Talk:Wasteland 2

VentureBeat

Warning: The linked "VentureBeat" article is untrustworthy. It claims Wasteland 2 is going to be some kind of multiplayer online game. Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"As envisioned, Wasteland 2 is a turn-based, top-down, role-playing, party game set in a Fallout-like post-apocalypse game."[1] - only "untrustworthy" thing here are the people who would somehow read this as "some kind of multiplayer online game" (you two). --Niemti (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Fan Art

Is it okay to put couple of fan art to this article? --Infestor (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no. While such fan art might be released under the appropriate copyright license, typically only official material is used for articles, unless the fan art itself is the subject. 217.120.178.21 (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Concept Art for the page?

Is it appropriate to use one of the publicly-released pieces of concept art for Wasteland 2 on this page? The "desktop wallpaper" section has two pictures with logos that would both potentially work for the article if such a thing is done. 174.31.154.235 (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The forum issues

Discuss here before adding anything. --Niemti (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"Mute and devoid of scripted personalities" is something that whackjob made up before he went crazy on the Wasteland 2 forums and got himself banned. Since I've been deprived of my ability to edit this article, I'm asking you to remove it. I also reworded the sentence about having "100% control" to something that sounded better, but he reverted that too. Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also arguable whether Wasteland 2's system of companions will be "strongly different" from Fallout's. The truth is that deep and involved Bioware-style NPC companions were never Fallout's forte. In Fallout 1, they were an obvious last minute hackjob and barely had personalities! Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Dogmeat is surely best remembered of them all while not talking at all. Anyway, what is the original source of this information? --Niemti (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The officially released information about Wasteland 2's party system is already linked to from the article (references 6 and 7). Beyond that, there are a few tidbits that the design team have leaked to the forum's moderators - not something you can cite on a Wikipedia article. Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hidden. Also get yourself a Wikipedia account, you'll be able to edit stuff yourself lol. --Niemti (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I _do_ think it's worth noting that this game's system (creating a full party) will be different from that of most recent RPGs (with the notable exception of the Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir expansion pack). But the way he phrased it, with the emphasis on how the system is "strongly different from Fallout" (Why mention Fallout specifically? This isn't a Fallout sequel, this is a Wasteland sequel!), is extremely passive aggressive. Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Wasteland 2 Fallout's spiritual successor? That would explain why he emphasized that. But I agree that it is probably better to keep speculation off of the wiki until it is official. The info will be hidden until then. Cheers. :) Kapitaenk (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I found this: http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1100#p18458 It is an official press release from the game developers. Quote: "Wasteland is one of my favorite RPGs of all time, and when Brian asked if I wanted to work on the sequel, I jumped at the chance. While I've worked on Fallout 2 and Fallout: New Vegas, getting the chance to work on the spiritual successor to the Fallout franchise is a honor." I suppose we could add that Wasteland 2 is considered to be the spiritual successor of the original Fallout games. Kapitaenk (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that makes absolutely no sense. Wasteland came out 9 years before Fallout. Fallout was the spiritual successor to Wasteland. Wasteland 2 is a sequel to Wasteland. Calling it the spiritual successor to Fallout is just plain silly. I can only assume that he meant the "spiritual predecessor to Fallout". Otherwise, we're in the weird situation of a game being the spiritual successor to a game that was a spiritual successor to the game the first is a sequel of. 99.141.131.13 (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The games certainly seem to be related, and according to Fargo Wasteland 2 will have elements of both games (check references). "sequel to Wasteland" and "spiritual successor of Fallout" seems appropriate to me. What would you recommend? Kapitaenk (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Avellone has clarified that he confused between "predecessor" and "successor": http://www.ripten.com/2012/03/30/chris-avellone-and-brian-fargo-bring-obsidian-and-inxile-together-again/ Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I removed that reference and replaced it with another one where Fargo talks about how Fallout and Wasteland will influence Wasteland 2. Kapitaenk (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article still says "spiritual successor of Fallout" - did you mean to remove that as well? (I'm agnostic on whether or not it should be removed, mind you) Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove it? I believe that the game will be strongly influenced by Fallout, and not just Wasteland, according to what I have read. I would call it a spiritual successor. Kapitaenk (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Because successor implies a sequel in everything but name, something that has been a serious bone of contention in the Wasteland 2 development forums. And since this is a sequel to an existing property, there's no need to talk about it being a spiritual successor to anything, especially since the only official word on WL2 being a successor to Fallout was a misstatement. WL2 isn't going to be the long lost Van Buren that many Fallout fans want, it's going to be a sequel to Wasteland. Just look at the rage edits a few days ago by an enraged backer that expected it to be more Fallout than Wasteland. Keeping the description coldly lashed only to exact facts is probably for the best at this stage anyway. More can be added when the vision document is released. 99.141.131.13 (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I say we change the opening sentence to this and let people draw their own conclusions:

Wasteland 2 is an upcoming post-apocalyptic role-playing video game developed by inXile Entertainment for the Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X and Linux platforms. It will be the sequel to Wasteland (1988), which is the spiritual ancestor of the original Fallout games published by Interplay Entertainment.[5][6]

Melnorme1984 (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's probably okay, but I think it requires clarification. To most people nowadays, Fallout is a first person Bethesda game. It should be changed to "may be considered a spiritual successor of the original Interplay Fallout games". Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. :) Kapitaenk (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Vision Document Released

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxMevjNSr2EjbDBpZ2ZMdmNnc28 84.229.222.242 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've seen your edit to the Gameplay section, Kapitaenk. It's still problematic - you're suggesting that something is lacking where it isn't. This article should tell people what the game DOES do, not speculate on what it doesn't do. This is how I would change what you wrote:

From this: "but they will be devoid of personal motivations and opinions, and as such will only be driven by the choices that the player makes. The party will also include non-player characters, each with their own (non-customizable) personalities, motivations, opinions and agendas."

to this: "The party will also include non-player characters, each with their own personalities, motivations, opinions and agendas."

Melnorme1984 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I know it is vaguely described in the vision document, but that is basically what it says, this is what the game will do. The player makes all decisions for his Rangers (like in many games with a main character), but not for the NPCs. I really do not understand why this is such a problem for you. I'll see if I can think up something better, so that we can end your dispute and unlock this article. Kapitaenk (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You SHOULD describe what sort of game this will be. You can even point out that it differs from most modern RPGs (in that you generate 4 PCs instead of just one), and compare it to some older ones. But when you describe it as a negative ("but they will be devoid of", "non-customizable"), the impression is that you're pointing out flaws in the game, rather than merely describing it. Melnorme1984 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

But you can't customize the NPCs as you can customize the PCs for example. Why do you consider this to be a flaw? What is wrong with differentiating the 2 types of characters in your party? "non-player characters, the latter similar in most respects to player characters except that the player will not have full control over them". Is that a flaw too? Kapitaenk (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

PCs are PCs, and NPCs are NPCs. Everybody knows that "player characters" in an RPG are fully customizable avatars of the player, usually with blank slate personalities (because they fully "belong" to the player), while "non-player characters" come with a preprogrammed personality and certain constraints (because they don't "belong" to the player). That's why the additional qualifications are redundant, and make it seem like the article is pointing out flaws where they don't exist, when all it really needs to do is say that there can be 4 player-generated PCs and 3 recruited NPCs with set personalities in the player's party. Melnorme1984 (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Kapitaenk is an alt of fuzi0n, the banned Wasteland 2 forums poster who initiated this controversy. All of his edits are suspect. Please reexamine them.

Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/SUL/Rejected/3

Fuzi0nx → Fuzi0n Current username: Fuzi0nx (talk · Special:Contributions/Fuzi0nx · logs · block log)

Target username: Fuzi0n (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

Datestamp: 06:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For bureaucrat use: SUL report (old • new) | Email target username (1) (2)

Fuzi0nx (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am de:User:Fuzi0n, de.wp is my home Wiki. I would like to take over this account: en:User:Fuzi0n in order to create a global account.

Clerk note: Moved from WP:CHU/U. ♠ 10:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk note: Now that you have two requests up, I am assuming it is this one you want due to the fact that the account name Kapitaenk does not exist, and your 88 edits on dewiki under this name. ♠ 11:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate request removed. ♠ 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not done, as you have apparently been renamed to Kapitaenk on dewiki. WJBscribe (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Melnorme1984 (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a transcript of Fuzi0n's final post on the forums, just to show you what we're dealing with here. These were copied by me before they were deleted by the moderators, but I can arrange for the originals to be recovered if you don't believe me.

Yeah, yeah. Brian Fargo never mentioned that your temmates will be mute (unlike in Fallout). Kind of obvious, he wanted to maximize the amount of pledges.

So that is it. Brian Fargo is a liar. “True Fallout fans will enjoy Wasteland 2” says Brian Fargo is also a lie.

Well, I know it is hopeless, seeing that "brother none", Brian Fargo's errand boy, says that it is done and nothing can be done to change it. I can hardly wait for the fans to go apeshit though, seeing that they have been lied to.

Thank god I still have shadowrun, etc. those guys aren't liars like Mr. Fargo.

I am gonna sell my licenses and game box when I receive it and that is about it. Maybe I will pirate the game and check it out eventually, but I am certainly not going to support a liar like Brian Fargo (any more).

It has been fun discussing the same shit over and over with the same 4 or 5 guys. I'll come back and write "fucking told you so" after the Fallout fans have gone ape shit. Have fun.

Melnorme1984 (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, enough of this drama. Whoever he is, he can still write like anyone else as long as he adheres to Wikipedia principles (neutrality, reliable sources, etc). --Niemti (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's why I'm not asking for him to be barred from this article or anything like that. See the above sections for my arguments with him. Does it sound right to you to describe something in a Wikipedia article in terms of what it ISN'T? Do you write an article about a black-haired man describing him as "non-blonde"? Do you write an article about a FIFA game describing the players as "devoid of motivations and opinions"? This guy has toned down his rhetoric but he's still grinding the same axe - "This game should have been like Fallout and I must inform the world that it isn't". Contrast this article with the one for Icewind Dale. I'll bet plenty of people were disappointed that game wasn't more like Baldur's Gate in terms of party interaction, but the article does NOT go into that, nor should it. It describes the game as it is. Melnorme1984 (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

"The Rangers will be highly customizable and the player's choice of statistics, skills and appearance will give the Rangers an individualized personality, but they will be devoid of personal motivations and opinions, and as such will only be driven by the choices that the player makes."

Italicized portion is non-NPOV and is just weasel words trying to skim under the radar. It's just a slightly less strong version of calling the PCs automations or "soulless stat sheets". 99.141.138.10 (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine. The PCs do not have personal opinions, the NPCs do. According to the linked reference this is also correct. 70.178.95.46 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The player character doesn't have opinions? I agree with the first message, just horrible, please remove the sentence. 86.50.44.38 (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed it, but it seems like one of the editors disagrees with me. Melnorme1984 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

And what's wrong with Fallout connection thing? I've never even played the original Wasteland, I'm editing the Wasteland series and related (developers etc) articles only because I'm a Fallout fan and I appreciate it because without Wasteland there would be no Fallout. --Niemti (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing. Wasteland 2 definitely has a connection with Fallout, but I wouldn't describe it as being a spiritual successor of Fallout. We should find a better way to describe the relationship. Or like I wrote above, simply remark on the fact that the original Wasteland was a spiritual ancestor of Fallout and let people draw their own conclusions. Melnorme1984 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)