Wasteland 2 released!

[Soldatmesteren]

Fallout Tactics should have deeper combat than Wasteland 2, since Fallout Tactics is exclusively a tactical combat game. Microforte didn't have to script complex quests, write branching dialog, or worry about player agency. Hell, they didn't even bother to learn the lore of the Fallout world. It's preposterously unfair to judge the combat of Wasteland, an RPG, exclusively against the combat of a tactical game, especially when so few RPGs, even classics, have good combat. Fallout and Fallout 2 had incredibly shallow turn-based combat. Arcanum's combat was pretty mediocre, and so was Planescape Torment's.

Wasteland 2 has overwatch (ambush), crouching, and an actual cover mechanic, all of which I've used repeatedly in the game. I've learned that relatively positioning of my Rangers is often hugely important, if I want to be able to use them to their full effect. Not every combat requires the use of the these tactics or would even benefit from them, but that would be an unreasonable expectation. The combat fares pretty well when compared to games of the same genre.

Don't get me wrong, it's a flawed game, but I do believe it's good. It's too bad that it didn't fulfill your (apparently very specific) hopes, but you seem to have come into the forum with a weird chip on your shoulder about it.

No, no it's not at all preposterously unfair to wanting a lot more from the combat in Wasteland 2. A game where you spend the majority of your time murdering things. You are a 4-6 man squad working for a military organization where the leader have the military rank of general. Furthermore the organisation is called Rangers.
In the olden days, rangers learned about ranging from the native americans and integrated that into their western style. Now they could use small teams of soldiers(rangers) to move around fast, effectively and put up resistance opposed to massive batteries of soldiers and armement that needed a lot of upkeep and decent roads or paths to move forward.

Today rangers are elite shock troops that can further specialize in different branches of the soldier trade. They can also be called upon to do unconventional warfare that regular infantry would not have the skill-set to do.

The opening live action scene is about murder.
The first thing I had to do in wasteland was go to an antenna and murder people and animals because I did not have skill points in their shallow dialog system (hard ass etc,)
Next I had to go to our food supplier and murdered creatures and people by the truck load. After that our water supplier, same story as before.
Next up I moved to a raider camp that made no sense, and murdered even more people without ever being able to speak with them.
Next up, the prison, murdering more heavily armed and fortified people without any chance of dialog.
And so on...

Ambush ability, this is laughable. Isn't an ambush supposed to take place right before an engagement begins and not during the engagement? Still, I am happy they have this overwatch ability, opposed to nothing.
Cover magically gain bonus stats, no matter what side of the cover you are on. Only selective pieces of things will infuse this magic upon you. Better then nothing I guess
Crouching. Get infused with improved stats.
Positioning, don't stand in a blob if you face AOE weapons. Stand in range. Basically irrelevant. Move you blob into aggro zone, and click attack when it is your turn.

making a game where you command a squad of heavily armed soldiers in a constantly hostile enviroment, and then being confused when the player is baffled about a very shallow combat system is:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Nzjs2tze4Jo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

Yeah, now I'm sure you're just a troll. How does any of what you just posted justify holding the combat in Wasteland 2 to a higher standard than virtually every classic CRPG? How does this justify holding the combat to a standard held by purely tactical games?

What is your argument at this point, anyway? That Wasteland 2 should have been used a tactical game instead of an RPG because they dared to use the word Rangers and featured guns? Get real.

If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of taking what I say out of context and misrepresenting my argument, you would know.

In wasteland 2 you play as a military faction.
The game constantly feature combat.
Therefore, the developer should have put more effort into that huge chunk of the game, instead of; not at all.

 

[Soldatmesteren]

When reading about Arcanum combat here... Well, Arcanum combat was pretty much "click the enemy till he dies, hope not to die from the enemy". And with high enough skill it was "pop the enemy in two or three turns, then move on with life". :>


PS: I don't think that Fallout: Tactics combat gameplay was that great either. The only tactic that I used was to hide behind a corner, switch to realtime and let the enemies run into my fire. Every once in a while I had to snipe someone from the distance, but most of the time it was corner-shooting.

What I would like to see is a game where it really matters to get your men into the right position. A game that is more about getting your men ready than the actual combat that follows. So if you are in a bad position / didn't think about the strong and weak points of your men and their weapons, the enemy would simply mow you down. Especially if they have more men than you.

Arcanum should not get any praise for it's combat. And the game tend to force combat upon you, but there is nothing stopping you for running past a lot of it.
The combat in Arcanum is still better Than wasteland 2 for reasons stated earlier. And also, if the combat in Arcanum is not that great, at least it can go very fast and will be over fast.
Instead of the obnoxious playtime Wasteland 2 offers.
Arcanums combat should by no means be used as an example how to do tactical combat very well.

If you did not like the combat in Fallout Tactics, that is fine. But at least in Fallout Tactics, you had options, you could choose your aproach. If you found an arpoach to streamline you combat, that is your choice.
And I will agree, it is not an easy task fo make great tacticle combat with firearms, because in essence, you just point the gun at something and fire.
I am still baffled by the design choices in Wasteland 2

 

[Geech]

If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of taking what I say out of context and misrepresenting my argument, you would know.

In wasteland 2 you play as a military faction.
The game constantly feature combat.
Therefore, the developer should have put more effort into that huge chunk of the game, instead of; not at all.

I read what you wrote, it's just nonsensical. Putting nonsense in the context of other nonsense is still nonsense.

Fallout Tactics is a tactical combat game, Wasteland 2 is an RPG. Comparing the combat of an RPG to a tactical combat game, as though the RPG should have the same depth, makes no sense and IS an inherently unfair comparison. When you compare Wasteland 2 combat to that of other actual RPGs, WL2 has a ton of depth.

If you didn't like it because you thought the encounter design was poor (ie the combats took too long) then that's really a different argument, isn't it?

 

[Soldatmesteren]

If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of taking what I say out of context and misrepresenting my argument, you would know.

In wasteland 2 you play as a military faction.
The game constantly feature combat.
Therefore, the developer should have put more effort into that huge chunk of the game, instead of; not at all.

I read what you wrote, it's just nonsensical. Putting nonsense in the context of other nonsense is still nonsense.

Fallout Tactics is a tactical combat game, Wasteland 2 is an RPG. Comparing the combat of an RPG to a tactical combat game, as though the RPG should have the same depth, makes no sense and IS an inherently unfair comparison. When you compare Wasteland 2 combat to that of other actual RPGs, WL2 has a ton of depth.

If you didn't like it because you thought the encounter design was poor (ie the combats took too long) then that's really a different argument, isn't it?

It is clear you did not bother to read any of it, or did not bother to understand any of it. (I don't know what your 1st language is)
Just saying things are nonesens and the other things are nonsense and that all of the things are nonsense,
makes you come off as someone that can't read, can't understand or simply choose not to understand, to promote an opinion that is not grounded in anything, other than misinformation.
If there is something you are confused by, point it out, so it can be clarified.

So let me make it very easy and superficial for you to understand.
If there is not put any substantial effort into making a big chunk of a game interesting, there will be issues.
A big chunk of Wasteland 2 is combat, and there was not put a lot of effort into making it interesting.

If you are making a video game, where any form of combat is not the focus, make the combat a seldom occurrence in the video game.

 

[mandala]

When reading about Arcanum combat here... Well, Arcanum combat was pretty much "click the enemy till he dies, hope not to die from the enemy". And with high enough skill it was "pop the enemy in two or three turns, then move on with life". :>


PS: I don't think that Fallout: Tactics combat gameplay was that great either. The only tactic that I used was to hide behind a corner, switch to realtime and let the enemies run into my fire. Every once in a while I had to snipe someone from the distance, but most of the time it was corner-shooting.

What I would like to see is a game where it really matters to get your men into the right position. A game that is more about getting your men ready than the actual combat that follows. So if you are in a bad position / didn't think about the strong and weak points of your men and their weapons, the enemy would simply mow you down. Especially if they have more men than you.

Arcanum should not get any praise for it's combat. And the game tend to force combat upon you, but there is nothing stopping you for running past a lot of it.
The combat in Arcanum is still better Than wasteland 2 for reasons stated earlier. And also, if the combat in Arcanum is not that great, at least it can go very fast and will be over fast.
Instead of the obnoxious playtime Wasteland 2 offers.
Arcanums combat should by no means be used as an example how to do tactical combat very well.

If you did not like the combat in Fallout Tactics, that is fine. But at least in Fallout Tactics, you had options, you could choose your aproach. If you found an arpoach to streamline you combat, that is your choice.
And I will agree, it is not an easy task fo make great tacticle combat with firearms, because in essence, you just point the gun at something and fire.
I am still baffled by the design choices in Wasteland 2

I have played for a few hours now, reached highpool. And from what I have played in no way or form would I say wasteland 2 was an rpg if somebody asked me.
No actual options in dialog, no choices, just go there and fetch something or kill someone, try to start the game with less skills in weapons and you are screwed, actually had to restart my game 4 times because my guys simply sucked without having a couple of points in guns. A true rpg wouldn't limit the player in that sense.
That's why I made the comparison to fallout tactics.
The graphics, the nauseating camera work, the "weak toy guns" all makes it look like a crude amateur game, not a game that took milions of dolars to make.

 

[Crni Vuk]

If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of taking what I say out of context and misrepresenting my argument, you would know.

In wasteland 2 you play as a military faction.
The game constantly feature combat.
Therefore, the developer should have put more effort into that huge chunk of the game, instead of; not at all.

I read what you wrote, it's just nonsensical. Putting nonsense in the context of other nonsense is still nonsense.

from what I can read though it seems that Wasteland 2s options in combat are relatively limited, what I am using as reference here is Jagged Alliance 2 which gave you quite a lot of options to play with.

Just saying, I am not dissing on Wasteland 2s combat, if it gets the job done, great. But I guess it could use some improvements here and there. Another really good TB game out there is Silent Storm, even if the story is really not all to awesome, it has some very interesting turn based gameplay.

 

[Geech]

from what I can read though it seems that Wasteland 2s options in combat are relatively limited, what I am using as reference here is Jagged Alliance 2 which gave you quite a lot of options to play with.

Just saying, I am not dissing on Wasteland 2s combat, if it gets the job done, great. But I guess it could use some improvements here and there. Another really good TB game out there is Silent Storm, even if the story is really not all to awesome, it has some very interesting turn based gameplay.

Jagged Alliance 2 and Silent Storm are both tactical combat games, not RPGs. Of course they have deeper tactical combat.

You know what I really dislike about Wasteland 2? You see all of these different settlements and towns in various stages of development. They have different challenges and cultures, but despite this being such a huge part of the game, the city management options are virtually nil! Sim City offered way better city management options than Wasteland 2. It seems to me that if you're going to have towns be such a big part of the game, you should make managing them interesting and fun. As things stand now, it almost feels like they didn't even want to make a city management game.

So let me make it very easy and superficial for you to understand.
If there is not put any substantial effort into making a big chunk of a game interesting, there will be issues.
A big chunk of Wasteland 2 is combat, and there was not put a lot of effort into making it interesting.

If you are making a video game, where any form of combat is not the focus, make the combat a seldom occurrence in the video game.

And I've already explained to you why your standard for making this assessment is unreasonable. You're judging the combat as uninteresting when compared to a pure combat game, and ignoring the comparisons to other RPGs. It's not inXile's fault that you want to play a tactical game instead of a RPG.

I have played for a few hours now, reached highpool. And from what I have played in no way or form would I say wasteland 2 was an rpg if somebody asked me.
No actual options in dialog, no choices, just go there and fetch something or kill someone, try to start the game with less skills in weapons and you are screwed, actually had to restart my game 4 times because my guys simply sucked without having a couple of points in guns. A true rpg wouldn't limit the player in that sense.

And you would be wrong. There are choices and options for different builds starting from the very first area of the game, in the Radio Tower. You can fight the bandits head on, or use dialog skills to avoid the combat. Or you can sneak around the flank and come through a fence to avoid the head-on assault. There are still more choices and branching paths in Ag Center, if you played through that area before reaching Highpool. There are tons of choices in the Rail Nomad camp.

The dialog did take a step back from dialog trees, but there are still distinct options.

As for starting over, the game manual warned you not to spread yourself too thin. Few RPGs not made by Bethesda let you master every skill.

 

[woo1108]

Well, he startd from "hey WL2 is hyped and I don't like it. so I think WL2 is sucks. if someone disagree with me, then he is a hyped Wasteland fanboy"
so, there was nothing to discuss at all.

 

[Geech]

Well, he startd from "hey WL2 is hyped and I don't like it. so I think WL2 is sucks. if someone disagree with me, then he is a hyped Wasteland fanboy"
so, there was nothing to discuss at all.

Yeah, I should have known better than to feed the trolls, but when I saw Fallout Tactics being mentioned like it was some kind of gold standard I got too irritated to use good judgement.

 

[Soldatmesteren]

from what I can read though it seems that Wasteland 2s options in combat are relatively limited, what I am using as reference here is Jagged Alliance 2 which gave you quite a lot of options to play with.

Just saying, I am not dissing on Wasteland 2s combat, if it gets the job done, great. But I guess it could use some improvements here and there. Another really good TB game out there is Silent Storm, even if the story is really not all to awesome, it has some very interesting turn based gameplay.

Jagged Alliance 2 and Silent Storm are both tactical combat games, not RPGs. Of course they have deeper tactical combat.

You know what I really dislike about Wasteland 2? You see all of these different settlements and towns in various stages of development. They have different challenges and cultures, but despite this being such a huge part of the game, the city management options are virtually nil! Sim City offered way better city management options than Wasteland 2. It seems to me that if you're going to have towns be such a big part of the game, you should make managing them interesting and fun. As things stand now, it almost feels like they didn't even want to make a city management game.

So let me make it very easy and superficial for you to understand.
If there is not put any substantial effort into making a big chunk of a game interesting, there will be issues.
A big chunk of Wasteland 2 is combat, and there was not put a lot of effort into making it interesting.

If you are making a video game, where any form of combat is not the focus, make the combat a seldom occurrence in the video game.

And I've already explained to you why your standard for making this assessment is unreasonable. You're judging the combat as uninteresting when compared to a pure combat game, and ignoring the comparisons to other RPGs. It's not inXile's fault that you want to play a tactical game instead of a RPG.

I have played for a few hours now, reached highpool. And from what I have played in no way or form would I say wasteland 2 was an rpg if somebody asked me.
No actual options in dialog, no choices, just go there and fetch something or kill someone, try to start the game with less skills in weapons and you are screwed, actually had to restart my game 4 times because my guys simply sucked without having a couple of points in guns. A true rpg wouldn't limit the player in that sense.

And you would be wrong. There are choices and options for different builds starting from the very first area of the game, in the Radio Tower. You can fight the bandits head on, or use dialog skills to avoid the combat. Or you can sneak around the flank and come through a fence to avoid the head-on assault. There are still more choices and branching paths in Ag Center, if you played through that area before reaching Highpool. There are tons of choices in the Rail Nomad camp.

The dialog did take a step back from dialog trees, but there are still distinct options.

As for starting over, the game manual warned you not to spread yourself too thin. Few RPGs not made by Bethesda let you master every skill.

You didn't explain anything. You just say, this is nonsense. This is wrong. This is unreasonable because I say so. Without reading what the discussion is about and its details.

I cannot make it anymore blatant for you, so you will just have to read this discussion thread.

 

[Geech]

You didn't explain anything. You just say, this is nonsense. This is wrong. This is unreasonable because I say so. Without reading what the discussion is about and its details.

I cannot make it anymore blatant for you, so you will just have to read this discussion thread.

I did explain it, sometimes using specific examples of in-game mechanics and situations. I don't know why you can't understand the argument I made. I guess, as you noted, you simply are not a very perceptive or analytical person.

 

[Soldatmesteren]

You didn't explain anything. You just say, this is nonsense. This is wrong. This is unreasonable because I say so. Without reading what the discussion is about and its details.

I cannot make it anymore blatant for you, so you will just have to read this discussion thread.

I did explain it, sometimes using specific examples of in-game mechanics and situations. I don't know why you can't understand the argument I made. I guess, as you noted, you simply are not a very perceptive or analytical person.

You have not brought any insight to the discussion at hand.
Yes I am not a very perceptive or analytical person. That is why we are discussing some very broad and big game elements here... if you haven't noticed.

This is turning into an MSN conversation, try to bring some insight, and have something to backup your statements, instead of agreeing with yourself upon what is right and wrong, then letting us about it.
You have got to read what this discussion is about.

 

[oxidize]

Jagged Alliance 2 and Silent Storm are both tactical combat games, not RPGs. Of course they have deeper tactical combat.

What makes Wasteland 2 an RPG and JA 2 not RPG?

 

[Soldatmesteren]

Jagged Alliance 2 and Silent Storm are both tactical combat games, not RPGs. Of course they have deeper tactical combat.

What makes Wasteland 2 an RPG and JA 2 not RPG?

I would think that an RPG is about the characters and the story. It uses in depths characters to tell a story.
Jagged alliance uses action/combat to tell a story.



Earlier we had a similar question, but with Age of Empires instead.
My attempt to answer it was:
"I am not sure what the definition of an RPG is, but I would not think there is any limit to the number of characters you control in an RPG. I think the word character is an important one also.

In Age of Empires you might control 100 axe men. They would be referred to as units. Just an item. An item that serves a strategic and tactical purpose, nothing more.
If each of the axe men, had distinct personality, looks and characteristics. We would get close to the roleplaying elements.
The units in Age of Empires would have to evolve beyond an Item, a tool before it would more in the direction of an RPG.

A game like Crusader Kings is both a strategy game like Age of Empires, but player seem to be more of an RPG character put into a strategy game inhabited with other characters that are put into a strategy game.

At least that is my idea about it. It is an interesting question."

 

[TorontoReign]

You didn't explain anything. You just say, this is nonsense. This is wrong. This is unreasonable because I say so. Without reading what the discussion is about and its details.

I cannot make it anymore blatant for you, so you will just have to read this discussion thread.

I did explain it, sometimes using specific examples of in-game mechanics and situations. I don't know why you can't understand the argument I made. I guess, as you noted, you simply are not a very perceptive or analytical person.

You have not brought any insight to the discussion at hand.
Yes I am not a very perceptive or analytical person. That is why we are discussing some very broad and big game elements here... if you haven't noticed.

This is turning into an MSN conversation, try to bring some insight, and have something to backup your statements, instead of agreeing with yourself upon what is right and wrong, then letting us about it.
You have got to read what this discussion is about.

You can't say he hasn't brought any insight into the conversation. He has brought up very good points that you refuse to acknowledge because you are too dense to understand. It's borderline trollish since you dismiss others arguments due to not even understanding the conversation and dodgy rational.

W2 is not a tactical combat game like Fallout Tactics. It's a RPG that has tactical combat. I can't believe you actually praised Tactics writing. Oh Tactics writing is on point, but Wasteland 2 is worse? I can't see how that is even humanely possible. Maybe you were able to overlook the raping of the lore, with some of the most poorly written shit I've seen (yes even worse than D:OS), but I couldn't. Praise Tactics for it's combat sure. Not the writing. That makes your opinion seem rather shit honestly. But I have never beat Fallout Tactics so you will have to just take my word for that. Maybe the writing got better.

To think people are defending Tactics representation of weapons is even more outrageous. Fallout was supposed to be an alternate universe. Instead Microforte bastardized the lore and tossed real world guns in and said fuck it. So now W2 is criticized for not being fucked up like Tactics? The calibers were different. The weapons were slightly similar to ours, but the course of history diverted sometime during the 50's. W2 is the same way, albeit from a different time period split. I was part of the veterans community that is listed in the W2 credits. Myself and others veterans gave our input on the game, and I do believe they took some of our suggestions, regretfully not as much as I would have liked, but I don't expect everything to be addressed right off the bat.

So we have great praise for the bastard stepchild of the Fallout series. Some used to call it Fallout Craptics, which I find rather childish, but it is generally regarded as the lesser of the 3 original Fallout games. The levels are sooooo open since the only thing you do on them is kill every fucking guy on the screen with no quests aside from rescuing others dudes you don't kill. Sure you can climb ladders and snipe people every now and again. I would expect a purely tactical game to do that. Of course more tactical options would be great, but some of this logic is flawed.

We have people saying Wasteland 2 isn't even a RPG now? Yeah I'm not sure this conversation is going anywhere.

 

[mandala]

I meant that the arms in w2 don't sound convincing at all, the sounds are bad, you can barely notice the graphical differences in them but that happens with a lot more stuff, characters faces etc.
W2 promised a lot and it failed for me, I am just disappointed. I don't understand why people are calling me a troll because I have a different opinion from them?

 

[oxidize]

So we have great praise for the bastard stepchild of the Fallout series. Some used to call it Fallout Craptics, which I find rather childish, but it is generally regarded as the lesser of the 3 greats. The levels are sooooo open since the only thing you do on them is kill every fucking guy on the screen with no quests aside from rescuing others dudes you don't kill. Sure you can climb ladders and snipe people every now and again. I would expect a purely tactical game to do that. Of course more tactical options would be great, but some of this logic is flawed.

3 what? What 3 greats?

 

[Soldatmesteren]

You didn't explain anything. You just say, this is nonsense. This is wrong. This is unreasonable because I say so. Without reading what the discussion is about and its details.

I cannot make it anymore blatant for you, so you will just have to read this discussion thread.

I did explain it, sometimes using specific examples of in-game mechanics and situations. I don't know why you can't understand the argument I made. I guess, as you noted, you simply are not a very perceptive or analytical person.

You have not brought any insight to the discussion at hand.
Yes I am not a very perceptive or analytical person. That is why we are discussing some very broad and big game elements here... if you haven't noticed.

This is turning into an MSN conversation, try to bring some insight, and have something to backup your statements, instead of agreeing with yourself upon what is right and wrong, then letting us about it.
You have got to read what this discussion is about.

You can't say he hasn't brought any insight into the conversation. He has brought up very good points that you refuse to acknowledge because you are too dense to understand. It's borderline trollish since you dismiss others arguments due to not even understanding the conversation and dodgy rational.

W2 is not a tactical combat game like Fallout Tactics. It's a RPG that has tactical combat. I can't believe you actually praised Tactics writing. Oh Tactics writing is on point, but Wasteland 2 is worse? I can't see how that is even humanely possible. Maybe you were able to overlook the raping of the lore, with some of the most poorly written shit I've seen (yes even worse than D:OS), but I couldn't. Praise Tactics for it's combat sure. Not the writing. That makes your opinion seem rather shit honestly. But I have never beat Fallout Tactics so you will have to just take my word for that. Maybe the writing got better.

To think people are defending Tactics representation of weapons is even more outrageous. Fallout was supposed to be an alternate universe. Instead Microforte bastardized the lore and tossed real world guns in and said fuck it. So now W2 is criticized for not being fucked up like Tactics? The calibers were different. The weapons were slightly similar to ours, but the course of history diverted sometime during the 50's. W2 is the same way, albeit from a different time period split. I was part of the veterans community that is listed in the W2 credits. Myself and others veterans gave our input on the game, and I do believe they took some of our suggestions, regretfully not as much as I would have liked, but I don't expect everything to be addressed right off the bat.

So we have great praise for the bastard stepchild of the Fallout series. Some used to call it Fallout Craptics, which I find rather childish, but it is generally regarded as the lesser of the 3 greats. The levels are sooooo open since the only thing you do on them is kill every fucking guy on the screen with no quests aside from rescuing others dudes you don't kill. Sure you can climb ladders and snipe people every now and again. I would expect a purely tactical game to do that. Of course more tactical options would be great, but some of this logic is flawed.

We have people saying Wasteland 2 isn't even a RPG now? Yeah I'm not sure this conversation is going anywhere.

I cannot disagree or agree with arguments that have not even been made.

You are wrong
What you say is gibberish

That is not arguments.

 

[woo1108]

So we have great praise for the bastard stepchild of the Fallout series. Some used to call it Fallout Craptics, which I find rather childish, but it is generally regarded as the lesser of the 3 greats. The levels are sooooo open since the only thing you do on them is kill every fucking guy on the screen with no quests aside from rescuing others dudes you don't kill. Sure you can climb ladders and snipe people every now and again. I would expect a purely tactical game to do that. Of course more tactical options would be great, but some of this logic is flawed.

3 what? What 3 greats?

1,2 and NV?

 

[TorontoReign]

So we have great praise for the bastard stepchild of the Fallout series. Some used to call it Fallout Craptics, which I find rather childish, but it is generally regarded as the lesser of the 3 greats. The levels are sooooo open since the only thing you do on them is kill every fucking guy on the screen with no quests aside from rescuing others dudes you don't kill. Sure you can climb ladders and snipe people every now and again. I would expect a purely tactical game to do that. Of course more tactical options would be great, but some of this logic is flawed.

3 what? What 3 greats?

My apologies. The 3 original isometric Fallouts. Sorry I didn't make that more clear. The 3 original Fallout games are often looked at fondly. Isometric, turnbased, more choice and consequences...Some might argue that only Fallout 1 was great, but I won't get into that. Fallout Tactics is in many peoples opinions the lesser of the 3 original games. Yes the tactical layer was more in depth, but there were hardly any RPG elements. I also can't say the weapons felt to my liking, so personal preference can vary. Mainly I was addressing all of these Tactics comparisons.

I place New Vegas in the great category, but we are comparing the old games and W2. Hope that clarifies a bit.

You didn't explain anything. You just say, this is nonsense. This is wrong. This is unreasonable because I say so. Without reading what the discussion is about and its details.

I cannot make it anymore blatant for you, so you will just have to read this discussion thread.

I did explain it, sometimes using specific examples of in-game mechanics and situations. I don't know why you can't understand the argument I made. I guess, as you noted, you simply are not a very perceptive or analytical person.

You have not brought any insight to the discussion at hand.
Yes I am not a very perceptive or analytical person. That is why we are discussing some very broad and big game elements here... if you haven't noticed.

This is turning into an MSN conversation, try to bring some insight, and have something to backup your statements, instead of agreeing with yourself upon what is right and wrong, then letting us about it.
You have got to read what this discussion is about.

You can't say he hasn't brought any insight into the conversation. He has brought up very good points that you refuse to acknowledge because you are too dense to understand. It's borderline trollish since you dismiss others arguments due to not even understanding the conversation and dodgy rational.

W2 is not a tactical combat game like Fallout Tactics. It's a RPG that has tactical combat. I can't believe you actually praised Tactics writing. Oh Tactics writing is on point, but Wasteland 2 is worse? I can't see how that is even humanely possible. Maybe you were able to overlook the raping of the lore, with some of the most poorly written shit I've seen (yes even worse than D:OS), but I couldn't. Praise Tactics for it's combat sure. Not the writing. That makes your opinion seem rather shit honestly. But I have never beat Fallout Tactics so you will have to just take my word for that. Maybe the writing got better.

To think people are defending Tactics representation of weapons is even more outrageous. Fallout was supposed to be an alternate universe. Instead Microforte bastardized the lore and tossed real world guns in and said fuck it. So now W2 is criticized for not being fucked up like Tactics? The calibers were different. The weapons were slightly similar to ours, but the course of history diverted sometime during the 50's. W2 is the same way, albeit from a different time period split. I was part of the veterans community that is listed in the W2 credits. Myself and others veterans gave our input on the game, and I do believe they took some of our suggestions, regretfully not as much as I would have liked, but I don't expect everything to be addressed right off the bat.

So we have great praise for the bastard stepchild of the Fallout series. Some used to call it Fallout Craptics, which I find rather childish, but it is generally regarded as the lesser of the 3 original Fallout games. The levels are sooooo open since the only thing you do on them is kill every fucking guy on the screen with no quests aside from rescuing others dudes you don't kill. Sure you can climb ladders and snipe people every now and again. I would expect a purely tactical game to do that. Of course more tactical options would be great, but some of this logic is flawed.

We have people saying Wasteland 2 isn't even a RPG now? Yeah I'm not sure this conversation is going anywhere.

I cannot disagree or agree with arguments that have not even been made.

You are wrong
What you say is gibberish

That is not arguments.

I would argue that your incomprehensible replies to many good points raised would imply that you are speaking gibberish. Aside from my clarification on what I meant by the 3 greats, I can't say it is hard to comprehend my point. Frankly I'm surprised.