Solo vs Group: Why not both?

[SDF121]

I’ve noticed a few discussions with regard to party size in Wasteland 2 and thought I that I would throw my hat into the ring. Now what I am about to suggest may seem rather odd at first but please hear me out.

Instead of making Wasteland 2 a party game or a solo game, what if Wasteland 2 were to give players the option to either start the game with a party of Desert Rangers (Wasteland) or to start the game solo as a drifter (Fallout)?

With respect to the solo option, the player would start out in a different region of the map than they would have if they had chosen to start out with a party of Desert Rangers. Although the initial story may differ depending on which of these two paths you choose, the two seemingly disparate plots would eventually coalesce into one.

To pay homage to the Mad Max themes that permeated throughout the original Fallout, this solo character could be some kind of law enforcer in a post apocalyptic world much like how Mad Max was part of the MFP (Main Force Patrol). Like Mad Max, you could set it up where the characters family has been slaughtered by a gang of roaming bandits who have laid waste to his town. From there on out, the player could either begin their journey by seeking vengeance on those responsible or instead venture out into the wasteland in search of a new place to call home and start again.

However, like the original Fallout games, the player will find quickly find that their goals will have fundamentally changed as their story progressed. For example, this could be done once the lone wanderer comes across the Desert Rangers similar to how the Vault Dweller would come across the Brotherhood of Steel and be faced with a set of new challenges. This can be seen in Fallout when after obtaining the water purifier chip, the Vault Dweller is faced with the task of defeating the Master’s mutant army and in Fallout 2 where after obtaining the GECK, the descendent of the Vault Dweller is faced with the task of defeating the Enclave. Similarly, the lone wanderer could have his own narrative that would ultimately be woven into the fabric of the primary narrative of the Desert Rangers in Wasteland 2.

Providing two distinct paths to starting the game would satisfy fans of both Wasteland and Fallout while providing a higher degree of replay value. Although the two distinct plots would eventually come together into a single coherent story, the two paths would provide for fundamentally different play styles where the route of the Desert Ranger would provide for the party based experience sought by fans of the original Wasteland and Fallout Tactics whereas the option to be the lone wanderer would provide for the more personal experience sought by fans of Fallout and Fallout 2.

Players opting to play through the game as the lone wanderer would then spend most of their travels isolated and alone while occasionally adding a few NPC’s to their party. It would also seem more fitting for the solo character rather than the Desert Rangers to have a dog as a companion although I see no reason for it to be mutually exclusive. In another move that may further satisfy fans of the original Fallout games, the particular region of the map from which the solo character would start out in could have a darker theme and overall atmosphere to it than what one would find throughout the rest of the areas or regions featured in Wasteland 2. As the solo character ventures further away from this region, he would find more developed areas with varying environments and factions that are more typical of Wasteland.

This way those wanting a more oppressive and dark atmosphere will be satisfied while those wanting something true to the spirit of the original Wasteland will be able to enjoy the surrounding regions which would make up a majority of the locales in Wasteland 2. It makes sense that in a post apocalyptic world that some areas will undoubtedly be worse off than others and it only seems appropriate to feature areas throughout Wasteland 2 that would reflect this reality.

Anyways, what are your thoughts on the matter?

I think it would be an excellent way to cater to both audiences while providing another degree of replay value. Furthermore, it would allow for a more in depth plot from which the player would be able to experience multiple events in the main story arc from two distinct perspectives. After playing through the game with a squad of Desert Rangers, one could then start over and experience the wasteland from the perspective of the lone wanderer and vice versa.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

[BatCountry]

It could work.

A solo campaign could start out with different friendly factions... Regions initially hostile to the Rangers would be friendly to the solo character. The two campaigns could converge pretty quickly as well.

In the terms of Wasteland 1, Imagine your character was in a gang in Needles, worked at the Hobo Dog, or was a Desert Nomad... Immediately improved starting conditions, friendly faction, more NPC possibilities, etc.

[SDF121]

Please vote for this idea on google moderator: http://goo.gl/mod/scE2

[Drool]

Wasn't there already a sequel to Fallout? Wasteland was a party based game, the sequel is going to be a party based game. I don't want it to be "more like Fallout" any more than I want it to be more like Super Mario Sunshine.

[kaotikrys]

Wasn't there already a sequel to Fallout? Wasteland was a party based game, the sequel is going to be a party based game. I don't want it to be "more like Fallout" any more than I want it to be more like Super Mario Sunshine.

What is the reason for being against the OP's idea? The discussion part of this is important, so what kind of sacrifices do you think would have to be made or in what way would it detract from the game?

I think it's an absolutely fantastic idea, and one that can easily appeal to everyone, not only the Fallout fans. Also, I don't think it's fair to say that Wasteland was a party based game with the implication that Fallout wasn't. Fallout certainly was a party based game, it just put less emphasis on party than did Wasteland.

[Drool]

A game with two different opening scenarios requires more coding, more scripting, and more time spent doing the beginning twice. Furthermore, the whole point of the game is for it to be party based. It's not a lone hero game any more than it's an FPS or a platformer.

[kaotikrys]

A game with two different opening scenarios requires more coding, more scripting, and more time spent doing the beginning twice. Furthermore, the whole point of the game is for it to be party based. It's not a lone hero game any more than it's an FPS or a platformer.

The fund goal has been met and exceeded already, don't you think those funds can be used to expand the game, just as always intended?

Also, there is no lone hero, that puts the wrong spin on the whole thing. Lone wanderer is a better term, and it only starts that way. As the OP mentions, the player who prefers are more singular identity still gets it, but can/will recruit party members. It's not as if starting with one PC means you can't ever have any party members (as the OP explains).

[Drool]

Expand the game, yes. Don't change the entire style. Again, Brian has said that Wasteland 2 will be a party-based game. That's what I donated for. That's what I want. It's right there on the Kickstarter page: "We’re going back to the original and building from there. No first person shooter, we’re going top down so you get a tactical feel for the situation. And we’re not ditching the party play to turn it into some hack-and-slash bloodfest."

If you want something different, that's your business, but I honestly don't understand why so many people seem to miss the point. Fallout was a fine game, a wonderful game, but it wasn't party-based. And again, having the developers design the beginning of the game twice just because some people can't tell the difference between solo play and party play is insanity. What game does this? What game has two different styles in the beginning that are then forced together at some undetermined point in the storyline?

Just because the two styles are somewhat similar doesn't make them interchangeable. Turn-based tactical and RTS are similar too. Should we have a third opening that's an RTS that's eventually folded into the rest of the game?

[kaotikrys]

Expand the game, yes. Don't change the entire style. Again, Brian has said that Wasteland 2 will be a party-based game. That's what I donated for. That's what I want. It's right there on the Kickstarter page: "We’re going back to the original and building from there. No first person shooter, we’re going top down so you get a tactical feel for the situation. And we’re not ditching the party play to turn it into some hack-and-slash bloodfest."

If you want something different, that's your business, but I honestly don't understand why so many people seem to miss the point. Fallout was a fine game, a wonderful game, but it wasn't party-based. And again, having the developers design the beginning of the game twice just because some people can't tell the difference between solo play and party play is insanity. What game does this? What game has two different styles in the beginning that are then forced together at some undetermined point in the storyline?

Just because the two styles are somewhat similar doesn't make them interchangeable. Turn-based tactical and RTS are similar too. Should we have a third opening that's an RTS that's eventually folded into the rest of the game?

"Some people can't tell the difference" ... "RTS"...? Why the sarcasm and hostility? We're all here supporting the same cause. No one is here saying Wasteland 2 should be first-person, no one is saying it should be hack and slash. Everyone here is a fan of what Fargo does with a cRPG. Wasteland is 24 years old, a lot has happened and changed since then, not all of it bad. Fargo has already said that Fallout did a lot of things well and he intends to use those things to make Wasteland 2 the best of both worlds.

Fallout was a party based game. I don't understand why you're saying it wasn't. Again, it just put less emphasis on party play than did Wasteland. If your only concern is if something like this will detract from the "pure Wasteland experience", why not let the devs worry about that part? If they can implement it and maintain Wasteland's core gameplay, great, if they can't, so be it. If it's going to absolutely ruin the game for every Wasteland fan out there and destroy their dreams, you needn't worry, because the idea will certainly be put to rest by the devs.

I maintain that it's a fantastic idea and, in my limited view as just a gamer (not designer), I can't see any major downside to it.

[krellen]

Fallout was a party based game. I don't understand why you're saying it wasn't.

Because it wasn't.

In a party-based game, the player plays the party, not a single character. Wizardry. Might and Magic. Icewind Dale. Bard's Tale. SSI's "Gold Box" games. Wasteland.

Having a party does not make the game "party-based". Those are NPCs, not creations of the player; they have personalities, stats, preferences and stories created by the game designer, not the player. It's something entirely different.

Not least among these differences is the fact that all characters are expendable. If your one character in Fallout dies, it's game over. If your one character in Baldur's Gate dies, it's game over. Even if the rest of your party is still alive and kicking, losing that one character is game over. Not so in a party-based game. The only way to lose those games is to lose everyone.

(Heading off counter-arguments with Dragon Age or other modern games: no one dies in those games, so they don't count at all.)

[Kide]

Yep, this is the discussion that has been going on quite a lot. I can understand that to wasteland fans and maybe people who were older when fallout game out, party based game immidiatly means a game where you create the whole party. Though I am sure many here could not have understood that phrase as such, if they have not played those types of games, or have only played a few. I have played wizardry 8 and might and magic 7 for example. Yes that is party based (with no personality), I still considered at least baldurs gate 1-2 being party based too in a sense, because you can still control the party in battle, whitch is one thing that I like the most. The last paryy based that some might understand is the fallout/arcanum style, where the npc charachters do their own decisions in combat too, whitch takes away the tactical combat system greatness completly.

I am just saying that if a person has not played crpg's from the start that they might understand the party in different way, whitch to be is no suprise.

This idea could work, though if it is wasteland game I myself might even like to try that 4 rangers thing where I create the charachters by stats etc, myself.... Buut at this point after I have created them, would really like to be able to put some charachteristics to them still, otheriwse too than just in my head. The rangers working together should be such that have done it for awhile, and they would agree on most parts on how to proceed, as they have the same goal, but if someone would still want to feel a bit more like one of these charashters is "me", could there be a possibility to add some.... "guidelines" or history packs to the other 3 rangers if the player would so choose? I would be completly happy to create my party of 4, I have done that before too in other games, wizardry 8 had at least some different voices to be assigned to the PC charachters with pessimistic style etc. But could there be a "history" pack that could be added too? Like this guy has been my mentor in the wangers and is traveling with me, and he would have some lines he could then say in mids of the game somewhere, if I chose to have a mentor in the group?

I am not sure if that could work, or if that would be doable, but I would personally enjoy giving some more personality to the 4 rangers that I do have.

[BatCountry]

Fallout was a party based game. I don't understand why you're saying it wasn't.

Because it wasn't.

In a party-based game, the player plays the party, not a single character. Wizardry. Might and Magic. Icewind Dale. Bard's Tale. SSI's "Gold Box" games. Wasteland.

Having a party does not make the game "party-based". Those are NPCs, not creations of the player; they have personalities, stats, preferences and stories created by the game designer, not the player. It's something entirely different.

Not least among these differences is the fact that all characters are expendable. If your one character in Fallout dies, it's game over. If your one character in Baldur's Gate dies, it's game over. Even if the rest of your party is still alive and kicking, losing that one character is game over. Not so in a party-based game. The only way to lose those games is to lose everyone.

(Heading off counter-arguments with Dragon Age or other modern games: no one dies in those games, so they don't count at all.)

Exactly... I think having to explain this at all reinforces your point that people don't understand the difference.... probably because there hasn't been a proper party-based RPG since I was a teenager.

[BatCountry]

But could there be a "history" pack that could be added too? Like this guy has been my mentor in the wangers and is traveling with me, and he would have some lines he could then say in mids of the game somewhere, if I chose to have a mentor in the group?

I am not sure if that could work, or if that would be doable, but I would personally enjoy giving some more personality to the 4 rangers that I do have.

This is an excellent idea which should be added in the "Must Implement" section. Classic games like Traveller, Deadlands, etc. required that a player character be generated with a background, complete with perks, flaws, past traumas, etc.

The trade-offs really lent some depth to the created character, though I have no doubt they'd infuriate min-maxers.

[krellen]

Exactly... I think having to explain this at all reinforces your point that people don't understand the difference.... probably because there hasn't been a proper party-based RPG since I was a teenager.

Well, there was Temple of Elemental Evil, but that was a Troika game and thus no one knew it existed until they were already out of business.

[kaotikrys]

Fallout was a party based game. I don't understand why you're saying it wasn't.

Because it wasn't.

In a party-based game, the player plays the party, not a single character. Wizardry. Might and Magic. Icewind Dale. Bard's Tale. SSI's "Gold Box" games. Wasteland.

Having a party does not make the game "party-based". Those are NPCs, not creations of the player; they have personalities, stats, preferences and stories created by the game designer, not the player. It's something entirely different.

Not least among these differences is the fact that all characters are expendable. If your one character in Fallout dies, it's game over. If your one character in Baldur's Gate dies, it's game over. Even if the rest of your party is still alive and kicking, losing that one character is game over. Not so in a party-based game. The only way to lose those games is to lose everyone.

(Heading off counter-arguments with Dragon Age or other modern games: no one dies in those games, so they don't count at all.)

So it's pretty black & white in your opinion then. In order for the game to be "party based" it has to: A. Have the player create all characters, and B. All characters are expendable. So, as you say with the case of Dragon Age, in spite of the fact that you actually play all of the characters in the party, none of them die, so it's not "party based".

How is that entirely different? I just don't see it. Any game that has a party, which you can control even minimally, is still a party game. Are these criteria you mention your opinion, or is there some type of classification somewhere that shows it is concrete?

I still don't understand how a game where you recruit members to create a party, and can then either control or influence this party throughout the game, is not a party based game. What is it, if not that?

[krellen]

Linked so I don't have to rewrite it.

[kaotikrys]

Linked so I don't have to rewrite it.

Fair enough, that explains exactly why you prefer full emphasis on party play. I can understand that. It does not however show where the idea came from that the only party-based game is one where it meets your specific criteria.

The piece of that post that strikes me as relevant is when you mention the narrative/story. Indeed, if the option to start alone or with a party was implemented, the two methods would have to coalesce at some point in the story, and the beginning would have to be different, but that's something that could be resolved, could it not? I'm not a game designer, so I can't think up some perfect way for this to happen, but I think the OP has great ideas in this regard.

The bottom line is that what the OP is talking about is not talking away the elements that you love, but rather adding more elements that other people love too. Ultimately, for any idea posed by the fans, the devs will have to determine if it will work for their game or not. This particular idea is a good one, and if the devs can implement it without it being half-assed, the end result will be good for everyone.

[krellen]

Indeed, if the option to start alone or with a party was implemented, the two methods would have to coalesce at some point in the story, and the beginning would have to be different, but that's something that could be resolved, could it not?

Probably not.

You're playing the "main character" version. You get to the part where "main" and "party" are supposed to mesh. Your main character dies. Do you keep playing?

[kaotikrys]

Indeed, if the option to start alone or with a party was implemented, the two methods would have to coalesce at some point in the story, and the beginning would have to be different, but that's something that could be resolved, could it not?

Probably not.

You're playing the "main character" version. You get to the part where "main" and "party" are supposed to mesh. Your main character dies. Do you keep playing?

I'd say no, you don't keep playing. So in that case, let's say Fargo and team decide to make it a game with a main character for everyone. All other party aspects remain fully "party based", with the caveat that you have a squad leader, for example. Would that ruin the game for you?

[krellen]

[L]et's say Fargo and team decide to make it a game with a main character for everyone. All other party aspects remain fully "party based", with the caveat that you have a squad leader, for example. Would that ruin the game for you?

"Ruin"? Probably not. But I wouldn't be comfortable calling the game a true "Wasteland 2".