Rodor: Are the kings of games of the 90's still invincible and inimitable?
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.