Vault Dweller said:
Shannow said:
Not to mention that Sapkowski's setting is decades older than DA's and you suggest that CDP are the ones copying getting inspiration from Bio.
Surely you realize that we weren't serious there.
Nope. And that's the problem why so many are whining about "teh funneys". Considering the tone of the rest of the review this part could have been serious and read as, eg:"It's so shitty, they even had to steal from Bioware." or "They wanted to make it accessable. In doing so they copied Bio as much as possible."
The whole Geralt + amnesia angle while still shit is handled far better than in TW1.
How so? In TW1 you have to talk to different people who knew you and could shed some light on your past. In TW2 it's a passive experience and you just watch crudely drawn cartoons.
I liked the cartoons. In TW1 Geralt lost his memory. He doesn't remember most people, but pretty much everything else. After introducing themselves most people jabber on about stuff I, the player, don't know anything about (unless I've read all books) but Geralt seems to understand that all. It's usually completely out of context. 1/4 of the time I couldn't follow the story eventhough I read some of the books in my youth. In TW2 those problems are severely reduced, most information has more meat to it.
You also fail to mention that it is now a real action RPG/adventure and that the direct controls are far better suited to the genre than TW1's.
Hard to say. There is an animation delay and often trying to, say, throw a bomb will get you locked in place and killed. As an action RPG it's too story-driven, the character system is poorly thought through and too passive, the combat is too simplistic and easy, and the items distribution sucks.
Hmm? I thought you could maschine-gun enemies to death...
I actually like the sluggishness for bombs, it makes sense to get some distance to the enemy. It bothered me with signs and blocking, though
Don't see the dichtonomy between aRPG and story-driven, though I prefer open exploration in general.
Again the problem with CDP choosing Geralt as protagonist. It doesn't make sense to close basic witcher stuff to him. I don't mind passives at all, but the balancing is shit, I agree with that. I don't find the combat too easy, it just gets too easy as you level up, but that's a problem for the 2nd half of the game, not for the whole. I'd even say the game is far too hard in the beginning. As for "simplistic", I see that again as a balancing issue not as a gameplay issue. If I compare it with my favourites, Gothic 2 and M&B, I don't see TW2 as especially simplistic.
No mention of other mini-bosses like the endregena queens, trolls, elementals, arachni, etc that require you to play the game well (at least without broken builds).
Well? All you have to do is press spacebar a lot. Attack twice and roll, attack twice and roll, cast your favourite spell, attack twice and roll... The game doesn't require ANY builds whatsofucking ever, which is a HUGE fucking problem.
Dodging is no magical "I win button", you can still be hit while dodging. You don't always get in two hits with the monsters. Without halfway decent positioning, you won't evade the monsters. Same with groups of enemies. They can block dodging. You have to watch them to make sure you evade them. I required a build. Without improved health and quen elementals, eg, would one-hit killed me.
Overall you give the impression that TW2 is just a dumbed down version of TW1 + EPIC story + awesome button = in codex words: banal, shit, boring.
It IS a dumbed down game. Most interviews suggest as much.
Sorry, I pretty much ignore the press.
But there are also improvements and some of the "dumbing down" is also actually an improvement (IMO eg: swordskills, controls, lack of "stances"). For the far superior gameplay alone I like TW2 far better than TW1. (Still not even close to even Gothic 3...)
How's the lack of stances an improvement? Controls? Not so sure. Swordskills are just passive bonuses. It's not like you learn new attacks. Even a group style has been replaced with a passive bonus.
I'll take active attacks over "stop, change stance, two hits, stop, change stance". Don't like the concept of stances, don't want them in my aRPG. Rest: see above.
And yes, despite the game's numerous flaws (some of which you failed to mention) and bad design decisions the game feels like a work of love.
Yes. When it comes to graphics. It's a beautiful, beautiful game. The rest is an attempt to bring the game to the fabled wider audience.
The rest is lots of small details that show the love that was put in. As for the wider audience: pretty sure they fucked that up with the difficulty in the beginning.
Best action-adventure/RPG since Risen.
The difference is that Risen puts you in control. The Witcher 2 grabs your hand and drags you through the game, while pretending that it's you who's making decisions.
Yep, but then I don't see that as being so much different from 80% of (a)RPGs in the last decade. And I'm not a c&c-fag, anyway. *shrug*
