390 réponses à ce sujet

[Chromie]

RageGT wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

inkjay wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

It's not the attacking but the rolling out of the way which makes it a twitch based game. You even identify that yourself in the second paragraph.

OK that sounds fair. The combat is not perfect for sure, but it requires much more skill than reflexes.

Yup. The game does force you to do more then just botton mash. Laying traps ahead of time, buffing up since you can drink potions in a fight, getting your magic shield on because you don't want to wase time, your magic signs Aard is for knocking back and stuns, Igni is a fire ball sorta which can be upgraded to do an AoE, Quen is an electric shield that deflects damage, Yrden is a trap spell that can be upgraded to place 3 on the ground that can connect, Axii can posses people.

Witcher 2 requires a person to adapt and use every tool in your arsenal not just click.

And like TW1, knowledge of Monsters is a must.  Either from combat, starting at 0/3 or from Books, (3/3 at once).. It increases loot quality and most important, let you review their weakness on you char screen so you know what works best against each species and you do a lot more damage to them than when you didn't have the knowledge! I love it!

Don't forget it talks about their habitats and what to use for bait in lures what traps are most effective. But yes love it.

[erynnar]

mrcrusty wrote...

erynnar wrote...

I am loving the combat, and I am not a combat player. I actually stalled playing TW2 after I got hubby's old hand me down computer. He caught me at it, asked why I hadn't played yet. I told him I was afraid of the combat being too difficult for me, even on easy and being to button mashy like DA2. He told me to try it anyways.

So, I did. Yes, I do click, click, with my mouse buttons. But I am also using my runes, my potions, my traps, and rolling, ducking, dodging, and positioning. No waves, but there are groups so I have to watch getting backed into a corner, or surrounded do, so I have to be aware of my surroundings. I have to think, strategize, and block. It is so much fun.

I miss having companions with me, but that is a pale shadow of the epic hero I am kicking ass like I do.

Lol. I'll bet a week from now, you'll still be glued to Witcher 2 and your hubby's gonna be all like:

Hey did you sneak in our house and take a picture of him? He is already...oh..yeah. I have no doubt I will be doing another playthrough to side with the elves this time. I am having a blast. This is the feeling of enjoyment I got from DAO. The same feeling of HOLY ****! I can't believe how much I love this!

TW2 is more the spiritual successor of DAO than DA2. I am epic, and I am not trying to save the world. I realized that was not why my Warden was epic either, it is just because both Protagonists are bad ass and affect the world around them.

And part of that, is I can kick some serious ass. Bring it  soldiers! I toss you like rag dolls and fillet you! Of course I might be singing a different tune when I get to the Queens or the shades...

And...back on topic...UGH! I don't have a problem with metacritic scores. I do think they get your trolls and flamers. But you get a good idea of what the general temerature of the response is to the game in question. Would I base my decision on just that? No, I need more than one source of data. But I do think it gives an overall average gauge. And comparing the user to professional...*coughDA2cough*...yeah, that can paint a whole new picture and give one pause to look more closely at other pools of data.

Modifié par erynnar, 25 mai 2011 - 05:45 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Malanek999 wrote...

inkjay wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

It's not the attacking but the rolling out of the way which makes it a twitch based game. You even identify that yourself in the second paragraph.

OK that sounds fair. The combat is not perfect for sure, but it requires much more skill than reflexes.

I'm not sure anyone is claiming you have to click the mouse quickly because that just doesn't help at all.

Read the last page? there are a couple of people there that imply just that (one of them basically on hearsay) that is why I responded like I did. If I misread, well I was wrong then, but that is how I interpreted it.

I just get the impression people say clickfest because of the dodging. I'm not claiming it's not tactical, but its twitch with tactics rather than just tactics like DA.

But...you don't click to dodge...(either double tap a direction, or do it properly and hit the space bar).

TW2 is definately not a twitch game, though I can see why some who are only accustomed to turn based RPGs might think it is.  Ninja Gaiden 2 is a twitch based game.

In general, a 'Twitch' game does not mean that you cannot pause during combat to select items/issue commands/etc.  Twitch means that you will be at an extreme disadvantage if your hand to eye coordination is not excellent.  'Twitch' means that you NEED to be able to see a cue (e.g. an enemy doing something indicating they are about to perform a particular move), and respond to it instantly, without thought, but rather as a 'twitch' reflex. 

TW2 is nothing at all like this.  It is nearly all about thought.  It requires a good deal of planning, observation of the environment, and using tactics in combat.  The fact that you can't pause every second to think about the tactics does not make it a twitch game. 

[erynnar]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

inkjay wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

It's not the attacking but the rolling out of the way which makes it a twitch based game. You even identify that yourself in the second paragraph.

OK that sounds fair. The combat is not perfect for sure, but it requires much more skill than reflexes.

I'm not sure anyone is claiming you have to click the mouse quickly because that just doesn't help at all.

Read the last page? there are a couple of people there that imply just that (one of them basically on hearsay) that is why I responded like I did. If I misread, well I was wrong then, but that is how I interpreted it.

I just get the impression people say clickfest because of the dodging. I'm not claiming it's not tactical, but its twitch with tactics rather than just tactics like DA.

But...you don't click to dodge...(either double tap a direction, or do it properly and hit the space bar).

TW2 is definately not a twitch game, though I can see why some who are only accustomed to turn based RPGs might think it is.  Ninja Gaiden 2 is a twitch based game.

In general, a 'Twitch' game does not mean that you cannot pause during combat to select items/issue commands/etc.  Twitch means that you will be at an extreme disadvantage if your hand to eye coordination is not excellent.  'Twitch' means that you NEED to be able to see a cue (e.g. an enemy doing something indicating they are about to perform a particular move), and respond to it instantly, without thought, but rather as a 'twitch' reflex. 

TW2 is nothing at all like this.  It is nearly all about thought.  It requires a good deal of planning, observation of the environment, and using tactics in combat.  The fact that you can't pause every second to think about the tactics does not make it a twitch game. 

Don't for get ctrl will slo mo down so you can lay traps, put up shields. etc. Not a complete plause, but still slow enough to plan.

So, how about them metacritic scores? What does evreyone think of the score for TW2 now that the initial week has passed? Long enough for people to have really finished it to give it a score rather than a 10 the first day.

[In Exile]

RageGT wrote...
And like TW1, knowledge of Monsters is a must.  Either from combat, starting at 0/3 or from Books, (3/3 at once).. It increases loot quality and most important, let you review their weakness on you char screen so you know what works best against each species and you do a lot more damage to them than when you didn't have the knowledge! I love it!

Only on the higher difficulties. Like DA2's CC system and character builds. It's clear which game executed better (TW2) but that seems to be because DA2 decided that complexity was what they'd tack on, versus complexity being the core. It's the inverse of TW2 there.

Edit:

Sorry, rather major typo that changed the meaning of the whole post.

Modifié par In Exile, 25 mai 2011 - 05:55 .

[In Exile]

Boiny Bunny wrote...
But...you don't click to dodge...(either double tap a direction, or do it properly and hit the space bar).

TW2 is definately not a twitch game, though I can see why some who are only accustomed to turn based RPGs might think it is.  Ninja Gaiden 2 is a twitch based game.

Wait, what? Of all the examples that you could have picked, you went for the most challenging console game series available? The kind that's praised for its difficulty and non-accesibility?

In general, a 'Twitch' game does not mean that you cannot pause during combat to select items/issue commands/etc.  Twitch means that you will be at an extreme disadvantage if your hand to eye coordination is not excellent.  'Twitch' means that you NEED to be able to see a cue (e.g. an enemy doing something indicating they are about to perform a particular move), and respond to it instantly, without thought, but rather as a 'twitch' reflex. 

TW2 is nothing at all like this.  It is nearly all about thought.  It requires a good deal of planning, observation of the environment, and using tactics in combat.  The fact that you can't pause every second to think about the tactics does not make it a twitch game. 

Okay, have you actually played Ninja Gaiden? Because minus the traps, the combat system's not very far removed.

[DragonRageGT]

I'm still 10/10 with TW2 as much as I am 10/10 with Origins. And I like to consider the critics scores consolidation by Metacritic a more valid rating than user's alone.

Modifié par RageGT, 25 mai 2011 - 06:01 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

erynnar wrote...

Don't for get ctrl will slo mo down so you can lay traps, put up shields. etc. Not a complete plause, but still slow enough to plan.

So, how about them metacritic scores? What does evreyone think of the score for TW2 now that the initial week has passed? Long enough for people to have really finished it to give it a score rather than a 10 the first day.

Fair imo, I'd give Witcher 2 a score of 9.2 personally. It's not a perfect game, but from my experience so far, it's likely the best "pure" Action RPG I've ever played. It does so much right, you question how on earth they were able to manage it. Snuggles in nicely between VtMB and Morrowind as my 4th favorite RPG of all time.

[In Exile]

RageGT wrote...

I'm still 10/10 with TW2 as much as I am 10/10 with Origins. And I like to consider the critics scores consolidation by Metacritic a more valid rating than user's alone.

I'd never rate either game that high. TW2 is a 9.0 for me. There several little things that are severely botched that prevent the game from being complete. Like reclycled NPCs, that horrid idea to make you take over other NPCs during the curse ending quest in Act II, the changes to the inventory and alchemy from TW1 and the inability to delete saves.

[DragonRageGT]

In Exile wrote...

RageGT wrote...

I'm still 10/10 with TW2 as much as I am 10/10 with Origins. And I like to consider the critics scores consolidation by Metacritic a more valid rating than user's alone.

I'd never rate either game that high. TW2 is a 9.0 for me. There several little things that are severely botched that prevent the game from being complete. Like reclycled NPCs, that horrid idea to make you take over other NPCs during the curse ending quest in Act II, the changes to the inventory and alchemy from TW1 and the inability to delete saves.

I know, but those aren't factors that really influence my scoring of a game

But this is more realistic to me. I'd give DA2 a 8/10 gladly.

95 - Portal 2
92 - The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings
90 - Shogun 2: Total War
88 - Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
86 - Crysis 2
85 - Amnesia: The Dark Descent
84 - SpaceChem
84 - Shift 2: Unleashed
83 - Gemini Rue
83 - Rift
82 - Bulletstorm
82 - Dragon Age II

[In Exile]

RageGT wrote...
I know, but those aren't factors that really influence my scoring of a game

My scale is something like this: 5-6 is playability. The game as to be actually unplayable to score lower than this. 6-7 is general design. Fundamental design flaws (e.g. broken combat) thrust a game here. 7-9 is execution of concepts, story, quality of gameplay, etc. These are the high level featuers that take a game from good to great. 9+ is excellence. It comes down to there being nothing I'd be able to point to and say is a flaw, except for a subjective preference.

But this is more realistic to me. I'd give DA2 a 8/10 gladly.

I really like PC VO. So enjoy it much more than I'd rank it as a game. If it weren't for the dialogue wheel & VO, I'd have enjoyed the game much less. It's a 7.5. Lots of missed opportunities, implementation, execution. It's an alpha build we had to pay full price for. That's my feeling.

I don't play enough games to really give an impression of my ratings. For example, I'd rank LA Noire at an 8.5.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Don't for get ctrl will slo mo down so you can lay traps, put up shields. etc. Not a complete plause, but still slow enough to plan.

So, how about them metacritic scores? What does evreyone think of the score for TW2 now that the initial week has passed? Long enough for people to have really finished it to give it a score rather than a 10 the first day.

Fair imo, I'd give Witcher 2 a score of 9.2 personally. It's not a perfect game, but from my experience so far, it's likely the best "pure" Action RPG I've ever played. It does so much right, you question how on earth they were able to manage it. Snuggles in nicely between VtMB and Morrowind as my 4th favorite RPG of all time.

The Witcher 2 is my third favorite RPG of all time. PS:T being the first(the story was just...wow!), BG2 being my second best RPG. And me and the fiancee personally think of it as a 9.5 game.

I'd put BG 2 lower down myself, maybe 7th-8th. but really, there's not much separating it all. Fallout 2, PS:T and VtMB take my top 3.

[Boiny Bunny]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]Boiny Bunny wrote...
But...you don't click to dodge...(either double tap a direction, or do it properly and hit the space bar).

TW2 is definately not a twitch game, though I can see why some who are only accustomed to turn based RPGs might think it is.  Ninja Gaiden 2 is a twitch based game.[/quote]

Wait, what? Of all the examples that you could have picked, you went for the most challenging console game series available? The kind that's praised for its difficulty and non-accesibility?[/quote]

Ninja Gaiden is definately a hard core game - I'm not in any way denying that.  In fact, most games that require twitch reflexes are - or at least at a high level.  Other examples in the same vein are Devil May Cry, or Bayonetta.

Those are just action games too.  Counter-strike and TFC, CoD and Halo, are all 'twitch' games at a medium to high competitive multiplayer level.

[quote]In general, a 'Twitch' game does not mean that you cannot pause during combat to select items/issue commands/etc.  Twitch means that you will be at an extreme disadvantage if your hand to eye coordination is not excellent.  'Twitch' means that you NEED to be able to see a cue (e.g. an enemy doing something indicating they are about to perform a particular move), and respond to it instantly, without thought, but rather as a 'twitch' reflex. 

TW2 is nothing at all like this.  It is nearly all about thought.  It requires a good deal of planning, observation of the environment, and using tactics in combat.  The fact that you can't pause every second to think about the tactics does not make it a twitch game.  [/quote]

Okay, have you actually played Ninja Gaiden? Because minus the traps, the combat system's not very far removed.
[/quote]

I love Ninja Gaiden (primarily Black, though I own all 3 versions).  I've finished it multiple times on MNM and replay it at least once every 8 months or so nowadays.  NG does involve a lot of dodging (via rolling, similar to TW2 in that respect) - so on an extremely superficial level you might say they are similar.  That's about it though.

NG operates an an extremely fast pace in combat, which is the main thing that leads me to classify it as 'twitch'.  If you stop moving for an instant, you will probably get hit and suffer massive damage.  Further, you need to have a firm grasp on at least a dozen combos (or many more if you use a large range of weapons), and be able to make on-the-spot decisions on which to use and when, and when to break out of them.  Enemies have giveaway animations for almost every attack they have - but most only give about 0.5 of a second worth of warning.  You need to be able to see an enemy pull his left arm back slightly and know exactly what that means, then move out of the way instantly.

TW2 by contrast (coming from somebody that loves 'action' games like NG and DMC) is incredibly slow and more thoughtful.  The actual SPEED of the combat is quite slow.  There is virtually no concept of combos whatsoever.  Outside of bosses, you don't really need to observe cues and react to specific attacks in different ways.  You just roll about, set a trap, isolate an enemy alone then kill it, and repeat.

[Elhanan]

tariq071 wrote...

Actually , yes you are trying to the best of your ability to do exactly that.You are posting same thing all over the forums , over and over and over, and you haven't even tried the game.

We do understand very well that you simply do not like anything that didn't came out of BW production and that is absolutely fine with pretty much everyone here.However keep complaining about mechanics of some game that you didn't even try is just laughable.

If i didn't play some game i wouldn't feel qualified to criticize it/praise it in any way, it just would be unethical.

Now please try the game and then  complain/criticize or don't play and don't comment because you are not providing anything fresh, but just using second hand knowledge provided by someone else that suits your agenda(which even birds on the trees know by now).

Thanks

Your welcome; now for an apt reply. Staying!

In this thread - a DA2 forum thread, BTW - I am attempting to illustrate and possibly discredit the metacritic score; the OP topic. In this, I tried to point out that both the DA2 and TW2 scores have seen their fair share of biased votes; thus making the overall scores seemingly invalid. I do not use them, and get my own intel elsewhere.

When the TW posts begin appearing, esp in the DA2 forums, I cannot comment directly on gameplay and try now to do so, but post on what I have read and my reasons for not getting it. But I still have the freedom to do so, and will use it; maybe even as often as the TW fans post their threads on these boards.

Now if some tire of my postings here, some possible suggestions in no particular order:

* Purchase the Forums, and ask me to depart.
* Remain on the TW Forums; don't believe I have gone there.
* Head to Off Topic where there is one huge thread of TW2 posters; have said little to nothing there, as the game has no interest for me.
* Skip showers, as to develop thicker skin.

I do try not to criticize TW games, as I choose not to play them. But I do and will criticize, report, and evidently fluster their zealous fans, as they seem fit to come here to espouse their opinions. Frequently.

Thanks!

[In Exile]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Ninja Gaiden is definately a hard core game - I'm not in any way denying that.  In fact, most games that require twitch reflexes are - or at least at a high level.  Other examples in the same vein are Devil May Cry, or Bayonetta.

Those are just action games too.  Counter-strike and TFC, CoD and Halo, are all 'twitch' games at a medium to high competitive multiplayer level.

Generally, when people use the pejorative twitch, they mean anything that isn't turn based. At least on this forum, especially in comparison to a game like DA2 that can be made quasi-turn based via pause.

So I understand the distinction you're raising now, but you're going to find that you're going to speak to people who just won't buy your fundamental premise.

I love Ninja Gaiden (primarily Black, though I own all 3 versions).  I've finished it multiple times on MNM and replay it at least once every 8 months or so nowadays.  NG does involve a lot of dodging (via rolling, similar to TW2 in that respect) - so on an extremely superficial level you might say they are similar.  That's about it though.

That's all that someone who uses twitch as a pejorative needs.

NG operates an an extremely fast pace in combat, which is the main thing that leads me to classify it as 'twitch'.  If you stop moving for an instant, you will probably get hit and suffer massive damage.  Further, you need to have a firm grasp on at least a dozen combos (or many more if you use a large range of weapons), and be able to make on-the-spot decisions on which to use and when, and when to break out of them.  Enemies have giveaway animations for almost every attack they have - but most only give about 0.5 of a second worth of warning.  You need to be able to see an enemy pull his left arm back slightly and know exactly what that means, then move out of the way instantly.

That makes sense to me. Like I said: that's just not the usage as I encountered it.

TW2 by contrast (coming from somebody that loves 'action' games like NG and DMC) is incredibly slow and more thoughtful.  The actual SPEED of the combat is quite slow.  There is virtually no concept of combos whatsoever.  Outside of bosses, you don't really need to observe cues and react to specific attacks in different ways.  You just roll about, set a trap, isolate an enemy alone then kill it, and repeat.

But you have to think about it from the difference in skillset. You and I play games on teh very demanding end of speed like Gaiden and DMC. That's a very fast-paced subset that makes Geralt move deliberately and in slow motion. But compare it to DA2 on PC, with frequent pausing. Geralt is a one-man blitzkrieg by that standard.

That's the distinction I think people are using, though yours makes sense to me.

[In Exile]

Elhanan wrote...
Your welcome; now for an apt reply. Staying!

In this thread - a DA2 forum thread, BTW - I am attempting to illustrate and possibly discredit the metacritic score; the OP topic. In this, I tried to point out that both the DA2 and TW2 scores have seen their fair share of biased votes; thus making the overall scores seemingly invalid. I do not use them, and get my own intel elsewhere.
!

I hope this doesn't rehash a debate you've already had, but my question to you is this: how do you discount the significant sample size on the user score? I'd wager your response is that it isn't an SRS at all, so it isn't reliable. But then how do you account for the sheer number? Isn't it something like 2000 at this point?

[Elhanan]

In Exile wrote...

I hope this doesn't rehash a debate you've already had, but my question to you is this: how do you discount the significant sample size on the user score? I'd wager your response is that it isn't an SRS at all, so it isn't reliable. But then how do you account for the sheer number? Isn't it something like 2000 at this point?

I honestly don't know what the number of scores are there, as I do not use the site. Do not have to, as I gather intel elsewhere.

Once I read of the 10-0 wars, the skewed results of the Pro scores, and the mishandling of some People in the Industry statistics, I have no reason to try it. Same reason I may not get a game when it offers me nothing, and in this case it is flawed data and manipulated results.

FWIW - I wish DA2 and TW2 all the best over there.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I think some games are easy to compare and others very hard. I cannot give DA2 a score based on its defects, because it still has some BW ingredients left that make me want to finish the game several times. It's much like: I did enjoy the game for what it was, but its weak points really made me scratch my head. There are more games like that. I think Amnesia is one of the best horror adventures of the last decade. Comparing it to adventure games with a much larger budget would result in giving it a lower score, just because they technically have an advantage. I refuse to do that.

I take a game for what I think it is, because these more advanced games don't always reflect in the fun factor. Still, metacritic scores can be an indication. That and reviews can prevent some damage to my wallet. However, I recently bought a game with a lower score, because someone convinced me that I would like it (considering what other games I like). In the end it is about the fun and not about some abstract number.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 25 mai 2011 - 07:01 .

[Corto81]

I don't think there's any doubt that the average metacritic score is "about right".

Yeah, every game will have haters and fanboys.
But in the end, the average score gets to (what I think) is "about right".

There're no bad games on Metacritic with excellent ratings, no vice-versa.
Similarly, all the other BW games are rated very good to excellent by both professional reviewers and users, while DA2 is rated horribly.

It's not a conspiracy, it's not an accident.

Bioware, so unlike them until now, released a sub-standard product.

[Elhanan]

Corto81 wrote...

I don't think there's any doubt that the average metacritic score is "about right".

Yeah, every game will have haters and fanboys.
But in the end, the average score gets to (what I think) is "about right".

There're no bad games on Metacritic with excellent ratings, no vice-versa.
Similarly, all the other BW games are rated very good to excellent by both professional reviewers and users, while DA2 is rated horribly.

It's not a conspiracy, it's not an accident.

Bioware, so unlike them until now, released a sub-standard product.

I have doubts, as do others. Accept the findings as you wish, but be aware the data appears flawed.

But are they? What if a great game got smashed, and few played it because of early bad scores. Or if a great score pushed sales for a product with game stopping bug. I have not played all of them, and would not know; doubt if many could. This sounds like hopeful speculation.

Just because one might agree with the final results does not mean the process to get there is valid. A chocolate cake might look great in the window, but may disappoint when found to be made of plastic foam.

[abaris]

Elhanan wrote...

Just because one might agree with the final results does not mean the process to get there is valid. A chocolate cake might look great in the window, but may disappoint when found to be made of plastic foam.

First, Bioware themselves claimed to aim for high scores at metacritic. So, they opened that particular can of wirms.

Second, you're maybe right, but reading the reviews there without looking at the scores, points in certain common directions. Also, Metacritic isn't the only site where DAII isn't top of the pops. Users rate it mediocre at most every board or outlet there is. The amazon scores are way beyond origins and I have yet to find any board where it's rated above average.

And average it probably is. Nothing fancy, nothing that makes it stand out. If you're into the style they adopted you probably find it entertaining. I couldn't say because I for one hate that particular style.

[Corto81]

Elhanan wrote...
Just because one might agree with the final results does not mean the process to get there is valid. A chocolate cake might look great in the window, but may disappoint when found to be made of plastic foam.

Well, using that logic, what's the point of numbers and science?

Whatever evidence I present, you're just gonna push it aside.
I think the numbers for nearly every game are good and valid.
(and judging by universal acclaim or lack of it, the rating does seem to fit most games, especially the user reviews)

But yeah... Using that logic, no point in arguing about anything, ever.

[T764]

But how do you determine if a game is average?
What do you do when there are no user reveiews?
What happens when a game only has a small number of critic reviews?

How do you determine the worth of a game when a review focuses on the graphics, or the multi-player component of a game you plan to buy for its single player, or the amount of money spent on getting big name stars for the voiceover, or my personal favorite, ignoring a flaw that they called out in another game.

Also populalrity does not always match with quality.