Wasteland Wasteland 2, what gone wrong? [SPOILERS]

[hiver]

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

hiver

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.

They are just 2 para-military organizations, not a big deal. In Fallout universe you have entire countries with presidents, senators and shit. Not 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.

Well since it's after the quest it's obvious that it's out of your control. I wouldn't compare it to ME3 ending. In ME3 the ending was supposed to finally bring conclusion to all the choices you've been doing through the series, but instead it made them invalid. In W2 it's just a subversive ending for one location that shows that some fools in the wastes just can't be helped. The whole location being doomed from the beginning was what mad the quest memorable for me. Of course I understand that some people might dislike such whimsical storytelling.

The whole place gets overrun by some "chaotic raiders" who appear out of the sky and kill everyone.

Best ending...?

Exactly. If you detonate it, the entire place is irradiated and the impassable, if you help DBM the whole place is taken over by professional terrorists, who are now in possession of a working nuke. If you disarm it, the place becomes overrun by bandits but it's nothing Rangers can't deal with in their free time. One Ranger in the citadel even tells you that it just disarming the nuke just makes it easier for Rangers to take over the place.

 

[Athelas]

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.


It's a combat-heavy game that got a fairly high rating on the Codex.

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'.

This is a poll on RPG's in their entirety, not their combat systems. It's also a poll hosted on a forum that voted Planescape: Torment as the #1 RPG, and the two Fallouts as second and third best RPG.

I'm also not sure how a poll where Wasteland 2 ranks below Heroine's Quest is supposed to bolster your argument.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's a combat heavy game, thus it's unlikely that people who voted 4/5 and 5/5 thought that combat sucks or isn't very good. WL2 doesn't excel in a single area the way PST does, for example. It's a sum of its parts game and combat is the central part.

As for Heroine's Quest, it's the magic of the voting system. It got 165 votes (vs WL2's 813) but %-wise it got more positive votes (only 3% rated it below 3/5). If you go by the number of positive votes, WL2 comes second.

 

[Athelas]

It's a combat heavy game, thus it's unlikely that people who voted 4/5 and 5/5 thought that combat sucks or isn't very good. WL2 doesn't excel in a single area the way PST does, for example. It's a sum of its parts game and combat is the central part.

Wasteland 2 has more going on than combat, more so than PS:T (where you were either talking to stuff or murdering stuff). You can't really make statements like 'most Codexers thought the combat in WL2 was great' by referring to a poll on RPG's in their totality. My own comments about how there was significant criticism about the combat referred to posts criticizing the combat, and the large amount of brofists those got. I haven't played Heroine's Quest, but I don't think the combat in that game was very good, and it ranks higher than WL2.

Which doesn't make it a bad or 'not very good' system by default.

It doesn't by default, but it does in the absence of other positive aspects of combat - although not being able to do much in combat besides moving and dealing damage all by itself is a pretty huge flaw. 'Plenty of people still liked it' isn't a very constructive counter-argument.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Wasteland 2 has more going on than combat, more so than PS:T (where you were either talking to stuff or murdering stuff).

PST was a beautifully written game with a great story, unique setting, memorable companions, and well-integrated text-adventure elements. That's why it's the top 3 RPG on the Codex despite weak combat. WL2 doesn't have any of these things.

You can't really make statements like 'most Codexers thought the combat in WL2 was great' by referring to a poll on RPG's in their totality.

I'm not saying most Codexers thought the combat was great. I'm saying most Codexers didn't think it was bad. And why shouldn't we refer to that poll? It's fairly detailed and shows how many people rated it and what rating they gave it.

My own comments about how there was significant criticism about the combat referred to posts criticizing the combat, and the large amount of brofists those got.

Seriously? So we can't use a detailed poll that rates games but brofists are a totally legit way to measure something? How many brofists did these post get? Hundreds? Thousands?

I haven't played Heroine's Quest, but I don't think the combat in that game was very good, and it ranks higher than WL2.

Did you miss my post explaining it? Let's try it again then:

Out of 813 people who rated WL2 75% (610 people) think that it's either good or excellent. Out of 165 people who rated HQ 79% (130 people) think that it's good or excellent. If it were a different poll that counted the number of positive votes rather the avg, WL2 would have easily beaten all games but D:OS.

Which doesn't make it a bad or 'not very good' system by default.

It doesn't by default, but it does in the absence of other positive aspects of combat - although not being able to do much in combat besides moving and dealing damage all by itself is a pretty huge flaw.

Since when?

'Plenty of people still liked it' isn't a very constructive counter-argument.

It's not an argument. It's a fact (without 'still' which implies they liked it despite the combat) pointing at the flaw in your assumption.

 

[Athelas]

You can't really make statements like 'most Codexers thought the combat in WL2 was great' by referring to a poll on RPG's in their totality.

I'm not saying most Codexers thought the combat was great. I'm saying most Codexers didn't think it was bad.

Assuming 'great' means the same as 'very good', we agree then? Quoting from one of my previous posts:

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'.

And why shouldn't we refer to that poll? It's fairly detailed and shows how many people rated it and what rating they gave it.

It's not a poll on combat systems. Incidentally, Blackguards, a game that received high praise for its combat, ranked very low on the number 20 spot.

My own comments about how there was significant criticism about the combat referred to posts criticizing the combat, and the large amount of brofists those got.

Seriously? So we can't use a detailed poll that rates games but brofists are a totally legit way to measure something? How many brofists did these post get? Hundreds? Thousands

Admittedly it's not the most scientifically objective methodology, but neither is you using the poll results to bolster your argument.

Out of 813 people who rated WL2 75% (610 people) think that it's either good or excellent. Out of 165 people who rated HQ 79% (130 people) think that it's good or excellent. If it were a different poll that counted the number of positive votes rather the avg, WL2 would have easily beaten all games but D:OS.

I don't see the problem. More people that played HQ enjoyed it compared to the amount of people that played WL2 and enjoyed it. The poll results reflect this.

It doesn't by default, but it does in the absence of other positive aspects of combat - although not being able to do much in combat besides moving and dealing damage all by itself is a pretty huge flaw.

Since when?

Uhm, this would be your queue to explain what are important things in a turn-based combat system. And do I really need to explain my post? If your options are very limited in combat, a turn-based system has less and less added value compared to the alternative. The major advantage of turn-based combat is being able to implement a lot of tactically interesting mechanics that would be unduly frustrating to use in say a real-time environment. The only other flaw that's as glaring as what I described before (your complete inability in WL2 to control the battle field through attacks of opportunity, impactful status ailments or zones of control) would be only being able to control a single-character in turn-based combat, something Fallout was guilty of.

It's not an argument. It's a fact (without 'still' which implies they liked it despite the combat) pointing at the flaw in your assumption.

'Still' actually refers to the limited options in combat, not the combat system itself. Still, it isn't a fact since the poll results aren't conclusive.

 

[hiver]

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

I dont think he can make it...

cmonn... cmonnn....

ach.. no daisy at all.

As for Heroine's Quest, it's the magic of the voting system. It got 165 votes (vs WL2's 813) but %-wise it got more positive votes (only 3% rated it below 3/5). If you go by the number of positive votes, WL2 comes second.

toro !! Your expertize in poll fixing is needed!

WL2 doesn't excel in a single area the way PST does, for example.

Single area...

It's a sum of its parts game and combat is the central part.

:lolcopter:

 

[Vault Dweller]

Assuming 'great' means the same as 'very good', we agree then? Quoting from one of my previous posts:
"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'."

I humbly disagree with it but we're about to start talking semantics, so let's drop it.

And why shouldn't we refer to that poll? It's fairly detailed and shows how many people rated it and what rating they gave it.

It's not a poll on combat systems. Incidentally, Blackguards, a game that received high praise for its combat, ranked very low on the number 20 spot.

I think it goes to show that a few enthusiastic and brofisted posts don't always translate into the universal praise.

Admittedly it's not the most scientifically objective methodology, but neither is you using the poll results to bolster your argument.

What else should we use? Both the poll and the brofists are facts, but I assume that the post in question got 20, maybe 50 brofists at most whereas according to the poll 610 people out of 813 rated WL2 as good or great.

Since it's a combat-heavy game I doubt that it's possible to enjoy it and rate it as high if you think that combat is bad or 'not very good'.

More people that played HQ enjoyed it compared to the amount of people that played WL2 and enjoyed it. The poll results reflect this.

Then I suppose that a game played only by 2 people who'd both give it 5/5 would be the Codex game of the year. How very

Uhm, this would be your queue to explain what are important things in a turn-based combat system. And do I really need to explain my post? If your options are very limited in combat, a turn-based system has less and less added value compared to the alternative. The major advantage of turn-based combat is being able to implement a lot of tactically interesting mechanics that would be unduly frustrating to use in say a real-time environment. The only other flaw that's as glaring as what I just described would be only being able to control a single-character in turn-based combat, something Fallout was guilty of.

Here is how I see it. Depth is good but you don't need depth to craft good encounters. WL2 system is fairly simple and nobody would call it complex, yet, as I mentioned in my review, it works and works well. WL2 circumvent depth by assigning different roles which makes combat fairly entertaining and challenging (the combination of sharpshooters, sprayers, lobbers, and heavy gunners).

Yes, it's a very simple design and I dislike the "old school" reliance of the combination of HP/damage bloat, but it works (at least for me) which is more than can be said about many other games.

 

[hiver]

yet, as I mentioned in my review, it works and works well.

ba dum tshh!

makes combat fairly entertaining and challenging

:patriot:

 

[toro]

As for Heroine's Quest, it's the magic of the voting system. It got 165 votes (vs WL2's 813) but %-wise it got more positive votes (only 3% rated it below 3/5). If you go by the number of positive votes, WL2 comes second.

toro !! Your expertize in poll fixing is needed!

hiver: You're a funny thing ... like shit on my dick.

Vault Dweller : I already debated this topic to hell and back. As this point there are only two certain things:
- I'm a retard that fails explaining something even when he's right.
- The so called voting and calculation methodology was not quite 'correct' as felipepepe did admit at the end.

We will never know the real top because some fuckers voted multiple times. Then the applied method to calculate the results was not bullet proof.

Based on the voting data, the 'real' top probably looks more like this:
1. Divinity: Original Sin 2,714630225
2. Shadowrun: Dragonfall – Director's Cut 2,397306397
3. NEO Scavenger 2,246621622
4. Wasteland 2 2,102318145
5. Legend of Grimrock II 2,059590317
6. Valkyria Chronicles 2,028436019
7. Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky 2,01369863
8. Heroine's Quest: The Herald of Ragnarok 1,996254682
9. Tales of Maj'Eyal : Ashes of Uhr'Rohk 1,96097561
10. Lords of Xulima 1,691304348

 

[hiver]

a funny thing ... like shit on my dick.

 

[Lurker King]

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.

You’re a asshole. Sneaking up on me when my guard is down and inducing me to play games when I have no time. I was hoping to finish my KoDP before Ganezzar is completely fleshed out, but you have to do this. What is curious is that in my blissful newfag ignorance I thought that AoD was the first game to sadistically exploit our expectations about cRPG commonplaces. Little I knew about “Realms of Arkania”! I will have to buy the whole trilogy. Do you have another similar game (with text-adventures and C&C) to recommend?

Back to the argument, RoA2 is a oldschool game with C&C but very little filler. I guess your example just proved my point. Don’t you agree?

 

[mondblut]

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!

Crazy groups and postapocalyptic setting are not "falloutish elements", they are Wasteland elements. WL2 hardly owes anything to Fallout.

And "perks" fucking suck.

 

[Lurker King]

Crazy groups and postapocalyptic setting are not "falloutish elements", they are Wasteland elements. WL2 hardly owes anything to Fallout. And "perks" fucking suck.

That is not the point. What I was trying to say is that both games have so many things in common that to avoid comparisons with design elements of FO with the excuse that W2 is a Wasteland sequel is dishonest. Is much more honest to be open about these choices and say that perks suck, than to use convoluted excuses about W2 not being a FO game.

 

[hiver]

hiver

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.

They are just 2 para-military organizations, not a big deal.

The problem is that you have all those completely modern factions in a PA setting.

In Fallout universe you have entire countries with presidents, senators and shit.

No. You dont.

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.

Well since it's after the quest it's obvious that it's out of your control. I wouldn't compare it to ME3 ending. In ME3 the ending was supposed to finally bring conclusion to all the choices you've been doing through the series, but instead it made them invalid. [/QUOTE]
And the Silo is supposed to be an important factor in dealing with everything in the Canyon - thta should depend on your choices - but instead it makes them invalid because it just goes and does its own scripted forced thing and fuck you.

In W2 it's just a subversive ending for one location that shows that some fools in the wastes just can't be helped.

And it is so because it says it is so, right?
Self excusing forced setup.

The whole location being doomed from the beginning was what made the quest memorable for me.

How it made you feel is completely irrelevant to its actual quality.

The whole place gets overrun by some "chaotic raiders" who appear out of the sky and kill everyone.
Best ending...?

Exactly. If you detonate it, the entire place is irradiated and the impassable, if you help DBM the whole place is taken over by professional terrorists, who are now in possession of a working nuke. If you disarm it, the place becomes overrun by bandits but it's nothing Rangers can't deal with in their free time. One Ranger in the citadel even tells you that it just disarming the nuke just makes it easier for Rangers to take over the place.

We already established that DBM make no fucking sense in that setting. So whatever happens from that side makes no sense at all.

Those bandtis do not exist in the game but appear out of the sky, - and if they can take out all of the Monks and the DMB then they can take out Rangers with a sneeze.
Rangers never deal with anything at all in the game.

And the other ending kills everyone and makes a giant crater out of the Canyon.

All three have nothing to do with what you want but are forced scripted "surprises" you have no control over.

Basically - press a switch - see what happens!

 

[Vault Dweller]

You’re a asshole. Sneaking up on me when my guard is down and inducing me to play games when I have no time. I was hoping to finish my KoDP before Ganezzar is completely fleshed out, but you have to do this. What is curious is that in my blissful newfag ignorance I thought that AoD was the first game to sadistically exploit our expectations about cRPG commonplaces. Little I knew about “Realms of Arkania”! I will have to buy the whole trilogy. Do you have another similar game (with text-adventures and C&C) to recommend?

Darklands?

It's been on my top 10 RPG list for two decades. I should probably do an LP one day.

Back to the argument, RoA2 is a oldschool game with C&C but very little filler. I guess your example just proved my point. Don’t you agree?

I prefer C&C and very little filler myself, but I disagree that it's the only way. Take Wiz 8, for example. It does have some C&C and some are fairly interesting, but overall it's a combat heavy game loaded to the brim with random encounters. You can easily add more C&C which would only make the game even better.

Even if you only end up playing a game once due to the combat filler, you'd appreciate choices you were offered and their outcome.

 

[hiver]

Hey guise, welcome to the thread about Darklands!

 

[Lurker King]

Darklands? It's been on my top 10 RPG list for two decades. I should probably do an LP one day.

Thanks for the tips! I already knew Darklands though. I will put Wiz8 on my “To Play” list. Is not as if I only cared about C&C.

I prefer C&C and very little filler myself, but I disagree that it's the only way.

I’m not saying is the only way, I’m saying that is the most natural way for this kind of game, for obvious reasons. The limit of possible combinations in any kind of narrative, game, song, movie, etc., is almost infinite. The combinations of elements that really have chemistry is another matter entirely.

 

[UnknownBro]

I should have seen it coming. When you can't even design a consistent character creation screen what can you expect from the rest of the game?

Ohh it's a masterpiece I say! Because it's so hardcore and old skool!

 

[palmito]

Please Samson protect me from this sinner thread.

 

[Maschtervoz]

Several things went wrong, but what really gets to me is the combat. It has too few options to support a game of this size without devolving into mindless repetition. Halfway through Arizona I noticed how every encounter I was usually performing the same sequence of actions or a minor variation of it. Open with sniper, get another turn in because of high initiative, disable greatest threat, put mg guy on overwatch, etc etc, every single time. There is not much to do apart from targeting enemy HP until they die, and the simplistic system makes it easy to figure out the most efficient way to use your party's firepower to do it and just repeat for most encounters.

The game needed more. Some sort of crowd control options, smoke grenades that temporally block LOS, flashbangs and leg shots for reducing AP, dropping weapons, suppression, basically anything that could have broken the general monotony.

 

[Jasede]

I will say, I am proud of you lot for getting over WL 2 quickly. I remember y'all being a little too positive for my tastes while I was playing it because, frankly, sadly even, it was really just mediocre for reasons listed here exhaustively. It's good to see that at least the usual suspects can be relied on not to be blinded by excitement for too long and still having kept keep their senses when it comes to pulling a game apart, even if it might hurt because some might have staked a lot of hopes into it.

 

[Apexeon]

What went wrong with Wasteland 2 was to much Hype and no talent.
Just a content barge with no direction.

 

[GloomFrost]

Wasteland 2 is still an OK RPG compared to trash that comes out nowadays especially considering its modest budget and small developers team size. Its just maybe people were expecting way too much from an indie kickstarter project. Also I am personally ready to forgive a lot just for the soundtrack alone, some dialogues and MATHIAS.
If you are still waiting for fallout 3 however then Underrail is only couple of months away and is so cheap they are practically giving it away.