Something which didn't fully convinced me in the game. My two cents for Wasteland 3.

For all Wasteland 2 discussion that does not fit elsewhere, suggestions, feedback, etc. No spoilers allowed.

Moderator: Ranger Team Alpha

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6213
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Something which didn't fully convinced me in the game. My two cents for Wasteland 3.

Post by Zombra » August 28th, 2016, 9:27 am

I was going to say something similar. In post-apocalypse, I'm okay with finding partial information and having some things be unexplained. As I said before, I thought it was just a neat "ghost ship" type experience. I don't need, expect, or want to find the journal of every single crew member with all the details from every perspective. Hell, even the original Wasteland had some ambiguous story beats that the hardcore were still debating about a couple years ago. Mysteries are OK, not always there to be solved.
Image

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9785
Joined: March 17th, 2012, 9:58 pm
Location: Under Tenebrosia, doing shots with Sceadu.

Re: Something which didn't fully convinced me in the game. My two cents for Wasteland 3.

Post by Drool » August 28th, 2016, 1:03 pm

Brother None wrote:I would think someone who has no context at all (as in, is not even aware we *have* backer content) will think "oh that's a weird little moment", maybe they'd like there to be more info on it, but again that's part of it. Not every story has to be complete.
Zombra wrote:I was going to say something similar. In post-apocalypse, I'm okay with finding partial information and having some things be unexplained.
Nope. Not buying it, and I'll tell you why: the Codex shrine insists upon itself.

When I played through the game, I had no idea who did what. I knew there was backer content, but the only big backer I knew about was the Razr guy. So, I start looking at shrines. I see the Martin Luther King Jr one, the games console one, and so on. No big deal. A little out of place, but I move on.

Then I find three shrines that really stick in my memory.

The submarine. It has a story, a journal, it's neat, and a little tragic. It's possibly the best content in the game.

The diner (Underworld). Moody, atmospheric. All that post-apocalypse stuff you guys are talking about is there. Because of the names, I wager it's probably a reference to something, but that isn't really important. It might be, it might not. But it's still a damn cool location.

Then we get the Codex's bunker. Without knowing anything about it, I know that it's a reference to... something. It's not subtle. It's very clearly an inside joke, and it's an inside joke that's strutting around shouting about how funny it is, but you plebes don't get to get in on it. It's not subtle. It's so obscure while being in-your-face, that I actually searched the internet to find out what the hell it was referencing. The fact that it's memorializing a decade old forum pissing match is just the topper.

That's why I call it the Family Guy of references. Since I'm talking cartoons, compare Family Guy to Animaniacs. Animaniacs would make references that were funny in and of themselves. If you got the reference, it was extra funny, but if not, it was still amusing. Their Heart of Twilight episode is funny even if you've never see Apocalypse Now, Jerry Lewis. The scene where he eats a bug and freaks out? Funny, right? But if you'd seen Hearts of Darkness, you'd get the reference and it'd be funnier.

As opposed to Family Guy where it's more, "HEY! THIS WAS A THING IN THE 80s. REMEMBER THIS THING? REMEMBERING A THING THAT EXISTED IS FUNNY!"

One is subtle and enjoyable on the surface level. The other screams about it's hidden meaning while refusing to let you know what that hidden meaning is. I may be alone in this, but I don't think so. Either way, I don't think I can really explain the differences any better, or get my point across. I mean, it's an optional area so it doesn't matter but, I think when doing backer content, it would be a good idea to show it to someone unconnected, and see what they think. Inside jokes, like Easter eggs, are fine; the problem is when they're so obvious that outsides know they're there, but don't know what they are. Then it's just taunting, and it's the kind of thing that annoys people.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

IHaveHugeNick
Master
Posts: 1200
Joined: September 23rd, 2014, 7:31 am

Re: Something which didn't fully convinced me in the game. My two cents for Wasteland 3.

Post by IHaveHugeNick » August 28th, 2016, 6:46 pm

No point getting worked up about it, the game certainly had bigger problems than some unfitting backer content.

Looking back, I'd say that biggest flaw are the first 4-5 hours. T The opening areas just don't set the tone very well. A lot of my friends said they couldn't get into the game because the post-apocalyptic mood just wasn't there. And they're right, because while Agrocenter was a fun level in and of itself, it was way too wacky to have it right at the beginning of post-apocalyptic game. Damonta for example was wacky too, but by the time you run into it you were already hooked.

When I tried to replay the game after DC came out, I went Agrocenter far, and even though I've already beaten the game once and loved it, my first reaction was, what the fuck is this, Space Invaders? Kind of makes me wonder what percentage of people completed the game when starting Highpool vs. starting Agrocenter.
Two rite whiff care is quite a feet of witch won should be proud.

User avatar
Chestertonite
Initiate
Posts: 6
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 2:56 am

Re: Something which didn't fully convinced me in the game. My two cents for Wasteland 3.

Post by Chestertonite » August 29th, 2016, 3:52 am

IHaveHugeNick wrote:No point getting worked up about it, the game certainly had bigger problems than some unfitting backer content.

Looking back, I'd say that biggest flaw are the first 4-5 hours. T The opening areas just don't set the tone very well. A lot of my friends said they couldn't get into the game because the post-apocalyptic mood just wasn't there. And they're right, because while Agrocenter was a fun level in and of itself, it was way too wacky to have it right at the beginning of post-apocalyptic game. Damonta for example was wacky too, but by the time you run into it you were already hooked.

When I tried to replay the game after DC came out, I went Agrocenter far, and even though I've already beaten the game once and loved it, my first reaction was, what the fuck is this, Space Invaders? Kind of makes me wonder what percentage of people completed the game when starting Highpool vs. starting Agrocenter.
Thanks Nick (you don't mind if I call you like this, don't you? It's just that your nick... well, you probably already know :P ).

All you said it's true - although I haven't experienced the AG Center starting quest since I decided to opt for the needs of the popoulation of Blackpool, er, Highpool (phew, no spoilers here), hence I can't say if it was a space-invader like theme or not. I liked Highpool: it gave me some good-old thrilling times being my first combat experiences in W2 (in fact I felt very inept, strategically and tactically speaking, while now, I have some good grasp of subjects like 'members positioning' and 'turn-combat approach' ;) .

It's true... it's a bit of an anonymous experience at the beginning, I mean, I really perceived such starting story as a not fully 'genuine' experience of apocalypse ... I felt much like being taken for a Desert Ranger role without any prior boot camp experience or intentional application after I had came across the desert/etc., like "I am here and I don't know why" although I had written a fairly sound BG for my squad members (Perhaps in the sequel a starting boot camp experience would help to get you along with the things? ... I don't know if this would be of help, per se, to conquer the 'gamers involvement'... A boot camp setting should be difficult to be felt, err... genuinously apocalyptic. Unless scripters - and world builder - would find dramatic answers to the question: "how a boot camp might be set/take place in the post-apocalyptic Arizona?").

Perhaps starting the story with your party taken out of its 'military beds' (name? :D ) would have been more catchy and cooler - but, then, evern the most accurate of the plots requires a 'solid' background (writing). After the boot camp - I'm just guessing - how would the team devs might have developed the necessary post-apocalyptic feeling?

After all, the Snake Vargas initial quest is well made. Perhaps only the things 'of contour' aren't setting you that much into the story...

Ummm....

Perhaps letting us feeling weak ... but then again ... I don't think an hunger/thirst implementation would suffice to make you feel a (living/dying) part of a wasteland setting (moreover, I don't see it doable into such 'non real time-RPGs').

Really, making a post-apocalyptic wasteland alive and 'credible' it's only a magic made possible out of a solid writing (and world building).


...Nonetheless, the second part of the game it's proving to be outstanding!!! :D

The story has really took off, and I see a very enjoyable plot! LOL. Like... everyone wants to play like the children does ("I am the chief officer!" -- "No, I am!" -- "Not you, me!" -- "Grrr...!").

:lol:
"An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered" -GKC

IHaveHugeNick
Master
Posts: 1200
Joined: September 23rd, 2014, 7:31 am

Re: Something which didn't fully convinced me in the game. My two cents for Wasteland 3.

Post by IHaveHugeNick » August 29th, 2016, 10:25 am

Chestertonite wrote:
All you said it's true - although I haven't experienced the AG Center starting quest since I decided to opt for the needs of the popoulation of Blackpool, er, Highpool (phew, no spoilers here), hence I can't say if it was a space-invader like theme or not. I liked Highpool: it gave me some good-old thrilling times being my first combat experiences in W2 (in fact I felt very inept, strategically and tactically speaking, while now, I have some good grasp of subjects like 'members positioning' and 'turn-combat approach' ;) .
Highpool was great, it had about everything one could expect. Groups of survivors fighting each other over resources, couple of asshole characters and a touch of dark humor. Agrocenter just felt off.The opening live-action intro prepares you for a gritty, realistic post-apo rampage, and an hour later you're in Agrocenter, fighting space flies and man-eating plants, and the scenery consists of oversized celery. It's a fun level but it should have been placed somewhere later in the game.
Chestertonite wrote: ...Nonetheless, the second part of the game it's proving to be outstanding!!! :D

The story has really took off, and I see a very enjoyable plot! LOL. Like... everyone wants to play like the children does ("I am the chief officer!" -- "No, I am!" -- "Not you, me!" -- "Grrr...!").

:lol:
It certainly gets better, and there are some moments that genuinely get as close to post-apo heaven as a game can get. It's just that you really have to commit yourself to 15-20 hours of gametime before the game really takes off.
Two rite whiff care is quite a feet of witch won should be proud.

User avatar
Chestertonite
Initiate
Posts: 6
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 2:56 am

Re: Something which didn't fully convinced me in the game. My two cents for Wasteland 3.

Post by Chestertonite » August 31st, 2016, 4:49 am

... And... I was forgetting... (this might really starts a debate, I expect this to be quite a divisive subject ;) )



6. Allow hostile npcs parties to heal themselves & the almost-dead state:

It's good that we can heal ourselves and cure specific (health) conditions, really. But even better would be having the chance to having enemies capable of doing the same. After having fought many many battles, I somehow matured the idea that even the baddies should have this chance.

Not that the battles aren't fascinating! It's just that I find the current lack of NPCs healing ...unreasonable, plain and simple.

Having said that, of course the advice must be took with a 'grain of salt': I wouldn't like a W3 full of parties capable of healing themselves. Only the stationary squads or the raiding parties should have its medic/surgeon. I'm also ready to accept auto-healing auto-bots/techno-trons as long as the challenge placed to the players isn't excessive.

That would also make possible (and reasonable!) the chance of getting medipacks of various nature from a dead 'healer' body.

--------------

Almost-dead status: If we have it, why don't they? Realistically, any battle ends if all of a squad people are 'fainted' or downright decimated (or mixed condition of the twos). It's the same for our group of Desert Rangers, insn't it? Why shouldn't be their case?

We then (victorious) Rangers might have the chance to end a life with a final gunshot to the (mortally) bleeding survivor (I know it's a borderline definition..... :-P) or to show an unexpected 'pietas' (latin), just how Snake Vargas did in one case in his past (if I'm right this fact is found written in one of his books of memories), and let them live (perhaps after all of their inventory has been actually decimated in that sense... :P ).



Perhaps all these ideas were already proposed and examinated - if so, accept my apologies, being a new player I couldn't have known. ;)


Anyway, what do you think? Would this make fights tactically more depth, if well-tested?

If you think to it thoroughly, the idea of the 'almost-dead status' given to the hostile NPCs might also open new scenarios to unexpected quests of 'come-back-guys' with a future good or a bad outcome for the Desert Rangers group...


p.s.: Strange nobody backstarted the good 'ol Doom weapons in Wasteland 2. Might have been fun. Whoops, now I'm being a bit too much Heretic! :P
"An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered" -GKC

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6213
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Something which didn't fully convinced me in the game. My two cents for Wasteland 3.

Post by Zombra » September 1st, 2016, 10:44 am

Chestertonite wrote:Almost-dead status: If we have it, why don't they?
Because if they did we wouldn't get the text messages about guys being shredded into chunks of flesh by a hail of shrapnel. It'd just be "Raider is shot and falls unconscious." Yawn.
Image

IHaveHugeNick
Master
Posts: 1200
Joined: September 23rd, 2014, 7:31 am

Re: Something which didn't fully convinced me in the game. My two cents for Wasteland 3.

Post by IHaveHugeNick » September 1st, 2016, 11:54 am

While I generally like when the AI can use the same tricks as the player, in Wasteland's case it would be pointless. The way it things currently work, you'd just shoot the enemy medic first and there goes your increased tactical depth. They'd have to rebalance the entire game (again!) just to accommodate for that one little feature.
Two rite whiff care is quite a feet of witch won should be proud.

User avatar
Zombra
Global Moderator
Posts: 6213
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 10:50 pm

Re: Something which didn't fully convinced me in the game. My two cents for Wasteland 3.

Post by Zombra » September 1st, 2016, 12:38 pm

A P&P GM guide once said something to the effect of: "There's no better way to slow down combat than to make sure every minion gets all his Recovery rolls." In Wasteland, it's OK to just shoot an NPC and have him die and be dead. There's no special reason the same rules should apply to PCs and NPCs.
Image

IHaveHugeNick
Master
Posts: 1200
Joined: September 23rd, 2014, 7:31 am

Re: Something which didn't fully convinced me in the game. My two cents for Wasteland 3.

Post by IHaveHugeNick » September 1st, 2016, 8:41 pm

Zombra wrote: There's no special reason the same rules should apply to PCs and NPCs.
Well you're right, whether NPCs have the same ruleset or not, it doesn't have any practical impact on my experience.

I just like seeing it done, because any game that can pull it off successfully, without any striking imbalances, needs to have superbly fine tuned combat. It demonstrates real commitment to quality. For instance, take Starcraft. There were so many RTS games where devs went the cheap route and allowed the AI to see through fog of war. But not Blizzard, Starcraft AI actually sends scouts. Does it make any difference to players? None whatsoever, nobody plays Starcraft versus AI anyway. But they still felt it's important to implement it.
Two rite whiff care is quite a feet of witch won should be proud.

User avatar
Ranger1
Scholar
Posts: 157
Joined: April 24th, 2012, 3:00 am

Re: Something which didn't fully convinced me in the game. My two cents for Wasteland 3.

Post by Ranger1 » September 21st, 2016, 2:26 am

General Suggestions for Wasteland 3
===============================

- I think the first game (Wasteland 2) suffered for being a sequel to an old game and wasn't quite sure what it wanted to be at times. Find the cool factor in this setting and really zero in on it. The things that people really responded too in Wasteland 2 that is.
- Also different areas being done by different people meant that the game seemed uneven at times. Maybe a style guide for W2 could have helped things here.
- I liked how descriptive text was done in BG2 and it added interest and or plot clues to what otherwise is just a piece of background scenery for many dungeons in that game. Torment is doing that sort of thing also ie. the descriptive text on those relics or other points of interest, which is player controlled, so you can decide if you want to read it or not. Wasteland 3 should present the descriptive text in the same manner as Torment.
- Borrow the tags system from D:OS 2. It adds a lot to conversations and could take into account player origins and skill specialities such as 'mechanical repair'.

Things to add
===========
- Robots ~ I want to program & upgrade one and have it be my little buddy. It was a nice touch having a robot following you around in Wasteland 2 but for a sequel I expect to be able to program and upgrade it as my mission(s) proceeds. It would be cool if I could choose the chassis (spider bot, blade bot etc) Maybe it could gain abilities from different parts such as bomb detection and disarming.

- How can you have a Mad Max like setting without vehicles? Let me have a car and a truck base (Knight Rider anyone??) Even if the car is just used to move around and not to engage in combat it would still be something. Let me upgrade it by scavenging for parts.

- Verticality. Looking at the box art for Wasteland you know what I am talking about. I want to explore abandoned office blocks and disused parking lots.

User avatar
Chestertonite
Initiate
Posts: 6
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 2:56 am

Re: Something which didn't fully convinced me in the game. My two cents for Wasteland 3.

Post by Chestertonite » September 30th, 2016, 4:08 am

Ranger1 wrote:General Suggestions for Wasteland 3
===============================

- I think the first game (Wasteland 2) suffered for being a sequel to an old game and wasn't quite sure what it wanted to be at times. Find the cool factor in this setting and really zero in on it. The things that people really responded too in Wasteland 2 that is.
- Also different areas being done by different people meant that the game seemed uneven at times. Maybe a style guide for W2 could have helped things here.
- I liked how descriptive text was done in BG2 and it added interest and or plot clues to what otherwise is just a piece of background scenery for many dungeons in that game. Torment is doing that sort of thing also ie. the descriptive text on those relics or other points of interest, which is player controlled, so you can decide if you want to read it or not. Wasteland 3 should present the descriptive text in the same manner as Torment.
- Borrow the tags system from D:OS 2. It adds a lot to conversations and could take into account player origins and skill specialities such as 'mechanical repair'.

Things to add
===========
- Robots ~ I want to program & upgrade one and have it be my little buddy. It was a nice touch having a robot following you around in Wasteland 2 but for a sequel I expect to be able to program and upgrade it as my mission(s) proceeds. It would be cool if I could choose the chassis (spider bot, blade bot etc) Maybe it could gain abilities from different parts such as bomb detection and disarming.

- How can you have a Mad Max like setting without vehicles? Let me have a car and a truck base (Knight Rider anyone??) Even if the car is just used to move around and not to engage in combat it would still be something. Let me upgrade it by scavenging for parts.

- Verticality. Looking at the box art for Wasteland you know what I am talking about. I want to explore abandoned office blocks and disused parking lots.
I think you perfectly interpreted my though somehow, especially in the verticality sense which I felt as a major limitation.

Thanks for having posted this! :)
"An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered" -GKC

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests