60 réponses à ce sujet

[FASherman]

How can CD Projekt take Bioware's Aroura Engine and create The Witcher 2 Enhanced for Xbox that clearly outshines Dragon Age 2 in every aspect - game mechanics, graphics, open world, etc.

As much as I would have liked another DA2 DLC, Bioware has done the right thing pulling the plug on DA2 and focusing all energies on DA3. Other games have set the bar so high that if they don't come out with something on the same level as Skyrim and Witcher 2, the franchise is dead.

I'm hopeful that they will put the time in to get it done and get it done right. Screw any arbitrary delivery schedule set by someine in product marketing. If it takes 3 years to get the right product to market, then take 3 years.

Modifié par FASherman, 14 avril 2012 - 05:01 .

[Giltspur]

Witcher 1 uses modified Aurora (Neverwinter Nights) engine.  Witcher 2 uses CPPR's Red engine.

[FASherman]

Not the Enhanced xBox version. it uses a heavily modified Aurora engine

[Hel]

It doesn't use the Aurora engine, it uses the RED engine. Get your facts straight, you oughta be embarassed instead.

Modifié par Helekanalaith, 14 avril 2012 - 05:30 .

[TheKristoffski]

Ummmm graphics dont make a good game, content and story does, graphics are pretty but i dont play games and go "ohhhh thats so realistic" because I could easily go outside and have the same experience

[Amycus89]

They should be embarrased for making the graphics in DA2 look worse than DA:O yes, but as others have already said, TW2 doesn't use a modified version of the aurora engine. It was only the first witcher that used that.

Modifié par Amycus89, 14 avril 2012 - 05:47 .

[The Elder King]

FASherman wrote...

Not the Enhanced xBox version. it uses a heavily modified Aurora engine

No, it uses the Red Engine. The engine for both version of TW2 is the Red Engine. It's The Witcher who used a heavily modified Aurora engine.

[Realmzmaster]

FASherman wrote...

How can CD Projekt take Bioware's Aroura Engine and create The Witcher 2 Enhanced for Xbox that clearly outshines Dragon Age 2 in every aspect - game mechanics, graphics, open world, etc.

As much as I would have liked another DA2 DLC, Bioware has done the right thing pulling the plug on DA2 and focusing all energies on DA3. Other games have set the bar so high that if they don't come out with something on the same level as Skyrim and Witcher 2, the franchise is dead.

I'm hopeful that they will put the time in to get it done and get it done right. Screw any arbitrary delivery schedule set by someine in product marketing. If it takes 3 years to get the right product to market, then take 3 years.

You really need to get your facts straight before posting. Witcher 2 for the Xbox uses the Red Engine that CDProjectK created for the PC. Since the Xbox is at its heart a PC they modified the Red engine to fit the console.

Witcher 1 used a heavily modified Aurora engine. The Aurora engine could not produce the graphics that are in Witcher 2.

I thought Bioware was a business. Businesses require products that actually go out the door to achieve revenue that keep the business going which means deadlines. So if a product takes to long to get to market it costs considerable more and eats into profits that are used to pay the people developing more products.

Schedules exist to keep a project on track and deadlines exist so that the product actually gets to market. If more time is needed then that request must come from the development team. 

[Dakota Strider]

I will give some support to the OP, because I thought the Witcher1 (with the NwN Aurora engine), looked better than DA2 for the most part. At least it was a better game. Which reinforces the point KMS made; a better, flashier engine, does not make a better RPG. A better story, better NPCs, and multiple choices are what makes a great game. If you want flash, and cool moves, go play an arcade game.

[Lintanis]

Advice for op 

[Aldandil]

Dakota Strider wrote...

I will give some support to the OP, because I thought the Witcher1 (with the NwN Aurora engine), looked better than DA2 for the most part. At least it was a better game. Which reinforces the point KMS made; a better, flashier engine, does not make a better RPG. A better story, better NPCs, and multiple choices are what makes a great game. If you want flash, and cool moves, go play an arcade game.

Well, IMO, BG2 does everything better than the Witcher, possibly except for graphics. This sort of takes away from the point the OP made, that you should be ashamed for not living up to games someone else has made with a different, possibly older, engine. Since the engine has nothing to do with the story, the story could hardly enter into a comparison between game engines.

I also don't think the Witcher 2 had better game rules than DA2, I vastly prefer the party mechanics over left/right clicking in TW2. DA2 had a better UI too. TW2 had better graphics and a better story, but the latter is not related to the engine used.

[Dakota Strider]

Aldandil wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

I will give some support to the OP, because I thought the Witcher1 (with the NwN Aurora engine), looked better than DA2 for the most part. At least it was a better game. Which reinforces the point KMS made; a better, flashier engine, does not make a better RPG. A better story, better NPCs, and multiple choices are what makes a great game. If you want flash, and cool moves, go play an arcade game.

Well, IMO, BG2 does everything better than the Witcher, possibly except for graphics. This sort of takes away from the point the OP made, that you should be ashamed for not living up to games someone else has made with a different, possibly older, engine. Since the engine has nothing to do with the story, the story could hardly enter into a comparison between game engines.

I also don't think the Witcher 2 had better game rules than DA2, I vastly prefer the party mechanics over left/right clicking in TW2. DA2 had a better UI too. TW2 had better graphics and a better story, but the latter is not related to the engine used.

Going further away from the OP's point, I am right with you on BG2 being better than the Witcher.  To take it further, if Bioware were to return to the old BG2 / NwN1 style games, even with the crappier graphics and animations, but with the great stories, and rp choices within, I think they would do much better, than the path they are taking today.  The games would be much less expensive to produce.  And they may be surprised to learn how many of their customers buy their games for the story, not for the graphics and animations.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Witcher was a terrible game. It was a boring click festival. I couldn't even find the energy to even look at the second one.

[AbounI]

Dakota Strider wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

I will give some support to the OP, because I thought the Witcher1 (with the NwN Aurora engine), looked better than DA2 for the most part. At least it was a better game. Which reinforces the point KMS made; a better, flashier engine, does not make a better RPG. A better story, better NPCs, and multiple choices are what makes a great game. If you want flash, and cool moves, go play an arcade game.

Well, IMO, BG2 does everything better than the Witcher, possibly except for graphics. This sort of takes away from the point the OP made, that you should be ashamed for not living up to games someone else has made with a different, possibly older, engine. Since the engine has nothing to do with the story, the story could hardly enter into a comparison between game engines.

I also don't think the Witcher 2 had better game rules than DA2, I vastly prefer the party mechanics over left/right clicking in TW2. DA2 had a better UI too. TW2 had better graphics and a better story, but the latter is not related to the engine used.

Going further away from the OP's point, I am right with you on BG2 being better than the Witcher.  To take it further, if Bioware were to return to the old BG2 / NwN1 style games, even with the crappier graphics and animations, but with the great stories, and rp choices within, I think they would do much better, than the path they are taking today.  The games would be much less expensive to produce.  And they may be surprised to learn how many of their customers buy their games for the story, not for the graphics and animations.

Saying BG2 is better than TW is subjective & personnal I would say.
Boths are different RPG as their approach are different: one is more story driven RPG with a party, the other is more action & solo.One offers the opportunity to create his own PC, the other only offers to incarn a particular PC etc etc.So ctaking the boths ta compare is is not pertinant.Different kind of RPGs, and that's all.
But you're right when you suggest BioWare should return back to their "roots".
In this time, with all of the kickarster projects, it shows there is a great demand from players to return such RPG, as a majority of these are just a REVIVAL of a forgotten style, deliberatly forgotten not by the players, but by the AAA devs themselves.
Age Of Decadence, Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Return, Legend of Grimrock, etc etc are just an exemple of the Revival vibe.Who can say Grimrock is not a success?No one!And why?The revival demension, that's all.Tired of flashy games, tired of the so RPless RPG, tired of action RPGs.

BioWare should return to their first values, not the nowadays one, where their try to please a larger audience.The bigger the audience is, the bigger is the disappointment

[Davillo]

Skyrim and Witcher are different games, I got tired of Elder scrolls when Oblivion came out and since than I have not touched that series, Morrowind  was the decent one. Wither I don't know I could never get in to that game it felt dull as hell and if I cant stomach the first game I never even tried the second one.

If Bioware wants to succeed this is what they have to do. Basically take Origins and put it in DA:2 engine and game-style/mechanics and that would be something to behold. Who can argue that>? This is what people want.

Modifié par Davillo, 14 avril 2012 - 07:13 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

What is embarrassing for Bioware is the writing and story above all in my eyes. They are being outclassed in almost every way by CDPR, especially when talking about their recent games (ME2 and 3 and DA2).

I believe Bioware's constant attachment to supernatural plot hammers which are being done increasingly badly (the idol and the catalyst are for me two turds from the same hole) stems from an inability to write human grounded settings with complex and delicate issues done right via the presence of reasonable / believable human characters, which is a considerably harder thing to do.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 14 avril 2012 - 07:15 .

[Chromie]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

What is embarrassing for Bioware is the writing and story above all in my eyes. They are being outclassed in almost every way by CDPR, especially when talking about their recent games (ME2 and 3 and DA2).

I believe Bioware's constant attachment to supernatural plot hammers which are being done increasingly badly (the idol and the catalyst are for me two turds from the same hole) stems from an inability to write human grounded settings with complex and delicate issues done right via the presence of reasonable / believable human characters, which is a considerably harder thing to do.

Funny CDPR has only developed two games and they have proven they can create a story and characters on par with Obsidian.

Bioware just got lucky imo. Baldur's Gate 1/2 are excellent games and they have been riding on that success ever since.

[AlexJK]

Is it worth pointing out that CD Projekt are basically writing fan fiction in Sapkowski's world, whereas Bioware are writing new properties from the ground up with Mass Effect and Dragon Age? Just saying, it's not a direct comparison really...

[KnightofPhoenix]

AlexJK wrote...

Is it worth pointing out that CD Projekt are basically writing fan fiction in Sapkowski's world, whereas Bioware are writing new properties from the ground up with Mass Effect and Dragon Age? Just saying, it's not a direct comparison really...

A world that they expanded and are taking in a new direction of their own making, in the same vein as KOTOR once did. The fact that it's based on an existing setting is irrelevent to how well they are writing these new completely original stories. Especially when considering how DA and ME were heavily "inspired" by other settings as well (like song of Ice and Fire), except not as good. 

[Chromie]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Especially when considering how DA and ME were heavily "inspired" by other settings as well (like song of Ice and Fire), except not as good. 

Dragon Age Origins was supposed to be "Dark Heroic fantasy" Bioware couldn't even get that right. Just another high fantasy rpg.

You know what I find more embarrasing OP? How amazing their port of Witcher 2 to the Xbox is looking. Unlike Bioware they put the time to make it look and run well. Dragon Age 2 uses directx11 and it still looks ugly and the highres texture pack is a joke. ME2/3 on PC looks like well a console game and on the PS3 it has a lot of framerate issues and more bugs.

Modifié par Skelter192, 14 avril 2012 - 08:08 .

[aries1001]

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe a big part of why The Witcher looked good on pc wasthe fact that you only had one character which onky had what? 2 swords in the beginning and 2 better swords at the end? As well as Geralt only had, I think 2 armours during the whole game. For DA: Origins or Neverwinter Nights, this wasn't really a solution, was it?

Also, I prefer the tactical combat in DA2 to that of the Witcher 1; I've found the combat to a click-fest of sorts, but I stuck by it because of the amazing story and the characters. In DA2, I found the characters in DA2 to be on par with the characters in The Witcher 1.

[Maria Caliban]

FASherman wrote...

How can CD Projekt take Bioware's Aroura Engine and create The Witcher 2 Enhanced for Xbox that clearly outshines Dragon Age 2 in every aspect - game mechanics, graphics, open world, etc.

You're saying the Witcher 2's game mechanics are better than Dragon Age IIs? Have you actually played the game? Wait, it hasn't been release yet.

The stealth is better in that they have a real stealth system. The combat is horrible on PC. Even with the patching they've done, it's a twitch fest.

As for the graphics, BioWare could make a game that looked at good as The Witcher if they had a pre-defined PC, got rid of companions, gave you all of three armor models and three swords, and focused on a small country-side area and one ruin.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 14 avril 2012 - 08:14 .

[Ramza_1]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Witcher was a terrible game. It was a boring click festival. I couldn't even find the energy to even look at the second one.

You are cheating yourself out of one of the best RPGs of all time.  I would reconsider my opinion to "look" at the second one if I were you.

Modifié par Ramza_1, 14 avril 2012 - 08:14 .

[Ramza_1]

Maria Caliban wrote...

FASherman wrote...

How can CD Projekt take Bioware's Aroura Engine and create The Witcher 2 Enhanced for Xbox that clearly outshines Dragon Age 2 in every aspect - game mechanics, graphics, open world, etc.

You're saying the Witcher 2's game mechanics are better than Dragon Age IIs? Have you actually played the game? Wait, it hasn't been release yet.

The stealth is better in that they have a real stealth system. The combat is horrible on PC. Even with the patching they've done, it's a twitch fest.

As for the graphics, BioWare could make a game that looked at good as The Witcher if they had a pre-defined PC, got rid of companions, gave you all of three armor models and three swords, and focused on a small country-side area and one ruin.

Your commments are unfair or outright wrong.  The combat system is challenging, nuanced, provides many ways to approach combat.  Having the hand-eye coordination of a drunken hamster will help with the combat in the witcher 2, yes, but planning is far more important, and it is simply unfair to characterize it as a "twitch fest".  It was very well done, and many, many people love the system, far more so than those who love DAII's combat system.

The Witcher 2 does have companions, they simply don't follow you around the entire game.  They are more detailed, and have that stylized recognizable look that DAII devs are always yammering about.  They are great for cosplay.  There are far more than three armor models and three swords; on my last playthrough I think I saw, without looking, about 20 different sets of armor before I decided to stick with one.

The square footage in the Witcher 2 is far larger than DAII, and they don't reuse areas.  It is fair to dislike The Witcher 2, but please don't use so much hyperbole.

[Takamori The Templar]

This should be on off topic, even if I enjoy a lot The Witcher series and CDprojekt work.