Two Worlds - Biggest Disappointments of 2007 @ Game|Life

I'm guessing someone is a huge fan of Oblivion because otherwise, Two World's appearance in Game|Life's 10 Biggest Disappointments of 2007 seems a bit out of place:

Two Worlds. It was called the "Oblivion killer," and if Two Worlds had managed to pull through with its promises of dynamic combat, expansive storytelling and online play, it very well could have been. Sloppy controls, broken online, and numerous glitches made Two Worlds virtually unplayable, however. On those rare occasions that it wasn't crashing, its blindness-inducing menus and useless journal system made exploring the Kingdom of Cathalon an exercise in drudgery. Zuxxez Entertainment is doing its best to support Two Worlds just the same, releasing patches and new content that have, so far, failed to make much difference.

More information.

Hey, are you saying Two Worlds is actually NOT a disappointment? Wow, that's unexpected.

Disapointment? Two World is a great game. Although it had some bugs when it first came out, I was able to play it thorough without problems. It looks very nice and has an interesting story. Oh and the developers have done an incredible job with their constant support. If you install Patch 1.6 you'll practically have a new game. No issues worth mention anymore and a lot of new content. That's something you just wont find in the gaming industry these days. I'm looking forward to the add on.

I'd say Two Worlds was a great surprise 2007 - but in no way a disapointment.

You can only be dissapointed if your expectations are too high. For me Two Worlds came out of nowhere - it is an average/good crpg. The patch support is very good and I plan to play the final game again.

I actually did like Two Worlds. It is a good game, not great but good.

I really wouldn't call it a big dissapointment.

Good, but not great was the general consensus around here and was reflected in our official review of the game. In no way could it be considered a disappointment, except for the 360 version, but who really cares about consoles anyway!!!!

Originally Posted by Corwin
Good, but not great was the general consensus around here and was reflected in our official review of the game. In no way could it be considered a disappointment, except for the 360 version, but who really cares about consoles anyway!!!!

That's something I've been wondering about. Console games can be patched as well (as far as I know). Is the update 1.6 also available for the XBox360? I don't know if it was 1.6 but one of the updates made horses finally usable and that's a must if you want to play TW. Btw. I restarted the game just a few days ago. I'm level 20 now and I really enjoy it

I was underwhelmed by Two Worlds but really, how can it be one of the biggest disappointments of 2007? It's a fair-middling overly-ambitious game from a Polish developer that writer would never have heard of before (yes, I know they did the Earth 21xx series and KnightShift - but do you think she does?). This is why I thought it was out of place - only a huge Oblivion fan that somehow bought into the hype that this would be even better (but with MP!) and really built up huge expectations could consider it in the Top 10 letdowns across all platforms.

I do not know about the X-Box 360 version - never owned a console and do not plan to - but it seemed to be quite free of bugs in the patched PC version I played. To say it was virtually unplayable is factually wrong. Two Worlds probably gained most from all games released this year from being patched, so the authors statement of patches not making much of a difference for Two Worlds is kind of misleading.

Well, if they just wanted to make a bang by flaming some games at the end of the year, I think Game|Life succeeded. But woe betide the poor souls believing the drivel they are writing

P.S.: Hark ye! I heard the english version suffered from some fake renaissance english dialogues, though.

Is it actually remotely worth playing? I'm not expecting anything in the same league as MoTB or the Witcher, but is it a reasonably solid bit of rpg filler while I wait for something else memorable?

Less bland than oblivion hopefully.

Originally Posted by Benedict
Is it actually remotely worth playing? I'm not expecting anything in the same league as MoTB or the Witcher, but is it a reasonably solid bit of rpg filler while I wait for something else memorable?

Less bland than oblivion hopefully.

Definitely worth playing yes, it's closer to Gothic than any of the games you mentioned as far as gameplay goes. Some people will tell you it's even better than Gothic 3, although I strongly disagree with that assessment.

Cool, probably worth a go then. I might give Gothic 3 another go at some point, have they patched away some of the major issues now?

Originally Posted by Benedict
Cool, probably worth a go then. I might give Gothic 3 another go at some point, have they patched away some of the major issues now?

With the latest community patch, Gothic 3 is nearly free of any quest\plot bugs. I would wait till the 1.6 patch, which looks like it could very well make G3 the game it was originally supposed to be.

Originally Posted by JDR13
With the latest community patch, Gothic 3 is nearly free of any quest\plot bugs. I would wait till the 1.6 patch, which looks like it could very well make G3 the game it was originally supposed to be.

So long as I can kick in some wolves without dying I'll be happy. I ended up forced into a magic user build which was a little disappointing, I think magic in the gothics quickly ends up taking all the fun out of it as you can kill everything so quickly.

The only thing about Two Worlds that was truly pathetic was the main storyline. The rest of the game was pretty well done. Not a classic, but a decent game. The main storyline was really lame and the final "boss fight" was a one-hit affair. It would have been great if the final enemy had some skill at combat. I'm judging only the single player aspects though. I've never played the "multiplayer" part of any game except for Minions of Mirth. I plod along in games, so I'd drive anyone playing with me bonkers.

This person list was nothing but self serving clap trap served to justify her prior mediocre review of the game. And based on her review, I doubt she put in more than a few hours before she wrote up the game.

Have to say it was Hellgate: London for me. Only because I really like Diablo games though and Helgate is just… really dull.

Two worlds is a good game imho but if you compare it to the hype it might be a disappointment. The xbox version also had som problems.

Originally Posted by woges
Have to say it was Hellgate: London for me. Only because I really like Diablo games though and Helgate is just… really dull.

I feel the same about Hellgate. The strange part about it is that of all things, the writers continued attempts at being funny instead of serious not only fall flat for me, but also destroy what little bit of atmosphere and tension the game might have attained otherwise. Guess being british is no guarantee for good humour, either.

Here in California, we'll have a drizzle of rain that will last about 32 seconds. Up in Oregon where my brother lives, the news will report the 'rain' with such hyperbole that he will call me up in a panic and ask if he should come pick me up in a boat since all of California is underwater.

That's the sort of hyperbole this 'top ten dissapointment' reminds me of. After you read this article you'd think the Two Worlds install disc would not only destroy your PC and your home it crashes so often, but that it would be very likely the universe will turn on one side as well.

What I'd really like to see from the 'internet' press is the 'Top Ten' most disappointing aspect of on-line articles from the reader's perspective. I bet us, as readers, would be hard pressed to find much hyperbole there.