The Witcher 2 - Page 2

UltimoCroft · 05-22-2011, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedro

For example you can lay down a trap that immobilises one of them, while casting shield on yourself and attacking the weaker guys to thin them out a bit. It can be quite strategic.

Nice examples there. I'm reading some people are complaining about the combat, but as you just pointed out the game is more than merely hacking until you win, and so if you go into a fight without utilising everything you have you'll die pretty fast.

I've yet to reach any real difficulty spikes on hard mode, and usually die due to my own poor decisions in combat. Usually means a bit of trial and error, but I can live with that, though on the hardest mode you apparently die "for good", so I doubt I'd have patience for that.

Don't get me wrong, my initial feelings of Demon's Souls-like combat is perhaps a bit too kind of a comparison now, since I don't feel the overall combat is that strong, but compared to the last game it's a massive improvement.

coyls3 · 05-22-2011, 12:24 PM

I'll probually just wait for the console version; it's suppose to be out sometime this year.

Before the PC gaming crowd gives me flack:

If I spring for the PC version, I'd have to upgrade my GPU. The only GPU that benchmarks well that's even remotely in my price range is the HD 6870, and it's $199.99 at Newegg.

To run that card, I would also have to upgrade my PSU; and since I'm using a micoATX board, I'll probably have to spring for a larger board as well.

I'm not willing to, nor can I afford to, pay minimum $800 to build a new PC when I only play a couple PC games.

Li-Ion · 05-22-2011, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyls3

I'll probually just wait for the console version; it's suppose to be out sometime this year.

Heretic!

But seriously: I'd be careful with console versions of rpg series that are big on pc. Well known examples are the console versions of Dragon Age, which are inferior to the pc versions. Even worse was Risen, which was apparently unplayable in certain areas on the Xbox. CD Projekt Red has not released a console title yet and I wonder if they have the know-how in house or would have to hire a 3rd party.

p.s. beside the point that there has been no official announcement of a console version...

coyls3 · 05-22-2011, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Li-Ion

p.s. beside the point that there has been no official announcement of a console version...

Sites like Gamespot, IGN, metacritic, etc... all have the 360 and PS3 version listed as TBD 2011.

No biggie if it doesn't get the port. While it looks pretty cool, it's not $800 cool.

UltimoCroft · 05-22-2011, 01:36 PM

I was in doubt whether the game would ever go to consoles, but I do think it is part of the plan now after playing it (not in a bad way). In fact, I would be happy to see it on consoles since CD Projeckt more than deserve extra sales for the effort they've made, plus it would further threaten BioWare, which is only a good thing since I think we can all agree they've become massively complacent.

It'd be a different story if the game was being developed for all formats at once, mind, but since the PC version is here and done then I think it's fine to port it to consoles later. However, should the game gain a large amount of popularity -- and it likely will -- I would consider it a test of how CD Projeckt will adapt to becoming a truly big developer. Will they continue to respect and make games for their community, or go down the Bethesda/BioWare path and start to take the piss? Probably the latter, but then there'll be another indy dev to take their place. Such is the way of things.

Getting too far ahead of myself there though. =p

coyls3 · 05-22-2011, 01:40 PM

Here's a conformation of it coming to console:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/th...ng-to-consoles

This was from 2009 so make of it what you will.

UltimoCroft · 05-23-2011, 04:45 PM

Yeah, my early enthusiasm for the game has kinda died now. The little annoyances have kinda weighed me down now, during Chapter 2, such as the awful inventory management with crafting and not being able to store items (of which I don't know what's important and what isn't).

The early promise of the combat has kinda died too... I just spam shield spell, and mash my mouse for instant win. Even on hard. Might have to use tactics on multiple enemies who have a shield or more health, but in all the combat isn't anywhere near as fun as I was having at the start of the game. I still use potions to make the process easier, and I still enjoy that, but I could probably not bother and still get by.

Story and characters are still keeping me interested, to an extent, but I'm even getting tired of the quests, especially the lack of direction most of them give. It's becoming a chore now, and I'm having to force myself to play to get my money's worth. Not good.

Honestly didn't see myself feeling like this when I first got the game. I'm usually a master of seeing through novelty, but it seems even I was tricked on this occasion. ;p

Jim Sterling recently posted a review on Destructoid, and I'm inclined to agree, although I'm not in full agreement on every flaw he points out. The only problem with his review is that it makes Dragon Age II look better, which isn't the case. Same deal with PC Gamer's review. It's a problem with the whole media, really; they rate one underwhelming game too highly, and so anything that scores less, but is clearly better, makes them look like they're contradicting themselves. Tut tut.

Pedro · 05-23-2011, 05:01 PM

Hmm, that's not good news. I'm early in Chapter 1, but a little worryingly, I haven't felt compelled to get back to play it as soon as I can. Most of that I put down to wanting to try out LA Noire this evening, so hopefully I'll get back to this later in the week.

Li-Ion · 05-24-2011, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltimoCroft

Jim Sterling recently posted a review on Destructoid, and I'm inclined to agree, although I'm not in full agreement on every flaw he points out.

Jim Sterling gave the absolutely phenomenal Vanquish a 5/10. He gave some random numbers before, but since that I can't take him serious anymore.

UltimoCroft · 05-24-2011, 09:00 AM

I don't always agree with him either, but he at least displays a consistent approach and is actually a reviewer who you can easily identify for his style. Most reviewers (literally, like 95% of them) are similar, all write the same, sound the same, and always, without fail, overrate poor quality games.

In my mind, at this stage in gaming media, it's much better to be wrong for underrating games, rather than overrating them.

But yeah, Vanquish obviously is better than 5/10, and The Witcher 2 is likely 7/10 at worst. I think he likes to go as low as he thinks he can go to get his point across, but that's just how he rolls.

Li-Ion · 05-24-2011, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltimoCroft

Most reviewers (literally, like 95% of them) are similar, all write the same, sound the same, and always, without fail, overrate poor quality games.

That's why I don't read 95% of reviews

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltimoCroft

In my mind, at this stage in gaming media, it's much better to be wrong for underrating games, rather than overrating them.

I disagree. I doubt Vanquish had any benefit from being underrated by Jim Sterling. Its sad to see brilliant games being stomped by reviewers while AAA sequels get hyped into seventh heaven. Sterling gave Vanquish a 5, Killzone 3 a 10. Fair?

UltimoCroft · 05-24-2011, 10:24 AM

Didn't realise he gave Killzone 3 a 10/10. That's pretty bad. I can't defend that at all, so you got me there.

Still, he's no perfect, and I'm not saying he's the pinnacle of gaming reviews, it's just that we have such horrible writers in gaming that I'll literally take anything I can get.

Anyway, back to Witcher 2 - I managed to get back into it today. I think maybe I was just a little burned out before, so it maybe felt worse at the time. I mean, the combat is still missing its potential (the PC Gamer reviewer says it's undercooked, and I can agree with that) and the inventory/crafting is driving me insane, as is being over-encumbered all the time. But I'll get there eventually, I think.

coyls3 · 05-24-2011, 06:25 PM

I watched part of a play-through on YouTube and the story seems pretty good. The gameplay seems to be about the same as other action rpgs with some QTEs thrown in. I'll probably check it out if and when it comes to consoles.

dafavnik · 05-29-2011, 11:33 AM

Aw man, I want this game SOOOOOOO bad, please put it on Xbox!

Li-Ion · 09-05-2011, 08:39 AM

I am torn about Witcher 2 so far.

The good:
Graphics are gorgeous! Witcher 2 looks and sounds excellent, art direction and engine are top notch. While Crysis 2 has excellent graphics from a technical standpoint, the art direction was a bit lacking. Witcher 2 on the other hand has vibrant colours and cities that feel alive. The exposition of the story so far is also very good and makes me look forward to the rest. Combat is also more interesting than in the first one, but still not really good.

The bad:
Inventory system is as clear and easy to grasp as the Tokyo subway map
Some of the character models look like they're floating rather than walking. Minor concern but with the rest of the graphics at such a high standard small oddities stand out.
Texture pop-in.

The ugly:
The first hour should apparently act as tutorial of some kind. It didn't tell me squat. I figured out after half an hour and countless deaths that E is blocking, but for some reason unknown to me it still doesn't work in some cases.

In 1 on 1 situations combat is pretty straightforward: dodge to the side, hack, slash, dodge to the side, hack, slash. With large groups of enemies it's a bit like shepherding, running in circles trying to take down the weaker enemies until I run out of enemies. I had some fights against wraiths who could kill me easily in 2 or 3 hits, even with my shield on, while I have to hit them for what felt like half an hour. So I resorted to run around like Benny Hill.