Wasteland 2, not Fallout 4

[Citronvand]

if the devs make a FPS wasteland version, i will never forgive them..

why not, FPS wasteland version would be awesome.

it would look like this:

...

I'm all for old-school FPS RPGs. But the problem is that those don't offer much tactical gameplay which I think is a important aspect of Wasteland

[Zylinski]

It's only natural that there are going to be many Fallout-based suggestions, a lot of people haven't played Wasteland but their money and input is still valid and required in order to make a good game.

I'm not fond of the argument that the game should be almost total top-down just the way W1 was. I think an isometric or maybe even 3d-isometric view brings out detail that real top-down never would. By the way, neither F1, F2 or F3 are 3d-isometric (well Van Buren was, RIP). Many games that were released during the W1 era out looked and played like they did because of technical limitations but there are better alternatives today that can actually help the mood and gameplay of the game. While many suggestions are Fallout-inspired, some are just the result of games having evolved.

We must push nostalgia away and be rational, it will result in a better game.

[Tanglebones]

It's only natural that there are going to be many Fallout-based suggestions, a lot of people haven't played Wasteland but their money and input is still valid and required in order to make a good game.

I'm not fond of the argument that the game should be almost total top-down just the way W1 was. I think an isometric or maybe even 3d-isometric view brings out detail that real top-down never would. By the way, neither F1, F2 or F3 are 3d-isometric (well Van Buren was, RIP). Many games that were released during the W1 era out looked and played like they did because of technical limitations but there are better alternatives today that can actually help the mood and gameplay of the game. While many suggestions are Fallout-inspired, some are just the result of games having evolved.

We must push nostalgia away and be rational, it will result in a better game.

I totally agree that anyone who's paid (or planning on paying, or hoping that the game comes together into something neat, but can't afford to pay just right now) should be able to contribute to the discussion. I mean, this is a WL sequel, but I get the sense that there's a lot of people out there hungry for some turn-based combat in a party-based RPG, and you know, the more the merrier. If WL2 is a success, maybe other indie and midsized developers will take a chance on the genre.

In everything that I've read Brian Fargo say on the subject so far, he refers to WL2 as a "top down" game. I really kinda hope that he's just using those words to clearly distinguish it from the 1st/3rd person perspectives common in contemporary RPGs like Skyrim... 3d models are great, especially if InXile winds up including mod tools with the game... As I understand it, it's generally easier for modders to work within a 3d framework than a 2d framework.

I don't know that we should put nostaliga away so much as be very careful in its application though. I mean, on one hand, this is a nostalgic project too (even to the people who are supporting b/c they loved FO 1&2). But, from what I've seen and read so far, the InXile folks are really working toward getting that balance between nostalgia and development right.

[moomoos]

I haven't played wasteland altough ive played many brian fargo games and i love them all.

Let game mechanics and universal stuff that worked well in fallout be included in wasteland 2.
but keep the actual game content wasteland and not fallout.

altough i wouldnt be sad if wasteland 2 turned into an unoficcial sequel for fallout 2.

[dnr]

Judging by the posts I've skimmed so far, I get the impression that many people are hoping for an old-school sequel to Fallout 2: I've seen requests to remove the party,

did you actually play fallout?

because it had a party system.

[BrotherMagneto]

Judging by the posts I've skimmed so far, I get the impression that many people are hoping for an old-school sequel to Fallout 2: I've seen requests to remove the party,

did you actually play fallout?

because it had a party system.

Did you actually play Wasteland?

Because the party system is totally different.

One of the things Fallout did was bring the idea of "one main character" to the game, as opposed to the classic C-RPGs like WL and Bard's Tale where you built an entire party. The corollary would be if the Vault Dweller was really a group of Vault Dwellers, all with their own skills, names, etc.

Furthermore in fallout the "party" wasn't anything more than a bunch of NPCs who followed the main character around and had a mind of their own. In Wasteland you could give specific commands to every PC party member precisely at any given time, and you could even split the party up to the point where (if you wanted) you could have half the party running across the entire game map, getting involved in fights and doing things, while the other half of the party was in a completely different location. (I can't remember if you could actually go into sub-locations with a split party or not, someone will have to refresh my memory there.)

The party systems are entirely different. The only more modern version of the WL style is probably Icewind Dale, which is why a lot of old school gamers really enjoyed that game over others because it's not all about one person whose special snowflake story you're supposed to identify with, it's far closer to the PnP Roleplaying that spawned the C-RPGs in the first place, designed for parties and not individuals.

In short: just say No to the Fallout party system / one special snowflake character scenario. Make it an old-school group of PCs.

[Hell Razor]

On the PC version, you could take split parties anywhere. Once you crossed map boundaries, the space/time continuum changed a bit (lol, seriously) in that a party on a different map would no longer engage in random encounters if they weren't in focus.

The split party thing was very cool but it was not used to its potential in WL.

[BrotherMagneto]

On the PC version, you could take split parties anywhere. Once you crossed map boundaries, the space/time continuum changed a bit (lol, seriously) in that a party on a different map would no longer engage in random encounters if they weren't in focus.

The split party thing was very cool but it was not used to its potential in WL.

That's what I thought, I couldn't remember specifically though.

The split-party thing was awesome.

[shackpack]

Too much people that did not played the original wasteland (like me) could be a little confused because they are attracted with the post apocaliptic environment and the turn based game type.

My recommendations would be to make some kind of resume or the type of environment that the original game had.
For example fallout series is based about the feel of America's 50's with the music and the kind of houses or cars adding some futuristic items like the power weapons, cool armours. Radioactivity was cool before the great war!

The new ones in this franchise need that background to be able to know what exactly was this game about!

Sorry about my english, not my main language. I wish i've explained what I pretended so say XD

[Sub-Human]

Oh, this is a tough one. Fallout was supposed to be Wasteland, after all - and it partially did become it. Undoubtedly, Fallout still (in my opinion, at least) didn't entirely copy Wasteland (the latter seems to have a world that's more thrived, and a far developed society), but you've got to take in the other side of the coin too.

Personally I'd like Wasteland 2 to be a nice, 90s-styled cRPG with an apocalyptic setting. Perhaps I wouldn't even have cared if Brian decided to do a game called Aftermath which would be a combination of Wasteland and Fallout into somethig new. But paragraph books and not improving the mechanics? I don't think that goes hand-in-hand. And you could fit in portraits, such as if you rolled your mouse over an NPC you could see a Fallout talking-head style portrait right there. An animation for exploding blood sausages would be quite fitting as well

[BrotherMagneto]

Actually both of those posts raise a great point:

Fallout took the zeitgiest of the late 50s and early 60s and the original nuclear paranoia of the time and ran with it.

That was a very distinctive feel from Wasteland, which was very much a more depressing 1980s "everyone's basically fucked if this happens" zeitgeist. That feeling is what I'd really like to see in WL2.

Party mechanics are easy to define, but that "Feeling" is a little less concrete - but like art, I'll know it when I see it.

[Kide]

I have never unfortunatly been able to play the original Wasteland (I think I need to try it though), but loved baldursgate, icewind dale and arcanum (and later when I found out about fallout games them as well). So I certanly would at least prefer to have a game with the isometric view like the one in baldurs gate 2 as it was very beautiful in my opinion.

It is hard for me to say what kind of envirment the game should have, but of course even if I do not know what kind it really was in wasteland, I still think the envirment and the ideas from it should be the source for the sequal. Not fallout 1 or 2. It is nevertheless a wasteland 2, not fallout.

About the party system however... I do see both icewind dale style pc party and baldurs gate 2 style npc party as viable options... mabe they both could be implemended somehow... But if I have a choice I would definitly choose the style from baldurs gate 2 in this. Even if the icewind dale had awesome story, it just never felt... I don't knwo how to put it.... It just missed something. But if the game is going to have the pc player to create the whole party, then I would definitly wish to see some sort adaptasion from wizardy 8's party creation with the possibility to choose from many different voices for the charachters etc. In the end I am still going to love a new game that has this kind of style tactical combat, no matter whitch kind of party creation or npc players it has.

But the possibility to send part of your group to a different location sounds interestning too.... and I am unsure how well that system could work if your party would be NPC party and not your own created party.... Really am unsure, hot it would work. But really have to try out wasteland soon enough if possibly.

[Matej]

No offense to the purist Wasteland fans on here, but I will venture to say that a majority of the donations came from Fallout enthusiasts who are not happy with the direction that Bethesda took the franchise in, me included. Especially after their hopes for Fallout Online made by Interplay have just been shattered.

I am willing to go as far as to guess that most of the people who donated have never even played Wasteland. I think in the end we are all just hungry for a new creation from the original masters of the post-apocalyptic game genre, and we hope to recapture that feeling when we were first captivated by their game, whether it be Wasteland or Fallout.

We should all be willing to agree on some kind of a middle ground that will make everyone happy.

[Ekaros]

No offense to the purist Wasteland fans on here, but I will venture to say that a majority of the donations came from Fallout enthusiasts who are not happy with the direction that Bethesda took the franchise in, me included. Especially after their hopes for Fallout Online made by Interplay have just been shattered.

I am willing to go as far as to guess that most of the people who donated have never even played Wasteland. I think in the end we are all just hungry for a new creation from the original masters of the post-apocalyptic game genre, and we hope to recapture that feeling when we were first captivated by their game, whether it be Wasteland or Fallout.

We should all be willing to agree on some kind of a middle ground that will make everyone happy.

I'm also in this group. Give balanced game for both groups. Maybe even for all three games Wasteland, FO1 and FO2. A game which fans of each can agree at least someways.

[enderandrew]

It would be a mistake to ignore the things Fallout did well (such as Perks) but I think it should be worth noting that there are some things Wasteland did that Fallout never did. I trust this team has been thinking about what would make a good W2 game for years.

[BrotherMagneto]

No offense to the purist Wasteland fans on here, but I will venture to say that a majority of the donations came from Fallout enthusiasts ....

I'll go ahead and stop you right there because this is definitely a point of agreement. But that being said (soapbox time), I think those enthusiasts (whether or not they liked Bethesda's fallout games) need to understand that they weren't being asked to fund an unofficial Fallout sequel that they all wanted, and if that is what those fans expect then they may need to recalibrate what their expectations are. This isn't going to be the cancelled Van Buren. That game will never be made, like it or not, and there seems to be an undercurrent on this forum that simply wants Van Buren. The Kickstarter project isn't called "Let's get Van Buren going!" it's "let's make a sequel to a 25 year old computer game," and if folks want this to be VB they are likely going to be pretty disappointed when it comes out. /soapbox

That being said, there's a lot of really great things to take away from the Fallout franchise and its varying degrees of success over the years. But there's a lot of essentially "Wasteland" things that simply shouldn't be compromised either: things like a party system where you roll not just one character but four. The 80s zeitgeist vs. the 50s/60s zeitgeist. That's what I'm arguing for: keep the core Wasteland-y things intact, and the rest will no doubt follow.

[Tanglebones]

No offense to the purist Wasteland fans on here, but I will venture to say that a majority of the donations came from Fallout enthusiasts ....

I'll go ahead and stop you right there because this is definitely a point of agreement. But that being said (soapbox time), I think those enthusiasts (whether or not they liked Bethesda's fallout games) need to understand that they weren't being asked to fund an unofficial Fallout sequel that they all wanted, and if that is what those fans expect then they may need to recalibrate what their expectations are. This isn't going to be the cancelled Van Buren. That game will never be made, like it or not, and there seems to be an undercurrent on this forum that simply wants Van Buren. The Kickstarter project isn't called "Let's get Van Buren going!" it's "let's make a sequel to a 25 year old computer game," and if folks want this to be VB they are likely going to be pretty disappointed when it comes out. /soapbox

That being said, there's a lot of really great things to take away from the Fallout franchise and its varying degrees of success over the years. But there's a lot of essentially "Wasteland" things that simply shouldn't be compromised either: things like a party system where you roll not just one character but four. The 80s zeitgeist vs. the 50s/60s zeitgeist. That's what I'm arguing for: keep the core Wasteland-y things intact, and the rest will no doubt follow.

I really hope that we, as a group supporting WL2, can avoid splitting into a "Wasteland Purist" faction and a "Make it like Fallout 1&2" faction, because I think people approaching the project from both angles can potentially have valuable insights to offer into the game development. I think, like you mentioned, the two key elements that differentiate WL from Fallout are that WL is party based, while FO has always been about a single player who sometimes had companions (and maybe a dog), and WL's 80's "feel" as opposed to the design decision in FO to make it 50's/60's retrofuturistic. I think too that WL had a more satirical tone than FO, which mostly took itself pretty seriously, but, I agree that so long as the devs manage to maintain the WL "feel" (and, these guys are pretty experienced), then particular mechanics aren't going to be a huge deal.

[Vryheid]

That being said, there's a lot of really great things to take away from the Fallout franchise and its varying degrees of success over the years. But there's a lot of essentially "Wasteland" things that simply shouldn't be compromised either: things like a party system where you roll not just one character but four. The 80s zeitgeist vs. the 50s/60s zeitgeist. That's what I'm arguing for: keep the core Wasteland-y things intact, and the rest will no doubt follow.

There are a number of design traits I think Wasteland 2 should keep from the original which were basically absent from the Fallout games:

1. Long, epic battles. Wasteland did a great job of keeping you on your toes during difficult battles, hoping you wouldn't run out of ammunition or supplies as you slowly crippled a giant cyborg. Fallout 1 and 2 were games of one hit kills- just get the submachine gun (or later, the Bozar/minigun), and everything died instantly. It really made combat in late-game feel filled to the brink with cheap deaths and lacked satisfaction. I prefer Wasteland's more traditional, old-school RPG oriented approach.

2. Colorful environments with as much personality as the characters inhabiting them. I'm sorry, but after playing through Fallout 3 and New Vegas there are only so many collections of holed up shacks in the desert that I can stand. Wasteland's interpretation of a post-apocalyptic world was one that was one that devastated the minds and hearts of the people moreso than the environment, which aught to be reflected in a large variety of lush areas we can explore.

3. A large degree of investigation and manipulation skills. In Wasteland there was a great deal you could do with a single patch of land- whether it be digging, mining, investigation, or other forms of manipulation. Fallout games basically allowed none of this- a patch of dirt was a patch of dirt unless explicitly told otherwise. I like Wasteland's elements of discovery and depth.

4. One unified world, not some out-of-game overhead map to fast travel between towns. Fallout 1 and 2 really lacked the elements of exploration and discovery which made a lot of later open world RPGs so appealing. Wasteland did a great job letting players physically explore the environment, not just having them zip around on a grid.

5. Party based combat. Characters supporting each other with complementing abilities was a trademark of the Wasteland series, and is a huge step apart from the next to useless companions you found in the first Fallout game. I want battles that require intelligent tactics and teamwork to win. With more computing power to work with the devs could build on this concept even more than how it was used in the first Wasteland.

To be fair, there are some features from Fallout I'd like to see moved over. I sincerely hope the broken EXP model from the original Wasteland gets completely revamped, at least allowing characters to share EXP for beating monsters. I also hope we move to a pseudo isometric view (with 3D models). However, this doesn't mean that we can't keep the core personality of what made the original a unique and memorable experience.

[Aurelius]

This isn't going to be the cancelled Van Buren. That game will never be made, like it or not, and there seems to be an undercurrent on this forum that simply wants Van Buren. The Kickstarter project isn't called "Let's get Van Buren going!" it's "let's make a sequel to a 25 year old computer game," and if folks want this to be VB they are likely going to be pretty disappointed when it comes out. /soapbox

I find this kinda Ironic as that was the exact same sentiment following a wasteland 2 sequel until just recently. And well, I think it's pretty safe to say that recent history has proven that sentiment wrong. I'm really hoping Tim Cain puts on that blonde wig, maybe a filly dress n' some make-up, and marches straight down to Bethesda HQ and kicks some ass until they give him the green light to at least make ONE long overdue, true fallout sequel. The second I see him put up a kickstarter for that, i'll be slapping him with money across the face all day.

Yea, that's the one. The wig. Right there: http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=7219

Now about the wasteland/fallout purist thing, I'm sure I'm of the same opinion. I myself feel that a small part of me is donating, hoping to see a glint of fallout somewhere in the game. most likely because I've never gotten the chance to play the original wasteland, and so it's spiritual successor is all I have to go off of. But In the end I realize that this is wasteland and not fallout. And I think most of those that donated hoping for fallout need to come to that realization as well, or else they're probably gonna end up running straight into a wall of disappointment. And that's probably gonna lead to some flak flying straight towards the wasteland 2 team when things don't turn out the way those donors hoped.

I feel that goes for the other side as well though. I think those wasteland purist that want almost everything a mirror image of the original need to realize that maybe the reason why animated portraits where used in the first game was because that's what technology allowed at the time. and that maybe the technology, hell maybe even the look and style also, of fallout might have been the natural progression that wasteland was suppose to take all along had a sequel been made back in the day. I can't help but feel that isometric would've been the natural progression of wasteland 2, rather than top down, had it been develop the first time it was pitched to some bastard publisher.

[ankou]

This isn't going to be the cancelled Van Buren. That game will never be made, like it or not, and there seems to be an undercurrent on this forum that simply wants Van Buren. The Kickstarter project isn't called "Let's get Van Buren going!" it's "let's make a sequel to a 25 year old computer game," and if folks want this to be VB they are likely going to be pretty disappointed when it comes out. /soapbox

I find this kinda Ironic as that was the exact same sentiment following a wasteland 2 sequel until just recently. And well, I think it's pretty safe to say that recent history has proven that sentiment wrong. I'm really hoping Tim Cain puts on that blonde wig, maybe a filly dress n' some make-up, and marches straight down to Bethesda HQ and kicks some ass until they give him the green light to at least make ONE long overdue, true fallout sequel. The second I see him put up a kickstarter for that, i'll be slapping him with money across the face all day.

Yea, that's the one. The wig. Right there: http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=7219

Now about the wasteland/fallout purist thing, I'm sure I'm of the same opinion. I myself feel that a small part of me is donating, hoping to see a glint of fallout somewhere in the game. most likely because I've never gotten the chance to play the original wasteland, and so it's spiritual successor is all I have to go off of. But In the end I realize that this is wasteland and not fallout. And I think most of those that donated hoping for fallout need to come to that realization as well, or else they're probably gonna end up running straight into a wall of disappointment. And that's probably gonna lead to some flak flying straight towards the wasteland 2 team when things don't turn out the way those donors hoped.

I feel that goes for the other side as well though. I think those wasteland purist that want almost everything a mirror image of the original need to realize that maybe the reason why animated portraits where used in the first game was because that's what technology allowed at the time. and that maybe the technology, hell maybe even the look and style also, of fallout might have been the natural progression that wasteland was suppose to take all along had a sequel been made back in the day. I can't help but feel that isometric would've been the natural progression of wasteland 2, rather than top down, had it been develop the first time it was pitched to some bastard publisher.

I agree with this sentiment absolutely. I also feel that there are probably a lot fewer hard-line purists on both sides of the fence than it may appear. For the most part, those of us who loved Wasteland also love Fallout and see it as the spiritual sequel. There is a reason that the cover of Fallout 1 had the tagline "Remember Wasteland?" I cannot suppose to speak for those who didn't grow up with Wasteland, or who never played it, but surely the noticed the words "Wasteland 2" all over the place with no mention of Fallout outside of developer biographies.

My dad brought home Wasteland brand new for my when I was 8 years old and I still play it with that same 3 1/2 floppy. It is the only game that has ever spoken to me, and the only game i have been able to stay absorbed in for any real length of time, let alone 24 years. I only mention this to illustrate that I am as die-hard a wasteland fan as there is, and I can see room for compromise and improvement. I agree with every thing in Vryheid's post, those are some of the points at the very core of wasteland and I feel that they all have to remain for the sequel. Having said that, there is a lot that should be incorporated from Fallout 1 and 2. The more interactive combat system from the newer games should be incorporated, as well as some form of talking heads, and interactive dialog with rp choices that impact the course of the game. A morality system that determines reactions, what npc's you can recruit, and what mission arcs are available would be great. I would like to see a perk-like scheme incorporated into a Wasteland-style character advancement system. I also feel that 3d isometric is the only way to go.

There is a lot of room for compromise while still creating an amazing game.