The case for a sequel

[krellen]

I don't believe that everyone interested in the niche has already invested. There are plenty of people in that niche market that have not yet bought.

[CaptainPatch]

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.

A product doesn't need to dominate a market in order to be profitable. It just needs to sell X number of units, and then everything after that is Profit. The trouble with mass market games like EA pushes is that they deliberately "dumb it down" in order to attract the greatest number of consumers = MORE Profit. Niche products service more demanding but numerically smaller market sectors. I would MUCH prefer products that service _my_ niche instead of trying to be "all things to all people".

[Mandemon]

I am not asking "dumbing down" or making game for everyone.

I am asking making a great game first and if it fits niche market, then fine. But don't go out and try to fir specific niche market.

[Gizmo]

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.

Why a shame? and why a Fallout clone when they are different games from different series?

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?

This is kind of unrelated, as Wasteland shipped on a Floppy. It was the media that caused the constraint; and Wasteland 2 won't ship on a floppy disk.

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.

I backed it because it was them, and because it was to be a turn based sequel to a great RPG; hopefully the pinnacle of the series; that it's RPG is a given, but IMO the important part is what kind of RPG. I would not want a re-skinned "Kingdom of Amalur" or even a re-skinned Baldur's Gate.

I don't at all expect it, but I would have been fine with a re-skinned 'Devil Whiskey'; (yes I'm serious ).
I hope it's not a Fallout clone, because we already have Fallout... we could just play Fallout instead; and it wouldn't be much of a sequel would it? incorporating a 3d isometric visual aid into the original design would be fine by me, but I wouldn't want that to overshadow the original aspects of the game to the extent that they are just vestigial nods to the fans, and not core the the game.

[BadMojoRising]

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.

I meant pinnacle of the old school crpg genre.
I'm fine with retaining all the elements that made the original so well liked.
But still, that's probably not enough for somebody who wants essentially an identical product to the original with only minor superficial/or cosmetical updates.
That's far too niche. I'm expecting a niche product for sure.
But NOT THAT NICHE!

[BadMojoRising]

Why a shame? and why a Fallout clone when they are different games from different series?

just a shame if their was no evolution of design. You can work from the core of it and show substantial evolution you know.
I dont want to see progress or evolution of design invisible or imperceptable.

[Gizmo]

Why a shame? and why a Fallout clone when they are different games from different series?

just a shame if their was no evolution of design. You can work from the core of it and show substantial evolution you know.
I dont want to see progress or evolution of design invisible or imperceptable.

Evolution of design is great ~mutation of design is the real shame. I'm fine with any improvement to a core system; or the addition of something that suits the expansion of core gameplay... I'll give an example: I would even be fine with the addition of a first person camera, as this would facilitate close inspection of an area... but I would not be fine with the use of a first person camera as the primary mode of traversing the landscape; it would have to be a limited use option for close inspection, and not an alternative view from which to play the game.

[Woolfe]

Why a shame? and why a Fallout clone when they are different games from different series?

just a shame if their was no evolution of design. You can work from the core of it and show substantial evolution you know.
I dont want to see progress or evolution of design invisible or imperceptable.

I think most of us expect some degree of change/evolution, we certainly expect improvement over the original.

But we also expect it to be true to the original. So evolution vs paradigm change.

[Gizmo]

I think most of us expect some degree of change/evolution, we certainly expect improvement over the original.

But we also expect it to be true to the original. So evolution vs paradigm change.

That's how I see it.

** What's you're opinion (from what you can see of it) of something like this? (evolution or paradigm change?)


Just curious.

[krellen]

** What's your opinion (from what you can see of it) of something like this? (evolution or paradigm change?)

Paradigm change, looks like to me.

[Woolfe]

I think most of us expect some degree of change/evolution, we certainly expect improvement over the original.

But we also expect it to be true to the original. So evolution vs paradigm change.

That's how I see it.

** What's you're opinion (from what you can see of it) of something like this? (evolution or paradigm change?)


Just curious.

This is for the combat system?

If so we already know there will be a significant change at this point, as BF has already stated it will be closer to FO than WL.
So in this case it is a paradigm change.

As to that image, it looks interesting, it looks like night time, so I won't comment on the colours. I would prefer it a touch further back from the party. I would also prefer the dropdown to be permanently fixed on the bottom of the screen. (personal preference)

[Gizmo]

As to that image, it looks interesting, it looks like night time, so I won't comment on the colours. I would prefer it a touch further back from the party. I would also prefer the dropdown to be permanently fixed on the bottom of the screen. (personal preference)

The dropdown was an example of when I mentioned an FPP camera a while back (possibly in a different thread, come to think of it). *Mentioned only as an oddball option ~yet IMO not unsuited, so long as it was not a major aspect, or an alternate view from which to play the game; it was suggested as an option for inspecting an area.

** What's your opinion (from what you can see of it) of something like this? (evolution or paradigm change?)

Paradigm change, looks like to me.

Granted, it's not this...

or this...

... We're not going to be getting either of these.

(But honestly, I would like some sort of combination of those along with (as part of) the Fallout/Jagged Alliance style gameplay that we will likely get.)

[Woolfe]

As to that image, it looks interesting, it looks like night time, so I won't comment on the colours. I would prefer it a touch further back from the party. I would also prefer the dropdown to be permanently fixed on the bottom of the screen. (personal preference)

The dropdown was an example of when I mentioned an FPP camera a while back (possibly in a different thread, come to think of it). *Mentioned only as an oddball option ~yet IMO not unsuited, so long as it was not a major aspect, or an alternate view from which to play the game; it was suggested as an option for inspecting an area.

Yeah I can see that, I had sort of figured it was some sort of "auto targeting" type system that would highlight potential targets etc...

[BadMojoRising]

I like that it seemingly includes an optional old-school view of the game world.
How easy do you think it would be to old-schoolify the look of the entire game world once its been made?
Or would you need to be doing it all in tandem from the start.
It would be an awesome feature if it were possible/not costly at all on the resources for the game.

Considering the above i dont think it would nessecerily be a paradigm shift.
Those pictures dont tell how combat would play out and such.

I further suspect that Krellen dude and others of poo pooing every slight thing that wasnt n the first game.
I mean, most of us i think arent poo pooing the overall feel and whatnots of WL, but every time somebody suggests something that isnt basically a cut/paste from first game, krellen and some others just say no; this is not wl1 so we dont want that.
Happens everytime. If WL1 is not exactly what they want, then im sorry,
I dont "get" them...

[BadMojoRising]

As to that image, it looks interesting, it looks like night time, so I won't comment on the colours. I would prefer it a touch further back from the party. I would also prefer the dropdown to be permanently fixed on the bottom of the screen. (personal preference)

The dropdown was an example of when I mentioned an FPP camera a while back (possibly in a different thread, come to think of it). *Mentioned only as an oddball option ~yet IMO not unsuited, so long as it was not a major aspect, or an alternate view from which to play the game; it was suggested as an option for inspecting an area.

Yeah I can see that, I had sort of figured it was some sort of "auto targeting" type system that would highlight potential targets etc...

Those two depictions are great.
But not even in throwing distance of what i expect from the new game.
However i believe for people like krellen(if my assumptions are correct) would be riht up their alley... And anything less than that kind of completely purist wasteland experience would be in their eyes, a failure and dissappointment...
Sadface. Cause id like the purists to like the game just as much as the non purists.

[Gizmo]

But not even in throwing distance of what i expect from the new game.
However i believe for people like krellen(if my assumptions are correct) would be riht up their alley... And anything less than that kind of completely purist wasteland experience would be in their eyes, a failure and dissappointment...
Sadface. Cause id like the purists to like the game just as much as the non purists.

My issue with 'purist & non-purist' is that when I buy into a series, it is as much for the game mechanics as any fiction that accompanies them.

To make a Wasteland 2 (or a Fallout 3) that radically diverges or completely omits and ignores the previous series' established gameplay ~is a poor sequel (or not a sequel at all) IMO. I read a lot posted by members that expect and demand one game's fiction heaped on another game's mechanics ~and that's a sequel to them. I have no bias against any game having any rule set... but when a game is pushed out as a direct sequel to a previous game... I do not understand why I should give a damn if it's an entirely different game using cherry picked references to a game that I actually liked ~as if simply mentioning those names would magically make me buy their product.

* Would anyone here buy a Monopoly game if it was Chutes & Ladders in the box but used Monopoly pieces and had the little bank dude on the spinner?

The point of the Kickstarter campaign was that they would not have to pander and could make the game for fans of the original.

Most fans of the original (who played it when it came out), are acutely aware of the real extent that computer technology has advanced in the last 24 years; no one wants a direct EGA clone of Wasteland, but I don't see the interest in a modern game if it's only the Wasteland fiction and has scant resemblance to the gameplay (if any) ~why is that thought a sequel and not a spin-off? Why should I care to play?

[john irwin finster]

Well put.

[Woolfe]

And essentially the problem with Fallout 3.
I am still waiting for the real Fallout 3. "Fallout: Oblivion with Guns" is a different game.
I actually really enjoyed Fallout 3. But I enjoyed it for different reasons than the first 2.

The History and world was great, just as it was in FO 1 and 2. But it was a FPS, that was an enormous change, that completely changed the feel of the game.
It was no longer turnbased and tactical, but Realtime and reactive.


The difference between the WL Text scrolling and the FO style tactical combat game can in some ways be just as wide. But there are some significant similarities that don't exist in an FPS.
1 - Turn based
2 - Tactical

The degree of tactics has certainly changed, as has the visual representation, but it is still tactical at its core.

[BadMojoRising]

Is text-scrolling choosing from 3 or so text options with no movement once in combat , a better tactical core than fo1/2.
Am i missing something.
I,m trying to comprehend how and why somebody would choose text scrolling combat over a system more akin to Fo1 only being much more complex with tons more tactical options available with regard to cover/movement/LOS/ etcetcetcetc....
Imagine using the climb skill to climb on roof of building during combat as a tactical option?
Somethig which would be so poorly represented if it was merely scrolling text .

Why stop at scrolling text. Why not keep going backwards until were left with not a videogame, but pure pen/paper with optional 3d holographic viewer depicting all damage to enemies/ your xgaracters?

The box we end lmiting a sequel to becmes so small.
Nevermind. Im ranting now.

[Woolfe]

Is text-scrolling choosing from 3 or so text options with no movement once in combat , a better tactical core than fo1/2.
Am i missing something.
I,m trying to comprehend how and why somebody would choose text scrolling combat over a system more akin to Fo1 only being much more complex with tons more tactical options available with regard to cover/movement/LOS/ etcetcetcetc....
Imagine using the climb skill to climb on roof of building during combat as a tactical option?
Somethig which would be so poorly represented if it was merely scrolling text .

Why stop at scrolling text. Why not keep going backwards until were left with not a videogame, but pure pen/paper with optional 3d holographic viewer depicting all damage to enemies/ your xgaracters?

The box we end lmiting a sequel to becmes so small.
Nevermind. Im ranting now.

We already know that it will be closer to FO1/2 than the original WL. Brian has stated this.
What I was saying was that there is not as much of a paradigm shift between WL -> FO1/2 as there is between FO1/2 -> FO3.

As both are turn based and tactical, as opposed to real time and Reactive.