Wasteland 2 Catch-All: GOTY edition coming soon

SixteenBlue wrote:

When the developers themselves are saying "We can't make the games we want to make" something is wrong.

The model under which they're trying to operate (depending on big, risk-averse investors who are looking for a profit) is wrong.

LouZiffer wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

When the developers themselves are saying "We can't make the games we want to make" something is wrong.

The model under which they're trying to operate (depending on big, risk-averse investors who are looking for a profit) is wrong.

I'm not even sure if that's true. Good games will sell. Looking for Call of Duty profits might be the problem, but investors looking for profits just need to put more trust in the developers. They want to make these games for a reason.

That's essentially what these Kickstarter projects are. Trust in the developers. I guess if all of these games suck we'll find out I was wrong.

SixteenBlue wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

When the developers themselves are saying "We can't make the games we want to make" something is wrong.

The model under which they're trying to operate (depending on big, risk-averse investors who are looking for a profit) is wrong.

I'm not even sure if that's true. Good games will sell. Looking for Call of Duty profits might be the problem, but investors looking for profits just need to put more trust in the developers. They want to make these games for a reason.

That's essentially what these Kickstarter projects are. Trust in the developers. I guess if all of these games suck we'll find out I was wrong.

I'm talking about what's in fashion for big, risk-averse investors right now. Not what might be in the future. Where there's a dream, there's a way. If the current system doesn't let it happen, you find another system.

By the way, I also hope that this changes some minds and breaks some trends. Steam, indie games, etc are blazing a new trail. The larger publishers/investors aren't quick enough on their feet to act immediately and make that turn, but I'm sure there are plans being drawn up.

This game is older than some gwjers

geezers

mooosicle wrote:

This game is older than some gwjers

geezers

Eat my hobo-dog, mopsicle.

SixteenBlue wrote:

When the developers themselves are saying "We can't make the games we want to make" something is wrong. That doesn't mean other things aren't right and pointing out the good things and calling people elitist really doesn't help the conversation.

Paint a broad picture of the entire gaming scene.. you get the response you get.. don't shoot the messenger.

Paint a broad picture of the entire gaming scene.. you get the response you get.. don't shoot the messenger.

Cries of "don't shoot the messenger!" only apply if the messenger didn't create the message himself.

You're implying that somehow your opinion is imparting Universal Truths, and that we shouldn't be upset with you for simply pointing out the obvious. In actual fact, it's an argument of your own creation, based on your own observations, and not particularly privileged or special observations. Of course it's going to be criticized, like any other opinion would be.

TheGameguru wrote:

I'm continuously shocked at how anyone could really complain about the state of gaming today compared to some mythical period in the past.. especially given the sheer amount of entertainment put forth in front of you in a wide variety of platforms, payment methods, budgets, etc.. (you name a category theres probably at least 4-5 good games in that category) on any given day.

SixteenBlue wrote:

When the developers themselves are saying "We can't make the games we want to make" something is wrong. That doesn't mean other things aren't right and pointing out the good things and calling people elitist really doesn't help the conversation.

Yeah, the market has expanded a million percent since the "golden age" of hardcore gaming, so there have still been plenty of great games, but that doesn't mean that game devs couldn't have been making even better things than what has made it into the market. I've heard enough about the industry that I'm pretty confident that taking development back even just a little bit from the big-money companies is a good thing, and hopefully it will let us have a richer middle ground between "EEE AYE SPORTS IT'S IN THE GAME" and "indie dev made an interesting little thing with 8 hours of gameplay."

Amen to that, brother.

I'd love to see some really superb games with B-grade graphics, as opposed to the choice of AAA-grade with a whole team of suits sitting there trying to figure out how to get more money out of you for the same product, and brilliant little gems with stick figures and crayon drawings.

Malor wrote:
Paint a broad picture of the entire gaming scene.. you get the response you get.. don't shoot the messenger.

Cries of "don't shoot the messenger!" only apply if the messenger didn't create the message himself.

You're implying that somehow your opinion is imparting Universal Truths, and that we shouldn't be upset with you for simply pointing out the obvious. In actual fact, it's an argument of your own creation, based on your own observations, and not particularly privileged or special observations. Of course it's going to be criticized, like any other opinion would be.

There's an old saying....if it walks like a duck..quacks like a duck..and looks like a duck..it must be a duck.

If you despise the industry so much move on and find something that isn't so miserable. Life is to short to be dragged down by things you dislike so much. Those suits and DLC you despise so much have created tons of jobs..Worlds bigger. Time change. Yadda yadda..

Sheesh I feel like James Earl Jones in Field of Dreams...

Back you! Back to the 80's. There's no place for you here!

TheGameguru wrote:

If you despise the industry so much move on and find something that isn't so miserable.

Why did you even bring this topic up if all you are going to do is launch these sorts of attacks on people you don't agree with? It's childish, the sentence I quoted in particular is barely removed from "If you love X so much why don't you marry it!"

I think we can all agree that publishers have a direct impact on the gaming landscape.

Tycoons are dead
RTSs are dead
Music games are dead
WWII games are dead
etc.

Yet those genres all crowded the shelves not so long ago. I think it's safe to say that were it not for publishers we'd see a a lot more diversity and Syndicate and X-Com would have been revived properly.

Can't live without 'em though so let's not get excited. However, Kickstarters are a blessing I gotta say.

If you despise the industry so much move on and find something that isn't so miserable.

What the f*ck do you think this thread is about, Mr. Sneer?

I may have gone a bit overboard, but I'm in for $50. I was seduced by the map.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I may have gone a bit overboard, but I'm in for $50. I was seduced by the map.

Obviously you didn't get the memo. People don't want cloth maps and pack-ins anymore. They should've just offered the option purchase a map app for $1.99. Now, let me just get back to that board meeting about whether or not we're going to make a Civ V fps tie-in where you can play as a gun-toting Ghengis Khan who has to take on Ghandi and Abraham Lincoln in order to defend South America from their unwanted advances. It'll be a smash I tell you! A smash! We know what you gamers want so stop asking for stuff you won't buy!

I grew up owning only the Interplay Decade bundle that included Wasteland and Dragon Wars among many other classics. I would pay at least $100 to find that and get it up and running successfully. That novel sized book of paragraphs to read through was awesome. However, I wasn't old enough to map on graph paper properly, or optimize enough to complete any of those games.

A remake in that style with upgraded graphics and a better interface would be ineresting for sure.

Squee9 wrote:

I grew up owning only the Interplay Decade bundle that included Wasteland and Dragon Wars among many other classics. I would pay at least $100 to find that and get it up and running successfully. That novel sized book of paragraphs to read through was awesome. However, I wasn't old enough to map on graph paper properly, or optimize enough to complete any of those games.

A remake in that style with upgraded graphics and a better interface would be ineresting for sure.

Bard's Tale 3 was hugely helpful in that it included an automap feature; it's why I was able to eventually beat it, but never defeated 1 or 2.

Malor wrote:
If you despise the industry so much move on and find something that isn't so miserable.

What the f*ck do you think this thread is about, Mr. Sneer?

I don't even...

Apparently the industry is huge now and there's lots of good things, but if you don't embrace them all then you must despise it to the point of being miserable. I don't even know how to respond anymore.

Hey, guys? This thread was about Wasteland 2. Please don't be big jerks, except to irradiated mutants.

Tanglebones wrote:
Squee9 wrote:

I grew up owning only the Interplay Decade bundle that included Wasteland and Dragon Wars among many other classics. I would pay at least $100 to find that and get it up and running successfully. That novel sized book of paragraphs to read through was awesome. However, I wasn't old enough to map on graph paper properly, or optimize enough to complete any of those games.

A remake in that style with upgraded graphics and a better interface would be ineresting for sure.

Bard's Tale 3 was hugely helpful in that it included an automap feature; it's why I was able to eventually beat it, but never defeated 1 or 2.

I beat Bard's Tale I by doing some simple mapping, but the game was small enough that you could figure your way around the place. Bard's Tale II was pretty big and it was quite a bit different so I never got into it; I didn't like the whole "collect the parts of the wand" main quest. Bard's Tale III though... yeah, that game was amazing. Loved the auto-mapping for sure, made the game doable. Loved my chronomancer! Dragon Wars was probably my favorite though, just loved the whole setting and the story and the Apple //gs version was gorgeous.

IMAGE(http://blog.ultrace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Wasteland_Death.gif)

IMAGE(http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/18137-wasteland-dos-screenshot-battle-against-irwin-john-finsters.gif)

IMAGE(http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/1/15687/576083-997410683_00_1_.gif)

IMAGE(http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/wl-ingame.gif)

Tanglebones wrote:

IMAGE(http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/wl-ingame.gif)

I do indeed shiver with anticipation.

Dreaded Gazebo wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Squee9 wrote:

I grew up owning only the Interplay Decade bundle that included Wasteland and Dragon Wars among many other classics. I would pay at least $100 to find that and get it up and running successfully. That novel sized book of paragraphs to read through was awesome. However, I wasn't old enough to map on graph paper properly, or optimize enough to complete any of those games.

A remake in that style with upgraded graphics and a better interface would be ineresting for sure.

Bard's Tale 3 was hugely helpful in that it included an automap feature; it's why I was able to eventually beat it, but never defeated 1 or 2.

I beat Bard's Tale I by doing some simple mapping, but the game was small enough that you could figure your way around the place. Bard's Tale II was pretty big and it was quite a bit different so I never got into it; I didn't like the whole "collect the parts of the wand" main quest. Bard's Tale III though... yeah, that game was amazing. Loved the auto-mapping for sure, made the game doable. Loved my chronomancer! Dragon Wars was probably my favorite though, just loved the whole setting and the story and the Apple //gs version was gorgeous.

Bard's Tale I was in that pack too. The craziest part was you had to find the Judgement House or whatever and have some NPCs judge whether or no you had enouhg exp to level up. You never just organically levelled. Also the first dungeon was the wine cellars you could only get to by trying to buy wine at a tavern...what?!

Man I need like..60 minutes of nostalgia playing time with that game.

A friend and I beat Bard's tale II or III within 10 minutes. We found that the pieces of the staff carried forward with our characters and if we ran the hermits hut and put it together, we won. Or something like that. A great exploit found by accident in the days before BBSs ruining all of our fun with spoilers. Good times. I am still debating the $150 investment to get the poster to hang up in my office.

interstate78 wrote:

I think we can all agree that publishers have a direct impact on the gaming landscape.

Tycoons are dead
RTSs are dead
Music games are dead
WWII games are dead
etc.

Yet those genres all crowded the shelves not so long ago. I think it's safe to say that were it not for publishers we'd see a a lot more diversity and Syndicate and X-Com would have been revived properly.

Can't live without 'em though so let's not get excited. However, Kickstarters are a blessing I gotta say.

But none of those are dead(or really never had much in the first place). Last year had SCII and RUSE for RTS'. Music games are still coming out with Beat Hazard, Audiosurf, and everything that Cypher Prime comes out with. WWII titles are still being made, mostly Strategy First titles. Just because big publishers aren't making the games doesn't make the genres dead, especially with all the indie pc stuff out there.

Sure, but that's just semantics over "dead." It doesn't change the original point that publishers have a direct impact on the gaming landscape.

The fact that you cite indie pc stuff is exactly the point.

15 years ago, we had even less choice than now. There wasn't any easy digital distribution. The only choice we had was from the big publishers. Publishers have the smallest impact on gaming that they ever have had.

The simple fact is that no, they aren't dead. You're just not looking.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Sure, but that's just semantics over "dead." It doesn't change the original point that publishers have a direct impact on the gaming landscape.

The fact that you cite indie pc stuff is exactly the point.

Shh.. don't look now but those same publishers have created some of the most memorable "games" in the history of games. Unlike the 80's where I had a far more limited pool of "gaming" than I do now..

Thus my point.. I'm not saying you can't be critical of anything you want.. but trying to paint the current state of "gaming" as anything but pretty freaking amazing just really means your a miserable "gaming" elitist who really just wants to take his basketball and go home.

You can be unhappy and try and paint a broad picture of the current gaming scene by blaming X, Y and Z or realize that the reality is that gaming has just expanded to accommodate all sorts of tastes.. and if you ignore X, Y, and Z there's probably WAY more gaming to be had than you ever had with all sorts of things you really like.

oh and "suits" might have saved Origin.. Looking Glass... etc..so many developers back in the day made critical financial mistakes.. that a good smart "suit" might have been able to avoid.

cube wrote:

15 years ago, we had even less choice than now. There wasn't any easy digital distribution. The only choice we had was from the big publishers. Publishers have the smallest impact on gaming that they ever have had.

The simple fact is that no, they aren't dead. You're just not looking.

Like I said, it depends on your terms. If you're talking financially, then no, that's not true. If you just mean pure existence of games, then yes. Publishers can't control everything, but they control more dollars than anyone and it takes a lot of dollars to make certain genres of games.

SixteenBlue wrote:
cube wrote:

15 years ago, we had even less choice than now. There wasn't any easy digital distribution. The only choice we had was from the big publishers. Publishers have the smallest impact on gaming that they ever have had.

The simple fact is that no, they aren't dead. You're just not looking.

Like I said, it depends on your terms. If you're talking financially, then no, that's not true. If you just mean pure existence of games, then yes. Publishers can't control everything, but they control more dollars than anyone and it takes a lot of dollars to make certain genres of games.

And thus the gamer entitlement comes out swinging.

Basically its this

"I'm mad that games with real budgets are being made that I don't think live up to what I want" How dare Activision spend $50M+ on Call of Duty!!! I want an isometric XCOM with a $50M+ budget!!!"

Except the cold hard reality that isometric Xcom games that would cost $50M+ are so high risk and likely to NOT make back that $50M+ because not enough people will buy it.

But hey look.. there's a perfectly reasonable attempt to make a new Xcom isometric like game that while not $50M and exactly what many fans would want.. still seems pretty damn cool and will only cost you probably $15 or so.

So again you can choose to be miserable.. or realize that there's plenty there to be happy about despite Call of Duty costing $50M+ and millions of unwashed gamers playing it.