krellen wrote:Because I seriously do love the Bard's Tale/Wasteland menu-based combat. I think it's awesome, on a scale that modern games simply cannot handle.
Same here; I will be disappointed if it's not an aspect of WL2 in some way shape or form.
And it's why I'm so angry and why I hate change so much.
A lot of people denigrate those that seem to be anti-change; yet they often (purposely it would seem) tend to ignore the point of the member's post. When Fallout 3 was being talked about (before it shipped) there were lots and lots of members that tried to joke and deride those that (they claimed) wanted an exact [unchanged] Fallout 2 clone ~when of course, no one wanted that... What was commonly wanted by those that seemed to favor a game that was closer to the series, was a game that shared the same tone, function and general gameplay ~the rest wanted an RPG-frankenshooter or something in between.
The problem with change is not that there is
change, but that there is mutation... When someone looks at a sequel, they expect (or at least hope for) a better game... But what we typically get is not unlike the situation of someone wanting a better hammer and being offered a pipewrench ~hey, it can hit nails
It's not that Fallout 3 isn't a good game in and of itself, but it's certainly the pipewrench where we wanted a better hammer.
** If one does not understand my meaning here... Fallout 3 focused on everything that makes a great TES game, and omitted or neglected most of what made Fallout great in the eyes of the Fallout fanbase (including certain aspects of the setting, which it otherwise did a fantastic job of IMO).
Like a fine crafted tool ~but for a different purpose; what it was intended to do, it did well, but it is just like how a pipewrench is perfect for working on pipes, and terrible for house framing. I cannot play Fallout in Fallout 3.
** ...just like I cannot play Warcraft in World of Warcraft; just like I cannot play 'Dawn of War' in Spacemarine; but those weren't direct sequels, Fallout 3 was... And so is Wasteland 2 ~they say.
Interloper wrote:Ideally for a sequel you look at what was fun and memorable and what made up the game's identity (mood, writing style, gameplay mechanics) and try to keep them recognizable while making improvements where you can.
I agree with that ~in theory; but I do not see that actually done very often these days, or if I do, I see glossed over [vestigial] fanservice that approaches the mindset of those characters in Idiocracy who were intent on feeding the plants Browndo energy drink... 'because its what plants want' ~they have no clue.
Mindless adherence to past convention prevents progress, and although you may remember them fondly, they may not be the best choice with regards to other mechanics, or the story, or even modern technology.
This I do not agree with, because in practice what you get is someone else's interpretation (or omission) of mindless... Like VATS in Fallout 3. Aiming in Fallout did not work like that for a couple very obvious and specific reasons; VATS only shares a very superficial similarity with aiming in Fallout, and it's erroneously likened to being a 'throw-back' nod to turnbased mechanics ~though only to those that have no idea what that is. VATS is
my idea of "Mindless adherence to past convention"; emphases on the mindless part... In a similar way as one might parrot the actions of an electrician without any understanding of why they did what they did.