Two Worlds II - Content Clarified @ Joystiq, Eurogamer

[Dhruin]

I was going to write a lengthy response but given that I seem to be coming off as frothing at the mouth (which I just can't see), I'll just go with some quick comments.

- I personally found the game on the low side of mediocre. Not "bad" but certainly not good enough to waste my limited time with. YMMV, of course.

- The argument over locations is partly semantics but, again, I don't really get the love. It has nicely designed geography but I found the content awful and I don't want to play Fantasy Landscape Tourist. If a location doesn't provide interesting quests and scenarios, it's a waste of time and I didn't find any compelling content in the time I've played.

- Oblivion has a list of flaws a mile long but I found the combat significantly better (stealth and archery were quite fun, to be honest), much, much better writing and some decent quests. No, not great quests with choices and multiple solutions but at least some attempt to provide creative things to do. The quest in the painting in Cheyhindal, the haunted ship or the female thieving gang in Anvil, the twins in Chorral, the paranoid elf in Skingrad (the whole Dark Brotherhood and Gray Fox lines are linear as hell but nice story chains). Bravil, Anvil and Lleyawin are all port towns but one is rich, one is poor and one is full of canals, ramps and Khajjits. The surrounding forest may be too similar but the towns are definitely different.

- Who cares which is better? Good point. But watch how often someone says "at least it's better than Oblivion" whenever TW comes up. It really isn't.

- But the main thing, going back to where this went off the tracks, is the silly idea that gamers "have themselves to blame" for not being satisfied with a mediocre 3D Diablo with horrid writing.

---

Still too much frothing? Oh well, some days are like that.

 

[txa1265]

Still too much frothing? Oh well, some days are like that.

I thought it was all good.

 

[bemushroomed]

If there were a buttload of games like this i probably wouldnt have looked at it, but as someone already mentioned there are very, very few free roaming RPG's like this. If you dont care much for it its probably because you havent played Gothic and Oblivion to death and/or arent really a huge fan of this genre.

 

[rune_74]

You know, I have played alot of two worlds....and recently I reinstalled oblivion and a crap load of mods....and I'm having a blast. Oblivion is the easy target for many "rpg" people. When it first came out I spent about 80 hours on it...already in the last week I have spent maybe 14. It is not the perfect rpg but it sure as hell isn't garbage. Bethesda seems to be the whipping boy of the internet rpg zealots. I'm having fun playing it, thats what really matters at the end of the day.

 

[Hindukönig]

Regarding Gothic being a "pure" RPG ...

I don't understand this to be honest. It's got exploration, it's got freedom of action, it's got character development and genuine choices. What is not (C)RPG about it? It's far more of a CRPG than the post Baldur's Gate Bioware gamebook/dating sim things.

Maybe, but Gothic still is mainly an action/adventure game. The problem is the R in RPG ... the character you play is predefined, and you can only train in skills which all focus on combat (there is no charisma or diplomacy skill in the game, or anything like this).
Moreover, a "pure" RPG wouldn't allow the kind of combat Gothic has. It's too often the dexterity of the player (not the player character) which affects the combat.

But, oh well, it's a great game. Just not a "pure RPG". Too focused on action/combat/killing.

 

[zakhal]

But, oh well, it's a great game. Just not a "pure RPG". Too focused on action/combat/killing.

Perhaps pure is too much for purists but what I meant was that Gothic is certainly more rpg than say action-rpgs like Diablo-clones that often are just excused levelling-threadmills.

 

[Cassius]

The problem is the R in RPG ... the character you play is predefined, and you can only train in skills which all focus on combat (there is no charisma or diplomacy skill in the game, or anything like this).

You're absolutely right there. It's an obvious weakness in the Gothic games. The series is poor in regards putting yourself "in character" because the Nameless Hero is a preset character. You're stuck with him, and if you don't like him ... well, it's a bit like an adventure game in that regard. Despite that, I believe PB did everything else right in terms of CRPGs features. The games are light-weight on some levels - character building for example - but they are definitely real CRPGs as opposed to 'ARPG' Diablo rougelikes.

 

[DArtagnan]

You're absolutely right there. It's an obvious weakness in the Gothic games. The series is poor in regards putting yourself "in character" because the Nameless Hero is a preset character. You're stuck with him, and if you don't like him ... well, it's a bit like an adventure game in that regard. Despite that, I believe PB did everything else right in terms of CRPGs features. The games are light-weight on some levels - character building for example - but they are definitely real CRPGs as opposed to 'ARPG' Diablo rougelikes.

Yeah, I agree with this.

It was always a weakness, and what's more an UNNECESSARY weakness in Gothic. Because they didn't use the nameless hero for anything that character creation would have disturbed.

Just let us pick an appearance and a few details, along with a name. That in itself is enough to create the feeling of "becoming" the character, at least to me.

I'd prefer, naturally, to have some kind of initial character system - where I could generate the kind of build I'd be playing, like a stealth/fighter/mage/whatever - but it's not really needed with their approach. That's just how I like it, but I certainly see no reason for us not to have a say in his creation or background.

That said, the character in Gothic is SO anonymous and SO neutral in his entire approach - that it doesn't bother me like it would normally.

 

[txa1265]

That said, the character in Gothic is SO anonymous and SO neutral in his entire approach - that it doesn't bother me like it would normally.

Not quite so neutral ... it is 50% exclusionary ... by not allowing a female. Again, completely unnecessary.

 

[DArtagnan]

Not quite so neutral ... it is 50% exclusionary ... by not allowing a female. Again, completely unnecessary.

Point taken, but that's irrelevant to me - now isn't it

Anyway, I think the percentage of females into the Gothic-style is pretty low and in this case we'd be talking 5-10% exclusionary, but you're right, of course.

 

[txa1265]

Point taken, but that's irrelevant to me - now isn't it

Anyway, I think the percentage of females into the Gothic-style is pretty low and in this case we'd be talking 5-10% exclusionary, but you're right, of course.

The reason I mention it is that it has come up here, and certain of our female members has stated a distaste for being stuck playing as a man so often. Personally I sometimes play male, other times play female, in games I have a choice.

 

[DArtagnan]

The reason I mention it is that it has come up here, and certain of our female members has stated a distaste for being stuck playing as a man so often. Personally I sometimes play male, other times play female, in games I have a choice.

Yeah, I know and I agree. The choice should be there.

I just consider Gothic to be one of those games where it's not a big issue, except for the principle.