Has anyone played Wasteland 2 recently? The game looks terrible.

G

Gnarle

First time out of the vault
So I played through Wasteland 2 when it first released and never picked it up again. No judgement, squad combat just isn't my thing. But I remember disliking the art style then. In fact I dislike all CRPGs in that recent 3D style; Torment, Pillars...

I'm fine if the classic fallouts don't work for you, but to me they've aged a lot better than that game. To me there's something more real about a pixel than a polygon. It's like the difference between the super nintendo and the N64. Super Nintendo games look great, they literally look like indy games that could be made today. N64 has some winners, but not in the looks department.

And the little icon used to show movement on the world map? awful.
 
I think I remember that they asked the community if they wanted money put into graphics or gameplay and they/we choose gameplay. That made InXile not prioritize graphics and use cheap assets to save money. They also had some program to get additional funds from the community to buy assets.

I agree that it looks like shit and I'm amazed that the ATOM games for example look much better while being on the same engine but with much smaller budgets. Compare Wasteland 2 on kickstarter with ATOM RPG for example. 2.9m$ raised vs peanuts.
 
The art style is decent. Weapons look good as well as most of the outfits, not like in Wasteland 3 where ALL the armor looks ugly. There are a few characters that look odd, but I don't mind it as I'm playing. Isometric games shouldn't have stellar graphics. If the graphics really do put you off, maybe you should look into Encased or Colony Ship, since Proletaren already suggested ATOM. Colony Ship is still in early access and apparently the second half of Encased sucks. I *strongly* suggest lowering all graphics options on Colony Ship if you chose to get that. Besides that, they both look good.
 
Proletären said:
I think I remember that they asked the community if they wanted money put into graphics or gameplay and they/we choose gameplay. That made InXile not prioritize graphics and use cheap assets to save money. They also had some program to get additional funds from the community to buy assets.

I agree that it looks like shit and I'm amazed that the ATOM games for example look much better while being on the same engine but with much smaller budgets. Compare Wasteland 2 on kickstarter with ATOM RPG for example. 2.9m$ raised vs peanuts.
Click to expand...

When it's a game like Wasteland why the hell would you ever ask them to prioritize graphics? It's WASTELAND, chances are that the people you're trying to appease with graphics updates aren't the people who are going to actually be interested in playing the game.

With that said... I'm not a fan of just how much got streamlined for Wasteland 3, and if better RPG mechanics would have meant toning down on the graphics and having a shitty UI I would have been ok with that. Then again... I play games that look like this...

n6qru9zmevd41.jpg
 
Good graphics and good gameplay are not mutually exclusive... but can become a problem when —everything— must be rendered, or be available for rendering.

Personally... I'd have preferred a Bard's Tale 4 that looked (and presumably played) more like the originals, and like this image suggests:

BT4_preferred.jpg


*For the record, I was irked & disappointed that WL2 played more like FO:Tactics than Wasteland.
 
TorontoReign said:
I just like squad combat.
Click to expand...

You play Xenonauts yet?

Gizmojunk said:
Good graphics and good gameplay are not mutually exclusive
Click to expand...

Sure, correlation doesn't equal causation, but there is also the fact that unless you're a massive studio (and often times, even then) there is a limited amount of time and resources that can be allocated to different areas of the project, and the decision making process on where the bulk of those work hours and resources go often make for vastly different quality games. It's just simply been my experience that games where graphics took a backseat in priority to everything else were generally more fun to play - especially after the "graphics craze" we experienced at the height of the console era in late 2000's/early 2010's.

I personally in my life, have found that some of the best games I've ever played had shitty graphics that would make 90's slavjank look like a masterwork piece of art. HOWEVER - the pure quality and depth of those games often ends up being so great that you're able to overlook it, for example UnReal World:

unreal-world-330-bear-hunting-party.png


Furthermore, the people I've talked to in my life who value graphics are often the type of people who play games where you're not required to put much thought into anything... which is fine, there's nothing inherently wrong with good graphics. It's just that I've seen an obvious connection between games that are graphically beautiful but have about as much depth to them as a bathtub - not that games can't be good in graphics and have decent depth as well it's just less likely for that to happen.
 
Last edited:
Xenonauts is great but it lagged (gameplay got stale and art needed more) near the end. I am hyped for part 2!
 
TorontoReign said:
Xenonauts is great but it lagged (gameplay got stale and art needed more) near the end. I am hyped for part 2!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it did get repetitive towards the end. I'd also recommend Mechanicus, if you're into Warhammer: 40k... even if you're not though it's still a pretty damn good game.

BTW correct me if I'm wrong but did you change your name at some point. I specifically remember your name being "Torrent Rayne" or something along those lines.
 
It didn't look that great back them. But the biggest issue i had was the camera that was both clunky and mandatory to use.
 
naossano said:
It didn't look that great back them. But the biggest issue i had was the camera that was both clunky and mandatory to use.
Click to expand...

Mechanicus or Xenonauts? Xenonauts camera isn't too bad once you get the hang of it, and you can adjust things in the settings files if needed.
 
Mστh said:
Yeah, it did get repetitive towards the end. I'd also recommend Mechanicus, if you're into Warhammer: 40k... even if you're not though it's still a pretty damn good game.

BTW correct me if I'm wrong but did you change your name at some point. I specifically remember your name being "Torrent Rayne" or something along those lines.
Click to expand...

It was Toront Rayne actually but when I was in high school I pronounced it as Torrent and now I ride a Torrent.
 
Wasteland 2 could have definitely been better. A lot of the art direction was a bit off to me. Good thing they released Wasteland 3 and it was better. The UI was worse for PC but not unplayable or anything, just consolified which makes sense seeing as it was going to be put on Xbox and they are owned by Microsoft now.

Wasteland 3 felt like it better balanced the combat stats at least and the art wasn't so weird either. I remember in 2 it was like Hollywood or LA or something that people were all dressing up in ballerina outfits but their avatar when talking to them was wildly different than that. It also just looked janky for some reason. I feel like 3 was not perfect in that visual department but improved on 2.

I was glad to see a Ranger's story that was not a rehash and quasi-reboot of Wasteland's original story. Yeah, the original thing still happens but it pretty much happens all over again in 2 and the events of the previous game only really matter to like three characters and everything else is an easter egg. I don't think Wasteland really lends itself to sequels that need to care about previous entries. Too goofy to make an insane gardener really matter. Or a clown raider faction. Shit like that just doesn't matter by the time you hit the next game. Oh yeah they mention the boy and his dog in the well or whatever. I guess it's a nice nod to the old games but things like Bryon Fargo moving to Colorado was better than caring about hehe haha random funny moments. Yeah Fargo's a joke character and all but he didn't feel *too* contrived to be in 3. Hell, his faction has more purpose in it than in the others in terms of feeling impactful. I think he helps you with a short section in 1 but whoopty.

Wasteland 2 was the weakest of the three for me but it's not like it's an actual garbage fire. Just everything you would like about it, besides easter eggs referring to 1, you would like more in Wasteland 3.
 
I personally enjoyed it, but it was the first or second CRPG I ever played and I haven't played it since, so you gotta take my opinion with a grain of salt.
 
Wasteland 2 is pretty good but it’s basically just a remake + expansion of Wasteland 1, honestly should’ve just called it that.

Wasteland 3 on the other hand was great. Loved it.
 
Unfortunately Wasteland 2 was nothing like Wasteland 1; it was essentially a FO:Tactics clone. :(

Further par for the course they've plotted... Their Bard's Tale 4 was unrecognizable as a Bard's Tale sequel. InXile was outclassed by the Krome remasters.

I truly wish we'd gotten a true set of Bard's Tale games.
BT4_Ideal_tiny.gif

...no such luck.
 
Last edited:
Probably should’ve elaborated, Wasteland 2 is like Wasteland 1 story-wise. They basically Force Awakens’d Wasteland.
 
I loved the hell out of Wasteland 2.

Wasteland 3 felt a little too streamlined for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top