Wasteland Wasteland 2 Thread - Director's Cut

[Volourn]

NO SHIT SHERLOCK NO SHIT.

 

[Jazz_]

Is combat fun in this game? Or a bore?

 

[Zombra]

Is combat fun in this game? Or a bore?

Check it out for yourself. I liked it, but it's no Jagged Alliance.

 

[Invictus]

It is not Xcom but it is fun and fast with a good variety of weapons and tactics
It is certainly not a weakness

 

[acer palmatum]

Plus the random encounters could have more diversity. It get's a bit repetive if you fight them all out.

 

[SwiftCrack]

Also at one point in the game if you spent your dough on the best weapons every time they become available it becomes kind of a simple click-enemy-kill-all-loot-repeat fest for most encounters.

(assuming your characters are at least partially built for combat)

 

[cvv]

Combat in DC is very good. There are very few games with better one, Jagged Alliance or D:OS maybe but not much else. XCOM? Lol.

Also at one point in the game if you spent your dough on the best weapons every time they become available it becomes kind of a simple click-enemy-kill-all-loot-repeat fest for most encounters.

Sure, if you play on Normal.

 

[acer palmatum]

Also at one point in the game if you spent your dough on the best weapons every time they become available it becomes kind of a simple click-enemy-kill-all-loot-repeat fest for most encounters.

(assuming your characters are at least partially built for combat)

And that's over once you go to California. First fights (on SJ) are tough, until you get better weapons there.

 

[Daedalos]

combat on SJ in arizona was manageable, but it became quite hard in california in later fights, I had to turn down difficulty in some fights, simply too hard. and I min-maxed for combat builds...

 

[SwiftCrack]

I played on Ranger because I'm a filthy casual , so I can't comment on how it is on SJ, but for Ranger the same pattern repeats in Cali (once you get high tier Cali weapons it's an easy clickity ride up till the end). Of course you can always choose to play in a more diverse way yourself.

 

[Marten Broadcloak]

Combat in DC is very good. There are very few games with better one

Woah, that's a bold claim. Didn't play DC, what did it change? If the combat is great in it, it must have modified a ton of things.

 

[Doktor Best]

Its not on Jagged Alliance 2 or D:OS level, but its still good and i have enjoyed the combat also quite a bit.

DC revamped gamebalance (which leads to more diversity in weapon use), implented aimed shots, changed encounter design and implented traits/quirks which change the way you play a character significantly.

I played the game on supreme jerk though, so part of the fun was the challenge. For wasteland 3 i would like to see more stuff like smoke grenades for example and the ability to preset a formation of your team when combat starts.

 

[acer palmatum]

Combat in DC is very good. There are very few games with better one

Woah, that's a bold claim. Didn't play DC, what did it change? If the combat is great in it, it must have modified a ton of things.

You can use aimed shots that do various effects on the enemies. Torso shots for example lower armor per hit if I am not wrong.

 

[cvv]

Combat in DC is very good. There are very few games with better one

Woah, that's a bold claim. Didn't play DC, what did it change? If the combat is great in it, it must have modified a ton of things.

You can use aimed shots that do various effects on the enemies. Torso shots for example lower armor per hit if I am not wrong.

Literally everything about the combat has been changed or completely revamped - the precision shots are new, so are perks, there are more weapons, the encounters have been thoroughly reworked, the previously retarded armor system is completely different etc. DC is a very different game from vanilla, thousand times better. I rated vanila as solid but meh, DC is a truly great RPG, for me probably the second best isometric RPG evah, better than all the Fallouts combined.

 

[Urthor]

Literally everything about the combat has been changed or completely revamped - the precision shots are new, so are perks, there are more weapons, the encounters have been thoroughly reworked, the previously retarded armor system is completely different etc. DC is a very different game from vanilla, thousand times better. I rated vanila as solid but meh, DC is a truly great RPG, for me probably the second best isometric RPG evah, better than all the Fallouts combined.

Perks are window dressing to give players more shinies in their levelup, their influence is limited and few if any are of them are anything other than +5% to x. Precision shots are a nice addition, especially with bladed but that's not much. Armor was fixed but they haven't added an armor system with meaningful penalties and tradeoffs, it's just buy as many tactical vests as you can.

Combat is still pretty plain and boring. Pre-encounter positioning almost doesn't exist, and inside the encounter it's rarely anything other than stand still and shoot, or precision shot the armor then shoot, for the majority of encounters. Get your ranger, move into cover, burst fire, end turn, next turn burst fire plus single shot. The only interesting change has been precision shots being able to be used to turn down armor on foes to make a wider variety of weapons okayish, and making bladed weapons turning into an actually interesting variation on combat because getting your ranger close and unleashing a wall of 2 AP precision strikes is actually worth it.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Had to see for myself. Playing through the DC right now. They improved a LOT of shit I didn't think they would. That said, there's still this feeling of "Our Community Made This Game!" instead of the unified creative artistic vision of a game like, well, Underrail. And that feeling keeps the game feeling clunky, awkward and underwhelming despite the obvious work that went into providing outcomes for a seemingly unprecedented amount of choice. Also, some of these NPCs and encounters are truly awfully written.

 

[cvv]

Literally everything about the combat has been changed or completely revamped - the precision shots are new, so are perks, there are more weapons, the encounters have been thoroughly reworked, the previously retarded armor system is completely different etc. DC is a very different game from vanilla, thousand times better. I rated vanila as solid but meh, DC is a truly great RPG, for me probably the second best isometric RPG evah, better than all the Fallouts combined.

Perks are window dressing to give players more shinies in their levelup, their influence is limited and few if any are of them are anything other than +5% to x. Precision shots are a nice addition, especially with bladed but that's not much. Armor was fixed but they haven't added an armor system with meaningful penalties and tradeoffs, it's just buy as many tactical vests as you can.

Combat is still pretty plain and boring. Pre-encounter positioning almost doesn't exist, and inside the encounter it's rarely anything other than stand still and shoot, or precision shot the armor then shoot, for the majority of encounters. Get your ranger, move into cover, burst fire, end turn, next turn burst fire plus single shot. The only interesting change has been precision shots being able to be used to turn down armor on foes to make a wider variety of weapons okayish, and making bladed weapons turning into an actually interesting variation on combat because getting your ranger close and unleashing a wall of 2 AP precision strikes is actually worth it.

You can make that kind of argument for everything - that change is stupid, that one is irrelevant, that one is bad and all the others suck. Fair enough, in the end all we have is just feelz anyway.

The only thing you haven't done is list all the wonderful isometric RPGs with better combat (turn-based, party-based, complex enough, with enough variety and options) than W2/DC. D:OS, sure but what else? Jagged Alliance 2? Maybe, though it's not a game you'd immediatelly think of as an RPG. What else? The old classics like Fallout 1/2 or Arcanum are great but combat there is pretty simplistic in comparison, unless you're blinded by nostalgia.

There are games with better turn-based combat but none of them are traditionally considered RPGs. There are RPGs with better TB combat but most of them are blobbers. There are isometric RPGs that people love en masse but most of them are RtwP. Over to you.

 

[Urthor]

All the changes are marginally for the better, they're just not that impactful.

The only thing you haven't done is list all the wonderful isometric RPGs with better combat (turn-based, party-based, complex enough, with enough variety and options) .

Because they're mostly shit. Or made by Japs.

There are better turn based, party based experiences, but quality turn based party based western story driven RPGs are thin on the ground. That doesn't mean Wasteland 2 is a good game, it just means there aren't many alternatives.

Maybe, though it's not a game you'd immediatelly think of as an RPG. What else? The old classics like Fallout 1/2 or Arcanum are great but combat there is pretty simplistic in comparison, unless you're blinded by nostalgia.

There are games with better turn-based combat but none of them are traditionally considered RPGs. There are RPGs with better TB combat but most of them are blobbers. There are isometric RPGs that people love en masse but most of them are RtwP. Over to you.

The vast majority of the games in WRPGs that have the wonderful storytelling and writing have a mechanical component that rarely if ever matches up to the heights of their storytelling and writing. Go figure. There's a reason Infinity Engine (okay lets face it, Baldur's was the only one that really rolled it all into a box, gave you both barrels at once and didn't stint) RPGs are so circlejerked, it's because the rare beast that has both at once.

The classics certainly built their atmosphere around a solid if not exactly Tactics Ogre gameplay system and an engrossing world, but strip it down you wouldn't not call their combat systems automatically instant classics. The difference between Wasteland 2 and those is that not only were many of the classics you listed less combat driven, their combat was delivered in shorter bursts and was far more tolerable, not the least because fewer characters. The larger the number of controlled characters in any turn based game, the more the mechanics have to carry the can.

Combat in Wasteland is not only more simplistic, it's more repetitive and it's more lengthy, you spend far more time slogging through combat in Wasteland 2 than in those.

Wasteland 2's biggest weakness is that it emphasises the combat far more than it should. And the combat is a bore. Is Angel Oracle a quality WRPG area that's a joy to play through? Yes absolutely. Is slogging through umpteenth combat encounters over the course of Wasteland 2 unvaried and generally mind numbing? Definitely. It's a pity, because I love some of the ideas, especially mixing multiple min max types with player made character sheets with premade storyrific companions, but it's true. WL2 is a flawed beast whose fairly juicy WRPG story areas are held back by the boring combat slogs.

 

[Cosmo]

Oh yeah. Well that's not gonna happen. Not with all my selling going on and me having to get my class ready for the start of the year. While I enjoyed it for what it was, I have no intention of slogging through it again to refresh my memory.

An objective review would just point out the incongruity of making such a game when Fallout 1 and 2 already exist, and were infinitely better at reviving Wasteland 1's legacy.

 

[Irenaeus]

Why someone would play those weird japanese games is something I'll never understand.

 

[cvv]

All the changes are marginally for the better, they're just not that impactful.

They're quite impactful. What now?

There are better turn based, party based experiences, but quality turn based party based western story driven RPGs are thin on the ground.

True but games like F1, F2 or Arcanum are considered legendary classics. W2's world, writing, atmosphere and C&C is great too and the combat is way better - surely that must mean it's a classic too?

he difference between Wasteland 2 and those is that not only were many of the classics you listed less combat driven, their combat was delivered in shorter bursts and was far more tolerable

What you're saying here is you don't actually like to fight in your RPGs that much? Because "I don't like combat in general" is a valid argument, only very different from "I don't like the combat in W2".

Combat in Wasteland is not only more simplistic, it's more repetitive and it's more lengthy, you spend far more time slogging through combat in Wasteland 2 than in those.

More simplistic than what, the old classics? You must be joking, imma ignore that part of your comment.

As for the combat being "repetitive" and "slog", that's subjective I guess. If you don't like combat oriented RPGs (and W2 is exactly that, MUCH more so than Fallouts) then you'd find W2 boring ofc. Your take on the quality of W2 combat would carry more weight though if you DID like combat-heavy RPGs and still find W2 combat banal boring shit.

 

[acer palmatum]

Well at least WL2 combat is more repetitive than Fallout 1/2 combat and if only because Fallout 1/2 had way more opponent-variety.

 

[D!!]

Well at least WL2 combat is more repetitive than Fallout 1/2 combat and if only because Fallout 1/2 had way more opponent-variety.

That's simply not true. In Fallout 1/2, you have ranged/melee humans and robots, melee monsters, melee monsters with poison and static plants. In W2, there are toads, that steal your weapons, jumping on you slicer dicers, exploding pod people and mad monks, discobots, that debuffs your accuracy and fucking scorpitrons. And you can hack robots/tame animal in combat.

Combat in F1/2 was very bad from design standpoint, but still extremely satisfying thanks to cool sound effect, death animations and feeling of impact. Wasteland 2 have some of that, just not on the same super cool level. Still okay, though. And much more tactical, diverse and deep.

 

[acer palmatum]

Well at least WL2 combat is more repetitive than Fallout 1/2 combat and if only because Fallout 1/2 had way more opponent-variety.

That's simply not true. In Fallout 1/2, you have ranged/melee humans and robots, melee monsters, melee monsters with poison and static plants. In W2, there are toads, that steal your weapons, jumping on you slicer dicers, exploding pod people and mad monks, discobots, that debuffs your accuracy and fucking scorpitrons. And you can hack robots/tame animal in combat.

Well at least WL2 combat is more repetitive than Fallout 1/2 combat and if only because Fallout 1/2 had way more opponent-variety.

That's simply not true. In Fallout 1/2, you have ranged/melee humans and robots, melee monsters, melee monsters with poison and static plants. In W2, there are toads, that steal your weapons, jumping on you slicer dicers, exploding pod people and mad monks, discobots, that debuffs your accuracy and fucking scorpitrons. And you can hack robots/tame animal in combat.

In terms of random encounters I am pretty sure there are more different opponents in at least Fallout 2, but it's been some time. You don't get slicer dicers, mad monks, pod people, Diamondback Militia and certainly not scorpitrons in random encounters. But if we count all battles, not just the random encounters, I guess you are right.

 

[Volourn]

"Well at least WL2 combat is more repetitive than Fallout 1/2 combat and if only because Fallout 1/2 had way more opponent-variety."

L0L But, no.