Wasteland Wasteland 2 reception discussion

[Mareus]

You fail to see how a ranger wearing power armor showing up in g-strings is pretty much the same as a handgun shooting rockets?

Yes, I fail to see how this is analogous, because:
1. You don't have to create a character that wears g-strings. You can create a more universal looking character at the start of the game.
2. The game allows you to pick up various types of outfits as you play the game, thus making further customization still very much possible.
3. It is not the same as a handgun shooting rockets. Most armors are designed in such a way that they could fit under clothes. Sure it would make you look a bit more bulky, but that is why you should not create a g-string character at the beginning of the game.

And to get back to JA2 and Torment the games you so conveniently chosen for comparison:

Torment: They have pretty much avoided the issue because there are barely any "armors" in the game. In fact only Annah and Fall-From-Grace can change their armor. I don't remember if there are any visual differences, but it doesn't matter because the items look similar so the abstraction is fine.
Also, The Nameless One can wear the Dustman robes, and the change is obvious.

Oh come on... Dustman robes which you wear only for like 5 minutes in a whole game? You are grasping at straws now. And no... there is no difference in character design when Annah and Fall-From-Grace equip new armor. There was a good reason for this, due to characters appearing in cut-scenes. Also, don't tell me that you are actually arguing that having no to very few armors is somehow a feature, just so you can preserve some graphical fidelity?

JA2: Again, I don't remember if there are any visual changes when changing armor. Maybe just color because I certainly remember using stuff like camo does change your appearance? And here too the abstraction is fine because most armors have the same overall shape anyway, and you don't have mercs wearing cowboy hats and fishnet stockings.

Again, you don't have to create a character that wears fishnets and cowboy hats. And if you do that and then complain how stupid they look, I seriously don't know what to tell you. When it comes to Jagged Alliance 2 its actually much worse, because you can't customize AT ALL how the characters look beyond applying camouflage painting. Perhaps you have forgotten, but I sure as hell haven't. In JA2 characters you make wear permanently jeans and t-shirts, for crying out loud. You can't even see the helmet.

While I agree that it would be awesome to have this feature you talk about, I still think it does not justify low scores the game is receiving.

Neither has the jarring visual issues that W2 has.

So hey, in their great care to offer pointless appearance customization options they just dug a grave for themselves because any inconsistencies will look that much more dumb.
And if they could add all of these options then why not also make it so the armor is visible? Wasting time on useless shit, perhaps?

Here I actually agree with you. They could have just made it so that already existing variations are just applied to various armors in the game. It still wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better then what it is now. Still nitpicking in my opinion.

 

[Morkar Left]

It would be nice if your appearance would change with armor but it isn't really necessary. The armor types are pretty much made in a way, that you can wear them under your normal clothes like jackets, duster, baggy pants and the like. It's even mentioned in the novels. Which makes actually sense to avoid heating up too much in the sun or prevent it from having too much maintenenance.
Power Armor isn't as heavy as in Fallout:

Realism takes a backseat anyway if you insist to let your partymembers only wear suspenders and bras as your default clothes for roaming the wasteland.

 

[Cazzeris]

Curious, I remember when people wanted the games to show the items they have.
Now it's the other way around and they think they're making an artistic statement of their inner struggles by playing dress-up with game characters.

Well, I'd blame the people from InXile Forums. There are lots of LARPers there and they are also the ones who wanted those "skill-being-used" animations to last that long AFAIK

It would be nice if your appearance would change with armor but it isn't really necessary. The armor types are pretty much made in a way, that you can wear them under your normal clothes like jackets, duster, baggy pants and the like. It's even mentioned in the novels. Which makes actually sense to avoid heating up too much in the sun or prevent it from having too much maintenenance.
Power Armor isn't as heavy as in Fallout:

Realism takes a backseat anyway if you insist to let your partymembers only wear suspenders and bras as your default clothes for roaming the wasteland.

Looks like the most accurate explanation so far.

 

[FeelTheRads]

2. The game allows you to pick up various types of outfits as you play the game, thus making further customization still very much possible.

OK, I don't know how that works, but besides the absurdity of having to pick up outfits to match the armor you're wearing, can you do the same with the NPCs you take in your party?

and they are also the ones who wanted those "skill-being-used" animations to last that long AFAIK

Good job, inXile.

 

[Mareus]

2. The game allows you to pick up various types of outfits as you play the game, thus making further customization still very much possible.

OK, I don't know how that works, but besides the absurdity of having to pick up outfits to match the armor you're wearing, can you do the same with the NPCs you take in your party?

I don't think so. Good point, but still nitpicking.

 

[Cazzeris]

and they are also the ones who wanted those "skill-being-used" animations to last that long AFAIK

Good job, inXile.

Well, one person in those forums made the mod that solves it: https://forums.inxile-entertainment.com//viewtopic.php?f=18&t=8727

 

[Lord Andre]

I think the biggest difference for me in regard to Fallout(s) vs Wasteland2 is that in Fallout you can logically deduce the outcome of your actions while in Wasteland 2 you're trying to guess the script triggers that the devs put in. Usually there's a heavy handed "if you try to do good more bad stuff will happen" type aesop that is pushed at every opportunity.

While this might seem a bit more realistic, "the butterfly" effect needs to be explained logically in retrospect instead of being an ass-pull.

In Fallout(s) you usually have the option to act logically as in "if I was really there, what would I try to do?" and the game gives you that common sense option that a normal human would think of doing. In Wasteland 2, not so much.

In Fallouts if someone seemed suspicious you could learn of their shit through dialog or by pickpocketing some incriminating evidence from their inventories or searching a chest in their house and show it to some other dude and something would happen. In Wasteland 2 you have situations where bloody synths are basically walking around with a fucking "I'm an evil robot" sign in their hand and you can never call them out. Fucking invest a ton of skillpoints into smart-ass to get a line about it and they brush it off with some shit like "I don't remember" and nothing happens. To the point, if it is clear as daylight that Doctor What-ever is a robot, why don't I have the option to go to Brother Monk-guy and tell him "Dude, the doctor is an evil cyborg, help me get proof." That is a common sense course of action for that situation. Instead you can only ignore it while thinking to yourself "I wonder how they're gonna deux ex machina this shit into the plot.".

Don't give me wrong, for me this is the best RPG of 2014 but I can't understand how you can get all the basis covered and fuck up the end game.

And little stuff like: map markers, or different loot table for safes, or difficulty of lock+trap affecting the loot tier that is picked. I mean really, is it that hard to understand that nothing sucks more balls than investing a ton of skillpoints to open a loot container and be treated to a few bullets and a rubber dildo. Come on.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

Well, Wasteland 2 is quite boring, while Fallout 1 and 2 are interesting to play.

 

[sser]

Faux sea?

Complaint 1: The combat sucks. There are no aimed shots. X-Com did it better. Jagged Alliance did it better. AI is horrible, because enemies shoot at each other and they don't use cover mechanic effectively.
---
My viewpoint: Yes, all of these things are true or at least partly true, but I feel that the combat is still overall a huge improvement over the original Fallout. Yes, we lost the aimed shots (although you can still aim in the head), but everything else has been improved. Original Fallout did not use any cover mechanic, you could not crouch, you could not attack enemies from roof tops, you could not ambush them, and you could not control your party, etc. Furthermore AI in Fallout was even worse. Not only did the enemies often shoot at each other, but there was no cover mechanic to begin with. Also the inability to control your party members meant you would also become victim of friendly fire. The way I see it, we lost one thing and gained many improvements. Therefore, I fail to see how one can enjoy Fallout combat and absolutely hate the Wasteland 2 combat. Could combat be better? Yes! Is it bad? No. It is at least not as bad as Fallout's combat.

Apples and oranges. Fallout's combat is the end result of what you did outside of combat. It's not central to the game like it is in WL2 - at least, it never was to me. Combat in Fallout ends with conviction - you blast the fuck out of your enemies, or they blast the fuck out of you. There's an appealing simplicity to it, and an enjoyment usually stemming from what steps you took to get to that scenario in the first place. It truly plays into the Western-tropes where fighting is more like a sudden, and quickly concluded, gunfight, not a protracted, tactical battle between squads.

If you compare WL2's combat to games that do combat, it's blown the fuck out of the water.

 

[Volourn]

No.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

The game overall is pretty awesome. And i am very satisfied with my kickstarter investment. The game is designed as a true RPG and that is exactly what i wanted.

Graphics/Interface and combat are fine. Topic dialogs are well-written and fun to read, so i was never skiping anything (unlike for ex. D:OS).

Biggest poblems (for me) are:

Stats and skills with no dependencies whatsoever. Skills are more important. Stats have minimal impact or no impact at all (going from INT 4 to 5).

Exciting skill usage is pretty rare. Want to sneak into a warehouse/hideout/house, disable an alarm and steal valuable loot/evidence/etc by lockpicking/brute forcing? Lol nope, de-trap this safe to safecrack it at 63% at max skill to get a cowboy hat. Or de-trap this gate to lockpick it, to get to the safe to de-trap, safecrack it and get 3 shotgun bullets. This leads to "pulling a cart out of dirt" to be the most memorable skill usage moment...

Arizona was pretty dull at hub design - California was way better with Rodia/Oracle/Hollywood.

 

[oneself]

I enjoyed the references and the overall story.

Combat is imbalanced and not tactical enough. Guns need rebalancing, movement need to be toned down. The status effects needs to be more severe.

 

[Volourn]

"Combat is imbalanced and not tactical enough."

Bullshit.

 

[Mareus]

Faux sea?

Complaint 1: The combat sucks. There are no aimed shots. X-Com did it better. Jagged Alliance did it better. AI is horrible, because enemies shoot at each other and they don't use cover mechanic effectively.
---
My viewpoint: Yes, all of these things are true or at least partly true, but I feel that the combat is still overall a huge improvement over the original Fallout. Yes, we lost the aimed shots (although you can still aim in the head), but everything else has been improved. Original Fallout did not use any cover mechanic, you could not crouch, you could not attack enemies from roof tops, you could not ambush them, and you could not control your party, etc. Furthermore AI in Fallout was even worse. Not only did the enemies often shoot at each other, but there was no cover mechanic to begin with. Also the inability to control your party members meant you would also become victim of friendly fire. The way I see it, we lost one thing and gained many improvements. Therefore, I fail to see how one can enjoy Fallout combat and absolutely hate the Wasteland 2 combat. Could combat be better? Yes! Is it bad? No. It is at least not as bad as Fallout's combat.

Apples and oranges. Fallout's combat is the end result of what you did outside of combat. It's not central to the game like it is in WL2 - at least, it never was to me. Combat in Fallout ends with conviction - you blast the fuck out of your enemies, or they blast the fuck out of you. There's an appealing simplicity to it, and an enjoyment usually stemming from what steps you took to get to that scenario in the first place. It truly plays into the Western-tropes where fighting is more like a sudden, and quickly concluded, gunfight, not a protracted, tactical battle between squads.

If you compare WL2's combat to games that do combat, it's blown the fuck out of the water.

To me everything you just wrote sounds like when someone tries to put sugar coating on a bowl of crap. I literally have no clue what you just said here. The only thing I can make sense of is the last sentence where you say that if you compare W2 combat to games that do combat, W2 is blown out of the water. Now son, that right there is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Mareus]

The game overall is pretty awesome. And i am very satisfied with my kickstarter investment. The game is designed as a true RPG and that is exactly what i wanted.

Graphics/Interface and combat are fine. Topic dialogs are well-written and fun to read, so i was never skiping anything (unlike for ex. D:OS).

Biggest poblems (for me) are:

Stats and skills with no dependencies whatsoever. Skills are more important. Stats have minimal impact or no impact at all (going from INT 4 to 5).

Exciting skill usage is pretty rare. Want to sneak into a warehouse/hideout/house, disable an alarm and steal valuable loot/evidence/etc by lockpicking/brute forcing? Lol nope, de-trap this safe to safecrack it at 63% at max skill to get a cowboy hat. Or de-trap this gate to lockpick it, to get to the safe to de-trap, safecrack it and get 3 shotgun bullets. This leads to "pulling a cart out of dirt" to be the most memorable skill usage moment...

Arizona was pretty dull at hub design - California was way better with Rodia/Oracle/Hollywood.

Loot in W2 is kind of ridiculous, I agree. Unfortunately, it suffers from the random loot syndrome which plagues many modern games today, so you will get no counter argument from me there. However, when it comes to skills I have to object. I can count many occasions where having certain skills was not only memorable, but also it had a huge effect how certain areas play out. For example, saving NPCs with high surgeon skill, or negotiating a peaceful solution in Nomad's Camp with two opposing factions if you have high speech skills. Or repairing a water pump mechanism which then allows you to save a burning house, and the NPC liking you playing a role who will get elected as mayor in Highpool. At least by my count such moments happen much more often in W2 than in Fallout games. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that in W2 you have more than just one character who can use skills, so you are bound to find more examples where different skills can be used, whereas in Fallout you have to replay the game many times to see all the possible variations. Still, saying that "pulling a cart out of dirt" to be the most memorable skill usage moment is a huge misrepresentation of facts.

 

[Mareus]

I think the biggest difference for me in regard to Fallout(s) vs Wasteland2 is that in Fallout you can logically deduce the outcome of your actions while in Wasteland 2 you're trying to guess the script triggers that the devs put in. Usually there's a heavy handed "if you try to do good more bad stuff will happen" type aesop that is pushed at every opportunity.

While this might seem a bit more realistic, "the butterfly" effect needs to be explained logically in retrospect instead of being an ass-pull.

In Fallout(s) you usually have the option to act logically as in "if I was really there, what would I try to do?" and the game gives you that common sense option that a normal human would think of doing. In Wasteland 2, not so much.

In Fallouts if someone seemed suspicious you could learn of their shit through dialog or by pickpocketing some incriminating evidence from their inventories or searching a chest in their house and show it to some other dude and something would happen. In Wasteland 2 you have situations where bloody synths are basically walking around with a fucking "I'm an evil robot" sign in their hand and you can never call them out. Fucking invest a ton of skillpoints into smart-ass to get a line about it and they brush it off with some shit like "I don't remember" and nothing happens. To the point, if it is clear as daylight that Doctor What-ever is a robot, why don't I have the option to go to Brother Monk-guy and tell him "Dude, the doctor is an evil cyborg, help me get proof." That is a common sense course of action for that situation. Instead you can only ignore it while thinking to yourself "I wonder how they're gonna deux ex machina this shit into the plot.".

Don't give me wrong, for me this is the best RPG of 2014 but I can't understand how you can get all the basis covered and fuck up the end game.

And little stuff like: map markers, or different loot table for safes, or difficulty of lock+trap affecting the loot tier that is picked. I mean really, is it that hard to understand that nothing sucks more balls than investing a ton of skillpoints to open a loot container and be treated to a few bullets and a rubber dildo. Come on.

I don't know man. Its been a long time since I played Fallout, but I remember that quite a few times I was stumped with the lack of logical solutions to a problem. For example I remember being attacked by Sulik after joining the slavers, without having the ability to tell him that I am just doing it to gain their trust so that I could free all the slaves in the area. I mean, the things you talk about are probably very subjective, because we all approach same things from different perspectives - not to mention the diversity of characters we can play as. Thus, while I can agree that there are from time to time instances where some clearly logical options do not exist in W2, I think the same applies to original Fallout games as well.

The other things you say, I actually agree with.

 

[KickAss]

I'm really having fun with WL2, but definitely not as much as I had with the original Fallouts. I never expected WL2 to be perfect (just like FO1/2 are not perfect), and I can't find something that is seriously worse in WL2 than in Fallouts.
I think that option #4 getting >50% has a lot to do with the age people played the games for the 1st time...

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Faux sea?

Complaint 1: The combat sucks. There are no aimed shots. X-Com did it better. Jagged Alliance did it better. AI is horrible, because enemies shoot at each other and they don't use cover mechanic effectively.
---
My viewpoint: Yes, all of these things are true or at least partly true, but I feel that the combat is still overall a huge improvement over the original Fallout. Yes, we lost the aimed shots (although you can still aim in the head), but everything else has been improved. Original Fallout did not use any cover mechanic, you could not crouch, you could not attack enemies from roof tops, you could not ambush them, and you could not control your party, etc. Furthermore AI in Fallout was even worse. Not only did the enemies often shoot at each other, but there was no cover mechanic to begin with. Also the inability to control your party members meant you would also become victim of friendly fire. The way I see it, we lost one thing and gained many improvements. Therefore, I fail to see how one can enjoy Fallout combat and absolutely hate the Wasteland 2 combat. Could combat be better? Yes! Is it bad? No. It is at least not as bad as Fallout's combat.

Apples and oranges. Fallout's combat is the end result of what you did outside of combat. It's not central to the game like it is in WL2 - at least, it never was to me. Combat in Fallout ends with conviction - you blast the fuck out of your enemies, or they blast the fuck out of you. There's an appealing simplicity to it, and an enjoyment usually stemming from what steps you took to get to that scenario in the first place. It truly plays into the Western-tropes where fighting is more like a sudden, and quickly concluded, gunfight, not a protracted, tactical battle between squads.

If you compare WL2's combat to games that do combat, it's blown the fuck out of the water.

Great post. I was never really able to put my finger on it, but I thought combat in Fallout was very rewarding and I think you nailed why. Fallout 1's combat in general and the better parts of Fallout 2 were completely lacking the "slog" feeling that comes with having to clear out an entire town/dungeon/large outdoor area. Most of the combat scenarios seem like they would pit perfectly well in a futuristic western/tarantino kind of movie, and they played like it - quick, loud and messy. As you say, the buildup leading to the actual combat encounter was very important. I remember clearing out the Slaver's guild or one of the Casinos in FO2 and it had that "ok, let's cut the bullshit and just feed the bad guys some bullets" Clint Eastwood kind of vibe. Also, the comic-like death animations added very much to it, something that I feel can't be really emulated by 3D games.

 

[cvv]

Ticked the second option. WL2 does combat better (I also liked the overall story, characters, factions etc. a bit more). Fallouts do the character development better (also dialogue system). All three games are equally fantastic though, despite the annoying nostalgiafaggotry criticism towards WL2.

My only two real beefs with WL2, too fundamental for the patches or mods to fix, are the random loot system, which fucks with your natural effort-reward intuition, and the percentage skill checks, which is just bad design always and everywhere since it encourages save scumming. Everything else - the broken armor design, the missing perks, broken quests etc. - can be added or repaired.

Btw the second option should be:
All three games are great, nostalgiafaggots of all countries go fuck yourselves.

 

[Mareus]

I'm really having fun with WL2, but definitely not as much as I had with the original Fallouts. I never expected WL2 to be perfect (just like FO1/2 are not perfect), and I can't find something that is seriously worse in WL2 than in Fallouts.
I think that option #4 getting >50% has a lot to do with the age people played the games for the 1st time...

I really wonder how much nostalgia plays a role. I actually think nostalgia argument is so overused (especially in the mainstream journalism) and most of the times it is really nothing more than a cheap ad hominem due to people focusing not on the arguments people present, but on psychoanalysing people who make the arguments. Now, don't get me wrong. I think that there certainly are people who can't get rid of their nostalgia goggles, but as long as they actually present reasons and arguments, I think this is what we should focus on.

 

[RK47]

It's not nostalgia.
I just can't find the fun after slogging 20 hours into it.
I could finish it, but I rather not.
A lot of the time activation adds up to the tedium.
Nothing bothers me as much as running into a yet another room with 5 locked containers.
Combat had laughable AI and a guessing game of LOS and interrupts with annoying pre-combat move formation setup mini-game.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

..leads to "pulling a cart out of dirt" to be the most memorable skill usage moment...

Arizona was pretty dull at hub design - California was way better with Rodia/Oracle/Hollywood.

However, when it comes to skills I have to object. I can count many occasions where having certain skills was not only memorable, but also it had a huge effect how certain areas play out. For example, saving NPCs with high surgeon skill, or negotiating a peaceful solution in Nomad's Camp with two opposing factions if you have high speech skills. Or repairing a water pump mechanism which then allows you to save a burning house, and the NPC liking you playing a role who will get elected as mayor in Highpool.

Well i said "rare". The point is that you spend overwhelming amount of time detraping and unlocking stuff, that is just lying around randomly (with not much benefit). Not as a part of quest solutions. There are good examples of course, so maybe i exaggerated.

 

[sser]

Faux sea?

Complaint 1: The combat sucks. There are no aimed shots. X-Com did it better. Jagged Alliance did it better. AI is horrible, because enemies shoot at each other and they don't use cover mechanic effectively.
---
My viewpoint: Yes, all of these things are true or at least partly true, but I feel that the combat is still overall a huge improvement over the original Fallout. Yes, we lost the aimed shots (although you can still aim in the head), but everything else has been improved. Original Fallout did not use any cover mechanic, you could not crouch, you could not attack enemies from roof tops, you could not ambush them, and you could not control your party, etc. Furthermore AI in Fallout was even worse. Not only did the enemies often shoot at each other, but there was no cover mechanic to begin with. Also the inability to control your party members meant you would also become victim of friendly fire. The way I see it, we lost one thing and gained many improvements. Therefore, I fail to see how one can enjoy Fallout combat and absolutely hate the Wasteland 2 combat. Could combat be better? Yes! Is it bad? No. It is at least not as bad as Fallout's combat.

Apples and oranges. Fallout's combat is the end result of what you did outside of combat. It's not central to the game like it is in WL2 - at least, it never was to me. Combat in Fallout ends with conviction - you blast the fuck out of your enemies, or they blast the fuck out of you. There's an appealing simplicity to it, and an enjoyment usually stemming from what steps you took to get to that scenario in the first place. It truly plays into the Western-tropes where fighting is more like a sudden, and quickly concluded, gunfight, not a protracted, tactical battle between squads.

If you compare WL2's combat to games that do combat, it's blown the fuck out of the water.

To me everything you just wrote sounds like when someone tries to put sugar coating on a bowl of crap. I literally have no clue what you just said here. The only thing I can make sense of is the last sentence where you say that if you compare W2 combat to games that do combat, W2 is blown out of the water. Now son, that right there is comparing apples and oranges.

Fallout isn't about combat. It's an aspect, but not the focus. Hence why you can beat either game without partaking in much fighting at all. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

Wasteland 2 is about combat. It's the focus, all the writing and trucking around the world map and talking to people and dialogue trees and quests and entering tactical maps all have giant signs over their head with an arrow pointing, COMBAT IS THAT WAY. This is in no way apples and oranges to JA2, Silent Storm, et al. It's only apples and oranges if you look at the quality of the combat, in that those games do it well, and Wasteland 2 does not.

 

[cvv]

Fallout isn't about combat. Wasteland 2 is about combat.

Nothing is "about" anything.
Simple facts are simple - there's more combat in WL2 than in Fallouts and WL2 does combat better. Fullstop.
Why are you trying to spin and twist it and compare it to JA2 and other weirdness is beyond me. If you need a rationalization for your dislike of WL2 you'll have to come up with something else I'm afraid.

 

[sser]

Fallout isn't about combat. Wasteland 2 is about combat.

Nothing is "about" anything.
Simple facts are simple - there's more combat in WL2 than in Fallouts and WL2 does combat better. Fullstop.
Why are you trying to spin and twist it and compare it to JA2 and other weirdness is beyond me. If you need a rationalization for your dislike of WL2 you'll have to come up with something else I'm afraid.

Of course games are about things. That's part of what makes them games. They're about whatever the designers designed them to be. This constant effort to disassociate Wasteland 2 from anything is just ridiculous. You can beat the Fallouts by going through the game essentially not fighting anyone. This leads me, at least, to believe neither game is about the combat, no more than Planescape: Torment would be about combat just by the way of its inclusion. Hence why nobody compares its take on combat to, say, Icewind Dale's. Because they understand the two games are driving to be about two very different things, even if they otherwise look and play almost identically. Wasteland 2 is about combat whether you like it or not. What other games are about combat whether you like it or not? JA2. Silent Storm. etc. So that's what it should be compared to.

And personally, even if you were to compare the two games' combat I would still prefer Fallout for reasons I've already stated. And if you strip away the "what happens before combat is most important" aspect of Fallout, and just compare the combat of the two games strictly as is, I'd still prefer Fallout. I don't see how people see Wasteland 2's combat in any positive light. There are no tactics. Enemies are HP bloated. HP bloat leads to longer engagements. Longer engagements, ordinarily, should compel a developer to fill that extended time with things to do. Wasteland 2 does not. Every single combat scenario feels wasteful to me. Just a waste of my time. Whether it's standing still and exchanging mindless fire with a boss, or kiting HP bloated enemies half way across the map over and over, it's all just shit. The fact people were hailing the combat as the AI retardedly ran two-hundred yards across the map and right by your allies makes me think some people here wouldn't know a good game if it hit them upside the head. That or the "Wasteland" moniker blinds them, because that shit is awful and really should not be excusable.