60 réponses à ce sujet

[BBK4114]

 I really enjoyed the Witcher games. I play on PC. TW2 was really fun gameplay for me (once I got past the really sucky training level.)  I really enjoyed the story and Geralt.  

I wish more games incorporated the mini games and boss fighting style of TW1 & the 1st monster in TW2, though.
 
Figuring out how to beat the stone golem & the kikimore queen from TW1 was really entertaining for me. Just implementing the "advice" from Philippa Eilhart during the Kayran battle made me rage quit a time or two, lol. (the sign of a good, fun challenge, imo) Also escaping/getting King Foltest across the bridge away from the dragon took me awhile. Maybe I'm just dumb an inexperienced gamer. 

[Maria Caliban]

Ramza_1 wrote...

The combat system is challenging, nuanced, provides many ways to approach combat.

Yeah... Gonna have to agree to disagree.

[Chromie]

Maria Caliban wrote..

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.

What does graphics have to do with that? It's laziness and that is more of a problem with all the junk loot they add to the game. CDProjekt for Witcher 2 barely has junk loot you can count it on your hands everything else is used for crafting stuff you will use. I'd love to see Bioware do something like that for Dragon Age 3.
 
DA2's combat is just as twitchy with all the damn waves. At least Witcher 2 went full action-based rpg and DA2 was stuck somewhere in between and felt horrible.

Modifié par Skelter192, 14 avril 2012 - 09:01 .

[Sutekh]

Ramza_1 wrote...

The Witcher 2 does have companions, they simply don't follow you around the entire game. 

You really can't compare the ways both games manage companions. TW2 has companions as much as Skyrim and KoA, i.e. occasionally, without special "companion" interaction (interaction with them being more like one with standard NPCs). Both DAs have full featured, manageable, permanent companions. In term of resources, it's really not the same.

In the weapons / armors etc... department, DA2 also has much more. Just consider the fact that every armor model for PC has to be doubled because of gender choice.

As for the rest, story, combat, main protag and all that jazz, it's mainly a matter of taste - and this forum isn't really the place to discuss the merits and flaws of TW2 in itself - but you got to realise that not everyone has fallen head over heels for it. It's not objectively a perfect pearl of a game.

[Maria Caliban]

Skelter192 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote..

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.

What does graphics have to do with that?

It's simple time allocation.

I want you to build me a sand castle in an hour.
Now, I want you to build me five sand castles in an hour.

The single sand castle you take an hour to build is going to look better than the five different sand castles.

The Witcher 2 has a single main character who wears a small number of outfits and has a small number of weapons. Dragon Age II lets you be male or female, lets you customize your PCs face, and offers a wide range of different outfits and armors.

[MagmaSaiyan]

i still fail to see why Witcher is even up to par to DA or even DA2, graphics i see sure, but Bioware isnt trying to look like everyone else, we probably havent even seen the greatest part of the engine Bioware has used(Hightown buildings i thought look great), combat wise, in the Witcher, half the time i see the guy rolling around to get to or avoiding enemies,yeah lots of tactical gameplay there

[Realmzmaster]

Given that the entire premise of the Op was wrong further discussion belongs in the off-topic section.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Maria Caliban wrote...
The Witcher 2 has a single main character who wears a small number of outfits and has a small number of weapons. Dragon Age II lets you be male or female, lets you customize your PCs face, and offers a wide range of different outfits and armors.

TW2 has an almost entirely different second Act, a difference of the end of the first Act and differences in the 3rd Act depending on choice. What's your point?

Check the budget for each game. You'd be surprised. 

Heck this entire point is null if you compare DA2 to ME....1. In terms of graphics, it has no excuses.

EDIT: which ultimately for me doesn't matter. What matters is that DA2 doesn't deliver in almost any other way imo.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 avril 2012 - 12:06 .

[sickpixie]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote..

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.

What does graphics have to do with that?

It's simple time allocation.

I want you to build me a sand castle in an hour.
Now, I want you to build me five sand castles in an hour.

The single sand castle you take an hour to build is going to look better than the five different sand castles.

The Witcher 2 has a single main character who wears a small number of outfits and has a small number of weapons. Dragon Age II lets you be male or female, lets you customize your PCs face, and offers a wide range of different outfits and armors.

Witcher 2's look is more than just more polygons and better textures, it also has better art direction, especially the color scheme. Dragon Age 2's desaturated colors are nauseating and I find it physically uncomfortable to look at.

[Maria Caliban]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
The Witcher 2 has a single main character who wears a small number of outfits and has a small number of weapons. Dragon Age II lets you be male or female, lets you customize your PCs face, and offers a wide range of different outfits and armors.

TW2 has an almost entirely different second Act, a difference of the end of the first Act and differences in the 3rd Act depending on choice. What's your point?

Writers and level designers aren't character artists.

We were talking about graphic. I was saying that if you restricted DA to a single, predefined protagonist and gave them a limited inventory, you've freed up more resources for character work.

Or are you under the impression that a customizable PC with a large range of armor and weapons costs nothing and has no impact on other parts of the game?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 15 avril 2012 - 12:25 .

[wowpwnslol]

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.

I lol'd. Witcher 2 sucked ass.

[BanksHector]

I guess I missed what makes CD Projekt so *great* because I do not find the games to be all that fun.

[Dejajeva]

These threads are just embarrassing. I mean, I'm embarassed as a "fan" to have so many "fans" just **** **** ****. If you like Witcher 2 so much, go play it. Geeze.

I do have a serious question however about game engines, because I'm really trying to understand you classical rpgers. What exactly does the engine do? I imagine it to be the equivilant of..say..photoshop to the PC. You use photoshop to create artwork, the same way you'd use a game engine to create...the game? Just the backgrounds? Everything?  Is it a programming tool or a design tool or both? They upgraded the engine between Orgins and 2, right? Is it just an upgrade of what it can do (technology) or the mechanics themselves? Just trying to understand.

Modifié par Dejajeva, 15 avril 2012 - 02:44 .

[kingtigernz]

Skelter192 wrote...

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.

For a console that looks fantasic,just goes to show what a developer can do when they don't straight port a game from platform to platform.Bioware would prefer to ignore this god forbid they don't have a unverisal multi platform release.

[kingtigernz]

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

i still fail to see why Witcher is even up to par to DA or even DA2, graphics i see sure, but Bioware isnt trying to look like everyone else, we probably havent even seen the greatest part of the engine Bioware has used(Hightown buildings i thought look great), combat wise, in the Witcher, half the time i see the guy rolling around to get to or avoiding enemies,yeah lots of tactical gameplay there

Looking at DA2's visuals is like looking at Susan Boyle naked,its revolting and offensive.The Witcher 2 was pretty hard if you were not a Quen spammer.

Modifié par kingtigernz, 15 avril 2012 - 03:18 .

[frustratemyself]

Wow it's been a while since I've seen one of these threads.

[addiction21]

[Dessalines]

I play Dragon Age 2 on PS3 and it looks all right to me. I think if a color scheme of video games actually upsets you or cause some sort of physical ailment, then perhaps you should see a medical profession Seriously, you really need to get that check out.
Since I can't play Witcher on PS3, then I do not think it is embarassment, and I do not play any rpg that does not have a "character creation" system. So unless there is a rpg game out there that has true companions, a true character creation system, and a story that actually is entertaining and makes sense,, and you can play in on PS3,  then I am thinking they are not embarass.

Modifié par Dessalines, 15 avril 2012 - 05:25 .

[Zanallen]

kingtigernz wrote...

For a console that looks fantasic,just goes to show what a developer can do when they don't straight port a game from platform to platform.Bioware would prefer to ignore this god forbid they don't have a unverisal multi platform release.

Technically, it shows what a developer can do if they spend almost a year making said port instead of releasing it simultaneously across all platforms.

[sickpixie]

Dessalines wrote...

I play Dragon Age 2 on PS3 and it looks all right to me. I think if a color scheme of video games actually upsets you or cause some sort of physical ailment, then perhaps you should see a medical profession Seriously, you really need to get that check out.

I don't think it's a medical issue to have a negative reaction to bad colors. Here's a series of articles on color theory to help explain where I'm coming from; they're about animation but they're equally applicable to video games:

http://johnkstuff.bl...ors-versus.html
http://johnkstuff.bl...eye-relief.html
http://johnkstuff.bl...ime-if-you.html

[Pzykozis]

Dejajeva wrote...

These threads are just embarrassing. I mean, I'm embarassed as a "fan" to have so many "fans" just **** **** ****. If you like Witcher 2 so much, go play it. Geeze.

I do have a serious question however about game engines, because I'm really trying to understand you classical rpgers. What exactly does the engine do? I imagine it to be the equivilant of..say..photoshop to the PC. You use photoshop to create artwork, the same way you'd use a game engine to create...the game? Just the backgrounds? Everything?  Is it a programming tool or a design tool or both? They upgraded the engine between Orgins and 2, right? Is it just an upgrade of what it can do (technology) or the mechanics themselves? Just trying to understand.

Engines are awkward things, they're basically what drives the game, you make the artwork in seperate programs Maya/Max usually though I hear of some crazy cats using Blender. I guess in a way you can compare them to cars, they have different handling etc. and they have different horsepower, cryengine 3 for example has more horsepower than Unreal 3 by a fair bit, Unreal 3 however has a much better handling system giving artists in particular a lot of freedom. They're usually designed for specific things, most of which is shooting people, though unreal is fairly generalist (which is probably why it has less horsepower) along with unity.

Upgrading an engine is kinda vague, but it can be anything really, the ability to push more vertices per frame/ better shader optimisation, a new animation system which does X better or allows Y to happen or allowing designers to do Z with encounters or what have you.

[FedericoV]

Ramza_1 wrote...

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.

Are you serious?

I mean, TW2 is really a good game. The graphics are damn good. The writing and the story is almost very good. The branching is a little bit overrated (at the end we are talking of a big Y at the end of act. 1 and a smaller Y during act. 3). I would have preferred a sandbox in act. 2 but we cannot deny that it's always a good thing when the world reacts to your choices with actual consequences that are showed in game and not during the epilogue slides. In that sense, even the RP element in the strict sense is good.

But the combat? The combat is atrocious, dumb and boring. It seems like the poor man version of an action game. It really bugs me because I would have loved to make a second playthrough with different C&C but the gameplay was so unsoffurable that I could not stand it and left right after I finished act. 1 for the second time.

What I find funny is that most TW2 fans have posted countless threads toward Bioware to support the idea that CDRed's game is how "hardcore" CRPG should be done. When the game is an Action-RPG with countless filler combat, a single pre-defined and voiced protagonist and lots of cinematic. Talking about coherence .

Modifié par FedericoV, 15 avril 2012 - 02:23 .

[Pzykozis]

FedericoV wrote...
But the combat? The combat is atrocious. It seems like the poor man version of an action game. It really bugs me because I would have loved to make a second playthrough with different C&C but the gameplay was so unsoffurable that I could not stand it and left right after I finished act. 1 for the second time.

I on the other hand favour TW2's combat over any other game that comes to mind at the moment, I'm not quite sure I understand peoples dislike for it but meh, crank it up to dark mode and pick your target.

Actually I gues thats what it is, it's not tactical at all, it's very strategic, it's all on the fly rather than bogged down by set up and analysis or Quen if you're on lower difficulties.

[FedericoV]

Pzykozis wrote...

I on the other hand favour TW2's combat over any other game that comes to mind at the moment, I'm not quite sure I understand peoples dislike for it but meh, crank it up to dark mode and pick your target.

Actually I gues thats what it is, it's not tactical at all, it's very strategic, it's all on the fly rather than bogged down by set up and analysis or Quen if you're on lower difficulties.

I played the game on Hard: there wasn't a dark mode when I first finished the game and then tried to replay it. I know that there are a lot of people who have enjoyed it, so probably I've just play it in the wrong way. I really do not like the way combat unfolds with the repetitive roll-attack-roll-sign-roll-bomb sequences. I especially hated when Geralt keep switching target flying from one end to the other of the battlefield.

In general, I have nothing against good action gameplay. And I admit that CDRed at least has avoided stupid animations and that the combat looks "elegant". I understand that it fits the idea of playing a Witcher better than the more RPGish system of TW1. But if you choose to go actiony the combat must be a lot more fluid and "realistic". Playing TW2 I felt like I was playing a clunky version of Batmat Arkham Asylum.

Btw, please CDRed no boss battles with QTEs in my RPG.

[Pzykozis]

FedericoV wrote...

I played the game on Hard: there wasn't a dark mode when I first finished the game and then tried to replay it. I know that there are a lot of people who have enjoyed it, so probably I've just play it in the wrong way. I really do not like the way combat unfolds with the repetitive roll-attack-roll-sign-roll-bomb sequences. I especially hated when Geralt keep switching target flying from one end to the other of the battlefield.

Ahh they fixed most the of the random targetting when they brought in dark mode, and now I think its improved even further with the enhanced edition, personally that rolling, later blocking/parrying/riposting if swordsman was what I enjoyed most to a certain extent, having to choose the target wisely since early on in dark mode a single attack to the back is pretty much death, and its very easy to get mobbed down quickly regardless. Though to be fair I guess I kind of handicapped myself unknowingly as I hardly ever made / used bombs, Aard and Axii are my friends. You're not really in a small minority though I've heard a lot of dislike for the combat system, but can't say anything about batman still not got around to it sadly.

If Bioware were to take the a hard look at the animations though I'd be fairly happy, I enjoy flashy animations they're fun to watch but they're better when they have a visceral edge..