Wasteland 3 shows the beginnings of an exciting future between inXile and Microsoft - Expansive

Wasteland 3 was one of Expansive's Games of the Show at Gamescom. As fans of the originals, Expansive were already hyped to play, but with Microsoft’s backing and inXile’s natural talent, there’s a real winning combination here.

Early 2020 already has some amazing games, but Wasteland 3 has shot right up to the top of the Expansive most anticipated list

[BlackTar187]

I have VERY high hope for this.

[carcarias]

I loved Wasteland 2 and am excited for this...but, imho, Microsoft's involvement could go either way.

Loved State of Decay (Xbox Studios) but then Microsoft took a greater interest and meddled with the development of the sequel and look what happened.

[ElementX]

"Microsoft took a greater interest and meddled with the development" care to give a source for that information? Undead Labs signed a contract for several exclusives and as far as I know they made the game they wanted to.

"Undead will remain “almost completely” autonomous, Matt Booty, head of Microsoft Studios, said last week from Undead’s Pioneer Square offices. " https://www.seattletimes.co...

Meaning they were autonomous before and will stay that way.

[carcarias]

My source, subjective as it may be, is that the sequel was a very poor game that didn't expand or build on the promise of the originals that I absolutely adored. I was at a loss to understand it so, perhaps unwisely, felt that MS was the cause.

Thanks for the link. Assuming they're telling the truth (after all, how many times has EA said the same thing?), that makes it even more of a shame then, based on my experience of the game. At least before I could believe it was MS's fault.

[DaDrunkenJester]

What do you mean MS meddled with SoD2? The game is literally a bigger, better version of the first game with 4 player co-op.

[carcarias]

Well, it's all subjective so the 'literally' part of your comment is arguable when pertaining to the 'better' part.

I thought it was poor and it reviewed more than 10% worse than the first.

It seemed strange because I thought the team would have found it a relatively mild challenge to improve upon the original so I felt that MS must have meddled. If they truly didn't, then 'my bad'.

I shall put the blame squarely on the devs from now on and henceforth ;)

[spicelicka]

You have a very simple and uninformed understanding of how a publisher gets involved with a project. The developers are called developers for a reason, they develop the game and are largely responsible for how it turns out, with some exceptions. Forza Horizon for example is amazing because the devs are amazing, Microsoft's involvement had little to do with it.

[carcarias]

Not to be rude, but that's a naive thing to say if I may say so.

Just like producers or studios in movies, the money people can have a lot of sway. Or do you think EA receives all the hate unfairly?

[Kerppamaister]

Yes, look what happened. They made a better game.

[carcarias]

I'm glad you liked it but I wonder if that means you thought the first one was awful.

Because it reviewed noticeably worse than the first and all the people I know who were fans were deeply disappointed, as was I. Oh well, it's all subjective. I wish my experience of the game had been similar to yours :)

[carcarias]

Well, I'm glad you all liked it but among the dozen or so people I know who loved the first one (plus DLC), none of them liked the direction or end product of the sequel.

It reviewed poorly too so I guess my gaming social circle isn't alone even when looking at internet opinions because after all, yes, it's all subjective.

I most certainly had a different experience to you all, unfortunately. The sequel seemed like a real step back for a variety of reasons and the naff, buggy co-op makes me deeply suspicious MS gave them general directions as I have a hard time believing the original creators thought it a good idea, regardless of what they said. Don't bite the hand that feeds, you know?

If I'm wrong, then the team that worked on it must have lost their marbles and have no excuses as the game felt like it was made by an entirely different group of people.

Poor base management, nowhere near the customisation promised, same fetch quests, bland level design, nerfed enemies that took away the fear of losing a favourite survivor, not much innovation or improvement in the skills, no real story to up the drama or create interest as you move through the map and go to new bases and a few other things I'm thankfully forgetting. I only wish I could forget the game entirely ;)

But yeah, subjective.

[DaDrunkenJester]

"My source, subjective as it may be, is that the sequel was a very poor game that didn't expand or build on the promise of the originals that I absolutely adored."

Wait, so you haven't played 2? Or are you referring to yourself as your own source? Which would be odd. I loved 1 and 2, and they really did improve on everything the 1st had. What I think mostly drug it down was that it didn't exactly do anything NEW. So while it is bigger, and better in every way, it didnt exactly expand itself into anything new. Plus it got some bad scores due to bugs and such. If you loved SoD1 then there is no reason you wouldn't like the 2nd, just don't expect anything revolutionary to what you already know.

[carcarias]

It was but a bit of tom-foolery, sorry to confuse the issue. My bad.

Yes, I have, woe betide me, played the sequel, and yes, I'm my own source ;p I am the 'source' incarnate!

According to a link provided above, MS swear they didn't interfere. So, innocent until proven guilty and I stand corrected, though I still have my suspicions.

Like I've said to others, I'm glad you felt it was an across the board improvement; always happy when a fellow gamer has a good time. Unfortunately for me, I felt it was a let-down and, as mentioned, it reviewed worse than the original, so I'm not alone, though it does perhaps get harder to please once a few years go by.

You may well be right that some people hoped for something new, but I just wanted a mix of the original campaign along with some extra elements of the second DLC, Lifeline. Loved that.

[DaDrunkenJester]

I don't blame anyone for feeling let down in a way. When you think of a sequel it should really improve AND expand upon the original and it didnt quite hit that mark.

Also I think the first reviewed better because it was the first, no one really expected much, and it was just an Xbox Arcade game at the time. The sequel comes around and this time MS is hyping it up more, people expect more, but they didn't get that and I think that's what led to a lower scored game.

Have you been back in since the recent updates and additional characters stories?

[carcarias]

In fairness I haven't. I'm guessing it's a better in some ways now.

Also, I know exactly what you mean about the first one having newness on its side, and being Xbox Arcade. You make a good point there.

[DaDrunkenJester]

Not sure them coming into the Xbox Studios this late in development really did anything... I mean most of the game was already done. Now their next game with full funding and support will be the true test of their relationship.

[ReadyPlayer22]

Inxile literally delayed the game from this year to next year because they were acquired by Microsoft and started adding a much larger amount of staff.

[DaDrunkenJester]

I did not know that. Wonderful news then. And they are still launching it 3rd party?

[AK91]

I need to go back and finish the 2nd game.

[BlackTar187]

Lol yea loved the second game except the first few hrs were miserable