@xDBS But don't you see, none of use are arguing with your preference, we all agree with you that the option is good to have. We only want the other option as well. For example, I like exploring in TPS, but fights I prefer in TD. Is this that hard to understand? I played The Wither like that, I played DA:O like that, I played Sacred 2 like that.
Having options is good, but they need to be done well too.
Top down view in Witcher just seemed weak and ineffective, instead being a real option.
I could say similar thing to 3rd person view in NWN2. Just useless. Unlike Dragon Age, for example, where both modes are done well and have their place.
What are you talking about? What does your brain lack exactly? Why does an RPG always have to be top down? What you are saying makes no sense.
You obviously can't comprehend the fact that games do change and evolve, for better or for worse, and just because I enjoy OTS better then the clunky top view controls, from THE WITCHER does not mean I said anything wrong.
The witcher is not diablo, nor is it any regular "Action RPG". Sounds like to me your the type who rather play the boring diablo clones, then playing something new, from a new perspective.
To be honest,
My brain is fine thanks for the concern. There are several successful rpg's played in the 3rd person view and i'm not arguing about that. I love the Gothic series. I'm arguing about the fact you and every little new kid on the block now wants to transform every single oldschool top down view rpg into a 3rd person view game. Apparently you don't think that the few dozens of 1st person and 3rd person games released every year are enough, apparently every single game has to be like that or they're to clunky. Let me guess, you even play them with a gamepad?
And yes "The Witcher" is an arpg, one that goes a slightly separate path from the mighty Diablo hack & slash, which apparently now is boring.
There's a console section here you know, you'll feel right at home in there.
Last edited by Pl@tinum on Sat, 21st Aug 2010 07:12; edited 2 times in total
There's a console section here you know, you'll feel right at home in there.
Allow me to explain in a very slow fashion to you kids: the witcher OR any other Rpg could be extremely efective in 3 person well implemented, OR in exemple could be in top down, even in isometric view, IF and only IF the story and gameplay mechs are well done. THATS what matters.
Got it? Take your romance elsewhere. Thank you, now move along.
There's a console section here you know, you'll feel right at home in there.
Allow me to explain in a very slow fashion to you kids: the witcher OR any other Rpg could be extremely efective in 3 person well implemented, OR in exemple could be in top down, even in isometric view, IF and only IF the story and gameplay mechs are well done. THATS what matters.
Got it? Take your romance elsewhere. Thank you, now move along.
Every single game can be transformed successfully into 3rd person. The question is, do you want it? If your answer is yes, then i have nothing more to say. I'm not saying they cannot make a great 3rd person Witcher/DAO/X-com, they're good devs, i'm sure they can, my question is why? (don't answer, it's rhetorical)
With that said, the game does look visually stunning, although the animations are a bit clumsy.
no, not every game can be transformed into a successful 3rd person game.... couldnt turn an rts into one...
in regards to why you would want to, rhetorical or not, deserves an answer. overhead is viewpoint which is great if you want a tactical but detached experience
ots puts you closer into the action and gives you a more immersive feeling like you are there as the character as opposed to a hovering god that uses mouse clicks to enforce his will.
the real question is does the immersive nature of being up close and in the middle of the action suit the game or not.
beats me why some of you are so butt hurt about it and think it dumbs it down, or that a third person perspective is associated with console derps and dumbing down of games... far as im concerned it makes for a more visceral and personal experience.
bash the game for using the viewpoint badly, or attack the game for being shit, but viewpoints each serve a purpose and are just another way of experiencing a game - just depends on what kind of experience youre looking for.
no, not every game can be transformed into a successful 3rd person game.... couldnt turn an rts into one...
in regards to why you would want to, rhetorical or not, deserves an answer. overhead is viewpoint which is great if you want a tactical but detached experience
ots puts you closer into the action and gives you a more immersive feeling like you are there as the character as opposed to a hovering god that uses mouse clicks to enforce his will.
the real question is does the immersive nature of being up close and in the middle of the action suit the game or not.
beats me why some of you are so butt hurt about it and think it dumbs it down, or that a third person perspective is associated with console derps and dumbing down of games... far as im concerned it makes for a more visceral and personal experience.
bash the game for using the viewpoint badly, or attack the game for being shit, but viewpoints each serve a purpose and are just another way of experiencing a game - just depends on what kind of experience youre looking for.
I don't get it really, apparently it's just me, but i feel the same immersion being 1 or 10 meter from my character's back. It's not the position you are on, it's the experience you're living. I don't recall when top view games become detached experiences. Baldur's gate, Fallout, Planetscape, Syndicate, X-Com, etc, had more immersion then most wannabe 3rd or 1st person games i played.
chiv wrote:
didnt play that, but i guess we can assume they made my point effectively enough?
Yeah, they did ...
Last edited by Pl@tinum on Sat, 21st Aug 2010 11:44; edited 1 time in total
As I have mentioned in the DA2 thread, I assume that the devs thought the gameplay in Witcher 2 is different enough to make the top-down view not as useful as it was in the first one (for those who found it useful ).
Personally, I never liked the top-down perspective in RPGs like that, unless I needed some tactical perspective in combat- worked really well in DAO. But with more action oriented games, I prefer to keep the camera close.
I have to admit I wasn't an RPG fan when it was the time of Baldur's Gates and Fallouts and etc, so perhaps that's why I don't have this necessity for the top-down view to be present.
I don't get it really, apparently it's just me, but i feel the same immersion being 1 or 10 meter from my character's back. It's not the position you are on, it's the experience you're living. I don't recall when top view games become detached experiences. Baldur's gate, Fallout, Planetscape, Syndicate, X-Com, etc, had more immersion then most wannabe 3rd or 1st person games i played.
perhaps the misunderstanding is how we understand immersion. story and delivery is a huge part of it, yes, but viewpoint also plays an important part...i can still be involved in the story and the characters from a high perspective, but the closer i get, the more immersed i get because im on the ground and moving through the world, seeing it through my avatars eyes, not hovering over it getting a god view. thats how i see it anyway.
im not saying you or anyone else is wrong for preferring the high top-down view above all else for these kinds of games, but i am saying that automatically associating the third person perspective with the beloved or saying its a sign of a shitty, cheap or dumbed down game, IS wrong and silly for those who are saying it. hate how its used, or hate the game... just don't automatically hate or deride the usage of it.
I believe that the debate about which is the best camera to use is not the fulcrum of the "problem". There's a very interesting discussion here in the official board that I suggest you to follow:
Still don't understand what exactly got everyone so worried. It's actually hard to say anything about the combat system because I can't really understand what's going on by watching those videos - it looks way too clunky, so obviously it's not finished/polished yet.
The original system was click- (and right click-) fest. The only thing that gave you options in combat was the preparation (fighting style, potions, runes etc). Now they strive to make it more dynamic - and they should. I hated that even though you had to fight numerous opponents most of the time, the game punished you for trying to disengage and switch targets (it broke the combo streak) or even use a sign in between. It was way too restrictive in my opinion.
Not to mention the hate of QTE... In Witcher combat consisted of you clicking the mouse at exactly the right time, when a special icon appeared to continue on with the combo - is that not the very definition of a quick time event?
Not to mention the hate of QTE... In Witcher combat consisted of you clicking the mouse at exactly the right time, when a special icon appeared to continue on with the combo - is that not the very definition of a quick time event?
It does make perfectly sense, but even if with its flaws, in TW1 you had to select the appropriate fighting style and attack the enemies using a precise timetable, while according to the new direction taken, TW2 will be based on a completely unstrategic and more action oriented combat system similar to the one seen in AC\Batman AA:
well i did enjoy the originals combat mechanics... once you got used to switching on the fly instead of pausing it, it became pretty fast, fluid and sometimes challenging, not to mention damn cool when there were multiple enemy types. my only real beef with it were that signs seemed really disjointed and you couldnt weave them seamlessly into combat, which ruined the fluidity somewhat.
also dont understand what was meant by not being able to switch targets... i never noticed that, i always switched targets and kept up my streak... clearly you cant switch styles, but switching targets was never a problem?
that being said, i loved AAs fighting mechanics... not overly taxing or anything by any stretch, but it did allow for enemy spamming which made for some absolutely stunning fights - some of the most enjoyable combat ive seen in a game.... so im not against action focused combat in principle, ill wait and see how it plays before i form an opinion (unlike some people )
It does make perfectly sense, but even if with its flaws, in TW1 you had to select the appropriate fighting style and attack the enemies using a precise timetable, while according to the new direction taken, TW2 will be based on a completely unstrategic and more action oriented combat system similar to the one seen in AC\Batman AA:
If it was anywhere near as good Batman, I would actually be happy haha. But seeing the clunky animations they have demonstrated so far, as well as how simplistic it looks in the video (*click* *click* *click*) as well as the silly QTE, I doubt it will ever get to anywhere Batman levels.
I admit that the way the combat looks in their demos is not particularly engaging. I am kinda hoping that it's just how they demonstrated it - since it was told it will be more dynamic, I am thinking there should be more to it then just slashing your opponent as was shown in the video. If not... well that's just beyond bad
chiv wrote:
also dont understand what was meant by not being able to switch targets... i never noticed that, i always switched targets and kept up my streak... clearly you cant switch styles, but switching targets was never a problem?
You might be right on this one, as long as you stick with the same combo you could attack another target... And yeah this type of combat had it's great moments, but still I wanted more freedom. Make an attack with a fast style, use a sign to knock your opponent down or stun him, hit him with a heavy attack... or knock one down, hit another one, ignite the third one and so forth
Using combos just made you stick with a particular style as long as you wanted to reach those last more powerful attacks. It would be nice to get rid of this restriction.
What is interesting is that combat in old Witcher was a sort of compromise between "tactical" and "arcade" combat. Tactical being something like BG/NWN, and arcade being something like Gothic/Oblivion.
On one side, you had timed combo moves, so "skill" mattered like in games with arcade combat systems, and on other side there was autocalculated defense/dogde like in tactical RPGs.
.
With that said, it seems Witcher2 goes on arcade side only. Which IMHO, is not bad thing since tactical combat is more suited for RPGs in which you control whole group of characters, instead of single guy.
@peter980
The use of the word "arcade" is not correct here, in my opinion. I would hardly call Batman's fighting mechanics arcade. Action, perhaps, but certainly not arcade. To me arcade fighting is mashing the same button (like it seems the guy in the video is doing) to string endless amounts of combos, without any thought or skill onvolved.
What are you talking about? What does your brain lack exactly? Why does an RPG always have to be top down? What you are saying makes no sense.
You obviously can't comprehend the fact that games do change and evolve, for better or for worse, and just because I enjoy OTS better then the clunky top view controls, from THE WITCHER does not mean I said anything wrong.
The witcher is not diablo, nor is it any regular "Action RPG". Sounds like to me your the type who rather play the boring diablo clones, then playing something new, from a new perspective.
To be honest,
My brain is fine thanks for the concern. There are several successful rpg's played in the 3rd person view and i'm not arguing about that. I love the Gothic series. I'm arguing about the fact you and every little new kid on the block now wants to transform every single oldschool top down view rpg into a 3rd person view game. Apparently you don't think that the few dozens of 1st person and 3rd person games released every year are enough, apparently every single game has to be like that or they're to clunky. Let me guess, you even play them with a gamepad?
And yes "The Witcher" is an arpg, one that goes a slightly separate path from the mighty Diablo hack & slash, which apparently now is boring.
There's a console section here you know, you'll feel right at home in there.
"New Kid on the Block"
You're kidding right? When did I say I want every little game to be third person? Never? Did I not just say on the previous page as I am very angry with isometric view being taken away from DA:O 2?
Dude, I remember buying baldur's gate at the store the week it came out.
I remember first looking at fallout, and reading the back, and jacking off in the middle of the store, while I was purchasing SDPC66
I still fucking remember typing "open door" on leisure suit larry.
Just because I am an oldschool gamer, and I highly disagree with you, does not mean, i'm a "new kid on the block"
What, did mommy buy you a computer in 04, and you found the joy of RPGs?
PS. I did not mention MUDs, because I'm afraid you might not understand the concept of a text only game.
I got my first timex 2068k (zx spectrum clone) when i was 11. I started leeching games from the old ASCII bbs's for my amiga 500 in the late 80's. I can easily say i played almost every game there is. Old text ONLY adventures included ofc.
My first computer too, was a ZX-Spectrum 48K.
Never had a console in my life (I was tempted in 1978 with Philips Videopac G700). Vade retro satana. I'm inpolute.
Weee, Spectrum fans rejoice. My first one was a ZX Spectrum 48k+ (the one with a "proper" keyboard from the 128k release in 1985). I did own a console though, the Atari 2600 before that.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
).
)
