POLL: As funding continues... What's next?!

[krapht]

I voted for voice acting. I feel like major NPCs should have an animated portrait and voice ala Fallout so that they can be visualized.

[Psilos]

More dialogues, more quests, more loot, better interface, better art style.

Also more death animations, melting people was always my very favorite thing in Fallout but changing it up, shaking things round would be pretty cool.

Talking heads for important characters were also very awesome.

[homeslice82]

No love for the pointless 8-bit version? C'mon, you know it would be hilarious.

[Sub-Human]

Also more death animations, melting people was always my very favorite thing in Fallout but changing it up, shaking things round would be pretty cool.

True. Death animations are really fun

[Joeno]

Main vote for me is the modkit - yeah, reverse engineering could work, but takes a lot longer to figure out and has its own issues with stability (at first) and compatibility. A large part of the tools for the modkit would (I assume) be built anyway, for inXile's use while doing their development, so I would assume the basics would already be there - requiring polish for sure, but it would be a start.

Second is that designing a game that takes the requirements for this into account from the start (less hard coding, available options) will be easier than having to force it in. Not as much if the modkit would still be made, but released later (in which case it can be taken into account), but that would certainly be an issue if these tools were made by the community. For examples of the downsides of both of these, look at the Baldur's Gate (2) modding community - they've managed, but it took a lot of work and time to get going due to both the above - took them 10 years to work around even the more basic hardcoded limitations.

My second vote is the bigger world option, but that almost seems a given to me - we want Wasteland 2, so we would of course love having more Wasteland 2.

[kasra5004]

I`m surprised to see better graphics is fourth in the polling. I think one of the most important things that some extra budget can do is polishing the game to look better.And it is possible to do a real makeover. Expanding the game is really nice,more content is even better,but does it really take 300k!? I know creating new content takes time and money, but after the core of the game is done, more content can be added with a few tweaks and some artworks, quest design.

What I`m trying to say is that more content ,although important,doesn`t need that much budget. Better graphics IS possible with extra budget and it needs much more money than content creation. So with a little bit of management the game can have better graphics AND more content.(Say the 70% of the extra budget is spent on better grpahics and polishing and the rest on content expansion) What do you think?

[Psilos]

I`m surprised to see better graphics is fourth in the polling. I think one of the most important things that some extra budget can do is polishing the game to look better.And it is possible to do a real makeover. Expanding the game is really nice,more content is even better,but does it really take 300k!? I know creating new content takes time and money, but after the core of the game is done, more content can be added with a few tweaks and some artworks, quest design.

What I`m trying to say is that more content ,although important,doesn`t need that much budget. Better graphics IS possible with extra budget and it needs much more money than content creation. So with a little bit of management the game can have better graphics AND more content.(Say the 70% of the extra budget is spent on better grpahics and polishing and the rest on content expansion) What do you think?

I quite agree with you, graphics are very important nowadays but I still want all the other stuff too. Hopefully they'll get enough money to make a the game large and beautiful. And exploding people, lots of ways to explode people.

[axeldeath]

More content + Mod tools.

Mod tools first though, because that basically means more content anyway. As long as the graphics are serviceable then all you need for an amazing looking game is great aesthetics.

[Vault_13]

Some video cuts would be nice. Maybe a few or so (when something BIG happens). Watching them was very rewarding while playing Fallout 2.

[Postapo]

I`m surprised to see better graphics is fourth in the polling. I think one of the most important things that some extra budget can do is polishing the game to look better.And it is possible to do a real makeover. Expanding the game is really nice,more content is even better,but does it really take 300k!? I know creating new content takes time and money, but after the core of the game is done, more content can be added with a few tweaks and some artworks, quest design.

What I`m trying to say is that more content ,although important,doesn`t need that much budget. Better graphics IS possible with extra budget and it needs much more money than content creation. So with a little bit of management the game can have better graphics AND more content.(Say the 70% of the extra budget is spent on better grpahics and polishing and the rest on content expansion) What do you think?

I quite agree with you, graphics are very important nowadays but I still want all the other stuff too. Hopefully they'll get enough money to make a the game large and beautiful. And exploding people, lots of ways to explode people.

Neither of you understands what happened to rpgs in the last decade, if you did you'd avoid clicking the 'Enhanced graphics' option like the plague.

yes, graphics are expensive - that is exactly why they shouldn't be focused on. Funding graphics will result in a game that'll be little more, than eye candy with LAUGHABLE amout of content, which btw is usually lethal for open world games.

Expanding the game is really nice,more content is even better,but does it really take 300k!?

And if it did, so what?! Would it be so horrible to have a game with twice as much content and expanded dialogue, than both Fallouts put together?!

Back in the 80s and 90s the kind of short sighted people like you would also gladly substract from these games' content, erasing whole Fallout and Wasteland towns from existance, just so you could focus on funding marginally better graphics, that nobody would give a flying fuck about two years later. Boy, what great games that'd make, huh?

[Skirge]

I love how everyone sitting behind their keyboard is apparently a PC gaming industry expert and knows how development works, how project plans are laid out and how cost estimates are done. Maybe you're moles for the publishers?

[kasra5004]

Neither of you understands what happened to rpgs in the last decade, if you did you'd avoid clicking the 'Enhanced graphics' option like the plague.

I don't like how you imply that other people are ignorant. Do you really think that anybody that pays attention to graphics is dumb?

And if it did, so what?! Would it be so horrible to have a game with twice as much content and expanded dialogue, than both Fallouts put together?!

I like RPGs, because they are like novels , wasteland was like a novel that made the player cling to the game until the end.Do you think people like novels to go on and on.Do you really think the more budget you put in a game,the more content you get without killing the essence of the game? What I was trying to say, and tried so hard to clarify, is that content can be added to some amount without making the game unbalanced and I`m pretty sure the devs know it better.So, the way funding is going on, even after adding content to a rational degree still some budget will remain.

Back in the 80s and 90s the kind of short sighted people like you would also gladly substract from these games' content, erasing whole Fallout and Wasteland towns from existance, just so you could focus on funding marginally better graphics, that nobody would give a flying fuck about two years later. Boy, what great games that'd make, huh?

Wow, I particularly liked the `short sighted people like you` part!

[Hobz]

@ postapo

A little more eye-candy is not bad in itself, chill out. There is a problem when graphics are the main concern and take away too much resources from "real" content. This will obviously never happen with Wasteland 2.

Now, if the inXile team as spare resources to spend, improved graphics are not a bad way to use them at all, we're not even talking about using ALL the spare resources.

[SXX]

I love how everyone sitting behind their keyboard is apparently a PC gaming industry expert and knows how development works, how project plans are laid out and how cost estimates are done. Maybe you're moles for the publishers?

I know some thing because my work is programming.
And some things is really obvious, everybody understand: graphics and voice cost more money than writing of quests.

So I want to fight against crysis lovers here.

[Crayon]

I know some thing because my work is programming.
And some things is really obvious, everybody understand: graphics and voice cost more money than writing of quests.

So I want to fight against crysis lovers here.

How about we don't fight and instead trust that inXile wouldn't offer the options of graphical enhancements unless they knew that they could improve the graphics AND make a quality game at the same time? I think it's obvious from the original pitch video that Brian Fargo has no interest in creating a shallow piece of eye candy.

And getting mad over people's voting choices (this isn't direct specifically at you, SXX, but to everyone in general) isn't going to help anything except create an unwelcome atmosphere for others - not exactly the type of community we want to create for newcomers

[SXX]

How about we don't fight and instead trust that inXile wouldn't offer the options of graphical enhancements unless they knew that they could improve the graphics AND make a quality game at the same time? I think it's obvious from the original pitch video that Brian Fargo has no interest in creating a shallow piece of eye candy.

About graphics: I think everything in game important, but graphics.

And even with huge huge budget like $4,000,000 I don't see any reasons to spend money on graphics.
I play some old games for years and doesn't feel something should be changed.
I even agree to play ASCII Wasteland 2.
Its just my 50c.

And getting mad over people's voting choices (this isn't direct specifically at you, SXX, but to everyone in general) isn't going to help anything except create an unwelcome atmosphere for others - not exactly the type of community we want to create for newcomers

I usually wonder why people ask to some features, its only reason why I discuss something in thread and votes which mean nothing.
I really want to know what people think of some features and why.

Its really not so bad like other threads with uber-fat trolling here.

PS: My english isn't perfect so please do not think I'm angry or mad. Its just hard to translate some sentences to English, possible its seems like aggression, but its just bad word dictionary.

[Skirge]

About graphics: I think everything in game important, but graphics.

And even with huge huge budget like $4,000,000 I don't see any reasons to spend money on graphics.
I play some old games for years and doesn't feel something should be changed.
I even agree to play ASCII Wasteland 2.
Its just my 50c.

I understand the sentiment you're trying to get across, but I completely disagree with this and it would be a disaster for inXile. I sure as hell wouldn't play an ASCII W2, just like I won't play any roguelike. Honestly, I can't even bring myself to struggle through W1 anymore. As much as I loved it back in the 80's, the UI is just too outdated for me now. I suspect that quite a few people feel the same way.

I usually wonder why people ask to some features, its only reason why I discuss something in thread and votes which mean nothing.
I really want to know what people think of some features and why.

It's pretty much how I stated it in the previous paragraph. But, the reason I chose graphics over the other options was because I really had no interest at all in the other ones. So, I chose what interested me MOST out of what was available to choose from in the first place.

Its really not so bad like other threads with uber-fat trolling here.

PS: My english isn't perfect so please do not think I'm angry or mad. Its just hard to translate some sentences to English, possible its seems like aggression, but its just bad word dictionary.

Excellent information to have as it definitely helps me understand your replies better and stops me from misunderstanding your intentions.

[Psilos]

Neither of you understands what happened to rpgs in the last decade, if you did you'd avoid clicking the 'Enhanced graphics' option like the plague.

yes, graphics are expensive - that is exactly why they shouldn't be focused on. Funding graphics will result in a game that'll be little more, than eye candy with LAUGHABLE amout of content, which btw is usually lethal for open world games.

Expanding the game is really nice,more content is even better,but does it really take 300k!?

And if it did, so what?! Would it be so horrible to have a game with twice as much content and expanded dialogue, than both Fallouts put together?!

Back in the 80s and 90s the kind of short sighted people like you would also gladly substract from these games' content, erasing whole Fallout and Wasteland towns from existance, just so you could focus on funding marginally better graphics, that nobody would give a flying fuck about two years later. Boy, what great games that'd make, huh?

Firstly you miss quoted me, and I think you might have realized that I do not wish for better graphics to replace additional content, having a large world is very important to me and that is why I didn't mind fallout's graphics 10 years after it came out or even wasteland when I play it now. But with larger founding I do expect to have decent graphics, because in this day and age they are important, I don't want them to be the main focus, but I think what is very exciting for many people is to be able to play an old school RPG with modern HD graphics and I don't think there is something inherently wrong with that.

Also making a game that looks nice doesn't take millions and millions of dollar, many indie game have very nice graphics and I don't think they had as big a budget as Wasteland 2 is likely to get. I'm not talking about making it look like an isometric Crysis but do expect it to look like a modern game and not a slightly improved fallout.

[Vryheid]

I love how everyone sitting behind their keyboard is apparently a PC gaming industry expert and knows how development works, how project plans are laid out and how cost estimates are done. Maybe you're moles for the publishers?

I know some thing because my work is programming.
And some things is really obvious, everybody understand: graphics and voice cost more money than writing of quests.

So I want to fight against crysis lovers here.

That's not true at all. It might take a team of programmers and writers several weeks to perfect a quest, whereas all the voice acting for it can easily be completed with a few voice actors in 2-3 hours. Also, better graphics can be reused elsewhere in the game. Quest writing cannot. Not saying that a huge network of sidequests is a bad thing, it's just that good graphics and voice acting are much more cost effective. I hope we have a measure of both.

By the way, Crysis is one of the greatest games ever made, so I don't see why you would want to "fight" anyone who enjoyed it.

[The_A_Drain]

I'm not sure what the general fan standpoint is on this, but I've seen a few "no voice acting, EVER" style posts and that makes me a bit sad, here's what I want personally.

Voice acting for *major* lines of dialogue, enough to give character to, well, an important character or piece of dialogue. In my head, this is almost exactly how Baldur's Gate or Fallout did it. Either (BG) voice a handful of lines that come up most often (or are fixed, such as introductions), and voice a huge range of random bits and pieces for the party members. Or (Fallout) voice the entire dialogue tree for a handful of very important characters (Killian, Gizmo, Aradesh, Overseer, The Master, etc) I would be very happy with either one of those.

Also. GET JIM CUMMINGS BACK. Seriously, only half jokingly I call this a deal breaker. That guy in my head is as much a part of this genre as party-based combat or dialogue trees.

General audio, I am ecstatic that the man responsible for Fallout 1 & 2's audio is back, just do more of that you did with those games and I could NOT be happier.

As for graphics, I'm all for better graphics but you can count me out of voting for cut-scenes, I have some idea of just how much money and time they soak up during development, kick them right in the balls outside of an opening/ending sequence and maybe something very important part-way through like the citadel exploding.

General graphical quality though, I would much prefer 2D Isometric with high def, possibly hand-painted sprites, that would just be dream come true for me, but I understand just how much footwork that is as to be a major headache and/or unbelievable at the budget you're likely to get (2-3 mill as I see it). Anything around (or maybe a little above) Dawn of War 2's visual quality would please me greatly, although please please *please* give a decent zoom range if you allow camera zoom. In Dawn of War (and a lot of modern over-the-shoulder games) the range of zoom is simply not enough to get a good view of what's around you.

For me, larger worlds, more items and more characters takes precedent until you reach something like what BG1 had (more I would be happier, but BG1 is big enough to please me) once you reach that my priority would be voicing the important parts and main characters, and graphics last (cut scenes, etc not even included on my list because, frankly, fuck them)