The case for a sequel

[paultakeda]

My point is we all want a good rpg with an old-school wipe, but that shouldn't make it any less impressive in quality which for many people involve graphics, good animation and all the other forbidden words.

I'm not sure what you mean by old school "wipe". If you mean you don't want an old school RPG system (and this has nothing to do with using a 3D engine) then I disagree. Old school does not mean outdated. For instance, old school RPG mechanics like the party system and character creation via skill/attribute customization versus character hand out is exactly what I expect of WL2.

It's not so much that all of us want a good RPG but that we have different ideas as to what that means. There are many types of RPGs and there are those who refuse to acknowledge certain genres are RPGs at all (JRPGs receiving most of the criticism on this front though some also attack the idea of an Action RPG). What I'm championing is what was proposed in the KS video: an old school, or rather "classic", CRPG: the party-based, turn-based RPG of the 80s. This is not an outdated idea (though many argue that it is, and use the same arguments against it that I would use on "modern" RPGs, which is rather ironic).

[Harpo]

1) Newer generation gamers post threads that agree with the classic RPG's intent but did not know it, so it's usually followed by a post from an "old man" saying, 'Yeah, WL already did that so don't worry about it."

I don't feel I fit in any of the description of gamer stereotypes brought forth in this thread. I just feel old

But I did react to this in particular. I've been arguing - on several occasions - for features in the original game that I either want to preserve, or that I like and forgot was in the first game to begin with (been 15 years since I last played Wasteland). To just assume that a feature is going to be in there just because it was in the first game - especially after what has been said in InXile interviews and promotion videos - and not bother to discuss and/or refine the feature seems a bit negligent.

I would believe that InXile are just as interested in discussions on already present features as well as on new ones.

[CaptainPatch]

Wow. People have been busy since I hit the sack at 5 a.m. PDT.

The Ultra hardcore group of old men who used to play wasteland.

Hmm. No old Ultra hardcore women that have played Wasteland?

Wellllll, not all of us "old men" that have played Wasteland are adverse to changes, even radical changes. Like you, I just want a good game based on a post-Apocalypse environment that I remember fondly. For instance, I wouldn't even be adverse if WL2 came out looking like FO4, but with the setting being a logical progression from the Wasteland story line and plot. (Such as a 1980s vibe instead of 1950s.) I was also very fond of the Bard's Tale series, but I was still able to thoroughly enjoy the 2004 Bard's Tale, even though it didn't look _anything_ like the 1985 Bard's Tale.

Whatever BF & Company finally delivers, I trust that it will be something I enjoy.

[Gizmo]

But you got to admit there is a back in the day wipe going on around the forums and a harsh look at anything newer than fallout, and even fallout is in the shooting line because again: IT'S NOT WASTELAND!!!

What is specifically wrong with that (given that the game is already sold, and it's a sequel to Wasteland). Why do you believe that "IT'S NOT WASTELAND!!!" shouldn't be used as a style guide for a sequel to Wasteland?
*RTS combat? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
*Stat-less 'RPG' mechanics? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
*Tower Defense Multiplayer? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
*Inter-party romance banter? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
*FPS run & gun gameplay with floating power-ups? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
It's an endless list ~that should be applied to content and game style...

...But not sensibly to technology. No one would say, "Don't make an OSX version because ~"it's not Wasteland"; No one would say, "don't use VGA or better graphics because ~"it's not Wasteland". Don't include music ~"it's not Wasteland"

My point is we all want a good rpg with an old-school wipe, but that shouldn't make it any less impressive in quality which for many people involve graphics, good animation and all the other forbidden words.

No... We don't all want "a good rpg with an old-school wipe" (wipe? style?); some of us want Wasteland 2 ~not Fallout 2.5 ~Though I must admit... while in principle it stinks... I would really ~REALLY enjoy it if they made Fallout 2.5 ~sad to say it (because it really should have come in the official series as FO3, not in place of a Wasteland sequel).

[heartz]

But you got to admit there is a back in the day wipe going on around the forums and a harsh look at anything newer than fallout, and even fallout is in the shooting line because again: IT'S NOT WASTELAND!!!

What is specifically wrong with that (given that the game is already sold, and it's a sequel to Wasteland). Why do you believe that "IT'S NOT WASTELAND!!!" shouldn't be used as a style guide for a sequel to Wasteland?
*RTS combat? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
*Stat-less 'RPG' mechanics? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
*Tower Defense Multiplayer? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
*Inter-party romance banter? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
*FPS run & gun gameplay with floating power-ups? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
It's an endless list ~that should be applied to content and game style...

...But not sensibly to technology. No one would say, "Don't make an OSX version because ~"it's not Wasteland"; No one would say, "don't use VGA or better graphics because ~"it's not Wasteland". Don't include music ~"it's not Wasteland"

My point is we all want a good rpg with an old-school wipe, but that shouldn't make it any less impressive in quality which for many people involve graphics, good animation and all the other forbidden words.

No... We don't all want "a good rpg with an old-school wipe" (wipe? style?); some of us want Wasteland 2 ~not Fallout 2.5 ~Though I must admit... while in principle it stinks... I would really ~REALLY enjoy it if they made Fallout 2.5 ~sad to say it (because it really should have come in the official series as FO3, not in place of a Wasteland sequel).

Allright well good luck getting that game.

[Gizmo]

Allright well good luck getting that game.

I don't expect to get that game ~Brian Fargo and his group may simply not be interested in making that game after all this time... People change. What I'm more intrigued about is why do so many gamers accept (even demand) that a direct sequel be unrelated aside from the IP's fiction; rather than just wanting a new game or a spin off title. This I don't understand.

If I liked a game enough to have interest in a sequel; why would I want or accept a sequel with inappropriate/unrelated gameplay? A game that merely includes names and art references to another game that I liked.

Is it so odd to want a sequel that noticeably plays like the previous title, with minor tweaks and improvements ~and delivers the same sought after gaming experience, with a few twists? If I liked Gears of War, I am supposed to expect a Gears of War 4 that is all about price fixing and commercial trading in firearms? Play the cog that keeps the war on going?

Some may scoff at the example, but I see no difference in the reversal of what many seem to consider normal and expected change of a series product ~into something entirely different from the series, something that only retains the franchise name.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems common to me that many folks would expect a game like "Space Marine" if they announced "Dawn of War 3".

[CaptainPatch]

*RTS combat? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
*Stat-less 'RPG' mechanics? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
*Tower Defense Multiplayer? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
*Inter-party romance banter? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
*FPS run & gun gameplay with floating power-ups? ~"but it's not Wasteland" ~don't use it.
It's an endless list ~that should be applied to content and game style...

It's easy to see what the game was, but what might the game have been if not for the limitations of computer tech in 1987? I mean there was a LOT that didn't go into the game when you are limited to just what can be crammed onto 5-1/4" floppy. Can you imagine the game that Interplay would have produced _then_ if they had the tech of now? I can well imagine that things like intra-party banter would have been present. LOTS more in the way of side quests and secondary main plots. Adjustable views of the party interacting with its environment. An _actual_ deploy-able 4-7-man squad for combat situations. A more robust Inventory management system. A .... All the things that Fargo & Company might have incorporated, had they had better tech and a bigger budget. I would surmise that players would have loved the game just as much -- if not more than we loved the Wasteland-as-it-was.

[Mandemon]

Considering that Wasteland 1 had to fit single floppy which it used to save the game, causing manual to urge to back the floppy up, there was very little room to play. Especially since game was more than just text.

So yeah, just because it wasn't in Wasteland 1 doesn't it can't be in Wasteland 2.

Larger conversations instead of guessing keywords? Wasn't in Wasteland 1 but why not in Wasteland 2?

Small side-quest style base management? Wasn't in Wasteland 1 but could fit in to Wasteland 2, considering the premise.

In-party banter between different NPC and PC? Wasn't in Wasteland 1, but why not in Wasteland 2? Wouldn't it add character to characters(pun not intended)

True tactical combat where you can more easily deploy your squad? Wasn't in Wasteland 1, but why not improve in Wasteland 2?

Just because something wasn't in Wasteland 1 doesn't mean it can't be in Wasteland 2. Most important thing is that when you boot up the game can see it's a Wasteland game.

Fallout New Vegas has very little to do mechanic wise with Fallout 1 or 2 but to me, it's a Fallout game. It feels like Fallout world. Of course I am sad that core mechanics got changed, but I can live with it.

[Gizmo]

Just because something wasn't in Wasteland 1 doesn't mean it can't be in Wasteland 2. Most important thing is that when you boot up the game can see it's a Wasteland game.

Indeed.

Fallout New Vegas has very little to do mechanic wise with Fallout 1 or 2 but to me, it's a Fallout game. It feels like Fallout world. Of course I am sad that core mechanics got changed, but I can live with it.

Mixed feeling on that one, but I generally agree; and my first thought playing NV was how "right" it felt.

...

All that would matter is whether or not it extends upon the foundation of the core gameplay.
IMO the party members could be full voiced and curse at you when they refuse to trade gear, or decide to waste ammo; and it would still be in keeping with the game.

In fact... (though I'm not suggesting it), couldn't the combat in the game be First Person phase based where the player 'Tabs' between party members and can spin their view 360°, choosing their action that round on adjacent walls/ opponents/ containers/ and such; then press "Space" or "Enter" to confirm, then watch the whole thing play out like a one round cutscene? (and wouldn't it still essentially be in keeping with the core gameplay?)
__

It's a funny thing about "would of if they could of"... It's not always the case that they would improve with technology. Take "Die By The Sword" for instance. Interplay shipped that the same year that they shipped Fallout 2. DbtS was a third person fantasy combat / action game. It's melee combat put's Oblivon and Skyrim to shame ~theoretically. They were ahead of their time, and lacked suitable controllers like the Wii-mote bar. DbtS let the player move the PC where they would, jump, dodge; flip; and scale platforms. In combat that player had full 360° (spherical) control of the PC's weapon, the game scored damage based on how hard you hit; it tracked where you hit (and marked the opponent with gore). It allowed full body dismemberment (joint by joint); death by decapitation; manual parrying of opponent's weapons... and the game shipped with an animation studio app for recording custom chained attacks, blocks, and movement that you could hotkey.
This game was fully 3D; (that could run in software too).

With the advance of years and new hardware... all we have is a hack for the old DbtS that lets you use the Wii-mote to control the sword (and it's incredible to see).

Nothing on the (games) market holds a candle to it for melee weapon combat; and modern PC's could handle all of it's animation and control needs with ease, and enough resources left over for software 'smoothing' and transparent aiming assistance; all of the problems that plagued DbtS for novice players could be gone in a modern remake. But it hasn't happened.

[Woolfe]

Considering that Wasteland 1 had to fit single floppy which it used to save the game, causing manual to urge to back the floppy up, there was very little room to play. Especially since game was more than just text.

So yeah, just because it wasn't in Wasteland 1 doesn't it can't be in Wasteland 2.

Agreed

Larger conversations instead of guessing keywords? Wasn't in Wasteland 1 but why not in Wasteland 2?

yah, but this was more of a tech limitation at the time imo.

Small side-quest style base management? Wasn't in Wasteland 1 but could fit in to Wasteland 2, considering the premise.

Sure but it shouldn't detract from the core gameplay. As in its base management but not in the sense of RTS style put building here etc, It should be more like. Ok get working on building a barracks, we'll go negotiate with the neighbours and see if we can't find a transmitter for the radio.

In-party banter between different NPC and PC? Wasn't in Wasteland 1, but why not in Wasteland 2? Wouldn't it add character to characters(pun not intended)

The problem with this is that it inherently takes away "your character choice". Unless you are entering the responces yourself, there is no way the system can know the personality of the character you have created. And this is a key thing for some people.

True tactical combat where you can more easily deploy your squad? Wasn't in Wasteland 1, but why not improve in Wasteland 2?

Yup

Just because something wasn't in Wasteland 1 doesn't mean it can't be in Wasteland 2. Most important thing is that when you boot up the game can see it's a Wasteland game.

Fallout New Vegas has very little to do mechanic wise with Fallout 1 or 2 but to me, it's a Fallout game. It feels like Fallout world. Of course I am sad that core mechanics got changed, but I can live with it.

I haven't played New Vegas yet. FO3 however felt like Fallout universe, but didn't feel like Fallout game. *Shrug* personal preference and all.

[Gizmo]

I haven't played New Vegas yet. FO3 however felt like Fallout universe, but didn't feel like Fallout game. *Shrug* personal preference and all.

They did a great job on everything but the game. I had an issue with established items not resembling their previous appearance in all of the previous titles;[energy weapons; certain robotic antiques; the Super Sledge... etc].
*And the Perk thing.

[CaptainPatch]

In-party banter between different NPC and PC? Wasn't in Wasteland 1, but why not in Wasteland 2? Wouldn't it add character to characters(pun not intended)

The problem with this is that it inherently takes away "your character choice". Unless you are entering the responses yourself, there is no way the system can know the personality of the character you have created. And this is a key thing for some people.

This is the key point between "party-based" RPGs and "individual-in-charge-of-a-party-based" RPGs. Players these days are just so accustomed to having their PC being the central focus of whatever it is that happens in the game. But WL is a _true_ party-based game. There is NO "you" in the game. None of your four starting PCs is _you_. It is more like you are the commanding officer of the party and your involvement is nothing more than telling the _the party_ what to do. You can specify weapons and armor to each party member, and you can even design the Skill set and Attributes that each PC has. But you have zilch to say about how they behave -- or whatever comments that they may exchange between each other. As such, in-party banter is -- and should be -- nothing that you have any control over.

[Drool]

I haven't played New Vegas yet.

New Vegas is well worth the price of admission. Assuming you're okay with the UI and FPSness and such.

The Ultra hardcore group of old men who used to play wasteland.

Smile when you say that.

[Woolfe]

In-party banter between different NPC and PC? Wasn't in Wasteland 1, but why not in Wasteland 2? Wouldn't it add character to characters(pun not intended)

The problem with this is that it inherently takes away "your character choice". Unless you are entering the responses yourself, there is no way the system can know the personality of the character you have created. And this is a key thing for some people.

This is the key point between "party-based" RPGs and "individual-in-charge-of-a-party-based" RPGs. Players these days are just so accustomed to having their PC being the central focus of whatever it is that happens in the game. But WL is a _true_ party-based game. There is NO "you" in the game. None of your four starting PCs is _you_. It is more like you are the commanding officer of the party and your involvement is nothing more than telling the _the party_ what to do. You can specify weapons and armor to each party member, and you can even design the the Skill set and Attributes that each PC has. But you have zilch to say about how they behave -- or whatever comments that they may exchange between each other. As such, in-party banter is -- and should be -- nothing that you have any control over.

Er.. on the contrary YOU are the 4 characters. This is a party game in which you are fully creating the PCs, all of them, as opposed to selecting them from a list. So you are defining them and there background/history etc. If there is "banter" how can it know that I have created this character as a Hard hitting brawler with a soft spot for the ladies? How can it know that my sniper happens to have a personal like of kittens and won't hurt them. Etc etc etc....

In party banter between NPC's yep I agree with you wholeheartedly. In party banter between PC 1 and NPC, Maybe, if there is enough "background info" able to be put into the PC, as you can operate almost exclusively with "responses". In party banter between PC 1 and PC 2 is almost impossible to do as there are way too many variables. You might get away with small comments, but even then. Check out the Character Creation thread for lots of arguments around this element.

[CaptainPatch]

Er.. on the contrary YOU are the 4 characters.

If that is the case, then those FOUR characters have ONE consciousness -- yours.

This is a party game in which you are fully creating the PCs, all of them, as opposed to selecting them from a list. So you are defining them and there background/history etc.

So you looked through the personnel files and picked your team based on their Attributes and Skills. That's _it_. Absolutely nothing about the character quirks or background history . You couldn't define those variables in WL and I doubt that you will be able to do so in WL2. Why not? Because the programmers have absolutely no way to take _your_ behavior preferences and apply them to the character in question. What they _can_ do is to assign a psych profile and attach it to the character according to the Attributes and Skills that you assigned to that character. Their choice, not yours. And I doubt that they would even do that much. Possibly they would work up a score or more of psych profiles and then randomly attach them to whatever PC you create.

If there is "banter" how can it know that I have created this character as a Hard hitting brawler with a soft spot for the ladies? How can it know that my sniper happens to have a personal like of kittens and won't hurt them. Etc etc etc....

Exactly. They can't -- ergo they won't. If the PCs are to have _any_ kind of personalities, it will be the personalities that the developers assign to those PCs. And if personality is determined by someone other than you, then you won't be able to control their banter.

In party banter between NPC's yep I agree with you wholeheartedly. In party banter between PC 1 and NPC, Maybe, if there is enough "background info" able to be put into the PC, as you can operate almost exclusively with "responses". In party banter between PC 1 and PC 2 is almost impossible to do as there are way too many variables. You might get away with small comments, but even then. Check out the Character Creation thread for lots of arguments around this element.

If this were a game more like Baldur's Gate, you _would_ have ONE PC that you could control banter-wise -- and that limited to dialogue choices that are given to ANY player-created character. But like in BG, party members CAN banter endlessly. (Who can ever forget Minsc when he was on a roll?) But given that you will be able to create FOUR PCs, there really are only two choices: Either they banter amongst themselves with no input from the player, or there will be NO banter, at all, ever.

Personally, I'd rather surrender the control and listen to them banter. I find it too entertaining to listen to, as opposed to a party of "strong, silent types".

[Woolfe]

Er.. on the contrary YOU are the 4 characters.

If that is the case, then those FOUR characters have ONE consciousness -- yours.

If you want to play it that way, sure. Personally I have no problem seperating my characters from each other.

<SNIP>
Personally, I'd rather surrender the control and listen to them banter. I find it too entertaining to listen to, as opposed to a party of "strong, silent types".

Check out the various threads about this. I couldn't be bothered beating this dead horse anymore. The threads are already there, discussion has been had lots and lots, and lots....

[Zeronet]

The simplest solution is to give party banter to preset rangers and not have it on customized ones.

[paultakeda]

The simplest solution is to give party banter to preset rangers and not have it on customized ones.

That is so not simple.

[krellen]

Er.. on the contrary YOU are the 4 characters.

If that is the case, then those FOUR characters have ONE consciousness -- yours.

If you want to play it that way, sure. Personally I have no problem seperating my characters from each other.

While I'm generally of the opinion that being a GM is something that can be learned and is not inherent to anyone, this may be one of the defining skills that separates true GMs from the still-learning. Having been a game master for several decades now, the skill of holding disparate (and often conflicting) character personalities in my head comes close to second nature for me now. For those with less experience doing so, which likely includes all gamers from the 90s on with no table-top experience behind them, I could see how this could be an alien concept, and thus why those of us arguing for it might be hard to understand.

[CaptainPatch]

If you want to play it that way, sure. Personally I have no problem seperating my characters from each other.

While I'm generally of the opinion that being a GM is something that can be learned and is not inherent to anyone, this may be one of the defining skills that separates true GMs from the still-learning. Having been a game master for several decades now, the skill of holding disparate (and often conflicting) character personalities in my head comes close to second nature for me now. For those with less experience doing so, which likely includes all gamers from the 90s on with no table-top experience behind them, I could see how this could be an alien concept, and thus why those of us arguing for it might be hard to understand.

^^This^^. It explains why it seems that the definition of "roleplaying" differs from generation to generation. I grew up with "roleplaying" meaning to try to figuratively put yourself in the character's shoes and play as _him_, complete with foibles and weaknesses, as well as strengths and talents. Such as, if the character has only a 5 IQ/INT, then try to be that dumb (as opposed to behaving like he has _my_ IQ). More modern gamers seem to believe that "roleplaying" = "What would _I_ do in that situation?"