[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

Broken? I was playing it five minutes ago. It's better than FO3 in every way.

Your argument would hold up better if you could address the content itself, which most NV's critics in this thread have proved unwiling or unable to do. That must be indicative of something.

I will try. Bare with my English.

NV, and this is only IMO,managed to more succesfully conect with FO 1/ 2.

I havent finished the game so my opinion might change.

Currently:

The RPG elements are better, some parts of the story, the idea behind the factions. I always liked Obsidians story aproach in RPG`s, but this game for the first time didn`t` manage to get me attached to my character.

I "cared", about the Lone Wanderer, this is something that the Courier has yet to accomplish. It might be the very fast introduction but I somehow don`t care about Him.

The atmosphere is a huge improvement from FO3, but not so much in terms of freedom, simply the quest connections are to close for my way of playing.

The exploration part is more limited. Blocked paths and invisible walls happen more then in FO3. The problem for me is coming from the very close quest tie in.

This is not something that every one likes, sometimes doing mindless things, totaly story unrelated is something I like to do in a RPG.

Generally it`s however the best RPG this year for me. My idea of the next FO would probably be letting Beth do the lands ,exploration, and "do if yo want to"

tasks, and Obsidian the main quest line , dialogues , and details that are needed for the atmosphere of a RPG.

The game had a short development cycle, and they did really add a lot in this short time. Need to play more however, and I`m really slow in RPG`s.

[QUOTE="BigDaddyPOLO"]

See it's hilarious because New Vegas is a broken copy of Fallout 3 made by the same people who ruined KOTOR 2 so your argument doesn't really seem to hold up.

jethrovegas

Broken? I was playing it five minutes ago. It's better than FO3 in every way.

Your argument would hold up better if you could address the content itself, which most NV's critics in this thread have proved unwiling or unable to do. That must be indicative of something.

I will try. Bare with my English.

NV, and this is only IMO,managed to more succesfully conect with FO 1/ 2.

I havent finished the game so my opinion might change.

Currently:

The RPG elements are better, some parts of the story, the idea behind the factions. I always liked Obsidians story aproach in RPG`s, but this game for the first time didn`t` manage to get me attached to my character.

I "cared", about the Lone Wanderer, this is something that the Courier has yet to accomplish. It might be the very fast introduction but I somehow don`t care about Him.

The atmosphere is a huge improvement from FO3, but not so much in terms of freedom, simply the quest connections are to close for my way of playing.

The exploration part is more limited. Blocked paths and invisible walls happen more then in FO3. The problem for me is coming from the very close quest tie in.

This is not something that every one likes, sometimes doing mindless things, totaly story unrelated is something I like to do in a RPG.

Generally it`s however the best RPG this year for me. My idea of the next FO would probably be letting Beth do the lands ,exploration, and "do if yo want to"

tasks, and Obsidian the main quest line , dialogues , and details that are needed for the atmosphere of a RPG.

The game had a short development cycle, and they did really add a lot in this short time. Need to play more however, and I`m really slow in RPG`s.

Bethesda games:

FO3, Morrowind , Oblivioin,

Obsidian FO NV. NWN2.

The Witcher Djini Adventure editor,

DAO has a toolkit.

[QUOTE="dreman999"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] It was a bad port. - Same graphics as the console version. Copy/Paste job with no effort put whatsoever. -The keyboard wasn't used properly, i.e there were as many buttons mapped as there are buttons on a 360 controller, that's why you couldn't use C to bring up the Codex or M for map or J for journal, ect... There was only one button and you had to cycle manually. Also there was no way to cycle weapons using keyboard shorctuts like Mass Effect . - Menu navigation was horrible. It took 90% more time because you couldn't use double click to navigate the menus. This is something i expect to see in Darksiders or Dark Void and not a NON port.Filthybastrd

If a shooter (inersert rpg debate here) of all things makes your kb/m feel clunky and makes you long for a gamepad, while not even supporting one, then it's a bad port.

Agreed. It looks like only blasphemers read the Codex. The controls and cameras where nothing that even remotely works well on PC, pretty much every needed optimization for usage was ignored.

So if I would call it a shooter, the apologists would claim it`s a RPG.

If I call it a RPG -then it failed.

DA2 is taking the same route right now, with the cameras and controls.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

That's it for requirements? I should run this fine seeing how I have a AMD Phenom 9600(2.3 ghz quad core), Radeon 4850 and 3.25GB RAM, though I'm upgrading within a few months.

SakusEnvoy

A 4850 is only slightly better than an 8800gt.

So you are slightly above the minimum.

This. According to the official forum the requirements will be lower because the game will be even more optimized. These spec are posted on Steam, and people think that these are the recomended , not the minimum system requirements.

There is still time for optimization till release.

Times have changed and tools have evolved, lots of characters are less polygon heavy than they were 2 years ago, and better mapping techniques are allowing more detail. It might happen that TW2 will be proportionaly less demanding than TW that was running on ol` Aurora engine.

Is it imperative to play the first? Or would it be okay to jump into the second? Is the first worth it?musicalmac

It is not a imperative.

You can jump in the second but you will not have a import save.

The first game has 3 endings and there are choices that are made during the game that you get to see in the next chapter for example, or that TW2 will reflect on.

The first one is worth it if you like RPG`s, and are willing to learn about the combat and alchemy system, if you like fast paced beginnings where a game brings you directly to lots of action, you might hate the first chapter instantly.

So not knowing your preferences, I loved the first one, but I like RPG`s in general.

I'm sure the game will be technically fantastic. But I'm worried about the gameplay. First it's this footage from E3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e40kxWa0QCw&feature=related . The combat looks absolutely terrible. Assassin's creed at its worst. The rolling is silly and enemies seems to hit hero constantly in the back with no hits registering. It also looks repetetive (same attacks over and over) and overall brain dead. The mission seems very dull, linear and unimaginative. You follow a predetermined route with groups of enemies spawning along the way. Enemies doesn't seem to attack the people u are protecting, even when they are standing right next to them.

Secondly it's this boss battle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ravxVjnOoRM. Looks cool, but gameplay wise it's a cliché. The boss has a couple of attacks u avoid by rolling and then u run forward to attack his tentacles at some clearly marked weak spots. At the end there are a some quick time events.

Of course the game could still be fantastic and obviously I hope it will be. Combat is certainly not everything, especially not in a RPG. Let's just say I'm not ready to hype this game yet :(.

Sushiglutton

Both videos You found are a bit older, and from a unfinished build, and Geralt was low level.

These are more recent:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/thewitcher2/video/6274563/the-witcher-2-assassins-of-kings-demo-one-approach?nonRedirectElement=1

http://au.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/thewitcher2/video/6274562/the-witcher-2-assassins-of-kings-demo-alternate-strategy?tag=related_video%3Btitle%3B4

Witcher combat **** are based on the descriptions of Witcher`s, in the books of A. Sapkowski.

The trials and mutations of Witchers are turning Witchers in some sort super Humans.

Batman without flying wouldn`t be the same.:)

Mostly the Witcher combat evolves around pirrouette- combos in the books.

That alone created lots of confusion about the combat in the first Witcher. The combat was mostly disliked in the first game, and lots of people complained about it, TW2 gives options now to depend on spells, alchemy, or swordfight, and is still Witcher like but with more variation.

Hope this helps.

[QUOTE="ralph2190"]

SkyWard there really is no point arguing with them. They are basing all of their facts and opinions over a few words in some article or demos that are several builds behind. NOTHING we have seen so far is real, concrete evidence that the game is bad. If anything, all the previews we have seen so far, end with the previewer saying that the game is shaping up to be a good RPG and that they are excited for it.

lawlessx

I don't think anyone in this thread is hoping DA2 turns out to be a bad game..we are just voicing our concerns that bioware might be forgetting why people loved they're games in the first place..and that is complexity. Yes all the previews are from builds of an unfinished game,but most of what is upsetting fans of the first game isn't from the previews,but from bioware's own interviews and message board posts. Recently reps from bioware have been making statements that are giving people a good reason to wonder if they sequel to DA:O was going to "dumb down" or scaled down just like mass effect 2.

Now im saying mass effect 2 was a bad game by any means(and i know certain posters here can't tell the difference),But there were ALOT of key RPG features bioware removed that really ruined abit of the experinece for me personally. And honestly..the people that try to tell others that mass effect 2 was indeed an RPG just like the first game because bioware and some gaming outlets say so really need to stop letting the media completely control what you think. Mass effect 2 was much more of an 3rd person shooter and much less of an RPG and if anyone wants to dispute that please feel free to do so.

This.No one ever requested big icons to explain Hers/ His
own intent.
Things like the Zevran confusion are now used as excuse for the changes instead of simply adding a few longer lines for clarification.
The dialogue wheel contains icons explaining the intent of the player character.
Not a single DAO player , platform independent asked for a clarification of his own thoughts in a RPG game.

Unless proven that these can be toggled off the entire system looks like Fable.
For Fable the system works with the setting of the game and is funny - not much for DA2 , especially when adding the fact that the DAO world decisions can be imported .
Being spoon fed in ME2 was a annoyance for a huge amount of players.
Sometimes EDI`s irresistible charm was ruined by the idea behind it.
The fact that only Joker had a mute button for Her, introduced some epic lines like :
"This is your ship".:lol:


Removal of companion armor customization :
The stats screens of DA2 are doing exactly the same thing like ME2 by adding "upgrades" or leveling instead of more options.

The "adding a more unique look "excuse, and I personally don`t care in any way what a game dev or PR guy has to say, is so incredibly silly when remembering the "Alternate appearance packs of ME2", and the recolor of Garrus armor with the holes not repaired.

Those that kept Morrigan in Her robes, mostly did so because the mage gear was so horrendous, not because She needed a fixed outfit to be distinctive.

The writing makes Her distinctive. The option to change Her outfit doesn`t change Her personality to, but adds a lot to build variety for the player.

The comments that maybe during the time spann of 10 years, we might or might not find a different armor, probably a recolor, because modelling a new one costs money -is annoying.

The only things are stats points that can be added to the armor instead of the ability to visually change their armors. It could really introduce the same problem that happened in ME2- players ignoring some companions, because their their outfits looked out of place.
The only customization for them are rings and belts.

@devious

I don't see the problem. Why is it such a bad thing that developers make games so it's easier for casuals to get into? That's great. I had a hard time understading the DnD system ( hardly a 'master' of it anyway ). Doesn't mean the game won't be challenging on the highest difficulty available, just more accessible.

I never saw an issue with this, really. Games aren't 'ours', or something that only we 'core gamers' have a right to. It's frightening, this belief that because a game is also made with casuals in mind, thus being more accessible, it will be made for 'stupid people'. Casual gamers can be perfectly intelligent and capable individuals, you know. I really doubt there's only something 'we' can understand about games that 'they' couldn't. It's hardly a feat of high intelligence, to be able to play video games well.

Acessibility is NOT complexity/difficulty.

SkyWard20

Accessibility should not be used as excuse for cuts. . Giving the option to do things the other way is a important thing in RPG`s.

Combat difficulty is in no way related to complexity.

Complexity is related to choice variety.

Variation in choices if presented well will not scare away the casual gamer.

Assuming that the casual gamer is not willing to learn something new is plain wrong, there is no "we" and "they".

There is only proper introduction to something new.

Not a single casual gamer claimed that He want`s less choices , decisions and variation.

Loss of options implies that the casual gamer is unable to learn.

Since they are capable individuals underestimating them by making things simpler is unnecessary.

[QUOTE="devious742"]

Im not hater..in fact I LOVE Dragon age Origins... heck just look my xfire

Dragon Age: Origins - 145 hours

the thing is that every little snippet of information that Bioware gives regarding DA2..has been very negative..thus destroying any hype I have over DA2... I want DA2 to be amazing but cmon:? look at my previous post..none of it is positive

ralph2190

I agree that BioWare has been pretty bad at marketing this game so far...I don't know why they are still keeping this game behind closed doors. But it's like what one dev said on the forums, when the time comes for hands-on and walkthroughs, it will be an information overload. And I'm pretty sure we will get a couple PC demos during that time. There's not much to go on at this point, but you can take comfort in the fact that every one of those previews you posted ended on a good note and had the previewers excited about DA2. Overall, the changes are vastly different from Origins, but I guess it's something we will warm up to, just like for ME2. It's BioWare after all, and they do a good job with their games.

Discrediting concerns as hate doesn`t negate the fact that ME2 was a great game and a bad RPG.

Gameplay from 2008, nearly a year before release was more positive that anything that I have seen until now, and I certainly want that the game proves me wrong. ME2 didn`t however. Claiming that everyone will warm up for things is wrong because I prefer to speak about my view on things and I certainly didn`t warm up for ME2, and pretty much everyone will have a different view on things he likes or dislikes.

The "when time comes", was seen with a never showcased PC gameplay for ME2, and until I see something all concerns are absolutely valid because the changes are affecting everything I liked about the first game. A 16 months development cycle, despite the Bioiware babble about how well everything worked so they had time,doesn`t work well when reflecting on the changes they made on the game.