Trouble ahead - Wasteland vs Fallout fans?

[axeldeath]

If you're funding Wasteland 2 and you're posting on this forum then I see no reason why you haven't at least tried Wasteland.

[lordfrikk]

Indeed, or you can look up a Let's Play on youtube.com if you can't be bothered to play it yourself.

Anyway, I played Fallout first (in order) and then somewhere after Fallout 3 was released I played Wasteland. Love both for different reasons, although some of them obviously overlap. Still want this game to be a sequel to Wasteland, not Fallout, though.

[BrotherMagneto]

Am I wrong but is a large amount of the debate here resulting from three groups of forum users?

1. Individuals who played Wasteland when it was released in 1988 and played Fallout 1, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.

2. Individuals who only played Fallout 1, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.

3. Individuals who only played Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas.

All three groups have valuable ideas and great imaginations but what the fans need from the development team is establishment of some common ground.

That covers it, but there are also a couple of different expectations abut what WL2 will be from one or more of the above:

1. A direct WL2 sequel that lives in the oldest of schools.
2. A sequel that incorporates most of WL feel but other games since then (which is what Brian Fargo seems to be hinting is what he's doing.)
3. A Fallout sequel.
4. Bringing back the cancelled Van Buren, which has become more myth than reality in the minds of fans who felt screwed by Fallout 3.

I personally fall somewhere between 1 and 2, probably closer to 2, but with a liberal sprinkling of 1 in there - important things like parties vs. one character, and the 80s zeitgeist.

[Kide]

I understand what you mean krellen. I would not like it if I felt some other fans would want something else from Arcanum/2 than I would feel should be in it. Though in this setting it is harder the make the defination, as both wasteland and fallout are based on earth, in relativly the same envirment, with the difference being what mood is in the world and this party based and not "chosen one" story.

The differences just need to be made clear to those who have not played wasteland originally, and that's my opinion. And I am sure the developers know aproximatly what they wish to take from fallout and other later rpg's and what they wish to keep from wasteland. It is nice to here some clarification at some point, from some things. But the fact that fallout was created because at the time wasteland 2 had not been able to be created is one source of a problem of why it might make others think differently of this game been made if they have not played wasteland originally.

I understand all of the contributers to this progress that hav played at least some older games, but not sure how I someone who has not played any older games (only fallout 3 and for) would get into supporting this.... As there's miles of of a difference in all older games to the new ones.

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

I am an oldschool RPG fan and I mean the Wasteland/Ultima (up to 7) & early NES school of RPGs that didn't try to achieve photorealistic detail and left a lot of the story up to you to imagine. Those characters in my Wasteland party weren't just the names. I imagined their appearance and everything. I usually had Rocky & Bullwinkle in my party, and they were cartoon characters blowing things up and pounding them into sides of meat. Making up a story to go with your characters is the fun part of role-playing.

I like the ethos of Wasteland. I also like Fallout 1 & 2. But I kind of fell off the RPG world somewhere around 2000 and I can't really get into FPS games either. I am still in that world of the Ultima VII type of RPG because back then the game worlds were huge and didn't tell you which way to go. Now, I get that fix from indie RPGs made by RPG Maker since they carry on somewhat in that tradition and the occasional virtual novel which is closer to that style of RPG than the tactical RPG is. So, what I am saying is that I am kind of a Wasteland geek and I thought I was the only one out there until this started!

My ideal game is a game that simulates the fun of playing a table top role playing game. The early RPGs effected that, but with the emergence of more detailed graphics the size and scope of the games drastically declined. The games have become bloated from 600 kilobytes to 15 gigabytes but the choices in the game are fewer and fewer.

I want (ideally) something from WL2 I have always wanted from the computer RPG and that's the ability to make choices that change the game world. If you can get that from a dating sim like Princess Maker then you should be able to get it from Wasteland. Do things differently and you come out with different endings in the game. You could have hundreds of Wastelands in a game even the size of Fallout and simulate that many more scenarios and outcomes that depend on your choices. Build up different skills and recruit different NPCs and get a different story. A RPG game with multiple possible stories that you can get from playing a different character! Imagine!

I don't mind the graphics of Wasteland 2 being isometric or whatever, the important part to me is the story and the ability to affect the story with my choices. I would like to have different stories for different parties because your characters are different people and every character can't beat the game the exact same way and because I might explore locations in a different order. To me, playing real different characters is what's role playing. The the developers shouldn't sacrifice that to make Wasteland 2 a prettier game. They can make it a prettier game and give me more role playing options.

[Ausir]

there's the iconics; Vault Boy, the PipBoy, Vaults, Super Mutants, Ron Perlman. Anything that fans instantly recognise as "Fallout" would be verboten in a Wasteland game; they share a soul, perhaps, but their faces and clothes are entirely different.

Well, there's power armor, ghouls, and Wasteland's shadowclaw was an inspiration for deathclaws.

[krellen]

Well, there's power armor, ghouls, and Wasteland's shadowclaw was an inspiration for deathclaws.

There's a reason those weren't in my list of "iconics".

(Although I believe descriptions of the Guardians implied that Wasteland's Power Armour was black.)

[Ausir]

Yeah, but they are also things that fans would instantly recognize as "Fallout", even if they appear in Wasteland as well. Sure, we never saw the power armor and "ghoul" was just a name for some of the mutant enemies you encountered, but they went on to play a major role in Fallout, and I wouldn't mind them having one in Wasteland 2 either.

No, I hope there could be Arcanum 2, that was what I was saying. =) After wasteland 2 there might be hope of getting Arcanum 2 as well, or so I hope. =)

I wouldn't get your hopes up for an actual Arcanum sequel - Activision owns the original. Although perhaps there might be a spritual successor some day.

[cdoublejj]

It's pedantic to point out BioShock failed as a spiritual sequel?

While I can appreciate the way you feel, I'm not really obsessing over specific looks myself. This is a chance to get pen-and-paper focused, TB cRPGs back on the map. That's the main battle we're fighting. I'm not one to quibble over details. If it had been kept alive as a genre for the past decade it would have changed anyway. It's not about being retro for the sake of being retro, it's about utilizing a unique genre that has been almost completely abandoned.

I think I can agree with this ans also feel this way. Any one remember Shadowrun for the sega? Oh i'd love to see top down cRPG sequel to this.

Am I wrong but is a large amount of the debate here resulting from three groups of forum users?

1. Individuals who played Wasteland when it was released in 1988 and played Fallout 1, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.

2. Individuals who only played Fallout 1, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.

3. Individuals who only played Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas.

All three groups have valuable ideas and great imaginations but what the fans need from the development team is establishment of some common ground.

about group number 3.... NOPE, NOPE, NOPE, NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE! NOPE!

Am I wrong but is a large amount of the debate here resulting from three groups of forum users?

1. Individuals who played Wasteland when it was released in 1988 and played Fallout 1, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.

2. Individuals who only played Fallout 1, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.

3. Individuals who only played Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas.

All three groups have valuable ideas and great imaginations but what the fans need from the development team is establishment of some common ground.

That covers it, but there are also a couple of different expectations abut what WL2 will be from one or more of the above:

1. A direct WL2 sequel that lives in the oldest of schools.
2. A sequel that incorporates most of WL feel but other games since then (which is what Brian Fargo seems to be hinting is what he's doing.)
3. A Fallout sequel.
4. Bringing back the cancelled Van Buren, which has become more myth than reality in the minds of fans who felt screwed by Fallout 3.

I personally fall somewhere between 1 and 2, probably closer to 2, but with a liberal sprinkling of 1 in there - important things like parties vs. one character, and the 80s zeitgeist.

Also we can't really bring back vanbruen Bethesda aka zenimax own the fallout IP and and will sue any one who even so much as scratches a fallout symbol or faction on their zippo.

seriously a guy was selling some lighter in which i carves the brotherhood of steel logo in i think he had 5 of them. Beth threatened to sue.

Yeah, but they are also things that fans would instantly recognize as "Fallout", even if they appear in Wasteland as well. Sure, we never saw the power armor and "ghoul" was just a name for some of the mutant enemies you encountered, but they went on to play a major role in Fallout, and I wouldn't mind them having one in Wasteland 2 either.

No, I hope there could be Arcanum 2, that was what I was saying. =) After wasteland 2 there might be hope of getting Arcanum 2 as well, or so I hope. =)

I wouldn't get your hopes up for an actual Arcanum sequel - Activision owns the original. Although perhaps there might be a spritual successor some day.

what if we do a kick starter but, with minimum funding that covers buying the I.P. too?

[Drool]

I think the disconnect is coming from the Fallout fans who want a "real" (however you define that) Fallout game that they somehow felt screwed out of, rather than a sequel to Wasteland.

This is the thing I don't get. I loved Fallout and I loved the setting, but it wasn't Wasteland. Fallout already got a sequel (several of them, in fact). Let the Wasteland sequel be a sequel to Wasteland, not Fallout. Just because they're similar, and just because they're both post-apocalyptic doesn't mean they're interchangeable.

I don't want to be a Wasteland snob or elitist, and I don't want to say that anyone who hasn't played the original needs to sit in the corner and shut up, but some of these threads are really depressing and discouraging. If you haven't played Wasteland, please, at the very least, go watch a play-through on Youtube.

[Kide]

It would be absolutly awesome to have a sequal to Arcanum, as that was really a game that I played as a teenager. (unfortunatly met fallout games only in older age). I love the concept and the world of Arcanum, even if combat was horrendous, and my mage became evil while casting spells in a cave (realized this when my good allies started to say they hate me). It is still the one game I have played the most times through, as there are just so many choises you can have to what skills to develope to your charachter, and it is great tha you canät have all the traits maxed out in the game. So that there is reason to play it again.

And no I do not bring my hope's up, I know it will be hard thing to get the game out, but still just gave out an example that I would loveto have more of the old school games.

And to be honest the stories that do revolve just around one person, that if they die the story will end, are more boring in the aspect that they ain't realistic in one way.... Yeah that person's story dies, but the world does go on.

Drool: I actually do not want to go to watch any play throgh's of any games, because I always prefer to try them out myself. There is way less enjoyment for me to watch a game be played through internet than to play it myself, just need to find time at some point and try it out at least a little bit. We do have DOSbox on this computer, so should be able to get it working with it, I think.

And to say the trought, I don't really understand those people who have only played fallout 3 and new vegas, if they have bagged this project, as then they have not experienced the olde games in any way... If there are people of that group here, then they surely might have different expectasions.

[BrotherMagneto]

I don't want to be a Wasteland snob or elitist, and I don't want to say that anyone who hasn't played the original needs to sit in the corner and shut up, but some of these threads are really depressing and discouraging. If you haven't played Wasteland, please, at the very least, go watch a play-through on Youtube.

I made a comparison (glibly I'll admit) in another thread that to me the prospect of a bunch of Fallout fans who never played the original and want WL2 to be VB is a reasonable equivalent in taste and truth to the source material as many fans felt Fallout 3 was to Fallout 1 and 2. In other words - I don't want to get steamrolled over by inXile being forced to cater to the tastes of angry hardcore Fallout fans, then end up potentially ruining a beloved experience of mine in the process, in the same way those hardcore fans felt streamrolled by Bethesda catering to the broseph crowd's tastes when they made Fallout 3.

And yes... it's very discouraging reading some of the threads here about it.

[Brother None]

No offense, but do you really believe that if Fallout had gone through as Wasteland GURPS, it would've been as close to Wasteland as some of you are calling for? Would it even have been top-down, I wonder?

I'm not one for "modernization", but I don't think we should stick to design elements with no better rationale than "that's how the first did it". There's gotta be more to it than that. For Fallout, I could explain why it had to be TB, and consequently why it needed a high-up camera. I can do the same for Wasteland. But for top-down? The only reasoning I got for it is "that's how the first did it". That's not enough.

[krellen]

But for top-down? The only reasoning I got for it is "that's how the first did it". That's not enough.

Because I liked the way it looked.

Because it gives a far better tactical overview than isometric.

Because it allows a much broader range of design - good Isometric design avoids placing important objects in locations obscured by the realities of the isometric camera.

Because it gives a far better tactical overview than isometric. (Yes, I repeated that, because I think it's a really important point.)

[Brother None]

Because I liked the way it looked.

That's cool.

Because it gives a far better tactical overview than isometric.

How? What if cover is a factor, how will I estimate it better with topdown? And even without that, do you get confused when looking at a chessboard from an angle rather than the newspaper-topdown versions? It is functionally identical. At worse, isometric can be a problem for Line-of-Sight stuff but you can easily design around that.

Besides, Wasteland didn't even use topdown perspective for combat, so that's a weird element to bring in.

Because it allows a much broader range of design - good Isometric design avoids placing important objects in locations obscured by the realities of the isometric camera.

How? Top-down has always seemed like an immense limit on design myself. You are looking at everything from a helicopter perspective, and thus really only see a part of each character and building. Isometric, especially if it can be rotated, gives a fuller view.

[krellen]

Because it gives a far better tactical overview than isometric.

How? What if cover is a factor, how will I estimate it better with topdown?

Why estimate? Why not have the game tell you the effects of cover - you chance of hitting, fields of view, etc?

And even without that, do you get confused when looking at a chessboard from an angle rather than the newspaper-topdown versions? It is functionally identical.

Over a small unobscured area, perhaps. Over a larger, especially urban area, not so much. It's a lot easier to miss little details - such as cul de sacs and blind alleyways - in an isometric view.

Besides, Wasteland didn't even use topdown perspective for combat, so that's a weird element to bring in.

If you think there's any chance at all we'll get menu-driven, Wasteland/Bard's Tale style combat ...

well, if that's the combat we get, I don't care what the graphics are.

Top-down has always seemed like an immense limit on design myself. You are looking at everything from a helicopter perspective, and thus really only see a part of each character and building. Isometric, especially if it can be rotated, gives a fuller view.

Perhaps the disconnect we're having is that I'm not even considering 3D. I hate 3D graphics and am not really looking for something in a 3D engine. (Rotating the camera always gives me vertigo; I feel like I'm looking at things the wrong way up.)

But in good isometric design, there are two sides of buildings the player often cannot see - the top and the right sides. So good design limits the number of things - containers, doorways, enemies - that are on these sides of the screen so as to not "cheat" players because of an engine limitation.

[Brother None]

Why estimate? Why not have the game tell you the effects of cover - you chance of hitting, fields of view, etc?

Then what does perspective matter?

Over a small unobscured area, perhaps. Over a larger, especially urban area, not so much. It's a lot easier to miss little details - such as cul de sacs and blind alleyways - in an isometric view.

This is a bad thing?

Perhaps the disconnect we're having is that I'm not even considering 3D. I hate 3D graphics and am not really looking for something in a 3D engine.

Well, I don't think it'll be in 2D.

But in good isometric design, there are two sides of buildings the player often cannot see - the top and the right sides. So good design limits the number of things - containers, doorways, enemies - that are on these sides of the screen so as to not "cheat" players because of an engine limitation.

Sure. But that's a layout thing, not an art thing.

[Rzarkrusz Rowa]

You can't preserve the tactical/skirmish hybrid combat scale which is so characteristic for Wasteland when moving to a Fallout-style 3-d view.

The presentation style of Wasteland fits well with its mechanics which include fields that aren't 1-person sized but several metres wide and can accommodate the whole party and attacks against whole groups of enemies.

I'd prefer if these mechanics would be improved and made more sophisticated and developed into something different from what typical other cRPGs offer instead of replacing them with pure skirmish in style of ToEE and JA2.

I take it as read that none of here want real time, trigger happy shoot em ups, even isometric/3D ones (I note the criticism of the recent JA2 'reboot' combat mechanic here)- we are all in it for the stories, character development, and tactical, intelligent game play. But I have a question - are there *really* any deal-breaking differences/incompatibilities in the 'legacies' of Wasteland & FO 1/2 ? Can Wasteland 2 bridge the gap? Is there even a gap here? I genuinely don't know. Your thoughts?

In my NMA days I have never thought that there will be day when I would be at the opposite side of the barricade than other Fallout fans who want some game to be like Fallout.

I played Wasteland about 10 years later than Fallout and to be honest, I have no idea how Fallout can be a spiritual successor to Wasteland. Wasteland requires much more thinking than Fallout, has a tactical/skirmish turn-based WEGO combat system, is party-based, has more skills which can be used much more creatively than in Fallout, etc.
Fallout is a completely different game.

But really, the thing that bugs me the most are the posts that say "I didn't play Wasteland, but ..." I really do not comprehend why anyone who never played Wasteland would be excited enough about its sequel to come comment on its development (fund it, perhaps; opine on it, not so much) without some sort of desire to ultimately get some other project out of this altogether. I mean, unless that sentence ends "but I've done some research, watched a Let's Play, and think it looks really cool", anyway.

One thing that I can't comprehend is how a Fallout fan can decide to not play Wasteland after learning that Fallout is a "spiritual successor" to Wasteland.

[krellen]

Then what does perspective matter?

This is a bad thing?

Well, I don't think it'll be in 2D.

Sure. But that's a layout thing, not an art thing.

I'm tired of quote trees, so in order:

If perspective doesn't matter, personal ascetic choices win out, and thus top-down.

Yes, in a tactical game, missing details is a bad thing.

I'm still hoping for 2D, or something reminiscent thereof. Mr. Fargo himself is a fan of the top-down idea.

When I said design, I meant level design, not art design.

[Brother None]

If perspective doesn't matter, personal ascetic choices win out, and thus top-down.

Sure, and that's fine.

Yes, in a tactical game, missing details is a bad thing.

No. It's up to the player if he takes enough time to scope out the field or not. Unless the level design is bad, it should be viewable. Top-down makes it easier. But why is easier better?

I'm still hoping for 2D, or something reminiscent thereof. Mr. Fargo himself is a fan of the top-down idea.

Top-down is an option but last I talked to him, it's not winning out over isometric. Things might change, but if I had to wager right now, I'd say it'll be 3D and isometric, or isometric/top-down flex.

When I said design, I meant level design, not art design.

Oh, alright.

You can't preserve the tactical/skirmish hybrid combat scale which is so characteristic for Wasteland when moving to a Fallout-style 3-d view.

Why not? Or rather, why would it be preservable in top-down? The pure-text combat is p much out.