Strykerx88 Nov 13, 2013 @ 11:15am
This game did not age well.
I got it for free since I am a Wasteland 2 backer (hoping WL2 will be what Fallout 3 should have been), and although I enjoyed Wasteland before, its age is apparent. The controls are clunky, the mechanics are terrible (choose battle actions, watch words do a credits roll), and the overall presenation, while updated, is just sub par.

Having been someone that played this before, even nostalgia isn't enough to pull me through again. Super aged and should probably be avoided (especially if you are being charged money for it).
Showing 1-15 of 161 comments
< >
Paranoid Android Nov 13, 2013 @ 11:28am 
Yeah, game was amazing on my old pentium 75, and 21inch 50lb monitor
neonwhite900 Nov 13, 2013 @ 11:41am 
Keep in mind this was 1988. We had no dramatic lighting or particle effects
Strykerx88 Nov 13, 2013 @ 11:58am 
I totally understand, and I am certainly not one of the school of "if it has bad graphics, I won't play." This game however, did not age well like some games just tend to do.
Dragoon Nov 13, 2013 @ 11:59am 
If you played this game back then you would actually says this game aged better than many newer titles. The thing is back then 25 years ago no game had good graphics, computers not even remotely had the memory necessary to store graphics. 640kb main memory was all you got for everything. Text, graphics, sound...
The experience playing a game back then was similar to reading a book, while today I would say it closer to watching a movie.

Like if you were reading a book the game was outlining, describing the world to you, but picturing the world you had to do in your mind. The game was telling you about a world 80 years after the ultimate nuclear holocaust and you were imagining, fantasizing how this world would look. The desolated wasteland, the bleached bones, savage humans scavenging for food and tech, deformed mutants, burned cities, the smell of death, the scorching sun, this was all happening in you mind.
Because for me reading a book is so much more memorable than watching a movie this is the reason why I still have vivid memories of this truly awesome game.
Last edited by Dragoon; Nov 13, 2013 @ 12:01pm
Airborne Nov 13, 2013 @ 12:45pm 
I really want to like this game but I simply can't figure out this interface, it's just too dated and clunky. But hey that's why wasteland 2 is coming out.
ghondooby Nov 13, 2013 @ 12:50pm 
I kind of agree with the OP. I've never played it before and got it for backing Wasteland 2 and I've only played it a little bit but in my opinion the interface and graphics are pretty clunky...even compared to other games of it's time like the gold box games and the original might & magic.

Is it worth pushing through or is it only good from a nostalgic viewpoint?
Last edited by ghondooby; Nov 13, 2013 @ 12:50pm
Schnurri Nov 13, 2013 @ 1:09pm 
I also got it for free, I'm not sure if i'll play it. Some games really don't age well, maybe this is too old for me. (Bought the original Shadow Warrior game recently and didn't play it before: It aged very well)
Dragoon Nov 13, 2013 @ 1:11pm 
Have you guys check the manual or at least the reference card? You find them in the installation folder. To get there right click on Wasteland 1 in your Steam Library -> Properties -> Tab Local Files -> Browse Local Files -> Extra folder
You find even a hintbook there.
Last edited by Dragoon; Nov 13, 2013 @ 1:12pm
Putin is my hero Nov 13, 2013 @ 1:55pm 
Originally posted by Strykerx88:
hoping WL2 will be what Fallout 3 should have been
This is very-very wrong idea,WL is a SPIRITUAL father of Fallout,but it's not fallout. Plus it's post apoc is a bit diffrent from Fallout just as well. You need to look at it not as "Oh,yes,thats how F3 should've been!" but "Oh,sweet!Game in Post apoc setting that doesn't scream "THIS GAME IS ♥♥♥♥!" right from the first screenshot"
Ekaros Nov 13, 2013 @ 3:00pm 
This game was also released on freaking C64 and Apple II... Considering that, I think it's not too bad...

About anything with microchip has more computing power than those...
Last edited by Ekaros; Nov 13, 2013 @ 3:00pm
๖ۣۜRevolucas Nov 13, 2013 @ 3:09pm 
Gameplay and storywise? It still beats AAA titles today. Controls are clunky? No. The keyboard controls are very fluid and fast. Not too mention it has a macro system. It's more fluid to play this game on a keyboard then any console game with a controller. Mechanics are terrible? It's no different then any modern RPG today except in instead of seeing an animation play, you read what happens.

After you get an hour in and learn how to play with only the keyboard, the game becomes pure joy. There are funny comments and dialogue that make the creators look like comedic geniuses. I haven't seen such comedic brillance since 90s PC gaming.


Also, nobody should be expecting Wasteland 2 to be Fallout 3. Wasteland 2 is going to stay true to the original and will resemble Fallout Tactics if anything.
Last edited by ๖ۣۜRevolucas; Sep 13 @ 10:13am
Booke Nov 13, 2013 @ 3:23pm 
People really have no clue what the difference is between a game looking good and aging well.

Gameplay and storywise? It still beats AAA titles today.

You're kidding, right? Please explain how the gameplay in Wasteland is better than any AAA title today. I love classic games as much as any other shameless 90s kid, but some statements are just wrong.
Jawaka Nov 13, 2013 @ 4:19pm 
Didn't Wasteland use the same graphic engine and interface as Bard's Tale?
Middle Aged Nerd Nov 13, 2013 @ 4:24pm 
Originally posted by Strykerx88:
Having been someone that played this before, even nostalgia isn't enough to pull me through again. Super aged and should probably be avoided (especially if you are being charged money for it).
I've been playing video games since 1975, so I've got some perspective that dates back to Pong and then the Atari 2600. While there isn't a direct line, it can be reasonably asserted that we wouldn't have games like FInal Fantasy or Dragon Age if there had never been Adventure. But does that mean I would play Adventure today? No. Not a chance. Does that make Adventure a crummy game. Not at all. Merely old, clunky, and barely good for a few minutes of rose-tinted nostalgia.

The Fallout franchise, of which I enjoy FO, FO2, FO3, and FONV, have given me so many fantastic hours over the course of many years and I wouldn't have those good times if there had never been Wasteland. When the development of Wasteland 2 was announced I decided to check out Wasteland again. I really wanted to like it but I just couldn't. Does that make it a crummy game?

At least one in this thread has already compared older games that relied on a lot of text for storytelling to reading a book. The player needs to rely a lot on his or her own imagination - something near unheard of in today's gaming sphere. I found re-playing Wastleand similar to reading a book if it were possible to read a book that hated me at every attempt to turn a page. Yes, I find the cumbersome menu commands unbearable. But is it a crummy game?

Of course it's not a crummy game, but it is too dated and I certainly don't want to spend a single second playing it again. My life on this planet is about half over and I've taken to certain opinions: When I want to read I'll pick up a book or a pile of comics. When I want to play a video game I want it to blow me away as materialistcally as possible.
Dragoon Nov 13, 2013 @ 4:30pm 
Originally posted by Jawaka:
Didn't Wasteland use the same graphic engine and interface as Bard's Tale?

Yes, I can think of 5 games which used the Bard's Tale engine including Wasteland.
Bard's Tale 1-3, The Bard's Tale Construction Set (basically an dungeon editor), Wasteland and Dragon Wars (this one was really good).
Showing 1-15 of 161 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50