Wasteland 3 announced, crowdfunding campaign to start on 5th of October

Mr Fish said:
2. Any of them? I use a healing skill of one character but I can't use a skill on a second character until after a few seconds of delay. That bothered me greatly. If I wanted to quickly heal my party by using skills then I had to click one character, use skill, delay until I can select next character, delay until I can use the skill, use next skill, delay delay. This was so amateurishly designed that it may very well be a deal breaker for me. I'm the kind of person that likes efficiency. If I know what I want to do and I know how to do it then I want to do it as fast as possible and putting up bullshit roadblocks like this? It fucks with my efficiency. It creates tedium. Sitting there, staring at the characters animation in utter loathing, gritting my teeth waiting for the delay to be over so I can move on to the next character.
Click to expand...
What if they just have an action queue?
Ideally, I want an RPG that controls like a MOBA with adventure game elements and turns to turn based mode under certain situations.
 
Whatever, moving back to Wasteland 3: Since the talk is solely about Colorado that probably means we'll just have one map instead of two (arizona, LA), I really hope that this means that we'll be able to move freely around the land ala WL1 cause I didn't like how in WL2 you pretty much 'had' to go to X before going to Y, it felt too linear. They are making it sound like you'll be able to move freely around the wasteland and do things in whatever order you want to. I just wonder how the choice and consequence is going to work into this. Cause... Remember Highpool and Ag Center? That big choice that barely ever was brought up? Yeah...
 
Yup. Got lots of squads over in Citadel just patrolling the halls that could've been sent. There was no reason to force it like that. And hell, why couldn't we just split our group in two? Two members go to Ag Center and get Rose so they have three members and the other goes to Highpool and gets the indian chick. It would be far more difficult, nearly impossible to solve without getting one squad or both killed but at least it would've been an option. And even afterwards nothing really happens. Oh Ag Center is important for creating food that can thrive in the wastes but now they're gone but eh... Oh Highpool is so important for water but now they're gone, eh... And once you got to LA it didn't matter at all. Would've been easy to CnC IMO. CotC would spread their propaganda about your actions. If you save Ag Center then that means you are in support of science gone over the top. Some factions/people are going to think that you are part of what is wrong with the wasteland, allowing scientists to mess with things they don't understand and may risk creating new monstrosities that regular Joe's have to deal with. Others will think more highly of you, trying to save a beacon in the wasteland that could enhance everyones living standards if their research proves a success. I don't know how Highpool would matter though.

So much could be done with it and instead... Well.

And this is why I'm so against these ideas they got for WL3. They have yet to prove to me that they can do something like Highpool/Ag Center well and I want their resources/time/budget to go towards that instead of gimmicks and copying Larkin Love Studios.
 
eissa said:
because even MCA regret of doing it
Click to expand...
Regret what, specifically?
And MCA wanted to nuke NCR and Legion and start the world of Fallout over from scratch and go back to survivalism. So that guy ain't always right, he's not the lords chosen saviour of cRPG's.
 
I see, but little to no combat is just basically as bad as combat oriented RPG. Its not a plus, because it would limit someone who spend on combat stat only to realize that combat is lacking. it also againts the overall MCA philosophy
 
eissa said:
I see, but little to no combat is just basically as bad as combat oriented RPG. Its not a plus, because it would limit someone who spend on combat stat only to realize that combat is lacking. it also againts the overall MCA philosophy
Click to expand...
I disagree. Not every skill/mechanic of a game needs to be equal to the rest. Certain things would be more prominent than others (such as picking locks vs performing an autopsy) and if the setting in question isn't filled with murderdeathkill then I don't see why combat has to have a prominent place. It needs a detailed combat system for 'when' it happens, but that does not necessitate it to happen constantly. I think that an RPG should have skills/mechanics that are uneven in their usage. Some skills would be used more often than others but the skills used less often should generally have meatier rewards than skills that are used every 20 minutes. And I've been longing for a cRPG where it doesn't just resort to combat all the time, where combat is something that should be avoided and doesn't happen all that often. I want to explore roleplaying in a more civilized setting where it is about using support or dialogue skills to accomplish tasks rather than just killing shit. How many cRPG's do we actually have that are like this? Dead State? Tons of combat. Pillars Of Eternity? Tons of combat. Wasteland 2? Tons of combat.

It actually makes me think of Fallout 1/2 and that makes me optimistic for Torment 2. In Fallout 1/2 there isn't all that much combat outside of random encounters and you can avoid a lot of combat if you want to. Combat in those games was merely a component, a cog among all the other cogs. It is there and can be resorted to but it is not the main show.

So, yeah, doesn't sound horrible to me.

And what exactly is the "MCA philosophy"?
 
I still need to read the articles but I see people here talking about co-op option and stuff... That is totally stupid... Why do games these days have to have a "play with a buddy" feature? When I am home bored and want to play a game for fun I don't want to do it with a "buddy", I want to do it by myself... If I want to socialize I go to the pub and hang out with my mates... Not to mention I just look at one article and it says that if we play with a friend, he can basically screw it over for us... And let me tell you guys, I do not enjoy playing games where I get screwed over by what a friend did in the game. I don't let a friend continue playing my save on a computer RPG and then overwrite my saves with theirs. And I bet most people wouldn't either, so who will have fun letting a friend screw their game in Wasteland 3?

Base building. I like games with a base building feature if they are well made. But I never played a game with a well made base building feature... By reading comments here on this thread I assume the base building will be like the Pillars of Eternity game?! Which sucked... We would just pay in money and resources (did it needed resources too? I can't remember) and build/open/repair a new area/building/room and then get a small bonus for whatever. That is not how a good base builder feature should be (for me). Fallout 4 base building is also not how a base building feature in a game should be for me either... Like i said I never saw a game with a good base building feature (once again for me).

I have one word for these two new features:
Ridiculous
 
Mr Fish said:
I disagree. Not every skill/mechanic of a game needs to be equal to the rest. Certain things would be more prominent than others (such as picking locks vs performing an autopsy) and if the setting in question isn't filled with murderdeathkill then I don't see why combat has to have a prominent place. It needs a detailed combat system for 'when' it happens, but that does not necessitate it to happen constantly. I think that an RPG should have skills/mechanics that are uneven in their usage. Some skills would be used more often than others but the skills used less often should generally have meatier rewards than skills that are used every 20 minutes. And I've been longing for a cRPG where it doesn't just resort to combat all the time, where combat is something that should be avoided and doesn't happen all that often. I want to explore roleplaying in a more civilized setting where it is about using support or dialogue skills to accomplish tasks rather than just killing shit. How many cRPG's do we actually have that are like this? Dead State? Tons of combat. Pillars Of Eternity? Tons of combat. Wasteland 2? Tons of combat.

It actually makes me think of Fallout 1/2 and that makes me optimistic for Torment 2. In Fallout 1/2 there isn't all that much combat outside of random encounters and you can avoid a lot of combat if you want to. Combat in those games was merely a component, a cog among all the other cogs. It is there and can be resorted to but it is not the main show.

So, yeah, doesn't sound horrible to me.

And what exactly is the "MCA philosophy"?
Click to expand...

Agree as long as it doesnt alienating certain player build

that is rpg and MCA philosophy.

like i said, balance between combat and option that you dont require combat. but there is should be an option where combat is just..a rewarding, just like the situation where non combat is more rewarding. that's why i think i disagree with torment attempt to make combat seems to non-existant
 
Didn't see this Fargo interview linked: http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.c...-Is-Coming-Its-Going-Rocky-Mountain-High.html

Some choice picks:
- Modified Wasteland 2 engine (Unity)
- PoE conversation editor (same as they have for Torment) for branching dialog
- Focus still on single player, multiplayer does not replace that but rather tries to build upon it (still a waste of time in my opinion)
- Reactivity being dialed up from Wasteland 2; more and wider scale of C&C
- Ranger base part of story, not something you micromanage throughout the game
 
"This’ll be supported by a more reactive central hub, and tied to it the Ranger Base that will be part of your story and narrative decision, though not a base you’ll be micro-managing throughout the game."

Slightly less worried but I'm still going to remain cautious.
Still, it makes me wonder what they meant by "resource management".
 
Icy rocked when it came to resource management, and the journey system is basically the same as the one in Wasteland 2, so I'm sure something can be done here. Also, managing the base could be something in the likes of Xcom, which worked really well, or something more in the spirit of the castle in Baldur's Gate 2, with scripted events and decisions through dialog options. Which was also good.
Anyway, this is probably the best news I've heard in the video game industry this year. I can't wait to get my hands on it. Well done, Brian Fargo.
 
I'm actually really looking forward to this.
I don't mind the whole base building micromanagement of multiplayer as long as it's done well.

I'm defentially going to be picking this up
 
Mr Fish said:
5% combat? Like, it barely ever happens? Cause that actually sounds neat to me.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you haven't played Planescape: Torment. Is this true? Because it sounds right up your alley. It's not post-apoc, but it's one of the best-written and reactive games that has ever been made ever. I highly recommend it if you haven't played it yet.
 
FearMonkey said:
It sounds like you haven't played Planescape: Torment. Is this true? Because it sounds right up your alley. It's not post-apoc, but it's one of the best-written and reactive games that has ever been made ever. I highly recommend it if you haven't played it yet.
Click to expand...
I played it for a few hours but for whatever reason I got side-tracked by other stuff in life in never picked it up again. It's something I plan to play through at some point though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top