Wasteland 2 - New Review @ RPGamer

Glenn Wilson of RPGamer posted his review of Wasteland 2, and gave the game a 3/5.

Herein lies the game's main problem: all the strengths come from modern gaming advancements that weren't possible in 1988; the weaknesses come from mechanics that are too simple or too archaic, inspired by the original. Overall, it's a memorable game that can drag in places, frustrate at times, and needs a major interface patch, but there's no denying that inXile went all out creating its idea of a massive dream project, even if it isn't the greatest such dream project of its time. If you're a fan of this style of game and have played the best recent releases, look behind you. Because that's where Wasteland 2 is going to be.

Click to expand...

More information.

Harsh words and low score. This isn't action RPG made by AAA studio on $40-50 million budget. The game has it's charm and still a bit of bugs but as a new old school game is great. It's a niche game that's not going to appeal to gamers who like console games or action games. I'm happy that I backed this project and proud of the outcome. After a patch or two more Wasteland 2 will be totally awesome post apocalyptic experience.

yes, but consider this review came after 3-4 patches and is still lower than some

I dont know (personally i havent started playing yet) but it scares me

RPGamer is definitely a JRPG focused site, and Wasteland 2 is about as far from a JRPG as you can get. They simply didn't like the old school nature of the title.

That being said, saying that there's little progression is flat out wrong. The reason there's no combat abilities is because Wasteland 2 went for a realistic approach. You get better with your skills, you get better with your weapons, and you have more survivability.

what scares me about scripted games, is not transmitting a clear message with your options.

And this dude is complaining about it.

I remember the games where my choices had no meaning, but I still was pissed off cause I had no option for my perspective.

It's a scary thought, and It will clearly make me drop it if it happens

The only significant issue I have with the game is the lack of transparency in some narrow place (mostly interiors). This affects roughly 5% of your time in game. Everything else is engaging, well done, and just a lot of old-school fun. 9.5 / 10 should be the real score.

Having played the game, and very much enjoyed it, I have to disagree with this reviewer on a few things. He claims that there are lot of instances where the consequences of your actions are not clearly stated up front, and that they will have profound unintended consequences later in the game, but this was not my experience at all. I always felt it was pretty obvious when the game presented different options no how to approach a situation or solve a problem.

Of course, you don't always know exactly what the consequences will be, but isn't that rue of life? He also complains that you can accidentally initiate combat, or otherwise take an action that you don't want to if you don't read the dialogue options before clicking them. This does not seem like a flaw in the game, but rather a lack of desire on the part of the reviewer to read them, so I can't say that I really understand this complaint.

- Lacking progression in combat and abilities

I would have to disagree with this negative in his review. I definitely felt a sense of progression, especially in the weapons skills. Once I got my characters up to the 5th or 6th level in their weapon, there was a noticeable difference in damage. Some of the other skill advances were more subtle, for instance lock picking and safe cracking just allowed you to open things that were previously impossible, or at least improve the chance percentage.

Well - I didn't read the review but I think the game has a lot of issues. The combat is pretty boring (and there is a *lot* of combat); the quest structure later in the game has a lot of issues (but they are slowly fixing those as time moves on) and i did find it overall a bit dull. I played the entire game from start to finish, I made a few mistakes esp with the monks because I didn't really understand the choice being offered but overall it was ok. The ending was the best part
-
What's a fair score - well that is a tough one - definitely not as fun as D:OS (but from a story telling perspective I think D:OS was a weak offering from Larian but the 'fun' playing it made up for those issues); I tend to move wasteland 2 towards a 7 but I'm a harsh critic. Wiz 8 is a 9 as is DKS and xulmia will be an 8+; ds was a 8 overall but a 10 for fun. I actually thought Might and Magic X was pretty decent - 8.5 (but D:OS was more fun). Anyways what does a score mean. I'm not eager to replay wasteland 2 but might after patch 5 or 6 just to see if it (patches) clean up some of the mess. Oh after I finished wasteland 2 i went and replayed wiz 8 for the nth (10th? 11th?) (and maybe the last?) time.

you said:

The combat is pretty boring (and there is a *lot* of combat); the quest structure later in the game has a lot of issues (but they are slowly fixing those as time moves on) and i did find it overall a bit dull. I played the entire game from start to finish, I made a few mistakes esp with the monks because I didn't really understand the choice being offered but overall it was ok. The ending was the best part
What's a fair score - well that is a tough one - definitely not as fun as D:OS (but from a story telling perspective I think D:OS was a weak offering from Larian but the 'fun' playing it made up for those issues); I tend to move wasteland 2 towards a 7 but I'm a harsh critic.

Click to expand...

Your and my experience is similar. The combat grows a bit dull once you have the hang of it. But that's countered by the fairly strong writing and solid atmosphere, etc. with great music and some large quest-filled areas. I'd say it is a "good" game that any fan of old-school RPGs will enjoy. However, it's not a "great" game until they add in a bit more depth to the combat, including some combat-influencing perks, etc.

A good comparison for the combat would be Shadowrun: Dragonfall. Shadowrun combat stays fun throughout because the strategies keep changing based on new discoveries, new skills, and new spells. However, as a game Wasteland 2 is much broader in scope and has a lot more to do quest-wise than Shadowrun.

D:OS, so far, is still my favorite RPG and game of 2014. It's going to take a lot from another game to knock it off that pedestal.

The difference from many other reviews: readers have voiced their opinion on the game in the mean time.

Early reviews reflected the point of view of writers who tried to second guess their readership to please them and avoid infuriating them.

They guessed not that well and the appreciation of the game by the readership was actually lower than what the reviewers thought it would.

Now that is clearer, reviewers are less subjected to pleasing their readership and write more about the product.

Giving it a few more months, maybe a year, and the quality of the product will be told.

The usual.

xep624 said:

Harsh words and low score. This isn't action RPG made by AAA studio on $40-50 million budget.

Click to expand...

The review praised the project in this regard.

delijoe said:

RPGamer is definitely a JRPG focused site, and Wasteland 2 is about as far from a JRPG as you can get. They simply didn't like the old school nature of the title.

Click to expand...

JRPGs did not have their old school department?

Falchor said:

A good comparison for the combat would be Shadowrun: Dragonfall. Shadowrun combat stays fun throughout because the strategies keep changing based on new discoveries, new skills, and new spells.

Click to expand...

It is not so much the new skills, spells etc
Shadowrun brings so more variety in terms of objectives.
WL2: engage and destroy missions only.
SHR: escort mission, hold the ground mission, beat the timer mission and more.

SHR: at least good level design that vary the use of terrain.
Use of terrain in WL2: weak at best.

ChienAboyeur said:

It is not so much the new skills, spells etc
Shadowrun brings so more variety in terms of objectives.
WL2: engage and destroy missions only.
SHR: escort mission, hold the ground mission, beat the timer mission and more.

SHR: at least good level design that vary the use of terrain.
Use of terrain in WL2: weak at best.

Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose you're right.. I just seem to enjoy the level progression in Shadowrun more. I felt like I got to a place with my Wasteland characters that their archetypes became solidified and there wasn't much new to them going forward. But I agree that the mission objectives in Shadowrun are also a lot better and the level design is fantastic with lots of cover and overall meticulous attention to detail. I still like Wasteland 2, though, and am very glad I got to play it.

I 'll give it a 2.5/5 today with a 3.5/5 or a tiny more if they fix technical problems.