Wasteland Wasteland 2, what gone wrong? [SPOILERS]

[Vault Dweller]

Sure as fuck not because it's RTwP, I can tell you that much. I expect:

- original, well developed setting (not a license rehash)
- great storytelling and writing
- quality role-playing

 

[Lurker King]

Anyway, you were answering Hiver but I got interested because many times people have the custom of psychologizing things and divining other people toughts, "You don't hate Wasteland 2, you hate Fargo!". If Wasteland 2 was made by some unknown ruskie shovelware factory (and some parts of it sure looks like it was.) I would be impressed by its size and how much they managed to accomplish but I would still think the game stinked and I would have abandoned half way through.

There is a difference between harsh criticism and mad/bipolar criticism. The latter you can only explain by psychological reasons.

 

[Lurker King]

I dislike filler but am I supposed to criticize games that have design elements I dislike? I criticize elements that are poorly done (and I did). I can't stand RTwP and consider it an abomination but I didn't complain about it when I reviewed MotB either.

Well, if hurts your enjoyment of the game, maybe you should talk about it. Design decisions are not axioms that you have to accept in order to evaluate a game in an impartial way. In fact, I couldn’t imagine any place more appropriate to such criticism.

 

[hiver]

There is a difference between harsh criticism and mad/bipolar criticism. The latter you can only explain by psychological reasons.

Implying that you somehow know someones "psychological reasons" means you are an idiot. A cheap butthurt imbecile and a cretin. Or an obvious troll at the best.

What i write is harsh but well deserved criticism, which each of the things i mentioned proves. All those things are in the game for anyone to see and experience. If you merely dont like the language i use... well you can go fuck yourself. comprende?

And i did mention several examples of things that were ok in the game, which you either didnt see or intentionally pretend dont exist - because you are a cheap cretin and or troll, just because my criticism made you butthurt or made you feel stupid for enjoying cheap schlock.
If you had any kind of actual counter argument to any specific detail i posted i think we would see it by now. And if you had any examples of good stuff to balance my harsh and well deserved criticism with you would present those.

You dont have either, so the only thing you can say are these stupid blatant strawmans and ad hominems.
Which makes you an incredible blatant moron. - those are real psychological reasons.

See, this is another example of harsh but well deserved criticism... and i literally do not have anything else from you to "balance that" with. Some people and some games are just shits.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, if hurts your enjoyment of the game, maybe you should talk about it. Design decisions are not axioms that you have to accept in order to evaluate a game in an impartial way. In fact, I couldn’t imagine any place more appropriate to such criticism.

A reviewer should try to be objective and impartial as much as possible. Take filler, for example. I dislike it and I did remove it from my own game, which wasn't well received by everyone as many people expressed their preference for various activities I find pointless. Besides, filler is a commonly accepted design "element"; is it fair to criticize WL2 for it?

I also disliked the setting (not my cup of tea at all), should I mention that in a review and talk about how it affected my enjoyment (which is a highly subjective thing) or should I describe the setting in details and let the readers form their own opinions?

 

[Lurker King]

A reviewer should try to be objective and impartial as much as possible. Take filler, for example. I dislike it and I did remove it from my own game, which wasn't well received by everyone as many people expressed their preference for various activities I find pointless. Besides, filler is a commonly accepted design "element"; is it fair to criticize WL2 for it?

I also disliked the setting (not my cup of tea at all), should I mention that in a review and talk about how it affected my enjoyment (which is a highly subjective thing) or should I describe the setting in details and let the readers form their own opinions?

Your reasoning seems to be the following (correct me, if I'm wrong): if there is a disagreement about whether a design element is good, any attempt to criticize it is highly subjective and not relevant to the readers. I accept your premise, but not your conclusion. First, there are reasons to justify our beliefs about design elements. The subject matter is not arbitrary due to a lack of consensus. Is not a matter of opinion that turned-based is more appropriate to a tactic and complex combat, or that FPS and RTWP is less appropriate. Second, this is relevant to the readers. Reviewers are opinion makers and influence the players, for better or worse. Besides, what is the point of criticizing RTWP only when nobody is paying serious attention?

 

[Infinitron]

Your reasoning seems to be the following (correct me, if I'm wrong): if there is a disagreement about whether a design element is good, any attempt to criticize it is highly subjective and not relevant to the readers. I accept your premise, but not your conclusion. First, there are reasons to justify our beliefs about design elements. The subject matter is not arbitrary due to a lack of consensus. Is not a matter of opinion that turned-based is more appropriate to a tactic and complex combat, or that FPS and RTWP is less appropriate. Second, this is relevant to the readers. Reviewers are opinion makers and influence the players, for better or worse. Besides, what is the point of criticizing RTWP only when nobody is paying serious attention?

What you forget to take in mind is that Vault Dweller liked and enjoyed the game anyway, so even if he had criticized those things at length, you still probably would have come away from his review unhappy.

"What do you mean, the game is good? You just spent an an hour telling me how its basic design elements suck! Now you're telling me to buy it?!"

See also: Sceptic's MMX review (lots of lulzy responses in the thread here), Darth Roxor's Shadowrun Returns review

So, perhaps it's best that VD did things the way he did!

 

[hiver]

You can boil all that down to: No review is right if you dont do exactly what lurker tells you would satisfy his specific desires.

How about taking those off topic posts somewhere else?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Your reasoning seems to be the following (correct me, if I'm wrong): if there is a disagreement about whether a design element is good, any attempt to criticize it is highly subjective and not relevant to the readers.

Not quite. More like, it's not about whether or not there is a disagreement but whether or not the feature is commonly accepted or even expected. Basically, a reviewer should review the game not his own expectations/preferences and how the game failed to meet them.

For example, Fargo promised to make an old school game. Well, in my humble opinion, WL2 fits that definition to the letter. It is an old school game featuring that old school design that was so common in late 80s and early 90s. The problem is many people weren't around to experience it so they read 'old school' as omg, so awesome, gonna be best game ever. Yet when people play these old school games, even venerable ones like Betrayal at Krondor, they go 'what the fuck is this shit?'

Filler combat was very common in those games. Don't believe me? Go to Arnika and see how far you'll get before your will to live play is crashed. Should WL2 be criticized for sticking with the old template?

Is not a matter of opinion that turned-based is more appropriate to a tactic and complex combat, or that FPS and RTWP is less appropriate.

It kinda is though (TB vs RTWP). Few people would call WL2 combat system complex or tactical, would they? Whereas BG2 combat was fairly complex and tactical when it comes to spells.

Second, this is relevant to the readers. Reviewers are opinion makers and influence the players, for better or worse.

I merely wish to inform the readers and let them form their own opinions.

Besides, what is the point of criticizing RTWP only when nobody is paying serious attention?

Because it's a personal preference and it should not be discussed in a review. Basically, if I ever review PoE I'd criticize the design of their RTwP system (if such criticism is warranted; at the moment it is) not the system itself.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Because it's a personal preference and it should not be discussed in a review. Basically, if I ever review PoE I'd criticize the design of their RTwP system (if such criticism is warranted; at the moment it is) not the system itself.

What if the system chosen isn't quite suited to the game they've made? Purely hypothetically, if you thought WL2 would have worked better in RTWP or PoE's combat was better-suited to turn-based, wouldn't it be appropriate to mention it in a review?

 

[hiver]

W2 doesnt have any problems just with the systems it chose. Its problems lie in execution of all of them. if you would turn it all into RtwP or full RT it would not change anything substantial. The real problems of it would remain the same wrapped in a package of a different color.

I merely wish to inform the readers and let them form their own opinions.

Your w2 review does no such thing. You made many good reviews but that one is not one of them.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What if the system chosen isn't quite suited to the game they've made? Purely hypothetically, if you thought WL2 would have worked better in RTWP or PoE's combat was better-suited to turn-based, wouldn't it be appropriate to mention it in a review?

I'm not sure such a point can be argued. Besides, if a system is well implemented and works well, it's hard to claim that another system would have been even better. If a system is not well implemented, the reviewer should explain the flaws.

Your w2 review does no such thing. You made many good reviews but that one is not one of them.

My review goes through every aspect of the game, describing them in a fairly impartial manner and listing all the flaws without going emotional over them. I did like the game, which is why I agreed to review it after I declined this honor twice. I didn't do it to please Fargo as you implied.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

I'm not sure such a point can be argued. Besides, if a system is well implemented and works well, it's hard to claim that another system would have been even better. If a system is not well implemented, the reviewer should explain the flaws.

Let's say a reviewer likes some of the systems and abilities Sawyer has implemented in PoE (hypothetical example, not trying to start another PoE/Sawyer thread) but feels they aren't best suited to RTWP.

If the reviewer is allowed to only "criticize the design of their RTwP system not the system itself" then the comments would be about how things should be changed/streamlined/cut in the RTWP implementation.

Alternatively a reviewer could comment favourably about PoE's systems and abilities, "but what a pity the combat isn't turnbased, these are more suited to a turn-based system because..."

I guess I don't understand why only the first approach is available to reviewers and not the second. To me turn-based/rtwp is a high-level design decision like permadeath/regeneration, single character/party or 2d vs 3d graphics and it seems reasonable to discuss it in a review. Not because one answer is always right but in terms of whether it fits the overall design of the game, related systems and target market.

 

[hiver]

Pleasing Fargo was an intentional insulting strawman argument provided so you can feel how that feels from the other side. Reflected back and written in exact same manner as you write your insulting retarded strawmans.

Your review glasses over multitude of aspects of the game, never addresses any specific points and makes several fairly ludicrous statements which arent supported by anything. Plus several which are really ridiculous. Its some kind of meta overview where you basically praise the PR material of the game, not the content.
Atleast you removed that mistake of saying that awareness increases AP, which just showed how deeply you considered and played the game.

It seems that your brain just went into "oh thats all crazy ass lulz becaus eits wasteland" complete shutdown.
Your review sucks donkey balls by multitude.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Let's say a reviewer likes some of the systems and abilities Sawyer has implemented in PoE (hypothetical example, not trying to start another PoE/Sawyer thread) but feels they aren't best suited to RTWP.

If they aren't best suited for the chosen system, then it's a flaw that should be mentioned and criticized.

If the reviewer is allowed to only "criticize the design of their RTwP system not the system itself" then the comments would be about how things should be changed/streamlined/cut in the RTWP implementation.

First, if the hypothetical Sawyer wanted or had to make a RTwP combat system but failed to make it work, the issue is him failing to make it work not the system itself. Second, the comments should not be about how things should be cut or changed, but about how some elements don't work well or at all.

Alternatively a reviewer could comment favourably about PoE's systems and abilities, "but what a pity the combat isn't turnbased, these are more suited to a turn-based system because..." because TB rocks but unfortunately Obsidian are traitorous scum who sold us all out!

I feel better already.

I guess I don't understand why only the first approach is available to reviewers and not the second.

The way I see it, a flaw is a very objective thing and most people would agree that it is indeed a flaw but might disagree on its affect (see the FO2 setting discussion) and how much it bothers them. RTwP vs TB is a very subjective thing where the main argument is "I enjoy TB" more. In my opinion, subjective comments are best to be avoided as they don't bring any clarity.

To me turn-based/rtwp is a high-level design decision like permadeath/regeneration, single character/party or 2d vs 3d graphics and it seems reasonable to discuss it in a review. Not because one answer is always right but in terms of whether it fits the overall design of the game, related systems and target market.

I agree that it's a high-level design decisions, which is why I don't see the need to criticize them, only the way they were implemented. In other words, it's a developer's right to make any damn game he wants: RTwP, regen, high magic, emotional engagement (I couldn't sell my companions in Torment), etc, as long as he can do it right.

For example, Sawyer's ideas on fake death made sense on paper but didn't work all that well in the game last time I played it. So if I review the game I wouldn't complain about the fact that it has fake death but talk about how it was implemented.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Pleasing Fargo was an intentional insulting strawman argument ...

No kidding.

Your review glasses over multitude of aspects of the game, never addresses any specific points and makes several fairly ludicrous statements which arent supported by anything.

If you say so.

Atleast you removed that mistake of saying that awareness increases AP, which just showed how deeply you considered and played the game.

I made that comment on my very first day of playing it. It even says Day 1 where I shared my *initial* impressions over several days, admitting that I didn't read the manual and not trying to impress anyone with my deep understanding of the game. I hope you'll find it in your heart to forgive me.

Your review sucks donkey balls by multitude.

Thanks for letting me know.

 

[hiver]

RTwP vs TB is a very subjective thing where the main argument is "I enjoy TB" more. In my opinion, subjective comments are best to be avoided as they don't bring any clarity.

Correct.

In other words, it's a developer's right to make any damn game he wants: RTwP, regen, high magic, emotional engagement (I couldn't sell my companions in Torment), etc, as long as he can do it right.
For example, Sawyer's ideas on fake death made sense on paper but didn't work all that well in the game last time I played it. So if I review the game I wouldn't complain about the fact that it has fake death but talk about how it was implemented.

Correct.

Second, the comments should not be about how things should be cut or changed, but about how some elements don't work well or at all.

Correct.

Shame you didnt apply that to your W2 review at all.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

In other words, it's a developer's right to make any damn game he wants: RTwP, regen, high magic, emotional engagement (I couldn't sell my companions in Torment), etc, as long as he can do it right.

If only they'd got the level scaling in Oblivion right

Frankly, the "dungeon hack" experience could have saved the game and make it great (still a poor RPG though), if not for one huge, GIGANTIC flaw that sucked most fun out of exploration and even thievery. Everything - enemies, their equipment, and treasure in chests - is scaled down to your level.

Just kidding, I get your argument now so I'll stop derailing the thread.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Level-scaling isn't a bad idea (you have to do something to maintain the challenge) but it has to be done right to keep things logical and consistent. Doing right means a lot more work though, so I'm not surprised that Bethesda took (and keep taking) the easy way out.

Basically, there is a difference between logical changes over time, threat growing bigger if not stopped early, etc, and simply upgrading armor/weapons/level/chest content.

 

[Lurker King]

Fargo promised to make an old school game. Well, in my humble opinion, WL2 fits that definition to the letter. It is an old school game featuring that old school design that was so common in late 80s and early 90s. (…) Filler combat was very common in those games.

They problem is that they also tried to implement some ideas that are completely alien to the old school mentality, resulting in a very confusing mix. C&C/balancing and filler content are like water and oil, they don’t mix. Games with C&C tend naturally to a more sophisticated gameplay in which in the increase in content is proportional to the different ways to solve the same quests, but filler content runs in the opposite direction, since it is imposed on everyone and has nothing to do with your choices. I was looking at FO2 yesterday and realize how much the skill system is elegant in comparison to W2. If a developer would decide to make “trap” a proper balanced skill, he would ruin the game for everyone that don’t appreciate this type of stuff.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Fargo promised to make an old school game. Well, in my humble opinion, WL2 fits that definition to the letter. It is an old school game featuring that old school design that was so common in late 80s and early 90s. (…) Filler combat was very common in those games.

They problem is that they also tried to implement some ideas that are completely alien to the old school mentality, resulting in a very confusing mix. C&C/balancing and filler content are like water and oil, they don’t mix. Games with C&C tend naturally to a more sophisticated gameplay in which in the increase in content is proportional to the different ways to solve the same quests, but filler content runs in the opposite direction, since it is imposed on everyone and has nothing to do with your choices.

I disagree. C&C can be inserted into any game. See Alpha Protocol - a shooter with stealth elements and a lot of C&C. Basically, you can take an old-school game that's all about combat and filler and easily insert choices and various outcomes, improving the overall design and making the game more enjoyable.

 

[Lurker King]

I disagree. C&C can be inserted into any game. See Alpha Protocol - a shooter with stealth elements and a lot of C&C. Basically, you can take an old-school game that's all about combat and filler and easily insert choices and various outcomes, improving the overall design and making the game more enjoyable.

You can try to implement C&C in different game genres, but some are more amenable to this than others are, and to implement C&C in a meaningful way to games that are mostly shooters, you have to make some compromises and cut a lot of filler, etc. My point is that if Obsidian decided to do both a traditional shooter, with lots of combat, and C&C, they game would be much worse. W2 tried to do both an old-school with lots of filler and a cRPG with lots of reactivity.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I disagree. C&C can be inserted into any game. See Alpha Protocol - a shooter with stealth elements and a lot of C&C. Basically, you can take an old-school game that's all about combat and filler and easily insert choices and various outcomes, improving the overall design and making the game more enjoyable.

You can try to implement C&C in different game genres, but some are more amenable to this than others are, and to implement C&C in a meaningful way to games that are mostly shooters, you have to make some compromises and cut a lot of filler, etc.

What makes you think that? C&C aren't a feature that requires changes elsewhere. They are easily to implement in any genre: shooter, adventure, strategy, rpg as all they do is offer you a choice and some kind of reaction to that choice. Filler has nothing to do with it.

Now you can argue that a C&C heavy game designed with replayability in mind (i.e. a game like AoD) should discard all filler to make replaying it easier and I'll agree with you there for obvious reasons but WL2 was never going to be such a game.

My point is that if Obsidian decided to do both a traditional shooter, with lots of combat, and C&C, they game would be much worse.

Much worse than what? A linear shooter? What they cooked in the end? The game did have a lot of combat, often forgetting its role as a stealth spy game with some combat and forcing you to fight for the lulz.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Is it just me or is the game chokeful of Junktowns from F1? I mean many cities have a conflict where 2 sides are struggling over the control of the city. Usually one orderly and the other chaotic. The player has to assist one of the group in their struggle or sometimes chose a third option. RNC had Topeekans and Achtisonians, Temple of the Titan had M.A.D Monks and Silverback militia, Rodia had the mayor and the Jerks and Angel Oracle had Manerites and the Robbinsons. It's freaking me out a bit.

 

[Invictus]

Vault Dweller why waste your time with hiver and his argumento? He clearly has very set view and doesnt care about anybody's views but hisn that is why he made his own seemingly highly successful forum and felt the need to spread his shit here
I liked the game, you liked the game and a good amount of people did too.
Could it be better? Yeah
Is it better than 90% of the shit we have been subject to for the last 6 7 years? Hell yeah
So hater gonna hate
Lovers wanna love
I dont even want
None of the above
Just want to play some Wasteland 2