645 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...
It's rewarding, though. Setting up traps and then leading enemies there is great. Or if you're trying to build up your knowledge base to hunt a foe, instead of buying books, you can lay traps and a lure and then meditate, and you've built your knowledge in a way that makes you feel like a Witcher.

I did not use traps as often as I would like. Will try it out in my alchemy focused Geralt.
Preferred to use Yrden instead in my first playthrough.

[Icinix]

FieryDove wrote...
Some people like TW2, some people like DA2, some like BOTH. Peace.

PEACE?? On an internet forum?!?! 

[Merced652]

Gavinthelocust wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Gavinthelocust wrote...
 TW2 had you laggingly roll around, hit someone, then get killed by someone behind you or a surprise counter instakill move that you have no chance to stop.

You're responsable for not checking your flanks and blinding rushing to hit a foe.
Positioning is everything in this game. At least on hard.

It gets a bit ridiculous when the great hero is hopping around occasionally hitting things continued by more hopping. Strategy is definitely key but if the controls have a lag to them when the enemies aren't designed for the lag it leads to a quick death followed by me chucking my friend's new pc out the window. But if you've managed to make it work than more power to ya, you've found fun in something I can't.

The only animation lag i've seen in TW2 is on a few of the signs like Quen and Yrden. But then again those are the two signs i used the most. The only bad thing about the combat in tw2 is ironically enough present in DA2 on Hard+. That being you get in to a scenario where you are chain knocked down/back. TW2's combat is hard, its also immersive and largely realistic given its setting. No one explodes on contact from a thrown dagger or sword strike. And inb4 necrophages. 

[tonnactus]

Luvinn wrote...

You can pause/play on DA2 but its pretty useless to do so. My friend beat every non boss mob on hard just using the awesome button. I have it on PC, so i cant verify this

I played this game on hard and nightmare on console and this is bull****.Most assassins are elite,not boss enemies by the way.

[Addai]

Gavinthelocust wrote...
It's a shame because I've been looking at the story and Witcher definitely has that down, but even with the small amount of time I've had with the game I can tell the gameplay was designed poorly. A game shouldn't be hard because of bad controls, Demon's Souls was hard but the controls were perfect so it was actually fisable to accomplish. TW2 had you laggingly roll around, hit someone, then get killed by someone behind you or a surprise counter instakill move that you have no chance to stop. Just playing the game makes me feel angry, but it's not Castlevania angry where when I won it felt great, it was the kind where I feel I just wasted my time.

Yes, this is what I try to explain, it's just not fun.  I'm sure I could push through on Easy, but god, it's so tedious that I just can't be bothered.  Which is a huge disappointment given that I like the world and was really looking forward to this game, not to mention my wasted 45 bucks.

Maybe after they significantly patch for optimization, and/or we ever get a gamepad, I'll go back to it.  It certainly seems that they did some things right, just not as much as the glowing reports give it credit for.

[Gavinthelocust]

Icinix wrote...

FieryDove wrote...
Some people like TW2, some people like DA2, some like BOTH. Peace.

PEACE?? On an internet forum?!?! 

An RPG forum no less, this person is obviously suffering from some sort of insanity. There can never be peace, there can never be victory, there can only be one loss.

[Addai]

Merced652 wrote...
TW2's combat is hard, its also immersive and largely realistic given its setting. No one explodes on contact from a thrown dagger or sword strike. And inb4 necrophages. 

I... don't know about that.  I find Geralt's roly-poly act to be quite silly and it does remind me of DA2's chipmunks-on-crack moves.  He had a roll in TW1, too, but it was only to close the distance to a foe you had selected to attack, and even then I thought "show-off."  lol

[FieryDove]

Gavinthelocust wrote...

Icinix wrote...

FieryDove wrote...
Some people like TW2, some people like DA2, some like BOTH. Peace.

PEACE?? On an internet forum?!?! 

An RPG forum no less, this person is obviously suffering from some sort of insanity. There can never be peace, there can never be victory, there can only be one loss.

Posting here at all requires some sort of insanity. Sanity is against the forum rules after all.

[Malanek]

Addai67 wrote...

Gavinthelocust wrote...
It's a shame because I've been looking at the story and Witcher definitely has that down, but even with the small amount of time I've had with the game I can tell the gameplay was designed poorly. A game shouldn't be hard because of bad controls, Demon's Souls was hard but the controls were perfect so it was actually fisable to accomplish. TW2 had you laggingly roll around, hit someone, then get killed by someone behind you or a surprise counter instakill move that you have no chance to stop. Just playing the game makes me feel angry, but it's not Castlevania angry where when I won it felt great, it was the kind where I feel I just wasted my time.

Yes, this is what I try to explain, it's just not fun.  I'm sure I could push through on Easy, but god, it's so tedious that I just can't be bothered.  Which is a huge disappointment given that I like the world and was really looking forward to this game, not to mention my wasted 45 bucks.

Maybe after they significantly patch for optimization, and/or we ever get a gamepad, I'll go back to it.  It certainly seems that they did some things right, just not as much as the glowing reports give it credit for.

It does actually get a lot easier once you know what you are doing and when you level up a bit. When I played it the first time around I must have died about 20 times on the prologue on normal and did find it frustrating. However I persevered, finished the game, and jumped straight back in for a second playthrough. Finished the prologue dying once which was my fault. I'm not saying combat is great, but once you know what you are doing and you get some levels up, it does become quite satisfying. And the story is great, probably the best written and most intricate story in a computer game ever.

[Gavinthelocust]

FieryDove wrote...

Posting here at all requires some sort of insanity. Sanity is against the forum rules after all.

Well of course, but denial driven delusions of fans being kind and peaceful to each other are very worrying.

Modifié par Gavinthelocust, 23 mai 2011 - 10:35 .

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I did not use traps as often as I would like. Will try it out in my alchemy focused Geralt.
Preferred to use Yrden instead in my first playthrough.

Yrden is very different from other traps. Traps deal damage and control the battlefield in a strategic way. Yrden paralyzes. Very, very different style of trap.

And don't forget that swordsmanship focus lets you use a variant of group style (because your attacks gain splash damage).

[FieryDove]

Gavinthelocust wrote...

Well of course, but denial driven delusions of fans being kind and peaceful to each other is very worrying.

But it always does the opposite...gets people more upset. So...

/ebil plot wins

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...
Yrden is very different from other traps. Traps deal damage and control the battlefield in a strategic way. Yrden paralyzes. Very, very different style of trap.

And don't forget that swordsmanship focus lets you use a variant of group style (because your attacks gain splash damage).

True on both counts. And of course you can have more than one trap, as opposed to Yrden. Plus Yrden disapears after a while, so it's use is much more "aggressive" than traps. Definitely going to try using traps in my 2nd playthrough. Does a focus on the alchemy path help? 

And the splash damage you deal is no where near as much as TW1, where you can two shot groups of enemies and / or knock them down.

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Except that Hawke ends up being a fixed protagonist, because no matter what choices the player makes, it doesn't matter, the game plays out the same regardless.

TW2 on the other hand, your choices directly affect the story down to who lives, who dies, what quest lines you get etc.

Lack of choice in the main plot does not preclude you from creating very different Hawkes.

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...

I... don't know about that.  I find Geralt's roly-poly act to be quite silly and it does remind me of DA2's chipmunks-on-crack moves.  He had a roll in TW1, too, but it was only to close the distance to a foe you had selected to attack, and even then I thought "show-off."  lol

If they didn't tie parrying to vigor, I think the combat would look less rolly and more realistic. As it is, parrying isn't very useful, unless you upgrade to counters.

[FilipH1986Swe]

What the heck is this page I love Dragon Age 2, a little to much copy and paste with the caves but the story and gameplay was exellent

[Nerevar-as]

In Exile wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I... don't know about that.  I find Geralt's roly-poly act to be quite silly and it does remind me of DA2's chipmunks-on-crack moves.  He had a roll in TW1, too, but it was only to close the distance to a foe you had selected to attack, and even then I thought "show-off."  lol

If they didn't tie parrying to vigor, I think the combat would look less rolly and more realistic. As it is, parrying isn't very useful, unless you upgrade to counters.

It opens the enemy´s ward and most are as good as dead after that.

In the books Geralt rolled if he couldn´t parry, as in the first fight against Vilgefortz (the Biggest Bad). Not that it did him any good... Gamewise, I want to see what happens after I get Riposte. As it is, combat feels a more realistic version of Batman Arkham Asylum, the bat´s sommersaults and riposte combos make Geralt look an apprentice.

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
True on both counts. And of course you can have more than one trap, as opposed to Yrden. Plus Yrden disapears after a while, so it's use is much more "aggressive" than traps. Definitely going to try using traps in my 2nd playthrough. Does a focus on the alchemy path help? 

I'd say, maybe. It depends on how you play. Depending on how patient you want to be (and how many orens you can farm for) traps can allow you to avoid using potions entirely.

My second build on hard is alchemy + traps. It's a very different style of play. Actually, I think you'd like it because it relies on Yrden a lot to control the battlefield (even though it uses base Yrden).

With full alchemy + 2 points in mage (for the +1 vigor) you have 4 bars (since you can get +1 Vigor from the training tree) and that allows you to block well since you're not really going to rely on Quen as much.

But traps become much more potent with the base alchemist talent (it's the on on the left that gives +50% trap damage at level 1), and if you're going to use traps/bombs, I'd heavily reccomend it.

And the splash damage you deal is no where near as much as TW1, where you can two shot groups of enemies and / or knock them down.

Yeah. I just meant that you can focus on more hack & slash if you want. You just have to build Geralt for it. I havent actually done a pure swordsman build yet.

Modifié par In Exile, 23 mai 2011 - 10:51 .

[In Exile]

tonnactus wrote...
Maybee you should read the post i responded too.I never claimed that the decisions in Da2 have the same weight as in the Witcher game.(neither did those in Origins by the way)

But some of them altered the game despite being minor changes.

Unlike many here, I really liked Dragon Age 2. And honestly, I don't believe Dragon Age 2 was fundamentally different in the choice it offered compared to DA:O. But to say that, in comparison to the Wither 2, Dragon Age 2 (or Origins, for that matter) had any choice at all.

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...
But traps become much more potent with the base alchemist talent (it's the on on the left that gives +50% trap damage at level 1), and if you're going to use traps/bombs, I'd heavily reccomend it.

I already had that one for the bombs.
I am thinking an alchemy / sign mix for my second playthrough with a bit of swordsmanship. Was sword / sign mix with a bit of alchemy for my first (heliotrope + group finisher is FTW!).

Yeah. I just meant that you can focus on more hack & slash if you want. You just have to build Geralt for it. I havent actually done a pure swordsman build yet.

On hard, you rarely can, unless you have the heliotrop sign that slows down time. Which is awesome, but the trick of course is getting the adreline. 

As for parrying. Personally I like how it is in the game. I prefer not being able to block indefinitely and shrug off all damage. But you can upgrade it vis a vis damage reduction and increase vigor to block more. Coutner makes it more effective.

I personally prefer doddging and Quen, but I did parry occasionally, especially since I had 5 vigor.

[Luvinn]

In Exile wrote...

Unlike many here, I really liked Dragon Age 2. And honestly, I don't believe Dragon Age 2 was fundamentally different in the choice it offered compared to DA:O. But to say that, in comparison to the Wither 2, Dragon Age 2 (or Origins, for that matter) had any choice at all.

I enjoyed DA2 also. I thought the companions were interesting, and it was fun to do their quests. Fenris, Anders and Merrill (rival path) were especially my favorite ones. I thought them to be deep and engaging. I just think the game could of been epic rather than just "enjoyable".

[Cyberstrike nTo]

tonnactus wrote...

erynnar wrote...


Yeah, but ME2 didn't throw out it's own backstories on characters making them completely different people.

Yes,especially with liara...
Absoluty nothing is changed.

What Bioware did was put part of the reason why she changed in a comic book and the second part in Liar of the Shadow Broker DLC. Now if you read the comic and play the LotSB the changes to her character are explained. 

Luvinn wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Unlike many here, I really liked Dragon Age 2. And honestly, I don't believe Dragon Age 2 was fundamentally different in the choice it offered compared to DA:O. But to say that, in comparison to the Wither 2, Dragon Age 2 (or Origins, for that matter) had any choice at all.

I enjoyed DA2 also. I thought the companions were interesting, and it was fun to do their quests. Fenris, Anders and Merrill (rival path) were especially my favorite ones. I thought them to be deep and engaging. I just think the game could of been epic rather than just "enjoyable".

I like DA2 as well and I find it a very fun and entertaining game which all I can really ask for in any form of entertainment.

Modifié par Cyberstrike nTo, 23 mai 2011 - 11:12 .

[Kileyan]

RUDAL wrote...



 I agree.
I remember seeing or reading somewhere like one of the DA2 Devs said that they decided to remove all the bits and pieces like dirt, books lying on the flor and such to save some job on graphic cards because players dont care about those cause they are more into story and gameplay.
I was like WTF??  Where did they get that from?   So that means that they could make a great story and place it in just square boxes and let te players to kill triangles!

The world have to be rich and alive, the background have to have some meaning.
And I agree with the statement saying that DA2 was rushed. and i really hope that ME3 will be a great game cause if not then I'll probably loose my faith in BW.

I agree, this is when I knew DA2 wasn't going to be what I expect from Bioware. I remember that interview, I don't know if it was one of the main devs or just some marketing guy. He took us through a bit of the DAO mage tower, pointed out all the USELESS detail, and bragged about how they were going to remove all that stuff and with the time saved.........add more AWESOME.

He went on the complain about all the different locales in DAO, and seemed to believe that all the different themed areas confused players and a lacked focus, since it wasn't all one color pallet and theme. DA2 will be more focused and have an overall theme you can recognize, he said. Oh how right he was. I believe it was the same interview where he lamented the size of DAO and commented that each of the 3 areas could have been sold as separate games.

I hope that interview/preview of the game was only market speak trying to convince the fans they didn't really need detail or maybe he was just drunk, it may have been an a public event:)

[In Exile]

Luvinn wrote...
I enjoyed DA2 also. I thought the companions were interesting, and it was fun to do their quests. Fenris, Anders and Merrill (rival path) were especially my favorite ones. I thought them to be deep and engaging. I just think the game could of been epic rather than just "enjoyable".

The Witcher 2 was epic at times (IMO) without needing to make it about any kind of evil antagonist. I'm thinking the battle in Act II specifically.

That being said, Dragon Age 2 (and Biwoare games in general) have a much greater scope in terms of the companions and integrating them into the story and plot. The Witcher 2, for all of its variability in plot, had far fewer NPCs you interat with and a comparable number of quests. It also had fewer areas, and in principle took place over 'less' space, even if it wasn't as localized.

IMO, there are three major differences between DA2 and TW2. The first is that TW2 doesn't feel like the alpha build of the game. That's a failure on Bioware's part, and the game clearly neeed a year more of development. At the same time, the fanbase had very, very different expectations for the two games. DA2 had a much more negative vibe because of how much it planned to depart (in terms of its vision) from DA:O than TW2 did from TW1. Third is execution. TW2 is just well-designed within its scope. They used the same design elements, but Bioware just didn't seem to know what to do with them, and they tried to make the same game they always did within their formula while switching gears entirely and they couldn't pull it off.

[erynnar]

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Except that Hawke ends up being a fixed protagonist, because no matter what choices the player makes, it doesn't matter, the game plays out the same regardless.

TW2 on the other hand, your choices directly affect the story down to who lives, who dies, what quest lines you get etc.

Lack of choice in the main plot does not preclude you from creating very different Hawkes.

Um, I played diplomat/angel and snarky (little diplomat) and my huband played Hawke douchebag of Kirkwall (or as I call them Happy, Sneezy, and Douchey). I didn't see much in the way of changes in either personality in the cut away scenes, and especially not in how people reacted to your Hawke's "personality." They may have snapped back or gotten slightly exasperated but really, not much difference. The differences were meh. Hubby's character chose that slightly racist douche comment on meeting Varric for the first time, and he says, "I'll take that as a yes, lets get a drink."  I was all...huh?  I expected him to react more along the lines of "Listen, jerk, you want to make money or not?"

I guess with Geralt, I don't expect to change his personality or mould it. I did expect that with Hawke.  Or it is the lack of even the illusion of choice that makes the moulding of personalities different? I mean really? Why bother with making personality varients? It made no difference with Hawke the quests were the same, the ending the same. At least Geralt's (my) decisions make a difference on the world sending ripples across the pond even if his personailty is determined by a book. 

Again *shrugs* still trying to figure it out.