Vision Document Feedback

[rudel_dietrich]

That was an enjoyable read. Only areas to nitpick were some mentioned of survival elements and ammo being 'scarce'
The survival mentions may of just been setting the ground work for the world. If they can pull off adding in some survival elements that don't feel like Fallout: New Vegas then I am all for it.
As for the ammo thing, I am fine with heavy weapons and unique weapons having scare ammo for gameplay balance. But there have been a dozen good threads on why standard rifle and pistol ammo would not be rare at all. Plus more could easily be manufactured by the Ranger HQ. In fact I would go as far as saying it would be illogical NOT to include such a thing.

But those are very tiny nitpicks. The rest of the document makes me feel very very very good about my donation. It sounds like we will be getting a much needed return to the CRPGs I grew up with and that the industry has gotten away from.

Now I will just twiddle my thumbs and hope that they can pull it off. I have faith that they can seeing the talent that is assembled. I am lucky in that I enjoy a wide swath of games and won't be disappointed if the game does not meet my personal vision of how the game should be.
My biggest fear at this point is that this game falls prey to it's low budget and feels and plays 'clunky'. I don't know if that makes sense or not but so many games with budgets such at this just feel off. It is not bugs or not feeling 'done'. It just feels like the developers didn't have the resources or the talent to completely pull of what they were going for.

However, this team may be low on resources but they appear to have a near all-star team assembled. I have every faith that they can stretch that $3 million to it's limit and give us a game that is near AAA quality but plays like the CRPGs we loved in the 80s and 90s

[Harpo]

But there have been a dozen good threads on why standard rifle and pistol ammo would not be rare at all. Plus more could easily be manufactured by the Ranger HQ. In fact I would go as far as saying it would be illogical NOT to include such a thing.

And there's about as many good threads on why to include scarcity, along with a dominating YES to scarcity on almost every Google Moderator vote on the subject. People want scarce ammo and medical supplies - it's as simple as that. And as many arguments and/or possible outcomes of the apocalypse there are that support overflow of ammo - there are as many arguments and/or possible outcomes that would support the opposite.

I think this is one of those subject where anything would make sense depending on the turns things took after the apocalypse, and where both scenarios can be made to fit the game. And since a vast majority seems to favor scarcity - that's what I would suggest they go for. Personally, I think it would be awesome and really enhance the game.

[Aeschylus]

if the vision document was a lady, I would buy her a drink and take her back to my place....

[stonetoes]

*snip*

Dude, I think you need to work on your post formatting skills, that's quite a chunk of text to wade through!

Rather than get into any more specifics I'll just say that I'm willing to suspend my disbelief when it comes to role-playing my characters in a certain way. Even if we don't get into the logistical issues, those of us who want to play as non-lethally as possible can just take the karma boost and come up with our own explanations for what happened to all those unconscious goons.

For example: in Deus Ex: Human Revolution it was possible to go through the game killing no one (except those damn bosses). But a lot of the time it didn't make sense, becuase the game didn't elaborate on what actually happened to the piles of snoozing mercenaries you would leave stashed behind desks everywhere you went. For those of use willing to suspend our disbelief this didn't matter, because we could come up with our own explanations. The important thing was that the game designers gave us the options to attempt it in the first place. Anyone who thought that being a pacifist in those situations was stupid or unrealistic didn't have to be one.

To me, giving us these options fits perfectly with the game's philosophy of giving us choices to play the way we want to play.

Violence, and overblown violence at that, is a Wasteland mainstay. Sneaking and negotiating should solve some problems, maybe even a lot of problems. But when 12 screaming mutants are running at you, you better not flinch from clearing leather.

Sure, but maybe some of us love a challenge...or are just gluttons for punishment! To use DXHR as an example again, I spent a hell of a lot of time and effort finding ways to play as a pacifist, even when the odds seemed impossible. I'm not saying that it should always be viable, in fact there will be many instances where it would be almost impossible, but I want to be able to make the attempt.

For a more direct example, many Jagged Alliance 2 veterans will remember knocking out enemies in order to steal their guns, but the guns weren't the only reward. The challenge was also fun, as was being able to pretend that you were taking them captive. Unfortunately the most merciful end they actually got once unconscious and stripped was a bullet to the head, though this was less common than being beaten to death silently...

Personally I consider it more interesting when a game doesn't have the intent to allow you to pass it without killing something, but there are enough non-combat options included that using those + some creativity players can figure out how to anyway.

Very well put.

Actually building your California ranger base and managing it the way you want to actually sounds like it would a really nice touch. After all if your team is tasked with establishing a base you should be the one to build it and find people to occupy it.

My thoughts exactly, and there's been some indication that you'll actually get a hand in setting it up, I was just hoping for some elaboration either way.

[TΛPETRVE]

For a more direct example, many Jagged Alliance 2 veterans will remember knocking out enemies in order to steal their guns, but the guns weren't the only reward. The challenge was also fun, as was being able to pretend that you were taking them captive. Unfortunately the most merciful end they actually got once unconscious and stripped was a bullet to the head, though this was less common than being beaten to death silently...

...or having their heads chopped off with a Machete. Which is, by the way, something I'd love to see in Wasteland in one way or another. If I take a mission that involves murdering someone, the whole concept of bringing along evidence of the kill could be taken far beyond the beaten path of "Collect 100 mirelurk testicles to solve this quest" by allowing the player to choose his own evidence for different effect, e.g. shooting a photograph, or, well, indeed taking the target's head, which might intimidate the client into paying more or keeping silent about the contract.

Hell, chopping up a corpse could have quite an effect on people (and ultimately the Rangers' reputations), too. If you shoot a gang member, they'll most probably get very pissed at you. If you tear the dude's body to pieces and put the mangled remains on display, though, you might scare his buddies shitless and discourage them from even thinking of revenge.

[JediaKyrol]

"Collect 100 mirelurk testicles to solve this quest"

Ooh...I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts...

[Gillsing]

they may actively encourage you to send certain characters on solo missions

What are the solo missions exactly - can you provide an example thereof in WL1? I know it is possible to divide the party to act separately for some time but... solo missions? If these missions are a substantial part of the plot, then I think that might somewhat contradict the party-based gaming concept. Not that I'm against to try it out, but it would be fine if the devs could really find an appropriate solution.

You left out some vital information, both before and after your quote:

If they don't like someone in the party, they won't be shy about it — or they may actively encourage you to send certain characters on solo missions provided they leave their canteen and supplies behind.

I read this as the equivalence of taking a long walk on a short pier. In other words: Some NPCs will be open about how they think that some party members should be robbed of supplies and then thrown out of the party to die alone in the wasteland. So, no, that particular sentence was not about any actual solo missions. More like 'solo missions', if you get my drift. Nudge, nudge, know what I mean?

[Turkeysocks]

Honestly, I believe that it's a very grand project of idealists. The idea to bring back the old school RPG style is a bold move. I, and I'm sure many on here right now, grew up playing these kinds of RPG's. We grew up playing some old school classic RPG's like the old NES Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior IV, Bards Tale, and Foxanadu.

I'd like to see this kind of game succeed. I'm not expecting top level graphics, or something smooth when it comes out, just as long as I can play it and it's fun, it will succeed.

And if InXile is successful, this could revolutionize the entire gaming industry! It won't simply be a game created by gamers, it will be a game created with the collaboration of regular gamers who usually would only play and keep their idea's to themselves.

[sparkee666]

I thought the writing and design of the document was sub-par. I guess it got the job done, but personally I wouldn't submit a document like that to my boss. The hang ups I have about this vision document are: the liberal use of commas, the ellipsis, and hyphens.

[ffordesoon]

I thought the writing and design of the document was sub-par. I guess it got the job done, but personally I wouldn't submit a document like that to my boss. The hang ups I have about this vision document are: the liberal use of commas, the ellipsis, and hyphens.

Really? That's what you focused on? Not, you know, the content?

I'm pretty anal-retentive when it comes to grammar and spelling. You're correct; there were some mistakes. But you might do well to recall the old adage about forests and trees.

[jymm]

I didn't get to read through all 11 pages of comments unfortunately, but I did read all 10 pages of the vision document. It is almost surreal to get to read through a design doc like this before a game gets created. This will definitely be one of the fun parts of crowd-funded development, and its great that you're sharing this with us.

I liked almost everything in the document. The RPG elements, the sacrifice of graphics and voice work for depth and scope (and budget) are all great by me. I'm excited about party-based and turn-based game elements that I loved back in the day. The one thing that made me grown was the keywords guessing game. I personally hated that element of the early adventure games and I was glad to see it go. I know several other people already wrote into the comments here in favor of the feature, but I'm not in that camp, unfortunately. The text based structure of adventures and dialog is fine, by the way, I just detest having to think of the exact right word and spelling to move the story. I guess gamefaqs renders obsolete the possibility of getting stuck for hours trying to figure out a word.... I guess I'll have to see it when it comes out.

As I said though, everything else so far looks great. Good luck in the dev cycle and I'll be eagerly awaiting the next update.

[sparkee666]

Really? That's what you focused on? Not, you know, the content?

I'm pretty anal-retentive when it comes to grammar and spelling. You're correct; there were some mistakes. But you might do well to recall the old adage about forests and trees.

I see the “forest through the trees,” just fine, that’s why I didn’t comment on the content of the vision document. What concerns me about this particular piece of writing is that it was sloppy in both the composition and presentation. This indicates to me that whoever was responsible for producing the vision document had a “get er’ done” attitude and that it was “good enough” when they decided to post it. If this level of work is what InExile finds acceptable to present to the public I worry; how many times in the development cycle will they say “it’s good enough”?

I have always thought that it is good practice to finish even the simplest documents to the best of your ability. It’s away to show respect for your reading audience. This was a rocky document and I hope to see better quality in the future.

Thanks for calling me out. I always enjoy a spirited debate.

[SniperHF]

Consider how Deus Ex works

Deus Ex was actually what I had in mind when I was talking about games automatically using information that you've obtained without letting your figure out when to use it. Deus Ex is in my top 5 list of computer RPGs ever, but automatically inserting passwords and information like that was one of the very few things I didn't like about it. I wanted to figure out who I needed to give the password to and when to give it.

I like the idea that giving the right password to the wrong guy could land you in a world of hurt. I also like the idea that giving it to the right guy when a known thug from a rival gang is snooping could get you the cold shoulder. Don't want to let the secret out to the enemy.

Plus, the complexity you can build from keywords will blow away what can be done with predetermined dialogue options. In case you can't tell, I'm loving the keyword concept.

I think manual entry of passwords is fine to a point, but there needs to be some way to retain obscure knowledge that doesn't involve me writing it down on a piece of paper if this is a common occurrence. With Deus Ex this mainly concerned computer passwords not passwords to enter a club or hideout or something. I don't think it's all that much fun to force the player to remember or write down passwords for those types of things. But Deus Ex didn't list passwords in dialog really, it only presented them when your character knew them. That was my main point.

And it's not as automatic as you suggest. In DX:HR your character had to find these passwords in the game for them to automatically pop up. So it was basically a way to reward a player for hacking/exploring/reading journals. Players who didn't take the time to explore had to hack a terminal directly or find an alternative route. Or in the case of computers miss out on story/conspiracy info.

It's a question of what your character knows vs what the player knows. I tend to err on the side of the former. Also I can see issues coming up if you legitimately require a keyword to progress in a game if its 100% relied on manual entry. Typo? reload. haven't played in 2 weeks? wrack your brain trying to remember or look it up online. And if you overcome the latter by including passwords in the journal then you might as well have them pop up if your character knows the context.

Now puzzles are a different matter, I have no problem with a straight up puzzle needing some type of keyword entry so long as the information required to solve it is presented somewhere. But passwords are quite specific and the when/where to use them is mostly obvious.

Also I like keyword entry as a way to open up avenues faster or even as an alternate solution to a quest. But I wouldn't make it a serious advantage over normal dialog where most people expect non combat events to unfold. More of a way to reward those who think outside the box. I bet this is mainly where keyword entry will come into play. It honestly strikes me as a flavor option more than anything.


TL:DR.
There are times when your character SHOULD know something and the player shouldn't have to be figuring a keyword.

[eightbits]

And it's not as automatic as you suggest. In DX:HR your character had to find these passwords in the game for them to automatically pop up.

This was true in the original as well and I was dismayed to see it in DX:HR. I'm not against having to find the information in-game to satisfy character knowledge. I'm all about that. What I'm against is the automatic application of the information. What I want is the requirement for me to figure out the application.

It's a question of what your character knows vs what the player knows.

That's easy. First, the game can easily require that your character have gotten the information before it can be used. The same tagging system that was used by auto-triggered movie sequences in Deus Ex can be used here. In this case, the auto-trigger "enables the use of" instead of "automatically uses" the keyword.

Even though the character now has the password, I as the player still have to know that this is where I would use that particular password and the game doesn't automagically use it for me. This is exactly the kind of design I want to see around the keywords.

Typo? reload.

Shit happens. Are we really afraid of typos? I mean, really? It's not like a typo is going to get you eaten by a grue here.

haven't played in 2 weeks? wrack your brain trying to remember or look it up online.

That's what journals are for and a good built-in journal can track all the information you need. Not having played in two weeks is just part of playing the game. It happens to us all. Dumbing down the game by making the game automatically partially play itself because of this is not something I want to see. I mean, hell, if we can play computer games, we can probably write. Pull out a piece of paper and write this shit down. We all did it back in the day so why can't we still do it?

And if you overcome the latter by including passwords in the journal then you might as well have them pop up if your character knows the context.

I can't agree with that at all. That's exactly my point. If I am given a description of a guy that wears clothing 'X' and smells like burnt 'Y' in area 'Z' then I need to find someone that matches that description. What happens if there are 3 people in area 'Z' matching that description? Well maybe I am misunderstanding the description I was given. But since this is role playing, I'm supposed to be thinking for the character. This is not an issue of character vs player knowledge. This is an issue of whether the player or the computer is thinking for the character. As someone who has been tabletop role playing for 3 decades (this summer marks my 30th RPG anniversary. Huzzah!) I can tell you that the most annoying aspect of computer role playing games for me is when they think for me. Going from table top to computer is already limiting by nature but having a computer today automatically fill in actions that I was able to do myself back in Zork, Ultima, and The Bard's Tale is just sickening!

But passwords are quite specific and the when/where to use them is mostly obvious.

That's only true because games in the past have been too simple to implement good non-obvious options. You're new to town and trying to make contact with a gang you heard a rumor about. You go up to someone that looks like a member of that gang and give him the password. Because you're new to town, you can't necessarily tell one gang from the other and now one gang has the other gang's password. You've just started a chain of events behind the scenes that will change the course of the game. That to me is awesome. It's an incredible value that an auto-triggering system cannot give us.

[suz]

Even though the character now has the password, I as the player still have to know that this is where I would use that particular password and the game doesn't automagically use it for me.

You as the player in dx always knew where you could use that particular password, if you paid attention to the game.

[Esper]

Is the vision document no longer up? I never got the chance to read it

[Zombra]

Is the vision document no longer up? I never got the chance to read it

It's still there. Google Docs is just kind of an iffy host. Keep trying. (I recommend saving the pdf to a local drive when you get the chance.)

[eightbits]

You as the player in dx always knew where you could use that particular password, if you paid attention to the game.

That misses the point entirely. Considering that games like Deus Ex and Wasteland are very close to real-world settings, we should expect very close to real-world scenarios. Has every description ever given to you by everyone who's ever given you a description been entirely accurate and make you know exactly where to go and who to talk to every single time? Of course not. It's ridiculous.

We should be getting vague and/or partial descriptions from people that may or may not have partial descriptions available from other sources to complete the description. It happens in the real world and it's ridiculous to assume the wasteland would magically be populated with people that are capable of giving 100% accurate descriptions of everything you need 100% of the time. And of course, there's no reason to believe that people are even going to tell you the truth all the time.

I want to have to deal with these issues in Wasteland 2 and the keyword concept makes me think I will be able to.

[Zombra]

There were a couple of things I was disappointed not to see mentioned: Primarily was non-lethal options in combat. If we're going to have the option to be "diplomatic defenders of justice" then I'd love to be able to accept/demand an enemy's surrender, or shoot them in the leg, or use knockout gas. In so many RPGs a character's portrayal as a paragon of justice is belied by every bar fight ending with a pile of corpses. I think an RPG which explored not just ways to be peaceful by avoiding combat, but peaceful ways to resolve combat, would be revolutionary. If this is going to be a possibility it would be great to hear about it.

Rather than get into any more specifics I'll just say that I'm willing to suspend my disbelief when it comes to role-playing my characters in a certain way. Even if we don't get into the logistical issues, those of us who want to play as non-lethally as possible can just take the karma boost and come up with our own explanations for what happened to all those unconscious goons.

For example: in Deus Ex: Human Revolution it was possible to go through the game killing no one (except those damn bosses). But a lot of the time it didn't make sense, becuase the game didn't elaborate on what actually happened to the piles of snoozing mercenaries you would leave stashed behind desks everywhere you went. For those of use willing to suspend our disbelief this didn't matter, because we could come up with our own explanations. The important thing was that the game designers gave us the options to attempt it in the first place. Anyone who thought that being a pacifist in those situations was stupid or unrealistic didn't have to be one.

Violence, and overblown violence at that, is a Wasteland mainstay. Sneaking and negotiating should solve some problems, maybe even a lot of problems. But when 12 screaming mutants are running at you, you better not flinch from clearing leather.

Sure, but maybe some of us love a challenge...or are just gluttons for punishment! To use DXHR as an example again, I spent a hell of a lot of time and effort finding ways to play as a pacifist, even when the odds seemed impossible. I'm not saying that it should always be viable, in fact there will be many instances where it would be almost impossible, but I want to be able to make the attempt.

Yeah. I hear you on all this. I enjoy nonviolent/nonlethal gameplay myself, in games where it's appropriate. The thing is, the whole world of Deus Ex was written and designed with nonlethality in mind. Wasteland is a very different kettle of fish. Go watch the freakin Road Warrior, you know? Life is cheap, enemies can't be reasoned with, and the world is better off without them. That's just how Wasteland is, and that's okay. (And if it isn't that way, something important has been lost.) Here's a quote straight from the Vision Document:

As a team of Desert Rangers, you've vowed to restore order and justice in a land where there is none …but first you must survive. The wastes are expansive and unforgiving. The lack of water, intense heat, and zones of flesh-melting radiation are the least of your problems. Roving gangs, fanatical survivalists, twisted cultists, relentless synthetics and bizarre mutated creatures inhabit these lands, posing threats at every turn.

Read that last sentence closely. These are not the kind of guys that can be rehabilitated. If you leave any of these monsters alive, they are going to go back to killing innocent people moments later.

And thinking about it, shooting a guy in the leg and walking away, or handcuffing him to a cactus out in the desert, is every bit as lethal in this world as chopping his head off, and about a thousand times less humane. These are not "pacifist" options, just options for squeamish people who can't stand to see someone die right in front of them. They'd rather walk away and let those bad people die "offscreen".

The only way nonlethal combat options would make any sense at all would be if there were an elaborate system in the game for taking prisoners and escorting them back to town to be incarcerated, and this would only make sense in a settlement of milk and honey with plenty of food to go around. Maybe there will be such a place in Wasteland 2, but it's fair to assume that there won't be. Feeding and caring for criminals is the luxury of a well-fed society.

Personally I consider it more interesting when a game doesn't have the intent to allow you to pass it without killing something, but there are enough non-combat options included that using those + some creativity players can figure out how to anyway.

Very well put.

Yeah. I mean, I'm fine with it if there's a way to knock out opponents; no big deal. It's even fine if they throw in rope or handcuffs so you can tie guys up and stop them from chasing after you. But if I see 7 different kinds of stun guns and sleeping powder, it's no longer Wasteland.

I think the devs know this, and this is why nonlethality is not mentioned in the Document. I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for Deus Ex style choice in the matter. Honestly, I don't think they should bother.

[Zombra]

On a totally different point, I just noticed this:

Assigning points over the course of the game into your chosen skills and stats can allow you to
decide how each character grows as an individual.

I hope that this is not the only way for characters to grow! "Learn by doing" was great in Wasteland, and went hand in hand with assigning stat points on level-up.

Look at the experience systems in JA2 and JA:BIA. JA2 was learn by doing. You shot your gun a lot, you got better at it. You healed guys a lot, you got better at it. You trained in a skill, you got better at it. Participate in enough conflict and you'd go up a generic experience level and your perception, stealth, and many intangibles would increase. The game gave you direct feedback based on what every character was doing. It was very organic and every stat increase felt earned.

BIA was a straight xp/level/point buy system. You shot 10 guys with your pistol, you levelled. Your pistol skill didn't go up at all. When you levelled, you got points to spend on Marksmanship, or Medical, or Explosives, or Gourmet Chef, or whatever the hell you felt like. It was very artificial and made me feel disconnected with the characters; their actual experiences had no relationship to their "experience points". Seriously, the first time I levelled in BIA, I was like WTF.

Please allow a character's actions to help guide what they become, not just arbitrary point spending.