Codex Interview Wasteland 2 RPG Codex Interview - Part 2: Michael A. Stackpole

[thesisko]

I'm speculating here, but I'd say mostly because they fondly remember Wasteland. I mean "hey, the game of my childhood! I'll donate!", or something along those lines. And they do love old CRPGs, no mistake there, and replay them from time to time; they just like both, surprisingly enough.

Well, if someone contributes due to nostalgia alone and actually prefers modern games then there's not really any need to cater to them. If this is going to be more than a one-shot affair then it needs to focus on nurturing its own niche.

 

[Mrowak]

Let's face it - Wasteland 2 will require a major modernization. Whether this modernization will mean deepening the elements that were good about the original, by making them accessible (through e.g. neat interface) and meaningful, or dumbing everything down remains to be seen.

Still, I am a little bit sceptical about the whole affair. As someone remarked here earlier - it's the keywords that rub me the wrong way. For example, if someone talks about "emotional engagement" you can be sure as hell he doesn't know what he is talking about. For that reason, while the first interview got my hopes high, this one leaves me cold.

This doesn't change the fact that both articles were very well written.

 

[Kraszu]

That's a lot. Like, a whole lot. RPG Codex has less than 10k members in total, and how many out of those are going to donate? 1/4 tops (being optimistic here). Then there's NMA. And that's it -- no more niche hardcore CRPG websites. Where do they get the remaining 25k? Besides, 34$ average is already quite optimistic; most peeps will only donate $10-20, I think.

People will donate more if donating more grants you the game, as it is standard on kickstarter.

http://www.adventuregamers.com/forums/
Members: 41,676

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adventure
70,098
Average 34$

Now the documentary, and Tim Schafe humor attracts more people for sure, but still there is plenty of people who could be interested in top down TB crpg but who didn't register on codex or NMA, but that might visit other gaming websites, or have friends that do.

 

[thesisko]

I'm willing to bet that there are far, far more gamers who feel that RPGs in general have gotten too simplified and "streamlined" than there are Skyrim fans who fondly remember Wasteland. Hell, I don't even know anyone who's played the game. Fargo needs to target the first group.

 

[St. Toxic]

I'm speculating here, but I'd say mostly because they fondly remember Wasteland. I mean "hey, the game of my childhood! I'll donate!", or something along those lines. And they do love old CRPGs, no mistake there, and replay them from time to time; they just like both, surprisingly enough.

So they're nostalgic about old-school rpgs, they replay them from time to time, they love em' -- but they would never financially back an rpg that's trying to stay true to classic rpg mechanics? I find it odd that anyone would actually prefer or try to excuse a watered down mix of a proper crpg and modern garbage, a game that obviously doesn't deliver on either front and neither sells nor entertains.

 

[Crooked Bee]

I agree, but the people I have in mind, their reasoning is a bit different: they want an "old school" CRPG, yet updated. Naturally, it's as vague as it can get, and they don't really know what they want either. Just look at the (sometimes quite ridiculous) scores the CRPGAddict handles out to older games -- he enjoys them well enough, but the problem seems to be, they're not quite Skyrim. Basically, those peeps say: "yeah, I'd love to play a new old school CRPG, and I don't really care about Skyrim's level of graphics, but let's face it: features A, B, C are outdated and their contemporary equivalents A', B', C' are basically the same yet more up to current 21st century standards, so let's have our cake and eat it too".

 

[Vault Dweller]

Nah, I think the answers are really sensible. Following the answers which the h4rdc0r3 "bring back the 80s" audience would like would quickly drive the studio into the ground. The opposite attitude, unconditional "streamlining", would bring new players but lose almost all old players. What I'm seeing here is a very reasonable attitude to technological changes. God forbid having some voice-over in your game in the 2nd decade of the 21st century!

Voice-overs cost money. Considering that it's a low budget game, no matter how much money it's going to get, it's a very questionable decision.

As for the target audience, I believe that it HAS to be the "bring back the 80s" audience, because nothing else will give Brian Fargo the money he needs. There are very specific reasons why Schafer's project did so well and none of them apply to Fargo & Co. It doesn't mean that he will fail by default, but hitting the target won't be as easy as some think.

 

[Beautiful Clown Painting]

It depends upon what kind of elements are updated. I couldn't play a blobber without an automap these days, I can't get myself to break out the graph paper so this kind of update is all right for me. But like everyone said: if the compass mechanic becomes a core component of the design, it dumbs it down as a whole. Practical updates, yes, of course. But not updates that totally change the "philosophy" of the design. For exemple, taking the skills into account, I'd hate for the game to have a pop-up menu saying: "[Explosions]: you can try to blow the drawer open". In the original Wasteland you had to guess that a skill could work. If some players find it too frustrating, they can go play other games, they're well catered for.

 

[Kz3r0]

I agree, but the people I have in mind, their reasoning is a bit different: they want an "old school" CRPG, yet updated. Naturally, it's as vague as it can get, and they don't really know what they want either. Just look at the (sometimes quite ridiculous) scores the CRPGAddict handles out to older games -- he enjoys them well enough, but the problem seems to be, they're not quite Skyrim. Basically, those peeps say: "yeah, I'd love to play a new old school CRPG, and I don't really care about Skyrim's level of graphics, but let's face it: features A, B, C are outdated and their contemporary equivalents A', B', C' are basically the same yet more up to current 21st century standards, so let's have our cake and eat it too".

Bethesda have always been Ultima fans, for the wrong reasons, but seems that many others, like them, enjoyed baking bread, furnishing their houses etc.
Exactly how they liked fallout for the whacky humor, are you sure guys that the vast majority of players liked Wasteland for the game mechanics and not because was a lulzfest?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I'm afraid they'll make another Fallout with isometric view, turn-based combat and dialogue trees instead of a true sequel .

Most of you that are responding negatively to this interview are doing so just because he said some keywords that triggered your frown glands. The way he is using them is no cause for alarm. For emotional engagement I would agree that it is pretty important for an RPG. One of the reasons I love PST is because of how it engaged me emotionally. I'm sure that most people that enjoyed PST would have enjoyed it less if it didn't engage them emotionally. Just because Bioware uses it as a buzzword doesn't make it a bad thing.

Except that PST is practically the only cRPG that I have played that I could be legitimately called emotionally engaging. Stuff like that is very hard to pull off in computer games.
And Wasteland wasn't emotionally engaging. It was just amusing and interesting.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Emotionally engaging = makes you care. People remember the rabid dog, so they obviously care. That doesn't mean they cry when they remember there was no other solution to the quest, like the buzzword usage makes you think - just that it wasn't forgettable.

 

[Kz3r0]

It depends upon what kind of elements are updated. I couldn't play a blobber without an automap these days, I can't get myself to break out the graph paper so this kind of update is all right for me. But like everyone said: if the compass mechanic becomes a core component of the design, it dumbs it down as a whole. Practical updates, yes, of course. But not updates that totally change the "philosophy" of the design. For exemple, taking the skills into account, I'd hate for the game to have a pop-up menu saying: "[Explosions]: you can try to blow the drawer open". In the original Wasteland you had to guess that a skill could work. If some players find it too frustrating, they can go play other games, they're well catered for.

Bee-chan already posted an article mentioning that dungeons as a challenge to navigate don't exist anymore, and from what you say even the hardcore fans wouldn't like a return to that, but what could replace such a thing?
Easy answer, nothing, it's gone forever.
The real problem is how many of the old things were just technical constraints and how you can meaningfully recreate them nowadays, the industry has already given its response, the fact that true Codexers don't like it is another question.

 

[St. Toxic]

I agree, but the people I have in mind, their reasoning is a bit different:they don't really know what they want

Yes, please design a game for these people. It will be money well spent and it's the least we rational human beings can do; fund a game to lighten their burden of existence. All my sympathies go out to them.

Just look at the (sometimes quite ridiculous) scores the CRPGAddict handles out to older games -- he enjoys them well enough, but the problem seems to be, they're not quite Skyrim.

Yeah, that's a major problem that I hope Fargo and Stackpole have the balls to address. It's not enough that all the mainstream developers do their best to emulate the brilliant and accessible design-doctrine of Bethesda Softworks, nor that Bethesda themselves drop a perfect 10 game in our collective laps every 2 years; it simply does not satisfy my obsessive compulsive disorder. No, I will not sleep, I will not rest, I will not go quietly into the night until every game is at least 8/10 parts Skyrim.

 

[Crooked Bee]

indeed.

 

[Gregz]

- An extremely important part of Wasteland was its puzzles. Today, however, it seems that elaborate puzzles have no place in cRPGs. Why do you think this is? Do you consider them a viable element in modern game design? If not, what could be a contemporary replacement and would it be possible to create something as memorable as, say, Finster's Brain without them?

Puzzles, passwords, combinations, hidden chests, etc. All of that is history.

The biggest obstacle to RPGs these days is the internet, and I don't mean torrents, I mean spoilers/maps/walkthroughs etc.

Portal 1&2 are exceptions because the puzzles are just easy enough for the player to solve the puzzle quickly and move on to the next one before hitting alt-tab.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

- An extremely important part of Wasteland was its puzzles. Today, however, it seems that elaborate puzzles have no place in cRPGs. Why do you think this is? Do you consider them a viable element in modern game design? If not, what could be a contemporary replacement and would it be possible to create something as memorable as, say, Finster's Brain without them?

Puzzles, passwords, combinations, hidden chests, etc. All of that is history.

The biggest obstacle to RPGs these days is the internet, and I don't mean torrents, I mean spoilers/maps/walkthroughs etc.

Portal 1&2 are exceptions because the puzzles are just easy enough for the player to solve the puzzle quickly and move on to the next one before hitting alt-tab.

It's not a problem unless they want to make moneyu

- An extremely important part of Wasteland was its puzzles. Today, however, it seems that elaborate puzzles have no place in cRPGs. Why do you think this is? Do you consider them a viable element in modern game design? If not, what could be a contemporary replacement and would it be possible to create something as memorable as, say, Finster's Brain without them?

Puzzles, passwords, combinations, hidden chests, etc. All of that is history.

The biggest obstacle to RPGs these days is the internet, and I don't mean torrents, I mean spoilers/maps/walkthroughs etc.

Portal 1&2 are exceptions because the puzzles are just easy enough for the player to solve the puzzle quickly and move on to the next one before hitting alt-tab.

Back then there were complete solutions in magazines. Especially for adventure games.

Emotionally engaging = makes you care. People remember the rabid dog, so they obviously care. That doesn't mean they cry when they remember there was no other solution to the quest, like the buzzword usage makes you think - just that it wasn't forgettable.

"When I do book signings, now 24 years after Wasteland came out, I still get folks wanting to know what the "correct" solution was to dealing with the rabid dog. Why? Because they felt like hell killing the dog. The dog puzzle, if you will, engaged players on an emotional level."

 

[Crooked Bee]

I fail to see how the internet precludes puzzles. If people want to use a walkthrough, it's their (stupid) choice. That doesn't mean the rest of us wouldn't enjoy a good puzzle.

Also, why should a niche old school CRPG cater to people with such a short attention span that Portal's is the only kind of puzzles they can enjoy?

 

[thesisko]

I fail to see how the internet precludes puzzles. If people want to use a walkthrough, it's their (stupid) choice. That doesn't mean the rest of us wouldn't enjoy a good puzzle.

I agree wholeheartedly. Let's not forget that walkthroughs are nothing new, most gaming mags used to publish a full walkthrough for popular games and there was always a hintline to call.

Why does someone use a walkthrough? Well, either he thinks puzzles are not fun in general, the puzzle is too obscure or he's spent more time on it than he considers to be fun. None of these reasons should cause a developer to conclude that walkthroughs are a problem - unless the puzzle was just intended to frustrate and I don't think that's good game design. If anything, walkthroughs enable more people to enjoy other parts of the game even if they don't care for the puzzles.

 

[Johannes]

I know at least 1 pretty succesful Kickstarter game that'll feature a decent amount of puzzles.

 

[thesisko]

Bee-chan already posted an article mentioning that dungeons as a challenge to navigate don't exist anymore, and from what you say even the hardcore fans wouldn't like a return to that, but what could replace such a thing?
Easy answer, nothing, it's gone forever.
The real problem is how many of the old things were just technical constraints and how you can meaningfully recreate them nowadays, the industry has already given its response, the fact that true Codexers don't like it is another question.

That's not a good example. I doubt even people who love mapping dungeons by hand would argue that all RPGs with automaps are dumbed down in comparision. They just put their emphasis on different gameplay areas. Like others have pointed out in this thread - it's not the quest compass that is the problem per se, but the insipid gameplay that usually accompanies games that incorporate it.

 

[Mrowak]

I fail to see how the internet precludes puzzles. If people want to use a walkthrough, it's their (stupid) choice. That doesn't mean the rest of us wouldn't enjoy a good puzzle.

You don't understand... You see, looking for a walkthrough requires some *effort*. You have to move from your couch, launch your computer, look for a walkthrough, find appropraite fragment, go back to your xbox, forget what you read, go back to the computer, print everything out, go back and play, by which point you forget where you were in the game in the first place.

However, I must admit, that myself, I am no big fan of arbitrary puzzles of the yesteryears (turn 7 keys in the right order, use a rubber duck on a railway track to get a handkerchief, step on some floor tiles in correct fashion etc.) if only because most of them were so illogical and divorced from what you were actually trying to accomplish.

If puzzles were to be seriously reintroduced they would have to become more logical and common sense friendly than theu were before.

Also, why should a niche old school CRPG cater to people with such a short attention span that Portal's is the only kind of puzzles they can enjoy?

That's exactly the problem, and the reason the newspeak in this interview (quest markers, visual cues, minimap, emotional engagement, feeling etc.) is aggreviationg. Those words cater not to people interested in a niche product, but to the denizens of mass market. Sure, if properly implemented all of these could prove of large benefit to the game, but somehow I am certain they are understood as they are now - yet another device to make gameplay more shallow and pointless.

 

[Phelot]

The things that players tend to remember the most about Wasteland adventures were not the puzzles per se, but the moral choices players had to make. When I do book signings, now 24 years after Wasteland came out, I still get folks wanting to know what the "correct" solution was to dealing with the rabid dog. Why? Because they felt like hell killing the dog. The dog puzzle, if you will, engaged players on an emotional level. That's not something that happens when you're killing ten orcs to get a key to unlock a chest which contains a scroll which will let you find a treasure which is the sword that lets you kill a monster. Why designers haven't stepped up to engage players emotionally is beyond me; though it may have to do with the difference between making puzzles and creating stories. Ultimately, creating stories is what we did with Wasteland, and what we'll do with the new Wasteland.

Ugh. I can't help but be wary of statements like this. We've all seen what Bioware and Bethesda have done with "emotions" and ethics. I think it can be done, but most examples of attempts of it are pretty bad.

 

[Johannes]

Mostly I dislike that quote because he totally avoids the original question about the puzzles. I agree that there should be a memorable context to the gameplay, be it about rabid dogs or cyborg brains, but answer the goddamn question - what kind of gameplay are you planning to make out of those non-combat, skill-use situations?

 

[Shannow]

Most of you that are responding negatively to this interview are doing so just because he said some keywords that triggered your frown glands. The way he is using them is no cause for alarm. For emotional engagement I would agree that it is pretty important for an RPG. One of the reasons I love PST is because of how it engaged me emotionally. I'm sure that most people that enjoyed PST would have enjoyed it less if it didn't engage them emotionally. Just because Bioware uses it as a buzzword doesn't make it a bad thing.

Only the reason PST was emotionally engaging (and that only for fucking story faggots. Is Wasteland a fucking story faggot game?) was because it had a good story with good characters. And the reason it had a good story was not because its devs put emphasis on emotioneering in pre-production.

Stackpole, a fucking author, shows that he has no confidence in writing and would rather dump huge amounts of money on VO instead of actually important features. Devs are worried not to "frustrate" their players and are considering quest-markers...
The whole interview mentions exactly one promising feature, the many variables that are supposed to influence dialogues/story. The rest are buzzwords and features that set my spider sense atingle.
Should Wasteland 2 be a carbon copy of the original? Of course not, nobody is asking for that. There are features like UI, graphics, inventory, character sheets, maps, mechanics, etc that should be updated, improved and/or refined to at least a 2003 level (especially UI, inventory and camera have taken huge nose-dives in recent years).
Sure, quest markers can be done more sensibly, emotional engagement can be done without INTENSE CINEMATIC EMOTIONEERING GAY ELF BUTTFUCK ROMANTIC SPACESHIP EXPLOSION and well done sporadic VOs can be used to improve the atmosphere.
But why should W2 be the game to prove that those features don't neccessarily have to suck if they weren't problems or even features of the original? That'd be money and time spent on superfluous stuff with a chance of back-firing. Let Bethsidianware fix their shit themselves.

 

[likaq]

Stackpole, a fucking author, shows that he has no confidence in writing and would rather dump huge amounts of money on VO instead of actually important features. Devs are worried not to "frustrate" their players and are considering quest-markers...
The whole interview mentions exactly one promising feature, the many variables that are supposed to influence dialogues/story. The rest are buzzwords and features that set my spider sense atingle.
Should Wasteland 2 be a carbon copy of the original? Of course not, nobody is asking for that. There are features like UI, graphics, inventory, character sheets, maps, mechanics, etc that should be updated, improved and/or refined to at least a 2003 level (especially UI, inventory and camera have taken huge nose-dives in recent years).
Sure, quest markers can be done more sensibly, emotional engagement can be done without INTENSE CINEMATIC EMOTIONEERING GAY ELF BUTTFUCK ROMANTIC SPACESHIP EXPLOSION and well done sporadic VOs can be used to improve the atmosphere.
But why should W2 be the game to prove that those features don't neccessarily have to suck if they weren't problems or even features of the original? That'd be money and time spent on superfluous stuff with a chance of back-firing. Let Bethsidianware fix their shit themselves.

This.