The combat in Arcanum is still better Than wasteland 2
Since when? Because it have more choices? While do I agree in the terms of choice, Arcanum's combat is shit and so unbalanced, a lvl 1 necromancer spell ( Harm, IIRC) can kill almost anything in the game and that things that it not kills, Mutt ( the dog) probably will. I mean,why bother learning new spells? Just get Harm and spend the rest on stats and you are too good to go to the rest of the game and if you get the right companions, the game becomes ridiculous.
The only ''Harm'' that I have come across in Wasteland 2 till now was Vulture's Cry sniper, when she hits ( and most of the time doesn't kill the enemy in 1 or 2 shots, like Harm, but it does a good amount of damage)
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.
I don't know how the AG Center route goes ( since I picked Highpool) but the raider camp is the HQ of the same raiders that attacks Highpool, if you pick Highpool you know who they are in the second you set foot ( or get hit by a bullet). I don't know how you get this information if you save AG Center first, but, considering that Highpool is being attacked by raiders and there is a camp nearby, you can connect the dots to know that those people aren't up for a conversation, especially when their leader has a jackhammer for an arm and you are finding Synths through the wasteland.
Fallout Tactics discussion...
Of course Fallout Tactics will have a deeper combat, it has Tactics in it's name, it must live up to that, sadly it doesn't live up to the Fallout part on it's own title. As already mentioned, in Tactics, while you have X ways to resolve it and the levels are open, it just stays there. You kill what you need to kill and save the guys you didn't kill. While in Wasteland 2 you have a mediocre combat but after it, you save people, help the town, fix this or that, etc. Even if the are kill this/ fetch this mission, it's a lot more of story than Tactics.
I found the story in Fallout Tactics to be more engaging and relatable than anything I have seen in Wasteland 2.
In Fallout Tactics People act more like real people, the orginisation I work for seem to focus on the important things at hand.
Aham, senta lá Claudia. I mean,seriously? Tactics have a crap story and, hell, it's cliched as Wasteland 2. You practically save the region from a robot army. While the Brotherhood wasn't getting in it's decline ( aka FO3), the start was here, when they started recruiting natives. Oh, I know they are different chapter and they are still, hum, ''mean'' but hey, Fo3's Brotherhood did the same thing, without the ''mean'' part. There is a reason that FT is considered semi cannon, why? Well, you should take my word for it.
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.
Why? Where is your backup statements that his is speaking gibberish, let's not make this a MSN conversation or I just need to take your word for it? With these statements you are turning yourself into a troll.
Arcanum and it's combat
The Arcanum combat statement was meant as a personal preference.
But Arcanum combat is better in my opinion because of reasons that have been discussed in great length and details earlier in this thread.
You can skip or run past a lot of the combat in arcanum, and the combat can be over very fast. You also have a lot of different choices in what sort of combat character you have.
I agree that Arcanum combat is not the greatest ever seen. But combat is not telling a story in Arcanum, but rather characters.
In Wasteland 2, combat is telling a story, and not well at all.
Also this discussion is not about the quality of Arcanum as a video game
Wasteland 2 raider camp
The raider camp I am talking about is the Wreckers camp (Or what ever they are called.) It is sort of a circular designed video game level, that is made up of cars and makeshift scaffolding. There is no obvious water source of food production. I guess they just steal those things.
There is no opportunity to talk with the wreckers at their camp, but just another pointless combat scene about a foe I know nothing about or care about.
It just seems like a wasted opportunity for cool characters, quests, storylines, neat visuals and locations.
Fallout Tactics, and tell me that I have fun the wrong way.
Fallout Tactics tells a story through combat and a supporting cast of characters. While Fallout Tactics might not be an open world masterpiece of an RPG, but I still find that Fallout Tactics have done it's RPG elements more interesting than what is seen in Wasteland 2.
There are fun and varied ways to do a combat scenario in Fallout Tactics, and you are told why you are in combat and why it is important, maybe even some backstory on the foe you are fighting.
It even have choice and consequence, an element that is important for an RPG world to feel real and believable. While the choice and consequence is not very nuanced in Fallout Tactics, it still effect the player directly, and make you feel like you did a difference, because you did.
Shooting the Ghouls or not? Gain or lose the opportunity to get Ghouls on your Roster. Kill or save the death claws. Help the super mutants. Simple, but you feel, see and experience the fruits of your labour.
In Wasteland 2 you get the choice to save AG center(The place that provides the ranger organization with food) or save Highpool (The place that provides the ranger organization with clean drinking water)
I chose to save AG center, I went over to Highpool after, and the place was trashed. Really cool. But it have had no consequence (other than graphically) The rangers should have died of thirst by now.
But no, they have that watercooler at the office with infinite water. It would be really cool and interesting if I had to get the rangers a new source of water ASAP. It would be something I would care about
and could relate to.
Yes, I find the Fallout Tactics story and events engaging.
You start out as a tribe or just some nobody civilian dude. It seems you are drafted into the military organization. You are told that even your equipment is worth more than you are.
You can really project yourself into this guy/girl. You start on a new scary job, and you better do well.
So the first mission start out with the brotherhood helping out a tribal community. They do this because they do not produce food or manpower themselves. So in exchange for that, the brotherhood will provide protection and medical help.
You get to speak a little with the tribbles, you even get to very briefly talk with a raider.
You then spend the next couple of missions murdering raiders by the truckload to keep precious farming communities and manpower safe.
You get to speak with a raider double agent, you get to speak with different raiders(or at least have them tell you something before the murdering continues)
You even find something that nods to the main plot of the game.
We then get to what might be the "weakest" foe, least interesting, or just there to have something different.
The beast men.
So you murder you way through beastmen and bugs.
You get to see a thriving towns and its inhabitants in the wasteland. You get to meet ghouls. You get to see pre war tech and acquire important pre war tech for the brotherhood. You get to speak with Deathclaws.
and so on with the super mutants, robots, pre war tech, political satire, robots, vault zero, human eradication, neat locations, creepy visuals, characters we care about get in trouble.
All told through a fun and interesting combat system that gets a supporting cast of neat characters throughout.
Also this is not a discussion about the quality of Fallout Tactics as a video game
Backup statements, and gibberish.
There have been an ongoing discussion about the combat in Wasteland 2 and weather the game should be called RPG or combat game.
The box might say RPG, but that does not change the hugh amount of combat right from the beginning of the game.
I was told that
"It's preposterously unfair to judge the combat of Wasteland, an RPG, exclusively against the combat of a tactical game,"
(The tactical game being Fallout Tactics.)
So I replied with the following:
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="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Nzjs2tze4Jo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" style="font-size: 13.3333339691162px; font-style: italic; -webkit-box-shadow: none !important; border-top-left-radius: 0px !important; border-top-right-radius: 0px !important; border-bottom-right-radius: 0px !important; border-bottom-left-radius: 0px !important; background-color: rgb(68, 68, 68);"></iframe>
After my reply, the very first line that was replied to me was:
"Yeah, now I'm sure you're just a troll."
That is not insightfull. That is not reading the reply or asking about clarifications about statements that might have been unclear to it's purpose and meaning.
The next line of the reply.
"How does any of what you just posted justify holding the combat in Wasteland 2 to a higher standard than virtually every classic CRPG?"
Well that was just explained, and I am not holding the combat in Wasteland 2 to a higher standard.
Nothing insightful here, just disregarding the detailed reply.
Ask about clarification on something specific if I was unclear or wrote something badly.
The next line of the reply
"What is your argument at this point, anyway?"
So the guy does not know what the argument is about, but joins in anyway.
The argument is about; A big chunk of Wasteland 2 is combat and I am using Fallout tactics an example of combat done well in these types of video games, because of 'what I replied'.
"
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 he whould have bother to read the discussion he is joining in on, he would know.
As Wasteland 2 stands right now, yes it should be more like Fallout Tactics or a game of that nature, because(explained many times by now) A big chunk of the game is combat and what was just explained in the reply.
And not because they "dared"(what?) to use the word Rangers and "featured guns".(that was explained in the reply)
To Soldatmesteren,
Tell you what: I'm calmer now than I was this morning. I shouldn't have been so quick to call you a troll, and I apologize for that.
You keep insisting that I'm not reading or not understanding your posts. I believe I am, and that I simply disagree. In the interest of advancing meaningful discussion and resolving this apparent impasse, I would like to try an activity with you: I will put your argument about Wasteland 2's combat into my own words, and give you the chance to correct any misunderstandings you see. Afterwords, you can do the same with my argument, and maybe our points of view can try to converge a little bit, fair?
Here goes: I believe you want Wasteland to support, and perhaps even require through encounter design, turn-based combat that uses more tactical options. You believe the combat is bad because it does not have enough of these options currently.
Is that correct? Tell me where I'm misinterpreting your point of view.
What makes Wasteland 2 an RPG and JA 2 not RPG?
We actually
just had a thread about the definition of an RPG. In short, I feel the major defining characteristic of a role playing game is the ability to make meaningful choices within the context of your character and the larger game world.
In Wasteland 2 there a lot of situations where the player can make choices about how to proceed. Some of them are explicit, like the choice to save Highpool or Ag Center, and some are less explicit, like how you deal with the bandits at the radio tower. In some cases, the choices won't be available to every player because they simply may not possess the right combination of skills. That's a good thing because -- to paraphrase Gizmojunk -- the player character(s) should be the player's sole means of interacting with the game world in an RPG. It's also possible to have choices that are not very meaningful. Weapon selection is one I would typically put in that category, because killing a raider with a rifle and killing a raider with an axe both amount to killing the raider.
Now, I will confess that I have not spent very much time with JA2 at all. It simply isn't my cup of tea, so maybe it has more of these elements than I give it credit for.
I write page up and page down, and it can be frustrating or confusing if other pople does not understand the sentences and words 100% the way I do (which is understandable)
That is why I would like anyone that is confused about what I write, to try and ask a question about specifics, so I can clarify.
By encounter design I assume you mean Random encounters on the world map?
I don't care about the random encounters in one way or another.
What I would like is: I find the combat not very good, so tone down the amount of forced combat. Being able to go through the game with a diplomatic character would be fantastic.
If not toning down the amount of forced combat, I would like to see the combat and the level design changed, since the two of them will effect each other.
So what games do I know of this nature, that have done combat very well? Fallout Tactics as an answer to that question.
Bottom line is, there is a lot of combat in Wasteland 2, that would be fine if the combat was more interesting.
And I have in previous posts tried to describe what makes combat interesting to me.
Primarily the weaponry and the maneuvering of squaddies.
I understand that it says RPG on the box, and that inxile might have set out to make an RPG video game. But they made one where the most rudimentary tactical combat takes up a big chunk of the game.
Also at the steam store where they try to advertise this game, literally 50% of the pictures is about combat.
Also, for anyone that thinks I am here to tell anyone they are wrong for having enjoyed Wasteland 2, that was not my goal.
I was disappointed in the game, and I found the positive reviews of the game, fake. (just because it says Wasteland 2 and Brian Fargo kickstarter on the box)
And it have been a very interesting discovery to find out what I was really disappointed about.
What I would like, is; I come with negative critique, and I come under intense scrutiny about presenting evidence and basis for this critique.
I would like to see the same rules apply to people that says they enjoyed the game and gives it positive critique.
Because I don't understand exactly why so many people seem to think this is a great game, and I might never understand.
But it is interesting to me, what exactly made this such a damn good game for some people.
I think this discussion have reached it's conclusion, people wanted to know what I did not like about the game, other than "disappointing" or "hate it". And it blew out of proportion, and there should now be some fairly in depths answers to why I am disappointed with the game through out the thread.
wouldn't that be great? And inspiring more informed debates about the merits of any given game...
