Game News inXile reveal Wasteland 3's party system

[Excidium II]

lmao

I'm not sure about that, considering that generally non-RPGs tend to be better games.

 

[naossano]

Bullshit. Just fucking admit it. You like to draw line in the sand where you want. FO:BOS is hardly an RPG... Games which you like = RPG, games that you don't like = strategy or anything...

I love strategy games as well.
BTW the previous poster said tactics, not FoBOS. Another tactical game with some rpg elements. It has more rpg elements that some games marketted as rpg, but the focus is tactical combat.

 

[l3loodAngel]

And in dungeon crawlers? Focus is dialogues?/sarcasm. FO: BOS = FO tactics btw.

 

[i.Razor]

And in dungeon crawlers? Focus is dialogues?/sarcasm. FO: BOS = FO tactics btw.

Hm. There are two games. Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel (PC) and Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel (PS).

So it's kinda FT:BoS and FO:BoS. Not that it affects the point though.

 

[naossano]

Fobos and FoT have very different gameplay, belong to a very different genre, and have a very different level of faithfullness to the lore...

 

[mondblut]

So i guess Fallout Tactics is RPG then?

Being a mission-based, linear railroad-romp - about as much as your average JRPG.

 

[Azarkon]

The choice of whether you get to create your own party in a group combat CRPG should be decided by whether the game is storyfag focused or systemfag focused.

I don't buy the argument that you cannot create characters before you know what's in the game world, because that's not what you're supposed to do. You're supposed to create characters from your own concepts, and then see how they perform, making modifications later as necessary. The idea that all players are driven to optimize their builds immediately is ridiculous MMORPG talk and only makes sense from a MMORPG perspective of constant social competition. You're not competing against anyone in a single player game, so your choices should reflect what you think is cool, fun, etc.

An argument can be effectively made from the storyfag perspective that it is important the player starts with only one character - the self - and then recruit companions whose interactions with the self contribute to the general storyfag experience. In that case you don't want to give the player the ability to create their own characters, because it would reduce the importance of the self character and encourage them not to engage with companions. But that's not what I'm hearing here.

 

[l3loodAngel]

So i guess Fallout Tactics is RPG then?

Being a mission-based, linear railroad-romp - about as much as your average JRPG.

Whithout any fucking sarcasm. The fucking difference between that and dungeon crawler?

 

[Fenix]

Twine game?

depressionquest.com

muh C&C111

If it is another way to call P:T a CYOA or visual novell game it isn't impressive (because it's not true).

 

[mondblut]

So i guess Fallout Tactics is RPG then?

Being a mission-based, linear railroad-romp - about as much as your average JRPG.

Whithout any fucking sarcasm.

Like you are capable of it.

The fucking difference between that and dungeon crawler?

What always separated the "RPG" from the wargame. Freedom to head wherever you want, pick fights at your own discretion, explore and exploit the environment outside the combat scenarios.

 

[tuluse]

R T F M
T
F
M

You try making a party based on InXile's manual and see where it gets you.

 

[l3loodAngel]

The fucking difference between that and dungeon crawler?

What always separated the "RPG" from the wargame. Freedom to head wherever you want, pick fights at your own discretion, explore and exploit the environment outside the combat scenarios.

Illusion of freedom is the right word. There is no freedom if you have to check the boxes i.e. need to do specific quests, but without order. You think that you're describing a crawler, but you're describing skyrym...

explore and exploit the environment outside the combat scenarios.

In dungeon crawler?

 

[mondblut]

The fucking difference between that and dungeon crawler?

What always separated the "RPG" from the wargame. Freedom to head wherever you want, pick fights at your own discretion, explore and exploit the environment outside the combat scenarios.

Illusion of freedom is the right word. There is no freedom if you have to check the boxes i.e. need to do specific quests, but without order. You think that you're describing a crawler, but you're describing skyrym...

There is nothing wrong with skyrim, with the exception of:

1. Nearly unexisting RPG ruleset even by bethsoft standarts.
2. Action combat.
3. No party.

Fix these three, and you'll have a challenger to Wizardry 8 as one of pinnacles of post-95 computer roleplaying.

(because these three is all that actually matters, and separate an RPG from a sandbox FPS).

explore and exploit the environment outside the combat scenarios.

In dungeon crawler?

Someone here is really clueless about "dungeon crawlers", and that is not me.

 

[l3loodAngel]

There is nothing wrong with skyrim, with the exception of:

1. Nearly unexisting RPG ruleset even by bethsoft standarts.
2. Action combat.
3. No party.

OK. This shit is going way too long. I won't agree with you, because our views are fundamentaly different. And this list is just...

 

[Roguey]

You try making a party based on InXile's manual and see where it gets you.

Wasteland 2 has a 90 page manual that's actually fairly decent. With UI feedback and what it told me about initiative and weapon AP values, I was able to nail a good (though perhaps not the best) ratio of initiative:ap:skill points.

With the skills themselves, I admittedly relied on metaknowledge I learned from playing previous classless, skill based RPGs (e.g. Vogel's stuff) that one should go all-in on a combat skill from the start and worry about non-combat stuff later and only as the need arises (with the exception of one character who was split between sniper rifles and leadership).

 

[Grauken]

There is nothing wrong with skyrim, with the exception of:

1. Nearly unexisting RPG ruleset even by bethsoft standarts.
2. Action combat.
3. No party.

OK. This shit is going way too long. I won't agree with you, because our views are fundamentaly different. And this list is just...

very sensible

also Mondblut won the "Trigger me" thread

 

[tuluse]

Wasteland 2 has a 90 page manual that's actually fairly decent. With UI feedback and what it told me about initiative and weapon AP values, I was able to nail a good (though perhaps not the best) ratio of initiative:ap:skill points.

With the skills themselves, I admittedly relied on metaknowledge I learned from playing previous classless, skill based RPGs (e.g. Vogel's stuff) that one should go all-in on a combat skill from the start and worry about non-combat stuff later and only as the need arises (with the exception of one character who was split between sniper rifles and leadership).

It was my understanding the printed manual was based on a previous version of the game, and was wildly inaccurate because of that.

 

[Roguey]

It was my understanding the printed manual was based on a previous version of the game, and was wildly inaccurate because of that.

It probably was, but nothing too bad. Many of the classic RPGs also had an "manual errata" section buried in a readme.txt. For Wasteland 2, the corrections would be noted in the game UI itself.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

For offroad compare lada with Subaru or hummer H1.

1. For RPGs with emotionally-engaging companions bundled with "loyalty quests", play BioWare games.

Diablo is a twitch (reflex based game) popamole, therefore adding stuff is pointless. You would gain by removing stuff until the only thing left would be Yes button. Now the right question could be: "If IWD would be better with a plot involving companions, dialogues with them and their quests." I believe that Yes.

2. Might be surprising to you, but adding all that to Icewind Dale would make it just like Baldur's Gate. And a lot of people like that there's a range of IE games - story focused (PST), combat-focused (IWD) and balanced (BG). I like party creation, but it would make no sense to add it to PS:T.

Problem is, your head is so up your ass you simply cannot see the world beyond your own taste.

1. Wow 2 strawmen in a single 13 word sentence. Keep up the good work. I am not searching for emotionaly engaging companions, neither for Bioware games with retarded loyalty quests. If anything I have not played anything bioware since DAO. I have not even instaled Mass effect or other dragon age games. I am willing to bet that you did.

2. BG series has a wide recognition of being better. Thanks for proving my point. Everybody jumped old school funding ship with: "creators of BG" and only slightly mentioning IWD. Odds are if you're not roguey, you don't think IWD was that great.

I don't see the problem, because it's not my taste. It's just about being a better game overall. In almost all instances well written party > cartboard cutouts. Nobody differentiates IE games like that and IWD is always the least interesting and almost always forgotten bastard...

I liked icewind dale better than Bg's too,

but in any case I don't mind this design choice by Inexile and even find it interesting. I can imagine that it could make the game more interesting. If they do this right it will be sort of a mix of Bg's type companions and making your own, I think this could be done well. The question is if they will do it well or not; I am willing to see what becomes of it..

 

[l3loodAngel]

I liked icewind dale better than Bg's too,

Yeah I also like hitting my cock into windowsill rather than sleeping with women./sarcasm? So that makes 3 of Us. You, mondblut and me.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

I liked icewind dale better than Bg's too,

Yeah I also like hitting my cock into windowsill rather than sleeping with women./sarcasm? So that makes 3 of Us. You, mondblut and me.

Bg's might be more interesting to people who like to read R. A. Salvatore and other Dungeons and Dragons novels (obviously there is a large audience for these, I am always shocked at their popularity), but for me Icerwind dale felt more like playing the type of dungeons and dragons I played with friends using Pen and Paper. This may not make sense intuitively since Bg's seems to be more 'story based', but the emergent stories created by my mind while carefully planning and rolling up an entire party of adventurers and overseeing their progression as they leveled up was much more enjoyable and felt closer to Pen and Paper D&D than BG did.

The totality of the environment, artwork, music and party creation mechanics in IWD actually created a better and more enjoyable experience for me. I guess it goes back to 'What is a RPG'? It feels like to me that maybe older people like myself related to D&D as a rule based, tactical wargame with small bits of story to guide the game along, while younger people seem to view RPG's as a visual adventure novel with stats and player characters existing secondarily to the story being told. I don't know, but Icewind Dale felt like a deeper experience to me than BG.

 

[Fenix]

Agree, but first BG is somehow inbetween of these two points.
It IS rule based tactical wargame with mostly small story bits, and you can exlore in mostly free - plot is somewhere there around the corner, I believe that's why I loke BG1 much more then BG SoA.

 

[Darkzone]

There is nothing wrong with skyrim, with the exception of:
1. Nearly unexisting RPG ruleset even by bethsoft standarts.
2. Action combat.
3. No party.
Fix these three, and you'll have a challenger to Wizardry 8 as one of pinnacles of post-95 computer roleplaying.

I don't think so, because there are a lot more problems with Skyrim. And to name a few:
Retarded level scaling, where simple bandits pose a larger threat than a ancient dragon on a higher level.
Boring repetitive dungeons with the same art and undead.
Shity dialogs, that do not change even if you marry the high queen, making you effectively a high king.
etc.. etc..
No Skyrim is shit in its core, and even with a bit RPG make up it will stay shit.

 

[mondblut]

Retarded level scaling, where simple bandits pose a larger threat than a ancient dragon on a higher level.

Wizardry 8 had annoying level scaling, too. That would been fixed as a part of hypothetical introduction of proper RPG systems, though.

Boring repetitive dungeons with the same art and undead.

That's the staple of the genre. I'd take 600 hours of samey content over 6 hours of uniqwe and speshul any day.

Still a facelift if you compare it to Wizardry 6

Shity dialogs, that do not change even if you marry the high queen, making you effectively a high king.

Who cares? Dialogues beyond infodumps and quest dispersal are useless fluff anyway. All great RPGs did just fine with scantily a bunch of lines.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

Agree, but first BG is somehow inbetween of these two points.
It IS rule based tactical wargame with mostly small story bits, and you can exlore in mostly free - plot is somewhere there around the corner, I believe that's why I loke BG1 much more then BG SoA.

You are right, Bg1 is in-between those two points and like you I also enjoyed bg1 more than bg2; I think partly because I enjoy low and mid level D&D more than high level. But I remember playing bg1 the first time and despite only rolling up one character I was completely transfixed by the experience like I had not been since the gold box games.