Brian Fargo Turning To Kickstarter For Wasteland 2

Would this have been better with a giant '2' crudely imposed in place of the 's'?
At this rate, everybody will soon see their favourite developer starting some kicks or kicking some starters. Brian Fargo, creator of Wasteland, the game that launched a thousand Fallouts, has espied the queue of well-regarded figures approaching their adoring audience cap in hand and is now seeking a cap of his own. It’ll be a comically large bit of headwear as he wants to cram at least a million dollars into it, which is the estimated cost of funding a Wasteland sequel. The game would be a PC release, with, according to the man’s own Twittertalk, a “complete old school vibe and made with input from gamers. Made the gamers way.” The gamers way often involves eating Wotsits until dawn but perhaps there are other ways and other gamers?

Eurogamer reckon that the million dollar Kickstarter campaign is set to begin next month and Fargo is certainly keen: “You will find a happy game designer if this method of game financing works out.” Judging by the number of veterans now considering the route, aware of audience demand and willingness to trust in a name and pedigree, we could have a lot of happy game designers on our hands. Hopefully that will create lots of happy gamers. I’m going to start moisturising these calloused appendages in anticipation of carting around so many joyous folk.

As for me, I’m hoping a Kickstarter for a sequel to Wolf (and I’m discounting Lion and WolfQuest) is just around the corner.


  1. Soulstrider says:

    I can just imagine a thousand kids calling this game a shameless copy of Fallout

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      I can’t – it’s not likely kids would even know Fallout as anything but an FPS.

    • AndrewC says:

      I’ll admit i’ve never heard of Wasteland.

    • rokahef says:

      you’re missing out! It was genre-defining.

      I still play it from time to time.

    • Khemm says:

      Those kids never knew Fallout existed before CoD:Fallout edition came along, so…

    • MadTinkerer says:

      So they’re changing the name to “Wasteland” for the Rage sequel, huh?

      Any day now Richard Garriot will announce his Skyrim ripoff, “Ultima X”.

    • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

      Can I join in on this circle-jerk where we mock people whose tastes are different to ours?

      Hah, all those people who like derivative indie music with pretensions of uniqueness wouldn’t know hard-bop from modal!

    • Grygus says:

      Pretty sure we’re mocking people ignorant of gaming history but willing to make assertions to the contrary, which has nothing to do with taste.

    • Mad Hamish says:

      @Tyrone Slothrop

      Oh please don’t bring this “circle jerk” nonsense to RPS. So a bunch of people agree on something and make jokes about it. Now it’s a circle jerk? Everythings a fuckin circle jerk these days apparently.

    • InternetBatman says:

      What’s wrong with circle jerks? It’s a good way to meet people and everyone leaves happy.

      And they’re mocking ignorance, not taste. Like the people who consistently call Warhammer 40k a Starcraft ripoff.

    • Kadayi says:


    • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

      Please, I read RPS comments and don’t try to tell me there isn’t a running theme of various prejudiced assumptions, derision and general snobbery about everything from multiplatform games to modern shooters.

      ‘We were criticising ignorance not taste.’

      With references to to the aforementioned games many are hostile towards and which happen to be congruent to a broader atmosphere of bizarre elitism. I wouldn’t have made my comment if, as a long-time reader, it was out of the ordinary. Even the good-faith interpretation is a group of commentators on the internet criticising the hypothetical misconceptions of children.

      So we’re laughing at children or perhaps those who take only a passing or casual interest the medium, or persons that don’t play arguable dated games before they were born? Imagine if you remarked on an art installation using an earnest attempt to fit it into your knowledge of art history and sculpture and someone laughed ‘He doesn’t even acknowledge the inspiration of Giacometti’s use of negative space!’

      You’d rightly think he was an asshole.

      • HothMonster says:

        “Please, I read internet comments and don’t try to tell me there isn’t a running theme of various prejudiced assumptions, derision and general snobbery about everything from multiplatform games to modern shooters.”


    • misterT0AST says:

      I think that people who know of Giacometti’s use of negative space are allowed to make fun of people who believe someone else had that idea.

    • Lars Westergren says:

      >You’d rightly think he was an asshole.

      Perhaps. Or perhaps I’d think this person is someone who knows more than me about a topic, and is worth listening to. It has happened.

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      Dude sometimes it is fun to be a bit snobby and laugh. I like it so much a long argument about why it’s bad to laugh at people with tastes that differ from mine really just makes me laugh more.

    • sephiroth says:

      My introduction to Mr Fargo was with fallout and I never got round to going back to wasteland so I think I might have to give me a few pennys to get this kicked as it would be nice to see what I missed out on but newer. might even stretch to pounds if not to many other interesting projects spring forth this so far is a leader for mass kicking from me anyway.

      I expect a great many idiots I mean younglings to be up in arms about a non cody fallout rip off but they are all stupid so I wont listen I tell you

    • InternetBatman says:

      I don’t see how you can rightfully complain about snobbery and derision and then turn circlejerk into an invective with the same snobbery and derision. Sometimes you just get lonely and bored in a department store basement with five or ten like-minded fellows. It’s hypocritical and I won’t stand for it.

      Also, on a somewhat related note, the ignorant, whether young or old, need to be berated when they call something a ripoff or a copy. It’ll teach them to at least look something up on wikipedia and learn just a bit of information before judging something. Or on other terms, think before they make a bold, unsubstantiated value judgement. Either that or they’ll learn to keep their ignorant mouths closed on subjects that they know absolutely nothing about, like circlejerks.

    • The Magic says:

      all this sounds like mocking young people for being too young.
      My cousin didn’t know about the lion king, but i dont berate her for it

    • Mad Hamish says:

      Mr Lars Westergren has got it. When someone knows more than you maybe you listen and learn, instead of accusing them of snobbery and elitism, followed by ” well that’s just like your opinion man”

      There really needs to be a backlash against this post modern idea that everyone’s opinion is equal. Some people know more shit than you, deal with it.

    • Raiyan 1.0 says:

      Hey, maybe new gamers would be willing to learn something from you if your tone wan’t that of a condescending asshole.

    • Suits says:

      So no Shafer?

    • El_Emmental says:

      New gamers willing to learn won’t care about the jokes made about their assumed ignorance.

      If you can’t stand the slight humiliation of “lol noob” thrown at you the first few posts/moments/days in a new community… You’ll never survive your own -much stronger- humiliation, when you’ll tell to yourself “you’re such a noob and a fool, look at what you’ve done !” upon realizing your errors.

      If there’s no negative feedback to your errors, if there is no emotional risk of being wrong about your assumptions, you’ll never challenge them, you will never accept you are wrong.

      The “lol kids/noobs are stupid” is sorting out the “HUR MY EGO IS HURT, THIS IS OUTRAGING” and “gosh these guys are stupid, what do they know better than I ? let’s find out for curiosity’s sake, I might show them how wrong they are, how I learned more than them through my researches [aka “doing your homework”]”.

      This is why and where trolling was born : you trick people into thinking what you are saying is actually what you personally believe and hold as true, falsely challenging other people’s assumptions. It’s a cynical approach to the learning mentality predominating the early years of Internet.

      If you can’t make your way through the e-swamp of trolls and contempt, you’re going to have a hard time living in a society with more 100 people, be it online or offline.

    • PleasingFungus says:


      “Hooray, hazing! Just what the gaming community needs!”

    • Raiyan 1.0 says:

      Oh for fuck’s sake, we’re now supposed to champion trolling? Are you trolling me? Is this some meta joke I’m missing?

      I guess you enjoy Wizardry’s attitude towards everything.

    • Kaira- says:

      I think it’s time for this again. Seriously, can’t we all just get along? Wouldn’t it be nice to be nice to each other for a change?

    • jrodman says:

      It’s cool, even just, to mock loud ignorance.

      Of course, to do so in straw man form is just a snarky diversion.

      One I enjoy, personally.

    • Geen says:

      Unlikely they even know there wasn’t a non-FPS Fallout.

    • MadTinkerer says:

      Please: Tyrone, Raiyan, PleasingFungus, you need to realize the difference between the difference between cruelly humiliating someone specifically and harmlessly poking fun at no one in particular. As well as the difference between mocking a general ignorant attitude that is a symptom of thinking history is not worth learning about, and mocking people who haven’t yet learned what they want to learn. Lars, InternetBatman, Mad Hamish, and El have got it right.

      Want a real example? How about that interview where Jeff Vogel says he gets emails thanking him for inventing the turn-based RPG. I’m not out to mock those guys personally, but I’m not going to apologize for being amused by the anecdote.

      Or maybe next time someone wants to give Zynga an award for innovation we should just let it happen with no comment.

  2. caddyB says:

    Oh, not that I’m complaining about some of my favorite people doing things I want them to do, but I can see this going the way of indie bundles.

    • Revisor says:

      Well and why not?

      I welcome this new trend with open arms. Easier funding for publishers, distributed financing risk, games catering to “niche” (not niche anymore, now that aggregated) tastes and tighter relationships between the developers and the gamers.

      Of course these events will come:

      – The fan funding will be saturated and not new anymore
      – Some will feel annoyed by how many prefunding requests there are
      – Some projects will flop (not different from the big publisher model)
      – Some people will try to get to the easy money, burn their reputation and make the gamers more aware of the risk they carry by prefunding a game

      On the other hand:
      – It will bring some great games
      – It will revive some old titles

      All in all this is a positive trend.

    • Mad Hamish says:

      Going the way of indie bundles eh? What, you mean a success?

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      YES PLEASE! This might even be better than the Obsidian old-school RPG. I can only hope it goes the way of indie bundles! And for that price would be awesome.

    • lurkalisk says:

      I’ve all-of-a-sudden become VERY excited at the prospect of kickstarting(?) going the way of indie bundles. This Wasteland 2 business is the best news I’ve gotten about anything ever. Kind of.

      Joy for all!

    • Shuck says:

      There are a significant number of “unknowns” using Kickstarter to find funds for their projects; what’s new is that known-name developers are realizing they can get orders of magnitude more money that way. What I’m fearing is the shit-storm that will occur when a significant amount of money gets gathered for a game that never gets released. Many games that start development don’t make it to release. Given the hazards of development, it could easily happen with a larger and more ambitious game. Also, the publisher-developer dynamic has lead to developers consistently underestimating the time/money needed for development; it’s a hard habit to break. I also rather suspect that developers will be tempted to raise funds via Kickstarter, knowing that they can’t raise enough, but hoping to find more money somewhere else down the road as they need it.

  3. Meat Circus says:


  4. Tretiak says:

    Shafer asked for $300.000. And Fargo needs $1.000.000?!?

    BTW, why isn’t good ol’ Hervé Caen trying something with KickStart?

    • jackass00 says:

      Guess making an RPG needs a bit more work than adventure game.

    • Eclipse says:

      first, Shafer asked for 400k, second, a game like Wasteland is much, much, much, more complex than any adventure game.

    • Cinnamon says:

      An RPG like Wasteland needs something like three years in development while you can probably do about 3 or 4 point and clicks adventures in that time. I honestly think that the budget sounds a bit low but there are probably some really talented industry vets who would be willing to work on this for not much in return.

    • Tretiak says:

      He asked for 300k for the game, not 400k.

      What I’m saying is: Isn’t he aiming too high? Take a look at his last works with inXile.

      • HothMonster says:

        PLEDGED OF $400,000 GOAL”

        he asked for 400k

    • Cinnamon says:

      The answer is that the figure is already pretty low and if the number was too low then I might think about the quality or viability of the game. Kickstarter itself answers if people think the project is worth funding to that level.

      InExile have a history of actually shipping games which is a positive even if the games are not ones we want or aimed at us.

    • Tretiak says:

      City Interactive actually ships a lot of games, too.
      I think you’re too hyped.

      He is asking the gamers for a one million credit based on a game he made in 1988 (OK, and another one from 1997).

      Peter Molyneux could do the same. He made Populous and Dungeon Keeper!

      But you know, opinions…

    • Cinnamon says:

      OK, let’s say you think that Brian Fargo is a dick and could never assemble a team to make a worthy successor to Wasteland based on his recent history. Why would you then say, oh, but if he is saying he can do it for 200k then I would make a commitment on kickstarter because it now seems more plausible that enough other people will fund it.

      The only point about them having shipped complex games is that it shows that there is less chance of taking the money and running out long before they have something presentable.

    • Shuck says:

      @ Tretiak: Fargo probably needs quite a bit more than a $1 million. Shafer was looking to fund five people for six months. An RPG, even an old-school isometric one, would take a heck of lot more people a heck of a lot more time to make. An RPG like Fallout 1 or Planescape: Torment had 20-30 core developers, and they took between two and three years. Granted, tools and technology changes since would make it somewhat cheaper/faster/easier to make, but we’re still talking well over 20 times the cost of what Shafer has in mind for his game to make an RPG of the scale and quality of Fallout 1.

  5. Anthile says:

    Needs ‘shut up and take my money’ tag.

  6. Inigo says:

    I would like to begin a Kickstarter campaign for $1,000,000 to raise funds for me having $1,000,000.

    • Lazaruso says:

      take my money!

      By the way, are you related to the US government?

    • Ninja Foodstuff says:

      I too would also like for you to have $1,000,000!

    • Terragot says:

      I know, a kickstarter pyramid scheme where I start my funding, and you guys give me a dollar, then you guys go start your kick starter and give me 90 cents of every dollar you accrue.


      But seriously if I raised a million dollars on kickstarter I’d probably disappear into the mountains with my money salad.

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      If I raised a mil on kickstarter I’d probably start a kickstarter campaign to raise 10 mil.

  7. Apples says:

    Wow. Total flashback upon seeing Wolf and Lion – I thought i was the only one who played those things. I probably still have the discs lying around. I never really figured out how to play properly but it was pretty bleak, especially the scenarios where you began injured. What was wrong with Lion though?

    I’ve never seen or heard of Wasteland for some reason! Why did Fallout become so much more popular and well-known than it? I’ll have to check it out some time.

    • rokahef says:

      I love that I’m not the only one who loved the concept!

      I played Wolf when i was a kid, and heard of Lion but never managed to get my grubby hands on it. Did it not hold up well in comparison?

    • hellboy says:

      From memory was part of EA when Wasteland was published, and as a result EA owned the rights to Wasteland. Move forward a few years, Interplay are their own publisher, want to do a sequel but can’t get the rights from EA to do so. Hence Fallout was born.

    • Premium User Badge

      Adam Smith says:

      I didn’t mean to be dismissive of Lion, which was more of the same and not bad at all. I was just preemptively dodging the pedantic cries of “There was a sequel of sorts, you ignoramus, you cad!”

    • razgon says:

      I LOVED wolf! It was a brilliant game,and to this day I have the utmost respect and interest in wolves.
      Someone kickstart that project! OH, and Zebra would be a cool game as well

    • olemars says:

      My experience with Wolf is fail to kill rabbits, get shunned by all the females and then shot by poachers in a helicopter.

    • Jimbo says:

      Never discount Lion.

    • Wizardry says:

      Obviously the reason why Wasteland wasn’t as popular as Fallout was that it came out 9 years earlier.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Time has not been kind to Wasteland’s interface either, whereas Fallout had the luck to be into the world of clicking on things with mice.

      Also, there was totally a 3D wolf sim set in yellowstone park or thereabouts that PC GAMER covered at one point, developed by some University students or something.

  8. Eich says:

    I didn’t understand much of this post, but I understood that Brian needs my money. Can someone give me a hint where to donate? If it’s not possible atm I hope RPS will point out the start of the money-away phase…

  9. rokahef says:

    This would definitely get my money!…

    As long as it kept the style of the original wasteland, i.e. 2D. This is a game where quality and substance is waaay more important than appearance.

    And i have to question whether you really need a million bucks for a 2D game. So either he’s dramatically padding his budget, or it’ll have 3D FPS perspective and bloom.

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      yeah hopefully it’s not like his Bard’s Tale remake…

    • Revisor says:

      You could educate yourself on the cost of game development, sir. Look eg at Tim Schaefer’s Twitter, he’s been citing some budgets for old adventure games.
      1 mil looks like a sum just to get things moving (assembling a team, creating a prototype, getting loans and/or investments).

    • Olderman says:

      Roadwar 2000… Now that Wasteland and MM2 are covered that just may be the next one in line. With a dash of Autoduel!

      So much to do, so little time :(

  10. mjig says:

    Here we go, wonder how many of these things we’ll see over the next few months. Sad to see people on a lot of forums happily becoming investors with no financial returns, paying for games they have not only not played, but have not even seen a trailer or read a press release for, because the game does not really exist in any form.

    You’re paying for a person or for a franchise name. It’s stupid.

    The ONLY good that can come of this crap is publisher interest in dead genres.

    • Ninja Foodstuff says:

      It’s the new Free-to-Play!

    • paralipsis says:

      Given that the majority of funders won’t pay more than the regular retail price of the game, I think it’s more an expression of belief in the project as an advance pre-order rather than a no-return investment. I have yet to commit any funds to the Double Fine project, and given its runaway success to date I don’t see it as a pressing need. A new Wasteland however really has my interest.

    • Khemm says:

      I definitely see a problem here.
      Double Fine asked for a moderate sum of money, the overwhelming support exceeded their expectations. Right now, other developers aren’t looking at that $400,000 Tim originally asked for, they’re looking at that $1 million milestone achieved in such a short time span and think they can repeat Tim campaign’s success. I’m not so sure they can.
      Wasteland is such an old game, it’ll be hard for many to support the sequel/reboot if not a single piece of concept art or target renders,screenshots are released.

    • jackass00 says:

      Why is it stupid that people are willing to back up their favourite developers in making a game, that would not be made otherwise? I am gladly willing to risk those damn $15 to have a real old school adventure by Schafer or RPG by Brian Fargo. And if it turns out to be crap? Well, tough titty, it was worth a shot. Actually the developers themselves are risking a lot more, because they are making a game in the genre that does not guarantee success in any way. So if they even manage to make it on that budget, that doesn’t mean that they will make money off of it. So it’s a two way risk, but developers have a lot more to lose.

    • Lukasz says:

      I agree with mjig.

      How dare you people spent your own money on something we don’t approve. It is so stupid that money which is yours, you spent on something you consider worthy while we clearly know that it is stupid. Grow a brain you marons!

    • Lars Westergren says:


      Yah, fans financing developers and things they like directly and it’s a roaring success. SO SAD.

    • Giant, fussy whingebag says:

      mjig, it isn’t about investment or returns. It’s about wanting something to happen enough to help make it happen. Contributors get what is produced. Larger contributors get more rewards, and a greater sense of joy in participating in the creation of something people will (hopefully) love.

      It’s a risk. It might not be what we hope it to be. But we have hearts and hopes and care about more than the bottom line and what WE can get out of it. That sort of thinking is what homogenises projects funded by ‘real’ investors.

      Take a risk. Have faith that someone who made something you love can do it again. Be optimistic. Be idealistic.

      Or don’t. But don’t shit on those of us who do.

    • mjig says:

      Well, I am going to complain and try to dissuade people from funding and supporting these things, because it does affect me on down the line. It’s showing publishers and developers that they don’t even have to show us a single screenshot and we’ll still buy their game is they stick the right combination of words on it.

      Yeah, it’s your money, and it’s ultimately your decision on how to spend it, but how you choose to spend it very much affects me. It’s like people who say that we have no right to complain about people buying DLC, when them buying that DLC guarantees that more DLC will be released in the future. So I will keep voicing my opinion, because it has at least as much value as that of a blindly idealistic optimist who has way too much goodwill toward a developer he’s never even met.

      • HothMonster says:

        ” It’s showing publishers and developers that they don’t even have to show us a single screenshot and we’ll still buy their game is they stick the right combination of words on it.”

        Actually its showing some publishers and developers that their reputation is enough for us to trust them with our money. How many times do you think they get to fuck that up and still get our money? Double Fine Adventure didn’t make 2.5 mil because someone said adventure game, its made 2.5mil because Tim Schafer said adventure game. Now if Tim Schafer turns around a make a big steaming pile of horseshit how well do you think his next kickstarter will go? If however he makes a quality game that sells 2 million copies beyond the original backers you don’t think its ok for more people to have faith in him if he tries again?

    • rokahef says:

      That’s… actually well said. I didn’t agree with you initially, but after that last comment, I partly agree.

      That said, I think what we’re seeing here is a lot of optimism and goodwill towards a few specific industry veterans. I don’t think it’s sustainable longterm, and if less well known/respected developers were to attempt a kickstarter and offer nothing in the way of concept, images, ideas, etc., that they would see few contributions from the community.

    • jackass00 says:

      mjig – It actually does not tell publishers anything other than the fact, that in some circumstances they become redundant. That they don’t have this awsome power over the developer, who can, in some cases, just turn straight to the customer. What this whole situation does is tell developers, that people are willing to support their products right from the start if they can promise them something that they won’t get the other way – an old school entertainment that is meant for a specific group of customers. And it’s not really something that new to begin with, indie devs ask for support for unfinished products all the time, the difference is just in the scale. Anyway it’s just an experiment. If those first games, made this way, fail horribly, then it will probably be the end of this idea. We’ll see.

    • Giant, fussy whingebag says:

      mjig, I see what you’re saying, but what is the problem with more people trying to fund game development through Kickstarter? How does it affect you, except that more games get made and you might get to play them?

      Obviously you won’t participate in a Kickstart, but the end product will still be available to you. You aren’t required to take part in our idealism, but it doesn’t hurt you and you can even benefit from it. I would certainly like you to.

      This kind of thing is actually the exact opposite of the cynical DLC situation. I’ll agree with you that it isn’t when people start offering exclusive DLC to higher funding tiers.

    • Jim9137 says:

      While Schafer had no game or even design to offer beyond a vague notion of old school adventure (a notion that arguably needs nothing else, considering how formulated that notion is by itself), I imagine most kickstarter projects do show what you are going to buy. I personally supported the film C (or lots of numbers, as it is more famously known), and it had a trailer, it showed concept art, it showever everything. I knew in fact, what kind of film I was supporting. Schafer was an exception, not a rule.

      Now, let’s take it back to games. Are you familiar with the pre-order business? The way publishers hype up their games, then offer pre-orders with nothing but their word for it that the game will be good? How many here have been burned by such offerings, by thinking they were buying gold when the game turned out to be just like anything else, or in the recent case of SotS II, completely unplayable? I don’t see how kickstarter business here differs any. You simply have more information. True, you have limited returns and risk of not getting anything – but so do pre-orderers (who cashed in their preorder tickets for DNF?).

      Personally, I view this hugely positive thing. Developers making games for customers, and not for publisher’s markets? Sign me in, anytime. If kickstarter project fail, no money is lost. It’s true to capitalist thought, that only worthy ideas survive. And if developers are more free to do games of their own liking, without publisher restraint or innecessary legal struggles due to lack of funding or proprietary rights after the nth merger (hello Fallout!), I can only imagine this will help to boost the creative output more. Is it any wonder, that the greatest innovations in gaming lately have been from indie games, and not in the big triple A products? It’s because they are able, and they can, and they are not restricted by the massive size of their products. Kickstarter only helps them to make bigger, greater things.

    • Keirley says:


      I’m not sure how this affects you. Even if in the future every single game is funded by Kickstarter projects (which is obviously not going to happen) that still won’t affect you much. It’s not like you only get access to the game if you support it on Kickstarter – you’ll still be able to purchase the games you want when they come out instead. So you don’t have to do anything different from what you already do, and everybody wins. And we get a Wasteland sequel (maybe).

    • Lukasz says:

      Stupid jokes aside, what you said although in a way valid is not the case I believe here. It is not EA or Activision asking for money so they can make a great game for us. They are veterans of the industry, people who made a products we love and can make them again the way we want instead of the way publishers want.
      we know what to expect from them, know what products they can offer sans why we do not need screenshot or anything else.
      Furthermore it is not affecting you in a slightest way because this business model whether it fails or succeeds unless you don’t want a particular game to be made by a particular person/group.
      If it succeeds you can buy the game on release seeing screenshots and reviews but it will not make every publisher release preorders for games without showing anything. and even if they do, like already pointed out you can still decide whether to buy after you know everything about the game. It won’t happen of course because one big flop would guarantee that people would not invest second time out of fear losing money.
      if it fails then case closed.
      therefore you can’t really complain about the whole situation as the only people who can win/lose are people who give them money and that is our personal risk

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      It can always be easy to find something to criticise in a capitalist economy, but I will take crowd sourcing over publishers any time.

    • c-Row says:

      Khemm: Wasteland is such an old game, it’ll be hard for many to support the sequel/reboot if not a single piece of concept art or target renders,screenshots are released.

      Totally agree with you. I had no problem throwing my money at Tim thanks to all the fun I had with the games he has worked on in the past, but Wasteland got released at a time when I didn’t speak English yet, so for me there is nothing that would make me support a possible Kickstarter project other than knowing that said game exists.

  11. onodera says:

    Now we need Brian Reynolds to jump on the bandwagon and raise money for a 4X game about colonizing an alien planet.

    • Keirley says:

      For a good few seconds my brain thought: ‘the guy from Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place is going to make a 4X game?’

  12. Khemm says:

    Shouldn’t he team up with Obsidian? Back in the day, he had great teams which helped him develop some awesome games, all inxile-developed titles have been rather mediocre. He didn’t say if Wasteland 2/Remake would be turn-based, either.
    Still – STFU, I’ll still support you.jpg!

    • UnravThreads says:

      Well, no, because it’d be an in-house release. He owns and runs inXile Entertainment, who did the remake of The Bard’s Tale a number of years back and last year’s Hunted: The Demon’s Forge.

  13. Jumwa says:

    It’ll have a “complete old school vibe and made with input from gamers. Made the gamers way”, huh?

    Sounds like internet-code for “too hard for the vast majourity of gamers to even play.”

    Man I’m bitter this morning, it seems.

    • Apples says:

      Uh, good? What’s wrong with having games made and intended specifically for ‘hardcore’ gamers? It will keep the riffraff out ;) Seriously though this is again reverse snobbery. Media should not be made entirely for EVERYONE to be able to access and understand.

    • Jumwa says:

      Actually, I think it’s called “I don’t give a crap about games purposely made for me to suffer”. I am not part of some grander media conspiracy, oddly enough.

    • Apples says:

      Then why are you talking about the vast majority of gamers when you mean you personally will not be able to/want to play it?

    • Jumwa says:

      Because I, like the vast majourity of gamers, don’t enjoy/can’t play that sort of thing? I can be both an individual and a member of a group.

      As I said though, I seem to be a bit bitter this morning. Perhaps I’ve just grown overly tired of the constant internet-wankery about who’s the most hardcore, and whose hardcore is bigger than the others, and how many totally unrelated games can be compared to Demon/Dark Souls for no apparent reason than to brag about how hardcore one is.

    • Apples says:

      You’ve basically equated “I don’t like this type of game” with “NOBODY CAN PLAY THIS, IT EXCLUDES THE MAJORITY!” as a complaint, though. And even that comes back to “so what if you can’t”! Sorry that you don’t like or can’t play those types of games, but there are people who can and it’s for them. Who cares if the ‘vast majority’ can’t play it (although they actually can if they put some effort in)? You say you don’t care about who’s hardcore or not, but that’s what you’re arguing about, only pouring scorn on those who think they are (or who you regard as) hardcore, instead of the other way round. Oldschool games are not automatically ‘hardcore’ either (in the meaning of repeatedly dying ala Demons Souls). Fallout, which this sounds closest to, is definitely not like that, it just demands slightly more of you than ‘mainstream’ games. It’s not touted as oldschool so that people can wave their e-wangs around, it’s because there are people who genuinely like and grew up playing those games, and want more to be made even though they’re out of fashion now.

      also you just come across the same as someone grumpily complaining about how difficult Dostoevsky is to read, before going back to a Harry Potter book. Damn those hardcore readers! How dare they be so pretentious and masochistic as to read things like that? It’s definitely just so that people think they’re smart, not because they LIKE those books (impossible, obviously).

    • Jumwa says:

      I’m sorry that my expressing my disinterest in a hypothetical something has offended you so. I don’t recall ever saying that such things shouldn’t exist, just that I wouldn’t be interested in certain hypothetical properties of the hypothetical something, but I apologize profusely for liking something different than you.

      Also, grats on turning your ‘Why don’t you put some EFFORT into your gaming for relaxation?!’ into a comparison between something more pretentious like literature vs. children’s novels. I realize now that you derive a great deal of self-worth from how hard the games you play are, and my playing them merely for casual relaxation must be offensive, apologies.

    • Apples says:

      Yeah I do care about what games I play, and I think going “WELL THEY’RE JUST FOR FUN!” is what keeps them being generally rubbish! Sorry, I know caring about things is desperately uncool and I should try to regard things only with ironic condescension or cynical apathy, but I do care. I like Harry Potter, I like the Narnia books, but often I want something that is more complicated than those. (Why do you think talking about literature is pretentious, by the way?) Why bother complaining about the pure fact that something is (intentionally) complex, to an extent that you don’t enjoy or understand it? I really don’t care if you play games purely for relaxation – I don’t really understand that, but I’m not mad over it or condemning it – but to go about complaining that games which require you to do more than relax are ‘too hard’ and probably for people who like ‘internet wankery’ over how hardcore they are, welp, that’s pretty weird and does tip into insulting people!

      By the way, you started this off with saying that the MAJORITY OF GAMERS would not be able to play the game. Not you personally. You spoke for a lot of people. So it was never just giving your opinion about the game. Something like “I would be interested in this but I’m worried the difficulty will be too high for me to enjoy” is a personal opinion, “It will be too hard for the vast majority of gamers” is a bizarre factoid and extremely negative interpretation of what the quote said (and therefore of old-school games and those who play them).

    • Jumwa says:

      I never said literature is pretentious. I said comparing literature to children’s novels is pretentious. Which is what you were doing.

      The bit about the majourity, which you seem awfully hung up about, was just an added bit of context. Why did I bother putting it in? Because many angry internet denizens love to make casual gamers feel as if they are a mentally stunted minority, and not just people with careers, second-jobs and side projects, who play to relax at the end of a stressful day. Sorry you don’t understand that as you say.

      Are you offended that you can’t keep the riffraff out of your internet too?

    • Apples says:

      Yes, so if you would kindly get off it… :V

      Dunno how comparing two forms of the same type of media is pretentious? My point is that they’re generally made for different reasons; entertainment vs I don’t know, whatever you want to call it – art, learning, whatever. They’re not in competition with each other, one isn’t inherently better in all ways than the other. But one is harder to get into, demands more of you, and is more rewarding; one is easier, demands little, and will give you a good time but probably not a lot more. This game will try to be the former. If you want the latter it is not for you but that’s not something that can be a criticism of it.

      So talking about the vast majority did come down to you feeling ignored, condescended to and put-upon by ‘hardcore’ gamers, causing you to complain about them obliquely, not because of anything to do with this specific game. Okay, glad we’re in agreement on that.

    • Jumwa says:

      When did I say I was criticizing this game? In fact, I was pretty clear earlier on, with my purposely repetitious use of the word “hypothetical”, that there is nothing really known about this game to criticize. I also made it explicit in my first post, it was me being “bitter” on the topic of gamers.

      You also said, explicitly, I was like someone who can’t handle reading Dostoevsky because it’s too hard for me so I go read children’s books. Then tried to pawn that off as if it weren’t intended as some pretentious jab.

    • Jumwa says:

      Gonna apologize in advance, that last remark was a bit goading. And intentionally so. Will drop it.

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      This is why it must be crowd sourced and not published by EA or whoever! Of course the majority don’t want this type of game, the majority want CoD and Angry Birds. He can use publishers to make the games the majority want. The whole idea of kickstarter projects seems to be to make games that only a small niche want, that couldn’t be made without crowd sourcing.

  14. Risingson says:

    Wasteland is one of those old RPGs that feels tragically unplayable today, like Bard’s Tale, Ultima IV and many other genre-defining moments. So much grinding, so many similar enviroments, such dependance of pure luck in battles…

    • rokahef says:

      EDIT: my earlier comment was kinda off topic.

      I’m not sure how you can claim that Wasteland and games of its type were in any way more ‘grindy’ than modern games.

      Sure, they allowed you to waste a ton of time dicking around, but it didn’t prevent you from moving on with the story.

      I’d actually argue we’ve come around full circle, with modern games displaying a similar kind of ‘you want to stay off the main path? Go! Have fun!’. Skyrim being a prime example of that.

    • Wizardry says:

      Out of those games only The Bard’s Tale requires grinding. Also, Wasteland is very playable today and is one of the best RPGs ever created.

      Also, Fallout is the RPG that requires the most luck in battles. It’s funny how playable that game is considered today.

  15. Mr Bungle says:

    Now I’m waiting for Frédérick Raynal to open a Kickstarter project for LBA3.

    • Khemm says:

      That’s actually something I’d support in a heartbeat.

    • Wilson says:

      Same here, that would be awesome.

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      Isn’t that like a brand new series? Are you sure they aren’t going to make a third anyway?

  16. DoveBrown says:

    Christ do I actually worry about the reprocusions of this. A high profile failure to deliver here will hurt the entire system.

    I’m assuming that InXile will be making it but how much faith do you have in their ability to deliver? Their history as a company hasn’t covered themselves in glory. The Hei$t project that fell apart looked and the leaked footage to me looked rather rough. Hunted (which I’ve not played) reviewed rather badly. Other than that you have some iPhone puzzle games and ChopperLifter remake. I’ve not forgotten the Bards Tale remake on XBox though I’m still trying to.

    While I like my post apocalypic RPGs as much as the next guy, I’d honestly like to know how they plan to do it before I had over money.

    Double Fine are a special case. They have over the last year and a bit shown an ability to make smaller games using their own tech. Tim Schafer and Ron Freaking Gilbert are working on it. Two guys with a lot of pedigree. It would seem a silly bet to consider that between them and the Double Fine won’t be able to make a point and click adventure.

    • jackass00 says:

      Not to mention that making a good adventure on low budget is waaaaaay easier than making a good RPG. I have the same opinion as the other guy, that they should team up with Obsidian for this.

    • rokahef says:

      ” I’m assuming that InXile will be making it but how much faith do you have in their ability to deliver?”

      I guess it depends on how well Fargo can actually stick to his promise of keeping the ‘old school vibe’ of Wasteland, versus introducing things like ‘innovation’ and ‘reaching new audiences’.
      The Bard’s Tale remake certainly didn’t preserve its original roots – it was a blatant attempt to transform it into something new that might appeal to new gamers.

      A wasteland 2 that remains true to the original in appearance and gameplay AS WELL AS spirit would be much more likely to work out.

    • equatorian says:


      I’ll throw in some money, just because I believe these kinds of games deserve to be supported. (And look, if you’re any other indie dev trying to deliver these stuff, I’ll support you too.) But I imagine I’ll throw in less and be more cautious than, say, if Obsidian is doing it—say what you will about their QA, I think they’ve proven that they could make large games. Ditto for Double Fine. I know they can make things, the problem is that they just aren’t allowed to make things they want and things I want. Sideeyes.jpg for InXile, though I’ll give them the benefit of doubt.

    • Jim9137 says:

      “Not to mention that making a good adventure on low budget is waaaaaay easier than making a good RPG. ”

      This. Spiderweb, you silly noonigans!

    • UnravThreads says:

      With regards to The Bard’s Tale, inXile were hampered by being unable to use the universe and everything from the previous games – I think the only thing they “got back” was the name.

    • InternetBatman says:

      I was just about to post something similar. Fargo has not had a good track record in the last decade, and a senior member of his own company said that these games were only made this way because of technical limitations. He’ll have to offer a really convincing proposal if he wants any of my money.

    • Prime says:

      In my view, Kickstarter is currently sitting at Post-Inauguration Obama levels of popularity. People are riding a wave of ‘isn’t this awesome!’. In those circumstances any failure will hit harder because this is an unrealistic view of the Kickstarter process. To mitigate the effects of failure upon the perceived popularity of the process, we simply need to gently remind people that this can and WILL fail. That it is investment in the purest form – success isn’t guaranteed. Tim Schafer might be a surer bet than Mr Wasteland because of his proven recent track record of actually producing games (coupled with his legendary early successes) but people need to realise that not all Kickstarter projects will be worth investing in, and to think carefully before they do.

      It’s still awesome when it works, but let’s just give ourselves the pinch of reality it needs to become a lasting mode of production, and avoid the crushing sense of betrayal and rejection experienced when Obama was suddenly revealed as – *gasp* – a politician more than a living icon of racial progress.

    • InternetBatman says:

      @Prime The problem is that I don’t know if these projects can be successful without the current hyper optimism. A million is a lot of money to raise, and probably only achievable by developers with large, dedicated group of fans. Each new one whether successful or not makes the successive ones less novel, and less likely to succeed.

    • rokahef says:

      @Unravthreads Then why call it The Bard’s Tale if the game shares nothing from that world?

      It’s the equivalent of creating a movie called ‘Titanic 2’ that takes place on a fishing trawler.

    • Prime says:

      “The problem is that I don’t know if these projects can be successful without the current hyper optimism. A million is a lot of money to raise, and probably only achievable by developers with large, dedicated group of fans. Each new one whether successful or not makes the successive ones less novel, and less likely to succeed.”

      @InternetBatman: What’s fun about this is the sheer democracy of it. It’s unpredictable, in the same way voting is. Then again, given a few successes and failures we’ll probably begin to see patterns emerging, just like with voting. Like you, I reckon it’ll become and remain valid only for the developers with the most going for them, those with the most popular ideas and sound reputations. The upcoming Minecraft film was funded this way riding on the back on Minecraft’s enormous popularity, for example. But I do think that it might help to create such reputations also, bringing people to prominence in much the same way the Indie scene has. And I disagree with novelty having that much of an effect on future projects. Sure, enthusiasm will die down a bit once the umpteenth developer and his dog gets in on the act but it will remain simply because it’s so direct – what gamer wouldn’t want to be a part of bringing a game they want into the world rather than having to choose from the limited choices of what big publishers tell us we’re supposed to like?

      Personally I want this to succeed and grow so well that it gives the bigger publishers the kick in the arse they’ve needed for over a decade now. Why spend 100 million on a 10-hour barely-interactive sensory assault when that money could be broken into smaller chunks to produce a greater number of deeper, longer-lasting, inventive games that people are actually crying out for? The sheer waste of gaming potential is probably what gave birth to the modern Indie scene in the first place.

    • UnravThreads says:

      Because it’s a known name in RPG fandom? Because it’s Brian Fargo’s history?

    • rokahef says:

      Yeah, I get that. But it’s a giant kick in the teeth to fans of the series, isn’t it?

      Same vein as Syndicate. The new game may be great, or it may be mediocre, but it’s hardly what people were expecting to when they heard ‘hey, they’re making a new syndicate’.

      Honestly, if the game you’re producing is such a radical departure from the old one, you’re better off in the long run giving it a new name, rather than banking on the appeal of the name to sell it and pissing off all your fans.

      Then again, Fallout 3 was a radical departure and a huge success. So go figure.

    • Freud says:

      Looking at what this company actually has produced, not even getting hit by a tsunami of nostalgia will make me invest in this one.

      While Kickstarter is a wonderful concept, I think in the long run a better use of your gaming money is to use it to buy games from companies that you know have created good games. That’s the best way of ensuring good games get done. Then once in a while, something like the Double Fine thing comes along and it’s understandable people wanting to invest given the people involved and the genre of the game.

    • NathanH says:

      If you want to be rational about this sort of thing, the only sensible reason to get involved in funding a big kickstarter project is for the smug. I suppose if the price that you have to invest to get a copy of the game is low enough, that might be a rational reason too, but with modern prices and sales this is unlikely to be worth the risk. Your contribution in such a big kickstarter isn’t going to affect anything and it isn’t going to encourage anyone else to invest because it is relatively so small, so wanting the project to be a success is no rational reason to invest. If you don’t contribute, then basically everything is exactly the same as if you did contribute, apart from you have less money. So the only reason to do it is so you can feel good about participating.

      Of course, once you accept this argument then you don’t really feel good about participating any more…

    • InternetBatman says:

      @Nathan H That’s just not true, it assumes that projects will succeed or fail to be funded without your input. Some games will not be funded by publishers, so they will not be made. More importantly, some creative talents will not make a game unless they already know they have funding. So if you don’t fund it, or if enough people don’t, then the game probably doesn’t get made. Sure you may be only funding a 27000th of it, but it wouldn’t work if it got 26999/27000.

      If everyone behaved this way, they would have the same amount of money, but no game. Some people might be funding for the emotional boost, but others just want to make sure that the creator makes the game. What you’re arguing works for the individual but destroys the system.

    • NathanH says:

      Your contribution isn’t really going to tip the scales one way or the other except in ridiculously unlikely scenarios, so it’s reasonable to say that your actions don’t make a difference (edit: of course if it is $15 off the required target with 10 seconds to go, then it is sensible to pay).

      Making decisions based on “what would happen if everyone made this decision” is not rational. You don’t have control over anyone else, so what they do is independent of your decision. There’s no such thing as the “system”, just a collection of individuals making individual decisions. In such a large-scale endeavour, your decision isn’t going to tip anyone else into making a particular decision (in smaller scale projects, say where there is only $1000 needed, then your decision starts having some actual weight). You shouldn’t avoid a certain option that looks optimal on the grounds that “if everyone chose it things would go wrong”. That’s just silly.

      Probably the most sensible approach is to tell everyone that you’re contributing and how great these projects are and how it’s awesome and the way forwards and gush gush gush and try to whip up the frenzy on loads of message boards, but then don’t actually pay anything yourself. This probably isn’t going to make much difference either, but at least it’s basically free. That’s a bit too dishonest for me though.

  17. RedViv says:

    Get in bed with Obsidian again, and we have a deal. Otherwise, purely based on inXile’s games until now…. No.

  18. coldvvvave says:

    Are there going to be pistoleros?

    • rokahef says:

      Yes, and more Snake Squeezins than you can shake a hobo at!

    • Jahnz says:

      I hope there are hobo derived blood sausages. And things exploding like blood sausages.

  19. sonofsanta says:

    So, Kickstarter: the new indie bundle? How long before Alec develops a twitch at the mention of the word?

    • InternetBatman says:

      They don’t have to be mutually exclusive. I would love to see kickstarter games wind up in the bundle.

    • sonofsanta says:

      @InternetBatman: I was commenting more on the fact that we might soon be suffering under a flood of such projects given the public success of an initial attempt, i.e. the parallels between Humble Indie Bundle and all the similar schemes that sprang up against Double Fine’s success and all the similar schemes now springing up.

      I am all for this continuing to be successful for all worthy participants, but at this rate we’ll all quickly burn out on hearing about them and the scheme will choke itself…

  20. Rudel says:

    Waah, a sequel to one of my favs of all time o0

  21. wccrawford says:

    I’m onboard. Sign me up!

    Wasteland doesn’t look like much today, but back then, it was absolutely amazing. Heck, I’m thinking about replaying it now.

  22. InternetBatman says:

    I wish Obsidian had started theirs sooner. It’ll cause a split and be smaller headlines now, which means less money. Although, if this does succeed people like Wizardry who don’t even like their games can have something to support instead. To be fair, if there’s a market for a genre, it should be served.

    • Wizardry says:

      Wasteland is better than anything Obsidian has ever made. But at the same time, everything Obsidian has ever made has been better than anything inXile has made. I’m confused.

  23. skocznymroczny says:

    Ok, all we need now is Tie Fighter remake kickstarter

  24. Etherealsteel says:

    Tim Schafer has my $15, thought it was worth it. He seems to not make sequels to games that much and try to make something new that hasn’t been thought up yet. I like that in a developer especially in this post COD sequels that come out every year.

  25. Atic Atac says:

    1 million is way to high of an aim. This is a more niche product and he doesn’t have the pull Tim does. Also Double Fine are a proven studio. InXile aren’t.

    • Jimbo says:

      I agree. Fargo doesn’t have the pull of Schafer, and Wasteland has virtually no pull at all. I could easily see this not hitting its target, which would be slightly embarassing for all concerned.

    • Wizardry says:

      But it’s Brian Fargo. And Wasteland. What are you on about? His recent games have sucked? Yeah, but so has Tim Schafer’s.

    • equatorian says:

      @Wizardry :

      I love Wasteland, but let’s be realistic here. If we’re talking about pull, we’re talking about name recognition and batting average. Tim Schafer has an overall higher batting average in his career than Brian Fargo. The adventure genre was also way, way more popular than RPGs, once upon a time.

      Also the quality of what Schaefer made recently is subjective. The quality of Fargo’s recent stuff is pretty objective, if you ask me…

    • Wizardry says:

      Adventure games were more popular than RPGs? Yeah right. And what do you mean by Shafer having a higher batting average than Fargo? Fargo isn’t really a game designer. He was the founder of Interplay and was basically a producer for a lot of their games. Not really comparable.

    • Jimbo says:

      “Comments by Wizardry blocked by you.”

      Just assume I disagree.

  26. thesisko says:

    I’m not giving even one dollar to this guy. Atleast Chris Avellone and Josh Sawyer seem to have some grasp on decent game design and are actually capable of having an intelligent dialogue about it – all I’ve heard from Fargo are empty buzzwords. Remember, inXile are they guys who basically said “RPGs always wanted to be third-person cover-shooters” when hyping their latest game.

    My take: This guy is just seeing an opportunity to do a project with full funding, free marketing and 70% profit on copies sold – something he’d never get from a publisher. That also explains why he’s asking for $1M when other “old-school-vibe” RPGs like Spiderweb’s games cost less than $150K. I doubt even Fallout 1&2 cost that much to make.

    • InternetBatman says:

      To be fair, Spiderweb games are made by one person and he reuses all his assets, updating them only periodically. Starting from scratch would be a lot harder.

    • thesisko says:

      Harder, yes. But not 7 times harder.

  27. Jason Moyer says:

    I thought Hunted was pretty good and I’d still be hesitant to contribute money to this. With Double Fine or Obsidian I can give them some cash and have a fairly good idea of what the game will be like. With inXile I have no idea, they don’t have a consistent track record. I’m also not entirely sure that I want a new Wasteland game. I think that, at a minimum, it should have similar mechanics to the original game, and I’m not convinced I’d actually play a modern RPG that used Wasteland’s mechanics.

  28. JackShandy says:

    Mostly I just know that this game has the most amazing fucking cover art in the history of games.

    I’ll pay for another.

  29. RakeShark says:

    As nice as an old-school Wasteland RPG sounds when said aloud, unfortunately it’s not the kind of game I’m dying to play. I may donate at a later date. Besides, with games like Skyrim/New Vegas and the Mass Effect series, I think any step back towards more hardcore RPG mechanics might cause frustration on my part. Fallout: Tactics is about as far back as I can go before I start grinding my teeth. As for NWN2? Fugiddaboutit.

    However, best of luck to Fargo and company.

  30. krisanto says:

    I’d like to see a kickstarter page for a proper graphical interface for Dwarf Fortress.

  31. wodin says:

    This is the game I have the most interest in. Hope it gets developed.

  32. Vinraith says:

    Now THIS I’ll chip in for!

  33. JackDandy says:

    I’m willing to part my dosh for this.

  34. Stormdancer says:

    I really hope this comes together. I loved the first game. I admit I haven’t played it in a really long time (I do still have the original package), so I can’t honestly say how well I think it would hold up, today, but… the core idea is *EXACTLY* what I want.

    EDIT: Oh, and yes… I’d happily go for a WOLF remake, too. And yes, have both WOLF & LION on the shelf. :p

  35. yhalothar says:


    ^ my thought process while reading this piece of news

  36. Bubbles says:

    This is the biggest and the only interesting news I’ve heard all week!

    But I has no friends to share this news with. They would rather talk about Jersey Shore or their precious Cawwadoottyyy.

    Ahh such a life of a 14 year old.

  37. squareking says:

    Things like this make me happy!

  38. Nick says:

    Didn’t he make that truely awful Bards Tale “sequel”?

  39. Diogo Ribeiro says:

    It’s gonna be The Bard’s Tale with guns, amirite?

  40. sinister agent says:

    Wolf! Other people played that?



    I was crap at it, mind.

  41. DickSocrates says:

    I hope it works. It would be great if many, many games could be funded this way. Just be very sure you know who you’re giving your money to. There’s bound to be a case where a Kickstarter goal is met and 5 years later there’s nothing to show for it. I.e. Don’t contribute to anything George Broussard wants to do.

    I have him in mind because today on Twitter he said, ‘PS Vita launch feels like the last dinosaur showing up to a mammal convention.’ Breathtaking.

  42. Edski says:

    I’d kick in a c-bill. Brian Fargo, New, and Wasteland are three words that belong in one place! {EDIT}- Four words, I meant four words! I can count, I swear!

  43. Bfox says:

    I’ve never played Wasteland, how does it compare to the original Fallouts? I love those to bits.

    .. Fallout 3 though :c Sad face.