Trouble ahead - Wasteland vs Fallout fans?

[Svetlovska]

I'm concerned that there already seems to be a split developing between players of the original Fallouts and of Wasteland - see the 'Solo vs Group' debate here. Full disclosure: I am a original Fallout gamer, never had the chance to play Wasteland (though I've just bought a copy of the 'Interplay Anniversary Edition' to see what I'm missing.) I understand how passionately we all feel about the original games that motivated us to fund this project, and personally I like the option floated of offering *both* in-game - recognising that this may be equivalent to demanding two games in one, with all the attendant difficulties that may cause. But I want to look wider than the specific pros and cons of party balance, better discussed on that thread, to another issue.

I take it as read that none of here want real time, trigger happy shoot em ups, even isometric/3D ones (I note the criticism of the recent JA2 'reboot' combat mechanic here)- we are all in it for the stories, character development, and tactical, intelligent game play. But I have a question - are there *really* any deal-breaking differences/incompatibilities in the 'legacies' of Wasteland & FO 1/2 ? Can Wasteland 2 bridge the gap? Is there even a gap here? I genuinely don't know. Your thoughts?

[cdoublejj]

not that i know of other than characters and cities. fallout was the spiritual predecessor to wasteland. i'll just be happy to have a top down/isometric old school post apoc cRPG game again. I never beat fallout 1 and 2 yet just to leave my self little new content each time i played over the past decade/years. I wanted to savor the old school cRPG that much.

[krellen]

Everyone seems to be assuming I've already lost the fight on the graphics - that they will be isometric 3D, much like Fallout. I posted the feedback I got from Brian Fargo (I assume it was Mr. Fargo) on the subject, though, so I'm not wholly convinced a more old-school top-down 2D sprite game isn't still on the table. But that's only one major difference between the two I see.

Another is, of course, the topic you referenced; the difference between a single character and party-play. That one I don't think can be gapped (other than the concession that party-play games always make, in that you can create only a single character if you wish, but the game doesn't pull any punches just because you're three men short.) The dynamics of almost every other part of the game - from combat balance to narrative to puzzles - are different between these two games. Combat balanced for four doesn't easily become combat balanced for one; a narrative focusing on a central character cannot be easily woven into a narrative about an undefined group of people; puzzle design that assumes the presence of multiple skill sets cannot be pruned to allow all obstacles to be tackled by a single character. There's no happy medium on that one; it's got to be one way or the other.

Ascetics is another big one. Fallout was bleak and brown, and carried that strong 50's vibe with it everywhere. It also took itself pretty seriously. Wasteland had a giant desert, but it was yellow, not brown. Wasteland was brighter, it had towering broccoli and actual rivers (that could sweep you away and drown you if you weren't strong swimmers). And while it was no less dangerous and bloody than Fallout, it never really took itself too seriously on it; imagine if all the Easter Eggs in Fallout and Fallout 2 were actually canonical parts of the setting and not just silly one-shot gags. A Wasteland game is not going to look like a Fallout game.

And there's the iconics; Vault Boy, the PipBoy, Vaults, Super Mutants, Ron Perlman. Anything that fans instantly recognise as "Fallout" would be verboten in a Wasteland game; they share a soul, perhaps, but their faces and clothes are entirely different.

But really, the thing that bugs me the most are the posts that say "I didn't play Wasteland, but ..." I really do not comprehend why anyone who never played Wasteland would be excited enough about its sequel to come comment on its development (fund it, perhaps; opine on it, not so much) without some sort of desire to ultimately get some other project out of this altogether. I mean, unless that sentence ends "but I've done some research, watched a Let's Play, and think it looks really cool", anyway.

[Svetlovska]

Hi Krellen - thanks for your considered post. And I take your point in the last para - why am I here from the Fallout camp *at all*, trying to push another game into being a sequel for *my* favourite? Well, it's basically because I recognised the names of the designers here, knew their legacy creating all 3 games, love post-apocalyptic scenarios in games, and have waited 20 years for this. The team here seemed to be making encouraging noises about one ring to rule them all. Plus, right now no-one else with their chops is currently offering a Classic Fallout reboot...

I'm not averse to party members (particularly if they can come and go throughout the game, get 'radioed in' to meet at a particular location, etc - a 'Guild' thing? Maybe like a JA2 recruitment from a pool of characters who evolve with time and experience), so the two-location or different skill set puzzle angle can, I hope, be handled, and I'm fine with a 'hardcore' option where you have to be 4 times cleverer/nastier to cover for your own choice to have an absence of party members - I don't expect fundamental aspects of game play to be tweaked/weakened for my choice. So I do think it may be possible to square the circle purely in gameplay/plot terms. And I trust the designers to make a game I'll like, even if it isn't that impossibly perfect fit with my own wish list. I'm just keen that heavy design choices one way *or* the other are managed in a way at the outset that doesn't risk alienating half the backers/fans here. In fact, I'd be interested in a poll that quantified just how many people in the fanbase here see themselves as wasteland only/FO only/both played/one or other played/ or are open to either.

[krellen]

Well, it's basically because I recognised the names of the designers here, knew their legacy creating all 3 games, love post-apocalyptic scenarios in games, and have waited 20 years for this.

I just don't understand doing that. I didn't go around the Left 4 Dead 2 forums telling them to make Half-Life 2 Episode 3, even though they're both Valve.

(I know some people did, but I think those people are silly.)

[cdoublejj]

Hi Krellen - thanks for your considered post. And I take your point in the last para - why am I here from the Fallout camp *at all*, trying to push another game into being a sequel for *my* favourite? Well, it's basically because I recognised the names of the designers here, knew their legacy creating all 3 games, love post-apocalyptic scenarios in games, and have waited 20 years for this. The team here seemed to be making encouraging noises about one ring to rule them all. Plus, right now no-one else with their chops is currently offering a Classic Fallout reboot...

I'm not averse to party members (particularly if they can come and go throughout the game, get 'radioed in' to meet at a particular location, etc - a 'Guild' thing? Maybe like a JA2 recruitment from a pool of characters who evolve with time and experience), so the two-location or different skill set puzzle angle can, I hope, be handled, and I'm fine with a 'hardcore' option where you have to be 4 times cleverer/nastier to cover for your own choice to have an absence of party members - I don't expect fundamental aspects of game play to be tweaked/weakened for my choice. So I do think it may be possible to square the circle purely in gameplay/plot terms. And I trust the designers to make a game I'll like, even if it isn't that impossibly perfect fit with my own wish list. I'm just keen that heavy design choices one way *or* the other are managed in a way at the outset that doesn't risk alienating half the backers/fans here. In fact, I'd be interested in a poll that quantified just how many people in the fanbase here see themselves as wasteland only/FO only/both played/one or other played/ or are open to either.

/slow clap


I have played a small bit of wasteland and a few other old text/simple gfx based games like. I think what people are expecting and wanting is basically what i said above.

I found your post rather informative. the part about the bleak browns and bright yellows take me back the gfx/setting threads, as you saw that I can visualize top down fallout esq (pre rendered 2d top down) but, wasteland bright yellow with late 80s setting.

I my self have number of top-down isometric games like fallout, jagged alliance, arcanum, baldur's gate, plane scape etc etc but, i have yet to REALLY play wasteland and some of later title in my list.

I hope that perhaps give the point of view of the people who haven't played wasteland. perhaps i can get it running under my 98SE VM and give it a play through that is run at full speed at 3.7ghz and in fast forward.

Perhaps in Wasteland 2 we can use birds as weapons.

EDIT: actually that might be funny 1 shot Easter egg that backers might have laugh at?

[krellen]

Perhaps in Wasteland 2 we can use birds as weapons.

EDIT: actually that might be funny 1 shot Easter egg that backers might have laugh at?

"You find the remains of the Ranger Prototype Avian Launching Cannon, little more than a broken stick, a snapped rubber band, and a few feathers. You remember hearing about this device: the ammunition wasn't very cooperative."

[Kide]

This is the biggest gap with some people that I have noticed myself, and have said I would really be interested to see how many of the backers are true wasteland fans who have played the game, and what percentage is of later generations who haven't had the change.

Well why do I back this project if I do not know or at least did not know anything of wasteland? Because I have been waiting for the old good games to come back. There's many years now that have passed that there has been no such games. Difficulty? Nope, not in the amount I would like at least in roleplaying games. Tactical combat with 6 or more charachters? Nope, Dragon age origins had 4. More skills note less? Nope, all the time less for the masses seems to be a theme here... Even if this game is not going to be exactly like I would have first understood, as fallout and other games he has been publishing are mentioned in there whitch I am sure can be "confucing" to some that do not know of original wasteland, so a reference of some kind of combat mechanics like in jagged alliance, or charachter system little bit like in there might make it more clear in the start. Still I have been a fan of jagged alliance, and I love might and magic 7 and wizardry 8 whitch have that kind of charachter creation, so I am going to be fine with it.

And the most important thing.... Maybe there will be more old school games after this one, like Arcanum 2 or alike, that we have not seen in many aspects for a long time. I think that would even if the game would not even be that mutch to my liking for some reason, would be the biggest reason plus I rather give my money to a smaller developer than a big company, whitch at least is not going to make a game I will like. Ever. Even if I like some aspect of those new games, the mechanics, difficulty, all voice acted, see what skill you need of what level (no suprises at all), are way bigger than the plus sides, and just drain all enjoyment from those games fom me.

But I would like to see the true fans and the fans of the later games to "get along", as said I do hope this will bring back more games from the old type. I am sure there ae still many people in the contributers who have only been fans of the older games, just don't know how many.

And thank you krellen to tell a bit more about wasteland, all that have not experienced it can imagine that wolrd a bit better afterwords. =)

[cdoublejj]

like Arcanum 2 or alike,

There was an Arcanum 2?


There is no reason any one shouldn't get along the games are spiritual successor of each other. They are both top down post apoc games, with items and drops and is also turn based WTH else does it need to be enjoyed by both groups?

[Kide]

No, I hope there could be Arcanum 2, that was what I was saying. =) After wasteland 2 there might be hope of getting Arcanum 2 as well, or so I hope. =)

[talkingcrows]

Perhaps in Wasteland 2 we can use birds as weapons.

EDIT: actually that might be funny 1 shot Easter egg that backers might have laugh at?

"You find the remains of the Ranger Prototype Avian Launching Cannon, little more than a broken stick, a snapped rubber band, and a few feathers. You remember hearing about this device: the ammunition wasn't very cooperative."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA

[BrotherMagneto]

I think it's pretty safe to say that almost every Wasteland fan is also a Fallout fan. There are quite a few Fallout fans that never played Wasteland, but are intrigued.

I think the disconnect is coming from the Fallout fans who want a "real" (however you define that) Fallout game that they somehow felt screwed out of, rather than a sequel to Wasteland.

[krellen]

Maybe there will be more old school games after this one, like Arcanum 2

What worries me is that we're setting a precedent here. If Wasteland 2 ends up looking more like Fallout than Wasteland, when the time for Arcanum 2 comes along, what's to keep that game looking like Arcanum rather than becoming Wasteland (or whatever other fandom decides it's time for their game)?

[Brother None]

That's not really the same thing, since Fallout and Wasteland are so strongly interrelated. If Arcanum had had a successful spiritual sequel, the debate would be different.

[Svetlovska]

Well, to some extent, this new model of funding *is* about giving the fans what they want. This is the bespoke suit approach over the ready made. If I want a certain cut and style, I look for a match between my taste and the tailor that can optimally realise this, but I don't dictate to the tailor how he should exercise his craft. Nor do I go to a dress shop if I want an overcoat. So the trick is to manage the balance between the makers skill and the markets' desire.

If a fanboy group tried to totally hijack a project to be something other than its maker intends, the maker would withdraw, and everyone loses. Similarly, if a significant part of the funding for a project comes from one constituency, then that constituency actually has a legitimate right to see their 'taste' reflected - TO SOME EXTENT - in the final work. That's what is new about this mode of funding. Otherwise, I could just buy a 'readymade' game off the shelf. (Or not - since my taste is no longer reflected in the commercial marketplace.)

This is a boutique/craft/bespoke approach to game development. So: if, as a FO 1 & 2 fan I have backed the game, not looking for a new entry to the FO canon but something of similar spirit, and I find *nothing* that appeals to me about the result here - if, in fact, I've *only* funded a nostalgia trip for the fundamentalist wing of Wasteland 1 fans (or indeed FO fans) - I'm very unlikely to fund Brian Fargo again. But I think this is unlikely, as he has made it clear in interviews he intends to honour what was best about the mood and flavour of *both* traditions in this work; and I trust his taste and makers skill to do just that.

[krellen]

That's not really the same thing, since Fallout and Wasteland are so strongly interrelated. If Arcanum had had a successful spiritual sequel, the debate would be different.

Alright, so what's to keep the System Shock 3 drive from becoming a Bioshock 3 movement?

[Brother None]

That's not really the same thing, since Fallout and Wasteland are so strongly interrelated. If Arcanum had had a successful spiritual sequel, the debate would be different.

Alright, so what's to keep the System Shock 3 drive from becoming a Bioshock 3 movement?

BioShock failed as a spiritual sequel. Hence my usage of the term "successful".

[krellen]

Alright, now you're just being pedantic.

This really is my last chance to get a super-old-school cRPG, like Wasteland or the Ultimas before 6. When this becomes Fallout: Wasteland Edition (which it sounds like it will), that hope shall be forever dashed.

I don't think there shouldn't be more games like Fallout - there absolutely should be - but I really, really, really wanted something that looked, felt, and played more like Wasteland than like Fallout - this time, at least. And when I don't get it now, my hopes of ever getting it again will be forever dashed.

Well, unless I get myself a handheld and learn Japanese.

[Brother None]

It's pedantic to point out BioShock failed as a spiritual sequel?

While I can appreciate the way you feel, I'm not really obsessing over specific looks myself. This is a chance to get pen-and-paper focused, TB cRPGs back on the map. That's the main battle we're fighting. I'm not one to quibble over details. If it had been kept alive as a genre for the past decade it would have changed anyway. It's not about being retro for the sake of being retro, it's about utilizing a unique genre that has been almost completely abandoned.

Speaking of...

Everyone seems to be assuming I've already lost the fight on the graphics - that they will be isometric 3D, much like Fallout. I posted the feedback I got from Brian Fargo (I assume it was Mr. Fargo) on the subject, though, so I'm not wholly convinced a more old-school top-down 2D sprite game isn't still on the table.

It's still on the table, yes, but I wouldn't count on helicopter view and 2D sprites winning out. It is all but a sure thing it will be isometric-like.

[owenmp]

Am I wrong but is a large amount of the debate here resulting from three groups of forum users?

1. Individuals who played Wasteland when it was released in 1988 and played Fallout 1, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.

2. Individuals who only played Fallout 1, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.

3. Individuals who only played Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas.

All three groups have valuable ideas and great imaginations but what the fans need from the development team is establishment of some common ground.