Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Wasteland Wasteland 2, what gone wrong? [SPOILERS]

miles teg

Scholar
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
130
Amen
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
4,198
RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In
Despite enjoying the game I understand why many people hate it so much. People usually remember the last experience related to certain things and the last battle of W2 is the worst final battle I've ever seen.
-First of all some total retard decided to not allow players to save during combat. Probably because he thinks it makes the game hardcore or some shit, while totally ignoring the fact that even fucking Doom allowed players to save the gamy any time he wants. This is not so bad by itself.
-Some other retard (or perhaps it was the same person) decided to abandon delivering dialogues by fucking dialogue windows and decided to make a lenghty and retarded cutscene right before the battle. Probably to make it more like modern games, despite the fact that most modern games allow you to fucking skip custcenes. This wouldn't be so bad. But since you can't save during battle it means that you will be forced to watch this bullshit every time it fais. It allow you to see in details how horrible W2 models fucking look. Yes, Inxile first use portraits and isometric perspective to somehow make players not see your ugly models and then force him to watch them up close over and over again. It makes sense.
-The fight itself is just about fighting waves of strong enemies over and over and over again, which is the worst way to make a boss batle. Couldn't Inxile just put another fucking Scorpitron in there instead of all these suckers?
-For some reason you also can't hack any of the robots, which fucking sucks
- You get a bunch of NPCs to assist you in this combat. Since we've already established that some of the devs were utter morons who believe that "old school" means "a total pain in the ass for the player" they just couldn't let you controll all of them. Which means that they will probably all die horribly and that most of the time player will be watching the game play itself.
-Just after the end of the fight there were doors locked with computer lock for some reason. Since the game took out my hacker without warning and the doors were also for some reason resistant to pipe bombs I'd be totally fucked if I didn't have that one extra RPG in the backpack. This is also utterly pointless thing to do after the final fight.
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
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.

But W2 is both a C&C heavy game and a combat heavy game. That is the problem. The game tries to do a lot of things at the same time, but fails in everything.

This whole W2 ordeal reeks of confusion. When criticisms to filler are made, the “this-is-what-oldschool-games-look-like” card is used, even if the game tries a lot of things that have nothing to do with oldschool games (C&C, etc.). When some of the wasted opportunities are pointed out in comparison to Fallout (horrible map, lack of perks, etc.) they used the “this-was-never-meant-as-a-Fallout-game” excuse, even if Fallout was a successor of Wasteland and Wasteland 2 has a lot of Falloutish elements such as post-apocalyptic setting and crazy groups (Mannerites, Robbinsons, followers of Titan, etc). So many lame excuses!
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
7,269
When it comes to feedback and suggestions, there is a HUGE difference between what one person can contribute and what an army of people can contribute. Look at the interface suggestions. What inXile should have done is presented their ideas on everything (dialogue, skill use, combat system, C&C design, etc) and let the backers Codex tear them apart.

I think the power of the crowd is good for refining things, perfecting them, but for laying down basic tenets, one person who knows his shit is a more effective solution. Not the only solution, but surely a simpler one.
but see: Underrail.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,035
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.

But W2 is both a C&C heavy game and a combat heavy game. That is the problem. The game tries to do a lot of things at the same time, but fails in everything.

This whole W2 ordeal reeks of confusion. When criticisms to filler are made, the “this-is-what-oldschool-games-look-like” card is used, even if the game tries a lot of things that have nothing to do with oldschool games (C&C, etc.). When some of the wasted opportunities are pointed out in comparison to Fallout (horrible map, lack of perks, etc.) they used the “this-was-never-meant-as-a-Fallout-game” excuse, even if Fallout was a successor of Wasteland and Wasteland 2 has a lot of Falloutish elements such as post-apocalyptic setting and crazy groups (Mannerites, Robbinsons, followers of Titan, etc). So many lame excuses!
I don't see it this way.

Let's start with Fallout vs Wasteland. While Fallout can be considered a spiritual successor it was a very different game with very different goals. Thus, while I prefer Fallout's more mature exploration of the ethics of a post-nuclear world and its distinctive retro-future style and the overall design, you can't fault WL2 for being an honest-to-god sequel. That's where the whole misunderstanding is. Fargo promised an "unapologetic, oldschool RPG" as Grunker put it and that's exactly what he delivered.

On the subject of C&C, it's not a novelty concept. It's as old as, well, Wasteland. Here is my article on RoA2:
http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2365.0.html
You're offered a choice at the very beginning and there are quite a few choices throughout the game. So, no, claiming that C&C has nothing to do with 'old school' is incorrect. Same goes for the conclusion that C&C and filler are mutually exclusive concepts.
 

hiver

Guest
you can't fault WL2 for being an honest-to-god sequel.
First of all, nobody is claiming it is not a sequel or faulting it as a "sequel".
Second of all, its a hybrid of Fallout mechanics and superficial PA circus lulz setting of Wasteland - that in execution became incoherent convoluted schlock garbage. That was a big part of the whole project from the start and it is what the game is.

If people fault it for anything thats that it just sucks ass across the board. People fault it for being a fucking bad game, with shit content.

Stop using idiotic strawmns for your "arguments" that consist of nothing but implying what people supposedly think and then "proving how wrong that is".


That's where the whole misunderstanding is.
Only in your head.

Fargo promised an "unapologetic, oldschool RPG" as Grunker put it and that's exactly what he delivered.
And it is superficial cheap shit without a soul or any kind of internal coherence, logic, style or atmosphere. Not to mention quality design of specific parts of the content.

Nobody gives a flying fuck if the game has all the possible features of an "old school RPG" if its all shit.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,035
Thanks for popping in to clarify it for us, hiver! What would we do without you?
 

hiver

Guest
You would be pretentious superficial person of lower intelligence and quite large cognitive dissonance - ( edit. oh excuse my french madames and monseigneurs) who has nothing else to say except more strawman arguments.

You are not "we" btw.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
4,198
RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In
While W2 had many problems combining setting of the original W2 with Fallout-inspired mechanics was not one of them. The worst part of the W2 were these where they've tried to make a serious game. For example Hollywood's social problems, Rodia's overall blandness etc. The best parts IMO was where they've decided to just go over the top. The entire Cannion of the Tita, dougan and Mathias slinging shit at each other on the radio, the AG center with killer bunies, Scorpitrons etc. Ending would be vastly improved if the final stand was against Mathias and Dougan instead of the base Cochise A.I which was boring, poorly written and a bloody Skynet ripoff, not to mention according to old Wasteland fans a total retcon of some parts of the first games.
 

hiver

Guest
While W2 had many problems combining setting of the original W2 with Fallout-inspired mechanics was not one of them
No. The execution of it all WAS.

thats what i said.
 

Athelas

Arcane
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
4,502
I don't see it this way.

Let's start with Fallout vs Wasteland. While Fallout can be considered a spiritual successor it was a very different game with very different goals. Thus, while I prefer Fallout's more mature exploration of the ethics of a post-nuclear world and its distinctive retro-future style and the overall design, you can't fault WL2 for being an honest-to-god sequel.
You can't fault it for that, but you can fault it for not executing well the things that are part of being an 'honest-to-god sequel'. A criticism like 'too much combat' would fall in the former category, whereas a criticism like 'too much combat and it isn't very good' would fall in the latter category.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
4,198
RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In
While W2 had many problems combining setting of the original W2 with Fallout-inspired mechanics was not one of them
No. The execution of it all WAS.

thats what i said.

I don't really think so. Like I've said I really liked Canyon of the Titan both in idea and implementation. Same with many other locations.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,035
You can't fault it for that, but you can fault it for not executing well the things that are part of being an 'honest-to-god sequel'. A criticism like 'too much combat' would fall in the former category, whereas a criticism like 'too much combat and it isn't very good' would fall in the latter category.
Yet the opinions on whether or not WL2 combat is good (or to be more specific, whether or not it's entertaining enough) appear to be divided. Just today a Codex member I hold in high esteem PMed me saying that he started playing the game and is enjoying it quite a lot:

Combat is surprisingly fun, basic as it is, but could easy be even better.
I couldn't agree more. Nobody would call the system deep, but it's fun and many battles are surprisingly well done.
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,854
This game melts my pc, thats what makes it about as good as DAI. WL2 has AAA quality.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
4,198
RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In
@Vault Dweller
The problem with combat system is that it becomes rather boring later in the game. In other words it's good enough to be fun in your standard exploration based RPG like Fallout and Arcanum, but no good enough for the game so combat heavy. IMO the best thing Inxile could do would be to make a Fallout-like game with Wasteland engine and mechanics but also add some more options to the combat. I'm playing Dragonfall right now and some things, like controllable robtos, granades that don't kill people etc. would really help make the game more interesting.
 

hiver

Guest
saying that he started playing the game

Any novelty tends to feel good at first. And w2 combat is passable enough to looks as if its good or atleast decent when you play the game for the very first time.
Lets wait until he actually plays the game and comes to understand that whole difficulty of any combat is just in HP bloat and that removing armors makes you take less damage. Not to mention non existence of any enemy Ai, idiotic fucking badgers and more.


Athelas
You will notice how you talk about one thing and VD replies by shifting goal post and talks about another.


I don't really think so. Like I've said I really liked Canyon of the Titan both in idea and implementation. Same with many other locations.
The Canyon is an ok location that is a fluke in the whole game- and it has several lousy design decisions too that deserve a lot of criticism. A completely modern military second faction that fell from the sky. The forced ending that depend only on what you choose in the Silo three switches.
Nothing of that you can influence by your skills.
It looks better then it is precisely because the rest is low quality shite.

Saying one location of all locations in the game is ok or good for you means exactly nothing when we talk about the whole of the game and ALL of its features.
 

Athelas

Arcane
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
4,502
Yet the opinions on whether or not WL2 combat is good (or to be more specific, whether or not it's entertaining enough) appear to be divided.
Well, I didn't say that particular bit of criticism was unanimous, just that it was an example of prominent criticism that didn't fall into the 'why isn't this more like Fallout?' camp. And at any rate, from what I have seen, opinions on combat are mostly divided between 'does its job' and 'bad'. Both of which technically fall within the classification mentioned in my previous post, 'not very good'.

Still, one can come up with somewhat objective criteria by which to judge a turn-based combat system. For example, how much emphasis it places on maintaining control over the battlefield, be it through attacks of opportunity, impactful status ailments or zones of control. Wasteland 2 offers no such options.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
4,198
RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In
hiver
The Canyon is an ok location that is a fluke in the whole game- and it has several lousy design decisions too that deserve a lot of criticism.
Saying one location of all locations in the game is ok or good for you means exactly nothing when we talk about the whole of the game and ALL of its features.
It looks better then it is precisely because the rest is low quality shite.
I didn't say that it's the only good location, just that it's the one I've liked the most. Actually the only locations I'd actually call shite were Rodia and Hollywood. Nothing of value would be lost if these two were cut off provided the Bastion would be left. My point is that W2 fails when it tries to not be wacky.

A completely modern military second faction that fell from the sky.

You could say the same about the Rangers. DBM main base of operation just wasn't revealed, it's obvious they are holding it for the sequel/expansion pack. I understand why some people would dislike it being so cryptic about it.

The forced ending that depend only on what you choose in the Silo three switches.

It didn't feel that forced to me. The entire region is centered around a nuke, so it's obviously a big deal.

Nothing of that you can influence by your skills.

Seriously? I remember having to use hard ass on some raiders to save some family and you can't disarm the nuke without having a demolition expert. Which is implied to be the best ending.
 

hiver

Guest
You could say the same about the Rangers.
Exactly.

it's obvious they are holding it for
Only if you are telepathic.

And what the hell would their "base of operations" achieve anyway? Anioter "SECRET BASE!!!" under a huge sign?
The problem is that you have all those completely modern factions in a PA setting.

It didn't feel that forced to me. The entire region is centered around a nuke, so it's obviously a big deal.
It is a big deal - but what happens when you choose one of the three options is as retarded as the ending of ass defect 3.
And completely out of your control.

Seriously? I remember having to use hard ass on some..-
I was talking about what happens after you make your choice about the nuke.

and you can't disarm the nuke without having a demolition expert.
True, one of the very rare such moments in the whole game. Yet by that time you have plenty of levels and skill pints and you sure as hell will have someone with enough demolition.

Which is implied to be the best ending.
The whole place gets overrun by some "chaotic raiders" who appear out of the sky and kill everyone.

Best ending...?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,035
Athelas
You will notice how you talk about one thing and VD replies by shifting goal post and talks about another.
He said or implied that WL2 combat is bad which affects the perception of the filler combat. I pointed out that there is no consensus on WL2 combat on the Codex. If you don't see how it's relevant here, I can't explain it to you.

And at any rate, from what I have seen, opinions on combat are mostly divided between 'does its job' and 'bad'. Both of which technically fall within the classification mentioned in my previous post, 'not very good'.
It's a combat-heavy game that got a fairly high rating on the Codex.

12147.jpg


813 votes, 75% think it's Good or Excellent. While it's possible that some people like it that much despite combat, it's unlikely that the majority thinks the combat is "not very good'.

Still, one can come up with somewhat objective criteria by which to judge a turn-based combat system. For example, how much emphasis it places on maintaining control over the battlefield, be it through attacks of opportunity, impactful status ailments or zones of control. Wasteland 2 offers no such options.
Which doesn't make it a bad or 'not very good' system by default.
 

hiver

Guest
You can't fault it for that, but you can fault it for not executing well the things that are part of being an 'honest-to-god sequel'. A criticism like 'too much combat' would fall in the former category, whereas a criticism like 'too much combat and it isn't very good' would fall in the latter category.

Yet the opinions on whether or not WL2 combat is good (or to be more specific, whether or not it's entertaining enough) appear to be divided.

He said or implied that WL2 combat is bad which -

This was the point of his argument:
You can't fault it for that, but you can fault it for not executing well the things that are part of being an 'honest-to-god sequel'.

The combat was just one example of the core of the argument. Not its point.


813 votes, 75% think it's Good or Excellent. While it's possible that some people like it that much despite combat, it's unlikely that the majority thinks the combat is "not very good'.

Are you a BELIEBER vd?


Which doesn't make it a bad or 'not very good' system by default.
Nobody claimed any such thing makes it bad or not very good by default.

It sucks by its own actual merits.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,411
Location
Copenhagen
hiver said:
Vault Dweller said:
813 votes, 75% think it's Good or Excellent. While it's possible that some people like it that much despite combat, it's unlikely that the majority thinks the combat is "not very good'.

Are you a BELIEBER vd?

You gotta admit that was a pretty good burn VD :lol:
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom