Don't "niche" yourself out of business

[Roger Wilco]

They've "niched" themselves into business on this project. It's really kind of a silly statement to make.

This project is purposefully targeting a niche. They aren't targeting the larger audience as a whole. And they shouldn't.
The niche that wants a Wasteland 2, as in a sequel to Wasteland, should be excited. Those that want something else, should spend their time and effort elsewhere.

You can't please please everybody and you really can't please different groups with varying opinions very well. This is actually one of the major failings of the big market videogame industry over the past decade or so. In trying to reach a larger market, they are trying to appeal to too many groups.

That's not going to happen here. If you weren't pleased by Wasteland. If you found the 90's Black Isle RPGs lacking, you aren't going to be pleased by Wasteland 2.

[CoderlyWriter]

*sigh*.

Okay. I'm guessing you haven't read my entire post, and I don't blame you -- it's a doozy -- but I conceded the point.

I'll admit, I never played Wasteland, agains, since I was 4 when it came out and didn't actually know places existed where I could buy software. Although, I did have access to a Commodore 64 at the time, so I could have played it, and regret that I missed out.

The idea for a group of prebuilt characters with existing bios sounds almost like a good compromise. Fallout and Fallout 2 had similar templates for the main character. Another way to do it would be the Arcanum route of creating prebuilt histories that affected a character's stats. And if I were building this game, and just bear with me here, I'm starting to think I'd go with a system I haven't seen. That is, multiple level backstories, each of which has effects on starting stats, for good or ill, and presents a challenge the character has to overcome. But I'm not sure I'd try it on 1.5 mil.

I will stand by using superficial improvements, of course, if only because I'm not sure my computer can do 256-color, 320x240 VGA. Though if possible, maybe a mode to simulate that would be neat for those of us who haven't played the original! I'm serious, there, by the way. Prince of Persia:Sands of Time included a playable version of the original game, and it was awesome. I understand that the actual original game can't be included for licensing reasons, but depending on what technology the team chooses to use, I think it could be done with just a rather complex shader(joining multiple fragments into a single pixel, clamping color values, etc.)

The UI certainly needs to change, from the screens I've seen. They did the best with what they had. They have more now. But I would say something like an extended version of the Fallout UI layout(though not the theme) would suffice. Definitely keep the message box. There's plenty of real estate for it, anyway.

And yeah, I would be pissed if(and only if) I'd paid for a prequel to Alien, and it turned out to have sparkly vampires and cheesy romance subplots(vampire falls in love with the Queen, but is afraid she'll send a facehugger to implant him? Then that happens, creating an immortal, unkillable race of sparkly super-aliens who just want to talk about their feelings and kill people...)

Personally, though, I'd also be rather annoyed if Wasteland 2 looked exactly like Wasteland 1. And I would rather the story was a little more mature, complex and tied-together than the original's, just from what I'm able to gather from the wiki. It doesn't have to be 'save the world', and in fact probably shouldn't, but maybe a little ray of hope? Otherwise I may not end up finishing it.

Another example I've come up with that might expose some common ground is Privateer. I would absolutely love a genuine sequel. And if you're looking for a game that doesn't hold your hand... The start of the main plot can only be found from a rumor in one of the stations that leads you to a system halfway across the sector, and there is no quest journal. That's necessary, though, since by the time you actually find the quest hook, you have the skills and equipment to survive.

*sigh*. I need to get an actual joystick so I can play that game again. My keyboard uses blocking, so if I press more than two keys at once, it reads as some other random key, and damnit, that usually opens the map or something.

Anyway, I can't think of many improvements in that particular genre myself. Partly, i think, because they're using the same damn formula now that they used when they made Elite. It works, don't mess with it. The game already had voice acting, at least on the CD version, and did fairly well with it. And yeah, I wouldn't appreciate anyone forcing a third-person EVE-like camera angle on it, no matter how pretty the ships are.

So I suppose I can see where you guys are coming from. And I hope we can put this issue to rest.

[CoderlyWriter]

Maybe we should be able to create a "main" character (More like a party leader, it's about the whole group but until the "main" dies then it's he who calls the shots.) and then pick 3 out of 20 possible pre-made NPC's?

Look. Play the original Wasteland. No, wait. Just turn it on and start. Notice your party? It's already filled up, isn't it?

You don't have to create ANYBODY. You do so if you WANT to. You already have what you want in the original 1988 game.

The guy who calls the shots is the guy in slot 1. That's a basic paradigm for classic CRPG players, you always put your favorite in slot 1; and you role play it that way.

Again I point to the Let's Play on YouTube. Notice how he's narrating this. This is fantastic in that it represents exactly how most people played this sort of game in their heads.

I felt like this was what Brian was talking about when he was standing in the middle of the desert reminiscing about the golden era of computer games when creativity was king; to me he wasn't just talking about game developer creativity but player creativity as well.

Apparently I spoke too soon.

What, exactly, does it take away from the game if players are given an option of choosing pre-made characters? And don't say 'That's not Wasteland'. That doesn't work. A sequel is, by definition, a slightly different game.

I am, once again, exposing a layer of my ignorance here, though. I thought that the player actually created the characters, not that they were built automatically. I'm not saying I want the ability to choose all stats. For a party, that leaves way too much room for exploitation, since you can make a party of people who reinforce each other's strengths while covering up all weaknesses. The 'dice roll' mechanic makes sense there. But some control would be nice. Names. Bios. I really would like somewhere to write a bio. Maybe, just maybe, gender. Maybe. Also possibly their appearance in the game world.

And yes, i've watched the 'let's play' video now. Notice how all of my requests in the above paragraph inform the characters, instead of constraining them. That takes nothing away from the player. The player still comes up with the backstory. But now that backstory isn't just in the player's mind, it's reflected in the world. How about that?

[paultakeda]

What, exactly, does it take away from the game if players are given an option of choosing pre-made characters? And don't say 'That's not Wasteland'. That doesn't work. A sequel is, by definition, a slightly different game.

As mentioned, Wasteland already has pre-made characters, so anyone who says "That's not Wasteland" never played Wasteland. You're fine to ignore their false statement.

I am, once again, exposing a layer of my ignorance here, though. I thought that the player actually created the characters, not that they were built automatically. I'm not saying I want the ability to choose all stats. For a party, that leaves way too much room for exploitation, since you can make a party of people who reinforce each other's strengths while covering up all weaknesses. The 'dice roll' mechanic makes sense there. But some control would be nice. Names. Bios. I really would like somewhere to write a bio. Maybe, just maybe, gender. Maybe. Also possibly their appearance in the game world.

You can pick gender and nationality in addition to dice rolled attributes. Gender actually had an effect on gameplay (to enter a female bathroom you had to disband one of your female characters... hopefully you have female characters). Nationality.. I don't recall if that was used, but you could select it.

And yes, i've watched the 'let's play' video now. Notice how all of my requests in the above paragraph inform the characters, instead of constraining them. That takes nothing away from the player. The player still comes up with the backstory. But now that backstory isn't just in the player's mind, it's reflected in the world. How about that?

Perfectly fine and a welcome update. See the thread on character creation.

[krellen]

What, exactly, does it take away from the game if players are given an option of choosing pre-made characters?

It's unnecessary complexity. And, when making additions to an established property, "why not" is not a valid argument. Changes are okay - but it is up to the one proposing the change to justify it, not for those opposing it to justify why not. You must convince us this added complexity would add to the game; we need not convince you it would detract.

I thought that the player actually created the characters, not that they were built automatically.

Many party-based games included pre-made characters for those that did not wish to make their own. The option of doing so, however, still existed. Some people made their own characters; some played with the pre-made group. Some deleted one member of the pre-made and only made a single character.

You could name the character as you wished, pick their gender, and their nationality. I wouldn't be opposed to a "Biography" box where you could put a background, if you so chose.

[CoderlyWriter]

As mentioned, Wasteland already has pre-made characters, so anyone who says "That's not Wasteland" never played Wasteland. You're fine to ignore their false statement.

Actually, you misunderstood me. By 'pre-made', I meant a character made by the writers of the game with existing bio, history, and appearance. Probably not stats, since that would provide an 'out' from the dice roll mechanic by providing known quantities. Basically, the idea would be to provide roleplaying cues for those unable or unwilling to come up with four original characters on the spot.

I am, once again, exposing a layer of my ignorance here, though. I thought that the player actually created the characters, not that they were built automatically. I'm not saying I want the ability to choose all stats. For a party, that leaves way too much room for exploitation, since you can make a party of people who reinforce each other's strengths while covering up all weaknesses. The 'dice roll' mechanic makes sense there. But some control would be nice. Names. Bios. I really would like somewhere to write a bio. Maybe, just maybe, gender. Maybe. Also possibly their appearance in the game world.

You can pick gender and nationality in addition to dice rolled attributes. Gender actually had an effect on gameplay (to enter a female bathroom you had to disband one of your female characters... hopefully you have female characters). Nationality.. I don't recall if that was used, but you could select it.

Awesome. Don't change it,then. Except for name... I would like to name my characters. Maybe that's just personal preference, though.

And yes, i've watched the 'let's play' video now. Notice how all of my requests in the above paragraph inform the characters, instead of constraining them. That takes nothing away from the player. The player still comes up with the backstory. But now that backstory isn't just in the player's mind, it's reflected in the world. How about that?

Perfectly fine and a welcome update. See the thread on character creation.

Thanks! I'll go check that out.

What, exactly, does it take away from the game if players are given an option of choosing pre-made characters?

It's unnecessary complexity. And, when making additions to an established property, "why not" is not a valid argument. Changes are okay - but it is up to the one proposing the change to justify it, not for those opposing it to justify why not. You must convince us this added complexity would add to the game; we need not convince you it would detract.

I already stated my other reasons, namely that it would provide 'roleplaying cues' for those unable or unwilling to come up with four original characters of their own. I was simply wondering why others felt it would detract from the game, and thank you for answering that. However, while I have continued to state that this game is being developed on a small budget, somehow twenty names, appearances, and brief biographies probably wouldn't take more than a day of one writer's time.

As for interface and character construction complexity, I've already discussed giving each character a 'bio' field. How hard would it be to add a button for 'choose existing character'? That would produce a list of characters, which, now that I think about it, would probably include any characters the player had previously saved, allowing them to import previously written characters of their own into a new game with new skills. None of this is incredibly complex. Twenty existing characters. A button that people are free to overlook. And it does, in fact, have a number of uses, as I've outlined.

I thought that the player actually created the characters, not that they were built automatically.

Many party-based games included pre-made characters for those that did not wish to make their own. The option of doing so, however, still existed. Some people made their own characters; some played with the pre-made group. Some deleted one member of the pre-made and only made a single character.

You could name the character as you wished, pick their gender, and their nationality. I wouldn't be opposed to a "Biography" box where you could put a background, if you so chose.

Alright, then. We're on the same page, apparently. You just stated exactly the setup I suggested.

[paultakeda]

Awesome. Don't change it,then. Except for name... I would like to name my characters. Maybe that's just personal preference, though.

Naming your character was often the only customization you could do outside of die rolls and gender in classic CRPGs, so have no fear there.

More than anything, naming a character was what defined that character to the player. You'd name a character Sarge and immediately default him to be the hard-charging, no-nonsense grizzled veteran of the group. The one named Delilah was probably an exotic dancer who decided to hang up her veils for a pair of six shooters. Et cetera.

[Gabriel77Dan]

Again I point to the Let's Play on YouTube. Notice how he's narrating this. This is fantastic in that it represents exactly how most people played this sort of game in their heads.

I felt like this was what Brian was talking about when he was standing in the middle of the desert reminiscing about the golden era of computer games when creativity was king; to me he wasn't just talking about game developer creativity but player creativity as well.

I will watch the let's play when I have time/energy for it.
Too tired for it now.


[edit]


I downloaded the game and dosbox and got it working, played it for like 10 minutes, then it froze on me. :/
Any idea why it froze?

[Dustin542]

I downloaded the game and dosbox and got it working, played it for like 10 minutes, then it froze on me. :/
Any idea why it froze?

I does that to me sometimes too, but rarely. Got a Darwin shop glitched out of existence due to that. Keep those save back ups handy.

[Siilk]

Raising funding for the production of a game does not equal profit. Paying the production team and yourselves a salary is not a profit.

Yes, but why are you talking about profit? You think Mr. Fargo is in this for the profit? In what way making a sequel to a game that was released 20-something years ago and even then was quite a nice product by itself could sound like a good idea for something profitable? Mr. Fargo's no philanthropist all right, but as I see it, he just wants to make a game that he always wanted to make, a game that he and us, old-timers, would like to play. He filmed interviews with "publishers" as a part of his kickstarter video just to show us why he needs crowdfunding: he wants to make a niche, old-school game, he does not want to sacrifice anything for the profit.

Good grief, your opinions sicken me. I've never had the misfortune in my life to find someone who actually liked modern cover mechanics or the lack of med packs. It's clear we can never ever agree or hope to understand one another but I will tell you flat out that if Wasteland 2 comes with so-called "modern innovations" the old-school fans that donated to this wonderful cause are going to flip out like ninjas and burn down Fargo's house, mark my words.

He promised us an old-school game. We don't want your "innovations". Innovations, frankly, can go die in a fire.

Exactly. Most of gameplay "innovations": health regen, unlimited ammo/mana, quest compases etc etc are just that, simplifications to the point of dumbing everything down so that casual gamers would not become bored or frustrated with the game. DLCs of all sorts are simply there to gain more money from the game, sell what earlier bundled a complete game in separate parts, each costing more that full game even in late 90s/early 00s just "because they can". And of course, engine and interface innovations, are certainly welcome in W2.

[Mort2]

Exactly. Most of gameplay "innovations": health regen, unlimited ammo/mana, quest compases etc etc are just that, simplifications to the point of dumbing everything down so that casual gamers would not become bored or frustrated with the game. DLCs of all sorts are simply there to gain more money from the game, sell what earlier bundled a complete game in separate parts, each costing more that full game even in late 90s/early 00s just "because they can". And of course, engine and interface innovations, are certainly welcome in W2.

I agree that compared to what we was used to most new games are far simpler and more streamlined, but I dont think that should be called "dumbing down", they just catering to another target audience that is the 'the casual gamer'.

I actually enjoy play such games, for example I put few hours a month with few friends from work after work before my wife comes and not for the reasons mentioned above, after all I mostly play old school RPG's, grand strategies(mostly from paradox) and few other like DF. It is all about the when and where I play. The faster people like Jasede realise this the more healthier their life would be, I learned long ago that 99% of modern RPG's dont give a shit about me as a target audience, so I dont have his anger issues.

Anyway, I completely agree with you that "engine and interface innovations, are certainly welcome in W2".

[Gabriel77Dan]

I does that to me sometimes too, but rarely. Got a Darwin shop glitched out of existence due to that. Keep those save back ups handy.

Oyeah, I save after everything I do.
At first I thought it was annoying to do with the mouse, click save, click yes, click no.
But then I figured out to just click S, Y, N and it's so fast to save that I don't mind it now.
Doesn't happen that often now though.

[Drool]

Exactly. Most of gameplay "innovations": health regen

Health regen is an innovation? I seem to recall having my Desert Rangers standing around doing nothing while their health slowly returned to them...

DLCs of all sorts are simply there to gain more money from the game, sell what earlier bundled a complete game in separate parts, each costing more that full game even in late 90s/early 00s just "because they can".

I've never seen $30 DLCs before.

[Tel Prydain]

I'd also be rather annoyed if Wasteland 2 looked exactly like Wasteland 1.

Yeah! No one wants a equal to Wasteland 1!

[Siilk]

Exactly. Most of gameplay "innovations": health regen

Health regen is an innovation? I seem to recall having my Desert Rangers standing around doing nothing while their health slowly returned to them...

Healing over time? Indeed. Regenerating to full health in 10 to 15 seconds of in-game time(modern shooter trend, the thing I had in mind when speaking about health regen)? Hardly so.

[Infinitron]

Exactly. Most of gameplay "innovations": health regen

Health regen is an innovation? I seem to recall having my Desert Rangers standing around doing nothing while their health slowly returned to them...

Healing over time? Indeed. Regenerating to full health in 10 to 15 seconds of in-game time(modern shooter trend, the thing I had in mind when speaking about health regen)? Hardly so.

Not just shooters. Dragon Age Origins did it too (though only outside of combat).
Totally ruined the feeling you had from some fights in Baldur's Gate of "I barely beat those guys, but they totally kicked the SH*T out of me!"

[The_A_Drain]

Not just shooters. Dragon Age Origins did it too (though only outside of combat).
Totally ruined the feeling you had from some fights in Baldur's Gate of "I barely beat those guys, but they totally kicked the SH*T out of me!"

This.

The modern trend of recovering from death/status ailments after each 'encounter' in my mind (although I feel it works really well in certain games, mostly of the JRPG variety like Resonance of Fate, but that has another mechanic as well which does not recover ) just promotes lazy encounter design, and by extension makes the player care much less about the fate of characters, because they'll just get right back up on more than one occasion I would use characters as 'meat shields'.

Something stuck with me from playing DnD all those years ago, is that a well designed encounter should deplete on average a %age of player resources, that %age should be based on how often they get to rest. So if they can rest at the end of each day (say, 4 encounter per day) it should be around 20%. Leaving them battered and bruised by the end of it, but only really posing significant risk if they do something really stupid.

For videogames, I'm a fan of upping that ratio a little. But I think each encounter should be planned out a little more carefully than how most of them felt in Dragon Age. It felt like they just threw in some standard enemies at semi-regular intervals with no thought as to the difficulty or balance of the encounter itself and just decided that each encounter should be it's own closed-off scenario. And I hated that.

[JanetRGilbert]

If you don't completely recover instantly at the end of an encounter, it adds an extra level of strategy, as you want to avoid "Pyrrhic victories" where you win the fight, but you can't win the next fight because your characters are too injured/you are out of resources.

[Siilk]

Not just shooters. Dragon Age Origins did it too (though only outside of combat).

Dude... I heard that Dragon Age was bad(in fact, I heard enough bad things about it to not even bother myself trying it in the first place), but that... That sucks big time.

Totally ruined the feeling you had from some fights in Baldur's Gate of "I barely beat those guys, but they totally kicked the SH*T out of me!"

Yeah, I remember the time when I stormed the Gnoll fort and most of my party was barely alive when I got rid of the last one of them. Had to camp at the fort ruins for a couple of days so my party could fully recover. Heh, those were the days!

If you don't completely recover instantly at the end of an encounter, it adds an extra level of strategy, as you want to avoid "Pyrrhic victories" where you win the fight, but you can't win the next fight because your characters are too injured/you are out of resources.

Yeah, that's the worst part of instant or semi-instant recovery: you don't have to pay attention to high-level resource management, all you have to do is win the encounter. Regardless of however barely you made it, you'll be ready to continue fighting after that. It strips the whole element of managing the damage done and finding a way to rest and recover while in a dangerous environment. And, of course, the battle itself is much less demanding as you don't have to make every action count, as long as you can somehow kill everything that moves.

[Infinitron]

The sad thing is that Dragon Age: Origins is the most oldschool RPG we're ever going to get from a mainstream North American videogame developer in the foreseeable future.
It really did seem like a step in the right direction at the time. I enjoyed it despite its flaws.