Wasteland 3 - Alpha & New Trailer

[Mr Fish]

Decided to go back and pay attention to more things and yeah I don't think I'll buy it unless the UI, HUD and Aimed Shot changes or gets a mod to change it. The HUD and Aimed Shot especially; That does not look postapocalyptic at all. It looks like the usual neon futurism bullshit. It's like you took a pre-existing game and created a Wasteland 2 TC mod in it but certain base aspects cannot be changed (or you as the modder cannot change them).

Also, why does the inventory not have a comparison option for weapons?

Why does the inventory lack a sorting and grouping feature?

Why is junk back in the game, it is literally meaningless junk who's sole purpose is to act as a middleman towards gaining currency in a transparent attempt in trying to trick the player into thinking that they are looting more items in the game than they actually are considering what they just looted might as well just be straight up currency in the first place?

Why can't we loot everything an enemy has on them? I didn't like this in Wasteland 2 and I don't like it here either. If someone has a shotgun and I kill that person then I expect to be able to pick up a shotgun. Hell, considering how much this fucking game loves junk you can give me a broken shotgun that implies it got hit when I shot him. "Oh but what about the balance", fuck the balance. That is something that I think is straight up immersion breaking.

Seen the world map in action now. Why? Just, why? Why does developers hate old things? Why can't we just have a nice map? Why does everything have to be changed for the sake of change? Just... Why?



And now for some things that I like.

I like the usage of electronics, that X goes to Y. If done right it could add in a new element of gameplay functionality into the game in ways of navigating around or utilizing traps or defenses or even shutting down enemy defenses.

I also like that enemies don't go hostile right away but that there is an icon that shows over the PC's head that indicates how long until the enemy goes "hang on a minute, that's target practice!"

I actually like that only the action points they actually have show up in a characters HUD so if you got 6 then only 6 shows up.

Everyone shares the inventory, I dunno how I feel about this one. On one hand it doesn't make any sense and removes an aspect of micro management but on the other hand do I even like that micromanagement? I think this is one of those streamlines that for a party of up to 7 characters I'm fine with. Depends on how much it'll clutter.


- - -

Hm, so Perception is no longer a skill and is instead a feature off of the Awareness stat.

 

[mef]

man, the first-person dialog looks really bad

 

[Gizmojunk]

man, the first-person dialog looks really bad

Not if you view the game —as— Fallout 3.
(Because the recent Wasteland games are about as close as we'll ever get.)

Sure, I would have preferred this:

But it actually looks like a decent Fallout 3 —the way Bethesda should have done it.

Recall:

 

[Mr Fish]

The thing about talking heads is that they are a bonus to me. If the rest of the game is great AND it has talking heads, then that's awesome. If the game is lackluster though, and it has talking heads, then it makes me wonder if the rest of the game could have been improved upon had they not wasted their time on the talking heads.

I'll need to see just how the RPG mechanics, quests, choice and consequence and reactivity works before I can judge that tho'.

Oh and I don't like the way the stat system works. The reason why I love Fallout's 1-10 stat system is because 5 is average. Anything above is more than average and anything less than 5 is less than average. So I can interpret a character from a film or whatever and ask "what would this characters SPECIAL be?" And then try to recreate it. But Fallout's stat system gave you 40 points. Wasteland doesn't give you enough stat points so I have no idea what the average is. It just looks gamey. Lika a min/max system rather than a roleplaying system. I can't roleplay if the stats are only enough for a min/max performance. And the question is, if I do not min/max then will the game be balanced for poor characters or will I get my teeth kicked in? It's fine in Fallout as you don't have to engage in combat a lot. But Wasteland is combat focused so, yeah. What's the point in aping Fallout's stat system if you're not going to commit?

 

[TheGM]

Hell I still need to play wasteland 2. I just need to brush up what is and what isn't a useful stat.

 

[The_Proletarian]

Hell I still need to play wasteland 2. I just need to brush up what is and what isn't a useful stat.

This guide is very helpful https://forums.inxile-entertainment.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14630

 

[mef]

Not if you view the game —as— Fallout 3.
(Because the recent Wasteland games are about as close as we'll ever get.)

wasteland is wasteland, the two series don't really have that much in common. as for fallout 3, there's resurrection, nevada and sonora is on its way

 

[Gizmojunk]

wasteland is wasteland, the two series don't really have that much in common.

Riiigght.... sure....

Spoiler

______
Fallout was an unofficial [albeit accidental] homage to Wasteland; it even mentions it on the box.

But this is aside from the point; which is that Wasteland 2 plays very closely to Fallout Tactics. It is a poor sequel to Wasteland, but is essentially the best —unofficial— Fallout 2 [or FO:Tactics] sequel made to date. Now with WL3 effectively imitating the Fallout art style, and the gist of its gameplay(s)... It should be obvious that we are seeing [the] Fallout 3—at least within the bounds of what's legal in the US for an unlicensed release.

Had Bethesda released this WL3 as the mechanical framework of their Fallout 3 —instead of using Oblivion for that... then they would have delivered a proper (enough) sequel, and saved themselves much enmity.

 

[mef]

Fallout was an unofficial [albeit accidental] homage to Wasteland; it even mentions it on the box.

i know that but look how the both series have developed - would you say that wasteland 2 and fallout 2 are anything like each other gameplay-wise? even wasteland 1 and fallout 1 weren't alike for that matter. they are similar when it comes to setting, tone etc. (especially the first fallout was heavily inspired by wasteland in that matter) but i see them as two separate series. i also think that wasteland 2 was a proper sequel to the first one despite many people being afraid that wasteland 2 will be a poor man's fallout 3

 

[Gizmojunk]

i also think that wasteland 2 was a proper sequel to the first one despite many people being afraid that wasteland 2 will be a poor man's fallout 3

How so?

• It discarded the combat mechanics
• It reduced the number of player characters [*My mistake; I was thinking of Bard's Tales here]
• It essentially plays like Fallout Tactics
  • Great game, poor sequel
  • Same can be said of FO3—but not if it had played like WL2 or 3.

As for a poor being a man's Fallout 3... it IS the the closest thing on the market to being a proper Fallout 3;
(even though it radically differs from the series).

 

[Mr Fish]

• It reduced the number of player characters

It didn't reduce the number of player characters.
You create 4 and then recruit 3. Just like in Wasteland 1.
WL1 had 14 recruitables. WL2 has 18. Granted, I think 3 of them are spares in case one of your main party dies and Angela is only secondary so it might just be 14 proper. If so, then that's equal to WL1.

• It essentially plays like Fallout Tactics

Here's the thing, WL1 was so old that if it was to be modernized then its gameplay had to change a bit. However in WL 1 you can move around your characters, you have distance modifiers, you can split your party up and move different directions and you can do the usual reload and shoot and everything. All of this is in WL2 as well. The only difference is that in WL1 all turns play out at the same time. And while this would have been interesting to see in WL2, a system where you decide each action and then watch everything play out for 5-10 seconds, it is still a turn-based system. And WL2 simply offers a turn based system that might be more appropriate for something that isn't strictly text, which WL1's combat was.

As to the rest of the game? No. Tactics has a mission based structure. WL2 does not. It has a relative linearity to its narrative progression but unless you decide to speedrun WL1 and follow its story appropriately then you'll be going along the a to be to c there as well. In Tactics you return to base after each mission to be given the next and stock up. In Wasteland 2 you only return a few times when it is narratively appropriate.

Wasteland 1 had mountains you could not cross. As does WL2.
It had radiation that locked you out of exploring certain sections, as does WL2.
Tactics has neither of these things. It just has a map border.

In Tactics you also have a main character where if they die the game ends. WL1 and 2 has 4.

There are things in WL1 not present in WL2, and I don't like that those were cut and I do miss the way that WL1 was designed but it is such an old game that if they wanted to bring it back they'd have to modernize it in some ways. I however do not think Tactics plays the same way as Wasteland 2.

 

[Gizmojunk]

It didn't reduce the number of player characters.
You create 4 and then recruit 3. Just like in Wasteland 1.

You are right.
(I was remembering Bards Tale [6 PCs], not Wasteland; still a bummer, but not a fault.)

Here's the thing, WL1 was so old that if it was to be modernized then its gameplay had to change a bit.

If you have to change the formula that much, it's not worth (or particularly accurate) calling it a sequel. If it won't sell as a sequel, then it's better not to make it as one.

The only difference is that in WL1 all turns play out at the same time.

That is a very big deviation.

And while this would have been interesting to see in WL2, a system where you decide each action and then watch everything play out for 5-10 seconds, it is still a turn-based system. And WL2 simply offers a turn based system that might be more appropriate for something that isn't strictly text, which WL1's combat was.

Wasteland and Bard's Tale were not turn based. Turn based has turns in it, and it allows the player(s) to make their choice of action with the knowledge of what has come before their turn; and to estimate what may come after it.

Both Wasteland and Bard's Tale were phase based. Where the party members each declare an intent, and then this tries to play out during the round. The actions are not in linear order, the PC might intend to attack an enemy that has already died, or heal a party member that is dead or gone —wasting their action; this doesn't happen in a turn based game. The player cannot decide an action based upon what has already transpired—they never get a turn.

**In Fallout did you ever skip a turn because your intended target died before you could attack them? Or because Dogmeat died before you could use the stim-pak?

As to the rest of the game? No. Tactics has a mission based structure. WL2 does not.

When I played it, my ranger party was sent on a mission first thing. Then they returned, and were sent on another mission.

Wasteland 2's core mechanics play like FO:Tactics; the overland map, traversing ground during a battle, the turn mechanics. It's essentially the same game. WL3 even has the vehicles.

Wasteland 1 had mountains you could not cross. As does WL2.

...And so does Skyrim.

It had radiation that locked you out of exploring certain sections, as does WL2.

...And FO3 had bottle caps too. That doesn't mean it was the same, or used in the same way. FO3 had no barter system; it was cash [cap] sales only.

Tactics has neither of these things. It just has a map border...

There are things in WL1 not present in WL2, and I don't like that those were cut and I do miss the way that WL1 was designed but it is such an old game that if they wanted to bring it back they'd have to modernize it in some ways. I however do not think Tactics plays the same way as Wasteland 2.

This is a literal interpretation of the specifics, not the essential abstract to which I was referring.
____________

I was rather disappointed in it; and that it did not appear more similar to this:

Spoiler

 

[TheGM]

If you have to change the formula that much, it's not worth (or particularly accurate) calling it a sequel. If it won't sell as a sequel, then it's better not to make it as one.

Old Good, New Bad. Don't be that guy, Giz.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Old Good, New Bad. Don't be that guy, Giz.

I love the new, but not when it defaces the old. FO3 is a great game on it's own merit... but that merit is far removed from the Fallout series. I'll say the same for Bard's Tale 4, and even the new Wasteland sequels.

Krome's remaster of the original Bard's Tale games is inherently (and of course) closer to Bard's Tale than anything put out by InXile to date. And was selling comparably too.

InXile should have tried for a Bard's Tale crossed with Grimrock for their BT4 modernization; and not made a 'Frayed Knights' clone [under]using the unreal engine for it.

 

[TheGM]

FO3 is a great game on it's own merit...

Trolling confirmed.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Trolling confirmed.

You didn't ask what the merit was. [certainly not roleplaying]

 

[mef]

If you have to change the formula that much, it's not worth (or particularly accurate) calling it a sequel. If it won't sell as a sequel, then it's better not to make it as one.

wasteland 2 has many flaws but it did a great job converting the original 80s mechanics into modern standards, i think it perfectly balanced between making it up to date and still being wasteland. you're saying that like the gap was as huge as between F3 and F2

Wasteland and Bard's Tale were not turn based. Turn based has turns in it, and it allows the player(s) to make their choice of action with the knowledge of what has come before their turn; and to estimate what may come after it.

Both Wasteland and Bard's Tale were phase based. Where the party members each declare an intent, and then this tries to play out during the round. The actions are not in linear order, the PC might intend to attack an enemy that has already died, or heal a party member that is dead or gone —wasting their action; this doesn't happen in a turn based game.

and it's good because it sucked. what's enjoyable about the game being unfair?

You didn't ask what the merit was

there's no such merit

by the way, you said that wasteland 2 is the closest thing to fallout 3 we got. why not new vegas?

 

[Norzan]

Wasteland 2 might have done a lot of questionable stuff but it still feels and plays like an actual RPG. If Fallout 3 was in the same quality as Wasteland 2, even i would be way less harsh on it.

FO3 is a great game on it's own merit

Still have to see these supposed merits it has. Because everything you can not attribute to being a Fallout game is still a complete colossal disaster. World design, location placement, combat, shooting mechanics, enemy variety and many other things are done so poorly and are half assed.

 

[Gizmojunk]

wasteland 2 has many flaws but it did a great job converting the original 80s mechanics into modern standards

That is pointless. It did so by making it something else.

Spoiler: eg. Hazelnut based strawberry Vegemite

and it's good because it sucked. what's enjoyable about the game being unfair?

Refer to the above example—again. Saying it sucked (aside from being subjective) is saying that you want something else instead; but then why seek something you don't like. WL2 is a spinoff branded as a sequel—same with FO3, and with Bard's Tale 4.
New Vegas is also a spin-off, but it is not falsely labeled a sequel.

by the way, you said that wasteland 2 is the closest thing to fallout 3 we got. why not new vegas?

Because New Vegas is a modified version of FO3; it improves on the RPG aspect, but it still uses the same core presentation and gameplay (IE. Oblivion with Guns).

Wasteland 2's mechanics essentially play like a modified FO:Tactics. It uses a [3D] isometric view, with turn based combat. IP content aside, it could mechanically pass for a Fallout sequel with minor changes; far less than it would take do the same with FO3 or NV.

Still have to see these supposed merits it has. Because everything you can not attribute to being a Fallout game is still a complete colossal disaster. World design, location placement, combat, shooting mechanics, enemy variety and many other things are done so poorly and are half assed.

Its only Falloutish merit [IMO] is in the landscaping. Parts of the art design are okay—even spot on, but not for the time in which it is set. It looks like a few decades after the great war, not a few centuries. It's merit is in maintaining a reactive sandbox world, and servile catering to the mass-market. They didn't make it for Fallout fans; their fans never heard of the game, they read "Fallout 3" they way they read "District 9".

The gameworld itself is (i think deliberately) skewed away from what it should be—for simplicity sake; like a simplified elevator pitch. Instead of a future world with 50's aethetics, they reimagined a world based upon (and obsessed with) the 1950's. They say stupid things like that transistors never happened because of some schism in time where the society split away [from ours].

The Fallout world was set in their anticipated world of tomorrow; influenced by their fear/obsession of the nuclear age. So much so that even the physical laws appear bent to it; with radioactive goo really turning men into monsters. The technology is of the future, not built out of the past.

 

[Lexx]

it could mechanically pass for a Fallout sequel with minor changes

Uh. *major changes.
Just because it has a top-down view and turn based combat it isn't "mechanically Fallout with minor changes". Fallout is more than just that.