Wasteland The Wasteland 2 Beta Release Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Kem0sabe]

The early parts of W2 aren't "shit", they're just mediocre. It's actually hard to compare to other RPGs because most don't have this level of not-quite-good. They either have something really cool about them, or are so flawed they suck. W2 doesn't have either of those things.

Maybe shit is too hard a word, let's call them utterly uninspired instead.

 

[Infinitron]

The early parts of W2 aren't "shit", they're just mediocre. It's actually hard to compare to other RPGs because most don't have this level of not-quite-good. They either have something really cool about them, or are so flawed they suck. W2 doesn't have either of those things.

How would you compare it to...Baldur's Gate 1?

Serious question. I get the feeling that the people who think the opening areas of Wasteland 2 are boring/horrible are the same sort of people who think BG1 is one of the worst games.

You could call them "density-fags", or "non-generic-fags", or "just doing 'RPG stuff' isn't enough for me-fags".

Opening areas of Baldurs Gate 1 were quite amazing, considering the D&D rpg offerings you had at the time. A good intro and motivation for the main character, the feeling of being lost in a big fantasy world with an underpowered character, lots of exploration, the low level combat that had none of the absurd encounters of BG2.

BG1's opening is better than WL2 in every aspect.

I wasn't talking about BG1's opening. I was talking about BG1 as a whole. It's described by many on the Codex as the quintessential "all purpose generic RPG", where you wander around in a well-realized but fairly simple world doing generic "RPG stuff", while following a predetermined plot-gated storyline.

 

[Crooked Bee]

BG1 may have been generic and imperfect, but it was really well-done; like, solid in every way. I played it recently for the first time in many years, and enjoyed it quite a bit. If W2 is of comparable quality, I'll be okay with that.

Currently my main fear is about the exploration and how open-ended it is. I guess I'll just wait and see.

 

[Kem0sabe]

The early parts of W2 aren't "shit", they're just mediocre. It's actually hard to compare to other RPGs because most don't have this level of not-quite-good. They either have something really cool about them, or are so flawed they suck. W2 doesn't have either of those things.

How would you compare it to...Baldur's Gate 1?

Serious question. I get the feeling that the people who think the opening areas of Wasteland 2 are boring/horrible are the same sort of people who think BG1 is one of the worst games.

You could call them "density-fags", or "non-generic-fags", or "just doing 'RPG stuff' isn't enough for me-fags".

Opening areas of Baldurs Gate 1 were quite amazing, considering the D&D rpg offerings you had at the time. A good intro and motivation for the main character, the feeling of being lost in a big fantasy world with an underpowered character, lots of exploration, the low level combat that had none of the absurd encounters of BG2.

BG1's opening is better than WL2 in every aspect.

I wasn't talking about BG1's opening. I was talking about BG1 as a whole. It's described by many on the Codex as the quintessential "all purpose generic RPG", where you wander around in a well-realized but fairly simple world doing generic "RPG stuff", while following a predetermined plot-gated storyline.

Considering we can only compare roughly half of WL2 to BG1, i would say that the latter is still a vastly superior game in every regard. The plot and setting, as you well point out, might be generic, but its extremely well executed "generic fantasy", the game has good pacing, interesting characters, a very well done villain with an understandable agenda that goes beyond "arg evil!".

WL2 on the other hand, it lacks polish to its world design, characters, combat, exploration and is a very linear experience roughly comparable to BG1's design, in WL2, your side locations are poorly developed and lack interesting stories to them, all the "quality" is front loaded to the main plot, and by quality i mean that they spent marginally more attention working on them.

 

[Infinitron]

BG1 may have been generic and imperfect, but it was really well-done; like, solid in every way. I played it recently for the first time in many years, and enjoyed it quite a bit. If W2 is of comparable quality, I'll be okay with that.

So will I. But I do think that if Wasteland 2 ends up disappointing a large portion of Fallout fans while pleasing Baldur's Gate fans, that would constitute a failure on its part. Even if it doesn't affect me personally.

WL2 on the other hand, it lacks polish to its world design, characters, combat, exploration and is a very linear experience comparable to BG1, you have a few side locations that are poorly developed and just follow the main plot around.

Tell me something Kem0 - you have actually played Wasteland 2, right?

 

[Sensuki]

Wasteland 2 can't hold a candle to BG1. Apples and Oranges.

 

[DalekFlay]

Linear compared to BG1? Really?

 

[Kem0sabe]

WL2 on the other hand, it lacks polish to its world design, characters, combat, exploration and is a very linear experience comparable to BG1, you have a few side locations that are poorly developed and just follow the main plot around.

Tell me something Kem0 - you have actually played Wasteland 2, right?

I have, with every update. What makes you say otherwise?

HQ tells you to go to the radio tower, then from there you have to activate the beacons, while being given the choice between highpool and AG centre, which really isnt a choice considering what a pain in the ass AG centre is to finish, then it's off to do some menial tasks from either the AG centre with 3 optional locations to cure or off to kill the raider camp if you chose highpool, then you can go to the rail nomads or more likely the prison, all very linear with set orders from command and all very full with underdeveloped areas and characters.

 

[Infinitron]

I have, with every update. What makes you say otherwise?

That you're a person who's overconfident about his opinions and has a tendency to jump to conclusions.

Just making sure.

HQ tells you to go to the radio tower, then from there you have to activate the beacons, while being given the choice between highpool and AG centre, which really isnt a choice considering what a pain in the ass AG centre is to finish, then it's off to do some menial tasks from either the AG centre with 3 optional locations to cure or off to kill the raider camp if you chose highpool, then you can go to the rail nomads or more likely the prison, all very linear with set orders from command and all very full with underdeveloped areas and characters.

Killing kobolds in mines is no less menial, and BG1's wilderness areas are the very definition of undeveloped areas in an RPG.

Now, I don't care about that stuff so much. I guess I'm just too busy enjoying the systems, the atmosphere, the writing to notice that the world is kinda sparse and generic. But, the Fallout-uber-alles crowd certainly does.

 

[Zombra]

BG1's opening is better than WL2 in every aspect.

HQ tells you to go to the radio tower (which you can choose not to do immediately), then from there you choose one of two locations, then you have four locations to choose from, then you choose from two different locations, all very linear

 

[Zombra]

Did Divine Divinity have a two year conversation with its audience before release? Was there any reason to expect it would get better? Not trying to start a fight; honest questions.

Do you honestly think that the average player is fully aware of everything being posted and debate about the game? People buy a game, they expect it to be good; simple as that.

I honestly think that the communication about Wasteland 2 and the expectations for it are very different from those for Divine Divinity. I'm not interested in starting a fight or debating the attitude of the mythical "average majority" whatever, but I take it from your response that DD did not converse with its audience or build hype beforehand. I had certainly never heard of it before I tried it. Different times, different expectations.

 

[sea]

HQ tells you to go to the radio tower, then from there you have to activate the beacons, while being given the choice between highpool and AG centre, which really isnt a choice considering what a pain in the ass AG centre is to finish, then it's off to do some menial tasks from either the AG centre with 3 optional locations to cure or off to kill the raider camp if you chose highpool, then you can go to the rail nomads or more likely the prison, all very linear with set orders from command and all very full with underdeveloped areas and characters.

It's possible to go to Ag Center, Highpool, Prison or Rail Nomads and a variety of smaller maps before ever touching Radio Tower. Sure, you do have to complete certain objectives to advance the story, but the order you do it in is largely up to you now, and most of the quests in the game, despite being on the critical path, are optional (i.e. you don't have to even bother with saving Highpool or Ag Center, or doing the side-quest to save the infected locations, or repairing the Highpool pipes, or finding Ace's killer, or helping Damonta, or dealing with the Diamondback Militia and Mad Monks, etc.).

It's totally possible to beeline the main objectives if that's what you want to do, up to and including leaving major locations to die. The fact that there are more objectives than a game like, say, Fallout, maybe isn't your thing, of course, and you're free to have that opinion.

For the record, the California portion of Wasteland 2 becomes even more open-ended than Arizona, too.

 

[Xeon]

I thought finding Ace's killers was the main mission and that it will lead to a conspiracy or an evil organization Ace was about to get close to them or something like that.

 

[Kem0sabe]

I have, with every update. What makes you say otherwise?

That you're a person who's overconfident about his opinions and has a tendency to jump to conclusions.

So people should be meek about their opinions? Everything everyone says here is their own opinion and the result of their own personal views on a subjective medium like video games, look at dildolos for example, he loves this no matter what, so as ever... the codex is polarizing.

Thing is, i have always said here, inxile has bitten off more than they can chew, before this they were for the most part a mobile developer. The game lacks polish and well developed rpg systems, they opted badly, in my opinion, to go ahead with some less than appealing systems, like the 3d map system, the half baked dialogue system, the underdeveloped combat system and an extensive skill list that has a lot of filler and bloat thrown in.

Will all that be fixed when L.A hits on release? Possibly, until then i reserve my judgement, because not everything they let on or say is true, as that latest screenshot has shown.

 

[tuluse]

How would you compare it to...Baldur's Gate 1?

Serious question. I get the feeling that the people who think the opening areas of Wasteland 2 are boring/horrible are the same sort of people who think BG1 is one of the worst games.

You could call them "density-fags", or "non-generic-fags", or "just doing 'RPG stuff' isn't enough for me-fags".

So fun fact, I've never actually finished BG1. Also, BG1 was my first experience with D&D ever. So with that in mind, my comparison.

BG1's story gating is a lot less intrusive than W2's (although this has been improved somewhat). There are a few places you can't reach until you do some story thing, but it doesn't rub your face in it and it feels like another form of exploration to be honest. Also, W2 has Vargas constantly giving you orders. You don't have to do what he's saying, and you can go off and do your own thing, but it feels wrongish. I know Jaheira and Khalid would pipe up if you weren't getting to the mines, but they were just a couple of people you met, not your boss.

AD&D is frankly a more interesting character system than CLASSIC, and I say this as someone who thinks SPECIAL gets a bad rap. There are no cool abilities to learn in CLASSIC. D&D is filled with awesome spells, and even if your MC doesn't have them party members will, plus there are scrolls and potions everywhere. Itemization is better, again thanks to magic. There are no boots of speed or belts of frost giant's strength in W2. There are basically 4 kinds of skills in W2. Combat skills that make you better at shooting things, passive skills which are poorly explained (to be fair, no manual yet), active use skills which are just a percentage chance to open something, and dialog skills. Compare this to Fallout (and especially New Vegas) where in addition to the W2 style skills, you have sneaking and pick pocket which open up whole new opportunities and work differently than say science or lockpicking. There's also more overlap in Fallout, which spices things up. Sometimes science will be tested in a dialog instead just a percentage chance to use a computer. I could keep writing here, but you asked for BG1 vs W2, not Fallout.

BG1 has more interesting and varied enemies. I've written about this previously, so I don't think I need to rehash. Even if you spend a long time fighting kobolds and xvarts, you do fight more interesting stuff too. Especially if you try to explore without magic weapons and you run into things like skeletons and can't rely on bows.

BG1 had a lot of neat things you could discover and side-quests to do. The first time I played BG I didn't even go upstairs in the Friendly Arm Inn. On some later playthrough I did, and I was like holy cow there is so much stuff to do (it also slyly pushes you towards Beregost and Nashkel). The Carnival is also a highpoint. LIke getting Branwen. It sounds like a scam like sure a guy in a carnival selling a scroll for 500 gold to unpetrify the girl, but then it turns out to be true, and of course you can get a scroll cheaper from another source.

 

[Infinitron]

tuluse

Keep in mind that I am not saying that WL2 is a BG1 clone, or that it's as good as BG1. (BG1 is probably my all-around favorite RPG and it won't be unthroned easily.)

I guess what I really meant is that it seems like some people's reasons for disliking WL2's opening areas are similar to the reasons some people dislike BG1. You can see this in the posts of people like Leonard Devir, who seems to be constantly yearning for dense environments with interesting "Fallouty" stuff to do in them. "I want to use my science skill on a terminal and learn some lore!" Etc.

For other people, even though they do dislike that aspect of BG1, it may have redeeming value in other areas that tips the balance in its favor. I'm not denying that.

 

[tuluse]

Well I voted for BG1 with a single point for the codex voting. At this time, I would not vote for W2. Although, I do like it more than SRR and E:C and I enjoyed both of those games.

 

[Infinitron]

AD&D is frankly a more interesting character system than CLASSIC, and I say this as someone who thinks SPECIAL gets a bad rap. There are no cool abilities to learn in CLASSIC. D&D is filled with awesome spells, and even if your MC doesn't have them party members will, plus there are scrolls and potions everywhere. Itemization is better, again thanks to magic. There are no boots of speed or belts of frost giant's strength in W2.

BG1 has more interesting and varied enemies. I've written about this previously, so I don't think I need to rehash. Even if you spend a long time fighting kobolds and xvarts, you do fight more interesting stuff too. Especially if you try to explore without magic weapons and you run into things like skeletons and can't rely on bows.

Yeah, these are the same arguments I used in the "full scale RPG" argument with VD, to argue that Baldur's Gate was indeed "full scale". Some people aren't impressed by these inherent advantages of fantasy settings.

BG1's story gating is a lot less intrusive than W2's (although this has been improved somewhat). There are a few places you can't reach until you do some story thing, but it doesn't rub your face in it and it feels like another form of exploration to be honest. Also, W2 has Vargas constantly giving you orders. You don't have to do what he's saying, and you can go off and do your own thing, but it feels wrongish. I know Jaheira and Khalid would pipe up if you weren't getting to the mines, but they were just a couple of people you met, not your boss.

Is it possible to make a top-down/isometric RPG where the player is following the orders of a faction with which he is in constant radio contact, without making it feel railroaded (even if it's not actually railroaded!)? Maybe CRPG heros were meant to be autonomous loners.

First person games like Deus Ex managed it by adding a lot of small-scale intra-environment exploration which is "below the threshold" of the orders you receive from your boss. That compensates for the fact that the game as a whole is linear. I don't think that would be as satisfying in a top-down game though, even one with very open environments.

I guess they could have made it like Wasteland 1, where the HQ was abstracted away and never spoke to you. But that would have been weird nowadays. You know, perhaps the fact that Vargas is constant contact is the reason why Fargo regards Arizona as being "like a tutorial, almost". sea, Brother None, is Vargas on the radio in California as well?

 

[felipepepe]

BG 1 world was very interesting, and everywhere you went there was stuff going on that would drawn you in.

I.e., you're exploring a apparently empty area, then you see some ankheg attacking. Kill them and you get their shells to make armor (meaning now you want to find a blacksmith). If you enter the farmhouse nearby, they tell you how their son went missing. Go into the ankheeg hole nearby and you'll have a mini-dungeon to explore, any ankheg to kill and eventually you'll find the boy's body. Also, outside there's a ankheeg hunter that controls the population of ankhegs and will limit how many you can kill. Also, the ankheg shells weight a lot, meaning carrying them requires some planning, but you make armors or sell them for some good gold.

All this is one part of one area in the game, with absolutely no relation to the main story. There's nothing in W2 like that, even entire areas like the Leve'Lupe Mine or the Infected Village have less content and relevance than this. Those can't hold a candle to the Gnoll Stronghold, for example, that is a cool optional area constantly talked about by various NPCs in the background, and leads to Minsc and Dynaheir, or Edwin.

Yeah, these are the same arguments I used in the "full scale RPG" argument with VD, to argue that Baldur's Gate was indeed "full scale". Some people aren't impressed by these inherent advantages of fantasy settings.

For the nth time you use this same shitty argument in this thread... A good designer could make W2 setting be extremely exciting. It already got guns, mutants, radiation, nuclear priest, robots, raiders, etc, but uses them horribly. The world is full of mutants, crazy raiders and robots, but all you get to play is a bunch of police officers going pew-pew behind cover. And 99% of your enemies are either humans with guns also going pew-pew behind cover or giant animals that just run towards you.

Just take a look at Gamma World or even Deux Ex to see how you don't need magic to make a awesome setting that's full of interesting things. Fallout was supposed to be a more serious, toned down setting, yet Fallout Tactics lets you have super-mutants, deathclaws, ghouls, robots, flamethrowers and even a goddamn tank!

 

[FeelTheRads]

For the nth time you use this same shitty argument in this thread..

Remember you don't like W2 because you don't like post-apocalyptic landscapes!!!

 

[Infinitron]

For the nth time you use this same shitty argument in this thread... A good designer could make W2 setting be extremely exciting. It already got guns, mutants, radiation, nuclear priest, robots, raiders, etc, but uses them horribly. The world is full of mutants, crazy raiders and robots, but all you get to play is a bunch of police officers going pew-pew behind cover. And 99% of your enemies are either humans with guns also going pew-pew behind cover or giant animals that just run towards you.

Just take a look at Gamma World or even Deux Ex to see how you don't need magic to make a awesome setting that's full of interesting things. Fallout was supposed to be a more serious, toned down setting, yet Fallout Tactics lets you have super-mutants, deathclaws, ghouls, robots, flamethrowers and even a goddamn tank!

I am not convinced of your knowledge of the Wasteland setting. I remember what you told me after you tried to play the first game...

I.e., you're exploring a apparently empty area, then you see some ankheg attacking. Kill them and you get their shells to make armor (meaning now you want to find a blacksmith). If you enter the farmhouse nearby, they tell you how their son went missing. Go into the ankheeg hole nearby and you'll have a mini-dungeon to explore, any ankheg to kill and eventually you'll find the boy's body. Also, outside there's a ankheeg hunter that controls the population of ankhegs and will limit how many you can kill. Also, the ankheg shells weight a lot, meaning carrying them requires some planning, but you make armors or sell them for some good gold.

*shrug* Sounds like "RPG stuff" to me. Kill mobs, get reward.

Then there are areas like these: http://www.forgottenwars.com/bg1/ar0400.htm

I didn't mind having a random place where I could just hack up a bunch of zombies, but I bet lots of people thought that area was an abomination.

 

[tuluse]

Yeah, these are the same arguments I used in the "full scale RPG" argument with VD, to argue that Baldur's Gate was indeed "full scale". Some people aren't impressed by these inherent advantages of fantasy settings.

Eh, I think the main advantages of fantasy is that it's more obvious how to make things interesting, not that it's automatically more interesting (which is why I gave some Fallout examples).

I guess verisimilitude is easier too. Like it wouldn't make sense than upgrading shutgun skill eventually makes it shoot a rocket, but upgrading fire spells from fire arrow to fireball does.

Is it possible to make a top-down/isometric RPG where the player is following the orders of a faction with which he is in constant radio contact, without making it feel railroaded (even if it's actually railroaded!)? Maybe CRPG heros were meant to be autonomous loners.

First person games like Deus Ex managed it by adding a lot of small-scale intra-environment exploration which is "below the threshold" of the orders you receive from your boss. That compensates for the fact that the game as a whole is linear. I don't think that would be as satisfying in a top-down game though, even one with very open environments.

I guess they could have made it like Wasteland 1, where the HQ was abstracted away and never spoke to you. But that would have been weird nowadays. You know, perhaps the fact that Vargas is constant contact is the reason why Fargo regards Arizona as being "like a tutorial, almost". sea, Brother None, is Vargas on the radio in California as well?

I think you nailed it. Vargas's mission are too specific. I wish more room for interpretation was left open. This is at the very beginning. I really need to dive in further and see how it develops.

 

[Pantalones]

I guess they could have made it like Wasteland 1, where the HQ was abstracted away and never spoke to you. But that would have been weird nowadays. You know, perhaps the fact that Vargas is constant contact is the reason why Fargo regards Arizona as being "like a tutorial, almost". sea, Brother None, is Vargas on the radio in California as well?

The whole point of the kickstarter was to get away from stupid things that make games braindead, so I am very surprised they took this route.

 

[felipepepe]

I am not convinced of your knowledge of the Wasteland setting. I remember what you told me after you tried to play the first game...

WTF does this even mean? Do I need to beat a game 7 times or have a completion certificate signed by Brian Fargo to debate now? For half this thread you kept defending W2 without even playing the beta, and now you say that?

What a shitty ad hominem...

*shrug* Sounds like "RPG stuff" to me.

Yeah, but done well. Unlike W2's "RPG Stuff" that means "go into this mine we just marked on your map, follow this horribly linear corridor and kill everything in the way". Is the difference between great and mediocre content.

I guess verisimilitude is easier too. Like it wouldn't make sense than upgrading shutgun skill eventually makes it shoot a rocket, but upgrading fire spells from fire arrow to fireball does.

But you can learn how to shoot the kneecaps, reload faster, use explosive shells, dual-wield them or whatever...

 

[Yuri Gagarin]

Remember, such is the life of a Kickstarter apologist.

In other news, I just installed the beta. I'm really excited :dildolos: