even tho what you say is true, i always held it against fallout that you were a solo character instead of a party (no followers werent even close to the same thing).
better/worse/indiff as far as mechanics go are all debatable, but it very much was a team effort in wasteland for me
Depending on your charisma in Wasteland, its hirelings could be even more useless than a Fallout follower. But ignoring NPCs, it was definitely different to be able to create up to four fully controllable characters from the start instead of just one.
Yar on
0
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Just found out about this, this morning, I've got a little bit tucked away still from taxes, so $100 collector's boxed copy will be mine.
I was 7 when I first played Wasteland, was one of the first things I played after my dad got me hooked on Zork and other Infocom games. I can't remember how many parties I took into that rugged landscape only to be turned into paste within a few turns, but damnit I kept going back out there, because that's what Rangers do.
Is it possible to put myself into stasis for the next 18 months?!
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Hrm. I wish the $50 box version also came with a digital download...
I'd hope it does and they just missed out the 'previous reward+' bit at the start of the description.
Yeah, except that the $100 box explicitly says also comes w/ a digital version.
yeah that does seem kind of weird... id bump to 65 if it got me both my box and a digital download
In the FAQ at the bottom of their Kickstart page:
I am a collector, can I get a digital copy with my Large Box Copy so I don't have to open the box?
Due to popular demand, the $50 pledge for the Large Box Copy now also comes with a Digial Download copy of the game. We understand the collector mindset!
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Basically, this is the chance for us to show the industry that we can have nice things. If this game can't get made, then that might be seen as a validation of the decisions made by the publishers in a post morrowind world to only agree to make action rpgs, or these awful hybrid things like FO3. We need to show that there is a market for at least high end indy games in the genre we love, otherwise I fear that we will never see a major publisher make a turn based RPG again.
Basically, this is the chance for us to show the industry that we can have nice things. If this game can't get made, then that might be seen as a validation of the decisions made by the publishers in a post morrowind world to only agree to make action rpgs, or these awful hybrid things like FO3. We need to show that there is a market for at least high end indy games in the genre we love, otherwise I fear that we will never see a major publisher make a turn based RPG again.
To be honest it probably won't prove much to anyone. It depends on how much money the games make after being finished. Currently all they are proving is that they are able to break even on a (comparatively) very low budget (because they are going to have to break even, obviously). When you're hiring Hollywood actors to do the voices and spend millions in marketing and expect to sell a million copies minimum, you don't care if somebody else makes a game for a million dollars and sells it to 50,000 people and barely makes a profit.
That's a good point. The publisher sees a break even game as a waste of time. Assuming he allotted himself a living wage, the enthusiast game producer sees a break even game as a wonderful way to earn a living doing what he loves.
That's a good point. The publisher sees a break even game as a waste of time. Assuming he allotted himself a living wage, the enthusiast game producer sees a break even game as a wonderful way to earn a living doing what he loves.
But if the kickstarter project fails, then I think the publishers may take that as a sign that they should never even reconsider making a turn-based iso game. The one thing this genre has going for it is its fanatical fans. If the fans can't get the game made, then why should publisher ever care about us?
That's why I am considering even the $10k donation. I've been talking about missing old games forever, and I'll be damned if I don't help to get a game like this made!
I disagree. There are differences, quite substantly. I also don't want to see W2 take a Fallout route and rather stay true to its predecessor.
Ofc, there are tons of refrences in Fallout (as it was certainly a spiritual successor) but most of it superficial.
For one it had multiple endings. One even involved the party surviving, if i remember it right.
Yes, also a focus on C&C which Fallout took over. As I said. It's most certainly a spiritual successor. It still is quite different.
It's still quite different both in gameplay as in narrative. One of the biggest things was already mentioned: The theme of the lone guy that wanders the wasteland. This is pushed hard in Fallout and is one of the things Bethesda actually managed to replicate quite well in F3. If you go on any Fallout focused forums this is what most are talking about when they think of Fallout.
To be more precise here. The reason I'm objecting calling it a direct successor is because, while similiar, there ARE differences between what makes Wasteland "Wasteland" and Fallout "Fallout". I don't think its a good idea to push the "Fallout is Wasteland" image since thats only going to lead to wrong expectations and I fear will change the game negativly.
I don't want Fallout "3", I want Wasteland 2. Thankfully, Fargo seems to be intent on doing that.
i looked longingly at the $1000 level but even though i got a great tax return i can't shut off the voice in the back of my mind saying hey that would be incredibly irresponsible even for you
That's why I am considering even the $10k donation. I've been talking about missing old games forever, and I'll be damned if I don't help to get a game like this made!
Wait until the last day and if they still need a few thousand, then you should consider it.
I think getting the word out among friends and getting them to spread the word would be more helpful than simply donating a few thousand. 900k is a lot, any one person is not going to get this made.
Of course if they meet the goal, an extra 10k could be very beneficial in one aspect or another.
This thing is actually going to get made. I am so excited right now. I wonder how hard it is to get the Interplay 10 years thingy working on my current PC...
I disagree. There are differences, quite substantly. I also don't want to see W2 take a Fallout route and rather stay true to its predecessor.
Ofc, there are tons of refrences in Fallout (as it was certainly a spiritual successor) but most of it superficial.
For one it had multiple endings. One even involved the party surviving, if i remember it right.
Yes, also a focus on C&C which Fallout took over. As I said. It's most certainly a spiritual successor. It still is quite different.
It's still quite different both in gameplay as in narrative. One of the biggest things was already mentioned: The theme of the lone guy that wanders the wasteland. This is pushed hard in Fallout and is one of the things Bethesda actually managed to replicate quite well in F3. If you go on any Fallout focused forums this is what most are talking about when they think of Fallout.
To be more precise here. The reason I'm objecting calling it a direct successor is because, while similiar, there ARE differences between what makes Wasteland "Wasteland" and Fallout "Fallout". I don't think its a good idea to push the "Fallout is Wasteland" image since thats only going to lead to wrong expectations and I fear will change the game negativly.
I don't want Fallout "3", I want Wasteland 2. Thankfully, Fargo seems to be intent on doing that.
Wasteland is less playful and more grown up and mature for one. Instead of having mutant-orcs running around (there are mutants garanted, actually a quite wide variety) you run into nuns pulling uzis from their robes and the like. It centers around an Arizona-ranger-esque party. It has quite a bit of that "law of the west" feeling to it, taking it to a post nuclear holocaust setting and borrows heavily the Mad Max (and to some degree Terminator) movies (minus the car stunts for obvious reasons - there is a usable jeep, tho, and also a helicopter).
Its a harsh setting in a harsh game environment and it does well in transmiting that in the atmosphere of the game. Considering its technology foundation the games back then had to have deep gameplay because there wasn't much on the visual side to offer. Wasteland is the mariana trench of gameplay.
Character death is irreversible (until you get to the clone vats), tho you could always recruit more low-level rangers as long as one party member survived, wich is acceptable starting out but its rather tendious later in the game to raise up new characters.
Despite this the game really tries to kill you right from the start when chars die easy (but are quickly replaced without much hassle, so you learn the *excellent* skill system, at least the combat and medical releated parts quickly - the hard way, you won't have gimped chars in this one - they simply won't survive). It will poison you. It will throw undetectable radiation on you (unless you obtain a geiger counter), it will dehydrate you in the desert (if you don't have the right equipment), it will sweep you with the current of rivers trying to drown you. It tries to finish you off with unexperienced use of medical skills, it will nibble away on your chars when heavily wounded beyond conciousness (usually the doctors first), it will try to bury you under rubble or make you slip into death during a climb, it tries rip you to pieces with booby traps and it even tries to nuke you... aside of throwing the (un-)usual mengenarie of increasingly harder opponents on you. There are things wich can't be killed at all.
It offers a robust but less esoteric arsenal than the Bethesda Fallouts (no junk-gun, no fuel driven fire-swords). There is a wide range of explosives (yes, the throw skill is relevant unless you are planning on taking out the entire party by a bad throw) as well as high tech energy weapons once you begin to access pre-war military bases, wich are hard-hitting but difficult to supply with ammo. There is also some esoteric stuff like an energy axe (no ammo needed) and a exoskeleton (armor) somewhere, but such toys are used *very* sparingly in the game and indeed more is less here, makes it kinda special. My favourite was always the M1989A1 Nato assault rifle, wich could burn trough an entire clip if neccesary. Gets you through most of the ugly encounters with a reasonable survival rate (goddam cyborg-tanks and Nightmares are an exception, of course).
Today most people would complain about dying. Back then this was considered normal game mechanics. And if we are honest its not a game if you can't loose, thats interactive media at best. What this does is it alters your game experience considerably. Its a difference facing (even if only digital) death at any given moment and adds to the immersion considerably. For one you don't "try and die" - at least not intentionally. Thats where it draws its motivation from. The whole thing is one big challenge and thats why people remember it. I failed countless times. And thats how it buries itself peristently into memory. Ten years later i came back and finished it. Twice. And i enjoyed it. Probably the game i got the most satisfaction from beating. Its not for the faint of heart, but enjoyable and addictive in its own way. No safety net. Can you survive the Wasteland?
That is one thing I remember more than anything about Wasteland: it was fucking harsh. Not only would you get swept into a river of sewage and poisoned, it would throw you through a checkpoint forcing an autosave so when you got outside anybody that had fallen unconscious - which was everybody because you got beat to shit fighting robots earlier - was doomed to die. No choice but to start the whole goddamn game from scratch.
In hindsight I can recognize that as a design flaw and we should be in no hurry to return to it, but you bet your ass I was careful on my next attempt. That game hardened me pretty much for life. It would probably break me in half if I were to play it anew today; hell, it still does on occasion, yet I keep playing it from time to time. Love does funny things to people.
Its not a design flaw in my opinion. Then again i am from a generation used to being thrown into a small starship with three lives to take on the entire biomechanical war machine of a space empire. A lot of young people have problems with this kind of "design flaw". They play with their safety net and then they enter a multiplayer enviroment and all of a sudden the situation is different and they go totally ape. I guess they will adjust to loosing, too at some point. Its of course so much harder with all this human factors as hummiliation and such.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtqB2XO9jtI
Whats a game without the possibility of an loss, faliure or death? Nothing if you ask me. Interactive media at best. Has not much in common with playing games at all. Much more like watching an action flick.
This can be entertaining, too - no doubt. Still i feel something is missing wherever i encounter it. Highly deterimental to the replay value, too.
Bethesda is suing Mojang for naming their new game "Scrolls," so logic is not part of the equation.
Its pretty standard for companies with trademarks to sue everyone who comes close to using those trademarks because if they don't someone else can use the trademark and bring as evidence that you have abandoned it your lack of defense of the trademark. Basically its Bethesda making sure that in the future no one can make a game and label it "Elder Scrolls" but them. It isn't really them being dickish to a Majong game company. Both companies probably knew this and settled quickly and with little cost to either.
Its not a design flaw in my opinion. Then again i am from a generation used to being thrown into a small starship with three lives to take on the entire biomechanical war machine of a space empire. A lot of young people have problems with this kind of "design flaw". They play with their safety net and then they enter a multiplayer enviroment and all of a sudden the situation is different and they go totally ape. I guess they will adjust to loosing, too at some point. Its of course so much harder with all this human factors as hummiliation and such.
Whats a game without the possibility of an loss, faliure or death? Nothing if you ask me. Interactive media at best. Has not much in common with playing games at all. Much more like watching an action flick.
This can be entertaining, too - no doubt. Still i feel something is missing wherever i encounter it. Highly deterimental to the replay value, too.
In principle, I'm fine with games that try to give death some punch. I actually tried the Iron Man mode in Fallout Tactics for that reason (which ended badly, I should add). In practice, Wasteland didn't have permadeath in other aspects - dying in combat or from environmental hazards didn't overwrite your saves, provided there were no map transitions - so it seems inconsistent for the game to arbitrarily overwrite your save after the party's diseased corpses wash out to the main map. Saving in general was kind of fucked, since you could accidentally delete an entire store if you quit the game (or got nailed by a random encounter, or the game crashed) on a shop square.
That said, I do hope they keep some complexity in squadmate conditions, like how critically injured teammates get worse over time unless they get professional help. I do like it when games expect me to be prepared for any situation, which means fielding a well-rounded team with a diverse skillset. If there's an emergency deep in the desert or in a dungeon somewhere, you might not have time to drag your wounded partner to a doctor; patch them up or start digging a grave now.
Hmm, never played Wasteland, but played both Fallout 1 & 2 and loved them. I will most likely be donating to this; more in-depth post-apocalyptic RPGs with an emphasis on characters and morality are always a good thing.
I'm kind of sad that team $15 is beating team $50 so soundly.
What part of cloth maps do people not understand?
I mean, sure, you might have to read a novella by the same person that wrote I, Jedi but that's no reason to forgo a cloth map an actual manual, IMO. Especially if Stackpole doesn't get an opportunity to share what he learned in the Kendo class he took last week.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Posts
better/worse/indiff as far as mechanics go are all debatable, but it very much was a team effort in wasteland for me
Depending on your charisma in Wasteland, its hirelings could be even more useless than a Fallout follower. But ignoring NPCs, it was definitely different to be able to create up to four fully controllable characters from the start instead of just one.
I was 7 when I first played Wasteland, was one of the first things I played after my dad got me hooked on Zork and other Infocom games. I can't remember how many parties I took into that rugged landscape only to be turned into paste within a few turns, but damnit I kept going back out there, because that's what Rangers do.
Is it possible to put myself into stasis for the next 18 months?!
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Ha ha, awesome. Guess I'm square then.
Steam profile.
Getting started with BATTLETECH: Part 1 / Part 2
Ofc, there are tons of refrences in Fallout (as it was certainly a spiritual successor) but most of it superficial.
maybe but you would miss legend of grimrock, xcom enemy unknown, and borderlands 2, which is just unacceptable
We're at like 25% of the target already. Well done gang; keep spreading the word!
I hope there's a "maximum nostalgia" option that plays grinding floppy drive noises during the loading screen.
Ha, nice. And graphics option to play in Apple ][E green mode.
Steam profile.
Getting started with BATTLETECH: Part 1 / Part 2
Good god, how did I not know about this?!
It looks like a modern version of FTL Games' Dungeon Master, do want!!!
~ Buckaroo Banzai
stay on target! 249'000
To be honest it probably won't prove much to anyone. It depends on how much money the games make after being finished. Currently all they are proving is that they are able to break even on a (comparatively) very low budget (because they are going to have to break even, obviously). When you're hiring Hollywood actors to do the voices and spend millions in marketing and expect to sell a million copies minimum, you don't care if somebody else makes a game for a million dollars and sells it to 50,000 people and barely makes a profit.
But we will see!
But if the kickstarter project fails, then I think the publishers may take that as a sign that they should never even reconsider making a turn-based iso game. The one thing this genre has going for it is its fanatical fans. If the fans can't get the game made, then why should publisher ever care about us?
That's why I am considering even the $10k donation. I've been talking about missing old games forever, and I'll be damned if I don't help to get a game like this made!
Yes, also a focus on C&C which Fallout took over. As I said. It's most certainly a spiritual successor. It still is quite different.
It's still quite different both in gameplay as in narrative. One of the biggest things was already mentioned: The theme of the lone guy that wanders the wasteland. This is pushed hard in Fallout and is one of the things Bethesda actually managed to replicate quite well in F3. If you go on any Fallout focused forums this is what most are talking about when they think of Fallout.
To be more precise here. The reason I'm objecting calling it a direct successor is because, while similiar, there ARE differences between what makes Wasteland "Wasteland" and Fallout "Fallout". I don't think its a good idea to push the "Fallout is Wasteland" image since thats only going to lead to wrong expectations and I fear will change the game negativly.
I don't want Fallout "3", I want Wasteland 2. Thankfully, Fargo seems to be intent on doing that.
i looked longingly at the $1000 level but even though i got a great tax return i can't shut off the voice in the back of my mind saying hey that would be incredibly irresponsible even for you
steam | xbox live: IGNORANT HARLOT | psn: MadRoll | nintendo network: spinach
3ds: 1504-5717-8252
and myself responds retiring someday would be cool too wouldn't it, i think it might be even cooler than that thing you just said
steam | xbox live: IGNORANT HARLOT | psn: MadRoll | nintendo network: spinach
3ds: 1504-5717-8252
Wait until the last day and if they still need a few thousand, then you should consider it.
I think getting the word out among friends and getting them to spread the word would be more helpful than simply donating a few thousand. 900k is a lot, any one person is not going to get this made.
Of course if they meet the goal, an extra 10k could be very beneficial in one aspect or another.
Also a code wheel.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I'm willing to bet they're some industry types.
That is way better than I was expecting. Holy shit this thing is really gonna happen.
Now playing: Teardown and Baldur's Gate 3 (co-op)
Sunday Spotlight: Horror Tales: The Wine
Wasteland is less playful and more grown up and mature for one. Instead of having mutant-orcs running around (there are mutants garanted, actually a quite wide variety) you run into nuns pulling uzis from their robes and the like. It centers around an Arizona-ranger-esque party. It has quite a bit of that "law of the west" feeling to it, taking it to a post nuclear holocaust setting and borrows heavily the Mad Max (and to some degree Terminator) movies (minus the car stunts for obvious reasons - there is a usable jeep, tho, and also a helicopter).
Its a harsh setting in a harsh game environment and it does well in transmiting that in the atmosphere of the game. Considering its technology foundation the games back then had to have deep gameplay because there wasn't much on the visual side to offer. Wasteland is the mariana trench of gameplay.
Character death is irreversible (until you get to the clone vats), tho you could always recruit more low-level rangers as long as one party member survived, wich is acceptable starting out but its rather tendious later in the game to raise up new characters.
Despite this the game really tries to kill you right from the start when chars die easy (but are quickly replaced without much hassle, so you learn the *excellent* skill system, at least the combat and medical releated parts quickly - the hard way, you won't have gimped chars in this one - they simply won't survive). It will poison you. It will throw undetectable radiation on you (unless you obtain a geiger counter), it will dehydrate you in the desert (if you don't have the right equipment), it will sweep you with the current of rivers trying to drown you. It tries to finish you off with unexperienced use of medical skills, it will nibble away on your chars when heavily wounded beyond conciousness (usually the doctors first), it will try to bury you under rubble or make you slip into death during a climb, it tries rip you to pieces with booby traps and it even tries to nuke you... aside of throwing the (un-)usual mengenarie of increasingly harder opponents on you. There are things wich can't be killed at all.
It offers a robust but less esoteric arsenal than the Bethesda Fallouts (no junk-gun, no fuel driven fire-swords). There is a wide range of explosives (yes, the throw skill is relevant unless you are planning on taking out the entire party by a bad throw) as well as high tech energy weapons once you begin to access pre-war military bases, wich are hard-hitting but difficult to supply with ammo. There is also some esoteric stuff like an energy axe (no ammo needed) and a exoskeleton (armor) somewhere, but such toys are used *very* sparingly in the game and indeed more is less here, makes it kinda special. My favourite was always the M1989A1 Nato assault rifle, wich could burn trough an entire clip if neccesary. Gets you through most of the ugly encounters with a reasonable survival rate (goddam cyborg-tanks and Nightmares are an exception, of course).
Today most people would complain about dying. Back then this was considered normal game mechanics. And if we are honest its not a game if you can't loose, thats interactive media at best. What this does is it alters your game experience considerably. Its a difference facing (even if only digital) death at any given moment and adds to the immersion considerably. For one you don't "try and die" - at least not intentionally. Thats where it draws its motivation from. The whole thing is one big challenge and thats why people remember it. I failed countless times. And thats how it buries itself peristently into memory. Ten years later i came back and finished it. Twice. And i enjoyed it. Probably the game i got the most satisfaction from beating. Its not for the faint of heart, but enjoyable and addictive in its own way. No safety net. Can you survive the Wasteland?
Code wheel? How about a paragraph book?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
In hindsight I can recognize that as a design flaw and we should be in no hurry to return to it, but you bet your ass I was careful on my next attempt. That game hardened me pretty much for life. It would probably break me in half if I were to play it anew today; hell, it still does on occasion, yet I keep playing it from time to time. Love does funny things to people.
Now playing: Teardown and Baldur's Gate 3 (co-op)
Sunday Spotlight: Horror Tales: The Wine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtqB2XO9jtI
Whats a game without the possibility of an loss, faliure or death? Nothing if you ask me. Interactive media at best. Has not much in common with playing games at all. Much more like watching an action flick.
This can be entertaining, too - no doubt. Still i feel something is missing wherever i encounter it. Highly deterimental to the replay value, too.
There's a BBC computer emulator that does this. It fair makes my heart flutter.
In principle, I'm fine with games that try to give death some punch. I actually tried the Iron Man mode in Fallout Tactics for that reason (which ended badly, I should add). In practice, Wasteland didn't have permadeath in other aspects - dying in combat or from environmental hazards didn't overwrite your saves, provided there were no map transitions - so it seems inconsistent for the game to arbitrarily overwrite your save after the party's diseased corpses wash out to the main map. Saving in general was kind of fucked, since you could accidentally delete an entire store if you quit the game (or got nailed by a random encounter, or the game crashed) on a shop square.
That said, I do hope they keep some complexity in squadmate conditions, like how critically injured teammates get worse over time unless they get professional help. I do like it when games expect me to be prepared for any situation, which means fielding a well-rounded team with a diverse skillset. If there's an emergency deep in the desert or in a dungeon somewhere, you might not have time to drag your wounded partner to a doctor; patch them up or start digging a grave now.
Now playing: Teardown and Baldur's Gate 3 (co-op)
Sunday Spotlight: Horror Tales: The Wine
That's pretty fucking great, right there.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
What part of cloth maps do people not understand?
I mean, sure, you might have to read a novella by the same person that wrote I, Jedi but that's no reason to forgo a cloth map an actual manual, IMO. Especially if Stackpole doesn't get an opportunity to share what he learned in the Kendo class he took last week.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)