Wasteland Wasteland 2 Pre-Release Discussion Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[FeelTheRads]

We never should have left command-line programs, really. It was GUIs that doomed us.

Then again, maybe it was acronyms and pre-built scripts . . .

The size of storage mediums . . .

Moving from a paper display to electronic . . .

Fuck, it was the very nature of semiconductors that contributed the most.

Everything was better in analog.

But then we have the mass-marketing of tubes.

Congratulations on a very apt and witty sarcastic reply.

 

[Infinitron]

These are the two main elements of the "decline" today:

1) Exploration has been greatly reduced/eliminated, both via smaller maps and via quest compass.
2) Combat has become too easy. It doesn't require much preparation and there aren't serious consequences for failure.

I'm not sure we can say these things "crept in quietly". They came pretty much at once, usually around the time of the launch of each successive console generation.

 

[MicoSelva]

Great way to remove streamlining, for example: Arcanum's lack of tooltips. Just have to guess what DX means (not that that's a fucking challenge, particularly once the game starts and tooltips more-or-less start to appear in one place on the screen), unless you're in-game. Was that intentional (did they ban tooltips in development?) or did they have not the time|experience|bodies to add them? Did this make it a better game because of it lacked tooltips?

You know, Arcanum was shipped with a manual. Not accidentally too.

 

[EG]

Congratulations on a very apt and witty sarcastic reply.

Not sure if serious, but I do agree that every step along the way that made electronics more feasible for Your Idiot Child (YIC) did bring down the more intellectual nature of computing, accelerating in the late 80s and early 90s as the bottom fell out of the barrier to entry for the less technically inclined and wealthy, but that's the way it always was -- it's just that computers are a thing of our last couple of generations to undergo it (before it was probably automobiles, if we don't count house ownership post-World War I | II).

But I just came into consciousness and may be being an obtuse and oblivious bastard right this moment.

Great way to remove streamlining, for example: Arcanum's lack of tooltips. Just have to guess what DX means (not that that's a fucking challenge, particularly once the game starts and tooltips more-or-less start to appear in one place on the screen), unless you're in-game. Was that intentional (did they ban tooltips in development?) or did they have not the time|experience|bodies to add them? Did this make it a better game because of it lacked tooltips?

You know, Arcanum was shipped with a manual. Not accidentally too.

And that made it so very special and unique, didn't it?

So are you another dumbfuck arguing that the manual will solve all issues (in the case of Arcanum, baring a few mistakes, it sure as fuck will come close)? Or is this just some misguided belief that I've not seen its manual and telling me of it will change my initial argument that "tooltips aren't the harbinger of decline?" Feel free to use tooltips to mean other "streamlining" elements

Fuck, every day that MCA doesn't flail about his keyboard and mouse to click the pretty buttons and see their affects (lol, how do I use this WAYPOINT system on the map? Lol. The bridge is out. Lol. Might as well just stay here then. Lol.) or read the fucking manual is another day I can hate the human race, but it doesn't translate into "basic in-game information should be exclusive to a manual!" (Bridge is inaccessible due to a bug with the position of the city's waypoint, as far as I can tell. And it's easy as fuck to work around -- and unncessary, if you fuck with the spirit in the cave.)

Or does it?

 

[Blaine]

These are the two main elements of the "decline" today:

1) Exploration has been greatly reduced/eliminated, both via smaller maps and via quest compass.
2) Combat has become too easy. It doesn't require much preparation and there aren't serious consequences for failure.

I'm not sure we can say these things "crept in quietly". They came pretty much at once, usually around the time of the launch of each successive console generation.

Bullshit. Those aren't the "two main elements of the decline". I challenge you to name just one decline-saturated game that would become a good game instead if those two elements were ameliorated.

Certainly where cRPGs are concerned, the symptoms of the decline comprise a systemic rainbow of which the elements you name are only a couple of cogs. Every facet of each game is affected: The way dialog is written and structured, the way it's presented to the player, how the player chooses responses during dialog (a static, non-CYOA list to exhaust in BioWare games, for example), characterization, the combat difficulty and how it's approached (as you say), the way combat is designed regardless of how difficult it may be, consequences for failure (as you say), choice and consequence of lack thereof in the overall gameplay, world reactivity/interactivity, the potential for exploration (as you say), the way the game mechanics work, the way the UI is designed, how the control scheme is designed, whether the developers choose 3D and real-time because everything has to be 3D and real-time, inventory management... and yes, innumerable simplifications (reduced and simplified stats/skills in each new Elder Scrolls iteration), "accessibility" concessions (instant travel), overall dumbing-down, and "convenience" features.

There are tons. All of those are just what I can think up in the space of a minute as I'm writing a paragraph.

 

[Infinitron]

These are the two main elements of the "decline" today:

1) Exploration has been greatly reduced/eliminated, both via smaller maps and via quest compass.
2) Combat has become too easy. It doesn't require much preparation and there aren't serious consequences for failure.

I'm not sure we can say these things "crept in quietly". They came pretty much at once, usually around the time of the launch of each successive console generation.

Bullshit. Those aren't the "two main elements of the decline". I challenge you to name just one decline-saturated game that would become a good game instead if those two elements were ameliorated.

Certainly where cRPGs are concerned, the symptoms of the decline comprise a systemic rainbow of which the elements you name are only a couple of cogs. Every facet of each game is affected: The way dialog is written and structured, the way it's presented to the player, how the player chooses responses during dialog (a static, non-CYOA list to exhaust in BioWare games, for example), characterization, the combat difficulty and how it's approached (as you say), the way combat is designed regardless of how difficult it may be, consequences for failure (as you say), choice and consequence of lack thereof in the overall gameplay, world reactivity/interactivity, the potential for exploration (as you say), the way the game mechanics work, the way the UI is designed, how the control scheme is designed, whether the developers choose 3D and real-time because everything has to be 3D and real-time, inventory management... and yes, innumerable simplifications (reduced and simplified stats/skills in each new Elder Scrolls iteration), "accessibility" concessions (instant travel), overall dumbing-down, and "convenience" features.

There are tons. All of those are just what I can think up in the space of a minute as I'm writing a paragraph.

I said the "main elements", not all elements. I agree that dumbed down dialogue might be a potential third item on that list, although I don't think it's quite as important as those two, and it's not equally applicable to all genres.

 

[Ovg]

I hope they won't dumb down the dialogue from what fallout 1, 2 or NV had to offer to fallout 3 level, but then, there was no dialogue trees and shit at all in Wasteland. All you got was type in the word to get the answer, with up to whole 5 words per important NPC. Therfore, even a bethpizda level dialogue is an improvement.

I think that we want a Fallout level dialogue mixed in with stats (both character and item) that make sense and are relevant to the gameworld. I don't want a shotgun to be worse than an assault rifle at all times due to lower DPS, but then IF they add both DPS and range and shit, it will still make sense. As in a shotgun has better DPS at range up to 12 squares or whatever, and an assault rifle at 12+. Therfore both are useful, therfore neither one is better. I think that's the way to make it both with DPS and meaningful inventory choice. Even if they have to add some stuff like 'armor' or whatever to enemy npcs to make rpgs and bazookas (important popamole items) useful.

Shit I hope them devs will deliver.

Also I'm drunk as shit

 

[Roguey]

These are the two main elements of the "decline" today:

1) Exploration has been greatly reduced/eliminated, both via smaller maps and via quest compass.
2) Combat has become too easy. It doesn't require much preparation and there aren't serious consequences for failure.

I'm not sure we can say these things "crept in quietly". They came pretty much at once, usually around the time of the launch of each successive console generation.

I'd say both these things came from Black Isle, not consoles.

 

[Infinitron]

These are the two main elements of the "decline" today:

1) Exploration has been greatly reduced/eliminated, both via smaller maps and via quest compass.
2) Combat has become too easy. It doesn't require much preparation and there aren't serious consequences for failure.

I'm not sure we can say these things "crept in quietly". They came pretty much at once, usually around the time of the launch of each successive console generation.

I'd say both these things came from Black Isle, not consoles.

Ahahaha, what a perfectly calibrated troll post.

But please, do explain.

(For the record, I'm not saying these trends "came from" anywhere. They've always been around, but it's the consoles who have intensified them the most.)

 

[Roguey]

These are the two main elements of the "decline" today:

1) Exploration has been greatly reduced/eliminated, both via smaller maps and via quest compass.
2) Combat has become too easy. It doesn't require much preparation and there aren't serious consequences for failure.

I'm not sure we can say these things "crept in quietly". They came pretty much at once, usually around the time of the launch of each successive console generation.

I'd say both these things came from Black Isle, not consoles.

Ahahaha, what a perfectly calibrated troll post.

But please, do explain.

(For the record, I'm not saying these trends "came from" anywhere. They've always been around, but it's the consoles who have intensified them the most.)

Smaller maps and easy combat? Fallout 1 and 2 and Torment. The Icewind Dale series was also not-exploration focused so it qualifies for point 1.

 

[Infinitron]

Smaller maps and easy combat? Fallout 1 and 2 and Torment.

Which games were they smaller than?

The Icewind Dale series was also not-exploration focused so it qualifies for point 1.

I'm not talking about exploration in the sense of exploring vast worlds in a non-linear fashion, but rather in the sense of exploring individual areas without a quest compass leading you by the nose.

 

[Zeriel]

There's a difference between design decisions made for gameplay reasons, and design decisions made for system/budget restrictions.

For example, if you decide to make a game with smaller maps to, say, implement more quests in those maps or have more choices and consequences, you don't then end up with every game being made that way. If, on the other hand, you design a game with smaller maps and less interesting environments because the hardware literally can't handle anything more, well, every game is going to look that way. It's no longer a design choice, just an inevitable result of the format.

By the same token, Bioware's later emphasis on increasingly simple, linear narratives with little (and then none) chance to veer off the main path was definitely a response to first the fact they wanted to get a bigger market ($$), and then that bigger market was on consoles, which dictated said design.

 

[Roguey]

Which games were they smaller then? Keep in mind this was largely a new breed of RPG.

Fallout, being one of the shortest RPGs around, is smaller than pretty much anything. Torment was smaller than BG definitely.

I'm not talking about exploration in the sense of exploring vast worlds in a non-linear fashion, but rather in the sense of exploring individual areas without a quest compass leading you by the nose.

That can be an optional feature. For example, The Witchers. And Knights of the Old Republic has no quest compass but it certainly does not have more exploration than New Vegas, which does.

 

[Infinitron]

That can be an optional feature. For example, The Witchers. And Knights of the Old Republic has no quest compass but it certainly does not have more exploration than New Vegas, which does.

Again, it's kind of apples and oranges to compare a continuous map open world RPG with a zone based one.

For the purposes of this conversation, I'm talking about the exploration of individual zones, which in modern console games has become increasingly scripted and constrained. I'm not talking about the size of the entire game world.

 

[Blaine]

For the purposes of this conversation, I'm talking about the exploration of individual zones, which in modern console games has become increasingly scripted and constrained. I'm not talking about the size of the entire game world.

I figured that's what you meant earlier. Recent (KotOR onward) BioWare games are the prime example, in my view. Each area is a large, mostly empty, easy-to-navigate box or line containing a very few NPCs, enemy groups, interactive nodes, and/or treasure chests in obvious nooks. I believe their excuse for this at the time was the console's limitations, and I think that was legitimate back then... even though Morrowind was also on XBox... uh....

Wait a minute. I just realized BioWare are a bunch of lying shitbags.

 

[BobtheTree]

Yes, Fallout has less areas, but those areas have more dense content and reactivity to explore and discover than say Baldur's Gate 2 (which I'd say was a much greater influence on more story-drive, exploration lite RPGs), which has a lot more content that the player is funneled through at a pretty deliberate pace. I think it's more about pacing than length and area size. You have 2 main quests in Fallout. Everything else is just you exploring the world, stumbling into quests, finding complete cities and areas that you aren't required to go to in order to finish the game.

 

[MicoSelva]

So are you another dumbfuck arguing that the manual will solve all issues (in the case of Arcanum, baring a few mistakes, it sure as fuck will come close)? Or is this just some misguided belief that I've not seen its manual and telling me of it will change my initial argument that "tooltips aren't the harbinger of decline?" Feel free to use tooltips to mean other "streamlining" elements.

I like tooltips too, but lack of them is not a game-breaker for me, especially if there is a manual explaining everything.

 

[Roguey]

I figured that's what you meant earlier. Recent (KotOR onward) BioWare games are the prime example, in my view. Each area is a large, mostly empty, easy-to-navigate box or line containing a very few NPCs, enemy groups, interactive nodes, and/or treasure chests in obvious nooks. I believe their excuse for this at the time was the console's limitations, and I think that was legitimate back then... even though Morrowind was also on XBox... uh....

Wait a minute. I just realized BioWare are a bunch of lying shitbags.

They're not lying, they use different engines. The water planet in KotOR had to be significantly cut down because even in its current state it pushes the xbox to its limits.

 

[Blaine]

They're not lying, they use different engines. The water planet in KotOR had to be significantly cut down because even in its current state it pushes the xbox to its limits.

I've read the exact same official speel you're getting that from. In fact, I had it in mind when I wrote my post.

It's a line of bullshit, in my estimation. Morrowind, which used the GameBryo engine, pushed PCs of the time to their limits—let alone consoles. The XBox port was content- and feature-complete, as far I know. It featured large, sprawling, non-linear environments absolutely stuffed full of interactive objects, NPCs, and resource nodes.

Either the Odyssey engine was faulty and inferior (meaning platform limitations had nothing to do with it), or BioWare were bullshitting to cover up their empty, linear environments. I opt for the latter unless there's a compelling argument otherwise. If Morrowind could do it, why couldn't KotOR?

 

[Infinitron]

I've read the exact same official speel you're getting that from. In fact, I had it in mind when I wrote my post.

It's a line of bullshit, in my estimation. Morrowind, which used the GameBryo engine, pushed PCs of the time to their limits—let alone consoles. The XBox port was content- and feature-complete, as far I know. It featured large, sprawling, non-linear environments absolutely stuffed full of interactive objects, NPCs, and resource nodes.

Either the Odyssey engine was faulty and inferior (meaning platform limitations had nothing to do with it), or BioWare were bullshitting to cover up their empty, linear environments. I opt for the latter unless there's a compelling argument otherwise. If Morrowind could do it, why couldn't KotOR?

To be fair, it's not just Bioware that needs to be questioned here. Bethesda are pretty much the only ones making these huge game worlds for consoles. That inexplicable monopoly that they have on these sorts of games is why they're so successful.

 

[Roguey]

I've read the exact same official speel you're getting that from. In fact, I had it in mind when I wrote my post.

It's a line of bullshit, in my estimation. Morrowind, which used the GameBryo engine, pushed PCs of the time to their limits—let alone consoles. The XBox port was content- and feature-complete, as far I know. It featured large, sprawling, non-linear environments absolutely stuffed full of interactive objects, NPCs, and resource nodes.

Either the Odyssey engine was faulty and inferior (meaning platform limitations had nothing to do with it), or BioWare were bullshitting to cover up their empty, linear environments. I opt for the latter unless there's a compelling argument otherwise. If Morrowind could do it, why couldn't KotOR?

Blaine can't into engines.

Odyssey is the IE engine with a 3D renderer. Each actor takes up a larger amount of memory, among other things. Look at NWN compared to Morrowind which is a PC exclusive that uses the same tech-base as KotOR.

 

[Blaine]

To be fair, it's not just Bioware that needs to be questioned here. Bethesda are pretty much the only ones making these huge game worlds for consoles. That inexplicable monopoly that they have on these sorts of games is why they're so successful.

I suspect Bethesda holds a monopoly merely by default, because huge game worlds are their bread and butter. No one else bothers when RPGs with empty, linear environments sell just fine. Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, and Mass Effect 3 all featured comparatively linear, empty environments. So did DA:O.

It's not as though any of that bothers me particularly, as there's an approximately 0% chance I'll play another BioWare or Bethesda game for the rest of my lifetime. I just don't think "console limitations" is a sufficient explanation for empty linear environments, since Bethesda proved with Morrowind (and Oblivion and Skyrim, regardless of their other faults) that it was possible to implement dense non-linear environments on consoles.

 

[Infinitron]

I suspect Bethesda holds a monopoly merely by default, because huge game worlds are their bread and butter. No one else bothers when RPGs with empty, linear environments sell just fine. Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, and Mass Effect 3 all featured comparatively linear, empty environments. So did DA:O.

They don't sell as fine, though. But I digress.

 

[Blaine]

Odyssey is the IE engine with a 3D renderer. Each actor takes up a larger amount of memory, among other things. Look at NWN compared to Morrowind which is a PC exclusive that uses the same tech-base as KotOR.

I understand that the Odyssey engine may be more resource-intensive than the version of GameBryo used to create Morrowind. What I've already stated is that if that's true, then the Odyssey engine was grossly inferior. Morrowind's visual fidelity on the XBox in terms of characters, scenery, and architecture is comparable to KotOR, while also featuring a much larger potential maximum of on-screen actors, far more items and interact-ables per square yard, more set pieces (furniture, baskets, clutter, etc.), and a non-linear open game world. I'd also wager that the background game mechanics calculations weren't particularly more CPU-intensive in KotOR than in Morrowind, or shouldn't have been.

Put another way: Let's say I'm developing an RPG for XBox. The characters, environments, items and so on in my RPG are visually comparable to their counterparts in Morrowind. However, each actor in the engine I'm using requires 2-3x more memory compared to Morrowind actors, even though said actors don't benefit from increased visual fidelity, superior AI, better pathing, or any other comparable advantage. In addition, the engine I'm using forces me to design enclosed, linear/boxy, relatively empty environments, even though the visual fidelity of said environments is comparable to Morrowind, with far fewer interactables per square yard to boot.

Perhaps BioWare ought to have programmed/obtained a better engine, rather than retaining their inferior bloatware engine and then blaming the resulting simplistic environments on the XBox's hardware limitations.

 

[Infinitron]

I would say KOTOR characters looked better than Morrowind's, though that may be because Bethesda's modellers are horrible.