Development Info Putting the science back in Wasteland 2's science fiction

[Vault Dweller]

In a word, yes.

You said it yourself - "provide entertainment". What sort of entertainment is that? What entertainment do you derive from killing blobs of XP and loot?

Challenge, which is why 99% of RPGs are combat-oriented. You start a game, make a character and start seeking challenges to test your character against baddies and monsters and gain more power (levels, feats and abilities, more powerful items). That was the basic RPG design - fight to gain more power to fight more powerful enemies. The identity of these enemies rarely mattered - they were rats, skeletons, wildlife, orcs, dragons, and "bad guys" - generic bandits, cutthroats, assassins, necromancers, dark priests, etc. They attacked you on sight and tested your skills.

To make it entertaining, they had to look cool and menacing and dangerous. Giant crabs that threaten to cut you in half (but never really do) with their giant pincers are a lot more entertaining to fight than normal crabs. Etc.

That's why I don't see any value in scientists' involvement. The pedigree of a creature isn't important at all. The creature is there to test your skills and reward you if you manage to kill it. What matters is the visual design (concept artist), different attacks/abilities requiring the player to use different tactics to survive and defeat the creature (combat designers), good AI (designers and programmers). If this creature is science! approved or inspired by a - surrealist's art - doesn't matter at all. A good "creature" concept artist is an artist familiar with different mythologies, with unusual animals (flipping through pages of illustrated books on insects and deep sea life will do the trick), and with what works in games and what doesn't. Creatures should be consistent and fit the setting (no dragons in Wasteland, etc). That's pretty much it.

For most of us here, who aren't Diablo players, escapism is part of our entertainment. Which means that we have the incredibly ability to suspend our disbelief and see those monsters as more than just blobs.

You are not alone, bro.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Roleplaying

 

[Infinitron]

doesn't matter at all...That's pretty much it.

Who are you to tell me what matters? I think it all matters. I want everything to be polished. I want there to be deep thought behind everything - mechanically, thematically, narratively. Everything.

You are not alone, bro.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Roleplaying

You're so predictable.

We already had this discussion when we spoke about combat difficulty. There is a difference between retarded LARPing "immershun" and the good kind of immersion.

But you're too broken by now to ever realize this. Hope you don't have trouble getting a new job bro.

 

[Wavinator]

Wavinator
Wasteland is really not that "fantastical". It's a game about fighting against evil robots in a Mad Max-style post-apocalyptic world. This is not the height of originality and creative thinking.

It may have been a bit more whimsical than the grimdark stuff we're used to today, but it was nothing special back in the 80's.

Actually yeah, robots and lots of human enemies, mostly. Mutants added more weirdness to the world but you're right, it wasn't that far out there.

 

[Vault Dweller]

doesn't matter at all...That's pretty much it.

Who are you to tell me what matters? I think it all matters. I want everything to be polished. I want there to be deep thought behind everything - mechanically, thematically, narratively. Everything.

I'm telling you what games are like. You're telling me what you hope games will be like in the future, when we're old or dead.

I too wish that games had "deep thought behind everything - mechanically, thematically, narratively" but you have to be realistic. Today, it's not possible because Diablo 3 and Skyrim set the tone. Today, we still hope to get back to where we were 15 years old design. Today, dreaming about a game like Darklands is considered naive. I hope that WL2 will be a good RPG but a Game of Tomorrow! it won't be, not even with a boatload of scientists on-board.

You feel that hiring scientists is a step in the right direction? I don't. I can live with your opinion, hope you can live with mine.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm telling you what games are like. You're telling me what you hope games will be like in the future, when we're old or dead.

No, I'm telling you that your decades-long tolerance towards games that "do one thing really good, kind of suck at everything else" has lowered your standards. You've gotten so used to lame compromises that you think that's actually the right and correct state of affairs.

Games should try to raise the bar and shine at everything that they possibly can. If these scientists can come in and make a tiny little bit of the game shine just a little bit more and maybe impress me with their smarts, then all power to them, I say.

 

[Captain Shrek]

^All right.

All I can say is that it will depend. If the people on board actually make it more fun to play with (realism can do that too) then I will agree they have succeeded. If they do not really manage to improve the game then they have failed. Is that okay?

 

[St. Toxic]

No, it's not ok YOU MOTHERFUCKER. NOT UNTIL YOU ADMIT THAT SCIENCE MAKES EVERYTHING BETTER!!

 

[Moribund]

It is truly shocking to see Vault Dweller's jaded and reductive attitude towards the art of game design. To be honest I find it quite depressing which is why I no longer wish to participate in this discussion.

"cool blobs of loot, XP, and hp"? This is the attitude of a man who creates worlds?

That's what a career in marketing will do to you, folks.

He's become as jaded as vofel before even releasing a game.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm telling you what games are like. You're telling me what you hope games will be like in the future, when we're old or dead.

No, I'm telling you that your decades-long tolerance towards games that "do one thing really good, kind of suck at everything else" has lowered your standards. You've gotten so used to lame compromises that you think that's actually the right and correct state of affairs.

You're confusing my "have to be realistic about the state of the industry" position with "I like lame compromises!", which, I assume, is another veiled attack.

When I say that in most (if not all) RPGs creatures are moving blobs that drops XP and loot, I mean that they aren't integrated into the gameworld and lack in-game purpose (other than to be killed by you so that you can level up). This isn't a compromise, this is how it is and have always been.

Games should try to raise the bar and shine at everything that they possibly can. If these scientists can come in and make a tiny little bit of the game shine just a little bit more and maybe impress me with their smarts, then all power to them, I say.

Yeah, like giant crabs. They are shining so brightly, you need some shades to handle all that brilliance.

Without the purpose, a creature, even a scientifically plausible one, will remain a cool blob waiting to be killed.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm telling you what games are like. You're telling me what you hope games will be like in the future, when we're old or dead.

No, I'm telling you that your decades-long tolerance towards games that "do one thing really good, kind of suck at everything else" has lowered your standards. You've gotten so used to lame compromises that you think that's actually the right and correct state of affairs.

You're confusing my "have to be realistic about the state of the industry" position with "I like lame compromises!", which, I assume, is another veiled attack.

When I say that in most (if not all) RPGs creatures are moving blobs that drops XP and loot, I mean that they aren't integrated into the gameworld and lack in-game purpose (other than to be killed by you so that you can level up). This isn't a compromise, this is how it is and have always been.

Games should try to raise the bar and shine at everything that they possibly can. If these scientists can come in and make a tiny little bit of the game shine just a little bit more and maybe impress me with their smarts, then all power to them, I say.

Yeah, like giant crabs. They are shining so brightly, you need some shades to handle all that brilliance.

Without the purpose, a creature, even a scientifically plausible one, will remain a cool blob waiting to be killed.

lol

I think we're at an impasse here.

Keep on dwellin', Dweller.

 

[St. Toxic]

At least he uses a higher standard for moral dilemmas. Those can't just be cheap excuses of introducing content to the player, they have to make you question your very existence. Meanwhile, plausibility in regards to environment, creatures, gameplay and the like isn't worth the effort, as long as these categories serve their function; mainly dispensing experience, looking good and keeping the player from getting bored. Not sure how you can have the one without the other, or how the imagined adaptation of the hermit crab population to a hostile post-apoc environment is any more larping than the imaginary choice of wiping said species out to get at a badly needed, but heavily infested, weapons cache. "Buuu-huu, poor walking sacks of loot and exp. I really feel for you, guize, I really do."

 

[Moribund]

Gothic is a mostly bad game with a few good elements so therefore games are not needing to be good at anything? Which relates to science somehow.

Why can't I stop reading? Why?

 

[Vault Dweller]

lol

I think we're at an impasse here.

Keep on dwellin', Dweller.

It's interesting to note that your arguments evolved from opinions, to mild personal attacks like "you're broken" and the one you PM'ed me to apologize for, to not so subtle hints about AoD, and finally to "lol".

 

[almondblight]

If these scientists can come in and make a tiny little bit of the game shine just a little bit more and maybe impress me with their smarts, then all power to them, I say.

Again, if the main argument for scientists is "maybe they have some cool knowledge or experiences they can use," you can say the same for vets/politicians/drug dealers/musicians/mechanics/priests/etc. But I don't think anyone thinks that Fallout 2 could have benefitted from consulting with former addicts to make sure that certain aspects of jet were realistic...plausible.

 

[St. Toxic]

Why former addicts? If you could get a real-live junkie to write a jet-related sidequest for Fallout 2 for a few grams of coke, why wouldn't you? I mean, it may not result in anything spectacular on its own, but it would be worth it just for the trivia -- just to know that your character actually went through a simulation of a scenario drawn from personal experience is pretty cool shit.

 

[Vault Dweller]

At least he uses a higher standard for moral dilemmas. Those can't just be cheap excuses of introducing content to the player, they have to make you question your very existence.

A combat encounter offers plenty of content and entertainment to the player, even if the monster is generic. Take Silent Storm, for example. It's a pretty good tactical game about fighting bad guys. The bad guys are generic as fuck and the plot is non-existent, but the combat system is good and killing these generic bad guys is fairly entertaining and is the content of the game.

A poorly designed and/or overly simple "moral dilemma" offers very little content and entertainment.

Meanwhile, plausibility in regards to environment, creatures, gameplay and the like...

...will solve all our problems and make everything better. Because that's why many games suck - they aren't plausible enough.

 

[Infinitron]

It's interesting to note that your arguments evolved from opinions, to mild personal attacks like "you're broken" and the one you PM'ed me to apologize for, to not so subtle hints about AoD, and finally to "lol".

What else am I supposed to say? You have a fundamentally different opinion on what games should be doing and should be striving to do than I have.

If these scientists can come in and make a tiny little bit of the game shine just a little bit more and maybe impress me with their smarts, then all power to them, I say.

Again, if the main argument for scientists is "maybe they have some cool knowledge or experiences they can use," you can say the same for vets/politicians/drug dealers/musicians/mechanics/priests/etc. But I don't think anyone thinks that Fallout 2 could have benefitted from consulting with former addicts to make sure that certain aspects of jet were realistic...plausible.

Not quite the same thing. Those people generally aren't trained to consult people about creating works of fiction. Although I imagine sometimes they do - I'm sure many an author or screenwriter has made use of a "vet/politician/drug dealer/musician/mechanic/priest" friend.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Gothic is a mostly bad game with a few good elements...

Gothic 2 is a bad game? Care to explain why?

...so therefore games are not needing to be good at anything?

Would Gothic 2 have been a better game if all monsters were consistent, better designed, and scientifically plausible (or gothic-approved)?

Which relates to science somehow.

We were talking about creates as blobs of loot and XP. Try to keep up.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's interesting to note that your arguments evolved from opinions, to mild personal attacks like "you're broken" and the one you PM'ed me to apologize for, to not so subtle hints about AoD, and finally to "lol".

What else am I supposed to say? You have a fundamentally different opinion on what games should be doing and should be striving to do than I have.

Sounds much better and more intelligent than "lol", doesn't it?

 

[almondblight]

Not quite the same thing. Those people generally aren't trained to consult people about creating works of fiction. Although I imagine sometimes they do - I'm sure many an author or screenwriter has made use of a "vet/politician/drug dealer/musician/mechanic/priest" friend.

And these people aren't trained to consult with people about creating works of fiction either. They're pharmacologists. I'm not even sure how useful such training would be, since most of the good game developers that come to mind didn't have formal "game design/consulting" training. So we're in the same place we were before - if these guys are good designers, they're worth hiring even if they don't have scientific training. If they're bad designers, then they shouldn't be hired, even if they have scientific training. What's important is if they can add to games, not if they're good scientists.

And again (or perhaps for the sixth or seventh time) - that's not saying that they're scientific training can't be useful, just like anyone's background can be useful. But that's different from hiring them for that reason.

 

[Moribund]

Gothic is a mostly bad game with a few good elements...

Gothic 2 is a bad game? Care to explain why?

...so therefore games are not needing to be good at anything?

Would Gothic 2 have been a better game if all monsters were consistent, better designed, and scientifically plausible (or gothic-approved)?

Which relates to science somehow.

We were talking about creates as blobs of loot and XP. Try to keep up.

I think you summed it up pretty well.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Not that anyone's going to read it, but I will leave this out here.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...zo-realism-in-video-games.69743/#post-1978813

 

[tuluse]

Since most game design is shit, doesn't it make sense to reach out to non-game developers to try and get ideas from people who haven't lead the head first charge into shit?

 

[Captain Shrek]

Since most game design is shit, doesn't it make sense to reach out to non-game developers to try and get ideas from people who haven't lead the head first charge into shit?

Not necessarily. it depends on who. Finally it is not expertise in random subject that have no or little bearing on game design but rather understanding of what makes good games that matters.

 

[tuluse]

I was just trolling, and I'm not finding it amusing enough to continue.