Trouble ahead - Wasteland vs Fallout fans?

[Ausir]

Yeah, Brian Fargo uses "top-down" as a general term for isometric, helicopter view and the like, not necessarily only for Wasteland 1-like view.

[krellen]

Yeah, Brian Fargo uses "top-down" as a general term for isometric, helicopter view and the like, not necessarily only for Wasteland 1-like view.

When I spoke with him, I was specific in defining "top-down" as "like Wasteland" before he expressed his love for it.

[Brother None]

When I spoke with him, I was specific in defining "top-down" as "like Wasteland" before he expressed his love for it.

Right. And it is an option. But he's mentioned in interviews, on twitter and to me privately since quite a while back that isometric is a very likely candidate. I would think he'd like to do both.

[j_kyle]

If they make it 3d then they can make an adjustable camera view that can pan from isometric up to full topdown.
That way you could use either or both views.

In terms of tactical based combat I think that makes the most sense as it allows you to view the battlefield from all angles while planing your next move.

[Kide]

I would agree that it might be the best from tactical respect. But I just have never liked the 3D games as mutch. They just simply do not have the same feeling, or the same atmosphere. They just feel soulles to me. All the games before Neverwinter night's had way bigger soul in my opinion and feeling in them, that game was one of the first that lost it, to me.

[Kide]

And just came to my mind, that one way it might be done by the way would be to have rotational camera, whitch still would be so that it would not be in every angle.... What was the name of the game that had that system.... I think it was commandoes. That had a lot more freedom, than completly free camera, but it still had more direction's you could view the area/game.

[Lucius]

This really is my last chance to get a super-old-school cRPG, like Wasteland or the Ultimas before 6. When this becomes Fallout: Wasteland Edition (which it sounds like it will), that hope shall be forever dashed.

I don't think there shouldn't be more games like Fallout - there absolutely should be - but I really, really, really wanted something that looked, felt, and played more like Wasteland than like Fallout - this time, at least. And when I don't get it now, my hopes of ever getting it again will be forever dashed.

I feel a lot like this, with the exception of I don't want it to look so much like something from 1988. I'm not a big fan of FO1/2. I love Wasteland though, one of the best games ever made. Definitely in my top 5.

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.

I don't fit into any of these groups! I've played Wasteland about 5 times since 9 yrs old and love it. I played FO3 and FO:NV and loved them. Fallout 1 & 2? Not so much, but I haven't ever given them a fair try though.

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.

This, this and this!!

[Zarradeth]

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?

Given the recent postmortem by Timothy Cain, I think it's safe to say that Wasteland 2 would have been isometric had they got the license. The engine was made before the game was designed. They decided to try and get the license to make Wasteland 2 after they had the isometric engine but they failed to get it. But, by the time they gave up on Wasteland 2, they liked the idea of making a post-apocalyptic game so much that they just went ahead and made Fallout. Hell, when Timothy Cain was making the engine (as a one-man team), he hadn't even played Wasteland yet, he was given a copy to play after the fact by co-workers that related Fallout to Wasteland.

Link to the postmortem for those that haven't seen it: http://www.gamespot.com/events/gdc-2012 ... id=6365393
(18:00 is when he starts talking about design, 20:00 is when he specifically mentions Wasteland. But the whole video is pretty relevant)

[Wild_Bill_711]

Not a "serious" gamer myself... love Wasteland... got a new desktop computer early in '94 or '95, ordered it with a 'game's package' that happened to include Interplay's 10 Year Anthology. Eventually got around to trying most of the games, Wasteland quickly became my favorite.

Have never played Fallout, and from what I've seen, the games are vastly different in both visual displays and 'how the game is played'.

I offer this as a comparison of the two distinctly different games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skRFORrIJOQ&feature=related


It will be interesting to see how inExile plans to resolve this potential conflict !!!

[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.

Why not?

Different scale? Fallout has ~1m fields, Wasteland has about ~6m fields in the city.

Or rather, why would it be preservable in top-down? The pure-text combat is p much out.

Wasteland didn't have pure text combat. It had a map and animated creature portraits. (Though the interface was very fast to use when it comes to targeting. Just press A, the number of enemy unit and if its an automatic weapon S, B or C.) Combat animations slow things down. And is it even possible to graphically represent getting riddled with bullets as he peels down one last shot?

Generally, I like Wasteland's combat style (and I haven't played Wasteland until 2006 or 2008, so no nostalgia is involved) and would love to see a development of it. It would be a shame if it would be replaced with Rebelstar (1986) combat style.

[Lexx]

If they make it 3d then they can make an adjustable camera view that can pan from isometric up to full topdown.
That way you could use either or both views.

Sounds like the best move to me. Kind of like in Incubation, where you could switch between various camera positions.

[krellen]

If they make it 3d then they can make an adjustable camera view that can pan from isometric up to full topdown.
That way you could use either or both views.

Sounds like the best move to me. Kind of like in Incubation, where you could switch between various camera positions.

I'm a little tired of pointing it out, but 3D Top-Down is not the same thing as 2D Top-Down.
This:

Not This:

[Ausir]

Wasteland 2 is certainly not going to use 8-bit graphics, you can be sure of that. And them using a 2D engine is unlikely.

[krellen]

Wasteland 2 is certainly not going to use 8-bit graphics, you can be sure of that. And them using a 2D engine is unlikely.

I'm not going to accept "lol, modern is better" as a reason why there will be no 2D (which is the only real argument I've heard so far, including those "oh, a 3D engine is the cheap way to do things these days") and until Mr. Fargo gives us some visual details I refuse to abandon my grognard fort championing the old ways.

[Ausir]

So, what exactly is better about using 2D graphics?

[paultakeda]

Wasteland 2 is certainly not going to use 8-bit graphics, you can be sure of that. And them using a 2D engine is unlikely.

I'm not going to accept "lol, modern is better" as a reason why there will be no 2D (which is the only real argument I've heard so far, including those "oh, a 3D engine is the cheap way to do things these days") and until Mr. Fargo gives us some visual details I refuse to abandon my grognard fort championing the old ways.

Yeah, the problem with 3D top down is exactly what you see in that screenshot: all you see are heads and shoulders.

If it's isometric, I'd want to be able to shift the camera so I can view the map from any of the four cardinal directions (if it's 3D and free flowing with zoom and all, I guess, but really, you just need to be able to toggle NSEW so you can see all sides).

The world map will definitely be top down 2D (or a 3D engine still looking like top down 2D).

It's not a question of 2D/3D for me. It's exploring the practical ways of implementing split party tactics on a turn based map. What kind of map should that be, given today's tool set?

[krellen]

So, what exactly is better about using 2D graphics?

They're cleaner and simpler.
They allow a general visual picture without eliminating the use of imagination and textual description.
They're easier on the eyes.
They're the native format of the media - monitors aren't typically 3D projections, after all.
They allow a greater range of artistic creativity.
They allow easier translation of graphical media - most artists learn to draw and paint, on 2D surfaces, before they tackle 3D modelling, and thus generally have more practice.
They can be generated faster without sacrificing artistic integrity; sure, you can get high detail 3D renders, but you do not get those renders in less time than a skilled artist could draw it in 2D.
They give the artist greater control over ascetics - they get to decide perspectives, proportions, etc. Greater control in turn leads to better ascetic design.

[timobkg]

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.

Have you ever played Fallout Tactics? Tactical combat across huge maps in an isometric game. The maps were so big enough to drive a jeep across for transportation.

The isometric perspective gives you vertical depth. In an isometric game, I can climb on the roof and shoot down through a skylight at enemies inside the building. I can hug the wall under a balcony to avoid detection of enemies standing on the balcony. How do you do that in a top-down view without forcing the player to manually cycle through vertical slices like in Dwarf Fortress?

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?

Well, no one is arguing that Wasteland 2 should use the Fallout setting, so the next big difference is that in Fallout you play a single character, and can recruit 1-3 NPCs to fight alongside you. If the single PC dies, you lose.

In Wasteland, you have 4 PCs, and can recruit 1-3 NPCs to fight alongside the PCs. You play as a squad, rather than as a person in the game. If one of the PCs dies, you keep going and can replace them with another PC.

I feel this gap can be bridged in Wasteland 2 by letting players create up to 4 PCs, or create 1 PC and pick from a roster of pre-generated PCs to fill out the squad. That way, those that want their own custom party can have it, and those that want to play as a person, the squad leader, can have that too. If the created PC dies, your squad continues on until it can head back to HQ where you roll a new squad leader.

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.

I tried, and it's just too much effort. The sounds (at least from DosBox) are really annoying, the interface is cumbersome, having to type in keywords is annoying, having to constantly reference a pdf is a pain, etc. If it was a 4 hour game, sure, but putting up with it for 30+ hours? I'd rather just watch the condensed Let's Play instead.
I can't play Ultima 4 either, and I wouldn't have been able to get through Monkey Island without the Special Edition remake. I also can't browse the internet from a dial-up modem, or use a Pentium II laptop with Win 95 as a daily computer, or a 1024x768 CRT monitor. Once you get used to new technology, it's hard to go back.

[csis]

I'm another person who's never played Wasteland. However, I've done a bit of reading about it, and looked up gameplay footage on youtube.

I am not looking for a Fallout sequel. As far as several of the worries Wasteland fans have had:

Solo vs group - Make it a group, I don't care! If this is part of the core of Wasteland, why get rid of it?

Setting - So Wasteland is a different kind of post apocalyptic than Fallout. More green, less brown, more 80s, less 50s. Cool! Again, why would I care about that? There are certain things that define Fallout games, this isn't a Fallout game, so I don't expect them.

The only sense that I am looking for a Fallout sequel is that I'd like this to be a game where the world is immersive, the decisions matter, there are lots of cool sidequests and hidden gems, and there is quirky humour and violence.

Though I will add that while I also want this game to be 2D and isometric, there's no reason for it to look like the oldschool 8bit Wasteland 1 (Is anyone serious about wanting that?). This IS 2012, I'd say graphics comparable to Fallout 2 are a minimum, and they'll probably be better. I don't see how that can possibly be a bad thing, I have faith that the designers can make an awesome looking top-down game that maintains the feel they're looking for.

[scorpius]

Solo vs group - Make it a group, I don't care! If this is part of the core of Wasteland, why get rid of it?

Yeah, why? They can allways die on the way as we go along