Game News Wasteland 3 Fig Update #4: Let's Talk Multiplayer

[Infinitron]

Tags: Chris Keenan; InXile Entertainment; Wasteland 3

A week after launch, the Wasteland 3 Fig campaign has amassed over $2.9M of funding, unlocking the "37 Pieces of Flair" stretch goal on the way. For today's update, game director Chris Keenan writes about inXile's vision for how multiplayer will work:

Chris here. You might remember me from Wasteland 2, where I served as game director, and I am continuing that role on to Wasteland 3. As you may have picked up from our initial pitch, Wasteland 3 will have synchronous and asynchronous multiplayer. We've talked about this in the campaign and in interviews, but I'd like to go a little deeper here and lay out some of our high-level design.

We want Wasteland 3's multiplayer to be a natural extension of the single-player campaign. It will tell the same story and offer the same locations and missions. And as is our hallmark for inXile as a studio and Wasteland as a franchise, we want deep and meaningful reactivity throughout the experience. Multiplayer will add another aspect of reactivity based on the interaction between two players.

In Wasteland 3, you can start a multiplayer-specific campaign with a friend. The campaign will then be tied to both of you. Once started, you won't be able to "replace" your friend with another, but if either of you can't continue playing for any reason, it will be possible to "spin off" a single-player campaign from your multiplayer world state.

Both players run separate Ranger squads, sharing from the pool of available companion NPCs to build your teams. You can't both have the same companions, but you can move a companion from one squad to another. The two squads can travel together, but you can also split up and explore the world separately.

The ability to split up is a choice, and it has important consequences. In Wasteland 3, we will support asynchronous multiplayer. This means that if your friend goes offline, you'll still be able to continue playing, and the actions you take will be reflected in the world when your friend logs back in.

What will that mean in practice? Let's go over a scenario to illustrate.

For example: You made a deal with a criminal gang of smugglers, turning a blind eye and helping keep their trade routes clear from danger for a cut of their profits. In single-player, this would mean that you receive a payment from time to time at your Ranger Base for keeping the deal going. However, should you then choose to intercept the smugglers' courier and perform a little "civil forfeiture" for the good of the Rangers, some of the smugglers' operatives might show up at Ranger HQ's doorstep demanding an explanation.

In multiplayer, that same scenario would play out in a similar manner. However, because both you and your friend are playing independently, it would be possible for one player's party to make the deal with the smugglers, not tell the other player, and thus that player would receive compensation in return. Meanwhile, the second player might independently choose to attack the smugglers for the good of the people of Colorado, not knowing of the prior deal, and that would lead to a similar consequence where the smugglers end up at Ranger HQ asking hard questions.

How to resolve the situation, of course, would have its own reactivity and options open in solo play or multiplayer – you could stand by the decision and risk upsetting the smugglers, make reparations and risk making the Rangers look weak, choose to wipe out the smugglers at their base of operations, and so on.​

You might notice we mentioned the Ranger Base a few times, and indeed, it will also be a core location in multiplayer, one that you and your friend will run together. Its resources and recruits are pooled together and available to both players. We plan to touch on the Ranger Base and how we're envisioning it more in future updates, so keep an eye out.

You might be thinking "this sounds fun, but how are they going to tell a coherent story this way, or stop my friend from completely ruining my game?!" While most of the game can be played either separately or together, during key narrative moments and missions, we'll require both players to be online together. This means that while you will be able to play most of the game together or separately, for those critical story moments, or when major story decisions need to be made, both players will need to be present. This'll happen infrequently, only at core moments in the game, and you'll be able to play many hours of main story and side missions before you need your buddy to progress. In single-player, you won't need a friend playing with you to experience those same moments, but of course, you will need to live with the decisions you make and their consequences.
​

"Sharing from the pool of available companion NPCs to build your teams". Is that a confirmation that Wasteland 3 will be a "main character plus companions" game that doesn't allow you to create a full squad?

 

[Excidium II]

g a r b a g e

 

[Darkzone]

Infinitron you sneaky ninja.

 

[Aenra]

I keep telling you they're either too young, or too old and jaded.

Notice how he says 'base'? How the fucktard goes on to announce its grand importance? They grew up with MOBAs or they are fools.. your pick. But going multiplayer and focusing on 'bases' isn't really a basis, lol pun intended, for a good qualitative RPG. I can already smell other (by necessity mind) key terms that go along with base and 'outside' world and 'phase' and 'instance'. Or 'shard', or 'split', you pick.
Of course i know why; it's easier. Larian they might got jealous of, but they know their limits. So, since they cannot take it to that extent, they go the Path of Exile, Diablo way.

And the crowds do cheer.
(i honestly wonder why though.. W2 did ok, not as good as Fargo hoped, but O.K. He could have expanded in content and function, better visuals on top, focus on that, make more money selling you pebbles.. so why this.. when your hype key word is "reactivity", multiplayer and half-assed is a recipe for disaster)

 

[Bubbles]

Thank you, the front page needs more multiplayer news items

 

[Infinitron]

I keep telling you they're either too young, or too old and jaded.

Notice how he says 'base'? How the fucktard goes on to announce its grand importance? They grew up with MOBAs

Isn't it just the modern/post-apoc version of the time-honored RPG stronghold

 

[Aenra]

Uh isn't it just the modern/post-apoc version of the time-honored RPG stronghold

well yeah.. but in practice? No. Just look at what 'base' entails in any recent MP game, how (or rather, why) it is continuously used for said very specific reasons, with said very specific outcomes.
It's really not the same, MP means the rules changing. So same theory, yes, but by necessity a different application.

 

[Athelas]

That example doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless there is some overarching goal the two squads are competing for. Otherwise, why would you sabotage your own quests by not telling your multiplayer partner that you struck a deal with the smugglers?

 

[Mei Scarlet]

Multiplaying together with a friend in D:OS was praised a lot but it never was fun for me, I guess it won't be this time too. Idea of a superimportant base you spend resources and time to manage sounds bad too, at least if it's implemented in NWN2/POE way.

 

[DeepOcean]

"Sharing from the pool of available companion NPCs to build your teams". Is that a confirmation that Wasteland 3 will be a "main character plus companions" game that doesn't allow you to create a full squad?

 

[Aenra]

Fuck it, gonna say it..

I said i wonder why, and i kinda lied.. i know why they chose to add it, to the extent they are capable of anyway.
Fargo. Moneyz moneyz moneyz. He's the one with the raw data, he's the one deciding directions right? So i bet you he sat down and thought "with 'x' amount of capital available to us and 'z' amount of costs, what's the feature(s) that could bring in the highest possible revenue?"
And he decided MP :D

As always, lol, by the people and for the people. First, he took Interplay to consoles. Then, when he sunk it, he sold it to some clueless businessman, who somehow was to blame for not caring, even though that's precisely why you sell to businessmen in the first place; because they don't care. Then he moved on to consoles. Again. Then to chopper XTREME gaemz. And when the KS phenomenon reared its head? Woohoo, saw an opportunity to not only make more moneyz (because let's face it, consoles or no consoles, he was too old to compete with the new guys and he knew it, had neither their dough nor their potential), but also redeem himself, simultaneously. Always a cunning man, and this is the one thing i do not blame him for; only the nu-buyers for mistaking it or not caring

Imagine.. A W3 with more locations, more reactivity, more content. Crafting, and a semi-third/fourth/whatever faction, that opened up only if you took it high enough. More seamless land and map travel system, a-la F1/2. Maybe more random in-between areas where your tertiary skills would be all you needed (no dialogue and quests, just interact and have results popping up for you). Less fight-to-pass transition areas and more urban mini-villages, go, explore, unlock or disarm something and move on. An arena/deathmatch system that fell outside any difficulty scaler, where you could go and show just how good you were; or not. Cameo appearances to provide that altogether essential 'wink' to former influential titles. Hell, maybe even add all the things W2 should have had but did not.. *ahem* STEALTH? *ahem*. Add some improved visuals on top? Hell, i'd fucking buy that yesterday.. with come on top.

But no.. he probably decided it was more cost-efficient to go with MP and a renewed console market focus. Because Fargo. Aaalways Fargo.
There. Now i've been honest

 

[Forest Dweller]

I think this is the "cool thing" that Avellone and Brian Fargo were talking about based on Van Buren. Which means Avellone is probably working on this.

I think I would have preferred the original "rival adventuring party" idea that Avellone was doing for Van Buren. I was kinda hoping that's what we'd end up with eventually in one of their future titles. But this multiplayer thing appears to be it.

 

[nil]

You see a heavily wounded child on the ground. He was shot, his guts are hanging out. It's obvious he won't make it. With what little strength he has left, he tries to speak. "P-please... H-help..M...My sister-"
- What happened here? (Both players must be online!)
- Good bye.

 

[acer palmatum]

So I miss no content at all in single-player? Sounds good, issue I was worried about solved, thanks, next.

 

[Marten Broadcloak]

The Van Buren is strong with this one.

 

[norolim]

So far, this multiplayer makes as much sense as playing MMOs for the story.

 

[Apexeon]

We need "world of wastedland".

A journey of failed rehab from level 100 down to the bottom of the bottle.

 

[Azrael the cat]

I think this is the "cool thing" that Avellone and Brian Fargo were talking about based on Van Buren. Which means Avellone is probably working on this.

I think I would have preferred the original "rival adventuring party" idea that Avellone was doing for Van Buren. I was kinda hoping that's what we'd end up with eventually in one of their future titles. But this multiplayer thing appears to be it.

Part of me is amazed that, with the very long run of open-world gaming (that I suspect Witcher 3 will remain the high-point of), the 'rival adventuring party' hasn't been attempted since Wiz 7. It seems made for that genre.

The rest of me looks at Dead State, and realises that whilst the idea of an open game where the plot/events move foward according to in-game time, and not the player's actions (so nobody is waiting just to give you a quest - shit just happens as time moves forward) is fucking brilliant, but so intrinscally difficult and bugtastic that Dead State is a shining example of why no sane/experienced developer would ever seriously consider such a thing. I recommend anyone who has wondered about that kind of game to give Dead State a go. I genuinely enjoyed it, and you won't be wasting your time. But you'll also see that it's a truly insane idea to attempt (even the very first boss, the biker gang, you've already got problems with the best powergamers already having killed their base when the event starts, while others get wtf-pwned by the appearance of the first genuine challenge, and there's no real way around that - and it's going to be a problem every step of the way.

 

[MrBuzzKill]

I don't care about multiplayer and I'm pretty certain 95% of people here don't as well.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

Part of me is amazed that, with the very long run of open-world gaming (that I suspect Witcher 3 will remain the high-point of), the 'rival adventuring party' hasn't been attempted since Wiz 7. It seems made for that genre.

But it wouldn't make the player feel "special". Imagine retards shouting and breaking keyboards because somebody else completed their quest

 

[Darkzone]

I don't care about multiplayer and I'm pretty certain 95% of people here don't as well.

Probably more than 99%. One attraction factor of a Wasteland is its desolation that can be only experienced by a certain loneliness, and that is impossible in an multiplayer game.

 

[ArchAngel]

That example doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless there is some overarching goal the two squads are competing for. Otherwise, why would you sabotage your own quests by not telling your multiplayer partner that you struck a deal with the smugglers?

Because Swen's explanations of competing players in D:OS2 made little sense as well but didn't stop them from marketing the game through "freedom" in MP.
This is just Fargo trying same tactics.

 

[entr0py]

God, how misguided this whole co-operative (co-played?) multiplayer gimmick is... I mean, please raise your hand if you have a
-reliable friend/partner you can play with
-regularly
-in a timeslot where both of you are always available
-share a similar approach how to solve issues
-and who won't be a dick with you and go ahead to complete 90% of the missions while you are sleeping off your epic hangover after partying with trannies and sucking cocks on a regular Tuesday night

You know, Bayesian probability theory is showing us how fucking improbable it is for things with multiple trigger conditions to happen. This multiplayer thingy is an epic waste of time and resources. I'm just glad that it seems I will be able to enjoy meticulously exploring everything in Colorado in my own pace, according to my own rules and morals, writing my own story based on my own actions and my own sense and judgment.

 

[Bubbles]

I wonder how a lower party size for multiplayer would work with asynchronous play. Would you still be forced into the lower size when your friend logs off, or does the limit go up to the single player limit? Both solutions would create further design challenges, especially if more than half of the singler player party size is meant to be filled by player created characters like in WL2. I guess it might work if the single player party is 4 PCs and 2 companions, and then each player in co-op has 1 PC and 2 companions. Or is it 2 PCs and 1 companion? Or maybe they give each player more than half of the single player party size to make sure that all the required skill checks can be passed by each party?

Maybe they're not going with smaller parties at all, but are instead upscaling certain enemy groups? But they are pointing out that the two parties would only rarely have to group up with each other, so maybe there's no upscaling either? In that case, co-op players who actually like to play with each other might find the game way too easy. Maybe the enemies scale dynamically based on how many players are currently in the same area?

Also, can you "accidentally" kill your partner's player characters in co-op if you're both in the same battle? If you kill all of them but leave the NPCs alive, what happens?

 

[Lurker King]

You know, Bayesian probability theory is showing us how fucking improbable it is for things with multiple trigger conditions to happen. This multiplayer thingy is an epic waste of time and resources. I'm just glad that it seems I will be able to enjoy meticulously exploring everything in Colorado in my own pace, according to my own rules and morals, writing my own story based on my own actions and my own sense and judgment.

This multiplayer thing is more appropriate for action games that were wrongly labeled as cRPGs such as MMOs or strategy games. Games such as Wasteland, which also has a big focus on reactivity and skill checks, are the furthest thing from this. But hey, that is what happens when suit thinking is in charge, right? “DO:S sold more than the competition because it has co-op. Thus, we need to add co-op even if this has nothing to do with our game”. If this is the way a veteran of the industry thinks, I don't want to know what a popamole developer is like.