Wasteland The Wasteland 2 Beta Release Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[felipepepe]

I'm not sure I follow here. Wasteland 2 is not lacking in scenarios that can play out very differently depending on how you approach them, though it's still being built out, and tons of little scenarios and events that are easy to miss (having Angie with you when you confront the witness in Rail Nomad, digging up a certain grave with Scotchmo around, Sean's reaction to Vultures-Cries depending on how you approached that and what you tell him, the raiders showing up at Ranger Citadel if you convinced them they could become recruits, etc etc). What are you thinking of specifically? The problem from my reading seems to be much more with the way these events and reactivity are set-up and plotted out in map design than with whether they exist and how they work (though again, consider this the foundation with more being built out, the overhaul of Highpool being a good example, I'd put it up against any early Fallout 1/2 map as it is now, in mission amount/design).

I blame the "perceived" lack of reactivity on mandatory dungeons, encounters and events, as well as the massive ranger party.

Playing Fallout, any change you make to your character changes your playstyle as a whole; and there are multiple solutions to everything, while nothing is mandatory. To give a quest example, when saving Vic you can create a retard that can't speak but slaughters Metzer, a pacifist that will negociate with him, buy Vic from him, just grab the info from Vic and leave him there, become a slaver or even completly ignore that questline.

Playing Wasteland 2, your horde of rangers and the ammo & weapon scarcity means that you'll most likely keep a well-rounded group with various weapons and almost all skills. That already means that a new party doesn't feel fully fresh. And the story quests are mandatory; get into Ag. Center, and you'll have to crawl all the way to the end and kill the traitor. There may be some minor reactivity, like new dialog between characters or maybe a small reward, but you're still gonna have to crawl all the way to the end and kill the traitor. Same thing with Highpool, those raiders on the way up and the maze will be there every time. I killed the entire population of Highpool and the game still required me to do the maze because of some bullshit reason (radio generator is connected to the water generator, IIRC).

Now, imagine this: a guy that never played Fallout 2 nor W2 wants to see reactivity, C&C and multiple solutions.

Fallout 2: Create any character you like and try various and completely different ways to get Vic from Metzer (or don't). On the way through, you might get some "reactivity", with Metzer calling you too dumb, too weak, not accepting woman slavers or NPC banter.

Wasteland 2: Run through Ag. Center multiple times, opening the same doors, unlocking the same containers and killing the same enemies at the same locations every goddamn time, but on the way through you might get some "reactivity" depending on the NPCs you have along or the tone you use.

If the games were only that, he would spend an hour on F2 to see all possibilities and have a great time. In W2, it would take him that just to half of Ag. Center. And I doubt that he would have the will to do more than 2 or 3 times... you could have 5 billion lines of reactivity written, and it would mean nothing because no one is gonna keep replaying it to check it out. On this point it is exactly as Fargo sold us: "we have content that most players will never see". Careful with what you wish for, I guess.

 

[Akratus]

You hear that guys? Discussing games you haven't played is no longer allowed! All pre-release discussion is to cease immediately.

Don't brofist me for this, please.

 

[Onholyservicebound]

I would brofist that unironically.
I know it had nothing to do with the actual argument and was sort of a strawman, but I sure as hell wouldn't lose any sleep over the loss of hype threads.

 

[Brother None]

Playing Fallout, any change you make to your character changes your playstyle as a whole; and there are multiple solutions to everything, while nothing is mandatory. To give a quest example, when saving Vic you can create a retard that can't speak but slaughters Metzer, a pacifist that will negociate with him, buy Vic from him, just grab the info from Vic and leave him there, become a slaver or even completly ignore that questlines

Well I mentioned Highpool for a reason. I mean, those choices you mention for Vic would be mutually exclusive even if Fallout was a party-based RPG with all skills available, you'd still have to opt for one or the other. If we take Highpool, you can abandon the location for AgCenter, and while saving it you can just kill everyone and turn the generators on, or prioritize the radio and let everything explode and get kicked out, or help them and then determine the outcome of the mayoral campaign based on your actions, or just ignore the location, let it die and come back later for a radio part. See what I mean about it matching up to any early Fallout location? Party-based games by their nature have skill spread that will leave most options open, especially early game (the current ease of getting and upgrading skills is of course not necessarily representative of the final product), but that's what WL2 is, a party-based game.

Yes, you do have to get/put in a radio part, but this is a Wasteland game, not a Fallout game (and even in Fallout 2 you had to start with an identical maze every time). In WL1, you have to talk to Max or Base Cochise just won't appear, which means you have to do Vegas and the Sewers. You could get your SecPass from Citadel or Finster's Maze but you had to get a SecPass either way (uh, I think? It's been a while, maybe there were other ways into Cochise), as well as the keys from the Citadel. The point is not so much if there's story nodes, we're not Fallout in that you can ignore everything and just run straight to the end (though right now the game does feel/act too steered, we're working on it), the point is that you can approach each node from a lot of different angles. You say "I doubt he will have the will to do Ag Center 2 or 3 times", but why would he? On his second playthrough he'll save Highpool instead. In his third he might save Highpool but see what happens if he lets the pipes blow or lets Bergin win or if he just kills everyone. On a fourth he might ignore both. It's not like you *have* to go to either anymore. That is part of the strength of Wasteland 2 because each of those scenarios will give a very different gameplay experience with completely different maps to explore and different missions to fulfill, and Fallout 1/2 offered nothing of that scope of reactivity that early in the game. Sure it's not the same as how Fallout does it or how heavily Fallout-inspired titles like Underrail or AoD do it, but does that make it bad by definition? The reactivity is there, undeniably, it's just a different way of framing and presenting it, including the fact that so much of it is very unobvious, we thrive on moments where something happens or someone reacts to a decision or NPC or party makeup that makes players go "heh", like my examples of Angie or Scotchmo.

What's probably not helping here is that you're playing the starting sequence over and over and just sick to your gullet of the same locations. Imagine doing a Fallout 2 beta in which only three locations are available and you have to keep doing the Temple of Trials just to get to the towns rather than once for a whole game. But despite that, people are already replaying it a ton, we have one guy with 200+ logged hours, so your "people won't bother" theory doesn't hold up.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

I'm not sure I follow here. Wasteland 2 is not lacking in scenarios that can play out very differently depending on how you approach them, though it's still being built out, and tons of little scenarios and events that are easy to miss (having Angie with you when you confront the witness in Rail Nomad, digging up a certain grave with Scotchmo around, Sean's reaction to Vultures-Cries depending on how you approached that and what you tell him, the raiders showing up at Ranger Citadel if you convinced them they could become recruits, etc etc). What are you thinking of specifically? The problem from my reading seems to be much more with the way these events and reactivity are set-up and plotted out in map design than with whether they exist and how they work (though again, consider this the foundation with more being built out, the overhaul of Highpool being a good example, I'd put it up against any early Fallout 1/2 map as it is now, in mission amount/design).

I blame the "perceived" lack of reactivity on mandatory dungeons, encounters and events, as well as the massive ranger party.

Playing Fallout, any change you make to your character changes your playstyle as a whole; and there are multiple solutions to everything, while nothing is mandatory. To give a quest example, when saving Vic you can create a retard that can't speak but slaughters Metzer, a pacifist that will negociate with him, buy Vic from him, just grab the info from Vic and leave him there, become a slaver or even completly ignore that questline.

Playing Wasteland 2, your horde of rangers and the ammo & weapon scarcity means that you'll most likely keep a well-rounded group with various weapons and almost all skills. That already means that a new party doesn't feel fully fresh. And the story quests are mandatory; get into Ag. Center, and you'll have to crawl all the way to the end and kill the traitor. There may be some minor reactivity, like new dialog between characters or maybe a small reward, but you're still gonna have to crawl all the way to the end and kill the traitor. Same thing with Highpool, those raiders on the way up and the maze will be there every time. I killed the entire population of Highpool and the game still required me to do the maze because of some bullshit reason (radio generator is connected to the water generator, IIRC).

Now, imagine this: a guy that never played Fallout 2 nor W2 wants to see reactivity, C&C and multiple solutions.

Fallout 2: Create any character you like and try various and completely different ways to get Vic from Metzer (or don't). On the way through, you might get some "reactivity", with Metzer calling you too dumb, too weak, not accepting woman slavers or NPC banter.

Wasteland 2: Run through Ag. Center multiple times, opening the same doors, unlocking the same containers and killing the same enemies at the same locations every goddamn time, but on the way through you might get some "reactivity" depending on the NPCs you have along or the tone you use.

If the games were only that, he would spend an hour on F2 to see all possibilities and have a great time. In W2, it would take him that just to half of Ag. Center. And I doubt that he would have the will to do more than 2 or 3 times... you could have 5 billion lines of reactivity written, and it would mean nothing because no one is gonna keep replaying it to check it out. On this point it is exactly as Fargo sold us: "we have content that most players will never see". Careful with what you wish for, I guess.

"a broad spectrum of meaningful CnC resulting from the interaction of systems and player agency" needs to be copy pasted whenever describing CnC here.

 

[Infinitron]

RPS Wasteland 2 LP:

Rad Men: A Wasteland 2 Diary, Part 1

 

[SwiftCrack]

1/10 strong misogyny and trans-hate.

 

[felipepepe]

Brother None, you missed the point. I get it, W2 is not Fallout, it won't be open world, etc... I didn't write all that to point out this, but rather to show why people don't see the reactivity that you talk so much about. The best way to weight the reactivity would be to re-do the same location/quest various times with different parties and NPCs. But as you just said, the game wasn't designed for this. The average player won't play through Ag. Center 3 times, he will do Highpool instead, or let them all die.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

So in Summary:

we can't have combat like JA2, because that is not the focus of this game.

We can't have good Map Design cause unity.

Can we have good reactivity in the style of Fallout? lol no, its not designed that way.
Can we have good CYOA elements of reactivity in the style of AoD? lol no, its not the design focus.

WL2 doesn't have to worry about breaking even (KS), and this model looks to be very viable for inXile, but looks like it will lead to a bland game overall.

 

[Excidium]

We can't have good Map Design cause unity.

What

 

[Jack Dandy]

From what I saw, Unity shits itself almost anytime it tries an "open" environment.

 

[hiver]

Ive been playing a bit more.
Started anew to check some things out, played differently then usual... and i think i found the game, lurking under all that shit and horrible PR and disfigured memories of first release of that horrible Alpha.


This, is actually Wasteland beta 1.0.


And it is nice to see it. When played in the way i just did, it almost works. There are several naturally arising positive gestalt features, that get created by interplay of skills and stats.
The problem is of course that these things are not purposefully used by designers to create more great gameplay.

The character creation and attribute mechanics are now better then before. It allows a bit of diversity. You can make a fighter with relatively low Coordination or Awareness now (at 4) - and yet have 9 or 10 APs if you want.
A doable average joe. That works.
But you can go High Int - low physical stats and High Physique - low Int builds.



While Ag center and Highpool are still fucked up and horribly boring, there are some minor additions that seem to liven up the places.
If they make more stuff like it - we might even see an actual game some day.

The opening few fights in Highpool are actually very nice - because there is enough variety available for your team different builds to play with - combat wise.
And it all could be made so much better with few additions and changes.

Clearly there is potential for better combat encounters and actually thrilling events, instead of pop-a-moling around.


If only they had atleats a year to build upon this foundation. If only they had me... i could do it in these six months they marked as general target now.
With those people in the team it wouldnt be a problem, though it would require quite a bit of manly, smoking, sweating labor in high pace.

Wish i knew if the devs see these things in similar way, but i have no idea.
Probably not.

Brother None , how much do you guys think to reduce xp gains and leveling up ?
Say some rough estimate - no need for details, or specifics - im just trying to see if you look at it in the similar way i do now, after more detailed investigations.

 

[Excidium]

From what I saw, Unity shits itself almost anytime it tries an "open" environment.

I've never seen real evidence of that.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

We can't have good Map Design cause unity.

What

From what I saw, Unity shits itself almost anytime it tries an "open" 3D environment.

 

[Vashtu]

In the large, open areas, my computer slows down to a crawl, even on the fastest graphics settings. This makes it painful to play. I may quit completely.

 

[Grotesque]

Hey Brother None ! Would you please tell me if you intend to bring back this dialogue interface back?

 

[hiver]

No they dont.

Current one is fine, what it needs is more of the hidden options - that players need to type in themselves, - that actually have influence on things. Not just a cosmetic touch.

 

[Daedalos]

Don't.. looks like shit

 

[Excidium]

First they need to choose one conversation method and stick with it. What they have is some schizophrenic attempt to please everyone

 

[MicoSelva]

First they need to choose one conversation method and stick with it. What they have is some schizophrenic attempt to please everyone

True, the full-sentence versions of keywords are dull and a waste of everybody's time.

 

[Xeon]

The only thing I see that doesn't look good in that picture is probably the blue and green texts on a black background I think.

 

[Grotesque]

How can someone say that one in the left is aesthetically better than the one on the right?
Sure the one on the right can be made better with some tweaks but the one on the left is just some boxes with words.

The skeuomorphic GUI on the right has more soul into it, its more aesthetically appealing and with a few tweaks it would be far superior.
The graphical elements like the wires, the coil and the electric board convey a sense of originality and induces a specific mood when the current interface its just bland, feels rushed and has a cheapness to it. It does not transmit anything, it's oversimplified and has no flair.

 

[Athelas]

Why are you guys so obsessed with UI's?

The graphical elements like the wires, the coil and the electric board convey a sense of originality

 

[Xeon]

I think the Wasteland 2's first picture darkened or something? The text in Fallout and the red text in the second pic Grotesque posted is easily readable but in the W2's first pic is a little darker and slightly harder to read.

Anyway I really think a solid UI like Fallout or IE games is pretty good but from what I understand for scaling for different resolutions, a UI similar to the second picture is the most efficient for scaling or something. I think Ghostdog or one of the EE devs said that.

 

[Grotesque]

Why are you guys so obsessed with UI's?

USER INTERFACE. That could give you a clue.
And you can mock all the way you want.
"All production, no soul."