Development Info InXile consults academics to create Wasteland authenticity

[Moribund]

Fargo made an iconic, atmospheric, and fucking amazing RPG without needing any high IQ men in the room.

That's a bit insulting. I bet everyone who worked on virtually every iplay game in 90s had a high IQ, some of them probably amazingly high, but you want the knowledge not the IQ.

Great RPGs aren't made by scientists and they have fuck all to do with science. They are made by people who can create interesting if not entirely plausible worlds, situations, and creatures.

And you don't see the contradiction?

It works like this.

Science man! I'm going to make an Iron Wolf.

You give me 20 plausible ways that an Iron Wolf could exist and then I'll choose the coolest sounding one, and if they are all totally stupid maybe I'll just scrap it.

Mystery solved.

That's exactly how it works on other games, and no doubt what will happen here and nothing to get too alarmed by.

 

[FeelTheRads]

I mean, maybe there's a quest that involves mixing the right chemicals for an enhanced explosive?

Doesn't matter CUZ WASTELAND IS WACKY MAN LOL. You can mix shit and piss and get gold because that's SO WACKY!!!111

 

[Vault Dweller]

A good RPG needs good world building. I think having a couple of research interns scientists around could help with world building.

Nobody cares about that, I heard.

World building is important but it doesn't require hard science. At all. World building isn't about explaining why vegetables are giant but making them a part of the world, making them real not through scientific explanations but by showing how they fit in, how normal people (who don't really care why the vegetables are so big, no more than we care today why tomatoes are red) react to them, how they affect the world.

Wow. Science works well in hard sci-fi. Who'd have thought?

I thought real star data doesn't matter either.

Real star and flight data don't matter in games. They matter in hard sci-fi books. Do I really have to explain the obvious things? I know you know that. I know that you're aware of the difference between books and games, between sci-fi and hard sci-fi. So, why make these comments?

 

[Moribund]

Everything you say is based on a wrong assumption that they are using them to make things more realistic. Just like the science consultant on ME made things more realistic? It's a bad assumption.

If you made a faery tale game with a multimillion dollar budget of course you'd have a historian, but not to correct factual errors

It's to research stuff (like scientists and historians do) and come up with cool sources of inspiration that fit into the game world.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I mean, maybe there's a quest that involves mixing the right chemicals for an enhanced explosive?

You google it and get your answer in under a minute.

That's a bit insulting. I bet everyone who worked on virtually every iplay game in 90s had a high IQ, some of them probably amazingly high, but you want the knowledge not the IQ.

Not what I meant.

It works like this.

Science man! I'm going to make an Iron Wolf.

You give me 20 plausible ways that an Iron Wolf could exist and then I'll choose the coolest sounding one, and if they are all totally stupid maybe I'll just scrap it.

Mystery solved.

Wasteland had iron wolves. They pulled it off somehow.

 

[Brayko]

It was just an example.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Everything you say is based on a wrong assumption...

Well, fortunately, most people here have managed to make the right assumption, so the crisis is averted!

 

[Infinitron]

Can anyone explain why is it necessary now?

Yes. This game is going to have far more text than the original Wasteland. More detail that needs to be filled in.

You really take the apologist role seriously, Infintron. Can't help but admire your dedication.

So, FAR more text automatically means FAR more science talk? Not quests and just talking to people about life and shit?

No, not "science talk". More details is more words, more content, more little things that might be improved by a scientist's input.

But this is just conjecture. I'm not writing the game. Maybe there IS a ton of science talk. Again, ask Avellone!

 

[almondblight]

What, and they lack Google?

No, they lack time, ability to look at stuff from tens viewpoints at once, quite a few of which are generally honed by working in the field, they lack mental capacity to learn a crapload of unrelated stuff at a whim and keep it for indefinite amount of time, and they lack formal education to adapt what they learn to fiction they create.

First - have you ever met a PhD? They're not super-humans with the ability to "learn a crapload of unrelated stuff at a whim and keep it for indefinite amount of time." They've studied something a lot. Something very specific. This is important, but it does make them an expert on everything - in fact, if your hobby is reading about another area of science, chances are you'll know more about the subject than they would.

Second, the writers job will be to adapt what they learn to fiction. If they can't do that, than it makes no difference if they learn it from the PhD's or an internet search. Hiring a consultant won't solve this problem.

They lack time? If you want to create a somewhat realistic post-apocalyptic world, and then say you don't have a few hours to read about what's happening in Chernobyl, then you have a much bigger problem than the one we're discussing. If you want to have something somewhat realistic, you spend at least a few days reading articles about these things in addition to literature. This isn't just to know the answers to a few questions (that you can find after a few minutes on an internet search), it's to get into the feel of the world you're going to create. Anyone who says they just want to read the Cliff's Notes is doing it wrong.

Ever read hard science fiction? Especially some that came out in the last decade? Those guys have a good grasp of what's possible, and they didn't need to hire a consulting company.

Having someone to shoot down your ideas when you're busy sperging over something else is invaluable.

Such as? Give me an example of an idea that you'd need to hire scientists to check on. "For example, if Fargo wants to include ______ in the game, but wants to know what they'd need for ____________."

Here's an example from Thwacke!'s website:

So, consider this: we are given the toolbox of an infinite number of genes found in nature, a plasmid to carry any number of these genes, and Adam to differentiate into any cell or tissue imaginable. You create a thought out process that, despite being far from any reality, makes sense. Imagine how a plasmid like "electro bolt" could have actually worked by differentiating Adam into electrocytes (muscle-like cells found in electric eels) using genes from electric fish engineered into plasmids. On their own these cells create about 0.15 volts but in unison and acting at a high frequency electrocute and stun unsuspecting Splicers. Sounds silly? Researchers are already keen on sequencing the genome of the electric eel to better understand how the animal already is capable of this.

Some plasmids would have easily unraveled in interesting ways to function biologically such as symbiotic relationships that allowed harboring and weaponizing bee swarms. However, other 'plasmids' were the result of giant leaps in logical steps to empower players with immolating fireballs, and freezing ice jets. I don't like splitting hairs on a would-be science fiction, but it should be noted that there is no shortage on the biological phenomena that could have offered players the same pleasures of setting people on fire or strategic escapes (teleportation) from danger.

Similarly, new game mechanics could have been introduced by known genes and functions from 50-year old science text books. Why not borrow the glow of firefly luciferase to introduce flashlight mechanics commonly found in the survival-horror genre? Imagine hearing Subject Delta/ Jack breathing in deeply to circulate the required oxygen to catalyze the activity of luciferase. After a few deep breaths, the character's fingertips start to glow green and slowly light up the poorly lit corners of Rapture.

Got that? Getting powers through Adam - plausible. Shooting lighting bolts and swarms of bees? Plausible. Shooting fire? Implausible (because biological creatures don't emit anything flammable like methane). Instead the player should be able to glow in the dark. Only after he takes a couple deep breathes, though - you know, realism.

Damn, these guys are going to make the game so much better.

 

[Esquilax]

I realize that doesn't jibe well with your autistic idealistic worldview of "lone misunderstood geniuses changing the world".

You're the one who thinks that having scientific consultants for your over-the-top, pulp sci-fi game is a decent idea, yet you're calling someone else autistic? wat? There's nothing more aspergery than trying to make your pulpy sci-fi lore adhere to some aspect of the real world when Wasteland (and Fallout) were never really about that. I don't really care much either way, but this does seem kind of gimmicky. You're not making Alpha Centauri here, so I don't see why you would need to do this. They've got high IQ's? I don't really give a fuck. They're not game designers, and their experience isn't really relevant to the world building that exists in Wasteland.

I'm excited about Wasteland 2 and I want to see a great game, but I don't see why everyone is getting so defensive about this. Vince never said that the game would suck, nor did he ever come here with some edgy villain of the story bullshit, all he said was that creating an interesting and internally consistent world was more important than trying to shoehorn in your over-the-top lore into some basis in reality. It just seems like fitting a round peg into a square hole.

 

[Brayko]

I don't really care much either way, but this does seem kind of gimmicky. You're not making Alpha Centauri here, so I don't see why you would need to do this.

We do this with an extensive network of academics covering every discipline. For example, in Wasteland 2 we were asked which animals that would survive a nuclear fallout and why. In this case we found specialists in environmental biology, medicine, and evolutionary biology to craft science into ideas that can be used in game design. This saves researching time for writers and allows them to focus on gameplay. This out-of-the-box approach has been able to spark new directions for narrative and gameplay that wouldn’t have otherwise been explored.

 

[Esquilax]

I guess... but again, what's there to research? That people can't shoot fire out of their hands like in BioShock? That giant scorpions can't be created by radiation? Again, I don't care much either way, but this is still a pretty silly thing to defend. What will these prestigious scholars reveal that a few minutes on Google can't?

 

[Jasede]

It's just a way to garner attention because it sounds good in an update: "Ooooh, we work with SCIENTISTS!!!"
Whatever. I never liked PR. =/

 

[Esquilax]

That's what I figured as well, Jasede. It's sort of like when the next CoD/Medal of Honor/Battlefield game comes out and the developers tell the game journos that they consulted with an elite team of Green Beret badasses to make the action as authentic and awesome as possible. It's a bunch of nonsense, but it drums up excitement. Of course, those who know better just shrug their shoulders and don't give a shit because it doesn't really matter.

Fargo has been pretty good with the PR, so this isn't surprising.

 

[Jasede]

Yeah, no sense growing any grey hairs over this. I'd be more worried about that "Timmy and the well" update. Trust us, it'll be emotionally engaging!

 

[Infinitron]

This isn't about "research". This isn't about "science talk". This isn't about "realism".

This is about having a science nerd standing behind your writers' shoulders, maybe occasionally telling them, "Hey, that's cool guys, but you might wanna add this detail". And of course whether they heed that advice is entirely up to them.

 

[Brayko]

It may be "just PR". For arguments sake, let's assume this is so, the arguments are mainly aimed at the people who think that this is going to ruin the game. People who like shooters are gonna buy CoD anyway, just like people who like turn-based, party-based, post-apoc RPG's (and aren't butthurt because they're on their way to actually finishing their game) are gonna buy Wasteland 2. REGARDLESS of outside consultants. It should suffice for a quick "oh cool!" for people who fall into that particular demographic, like the green beret consults for "CoD"..

 

[Clockwork Knight]

You can't say anything remotely negative about Wasteland 2 without angering the horde.

The Codex is the place to be critical about things, if you can't handle the heat then stay in the respective circlejerk threads.

On the other hand, the Codex is also the place where you can freely fling poop at criticism you consider inadequate, instead of " I respect your opinion, let's just agree to disagree "

They should hire some religious consultants to counteract the science and logic and enhance the fantasy aspect.

"So they worship a bomb? That's...okay, I gue- What do you mean, they built a town around it? "

 

[Johannes]

I don't want the game to have much scientific exposition in the game, period. It just doesn't fit in, even if your rangers stumble upon some research on some Science! subject, you don't need to bother the player with the minute details of it, better leave that to imagination.

And working out what kinds of animals would survive nuclear fallout? Why is this relevant to making a good game at all? Really? Just pick the kind of fauna you think is cool for a certain area, why do you need biologist advice for that...




Btw I always thought these Iron and Mailed Wolves were robots. Weren't they in Sleeper Base, no wolves would survive there anyway that need to feed on prey.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't really care much either way, but this does seem kind of gimmicky. You're not making Alpha Centauri here, so I don't see why you would need to do this.

We do this with an extensive network of academics covering every discipline. For example, in Wasteland 2 we were asked which animals that would survive a nuclear fallout and why. In this case we found specialists in environmental biology, medicine, and evolutionary biology to craft science into ideas that can be used in game design. This saves researching time for writers and allows them to focus on gameplay. This out-of-the-box approach has been able to spark new directions for narrative and gameplay that wouldn’t have otherwise been explored.

First, once again, it's a sequel. The setting is already established and well loved. Sure, it can be changed, but why?

Second, it takes maybe 5-10 min of looking things up online. Like the Chernobyl example and other data. It's much easier to think of something, check it online and move on, rather than email the scientists, wait for them to look into it, type a reply that shows that your money is well spent, etc.

Third, it takes 5 min to look up the Chernobyl data and realize that radiation won't turn a lizard into a godzilla and won't make it breathe heat rays, and won't create interesting monsters, which makes the whole idea kinda pointless (i.e. either you make a realistic but bland game or you say fuck science and make cool but totally unrealistic monsters that everyone loves).

Now, if after WL2 Fargo wanted to make another PA game, a realistic one this time, and hired a team of expert to design such a world for him and give him some framework that his writers and designers can work with, that'd be a different story, but for a game like WL2, it's nothing but a gimmick.

I wish there was something else to talk about, so that we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya, but at the moment Sciene! is the only game in town.

 

[Jasede]

Well, on that last sentence we can all agree. Ain't much to yak about. We're stuck in this uncomfortable waiting period where we're just hoping WL 2 and PE will turn out well - yet they're still an eternity away from release. Back to complaining that everything is shit nowadays.

 

[Vault Dweller]

This isn't about "research". This isn't about "science talk". This isn't about "realism".

This is about having a science nerd standing behind your writers' shoulders, maybe occasionally telling them, "Hey, that's cool guys, but you might wanna add this detail". And of course whether they heed that advice is entirely up to them.

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It may be "just PR".

It obviously is a marketing shtick, but that's not what we're discussing. Nobody's saying that it's going to ruin the game. Nobody's saying that now they will have to listen to boring scientists.

Since there is nothing else to discuss at the moment, we're discussing the idea itself and whether or not it's a good one.

Edit: Hey, page 11. We'll return after the following messages:

"More people go with Visa!"

 

[Brayko]

First, once again, it's a sequel. The setting is already established and well loved. Sure, it can be changed, but why?

Because a sequel to a game made 25 years ago is hardly the same as a sequel to Doom? By this logic you may as well bitch about no water colors or not being compatible for C64.

I mean, I never played Wasteland 1, but the promise of a Fallout-type game being party-based and having well fleshed out PRG elements with choices and consequences (unlike Fallout: Tactics) is enough to get me on the train.

 

[Vault Dweller]

First, once again, it's a sequel. The setting is already established and well loved. Sure, it can be changed, but why?

Because a sequel to a game made 25 years ago is hardly the same as a sequel to Doom? By this logic you may as well bitch about no water colors or not being compatible for C64.

No, not by this logic. I'm talking about the setting consistency here, not everything else being exactly the same as 25 years ago. Wasteland had a brilliant setting, one of a kind, really, and since you didn't play it, I strongly suggest that you do.