Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Gaming and Hardware Forum' started by Ravager69, Sep 18, 2009.
well he got Ausired.
More like Au-served
Not really related to anything, but Matt Chat did The Witcher review.
So I'm at act 3 of my second playthrough, on Iorweth's path this time around.
What I like is that after playing it for the second time, it does feel like a diffrent game, because there's so much content you won't see on either path you take. Remember all those grand non-linear whatever RPGs that are said to have multiple choices and consequences? Well, Witcher 2 pulled it off properly for the first time in a *long* time.
I see people comparing it to Mass Effect because both have cinematic feel to them - well, Mass Effect doesn't stand a slightest chance compared to the Witcher. On one side, you have a breathing game full of interesting (and most importantly, varied) quests and characters that feel like actual people, while on the other there's the stiff pop-a-mole shooter with barely any gameplay mechanics, aside from some random animations during dialogues and a weak, completly unrealistic world and story that I can't simply relate to in any way.
The Witcher 2 for the first time for a long time made a story that shows some actuall struggle, where you can care for characters you meet and the story isn't just about standing against forces of evil. Even the main "villain", the Kingslayer, is simply a *person* with his beliefs, goals and an actual agenda that makes sense when he explains it to you.
No matter at which part of the game I look, starting from the promotial campaign prior to release (I love the Hope trailer), to the sheer amount of varied content in diffrent edition of the game, ending with the little touches in-game, I see real, actual quality and passion. I can't wait for the Witcher 3, fuck the console port! Concentrate on making another game, dammit!
Witcher 3 won't be coming for a while, rest assured. They were sort of hinting at an expansion at some point, though.
I know, but I hope that the expansion will provide some sort of commentary on what happened in the main campaign.
Well, the entire storyline with the Hunt remained completely open.
I've seen someone on the Witcher forums suggest that the expansion will be about Yennifer, claiming that the ladybug in the ending sequence is a hint to that, as they are said to carry lovers' messages in folklore, or something like that. Sounds plausible - though no guarantee whether this'll be expansion material, or something put off till the next installment of the series.
I thought it was pretty obvious that Witcher 3 is going to take place in Nilfgaard and focus on Geralt kicking it old school with his ol' pal Duny?
I wouldn't say it's guaranteed but it is the most obvious open plot-thread. But the Wild Hunt/Yennifer is pretty big too. Or both at the same time? We'll see where they go with it.
But what if Sapkowski's next book undermines their plot thread? Like Interplay and Bethesda.
After more than a decade since the books first were published? Only if Bethesda was involved in it...
Have yet to play the game, went through first game and Last Wish book when it all came out. Waited for a long time for this new Geralt, and to see that epic bitchslap to those consolified RPGs. God I love it!
Yep, not going to happen. He's done with writing anything placed in The Witcher universe AFAIK. Last book came out in 1999 so it really seems he's not going to start over again. You will only see translations of his other works at some point in the future.
It is just what I remember from somewhere so I might be wrong but I think the game Witcher 1 more or less starts 5 years after the last book which was where Gerald died (hence why you hear that so many times in the game that he was suposed to be dead). Killed by a guy with a fork in some riot or something like that.
So the chance to see actually another story might be not be really high. But as said. I might be wrong with this.
Well I once went through the saga from the first to the fifth book (I can't get my hands on the Last Wish and the other introduction book) and I must say, at the fourth it already gets hard to read. Sapkowski's style of writing is briliant, but not in such large doses. I hope he will leave the Witcher world to CD Projekt.
^Are you from Poland perhaps?
I did not like the story of the first game too much, I liked the book better actually, Last Wish. But that's just a couple of similar stories about Geralt. I would like to read the books from the real saga first before playing the W2 game but only one is translated into English...
What do you guys think will console specific players will think of this game? Too hard for their taste?
Or will they bend to the simple truth that god mode play-style is boring after so many games like it. I'm talking about everything handed on a plate, and here it begins without any real instruction on how to survive.
I am, but on your place I wouldn't count much on the saga being translated, it's a nigh-impossible job. It's a book written with polish language in mind, there's just so much you'd loose in the translation. But hell, who knows.
As for the game - there's one thing bothering me since I finished the Witcher 2....who the hell was the assassin from the end of the Witcher 1? He is never mentioned by anyone, aside from the tent scene in prologue. He is not working with the Kingslayer (or he simply ignores his existance), he's not know to Geralt...looks to me like they just forgot to explain his role at all.
Who wants to read six pages of Wotcha 2 review?
One thing I don't get are the complaints on this board about the removal of the top-down camera. I mean, I get the nostalgia and all that, but how many of you actually found the pseudo-iso mode in TW1 more comfortable to use than the 3P mode? The mouse mode was absolutely clunky and didn't work for me at all.
Also, BN, you're lucky you never tried the potion-master build, or you'd have even more beef with the imbalances. A lot of the boss fights follow cutscenes, during which the potion-timer keeps running. For the long ones (like chapter 2) they're just not viable; if you concentrated on potions only, you're basically f*cked for the Draug fight (BTW, he just walks through basic unupgraded Yrden).
I noticed potions didn't last through the Chapter 2 ghost sequence.
Also, I'm not saying draw back the camera with this system, it wouldn't work. But if you take a very similar combat system in concept (chaining attacks, dodging, countering) in Arkham Asylum, note that its combat system works fine with a drawnback camera, because its targeting system is bound to the keys rather than the mouse. That game determines the camera for you, and pulls it back for fights where you need the overview, like the final fight.
But if we're talking PC gamers with this kind of combat system, many will prefer pulling the camera back in combat view for tactical overview. That's how I played the Drakensang games. It's how I would've played the Witcher 2 if it was possible. One of the various reasons you have to leap around so much is a lack of seeing who is where and easily getting attacking in the back.
Also, some people get motion sickness from TPS view. One of GameBanshee's editors can't play this game, at all.
What can I say, great and detailed read as always. Good job ! The part with reverse diff curve intrigued me most, was wondering whether it applies to fallout to some extent, as it certainly applies to vanilla BG2 for example (with rather few exceptions).
IMO, tactical overview is only useful if the game is designed for it, and if it works well. In TW1 it just didn't work well at all. And it was action-y, with very little real combat tactics involved that'd warrant such a camera perspective. It almost felt like the pseudo-iso perspective was thrown in at the last moment in TW1, just to appease the old-school RPG fans, or because it was already built into the engine. I "defaulted" to it originally, but it became quite clear that it sucks.
I haven't played Batman, but from what I've seen, the camera is quite different; it's not the "tactical view camera" like in DA:O, it's the Capcom-like fixed camera for action games. Works mostly well for slashers, but wouldn't work for a game with bigger, more open environments like TW2.
When it comes to combat, TW2 plays like a typical TPS action title, and IMO the camera tied to mouse is the best option I've seen on PC for that kind of gameplay (tying camera to keyboard just stands for lazy console port, really). There's that bit of an problem you mention, because the game makes group fights pretty deadly, but then again, there's the talents quite early on that take care of that. And the whole talk about how much you need to roll is really quite unreasonable, I barely ever rolled in my two playthroughs because there are usually easier ways to avoid immediate danger. Even if you do, then at least you'd better use lock-on camera to keep track of what's going on.
Motion-sickness sucks, I have a friend with the same problem, but it's not like you can blame it on the game either.
P.S. Another curious thing in your review - you mention lag during video cutscenes. I wonder what's causing it - I had the exact same problem, in TW2 as well as Crysis2.
IMO not so much - early encounters in FO aren't really all that difficult. FO2's Temple can be annoying with the wrong build, but that's about it. At higher levels, FO gets quite a bit easier; FO2 is more balanced since Enclave patrols can OHKO you with a lucky crit even if you have APA.
Never experienced that in BG2, since I guess I played as one of those "exceptions" - the Bard. He just consistently sucks.