Wasteland 3 announced, crowdfunding campaign to start on 5th of October

Crni Vuk said:
But at the end of the day Wasteland 2 is closer to Fallout then Wasteland 1. Certainly not a bad thing, if you enjoy Fallout ... but if you expected actually something that was close to Wasteland 1.
Click to expand...

Eh, I've seen this argument before and I don't buy it. The original Wasteland is practically a text adventure with an overworld. Changes were going to be made to modernize the game. The writing and tone are in line with its predecessor and the core concepts are still there (also most of the original plot was rehashed, but that was to be expected.)
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
I supported the Wasteland 2 Kickstarter back then because after Fallout New Vegas it did not seem that there would be another decent PA game set after a nuclear war, a setting I enjoyed for RPGs. But I got kind of burned with Wasteland 2 as it was not the spiritual Fallout 1/2 sequel I had hoped it would be.
Click to expand...

Replace Wasteland with Pillars of Eternity and thats how I feel. I don't think I'll ever support a game on kickstarter again. When the game finally comes out you realise they completely overhyped and exaggerated all the features it was going to have, you just feel cheated of your investment/pre-order. I still have to play Wasteland, just waiting for the price to drop.
 
I played the Age of Decadence demo because people said that it was Fallout inspired. However the combat in the game manage to have less depth than Fallout 1/2 and I hate the combat in those games.
Is it too much to ask for newer games to be mechanically better than older titles?
 
Last edited:
Didn't like WL2. It fell short.

Now, it seems like they're jumping too far ahead. Games are a hit and a miss; no game appeals to everyone. But unless I'm mistaken, Wl2 was funded by people who wouldn't mind Wl1, or fallout 1 or 2 or eye of the beholder or ultima or icewind dale or baldurs gate. There's nothing wrong of course, with advancement, but these things fit in one way and not in another, and jumping too far ahead to what seems to be to appeal to a wider base than the solid niche (while a reasonable business plan) would just give us a F3/F4 situation.
 
Wasteland 2 was a pile of regurgitated dog excrement. Combat and exploration felt like chores. After 20 hours of playing it and waiting to see if at least the plot was ever going to get any good, I just gave up and uninstalled. Whoever designed that thing had no clue whatsoever about what is it that makes the oldschool Fallout games good.
 
Last edited:
Eumesmopo said:
Wasteland 2 was a pile of regurgitated dog excrement. Combat and exploration felt like chores. After 20 hours of playing it and waiting to see if at least the plot was ever going to get any good, I just gave up and uninstalled. Whoever designed that thing had no clue whatsoever about what is it that makes the oldschool Fallout games good.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go quite that far but it definitely made me sad. I expected at the minimum to complete the game a few times while seeing plenty of new things along the way. I quit halfway through my second playthrough once I figured out it was mostly the same with the new "consolized" interface/features making the whole thing just a little worse. I enjoyed the game to a certain extent so maybe they will have learned enough as a team to improve upon it, but I won't hold my breath. It looks like they are more worried about D:OS 2 than old school Fallout/Wasteland fans.
 
I haven't played Wasteland 2 so what was particularly wrong with it? It and the other Fallout inspired games doesn't seem like it is meant for me. So what is missing?
I don't want a one-to-one copy of Fallout but what is exactly missing.
 
CaptJ said:
I haven't played Wasteland 2 so what was particularly wrong with it? It and the other Fallout inspired games doesn't seem like it is meant for me. So what is missing?
I don't want a one-to-one copy of Fallout but what is exactly missing.
Click to expand...

The whole premise, setting and plot hook of it already starts out unendearing. The intro is a short live action film with some dude talking about how "good men must act against evil in the world" and "we will bring vengeance to anyone that kills one of us" and other things along those lines that sound like it belongs to some dumb hollywood action movie. Contrast it with the brilliancy and weight of the intro to Fallout 1 and you will see how disappointed I was with the whole thing right off the start.

And then the game worsens the situation by placing you as a full party of characters that you create yourself at the beginning of the game. The point of creating your own character in a RPG is that you get to roleplay as different characters on different playthroughs. The downside of that on every RPG is that you can't make the story be too centered on the player character (no grandiose and dynamic characters arcs, etc) or you curb on the freedom for roleplaying, but if the possibility to actually roleplay is there then it is an acceptable loss. But when you make the player act as a whole squad at once through the story, the only thing you get is blandness since you aren't going to feel like you are roleplaying anything and none of the party members is going to get any development whatsoever either. It's the worse of both worlds: You don't get to roleplay and you don't get to experience much of an interesting story either.

The story in it is just bad as far as I gotten to see. First you are set as a squad of rookies in an army unit that "keeps the peace" in the wasteland against all the raiders and trouble makers (in other words, it already starts with black and white morality), and then your unit is sent out into the world for some generic reason that doesn't connect with any grander plot that might or might not unfold later on. The only hint I got at some probable final anthagonist I was going to have to fight later on was some radio transmission talking about some army of robot soldiers, upon which my eyes rolled. The story events feel strung together in too insignificant ways, the writer clearly just kept making things up as he went along: It's always; "This place was attacked, go here", "That other place was attacked, go there", etc...

And the choices that the game let's you make feel very forced. You know those annoying parts on the TellTale Walking Dead games where you are forced to "Save character A or Save character B"? Every choice I have seen in this game is like this. Choices that are obviously binary and forced into the plot so stupidly like that are not interesting at all. They should feel more like natural developments of the situations the player finds himself in through the story (like in Fallout 1 in that segment in the Hub where you can murder that rich guy for Decker in a bunch of different ways or go to the police and turn tables against Decker or just straight out kill Decker yourself, etc...).

The dialogue is bad too, every single thing that every single character says is mind-numbingly boring, and every single reply or question that you as a player can make is generic in the sense that it has no character whatsoever to it and is something that absolutely anyone could say (which hits back on the roleplaying issue I spoke of earlier). In fact the only line of dialogue I even remember of that game is something that a prostitute said when my party met her: "Will you fuck me in turns or ravage me all at once?" Admitedly, that made me chuckle.

Other than that the combat and exploration elements feel like drag on the length of the game too much, you just spend too much time gathering and managing items and fighting enemies before you can get to the next story section and the whole process really just doesn't feel fun at all.
 
Last edited:
Eumesmopo said:
And then the game worsens the situation by placing you as a full party of characters that you create yourself at the beginning of the game. The point of creating your own character in a RPG is that you get to roleplay as different characters on different playthroughs. The downside of that on every RPG is that you can't make the story be too centered on the player character (no grandiose and dynamic characters arcs, etc) or you curb on the freedom for roleplaying, but if the possibility to actually roleplay is there then it is an acceptable loss. But when you make the player act as a whole squad at once through the story, the only thing you get is blandness since you aren't going to feel like you are roleplaying anything and none of the party members is going to get any development whatsoever either. It's the worse of both worlds: You don't get to roleplay and you don't get to experience much of an interesting story either.
Click to expand...


You've missed a point by a mile. Play the original game. Wasteland was never about character creation or roleplaying a single character. It was always a squad-based game and the sequel was faithful in that regard.
I've seen plenty of people list this as a "flaw". WL2 is NOT a Fallout spiritual sequel, and people should get that. It's a sequel to Wasteland, which while similar in theme and setting, is an entirely different beast.

I can agree on most of the other points you've listed (though I would argue that dialogue wasn't that bad, at least there were some good moments here and there).
 
I enjoyed Wasteland 2 (although I still need to complete it).
But it's far from a spiritual successor to Fallout, I can understand where people are coming from, but if you're looking at it that way, you're going to have a bad time.

The game simply doesn't need the grey area, it's not about the grey area, Fallout was about the grey area but Wasteland is meant to be black and white. Maybe with 3, they change that up a bit.

The game does have its problems, but I still think it's enjoyable, a lot more so than some of the crap released today.
 
Atomkilla said:
You've missed a point by a mile. Play the original game. Wasteland was never about character creation or roleplaying a single character. It was always a squad-based game and the sequel was faithful in that regard.
I've seen plenty of people list this as a "flaw". WL2 is NOT a Fallout spiritual sequel, and people should get that. It's a sequel to Wasteland, which while similar in theme and setting, is an entirely different beast.

I can agree on most of the other points you've listed (though I would argue that dialogue wasn't that bad, at least there were some good moments here and there).
Click to expand...
My words exactly. Wasteland was like other old early RPG games where we make an entire party and play with it (like Eye of the Beholder).
That is why I never understand why people keep saying that Wasteland 2 is not Fallout-y enough... Wasteland is not Fallout and never was and to be honest I hope it never will. If that happens then it is changing one game series into something it is not (which is exactly the same thing as Bethesda did with Fallout...).

I also need to say that I never made a party, I always just make one character, then I recruit from the available ones during the game. I like how they all interact and comment or act sometimes and makes the game feel a bit more "alive".

I still never finished it though, it is too much battle oriented and I get bored of combat fast (same way it happens when I play Fallout Tactics for example) but I was expecting that already.
 
It can end up very good, and well known like The Witcher 3, or terrible like Fallout 4 with that feature list. A bit too early to judge, but I don't support coop. The other things.. depends how they are done.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Wasteland 3 should be also open world and in first person, and they should get rid of the top down view for once, it's outdated, let us face it. In first person you could als get much more immersed!

:D
Click to expand...
i would like if they going for xcom approach, since i dont think fargo want to aim it as an AAA release.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Wasteland 3 should be also open world and in first person, and they should get rid of the top down view for once, it's outdated, let us face it. In first person you could als get much more immersed!

:D
Click to expand...
2040: Duh, that's the only kind of game there is now. What do you mean by "RPG"? Is that like a mobile game or something?
Well bye man from the past. I'm going to go play COD: Absolute total universal warfare and wait for the Half Life 3 announcement tomorrow.
 
Nah, FPS as a genre is loosing its crown as the most popular in video games. Survival is the next big thing, future games will resort more on survival aspects and base building.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Wasteland 3 should be also open world and in first person, and they should get rid of the top down view for once, it's outdated, let us face it. In first person you could als get much more immersed!

:D
Click to expand...


They are already sort of open world. There are a few walls here and there, but mostly it's open.
 
@Atomkilla
Plenty of RPGs like Wasteland are about party management rather than role-playing for example dungeon crawlers. However those games have a deep/engaging combat systems and I haven't really heard people talk about the combat system of Wasteland 2.
 
JA2 did it really the best I think, it was a party based game, with excelent combat mechanics, yet each of your mercenaries had still his own personality, up to the point where they would simply refuse to work with each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top