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

[St. Toxic]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Grunker is a dumb motherfucker and has no taste.

 

[Grunker]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Grunker is a dumb motherfucker and has no taste.

 

[DeepOcean]

Wasteland 2 thread is the new Project Eternity thread

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

I've resisted temptation for so very, very long. But I am of weak moral fiber.

Maybe, but I still think SPECIAL is one of the better crpg systems around.

Then you're wr... ah well, you ge the point.

Why?

 

[Grunker]

I've resisted temptation for so very, very long. But I am of weak moral fiber.

Maybe, but I still think SPECIAL is one of the better crpg systems around.

Then you're wr... ah well, you ge the point.

Why?

Oh no. If I start this again, out of the woodwork will come the people yelling "oh noes, people are discussing stuff, 'sperging autists grunking grunks". You can read my opinion in J_C's Fallout thread. Somewhere.

 

[Delterius]

I've resisted temptation for so very, very long. But I am of weak moral fiber.

Maybe, but I still think SPECIAL is one of the better crpg systems around.

Then you're wr... ah well, you ge the point.

Why?

Oh no. If I start this again, out of the woodwork will come the people yelling "oh noes, people are discussing stuff, 'sperging autists grunking grunks". You can read my opinion in J_C's Fallout thread. Somewhere.

And this is why we still don't know what RPGs are.

 

[Grunker]

I've resisted temptation for so very, very long. But I am of weak moral fiber.

Maybe, but I still think SPECIAL is one of the better crpg systems around.

Then you're wr... ah well, you ge the point.

Why?

Oh no. If I start this again, out of the woodwork will come the people yelling "oh noes, people are discussing stuff, 'sperging autists grunking grunks". You can read my opinion in J_C's Fallout thread. Somewhere.

And this is why we still don't know what RPGs are.

No, that would be because genre-definition discussion is and always has been the epitome of idiocy when it comes to art and entertainment debate.

 

[Ulminati]

Wasteland 2 thread is the new Project Eternity thread

So Grunker is the new Roguey?!

 

[Grunker]

Wasteland 2 thread is the new Project Eternity thread

So Grunker is the new Roguey?!

Am I championing Wasteland 2 and Brian Fargot?

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Wasteland 2 thread is the new Project Eternity thread

So Grunker is the new Roguey?!

Well, they do post in the same threads a lot...

 

[Grunker]

We also seem to get the same kind of people butthurt, so if the shoe fits

 

[laclongquan]

You know what is so atrocious about Wasteland 2? Lacking of tits and asses.

Literally.

There's only one image with a chick in it and she's in full coverage. As bad as a burkha.

I put "she" in as a show of optimism. cause there's no tits or asses at all.

 

[tuluse]

So anyone want to discuss Wasteland 2? Some potential topics:

It sounds like there are forced binary decisions in game. Which seems heavy handed and--for lack of a better term--a lazy way of doing C&C.

Do you think InXile will be able to balance melee and guns? How would you try to balance them if you were a designer?

From the RPS article, it sounds like W2's combat system has solid basics, but might not have much beyond the basics. I think it's going to put the onus of encounter design on the level creators. InXile has almost no history of interesting level design. Discuss.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

From the RPS article, it sounds like W2's combat system has solid basics, but might not have much beyond the basics. I think it's going to put the onus of encounter design on the level creators. InXile has almost no history of interesting level design. Discuss.

So RPS is a dependable source?

Look at Shadowrun Returns.. it ahd no inventory and really shit Saving System... still lots of codexers enjoyed it like a quickie with a slut while waiting for the one.

No matter what, WL2 will be way better than SRR.

In Fargo I trust.

 

[Ninjerk]

I've resisted temptation for so very, very long. But I am of weak moral fiber.

Maybe, but I still think SPECIAL is one of the better crpg systems around.

Then you're wr... ah well, you ge the point.

Why?

Oh no. If I start this again, out of the woodwork will come the people yelling "oh noes, people are discussing stuff, 'sperging autists grunking grunks". You can read my opinion in J_C's Fallout thread. Somewhere.

And this is why we still don't know what RPGs are.

No, that would be because genre-definition discussion is and always has been the epitome of idiocy when it comes to art and entertainment debate.

yeah, but what is art

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

I've resisted temptation for so very, very long. But I am of weak moral fiber.

Maybe, but I still think SPECIAL is one of the better crpg systems around.

Then you're wr... ah well, you ge the point.

Why?

Oh no. If I start this again, out of the woodwork will come the people yelling "oh noes, people are discussing stuff, 'sperging autists grunking grunks". You can read my opinion in J_C's Fallout thread. Somewhere.

I skimmed through it again and like I remembered you're big gripe there was with implementation, not the system itself (e.g. aimed shots in the Fallouts were a nice feature ruined by eye critting away most of the game). The few comments you do make about the system I don't get; you call the character system "simplistic". Why? Compared to what? Somewhere else you called it a "non-system". Why?

 

[Grunker]

EDIT: This post came out arrogant as fuck, that wasn't the intention. I'm just tired of writing the same post again and again and again. Sorry @Jim the Dinosaur

not the system itself

OK, here we go again. But beforehand: I'm not going to debate this at length for the 5th time while I've been posting on the Codex. If you want to argue this, find one of the old threads and go from there, so we don't have to reboot this entire conversation once again.

The stats are wildly differentiated - the best way to build anything, brute force guy or academic guy, is to pump intelligence for the skill points. The relation between stats and skill points is superficial and illogical. The game uses percentile die rolls for no obvious reason where a 3d6 bell curve roll would serve it much better due to the average spread. The trait-system is contrived and some ads/disads are obviously much, much better than others for no reason. This is forgivable in insanely complex systems where the balancing act is difficult, but not in a system with so few assets. The system is superficial and simplistic, yet relies on math that is complex and non-standardized between different actions compared to almost all other systems. One action uses one die roll type/calculation and another action another calculation, for no obvious reason. The system shares a gigantic flaw with AD&D; even though the system is basically simplistic and shallow, it's incredibly obfuscated and undocumented all the while. I suspect even the most hardcore Fallout fan would have to visit a Wiki to list off which factors derive from which stats and how different attributes are calculated.

you call the character system "simplistic". Why? Compared to what?

Even AD&D has much more complexity than simply seven stats + a set of skills (with a couple of level-1 only perks and then a perk each few levels). Compared to GURPS or even most other P&P systems it is shallow and simplistic. Even World of Darkness - favoured for simplicity and ease of use - is more complex than SPECIAL (though also much, MUCH easier to use, because there aren't 50 different computations - one for each special action within the system).

Somewhere else you called it a "non-system". Why?

A system is unified whole - in games, it's a set of varied rules that constitute a unified whole. Everything works together and draws from the same standards. SPECIAL is a mess. There's one rule for one stat, another for next. One attribute is calculated using one method, another one an entirely different method. There's rarely a reason for this, it's mostly arbitrary. There is no "system" in the sense of a core base of "hardcoded" rules that the rest of the system draw from. It is, like so many other half-baked systems - simply a set of rules all developed in a vacuum, thrown together and given a name. There is no rhyme or reason to why the different assets where put together, no unified vision that drives the different assets.

But let me ask you: what advantages does SPECIAL have? What can it do that another system can't do much, much better? What's the point of it? What strengths do you perceive it has?

 

[Ninjerk]

not the system itself

OK, here we go again. But beforehand: I'm not going to debate this at length for the 5th time while I've been posting on the Codex. If you want to argue this, find one of the old threads and go from there, so we don't have to reboot this entire conversation once again.

The stats are wildly differentiated - the best way to build anything, brute force guy or academic guy, is to pump intelligence for the skill points. The relation between stats and skill points is superficial and illogical. The game uses percentile die rolls for no obvious reason where a 3d6 bell curve roll would serve it much better due to the average spread. The trait-system is contrived and some ads/disads are obviously much, much better than others for no reason. This is forgivable in insanely complex systems where the balancing act is difficult, but not in a system with so few assets. The system is superficial and simplistic, yet relies on math that is complex and non-standardized between different actions compared to almost all other systems. One action uses one die roll type/calculation and another action another calculation, for no obvious reason. The system shares a gigantic flaw with AD&D; even though the system is basically simplistic and shallow, it's incredibly obfuscated and undocumented all the while. I suspect even the most hardcore Fallout fan would have to visit a Wiki to list off which factors derive from which stats and how different attributes are calculated.

you call the character system "simplistic". Why? Compared to what?

Even AD&D has much more complexity than simply seven stats + a set of skills (with a couple of level-1 only perks and then a perk each few levels). Compared to GURPS or even most other P&P systems it is shallow and simplistic. Even World of Darkness - favoured for simplicity and ease of use - is more complex than SPECIAL (though also much, MUCH easier to use, because there aren't 50 different computations - one for each special action within the system).

Somewhere else you called it a "non-system". Why?

A system is unified whole - in games, it's a set of varied rules that constitute a unified whole. Everything works together and draws from the same standards. SPECIAL is a mess. There's one rule for one stat, another for next. One attribute is calculated using one method, another one an entirely different method. There's rarely a reason for this, it's mostly arbitrary. There is no "system" in the sense of a core base of "hardcoded" rules that the rest of the system draw from. It is, like so many other half-baked systems - simply a set of rules all developed in a vacuum, thrown together and given a name. There is no rhyme or reason to why the different assets where put together, no unified vision that drives the different assets.

But let me ask you: what advantages does SPECIAL have? What can it do that another system can't do much, much better? What's the point of it? What strengths do you perceive it has?

Nuh uh

 

[Delterius]

No, that would be because genre-definition discussion is and always has been the epitome of idiocy when it comes to art and entertainment debate.

While genre-definition hardly changes the whole experience, it does affect game design. Which is why I'd argue instead that the genre discussions have become useless in the Codex.

I doubt that we'd have the Fargos and Larians of today if there weren't those who advocated a different kind of RPGs, the 'old school' design that doesn't go the way of AAA studios like BioWare and Bethesda. Defining what an RPG is and being a self-righteous asshole about it is a way to advocate the kind of game you want. You know, like VD. Except that he actually develops the most tasteful of vapourwares, instead of asking for it. Only today, and perhaps until the inevitable failure of all 'old school' projects, has the whole 'what is an RPG' discussion lost that role.

I think its a basic question that any RPG fan asks himself. And I think you do gain quite a bit by obsessing over it. Its an entry point question that gets you thinking about game mechanics, aesthetics and storytelling techniques that differ a 'western' to an 'eastern' rpg and etc.

Could you argue that this specific form the discussion took was damaging in the long-run? That we'd focus too much on superficial features and dismiss all sorts of games as unworthy or lesser, depriving ourselves of different and wholy interesting experiences? Yes, but all things are superficial until you dig a bit deeper. It is as you said in another thread, oldfags should know better than to discuss what an RPG is. In my opinion, that is because oldfags have nothing to learn from that question; are likely already getting the kinds of games they asked for and should bother themselves with more specific and truly deep® questions by now. Like what advantage SPECIAL has.

 

[Grunker]

From the RPS article, it sounds like W2's combat system has solid basics, but might not have much beyond the basics. I think it's going to put the onus of encounter design on the level creators. InXile has almost no history of interesting level design. Discuss.

I pointed this out earlier but was quickly shot down. Basically, I don't think the current system, on paper, seems to have enough depth to create interesting combat on its own. With cover-mechanics, different terrain levels and destructible terrain, backed up by a shallow character system, it looks a bit like neo X-COM, which was a pretty solid system but with shitty content.

If that's even somewhat true, diversity of content and encounter design will make or break this game's combat.

 

[Grunker]

No, that would be because genre-definition discussion is and always has been the epitome of idiocy when it comes to art and entertainment debate.

While genre-definition hardly changes the whole experience, it does affect game design. Which is why I'd argue instead that the genre discussions have become useless in the Codex.

I doubt that we'd have the Fargos and Larians of today if there weren't those who advocated a different kind of RPGs, the 'old school' design that doesn't go the way of AAA studios like BioWare and Bethesda. Defining what an RPG is and being a self-righteous asshole about it is a way to advocate the kind of game you want. You know, like VD. Except that he actually develops the most tasteful of vapourwares, instead of asking for it. Only today, and perhaps until the inevitable failure of all 'old school' projects, has the whole 'what is an RPG' discussion lost that role.

I think its a basic question that any RPG fan asks himself. And I think you do gain quite a bit by obsessing over it. Its an entry point question that gets you thinking about game mechanics, aesthetics and storytelling techniques that differ a 'western' to an 'eastern' rpg and etc.

Could you argue that this specific form the discussion took was damaging in the long-run? That we'd focus too much on superficial features and dismiss all sorts of games as unworthy or lesser, depriving ourselves of different and wholy interesting experiences? Yes, but all things are superficial until you dig a bit deeper. It is as you said in another thread, oldfags should know better than to discuss what an RPG is. In my opinion, that is because oldfags have nothing to learn from that question; are likely already getting the kinds of games they asked for and should bother themselves with more specific and truly deep® questions by now. Like what advantage SPECIAL has.

Even if I accepted your admittedly well-argued point, we'd basically be debating two sides of the same coin. You say as much as me that the answer to a genre-debate is impossible to find/useless, but that some practical functionality can be attained in discussing it nontheless. I'm not sure I'm willing to call a debate non-idiotic and useful just because recognizing its idiocy and uselessness brings awareness

 

[Delterius]

Well, we can always settle for the very nature of the Internet. Or of the Codex for that matter: full of shitposters, but some people seem to draw its strenghts for good in some way or another. Some filter the noise and create a real gem, others are noise themselves and but still seem to revel in madness and etc.

No matter how many Grimoires of Decadence are churned out, there will always be Retardoland and the Best Thread Ever. Its often funny and entertaining, sometimes its even our only light in the abyss of AAA worship, but it just keeps the place going for the better, more mature threads. Like the 1000 page thread on Sawyer's beard shaving habits.

I'm sorry, I got distracted and forgot what I was arguing for.

 

[tuluse]

I pointed this out earlier but was quickly shot down. Basically, I don't think the current system, on paper, seems to have enough depth to create interesting combat on its own. With cover-mechanics, different terrain levels and destructible terrain, backed up by a shallow character system, it looks a bit like neo X-COM, which was a pretty solid system but with shitty content.

If that's even somewhat true, diversity of content and encounter design will make or break this game's combat.

Is there any combat system that has enough depth to create interesting combat on it's own? Encounter design is always important. What InXile has done (seemingly) is create an additional requirement that level design be good, perhaps more important than interesting things to fight.

Also, W2 has real action points which puts it far ahead of neo X-COM in my mind.

Also also, we don't know what level of itemization Wasteland will have. You can create complexity through equipment rather than character system.

 

[Grunker]

I pointed this out earlier but was quickly shot down. Basically, I don't think the current system, on paper, seems to have enough depth to create interesting combat on its own. With cover-mechanics, different terrain levels and destructible terrain, backed up by a shallow character system, it looks a bit like neo X-COM, which was a pretty solid system but with shitty content.

If that's even somewhat true, diversity of content and encounter design will make or break this game's combat.

Is there any combat system that has enough depth to create interesting combat on it's own? Encounter design is always important.

OK, true. What I meant was that the system, from what we know, seems shallow and uninteresting from a tactical viewpoint and only slightly interesting from a strategic one, on its own, like X-COM's, so encounter design goes from being key to being all-or-nothing.

What InXile has done (seemingly) is create an additional requirement that level design be good, perhaps more important than interesting things to fight.

I disagree. Neo-X-COM had excellent level design for the most part. The leveled terrain levels where some of the most solid small-stage level design I've seen in a turn-based game. The problem was the maps were re-used ad infinitum, not varied enough and there were very few of them.

Also, W2 has real action points which puts it far ahead of neo X-COM in my mind.

It doesn't matter much if the actions able for you to spend them on aren't very varied. Which is what I meant by "tactically shallow."

Also also, we don't know what level of itemization Wasteland will have. You can create complexity through equipment rather than character system.

That you can, and of course I must admit that I don't know if that will happen. If it does, awesome. However, they need some JA2-level item diversity to pull that off, so I strongly doubt it will happen.

 

[tuluse]

I disagree. Neo-X-COM had excellent level design for the most part. The leveled terrain levels where some of the most solid small-stage level design I've seen in a turn-based game. The problem was the maps were re-used ad infinitum, not varied enough and there were very few of them.

You're not disagreeing with me. The levels were boring because they were re-used. If the levels weren't boring (regardless of the reason why), the game would have been better.

What I'm saying is that Wasteland 2 needs good levels, as much as it needs good enemies.