Why the recent bad reviews?

[Valmar]

Just asking because I want to finally play this game. It looked good reviewed before, why the change?

[HoroSaga]

All sorts of reasons, really. Wasteland 2 is a fun game, but it's important to remember that it was made on a relatively tight budget. It's also a game aimed at a very specific niche crowd, so folks who aren't "into" that sort of game (or who have different expectations of what it should offer) will leave mediocre or negative reviews when Wasteland 2 doesn't hold their interest.

The most common complaints are that the game feels too "boring" or "rough", with people complaining about issues with performance, bugs, pacing, or combat-balance. These are generally fair critiques, because the game does suffer somewhat from that sort of thing. A lot of good ideas went into the development, but the execution for some of those ideas can certainly be seen as lacking.

The game did also suffer from a "shift in focus" during development, which left some aspects of the game a bit unfocused. Some of the features that were talked about in the original Kickstarter campaign were ultimately dropped from the final product, so some bad reviews may stem from people feeling disappointed that the release version of the game was "simpler" than the rich, tactical RPG they were expecting.

Other complaints are a bit less realistic, with many of them focusing on "poor graphics". Given that the game was developed on a tight budget using many pre-purchased assets, the graphics were never going to be particularly awe-inspiring, especially given how much of the budget was being allocated to other parts of the development. The folks at InXile could have theoretically routed more of their budget toward improving the graphics a little more, but that would have come at the cost of cutting their budget for other parts of the development.

It's also worth noting that some of the negative reviews stem from people who were frustrated during the "free trial" that was offered a couple of months ago. Apparently there were some issues with Steam and the free trial version of the game, so that led to some folks leaving arbitrary negative reviews because they couldn't get the free copy to work.

In a few rare cases, people just leave negative reviews because they don't like turn-based tactical RPGs, or they just don't like InXile.

[Valmar]

Awesome. Nothing to worry Too much then. I feared it were like a patch that broke the game.

Thanks for the nice answer

[RobOda]

Not really surprising, bit of a love-hate relationship with this game.

I enjoy it, and yet at the same time it gets so damn boring as @HoroSaga put a bit more eloquently. Great ideas, so-so execution.

[Lucas]

Because it contain more action than Fallout 3 + Fallout 4 and you can't finish the whole game with pacific skills. So it's not a good RPG, just a mediocre "strategy" game.

[red255]

Originally posted by Valmar:

Just asking because I want to finally play this game. It looked good reviewed before, why the change?

to Review this game you need to play the non-DC version for a length of time.

The DC version of the game is the final version of the game. so a person to post a review would have to either never play the DC version of the game or download and install the non DC version and leave it running for long enough to post a review.

suffice it to say, people who did that were rubbed the wrong way.

Use something like Meta critic for reviews not steam. because steam doesn't allow people who played DC post reviews.

[Valmar]

Interesting.

Guys I was not asking anyway about the bad reviews. I was asking about the change, why they were positive and then more negative.

But anyway, whatever.

[HoroSaga]

Originally posted by Valmar:

Interesting.

Guys I was not asking anyway about the bad reviews. I was asking about the change, why they were positive and then more negative.

But anyway, whatever.

Like I said, the most recent trend was likely caused by the "Free Weekend" event a few months ago. Although it was intended to help promote the game, it also basically allowed anyone who downloaded the game as part of the promotion to leave a review - even if they normally hate turn-based strategy games and would never normally purchase a game like Wasteland 2. That's the likely source of some of the simpler (ie, one line) negative reviews over the past few months.

Another source of recent negative reviews is from the (very small) trademark infringement incident from a few months ago. Some people don't like the way that trademark laws work, and lash out at any company that has to take steps toward defending their trademarks. Any negative reviews that mention trademarks or "Alien Wasteland" are likely more about the trademark issue, rather than about Wasteland 2.

[Valmar]

Yeaah thanks Hogo again. I was not referring to you heh.
Thx all.

[Pegasus Organs]

Exactly. The game is definately more fun than many triple A games I've played. Hell, it's not boring to me, and I save scum EVERY single container for better loot. Of course, I'm older and love old school RPGs to hell and back. Some entitled kids consider "Skyrim" the bestest EVAR RPG so, there really is a massive divide.

[Power of Seven]

Originally posted by Valmar:

Guys I was not asking anyway about the bad reviews. I was asking about the change, why they were positive and then more negative.

I missed this earlier. There's actually a very simple answer to this.

First of all, the game was a major Kickstarter project, so the first people that got the game were naturally the backers. If you paid $100 or more to fund a game, you're going to have a positive bias toward the game even if it's not really spectacular. Also, people that buy a product early tend to give more positive reviews (even for movies, books, etc.) because they are likely fans of the theme or developer, so they tend to be more sympathetic.

Once a game has been around for a time, then a game's weaknesses don't get overlooked as much, and people will begin giving the game less favorable reviews. If you want to be very honest, Wasteland 2 has many problems with it. These include: Intentionally imbalanced weapons, quest items that stay forever after a quest completes, a bizarre armor system, and treasure chests that use high security locks and bombs but they only contain common items.

[Mountain Man]

Originally posted by Lucas:

Because it contain more action than Fallout 3 + Fallout 4 and you can't finish the whole game with pacific skills. So it's not a good RPG, just a mediocre "strategy" game.

To call this a strategy game is absurd. It has way more nuanced choice-and-consequences than you'll ever find in Fallout 3 (never played 4), so on that score, it's a much better RPG than the Bethesda games.

As for the inability to peacefully waltz through the story, that's not consistent with the Wasteland universe. It's a dystopian, kill-or-be-killed world ruled by brutal gangs who will happily slaughter you without provocation. You can get out of some scrapes without firing a shot, but it's unrealistic to expect to entirely avoid combat, especially given your role as Rangers which in and of itself puts you at odds with many of the Wasteland inhabitants.

[Landlord Hyree (alla pengar)]

Originally posted by HoroSaga:

All sorts of reasons, really. Wasteland 2 is a fun game, but it's important to remember that it was made on a relatively tight budget. It's also a game aimed at a very specific niche crowd, so folks who aren't "into" that sort of game (or who have different expectations of what it should offer) will leave mediocre or negative reviews when Wasteland 2 doesn't hold their interest.

The most common complaints are that the game feels too "boring" or "rough", with people complaining about issues with performance, bugs, pacing, or combat-balance. These are generally fair critiques, because the game does suffer somewhat from that sort of thing. A lot of good ideas went into the development, but the execution for some of those ideas can certainly be seen as lacking.

The game did also suffer from a "shift in focus" during development, which left some aspects of the game a bit unfocused. Some of the features that were talked about in the original Kickstarter campaign were ultimately dropped from the final product, so some bad reviews may stem from people feeling disappointed that the release version of the game was "simpler" than the rich, tactical RPG they were expecting.

Other complaints are a bit less realistic, with many of them focusing on "poor graphics". Given that the game was developed on a tight budget using many pre-purchased assets, the graphics were never going to be particularly awe-inspiring, especially given how much of the budget was being allocated to other parts of the development. The folks at InXile could have theoretically routed more of their budget toward improving the graphics a little more, but that would have come at the cost of cutting their budget for other parts of the development.

It's also worth noting that some of the negative reviews stem from people who were frustrated during the "free trial" that was offered a couple of months ago. Apparently there were some issues with Steam and the free trial version of the game, so that led to some folks leaving arbitrary negative reviews because they couldn't get the free copy to work.

In a few rare cases, people just leave negative reviews because they don't like turn-based tactical RPGs, or they just don't like InXile.

Great answer 10/10

[Panther]

I gave a bad review because I dislike the combat, I felt as though most of the reviews I had read left out the information that I needed which was that the combat is lacking in so many mechanics and allows for little tactical implementation. I got gassed up on this game a bought it before realising how important that was to me and how bad it was here. I just assumed they would have taken pointers from games like Jagged Alliance 2 and implemented some of the features they said they were focusing on during their kickstarter, as stated here in 2014 "https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/14/wasteland-2-to-receive-significant-combat-improvements/"

Much of which was not implemented or done so to weak degree. It's a great CRPG with terrible combat. I would recommend Age of Decadence to those looking for a deep CRPG with reasonable combat.

[Mountain Man]

Age of Decadence? You're joking, right? The game where you can get killed during dialog if you happen to have the "wrong" skills* or choose the "wrong" dialog option? The game that deliberately puts you at a huge disadvantage during fights by placing the AI in advantageous positions? Where you basically have to create a combat beast at the cost of almost every other skill just to have any hope of emerging from most encounters alive? This is the game you say has superior combat?

Yeah, OK. Ha ha ha!



* In fact, spending your skill points "incorrectly" can stop your progress cold, as in you literally can't complete any more quests because the developers have decided for you which character builds should be allowed to beat the game. This encourages metagaming where you "save" your skill points until you know exactly what you need for a specific quest and then assign your skill points accordingly. The developers actually consider this good game design.