Wasteland 2 Gamestar Preview

Tagaziel said:
sea said:
40-50 maps actually doesn't sound like much, if you factor in random encounters, interiors, etc. So the question is, are these unique maps or are they levels that the article is referring to? Yeah Fallout 2 "only" has 23 areas or whatever, but they might have multiple interior areas and multiple overland zones.

Yeah, that's what I found weird. The preview doesn't really explain what these 40-50 maps refer to. I guess these are locations?

The dev's mentioned before that there are approximately 15 major zones like the Agricultural centre, Highpool, Damonta etc. Just speculating but each of these could consist of an exterior map, an interior map, an underground map and it would fit the 40-50 number mentioned. In the same post they mention that there will be random encounters while travelling between major zones. There is lots of juicy info in the 'Ask a Dev' threads.

InXile Dev said:
I believe Wasteland 2 is far deeper than most RPGs. Of actual playable zones, we are looking at around 15 major locations. The size of each location varies, and the activities you will mostly engage in vary as well (conversation/quests, exploration, combat, etc). However, the volume of conversation and location description is on a scale that is... to be honest... absolutely, insanely awesome. We had nearly a dozen writers build out an incredibly large world with numerous cause and effects that don't just change the attitudes of the people in the area, but we have whole maps adjust based on your choices.

http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=3061
 
in the end, what really matters is what you can do with those locations. Less is sometimes more here.
 
Yeh. Hearing "we have 150 locations!" turns me off a little more than "we have 15 locations." Because the first one tells me, that the quality probably won't be very high.
 
Brian Fargo did say in a recent update that the game is huge, probably the biggest rpg he had worked on and that people will likely be surprised by the scope of it. Exactly what he means by this is hard to tell, but judging from this and the talk about the large amounts of conversation I think it's fair to say that there will be a lot to do in the game and it won't be very linear.

Also, 20 hours only for the main storyline is a lot.
 
it could be even shorter, like 10 hours, I don't care if I am honest, what I care about, is the quality, the impression the story has on me. Even a long story, can feel very rushed for example, because the speed with which the story is advancing feels unnatural for example.

Maybe I am getting old, no clue, but I have the feeling today, that quite often games don't give you time to "breath" anymore, to give you time to actually get sucked in. Its hard to describe what I mean. I mean if one arc of suspense simply follows the other one, then you have the risk to getting burned out, either because its always the same, or similar stuff you experience over and over again (oh the main bad guy escaped AGAIN while leaving you with one of his henchmen to kill ... *yawn*!) then it becomes dull.

The same is true for side quests which feel like they don't fit the game or at least in to the part you are playing at the moment.

If the main quest tries to build some kind of stress or pressure, like giving you the target to save someone from some kind of attack, how much sense does it make then to let the player wander of for 2 weeks in to the wilderness to do something else like collecting ingredients? Games should make a bit more use from limitations, as long they are realistic and fit the setting. For example, if the guy that told you about the attack has the informations that the raiders prepare to attack the position and he believes it might take them 2 or 3 days, and if you are to late with the defences the village is simply destroyed.

Of course that was just only some example.
 
WorstUsernameEver said:
- Energy weapons deal damage proportional to the amount of metal in the opponent's armor. The more, the higher the damage.
I find this one a little weird. Besides not making sense, it seems to just encourage a usage scenario of: use regular guns on lightly armored guys, use energy weapons on heavily armored guys.
 
What's wrong with it, Kyuu? With a various types of titanium/vanadium covered killing machines appearing thorough the game, the kinetic weaponry becoming useless was common thing to see even in the original Wasteland.
 
valcik said:
What's wrong with it, Kyuu? With a various types of titanium/vanadium covered killing machines appearing thorough the game, the kinetic weaponry becoming useless was common thing to see even in the original Wasteland.
It doesn't say that kinetic weapons become increasingly marginal against tougher types of metal armor. That would make sense. It says energy weapons do more damage against armor with higher metal content, which doesn't make sense.

Why would a person wearing metal armor get hurt more from a plasma bolt or a laser? It might make sense for some type of electricity-based "zap" gun, but that's it.

The nonsensical nature of it would be fine it if served a useful gameplay purpose, but simply making a binary system of use kinetic weapons against enemies without metal armor and energy weapons against enemies with metal armor doesn't seem terribly compelling.
 
Kyuu said:
valcik said:
What's wrong with it, Kyuu? With a various types of titanium/vanadium covered killing machines appearing thorough the game, the kinetic weaponry becoming useless was common thing to see even in the original Wasteland.
It doesn't say that kinetic weapons become increasingly marginal against tougher types of metal armor. That would make sense. It says energy weapons do more damage against armor with higher metal content, which doesn't make sense.

Why would a person wearing metal armor get hurt more from a plasma bolt or a laser? It might make sense for some type of electricity-based "zap" gun, but that's it.

The nonsensical nature of it would be fine it if served a useful gameplay purpose, but simply making a binary system of use kinetic weapons against enemies without metal armor and energy weapons against enemies with metal armor doesn't seem terribly compelling.
A plasma bolt IS elecricity-based, it's a cloud of ionized gas. A plasma bolt hitting metal armor would indeed involve a current through the target.
And, as Stanislao Moulinsky said it, heat.
 
Kyuu said:
Why would a person wearing metal armor get hurt more from a plasma bolt or a laser? It might make sense for some type of electricity-based "zap" gun, but that's it.
lets say your arm gets hit by it, the shirt you have vaporizes, probably with the part of your arm that was hit.

Now lets say you wear something that is made totally of metal, like some kind of medieval armor. The metal gets molten, runing down all over your chest, armor, shoulders, maybe even hit your face. Now you not only have a vaporized arm to deal with, but a chest, face and shoulder that looks like a pizza in the stove.

Thats how I imagine it at least.
 
Tagaziel said:
Lexx said:
The other screenshots linked above do look pretty cool (at least on my phone). Compared to them, I think the train screenshot wasn't the best choice. The one with the canyon might have suited better.

Yeah, the screenshots look great in the mag. I recommend buying it. For 3.50 you're basically skipping four beers.

Wow, at a bar in washington, DC I'd be lucky to get one beer for 3.5USD
 
Back
Top