Game News Wasteland 2's Delay: All About Making Choice Matter

[Lancehead]

Validation also does not need to come through mechanics, though using something like reputation or influence (i.e. an Indirect Reaction System) can make an abstracted validation easier than hand-scripting specific benefits and drawbacks to every choice.

That's a very diplomatic stance, somewhat disappointingly.

 

[tuluse]

I see inXile's really sticking with the "cut off content" idea of reactivity.

Maybe it's for the best, RPGs tend to err on the side of being too long anyway.

Isn't mutually exclusive content a staple of reactivity?

 

[General Maxson]

Finally some nice news.

 

[Roguey]

Fair enough, but this advice of his seems to be framed in the context of a relatively constrained AAA-type game with limited player agency. Something with dialogue wheels. I'm not sure how relevant it is to W2 or PE.

As with From Die Rolls to Hit Volumes, a lot of it applies to any RPG.

Also I wouldn't consider New Vegas a game with limited player agency.

 

[Excidium]

I see inXile's really sticking with the "cut off content" idea of reactivity.

Maybe it's for the best, RPGs tend to err on the side of being too long anyway.

Isn't mutually exclusive content a staple of reactivity?

Not necessarily. People put too much value on branching content. Like, the examples they give is a great implementation of exclusive content, because it is consequence of continuous player choice instead of just picking from A,B or C to experience content A, B or C which is what some people think is great C&C.

 

[Roguey]

Isn't mutually exclusive content a staple of reactivity?

Yes, but Wasteland 2 seems to be going for "You go to this town, then this one you didn't go to gets destroyed. You go to this next one and this other one you didn't go to gets destroyed." And so on. Seems kinda forced, but I see what they're going for with multiple crises happening at once with severe consequences for the people you can't help.

 

[weresheeple]

Seems kinda forced

Seems kind of natural to me, considering the premise.

 

[tuluse]

Not necessarily. People put too much value on branching content. Like, the examples they give is a great implementation of exclusive content, because it is consequence of continuous player choice instead of just picking from A,B or C to experience content A, B or C which is what some people think is great C&C.

I didn't say it was the end all, be all of C&C. In my mind the 3 corner stones would be acknowledgment of what you've done (the ending slides in Fallout, and companion reactions in PS:T [also just about every Bioware game since PS:T came out]), different methods to achieve goals (skill use, having allies, etc), and mutually exclusive content.

Yes, but Wasteland 2 seems to be going for "You go to this town, then this one you didn't go to gets destroyed. You go to this next one and this other one you didn't go to gets destroyed." And so on. Seems kinda forced,

Actually, I agree with this. I'm hoping it's just a "shock" choice at the beginning to get players used to the idea that world is going to react to what you do.

I see what they're going for with multiple crises happening at once with severe consequences for the people you can't help.

Roguey said something nice about Wasteland 2, everyone mark your calendars

 

[Infinitron]

Isn't mutually exclusive content a staple of reactivity?

Yes, but Wasteland 2 seems to be going for "You go to this town, then this one you didn't go to gets destroyed. You go to this next one and this other one you didn't go to gets destroyed." And so on. Seems kinda forced, but I see what they're going for with multiple crises happening at once with severe consequences for the people you can't help.

I'm pretty sure the whole "town gets destroyed" thing is just an example, a symbol of how far-reaching the reactivity in Wasteland 2 will be. Witcher 2 made that sort of thing cool because it was like "No other developer dares spend so much money on something half the players won't see."

It's not like the game will be a chain of destroyed towns. But I must say you're being unusually pragmatic about this. What happened to the real Roguey?

 

[Karmapowered]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/201...l-about-making-choice-matter/#comment-1315464

I think I came up with an appropriate response.

 

[Stabwound]

Holy shit, the way Fargo explains it sounds amazing. You can kill anyone in the game as you please, which will have effects down the line, lock you out of certain content, etc. Or you can do things to completely cut off any possible access to certain areas.

In theory, the way he describes it sounds amazing. Being able to explore every single area of a game no matter what, especially in a CRPG, is kind of lame. Gives it a lot of replayability this way.

 

[Roguey]

Actually, I agree with this. I'm hoping it's just a "shock" choice at the beginning to get players used to the idea that world is going to react to what you do.

I'm pretty sure the whole "town gets destroyed" thing is just an example, a symbol of how far-reaching the reactivity in Wasteland 2 will be. Witcher 2 made that sort of thing cool because it was like "No other developer dares spend so much money on something half the players won't see."

It's not like the game will be a chain of destroyed towns.

“We aren’t shy about shutting off entire levels of gameplay,” said project lead Chris Keenan. “We really wanted to make that happen.”
“We have so many sequences,” added inXile president Matt Findley. “About half the game, most people will never see. We’re not afraid at all to create content that’s off the critical path or can be closed off permanently.”
...
“On the biggest level,” Fargo continued, “there will be areas that will be completely different. Gone, destroyed. There’s not one just like it to make up for it. It’s just gone.”

But I must say you're being unusually pragmatic about this. What happened to the real Roguey?

I was happy enough with

He then fast-balled further examples. What if, for instance, you disobey Ranger orders to the point of becoming a liability? You become a pariah. Your own organization turns on you, hunts you. The entire game changes.

Possibly read my post and decided to clarify that there is a lot more to that sequence than a non-standard game over.

 

[Lancehead]

Seems kinda forced

Seems kind of natural to me, considering the premise.

Depends on whether the content is cut off systemically or through scripting. The latter would very likely be forced and disappointing.

 

[Jashiin]

Sounds good. Of course the butthurt from the usual crowd will be enormous.

Right on cue, my Bohemian buddy: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/201...l-about-making-choice-matter/#comment-1315464

I don’t know how important I think choice is. I mean done well choice and consequences in a game can draw the player into the script or into the role they play and provoke thought about their actions, but a lot of the time it just means that you won’t see all of the game if you don’t have the time-luxury of a replay, or miss out on bits of the game you might have enjoyed more than the bit you got.

I was a real fan of ‘The Walking Dead’s” illusion of choice: the experience of choice was something that drew you into the story and connected you with it in a way only interactive fiction can, the consequences were how you felt about your actions, but behind the curtain your choices had less in-game consequence then it might appear and less of the product was wasted because of them.

I guess I think choice is more important than consequence for me: If an NPC was dangling off a cliff my experience of choosing either to desperately grab his hand before he fell off or to stamp on his fingers until he fell would let me role-play my character, personalise my experience and immerse myself in the game, despite the fact that with either choice the NPC died.

David Gaider Brofisted this.

Fucking soccerdads

 

[Roguey]

Depends on whether the content is cut off systemically or through scripting. The later would very likely be forced and disappointing.

The beginning of the game is definitely scripted. If I remember correctly you get a choice of two or three towns to visit and the one(s) you don't go boom. If it's systemic I still expect/demand choices to be forecasted; i.e. let me know through the radio if something's about to be cut off.

 

[Baron]

It seems as if Fargo's been stealing thoughts out of my head whilst I sleep. But if frying my brain with a microwave emitter makes for a better game then I'm all for it.

Roguey, I don't mind that. Town A or B is just a nice opening example to establish the bleak setting and to inform the player that this isn't the game where every farmer's daughter gets rescued.

 

[Infinitron]

Seems kinda forced

Seems kind of natural to me, considering the premise.

Depends on whether the content is cut off systemically or through scripting. The later would very likely be forced and disappointing.

What do you mean? Of course it's through scripting - they won't have fully simulated AI armies roaming the Wasteland and sacking towns.

Possibly read my post and decided to clarify that there is a lot more to that sequence than a non-standard game over.

OK, you made me go and edit my podcast summary post. It's "non-standard endgame" now. Happy?

 

[Roguey]

OK, you made me go and edit my podcast summary post. It's "non-standard endgame" now. Happy?

Better.

Also I had a problem with not being able to visit a location for arbitrary reasons. If I can visit that location and it's a ghost town, that's fine.

 

[CWagner]

Seems kinda forced

Seems kind of natural to me, considering the premise.

Depends on whether the content is cut off systemically or through scripting. The later would very likely be forced and disappointing.

What do you mean? Of course it's through scripting - they won't have fully simulated AI armies roaming the Wasteland and sacking towns.

That'll be the of the 2020-2030 Kickstarter RPGs :D

 

[Lancehead]

Seems kinda forced

Seems kind of natural to me, considering the premise.

Depends on whether the content is cut off systemically or through scripting. The later would very likely be forced and disappointing.

What do you mean? Of course it's through scripting - they won't have fully simulated AI armies roaming the Wasteland and sacking towns.

I'd prefer it if happens through faction reputation mechanics. Not because you chose option number 2 in quest save-a-town, for example.

 

[Jashiin]

What do you mean? Of course it's through scripting - they won't have fully simulated AI armies roaming the Wasteland and sacking towns.

 

[toro]

The mention of Witcher 2's choices in a positive light angers me.

Just paraphrasing.

I think there is a world of difference between The Witcher 2 and what Wasteland 2 is proposing:
- In Witcher 2 the entire chapter was cutoff based on one line of dialogue and normally a player can finish the game and never know about the second path. This is retarded-half-arsed C&C implementation designed for the sole reason to put the devs in a good light when in fact they just found a clever way to avoid implementing real C&C. Bottom line is that the player cannot experiment the consequence of his acts because the locations are different in each chapter and except the companions, nothing survives chapter transition.
- In Wasteland 2 (if we should trust Fargo) the access to the area state can be altered by the player's actions but nonetheless the player can see the results of his actions. I don't know about you but this shit is important for me: the freedom to re-visit location makes the world more credible, let's say more consistent. Of course, it depends on implementation but from a design point of view, it's definitely a superior design approach compared to the TW2's chapters crap.

I imagine that for some people the Choice is more important than the Consequence, they celebrate the power of the Choice, but Choice is nothing without a real Consequence therefore the Choice is meaningless if you cannot experiment the Consequence.
That's why I pretty much hate The Witcher 2, Bioware and Bethesda's attempts to implement C&C. They always fuck around, they find clever ways to avoid it or they implement it in a retarded way.

The Witcher 2 albeit a good game it should not be used as an example of C&C. But hey, Fargo needs to sell this puppy. I just hope it works.

 

[Grunker]

The hype machine is rolling

You can say that again.

 

[Excidium]

The hype machine is rolling

 

[Grunker]

The mention of TWD's choices in a positive light angers me.

Honestly, TW2 is a beacon of reactivity compared to its closest kin, Mass Effect (which is the comparison in the article). I did a 1:1 to one comparison of actual C&C in an old thread during a discussion with VD and Mrowak... and no matter what you feel about TW, the concrete difference between Bioware and CD Project was pretty staggering.

(obviously I agree that the author's hard on for TW2 as though it was some stellar mark for how good reactivity can get is retarded)