Jaime Lannister
Arbiter
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 7,183
yes.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
are ppl giving 2 worlds 2 high scores bc of gfx lik oblivion
- Thread starter Jaime Lannister
- Start date
SimpleComplexity
Arbiter
2*2 = 4
2^2 = 4
2+2 = 4
The sequel is 4 times better than the original Two worlds, mathematically proven.
2^2 = 4
2+2 = 4
The sequel is 4 times better than the original Two worlds, mathematically proven.
bonescraper
Guest
No, not because of the graphics, because honestly, this game looks like shit.
torpid
Liturgist
Even moar bloom = higher score
The game is better than the first one, magic especially is quite improved and fun, but the exploration is lacking since the world is actually smaller than in the first game, the combat, while theoretically reliant on a bunch of skills, is still mostly a matter of mashing the LMB (only the block breaking skill is useful, the others are a waste of time when you could be mashing the LMB and inflicting damage), and the quests are nothing special. I'm enjoying it for now since I occasionally need a brainless hack 'n slash fix, but overall it's merely decent. The loot -- a big part of this kind of game -- isn't even that good (I think it's level-scaled, not sure), and dungeons produce underwhelming rewards. I also miss the first game's simple but addictive ability to stack the same weapons together to increase their power; TW2 instead has a boring and tedious crafting system.
The game is better than the first one, magic especially is quite improved and fun, but the exploration is lacking since the world is actually smaller than in the first game, the combat, while theoretically reliant on a bunch of skills, is still mostly a matter of mashing the LMB (only the block breaking skill is useful, the others are a waste of time when you could be mashing the LMB and inflicting damage), and the quests are nothing special. I'm enjoying it for now since I occasionally need a brainless hack 'n slash fix, but overall it's merely decent. The loot -- a big part of this kind of game -- isn't even that good (I think it's level-scaled, not sure), and dungeons produce underwhelming rewards. I also miss the first game's simple but addictive ability to stack the same weapons together to increase their power; TW2 instead has a boring and tedious crafting system.
Again with the main island.....TW had multi content that was NOT in the main game as well. The difference is that the developers here decided to put the content in the context of the main world as opposed to just loading up a separate disjointed area.
What's the problem? If they never put the big island on the map or world and instead just had it load separately for multi, none of this whining would be occurring!
Like this they can also add single player content easily in DLC/expansions with a land already existing.
Give it a break with the 'hurr durr empty island' thing...
What's the problem? If they never put the big island on the map or world and instead just had it load separately for multi, none of this whining would be occurring!
Like this they can also add single player content easily in DLC/expansions with a land already existing.
Give it a break with the 'hurr durr empty island' thing...
pocahaunted
Arcane
Felix said:
This. It's bloody disgusting.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.