Development Info InXile consults academics to create Wasteland authenticity

[Vault Dweller]

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?

I can't think of any hard sci-fi games at the moment, other than Outpost, which was dreadfully boring and sucked gameplay-wise. If you can, please refresh my memory.

Overall though, games are about, well, gameplay and hard sci-fi data doesn't make it. I loved TIE Fighter, for example, and it has fuck all to do with science! Same goes for Wing Commander: Privateer.

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.

I played a lot of games over the last two decades. 99.9% weren't science! approved. Therefore, it doesn't matter. It doesn't mean that you can't make a fun hard-science game, but only that hard science doesn't matter by itself. It's not a key ingredient since so many great games managed to do without it.

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.

Obviously, it matters in a hypothetical 'hard sci-fi" game where hard sci-fi is the main selling point, but like I said, I can't think of any good hard sci-fi game (other than Outpost) at the moment.

 

[hiver]

Hard Sf is never the point. What you do with it - is.
You dont know even that.... tsk...tsk...tsk.

 

[almondblight]

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

Which you don't need to hire PhD's to help you with. Plenty of hard scifi authors have built believable worlds because they were interested in their subject matter and read about it.

 

[hiver]

Actually, most hard sf authors have Phd`s and doctorates. They just know what they are talking about, is all.
And if they need info from other fields then they approach to it like professionals and colleagues.

 

[Harold]

HIVER LIVES!

brb guyz, need to check something

:10 seconds later:

This member limits who may view their full profile.

 

[Jaesun]

Who the fuck hides their profile?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Liberal.

 

[hiver]

hippies.

 

[almondblight]

Actually, most hard sf authors have Phd`s and doctorates.

 

[Alex]

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

My point was simply that, while you think that pulpy, crazy science fiction may not cut it anymore, and needs to be updated, this is not necessarily the case with everyone. In fact, I love this kind of thing, and I would hate to see it thrown away from the sequel.

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?

I can't think of any hard sci-fi games at the moment, other than Outpost, which was dreadfully boring and sucked gameplay-wise. If you can, please refresh my memory.

Overall though, games are about, well, gameplay and hard sci-fi data doesn't make it. I loved TIE Fighter, for example, and it has fuck all to do with science! Same goes for Wing Commander: Privateer.
(snip...)

Well, I could see this kind of data mattering in a game that is actively working to mix in some basic aspects of astronomy with its gameplay. Stuff like guessing the right kinds of galaxies and star systems where you should search for this or that element, or using gravity wells to accelerate your travel time and fuel expenditure. It wouldn't need to be necessarily a "hard sci-fi" game, but it would need a lot of care to make sure things make sense in its gameplay.

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

You know, I haven't ever built a world with the help of a research team, so yeah, don't know if they would really get in the way or not. But I can't help but think that stuff like the original Shadowrun, or Gamma World, or Metamorphosis Alpha. I just don't see those games becoming what they are, or were, at any rate, with a team of scientists trying to smooth the "lore" and what not.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You know, I haven't ever built a world with the help of a research team, so yeah, don't know if they would really get in the way or not. But I can't help but think that stuff like the original Shadowrun, or Gamma World, or Metamorphosis Alpha. I just don't see those games becoming what they are, or were, at any rate, with a team of scientists trying to smooth the "lore" and what not.

This.

 

[marooned]

I don't think it's really necessary. I'm more concerned about world cohesion and verisimilitude rather than science explanations. But it can't hurt either, or I hope so.

Worst case possible the game suck ass and this will be just more ammo in the clip for us.

 

[General Maxson]

I love Codex. 12 pages. I hope Fargo reads our forums and sweats knowing he must not make a single mistake, otherwise we'll tear him up. God help him when they publish something more substantial, or the game itself.

 

[Jaesun]

Just wait until you hear about cooldowns in the combat. This 12 page thread is nothing.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Unless cooldowns are science! approved, of course.

"Although cooldowns may be seen as an impediment by some players, this element introduces principles of cellular biology and muscle physiology to add a scientific reality to the abstract combat mechanics."

 

[Jaesun]

 

[Kosmonaut]

 

[hiver]

Thats why actual science, and hard Sf should be done by experts in the field, professionals. Instead of some delusional wannabies who can come up only with shitty examples.
There is the example right there

My point was simply that,

Your point was false and irrelevant. Plus based on incorrect example. You tried to argue that employing science in games can be bad because bethesda made fallout 3 worse with applying science (which is ofcourse dependant on sane, analytical, logical and honest reasoning, among other things) - which is an oxymoron!

while you think that pulpy, crazy science fiction may not cut it anymore, and needs to be updated,

- and on selectively taking parts of the whole answer and jumping to crazy ass conclusions, such as thinking or trying to imply that i think "that pulpy science fiction should be updated". (i guess taking more sentences together overflows the ol buffer ey?)
I guess you mean as a whole.

I can only applaud to such majestic delusions.

And if you mean to say that i really mean to say that wasteland pulp fiction setting should be updated - presumably into some kind of science....- youre stark raving mad.
What i said there. All of it. The whole paragraph together.
Was given as an example of answer to the question of VD saying "what makes it better? why do we need it at all?"
So i gave an example.

It seems VD thinks that fantasy settings should follow more logical, realistic consequences of technology or magic available, regardless of how fantastic a certain ability or technical wonder is at question.
But when it comes to sci-fi then ....he has some kind of problem of understanding words.

On top of basically just inventing what something they said actually means, like some crazed conspiracy theory looney, and it always actually means exactly opposite of what Fargo and Thwacke are saying.

In fact, I love this kind of thing, and I would hate to see it thrown away from the sequel.

And who said anything about throwing it out of the sequel?

:looks a bit back:

You know, I haven't ever built a world with the help of a research team, so yeah, don't know if they would really get in the way or not. But I can't help but think that stuff like the original Shadowrun, or Gamma World, or Metamorphosis Alpha. I just don't see those games becoming what they are, or were, at any rate, with a team of scientists trying to smooth the "lore" and what not.

And this ... smoothing...



Can you tell us how smooth it will be actually?

:rofl:


here is Vince decrying how magic doesnt have good explanations and plausibility in fantasy

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,1431.0.html

1. The Nature of Magic.

This would seem to be the most fundamental of questions, but many RPGs simply gloss over it. "Magic is a mysterious energy which can do anything, thus it can be used to justify anything we want to throw in the game, hooray!". The problem with this approach is that unlimited freedom isn't necessarily desirable. Writers and designers know that sometimes the most interesting ideas arise from imposed constraints.



And reminiscing on why there are no crystal ball networks:

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,675.0.html

Magic of magic

What comes to mind when you think about magic in RPGs? Medieval Europe-like place with pointy hats wizards firing brightly colored "magical" projectiles at various creatures. That's all magic is apparently good for as it doesn't seem to offer any benefits to the setting, local industries, and the player.

You don't see wizards transporting goods and golems employed on construction sites. You don't see improved communications ("Crystal Ball News Network"?). You don't see anti-magic defenses and I'm not talking about protection against fireballs. I'm talking about protection against enemy's wizards entering towns and opening portals for troops waiting a thousand miles away. What you do see are firebolts and fireballs, ice storms and chain lightning, magic missiles and meteor swarms.

The problem is that magic is not integrated into settings. It exists in vacuum, nothing more than a meta-gaming feature with the single purpose of providing the player with a different, more colorful way to kill things. At best we are offered creative explanations of magic and its origins, but gameplay remains the same.

 

[Alex]

(...snip)
Your point was false and irrelevant. Plus based on incorrect example. You tried to argue that employing science in games can be bad because bethesda made fallout 3 worse with applying science (which is ofcourse dependant on sane, analytical, logical and honest reasoning, among other things) - which is an oxymoron!

The point of my comment about Bethesda is simply that they changed a perfectly good game to appeal to people who didn't find the original any fun. Which would be similar to Wasteland leaving its pulpy roots to appeal people who "grew" out of it. Sorry, I didn't think that wasn't clear.

while you think that pulpy, crazy science fiction may not cut it anymore, and needs to be updated,

- and on selectively taking parts of the whole answer and jumping to crazy ass conclusions, such as thinking or trying to imply that i think "that pulpy science fiction should be updated".
I guess you mean as a whole.

I can only applaud to such majestic delusions.

This is the heart of the issue, I think. If you feel that the silly science fiction of the original is not appropriate for the new game, then I see no meaning in discussing your other points.

An if you mean to say that i really mean to say that wasteland pulp fiction setting should be updated - presumably into some kind of science....- youre stark raving mad.
What i said there. All of it. The whole paragraph together.
Was given as an example of answer to the question of VD saying "what makes it better? why do we need it at all?"
So i gave an example.

It seems VD thinks that fantasy settings should follow more logical, realistic consequences of technology or magic available, regardless of how fantastic a certain ability or technical wonder is at question.
But when it comes to sci-fi then ....he has some kind of problem of understanding words.

On top of basically just inventing what something they said actually means, like some crazed conspiracy theory looney, and it always actually means exactly opposite of what Fargo and Thwacke are saying.

I am having a bit of trouble following your point here to be honest. Why did you mention the quoted phrase if you don't want to change the style and ambiance of the game? I am really sorry if I misunderstood your point, but help me understand what your point was, then.

In fact, I love this kind of thing, and I would hate to see it thrown away from the sequel.

And who said anything about throwing it out of the sequel?

:looks a bit back:

I tried to explain why I thought this move was a move away from the kind of environment that created all that fantastic fiction in first place in almost all my posts in this thread. Of course I don't think this little thing is going to take away all that wild spirit that created Wasteland in first place. But I worry it is a sign that the people developing it want to move away from it.

You know, I haven't ever built a world with the help of a research team, so yeah, don't know if they would really get in the way or not. But I can't help but think that stuff like the original Shadowrun, or Gamma World, or Metamorphosis Alpha. I just don't see those games becoming what they are, or were, at any rate, with a team of scientists trying to smooth the "lore" and what not.

And this ... smoothing...



Can you tell us how smooth it will be actually?

:rofl:

No, we will have to wait and see, I guess. i am hoping that not at all, though.

 

[hoverdog]

Hiver's back

 

[hiver]

:waves:


Alex, dear...
lets just concentrate on crux of the matter,

The point of my comment about Bethesda is simply that they changed a perfectly good game to appeal to people who didn't find the original any fun

And that has nothing to do with applying science to it, so - you - cannot - use - that - as - an - example to prove how wasteland specific setting will be changed or damaged by scientific approach - when actually there is no one except VD who claims that (at least recently) - in direct contradiction with everything relevant people actually said about it.
Specific info that i even quoted since it seems several people are simply unable to find it themselves.

Furthermore, dumbass - i never said wasteland specific setting should be changed or that it will be changed. Quite the bloody contrary.

jumping to crazy ass conclusions, such as thinking or trying to imply that i think "that pulpy science fiction should be updated".
I guess you mean as a whole.

I can only applaud to such majestic delusions.

The is the heart of the issue, I think. If you feel that the silly science fiction of the original is not appropriate for the new game, then I see no meaning in discussing your other points.

:rofl:

I am having a bit of trouble following your point here to be honest.
Why did you mention the quoted phrase if you don't want to change the style and ambiance of the game? I am really sorry if I misunderstood your point, but help me understand what your point was, then.

Youre way past my help now sonny...

 

[Alex]

(...snip)
And that has nothing to do with applying science to it, so - you - cannot - use - that - as - an - example to prove how wasteland specific setting will be changed or damaged by scientific approach - when actually there is no one except VD who claims that (at least recently) - in direct contradiction with everything relevant people actually said about it.

Like I just said, it wasn't an example of a setting damaged by applying science consultants to it, it was an example of a game changed to appease different people than the fans of the original.

Furthermore, dumbass - i never said wasteland specific setting should be changed or that it will be changed. Quite the bloody contrary.

Good then we are both in agreement that we want the game to have the pulpy, crazy and sometimes even stupid kind of science fiction that made the original? If so, do you disagree with my points about how bringing in a science team might go against the mood and feel of this kind of fiction?

I leave out the rest of your post because I don't think you really made any points there. If you feel I haven't answered what you said, feel free to repeat.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It seems VD thinks that fantasy settings should follow more logical, realistic consequences of technology or magic available, regardless of how fantastic a certain ability or technical wonder is at question.

But when it comes to sci-fi then ....he has some kind of problem of understanding words.

Do you not see the difference between "shit that makes sense" and science-approved?

If there are orcs in the game, I don't need to read an explanation of where the orcs come from. I want the orcs to do more than stand in the middle of en empty cave waiting for attack whoever crosses the invisible line. I want them to be a part of the motherfucking world, have a place in it, have relationship with other races that goes beyond some NPC telling me that orcs ate his grandma as a reason for me to kill them.

If there is magic, I want mages to do more than kill monsters with magic missiles and fireballs. I want it to be integrated into the setting, which isn't rocket science.

On top of basically just inventing what something they said actually means, like some crazed conspiracy theory looney, and it always actually means exactly opposite of what Fargo and Thwacke are saying.

Learn to read words, bro.

here is Vince decrying how magic doesnt have good explanations and plausibility in fantasy

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,1431.0.html

1. The Nature of Magic.

This would seem to be the most fundamental of questions, but many RPGs simply gloss over it. "Magic is a mysterious energy which can do anything, thus it can be used to justify anything we want to throw in the game, hooray!". The problem with this approach is that unlimited freedom isn't necessarily desirable. Writers and designers know that sometimes the most interesting ideas arise from imposed constraints.


And reminiscing on why there are no crystal ball networks:

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,675.0.html

Magic of magic

What comes to mind when you think about magic in RPGs? Medieval Europe-like place with pointy hats wizards firing brightly colored "magical" projectiles at various creatures. That's all magic is apparently good for as it doesn't seem to offer any benefits to the setting, local industries, and the player.

You don't see wizards transporting goods and golems employed on construction sites. You don't see improved communications ("Crystal Ball News Network"?). You don't see anti-magic defenses and I'm not talking about protection against fireballs. I'm talking about protection against enemy's wizards entering towns and opening portals for troops waiting a thousand miles away. What you do see are firebolts and fireballs, ice storms and chain lightning, magic missiles and meteor swarms.

The problem is that magic is not integrated into settings. It exists in vacuum, nothing more than a meta-gaming feature with the single purpose of providing the player with a different, more colorful way to kill things. At best we are offered creative explanations of magic and its origins, but gameplay remains the same.

Read the last fucking sentence one more time.

 

[Zed]

Oh my, are you arguing with Hiver now.

Hahaha.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Well, AoD ain't gonna delay itself.