The latest update for Wasteland 3 talks about 1.5.0 and when we can expect it.
More information.
Thanks bjon045!
More information.
Wasteland 3 - State of the Frozen Union – July 2021
- Thread starter Silver
- Start date
Once again waiting two years to play a game seems the new norm. With countless huge patches and DLC a game is never finished. Sigh I miss the old days sometimes.
Notice I said sometimes not always.
The game was a disappointment to me felt like a huge empty world. Turn-based combat just padded the game length. Don't get me started on the made for console GUI either.
So when is the enhanced or so called director cut version going to be released?
Notice I said sometimes not always.
The game was a disappointment to me felt like a huge empty world. Turn-based combat just padded the game length. Don't get me started on the made for console GUI either.
So when is the enhanced or so called director cut version going to be released?
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Once again waiting two years to play a game seems the new norm. With countless huge patches and DLC a game is never finished. Sigh I miss the old days sometimes.
Notice I said sometimes not always.
The game was a disappointment to me felt like a huge empty world. Turn-based combat just padded the game length. Don't get me started on the made for console GUI either.
So when is the enhanced or so called director cut version going to be released?
2 years for the game to be properly fixed - and at least 1 year for decent mods designed around the final version
As for WL3 - I'm glad they're improving co-op. My brother and I had to give up our playthrough because it was just too frustrating - which was sad, as we were having a lot of fun with the game.
JFarrell71
SasqWatch
Felt like a small empty world to me, so for me it may have been even more of a disappointment. Everything felt small: the cities, the overworld, everything. It's not a bad game but I couldn't shake being consistently underwhelmed, especially with the memory of its imo superior predecessor fresh in mind.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
I think I've only played it for 15-20 hours, myself - but it certainly wasn't empty. Just not a very big game - but content density seemed on point.
Maybe it's worse later on? How unfortunate. Most critics and players seem to think it's quite superior to the previous games.
Maybe it's worse later on? How unfortunate. Most critics and players seem to think it's quite superior to the previous games.
Wasteland 2 covered two different sates with more locations. I don't know if it was budget reasons, or the need for more resources on the map in the the third game.
Then again they probably listened to survey feedback and responded to it.
Anyway yeah Wasteland 2 was the better game.
The main city is the only place with multiple districts. The other locations are smaller by comparison. The mall is probably the second biggest location and only half the size.
(This is without the DLC)
The rest are smaller by comparison.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Yeah, as I said it's not a big game. I'm talking about the empty part, which - to me - is about content density.
Are later areas mostly empty or void of content? If so, it's odd that it's such a popular game with so many WL fans.
I would have thought they preferred more content density rather than less.
I can appreciate the smaller world approach - though I personally prefer things to be a little more spread out. I like to get the sense of a large open world - and I don't mind a little padding here or there to make it doable.
But WL3 certainly struck me as a much more accomplished and well-designed game than WL2 - which, while I enjoyed it, was very inconsistent in terms of quality - and really started to drag towards the latter half of the game.
That said, if you look at a game like Fallout 1 - which is arguably one of the most popular, if not THE most popular post-apoc CRPG - I'd say WL3 is at least twice the size of it.
I really enjoyed wasteland 3.
Agree it could have been a bit bigger, but I found the game a lot of fun and certainly not empty.
Agree it could have been a bit bigger, but I found the game a lot of fun and certainly not empty.
I'm glad I'm not alone, as the initial response here was very positive, and I thought I was the only one who found the game so underwhelming. I find the main storyline, voice acting, and visuals better than Wasteland 2, but the quests, world, and level design much worse.
The game's weakness becomes more apparent as the game progresses. The big quest hubs are all at the beginning. Once you've been to Denver, the game is primarily one fight after another, and in my opinion, Wasteland's strength has always been as a crpg, and not a tactics game. I really had to push myself to finish the last third of the game, and felt like it was a big slog.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Aww
I was looking forward to playing this all the way through down the line - and fully expected a similar quality throughout.
So many disappointing games these days, I find. It's like it's mid-2000s all over again.
They could ditch the co-op nonsense entirely and focus more - I'd be fine with it. Even at the height of my co-op gaming days none of us would ever have played a game like this MP. I don't get the appeal - it has to be microscopic.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Well, it might not be the optimal business decision to focus on co-op mode, but I would recommend against assuming too much based on subjective anecdotal evidence.
As with all things, there's nuance here.
First of all, even if only 5% of the people who buy this game are interested in co-op - that number doesn't tell the whole story if 9 out of 10 games like this don't support co-op.
Guess which game those 5% will buy - where otherwise all games would potentially have to split those players if they all had the same features.
Beyond that, I think we can all agree that making a game and implementing features based 100% on what's the optimal business decision, is not how we would want designers to make games for us.
We have the mainstream AAA games for that - and for the movies, we have Marvel movies.
So, even if one doesn't enjoy co-op in this way personally, it can sometimes be a good idea to allow for other minorities to have their features - because it promotes diversity - and it also makes you somewhat less of a selfish asshole.
As with all things, there's nuance here.
First of all, even if only 5% of the people who buy this game are interested in co-op - that number doesn't tell the whole story if 9 out of 10 games like this don't support co-op.
Guess which game those 5% will buy - where otherwise all games would potentially have to split those players if they all had the same features.
Beyond that, I think we can all agree that making a game and implementing features based 100% on what's the optimal business decision, is not how we would want designers to make games for us.
We have the mainstream AAA games for that - and for the movies, we have Marvel movies.
So, even if one doesn't enjoy co-op in this way personally, it can sometimes be a good idea to allow for other minorities to have their features - because it promotes diversity - and it also makes you somewhat less of a selfish asshole.
Saxon1974
Keeper of the Watch
- Joined
- February 24, 2010
- Messages
- 875
Glad I haven't played it yet either no reason with so many games to play already.
A bit disappointed to hear it's a smallish world that is a combat slog near the end. Hopefully the DLCs will help with that.
A bit disappointed to hear it's a smallish world that is a combat slog near the end. Hopefully the DLCs will help with that.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 875
Yea, I have not started the game yet either, and it sounds like maybe the second dlc will be better and more substantial than the first one, so will definitely be waiting on that.