Thoughts on the wasteland series?

First one doesn't hold up, but that's no surprise, and I'm not quite enough of an old fart to speak for how it was Back Then.
Second one is... I'd say plain awful but that's just how hard I bounced off it, maybe for others it was smooth sailing, maybe it 'gets better later' as it so often is with cRPG.
Third one is okay at first but goddamn does it drag, feels like you're slogging through it forever even without all the expansion content. Has its issues obviously, both in gameplay and writing, but I personally feel the good outweighs the bad.

>>3779223
Wasteland 3 feels rushed near the end when it comes to writing, and I remember feeling annoyed by how getting the best possible ending worked. These aren't the biggest issues of the game to me though, as I feel the real issue is that your entire group of rangers feels like fucking paper mache in a world of bullet sponges. Most specifically, every fucking animal is built like they stacked stamina in WoW while your party stacked nothing. I've seen so few people talk about this, but I swear I remember having like 1/10 the health that random creatures near the end have. I have to imagine the fucking meta is to get as many animal/npc followers as possible due to how exponentially they scale in comparison to you.

>>3779223
I got a little over halfway through wasteland 2 (into the second map) before dropping it. It doesn’t get better
I refunded wasteland 3 at character creation because I could intuit the wokeslop ahead
I dropped wasteland 1 in the 90s because of the PC speaker. Just couldn’t go back after soundblasters came out.

>>3779220 (OP)
Really bad series, Fallout is much better.

>>3779223
That canyon where everyone were dedicated to a church of being tied to a mini nuclear bomb was peak retard writing and funny. One of the companions had his father carrying a bomb in his back and the party had to talk him out of the cult.

Wasteland 1 is the best.
Wasteland 2 is boring.
Wasteland 3 is LE MEMES.

>>3779220 (OP)
I only played 2, it was very cool at the beginning but I had to force myself to finish it

>>3779220 (OP)
Wasteland is still one of my favorite games. The other two aren't good.

>>3779220 (OP)
Just like every RPG ever, it would be better if you only controlled one character and had no party system.

>>3779220 (OP)
I've only played a few hours of 3 and I remember the humor being extremely grating. I don't remember why

>>3779220 (OP)
1988 and wasteland 2 it's okay

>>3779220 (OP)
If you can get into the wasteland swat team roleplay its great but the games themselves aren't that great. Wasteland 3 is the closest these games come to good but it also royally fucks up the apocalypse cop vibes that you play these for in the first place

3 was the only one I could get in to and finish. I tried to like 2, played it half a dozen times, kind of liked trying out new characters, but a lot of the story beats really pissed me off with their choices and I was never interested in finishing it, always quit about halfway. Too heavy on choices with severe consequences.

I enjoyed 2 up until I got stuck in the first map of Los Angeles with no means of progressing.
3 is easily one of the best rpgs I have ever played. They also did the big brain move of removing encumberance.

Another annoyance in Wasteland 3 is similar to the Underrail wiki where there is a lack of information on what are the exact consequences of certain choices. Until you do it yourself, it is hard to tell what you could or could not do in certain situations. Even if you did do it yourself, you may still get confused from what I hear. I would hope this has grown less of an issue since I played, but in theory, there are other alternatives to the solution of drilling oil. I never tried it myself, but I remember that the people who did would wonder if they did something wrong or not.

>>3779220 (OP)
1: not worth playing other than to say you did
2: it's rough and it's clunky and painful but there's a good game underneath, you will just have to suffer to feel the fumes of it
3: fixed a lot of what was wrong with 2 but also added a few bad things of its own. But all in all it's the best and one of the better games in the genre.
Yes you can kill the retarded bitch at several different points in the game if you want

>>3790295
That's more of a player wanting the dealer to play with every card revealed problem, rather than the game doing a bad job.

I keep wanting to play the original because i love the original fallouts, but I have watched this story lp a lot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvYcu5qaO-s&list=PL74BAB66E726A508F

>>3790376
You're right, though one example I am specifically thinking of is this story I heard where a guy had to choose between red or orange, they chose yellow, and someone acts like they chose red. In this situation, you would kinda wonder if you did something wrong or if there is a problem where a part of the game thought you chose red. Of course, I didn't experience it personally, so it could be any explanation for what happened there. The game is just similar to what >>3786402 said about being heavy on choices with severe consequences. For something I actually experienced ingame, I remember feeling unsatisfied with the choice I made during the Gippers section. Life can be unfair and have choices like that, but it is tough for moralfags to go through situations where it feels like every choice (even ones that may not be obvious, relating to what I talked about originally) seems to just fucking suck.

I actually really liked W2. It is fun to roleplay as outlaws, so I did a lot of choosing le ebil option. I think my playthrough peaked when I joined the mannerites and genocided the meanies. If you do play, just have fun bro. CRPGs are games for you to tell your story, if you want some writer to do all the work then you can play a Bethesda game.

>>3790424
But that's the true experience of being a moralfag, Anon. You do your best with what you know and are given, and agonize over the consequences if they do not live up to an ideal that may very well be impossible, while carrying on all the same.
Knowing you cannot save or help everyone and yet trying to, no matter how many times reality might try to sour that outlook, is the very essence of it.

>>3790956
Fair point.

I took a glance at the wiki & it looks like W1 had some kool guns included, whereas W2 & 3 have wacky shit going on where .308 & .30-06 rifles deal as much damage as 9mm pistols. I know it's an RPG, not a military sim or hunting game, but you would think they could do some basic gunology. Do they at least feel fun to use in-game?

>>3779871
>Really bad series, Fallout is much better.
Fallout 1 is a huge step down from wasteland 1. Wasteland is as good in choices and consequences and easily better in combat and world design. Neither is anything amazing though.

>>3792140
What's something amazing?

>>3792244

>>3779634
> I remember having like 1/10 the health that random creatures near the end have

Its called game balancing.
You tear through their hp like its nothing if you have the right weapons (which you should with a well balanced squad)

>>3792452
You know there are other ways to balance than number bloat, right? Ones that don't leave the player wondering how humanity can even survive in a world where a random dog can take a full auto blast to the face and rip your head off in one bite?

3's biggest problem for me was the lack of actual stuff to do. there'll be an entire town and you'll have like one main mission in it. other than that, i really liked it. i know a lot of people hate not having obvious good choices because they just want to "win", but i personally loved that and wished more games did this kind of choice & consequence (and reputation) system.

2 i played too long ago to really remember, but i remember it being somewhat clunky yet somewhat fun

1? gee, i dunno, maybe one day after i drop a tab or something.

>>3790424
From this>>3786402
The one instance I remember that made me quit the first time was the Railyard place, you go through several hours of content to get a resolution and none of them are ideal unless right when you enter Railyard, you run across the town to a spot where a kid is drowning and reacue him, and him being alive is the only way to get the best ending, and he can actually fucking die if you don't go directly there to save him. It was so fucking stupid I instantly quit when I read about it. That was several hours of game I would have to replay because I'm q completionist in my RPG's and it would have bothered me to not get the good endings for everything.
Which, in addition to that last part, your rangers can barely cover all the skills, and leaving loot because I don't have the skill irritates me, even if the loot is stupid like toasters.

>>3795090
I don't think the choices have to be obvious on what is good or bad, it is possible for two choices to be good yet also bad in different ways. I also don't think you even need to necessarily win. An example of this working would possibly be the Killian vs Gizmo endings in Fallout 1, especially with the cut endings however the normal ones work just the same if one sees no negative subtext in them. It only feels bad if it is perceived as if there is truly no winning. What if you needed to choose between shoot a baby and everyone lives, don't shoot a baby and everyone dies, or shoot yourself and the baby is now fatherless as (You) were the father? The game isn't as brutal as this example, and I'm not saying these choices are a shit idea that should never be included since you're right that a game doing this is interesting, though it does feels rough to be put in these dilemmas. However, ignoring moralfag talk, I think the reputation system was meh. To be fair, I can right now only think of one other game with non-MMORPG reputation (FNV), but that game's system could also probably be argued as meh. It achieves its goal, I just don't think it's special in a vacuum.

>>3779220 (OP)
I like 2 and 3. Did not really care for 3's dlcs.

>>3795312
>because I'm q completionist in my RPG's and it would have bothered me to not get the good endings for everything.
then wasteland games aren't made for you.

Im currently playing the first one, and after checking the encyclopedia to try to understand the mechanics of this game, i have to admit it: i feel like a retard, and feel kindda lost.
I went first to the nearest village that needed help. Besides fixing a water pump by trying pretty much every skill we had until something hits, breaking into the barkeeps room, and stealing somebody's allowance under the bed, i have done nothing at all. There is apparently some kid in need of help, but i can't find it.
It.
I am not even sure yet how the fuck do i earn money in this game.

>>3796705
nice
more stories of you being a retard in game pls