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

[Zed]

never thought I'd brofist hiver but glancing over his humongous post I can see some good critique and suggestions.

I really don't want WL2 to be delayed. I want production on Torment 2 to start in my lifetime

 

[Brother None]

I've pointed out before but will point out again that balance passes are generally among the last things you do when designing an RPG. These points about skill points and XP balance are more than fair but the assumption that this is "working as intended" as if for a final game is erroneous. A lot can and will change about the way skill progression and XP accruing works, until we arrive at a point where the game is satisfyingly challenging for a party-based RPG (treating it as if it should have the skill and build scope of a single-PC RPG doesn't really work) - not to mention difficulty levels are actually full implemented (I do not believe they're anything close to now). That's just a part of how this process works. That and yes, if you go somewhere else and grind, the starting areas will be very easy. No shit.

I'll give another go at explaining the dissonance in reactivity and choice and consequence we keep having on the Codex, and this is all on high-level conceptual point, not so much speaking to specific quests or locations that need more work (we've said time and again we are still working on and expanding reactivity, pretty much constantly). We tend to just talk about C&C as one thing but as a concept it encompasses numerous choices and reactive structures you can build into a game, even beyond the idea of "fake" (text-tweak-only) consequences. Choices can be restricted by the character build, by player conversation choice, or by player gameplay actions. The reactivity can be local or global, and it can be narrative or emergent. Fallout is a good example of a heavy emphasis on build-based choices and global reactivity. Wasteland 2's primary focus is player gameplay choice, with local and narrative reactivity. As we progress we're adding more global reactivity (think of the changes to the radio tower quest) and emergent reactivity (such as the Highpool election, which has preceding factors determining and limiting the outcome), but some of the dissonance here is coming from the fact that there is an expectation on WL2 to act like a single-character build-choice-based game like Fallout (or, indeed, AoD). That is always going to be a lesser factor (though build restrictions will be a factor, obviously) in part because that's just not what we set out to do (and that is in large part because it makes a lot less sense for a party-based RPG).

This is a player gameplay choice based game, which means that yes, a lot of times all options will be available to you, and it is up to you to discover them all and choose one of the ones available to you. The idea however that making a choice such as Highpool-versus-AgCenter or RNC conflict resolution or even the different outcomes of Highpool's crisis and election is somehow "false" or "less" for not being restricted by character build is not, in my opinion, the right way of looking at it, because it's still exclusive and real in its consequences. It would be if we were judging this as a Fallout sequel but it's not, its got its own personality unique in different ways from both Fallout and its direct predecessor. And the possibilities you have with player gameplay action as the primary choice factor can be fascinatingly varied and much more granular; the game doesn't need to force or guide a player towards these choices or loudly call them out because it's ok to us if people miss them (for instance, it is easy to miss that you can opt not to engage in the Ralphie mission if you desire not to, walk away and the game treats that scenario differently). It may take a long, long time before people work through all the little and large chances and reactive paths the game has. There can be a non-ideal choices? Sure, but that doesn't mean a player's not free to make the choice, and that the game won't react to it (and offer new options, which means it is often not purely "opportunity lost"). I can understand a general preference for build-based choice restrictions but that preference does not in my mind negate that WL2's local, choice-based, narrative reactivity is fundamentally more complex and real than the generally cosmetic reactivity that has become the trademark of cRPGs. It shows a fundamental lack of design understanding to go "this game does not have build-restricted choices, so it is doing it wrong", when in the end the game already evinces minor and major choices and consequences with a granularity and scope that rivals early Fallout 1/2, simply framed in a different way.

How you feel about how it's set up, presented and integrated into map design is an entirely different issue.

 

[Athelas]

the game doesn't need to force or guide a player towards these choices or loudly call them out because it's ok to us if people miss them

I thought one of the primary complaints about the beta was that it does? The Ralphie situation, the 'binary' choice between Ag Center and Highpool, etc.

Besides, it's not as if that aspect wasn't present in plenty of cRPG's. Nobody in Fallout tells you the purple robes can be used as a disguise to sneak into the Cathedral and Mariposa bases. It's also a solution that isn't governed by a stat or skill check.

 

[Brother None]

Right, and Wasteland 2 focuses more on those kind of choices as opposed to build-based ones. It's always a mix, and WL2 does have and will no doubt have more build-based choices (especially later on as all-rounders become harder to maintain), but its primary focus lies elsewhere.

And yes, there are obvious, guided scenarios. But there are also plenty of occurrences where you just "try something out" and discover something new, even within those (like I said, in Ralphie it's not necessarily obvious that you can walk away and no Topekan will have seen you, or that if you are in fact seen letting him die you can quickly shoot the witness and that will change the way the scenario plays out - other games would there open a dialog and walk you through the choice, in WL2 you just do it or you don't)

 

[imweasel]

Hiver really loves the return key.




Oh yes he does.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

changing levels xp requirements and skill gains looks like quite a basic mod to make. Strange that anybody hasn't already made it. Nice if all difficulty setting would be in an .ini file, for obvious reasons...


@Brother None , what about traits and perks? Still going to be implemented or did inXile cut them?

Besides, it's not as if that aspect wasn't present in plenty of cRPG's. Nobody in Fallout tells you the purple robes can be used as a disguise to sneak into the Cathedral and Mariposa bases. It's also a solution that isn't governed by a stat or skill check.

Does the fact that there are purple robes presented as an item, tells us that? Is there anybody, who having seen them, not thought those can be used for sneaking?

 

[tuluse]

I'm going to disagree with both felipepepe and Brother None

Fallout 1/2 would still demonstrate their c&c if you started with 200% in every skill. Using the example of getting Vic back. The interesting thing isn't really how you've built your character, but the options available to the player from tools he or she has chosen. If you give them all the tools, it would still be an interesting scenario with many approaches.

The problem I have with Wasteland 2 so far is the relative simplicity of the scenarios. For example in the Ag Center, there is no real alternative to just killing all the bad things. You can't reason with the mutated bunnies, you can't science! your way through the veggies either. Sneaking isn't implemented yet (and it's looks like might never be?), so you can't sneak/steal something to solve the problem. The only solution is a dungeon crawl. In Fallout 1, if there were any quests could only be resolved by dungeon crawls, they were optional (and I don't think there are any). Fallout 2 is worse about this, and the codex holds it in lower regard.

None of this has anything to do with single character vs party. It doesn't really have anything to do with many good but really tangential complains by felipepepe or Hiver. At the end of the day, Wasteland 2 is about choosing which dungeon crawl you want to do and then seeing consequences from that. Which, I guess is an ok design decision, it's basically what the Witcher series does, but it doesn't really fit an open world RPG and it doesn't seem to match up with the most reactive RPG of all time rhetoric.

This is why I think InXile should focus on the combat. Make the dungeon crawls as fun as possible and then the RPG elements built on top will seem like icing on a cake instead of empty calories as the main meal.

ps, I haven't spent much time with the latest patch, apparently Highpool is a much more interesting location.

 

[Daedalos]

wl2 will be gud

 

[felipepepe]

the game doesn't need to force or guide a player towards these choices or loudly call them out because it's ok to us if people miss them (for instance, it is easy to miss that you can opt not to engage in the Ralphie mission if you desire not to, walk away and the game treats that scenario differently).

It's ok to you guys, but is it ok to the players? We talk a lot about games like Bioshock: Infinite offering the "illusion of choice", how that pleases popamoles but annoys anyone willing to dig a little deeper... making a game that has a "illusion of no choice" sounds cool (in that counter-culture feeling), but how will people react to it? Or even, will people uncover it without you guys explaining?

I mean, I did what you said about running from the drowning kid, and posted it here honestly thinking it was a bug...

 

[Grunker]

Lack of information is always shitty. Decisions should be hard and/or test your skills because you're forced to make a difficult but informed choice, not because you're trying to guess how the developers coded the game to act.

What felipepepe quoted is the C&C equivalent of bad game system documentation. trying to figure out what decisions are available to you is about as fun as trying to choose between to two perks on level-up with no documentation available on what each perk does.

(of course I realize you can have cool stuff like the player needing to actually do research in the game to discover a choice, or lacking skills for one or whatever - but bronone's example is of another variety: it's asking the players to ass-pull information on how a specific situation is crafted)

 

[tuluse]

Lack of information is always shitty. Decisions should be hard and/or test your skills because you're forced to make an informed choice, not because you're trying to guess how the developers coded the game to act.

What felipepepe quoted is the C&C equivalent of bad game system documentation. trying to figure out what decisions are available to you is about as fun as trying to choose between to two perks on level-up with no documentation available on what each perk does.

It depends how it's presented. Often "finding" the extra choices is what makes an RPG and makes it fun. This is basically the core of Arcanum.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Reading your post it's really hard to understand what you'
re trying to convey felipe. You seem to prefer the Mass Effect/Witcher-style experience, where every choice the player can make is cinematically announced to him.

DA DUM! Choices time! Safe the village or let itbe destroyed by the Raiders! Remember, this is a CHOICE! DECIDE WISELY1

This feels more like chose your own adventure book than well done C&C. What I loved about games like Arcanum and Fallout was that the choices were less obvious, they felt like a natural part of the gameworld, not something the devs railroad you into.

Grunker the same goes for you. I have the impression you're advocating multilinear railroading, not C&C as a natural element of a well simulated and believable world.

 

[Grunker]

Lack of information is always shitty. Decisions should be hard and/or test your skills because you're forced to make an informed choice, not because you're trying to guess how the developers coded the game to act.

What felipepepe quoted is the C&C equivalent of bad game system documentation. trying to figure out what decisions are available to you is about as fun as trying to choose between to two perks on level-up with no documentation available on what each perk does.

It depends how it's presented. Often "finding" the extra choices is what makes an RPG and makes it fun. This is basically the core of Arcanum.

I think you missed the () I edited in. Of course doing legwork and finding hidden places to use skills and such can be meaningful and fun, because they test both your ingenuity and ability to play the game. However, Brother None's example seems more like you just guessing that there are actually choices available to you that you can't discover meaningfully, except that if you do nothing the game will at one point randomly react differently.

What I'm saying is that there's a different between a skillfully hidden choice and a question of guessing whether the developers took your action into consideration or not.

You seem to prefer the Mass Effect/Witcher-style experience, where every choice the player can make is cinematically announced to him.

That has to be one of the most blatant strawmen I've read on this site lately

 

[FeelTheRads]

And how do you figure it should be made so there's no "guessing" but no telling it directly either?

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Grunker, yeah whatever, I'm just trying to make sense of what Felipe said. Brother None said it's okay if people miss a choice. I agree perfectly with that. Felipe seems to take issues with it. So what exactly is it you guys want?

 

[Hobz]

I haven't played the beta and I see you guys referring to this choice between the highpool and the ag center. From were I stand it sound pretty uninteresting and binary (non-involving coin flip kind of binary), so I have a few questions if you don't mind educating me.

How is the choice coming to the player ?
Do you get to visit both places or talk to people trying to convince you beforehand ?
Is the player torn between different interests ? (like the region's, the player's, the ranger center's etc...)

Or is it just a totally uneducated choice simply there to encourage you to make a second playthrough ?

 

[felipepepe]

It depends how it's presented. Often "finding" the extra choices is what makes an RPG and makes it fun. This is basically the core of Arcanum.

Arcanum has a wonderful work of setting, documentation and presentation to make that work. Your quest is to give the ring to Mr. Bates, but on your way you'll hear rumors about him having a old enemy that might be interesting to talk to before choosing anything... but even if you miss that, you'll have various choices with Bates, including blackmailing or betraying him.

W2 solutions are hidden from the player, not only by the presentation, but by the gameplay itself. We're talking about a game where combat encounters are mandatory and artificially packed together... you can't even snipe an enemy without everyone else rushing to you immediately. While playing this game, you'll never think about escaping from quests, and it's something never hinted to you.

Imagine that in DOOM one of the enemy demons in a room full of other demons wants to change sides, and if you kill the others, spare him, throw him a weapon he will fight alongside you. It's awesome, but no one will ever see it. They'll just shoot everyone, like they have been doing for the past hours, because that's what the game has been about and nothing pointed to this.

Reading your post it's really hard to understand what you'
re trying to convey felipe. You seem to prefer the Mass Effect/Witcher-style experience, where every choice the player can make is cinematically announced to him.

DA DUM! Choices time! Safe the village or let itbe destroyed by the Raiders! Remember, this is a CHOICE! DECIDE WISELY1

This feels more like chose your own adventure book than well done C&C. What I loved about games like Arcanum and Fallout was that the choices were less obvious, they felt like a natural part of the gameworld, not something the devs railroad you into.

You mean CHOICE TIME: HIGHPOOL OR AG. CENTER?

Yeah, that's not interesting. And again, completely hidden choices, like "run away from the quest giver before anyone sees you" aren't cool either. Arcanum and Fallout are cool because you reach the non-obvious choices by yourself; there's a sense of achievement because they aren't thrown in your face, but they also make sense and are slightly hinted.

I haven't played the beta and I see you guys referring to this choice between the highpool and the ag center. From were I stand it sound pretty uninteresting and binary (non-involving coin flip kind of binary), so I have a few questions if you don't mind educating me.

How is the choice coming to the player ?
Do you get to visit both places or talk to people trying to convince you beforehand ?
Is the player torn between different interests ? (like the region's, the player's, the ranger center's etc...)

Or is it just a totally uneducated choice simply there to encourage you to make a second playthrough ?

You're on the map, Vargas calls via radio and tells you to CHOOSE, without any knowledge of wtf these places even are.

 

[Grunker]

And how do you figure it should be made so there's no "guessing" but no telling it directly either?

You don't see any difference between having to blindly guess that if you just ignore the mission the game will ackknowledge that as a choice, and then a hidden skill check if you investigate an area properly?

Why am I not surprised.

Grunker, yeah whatever, I'm just trying to make sense of what Felipe said. Brother None said it's okay if people miss a choice. I agree perfectly with that. Felipe seems to take issues with it. So what exactly is it you guys want?

Because it's not some binary difference. You can't just divide all choices into obvious and hidden ones and then say "ok so are these good or bad?" Obviously it depends on design. And the design example BroNone and Felipe are discussing, sucks.

 

[felipepepe]

In Wasteland 2 I can kill the entire population of Highpool without anyone caring, and then call Vargas for a promotion. But if I let one boy drown, Vargas immediately calls me on the radio, extremely pissed and everyone in the world knows that I let the kid die.

On this scenario, how can I even imagine that ignoring the girl's request for aid and walking away will free me from any consequences? Why won't the girl tell everyone that I ignored her, when she cries out to the world that I let the boy die even when I'm trying to help? IT MAKES NO SENSE! It's not a hidden choice, is a fucking hole in the game's logic.

 

[tuluse]

I think you missed the () I edited in. Of course doing legwork and finding hidden places to use skills and such can be meaningful and fun, because they test both your ingenuity and ability to play the game. However, Brother None's example seems more like you just guessing that there are actually choices available to you that you can't discover meaningfully, except that if you do nothing the game will at one point randomly react differently.

What I'm saying is that there's a different between a skillfully hidden choice and a question of guessing whether the developers took your action into consideration or not.

I wrote my reply before your edit, yes.

I think we're in agreement here.

 

[tuluse]

In Wasteland 2 I can kill the entire population of Highpool without anyone caring, and then call Vargas for a promotion. But if I let one boy drown, Vargas immediately calls me on the radio, extremely pissed and everyone in the world knows that I let the kid die.

On this scenario, how can I even imagine that ignoring the girl's request for aid and walking away will free me from any consequences? Why won't the girl tell everyone that I ignored her, when she cries out to the world that I let the boy die even when I'm trying to help? IT MAKES NO SENSE! It's not a hidden choice, is a fucking hole in the game's logic.

I don't think this is completely fair because I'm pretty sure they plan to add murdering civilian checks and it just isn't in yet.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Why am I not surprised.

Might SURPRISE you, but it wasn't a sarcastic question. Of course you hardly get anything that's being told to you, so why am i not surprised

And what exactly is the problem with ignoring a mission and expecting that to have a consequence? It's not the same as looking for alternate solutions, but it's a valid choice.

So the questions is how you make this:

or that if you are in fact seen letting him die you can quickly shoot the witness and that will change the way the scenario plays out - other games would there open a dialog and walk you through the choice

without spelling it our for the player? Getting a dialogue option is pretty much spelling it out.

 

[felipepepe]

I don't think this is completely fair because I'm pretty sure they plan to add murdering civilian checks and it just isn't in yet.

K', let's say that the killing people is just beta stuff, just focus on the drowning boy thing then:

Try to help him and fail = girl tells everyone that you're an asshole that let the kid die, everyone hates you.
Ignore the girl's plead for help and walk away, resulting in the boy's death = valid option, no one cares, girl never says anything.

What sense this makes?

 

[tuluse]

K', let's say that the killing people is just beta stuff, just focus on the drowning boy thing then:

Try to help him and fail = girl tells everyone that you're an asshole that let the kid die, everyone hates you.
Ignore the girl's plead for help and walk away, resulting in the boy's death = valid option, no one cares, girl never says anything.

What sense this makes?

No, this part of the complaint is fair, just the lack of reaction to murdering is something they've said will be in the final game, and I have no reason to believe that won't make it in.

 

[Grotesque]

One of the best moments in Fallout 2 I had was when trying to get into Vault City but I was not allowed and I had the idea to strip and remain in my jumpsuit and initiate dialogue with the entrance officer.
I was allowed to enter in no time and the dialogue conveyed the amazement of the officer to see another vault dweller that came from the wasteland!