Wasteland 2 Kickstarter Update #17: Vision Document

For NCR said:
Doubt it. So far the only place it is going to take place is California and Nevada.
Click to expand...

Nothing to doubt, it is most definitely Toronto city hall.

I never claimed that toronto would be in the game, im quite sure it wont, only that the picture they used is toronto city hall which i found rather neat being as im from there, and maybe they will use a version of it in game (but placed in the US SouthWest of course).
 
You doubt that this is the toronto city hall? Judging by the pic, it clearly is.:>

Doesn't mean it will be set in toronto. After all, one of the images shows a steampunk watch, but that doesn't mean Wasteland 2 will be steampunk.


/Edit: And yet again I see that I was too slow. :> But that watch-part at least is new.
 
BTW, in case anyone required further proof, here is another link that clearly shows the arches in front of city hall that you can also see in the picture in the design document.

This area in front of city hall is called Nathan Phillips Square. Beneath the arches is an area that they flood and freeze in the winter for people to skate on.

http://www.boldts.net/Tor0.shtml
 
I know this has very little to do with discussing the vision doc itself. I'm just confused with the wording in one of the paragraphs.

Shouldn't the segment reading : "While we’ll still have numerous colorful characters you can interact with, interesting quests, and clever dialogue, it’s not done at the cost of telling your friends about how Vicki Stixx unloaded her SMG clips into a horde of rats because she’s terrified of them, ..." instead read "it's done at the cost of ..." ?

To me it seems like telling your friends about your encounters is indeed a cost of what you experience in the game, or am I reading this the wrong way? Could someone help clear this up?

Thanks
 
He means that characters will will be well-written but not simply be talking robots at the command of the player.

He means we can have it both ways.
 
Well in that case would the following be equivalent? :

"We’ll still have numerous colorful characters you can interact with, interesting quests, and clever dialogue, regardless of whether Vicki Stixx unloaded her SMG clips into a horde of rats because she’s terrified of them, if you survived a mutant mob by luring them into ..."

I want to make clear that I'm not trying to correct anyone, it's just that quite often it's hard for me to immediately grasp what someone else is saying if they choose certain words.
 
I don't suppose there will be a no-kill option in this one eh? I don't think there was in the original though there were some non-combat solutions at least as far as I remember. It's been like 20+ years since I last played it. :?

I only ask because he stresses player options in the vision doc and that is an option that some players do want.
 
FearMonkey said:
I don't suppose there will be a no-kill option in this one eh?
Click to expand...

I've asked this one at the official forum too, as the vision document, in my view, is not clear on that. However, some guys at the forums say otherwise, and they seem pretty sure.

If such option is intended, though, I cannot but applause.
 
Ya know, the only thing that this game is going to be missing is the voice actors. Their reasons are just a excuse for not being able to afford them.
 
For NCR said:
Ya know, the only thing that this game is going to be missing is the voice actors. Their reasons are just a excuse for not being able to afford them.
Click to expand...



Fallout 1 and 2 did fine with only a few voice actors.
 
In these sorts of games, you only need actors for the talking heads, who are usually extremely important.
 
Only a handful of voice actors is fine by me. Not all NPCs need to be voice acted; it usually leads to redundancy, one guy/gal voicing several NPCs. Bioware games have several of these, even with their large pool of actors. Don't get me started on Bethesda games. A talking heads like system would be interesting to see with today's technology.
 
....almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter. :wall: :seriouslyno:



Pointless dialog like that should be avoided at all costs. I think they're on the right track on that one though.
 
The whole thing with voice actors is strange to me. For instance if everyone but the main charecter is voice acted then it annoys me heavily. - If nothing is voice acted like in all the good old rpgs then I slowly get used to it and use my imagination instead of voice actors.

Voice actors are good imo but the one point where they are very bad is that they make it harder for me to skip conversations... For instance I am more inclined towards replaying fallout 1-2 than something like mass effect because I'd have to go through boring dialogue. You have to do that in the original fallouts too but its so much easier to skip.

So I feel like a good argument can be made for both including voice actors and not having them there. I also feel like they aren't a necessity for people, its only because we've gotten used to them that we may feel like we need them. You dont need voice actors to read a good book for instance either.
 
it also makes the games very expensive when you give everyone a "voice" and it limits the dialogues and their content. Just see Dragon Age for that matter.

I wish they would really stop doing that. I mean Baldurs Gate did fine with just a few but really well done voices.

And of course they should stop using people just because they are "famous" or what ever ... not all of them are great voice actors just because they are good actors. See Liam Neeson ...
 
Crni Vuk said:
it also makes the games very expensive when you give everyone a "voice" and it limits the dialogues and their content. Just see Dragon Age for that matter.

I wish they would really stop doing that. I mean Baldurs Gate did fine with just a few but really well done voices.

And of course they should stop using people just because they are "famous" or what ever ... not all of them are great voice actors just because they are good actors. See Liam Neeson ...
Click to expand...


Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about Liam Neeson. How much did they pay him? He is a pretty well known actor. Such a waste of money that could have gone into making Fallout 3 suck less. I like Neeson, but he wasn't really needed. Fewer big name actors would free up money for other things.
 
Liam Neeson doesn't suck so badly. Its the role Bethesda gave him that sucked together with a bad director of that role most likely. If his lines had been created by someone competent at writing and if his charecter and story would have been believable then we would not think of him as such a bad voice actor. Bethesda is a team of very good mathematicians and coders, but they truly lack in the creative side of things and that hurts the games they produce. Their structure is very valid and good but without the creative direction that for instance obsidian has. The game just falls short. Fallout 3 especially does a very poor job of being a successor of the fallout series and that more than anything hurts the game.

Ofcourse those who are not so old and love games like oblivion and skyrim love fallout 3... Fallout new vegas is less loved by these kinds of people because you have to think more tactically about how you create your charecter and the quests requires you to think more. Whereas in fallout 3 you could just kill everything that moves and you win at life! :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top