I found Wasteland 2 to be enjoyable, well so far.
It doesn't light a candle to Fallout on a good day, but I can still regard it as a true and classic RPG.
It's not for everyone, the best way I can really say how to play it is if you imagine you're in a D&D campaign, except the computer/writers are the GM and you are your party. Going in with that mindset could make the game a much more pleasant experience.
I found Wasteland 2 to be enjoyable, well so far.
It doesn't light a candle to Fallout on a good day, but I can still regard it as a true and classic RPG.
It's not for everyone, the best way I can really say how to play it is if you imagine you're in a D&D campaign, except the computer/writers are the GM and you are your party. Going in with that mindset could make the game a much more pleasant experience.
It's a great game and the closest thing to an Interplay Fallout 3 we will see for some time. It had serious bugs all over the place but I still love it and am more than happy with it.
The Wasteland universe has a lot of potential and I can't wait for Wasteland 3 especially since Fallout 4 failed to deliver an RPG.
Wasteland 2 represents one of the first major successes of Kickstarter. It's certainly not 100% perfect, but it is definitely the right direction. And if you are looking for a post-apocalyptic RPG franchise, it's pretty much the only one right now because Fallout is now Borderlands.
Yeah, I still need to get round to finishing it tbh, I kinda stopped off after the first part or so.
It has that "Fallout Edge" but it's still its own thing, which I like.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing more Wastelands.
Yeah, I still need to get round to finishing it tbh, I kinda stopped off after the first part or so.
It has that "Fallout Edge" but it's still its own thing, which I like.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing more Wastelands.
One of the criticisms of it is that the first half of the game plays very slow compared to the second half. Once you get to the second half of the game it starts to open up a lot more.
Well, if you agree with me, good games are timeless and no matter how long since its release it will always be relevant and, if the developers are really THAT good, then people, individually/by their personal experience, would keep finding new things, whether it's 5 or 10 years. Dark Souls 1? Still relevant up until this day, still talked about as if it's just released yesterday, as if there's still something to discover after 5+ years. Heck, from what I've heard, Demon's Souls is still alive! Well, kind of.
Compare that to Fallout 1 & 2, and how they fare today. While they were certainly made with whatever technology can provide for gaming that day, they could be easily introduced to modern audience via patches and mods, official or not. Did you see people who started from 4, immediately after they've finished, immediately boot up Fallout 1 to see why it's such popular in the gaming world? Or hell, maybe at least look it up/do research on them? Well, maybe there is, or maybe not at all, especially considering most of FO4's target audience obviously play on consoles, BUT! No matter what patches and mods used to make Fallout 1 & 2 up to today's technical standard, they obviously are playable on cheap rig, so there's no excuse for those calling themselves 'fans' but only played 3/NV/4 and then went on to say the originals looks 'outdated'/'not relevant'.
Undertale, no matter how indie/niche it is, there's a reason why people get hyped up, calling it a must to play if you're a gamer, and even (dare) to name it 'BEST GAME EVER'. Its use of its chosen systemic gameplay mechanic, coupled with simple yet 'just right' level design, and its narrative and how it was presented, make it a one of a kind experience that showcased that, video games are indeed a form of art, that while it's obviously not the best game ever, I would call it a good game that would stand the test of time and will be just as relevant 10 years later as it was when it's first released. Yet, again, it's not for everyone. There bound to be some who just can't get into the gameplay, get bored by the presentation, or just can't get the narrative, but you see that even the game managed to topple down the top rated game on Metacritic one time, and still sits at Overwhelmingly Positive rating on Steam, and certainly one of the many hallmark of 2015 releases among the Witcher 3, Metal Gear Solid 5, Bloodborne, and etc etc.
While you argue that New Vegas kind of a win-win situation, it was actually boggled down by Bethesda's shitty engine and dumbass decision made for Fallout 3. I wouldn't talk about it here, since you should have seen many discussion about this here, and also in the Codex. Basically, there are some who argued that New Vegas aren't 100% proper sequel to Fallout 1 & 2, so there IS some among even the older fans who aren't 100% happy with New Vegas.
As for Fallout 4, eh it's obvious they wanted to look for as many new audience as possible. I mean, have you seen that screenshot where, the character are looking at a locked door, and then there'e three (3!) notification pop-ups notifying that the door is locked? What the fuck? I take that as they wanted the game to be played by those who have never played video games, and there IS a lot of people who fulfill that criteria.
Bethesda is trying to alienate every fan of Fallout 1, 2, 3, and New Vegas and replace them with casual FPS fans. It's the only explanation I can come up with for the direction of Fallout 4. It's like they took an MMO and made it singleplayer offline mode.
Add to that Sims/Minecraft's and Borderlands's fans, and also people who have never even played video games their whole life. Really, it baffles me to no end.
Yeah, but thing is, there rarely any Bethesda fans who can do that, let alone willing to talk or argue about video games and game design, and quite a lot doesn't even bother to know game design! Of course, there is still Tagaziel who love Fallout 4, but he's rarely online and actively participate.
I'm going to quote myself here on the other thread.
I think it's simple. For the most part, it's obvious they haven't played video games at all to be adequately informed on topics like game design, and also design principles/philosophy. Even if they do have played video games before, it's obvious they haven't played enough or at least haven't tried any of the previous entry (to the point of blatantly stated they are 'outdated', thus lack of awareness that, and I quote RangerBoo's signature, "Good games are like fine wine. They taste better with age.") If you carefully observed, most of average Bethesda's fans can only throw words like 'immersive', 'fun', 'I still enjoy it', 'You just don't like change!', and 'It's still a good game, though', even as their opposition gave many case point that rooted in game designs and its' principles, which is objective. The first 3 statement are obviously subjective, and to state that would only waste their own time, especially since they didn't at all contribute to the discussion. The 4th statement is absolutely retarded, and the 5th statement need actual backup and legit argument because calling something 'Good' is objective. Of course, it become subjective should the speaker adds, '....for me.' and everybody would be fine.
I mean, okay, nobody is trying to invalidate their enjoyment and the fact that they had fun, heck people here sometimes admitted they still have some fun, but the mindless kind of fun and that's not what they were looking for in a Fallout game. However, if you want to call something good, you have to bring legit, sound argument to the table. Heck, the other day I was taking a look at the comment section for YouTube video (I really need to stop doing that, for my own good) of NMA for Van Buren. There's this guy who were 'glad this didn't work out', and how Bethesda buying the IP was a good move for the 'community'. Arguments ensued, and then there's an apologist for the comment's OP, saying how 'this is the internet, no one is allowed to enjoy things they enjoy'. Fucking hypocrite didn't notice OP has stated, 'glad Van Buren didn't work out' which obviously means OP didn't want to allow the actual community to enjoy things they enjoy.
Of course, none of what I've said here would change anything, since the target audience of Bethesda are massive, and there's actively rabid fanboy (not generalizing here, I noticed there's always that one guy, especially on YouTube) that would try to just do anything to invalidate legit arguments as 'opinion', to the point that Gopher and even TotalBiscuit has to stop and say, "But it's still a good game" for (what I saw as) fear of dislikes, and for the internet dislikes and downvotes would mean shit.
Still, I see where you are coming from. I'm relatively new to Fallout franchise and this site, yet I'm already tired talking about Bethesda, their games, and their fans. There's also the factor of new members not realizing their newly made thread are topics that have been discussed to death, and older/regular members can't help but reply.
Well, at least thanks to the Codex we've got plenty of new stuff to look forward to, and then there's the upcoming NMA's podcast (WITH CHRIS AVELLONE!), and also NMA's Fallout PnP project.
Definitely, but they should bring Wasteland back to its roots a bit more.
Free travel from the start with no radiation clouds that prevent us from going further before we get plot device that allows us to proceed further. I also want to be able to climb again and use things like rope. I also want it to be more colourful. Wasteland 2 had some colour to it, sure. But it still felt very typically drab in its colour palette. Too realistic I suppose? I mean, fine, Wasteland 1 had to make use of limited extremely screaming colours and maybe it was a limitation for its time but I think it really cemented what Wasteland was about for me.
I'm down for more Wasteland at least, if Fallout is to remain in its weird purgatory state. I looked at W2 as less of a "fallout" game and simply as a Wasteland sequel, which is what Wasteland 2 is. Going into it with that mindset was how I enjoyed it, since the setting and tone is just different. It follows what happens after the first, but obviously in an isometric format the second time around - I had a lot of fun with the turn-based battles too. Its just a shame there may never be a turn-based game like it with the very different tone of Fallout.
Wastlenad 2 cannot be served as Fallout game since Fallout is not your average post-apoc wild wasteland game which sadly WL2 kinda (and bethesda games 110%) is but a game with a little more thorough writing and world development. I even find The Witcher 3 more suitable and comparable game.
I'm in a horrible no man's land where I'm notably more forgiving to FO4 than the guys here are but notably more critical than the Bethesda fans are. Could say I'm on a bit of a
I joined this forum right now, after seeing this topic, after lurking on and off for quite a while.
I'm pretty much in the same boat - I played Morrowind, thought "Wow, this is great, I can't wait for to see what other games this company makes!". So when I heard they were making a post-apocalyptic game, I was pretty intrigued. I played Fallout 3 (after waiting for the GOTY edition because Morrowind kept crashing all the time, so I figured they'd be able to fix the bugs this time. They didn't.) and it was pretty fun. Then, I played NV, and loved it, due to it having something 3 didn't - competent writers. So after that, I went back and played 2 and 1, and they were great, but after playing Skyrim I was a little sceptical about 4 - but I preordered it for the sweet art book. When I played it, it was... Acceptable enough. But after a while I realised that the gameplay was not fun and repetitive, the main character was an absolute idiot, and the game felt devoid of any personality. The WW dlc was just shite, and it felt the total opposite of 3's DLC, which were at the very least crafted with care, but WW was just shat out and ignored. Far Harbour was pretty good, and much better than the base game. I thought this meant the next DLC's were going to be better.
But wow. What the hell is this? The trailer camerawork looks like it's out of some not particularly good machinima, the ideas are either stolen from mods or just baffling. Why are there pillories? Does that fit the theme of machinery? Who needs sorting machines? Did they get some intern to make this during development and just now remember it? Why does this cost money?
I never really expected any future Bethesda game to be as good as Morrowind, but I at the very least expected them to be competent.
