Review RPG Codex Review: Wasteland 2

[Kem0sabe]

WL2's writing is not good to great, far from it.

Did they keep those cringeworthy "arrow to the knee" references in the release version?

They took those out.

 

[Koschey]

I found it slightly confusing that two people were credited with the review, yet the voice of the reviewer constantly refers to "what I did". "My" party was built like this, "I" got stopped hard at the Prison, etc. Other than that stylistic choice, I enjoyed the review.

Heh, agreed.

You control 6-7 characters, and if you had to make important decisions 6-7 times a turn it would get tedious fast.

It hardly gets tedious in blobbers or in other oldskoolers that had 6+ party members.

Maybe my memory fails me, but if we take Wiz 8, for an example, only spellcasters get to make important choices.

That may be true, but apart from Fighters and Rogues all Wiz8 classes are sooner or later able to cast spells (or use instruments/gadgets), so the average party of 8 will have at least 6 spellcasters.

 

[Crescent Hawk]

To me Wasteland 2 is more like a symbol. I dont particularly like the game, but it may signal a renaissance in crpgs, like an old battle irrelevant to the whole scheme of a war, but always fondly remembered as a turning point. We shall now see if for good or bad.

 

[Forest Dweller]

WL2's writing is not good to great, far from it.

Did they keep those cringeworthy "arrow to the knee" references in the release version?

No, but I hear there's a Codex shrine.

 

[Mortmal]

Good review, but you cant say that shadowrun is an awful tablet game and then say wastelands 2 is the landmark of incline and combat works well.... Little use of terrain, almost no strategic choices,boring repetitive filler fights like a jrpg ,shadowrun combat looks deep compare to it.Brofist to roxxor as he says it better than i could ever.
Guess VD cant be too negative , he has a game soon to be released and will be judged, harshly , too

 

[Vault Dweller]

Maybe my memory fails me, but if we take Wiz 8, for an example, only spellcasters get to make important choices.

Which was still more important stuff to choose from than in Wasteland 2. Which also reinforces my claim that adding more options to make some decisions important wouldn't automatically make the game tedious.

Spellcasting is a different beast - literally everything is possible and nothing is out of place: healing, buffs, debuffs, direct damage, aoe attacks, etc. In a semi-realistic world with guns your options are much more limited. While both Jagged Alliance 2 and Silent Storm had much better combat systems (worth nothing that combat was the core of both games) but not because they had more attack types.

Maybe in jRPGs. There was hardly any constant hp bloating for mook enemies (and topping it with fucking 3000, FUCK YOU SCORPITRONS)

By the time I ran into it, my party was doing about 70-90 points of damage per person. That's 400-600 points of damage per turn. I think I killed it in 6-7 turns which isn't unreasonable.

comparable to some of the hights of absurd that Wasteland 2 reaches in Krondor, in Goldbox games (because D&D), in M&M, in Darklands, in RoA, in Daggerfall, in JA, even in friggin' Fallout.

Fallout 2: you start with rats and end up fighting 150-200 hp monsters. It's not as bad as WL2 but you didn't have a 6-7 men party either. If you did, the hp would have been doubled or tripled.

And yet you can get an SMG with 3AP burst and 5 or 6 AP burst. Or a pistol with 3-4 or 5-6 AP.

And yet I still remember that one was clearly superior to the other.

First, I humbly disagree. Second, it's not the point. Say, you have 9AP and do a 5-6A burst. You can either waste 3-4AP or use a different gun (even if it is slightly inferior).

Something that, you know, would be present in just about every RPG designed in the oldschool way.

How many oldschool games would allow you to disarm a single enemy or wrestle him to the ground, diffusing a combat encounter with a single click?

* * *

Good review, but you cant say that shadowrun is an awful tablet game...

Oh I can. I'd even explain why but I'm busy at the moment. Maybe later.

Guess VD cant be too negative , he has a game soon to be released and will be judged, harshly , too

The review is genuine. I didn't have to review it (in fact I wasn't going to, but I really liked the game and decided to share my excitement). I can easily see why someone wouldn't like the game (just like people who really like D:OS should see why someone wouldn't).

I wish it were a different game (like Fallout) because I like Fallout's design and world a lot more. However, it would be silly to penalize it for something it's not and never aimed to be. It also would be easy to focus on things it does poorly instead of things it does well. It's one of those 'glass half full or half empty' games. For me it was a glass half full.

 

[Pegultagol]

There is a lot to like in the game, and the foundation is laid successfully, meeting many goals it set out in its Kickstarter pledge (of course those who have opted in collector's items have this agonizing wait until all are sent out properly through the system). I agree it opened doors to other RPG projects, among which I await with most anticipation being Torment.

Some of the reactionary elements and mechanics in the game mentioned in the review are praiseworthy, chief among them the Titan Canyon and Rail Nomads. Some of the disappointments lie in the Prison with the most stark implementation of gameplay dead end in those indestructible turrets and the overall lack of finish in latter parts of the game, particularly Hollywood. But the outlines of the game that I can envision show something worthwhile, which is more than I can say for most games in the last few years. I think the game is a few more polish job and a little deeper combat depth away from being a classic.

 

[Gregz]

Isn't 7/10 indicative of a good game?

You're thinking of girls.

Irenaeus: "She's a solid 7"

 

[Blaine]

I noticed that this review made no mention whatsoever of the armor mechanics, so I checked the relevant Wiki page's history log and it appears inXile fixed the absolutely moronic at-release armor mechanics about a day after I was finished with Wasteland 2. For those who are unaware, AC was once called Protection, and it was a subtractive value. Armor was worse than useless.

In any event, only the second half of WL2 elevates the game from mediocrity, and then just barely. It's a mixed sort of mediocrity, though: WL2 has some good or even very good things mixed in with a bunch of annoying or very bad things. The generic trash mobs, generic random loot, typos all over the place, mismatched portraits and character models, and general sloppiness (perhaps the latter three have been tidied up since I played) were very disappointing.

I wouldn't call WL2 "good," even taking fixes and changes since release into account, but I'd call it a "good try."

The review itself is good, though, even if I disagree slightly with the conclusions drawn by its authors. Good job, etc.

 

[StaticSpine]

I think the biggest flaw of the game is that it's too big for it's own good. If you compressed the tedium it would be a far more interesting game.

This also. Totally aggree. But once again, California doesn't feel that tedious, because the gameplay is more balanced.

 

[himmy]

"A lot of different guns", maybe, but "with a lot of different stats" is almost borderline fallacy considering the ridiculously linear progression of weapons. You almost never have to choose between two guns of the same class. There is hardly any curve or options to be had - there is always one clearly superior gun for your current 'power level', and you won't change it until you come across a new group of dudes with bigger stats.

I disagree. I found quite a few guns that I had to decide between, as they has either higher damage but larger use of AP, or lower damage but x2 which made up for the AP or several other options, and I never even finished Arizona yet. Maybe you had a significantly different character progression, since it's obvious that one AP +/- would decide most of the time what gun to go for.

 

[otsego]

Definitely not enough focus on the shortcomings of this offering (and there are a LOT, and some of them are truly bad). It's so blatant that some areas and assets are poor and clearly a melting pot collaboration.

However, the game is still quite good, has character, and is compelling enough to go through a second time with a different party setup (I do cringe at the idea of having to deal with all the bum-rush combat again though).

Agreed that a big plus is that it paves the way for improved RPG games in the future; I find myself very forgiving of the fact that Fargo's new team used an unfamiliar engine to produce a game of this scope and learned from it. If anything, Wasteland 2 has me much more excited for what Fargo et al. can do with the NEXT Wasteland, or whatever they choose to do. Hopefully lessons learned from W2 carry into their Torment game.

 

[Invictus]

Excelent review VD; the game is no classic and likely to me remebered more for its Kickstarter historic relevante than for the actual game...but it s a pretty darn good game nonetheless and even though I didnt back it I bought it the first week and dont regret it one bit. Mostly agree with almost all of VD points, especially about the lack of sinergy between the skills and attributes, even small increases in chances for the skills or even making skills stat reliant (like allowing only a 4 str char to pick the brute force skill)
Lastly I agree that the rampant loot chest mechanic should have been a bit more focused by having less chests with more relevant loot (like one of the infected villages with their ammo locked armory) or at least área locked spawns to minimaze scumsaving...which I happen to like but still
All in all, a tremendos return to glory for old school games and kudos to Fargo and company; this is truly shaping up like the year of Incline, and we still have to wait for Age of Decadence and Grimoire

 

[BLOBERT]

BRO NO IMPOTENT RPG SINCE 2005!!11!

CANT A NEGRO GET A LITTLE LOVE FOR BATSHIT CRAZY PIERE

KOTC WAS GREAAAT

VINCE I WOULD FIST BOTH YOU AND PIEERE SO HARD LOOLOOLLOLL

I HEARD WL2 WASNT GOOD FOR SHIT MACHINES SO I GOTTA WAIT A WHILE TO TRY IT

BROS I AM VERY FOND OF VDS REVIEWS AND AT LEAST AS MUCH AS I CAN TELL FROM A MOTHERFUCKER OVER THE INTERNET HE PUTS WHAT HE THINKS OUT THERE

 

[sser]

Plenty of games do it well, but we're not allowed to compare them as those games are for combat, and WL2's combat is not combat, it's just a side-piece or something of another.

 

[Sensuki]

Not a bad review, although pretty lenient - likely due to passing the amount of C&C test.

 

[Blaine]

I'm more inclined toward certain persons feeling too badly for inXile to really stick it to them.

I know I do. Wasteland 2 was the first game I pledged for on Kickstarter.

Spoiler

 

[Invictus]

I think exactly the opposite Blaine; if this game had been developer out of the Blue by an indie developer we would be claming holy incline in the same way that Grimrock or Amnesia were praised. The fact that there was so much expectation from Kickstarter and glitz from Fargo and company might actualy have Hurt the game

 

[Infinitron]

I wouldn't call WL2 "good," even taking fixes and changes since release into account, but I'd call it a "good try."

Seems pretty fair, actually, though for the monocled it's already 9/10. A few patches, tweaks, and perhaps a mod or two down the road? A solid 9/10 for anyone.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Spellcasting is a different beast - literally everything is possible and nothing is out of place: healing, buffs, debuffs, direct damage, aoe attacks, etc. In a semi-realistic world with guns your options are much more limited. While both Jagged Alliance 2 and Silent Storm had much better combat systems (worth nothing that combat was the core of both games) but not because they had more attack types.

More attack types surely helped, but it was also a matter of more gear.

My mind was absolutely blown when I realised Wasteland had only frag grenades (and those mad monk dirty ones that are absolute garbage). Where are my smokes? My flashbangs? My gas? My flares? Even just adding fucking flashbangs would make a ton of a difference in this game.

By the time I ran into it, my party was doing about 70-90 points of damage per person. That's 400-600 points of damage per turn. I think I killed it in 6-7 turns which isn't unreasonable.

Scorpitrons are simply badly designed no matter how many turns it takes you to kill them. There is nothing good about obnoxious bullet sponges that can only repeat the same action every turn and drop some minis every 3 or so turns. Especially since they can't be targeted by melee weapons and their flamers make shotguns suicidal, which already drops your optimal damage per turn.

Fallout 2: you start with rats and end up fighting 150-200 hp monsters. It's not as bad as WL2 but you didn't have a 6-7 men party either. If you did, the hp would have been doubled or tripled.

In Fallout you start with rats and end up fighting 150-200 hp monsters once you have the shit that can take them. In WL2 you leave Arizona and can immediately run into a God's Militia random encounter that have the same stats, hp and (cheating) weapons as the ones in Hollywood, while all you have are guns that seemed supacool in Titan Canyon/Damonta, but have now been reduced to peashooters. You either reload the random encounter or you are dead, there is hardly any other outcome possible here.

How many oldschool games would allow you to disarm a single enemy or wrestle him to the ground, diffusing a combat encounter with a single click?

Let's see, from the list I put up there?

Krondor - Blind spell, available from the start. Also a couple other spells, poisons that can be applied to weapons, bumrushing a dude to stop him from shooting or casting.

Goldbox - D&D spells and shit.

M&M - Sleep spell and all other assorted spells, status effects and consumables.

Darklands - Can either lock an enemy shooter/witch in melee or bombard it with alchemy (grenades)

RoA - All assorted spells again

Daggerfall - So broken you can do something Awesome happen with every push of a button.

JA - Grenades, grenades, grenades, grenades, grenades. Also, aimed shots. Hit a dude in the knee and he'll already waste AP just to get up.

Fallout - Shoot a dude in the arm to cripple it. Shoot him in the eyes to blind him. Punch him with a sledge to dust him.

Those are mostly simple and reasonable options that are available to the player always from the start. Crowd control and disabling high-threat targets has always been important in every single game that had party-based combat and which even tried to look tacticool. Wasteland 2 has none of those, NONE. And it seriously rustles my jimmies because it shows that the people who designed this combat had barely any idea what they were doing.

 

[Grunker]

I think exactly the opposite Blaine; if this game had been developer out of the Blue by an indie developer we would be claming holy incline in the same way that Grimrock or Amnesia were praised. The fact that there was so much expectation from Kickstarter and glitz from Fargo and company might actualy have Hurt the game

Amnesia was criticized here for relying too much on scripted events.

 

[thesheeep]

I can only agree with Darth Roxor here.
The WL2 combat system is just too shallow. I lost interest about half the way in. While the setting and exploration is nice, let's be honest, this is primarily a combat game, with some other checks put into the mix.

Which is not bad. I like combat focused games (who doesn't!?). But the good ones offer more than just shoot in two-three modes and take cover. The way the game is presented, you expect something like Jagged Alliance. You are asking constantly "Why can't I do this? It would have made so much sense and everything much better!". It is not a wonder most see it as the weakest point.
Well, except maybe the abysmal performance, which is normal with Unity.

Honestly, in hindsight, I would have preferred the typical olde combat style as it was in Wasteland 1. Maybe presented a bit better
That one surely was pretty simple, but nobody complained as nobody would expect combat like that not to be very simple.

Of course, that would have required extra effort and not using the exact same tech for movement/exploration and combat. Maybe they did the best they could. But it is still lacking. A lot.
Reminds me a bit of those Spiders games, looking like someone was trying to imitate a AAA title/concept but could not get there due to budget constraints.
The result is a good game (I like those Spiders games!), but with obvious shortcomings that should not be claimed not to exist.

 

[Excommunicator]

Wasteland 2 Review

Ctrl+F
"music"
Phrase not found
"sound"
Phrase not found
"audio"
Phrase not found

hmmm

Ctrl+F
"graphics"
Phrase not found
"visual"
Phrase not found
"art"
Phrase not found

Seriously?

I appreciate the depth of discussion going into the mechanics but I'm genuinely troubled and disappointed by this. Why has this happened? I don't think the review meets the base standards without these two fundamental areas being discussed. I also don't think I'm being the slightest bit unfair in giving this opinion either.

Honestly I'd like to see the review amended to cover these aspects. I feel that this is more of a Codex meta-game discussion than a standalone review. Does the game - and the Codex too - not deserve something more comprehensive given the circumstances?

Spoiler

For the record Eric S and Vault Dweller are two of my favourites on the Codex

 

[Infinitron]

Wasteland 2 Review

Ctrl+F
"music"
Phrase not found
"sound"
Phrase not found
"audio"
Phrase not found

hmmm

Ctrl+F
"graphics"
Phrase not found
"visual"
Phrase not found
"art"
Phrase not found

Seriously?

Ctrl+F
"Vault Dweller"

 

[Grunker]

Some people still carry public school in their hearts. "But muh teacher said I had to get around all these areas when doing a book review... she even gave me this handy chart with titles, I just had to fill in the text..."

A review doesn't need to be an exhaustive end-all be-all detailing of the game. In fact most major sites have shitty reviews for this reason: they follow a strict, boxed frame where they go extremely superficially through arbitrarily selected categories of the game, with an equally arbitrary score given to each. I prefer the reviewer shine through by discussing the game in the areas he felt significant. Reviews aren't attempts at objectively and exhaustively analysing the game, they're highly subjective discussions of the experience the reviewer had while playing them. Codex reviews often have an extra element or layer to them in that we like going into nitty-gritty detail with systems discussion because we're nerds like that. Our users and reviewers seem to care about detailed mechanics and systems discussion so that's something many of our reviews focus on. We've always been less focused on aesthetics (we can geek out on that too though - Jaesun has an excellent thread about the sound design of oldschool games I believe).

VD follows the School of the Codex down to a T in this review as well. That's why VD/Roxor reviews are the quentessential Codex reviews, basially - they're very "cold" (in the sense that they focus a lot on the core of the game and not a lot on bells and whistles) and gameplay focused, with smattering of story/writing context.

Why would Vault Dweller talk about graphics and audio, exactly?