13812 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

Lord Phoebus wrote...

Suprez30 wrote...

Well i just finished it .. 28 hours play time/ level 34.

The only thing i have to say.it's was a great game but not a great  RPG from my perspective.Because it's was not a rpg from my perspective.

You can ask 3 hours of question at some point.Really great experience.Forgotten most of it already.

I kind of feel the same way, having finished it on hard (no potions, knives, bombs or traps except where a quest required them) I really felt it went so far towards the action side of action-RPG that it wasn't really an RPG anymore though still a great game.  It felt more like Assassin's Creed with more dialog than BG with more action.  Other than Whirl, Footwork, the Backstab Reduction, the upgrades to Quen and Riposte (though I only really used that when I wasn't playing as Geralt), I didn't feel like any of the upgrades made a difference to gameplay.  Quen is pretty overpowered too, though not as bad as Igni in the first game.

This is one game where I really don't know how to compare it to the original. I thought the plot was better in the first game, there were more areas to explore and the research was paced better (I looked at my journal more in the first game).  However your choices have more consequences in the second game and the gameplay is a bit better.    I think I rated the Witcher as a 8.7/10 and I'll rate the Witcher 2 the same.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument that action in a game diminishes the RPG aspect. TW2 has a role you assume, a story that actually reacts to your choices, choices that actually make you think, level progression, exploration, character development, etc.

Seems like an RPG to me.

Modifié par slimgrin, 16 juin 2011 - 01:13 .

[Bejos_]

slimgrin wrote...

I have yet to hear a convincing argument that action in a game diminishes the RPG aspect. TW2 has a role you assume, a story that actually reacts to your choices, choices that actually make you think, level progression, exploration, character development, etc.

Seems like an RPG to me.

It's not a traditional RPG, certainly. Most agree that Stats + Abilities + C&C make a game an RPG.

TW2 has all of those, but it's a bit cramped in the first two requirements. I'd still consider it an RPG, just more nominally so than other examples.

Is anyone else bothered that Geralt looks different in every piece of promotional media? In one he looks 80, in another 25, in this one his jaw is different, in that one his nose long is longer ... Bit inconsistent, CDPR. ;P

Modifié par Bejos_, 16 juin 2011 - 01:37 .

[Chromie]

Geralt is actually over 100 in Witcher 2. He ages pretty damn well >.>

[Lord Phoebus]

slimgrin wrote...

I have yet to hear a convincing argument that action in a game diminishes the RPG aspect. TW2 has a role you assume, a story that actually reacts to your choices, choices that actually make you think, level progression, exploration, character development, etc.

Seems like an RPG to me.

Any game that has an avatar that the player controls, be it Mario Brothers, CoD or KotOR, requires you to assume a role. Hence that metric is too broad to be used to differentiate a RPG from another genre.

Story doesn't matter, Doom 3 has a story and you can choose to take different paths back to the base from the communications relay, does that make it an RPG? Of course not. Icewind Dale has a plot too; a plot that doesn't react to your choices, but it is an RPG. Almost every video game, other than puzzle games and sport games have a story, some of them with choices that alter the game. Many RPGs have stories with choices that do not alter the game. Ipso facto, having a story that reacts to players choice, also doesn't demarcate between an RPG and another genre.

I'll give you level progression and stat based character development, though apart from a few abilities I mentioned in TW2, I didn't think it had a huge impact on gameplay.

Exploration is something you also find in other genres, not so much as of late, but alot of FPS games with more non-linear levels have hidden areas with bonus gear that reward exploring the area.

The primary definition I use is the traditional mechanics definition (which applies to every genre except RPGs, and once did apply to RPGs), i.e. if it doesn't share the mechanics of a PnP RPG system it isn't really a RPG. Which it isn't. It can still qualify as the bastardization that is an action-RPG, but then you have to weigh the action elements to the RPG elements and which genre it fits more with becomes a subjective issue. I found it felt more action than RPG. If you felt otherwise, that's fine, but it doesn't invalidate my point of view.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Although Witcher 2 is an excellent game, I do feel somewhat similar.

I could elaborate and I probably will tomorrow, but it felt like an ACTION Roleplaying Game, as opposed to an Action Roleplaying Game (New Vegas, Gothic, Risen) or an Action ROLEPLAYING GAME (Bloodlines).

If any of that makes sense.

I would not consider Action RPGs to be a bastardisation though, and an RPG shouldn't necessarily require a PnP ruleset to be an RPG, otherwise traditional RPG series like Ultima, Fallout, Wizardy and so forth are not RPGs... which I'd find silly.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 16 juin 2011 - 01:52 .

[Chromie]

Lord Phoebus wrote...

Any game that has an avatar that the player controls, be it Mario Brothers, CoD or KotOR, requires you to assume a role. Hence that metric is too broad to be used to differentiate a RPG from another genre. 

The difference being you are roleplaying. You don't roleplay Mario, an italian-japanese plumber saving a princess he will always be that. You do roleplay Geralt and yes he may be a predefined character but you are free to choose along which path to follow be it with Iorveth or Roche and influence how he precieves the world and how it changes. In COD you don't change anything you don't level up. In an rpg you roleplay either by your actions/decisions or through gameplay such as Diablo and Elder Scrolls. 

[Lord Phoebus]

mrcrusty wrote...

I would not consider Action RPGs to be a bastardisation though, and an RPG shouldn't necessarily require a PnP ruleset to be an RPG, otherwise traditional RPG series like Ultima, Fallout, Wizardy and so forth are not RPGs... which I'd find silly.

Maybe I should have rephrased to a ruleset that could be used for a PnP game.  Certainly the rulesets in Ultima, Fallout and Wizardry could be used for PnP, even if they were never published as such (though wasn't there a PnP Fallout game with the special system that was published sometime after F2?).

[Bejos_]

Ringo12 wrote...

Lord Phoebus wrote...

Any game that has an avatar that the player controls, be it Mario Brothers, CoD or KotOR, requires you to assume a role. Hence that metric is too broad to be used to differentiate a RPG from another genre. 

The difference being you are roleplaying. You don't roleplay Mario, an italian-japanese plumber saving a princess he will always be that. You do roleplay Geralt and yes he may be a predefined character but you are free to choose along which path to follow be it with Iorveth or Roche and influence how he precieves the world and how it changes. In COD you don't change anything you don't level up. In an rpg you roleplay either by your actions/decisions or through gameplay such as Diablo and Elder Scrolls. 

CoD has borrowed RPG elements for its games. There are level ups, and, if I recall correctly, you do choose how to develop your character. There's also loot.
It's not an RPG, obviously. Your level ups have no effect on your array of abilities. It also has no C&C.

Modifié par Bejos_, 16 juin 2011 - 02:06 .

[Lord Phoebus]

Ringo12 wrote...

Lord Phoebus wrote...

Any game that has an avatar that the player controls, be it Mario Brothers, CoD or KotOR, requires you to assume a role. Hence that metric is too broad to be used to differentiate a RPG from another genre. 

The difference being you are roleplaying. You don't roleplay Mario, an italian-japanese plumber saving a princess he will always be that. You do roleplay Geralt and yes he may be a predefined character but you are free to choose along which path to follow be it with Iorveth or Roche and influence how he precieves the world and how it changes. In COD you don't change anything you don't level up. In an rpg you roleplay either by your actions/decisions or through gameplay such as Diablo and Elder Scrolls. 

You've never talked with a bad italian accent while playing a Mario Bros. game?  

In any game with an avatar, you identify with the avatar, you experience the world of the game through the experiences of the avatar.  The avatar, by the definition of an avatar, is the player's representative in that game.  As such if you are playing the game you are assuming the role of the avatar.   

[Ilidan_DA]

Hi
Where can I find the book which adds codex entry about Element of Fire? (Beings of the Element of Fire)

Yours

Modifié par Wiedzmin182009, 16 juin 2011 - 02:09 .

[Bejos_]

Lord Phoebus wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Lord Phoebus wrote...

Any game that has an avatar that the player controls, be it Mario Brothers, CoD or KotOR, requires you to assume a role. Hence that metric is too broad to be used to differentiate a RPG from another genre. 

The difference being you are roleplaying. You don't roleplay Mario, an italian-japanese plumber saving a princess he will always be that. You do roleplay Geralt and yes he may be a predefined character but you are free to choose along which path to follow be it with Iorveth or Roche and influence how he precieves the world and how it changes. In COD you don't change anything you don't level up. In an rpg you roleplay either by your actions/decisions or through gameplay such as Diablo and Elder Scrolls. 

You've never talked with a bad italian accent while playing a Mario Bros. game?  

In any game with an avatar, you identify with the avatar, you experience the world of the game through the experiences of the avatar.  The avatar, by the definition of an avatar, is the player's representative in that game.  As such if you are playing the game you are assuming the role of the avatar.   

That's a bit different. No actions that Mario takes are shown to impact him in any way beyond "I live"/"I die". He shows no character growth, and AFAIK, nothing he does changes anything about how the story is going to unfold or what the characters are going to do beyond the physics aspects of "If I jump on this turtle, and jump on it again, it can take out those turtles in one shot". It's a platformer with very slight elements of strategy. That's it.

Modifié par Bejos_, 16 juin 2011 - 02:12 .

[blothulfur]

Personally i don't care whether it's an action rpg, a first person shooter or a real time strategy so long as it's bloody good and immersive and I think Assassins of Kings damn well is though having played the prequel just before it could be argued that the amount of features taken out is quite noticeable.

Still it's a new engine so we can't expect as much content at first and in every almost every aspect of the game a lot of care and detail are clearly visible which speaks for how highly the developers regard their own work, at the end of the day if the devs are passionate it shines through bugs and any gameplay problems.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lord Phoebus wrote...

Maybe I should have rephrased to a ruleset that could be used for a PnP game.  Certainly the rulesets in Ultima, Fallout and Wizardry could be used for PnP, even if they were never published as such (though wasn't there a PnP Fallout game with the special system that was published sometime after F2?).

Don't know if it was published publically straight after F1/2, but Avellone GM'd Fallout PnP sessions at Black Isle later on. Some of their characters even made it into New Vegas.

As for the "what is an RPG?" debate, it's a pointless one as I think that Witcher 2 is an excellently crafted game, but the nitty gritty is this - character over player.

Now, things like parrying, arrow deflection and knife throwing can only be obtained through the ability tree, not by default - that's the character, not player, deciding what you can do. So, it's RPG-ish like that. It's different to an Action game as you are given the choice to invest in these skthrough the character sheet with a noticeable impact on gameplay depending on what you choose.

There is a universal principle for RPGs, regardless of whether any player can carry out an action without putting points into it, it's success is determined by the character first and the player second.

So, Geralt cannot parry unless he's got the points for it, whereas Altair can always parry regardless. That is one way Witcher 2 stands out more as an RPG than Assassin's Creed.

Ideally, a "pure" RPG emphasises the character over the player in as many aspects as possible. Roleplay a character through the game's plots and setting. Roleplay and character being the key words.

Things like major choice and consequence are a relatively new addition to RPGs, with Witcher 2's branching narrative pretty uncommon for the genre.

That opens up a whole different aspect - narrative and personality based character building.

But I'm sleepy, so I'll get on that tomorrow, if at all.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 16 juin 2011 - 02:40 .

[Bejos_]

mrcrusty wrote...

Things like major choice and consequence are a relatively new addition to RPGs, with Witcher 2's branching narrative pretty uncommon for the genre.

That opens up a whole different aspect - narrative and personality character building.

But I'm sleepy, so I'll get on that tomorrow, if at all.

G'night.

There are three ways to look at C&C. For simplicity, I'll use 3 common examples.

DA2-- the "perspective" C&C.
Nothing changes, but how your character views the world and from what position he interacts with it, changes.

TW2-- the "content" C&C.
Choosing one thing over another, whether in dialogue or action, closes off some avenues and opens up others. I'm not sure about the other C&Cs, but this one can be found as early as the 1980s.

Fallout-- the "stats" C&C.
How you build your character is going to define how you interact with the world. If you choose a more socially-focused character, your combat abilities are going to suffer because you've had to expend points into your social skills. If you choose a more combat-focused character, you're not going to be a silver-tongued rake. Obviously, choosing different builds closes off different avenues.

TW2 does all three, to a different extent. It mostly focuses on "content" C&C, but there is some C&C of both the "perspective" and "stats" variety.

Modifié par Bejos_, 16 juin 2011 - 02:44 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I'm talking about C&C in purely narrative terms as seen in W2, but yes you're right too. C&C can also apply to how you build your character and the persona you craft for the character.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Archaven wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Archaven wrote...

KingJason13 wrote...

TW2 is still my Fave Game of 2011.

Yeahh it would be my favorite game even after Skyrim released. It would be nice if TW2 have bigger worlds like Skyrim to explore.

I mean CDPR did a great job with the awesome plot and storyline, quests, world, culture, etc. But the map felt too smal. Flotsam, Kaedwen. I'm still in Chapter 2 though. The world is really nice and beautiful. Just it's not huge enough and honestly there wasn't really much monsters to slay. Basically the monsters only spawns at stationary area and that's it. They should have increase more monsters and after exploring the whole map you can be sure where to meet and not to meet them next time you are traveling and quest hunting.

I think the maps were about the same size as TW1. The areas have been carefully sized to avoid any necessity for fast travel, I think. But I like to wander as well, and bigger areas would've been nice. 

Fewer monster types was a letdown for me. I miss the vampires, the Fleders, the ghouls, etc. One thing I will say about monsters in the Flotsam area - and maybe I'm imagining this - but they seemed to grow more agressive and increase in number as I began to eradicate their nests.

To me though, one of the biggest things the game is missing is enough sidequests. The game just feels lean, and doesn't quite provide enough distractions from the main quest. Of course the trade off is the main quest can be played through several times with different results.

If you asked me, CDPR should really think BIG now on with TW3. They even managed to woo Oblivion/Skyrim fans. There is actually a v3 thread about the TW2 already in off-topic Bethesday ES community.

I would REALLY love TW3 world to be a HUGE, HUGE map like Skyrim. CDPR folks are really talented and they managed to create a game that is so IMMERSIVE, BEAUTIFUL and the storyline and plot is just plain WICKED.

The only thing i want to see IMPROVED was actually BIGGER world map, MORE exploration, MORE different types of monsters, MORE locations, SEAMLESS world. At the moment, each map still need to be loaded. Oh how i wished if they fix the opening door too.

They should also add MORE sidequests as possible and probably add more sandbox element MORE contracts!.

If they have that.. they are ES contender. Of course just my opinion though .

Oh yeah.. they are at the moment.. making XBOX360 EASY settings actually EASY:
http://www.eurogamer...culty-is-easier

I hope they DO NOT do that. That's what I liked in TW1 and TW2 about its narrative. Story first. They don't go where isn't necessary or they won't bring depth to the plot, or won't have anything interesting going on to the people around it. I mean, as more interesting then they were, Outskirts of Vizima and Murky Waters were a kind of a filler in TW1. Damn interesting ones, but they felt like a filler meant to keep the game longer. I prefer TW2's style of narrative. Tied'up awesome plot, heavy choices, interesting sidequests. The only problem was the duration of Chapter 3, were it as long as Chapter 1 and 2, it would be perfect.

[Bejos_]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Archaven wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Archaven wrote...

KingJason13 wrote...

TW2 is still my Fave Game of 2011.

Yeahh it would be my favorite game even after Skyrim released. It would be nice if TW2 have bigger worlds like Skyrim to explore.

I mean CDPR did a great job with the awesome plot and storyline, quests, world, culture, etc. But the map felt too smal. Flotsam, Kaedwen. I'm still in Chapter 2 though. The world is really nice and beautiful. Just it's not huge enough and honestly there wasn't really much monsters to slay. Basically the monsters only spawns at stationary area and that's it. They should have increase more monsters and after exploring the whole map you can be sure where to meet and not to meet them next time you are traveling and quest hunting.

I think the maps were about the same size as TW1. The areas have been carefully sized to avoid any necessity for fast travel, I think. But I like to wander as well, and bigger areas would've been nice. 

Fewer monster types was a letdown for me. I miss the vampires, the Fleders, the ghouls, etc. One thing I will say about monsters in the Flotsam area - and maybe I'm imagining this - but they seemed to grow more agressive and increase in number as I began to eradicate their nests.

To me though, one of the biggest things the game is missing is enough sidequests. The game just feels lean, and doesn't quite provide enough distractions from the main quest. Of course the trade off is the main quest can be played through several times with different results.

If you asked me, CDPR should really think BIG now on with TW3. They even managed to woo Oblivion/Skyrim fans. There is actually a v3 thread about the TW2 already in off-topic Bethesday ES community.

I would REALLY love TW3 world to be a HUGE, HUGE map like Skyrim. CDPR folks are really talented and they managed to create a game that is so IMMERSIVE, BEAUTIFUL and the storyline and plot is just plain WICKED.

The only thing i want to see IMPROVED was actually BIGGER world map, MORE exploration, MORE different types of monsters, MORE locations, SEAMLESS world. At the moment, each map still need to be loaded. Oh how i wished if they fix the opening door too.

They should also add MORE sidequests as possible and probably add more sandbox element MORE contracts!.

If they have that.. they are ES contender. Of course just my opinion though .

Oh yeah.. they are at the moment.. making XBOX360 EASY settings actually EASY:
http://www.eurogamer...culty-is-easier

I hope they DO NOT do that. That's what I liked in TW1 and TW2 about its narrative. Story first. They don't go where isn't necessary or they won't bring depth to the plot, or won't have anything interesting going on to the people around it. I mean, as more interesting then they were, Outskirts of Vizima and Murky Waters were a kind of a filler in TW1. Damn interesting ones, but they felt like a filler meant to keep the game longer. I prefer TW2's style of narrative. Tied'up awesome plot, heavy choices, interesting sidequests. The only problem was the duration of Chapter 3, were it as long as Chapter 1 and 2, it would be perfect.

No, thank you, Archaven

TW's strength is its story. If they went the BG2 route-- a bigger map-- while keeping TW's strengths-- a strong story-- that would be great.

If TW moves in the Elder Scrolls direction, it just becomes an inferior Elder Scrolls.

Now, if after Geralt's story is done, CDPR wants to make a character-creation engine and allow us to roleplay through TW world? Yes, please

Modifié par Bejos_, 16 juin 2011 - 02:59 .

[DragonRageGT]

blah blah blah... but TW2 is still one of the Best cRPG's ever!

P.S.: And The Negotiator is the best Silver Sword ever!!! ...  "Freeze, motherfraker!"

Modifié par RageGT, 16 juin 2011 - 04:06 .

[Swiezak]

Bejos_ wrote...

Now, if after Geralt's story is done, CDPR wants to make a character-creation engine and allow us to roleplay through TW world? Yes, please

Charakter creation? Meh, this is Bioware job. RPG from CDPR with Vandergrift&Seltkirk as a playable characters.

Modifié par Swiezak, 16 juin 2011 - 05:29 .

[Alpha-Centuri]

Geralt's story should never be done in the games. More books.. MOAR! (while you're at it, translate it too!)

But yeah definitely. A spinoff where you create your own Witcher!? Yes PLEASE. You'll never have as much lore depth as Geralt or the story-centric characters, but it would be really really cool indeed.

They could even make a spin-off where you are a member of the Blue Stripes or another elite group, similar to Halo ODST (the spinoff idea, not the gameplay of course).

The only problem is that CDPR is not a huge company, and would certainly delay TW3. Not something I'd want. Hopefully the success they garnered with TW2 can allow them to expand their hq and hire more developers, programmers, and designers.

[ErichHartmann]

I expect CD Projekt to grow big enough to juggle multiple projects if the 360 version doesn't tank. Naturally their first priority should be The Witcher 3.

[Bejos_]

Swiezak wrote...

Bejos_ wrote...

Now, if after Geralt's story is done, CDPR wants to make a character-creation engine and allow us to roleplay through TW world? Yes, please

Charakter creation? Meh, this is Bioware job. RPG from CDPR with Vandergrift&Seltkirk as a playable characters.

I could see myself creating a character of an elite group-- e.g. the Blue Stripes, the Lodge, the University-- and playing through another, non Geralt-related story that way.

[Swiezak]

OR wizard expelled out of school? Renegade like Dijkstra in special forces(blue stripes).? That may be fun with creation. Full sorcerer/sorceress would be too powerfull.

Modifié par Swiezak, 16 juin 2011 - 05:55 .

[Bejos_]

Swiezak wrote...

OR wizard expelled out of school? Renegade like Dijkstra in special forces(blue stripes).? That may be fun with creation. Full sorcerer/sorceress would be too powerfull.

Trish is a full sorceress, and she isn't too powerful. You'd just have to be a young sorceress/mage.

[Swiezak]

in manipulation Sorceressare are more scary than charge of Dun Banner, too much influent on plot. Readed the books.

Modifié par Swiezak, 16 juin 2011 - 06:33 .