RPGWatch Forums

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   News Comments (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Two Worlds - Review @ ActionTrip (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1876)

Dhruin May 19th, 2007 01:25

Two Worlds - Review @ ActionTrip
 
ActionTrip has the first English review of Two Worlds, although it isn't clear exactly what version they played (presumably the German Royal Edition, since it seems unlikely US distie Southpeak would send out review copies for a delayed game). The article doesn't go into great depth but uses terms like "generic" and "dull". The score is 62% and here's a snip:
Quote:

After the first few hours of play, it becomes obvious that Two Worlds is yet another victim of the somewhat dicey free-roam gameplay formula. In case you forgot how it works, let me refresh your memory. To begin with, there's a set of locations you need to visit in order to continue with the main story. The problem is, players are too easily swayed off course with numerous enemies to fight, random NPCs to chat with and dozens of unexciting side-quests to complete. Having plunged into a wave of tasks, it doesn't take you too long to realize you've seen it all before. And, the clichéd story surely won't be enough to intrigue you further.
Still, with the amount of content on offer, I suppose Two World could attract gamers who are after the common RPG routine. You know: get quest, kill enemies and return to collect your reward. If this is what you're after, I guess the game could keep you occupied for a time. The number of quests, side-quests and NPCs is considerable, so it's safe to say there's plenty to do as you wander through forests, across mountains and lakes. The game also includes a commendable variety of items, weapons and other things to utilize during your adventure.
Even with all the traditional elements there, however, Two Worlds still lacks spirit.
More information.

guenthar May 19th, 2007 01:25

Only two of the quests I have had so far require me to kill anything and that was the tutorial and this quest where I have to kill a Brotherhood Commander because he ripped this guy off.

HiddenX May 19th, 2007 02:12

If someone doesn't like crpgs at all he should not review them.

Some things mentioned are simply not true:

Quote:

Technically, Two Worlds is a huge disappointment.
A very stable game, that runs good even on older rigs.

Quote:

The problem is, players are too easily swayed off course with numerous enemies to fight, random NPCs to chat with and dozens of unexciting side-quests to complete.
Okay - a lot of standard quests, but a lot of interesting and funny sidequests, too. Much longer and better dialogues than in Oblivion or Gothic 3.

Quote:

After the first few hours of play, it becomes obvious that Two Worlds is yet another victim of the somewhat dicey free-roam gameplay formula.

My advise: Play longer than 2 hours.

Wulf May 19th, 2007 11:55

Re:
[Physics and collision leave a lot to be desired, especially while your character is on horseback. Your mighty steed literary sticks to trees way too often, refusing to budge despite repeated efforts. It won't be long before you're going to want to smash your PC to bits. This jamming made me give up on horseback completely.]

Yes, even in real life, horses don't like being ridden into trees, they rear and snort and throw the rider to the ground in disgust.
Sounds realistic……even knights of old treated their loyal mounts with respect.

Jabberwocky May 19th, 2007 15:35

@ Wulf: :lol:

I didn't read the review, but even even in the excerpted two paragraphs you can tell THIS guy should not have been the reviewer.

Wulf May 19th, 2007 19:30

Spot on Jabbs, what a wasted opportunity, the first English review (shakes head) :disappointed:

And yet we have seen this same situation with other games, where it is the later reviews that bring out more of the game's strengths and details while reviewer wannabe's jump on the band-waggon first. So in that sense Two worlds reviews can only get better than this….surely.

I'll go along with HiddenX's reliable guideline.:thanks:

Jabberwocky May 20th, 2007 16:02

"After the first few hours of play, it becomes obvious that Two Worlds is yet another victim of the somewhat dicey free-roam gameplay formula."

Wait wait wait… Okay, maybe I just don't have a thorough grasp of all the nuances of the English language, but I thought 'dicey' meant something risky, or unpredictable? But this guy follows up the phrase with a paragraph about the predictability of free-roam gameplay.

No, no. It's not me this time…. I think he needs to go back to grammar school. ;)

On another note, I've noticed on the news bits that Two Worlds has already been patched 3 times, and some of the issues fixed (or at least claimed to be fixed) were ones that Maylander was complaining about. This to me, is a good sign. They are rolling out the fixes in a hurry, and as we all know, a game can be significantly improved with enough and the proper patches implemented.

Maylander May 20th, 2007 19:51

They gave Oblivion 94, which happens to be similar in many ways, only less stable, smaller and with less interesting dialogue and exploring. They should've let the same guy that reviewed Oblivion do Two Worlds as well, to make the scores comparable.

Corwin May 21st, 2007 00:08

Jabbs, you are correct in your understanding of 'dicey'; the guys an idiot!! Where do they find these reviewers and how do they justify paying them!!

Maylander May 21st, 2007 00:42

Yes Jabberwocky, most issues I had with the game has already been fixed. Very impressive! Right now it lacks the usual "not deep enough" thing, which all the big freeroaming RPGs lack, but that is to be expected.

Gorath May 21st, 2007 00:59

What, it lacks not enough depth?! :gorath:

Maylander May 21st, 2007 01:09

Don't twist my words, hehe, you know what I mean.

Moriendor May 21st, 2007 04:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corwin (Post 29132)
Jabbs, you are correct in your understanding of 'dicey'; the guys an idiot!! Where do they find these reviewers and how do they justify paying them!!

I can not comment on the accuracy of the review itself since I haven't played the game yet (and do not plan to until it drops in price since German reviews aren't exactly stellar either… Eurogamer.de, a fairly reliable source usually, only awarded it 6/10 for example) but in all fairness to ActionTrip… to the best of my knowledge they're not native English but based in or at least the team members are from some country in former Yugoslavia (Serbia actually AFAIK). That might at least explain -if not justify- the potentially wrong use of the term "dicey" ;) .

Jabberwocky May 21st, 2007 06:19

Way to go, Moriendor… take all the fun out of my rant! ;) :)

chamr May 21st, 2007 07:24

Actually, their use of "dicey" was fine. They didn't mean that the resulting game was "dicey". They were refering to the formula of free-roamers being "dicey". Or, in other words, inconsistent and prone to sporadic failure. Basically, I think they're trying to say that free-roamers are an inherently difficult genre to pull off without falling short in at least a couple areas (e.g. story depth and balance), if not more.

Jabberwocky May 21st, 2007 15:47

Okay, I honestly didn't intend to spark a debate on vocabulary, but if you insist…:)

Chamr, you are absolutely correct in your conclusion concerning what the reviewer wanted to say, but that isn't what he actually stated.

"After the first few hours of play, it becomes obvious that Two Worlds is yet another victim of the somewhat dicey free-roam gameplay formula."

At this point in the review, your assessment is spot on. And the logical progression of reason would be "What IS the free-roam gameplay formula?" The reviewer tries to answer that in his next sentence:

"In case you forgot how it works, let me refresh your memory."

By making this statement, he is actually saying "they're all the same," "You've seen it all before," and therefore by extension… "There's nothing dicey about it, they all suck." But don't take my word for it… take his later in the paragraph: "it doesn't take you too long to realize you've seen it all before."

That's why I feel his report is conflicting. The following sentences compound the problem:

"To begin with, there's a set of locations you need to visit in order to continue with the main story. The problem is, players are too easily swayed off course with numerous enemies to fight, random NPCs to chat with and dozens of unexciting side-quests to complete."

Okay, at this point, in the same paragraph, he completely switches gears from talking about "dicey" free-roam games in general, and moves on to talking about Two Worlds specifically. BUT, since he doesn't differentiate in the paragraph, this is deciphered by looking at the context only. So grammatically speaking, a person would be led into thinking he is still talking about ALL free-roam games, which again, makes them sound, not "dicey," but consistantly flawed.

I personally had to read the paragraph two or three times to figure out what he was trying to get across, and I still don't know what it is exactly. That, in my mind, makes for a sorry review, and therefore I hold to my initial presumption. :)

Me2three May 25th, 2007 09:01

just plain wrong
 
well what gets me is this.

He implies that "open/free roam" is a tired and over-used format.. When in fact it is a fairly new development in games with noteable few games actually being truely free roaming, with huge open envirnments. It is a format which is obviously a challenge to do well and there have been several failures. Compared to the linear FPS shooter genre games which are free roaming are very few and far between.

His disparagement of the free roam format is nearly criminal in my book.. Ok, review the game, give it a bad review if you see fit, but to knock ALL free roaming games is to stand in the way of progress, would he rather just play linear FPS games with rocket launchers and plasma guns? well, that's his perogative but if so he should not be reviewing this game.

He also mentioned that the graphics were good, and the combat very entertaining.. So what exactly is the problem? Oh yeah, horse gets stuck on trees.. And he simply doesn't like fantasy based, free roaming RPGs..

The other thing that bothers me is that he gave no real information as to what the game is actually like.. he said the combat is entertaining but, how does it work exactly?? Do you click on enemies like in diablo? how do you perform diferent attacks? Are there combo type attacks?

Do different pieces of armor/clothing appear individually on your character, like sleaves and gloves, etc.. or is it like in NWN wear you get a whole suit and additional items like gloves or boots have no graphical effect?

Ultimately his review answered none of my questions and it gave me plenty of cause to seriously doubt the validity of his review and ultimately forced me to disregard it in its entirety.

chamr May 25th, 2007 18:05

@Jabber: I was only talking about his use of "dicey" in the sentence he used it in. I have no beef with your opinion that the following portions are confusing as to what exactly he's referring to and that the review as a whole lacks credibility. No argument there. :)


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:12.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch