means something relevant ?). And I do not see the Sci-Fi settings as something mandatory. Thus, the "tiers" definition attempt and how I think it could be tuned for the best. Again : in my humble opinion.

I'd really like a true post apocalyptic game and no sci fi robots.

I'd really like people to stop posting suggestions based on their preconception of "Post-Apocalyptic" instead of based on "Wasteland". I guess we both need to get used to disappointment.

As I said, I have nothing against Sci-Fi elements if done well, and well balanced. An army of sentient robots can be very good. Now, are we, rangers, robots ? I think we are humans and could use the enemy's weapons to fight them. To some extend. Question is : which ? How far are we to "be" like them ? IF robots are involved. I did not play Wasteland in a long time. If they have been defeated, why.. why are they still there, somehow ? maybe, maybe not.

[Mandemon]

RPGs are defined by your character's skill determining the success of your actions, not the player's skill.

To expound:

Hitting an enemy is based off my character's ability to use their weapons, not my ability to accurately click a mouse cursor, fiddle a control stick, or hit buttons.

Opening a lock is based off my character's ability to open locks, not my ability to complete a mini-game.

Scaring a thug is based off my character's ability to intimidate people, not my ability to pick the right dialogue options.

Fixing a Jeep is based off my character's ability to fix Jeeps, not my ability to find the right parts or manipulate them into the right holes.

If that is definition of RPG, then why have quest? Why not have skill called "quest solving" and do skill checks against that? Why have characters even? Skills are there to help roleplaying. Why need a world if skills are all that matters? Why have characters?

[Takamorisan]

You guys want to cut the progress of challenge due to " I want to look cool".

Hello Takamorisan. I would like you to explain, if you agree, what you mean by "cutting the progress".

I did not want to feed the war on "roleplay" definitions. I wanted to have a discussion about "mood", ambience. Some people think that leather jackets all the way is "looking cool". Some people thing that "laughing as bullets bounce off my Rangers" is "looking cool". Maybe we should forget the "looking cool" thing and think about immersion.

I like the kind of "struggling in the sand", with broken equipment, "ragtag" (please, someone confirms this word means something relevant ?). And I do not see the Sci-Fi settings as something mandatory. Thus, the "tiers" definition attempt and how I think it could be tuned for the best. Again : in my humble opinion.

Well Krellen already explained but I guess I can simplify.

I will use Fallout for example.

You started your journey with your vault suit, tendency to meet basic combat armor and leather jacket guys armed with pistols , spears and knifes.
You will get that sort of equipment to fight back.
As your progress in the story the military equipment starts to upgrade and you need to pick those in order to survive in the wasteland, since military technology is the most valuable asset you can have.Will tell the rules, will decide who will survive and etc etc.Such is the setting you live.
Makes no sense you go with a 9mm gun loaded with hollow point bullets against an Enclave armored guy with a Plasma Gun.(In case of wasteland Uzi vs ultra technological cyborg)
You will say: B-b-but I want leather armor to be viable to fight against that guy ;_;

Take D&D pencil and paper for example does a DM ask a paladin lvl 1 with leather armor and great sword to fight a Dullaham for example?No!Because a Dullaham wears a bloody full plate +2 and a Greatsword +1 or 2 if you DM is feeling sadistic that day.
Its progression, leather armor won't endure against laser, high caliber bullets and w/e

If that is definition of RPG, then why have quest? Why not have skill called "quest solving" and do skill checks against that? Why have characters even? Skills are there to help roleplaying. Why need a world if skills are all that matters? Why have characters?

Congratulations you totally missed the point.

[Mandemon]

If that is definition of RPG, then why have quest? Why not have skill called "quest solving" and do skill checks against that? Why have characters even? Skills are there to help roleplaying. Why need a world if skills are all that matters? Why have characters?

Congratulations you totally missed the point.

I do see certain point of his post, but I think characters are more important than just having complex skill checks. RPG is more than just having a skill point character who runs around doing random things. Having a group of AFGNCAAPs ( Ageless-Faceless-Gender-Neutral-Culturally-Ambiguous-Adventure-Person) is not really Role Playing, is it?

[Takamorisan]

If that is definition of RPG, then why have quest? Why not have skill called "quest solving" and do skill checks against that? Why have characters even? Skills are there to help roleplaying. Why need a world if skills are all that matters? Why have characters?

Congratulations you totally missed the point.

I do see certain point of his post, but I think characters are more important than just having complex skill checks. RPG is more than just having a skill point character who runs around doing random things. Having a group of AFGNCAAPs ( Ageless-Faceless-Gender-Neutral-Culturally-Ambiguous-Adventure-Person) is not really Role Playing, is it?

According to your argument D&D never existed.
Read your post and think about it.

[Solomize]

hm.

Maybe. Now, who decided a "laser gun" ray should be more lethal than a bullet ? could be "their" technology, nothing more.

[Takamorisan]

hm.

Maybe. Now, who decided a "laser gun" ray should be more lethal than a bullet ? could be "their" technology, nothing more.

Well Brian Fargo on wasteland 1 decided it...
Just saying

[Solomize]

My question was rhetorical. We are lucky he asked for our opinion. I am glad you gave yours.

[Takamorisan]

You are welcome

[Mandemon]

I do see certain point of his post, but I think characters are more important than just having complex skill checks. RPG is more than just having a skill point character who runs around doing random things. Having a group of AFGNCAAPs ( Ageless-Faceless-Gender-Neutral-Culturally-Ambiguous-Adventure-Person) is not really Role Playing, is it?

According to your argument D&D never existed.
Read your post and think about it.

Ooookay, now I think you are missing my point. D&D is a rule set. It alone does not make a RPG. I have never claimed that D&D doesn't exist. To have a RPG you need characters, players, a rule set(or not, depends) and imagination. Players assumes a role of character, having character attempt to do things as he sees character would do. Skills are there to simulate what character can do, even if real life player can't. I sure as hell can't speak elf, but my character might be able.

[Takamorisan]

How you made your attack rolls on D&D?
If you answer it and analyze the mechanic you will finally get it.

[Son of Max]

I think the problem here is a narrow definition of what constitutes 'iconic post-apocalyptic' looks.

Now, if your only frame of reference (or the only one you accept) is Mad Max, I can understand why you're hung up on leather armor and shotguns.

I love the Mad Max flicks and like the idea of parts of the Wasteland world looking much like it. Some parts looking like Mad Max (towns that resemble the pre-war world, some semblance of pre-war life BUT...post-war problems), some looking like The Road Warrior and Mad Max Beyond Thunder Dome (barren wastes with little resemblance or even memory of the pre-war world, isolated compounds and Barter Town like hubs).

BUT...it's Wasteland 2. Not Mad Max: The CRPG!

You have to consider other post-apocalyptic writings and themes and world that are every bit as worthy of some incorporation.

Ever read Strontium Dog?




The protagonist, Johnny Alpha, was born during a strontium storm caused by...wait for it...a nuclear detonation during his world's World War 3.

He lives in a post-apocalyptic world, but it's different than Mad Max. It's got sci-fi elements, but that doesn't make it any less post-apocalyptic. (Granted, I doubt anybody wants to see space travel incorporated into Wasteland. I sure as hell don't, but that's only one aspect of Strontium Dog and nobody says EVERY aspect of the different inspirations NEEDS to be incorporated into Wasteland 2. The sure weren't in Wasteland.)

How about Terminator? They live in a post-apocalyptic world, but they aren't running around in leather.



Of course, I'd also like to see guys who look like Kyle Reese in 1984 in Wasteland 2 as well.



Point is, there's a lot of good post-apocalyptic media out there to borrow from to give Wasteland 2 it's own unique flavor and do what the original did when it would give a nod to popular and well known elements of the genre.

It's a big world, with room enough for Road Warriors, Strontium Dogs and Kyle Reeses and plenty of other nods to a great genre.

Hell, the Rangers (in some of the artwork that's been floating around here) look like post-apocalyptic Rough Riders.

Fixation on ONE concept or image from the genre narrows everything down to a dull world with very little in the way of surprises and intrigue.

Gotta say, one of the things I loved about the original was wondering where the laser weapons and high-tech armors came from in the first place...

[krellen]

Gotta say, one of the things I loved about the original was wondering where the laser weapons and high-tech armors came from in the first place...

Obviously the Serpioids brought them with them from Mars.

[Takamorisan]

Gotta say, one of the things I loved about the original was wondering where the laser weapons and high-tech armors came from in the first place...

Obviously the Serpioids brought them with them from Mars.

Shhhh you might destroy their dreams about Laser not being able to destroy leather like paper

[Harpo]

I'd really like a true post apocalyptic game and no sci fi robots.

I'd really like people to stop posting suggestions based on their preconception of "Post-Apocalyptic" instead of based on "Wasteland". I guess we both need to get used to disappointment.

Yeah. But we really like for you to stop call people stupid and condescend them, but that doesn't seem to happen either - so don't be that quick to judge peoples' ability to change their behavior. You've acted like this since the day you signed up on this forum and it brings nothing but a bad mood.

But hey, I might try the same and see how you respond. The opinion that choice has nothing to do with an RPG is so beyond retarded that it makes me, and probably a bunch of other people as well, laugh. That, bundled with your other comments, reasoning, and your behavior against other people also makes me question if you were really old enough to have played the game back in the days to begin with. It smells more like you just played it when you heard the news about Wasteland 2 and now you're trying to act like the knight in holy armor that need to condescend people to protect its holiness.

Grow up and start to worry about your own behavior before you try to lecture people on theirs.

[Drool]

Okay, serious question: why is gear progression a bad thing?

A great number of people, across several threads, have complained about this sort of thing. Why is tiered weaponry such a bad thing? Are people really that attached to leather jackets and 9mm pistols? Why is it a bad thing that a Laser Pistol is categorically better than a 9mm pistol? What's so bad about Pseudo-Chitin Armor being categorically better than a Bullet-Proof Shirt a bad thing?

And why does nobody complain about the Proton Ax being categorically better than a Club? Or Doctor being better than Medic? Or an RPG-7 being better than a Mangler?

Some things are just better than others. My current phone is better than the one I had 13 years ago. I don't complain about how I can't keep my first cell phone and how I was forced to upgrade. My current car is better than the deathtrap I had when I first started driving. My current computer is better than the 386 I had umpteen years ago.

Is it just because the first armor was a leather jacket? Would people be so attached if the game had started with the rather blandly named Bullet-Proof Shirt? Or is it something else? I mean, why would you ever expect that something you get at the beginning of the game to compare to something you got after hours and hours of adventuring? Furthermore, doesn't inflating the eponymous leather jacket and shotgun seriously deflate later gear? If a leather jacket and shotgun can work from day 1 until the end of the game, what's the point of Meson Cannons and Power Armor? What's the point of any gear? Why fight your way through the Guardians when something you found under the bed in Highpool is just as effective?

[Harpo]

I don't think it is just that leather jacket and 9mm versus the power armor and laser pistol. I will try to have a go at explaining why:

It is the fact that the item progression is often made in a way that only the benefits of the next tier is reflected in the game, but not the disadvantages. This way, the next tier of weapon (or other equipment) becomes better than the last in every aspect and thus negating the choice. The player then feels wrongfully forced to make a choice that he/she might not want to make due to role playing aspects. And I think that the wrongfully part is the one that bugs people the most. If there were reason to it would probably sting their eyes less.

But when a heavy machine gun - for example - does "the damage of an assault rifle + 2" and offer all the other advantages of an assault rifle, but nothing reflects the disadvantages of the same heavy machine gun (it has the same accuracy, you wield it just as easily, you can fire it standing without any loss in accuracy and so on), it is painfully obvious that this is the next tier of weapon and the game designer want me to pick this one and therefore only assign advantages to it. Pseudo choice.

Everyone talks about an open sandbox game and how a linear story wouldn't fit this type of game. I really agree, I just see the same despised linear way of progression applied to equipment instead of story. As much as this linear progression would kill the story, the same way some think it kills the equipment progression.

You are free to go anywhere and explore anything. You are free to role play your character in dialogue with interesting dialogue options. But yet you are forced to make linear decisions when it comes to gear? And not just because one thingy is better than the other thingy, but because all disadvantages of the first thingy has been left out to make your choice even less of a choice and even more linear. Why do we fight with claws to make story and dialogue as open as possible and as role playing friendly as possible, but then we accept poorly implemented equipment progression?

EDIT: The other thing that bugs me about this is that the skill system and the fact that it is a squad RPG encourages diversity in skills. A group with broader diversity and better group dynamics will be rewarded by having more options in the game (you can pick the lock instead of just breaking down the door etc). But the all those characters that are slowly becoming different personalities due to their specific skill set and the dialogue options you pick to define them, are suddenly molded into the same bulky dude with the laser rifle. They become generic instead of individual. And why? Because all your characters prefer the power armor? No. Because the poor game mechanics says that's what they have to wear of you want to have a fair chance of completing the game.

[Drool]

But, again, some equipment is simply better. Modern militaries don't use muzzle-loaded, unrifled, lead ball muskets any more because modern weapons are better. In every single way. Granted, the differences between a 9mm and an AK-97 aren't as striking, but I have not problem with the AK-97 because categorically better than the 9mm. Likewise, I don't have a problem with Power Armor being categorically better than a Leather Jacket.

I guess I just don't understand why people seem to think that a leather jacket -- something that isn't really even armor unless you're fighting upper-body road rash -- is going to compare in any way to a full-body suit of powered armor.

[Solomize]

*scratches his eyes*

We have great difficulties in understanding each others. Probably my fault, because I am not fluent in english. But it makes discussion a bit painful.