Development Info InXile consults academics to create Wasteland authenticity

[Vault Dweller]

"The more smart guys we have in a room looking at the writing and design is always a good thing and in this case we have a group of very bright people checking our work."

It's a very vague statement that means absolutely nothing and implies that something AWESOME is taking place.

Fargo should have been a politician.

 

[DragoFireheart]

This thread summed up:

The more smart guys we have in a room looking at the writing and design is always a good thing and in this case we have a group of very bright people checking our work.

You don't need a scientist for that.

- You don't need scientists to make a video game, but you might need scientists to make a great video game. Is it not a flaw for a game to force too much suspension of disbelief if that same game is trying to emulate pseudo-reality?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Until I see a clear "science does make games better!" proof in form of a completed game

How about Portal? It had all that force momentum applied to transportation mechanics in game, which affected gameplay and puzzles.

Hopefully, it was clear that we were talking about more complex games where science! is not the driving force.

 

[Vault Dweller]

This thread summed up:

The more smart guys we have in a room looking at the writing and design is always a good thing and in this case we have a group of very bright people checking our work.

You don't need a scientist for that.

- You don't need scientists to make a video game, but you might need scientists to make a great video game. Is it not a flaw for a game to force too much suspension of disbelief if that same game is trying to emulate pseudo-reality?

Proof? I know you said "might", but still...

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

TAKE ME OUT OF YOUR GODDAMN QUOTE PYRAMIDS.

 

[Shadenuat]

Hopefully, it was clear that we were talking about more complex games where science! is not the driving force.

Alpha Centauri? Creating believeable scientific speculation on all the technologies and human development made that game a very unique experience setting-wise.
By your logic, they could've just replaced worms with cool-looking Antares-like guys, but instead they went for living being based on neural network, and then created gameworld around it. Was it pointless?

 

[Vault Dweller]

It did.

People seem to confuse "believable" with "science-approved".

"Reynolds researched science fiction for the game's writing.[42] His inspiration included "classic works of science fiction", including Frank Herbert's The Jesus Incident, A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge, and The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle for alien races; Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars, Slant by Greg Bear, and Stephen R. Donaldson's The Real Story for future technology and science; and Dune by Herbert and Bear's Anvil of Stars for negative interactions between humans.[47][48]"

 

[Shadenuat]

Obviously I have no idea if they had science consultants or not, although concidering niche of games they making I think they could.

People seem to confuse "believable" with "science-approved".

I was't confused a bit. They said they want to use that approach to enrich their stories. Seems fair to me.

 

[CappenVarra]

It did.

People seem to confuse "believable" with "science-approved".

"Reynolds researched science fiction for the game's writing.[42] His inspiration included "classic works of science fiction", including Frank Herbert's The Jesus Incident, A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge, and The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle for alien races; Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars, Slant by Greg Bear, and Stephen R. Donaldson's The Real Story for future technology and science; and Dune by Herbert and Bear's Anvil of Stars for negative interactions between humans.[47][48]"

The thought of an imaginary development of "Brian Reynolds joins the Wasteland 2 design team as a consultant" just flashed across my mind and was 100x cooler than this thread in its entirety.

Then I googled and found

On June 30, 2009, Zynga announced that Brian Reynolds was leaving Big Huge Games to lead the formation of Zynga East, and serve the role of Chief Game Designer.

and

Reynolds led the development of FrontierVille on Facebook.

Fuck. This. Gay. Earth.

 

[hiver]

Oh boy...
So limited. So... disappointing.

Ill answer just first two points, and the rest which is equally or more wrong, absurd, illogical or just sadly funny and based on very "strange" extreme personal view of what realism and science mean,... maybe after day or two.
Because i already answered all those points so right now im not up for wasting more time repeating them.

As for tanks versus Scorpitron, you see, Vince, among many other things, claimed that the tank is a better design because it has tracks which are supposedly more difficult to hit and destroy then new Scorpitron legs - without any further caveats to the issue.

Did you see the screenshot? Look at again.

Yes of course ive seen it. Its a mockup shot.
Scorpitron is some early model and human models there were some free models from Unity they used just to set up the scene.
It does not depict an actual situation. (well, unless you basically fuck up and wander into it way too early). Weapons are just there for the show and also free models from Unity. The distance is ridiculously small - which would mean your party is about to get toasted.
Its not a screenshot of a real fight - which supposedly means that you can take a Scorpitron with those small arms, no armor and from 10 meters away.

You cant actually hurt the Scorpitron with small arms. Youre not supposed to even try.

I'm not saying that tracks are impossible to destroy, I'm saying they are harder to destroy with small gun fire than the leg joints that are up in the air. Mines? In real life? Absolutely, only it's not real life but an RPG. You have a party of adventurers armed mostly with small guns and they fight their adversaries by standing there and shooting at them practically point blank.

Thats why i was laughing.

You never - ever attack either a tank or a Scorpitron with small arms, pistols, rifles or automatic weapons.
Against a tank, small arms fire is completely useless in reality.
The Scorpitron required advanced weapons and armor to beat. Remembered fondly as one of the toughest encounters (much like a dethclaw in Fallout).

http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=16

encountering him for the first time was a terrifying experience. I remember being horribly under-equipped for Vegas and sneaking around it anyways, looking for better stuff. He toasted me in an instant.
He was awesome later on for skill leveling though - I'd empty assault rifles on full auto against him, which would barely put a dent into him but raise the characters' skills almost every combat round. Then I'd run away and raise my doctoring skills while patching up the critically wounded party members.

eah, wandering around Vegas and going "hrm, what's that robot over there..."
Very satisfying to return when you finally have decent armor and at least a few guys with good AT Weapons skill.

- yes people would return on higher levels, with better armor and killed it with knives, or going melee on it (to train the melee and doctor skills), or would use it to train automatic weapons skill because automatic weapons did no or very little damage to it - but thats exploiting mechanics way after you figure the game inside out. Mechanics you could exploit because that kind of Scorpitron was not designed to have realistic, logical or sensible abilities or mechanics to really counter such attacks.
(i racked up levels in Fallout 2 by wandering the desert in PA and killing deathclaws all day, so what)

- so called game design overruled the realism in that case because of its own restrictions -
which ultimately produced a negative consequence of killing an armored metal tank with your bare fists - which is just laughable.
(it should have atleast demanded advanced armor and advanced melee weapons or some sort of power-fists)


And this is the new version of the Scorpitron. Evidently armored extremely well and much, much more mobile - while gun placement directly hints it should be capable of shooting at several targets at once.
(thats because it is designed modernly and realistically - which is adapted to and inspired by specifics of the setting - which in turn pays attention to realism - and is inspired by it)
Our technology and design advancements clearly show that making such advanced robotic machine is possible and probable, and we can accurately conclude what such a design would be able to do.
:boston dynamics:

There are things we can be absolutely certain about, even though they dont exist at the present.
We can be very sure armors will improve, we can be completely sure weapons will improve and that targeting systems will improve.

Since ive explained what 30-40 years old russian tanks can do - it can be safely extrapolated that a Scorpitron could do the same or better and be able to target several targets while running at enormous speed, for example.
This prediction is completely realistic and basically...completely accurate. Even though it isnt real right now. Vince.



Now, imagine you designing a tank game or a new Scorpitron encounter.
Due to evident and serious lack of knowledge about either - you would make a ridiculous crap out of both encounters. Laughably bad.

In your game - you could attack a tank or a Scorpitron mk2 with small arms, from 10 meters away and damage it. While wearing leather hide and cowboy hats... apparently.





--------------------




now, to make some good tea and light another jing-jong.
And a candle.

 

[Moribund]

I'm immune to marketing and shit you read in interviews, which you apparently take at face value.

He's already got the money for the game from us. It's his money now, in his own bank account. He could do whatever he liked with it, hire more writers, more programmers, save it as a nest egg to tide the company over til the next game, take a trip to Fiji, anything.

I don't think he's a stupid man who believes he's going to sell 5 million copies in addition to the kickstarted orders. You assumed they were employed as a type of fact checking. I and many others said no that is not the case, then he came out and said it himself. Case closed, you lose.

You don't seem like the reasonable type who will concede defeat for any reason, butnothing you're saying even makes any sense. You built a lame strawman that said they were basically fact checkers. They say that's not so, they are there to help with inspiration. Well, they are liars then!

Even if your idea of what it's all about is true then it still makes no sense. Someone has to do fact checking for anything people write and publicly release so you don't look stupid. It's usually people who know the subject. You'd make a police game where you don't ever talk to a police officer, or a flight sim without talking to pilots? Maybe if you have no budget that makes sense but no one who wants to do something properly would ever be so inane.

Us hearing about it is marketing, and more than that justifying to us he's using the money well. That's he's using it like that is just common sense, and if it were less exciting subject we'd probably never hear about it, but they'd still do it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

He's already got the money for the game from us. It's his money now, in his own bank account. He could do whatever he liked with it, hire more writers, more programmers, save it as a nest egg to tide the company over til the next game, take a trip to Fiji, anything.

You do realize that he wants to sell more than 60,000 copies?

I don't think he's a stupid man who believes he's going to sell 5 million copies in addition to the kickstarted orders. You assumed they were employed as a type of fact checking. I and many others said no that is not the case, then he came out and said it himself. Case closed, you lose.

I've never said it. Not once.

I said that they would be tasked with designing and used the first interview quotes that said as much.

Here is a quote from page 14:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...eland-authenticity.77327/page-14#post-2340939

"- The scientists said that creatures is one of their tasks. The problem with science! approved creatures is that there is no real data that shows wild mutations. Chernobyl didn't produce anything "interesting" and neither did other hotspots. No ghouls, no ran angels, no tentacle monsters, no giant rats and insects. Reality is boring, unfortunately. So, either the scientists will make shit up, which will be no different than what concept artists do (who know better what games need and what works), or they will stick with reality, which like I said, wouldn't bring anything interesting to the table."

Here is a quote from page 11 that explains the scientists' involvement:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...eland-authenticity.77327/page-11#post-2339455

"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)..."

Where does it say anything but fact checking?

You built a lame strawman that said they were basically fact checkers.

You either confused me with someone else or misunderstood what I said.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes of course ive seen it. Its a mockup shot.
Scorpitron is some early model and human models there were some free models from Unity they used just to set up the scene.
It does not depict an actual situation. (well, unless you basically fuck up and wander into it way too early)

So, does it or doesn't?

Its not a screenshot of a real fight - which supposedly means that you can take a Scorpitron with those small arms, no armor and from 10 meters away.

I'm not a mind reader. I don't know what it means. I do know that discarding the only screenshot (mock up or not) to support your beliefs is the silliest thing one can do.

Against a tank, small arms fire is completely useless in reality.

No way!

The Scorpitron required advanced weapons and armor to beat.
...

yes people would return on higher levels, with better armor and killed it with knives....

Our technology and design advancements clearly show that making such advanced robotic machine is possible and probable, and we can accurately conclude what such a design would be able to do.
:boston dynamics:

Just because you can make something, doesn't mean you should and it definitely doesn't mean that that's where the future of tanks is heading. Tracks and wheels, hiver.

Since ive explained what 30-40 years old russian tanks can do - it can be safely extrapolated that a Scorpitron could do the same or better and be able to target several targets while running at enormous speed, for example.
This prediction is completely realistic and basically...completely accurate. Even though it isnt real right now. Vince.

Are you under the impression that I'm disputing it?

Now, imagine you designing a tank game or a new Scorpitron encounter.
Due to evident and serious lack of knowledge about either - you would make a ridiculous crap out of both encounters. Laughably bad. In your game - you could attack a tank or a Scorpitron mk2 with small arms, from 10 meters away and damage it.

Is that what I said or implied? Was that my main argument - that you should be able to shoot a tank full of holes from 10 meters? Or was it the exact opposite, by any chance?

 

[DragoFireheart]

This thread summed up:

The more smart guys we have in a room looking at the writing and design is always a good thing and in this case we have a group of very bright people checking our work.

You don't need a scientist for that.

- You don't need scientists to make a video game, but you might need scientists to make a great video game. Is it not a flaw for a game to force too much suspension of disbelief if that same game is trying to emulate pseudo-reality?

Proof? I know you said "might", but still...

- Prooft? LOL no.

Examples? Sure.

Ex: You are making a game where you move through space and land on planets. Having the knowledge of what would happen when you transition through different gravitational pulls helps create better physics.

 

[Vault Dweller]

No proof then.

As for the example, it's always easy to imagine a non-existent situation that supports your point of view. It's much harder to provide specific and real examples. I have no idea whether or not a space game with realistic gravitational pulls and real physics would be interesting to play, but I do know that Elite - an unrealistic space game where you landed on planets and docked at stations - was a fucking blast.

 

[DragoFireheart]

No proof then.

As for the example, it's always easy to imagine a non-existent situation that supports your point of view. It's much harder to provide specific and real examples. I have no idea whether or not a space game with realistic gravitational pulls and real physics would be interesting to play, but I do know that Elite - an unrealistic space game where you landed on planets and docked at stations - was a fucking blast.

- Well course. That doesn't change the fact that if you are trying to make a game based on reality, it helps to have an accurate grasp on that reality.

Like I said, "might".

 

[almondblight]

- Well course. That doesn't change the fact that if you are trying to make a game based on reality, it helps to have an accurate grasp on that reality.

You could do a pretty good job making it feel real based on the information that's available. Would there be stuff missing? I'm sure, but I think the phrase "you don't know what you don't know" applies well here. Including basic physics would already make the game much more realistic than most games out there, and beyond the point were most people would be able to know what was missing.

Now, that's not to say that scientists can't add things. If your goal was to try to create a hyper-realistic space shuttle reentry simulator, it would be useful to have experts in the field. The focus moves more to simulation than game, but I suppose you could combine it with other game elements (whether or not they would work well together, or if anyone would want to play "Shuttle Reentry - The Game" is another matter). But at that point you probably don't want to be hiring the people on as consultants, but as lead designers.

- For most games publicly available knowledge is more than enough to create a game world that goes beyond the players knowledge if you wanted.

- If you're at the point where you're trying to create a hyper-realistic simulation, then you don't need scientists as consultants - you need them as your designers.

 

[DragoFireheart]

- If you're at the point where you're trying to create a hyper-realistic simulation, then you don't need scientists as consultants - you need them as your designers.

- Maybe they hired scientists to make a hyper-realistic post-apocalyptic wasteland simulator to train us so we can survive ITZ?

 

[Moribund]

Well, let's see. I am sure some scientist somewhere has studied fallout and nuclear winter, and there's even a pill similar to radX. So maybe there's some scientist somewhere who actually does know something that's useful or interesting. And you know what? I am betting they even consulted a scientist when they made the game fallout! Same guy was in charge after all, ultimately, but now he's a lying moron who impeded the greatness of tim cain at every step or something.

Impossible he could just know what he's doing.

 

[Excidium]

"The more smart guys we have in a room looking at the writing and design is always a good thing and in this case we have a group of very bright people checking our work."

It's a very vague statement that means absolutely nothing and implies that something AWESOME is taking place.

In other words, Wasteland 2.

 

[DwarvenFood]

After getting through this thread, my only conclusion can be that Fargo releases these bits of info just to see how much a certain topic can possibly be discussed??! over here.

EDIT: It did summon hiver though, but I hope his wall-of-text style will soon be replaced by a more to the point approach of shitposting.

 

[Johannes]

It did.

People seem to confuse "believable" with "science-approved".

"Reynolds researched science fiction for the game's writing.[42] His inspiration included "classic works of science fiction", including Frank Herbert's The Jesus Incident, A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge, and The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle for alien races; Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars, Slant by Greg Bear, and Stephen R. Donaldson's The Real Story for future technology and science; and Dune by Herbert and Bear's Anvil of Stars for negative interactions between humans.[47][48]"

Basically, it's much more relevant to have a good grasp on what makes cool and believable fiction, than on knowing exact scientific details.

Sure, the Thwacke guys might be really awesome world builders. But nothing so far indicates, as far as I've seen and am concerned, that they'd be very good in designing a pulpy post-apocalyptic setting. So creatures will be natural products of their environment - what does that mean in practice? That in an environment with giant veggies, there'll likely be giant rodents? In a heavily radiated area you might see freaky mutants? In trash pits you'll find giant larvae? In long abandoned military lab there's robotic guard dogs still working?
Designing any of that does not require a degree by any stretch. Now if you want truly realistic wildlife, what kinds of cockroaches and birds, or which large predators, would survive, yeah it could really help... But who the fuck cares about that ?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Precisely my point.

 

[Infinitron]

You faggots are still talking about this? Bunch of science-hating jocks invaded my Codex.

"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".

Same text, different emphasis. Selectively using the insights of scientists does not mean designing the world in a scientific manner. The scientists are not the ones designing the world!

But who the fuck cares about that ?

I do. I'm a verisimilitude-fag. I like a game that makes me think "Wow, they really thought of everything here!".

 

[Johannes]

But who the fuck cares about that ?

I do. I'm a verisimilitude-fag. I like a game that makes me think "Wow, they really thought of everything here!".[/quote]
I'd really rather that they wouldn't think about everything, and leave some room for imagination instead. Otherwise in a setting like this, you're most probably just going into midichlorian territory.