Wait. Is this a single-character game??

[Jimmious]

Quoting the Polygon article:

Wasteland 3 will be true to the series' roots, allowing players to create a small party of characters and lead them through an isometric role-playing game in the classic style. It will tell the story of Team November, a group of Rangers sent on a mission to Colorado in the aftermath of a global nuclear apocalypse. In the opening sequence of the game, Fargo says, players will be stranded far from civilization and have to fend for themselves. Their biggest challenge early on will be staying alive in the sub-zero temperatures.

I believe it's pretty clear unless they blatantly lie

[Stuurminator]

Please don't tell me "all dialogues will be fully voiced".

If this answer to this is "no", here's a follow-up: will the player character be fully voice acted?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H07zYvkNYL8

[Zombra]

The main problem is that when you start with but one character then you by default have a Chosen One. This is the lone survivor, right? So when the party is built as this player character goes through the story, you have the exact same recruitment dynamic in a game like Dragon Age: Origins. Sure, you could configure the crap out of these characters, including their armor and equipment, but in the end it is Chosen One gameplay.

Or is it going to be that somewhere along the line when you meet a new recruit you get to go through character generation, and then play a bit more, then go through another character generation? That does not sound fun.

I'm more or less convinced that if WL3's storyline starts with a lone survivor then it's a Chosen One + NPC party game.

Yeah, there are a lot of ways it could go. I am OK with any scenario that allows me to create four characters from scratch at (or near*) the beginning of the game, and in which no PC is "essential", i.e. if the "Sole Survivor" dies, the other PCs carry on the game without him.

(*For example, starting with one character and then making 3 more right away when he establishes the new Ranger base. Still, I'd prefer to make them all right at the start.)

Quoting the Polygon article:

Wasteland 3 will be true to the series' roots, allowing players to create a small party of characters and lead them through an isometric role-playing game in the classic style. It will tell the story of Team November, a group of Rangers sent on a mission to Colorado in the aftermath of a global nuclear apocalypse. In the opening sequence of the game, Fargo says, players will be stranded far from civilization and have to fend for themselves. Their biggest challenge early on will be staying alive in the sub-zero temperatures.

I believe it's pretty clear unless they blatantly lie

Well, that's Polygon's interpretation. Kotaku directly quoted inXile's press release:

You start the game as the sole survivor of Team November, a Ranger squad dispatched to the icy Colorado wastes.

"Sole survivor" implies a single character.

[Drool]

Let's just say I don't like the idea starting with only one character and recruiting the rest of members for the team, and "Something simillar to Fallout 2" line.

Fallout 2 already exists.

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that we want Wasteland sequels to be like Wasteland?

[NovaRain]

Let's just say I don't like the idea starting with only one character and recruiting the rest of members for the team, and "Something simillar to Fallout 2" line.

Fallout 2 already exists.
Why is it so difficult for people to understand that we want Wasteland sequels to be like Wasteland?

Probably because the "modern" Fallout franchise is awfully disappointing (well, except New Vegas I suppose) to some people, naturally they would hope Wasteland becoming their new classic Fallout. As much as I love classic Fallout games, Wasteland is definitely not Fallout and doesn't need to be.

[Gillsing]

First couple of times I played Wasteland 1 I made my four rangers and recruited the rest. But the last few times I played single characters. One of which I think only recruited people to carry loot. Possibly until they died. So if the T:ToN writing team has gotten stuck in 'Chosen One mode' and is unable to budge, I guess I can live with that. Never really liked parties anyway. I just find it difficult to create and care about an entire party. 1-3 characters should be enough. One for combat, one for something else, and maybe a third for something else as well.

EDIT: Smells a bit more like single main character now.

In another example, Fargo said he could envision a situation where one player might convince a village on the map that another player is the messiah. Later, when the second player arrives, villagers might not let him leave for fear their community will be forsaken.

That's all singular, with no mention of 'one of the other player's characters' being called a messiah.

[Drool]

naturally they would hope Wasteland becoming their new classic Fallout

Yeah... which is a real knife in the back to Wasteland fans.

"We didn't get the sequels we want, so we're gonna steal this from you and brow beat it into being the sequel we want. What? We're doing to you the same thing we bitch about? Shut up. Nobody cares about your IP. Now bend over."

[Lucius]

Very skeptical with this. It really sounds like a "Chosen One" game, but their statements are always so ambiguous. Doesn't matter either way, don't think I can back this. I hope they learned a lot from WL2, because they had a lot to learn.

[Zombra]

Very skeptical with this. It really sounds like a "Chosen One" game, but their statements are always so ambiguous.

Yeah. I'm nervous. This could be a dealbreaker for me. Looking forward to clarification that resoundingly dispels my worries. I was ready to go toppling over the fence before sea reassured me ... but Infinitron is right. We just need more information.

[Stuurminator]

naturally they would hope Wasteland becoming their new classic Fallout

Yeah... which is a real knife in the back to Wasteland fans.

"We didn't get the sequels we want, so we're gonna steal this from you and brow beat it into being the sequel we want. What? We're doing to you the same thing we bitch about? Shut up. Nobody cares about your IP. Now bend over."

I think that's a bit harsh. A lot of people come into Wasteland knowing nothing other than that it's the "spiritual predecessor to Fallout" and naturally expect similarities based on that. That's a far cry from wanting to browbeat the series into being something it's not, and an much further cry from actually being able to do it.

Very skeptical with this. It really sounds like a "Chosen One" game, but their statements are always so ambiguous.

Yeah. I'm nervous. This could be a dealbreaker for me. Looking forward to clarification that resoundingly dispels my worries. I was ready to go toppling over the fence before sea reassured me ... but Infinitron is right. We just need more information.

I think they don't want to give a concrete answer right now because they know for sure themselves. I can definitely see this being one of those balls that gets tossed back and forth for a long time during early development before the team comes to a final decision.

[Bubbles]

EDIT: Smells a bit more like single main character now.

In another example, Fargo said he could envision a situation where one player might convince a village on the map that another player is the messiah. Later, when the second player arrives, villagers might not let him leave for fear their community will be forsaken.

That's all singular, with no mention of 'one of the other player's characters' being called a messiah.

The paragraph seems to imply that the game takes a bit of a meta approach, with certain NPCs capable of recognizing and directly addressing the player herself. That kind of thing was popular in the 80s and 90s, but has gradually been lost to time - in other words, precisely the kind of thing that Fargo would be interested in.

[dakkon]

I think they don't want to give a concrete answer right now because they know for sure themselves. I can definitely see this being one of those balls that gets tossed back and forth for a long time during early development before the team comes to a final decision.

If that is still undecided then they went public with the game too early. They know the community stance on this matter, and those are the people that they count on pledging in just a few days. Being unclear about a fundamental feature is... let's just say it is not good.

[Zombra]

I think they don't want to give a concrete answer right now because they know for sure themselves. I can definitely see this being one of those balls that gets tossed back and forth for a long time during early development before the team comes to a final decision.

I'm hopeful that they do intend the traditional structure and just haven't gotten around to setting it in stone yet, but speculation of course is worthless at the moment.

If they haven't made up their minds for now, that's okay ... but if they want to see my zebra dollars jump for their campaign and hear my rich baritone voice booming out to drum up backers, they better do what's right for the Rangers come November. Not a threat, that's just how we live and die in the Wasteland.

The paragraph seems to imply that the game takes a bit of a meta approach, with certain NPCs capable of recognizing and directly addressing the player herself. That kind of thing was popular in the 80s and 90s, but has gradually been lost to time - in other words, precisely the kind of thing that Fargo would be interested in.

I'm onto you!

[Drool]

I think that's a bit harsh. A lot of people come into Wasteland knowing nothing other than that it's the "spiritual predecessor to Fallout" and naturally expect similarities based on that. That's a far cry from wanting to browbeat the series into being something it's not, and an much further cry from actually being able to do it.

Go re-read some of the WL2 threads from the pre-production period. There were a lot of Fallout fans doing exactly that. And being very open about the fact that they wanted to hijack Wasteland. Even to the extent of claiming that inXile's secret plan was to make a true Fallout game and just use the Wasteland name.

And, looking at CLASSIC, I'm beginning to wonder how right they were.

[undecaf]

I kinda always read the "You're the sole survivor" quote to mean the player (with his created party of 1-4), rather than a singular initial character. I mean, it sort of came with the games context (Would they really drop party creation out from a Wasteland game? Doubtful, but I guess anything can happen).

[dorkboy]

Still very curious about what you, inXile, specifically mean by "party based"; is it "create up to 4, then add CNPCs" or "create 1, then add CNPCs"?
Will there be coke and hookers, or cake and drunk relatives?

[Ewffih]

I assume it all happens in the tutorial and the game proper starts when you get back to your base where you can build your squad.

Game opens, it walks you through a fight wherein you control four generic Rangers, three of them get killed, roll intro of the "sole survivor" limping back home, cue title card, cut to character creation. That sort of thing. Either way, hopefully they pop in to give a definitive answer sooner rather than later.

[Zombra]

Game opens, it walks you through a fight wherein you control four generic Rangers, three of them get killed, roll intro of the "sole survivor" limping back home, cue title card, cut to character creation. That sort of thing.

Wow, nice spin, I'm into it.

[Drool]

Game opens, it walks you through a fight wherein you control four generic Rangers, three of them get killed, roll intro of the "sole survivor" limping back home, cue title card, cut to character creation. That sort of thing.

Wow, nice spin, I'm into it.

Agreed. As long as I'm, at some point, creating 4 PCs...

And as long as I can continue even after all four have died...

[Infinitron]

https://www.fig.co/campaigns/wasteland- ... 91#updates

Both players run separate Ranger squads, sharing from the pool of available companion NPCs to build your teams.

Hmmm...