that cult of detonation dlc bored me to death,what a fricking boring dlc and that you have to kill one of your rangers to get the good ending was just a slap in the face
I just ran back to ranger HQ, created a new ranger, brought him to get radiated, then went back and put my normal team together. Still kinda dumb though
Assassins creed is an rpg because you play the role of Altair, but Might and magic games aren’t because you control a party. Amazing definition you got there
Doesn't that mean jrpgs aren't rpgs? I always assumed the first character was me. I'll admit i don't like having to make a full team but making you and your partner then allowing other characters to speak as necessary doesn't seem too bad.
The option to create your own characters is present. Clearly you didn't play the game. Go frick off back to your mom's butthole.
The game was actually pretty enjoyable imo. Plays like a faster XCOM, mostly due to the game being lenient towards party members dying/getting injured. Definitely an enjoyable game if you wanna sit back and relax with beers or blunts and zone into the world of wasteland for a while.
You create a pair of characters at the start. Just because you create characters does not mean that you are playing a role. Would you say that FIFFA is an RPG because you can create a custom povertyball player?
>Pool of Radiance is not an RPG because you have a party >Baldur's Gate is not an RPG because you have a party >ToEE is not an RPG because you have a party >BUT FALLOUT NEW VEGAS IS TOTALLY AN RPG BECAUSE YOU PLAY AS ONE GUY
>pool of radiance isn't an RPG
Correct. >BG isn't an RPG
Incorrect. You create and pilot the Bhaalspawn. That is the role you are playing and the narrative is directed at, and revolves around, your singular character. >ToEE isn't an RPG
Difficult to say. Although you have a party, and no singular member is designated as "you", the narrative is directed at one person in particular in all of the conversations. You could say that whatever the first character you add to the party is "you" and the dialog and story is directed at that character.
I don't know why you are having such a hard time grasping this concept. It's pretty straightforward.
Wait wait wait, so let me get this straight, according to you D&D isn't a roleplaying game and never was a roleplaying game because you are allowed to play as multiple characters if you want to?
You do know there is no rule whatsoever that says a player is limited to one character, do you?
If you don't have a primary character that is clearly designated as the player character then no, DnD is not a roleplaying game at that point. It's a management game.
Okay anon, so according to you the entire game franchise that created the whole fricking genre and market is aachktually not a roleplaying game...because you don't like that it allows players to have multiple characters during a session since four decades worth of material.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes.
2 years ago
Anonymous
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's okay. You're wrong about what an rpg is, though.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>anon visualizes himself as the "Yes. chad meme"
ngmi
BTFO by who? Someone who thinks that, when you manage an entire party of characters that you create and have no interaction with the world other than what comes through the narrative at the entire group, is a ROLE playing game?
You don't have a role if you are all the characters. You are a manager, sitting above the game in the position of something like a GM. Nothing interacts with you; no one talks to you. You play nothing in the game. Ergo, it's not a role playing game.
it's great if you get into the metagame start of grabbing ralphy, then pzipi by having everyone eat food to meat the charisma requirment. also scumming for the merchant that sells the m16 and beefy sniper rifle.
I think its just missing any sort of twists or turns in the pacing and plot. You pretty much know exactly how the game is going to play out in the first few hours and its just a sort of episodic adventure like Dragon Quest 7 which is also completely forgettable
It's boring and forgettable, the stat+skill system sucks ass and having some shitty joinable npcs destroys the whole "build your own team" concept.
Inb4 some moron comes in with "b-but you dont *have* to take them in your team" proving they completely missed the point.
Probably because it, while having superior gameplay in almost every regard compared to the two before it, doesn't feel "soulful" like the other two. Except in the Gippers' territory, but even then, the Reaganbot is only a tiny bit to that area. Music being old American folk music, hymns, and country music with lyrics actually in the song instead of being removed for the game, was kino though. Shame that only a few fights had that kind of "soul", that charm.
Because the best things about Wasteland 3 is its' combat and music.
The factions weren't really that good.
The choices, consequences and morality were lacking.
The setting was a bit of missed potential.
The best NPC is the Patriarch and he wasn't special.. the given 'alternatives' to him just didn't compare.
The itemization looked nice, but the upgrade options are no-brainers.
I enjoyed it, but it lacks the oomph to make it stand with the other often talked, older CRPGs.
It's kind of like Dragon Age: Origins, where you'll find something to enjoy in it, but in 20-30 years, nobody will probably remember them.
>It's kind of like Dragon Age: Origins, where you'll find something to enjoy in it, but in 20-30 years, nobody will probably remember them
Considering that over a decade people still talk about Origins and look at it fondly, I don't think you're right on that one.
Well, it's been 13 years and the game is still talked about and praised. I guess we'll see what happens in the next 7 years, but I doubt people will forget Origins that easily.
The game was kinda of all around unmemorable. It literally doesn't have a high point in the story, the choices barely matter and unconvincing. Gameplay feels like a dumbed down version of the previous game, loot is literally 100% bound to item level and the scaling is fricked (like loot in Divinity: OS2) where basic item of level +1 is better than whatever you have at the current level. Consequentially, enemies also become extremely bloated to fight against when they are 1-2 levels above yours.
It's an all around mediocre game, at least it's well produced but it feels like it tries to be too safe all around.
It's also surprisingly short for a turn based game. I know some people say it's 30-40 hours, but a lot of it is just turn based RPG time bloat, these games have always been >50 hours at least.
I don't talk about it because it's an utter disappointment, especially because I liked 2. >Combat
Much like how nu-XCOM is all about soldiers with their cooldown special abilities and it's fricking gay, so is Wasteland 3. Which is fricking gay. >Story
Oh boy. I sincerely think this game was made by people who hate Wasteland 2. Not only does it start with killing your entire crew from 2 off screen, it then goes on to retcon the entire basis of the setting - namely that AI is inherently evil and unimaginably dangerous. You get so many quests and even entire towns dedicated to show you how "see? not all AIs are bad" when that was never the problem. The problem has always been that it takes a single one bad one to exist and it can take over every other robot AND PEOPLE if they have ANY cyborg implants on them. It's so absurd and they bring back Gary NaCl from W2 and write him as a meanie who wants you to go ~indiscriminately~ AIs on the run. It's like everyone in the fricking world forgot about Cochise. >Characters
I will try to be brief with this but not only do they bring back Angela Deth from the dead to make her, for some fricking reason, a self righteous """anti-tyrant""" crazy person who expects you to just sabotage the local government, and not because so the Rangers can get a better foothold, but because "it's the right thing to do".
Just a complete waste of time for anyone who enjoyed pretty much any aspect of Wasteland 2. I don't know who this game is for.
Yeah watching a hardened veteran ranger that survived 2 games act like some 16 year old bleeding heart in 3 was so bizarre. I have to imagine that choice to have her in 3 at all was either a marketing one or one of the devs waifu'd her and demanded she have a big role
>a marketing one
I sincerely SINCERELY doubt it because not only is that never ever mentioned but it's in fact a twist reveal. >one of the devs waifu'd
I never even gave thought to that but that might 100% that. Her entire arc ended in W2 right after you find Ace's badge, which honestly the last thing she wanted to do before dying, and then she got to do so by saving Echo Squad.
BUT NAH MAN DID YOU KNOW THAT THE SOLE RULER OF COLORADO IS A TYRANT OH GEEZ OH MAN WE BETTER THROW OUR ENTIRE DEAL INTO THE BIN BECAUSE MUH FREEDOMZAMIRITE
>BUT NAH MAN DID YOU KNOW THAT THE SOLE RULER OF COLORADO IS A TYRANT OH GEEZ OH MAN WE BETTER THROW OUR ENTIRE DEAL INTO THE BIN BECAUSE MUH FREEDOMZAMIRITE
killing guys like that is literally your job description
>killing guys like that is literally your job description
No, it literally is not. A Ranger's job is not to fight ruling powers that they deem "oppressive". They are made to protect the citizenry of bandits, rebels and any other type of troublemakers. They are a glorified police force but with no actual State above them to answer to.
Not just that but Buchanon DOES keep Law and Order in Colorado, whether you agree with him morally or not, and that's ultimately the Rangers' goals. For fricking ANGELA DETH, a borderline founding member of the modern AZ Rangers to come down and sow fricking chaos in a state because she doesn't like the ruler? That is fricking absurd. That should've been a new character who doesn't understand what the Rangers are and what their mission in Colorado is.
if buchanon commits tax fraud then he is technically a bandit
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, when the state does it's called too bad lmao
Buchanan is a slaver providing both the Godfishers and Scar Collectors with people. He’s just another gang boss to be taken down.
No, Buchanan is not a slaver. He does have a deal with slavers so as to secure, theoretically, the safety of his people from them. Not that much better imo but it's not the same thing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Dear free masons: >cultivates the martial dao and becomes a god emperor tier perpetual in your path
2 years ago
Anonymous
¿que
>Buchanan is not a slaver he just gives people to slavers
lol
Enslaver is someone who enslaves. By definition he is not, and like I said, I don't think he's that much better for that minor distinction. Even so, regardless, that's not what Angie b***hes about when she comes up to you to start a rebellion. If that's what she started the conversation with I wouldn't even be b***hing about it here.
>I just wish it wasn't a shitty one and that it kept congruent within the setting it takes place in. I see no inherent problem with change, but when it's a step backwards I absolutely do.
why don't you support your argument with quotes or screenshots of the first game's additional book materials containing all the actual text
oh right because it was still cringe boomer tier shit back then as it is now
fricking grab a beer and join the barbecue you fricking nerd
Do you have ADD or have you lost track completely of what was being discussed?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>that's not what Angie b***hes about when she comes up to you to start a rebellion
The first time she tells you about overthrowing the Patriarch is after she sends you to the secret bunker that reveals Saul was working with two brutal raider gangs and shipping people to them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not really, the first time she talks about it is when you get the meme choice between the hillybillies or the convoy of power armors.
A hilariously bad scene because she b***hes at you regardless of choice, and much more so if you choose the power armor side because that benefits Buchanan, despite her argument is "U TRADING LIVES OF PEOPLE FOR WEAPONZ" - when the convoy escorting the armors had just as many innocents being killed as the inbred farm did. More, even.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That was the moment I learned the the game was operating in moronic game logic because I decided to help the farmers since dudes in power armor should be able to hold their own against inbred bandits
2 years ago
Anonymous
It’s people transporting the power armour not people wearing the power armour. You lack the reading comprehension required for rpgs.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>transporting important cargo >so lightly guarded that a few inbreds, that could be stopped by 6 low level dudes, take your cargo
I guess it's even fricking dumber than I thought, thanks anon
2 years ago
Anonymous
I think you might want to look up an obscure little conflict called the Vietnam war
2 years ago
Anonymous
You mean when some foreign troops invaded a jungle while completely unprepared with shit tactics, borderline unsuitable equipment and no knowledge of how to fight in said terrain?
Yeah, that does sound applicable to a single convoy doing its usual route while delivering very important cargo.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the first time she talks about it is when you get the meme choice between the hillybillies or the convoy of power armors
No she doesn’t talk to you then
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Buchanan is not a slaver he just gives people to slavers
lol
That's what I want to know as well. Like I said, I'm pretty sure W3 was made by people who dislike W2. Aside from everything that I've already mentioned here, the tone of the game has done a 180º turn as well. Because in W2 it was gritty with moments of levity but W3 is comical (borderline farcical sometimes) with moments of seriousness.
>Much like how nu-XCOM is all about soldiers with their cooldown special abilities and it's fricking gay, so is Wasteland 3. Which is fricking gay.
Why do you hate fun?
But I love fun, anon. However, playing a sequel that spits in the face of its prequel and undoes everything that appealed to me in regards to it is quite the opposite of fun.
These characters are not super heroes or have any super powers, they are just people who get better at what they do with time. It keeps your characters in the same scope as the world, in which the reason why, say, a high level dude is scary is because he's geared up with shit much better than yours and he knows how to use it better than you ever could, and not because he has a skill on cooldown that lets him shit out 3 grenades per toenail. I realize that those cooldown skills are abstractions of such, but that becomes completely incongruous with the setting and tone. Although since W3 is sillier and more over the top I guess it does fit better than it would in 2, but that sure as frick is not what got me into the series.
It's not like I hate this type of system by default at all, one of my favorite SRPGs is Troubleshooter (pic related), which is a game about freelance policemen in ancap korea, and most people have literal superpowers. The gameplay fits the world and the narrative, as opposed to standing against it, like in W3 and nu-XCOM
I dunno man. Liking wasteland 2 already makes you a weirdo. I don't get the point of an rpg where none of the playable party matters and they're all replaceable
>I don't get the point of an rpg where none of the playable party matters and they're all replaceable
I'm not even sure what you mean by "not mattering" because without them there is no game or story. But I'll assume you mean there is no defined protagonist character(s) that have scripted interpersonal relationships or roles in the story. That is usually how stories in games go, yeah, but that is not inherently better in any way. It will most likely miss out entirely on what's likely the most appealing part of stories, which are characters and their relationships. And yeah, that I do like that and I do think when it's well done it is definitely an immense boost to my enjoyment, but its absence is far from a dealbreaker to me. In fact I'd rather have "no characters" at all than shitty ones. But then again, W2 is far from the only game that does this, for example: Icewind Dale, Silent Storm, Jagged Alliance, og XCOM (kind of), Kenshi, etc. I guess those are games for weirdos, but still
Even so, the "character" you control in W2 is Echo Squad. The people who comprise Echo Squad is what's up to you. And that's not even a pretentious spin on it, because people's reactions or even charisma checks for recruitment are all derived from either the collective points of Echo Squad in Charisma or a specific character that has, say, Hard Ass, that will act as the face of Echo Squad for the conversation. Although, in the end, any interpersonal relationship your Echo Squad members have are going to be entirely inside your head, which is something the game really encourages and embraces by letting you fill in a bunch of meaningless checkboxes such as religion, ethnicity or even the brand of smokes they prefer.
However there are games that intend to bridge or fill a gap in between like Solasta, Divnity OS1 or even XCOM2, but that's another can of worms.
>That's what I want to know as well. Like I said, I'm pretty sure W3 was made by people who dislike W2. Aside from everything that I've already mentioned here, the tone of the game has done a 180º turn as well. Because in W2 it was gritty with moments of levity but W3 is comical (borderline farcical sometimes) with moments of seriousness.
it's been the same old ass boomers with different and sometimes the same team members in each game anon
of course each game has a different personality and attitude, you can't just repeatedly make the same game for the minority aspergers audience that never wants change which you represent
>of course each game has a different personality and attitude
I just wish it wasn't a shitty one and that it kept congruent within the setting it takes place in. I see no inherent problem with change, but when it's a step backwards I absolutely do.
>you can't just repeatedly make the same game >there's no money in it!
lol
>I just wish it wasn't a shitty one and that it kept congruent within the setting it takes place in. I see no inherent problem with change, but when it's a step backwards I absolutely do.
why don't you support your argument with quotes or screenshots of the first game's additional book materials containing all the actual text
oh right because it was still cringe boomer tier shit back then as it is now
fricking grab a beer and join the barbecue you fricking nerd
2 years ago
Anonymous
She was just a pregen character in the original. She might as well not have been a character until Wasteland 2.
>Much like how nu-XCOM is all about soldiers with their cooldown special abilities and it's fricking gay, so is Wasteland 3. Which is fricking gay.
Why do you hate fun?
>You get so many quests and even entire towns dedicated to show you how "see? not all AIs are bad"
But that's not the truth. For example, one of the quests given to you by Gary is hunting down an AI called October-11, designed to be a "child" robot in order to trick humans. When you find it, it tries to play the sympathy card with you and that it only wants to survive, you can let it go, but later find out that O-11 had killed several innocent people. Same with the AI faction in the game. They present themselves as being benevolent and not wanting a war with humans, but the more you play the game, the more you find out that it's not really the case, or at least not the full picture. And there's many more examples of this. And the thing is, not all AI's are malicious either, but a lot of them are desperate to run and hide from humans after the downfall of Cochise, and in the process end up hurting a lot of people for the sake of their own survival. >It's like everyone in the fricking world forgot about Cochise.
They didn't. Cochise constantly gets refereed in the game and serves as a prime example for many characters why synths shouldn't be trusted. It's why some synths are forced to masquerade as humans, in fear of being destroyed by them. >and not because so the Rangers can get a better foothold, but because "it's the right thing to do"
And she's portrayed as a complete hypocrite
Because it's not a gem, it's entirely forgetable, that whole ending with Angela Death was absolutely moronic as well, i can't remember too well since its been a sec, but she literally had brain damage logic. Game had some decently cool weapons but the timed shit/unknown choices forced some longass reloads
I just finished the game for the first time, I think I prefer 2 over it but I also didn't play it with DLCs. The entire thing with Angela felt weird to me, I understand it's a sequel to another game but them shoving her in there in the role they did feels like they did it just to have her there. She's willing to potentially frick over so many people on the faith that it'll just work out and the Rangers will fix whatever problems come up. The idea that only a singular faction knows how to deal with the oil seems kind of weird, I don't believe for a second that the robots wouldn't be able to help out with that. I had a lot of fun, and I'll probably go back to play it again with the DLCs to make different choices along the way. Probably with a mod that lets me remove mods from weapons too.
The rough launch turned alot of people off it. I wasn't a fan of having to blind build an entire party in Wasteland 2. Both kept me from checking it out on launch.
i've played the game on release not quite finishing it and considering the usual "try again at some point after updates"
anyone playing it recently knows if any content/choices etc has been improved? i don't remember having any "memorable" issues with the bugginess so while i expect that improved it isn't necessarily relevant.
You don't really play Wasteland for the storyline regardless, though 3 is definitely memes to the point of just not being feasible to care for the setting.
You mostly care for the noble girl's sidequest since she is basically the main character of the game for all purposes (only character you can have in your party that essentially has a dialogue towards everything), and the rest of the things is mostly a set of shenanigans you explore for the hilarity of it.
It's not a game that can be taken seriously. It's also not as offensively bad that you need to turn off your brain completely.
Except when the mary sue from the older games is on screen. There, there you need some timeout.
>You don't really play Wasteland for the storyline regardless, though 3 is definitely memes to the point of just not being feasible to care for the setting.
You're right in that the writing is barely nuanced, but I like the fact that even though they seem to want the players to hate the patriarch at first, he later comes off as someone who genuinely wants to help his people and has to make some tough decisions. I appreciate the fact that you can ask him about anything you learn about him and he'll answer you calmly.
The Steeltown dlc has an interesting storyline, Holy detonation is just pure meme though.
It's hard to take the world seriously as you said though, what with the roaming clown, Bizarre inhabitants, contradictory mary sue and all.
Oh yeah it DOES have some good redeeming values, regardless of whether or not it's the player's particular taste.
Like how you can actually break the game's sequence and head directly to Vic's place as your first "sibling" to capture and you can recruit him nearly the first thing you do in the game.
Not only does the game account for you doing such a bizarre choice, it retroactively has dialogues for anything that could happen "organically", i.e going to meet his brother, and getting his sister's ambush cutscene as well as all of the Mary Sue dialogues. You can also bring him to the Patriarch and have him give you a guided tour of the house which you can use to then blackmail his brother into compliance much more easily.
Things like that really both surprised me and had me respect the devs for it.
Dialog is so bad I had to quit playing. Gave it some leniency early on but after a few hours it was obvious that everyone was going to speak like they're in a Twitch chat or some shit.
The game is kinda boring. It has the Fallout syndrome where there's really only a few builds. They're just combinations of melee, big guns, sniper, or small guns. Gameplay is decent but devolves into the HP-sponge enemies. Not a big deal if you play in certain ways. But still shouldn't ever be the case.
The itemization is the big turnoff for me. Having linear weapon progression where one weapon is strictly better than another in a given class is fully moronic.
Still on the fence about getting this. This thread hasn't really helped at all. >I LIKE it! >It blows giant dicks!
It's on sale on Steam for about 14 bucks. 19 bucks with all dlc's. So frick it. Think I'll get it.
Because it's shit.
Have you played it?
yeah i've played it for like 50 minutes. Boring ass game.
homie didnt even finish the prologue
game is not made for zoomers
It's actually great and far better compared to the previous games.
that cult of detonation dlc bored me to death,what a fricking boring dlc and that you have to kill one of your rangers to get the good ending was just a slap in the face
I just ran back to ranger HQ, created a new ranger, brought him to get radiated, then went back and put my normal team together. Still kinda dumb though
Because it's not an rpg, it's a party management game. None of the characters are "you"; rather, you create a team that the narrative is directed at.
Ergo, not a role playing game because you are not playing a role.
Sounds like an rpg to me. What is with wrpg fans and they're incessant need to define terms with uselessly narrow definitions?
It's not narrow at all. It's very simple.
If you play a role, it's an RPG. If you don't, it's not.
You realize you're invalidating every party based dungeon crawler here?
Yes. Because they aren't RPGs.
as i said. useless.
Dungeon crawlers are rpgs.
I'd also add to that by noting that choose your own adventure books are not RPGs.
Assassins creed is an rpg because you play the role of Altair, but Might and magic games aren’t because you control a party. Amazing definition you got there
Agreed, Flatout 4 where you self-insert as a car best RPG ever.
nba 2k career mode is my favorite rpg tbqh
people like you are why homosexuals and Black folk infiltrate games and make them shit.
isn't there a jrpg thread for you somewhere
aren't you cute
>openly admits homosexuals and Black folk are a wrpg exclusive thing
kek
Doesn't that mean jrpgs aren't rpgs? I always assumed the first character was me. I'll admit i don't like having to make a full team but making you and your partner then allowing other characters to speak as necessary doesn't seem too bad.
>Doesn't that mean jrpgs aren't rpgs?
You moron, none of the characters have to be your self insert for it to be an RPG, that is flatly not a requirement to be an RPG.
The option to create your own characters is present. Clearly you didn't play the game. Go frick off back to your mom's butthole.
The game was actually pretty enjoyable imo. Plays like a faster XCOM, mostly due to the game being lenient towards party members dying/getting injured. Definitely an enjoyable game if you wanna sit back and relax with beers or blunts and zone into the world of wasteland for a while.
You create a pair of characters at the start. Just because you create characters does not mean that you are playing a role. Would you say that FIFFA is an RPG because you can create a custom povertyball player?
>Pool of Radiance is not an RPG because you have a party
>Baldur's Gate is not an RPG because you have a party
>ToEE is not an RPG because you have a party
>BUT FALLOUT NEW VEGAS IS TOTALLY AN RPG BECAUSE YOU PLAY AS ONE GUY
>pool of radiance isn't an RPG
Correct.
>BG isn't an RPG
Incorrect. You create and pilot the Bhaalspawn. That is the role you are playing and the narrative is directed at, and revolves around, your singular character.
>ToEE isn't an RPG
Difficult to say. Although you have a party, and no singular member is designated as "you", the narrative is directed at one person in particular in all of the conversations. You could say that whatever the first character you add to the party is "you" and the dialog and story is directed at that character.
I don't know why you are having such a hard time grasping this concept. It's pretty straightforward.
Wait wait wait, so let me get this straight, according to you D&D isn't a roleplaying game and never was a roleplaying game because you are allowed to play as multiple characters if you want to?
You do know there is no rule whatsoever that says a player is limited to one character, do you?
Kek
A fine analblasting of a pseud. A (You) well deserved dear anon.
If you don't have a primary character that is clearly designated as the player character then no, DnD is not a roleplaying game at that point. It's a management game.
Okay anon, so according to you the entire game franchise that created the whole fricking genre and market is aachktually not a roleplaying game...because you don't like that it allows players to have multiple characters during a session since four decades worth of material.
Yes.
That's okay. You're wrong about what an rpg is, though.
>anon visualizes himself as the "Yes. chad meme"
ngmi
Just take the L and leave.
i am currently playing incestual twins in a campaign and i make them frick all the time, that's peak roleplaying moron.
You keep getting BTFO every single thread. It’s both hilarious and sad.
BTFO by who? Someone who thinks that, when you manage an entire party of characters that you create and have no interaction with the world other than what comes through the narrative at the entire group, is a ROLE playing game?
You don't have a role if you are all the characters. You are a manager, sitting above the game in the position of something like a GM. Nothing interacts with you; no one talks to you. You play nothing in the game. Ergo, it's not a role playing game.
>ROLE
You keep saying this word but I'm becoming more and more convinced that you don't know what it means.
Role playing means your character is a self-insert? Are you moronic? The game isn't your personality test you narcissist frick.
You homosexuals need to stop saying Wasteland isn't an RPG. It's just absurd and bad faith.
beause it's good... but that's about it, thre's nothingreally to discuss
No trans or gay characters, which is rare in an WRPG.
This is not remotely true; one of the default character pairs are a couple of pederasts.
Anyone download it and see what you think. I did, and thought it was shit some 2 hours in.
Its good but its missing something to be really great
It is an above average game and you'll probably enjoy it. I don't think it is a classic I'll come back to again and again though.
We did.
it's a 2 year old singleplayer game and we already said everything there was to say about it in a couple months after release.
Didn't even play more than an hour or so of Wasteland 2.
It’s really good, but there’s not a whole lot to be said that hasn’t been discussed.
i found wasteland 2 kind of boring which killed any hype i had for this one. i will try it eventually i suppose
it's great if you get into the metagame start of grabbing ralphy, then pzipi by having everyone eat food to meat the charisma requirment. also scumming for the merchant that sells the m16 and beefy sniper rifle.
it's good, i liked it, but this game is missing something that was in W2 to be actually memorable. idk how to describe it.
I think its just missing any sort of twists or turns in the pacing and plot. You pretty much know exactly how the game is going to play out in the first few hours and its just a sort of episodic adventure like Dragon Quest 7 which is also completely forgettable
that's kind of okay though? it's a fun ride with some good setpieces and nice little branches in the end result
It's boring and forgettable, the stat+skill system sucks ass and having some shitty joinable npcs destroys the whole "build your own team" concept.
Inb4 some moron comes in with "b-but you dont *have* to take them in your team" proving they completely missed the point.
Because 2 was a lot better
Probably because it, while having superior gameplay in almost every regard compared to the two before it, doesn't feel "soulful" like the other two. Except in the Gippers' territory, but even then, the Reaganbot is only a tiny bit to that area. Music being old American folk music, hymns, and country music with lyrics actually in the song instead of being removed for the game, was kino though. Shame that only a few fights had that kind of "soul", that charm.
Disliked how they made the party the 'character' rather then it being (You)
>create-a-party
>but also have companions, just so your created characters can look soulless by comparison
Why
You say that like it wasn't reasonably common in CRPGs already
Because the best things about Wasteland 3 is its' combat and music.
The factions weren't really that good.
The choices, consequences and morality were lacking.
The setting was a bit of missed potential.
The best NPC is the Patriarch and he wasn't special.. the given 'alternatives' to him just didn't compare.
The itemization looked nice, but the upgrade options are no-brainers.
I enjoyed it, but it lacks the oomph to make it stand with the other often talked, older CRPGs.
It's kind of like Dragon Age: Origins, where you'll find something to enjoy in it, but in 20-30 years, nobody will probably remember them.
>It's kind of like Dragon Age: Origins, where you'll find something to enjoy in it, but in 20-30 years, nobody will probably remember them
Considering that over a decade people still talk about Origins and look at it fondly, I don't think you're right on that one.
he said 20
Well, it's been 13 years and the game is still talked about and praised. I guess we'll see what happens in the next 7 years, but I doubt people will forget Origins that easily.
bumbp
The game was kinda of all around unmemorable. It literally doesn't have a high point in the story, the choices barely matter and unconvincing. Gameplay feels like a dumbed down version of the previous game, loot is literally 100% bound to item level and the scaling is fricked (like loot in Divinity: OS2) where basic item of level +1 is better than whatever you have at the current level. Consequentially, enemies also become extremely bloated to fight against when they are 1-2 levels above yours.
It's an all around mediocre game, at least it's well produced but it feels like it tries to be too safe all around.
It's also surprisingly short for a turn based game. I know some people say it's 30-40 hours, but a lot of it is just turn based RPG time bloat, these games have always been >50 hours at least.
It's a good game and I enjoyed, but it's also quite unmemorable for whatever reason.
I don't talk about it because it's an utter disappointment, especially because I liked 2.
>Combat
Much like how nu-XCOM is all about soldiers with their cooldown special abilities and it's fricking gay, so is Wasteland 3. Which is fricking gay.
>Story
Oh boy. I sincerely think this game was made by people who hate Wasteland 2. Not only does it start with killing your entire crew from 2 off screen, it then goes on to retcon the entire basis of the setting - namely that AI is inherently evil and unimaginably dangerous. You get so many quests and even entire towns dedicated to show you how "see? not all AIs are bad" when that was never the problem. The problem has always been that it takes a single one bad one to exist and it can take over every other robot AND PEOPLE if they have ANY cyborg implants on them. It's so absurd and they bring back Gary NaCl from W2 and write him as a meanie who wants you to go ~indiscriminately~ AIs on the run. It's like everyone in the fricking world forgot about Cochise.
>Characters
I will try to be brief with this but not only do they bring back Angela Deth from the dead to make her, for some fricking reason, a self righteous """anti-tyrant""" crazy person who expects you to just sabotage the local government, and not because so the Rangers can get a better foothold, but because "it's the right thing to do".
Just a complete waste of time for anyone who enjoyed pretty much any aspect of Wasteland 2. I don't know who this game is for.
>Gary NaCl from W2 and write him as a meanie who wants you to go KILL* ~indiscriminately~ AIs on the run.
frick me, it's late
Yeah watching a hardened veteran ranger that survived 2 games act like some 16 year old bleeding heart in 3 was so bizarre. I have to imagine that choice to have her in 3 at all was either a marketing one or one of the devs waifu'd her and demanded she have a big role
>a marketing one
I sincerely SINCERELY doubt it because not only is that never ever mentioned but it's in fact a twist reveal.
>one of the devs waifu'd
I never even gave thought to that but that might 100% that. Her entire arc ended in W2 right after you find Ace's badge, which honestly the last thing she wanted to do before dying, and then she got to do so by saving Echo Squad.
BUT NAH MAN DID YOU KNOW THAT THE SOLE RULER OF COLORADO IS A TYRANT OH GEEZ OH MAN WE BETTER THROW OUR ENTIRE DEAL INTO THE BIN BECAUSE MUH FREEDOMZAMIRITE
>BUT NAH MAN DID YOU KNOW THAT THE SOLE RULER OF COLORADO IS A TYRANT OH GEEZ OH MAN WE BETTER THROW OUR ENTIRE DEAL INTO THE BIN BECAUSE MUH FREEDOMZAMIRITE
killing guys like that is literally your job description
>killing guys like that is literally your job description
No, it literally is not. A Ranger's job is not to fight ruling powers that they deem "oppressive". They are made to protect the citizenry of bandits, rebels and any other type of troublemakers. They are a glorified police force but with no actual State above them to answer to.
Not just that but Buchanon DOES keep Law and Order in Colorado, whether you agree with him morally or not, and that's ultimately the Rangers' goals. For fricking ANGELA DETH, a borderline founding member of the modern AZ Rangers to come down and sow fricking chaos in a state because she doesn't like the ruler? That is fricking absurd. That should've been a new character who doesn't understand what the Rangers are and what their mission in Colorado is.
if buchanon commits tax fraud then he is technically a bandit
No, when the state does it's called too bad lmao
No, Buchanan is not a slaver. He does have a deal with slavers so as to secure, theoretically, the safety of his people from them. Not that much better imo but it's not the same thing.
Dear free masons:
>cultivates the martial dao and becomes a god emperor tier perpetual in your path
¿que
Enslaver is someone who enslaves. By definition he is not, and like I said, I don't think he's that much better for that minor distinction. Even so, regardless, that's not what Angie b***hes about when she comes up to you to start a rebellion. If that's what she started the conversation with I wouldn't even be b***hing about it here.
Do you have ADD or have you lost track completely of what was being discussed?
>that's not what Angie b***hes about when she comes up to you to start a rebellion
The first time she tells you about overthrowing the Patriarch is after she sends you to the secret bunker that reveals Saul was working with two brutal raider gangs and shipping people to them.
Not really, the first time she talks about it is when you get the meme choice between the hillybillies or the convoy of power armors.
A hilariously bad scene because she b***hes at you regardless of choice, and much more so if you choose the power armor side because that benefits Buchanan, despite her argument is "U TRADING LIVES OF PEOPLE FOR WEAPONZ" - when the convoy escorting the armors had just as many innocents being killed as the inbred farm did. More, even.
That was the moment I learned the the game was operating in moronic game logic because I decided to help the farmers since dudes in power armor should be able to hold their own against inbred bandits
It’s people transporting the power armour not people wearing the power armour. You lack the reading comprehension required for rpgs.
>transporting important cargo
>so lightly guarded that a few inbreds, that could be stopped by 6 low level dudes, take your cargo
I guess it's even fricking dumber than I thought, thanks anon
I think you might want to look up an obscure little conflict called the Vietnam war
You mean when some foreign troops invaded a jungle while completely unprepared with shit tactics, borderline unsuitable equipment and no knowledge of how to fight in said terrain?
Yeah, that does sound applicable to a single convoy doing its usual route while delivering very important cargo.
>the first time she talks about it is when you get the meme choice between the hillybillies or the convoy of power armors
No she doesn’t talk to you then
>Buchanan is not a slaver he just gives people to slavers
lol
Buchanan is a slaver providing both the Godfishers and Scar Collectors with people. He’s just another gang boss to be taken down.
That's worse than I imagined it could be, and I really liked 2.
What on Earth happened?
That's what I want to know as well. Like I said, I'm pretty sure W3 was made by people who dislike W2. Aside from everything that I've already mentioned here, the tone of the game has done a 180º turn as well. Because in W2 it was gritty with moments of levity but W3 is comical (borderline farcical sometimes) with moments of seriousness.
But I love fun, anon. However, playing a sequel that spits in the face of its prequel and undoes everything that appealed to me in regards to it is quite the opposite of fun.
These characters are not super heroes or have any super powers, they are just people who get better at what they do with time. It keeps your characters in the same scope as the world, in which the reason why, say, a high level dude is scary is because he's geared up with shit much better than yours and he knows how to use it better than you ever could, and not because he has a skill on cooldown that lets him shit out 3 grenades per toenail. I realize that those cooldown skills are abstractions of such, but that becomes completely incongruous with the setting and tone. Although since W3 is sillier and more over the top I guess it does fit better than it would in 2, but that sure as frick is not what got me into the series.
It's not like I hate this type of system by default at all, one of my favorite SRPGs is Troubleshooter (pic related), which is a game about freelance policemen in ancap korea, and most people have literal superpowers. The gameplay fits the world and the narrative, as opposed to standing against it, like in W3 and nu-XCOM
I dunno man. Liking wasteland 2 already makes you a weirdo. I don't get the point of an rpg where none of the playable party matters and they're all replaceable
>I don't get the point of an rpg where none of the playable party matters and they're all replaceable
I'm not even sure what you mean by "not mattering" because without them there is no game or story. But I'll assume you mean there is no defined protagonist character(s) that have scripted interpersonal relationships or roles in the story. That is usually how stories in games go, yeah, but that is not inherently better in any way. It will most likely miss out entirely on what's likely the most appealing part of stories, which are characters and their relationships. And yeah, that I do like that and I do think when it's well done it is definitely an immense boost to my enjoyment, but its absence is far from a dealbreaker to me. In fact I'd rather have "no characters" at all than shitty ones. But then again, W2 is far from the only game that does this, for example: Icewind Dale, Silent Storm, Jagged Alliance, og XCOM (kind of), Kenshi, etc. I guess those are games for weirdos, but still
Even so, the "character" you control in W2 is Echo Squad. The people who comprise Echo Squad is what's up to you. And that's not even a pretentious spin on it, because people's reactions or even charisma checks for recruitment are all derived from either the collective points of Echo Squad in Charisma or a specific character that has, say, Hard Ass, that will act as the face of Echo Squad for the conversation. Although, in the end, any interpersonal relationship your Echo Squad members have are going to be entirely inside your head, which is something the game really encourages and embraces by letting you fill in a bunch of meaningless checkboxes such as religion, ethnicity or even the brand of smokes they prefer.
However there are games that intend to bridge or fill a gap in between like Solasta, Divnity OS1 or even XCOM2, but that's another can of worms.
>That's what I want to know as well. Like I said, I'm pretty sure W3 was made by people who dislike W2. Aside from everything that I've already mentioned here, the tone of the game has done a 180º turn as well. Because in W2 it was gritty with moments of levity but W3 is comical (borderline farcical sometimes) with moments of seriousness.
it's been the same old ass boomers with different and sometimes the same team members in each game anon
of course each game has a different personality and attitude, you can't just repeatedly make the same game for the minority aspergers audience that never wants change which you represent
there's no money in it!
>of course each game has a different personality and attitude
I just wish it wasn't a shitty one and that it kept congruent within the setting it takes place in. I see no inherent problem with change, but when it's a step backwards I absolutely do.
>you can't just repeatedly make the same game
>there's no money in it!
lol
>I just wish it wasn't a shitty one and that it kept congruent within the setting it takes place in. I see no inherent problem with change, but when it's a step backwards I absolutely do.
why don't you support your argument with quotes or screenshots of the first game's additional book materials containing all the actual text
oh right because it was still cringe boomer tier shit back then as it is now
fricking grab a beer and join the barbecue you fricking nerd
She was just a pregen character in the original. She might as well not have been a character until Wasteland 2.
>Much like how nu-XCOM is all about soldiers with their cooldown special abilities and it's fricking gay, so is Wasteland 3. Which is fricking gay.
Why do you hate fun?
>You get so many quests and even entire towns dedicated to show you how "see? not all AIs are bad"
But that's not the truth. For example, one of the quests given to you by Gary is hunting down an AI called October-11, designed to be a "child" robot in order to trick humans. When you find it, it tries to play the sympathy card with you and that it only wants to survive, you can let it go, but later find out that O-11 had killed several innocent people. Same with the AI faction in the game. They present themselves as being benevolent and not wanting a war with humans, but the more you play the game, the more you find out that it's not really the case, or at least not the full picture. And there's many more examples of this. And the thing is, not all AI's are malicious either, but a lot of them are desperate to run and hide from humans after the downfall of Cochise, and in the process end up hurting a lot of people for the sake of their own survival.
>It's like everyone in the fricking world forgot about Cochise.
They didn't. Cochise constantly gets refereed in the game and serves as a prime example for many characters why synths shouldn't be trusted. It's why some synths are forced to masquerade as humans, in fear of being destroyed by them.
>and not because so the Rangers can get a better foothold, but because "it's the right thing to do"
And she's portrayed as a complete hypocrite
Because I tried to play it multiplayer, but the game wouldn't let me.
It was made with consoles in mind, controlling your party on pc was a nightmare.
So was the second game and it was bad then too, but they did almost nothing to improve it.
Because it's not a gem, it's entirely forgetable, that whole ending with Angela Death was absolutely moronic as well, i can't remember too well since its been a sec, but she literally had brain damage logic. Game had some decently cool weapons but the timed shit/unknown choices forced some longass reloads
I just finished the game for the first time, I think I prefer 2 over it but I also didn't play it with DLCs. The entire thing with Angela felt weird to me, I understand it's a sequel to another game but them shoving her in there in the role they did feels like they did it just to have her there. She's willing to potentially frick over so many people on the faith that it'll just work out and the Rangers will fix whatever problems come up. The idea that only a singular faction knows how to deal with the oil seems kind of weird, I don't believe for a second that the robots wouldn't be able to help out with that. I had a lot of fun, and I'll probably go back to play it again with the DLCs to make different choices along the way. Probably with a mod that lets me remove mods from weapons too.
>that lets me remove mods from weapons too
they're permeant? what? why?
Is the DLC any good?
The rough launch turned alot of people off it. I wasn't a fan of having to blind build an entire party in Wasteland 2. Both kept me from checking it out on launch.
>The rough launch turned alot of people off it.
Did it? They announced over 2 million played the game at the end of 2021.
Wasn't it a day 1 gamepass launch? Doesn't sound very impressive all things considered
For a crpg those are great numbers
I can confirm W3 was a disaster at launch. Nigh unplayable.
>base squad of 4
>various heights
how good are pistols? could a pistols only run work? or at least no automatic guns
>how good are pistols?
very good
>very good
nice, thanks
i've played the game on release not quite finishing it and considering the usual "try again at some point after updates"
anyone playing it recently knows if any content/choices etc has been improved? i don't remember having any "memorable" issues with the bugginess so while i expect that improved it isn't necessarily relevant.
I think it's mechanically a vast improvement over 2. I never finished 2's story so I have no idea if it's better, but 3 so far has been underwhelming.
The main conflict feels boring 'Oh gee the Arizona Rangers are dying ask help from this obviously corrupt Militia from Colorado'
You don't really play Wasteland for the storyline regardless, though 3 is definitely memes to the point of just not being feasible to care for the setting.
You mostly care for the noble girl's sidequest since she is basically the main character of the game for all purposes (only character you can have in your party that essentially has a dialogue towards everything), and the rest of the things is mostly a set of shenanigans you explore for the hilarity of it.
It's not a game that can be taken seriously. It's also not as offensively bad that you need to turn off your brain completely.
Except when the mary sue from the older games is on screen. There, there you need some timeout.
>You don't really play Wasteland for the storyline regardless, though 3 is definitely memes to the point of just not being feasible to care for the setting.
You're right in that the writing is barely nuanced, but I like the fact that even though they seem to want the players to hate the patriarch at first, he later comes off as someone who genuinely wants to help his people and has to make some tough decisions. I appreciate the fact that you can ask him about anything you learn about him and he'll answer you calmly.
The Steeltown dlc has an interesting storyline, Holy detonation is just pure meme though.
It's hard to take the world seriously as you said though, what with the roaming clown, Bizarre inhabitants, contradictory mary sue and all.
Oh yeah it DOES have some good redeeming values, regardless of whether or not it's the player's particular taste.
Like how you can actually break the game's sequence and head directly to Vic's place as your first "sibling" to capture and you can recruit him nearly the first thing you do in the game.
Not only does the game account for you doing such a bizarre choice, it retroactively has dialogues for anything that could happen "organically", i.e going to meet his brother, and getting his sister's ambush cutscene as well as all of the Mary Sue dialogues. You can also bring him to the Patriarch and have him give you a guided tour of the house which you can use to then blackmail his brother into compliance much more easily.
Things like that really both surprised me and had me respect the devs for it.
2's story fricking sucks once you get to California and gets even worse as you get to the last act of the game.
Still better than 3's and a much better game than 3 overall.
are the dlcs as bad as the reviews say?
Dialog is so bad I had to quit playing. Gave it some leniency early on but after a few hours it was obvious that everyone was going to speak like they're in a Twitch chat or some shit.
>See it on sale
>Windows 10 Required
What are you regards doing on windows 7 in 2022
I played it on win 8.1, worked fine.
just get LTSC you absolute moron
LTSC is useless for videogames moron
Then explain how I can play any game on it
Just get Windows10 lite with start is back modification
I can't talk about Wasteland 2 or 3 because 1 filtered me.
Is it true it's just half the length of 2?
Disappoint if that's the case, reaching the 2nd map in Wasteland 2 felt great
Yes. Perhaps because 3's more story focused.
The angel oracle section of commiefornia was amusing but the rest was forgettable. The whole region was an afterthought.
The game is kinda boring. It has the Fallout syndrome where there's really only a few builds. They're just combinations of melee, big guns, sniper, or small guns. Gameplay is decent but devolves into the HP-sponge enemies. Not a big deal if you play in certain ways. But still shouldn't ever be the case.
The itemization is the big turnoff for me. Having linear weapon progression where one weapon is strictly better than another in a given class is fully moronic.
Still on the fence about getting this. This thread hasn't really helped at all.
>I LIKE it!
>It blows giant dicks!
It's on sale on Steam for about 14 bucks. 19 bucks with all dlc's. So frick it. Think I'll get it.
I played it throught once and didn't have any motivation to replay it. It wasn't bad, just... bland. Like eating a bowl of unsalted porridge.