Saturation Preference Poll

[nathanknaack]

This is the one game that should not only look apocalyptic, but should define what apocalyptic looks like.

Wasteland isn't a apocalyptic game, it's post-apocalypse. The apocalypse has long been over.

...and, you're done. You have officially run out of relevant things to say. Thanks for participating, tuluse.

miles upon miles of irradiated desert

The desert was not acutally all irradiated. Just a couple of areas.

Nobody said the entire desert was irradiated. Large portions of it were, and while I don't remember exactly what it said when you tried to leave the edge of the map, I believe it either said or strongly implied that most of the rest of America was uninhabitable due to radiation.

Giant KILLER rabbits....!!!! Which being that there were plenty of other giant mutant beasties around is not that far fetched....

The statement was not claiming that giant rabbits were far-fetched, rather that they stood out as being thematically opposed to the rest of the game. For most of Wasteland, you play gritty desert rangers who fight radiation ghouls and death robots with assault rifles on your way to blowing up a secret military base run by a megalomaniac supercomputer. But first, you kill the "Bunnymaster" and explore a summer camp? Sorry, they just don't fit.

waste·land/ˈwāstˌland/
Noun:

An unused area of land that has become barren or overgrown.
A bleak, unattractive, and unused or neglected urban or industrial area: "industrial wasteland"; "a cultural wasteland".
A region, period in history, etc., that is considered spiritually, intellectually, or aesthetically barren or desolate

Really? A quote from the dictionary? What is this, a junior high book report?

Okay, so other than the word "overgrown" and something about culture, this pretty much backs up everything I've said so far about how I interpreted Wasteland. Desolate, thinly populated, and bleak.

The Wasteland is specifically refered to when you tried to leave the map. I can't remember exactly what it said, but it suggested the wasteland went on and on (ie you wouldn't be able to cross it) and this is reinforced by the new game having a dude stumble out of the "impassable" wasteland.

Yes, exactly. I just spent like 20 minutes Googling around trying to find that exact quote. Anyone have it off the top of their heads? Brian?

The Term Wasteland can also be used as a "Cultural" term. The Rangers are bringing their own cummunity that has built a culture and law based on the original Arizona and Texas Ranger creeds. So in a way they are bringing law to a lawless wasteland.

Yes, that is one possible definition, but we're not seriously considering the term "wasteland," as it applies to the post-apocalyptic irradiated desert adventure game Wasteland, to refer to a cultural decline, are we? Sure, culture has certainly declined, but I think we all agree that the title refers to the landscape and general decay of the physical world, right?

You're just going to have to trust me on this one: The reason Wasteland seemed so colorful (as directly opposed to all of the literature, concept, and reference presented with it) was because of technological limitations.

Because "brown" isn't a color? Because "gray" wasn't developed until 1992?

I'm at that point where I can't tell if someone is trolling me or intentionally avoiding facts just to win an Internet argument...

Look at my avatar. It's from the game. Tell me the color of the wall behind the mutant. Now tell me the game couldn't manage browns and grays.

That color behind your avatar is the Commodore 64's single shade of gray. It has a few black lines on it and some white highlights. Now add in the red and blue on the drool itself and you're up to five colors. Congratulations, you've now used 31% of the colors available on 1988 technology.

Now let's see you add a slightly darker gray lamp post to that scene. Now add a ruined building. Now add a car. Oh, sorry, that car can't be red. You already used your only red and if you put the same red on the car behind the drool, they'll blend together. I hope you weren't thinking of using gray for that lamp post, either, because you won't be able to see it in front of your gray wall.

This is why you end up with scenes on the C64 that seem bright and colorful. In the example above, we'd have to make that car green, the lamp post yellow, and the building cyan just so you could tell them apart. Suddenly the scene looks like it's overflowing with all kinds of different colors, but it's all just because of the limited palette available at the time.

[Brother None]

This debate will become more civil and meaningful or I will remove it. I'm not interested in watching people try to score internet points.

You're just going to have to trust me on this one: The reason Wasteland seemed so colorful (as directly opposed to all of the literature, concept, and reference presented with it) was because of technological limitations.

Why would we trust you on that when the designers of the original are creating a sequel with brighter colors, described as a vibrant world in the concept doc. Sure, it's different, but it's not bleak, because they designed the original, and they know it's not a bleak, grimdark world. There's not much to discuss. They made the game, they know what the intention was, whereas you are simply making assumptions based on "technological limitations". The Bethesda argument, I suppose.

You're actually debating the meaning of the word wasteland when we have a design doc from the original designers that defines the setting. What's the point?

[nathanknaack]

This debate will become more civil and meaningful or I will remove it. I'm not interested in watching people try to score internet points.

You're just going to have to trust me on this one: The reason Wasteland seemed so colorful (as directly opposed to all of the literature, concept, and reference presented with it) was because of technological limitations.

Why would we trust you on that when the designers of the original are creating a sequel with brighter colors, described as a vibrant world in the concept doc. Sure, it's different, but it's not bleak, because they designed the original, and they know it's not a bleak, grimdark world. There's not much to discuss. They made the game, they know what the intention was, whereas you are simply making assumptions based on "technological limitations". The Bethesda argument, I suppose.

You're actually debating the meaning of the word wasteland when we have a design doc from the original designers that defines the setting. What's the point?

Nice, now I'm being harassed by the moderators. Listen, buddy, I'm not the one making personal insults or using profanity. In fact, other than a little friendly sarcasm, I've done nothing but present my arguments politely with links to references.

Do your job. Don't worry about banning me; I'm done with these forums. I'll be waiting for my email letting me know Wasteland 2 is launching, assuming of course that the entire community isn't driven off by the people participating in and running the forums.

And to the other point in your message, I repeat: Why does this poll topic exist if the developers have clearly stated that Wasteland 2 is going to be bright and vibrant with lots of color? Why would you say, "Our game is going to be A. Hey guys, vote on what you like best: A, B, or C!" Then you get angry at everyone who didn't vote A? What kind of silly crap is this?

Hey, I've got an idea: If you want this topic to be "meaningful," close it. It has no meaning so just shut it down and say, "Thanks for everyone who voted B and C, but we just realized we were going with A all along. Sorry for wasting your time."

Good luck, InXile. I look forward to playing Wasteland 2.

[ffordesoon]

@nathanknaack:

Not that you're reading this, even though you almost certainly are, but:

Your sarcasm doesn't exactly read as "friendly," FYI. And your tone really doesn't.

Brother None is in direct contact with inXile. You're not. Debating the creators' intentions with him really isn't a smart thing to do.

FYI.

[Ormagöden]

I think that even option B looks bland and boring.

I'd go with option A or maybe something between A and B would be better.

[Brother None]

Oh yeah, I voted option A. B looks fine to me too, though, but not for that time of day perhaps. Anyway, it's pretty clear they'll have a lot of customizable options. That doesn't negate they need to pick the right default tho.

Nice, now I'm being harassed by the moderators. Listen, buddy, I'm not the one making personal insults or using profanity. In fact, other than a little friendly sarcasm, I've done nothing but present my arguments politely with links to references.

"Listen, buddy"? Your tone is clearly hostile. Not exactly making a good case for yourself.

Also, you are not the only one who got a strike. There's nothing wrong with this thread, but this particularly part of it was out of line and not too useful. There is no harassment in my post or in issuing a strike.

Do your job. Don't worry about banning me; I'm done with these forums. I'll be waiting for my email letting me know Wasteland 2 is launching, assuming of course that the entire community isn't driven off by the people participating in and running the forums.

It's not my fault that you didn't read the rules, as evinced by your double posting which is clearly stated in the rules is not allowed. We will moderate this forum to prevent debates like these from getting out of hand. There is no alternative. But no one has been banned, the debate has not been removed, only strikes were issued to correct people who were out of line. You are overreacting badly, I would personally say.

Why does this poll topic exist if the developers have clearly stated that Wasteland 2 is going to be bright and vibrant with lots of color?

Because they're still interested in seeing what the community thinks, and while their color use is unlikely to change there's a lot of leeway in what is the best default saturation level.

The screenshot got a lot of negative feedback as well as positive, this is a good way of quantifying preferences. Fargo says himself in the original post that they "stand behind our use of color". But there is no inherent contradiction in standing behind your decisions and showing an interest in the community opinion. They *are* reading all of this and looking at the poll results, but they *aren't* looking to hand over design decisions to the community.

We are not publishers. We don't control anything, not even when they poll us. It is called a "preference" poll, not a "decide on our design for us" poll. We're not making decisions, they are, they're simply looking for more feedback to help make the right decisions. If C had won out be a large margin they would probably hold some design meetings to figure out how that impacts the mood of several areas, and whether more areas should be grimmer than they are now. Feedback is always useful, but only to developers who know how to deal with it: don't ignore it, don't let it dictate your design, but do utilize it.

[Elandryl]

Ok, now I know what buggers me so much with image A: it looks like World of Warcraft.

Having a colourful game isn't a bad thing, but I admit that feeling like I'm walking in Disneyworld while I'm roaming inside a post-apocalyptic desert isn't my cup of tea. So something more like B, definitely, though colors ain't quite warm enough for a late afternoon. I'd like a bit of that "Mad Max" feeling, and that's a no-go in a cartoonish environment.

[ButchinMelancholy]

Sure, it's different, but it's not bleak, because they designed the original, and they know it's not a bleak, grimdark world.

Brian Fargo and team actually pointed out themselves the bleak nature (among others of course, but that's not the least of all) of the Wasteland universe, while as far as I can tell, that "grimdark" notion was mostly raised by defenders of the colorful Wasteland in a debunking fashion, and is not opportune anyway.


Also, all that unilateral thinking, be it admitted or not by their owners, is really heavy...
Whether one admits is bias and so he's willing to not pretend he can enforce his views on others (because being able to justify it still does not mean that it should be universally agreed -only that it is possibly legitimate, which is relative-), whether he stops trying to debate like if there was a possible outcome to this, because I'm not saying one can not have a bias (this is not an eventuality), so you'll never get everyone to agree. Define your terms, explain your point, and stop before the wall instead of throwing your last guts on it. That rot stinks to stifling.
We, human dumbasses, usually don't know a real sh*t about anything, just we believe things make sense and there are only few brains around that simply realize their ignorance enough to leave some room for it instead of acting stupidly narrow-minded...
This isn't a personal comment, and well, I'm just in that usual afflicted mood by the way... There was a time I would have say sorry for that...

[irishScott]

A is vibrant to the point of a Saturday morning cartoon, and C might as well be black and white. If it were up to me I would go with something a notch or two more vibrant than B, but not as vibrant as A. Given the choices, I'm going with B.

Also I'll echo an earlier comment about the rangers shooting from the hip. These guys are supposed to be the remnants of the military, they'd fire from the shoulder. I know this is an early screenshot likely done with models from the Unity store though, so I won't scream too loudly.

[ButchinMelancholy]

Also I'll echo an earlier comment about the rangers shooting from the hip. These guys are supposed to be the remnants of the military, they'd fire from the shoulder. I know this is an early screenshot likely done with models from the Unity store though, so I won't scream too loudly.

That is certainly a relevant concern, but I would also prefer the Rangers to have a more "rock'n'roll" feel than a group of the army. That's a game, a piece of art work, and I don't support institutions, especially the military ones, so if a more "human" or stylish feel predominates over some unnecessary realistic details, that's totally fine and probably better to me.

[snowflakei]

I Picked A just because I would like a big change from the typical monochromatic "try-to-look-realistic-and-serious/beak" look of many games today. It can get annoying when you are shooting at something only because you can't tell if its an enemy poking from cover or just a rock
In any case, I find A not to be too cartoonish but more of a sunset/sunrise time since usually we have more orange or purple skies during that time.
Whereas B seems fitting for mid-afternoon, and C (as much as I don't like it) Seems almost like it was on a cloudy midday just before a rainfall. Though maybe a tad more saturation wouldn't hurt.

[sparkee666]

Also I'll echo an earlier comment about the rangers shooting from the hip. These guys are supposed to be the remnants of the military, they'd fire from the shoulder. I know this is an early screenshot likely done with models from the Unity store though, so I won't scream too loudly.

The problem I have with shooting from the shoulder is the gun might cover up the features of your ranger. I Like using Big Guns, and I would be concerned that the gun will hide the personal touches I make; especially in a top view or 3/4's view game.

I picked B because I think there is more contrast between the PC's and background. I think they blend in a little too much with A and C.

[Woolfe]

A is vibrant to the point of a Saturday morning cartoon, and C might as well be black and white. If it were up to me I would go with something a notch or two more vibrant than B, but not as vibrant as A. Given the choices, I'm going with B.

I still don't get the cartoon comments I'm going to create a new thread on that, cause I am honestly baffled how people equate saturday morning cartoons with Image A?

Also I'll echo an earlier comment about the rangers shooting from the hip. These guys are supposed to be the remnants of the military, they'd fire from the shoulder. I know this is an early screenshot likely done with models from the Unity store though, so I won't scream too loudly.

None of them are actually shooting tho?

Being that it is "ingame" and turn based, my assumption is that they simply haven't hit end turn after giving commands yet, so no one is actually shooting, thus no shooting animations.

[sparkee666]

None of them are actually shooting tho?

Being that it is "ingame" and turn based, my assumption is that they simply haven't hit end turn after giving commands yet, so no one is actually shooting, thus no shooting animations.

You Make A good point.

[alcaray]

I say keep all the palettes. Use A for early morning and early evening. Use C for high noon. Else use B.

[Rascal]

C is the closest to Fallout1 so I voted C.

Overall im sad about design its too damn comic style... no harsh postapo like it was in Fallout1

[Wile]

C is the closest to Fallout1 so I voted C.

Overall im sad about design its too damn comic style... no harsh postapo like it was in Fallout1

Were you also sad that Dishonored did go with unique style and didn't look like Thief, even though it is held as a spiritual successor to Thief? You know Dishonored went with victorian/late 1700's style steampunk instead of medieval steampunk of Thief. Oh and it also had stylized proportions.

Although in case of Wasteland and Fallout, Fallout is the spiritual successor, but my point remains.

[Drool]

no harsh postapo like it was in Fallout1

It's almost as if the screenshot is being faithful to Wasteland and the vision document for Wasteland 2.

[tomimt]

I'm not surprised that there's people here who want the game to look like Fallout. I don't share their view, but I'm not surprised.

[northrop]

Just out of curiosity I've got a question to the people who voted for A. I understand that the few of you went with A because "this is true to the original" (and I respect that), but I am also under the impression that there are also people who voted for A because "it looks more real than B or C". So I've got to ask. If it's so real... why is it that you guys don't have a problem with a toxic river in a middle of a desert 100+ years after the fact? (how many shallow rivers/streams do you have in the deserts to begin with?) Not only that, but the surrounding area look fine. Cacti seems to be toxic proof, buildings and other industrial material also seems to be fine despite being radiated for over 100 years. So... all that is real to you? Two a-bombs and a recent nuclear meltdown in Japan, and I have yet to see a green toxic river, or any evidence of it. C'mon. If you want it real... make it real. Don't half ass it.