Risen 2 - First Reviews

Thanks, Impressive!

Kinda begs the question why Obsidian is in its current woeful state though (shifty publishing deals I am sure)…

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

What's the point? LARPing that the game requires you to read books and optimize your character doesn't make it complex. When there are no consequences to choices they becoming cosmetic.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
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.

Both were compromised though. Both the combat is easier and less demanding to learn and segmenting the world to zones that make it less easy for the user to get lost and wander aimlessly… (giving less rope to the player to hang himself with so to speak as was started in Risen 1)

The character system/progression is also simplified and rather easier to digest I believe but I need to see more there…

Originally Posted by vurt
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.

Arcania wasn't really accessible, it was just a bad game in my opinion. I only played the demo but really didn't like it too much.

Piranha Bytes has a long way to go to make their games more accessible. They can take tips from Skyrim in that regard.

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

Skyrim at it's core is very complex and deep, yet the game's interface is done in a way that is very easy to use and accessible. Skyrim is like an Apple product. Very complex mechanics at their core but simple to use. Just because something is simple to use does not mean it's not deep as well. In this case I was using the word complex to account for overall game depth. Skyrim is a deep game. It just also happens to be simple to play. That's not saying it's an easy game, because it has multiple difficulties that are challenging, but even the default difficulty has it's challenges at times. But the overall experience remains easy to use.

It appears that that is not the case in Piranha Bytes games. PB games are more "obtuse" and harder to wrap your head around their workings. Fans of PB might love the games for that reason, but you can't deny that making those games slightly more user friendly would probably bring in a slew of better ratings, more sales, and growth as a company. And apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that, just read the reviews of the people who say the game is not accessible or user-friendly.

I personally remember playing Risen for the first time and getting pummeled because I had no idea what I was doing. Didn't know where to go, what items were useful, what weapons I could use, etc. The game basically dumps you on the island and says, "Good luck!!". Which for some gamers, is fine. I enjoyed the game quite a bit and eventually figured out most of it, and when I did figure it out it became great. But I know some people would also hate Risen because it's not that easy to just pick up and play. And I also know some gamers would be completely isolated from a game like Risen because they wouldn't even understand how to figure it out. For example, my dad couldn't play Risen, he would get his ass handed to him, and he'd probably get frustrated and have no idea where to go or what to do, etc. So he would just be shit out of luck.

Would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing? It just depends on your perspective. But these days I tend to lean towards games that are more easy to pick up and play, like a Skyrim, or Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning. Those games still have a ton of depth, yet they're simple to play and enjoy. I will still check out Risen 2 and I hope it does well, but I do think that PB can do themselves a favor by making future games a bit easier to pick up and play. You can make a game as complex as you like, but you should also make it accessible as well.

I completely agree with The Sisko, also desiring the company the similar fate is rough since I don't want them to finish like jowood, but the direction it goes is not right either. In this cause even the beloved Skyrim game encouraged more others developers to, if they managed to spend less time on the rpg aspects of game and sell that many copys maybe they would get away to I assume.

I never found Risen 1 hard to play or not as accessible as Skyrim, i doubt that's the problem it doesnt sell as well.

Dark Souls, which is probably the least accessible game i've played in years, still sold a ton - and that game is for consoles.. It's all about making a great game, it will sell even if it's not very accessible.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
What's the point? LARPing that the game requires you to read books and optimize your character doesn't make it complex. When there are no consequences to choices they becoming cosmetic.

I can't decide what the point is for you, but for me - it's hugely entertaining to build an efficient character, even despite the game not demanding it. I like dealing more damage and I like playing around with "toys".

Oh, naturally, I'd prefer more challenge - but at the highest difficulty level, I'd say the complexity has a point. Beyond that, we have mods to tailor challenge - and I'm really happy that the core is complex enough to support the kind of character building I find entertaining.

You can of course insist that it's not complexity to give the player more choices that will impact performance, but I'll have to disagree.

Originally Posted by JonNik
Both were compromised though. Both the combat is easier and less demanding to learn and segmenting the world to zones that make it less easy for the user to get lost and wander aimlessly… (giving less rope to the player to hang himself with so to speak as was started in Risen 1)

The character system/progression is also simplified and rather easier to digest I believe but I need to see more there…

My point was that it doesn't matter, because I don't think there's a large audience who wants simplified systems but is still fine with the often punishing difficulty and lack of hand-holding. Which is why I think the specific changes were requested by the publisher and that PB tried their best to make the game they wanted within those requirements.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I can't decide what the point is for you, but for me - it's hugely entertaining to build an efficient character, even despite the game not demanding it. I like dealing more damage and I like playing around with "toys".

Alright, let me rephrase then: The kind of optional complexity that Skyrim has doesn't impact how receptive the "mainstream" audience is to an RPG that is less forgiving and has less hand holding.

Of course, that makes it pretty silly for PB to reduce the complexity of their gameplay systems while retaining the "hardcore" aspects of their games.
If they wanted to "chase the Skyrim audience", they should have added more combat skills and options and instead implemented stuff like quest compass and level scaling.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
Alright, let me rephrase then: The kind of optional complexity that Skyrim has doesn't impact how receptive the "mainstream" audience is to an RPG that is less forgiving and has less hand holding.

Of course, that makes it pretty silly for PB to reduce the complexity of their gameplay systems while retaining the "hardcore" aspects of their games.
If they wanted to "chase the Skyrim audience", they should have added more combat skills and options and instead implemented stuff like quest compass and level scaling.

Oh, we can agree that Skyrim doesn't prove that people want more challenge.

But, I've met lots of hardcore fans of complexity who weren't fans of challenge.

Need we mention The Witcher 2? It was both complex and challenging, and lots of players around here found it too difficult.

I don't think challenge has any direct relationship with the enthusiast audience.

Also, if by some miracle Bethesda one day implements meaningful difficulty levels (as in, not just a number scaler) - I don't think that will negatively impact sales at all.

So, ultimately, I think Skyrim is very good for broadening the horizon of casual gamers.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Oh, we can agree that Skyrim doesn't prove that people want more challenge.

I'm not just talking about challenge. I'm talking about just requiring some level of thinking and involvement in order to progress, or at least progress in a desired direction.

New Vegas has a quest compass and a hand-holding journal, but still often requires some involvement and thought in order to reach desired results.

One such example is the quest "One for My Baby". The apparent quest goal is simply to talk someone into standing in front of Boone and the quest markers point to every single NPC in the town, but just blindly following this goal probably will result in Boone attacking you. It's up to the player to decide how and if he wants to investigate the matter.

In contrast, in Skyrim I had a quest to find an NPC, but even though I found a note with his location, the NPC wouldn't spawn until I first followed my quest marker back to the quest-giver so he could read the note and give me a new quest marker.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
So, ultimately, I think Skyrim is very good for broadening the horizon of casual gamers.

How is that? I can see it getting more publishers interested in funding open-world RPG's but not much else.

Originally Posted by vurt
Even more accessible than they've already made Risen 2 (removed leveling, made the combat, UI etc very simplified).

It´s not very clear to me where this notion of simplification comes from.
I mean

Originally Posted by vurt
removed leveling

From what I´ve gathered this is plain incorrect.
There seems to be a lot of skills in the game, you do have to level/train them for your character to be efficient with them and apparently the exp points and gold aren´t particularly plentiful, which means C&C on character development level.
The game seems to be pretty difficult and thus leveling these abilities likely isn´t just a redundant bonus.
Also, there´s a good variety of skills usable out of combat (speech or thievery) and some skills factoring into combat indirectly (alchemy, crafting).

Originally Posted by vurt
combat, UI etc very simplified

Combat simplified compared to what?
All I´ve read so far indicates it´s at least as complex as in Risen.
You have melee, firearms, thrown weapons, voodoo and those dirty tricks and, again, since the game seems difficult, only one of these disciplines won´t cut it.
Non-humanoid enemies in particular seem to be designed in a way that encourages not relying on the usual melee.
Seems like the combat is simplified only in the beginning (as was in Risen) and you need to employ the "removed leveling" to get more options in it (parry, riposte, etc).
Companions are probably "unbalancing", but they might as well work quite well for variety´s sake since each seems to have different strengths, and you can´t use them everywhere anyway.
Now, I don´t know whether this results in a fun/good combat experience, but I don´t see any net simplification here - lack of dodge/sidestep definitely is simplification, but some of the support skills (dirty tricks, pistols) might as well make up for it in this regard.

As for the UI, no minimap and scarce quest markers are definitely a good kind of simplification in my book and the inventory doesn´t seem simplified at all to me - quite the opposite, it seems needlessly complicated.


But to be honest, I find the reviews for the game rather confusing so far.
Even the GameBanshee one sorta sends mixed signals - in the conclusion BrotherNone claims that "Risen 2 is your quintessential two steps forward, one step back title", but to me the rest of the review read more like it´s "one step forward, two steps back" case, I was particularly disappointed by (to me) new info indicating that Risen´s puzzle elements in dungeon crawl-y bits were replaced by QTEs.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
I'm not just talking about challenge. I'm talking about just requiring some level of thinking and involvement in order to progress, or at least progress in a desired direction.

That's pretty much the definition of challenge, to me.

New Vegas has a quest compass and a hand-holding journal, but still often requires some involvement and thought in order to reach desired results.

One such example is the quest "One for My Baby". The apparent quest goal is simply to talk someone into standing in front of Boone and the quest markers point to every single NPC in the town, but just blindly following this goal probably will result in Boone attacking you. It's up to the player to decide how and if he wants to investigate the matter.

I found New Vegas just as non-challenging as Fallout 3, and I don't remember ever being stuck on a quest. But I admit, I never completed it.

But in terms of challenge, I don't think it's better or worse than Skyrim.

In terms of complexity, I think they're relatively even - though NV has much better quest design with C&C.

How is that? I can see it getting more publishers interested in funding open-world RPG's but not much else.

I feel we're moving in circles, now.

I'll try to say the same thing in a new way, then.

Skyrim is a true AAA level game and it was a massive success. It was also more complex than Oblivion - and as such, it proves that added complexity can sell - and we know that at least 10 million players have been exposed to expanded character mechanics - and given the high praise, I think we can assume they liked it and, likely, they want more of the same stuff in the future.

Oh, and yes, getting more people to fund open world RPGs will inevitably help broaden the horizon of this genre for more people.

Isn't that pretty cut and dried? It certainly is to me.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I found New Vegas just as non-challenging as Fallout 3, and I don't remember ever being stuck on a quest. But I admit, I never completed it.

I thought we were talking about Skyrim.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
In terms of complexity, I think they're relatively even - though NV has much better quest design with C&C.

I don't think there would be anything interesting left if you remove the quest design and C&C from NV, the combat gameplay is not very interesting. What kind of complexity are you talking about?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
It was also more complex than Oblivion

That's debatable - many things are simplified, guilds and dungeon design for instance.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
and as such, it proves that added complexity can sell - and we know that at least 10 million players have been exposed to expanded character mechanics - and given the high praise, I think we can assume they liked it and, likely, they want more of the same stuff in the future.

Optional character mechanics as you said. It's hard to be opposed to something optional.

Oh, and yes, getting more people to fund open world RPGs will inevitably help broaden the horizon of this genre for more people.

Honestly, I don't think it matters much. Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim all sold millions of copies and it doesn't seem to have impacted the direction of RPGs in general. The increased focus on hand-holding and severely dumbed down quest design/C&C in Oblivion and Skyrim makes it clear that it's Bethesda that is being influenced.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
I thought we were talking about Skyrim.

I was, and then you brought up NV.

I don't think there would be anything interesting left if you remove the quest design and C&C from NV, the combat gameplay is not very interesting. What kind of complexity are you talking about?

Character building mechanics, crafting mechanics, and so on.

That's debatable - many things are simplified, factions and dungeon design for instance.

What? Skyrim had infinitely better and more intricate dungeon designs. Factions are nearly identical in terms of complexity.

Optional character mechanics as you said. It's hard to be opposed to something optional.

Exactly, and your point is?

Honestly I don't think it matters much. Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim all sold millions of copies and it doesn't seem to have impacted the direction of RPGs in general.

Well, that's something entirely impossible to prove without having developers admitting why they're doing what they're doing.

So, it's down to opinion. I think the success of TES games have had a big impact - and I think we're seeing way more open world aspects to modern RPGs than we used to, today - and I have no doubt Skyrim will only increase that tendency.

Seems to me we're just going in circles, and you don't seem to want to acknowledge what's incredibly plain to see from my position.

That's quite alright, and I suggest we'll just agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I was, and then you brought up NV.

Comparing it to Skyrim.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Character building mechanics, crafting mechanics, and so on.

Character building in New Vegas has a large impact on what options you have available when interacting with NPCs and objects in the world. Character building in Skyrim has an impact on what? Animations you see when you kill things and how fast they die?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
What? Skyrim had infinitely better and more intricate dungeon designs. Factions are nearly identical in terms of complexity.

What? Nearly all dungeons in Skyrim are completely linear with a shortcut to the entrance at the end. Gamers might be confused if they have to chose between turning right and left.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I think we're seeing way more open world aspects to modern RPGs than we used to, today

We are? I haven't noticed, honestly…could you list a few good ones? The only recent semi open world RPGs I know of that don't have massive handholding are Divinity 2 and Risen..and they hardly owe their existence to Bethesda.

Originally Posted by DeepO
Even the GameBanshee one sorta sends mixed signals - in the conclusion BrotherNone claims that "Risen 2 is your quintessential two steps forward, one step back title", but to me the rest of the review read more like it´s "one step forward, two steps back" case, I was particularly disappointed by (to me) new info indicating that Risen´s puzzle elements in dungeon crawl-y bits were replaced by QTEs.

That's fair. It's a matter of prioritization and personal taste how you balance stuff, that's why I want to inform people as fully as I can with facts before giving impressions.

I found the stuff like minigames, QTE and killcam minor enough that I just didn't pay it much mind, and I really enjoyed the new setting and the additions to combat, as well as the idea of voodoo (if not the execution). Combat magic was so weak in Risen anyway, losing it is no loss, though the "puzzle magic" (transform into bug, levitation) is more of a loss. And I do feel the quest design and writing was generally better/more interesting in Risen 2, quest structure and logic in particular are very important to me. But the balance is different for everyone, and this just isn't one of those sequels that is "like the first, but better".

Originally Posted by Brother None
And I do feel the quest design and writing was generally better/more interesting in Risen 2.

That is something I guess. Not even remotely enough to balance things out for me but It is something I was hoping for.

I have to ask though, about my big issue.

How "modest" are the rest of the islands in comparison to Tacarigua ?

Also is the vertical aspect of the exploration as limited as it was there (You could climb in all of 3 places and they pretty much seemed to be implemented as an afterthought) ?

So the reviews are okayish and given that i never really liked the first Risen i will stick to TW2 EE for now , if the price drops significantly i may reconsider.

Originally Posted by JonNik
How "modest" are the rest of the islands in comparison to Tacarigua ?

Also is the vertical aspect of the exploration as limited as it was there (You could climb in all of 3 places and they pretty much seemed to be implemented as an afterthought) ?

Heh. The beta really was a bad idea, people seem to have gotten some very negative impression from the game's rather linear start, where the interesting skills are all unavailable.

Taciragua is…average? Honestly each island is so different. The Iron Coast, Maracai, even Antigua are more interesting and/or bigger than Taciragua. The Isle of Thieves and Isle of the Dead are smaller/more linear, the Isle of Dead in particular being a waste of space, while the Isle of Thieves is a ton of fun in my opinion.

Maracai Bay has a dozen places - at least - where you can climb up. It always has a similar approach, with ledges you can climb, which is just how it worked in the Gothics. Sometimes there's something at the top, sometimes it's very little, sometimes you have to climb to make it to hidden treasure, etc. etc.