Do you remember Interplay, which gave us crazy good games such as Fallout and Baldur's gate ? I'm sure you do. Well, many of you may or may have not played the game from which fallout is the "sequel", Wasteland.
Today Brain Fargo, Interplay's founder, and now working at inXile entertainment launched a kickstarter in order to create a Wasteland 2 ! But he will explain it better than I :
and if you find that this is very similar Double Fine idea (i'm a backer of that, too !) it looks like both games these men are trying to develop are the kind of game which isn't financially sound. That's where kickstarter comes in !
For only $15, you get :"Digital Downloable copy of game DRM free for PC. This low price only available for those who helped fund. Also your party will start with a unique and quirky skill. (It won't affect game balance.)"
Seems like a great deal to me !
Additional information :
Wasteland 2 is the direct sequel to the first ever post-apocalyptic computer RPG. The original Wasteland was the inspiration for the FALLOUT series of games, and the first RPG to allow players to split parties for tactical considerations, to face players with moral choices, and to make them deal with the consequences of their actions. It was the first to provide far more than the one-key-for-one-lock style of puzzle solving. It was groundbreaking, which is why IGN named it one of the top 25 PC games of all time, Computer Gaming World named it the Adventure Game of the year in 1988, and it was short-listed for inclusion in the Smithsonian Institution’s current “Art of the Computer Game” exhibition.
Wasteland was set in a dangerous, post-apocalyptic world in the American Southwest. Over the course of adventures rangers would receive promotions, acquire new skills and equipment, then face new challenges with outcomes that changed depending on the strategy used to defeat them. The game featured a strong storyline which required painful decisions by players; and a storyline that allowed for maximum re-playability. Wasteland 2, with your participation and insights, will recapture all that and provide more. It'll finally be the game worthy to be a Wasteland sequel, as challenging and rewarding as the original, with all added capacity and dazzle of games today.
Furthermore, this will NOT be some kind of FPS-whatever, but an old school turn-based RPG as we like'em !
EDIT : I only got four posts, but i'm quite a heavy lurker. BW/SC2 fan.
UPDATE : Now that the $900.000 have been gathered, they are aiming at 1.5M$ in order to make a Linux/OSX version of the game. If you have any Apple or Linux addict in your entourage, don't hesitate to talk to them about it ! UPDATE 2 : The 1.5M$ objective was reached ! Also launching the "Kicking it forward" operation :
Once a project in this program has become profitable, the developer is going to spend this 5% profit, which is their own money, on whatever Kickstarter projects they want to support. They can determine unilaterally who they want to give it to and when. Neither myself nor a committee is going to tell successful developers what projects to invest in. Ultimately, this is an honor system at the end of the day. No one is going to audit their books to make sure they complied. In many ways Kickstarter is an honor system too, so this is no different. Of course some unscrupulous developer may not follow through with their promise but I believe the development community sticks together.
I'm excited over the idea of a possible Wasteland sequel, but I'm not sure that it's truly the fault of unwilling publishers that we've not seen anything of it earlier. inXile was founded in 2002 and has since made a PC game in 2004, a Wii game in 2008, a bunch of iPhone games from 2008-2010 and a mediocre action game for Bethesda in 2011. While they probably wouldn't still be in the business if they hadn't made any money with all of that, I could understand publishers not willing to shell out cash just for them having the license alone, considering the circumstances.
But let's be optimistic, shall we. Wasteland was great, and Fallout 1+2 as well as Baldur's Gate are some of my favorite games. And quite a lot of the other Interplay stuff from the 90s and early 2000s was great too. If Fargo did indeed leave Interplay for reasons of idealism and integrity and will develop Wasteland 2 with the attitude that made earlier Interplay games so fantastic, then we're looking at the possibility of a great game. As for the Kickstarter backing, I don't doubt they'll reach their goal well within the time limit.
On March 14 2012 02:58 solidbebe wrote: The original wasteland is really really old so it's kinda hard for me to predict what this will look like. :/
Well, graphics are not what matter in this type of game. As for the gameplay, a turn-based RPG, with no FPS elements with a lot of re-playability is what they are aiming for. Sure, as every Kickstarter production, this ask you a bit of faith. But this (and Point'n'Click) being my favourite type of solo games, i'm at least backing the idea.
On March 14 2012 03:05 Shockk wrote: I'm excited over the idea of a possible Wasteland sequel, but I'm not sure that it's truly the fault of unwilling publishers that we've not seen anything of it earlier. inXile was founded in 2002 and has since made a PC game in 2004, a Wii game in 2008, a bunch of iPhone games from 2008-2010 and a mediocre action game for Bethesda in 2011. While they probably wouldn't still be in the business if they hadn't made any money with all of that, I could understand publishers not willing to shell out cash just for them having the license alone, considering the circumstances.
But let's be optimistic, shall we. Wasteland was great, and Fallout 1+2 as well as Baldur's Gate are some of my favorite games. And quite a lot of the other Interplay stuff from the 90s and early 2000s was great too. If Fargo did indeed leave Interplay for reasons of idealism and integrity and will develop Wasteland 2 with the attitude that made earlier Interplay games so fantastic, then we're looking at the possibility of a great game. As for the Kickstarter backing, I don't doubt they'll reach their goal well within the time limit.
Yeah, that's true. As i said, it does require a bit of faith. Worst case scenario, i payed 15 dollars a mediocre game. Even as a poor student, I can live with that. EDIT : Not saying that everybody should pay heh, this is just my state of mind.
A PC Only Post-Apocalyptic RPG? Could it get any better? If you look what happend to RPGs in the last 5years this could be worth it, if you like oldschool-rpgs and hate all these casual-lite-rpgs :o
Abit ashamed to say ive never heard of wasteland, considering i LOVE fallout 1&2, but i love the genre so im sure i would love to see this game being made :D
*edit* oh wow, since i wrote that like 30 minutes ago 30k $ was contributed
Lots of potential, lots of question marks. If they literally made a new fallout 1&2-like game with similar depth, not paying 15 dollars would be a crime. But there's obviously no proof that this is what will happen. Allowing tons of fan input etc gives good chances, but still, it's so hard to say what will come of it.
I can see a lot of companies following trend of using Kickstarter to promote their games. Double Fine Adventure just broke a KS record of getting 3.3 million, ending yesterday.
On March 15 2012 15:25 Jinsho wrote: This will be the better Fallout game.
It's not a FAllout game.
And the goal has been reached! Huzzah! Now we play the waiting game for abit more than a year. October 2013 it says on Kickstarter. CHipped in 115 to include shipping and the 100 dollar reward.
We're working on the official wiki, which doesn't have as much information as we'd like, but new skin and a huge clean-up is coming.
I don't work for InXile or anything like that, if I made it sound like that, I'm just admining the official wiki.
So it's not a fallout game, cool. What is it? I've never played wasteland, never even heard of it before and I'm not going to pay for a future game just because it's in a post apocalyptic setting. Info please, what game is it similar to.
On March 15 2012 19:36 Tobberoth wrote: So it's not a fallout game, cool. What is it? I've never played wasteland, never even heard of it before and I'm not going to pay for a future game just because it's in a post apocalyptic setting. Info please, what game is it similar to.
Turn based combat rpg that inspired the fallout series.
funding is complete. after just two days they raised over $900000. If people were to keep up that funding rate they'd end up with a funding of about 15 million usd after the remaining 33 days x) that's of course not going to happen, but still, i'm interested how high this will continue to climb and how the creators are going to handle this amount of resources.
Sure, they said everything more will make the game bigger, but with the current situation, until they are funded, they'll have to spend years over years in development to convert all that money into game content Oo I guess it depends on how willing they are to hire additional people to keep the development time short enough, that maybe don't quite have the same idea of game development than they have. Interested to see how it'll turn out.
On March 15 2012 19:36 Tobberoth wrote: So it's not a fallout game, cool. What is it? I've never played wasteland, never even heard of it before and I'm not going to pay for a future game just because it's in a post apocalyptic setting. Info please, what game is it similar to.
Turn based combat rpg that inspired the fallout series.
On March 15 2012 19:43 MisterD wrote: funding is complete. after just two days they raised over $900000. If people were to keep up that funding rate they'd end up with a funding of about 15 million usd after the remaining 33 days x) that's of course not going to happen, but still, i'm interested how high this will continue to climb and how the creators are going to handle this amount of resources.
Sure, they said everything more will make the game bigger, but with the current situation, until they are funded, they'll have to spend years over years in development to convert all that money into game content Oo I guess it depends on how willing they are to hire additional people to keep the development time short enough, that maybe don't quite have the same idea of game development than they have. Interested to see how it'll turn out.
No it doesn't take longer. You just add voice acting and hire more developers and people to oversee them. You also get some more different computer for more quality testing and more QA people for less bugs on release. They can also hire more forum admins to better monitor and compile people wishes for new game.
On March 15 2012 19:43 MisterD wrote: funding is complete. after just two days they raised over $900000. If people were to keep up that funding rate they'd end up with a funding of about 15 million usd after the remaining 33 days x) that's of course not going to happen, but still, i'm interested how high this will continue to climb and how the creators are going to handle this amount of resources.
Sure, they said everything more will make the game bigger, but with the current situation, until they are funded, they'll have to spend years over years in development to convert all that money into game content Oo I guess it depends on how willing they are to hire additional people to keep the development time short enough, that maybe don't quite have the same idea of game development than they have. Interested to see how it'll turn out.
No it doesn't take longer. You just add voice acting and hire more developers and people to oversee them. You also get some more different computer for more quality testing and more QA people for less bugs on release. They can also hire more forum admins to better monitor and compile people wishes for new game.
but see, you can't just hire a ton of people for a project like this. Their single most important goal is to make a successor that makes the people happy because it is as cool as the old style games. If you just hire tons of people, development can easily get out of hand. You can't hire people of whom you don't know how they are for that. If you just hire some random developers, you might end up with new style features that your funders don't like and then you'll get tons of hate. Worst case, you hire enough devs so that the original devs can't develop anymore at all but just run around and brief the others, and suddenly the game is developed by all the wrong people. That *can* become a serious problem.
and if you don't find proper people to hire, and don't want to accidentally hire the wrong people, you'll have to stick to your developing on your own. Which means a) you sunk time into looking for people and b) you still need even longer because you promised to make more content but don't get more people. Maybe they could go a space pirates and zombies or witcher2 path and just release an initial version and a free of charge upgrade later down the line.
Anyhow, that's why i find this situation interesting. Seeing how the "old school pros" will handle this. Expectations definitely are high.
On March 15 2012 19:36 Tobberoth wrote: So it's not a fallout game, cool. What is it? I've never played wasteland, never even heard of it before and I'm not going to pay for a future game just because it's in a post apocalyptic setting. Info please, what game is it similar to.
On March 15 2012 19:36 Tobberoth wrote: So it's not a fallout game, cool. What is it? I've never played wasteland, never even heard of it before and I'm not going to pay for a future game just because it's in a post apocalyptic setting. Info please, what game is it similar to.
Turn based combat rpg that inspired the fallout series.
Fallout 1 was supposed to be wasteland 2.
So... it's like fallout.
Is there a single topic where you won't argue semantics? Annoying.
On March 15 2012 19:43 MisterD wrote: funding is complete. after just two days they raised over $900000. If people were to keep up that funding rate they'd end up with a funding of about 15 million usd after the remaining 33 days x) that's of course not going to happen, but still, i'm interested how high this will continue to climb and how the creators are going to handle this amount of resources.
Sure, they said everything more will make the game bigger, but with the current situation, until they are funded, they'll have to spend years over years in development to convert all that money into game content Oo I guess it depends on how willing they are to hire additional people to keep the development time short enough, that maybe don't quite have the same idea of game development than they have. Interested to see how it'll turn out.
No it doesn't take longer. You just add voice acting and hire more developers and people to oversee them. You also get some more different computer for more quality testing and more QA people for less bugs on release. They can also hire more forum admins to better monitor and compile people wishes for new game.
but see, you can't just hire a ton of people for a project like this. Their single most important goal is to make a successor that makes the people happy because it is as cool as the old style games. If you just hire tons of people, development can easily get out of hand. You can't hire people of whom you don't know how they are for that. If you just hire some random developers, you might end up with new style features that your funders don't like and then you'll get tons of hate. Worst case, you hire enough devs so that the original devs can't develop anymore at all but just run around and brief the others, and suddenly the game is developed by all the wrong people. That *can* become a serious problem.
and if you don't find proper people to hire, and don't want to accidentally hire the wrong people, you'll have to stick to your developing on your own. Which means a) you sunk time into looking for people and b) you still need even longer because you promised to make more content but don't get more people. Maybe they could go a space pirates and zombies or witcher2 path and just release an initial version and a free of charge upgrade later down the line.
Anyhow, that's why i find this situation interesting. Seeing how the "old school pros" will handle this. Expectations definitely are high.
You have no idea how development works, do you?
Developers don't do what they want, they do what their managers want. It is no different then Bioware except here Fargo tells them to develop turn based open world gray decisions with consequences RPG and not a crappy FPS with decisions that mean nothing in the end. Fargo and his team define what they want and need and then developers do it. Only say developers have in this is agreeing on how long it takes and if those developers know how to do that or need additional education.
On March 15 2012 19:36 Tobberoth wrote: So it's not a fallout game, cool. What is it? I've never played wasteland, never even heard of it before and I'm not going to pay for a future game just because it's in a post apocalyptic setting. Info please, what game is it similar to.
On March 15 2012 19:36 Tobberoth wrote: So it's not a fallout game, cool. What is it? I've never played wasteland, never even heard of it before and I'm not going to pay for a future game just because it's in a post apocalyptic setting. Info please, what game is it similar to.
Turn based combat rpg that inspired the fallout series.
Fallout 1 was supposed to be wasteland 2.
So... it's like fallout.
Is there a single topic where you won't argue semantics? Annoying.
I've already read that, it doesn't tell me anything. What people who haven't played wasteland want to know is how similar we can expect wasteland 2 to be a new old fallout game. When people say "it's not a fallout game", that makes it seem like it will be different, so it would make sense to want to know how different, pledging money now is paying for something we know nothing about.
What a lot of people really want is a true fallout 3, wasteland 2 might be as close as well get... or it might not be, since I've never played wasteland I have no idea. Wasteland was an RPG in a post-apocalyptic world. Cool... was it isometric? Was the fighting system similar to Fallout 1?
I'm so excited that Wasteland 2 is coming. Let's try to summarize why is this game 95% going to be AWESOME.
1. Brian Fargo -cmon, the man is a Legend, he made SO much really cool games and he seems to really put a soul into wasteland 2, besides that he said that he have couple of notebooks filled with concepts for the game.
2. It's an old school top-down squad-based RPG. I think last of this games I've played was Jagged Alliance. There is just no modern games like that, but they are very enjoyable.
3. Fan-funding. IMO - the best part, this means that there will be little to none tweaks to make game more casual. It will be developed and released as-is. (no birds as weapons ftw)
4. Post-Nuke. Damn, i love post-nukes. Fallout NV and Borderlands is what we have right now (if you know any other tell me, i'll love to play). But actually RPG (and i don't mean just adding character points or perks to the game, i mean ROLE PLAY) is what makes post-nuke so great, the atmosphere, the characters a different life in different world.
5. Great team. So many names we know, so good reputation.
Chipped myself 115$. If there is some game i would like to play is a game from Mr. Fargo.
On March 15 2012 19:36 Tobberoth wrote: So it's not a fallout game, cool. What is it? I've never played wasteland, never even heard of it before and I'm not going to pay for a future game just because it's in a post apocalyptic setting. Info please, what game is it similar to.
On March 15 2012 19:55 Tobberoth wrote:
On March 15 2012 19:41 Capped wrote:
On March 15 2012 19:36 Tobberoth wrote: So it's not a fallout game, cool. What is it? I've never played wasteland, never even heard of it before and I'm not going to pay for a future game just because it's in a post apocalyptic setting. Info please, what game is it similar to.
Turn based combat rpg that inspired the fallout series.
Fallout 1 was supposed to be wasteland 2.
So... it's like fallout.
Is there a single topic where you won't argue semantics? Annoying.
I've already read that, it doesn't tell me anything. What people who haven't played wasteland want to know is how similar we can expect wasteland 2 to be a new old fallout game. When people say "it's not a fallout game", that makes it seem like it will be different, so it would make sense to want to know how different, pledging money now is paying for something we know nothing about.
What a lot of people really want is a true fallout 3, wasteland 2 might be as close as well get... or it might not be, since I've never played wasteland I have no idea. Wasteland was an RPG in a post-apocalyptic world. Cool... was it isometric? Was the fighting system similar to Fallout 1?
On March 15 2012 19:43 MisterD wrote: funding is complete. after just two days they raised over $900000. If people were to keep up that funding rate they'd end up with a funding of about 15 million usd after the remaining 33 days x) that's of course not going to happen, but still, i'm interested how high this will continue to climb and how the creators are going to handle this amount of resources.
Sure, they said everything more will make the game bigger, but with the current situation, until they are funded, they'll have to spend years over years in development to convert all that money into game content Oo I guess it depends on how willing they are to hire additional people to keep the development time short enough, that maybe don't quite have the same idea of game development than they have. Interested to see how it'll turn out.
No it doesn't take longer. You just add voice acting and hire more developers and people to oversee them. You also get some more different computer for more quality testing and more QA people for less bugs on release. They can also hire more forum admins to better monitor and compile people wishes for new game.
but see, you can't just hire a ton of people for a project like this. Their single most important goal is to make a successor that makes the people happy because it is as cool as the old style games. If you just hire tons of people, development can easily get out of hand. You can't hire people of whom you don't know how they are for that. If you just hire some random developers, you might end up with new style features that your funders don't like and then you'll get tons of hate. Worst case, you hire enough devs so that the original devs can't develop anymore at all but just run around and brief the others, and suddenly the game is developed by all the wrong people. That *can* become a serious problem.
and if you don't find proper people to hire, and don't want to accidentally hire the wrong people, you'll have to stick to your developing on your own. Which means a) you sunk time into looking for people and b) you still need even longer because you promised to make more content but don't get more people. Maybe they could go a space pirates and zombies or witcher2 path and just release an initial version and a free of charge upgrade later down the line.
Anyhow, that's why i find this situation interesting. Seeing how the "old school pros" will handle this. Expectations definitely are high.
You have no idea how development works, do you?
Developers don't do what they want, they do what their managers want. It is no different then Bioware except here Fargo tells them to develop turn based open world gray decisions with consequences RPG and not a crappy FPS with decisions that mean nothing in the end. Fargo and his team define what they want and need and then developers do it. Only say developers have in this is agreeing on how long it takes and if those developers know how to do that or need additional education.
right back at you you can only control a developers output so much with specifications and guidelines. In the end, the developer will implement something in the way he interpreted what you told him. If you are working with someone who has a completely different mindset than you, you can tell him tons and tons of information about how you want it, he won't be able to implement it in your dream way. That's why, if you really want a top-of-the-ladder sound product, you have to find people with "compatible" mind sets.
What a lot of people really want is a true fallout 3, wasteland 2 might be as close as well get... or it might not be, since I've never played wasteland I have no idea. Wasteland was an RPG in a post-apocalyptic world. Cool... was it isometric? Was the fighting system similar to Fallout 1?
On March 15 2012 19:43 MisterD wrote: funding is complete. after just two days they raised over $900000. If people were to keep up that funding rate they'd end up with a funding of about 15 million usd after the remaining 33 days x) that's of course not going to happen, but still, i'm interested how high this will continue to climb and how the creators are going to handle this amount of resources.
Sure, they said everything more will make the game bigger, but with the current situation, until they are funded, they'll have to spend years over years in development to convert all that money into game content Oo I guess it depends on how willing they are to hire additional people to keep the development time short enough, that maybe don't quite have the same idea of game development than they have. Interested to see how it'll turn out.
No it doesn't take longer. You just add voice acting and hire more developers and people to oversee them. You also get some more different computer for more quality testing and more QA people for less bugs on release. They can also hire more forum admins to better monitor and compile people wishes for new game.
but see, you can't just hire a ton of people for a project like this. Their single most important goal is to make a successor that makes the people happy because it is as cool as the old style games. If you just hire tons of people, development can easily get out of hand. You can't hire people of whom you don't know how they are for that. If you just hire some random developers, you might end up with new style features that your funders don't like and then you'll get tons of hate. Worst case, you hire enough devs so that the original devs can't develop anymore at all but just run around and brief the others, and suddenly the game is developed by all the wrong people. That *can* become a serious problem.
and if you don't find proper people to hire, and don't want to accidentally hire the wrong people, you'll have to stick to your developing on your own. Which means a) you sunk time into looking for people and b) you still need even longer because you promised to make more content but don't get more people. Maybe they could go a space pirates and zombies or witcher2 path and just release an initial version and a free of charge upgrade later down the line.
Anyhow, that's why i find this situation interesting. Seeing how the "old school pros" will handle this. Expectations definitely are high.
You have no idea how development works, do you?
Developers don't do what they want, they do what their managers want. It is no different then Bioware except here Fargo tells them to develop turn based open world gray decisions with consequences RPG and not a crappy FPS with decisions that mean nothing in the end. Fargo and his team define what they want and need and then developers do it. Only say developers have in this is agreeing on how long it takes and if those developers know how to do that or need additional education.
right back at you you can only control a developers output so much with specifications and guidelines. In the end, the developer will implement something in the way he interpreted what you told him. If you are working with someone who has a completely different mindset than you, you can tell him tons and tons of information about how you want it, he won't be able to implement it in your dream way. That's why, if you really want a top-of-the-ladder sound product, you have to find people with "compatible" mind sets.
If this happens then that is the problem of management (and by that I don't mean the suits that only care about numbers). Managers are here to make sure every person knows what he needs to do and when he needs to do it. If things are happening as you describe them it is not developers fault (well it can be but only in 5% of cases like when the developer is doing in on purpose or is just plain uncompetent but then this is the problem of people that hired this guy/girl).
On March 15 2012 19:36 Tobberoth wrote: So it's not a fallout game, cool. What is it? I've never played wasteland, never even heard of it before and I'm not going to pay for a future game just because it's in a post apocalyptic setting. Info please, what game is it similar to.
On March 15 2012 19:55 Tobberoth wrote:
On March 15 2012 19:41 Capped wrote:
On March 15 2012 19:36 Tobberoth wrote: So it's not a fallout game, cool. What is it? I've never played wasteland, never even heard of it before and I'm not going to pay for a future game just because it's in a post apocalyptic setting. Info please, what game is it similar to.
Turn based combat rpg that inspired the fallout series.
Fallout 1 was supposed to be wasteland 2.
So... it's like fallout.
Is there a single topic where you won't argue semantics? Annoying.
I've already read that, it doesn't tell me anything. What people who haven't played wasteland want to know is how similar we can expect wasteland 2 to be a new old fallout game. When people say "it's not a fallout game", that makes it seem like it will be different, so it would make sense to want to know how different, pledging money now is paying for something we know nothing about.
What a lot of people really want is a true fallout 3, wasteland 2 might be as close as well get... or it might not be, since I've never played wasteland I have no idea. Wasteland was an RPG in a post-apocalyptic world. Cool... was it isometric? Was the fighting system similar to Fallout 1?
It's called youtube and it has alot of gameplay on it from many different games.
Kickstarter projects give me hope for better games in the future. It just shows in how bad of a condition the current AAA games are compared to just a decade ago. People are actually willing to spend heaps of money just to have a decent game *MADE*.
Wasteland was what pretty much got me so interested in the idea of RPGs. I'm reallly looking forward to it.
On March 15 2012 22:34 Sinedd wrote: So this is basically true Fallout 3 but without any copyrights and stuff
sweet !!!
Well... no? It's pretty far from Fallout 3. It's got a good story, better atmosphere, it's not an FPS, it's turn-based, it's not even the same franchise.
So apart from the same sort of setting, there's not that much that is the same.
On March 15 2012 22:34 Sinedd wrote: So this is basically true Fallout 3 but without any copyrights and stuff
sweet !!!
Well... no? It's pretty far from Fallout 3. It's got a good story, better atmosphere, it's not an FPS, it's turn-based, it's not even the same franchise.
So apart from the same sort of setting, there's not that much that is the same.
That's why he said true fallout 3. Because he meant a proper "sequel" to Fallout 2 instead of Oblivion after a nuke.
Oooh, got confused by the other half of that sentence.
It could possibly be a bit like Van Buren, if you've played that, but it's still not a follow-up to the Fallout games, not set in the same universe. I'm assuming there'll be some references.
kickstarter will hit 1 mil on this in a few minutes too, glhf to the dev team. I must admit, i love looking at the side panel for what you could get, makes me wish i had some unfathomable amount of money to buy the highest reward tiers, they usually think up some pretty clever and really amazing ideas for that.
On March 15 2012 19:36 Tobberoth wrote: So it's not a fallout game, cool. What is it? I've never played wasteland, never even heard of it before and I'm not going to pay for a future game just because it's in a post apocalyptic setting. Info please, what game is it similar to.
On March 15 2012 19:55 Tobberoth wrote:
On March 15 2012 19:41 Capped wrote:
On March 15 2012 19:36 Tobberoth wrote: So it's not a fallout game, cool. What is it? I've never played wasteland, never even heard of it before and I'm not going to pay for a future game just because it's in a post apocalyptic setting. Info please, what game is it similar to.
Turn based combat rpg that inspired the fallout series.
Fallout 1 was supposed to be wasteland 2.
So... it's like fallout.
Is there a single topic where you won't argue semantics? Annoying.
I've already read that, it doesn't tell me anything. What people who haven't played wasteland want to know is how similar we can expect wasteland 2 to be a new old fallout game. When people say "it's not a fallout game", that makes it seem like it will be different, so it would make sense to want to know how different, pledging money now is paying for something we know nothing about.
What a lot of people really want is a true fallout 3, wasteland 2 might be as close as well get... or it might not be, since I've never played wasteland I have no idea. Wasteland was an RPG in a post-apocalyptic world. Cool... was it isometric? Was the fighting system similar to Fallout 1?
It's definitely going to be similar to fallout 1 and 2, with an open world and turn-based tactical combat. However, I think this will likely be more party based than Fallout 1/2 were.
On March 16 2012 03:38 trias_e wrote:It's definitely going to be similar to fallout 1 and 2, with an open world and turn-based tactical combat. However, I think this will likely be more party based than Fallout 1/2 were.
According to Mr. Fargo's Twitter: "You will most definitely get to create your entire party like Wasteland 1 or like Icewind Dale did (as an example)."
So, yes, it will be more party based. You'll probably create your entire party off the bat like in the original.
On March 16 2012 03:38 trias_e wrote:It's definitely going to be similar to fallout 1 and 2, with an open world and turn-based tactical combat. However, I think this will likely be more party based than Fallout 1/2 were.
According to Mr. Fargo's Twitter: "You will most definitely get to create your entire party like Wasteland 1 or like Icewind Dale did (as an example)."
So, yes, it will be more party based. You'll probably create your entire party off the bat like in the original.
Fucking awesome. So hyped for this. Shame it won't be coming until (approximately) October 2013 tho
Juste a little update : the goal of 1.5M$ has been reached ! (1 510k$ rightnow). They are also lauching an initiative, called "Kicking it forward" :
Any developer that puts the "Kicking it Forward" badge on their Kickstarter project page is agreeing that they will put 5% of their finished product profits back into other Kickstarter projects. To be abundantly clear, this is only money that the developer earns as profit AFTER the project ships and AFTER they have paid their expenses. This is NOT a suggestion to invest money they received from people who invested into their project via Kickstarter.
On March 23 2012 15:33 DaMadMada wrote: Juste a little update : the goal of 1.5M$ has been reached ! (1 510k$ rightnow). They are also lauching an initiative, called "Kicking it forward" :
Any developer that puts the "Kicking it Forward" badge on their Kickstarter project page is agreeing that they will put 5% of their finished product profits back into other Kickstarter projects. To be abundantly clear, this is only money that the developer earns as profit AFTER the project ships and AFTER they have paid their expenses. This is NOT a suggestion to invest money they received from people who invested into their project via Kickstarter.
We also want to get people back to using their brain to solve combat issues and not make them rely on a controller. The gamers have been making this request quite loudly for years.
It was always shocking to me that publishers had ZERO interest in bringing back this kind of game.
Well here is the beauty of fan funding... we don't have to convince some younger RPG player of anything. I am making this game for the wonderful fans who put their money behind us and not some nebulous group of new people.
this seems really cool, so is it an MMO with a party system? I'm guessing it's a single player only, but if it has complete sandbox and there are implications based on what you do in the game, I'm all for it.
Matt Chat did a series of interviews with Brian Fargo about a year ago. It's a really interesting interview and he covers Fallout and Wasteland in the second video.
They’ve just been in touch to say that, if they can reach $2.1 million during the 17 days remaining on the funding schedule, they’ll be bringing in Obisidian Entertainment, including Planescape: Torment mastermind Chris Avellone, to help them make the game.
Up to over $2 million now. 2.1 to bring on Chris Avellone and Obsidian shouldn't be a problem. and an update with some new goals:
Scope and scale is the number one request, and it is what we are focusing our monies on primarily. So at 2.5 million dollars we would bring in another couple of designers to help create more areas. This will not only increase the overall size and depth of the world, but it translates to more story lines and more player options as well. At this funding level we would also bring more level scripters in to allow us to get levels in faster. When we get levels in faster it allows more iteration time to really hone things in. I believe that iteration time is the single most important factor towards shipping a polished and deep game.
In addition, we will add more NPC portraits and equipment artwork as per what the fans have requested in the forums. We would also increase the music budget to allow Mark Morgan to layer in even more atmosphere. The bottom line is that this kind of budget ensures that Wasteland 2 is BIGGER than Wasteland 1. And for the people that remember little Bobby from WL1... well he was left for dead and he is pissed.
The third most asked about feature is for us to provide a mod kit to allow players to create their own scenarios. I have always loved those kinds of tool-sets to set players loose to keep the world expanding. To create these kinds of tools is time consuming and requires a separate team of guys to do it. While we are not ready to commit to that feature yet, we can say that if we were to hit 3 million dollars, it would be possible to do a mod kit without cutting into the plan for the main game. In fact, IF we ended up making the mod kit we would not release it until after Wasteland 2 shipped as our hands will be quite full to ensure things are done well. The game will also increase in scope as well so this is not a binary equation. As always, we will be posting polls in the forums to help with these sorts of decisions. Yes we are reading the forums!
It should be able to reach $2.5 million, given that there's still 11 days left, and kickstarter projects seem to have a bump in income as they reach their end. $3 million might be a bit of a stretch though.
Last Day! 17 hours left, last chance to join in on this and grab a copy and push the funding further, or grab more swag.
Sitting at over $2.7M right now (over $2.8M with paypal pledges on their site). That $3M mark for mod tools is looking closer to being possible than it was before.
There's going to be a livestream up tonight starting at about 10pm EDT (UTC−4)
And an update with more swag for $30+
An extra digital download of the game in any format. Many people wanted to be able to get a Mac AND a PC version, or PC and Linux, or even an extra PC version for a friend. Now you can.
Access to a collection of exclusive Ranger portraits that will double the pool of character portraits you have to choose from at the start of the game when you are rolling up your Rangers. This unique image collection will not only give you more Ranger portraits, but more Ranger icons used to display your party location on the world map.
Access to a four-episode Video Development Blog that will show you an exclusive behind-the-scenes look at the design and development of Wasteland 2. Sit in on designer meetings and art-review meetings to see the process behind how the game is made. See interviews with Brian Fargo, Chris Avellone, Mike Stackpole, Alan Pavlish, and the rest of the development team as they explain to you what they are doing and why they are doing it.
A novella by Chris Avellone based on the universe of Wasteland.
I am so pissed off I missed donating to this. Gona have to buy it retail and feel like a noob. At least I got in on project eternity. So fucking excited, real gaming is coming back by the collective monetary weight of all those individuals who are true gamers.
That music is incredible, very reminiscent of Fallout...is it the same composer perchance? Edit: found out, yes it is. Mark Morgan. The guy is a fucking genius...he is one of the best video game composers ever.
On February 09 2013 23:44 sc4k wrote: I am so pissed off I missed donating to this. Gona have to buy it retail and feel like a noob. At least I got in on project eternity. So fucking excited, real gaming is coming back by the collective monetary weight of all those individuals who are true gamers.
That music is incredible, very reminiscent of Fallout...is it the same composer perchance? Edit: found out, yes it is. Mark Morgan. The guy is a fucking genius...he is one of the best video game composers ever.
Heh, I backed this but not Project Eternity :D I trust these guys to give us a bug free product more then Obsidian :D
I expect Project Eternity to be playable about 6months after release (like their other projects did), I got time :D
BTW, the video was awesome. When Fallout 3 came out I died a bit inside, so I will love this game.
He then fast-balled further examples. What if, for instance, you disobey Ranger orders to the point of becoming a liability? You become a pariah. Your own organization turns on you, hunts you. The entire game changes. And then, of course, there’s the extra-colossal, radiation-mutated elephant in the room: you can kill anyone, anytime. And sometimes – for example, if a party member won’t stop selling your stuff for booze money – you might have to.
“Remember: you can shoot or kill anybody in the whole game,” Fargo interjected. “That in itself [is huge]. If someone joins your party, you can kick them out, kill them, whatever you want. There’s whole sequences you’re not gonna see later because you offed the guy. We just deal with it. There’s no replacement – no NPC that joins you and acts just like him functionally. He’s out. You’re just not gonna see it.”
Toaster Repair – “People put a lot of shit in toasters. You repair them and you get a little ‘Ping!’ Out pops something good. It’s a big callback to the original Wasteland.”
Thinking back to the original Wasteland, and then to how many times I've replayed Fallout 1 and 2 over the many years since their releases, I'm beyond psyched for this game. Usually I'm skeptical about the promises devs make after being burned so much, but I actually trust these guys and girls to deliver.
A new video that shows one of the levels in the game appeared on KS page. Be warned, this is alpha build and it is still missing many sounds and polish. But for fans of Fallout 1 and 2 this game will be awesome
On August 30 2013 17:57 -Archangel- wrote: A new video that shows one of the levels in the game appeared on KS page. Be warned, this is alpha build and it is still missing many sounds and polish. But for fans of Fallout 1 and 2 this game will be awesome
I played Fallout 2 intensively quiet late actually and really enjoyed it, plus there wasn't if any bugs around. From this video, the thing that really stood out for me was the music. I didn't quiet like how colorfull it was but then again they are running in the outback and the sun is high up shining. The encounters seemed interesting, the battle seemed allright but as you say they still need to tweak stuff, hopefully they'll get their shit together for the weapon sounds as they seemed pretty dull to me. Oh the discobot was quiet lame imo and not in the Fallout mood at all. What is also missing is the gore theme that was in fallout2, during battles that's what made me like this game so much, bodies getting annihlated, the sound that it made, oh boy
So i wonder why there isn't any hype before the Release on this Thread I will be streaming at release for around 2 arounds, and will try to make an entertaining Let's Play in my Youtube channel. Feel free to comment here or there !
Buy it if you like RPGs, turn based combat or post apocalyptic settings. And if you like all 3, you will have a real blast for 50 to 80hours for only 40$.
Judging from the previews of the beta and reviews that have been released today, this game looks really good! Really hope I can find a box somewhere in my city when I'm done with work
On September 20 2014 00:38 -Archangel- wrote: Retail versions are all Steam locked. If you want DRM free you have to buy it through GoG.
Thing is, I'm an old school kinda guy and I really like to have my box in my collection... Which sucks because I also hate to be tied too much with steam :/
Anyway, no way to find a box tonight, ordered it online, hope I get delivered quickly, can't wait to try it!
On September 20 2014 00:38 -Archangel- wrote: Retail versions are all Steam locked. If you want DRM free you have to buy it through GoG.
Thing is, I'm an old school kinda guy and I really like to have my box in my collection... Which sucks because I also hate to be tied too much with steam :/
Anyway, no way to find a box tonight, ordered it online, hope I get delivered quickly, can't wait to try it!
From the PC Gamer review it sounds like this game would benefit from a few patches, so the nice thing with steam is at least you'll get automatic and reliable updates! I like steam, it works great for me
On September 19 2014 23:27 farvacola wrote: Anyone playing this? I'm considering a purchase but I can't find many substantive reviews.
I'm about to start playing it, as soon as I can convince myself that I've done enough productive work today and can get high and dive into the wasteland... I'll let you know...
Few hours in, so far really enjoying it. It has this "old school" Fallout vibe, the combat even on medium seems quite challenging and the dialogues/descriptions are just in "old good times".
On September 20 2014 07:40 Sub40APM wrote: Greem you should post the hours you are planning on streaming, I'd be interested in watching.
I watched some of Greem's stream, I endorse it, he really gets into the role playing, with voices for all his characters and everything, its funny.
Lol thank you, I'm kinda trying to produce some quality stuff, but so far i think its a bit messy. I will improve, its something I was considering long time, You really need to invest some time into preparing this kind of stuff. I'm really ashamed of the quality of my Let's Play so far.
Anyway back to game. I think 40€ is a bit too high for this game, so far after the First mission I absolutely love everthing about this game, i Played fallout 2 not so long ago and Fallout 1, and this is just like another of those journeys. Its hard to give a review at this point. But its worth adding this game to your wish list for sure.
couple things that annoy me/wish were fixed: 1. Too many jams. There should be either a skill that lets you know relatively how many shots you can take with a gun before it jams or something else. 2. Friendly fire way too often 3. On my laptop the font is too small for most things 4. I wish there was a better transition between real time and combat mode, like some kind of deployment period, for some reason it feels kind of rough to deploy your team in real time. You have to deslect group movement, individually deploy your guys and then finally walk one forward to trigger combat. I
I'm going for making an entire party from scratch instead of using the premades. Is it optimal to have 1 character with high charisma who will take care of all the interactions, and then everyone else with good fighting skills and zero social skills?
On September 20 2014 15:28 Sub40APM wrote: couple things that annoy me/wish were fixed: 1. Too many jams. There should be either a skill that lets you know relatively how many shots you can take with a gun before it jams or something else. 2. Friendly fire way too often 3. On my laptop the font is too small for most things 4. I wish there was a better transition between real time and combat mode, like some kind of deployment period, for some reason it feels kind of rough to deploy your team in real time. You have to deslect group movement, individually deploy your guys and then finally walk one forward to trigger combat. I
1. I think you should be able to see the jam chance in weapon description. It can be reduced with weapon mods. 2.don't put your guys in line of fire
On September 20 2014 15:43 HolyArrow wrote: I'm going for making an entire party from scratch instead of using the premades. Is it optimal to have 1 character with high charisma who will take care of all the interactions, and then everyone else with good fighting skills and zero social skills?
To recruit NPCs into your party the game totals charisma value of all party members and checks against charisma requirement for that NPC. Also there might be quests that do this. Btw put leadership on your guy with highest charisma.
don't complain about friendly fire that's how you know the game is not for noobs!!
it's true that I wish there were a pause mode for deploying your guys before the engagement
I'm playing on the highest difficulty level, it's quite difficult. haven't gotten far enough to see how well the story is implemented (I had to restart and make a new party)
Played for maybe 15ish hours on second-highest difficulty and here's my impressions so far:
Combat: - Lack of tactical options, it feels too simplistic, especially pre-battle tactics - Why the hell is there no group-formation options? - Bad difficulty scaling, at some point too easy sometimes nearly impossible - Many enemies have rediculous movement speed, they can move an entire zoomed-out screen (or more) in a single move, any pre-combat tactical placement is void - Enemies also happen to have super-high initiative; combine with above, it's simply stupid.
General: - Buggy/unpolished, easily needs another 3+ months of development - Not a big deal, but graphics could've been abit better - World map is very uninspiring... - No windowed-fullscreen mode means no alt-tabbing during tedious running or combat sequences - The plot, so far, is suprisingly bad, I really expected something more, partly because it feels you actually dont have much choice - Environments are sometimes great, sometimes lackluster
Despite above, I am still having fun, although I cannot fathom how people can praise this game, in my opinion it is clearly unfinished and needs alot more development.
On September 20 2014 15:28 Sub40APM wrote: 2. Friendly fire way too often 3. On my laptop the font is too small for most things 4. I wish there was a better transition between real time and combat mode, like some kind of deployment period, for some reason it feels kind of rough to deploy your team in real time. You have to deslect group movement, individually deploy your guys and then finally walk one forward to trigger combat. I
2. FF happens when your guy misses and there's someone in the way. It's very easy to avoid. 3. There is a text size option... Come on, check before posting =) 4. Agreed. There needs to be a deployment phase or at least a default formation. It's really stupid how your guys just do whatever when a fight starts. In one instance, one of my guys positioned himself next to an exploding pod...
A few hours in, and the game is fun, but also a bit tedious. It lacks a certain polish that would be expected of a 40$ game, but not of a 15$ kickstarter. It's also a bit sad that the first NPCs you get on your team only had skills I already had on my mains. Where's my thief NPC when I need him?!
On September 21 2014 06:47 Pwere wrote: A few hours in, and the game is fun, but also a bit tedious. It lacks a certain polish that would be expected of a 40$ game, but not of a 15$ kickstarter. It's also a bit sad that the first NPCs you get on your team only had skills I already had on my mains. Where's my thief NPC when I need him?!
Yep, I agree with that. I paid the full price for it and it's a good game but it doesn't feel like it's worth it. I think $20 would be a fair price. It's built on Unity after all, which kind of sucks. I'm playing on a laptop that can handle Metro and Far Cry pretty well and it is struggling to maintain even 30 fps in Wasteland on medium settings in some locations.
I mean using a budget engine is totally fine, but they shouldn't charge full price for a budget game.
On September 21 2014 06:32 KaiserJohan wrote: Played for maybe 15ish hours on second-highest difficulty and here's my impressions so far:
Combat: - Lack of tactical options, it feels too simplistic, especially pre-battle tactics - Why the hell is there no group-formation options? - Bad difficulty scaling, at some point too easy sometimes nearly impossible - Many enemies have rediculous movement speed, they can move an entire zoomed-out screen (or more) in a single move, any pre-combat tactical placement is void - Enemies also happen to have super-high initiative; combine with above, it's simply stupid. t.
playing some more, agreed to the above. They really needed a good tactical transition phase and the game doenst really do that well at all. Also the scaling is just funny. One minute you are fighting 10 hp guys, the next 300 hp guys and there is no way to move out of combat.
Still enjoyable but there always a fight like that, especially laced with incessant gun jams -- weaponsmithers should either be able to maintain guns better or cause the gun jams to be less AP costly -- that causes me to stop playing for the day in frustration.
I think you screwed up somewhere if you got a 300hp guy so soon. It was all smooth from 10 to 50+ here. However, it's weird that there are no weapon upgrades or armor in the wild. At least, upgrades were readily available back at base, and affordable. But it feels wrong to increase your team dmg by 3x instead of slowly getting upgrades during missions.
As for gun jams, you get plenty of -4% jam out of trash guns you find. It's not hard to have one on every automatic weapon you have. It does make Weaponsmithing basically mandatory, but the same goes for field medic and surgeon.
I hope it changes later in the game, but so far, more exotic skills like toaster repair, outdoorman, mechanic and alarm disarm seem almost useless compared to lockpicking, CS, safelocking, perception, brute force and demolition.
On September 21 2014 13:38 Pwere wrote: I think you screwed up somewhere if you got a 300hp guy so soon. It was all smooth from 10 to 50+ here. However, it's weird that there are no weapon upgrades or armor in the wild. At least, upgrades were readily available back at base, and affordable. But it feels wrong to increase your team dmg by 3x instead of slowly getting upgrades during missions.
As for gun jams, you get plenty of -4% jam out of trash guns you find. It's not hard to have one on every automatic weapon you have. It does make Weaponsmithing basically mandatory, but the same goes for field medic and surgeon.
I hope it changes later in the game, but so far, more exotic skills like toaster repair, outdoorman, mechanic and alarm disarm seem almost useless compared to lockpicking, CS, safelocking, perception, brute force and demolition.
I was level 1 and got this mine quest with 200 hp badgers... yeah that was pretty much the wolf from BG1 for me.
On September 21 2014 13:38 Pwere wrote: I think you screwed up somewhere if you got a 300hp guy so soon. It was all smooth from 10 to 50+ here. However, it's weird that there are no weapon upgrades or armor in the wild. At least, upgrades were readily available back at base, and affordable. But it feels wrong to increase your team dmg by 3x instead of slowly getting upgrades during missions.
As for gun jams, you get plenty of -4% jam out of trash guns you find. It's not hard to have one on every automatic weapon you have. It does make Weaponsmithing basically mandatory, but the same goes for field medic and surgeon.
I hope it changes later in the game, but so far, more exotic skills like toaster repair, outdoorman, mechanic and alarm disarm seem almost useless compared to lockpicking, CS, safelocking, perception, brute force and demolition.
I was level 1 and got this mine quest with 200 hp badgers... yeah that was pretty much the wolf from BG1 for me.
That is a side quest. You do not have to do that quest at lvl 1.
On September 21 2014 13:38 Pwere wrote: I think you screwed up somewhere if you got a 300hp guy so soon. It was all smooth from 10 to 50+ here. However, it's weird that there are no weapon upgrades or armor in the wild. At least, upgrades were readily available back at base, and affordable. But it feels wrong to increase your team dmg by 3x instead of slowly getting upgrades during missions.
As for gun jams, you get plenty of -4% jam out of trash guns you find. It's not hard to have one on every automatic weapon you have. It does make Weaponsmithing basically mandatory, but the same goes for field medic and surgeon.
I hope it changes later in the game, but so far, more exotic skills like toaster repair, outdoorman, mechanic and alarm disarm seem almost useless compared to lockpicking, CS, safelocking, perception, brute force and demolition.
It would be very wrong lore wise if random raiders had better stuff than Rangers.
Cleaned AG Center, checked what was left of the other location and decided to check that mine side-quest.
Badgers.
After few tries, I was able to wipe the three bastards near the entrance to the mine using pipe bombs and dynamite - was euphoric, believing that nothing else will not stand between me and successfully rescuing the miners! I was so wrong.
On September 21 2014 06:32 KaiserJohan wrote: Played for maybe 15ish hours on second-highest difficulty and here's my impressions so far:
Combat: - Lack of tactical options, it feels too simplistic, especially pre-battle tactics - Why the hell is there no group-formation options? - Bad difficulty scaling, at some point too easy sometimes nearly impossible - Many enemies have rediculous movement speed, they can move an entire zoomed-out screen (or more) in a single move, any pre-combat tactical placement is void - Enemies also happen to have super-high initiative; combine with above, it's simply stupid.
General: - Buggy/unpolished, easily needs another 3+ months of development - Not a big deal, but graphics could've been abit better - World map is very uninspiring... - No windowed-fullscreen mode means no alt-tabbing during tedious running or combat sequences - The plot, so far, is suprisingly bad, I really expected something more, partly because it feels you actually dont have much choice - Environments are sometimes great, sometimes lackluster
Despite above, I am still having fun, although I cannot fathom how people can praise this game, in my opinion it is clearly unfinished and needs alot more development.
I completely agree with all of this. What I'm missing the most is stealth. So far the combat system is far worse than what e.g. Fallout:Tactics offered 10 years or so ago. No sneaking around and silently stabbing the enemy guarding the gate in the back and due to the lack of out-of-battle pause you also can't shoot two opponents at the same time to start the fight even if you have the firepower to take them both out. You can only shoot one and then the fight starts with the whole group and the enemy usually moves first.
Also, graphics wasn't emphasized enough. Terrain looks decent but I've seen better character models and textures from 2-man indie studios 5 years ago. Character customization is bad to begin with, but having each character look terrible no matter which option you chose just because the textures and models are so bad limits you even more.
It's not a bad game, it's just far below the hype and I recommend waiting for at least a -25% sale on steam before buying it.
On September 21 2014 06:32 KaiserJohan wrote: Played for maybe 15ish hours on second-highest difficulty and here's my impressions so far:
Combat: - Lack of tactical options, it feels too simplistic, especially pre-battle tactics - Why the hell is there no group-formation options? - Bad difficulty scaling, at some point too easy sometimes nearly impossible - Many enemies have rediculous movement speed, they can move an entire zoomed-out screen (or more) in a single move, any pre-combat tactical placement is void - Enemies also happen to have super-high initiative; combine with above, it's simply stupid.
General: - Buggy/unpolished, easily needs another 3+ months of development - Not a big deal, but graphics could've been abit better - World map is very uninspiring... - No windowed-fullscreen mode means no alt-tabbing during tedious running or combat sequences - The plot, so far, is suprisingly bad, I really expected something more, partly because it feels you actually dont have much choice - Environments are sometimes great, sometimes lackluster
Despite above, I am still having fun, although I cannot fathom how people can praise this game, in my opinion it is clearly unfinished and needs alot more development.
I very much agree with some combat critique. The movement points and initiative of the enemies is a bit frustrating at Jerk difficulty. I wish it were a bit more slow paced . Some mix of Fallout 1/2 with X-Com would be great. Hoping they will fix this or mod will for sure. Here is an example of some frustration on Jerk difficulty, and this is only begining 5 hours into the game, i don't wanna know what will come next if simple bunnies can smash me like this :
On September 22 2014 22:02 -Archangel- wrote: You are playing the game first time on hardest and complaining about the game being too hard?! (it is not called Supreme Jerk for no reason)
Did you also try last Xcom on Impossible and complain about dying all the time?!
Who's complaining ?) I'm completely fine with it. But i think its a but weird that a rabbit can get to a sniper shooting from max range in 1 turn, and its kinda breaks the reason for me.
On September 22 2014 22:02 -Archangel- wrote: You are playing the game first time on hardest and complaining about the game being too hard?! (it is not called Supreme Jerk for no reason)
Did you also try last Xcom on Impossible and complain about dying all the time?!
Who's complaining ?) I'm completely fine with it. But i think its a but weird that a rabbit can get to a sniper shooting from max range in 1 turn, and its kinda breaks the reason for me.
I agree. High difficulty is fine if you have the possibility to prepare or use strategy to win. Enemies coming from out of vision range that can attack your furthest away character without you getting a chance to even set overwatch beforehand is just... not fun.
In X-Com you could prepare for enemies. You could advance carefully with half your guys on overwatch, the other half moving forward and as long as you stayed in cover, you were fairly safe.
In Wasteland 2 you get thrown into a battle and the enemies immediately begin ravaging your characters and your only hope is that they target the tankiest character first because there is nothing you can do to prepare apart from moving them into cover, which doesn't help against melee opponents that can move what feels like 50 tiles per turn.
On September 22 2014 22:02 -Archangel- wrote: You are playing the game first time on hardest and complaining about the game being too hard?! (it is not called Supreme Jerk for no reason)
Did you also try last Xcom on Impossible and complain about dying all the time?!
Who's complaining ?) I'm completely fine with it. But i think its a but weird that a rabbit can get to a sniper shooting from max range in 1 turn, and its kinda breaks the reason for me.
I agree. High difficulty is fine if you have the possibility to prepare or use strategy to win. Enemies coming from out of vision range that can attack your furthest away character without you getting a chance to even set overwatch beforehand is just... not fun.
In X-Com you could prepare for enemies. You could advance carefully with half your guys on overwatch, the other half moving forward and as long as you stayed in cover, you were fairly safe.
In Wasteland 2 you get thrown into a battle and the enemies immediately begin ravaging your characters and your only hope is that they target the tankiest character first because there is nothing you can do to prepare apart from moving them into cover, which doesn't help against melee opponents that can move what feels like 50 tiles per turn.
You will prepare for second or third try when you know what happens. Highest difficulty should be about knowing what happens, and knowing how to min/max and use best tactics. So next time split your party, keep ranged guys even further back and go front with a melee guy and start combat with a grenade or a secondary ranged weapon.
Or build better parties with more Combat Initiative so you go first before them.
On September 22 2014 22:02 -Archangel- wrote: You are playing the game first time on hardest and complaining about the game being too hard?! (it is not called Supreme Jerk for no reason)
Did you also try last Xcom on Impossible and complain about dying all the time?!
Who's complaining ?) I'm completely fine with it. But i think its a but weird that a rabbit can get to a sniper shooting from max range in 1 turn, and its kinda breaks the reason for me.
I agree. High difficulty is fine if you have the possibility to prepare or use strategy to win. Enemies coming from out of vision range that can attack your furthest away character without you getting a chance to even set overwatch beforehand is just... not fun.
In X-Com you could prepare for enemies. You could advance carefully with half your guys on overwatch, the other half moving forward and as long as you stayed in cover, you were fairly safe.
In Wasteland 2 you get thrown into a battle and the enemies immediately begin ravaging your characters and your only hope is that they target the tankiest character first because there is nothing you can do to prepare apart from moving them into cover, which doesn't help against melee opponents that can move what feels like 50 tiles per turn.
Ye, exactly. Even playing safe and scouting ahead, it's kinda unpredictable, which is think its cool, but to a certain extent. On the second try in the same location, i got 3 rabbits with 1 dynamite, and didn't loose anyone, so obviously playing through the game second or third time this mess could be avoided to a certain extent , but the problems will persist in my opinion, lack of option to stop the enemy, snare themor whatever, i just need to take it with "tanks", meaning be a bit lucky , because as far as i know the first rabbit will stick to the sniper no matter whos standing before him, correct me if im wrong.
And that is all OK for hardest difficulty. If you can go through tough fights without needing to load the game at least once, it is too easy and there should be an even harder difficulty. Old School games murdered you regularly even on normal.
On September 22 2014 23:19 -Archangel- wrote: And that is all OK for hardest difficulty. If you can go through tough fights without needing to load the game at least once, it is too easy and there should be an even harder difficulty. Old School games murdered you regularly even on normal.
Absolutely agree, when you die, its when its hard, but even so, we played fallout, x-com, my point was that for my personal liking, there are too much movement points , also what KaiserJohan said about the combat feel .
On September 22 2014 22:02 -Archangel- wrote: You are playing the game first time on hardest and complaining about the game being too hard?! (it is not called Supreme Jerk for no reason)
Did you also try last Xcom on Impossible and complain about dying all the time?!
Who's complaining ?) I'm completely fine with it. But i think its a but weird that a rabbit can get to a sniper shooting from max range in 1 turn, and its kinda breaks the reason for me.
I agree. High difficulty is fine if you have the possibility to prepare or use strategy to win. Enemies coming from out of vision range that can attack your furthest away character without you getting a chance to even set overwatch beforehand is just... not fun.
In X-Com you could prepare for enemies. You could advance carefully with half your guys on overwatch, the other half moving forward and as long as you stayed in cover, you were fairly safe.
In Wasteland 2 you get thrown into a battle and the enemies immediately begin ravaging your characters and your only hope is that they target the tankiest character first because there is nothing you can do to prepare apart from moving them into cover, which doesn't help against melee opponents that can move what feels like 50 tiles per turn.
You will prepare for second or third try when you know what happens. Highest difficulty should be about knowing what happens, and knowing how to min/max and use best tactics. So next time split your party, keep ranged guys even further back and go front with a melee guy and start combat with a grenade or a secondary ranged weapon.
Or build better parties with more Combat Initiative so you go first before them.
I wasnt playing on highest difficulty, second highest. Spliting is no point as they just bum rush you at almost any distance, and when you split your characters dont seem to stand still sometimes, as soon as you engage they move abit? Perhaps its a bug.
Theres also a chronic shortage of various degrees of cover, except for a few carefully placed walls, which feels very much hand-painted and artifical - compare this to xcom where cover feels very natural
Combat in xcom is simpler than Wasteland 2 on paper, but I find it ends up more tactically rewarding anyhow. There simply isn't enough you can do during combat other than min/maxing beforehand. As someone mentioned, stealth for example which is so prevalent in older games, where is it? Or why can they run up to your sniper from the edge of his range to his face in one turn?
With the rabbits you can set up your group far behind for an ambush and then move one character (angela, since she's fast) ahead to trigger the combat, then run back and you will get one round of ambushes. with the rabbits you are still going to have to use an explosive, if you just engage with angela all the rabbits will cluster around her and you can pull back and toss a pipe bomb
On September 22 2014 23:19 -Archangel- wrote: And that is all OK for hardest difficulty. If you can go through tough fights without needing to load the game at least once, it is too easy and there should be an even harder difficulty. Old School games murdered you regularly even on normal.
Absolutely agree, when you die, its when its hard, but even so, we played fallout, x-com, my point was that for my personal liking, there are too much movement points , also what KaiserJohan said about the combat feel .
Some characters move a lot, some don't. If you make a well build melee character you will be able to move a lot as well.
My complaint is more about that weapons should have longer range.
On September 22 2014 22:02 -Archangel- wrote: You are playing the game first time on hardest and complaining about the game being too hard?! (it is not called Supreme Jerk for no reason)
Did you also try last Xcom on Impossible and complain about dying all the time?!
Who's complaining ?) I'm completely fine with it. But i think its a but weird that a rabbit can get to a sniper shooting from max range in 1 turn, and its kinda breaks the reason for me.
I agree. High difficulty is fine if you have the possibility to prepare or use strategy to win. Enemies coming from out of vision range that can attack your furthest away character without you getting a chance to even set overwatch beforehand is just... not fun.
In X-Com you could prepare for enemies. You could advance carefully with half your guys on overwatch, the other half moving forward and as long as you stayed in cover, you were fairly safe.
In Wasteland 2 you get thrown into a battle and the enemies immediately begin ravaging your characters and your only hope is that they target the tankiest character first because there is nothing you can do to prepare apart from moving them into cover, which doesn't help against melee opponents that can move what feels like 50 tiles per turn.
You will prepare for second or third try when you know what happens. Highest difficulty should be about knowing what happens, and knowing how to min/max and use best tactics. So next time split your party, keep ranged guys even further back and go front with a melee guy and start combat with a grenade or a secondary ranged weapon.
Or build better parties with more Combat Initiative so you go first before them.
I wasnt playing on highest difficulty, second highest. Spliting is no point as they just bum rush you at almost any distance, and when you split your characters dont seem to stand still sometimes, as soon as you engage they move abit? Perhaps its a bug.
Theres also a chronic shortage of various degrees of cover, except for a few carefully placed walls, which feels very much hand-painted and artifical - compare this to xcom where cover feels very natural
Combat in xcom is simpler than Wasteland 2 on paper, but I find it ends up more tactically rewarding anyhow. There simply isn't enough you can do during combat other than min/maxing beforehand. As someone mentioned, stealth for example which is so prevalent in older games, where is it? Or why can they run up to your sniper from the edge of his range to his face in one turn?
Well WL2 has all the other things Xcom does not (real story, quests, character leveling, open world exploration), we can excuse it having less complex combat. And unlike Xcom, you are not limited to one grenade, 3 medkits and you don't have unlimited ammo.
Anyone knows if you can get more serum if you do AG center first ? Had to use 4 on my team, 1 in the main tank, so I'm out. I'm curious what the serum does in the infected farm / village. :<
I bought this yesterday after watching some youtube videos. Skills, attributes, ui and inventory system looks good. The weakest part of the game seems to be combat. Even if i split all my guys accross the screen, a raider with a crowbar(or a fucking toad) can move all the way back to my sniper in one turn. If i don't choose split party movement my guys clump up randomly when starting fights wtf? Shadowrun returns and xcom had much deeper strategic fights. If we skip the fights the game looks good though.
On September 23 2014 05:23 Isualin wrote: I bought this yesterday after watching some youtube videos. Skills, attributes, ui and inventory system looks good. The weakest part of the game seems to be combat. Even if i split all my guys accross the screen, a raider with a crowbar(or a fucking toad) can move all the way back to my sniper in one turn. If i don't choose split party movement my guys clump up randomly when starting fights wtf? Shadowrun returns and xcom had much deeper strategic fights. If we skip the fights the game looks good though.
Put your sniper even more back then. You can start combat when you want by Ctrl+clicking on enemy. They don't clump randomly but find a nearest empty square. Outside of combat they don't use squares for movement.
A lot of the problems with balance issues stem from the fact you can't see your enemies' stats so you can't prepare an effective strategy (whoops, I thought that guy was out of range, looks like I'm dead). That and if you didn't pick surgeon at the very beginning, dead is dead.
On September 23 2014 22:47 deth2munkies wrote: A lot of the problems with balance issues stem from the fact you can't see your enemies' stats so you can't prepare an effective strategy (whoops, I thought that guy was out of range, looks like I'm dead). That and if you didn't pick surgeon at the very beginning, dead is dead.
Yes, that increases the challenges and I love it. I don't see why your guys should know enemy stats, they don't in real life (you can see their life values, their damage and armor during combat which is already too much info in my opinion).
But you can use Perception skill to see their vision cones and set your guys into best positions.
I really wouldn't mind them reducing a bit the enemies movement. It's kinda ridiculous how every single one of them can just run up to you in one round from outside your vision. I also find that a lot of fighting areas lack cover options.
Destroyed the honey badgers. Feels good. Went around Prison area, but can't go inside - those turrets are death. So I helped anybody I could, tho I have no idea if I can help the dying woman without pissing off the pig farmer.
I have one rad suit and I wonder - is one enough for whole team or do I need to get one to every team member?
Also, funny thing: just after clearing area of Prison I realized I can go inside The Citadel. Herp Derp. And I like how people are recognizing some of the things I have done. Reminds me of Fallout: Tactics in quite few ways.
Just got the game last night. I only played it for 2 hours but i like it so far. At least i have something to play until natural doctrine, shadow of mordor and civilization beyond earth come out.
On September 24 2014 17:13 FFW_Rude wrote: Ok people ! this game lurks behind my steam page a lot and i'm not sure if i buy it (btw on cdkeyshere you can find it at 23$ i think)
On a scale of 1 to Fallout2, how is this game ?
It is like playing Fallout Tactics in a Fallout 2 world which means you have a team that belongs to a organization and you get your first mission and then can freely roam from there being a good or bad Ranger.
On September 24 2014 17:13 FFW_Rude wrote: Ok people ! this game lurks behind my steam page a lot and i'm not sure if i buy it (btw on cdkeyshere you can find it at 23$ i think)
On a scale of 1 to Fallout2, how is this game ?
I'd say it's "Fallout 3:Tactics" with worse combat.
It's decent but in retrospect I would have preferred to wait for -25% steam sale before buying it. If I wasn't taking a break from Planetside 2 and wasn't so bored, it would now sit in my steam library without me bothering to start it.
It's very focused on combat, similar to Fallout:Tactics, where almost every situation is resolved with violence (minus some speech skill checks for irrelevant fights). However, the combat system is what me and apparently lots of others are dissatisfied with because it's so.... weak. Half of it is a pure equipment check due to the tiered armor system and equipment design, the other half is simple cover based tactics like the modern X-Com without the special abilities.
After the prison area I edited the save files to make my guys super soldiers because I just couldn't be arsed with the combat anymore though the story itself seemed decent enough to follow.
On September 24 2014 19:55 -Archangel- wrote: Well, it is a game for people that enjoy challenge. Or if you are trying to say it was too easy, then you can always increase the game difficulty.
It was neither too easy nor too hard. It was too tedious, repetitive and boring with no depth to the combat at all.
Okay... That's not engaging. Well even at 23$.. i'll pass.
Worse combat than tactics .. is... is it even possible ? lol. This game was good but the combat system was so cluncky bad (it's a part of what made this game great). If it's more tedious than FT or it was like : "i'll move 1hex here" and everything goes to shit because you can't fight anymore etc...
On September 24 2014 19:55 -Archangel- wrote: Well, it is a game for people that enjoy challenge. Or if you are trying to say it was too easy, then you can always increase the game difficulty.
It was neither too easy nor too hard. It was too tedious, repetitive and boring with no depth to the combat at all.
I guess it is not for you then. Game was made by old school developers for old school players.
On September 24 2014 19:55 -Archangel- wrote: Well, it is a game for people that enjoy challenge. Or if you are trying to say it was too easy, then you can always increase the game difficulty.
It was neither too easy nor too hard. It was too tedious, repetitive and boring with no depth to the combat at all.
I guess it is not for you then. Game was made by old school developers for old school players.
I played every fallout game from start to finish, I played every single X-Com game from start to finish (apart from that old FPS game that I'd like to forget), so don't tell me "You're just not old school enough" because that is BS. Difficulty is good and I like challenges.
It's not from old school developers for old school players. It's simply lacking lots of things that even old fallout games did have (stealth, targeting body parts, etc.). It's an ok-ish game in it's own right but it's not a particularly great game and definitely a disappointment for everyone who expected something that could revive fallout's past due to it's shortcomings in the most essential part for such a combat focused game.
Initially I wanted to buy this game but reading about the combat design is really holding me back. I love challenging game but not if the real challenge is the random number generator. I think I will pass on this one.
On September 24 2014 19:55 -Archangel- wrote: Well, it is a game for people that enjoy challenge. Or if you are trying to say it was too easy, then you can always increase the game difficulty.
It was neither too easy nor too hard. It was too tedious, repetitive and boring with no depth to the combat at all.
I guess it is not for you then. Game was made by old school developers for old school players.
I played every fallout game from start to finish, I played every single X-Com game from start to finish (apart from that old FPS game that I'd like to forget), so don't tell me "You're just not old school enough" because that is BS. Difficulty is good and I like challenges.
It's not from old school developers for old school players. It's simply lacking lots of things that even old fallout games did have (stealth, targeting body parts, etc.). It's an ok-ish game in it's own right but it's not a particularly great game and definitely a disappointment for everyone who expected something that could revive fallout's past due to it's shortcomings in the most essential part for such a combat focused game.
How does any of this make WL2 tedious? How much did you even play?
BTW, they said on reddit AMA that they plan to put perks and aimed shots into the game with future patches. Also don't you think it would be more tedious to use aimed shot with each of your 7 characters for each shot you are doing?!
It is OK for fallout where you control one guy and the rest are AI controlled NPCs. Also, fights in F1 and F2 were much easier than many in WL2 so my point still stands that this is a challenging game for people that like the challenge.
Xcom is not a RPG and its whole focus is just on tactical combat (xcom does not have aimed shots as well).
On September 24 2014 22:36 FFW_Rude wrote: You didn't have one character in Fallout Tactics. You have 4(?) i think he was refereing to that.
Still less than 7. And Fallout tactics was a game with a bit more freedom than Xcom, but it was more Xcom(or Jagged Alliance 2 in Fallout world) than Fallout 1/2.
On September 24 2014 22:36 FFW_Rude wrote: You didn't have one character in Fallout Tactics. You have 4(?) i think he was refereing to that.
Still less than 7. And Fallout tactics was a game with a bit more freedom than Xcom, but it was more Xcom(or Jagged Alliance 2 in Fallout world) than Fallout 1/2.
Fallout tactics was the closest game to Wasteland 2 since it was also based around squad sized tactical combat and focused completely on it, but it had a far better combat system than Wasteland 2 - 13 years ago. If they had gone with a more story and exploration driven rather than combat driven game and tried to be closer to Fallout 1 or 2 then the poor combat could have been excused, but they didn't.
If they had taken Fallout:Tactics combat mechanics, which weren't really that advanced, then I would have been happy with Wasteland 2. They didn't, however, so now I'm just disappointed because there just isn't anything to the combat and there isn't anything apart of combat. You place your soldiers in cover, you flank and hope the dice roll in your favor and that you beat the gear check against the enemies armor so that you don't waste too much ammo. It's not fun or engaging.
Combat is close to the modern X-Com game except without class abilities adding something resembling depth to the combat - and it really says a lot when the modern X-Com game has more intriguing combat than Wasteland 2. If they say they'll add more depth to the combat later, I'm wondering why the game was released in this state then.
I really, really wish Wasteland 2 was a more modern Fallout:Tactics because I absolutely loved that game, but I only put 30 hours into it because I'm bored as heck.
It is close, but still not the same. WL2 is a pure blooded RPG, F:T was a tactical game with mission system similar to Xcom and Jagged Alliance. By your logic D:OS and BG1 are also like F:T because combat is 75% of the game.
Loving this game, but mostly cause I've been starved of classic rpg ^_^. Everything is really satisfying to me. My biggest complaint which has been addressed several times in this thread it seems is that starting combat is really fucking awkward. The second thing is how ridiculously the weapons scale, two guns using the exact same ammo and one of them deals 3x the damage of the other one just breaks my suspension of disbelief. Combat isn't very deep but i don't feel like it needs to be, there are however some positive nuances to the combat which become apparent once you played for a while.
On September 24 2014 23:18 nttea wrote: Loving this game, but mostly cause I've been starved of classic rpg ^_^. Everything is really satisfying to me. My biggest complaint which has been addressed several times in this thread it seems is that starting combat is really fucking awkward. The second thing is how ridiculously the weapons scale, two guns using the exact same ammo and one of them deals 3x the damage of the other one just breaks my suspension of disbelief. Combat isn't very deep but i don't feel like it needs to be, there are however some positive nuances to the combat which become apparent once you played for a while.
I've got a habbit of bringing only sniper and my scout, and when you see dangerous situation , dark places, or possible combat you start pre deployment, actually is kinda realistic, but of course I agree with some degree of frustration.
On September 24 2014 23:18 nttea wrote: Loving this game, but mostly cause I've been starved of classic rpg ^_^.
Yeah. The best thing about WL2 is not WL2 but the fact that it's pretty good for a kickstarter game and these people have at least two more retro-style RPGs in the works which I feel will get better. I'm pretty excited about Torment
On September 24 2014 23:18 nttea wrote: Loving this game, but mostly cause I've been starved of classic rpg ^_^.
Yeah. The best thing about WL2 is not WL2 but the fact that it's pretty good for a kickstarter game and these people have at least two more retro-style RPGs in the works which I feel will get better. I'm pretty excited about Torment
I think they still could improve WL2, as someone mentioned Divinity Original Sin, got less money, and i think we could agree its more polished. I still think its great game, because i really enjoy post apocalyptic rpgs, and besides fallout 1,2 and then the bethesda fallout, which are kinda great as well for the story, there hasn't been any ( And why ? Such a promising genre).
You should check Pillars of Eternity, it will arrive in 2015. It looks very promising.
I was just looking at Pillars yesterday. looks great. My friend and I are about to start on a playthrough of BG1 + BG2 so that will whet my appetite :D
does the divinity game have an interesting story?
I agree that WL2 could be much better than it is, but I'm having fun playing it and I hope that this is just the beginning of the new golden age of CRPG. I think it's a good first step.
On September 24 2014 23:18 nttea wrote: Loving this game, but mostly cause I've been starved of classic rpg ^_^.
Yeah. The best thing about WL2 is not WL2 but the fact that it's pretty good for a kickstarter game and these people have at least two more retro-style RPGs in the works which I feel will get better. I'm pretty excited about Torment
I think they still could improve WL2, as someone mentioned Divinity Original Sin, got less money, and i think we could agree its more polished. I still think its great game, because i really enjoy post apocalyptic rpgs, and besides fallout 1,2 and then the bethesda fallout, which are kinda great as well for the story, there hasn't been any ( And why ? Such a promising genre).
You should check Pillars of Eternity, it will arrive in 2015. It looks very promising.
Ya I agree. Divinity does seem more polished nominally but the combat initiation phase is also wonky. Basically all these games should, if they wanted to be turned based, done a deployment phase, maybe based on imitative scores or something
My monk got killed in the canyon in my first fight with raiders. Then i had to fight with diamondback militia, animals and raiders while collecting sludges for monks. My sniper and sub machine gunner guys run out of ammo and i used all of my medkits before my last fight for the 6th sludge canister. My biggest mistake was leveling lockpick, safecracker, demolitions and alarm disable on one guy. I am leveling two other people for safecracker and lockpick now. Also i thought ammo would be hard to find and leveled bladed weapons, handguns and shotguns on some of my guys. So i wasted a lot of skill points already
How you get 6 sludge cannisters? The monks only gave me 3 :F And yeah, my escort-monk died to the badgers. I used all my TNT/granades and didn't even clean that damn canyon, the Diamondbacks are kicking my ass so hard I just avoid them. Now I entered the Temple and what I see? Raiders everywhere. I'm almost dead, hoping to get to that hospital they keep talking about and trade for ammo, but now I don't know if I will be even able to pass to that damn Temple.
Also, had some weird bug where ALL my clothing disappeared except for backpacks. My team literally runs around naked. And no, getting earlier save doesn't help. lol I guess
Hmm, as a backer of Obsidians next RPG PoE it saddens me to hear the combat in this game has some issues.Tell me do you get experience for killing enemies? You dont in the PoE beta and theres big debate on the official forums about it.
You get experience for killing enemies, sucessfully using skills on various objects and for missions. And yeah, the combat feels a bit lackluster even compared to old Fallout Tactics in my opinion. As a backer of PoE I just wait till final version, same for Torment.
On September 27 2014 21:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Hmm, as a backer of Obsidians next RPG PoE it saddens me to hear the combat in this game has some issues.Tell me do you get experience for killing enemies? You dont in the PoE beta and theres big debate on the official forums about it.
On September 27 2014 21:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Hmm, as a backer of Obsidians next RPG PoE it saddens me to hear the combat in this game has some issues.Tell me do you get experience for killing enemies? You dont in the PoE beta and theres big debate on the official forums about it.
And still it is better than that clusterfuck of PoE combat. And you you get XP for many different things like it should be.
I'm actually glad to hear that Pillars has fucked up combat, it means they're trying. WL2 has incredibly bland combat, and even with such a simple system, they found a way to make it imbalanced. + Show Spoiler +
Assault Rifle is stronger than everything else at everything. Plus, you buy the best one a few hours in, and keep it the entire game. Yay. SMG is almost as strong as AR, except it takes more ammos. You can easily sustain 2 AR out of random loot ammos, but barely one SMG, and anyway good SMG ammo doesn't drop in the first half. Shotguns are good when they work, but useless most fights. Same for energy weapons. They can be as good as AR about one fight in 10, or simply useless. Handguns start out really weak, but they're decent enough later on. Sniper Rifles are weaker AR with no burst fire for mid-range combat and expensive ammo, and they jam all the time. Heavies spit out ammos like crazy, but are still weaker than AR, and are often useless. Blunt and Bladed are fine, but Brawl is terrible except on a unique NPC.
Best team is either 3 AR + 1 SMG/Melee, or 2AR+SMG+Melee. You get one more AR NPC right away for max OPness. You get either Handguns or Sniper on an NPC early, and it's not terrible. Then every NPC you get is melee, but that's fine as long as you have duct tape and high Leadership. Don't get two combat skills on anyone, it's pointless despite what they tell you.
I hope they patch up a few times and then mods can improve on this. The game is still fun despite these flaws, but I have a hard time with a "50h game" that couldn't spend one afternoon on balance.
Note: I play this at 2x speed. The speed isn't as bad as Divinity, which I ran at 3x, but it could use a game speed setting.
On September 27 2014 21:20 OsaX Nymloth wrote: How you get 6 sludge cannisters? The monks only gave me 3 :F And yeah, my escort-monk died to the badgers. I used all my TNT/granades and didn't even clean that damn canyon, the Diamondbacks are kicking my ass so hard I just avoid them. Now I entered the Temple and what I see? Raiders everywhere. I'm almost dead, hoping to get to that hospital they keep talking about and trade for ammo, but now I don't know if I will be even able to pass to that damn Temple.
Also, had some weird bug where ALL my clothing disappeared except for backpacks. My team literally runs around naked. And no, getting earlier save doesn't help. lol I guess
It's not a bug, it's the monk explosions that literally destroy your clothes lol.
On September 27 2014 21:20 OsaX Nymloth wrote: How you get 6 sludge cannisters? The monks only gave me 3 :F And yeah, my escort-monk died to the badgers. I used all my TNT/granades and didn't even clean that damn canyon, the Diamondbacks are kicking my ass so hard I just avoid them. Now I entered the Temple and what I see? Raiders everywhere. I'm almost dead, hoping to get to that hospital they keep talking about and trade for ammo, but now I don't know if I will be even able to pass to that damn Temple.
Also, had some weird bug where ALL my clothing disappeared except for backpacks. My team literally runs around naked. And no, getting earlier save doesn't help. lol I guess
It's not a bug, it's the monk explosions that literally destroy your clothes lol.
Hm... but all clothes disappeared few minutes after the fight, when I was just wandering around. And all saves from before the fight are also affected, even the ones from way earlier before I even went near that canyon. Kind of weird.
Also, maybe someone will be interested, my and my collegue review. In polish tho.
AR definitely too strong. They outdamage sniper and heavy in burst mode and with mods their range is no joke either. Sniper rifles are ok except most melee enemies close distance sos fast. Heavy weapon is like AR(burst mode) but cost more AP and ammunition. SMGs really good vs unarmored enemies. Shotguns sucks. I think there should be 2 firing mode for shotguns. One to represent the bullet spread AoE like they have now and one high damage, close range(like between 0m-2m), non-AoE shot. Energy weapons is weird, low armor threshold mean more damage and more usage right so then why does high quality energy weapons has more armor threshold than low quality ones?
In my playthrough, I gave energy weapon to the SMG guy. They say that SMGs are bad vs armored targets, and Energy weapons are awesome, so I thought it would make a good combo.
It seemed like a mistake early on, as energy weapons are basically useless, but it worked out great. You level SMG first, then use energy more often in the lategame.
That said, AR is still the best. SMG is almost as good for most of the game. Sniper is simply weaker and uses the same ammo lategame. Shotguns are mostly unusable. Handguns are weak, no reason to use them at all. Heavy is expensive and weak. Blunt is always good, and brawl/bladed are mostly weak. Energy is not usable on its own for most of the game, and even at its best barely outshines AR.
They could save handguns by changing its Headshot into an akimbo style shot. For maybe +1AP, you fire both guns. Maybe next year with the modkit...
On October 01 2014 09:44 Pwere wrote: In my playthrough, I gave energy weapon to the SMG guy. They say that SMGs are bad vs armored targets, and Energy weapons are awesome, so I thought it would make a good combo.
It seemed like a mistake early on, as energy weapons are basically useless, but it worked out great. You level SMG first, then use energy more often in the lategame.
That said, AR is still the best. SMG is almost as good for most of the game. Sniper is simply weaker and uses the same ammo lategame. Shotguns are mostly unusable. Handguns are weak, no reason to use them at all. Heavy is expensive and weak. Blunt is always good, and brawl/bladed are mostly weak. Energy is not usable on its own for most of the game, and even at its best barely outshines AR.
They could save handguns by changing its Headshot into an akimbo style shot. For maybe +1AP, you fire both guns. Maybe next year with the modkit...
I dunno, I went for a balanced team because I didn't read anything, so I have 1 Sniper/Melee, 1 Melee/SMG, 1 Heavy/Energy, 1 Energy/AR, 1 AR, 1 Handgun/Energy, and 1 straight up melee. The Handgun/Small Energy weapon combo is really really good if you leave your skill points in them at like 5-6 tops and just use them to finish off guys that are lowered by the others. It's also on my Surgeon/Medic, so I usually have enough AP to move, shoot, and patch someone. Being able to shoot for 2-3 AP is really, really good even if it's not much damage.
Energy Weapons become borderline OP once you've + Show Spoiler +
repaired the toaster in temple of titan and received the gamma ray blaster
. But assault rifles are indeed the best and safest choice of weapons, although brawling does more damage late game due to it getting a hidden increased damage per level.
If you are going to attempt Super Jerk difficulty, I'd recommend you going for 10 awareness and 6+ speed on your combat characters.
On October 08 2014 06:01 VoirDire wrote: Energy Weapons become borderline OP once you've + Show Spoiler +
repaired the toaster in temple of titan and received the gamma ray blaster
. But assault rifles are indeed the best and safest choice of weapons, although brawling does more damage late game due to it getting a hidden increased damage per level.
If you are going to attempt Super Jerk difficulty, I'd recommend you going for 10 awareness and 6+ speed on your combat characters.
Why speed? Wouldn't int be better since more skill points per level? ?
On October 08 2014 06:01 VoirDire wrote: Energy Weapons become borderline OP once you've + Show Spoiler +
repaired the toaster in temple of titan and received the gamma ray blaster
. But assault rifles are indeed the best and safest choice of weapons, although brawling does more damage late game due to it getting a hidden increased damage per level.
If you are going to attempt Super Jerk difficulty, I'd recommend you going for 10 awareness and 6+ speed on your combat characters.
Why speed? Wouldn't int be better since more skill points per level? ?
Awareness is AP, Speed is going first. If you go first with a ton of AP, you can kill shit before it attacks.
What advice would you give for me on my first playthrough? The problem is that my character are low in Strength. Most in my party have 3 or 4 points in it. I have trouble staying alive. Is there any way to remedy this? I'd hate to start over at this point, and I'd also hate to hit an almost insurmountable wall of loading and saving. My game difficulty is the second easiest.
Two in my party use Assault Rifles, one SMG, two Handguns and one Shotguns. I'm transitioning one Handgun user into Energy weapons and one AR user into Sniper rifles. My characters are around level 8-10. I would like to find someone who I could build into a Brawler, but that doesn't seem to happen.
On October 13 2014 16:06 nomel wrote: What advice would you give for me on my first playthrough? The problem is that my character are low in Strength. Most in my party have 3 or 4 points in it. I have trouble staying alive. Is there any way to remedy this? I'd hate to start over at this point, and I'd also hate to hit an almost insurmountable wall of loading and saving. My game difficulty is the second easiest.
Two in my party use Assault Rifles, one SMG, two Handguns and one Shotguns. I'm transitioning one Handgun user into Energy weapons and one AR user into Sniper rifles. My characters are around level 8-10. I would like to find someone who I could build into a Brawler, but that doesn't seem to happen.
Strenght 4 is OK. You need more than 4 only if you want to go melee.
Don't use both snipers and Assault rifles on same guy, both weapons suffer big penalties when someone is close. Two main rules are: 1. Don't have everyone use same type of ammo or your will run out often 2. Don't give characters skills in two types of weapons that have a similar role. Rifles and snipers are long range weapons with good armor piercing ability that both suffer a lot once enemy is close. You want to combine them with either melee or a short range weapon. SMG and Shotgun are short range weapons that get bonus to hit once enemy is close but both have low armor piercing ability. You combine them with long range weapons or those good vs high armor. Pistols are low AP, good critical but low base damage and range. Armor piercing is average. Probably good in combinations with a sniper but they can work alone if you manage to get their critical chance high enough. Energy weapons are a special case, they are useless vs low armor enemies but very good vs high armor. They combine well with weapons that do good damage vs low armor enemies. Heavy Machine guns are currently just an underpowered version of Rifle (with burst mode), and they go through ammo like crazy. Melee is brawling (low damage, high critical damage, low AP cost), blades (low armor pierce, high critical chance, average AP cost, average damage) and blunt (high damage and armor pierce, high AP cost and low critical) and is best combined with either long range weapons or those with high armor piercing (when using brawl or blades).
As for combat itself, use cover and crouch. Use ambush and if you got 1 to 3 AP left don't move if you don't have to but end turn so 1 to 2 AP is preserved for next round. Try not to have your guys in line of fire or you are going to have lots of friendly fire.
On October 08 2014 06:01 VoirDire wrote: Energy Weapons become borderline OP once you've + Show Spoiler +
repaired the toaster in temple of titan and received the gamma ray blaster
. But assault rifles are indeed the best and safest choice of weapons, although brawling does more damage late game due to it getting a hidden increased damage per level.
If you are going to attempt Super Jerk difficulty, I'd recommend you going for 10 awareness and 6+ speed on your combat characters.
Why speed? Wouldn't int be better since more skill points per level? ?
Awareness is AP, Speed is going first. If you go first with a ton of AP, you can kill shit before it attacks.
coordination is AP, awareness gives more combat initiative than speed. Initiative is super important since not only does it affect who goes first, but also how often you act so you get double turns vs lower initiative enemies.
Apparently the AI target priority is kinda predictable, and Nigh'ts Terror + Vax combo = must have for Supreme Jerk. Here is Abandoned Railway Fight with First Slicers Robots, after patch, I think before they used to have way more HP.
This is not a perfect fight just a useful strategy, and I think neither the loot or XP is worth it there.
On October 20 2014 10:25 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Did the huge patch just released improve the game much? I might wait another couple months till the patching makes the combat better
Didn't play that much since the patch (Grimrock is to blame!), but from what I saw the game just runs a bit smoother and loads faster. Also they supposedly changed the infinite action points bug for some enemies, not sure how much that changes tho.
Patch fixed a lot of bugs and added some nice features like game levels continuing to be loaded when you are alt tabed. It fixed a lot of quest bugs in second part of the game.
Combat is the same, except they fixed the bug with some enemies seeming to have infinite movement.
So... I bought this game since i found it at 13$ and i have to say to the people that said : "Combat system is worse than fallout tactics". Well... you never played fallout tactics did you ?
The combat system is a mix of Fallout2 and Fallout Tactics (with ambush that actually works contrary to FT).
It's a really cool game. I'm just at the begining but it's soooo old school. Like for the thing with the mayor where you have to find stuff to do that are NOT in quest and NOT marked. You just have to figure out.
It's "hard as fallout1/2" but with little things that comes for FT. Tactics was a lot harder than Wasteland2. And FT was just you fighting against the game a lot of time :p
Is that possible to save the two towns at the begining of the game ? I just saved highpool and made Kate mayor and i just started the plant infested part. But can you save the two towns ? Or is it doomed for one ?
On October 21 2014 17:30 FFW_Rude wrote: So... I bought this game since i found it at 13$ and i have to say to the people that said : "Combat system is worse than fallout tactics". Well... you never played fallout tactics did you ?
I played Fallout Tactics and I liked it. More than the fail that was Fallout 3. Still believe the combat from FT is a bit better than Wasteland 2 - it offers more "points" to target into enemies, stealth and better way of preparing ambushes. Of course that's taken you're not talking about real time, then it was awful :D
I heard it IS possible to save them both - it requires running from one place to the other, like getting to the radio tower but instead of installing the part going straight to the other place. BUT the game doesn't recognize it, so it's obviously a bit of fail from developers
On October 21 2014 17:30 FFW_Rude wrote: So... I bought this game since i found it at 13$ and i have to say to the people that said : "Combat system is worse than fallout tactics". Well... you never played fallout tactics did you ?
I played Fallout Tactics and I liked it. More than the fail that was Fallout 3. Still believe the combat from FT is a bit better than Wasteland 2 - it offers more "points" to target into enemies, stealth and better way of preparing ambushes. Of course that's taken you're not talking about real time, then it was awful :D
I heard it IS possible to save them both - it requires running from one place to the other, like getting to the radio tower but instead of installing the part going straight to the other place. BUT the game doesn't recognize it, so it's obviously a bit of fail from developers
I don't get why people thinks Fallout 3 is a fail. It was a really good game. Story was ok, experience and exploration was really good. The only thing i don't like in F3 is the level cap (which is not a problem on PC since you can get the cap out or mod the game) and of course the silly inventory that came from the consoles.
Yeah of course it's simplified from FT but fallout tactics was a bit "too much" since after a few hours you are using the same pattern, the same strategy, spots etc... Oh and the ambush system was a bitch to get working. But at the time it was a really nice system and we weren't that critical of video games and accepted flaws or design. That's something people don't do now (me included) and that's a shame.
It's not a timer. Whenever you reach a certain point in one areas questline, the other area progresses. If you leave the area, the other area instantly reaches the final fail state. You can take as much time as you like to get to either place
If they patch in a working stealth system and add more weapon type variety instead of a strict tier system with 2 choices per tier, Wasteland 2 will reach a state where I consider it good. Until then it's decent but mostly "meh".
It's not a timer. Whenever you reach a certain point in one areas questline, the other area progresses. If you leave the area, the other area instantly reaches the final fail state. You can take as much time as you like to get to either place
On October 21 2014 19:03 FFW_Rude wrote: I don't get why people thinks Fallout 3 is a fail. It was a really good game. Story was ok, experience and exploration was really good. The only thing i don't like in F3 is the level cap (which is not a problem on PC since you can get the cap out or mod the game) and of course the silly inventory that came from the consoles.
Because it is. A a just postapocalyptic cRPG it's just mediocre at best with awful engine and mechanics, stupid design decisions and boring tunnels that are "the world". As a Fallout... it's just fail on almost every possible field.
Personally when I played first 15-20 minutes I was really liking the change to first perspective, but then the game went downhill. Cars exploding like nuclear missiles? Mini-nuke launcher?! Mutants that become orcs and ghouls that become zombies? Little amount of interesting quests, boring NPC, boring world. Bitchsoft just didn't feel what makes a Fallout a true Fallout experience. Wasteland 2 is way better example of how to make it right. Hell, even New Vegas was a lot better in that regards.
So yeah, F3 sucks. And I hope Bitchsoft doesn't make F4.
But sure, feel free to call me a "concrete" for liking the true Fallouts 1 & 2 and even thinking Fallout Tactics is more Fallout-ish than Fallout 3
On October 21 2014 19:03 FFW_Rude wrote: I don't get why people thinks Fallout 3 is a fail. It was a really good game. Story was ok, experience and exploration was really good. The only thing i don't like in F3 is the level cap (which is not a problem on PC since you can get the cap out or mod the game) and of course the silly inventory that came from the consoles.
Because it is. A a just postapocalyptic cRPG it's just mediocre at best with awful engine and mechanics, stupid design decisions and boring tunnels that are "the world". As a Fallout... it's just fail on almost every possible field.
Personally when I played first 15-20 minutes I was really liking the change to first perspective, but then the game went downhill. Cars exploding like nuclear missiles? Mini-nuke launcher?! Mutants that become orcs and ghouls that become zombies? Little amount of interesting quests, boring NPC, boring world. Bitchsoft just didn't feel what makes a Fallout a true Fallout experience. Wasteland 2 is way better example of how to make it right. Hell, even New Vegas was a lot better in that regards.
So yeah, F3 sucks. And I hope Bitchsoft doesn't make F4.
But sure, feel free to call me a "concrete" for liking the true Fallouts 1 & 2 and even thinking Fallout Tactics is more Fallout-ish than Fallout 3
List me a FPS/RPG in a post apocalyptic world that is better (of course you're limited at that period of time and before...). - The engine is really good. What's wrong with it ? - Mechanics are... FPS mecahnics. - I don't get what's the stupid design decisions. - There's no tunnels but a lot of different buildings.
- Cars blows like a rocket launcher. No nuclear missile. - Mini-nuke launcher there is like 30nukes in the game. And you can.. not use them ? (did you use all the weapons in W2 ?) - Mutants does not look like orcs and .. This is a fallout 2 mutant + Show Spoiler +
Looks similar to me. - Quests were kind of good to me. A lot of them were what you would expect of a post apo world. Also still far from good like Fallout was but hey. Video games are not the same as 10 years ago. Also a lot of people wouldn't play a Baldur's gate today because it's too long, too much text, too much difficulty etc... - Boring NPC. Well.. okay, i second this. You just see head moving and there's no real NPC that you would remember as charismatic in F3. - Boring World ? For me it's exactly like a post apocalyptic world. It's full of empty, desertic world. Hellgate London was like this too for example. (i lack another FPS/RPG post apocalyptic reference). Borderlands isn't included cause it's stupid (like funny stupid not serious).
So ok i'm with you like Wastland2 is more "Fallout3" than what the real Fallout3 is but i don't think wastland2 will sell as much as fallout3 did. Because it's ... well it's old, with old mechanics and whatnot.
I prefer Wasteland2 to Fallout3 (and.. it's not really the same kind of game) but Fallout3 isn't shit. And don't martyr like "the true fallout etc..." it makes you sound .. bad. And i'm sure you are a reasonable person
I can't say on new vegas. It feal more westerny than post apocalyptic to me and i didn't play it much so i don't really have on opinion on this game.
This is currently my game of the year, closely followed by Divinity: Original Sin. The combat might not be as good as in Original Sin, but the writing, factions, pop culture references, Easter eggs, characters, setting and atmosphere in Wasteland 2 were all perfect and exactly what I had been missing in the RPG genre for the last ten+ years. I think my top 5 so far this year looks something like this:
1. Wasteland 2 2. Divinity: Original Sin 3. The Wolf Among Us 4. Wolfenstein: The New Order 5. South Park: The Stick of Truth
I'm currently playing Legens of Grimrock 2. I've only just started but I have a feeling that it might make it onto the list as well.
On October 21 2014 19:36 DrainX wrote: This is currently my game of the year, closely followed by Divinity: Original Sin. The combat might not be as good as in Original Sin, but the writing, factions, pop culture references, Easter eggs, characters, setting and atmosphere in Wasteland 2 were all perfect and exactly what I had been missing in the RPG genre for the last ten+ years. I think my top 5 so far this year looks something like this:
1. Wasteland 2 2. Divinity: Original Sin 3. The Wolf Among Us 4. Wolfenstein: New Order 5. South Park: The Stick of Truth
I'm currently playing Legens of Grimrock 2. I've only just started but I have a feeling that it might make it onto the list as well.
Is Divinity the same kind of game ? I thought it was a hack'n slash
On October 21 2014 19:36 DrainX wrote: This is currently my game of the year, closely followed by Divinity: Original Sin. The combat might not be as good as in Original Sin, but the writing, factions, pop culture references, Easter eggs, characters, setting and atmosphere in Wasteland 2 were all perfect and exactly what I had been missing in the RPG genre for the last ten+ years. I think my top 5 so far this year looks something like this:
1. Wasteland 2 2. Divinity: Original Sin 3. The Wolf Among Us 4. Wolfenstein: New Order 5. South Park: The Stick of Truth
I'm currently playing Legens of Grimrock 2. I've only just started but I have a feeling that it might make it onto the list as well.
Is Divinity the same kind of game ? I thought it was a hack'n slash
Divinity: Original Sin is a turn based, group based RPG just like Wasteland 2. I think the combat is better in Original Sin, mostly thanks to its dynamic magic system. I don't feel like they have put as much work into their game world though. Original Sin also feels a bit more light hearted and less serious than Wasteland 2. While Wasteland 2 always remains a bit tongue-in-cheek in its description of the world, Original Sin goes all out fantasy parody. They are both great games but for different reasons.
On October 21 2014 19:03 FFW_Rude wrote: I don't get why people thinks Fallout 3 is a fail. It was a really good game. Story was ok, experience and exploration was really good. The only thing i don't like in F3 is the level cap (which is not a problem on PC since you can get the cap out or mod the game) and of course the silly inventory that came from the consoles.
Because it is. A a just postapocalyptic cRPG it's just mediocre at best with awful engine and mechanics, stupid design decisions and boring tunnels that are "the world". As a Fallout... it's just fail on almost every possible field.
Personally when I played first 15-20 minutes I was really liking the change to first perspective, but then the game went downhill. Cars exploding like nuclear missiles? Mini-nuke launcher?! Mutants that become orcs and ghouls that become zombies? Little amount of interesting quests, boring NPC, boring world. Bitchsoft just didn't feel what makes a Fallout a true Fallout experience. Wasteland 2 is way better example of how to make it right. Hell, even New Vegas was a lot better in that regards.
So yeah, F3 sucks. And I hope Bitchsoft doesn't make F4.
But sure, feel free to call me a "concrete" for liking the true Fallouts 1 & 2 and even thinking Fallout Tactics is more Fallout-ish than Fallout 3
Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas are basically Elder Scrolls games with a post-apocalyptic skin. As such, anyone who dislikes Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas but likes the Elder Scrolls games are probably lying to themselves at least a little bit. So I take it you don't like the Elder Scrolls games either..?
Here's your problem: it's Oblivion with guns. Do you expect that when you're launching a Fallout game? Not at all. These were different games, but somehow Bethesda made them into one and am I supposed to be fine with it? I don't think so.
Also: Morrowind was okay-ish and best of the series, Oblivion was awfully boring and Skyrim was only nice because of setting. Yeah, hate me
On October 21 2014 19:03 FFW_Rude wrote: I don't get why people thinks Fallout 3 is a fail. It was a really good game. Story was ok, experience and exploration was really good. The only thing i don't like in F3 is the level cap (which is not a problem on PC since you can get the cap out or mod the game) and of course the silly inventory that came from the consoles.
Because it is. A a just postapocalyptic cRPG it's just mediocre at best with awful engine and mechanics, stupid design decisions and boring tunnels that are "the world". As a Fallout... it's just fail on almost every possible field.
Personally when I played first 15-20 minutes I was really liking the change to first perspective, but then the game went downhill. Cars exploding like nuclear missiles? Mini-nuke launcher?! Mutants that become orcs and ghouls that become zombies? Little amount of interesting quests, boring NPC, boring world. Bitchsoft just didn't feel what makes a Fallout a true Fallout experience. Wasteland 2 is way better example of how to make it right. Hell, even New Vegas was a lot better in that regards.
So yeah, F3 sucks. And I hope Bitchsoft doesn't make F4.
But sure, feel free to call me a "concrete" for liking the true Fallouts 1 & 2 and even thinking Fallout Tactics is more Fallout-ish than Fallout 3
List me a FPS/RPG in a post apocalyptic world that is better (of course you're limited at that period of time and before...). - The engine is really good. What's wrong with it ? - Mechanics are... FPS mecahnics. - I don't get what's the stupid design decisions. - There's no tunnels but a lot of different buildings.
- Cars blows like a rocket launcher. No nuclear missile. - Mini-nuke launcher there is like 30nukes in the game. And you can.. not use them ? (did you use all the weapons in W2 ?) - Mutants does not look like orcs and .. This is a fallout 2 mutant + Show Spoiler +
Looks similar to me. - Quests were kind of good to me. A lot of them were what you would expect of a post apo world. Also still far from good like Fallout was but hey. Video games are not the same as 10 years ago. Also a lot of people wouldn't play a Baldur's gate today because it's too long, too much text, too much difficulty etc... - Boring NPC. Well.. okay, i second this. You just see head moving and there's no real NPC that you would remember as charismatic in F3. - Boring World ? For me it's exactly like a post apocalyptic world. It's full of empty, desertic world. Hellgate London was like this too for example. (i lack another FPS/RPG post apocalyptic reference). Borderlands isn't included cause it's stupid (like funny stupid not serious).
So ok i'm with you like Wastland2 is more "Fallout3" than what the real Fallout3 is but i don't think wastland2 will sell as much as fallout3 did. Because it's ... well it's old, with old mechanics and whatnot.
I prefer Wasteland2 to Fallout3 (and.. it's not really the same kind of game) but Fallout3 isn't shit. And don't martyr like "the true fallout etc..." it makes you sound .. bad. And i'm sure you are a reasonable person
I can't say on new vegas. It feal more westerny than post apocalyptic to me and i didn't play it much so i don't really have on opinion on this game.
There were none. But that doesn't mean I should be forever in gratitude that Bethesda made a game in that universe - because they just don't get it. They treated that like another TES and that's now how this works I'm afraid.
- the engine isn't good. No one will tell you it's good. Even reading reviews of New Vegas you could see a lot of time reviewers writing stuff like "solid game even with the engine not helping the developers" and so forth. One small example: every damn cave needs to have a wooden gate of some sort. Small thing, sure, but it's one of the little things that are screaming at you when you play. - mechanics are fps mechanics. Well, part of the problem. For example, why they dumbed down skills like lockpicking? I need to have 50 to pick that lock and I can't even try - in F1, F2 and even Wasteland 2 I can try to pick a lock when I have low chance of making it successful. In the best, I will open that lock. I may not. Or I may even destroy it, deeming the loot unlootable Here as long as you meet the stupid "50 or not at all" line you'll succeed, always. They also made few other weird choises, in New Vegas they mixed all the guns in one category which is just plain stupid and dumbing down if you ask me
And so on and so on. I was really let down by that game. For example: meele > all. I could just walk around smashing randomly stuff with any meele weapon and I would do shitton of crits and more dmg than I could using guns. Good laugh.
No, the mutants in F3 are really like orcs. You don't have a feeling these are artificially created superhumans, they're just a horde of brainless green dudes. Same goes now for ghouls, who were mostly intelligent "creatures" not just fast zombies running among the ruins. Did they even played the original games when making that design decision?
I don't really give a damn about "games are shorter nowadays 'cause people don't want to play long games". People are playing long games - Wasteland 2 is not short game by any means, same goes for Legend of Grimrock and even the TES series. So it's not about game being short because otherwise no one will play it - it's short because "decisions".
The world for me was boring. The Washington didn't feel interesting, just... as any random place with no memorable locations. Like, seriously, all I remember from F3 is those awful metro tunnels. Ugh. At first glance when you go to the surface you are like "woooow! I will explore all of that!" and then you realize you're walking in the tunnels, world is not really open.
Hey, do we really think that the best games are those which sells the best? Then Call of Duty is suddenly best game series ever
As for the "true" Fallout experience, well - it's just me, of course. I have my strong opinion and they are probably not popular among most of the gamer population. I wrote a lenghty review of the game and gave it 6/10 I believe - yes, I work as game journalist. People are enjoying F3? Okay, fine. It sold more? Sure, fine. But for me it's not really a good Fallout game and I see W2 as more fallout-ish than F3.
Well, that was long. Sorry for any typos and so. Maybe we should post this in different thread tho? Now we (well, my fault, but I will take ya with me!) created a bit of off-topic here :D
We won't agree since we have different views on it. Feel free to PM if you want to continue but we will flood the thread if we continue. Sorry about that guys.
I got the game yesterday but something is troubeling me: The mouse is really unresponsive in game. Occasionally, I have to click multple times on a certain spot to order my party to move etc. Is this a common problem? Anybody got any ideas?
It's not a timer. Whenever you reach a certain point in one areas questline, the other area progresses. If you leave the area, the other area instantly reaches the final fail state. You can take as much time as you like to get to either place
If they patch in a working stealth system and add more weapon type variety instead of a strict tier system with 2 choices per tier, Wasteland 2 will reach a state where I consider it good. Until then it's decent but mostly "meh".
The Fallout 3 conversation was interesting. I also consider WL2 closer to F1 and F2 than F3 or FNV. I also don't like TES games much. I only enjoyed playing Morrowind a few years after it released but never finished it. Oblivion I played for few hours only and Skyrim I played for about 15-20h and afterwards uninstalled it and regretted ever playing it (I played it for so long because I was naive and told myself it would get better soon and after novelty wore off and just walking around and looking at nice scenery was not enough I quit it).
I finally started Wasteland 2 week ago. It was already patched with last update, so I cannot compare experience before fixes. So far, I felt in love with this game. Seriously, I wasn't expecting anything above average, since it was kickstarter poject. It was really nice suprise, to see well made fallout sucessor. After week of playing I am still intrigued with it's story and that uniqe feel of postapocalyptic world sticks with me all that time. Everything after Fallout 2 failed to deliver that to me. inXile did damn awesome job with this game. Of course it have it's own flaws, but unless you are looking for them, they are easily to miss during gameplay.
Though I have to be carefull. W2 already bumped my hopes for Tidef of Numeria above roof, and I am already planning to jump into Fallout 1/2 after. Damn it, I have no time for that;)
Torment: Tides of Numenera are late 2015, you have plenty of time. And yes T:ToN is going to be awesome as these devs have learned lessons from WL2 and will make a better game as a result.
This is no DAO to DA2 story as there is no publisher behind InXile making them create a more simplified game in less time with less features. So we can expect InXile to make a better game in all aspects, not to mention a PST successor is in its base a very story heavy game with lots of focus on your character, companions and personal story.
On the fo3 topic, I completed the game and thought it was overall a "meh" experience, it feels like bethesda took all the soul off fallout, draining it dry. And yes I enjoy TES games, but I was expecting a fallout game.
was fun as hell to play through, i resisted doing some stuff (resolving hollywood-god's militia dispute, doing the rodia mayor son vs his mayor dad quests, 'joining' the cotc etc.) so i could do it second playthrough. not going to have my custom characters basically be intelligence whores this time it felt a little too easy leveling up skills that fast.
wish taking on matthias and the big boss went a little bit longer if you don't try to join the cotc, though. it's basically just go in and kill kill kill congrats you've beaten the game. also, dugan! he deserved a questline all its own with you taking him out then going after matthias.