Not surprised of the comparison but rather the view that the game not being a Fallout game is a negative. I feel the game is taking a hit for trying to be Wasteland. Being a fan of the first game I was really happy it kept the identity of WS. I hope I am not rambling. Sorry if I was

I haven't even played the first Wasteland (well, tried, but it's really old school.. may have to try to get into it again later) but I like it that WL2 is WL2. I did expect similarities to Fallout but I didn't expect Fallout.

Regardless of the fact that Fallout was meant to be a successor of Wasteland, made by the same people, even featuring direct references to Wasteland like the existence of the rangers and some story quirks, in my opinion Wasteland 2 plays a lot more like Fallout 1-2 than Wasteland 1. It has the same locations, characters and skills of Wasteland 1, also has hot zones on the world map, but that's where similarities end. Combat system (including action points, possibility of hitting firendlies, turn-based iniative-driven independently-positioned squad members), navigation (both within towns and on the world map) and even graphics are very similar to Fallout, (and it's worth mentioning that locations from Wasteland 1 have little resemblance in Wasteland 2).

When I say Fallout, I mean generally Fallout 1 or 2 because both are very similar (use the same engine, sprites, combat system, interface and so on).

Maybe the comparison is unfair since Wasteland 1 came in a time where you couldn't have anything like Fallout or Wasteland 2, but it's easy to spot the similarities with Fallout.

Why the hate against similarities with Fallout anyway? It has its share of similarities and differences, it's a different game/series/IP, same creators... so what?

As I said I don't mind the similarities not was not my problem but rather I keep reading how this is not like Fallout 2 and how that is a negative. I loved Fallout 1 but Fallout 2 humor really hurt that game for me. It was over the top and fell very flat. Wasteland has a better balance IMO

I too think people are giving this game a hard time on reviews... but then again I don't think the biggest problem is the recurring comparison with Fallout 2 (which is by the way one of my favorite games of all time). I'm shocked that people are repeatedly evaluating this as a AAA game, which is not: it's a crowdfunded indie game with a fraction of the budget of similar games (let's say X-COM for a turn-based combat game). It's plain unfair with the game and with the people who haven't enjoyed it so far.

I've seen some people actually complaining that Wasteland 2 is too similar to Fallout 2 (as in rip-off or not modern enough). Reviews come in all flavors...

I do compare it with AAA games and I think it qualifies as one. AAA is supposed to be a indication of quality which covers a lot beyond just the graphics. From a story, mechanics and personality standpoint I think it's pretty good. I backed the game and while I wish some things were done better, I have gotten more fun and game play out of this than most AAA titles so overall I call it a win.

Yes, but the budget for Wasteland 2 was much smaller than a typical AAA game. That money doesn't only affect the graphics, it affects how many programmers, designers, artists, writers, and voice actors can be hired, and how long they all can work on the game before the money runs out. So it may not be completely fair to compare Wasteland 2 to AAA games.

The fact that you think it holds up well against many AAA games is therefore even more impressive!

Wasteland 2 is not nearly similar enough to Fallout 2. The latter is old and creaky and pretty limited in the UI department, but the atmosphere of Fallout 2 is unsurpassed. The world created in Fallout 2 is amazing.

So in that sense, I feel Wasteland 2 is more comparable to Fallout 1. The world is being fleshed out, it takes itself too seriously and yet not seriously at all because it's all quite silly.

Kind of like Fallout 1.

I regard wl1, fo1, fo2 and wl2 to be something like one series. Concerning the reviews, I think you have to know what yoy've come for when playing wl2. I read many concerns regarding the graphics or repetitiveness of combat, I guess most reviewers do not understand that wl2 is meant to authentically add to the series wl1, fo1, fo2 from which naturally emerge some 'shortcomings' in comparison to modern gaming (I would not even call that shortcomings).

Old thread but I just felt like adding my two cents...

IMO Wasteland 2 was facing an uphill battle against expectations from the very start. First of all, the original is from 1988 and, although it's considered a classic by those who played it back then, it never received a sequel and the property more or less faded into obscurity. Then, what followed in its footsteps (and effectively took its place) has become one of the most recognizable and successful properties in the history of modern gaming (especially after F3 and F:NV) -- Fallout.

So, the challenge WL2 faces is not only that its setting and primary gameplay staples are SO similar to Fallout that comparisons will be inevitable, but also that the majority of their audience probably consider the Fallout series the "original" post-apocalyptic RPG franchise because they never played Wasteland and that is exactly what Fallout is to them. Like me, they might know about Wasteland -- they might even know all the history behind the game and how it inspired Fallout and its creators -- but, to them, Fallout was their first experience in post-apocalyptic role-playing. They only know about Wasteland *because* of Fallout, and by the time WL2 was kickstarted Fallout had already become such a successful and established property that, despite the original's legacy, most people will see WL2 as "that game that's like Fallout".

And that's how it is for me, too. I'm enjoying WL2, but the world of Fallout provided me with some of the most memorable gaming experience of my life... Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout: New Vegas, their stories, their characters, my decisions and how they effected that world -- these are burned into my mind... For me, WL2 is the new kid that's trying very hard to be like Fallout. Maybe that will change the longer I play the game, and maybe it will manage to set itself apart as more of an original experience, but the comparisons to Fallout are natural and logical. Fundamentally, they are simply very similar games.

Also. They invited the comparison with Kickstarter introduction of:

Wasteland 2 is a sequel to the amazingly popular 1988 RPG Wasteland and the post-apocalyptic predecessor to the Fallout Series.

Lot's of people read that to mean it's pretty much the same thing,
only when FO3 took a wrong 3D turn, this is going to remain isometric.

As for myself, I liked what I saw, played for a few hours but then the game started crashing all the time.
Shelved it and decided to return later. Still mean to, when time permits.

a) They're not using Microsoft .NET, since they're using Unity, they're bound to use Mono, which is an open-source implementation of .NET (terribly outdated)
b) .NET is not a programming language. C++ can be used with .NET.
c) Using of Unity engine shows experience and ability to budget your title. I'm not saying it's a great engine, but it can cut cost of a project to half, both money and time-wise. For a project such as Wasteland 2, which was never intended to be technologically top-notch, it's by far the best choice. Unless, of course, you were willing to invest all your free time to develop them tools and engine on the same level of Unity, in which case, I don't blame them for not trusting you :-P
d) C# with .NET also have experienced programmers, *shock horror*

I'm playing right now before the GoTY edition come out, the first time the game was very stable though I had bug in quests near to the end. This time the game is flawless, just some strange problem with the camera that fixed when the next character turn begins (And happens little)

I'm going to reinstall/retry when GoTY edition is available.
Seems like a good spot to give it another go.