Witcher 2 Enhanced Edition Hits 360 and PC in April

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

CM156:

DustyDrB:

-Seraph-:
I couldn't stop watching that intro, one of my favorite intros of all time along with one of my favorite games/RPGs of all time. It is a work of art, and shows how threatening the King Slayer is, and highlighting the abilities and combat prowess of a Witcher.

I'm tempted to buy the Dark Edition just for that sexy art book and Wolf Medallion. I'd wear that thing always. Well that, and just to further support these guys, fucking can't wait for what will most likely be Witcher 3.0 patch. This will make for an awesome 3rd (I'm just gonna abandon my current 3rd playthrough as it is now) and 4th playthrough.

While it picks up and references the original game, it can be played and enjoyed mostly without playing the first. Witcher 1 was more of a "gateway" game that introduced us to Geralt and hist world, its own story which was more on a personal level than a grand political scale. The ending of W1 segues into W2, but for the most part, 2's events are mostly their own.

Would you happen to know a good LP for the first Witcher? I want to be familiar with it before I play the sequel, even if Witcher 2 works as a standalone game.

I'm currently watching one by Toegoff. It's pretty good. If a bit long, though I would say that that's more the fault of the game

I'll check it out. The last time you recommended me an LP, I adored it. Thanks, man.

DustyDrB:

CM156:

DustyDrB:

Would you happen to know a good LP for the first Witcher? I want to be familiar with it before I play the sequel, even if Witcher 2 works as a standalone game.

I'm currently watching one by Toegoff. It's pretty good. If a bit long, though I would say that that's more the fault of the game

I'll check it out. The last time you recommended me an LP, I adored it. Thanks, man.

Hey, no problem, I'm happy to help.

Personally, I find it a bit slow at times, but it's something more relaxing than some other LPs I've seen

Well, now that it's coming to the 360 I'm more than willing to give it a shot.

Hammeroj:
snip

They massively updated the combat to be just overall better, after that patch I enjoyed it enough to give it 2 playthroughs, I would advise you revisit it soon, also the game isn't too hard on regular difficulty after you learn the basics (which the new tutorial helps with greatly).

What a game, seriously bloody brilliant. Depending on your choices you get an entirely different second chapter (as in two different locations). Quality. It was also one of the very best looking games of 2011. If you had a dual graphics card system you could turn on super sampling, my mate has the requisite gear: wow, just wow. Intrigued to see how the Xbox version looks, comparatively awful no doubt but still a great game and will look good for console fare. Poor old PS3 owners, why did they make it so tricky to programme for that system? It's got some good games but really Sony shot themselves in the foot.

AndyRock:

Hammeroj:
snip

They massively updated the combat to be just overall better, after that patch I enjoyed it enough to give it 2 playthroughs, I would advise you revisit it soon, also the game isn't too hard on regular difficulty after you learn the basics (which the new tutorial helps with greatly).

Mind going into what the changes were? Is the melee more than just the same 3 dull moves over and over? Is that lightning defense spell still gamebreaking? Are the other ones still borderline useless? Is alchemy worth a crap without investing skill points in its tree? Any bombs other than grapeshot finally worth using?

The problems I had with the gameplay were so deep and so numerous I doubt they could've been fixed without changing the game from the ground up. But hey, if the problems are fixed, I'd gladly give the game another go.

On the difficulty thing, in case that got lost, I said that the game's mechanics were so poor that the game's difficulty level skyrocketed. I didn't mean to say that it's a genuinely difficult game in the vein of Dark Souls, or, in another way, something that requires premeditation and thought put into it.

that was pretty sexy. But now I'm grabbing at my throat to make sure I'm not bleeding to death

Hammeroj:

AndyRock:

Hammeroj:
snip

They massively updated the combat to be just overall better, after that patch I enjoyed it enough to give it 2 playthroughs, I would advise you revisit it soon, also the game isn't too hard on regular difficulty after you learn the basics (which the new tutorial helps with greatly).

Mind going into what the changes were? Is the melee more than just the same 3 dull moves over and over? Is that lightning defense spell still gamebreaking? Are the other ones still borderline useless? Is alchemy worth a crap without investing skill points in its tree? Any bombs other than grapeshot finally worth using?

The problems I had with the gameplay were so deep and so numerous I doubt they could've been fixed without changing the game from the ground up. But hey, if the problems are fixed, I'd gladly give the game another go.

On the difficulty thing, in case that got lost, I said that the game's mechanics were so poor that the game's difficulty level skyrocketed. I didn't mean to say that it's a genuinely difficult game in the vein of Dark Souls, or, in another way, something that requires premeditation and thought put into it.

Think you have been a bit harsh here Hammeroj, the mechanics were flawed but I still had a great time. Skyrim is massively impersonal, what you do has little impact in the world really, but I love it. Anyone who spends time creating two entirely different paths through a game, makes the story line vaguely mature and bangs out a DRM free copy deserves 30 and some credit surely?

And people complain about PS3 exclusive chars on Street Fighter X Tekken.

Hammeroj:

Daystar Clarion:

Waaghpowa:

You mean you didn't hear any of the whining about it being too hard?

And to answer your initial question, like everyone else said, you'll be fine.

I play and enjoy Dark Souls, I can't see Witcher 2 being Dark Souls hard.

If The Witcher 2 is hard, it's hard in a bad gameplay mechanic sort of way. Which is ironic, because those same bad mechanics make the game a piss-take. One spell breaks the entire game.

As opposed to Dark Souls, which is hard, but it gives you the proper tools (like a well executed stamina, backstab system, etc.) to beat it.

Edit: Now, to be a little fair, I only played the game in its original state, which is to say before any patches that may or may not have fixed the horribly broken gameplay.

The gameplay wasn't broken prior to the patch, I played as a bomb/alchemist build going straight from the beginning before the patches came out and I didn't find it hard. I rarely used the quen sign. I'm convinced that all the whining about it being broken or to hard are simply from people, not wanting to put in the effort of blocking, dodging and generally playing in a manner that dying matters. Dying always matters to me in a game I don't like to die so I'm not wreckless and the Witcher 2 really fit my playstyle really well.

Res Plus:

Hammeroj:

AndyRock:

They massively updated the combat to be just overall better, after that patch I enjoyed it enough to give it 2 playthroughs, I would advise you revisit it soon, also the game isn't too hard on regular difficulty after you learn the basics (which the new tutorial helps with greatly).

Mind going into what the changes were? Is the melee more than just the same 3 dull moves over and over? Is that lightning defense spell still gamebreaking? Are the other ones still borderline useless? Is alchemy worth a crap without investing skill points in its tree? Any bombs other than grapeshot finally worth using?

The problems I had with the gameplay were so deep and so numerous I doubt they could've been fixed without changing the game from the ground up. But hey, if the problems are fixed, I'd gladly give the game another go.

On the difficulty thing, in case that got lost, I said that the game's mechanics were so poor that the game's difficulty level skyrocketed. I didn't mean to say that it's a genuinely difficult game in the vein of Dark Souls, or, in another way, something that requires premeditation and thought put into it.

Think you have been a bit harsh here Hammeroj, the mechanics were flawed but I still had a great time. Skyrim is massively impersonal, what you do has little impact in the world really, but I love it. Anyone who spends time creating two entirely different paths through a game, makes the story line vaguely mature and bangs out a DRM free copy deserves 30 and some credit surely?

There a problem with being harsh?

The part in bold is fun.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the guys for sticking to their guns about the DRM issue (sorta, as I remember it) and giving the updated version for free, but I give credit only where credit is due. The actual gameplay didn't earn them any credit, nor did the comments about the game playing to PCs' strengths.

I am really starting to like CDPRed. Giving the update to people who bought the game on the PC for free is what a good developer does.

gof22:
Will people who bought The Witcher 2 back in May of 2011 get to download the DLC or will they have to buy the enhanced edition to play the new content?

read the damn article
OT: I like the developer and this probably is a great game but I just couldn't get into witcher 1 so I probably wouldn't enjoy this.

gunner1905:

gof22:
Will people who bought The Witcher 2 back in May of 2011 get to download the DLC or will they have to buy the enhanced edition to play the new content?

read the damn article
OT: I like the developer and this probably is a great game but I just couldn't get into witcher 1 so I probably wouldn't enjoy this.

No need to be rude.

That is cool to see they are giving PC gamers the update for free.

Hammeroj:

Res Plus:

Hammeroj:
Mind going into what the changes were? Is the melee more than just the same 3 dull moves over and over? Is that lightning defense spell still gamebreaking? Are the other ones still borderline useless? Is alchemy worth a crap without investing skill points in its tree? Any bombs other than grapeshot finally worth using?

The problems I had with the gameplay were so deep and so numerous I doubt they could've been fixed without changing the game from the ground up. But hey, if the problems are fixed, I'd gladly give the game another go.

On the difficulty thing, in case that got lost, I said that the game's mechanics were so poor that the game's difficulty level skyrocketed. I didn't mean to say that it's a genuinely difficult game in the vein of Dark Souls, or, in another way, something that requires premeditation and thought put into it.

Think you have been a bit harsh here Hammeroj, the mechanics were flawed but I still had a great time. Skyrim is massively impersonal, what you do has little impact in the world really, but I love it. Anyone who spends time creating two entirely different paths through a game, makes the story line vaguely mature and bangs out a DRM free copy deserves 30 and some credit surely?

There a problem with being harsh?

The part in bold is fun.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the guys for sticking to their guns about the DRM issue (sorta, as I remember it) and giving the updated version for free, but I give credit only where credit is due. The actual gameplay didn't earn them any credit, nor did the comments about the game playing to PCs' strengths.

Fair enough, I liked it, each to their own and all that. I understand what you are saying about the lightening shield etc I just thought it wasn't utterly crippled by the sometimes clunky mechanics. This latest version intrigues me but as I understand it they have just tweaked the targeting mechanic, not actually rebalanced the spells and combat so probably not worth another visit for yourself! Instead, let's just ponder Skyrim again for a moment! What a game. ; )

Edit - It's weird, and I understand it is feted but I can't get on with Dark/Demon Souls, really don't like it at all! Gotta love subjectivity.

Baresark:

Hammeroj:

This is a full adaptation of The Witcher 2 for a console. We have changed the game's controls and its menus to reflect the differences between the platforms

Come on. Come the fuck on, CDProjekt. Are we still pretending that what you released in 2011 was an actual PC game at this point?

Well, 'least the trailer looks nice.

I never felt for a second that it was anything but a PC game.

OT: Awesome, another reason to play through a fantastic game. I'll be playing the Free upgrade to the the Enhanced Edition since I don't own a 360. I'm glad the 360 crowd gets to play this game, it is super awesome.

Yeah, cause it only being DirectX 9 and having the interface it did, did not shout that they wanted to launch it for consoles at all. I have absolutely no issues with it being on 360. It was obvious that it was never going to be PC only right from the start. But some of the obnoxious members of my PC fraternity had to use it as stick to hit console owners with, without realising they would have egg on their face down the road.

gunner1905:

gof22:
Will people who bought The Witcher 2 back in May of 2011 get to download the DLC or will they have to buy the enhanced edition to play the new content?

read the damn article
OT: I like the developer and this probably is a great game but I just couldn't get into witcher 1 so I probably wouldn't enjoy this.

I didn't like the Witcher, I love the Witcher 2. Definately worth a punt if you are bored.

ph0b0s123:
Yeah, cause it only being DirectX 9 and having the interface it did, did not shout that they wanted to launch it for consoles at all. I have absolutely no issues with it being on 360. It was obvious that it was never going to be PC only right from the start. But some of the obnoxious members of my PC fraternity had to use it as stick to hit console owners with, without realising they would have egg on their face down the road.

Actually, it wasn't obvious right from the start. The alpha of the game gave us no indication that the game's development would take the turn it did.

synobal:

Hammeroj:

Daystar Clarion:

I play and enjoy Dark Souls, I can't see Witcher 2 being Dark Souls hard.

If The Witcher 2 is hard, it's hard in a bad gameplay mechanic sort of way. Which is ironic, because those same bad mechanics make the game a piss-take. One spell breaks the entire game.

As opposed to Dark Souls, which is hard, but it gives you the proper tools (like a well executed stamina, backstab system, etc.) to beat it.

Edit: Now, to be a little fair, I only played the game in its original state, which is to say before any patches that may or may not have fixed the horribly broken gameplay.

The gameplay wasn't broken prior to the patch, I played as a bomb/alchemist build going straight from the beginning before the patches came out and I didn't find it hard. I rarely used the quen sign. I'm convinced that all the whining about it being broken or to hard are simply from people, not wanting to put in the effort of blocking, dodging and generally playing in a manner that dying matters. Dying always matters to me in a game I don't like to die so I'm not wreckless and the Witcher 2 really fit my playstyle really well.

Of course it wasn't broken. Your attacks always hit their targets-
-WRONG. Your sword would literally go through the enemies without doing any damage just because you didn't have them targeted with the idiotic targeting system.
You could blo-
-WRONG Blocking used the same resource as the Signs, which, by the way, isn't a resource that's quick to fill up, rendering the entire concept of blocking in the game useless.
and dodg-
-WRONG If enemies showed any sign of being disoriented or anything like that, like they do in an actually well executed action RPG (Dark/Demon Souls), we could be having this conversation. As it was, it only served as a tool for kiting enemies.

And then a hundred of other things that are simply bad design/illogical/etc.

I didn't say the game was hard per se, I said the broken mechanics made it harder, which they did.

ph0b0s123:

Baresark:

Hammeroj:

Come on. Come the fuck on, CDProjekt. Are we still pretending that what you released in 2011 was an actual PC game at this point?

Well, 'least the trailer looks nice.

I never felt for a second that it was anything but a PC game.

OT: Awesome, another reason to play through a fantastic game. I'll be playing the Free upgrade to the the Enhanced Edition since I don't own a 360. I'm glad the 360 crowd gets to play this game, it is super awesome.

Yeah, cause it only being DirectX 9 and having the interface it did, did not shout that they wanted to launch it for consoles at all. I have absolutely no issues with it being on 360. It was obvious that it was never going to be PC only right from the start. But some of the obnoxious members of my PC fraternity had to use it as stick to hit console owners with, without realising they would have egg on their face down the road.

It was no secret they wanted a console release. They wanted a console release of the first Witcher game. I don't doubt for a second that this was designed for the PC though. The lack of DX11 features was absolutely fine. Just because they are a PC developer first doesn't mean they shouldn't try to make their product reach as many people as possible, that is a poor development attitude and an even worse business model.

I am a devoted PC gamer above all else, but I can't bring myself to feel slighted just because the interface could have been made better. That is the majority of games, IMO. PC or otherwise. I don't know why, as a PC gamer, people must feel special in some capacity. I am just glad that I received a game that was great (in my opinion) that wasn't a bullshit console port like so many other games are. And as a DX9 game, they pushed that to the limits with this game. So much better than any other DX9 game, with graphic features they will have to turn down for the 360.

People can talk about radial menus and inventory lists til their hearts are content, the majority of time these are not necessities of a device, but a design decision the developers intended them to have. Was it perfect, far from it. But I'm not going to sit there and pretend like CDPR isn't primarily a PC developer in this case. I don't know what they will do in the future, but as of now I like their product, their stances on DRM, and their stance on software piracy so they get my full attention as the gold standard of what a PC developer should be, inventory and radial menus aside.

Hammeroj:

ph0b0s123:
Ysnip

Actually, it wasn't obvious right from the start. The alpha of the game gave us no indication that the game's development would take the turn it did.

synobal:

Hammeroj:
If The Witcher 2 is hard, it's hard in a bad gameplay mechanic sort of way. Which is ironic, because those same bad mechanics make the game a piss-take. One spell breaks the entire game.

As opposed to Dark Souls, which is hard, but it gives you the proper tools (like a well executed stamina, backstab system, etc.) to beat it.

Edit: Now, to be a little fair, I only played the game in its original state, which is to say before any patches that may or may not have fixed the horribly broken gameplay.

The gameplay wasn't broken prior to the patch, I played as a bomb/alchemist build going straight from the beginning before the patches came out and I didn't find it hard. I rarely used the quen sign. I'm convinced that all the whining about it being broken or to hard are simply from people, not wanting to put in the effort of blocking, dodging and generally playing in a manner that dying matters. Dying always matters to me in a game I don't like to die so I'm not wreckless and the Witcher 2 really fit my playstyle really well.

Of course it wasn't broken. Your attacks always hit their targets-
-WRONG. Your sword would literally go through the enemies without doing any damage just because you didn't have them targeted with the idiotic targeting system.
You could blo-
-WRONG Blocking used the same resource as the Signs, which, by the way, isn't a resource that's quick to fill up, rendering the entire concept of blocking in the game useless.
and dodg-
-WRONG If enemies showed any sign of being disoriented or anything like that, like they do in an actually well executed action RPG (Dark/Demon Souls), we could be having this conversation. As it was, it only served as a tool for kiting enemies.

And then a hundred of other things that are simply bad design/illogical/etc.

I didn't say the game was hard per se, I said the broken mechanics made it harder, which they did.

I never had any of the problems you speak of. It was a difficult game but it never seemed broken to me. My sword never passed through a guy. The battles were challenging but never seemed broken to me. I never blocked, I only ever dodged. Alchemy is actually very useful in the game, but you have to plan out the battle. If you die, you did something wrong. No one sign ever broke the game. I didn't use all the signs, but just because they exist doesn't mean you have to use them. I have 6 playthroughs on my main in Dark Souls. There were lots and lots of magic spells I never used, so I guess they were useless by that definition.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but the things you say are just not true. I'm not saying the game never ever had a glitch or was the epitome of game development. But the combat was always tight (thought he lock on feature was buggy, I didn't use it), the signs do not make the game easy or break it. Also, I don't doubt for a second they intended this for a console release. The first Witcher game was supposed to have a console release but that fell through. I have seen that video before, but since I heard about the Witcher 2, CDPR was talking about a potential console release.

And to address your initial reply to my original post: I would take that as evidence if the reverse were impossible. The first Witcher inventory system was a complete nightmare. The second was not. And I might also agree if there were not games designed as console games that had an inventory system that by pure chance worked much better on the PC (Resident Evil 5 immediately jumps to mind). I don't know at what point a list inventory became a console only thing because I seem to recall lots of games that have had this type of item list in them, many of which were not on consoles. I also recall the much coveted PC only inventory (lots of little pictures because we are all apparently illiterate) that were complete wrecks besides the first Witcher game. There have also been plenty of PC only games that were "generic 3rd person hack'n'slash" games, take the Gothic games. They were all this type of game, not just Arcania, which was the first title to come out on a console for the series.

I just don't understand at what point these become a product of them wanting to be on consoles and not just a design decision that they would have made if consoles never existed.

Hammeroj:

ph0b0s123:
Yeah, cause it only being DirectX 9 and having the interface it did, did not shout that they wanted to launch it for consoles at all. I have absolutely no issues with it being on 360. It was obvious that it was never going to be PC only right from the start. But some of the obnoxious members of my PC fraternity had to use it as stick to hit console owners with, without realising they would have egg on their face down the road.

Actually, it wasn't obvious right from the start. The alpha of the game gave us no indication that the game's development would take the turn it did.

Yes, alpha's of something can be very different from the final product, very good. Obviously any other person reading my comment would have understood that I was talking about the launch product....

DVS BSTrD:
Why couldn't he have saved the GOOD archer?

Because the good archer would cap his ass :P

OT: Finally a reason to start playing it again, game had some severe issues that I now hope will all be magically fixed by April.

I might have been a bit on the fence about the Witcher franchise to show it's way onto the consoles as well,but I can understand the fact that not everyone can afford a high end PC to play this game.

So have fun with it you people who own a Xbox360 and I can't wait to get my hands on the Enhanced Edition for my PC so I can replay it for the 6th time.

Colour me intrigued to play this. I'll see if it'll be a day 1 pickup for me but for now it looks like a tentative yes.

These guys know what they're doing and I appreciate their respect for their fans.

ph0b0s123:
snip

The "right from the start" part implies otherwise. But whatever.

Baresark:
snip

'Kay, I'll keep this fairly short.

The way the combat in The Witcher 2 worked was that if you didn't have your camera pointed straight at an enemy, or have that enemy locked on, your hits would simply not register. When you actually do have the enemy on your target thingy, your attacks could then slice straight through other enemies standing right beside you or your primary target. Which could then be fixed by a talent, of all things, that let you hit multiple targets at once. This is simply bad design.

You never blocked because, as I said, blocking was entirely fucking meaningless in the game. For the same cost of 1 Vigor as blocking uses, you could activate a spell that's multiple times more useful.

I didn't say alchemy was useless, I said alchemy was useless unless you poured your skill points into it. Which is stupid, the whole shtick of a witcher is that he's good with potions. If you have to specialize for it despite having established that witchers are master alchemists, that's a sign of bad design.

Comparing this game to Gothic shows a fundamental lack of understanding in gameplay and platforms, and does nothing to prove a point. Gothic - open world RPG. The Witcher - tactical action RPG. Might as well compare it to Diablo at this point.

The comment about illiteracy, if you're not trying to be funny there, speaks for itself.

To your last paragraph, the moment when the released game has an entirely different gameplay focus than its alpha versions, is full of cliches associated with console gaming and when its gameplay is half-baked, as it was in this game, an obvious sign of trying to completely change it in later parts of the development process, is a good place start.

I almost didn't respond. Good job.

Hammeroj:

ph0b0s123:
Yeah, cause it only being DirectX 9 and having the interface it did, did not shout that they wanted to launch it for consoles at all. I have absolutely no issues with it being on 360. It was obvious that it was never going to be PC only right from the start. But some of the obnoxious members of my PC fraternity had to use it as stick to hit console owners with, without realising they would have egg on their face down the road.

Actually, it wasn't obvious right from the start. The alpha of the game gave us no indication that the game's development would take the turn it did.

synobal:

Hammeroj:
If The Witcher 2 is hard, it's hard in a bad gameplay mechanic sort of way. Which is ironic, because those same bad mechanics make the game a piss-take. One spell breaks the entire game.

As opposed to Dark Souls, which is hard, but it gives you the proper tools (like a well executed stamina, backstab system, etc.) to beat it.

Edit: Now, to be a little fair, I only played the game in its original state, which is to say before any patches that may or may not have fixed the horribly broken gameplay.

The gameplay wasn't broken prior to the patch, I played as a bomb/alchemist build going straight from the beginning before the patches came out and I didn't find it hard. I rarely used the quen sign. I'm convinced that all the whining about it being broken or to hard are simply from people, not wanting to put in the effort of blocking, dodging and generally playing in a manner that dying matters. Dying always matters to me in a game I don't like to die so I'm not wreckless and the Witcher 2 really fit my playstyle really well.

Of course it wasn't broken. Your attacks always hit their targets-
-WRONG. Your sword would literally go through the enemies without doing any damage just because you didn't have them targeted with the idiotic targeting system.
You could blo-
-WRONG Blocking used the same resource as the Signs, which, by the way, isn't a resource that's quick to fill up, rendering the entire concept of blocking in the game useless.
and dodg-
-WRONG If enemies showed any sign of being disoriented or anything like that, like they do in an actually well executed action RPG (Dark/Demon Souls), we could be having this conversation. As it was, it only served as a tool for kiting enemies.

And then a hundred of other things that are simply bad design/illogical/etc.

I didn't say the game was hard per se, I said the broken mechanics made it harder, which they did.

Targeting system was tweaked in previous patches, Blocking now uses fewer resources (I also believe that the cost is refunded if you perform a success parry.

A stunned/disoriented enemy had his guard down, you got a free hit, best use a sign to push them off the cliff or burn them.

Hammeroj:

ph0b0s123:
snip

The "right from the start" part implies otherwise. But whatever.

Baresark:
snip

'Kay, I'll keep this fairly short.

The way the combat in The Witcher 2 worked was that if you didn't have your camera pointed straight at an enemy, or have that enemy locked on, your hits would simply not register. When you actually do have the enemy on your target thingy, your attacks could then slice straight through other enemies standing right beside you or your primary target. Which could then be fixed by a talent, of all things, that let you hit multiple targets at once. This is simply bad design.

You never blocked because, as I said, blocking was entirely fucking meaningless in the game. For the same cost of 1 Vigor as blocking uses, you could activate a spell that's multiple times more useful.

I didn't say alchemy was useless, I said alchemy was useless unless you poured your skill points into it. Which is stupid, the whole shtick of a witcher is that he's good with potions. If you have to specialize for it despite having established that witchers are master alchemists, that's a sign of bad design.

Comparing this game to Gothic shows a fundamental lack of understanding in gameplay and platforms, and does nothing to prove a point. Gothic - open world RPG. The Witcher - tactical action RPG. Might as well compare it to Diablo at this point.

The comment about illiteracy, if you're not trying to be funny there, speaks for itself.

To your last paragraph, the moment when the released game has an entirely different gameplay focus than its alpha versions, is full of cliches associated with console gaming and when its gameplay is half-baked, as it was in this game, an obvious sign of trying to completely change it in later parts of the development process, is a good place start.

I almost didn't respond. Good job.

My only issue with what you're saying is simply that those things did not happen for me. My sword never passed through an enemy and if the sword went through two enemies, it hit two enemies. And the things you are saying are not a "flaw of console gaming". If those things happened to a lot of people, it's simply bad programming and not a product of the game being made with consoles in mind.

Also, I did not mean to compare Gothic directly to The Witcher 2. I was simply pointing out that third person games that use the same perspective as TW2 are not a console exclusive element. My main concern is that you did not point out a single way that this is more like a console game than a PC game. You simply selected specific elements and identified them as a reason of proof that TW2 was more designed for consoles. Your concern about the inventory system, the use of DirectX9, and combat do not in any way prove that they were making a console game versus making a PC game. These are simply design choices. I would say that I agree that using the same resource for signs and blocking is stupid. But, that is a poor design decision versus a decision that exists to make the game more friendly to console games.

Baresark:
snip

Maybe you didn't play the game in its original sorry state then.

I really, honestly don't have the patience to explain why the changes were there to make the game easy to port to consoles. The facts are these - the first Witcher played in an entirely different fashion and had an entirely different sort of UI. So did the Witcher 2's alpha. I don't know what you want to attribute these changes to. They must be just random and completely unrelated.

Hammeroj:

Baresark:
snip

Maybe you didn't play the game in its original sorry state then.

I really, honestly don't have the patience to explain why the changes were there to make the game easy to port to consoles. The facts are these - the first Witcher played in an entirely different fashion and had an entirely different sort of UI. So did the Witcher 2's alpha. I don't know what you want to attribute these changes to. They must be just random and completely unrelated.

I played the first Witcher. I did not play the alpha for the Witcher 2, personally. I understand what you're saying, but I think those changes were there to make the game appeal to a wider audience. I'm not saying that it did not make the game easier to port to a console. I am saying that those changes may not have existed for the purpose of porting. Once again, they are design changes. I don't think those changes exist to make the game a console title. I personally liked the second Witcher better. The problem with what you are saying is that you named elements that do not define a console title and then said they were there because CDPR only ever wanted to put this on the 360. I also don't see how the PC version isn't going to be the superior version when the game comes out on the 360. Lots of companies change games significantly when a title is in the Alpha stages. Some even change a game when it's in the beta stage (Diablo 3).

I respect your opinion, but you have not provided a single piece of evidence to support your point.

Baresark:

Hammeroj:

Baresark:
snip

Maybe you didn't play the game in its original sorry state then.

I really, honestly don't have the patience to explain why the changes were there to make the game easy to port to consoles. The facts are these - the first Witcher played in an entirely different fashion and had an entirely different sort of UI. So did the Witcher 2's alpha. I don't know what you want to attribute these changes to. They must be just random and completely unrelated.

I played the first Witcher. I did not play the alpha for the Witcher 2, personally. I understand what you're saying, but I think those changes were there to make the game appeal to a wider audience. I'm not saying that it did not make the game easier to port to a console. I am saying that those changes may not have existed for the purpose of porting. Once again, they are design changes. I don't think those changes exist to make the game a console title. I personally liked the second Witcher better. The problem with what you are saying is that you named elements that do not define a console title and then said they were there because CDPR only ever wanted to put this on the 360. I also don't see how the PC version isn't going to be the superior version when the game comes out on the 360. Lots of companies change games significantly when a title is in the Alpha stages. Some even change a game when it's in the beta stage (Diablo 3).

I respect your opinion, but you have not provided a single piece of evidence to support your point.

I'll put it this way - the changes in The Witcher 2 are design decisions, whatever that means, only as much as the changes in Dungeon Siege 3, Crysis 2 or Supreme Commander 2 were design decisions.

Just one question, have they ever sorted the controls issue on a keyboard? In short, if I'm holding down A and pressing attack, will the Witcher attack the mob to the left of me or swipe in the direction I'm pointing the camera at like a right moron?

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here