What do the reviews say or what do you see as unfixable? I'm genuinely curious, I'm not here to play fanboy.

We got Fallout Tactics 2. And it's unfixable. I don't think Fallout Tactics 2 is a $3 million game.

I'm liking it thus far. I don't feel that my money has been misplaced.

Yeah I think we're going to need more details then "it's like this thing that I assume you know all about".

Exactly, and it's not even just that.....so what if it happens to be somewhat like another game in terms of gameplay or whatever, that doesn't inherently make it a bad game nor is it something that demands fixing. There are lots of games alike....that's why we have genres.

This isn't Fallout Tactics 2. It's Wasteland 2, and yes, it's great so far. Listening to reviews without thinking and trying for yourself is not a smart thing to do

I haven't seen any reviews that compare it to Fallout Tactics at all. The game has been well received overall, with an 88 from Game Informer. Are you just trolling? The game is great. It's not Fallout, but it's excellent.

More or less...

But then how can the original classics really be surpassed? (...hence why they're classics)

It's far from hopeless; but it's certainly a bit rough around the edges.

I think the biggest loss is the change to the skill system. I flat out prefer the original MSPE system with it's it's learn-by-doing skill progression and libraries. As far as I'm concerned the MSPE system is Wasteland.

It wasn't perfect (IQ) but it was far more satisfying to see a ranger get a random skill up when punching something in the face - than it is to simply allocate a few points at level-up.

I find it quite amazing how they packed what they did into the original Wasteland, for me, in some ways it surpasses even Fallout.

I'm not a fan of the fully 3D world either; I don't see what it adds.

I'd take a TOEE style look every time - fortunately the Torment footage looks stunning.

The top-down view in Wasteland allowed for non-obvious environmental traps/puzzles i.e. rope in the sewers; lighter in cave; TNT in the mine, etc

The closest thing I've seen here are map objects that are clearly tied to skills i.e. broken gate > brute force - it's similar but still feels like a compromise.

Likewise the default player character portraits could be better and some of the combinations for body choices are odd to say the least. (I always felt the wasteland setting was quirky but the rangers were the serious faction to provide a balance)

I think most of my criticisms are due to the way in which the original Wasteland used what little it had tech-wise, so well.

Looking at the world from that rather abstract top-down view and using my imagination draws me in more than looking at the modern-day 3D representation.

Ultimately it was always going to be hard to match/surpass the original.

The hell is up with the reviews, right after the game comes out? If you ask me, those aren't really trustworthy, simply too soon to experience the whole game.

Places like gaming informer (88-100) and pcgamer (83-100) loved the game.

I'm only afew hours in, after several restarts because of my own ocd attitude, and I'm having a great time in wasteland 2.

I agree with the statement of it being too early to truely judge by players, though. It only just came out the other day. So, as of now, it's more just people saying what they think based on the bit that we've played.

My two cents being that it's fun so far.. Just really difficult for me since this is the first rpg I've played of this style. That being square, turn based.

I have found the game to be quite enjoyable, and mostly for the past two days I have spent equal amounts of time in the character creation screen and the actual game. Still trying to build that super team, which is impossible... but fun to try nonetheless.

So far no crashes.

But I will say, watch videos, lets players, and walkthroughs. Read the reviews and previews. Make sure its the type of game you want.

I like people who trust in professional reviews on gaming sites and such... :) It's really wonderful trust.
But why should we go so far? Just read some here on GOG, from real players.
And all of you are NOT heedful and attentive. I'd want hear from people who "played it through (= finished) or close to it".
Opinions like "I'm playing about two hours and it's fun" are dear to me, of course, but it's not what I'd want to hear.

So far I see the folllowing:

1) Open world - NO
2) Satisfying skill system - NO
3) Satisfying loot system - NO
4) Graphics that at least doesn't encumber the gameplay - NO
5) Game on $3 million steroids - NO.
6) Generic CRPG with mutants instead of all sorts of dark elves - YES

So why the hype?

Ugh....where do I even start....it was never promised to be open world, satisfaction is subjective.....out of tens of thousands of players someone's going to complain on the internet....not a sign of doom and gloom, every game will have people complaining about some thing or another. As for graphics.....well....people play Minecraft.....actually it stomps most of all other games ever made in terms of popularity and just sold for 2.5 billion dollars....let that sink in for a bit, shows how important graphics are. The 3 million budget is actually an insanely tiny development budget even for a game like this, I have no doubt they spent that and a lot more. And I'm not seeing the merit of calling it "generic".....players backed it on the very specific promise that it would be just like the old school CRPGs.....that's the most deliberate, intentional and requested feature of this game, lots of people like that. And I don't even begin to see where you equate mutants to dark elves other than the fact there are enemies in the game(which you know....it's a game) and they perfectly fit the story they are telling.

It just strikes me like you are trying too hard to hate on the game. Did you even buy it? Have you even played it?

1) It was never promised to be open world. Open world is overrated anyway. Dragon Age: Origins wasn't open world but I consider it one of the best games ever.
2) Subjective, I like what I see.
3) Again subjective, I find there is an excess scarcity of ammo but that's a balance issue that can be fixed later.
4) Other than performance issues I have no beef with graphics.
5) Game development budgets are massive across the board. Everything is much more expensive than it used to be.
6) It's a remake of a game from 1988. The whole point of the game is being a "generic" CRPG because Wasteland 1 pretty much created the genre.