The Witcher 2 - new incredible screenshots**56k Beware**

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

There's no need to justify gameplay mechanics with story and lore ( at least not with this cliche ). That's exactly why it feels tacked on. That's probably part of the reason the 'amnesia cliche' exists in the first place.

SkyWard20

Check again - do you remember what he was running from? Helluva story starter.:o

1. Totally unarmed.

2. Wearing only peasant clothing.

3. Couldn't remember a single skill.

4. Just transitioned from a hellish existence to reality.

Wouldn't you be running too?:lol:

Yeah I have the Enhanced Edition :P

Just got it last week off steam - so I don't even know what problems there were at launch. I'm fine with the game - its very fun and hilarious in many ways.

Except for the combat - I've gotten used to it but without a doubt it's the weakest part of the game.

Kickinurass

You'll have a completely different attitude about the combat if you build up Fast Steel. By the time you get to Murky Waters, you can take out five wolves in one combat round.:o

[QUOTE="ducati101"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] Am I ? http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/10716/the-witcher-2-designed-with-console-in-mind-says-cd-projektGeneralShowzer

I'm not as pessimistic as you, but I agree. The radial wheel sucks. Horribly. Could they really not give an option to map out the spells instead if you're using M/KB and have the radial wheel for controllers?

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="ducati101"] You really dont understand the concept of maketing do you? Or how developers / journalists play with their words said / written?rpgs_shall_rule

I'm not as pessimistic as you, but I agree. The radial wheel sucks. Horribly. Could they really not give an option to map out the spells instead if you're using M/KB and have the radial wheel for controllers?

[QUOTE="ducati101"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] Am I ? http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/10716/the-witcher-2-designed-with-console-in-mind-says-cd-projektGeneralShowzer

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

Yeah I have the Enhanced Edition :P

Just got it last week off steam - so I don't even know what problems there were at launch. I'm fine with the game - its very fun and hilarious in many ways.

Except for the combat - I've gotten used to it but without a doubt it's the weakest part of the game.

You'll have a completely different attitude about the combat if you build up Fast Steel. By the time you get to Murky Waters, you can take out five wolves in one combat round.:o

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="ducati101"] You really dont understand the concept of maketing do you? Or how developers / journalists play with their words said / written?ducati101

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

Having played the first 10% of the game, which also happens to be the section that is consistently referred to as the weakest part of it, I can say that the people who've played 100% of it are undeniably wrong about its quality and should admit this as fact. Blahblahblahblah Dragon Age blahblahblahblah

SkyWard20

Yeah, The Witcher definitely does not have pessimistic story arcs what with all the parts where the guard killls his own girlfriend, the rich bastard offs his brother, the peasants screw themselves up due to their own ignorance and the manipulation of other powers, and they all end up blaming a witch for bringing down a demonic curse upon themselves. Have you been paying any attention at all to what's going on around you?

Of course, the difference in the writing quality of both games is that Dragon Age reveals the ultimate goal of the player in its first 5%, which is basically "kill a really boring generic villain which happens to be the leader of a really boring generic horde army and UNITE THE RACES FOR AN EPIC BATTLE AT THE END". Basically, it's Lord of the Rings with a few altered words and names, except that it tries to bring in the whole "grim and dark" aesthetic by making everything really brown. Not an interesting plotline at all. The characters are above par, but that's about it.

Then again, you seem to enjoy raising all these points about how you don't like the Witcher's story, and then you go and rate Oblivion highly. Umm, yeah, if you don't like the Witcher for that reason I don't see how you can enjoy one of the worst-written RPGs ever conceived.

It seems the second game does that also. Though I do find it interesting that you imply Dragon Age to be cliched when you're playing a character with tacked-on amnesia in the Witcher. Not to mention that he's a tough as nails cynic and womanizer. "Do that again and you'll make me angry... wouldn't want that now, would you?'

Uhh, no, the game which buzzworded those terms and kind of screwed it up was Dragon Age. The Witcher actually did it properly, probably because its world isn't utterly contrived and derivative. Oh, and yes, Oblivion has other strengths, like the ability to become good at everything as long as you're willing to grind enough, unlike an ideal RPG in which the skill progression is always limited. Oh, and the ability to explore a lot of samey old caves. Oh, and a leveling system which makes the endquest harder to complete as you level up. Clearly these advantages make up for the awful writing.

Oh, and yes, that's one cliche that the Witcher uses (then again, you're ignoring that it's NECESSARY to justify why the player has to learn those skills AGAIN, unless you want to be able to overpower everything at the start of the game. Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case). It's hardly anything compared to Dragon Age which is practically made out of typical fantasy folklore with a few twists here and there.

Let's be honest, the Witcher 1 wasn't a good game. It's unrealistic to put so many expectations onto a game and make it appear as the second coming of Half-Life when the first game was... none of the aforementioned. It was highly flawed; I have played the game approximately up until I had to conduct an investigation of certain characters and I stoppped playing... again.

The starting area is painfully horrendous. I will admit that Ostagar itself isn't too great either, but you can juggle that problem a bit by switching Origins, whereas the Witcher was completely linear. I myself thought the Outskirs area was somewhat longer than Ostagar too, probably because of the sheer amount of backtracking. I don't understand the hype for a game that was near broken when it was released and with bad writing, I might add.

None of the characters I have met up until that point I considered memorable: truthfully, I had met a great deal of them and I was about to see some of them again. Most origins in Dragon Age, on the contrary, were much more memorable and often with sad endings. Not once have I seen an outstanding character up until the point I stopped playing. What are people expecting out of this game?

It's fine that people are looking for the next RPG. It's fine that other RPG's are getting attention. But all the hype, I believe, is a little unwarranted because -- let's stop pretending, mkay? -- the first game... was not good.

SkyWard20

So you're saying that The Witcher isn't a very good game, after not even getting halfway through the game?

At least I beat Oblivion, ME2, and Dragon Age.

Wow. Oh and like you said before, 8.5 is good according to you. :roll:

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

Though I do find it interesting that you imply Dragon Age to be cliched when you're playing a character with tacked-on amnesia in the Witcher.

SkyWard20

Hardly tacked on.

Shepard came from death also and didn't need to have amnesia. I wouldn't exactly rank The Witcher in the same league -- or world, more like it -- with Mass Effect 2 though.

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Yeah, The Witcher definitely does not have pessimistic story arcs what with all the parts where the guard killls his own girlfriend, the rich bastard offs his brother, the peasants screw themselves up due to their own ignorance and the manipulation of other powers, and they all end up blaming a witch for bringing down a demonic curse upon themselves. Have you been paying any attention at all to what's going on around you?

Of course, the difference in the writing quality of both games is that Dragon Age reveals the ultimate goal of the player in its first 5%, which is basically "kill a really boring generic villain which happens to be the leader of a really boring generic horde army and UNITE THE RACES FOR AN EPIC BATTLE AT THE END". Basically, it's Lord of the Rings with a few altered words and names, except that it tries to bring in the whole "grim and dark" aesthetic by making everything really brown. Not an interesting plotline at all. The characters are above par, but that's about it.

Then again, you seem to enjoy raising all these points about how you don't like the Witcher's story, and then you go and rate Oblivion highly. Umm, yeah, if you don't like the Witcher for that reason I don't see how you can enjoy one of the worst-written RPGs ever conceived.

Barbariser

It seems the second game does that also. Though I do find it interesting that you imply Dragon Age to be cliched when you're playing a character with tacked-on amnesia in the Witcher. Not to mention that he's a tough as nails cynic and womanizer. "Do that again and you'll make me angry... wouldn't want that now, would you?'

Uhh, no, the game which buzzworded those terms and kind of screwed it up was Dragon Age. The Witcher actually did it properly, probably because its world isn't utterly contrived and derivative.

using less known folklore doesn't mean it hasn't been done before: monsters in the witcher are still taken from various cultures.

Oh, and yes, Oblivion has other strengths, like the ability to become good at everything as long as you're willing to grind enough, unlike an ideal RPG in which the skill progression is always limited.

LOL, you could spend hundreds of hours in the game; there's nothing wrong with being able to max everything out. I *want* that possibility for the type of game Oblivion is.

Oh, and the ability to explore a lot of samey old caves. Oh, and a leveling system which makes the endquest harder to complete as you level up.

Then you haven't leveled up properly.

Clearly these advantages make up for the awful writing.

Oh, and yes, that's one cliche that the Witcher uses (then again, you're ignoring that it's NECESSARY to justify why the player has to learn those skills AGAIN,

It's not. You can just say he lost those skills because he died.

unless you want to be able to overpower everything at the start of the game. Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case). It's hardly anything compared to Dragon Age which is practically made out of typical fantasy folklore

you're saying that like it's a bad thing. taking monsters from european folklore doesn't automatically make the game better.

with a few twists here and there.

I don't understand how anyone could play through Witcher more than once. It's incredibly linear and the 'choices and consequences' gimmick sucked.

I don't understand how anyone could play through Witcher more than once. It's incredibly linear and the 'choices and consequences' gimmick sucked.SkyWard20

Bullshots obviously.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"] I think highly of Oblivion because it has other strengths. The Witcher is a linear games that tries to please folks too hard with 'dark fantasy' and 'grey morality' buzzwords and does nothing quite well. A game does not need to have a fantastic plot to be great, but if it tries to focus on choices, story, and characters like the Witcher does ( you get a journal entry for about every new character you meet ), then I expect that to be done well.

It seems the second game does that also. Though I do find it interesting that you imply Dragon Age to be cliched when you're playing a character with tacked-on amnesia in the Witcher. Not to mention that he's a tough as nails cynic and womanizer. "Do that again and you'll make me angry... wouldn't want that now, would you?'

SkyWard20

Uhh, no, the game which buzzworded those terms and kind of screwed it up was Dragon Age. The Witcher actually did it properly, probably because its world isn't utterly contrived and derivative.

using less known folklore doesn't mean it hasn't been done before: monsters in the witcher are still taken from various cultures.

Oh, and yes, Oblivion has other strengths, like the ability to become good at everything as long as you're willing to grind enough, unlike an ideal RPG in which the skill progression is always limited.

LOL, you could spend hundreds of hours in the game; there's nothing wrong with being able to max everything out. I *want* that possibility for the type of game Oblivion is.

Oh, and the ability to explore a lot of samey old caves. Oh, and a leveling system which makes the endquest harder to complete as you level up.

Then you haven't leveled up properly.

Clearly these advantages make up for the awful writing.

Oh, and yes, that's one cliche that the Witcher uses (then again, you're ignoring that it's NECESSARY to justify why the player has to learn those skills AGAIN,

It's not. You can just say he lost those skills because he died.

unless you want to be able to overpower everything at the start of the game. Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case). It's hardly anything compared to Dragon Age which is practically made out of typical fantasy folklore

you're saying that like it's a bad thing. taking monsters from european folklore doesn't automatically make the game better.

with a few twists here and there.

I don't understand how anyone could play through Witcher more than once. It's incredibly linear and the 'choices and consequences' gimmick sucked.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

And console gamers think this will be out on the lolsoles.

Unless the lolsoles can magically become non-crappy cheap PCs from 6 years ago I don't see how it can happen.

GeneralShowzer

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"] I think highly of Oblivion because it has other strengths. The Witcher is a linear games that tries to please folks too hard with 'dark fantasy' and 'grey morality' buzzwords and does nothing quite well. A game does not need to have a fantastic plot to be great, but if it tries to focus on choices, story, and characters like the Witcher does ( you get a journal entry for about every new character you meet ), then I expect that to be done well.

It seems the second game does that also. Though I do find it interesting that you imply Dragon Age to be cliched when you're playing a character with tacked-on amnesia in the Witcher. Not to mention that he's a tough as nails cynic and womanizer. "Do that again and you'll make me angry... wouldn't want that now, would you?'

SkyWard20

Uhh, no, the game which buzzworded those terms and kind of screwed it up was Dragon Age. The Witcher actually did it properly, probably because its world isn't utterly contrived and derivative.

using less known folklore doesn't mean it hasn't been done before: monsters in the witcher are still taken from various cultures.

Oh, and yes, Oblivion has other strengths, like the ability to become good at everything as long as you're willing to grind enough, unlike an ideal RPG in which the skill progression is always limited.

LOL, you could spend hundreds of hours in the game; there's nothing wrong with being able to max everything out. I *want* that possibility for the type of game Oblivion is.

Oh, and the ability to explore a lot of samey old caves. Oh, and a leveling system which makes the endquest harder to complete as you level up.

Then you haven't leveled up properly.

Clearly these advantages make up for the awful writing.

Oh, and yes, that's one cliche that the Witcher uses (then again, you're ignoring that it's NECESSARY to justify why the player has to learn those skills AGAIN,

It's not. You can just say he lost those skills because he died.

unless you want to be able to overpower everything at the start of the game. Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case). It's hardly anything compared to Dragon Age which is practically made out of typical fantasy folklore

you're saying that like it's a bad thing. taking monsters from european folklore doesn't automatically make the game better.

with a few twists here and there.

I don't understand how anyone could play through Witcher more than once. It's incredibly linear and the 'choices and consequences' gimmick sucked.

Its far less linear then Dragon age, and unlike that game, the choices in the Witcher actually effect the game.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] :? It's not PC centric at all. It's made for the analogue stick.

Where have you seen a big slow mo wheel in any PC centric game? I don't know, he only used the wheel to change spells, why would he do that if there were hotkeys?

You know what game used system like that? Mass Effect for the 360. They had the sense not to keep it in the PC version thank god.

It's not a 100% PC game.

GeneralShowzer

No PC-centric game I've played had a console wheel obviosly meant for analogue sticks popping out in your face

In TW1 you could change spells with hotkeys, change stances, even if yod didnt use hotkeys you could just use the mouse pointer to select everything without oppening some stupid sub-menus.

Now all of that is gone because of obvious console design. They may be making a PC version first, but it has nothing to do with 100% PC game, because it's designed with consoles in mind, to be ported when they get all the fans money.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]From The Witcher 2 preview on GS "And all of this--the mystery, the investigation, and the inappropriate poetry--was part of just a single side quest. If the main story arc is given this much detail, and we have no reason to think otherwise, then The Witcher 2 should be another masterfully woven tale in line with its predecessor." :DSkyWard20

I enjoyed reading this comment.

"I SAID that the first game was EASY on HARD difficulty. Why are you trying to "teach" me how to play or whatever? You are clearly bad at video games. The game was not hard at all on the HARD difficulty. Not in the beginning, not in the middle, nowhere!!!! The only potion I needed was SWALLOW(!!!) and of course CAT to see in the dark.

Man, I wonder how many of the people who love the first game actually know how to play the game 'cause they gave a pass to so many bad design choices, bad dialog, bad scripting, hilarious reuse of character models, terrible inventory, etc. etc. As I said, A MILE LONG LIST OF FLAWS!"

I have stated before this that the only potion I needed was swallow ( or cat for some missions ). The Witcher fanboys were not to keen to answer that little criticism; they did however, tell me how the Witcher is the best RPG in recent memory.

I guess I just don't understand the complexity of the Witcher's alchemy system.

Bullshots obviously.

freedomfreak

[QUOTE="freedomfreak"]

Bullshots obviously.

Sollet

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"] I think highly of Oblivion because it has other strengths. The Witcher is a linear games that tries to please folks too hard with 'dark fantasy' and 'grey morality' buzzwords and does nothing quite well. A game does not need to have a fantastic plot to be great, but if it tries to focus on choices, story, and characters like the Witcher does ( you get a journal entry for about every new character you meet ), then I expect that to be done well.

It seems the second game does that also. Though I do find it interesting that you imply Dragon Age to be cliched when you're playing a character with tacked-on amnesia in the Witcher. Not to mention that he's a tough as nails cynic and womanizer. "Do that again and you'll make me angry... wouldn't want that now, would you?'

SkyWard20

Uhh, no, the game which buzzworded those terms and kind of screwed it up was Dragon Age. The Witcher actually did it properly, probably because its world isn't utterly contrived and derivative.

using less known folklore doesn't mean it hasn't been done before: monsters in the witcher are still taken from various cultures.

Oh, and yes, Oblivion has other strengths, like the ability to become good at everything as long as you're willing to grind enough, unlike an ideal RPG in which the skill progression is always limited.

LOL, you could spend hundreds of hours in the game; there's nothing wrong with being able to max everything out. I *want* that possibility for the type of game Oblivion is.

Oh, and the ability to explore a lot of samey old caves. Oh, and a leveling system which makes the endquest harder to complete as you level up.

Then you haven't leveled up properly.

Clearly these advantages make up for the awful writing.

Oh, and yes, that's one cliche that the Witcher uses (then again, you're ignoring that it's NECESSARY to justify why the player has to learn those skills AGAIN,

It's not. You can just say he lost those skills because he died.

unless you want to be able to overpower everything at the start of the game. Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case). It's hardly anything compared to Dragon Age which is practically made out of typical fantasy folklore

you're saying that like it's a bad thing. taking monsters from european folklore doesn't automatically make the game better.

with a few twists here and there.

I don't understand how anyone could play through Witcher more than once. It's incredibly linear and the 'choices and consequences' gimmick sucked.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"] I think highly of Oblivion because it has other strengths. The Witcher is a linear games that tries to please folks too hard with 'dark fantasy' and 'grey morality' buzzwords and does nothing quite well. A game does not need to have a fantastic plot to be great, but if it tries to focus on choices, story, and characters like the Witcher does ( you get a journal entry for about every new character you meet ), then I expect that to be done well.

It seems the second game does that also. Though I do find it interesting that you imply Dragon Age to be cliched when you're playing a character with tacked-on amnesia in the Witcher. Not to mention that he's a tough as nails cynic and womanizer. "Do that again and you'll make me angry... wouldn't want that now, would you?'

SkyWard20

Uhh, no, the game which buzzworded those terms and kind of screwed it up was Dragon Age. The Witcher actually did it properly, probably because its world isn't utterly contrived and derivative.

using less known folklore doesn't mean it hasn't been done before: monsters in the witcher are still taken from various cultures.

Oh, and yes, Oblivion has other strengths, like the ability to become good at everything as long as you're willing to grind enough, unlike an ideal RPG in which the skill progression is always limited.

LOL, you could spend hundreds of hours in the game; there's nothing wrong with being able to max everything out. I *want* that possibility for the type of game Oblivion is.

Oh, and the ability to explore a lot of samey old caves. Oh, and a leveling system which makes the endquest harder to complete as you level up.

Then you haven't leveled up properly.

Clearly these advantages make up for the awful writing.

Oh, and yes, that's one cliche that the Witcher uses (then again, you're ignoring that it's NECESSARY to justify why the player has to learn those skills AGAIN,

It's not. You can just say he lost those skills because he died.

unless you want to be able to overpower everything at the start of the game. Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case). It's hardly anything compared to Dragon Age which is practically made out of typical fantasy folklore

you're saying that like it's a bad thing. taking monsters from european folklore doesn't automatically make the game better.

with a few twists here and there.

I don't understand how anyone could play through Witcher more than once. It's incredibly linear and the 'choices and consequences' gimmick sucked.

I don't understand how anyone could play through Witcher more than once. It's incredibly linear and the 'choices and consequences' gimmick sucked.

SkyWard20

Once I reached a certain point in the story, I was able to complete quests in almost any order I chose to.

Would I be correct in guessing you won't be buying Witcher 2?:P

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

I don't understand how anyone could play through Witcher more than once. It's incredibly linear and the 'choices and consequences' gimmick sucked.

topsemag55

Once I reached a certain point in the story, I was able to complete quests in almost any order I chose to.

Would I be correct in guessing you won't be buying Witcher 2?:P

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

I don't understand how anyone could play through Witcher more than once. It's incredibly linear and the 'choices and consequences' gimmick sucked.

lawlessx

Once I reached a certain point in the story, I was able to complete quests in almost any order I chose to.

Would I be correct in guessing you won't be buying Witcher 2?:P

Maybe he mad because CD Projekt Red said Witcher 2 looks better than Dragon Age?:P

[QUOTE="lawlessx"][QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Once I reached a certain point in the story, I was able to complete quests in almost any order I chose to.

Would I be correct in guessing you won't be buying Witcher 2?:P

topsemag55

Maybe he mad because CD Projekt Red said Witcher 2 looks better than Dragon Age?:P

Incredible graphics, hopefully great gameplay (looks like it as well). I am sure I will love The Witcher 2, just like I loved The Witcher 1. Just a question for my fellow system warriors, but who else is replaying The Witcher 1 in hype of The Witcher 2?

Incredible graphics, hopefully great gameplay (looks like it as well). I am sure I will love The Witcher 2, just like I loved The Witcher 1. Just a question for my fellow system warriors, but who else is replaying The Witcher 1 in hype of The Witcher 2?

Maroxad

Incredible graphics, hopefully great gameplay (looks like it as well). I am sure I will love The Witcher 2, just like I loved The Witcher 1. Just a question for my fellow system warriors, but who else is replaying The Witcher 1 in hype of The Witcher 2?

Maroxad

I can't believe this game is getting so much hate, then again it's SW, nothing new.

I just hope it's better optimized though.

I can't believe this game is getting so much hate, then again it's SW, nothing new.

I just hope it's better optimized though.

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I can't believe this game is getting so much hate, then again it's SW, nothing new.

I just hope it's better optimized though.

GeneralShowzer

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="mitu123"]

I can't believe this game is getting so much hate, then again it's SW, nothing new.

I just hope it's better optimized though.

mitu123

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

Uhh, no, the game which buzzworded those terms and kind of screwed it up was Dragon Age. The Witcher actually did it properly, probably because its world isn't utterly contrived and derivative.

using less known folklore doesn't mean it hasn't been done before: monsters in the witcher are still taken from various cultures.

Utterly.

Oh, and yes, Oblivion has other strengths, like the ability to become good at everything as long as you're willing to grind enough, unlike an ideal RPG in which the skill progression is always limited.

LOL, you could spend hundreds of hours in the game; there's nothing wrong with being able to max everything out. I *want* that possibility for the type of game Oblivion is.

Uhh, no, if they did it properly they wouldn't allow you to be come the leader of a Mage guild... as a warrior. The reason almost no RPG allows for maxing out/getting near to maxing out of all skills is because it not only unbalances the game in your favour really badly, it also takes away the WHOLE POINT of character building. If every playthrough has you as some kind of demigod then where the hell are your roleplaying choice? Most RPGs would do "Knight, Thief, Archer, Mage" or something along those lines, in terms of what each playthrough character would be like. Not "God, God, God, God".

Oh, and the ability to explore a lot of samey old caves. Oh, and a leveling system which makes the endquest harder to complete as you level up.

Then you haven't leveled up properly.

So what? "Not levelling up properly" in other RPGs that don't use full level scaling still make it easier on you at level 10 than at level 5.

Clearly these advantages make up for the awful writing.

Oh, and yes, that's one cliche that the Witcher uses (then again, you're ignoring that it's NECESSARY to justify why the player has to learn those skills AGAIN,

It's not. You can just say he lost those skills because he died.

And how does one lose skills? Oh yeah, memory loss.

unless you want to be able to overpower everything at the start of the game. Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case). It's hardly anything compared to Dragon Age which is practically made out of typical fantasy folklore

you're saying that like it's a bad thing. taking monsters from european folklore doesn't automatically make the game better.

Yes, but we're talking about which game is more derivative here. Obviously if the Witcher makes use of monsters that are less known and less utilized in other fiction, it is "better" in this regard.

with a few twists here and there.

SkyWard20

I don't understand how anyone could play through Witcher more than once. It's incredibly linear and the 'choices and consequences' gimmick sucked.

I do recall YOU saying that the quality of games is subject to opinion. Why does that not seem to apply now?

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] Well, I'm sorry, I'm still getting it looks possibly AAA, but that console UI really bothers me. I guess i should be more understanding, it's just a minor thing and will have no effect on the game. I just expected this to be 100% PC game not affected like other game are. ferret-gamer

Those screens look fantastic! But I really think that the poll is kind of a given. Dragon Age didn't really look all that good, and the second one doesn't look like its improving upon it too much.

DAII uses DX11 and I'm hoping it'll look better, but I don't see a leap from it if not used properly.

It's requirements are stupid, 4GB RAM, 2.4ghz quad core, etc., what the heck?

when a screenshot thread is almost at 500 posts, you know they have to be some dam fine graphics. :P

really this game may be the next graphics king.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I can't believe this game is getting so much hate, then again it's SW, nothing new.

I just hope it's better optimized though.

GeneralShowzer

when a screenshot thread is almost at 500 posts, you know they have to be some dam fine graphics. :P

really this game may be the next graphics king.

DAII uses DX11 and I'm hoping it'll look better, but I don't see a leap from it if not used properly.

It's requirements are stupid, 4GB RAM, 2.4ghz quad core, etc., what the heck?

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

DAII uses DX11 and I'm hoping it'll look better, but I don't see a leap from it if not used properly.

It's requirements are stupid, 4GB RAM, 2.4ghz quad core, etc., what the heck?

SAGE_OF_FIRE

What does these three RPGs have in common?

Planescape: Torment

Temple of Elemental Evil

Neverwinter Nights

According to General Showzer they were not designed with the PC in mind. :lol: :lol: :lol:

im going to replay it again at some point in april and try for a different ending.

lawlessx

I'm running one of the extra adventures right now.

I've already got a great save with Geralt at Level 40 (Master Witcher) ready to go. You really have to work at it to get Level 40.

Forget about witcher 2..

Risen 2 is our new graphics king:

:o

[QUOTE="lawlessx"]

im going to replay it again at some point in april and try for a different ending.

topsemag55

I'm running one of the extra adventures right now.

I've already got a great save with Geralt at Level 40 (Master Witcher) ready to go. You really have to work at it to get Level 40.