Development Info InXile consults academics to create Wasteland authenticity

[Infinitron]

Obviously, everyone sees "science" (in the context of this discussion), as the accumulated pool of knowledge, learned at universities and such.

No you don't. You've been whining in this thread about how the scientists will ruin the game by creating realistic creatures via scientific deduction, or something.

 

[hiver]

So, does it or doesn't?

I'm not a mind reader. I don't know what it means. I do know that discarding the only screenshot (mock up or not) to support your beliefs is the silliest thing one can do.

Well the fuck - if youre not a mind reader and dont know what it means - how come you interpret it in the way that is stupid?

YOU- first went on to say that scorpitron is silly because its "legs" can be damaged by small arm weapons - and then went to claim that mock up screenshot confirms this.

And it does not confirm that - at all.

Just because you can make something, doesn't mean you should and it definitely doesn't mean that that's where the future of tanks is heading. Tracks and wheels, hiver.

It means that the very idea of a Scorpitron design and technology is realistic. Since its obvious such technology is being developed right now.

Are you under the impression that I'm disputing it?

There is no impression. You are disputing it.

I loved the new design but I don't think it's a realistic one.

Is that what I said or implied? Was that my main argument - that you should be able to shoot a tank full of holes from 10 meters? Or was it the exact opposite, by any chance?

I dont know... lets see...:

I'm not saying that tracks are impossible to destroy, I'm saying they are harder to destroy with small gun fire than the leg joints that are up in the air.

There you go. According to you it is possible to destroy tank tracks with small weapons - its only a bit harder.
And the leg joints of a Scorpitron are - easy - to destroy with same kind of weapons.

Just because. (because it conforms to your silly understanding of realism and science)

Is that what I said or implied? Was that my main argument - that you should be able to shoot a tank full of holes from 10 meters? Or was it the exact opposite, by any chance?

Scorpitron is a Tank. It is armored.
If you can shoot it full of holes with small weapons - (bullets going through thick metal armor) - then you can shoot a tank full of holes with small weapons.

And that is apparently confirmed by that mockup screenshot.

No way!

Way, Vince. Way.

Mines? In real life? Absolutely, only it's not real life but an RPG.

What the fuck does this even mean?

Does it mean RPGs must be stupid and refuse to have anti-tank mines? But they can have tanks?
Does it mean a "demolition" skill should not be present and if it is that your demolition expert cannot put together an anti-tank mine?

Well, let's say that humans will fly to another planet and invade the fuck out of it. The enemies will see humans who all look the same to them, and a variety of armored units, carriers, etc. Remove air, sea, and ranged units to come closer to what a player sees in a game and you'll get:

- one type alien unit (infantry, medic, engineer, commander - talking in terms of XCOM here)
- a mech for variety
- stationary guns that aren't an enemy type
- a drone

That's realism and it doesn't make a fun game. Most people understand that and they don't complain about silly, unrealistic things in games.

jesus f`ing christ.... is this realism according to Vince?

Why the hell would you remove air, sea and ranged units? What the fuck?
Thats not realistic - its completely unrealistic.

And then you get one type of unit, four all together? Because you just made it realistic?

Not shit. Most games were designed without direct experts' involvement.

Yes. Thats why most of them are really, really stupid and full of stupid nonsensical shit.

It doesn't, I agree, but at the moment there is absolutely no proof that the scientists involvement is necessary and beneficial.

There is no absolute proof that it isnt.
There are thousands of proofs where features or whole games look idiotic and end up playing badly because someone thought it wont matter and didnt have enough knowledge to avoid it.

Your reaction is "of course it is! science is awesome!".

It is, if properly designed into the game.
Because, dont "forget" - it isnt about making games real - its about making things inside those setting have more coherence, plausibility, verisimilitude, logic, common sense and internal consistency.

This does not mean that the game will automatically get better and be awesome in the end - because that depends on how exactly science will be applied - we have to wait and see the final result before we start to criticize or praise it.

Which is something you have been doing from the start.
Because you can see the future. Youre a procog and so you know that involving science will make bad things.

And then you accuse others of being absolutely certain of the opposite.
Because you dont see further than your own limited cognitive dissonance lets you.
And everything must conform to it.

Nor does it mean including experts in relevant fields will convert the fantastic setting into our reality and boredom.​

What *does* it mean? I've yet to hear a single solid argument from the pro-science crowd.

- Science! It makes games better!
- How?
- It just does! They don't call it science for nothing!
- No, seriously, how?
- By making games more sciency! By saving time! By throwing ideas! How awesome is that?
- It's very vague. What are the benefits?
- More smart men in the room is better than less smart men in the room!

And this is your answer to that sentance?


What a fucking cheap asshole you are.

Nobody claimed "it just makes things better because "it just does".
Thats how you prefer to see it because it makes you feel you are right.
You have been given exact examples for each of your stupid nonsensical examples - but you just choose not to even see any of it and pretend someone said "it just does!"

"By making games more sciency!"



Tell me more how you can destroy Tank tracks with small arms. Or how realistic approach to invasion of an alien planet would result in four units!

You know this (although you dont accept this because of cognitive dissonance), because you designed AoD with a lot of help from experts (data that you studied), on the relevant subjects. You read their work instead of talking to them but that is irrelevant.​

Other people can't read? Reading is teh hard? All books were burned? The internet is broken? What? Research is what writers do, no? Does a small group of straight out of college "scientists" have all the fucking answers? I don't think so.

How does this answer follow that post? By what logic?
And who claimed out of college students have all the fucking answers? What the fuck ?

You can do research yourself - but it means you are researching factual, realistic and scientific materials in the first place you enormous DUMBASS!

And it only made your type of fantastic setting stronger, more consistent and coherent.​

Common sense and logical approach made it stronger -

Common sense and logical approach are based - on what?

A) pulling stuff out of your ass

B) reality and facts we know about it through science?

something that every designer has.

And? Do you think that they are actually studying armor or how armor was used?

of course they do you dumbass.

Do you think I did?

Of course you did, you dumbass.

We went through the same steps: linear armor progression sucks, let's make it more interesting and give the player a reason to use light armor, which is mobility.

And you based this conclusions on what?
How do you know a lighter armor should give more mobility?
What make you decide armor should not make the wearer harder to hit?
What kind of material would provide what kind of damage resistance and what weapons were made specifically to "punch through" specific kinds of materials and design of armors?

What?

Reality?

Gee... what a surprise.

For one simply reason that has nothing to do with realism - linear item design is bad.

What causes a design to become linear?

could it be...say... non realistic stupid ideas that produce stupid consequences?

You don't need a scientist for that.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Obviously, everyone sees "science" (in the context of this discussion), as the accumulated pool of knowledge, learned at universities and such.

No you don't. You've been whining in this thread...

Necessary?

...about how the scientists will ruin the game by creating realistic creatures via scientific deduction, or something.

I've never made any comments about the quality of the game.

My position was that the scientists involvement is unnecessary and doesn't bring anything interesting to the table.

 

[Johannes]

Obviously, everyone sees "science" (in the context of this discussion), as the accumulated pool of knowledge, learned at universities and such.

No you don't. You've been whining in this thread about how the scientists will ruin the game by creating realistic creatures via scientific deduction, or something.

The thing is that either they do that - go for a more realistic but mundane post-apoc scenario, or alternatively they retain the wackiness of the original. Now if they go for the more outrageous approach, as they should (even if you might disagree), how exactly are university studies helping here?

 

[hiver]

I'd really rather that they wouldn't think about everything, and leave some room for imagination instead. Otherwise in a setting like this, you're most probably just going into midichlorian territory.

I think midichlorians sucked because they were an uninteresting detail. Not because they were a detail.

No, idiot.

Midiclorians sucked because they were an attempt to explain something supposedly inexplicable. The Force in Star Wars is supposed to be some all encompassing transcendental element of the human soul, a universalist web of fate which can be manipulated by those attuned to it. Midiclorians sucked because they tried to pinpoint its source in biology, and they sucked harder because after one mention, Lucas dropped them from further outings in SWII & SWIII, which made them seem even more invalid and unimportant.

No idiot. Midiclorians sucked because they were not scientific or realistic - AT MOTHERFUCKING ALL.

It was just a stupid excuse invented by someone who has no fucking idea how things actually work.
An excuse that wasnt needed AT ALL - nor it was applied in the setting in any way at all. It made no fucking difference or consequence of any kind. (edit- well, except being stupid and devaluating the setting)

It was stupid shit someone retarded invented.

 

[Infinitron]

The thing is that either they do that - go for a more realistic but mundane post-apoc scenario, or alternatively they retain the wackiness of the original. Now if they go for the more outrageous approach, as they should (even if you might disagree), how exactly are university studies helping here?

Like I said earlier in this thread, I think even outrageousness can be souped up with science-inspired lore, and nobody can do that better than scientists.

Xen was pretty outrageous, right? I don't think the little touches of scientific plausibility ruined it.

On the contrary, I gain a new appreciation for things that seem outrageous and wacky but are then discovered to have a seed of plausibility in them. Finding the familiar within the alien.

 

[almondblight]

And just how much would your rangers be concerned with theoretical scientific details?

Maybe the main quest will be about collecting data on the effects of radiation on different bird species. The consultants will provide the information so that InXile can accurately recreate their methods in the game. It will also feature moral dilemmas - for example, you'll come across a bird with a broken wing on the road. Do you save it? Do you leave it there? That's what players want.

 

[Vault Dweller]

 

[skuphundaku]

A random collection of details or facts explains nothing. They would just be meaningless signifiers hanging in space.

Luckily, they aren't. They don't hang in space, they add to our understanding of something. They hold explanatory power.

Not every explanation needs to be a scientific one built on a fundamental understanding of the universe's workings. And of course, in practice, for most people, even scientific explanations are full of handwaving and inaccurate assumptions.

Why are we having this discussion?

Alright. Here are some details, let's see if they explain themselves and don't hang in space:

Those certainly hold explanatory power, and need no contextualisation whatsoever. Just like any other set of details. These present themselves as completely comprehensible and accessible without a narrative structuring.

I'm not Jewish, but you do have to love a people that raises their children to love weapons. to them.

 

[DragoFireheart]

And just how much would your rangers be concerned with theoretical scientific details?

Maybe the main quest will be about collecting data on the effects of radiation on different bird species. The consultants will provide the information so that InXile can accurately recreate their methods in the game. It will also feature moral dilemmas - for example, you'll come across a bird with a broken wing on the road. Do you save it? Do you leave it there? That's what players want.

- As long as there are no Stupid Mutants, I think I'm ok with a scientist helping make Wasteland 2.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...utations-nuclear-animals-ocean-science-world/

Ocean Resilient Against Radiation
The ocean has a "tremendous capacity" for diluting radiation, Colorado State's Whicker noted.

- Ocean water better not be radioactive. Bethesda really fucked up that detail in Fallout 3. Also, no nuclear exploding cars.

 

[tuluse]

The explanation offered by Kreia was a philosophical one, and it was written because of Avellone's distaste/disgust with the Star Wars universe. It is a deconstruction of the force and the emptiness of "The Force" as a signifier. The idea being that if the force is alive, that it ca die. That if it is all encompassing then it can also be all consuming. That if it can fill an individual like a vessel, than an individual can be emptied or voided of it. MCA explored the plot holes and loose ends of the force and didn't seek to explain them empirically, but to highlight the fact that they are exactly that: plot holes.

I love the rest of your post, but I wouldn't say these are plot holes, just ideas that hadn't been investigated before.

 

[Brother None]

People seem to confuse "believable" with "science-approved".

"Reynolds researched science fiction for the game's writing.[42] His inspiration included "classic works of science fiction", including Frank Herbert's The Jesus Incident, A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge, and The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle for alien races; Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars, Slant by Greg Bear, and Stephen R. Donaldson's The Real Story for future technology and science; and Dune by Herbert and Bear's Anvil of Stars for negative interactions between humans.[47][48]"

You are citing an odd article to prove your point, since several of the authors cited there did do scientific research on their scifi topics. Vernon Vinge is a scientist, and Kim Stanley Robinson and others do a ton of real research before writing.

I don't get it, Vince. You complained back in your Fallout 3 review about the lack of research by Bethesda on the topic of water filtration. That's not "common sense" or even about basic believability, not everyone knows radiation can be filtered by pouring water through sand. Hell, pretty much no one does. That viewpoint is at odds with your current viewpoint. Did you change your mind? Or are you being harder on inXile than on Bethesda?

And now you cite a bunch of guys who do a ton of scientific research and consulting before setting out to write, Golden Age sci-fi pretty much had research as a staple of its writing, and somehow what they do is good, but what inXile does is bad? I don't understand the distinction you're making. inXile doesn't have the time or inclination to do the research, since they're creative writers, so they hire consultants for it instead.

Where is the line that turns research from good, constructive like in the fiction you cite, to having nothing to add like hiring consultants like inXile did? What is the distinction you're making between worthwhile research and not worthwhile research? From the outside looking in, I just can't figure out why you're making the distinction you are, or where the line is supposed to be.

You also keep bringing up "science-approved". What is your real, factual basis to believe that is what Thwacke does, when all we have is a quote from them stating emphatically that this is *not* what they do? Infinitron's point on pool of knowledge is exactly what Thwacke does, per that interview, not somehow force the people who consult them to make everything 100% in line with scientific fact. We have their statements on it to believe the pool of knowledge-method is their approach. Whereas your evidence to support the belief that they make games science-approved is...?

The scientists already said that they will be designing creatures, so that's half the task of designing the world right there. Plus they will be doing logs - another world designing tasks, so it looks like they will have plenty of work there and since they are not professional designers, the scientific insights are the only one they have.

Citation? Because from the VentureBeat interview, they're not designing creatures, only suggesting which creatures would survive into the apocalypse and how they would adapt. Nor did the interview state they're writing logs, it said they're providing text-based assets *for* logs in one specific mission. Seriously dude, why do you lie?

Sure, the Thwacke guys might be really awesome world builders. But nothing so far indicates, as far as I've seen and am concerned, that they'd be very good in designing a pulpy post-apocalyptic setting.

Good. Because they're not. I don't get what would give anyone the idea that Thwacke *is* designing the world or world-building. From everything they explained on their methodology, here's what they do: inXile designs, comes up to a point where they have a question with no "obvious" answer, like "what species of animal would survive here" or "what plant-life is likely to dominate in a post-apocalyptic citescape, overgrowing skyscraper ruins", they tap Thwacke and go "yo, could you guys ask around and give us the answers here", they get the answers, and they go back to designing.

The problem in the above process is...I don't know, you tell me! It's basically the same as a designer who comes up on a question and wikipedias it or reads an article on it, except instead they have a better, deeper fount of knowledge to draw upon, without wasting designer time on research.

 

[Vault Dweller]

People seem to confuse "believable" with "science-approved".

"Reynolds researched science fiction for the game's writing.[42] His inspiration included "classic works of science fiction", including Frank Herbert's The Jesus Incident, A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge, and The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle for alien races; Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars, Slant by Greg Bear, and Stephen R. Donaldson's The Real Story for future technology and science; and Dune by Herbert and Bear's Anvil of Stars for negative interactions between humans.[47][48]"

You are citing an odd article to prove your point, since several of the authors cited there did do scientific research on their scifi topics.

Reading science-fiction isn't the same as doing a scientific research, even if the fiction is written by people who did such research. Kinda obvious, no?

I don't get it, Vince. You complained back in your Fallout 3 review about the lack of research by Bethesda on the topic of water filtration. That's not "common sense" or even about basic believability, not everyone knows radiation can be filtered by pouring water through sand. Hell, pretty much no one does. That viewpoint is at odds with your current viewpoint. Did you change your mind? Or are you being harder on inXile than on Bethesda?

Not at all.

Just because I'm saying that the scientists' involvement is unnecessary doesn't mean that I'm somehow against research or "things that make sense". Basic research is part of a writer or a game designer's job description. You have a good idea, you look it up online, check different sources to make sure that it makes sense and move on. Scientists are an entirely different level. An overkill, basically.

The issue here isn't that it's an overkill and that we'd have too much science, but that's scientific realism quite often goes against what makes games fun. Like that "what animals would survive a nuclear fallout" question. It's pointless on every possible level.

So, when Bethesda designed Fallout 3 and decided to make the main plot about science (they could have made it about something else and avoid the debacle) and over-dramatize things (the waters of life and all that), they could have taken a few min to see if the basic premise makes sense. In other words, there is a difference between nonsensical shit and scientific realism.

Fallout 1 was not a scientifically accurate game either, but I've never complained about it because, overall, things made sense and were well thought through, which is all I expect and asking from developers.

I've read a lot of sci-fi. Most stories, including those written by the best and legendary writers like Campbell, Harrison, Dick, Heinlein, etc, were almost absurdly unrealistic, but made a lot of sense and were very logical within the basic premise. Sort of, if X was possible (X being an unrealistic element like the thing in Cambell's It came from another world), then this is what would have happened. It's what makes sci-fi awesome, that flight of imagination.

That's why I don't really care about the scientific realism or see any value in it. It's not some knee-jerk reaction against inXile.

When Bethesda made a plot about water purification it wasn't exploring "what if water was really ruined for good?" subject, because it wasn't consistent in the game, what with drinkable water being everywhere and your robot butler pulling fresh water out of his ass and nobody but your dad being really concerned about it. Overall, the world behaved as if the radiated water wasn't a problem at all.

And now you cite a bunch of guys who do a ton of scientific research and consulting before setting out to write, Golden Age sci-fi pretty much had research as a staple of its writing, and somehow what they do is good, but what inXile does is bad? I don't understand the distinction you're making. inXile doesn't have the time or inclination to do the research, since they're creative writers, so they hire consultants for it instead.

First, not what they do as I wasn't talking about them. I was talking about Reynolds and if you compare a proper research to writing sci-fi, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Second, you put too much emphasis on the research. We aren't talking about hard science or a survival RPG here. We're talking about a sequel to a fairly "wacky" game. How much research is needed, in your opinion? Mutations? Read a Chernobyl article. Will take you 5-10 min. Radiation effects. Read another article. I'm pretty sure the writers don't write 8 hours a day like machines - it's impossible. So there is plenty of time to read up on the subjects you're writing about at the moment.

Where is the line that turns research from good, constructive like in the fiction you cite, to having nothing to add like hiring consultants like inXile did? What is the distinction you're making between worthwhile research and not worthwhile research? From the outside looking in, I just can't figure out why you're making the distinction you are, or where the line is supposed to be.

I simply see no reason at all to hire the consultants.

You also keep bringing up "science-approved". What is your real, factual basis to believe that is what Thwacke does, when all we have is a quote from them stating emphatically that this is *not* what they do? Infinitron's point on pool of knowledge is exactly what Thwacke does, per that interview, not somehow force the people who consult them to make everything 100% in line with scientific fact. We have their statements on it to believe the pool of knowledge-method is their approach. Whereas your evidence to support the belief that they make games science-approved is...?

Science-approved was a short and lulzy term and it's spelled with a "!". Science!-approved! See? Much better.

If you want quotes, see below. If not, all I can do is assure you that it's not an attack on inXile. I don't like the idea and I don't see any value. You do? Good for you, hope it works well.

Citation? Because from the VentureBeat interview, they're not designing creatures, only suggesting which creatures would survive into the apocalypse and how they would adapt. Nor did the interview state they're writing logs, it said they're providing text-based assets *for* logs in one specific mission. Seriously dude, why do you lie?

Oh for fuck's sakes, BN. Writing text-based assets for the logs is pretty much the same as writing logs. If they do one, it's reasonable to assume that they will do more. As for the creatures, see some quotes below.

Good. Because they're not. I don't get what would give anyone the idea that Thwacke *is* designing the world or world-building. From everything they explained on their methodology, here's what they do: inXile designs, comes up to a point where they have a question with no "obvious" answer, like "what species of animal would survive here" or "what plant-life is likely to dominate in a post-apocalyptic citescape, overgrowing skyscraper ruins", they tap Thwacke and go "yo, could you guys ask around and give us the answers here", they get the answers, and they go back to designing.

That's nice and maybe that's exactly what will happen, but it's not what the scientists said or implied so far.

"We were brought in to innovate on the science fiction that surrounds the wasteland..."
...
"Expect creatures that are a natural product of their environment, biological and chemical warfare that makes sense..."
...
"We work with writers to craft plausible narrative — world building — and with designers to align a scientific concept with a design mechanic."
...
Thwacke isn't interested in fact checking..."
...
"We've already brought in unique perspectives from entomologists, nuclear engineers, and geologists (soil erosion is in! yay!). We plan on using these insights to shape a world capable of capturing the imagination and offering relevant and immersive experience".

Watch the language (highlighted for your convenience). Not "we'll be there for inXile should they have questions" or "we'll pass our recommendations" or "do shit occasionally", but "expect (a strong statement indicating a certain degree of control over the end product) creatures that are [specific statement]" and "we, the scientists!, plan to shape the world." (we. plan. to shape. - as in it's up to us, we're in the driving seat here)..."

​

 

[Moribund]

Most research people do is library research ad writing reports. No one thinks that the scientists are going to break the beakers out. They will get paid a few thousand to spend a couple days making a report with some cool stuff and maybe looking over some ideas. Big whoop.

That someone here can get outraged by this just shows someone somewhere will always be outraged by anything you do.

in b4 "I'm not outraged I'm just writing 50 pages about this because it's fun".

 

[Brother None]

Reading science-fiction isn't the same as doing a scientific research, even if the fiction is written by people who did such research. Kinda obvious, no?

Good science fiction writers, for the most part. So it's alright for scifi writers of books to do it, but not of games?

The issue here isn't that it's an overkill and that we'd have too much science, but that's scientific realism quite often goes against what makes games fun.

Alright. Except that both Fargo and that Thwacke dude have already directly stated WL2 will still be wacky and scientific realism isn't what Thwacke does. I mean, I understand the concern, but there doesn't seem to be any actual basis for it.

In other words, there is a difference between nonsensical shit and scientific realism.

Sure. And where's the line? How do you find this line? How do you know, for sure, that your perspective on this is the same as the players'? "Getting stuff right" can basically do no harm, as long as you don't let it get in the way of creative vision, while being lazy can. That distinction is hard to keep in mind, but the distinction you name is not, because what may be nonsensical shit to you (Fallout 3's water purification) is perfectly acceptable for someone else. Being intelligent and respectful about the material is exactly what I expect from high-level science fiction. That doesn't mean following the rules exactly, it means being aware of the rules, and keeping them in mind when you write.

Fallout 1 was not a scientifically accurate game either.

Fallout did suffer from poor verisimilitude, but that had more to do with internal inconsistency due to developers simply not being on one line on canon (FEV in particular) than poor science.

Most stories, including those written by the best and legendary writers like Campbell, Harrison, Dick, Heinlein, etc, were almost absurdly unrealistic, but made a lot of sense and were very logical within the basic premise. Sort of, if X was possible (X being an unrealistic element like the thing in Cambell's It came from another world), then this is what would have happened. It's what makes sci-fi awesome, that flight of imagination.

Right. And to do that, you have to first know the material, and understand the rules you're breaking. "Just making shit up" brings you to Bethesda town. All those guys were great not because they refused to do scientific research or consult with actual scientists, most if not all of them did, they're great because they knew how to utilize that knowledge base. inXile is showing they're doing the first as well, getting the knowledge base. How they utilize it can't really be known until we get the end result.

Second, you put too much emphasis on the research.

Well, I'm an academic. I know the difference between what internet people think is "research" (looking something up on wikipedia), and what is actually research, which is dedicating days or weeks or months of hard labor to a single subject. inXile is showing a respect for this distinction that is fairly unique to this industry, and I do think that's a good thing.

I simply see no reason at all to hire the consultants.

That is valid, and about the worst you can say about it. That's different from making up things about this being science-approved.

Oh for fuck's sakes, BN. Writing text-based assets for the logs is pretty much the same as writing logs.

No it isn't. You know it's not. Text-based assets would be providing a few paragraphs of scientifically sound exposition. A designer would then take those paragraphs and incorporate them into existing logs. That's how "providing assets for a log" is distinct from "writing logs", and presenting it as the latter is disingenuous.

Is it reasonable to assume they will do more than the logs for that one mission? Why? We don't know the scope of their involvement. Maybe there's only one mission where this kind of input is useful. How do you know?

but it's not what the scientists said or implied so far.

Yes it is. That's how they described their job in the interview. As someone who has been around for a while, I know to take interviews a bit more seriously than excited press releases.

"We've already brought in unique perspectives from entomologists, nuclear engineers, and geologists (soil erosion is in! yay!). We plan on using these insights to shape a world capable of capturing the imagination and offering relevant and immersive experience".

Full paragraph, which you conveniently edited to read differently:
While the full details of Thwacke’s involvement cannot be fully disclosed, they have already brought in unique perspectives from entomologists, nuclear engineers, surgeons and geologists. We plan on using these insights to shape a world capable of capturing the imagination of players and offer relevant, creative and immersive experience for the player.

"They" are Thwacke. "We" are inXile. Why did you edit and snip it the way you did? Why, in other words, do you lie?

Thwacke isn't interested in fact checking...

Right. No science-approved.

Watch the language (highlighted for your convenience). Not "we'll be there for inXile should they have questions" or "we'll pass our recommendations" or "do shit occasionally", but "expect (a strong statement indicating a certain degree of control over the end product) creatures that are [specific statement]" and "we, the scientists!, plan to shape the world." (we. plan. to shape. - as in it's up to us, we're in the driving seat here)..."

Wow. You are actually arguing Thwacke, a consultancy firm that Fargo hired weeks ago and notified us about with a single tweet, is in the driving seat for the Wasteland 2 setting. You are actually, seriously arguing that is the case.

Anyway, Alvarado describes the actual consultancy process in this interview. You think perhaps an interview where he's directly asked about what the job entails is a bit more relevant than a chest-thumping press release? Heprovides actual, real examples that shows the process works exactly as I described it:
For example, in Wasteland 2 we were asked which animals that would survive a nuclear fallout and why. In this case we found specialists in environmental biology, medicine, and evolutionary biology to craft science into ideas that can be used in game design. This saves researching time for writers and allows them to focus on gameplay. This out-of-the-box approach has been able to spark new directions for narrative and gameplay that wouldn’t have otherwise been explored.
(...)
For example, since moral choices are particularly important for Wasteland 2, we have been introducing the writers to studies that explore how morality is programmed and manipulated in humans. It is ultimately up to the writers and designers to incorporate these ideas into their game.

"We were asked". "It is ultimately up to the writers and designers to incorporate". What is not clear about this?

 

[Vault Dweller]

That someone here can get outraged by this just shows someone somewhere will always be outraged by anything you do.

in b4 "I'm not outraged I'm just writing 50 pages about this because it's fun".

I'm merely carrying on a conversation and replying to people who are talking to me.

 

[skuphundaku]

I've read a lot of sci-fi. Most stories, including those written by the best and legendary writers like Campbell, Harrison, Dick, Heinlein, etc, were almost absurdly unrealistic, but made a lot of sense and were very logical within the basic premise. Sort of, if X was possible (X being an unrealistic element like the thing in Cambell's It came from another world), then this is what would have happened. It's what makes sci-fi awesome, that flight of imagination.

You're doing a grave error by lumping together Campbell and Heinlein with Philip K. Dick. Campbell, Heinlein (which was Campbell's disciple) and all their disciples are what could be called the sci-fi orthodoxy. Philip K. Dick is a representative of the second revolt against this orthodoxy, and you can easily identify that in his writings. Here's some extra reading on this topic: http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/sf-history.html . So, putting them together means that, although you may have read sci-fi, your heart wasn't really into it and you missed some things.

Also, you can't like sci-fi and, at the very least, not like/not be interested in science. Science and the scientific method is more like a way of life. You can't be a scientist at work and then come back home and go back to being a fundamentalist religious hillbilly. All this mean that you can't just say "We need just a smattering of science to make the game fun, but not too much! Too much science would ruin it!" You either like science (in general, as well as in your games) or you may just go back to your fantasy settings where it's cosy and familiar.

 

[Brother None]

Saying that because he didn't research the author's background his heart isn't in sci-fi is a bit much. You can just enjoy the books without bothering too much with the history. I never read up much on the history of the authors, either.

I think Heinlein wasn't very good though. I mean, some of his works are, but like, the Door into Summer? Yuck.

Lem is my favorite. Solaris, bitches.

 

[skuphundaku]

Saying that because he didn't research the author's background his heart isn't in sci-fi is a bit much. You can just enjoy the books without bothering too much with the history. I never read up much on the history of the authors, either.

I think Heinlein wasn't very good though. I mean, some of his works are, but like, the Door into Summer? Yuck.

Lem is my favorite. Solaris, bitches.

I can't get into Russian authors at all. The Brits are kinda' acceptable, some of them, but for me, American sci-fi authors is where it's at. Truth be told, most of the sci-fi authors are American to start with, particularly those worth reading. This literary genre is not very common with the writers in many other places. That does have an explanation in the fact that many, if not most, sci-fi writers are scientists (or, at least, technical, educated people) which are financially secure enough to do this. You can't really be bothered to write sci-fi if you're freezing to death, dieing of hunger or being afraid that you're going to be thrown in jail for your anti-revolutionary writings or lynched by an angry, fanatic mob for your blasphemous writings.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Good science fiction writers, for the most part. So it's alright for scifi writers of books to do it, but not of games?

Pretty much. Books are a much more serious medium, which requires a lot more from the writer. A good writer-designer, like Sawyer and Avellone, for example, and a good book writer are two very different things.

Alright. Except that both Fargo and that Thwacke dude have already directly stated WL2 will still be wacky and scientific realism isn't what Thwacke does. I mean, I understand the concern, but there doesn't seem to be any actual basis for it.

Then what are they going to do? Why invite scientific experts if scientific realism isn't the goal (which I agree with you, mind you)?

Sure. And where's the line? How do you find this line? How do you know, for sure, that your perspective on this is the same as the players'? "Getting stuff right" can basically do no harm, as long as you don't let it get in the way of creative vision, while being lazy can. That distinction is hard to keep in mind, but the distinction you name is not, because what may be nonsensical shit to you (Fallout 3's water purification) is perfectly acceptable for someone else. Being intelligent and respectful about the material is exactly what I expect from high-level science fiction. That doesn't mean following the rules exactly, it means being aware of the rules, and keeping them in mind when you write.

I assume that most people can spot the absurd. If they can't, then hiring science consults is even more pointless.

Most stories, including those written by the best and legendary writers like Campbell, Harrison, Dick, Heinlein, etc, were almost absurdly unrealistic, but made a lot of sense and were very logical within the basic premise. Sort of, if X was possible (X being an unrealistic element like the thing in Cambell's It came from another world), then this is what would have happened. It's what makes sci-fi awesome, that flight of imagination.

Right. And to do that, you have to first know the material, and understand the rules you're breaking. "Just making shit up" brings you to Bethesda town.

Not at all. Cambpell didn't know shit when he started writing, he was a 19 year old kid, but he was good at writing logical and consistent stories. He came up with the idea of a cool monster (the thing) and then build a story around it (how it would affect the base, how people would react to it, figured out a way for the people to find out who the monster is which worked well with the original premise, etc), without dipping into science at all. Unlike Bethesda's writers, he actually thought things through. That's all.

Well, I'm an academic. I know the difference between what internet people think is "research" (looking something up on wikipedia), and what is actually research, which is dedicating days or weeks or months of hard labor to a single subject. inXile is showing a respect for this distinction that is fairly unique to this industry, and I do think that's a good thing.

I'm not talking about a proper scientific research. I'm talking about the kind of research a game needs. Say, you want to make a mutant with two hearts, for argument's sake, but you aren't sure if such a thing is possible. You don't research the actual phenomenon, trying to understand how exactly it is possible and what the implications are. You type "two hearts mutation", read the first 2-3 articles, and you're done. Or if you want to do a settlement and want to present a realistic problem caused by radiation, you google it and within 2 min you know that radiation causes two things: birth defects and lower birth rate. So, the NPCs should mention these problems, complain about it, maybe thinks it's a curse or something, but you don't need a proper scientific reasons. Why? The NPCs won't know it and the rangers shouldn't either. Even if one is super smart, he can't cure the poor bastards now and you don't need a consultant to know that either.

No it isn't. You know it's not. Text-based assets would be providing a few paragraphs of scientifically sound exposition. A designer would then take those paragraphs and incorporate them into existing logs. That's how "providing assets for a log" is distinct from "writing logs", and presenting it as the latter is disingenuous.

You know that for a fact? Or merely providing one of possible explanations that happen to support your thought on the matter?

You have to admit that the comment about the log and "the text is optional, but it'll be fun to read" can be taken either way.

Is it reasonable to assume they will do more than the logs for that one mission? Why? We don't know the scope of their involvement. Maybe there's only one mission where this kind of input is useful. How do you know?

I don't. I said as much ten pages earlier. I'm merely discussing what little we know and like everyone else drawing some conclusions and interpretations. If you're interested in my thought process:

- they are already hired and I assume they are paid a fixed sum, not per submitted page or hour.
- since they are hired and paid for, might as well use them everywhere where it makes sense
- logs are where they can shine the most, so that's a perfect fit right there.
- I doubt there is one log in the game

Wow. You are actually arguing Thwacke, a consultancy firm that Fargo hired weeks ago and notified us about with a single tweet, is in the driving seat for the Wasteland 2 setting. You are actually, seriously arguing that is the case.

Context isn't your friend?

Anyway, contrary to what you may think, I don't really care about Thwacke's involvement. I posted my opinion, which was apparently a wrong thing to do, since we're on page 22 or 23 now and I've certainly learned my lesson.

Suffice to say that I disagree with you, but should it turn out that you were right and I was wrong, I'll be able to live with this disappointment. I can only hope that after trading a few posts you understand why I think that hiring the consultants wasn't necessary, but if not, I can handle that disappointment as well.

 

[tuluse]

All Russian literature is about being cold and dying. It's hard to marry that with a view of the future hundreds of years later.

 

[skuphundaku]

All Russian literature is about being cold and dying. It's hard to marry that with a view of the future hundreds of years later.

Yeah, that's pretty much it...

 

[Brother None]

I can't get into Russian authors at all. The Brits are kinda' acceptable, some of them, but for me, American sci-fi authors is where it's at. Truth be told, most of the sci-fi authors are American to start with, particularly those worth reading. This literary genre is not very common with the writers in many other places. That does have an explanation in the fact that many, if not most, sci-fi writers are scientists (or, at least, technical, educated people) which are financially secure enough to do this. You can't really be bothered to write sci-fi if you're freezing to death, dieing of hunger or being afraid that you're going to be thrown in jail for your anti-revolutionary writings or lynched by an angry, fanatic mob for your blasphemous writings.

I...what. For someone who just lambasted someone for ignorance, you don't really seem to have done your homework here, including the fact that Stanislaw Lem is very much so not a Russian. He's Polish. And while state censorship was a huge problem for Soviet-era writing, it was less of a problem for science fiction than for other genres. While other genres of novels became staid and put out horrifyingly bad books like Cement and How the Steel was Tempered (ptfuh), sci fi was actually experiencing an upswing and evolving steadily throughout the Soviet era.

I mean, it's fine if it's just not to your taste but to claim American science fiction writing is somehow superior is kind of ignorant, if just not hilariously chauvinistic. Zamyatin's We did the dystopian novel thing before 1984 and Brave New World were even dreamed up (and was a huge influence on both), Bulgakov's Heart of a Dog is as good a bit of sci-fi based social commentary as ever written, Lem's Solaris and Tarkovsky's film based on the book are the best science fiction novel and film I've ever seen. And if you're into more casual, less hard-science/social commentary stuff, go for the Strugatsky brothers with their Noon Universe or Roadside Picnic (STALKER!). There's also Efremov's (another scientist) awesome Andromeda Nebula.

So, well, yeah. I wouldn't be so dismissive. Your casual dismissal of all Eastern European science fiction indicates to me that although you may have read sci-fi, your heart wasn't really into it and you missed some things.

Suffice to say that I disagree with you, but should it turn out that you were right and I was wrong, I'll be able to live with this disappointment. I can only hope that after trading a few posts you understand why

I think that hiring the consultants wasn't necessary, but if not, I can handle that disappointment as well.

Oh, I can get why anyone would think it's unnecessary. It is a very minor thing on the periphery of design. What I don't get is why make stuff up about Thwacke's involvement and try to twist and misquote it until it seems like Thwacke is somehow "in charge" and looking to change Wasteland 2 into a hard-science based setting. I also still don't get where the line lies between "obvious common sense" and "worth to research/consult in", because it doesn't seem a given these rules would change from book to game and somehow be worthwhile to one and worthless to another. There doesn't seem to be a hard, absolute line here, and since there isn't, what's the harm in making sure you get shit right and doing your research on 'em.




But I guess if I still don't get it, I'm just not going to get it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I've read a lot of sci-fi. Most stories, including those written by the best and legendary writers like Campbell, Harrison, Dick, Heinlein, etc, were almost absurdly unrealistic, but made a lot of sense and were very logical within the basic premise. Sort of, if X was possible (X being an unrealistic element like the thing in Cambell's It came from another world), then this is what would have happened. It's what makes sci-fi awesome, that flight of imagination.

You're doing a grave error by lumping together Campbell and Heinlein with Philip K. Dick. Campbell, Heinlein (which was Campbell's disciple) and all their disciples are what could be called the sci-fi orthodoxy. Philip K. Dick is a representative of the second revolt against this orthodoxy, and you can easily identify that in his writings. Here's some extra reading on this topic: http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/sf-history.html . So, putting them together means that, although you may have read sci-fi, your heart wasn't really into it and you missed some things.

Jesus... I'm not grouping sci-fi authors in categories. I've listed some of the best authors, who are probably on most top 10-25 lists, and whose stories often had some unrealistic elements for the sake of exploration and fun.

Science and the scientific method is more like a way of life.

m'kay.

 

[Jaesun]

BooksCodex.net