Game News Wasteland 2 Kickstarter Update #23: Gameplay Video!

[Infinitron]

I don't want to go too far into a gamism vs. simulationism argument (at least not in a WL2 thread, because WL2 seems to be on the right track), but I think Sawyer's going the wrong way if he tries to "fix" RPGs by tweaking mechanics because in this (and almost every other) case the actual problem is a static game world with little reactivity. Why don't the NPCs do anything if you blow up a door with dynamite in the middle of a town? Why does no one say anything if you murder the guard who comes to investigate the noise that comes from you bashing doors and containers? It's pretty obvious why someone would choose to pick a lock instead of blowing up the whole door, so why doesn't this translate into any game properly? How about trying to fix some of those things instead of limiting the player's options even further?

Not enough budget.

No, really. I'm all in favor of what you're proposing, but a 4 million dollar Kickstarter game that also needs to implement tactical combat that is actually challenging and expensive, lush 2D backdrops is not gonna be able to do it.

 

[Angthoron]

Funny how not a single IE game is on your list.
I don't say you are wrong per se, but you should be focused more on what the IE games did than Morrowind or Arcanum, because Sawyer does exactly that. For example, the split pools for combat/non combat skills, he said that it was how BG 2 worked, so they did it that way.
giving players a box of tools and letting them design their own gameplay That is the sandbox approach. Not a single one of the IE games was a sandbox,so i don't thing people should expect sandbox design. I'm not even convinced that the skills will be as importand in the game as some people here think they will be. Dialog won't have skills, and probably other aspects of the game too.

That's what I meant in my post, as well. It seems that Josh is kind of locked in some sort of a tunnel vision in regards of game design, and it will heavily influence a lot of other aspects of the game. And frankly, the way BG2 handled non-combat skills was pretty bad - lockpicking and pickpocket were useless in about 90% of the situations, and the remaining 10% could generally be safely skipped. Tracking was useless, too, there's like one or two times when it's used for anything remotely interesting. Hell, IWD2 did a better job with non-combat skills.

But you know what, why go after design decisions that are subpar? Why not go with superior stat-driven designs from FO and FO2, or, yes, even IWD2? I mean, does choosing such a design approach then mean that looking for secrets and getting into those secret locked rooms is going to be a completely trivial occasion, and the room will contain something awesome like a mushroom and a health potion, a-la Dragon Age Origins?

Infinitron Yeah, the only reason I can see such "streamlining" would be okay is due to budget constraints. However, if it's not budget but vision-related, then that vision is perhaps a little flawed.

 

[hiver]

Is it rocket science to understand that you will not be ABLE to bash every fucking door?

You should be able to attempt bashing every door, because all that requires is to tackle said door, or hitting it with an axe or hammer. If you will succeed with every door or not is another matter.

Im talking about what is in the game. Watch the video again.


When Chris mouses over a door with lock-picking skill, the pop up text says is it easy, (moderate, hard?) or impossible - same thing happens for bashing.
Plus he says that strength is relevant.
Plus he says, word for word:

"you can use strength on the door to break it down"
"You can use an RPG to blow it up"
"You can use demolitions on the door"
"You can pick it"
(in original - which they will - intend to keep for W2)

then:

"Lockpick isnt going to be the solution for every single door you find"

"this one here, brute force works"

"later on maybe demolitions...- "

 

[Infinitron]

Infinitron Yeah, the only reason I can see such "streamlining" would be okay is due to budget constraints. However, if it's not budget but vision-related, then that vision is perhaps a little flawed.

But why? Is the vision of chess flawed? Is simulation of a real or plausible world with ENDLESS OPSHUNZ!! the only worthwhile pursuit in RPG design?

 

[Rivmusique]

(and why should you even care in a single-player game)?

But that's essentially what this boils down to: allowing characters specialized in a weapon skill set to use the weapons or ammo they carry around with them to break open what would normally only be available to characters who specialize in Lockpick. What does a character who specializes in the Lockpick skill get out of this? Why would a player be motivated to invest in Lockpick if they could cherry-pick the best locks for demolition with an Explosives build or some shotgun rounds?

It's pretty simple. Gamists think that if you put something in a game, there should be a reason for somebody to play with it. Saying "it's there because it should be there in a plausible universe" isn't good enough.

But how would the player know the best locks to use their explosives on? Walkthrough? Save/reload on every lock? Why not remove lesser rewards for a poor/slow job on a mission, the minmaxing player will just reload anyway and try again? What is the concern, that one of these players gets online and complains about how easy the game is (not that this oh-so-great item/s you can get from lockpicking should trivialise the game anyway) even though they are obviously exploiting?

There could still be reasons to use a lockpick, there is the obvious of a forceful means of accessing a chest destroying fragile contents, maybe bashing/blowing down doors in towns gets you the attention of guards and shits all over your reputation for that town (and blows any chance of actually getting away with stealing anything, unless you fight your way out), maybe bashing your way into the house of a guy you are hunting alerts him so he kills a hostage and bails the scene, now you need to find him in a bandit camp, any shit like this. The players choice of approaches could lead to alternate paths through the game. If it is too much of a resource cost to allow that, fine, whatever. But it doesn't seem to me that having a bash or explosive alternative (even if they are only reliant on combat effecting attributes/skills) has to entirely remove a players (even these obsessive metagamers, who need to max out in a single player game) reasons to use lockpicking. Hell, lockpicking skill could also be used to reinforce a room you want to rest in during a dungeon crawl, preventing interruption (errr ... pretty P:E specific here, but whatever). Or have dialogue check applications at some point.

 

[Rake]

Funny how not a single IE game is on your list.
I don't say you are wrong per se, but you should be focused more on what the IE games did than Morrowind or Arcanum, because Sawyer does exactly that. For example, the split pools for combat/non combat skills, he said that it was how BG 2 worked, so they did it that way.
giving players a box of tools and letting them design their own gameplay That is the sandbox approach. Not a single one of the IE games was a sandbox,so i don't thing people should expect sandbox design. I'm not even convinced that the skills will be as importand in the game as some people here think they will be. Dialog won't have skills, and probably other aspects of the game too.

That's what I meant in my post, as well. It seems that Josh is kind of locked in some sort of a tunnel vision in regards of game design, and it will heavily influence a lot of other aspects of the game. And frankly, the way BG2 handled non-combat skills was pretty bad - lockpicking and pickpocket were useless in about 90% of the situations, and the remaining 10% could generally be safely skipped. Tracking was useless, too, there's like one or two times when it's used for anything remotely interesting. Hell, IWD2 did a better job with non-combat skills.

But you know what, why go after design decisions that are subpar? Why not go with superior stat-driven designs from FO and FO2, or, yes, even IWD2? I mean, does choosing such a design approach then mean that looking for secrets and getting into those secret locked rooms is going to be a completely trivial occasion, and the room will contain something awesome like a mushroom and a health potion, a-la Dragon Age Origins?

Infinitron Yeah, the only reason I can see such "streamlining" would be okay is due to budget constraints. However, if it's not budget but vision-related, then that vision is perhaps a little flawed.

Oh, i agree that the way BG2 handled non-combat skills was nothing to write home about. But i think they will try to improve upon that and not change it completely. Also that doesn't mean that stat-driven designs are imposible. Planescape:Torment hadn't skills, but it was stat-driven, and if they manage something similar in P:E i will be satisfied.
My point is that people will be inevitably disapointed if they expect P:E to be the new Fallout when the game aims to be the new BG2. It was clear from the start what direction the game was headed. The fact that some people expected a fallout/arcanum mix was wishfull thinking from the start.

 

[Infinitron]

What is the concern, that one of these players gets online and complains about how easy the game is (not that this oh-so-great item/s you can get from lockpicking should trivialise the game anyway) even though they are obviously exploiting?

Basically yes. We do live in the age of the Internet and Web 2.0, and the news of how to exploit a game spreads fast.

Josh thinks his job as a designer is to minimize exploits and maximize the utility of every aspect of a game's system. Other designers don't care about that stuff as much, they just want to create lots of content for their players to play with.

Personally, I see the virtues of both paths and I'm not opposed to either.

The problem is that on the Codex, there's an automatic knee-jerk reaction against anybody who is perceived as "restricting our options", due to a belief that imposing limitations on what the player can do automatically means that a game is dumber or easier (and to be fair, there have been plenty of AAA games where one of the motives for removing something from the game was a desire to avoid overwhelming consoletards' feeble brains with too many options, and these games were generally dumbed down in other ways as well, and so the fear is understandable)

 

[Brother None]

Im talking about what is in the game. Watch the video again.

Let me try!

You can try to bash every door in the game. You won't succeed every time, but you won't run out of leg. Leg is not a limited resource.

You might not be able to try to explode every door in the game, because there are probably not as many explosives as doors. Explosives are a limited resource.

The different methods will have different results on different doors, and may or may not work. That doesn't make them limited resources.

This seems like the prototypical case of "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you?" Anyone else wanna try? Anyone who manages to make hiver understand this pretty basic concept gets $5.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I think bringing up balance and character classes in the same sentence triggers a bit of a lizard brain, rage response as well. But, to be fair, 9/10 times anyone talks about balanced character classes they are generally talking about it in the context of combat heavy, single character, PvP focused games. That kind of balance would not serve a party based crpg very well.

 

[Angthoron]

Infinitron Yeah, the only reason I can see such "streamlining" would be okay is due to budget constraints. However, if it's not budget but vision-related, then that vision is perhaps a little flawed.

But why? Is the vision of chess flawed? Is simulation of a real or plausible world with ENDLESS OPSHUNZ!! the only worthwhile pursuit in RPG design?

No, it's because it's a vision he's apparently been keeping in more or less all the games he worked on. I won't say it's necessarily a bad thing, either, but neither is it good. From the way it sounds, Josh is convinced that a player specialized in anything should have enough skills to tackle any situation, and I just can't see how that is a good idea. People locked with one vision of design can produce some awesome things, and I am not saying that P:E won't necessarily be awesome because of the abovementioned (and otherwise discussed) reasons, but I do think that Josh could try to experiment with some different approaches to design as well. Who knows, maybe he'd find them as interesting and not much more expensive.

Fuck the door example, will the guy with a gun be as good at treating wounds as he is with the lockpick? And why make an RPG in that case? In an RPG, you're meant to make a character that's good at something and isn't good at something else. If you don't like it, get a character editor and make 10s and 100s in every stat and skill and be happy, no problem there. Want a character that's neither good nor bad at everything? Make something like a D&D Bard. Issue isn't there, issue's then in balancing combat elements so that you can actually complete all the main encounters as a character that's either jack-of-all-trades or, indeed, as a heavily combat-crippled character (or party). That can actually get expensive, too.


Also, I don't get this OMG SIMULATION, OMG STORYFAGGY and OMG GAMEY division thing. What the fuck is up with that? A game is either good or not, a game either has features or lacks them, and a game is primarily a fucking game. It may be story-heavy or it might be feature-rich, or it might have a lot of whimsical mechanics, but unless it's catering for a specific niche or market, why would it matter? Is this a way of being like "Oh, you're a storyfag, you won't appreciate this deep and meditative simulation", or "This game is about being killed a million times, why does it have to be realistic"? Who comes up with theories like this, seriously? Must we endlessly label every little clique available and then start the exclusion game? Since now, apparently, if I want more features rather than an all-permissive action-adventure setup, I'm a "Simulationist", which I was absolutely unaware of until today?

Edit: Also, mind you, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be universal solution items available in limited stock (assplosives to blow up that pesky door, auto-lockpick in the later game if you're playing a sci-fi-ish setting, and so on), but these should actually be rare, like you said earlier, and, unless you're cheating your way through, shouldn't be a universal approach to every door. Just some of those doors that you like.

 

[Infinitron]

From the way it sounds, Josh is convinced that a player specialized in anything should have enough skills to tackle any situation, and I just can't see how that is a good idea.

No, he's saying a player specialized in something should be able to tackle...something. Enough somethings to make that specialization worthwhile. I think that you might have a FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED understanding of his design philosophy.

Now, how do you define "worthwhile"? Good question, but I think it's something a good designer can put his finger on.

Also, I don't get this OMG SIMULATION, OMG STORYFAGGY and OMG GAMEY division thing. What the fuck is up with that? A game is either good or not, a game either has features or lacks them, and a game is primarily a fucking game. It may be story-heavy or it might be feature-rich, or it might have a lot of whimsical mechanics, but unless it's catering for a specific niche or market, why would it matter? Is this a way of being like "Oh, you're a storyfag, you won't appreciate this deep and meditative simulation", or "This game is about being killed a million times, why does it have to be realistic"? Who comes up with theories like this, seriously? Must we endlessly label every little clique available and then start the exclusion game? Since now, apparently, if I want more features rather than an all-permissive action-adventure setup, I'm a "Simulationist", which I was absolutely unaware of until today?

Well, you say "A game either has features or lacks them", with the implication that more features = better.

But a wise man once said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

 

[St. Toxic]

Not enough budget.

No, really. I'm all in favor of what you're proposing, but a 4 million dollar Kickstarter game that also needs to implement tactical combat that is actually challenging and expensive, lush 2D backdrops is not gonna be able to do it.

Why not drop the expensive, lush 2D backdrops? Who cares about eye candy when world reactivity is at stake?

 

[Brother None]

Why not drop the expensive, lush 2D backdrops? Who cares about eye candy when world reactivity is at stake?

Kickstarter backers.

 

[Angthoron]

From the way it sounds, Josh is convinced that a player specialized in anything should have enough skills to tackle any situation, and I just can't see how that is a good idea.

No, he's saying a player specialized in something should be able to tackle...something. Enough somethings to make that specialization worthwhile. How do you define "worthwhile"? Good question, but I think it's something a good designer can put his finger on.[/question]
Well, yes. A good example would be the way Torment tackles the Pillar of Skulls actually. You have one free question that you get answered no matter what, but for the rest, you must either walk away, or pay the price... Or, if you're specialized, you can lie to the pillar for one more free question. But you're not locked from it otherwise - you just get a bonus if you're REALLY good. Of course, I personally see unlocked doors and chests as bonuses for being a really good thief. If everyone can open the door with ease, then why even lock it, after all? A lot of games did that, after all - or even had no doors at all to open/close. It becomes unnecessary, just like what that quote says. I am a fan of that line of thinking myself, yes - a sculpture is perfect when there's nothing left to take away, not when there's nothing left to add.

Well, you say "A game either has features or lacks them", with the implication that more features = better.

But a wise man once said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

But that depends on the features, doesn't it? If a game is made more interesting or replayable with them rather than without, and adding them is not going to incur a massive additional cost in terms of time and money, why not consider them? Like I said above, locked doors in the form of "everyone can have a go" end up being essentially unlocked doors to begin with - you just waste time "pretending" that they matter. Of course, one could say that you can't open ALL doors right away as they might depend on your primary stat anyhow, but if they do, then you're just being lead along as the designers will be able to dictate your XP flow.

Of course, this leads to a rather funny point, where locking doors to begin with appears to be pointless, since in the end, there is no locked doors for the player. However, that's not the case, funny enough - as long as unlocking that door genuinely matters and isn't a mundane chore; as long as what's behind the door is useful or interesting or otherwise rewarding. Locked doors, after all, aren't only part of the game progression flow, they're also elements of exploration, and they're basically something that nu-BioWare for example has done horribly, horribly wrong. Don't make a ton of locked doors and chests and then put TOTALLY USELESS SHIT in them. In fact, THAT had fucked over specialists big-time in DA: O since well, the only reason I made a thief was because I'd want to gain access to places that other characters wouldn't, and whoopee, I got an extra shit-on-a-stick as a reward.

So yeah, I do agree, doors should be "openable" by most characters in most cases - but the most special of those should open only to specialists to award their dedication - or to people that found that key, or that mcguffin that will somehow open the shiz, depending on how mechanics roll. Dedication has to be rewarded - I just think that dedicating oneself to The Gun should award with more gun-specific things, like an ability to shoot/have first shot upon exiting a dialogue, have bonus reflexes against others' gun-based attacks and the likes, while a stealthy type, yes, would be able to open some extra doors that no-one else could.

Of course, this is just milling words, and "what-would-be-neat" kind of thinking while I'm tired and hungry, reality is that the game will end up the way it will end up and we have a very limited say on it (which is, in fact, good). I might disagree with some of Josh's design ideas, but if it ends up with a game being good, then what do I really care in the end.

 

[tuluse]

From the way it sounds, Josh is convinced that a player specialized in anything should have enough skills to tackle any situation, and I just can't see how that is a good idea.

I think he's actually saying the opposite. He seems to have 2 main design ideas.

1) Every skill should be equally valuable
2) Every skill should have a different application from every other skill

The problems I have with what he's doing so far is that I don't mind overlapping skills at all, and I have a different definition of value (fun). Like I thought it was fun to raise barter in Fallout so far that you could buy stuff and sell it back immediately for a profit. Money was never a problem in Fallout so this might not have been valuable in terms of beating the game, but it was fun.

 

[Cosmo]

From the way it sounds, Josh is convinced that a player specialized in anything should have enough skills to tackle any situation, and I just can't see how that is a good idea.

From what you make it sound, more like it. If that was true, every non combat skill in F:NV would systematically have had non-combat applications, and vice versa.
What's more, the game being centered around one character's skillset, i perfectly understand the will to cull all the potential skill overlap, to satisfyingly (and without any major disparity) cover the range of possible player interactions with the world.
And finally, in Sawyer's mind, and as demonstrated in his NV mod, corollary to this design philosophy is an xp system that is not too generous, in order to force the player into hard but meaningful skill choices (we could say a certain build). In the end, it's the designer's job to make every coherent build relevant gameplay-wise.

I also see what disturbs people in this approach : it's based on design economy and abstraction, not on the myriad of things that make you suspend your disbelief and immerse you in another world.
I it was up to me, i guess i'd let Josh design the abstract core rules, and then let another guy implement and fiddle with it, one that is in touch with the writers and designers.

 

[St. Toxic]

Kickstarter backers.

You're saying, what, that they're running the show? Fuck them, they'll get a shit game either way.

 

[tuluse]

Why not drop the expensive, lush 2D backdrops? Who cares about eye candy when world reactivity is at stake?

Kickstarter backers.

Also, they're trying to make an IE style game. Which were all glorified dungeon crawlers. They were never high on world reactivity. If they make fun combat, and an interesting story/world, they'll have succeeded at what they're trying to do. They're not trying to make a Fallout or Arcanum.

 

[Angthoron]

tuluse, Cosmo - Thanks bros, I've jumped in a bit "in the middle of things", so a bunch of stuff I sort of missed, plus being tired doesn't help. Will watch attentively after a bit of a break, then maybe post something a little more informed.

There's too much fucking door examples here, it makes a man wild with all the possibilities.

 

[EG]

Also, everyone complaining about using keywords to represent whole replies. Have you guys never played Ultima? I don't even mean Ultima 4. Ultima 7 still had the dialog like this, and it was a lot of fun.

I read so many wrong things about keywords system that i believe some dislike it because they don't know it or have only the Bethesda/Bioware experience of it.
And not everyone complains using keywords, far from it. Quite a lot of people like it better than dialog trees too.

They both offer the same thing, such as branching. [Info Dump] -> Ask/Attempt/Do/Acknowledge <-> [Info Dump]

One just does it in with a great deal more brevity than the other and offers a different tone of voice. One is functional; the other provides personality to that functional component (unless you do as Bethesda has done since inception . . . So help me, the next person that uses that as an example a "Why dialogs suck, lol." I'm going to verbally harass in a non-threatening and futile manner).

For me, it's this: I enjoy verbose, personalized, dialog rather than functional keywords.

 

[St. Toxic]

Also, they're trying to make an IE style game. Which were all glorified dungeon crawlers. They were never high on world reactivity. If they make fun combat, and an interesting story/world, they'll have succeeded at what they're trying to do. They're not trying to make a Fallout or Arcanum.

So, what we're looking at is a Diablo clone with (arguably) more tactical party-based combat?

For me, it's this: I enjoy verbose, personalized, dialog rather than functional keywords.

Yeah, me too. But if it's done badly, i.e the game forces you to say shit that goes against everything you stand for, I'd rather have keywords. At least they're more difficult to get completely wrong.

 

[tuluse]

Also, they're trying to make an IE style game. Which were all glorified dungeon crawlers. They were never high on world reactivity. If they make fun combat, and an interesting story/world, they'll have succeeded at what they're trying to do. They're not trying to make a Fallout or Arcanum.

So, what we're looking at is a Diablo clone with (arguably) more tactical party-based combat?

And an open world.

Spoiler

and the ability to pause

 

[EG]

Yeah, me too. But if it's done badly, i.e the game forces you to say shit that goes against everything you stand for, I'd rather have keywords. At least they're more difficult to get completely wrong.

I suppose my only ad hoc defense is that it isn't you, it's your character. Alternatively, that it's a failure of the writer to include a consistent option from one conversation to another. Uh, how about . . . "It's easier to get something right, when you don't bother trying at all!"

I'll . . . show myself out, Elder.

 

[Angthoron]

tuluse, Cosmo - Thanks bros, I've jumped in a bit "in the middle of things", so a bunch of stuff I sort of missed, plus being tired doesn't help. Will watch attentively after a bit of a break, then maybe post something a little more informed.

There's too much fucking door examples here, it makes a man wild with all the possibilities.

So yeah, I checked the thread a little more thoroughly and it seems that I misunderstood the latest conversation thread. Seems like Josh's ideas are pretty much what I was saying in my posts all along, minimal skill overlap + reward of chosen path. Hooray, I succeeded my reading comprehension check and attention deficiency save.

Still not sure what the whole "gamism" thing has to do with it though, if there's a door, I want that door opened, goddammit, and I'll be sure there's someone in my party that'll be able to open it. Cause fucking doors, man.

 

[tuluse]

EVERYONE has lock pick skills.

I don't think that's true. Any class can have lock pick skills, but that doesn't mean you'll invest points in it.

Even better, classes are all foremost paid attention to by the criterion of COMBAT usefulness. A wizard must deal similar kind of damage as a warrior and so must a rogue.

Equal combat utility does not mean equal damage. There will still be tanks, buffs, debuffs, hopefully he adds stuff to control positioning (IE combat with spells and abilities to control positioning would be great).