|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Two Worlds II - Screens @ Worthplaying

Default Two Worlds II - Screens @ Worthplaying

May 26th, 2010, 10:50
Animations in Two Worlds were WAY better than Oblivion or Fallout 3 (same thing) combined. The combat animations were just fine and I don't see how anyone who has played Oblivion can say TW animations were crap.

Also, level design in TW was way better. While exploring every possible place didn't feel generic like in Oblivion. When you found settlements they actually felt like settlements instead of high quality static models placed at random (with incredibly clean look). You gotta love Bethesda's version of "realism".

ortucis

Guest

#21

Posts: n/a

Default 

May 26th, 2010, 11:32
Originally Posted by ortucis View Post
Animations in Two Worlds were WAY better than Oblivion or Fallout 3 (same thing) combined. The combat animations were just fine and I don't see how anyone who has played Oblivion can say TW animations were crap.

Also, level design in TW was way better. While exploring every possible place didn't feel generic like in Oblivion. When you found settlements they actually felt like settlements instead of high quality static models placed at random (with incredibly clean look). You gotta love Bethesda's version of "realism".
I couldn't disagree more

While the animations in both games were kinda bad - Oblivion had models that looked infinitely superior - especially the weapon/armor stuff. Oblivion had stiff animations, but TW had incredibly clunky and awkward animations. The horse movement? Please.

Also, the monster models in Oblivion were pretty damn good, for the most part. At least, that's what I think.

Combat balance? Ok, so Oblivion uses scaling combat and its dreary skill system. I'll grant you that. But TW was nothing but click, click, click and click some more. At least in Oblivion you had to dodge a bit, and block if you're melee. I don't think stealth characters is even a real option in TW? The combat was arcadey and simplistic.

Everything looked MUCH MUCH better in Oblivion, in my opinion. TW looked like an indie product half the time, which isn't surprising given their lower budget. Colors and textures were bland and the game just didn't have the polish required for a truly immersive world.

The terrain might have been more varied, but I certainly didn't find anything unique while exploring. Everything smacked of hollow cookie-cutter stuff, even more so than Oblivion, which at least had a measure of personality to some NPCs and its interiors looked great.

Again, I liked the character mechanics of TW - and I was pleasantly surprised in certain ways, because I was expecting much less than from Oblivion. Given the fact that it was a relatively small team of "newcomers", the game impressed. But that didn't make my overall experience any less bad.

I find it very hard to understand how anyone could seriously consider it a better product, except if it's based on sympathy towards smaller projects, and a measure of contempt for Bethesda - both of which I can sympathise with.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#22

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,212

Default 

May 26th, 2010, 11:56
Originally Posted by ortucis View Post
Animations in Two Worlds were WAY better than Oblivion or Fallout 3 (same thing) combined. The combat animations were just fine and I don't see how anyone who has played Oblivion can say TW animations were crap.
I'm not a graphics expert, so perhaps my terminology isn't right. Everywhere I went I saw boars floating along a hill with two feet in the air and the other two feet clipping through the ground and so on.

I've never looked at OB in 3rd person, because it was clearly designed for 1st.

Also, level design in TW was way better. While exploring every possible place didn't feel generic like in Oblivion. When you found settlements they actually felt like settlements instead of high quality static models placed at random (with incredibly clean look). You gotta love Bethesda's version of "realism".
Sure, OB was samey - I agree. But scenery doesn't mean that much to me. Yes, I found settlements that looked like nice settlements but I didn't find anything in them that was worth finding. No interesting characters or cool stories. I don't play RPGs just for virtual tourism.

As flawed as OB is (and it is), I found cool quests everywhere (ones that everyone knows - the quest in the painting, and so forth). They were 100% linear, which is a pity, but there was an attempt to be inventive. I just didn't see that in TW.

-= RPGWatch =-
Dhruin is offline

Dhruin

Dhruin's Avatar
SasqWatch
Super Moderator
RPGWatch Team

#23

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 11,967

Default 

May 26th, 2010, 12:07
I could replace Oblivion with TW in your post (except for the part about sympathy.. considering most Indie RPG's are terrible, I don't really care much about small or big teams).

Oblivion's world felt so artificial that I started dreading going into another city (to find another dead barren world with nothing worth exploring). Actually, in Two Worlds exploration wasn't any better but I can't really blame them much since obviously TW developers tried really hard to mix Gothic with Oblivion (pretty much the reason why it was a failure for most gamers). In Gothic when you find a chest you almost always end up getting some good loot.

What is funny is that I have re-installed Oblivion every now and then since its release. Spent whole day researching and downloading mods to improve the game (over 3GB data easily). Loaded up the game, cleared few quests and ended up uninstalling the game and deleting all mods. I have finished it once and man was I pissed off at the ending (do note that I reached the ending after pretty much exploring the whole world and finishing every possible side-quest). God that game sucks. There is aboslutely nothing interesting in the whole world. Exploration is boring, dungeons are filled with random crap I can find at the local store, graphics are so clean and pretty that every possible location managed to break the immersion (clean dungeons esp.) and the NPC's had nothing interesting to say.. and I mean even the ones giving me quests.

Luckily they fixed some annoyances I had with Oblivion in Fallout 3 and I actually finished it 3 times in comparison. But the crap loot part while exploring still remains. At least this time you find interesting locations.

Oh wait, we were discussing Two Worlds and Oblivionů ahh well, both were ok games in the end. I still think Gothic 3 is way underrated esp. since it blows these games apart in every possible manner.


EDIT: On the side note, I really hate RPG games discussions. I am one of those who play and enjoy pretty much everything and only few games piss me off enough to never install them again (and Oblivion wasn't one of them.. like I said, mods, GB's worth..).

ortucis

Guest

#24

Posts: n/a

Default 

May 26th, 2010, 12:12
Oh wait, we were discussing Two Worlds and Oblivion… ahh well, both were ok games in the end. I still think Gothic 3 is way underrated esp. since it blows these games apart in every possible manner.
I agree about Gothic 3 - except for the abysmal combat system.

But, Oblivion with the rights mods CAN be a great game, but it's a LOT of work.

Also, I should note that I always play stealthy characters - and the stealth archer route of Oblivion helps a whole lot, once mods are in place.

Beyond that, we agree about it feeling artificial and hollow as a vanilla product.

Still, doesn't make TW better in any way that I can really see.

EDIT: On the side note, I really hate RPG games discussions. I am one of those who play and enjoy pretty much everything and only few games piss me off enough to never install them again (and Oblivion wasn't one of them.. like I said, mods, GB's worth..).
Well, as long as they're amiable - discussions can be ok
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#25

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,212

Default 

May 26th, 2010, 12:19
I agree with ortucis - I consider the world of Oblivion dead and generic. That alone kills exploration for me, whether or not it looks pretty is irrelevant.
Maylander is offline

Maylander

SasqWatch

#26

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bergen
Posts: 5,381
Send a message via MSN to Maylander

Default 

May 26th, 2010, 12:29
I don't recall anyone claiming Oblivion was full of variety or feeling particularly alive. Though I think the scenery and the world/terrain is far superior, and I actually think the world DOES feel alive, in those terms. I mean, the sensation of the forests being real and the natural aspects (weather/atmosphere) is WAY beyond TW.

But Gothic is the champ here, at least we seem to agree on that
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#27

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,212

Default 

May 26th, 2010, 13:24
Well, we were talking about exploration, so I pointed out that exploration in Oblivion is not superior to any sandbox game I can think of (due to the reasons I listed).
Maylander is offline

Maylander

SasqWatch

#28

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bergen
Posts: 5,381
Send a message via MSN to Maylander

Default 

May 26th, 2010, 15:31
I generally ignore Ortucis because nearly all of his postings are just to bash Bethesda, but Oblivion had TONS of great quests. The one weakness is that they were almost all linear, but the writing and ideas were very fresh and new. Whoever says Oblivion has bad quests is just smoking crack. Aleswell was great and funny, Mazoga the Orc was fun, the Collector quest was good for dungeon delving, the follow-up quest had two solutions (which was rare in OB), Knights of the Nine was really cool as was Shivering Isles.

Which quests in Gothic matched these? I mean there weren't very many quests in the whole game. Maybe a dozen not related to learning a skill/main quest? I'm not sure if you add Gothics 1-3 that you'll match the number of quests in Oblivion. Honestly, which quests are you refering to that were so awesome in either TW or Gothic? How about the magic system in Gothic? Oh right, there really wasn't one. Magic is really lame in Gothic. TW did do enchanting and alchemy well but dungeons? Please. I'm also trying to remember all the great dungeons in either game. I saw some complaints about variety for Oblivion but there were forts, ayleid ruins, caves, sewers, chapel undercrofts, outdoor campsites, and Oblivion gates with the Citadels. When in the dungeons you had choices of marauders, bandits, conjurers, natural creatures, mythic creatures, necromancers, vampires, dremora, goblins, slaughterfish, daedra and undead. You would also occasionally find an adventurer in the dungeons, though they missed the boat in not allowing you to interact with these guys more. Go ahead and list the variety of enemies in any single game of Gothic or TW. Oblivion is going to win hands down.

I played a vanilla game of Oblivion recently and even without a single mod, the game just rocks. Level scaling creatures and the way you raise attributes/skills needs some serious work but the game is quite moddable. I still think all the negativity towards this game is rampant jealousy. It's really okay if the game isn't your favorite, but it is a great game. Most folks hate it because of all the hype preceding its release. Boo hoo.

'nut
crpgnut is online now

crpgnut

crpgnut's Avatar
Fantasy Novel Archmage
RPGWatch Donor

#29

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis, Mo USA
Posts: 3,638

Default 

May 26th, 2010, 17:19
Haha crpgnut, very funny. For a second I thought you were serious. Thank god for the last para.

ortucis

Guest

#30

Posts: n/a

Default 

May 26th, 2010, 22:20
I'm with crpgnut on Oblivion. I honestly believe those that bash is so vehemently just didn't play it, or they are absolutely NOT good candidates for open worlds and sandbox type of play. It's ok to not be a sandbox type of player, just don't play them and say you don't like those kind of games and move on.
I still love just riding through it and watching the leaves and grass wave to the breeze with their shadows while my horse stretches, and I hope it will really storm soon, cause it looks so neat. Don't need a stinking story to enjoy it at all, but many of the stories were very well done.
Greymane is offline

Greymane

Greymane's Avatar
SasqWatch

#31

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 189

Default 

May 27th, 2010, 09:19
I "completed" it several times actually (all the questlines worth completing, up to and including the shrines). Never said it was not a good game. I just consider it below certain games - the most obvious one being Morrowind, which I consider superior in almost every way.

One of the things bugging me the most about Oblivion, other than the obvious stuff (scaling, lack of choices, etc), is how magic is not viable at all if you pick them as your main skills. Here's what you do:
1. Pick magic skills (schools) as your main skills so you become a pure caster.
2. Max as many as possible.
3. Run from every enemy you ever meet, because you are no longer viable as a character.

It's redicilous, but true. I did it in what was ultimately the last time I played Oblivion, I just couldn't get myself to pick it up again after that. After you've maxed out the damage component (happens early on if you cast a lot of spells), enemies will continue to scale up to a point where you need to spam them with spells to even dent them.

I remember ending my game during one of the main quest portal sequences (I decided to attempt the main quest at very high level). The demons were so redicilously tough, every single one of them felt like facing Ravager in Baldur's Gate 2: ToB on Insane.

At that point, when I realized the magic system is only viable if you cheese it out by *not* selecting them as your main skills (or if you decide to end the game early), I quit Oblivion and haven't looked back. That's just poor design, plain and simple.

Edit: The worst part is, it's such an easy flaw to fix, even with the scaling in place. Right now, melee skills, magic skills etc do not stack. That basically means getting two melee skills, two magic skills and so on will make the character a whole lot weaker.

To fix that, just add a similar system to what Diablo 2 has (synergy) by allowing skills to affect other skills - i.e the damage component of spells become greater even after that particular skill has been maxed out if you increase other magic skills, but only if they are your main skills (or you could make redicilously powerful characters at low level). The same goes for melee - maxing out both maces and swords? Good for you, now both of them do 50% more damage (or some such thing, the number is just an example).

Instead of such a simple, yet effective system, it currently has a system where you get punished for trying to make "pure" characters - in fact, such characters are not viable if you progress far enough (their damage stops completely).
Last edited by Maylander; May 27th, 2010 at 09:35.
Maylander is offline

Maylander

SasqWatch

#32

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bergen
Posts: 5,381
Send a message via MSN to Maylander

Default 

May 27th, 2010, 09:50
The entire Elderscrolls skill system is a bad joke, if you ask me
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#33

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,212

Default 

May 27th, 2010, 09:56
Well yes, that's true, but the idea itself is pretty good.
Maylander is offline

Maylander

SasqWatch

#34

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bergen
Posts: 5,381
Send a message via MSN to Maylander

Default 

May 27th, 2010, 10:01
Originally Posted by Maylander View Post
Well yes, that's true, but the idea itself is pretty good.
Sure, I like the idea of a "realistic" use-based system. Unfortunately, realistic doesn't equate fun, even when implemented properly - which Elderscrolls never came close to doing. Beyond that, it's one of the most unrealistic systems I've played - so even that aspect is lost.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#35

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,212

Default 

May 27th, 2010, 12:38
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Beyond that, it's one of the most unrealistic systems I've played - so even that aspect is lost.
(Not that it matters since I also find it very badly implemented + I couldn't care less for realism - just out of curiosity) what do you find so unrealistic about it?

"I am not interested in good; I am interested in new, even if this includes the possibility of it's being evil"
(LaMonte Young, 1962)
holeraw is offline

holeraw

holeraw's Avatar
V.G.A.

#36

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 693

Default 

May 27th, 2010, 13:03
Originally Posted by Maylander View Post
One of the things bugging me the most about Oblivion, other than the obvious stuff (scaling, lack of choices, etc), is how magic is not viable at all if you pick them as your main skills. Here's what you do:
1. Pick magic skills (schools) as your main skills so you become a pure caster.
2. Max as many as possible.
3. Run from every enemy you ever meet, because you are no longer viable as a character.
You do know that in most games casters rely on gear, no ?

so the list is :

1.Pick magic skills (schools) as your main skills so you become a pure caster.
2.Max as many as possible.
3.Enchant all your gear with chameleon spell , get the ring of the Khajit , become 100% invisible
4.Summon monsters to fight your enemies while you are picking your nose or smoking a fag .

OR

2.Max illusion & sneak
3.Use area of effect spells
Tragos is offline

Tragos

Tragos's Avatar
Otinanist

#37

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Athens (the original one)
Posts: 1,435

Default 

May 27th, 2010, 13:08
Originally Posted by holeraw View Post
(Not that it matters since I also find it very badly implemented + I couldn't care less for realism - just out of curiosity) what do you find so unrealistic about it?
Well, at its most basic - I believe human beings (or whatever race, assuming a relatively plausible universe) are incapable of mastering every single skill in a given world. You're either a specialist or a "jack-of-all-trades" - but you can't be the best at everything.

In the Elderscrolls games, you can - if you're patient enough - master every single skill, because there's no decay.

That's not only highly unrealistic, it's also incredibly detrimental to replayability - because there's really no incentive to start over - as you could simply max everything. It's made even worse in Oblivion, because you can "beat" all guilds, regardless of skill levels.

I know progress is slower for minor skills and what not, but as I recall - every ES game allowed maxing of every skill.

Beyond that, they've all had the "feature" that using a skill is enough to make it increase to max, but they forget to take into account WHAT you're using it for. So, you could potentially become the best fighter in the world by hitting mudcrabs over and over. Sure, progress is slowed with some skills (IIRC?) - but it's still what people tend to do, to develop their skills. The game needs to challenge you - and it needs to require you to defeat increasingly tough challenges to actually improve.

The same is true for any skill, and stealth - at least in Oblivion - can be maxed by simply sitting in a dark corner for a long time, whilst low-level NPCs walk around close by.

Things of that nature, defeats the entire purpose of having a use-based skill system, because I assume the "realistic" nature of such a system is why it's used in the first place. If it's for flexibility, that's silly - because there's nothing inherently more flexible about it, it's just a much easier way of designing mechanics. Translation = a very lazy design.

It certainly fits my theory about Bethesda - because every single game mechanic that I can think of, is implemented in the most lazy fashion imaginable. From "design your own spell", to full-on level scaling. Sure, it's flexible - because the player does all the work, and they just make the most basic components to build from.

They even managed to ruin the excellent Fallout SPECIAL system, by making it simpler and they made 100% in pretty much all key skills possible for a single character.

They simply don't understand game design.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#38

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,212

Default 

May 27th, 2010, 13:18
Originally Posted by Tragos View Post
You do know that in most games casters rely on gear, no ?

so the list is :

1.Pick magic skills (schools) as your main skills so you become a pure caster.
2.Max as many as possible.
3.Enchant all your gear with chameleon spell , get the ring of the Khajit , become 100% invisible
4.Summon monsters to fight your enemies while you are picking your nose or smoking a fag .
I wouldn't call exploiting your way through by becoming 100% invisible it a viable tactic. It's like the staff of the magi in Baldur's Gate2 which grants a crapload of buffs (especially if you keep re-equipping it!), or the good ol'turn-into-an-ooze-using-the-sewer-cloak-and-then-wand-spam-the-area-with-acid-damage-trick! How about killing dragons by using nothing but spike traps? Amazing, makes soloing a breeze!

I prefer not to cheese my way through games, and I do not consider a certain character "viable" just because there's a way to get them through to the end. Viable means you should be able to play them in their given role, and don't tell me Bethesda confused the role of a mage with something else - everyone that knows anything about fantasy knows the classic role of a mage.

On top of that, it's even easy to fix, as I mentioned above.

Originally Posted by Tragos View Post
2.Max illusion & sneak
3.Use area of effect spells
Oh, and as far as the AoE thing goes.. are you sure you tried that at a high enough level without a mod to kill scaling? Even with single target spells that had maxed out damage it took me ages and tons of magicka to bring down a single demon - I can't even imagine what it must be like to try AoE, considering how much more expensive they tend to be.
Maylander is offline

Maylander

SasqWatch

#39

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bergen
Posts: 5,381
Send a message via MSN to Maylander

Default 

May 27th, 2010, 13:32
Their spell damage/weapon values are simplistic in the extreme and also lazy. They simply place a basic number for each weapon or spell and let it scale with skill. Absolutely nothing to make mechanics interesting or balanced, just scaling a single number all the way through. I don't think they even have hit chance or crits, or ANYTHING interesting in their latest incarnations.

Really, it's a wonder people are so enthralled with their systems.

I can appreciate the visual immersion and the technical wizardry - but in terms of game mechanics, Bethesda outright suck. Worse than Bioware, even
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#40

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,212
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Two Worlds II - Screens @ Worthplaying
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 22:51.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch