Wrong About Risen 2

Earlier this year when Risen 2 came out I started and stopped playing two different times, about a month apart. Each time I couldn't seem to get 'into' the game and then wrote it off as 'meh I don't really like it.'

But for whatever reason, I came back to it again about 3 days ago and now I'm hooked. I think my first two tries I just didn't really like how 'piratey' the game was and also I didn't feel interested in the character customization structure (attributes, talents, skills) or terminology (blood = hp, glory ~ exp.).

Also, a lot of the grumbling over the game in its early days didn't help - a lot of attention on DLC being 'built into' the main game and being otherwise too short. I think all of that got me distracted and I just played other games like Skyrim.

My recent fresh look at Risen 2 sees a game more similar to Risen 1 than I thought and it is quite a lot of fun. It has the same addictive quality as Gothic 1 and 2.

There are a few things I don't like. I don't like the fade away into a new screen when opening chests or crafting - not a big deal but I just don't like it. I prefer a large continuous landmass over smaller ones masquerading as islands - though I suppose that's to aid in memory management of consoles that run this game too. But at least the first two islands are fairly sizeable (I'm only on the 2nd island).

One of my bigger gripes so far is the quests early on on the 2nd island where stealbeard guides you to the tribal and inquisition camps. The distances were too far and really cramped my style of slow and methodical exploration from a starting point. Before I knew it, I was running across the entire island following stealbeard. In Risen 1, where the first male NPC you meet will show you two locations, but each one is just a short run from where you find the male NPC. I was expecting something like this, not running across the entire island.

That said, I am having a lot of fun with this game and I am finding it far more engaging than Skyrim (though I do like Skyrim). I have always loved the strong narrative of PB games and how densely they fill their worlds with content.

The only problem is, sorry for spoiling - the game, when you finish it, feels TOO SHORT!

Why? Because DS wanted such game, And DS wanted "a short" game because?
Because per some sources 99% or such stupid overpumped percent of players never finish a game with many hours of gameplay
But they never actually checked what games get dumped before a player finishes them. To them there is no difference between a real contentfilled RPG and endless mobrespawn grinder so-called action whatever genre.

Originally Posted by joxer
But they never actually checked what games get dumped before a player finishes them. To them there is no difference between a real contentfilled RPG and endless mobrespawn grinder so-called action whatever genre.

Well here's to hoping that the kickstarter phenomena can change all that…

I spent around 60 hours in Risen 2, so it's definitely not that short. Unless you're comparing it to something like TES.

Glad to hear you're enjoying it. I think it's quite underrated myself. I liked it a lot, and that was even before the patch that added dodging and blocking which improved monster combat immensely.

I never really liked Risen2 as much as I did Risen1 or Gothic 1/2, by the time Risen2 came out I played though it until just before the last mission but never got around to finishing it, the thing that really killed it for me was the lack of a proper timeline with in the game, the reviews sold it as a shorter more story driven game so I had hoped for something like Gothic2 where every new chapter brought ton of new stuff and really felt like it was advancing the time, sure there where a few things that overlaped but to me risen2 felt completely static with each chapter/island being way to neatly split up.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I spent around 60 hours in Risen 2, so it's definitely not that short.

Yeah I hear you. When I hear other people claim a game is 'short' I know that is usually subjective. If you played Risen 2 for 60 hours I'd say that is decent.

I've just arrived at island #2 and according to steam I have 22 hours into the game. If you subtract about 10 hours from my prior first two attempts that means I spent 10 hours on island one and 2 hours on island two. Island 2 seems a lot bigger than the first and I predict I will be there for a while.

I don't rush these kind of games. I'm a very methodical explorer bent on finding every nook and cranny and then recanvasing sometimes 2 or 3 times 'just to be sure.'

I enjoyed Risen 2 quite a lot, but as I've pointed out previously - I was hoping it was going to be the "Gothic 2" of the Risen franchise. All they really had to do in my opinion was tweak the formula from Risen, just like they did Gothic 1 -> 2, but they changed way more than that.

It will be interesting to see what they do next - anyone have an idea what they're working on?

Originally Posted by Maylander
All they really had to do in my opinion was tweak the formula from Risen,?

Yep. Interestingly/weirdly enough, they´ve managed to fix what I consider to be two main flaws in Risen (rather flavourless setting and frontloaded quest content), but on the other hand botched some of the game´s biggest strengths (combat, world design, dungeon complexity).
I consider Risen 2 to be a good game overall, but for the above negatives it also happens to be the most disappointing one I´ve played this year.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I spent around 60 hours in Risen 2, so it's definitely not that short. Unless you're comparing it to something like TES.

TES? No.
Actually, I'm comparing it to something like G3. 60 hours for the first run was in my case too, and it felt too short.

Originally Posted by joxer
Actually, I'm comparing it to something like G3. 60 hours for the first run was in my case too, and it felt too short.

In other words, you're comparing it to another very long game.

Suffice to say, your idea of "short" is probably different than most people's if you think 60 hours falls into that category.

I never finished this…. I wonder if some decent balance mods have been released. Firearms were WAY too powerful when I played it.

Overall, I think it has the edge on Risen.

I felt the balance was skewed anyways because of the companions. In the early going, where PB's games are usually tough as nails, you could win the majority of battles by simply letting Patty take the brunt of the attacks. Hopefully that's the last we'll see of that formula.

Originally Posted by JDR13
In other words, you're comparing it to another very long game.

No. I'm comparing it to another PB game. Short or long doesn't matter, it's from PB.

Originally Posted by joxer
No. I'm comparing it to another PB game. Short or long doesn't matter, it's from PB.

I don't really see the point here. It's neither the shortest nor longest game from them. It's definitely longer than Gothic 1, and probably about the same as Risen or Gothic 2 without the expansion. Of course it's shorter than G3, but 95% of games are.

Anyways, I felt it was about right. If it was any longer, I'm pretty sure I would have started to grow tired of that setting.

It's around 50% longer than Risen. I didn't finish and I spent around 45-50 hours and had a good bit left.

Risen was a 30-35 hour game - and I did absolutely everything I could.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I felt the balance was skewed anyways because of the companions. In the early going, where PB's games are usually tough as nails, you could win the majority of battles by simply letting Patty take the brunt of the attacks. Hopefully that's the last we'll see of that formula.

Probably true, but I never play with companions in these "immersion-driven" games if I can help it

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Probably true, but I never play with companions in these "immersion-driven" games if I can help it

I prefer to go solo as well, but that's not really an option for most of Risen 2, or at least it didn't seem to me that it was.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I prefer to go solo as well, but that's not really an option for most of Risen 2, or at least it didn't seem to me that it was.

Hmm… I seem to recall going solo for the vast majority of it.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Hmm… I seem to recall going solo for the vast majority of it.

Yes I suppose you can leave the boat without a companion, which I assume is what you did, but then you miss out on a lot of extra dialogue. Nothing essential, but I enjoyed hearing the various comments from companions during conversations with other npcs.

I guess I felt like I'd be "missing out" by not playing it the way they intended. No big deal.. like I said, I just hope PB goes back to their previous solo style for the next game.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Yes I suppose you can leave the boat without a companion, which I assume is what you did, but then you miss out on a lot of extra dialogue. Nothing essential, but I enjoyed hearing the various comments from companions during conversations with other npcs.

I guess I felt like I'd be "missing out" by not playing it the way they intended. No big deal.. like I said, I just hope PB goes back to their previous solo style for the next game.

No, she came with me on the first island. But I dumped her as soon as I could. My memory is often fuzzy with this kind of thing - but I'm pretty sure I played ~90% of the game solo. I don't seem to remember her being forced upon me after the initial split-up (where you can make her cook for that NPC or whatever).

But I understand what you mean. I tend to bring party members in games that are more tactical/strategic in nature - and Bioware games tend to be designed around party members specifically.

But for free-roaming exploration/immersion games - I just think solo is the way to go. I like peace and quiet, and I HATE (as in, truly despise) pampering NPCs with horrid AIs/pathfinding

They just cramp my style!