Solo vs Group: Why not both?

[BatCountry]

Exactly... I think having to explain this at all reinforces your point that people don't understand the difference.... probably because there hasn't been a proper party-based RPG since I was a teenager.

Well, there was Temple of Elemental Evil, but that was a Troika game and thus no one knew it existed until they were already out of business.

Point, that was a brilliant game... The indignation of having my rogue eaten by a frog was palpable.

[Vaux]

[L]et's say Fargo and team decide to make it a game with a main character for everyone. All other party aspects remain fully "party based", with the caveat that you have a squad leader, for example. Would that ruin the game for you?

"Ruin"? Probably not. But I wouldn't be comfortable calling the game a true "Wasteland 2".

The name is it for the background and world interaction or for the gameplay?

If it's for the gameplay, I have bad news for you, wasteland 2 wouldn't have the same gameplay than wasteland, party based or not.

And in every team there are a leader who take decision, so a main character.
You talk about create 4 different characters, but in fact they don't have own personality but the same, they can't leave the group by themselves or being outraged by your choices, you just have one character divided in 4 parts.

The best choices for a rpg imo it's to have one character who is the "incarnation" of the player, and recruit others character who think by themselves. (and have a full developed background)

[Arikel]

If you really want to go solo, if i remember right the first game does allow you to do this. There are 7 total character slots that you can fill in the party, and you are allowed to make UP to 4 characters at the start of the game, however if you wanted to you could just make one and fill out all the slots with npcs that you meet. I see no reason why the new wasteland game wouldn't allow you to start after having made just one character. There is no need to have separate starting stories unless the developers choose to create multiple starting vignettes like in DA:O or ToEE, you just create one Desert Ranger instead of 4.

[krellen]

The name is it for the background and world interaction or for the gameplay?

Games are a combination of setting and gameplay. I am unreasonably incensed by changes to gameplay in so-called sequels, especially radical changes. For instance, I do not consider Mass Effect 2 to be in the same genre as Mass Effect 1, and therefore do not see Mass Effect 2 as a worthy sequel to the original.

[Drool]

So it's pretty black & white in your opinion then.

Definitions have a nasty habit of being black-and-white. Yes, a "party-based game" requires a party. That's why it's called a party-based game. A 2d side scrolling platformer needs to be 2d, scroll sideways, and involving jumping on platforms.

I still don't understand how a game where you recruit members to create a party, and can then either control or influence this party throughout the game, is not a party based game. What is it, if not that?

He already explained it, and rather well. It has to do with what happens if someone dies. Wasteland ended when everyone died. Curse of the Azure Bonds ended when everyone died. Bard's Tale ended when everyone died. Fallout ended when the Dweller died. Planescape: Torment ended (sort of) when Nameless died (sort of). There's a difference between acquiring a party, and being party-based.

Actually, the original Bard's Tale is a fantastic example of a party based game, if only because it was such a freaking meat grinder in the beginning. You can easily go through dozens of heroes at low levels just from walking around town at night. But as long as a single hero can drag their bleeding and broken body to the Adventurer's Guild, you can build a whole new party and start again.

[kaotikrys]

So it's pretty black & white in your opinion then.

Definitions have a nasty habit of being black-and-white. Yes, a "party-based game" requires a party. That's why it's called a party-based game. A 2d side scrolling platformer needs to be 2d, scroll sideways, and involving jumping on platforms.

Again, you're busting out the "definition" play, when I have yet to see a definition outside of your posts. I see no sources. Where is the official claim that "party-based" means exactly what you're saying, and not just a game where you have a party that you control?

I can provide examples of people referring to games as party-based, which you would not agree are party based: http://knights.calltoreason.org/?p=4804

So again, other than your opinion, where is it determined that "party-based" means exactly and only what you say?

As far as I can tell, unless I take what you say without question, Wasteland 2 can be a "party-based" game, even if the party aspects are the same as BG, Dragon Age, Fallout, etc. I see no evidence otherwise...

You might as well just say "if it's not exactly like Wasteland's party mechanics, it's no good for Wasteland 2 in my opinion". That's effectively all that is happening here.

In any case, I'd say that to the majority of supporters, the OP's idea can be implemented in WL2, and it will in fact still be a party-based game. Perhaps not in your opinion, but, that's your opinion.

[Vaux]

The name is it for the background and world interaction or for the gameplay?

Games are a combination of setting and gameplay. I am unreasonably incensed by changes to gameplay in so-called sequels, especially radical changes. For instance, I do not consider Mass Effect 2 to be in the same genre as Mass Effect 1, and therefore do not see Mass Effect 2 as a worthy sequel to the original.

Wait, I don't play at Mass Effect 2, but I heard the only difference in gameplay is just the inventory who is more limited in the 2? You're crazy dude

For me the most important part for this game is the RPG side, I don't care of gameplay until it's don't nerf the RPG side and it's pleasant to play, it's can be a space shooter it doesn't matter. But unfortunately with your party based you nerf the RPG side, you can't have interaction between your characters and they don't have background
I understand you are nostalgic about the first wasteland, but you really prefer have a copy instead of have the best RPG of all the time?

[Kide]

To me in this game, even if I do create a charachter that is the so called "main" charachter, I would not need it to be so that the game will be over if this invidual dies. Then the others just burry him/her and that will be great RPG element's, life in normal cases do not end because one charachter dies, after that I need to just have a probably new leader for the group.....

Something along the lines, that they have lost their leader /military leader, and someone new that I can then feel is making decisions again/being main charachter, even though there has been change in between....

I don't think that even if another person can feel of certan being more like the leader/main charachter, will make it so, that it has to make this charachter special in some way. Of course some players will just load after loosing this person, and if they wish to do it, then I think they can do it. That solves pretty mutch of the problem, if you do want to play it like itäs game over, then load the game. I think we as players can do that decision on our own. =)

[krellen]

Wait, I don't play at Mass Effect 2, but I heard the only difference in gameplay is just the inventory who is more limited in the 2?

That is far from the only difference. Firstly, "more limited" is putting it mildly. They all-but eliminated inventory, and completely eliminated mods. They also all-but removed the skills (going from a selection of dozens to a selection of 5), including removing all weapon skills (instead limited weapon choice by class). They removed skill requirements for hacking and lockpicking. They added regenerating health (removing medigel) and made the whole game-play a cover-based shooter (complete with suddenly adding ammo.)

Interaction with your party does not make an RPG. A dialogue tree does not make an RPG.

[Vaux]

Interaction with your party does not make an RPG. A dialogue tree does not make an RPG.

It's doesn't make an RPG but it contributes

[paultakeda]

You talk about create 4 different characters, but in fact they don't have own personality but the same, they can't leave the group by themselves or being outraged by your choices, you just have one character divided in 4 parts.

Man, that's a really weird way of looking at it. I really think there's a generation gap among players who played Wasteland, Bard's Tale, Pool of Radiance, Sentinel Worlds, etc. and those used to the FP-RPG of today.

I liked creating multiple characters and imbuing them with personality. I again point to the YouTube Let's Play of Wasteland for information on how these types of games allowed players to be creative with their party.

The best choices for a rpg imo it's to have one character who is the "incarnation" of the player, and recruit others character who think by themselves. (and have a full developed background)

Why do I get the feeling this is exactly what a publisher was pushing on Brian Fargo and counts as one of the things that made him see red?

Best is relative. I enjoyed Dragon's Age: Origins and Mass Effect. I even enjoyed older games that did the same thing, like Fallout and Hard Nova. But this is not Wasteland. You want that, you have Fallout. No, really, you HAVE Fallout.

Wasteland is a return to the party-based CRPG, something that I don't think exists in this century's crop of RPGs. That, to me, was the pitch.

[paultakeda]

Just to close: it's perfectly all right in a party-based game to create one character and recruit a whole bunch of NPCs. I am fine with having party slots be PC/NPC agnostic so long as one slot is a PC.

The point is it doesn't matter to the game. There is no Chosen One, no Warden, no Shepard.



That's a different kind of RPG, and right now it's the dominant one on the shelves so you are not lacking for choice here.

[Kide]

^Yeah there are plenty of games where you are onyl creating one main charachter. Adn even when as said I also enjoy having only one main charachter more, I still enjoy Icewindale series or might and magic or wizardry over fallout 3 or the new games with many other bad thing's included in them. ^^ They unfortunatly are not games that I enjoy nearly as mutch as any of the older games.

But as said, I am fine to create 4 charachter's, though I still would prefer some way of making them have more personality in game, and having eatch have some kind of back round etc. ^^ I hope that is not too mutch to ask for.

[Vaux]

Why do I get the feeling this is exactly what a publisher was pushing on Brian Fargo and counts as one of the things that made him see red?

Best is relative. I enjoyed Dragon's Age: Origins and Mass Effect. I even enjoyed older games that did the same thing, like Fallout and Hard Nova. But this is not Wasteland. You want that, you have Fallout. No, really, you HAVE Fallout.

Wasteland is a return to the party-based CRPG, something that I don't think exists in this century's crop of RPGs. That, to me, was the pitch.

Bad luck, I hate dragon's age and mass effect is just a TPS for me.

And we already know the gameplay in wasteland 2 will not be the same as wasteland. You said frequently, this is not Fallout 4 (wait where is the 3? ), but it's not Wasteland: Enchanced edition in HD too. Something are great in wasteland, other things aren't, and don't forget some elements in wasteland are here just because they are technically restriction in 1988.

For Brian Fargo, don't forget who create this section and I just share my point of view for made the best RPG ever and I think it's the goal and the spirit of this forum.

Last thing, RPG is for Role Playing Game, that's means you play a role, you play your character, that's not really possible to do with 4 characters. What's the difference betwen create the all team or recruit them? In made your own team you can have a fully control on your stats but you lost the soul of your team, they don't have story, they don't have opinions and they don't interact with you, for me it's a big loss just for a little optimization.

edit: I'm a ok with the "Up to four player-created characters, with a cap of 2 or so on extra recruits" if the recruit still have a background and interaction with you

PS: I hope my post don't look like arrogant or agressive, I haven't mastered enough English for make more gently

[harborpirate]

If you aren't able to imagine personalities for separate characters, just make a single character. Be the 'chosen one' just like every other RPG out there these days.

But I don't want yet another 'chosen one' RPG that doesn't let me play my own characters. If they give joining NPCs loads of pre-generated content and story hooks, wonderful. If they give me optional story hooks that I can select for my custom party members, thats even better! But I don't want to be forced to play in the style of fallout or planescape. If I wanted to do that, I would just play those games!

[Kide]

I at least am not asking, that it would be played like fallout or such, as I do think the concept of having the goupr of 4 ranger's is great, and I would like to create my group of 4 ranger's. But i would love it even more if I can have them to have personalities still in game, that I can choose them to have. That would make the game pretty mutch perfect for me.

As I really do love that concept, the only game where I have met the same concept as such whtich I have been fortunate enough to play is wizardry 8, and I liked how differently these completly NPC charachter's reacted. They could just leave when ever they wanted etc. And that brings a lot more depth to it. Those NPC charachteräs do not have the same goal, so they can choose their own path, whitch is pretty mutch not something that can happen that dirctly in "party" based games where all your charachters are NPC charachter's. Those leave rarer and as you do not have any other companions, do need to rely a lot more to them.

But as said if I can then personalize my ranger's even more that would be awesome. Then it would be a perfect game for me, and still if someone does want to imagine all those things for themselves, they would still be able to do it if backrounds are not forced on them. So why can't there be this option for those who would love it, if they manage to have enough money and time to crete this kind of system? Would it really take away that mutch from those who would liek to imagine all things for themselves, if there is enough money gathered to creete these kind of backrounds?

[paultakeda]

Last thing, RPG is for Role Playing Game, that's means you play a role, you play your character, that's not really possible to do with 4 characters. What's the difference betwen create the all team or recruit them? In made your own team you can have a fully control on your stats but you lost the soul of your team, they don't have story, they don't have opinions and they don't interact with you, for me it's a big loss just for a little optimization.
edit: I'm a ok with the "Up to four player-created characters, with a cap of 2 or so on extra recruits" if the recruit still have a background and interaction with you

I think this is where the generation gap is most acute. Literally all CRPGs prior to the mid-90s involved party play. That's why it was novel when games like Hard Nova, Fallout and even Hillsfar (yes, Hillsfar) came out. Now we're in the opposite end, where such games dominate and have pretty much wiped out all possibility of reviving the party-based CRPG (again, why couldn't Wasteland 2 get funded by a publisher?).

Also, it means that you have played main character RPGs and therefore find it incomprehensible to create an entire party and impart each member with their own personal story as defined by you. I see it as the opportunity for limitless stories and interactions because in recent games I feel constricted by having to play this main character whose importance to the plot is so crucial that his/her death ends the game.

Don't you want to try something different? How about you give a modern version of the party-based CRPG a chance to get made before you try to turn it into another Chosen One game?

[BatCountry]

... that's not really possible to do with 4 characters. What's the difference betwen create the all team or recruit them?

I think this is where the generation gap is most acute. (snip) ...it means that you have played main character RPGs and therefore find it incomprehensible to create an entire party and impart each member with their own personal story as defined by you.

I agree strongly. This is a generation of gamers who probably never played pen-and-paper RPGs with friends, don't understand the concept of collaborative storytelling, and understand RPGs as being equivalent to "choose your own adventure" books.

They're puzzled by the idea of party-based games because they think "Hey, what do you mean party members 2 and 3 don't have a background written by a professional writer? What's the point then?" Their expectations have been trained and conditioned by the JRPGs and Bioware and Black Isle, which have produced excellent titles, but pretty much exclusively filled them with pre-constructed and exquisitely tightly-authored characters.

They remember Planescape: Torment (if you're lucky) and Final Fantasy 7-13, but they don't remember Final Fantasy 1, Wasteland or Pool of Radiance. They understand the party members of the party-driven RPG to be like the hollow skeletal randomly generated characters of Oblivion, Fallout 3, or MMO - devoid of individual personality because they're unaccustomed to engaging their imagination in that way, and know only how to develop the first-person perspective narrative in their imaginations.

They've simply never met a beast like the original Wasteland from the perspective of somebody seeing a cutting-edge RPG for the first time - it's a retro curiosity with a setting they want to be the sole human in, without understanding the freedom that a party gives you.

You don't have to make your main character do everything you can't find an NPC to do reliably - that's what the other 3 characters are for. Have a medic who happens to be insane and shoot anti-tank rockets at everything! Have a russian guy who does all your science work. Have a smooth latin fellow who is an expert diplomat and tactician. Maybe the character you identify with most out of your 4 is the angry stupid guy with the sledgehammer, maybe it's the doctor who runs around with a single pistol and a pile of clips who's called "Dr. BulletSurgery."

The pure party-driven RPG is an animal totally foreign (unless you count ToEE) to most everybody under the age of 30. Let them discover the glory. I doubt if the Wasteland 2 team is going to decide suddenly to make yet another "chosen one" game. Let us see what unfolds.

[krellen]

"Dr. BulletSurgery."

He might fit in well with my other Rangers, who apparently now will be Chatty McPrettyFace (who obviously will be the Tank) and Ranger Mullet.

[Azriel]

You talk about create 4 different characters, but in fact they don't have own personality but the same, they can't leave the group by themselves or being outraged by your choices, you just have one character divided in 4 parts.

Man, that's a really weird way of looking at it. I really think there's a generation gap among players who played Wasteland, Bard's Tale, Pool of Radiance, Sentinel Worlds, etc. and those used to the FP-RPG of today.

I liked creating multiple characters and imbuing them with personality. I again point to the YouTube Let's Play of Wasteland for information on how these types of games allowed players to be creative with their party.

The best choices for a rpg imo it's to have one character who is the "incarnation" of the player, and recruit others character who think by themselves. (and have a full developed background)

Why do I get the feeling this is exactly what a publisher was pushing on Brian Fargo and counts as one of the things that made him see red?

Best is relative. I enjoyed Dragon's Age: Origins and Mass Effect. I even enjoyed older games that did the same thing, like Fallout and Hard Nova. But this is not Wasteland. You want that, you have Fallout. No, really, you HAVE Fallout.

Wasteland is a return to the party-based CRPG, something that I don't think exists in this century's crop of RPGs. That, to me, was the pitch.

That's jumping to conclusions to support your argument. In the interview he did clearly stated some of the changes like FPS, or what color boots people were wearing and things of that nature. If he comes on and says that wasteland wont have a leader character or that we can play a solo character then we will politely shut up and move on. However, until that happens, we will assume he is at least open to the idea of a leader/solo character.