645 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Agreed as TW1 used Biowares Aurora engine and still did a better job with some apsects such as realtime night and day, weather and NPC reations to both those things. TW2 they created a new engine rather than rely on Aurora again that takes alot of time, DA2 did not create a whole new engine they just heavily modified the original one (I think), while it takes time it takes less time.

Meh, Bioware prefers modular campaigns. This dates back to even BG. A realistic day/night cycle would be kind of pointless. More NPC variety would be nice, but it is something they have never really done, so I don't expect it.

I feel Bioware should be trying to exceed expectations in all their titles. I see far too often people on here saying I'm happy enough with what they gave me so I can't complain, when in fact that is exactly what they should be doing in order to push Bioware to (improve) thir products by adding new things such as the weather system (rain, wind etc), a realistic day and night cycle and NPC interaction up in quality to react to your presence and the changing of the aforementioned systems. This improve a game and even if they aren't essentials in order to go from A to B story wise they are things that make the experience more enjoyable.

Stanley said while back~

Many people in this forum have touted Baldur's Gate to be one of, if not thebest RPG they've played, and yet that game was not even in 3D, and the technology of a decade ago was somewhat primitive and expensive compared to today. Yet folks continue to use it as a benchmark of RPG quality.

Yes,there is likely a lot that BioWare could learn about other developers and how they make games, but it is just as valid to say that other developers have things they could learn from us. It just may not be the same things you are thinking of.

And I countered his argument with this~

As stated on these forums and in interviews, you guys have stated you wanted a more cinematic experience. Surely that goes hand in hand with visual aspects such as weather system, wind and day/night cycles. All of these things increase the cinematic feel of a game. Ditto with NPC reactions to your presence and actions. I can understand that different developers start at different point with different goals but they should look at each other for things they could do better.

Those things I mentioned would make your titles better especially in a cinematic way imho. Other companies are seeing what it is you have done yourselves and that is why I gave the example of Rockstar, Bethesda, Eidos and Cryptic all implementing and improving, trying to do such things as choices/conseqeunces cause/effect systems because you did so well developing them to create a demand for such things on a bigger scale. 

You can't sit back and not take note of what others are doing just because you scored a point with that system to be honest. Your stories aren't the greatest thing in gaming but the combination of your choices systems that is used to tell the story is what made you special and not the story on its own imho. Now they are trying to create such systems themselves you cannot afford to surely count on just that gameplay mechanic to keep you ahead of the rest. I am of the firm belief it is far more advisable to watch what the others are upto and try to implement the 'best' features and add it onto you own titles which might on top of that have its own special features. Tweaking the engine over time to always improve it add more stunning visuals and realism which immerses the player in that world of which you create. How can anyone seriously argue that such immersion is a bad thing for a game?

I cannot agree to any actual reason why you would purposefully decide against trying to build such immersion in the worlds you have created with such features that have a great affect on the aforementioned immersion. If you truly held BG as the benchmark of RPG quality then why did you move to 3D or continue to evolve the engines and visual quality of your games from back then. The same reason you evolved your games from then is the same reason you should try your best to evolve such features as the ones I have mentioned.

Please note specifically the bolded part. He chose not to respond. I have a bad feeling they have no intention of looking at what other devs are capable of doing and features that others have because they are so arrogant they don't think they need to in order for the fans to suck up whatever they produce.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 02:02 .

[axl99]

I find it senseless and unfair to compare a finished game with one that was half done.

There are things in The Witcher that Bioware should take note of, but a good chunk of it I find is in the coding and environmental design aspects. They really did good things with the engine to get the visual results they did, however like the first Crysis game they'll need to optimize it further to allow a more uniform visual quality on all platforms and system specs. One issue I've noticed is that the graphic fidelity's so high that it's hard to judge distance when attacking enemies at range. It's easily resolved by turning on the LOD switch, but that's obviously a bit of a resource hog along with VSync.

[Dasher1010]

Zanallen wrote...

Khayness wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

You mean like how both games aren't really what many people would consider a more traditional cRPG? And how both are pretty much action/RPGs?

More like cutting corners and wasted potential vs. attention to detail and as few compromises to your vision as possible.

And I'll counter with development time. The goal of Laidlaw's changes obviously works, see TW2. However, 18 months isn't enough time to see those goals through to fruition.

I completely agree. Hence why I made this thread in the first place. DA2 is what happens when your lead designer quits and your publisher thinks that he can boss your new lead designer around only to watch the title fail spectacularly and only sell what it did because people loved the first game. Hopefully TW2 being the same game as DA2 but better in every way will convince EA that DA3 needs more dev time in order to be the sucess that both EA and Bioware desire.

[Tommy6860]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

It's jealous girlfriend syndrome.

BioWare and the "old school" players were huggy buddies for years, all the way back to when computers were a novelty and you might have to ride your bike for ten minutes to watch your friend with a computer play a game.  Fast forward to today, and BioWare sees all these new players coming to games.  They're like "Hey, we should see if these new gamers might enjoy RPGs too!"  The "old school" players immediately threw their boobs out and brushed their hair back and said "But but but!  Aren't we good enough for you?"  BioWare was like "Yes, of course, but what if a couple tiny mechanic changes got more people into RPGs?  Isn't that good?"

The "old school" players were devestated.  They listened to Tom Waites for weeks.  They put on black nail polish.  Then, when DA2 cames out and had some notable flaws (recycled areas and no unified party management screen, FTL) the jilted players were ecstatic.

Go back through some of the old hate threads.  Many of them come down to "We sure taught BioWare their lesson this time!"

That's why people hate DA2.  The funny part is, DA2 actually takes some elements from the original Witcher.  Button=Awesome descibres Witcher perfectly.  A voiced character is also win.  Happily, the terrible crafting, UI, nonsensical story, and the embarassing adolescent masterbatory aids were not borrowed.

I'd be most curious to know what aspect of The Witcher's story you found to be unsensical?

I found it to be genuinely beautifully crafted.  Drizzling in political intrigue too - which is something that DA2 promised but utterly failed to deliver.

They even managed to set up the plot such that people who haven't read the books would not be at any real disadvantage.

Do they have the books in English? I have only seen them online in their native Polish language.

I loved TW, the intrigues were most interesting to me, crafting, and skill level were well done. Great story with choices that have effects on the plots (extremely important to me). The thing that killed a total 2nd run for me was that I don't like being stuck playing one character, nor being able to at least choose my gender. For now though, TW2 is a hold because of the latter issue for me. From what a few of my avid RPG buddies have already said, it is near same game style and system as TW, so I will more than likely wait.

[Dragoonlordz]

Dasher1010 wrote...

I completely agree. Hence why I made this thread in the first place. DA2 is what happens when your lead designer quits and your publisher thinks that he can boss your new lead designer around only to watch the title fail spectacularly and only sell what it did because people loved the first game. Hopefully TW2 being the same game as DA2 but better in every way will convince EA that DA3 needs more dev time in order to be the sucess that both EA and Bioware desire.

It's not the same. Like I already said the game engines and mechanics are different. They both might have used acts
but the acts were done and applied in completley different ways, they both might have used realtime combat but the combat was done in different ways, and so on etc like dialogue system again different... So no they are not the same.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 02:05 .

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I fell Bioware should be trying to exceed expectations in all their titles. I see far too often people on here saying I'm happy enough with what they gave me so I can't complain, when in fact that is exactly what they should be doing in order to push Bioware to (improve) thir products by adding new things such as the weather system (rain, wind etc), a realistic day and night cycle and NPC interaction up in quality to react to your pressence and the changing of the aforementioned systems. This improve a game and even if they aren't essentials in order to go from A to B story wise they are things that make the experience more enjoyable.

But modular campaigns have no real need for a realistic day/night cycle nor do they really need weather. You generally aren't in one place long enough for such a thing to matter. I would prefer if Bioware included day/night/weather based on the needs for the story and atmosphere, like I hear they are doing with SW:TOR. And as I said earlier, I would like more variety in NPC and interactions.

Now, I too want Bioware to improve. However, I want them to improve in things that they already excel at, story and character interaction, and not try something new that is pretty much unneeded. Isn't that one of the primary complaints against DA2? That they changed things for the sake of change and not whether it was actually needed?

[erynnar]

Morroian wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Yeah, but ME2 didn't throw out it's own backstories on characters making them completely different people. Not even when they get dead and resurrected. 

You mean Anders? Its not like they didn't give a good reason for the change.  

He's one (only one of many), but for no good reason threw out the lore and previous history or DAA. Anders had no interest in taking up the mantle of starting an uprising for mage freedom. He wanted his freedom. He was friendly, caring, funny, and charming. He may not have liked what happens to mages (very few seem to like it, and very few don't seem to harbor some resentment towards their jailors--human nature and all). But, he agrees with Wynne in DAA that it is foolish for mages to want to be completely free of the Chantry.

He and Justice have conversations where Justice tells him he is disappointed Anders doesn't champion the cause and Anders tells him, "welcome to the real world spirit." Justice himself says he can't jump bodies again. You can kill Anders but he comes back.

And the Warden saves Anders from Rylock by making him a warden and gives him his cat. But that same Warden Commander would make him give up the cat and allow the Chantry to send a templar to the keep to watch him? And if the Warden can defy Rylock and make Anders a warden too, then they can defy having Chanry templars on their property.

Sorry just too many inconsistancies for me, too many plot holes. But I did like DA2 as a mage (despite it, go figure).

[erynnar]

THIS IS FROM MRCRUSTY, he asked me to post this for him as he was unable. I didn't want to get the credit for it, as it is far more eloquent than I am:

In my opinion, it's about execution of concepts and overall cohesiveness of the game's various elements. I would say that Witcher 2 and Dragon Age 2 in their roleplaying elements are similar. That is to say, that Origins trumps them both as being a "traditional RPG" and that the original Fallouts monster everything else.

They are different games with different visions, designs and concepts that share certain mechanics.

I have always felt that Dragon Age 2 has been a mish mash of unrealised concepts that were added either due to time constraints, or because it would "be cool", without really taking into account how those elements would interact with each other.

In Dragon Age 2, there was a real feeling where I couldn't understand why things were changed or added. They could've gone in two directions, but instead chose neither.

Let's go for the obvious examples. Fixed protagonists and combat.

In Witcher 2, it makes sense, not only because Witcher 1 was about Geralt, but because the games are based on the Polish series of novels. So people can understand why it's there. In this sense, it's no different to the Mass Effect games. There's also plenty of choices involved to allow you to shape that character. No one complains about Shepard because having the character is understandable and you're given enough freedom to shape them as yours.

Hawke is not a protagonist as strong as Geralt or Shepard, but he is much more defined than the Warden. What is he then? Your character? Bioware's character? Why make things like that? You don't get the freedom of a "blank slate" character, but you don't get the depth of a "fixed protagonist" either.

Then the other elements. Combat is a big fat one. It's not the Action hack n slash of Dungeon Siege, Diablo and those sorts of games, but at the same time, it's not the more tactically inclined Dragon Age: Origins and predecessor format. Yes, at harder difficulties there's more challenging combat, but the challenge lies in beating the constant zerging as opposed to switching up strategies for different opponents, utilising terrain or traps to your advantage, the importance of positioning, etc etc.

I actually like much of the new combat of Dragon Age 2, but I hated the encounter and enemy design. Which ruined it for me.

Witcher 2 decided to go fully Action. It picked a side, executed it well. Dragon Age 2 didn't pick a side and executed it poorly.

The difference is that in the Witcher 2, the mechanics help realise the vision and the player experience is made better because of it. In Dragon Age 2, the mechanics were implemented with little thought in how it would affect such a vision, and often served to hinder it, or highlight a lack of it outside the narrative.

Which is a shame because imo, a vision should stay consistent for the length of the series.

That's not to say that Dragon Age 2 is a bad game, I don't believe that. But the Witcher 2 you could tell, stayed true to the vision of the original. It changed elements that CDPR thought would better realise that vision.

I get the feeling that in Dragon Age 2, there were a few elements that dictated the changes. Ease of writing the narrative, time constraints and a desire to expand the market.

But never the same vision as that of Origins, which was (imo) to create an engrossing modern RPG in the vein of Baldur's Gate.

Witcher 2's vision (imo) being to create an engrossing Action RPG based on the works of Andrzej Sapkowski that's uncompromising on quality and challenge.

While these aren't necessarily bad motivations individually, when lumped together, we can see the results.

edited because I am a n00b like someone else called me tonight.

Modifié par erynnar, 23 mai 2011 - 02:34 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I fell Bioware should be trying to exceed expectations in all their titles. I see far too often people on here saying I'm happy enough with what they gave me so I can't complain, when in fact that is exactly what they should be doing in order to push Bioware to (improve) thir products by adding new things such as the weather system (rain, wind etc), a realistic day and night cycle and NPC interaction up in quality to react to your pressence and the changing of the aforementioned systems. This improve a game and even if they aren't essentials in order to go from A to B story wise they are things that make the experience more enjoyable.

Isn't that one of the primary complaints against DA2? That they changed things for the sake of change and not whether it was actually needed?

Those systems do not impact on your ability to play they just improve the immersion as you play. Unlike the actual changes people have been talking about such as game playing ability changes such as items/customisation/gear, skills and combat mechanics, limitations on interactions and progression being forced too heavy handed. Those things effect how you play in a big way as opposed to the systems I mentioned which do not (imho).

Ray and Greg the founders of Bioware once stated that they loved Bethesda because although some aspects had their fualts the overall product was so well done and all the parts fitted together in such a way that was produced was a masterpeice of immersion and quality game wise with regard to the Fallout Series. Now we have DA2 which fails on so many parts and the overall title when everything is fitted together you end up with many parts that do not fit and the lack of quality whether due to time or direction just did not add up to a well made great game imho.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 03:06 .

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I fell Bioware should be trying to exceed expectations in all their titles. I see far too often people on here saying I'm happy enough with what they gave me so I can't complain, when in fact that is exactly what they should be doing in order to push Bioware to (improve) thir products by adding new things such as the weather system (rain, wind etc), a realistic day and night cycle and NPC interaction up in quality to react to your pressence and the changing of the aforementioned systems. This improve a game and even if they aren't essentials in order to go from A to B story wise they are things that make the experience more enjoyable.

Isn't that one of the primary complaints against DA2? That they changed things for the sake of change and not whether it was actually needed?

Those systems do not impact on your ability to play they just improve the immersion as you play. Unlike the actual changes people have been talking about such as game playing ability changes such as items/customisation/gear, skills and combat mechanics, limitations on interactions and progression being forced too heavy handed. Those things effect how you play im a big way as opposed to the systems I mentioned which do not (imho).

No, but they do take away resources that I feel would be better spent elsewhere.

[tariq071]

Zanallen wrote...

I'd say that making a new engine takes about as much time as altering the base game "180 degrees". So TW2 still had more development time. Now, I admit that Bioware probably went too far in terms of changes. Of course, I liked DA2 so I don't have much of a problem with it. The majority of my friends liked the game more than Origins. They are tied in my mind. And yes, without the changes, 18 months would have been enough time. With the changes, it was no where near enough. Now, Laidlaw has said that they aren't doing another 180 dregree turn, so DA3 will hopefully receive a lot more TLC.

Not even close, every single line of code has to written for new engine, rewritting takes much less time.Plus CDP is much smaller studio then BW, so less manpower.

As for DA3 , they gonna need (again IMHO) more then 18 months and another at least 90 degrees turn if they want to get even close to 400k preorders that they had with DA2.This time they won't have DA:O reputation to sell that for them.Even then, they should be happy with half of that number.

I am not buying another DA II, and i buy everything that has RPG tag on the market(including games like Eschalon Book 1 &2), nor i will recomend anyone that i know to do it.

[Dragoonlordz]

Zanallen wrote...

No, but they do take away resources that I feel would be better spent elsewhere.

You can't have it both ways moan about how it needed more time then complain that more time shouldn't be given to add other things. Because if your actually saying that then what in reality is your saying not that the game should have had more time till it produced an amazing game but that in fact you think it should only have been given just enough time to produce something you would be "satisfied with" yourself. Again ending up with a title that wasn't the best they could produce but in fact again putting yet another deadline on how long they should of spent just to bring it up to par with what essentials you would be happy with.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 02:24 .

[DragonRageGT]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Dasher1010 wrote...

I completely agree. Hence why I made this thread in the first place. DA2 is what happens when your lead designer quits and your publisher thinks that he can boss your new lead designer around only to watch the title fail spectacularly and only sell what it did because people loved the first game. Hopefully TW2 being the same game as DA2 but better in every way will convince EA that DA3 needs more dev time in order to be the sucess that both EA and Bioware desire.

It's not the same. Like I already said the game engines and mechanics are different. They both might have used acts
but the acts were done and applied in completley different ways, they both might have used realtime combat but the combat was done in different ways, and so on etc like dialogue system again different... So no they are not the same.

I think the bold part express a high dose of "eyes wide shut". The worst blindness is not that one cannot see. It is that one will not open one's eyes!

There is absolutely nothing to compare about these two games! The Witcher had acts in the first release. It works well to tell a story based on books.  TW2 is a masterpiece, pretty much like Origins. The biggest flaw in TW2 is that it must end. Many people will just restart and go through a new run, many times. Some will take it as slow as possible to savour it as a precious old wine and to delay the most reaching end game.

I will not quote Persephone again but she is right. TW2 is the best cRPG to this date. It is a milestone in every aspect and it is for a mature audience. Not for the audience of DA2, definitely!

When TW2 give us a funny quest, it is really funny. When TW2 tries to get us emotional, particularly if we played the first game or read the books, oh boy, do they get it right!  TW2 has real immersion and once we're into it, it's hard to get out. I almost cried badly when a King died, one that I have known for a while, or even when an Elf died, who I had just recently become friends with, more emotional than anything that DA2 could throw at me.  Sibling death? No emotion. Mother's death? I actually laughed from Lady Frankstein walk and Hawke's dropped open jaw while a bug made the combat theme play over the cutscene killing any possible dramatic atmosphere.

I still enjoyed DA2. It certainly made the whole waiting for The Witcher 2 more fun. But I can't see myself touching that game again. 6 runs and that's it. Origins gave me 20 x 100hours runs and will definitely still see my wardens again. Even if it is this "Geralt Cousland de Rivia" I'm using as my avatar now! =)

[Zanallen]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You can't have it both ways moan about how it needed more time then complain that more time shouldn't be given to add other things. Because if your actually saying that then what in reality is your saying not that the game should have had more time till it produced an amazing game but that in fact you think it should only have been given just enough time to produce something you would be "satisfied with" yourself. Again ending up with a title that wasn't the best they could produce but in fact again putting yet another deadline on how long they should of spent just to bring it up to par with what essentials you would be happy with.

That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that DA2 needed more development time to polish the game and reach Bioware's goals for the game. I don't want more development time to add stuff that isn't really needed in a modular game. If Bioware games were more open world/centered around exploration, then great. Day/night/weather would all be expected at that point. However, that's not what Bioware does. Bioware games are modular and fairly linear. I don't expect Bioware to start making Elder Scrolls style games just like I don't expect Bethesda to start making modular games.

[Dragoonlordz]

RageGT wrote...

I will not quote Persephone again but she is right. TW2 is the best cRPG to this date. It is a milestone in every aspect and it is for a mature audience. Not for the audience of DA2, definitely!

I hate to admit it as I hardly see eye to eye with Perse on here given she always tended to bash DAO to promote DA2, but in this case I think she is spot on correct and we are in agreement.

P.s. Don't go telling her I said that I agree as I think it would tear a hole in the fabric of time and space.

[Urazz]

Dasher1010 wrote...

2. The took a turned based system and made it hack and slash
The real issue with DA2 was that it went halfway there and as a result felt clunky while TW2 feels fluid as an action RPG. DA2 is just uneven and I find my self mashing the A button as fast as possible to make sure that I increase my DPS instead of focusing on mobility like a true action RPG should be doing. DA3 should be either a pure action RPG with the ability to dodge and more interesting boss fights and less of a turn-based/real time hybrid or go back to DAO's combat system. The current combat system tries to appeal to everyone and instead appeals to nobody. Giving consoles auto-attack back made the game feel like DAO again which fixed this problem but did so far too late and DA3 should have this available as the default option.

I'd have to disagree on this.  The fact that you pretty much gotta dodge/roll constantly to avoid damage makes it alot less smooth and not as realistic.  Sure there should be a dodge/roll system but they made it so parrying is not really desired compared to dodging and dodging really has no disadvantage.  Not only that but the controls for when you are sneaking are awkward as hell too.

Other than that. I think the Witcher 2 is great but I think DA2 did combat better as it was much fun combatwise.  Sure you may not like the spawning wave thing but it did add a level of difficulty to the game.

[Dragoonlordz]

Urazz wrote...

Other than that. I think the Witcher 2 is great but I think DA2 did combat better as it was much fun combatwise.  Sure you may not like the spawning wave thing but it did add a level of difficulty to the game.

So does simply adding 5million HP to each mob but that doesn't mean because takes longer and makes the fight harder to survive which is the same as the ninja wave system actually does, that in any way they are better as far as handling difficulty gameplay elements. The only thing the wave system does is manage your own survival time wise e.g. can you keep your mana or health pool up incase another wave. Naruto is a more fun combat system and more resembles the DA2 system than realism ever does, doesn't mean they should impliment that either.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 03:00 .

[RaenImrahl]

Folks, a reminder that talking about pirating a game, even a non-Bioware game, is not allowed on these forums.

Thanks,

RI

[Dragoonlordz]

RaenImrahl wrote...

Folks, a reminder that talking about pirating a game, even a non-Bioware game, is not allowed on these forums.

Thanks,

RI

eh? I must have missed something I dont' recall such a debate in here though I have only been present in this thread for last few pages so maybe I missed it.

**Edited** Nevermind I see it now that idiot on page 2, then showing up in reply to his from someone else a couple pages back. Nice spotting I missed it before.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 23 mai 2011 - 03:53 .

[Chromie]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

RaenImrahl wrote...

Folks, a reminder that talking about pirating a game, even a non-Bioware game, is not allowed on these forums.

Thanks,

RI

eh? I must have missed something I dont' recall such a debate in here though I have only been present in this thread for last few pages so maybe I missed it.

**Edited** Nevermind I see it now that idiot on page 2, then showing up in reply to his from someone else a couple pages back. Nice spotting I missed it before.

There were people discussing pirating Witcher 2.

[Addai]

Both sequels are disappointing, but for different reasons. DA2 was lazy and half a game. TW2 took the twitch mechanics people complained about in TW1 and made them the foundation of the combat system, then made the first half of the game so combat-heavy and difficult even on Easy that you had no choice but to slog through their awkward mechanics. It's a beautiful twitchfest, but still, if that's the direction DA3 goes- and if they put in anything like those damnable QTE's- then I'll be dropping yet another fantasy franchise.

[Addai]

nedpepper wrote...
And for a lot of us who can't afford to buy a computer that  CAN PLAY either the first or second Witcher, we're left scratching our heads.  We'll never know, because The Witcher will never be released on the X-Box or Playstation and they seem to take pride in that.  And that's the crux of this argument, I believe.

Actually TW2 shows many signs of being set up to be a console port.

[erynnar]

Addai67 wrote...

Both sequels are disappointing, but for different reasons. DA2 was lazy and half a game. TW2 took the twitch mechanics people complained about in TW1 and made them the foundation of the combat system, then made the first half of the game so combat-heavy and difficult even on Easy that you had no choice but to slog through their awkward mechanics. It's a beautiful twitchfest, but still, if that's the direction DA3 goes- and if they put in anything like those damnable QTE's- then I'll be dropping yet another fantasy franchise.

I'm sorry Addai that it isn't fun for you! I admit to playing on easy (yes hubby finally got his new computer up and running so I could have his old one and I admit I have writing to do, but I couldn't help but take a quick little ride in WItcher 2) and I find the combat fun and enjoyable, once I got the hang of the moving away, repositioning, looking for an opening when they aren't blocking. Oh and light blows in rapid succession tend to stun. 

It is very similar to DA2 and it's button mashing, but it is more than one button I mash, plus trying to roll away and reposition so I don't get flanked is more fun than DA2 for me. Oh, and no exploding enemies or blood covering my screen. I have loped peoples limbs off, but it is more realistic not cartoony. Also the physics are fun in this game. I love knocking people off high places with my rune spell

Oh, and finishing move animations are so friggin' awesome. I used my blast rune, which spun guy in mid air and I slashed him across the guts while he was in mid air, evicerating him before he landed. It was the coolest animation I've seen so far (but I am in the prologue still)

I need to play it through before I go rate it on Metacritic. So far...I am going through a town ravaged by war with more life than Kirkwall (just saved villagers from being burned alive, and I have no idea how that is going to affect the game, but I know it will).

[Addai]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Do they have the books in English? I have only seen them online in their native Polish language.

I loved TW, the intrigues were most interesting to me, crafting, and skill level were well done. Great story with choices that have effects on the plots (extremely important to me). The thing that killed a total 2nd run for me was that I don't like being stuck playing one character, nor being able to at least choose my gender. For now though, TW2 is a hold because of the latter issue for me. From what a few of my avid RPG buddies have already said, it is near same game style and system as TW, so I will more than likely wait.

I have The Last Wish and The Blood of Elves in English.

TW2 is much different than TW1, from a gameplay perspective.  The combat is apparently like Batman Arkham Asylum, so compare it to a game like that to decide if you want to buy it, not TW1.

[erynnar]

Addai67 wrote...

nedpepper wrote...
And for a lot of us who can't afford to buy a computer that  CAN PLAY either the first or second Witcher, we're left scratching our heads.  We'll never know, because The Witcher will never be released on the X-Box or Playstation and they seem to take pride in that.  And that's the crux of this argument, I believe.

Actually TW2 shows many signs of being set up to be a console port.

Yeah I totally see this being transferred to consoles at some point. I really hope they do, and work out the bugs that some are getting, even loading it up. I haven't had these, but I know it is frustrating as hell.

I really do think they are going to let console players have a ported version, just from the combat controls...if I had to guess.