Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Interplay Ex-CEO Brian Fargo Kickstarts Wasteland II

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the eyeballing-a-new-business-model dept.

Classic Games (Games) 122

New submitter 0111 1110 writes "Attempting to emulate Double Fine's success to fund another currently dead genre of computer game, Brian Fargo of Interplay fame has started a kickstarter project for a sequel to Wasteland, his1988 post-apocalyptic RPG which inspired Fallout. It will be turn-based and party-based, with a top-down perspective and 2D graphics. Fargo has managed to attract many of the original developers, such as Alan Pavlish and Mike Stackpole, as well as Jason Anderson, who was a designer for Fallout, and Mark Morgan, who did the music for Planescape: Torment and both of the original Fallout games. Fargo's goal has been set at $900,000. Anything above that will be used for additional game content. At $1.5 million he will offer an OS X version. An interview with Fargo by Rock, Paper, Shotgun provides some additional insight into what he and his group are planning, as does a video interview with Matt Barton."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


A dead genre? (4, Insightful)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 2 years ago | (#39344999)

Attempting to emulate Double Fine's success to fund another currently dead genre of computer game...

Considering Double Fine were only after $400,000 and they've already passed the $3,200,000 mark, I'd say point and click adventure games aren't dead in the eyes of their customers.

Re:A dead genre? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39345281)

The term currently dead is the key....it's like mostly dead, if it were completely dead you could only go through it's pockets for change but if it is currently dead then it implies it could be raised with a little help from a miracle worker of course.

Re:A dead genre? (3, Insightful)

Jerslan (1088525) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345437)

In terms of customer enjoyment and desire? Point & Click adventure games have never really been dead. In terms of Media Coverage and Industry Production? Yeah, it's been flopping on the ground gasping for air.

With one exception. Tell Tale Games has made some amazing Point & Click Adventure Games, re-launching the much loved Sam & Max and Monkey Island series. I have played all of their Sam & Max games and they are pretty excellent, even if they did start to focus too much on making them console accessible :P

Older games have been enjoying a comeback via Steam and mobile ports. I know the old Monkey Island games are available for iOS. Space Quest and King's Quest available on Steam, as well as the classic Indiana Jones: Fate of Atlantis. The classic Leisure Suit Larry games are out there on the nets somewhere (no clue if anyone is actually repackaging them for sale)... The new Leisure Suit Larry "reboot" games are just better off avoided at all costs. They're beyond awful and make the originals look incredibly classy, subtle, and tasteful (which says a lot IMHO).

The genre is enjoying a lot of renewed interest, but not enough (apparently) to justify major developers doing anything other than yet another clone of DDR, Guitar Hero, or Call of Duty. Maybe the Double Fine Kickstarter will wake the Industry and Media up. I haven't seen one word about either of these efforts on Wired.com and they tend to jump on these sorts of things in the way that a kitten jumps on a toy full of catnip.

Re:A dead genre? (2)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39349033)

What baffles me on Point & Click games is this: why the hell aren't there more of them on phones?

Any of the original turn-based games that don't require any realtime movement (Ogre Tactics, Fallout, Myst, SWAT 2, etc.) are PERFECT for the phone platform. Hell, add a zoom function and rebind the key controls and you're pretty damn set. I'd much rather play a Myst game than Bejeweled on a phone. Then, my only concern would be throwing my phone out the window instead of throwing my whole PC.

Re:A dead genre? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39349321)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Someone should build an embedded 386 computer that runs FreeDos, has a micro SD slot and a modestly sized VGA screen. Pair it with the original thumb keyboard from the first generation RIM pagers (which, coincidentally, used an embedded 386).

It would be perfect for the Chinese copy factories to churn out at $20/copy.

But until that day, yeah, whoever owns the rights to these old games is just being stupid by not "porting" them to Android via DOSBox.

Re:A dead genre? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39351301)

There is no point because modern devices can emulate a 386 satisfactorily. Use qemu, problem solved.

Re:A dead genre? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39352207)

It's not that, there isn't enough interest in adventure games, it's that they don't make as much money as CoD with as little effort. CoD's...."writing" isn't anywhere near the quality required for the adventure genre. $3M won't get these publishers to roll over, much less out of bed - But for an indie studio, it's the high-life.

I did a successful kickstarter (EE Posters), and I have nothing but praises. It's quite a tool for small businesses. Just beware of saturation.

Re:A dead genre? (1)

zarthrag (650912) | more than 2 years ago | (#39352481)

Didn't mean to AC there, wasn't logged in. (/me misses the old slashdot, without all the JS.)

Re:A dead genre? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39345803)

The genre is still alive but not widely covered, just see Sam & Max, the most recent Monkey Island and such, mostly done by Tell Tale.

Linux... (2)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345051)

Re:Linux... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39345069)

boo hoo, nobody wants to develop for my shitty OS, booo hoooo hoooo

Re:Linux... (1, Insightful)

devilspgd (652955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345217)

Less than 1% of the desktop market can't justify development for an entire alternate platform?

Re:Linux... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39345551)

Go http://www.humblebundle.com/ and see "total payments by platform", I see more than 1% for Linux.

Re:Linux... (3, Informative)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345843)

Going by the total payments chart, they should primarily develop for Windows first since it's nearly 3/4 of the payments. After Windows, they should develop for Mac since it's slightly more than half of the non-Windows payments. Linux, even though it's more than 1% of the total payments, should still be dead last in their list of priorities since the evidence given suggests that it will give the lowest return on an investment.

And that's pretty much what they announced, isn't it? Windows first, Mac of funding reaches X amount, "other platforms" if funding allows.

Re:Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39347015)

The real-time stats when a bundle is going show that the average money donated by Linux users usually doubles the average Mac and Windows donations.

Re:Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39347199)

So what? The overall amount of money from Linux is still overwhelmed by the other platforms. One tenth of the population paying twice as much doesn't really help.

Re:Linux... (3, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39348059)

God knows you would not want to develop a cross platform game from the get go and save on the porting fees to almost double you revenue over Windows... That's just crazy talk...

Also, I (and I am really not that special in this) will no longer spend money on a promise. When it has Linux support, I will consider spending money. If they say it might if we reach some goal we will not tell you about, nope... Seen that lie a few too many times.

Re:Linux... (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | more than 2 years ago | (#39351591)

I love the Humble Indie Bundles and buy all of them for Linux. But look at total Linux revenue, period from the humble bundles. A huge number of games wouldn't cover the expense of porting the game to Linux and supporting it for that kind of money - and of course the money listed there is gross revenue, not net.

When the Humble Bundles are consistently bringing in $5 million in Linux purchases, things might change. Until then, we're just dreaming.

Re:Linux... (2)

eldorel (828471) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345557)

Less than 1% of the desktop market can't justify development for an entire alternate platform?

Maybe not, but if you plan ahead and use platform agnostic development practices porting or running on other platforms is no where near as hard as it used to be.

1% of the market might not be enough to develop a completely separate version if you're using directx, but opengl based games can be ported with very little headache with a little bit of advanced planning.

Just look at the humble bundle packs success. Sure, access to 1% of the market is not worth it but virtually assured sales to 0.5% of the market is a substantial amount of profit.

At this point, the hardest part of selling to the linux crowd is letting them know the game is compatible, and I know for a fact that most of the developers I work with will purchase a game that is linux ready just to have something to do at work while waiting on a compile.

I personally check Peguspy [penguspy.com] for new game options of a regular basis.

Re:Linux... (1)

devilspgd (652955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345693)

Developing cross-platform is likely not as expensive/difficult as it once was in terms of gaming, this is true. However, there's more than development. The packaging (digital or the digital components of the physical, including the installer, patch management system, etc), QA and other resources don't scale and require significant investments for additional platforms.

More important is the fact that although a larger than average percentage of Linux users might be gamers (and I've never seen any stats either way, although I'd guess it's likely based on my own sample size), I'd hazard a guess that a majority of those gamers are ready, willing and able to play on another platform too if a game isn't available on their preferred platform. So whether it's Windows, OSX or a console that they use, if a significant percentage of Linux sales are stolen from another platform, what's the point?

Re:Linux... (0)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345629)

Less than 1% of the desktop market can't justify development for an entire alternate platform?


Re:Linux... (1)

devilspgd (652955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345729)


Re:Linux... (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39348079)


We can go on all night. And the OS companies feel that the phone/tablet/desktop market is converging. Just look at Gnome 3 Unity, Win 8, and the direction OSX is going.

Re:Linux... (1)

devilspgd (652955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39348169)

My point is that I was very specifically addressing only desktop installations. It's entirely possible that Android will have a presence in the desktop world in the future, but today, that's approximately 0% of existing desktop installs.

Re:Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39349731)

You are not very bright, are you?

You can already run applications like fallout 1(from which wildereness is taking its inspiration) from under dos box on mobile. You can already put full scale desktop distro like ubuntu on the phone.(ok, i know on arm most games won't work, though soe greatest ones will)

There soon will be no difference between PC and Desktop. At least not big enough to make any difference for lower tier games, that dont use power of multi video card shaders. Heck, discard that and you loose sales along the years down the road.(i bought month ago jagged aliance, becuase it just works in linux, while it was originally sold years if not decades ago only for windows)

Re:Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39349745)

Gotta have those "loose sales"

Re:Linux... (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345997)

If you use a cross-platform framework/language/engine, porting to a second platform can be under 1% of the cost. Some just make sure they use wine-compatible stuff, and package their game with a certain version of wine. There's almost-zero cost there.

Re:Linux... (1)

devilspgd (652955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39346487)

I touched on that in another reply. Development isn't as significant but performing QA, building installers, upgrade/patch management and similar doesn't scale at all and must be done from scratch on each platform so the ROI needs to be significant.

Worse, how many Linux gamers don't have access to another supported platform already? What good is it if you pull off 1% of your sales on Linux if 90% of those were a lost sale on another platform?

Re:Linux... (1)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39346091)

Less than 1% of the desktop market can't justify development for an entire alternate platform?

Except that the development was already paid, in full, and Linux support was a requested by many backers. What the investors demand will be taken into lot more consideration then some comments on an Internet forum. That is why this kickstarter project is different.

Also, Linux is more then 1% of the desktops but there is no point debating that with someone that still think this is 1995.

Re:Linux... (2)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 2 years ago | (#39346393)

Well, this article indicated it's less than 2%: http://gcn.com/Articles/2011/08/10/ECG-Windows-7-Top-Selling-OS-by-End-of-2011.aspx?Page=2 [gcn.com]

Nothing against Linux, I use it and have installed it on other's computers, but it's extremely niche for the desktop.

Also, listening to investor demand? There's no accountability to Kickstarter, you don't become a chairman of the board by donating $15.

Re:Linux... (2)

devilspgd (652955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39346507)

Even if it's up to 2% desktop use, my argument still stands.

At $DAYJOB we don't really look at OSX or Linux because, even combined, they're such a tiny portion of the SMB market that even if we did invest the time to develop cross-platform, it wouldn't pay for the ongoing QA and support. (Plus we're a .NET shop and our product works with, although doesn't require, Active Directory, so the effort would be non-trivial for a less than ideal result)

I'm not a huge Linux fan myself, but I have a few Linux boxes that serve vital roles (with a bit of a fondness for Arch for non-production stuff). Still, I can't see running it as a primary desktop for anyone but a fan of Linux or in an extremely locked down environment.

Re:Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39346755)

I use a couple of Linux desktops and for day-to-day use it's ok. However installing a new application or game nearly always requires time searching through forums for clues as to why something won't install or why some part doesn't work after installing. Forums which are often opinion-based instead of fact-based so you need really large grains of salt.

The problem is also magnified because each distro has its own packaging mechanisms (deb, rpm, even targz) and often store things in different places. As with all standards: LSB is great if everyone does it; FHS is great if everyone does it; in practice, people often use antiquated versions of the standards or ignore them completely.

Not that Windows is any better. Each version of Windows should be considered a distro because each version has its own way of doing things and moves things to different locations - program files, program data and user profiles in particular.

Re:Linux... (1)

devilspgd (652955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39347587)

With regards to Windows, I don't entirely disagree. However, there are APIs available that tell a developer/installer/whatever where the correct directories are located.

A properly written application designed in the last 90s for NT will manage to install in C:\Program Files\ (with or without the (x86) depending on whether the current OS needs it) automatically, and will find the %userprofile%\AppData\Roaming\ directory despite the fact that such a thing wasn't used at all in NT. No repackaging needed, although some user retraining is needed.

Re:Linux... (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39348115)

Still, I can't see running it as a primary desktop for anyone but a fan of Linux or in an extremely locked down environment.

My fiancée runs it, and she is finished her teaching degree, with a minor of social science. And she is no fan, or even techie... It just doesn't crash as much as windows did.

Also, all of the percentage numbers are going to be off. For example, I have 3 systems here that are counted as Windows sales, but only run Linux. I also have a few systems that report as Windows in the browser refer tags for badly written websites. The only real information is the Humble Indie Bundle where Linux is 20% - 25% of revenue...

Re:Linux... (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39350751)

With the way the world is trending, you may want to review some of those decisions.

Active Directory is where large organizations keep their user and site information, which is why Macs and Linux can talk to it too.
Increasing sales of non-Windows devices (Mac, iOS, Android, etc.) at the same time as the Windows market is shrinking show that people are not nearly as locked into Windows as the industry once thought.

The developers that put in place a strategy today that is platform-agnostic will be the winners 5 years from now. Someone could probably make the argument that Java was 10 years before it's time, in that regard.

Re:Linux... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39351325)

My lady uses Ubuntu now and I have to answer about 10% as many questions, and take over and fix something about 1/20 as often, as compared to when she was using the Windows XP that came with her Vostro 1500. The system runs quieter and cooler and seems faster.

I still use Windows in a virtual machine, but only to run games. All the productivity-type software I use now has a plausible alternative.

Linux is an ideal option for a primary desktop in any context because it is so much less likely to get owned, and indeed, so much less likely to commit seppuku if there's a power failure or something.

Re:Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39349625)

you are tard to say it.
First of all, Linux users are advanced users, most of em(though with ubuntu its changing for worse, which not necessary is a bad thing on its own). Not only they are advanced, but also much more proactive, younger(yet old enough to remember that sort of games), and more intelligent. So guess what, is John the plumber is gonna buy niche game? Shortly - no... Is jane the home wife gona do it? HELL NO! While yes, i understand that there are not that many inteligent and proactive people around, still those people DIRECTLY affect windows sales by words of mouth. In other words, if they advice game to windoze friends, indirectly they increase windows sales.

And Mac... I don't get why even bother port to this platform. Its either blondy/stylish fan boys(i cant even call them nerds no more, iphone is owned by everyone and their dog these days), do you really think there will be more sales on Mac over Linux? On this very specific type of game? i seriously doubt it. It's not some freaking world of warcraft.

now, you can troll me all you want...

Re:Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39349651)

Answering my own message:

And by the way, well done program is easy to port(untill proprietary interfaces are used, like directx or smth, which can be avoided by using opengl, and in order to make it run on Mac, IT WILL use opengl, nothing else will work so it will be nearly trivial port this game to other platforms)

And btw, for those windoze fan tards, windows is becoming history TODAY. ignore it, and you will be become istory too. Most platforms today ARE LINUX and Mac for that matter, how many readers in here are not users of Android or IOS?(i am not actually)

Will not support this.. (0)

yourlord (473099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345293)

without a commitment to support Linux at release. I don't run Windows, and hoping to use wine as a kludge isn't something I'm willing to pay for.

Re:Will not support this.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39345355)

And they won't even notice. Sorry, I wish that weren't the case and this isn't me trying to troll, it is simply an acknowledgement of market forces.

An extra 1% revenue at the expense of multiplying the platform support cost is simply not a business strategy.

Re:Will not support this.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39345585)

"1% of the desktop market" is irrelevant here. Even ignoring how much of that is accounted for by work computers, I have a very strong guess that there is a huge overlap between the type of person who will be running linux and the type who will be attracted by this game. For one, a major part of the PC gaming market is the "OMG guns and boobs and bling-mapping!" sector, and this game isn't exactly aimed toward those people.

Re:Will not support this.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39346007)

There's 1 linux user per ~45 windows users (using optimistic 2% desktop Linux marketshare).

Linux users have to love old-school RPGs 45 times stronger than Win users do to guarantee the Linux port success.

Really, the original statement "We'll do it if the funding shows people's interested" is only reasonable.

Re:Will not support this.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39346025)

Actually it is incredibly relevant. People who are interested in both subjects are going to be rabid on the subject. But the VAST majority won't ever have run Linux on a desktop. They may like the concept but that doesn't equate to them actively supporting it.

Re:Will not support this.. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39348135)

Why do people keep going with this 1% crap. Every Humble Indie Bundle released has had 20 times 1% in actual cash money. And that is what counts in business, right?

And you are right, that they would not notice if he was the only one. But I feel exactly the same way, and honestly we are not that special.

Re:Linux... (1)

zrbyte (1666979) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345463)

With Double Fine Adventure [kickstarter.com] you get

The finished game in all of its awesome glory DRM free on PC, Mac, and Linux, or via Steam for PC and Mac, exclusive access to the Beta on Steam...

if you donate 15 USD or more.

Re:Linux... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345769)

look on the bright side, if you buy in for $15 now you get a DRM-free copy (hopefully this means no steam, but I do have steam if needed to download it, and steam does run on Linux) which will probably work in wine and/or vmware player before long.

Re:Linux... (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39347377)

One of the considerations that you should have choosing Linux as a gamer, is that it's poorly supported as a gaming platform. That's the reality as it stands now, it may change eventually.

Matt Barton (3, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345067)

Anyone who's not familiar with Matt should definitely check out his podcast. He has a lot of great interviews with real elders of gaming. The names range from Scott Adams to John Romero. And he just lets them reminisce. If you're interested in the development of your favorite classic games, or the personal histories of game design greats, or way the game industry has changed over the past 30 years, you'll get some great perspectives from watching Matt Chat.

turn-based isometric RPGs, how I have missed you! (4, Insightful)

Ionized (170001) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345099)

it seems that in american games anyways, the true RPG has gone the way of the dodo, and all we get now are FPS-RPG hybrids. while fallout 3 was fine, it was no fallout 1 or 2. i LIKE turn based top down gameplay. It's relaxing, and i can see everything thats going on easily.

i am VERY interested in seeing where this goes.

Re:turn-based isometric RPGs, how I have missed yo (4, Insightful)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345349)

Hear hear!!

I miss good ol' fashioned turn-based role-playing games, like the old SSI ADnD-based games (Pools of Twilight, Pools of Radiance, etc).

"RPGs" nowadays are more hack'n slash, mouse-button mashfests than anything else (WoW, Diablo, Icewind Dale, etc).

I don't want to play a twitch-reaction game. I want to control a party of characters and take my time thinking about how to use their various skills together against large groups of enemies. I want turn-based action.

If I wanted a FPS (which I don't, can't stand them), I'd buy one. But I want an RPG. When was the last time you played a paper-n-pencil RPG where it was "whoever can roll the fastest gets to attach"? It's all turn-based.

Bring back the turn-based RPGs!!

Re:turn-based isometric RPGs, how I have missed yo (2)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 2 years ago | (#39350859)

Not arguing with your point but you have a pretty liberal definition of 'nowadays'.
Icewind Dale was released twelve years ago, as was the last iteration of Diablo (not that I'm claiming the new one would be much different).

Re:turn-based isometric RPGs, how I have missed yo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39350865)

WoW, Diablo, Icewind Dale
Er, what? Icewind Dale has the same gameplay as Baldurs' Gate, i.e. you issue orders while paused then let time run until either it auto-pauses at the next event of interest or you auto-pause it. Which isn't really much different from a turn-based game.

Re:turn-based isometric RPGs, how I have missed yo (4, Insightful)

Zaelath (2588189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345409)

I miss the writing from Fallout 2, the presentation was secondary for me, though I did like turn based combat over twitch/Diablo mashing. That said, when I hear "Interplay" I hear Python's "Run away! Run away!" line. They run projects like everyone at the top has the programming skill of Jobs, the design asthetic of Gates and the management style of a helicopter parent.

Re:turn-based isometric RPGs, how I have missed yo (4, Interesting)

UpnAtom (551727) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345507)

Better than isometric is the upcoming XCOM from Firaxis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uHHmTSDCvA [youtube.com]

You might also be interested in my short post on Temple of Elemental Evil the other day:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2719507&cid=39323731 [slashdot.org]

Re:turn-based isometric RPGs, how I have missed yo (1)

Ionized (170001) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345731)

I had no idea they were remaking xcom, holy crap. i am giddy with excitement. now i just need someone to make another game like planescape:torment and the triumvirate will be complete...

Re:turn-based isometric RPGs, how I have missed yo (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 2 years ago | (#39347695)

What's left of Team Torment is thinking about it [obsidian.net]. Chris Avellone, the mastermind behind PS:T, would like to make it [obsidian.net]. You might want to let him know yourself how you feel. I would guess that the success or failure of Brian Fargo's attempt will affect their decision on whether or not to do their own kickstart funded sequel-in-spirit to Planescape: Torment.

Re:turn-based isometric RPGs, how I have missed yo (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39349495)

Don't get too giddy. They're limiting max deployment size to six members. No more mowing down a destructible level with fourteen squaddies armed with laser pistols and rocket launchers (nothing better than shooting blindly into the dark and hearing a Sectoid death groan). And one base. I'm okay with the time unit change, and the cinematics, but 4-6 squaddies and no robot tanks? If I down an alien craft in America, and my one base is in Turkey, I have to let the enemy craft go due to time constraints? If I lose my one base, it's game over? It's X-Com for preschoolers.

Re:turn-based isometric RPGs, how I have missed yo (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#39350739)

2k Games (Borderlands, Bioshock) + Firaxis (Civ). I really, really cannot wait. I love the idea of the 'glam cam', I think it will blend the lines between action FPS and tactical turn based. The youtube vid looks so slick. If they keep a lot of the research, manufacture and soldier development in, and add in more tactical (like their example of different types of cover) options, I'll be buying this game on day 1, not waiting for sales, or second hand copy.

This is one of those games that is so rare, in that it's build upon a great game system, and not a movie franchise, voice acting or eye-porn graphics. That's why I love Borderlands and Bioshock so much, along with Civ.

Re:turn-based isometric RPGs, how I have missed yo (1)

thesandtiger (819476) | more than 2 years ago | (#39346001)

It seems like they're keeping the gameplay and just adding some shiny graphical elements... ... which is totally fucking awesome!

My laundry list for a remake would also include multiplayer (2 squads going after aliens or one player is the aliens one is the human, or x number of players where each player controls one soldier and one is the base commander) oh god I want this game now please.

No kidding I love turn based tactical games (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39346531)

I went in for $50 on this because I bet I'd enjoy the hell out of it.

For those wondering how the funding works it is all through Amazon.com. You authorize a payment in a given amount and Amazon will tell you the valid dates. If the funding goal is reached, Kickstarter tells Amazon to collect the payments, and they charge you account. If not, no charge is made. So no worries about CC fraud or any of that, Amazon is handling the payment auth.

Only real risk would be that the developers would never deliver the final product. However given that the people on the project are people with many games to their name (Fargo has like 30 games he's delivered on), real good chance they deliver as promised.

Re:turn-based isometric RPGs, how I have missed yo (1)

jjp9999 (2180664) | more than 2 years ago | (#39348997)

You said it. I miss the old styles of games in general - more complex, more challenging, and really imaginative. It's really interesting what's happening with indie games now, since the market is letting people do well by going back to these roots.

Re:turn-based isometric RPGs, how I have missed yo (1)

mdragan (1166333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39350475)

It seems strange to criticize FPS-RPGs, as being "not true RPGs" since from the ancient history of RPG lots of the successful ones have been FPS: Bard's Tale series, Dungeon Master and Chaos Strikes Back, Wizardry series, Might&Magic series, Black Crypt, Eye of the Beholder series, etc. True, they only had a pseudo 3D, reduced degrees of freedom, but those were the technical constraints of the time. I always liked the top down RPGs, like the Ultima series, but Fallout 1 and 2 do not fall under that category, they are isometric, and in isometric games there is always the problem of a number of planes that are not visible. All in all, these are technical details that a good game can overcome through different means, but it seems ridiculous that people are complaining today about the technology they used to dream of having in RPGs ten or twenty years ago.
Fallout 3 is a good RPG game, very enjoyable, and keeping incredible amounts of the "feel", "atmosphere", and game mechanics of Fallout 1 and 2 (maybe you forget that like Fallout 3, Fallout 1 and 2 were real time not turn based, except for the battles), especially when you consider that the team that made it was not exactly the original team.

Established genre's are a hard sell (5, Insightful)

LordZardoz (155141) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345155)

There is a reason that Starcraft 2 took about 12 years to show up.

Any given game (and this probably applies to movies and to TV to some extent) will have an initial title that proves the concept as being worth pursuing, followed by a title that effectively represents the pinnacle of the genre. For 3d Shooters you had Wolfenstien which led to Doom. For MMO's you initially had Ultima online, which gave way to Everquest, and in turn gave way to World of Warcraft. And for RTS games you had Dune which led to Warcraft 2 which led to Starcraft.

Once you have that definitive product, competitors start to back off, realizing that they have no chance to dethrone the reigning king of the genre. The expectations of the fans keep escalating, and since you can never please everyone, you have fans of the genre start to splinter off, or perhaps just get bored. Since sales fall off, the resources for sequels fall off, and that basically buries the genre.

The endgame is that the creators of the 'pinnacle' product eventually stop making new iterations, and that the competitors have usually abandoned that pursuit some time before that point. Eventually no one is making new games in that genre. Metaphorically, the challengers stopped playing the game when it was too difficult to win at it, and the champion stopped only because the rewards for victory were no longer enough to justify the effort.

But the market for that genre still exists, and after about 10 years, a new generation is available to exploit. If the original concept was strong enough, the fans are probably hungry enough that a new iteration should be successful.


Re:Established genre's are a hard sell (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345251)

If Fargo is successful in raising the money I think this really points to the fact the publishers may not know what they are doing as well as they think they do. A huge market they are not servicing and appear to have no visibility to? Not good business.

Re:Established genre's are a hard sell (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345283)

But the market for that genre still exists, and after about 10 years, a new generation is available to exploit. If the original concept was strong enough, the fans are probably hungry enough that a new iteration should be successful

I think this is what Kickstarter is showing it excels at. When the public is ready, the project will succeed, and that readiness will be demonstrated by the strength of cash on hand rather than the begging and ranting of some crazy fan.

Re:Established genre's are a hard sell (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345903)

I disagree with your overall assessment. In fact, I find most of these 'pinnacles' to be less interesting than the originals. Originality and a new take on things trumps everything in my book.

Re:Established genre's are a hard sell (2)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39346041)

"There is a reason that Starcraft 2 took about 12 years to show up."

The reason it took 12 years for SC2 to show up was world of warcraft was a success even blizzard didn't predict. They predicted they'd get something like 400,000 consistent subs, and it shot up into millions. Warcraft is what put Starcraft and diablo sequels on the backburner, it wasn't because other game companies couldn't compete in the space. We had Company of heroes, dawn of war and supreme commander. All valiant attempts in the RTS genre.

Re:Established genre's are a hard sell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39346167)

Heh, screw UO, try Neverwinter Nights on AOL

Re:Established genre's are a hard sell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39346473)

Once you have that definitive product, competitors start to back off, realizing that they have no chance to dethrone the reigning king of the genre. The expectations of the fans keep escalating, and since you can never please everyone, you have fans of the genre start to splinter off, or perhaps just get bored. Since sales fall off, the resources for sequels fall off, and that basically buries the genre.

So you're telling me that after Doom came out, people gradually stopped making first person shooters? Wow, wish I could find a list of FPS games [wikipedia.org] to see when the genre finally died...

Re:Established genre's are a hard sell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39346489)

Posting as AC because I moderated. A hard sell? Damn near everything that come out these days is another first-person shooter or a hybrid of it. I hate the fucking things. They're a hard sell to me, but other gamers can't seem to get enough of them.

I don't think your judgement is accurate (3, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39346651)

For one, I'd say that this concept of the second game being the "pinnacle" is very flawed. The best example is MMOs. Ultima wasn't the first MMO, nor was EQ the pinnacle. If anything is to be called the pinnacle it would be WoW. Also it isn't like all genres die out either. Turn based strategy games are still going strong. Heard of Civilization 5? AAA title, released last year. How about Total War: Shogun 2. It is not nearly as large a genre as shooters, but it isn't dead by a long shot, and isn't even a "just indie" market.

For that matter sometimes things will have a pinnacle, and then another later. Many TBS fans said Civ 2 was the pinnacle. They didn't care for Civ 3 as much, nor many other games that came after Civ 2. Then Civ 4 hit and man. Best. Civ. EVAR. Another pinnacle, better than the last. It isn't as though things peak and then are on a death spiral after that.

Some genres die out, but often that is just due to the companies that are involved in them sucking. Many companies will have run off to some new things ignoring it. The companies that stay and try for the niche do a shit job, release games nobody likes, and that leads to a feedback cycle where nobody wants to back the projects because they perceive them as making no money.

In terms of this game, I think it has quite a good chance at success. People have shown a love for old school type RPGs, and for TBT games (Frozen Synapse did quite well, indy TBT title all combat). The people behind it are people who know what they are doing, they are people with real successful games to their credit.

Also Starcraft 2 took so long because:

1) Blizzard is really slow at development, for a number of reasons.

2) They got even slower because of WoW, which was all consuming with them for awhile.

There have been a bunch of RTS games since Starcraft 2, many of which have done real well.

Re:I don't think your judgement is accurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39352249)

I'd be interested in hearing about some of those other RTS games...I usually just find myself replaying my old copies of C&C games and Starcraft for the umpteenth time. Tried the Dawn of War stuff on Steam, they just got progressively worse. And lets not even mention Red Alert 3, C&C Generals, and C&C4. Or Supreme Commander 2. Steaming piles of crap heaped on the legacy of better games (IMHO). If there are games outside of that list I'd love to try them. I like replaying my old games, but sometimes you need a challenge, something new...that doesn't suck horribly.

Yeah, WASTELAND!!! (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345379)

I've played Wasteland through probably half a dozen times, and I will continue to every few years when the urge strikes. It was one of the best RPG's of it's time, with a really great story. If this sequel happens, it's definitely worth playing if you like this sort of thing.

Re:Yeah, WASTELAND!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39345433)

Its gotta have deep fried hobo finger snacks and bottles of snake squeezins to be true to form.

Re:Yeah, WASTELAND!!! (1)

llamalad (12917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39346191)


This is outstanding news.

I'm so delighted with this, in fact that the first thing I did (after buying in at kickstarter) is dust off my slashdot login so I could post saying that. ^

Re:Yeah, WASTELAND!!! (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39350773)

Wasteland II has been an idea kicking around for 20 years in one form or another. For a long time, most people thought that Fallout was to be the successor.

Guess that isn't the case now.

Here's to carving up robots with your proton ax!

Re:Yeah, WASTELAND!!! (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 2 years ago | (#39350867)

I posted news of this kickstarter campaign to Facebook and my *sister* replied, "We played the **** out of Wasteland!"

Wasteland has the distinction of being the one game from my childhood that was too hard to beat, AND that I came back years later to finally beat it when I had the skills. I can't think of another game that I came back to beat later. It's definitely in my top 5, if not top 2 games from childhood.

I can't freaking wait. :D

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39345431)

are a pathetic All know we want. others what to session and join in centralized there are only with any sort the last night of From a technical FreeBSD at about 80 has brought upon to stick something My efforts were us the courtesy I read the l4test juggernaut either *BSD is dying It is comprehensive very sick and its Supplies to private is dying and its all know we want. All major surveys The most vibrant

No Linux support? (1, Flamebait)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#39345789)

Their willingness to support Linux (and Tim Shafer's offbeat and silly style) is one of the reasons I became a backer of the Double Fine Adventure. Linux support makes me about 10 times more likely to spend money on a game, and I haven't bought a PC-only game in about 6 years because I don't run Windows. Seriously. Now this guy comes in, wants more money, and only grudgingly offers the possibility of an OS X port if they get enough money.

Nope, sorry.

Re:No Linux support? (1, Informative)

yodleboy (982200) | more than 2 years ago | (#39346359)

Run a VM or dual boot already. The cost of a copy of Windows is far less than any game console and you get to run the hundreds of Windows only games out there natively. Having Windows in a VM doesn't obligate you to use it for everything. Supporting linux is admirable, but who's the loser with this linux or nothing attitude? Not the game publishers. Sending a message only works when there are enough people to be heard.

Re:No Linux support? (1, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39348225)

I think you miss the point. I (and three others so far in this thread) will not do this. There is only so much I will pay for a game. Part of that is cash, and part of that is bullshit. Installing a VM or a dual boot of Windows just to play a game that will probably only hold my interest for a month, if that, is way to high on the bullshit scale. Admittedly, fighting PulseAudio problems is on the bullshit scale as well, but much lower than dealing with Windows. I will just stick to Linux games... Believe it or not, there are companies that recognise the market here.

Re:No Linux support? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39351345)

It's way way easier to install Windows in a virtual machine (free vmware player) than it is to get a lot of Linux games to work. About a third of what I've got in humble bundles doesn't run on Ubuntu, which is the most popular distribution there is! I just get an error. Haven't gone back to check on updates, because I have so many games to play anyway... usually on Windows.

Re:No Linux support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39350097)

I already have to maintain a Windows VM on the work laptop... I just can't be arsed to do that on my own machine as well.

I've got the money to buy games, but I'm not willing to jump through hoops. That does not make me a "loser" and does not mean that I even want to "send a message", it just means I'd rather do something else that's fun instead of maintaining an OS just to play this particular game.

Wasn't there already a sequel? (2)

Kylon99 (2430624) | more than 2 years ago | (#39346159)

It was called Fountain of Dreams. I remember playing it and found that the quality was much lower than Wasteland, but I was glad to have any sequel to begin with. My memory is not as clear as back then, but was that the one where you played a bunch of rangers and could mutate as you wandered the wasteland?

(Wasteland was followed in 1990 by a less-successful intended sequel, Fountain of Dreams, set in post-war Florida. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasteland_(video_game)#Legacy [wikipedia.org] )

Not saying that I wouldn't appreciate another sequel if it was done well... *cough*

Re:Wasn't there already a sequel? (3, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39346589)

From the Wiki page: "It was originally intended as a follow-up to Wasteland, but neither Interplay nor any of the creative team that created Wasteland worked on it".

In other words, no, it wasn't.

It's a niche, but it's a niche no one occupies now (3, Interesting)

finlandia1869 (1001985) | more than 2 years ago | (#39346263)

Look at Civ or Galactic Civilizations. Those non-FPS/RTS games were turn-based and required thought and planning. Old RPGs are the same way. People like me who grew up with Wasteland and its contemporaries miss the engagement and cleverness. I'm not interested in a fast twitch game and am willing to pay for a game that makes me think and spend time to beat. It's merely a bonus that it's a sequel to one of the all time greats that we're talking about. I'm contributing tonight and then I'm going to fire up my old copy of Wasteland and go see how little firepower I can beat Guardian Citadel with this time. Exploded blood sausage ftw!

Re:It's a niche, but it's a niche no one occupies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39350969)

Wasteland, though fun, was not really the best game. It took a while to figure out how to leave the starting area. It had a large map that you would spend time wandering around fairly aimlessly. Along the way you would find clues as to what you should do, but it was not something that could form a coherent story. Mostly it was level up characters to handle the next more powerful area that you can find.
PS: "thin red paste" FTW!

Starflight! (2)

jtnix (173853) | more than 2 years ago | (#39347071)

Would much rather have seen a sequel to Starflight!

And with none of this 2D grassroots bs, either. But I would settle for Oolite grade 3D space travel as long as it has decent storyline and atmospheric reentry sequences with super-fine planetary exploration missions.

I lost way more than 40hrs to both Starflight and the sequel each.

Why not open source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39348271)

Make it open source. Use cross-platform tools and libraries. Then you can sell the other game assets (art, music, scripts). If the game is any good, people will assist with the port to other OSes and will probably even fix a lot of bugs for you. Then for Wasteland 3 all you will have to do is create new art assets.

the return of turn based gaming! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39348293)

I have been developing a turn based strategy RPG for the last few months using C# and XNA 4. I am making good progress and I certainly enjoy seeing that people still want this type of game. I developed MUD(s) for a decade and just recently turned my attention to graphical based games and been having a blast developing it. It gives me hope that people will play and enjoy what I create.

Sugestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39348551)

Hey Brian, how about re-releasing the original c64 version free without the copy protection (i.e. in a d81 image file), so gamers old and young can play it on an emulator. It would be great press and make people interested in the project.

What's being started? (1)

jjp9999 (2180664) | more than 2 years ago | (#39349019)

I'm interested to see where this will all lead. The market just made a huge statement that we still want adventure games, and it's now showing that we want isometric, turn-based RPGs. Hopefully this will lead to widespread awesomeness.

Awesome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39349543)

This was mentioned just a few days ago right here on slashdot I believe, in the classic RPG games article. I first learned of Wasteland there and will definitely pitch in on this.

OT: What's this game that I thought was Wasteland? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39351411)

Back in the early 80's (probably 82-83), there was some sort of future science fiction game for the Apple ][ that I remember as being Wasteland. Looking at videos, definitely not the case. It was set in some sort of large mega-city. Graphics based, higher-resolution(?) than Wasteland, and I remember having to avoid robots and solve puzzles. I swear it was an RPG, though single-character. Anybody have any ideas? It was probably

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account