Should I Check Out The Wasteland Trilogy? Is It Worth Playing?

TheKingofVault14

TheKingofVault14

Fallout Fan For Life!
Lumii_20230703_222119172.jpg


You know I've been thinking about playing this series for quite some time now, and since there's a "Summer Sale" going on at the moment, I figured I'll give them a go! But first, I wanna know a few things before getting into them...

For those who've played these games or have at least tried them, I wanted to know three things:


1. Are they worth playing? Basically as I've already asked this question in the title of the thread, and getting the obvious outta the way first.
And if they're worth playing, this leads me to the following questions in regards to Wasteland 1 & 2.




2. For Wasteland 1 which version of the game is the "preferred" version? The Original or The Remastered version?
Lumii_20230703_224207076.jpg




3. And for Wasteland 2, same as the question that I've asked for the first game, which version is better? The "Regular Version"? Or the "Director's Cut"? And are there any differences between the two? Like for example, is there any features that aren't present in the "Regular Version" of the game compared to the "Director's Cut" of it?
Lumii_20230703_224225873.jpg




So yeah, that's pretty much it, there goes all of my questions that I have for this trilogy. Otherwise, I'm REALLY curious to see how it'll all go for me!

:-) 8-)
 
  1. Yes, they are worthy of playing. Squad turn based combat with some gun porn, and 80's (now retro) postapocalypse function very well as setting. First game was absolutely amazing in its time, sequels are a bit of a letdown, but still enjoyable.
  2. Remastered W1 always felt weird with combination of newer graphics that felt like an out-of-place eyesore and old UI. YMMV, especially if haven't seen original first.
  3. Director's Cut somewhat fixes broken W2 and adds some visual improvements, that were sorely needed. W2 is the most flawed entry, early cRPG Kickstarter success story that almost, but I still sunk 100+ hours into playthroughs
  4. Additionaly, W3 is interesting case - Microsoft money enabled higher production values, so it is full of voice acting, good music and nice graphics. But setting somehow became less serious and went further into clownish/parody similar to Fallout 2. Still very playable game.
 
I've never played the original wasteland. I played wasteland 2 then when I got the directors cut free I replayed.
The only thing I disliked was the graphics, mainly the play areas. I enjoyed them muchos lotz.
I found wasteland 3 a less complex, easier game, all in all well worth it especially if you get them on sale.
 
I think Wasteland 1 is an absolute trip. It has ton of extremely dated design decisions that are very interesting to look at in retrospect. Such as the fact that they considered the skill Bureacracy at some point. Honestly, looking back on it makes me really annoyed at all of the modern RPG developers, be they AAA or not, that are unwilling to explore nonconventional RPG design and take risks with skills.

Wasteland 2 on the other hand is more like Fallout Tactics, but less. It's fun, nothing spectacular though.

Wasteland 3 is like Wasteland 2 but it has way more RPG moments and has a way better story with far more choice and consequence.

I absolutely think that the Wasteland series is worth checking out. Just don't expect Fallout from it.
 
To anyone interested in Wasteland 1, but who is unable (or unwilling) to play the game, there is an excellent let's play from Tord, on Youtube. I have watched this one through to the end many times.

 
It's been a while since I played a cRPG game and I've recently gotten back into this kind of games.
I really enjoyed playing Wasteland 2 Director's Cut, I spent over 70 hours on it. It was a real pleasure.

Now I am about to start Wasteland 3, in the hope the enjoyment is the same as the second opus.
 
You might like Fallout:Tactics. I say this because Wasteland 2 plays like a FO:Tactics sequel. I told this to three InXile devs in Z'ots coffee shop [NOLA], but they did not take it well. :hide:

I liked Wasteland 2 (and FO:Tactics) very much, but I was quite disappointed that it played nothing (at all) like Wasteland—in the self same way that their BT4 game played nothing at all like Bard's Tale 1, 2, and 3. :scratch:
 
Last edited:
Yeah all I've learned from those things is that you can't expect anything to remain true to its original design no matter who's behind it. Trust nobody. Doesn't mean they can't make a fun game and so long as the lore isn't butchered it's tolerable but if you want the gameplay that the original game had and the sequel doesn't have it (but improved upon) then how much of a sequel is it really? Isn't it more like a spinoff at that point?

I wonder if they had released modding tools if it would have been possible to rework Wasteland 2 into Wasteland 1's design.
 
I remember getting past my Dad's gatekeeping in the 80's to get Wasteland for Commodore 64. I grew up in a pretty strict home. If my dad knew of the mild innuendo and violence in it, he probably would not have let me purchase it.

Absolutely adored that game and played the hell out of it. Some of the comical bugs like getting hundreds of attacks a round with 255 brawling were very memorable to happen upon. The graphics and interface might annoy "modern audiences" coming to the game fresh.

I enjoyed Wasteland 2 and one of these days will try the director cut version.

I didn't "get" Wasteland 3, and found it kind of annoying. One mostly complete playthrough was all I could muster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top