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

[Onholyservicebound]

This to distinguish it from Fallout's focus on build-based decision-making.

Pretty sure Wasteland had that same kind of decision making, and isn't Fallout a spiritual successor to Wasteland? Why would you want to get away from good aspects of those games?

 

[Brother None]

WL1 had much the same approach as WL2. In a full party of Rangers you tended to have at least all the major skills leveled up. Sure you might have missed out on Forgery or whatever, but you'd tend to have enough available of the others. From there on out the game was built on small and large reactivity to specific decisions, like stepping up on stage in that bar or walking into the waitress' room (my memory may be hazy on that one), and on experimentation, trying different solutions and skills on a problem until you got it right. But your decision-making was not commonly restricted by your PC's specific build since it too was a party-based cRPG and thus tended to have a very wide spread of skills available. In other words, like in any cRPG skills are a determinant, but the logics of skills availability and how it interplays with decision-making is different from heavily build-based cRPGs. As I also mentioned, all these cRPGs have a mix of all of them, Wasteland 2 included, it's just a matter of what your prioritize.

 

[hiver]

he is ignoring me... oh, the poor fuck...

 

[MasPingon]

Telling the truth, your post is unreadable. I skipped it too. Then I was curious why did you put so much effort into it , saw this

Are you completely out of your fucking mind?
- rhetorical.

And skipped it again. Hope that helps.

 

[sser]

Our behavior is different. How often have you seen a headline like this?--TWO DIE ATTEMPTING RESCUE OF DROWNING CHILD. If a man gets lost in the mountains, hundreds will search and often two or three searchers are killed. But the next time somebody gets lost just as many volunteers turn out. Poor arithmetic, but very human. It runs through all our folklore, all human religions, all our literature--a racial conviction that when one human needs rescue, others should not count the price.

A drowning child is so blatantly pastiche of a moral decision that there might as well not be an option to save or not save. I mean c'mon. Work within the frameworks of the setting. Post-apocalyptic hellhole. Children are massively important - but so are certain materials. Maybe the child isn't drowning - maybe he's staying the water because baying hounds are on the shoreline? You gotta waste ammo and resources to save him now, and who is he? Just some schmuck? Maybe he's the child of some evil asshole who you just fought for a long time. How able are you to set aside differences for a killer's kin? It's not so easy of a decision now, is it? Do something. All I see is an option to push over poles, one of which crushes him. And then people blame you for it? And they say he "drowned," ignoring what would be a massive bludgeoning crater in his head? And you can't just explain what happened because oops, nobody saw it? Not only is this a fucking retarded premise to begin with, but the conclusion is about a sturdy as the plot to a romcom.

Hiver also explained some other stupidities, like the commander giving you the "You're my only hope" spiel while being surrounded by plenty of men on hand. Stuff like that would be easy to fix. Just give players the option to be observant, say something like, "Uh... [looking around] We're your only hope huh?" And then the commander could just say, "What did you want me to say? You're another group of disposable cannon fodder?" Then you can have some playful banter and be off. The player is established to be starting from the ground up, disarming the notion that you're superhero NPC fits well with the setting, and you get a bit of humor.

 

[Infinitron]

A drowning child is so blatantly pastiche of a moral decision that there might as well not be an option to save or not save. I mean c'mon. Work within the frameworks of the setting. Post-apocalyptic hellhole. Children are massively important - but so are certain materials. Maybe the child isn't drowning - maybe he's staying the water because baying hounds are on the shoreline? You gotta waste ammo and resources to save him now, and who is he? Just some schmuck? Maybe he's the child of some evil asshole who you just fought for a long time. How able are you to set aside differences for a killer's kin? It's not so easy of a decision now, is it? Do something. All I see is an option to push over poles, one of which crushes him. And then people blame you for it? And they say he "drowned," ignoring what would be a massive bludgeoning crater in his head? And you can't just explain what happened because oops, nobody saw it? Not only is this a fucking retarded premise to begin with, but the conclusion is about a sturdy as the plot to a romcom.

I've always thought the drowning kid scenario was supposed to be a new take on the "Bobby and his dog" scenario from the first game. An 80sy, almost surrealistically out of place, why-the-fuck-am-I-even-doing-this-when-I-should-be-out-there-saving-the-world type of thing.

 

[Athelas]

Or you know, just bad writing.

 

[felipepepe]

Or you know, just bad writing.

There's no bad things in W2, just stuff that will change or are not Fallout.

 

[hiver]

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.

Ill take this opportunity to explain why am i saying that the game is force feeding you everything while felipepepe is saying the options are hidden from you.
Im talking about the main plots and scenarios and most of the choices you get. Thats all spoon fed.

Then there are these other, additional options - and they are very rare - which is what felipepepe is talking about.
They are not only hidden, but nonsensical. Pure nonsense.

And if you do them, there isnt any consequence, or its just some cheap text tweak or some sort of failure to create retarded cheap emotional drama.
Which fails because the scenarios are hamfisted and horribly constructed and written.
And because you dont give a flying fuck about any of those character models that you see for the first time. And never again.

Haven't played the beta, can anyone tell me the context of the Ralphie quest please?
It sounds like the choice in itself is very meta-gamey. If the choice is between "do the quest" and "ignore the quest" (which is the way I understand it right now) , it doesn't sound swell. Unless there are other factors into consideration, like if you're pressed by time with other concerns, the saving-quest might involve some real danger or other such tradeoffs. Otherwise, what would stop a newcomer from engaging in the quest?

The quest stupidity and the retarded, laughable ways you can solve it with.

There is no context.
its stupid shit that you get ambushed with each time you enter Rail Nomads for the first time.

The girl and the boy are romeo and juliet (Ralphie and Jessie to hammer that in a bit more), between two fighting sides, he is drowning and she, instead of doing everything possible to save him - as any person would for someone they love - runs to the entrance of the map - which is completely empty area - because she "knows" that the rangers will come there right that second - and she screams how he is drowning and runs back so you follow - then says "i cant stay here" and runs 20 meters away... - thats like because she is in enemy territory - while nobody sees her at all - even if she runs through the whole town a bit later - and there was that hidden witness right there all the time.... who doesnt react at all if you go and shoot the kid in the lake.

He is drowning because "the lake" ... pulled him in or... he just fell in and ... although he can swim (apparently) and there are some algae there... or... something...

- it really hurts my head to think about it.

Well that's disappointing.
What is the idea behind making this choice so "plain" ? Does Inxile feel giving more factors for the player to consider when making the choice would not make the game any better ?

I'm more than ok about having to make a tough call but turning this major choice into a coin flip seems like a waste.

There are no factors - and there are no consequences.

Ag center is presumably creating food for teh Wasteland and Highpool is producing water.

Two completely unrelated things - according to the geniuses who came up with that shit.
Ag center doesnt suffer lack of water if Highpool gets destroyed. Highpool chugs on happily if AG center gets destroyed.
As other places in the wasteland too.

AG center plot creates some infected villages later on - which happens regardless of what you do inside it and you get to deal with those places - and you get the serum to destroy the infestation - even if you let AG center get destroyed.

On the other hand HighPool creates this thing where you have to go and clean the bandits base - which happens regardless of what you do or if you let Highpool get destroyed.

 

[sser]

A drowning child is so blatantly pastiche of a moral decision that there might as well not be an option to save or not save. I mean c'mon. Work within the frameworks of the setting. Post-apocalyptic hellhole. Children are massively important - but so are certain materials. Maybe the child isn't drowning - maybe he's staying the water because baying hounds are on the shoreline? You gotta waste ammo and resources to save him now, and who is he? Just some schmuck? Maybe he's the child of some evil asshole who you just fought for a long time. How able are you to set aside differences for a killer's kin? It's not so easy of a decision now, is it? Do something. All I see is an option to push over poles, one of which crushes him. And then people blame you for it? And they say he "drowned," ignoring what would be a massive bludgeoning crater in his head? And you can't just explain what happened because oops, nobody saw it? Not only is this a fucking retarded premise to begin with, but the conclusion is about a sturdy as the plot to a romcom.

I've always thought the drowning kid scenario was supposed to be a new take on the "Bobby and his dog" scenario from the first game. An 80sy, almost surrealistically out of place, why-the-fuck-am-I-even-doing-this-when-I-should-be-out-there-saving-the-world type of thing.

Possibly - but even then the game makes no effort to acknowledge this idea. It's a game, not a movie. There's no "nonverbal" winking and nodding going on. The Bard's Tale remake/redux is probably the best example of a game riffing on tropes. Hoping the gamer will just "catch on" with no hinting at all is not a good idea. It just makes the game look poorly/lazily designed.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

Post-apocalyptic hellhole. Children are massively important - but so are certain materials.

I really don't thing that that in post-apoc children are anywhere near being important. Without medicine, proper hygiene and nutrition children mortality would return to 60-70% preindustrial rate. Children would become the most disposable thing ever, definitely not worth a good gun. Especially after contraceptives are gone.

 

[Infinitron]

Possibly - but even then the game makes no effort to acknowledge this idea.

*shrug* What would you expect it to do or say?

I think it's obvious that the drowning kid was Brian Fargo's attempt to "catch the lightning in the bottle" a second time and try to do what he did with the dog in Highpool in Wasteland 1. He's always talking about how many people back then found that little episode so compelling.

It was probably unwise of him; times have changed and people's expectations for thematic coherency and meaningfulness have grown. Used to be an RPG sidequest was just a cool/weird thing you could do, a novelty and change of pace in a genre that was mostly dominated by endless combat grind. Now the sidequests have become the gameplay and they have to like, mean something, or else "bad design".

 

[sser]

Possibly - but even then the game makes no effort to acknowledge this idea.

*shrug* What would you expect it to do or say?

I think it's obvious that the drowning kid was Brian Fargo's attempt to "catch the lightning in the bottle" a second time and try to do what he did with the dog in Highpool in Wasteland 1. He's always talking about how many people back then found that little episode so compelling.

It was probably unwise of him; times have changed and people's expectations for thematic coherency and meaningfulness have grown. Used to be an RPG sidequest was just a cool/weird thing you could do, a novelty and change of pace in a genre that was mostly dominated by endless combat grind. Now the sidequests have become the gameplay and they have to like, mean something, or else "bad design".

Meh, a few humorous lines could fix that right up. Honestly, a little better editing and extra lines could fix a lot of this shit. People have played so many games there's a lot to compare it to. The competition is more fierce. That scenario currently plays out like something designed for a Starcraft UMS. Not good, and all the heat and flak it's gotten kinda shows.

Post-apocalyptic hellhole. Children are massively important - but so are certain materials.

I really don't thing that that in post-apoc children are anywhere near being important. Without medicine, proper hygiene and nutrition children mortality would return to 60-70% preindustrial rate. Children would become the most disposable thing ever, definitely not worth a good gun. Especially after contraceptives are gone.

Children would be everything in a post-apoc world that is trying to rebuild itself. WL2 is in that "civilization back on stilts" phase of recovery in a post-apoc setting, so it's definitely at the point where hoarding women/children would become the #1 priority for your tribe/group/town/whatever.

 

[Onholyservicebound]

It's pretty much the opposite in reality, in the worst thirdworld shitholes birth rate is the highest, might as well be tied to infant mortality. When the offspring have low chance of success the investment in raising them isn't worth it, more evolutionary sound to pop out babies and cross your fingers.

Like sea turtles...

 

[Infinitron]

BTW, sser, have you played the game?

 

[hiver]

Our behavior is different. How often have you seen a headline like this?--TWO DIE ATTEMPTING RESCUE OF DROWNING CHILD. If a man gets lost in the mountains, hundreds will search and often two or three searchers are killed. But the next time somebody gets lost just as many volunteers turn out. Poor arithmetic, but very human. It runs through all our folklore, all human religions, all our literature--a racial conviction that when one human needs rescue, others should not count the price.

Nice. Now add the fact that she and the boy are Juliet and Romeo - but she doesnt do anything to help him? And runs away - because - according to BN - of the feud between two sides and what her daddy would say?
mexican soap operas have better plots then that.

A drowning child is so blatantly pastiche of a moral decision that there might as well not be an option to save or not save. I mean c'mon. Work within the frameworks of the setting. Post-apocalyptic hellhole. Children are massively important - but so are certain materials.

Nice, expected idea but i have to correct you in few things, unfortunately.
The place isnt a hellh hole at all. It even has its own water. And there is no scarcity of anything in the game. At all.

Maybe the child isn't drowning - maybe he's staying the water because baying hounds are on the shoreline? You gotta waste ammo and resources to save him now, and who is he? Just some schmuck?

You regularly try to trade surplus ammo and all other resources - because all your rangers get encumbered very easily.
Ralphie is just some inconsequential schmuck.

Commander giving you the "You're my only hope" spiel while being surrounded by plenty of men on hand. Stuff like that would be easy to fix. Just give players the option to be observant, say something like, "Uh... [looking around] We're your only hope huh?" And then the commander could just say, "What did you want me to say? You're another group of disposable cannon fodder?" Then you can have some playful banter and be off. The player is established to be starting from the ground up, disarming the notion that you're superhero NPC fits well with the setting, and you get a bit of humor.

Thats a nice easy way to get the game going, though... later on, one would wander why all those rangers arent doing a single thing about any of these important matters.

Telling the truth, your post is unreadable. I skipped it too.
And skipped it again. Hope that helps.

It makes me think you are a moron. Hope that helps.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

Post-apocalyptic hellhole. Children are massively important - but so are certain materials.

I really don't thing that that in post-apoc children are anywhere near being important. Without medicine, proper hygiene and nutrition children mortality would return to 60-70% preindustrial rate. Children would become the most disposable thing ever, definitely not worth a good gun. Especially after contraceptives are gone.

Would that not make Children even more precious? Think about it. A world where human resource is probably the most important thing.

It would not make them more precious. In this scenario basically everyone would have lost a few children. You either lost sanity or cease to care. And people would chose to cease to care. I know it, because it's what people were doing since recorded history until the end of the XIX century. Rich mothers were not raising their own kids and instead were just turning them to their servants for nursing. When they grow up, they would be then send to some far away school, and often not seen for a few years by their parents. Nobody cared for children back then, and children labour in factories ceased somewhere in the mid XIX century.

 

[felipepepe]

I find this whole "the importance of children" debate pointless in a game where the surviving population is surrounded by rusting cars, planes, helicopters, guns and even make their houses out of metal sheets, yet uses scrap as currency.

Hiver's point about how there's is no scarcity whatsoever in W2 is a great one.

 

[Infinitron]

Maybe it's a fiat currency.

 

[hiver]

This is for people reading this, not a reply to the bn.

I've given multiple examples where things change because of decisions you make, I have brought up the fact that the game world recognizes you ignoring this mission exactly once just a few hours ago, and that was primarily to make the point of how easy it can be to miss WL2's reactivity because it reacts to actions you may not be likely to make.

In truth, the reaction to this particular "choice" - is ZERO. Nothing. Nada. Nula. - nothing happens.

Shooting the witness to Ralphy's drowning,

Who only appears if you try to save Ralphie but accidentally fail or you delay for a few seconds too much.
But doesnt do anything if you go and shoot the fucking retard in the lake yourself.
Or doesnt do anything about or even sees that enemy Atchinson (Jessie) standing right there, running around screaming - OR DOESNT DO ANYTHING TO HELP RALPHIE EITHER.

- How about getting Angela to shoot ralphie? She is the one who says "cmonn! we have tio save that kid!" - Nothing happens at all. Vargas doesnt call to say how bad it is from you either. But he does call if you try to save the kid and then accidentally fail - because he telepathically knows what you did!

having Angela with you for the bomb scene,

Bomb scene? Havent seen that one yet... i guess?

having Angela with you when you talk to the trader in RNC,

Is a cheap failure at creating some extreme emotional engagement since she kills him - AFTER YOU GET WHAT YOU NEED FROM HIM - for which the game provides three different ways. Smart ass skill option, Hard ass skill option - or just mentioning he was mentioned in Aces log book pages you found previously in the cave in Radio Tower area - which is MARKED BY A BRIGHT LIGHT SHINING OVER THE ENTRANCE.

having Scotchmo with you when you dig up a certain grave,

Its a grave of his WIFE - WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNMARKED (the only completely unmarked grave in that graveyard) - he attacks you and you have to kill him - WHICH RESULTS IN IMMEDIATE RELOAD. - (and you will never do it again).

working through missions to back Kathy's candidacy,

You have to work through those missions anyway, and there is no consequences of that except another TEXT TWEAK.

prioritizing the radio over the pipes,

Why the fuck would i? Dont Rangers need that water? I think i distinctly heard general Vargas talking about how HIGHPOOL SUPPLIES WATER FOR RANGERS AND TEH WASTELAND.

letting the witness to Hegedus live and not convincing him,

In the retarded scenario where the sick woman is begging you to kill her and the game DOES NOT LET YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE? - edit- you can walk away (leaving poor sick woman to suffer) and reactivity will be ZERO.

deciding not to follow up on either AgCenter or Highpool, etc etc.

Nothing happens, you get the serum, infected villages and the wreckers base missions all the same.

You decided to latch on to this one.

It wasnt him who was latching onto anything.

The point I was making in general is these decisions are made by player agency (and, secondarily, party makeup), not by build,

Therefore W2 is not a RPG game, but another larp simulator ghoul feasting on Fallout corpse.

and a lot of them are unobvious

because they are completely retarded and dont achieve anything different except some text tweaks and nonsense.

but none of them illogical or random.

As everyone can see.

This to distinguish it from Fallout's focus on build-based decision-making.

This can be said only by someone who has never played Fallout games.

What I like in particular is when dropping one path like this another opens, which is how AgCenter/Highpool currently works.

Thats either an outright lie, or youre just incredibly stupid.

Maybe I'll pen something up to do something similar with Ralphy drowning and Jessie returning with a vengeance later.

Thats a completely idiotic nonsensical idea. I think you should ... :snort: "pen something down" indeed. Make it eclectic.

 

[felipepepe]

having Angela with you for the bomb scene,

Bomb scene? Havent seen that one yet... i guess?

On that bycicle near the drowning kid, there's a bomb. Angela will bark to warn you.

This is no more than what Fallout already did (but W2 is not Fallout), with party menbers talking about the surroundings, like Myron telling how his Jet slaved Redding to the New Reno families when you enter town with him. While that was just a nice flavor in Fallout, here it seems to be the main dish...

 

[undecaf]

I wonder if it could work to randomize the event of drowning between a different scenario where the kids are just chatting about some shit at the beach and when approached ask not to rat on them (which will become clear to the player as to why, later - and a new bit of consequence if the player does). It doesn't really do anything significant to the big picture, but it could be interesting to experiment a bit with such a small event; and it wouldn't appear as such a forced introduction to the place (as it sounds) if there was a possibility for a slightly different scenario for each playthrough.

No matter though, it's probably too much work for too little gain anyway, but it could potentially offer some interesting little nuances for the scene if there was a possibility for something like that. Just a random thought since InXile seems to be in for little things like that.

 

[hiver]

On that bycicle near the drowning kid, there's a bomb. Angela will bark to warn you.

Oh, that one... She will bark? Really?

gee, i have to take her there to... no, no, no, im joking... ive already seen that. How does that make any sort of reactivity? - scraping the barrels there...

The scene is idiotic in multiple ways, first as a horrible hamfisted fake setup - just after you went through Ralphie darwin award attempt - he and Jessie run straight next to that bike - even if Jessie is like, not supposed to be seen in topeekans part of the town, right?...(so much so that she would let her love drown to avoid someone seeing her or her dad having a word about it)

And then its supposed to kill Jessie because she chooses just that moment to go closer to the bike. BECAUSE ! EXTREME EMOTIONAL STUFF ABOUT GAME MODELS YOU SEE FIRST TIME AND NEVER AGAIN!
- and then later on, you can like REVEAL that amazing fact to her father - who is the one who planted that very bomb there - and she doesnt react to that at all? And he isnt capable of figuring out what a bomb on childrens playground can do? (plus, when you like... pick one of the options for peaceful solution he literally says "enough of our children have died... lets end this..." - and you the player can just facepalm.


Everyone knows there is a bomb on that fucking bike by now. And now - because backers complained, you can just shoot it.
Why do you need angela to bark about it? It can only surprise you once - first time you play and you managed not to hear about it somehow. And its such a idiotic scene-right after another completely idiotic scene that it can only make you vomit.
Its nothing that any player will seriously consider as some option he should let happen for many reasons.

what the fuck is that but another text tweak that changes nothing and does nothing.



undecaf
youre just too nice bro. very optimistic. i dig that.
But, if someone is drowning... there should be a reason why he is drowning. not to mention anything else. And inxile already has their genious game designer expert who will "pen something down" in an eclectic way, man.
- not to mention inxile isnt up for randomizing anything.

Maybe you can do me a favor and ask him, since he has put me on ignore now so he doesnt have to see bad things that bother his brain, what is the actual worst thing about design of Level Lupe mine?
He should know, being so arrogant to tell other people here how they dont understand game design.

ask him to "pen something down", will ya? pretty please? with sugar and cream on top?

- anyone?

 

[undecaf]

youre just too nice bro. very optimistic. i dig that.
But, if someone is drowning... there should be a reason why he is drowning. not to mention anything else. And inxile already has their genious game designer expert who will "pen something down" in an eclectic way, man.

Maybe you can do me a favor, since he has put me on ignore now so he doesnt have to see bad things that bother his brains, what is the actual worst thing about design of Level Lupe mine?
He should know, being so arrogant to tell other people here how they dont understand game design.

ask him to "pen something down", will ya? pretty please? with sugar and cream on top?

Nah, I just try to keep my pulse down until it matters. Folk here are doing a fine job bringing some of the problems to light. My point was just to wrap some extra bacon around the shit to make it look a bit more interesting, not to bypass fixing the issue.

I'm also pretty sure he's too curious to completely pass you over. I don't use the ignore function myself, but if I did, I couldn't help myself to take a peek even if I knew my eyes would start gushing blood.

 

[MasPingon]

If there is a fanclub of felipepepe somewhere, I want to join.


felipepepe:
Messages:
10,549
Brofists Received:
11,292


Oh, I'm already in.