Wasteland 2

Because it would make the game available to a much wider market? I mean, making a game for the fans is great, but if it wants to have any kind of future then it has to make money. Plus, I'm thinking a number of modern-day Fallout fans would be interested in Wasteland. I mean, I admittedly started with three. My main game station is an xbox. My computer just can't handle games and really. I'll be incredibly, not disappointed, but I'll be rather put off if it was made such that I wasn't even part of the target audience no matter how much I would have wanted the game.

I mean, if the new top-down XCOM will work on consoles, I can't see why a Wasteland title couldn't.

It doesn't need to make money it's already fully funded and steam sales will make it sell quite a bit. Not to mention all that money goes directly to inXile. On PC it has way more of a future thanks to digital distribution than console. Yeah it's not going to be a AAA blockbuster but that's the point of kickstarter. Setting up indie games for devs to make the kind of game they want to instead of making games that sell. Seeing as its fully funded Fargo doesn't need to worry about trying to reach a wider audience and he's already said that much.

It's understandable but the game probably won't be that taxing so most computers should be able to run it.

The thing is you'd never really try to make an RTS on console. Some games have tried but they've mostly failed or lost a lot in the process because the RTS is specifically a PC-centric game. You'd also not really design a fighting game around a keyboard and mouse. It's clearly a game for a gamepad.

Top down, isometric CRP Gs are a similar beast. They're meant for PC and bringing them to consoles tends to lead to an awkward transition. DA: Origins on console was a pretty mediocre port and DA 2 was a complete mess by trying to be both a console RPG and a cRPG.

I'm not familiar with the new Firaxis XCOM game but a lot of people I know are already quite annoyed with the changes being made from the original formula. Can't say for certain if it's a good example of PC turn based strategy on console.

EDIT: Fargo explains the choice for Unity he does not mention console porting.

edited 16th May '12 8:35:37 PM by ShadowScythe

^Most changes they are annoyed with aren't console related changes, they are "More wider audience" changes Like taking time units away and replacing it with move, move/shoot, etc. Also, some changes which probably exist to make game less frustrating/more interesting.(Like one base only, in original game there wasn't point in creating full bases because one was enough, other bases existed mainly for radar coverage or intercepting. Another example would be that at least in start you can only have four squad members on field, that is probably because in original game you might have ended up using only four of them because it was boring to move all 8 members each turn especially when it turns out that rest of them you don't really need because some of your squad members are close enough while all others are too far to reach in time)

Spooky Mask seems to have voiced what I wanted to say, but with a greater knowledge base than what I would have pulled from. I admit that I'm much more of a TRPG fan than a CRPG one. Stuff like Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea? That's my bag (RPG-wise). Computer based stuff? Pshh. C'mon. My computer sucks.

Hmm? I was talking about changes in XCOM. So that goes against your point since Wasteland 2 seems to be type of genre mostly seen in PC which would require lots of change to make it console game or more accessible which is against what developers have promised to their fans.

Well my only point of reference would be the first two Fallout games. They could be ported easily enough. Using the joystick as a pointer would get old fast, but it would work.

edited 16th May '12 11:50:38 PM by Zeromaeus

Umm, you haven't played first two games have you? Interface isn't suitable for consoles so it would need complete overhaul interface wise.

Its been a while. A good long while. Like... a week after I played Fallout 3 for the first time... so... about four years since I've played. However, I don't recall anything that complicated control-wise.

edited 16th May '12 11:59:30 PM by Zeromaeus

There's a fair bit going on which makes it difficult to setup.

The character creator screen alone is pretty darn complicated would require several different menu screens to work on a gamepad.

If that same setup were used on PC you'd get a really annoying UI to work with whereas the original Fallout conveys everything you need in the CC in a single screen. So if the developers were designing Fallout with consoles in mind with their limited resources they would either make the PC also have that frustrating UI that takes far too long to scroll through all the info, or they would cut down on the skills and perks and traits etc to fit it into less menus to scroll through. Thus you either end up with a crap UI or a loss of depth or both.

And that's just in the character creator.

When dealing with the general gameplay you'd need to have a button for every command and menu on the general gameplay UI. A button to open the inventory, a button to flick through the different interaction modes (movement, combat, inspection etc), a button to bring up the skills menu, a button to bring up the targeted shots menu, a button to bring up the Pipboy...you get my point.

When designing this for a gamepad which has a limited number of buttons compared to a keyboard the developer is either going to condense that into groups of menus or they'll just cut it down. Targeted shots will go, the skills menu will be replaced by interactive objects being highlightable and then the player walks up to them and presses a generic "Interact" button to use whatever skill is appropriate and so on. This might make it simpler to navigate but most of the time it just makes things really obvious for the player, whereas Wasteland and Fallout encouraged the player to explore and discover the interaction on their own.

This is why I feel that console porting isn't going to be a good thing for CRP Gs. That genre is designed around a mouse and keyboard interface and its complexity is based around that. Bringing it to consoles either makes the UI a hassle to manage or simplifies and removes a lot of the depth to cater for the different style of controller.

EDIT: Yeesh wall of text. tl;dr Fallout's actually pretty complicated and designing an interface that consoles can use either makes it inconvenient for everyone or results in depth being cut down to make a simpler interface.

edited 17th May '12 12:10:13 AM by ShadowScythe

I don't remember the character creation being all that complicated. It could just be broken up into sections like with the current console games. First section for base stats. Second section for skills. Third section for abilities/traits/perks. I mean, that's how one typically makes a character sheet anyway. One section at a time. Even with tabletop games. You go through the book and determine what you put on the sheet section by section.

Also, I remember Fallout having buttons on-screen for most of those features you mentioned. I mean, why can't you just do that, except put the various buttons on a menu you open with one button push.

Its not perfect, I realize. It just seems like instead opening up to the idea and trying to solve the problems inherent in such an enterprise, people are much more open to jumping on the pure shunning of the idea instead.

Also, I'm not saying they should compromise the PC version. Make it first and foremost. Worry about porting it after the original game is well and done.

edited 17th May '12 12:20:04 AM by Zeromaeus

Now I see where you're coming from. In which case I agree. Make the original game as a crpg from the start and if, after launch, there's enough of a fan response for a console version and there are enough resources from sales of the game to do this then go for it.

I am sort of with Jonah on this issue. As a funder, I want to see a really good pc experience for fans of the series, and a decent enough one for me, who wasn't a player of the first Wasteland game. Once that has been delivered though, with an engine that will suit porting to other formats, I really cannot see Fargo or the rest of the developers passing up some more money - which could go on funding the next one.

I hope Wasteland Dews gets good marketing. It would help the sales by alot, and it would be very very very sad if the sales plummeted again.

Anyone who tells you it isn't about the money is lying.

You can still make promises and money. Fargo will make a lot of money off this from PC sales alone since inXile gets all the profits instead of a fee at the start of development from the publishers.

In this case Fargo's ability to fund his own games is based on his reputation with fans. Said reputation will plummet if he does not live up to his promises (i.e. CRPG in the style of the original Fallouts and Wasteland with an emphasis on old school crpg design). If he decides to make a console game instead he's not likely to be able to raise money for a Wasteland 3 or Bard's Tale games.

And seriously, get it out of your head that he's absolutely going to make a console game. The guy has stated he has no interest in bringing WL 2 to consoles and until he says otherwise don't put words in his mouth like that he's lying to make money or whatever other bullshit.

^^Is that objective truth?

Hold the phone! Bard's Tale? He's the Bard's Tale guy? Holy crap. I love that game.

Yeah he's both Bard's Tale guys. The original party based CRPG blobber version (and its numerous sequels) and the modern ARPG "funny" version that he did (Called simply Bard's Tale instead of "The Bard's Tale) cause he had the rights to the title but not that actual game or something.

edited 18th May '12 1:33:46 AM by ShadowScythe

I'm familiar with a number of the Ultima era games, Bard's Tale included. Some of those old games were just crazy. Most of them were pretty fun.

"Fargo will make a lot of money off this from PC sales alone"

Not really, no.

Yeaaaaah, this is niche project so it won't make much money, but I don't see him having interest porting it to console because if he was interested in money THEN WHY THE HECK HE WOULD TRY TO PITCH WASTELAND 2 FOR 20 YEARS?

Seriously, thats stubborn stupidity if he figured out he could make money that way Porting game to console won't help much either.

Inafune pushed for Mega Man Legends 3 for ten years. Sometimes developers just want to make certain games. They have to sell them for a profit, though, otherwise there is simply no future in their venture.

We assume of others what we know of ourselves.

Yes, yes and a soldier never truly leaves the battlefield.

Anyway, what should we be expecting? What kind of wasteland was... Wasteland? I hear there were robots and rangers.

It was pretty Wasteland-y, but it also had silly things like giant man-eating rabbits.