Two Worlds

Originally Posted by RivianWitch
That is true, ( esp. about the bloom ), except that the character models in TW is ugly as hell. Otherwise, I thought the gameworld itself was pretty enough – possibly even prettier than Oblivion in the sense of that it had more variety, like desert and laval molten rock, and jungle, as well as an Eastern setting in the Southwest.

You are calling TW models ugly compared with the fugly faces in Oblivion? Again, each has pros and cons …

Originally Posted by rune_74
Did none of you see that horrible intro in two worlds? I liked the game but come on that was bad. They were no where near on par with oblivion….how long has it been since you guys have played oblivion?

You're letting the intro affect your opinion that much? I barely even pay attention to intros to be honest, they usually give no indication as to what the rest of the game is going to be like.

Originally Posted by Thoth
On par with Oblivion? You mean that never ending tutorial that you can't skip no matter how many times you play that game?

And to be honest both games look the same. At least with bloom on there's no real way to tell the difference between any of these games. That and the same green grass and trees.

Exagerate much? The tutorial that takes 20 minutes….that you can add a mod to skip? There is no way the two look the same unless you are looking crosseyed and require very thick glasses.

Originally Posted by JDR13
You're letting the intro affect your opinion that much? I barely even pay attention to intros to be honest, they usually give no indication as to what the rest of the game is going to be like.

Well, the intro is what sets the stage….and when it is that bad for voices and overal animation/graphics it makes you nervous about the rest of the game…I have played two worlds and liked it…I just don't have unrealistic claims to make it about it because it is not from bethesda.

Originally Posted by JDR13
You're letting the intro affect your opinion that much? I barely even pay attention to intros to be honest, they usually give no indication as to what the rest of the game is going to be like.

Look at it this way - if you let the intro decide how you felt about Bloodlines it would not be on so many of our 'top 3 of the past 5 years' list.

Originally Posted by rune_74
I have played two worlds and liked it…I just don't have unrealistic claims to make it about it because it is not from bethesda.

I'm not even sure what you mean with that comment. Are you saying that you didn't expect much because it wasn't from Bethesda?

Originally Posted by JDR13
I'm not even sure what you mean with that comment. Are you saying that you didn't expect much because it wasn't from Bethesda?

I'm also confused - he is hopping from poor graphics to blaming the intro to something related to Bethesda … I just dunno …

heh, that didn't come out clear. I meant that I liked two worlds but I will not say it is better then oblivion, since it was not. Alot o f peopel do I think(my opinion) because of the basic dislike of anything bethesda. Production values on two world were not up to the standard of either oblivion or gothic.

Originally Posted by rune_74
Production values on two world were not up to the standard of either oblivion or gothic.

Now that is a statement that I can definitely agree with.

Of course I'm not implying that higher production values automatically means a better game either…

I would say higher production values lead to a better game…how could it not? It means that they had a higher standard of what they would accept….

Originally Posted by rune_74
I would say higher production values lead to a better game…how could it not? It means that they had a higher standard of what they would accept….

So then the game with the best polish is the best game? Meaning that Dungeon Siege is better than Planescape and BG2 and The Witcher and … ?

I never said polish….I said production values. For the record IW ould not say dungeon seige had better production values then any of those games. As well, you have to have a bell curve for older games since it would be unfair. You are mnistaking production values with just graphics, when I would think it should include everything.

"Production values" basically comes down to more time, manpower, and money. It still doesn't guarantee that any particular game will be better than another. Although I'm sure it certainly increases the likelihood.

Better production values can make for a pleasanter experience, but I also feel that it doesn't necessarily intrinsically make a better game. On the other hand, a game with a boring generic story, and/or shallow, unchallenging and/or uninteresting gameplay, might appear to be a better game than a really original, rich and challenging game, because it appears more polished, but one has to then qualify which aspects of it would make it better than the other game.

A game can have a good story and gameplay system, and setting, etc, but still be shoddily produced. That is to say, if a game with low production values had been produced by another dev or if the same dev had been been forced by a different publisher to meet higher standards, that game would still have been intrinsically the same game, but would appear a lot more polished and technically better taken care of and/or result in better gameplay, because of the higher production values, and just for that reason it will obviously give a better impression at first glance.

From there, it will depend on how important each aspect of a game is to the particular gamer, in how forgiving he will be towards poorer production values.

Originally Posted by rune_74
I never said polish….I said production values. For the record IW ould not say dungeon seige had better production values then any of those games. As well, you have to have a bell curve for older games since it would be unfair. You are mnistaking production values with just graphics, when I would think it should include everything.

Originally Posted by JDR13
"Production values" basically comes down to more time, manpower, and money. It still doesn't guarantee that any particular game will be better than another. Although I'm sure it certainly increases the likelihood.

It really depends on how you define 'production values'. Is it making sure that textures match and doors open every time and dialogue that should be gender-specific matches the gender of the PC? To me that is polish. Or is it making sure the design goals were met? Or ?

For me: Jak się masz? or Co słychać? this is polish

sorry I had a rough day

Seriously though, isn't production values depending on the person, if graphics is the most important thing, if it doesn't have the best graphics ever seen, you might say it has poor production value, even if the production budget was much bigger compared to a game with a much smaller budget ?

Like there is no AAA game that could ever compare in productions value to dwarf fortress, if by production value you mean the amount of alternative freedom and possiblity you get in gameplay.

But another thing is that you might have some parts missing or some parts feel unfinished… like there is a secret door but it leads to nowhere……..

It still doesn't guarantee that any particular game will be better than another. Although I'm sure it certainly increases the likelihood.

I think in many case it could decrease it, like in Tabula Rasa they where given a lot of resources and wanted to make things so grand etc etc, but they never managed to get the act togheter… on a smaller and tigheter schedule they might have to "aim lower" but the production values of the final product could have been better ???

Well I've never truly played this game myself, but I have seen a friend playing it, and also watched the Lets play on youtube.

It's a shame this game was so bad in terms of production value, because some of the basic ideas were nice, and the land itself had quite an interresting history.

I must say, that I didn't really find it to have had such bad production values. From a personal point of view, I had just found the character models ugly, a case of personal preference and aesthetics. It's an enjoyable enough game, IMO, and I especially liked the huge variation in the gameworld.

I liked it enough to want buy TW2, certainly. (As long as its' reasonably priced )

I think Two World is okay when you see it as an action rpg, not as game like gothic or oblivion. Maybe they use the time in tw2 to get more quality gameplay.

Whilst I've only spent a few hours with Two Worlds thus far, it is quite obvious to me that its production values don't match that of Oblivion or even the Gothics, which have much more dynamic systems behind them. (particularly the combat, which feels a bit naff in TW)

Nonetheless, the game is an hilarious romp and much of the criticism I've read about dialogue appear to me to not really hit the mark, nor comprehend the light-hearted chivalric frivolity that the game tends to frolic within. It's an action exploration game that can never really match Gothic for being memorable or deep, but it does what it does with such an amusing old fashioned pomp and spirit.

In short, I don't think I've laughed out loud so often during an action rpg for a long time. Hopefully it can maintain this humour as I progress. Indeed, forsooth!