Development Info InXile consults academics to create Wasteland authenticity

[toro]

Complaining about the lack of W2 news: good.
Complaining about the involvement of some scientists: bad.

 

[hiver]

And how exactly do you picture it?

Fargo: Mutants!
Scientist: Sure.
Fargo: Mutants that fart toxic gases!
Scientist: I'll get back to you on this one. I need to consult our toxic warfare guy.
Fargo: Giant vegetables!
Scientist: It's not very plausible but sure.
Fargo: Giant vegetables with eyes!
Scientist: No! No, no, no.
Fargo: Iron wolf!
Scienctist: Just what the fuck is an iron wolf?
Fargo: Um, a wolf made of .. iron? Maybe? I thought...
Scientist: No!
Fargo: Mailed wolf?
Scientist: What?
Fargo: Hear me out. You take a wolf and mail it to your enemy. In a box. The enemy opens the box and the wolf jumps out and eats him. Ergo, mailed wolf!
Scientist: They don't pay me enough...

for fuck sake...

Disagreeing with me is one thing. Making shit up is another.

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

:rofl:

Can anyone explain why is it necessary now?

Because dumb cheap shit, pulpy ridiculousness and Science!, or just using hand waving doesnt cut it any more, as it use to do when we were teens and kids and everything was being done for the very first time?
Because actual reality is always, ALWAYS, more weird, crazy, more diverse, deeper, or fantastical then some crappy fantasy setting full of plot holes.
Lets not forget internal consistency which is always a problem with all these fantastical settings where crazy and Science! abilities have very limited roles or dont affect anything else except some silly feature gimmick or whatever the fuck.

Same thing you argued against in many written posts against fantastical settings not really utilizing technologies or magic capabilities as they should be or could be used, when the matter is reasonably considered.
++

Why is it "OMG! Science! It's gonna be so awesome!" all of a sudden?

We are not talking about the eventual execution you dumbass! Thats only you! And your ridiculous invented personal conclusions! You are just making shit up. AND THEN YOUR COMPLAINING ABOUT YOUR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION!

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.

Is this a universal rule of some sort? Like gravity or nuclear force or thermodynamic laws?


Is it really possible that you just steam rolled over being directly pointed out to the fact youre just making shit up instead of even bothering to read the full interviews and actually read what people actually say?
That you claim the exact opposite of what both Twacke and Fargo say about their work - that you simply disregard or fail to understand the difference between building based on the fantastical setting and - making the setting more realistic.... and you simply just continued saying the same thing?

The setting is already established and well loved. Sure, it can be changed, but why?

Who the fuck is changing the setting?

It obviously is a marketing shtick

actual precognition at work people! and telepathy!

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.

ROOFLES!


...



what the... holy fuck?

 

[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.

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.

What's wishful about it? It's common sense, especially if you think this is all a marketing gimmick anyway. You don't rewrite your game with "science talk" for a gimmick.

 

[Malpercio]

Meh, why not? It's not like it could make thing worse.

 

[Jasede]

 

[Vault Dweller]

Don't stop, hiver.

 

[Jaesun]

I think Jasede has finally lost it.

 

[Jasede]

It's this latest Obsidian romance/sex thread, man.

 

[Surf Solar]

I think Jasede has finally lost it.

This site does it to everyone, eventually

 

[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.

What's wishful about it?

Glad you asked.

We're told that WL2 will be working with scientists (namely, experts in evolutionary biology and nuclear physics) to "add depth and believability to the wasteland and its creatures". We're also told that they work closely with the writers to "enrich their stories with science!"

What does it mean, you ask? Well, I think that's fairly obvious, isn't it?

"But what does this mean to the player? Expect creatures that are a natural product of their environment, biological and chemical warfare that makes sense..."

What else?

"We've already brought in unique perspectives from entomologists, nuclear engineers, and geologists (soil erosion is in! yay!). We plan on using these insights to shape a world capable of capturing the imagination and offering relevant and immersive experience".

This is the scientists' press-release, in case you're wondering, not inXile's. Watch the language (highlighted for your convenience). Not "we'll be there for inXile should they have questions" or "we'll pass our recommendations" or "do shit occasionally", but "expect (a strong statement indicating a certain degree of control over the end product) creatures that are [specific statement]" and "we, the scientists!, plan to shape the world." (we. plan. to shape. - as in it's up to us, we're in the driving seat here)

Need I continue? Did you regain your reading comprehension ability?

Now, it's possible that the press-release is a lie. It's possible, if people start bitching, that Fargo will tweet something to reassure that they are in control and the scientists! are on crack (part of the creative process to summon visions), but this isn't what's being discussed here.

We have a specific press-release written in a way that doesn't leave much room for interpretation and zero room for "maybe occasionally telling them, "Hey, that's cool guys, but you might wanna add this detail". Hence, the "wishful thinking" comment.

 

[Infinitron]

I think it's wishful thinking by the scientists.

 

[MRY]

Unlikely, since they'll know it's for a game. I expect it'll be more along the lines of "Assuming a giant irradiated mutant guy existed, he would move this fast" and "Assuming nuclear fallout lasted that long, the world would look more or less like this"

But that is exactly what I'm complaining about. "How fast should a giant irradiated mutant guy move in Wasteland 2?" is not a question for a scientist. It's a question to be resolved between the designers responsible for creating exciting, balanced combat and the writers trying to create a narrative where the "giant irradiated mutant guys" pose a frightening threat. And those designers and writers should be guided -- insofar as it doesn't compromise the gameplay or the story -- by the end of having the mutants feel iconic and pulpy. Only at that point should scientific plausibility come in, as window-dressing.

Likewise, the question of how the world would look "[a]ssuming a nuclear fallout lasted that long" is a question for the artists responsible for creating compelling, diverse areas, the designers responsible for coming up with zone environments that present interesting gameplay opportunities, and the writers responsible for coming up with a setting in which "the man vs. nature" struggle that setting entails dovetails nicely with the plot. If the plot calls for an idyllic valley that was sheltered from the cataclysm (a common trope in post-apocalyptic trope, and therefore something they should consider including), then who cares if the scientists say, "No, no, the environmental desolation is caused by dust in the stratosphere, so the fact that a valley is in a cloud shadow wouldn't help it in any way."? Likewise, if the artists can make mutant kudzu choking a city to death look awesome, and it fits with a narrative theme of progress being "choked" by rapaciousness, and it offers good gameplay opportunities like using Outdoorsman skill to bushwhack back-doors into guarded areas, then run with it. Don't bother reading The World Without Us to make sure that kudzu, rather than sunflowers, is what would be growing there.

That's particularly so because there's nothing as ridiculous as trying to map real science onto a setting where there are giant bugs (structurally impossible) or three-breasted prostitutes or whatever else that we know to a certainty there will be in Wasteland 2.

Meh, it's not even like I care that much about it, it just seems to me the wrong philosophy.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Unlikely, since they'll know it's for a game. I expect it'll be more along the lines of "Assuming a giant irradiated mutant guy existed, he would move this fast" and "Assuming nuclear fallout lasted that long, the world would look more or less like this"

But that is exactly what I'm complaining about. "How fast should a giant irradiated mutant guy move in Wasteland 2?" is not a question for a scientist. It's a question to be resolved between the designers responsible for creating exciting, balanced combat and the writers trying to create a narrative where the "giant irradiated mutant guys" pose a frightening threat. And those designers and writers should be guided -- insofar as it doesn't compromise the gameplay or the story -- by the end of having the mutants feel iconic and pulpy, not scientifically plausible.

Exactly. Couldn't agree more.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Well, it's not like the consultants will be a bucn og uyfs in white coats breathing down their neck, making the decisions. That's a publisher's job.

fake edit:

bucn og uyfs

o_O

wtf? Did I really write that?

 

[Jasede]

The spirit of prosper...

 

[Vault Dweller]

Oh shit! He's morphing into a Volourn! ... or worse!

 

[hiver]

GamesBeat: What role can Thwacke’s consulting play in game development? Do you work specifically with writers and designers? Is it better if you’re involved in the process early on?

Alvarado: Although we can provide input at almost any stage of development, we mostly work early on the conception of a project with writers and with designers.
We work with writers to craft plausible narrative — world building — and with designers to align a scientific concept with a design mechanic.

:roofles!:

and then:

In later stages of development, we usually work on easy-to-implement text-based assets. In Wasteland 2, we will be doing this for a side mission that involves pages in a wastelander’s logbook. This information is optional but adds depth to narrative and immersion for those willing to read it.

We're also told that they work closely with the writers to "enrich their stories with science!"

What does it mean, you ask? Well, I think that's fairly obvious, isn't it?

but "expect (a strong statement indicating a certain degree of control over the end product)

hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...........whooeee

Need I continue? Did you regain your reading comprehension ability?

:lolcopter:

 

[Jaesun]

hi/v/er

 

[FeelTheRads]

Real star and flight data don't matter in games. They matter in hard sci-fi books.

How about hard sci-fi games? If not, why not? Because they're games? How does that work?

World building is important but it doesn't require hard science. At all.

Well, you can do world building based on hard science. Or enhance it with hard science. I'm not sure were you pull out this "NO IT DOESN"T MATTER" but I suspect it stinks of your behind. And note that I'm not specifically talking about Wasteland (since that is SO WHACKY LOL), but you claim it doesn't matter regardless of the game.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Oh shit! He's morphing into a Volourn! ... or worse!

A...potato? No! I must...

...

...

Mckzaé ni cmnuziks olàznekzé bucn og ufys

 

[Alex]

(...snip)
By this logic you may as well bitch about no water colors (snip...)

I know I do. Those graphics were awesome, and much better than anything they showed up to now.

(...snip)
Because dumb cheap shit, pulpy ridiculousness and Science!, or just using hand waving doesnt cut it any more, as it use to do when we were teens and kids and everything was being done for the very first time?
(snip...)

So, it is the same reason why Fallout had to be updated by Bethesda?

 

[MRY]

Well, you can do world building based on hard science. Or enhance it with hard science. I'm not sure were you pull out this "NO IT DOESN"T MATTER" but I suspect it stinks of your behind. And note that I'm not specifically talking about Wasteland (since that is SO WHACKY LOL), but you claim it doesn't matter regardless of the game.

That hard science would yield fun gameplay seems to me possible where it relates to physics-based puzzle games (to the extent you consider very simplified Newtonian physics to be "hard science"). Beyond that, it would strike me as a rare and extremely lucky coincidence if adherence to science yielded fun gameplay opportunities.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Well, you can do world building based on hard science. Or enhance it with hard science. I'm not sure were you pull out this "NO IT DOESN"T MATTER" but I suspect it stinks of your behind. And note that I'm not specifically talking about Wasteland (since that is SO WHACKY LOL), but you claim it doesn't matter regardless of the game.

That hard science would yield fun gameplay seems to me possible where it relates to physics-based puzzle games (to the extent you consider very simplified Newtonian physics to be "hard science"). Beyond that, it would strike me as a rare and extremely lucky coincidence if adherence to science yielded fun gameplay opportunities.

I'm talking about world building, not gameplay opportunities.

 

[hiver]

Vd gave up on his job, while i was gone, and went to earn his livelihood doing standup comedy... :D *

man he is good... i actually had to wipe tears out of my eyes for a few moments there... :sigh: :burp:
..aaahhh... man... i havent had a laugh like this in a while,...

So, it is the same reason why Fallout had to be updated by Bethesda?

in whose head?
-edit-
-what the fuck did they update?
-what so called science was applied ?
-by whom?
-what
-w
-t
fffffff.......







* I preordered so im allowed to crack these kind of jokes, haha

 

[MRY]

If you build a world based around hard science, your gameplay can't throw hard science out the window. Gameplay and setting have to reinforce and justify each other, at least in a narrative game. (It becomes more abstract when you talk about, like, Super Mario Brothers.)

The examples of hard science yielding interesting world building tend to be when someone finds the most gonzo hard scientific theory and then riffs off that. (Like Crichton or Vinge or whatever.) But that's another one of those happy coincidences; it's all very nice that Crichton found some vaguely plausible theory for bringing dinosaurs back, but it was only because he could bring dinosaurs back that anyone liked Jurassic Park. If it had been about making a cloned sheep that died of lung cancer, i.e., if it had been about what was actually scientifically possible, I doubt many would've liked it.