Game News Brian Fargo on moral dilemmas in Wasteland 2

[Vault Dweller]

Why does action sell more?

No thinking is required. Playing Doom (or Diablo) and playing PST (not a hard game) or Fallout are two very different experiences. One requires very little from you - aim and shoot. The other requires paying attention, reading, looking at numbers, remembering what you did before and whom you talk to, etc.

 

[Infinitron]

Why does action sell more?

No thinking is required. Playing Doom (or Diablo) and playing PST (not a hard game) or Fallout are two very different experiences. One requires very little from you - aim and shoot. The other requires paying attention, reading, looking at numbers, remembering what you did before and whom you talk to, etc.

...and they're also less difficult. I think other people have already posted their feelings about this so feel free to reply to them.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But I like *you*, Infinitron. My love for you is as pure as Roguey's love for Sawyer. Maybe even more pure.

Anyway, sure, if you want to win on technicality, RPGs are more difficult than shooters, and proper RPGs are more difficult than action RPGs, but only in a sense that you have to think a bit, not in a "the game is a fucking puzzle" sense. Picking up a gun and unloading it in someone's face by holding down a mouse button is infinitely easier than creating a character with like stats and shit, picking up the right weapon, making sure your THAC0 (mmm, tacos...) is decent enough (wait, less is more, what?), casting spells not by smashing buttons but by selecting them, casting, being interrupted, etc.

 

[Alex]

Sorry to butt in, but it seems to me the big issue here is that combat in RPGs aren't a real risk. That being forced into an extra fight will be seem by the players as a good thing, instead of a danger that should be assessed. Wouldn't this problem disappear if you simply play the game in ironman mode? Even not really challenging combats can have a chance of killing one of your characters, or spoiling some important resource (like a favorite gun blowing up). Won't these be important choices if you can't just take them back wily nilly?

 

[St. Toxic]

Won't these be important choices if you can't just take them back wily nilly?

Sure, but, y'know, haven't you played rpg's before? By the time you're lvl 2½, you'll be essentially indestructible by any method at the computer's disposal. Sure, you might need to reload a save or two, but as we all know only VD knows how to design a challenging rpg, this shit doesn't exactly come easy to everyone.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Sorry to butt in, but it seems to me the big issue here is that combat in RPGs aren't a real risk.

Bingo.

... but as we all know only VD knows how to design a challenging rpg, this shit doesn't exactly come easy to everyone.

Designing challenging RPGs is easy. Dealing with unhappy masses who complain endlessly isn't. Not that I give a fuck, naturally, but I don't run companies with employees and overheads and shit.

 

[St. Toxic]

Designing challenging RPGs is easy.

Oh, sure. For some people everything is easy.

Y'know, Fargo was talking about fast-forwarding through "easy" encounters, to counteract the supposed staleness of turn-based combat. I mean, we can assume that there's going to be a good numbers of these, right? Well, presto, it'll create a farmers market. Couldn't handle that scripted quest encounter from before? No problem, just jump out into the wasteland and nab a few quick and easy kills to get those stats just right. The laziest self-balancing system imaginable, and tedious no matter how quick they make it. Want a challenging rpg? Look elsewhere.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Have you never had a challenging encounter in an RPG then VD?

Of course I've had. I'm not saying that RPGs are easy. I'm saying that they are designed to make tasks doable. So, when you are told about raiders or some cave that nobody comes back from, or a horrible monster that rips travelers apart, you know that you're gonna go there and kick some ass, even if it takes you 3 reloads to so. Accidents happen to other people. What's dangerous for other people is merely an inconvenience (a reload) for you.

Knowing that, knowing the design, it's hard to look at challenge with fear and wonder, which is fine. Nothing's wrong with it. Give me challenging fights that are worth my time and I'll be a very happy customer. I can buy the idea that my party is a bunch of tough hombres on a quest to kick some ass and teach some assholes to show you some respect. Just don't tell me that killing some bastards is a moral dilemma IF my party can wipe the floor with them.

I remember in Planescape: Torment not being able to beat the demon you unleash from the cube and when fighting Trias for awhile he'd instantly kill my party with cloud kill until I got lucky.

Really? I don't remember Trias being so difficult. It was a good fight, entertaining due to the spell effects, but I don't think it required much luck.

I haven't played BG2, but many people seem to think that it's a pretty difficult and brutal game.

It was alright. BG was too easy. BG had a decent difficulty, but some optional fights were very challenging, like Kangaxx the Lich (lost count how many reloads that fight took) and the Twisted Rune hangout.

"This game is hard. You will face mind flayers, summon armies of high level creatures to defeat them only to have them turned against you along with half your party. You'll fight mages that stop the flow of time while they unload powerful magical attacks on your helpless party. You might use your mages best dispelling magic to bring down the defenses of a lich lord and finally kill him with your warriors only to find that he replaced himself with an illusion and made himself invisible while you wasted your best spells on his fake double."

^ fanfiction. The game wasn't nearly that hard.

Also, could you elaborate on how AoD is a hybrid game? Why is it possible for AoD to be extremely challenging at times but all other RPGs are supposedly easy?

Because AoD is designed differently. Why? Because I'm a noob and didn't know any better. Still don't.

I'm not saying that challenging design is impossible. It's obviously possible and very easy to do. You can as easily balance fights to be hard and you balance them to be easy. You can tweak Fallout and make the molerats in V15 tear 8 out of 10 players to pieces.

My point was that there are reasons why RPGs are designed a certain way and as long as the reasons are there, the core design won't change.

In AoD I definitely feel in danger when I'm in combat - I try to solve things peacefully if at all possible.

That was the idea.

 

[villain of the story]

Another example: You go the peaceful route and pay the money for her. It turns out, however, that the woman does not want to return to her abusing husband and a bunch of wailing brats - she feels she is treated better by the raiders. She also doesn't want to take car of the kids, because she claims she was raped by her husband. So what you do now? Let the woman do as she pleases or drag her back to her husband? That's a moral dilemma.

That's not a moral dilemma either. If the woman is telling the truth, she has made a choice and her hub and little shits better learn to live with it.

 

[skuphundaku]

Sorry to butt in, but it seems to me the big issue here is that combat in RPGs aren't a real risk.

Bingo.

I think that the problem is that most games (RPGs included) avoid even allowing the player to be clearly ovematched, so generations of gamers have grown up believing that, if you can't win any encounter, then there's something wrong with the game. In Fargo's example, if you publicly assault the raiders and, as a consequence, you would be mercilessly hunted by every member of their organization all over the game world until either you are dead, then you would think again about doing it. Think 300 here (no, not about sweaty swarthy men, you fags!). I'm not talking about them being a nuisance and having to fight raider parties from time to time, I'm talking about a methodical military hunt&kill operation involving all the raiders in the game world being set upon the player party. The game that does something like that is a game I would really like to play.

 

[ironyuri]

Also, could you elaborate on how AoD is a hybrid game? Why is it possible for AoD to be extremely challenging at times but all other RPGs are supposedly easy?

Because AoD is designed differently. Why? Because I'm a noob and didn't know any better. Still don't.

I'm not saying that challenging design is impossible. It's obviously possible and very easy to do. You can as easily balance fights to be hard and you balance them to be easy. You can tweak Fallout and make the molerats in V15 tear 8 out of 10 players to pieces.

My point was that there are reasons why RPGs are designed a certain way and as long as the reasons are there, the core design won't change.

In AoD I definitely feel in danger when I'm in combat - I try to solve things peacefully if at all possible.

That was the idea.

VD, one point there, and I think it's what you're driving at anyway: most rpgs are designed so that you can progress no matter what build you roll. Fallout 1/2, BG1/2, IWD1/2, Arcanum. All of them share the commonality that you can progress with any build, with some difficulty depending on peculiarity.

I don't mind it if devs balance their games for the median character build, because designing a game with differential outcomes/balance for every possible build iteration would require a huge effort (I'm imagining) in testing and fixing.

 

[villain of the story]

Failure needs to be a viable outcome and lead to interesting scenarios instead of a reload.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Failure needs to be a viable outcome and lead to interesting scenarios instead of a reload.

This.

I liked the treatment in AP. It was mild but the seeds were there. Madison/Museum. They could have done that better, but it was essentially utilitarianism vs. absolutism going on there.

 

[Phelot]

Indeed, and I think the way to do this is to avoid the usual "U FAIL QUEST!!! CHECK FAILED QUEST TAB IN THE STATS MENU TO FEEL BAD" as soon as you do something wrong. Ideally, it'd be nice if the player could go through the game without even knowing he failed or botched a quest or quests outside of the simpler "save this person before he dies." Even then it'd be nice if a failed quest leads to another new quest you wouldn't have gotten if you completed it. I realize that might be a lot of work, but I'd argue it would be more entertaining to have quality over quantity. I'd rather have 20 well made quests than 100 boring and lackluster quests.

 

[villain of the story]

"U FAIL QUEST!!! CHECK FAILED QUEST TAB IN THE STATS MENU TO FEEL BAD"

That made me laugh.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Indeed, and I think the way to do this is to avoid the usual "U FAIL QUEST!!! CHECK FAILED QUEST TAB IN THE STATS MENU TO FEEL BAD" as soon as you do something wrong. Ideally, it'd be nice if the player could go through the game without even knowing he failed or botched a quest or quests outside of the simpler "save this person before he dies." Even then it'd be nice if a failed quest leads to another new quest you wouldn't have gotten if you completed it. I realize that might be a lot of work, but I'd argue it would be more entertaining to have quality over quantity. I'd rather have 20 well made quests than 100 boring and lackluster quests.

Play New Vegas.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

U FAIL QUEST!!! CHECK FAILED QUEST TAB IN THE STATS MENU TO FEEL BAD

Immediately made me think of Bloodlines

 

[Vault Dweller]

VD, one point there, and I think it's what you're driving at anyway: most rpgs are designed so that you can progress no matter what build you roll. Fallout 1/2, BG1/2, IWD1/2, Arcanum. All of them share the commonality that you can progress with any build, with some difficulty depending on peculiarity.

It certainly is one of the issues. "No man left behind" design.

 

[skuphundaku]

VD, one point there, and I think it's what you're driving at anyway: most rpgs are designed so that you can progress no matter what build you roll. Fallout 1/2, BG1/2, IWD1/2, Arcanum. All of them share the commonality that you can progress with any build, with some difficulty depending on peculiarity.

It certainly is one of the issues. "No man left behind" design.

At least these games are just "no man left behind". The next step is the next-gen Beth-style "do everything in a single playthrough".

 

[Excidium]

It certainly is one of the issues. "No man left behind" design.

It's not an issue, in my opinion. Ideally you should be able to progress with any type of character. Unless you really fucking suck at RPGs, then there's nothing the developer can do but ruin the game for others so you can succeed too.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I meant combat, not multiple ways of doing things.

Obviously, you can't balance a combat encounter to be equally challenging to a noob who doesn't know what he's doing and putting points everywhere, a decent jack of all trades, and a combat specialist.

 

[Emily]

As long as there is ironman mode, and hard (not in bethesta way) option, i am fine with it

 

[Excidium]

I meant combat, not multiple ways of doing things.

Obviously, you can't balance a combat encounter to be equally challenging to a noob who doesn't know what he's doing and putting points everywhere, a decent jack of all trades, and a combat specialist.

I see.

But shouldn't combat be balanced for the combat specialist? I mean, the other character types have the means to avoid it, or to somehow make the encounter more favourable if it's inevitable.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Not sure whether or not it shouldn't, but it certainly isn't.

 

[Jaesun]

Brian Fargo ‏@BrianFargo
Come join the discussion about moral dilemmas in our forums if you would like to weigh in on the subject. http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2759