Rangers ,essential or not?

[paultakeda]

"Let the player decide what he wants to be within the context of the setting."
[...]I don't mind being a Ranger - I just wish I had a choice in the matter.

The context of the setting in Wasteland 2 is you play a party of rangers. Wishing you had a choice in the matter is not part of deciding within the context of the setting.

[Signal]

"Let the player decide what he wants to be within the context of the setting."
[...]I don't mind being a Ranger - I just wish I had a choice in the matter.

The context of the setting in Wasteland 2 is you play a party of rangers. Wishing you had a choice in the matter is not part of deciding within the context of the setting.

Only if you lock players into certain behaviors based on their station as Desert Rangers. This is pretty much what Mass Effect did when you became a Spectre: You were supposed to be an intergalactic supercop, therefor you couldn't go on a senseless mass murdering shooting spree, mowing down innocent bystanders wherever you saw them in the Citadel as if you were playing Grand Theft Auto. You were completely locked out from shooting your gun or taking any violent actions in certain areas of the game.

In Wasteland 1, though: You could. You could kill children/teenagers in Highpool, slaughter a village full of scavengers, kill people just gambling in a casino, and so on and so forth. Even though you were given the choice of doing so, it struck me as kind of odd because it kind of clashed with the description of the Desert Rangers I read in the instruction manual: That you were supposed to be fashioned after the military and law enforcement of the world before it nuked itself, and in fact the game started out with your party given the task to offer help to surrounding communities. But should you decide to go on a killing spree, you wouldn't hear a peep out of Ranger HQ. Even as a kid in 1988, that struck me as not making much sense.

So given the context of Wasteland 2, Fargo has come right out and said he wants players to take moral decisions. No doubt some of us will decide to go the evil route and kill anything we possibly can then loot the bodies - but that's not very Ranger-like, is it? I seriously doubt anybody would be happy from being strictly forbidden, by game mechanics, from killing innocent NPCs and children because you're a Ranger. So, for me, it makes a bit more sense to not even be a Ranger at all (or at least be given the choice of quitting them), if you want to go get your murder and thieving spree on.

Oh, and in the interests of making absolutely certain nobody misunderstands me again: No, I'm not advocating that the game essentially become Grand Theft Auto with RPG mechanics - in fact when given a choice like this I often go the "good" route in these games. I just want the game to make a little more sense if you start acting like a criminal - I doubt the Desert Rangers would keep such characters around.

[paultakeda]

So given the context of Wasteland 2, Fargo has come right out and said he wants players to take moral decisions. No doubt some of us will decide to go the evil route and kill anything we possibly can then loot the bodies - but that's not very Ranger-like, is it? I seriously doubt anybody would be happy from being strictly forbidden, by game mechanics, from killing innocent NPCs and children because you're a Ranger. So, for me, it makes a bit more sense to not even be a Ranger at all (or at least be given the choice of quitting them), if you want to go get your murder and thieving spree on.

Oh, and in the interests of making absolutely certain nobody misunderstands me again: No, I'm not advocating that the game essentially become Grand Theft Auto with RPG mechanics - in fact when given a choice like this I often go the "good" route in these games. I just want the game to make a little more sense if you start acting like a criminal - I doubt the Desert Rangers would keep such characters around.

I think you are actually giving the rangers a lot more of what you think they are than Fargo does. You do recall that he keeps hinting that Billy's pissed he was left for dead, right? That means that in Fargo's canon-story play of Wasteland 1, the rangers decided to kill Bobby, a juvenile (I'd say fourteen, fifteen years old).

I view the rangers as an expansionist society, bringing what they believe is justice and a revival of the old democratic American way. The instruction manual introduction is an excerpt from a ranger history book, it is not completely objective. Bringing justice and offering aid means nothing to a farmer who wants to be left alone and is perfectly happy with the way things are going.

Wearing a star doesn't make you moral. The morally ambiguous decisions you make will be made by you playing your rangers.

[Signal]

I think you are actually giving the rangers a lot more of what you think they are than Fargo does. You do recall that he keeps hinting that Billy's pissed he was left for dead, right? That means that in Fargo's canon-story play of Wasteland 1, the rangers decided to kill Bobby, a juvenile (I'd say fourteen, fifteen years old).

I view the rangers as an expansionist society, bringing what they believe is justice and a revival of the old democratic American way. The instruction manual introduction is an excerpt from a ranger history book, it is not completely objective. Bringing justice and offering aid means nothing to a farmer who wants to be left alone and is perfectly happy with the way things are going.

Wearing a star doesn't make you moral. The morally ambiguous decisions you make will be made by you playing your rangers.

I can see what you're getting at and I don't disagree with anything you said at all.

That said, there's a big difference between being an expansionist society and being downright psychopathic. Even if the Desert Rangers have a more Machiavellian goal in mind of spreading out, expanding, and gaining power whether through diplomacy or outright intimidation - they can hardly accomplish that with a group of loose cannons whose first instinct upon seeing something alive is to kill it and loot it.

Now granted, not all of us will take that route. But there are some of us who will, and I would imagine actively harming every community that is encountered would always work in Ranger HQ's best interests - even if we're going to view them as an organization bent on controlling as much as they can get their hands on.

However, I think I've changed my mind about this debate. Fargo has come out and told us that Wasteland 2 is going to be about helping to set up a new Ranger HQ in a part of California that they've never been to before. So, with that in mind, I can now see whatever actions the players take, even if it goes against what Ranger HQ wants them to do, as simply being "The left hand having absolutely no idea what the right is doing." There are such things as corrupt police officers in real life, after all.

[paultakeda]

There are such things as corrupt police officers in real life, after all.

Sure. But it's not even as black and white as that. Here's a scenario for you:

A town needs water for its farmland (crops and animals) so they decide to dam up the stream to create an irrigation system. Two hundred miles downstream a town's source of water dries up and they have no idea why.

Sometimes you make a choice that seems right but will inevitably screw someone over. And often, even if you did know there was a town down river you may decide that the town up river is more deserving. You might want to find a compromise but what if there isn't one?

These are fairly complex questions and of the sort that I expect to see a lot of in Wasteland 2. Playing as rangers means you carry the weight of enforcement on your side, so your decisions have a major impact, regardless of what those decisions mean to others.

[Signal]

There are such things as corrupt police officers in real life, after all.

Sure. But it's not even as black and white as that. Here's a scenario for you:

A town needs water for its farmland (crops and animals) so they decide to dam up the stream to create an irrigation system. Two hundred miles downstream a town's source of water dries up and they have no idea why.

Sometimes you make a choice that seems right but will inevitably screw someone over. And often, even if you did know there was a town down river you may decide that the town up river is more deserving. You might want to find a compromise but what if there isn't one?

These are fairly complex questions and of the sort that I expect to see a lot of in Wasteland 2. Playing as rangers means you carry the weight of enforcement on your side, so your decisions have a major impact, regardless of what those decisions mean to others.

Again, you and I are on the same wavelength on this regard. I look forward to tackling such decisions as those - they're a sign of good game design.

But you also have to keep in mind that there will always be players whose answer to this conundrum is "I shoot everybody and take their stuff."

[paultakeda]

But you also have to keep in mind that there will always be players whose answer to this conundrum is "I shoot everybody and take their stuff."

Yes, and the game will let you do that, too.

[SDF121]

So given the context of Wasteland 2, Fargo has come right out and said he wants players to take moral decisions. No doubt some of us will decide to go the evil route and kill anything we possibly can then loot the bodies - but that's not very Ranger-like, is it? I seriously doubt anybody would be happy from being strictly forbidden, by game mechanics, from killing innocent NPCs and children because you're a Ranger. So, for me, it makes a bit more sense to not even be a Ranger at all (or at least be given the choice of quitting them), if you want to go get your murder and thieving spree on.

Maybe committing acts of mass murder could result in being disowned by the Rangers? Even then, I'm not sure if this would really work since you would no longer be able to recruit new blood into your squad after suffering significant losses.

I view the rangers as an expansionist society, bringing what they believe is justice and a revival of the old democratic American way. The instruction manual introduction is an excerpt from a ranger history book, it is not completely objective. Bringing justice and offering aid means nothing to a farmer who wants to be left alone and is perfectly happy with the way things are going.

Perhaps I'm wrong to believe this but I've always thought of the Rangers in Wasteland as being similar to the NCR in Fallout. Both organizations share a tendency towards expansionism with the intention of restoring law and order to the wasteland. However, despite this noble goal, neighboring societies and tribes find themselves coerced to join their ranks and conform to their standards. Despite the perks that may come with joining such organizations, the loss of sovereignty may not be worth it as these neighboring societies and tribes may not appreciate their new masters particular brand of justice... or using your example with respect to creating a dam for the purpose of irrigation, perhaps this community will not appreciate the Rangers telling them that they have to abandon these plans for the benefit of their neighbors to the south. So yes, I believe there can be some moral ambiguity with the Rangers as they are. Hell, the Rangers in the first Wasteland commandeered a prison in order to set up their own headquarters, all while forcing its inhabitants into the wastes to fend for themselves.

[paultakeda]

Perhaps I'm wrong to believe this but I've always thought of the Rangers in Wasteland as being similar to the NCR in Fallout. Both organizations share a tendency towards expansionism with the intention of restoring law and order to the wasteland. However, despite this noble goal, neighboring societies and tribes find themselves coerced to join their ranks and conform to their standards.

You and I see eye to eye on this one.

[SDF121]

Perhaps I'm wrong to believe this but I've always thought of the Rangers in Wasteland as being similar to the NCR in Fallout. Both organizations share a tendency towards expansionism with the intention of restoring law and order to the wasteland. However, despite this noble goal, neighboring societies and tribes find themselves coerced to join their ranks and conform to their standards.

You and I see eye to eye on this one.

I think that this would be a first!

[Lucius]

Honestly, I don't think Ranger Center gives a damn on the how's and why's. I think your "job" as a ranger is to tame the wilds. I think anything outside Ranger Center is fair game. If you feel you need to wipe the entire population of a town off the map, that's your prerogative. Either fix the problems diplomatically or kill em all because they smell bad, either way mission accomplished.

[Drool]

If you feel you need to wipe the entire population of a town off the map, that's your prerogative.

It's not like the higher ups are actually there.

"What? Highpool? Those kids were dead when we got there!"

[Jbonham_86]

I dont like the idea of being forced to start as a ranger. I would like more an open start, being somewhat anonymous, so I can choose if I want to become a reanger, join the bad guys or just wander around the wasteland with no afiliation

[krellen]

I dont like the idea of being forced to start as a ranger.

Get used to disappointment.

[Lazy Nomad]

Honestly, I don't think Ranger Center gives a damn on the how's and why's. I think your "job" as a ranger is to tame the wilds. I think anything outside Ranger Center is fair game. If you feel you need to wipe the entire population of a town off the map, that's your prerogative. Either fix the problems diplomatically or kill em all because they smell bad, either way mission accomplished.

"More for us." Ranger HQ

[Emmy Lou]

I dont like the idea of being forced to start as a ranger. I would like more an open start, being somewhat anonymous, so I can choose if I want to become a reanger, join the bad guys or just wander around the wasteland with no afiliation

I think that's kind of the point of them "Dropping you off alone in California" in the beginning. "You are a ranger" is really just the setup to unleash you onto the game, and not a "playstyle". If the first thing you want to do is pretend your squad leader goes "Oi, all in favour of stuffing this ranger shit and going rogue to become warlords of Cali, say 'AYE'!" is up to you. We know for a fact Brian & inXile have stated they to want to give us as much freedom and openness as possible, and they've furthermore heard our cries against pigeonholing us into being the good guys even if we choose to be savage, rotten bastards.

For all we know, "establish a base" might be an open-ended goal to achieve, Rangers or no. If at the midway point they send some rangers to check up on your progress, they might be surprised to find your response is more along the lines of:

"Yeah, we set up a base alright. It's called 'Fort Fuck-You', and if you don't like it, you better send an army, because we've spent the last few months setting up military coups against every raider, punk and bandit leader in the region. Deal with it, chumps."

And even if you are forced into being a Ranger by how the plot plays out, like someone above me said, nothing says you gotta be Dudley Do-right about it. The Rangers may come out to check on you and see the bloodsoaked sands in your wake and just be like "J-jesus... uh, keep up the good work, soldier" and return out East like "Yea, it seems like they have things covered out there."

[Keaton]

"Yeah, we set up a base alright. It's called 'Fort Fuck-You', and if you don't like it, you better send an army, because we've spent the last few months setting up military coups against every raider, punk and bandit leader in the region. Deal with it, chumps."

[TΛPETRVE]

As long as people keep talking about "Raiders", they might as well wait for the next Fallout, as Raiders are not part of the Wasteland canon (unless you count railroad raiders) .

[Emmy Lou]

Raider is just a good catch-all terms for jerks in leather out to steal your stuff.

[krellen]

Raider is just a good catch-all terms for jerks in leather out to steal your stuff.

Actually, Wasteland just called them "Jerks".

(No joke.)