Chipp0r wrote on Aug 29, 2020, 12:32:

HorrorScope wrote on Aug 29, 2020, 01:57:
I'm thinking I'm going to be hitting game breaking bugs in coop, I don't know if they exist in single player.

In general there are a number of smaller bugs, but it seems after I leave an area and return or wait a long time, sequences are resetting as if I didn't run them before. I could give several examples and I notice now where I had main missions they are now gone.

They certainly do as I ran into a game breaking bug in the first 15 minutes of play. I turned it off and will wait till it has a few patches. Definitely disappointing first impression, but I'll hold off a review until later.

Game breaking bug in the first 15 minutes? Classic inXile! I will get this game eventually, but I guess I can safely hold off for a few months. For the record, I bought Wasteland 2 on release day, played through the extremely buggy release version entirely, then played another much happier/bug free playthrough like a year later with the Director's Cut version. There are definitely better turn based party RPGs, but I found Wasteland 2 to be pretty enjoyable in a rough, unpolished, low budget way.

HorrorScope wrote on Aug 29, 2020, 01:57:
I'm thinking I'm going to be hitting game breaking bugs in coop, I don't know if they exist in single player.

In general there are a number of smaller bugs, but it seems after I leave an area and return or wait a long time, sequences are resetting as if I didn't run them before. I could give several examples and I notice now where I had main missions they are now gone.

They certainly do as I ran into a game breaking bug in the first 15 minutes of play. I turned it off and will wait till it has a few patches. Definitely disappointing first impression, but I'll hold off a review until later.

I'm still a sucker for isometric RPGs, but I just couldn't get into Wasteland 2. That was a game that I was bored with within the first hour and came back to it every now and again to try and push forward but stopped about 8 hours in. That said, this has been quite enjoyable right off the bat, but I'm only 4 hours in, but pretty much every aspect of W2 that was very "meh" seems to have been addressed right from the get-go. Hopefully, it carries through.

I'm thinking I'm going to be hitting game breaking bugs in coop, I don't know if they exist in single player.

In general there are a number of smaller bugs, but it seems after I leave an area and return or wait a long time, sequences are resetting as if I didn't run them before. I could give several examples and I notice now where I had main missions they are now gone.

This comment was edited on Aug 29, 2020, 11:21.

Jivaro wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 16:07:

mirthy wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 16:00:
I put several hours in yesterday. WL3 is, so far, better than 2. Overall production quality and polish is better (look and feel, responsiveness, game mechanics, UI, etc). It's not perfect by any means but WL2 was pretty rough around the edges.

Combat is better (more xcom like than WL2 was) and, imho, is waaaay better. I'm too early on to speak to the story but the intro area has plenty of reactivity to it. That probably doesn't matter much overall in the story though. I'm on Serious Jerk difficulty and find it pretty well balanced which is nice.

I finished WL2. It got long in the tooth near the end but I thought the story wrap ups for decisions in game were superb. It was probably one of the most satisfying endings I've ever played in a video game.

Overall, I'm very happy so far.

This is the most helpful review I have read yet. Thanks! Feels like I should add this to the wishlist.

Glad it was helpful. If you get it I hope you enjoy it.

Brian Fargo seems to have a much more tongue in cheek/slapstick streak that he likes in his games. And it's evidenced by pretty much everything starting with the much maligned Bard's Tale 4. If you were expected BT3 gameplay then you were sorely disappointed but if you imagine it as a stand alone with no pedigree it's a rpg with a silly charm that doesn't take itself too seriously and it's fine.

InXile has flown under the radar as one of the more consistent smaller sized rpg developers in recent years. I enjoyed Wasteland 2, and Bard's Tale IV, in Director's Cut version, is pretty fun too.

mirthy wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 16:00:
I put several hours in yesterday. WL3 is, so far, better than 2. Overall production quality and polish is better (look and feel, responsiveness, game mechanics, UI, etc). It's not perfect by any means but WL2 was pretty rough around the edges.

Combat is better (more xcom like than WL2 was) and, imho, is waaaay better. I'm too early on to speak to the story but the intro area has plenty of reactivity to it. That probably doesn't matter much overall in the story though. I'm on Serious Jerk difficulty and find it pretty well balanced which is nice.

I finished WL2. It got long in the tooth near the end but I thought the story wrap ups for decisions in game were superb. It was probably one of the most satisfying endings I've ever played in a video game.

Overall, I'm very happy so far.

This is the most helpful review I have read yet. Thanks! Feels like I should add this to the wishlist.

I put several hours in yesterday. WL3 is, so far, better than 2. Overall production quality and polish is better (look and feel, responsiveness, game mechanics, UI, etc). It's not perfect by any means but WL2 was pretty rough around the edges.

Combat is better (more xcom like than WL2 was) and, imho, is waaaay better. I'm too early on to speak to the story but the intro area has plenty of reactivity to it. That probably doesn't matter much overall in the story though. I'm on Serious Jerk difficulty and find it pretty well balanced which is nice.

I finished WL2. It got long in the tooth near the end but I thought the story wrap ups for decisions in game were superb. It was probably one of the most satisfying endings I've ever played in a video game.

Overall, I'm very happy so far.

Icewind wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 15:40:

Darks wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 15:23:

jdreyer wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 15:10:

JohnBirshire wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 12:41:
The problem with these games is that they're always reviewed on a "first impressions" basis.

100 hours later everyone finds out the story completely sucked and ruined the game.

It always amazes me how someone can put 100 hours into a game, and then give it a thumbs down. Seems like at 100 hours you're getting your money's worth.

Those people who do that only discredit themselves when they pull that low down crap. I pay no attention to those type of reviews.

The only time I would say that this is legitimate, is if a major patch came out that totally wrecks the game. Then I can understand the thumbs down.

I dunno, I feel that if someone spends that much time on a game, then they've become an expert and know much more about it, which means their opinion is more valid than someone who played it briefly then quit. I'd trust then 100 hour negative review far more than a 10 hour positive one.

IDK, if you put in around 20 to 40 hours, then yes Id be more open to that review, but 100 hours? That one is treading on a fine line to me.

Darks wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 15:23:

jdreyer wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 15:10:

JohnBirshire wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 12:41:
The problem with these games is that they're always reviewed on a "first impressions" basis.

100 hours later everyone finds out the story completely sucked and ruined the game.

It always amazes me how someone can put 100 hours into a game, and then give it a thumbs down. Seems like at 100 hours you're getting your money's worth.

Those people who do that only discredit themselves when they pull that low down crap. I pay no attention to those type of reviews.

The only time I would say that this is legitimate, is if a major patch came out that totally wrecks the game. Then I can understand the thumbs down.

I dunno, I feel that if someone spends that much time on a game, then they've become an expert and know much more about it, which means their opinion is more valid than someone who played it briefly then quit. I'd trust then 100 hour negative review far more than a 10 hour positive one.

VaranDragon wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 12:11:
So how is the game? Better than W2? W2 was very meh to me. Nowhere near the charm, story and choice that Fallout2 was.

I quite disliked W2, but I've been enjoying W3 quite a lot. Definitely much improved. Is it as good as Fallout 2? For most people probably not, nostalgia adds a ton of weight to things that were good way back when. It has some strong improvements to the combat, like illustrating who you can hit from each spot you can move to by hovering over it and the hit chance. Often encounters have multiple ways to resolve them, from outright attack, to talking your way out of it, to bribing people, to surprise attacks (not stealth though... no getting yourself set up in reasonable locations then firing unless you want to be way far away and engage your first shot with a sniper rifle.) Like, there are some places that have world elements that can be used against the enemies if you take the right path and have the right skills, and you can wipe out a good chunk of them before the fight even starts. But those are pretty rare.

The story allows for some ambiguity in what's right. Some question on who's actually being honest with you and who's not. Do you trust the gangster? The lawmen? The thugs? More than that, do you risk your reputation by trying to find the truth instead of just following public opinion on who 'should' be the guilty parties? And it doesn't always tell you if you got the answer wrong, you just march on ahead hoping you did the right thing.

It's a good game. Is it worth $80 to me? I don't know. I'm playing it via the gamepass and it's obviously well worth that.

jdreyer wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 15:10:

JohnBirshire wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 12:41:
The problem with these games is that they're always reviewed on a "first impressions" basis.

100 hours later everyone finds out the story completely sucked and ruined the game.

It always amazes me how someone can put 100 hours into a game, and then give it a thumbs down. Seems like at 100 hours you're getting your money's worth.

Those people who do that only discredit themselves when they pull that low down crap. I pay no attention to those type of reviews.

The only time I would say that this is legitimate, is if a major patch came out that totally wrecks the game. Then I can understand the thumbs down.

JohnBirshire wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 12:41:
The problem with these games is that they're always reviewed on a "first impressions" basis.

100 hours later everyone finds out the story completely sucked and ruined the game.

It always amazes me how someone can put 100 hours into a game, and then give it a thumbs down. Seems like at 100 hours you're getting your money's worth.

Rhett wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 13:15:
I'm a few hours in, though never played the previous two games. I went in hoping for a more modern-age DOS 2, and haven't been disappointed for the most part.

One thing I'm sure will annoy people is that you cannot really.. ambush enemies, as far as I can tell. You often get sucked into combat, and then (at least in my case) you get to watch all of the enemies shoot at your squad that's out of cover and unprepared. Partly due to the fact that the XCOM-like cover system isn't really usable unless you're in combat. I think crouching might put it into play, but it's hard to tell.

I've heard co-op has some issues, sadly. Haven't tried it.

You can select attack before they notice to get some shots in first. The new feature all AI does there moves at once is good to keep things going, sometimes you lose out in some of the finer details going one at a time, but a cool new feature to the TB genre. We've been told 100% voiced. There is no doubt you can see Larian's influence on the genre. They still have the best engine, but this is pretty good for Unity, still slow loads.

Same, everything has been voiced. Even the robots! Hilariously.

Though it ranges from excellent to "meh" quality VA. I guess nothing to complain about, though. I can imagine there's a lot of dialogue.

Overon wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 13:19:
So the enemies can ambush you but you cannot ambush them.
I heard this game has lots of spoken dialogue, unlike Wasteland 2. No doubt that's thanks to the greater production values Xbox Game Studios allows.

So far ,all of my conversions have been fully voiced.

So the enemies can ambush you but you cannot ambush them.
I heard this game has lots of spoken dialogue, unlike Wasteland 2. No doubt that's thanks to the greater production values Xbox Game Studios allows.

Rhett wrote on Aug 28, 2020, 13:15:
I'm a few hours in, though never played the previous two games. I went in hoping for a more modern-age DOS 2, and haven't been disappointed for the most part.

One thing I'm sure will annoy people is that you cannot really.. ambush enemies, as far as I can tell. You often get sucked into combat, and then (at least in my case) you get to watch all of the enemies shoot at your squad that's out of cover and unprepared. Partly due to the fact that the XCOM-like cover system isn't really usable unless you're in combat. I think crouching might put it into play, but it's hard to tell.

I've heard co-op has some issues, sadly. Haven't tried it.

Maybe we can try some Coop Rhett?

Yea, that crouching was annoying, if you move they get up. I haven't found a way to move while crouched. Annoying!!!

I've gotten just a little over 2 hours in so far. and its been a lot of fun. I like the new changes to the game. The story has been good too. I just arrived at Colorado Springs and did a few quest there. Only gripe I have is that some key bindings are not available to be rebound. AutoHot Key to the rescue!!

Looking to get some Coop going to see how that plays out.

Also, I got my copy from Cd Keys for 39 dollars. Cant beat that price.