Risen 2 - First Reviews

As usuaul, I will wait for some hands-on-reports from our great readers and staff. But in all honesty - PB would have to really have screwed up for me to not get this eventually. Haven't disliked a single one of their games yet (although I waited long for G3, until the Community Patch was already well developed).

If they decide to patch the game i will get this eventually, otherwise i have no interest in supporting Deep Silver..

Oh I am pretty sure that it will turn out to be a decent game at least (I expect it to be decent to good actually ).

But that will just not cut it for a fan like myself

They are taking the series in a 180 degree opposite direction from what I would have actually liked them to and quite frankly It rankles because I know they can do soo much better…

But more practically I cannot afford to allot my limited gaming time to something "decent"… or buy at full price… I'd rather support the indies and replay old favorites every few years (haven't even touched most of my GOG purchases yet!) or look into my modest backlog (DeusX is still gathering dust in my HD) or read a book (and thin my ridiculous 60-70 piece backlog )…

So if the game is not up to snuff (and probably even if it just makes the cut) next PB game will be a full price purchase, only if they do another 180 design wise, this time towards the right direction…

Well, I gave them a pass with Risen - because it was a first in a new series - and they needed to re-establish themselves.

The game was ultimately a remake of Gothic 1 and Gothic 2 - without much in the way of evolution or ambition. It was too short and the pacing was uneven.

That's still good, but I can only play the same game for so long before tiring of it.

I respect their desire to try something new, and I understand the creative fatigue when doing the same things over and over.

But they shouldn't go against themselves in terms of the best aspects.

Length is extremely important to me in an open world game focusing on exploration, and ~35 hours just don't cut it.

I can deal with subpar animations and somewhat clunky mechanics - but I can't support mainstreaming of such a beloved paradigm, and I can't support dividing the world into small pieces without something signicant to compensate.

In the end, I'll probably buy this out of my love for PB's style - but I can't see myself buying Risen 3 or the next Gothic - unless I see some sure sign that they're going back to their strengths.

Wasnt Arcania a good example that dumbing down doesnt work out (63% on metacritic). Maybe it sold really well, but i really doubt that. Skyrim sold really well, and they didnt even remove leveling up, maybe that's a hint that removing stuff or dumbing down things doesnt necessarily mean it will sell a lot more?

I must agree to being equally perplexed about the recent trend from several game designers towards that direction. I usually chalk it up to me not understanding the mass market (at all) but then I see these head scratching design decisions actually being criticized and ridiculed in mainstream media too (not to mention by users outside communities like rpgwatch too, does anybody like QTE's i.e ?)…

"Dumbing down" works just fine, depending on the audience. ArcaniA's problem wasn't so much that it was dumbed down - but that it was among the most irrelevant and bland games of its particularly subgenre. It was an unknown entity trying to pass itself off as a Gothic game - which means it directed itself primarily towards fans of Gothic.

Not exactly a smart marketing strategy, regardless of who else they were trying to target.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
"Dumbing down" works just fine, depending on the audience. ArcaniA's problem wasn't so much that it was dumbed down - but that it was among the most irrelevant and bland games of its particularly subgenre. It was an unknown entity trying to pass itself off as a Gothic game - which means it directed itself primarily towards fans of Gothic.

Not exactly a smart marketing strategy, regardless of who else they were trying to target.

Correct as that may be. I do believe (no data to back it up, just speculation sorry) that if the target group for RPG's were presented with a deeper game but with the level of polish of the AAA dumbed down crap they would lap it up and ask for more. (See the Witcher2)

I can't explain the very positive user comments I am reading about games like the Gothics (or the Witcher or Stalker i.e to use a shooter example) in various bits and parts of the internets…

It is usually bugs/polish and interface and presentation and marketing budgets that I believe make the difference to broad appeal here more often than not.

Skyrim (despite my criticism of it) may indeed be a good indication that the "general public" can indeed be fed bits of something more strongly tasting…

Is this generation of gamers the bunch of ADHD idiots we sometimes make them out to be or are they conditioned to be that way(*) by a market that wants to work that way and are actually craving something more substantial (without even knowing it most of the time ) ?

(* speedily consume glittery crap then rush to buy the next one etc..)

I think it's simply about level of interest and commitment. I don't consider a casual RPG fan less smart than I am, nor do I consider him as suffering from ADHD.

He's just got other things he cares about, where as I'm quite a bit more focused in my interests than average.

But you can't present a casual gamer (read - someone who doesn't game that much) with an opaque interface or with a highly complex gameplay paradigm that expects you to have played many, many games of the genre in question.

So, I'd say complex games are as universally appealing as any mental diversion - but it also demands a certain level of experience, which in turn demands a certain level of interest.

As the mainstream audience increases in size, and as they experience a greater diversity of games and complexity - it's only natural that the amount of gamers transitioning from casual to enthusiast fans increases.

Skyrim helped A LOT - because Bethesda combined more complexity with even higher production values.

As in, "cool stuff" is also universally appealing - and denying that we like it (as core fans) is delusional or deceitful. The difference between these cool things (that comes with high production values) and complex gameplay - is simply a much lower barrier of entry.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Best review I've seen so far. I highly recommend watching it.

That was a good review.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
But you can't present a casual gamer (read - someone who doesn't game that much) with an opaque interface or with a highly complex gameplay paradigm that expects you to have played many, many games of the genre in question.

Well that was a bit different group than the one I had in mind. I was more mentioning the kind of player that gets almost every AAA game coming out and games prolifically but reduces his buying habits to the aforementioned glittery crap.

That one would be particularly "vulnerable" to more deep games of high production values imo, but that may well be wishful thinking.

Also, apologies for the offtopic derail to people actually interested in reading about Risen 2

Originally Posted by JonNik
Well that was a bit different group than the one I had in mind. I was more mentioning the kind of player that gets almost every AAA game coming out and games prolifically but reduces his buying habits to the aforementioned glittery crap.

That one would be particularly "vulnerable" to more deep games of high production values imo, but that well may be wishful thinking.

Also, apologies for the offtopic derail to people actually interested to reading about Risen 2

I'm not sure I know of such a stereotype.

Oh, I'm sure there are examples of players who love to play - but who will only go for AAA games. But I think such a person would relatively quickly "evolve" his tastes to include more complexity - and more towards less AAA stuff, simply to get at the meat. Production values are universally appealing, but they won't keep anyone interested exclusively, indefinitely.

But, maybe it's for another thread

I wouldn't be too worried about mixed reviews. Didn't the first game get the same treatment? It seems Piranha Bytes is going to make their games the way they want to make them, which isn't exactly the most accessible or user-friendly, and some people are not going to like that approach. For those who can wrap their heads around the games, they will probably like them. For casual folks who just want to play a new RPG but not try too hard, they will probably not like it. But I'm not worried. I will probably like the game.

I can't help but agree with Ken Rolston though, who says the Morrowind experience is still a relevant experience, but it needs to be made accessible. Whenever someone decides to make an RPG like that they are going to have a huge hit. Because I think people do want to play something complex with some meat to it, but don't want to be overwhelmed because the game is not user-friendly at all. Games like Skyrim prove that large amounts of people can enjoy complex games. Now if more games took that approach, they would not only sell better, but they'd rate better, and also have the chance of being better games because of it. Just make them more intuitive for people to jump into.

Piranha Bytes will do fine with their niche audience I'm sure, but I can't help but wonder how their company could grow if they just made their games a bit more accessible.

Originally Posted by Fluent
Piranha Bytes will do fine with their niche audience I'm sure, but I can't help but wonder how their company could grow if they just made their games a bit more accessible.

Even more accessible than they've already made Risen 2 (removed leveling, made the combat, UI etc very simplified). Something like Arcania or even more simplified? I hope it would sell really, really bad, and i think it would.

I'm sorry, but how does Skyrim prove that complex games can sell well? That's a game that literally demands nothing from the player.

You just follow a marker and kill or activate something at the end of it. Sometimes you gain a level and select a new power, but the low difficulty pretty much ensures that you no matter what you select you're going to be fine. There's barely any consequences to anything in the entire game.

The only thing it proves is that a casual RPG doesn't have to be an on-rails cinematic experience.

If you'd used New Vegas as an example that a (relatively) complex RPG can sell huge amounts, I'd agree.

Skyrim is just a more "accessible" Oblivion with a much more interesting world.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
If you'd used New Vegas as an example that a (relatively) complex RPG can sell huge amounts, I'd agree.

+10

Did it though (serious question, do we have numbers)?

Originally Posted by JonNik
+10

Did it though (serious question, do we have numbers)?

http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11788

Originally Posted by TheSisko
I'm sorry, but how does Skyrim prove that complex games can sell well?

Who said it's complex? It's far from "complex", but so is Risen 1 or 2. It seems to me like they're very confused of who they want to please. They've removed the mini-map which will please hardcore players and anger the casual gamer, they've made earning gold hard, same thing there.. They've dumbed down the combat, dumbed down the RPG aspects, they've added fast travelling, this might please the casual gamer but not the hardcore RPG'er or their fans.

Originally Posted by vurt
Who said it's complex?

People in this thread.

Originally Posted by vurt
It's far from "complex", but so is Risen 1 or 2. It seems to me like they're very confused of who they want to please. They've removed the mini-map which will please hardcore players and anger the casual gamer, they've made earning gold hard, same thing there..
They've dumbed down the combat, dumbed down the RPG aspects, they've added fast travelling, this might please the casual gamer but not the hardcore RPG'er or their fans.

I'm guessing that PB didn't want to dumb anything down but that their publishers demanded certain features.

Also, I doubt that "streamlining" of combat and stats really satisfy anyone looking for a "dumbed down" (casual) game. There are plenty of casual games with lots of combat moves and even lots of stats.

The key "appeal to casual gamers" element that is missing from PB games is extensive hand-holding and low difficulty. It's pretty pointless to "dumb down" other elements of the game while leaving those two uncompromised.

Complexity isn't necessarily about demanding more from the player. It can be there as an optional layer.

In Skyrim, there's significantly more complexity than Oblivion in terms of the character system, and Skyrim sold 10+ million copies.

So, it's clearly a demonstration of how "more" complex games can sell.

If we're talking about implicit challenge, however, it's not a good example.