Wait. Is this a single-character game??

[dorkboy]

Yeah, that's sounding more and more like """phase based""". Oh well.

(*except with parties, obvz.)

[Zombra]

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...

Yeah, I saw Bubbles' observation that this could sorta kinda be construed to mean only one PC ... but really it doesn't mean anything. You built your team with companion NPCs in Wasteland 2 as well, so let's wait for at least one shoe to drop. Hopefully this Burning Question will be definitively (and correctly) answered soon.

Yeah, that's sounding more and more like """phase based""".

Haha.

[dorkboy]

The 37 Pieces of Flair stretch goal would make even less sense with only TCO + companions, and the wording for that mentions ranger models (including stuff like body and head types - which would be an odd combo with premade CNPCs), so there's that.

[Grohal]

The 37 Pieces of Flair stretch goal would make even less sense with only TCO + companions, and the wording for that mentions ranger models (including stuff like body and head types - which would be an odd combo with premade CNPCs), so there's that.

Unless you can change the appearance of the companions this time.

Naw, I still believe firmly its 4 premade + 3 companions, unless InXile states something different. And since they should definately flesh out (mostly for reacting to the world in more than some one-liners) the companions way more than in Wasteland 2, I don't think they can make 12+ (for 2 players with 6 picks each, IF it's only one premade char) interesting companions.

So let's give them the benefit of doubt here.

[dorkboy]

So let's give them the benefit of doubt here.

Oh, I already did, day 1.
But it's hard to get really psyched about something when you're already explicitly in the process of "benefit-of-doubting", you know?

[Jozape]

The fact that you can have two ranger squads roaming Colorado freely and that both ranger squads need to be present - not just a chosen character or squad - to progress the story, suggests to me that the game isn't fundamentally about "The Chosen One".

Yeah, that's sounding more and more like """phase based""". Oh well.

(*except with parties, obvz.)

What does that mean? I familiar with the term "phase based" for combat but I'm not sure what it means here. If the combat is becoming phased based that would be great. I don't think you are referring to combat though.

[dorkboy]

The fact that you can have two ranger squads roaming Colorado freely and that both ranger squads need to be present - not just a chosen character or squad - to progress the story, suggests to me that the game isn't fundamentally about "The Chosen One".

Yeah, that's sounding more and more like """phase based""". Oh well.
(*except with parties, obvz.)

What does that mean? I familiar with the term "phase based" for combat but I'm not sure what it means here. If the combat is becoming phased based that would be great. I don't think you are referring to combat though.

Yeah, I wasn't referring to combat, but rather to not knowing what inXile mean by the terms they use sometimes. As a backer I might think it means one thing, but then a lot of the actual details might point to it meaning something else (the "phase based" combat of BT IV being an example of that).

[marceror]

Hmm, still no confirmation on options for forming party. Nice to see the initial post here from sea/sear, but the lack of follow up post has me a little worried.

Even if some things are still being decided, it would be good to at least hear that. I don't have enough information about WL3 to back it, or decide at what level. Not sure that inXile cares, since they are funded, but if they do, please kick down with more details.

I backed TToN rather generously. I backed BT4, which I don't even intend to play. But with all the focus on multiplayer and consoles so far, I'm not sure if I want to back WL3. So, inXile, what will the party size be? Will all party members be premade, or do we get to create more than our initial party member?

Are old school cRPG fans still a core part of your intended demographic for this game, or is this one being made more for the mass market? I wouldn't hate you for doing a game like that, but I would hold it against you for not telling me that you are before I decided to make a financial contribution.

[Volourn]

Eh. I don't know why they'd feel the need to change the party set up in the sequel. 4+ joinables is fine. I'd personally prefer 6 created bu whateves. But, 1 + joinables ala FO? Nah. That is FO not WL. WL is about creating your squad, exploring, and levelling up. FO is about the Chosen One tim.

[Infinitron]

https://www.fig.co/campaigns/wasteland- ... 93#updates

Instead, you'll be the sole survivor of Team November, establishing a new foothold in hostile, harsh, and unforgiving territory. It will be up to you to recruit promising new Rangers from the local population

[paultakeda]

And if the last survivor of Team November dies does the game end? THAT is the defining question on whether or not this is a Chosen One game.

[kilobug]

For me, the most important difference between a single-character game and a party-based game is how many characters you've direct control of during combat, and handle how they level up and equip. Baldur's Gate or PoE games all qualify as party-based game to me, because you've full control of the party during combat, can equip them freely, and handle their leveling. PST and Shadowrun not fully, because you don't have full control over how they level up nor their equipment. Fallout 1/2 (or IWD) not at all because you've nearly no control over other characters.

Whatever you create them or recruit them doesn't matter that much for that (I do like the interaction with companions in games like BG, Shadowrun, ... but that's from the role-playing PoV not from the single-character vs party PoV) and that the game ends when one dies or not is pretty irrelevant to me, since I will anyway reload a save game if any characters of my party dies (unless resurrection is easily available).

I can understand some people feel differently, but I would guess the majority of people is somewhat close to my position, and that's why inXile doesn't give much important to that question - but sure, it would be nice of them to give an official answer for those for which it matters a lot.

[Grohal]

Personally I don't care either if I create one or more chars myself and recruit the rest from an NPC pool.
But I cannot understand why something is changed that was part of the essence of Wasteland in part one and two: 4+3. I never saw any complains about this, at least nothing comes to my mind in that case.
At the moment we don't even know what the party size will be and I must say: If you go from 4+3 to 1+3, it's not Wasteland anymore (would be more Tyranny in Wasteland - even more so with the "party based combat abilities" I read in the first or second update). That doesn't mean it will be bad, but still - why not use this on another name (VanBuren, Meantime or others InXile got the rights for).
There were other things about Wasteland, especially part 2, that could need refreshing or complete rework - like attribute/stats/perk-system. No need to change what was good and wasteland-ish already.

[-Archangel-]

And if the last survivor of Team November dies does the game end? THAT is the defining question on whether or not this is a Chosen One game.

Personally I prefer the so called "chosen one" storytelling if it makes sense. In BG you are divine, in Fallout 1 only you care to save your Vault, in Fallout 2 only you care to save your village and so on.

If they go with you get one character and the rest you recruit from NPCs or create once you got access to Ranger base, I hope that at some point you character will be able to die. It is understandable that while Ranger Base is being made and Rangers in new area need to be trained and led by example your character is critical, if he dies everything falls apart but hopefully at some point the game they say: "OK now, everything is setup enough so that the commander will be missed but he is not critical."

[Amaror]

I am really unhappy about this. I allready had a bit of a mess playing Wasteland 2, because the characters I got coincided in skills with the ones I created, essentially wasting those skill points. This will only be exagerated when, instead of creating four characters, I can only create one and just have to deal with the, usually badly skilled, companions the game throws at me.
And that doesn't make the game more modern, in fact it makes one flaw of old-school game design all the more pronounced: The need for the player to be precognicient.
This was allready somewhat in Wasteland 2. If you want to be able to pick all locks and safes without save-scumming in late-game you need the "Master Thief"-Perk. But you can only get that Perk if you have level 10 safecracking and lockpicking on a single character. On top of that you need to predict that you would even need the perk because you can't know that max level lockpicking/safecracking isn't enough to open everything. Most players would assume that max level is more than enough to open everything.
The same goes for companions being weirdly placed. Takayuki is level 14 and the location to recruit him is barely of the beaten path and very near to the ranger citadel. Ralphy, Scotchmo and Chisel on the other hand are level 5, 8 and 10 and the location to recruit them is behind a massive wall of radiation and no main quest gets you even close to this area. The only real way to get them when you are at their level is to know that they are there beforehand and buy the radiation suits from the ranger vendor instead of getting them through the main quest. By the time I got chisel as a companion my characters were allready just before level 20. Which is pretty overleveled for chisel. I don't even want to start on Ralphy or Scotchmo. And I was even pretty motivated to get there because I thought railroad indians sound cool.

[-Archangel-]

You don't need powerful rad suit to get there, I always go there early. You just man it up through radiation.

As for having similar skills with companions, so what?! You are meant to play these games more than once. Only thing game needs to make sure it has is enough fun content for 2nd and later playthroughs. You can then use knowledge from your previous playthrough to get access to content you could not before.

You post is 100% reason why people don't like millennials. You want everything and you want it now.

[Amaror]

You don't need powerful rad suit to get there, I always go there early. You just man it up through radiation.

As for having similar skills with companions, so what?! You are meant to play these games more than once. Only thing game needs to make sure it has is enough fun content for 2nd and later playthroughs. You can then use knowledge from your previous playthrough to get access to content you could not before.

You post is 100% reason why people don't like millennials. You want everything and you want it now.

Haha, what? Your last sentences make no sense, but at least you could rant about millennials, right? Doesn't need to make sense then.
I don't see were I said anything about missing content. Companions being over/underlevelled for you isn't missing content, it's just weird balance.
And if you are talking about the "Master Thief"-perk problem. You do know that the design that was responsible for this also caused the "Save-scum design" problem of wasteland 2 people are talking about.
And there's a pretty big thread, for this forum anyway, about people having problem with the fact that save-scumming was encouraged by the design of the game like this. Probably all dirty millennials, am I right?

And, no, this isn't really a game that's designed to be replayed a lot. The main draw of it is it's story and that story is experienced pretty much completely after finishing it once. It's also very very long. That's also not really an incentive to replay it multiple times when you experienced the most enjoyable parts of it allready. Sure you have some very enjoyable choices here and there, but they don't change all that much when replaying it. I am not saying you cannot replay the game and enjoy it again. You can replay and enjoy every game in existance. But it's not designed from the ground up to be replayed. Games that focuss on gameplay are designed to be replayed. Binding of Isaac is designed to be replayed, Europa Universalis is designed to be replayed, Civilization games are designed to be replayed.

[kilobug]

I am really unhappy about this. I allready had a bit of a mess playing Wasteland 2, because the characters I got coincided in skills with the ones I created, essentially wasting those skill points.

That's true to a point - but you tend to encounter most companions quite early into the game, so you don't waste that much skill points.

This will only be exagerated when, instead of creating four characters, I can only create one and just have to deal with the, usually badly skilled, companions the game throws at me.

I'm not sure it'll be any worse. If you create 4 characters, you're very likely that any companion you recruit will have at least one skill in common with them. If you only create 1 character, the collision chance is actually lower. Sure you perhaps (depending how they are designed, and how many of them there are) will have collisions between two companions, but it doesn't have to be any worse than between companion and PCs.

That said, I would be fine with 4+3 like in WL2, I like it, it's just not such a major issue to me, compared at least to being able to fully control them in combat and control how they level-up after you meet them.

Perhaps another option could be that when you recruit companions, they are only skilled at level 1, and then automatically get levels up until your current level, allowing you to chose how to assign skill points past level 1.

And, no, this isn't really a game that's designed to be replayed a lot. [...] But it's not designed from the ground up to be replayed. Games that focuss on gameplay are designed to be replayed. Binding of Isaac is designed to be replayed, Europa Universalis is designed to be replayed, Civilization games are designed to be replayed.

WL2 wasn't designed to be replayed 100x or even 20x times like Civilization, but it was still designed to be replayed at least once or twice, with the many ways to solve quests, mutually exclusive paths, ...

[Gillsing]

But it's not designed from the ground up to be replayed. Games that focuss on gameplay are designed to be replayed.

I guess you're right about that. I played and replayed Satellite Reign for a year, but the clunky gameplay of Wasteland 2 makes it hard for me to get back into the game every time now. And I haven't even left Titan's Valley. I should be excited about venturing forth into the unknown wastes. But apparently it's more interesting to read this forum. That shouldn't be the case this early in the game.

[Zombra]

I cannot understand why something is changed that was part of the essence of Wasteland in part one and two: 4+3. I never saw any complains about this, at least nothing comes to my mind in that case.

Yeah, it's just baffling to me that they might make such a fundamental change to the format. I mean, I get it why there were drastic changes between Wasteland and Wasteland 2. I get it! I really do!

I even get why the dialogue system is changing from W2 to W3: W2's system was experimental, keywords made very little difference to gameplay, and they already took it most of the way to normal dialogue trees anyway by writing the spoken lines for every button. There were a couple grognard arguments about minor details, but no one that I'm aware of cared that much about it either way. No one is grabbing their torches and pitchforks over the dialogue system.

But why change from a created party when it is so impactful to the gameplay, one of the few series foundations that was preserved from the original, and clearly players still love it? There are scores, if not hundreds, of posts here on "Check out how I built my party" or "Show off your Rangers", and not just from the die hard regulars. Joe Random registered on the board time and again to talk about making characters. The audience for it is there.

The only reason I can think of is the desire to cash in on 'the unofficial "Fallout 4 part 2"'. Even at this late date, I can't accept that that's really where inXile wants to go.

Still waiting for the definitive announcement that of course W3 will have the same 4+3 format as W2 (and 1). Krusty is coming.