Wasteland 3 announced, crowdfunding campaign to start on 5th of October

CaptJ said:
I haven't played Wasteland 2 so what was particularly wrong with it? It and the other Fallout inspired games doesn't seem like it is meant for me. So what is missing?
I don't want a one-to-one copy of Fallout but what is exactly missing.
Click to expand...

People went into the game expecting Fallout and it's not a Fallout game, it is very much a sequel to Wasteland. It's also primarily combat focused and combat is very XCOM lite. There are logic issues with some of the choices that are presented. It's also buggy. If you can look past all that and gauge your expectations, you will have a lot of fun.
 
Last edited:
Not feeling the multiplayer part at all. I'm sure it's a cool concept and can be fun, but for a game of this scale and this budget (ie rather small), implementing something like that obviously detracts from other areas. The co-op aspect of Divinity: Original Sin was fine since it was a core concept of the game and they made it work just as well for single player. I guess we'll see if the same is true for Wasteland 3.
 
On the subject of WL3 though, I'm quite sure that *more* console-ization and the addition of more (now-mandatory-in-all-games) crafting and base building features will not make it a better game, but will probably be great for sales. All they need is some survival horror features, zombies, and an over-the-shoulder cam, and it'll be just like every other game.

I'm not sure I 100% agree with the WL2 bashing, but it wasn't entirey made of win, and the special edition's console-first-PC-as-afterthought attitude is clear right down to the still-not-patched perfmance issues on PC. (I'm told this only affects PCs with the not-very-popular "nVidia" accelerated graphics, so I see why they don't care). Many of the areas were very large and yet somehow empty of life and things to do, and in the absence of Fallout style dark irony it needed stronger storytelling to be truly captivating. I like it just fine, but it's a slow mover and I never seem to get into a replay, as it feels like there are few surprises left to be had.

So, there it is. I've finally admitted to myself that WL2 doesn't have much replay value. Denial is an ugly word.
 
I think for many people a big problem was the combat in the game, which was well to say it simply, not very deep when you're used with games like JA2, Xcom and other turn based games. Now, gameplay isnt everything, but why does a game released in 2014, offer you a worse combat, with some questionable design decisions, leaving out some very great options which have been used alreay 25 years ago by turn based games. W2s combat really lacked some debth from what I can tell.
 
Crni Vuk said:
I think for many people a big problem was the combat in the game, which was well to say it simply, not very deep when you're used with games like JA2, Xcom and other turn based games. Now, gameplay isnt everything, but why does a game released in 2014, offer you a worse combat, with some questionable design decisions, leaving out some very great options which have been used alreay 25 years ago by turn based games. W2s combat really lacked some debth from what I can tell.
Click to expand...
and lack of engine optimization, seriously wasteland 2 was made huge amount of kickstarter money than even DOS, but so far DOS engine by larian completely outperformed it be optimization, modding or graphic alone.

maybe the shit that have plagued AAA also now turn into indiegaming particulary those that being funded by kickstarter. ever since kingdom deliverance is announced to be published by deep silver, i doubt of that game being successful
 
Not gonna lie, I'm pretty stoked. Yeah yeah, Wasteland 2 had its flaws, and some pretty major ones too, but on the whole it was a pretty cool game. Some areas were terribly underdeveloped, some choices felt forced, some factions were one dimensional, bugs were encountered, but on the whole I've enjoyed myself playing it.

Also, shrinking the game down to about fifty hours of gameplay shouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I feel like some portions of WL2 seemed to stretch on for too long without any meaningful action. Cutting on the filler would have done the game a lot of good, I think.

As for the fancy new features, I'm curious how it all pans out. I'm not gonna cry wolf just yet.

Like I said, I'm looking forward to it, gonna play the shit out of it, and see what's what then. I'm actually quite interested in the co-op thing but I don't have gaming buddies. :(
 
Lexx said:
It really doesn't, imo. Nothing I've seen so far is touching me. Not a fan of this zoom-in either.
Click to expand...


Agreed.
It's not looking bad, but I see very little reason for cinematic, fully-voiced dialogue, especially in a party-based RPG where characterization through dialogue is usually minimal since, by rule of thumb, you can't really define 6 different characters that way.
I'd have much rather seen that money poured into other aspects of this game, but I guess new crowd needs to be attracted too.
On the other hand I have 0 intention of donating any money to this, so I don't care really. Will pick it up on GoG/Steam when it's dirt cheap.
 
Well, I agree that the close-up dialogue seems unnecessary, what I meant was that I liked the graphics basically. Very nice environment, good detail and good animations. Maybe I was just shocked since Wasteland 2 looked like ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top