Talk:Wasteland (video game)

Who currently holds the copyright to this game?

Just out of curiosity, who currently holds the copyright to Wasteland at this moment in time? The Developer Interplay, or the Publisher/Distributor Electronic Arts? --I am not good at running 05:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

EA owns the game title. Pomin Wu 04:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Now it's InXile Entertainment (knowing full well that I am responding to a year-old conversation} ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

How did InXile Entertainment get the rights? Did they buy it?, Win it in a lawsuit? Something else? --172.251.204.186 (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Some edits

Another quick edit: I changed the information on the desert rangers to reflect that they were, in fact, initially survivors from the US Army Corp of Engineers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmcclain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I did some editing, here are the major points in case anyone's wondering:

• Removed reference to Bruce Schlickbernd since he was only one of several people credited with "additional design", limiting the credits to the four main designers.
• Removed incorrect reference to the game taking place in 2087, which is a common misconception based on the datestamp of a book within the game which could however have been written at any time after the game ends. Ken St. Andre has stated that the events of the game take place in an unspecified year roughly 50 years after the war in 1998.
• Removed reference to Combat Shooting, which was partially incorrect and way too obscure to belong on the page anyway.
• Put a "citation needed" tag on the "marketing gimmick" thing - I've never heard of it.
• Changed the Mobygames link to actually point to Wasteland.

--Kaffedrake 21:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In answer to some of the above, Bruce Schlickbernd was to be listed as a designer for the game (this can be confirmed by Alan Pavlish), but graciously defered since he joined the project after it had begun.

The "marketing gimmick" can be confirmed by any of the nine employees of Interplay of the time. An external source to Interplay (or Electronic Arts) is probably not available, since this wasn't something that was exactly going to be discussed with the media at the time. This typist was present at the meetings where this matter was discussed internally at Interplay.

I do not remember the "date" the game events are supposed to take place in, but it is entirely possible that more than one date is listed in different places within the game - development at Interplay never treated designer's text as sacrosanct and continuity errors are possible.

14 January, 2007

I actually found a reference in a magazine scan from the time of the game's release saying "Interplay insists that the game should be rated PG-13 because of the personalized violence in the adventure, as well as sexual hints." However, if the intent behind this could only be confirmed through hearsay, the question is whether it's encyclopaedic. Even letting the information remain on the strength of your word (which I see no reason to doubt) seems to amount to original research. I'm no Wikipedia expert, but I'd guess that sourcing requires some kind of off-Wikipedia documentation.

As for the date, I'm pretty sure that no "current" date appears in the game, there's just the 2087 one which appears once in the game and once in the manual. --Kaffedrake 12:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Combat shooting

It would be nice if some justification was given for adding this back in, especially after I pointed out the note is ill-informed. What is known about the game's code and ruleset points to Combat shooting not being used. Its appearance in the game interface is the most eye-catching difference between the 8-bit and PC versions, but that doesn't mean it's in any way significant enough to warrant Wikipedia inclusion. All that can be said about it is speculative and likely to become irrelevant. --Kaffedrake 17:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wasteland box cover.jpg

Image:Wasteland box cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Added proper copyright notation to the image per guidelines. Voracious Reader (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wastelandgame1.png

Image:Wastelandgame1.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Persistency

I added a paragraph about persistency. I still remember getting the C64 version of Wasteland, and the fact that it stored its game world was on of the main reasons for me to buy it - that was a pretty new thing back then. It also meant you had to copy four discs (for the C64 version) before you could play. Anyone who still remembers knows how long a delay that meant. :-) --.Tom. (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasteland is not part of the Fallout series

Fallout is a spiritual successor to Wasteland. But spiritual successor or predecessor does not mean it's part of the same series (see for example Bioshock/System Shock or Supreme Commander/Total Annihilation). Unless there is some reliable source telling that these series are connected through more than similar setting, I'm removing the "Fallout series" category from the article. --Mika1h (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think it should be in the Fallout series category. hellboy (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, just because Interplay mention it as a Spiritual successor, does not mean it's part of the series. hellboy (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would go even further and state my opinion that the term spiritual sucessor itself proves that Fallout is not a sequal. The reason is, if Fallout was part of the same series the term spiritual succssor would not have been used in the first place. They would have either called Fallout a sequal or simply a successor. --76.66.185.115 (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's more the other way around -- I think Fallout is part of the Wasteland series. Like Fountain of Dreams, the Fallout games draw HEAVILY from Wasteland -- not just in concept and spirit, but in terms of actual content. There are dozens upon dozens of references in each of the Fallout games to Wasteland, the most obvious example being the "Fix Water Purifier" mission in FA2. FA & FA2 also quote lots of the speech from Wasteland. FA3 does a lot of this too "Radio Free Wasteland"? Check. Enigmatic robots? Check. Energy weapons and power armor in a post-nuclear setting, even if the world seems stuck in a decade w/o that level of technology? Check. People worshiping nukes? Check. Minefields? Check. NPCs that don't help you? Check. ETC, ETC, ETC! While lots of tasks are the same across games, FA and WL have more in common than not. It is quoted on the Fallout page that if EA didn't hold the name "Wasteland" that it was the Fallout team's first choice. The Fallout series is much newer, but at the end of the day it's still the son of Wasteland. Unlike, say, Twilight 2000 which is clearly NOT the same game redone. Unofficial sequel? Yes. But a sequel! Markvs88 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It still not technically the same series. Only change to the article here is removing the category. Cut me some slack here. --Mika1h (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically speaking, Fallout 3 is forked since Bethesda owns it (and all future Fallouts!) and Interplay owns FA, FA2, and the rights to FA3 as a MMO. By your metric, that effectively nullifies Fallout as a single series: different designers, different owners. Heck, check out http://wasteland/rockdud.net/fallout.html if you like for a fuller list of similarities between WL & Fallout. Markvs88 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically speaking, that's one of the worst arguments I've heard ;) Anyway, as Mika1h as mentioned, as precedent has been set in regards to System Shock/Bioshock etc, so I see no good reason to make an exception for Fallout/Wasteland hellboy (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Only just noticed a discussion about this going on, after I made my edit. I do agree with Mika1h and Hellboy1975, in that it doesn't matter if the Wasteland games are the spiritual predecessors to the Fallout franchise or vice-versa or so on; the games simply aren't part of the same the series, and as such should not be classified as if they were. The only thing I know of that Wasteland and Fallout have in common is the whole post-apocalyptic setting, and even that is a very loose connection. To go and say the Fallout games are a even continuation of the Wasteland ones flies in the face of logic. I think Markvs88 defeated his own argument when he made the comment "Unofficial sequel? Yes. But a sequel!"; if it's unofficial (and nothing more than his opinion), then he has no ground to stand on here. -- Commdor {Talk} 22:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What precendent? Can someone actually do something crazy and LINK to it? The Fallout line of games is so blatently a modern Wasteland the mind reels. Again, I'm not making the case that it's the same because of the post-nuclear world thing (IE: Neither game has any connection to Twilight 2000). If you see only a loose connection between the two, you've obviously never played both games. Markvs88 (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could do something crazy and read the first comment, where it links to the Bioshock/System Shock or Supreme Commander/Total Annihilation examples. Is that enough of a precendent or do you want more? hellboy (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in them pertinent -- they're just pages on those games. Unless you want to QUOTE where in those pages I need look, it's about as useful as someone asking what a door is and you pointing at an encyclopedia. BTW, according to your own first statement, I gave you a link to a site that hosts Wasteland/Fountain of Dreams/Fallout information. ERGO there is a community that considers the games linked, which (as noted above) should be enough: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Markvs88 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be pretty obvious, considering that we're talking about categories, that you would also look at the categories in the Bioshock/System Shock or Supreme Commander/Total Annihilation. Note that neither of them are categorised as being in the same series, yet both are considered to be spiritual successors. Also in the link you provide (which is wrong by the way - should be [1] it says unofficial sequel. That alone suggest to me it's not actually part of the same series. So now we have 4 people agreeing it shouldn't be categorised this way against one. Ee've shown a precendent that shows the game shouldn't be categorised this way. We've established that it's not officially part of the Fallout series. What more do you want before ending this revert war? hellboy (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Break - Again, WP:OR. What you are suggesting (that Fallout is an extension of Wasteland) is original research, and as such is not permittable under policy. To be blunt, Wikipedia does not cater to fringe theories and ideas like this when there is no reliable evidence in support of them. The website you cite as evidence is nothing more than some fan site, and fan sites and opinions are not acceptable evidence for what you are trying to prove. Just because a fan community shares your views does not mean that community's opinion can supersede the facts, let alone Wikipedia's standards. If neither Interplay nor Bethesda has officially stated anywhere that the Fallout franchise is part of the Wasteland franchise, then your argument, which is wholly without reliable proof to the contrary, is essentially moot. With that in mind, I don't think a consensus here in favor of your idea (which is unlikely at this point) has the power to overturn Wikipedia's policies. -- Commdor {Talk} 22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And I thought it was pretty obvious with the Brian Fargo quote that Wasteland spawned Fallout that they are the same series, but that's apparently insufficient. In any event, I propose a compromise: Instead of the box saying "Wasteland and Fallout Series", it changes to "Wasteland and Wasteland Inspired Games". This would include the Fallout series and Escape from Hell (which used the WL engine but has no wiki page as of yet. What do you think?

(The indentation is getting a little out of hand) There would be no point. Did Wasteland inspire Fallout and the Fallout franchise? Yes, it appears so. Does that make Wasteland part of the Fallout franchise or Fallout part of the Wasteland franchise? No, they are two separate legal entities, two separate series, not one. It probably is worth mentioning (with the proper sourcing) on Fallout (series) that the Fallout franchise was inspired by Wasteland, but the two are clearly two separate series and should be treated as such. Doesn't it say on this article that Wasteland's creator is looking to renew that franchise? If Wasteland had been part of Fallout, then Bethesda would own the IP and decide what to do with it; the fact that the creator still has the legal power to make new Wasteland games without Bethesda's OK pretty much proves that there are two series. To merge everything under "Wasteland and Wasteland Inspired Games" would completely undermine the independence of Fallout. You're just putting undue emphasis on the connection between the games. -- Commdor {Talk} 22:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about merging everything under Wasteland? Not I! All I'm going to do is reference Fallout as an inspired game after the "External Links" section. NOT saying they're the same series, but that they are related. It's noteworthy, but not taking anything away from Fallout. BTW, if you'd reread above you'd know that Bethesda does not have a lock on Fallout as a franchise (ie: no MMO rights). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markvs88 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The MMO is a special case, but that's going off on a tangent. But now I'm confused; are you talking about the name of the navigation template or the categories? I was arguing for two separate nav templates for each series, along with categories. Right now there is only the category "Fallout series," and I had planned to make a similar "Wasteland series" category for just the Wasteland games. If I'm reading you right, then "Wasteland and Wasteland Inspired Series" would be a third category which would be applicable to both Fallout articles and Wasteland articles, without replacing the separate series categories, correct? I actually don't think I have an issue with that; I thought you were attempting to merge everything under a Wasteland umbrella and get rid of the Fallout categories. If all you want to do is add another category, then I won't oppose it if it doesn't conflict with a policy or guideline somewhere (there are hundreds of minor rules I don't bother to memorize). -- Commdor {Talk} 20:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the new category and added it to a few articles. It may run into redundancy problems with some of the other categories, just so you're aware. Anyway, if there are no further issues, I'm considering my involvement in this discussion done and over with. I'm pretty much washing my hands of this whole thing, so if any dispute arises over the category (it should renamed, deleted, etc.), then I won't voice my opinion one way or the other. What I came here to argue for appears to be settled. -- Commdor {Talk} 21:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's one of those vague and nebulous things. Wasteland served as a big inspiration for Fallout. It basically was the sequel that Interplay couldn't really call a sequel since it didn't hold the rights to the name. However, it is probably more accurate to refer to Fallout as an homage to Wasteland, rather than part of the same series. Spiritual successor describes it best. I'd leave it as that.Two-Tonic Knight (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wasteland 2

i think it is now appropriate to create a Wasteland 2 page, since the Kickstarter project kicked off. Am I correct?--Infestor (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Making of Wasteland in Retro Gamer No. 134

Has anyone read the "Making of Wasteland" article in Retro Gamer No. 134? Is there information in it that could be useful here? I am trying to track down a copy of the article as I haven't read it. Vivatheviva (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to include an images from other games?

Would it be appropriate to include these images to the Wasteland_(video_game)#Sequels_and_spiritual_successor section where it discusses Fountain of Dreams and Fallout?

• File:Fountain of Dreams screenshot.png
• File:Fallout 1 6x Upscaled.jpg

I think so, as long as the captions explain why they are used here, but I wanted to give others a chance to chime in before I add them. Vivatheviva (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and added the images to see how they look. If others disagree, feel free to remove them. Vivatheviva (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot removed the Fountain of Dreams screenshot due to "No valid non-free use rationale for this page". Fine by me. Just closing the loop. Vivatheviva (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Fallout 1 6x Upscaled.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)