Wasteland Wasteland 2 Thread - Director's Cut

Josh is against having mechanics in his games that encourage reloading, performing the same actions, and getting a different result solely because of the RNG. He's not against the idea of reloading.

This runs contrary to his goals in New Vegas, and certainly doesn't describe any Fallout game or Wasteland 2.

Sneaking is quite useful in New Vegas on account of sneak attack crits and getting past things if you just don't want to fight them (e.g. taking the shortcuts to New Vegas at the beginning, where no, you will not survive those encounters against deathclaws and cazadores. You're not exactly swimming in stealth boys at the beginning either, though you can get at least two to help out with that)

 

I understand that to you these may be different things, but what you said is easily translated as "I don't want players reloading because of mechanics", hence "against reloading".

Of course, I'm not trying to imply that Sawyer is against people reloading a game after dying. But people reload all the time, for different things. The Magazines in New Vegas are a perfect example of reloading fodder: you can't know for certain when to use magazines in dialogue checks, so people will likely reload after failing a check and realizing they could have read a magazine beforehand, which ruins the experience. Not to mention I believe magazines have no place in a series like Fallout, because that's what they essentially are. And they don't make any sense either: do I read the magazine and then it goes *poof*? It's a continuation of Bethesda's practice of giving the player tons of stat boosting items and apparel.

Lockpicking and hacking minigames also encourage reloading, if you are a moron who can't get them right, of course.

And what were those? All I saw was a better RPG, but still a fundamentally boring videogame outside of conversations.

Regarding the second part, it's easy to notice why: Fallout is a fairly easy game, and Wasteland 2 has you command an entire group of Rangers. If you could only use one player (verifiable) the game would be extremely hard. Even more so considering the game is tailored around a group of Rangers with vastly different skill sets that make it much harder.

I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but: sneaking is not even useful in the same manner as it is in Thief when I play with a bunch of difficulty mods on top of New Vegas. It certainly isn't "useful" at all when every encounter in the vanilla game is easy as hell. Again, this is because the main goal of sneaking in a game should be disposing of enemies that would overwhelm you, and be able to pass by enemies without drawing unwanted attention that would kill you. In New Vegas and in pretty much every Bethesda game, sneaking is literally a "stealthy archer" gameplay gimmick, the most interesting way to play the game (except it's only cool in Skyrim). Never did I feel Sneaking was actually useful, except in the one mission of the game where I must remain undetected (stealing the Gun Runner's specifications).

TL;DR

How sneaking works in New Vegas:

- Kill enemies silently because it is more fun.
- If you don't sneak, nothing bad really happens.
- Sneaking is useful if you want to avoid boring fights and have a fun time.

How it should work in New Vegas and every other game ever made:

- Killing multiple enemies silently is a necessity to avoid death.
- If you don't sneak, you better be prepared for a difficult fight, as it should be expected from a one vs five men situation.
- Sneaking is useful if you want to survive, just like in Thief.

 

If you ignore all context, yeah.

Josh is in favor of including consumables and items that increase stats and skills, as shown in Pillars of Eternity. It allows for a bit of flexibility in what you can do.

You have to retry the minigame, which is now different. That's fine. Doing the same thing and getting a different result is what he's against.

"My goal was to increment the difficulty above Fallout 3 without taking such a large step that F3 fans would be unable or unwilling to adapt."

This would reduce the number of viable playstyles and character builds, and it wouldn't feel like Fallout. "A Fallout game should feel like Fallout"--Josh Sawyer

 

It also makes your build significantly less important when you can simply slap some new clothes or armor into yourself, or read some magazines.

I must see Sawyer say this to my face to know this is true so I can laugh at his opinion. The guy is all in for making a worse RPG if it means people don't have to reload...

I should have expected this.

I don't see how that is a problem if you design a game from scratch with that mentality.

Of course, Fallout: New Vegas is a terrible example since it's basically bullets flying all the time in a lot of locations.

 

Unless you're specifically building a character that can do everything (which can also be done in the original Fallouts), you won't be able to do everything.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

 

You are saying that... like it is a bad thing. For the record, I'm all in for replayability as long as the game is replayable. Some people think a few skill checks constitute replayabiility, but to me that's not enough if I'm essentially doing the same quests all over again.

Feel free. I'm pretty sure I understand what you mean, I just don't agree with it. But maybe you could explain it better so that we will agree.

 

You reload because you, the player, failed: encouraged.
You reload because the RNG screwed you, and you succeed the next time despite doing nothing differently: discouraged.

 

My opinion on the subject: reloading is fine ONLY if the player dies (or if something, outside the control of the player, accidentally happens). That's my view on reloads.

It is also why I use Immersive Minigames. It has a percentage chance of succeed depending on your skills, and I abide by the result, because otherwise I would always succeed at every minigame. I see no reason to play a minigame if my character is actually able to "crack" the skillcheck.

It also makes sense to me that I can attempt to lockpick anything despite how useless my skills are. If you can hit someone 200 meters away from you without any gun training, by pure luck, why can't it work the same way with terminals and lockpicking? Admittedly, it just doesn't work the same with terminals. Lockpicking, I've seen, is actually far less complex than one would expect (I actually browsed videos a few months ago, and I was surprised at how blunt of a task it was, the guy was basically moving the lockpicks as if he had Parkinson's).

I disagree with that opinion of Sawyer. Magazines encourage that, as I said earlier: failing a skill check isn't "failing" in my book, it's a natural result from your build. Reloading because you failed a skill check and can read some magazines is encouraging reloads because, to me, an "encouraged reload" is getting a benefit you previously couldn't have gotten. Hence why I think all reloads are bad unless you die or you, for example, accidentally shot an NPC because you misclicked, or if you wanted to sell your shotgun and accidentally sold your pistol.

 

In most cases, you can read a magazine and retry the check, no reloading necessary. JES mandated that failing a dialogue check wouldn't put you in a worse position than you were already in.

Additionally, even if magazines didn't exist, there's nothing stopping a player from just doing things elsewhere until they've gained enough levels and skillpoints to pass the check.

 

In most cases, yeah, in other cases, no.

While this is true, it would be borderline obsessive, and I doubt a significant amount of players would do that.

 

Yeah sort of. The despair from POE ending up as an abomination has passed by now and he is ready to vigorously fake praise non-existing acomplishments of a marginal mediocrity yet again, but with bigger perversity.

 

ROFL. That's what makes games addictive, FUN and sell well. This is proof that he is a marginal mediocrity (like anyone needed additional proof, but whatever).

Edit. Both infiltron and zombra are uneducated retards.

 

Wasteland 2 facebook page shared the link to this list http://www.trustedreviews.com/best-rpg-games_round-up ,saying how happy they are that W2 was included. Would not post this, but there is so much going wrong with the list it is mind boggling. I mean really. Nearly all game descriptions are either factually wrong, written in broken English or most likely both. There are wrongly attributed screenshots. Haven't laugh so much since I don't know when

 

It took them two years to notice that? :\

 

Tier one sites aren't what they used to be

 

What exactly is a "Play Pattern", though? Are they talking about their older audience that doesn't have as much (or enough) time to play their games like they used to? Or is a Play Pattern something describing the newer generation of gamers who don't have enough time (or patience) to play the old style of games?

 

Question is, who trusts those reviews.
And why do they show (fake) screenshots of stuff that isn't even in the game? Or did I miss that by any chance? If so, I regret not encountering those famed crabs.

 

Some comments are nothing more than empty statements.

 

>Fallout 3
>Skyrim
>Diablo III
>Paper Mario
>World of Warcraft
>South Park
>meme arrows

 

New Wasteland 2 collector's editions is coming with IndieBox subscription service: https://wasteland.inxile-entertainm...d-2-directors-cut-on-indiebox/?act=view&id=38

Likely better than your Kickstarter edition.


Therese are how IndieBox editions for other games look like, for example:






I think it will be available as individual purchase for limited quantity later at their store: https://store.theindiebox.com/

 

I'm so embarrassed that I gave InXile money.

 

So is director's cut improvement enough to counteract UI changes?