Who actually really played Wasteland?

[krellen]

it's one of the very few sixteen-color games that still looks good today (sorry, Krellen

You don't have to apologise for agreeing with me.

[zebe]

Ok, since i cant do a poll here ill just ask in a normal thread. I get the feeling that the majority here never really played Wasteland (and with played i mean dont start it up once in Dosbox or Emulator and go like 'cant get over crappy gfx and cumbersome menu, what a sucky game!').

I'd really like to know...who played it? Did You finish it? Did you like it? And if you didnt play it, why exactly are you backing it? What is your expectation?

As I just commented in the other thread, I played it in the late 80s on a PC/XT clone, at least a few times all the way through, probably several. I'd sometimes take breaks from Wasteland and go play one of the Bard's Tale games again, alternating between the two. They were absolutely my favorite games of the 80s, which is the reason I'm backing this project. I have complete trust in Brian and his team to deliver an excellent game in this category which has been neglected for years. I'm extremely excited (and looking forward to being an NPC).

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

I played the game originally on an Apple IIgs. I played with a friend on his computer. But then I got so into the game that I monopolized it; and we never finished it together. Later I finished the Apple version on an Apple IIe and I played the PC version on a 286 computer.

I know, but then my response wouldn't have been as funny.

Touché

** But I really do think that they could assimilate the original WL system into the new design ~with improvements; and not just graphical ones.

This is about to derail the topic, but maybe a short segue is ok. It depends what parts of the original system you're talking about. For instance, I don't want to see a list of commands and have to press "U" to use an item. I'd much rather click. I also really don't want to see scrolling text for combat. I assume you're talking about other things, but you never know.

I'd actually rather have keyboard hot keys for commands than a mouse command interface. Clickfests are not fun! But a mixture is good too. I wouldn't change the scrolling text either. But I would put it on an overlay and let you scroll back through it, and all the dialogue and other prose too. My game wouldn't need a quest journal, as you could easily read back through the story.

I would like to see Wasteland's list of commands, or rather something that includes them, plus more commands, because that interface is iconic; but I would put the commands in a separate layer than the picture so you can toggle it off. Maybe even give it a console for command line interface too, just to simplify complex orders.

IMHO the ability to issue complex orders simply makes for a better game. When the game has to be built around a GUI you lose functionality. I think it's going to be a waste of the developers' time to build a GUI like Fallout's for Wasteland 2. That will also cut into their valuable time for devising interesting plot details and character backstories.

I would at least like to see some kind of quick-combat option with Wasteland's interface.

When I play Fallout I use keyboard shortcuts instead of GUI whenever it's possible. The optimal way of working with computer is to have one hand of keyboard and one on mouse (when not writing, of course).

The keyboard commands in Fallout are a welcome feature, but they seem like cosmetic elements like the mouse interface in Wasteland. Wasteland lets you program macros for repetitive commands but Fallout doesn't have that option. If I made Wasteland 2, I would adjust the scale of combat either to the experience or size of the party or adjust it to the abilities/strategies/tactics learned by the party. So, you get more complex commands as you go along, giving the characters effective macros to simplify the easy battles as you go along. I don't want to step through the same damn battle stages for ants every time I fight them as I do for more difficult, or more organized enemies. I want the battles to increase in complexity, but become easier to handle with convenient commands.

The problem with the Wasteland's interface is that it's not optimized and introduces unnecessary steps.
For example I want to give someone some item.
I can't just enter character's inventory - I need to get through character screen.
When I want to give someone ammo, I need to get through a question whenever I want to load it or not instead of having a load option contextually added to the item menu.
Also, there's no stacking, so moving 10 identical items needs to be done one by one.
It also lacks ability to select multiple items and move them together.

I agree with every single one of your observations and I would include improvements to those things in an expanded/updated Wasteland interface. In addition, I would like to have new options, more and different kinds of commands depending on the terrain and the situation, and ways to combine abilities/strategies together. Strategy could a learned skill, gradually improving the party's approach to difficult battles and simplifying the easier battles. It could give players the equivalent of a strategy interface to a chess game, to conveniently take advantage of the pieces' abilities; give characters a memory for good strategies.

Answers to the OP's questions:

I'd really like to know...who played it? Did You finish it?

I've played Wasteland, though not to completion. Will probably use a walkthrough to get through it sometime soon, because I would like to be familiar with all its nooks and crannies, but I don't want to spend months on it. That's no slight to the game's quality; I'd certainly like to play through it multiple times with different parties. It's purely an issue of time; I'm trying to write stories, so I don't have the time to get to grips with the interface and solve all the puzzles and blah-de-blah on my own before the beta. I actually like the interface a lot; it's not nearly as cumbersome an interface as that of almost any other RPG from the same time period, and it's even better than some modern RPG interfaces. But I'm just not used to it.

It's a very active interface! The overhead map gives you a lot of information, even though the graphics are very basic. I like a game that gives you useful information about your surroundings. I always feel like Fallout is too closed in all the time and I would rather see from a higher altitude; the HIgh-Res mods help this a bit; but Wasteland did this very simply. I don't mind my party being represented as an icon on a squares-or-hexes strategic map and i would like that for Wasteland 2.

So I'll tell you why I pledged: because (to beat that awful metaphor completely to death) I want to free the slaves and burn the goddamn slavers' goddamn camp to the goddamn ground. I want everyone who plays games to get what they want, not what Bobby Kotick or John Riccitiello allows them to have. I want to prove the shitheads wrong. I want games like Wasteland 2 to be the rule, not the exception. I want that "literary quality" that Fargo has spoken of, that maturity, to come back and stay back. I want to feel like the medium is advancing, not the industry. I want all genres to exist and to advance together. I want the Mass Effects and the Age Of Decadences, the Fallout 3s and the Wasteland 2s. I want to be spoiled for choice, not hoping against hope that cRPG X will finally break the AAA mold a tad. I want everyone to have something that satisfies them - the grognards and the greenhorns, the core and the casual. I want no genre left behind. I want everyone to have a say. I want a real revolution.

That's why I pledged.

I agree wholly with what you've said. I pledged because I have wanted a Wasteland sequel for more than 20 years. I will accept whatever Fargo et. al. come up with. That game will probably be more like Fallout than Wasteland and that is okay even though I would personally like to see Wasteland's legacy extend to a more strategic kind of RPG game.

But no matter how Wasteland 2 ends up, now that we (the gamers) are having this dialogue with the developers and they are more easily connected to us, there is the possibility to resurrect an old dream that Wasteland once kindled. Wasteland 2 or a spinoff type of game could become some kind of computer RPG that once again can be played by friends together in person like a PnP RPG. The format of Wasteland is perfect for it, but we need the hardware to adapt to the game, to give players a convenient game board to use for these games. That could be tablet computers that connect, or electronic tables which you can load maps onto. A cPnP type game could also offer a Game Maker engine sort of thing, letting you retool the skills system to your liking and customize the game for your own user-designed scenarios. I believe the Wasteland template is a good one for this kind of game (that I hope will exist in the near future).

I played it back when it came out. It was always in my mind since then - best game ever ! Want to play it again now ! Where can I find the game and emulator ?

You definitely shouldn't get it from any "aband_nware" sites or try to use any "file sh_ring" programs to find it, because those things are morally reprehensible , even though the game might be easy to find that way and you would suffer no negative consequences from doing it. But don't look for any specifics on this forum, because the Wasteland 2 creators can't help you get Wasteland because they don't own the rights to it, which is a pretty sad situation when you think about it. I don't want that same situation to occur for Wasteland 2, which is why I want them to make it modding friendly and open sourced. (Wasteland works fine in Dosbox.)

[udm]

I actually played WL quite late, like around 2000 or so. I got the game from HOTU, but didn't get very far. I kept trying to force my way into the abandoned mine, but would always get wiped out by the lizards and little people.

I recently started a serious playthrough of WL again and I'm having a blast. I haven't been this addicted to an RPG since Space Rangers 2.

[elotsip]

I played it when it first came out with my dad and brother. We each had a character. I played it again later on an IBM clone and then started it again a few years back but didn't finish it that time. I'm thinking about playing it again now! There are so few games that I actually like today. I guess I'm an old fuddy duddy...

[Hawkeye]

Played it when it came out for PC (actually, I played the crap out of it back then).
I have a soft spot for Wasteland since then, pulling the game out every year or two. My last go at it was sometime last year (well, that is not entirely true, as this Kickstarter project has, of course, made me fire it up again.)

[wormspeaker]

I first played Wasteland on my C64. I still have the "album" style box and one of the 5.25" floppies. (I seem to have lost the others somewhere.) More recently I used to play it through to completion about once every year or two in the IBM version up until about 2005 or so when my old Windows 98 machine finally died and it was too hard to get it to work on my new machine.

That being said, there aren't too many differences between Wasteland updated to newer graphics and interface and Fallout 1 and 2. The main differences are in the aesthetics (Wasteland was very much a product of the 80s and Fallout had it's retro 50s vibe) and the lack of true party based combat in Fallout. (The underlying game mechanics are different, but Wasteland 2 will certainly not have the same game mechanics as Wasteland 1, because those were more or less the result of limitations in technology of the time more than anything else.*)

Okay I just want to say this limitations of technology idea is completly dumb. That is something that defines all computer and console games to some extent at every stage and generation of games. Games fit the technology that's available. That's a given.

But limitations are not a reason for designing a game. You have to put yourself in the position of the developers at the time to know the reasons for their design choices. They could have made a side-scroller. They could have made a shooter. There were a lot of graphical ways to display combat, as the many arcade, computer, and console games of 1988 will testify. They chose to emulate a PnP RPG deliberately. They chose to do that and create an RPG because they were keen on that sort of thing.

I think you misunderstand the point of my statement. I'm not saying that the developers chose to make a PnP RPG because of limitations of technology at the time, instead I'm saying that given that they decided to make a PnP RPG, including full on map based tactical combat like the Gold Box games while at the same time having the open world exploration would probably have been too much for the technology of the time. (Or at least the cost and time to implement them with the existing technology and tools would have been too much.)

Someone further up the thread mentioned that you could hit the space bar and see the map with the various groups displayed. I had forgotten all about this, for one, I don't think it worked on the C64 version and regardless it had almost no effect on the combat. Wasteland combat is abstracted to the point where all you need to know is what creatures were in a group together and how far those groups were from your party. Where they are positioned on the map is almost completely irrelevant. That's not to say that this is bad, but I doubt that this abstracted style of combat was the first choice for the designers. More than likely it was a fallback position. Still a valid and intentional design decision, but probably not the one that they would have chosen if they had a better option.

The more I examine the two games the more they seem like different operating systems. Wasteland is more like a command line interface, although the choices are laid out in a menu and on a map. Fallout is a graphical interface. Computer gamers who are not familiar with command line interfaces and only know graphical OS's, might not be able to imagine a game without a graphical interface. Wasteland's graphics consisted of a map to show your location and the character portraits in the encounter menus. You navigate Wasteland using keyboard commands (the mouse interface is entirely cosmetic); you navigate Fallout visually. This of course is usually taken for granted and assumed to be superior to the non-graphical interface of older games.

I have a hard time understanding what your point is here. Are you saying that you would prefer the abstracted non-visual combat system of Wasteland (or say, Bard's Tale or Wrath of Nicodemus, or basically just about any RPG of that era that wasn't the Gold Box games) than the visual tactical map based combat that has been the standard for PnP RPGs and all computer RPGs since the 90s? Or a completely keyboard driven interface? Or both?

If so, I have two suggestions for you.
#1 Go download RPG Maker and learn how to use it. You could probably have a Wasteland-esq game ready to play before InXile are finished.
#2 You probably shouldn't look forward to Wasteland 2 because there's about a -20% chance that the combat will be like it was in the original Wasteland. The kickstarter is intended to go towards the development costs of the game. If they never sell a copy of the game except the ones that they are required to give out to kickstarter contributors then they will have made zero profit. Companies don't like to make zero profit. They will make a game that can sell in 2013 not one that will only appeal to people that grew up on C64s and Amigas. Frankly the only thing dated about Wasteland is the interface (including the graphics) the gameplay itself is still good. So I wouldn't hold out for an interface the looks and works like it was made in the 80s.

Why would you want to make a game today that has a command-oriented interface rather than a visual-oriented interface? I mean if technology lets you build three-dimensional menus for your games that take up 90% of the storage and 99% of the cpu power, then it must be vastly superior to the olden days of room-sized computers with ticker-tape displays and no monitors right? Well, maybe, but what we've seen in computer game history is (I argue) the development of an industry that hypes new superficial features and makes its money from bloated graphical albatrosses rather than creating unique new stories that might be possible with a simpler, less graphics-oriented interface similar to the first generation of computer RPGs. Those games are still fun to play, even though their interfaces could be improved and updated to something more modern in the same style, like a visual novel.

I don't believe today's visual novels (as a whole) are exactly a modern incarnation of classic CRPG games either, at least not yet. Some of them are more like that than others. There are also apparently some games for the DS and PSP that resemble text adventures and Roguelikes and other old styles of games. I don't think there's any reason to go backward in time to an old style of game precisely, but the command interface plus graphics is a valid approach to gameplay.

The Civilization games do a good job of showing what is possible with a turn-based strategy game. If you gave the battles in Civ a Wasteland-like command interface but expanded, what you might have is something like an updated Wasteland encounter format. But unlike the Civ games, in that kind of game I would drastically reduce the time scale and focus the personalities not on rulers but on individual party members and NPCs. It's another possible evolution of the platform that Wasteland originated, whereas in reality we have seen its influence fork into the more tactics-oriented and narrower of scope game of Fallout 1/2.

At this point, I'm almost positive that you have misunderstood my point. My point extends simply to the interface and combat system. I think that maybe you feel that I was suggesting that they go with a real-time combat, or some JRPG crap, or a first person shooter or something? If I wanted that stuff, I could get it from Fallout 3, or Final Fantasy, or something.

I love turn based tactical combat. Which is why I am stoked for the new X-Com game that's coming out soon. It's a throwback to the original X-Com. And also why I am stoked that Wasteland 2 is funded, because it will also be turn based. I am just suggesting that the level of abstraction found in Wasteland will ultimately not be found in Wasteland 2, because I firmly believe that they would have used a combat system like the Gold Box games had they been able to put it in the same game with the open world exploration within their money and time budget with the technology and tools available at the time.

Let me illustrate. The computer that I am typing at right now has 8GB of RAM. It's not a top of the line machine by any means. I've actually had it for about 4 years now. My Commodore 64, had as the name implies, 64KB of RAM. If 64KB of RAM was the size of a Postage Stamp (about 1 square inch) the RAM in the computer I am using now would be the size of 910 square feet. (bigger than my house.) The ratio of a 540K floppy and my hard drive is even more mind boggling.

At this point if a developer wants to include a feature they simply can. It either just adds to the development time or adds to the load time as it is fetched from the hard drive. Back when all you had was 64K, you had to decide very carefully what you had to have loaded into memory at any given time. It is not like they left any of that space go to waste in Wasteland. The memory was completely full at all times. If they wanted to make the combat more complex and tactical they would have had to drop something else. Ultimately they decided that they needed it less than they needed other things.

I
No doubt somewhere there is someone who has compiled a list of differences between the two properties, but I think the two that I listed are the only major ones. The rest of the differences are ones of extent rather than kind.

I believe this is a poorly formulated comparison. Besides the general idea of the apocalypse and a few references between the games, there is barely anything left of Wasteland in Fallout. So, a Wasteland 2 that picks up from Fallout 2 with even less to do with Wasteland (the game), wouldn't satisfy me at all. If it was a completely different engine from Wasteland and completely different rules for skill gains and exploration and it abandoned the MSPE influence entirely, I would feel cheated out of a Wasteland sequel.

I would love to hear what you feel are the differences between the two games.

Yes, the plots are different, and certainly Wasteland 2 will have nothing to do with the Fallout plot.

Of course, the game mechanics (character creation, advancement, combat) will be different from Fallout but they will also be different from Wasteland too. Both games have skill based character creation rather than class based character creation, but a greatly expanded Wasteland character creation system will bear very little resemblance to the original system.

Making a direct clone of Wasteland (would actually make me happy) will not require 2 million dollars. I would require a single programmer in a room with modern tools for about a month. I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment if you are looking for a direct cloned sequel to Wasteland, instead of something that feels like Wasteland but built for 2013 technology.

For whatever reason you hate Fallout, or at least seem to from what you have written here. I think you are in for a great deal of disappointment in about 12 months. Wasteland's combat and interface were a product of their time and technology, Wasteland 2 written and designed for 2013 technology (or even 2000s technology) will look a lot more like Fallout 1 and 2 than it will Wasteland 1. That's just the way it's going to be. That's not to say that Wasteland 2 will be the same as Fallout 1 or 2, because the true party based combat and shift of focus from one "chose one" to a group based dynamic will differentiate it quite significantly from Fallout, but superficially... computer interface design has just moved on too much since the 80s for it to closely resemble Wasteland in that way.

Of course, perhaps I have completely misunderstood your point. You certainly seem to have completely missed my point. So perhaps you can enlighten me on what you feel a 2013 sequel to Wasteland should look and operate like and how that is significantly different from Fallout 1 and 2, or Baldur's Gate for that matter.

[Thorium]

I need to out myself. I didnt played it. I tried a few years back. I dont have any problem with old graphics. The reason i couldnt play it was for the controls. I own the boxed C64 version and i played it with the original disk on a real C64. And well i didnt get how to use skills. Even with the manual i just didnt got it working. So i have to say i didnt played it. But i did played a lot classical RPG's. In fact i collect them, i even own a original Fountain of Dreams and a unopened factory sealed boxed Wasteland for Apple II.

The reason i am backing this project with 250$ (which is a lot for me) is that i love other games from Brian Fargo like Fallout 1 and 2. That said i will not be disappointed if it isnt a fallout game. I just want a great classical RPG and i trust Fargo and his team to deliver it. If it isnt Fallout i dont care, if it isnt Wasteland i dont care. I just want a great classical RPG. If it's near to my dream RPG then it's just a bonus.

I am looking forward to playing the PC version of Wasteland. I read it has much better controls. Currently i am playing Fallout 2 in ironman mode. After that Wasteland is on my list.

[Carthoris]

I bought Wasteland in 1987 at a computer store near Campbell Industrial park on Oahu, Hawaii while a young Spec4 stationed at Schoffield Barracks. It was the first game I bought for my brand new Commodore 128. I played it and Might and Magic almost exclusively until I bought my first Amiga in 1988 and became addicted to Empire for the next year or so:). I have great memories of this game and am really glad that I have the chance support the effort to finally make its sequel.

[DandyA]

No, I never played Wasteland; I'm just looking for a great, offline RPG with a detailed world that allows a lot of personalization. As for RPGs I've played and enjoyed, I can cite rogue-likes (Nethack), Ultima-likes (Excelsior), older menu-driven JRPGs (Chrono Trigger and FF), Fallout 1 (don't like 2), Infinity Engine games (Planescape, Baldur's Gate), and Morrowind, which rocked (too bad the following ES games are janky, boring and poorly written).

I really don't care about fancy graphics so much. I just want something big and exciting and intelligent that I can lose myself in, with a cat on my lap and a cup of cheap green tea at hand.

[BrokenToaster]

Played it. Played it again. And again. On C64 and on an Apple IIe (I think? It may have been a c? )

I still have the originally packaging and disks in a box somewhere around here. It's funny, as terrible as my memory is, this game is basically seared into it. Weird.

[Slargos]

Somewhere, in one of the boxes I've left behind with family and friends (I am a restless soul, so I don't stay in one place for long and things tend to get stored wherever is currently convenient) there is a very worn box and 4 original floppies (sadly broken from excessive use).

These days, I typically fire up the PC version when I want to get my fix, but it never quite captures the feel of the C64 version.

Maybe it's the lack of a broken ESC-key, or the missing whine of the 1541 drive, but playing the PC version simply feels "off".

[Therumancer]

Oh, I can understand the point. After all if everyone who claimed to play Wasteland actually did, chances are it wouldn't have taken this long to get a sequel.

That said I'm in the same boat, having played Wasteland on the Commodore 64, my copy came in one of those folding sleeves rather than a box if I remember.

I remember comparing it to other games of the time like "Scavengers Of the Mutant World" and thinking it was far, far, better. I also remember being quite annoyed with the way characters could die, and how difficult it could be to deal with say critical and mortal wounds, or radiation poisoning.

[ad1066]

According to Mobygames, the Apple version came in a folding album thingy, the PC version came in an actual box with the yellow logo that you see on this site's homepage, as opposed to the cutout version attached to the box art), and the C64 was available both ways.

-- Ben

[Drool]

Both? Huh. I had the album-cover version for the C64. That's how most games came (aside from SSI's Gold Box games). Starflight, Bard's Tale, etc.

[Gremlin]

Both? Huh. I had the album-cover version for the C64. That's how most games came (aside from SSI's Gold Box games). Starflight, Bard's Tale, etc.

The album-cover games were actually a bit of an innovation from the early Electronic Arts. See avatar for an example ->

Though I played Wasteland in DOS (not DOSBOX!) from the Interplay 10th Anniversary CD (Which included, among other things, Dragon Wars, another underrated RPG). Took years to get around to beating it, playing it together with my brother.

[krellen]

See avatar for an example ->

I wasted so much of my youth playing that game.

[Drool]

Hm. That makes sense. Now that I think about it, all the album box games I had were EA. Back before everyone called them evil.

Sigh. I miss Skyfox. That had some amazing box art.

[Thorium]

According to Mobygames, the Apple version came in a folding album thingy, the PC version came in an actual box with the yellow logo that you see on this site's homepage, as opposed to the cutout version attached to the box art), and the C64 was available both ways.

The Apple II version came in both editions too. I happen to have the boxed Apple II version right here.

[wormspeaker]

See avatar for an example ->

I wasted so much of my youth playing that game.

Oh, man so did I. That was such a fun game. Have you seen Starfarer?

It's an in development game that is like a mix of Star Control, Master of Orion, and Starflight. I gladly paid the $10 beta price (much like I gladly paid the Minecraft and Teraria beta prices) and I have not been in the least dissapointed.

Actually, I've been spending too much time chasing pirates when I should be sleeping. I've been operating on 4 to 6 hours of sleep a night since I bought into the beta.