Wasteland 2 - Director's Cut (PC)
This year is shaping up to be one of the best years ever. I just finished Wasteland 2 - Director's cut and I can finally say that we have a new classic on our hands. To everyone who ever claimed that I am growing out of video games and am livinig in nostalgia, I can now present Wasteland 2 as the evidence of just how wrong these people were! If a game is good, I will like it no matter what year it was created! Last year I played a few games that came very close, but they were lacking that extra edge to make it in my all-time classics list. Wasteland 2 has that edge and it is without a doubt one of the best games I have ever played!
The design
Wasteland 2 does not look very impressive. In fact, I found the art style to be quite off-putting. But what it lacks in visual quality it more than makes up in right design decisions. Namely, the developers took their clues from the golden era of roleplaying games and decided to copy/paste those design ideas into their game. Right from the start it becomes obvious that this game won't hold your hand, that your choices will have consequences and that the wasteland is a harsh place to live in. Forget your all-knowing compass from modern games, forget magical health regeneration and unlimited ammo. Forget the boring fed-ex quests and generic linear story design! Forget everything you learned in modern gaming, because this game is different!
Unfortunately, there seems to be a vocal minority of so called "original Fallout fans" who disagree with me, so I went through their arguments to see just how much truth is there behind their complaints. This will allow me not only to review the game, but also compare it to the best games in the genre, such as Fallout 1&2 which these people use as an example of how it should be done. Now don't get me wrong - I absolutely love the original Fallout games - but what I don't understand is how someone can be a Fallout fan and hate Wasteland 2, since there are many similarities and many things that Wasteland 2 actually improves in comparison. Anyway, let us take a look at some of these complaints.
Complaints and rebuttals
Complaint 1: The combat sucks. Fallout had more types of aimed shots. Jagged Alliance 2 did combat better. AI is horrible, because enemies shoot at each other and they don't use the 'cover' mechanic effectively.
---
I must say that I find this line of reasoning quite perplexing. While I do agree that original Fallout games have more types of aimed shots, and while I do agree that Jagged Alliance 2 had better combat overall, it seems to me that people are mixing apples and oranges here. Namely, Jagged Alliance 2 is not so much an RPG as it is a tactical simulator with some minor RPG elements. This is almost like comparing Grand Theft Auto with a racing simulator and then victoriously conluding how the racing simulator simulates driving better than a game which focuses on more things than just driving. Needless to say, it's a completely retarded argument and I don't understand how someone can bash Wasteland's combat by comparing it with a game from a completely different genre, while at the same time praising Fallout's combat which is objectively even worse!
The only advantage that original Fallout has over Wasteland 2 in terms of combat is more types of aimed shots. Namely, Wasteland 2 allows you to aim into head, torso, arms and legs, but it does not have an option to aim into eyes and groin. However, at this point it needs to be said that Fallout games do not use any cover mechanics at all, you can't crouch, you can't attack enemies from rooftops, you cannot ambush them, and most importantly it does not allow you to control your party members - all things that Wasteland 2 features! Furthermore, artificial intelligence in Fallout is even worse! Not only do enemies often shoot each other to death, but the inability to control your party members means that you too quite regularly become the victim of friendly fire. In Wasteland 2 this happens very rarely and enemies do much more than just stand and shoot at you, so I really don't understand where these people are coming from. The way I see the whole "combat and AI sucks" argument is this. We lost the ability to aim into eyes and groin, while we gained many important improvements. Therefore, anyone who mantains that Fallout has better combat is demonstrably wrong and is an idiot!
Complaint 2: The attribute and skill system is broken. Only intelligence is a useful attribute and some skills are completely useless or have been unnecessarily branched into different flavors that do exactly the same thing (for example speech skill being branched into kiss-ass, smart ass, hard-ass).
---
Again, I find this criticism from Fallout fans ridiculous. While I do agree that Fallout uses a better system overall, this is at best a minor nitpick and I just don't understand how anyone can have a serious problem with it. Namely, different games will use different systems and there are many classics which use worse set of rules than Wasteland 2 does. Baldur's Gate or Planescape Torment for example - both amazing games by the way - and yet nobody would ever make an argument how those games are bad for relying on D&D ruleset. This is why I mantain that the set of rules cannot ruin a game unless it's badly implemented into the final product. Wasteland's system is extremely solid however, which is why I find this complaint so ridiculous. My only real gripe is that the optimal number of points you need to put into each attribute is a bit difficult to calculate, but again... this is nothing more than a nitpick.
Furthermore, the assertion that only intelligence is a useful attribute is far from truth! It is the most useful attribute for getting skills, but invest only in intelligence and you will have a combat gimped party that lacks the mobility needed for tactical positioning. Ignore your constitution or strength and you will constantly be over encumbered and lacking much needed health points. Getting free multiple critical shots with high awareness and luck is not mandatory, but its far from useless. Even charisma is needed, because it raises everyone's attack and defense skills within a certain radius of high charisma characters, while at the same time raising the maximum number of party members. So, if you want to play only 4 or 5 combat gimped characters with low mobility that cannot carry any heavy weaponry and that will get murdered by two shots due to low health, go ahead. Invest in the "only useful attribute" and then come back and complain how the system sucks. I will just sit there and laugh at your own stupidity.
What's worse is that these clueless whiners seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that most of their complaints hold true for the game they are championing. Namely, Fallout too has some fairly useless skills like gambling, bartering and throwing. At the same time branching out certain skills in Wasteland 2 makes a lot of sense from a purely roleplaying perspective. I mean, if someone is good at persuading people with rational arguments (smart ass), that by itself does not mean he will also be good at intimidating (hard ass), or smooth talking (kiss ass). The counter argument by the haters is usually that Fallout handles these skills through it's attribute system, where intelligence works as smart ass, charisma as kiss ass, and strength as hard ass skill - but I still mantain that having these things branched out into skills makes a lot more sense from a roleplaying perspective. This is because there are many strong people who are bad at intimidation and there are many extremely intelligent people who do not know the first thing about rational philosophical discourse. Likewise there are many charismatic people who are rude as hell, so from a purely roleplaying perspective Wasteland's system makes a lot more sense.
Complaint 3: The interface is clunky. You constantly have to choose skills to be able to interact with different objects.
---
Again, this is just factually wrong. The interface in Wasteland 2 is vastly superior to that of Fallout and many newer games which were created with consoles in mind. In the original Fallout all your items were lined up in a row one under another. There was no easy way to quickly browse through items, there was no way to arrange the clunky mess that was your inventory and even simple tasks such as examining items required multiple counterintuitive clicks. Wasteland 2 fixes all of these problems, so I have no idea what these whiners are complaining about.
When it comes to being forced to choose a skill on an object in order to interact with it, I can see how a modern gamer who plays modern games might find the need to choose a skill tiresome - since most modern games bound all actions to a single button - but I would never excpect such criticism from people who call themselves Fallout fans! Namely, the original Fallout works exactly the same in this regard! Perhaps they have a problem with the number of items on each map which allow you to use skills on them, but again... how is this a serious issue - if an issue at all? Nobody is forcing the player to open every single container or disarm every single trap, and it's not like you are greeted with an interactive item every few steps.
Complaint 4: The maps are too big and it takes too long to navigate from one point to another.
---
I can see some validity to this point, since in Wasteland 2 you cannot access the world map without walking all the way to the edge of an area. Even though the original Fallout worked in exactly the same way, the problem was somewhat alleviated due to areas being smaller. However it needs to be said here that bigger maps translates into more realistic design with less loading screens, so while I am willing to acknowledge the validity of this criticism for some people who prefer smaller maps, let us not pretend that this is a problem for everyone. It certainly didn't prevent me from enjoying the game.
Complaint 5: Graphics are horrible and wearing different armor does not change how I look.
---
This is another point which is objectively true, but for the life of me I just cannot see why this would be a big problem. I mean, the graphics are actually a huge improvement in comparison to Fallout 1&2, and although they can't compare with triple A titles such as Witcher 3, they do a decent job. I know that the standard counter argument here will be someone pointing out how Fallout is a much older game and that it is just not fair to compare the graphics due to difference in technology. But if your whole point is to prove how Fallout did it better, I just cannot fathom why anyone would make a big deal out of graphics, especially considering the fact that this is one part in which Wasteland 2 completely destroys it's predecessor. At the same time graphics look bad only if you zoom all the way in to your characters, which you can always choose not to do.
With that being said however, there is one point here that I do accept. Namely, in Wasteland 2 wearing different armor types does not change your appearance and I absolutely agree that this was a bad design decision. I mean, you can change your appearance by wearing different outfits, which leads to some very strange combinations where a heavy armored character can wear an outfit that makes you look half naked. From a roleplaying perspective, this is just horrible and I wish the developers at least gave us an option to change our appearance based on the armor we are wearing. Still, this is again nothing more than a nitpick. First of all, there are many great games where you can't customize your character's appearance by equiping new armor - Jagged Alliance 2 and Planescape Torment are just two examples that cross my mind. Secondly, Wasteland 2 has many outfit options available, so as long as you choose those outfits that match your armor, you can pretty much avoid the whole problem. And thirdly, I could just as well nitpick how in Fallout you could not change your skin/hair color, add a biography, choose a religion or customize the visual appearance of the character in any significant way at the start of the game - but at this point this feels more like beating a dead horse. The fact of the matter is that all of these complaints are just minor nitpicks that don't take away much from the whole experience.
Complaint 6: Dialogues are horrible, since they use topics instead of dialogue trees.
---
This here is my biggest gripe with the game and the first point that is completely valid, but again I have to say that it's not a huge issue. Morrowind uses topics instead of dialogue trees as and it's an amazing game. While it is true that dialogue trees feel much more natural and focused; using topics is just a slightly inferior way to do it, so I cannot bash the game for these minor issues.
Comlpaint 7: Bugs.
---
I am not aware of any game that was ever released with 0 bugs. Even Fallout which people seem to praise into infinity is to this day plagued with broken quests, save corruptions, crashes, combat freezing up, etc. In fact, bugs were my only reason for not finishing Fallout 2, so I find it particulary funny when people call Wasteland 2 a buggy mess while completely ignoring this problem in games that they are praising. If anything Wasteland 2 is extremely polished in comparison, which is why this complaint feels like a tautalogy. I mean sure... I encountered a few bugs in my 100 hour playthrough, but quite honestly I don't remember ever playing a game that was so complex and long, yet so polished.
Conclusion
The bottom line is this. Most of the these complaints can be applied to Fallout, and even when people actually make some valid points, they really aren't that big of a deal. Wasteland 2 is different from Fallout in many ways. It has some things that it does better and it has some things that it does worse. For one, it is a much bigger game with all the choices and consequences a true Fallout fan would want. Therefore I really have a difficult time understanding why so many "Fallout 1&2 fans" gave Wasteland 2 so much flak.
Final score: 9/10
Click on the link for more screenshots.
