Wasteland Wasteland 2 reception discussion

[Volourn]

Don't liek the game? Go play something else. Bottom line is youa re wrong and are sstupid dummy head. True story.

WL2 is fukkin' awesome. PERIOD.

 

[Mareus]

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.

I can agree that W2 has more combat which cannot be avoided in comparison to Fallout, but that by itself does not make W2 a combat focused game, nor does it turn it into a tactical combat simulator like Jagged Alliance. JA2 is a game that focuses almost completely on tactical combat, strategy and management of resources. In this department it delivers an experience that is almost perfect. While it does have some roleplaying elements, it clearly falls short in that department. W2 on the other hand has a much wider scope. For example in comparison to W2, JA2 has very simplistic dialogues, huge lack of skills that all focused on combat, very limited interactivity with the world, almost no choices and consequences, no classical quest structure, etc. These two games focus on completely different things and are therefore from two completely different genres. More combat does not translate into combat focused game and your conclusion just does not logically follow from the premises you raise.

And personally, even if you were to compare the two games' combat I would still prefer Fallout for reasons I've already stated.

And what you stated is nothing more than an attempt at cheap rationalization. I am sorry, but there is no strategy in Fallout's combat. Basically you just stand there and shoot at each other. While you may try to rationalize this fact as some type of western shootout, not taking cover is just stupid. PERIOD.

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.

Running 200 yards across the map was a bug, which was admitted and fixed with the new patch. I don't know what you mean with bloated HP. Most enemies I manage to kill within 2 turns (exactly like in Fallout). And again, I find it very ironic that people like you complain about W2 having no tactics, and then they hail Fallout combat by trying to rationalize away lack of any tactics as some kind of western shootout.

Needless to say, I don't find your arguments very convincing.

 

[Pegultagol]

In terms of gunplay I find the game to be pretty good. The enemies aren't all Usain Bolt anymore and their guns get jammed at a similar frequency as that of player characters. They do rush out too many times exposing them despite having better combat initiative so it'd be better if they become a bit prudent in trying to reach their targets but overall I am satisfied. What I find to be a bit problematic are the bugs and the level of quality drops in certain corners of California, notably in Hollywood.

Rodia, Angels Oracle, and other side missions carry the level of finish that I enjoyed immensely in Arizona but Hollywood feel a bit unfinished. For example, one can't look over the stats of the NPCs there in some parts and the ability to even click them for their blurb of dialogue is not provided. I've already broken several mission arcs by doing them supposedly out of order (Veronica/Heidi/Duke) and reactivity to the actions taken are missing (After completing the main quest at Griffith Park).

The Griffith Park area including Los Feliz is so bereft of details for a major faction in the region and appear constructed rather hastily, reminding me of the Lionheart game of yore. The idea I can see was pretty sound and even ingenious incorporating them as the faction overlooking Hollywood from the famed hills. But the execution was rather shockingly lacking, compared to what I have had pleasure of playing up to that point. I am sure the fixes and patches can rescue Hollywood from its current state but it will take a long time of feedback and QA. All of these do not take away from the strength in the rest of the game which contains gems like Titan Temple/Silo 7.

 

[FeelTheRads]

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.

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.

Yeah.

Or, instead of nostalgiafaggotry there's a lot of revisionism. Whenever someone compares a new game negatively with an old one there must be some that say that's wrong and it's only because of nostalgia because the old game wasn't really that good actually, in fact maybe it sucked and you liked it only because you didn't know how awesome games will be in the year of our Lord, 2014.

So, revisionists go fuck yourselves.

 

[Zetor]

The comparison is silly for obvious reasons. Wasteland 1 was one of my favorite games ever, and I consider the sequel OK. Not particularly good, and definitely not bad... OK.

Compared to the original Wasteland, it has

• better combat (considering that combat is a weak point in this game, you can guess how it was in WL1)
• a better character system with more options, but still not too much variation
• much better balance
• a bit less of the 'wacky wasteland' feeling and weird charm (most of the 80s stuff is just shoehorned in), but world-building is still OK overall
• less interesting approaches to problems, more linearity (most areas are either super-linear or consist of a single smallish map with a single objective, especially in LA)
• less internal consistency (the areas were made by different people probably months/years apart, and it shows)
• a bit better writing and dialogue (this was almost nonexistent in WL1)
• better use of video/audio features instead of pure text
• much more content, though much of it is samey

 

[sser]

I can agree that W2 has more combat which cannot be avoided in comparison to Fallout, but that by itself does not make W2 a combat focused game, nor does it turn it into a tactical combat simulator like Jagged Alliance. JA2 is a game that focuses almost completely on tactical combat, strategy and management of resources. In this department it delivers an experience that is almost perfect. While it does have some roleplaying elements, it clearly falls short in that department. W2 on the other hand has a much wider scope. For example in comparison to W2, JA2 has very simplistic dialogues, huge lack of skills that all focused on combat, very limited interactivity with the world, almost no choices and consequences, no classical quest structure, etc. These two games focus on completely different things and are therefore from two completely different genres. More combat does not translate into combat focused game and your conclusion just does not logically follow from the premises you raise.

Wasteland 2 is a combat-focused game. You are completely deluding yourself to think otherwise. Both these games focus on combat, they just happen to have different ways of shuttling you there.

Hell, Wasteland 2 will throw you into combat whether you like it or not via random encounters. Yeah, Wasteland 2 is so totally not about combat that it borrowed a grindy crap feature from grindy, combat-heavy JRPGs.

And what you stated is nothing more than an attempt at cheap rationalization. I am sorry, but there is no strategy in Fallout's combat. Basically you just stand there and shoot at each other. While you may try to rationalize this fact as some type of western shootout, not taking cover is just stupid. PERIOD.

Inserting features into a game just for the sake of having the feature is poor design. Cover mechanics really have zero place in Fallout. The vast majority of Fallout's combat happens in close-quarters, living spaces, shallow caves, and thin caverns. Combat typically ends within a few turns. You spend most of the game (if not all of it) by yourself, making for less reasons to clutter up the combat with unused tactical features. But let's not look past the very naive notion that introducing 'cover' will save a game from banal combat instead of, you know, introducing it. Cover is not a bandaid for boring combat. Anyone who saw the devolution of third-person shooters in the past decade would know this. I realize that Wasteland 2 believes cover elevates its combat to some new plane of 'tactical combat' (in big balloon letters), and I guess you do too, but you're wrong.

Cover in Fallout would not have gotten rid of the stationary nature of it, and by and large it did not do it in Wasteland 2. Are you willing to argue for a crouch and lean feature in Doom? Or any of the other fast-paced modern shooters we got out there today? Just because a feature exists does not mean it automatically has a place in a game. This thought process is what leads to designers forcing shit into their games when they don't need to be or, even worse, removing original ideas for the sake of these "features."

P.S., you just stand there and shoot guys in Wasteland 2 just like you do in Fallout. I'm amused you think otherwise when 90% of the encounters have you largely footed to where you started the fight. Fallout 2 had a boxing match wherein you had to target certain body parts to hamper and beat your opponent. There's a 'boxing match' pretty early on in Wasteland 2, it's called the AgCenter boss, and it's the shittiest slate of 'combat' I've seen in a game in years. And guess what? There was no cover. There was no special targeting. It was your appraisal of Fallout's combat, i.e., you just stand and shoot and they shoot back. Except the enemy was HP-bloated and there was nothing remotely interesting going on but click click click.

P.P.S., cover isn't implemented in games just for the sake of cover (if the designers know what they're doing). Wanna know why Wasteland 2's combat is popamole stand-and-shoot regardless of cover? Because the scenarios never compel you to do anything with it. There is no suppression feature. There is no deployed cover. There is no terrain manipulation. Only some cover can be destroyed (rare), and honestly I never even think about it. You can't sneak around once combat starts because enemies have 360-sonar. This removes any notion of using crouch for anything other than a quick accuracy/defense boost (no crouch-sneaking). Because crouch costs AP to stand, it frequently "roots" you to the ground for the duration of combat, because you don't want to expend AP to move around too much. Grenades pop instantaneously so there is no 'flushing' people mechanic. Similarly, there's no 'getting shot out in the open while standing up' penalty because there's no gameplay features that would push you toward that goal. I could go on and on.

Running 200 yards across the map was a bug, which was admitted and fixed with the new patch. I don't know what you mean with bloated HP. Most enemies I manage to kill within 2 turns (exactly like in Fallout). And again, I find it very ironic that people like you complain about W2 having no tactics, and then they hail Fallout combat by trying to rationalize away lack of any tactics as some kind of western shootout.

Needless to say, I don't find your arguments very convincing.

Wasteland 2 has no tactics regardless of what any other game is doing, let's get that straight. There's almost nothing going on in W2 'tactics' wise. Many battlefields have you stationed very close (if you move at all) to where you started the fight. That's been commented on again and again in the combat thread. W2 implements cover, but that's about as far as it goes. It's like you designed a hunting game and thought putting a scope on the rifle covered the rest of the mechanics just fine. Fallout's combat is simple, and it's also better. Because it fits the design of the game. Just like Doom has good combat, even though it lacks cover, iron-sights, leaning, jumping, or crouching. Because how 'good' a feature's implementation can be is not based solely on what that feature is, but by what is designed around it.

 

[Mareus]

Wasteland 2 is a combat-focused game. You are completely deluding yourself to think otherwise. Both these games focus on combat, they just happen to have different ways of shuttling you there.

A statement is not an argument and adding "You are completely deluding yourself to think otherwise" is not an argument either. If you are going to post a bunch of unsupported opinions without anything backing it up, then son you have come to the wrong forums. This line of reasoning may get you through IGN or Gamespot forums, but this is RPGCodex!

Hell, Wasteland 2 will throw you into combat whether you like it or not via random encounters.

And so will Arcanum, and Baldur's Gate and Planescape Torment. Having unavoidable combat does not automatically turn an RPG into tacticat simulation in the style of JA2. The conclusion just does not follow from your argument.

Inserting features into a game just for the sake of having the feature is poor design.

True, but you have not presented one convincing argument that would prove this is the case with W2. Again, having an opinion and expressing it strongly does not equal to actually making a point.

Cover mechanics really have zero place in Fallout.

That is your opinion.

The vast majority of Fallout's combat happens in close-quarters, living spaces, shallow caves, and thin caverns.

All the more reason to take cover when people start shooting at you. You are not Robocop, you are not terminator, you are a fucking human and what do humans do when someone shoots at them? Yes, they take cover.

Combat typically ends within a few turns. You spend most of the game (if not all of it) by yourself, making for less reasons to clutter up the combat with unused tactical features.

Well in W2, I use those "useless" tactical features all the time and there is a huge difference between the amount of damage I take when I am forced into mindless shootout (like in Fallout) and combat where I can hide. This is an observable, measurable, repeatable and testable fact. Anyone who thinks that W2 has no tactical features, can try standing in the open and shoot at enemies who hide behind cover and measure how much damage you will take in comparison when you hide behind cover, flank the enemy, or use any other tactics at your disposal.

Cover in Fallout would not have gotten rid of the stationary nature of it, and by and large it did not do it in Wasteland 2.

Wasteland 2 has a much more dynamic combat. Not only are you forced to take cover, flank enemies, ambush them when they are behind cover, attack them from roof tops, etc, but you are also constantly moving 4-7 people. Highpool assault is just one example of this, where you are basically pushing the attack forward, then being forced to retreat because your cover shattered, medic coming to the rescue in the last second, etc. Compare that to Fallout where you are just standing there, aiming into eyes, rince and repeat. Are you seriously suggesting that quote: "Fallout combat is better"?? LoL

I mean, I am not saying that W2 has combat that is on par with X-Com, JA2, etc. But to say that its worse than Fallout combat is ridiculous.

Are you willing to argue for a crouch and lean feature in Doom?

Yes, if it would affect the game in a meaningful way, like it is the case with W2 where contrary to what you say tactical mechanics have a meaningful, measurable visible, testable and repeatable effect on the game-play. What you are dong here is asserting that tactical features in W2 have no effect on the combat (which is nothing more then unsupported claim) and then you try to prove that claim by a asking a question about Doom in such a way that already presupposes that adding crouch or lean feature would have no effect on the game. So yes, I agree with you that if you just add crouch to a game where you don't even have areas which can be accessed by crouching, crouching is meaningless. If you add lean to a game where there is no cover mechanic, leaning becomes obsolete. The problem with this is that I am answering loaded questions which unjustifiably presuppose things that you are trying to prove. In other words, what you are doing is sophistry.

Fallout 2 had a boxing match wherein you had to target certain body parts to hamper and beat your opponent. There's a 'boxing match' pretty early on in Wasteland 2, it's called the AgCenter boss, and it's the shittiest slate of 'combat' I've seen in a game in years. And guess what? There was no cover. There was no special targeting. It was your appraisal of Fallout's combat, i.e., you just stand and shoot and they shoot back. Except the enemy was HP-bloated and there was nothing remotely interesting going on but click click click.

As I said, I have no clue what you mean when you say bloated HP. Most enemies I can kill within 2 turns, just as I could in Fallout. And while it is true that you can aim at different body parts in the boxing match in Fallout, that hardly qualifies for tactics. Basically you just aim at eyes until you blind him, and then you can clobber him for a sure win. Also, you are grasping at straws now. Are you seriously going to argue for Fallout's better combat based on 1 scenario?

P.S., you just stand there and shoot guys in Wasteland 2 just like you do in Fallout. I'm amused you think otherwise when 90% of the encounters have you largely footed to where you started the fight.

I hope you understand that you have just shot yourself in the foot here. My whole point is that IF combat is as you say quote: "just like you do in Fallout", then how can you say that quote: "Fallout combat is better"? And no. At this point you are just making stuff up. 90% of combat is not you just standing there and shooting at things "like you do in Fallout". I am 50 hours into the game and so far 70% of encounters require you to use tactics in order to survive. When I am forced to stay in the open and just shoot "like you do in Fallout", I usually take a lot of damage and have to use every turn effectively.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Wasteland 2 has a much more dynamic combat. Not only are you forced to take cover, flank enemies, ambush them when they are behind cover, attack them from roof tops, etc, but you are also constantly moving 4-7 people. Highpool assault is just one example of this, where you are basically pushing the attack forward, then being forced to retreat because your cover shattered, medic coming to the rescue in the last second, etc. Compare that to Fallout where you are just standing there, aiming into eyes, rince and repeat. Are you seriously suggesting that quote: "Fallout combat is better"?? LoL

I mean, I am not saying that W2 has combat that is on par with X-Com, JA2, etc. But to say that its worse than Fallout combat is ridiculous.

For 50% of the game the only tactics involve is using Assault rifles to turn everything into blood sausages, nothing more needed nor does the game ask for the player to be more creative, but it doesnt... there are no unique encounter mechanics, nothing like blaguards or original sin, it's just the same encounters over and over again with the same mechanics.

Once you reach california, its the same thing except you get to use energy weapons with your assault rifles to kill stuff.

 

[sser]

P.S., you just stand there and shoot guys in Wasteland 2 just like you do in Fallout. I'm amused you think otherwise when 90% of the encounters have you largely footed to where you started the fight.

I hope you understand that you have just shot yourself in the foot here. My whole point is that IF combat is as you say quote: "just like you do in Fallout", then how can you say that quote: "Fallout combat is better"? And no. At this point you are just making stuff up. 90% of combat is not you just standing there and shooting at things "like you do in Fallout". I am 50 hours into the game and so far 70% of encounters require you to use tactics in order to survive. When I am forced to stay in the open and just shoot "like you do in Fallout", I usually take a lot of damage and have to use every turn effectively.

I'm at work so I want you to read this:

There's almost nothing going on in W2 'tactics' wise. Many battlefields have you stationed very close (if you move at all) to where you started the fight. That's been commented on again and again in the combat thread. W2 implements cover, but that's about as far as it goes. It's like you designed a hunting game and thought putting a scope on the rifle covered the rest of the mechanics just fine. Fallout's combat is simple, and it's also better. Because it fits the design of the game. Just like Doom has good combat, even though it lacks cover, iron-sights, leaning, jumping, or crouching. Because how 'good' a feature's implementation can be is not based solely on what that feature is, but by what is designed around it.

Either you get it or you don't. I don't think you do.

 

[Wulfric Pinewood]

A lot can be said about Wasteland 2 and previous posters covered almost whole topic. I just want to say that it is solid, good crpg and it deserves to be played but i miss more dedication from its developers.
A little details that kills overall reception - like portraits from character creation- it is below all critic - games from early 90's had better and more esthetic and games form present day too[look at D:OS] .
But that kind of things are just small scratches on this nice title. Maybe what i miss the much and why i choose "Fallouts 1&2 were better but W2 is okay" is an atmosphere - In Fallouts worlds was apocalyptic and empty too,
but no sterile. In Wasteland 2 i feel like im moving Toy soldiers not an actual real apocalyptic rangers group. It's too artificial too often. But we have some nice moral C&C quests here so on the other side we could live with it.
What im most angry at is that Fargo and his talented team, could make a much better game than already "mythic" Fallout 1 & 2 but i feel like they lose some "speed" during creation of W2.
Apocalyptic games should stop trying to bring already old combat and some gameplay mechanics from original Fallouts, they are great games, almost perfect but times move on and some things could be done better.
Overall its good game, but far from being better than Falls 1&2 or beating this year crpg titles like D:OS .

 

[Volourn]

It's way better than DOS. it's nto even close.

As for FOs, it does some things better and some things worse.


"For 50% of the game the only tactics involve is using Assault rifles to turn everything into blood sausages,"

Hilariously enough, I have never sued an assault rifle in the game. LMAO

Also, assault rfiles were extremely useful in FO series comapred to single shot pistols. IMAGINE THAT.

 

[Mareus]

It's way better than DOS. it's nto even close.

As for FOs, it does some things better and some things worse.


"For 50% of the game the only tactics involve is using Assault rifles to turn everything into blood sausages,"

Hilariously enough, I have never sued an assault rifle in the game. LMAO

Also, assault rfiles were extremely useful in FO series comapred to single shot pistols. IMAGINE THAT.

Not only that, but making an all assault rifle team will result in a completely gimped party. You will suffer from a severe lack of bullets and will probably have to waste scrap on bullets instead of affording yourself good armor or some other useful stuff. In combat you will usually get less shots/turn, thus making your team less effective and you will also lack the special benefits one gets with a more diverse party. For example shotgun specialist can target multiple enemies and does a massive amount of damage from up close. Submachine gun is great for cutting an enemy in size when they come too close. A pistol is the best weapon to use when you have to deal with many enemies who have very little HP left, due to small amount of action points required. After all you don't want to do 120 damage to one enemy that has just 2 HP left, and leaving other 2 enemies with the same amount of HP alive. So using a pistol is much more viable. And lets not forget how useful energy weapons are against armored enemies and robots.

Seriously, I don't understand how some people can say the stuff they are saying with a straight face.

 

[Kem0sabe]

It's way better than DOS. it's nto even close.

As for FOs, it does some things better and some things worse.


"For 50% of the game the only tactics involve is using Assault rifles to turn everything into blood sausages,"

Hilariously enough, I have never sued an assault rifle in the game. LMAO

Also, assault rfiles were extremely useful in FO series comapred to single shot pistols. IMAGINE THAT.

Not only that, but making an all assault rifle team will result in a completely gimped party. You will suffer from a severe lack of bullets and will probably have to waste scrap on bullets instead of affording yourself good armor or some other useful stuff. In combat you will usually get less shots/turn, thus making your team less effective and you will also lack the special benefits one gets with a more diverse party. For example shotgun specialist can target multiple enemies and does a massive amount of damage from up close. Submachine gun is great for cutting an enemy in size when they come too close. , due to small amount of action points required. After all you don't want to do 120 damage to one enemy that has just 2 HP left, and leaving other 2 enemies with the same amount of HP alive. So using a pistol is much more viable. And lets not forget how useful energy weapons are against armored enemies and robots.

Seriously, I don't understand how some people can say the stuff they are saying with a straight face.

There is no such thing as resource management beyond weight issues when it comes to bullets, the amount of cash you get from scrap and selling all the stuff you loot more than makes having 5.56 ammo for assault rifles, or any other type of ammo trivial.

I rolled through arizona without a single fight becoming little more than an annoyance, Modded assault rifles have amazing range/damage, more than the heavy machine guns (assault rifles without mods), pistols, shotguns (lol).

The game is poorly balanced and easy for most people with basic concept of how to play a turned based game, trying to make up tactics like "Submachine gun is great for cutting an enemy in size when they come too close" or "For example shotgun specialist can target multiple enemies and does a massive amount of damage from up close." is ridiculous when you just shoot them in the face with a rifle because why bother putting points into weapon types that are obviously gimped for most of the game like SMG's or shotguns.

 

[Volourn]

Krm is boring and a moran. A lethal combination for sure. Now, you can accuse me of being paid a wge by exile too to try to poo poo my opinion. Now, go play your stupid Mario game and let the smart gamers play their awesomesauce.

I'm sure you die A LOT playing. Don't lie.

 

[Gord]

I understand that inxile pays you wage, so you have to say the stuff that you do.

Are you confusing him with sea? Same Avatar, happened to me, as well. Or is Mareus part of inXile, too? If so, is bearded IWD guy mandatory when you work at inXile?

 

[Internet]

That's not Sea, just a lookalike.

 

[Kem0sabe]

I understand that inxile pays you wage, so you have to say the stuff that you do.

Are you confusing him with sea? Same Avatar, happened to me, as well. Or is Mareus part of inXile, too? If so, is bearded IWD guy mandatory when you work at inXile?

Lol, my mistake... i thought it was Sea indeed. Someone sort this avatar crap.

 

[FeelTheRads]

'sup Crispy.

 

[Athelas]

Lol, my mistake... i thought it was Sea indeed. Someone sort this avatar crap.

 

[cvv]

Yeah, c'mon sea, what a terrible avatar decline.

 

[Mareus]

It's way better than DOS. it's nto even close.

As for FOs, it does some things better and some things worse.


"For 50% of the game the only tactics involve is using Assault rifles to turn everything into blood sausages,"

Hilariously enough, I have never sued an assault rifle in the game. LMAO

Also, assault rfiles were extremely useful in FO series comapred to single shot pistols. IMAGINE THAT.

Not only that, but making an all assault rifle team will result in a completely gimped party. You will suffer from a severe lack of bullets and will probably have to waste scrap on bullets instead of affording yourself good armor or some other useful stuff. In combat you will usually get less shots/turn, thus making your team less effective and you will also lack the special benefits one gets with a more diverse party. For example shotgun specialist can target multiple enemies and does a massive amount of damage from up close. Submachine gun is great for cutting an enemy in size when they come too close. , due to small amount of action points required. After all you don't want to do 120 damage to one enemy that has just 2 HP left, and leaving other 2 enemies with the same amount of HP alive. So using a pistol is much more viable. And lets not forget how useful energy weapons are against armored enemies and robots.

Seriously, I don't understand how some people can say the stuff they are saying with a straight face.

There is no such thing as resource management beyond weight issues when it comes to bullets, the amount of cash you get from scrap and selling all the stuff you loot more than makes having 5.56 ammo for assault rifles, or any other type of ammo trivial.

I rolled through arizona without a single fight becoming little more than an annoyance, Modded assault rifles have amazing range/damage, more than the heavy machine guns (assault rifles without mods), pistols, shotguns (lol).

The game is poorly balanced and easy for most people with basic concept of how to play a turned based game, trying to make up tactics like "Submachine gun is great for cutting an enemy in size when they come too close" or "For example shotgun specialist can target multiple enemies and does a massive amount of damage from up close." is ridiculous when you just shoot them in the face with a rifle because why bother putting points into weapon types that are obviously gimped for most of the game like SMG's or shotguns.

I have no idea what you are talking about. My submachine and shotgun specialists have the most kills so far. Have you even tried them out or are you pulling this shit out of your ass?

 

[Mareus]

There, done.

Man... awful choice. What did you do to yourself?!

 

[Kem0sabe]

It's way better than DOS. it's nto even close.

As for FOs, it does some things better and some things worse.


"For 50% of the game the only tactics involve is using Assault rifles to turn everything into blood sausages,"

Hilariously enough, I have never sued an assault rifle in the game. LMAO

Also, assault rfiles were extremely useful in FO series comapred to single shot pistols. IMAGINE THAT.

Not only that, but making an all assault rifle team will result in a completely gimped party. You will suffer from a severe lack of bullets and will probably have to waste scrap on bullets instead of affording yourself good armor or some other useful stuff. In combat you will usually get less shots/turn, thus making your team less effective and you will also lack the special benefits one gets with a more diverse party. For example shotgun specialist can target multiple enemies and does a massive amount of damage from up close. Submachine gun is great for cutting an enemy in size when they come too close. , due to small amount of action points required. After all you don't want to do 120 damage to one enemy that has just 2 HP left, and leaving other 2 enemies with the same amount of HP alive. So using a pistol is much more viable. And lets not forget how useful energy weapons are against armored enemies and robots.

Seriously, I don't understand how some people can say the stuff they are saying with a straight face.

There is no such thing as resource management beyond weight issues when it comes to bullets, the amount of cash you get from scrap and selling all the stuff you loot more than makes having 5.56 ammo for assault rifles, or any other type of ammo trivial.

I rolled through arizona without a single fight becoming little more than an annoyance, Modded assault rifles have amazing range/damage, more than the heavy machine guns (assault rifles without mods), pistols, shotguns (lol).

The game is poorly balanced and easy for most people with basic concept of how to play a turned based game, trying to make up tactics like "Submachine gun is great for cutting an enemy in size when they come too close" or "For example shotgun specialist can target multiple enemies and does a massive amount of damage from up close." is ridiculous when you just shoot them in the face with a rifle because why bother putting points into weapon types that are obviously gimped for most of the game like SMG's or shotguns.

I have no idea what you are talking about. My submachine and shotgun specialists have the most kills so far. Have you even tried them out or are you pulling this shit out of your ass?

Shotgun? really? Maybe you are playing some magic inxile build that makes shotguns not to be crap.

I can do upwards of 150 dmg with a 6 AP 3xshot attack with an assault rifle on a single mob with arizona assault rifles, i can get 2 of those off on an assault rifle build character, 300 damage or more depending on mobs. then comes along my shotgun character, that needs to be up close to mobs, have them wonderfully lined up in such a way as to do damage to more than one to be worth the AP cost, that has limited ammo capacity, that forces me to maneuvers my squad around as to not be hit by friendly fire, and maybe does a magical number of 50 damage per hit.

Yeah, shotguns are awesome.

 

[Infinitron]

sea We can give you a custom avatar. PM Crooked Bee with your choice.

 

[Mareus]

Shotgun? really? Maybe you are playing some magic inxile build that makes shotguns not to be crap.

I can do upwards of 150 dmg with a 6 AP 3xshot attack with an assault rifle on a single mob with arizona assault rifles, i can get 2 of those off on an assault rifle build character, 300 damage or more depending on mobs. then comes along my shotgun character, that needs to be up close to mobs, have them wonderfully lined up in such a way as to do damage to more than one to be worth the AP cost, that has limited ammo capacity, that forces me to maneuvers my squad around as to not be hit by friendly fire, and maybe does a magical number of 50 damage per hit.

Yeah, shotguns are awesome.

Again, I submit to you that you are pulling this information out of your ass. A quick look at weapon tables proves that the same tier weapons do similar base damage, and then you have shotguns like SPAZ 12 or Jackhammer that do well over 50 base damage with a single shot, while also having the ability to burst fire x3.
AK-47:
http://wasteland.gamepedia.com/AK-47

vs Tactical shotgun:
http://wasteland.gamepedia.com/Tactical_shotgun

Proof that shotgun can do well above 50 damage:
http://wasteland.gamepedia.com/Jackhammer
http://wasteland.gamepedia.com/Spaz_12

Assault rifles generally have an advantage of doing more critical damage and having more ammo with the ability to burst fire, BUT they can only shoot at one target, and if the enemy is too close you have to move away to be effective. They also cost more AP to use, so you will get less shots per turn. I cannot repeat this enough, but doing 150+ damage to an enemy that has 20-30 HP points left is a waste of AP. When you are surrounded with 3-4 enemies that are already wounded, not having a shotgun specialist or a handgun specialist is going to make you take needless damage, because you can only deal with one enemy/turn most of the times. That is why my shotgun specialist has the most kills. He is usually the last to take the turn, so I position my party of long ranged damage dealers away (which I have to do anyway, due to assault rifles being useless if the enemy is standing right next to you). My shotgun specialist can then attack multiple targets and positioning is not that big of a problem that you make it be. Does it take some extra planning ahead? Yes. But you have to know how to use shotguns effectively. It is certainly a viable weapon, but it requires tactics and planning ahead. Imagine that!

The bottom line is this. Its not true that shotguns are useless. Its not true that there is no tactics involved. And if anything, W2 allows you to play the game however you want it. I mean, are there ways to avoid using a shotgun? Yes, but this can be said about every weapon in the game. I mean, if I can play the game without using assault rifles at all, does that make assault rifles useless?? Come on.. get serious.