Game News Wasteland 2 Kickstarter Update #28: Progress Report, Weapon Design

[Infinitron]

Exactly. And what's wrong with that?

Oh I see what you were trying to say now.

Nothing's wrong with that. Why do you think Sawyer disagrees? He doesn't want everything to be equally easy. What gave you that idea??

What the hell defines "useful enough"? There are people who wouldn't consider the technologist path in Arcanum to be equally viable because it's not as powerful as the mage path. Pure fucking retardation.

I think we can more easily define what ISN'T useful enough. Small guns in late game Fallout. Energy weapons in early game Fallout. Short swords in Baldur's Gate.

 

[Brayko]

Exactly. And what's wrong with that?

Oh I see what you were trying to say now.

Nothing's wrong with that. Why do you think Sawyer disagrees? He doesn't want everything to be equally easy. What gave you that idea??

What the hell defines "useful enough"? There are people who wouldn't consider the technologist path in Arcanum to be equally viable because it's not as powerful as the mage path. Pure fucking retardation.

I think we can more easily define what ISN'T useful enough. Small guns in late game Fallout. Energy weapons in early game Fallout. Short swords in Baldur's Gate.

.223 pistol is arguably the most powerful weapon in the game with the right perks equipped.

 

[FeelTheRads]

He doesn't want everything to be equally easy.

Equally easy, equally difficult, same shit, it's about being equal. Because he doesn't want to punish players and obviously having one path more difficult than the other is punishing.,

Small guns in late game Fallout.

I assume you mean Fallout 1? Even so, switch skills and invest in energy weapons. It's not like it's a class based system and you're restricted to certain skills. Why SHOULD they be useful the whole game except for extreme LARPers who want to play lone gunmen or whatever the fucking shit, when there are other options?

Energy weapons in early game Fallout.

So? If you keep putting points into energy weapons and still don't find any, maybe you're just too dumb to play the game.

Short swords in Baldur's Gate.

Now, I haven't played that much Baldur's Gate, but how are they not useful enough? I remember I used them. Or is this another case of "if you can't have all character armed with shortwords and finish the game they're not useful enough"?

 

[Infinitron]

Or is this another case of "if you can't have all character armed with shortwords and finish the game so they're not useful enough"?

No, you're being deliberately obtuse. There is a middle ground here between "worthless trap skill" and "YOU CAN FINISH THE GAME WITHOUT TOUCHING ANYTHING ELSE".

Please stop being the anti-Roguey - you're obviously smarter than this when discussing the other two Kickstarter games.

Because he doesn't want to punish players and obviously having one path more difficult than the other is punishing.

Again, this is a mischaracterization of the man's views. Wanting all skills to be decently useful has little to do with how difficult a game is.

A game's difficulty is measured by the decisions it requires you to make. Giving you the option to switch between various viable weapons, all of which are useful in various situations, increases the amount of decisions the player may be forced to make. It makes the game harder, not easier.

 

[Pike]

Maybe realistic wasn't the right word, that's obvious from him saying handguns can be as viable as rifles. I like to at least be able to pretend something makes sense though.

 

[FeelTheRads]

There is a middle ground here between "worthless trap skill" and "YOU CAN FINISH THE GAME WITHOUT TOUCHING ANYTHING ELSE".

Except I don't think that middle ground, whichever it is, is what sawyerists want. Even if it is, it sounds to me like just another one of his deranged delusions, alongside "well made minigames".

Giving you the option to switch between various viable weapons, all of which are useful in various situations, increases the amount of decisions the player may be forced to make.

That doesn't sound like being able to use the same time of weapon, no matter which, throughout which is what he wants. One of us is definitely misunderstanding sawyerism, though. At the moment my bet is on you.

It makes the game harder, not easier.

Again, I'm not talking about difficulty. I'm talking about making everything equal, thus banal, shit, boring.

when discussing the other two Kickstarter games.

What other two? I'm not discussing PE here (where I'm pretty much always trolling) but the sawyeristic design in general.

 

[GarfunkeL]

You seem to believe intelligence is the same thing as prescience.

Nope, I don't and Sawyer's claims are retarded. IF you have three skills named Small Guns, Big Guns and Energy Weapons, it doesn't take prescience or genius to realize that Small weapons will probably be common weapons, while Big and Energy will probably be rarer but more powerful. Thus, a smart player invests first in Small Guns and later diversifies. Sawyer's claim that someone will pick Energy Weapons and then doesn't get to use it, is nothing but catering to the coddled morons riding the waaaambulance.

Gotta tell you, when Small Arms, Big Arms, Energy Weapons and Throwing are all equally viable and powerful it always kind of bothers me. It's boring, in a weird way. If you must make them all equally viable, give them all a unique flavor that doesn't overlap much. Example?

Small Arms: Plenty ammo, reliable, easy to repair, low damage
Big Arms: Ammo is medium-rare, medium-to-high damage, high rate of fire, good vs unarmed enemies / monsters
Energy Weapons: Ammo is rare, damage is high, rate of fire is low, good vs armored enemies
Throwing: Low-tech, doesn't need repairs, low damage, good for stealth kills, can throw random objects from environment

My examples don't make much sense but the point I want to get across is that they should feel very distinct so that A), any given character has reason to get more than one of these skills at the same time, and B), different characters that use different weapons feel sufficiently different in combat.

Yes, something like that would be good.

Codex really needs to learn that "equally viable" doesn't mean "equally powerful in all situations".

Well, either my reading comprehension sucks or they didn't explain it very well.

I guess this thread is about Sawyer and Roguey now (that seems to happen to a lot of threads on the Codex), but just in case people are wondering re: Wasteland 2, lemme copypaste; Yes, every weapon path is viable from beginning to end, meaning the game doesn't force you to abandon a skill-tree like pistols further into the game, but they are NOT universally good. We won’t be balancing them so you just pick your favorite type and can be awesome in all situations. Each weapon type has things it’s good at and things that it fails at. You may have a very high level character with handguns, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best weapon (or even a good weapon) in all combat situations. It’s all trade-offs. You might be good using your pistol (generally cheaper rounds, great efficiency (AP per round fired) but the lack of armor piercing value on some stronger fortified enemies could cause you to be doing minimal or no damage. Try using a normal 9mm round on a Scorpitron…good luck. Try using only sniper rifles or explosives in cramped corridors where enemies rush you as fast as they can. etc etc

Viable is not the same as equal or equally powerful. I know this is a wider debate and I can't speculate exactly where Wasteland 2 fits in it, but it's not in the segment of everything has to be *exactly* as useful or powerful, in skills or equipment, it's not like every "tier" of weapons has the same functionality and usefulness in every situation. Viable, yes, but at the same time, if you specialize your entire Ranger party in one weapon skill then there are fights where you will have an extremely hard time of it, because you didn't diversify at all. But that one ranger who started out specialized in pistols can end the game specialized in pistols, he doesn't need to make a side-move to rifles.

Thanks for clarifying, BN. That's good news.

 

[Infinitron]

That doesn't sound like being able to use the same time of weapon, no matter which, throughout which is what he wants. One of us is definitely misunderstanding sawyerism, though. At the moment my bet is on you.

So you want to assume the worst? What are you, some kind of masochist?

Josh Sawyer has likened his design philosophy to that of chess. Answer me this:

Are the bishop and the knight both useful, viable pieces when playing chess?

Are the bishop and the knight equally powerful in all situations?

Is one of them almost completely worthless and the other one the only piece you'll ever need to use?

IF you have three skills named Small Guns, Big Guns and Energy Weapons, it doesn't take prescience or genius to realize that Small weapons will probably be common weapons, while Big and Energy will probably be rarer but more powerful. Thus, a smart player invests first in Small Guns and later diversifies. Sawyer's claim that someone will pick Energy Weapons and then doesn't get to use it, is nothing but catering to the coddled morons riding the waaaambulance.

Even if that's true (which it isn't) is that actually an interesting game design? Isn't it cooler to have various types of weapons with various attributes that you can switch around throughout the game, as the tactical situation demand its? What is this retarded fetishization of the linear upgrade path just because a game you liked had one?

 

[Syl]

Josh Sawyer has likened his design philosophy to that of chess.

And you wonder why some people call him pretentious. lol

 

[GarfunkeL]

Even if that's true (which it isn't) is that actually an interesting game design? Isn't it cooler to have various types of weapons with various attributes that you can switch around throughout the game, as the tactical situation demand its? What is this retarded fetishization of the linear upgrade path just because a game you liked had one?

Uh, you're the one promoting a linear upgrade path. You pick a single weapon skill and that will carry you throughout the game. Pistol -> Pistol +1 -> Pistol +2 -> Pistol +3 -> Super Pistol of Slaying. That's linear. I want a game that forces, or at least rewards a player who diversifies even a little.

Yeah, it's hypocritical since fantasy RPGs can get away with it but contemporary or futuristic RPGs can't, because they utilize "realistic" firearms. Rifle is just inherently so much better than a handgun, aside from a relatively few special situations, that it really irks me (and ruins my IMMERSHUN) if a game promotes that every weapon skill is just as good as any other, in the name of balance.

 

[Roguey]

You seem to believe intelligence is the same thing as prescience.

Nope, I don't and Sawyer's claims are retarded. IF you have three skills named Small Guns, Big Guns and Energy Weapons, it doesn't take prescience or genius to realize that Small weapons will probably be common weapons, while Big and Energy will probably be rarer but more powerful. Thus, a smart player invests first in Small Guns and later diversifies.

What makes you think that? Energy weapons don't exist in the real world, there's no reality informing your decisions here so one wouldn't be able to guess just how powerful energy weapons are compared to regular firearms. As F3 and New Vegas show, one can just as easily give them orthogonally equivalent value.

Furthermore, one can make the same case for unarmed and melee. Yet that's not how it works; unarmed gets power fists which are the unarmed equivalent of rippers and super sledges. No other skills in Fallout work like small guns/big guns/energy weapons do.

Sawyer's claim that someone will pick Energy Weapons and then doesn't get to use it, is nothing but catering to the coddled morons riding the waaaambulance.

What's the benefit in doing it this way? You mentioned "planning out your character in advance" but as I mentioned, no other skills require this sort of "planning" and folding all the gun-type weapons into one firearms skill doesn't diminish the planning involved in choosing which perks you want. Sawyer has also mentioned that he wouldn't mind if energy weapons only unlocked if you reached a certain level and had enough points in guns and science. There's another plan that doesn't potentially force a restart after several hours of play for no reason than Just Because.

 

[Roguey]

What makes you think that?

Common sense? I know I am talking to a fanboi. But still.

Energy weapons don't exist in the real world, there's no reality informing your decisions here

 

[Roguey]

Oh yeah?

In real world there aren't things like Perks and Levels either. What makes your hypothetical idiot think about them while selecting them?

Answer: I hope he reads the manual. Applies some general sense how the world works and the realize that Laser weapons (even hypothetical ones) ought to be way powerful that bullets.

The manual doesn't say "energy weapons are a million times better than any gun and you'll only find them in the endgame."

I'd rather use a gun than a surgical laser to defend myself against an attacker.

 

[Infinitron]

There's really no good reason for Fallout's Small Guns/Energy Weapons dichotomy, other than allowing wankers to feel good about themselves for knowing exactly when to switch from developing their Small Guns skill to developing their Energy Weapons skill after they've played the game ten times.

It is not challenging. It is not mechanically compelling. The only satisfaction you can derive from it is the sort of satisfaction one gets from mapping out the dead ends in pre-LucasArts adventure games, another genre that was based on making the player restart the game a bunch of times.

In other words, Fallout fans are once again exposed as supporters of the "ADVENTURE GAME WITH STATS" paradigm of RPG.

 

[FeelTheRads]

There's really no good reason for Fallout's Small Guns/Energy Weapons dichotomy, other than allowing wankers to feel good about themselves for knowing exactly when to switch from developing their Small Guns skill to developing their Energy Weapons skill after they've played the game ten times.

It is not challenging. It is not mechanically compelling. The only satisfaction you can derive from it is the sort of satisfaction one gets from mapping out the dead ends in pre-LucasArts adventure games, another genre that was based on making the player restart the game a bunch of times.

In other words, Fallout fans are once again exposed as supporters of the "ADVENTURE GAME WITH STATS" paradigm of RPG.

I never HAD to restart Fallout. It's a fucking classless game where you have no restriction in what skills to pick. If you can't play anymore because you put some points in energy at the start of the game, then I don't know which one of us is a "wanker".
Also if you build games so that nobody ever has to restart them then you're pretty much building AAA games. Fucking period. All this "equality makes games better" is just bullshit and a pathetic excuse for wanting to coddle the players.

 

[GarfunkeL]

The manual doesn't say "energy weapons are a million times better than any gun and you'll only find them in the endgame."

I'd rather use a gun than a surgical laser to defend myself against an attacker.

Jesus wept, have you ever read/watched a piece of sci-fi? Played a game with sci-fi influences? Laser/Plasma weapons are ALWAYS better than regular firearms. Even if our imaginary retard-player has never seen Star Wars or read Henlein, he has played DOOM or UFO: Enemy Unknown before Fallout and thus learned that laser beats chemical projectiles.

It was a fantastic experience in F1 when I found the first laser pistol in Necropolis but couldn't use it properly since I hadn't placed many points into it. I actually had to risk running very close to a Supermutant at the Water Shed to hit him - but once I did, ooh yeah bloody mess.

There's really no good reason for Fallout's Small Guns/Energy Weapons dichotomy, other than allowing wankers to feel good about themselves for knowing exactly when to switch from developing their Small Guns skill to developing their Energy Weapons skill after they've played the game ten times.

It is not challenging. It is not mechanically compelling. The only satisfaction you can derive from it is the sort of satisfaction one gets from mapping out the dead ends in pre-LucasArts adventure games, another genre that was based on making the player restart the game a bunch of times.

In other words, Fallout fans are once again exposed as supporters of the "ADVENTURE GAME WITH STATS" paradigm of RPG.

Oh for fucks sake, stop pretending you're so obtuse, I know you're smarter than this. Even if you tag Energy Weapons, Outdoorsman and Gambling, you can finish Fallout easily enough. Sawyer's claim that a character is ruined is bogus bullshit, perpetuated by some sort of perfectionist-aspies who go catatonic if their precious avatar isn't perfect.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm not even saying that design is bad. It's more that I can't really see what's so good about it. What's so good about the concept of "early game skills" and "late game skills"? Why should other games emulate that? How is it not always more interesting to allow skills to be useful in various ways throughout the game, as long as there are still interesting tradeoffs to be had?

Anybody?

 

[likaq]

In other words, Fallout fans are once again exposed as supporters of the "ADVENTURE GAME WITH STATS" paradigm of RPG.

There is nothing wrong with "ADVENTURE GAME WITH STATS" paradigm of RPG . It's superrior to any other paradigms.
Neither is anything wrong with adventure game with stats as a sub-genre of crpg's or adventure games.
Period.

 

[janjetina]

I think we can more easily define what ISN'T useful enough. Small guns in late game Fallout. Energy weapons in early game Fallout. Short swords in Baldur's Gate.

Sniper rifle uses Small Guns skill, and is quite useful in the late game, with its long range and devastating criticals.

 

[GarfunkeL]

I'm not even saying that design is bad. It's more that I can't really see what's so good about it. What's so good about the concept of "early game skills" and "late game skills"?

Who is talking about "early game" and "late game" skills? The division is purely artificial. As Shrek says, it's only relevant to combat skills, where a sense of consistency and a modicum of "realism/logic" would imply that guns that are inherently superior IRL, should also be superior in the game. As pointed out, the sniper rifle in Fallout 1/2 is a useful weapon to the end if you've gone for the sniper build.

Hopefully WL2 won't have "energy weapons" skill or anything similar because it's such a ridiculously artificial division. There is no reason why futuristic laser pistols would be aimed and fired differently than regular, chemical, pistols. So you'd actually have two firearms skills: handguns and long arms. But this isn't even about the skills themselves but the gear/weapons.

 

[Infinitron]

a sense of consistency and a modicum of "realism/logic" would imply that guns that are inherently superior IRL, should also be superior in the game.

So it's a good mechanic because it's realistic?

Simulationists gonna simulate :declining:

Hopefully WL2 won't have "energy weapons" skill or anything similar because it's such a ridiculously artificial division. There is no reason why futuristic laser pistols would be aimed and fired differently than regular, chemical, pistols. So you'd actually have two firearms skills: handguns and long arms. But this isn't even about the skills themselves but the gear/weapons.

Oh good, I'm glad you agree that Fallout's system shouldn't be emulated, even if for the wrong reasons.

 

[GarfunkeL]

No, I wasn't defending Fallout 1's skill system as a superior rule set or anything. Just defending it against Sawyer's claims that it's so broken that it ruins gameplay, which he implies with the line of "tag Energy weapons but the skill is useless for over half of the game". I personally also think that it's good if a game forces the player to modify/diversify his character throughout the game, instead of allowing the player to be a one-trick pony and solve all combat "challenges" in an (nearly) identical way. Which is a significant risk when balance in a SP game becomes so important that every combat skill has to be equally viable throughout the game.

 

[Infinitron]

I personally also think that it's good if a game forces the player to modify/diversify his character throughout the game, instead of allowing the player to be a one-trick pony and solve all combat "challenges" in an (nearly) identical way.

I think that too. Luckily, it in no way requires the game to have skills that are useless for entire stretches of the game.

 

[GarfunkeL]

So it's a good mechanic because it's realistic?

Simulationists gonna simulate :declining:

Ha, excellent comeback. But tell me, where do you draw the line between "normal" and "simulationist" behaviour? If laws of physics are same as IRL, is that already too simulationist for you? If a game happens on Earth, has humans, follows our laws of physics, has identifiable locations and gear - like computers working the same as IRL, is it really too much to expect weapons to also be roughly similar to what they are IRL? Or is everything else "normal" for you but weapons, which somehow reside over the "simulationist" side?

 

[Infinitron]

So it's a good mechanic because it's realistic?

Simulationists gonna simulate :declining:

Ha, excellent comeback. But tell me, where do you draw the line between "normal" and "simulationist" behaviour? If laws of physics are same as IRL, is that already too simulationist for you? If a game happens on Earth, has humans, follows our laws of physics, has identifiable locations and gear - like computers working the same as IRL, is it really too much to expect weapons to also be roughly similar to what they are IRL? Or is everything else "normal" for you but weapons, which somehow reside over the "simulationist" side?

I would say that in any RPG with a major focus on combat - which is almost all of them - allowing the laws of reality to dictate the rules of your game is a bad idea. If combat is a major part of your game, then it should be "gamey" to some extent. If that means that machetes need to do more damage than bullets, then so be it (although of course if you think you can get the system to work without making that concession, then go for it!)