This game is fun as fuck. I installed it the other day, and I'm enjoying it a lot. I have some issues with crashing unfortunately, but the game itself is cool. It seems that the chance to hit (at least at lower levels) is pretty small, and my melee dude is wrecking shit, but it's fun and satisfying. The atmosphere is great too.
What do you think?
Too much fights. Dropped it on LA, because fuck this shit
I loved it. I hate that it always gets overlooked in favor of worse games like Pillars of Eternity when people talk about modern CRPGs.
The graphics are kinda bad, but the gameplay is much more interesting.
Pillars sucks, but WL2 is only decent for a single playthrough.
It has 0 replay value.
Combat is complete shit and makes up way too large a part of the game for how awful it is.
I got it for free on a Steam DRM free weekend.
Still could not force myself to continue playing it. I really pitty the people, who paid 50 € for this. Witcher 3 is so much better.
Combat is shite, which is sad because there's so much of it. Setting is good, story less so. They use the first game as a crutch too much, so it feels less like a sequel and more of a half-remembered rebuild of the first.
90 hours though? It took me 7 hours to beat FEAR 2, and I enjoyed it but never felt the need to play it again. I'd say anything above 30-40 hours has been worth the money.
The price tag is brutal, but I bought it on GOG for 60% off. Who buys games at full price these days?
>Witcher 3 is so much better.
When a guy ruins his post by saying something stupid
>90 hours though?
With a ton of padding and running through the same shitty areas (the rail road indians section for example)
WL2 DC was released in the same year, so I compare it to the GOTY. Nobody will remember this turd in five years.
You think anyone will remember The Witcher 3 in five fucking years?
Retard
Strangely, that's how I feel about Witcher 3 and GTAV
>You think anyone will remember The Witcher 3 in five fucking years?
Of course, it has already won GOTY for two consecutive years.
>What do you think?
I regretted paying full price for it. I never got very far but it was slow, uninteresting and really no fun. Its nothing like the old Fallout games and I was very disappointed about it.
The only defense of WL2 in that regard is "B-BUT ITS NOT FALLOUT ITS WASTELAND REEEE!"
The only people that donated to the games Kickstarter had never played the original Wasteland.
I tried playing the original Wasteland, when I got it on an Interplay 10 years anniversary CD-ROM.
Chose to play Star Trek 25th Anniversary on there too instead.
Except that's bullshit. I backed it and I had played the original. The problem was that the vocal idiots on the backer forums all wanted something that wasn't wasteland, and the devs obliged them too far. That's why the directors cut fixed so much, because the devs finally realised that the backers did not represent their target audience.
Yes, they will
GTA V has been out nearly 4 years and is still active and successful, The Witcher 3 will always have new people playing it because of how good it is.
Having only played the Director's Cut, I'm not sure what you mean: The games still bad and lacks replay value
The DC even stole more from Fallout with the perks and the traits which weren't in the vanilla WL2
Played like shit on PS4 by the end of it I had a crash in every fight.
It was ok
Combat isn't as good as Fallout Tactics (and nowhere near something like JA2), but it was fun enough.
Pretty much this. Now that everything is comfortably usable with the DC the game is fun to play around with.
I didn't enjoy tactics though, it felt way too clunky, maybe I should give it another shot.
>fun
care to elaborate?