The Witcher Officialsky Witcherovda 2 Impressiovna Threadskaia

[DraQ]

Where do the Dragon Age 2 comparisons come from? I've read the DA2 LP and haven't really found anything of the sort, except for the dialogue choices.

Well, dialogue choices, highly stylized animated cutscenes, stupid camera blood splatter, blood in general looks good, especially as blood splatter on surfaces, but behaves poorly - splashes too much too much, has no weight and doesn't make those trails it did in 1 when centrifugal force made it drip off your blade. Menus have similarly shit stylization and magic effects have similar feel.

It's good that they didn't succeed at ripping DA2 off, as Witcher 2 turned out to be a pretty game rather than steaming turd like DA2, but they did try and that's just fucking unsettling.

 

[Dantus12]

@ DraQ

Do You really think they tried to copy DA2?

DA2 was released 2 months before TW2, how would they accomplish that I wonder, in that phase the game was in late beta, do You really think they would be able to change the game within 2 months.

And what was shown of DA2 wasn't really something to copy, they even said they look and feel better.

If You played DA2 you should know the games have nothing common, not even remotely.

The blood splatter is part of mainstream but it's somehow logical, when being cut organics tend to bleed.
The things You seen in the game are forced publisher implementations, they managed to survive with a minimum of bending, and bending was done because You don't have another choice.
The forced implementation of Autodesk's Scaleform tools for UI creation is part of the industry standard requirement and has to be meat to publish a game. It is unflexible and unfriendly to work with , but it's like in sports if You are obliged to promote NIKE You cant use Reebok no matter if Reebok is better.
CD PROJECT is a shiny example of a group of people that are probably the most raped developer right now, because their IP belongs to them.
The world is something that every publisher would want to control, and milk , and Sapkowski would probably give in, they don't unlike the others.

There are however requirements that are nonsensical like a Metacritic score 80+ to even get the chance to make the next game.
The Alpha leak was showing a game , how it's meant to be made, but that is a few minutes of game footage, running of editor to actually get a publisher. And when the rules kick in that come from them , well then there is some compromising.

I haven't seen anything that wasn't forced on them, or does really someone think that CD Project can't do a grid based inventory?

 

[SuicideBunny]

Do You really think they tried to copy DA2?

it's pretty clear they tried to heavily imitate mass effect 2. da2 itself is just da through a mass effect 2 filter, from what i read (no intention whatsoever to ever play it).

 

[DwarvenFood]

So, why are you playing it only now ? Also, do you play the first vanilla version, or patched ? It seems there have been quite some changes since release date.

 

[made]

The forced implementation of Autodesk's Scaleform tools for UI creation is part of the industry standard requirement and has to be meat to publish a game. It is unflexible and unfriendly to work with

Hmmz so this Scaleform is to blame for the fact that UIs these days generally suck? Why is it a requirement?

 

[DraQ]

@ DraQ

Do You really think they tried to copy DA2?

DA2 was released 2 months before TW2, how would they accomplish that I wonder, in that phase the game was in late beta, do You really think they would be able to change the game within 2 months.

There was a steady trickle of DA2 info and materials before the game was released.

And what was shown of DA2 wasn't really something to copy, they even said they look and feel better.

Indeed. Nevertheless the game clearly bears multiple hints of DA2 like stylization. It's good, possibly even better than the prequel (I'll wait with my final verdict till I finish it at least once) and orders of magnitude better than DA2, but the signs are there and they work to the detriment of the game.

I hope the failure of DA2 and success of TW2 will be sobering enough for CDPR to not try to ape biowhore in whatever they'll make next.

If You played DA2 you should know the games have nothing common, not even remotely.

Thankfully screens, vids and codexian LP were informative enough for me to not even consider such possibility.

The blood splatter is part of mainstream but it's somehow logical, when being cut organics tend to bleed.

Except it's not a movie and there is no camera to be splattered.

It doesn't add anything other than cheap shock value, and I'd prefer CDPR to keep their games free of cheap shit.

Also, while glossy blood droplets, splatter on the objects and pools on the ground look very good, exaggerated, ultra thick splatter seemingly unaffected by gravity does not. In this regard arcs of droplets flowing off the tip of your sword in prequel looked infinitely better, more realistic and less exaggerated, while still conveying this "jesus fucking christ, I wouldn't want to be this dude" feeling. The should keep pools and droplets, but copy the general way blood splatter works from the prequel.

The forced implementation of Autodesk's Scaleform tools for UI creation is part of the industry standard requirement and has to be meat to publish a game. It is unflexible and unfriendly to work with , but it's like in sports if You are obliged to promote NIKE You cant use Reebok no matter if Reebok is better.
CD PROJECT is a shiny example of a group of people that are probably the most raped developer right now, because their IP belongs to them.
The world is something that every publisher would want to control, and milk , and Sapkowski would probably give in, they don't unlike the others.

There are however requirements that are nonsensical like a Metacritic score 80+ to even get the chance to make the next game.
The Alpha leak was showing a game , how it's meant to be made, but that is a few minutes of game footage, running of editor to actually get a publisher. And when the rules kick in that come from them , well then there is some compromising.

I haven't seen anything that wasn't forced on them, or does really someone think that CD Project can't do a grid based inventory?

I'm not badmouthing CDPR, because I think TW2 might end up being one of my faves, and I wish them long and profitable existence provided they continue to make games this atmospheric and polished, but it does include a lot questionable decisions and plain badly done shit, and for that they deserve some flak.

 

[Dantus12]

The forced implementation of Autodesk's Scaleform tools for UI creation is part of the industry standard requirement and has to be meat to publish a game. It is unflexible and unfriendly to work with

Hmmz so this Scaleform is to blame for the fact that UIs these days generally suck? Why is it a requirement?

So bare with my writing.
Industry standards get established to cut production costs.
And Autodesk is industry standard, it cant be bypassed.
Development was cheap, then it was expensive, now its cheap again but the current state of cheapness allows exploits. Mass production, things like 10 games in 4 years at EA for example.

So what is being done is establishing forced toolsets that work between each other , and work in a very uniform multiplatform way, that reduces development time. There is a huge chance that we will never see a full ISO view in a AAA title because there is difference between 5 mil polys per grid and 10 mil polys per grid, the later costing nearly double in work hours, because large surfaces need proper implementation, and ISO views need detailing,detailing again is costly.
The tools include forced parts of the Unreal engine even in Your proprietary Engine, the full Autodesk program , middle wares that control transitions of assets between consoles, because Microsoft doesn't want that Sony knows how limited their console actually is, and the opposite is also true- ridicules I know.
The problem is that the easiness of the tools doesn't serve the RPG genre well, but if planning to publish a game, at any serious publisher one cant get away with any other toolset.
Autodesk sponsors many Engines and brags about it, so this is just one of the ways.

Here is something that illustrates the future:" developed with onlive in mind" and the hilarity of PC vs
cell phones .
http://gamingbolt.com/inside-the-new-un ... -fall-2011

Who understands will understand, just one of the industry requirements , that kill variety, uniqueness and developer flexibility, had a headache for two days after this.

Have in mind that there is a chance that next gen consoles will not even come out, because IPAD's are more lucrative, and make a great deal in cutting costs, again being forced in Engines, and compared to the Tool's Engines don't progress at all.
On the topic of consoles, they are not that limited their CPU's are not so they will suffer in the texturing and animation department, not in the area of scale and size, but then there is the risk of having to patch a console game and then the developer is royally screwed.

 

[Dantus12]

@ DraQ

Coherent writing and me don't go well , but You know that.

What I said, and I don't disagree with You at all, is that the game suffered changes that are imposed.
The "moar Cinematic approach"
Creating gameplay:
Player DraQ:
He decided to use aard, than strong , then roll, than
get up quen again.
Player Dantus:
He used igni, igni, bomb, fast finisher.
In a cutscene they both got the same prerecorded mechanic, so the programer worked less, the animator worked less, the Engine implementation is faster -saves lots of oren, orens that the publisher is not willing to give, or if giving wants to say more, control more and a larger profit margin.

So I never said You where wrong with Your critique, I'm just able to deduce when a mechanic exists because the developer was assuming that:
-The player was to much in awe by the combat , He's to stupid to deduce the nice, subtle details, so we are not making them any way.
-The player is to far away with His console, to notice details.
-He cares more about the "epic" badass feel than about progression.
-A Cinematic will create a decision for the player instead of underlining it.
Thing like the above are part of our gaming lives, and are getting worse, the game wasn't such a big offender in that department, unlike ME2, DA2 and others, so my absolute love for the first game continues with caution and a certain amount of fear even.
This game how I see it was made to mislead us, the flashbacks that You disliked, are for me the embodiment of war, chaos, and despair unlike the stellar matte's of the first game that depicted idyllic worlds in a gritty game , the entire concept of them together with the fact they are animated made them a worthy a very lively addition to Geral'ts past. Most importantly they are like in the first game the diagonally opposite to the vivid world of the game.
So instead of doing a "dark second chapter," they gave us game where we are nearly observers, where it nearly feel bright and so easily manageable for the experienced Witcher that Geralt is, but it feels like a calm before the storm.
So, yes I'm a fanboy I guess.
--------------

 

[Carrion]

Well, dialogue choices, highly stylized animated cutscenes, stupid camera blood splatter, blood in general looks good, especially as blood splatter on surfaces, but behaves poorly - splashes too much too much, has no weight and doesn't make those trails it did in 1 when centrifugal force made it drip off your blade. Menus have similarly shit stylization and magic effects have similar feel.

Well, yeah, I can kind of see where you're coming from even though I've only played DA: Origins. I don't agree at all, though, probably because the art direction of TW2 is about a trillion times better and it manages to capture a certain style and atmosphere BioWare couldn't even dream of. DA tries to portray a medieval fantasy world but looks like it was designed by a 21th century tattoo artist (just look at the tribal symbols everywhere, or the huge cartoony shoulder pads or whatever), whereas TW and TW2 do a pretty damn solid job.

I don't like the fact that cutscenes are in such a dominating role compared to the first Witcher (especially for the first few hours of the game when you're stuck on rails going from one cutscene to another), but comparing it to Dragon Age never really even crossed my mind since TW2 mostly does the cinematics with style unlike DA which does everything wrong. When playing DA I often felt that BioWare was trying to rip off The Witcher when it came to some of the locations and themes but did a miserable job.

 

[DraQ]

@ DraQ

Coherent writing and me don't go well , but You know that.

What I said, and I don't disagree with You at all, is that the game suffered changes that are imposed.
The "moar Cinematic approach"
Creating gameplay:
Player DraQ:
He decided to use aard, than strong , then roll, than
get up quen again.
Player Dantus:
He used igni, igni, bomb, fast finisher.
In a cutscene they both got the same prerecorded mechanic, so the programer worked less, the animator worked less, the Engine implementation is faster -saves lots of oren, orens that the publisher is not willing to give, or if giving wants to say more, control more and a larger profit margin.

But that's not an argument.

The first game also picked random finisher animation (also spectacular looking) from predefined pool. It just didn't cut to a cinematic mode when doing so.

Exact same situation, but without disorienting "omgcinematic" retardation and without rare, but hilarious backdrop mismatches. It also allowed you to look at the "geralt murderizes some stupid fuck in a scarily spectacular manner" from any angle you wanted, while stupid cinematic camera does not.

The player was to much in awe by the combat

He wasn't - too busy watching simon says overlays to pay attention to the actual action behind them.

And I don't deny that most of the time combat is much more complex and generally better in the sequel - except for when it degenerates into a QTE or when Geralt rolls into surprisingly rigid bush and gets slaughtered.

This game how I see it was made to mislead us, the flashbacks that You disliked, are for me the embodiment of war, chaos, and despair unlike the stellar matte's of the first game that depicted idyllic worlds in a gritty game , the entire concept of them together with the fact they are animated made them a worthy a very lively addition to Geral'ts past. Most importantly they are like in the first game the diagonally opposite to the vivid world of the game.

They are primarily embodiment of art direction inconsistent with the rest of the game - particularily Geralt looks completely different and just plain derp in them - they'd fit as Oglaf comics, but not Witcher cutscenes.

To add insult to injury they are lulzily animated due to resorting to what can be described as cardboard animation.

And I wouldn't call battleground with heaps of slaughtered bodies, or landscape with hanged elves terribly idyllic either. They were, however consistent with game's art direction.
Also, why wouldn't you be able to depict war, chaos and despair on proper painting?

So, yes I'm a fanboy I guess.

Why? I like the game - would buy again, actually, but when it could have been massively improved with only minuscule changes, why shouldn't I be vocal about it?

 

[Dantus12]

The first game also picked random finisher animation (also spectacular looking) from predefined pool. It just didn't cut to a cinematic mode when doing so.

Exact same situation, but without disorienting "omgcinematic" retardation and without rare, but hilarious backdrop mismatches. It also allowed you to look at the "geralt murderizes some stupid fuck in a scarily spectacular manner" from any angle you wanted, while stupid cinematic camera does not.

Random doesn't go well with predefined in a new Engine DraQ.

You are late to the game, the Finisher pack is most of it is part of DLC, it wasn't that bad at 1.0.
But there should be at least a toggle for them, You are right about that.

The player was to much in awe by the combat

He wasn't - too busy watching simon says overlays to pay attention to the actual action behind them.

And I don't deny that most of the time combat is much more complex and generally better in the sequel - except for when it degenerates into a QTE or when Geralt rolls into surprisingly rigid bush and gets slaughtered.

Was referring to other games, the combat of the first game was not well received, I personally liked it, because after I learn a mechanic and my character learned a mechanic , these are two separate pair of shoes for me, I don't need any more confirmation that I learned the mechanic.
So I'm one of the 2 people on this planet that enjoyed the pirouettes in the first game immensely.
Even switched to OTS for my second playtrough to admire the animations.
Retarded I know.

They are primarily embodiment of art direction inconsistent with the rest of the game - particularily Geralt looks completely different and just plain derp in them - they'd fit as Oglaf comics, but not Witcher cutscenes.

To add insult to injury they are lulzily animated due to resorting to what can be described as cardboard animation.

And I wouldn't call battleground with heaps of slaughtered bodies, or landscape with hanged elves terribly idyllic either. They were, however consistent with game's art direction.
Also, why wouldn't you be able to depict war, chaos and despair on proper painting?

Was referring to the generally idyllic looks of matte paintings, not to the content of the paintings.
They reminded me of the Wiedzmin comics , liked the looks of them, so this is a matter of me having no taste, but having something like that rarely done, I see them as unique.
Consistency in art style of a game is not a written rule, and it's not a written rule of art either, sometimes inconsistencies add questions, they provoke and brake the uniformity of a creative work, they are nothing more than preference. Forced consistency or planned an predictable for the sake of consistency is worse than any inconsistency that can occur, because the inconsistency will create at least two views on it-the negative and the positive.
Consistency will make only one view- it's fitting with the art style.

--------------------------------

 

[DraQ]

The first game also picked random finisher animation (also spectacular looking) from predefined pool. It just didn't cut to a cinematic mode when doing so.

Exact same situation, but without disorienting "omgcinematic" retardation and without rare, but hilarious backdrop mismatches. It also allowed you to look at the "geralt murderizes some stupid fuck in a scarily spectacular manner" from any angle you wanted, while stupid cinematic camera does not.

Random doesn't go well with predefined in a new Engine DraQ.

They are not fixed, since there are many different animations and there doesn't seem to be any logic to game choosing them, therefore they're random.

Was referring to other games, the combat of the first game was not well received, I personally liked it, because after I learn a mechanic and my character learned a mechanic , these are two separate pair of shoes for me, I don't need any more confirmation that I learned the mechanic.
So I'm one of the 2 people on this planet that enjoyed the pirouettes in the first game immensely.
Even switched to OTS for my second playtrough to admire the animations.

I liked the animations and played in OTS all the time, because the game seemed designed for it. Doesn't change that fixed, lengthy n-attacks combo effectively prevents player from doing anything constructive during the sequence unless he decides to break it, and that fixed succession of such combos makes combat seem ritualized. TW2 avoids those problems rather well and ramps up difficulty significantly.

They reminded me of the Wiedzmin comics

I harboured such thought briefly, but haven't read the comics. Still they don't really look nearly as good as paintings and cardboard animation is stiff and derp.

 

[made]

Dudes...

vs

Why is that even debatable?

 

[DraQ]

Dudes...


vs

Why is that even debatable?

I don't know, I don't even

 

[el Supremo]

I have the distinct feeling that someone is speaking out of his arse.

@ DraQ
The forced implementation of Autodesk's Scaleform tools for UI creation is part of the industry standard requirement and has to be meat to publish a game. It is unflexible and unfriendly to work with , but it's like in sports if You are obliged to promote NIKE You cant use Reebok no matter if Reebok is better.

And if I, one day, decide to publish my own game. And I do not use this Scaleform thingy. Then what? Will I get fined? Go to prison? The Gaming God will curse me?

 

[Dantus12]

Dudes...


vs

Why is that even debatable?

I don't know, I don't even

Where was I debating this, I'm not the type that opposes for the sake of opposing and enjoy it more , when I find someone that enjoys similar things like me, or even doesn't enjoy them but for logical reasons.
This apply's to the flashback's, liked them both but for very different reasons.

Maybe it would have been logical if I posted a long rant about the things I don't like.
The soundtrack is so unmemorable in the second game, so much that I have the urge to listen to the soundtrack of the first game wile playing it.
The cinematcs presented some sort of restriction, they feel like rewards, not like continuation, this is the aspect I dislike about them, the only reward I expect from a game is freedom within boundaries, and impact within rules, no matter how much a game is willing to allow that, I want the maximum within the limits the game mechanic imposes on me. But again it's better that they are rewards then decisions.

About the finishers the differences in our view are coming from the fact that You can write, and I cant, I don't like them either, but they are a possibility for the game to unload from memory, otherwise the performance of the game would be horrible.

Again, never said that there is no space for improvement, but doubt it that we will ever see games again that don't depend of cinematics. They are the cheaper alternative, not talking about CGI that is made by external studios for the sake of promotion, but about the in game ones.

The only reason I can live with them in the Witcher 2 is because they are implemented as part of the faking replay value mechanic, but they don't take away the players view on His character.
They impact manual saving, that is something that for mainstream gamers adds replay value, they want imports for the next game, achievements, the feeling of seeing it all.
I never sided with the Order in the first game , forced my self to side with the elves once, thing that could happen in the books to Geralt, are there in the games, even taking sides , but somehow there is only one path for me.
Weird I know.

To explain: my game played out exactly how I imagined it, I'm very sure that it's not the case for everyone however, not for people that believe that sex and "romances" are the same, or that believe that role playing starts with adding a mustache to a character, so I'm just someone that is aware of the lore, the cannon, and doesn't need to to fully control Geralt, I enjoy being His Dandelion, the annoying fan on His journey, the strange thing is that He is far more memorable, and in my case more impact full, than every character I created in the past since Morrowind.


PS. I know Daggerfall is better, please Sir the spellchecker is tearing me a new :D

About the combat, well I agree with You, the player Has way more impact and influence, I just feel that the animations where a tad slow for a Witcher.

With that in mind I 'm willing to accept the cinematic's because the way I played the game they didn't take anything away from me, but really could live without them, without shedding a tear if they wouldn't make them for the 3.rd game.

-----------------

 

[Gerrard]

Dudes...


vs

Why is that even debatable?

I don't know, I don't even

See also

VS

Just look at the fucking title, I don't even mean the whole cover.
This is the key etc.

 

[BelisariuS.F]

Looks similar to Mike Mignola's style:

 

[Quilty]

Those animated sequences were absolutely horrible. Then again, the utter lack of in those sequences is very consistent with the overall DERP feeling of the game. So, bravo, I guess, you stayed true to your vision of fucking Geralt in the ass.

 

[DraQ]

Bumpdate:

+ human-Scoia'tael conflict seems to be given more serious tones.

- what is it with sequences where you control completely unrelated NPCs?
Why CDPR? Even if you're breaking the good rule of the thumb about not showing stuff protagonist shouldn't be aware of for good reason, why are you also allowing player to control those events? Wouldn't ordinary cutscene suffice?

 

[DraQ]

My GF just ported her save from TW1.
She is currently -ing at the top of her lungs at inventory screen, interface, and nerfing of Aerondight.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Witcher 1 was better in terms of the art screens, the character progression system and the game length, but I thought Witcher 2 did other things better like the script and the story. Also, the graphics are gorgeous but then I thought the same of Witcher 1 when it came out. The soundtracks of both games are top notch. I liked how Witcher 2 didn't have the sex cards, I remember having some friends over and showing them the game, then for some insane reason I showed them the sex cards... one of them, a girl, said "That is really dodgy" and suddenly I felt ashamed. I still feel that way when I talk about that game, it makes it look really stupid.

 

[CrimsonAngel]

I miss sex cards.

 

[DraQ]

Witcher 1 was better in terms of the art screens, the character progression system and the game length, but I thought Witcher 2 did other things better like the script and the story. Also, the graphics are gorgeous but then I thought the same of Witcher 1 when it came out.

Pretty much agreed except for the character progression. I'm not sure, but TW2 seems to do a better job differentiating between builds and since it uses unique and well defined protagonist it can work without core attribute system.

Visually - well both games use their visuals very effectively and for maximum impact, both have excellent art design and both look good - TW2 is pretty fucking gorgeous even on low settings, while TW1 really did an excellent job pushing an ageing and clunky engine to its limits.

The soundtracks of both games are top notch.

I disagree. TW2's soundtrack isn't bad in itself, but compared to the one from TW1 it's a disgrace.

I liked how Witcher 2 didn't have the sex cards.

Agreed, though you get far less subtle sex scenes in exchange.

Alchemy got pretty derped by nerfing oils, nerfing durations and severe culling of potion diversity.

Overall a pretty game, as well as one, but if I ever meet the person or people responsible for art shi(f)t in the cutscenes, or the interface in general - ranging from shitty inventory, to lack of crosshair/cursor of any sort, to QTEs, to fugly menus, to paraphrased dialogue options, to inexplicably lagging keyboard commands, I'll seriously consider ripping their fucking balls off and stuffing them in their eyesockets.

 

[DraQ]

Bumpdate:

Ok, I've finished TW2 and, all in all, I'm deeply satisfied. Didn't have problems with the ending, did have problems with shortness of Act3, although I seem to have missed a decent-sized quest or two, will play again.

Very nice story, characters and well realized CYOA nonlinearity (even though I generally prefer the nonlinearity to be of a more emergent kind, the path CDPR set on has been evident since early TW1 development, and they have been successful in achieving their goals so far).

I don't think it qualifies as full cRPG, but as an interactive story it does a stellar job.

The point about all the fuckups, flaws and thoroughly derpy ideas mostly ripped off from thoroughly derpy DA2 still stands, though and I still want to tear the balls off the faggots responsible for QTEs and derpy dialogue option paraphrasing.


I may feel inclined* to scribble a review even, but I don't have proper screenshots made at semi-decent settings.



*)
'd