Wasteland What puts you off the most about Wasteland 3?

[Iluvcheezcake]

Could someone please explain the dubious nature of Fig for me? Or at least point me in the right direction (links etc). Ty in advance.

 

[Luckmann]

WL3 is a fucking mess, honestly. First the cinematic dialogue isn't just a terrible concept and a horrible idea in itself, but the one showcased is awkward and just.. bad.

Then learning about the multiplayer, the multiplatform focus (and all the issues that comes with that), the single-protagonist idea, it just kept getting worse and worse. These are things I wouldn't even want at a 6 million stretch-goal.

And all this after a somewhat lackluster Wasteland 2 and a straight-up massive downgrade of a "Director's Cut", I have no idea why anyone would back this - especially taking the way they handled Tides of Numenera into account.

I just don't feel that inXile is worthy of any trust, and they're pretty upfront about that with the WL3 crowdfunding campaign. They don't seem to be in the business of making anything I want, anymore, and it seems like they just want to be the next (((Bioware))), with all that entails.

 

[Turjan]

I backed Wasteland 2 not because I was interested in the game in and itself, but because I liked the idea to bring this kind of games back. I saw this more as a kind of donation to the cause. I think I don't even have looked at the game yet.

I backed Torment: Tides of Numenera because this one really interested me. I hope I'll get some enjoyment out of it, even if it isn't exactly what was promised, as I also like adventure games, if they are done right.

I didn't back Bard's Tale IV because the campaign trailer was more or less just a flashy engine demo. I honestly didn't know what the game was supposed to be. The first scripted game footage they showed made me think this was the right decision.

Which brings me to the banal reason for why I didn't back Wasteland 3: No interest.

 

[Iznaliu]

it seems like they just want to be the next (((Bioware))), with all that entails.

True, but they've too incompetent to reach that status unless room appears in the hiking simulator market, and even then, I think Fargo will freak out about making the leap to AAAdom.

 

[Luckmann]

I backed Wasteland 2 not because I was interested in the game in and itself, but because I liked the idea to bring this kind of games back. I saw this more as a kind of donation to the cause. I think I don't even have looked at the game yet.

I backed Torment: Tides of Numenera because this one really interested me. I hope I'll get some enjoyment out of it, even if it isn't exactly what was promised, as I also like adventure games, if they are done right.

I didn't back Bard's Tale IV because the campaign trailer was more or less just a flashy engine demo. I honestly didn't know what the game was supposed to be. The first scripted game footage they showed made me think this was the right decision.

Which brings me to the banal reason for why I didn't back Wasteland 3: No interest.

I think it sums up a lot of people's feelings. As opposed to WL2, WL3 doesn't even seem like the kind of classic game people would support just to see more of the same.

 

[Charles Eli Cheese]

Fig is pretty much a scam site as far as I am concerned. It is a complete waste of money to ever 'invest' in a fig game and I find its use highly shady. If they could run it on kickstarter and get it funded, they would.

But it is all pretty crap
multiplatform
multiplayer
no party

It's not an RPG

 

[Lithium Flower]

I regret backing W2. To be fair I stopped playing after I reached Damonta, but everything up to that point has been painfully mediocre.

Shit visuals and atmosphere (typically a minor concern but the game looks and feels worse than prior RPGs AND the games that came out of the Kickstarter CRPG blitz, so it is worse than both contemporary and older titles in this regard.)

Combat is serviceable, but so basic that it mostly involves staying behind cover and clicking on enemies until they die. Also some major balance issues with energy weapons and explosives IIRC.

Horrible quest design (as of release version, not sure if it was fixed down the line):

Damonta spoilers

A certain character you can find in Damonta immediately joints your party as a temporary companion after being saved and gives you a quest that takes place in a different location. If you leave Damonta before killing all the hostiles, all the friendly NPCs there die. If you try to clear Damonta with this guy in tow, he inevitably gets killed because of low HP and joke gun, failing the quest. You can't dismiss him. You can't tell him to wait. The only solution is to load a save game, if you have one, potentially rolling back hours of playtime.

But worst of all, the writing and the tone. Classic Fallout games are perhaps some of the best examples of juxtaposing dark humor & serious shit. Wasteland 2 is one of the worst. The infamous "You suck!" line is an obvious example, but the reality is that the entire game is the same way. I mean, the game practically opens with the destruction of one of the few major settlements left, you get to hear people's screams and desperate pleading on the radio - yet when you get to the massacred location, you find out that the developers managed to stick a shitty joke or a pun into every corpse's description. And the entire citadel is shitty masturbation, like "hey, let's figure out how many tasteless W1 references we can squeeze into one room!" Oh, and the stupid backer statues everywhere...

So yeah, zero hope that Wasteland 3 is going to be a good game. Not only is it highly unlikely that they are going to suddenly change course and fix the above flaws, but Brian has shown himself as a potentially out-of-touch manager in the semi-recent happenings.

Also if I had known that they were going to run a Torment kickstarter before releasing W2, I wouldn't have bought the game, let alone backed it. So the fact that they are still doing this shit leaves a bad taste in my mouth (if anyone knows if there is a genuine business-related reason behind it, please correct me.)

 

[Somberlain]

Could someone please explain the dubious nature of Fig for me? Or at least point me in the right direction (links etc). Ty in advance.

Fig is a crowdfunding platform for video games. The crowdfunding platform was founded by Justin Bailey (formerly, COO of Double Fine Productions),[1] Bob Ippolito, and Freeman White. The advisory board is composed of executives from across the video game industry with previous experience in crowdfunding and investing in video game projects: Aaron Isaksen of the Indie Fund, Brian Fargo of inXile Entertainment, Feargus Urquhart of Obsidian Entertainment, and Tim Schafer of Double Fine Productions. The platform is backed by funding from Spark Capital. Both Alex Rigopulos, from Harmonix, and Cliff Bleszinski, formerly of Epic Games and currently of Boss Key Productions, have since joined the advisory board of Fig.[2][3]

Would you trust these people with your finances?

 

[Haba]

I went back to finish California after completing Dungeon Siege III, PoE and Tyranny.

Compared to those three, Wasteland 2 is a fucking masterpiece.

What a sad world we live in.

 

[Haplo]

 

[FeelTheRads]

It's true, if you also don't forget that W2 itself sucks.

 

[undecaf]

Everything is shit, except piss.

 

[Haba]

At least I had some fun playing Wasteland 2.

I really should've played DSIII before backing any of the nuObsidian projects.

 

[Irenaeus]

Not enough romance options for all genders.

 

[Serus]

The most important thing is that Wasteland 2 didn't impress me. It wasn't the worst crpg ever as some suggest but it was a poor/mediocre/average at best kind of game for me. I'm not following W3 development closely but why would i trust the same people that made W2 to make a good W3 ? Of curse other things like wasting resources for multiplayer (in a single player crpg) or making it multiplatform aren't helping.

 

[Zombra]

Late to the party, but the main thing that annoys me about Wasteland 3 is the atrocious lack of communication about gameplay specifics during and after the crowdfunding campaign. I hammered as hard as I could to get some answers about the vision for the game but doing so was very unrewarding. It seemed like they didn't really know what they wanted to do, and they weren't interested in conversing with the backers about what they wanted either.

It turns out that some of their answers are better than expected (it's not to be a Chosen One game; there won't be any multiplayer-exclusive content you can't see in single-player), but what we had to go through to get that information was ridiculous. And of course some of what they're planning is worse than expected as random infobits leak out with weird one-off interviews saying things like Wasteland 2 was too complicated, we don't want you worrying about all those nasty stats and different weapon types.

The whole ethos of communicating with the fans, which actually happened somewhat during Wasteland 2, has gone entirely by the wayside. Wasteland 3 is a "behind closed doors" project and all we can do is make forum posts with good ideas and hope someone somewhere is reading them.

 

[FeelTheRads]

like Wasteland 2 was too complicated, we don't want you worrying about all those nasty stats and different weapon types.

Console development has no effect on PC, guise.

Pretty impressive how fast they've switched to the streamlining apologism, though. I sense a new Todd Howard in the making somewhere at inXile.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

They're just making the game they want to make. Which would be fine, but then why get crowdfunding?

If they cared about their audience at all they certainly wouldn't have put in multiplayer.

I like the new conversation system and emphasis on reactivity but it isn't enough to make me want to back, or even buy the game when it comes out. I'll wait for the inevitable Director's Cut. I'm still yet to finish Wasteland 2.

 

[Haplo]

like Wasteland 2 was too complicated, we don't want you worrying about all those nasty stats and different weapon types.

Console development has no effect on PC, guise.

Pretty impressive how fast they've switched to the streamlining apologism, though. I sense a new Todd Howard in the making somewhere at inXile.

Depends what they mean by that.
W2 system was a pile of redundant shitty mess. They definitely should cut the number of skills in half.
And I'm all for broader weapon categories, rather then individual skill for each single gun type.
Then again, I'm also in favor of weapon type progression (melee/brawling -> small arms -> uzis/hunting shotguns -> assault rifles/sniper rifles -> energy/heavy guns, with possible keeping melee and advanced shotguns relevant in their niche throughout) rather then the weapon equalizing and streamlining which happened in W2 (but also in F3/New Vegas).

 

[Luckmann]

like Wasteland 2 was too complicated, we don't want you worrying about all those nasty stats and different weapon types.

Console development has no effect on PC, guise.

Pretty impressive how fast they've switched to the streamlining apologism, though. I sense a new Todd Howard in the making somewhere at inXile.

Depends what they mean by that.
W2 system was a pile of redundant shitty mess. They definitely should cut the number of skills in half.
And I'm all for broader weapon categories, rather then individual skill for each single gun type.
Then again, I'm also in favor of weapon type progression (melee/brawling -> small arms -> uzis/hunting shotguns -> assault rifles/sniper rifles -> energy/heavy guns, with possible keeping melee and advanced shotguns relevant in their niche throughout) rather then the weapon equalizing and streamlining which happened in W2 (but also in F3/New Vegas).

The path to hell is paved with skill condensation. While there were some shitty skills, cutting them in half would be absolutely retarded.

As for weapons, all weapons should be useful in their niche role. Trying to make all of them equally viable in an open battlefield confrontation is ridiculous, but having them be progressive is equally so. You use different weapons for different things, and a good RPG shouldn't have too much of an issue representing that without necessarily reverting to pure numbers.

 

[Haplo]

No, what is ridiculous is starting rusty guns do 10 damage, while new, shiny Tier 7 weapons do 300.

And useless, redundant skills should absolutely be condensed or cut. It's bad design to clutter a game system with rubbish. It's possible to have meaningful skills, you know. As opposed to W2 skills.

 

[Luckmann]

No, what is ridiculous is starting rusty guns do 10 damage, while new, shiny Tier 7 weapons do 300.

And useless, redundant skills should absolutely be condensed or cut. It's bad design to clutter a game system with rubbish. It's possible to have meaningful skills, you know. As opposed to W2 skills.

This is different from what you said at first, and entirely different issues. No skill should be useless, and starting rusty guns do 10 damage, with "Tier 7" weapons doing 300. I think we can all agree on that.

Thing is, you can have tons of skills and still have them be useful. There are more or less useless skills in Wasteland 2 (Toaster Repair is a fucking meme), but most of them are completely legitimate, and shouldn't be condensed into wider, bigger skills or removed.

"Weapon type progression" as you described is also completely different from the issue of having such a wide numbers-range quality in terms of weapons of the same type. Having "tiers" is retarded to begin with. A weapon should be better than another weapon of the same type not because it belongs to a given tier, but because of what that weapon is and what it does. Having tiers is the laziest shit I've seen in a game of this type, honestly. However, weapon-type progression isn't much better. Pistols have functions that (most) rifles do not, and so on. There shouldn't be a clear progression, and "assault rifles/sniper rifles" shouldn't be inherently superior to "pistols".

Do more damage, fire longer, fire faster? Of course. But you'll still carry a pistol as a backup, it can be readied faster, reloaded faster, etc. A pistol is sidearm, not the main weapon of an armed group of militants. It's the idea that pistols need to somehow be comparable in strength to assault rifles when used as a main weapon that needs to die. "It's muh choice", the 'tard says, yeah, well, you made a poor fucking choice. Take this bag of chips and go back to your console, you fucking potato.

This goes double for melee/hand-to-hand, btw. Should it be there? Yes. Should it be a viable choice in a stand-up fight? Lolno. It's an alternative, a backup, or used in a very specific way (such as combining it with stealth, oh god, this was one of the best parts of Fallout: Tactics, truth be told). As much as I wasn't a huge fan of that game for other reasons, Wasteland would've done well to take a huge page out Fallout: Tactics. That and Jagged Alliance 2.

 

[Haplo]

Yes, it's different, but it does highlight other retarded aspects of the game, connected with the ones discussed.

Weapon type progression provides a viable reason for weapons to increase in combat effectiveness as you progress trough the game. Also makes a lot of sense in the context of resource scarcity, particularly in a post-apoc setting. Certainly much better reason then Rusty Iron Tier 1 Rifle vs Shiny Titanium Tier 7 Rifle. Mind boggling that W1 mostly did this right yet they had to switch to this retarded pseudo-MMO system in W2.

I agree that the weapons can keep the usefulness in their niche throughout. But W2 didn't even do this. Pistols as side arms, sure. Early on they could even be that. But why all pistols from mid-game and onwards cost 5-6 AP to fire? Ammo availability could be a limiting factor as well. One to prefer a pistol/single fire rifle/shotgun to a full auto assault/machine gun. And actually using the melee/HTH even later on. I disagree with energy weapons being on par/weaker then ballistics (except for one mid-game model in W2, I suppose). I'd agree if they were made to serve a different function - but in practice they never succeeded at this in W2. The whole armor/encumbrance/penetration angle was poorly executed overall.

As for the skills, I'd definitely merge many of them. And provide significant modifiers from attributes (which are kinda meaningless).

Combat skills:
Assault Rifles
Bladed Weapons
Blunt Weapons
Brawling
Energy Weapons
Handguns
Heavy Weapons
Shotguns
Sniper Rifles
Submachine Guns

Why so many? Why force to specialize in a single type of weapon and prevent from using others? Just do something along:
HtH/Melee
Hand/Small arms
Rifles
Heavy - include grenade/missile launchers, for Christ's sake
Energy

So 5 out of 10 are plenty. Alternatively provide some significant synergy bonuses at least. It stands to reason that a brawler will be better at swinging a club or hammer then a sniper. Also a rifleman will generally know how to use a pistol or even uzi.

Why are those separate? Wouldn't Electronics do?
Field Medic
Surgeon
Really?
Lockpicking
Safecracking
Alarm Disarming
Brute Force
Wow!
Mechanical Repair
Weaponsmithing
Common....

Hard Ass
Kiss Ass
Smart Ass
Really? Sure the answer style is different, still....

Overall I'd leave maybe 17 out of 29 skills. And the game would be clearly better for it. Also I'd introduce heavy attribute modifiers and get rid of 20% success chances at max skill levels.
But I'd also deeply revamp the entire loot system. As well as the combat mechanics. Clearly F:T and JA2 are great sources of inspiration here, like you suggest Luckmann.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Arguing for less skills for a modern CRPG? No thanks. I appreciate that W2 has a ton of skills and means you can specialize your characters more. If you keep merging and simplifying you will end up with your typical modern RPG, not something that resembles an old-school pen-and-paper style experience. IMO.

 

[Haplo]

I do hate redundancy in skills/abilities. Wasteland 2 is a bad case of this. Another example would be Dragon Age: Origins and its Sword&Board talent tree.
Game mechanics can be interesting and varied without making them redundant and multiplying meaningless skills just for the sake of it.

Be my guest, make 30 skills, sure. But better damn make sure that they matter. That they bring something unique/useful to the table. And I don't mean Toaster Repair. That is actually a fine skill given the legacy of the setting... even more so given the coded rewards.