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

[buzz]

What fucking part of "I can play pretty much any game up to this point with no problem" didn't you understand? I can't max and do ubersamplinglol on Witcher 2, but it was running fairly smoothly on medium and I had no loading problems. And Crysis was the first thing I tried back when I built the computer and it ran on high. I don't know about Battlefield 3 though, but I'm confident that at least it works without any giant issues.
Probably Watch Dogs might be the first MODARN GAYM thing which won't work on my computer, but I don't even have a 64bit windows so I can't even try it.
Like I said, I can play this with minimum amount of lagging:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR2zRqAvw1M
Here are the system requirements:

Spoiler

• 
  Minimum:
  • OS: Microsoft Windows Vista (Windows XP is unsupported)
  • Processor: Dual-core CPU with SSE3 (Athlon 64 X2 4200 / Pentium D 3GHz)
  • Memory: 2GB System Memory
  • Hard Drive: 10GB of free drive space
  • Graphics: DX10 compatible graphics card with 256 MB of memory
    (Nvidia GeForce 8800 series/ ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro)
  • Sound: 100% DirectX 10 compatible sound card
  • DirectX®: Microsoft DirectX 10

Recommended:

• OS: Microsoft Windows Vista SP1 or Windows 7
• Processor: Intel Core® 2 Duo 2.6 GHz or AMD Phenom X3 2.4GHz or equivalen
• Memory: 3GB system Memory
• Hard Drive:
• Graphics: DX10 compatible graphics card with 512 MB of memory
  (Nvidia GeForce GTS 250 series/ ATI Radeon HD 5750 series)
• Sound: 100% DirectX 10 compatible Dolby Digital 5.1 sound card
• DirectX®: Microsoft DirectX 10.1

Now here are the system requirements for Wasteland 2:

Spoiler

• 
  Minimum:
  • OS: Windows 7/8/8.1/XP/Vista (32 or 64 bit)
  • Processor: 2.4ghz Intel Core 2 Duo or equivalent
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • Graphics: Nvidia 260 GTS or Radeon HD 4850 - 512 MB of VRAM
  • DirectX: Version 9.0c
  • Hard Drive: 30 GB available space
  • Sound Card: DirectX compatible sound card

• 
  Recommended:
  • OS: Windows 7/8/8.1 64bit
  • Processor: Intel i5 series or equivalent
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • Graphics: Nvidia 460 GTX / Radeon 5770 - 1 GB of VRAM
  • DirectX: Version 9.0c
  • Hard Drive: 30 GB available space
  • Sound Card: DirectX compatible sound card

Coincidentally, 260 GTS is exactly the video board on my computer. The one that can run Witcher 2 at medium and Crysis at high, praise the lord it can run Wasteland 2 on the lowest graphical settings.

How about you fuck off with your cumbersome "modern games" that don't scale to my level, ehh? If the mechanics or content (or even graphics in this case) don't "scale" to the increased hardware requirements, I don't see how one is supposed to tolerate that. Just because one has more power available, doesn't mean that games or software should suddenly be less efficient.

 

[buzz]

don't play AAA games at all, really but even a game like Call of Duty 4, which was AAA in 2007, my Q9550 can't hold steady 250FPS

This is supposed to be bad?

 

[Sensuki]

Yeah it is, because in competitive PC CoD (pre-MW2) you ran the game at either 125 or 250 FPS (divisor of 1000, due to the way the engine works). Unstable FPS is very noticeable particularly when it drops from 250 down to the 120-180 area. The game feels choppy, the mouse doesn't move quite the same and it can affect hit registration.

You can solve that issue by just capping FPS at 125, but 250 does feel very fluid in game.

And you are right, the comment sea made about your CPU (despite being old) doesn't really hold any weight because WL2 performs worse than everything atm. If you have a Core2Duo but can run AAA games but not WL2 ... there's a problem.

 

[soulburner]

Buzz, I can have about 30-50 frames per second on bigger Battlefield 3 maps (goes up to 70 on an empty server) and it doesn't matter if the detail settings are set to low or high. Only Ultra makes the game even slower. Battlefield 4 and Battlefield Hardline betas were even worse - pretty much a steady 30 frames per second. Wolfenstein: The New Order is unplayable on low due to severe micro-stuttering which is absent on a friend's more modern PC (i7 3770K with Radeon R270).

I currently have a Q9550 @ 3,4GHz + GeForce 660 and the graphic card is very underutilized.

I am sure even Wasteland 2 runs better with a newer CPU

 

[Sensuki]

The Wolf thing is probably an engine coding issue, CoD: Black Ops had the same issue with all CPUs pre i5/i7, although they did fix it in a patch.

Those games are all shitty console ports though. One of the dudes on the DFA Documentary (I think it was Oliver) said that ports are usually "make it work in the most hacked together way and then never touch it again". So if porting houses have that mentality it's zero surprise why there's fuck all PC optimization.

I suppose inXile's background in XBone and Mobile games doesn't help.

 

[buzz]

soulburner the difference between those games and Wasteland 2 is that they're multiplayer FPS games where twitch reaction is necessary. This is a TB RPG, the exact opposite. The game running at 30FPS is just fine.

It's not even about me though because I'm already on my way to making an upgrade by the end of the year. I just think it's sensible logic that if you're about to make an old-school RPG, the people who want to play will likely have relatively old hardware at their disposal.

I started playing RPGs in the 2000s. I'm not a nostalgiafag, didn't grew up with them. That's why the most fascinating for me about these games are how they are so fun and filled with so much content and yet they were made on such smaller budgets by such smaller teams and significantly less powerful hardware. When I first played Morrowind, I imagined that in 10 years computers will be so powerful that we were going to have a TES game set in the entirety of Tamriel with the amount of content and detail that Morrowind had. Or a Fallout 3 with even more quests and interaction than 2 did. What I got instead were turds that are multiple times more demanding and with giant budgets but that somehow managed to have less content and less variety.

 

[Infinitron]

On the other hand, old-school RPG fans are usually also PC-exclusive enthusiasts, so on the contrary, they often have newer hardware than everybody else.

 

[Rake]

On the other hand, old-school RPG fans are usually also PC-exclusive enthusiasts, so on the contrary, they often have newer hardware than everybody else.

Not realy. buzz has a point. If someone stopped playing games since Arcanum, there is no reason for him to upgrade his PC at all, much less to have newer hardware than everybody else. I usually upgrade my PC only if something stops working, and since i don't play much, upgrating would be like pissing money to the wind.
If his computer runs Witcher 2 on low just fine, there is no excuse for Wasteland 2 to have problems. The most recent AAA games i played were Witcher 1 and Starcraft 2. (though i tried Witcher 2 and New Vegas for a couple of hours and run them just fine). If Wasteland 2 can't run in my system i will be pissed as well

 

[Pope Amole II]

On the other hand, old-school RPG fans are usually also PC-exclusive enthusiasts, so on the contrary, they often have newer hardware than everybody else.

I upgrade my PC once in, like, 5 years on the average. What's the point of ultra-swift upgrading if I'm playing mostly old stuff anyway (and, in some cases, upgrading actually hurts your ability to do so) and new decent games are released at such atrocious pace that there's nowhere to hurry anyway. Not to mention the "modders will fix it" debacle and Obsidian tier of release readyness, when waiting a year or two after the game is usually greatly beneficial to your overall enjoyment. I'm sure I'm not alone here. Making an oldschool game which wouldn't run on the not so fresh PCs is a really dumb idea.

 

[Infinitron]

Hey, I have an old PC too (which runs WL2 just fine) but crucially, when I bought it, it was state of the art, because I'm an enthusiast who gives a shit. My six year old PC might actually be more powerful than some consoletard's 2012 laptop he uses to play Minecraft or whatever.

 

[Sensuki]

the game running at 30FPS is just fine.

:vomit:

 

[Rake]

Hey, I have an old PC too (which runs WL2 just fine) but crucially, when I bought it, it was state of the art, because I'm an enthusiast who gives a shit. My six year old PC might actually be more powerful than some consoletard's 2012 laptop he uses to play Minecraft or whatever.

The point is that if buzz PC (whitch i admit is subpar) could run Witcher 2,even on low just fine, having problems with W2 can't be anything but bad optimization

 

[Infinitron]

Yeah, console games have good optimization. They kind of have to. I'm sure those AAA devs would love not to have to spend time on that. Non-Blizzard PC-exclusive AAAs don't have such a good track record here - oh god Total War load times.

But anyway, let's wait for Wasteland 2 to actually be released before we judge it on that.

 

[buzz]

I don't have to mention console games at all. Every kickstarter darling worked for me. Blackguards, Xenonauts, Shadowrun Returns, Expedition Conquistador, I've played all of them to a significant extent or finished them and had no significant problems.

I can forgive W2 though since it's the first release and full 3d and all that jazz. But Torment should better run on my work laptop or else. These guys no longer have meddling publishers to blame for releasing games with cut content and in unpolished/unoptimized states.

 

[Infinitron]

Publishers aren't the bad guy here. They might force a developer to cut content, but I imagine they're also likely to give them more time and money to optimize a game (after the content freeze) so it doesn't get a bad Metacritic for running poorly and to maximize the audience that can run it. Being free from a publisher actually allows a developer to say "Screw the lower-powered PCs, I don't wanna spend time on that. Power user sales are enough for me." Not saying they'll do that, but they can.

Regardless, I wouldn't put high hopes on any work laptop, even for 2D games. PoE and Torment aren't literal IE clones - their backgrounds are much fancier and higher res, and their characters are 3D.

 

[Athelas]

Publishers aren't the bad guy here.

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Games-Ship-Buggy-Because-Publishers-Says-Brian-Fargo-58350.html

Regardless, I wouldn't put high hopes on any work laptop, even for 2D games. PoE and Torment aren't literal IE clones, their backgrounds are much fancier and higher res.

Yeah, those backgrounds will have 3d elements, like water and shadows, both of which are known resource hogs (and obviously characters and creatures are 3d models). Though I recall a Sawyer quote saying they were aiming to have the game playable on a modest laptop.

 

[buzz]

Shitslurp cock! Ehh whatever, screw you guys!

Spoiler

• 
  Minimum:
  • OS: Windows XP SP3
  • Processor: 1.6GHz
  • Memory: 1 GB RAM
  • Graphics: GPU that supports shader model 2.0
  • Hard Drive: 2 GB available space

I could run this gem on a friggin toaster.

 

[Sensuki]

Yeah, console games have good optimization. They kind of have to.

They have good console optimization. That same optimization most of the time doesn't mean shit on PC.

Regardless, I wouldn't put high hopes on any work laptop, even for 2D games. PoE and Torment aren't literal IE clones - their backgrounds are much fancier and higher res, and their characters are 3D.

2D backgrounds/animations requires nothing but more memory, I'm pretty sure largely system RAM rather than virtual RAM. At worst it will run around the same as Shadowrun Returns.

I'll bet an onboard Intel GPU chip will run the game no problem.

 

[Decado]

I'm not willing to jump into this conversation, except to say that the argument "Developers should know that PC nerds who play old games don't upgrade their computers!" is the dumbest Codexian logic. It is sheer entitled idiocy. That's like saying "I drive a car made in 1969, so any car dealer who makes a retro muscle car and puts power steering in it is a jerk!" Get with the fucking times, technology moves forward, even if your games do not.

 

[Sensuki]

That's not even the issue here. The issue is that the game runs worse than the most AAA game you can find atm.

 

[buzz]

That's like saying "I drive a car made in 1969, so any car dealer who makes a retro muscle car and puts power steering in it is a jerk!" Get with the fucking times, technology moves forward, even if your games do not.

No, that's like saying "This Black&White CRT TV costs more and needs more power than most of the giant LCD, LED, or Plasma displays available on the market EDIT: and thus you should buy it now!."

It's funny how every little idiot thinks he knows his technology and assumes everything has to be BIGGER AND MOAR. Where in reality the technology advancement race has gone towards efficiency, with development of slower but more efficient electric or hybrid cars, putting a giant range of software over the "cloud" instead of straining the consumer's hardware, giant hardware developers focusing on technological increments useful for mobile devices (less battery consumption), even many people claiming that Moore's law is essentially dead at this point.

Look, the console generation has lasted for 8 years, the longest possible. No one was pushing the barrier in any way, shape or form. The demand for a computer update was basically unnecessary and still mostly is even today.

Stop being fucking retarded and stop defending software bloat on the sheer notion that "technology moves forward". There is nothing technologically innovative in Wasteland 2, which looks slightly better than the fucking Van Buren demo back in '03; and doesn't provide (according to the fucking hundreds of pages of conversation in this very thread) any improvement in terms of mechanics and content to any previous cRPG. It doesn't have physics, it doesn't have "megatextures" or giant levels with seamless transitions, it doesn't have hundreds of NPCs reacting in real time, doesn't have much in voice acting, no facial animation or motion animation of any kind, no NPC routines or day/night cycle, nothing that justifies its bloat.

The last great TB RPG before the kickstarter shebang was a neat game called Knights of the Chalice, made in 2009, that apparently had no idea that your software has to be bloated in order to be "modern" because the only system requirements it had were "computer with directx9 and windows xp".

Next thing you'll tell me that I should move with the fucking times because some generic mario clone needs a core i5 CPU to function for some reason.

 

[buzz]

Here, let me help you guys a bit. Technological advancement means moving (not just in terms of graphics, but sound, NPC interactivity,loading times and so on) from this:

Spoiler

to this

Spoiler

to this

Spoiler

to this

Spoiler

onwards with this

Spoiler

finally to this

Spoiler

not a TB game, I know, but it was RTWP and party-based and pretty decent

and then somewhat staying to this ?!?

Spoiler

which is okay, except now you need a multi-core processor and more than 2 gigs of RAM and GTS 260 to run it because reasons.

 

[shihonage]

Check next-to-last link again.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Get with the fucking times, technology moves forward, even if your games do not.

Likewise, get with the fucking times, games move forward, even if you do not. Enjoy your Skyoblivion.

Also I hope inXile puts "needs SSD (or two video cards)" on the box, if sea was so kind to tell us that an SSD improves performance. Get with the fucking times, already!

 

[soulburner]

I'm afraid "needs SSD" is not such a crazy idea, I moved my Divinity: Original Sin to SSD to reduce the loading times and it takes only a few seconds to load now