What went wrong?

What went wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6wwwPJJoJPg
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Nothing. It was everything it promised it'll be.

Nothing, it was a fun h&s game with guns and pretty well done bonus roleplaying elements. """"""People"""""", who expected this to be a full scale RPG, never played the original and are probably underage.

I guess most people wanted it to be Van Buren

Literally everything except the writing, and that only managed to be average at best
> it was a fun h&s game with guns

wut

Shitty weapon balancing. Assault rifles destroyed everything when I played it on release. Did they even fix this in the Director's cut?

It's boring.

Not even the writing is interesting, it feels like some generic setup you'd find in any other amateur 'post-apocalyptic' setting. It wallows in cliche.

Funny, considering Inexile is made up of the genre's pioneers.

>Did they even fix this in the Director's cut?
Yes. Melee and Heavy weapons destroy everything now. End game heavy weapons are literally game breaking.

Honestly it was just as I expected. Shit graphics and performance because Unity. Shit combat.

I've heard they balanced them and made energy weapons actually useful in DC.

This. I understand that it's a sequel to le epic old game, but I feel like that's no excuse to having a boring, generic game. Like have good combat or good world/story, not mediocore both

>wut
H&s = a RPG campaign that focuses on combat first and roleplaying second. Have you ever played Icewind Dale games? They're some of the best h&s games ever made. W2 is like IWD, but with guns, you fucking mongoloid.

>boring
Not an argument.

>bad combat
Not an argument, since the combat is literally improved XCOM combat system with better burst mode mechanics and the addition of precision aiming.

Kill yourselves, retards.

The way weapon-tiers worked was kinda boring and a few stats were spread out kinda wonky with the arizona/california split being a bit jaring. Overall it was an enjoyable game although how shitty and unfinished hollywood was at the release is inexusable but i've heard they fixed it up.

> Not an argument, since the combat is literally improved XCOM combat system with better burst mode mechanics and the addition of precision aiming.

> literally no combat options but attack X or shoot at X with a lower chance to hit but more damage
> most encounters don't even involve cover or can be fought outside of cover since the devs never imagined the player would use sniper rifles


the fuck are you smoking nigga, WL2 had the absolute worst combat mechanics out of all the new Crpgs

I still prefer the original Fallout

Honestly what the fuck do you expect out of crpg combat if the w2 combat was unfathomably bad?

Bryan pls go!

>improved XCOM
>improved

>Sup Forums hates Wasteland 2 now
Wtf?

I never stated it was an argument, I just said it was boring because the game was a prime example of genre cliche.

>literally no combat options but attack X or shoot at X with a lower chance to hit but more damage
>retard doesn't know about precision strikes that add debilitating effects based on hit location
>retard was probably too retarded to use explosives or launchers
>retard was obviously too brain dead to figure out that Animal Whisperer and Computer Science allow for animal and robot charming mid-combat respectively

And here's the best part:
> most encounters don't even involve cover

Retard was too much of a dumdum to use cover in a game, where cover is not over-abundant, but still widely present on every map.

If anything, W2 implemented cover very well, because the cover was not over-abundant and the game forced you to sacrifice lots of APs sometimes to get a character into reliable cover at the start of combat. This was a huge improvement over XCOM, where most maps consist 80% out of objects that provide cover.

*neo-Sup Forums

Everything
It's garbage

Yes, mongoloid, improved, because it actually has proper burst fire mechanics, where every bullet in a burst has its own chance to hit and adds the ability to aim at specific body parts for different effects. XCOM combat is shit tier compared to W2 DC.

The game used to take ages when loading between areas, have this been optimized?

>burst fire and headshot buttons alone fix w2
lol

>hack 'n slash

Stop trying to reinvent words

The term h&s was invented by PnP RPG players before you were even born, kiddo.

Yes but when used for cRPGs it does not carry that meaning ~kiddo~

I don't get why people love thinking that jargons have the same meaning in different mediums

>Yes but when used for cRPGs it does not carry that meaning
Only among retards too young to know anything about the genre, which is not a reason for people with actual knowledge on the matter to stop using the proper term.

New/v/egas fags hates it, they cant comprehend the gameplay mechanics.

>genre
I'm talking about medium. Tabletop =/= Computer

The term has a different meaning in video games, always had. Your "hack 'n slash" genre encompasses games like DMC and Musou in vidya, wether you like it or not, fucking neckbeard. go back to

What's it like compared to the original?
Can I still kill babies with lead pipes and beat hookers?

Nice falseflag, but no. As someone who actually likes NV and considers it to be as good as Fallout 2 and better than Fallout 1, I consider W2 to be a good h&s game with solid RPG elements.

So why exactly was the combat bad?
It had good encounters with some very memorable ones like the slicer dicer robots, diamondback base assault and cyborg caravan assault etc. It had good enemy variety with good ai and the enemies tried all kinds of tricks to take you down, The only thing they could have focused more on was more enemy types to shut your team down. The cover was solid and not over or under used, it was just right to give you enough of a challange. the main issues is balance and stat distribution, stats should honestly have been more "streamlined", being fucking excellent with an ar but unable to hit shit with an smg is just retarded.

>The term has a different meaning in video games
Again, only among retards too young to know anything about the genre, because all so called "cRPGs" as retards like to call them, are literal attempts at emulating the PnP RPG experience to some degree.

It's just some children who have never played the original two Fallout games and were expecting the second coming of Christ.

I dunno man, I never played the original but I enjoyed my time playing it

I dug up Timmy's grave and made them all hate me

more tactical depth then "focus fire on most dangerous enemy" until there's nothing left

>implying any of that shit adds any notable amount of depth

but hey, at least you're not acting like the dumb crouch mechanic adds anything to it


>using cover instead of luring the enemies out with the sniper rifle then moving them down with the rest of your gunline as they exit the small area the devs expected you to fight in
fuck off Fargo


Because there are no tactics aside from focusing fire. And all of the "good" encounters you listed are drowned in a sea of random trash mobs

also
> It had good enemy variety with good ai

is a downright lie

>implying any of that shit adds any notable amount of depth
>gameplay mechanics that add more tactical possibilities during combat do not add depth to the overall combat system

Let me repeat myself: you have no arguments and your memeshit opinions are irrelevant. You can be disregarded with a clear conscience by anyone seeking to actually discuss the game, not spout Sup Forums memes.

They don't add enough tactical possibilities to change every encounter from

1. form gunline
2. alpha strike something
3. attack the enemies for X damage or attack them for more damage but with a lesser hit chance until they're all dead

having grenades that you use when there's too many fuckers and leg shots that you can't use because who the fuck would pay for the game again doesn't change anything

I didn't follow the development but I'd guess unrealistic expectations due to kickstarter advertisement/promises, as usual.

The game itself is good even though obviously flawed (like every single other RPG ever).
I especially liked the detailed descriptions for objects and background, and fluff like your boss reacting to you wearing a dog collar.

I love this type of game and its predecessors Fallout and Wasteland and they went and made a game for people like me. What I got before it was mostly shitty console Fallout shooters, so I'm glad it (and others like D:OS) exists.
Maybe the revolution everyone expected will still come because of their success.

>They don't add enough tactical possibilities
They add tactical possibilities and make the game mechanically superior to XCOM. This is a fact. Everything else is your shit opinion that can be safely disregarded.

> This is a fact.

Fargo pls

The only problem with the ai that i can think of is that they didn't respond well enough to choke points like every single other crpg out there which i don't know why it's so hard to not have them do. They flanked with grenade throwers while suppresing you with heavy mgs and focused down priority targets Nothing revolutionary but nothing horrible either.

Honestly my problem with not feeling like the game was total dogshit might be that i only played it with my original four and didn't have all of them max assault rifles right of the bat.

>not an argument
saying something is not an argument is not an argument.

It wasn't an argument, it was a statement. I don't wanna argue with anyone about my opinions that are correct

A combat oriented RPG with shit combat. You do the math.

Not an argument.

FUCK RPG CODEX!

??

Didn't they get an entire location dedicated to them and it wasn't even something like a random encounter or a hidden area? Just why?

First part of the game is very slow and only picks up in canyon. The game is really great, but it unlocks its real potential only in LA.

Salvation Church especially is really well-written and their encounters are probably the most atmospheric parts of the game.
youtube.com/watch?v=6wwwPJJoJPg

Anyone got to play Director's Cut? Did they fix anything major there?

Please tell me you're not referring to the new xcom games, their combat is garbage.

It's flawed, but I liked it a lot, probably because I like that kind of setting.

The problem is that they wanted to be so old-school they ignored most modern improvements and made the game clunky and slow.

The story only really picks up once you reach LA, which doesn't help either.