307 réponses à ce sujet

[Dariuszp]

You dont need to do every women in W2 @Persephone, you should read the book. Problem with Yennefer is that she is no saint :-D She cheat Geralt few times (episode when she was with Geralt and in the morning she went to some old friend mage for some "oh oh aaaaah").

I agree with "Hawk Chronicles". And I agree that OP should play few more games before he made statement like that.

Modifié par Dariuszp, 30 juin 2011 - 10:19 .

[Firky]

^

*Witcher 2 Spoiler*

I had to go through a tunnel in the brothel to rescue Triss and slept with five prostitues while I was there. For the irony, not because I had to.

Sigh, if I have to be vaguelly on topic. Where is the OP?

[Dariuszp]

If I remember you just need to select one mentioned in the quest and I'm almost sure that you didnt need to sleep with her

[Firky]

Heheh. I'm sure you didn't have to sleep with any. You could just bribe Madam. Actually, I do agree that although I made Geralt promiscuity plus, you could actually be a pretty angelic, Triss exclusive Witcher if you wanted to be. (In The Witcher 1, I surely got the feeling I needed to sleep with everyone to max out the game. But I am a completionist.)

[vehzeel]

It's not the best game ever (that's Planescape: Torment ;-) ), yet DA2 is a good game. It has good visuals and sounds (lots of voice acting and small cut-scenes everywhere), cool action and a good story. I enjoyed it very much. It has flaws (like most games), but it certainly isn't a piece of junk to be burnt, never spoken of and then forgotten. Some people here seem to think that.
OP, I'm glad you liked the game.

[tiernanlshaw]

Dariuszp wrote...

tiernanlshaw wrote...

Dariuszp wrote...

Yeah but here you talk about multiplayer. That's different. I was talking about single player. Multiplayer is different story because everyone have same amount of health, armor (in some games). They can select weapons that they like. They need skills to dodge/shoot, brain to outsmart enemies and experience.
Best example - Bad Company 2. How you know that someone is fresh in BC2 ? After he shoot from a window he hide behind wall. Send him a granade... he will learn.

no its not different. at all.  not even close.  shooters ARE the mulitplayer mode.  its the campaign thats optional.  you dont buy a shooter for the single player.  you just dont.  its a waste of 60 bucks and only 6-8 hrs of gaming in most cases. 

any "stupid" person can play any game.  you can go through origins on casual without having to use any abilities.  just hit attack once on each enemy.  in every game the difficulty scale is what determines whether a game is more easy out of the box and thus "for stupid people".  this is true in every genre.  and quite frankly some of the best gamers in gaming are playing shooters.  the skill when the top dogs step into a match in gears or modern warfare (or any call of duty) or halo is friggin ridiculous.  these guys and gals can play.  be it on keyboard or sticks.  rpgs are not made for smarter gamers.  they have not always been the way they are now.  when i was a a kid i loved the final fantasy games, now i cant stand them.  it feels like reading a book.  a cheesy one.  im just going through the paces to see a 30 million dollar cinematic.  theres nothing "role-playing" about them at all. 

single player rpg's are a niche'.  always have been, always will be.  the best thing about a good one is literally the role-playing available.  thats something that isnt neccesarily translatable into intelligence.  its doesnt take a smart individual to follow the main story arc of origins on causal.  and even beating it on impossible is a restricted accomplishment.  its not liek you can take your mad wardening skills into an arena and match it up against another persons warden and party members.  not to say people dont do it.  mmorpgs like WoW are hugely demanding on communication, build, intelligence, and skill.  even more so on a pvp server.  but even the hardest and truest to form single player rpg does not offer this challenge.  in the end youre still fighting against preprogrammed computer generated ai.  they do not "think" like a human opponent does.  this in my mind does the opposite of what youre suggesting.  it makes the game much more accesable to anyone that wants to try it.  its hard to not beat any rpg for anyone who wants to no matter how "stupid" they are. 

mostly i just hate the comparison.  just because youre better at this than you are at that doesnt mean that that suddenly becomes something easy for "stupid" people.   and in my experience people who try to diss on shooters do so because theyre the noob that keeps getting wasted by the 6 yr old camper.  why cant people jsut say "its not my cup of tea".  why does playing shooters have to mean your playing something thats more accesable to "stupid" people.  its remarkably arrogant.  especially considering the smartest indiviudal i personally know has a ridiculous iq, got a perfect score on their sats and is on his way to his first doctorate and wouldnt touch a game with a ten foot pole, and when i forced a controller in his hand to play a shooter with me he was downright awful at it.  so would a more accurate statement be that truly smart people dont even bother playing games?  no.  i think a more telling statement would simply be his reaction to the scenario.  instead of throwing the controller down and declraing it a waste of time, he sat there with me, gave it his best shot, and constantly marvelled at the skill of the other players playing the game.  there is no blanket "stupid people" game genre, or a type of game that easier for "stupid" people.  there is only different strokes for different folks.  not every one is good at everything, and not everything is for every one.  its remarkably arrogant and foolish to label any gaming genre as "easily accesable for stupid people".  get over yourself man. 

WRONG. I was talking about Single player shooters and Single player RPG. They you talk about Single player RPG and multiplayer Shooters. You are wrong mate and you miss whole point.
"Perfect for stupid people" is that you use WSAD for movement, SPACE/CTRL to jump, sit, RMB to aim and LMB to fire. E to use. That's it. This is EVERYTRHING you need to know in SP shooters. Better players are trying to avoid enemy bullets...
So it's easy to start.

What is good RPG game ? RPG game is a game where you must have a plan. If you rush to battle just like that you will die and it's game over. If you dont invest points in your character with brain - he will be weak and he will die easly. If you dont think about your actiions you can have consequences that you dont like. If you kill some inocent folk in a town - guards will hunt you down. When you talk it can end by your death, fight or aqquaring new friends.
You need to think in normal RPG games.

What they do with DA II is that they remove thinking part. Dialogues ? No matter what you select - outcome is the same. Some details can change but nothing important. You dont even need to read because you have icons. Red for badass right ? Heart to f*** someone. You dont need to plan your character. You just select skills and do some button smashing on keyboard (aim for R and numbers 1-9). Whatever you do, there is no real consequences and game ends always the same.

That's difference between todays games for stupid people and casual players that just want some nice interactive animation (cannot blame them) and good games.

Also you miss point when i say it's perfect for stupid poepole because this games have low point of entry. Not that only idiots play them. Yet you still want to write something when you dont understand what someone elase wrote. There is whole conversation there you know ? Learn how to read. Then read whole conversation 10x and then write response. Good luck.

PS: Sorry for my english

no offense dude, but you cant say "learn how to read" and then "sorry about my english" two paragraphs apart.  the only person here demostrating any struggle with the english language is you.  i read what you said just fine.  clearly my argument was that the entire core of your argument of what a shooter is, is just plain wrong.  every shooter has a single player campaign, but no one, i repeat NO ONE buys them for that.  name one shooter made since the next gen systems have been released that does not have a multiplayer function.  name just one.  unless you name mass effect 2 you wont be able to.  they are for and chiefly for their multiplayer content.  it is the PRIMARY FEATURE OF THE GAME.  people do not buy them for single player.  if you do, then you could not ever fully appreciate the shooter genre, and really have no ground to even be commenting on them. 

and i did not miss your point at all.  i understood quite well what your intent was.  english happens to be my primary language.  i simply think you are dead wrong.  the lowest point of entry on ALL games is quite low.  all of your "thinking" and "planning" that you claim is neccesary for an rpg is as opitional in those games as dodging bullets in shooters.  you dont have to do it.  you could throw in origins, select casual, and not have to think about anything.  sure you have to know where to go, but you have to know that in a shooter too.  the choices do not matter.  they only affect your personal enjoyment.  to beat the game no choice you make in dialogue truly matters.  in origins for example every choice you make results in fighting the archdemon.  no matter what you decide, that will be the end result.  and on casual, you can do that with one button, with a warrior, who you have piled all your stats into magic.  its that easy on casual.  and you dont really have to think about stats.  every rpg has an auto level up option.  every single one.  and quite frankly not every rpg even lets you make decisions.  the vast majority of them are formatted more like final fantasy than they are dragon age or baldurs gate.  there are difficult rpg's out there for sure, but the LOWEST point of entry will always be the lowest difficulty on any game, and on rpgs that turns just about every rpg into one button, one joystick games.  the only thing neccesary is to be able to know how to read.  that is all.  and you have to know that in shooters too.  except that their lowest point of entry requires an additional joystick so that you can look up and shoot dudes on the second floor.   bottom line is that you could take any game, from any genre, put it on easy, and any 4 yr old could beat it.  i dont care if its an rpg, shooter, sports, platformer, action/adveture, rts, whatever.  theyre all extremely easy if you put them on easy.  and thats the lowest point of entry.  just ask my 4 yr old nephew who plays them all, and has no trouble with any of them.   he only requires me to read him dialogue.  and thats because hes 4.  and requires me to do that in the shooters too.   

and quite frankly you made now distinction about whether or not it was a "good" rpg in your initial statement.  the good ones are few and far between.  any moron on these boards that hated dragon age 2 (not me) will tell you the reason it upsets them so much is because games like baldurs gate and origins are rare.  its hard to count good rpgs on 2 hands that have been released in the past 10 years.  most of them actually suck and suck hard.  i love rpg's, so i try them all.  and let me tell you, the steaming pile of crap that was the first two worlds couldnt hold a candle to the absolute worst shooter ive ever played.  there are far more quality shooters out there than there are quality rpg's.  if you mostly dislike shooters thats fine.  it doesnt mean that theyre easier for "stupid" people. 

and besides, your whole argument about the lowest point of entry is silly to begin with.  the only thing that requires any intelligence at all is normal and up on any game.  and let me tell ya, ive beaten both dragon age titles on nightmare.  ive beaten every rpg ive ever played that had difficulty sliders on the most difficult skill level.  and that was still easier than beating gears of war on nightmare.  when it comes to skill let the achievements be your measuring stick.  to 100% any rpg all it requires of you is your time.  i 100% both dragon age titles, and i 100% dragon age 2 within 3 days of release.  i have shooters that i will NEVER 100%.  because they actually require you to be very good at online matches (because.... you know.... its the only reason they made the game).  it takes much more intelligence and skill to 100% a shooter, than it does to 100% an rpg.  and thats just a fact.  any person that plays primarily shooters could pick up any rpg and 100% it.  all they require of you is your patience.  they dont even require that much skill.  i cant think of any encounter in origins that cannot be solved by kiting your enemy in a circle.  not one.  even on nightmare. 

basically i just think your dead wrong about the level of supposed intelligence it requires to play an rpg.  it doesnt require any.  neither do shooters.  theyre all easy if you want them to be.  just as theyre all as hard as you want them to be.  there certainly arent more "stupid" people playing shooters than there are playing rpg's.  its more than likely very very even.  just take the op of this thread.  i liked dragon age 2 for what it was just fine.  but greatest rpg ever?  hardly.  to even make the ascertation is setting the lowest common denominator for this particular rpg pretty low, and im sure he/she beat the first one too, so clearly, the bar is pretty low.  personally i dont believe its any lower than shooters.  i imagine plenty of "stupid"  people play both genres. 

i challenge you to do this.  go play origins on casual.  use nothing but the attack button and movement buttons.  no special attacks.  use the auto level feature on your warden and all your party members.  randomly select dialogue options.  in fact just skip them.  just flash through them.  even pick the ones that result in the maximum amount of dead party memebers and party members leaving your party.  you can even turn down everyones help. trust me.  you will still beat the game.   

[Gunderic]

Firky wrote...

Heheh. I'm sure you didn't have to sleep with any. You could just bribe Madam. Actually, I do agree that although I made Geralt promiscuity plus, you could actually be a pretty angelic, Triss exclusive Witcher if you wanted to be. (In The Witcher 1, I surely got the feeling I needed to sleep with everyone to max out the game. But I am a completionist.)

No, I think you're right. I felt the game ( the first Witcher ) goaded you into acting out Geralt's old habits from the start too. Geralt in the Witcher 2 felt significantly more flexible from a roleplaying standpoint in general.

Modifié par Gunderic, 30 juin 2011 - 03:16 .

[John Epler]

And locking, as we no longer seem to be discussing DA2.