Wasteland 3

[rivethead]

https://www.fig.co/campaigns/wasteland-3#about

Crowd-funding started today on Fig's site. Full disclosure: Brian Fargo (InXile's President) is a Fig founder/board member.

I'm on the fence about this one. I loved Wasteland 2 and have backed Bards Tale IV but I worry about whether or not some of the feature enhancements they describe for Wasteland 3 are going to be interesting to me (multi-player for one thing....I like my RPGs alone by myself).

It sounds like this one will be developed in Detroit. Probably for tax credit reasons. Same reason they opened a studio in New Orleans (and dedicated it to making Bards Tale IV).

The investment side looks interesting. $1,000 minimum for a unit. I think WL3 could easily sell as many copies as WL2, making break-even likely. But.....I still don't like the idea behind Fig. I don't think "gamers" are typically sophisticated investors who will clearly understand the risks and I think this has the potential to get messy if/when a Fig game fails.

Regardless, Wasteland 3 funding is here.....

 

[Borealis7]

i just saw it too. that video with the dialog and then the combat looks amazing.
i don't know if i'll pledge anything, but i'll definitely buy it once it's released.
they are 79% funding with about a month to go, it'll easily get funded.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I might have bought in at the $25 early bird tier (-$5 since I backed WL2) but $33 with a 3 year wait makes me think not.

I'm glad I backed WL2 and Tides. Back then no publishers were willing to fund turn-based isometric RPGs and without us backers WL2 and ToN would probably never have existed. Now that WL2, Shadowrun & Divinity (backed them too) have shown that the turn-based niche can be profitable I don't feel like they need me any more. My work is done

I'll probably buy it in 2019 on release though.'

Also: I hope no one here falls for the "invest in the game and make big cash monies!" pitch. You're much better off putting money into your 401k, IRA, and then a regular (taxable) brokerage account to buy ETFs.

 

[DigDog]

i will obviously buy this on release, because W1 was my most influential game. i dont preorder or even buy games on release, so this is an exception. even more so, because i did not like W2 at all. i thought it was clunky, slow, BADLY BALANCED.
and on top of it all, it did not have the one thing which i wanted .. which NWN had .. and which i damn well hope W3 will have - MODULES support. not "mods", but adventure modules.

now, in my opinion NWN (i prefer 1 over 2) was a masterpiece; although it had that top-down view, it was fluid, you could even say fast paced. it had a touch of Diablo in it, and although the engine running behind the whole thing was essentially turn based, it felt as if it was "live". The 3rd Ed. rules fit the game better than 3.5, there was a near-infinite amount of game modules available for free (endless replay value), and the game was fairly intuitive to play between mouse and UI.

now, W2 did not have this. it was tile-based, the turn structure was rigid and hard to get a "feel" for (on top of some weird game decisions about random +AP), and while NWN was more of a "single player with henchmen" and W2 was "full party" in the spirit of TOEE, i can get past the game system, assuming they rebalance practically everything.

W1 was not like this at all. the simpler Bards Tale interface made combat very quick and snappy, specially for encounters where you outclass the enemy and just want to grind, and yet taking on Brother Goliath or the Scorpitron was not a joke. So, the game design was fast, and for all practical reasons, BETTER than the modern W2. I mean, even the f* Bunnymaster was an encounter which kept me locked for 3 days.

I am prepared to be disappointed for a second time. But i wish they made something easier to play, without it being easier; it's not impossible, because both NWN, and W1 (in 1988) managed to do it. W2 gameplay was just atrocious, i wanted to stab myself. And once the chore of clearing yet another slow ass room full of badly balanced mobs who i can only kill by minmaxing my stats/guns/positions was done, the game was ready for uninstall.

Please Brian Fargo, give me a game that I CAN PLAY. And when i'm done playing it, i can keep playing.

 

[Midwayman]

Yah, you're pretty much the reason why turn based rpgs went away and had to be crowdfunded. You're asking for a fundamentally different game.

 

[rivethead]

I might have bought in at the $25 early bird tier (-$5 since I backed WL2) but $33 with a 3 year wait makes me think not.

I'm glad I backed WL2 and Tides. Back then no publishers were willing to fund turn-based isometric RPGs and without us backers WL2 and ToN would probably never have existed. Now that WL2, Shadowrun & Divinity (backed them too) have shown that the turn-based niche can be profitable I don't feel like they need me any more. My work is done

I'll probably buy it in 2019 on release though.'

Also: I hope no one here falls for the "invest in the game and make big cash monies!" pitch. You're much better off putting money into your 401k, IRA, and then a regular (taxable) brokerage account to buy ETFs.

I'm in the same boat. I had intended to grab the early bird tier and use my $5 coupon too....but work got in the way. By the time I logged in, they were gone. For $28 ($33-$5), I still might grab it, but it's looking more like I'll just wait on reviews.

I really like InXile. I like how they are trying to be efficient with development dollars.....opening up new studios in tax-advantaged locales.....funding new projects once the writers free up from other projects, etc. I'm massively excited about the Bards Tale IV (and I have never played the originals). That game just appeals to me (and is looking beautiful).

But I think a cautious approach to WL3 is in order (for me). Like I said in my op, I'm a bit concerned the focus will be too much on MP. We'll see.

And I agree with your comment on investing. I think this project will make money. But the investor needs to understand that their funds will be tied up for likely four years before units are started to be sold and you'll start to see a return. That's a long time and when you compare what that money could have been earning during that time to the expected total return....the returns are nearly as exciting as what's initially presented.

Lastly.....thanks for doing your "work" on this genre.

 

[DigDog]

but, i dont like turn based. i dont like isometric. you can't call W1 "turn based", it was more UI-based. It also had the option to speed things up too. I didnt even like the combat in F1/F2, even though it was better in every way from W2, mostly because it was simpler to handle.
For example, UFO is a game i just could not bear to play. The research was cool n all, but the turn based squad game was the death of me. And lets remember that W1 was a ROLE PLAYING GAME. You built your character with experience, gear and skills far more than you did in UFO. Same goes for NWN. They are not the same, the way that D&D and Blood Bowl are not the same. Or Vampire and Shadowrun. One is rigid and the other is fluid.

There is no reason why W2 had to move from UI based (like Ultima, or Phantasie, or Bards Tale) to rigid, when it could have moved to fluid, like NWN. You can say that you like it better, but that's no better argument than mine. At least i have some reasons why fluid is better, i haven't heard yours yet. And i would like to remind you that NWN did in fact have an engine counting rounds and initiative and actions behind the graphics, so it was just as "turn based" as any.

with these two systems, in both you can have an encounter in a room where you have your Rangers on one side and Cyborgs on the other. In both you can have a scenario where the Cyborgs are in a defensive position. You can build the SAME EXACT game situation, but from the player's perspective, one is easy to play and the other is tedious. Rigid systems might give you a bit more control (which is already debatable, since NWN, like FTL, had the pause button and the option to input detailed commands), but they are inherently slow. try to play W2, walk into the desert with your high level rangers, and run into some useless garbage mutants, which you will wipe out without any real ill effect - hat still takes 4-5 minutes.
Fluid systems are harder to design, you need to develop pathing and AI more, they can be intensive graphically, but from a player side they are just superior to rigid systems. You also dont have those idiotic situations where initiative forces you to play first never allowing you to catch a slower enemy who wants to run away.
There's a reason why turn based is getting phased out.

regarding the rest of my post, i.e. the important stuff, W2 was badly balanced, with some very dubious design choices, artistically it was garbage (ill come to this in a second), and when you were through playing the main quest, it was out of content. NWN can still be played today, people still write modules for it, some of them better in writing and more inventive in story and characters than what i've seen come out of TSR or WOTC. WHY was this not considered, for an RPG ?

regarding the art, an artist understands visual impact; they will design each painting or photo with a theme, character, background, etc in mind. This relates to W2 in designing each scene's background, and then manually drawing the main assets which are the centerpiece of the scene. NOT designing each asset in minute detail, and then randomly scattering them on the screen. Asides from "wow this map is huge and long and boring to walk from one side to the other and there is no fast travel or speed option", the only memory i have of W2 is the monuments, which were the only parts of the game designed for visual impact. The rest of the maps are a clusterf**k of unnecessary detail badly assembled.

Fallout had a completely different design path than W2. The key to F1/F2 was the story and the characters. The balance of the game was on point, and the stat system was comprehensive in allowing you to solve quests in roundabout ways. The reason to go turn based was to showcase the visual style of the maps, which might not seem like much now, but was great at the time. W2 was released in 2015, there is NO reason to want to go with turn based. I mean, jesus, let's call Mojang and have them change Minecraft to turn based; it's already got blocks, let's just make it so that the player can only move from block to block, that would be great, no? Actually, let's make Witcher 4 turn based too.

I can't wait for you to tell me all the great benefits of a turn based game.

 

[DaveSimmons]

WL1, Bard's Tale, Wizardry were 1D (depth/ranks only for positioning in combat) tactical turn-based games. Turns were fast because the character actions were limited but they were still turns.

You probably didn't like (or never played) the SSI Gold Box D&D games. Combat in them was turn-based but on a 2D board with real positioning and ranges. The later Infinity Engine D&D games like Baldur's Gate were also 2D with pausable "real-time" that was really turn-based dice rolls under the hood like NWN.

It's fine that you don't like these kinds of games and I won't try to tell you that you "should." I don't play RTS, fighting, sports or driving games. Play what you enjoy.

 

[DigDog]

would you think that the gold box were closer, in playability, to W2, or NWN?
i'm talking the actual player experience of using the UI to sit down to a dozen random encounters.

i'm asking to hear your opinion of the matter, i have in fact played several gold box games, and many more RPG of the time. i still remember the character customization out of the later series, the UI controls, how i multiclassed my various party members, the exploits, bugs .. i never actually completed Pool Of Radiance because i could never get past the first stage, the brawls at the tavern and the early swarms of kobolds kept wiping my party, but i did finish Champions of Krynn, Pools of Darkness, Death Knights, Dark Queen, i started gaming on a Intellivision and my first game was AD&D.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Hmm. FYI, I liked both NWN 1-2 (and KOTOR 1-2) and the Gold Box games so both play styles are fun for me.

All 3 have 2D positioning with ranged vs. melee attacks. All have character customization and gear choices. The gold box games are more like WL2 and FO1-2 in these ways:

- There is no strong sense of a character being "you," in a story sense, no one in the party is the chosen one / player stand-in. In NWN and KOTOR there is a distinction between you and your companions. The Inifinity Engine games (Baldur's Gate 1-2, Planescape) did do this except Icewind Dale.

- Turns. Gold Box was much slower paced than Infinity Engine and Aurora Engine (NWN, KOTOR) because of needing to issue each turn's commands for each party member. Also slower paced than WL1 where your commands were mostly Attack or Reload over and over and there was no movement in combat.

Playability? NWN and KOTOR are faster-paced, so they do require less patience to progress the story. But I wouldn't call turn-based "less playable" any more that I'd call an RTS less playable just because I find the real-time combat and resource management more work than fun. "Less playable FOR ME" I guess.

 

[whm1974]

I for one love turn based combat games. And I think that WL2 is great, and felt betrayed when Fallout became a FPS. But to each their own.

 

[DigDog]

look, im not nitpicking, but gold box was easier and faster. move next to kobold with arrow keys, walk into kobold - BAM.

in W2 depending on where you move you will get wildly varying stats, what is an easy shot from square X is an impossible shot from square X+1. While i get that this might be an appeal to some, i dont dispute how it works, but how MUCH it works. If they had reduced the various bonuses and penalties for location / distance, it would have made it into a game which is playable even if you dont go crazy trying to maneuver your team.

 

[whm1974]

Well I admit that WS2 could have better, and I would have liked having modules like NWN does so it would some replay value. But I don't know what constrains Ixile was under when developing the game.

 

[zinfamous]

I might have bought in at the $25 early bird tier (-$5 since I backed WL2) but $33 with a 3 year wait makes me think not.

I'm glad I backed WL2 and Tides. Back then no publishers were willing to fund turn-based isometric RPGs and without us backers WL2 and ToN would probably never have existed. Now that WL2, Shadowrun & Divinity (backed them too) have shown that the turn-based niche can be profitable I don't feel like they need me any more. My work is done

I'll probably buy it in 2019 on release though.'

Also: I hope no one here falls for the "invest in the game and make big cash monies!" pitch. You're much better off putting money into your 401k, IRA, and then a regular (taxable) brokerage account to buy ETFs.

But, Dude! This is like buying stock in a single company that, you know, has potential to go up like, 300, 500, 1000% like other awesome stocks! So what if it takes 3 years before you ever have any idea if that will actually pay off in that time... :whiste:

 

[Borealis7]

i'm a huge Turn-based fan. i played so many turn based games, some with grids, some with hexes, some with 4Xs!
i haven't played the original WL1, but to me WL2 was exactly what i expected it to be - another Fallout Tactics, which i absolutely loved. the Action Points system or 1-move-1-shoot system in other games is great for me because i always outfit my teams with sniper or longest range attacks and i love setting up ambushes at the end of long corridors and baiting the big and slow enemy with a fodder character that can run fast.
for every combat system, you have to learn how to take advantage of it and outsmart the game and that's 50% of the fun really.

 

[DaveSimmons]

look, im not nitpicking, but gold box was easier and faster. move next to kobold with arrow keys, walk into kobold - BAM.

in W2 depending on where you move you will get wildly varying stats, what is an easy shot from square X is an impossible shot from square X+1. While i get that this might be an appeal to some, i dont dispute how it works, but how MUCH it works. If they had reduced the various bonuses and penalties for location / distance, it would have made it into a game which is playable even if you dont go crazy trying to maneuver your team.

That's a good point. In D&D your ranged attacks had a fixed chance based on skill vs. armor class regardless of range so less work is required. In WL2, FO1-2, Tactics and Jagged Alliance range is more realistic which can be un-fun for some people, just like a soccer simulator is un-fun for me.

WL2 was made for a different audience than you, and WL3 apparently will be too.

 

[whm1974]

WL2 was made for a different audience than you, and WL3 apparently will be too.

That is something worth mentioning, everyone has different tastes when it comes to games. I will play almost anything other then sports titles as I hate sports, but I do ask that the games I play be worth my time and money.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I helped kickstart WL2 but to be perfectly honest I find it a bit underwhelming. At least compared to similar kickstarters like Divinity and Pillars. It wasn't bad by any means, just felt it was unpolished and a bit rough around the edges.

The fact that the release for this is *three* years away and will probably be delayed until 2020....I think I'll just wait and buy it when it's released. 3-4 years is a long time to effectively preorder something.

 

[Borealis7]

as expected, the project is funded. $2.75mil in 3 days, and now it's time for stretch goals. how about a stretch goal to hire more developers and get this product out sooner and throughly tested?

 

[DaveSimmons]

as expected, the project is funded. $2.75mil in 3 days, and now it's time for stretch goals. how about a stretch goal to hire more developers and get this product out sooner and throughly tested?

This is their third project of this type, by now they should have a good handle on what team size works. Adding more workers beyond that often doesn't help. For example, one person works on the map editor. Sharing the work between two people can slow that down because of the need to coordinate changes and hash out different ideas on how to approach the pieces. Smaller teams get more done per person.

 

[JoQu5]

Missed the early bird, but picked up a copy. I'd be pretty confident in inXile.

 

[Midwayman]

The issue is that real time is the bane of complexity. You either have to turn the options down or turn the difficult down to be able to manage in RT what you would do in turns. Its not a matter of right or wrong, but the simple fact that a genre pretty much died moving to increasingly RT and action based RPGs. I personally though NWN was a huge disappointment when it came out. I like the infinity engine stuff a lot better. The art was way better on infinity engine and it was slow and buggy. I felt like the whole experience had been dumbed down as well. Anyhow, there isn't a right or wrong answer to what you like, but I'm glad to see more crunchy party based RPGs returning.

 

[DigDog]

really? i thought NWN was phenomenal. If anything, the D&D 3.5 rules made it too easy, but that's not due to the engine. Obviously it looks like ass now, but dude, DVD recorders had just come to market that year. i had a 1.6Ghz single core athlon and a 80Gb HD. (i did have 2Gb of ram so, woot!)

It's the thing that you could just melee people, and let the combat run in auto, or pause and give specific commands to every party member - although a few companions were a bit buggy, but then again, 2003 yo. All these, both auto and command actions, ran on the basis of a hidden timer and initiative values, so it's ... it's basically an animated turn-based.

 

[Midwayman]

Well part of the disappointment was the state of technology at the time. It wasn't ready for a 3d RPG yet. The requirements were pretty high at the time of release, but I had a high end PC so no biggie. The real issue is that 3d at the time looked like ass compared to sprites. It was also competing against a monster library that was huge in the infinity engine. NWN felt like you were fighting against recolors of the same creatures over and over again. Part of the point of NWN was that it was a set of DM tools. However it was a blessing and a curse. The grid that was on gave levels a super samey inorganic feel compared to infinity. In infinity every board was unique. Of course it also meant 3rd party content which was good for it in the long run. By the time NWN2 came out it was a lot better. More of an acceptable side grade. Its been a long time since I played NWN, but I remember not being happy about companions at all. Either way I would have rather seen another infinity engine title when NWN was released. 3d could have waited.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The stories were pretty good though. It's too bad there's little chance of someone doing HD remakes of NWN 1-2 including the official add-ons like Obsidian's Mask of the Betrayer. Like Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines there's so much worthwhile content sitting there trapped in a last-century engine with dated low-res art assets.