Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Here is the problem as I see it, the [dev] situation is similar to Sting & the Police. As a band they tempered each other to great result... as solo the results were skillful, but [IMO] usually bland.
In both cases they can't get the band back together, and probably don't want to; they are not 18-24 year'olds anymore, and their interests have diverged greatly by now... and they don't have all the members; not enough chefs to temper the mix. (...and financial/cultural reasons not to...)
Just because any one or two of them are in the kitchen, does not mean they can pull of their famous RPG souffle recipe ever again; not enough chefs to temper the mix.
Good game or not, this begs the question of, "Why is it Wasteland 2?". From what I can see, it's only the same arguments offered about FO3 being a Fallout sequel—despite everything missing from it, and the additions contrary to it.
In both cases they can't get the band back together, and probably don't want to; they are not 18-24 year'olds anymore, and their interests have diverged greatly by now... and they don't have all the members; not enough chefs to temper the mix. (...and financial/cultural reasons not to...)
Just because any one or two of them are in the kitchen, does not mean they can pull of their famous RPG souffle recipe ever again; not enough chefs to temper the mix.
I can see this side of it... and it's been often the same with FO3 players being pulled in by the Bethesda game.
My view of it has always been, But what is it they are liking? If one gives a young child chocolate milk, and calls it lemon-aid, they assume they like lemon-aid. Most aspects of Fallout are absent from FO3, while a great deal from Oblivion are present in it.
*It really is Oblivion with guns, that's not just a joke. It's Oblivion reskinned with the Fallout pelt. That doesn't make it a bad game, but it doesn't make it Fallout either.
My view of it has always been, But what is it they are liking? If one gives a young child chocolate milk, and calls it lemon-aid, they assume they like lemon-aid. Most aspects of Fallout are absent from FO3, while a great deal from Oblivion are present in it.
*It really is Oblivion with guns, that's not just a joke. It's Oblivion reskinned with the Fallout pelt. That doesn't make it a bad game, but it doesn't make it Fallout either.
Ah, you are right. I tend to forget about that detail; I have only played the game configured for turn based mode.
Wasteland had destructible terrain, you could choose to bypass a door for instance, by hammering through the wall. It had a very different combat mechanic; principally that the PCs commit to action, and might or might not get to act, depending upon how the fight played out. Situations changed; enemies and PCs alike could be killed or incapacitated and be unable to act; there were no turns in WL... The party members had intent for each round, but that might not play out as intended.
So this is missing in Wasteland 2 & 3; party members each may change their mind on the fly, and with perfect knowledge of what has transpired before they act. This is a strength of turn based tactical combat—but it was not part of Wasteland, and what was part of it has been stripped out.
So this is missing in Wasteland 2 & 3; party members each may change their mind on the fly, and with perfect knowledge of what has transpired before they act. This is a strength of turn based tactical combat—but it was not part of Wasteland, and what was part of it has been stripped out.
Good game or not, this begs the question of, "Why is it Wasteland 2?". From what I can see, it's only the same arguments offered about FO3 being a Fallout sequel—despite everything missing from it, and the additions contrary to it.
Last edited:
