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

[EG]

From twice the writing to four times the writing.

And now be honest and tell me: Is that really so much an issue?

Frankly, I've never written something of this scope. I just don't know.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Frankly, I've never written something of this scope. I just don't know.

So it is a matter of expert opinion. I wonder who could help us.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

The text based branching dialogue system?

Indeed. My issue is that no matter how witty and imaginative the dialogue writers are, most times you inevitably end up with varying degrees of this:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-23-gameplay-video.80413/page-10#post-2488179

PS:T is, from what I remember, one of the only exceptions but I really wouldn't want this game to read like PS:T so of course I'm not bothered. Fallout's PC dialogue made me laugh many times but also fell into that same trap. I just don't think it's necessary to have the player characters have established dialogue. I'm far more interested in what the NPCs have to say.

I can see why many of you don't like this but I am surprised there aren't more who aren't bothered by it.

 

[EG]

It's not your mouth. It's your characters' mouth.

Same goddamn difference and you know that's what I meant.

No, I'm starting to get the impression some of you don't want to play a character, you want to play yourselves. The difference is one can be accounted for by the writing staff, the other can't.

Mind, this isn't an impression I've gotten from you, Twinkie, but one can never be too careful.

 

[tuluse]

I can see why many of you don't like this but I am surprised there aren't more who aren't bothered by it.

People who aren't bothered by something usually don't take the time to post about it. It looks like the reaction to the video as a whole has been positive around these parts.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

No, I'm starting to get the impression some of you don't want to play a character, you want to play yourselves.

Well, I don't know. I don't think so. 'Least not the way I see it. I liken it more to the difference between character creation and selecting pre-made characters. Having only keywords is obviously an extreme, but it really doesn't bother me. I prefer that sort of vague ambiguity over "You are Geralt!" type RPGs anyway.

 

[Infinitron]

This thread:

 

[Vault Dweller]

I suppose it was to be expected we'd have a group of people who never played Wasteland expecting Wasteland 2 to be more like Fallout than Wasteland.

Is that why they changed the combat system?

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Is what why? The fact that it was expected?

 

[EG]

Is what why? The fact that it was expected?

The fact that it was like that in the original.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Why is everyone butthurt about keywords? Their implementation (from my understanding) is functionally the same thing as a typical dialogue tree, correct?

It's ruining their immurshan. They can't see the Fear in the Ork's Eye when their dialog isn't spelled out for them.

Not the same and you know that.

Well written dialogue lines are always better than dry keywords and they add quite a lot to the atmosphere and feeling of having a proper conversation. The keywords have one advantage and so far it's not being used. A complex keyword system can offer what written lines can't - flexibility and a large number of different options and tones.

 

[tuluse]

It's being used here as an abstraction to account for the whole party being part of the conversation.

It also offers a 2nd advantage, which they do use, entering your own keywords which you've figured out to get more info or easter eggs.

 

[EG]

It's being used here as an abstraction to account for the whole party being part of the conversation.

As opposed to playing the "leader" of a party, or being able to select one of the characters to enter dialog at some point.

That is to say, "abstraction to account for the whole party" is a mere crutch.

IIt also offers a 2nd advantage, which they do use, entering your own keywords which you've figured out to get more info or easter eggs.

One doesn't cancel out the other.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

The fact that it was like that in the original.

The fuck does this have to do with peoples' expectations?

 

[tuluse]

All true. Keywords aren't the "best" system that's ever been devised. I think in this context they're perfectly acceptable though.

 

[Captain Shrek]

All true. Keywords aren't the "best" system that's ever been devised. I think in this context they're perfectly acceptable though.

So back to my question. Why go for acceptable when a better solution is available?

 

[EG]

The fact that it was like that in the original.

The fuck does this have to do with peoples' expectations?

People expect things to be like they are in the original. To change that vision to comply with the original is mandatory, particularly if it complies with the original. Error.

I believe VD was going for some sort of word play based on the additions to combat, that weren't a part of the original Wasteland.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

So back to my question. Why go for acceptable when a better solution is available?

Budget? Time? Resources? Putting energy and effort into more rewarding or important areas?

I believe VD was going for some sort of word play based on the additions to combat, that weren't a part of the original Wasteland.

So? That has nothing to do with the point of the statement I was making.

 

[tuluse]

All true. Keywords aren't the "best" system that's ever been devised. I think in this context they're perfectly acceptable though.

So back to my question. Why go for acceptable when a better solution is available?

I wonder why anyone would do this. Like why would I drive a VW Golf when Ferraris are available? It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Vault Dweller]

All true. Keywords aren't the "best" system that's ever been devised. I think in this context they're perfectly acceptable though.

I actually like the keyword systems, but I hoped to see something more interesting and complex than what we saw in the video.

 

[Infinitron]

The keywords have one advantage and so far I haven't seen it used.

 

[Vault Dweller]

All true. Keywords aren't the "best" system that's ever been devised. I think in this context they're perfectly acceptable though.

So back to my question. Why go for acceptable when a better solution is available?

I wonder why anyone would do this. Like why would I drive a VW Golf, when Ferraris are available? It just doesn't make any sense.

Again, not the same. I don't think it's about money at all. For a good writer - and Fargo has quite a few - it won't take much time to turn "Rangers" into a full question or statement.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The keywords have one advantage and so far I haven't seen it used.

Point?

 

[tuluse]

Again, not the same. I don't think it's about money at all. For a good writer - and Fargo has quite a few - it won't take much time to turn "Rangers" into a full question or statement.

Well this goes back to the abstraction like I said earlier. By having just keywords listed, they avoid Biowarian choices while still letting people larp the dialog to their heart's content. It's a cheap and effective method.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Again, not the same. I don't think it's about money at all. For a good writer - and Fargo has quite a few - it won't take much time to turn "Rangers" into a full question or statement.

Well this goes back to the abstraction like I said earlier. By having just keywords listed, they avoid Biowarian choices while still letting people larp the dialog to their heart's content. It's a cheap and effective method.

Biowarian choice IS the anathema to the branching they are doing anyway. They just need to expand the Keywords into flavored sentences.