Wasteland 2 first look video released, update

Autoduel76 said:
Its Wasteland. Not Fallout.

We've hashed over most of this dialogue issue many times since funding ended. Its not trying to be the same type of game that Fallout is, in terms of dialogue- and it shouldnt. Its not the kind of game you are going to be able to create a diplomat character and avoid the majority of combat. Its not the type of game you are going to be able to develop relationships with NPCs through the tone of your voice. Its a party based system that isnt going to develop the personalities of your rangers by dialogue choices. You will improve standing with NPCs and factions through your actions, not the tone of voice you use.

Its going to be more combat-centric and puzzle solving than Fallout. The keyword dialogue fits well with the continuation of the Wasteland franchise and even the paragraphs from the original.

Now, if they use the same system for Torment, that would be a legitimate gripe. But that type of dialogue was never on the in the cards for Wasteland
Click to expand...

Exactly right. People have said this is going to be the real Fallout 3, but it isn't. It's going to be the real Wasteland 2 and that's what I'm hoping for.
 
I like radio messages idea, music, new portraits and most of all hexes!
Key-words may be good, but they look shallow so far. For me it's not about Fallout3 or Wasteland2, it is about good game. I can't see how key-words may be better for choice and consequences. Will we be able to lie, scare, bribe, persuade people? Also I would like to see key-words for individual ranger, for instance, someone with Doctor Skill offering help to Matt. Party based conversation?
 
Autoduel76 said:
Its Wasteland. Not Fallout.

We've hashed over most of this dialogue issue many times since funding ended. Its not trying to be the same type of game that Fallout is, in terms of dialogue- and it shouldnt. Its not the kind of game you are going to be able to create a diplomat character and avoid the majority of combat. Its not the type of game you are going to be able to develop relationships with NPCs through the tone of your voice. Its a party based system that isnt going to develop the personalities of your rangers by dialogue choices. You will improve standing with NPCs and factions through your actions, not the tone of voice you use.

Its going to be more combat-centric and puzzle solving than Fallout. The keyword dialogue fits well with the continuation of the Wasteland franchise and even the paragraphs from the original.

Now, if they use the same system for Torment, that would be a legitimate gripe. But that type of dialogue was never on the in the cards for Wasteland
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. They can do plenty with keyword dialog and they have much more important stuff to worry about.

And they are taking a risk by using the Torment name so liberally. WTF is a "Torment" game?
 
Lexx said:
FearMonkey said:
Also, I assume the guy speaking in the second radio broadcast is Bobby from the first Wasteland? :p

EDIT: i.e. the Red Scorpion guy.
Click to expand...

Yes, pretty sure it is him.

Also I remember "Ranger Citadel" and not "Ranger Center" - maybe the base of operation shifted as well? Can't re-check the video right now.

Not to forget about "General Vargas" - Snake Vargas from W1 who seems to lead the Rangers now.
Click to expand...

"General Vargas" line brought a smile on my face and I felt giddy the whole video :) I like what I've seen so far. There are a few minor complaints, but the direction the devs are taking is a right one. Little more polish, and we'll have a proper Wasteland game soon.
 
rattlenik said:
I like radio messages idea, music, new portraits and most of all hexes!
Key-words may be good, but they look shallow so far. For me it's not about Fallout3 or Wasteland2, it is about good game. I can't see how key-words may be better for choice and consequences. Will we be able to lie, scare, bribe, persuade people? Also I would like to see key-words for individual ranger, for instance, someone with Doctor Skill offering help to Matt. Party based conversation?
Click to expand...

The build of the party members will affect NPC dialogue and the conversation topics (keywords) you are presented with. This is stated in the video by Chris Keenan.

E.g You encounter a seriously injured NPC, if your party includes someone with a sufficiently high Doctor/Field Medicine skill you might see a Doctor or Heal keyword which means you can attempt to heal them and keep them conscious, furthering the dialogue. If no one in your party has sufficient medical skill then you will not have that option and they die, meaning you miss out on a potentially useful ally. There might also be Steal keyword allowing your rangers to strip the injured PC of all his gear and leave him to die rather than helping him out. This of course could have huge consequences down the road.

Choices could be presented to the ranger group simply as Yes/No keywords that can be chosen. Or for instance, an NPC says "We can save Billy or Bob, but not both, who is it going to be?" and the Keywords available would be Billy and Bob or Neither if you want to be a bunch of jerks. This is just a simple example to illustrate that decision making can be incorporated into a keyword dialogue system. Again, depending on party skills you may have an option to intimidate, charm or deceive an NPC in the appropriate context.

You can also freely type in additional topics/keywords/phrases, which may open up completely different branches of conversation and solutions to problems.

I'm just trying to show that choice and consequence can be supported just using a keyword based system. I think people will need to see more of the dialogue system in action before their fears are allayed or confirmed. We just haven't seen enough of it.
 
Excellent explanation AnotherZaphod !
If done right keywords offer as much choice/speech or other skills check/dialog choices as dialog trees.
And it is also way more interesting by not showing you all those info/C&C, you have to think a little for once.
The fact that keywords system is better because it was used in W1 is a not relevant IMHO.
I like it better because i found it fundamentally better if well made by adding a dimension to the gameplay and is more adapted to a party based cRPG.
I can understand people liking better dialog trees but some are saying totally wrong things about it and C&C ans skill use.
For me the advantage of dialog trees is it can effectively seems better for immersion and that it can be cool to read good PC dialog.
But it doesn't compensate the drawback of dialog trees in a party based cRPG from a gaming perspective IMHO.
 
Sobboth said:
Excellent explanation AnotherZaphod !
If done right keywords offer as much choice/speech or other skills check/dialog choices as dialog trees.
And it is also way more interesting by not showing you all those info/C&C, you have to think a little for once.
The fact that keywords system is better because it was used in W1 is a not relevant IMHO.
I like it better because i found it fundamentally better if well made by adding a dimension to the gameplay and is more adapted to a party based cRPG.
I can understand people liking better dialog trees but some are saying totally wrong things about it and C&C ans skill use.
For me the advantage of dialog trees is it can effectively seems better for immersion and that it can be cool to read good PC dialog.
But it doesn't compensate the drawback of dialog trees in a party based cRPG from a gaming perspective IMHO.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thought it was pretty good if I may say so myself. :) Typing it up at least gave me a clearer understanding of how the system can be used. It isn't really all that different from a regular dialogue tree, but it probably gives the developers more flexibility. My initial serious concerns with the keyword system have largely evaporated.
 
It’s a tad disappointing that folk here are apparently not fans of the dialogue system, although considering this is a Fallout fansite, I guess that reaction was predictable enough.
The big reason for this system is that a full reply, like one you’d pick in Fallout, Baldur’s Gate or Dragon Age, will inevitably involve and evolve the character of the person speaking. That’s fine when you’re rocking a single character, but not really appropriate when you are controlling a full party. This system will allow the party to act as a group.
The full sentence method also has the problem that you sometimes have to pick a reply that you’re not comfortable with, just to elicit the response that you want. You end up making your character say things you don’t mean, just because it’s the closest to what you’re trying to do.
Single word system is better, you pick what you actually want, and then you can imagine you asked it any way you want. Clearly you don’t literally just say a single word.

I do like the system as it stands, however I'd like to see a slight change from key-word to key-phrase. Things like, "Ask about ...", "Request ...", "Tell about ..." and "Agree to ...". Not a change to whole replies, but a bit more clarity in how the word is being used.
 
Love the look of the game so far. I'm stoked for the freedom of choice it will provide to the player. And I'm ok with the keyword dialogue system. As long as I get interesting NPCs that help improve the immersion.

I'm a bit of a graphics whore though. If I have any complaints it would be that the frames for the windows in the UI still look a bit too mid 90's CGI. More realistic wear and tear on them would be excellent. The animations are still a bit floaty for the characters, they don't seem to be really walking on the ground. The rocks look a bit basic. And finally the grass. I would like it to look a bit more seamless if possible. I know they're just flat polygons, but I'm sure there must be some trickery to make it blend more seamlessly with the ground. Apart from that the game looks fabulous, couldn't ask for more. The interiors sure convey a lot of atmosphere.

I sure hope they touch up the art more, they probably still have time.
 
Sobboth said:
Keywords dialogue system make the dialogue much more complex, it doesn't simplify it.
You have to find clues, have to think a little bit, not have pre generated line with a silly click auto win option.
Makes the game much more reactive of what you know and what you are going to learn, hiding stuff unless you put a little effort to discover things.
I can understand people wanting auto generated cool lines but it is a simplification of the gameplay.
It seems to me a lot of people are unable to realize the huge potential of this system and only see his drawback.
Moreover dialogue trees system is much more adapted to single player cRPG. In party cRPG it works much better if you imagine your part of the dialogue, it is not stupid at all.
I have good hope though that if this dialogue system remains people will ultimately acknowledge his quality.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, if the important key words are all displayed on the screen like that, it is still "auto win". And Fallout used dialogue trees, but it wasn't auto win at all, because you still had to think ahead and consider the personality of the person you were talking to. For instance, the hostage situation in the brothel in Fallout 1.

Lines are made more difficult by the fact that there's a party, and the high level of customization, but lines don't have to be personalized to a character. If we have options, it gives us the chance to role play the character we created.

I don't understand why we can't have both. Fallout had both, though the keyword system seemed drastically underused. I understand that this isn't Fallout, but I'm still hoping that W2 will allow diplomacy, and make dialogue for more than just asking basic questions. I've unfortunately never had the chance to play the original, but when they outlined their plans for this title, talking about options and various ways to solve problems, it made me assume that dialogue would be one of those ways. I'm still excited about this game, but I'm hoping it's not just combat and mission based. If that's all I need, I can just play X-COM.

That said, as long as they implement ways to use conversation that aren't just "Tell me about _____", I'll be happy even if we don't get full lines.
 
Love the video - the game is looking much better than I expected.
And I'm totally OK with the keyword dialogue.

First, it's more work to write elaborate lines for the PC, so getting that problem out of the way means bigger scope and more NPC responses.

Second, if I'm controlling a 4+ ranger party, then obviously they are going to have different characters/dispositions/mannerisms. Writing convincing dialogue that would give you choices to role play any of your 4 characters would be a killer amount of work. I prefer to think that "Ranger A" is a suave silvertongue trash talker (because I gave him a lot of charisma), while Ranger B is a timid techie who barely talks at all. Keyword dialogue leaves room for interpretation, while written lines do not.
I agree it may limit the diplomatic options/speech puzzles a little, but for now I don't care. New Vegas gives plenty of options for diplomatic characters, I'll welcome some change in Wasteland 2.

Third, full PC dialogue doesn't make the game any deeper (Skyrim), and keyword dialogue doesn't make it any more shallow. Is anybody complaining about Wasteland (the original) having keyword dialogue? No, everybody is all: "Whoah, what a great game, so much choice and consequence, so many options, such a cool story, and such cool characters".

Finally, Wasteland isn't Fallout, and I'm pretty sure the decision to include keyword dialogue might have been influenced in part by the desire to make the game different from Fallout.
It remains to be seen what it turns out in the end, but so far the only thing I honestly don't like about what I've seen in the footage is the "POW! POW! POW! Encounter begins!" splash thing.

On another note, I can't really see the dev team switching to full PC dialogue when they've said they're halfway through the production cycle. The disruption of project timeline would cause an astronomical cost increase, and I don't believe they have any backer money left lying around. So you might just as well start getting used to the idea.
 
Tel Prydain said:
I do like the system as it stands, however I'd like to see a slight change from key-word to key-phrase. Things like, "Ask about ...", "Request ...", "Tell about ..." and "Agree to ...". Not a change to whole replies, but a bit more clarity in how the word is being used.
Click to expand...

I could get behind the phrase idea if done properly. The person that talks about the difference between Fallout and Wasteland makes a valid point, but I still have an issue with key words or poorly done phrases.

Anyone that has played BioWare games like Dragon Age, SWKOTOR/SWTOR, or Mass Effect knows that you are given words or phrases as a choice that can be completely different than what your character actually says. Even if you aren't trying to do the character development through dialog thing it is really annoying when you think you are saying one thing but actually say another. Even if you are only given one way to ask a particular question it is still nice to know what you are actually saying. Again, it goes to the immersion of the game. Even if the internal mechanics of the game would be identical between a keyword choice and a dialog choice of just one option, it makes you feel like you are genuinely interacting with an NPC. A keyword feels like I am pushing buttons on a computer.
 
Autoduel76 said:
Its Wasteland. Not Fallout.

We've hashed over most of this dialogue issue many times since funding ended. Its not trying to be the same type of game that Fallout is, in terms of dialogue- and it shouldnt. Its not the kind of game you are going to be able to create a diplomat character and avoid the majority of combat. Its not the type of game you are going to be able to develop relationships with NPCs through the tone of your voice. Its a party based system that isnt going to develop the personalities of your rangers by dialogue choices. You will improve standing with NPCs and factions through your actions, not the tone of voice you use.

Its going to be more combat-centric and puzzle solving than Fallout. The keyword dialogue fits well with the continuation of the Wasteland franchise and even the paragraphs from the original.

Now, if they use the same system for Torment, that would be a legitimate gripe. But that type of dialogue was never on the in the cards for Wasteland
Click to expand...

I agree. That being said, would I prefer a Fallout-style dialogue system? Yes. But this isn't a Fallout game, it's a Wasteland game.

Overall, this game looks fantastic. It's seriously one of the only games I've been genuinely excited about in the last several years.
 
youre just an oldfashioned purist that doesnt want to go with evolution! GO WITH THE TIMES GRANPAH! INOVASHUN! :P
 
Yamu said:
maximaz said:
Like many others said though, I do wish the dialogue system was like the one in Fallout.
Click to expand...

I'm generally with the crowd on this one, but at the same time, from what I've seen of the original Wasteland, the system they have in place now is leaps and bounds ahead of the original in complexity and interactivity. As much as we may be relying on Wasteland 2 to carry Fallout's torch, it isn't a pure, traditional RPG any more than its predecessor was.
Click to expand...


You are doing it wrong if you are expecting Wasteland 2 to carry Fallout's torch. Fallout was incapable of carrying Wasteland's torch, so it's up to Wasteland 2 to carry Wasteland's torch. Let Fallout carry it's own damn torch.
 
to all the motherfuckers who started to bash Fallout just to be the first in line to "wax the shaft" of a particular Mr. Fargo, shame on you!

"Keywords work better with party based RPGs"
FFFUUUUUUUcKK!


Fallout 1 and I dare to say even Fallout 2 will remain 10 times better than this future Wasteland 2.

If the Wasteland 2 video would have had quality written dialogue choices, none of you waxers would have said "yeah... but keywords would be better in this party based RPG"
 
Grotesque said:
to all the motherfuckers who started to bash Fallout just to be the first in line to "wax the shaft" of a particular Mr. Fargo, shame on you!

"Keywords work better with party based RPGs"
FFFUUUUUUUcKK!


Fallout 1 and I dare to say even Fallout 2 will remain 10 times better than this future Wasteland 2.

If the Wasteland 2 video would have had quality written dialogue choices, none of you waxers would have said "yeah... but keywords would be better in this party based RPG"
Click to expand...

Ahem. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Am I happy with keywords? Not so much. Is it going to ruin the game for me or in any way affect my affection for Fallout? Not so much.
 
I'll admit that this is really the only forum I visit anymore, but I haven't seen anyone bashing the original Fallouts in favor of Wasteland 2. Does that happen?

I don't think I'll ever be prepared to say that Wasteland is better or worse than Fallout, myself, any more than I'd ever be willing to compare Halo to Starcraft or Gran Turismo to Grand Theft Auto. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison (or more accurately, red-apples-to-green-apples. Still, different feel, different world, different intended user-experience.)
 
The point is that they are different games. It's not about "bashing" Fallout. People who expected this game to just be a clone of Fallout are going to be disappointed.

Personally I'm not about to sit here and pretend that I have some philosophical reason to favor one dialogue system over another. The fact is that either system would have worked just fine, but this one actually does make sense in context of the game, considering there really is no "hero" character.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top