The case for a sequel

[krellen]

Everyone wants to add things to the sequel, to make it more like the game they dream of playing. There's nothing inherently wrong with that; progress has its place, and I am not, contrary to appearances, anti-progress.

Unfortunately, this trend has become what the game industry is about. Nothing is content to be; everything must be new, everything must be tweaked, everything must be changed. Almost always to appeal to a broader audience, but sometimes for no real discernible reason whatsoever. I seriously still cannot figure out who Dragon Age 2 was supposed to be for.

But what this trend for "bigger and better" has done is to rob a large swath of people - people on whom the video game industry was largely originally built - who played, loved, and still love the game mechanics, designs and aesthetics of the early eras of video games. Every once in a while, we get glimpse back at these, a chance to taste some of the old beloved features; we got Dragon Age for those looking for some tactical combat, we got Mass Effect for those looking for space operatic exploration, we get the occasional indie game that scratches our itch, a little, with its light weight budget and features.

And then the industry comes. They take Fallout away from us and remake it for the first-person crowd. They take Mass Effect away from us and make it for the shooter crowd. They take Dragon Age away from us and make it for alien-infested princes from ancient Numenorean cities. Everything old we loved, held dear, and still hold dear - and not just for nostalgia's sake! - is taken away from us by this driving need for progress, profit, and proliferation.

I want a sequel to Wasteland. Not a spinoff. Not a reimagining. Not a relaunch. A sequel. A real sequel, like sequels used to be. I want Wasteland 2 to be as close to Wasteland as Fallout 2 was to Fallout. As close as Starflight 2 was to Starflight. As close as Empire Strikes Back was to Star Wars, and as close as Back to the Future 2 was to Back to the Future, as close as Karate Kid 2 was to Karate Kid. Before Fallout 3, before Mass Effect 2, before Dragon Age 2, there was a time when you could actually see the connection between a sequel and its predecessor. It was still your old friend from before - he just got a hair cut and some new clothes. Maybe he got some glasses and could see better. But underneath, he was still the same.

That's what I want in Wasteland 2 - my old buddy Wasteland, in a new suit. I miss that guy.

[CaptainPatch]

Amen, brother. Well said.

[Mandemon]

Sequels also change things. Yes, it was sad that Fallout lost it's isometric view and turn based combat, but when I play Fallout New Vegas, I don't think "TERRIBAD! FPS!", what I think "It's a Fallout game, but with different take on it".

Also, Mass Effect 2 wasn't bad sequel. It's widely held as the best of the franchise. Complexity =/= good, you know? ME2 streamlined the game, made it work better. Mass Effect series always had combat as shooter, you didn't roll dices.

Sequels change stuff. Sometimes for bad, sometimes for good. There forums are really bad place to gauge things, since whole exclusionist mentality towards anything that wasn't directly in Wasteland and towards people who didn't play Wasteland, but did play Fallout 1/2.

Discarding ideas because they are too "mainstream" is not always good idea. Progress has been made in 24 years. For example, people have been suggesting that instead of playing party full of AFGNCAAPs character sheets, they wan't to play real characters. But no, this is bad, because it wasn't directly in Wasteland.

Sorry, but when I read these forums, feeling get is that "original fans" want a remake with new locations. Although I agree on that spirit of Wasteland should be preserved, opposing changes on the ground that they are changes is not a healthy attitude.

This maybe Kickstarter funded game, a niche game to boot, but that does not mean it must be intentionally hard to approach.

[Infinitron]

Hear, hear.

Wasteland fans are already biting the bullet and putting up with fairly extensive changes to the game's combat, in a more Fallout direction.
Let's hope any additional non-cosmetic changes are minimal.

Also, Mass Effect 2 wasn't bad sequel. It's widely held as the best of the franchise.

Widely held? By whom?

[Mandemon]

Also, Mass Effect 2 wasn't bad sequel. It's widely held as the best of the franchise.

Widely held? By whom?

Ever went to Bioware forums? Or heard about PAX East? When they asked what was their favorite game in the series ME2 got largest number, followed by ME1... ME3 got few.

[CaptainPatch]

ROFLMAO. The BioWare forums? Really? That's like asking the cheerleaders what they think of their team. _I was there_. Anyone that dared to say pretty much anything against BioWare, that suggested any BioWare game might not deserve a 10 rating got royally hammered by the fanboys. [Which explains why I'm not there anymore.]

Knew of a guy out here in California that got himself a nice country acreage where he could do what he loved most in life to do: raise horses. Other people saw how idyllic that pastoral setting was likewise built homes in the surrounding area. After several years of of homes being added, there were enough of them that they decided to make themselves a formal community with a charter and ordinances and the whole nine yards. One of the first ordinances that they passed was "No livestock to be raised within the town limits." Naturally, "livestock" included horses. ["It makes the whole township smell 'horsey'!"]

Sitting here, reading the many suggestions made by people, many of whom never even played Wasteland, I'm seriously identifying with that guy that just wanted to raise horses.

[Ekaros]

Still making sequel to 2 decades old game is different bussiness. Fallout 1 and 2 had less than a year between them?

Also considering the increases in computing power, memory and storage changes can be good and would game for nostalgic fanboys really sell too well?

[CaptainPatch]

If this were restaurants that we were talking about, the words being bandied about would be "atmosphere" and "ambiance". Yes, the tech features WILL be updated, but many/most of the Wasteland methodology will remain: premise, organization, group dynamics, etc. Shifting from a team of four to focus on one main character (as many have requested) is a deal-breaker. Being anything other than Rangers is a deal-breaker. Making combat a first-person shooter is a deal-breaker.

If people don't like the game that Fargo & Company said they planned to build, then why donate in the first place?

["But I want the car to be a Mercedes!"
[ "But they said what they were building would be an updated DeLorean. Did you miss that part?"
["But since it isn't built yet, it _could_ be a Mercedes!"
["That's not the car they said they would be building."
[But a Mercedes has much better features! It would be stupid to NOT include those features!"
["But then it wouldn't be an updated DeLorean, would it?"
["Who wants an old-fashioned clunker like a DeLorean anyway? I'm sure most of the investors agree with ME!"
["That wouldn't negate the fact that is NOT the car they stated they planned to build, even if your supposition were true."
["But it's our money that's funding this project! We've got rights! We should get the car that we want! After all, we paid for it!"
[And so on. Sound at all familiar?]

[BlackGauntlet]

What krillin said. Please don't pee in my 2nd bowl of cereal when my last bowl was soaking in creamy milk.

Don't end up as the publishers we all love to hate.

[Brother None]

I want Wasteland 2 to be as close to Wasteland as Fallout 2 was to Fallout.

This isn't going to happen. And you already know that. Fallout 2 was a quick, "slam dunk" model sequel in the same engine and using the same assets. There was never any possibility Wasteland 2 would be as close to Wasteland as Fallout 2 was to Fallout.

inXile is not going to willfully ignore opportunities to improve on things like interface, AI, music, text and dialog mechanics, etc etc. Things that have simply been refined and improved upon since the first Wasteland, opportunities that will not be ignored.

But, and this is where the comparison to the likes of Fallout 3 and Dragon Age II falls apart, inXile is not focused on targeting a bigger audience by moving the camera much closer or using real-time combat or making the game a challenge-free, linear ride. It still has the same audience, the pen and paper-focused attitude, looking for a challenging, deep experience with choice and consequences.

It's to Wasteland what I had hoped Van Buren would be to Fallout 2, not exactly the same, including updates to things like camera works, character system and even combat (tho TB/RT was hardly ideal). It's not to Wasteland what Fallout 2 was to Fallout. And that's perfectly fine. To expect otherwise is unrealistic.

[Rzarkrusz Rowa]

(..)

:salute:

[Son of Max]

That's what I want in Wasteland 2 - my old buddy Wasteland, in a new suit. I miss that guy.

TESTIFY, MY BROTHER! TESTIFY!

CAN I GET A WITNESS FROM THE CONGREGATION?!

[Son of Max]

I want Wasteland 2 to be as close to Wasteland as Fallout 2 was to Fallout.

This isn't going to happen. And you already know that. Fallout 2 was a quick, "slam dunk" model sequel in the same engine and using the same assets. There was never any possibility Wasteland 2 would be as close to Wasteland as Fallout 2 was to Fallout.

inXile is not going to willfully ignore opportunities to improve on things like interface, AI, music, text and dialog mechanics, etc etc. Things that have simply been refined and improved upon since the first Wasteland, opportunities that will not be ignored.

But, and this is where the comparison to the likes of Fallout 3 and Dragon Age II falls apart, inXile is not focused on targeting a bigger audience by moving the camera much closer or using real-time combat or making the game a challenge-free, linear ride. It still has the same audience, the pen and paper-focused attitude, looking for a challenging, deep experience with choice and consequences.

It's to Wasteland what I had hoped Van Buren would be to Fallout 2, not exactly the same, including updates to things like camera works, character system and even combat (tho TB/RT was hardly ideal). It's not to Wasteland what Fallout 2 was to Fallout. And that's perfectly fine. To expect otherwise is unrealistic.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, so, in that context, rather than our old buddy Wasteland, how about Son of Wasteland?

He's new, and has his own look and personality, BUT, he's got a lot of the old man in him!

[Mandemon]

I want Wasteland 2 to be as close to Wasteland as Fallout 2 was to Fallout.

This isn't going to happen. And you already know that. Fallout 2 was a quick, "slam dunk" model sequel in the same engine and using the same assets. There was never any possibility Wasteland 2 would be as close to Wasteland as Fallout 2 was to Fallout.

inXile is not going to willfully ignore opportunities to improve on things like interface, AI, music, text and dialog mechanics, etc etc. Things that have simply been refined and improved upon since the first Wasteland, opportunities that will not be ignored.

But, and this is where the comparison to the likes of Fallout 3 and Dragon Age II falls apart, inXile is not focused on targeting a bigger audience by moving the camera much closer or using real-time combat or making the game a challenge-free, linear ride. It still has the same audience, the pen and paper-focused attitude, looking for a challenging, deep experience with choice and consequences.

It's to Wasteland what I had hoped Van Buren would be to Fallout 2, not exactly the same, including updates to things like camera works, character system and even combat (tho TB/RT was hardly ideal). It's not to Wasteland what Fallout 2 was to Fallout. And that's perfectly fine. To expect otherwise is unrealistic.

THANK YOU! Perhaps we can get some rest from those who demand that all the advances made between Wasteland and Wasteland 2 are to be ignored.

[joffeloff]

I don't understand why people say Mass Effect was 'turned into' a shooter.

I've been replaying the Mass Effect games on and off between each other, so I have the gameplay of each fresh in mind.

The first Mass Effect game has powers with such incredibly long cooldown periods, even at the highest character level and power upgrade level, that they act more as little 'helpers' in between shooting stuff with infinite-ammo guns. Whereas in the newest third game, you actually get to adjust cooldown period by carrying less firepower. Lighter and less weapons = shorter cooldowns. I'm playing the adept in ME1 right now, the supposed 'caster', and her powers can barely be used for all the cooldowns. I'm stuck shooting everything regardless of class.

The two sequels are much more RPG than the first game, as far as I am concerned. I wonder if the 'RPG fans' who complain about the ME sequels' combat have actually replayed ME1 recently.

[Brother None]

This isn't a BioWare forum, and the topic of this thread is not Mass Effect. Let's not derail it by discussing the failings and successes of the Mass Effect games.

[Gabriel77Dan]

Well, I want it to be a sequel too, but as close to Wasteland as Fallout 2 was to Fallout? No.

Let me explain that a little, the party, in Wasteland 1 due to the limitations of the engine/consoles/disc space we got to see one dude standing completely still, walking across a square based grid which changed view distance but always had that one dude your party was portrayed to be.
Do I want this in Wasteland 2? Hell no, game development has moved forward in a lot of aspects, it's sad we've lost most, if not all, of the good ones, but I don't want Wasteland 1.1, I want a sequel, and a sequel to a game from 24 years ago 'needs' change.
Not changes like FPS or crafting systems or a sandbox world or vampires with red boots.
But changes to how the camera works, how the descriptions work, how the party is displayed on the screen.
I want to see the entire party when in locations like cities or caves, I want to be able to move them individually or groupwise with ease, I want to be able to send them off to different locations fast and smoothly, I don't want one little dude on a map.

To compare it to Fallout 1/2 with how it should be is ridiculous, Fallout 2 was made a year after Fallout 1, Wasteland 2 is being made 24 years after Wasteland 1. Same with the other franchises you mentioned, the timespan between sequels has been shorter.

Sadly, I have not played many party-based games of the old era apart from Tactics and Wasteland, but if I had to choose? I'd go with Tactics. Cause in Tactics I get more control, I can choose where to tactically place my characters, I can target them individually and move, use action points to perform a few tasks during one round as opposed to Wasteland's 1 choice per round. If having Wasteland 2 be a Wasteland sequel means we have to use the awful combat system it had with the 80's limitation to game development then I don't want a sequel, I want new interpretation of Wasteland with a combat system more in line with Tactics.
I don't mean Tactics is superior to every party-based turn-based combat system out there, but from what I've played I like Tactics by far more than I like Wasteland it terms of tactical combat.

The point is that progress has been made, whether you like Tactics or... Jagged Alliance? More doesn't matter, if you don't like either doesn't matter, point is that progress, has been made. And to ignore said progress because of fear of change would be a really bad design decision, and we'd only get another dos-box game that handles like crap when treatin the entire party for radiation poisoning at a doctor.

It doesn't mean that the setting, the atmosphere, the colours, the factions, the lore and the general gameplay concept won't still be Wasteland just cause certain gameplay aspects are tweaked to fit with the improvements that has been made.

That's just my perspective on it though.

[Rzarkrusz Rowa]

Why do people constantly mention skirmish games like JA2 and Tactics, which have nothing to do with Wasteland? How about actual tactical games like games like Close Combat or Steel Panthers? They have a lot of stuff to harvest off for a tactical combat system for a Wasteland sequel. Stuff like cover, morale, suppression, etc.

[Gabriel77Dan]

Why do people constantly mention skirmish games like JA2 and Tactics, which have nothing to do with Wasteland? How about actual tactical games like games like Close Combat or Steel Panthers? They have a lot of stuff to harvest off for a tactical combat system for a Wasteland sequel. Stuff like cover, morale, suppression, etc.

I think Fargo has actually mentioned they've looked at JA and Tactics for inspiration(???) or something like that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHEgVIMS ... r_embedded
4:57
Yup.

[krellen]

Tactics isn't even a party-based game. Goddammit.