The case for a sequel

[krellen]

Ideally for a sequel you look at what was fun and memorable and what made up the game's identity (mood, writing style, gameplay mechanics) and try to keep them recognizable while making improvements where you can. Mindless adherence to past convention prevents progress, and although you may remember them fondly, they may not be the best choice with regards to other mechanics, or the story, or even modern technology.

Every time somebody makes this argument, krellen sheds a single glimmering tear.
A tear of hatred.

Actually, this is what evokes the tear:

Menu based combat for example would be dreadfully dull and make the entire system unengaging.

Because I seriously do love the Bard's Tale/Wasteland menu-based combat. I think it's awesome, on a scale that modern games simply cannot handle.

Oh, and also this:

Even Fallout 3 managed this in a lot of ways

because seriously, Fallout 3 didn't do anything right at all. Not one thing. And it's why I'm so angry and why I hate change so much.

[ravenshrike]

because seriously, Fallout 3 didn't do anything right at all. Not one thing. And it's why I'm so angry and why I hate change so much.

Now wait a minute. I'm pretty sure they portrayed the radroaches pretty well.

[grot]

because seriously, Fallout 3 didn't do anything right at all. Not one thing. And it's why I'm so angry and why I hate change so much.

Now wait a minute. I'm pretty sure they portrayed the radroaches pretty well.

Good mug placement, too. I'm not one tended to hyperbole, but I think it's fair to say Fallout 3 was a real gamechanger in terms of its thorough placement of mugs within the game.

[suz]

because seriously, Fallout 3 didn't do anything right at all. Not one thing. And it's why I'm so angry and why I hate change so much.

Now wait a minute. I'm pretty sure they portrayed the radroaches pretty well.

Good mug placement, too. I'm not one tended to hyperbole, but I think it's fair to say Fallout 3 was a real gamechanger in terms of its thorough placement of mugs within the game.

They listened to your voices and made a whole new DLC for mugs

Oblivion with guns, enough said.

As for fallout 3 managing vats, it was a nice feature, when it didn't glitch out. When it did glitch out then shit started to get real. Also, VATS and regular combat aimbot sucks, but that's what you get for buying console port.

[Interloper]

Because I seriously do love the Bard's Tale/Wasteland menu-based combat. I think it's awesome, on a scale that modern games simply cannot handle.

Could you elaborate? Is it the abstract descriptions? The randomly determined effects of actions? The complete lack of player skill involvement? The fact you have to imagine the fight scene? What does a vague description of a fight do that modern games with the actual graphics to depict it can't?

Oh, and also this:

Even Fallout 3 managed this in a lot of ways

because seriously, Fallout 3 didn't do anything right at all. Not one thing. And it's why I'm so angry and why I hate change so much.

How about environmental storytelling? Fallout 3 unquestionably did that better than Wasteland which didn't have the graphics to depict it. Paragraphs and narration don't count - I mean telling a story through the way the environment is designed. Fallout 3 did it really, really well. I'd argue it would be a lot harder to depict that kind of thing even in an isometric game where you aren't placing individual objects on shelves etc. Because of the closer perspective, the environmental details contributed a huge amount to atmosphere and verisimilitude that you just wouldn't have gotten any other way.



Oh and VATS was hilarious when it bugged out. As are most things in Bethesda games.

[krellen]

Could you elaborate?

Modern games cannot handle 400 versus 4, like Bard's Tale/Wasteland can. Honestly, Wasteland has some what less of it, but there are tactics involved, especially inasmuch as decided where and how to target your area attacks. The descriptions are better, too - I'm really not excited by "seeing" my actions, but having my actions described is great. I'm just not that excited about seeing someone explode like a blood sausage; I'd much rather hear about it.

How about environmental storytelling?

See above about "seeing" things. Also, I never saw any "environmental stories" told in Fallout 3 - I just didn't get any of them. Even the plunger room; it was just a room full of random plungers. It didn't tell me any sort of story.

[Interloper]

Could you elaborate?

Modern games cannot handle 400 versus 4, like Bard's Tale/Wasteland can. Honestly, Wasteland has some what less of it, but there are tactics involved, especially inasmuch as decided where and how to target your area attacks. The descriptions are better, too - I'm really not excited by "seeing" my actions, but having my actions described is great. I'm just not that excited about seeing someone explode like a blood sausage; I'd much rather hear about it.

I loved the way Fallout did combat descriptions - show, then have a little text log with all the flavour text. I don't think that's much of an issue unless you'd rather not have the visual aspect there at all. I think even a gore switch combined with the text messages would achieve the effect you want, showing a vague representation of the event with the actual text in view nearby.

As to 4 vs 400, I see your point, but aside from the fact I don't think this should be too much of a concern in a Wasteland game if only with regards to the setting. However, a lot of games like Left 4 Dead or Serious Sam or Dead Rising manage to get an impressive number of enemies on screen, and that's just high-poly first/third person games, say nothing of the Total War series or Supreme Commander which get really close to actual hundreds of NPCs. I don't know about 400 in a game like this, but I think the technology is definitely catching up, and that it would be easier to deal with in a system where your missed shots can impact the guys behind them, if only to get a sense of scale. And frankly you aren't going to get colourful, unique kill messages against so many characters - they'd lose all meaning very quickly.

How about environmental storytelling?

See above about "seeing" things. Also, I never saw any "environmental stories" told in Fallout 3 - I just didn't get any of them. Even the plunger room; it was just a room full of random plungers. It didn't tell me any sort of story.

It told you a lot about the kind of person who would live in a place like that, collecting all those plungers. Places like Minefield were full of houses with skeletons on the bed and, empty syringes nearby, Megaton was built from aeroplane parts, set up within walking distance of Vault 101 - refugees turned away, who scavenged nearby wreckage for shelter. Hell, you saw the bodies of said refugees as you left the vault. I mean, even the coin op bomb shelters were full of magazines, suitcases of cash and other things people wanted to hold onto through the coming apocalypse. There was plenty there, the only difference is you weren't explicitly told what happened (ie, you saw the minefield skeletons but you weren't told "looks like whoever lived here committed suicide in their lover's arms when they saw the mushroom clouds on the horizon").

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

I loved the way Fallout did combat descriptions - show, then have a little text log with all the flavour text. I don't think that's much of an issue unless you'd rather not have the visual aspect there at all. I think even a gore switch combined with the text messages would achieve the effect you want, showing a vague representation of the event with the actual text in view nearby.

Yeah, you know, that's not satisfying at all. The Fallout text box doesn't cut it. Fallout text doesn't even name your characters. Your names are all over the Wasteland text. The WL text isn't "vague," it's very descriptive. The text tells you all you need to know; the Wasteland pictures are window dressing. I personally don't mind if Wasteland 2 shows all the gory visual details; but it also needs to put your characters into the text! The text ought to show up as an ongoing story. You could scroll back through it and re-read your path through the Wastes. Also, there are more potential ways to feature text in the game besides the combat descriptions; your characters can possibly cooperate on building things or play games together. So, we don't have to reduce the WL2 text to a minor ignorable "text box" that's significant only for novelty's sake. The game can be all about the text and give us pictures too.

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

Because I seriously do love the Bard's Tale/Wasteland menu-based combat. I think it's awesome, on a scale that modern games simply cannot handle.

Could you elaborate? Is it the abstract descriptions? The randomly determined effects of actions? The complete lack of player skill involvement? The fact you have to imagine the fight scene? What does a vague description of a fight do that modern games with the actual graphics to depict it can't?

The Wasteland descriptions aren't abstract or vague. They tell you exactly how much hits and misses are worth and they give you a colorful description of heavy hits. That's the opposite of vague - it's specific. It also puts your name and the name of your opponent into the description so the story actually says "Mad Dog Fargo pummeled the Ugly John for 1080 points of damage reducing him into a thin red paste."

Interloper: "What does a vague description of a fight do that modern games with the actual graphics to depict it can't?"

I take this question to mean "How can words describe fights better than a modern game with actual graphics?"

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but that question is incredibly ignorant. It's like asking how can an all-words book describe things better than a picture book or a pop-up book. I don't mind picture books and pop-up books and I love comics/graphic novels, and I would be happy to see graphic visuals in Wasteland 2. But words are equally as powerful as pictures and moreso depending on the words and the pictures in question.

[TΛPETRVE]

I take this question to mean "How can words describe fights better than a modern game with actual graphics?"

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but that question is incredibly ignorant. It's like asking how can an all-words book describe things better than a picture book or a pop-up book. I don't mind picture books and pop-up books and I love comics/graphic novels, and I would be happy to see graphic visuals in Wasteland 2. But words are equally as powerful as pictures and moreso depending on the words and the pictures in question.

You can still mix things up. Actually, I'd love to see something like the crude still-frame animation at the end of Bionic Commando, accompanied by a detailed description of what exact damage the player has caused to his enemy.

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

I take this question to mean "How can words describe fights better than a modern game with actual graphics?"

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but that question is incredibly ignorant. It's like asking how can an all-words book describe things better than a picture book or a pop-up book. I don't mind picture books and pop-up books and I love comics/graphic novels, and I would be happy to see graphic visuals in Wasteland 2. But words are equally as powerful as pictures and moreso depending on the words and the pictures in question.

You can still mix things up. Actually, I'd love to see something like the crude still-frame animation at the end of Bionic Commando, accompanied by a detailed description of what exact damage the player has caused to his enemy.

Wow! I didn't know about Bionic Commando Rearmed! Thanks!

[TΛPETRVE]

Wow! I didn't know about Bionic Commando Rearmed! Thanks!

There's also two sequels, one being a direct sequel called B.C.R.2 (which isn't as good as the original, but still somewhat enjoyable) and one being a 3rd person shooter simpy named Bionic Commando that is pretty mediocre and mostly noteworthy for having its protagonist modeled after and voiced by Mike Patton.

[Interloper]

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but that question is incredibly ignorant. It's like asking how can an all-words book describe things better than a picture book or a pop-up book. I don't mind picture books and pop-up books and I love comics/graphic novels, and I would be happy to see graphic visuals in Wasteland 2. But words are equally as powerful as pictures and moreso depending on the words and the pictures in question.

First off, numbers are always abstract. 10 damage is never as descriptive as seeing the guy get shot, grunting in pain and taking a step back to regain his balance. And before you say anything I get that I just described that in words, but that's already more detail than Wasteland went into. And that's really the point here, because the thing is, you won't get a novel-like experience from combat descriptions.

Fight descriptions will always be limited by the amount of information they can glean from the game systems and the fact they have to be generic enough to apply to several situations each throughout the game. In a novel you can stretch out the amount of detail or make it flow together in order to paint a coherent picture, but in a game even the colourful parts are going to get repeated a lot with the figures changed. If it actually was a novel, with an author writing the scene, they could reasonably describe a fight scene in creative and vivid detail, but when you're in-game and all lines must be selected from a pool with maybe a few modifications, you just won't get the same level of detail. Graphics can be generated a lot more specifically from textures, models, decals, particle effects and animation and paint a much more vivid picture that you don't have to ignore the fight to observe.

Now, granted it's concievable you could write a really good procedural system that scans the environment, records individual hit locations and scales the amount of detail up for more damaging hits to make things flow better, not to mention description prioritization to select appropriate prebaked lines each time and I kind of want to try writing one myself, but that still lacks the spacial awareness and ease of use a graphical interface provides. That's why I suggested the Fallout text log.

Seriously though now I'm just thinking about how I could write a system to write interesting procedrural combat messages. It'd be a lot like the party banter system from Left 4 Dead 2 where you have a series of rules that determine the nature of the message and any unique parts ("exploded like a blood sausage" etc) then you'd have to grab certain variables to fill in the blanks, maybe substitute a few synonyms/adjectives ("a fine red mist" becomes "a chunky crimson fog") and then find a way to include character reactions (certain perks have synergy with certain weapons? A commando might get different descriptions for using an SMG than a civilian). All I can say is it'd be more time consuming than just drawing the things.

[Gizmo]

Because I seriously do love the Bard's Tale/Wasteland menu-based combat. I think it's awesome, on a scale that modern games simply cannot handle.

Same here; I will be disappointed if it's not an aspect of WL2 in some way shape or form.

And it's why I'm so angry and why I hate change so much.

A lot of people denigrate those that seem to be anti-change; yet they often (purposely it would seem) tend to ignore the point of the member's post. When Fallout 3 was being talked about (before it shipped) there were lots and lots of members that tried to joke and deride those that (they claimed) wanted an exact [unchanged] Fallout 2 clone ~when of course, no one wanted that... What was commonly wanted by those that seemed to favor a game that was closer to the series, was a game that shared the same tone, function and general gameplay ~the rest wanted an RPG-frankenshooter or something in between.

The problem with change is not that there is change, but that there is mutation... When someone looks at a sequel, they expect (or at least hope for) a better game... But what we typically get is not unlike the situation of someone wanting a better hammer and being offered a pipewrench ~hey, it can hit nails

It's not that Fallout 3 isn't a good game in and of itself, but it's certainly the pipewrench where we wanted a better hammer.
** If one does not understand my meaning here... Fallout 3 focused on everything that makes a great TES game, and omitted or neglected most of what made Fallout great in the eyes of the Fallout fanbase (including certain aspects of the setting, which it otherwise did a fantastic job of IMO).

Like a fine crafted tool ~but for a different purpose; what it was intended to do, it did well, but it is just like how a pipewrench is perfect for working on pipes, and terrible for house framing. I cannot play Fallout in Fallout 3.
** ...just like I cannot play Warcraft in World of Warcraft; just like I cannot play 'Dawn of War' in Spacemarine; but those weren't direct sequels, Fallout 3 was... And so is Wasteland 2 ~they say.

Ideally for a sequel you look at what was fun and memorable and what made up the game's identity (mood, writing style, gameplay mechanics) and try to keep them recognizable while making improvements where you can.

I agree with that ~in theory; but I do not see that actually done very often these days, or if I do, I see glossed over [vestigial] fanservice that approaches the mindset of those characters in Idiocracy who were intent on feeding the plants Browndo energy drink... 'because its what plants want' ~they have no clue.

Mindless adherence to past convention prevents progress, and although you may remember them fondly, they may not be the best choice with regards to other mechanics, or the story, or even modern technology.

This I do not agree with, because in practice what you get is someone else's interpretation (or omission) of mindless... Like VATS in Fallout 3. Aiming in Fallout did not work like that for a couple very obvious and specific reasons; VATS only shares a very superficial similarity with aiming in Fallout, and it's erroneously likened to being a 'throw-back' nod to turnbased mechanics ~though only to those that have no idea what that is. VATS is my idea of "Mindless adherence to past convention"; emphases on the mindless part... In a similar way as one might parrot the actions of an electrician without any understanding of why they did what they did.

[Interloper]

Mindless adherence to past convention prevents progress, and although you may remember them fondly, they may not be the best choice with regards to other mechanics, or the story, or even modern technology.

This I do not agree with, because in practice what you get is someone else's interpretation (or omission) of mindless... Like VATS in Fallout 3. Aiming in Fallout did not work like that for a couple very obvious and specific reasons; VATS only shares a very superficial similarity with aiming in Fallout, and it's erroneously likened to being a 'throw-back' nod to turnbased mechanics ~though only to those that have no idea what that is. VATS is my idea of "Mindless adherence to past convention"; emphases on the mindless part... In a similar way as one might parrot the actions of an electrician without any understanding of why they did what they did.

When I say "mindless" I mean, adherence without thought as to why the original system was implemented in the way it was. Of course it doesn't have to be just in terms of previous games in the series (though this is usually the form it takes in the case of sequels), broadly speaking any design decision based on convention without thinking through the reasons for having it is going to turn out badly. For example, it's pretty obvious regenerating health is inappropriate in a good 70% of games it's included in, so are limited weapon systems and things, but since Halo it's now convention so people include it. My point is basically, the designers should pick and choose what they want to include based on what's best for the game, not because that's how it was done before or how others do things. Serious Sam 3 actually had several places where regenerating health would've been really appropriate (you get hardly any health between fights and half the time you don't have enough of the appropriate equipment to take out larger enemies before they damage you). Mass Effect 2 on the other hand added in ammo, even though it made no sense and the overheating guns were more interesting and useful, and could be modded for continuous fire, but that was how every other shooter did it.

I think in the case of VATS they wanted a system for called shots, and tried to make it aesthetically similar to the turned based combat, without actually being turn based combat - it wasn't trying to adhere to past convention so much as bring that system into the gameplay they had. Considering gunplay in that game was woefully bad, I thought VATS made an interesting addition despite its brokenness and it helped incorporate character skill into combat in ways that didn't involve stopping you from hitting anything. So I kind of see where they were coming from when they made it, and I don't think they ever had the intention of copying stuff from the originals, for better or for worse. When I say mindless adherence to convention, it's not something I usually accuse Bethesda of (don't get me wrong, I accuse them of all sorts of things) - their sequels tend to be noticably different from each other in terms of gameplay, and they make a point of rethinking core systems, even if that doesn't always work (no attributes at all in Skyrim? Seriously?). So, it's kind of the opposite - mindless innovation or something - "let's change stuff even if it ignores the reasons people like our games".

[Gizmo]

When I say "mindless" I mean, adherence without thought as to why the original system was implemented in the way it was.

We're not disagreeing here.

I think in the case of VATS they wanted a system for called shots, and tried to make it aesthetically similar to the turned based combat, without actually being turn based combat - it wasn't trying to adhere to past convention so much as bring that system into the gameplay they had.

It's not aesthetically similar to TB ~it wasn't that even in Fallout 1; it was just aiming. By 'mindless', I meant they copied the aimed shot mechanic well enough, but changed the linear percentages to pure proximity, and so they lost the incrementally increasing difficulty and risk for increased damage; and omitted most of the critical effects that were the incentive to take that risk ~along with any element of risk anyway... AP's are like free candy in FO3 where in FO2, you wasted them at your peril.

When I say mindless adherence to convention, it's not something I usually accuse Bethesda of (don't get me wrong, I accuse them of all sorts of things) - their sequels tend to be noticably different from each other in terms of gameplay, and they make a point of rethinking core systems...

That in itself is a mindless convention.

[Interloper]

I think in the case of VATS they wanted a system for called shots, and tried to make it aesthetically similar to the turned based combat, without actually being turn based combat - it wasn't trying to adhere to past convention so much as bring that system into the gameplay they had.

It's not aesthetically similar to TB ~it wasn't that even in Fallout 1; it was just aiming. By 'mindless', I meant they copied the aimed shot mechanic well enough, but changed the linear percentages to pure proximity, and so they lost the incrementally increasing difficulty and risk for increased damage; and omitted most of the critical effects that were the incentive to take that risk ~along with any element of risk anyway... AP's are like free candy in FO3 where in FO2, you wasted them at your peril.

Yeah, I can't really defend VATS any more than I already did. It's pretty much just a "skip combat/Watch the funny glitches" button. And honestly I'm a sucker for the funny glitches.

When I say mindless adherence to convention, it's not something I usually accuse Bethesda of (don't get me wrong, I accuse them of all sorts of things) - their sequels tend to be noticably different from each other in terms of gameplay, and they make a point of rethinking core systems...

That in itself is a mindless convention.

I suppose it is, though I was referring to design conventions. But then, it's the same result - hit and miss - so fair enough.

[BadMojoRising]

Never playes wasteland. But i can say it would be a damn shame if WL2 were exactly the same as the first except with merely cosmetic upgrades. A shame indeed.

When read "old school rpg" on the kickstarter page. First things going through my
head was:
Something in the vein of Fallout 1/2 only with a lot of perks and conveniences youd expect atr 20 years of gaming history.
Fully accessible and smart menu loot overall design etc etc. Cosmetics.
And seeing how scant the dialogue/text of the original wasteland was, am i wrong to expect a sequel to be LITERALLY LIGHT YEARS ahead of where the game was so long ago?

I put down my money cause i believed wed get a game in an old school vein like fallout (that wasteland wouldve been if i it was made with a sikilar budget and time frame at the time).... Only vastly improved from the passage of time and the advent of experience the designers must have gained in 20 plus years.

What i didnt put my money down for : a remake or something immune to true progress of design(which encompasseses everything relating to game).

We gave money now make us an crpg that we can hold up as being a pinnacle of the genre( high hopes i know)...
But i have a belief that these dudes can pull off something that puts both wasteland and fallout 1/2 to shame.

[krellen]

pinnacle of the genre

I would like to explicitly state that this is not what I'm looking for. I am explicitly looking for a niche product, not a mass appeal one.

[Mandemon]

pinnacle of the genre

I would like to explicitly state that this is not what I'm looking for. I am explicitly looking for a niche product, not a mass appeal one.

What, you want a game that is intentionally made so niche that it has no hope of ever getting any more support than niche group?

I want Wasteland 2 to be great RPG. Not specifically tailored niche product that CEO can point and say "Sure, people buy it, but it does not bring profit" when someone tries next time make anything like Wasteland 2.