Wasteland 2 - Review @ Hardcore Games

Hardcore Games Al Jackson played Wasteland 2, and posted a new review sharing his thoughts on the game. He gave the game a final score of 96/100.

Some have suggested that Wasteland 2 is a game for another era. And the jury is still out I think on whether or not the hardcore PC game revival sparked by Kickstarter will meet with meaningful success. The big hope, of course, is that a large pool of mainstream players will respond positively to WL2 and the handful of other like-minded new and upcoming releases, so that maybe in the next few years we’ll see hosts of new games that are as deep, complex and satisfying as Wasteland 2. That would be something because this a great video game across the board. By creating a comprehensively interactive gameworld, a compelling tactical combat system, as well as a narrative that not only engages via solid storytelling, but also by making player agency a driving force in its narrative, InXile has created what is one of the finest and most engaging RPGs of this year, or any other for that matter.

More information.

Metacritic shows a user score of 7.3; somewhat below that of the critics but still fairly decent. The main reason for that score seems to be the number of negative ratings from users--critics have no negative reviews.

Disappointment of Fallout fanboys that expected Fallout 3 was too much for metacritic.
Those are most loud. Then come those that read turn based team combat and went in expecting Xcom. (I have been following both Steam and official forums from start and new "this is not fallout" or "this is not Xcom" topics appeared few times per day.)
And then come the only real user critics that look at WL2 as a game called WL2 but with flaws which is why critics give it 8.1 and Steam score says 86%

96/100? Not for me - I enjoy turn-based combat to a point, but after 45 hours this combat feels tedious. I have spent some time around the initial base in California, but that just feels uninspired and combat feel same-y. I have been using the same basic weapons, the same basic (adequate) tactics etc for many hours. Levelling up feels bland - I remember in BG, ToEE etc what en epic things it was to level up. Here, you hardly notice. That said, I played D:OS - another turn-based game - to death and loved (almost) every minute for more than 100 hours (it did become tedious towards the end, but I still found it way more enjoyable than WL2) . For me the game is about 75/100, so I do not think the metacrtic scores only reflect disappointed fanboys etc. I have left it for now and may go back if I get bored.

I feel about the same as booboo. WL2 is a solid game, but you master the tactics pretty quickly and the lack of perks kills the joy there is in leveling up past a certain point. The game is too long for the game systems it depends on. I'm not seeing the depth in the characters either, though I never even reached California before getting a little bored.

However, as Archangel correctly pointed out, I'm in the Fallout 3/FNV camp. While I have played Fallout 1, 2, and Wasteland, I prefer Bethesda's vision to Interplays

Originally Posted by Archangel
Disappointment of Fallout fanboys that expected Fallout 3 was too much for metacritic.

That is surprising. Only them?

Reviewers passed the bucket. They did not review the product, they wrote what they thought readers would like to read.

On this site, an extract reports a conclusion of solid game mechanics. How could this conclusion be reached?

Even when discounting the choice of the "ugoigo" game sequence, that comes with strong limitations, WL2 appears as a mediocre "ugoigo" thing. Quite easy to find better "ugoIgo" games around there, especially when looking at the japanese production.

-Unreadable enemy phase, while it is supposed to be a strong point of the "ugoigo" sequence, figuring out what the enemy can do, cant do and planning your moves accordingly.
-absolute lack of variety in the use of that sequence: the objective is always to get rid of the enemy. You cant flee. No other objectives are included, when the inclusion of other types of objectives is easier in a "ugoIgo" sequence.
-a character definition system that is fuzzy at best, with some archetypical builds that do not work
-skills oriented builds (a character with no strength can be a master in brute force) with a number of skills being near worthless.
-gimmickey mechanics like the water canteen that has no gameplay value, just an element to immerse etc

The list could go on…

The event of this game was extremelly educational: a lot to learn from it. One is that reviewers already gave up on criticism in fear of alienating their reader base.
It never came from the corps but from the reader base.


Surprising that given the state of the game, that is not even a good game in its own category, the only downsides are that it is not a follow up to FO3.

96/100 is way over the top. I pretty much agree with crpgnut here. Combat is not diverse enough for a long tactical combat game. But it is very solid and something that still can be enhanced with some patches.

I'm not at the end yet, but I think it will end between 7,5 to 8,5 out of 10 for me.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
That is surprising. Only them?

Reviewers passed the bucket. They did not review the product, they wrote what they thought readers would like to read.

On this site, an extract reports a conclusion of solid game mechanics. How could this conclusion be reached?

Even when discounting the choice of the "ugoigo" game sequence, that comes with strong limitations, WL2 appears as a mediocre "ugoigo" thing. Quite easy to find better "ugoIgo" games around there, especially when looking at the japanese production.

-Unreadable enemy phase, while it is supposed to be a strong point of the "ugoigo" sequence, figuring out what the enemy can do, cant do and planning your moves accordingly.
-absolute lack of variety in the use of that sequence: the objective is always to get rid of the enemy. You cant flee. No other objectives are included, when the inclusion of other types of objectives is easier in a "ugoIgo" sequence.
-a character definition system that is fuzzy at best, with some archetypical builds that do not work
-skills oriented builds (a character with no strength can be a master in brute force) with a number of skills being near worthless.
-gimmickey mechanics like the water canteen that has no gameplay value, just an element to immerse etc

The list could go on…

The event of this game was extremelly educational: a lot to learn from it. One is that reviewers already gave up on criticism in fear of alienating their reader base.
It never came from the corps but from the reader base.


Surprising that given the state of the game, that is not even a good game in its own category, the only downsides are that it is not a follow up to FO3.

Where did I say only them?

People like you are the only real critics that can look at the game flaws separated from expectations of games like Fallout and Xcom. But people like you are rare because most liked it. You did note some downsides for you that I don't see as downsides and some that I do. I see nothing wrong with its tactical system except lack of Wait function that lets you move your ranger into different initiative order. The charm of this system is that you are supposed to use experience to learn how to predict just like in PnP games.
You get enough info about enemies and you see when is their turn coming up. You don't see their AP and how much they can move which would be very unrealistic if you could. It is not much different then how D:OS does it.

96/100.
What a foolery.

This is 5/10 at best and maybe 6/10 if they fix the technical problems.

Originally Posted by Archangel
Where did I say only them?

People like you are the only real critics that can look at the game flaws separated from expectations of games like Fallout and Xcom. But people like you are rare because most liked it. You did note some downsides for you that I don't see as downsides and some that I do. I see nothing wrong with its tactical system except lack of Wait function that lets you move your ranger into different initiative order. The charm of this system is that you are supposed to use experience to learn how to predict just like in PnP games.
You get enough info about enemies and you see when is their turn coming up. You don't see their AP and how much they can move which would be very unrealistic if you could. It is not much different then how D:OS does it.

Real critic? What is that?
Other people critic on different grounds.

The reviewers did not review the game while they reviewed the perceived expectations of their readership.
They reviewed on a different ground. It was informative and educational.
This time, the big corp story cant be used as it is a small crowdfunded studio that got the favour.

Seeing who goes next is not more or less realistic than seeing how much they could move etc…

There is nothing realistic in both cases. The "ugoigo" sequence provides a platform for a player to assess all those data. Pondering your moves knowing fuly what you and the opponent can achieve. The data about movement, and other types of actions are missing. Designers who build their game around that sequence have the options to make the most of it.
WL2 did not do that.

Real critic is one that looks at the game on its own and through lens of games he expects this one to be. That is why I said I ignore people that would complain that WL2 is not like Fallout or not like Xcom (and those were two most negative groups).

Why are people calling it ugoigo? It is a individual initiative combat.
UgoIgo sounds more like Xcom.

Because that is a "ugoigo" sequence based product.
Activating several units in a row is one variation.

Well as a PnP player I never heard it called that so I refuse to use it