Has anyone played Wasteland 2 recently? The game looks terrible.

I loved the hell out of Wasteland 2.

Wasteland 3 felt a little too streamlined for me.

 

I have three peeves with WL2, aside from its gameplay being a FO:Tactics clone instead of a Wasteland clone.

1. The combination of bleed out with a useless medic—if lacking band-aids.
   Worse yet IIRC, the medic cannot use bandages from the bleeding guy's inventory.
2. The lack of a delay/wait option in combat.
   Spoiler

   
3. The absurd trap placement; eg. live explosives in the infirmary.
   
   Spoiler

   

*Also... the Scorpitron doesn't look like the concept painting, and the painting is better looking.

 

I didn’t mind the shift from WL1 to squad based combat. That Scorpion really didn’t live up to the title screen though.

 

The gameplay is good; I liked the gameplay on its own merit. It's just not Wasteland series gameplay.
In the same way that FO3 and followup titles haven't got the Fallout series gameplay. It doesn't make them bad games, it just makes them the wrong ones.

https://forums.inxile-entertainment.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1702

*Posted April 17th, 2012, 9:29 pm

 

And what's your opinion of WL3 Gizmo?

I personally wasn't happy with the way things got dumbed down and streamlined.

 

I haven't played it yet.

I have seen some Let's Plays, and aside from the low-res (appearing) environment visuals and the [Miami Vice style] lighting, it appears like a fairly polished FO:Tactics clone.

 

I mean, if you disliked Wasteland 2 then you're definitely not going to like Wasteland 3. Wasteland 3 is just a very streamlined Wasteland 2, with everything made easier (and dumbed down).

 

I like WL2 as a game, and I might [seriously] buy WL3, but they are FO:Tactics clones, as opposed to proper Wasteland series games; in the exact same way that the Bethesda era FO titles are nothing like the previous games. IE. no sensible link or mechanical relation to deserve use of the series name. They are spin-offs, and this is true of Bard's Tale 4 as well. It's a pathetic trend with modern game developers. It's really sad.

They don't build upon the foundational work, they build whatever they hell they please, then slap a disingenuous label on it; selling it to people who are fascinated with merely the name itself—not the original game itself.

Why make a named sequel to a product, and have it be entirely dissimilar? Such that those who know the name don't get the expected product, and those who like the new product—don't give a damn about what's implied by the name?—or what's lost from the series.

Bethesda could have made their FO3 game without the Fallout IP, and done just as well with it.
Technically (I think) InXile could have done the same with their WL2 game; called it whatever they wished.

*Excepting that they funded it on the reputation of the original—which they did not deliver; same as Bethesda.

 

Wasteland 3 was fun, Wasteland 2 felt clunky.

 

I loved all three games, but I'm in the mindset that the second game is a bit inferior to the third, but none of them touch the original. I could say that the second game is the "worst" of the three, but not necessarily a bad game. At worst I think most people would get bored of it fast, and at best it's a great RPG that doesn't do too much new.

 

I mean you can still like the entire setting, settlement and general feels. So far no top down RPG has done snowy nuclear winter with populous settlement with working government.

And it is taking place in Colorado state. The names of place in there just giving me DeJa vu vibe of Fallout 3 that never released.

 

Yeah, I could say the same. The second game had a good setup for both halves imo, but the second half wasn't really as strong as the first half, and in terms of dialogue... well I admittedly clicked through some conversations during the second half because they just weren't interesting anymore. I still believe it's worth playing but finishing it from that point does take a bit of endurance. I can't say the same for the third, which was a rather consistent entry in both its positive and negative aspects.

 

Battle of Steeltown was pretty good