Wasteland 2 Kickstarter

[AGX-17]

I love the fact that you can kill absolutely anyone in the game and if that person was critical to furthering the story, oh well, deal with the consequences, find a different way to proceed.  I've always felt that was a better way to proceed than invulnerable characters or essentially a clone taking their spot.  

 

Anyway, this all sound really fantastic and it sounds like Fargo & Co. are swinging for the fences.  3 thoughts:

 

1) I hope this doesn't go the way of Broken Age, I hope Fargo has done a better job of managing the funding and staying within what they can actually accomplish with the money, because this sounds really ambitious

 

2) This sounds great, but will they actually follow through with this or is it just boasting?

 

3) I'm usually in favor of releasing a game that's as bug free as possible, but if they're going to keep pushing more reactivity into the game until the last second that will undoubtedly mean unforeseen breakage at launch, and I'm actually fine with that.  I can deal with bugs and breakage for a few weeks/months if it means a more lifelike breathing world.

Would he really go to the press and just "boast" about a falsified story when he's got $2.9m in possibly rabid fans out there? I don't see why this is so suspect, it's not like it's a Bethesda game.

Edited July 31, 2013 by AGX-17

[BruceVC]

 

I love the fact that you can kill absolutely anyone in the game and if that person was critical to furthering the story, oh well, deal with the consequences, find a different way to proceed.  I've always felt that was a better way to proceed than invulnerable characters or essentially a clone taking their spot.  

 

Anyway, this all sound really fantastic and it sounds like Fargo & Co. are swinging for the fences.  3 thoughts:

 

1) I hope this doesn't go the way of Broken Age, I hope Fargo has done a better job of managing the funding and staying within what they can actually accomplish with the money, because this sounds really ambitious

 

2) This sounds great, but will they actually follow through with this or is it just boasting?

 

3) I'm usually in favor of releasing a game that's as bug free as possible, but if they're going to keep pushing more reactivity into the game until the last second that will undoubtedly mean unforeseen breakage at launch, and I'm actually fine with that.  I can deal with bugs and breakage for a few weeks/months if it means a more lifelike breathing world.

Would he really go to the press and just "boast" about a falsified story when he's got $2.9m in possibly rabid fans out there? I don't see why this is so suspect, it's not like it's a Bethesda game.

 

 

I may be wrong but it seems like you are saying Fargo is being honest?

 

I also think he is

[Rostere]

I definitely believe Fargo. The only thing I'm afraid of is that he rushes the game out. I want them to really take their time with it.

[alanschu]

I believe he has that as a goal.  I just understand the combinatorial explosion.  My first guess is that situations must be somewhat isolated from each other, but his example of Ranger HQ hunting you down certainly does change things.

 

I'm curious how long he expects a single playthrough to take, as it will give me a better idea as to how much branching actually exists.

 

For it to meet my expectations (in terms of branching and reactivity), I am pegging a single playthrough to top out at around 10 hours or so.  Probably pretty close to Shadowrun's campaign (which I enjoyed, to be clear).

[WorstUsernameEver]

A recent magazine preview mentioned the main quest was 20 hours long.

[alanschu]

That seems *very* ambitious for the amount of reactivity that I *could* be led to believe based on the RPS interview.

 

It's likely not what I would figure would be "ideal" (though as I said, I would be surprised if any game truly could be).

 

Certain cost saving mechanisms are obviously "still going to the same places" and so forth, so as to not need new levels for different decisions, and some stuff like that.  I think, for my own safety, I'll still temper by expectations in this regard.  Expect "the worst" (or at least less awesome) and hope for the the best, so to speak.

[mkreku]

Someone spent time in Wasteland 2:

 

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/08/01/a-day-with-wasteland-2/

 

It sounds awesome to me, but I'm probably the most biased person on this board.

[rjshae]

Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien. --Voltaire.

 

I just hope they don't run out of money.

[Keyrock]

Someone spent time in Wasteland 2:

 

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/08/01/a-day-with-wasteland-2/

 

It sounds awesome to me, but I'm probably the most biased person on this board.

I really hope they actually pull this off.

[Oner]

 

“Oh, that was a mine,” said inXile president Matt Findley as our party exploded.

He’d been tasked with an early side quest to rescue some pigs for a farmer near the Arizona prison, and he decided to take the opportunity to show just how unpredictable Wasteland’s salt-in-your-wounds, spit-in-your-eyes world can be. OK, actually he was trying to demonstrate the way skills double dip both in and outside of combat, but an eagle-eyed perception stat is only so useful if you still manage to absent-mindedly skip into a minefield instead of disarming it.

I actually like this idea. You get a straigthforward quest: rescue some pigs. Probably from predators, or bandits.

Then you step on the first landmine, boom.

Reload, slow and careful, Search turned on. One mine..another..two more...five, ten..

WHY IS THERE A MINEFIELD HERE AND HOW DID THE PIGS GET OVER IT?!

 

I mean, it would be a funny surprise. And very Fallouty/Wastelandy. :D

[Keyrock]

Absolutely, and if you're stupid enough to lead the pigs back through the minefield a whole bunch of them should by all means get blown up (assuming you didn't disarm every single mine in the entire minefield).  I don't want the game dumbed down just because little Timmy might get upset because he can't be bothered to use common sense.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Keyrock

[alanschu]

I am expecting the game to be absurd.

 

I found the RPS preview to be pretty grounded.  A lot of good/promising stuff, while still some work that needs to be done.  Although I find it's surprising how much work can get done by the end of the project.

 

I remember thinking to myself "There's no way in hell we're shipping DAO on time..." one week before our certification date.  A lot of stuff was broken and still coming together.  I think the programmers screamed "More Dakka!" or something, because in 4 days I was like "Okay maybe we will...." hehe.

[Keyrock]

"More dakka is always the answer" - Ancient Orkish Proverb

[Darkpriest]

@up

 

"and if in doubt, bring even more dakka"

[lobotomy42]

I love the fact that you can kill absolutely anyone in the game and if that person was critical to furthering the story, oh well, deal with the consequences, find a different way to proceed. 

 

I hate the fact that "you can kill anyone!" is the gold standard for reactivity.  Yes, I recognize that it's a symptom of having combat as your primary gameplay mechanic.  But real reactivity, it seems to me, would involve interactions more sophisticated than just kill/don't any character.  Like talking? Going into business with? Sharing an apartment? Playing tic-tac-toe? The problem of course is that a lot of these require specific scripting to be done well, unless you go the Fable/Sims route of fake speech.

[Keyrock]

 

I love the fact that you can kill absolutely anyone in the game and if that person was critical to furthering the story, oh well, deal with the consequences, find a different way to proceed. 

 

I hate the fact that "you can kill anyone!" is the gold standard for reactivity.  Yes, I recognize that it's a symptom of having combat as your primary gameplay mechanic.  But real reactivity, it seems to me, would involve interactions more sophisticated than just kill/don't any character.  Like talking? Going into business with? Sharing an apartment? Playing tic-tac-toe? The problem of course is that a lot of these require specific scripting to be done well, unless you go the Fable/Sims route of fake speech.

 

I don't mean that you necessarily do kill these people, I just like that the option is there.  I prefer a game to allow me to break it and then have to deal with picking up the pieces rather than making characters invulnerable to avoid said situation.  Of course the ability to engage characters in a variety of ways, from violence, to cooperation, to duping, to charming, to intimidation, and so on, is ideal.  How many of these could feasibly be programmed in to have real ramifications beyond a line of dialogue or two in a timely manner is the real question, and it seems it's one inXile are trying to answer.

[Humanoid]

 

I love the fact that you can kill absolutely anyone in the game and if that person was critical to furthering the story, oh well, deal with the consequences, find a different way to proceed.

 

I hate the fact that "you can kill anyone!" is the gold standard for reactivity.  Yes, I recognize that it's a symptom of having combat as your primary gameplay mechanic.  But real reactivity, it seems to me, would involve interactions more sophisticated than just kill/don't any character.  Like talking? Going into business with? Sharing an apartment? Playing tic-tac-toe? The problem of course is that a lot of these require specific scripting to be done well, unless you go the Fable/Sims route of fake speech.

 

It's the opposite I think, the claim isn't that it's the gold standard, but that it's the first hurdle. Beyond the base state of existing, which most games treat as an immutable condition, killing an NPC is logically the next step: that is, getting the game to react to the simple binary possibilities of a given NPC being alive or dead. We celebrate the possibility, because like QWOP, barely anyone gets over that first hurdle. If a game can take that step, then as you say, the next frontier is the more 'sophisticated' nuanced stuff.

[alanschu]

 

I don't mean that you necessarily do kill these people, I just like that the option is there.  I prefer a game to allow me to break it and then have to deal with picking up the pieces rather than making characters invulnerable to avoid said situation.  Of course the ability to engage characters in a variety of ways, from violence, to cooperation, to duping, to charming, to intimidation, and so on, is ideal.  How many of these could feasibly be programmed in to have real ramifications beyond a line of dialogue or two in a timely manner is the real question, and it seems it's one inXile are trying to answer.

 

 

The problem I have always had with "kill anyone" is that the games fail to really do anything meaningful with it or to respond accordingly.

 

I find "you can kill anyone" games that don't respond to it appropriately more "Immersion breaking" (though I have grown to loathe that word...) than games that don't let me kill anyone.

Edited August 5, 2013 by alanschu

[Hurlshort]

Generally I prefer a game that allows me to avoid killing anyone.  It's refreshingly different from most everything else.

[alanschu]

I'd actually be inclined to agree, if my choices were "kill anyone" or "avoid all killing."

[Malcador]

The problem I have always had with "kill anyone" is that the games fail to really do anything meaningful with it or to respond accordingly.

 

I find "you can kill anyone" games that don't respond to it appropriately more "Immersion breaking" (though I have grown to loathe that word...) than games that don't let me kill anyone.

Problem with implementation rather than concept then. Can be pretty tricky to make a world really reactive to one killing indiscriminately. Suppose a nice trick is to just have it react by killing you via overwhelming force.

[HoonDing]

NV did it best. Kill a certain NPC and certain quests immediately failed or were resolved immediately.

 

I wish the same were true with Ulfric Stormcloak and various other twits in Skyrim.

[alanschu]

 

 

Problem with implementation rather than concept then. Can be pretty tricky to make a world really reactive to one killing indiscriminately. Suppose a nice trick is to just have it react by killing you via overwhelming force.

 

Agree it's an issue with execution.  Though your solution is usually the one that I'm okay with (since it's relatively easy compared to alternatives).  But then the cries of "false choice!" will come

 

I actually support allowing gamers to choose defeat (even if they don't realize it) in places where many games end up railroading your character.  Although some will still cry about fake choice (not much that can be done for them, however), I do think it makes railroading more palatable.  Although I can understand why scenes like that may be cut.

[Labadal]

[lobotomy42]

NV did it best. Kill a certain NPC and certain quests immediately failed or were resolved immediately.

 

I wish the same were true with Ulfric Stormcloak and various other twits in Skyrim.

 

That sounds more like "quest log reactivity" than "world reactivity."