Skip to content


Nothing to win....

Discuss when and where Wasteland 2 will be set, continuity problems, and more.

Moderator: Rangers


Nothing to win....

Postby snake_vargas » May 5th, 2012, 3:10 am

In a certain sense, it should be possible to go through the game without having to "win" or achieve something. Some RPGs are full of quests. That keeps me from experiencing the game worlf. If I decide to shoot the dog, I cant bring it back.That will be my problem, but it means total freedom in gameplay.

Maybe I decide to shoot the boy who asked me for it, too tp get what I need to go on.
snake_vargas
 
Posts: 5
Joined: May 5th, 2012, 1:35 am


Re: Nothing to win....

Postby Game_Exile » May 5th, 2012, 11:24 am

You should get a loser's ending (other than like a freak occurrence party wipe game over) if you make lots of bad decisions. In some sense, the game should be able to "beat" you.

And for god's sake, you shouldn't be able to do every quest. What you are asking for with this is a "static" world where everything is just waiting around for you.
If you like my posts, and you like more complex gameplay systems, please consider IMPROVED OVERWORLD MECHANICS for Wasteland 2. Let me know if you agree, disagree, or have anything else to add.
Game_Exile
 
Posts: 109
Joined: April 17th, 2012, 12:51 pm


Re: Nothing to win....

Postby TΛPETRVE » May 5th, 2012, 12:22 pm

Game_Exile wrote:You should get a loser's ending (other than like a freak occurrence party wipe game over) if you make lots of bad decisions. In some sense, the game should be able to "beat" you.


Yup, not a fan of the "Non-Standard Game Over" trope, unless you make a decision so fatal it really ends everything, everywhere, for everyone. Instead, if you spend your time bumbling about, without achieving anything of importance, shit should just happen, Bob's your uncle. There's an army of robot monsters invading? You're left to wander a world with severely decimated population, settlements occupied by walking scrap heaps. As long as there's still history in progress, you should be able to take part in it, even if the overall situation is completely hopeless.
User avatar
TΛPETRVE
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: April 15th, 2012, 10:55 am
Location: Suevia


Re: Nothing to win....

Postby snake_vargas » May 5th, 2012, 11:56 pm

TΛPETRVE wrote:
Game_Exile wrote: As long as there's still history in progress, you should be able to take part in it, even if the overall situation is completely hopeless.


Yes, sounds great !
snake_vargas
 
Posts: 5
Joined: May 5th, 2012, 1:35 am


Re: Nothing to win....

Postby Woolfe » May 7th, 2012, 5:02 pm

TΛPETRVE wrote:
Game_Exile wrote:You should get a loser's ending (other than like a freak occurrence party wipe game over) if you make lots of bad decisions. In some sense, the game should be able to "beat" you.


Yup, not a fan of the "Non-Standard Game Over" trope, unless you make a decision so fatal it really ends everything, everywhere, for everyone. Instead, if you spend your time bumbling about, without achieving anything of importance, shit should just happen, Bob's your uncle. There's an army of robot monsters invading? You're left to wander a world with severely decimated population, settlements occupied by walking scrap heaps. As long as there's still history in progress, you should be able to take part in it, even if the overall situation is completely hopeless.


Agreed. Depends on what you think is a losing ending tho?

Maybe an ending could be that your party sets themselves up as the rulers of the area, and tell the rangers to sod off.

Technically they haven't "lost", so would it be a "bad" ending?
User avatar
Woolfe
 
Posts: 2525
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 5:42 pm


Re: Nothing to win....

Postby Game_Exile » May 15th, 2012, 10:56 am

Woolfe wrote:Agreed. Depends on what you think is a losing ending tho?

Maybe an ending could be that your party sets themselves up as the rulers of the area, and tell the rangers to sod off.

Technically they haven't "lost", so would it be a "bad" ending?


No, this would be the "King of the Wasteland" ending, which is the best ending possible, or at least top 3 (and among the most challenging and difficult endings to achieve). Obviously, lol, talk about confused.
If you like my posts, and you like more complex gameplay systems, please consider IMPROVED OVERWORLD MECHANICS for Wasteland 2. Let me know if you agree, disagree, or have anything else to add.
Game_Exile
 
Posts: 109
Joined: April 17th, 2012, 12:51 pm


Re: Nothing to win....

Postby Woolfe » May 15th, 2012, 5:25 pm

Game_Exile wrote:
Woolfe wrote:Agreed. Depends on what you think is a losing ending tho?

Maybe an ending could be that your party sets themselves up as the rulers of the area, and tell the rangers to sod off.

Technically they haven't "lost", so would it be a "bad" ending?


No, this would be the "King of the Wasteland" ending, which is the best ending possible, or at least top 3 (and among the most challenging and difficult endings to achieve). Obviously, lol, talk about confused.


Heh... That comes down to personal preference..... Certainly a "good ending" in that the party now rules all, but bad in that the Rangers have been rejected. So in a sence the party failed its mission, but succeeded in its own personal mission.

I would love to see a whole swag of differing endings... Some like this, others more straightforward. I think an ending where the Party had to make a deal with the devil(Slavers, Guardians, or someone) in order to win would be awesome too....
User avatar
Woolfe
 
Posts: 2525
Joined: March 22nd, 2012, 5:42 pm


Return to Board index

Return to Setting, Continuity and Lore

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests