GameBanshee Wasteland 2 Interview

WorstUsernameEver

But best title ever!
The folks at GameBanshee are offering a two-pages interview with inXile CEO Brian Fargo about the already-funded-with-30-days-more-to-go Wasteland 2 Kickstarter, which goes in-depth about the design of the game, the differences in tone between Wasteland and Fallout and more. A couple of snippets:<blockquote>GB: There are quite a few differences between Wasteland and Fallout, but due to the fact that the latter was a spiritual successor of the former, they oftentimes get construed as near-identical post-apocalyptic games. Do you think it's important to retain the Wasteland identity in the sequel and perhaps even try to push the game further away from the Fallout formula to ensure its uniqueness?

Brian: I think there might be varying opinions on what the formulas were for each and how they might be different. Wasteland excelled at many things like tactical combat, interesting situations that did not have clear cut correct solutions and it continued to surprise you along the way. Not only with those elements not be lost they will be expanded upon. We have the advantage of hindsight now since we can clearly see what things people reacted well to. We were flying blind while we made the first game. Fallout excelled in many of the same things but it really shined in tone and style. We need to make sure that we have an interesting art style and vibe. If there is any feeling that you have seen something a hundred times before you lose interest pretty quickly.

(...)

GB: While a lot of us have fond memories of the CRPGs of yesteryear, there have certainly been some modern sensibilities added to video games over the years that have improved upon the experience in measurable ways. They're certainly not all welcome additions, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether you think mechanics like regenerating health, autosaves, a detailed quest journal, fast travel, automapping with quest objective annotations, etc. have a place in Wasteland 2.

Brian: My tendency with this game is going to be closer to the experiences we all loved during the golden age of RPGs. Part of the reason we have the excitement we do is there is this general feeling that the games have been dumbed down for the masses. Politically correct situations, linear events, being careful no one gets lost etc...it can be kind of lame. We will put the game into beta test and if a huge majority about the lack of a feature we need to consider it but in general let's recreate the wonder with modern graphics and sound. </blockquote>
 
I'd rather make a smaller dedicated fan base ecstatic than worry too much about the larger audience.
YES !!! Thank you Brian. Now I'm certain Wasteland 2 will be superb.
 
Brian: Again I hesitate to mention other games right now for fear of overreaction to what the final decision will be. But, obviously Fallout 1/2 did some great things with turn based combat so we certainly have that reference point. And we have been getting a fair amount of feedback from the boards that people liked the way Fallout Tactics handled aspects of combat. They didn't like the game in its entirety but they seemed to respond to the depth of the systems.

I really wouldn't mind this(Sorry!). Having recently played Fallout 2 again and with my current run-through of Wizardry 8, I'm bored to tears waiting for 10-20 things to cycle through a single turn. It wouldn't be so bad if there was an option to skip the animations completely.
That said, they should probably stick with turn-based, since that's what the core audience wants. Arcanum's hybrid system was not well implemented.
 
I would like to see Jagged Alliance 2 levels of complexity within the gameplay, I love my chess with guns.

Suppose that will be highly unlikely though.
 
Damn that interview is music to the ear of any hardcore gamers !
He sure knows how to talk to us !
Also happy to see i'm not the only Wizardry 8 fan here.
Wizardry 8 is very VERY combat heavy but more for the number of combats than anything else.
I didn't like Fallout tactic but i barely played it so....I will maybe try to give it another shot.
I'm actually playing JA 2 1.13, i'm enjoying it a lot.
But for a RPG, even a cRPG, the combat system is way too long (and i'm only talking about the tactical map, you have to be too patient/carefull to win which is not a problem for a tactical combat game but not good for a cRPG).
 
GB: Unfortunately, role-playing games have lost much of their original identity in recent years, thanks in part to the popularity of first-person action RPGs. How do you convince a newer or younger RPG fan who has grown accustomed to the action-focused titles to give Wasteland 2 a shot?

Brian: Well here is the beauty of fan funding... we don't have to convince some younger RPG player of anything. I am making this game for the wonderful fans who put their money behind us and not some nebulous group of new people. Let's make the game they all expect and let the chips fall where they may. There is just no way I'm going to consider anything that could let down the core.

Precisely why I put $100 towards it. I can't wait to play the Beta.
 
Makagulfazel said:
Brian: Again I hesitate to mention other games right now for fear of overreaction to what the final decision will be. But, obviously Fallout 1/2 did some great things with turn based combat so we certainly have that reference point. And we have been getting a fair amount of feedback from the boards that people liked the way Fallout Tactics handled aspects of combat. They didn't like the game in its entirety but they seemed to respond to the depth of the systems.

I really wouldn't mind this(Sorry!). Having recently played Fallout 2 again and with my current run-through of Wizardry 8, I'm bored to tears waiting for 10-20 things to cycle through a single turn. It wouldn't be so bad if there was an option to skip the animations completely.
That said, they should probably stick with turn-based, since that's what the core audience wants. Arcanum's hybrid system was not well implemented.

I agree. I enjoyed Tactics combat quite a bit. Something like that might work.
 
Fallout Tactic's combat was fine excluding the lousy real-time/turn-based mix. If they kept it as a more accessible JA2 style turn-based combat (like what Tactics was) I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. Just keep the real-time out of it.

I liked how it had Stand/Crouch/Prone, an actual Z Axis so you can get height on the enemy by getting up on to a roof or something, heavier weapons having a lower strength requirement if you're prone as opposed to standing. Stuff like that.
 
Reconite said:
Fallout Tactic's combat was fine excluding the lousy real-time. If they kept it as a more accessible JA2 style turn-based combat (like what Tactics was) I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. Just keep the real-time out of it.

Even now that they exceeded their goal I doubt they would have the resources to do it properly anyway, and just the mere mention of attention going to a real-time mode would make their forums explode. :P
 
Main problem with Tactic's combat for me personally always had been the linear maps. It just wasn't made for great tactic choices. Most of the time you just followed the next corridor.
 
Lexx said:
Main problem with Tactic's combat for me personally always had been the linear maps. It just wasn't made for great tactic choices. Most of the time you just followed the next corridor.
Also true. It could have benefited from a more open style of play through the missions, if it had to have linear-progression missions at all. I doubt this is a problem Wasteland 2 would adopt if they did use FoT style gameplay.
 
The combat mechanics themselves in in FOT were good, even if the map design was not that great.
 
except that it was not really that great in Turn Based. Not when compared to Jagged Alliance. The real time part of it was ok.
 
I found the controls in turn-based mode a bit annoying. Every once in a while I accidentally had my people walk to whatever place, which made them use up all their APs and therefore the turn was fucked up.

Other than that, I blame most of the meh-combat moments at the corridor maps.
 
Lexx said:
I found the controls in turn-based mode a bit annoying. Every once in a while I accidentally had my people walk to whatever place, which made them use up all their APs and therefore the turn was fucked up.

Other than that, I blame most of the meh-combat moments at the corridor maps.

I played Tactics earlier and that happened a lot. I hate that.
 
I experienced that bug a lot too. But yeah, as I said. If FoT focused on a strong turn-based aspect (rather than real-time with turn-based tacked on) and had better map design it would have been great. I liked it for what it is though.

You really can't do BOTH with these sort of games, this is where FoT and Arcanum fell short, trying to mix TB with RT. If you do one, you have to spend the same amount of focus and time on the other one, and in the end no matter what you do one of the playstyles will end up gimped compared to the other.
 
I didn't like the fact I couldn't use TB to walk around a corner to shoot people because the game shoots back during your turn.
 
TheGM said:
I didn't like the fact I couldn't use TB to walk around a corner to shoot people because the game shoots back during your turn.

That has always felt a bit like cheating if I did that. It can too easily lead to one side just camping and forcing the other side to walk across the killing field. I liked the reaction shots of XCOM since with proper planning you could defend against this tactic.
 
Back
Top