InXile Entertainment - Fargo on Wasteland 2

There's only a limit to how long someone will stay inspired and focused on doing what they love, sooner or later they will want to make money instead.

Yeah, I know how that goes. For anyone who is creative by nature it's a choice between being happy but broke or being unhappy but comfortable. I made the latter choice once, and regretted it. But it didn't have to be that way at the early PC game companies. The companies were being run by people who'd experienced enormous financial success when they first started out. Things could have been different.

C'mon, what's the matter with you guys?

Brian Fargo is my #1 hero from the old days. He was the guy that I really adored when playing BT3 which was a better game than the games by original designer Cranford.

He was pushed out of Interplay by some french fool and went into exile. He is the one that saved 2 important licences from EA (did Garriott? No!).

Was Bard's Tale good? No! But it was the game he could get out of the door. Cheap engine (snowblind) and a concept that could be sold to a publisher.

Wasteland 2 won't be anything like this.

Originally Posted by CraigCWB
This is the game that could have shown the way forward:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentine…:_Future_Magic

Why do you think Sentinel Worlds could've shown the way forward? Could you please elaborate on that? To me, it's a pretty good game, exploration- and writing-wise, and it doesn't hold your hand, which is good, but the combat system is downright horrible, and as a whole the game doesn't seem revolutionary in any way to me.

Originally Posted by vurt
There's only a limit to how long someone will stay inspired and focused on doing what they love, sooner or later they will want to make money instead.

This isn't actually true anymore. Witness: Minecraft, Dungeons of Dredmor and countless other indie titles.

Yes, you can do what you love and make a sh*tpile of money too, and those slobs didn't have the pedigree Fargo has upfront. It is concerning that he didn't explicitly say "turn-based", but it's a wee bit early to dismiss it out of hand. If he at some point does go *cough* turn-based *cough*, I'll be sold.

Originally Posted by vurt
There's only a limit to how long someone will stay inspired and focused on doing what they love, sooner or later they will want to make money instead. But it doesnt mean they'd never again would want to turn back to their original visions, if they've been given the opportunity.

I'm not sure it quite works like that.

It's natural, after having had success - and having proven one's worth - that you'll get complacent and start cutting down on your personal investment. This is something we've seen many, many times in the entertainment industry.

However, I think it's more about not wanting to struggle against the system and the desire to keep your job.

In the modern gaming industry - you either accept the desires of the publisher, or you don't get funding.

I doubt that means you suddenly stop wanting to create art. However, I do think that most developers "adapt" and try to tell themselves they're still contributing to great games. It's easy to do, because in the modern world - monetary success = success.

Originally Posted by screeg
This isn't actually true anymore. Witness: Minecraft, Dungeons of Dredmor and countless other indie titles.

Yeah i did mention Minecraft. There's a lot of game devs that used to do great and fairly successful games though, so this isnt anything new.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I doubt that means you suddenly stop wanting to create art. However, I do think that most developers "adapt" and try to tell themselves they're still contributing to great games. It's easy to do, because in the modern world - monetary success = success.

Very true.. But i think artists, no matter the medium, after a while often yearn to go back to their roots, feeling successful isnt everything.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
In the modern gaming industry - you either accept the desires of the publisher, or you don't get funding.

If you're actually making sense, I can't see it. Exactly which publisher does Notch bow down to when making decisions about Minecraft? What part of $2million from Kickstarter to make whatever kind of game you want involves getting permission from a publisher?

In my opinion, the publisher-free business model is the future of computer games.

All this talk of Minecraft… I kind of lost a lot of respect for Notch when he pushed his release version of Minecraft out the door last November, chock full of bugs… and then wiped his hands clean of the game by handing over the reins to Jeb. While I can empathize in being tired of a project, it was very flippant and unprofessional - at least iron out the bugs before you jettison yourself from the game.

I've never played Wasteland, so I'd need some serious convincing to donate any money towards Wasteland 2. Party based RTwP is my preferred old school RPG type, so would be a good place to start.

Originally Posted by screeg
In my opinion, the publisher-free business model is the future of computer games.

It's a part of the future but certainly not all of it - and probably not more than a small corner.

Notch isn't going to be replicated very often and Schafer's success is built on his existing fame - much of it built with publishers - and the novelty. No unknown team will ever get such support, no matter how skilled they are or how creative their vision.

How many RPGs fit into these models? Mount & Blade never went viral despite being one of the pioneers of this pre-paid Alpha access long before Notch…Spiderweb didn't, Basilisk didn't.

I think indies are an important part of the picture and Kickstarter has a place - I think Obsidian has enough fan-power to really get something out of it, for example, but the idea that this is the future is crazy in my opinion.