Fancy Fancy – Wasteland 2: Director’s Cut Is Out

You think your copy of Wasteland 2 [official site] is plain and unadorned, do you? Go on, check your pocket. Like a street magician without the tight black t-shirt (you can’t squeeze 40-odd people into one of those), inXile Entertainment have distracted you with their god-awful tattoos and some slick patter about the weather then quietly slipped into your pocket a copy of Wasteland 2: Director’s Cut. It’s the improved, expanded version of the post-apocalyptic RPG with fancier graphics, more voicework, character perks and quirks, a rebalancing, and more.

Or you can stick to the old version, if you want. Magicians make me feel uneasy too.

As inXile Entertainment explain, the Director’s Cut brings an upgrade to the Unity 5 engine with fancier lighting, updated environment and character art, thousands of lines of new voicework, controller support, and a hefty rebalancing. It also adds a new ‘Precision Strikes’ system letting you target enemies’ individual bodyparts – like Fallout’s V.A.T.S. – along with ‘Perks’ that give characters extra bonuses as they level and ‘Quirks’ that give them more personality through positive and negative effects.

Unfortunately, save files will not transfer from the old version to the new; they’re simply too different.

The Director’s Cut is now on Steam and GOG, slipped into the collections of folks who owned the original as a separate game, so you can still download and play the old version if you want.

Or, if you’re entirely new to Wasteland 2, you can now buy this for £30. Here, have a launch trailer:


  1. Stevostin says:

    I doubt it can turn it into a good game. The recipe is here, it’s done in an OK way (although it really isn’t great regarding production value) but little stand out in the writing, it’s not the decision fest some other RPG provide, and it’s waaay to long for the gameplay it has to offer.

    If you’re really starving for top down party based RPG with turned base combat it can be worth it but if so you most likely already have it. If you’re just after great game/adventure/RPG, I can’t recommand it. I played 80h before dropping the game, bored to death with “yet another fight and I now know there’s nothing else down the line than mainly yet plenty of other boring fights and a few bland dialog with twins of clone of twins of characters you’ve met earlier in the game. No, it’s not even Fallout, and especially not FNV.

    • geisler says:

      I like how you say that as if NV is the pinnacle of the franchise. Anything with that godawful Bethestard engine and console inspired ethos shouldn’t even be in a discussion involving games that aspire to be an “old style” CRPG. That said, i agree with the rest of your critique involving Wasteland 2, i just found it very inappropriate to hold F:NV against it.

      • Nereus says:

        NV was undoubtedly the best of the two modern Fallout games, and will probably retain that crown even after FO4 releases. But I agree, the gamebryo engine needs to die a quick death. I would generally prefer a slow and painful death for something so grossly outdated but more games using it is not in my best interest.

        • Grae says:

          IMO, it goes: FO1/FNV* > FO2 > Tactics > FO3.

          *Toss-up – FNV wins mostly on story/C&C, but FO1 has the edge on atmosphere and originality. They trade several blows on the finer, technical points, but every game’s combat is pretty garbage (except Tactics). I first played FO1/2 AFTER FO3, so I have no nostalgia for the old games, otherwise I reckon FO1 would be a clear front-runner for me, while FNV would be a toss-up with FO2 instead… and I’d put more “>>>>” in front of FO3 :P

        • blackmyron says:

          F:NV barely qualifies as a ‘post-apocalyptic’ game, though; it’s good to see F4 return to the roots. And while I like many of the improvements in NV (armor classes, strength requirements, expanded weapons & armor) it falls short by being pseudo-linear in structure and a lack of random encounters, one of the best parts of F3.
          F2 is a broken, unfinished game. Tactics… shouldn’t even be brought up in polite conversation.

      • Stevostin says:

        Well I’ve played all. I replayed Fallout lately and let me put this clear:

        F1&2 from your memory may be the best RPG ever but…

        F1&2 from reality were good RPG buy hardly the best from their time (Ultima was seen as vastly superior games at the time.). They’re also *vastly* inferior to F3 and FNV in term of player freedom. This fact can be checked by reading walkthrough and comparing how many options are offered on average per quest. Also a good 80% of things I’ve seen brought against F3 are actually in F1/2 to start with.

        Now facts being stated, let’s move to personal opinion.
        To me any RPG which doesn’t allow you to take, move, weight, sell any object around me is crippled, toyish, half way there but not quite. To me there are the “now we’re talking” RPG (all Bethesda/Gamebryo) and the cheap compromise on the promise of a new world (every other). I am totally biased in favor of immersion, sense of place etc. Writing also matter but here again there’s IMO F1&2 are over rated. Wasteland kind of prove the point with writing that may not be bland, but doesn’t bring anything noticeable either.

        • Laurentius says:

          Well I object to these “facts” as staunchly as possible. I also replayed F1 AND 2 and they are still vastly inferior to F3 and NV. Like i case F2 it’s not even in the same league. Everything is better in them bar graphics. Also Wasteland 2 si a very good game, it’s not as good as first Fallouts but omg it’s so much better then hollow shell of an cRPG that is F3.

          • WhatAShamefulDisplay says:

            Assuming you meant to write that F1&2 are superior to the latter ones, which from context I assume is the case, I completely agree.

            Bethesda have made a grand total of two good games, and they are Daggerfall and Morrowind. Everything else they have made has been mechanically trivial and thematically banal.

        • Philopoemen says:

          Fallout 1/2 are tighter in design than FO3/NV which is what it comes down to. I still play FO2 w/ Restoration Mod, and just since getting it on Steam (ignoring the thousands of hours over the years before Steam), I have 300+ hours in it. I have 200+ hours in FNV, because it has more content, not because I enjoy it as much…I’ve definitely tried.

          But the majority of that content is grind, whereas FO2 (which is my pinnacle of gaming even now) is a better designed game, that can be as long or short as you want it to be, and a much better RPG.

          As for WL2, they’ve seemed to do a overhaul of the combat system to balance all the different weapons – the skills screen in the character creation window has Shadowrun Returns style chits for different levels telling you what Perks it opens up. Hopefully this makes all weapons viable, rather than just Brawling and ARs like the release version.

          Hopefully they’ve also balanced the stat values, so that it’s not basically mandatory to drop CHA and Luck to 1, and ramp INT to 8 or 10. Going to find out now…

          • TomxJ says:

            I don’t know. Fallout was brilliant; it had a design ethos and followed it, the script was fantastic, the art was consistent in tone and craft and the story it had to tell was perfectly sewn into the fabric of the world.

            Fallout 2 suffered from bloat. Yes it was bigger and largely more fun. But the game was all over the place, it was one inconsistent mess that suffered from lack communication during production.

            On the other hand I felt Bethesda’s Fallout was more of an re-imagining of the first game and followed the same design ethos. It’s leaps and bounds ahead of their Elder Scrolls games in terms of narative thorough world building and I felt they did bloody well in bringing the weird and wonderful world of americana to the locals of the wasteland.

            The best part of FNV are the DLC adventures. The base game is just too sprawling and uninteresting and the overarching plot suffers from rail-roading your charcter into making decisions they’re probaley not that invested in after the first act.

            So, Wasteland 2. Well if the overhaul makes up for in slick mechanics and tone what the Besthesda games largely lack in, then I’d be all the more happy for it.

          • Philopoemen says:

            Well unless you like clowns, don’t pick Raised by the Circus as a quirk. Especially with the can’t be removed part…

          • blackmyron says:

            I’m astonished that you refer to F2 being ‘tighter in design’ and then mentioning you’re playing with the Restoration Mod.

        • Machocruz says:

          Fallout 2 had far more quest solutions than 3.

          • Machocruz says:

            Actually, not solutions but variables that lead to a solution or solutions

    • yonsito says:

      It must have at least some redeeming qualities. Can it really be that bad if it kept you playing for 80 hours?

    • dungeoncrawl says:

      I really enjoyed FO3 much better than FO:NV. I played NV 2-3 times dropping it 20 hours in from bordom all 3 times. With the announcement of FO4 I decided to restart it and power through to the end recently and my mind is unchanged. Yeah there are factions you can side with but the characters, stories, and landscape were just FAR less interesting to me than FO3. I now I’m in the minority.

      • Detocroix says:

        I enjoyed FO3 more too. It offered much more balanced trek through the world without putting artificial walls in every corner and without making everything so blindingly black and white. FNV reminds me most of the couple of LARPs I was in, every character has depth of 1 line and an alignment chosen from two options; “Good” or “Stupidly Evil That No One Except True Asshole Would Pick”.

        • dungeoncrawl says:

          And everything in FO:NV looked the same to me….dessert here…dessert there. I never stumbled into any visually interesting areas, interesting subplots, etc. In FO3, I felt like I stumbled into all kinds of different stories, characters, landscapes, etc.

        • Machocruz says:

          Not how I remember it. 3 was the game where all options boiled down to Good, Neutral, Bad, while NV’s quests, due to their higher number of solutions and variables, offered a wider spectrum.

        • kio says:

          I don’t get how FO3 had more artificial walls than NV. The whole downtown area of DC is a maze of broken buildings and subways blocking the way. The NV map felt artificial overall, very much a game map than a real place, but it wasn’t a maze that forced you to follow shoddy waypoint markers to get anywhere. That’s one of the major things that killed it for me. I just wanted to explore the city instead of following quest markers to discover the ‘crazy’ twist. None of the NPCs in FO3 felt like real people, it was like a big theme park.

        • blackmyron says:

          F:NV very much forced you to travel in a big circle to get to New Vegas by putting exceedingly deadly monsters in the way of every other direction.

      • viathinair says:

        In FO3 I liked, for example, after having blown up Megaton, being able to conveniently regain lost karma by giving a fairly meagre amount of water to beggars, instead of having to trudge through several quests to regain it. I was very amused by the fact that, despite it being in the VATS animations, we were unable to use ironsights in real-time – Bethesda are such teases! I enjoyed how we could freely choose to side with the Enclave and do a proper questline for them, or side with the Brotherhood Outcasts and oust the other Brotherhood. I really appreciated that FO3 has an easier-to-digest 58 quests and the vast majority of them have a clearly defined 2 choices and very few ties to each other, whereas FNV has a tiresome 172 quests and they are often sooo confusing with 3-4 choices and loads of ties to each other!

        Companions in FO3 are so much more conducive to pure, instant gameplay, able to be easily picked up and get on with without much bothersome conversations let alone quests, whereas in FNV you gotta trudge through quests to get them AND learn about their backstories AND do even more quests to get upgrades for them – gah! I liked how, despite it having been 250+ years since the bombs dropped and 150+ years since people could establish themselves in the area, everyone there is STILL scavenging and not worrying about building troublesome social structure. Finally, I LOVED how Bethesda made an original story with completely new factions etc. (Enclave/Brotherhood) instead of relying on reboots and retcons of the old Fallouts.

        Oh, wait…

        • blackmyron says:

          You’re right, F:NV manages to use karma much more effectively… to enact minor changes in dialogue and scripting.
          And you’re also right about having the freedom to choose which side to join – after all, the Legion has their good points, right? It’s not like they removed any of the parts that were supposed to demonstrate them as a viable alternative to the NCR rather than hateful misogynistic scum. Especially when you have companions that are actually pro-Legion!
          Oh wait…

      • Jason Moyer says:

        For people who don’t understand why so many fans prefer FNV:

        link to

        And that’s a minor side quest. The flowcharts (from the official strategy guide) for some quests take up an entire page.

  2. Wowbagger says:

    I never did get very far into the original cut, so I’ll be interested to see how this has changed things. Doesn’t appear to have turned up in my GOG library yet though.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Mm, despite backing it, I only ever really covered the first bit (where you have to pick one of two places to save, then investigate the ruins of the other), and kind of lost momentum there. It wasn’t helped by some scripting bugs making a character hostile earlier than they should have been so a bunch of dialogue got skipped.

      At least I saw in the notes while they working on it that they’ve fixed the manual fiddliness of using skills. It’s not dumbing down to just use the right one with the best person automatically if that’s all you were ever going to do manually; it’s just removing UI busywork. No interesting decision has been lost.

  3. Premium User Badge

    Grimsterise says:

    Was waiting for this to see if it made the game more interesting. But if my saves won’t transfer… Oh well, another one for on my steam list of shame.

  4. onesandzeroes says:

    I’m probably not going to do a full playthrough but I’m definitely going to download this and have a look. Playing through the original I felt that the designers just really didn’t understand what makes a turn-based combat system interesting, but given that they’ve acknowledged that it needed rebalancing maybe they just didn’t get it quite right and now we’ll see what they’re going for. The most glaring flaw with the original was the almost total lack of cover in most areas, which meant that your “tactics” mostly amounted to deciding whether or not to crouch to get slightly better accuracy. How do you make tactical combat work without things like cover? I couldn’t see any evidence that the original game had any answer to that question.

    • LionsPhil says:

      I don’t remember being short on cover.

      What I do remember was a melee specialist party member being largely useless, especially given a number of the enemies tended to explode on death.

      • cpt_freakout says:

        It’s funny, because there’s plenty of cover in most areas but many times I felt it was just better to straight-up shoot everyone than use the environment for anything. The boredom of the combat system was particularly glaring in corridor fights like those beneath the… umm… Vegas-like town whose name I no longer remember. The problem isn’t that there is no cover (’cause for the most part there is), but that there’s no real point to it. Also, yes, melee characters were utterly and completely useless in any situation.

        Don’t think I’ll be replaying W2, but since I did enjoy it quite a bit the first time around I hope the people who are getting into it until now have it better with the DC.

        • kio says:

          Playing on lower difficulty, aka “normal”? Positioning/cover is often not meaningful in these types of games unless you’re playing on at least hard.

  5. skyturnedred says:

    I was about 8 hours in when they announced the director’s cut. Put the game on hold until then, looking forward to diving back in.

  6. Eddy9000 says:

    I’m going to have to join the voices of dissent that thought this was a poor game. I love crpgs and post apocalyptic settings but just didn’t think WL2 was a good game. Boring combat, forgettable writing, slight character development, nothing about it stood out for me. The rave reviews made me wonder if there was something wrong with me (I enjoyed invisible war so it’s a distinct possibility).
    Will dig it out and see if the new version lifts it up a bit though.

    • Detocroix says:

      This. It was like a classic hollywood action flick. You watch it, might enjoy bits of it, but the next day you remember nothing of what you saw. I do remember enjoying many parts of it, disliking some, but I don’t remember ANYTHING that happened in the game. I’ll definitely take a look how it looks and plays (how different it is) and then either replay or not :)

  7. anHorse says:

    Aw I thought it was just gonna be added as a patch

    I’ve left Wasteland 2 installed for months for no reason

    • Bank12 says:

      ‘The Director’s Cut is now on Steam and GOG, slipped into the collections of folks who owned the original as a separate game, so you can still download and play the old version if you want.’

  8. Thulsa Hex says:

    I’m disappointed that saves don’t transfer since I’m among those who stopped their current play-through when news of the update broke. Now I’m not sure if I should start again or just continue the old save. I had put a decent amount of time into it already – I was at the end of the M.A.D. Monks main quest, and about to head to Cali …I think. It’s been a while. Anyway, anyone able to tell me if I’ve passed the half-way point yet?

    The main deterrent to starting again isn’t the (lacklustre) combat so much as that the writing isn’t particularly good, imo. I was expecting it to be a lot more interesting and funny than the modern Fallouts, but it’s really quite flat. I’ve yet to play Pillars, Divinity, or Shadowrun, so W2 is the only taste of the “cRPG Renaissance” I’ve had, so far. I’m hoping the others live up to the excitement!

    • Detocroix says:

      Pillars is a little bit forgettable, but it was a good game none the less. Definitely worth playing, even if just for the modernized Baldur’s Gate feel.

      Divinity on the other hand. A lot of that game is burned to my mind, I remember being awestruck everywhere in writing, art, combat, and in the atmosphere and feeling of freedom.

      I haven’t played Shadowrun(s) yet, so can’t comment on those :)

      • Stellar Duck says:

        You were awestruck by the writing in Divinity?

        That surprises me greatly.

        • Detocroix says:

          It greatly depends on how you approach the writing. If you just use both characters to constantly drive your own opinion (you, the player) through, the writing is definitely weak. Everything in the writing is build towards having two characters with varying motivations.

          • Stellar Duck says:

            When I played it, my pair was basically a bickering octogenarian couple, arguing about absolutely everything. It was quite amusing at times and in places I enjoyed the writing. In other places though, it was rather dire.

            Overall I just think the writing was serviceable or something close to it but not surpassing it.

            I was mostly just a bit surprised by anyone being ‘awestruck’ by it, is all. That’s a bit like being awestruck by by a Warhammer 40K book. And I should know. I have entirely too many of them. They’re serviceable pulp. And nothing wrong with that.

          • Assirra says:

            I consider that a flaw on itself.
            The fact you have to make 2 characters that are different to get the most of out of writing in a single player game is honestly silly. You basically say you need to coop a single player game. This is 1 flaw i hope they fix in DI:O 2. Make it so if you are indeed solo the other npc’s each have their own story and motivations. Don’t let me do the double teaming and basically contradicting myself every other conversation again.

        • Emeraude says:

          Same. There’s a lot to love in Divnity, but I don’t think I ever remotely liked the writing in any of Larian’s games.

          • LionsPhil says:

            Played Dragon Commander? Honestly, I preferred dealing with the council to the rapidly-stale RTS.

          • Emeraude says:

            Oh, no, I haven’t.

            Still on my “to check list”. But my general negative impression of Larian’s writing in general always keeps me putting games above on the “to play” list. Especially given comments such as yours that the writing is better than the other half of the game.

    • derbefrier says:

      Divinity:OS is coming out with their remastered edition ( or whatever they are calling it) in the next few weeks. Its a great game. The writing is kind of silly at times ( this game doesnt take itself seriously at all) but its entertaining enough and the combat and pretty much everything else is miles ahead of wasteland 2.

    • Chaoslord AJ says:

      Pillars was good but way over-hyped, Divinity is a nice game, Dragonfall was way better than the original SR, you might skip that one. I’m back at Baldur’s Gate 2 extended edition now – uglier and harder than in my memory -lol- still such a wealth of content and character interaction and good fighting…

    • onodera says:

      Pillars are good, but they are like driving a Ford Focus (the European one). There was nothing bad, but nothing brilliant about the game.

      Dialogues? Well-written, but mostly skippable. I remember only one, which recognized that I was both cruel AND honest.

      Companions? Well-written backstories, but they are all too neatly tied to your character’s new abilities, and are spoon-fed to you too slowly to be interesting.

      Combat and stats? With so few level ups I expected the game to have more “press A for Awesome” skills, but some level up gave practically nothing at all. Some skills your opponents use aren’t telegraphed enough (I still don’t know why and how big robots heal themselves). Otherwise it’s on par with DA:O.

      The story itself? Kinda breadbox-sized, neither small and intricate nor big and sprawling.

    • Juke says:

      Unfortunately, you might have jumped in with the least inspired of the “Renaissance cRPGs.” I’m just here to say that if you haven’t played SR: Dragonfall yet, just do so. It had a great story and really leveraged the Shadowrun cyber-fantasy theme well throughout. I wouldn’t say that any of the systems in the game were best-in-class, but neither were there any weaknesses that distracted from the roleplaying.

      I did like Divinity’s mechanics and commitment to play-how-you-want design, but found the story a little silly and prone to dragging, so I put a pin in it pending the Extended Edition. I was worth playing as-was, but I am optimistic that the final version will elevate it from good to great.

      Can’t speak to Pillars as I have not played it. I was intrigued at first, but it seems they skewed too heavy into fiddly overly-complex combat, and mistook making your game into an overlong interactive novel for having a lively story with memorable characters. I could of course be wrong about those things, but I am content to wait for Torment to earn my “RPG Wordophile” merit badge. At least it has a novel setting and an ambitious plot…

    • Thulsa Hex says:

      Wow, thanks for all the replies. Yeah, I think part of the problem was that I’d come straight from finally finishing Baldur’s Gate II (original retail), with an imported BG1 character that I had been rocking for a good few years at that point. I built my first new desktop PC in 10 years in January and grabbed Wasteland 2 in the Steam sales, hoping that it would live up to the Black Isle legacy. I don’t want to be too hard on the game, though — I eventually did hit a rhythm with it, but it certainly paled in comparison to the epic that was BG.

      I do have Shadowrun Returns & Dragonfall waiting patiently in my Steam library. I think I’ll at least try Returns first, since I know very little of the world. But before that I plan to go back and finish Throne of Bhaal. I’d intended to get to the end of that before getting distracted by my new PC, but I had some trouble with fire giants and didn’t get around to it in time.

      The new Torment is probably my most anticipated of these classically-inspired cRPGs. That said [*hangs head*] I still haven’t actually played Planescape: T. Perhaps this is the cRPG I should play next.

      If you’ll further indulge me, is the Dragon Age series worthwhile? I actually have the first two in my library (impulse sales purchase) but I bounced off the control scheme pretty had when I tried DA:O on Xbox a few years ago. Is the PC version any better? I’ve been told by a friend that it’s worthwhile sticking with it. If it helps, I’ve gotten on pretty well with some of the bigger RPGs/RPG-ish games of the past few years. Loved the Witcher, (most of) Mass Effect, Deus Ex: HR, to name a few.

      Finally, has anyone tried the co-op in Divinity: OS? Seems like playing it with the right person could improve the experience, in theory.

      Sorry for the long post. SO MANY GAMES.

      • Taltos says:

        Dragon Age 1 was supposed to be a successor to the old Bioware golden age. It didn’t quite manage that, but it’s a decently constructed universe with some interesting C&C options. The sequel is either a hit or a miss due to a significantly smaller scope and different narrative design. Many people didn’t like the changes/perceived cheapening of scale and there was a significant amount of backlash at Bioware for this.

        As for Divinity:OS, do NOT miss out on the chance to romp around the world of Rivellon with a good friend, causing chaos and destruction to your heart’s desire. The game is specifically designed for co-op and all of the things that can go wrong. Every single quest has multiple solutions and it’s a joy to see how little decisions can blow up in your face, often literally.

  9. dungeoncrawl says:

    I disagree with the comments above about WL2 being boring or “not a good game”. I played the HECK out of this game…beta tested the heck out of it (likely 60 hours of that) and now steam says I have 100 hours logged in it. I plan to completely replay it from start to finish now that the Director’s cut was out. I really enjoyed the story, the writing, the quirkiness of the characters, etc. Sure the combat isn’t as strategic as, say XCOM, but it’s good. I’m looking forward to more voice acting and maybe some fine tuning.

    This was my GOTY last year…and I played a LOT of RPGs.

    • Enkinan says:

      Glad someone else here actually thinks this is a good game. Between beta and the non-directors cut I have 155 hours in, I thought it was a great throwback to WL1 and a great time. Quest bugs at the end pissed me off a bit, but those were resolved ages ago.

      I’m looking forward to a new start with all of the new additions, though I probably won’t have the time until next year.

    • PancakeWizard says:


    • Lars Westergren says:

      I liked it too. Not a great game, but quite good. I thought combat was a bit easy and one of the weaker points of the game, so I’m happy they have adressed that.

  10. Danarchist says:

    As much as I desperately wanted to love this game I do not think I could possibly play through the “choose one to help” part of the game again. The only thing more annoying than slowly creeping forward killing zombie pods is the door opening tedium under the town on top of the dam. If there was some way to jump past this section I would give it another shot.

    I honestly think this is the first game I ever played that suffered from too much power balance. I never felt like my characters ever became any more powerful simply because the enemies were increasing at-pace or faster. I didn’t want easy mode, but I did want to feel like I was making some sort of gains.

  11. Philopoemen says:

    Well, after 4 hours or so with the Directors Cut, I’ve got a few insights into it. It seems easier, but that could be because I eventually got good at playing it last time round.

    The new Perks system is reminiscent of Shadowrun’s abilities; hit a certain level of a skill, and they become available. There’s 90 perks or so, and it seems any weapon is now viable (except maybe SMGs – they still seem a bit wasted).

    The Quirks thus far are actually a bit annoying, but my experience is coloured by choosing Raised by the Circus for my Leader, and having him traipsing around in a clown outfit you can’t ever remove. Jury’s out on that part, but you don’t have to take one in any case. High CHA characters will take Delayed Gratificatio (actually a lot will), and snipers/AR users will take Brittle Bones.

    I just started at the Ag Center (sorry Highpool), and combat has definitely added more status effects. And it definitely looks and sounds better.

    Considering it’s free, it’s the WL2 equivalent of Dragonfall’s DC. Which is better remains to be seen

  12. PancakeWizard says:

    Worth noting that the Director’s Cut (unlike the original) is 64bit, which is one reason why they didn’t just overwrite the old one and allow people to use their saves. Something else I’ve noticed is that there seems to be less portrait options. Also, no option for ‘bald’ in the hair customisations. Weird.

    Anyway, looking forward to another playthrough (got far, but didn’t finish it the first time).

    • Philopoemen says:

      Yeah, the lack of portrait options was interesting – not sure why they’d do that, but I just screenshot my rangers for portraits anyways.

      The other frustrating thing is that it doesn’t remember/store your custom rangers. I wanted to restart and just change my quirk, and found I needed to create all four Rangers again. Ugh

      • LionsPhil says:

        Those are both weird regressions.

        Some of the portraits were cool enough that I used them to then model a character after.

  13. Monggerel says:

    “Impossible” is just another way of saying “it cannot happen”.

  14. MadMinstrel says:

    So many improvements, and they still haven’t fixed the bloody camera angle. Arrrrrgh!

    • Emeraude says:

      Actually, looking at picture, haven’t they changed the camera angle(s) from the original ?

      Seems so to me.

  15. Emeraude says:

    Downloading right now – though when am I ever going to find the time for it I cannot say.

    I really liked what they did with the original, though I think it felt short a bit too often, and had some overall very weird failings design wise (the Red Scorpion camp entrance comes to mind, for one).
    The game felt like it lacked a solid direction design and narrative-wise and ended up a bit of a mess because of it.

    Still, enjoyed, not as if I had a lot of choices for that particular kind of games (I mean, system-wise, I really enjoyed the freedom and complete lack of hand-holding), and I hope the DC actually makes it into the game fully realized game it could have been.

  16. LionsPhil says:

    Also, does anyone else think the term “Director’s Cut” for this is weird? Normally that would imply the original release was forced off-vision by a heavy-handed studio, and this is what the creative power behind the work really intended. But this was kickstarted. It’s more a “Hang On, Let Us Try That Again”.

    • Emeraude says:

      Yeah, it seems like they went for “Director’s Cut” because it’s become the go-to term for “improved re-release” more than for its original sense.

      But here it does create a weird discrepancy.