Game News Wasteland 2 Kickstarter Update #34: Gamescom Demo Video, First Dev Diary Released

[Vault Dweller]

Could be, actually, now that you mentioned it.

 

[tuluse]

Au contraire, Ms. Bee. It's very relevant (special thanks to Infinitron who mentioned Fallout 2 here). See, Fallout 2 had wacky shit - the rat king, talking deathclaws, yakuza, giant robots and such, but they were treated seriously, as if they made perfect sense and fit right in. Even some explanations were provided. Fallout 3 was retarded because they treated everything like lulz.

I'm not trying to attack the game here. I was genuinely impressed with many things, but the loudspeaker humor was Bethesda-level 'funny' and rubbed me the wrong way. The "child's rhyme" line, "something about a flag and a nation" was fucking great though.

I don't get the impression that Wasteland is treating things like lulz. I think the discobot fits pretty well for example and that's the most "lulzy" thing they've showed.

The loudspeaker recordings--which I agree the humor is not well done on--seem to be designed to give insight into the situation, not just there for the humor.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I was replying to Bee's "MOAR LULZ" comments.

 

[imweasel]

The humor is just fine. I didn't end up on the floor laughing, but it did make me smile. I wouldn't judge the humor of the entire game by just watching this video, which is an extremely small portion of the game.

The only thing that I seriously didn't like was the screaming goats. I guess the inspiration for this came from this video:

It's stupid, because goats don't "scream" like that (it is obviously faked in the video). I don't like shit that doesn't make sense... unless of course the narative supports the exposition that all goats in the wasteland have mutated so that they can scream like moronic humans. But that is just fucking stupid too.

 

[Crooked Bee]

*shrug shrug* Irrelevant.

Au contraire, Ms. Bee. It's very relevant (special thanks to Infinitron who mentioned Fallout 2 here). See, Fallout 2 had wacky shit - the rat king, talking deathclaws, yakuza, giant robots and such, but they were treated seriously, as if they made perfect sense and fit right in. Even some explanations were provided. Fallout 3 was retarded because they treated everything like lulz.

Okay, so I'm just gonna disregard what you said about Fallout 2 because it doesn't make much sense to me, and say that I don't mind straightforwardly lulzy games; in fact, I love them. Saints Row IV is my game of the year, and you can't get more lulzy than that. Fallout 3 sucked not because it treated everything like lulz, but simply because it failed at being entertaining. There just wasn't a single memorable lulzy moment or joke in it. Also it wasn't a Wasteland game, it was a Fallout game, so different standards applied.

If Wasteland 2 treats everything like lulz and does it well, I'm all for it. I don't want it to treat its subject matter seriously, because then it wouldn't be a Wasteland game.

 

[thesisko]

I wouldn't count on it. We'll answer a number of concerns, but as to the answer of what is the level design like, are there enough hub-like areas, I dunno if there'll be much in the way of definitive answers.

You could tell us your opinion on the overall level design. Are you personally satisfied by the level of openness in the maps?

 

[ColCol]

Brother None's answer did not help alleviate my fears.

 

[almondblight]

Obviously a tight budget limits what you can do, but the most glaring issues I have can't all be blamed on money.

The Shadowrun team didn't have the budget (or experience) to even make a proper saving system, for example, and had to cut corners on assets and player interations... however, on W2 you see all the assets and game mechanics needed for a great RPG, just badly employed.

Well, the same thing for SRR in a way. Just having buildings you can enter and then leave again would have been a huge step up. It's kind of sad seeing what some of the modders have been able to do by themselves in a month and comparing it to what HBS made.

But I wonder if SRR and W2 suffer from similar problems - companies trying to streamline production in order to finish the game relatively quickly, and as such doing things that don't actually speed up production but do hamper the final product.

If these games are successful, though, I imagine (hope) we'll see some of the issues ironed out in later games.

 

[Smejki]

Who caused this? Hungry and frustrated members of community devoted to years long waiting for another messiah or is it the developer who just makes a game he wants, given a small budget?

Obviously a tight budget limits what you can do, but the most glaring issues I have can't all be blamed on money.

The Shadowrun team didn't have the budget (or experience) to even make a proper saving system, for example, and had to cut corners on assets and player interations... however, on W2 you see all the assets and game mechanics needed for a great RPG, just badly employed. Looking at what they showed, it looks perfectly possible to use their editor to make a new Fallout, with open levels, interesting skills checks and even a more complex, party-based combat, but the inXile team is using all that to make a "Theme Park" level and retarded design choices, like the convenient goats near the minefield or the convenient sniper point next to the raider's base... there's no blaming budget for that.

And I agree, mostly. I was reacting to that game X is to be saviour of Y therefore it has to be perfect or it is shit and if a part is shit everything is/will be shit thinking and expectation.
Any feedback which calls for perfection is good, but keep it fair (eg. ask if there are hub like open maps instead of "nah this is a valley, so all the game is corridor !popamole!!11! ::thorwing up::" ; or that unbelievably wtf demo vs. demo fallacy to prove everything is the same... and shit). I don't see all those black-and-white mindsets any healthy.
There are too much emotions here

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

I think the fact that it's voiced just doesn't appeal to you. You know how there are things that don't sound stupid until you've said them out loud?

I've always considered voice-acting to be amongst the worst and most common pratfalls of gaming for this very reason.

 

[felipepepe]

And I agree, mostly. I was reacting to that game X is to be saviour of Y therefore it has to be perfect or it is shit and if a part is shit everything is/will be shit thinking and expectation.
Any feedback which calls for perfection is good, but keep it fair (eg. ask if there are hub like open maps instead of "nah this is a valley, so all the game is corridor !popamole!!11! ::thorwing up::" ; or that unbelievably wtf demo vs. demo fallacy to prove everything is the same... and shit). I don't see all those black-and-white mindsets any healthy.

I'm keeping it fair, the demo simply doesn't keep up with what was promised, especially the quest & map design. I'm not saying it is pure decline, worst shit since Oblivion, but it surely doesn't live up to what was promised... And inXile thenselves chose to make this video/demo, it's what they thought best to showcase how their game is. Hoping that the full game will be different, that they showed us the worst & most linear map they made is either horribly naive of us, or a horribly dumb move of inXile.

In the end, it's very sad to see that even fucking Brian Fargo, after promising a old-school RPG, with MCA and other old-timers on board, and receiving 300% of what they asked, is still making a game that feels less well-thought than Underrail, made by a single men...

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

In the end, it's very sad to see that even fucking Brian Fargo, after promising a old-school RPG, with MCA and other old-timers on board, and receiving 300% of what they asked, is still making a game that feels less well-thought than Underrail, made by a single men...

Ugh. I hate to admit I've been feeling similarly lately, albeit less melodramatically, and honestly I can't fight this feeling anymore. And I really, really fucking hope you (we) are wrong.

**Even though Styg's text/writing is pretty awful in places. Sorry, buddy.

 

[felipepepe]

I still have some shards of hope... 6 months ago the demo/video they made was really exciting and interesting:



Had the hex grid, better humour, the map appears to be more open and even the graphics were way better...

 

[tuluse]

C'mon, some complaints are valid, but the graphics look the same. It's just dark so you can't shit as many flaws.

I do the bullet hole encounter begins screen more, but it would probably get annoying after the 37th time you saw it.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Encounter screens in general are fucking arcade bullshit and totally unnecessary for anybody who doesn't consider "drooling" a pastime.

 

[shihonage]

In the end, it's very sad to see that even fucking Brian Fargo, after promising a old-school RPG, with MCA and other old-timers on board, and receiving 300% of what they asked, is still making a game that feels less well-thought than Underrail, made by a single men...

People forget that Wasteland 1 is not Fallout, and expecting Wasteland 2 to be Fallout, no matter how many times Fargo refers to it, is a mistake. Wasteland 2 is Wasteland 1 with superficial Fallouty vibes, like the quasimetric(tm) view, music and UI design.

 

[felipepepe]

In the end, it's very sad to see that even fucking Brian Fargo, after promising a old-school RPG, with MCA and other old-timers on board, and receiving 300% of what they asked, is still making a game that feels less well-thought than Underrail, made by a single men...

People forget that Wasteland 1 is not Fallout, and expecting Wasteland 2 to be Fallout, no matter how many times Fargo refers to it, is a mistake. Wasteland 2 is Wasteland 1 with superficial Fallouty vibes, like the quasimetric(tm) view, music and UI design.

What's your point? You implying that Wasteland 1 had lazy design, so Wasteland 2 should also have lazy design? That they changed from hexes to squares because on W1 you could only move in 4 ways? Sorry, that won't roll. Wasteland 1 hid their quests and secrets pretty well, you had to read the descriptions & dialogs with caution and then use the right skills in the right places... way more old-school than Fallout, aeons ahead of "follow all paths for all quests".

 

[Infinitron]

What's your point? You implying that Wasteland 1 had lazy design, so Wasteland 2 should also have lazy design? That they changed from hexes to squares because on W1 you could only move in 4 ways? Sorry, that won't roll. Wasteland 1 hid their quests and secrets pretty well, you had to read the descriptions & dialogs with caution and then use the right skills in the right places... way more old-school than Fallout, aeons ahead of "follow all paths for all quests".

Perhaps his point is that in Wasteland, it makes sense that you take a more active role and that people seek you out. You're a Desert Ranger with the backing of a powerful and involved faction, not a Vault Dweller wandering around alone in a world he doesn't belong in, searching for clues and errands to perform.

Of course, that could change when the Rangers go to California.

 

[hoverdog]

From Messiah to Betrayer in One Video: A Guide to RPGCodex Mentality by Brian Frago

 

[felipepepe]

Perhaps his point is that in Wasteland, it makes sense that you take a more active role and that people seek you out. You're a Desert Ranger with the backing of a powerful and involved faction, not a Vault Dweller wandering around alone in a world he doesn't belong in, searching for clues and errands to perform.

But nowhere that happens; no one seeks you, you don't have an active role. You just follow every path and find every "event" waiting for you there, in plainly obvious spots, sometimes even in the middle of the road. Even the radio broadcast is for other people, not "please, help me Rangers!".

 

[shihonage]

In the end, it's very sad to see that even fucking Brian Fargo, after promising a old-school RPG, with MCA and other old-timers on board, and receiving 300% of what they asked, is still making a game that feels less well-thought than Underrail, made by a single men...

People forget that Wasteland 1 is not Fallout, and expecting Wasteland 2 to be Fallout, no matter how many times Fargo refers to it, is a mistake. Wasteland 2 is Wasteland 1 with superficial Fallouty vibes, like the quasimetric(tm) view, music and UI design.

What's your point? You implying that Wasteland 1 had lazy design, so Wasteland 2 should also have lazy design? That they changed from hexes to squares because on W1 you could only move in 4 ways? Sorry, that won't roll. Wasteland 1 hid their quests and secrets pretty well, you had to read the descriptions & dialogs with caution and then use the right skills in the right places... way more old-school than Fallout, aeons ahead of "follow all paths for all quests".

I don't see the squares being a problem. The reason you can't move diagonally is because it would give an unfair boost in speed, so the system should work fine. Hexes are harder to code, and they don't provide a significant buff in "strategy" that can be articulated.

Even though Wasteland 1 didn't have "lazy design", it could as well be perceived as simplistic by many. Appearances matter, and the game came off as quite crude to people who didn't look deep enough. You can see how this worked out with Bethesda's perception of Fallout.

Also, Wasteland 1 had more primitive underlying systems than Fallout, and this includes, very much, the dialogue. And combat.

In Wasteland 2 I see the game that is trying to be Fargo's vision of Wasteland 1 with modern "necessities", some of which enhance the experience (combat), and other dull it (dialogue and environmental interaction).

Is the streamlining path avoidable for a game that's been funded by a diverse population of modern gamers, or is he shooting for the lowest-common-denominator so that Slow Eddie can have an entertaining experience after enthusiastically donating?

A question old as time itself.

 

[Infinitron]

Perhaps his point is that in Wasteland, it makes sense that you take a more active role and that people seek you out. You're a Desert Ranger with the backing of a powerful and involved faction, not a Vault Dweller wandering around alone in a world he doesn't belong in, searching for clues and errands to perform.

But nowhere that happens; no one seeks you, you don't have an active role. You just follow every path and find every "event" waiting for you there, in plainly obvious spots, sometimes even in the middle of the road. Even the radio broadcast is for other people, not "please, help me Rangers!".

But you are taking a more active role simply in the act of assaulting a hostile raider encampment. The Vault Dweller didn't do things like that, except in the very end of the game when the mutants emerged as the true threat (which, by the way, has always seemed a bit artificial to me in the way the Overseer suddenly made it your mission to defeat them)

What I'm saying is, it's in the nature of this game's story and setting that the Rangers will be a bit more "railroaded" than the Vault Dweller/Chosen One were.

 

[Roguey]

(which, by the way, has always seemed a bit artificial to me in the way the Overseer suddenly made it your mission to defeat them)

It's like this. There is a bad place where the bad mutants come from. It is bad. Vault is good. Please, go destroy bad place.

 

[Stinger]

If the husband always comes back with the medicine after talking to the wife, what's stopping a player who's tricked into killing her from simply reloading a save and turning around to greet the husband and give her the medicine?

How is this even a choice?

 

[felipepepe]

What I'm saying is, it's in the nature of this game's story and setting that the Rangers will be a bit more "railroaded" than the Vault Dweller/Chosen One were.

On exploring the world and having a somewhat linear progression of missions & areas, sure. They respond to a HQ, after all... but in no way justifies that the areas themselves are railroaded, and worst, the theme park way quests are placed.

I don't see the squares being a problem. The reason you can't move diagonally is because it would give an unfair boost in speed, so the system should work fine. Hexes are harder to code, and they don't provide a significant buff in "strategy" that can be articulated.

Hexes were already in, and they provide greater movement freedom than squares. Is not my biggest gripe, but going hex -> square is definitely a unpleasant move.

Even though Wasteland 1 didn't have "lazy design", it could as well be perceived as simplistic by many. Appearances matter, and the game came off as quite crude to people who didn't look deep enough. You can see how this worked out with Bethesda's perception of Fallout.

So you're telling me that Brian Fargo & crew, the people responsible for Wasteland 1, perceive their own game as simplistic and thus decided to make a even more simplistic sequel?

Also, Wasteland 1 had more primitive underlying systems than Fallout, and this includes, very much, the dialogue. And combat.

Yes, the combat was clearly upgraded, and hopefully so the dialog. So why roll back on level design?

In Wasteland 2 I see the game that is trying to be Fargo's vision of Wasteland 1 with modern "necessities", some of which enhance the experience (combat), and other dull it (dialogue and environmental interaction).

Is the streamlining path avoidable for a game that's been funded by a diverse population of modern gamers, or is he shooting for the lowest-common-denominator so that Slow Eddie can have an entertaining experience after enthusiastically donating?

A question old as time itself.

Accepting this means that Fargo saying things like "I don't care about mass market", or that he hates games that hold players by the hand and admires Dark Souls for making people think were all PR talk, that is impossible for us to have a non-dumbed down game and everything is shit. Meanwhile, fucking Ubisoft is making Might & Magic X, that from all reports seems extremely faithful to old games.