Is it worth playing?

[Anonymous No.8184986]

Or should I just skip to the more modern 2

[Anonymous No.8185694]

You should skip 1 and 2. The game is largely frustrating, and poorly designed.

[Anonymous No.8185698]

>>8185694
>poorly designed
ah, so most 80s PC games.

[Anonymous No.8185706]

1 is the best, but you need to learn how the commands work. Some stuff is literally 100% useless, like some skills and items.

[Anonymous No.8186172]

Is 3 good?
I tried the first 2 and just couldn't get into them

[Anonymous No.8186446]

>>8184986
Skip Wasteland, play Fallout 1 and 2 instead. It's the same game, but not past the age of games you'd actually want to play. The era of PC games where everything is relegated to historical curiosities only, nothing of any value to anyone of today as an enjoyable gaming experience. Any PC game pre-Eye of the Beholder should be avoided for your own safety.

[Anonymous No.8186706]

>>8186172
W3 is a much more polished experience than W2. They improved every flaw people had with the sequel.

[Anonymous No.8186712]

>>8186172
W3 is a much more polished experience than W2. They fixed every flaw people had with the sequel.

[Anonymous No.8186828]

>>8186446
>Any PC game pre-Eye of the Beholder should be avoided for your own safety.
Ignorant ass pleb
>The Secret of Monkey Island
>Quest for Glory 1 & 2
>Sid Meier's Pirates!
>Centurion: Defender of Rome
>Nethack
>King's Quest VI
>Prince of Persia
>Sword of the Samurai
>Metal Gear 2
>Starflight 2
>Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego
>The Legend of Robin Hood: Conquests of The Longbow
>Defender of the Crown
>ect.

[Anonymous No.8187385]

>>8185706
I'm starting to think this is the only anon who actually played Wasteland itt

[Anonymous No.8187816]

Wasteland 2 isn't retro.

This is a retro board. Wasteland 1 is an absolute classic. I played it 3 years ago, finished it, and loved it.

Put your points into melee, assault rifles, and later energy weapons. If you don't have energy weapons, you will not be able to complete the final dungeon.

Use the macros. Use melee attacks for most of the game, since it saves money on ammo and you get double XP. Switch to assault rifles in the sewers, and energy weapons at the end.

The graphics are bad since it's from like 1986, but the gameplay is solid.

[Anonymous No.8189515]

>>8184986
I enjoyed the proto-Fallout feel of it. It's a much more harsh game though. You can easily create a party that's just total dogshit because you gave them skills that are worthless.

[Anonymous No.8189576]

>>8185706
Completely useless skills are the shit I just expect in CRPGs.

>>8187385
I got the same vibe, and frankly I'm not surprised at this point. You'd be better off, OP, asking this question on /vrpg/ or something, since /vr/ is now comfortably in the hands of millennials who were likely born after this game came out and who have little or no interest in classic PC games, beyond action games like Doom.

[Anonymous No.8189637]

>>8189515
As an outsider looking in, it doesn't fully make sense to me. Why do CRPGs have skills that are useless? Why do they let you build useless characters if there are also, in the same game, certain challenges, even part of the main game, that involve having blatant minmax parties to really have a reliable completion chance? I mean, I am biased in that I don't see how you can roleplay in a computer game and possibly compare it to real tabletop (no way in hell will a computer game offer as many unique situations), and maybe I just fail to appreciate the idea of roleplaying on a computer game where most characters will have a few canned dialogue lines at most, but that's about the only reason I can see for those skills to exist otherwise, and then it's just like "okay, I'm pretending to be an idiot in a sandbox that's a few inches deep".

The other problem I have is, why do skill checks even bother with rolls? I get they are emulating tabletops, but to me, games like, say, fallout, are more like "do or don't" on skills. Like, you get captured and you either unlock the door and continue or you blow it up, or whatever, and whichever skill it is, you either can do it (and proceed) or you can't (and reload). If I built a thief character who picks locks, then why not just tell me I either can or can't pick this lock? Just save me the wasted time pretending this is real life and having me "attempt" this door and tell me I can or I can't. Definitely feels to me like the "roleplaying" angle takes something away from the gameplay of these titles. Maybe my inability (or refusal) to immerse into video games like this is part of why I don't like RPGs much. Far as I'm concerned they're less story games and more open-ended puzzle games.

[Anonymous No.8189658]

>>8189576
/vrpg/ isn't any better. In fact, it's usually worse.
I also can't really blame people, because 80s crpgs are extremely inaccessible and don't hold a candle to crpgs from the early 90s.

[Anonymous No.8189690]

>>8189637
>you either can do it (and proceed) or you can't (and reload)
Don't reload.

[Anonymous No.8189864]

>>8189690
If you don't reload, then you just throw a character, and any interesting build-up you've had on this route, into the trash, and thus you chuck time spent on it as well. Why would you ever do that? Returning to fallout as an example, the game manual itself tells you to save often for that express purpose.

[Anonymous No.8190231]

>>8185694
zoom zoom

[Anonymous No.8190237]

>>8189658
>because 80s crpgs are extremely inaccessible
zoom zoom

[Anonymous No.8190427]

>>8190237
It's the truth. I'll play an 80s crpg every once in awhile just because, but the difference accessibility-wise and quality-wise between the best late 80s crpgs and best early 90s crpgs is night and day. Early 90s crpgs didn't have (as) retarded controls, or require you to read a manual just to follow the story. They had actual soundtracks (Wasteland's soundtrack was added in 2012), deeper mechanics, and more expansive worlds because the tech allowed for it.

[Anonymous No.8190443]

>>8190231
>>8190237
>the mark of old age is enjoying shit.
Not even a zoomer guy. The game is just genuinely not fun to play.

[Anonymous No.8191573]

>>8189637
In some cases I think it's just done as a joke or as a way for experienced players to intentionally handicap themselves for a greater challenge. Like, Wasteland has a skill entirely devoted to toaster repair. Even on your first playthrough you're gonna look at that and think "why the fuck would I want that?" But for someone who already knows what they're doing, they'll probably choose it just to find out what a repaired toaster can actually do for them.

[Anonymous No.8191730]

I played all three.
1 starts very slow, and you need to throw away the starting characters, because they all have useless skills. Use macros because there are no healing items.
2 is good until the first 1/3. It has a lot of flaws and combat will usually corral you into the Assault Rifle tree, because every other weapon skill is useless or worse than ARs.
3 fixes a lot of flaws from 2 - probably the game they wanted to make from the start.

[Anonymous No.8191748]

I had to start and abandon W1 thrice before it "clicked". The oldest RPG I played before this was Phantasy Star, so a lot of stuff seemed overwhelming. It's one of those games where you absolutely need to read the manual. Also, the original game overwrote your files as you played, so no savescumming.
The only really hard situation you may find yourself into is a fight against Cyclotrons in the sewers. There's a battle against like 4 or 5 of them at once, they're ultra-fast and hit like a ton of bricks. It's difficult to even run away from them.

Like people said, re-spec your starting characters because they suck.

[Anonymous No.8192813]

>>8190443
>The game is just genuinely not fun to play.
4 u