GameBanshee Chris Avellone on Wasteland 2 interview

WorstUsernameEver

But best title ever!
GameBanshee has put online an interview with Obsidian's Chris Avellone focused on his (and his company's) possible collaboration with inXile on Wasteland 2. Here's a couple of snippets:<blockquote>GB: Jason Anderson already spent a great deal of time working on Wasteland 2's storyline, and Brian Fargo has already made it pretty clear what the team's design goals are for the game. Assuming you'll reach the $2.1 million milestone, where does Obsidian Entertainment come in? Will you be tweaking existing story elements, adding more, or contributing in other areas?

Chris: It’s up to the design goals of the project. While Jason Anderson isn’t at inXile anymore, I have a lot of respect for Jason's story skills based on Fallout 1 and the story layouts for Fallout 2. I suspect I'd be doing area and narrative design, and fleshing out a piece of the wasteland, but we'll have to see what the needs of the project are.

Also, a game story is always a starting place - it provides an overarching vision for the game. If it’s anything like Obsidian’s narrative structure process, stories and areas get divided for individual designers to flesh out – it’s easy to say “Quartz is taken over by a gang that’s holding the mayor hostage,” or “New Reno is home to 4 mob bosses” but going from there is a long, fun design journey.

[...]

GB: Could Obsidian's Onyx engine handle a top-down/isometric perspective and a turn-based combat system like inXile is shooting for with Wasteland 2? If so, have you talked to Brian about the possibility of licensing your Onyx engine, if only to make it easier for you and the rest of the team at Obsidian to contribute content at a faster pace?

Chris: Sure. To be clear, the Onyx engine isn't being used for Wasteland 2 - that said, there's information and structure components we can share based on how we've constructed RPG mechanics (notably conversation systems and editors, for example) that Brian has expressed interest in and we'd be happy to provide metrics and layout suggestions for. All of the programming and coding is in inXile's hands, however, as our programmers and tools programmers are focused on our other titles. </blockquote>
 
Seems like they decided early to not use the Onyx engine, I assumed all that extra money to get to 2.1 million was getting them more than just Chris Avellone's help. Maybe they will stick with UE3 since they know it.
 
randir14 said:
Seems like they decided early to not use the Onyx engine, I assumed all that extra money to get to 2.1 million was getting them more than just Chris Avellone's help. Maybe they will stick with UE3 since they know it.

They're still getting help with the tools. There's also the obvious component of rallying Obsidian supporters to get more monies for the game :P
 
randir14 said:
Seems like they decided early to not use the Onyx engine, I assumed all that extra money to get to 2.1 million was getting them more than just Chris Avellone's help. Maybe they will stick with UE3 since they know it.

Probably easier to stick with what they know. Faster turnaround.
 
If they spend some extra attention to good looking textures then the UE3 engine can be quite great. I mean there are some really awesome things out there done with the UE3 engine.
 
Chris Avellone said:
Wasteland is far more freeing. There’s ideas and seeds that won’t work in the context of Fallout that will fit in the much wider umbrella of Wasteland, in a good way. There was a lot of variety in Wasteland 1 alone, and I’d like to see that upheld in WL2. Each location in WL1 had its own flavor, challenges, yet managed to keep a cohesive arc to draw the player in.
This bit made me a bit worried. There was too much shit in Fallout 2 (also thanks to MCA) that did not fit well with what previous game (which is way better than F2 no thanks to Chris Avellone) has established. I hope he won't get carried away and become too carefree in what could happen in a Wasteland world .
 
But this somehow was what was going on in Wasteland 1 already. Lots of crazy and unique stuff going on everywhere.
 
As one of the people that liked all the crazy stuff in Fallout 2 and always plays with Wild Wasteland I would not mind seeing lot of unique crazy stuff in Wasteland 2.
 
Goral said:
Chris Avellone said:
Wasteland is far more freeing. There’s ideas and seeds that won’t work in the context of Fallout that will fit in the much wider umbrella of Wasteland, in a good way. There was a lot of variety in Wasteland 1 alone, and I’d like to see that upheld in WL2. Each location in WL1 had its own flavor, challenges, yet managed to keep a cohesive arc to draw the player in.
This bit made me a bit worried. There was too much shit in Fallout 2 (also thanks to MCA) that did not fit well with what previous game (which is way better than F2 no thanks to Chris Avellone) has established. I hope he won't get carried away and become too carefree in what could happen in a Wasteland world .

To be fair, the original wasteland has a wacky sense to it.
 
randir14 said:
Seems like they decided early to not use the Onyx engine, I assumed all that extra money to get to 2.1 million was getting them more than just Chris Avellone's help. Maybe they will stick with UE3 since they know it.

Look, the money to license an engine was already included in the original 1 million. It was never a part of the 2.1 million anyway.

Simply because they're asking for a total of half a million over where they were at does not mean all of that half a million is going to Obsidian/MCA. Not even close. Most of the half a million will go to making the game bigger and more complex.
 
FearMonkey said:
Ulrox said:
what does MCA stand for?
Mister Chris Avellone

That's MASTER Chris Avellone for you foul xenos! DOUBLE HERESY! *BLAM*

Also this:

[spoiler:44876da632]
vLaFX.jpg
[/spoiler:44876da632]
:D
 
FearMonkey said:
MCA said:
In short, Brian knows Wasteland better than I, he knows the tone he wants to set.
Should be "better than me". Some writer he is. :p

Both are correct. It's a grammatical vague point with no solid rule, though no doubt high school English teachers teach either one as if they're absolute.

My personal preference is that you use the conjunction to indicate the meaning. In other words, if you say A knows B better than C, then you can either mean:
A knows B better than C knows B
or
A knows B better than A knows C
Sentence one would read:
Brian knows Wasteland better than I (know Wasteland)
Sentence two would read:
Brian knows Wasteland better than (he knows) me.

The meaning is clear from the context here, but you can see from my example above that you can use the grammar to elucidate the meaning. And it seems MCA prefers my method of doing things, as well.
 
Or you can rearrange the sentence and see how it works:

'Brian knows I' vs 'Brian knows me' - clearly the latter is correct (assuming the sentence means Brian knows Wasteland better than Brian knows me)....

Or 'I know Wasteland' vs 'Me know Wasteland' - clearly the former is correct (assuming the sentence means Brian knows Wasteland better than I know Wasteland).

It's how I distinguish who vs whom as well, by rearranging the sentence and seeing what fits, hah.

But yeah, grammatically I believe MCA was correct, as he's essentially saying '... better than I know Wasteland'.
 
Back
Top