It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
"Die by the Sword" anyone?
avatar
arimakun: In real world live combat, you get hit by 1 bullet you are probably out of commission for a very long time, or even for good. The most realistic FPS'ers are those like Rainbow Six and S.W.A.T. in which you almost get killed instantly in a firefight. This kind of FPS is rarely seen nowadays.
Actually, that's not entirely true. If you get hit in a VITAL area, like the head, heart or lungs, yes, one bullet will put you down for the count. But otherwise, if you get shot in the arm or leg, or even in parts of your abdomen, unless the bullet severs a major blood vessel, chances are you're in no danger of dying and can keep on fighting. (You'll be in a great deal of pain, of course, and you definitely need to seek medical attention, but you probably won't die. You might go into shock, however.) A friend who's a police officer told me that one of his first lessons about getting into a gunfight was "If you get shot, and you don't die immediately, keep on fighting until the ambulances get there."
avatar
Ebon-Hawk: "Die by the Sword" anyone?
I'm getting it.

http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/die_by_the_sword_expansion


And now, you see how the GoG business model might work. ;)
I just tried it. You're joking right?
Post edited August 31, 2011 by einarabelc5
avatar
arimakun: In real world live combat, you get hit by 1 bullet you are probably out of commission for a very long time, or even for good. The most realistic FPS'ers are those like Rainbow Six and S.W.A.T. in which you almost get killed instantly in a firefight. This kind of FPS is rarely seen nowadays.
avatar
Zaxares: Actually, that's not entirely true. If you get hit in a VITAL area, like the head, heart or lungs, yes, one bullet will put you down for the count. But otherwise, if you get shot in the arm or leg, or even in parts of your abdomen, unless the bullet severs a major blood vessel, chances are you're in no danger of dying and can keep on fighting. (You'll be in a great deal of pain, of course, and you definitely need to seek medical attention, but you probably won't die. You might go into shock, however.) A friend who's a police officer told me that one of his first lessons about getting into a gunfight was "If you get shot, and you don't die immediately, keep on fighting until the ambulances get there."
The shockwave of a bullet from a high-powered weapon like an assault rifle striking your limbs can rupture and tear vital organs, arteries and veins far away from the actual wound. Your police friend is right, because he rarely encounters such weapons. But Arimakun is also right, if with Rainbow Six/Swat he's referring to enemies using high-powered weapons.
avatar
Zaxares: Actually, that's not entirely true. If you get hit in a VITAL area, like the head, heart or lungs, yes, one bullet will put you down for the count. But otherwise, if you get shot in the arm or leg, or even in parts of your abdomen, unless the bullet severs a major blood vessel, chances are you're in no danger of dying and can keep on fighting. (You'll be in a great deal of pain, of course, and you definitely need to seek medical attention, but you probably won't die. You might go into shock, however.) A friend who's a police officer told me that one of his first lessons about getting into a gunfight was "If you get shot, and you don't die immediately, keep on fighting until the ambulances get there."
avatar
Washell: The shockwave of a bullet from a high-powered weapon like an assault rifle striking your limbs can rupture and tear vital organs, arteries and veins far away from the actual wound. Your police friend is right, because he rarely encounters such weapons. But Arimakun is also right, if with Rainbow Six/Swat he's referring to enemies using high-powered weapons.
Too true. This was a very real problem for early adopters of the NATO 5.56mm cartridges, which had a tendency to penetrate too cleanly, not tumble or fragment, and leave a clean exit wound and an only slightly bothered enemy.
Post edited August 31, 2011 by cjrgreen
avatar
Washell: The shockwave of a bullet from a high-powered weapon like an assault rifle striking your limbs can rupture and tear vital organs, arteries and veins far away from the actual wound. Your police friend is right, because he rarely encounters such weapons. But Arimakun is also right, if with Rainbow Six/Swat he's referring to enemies using high-powered weapons.
Ah yes, of course. I forgot to mention in my original response that this will also depend on the type of weapon being used and the calibre/make of the ammunition. If you get shot in the leg with a .357 Magnum round, I think you'd be pretty screwed too. ;)
avatar
Washell: The shockwave of a bullet from a high-powered weapon like an assault rifle striking your limbs can rupture and tear vital organs, arteries and veins far away from the actual wound. Your police friend is right, because he rarely encounters such weapons. But Arimakun is also right, if with Rainbow Six/Swat he's referring to enemies using high-powered weapons.
avatar
cjrgreen: Too true. This was a very real problem for early adopters of the NATO 5.56mm cartridges, which had a tendency to penetrate too cleanly, not tumble or fragment, and leave a clean exit wound and an only slightly bothered enemy.
+1. Seen it in tons of arguments. there's a new cal they're discussing that's between that and the 7.62 the Ak is 6.xx something. More range than 7.62 and more impact than 5.56. BOBW.
avatar
Ebon-Hawk: "Die by the Sword" anyone?
avatar
einarabelc5: I'm getting it.

http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/die_by_the_sword_expansion


And now, you see how the GoG business model might work. ;)
I just tried it. You're joking right?
You know this is 12yo game right?

Would it not be like judging all space combat simulators on the experience one may have today with Wing Commander 1?

I remember that during the time this game was new I thought it was a step in an interesting direction, one that I wanted to see repeated due to more realistic (or perception of that) approach to things at the time.
I always judge my exerience with space simulators using TIE Fighter as a benchmark! Not because it's realistic though, just because it's the one I've had most fun with. That's the reason I play videogames. To have fun, not to simulate reality as best as possible ;-)
avatar
VoodooEconomist: I always judge my exerience with space simulators using TIE Fighter as a benchmark! Not because it's realistic though, just because it's the one I've had most fun with. That's the reason I play videogames. To have fun, not to simulate reality as best as possible ;-)
For some reason when Ebon said Space my mind completed with: Tie Fighter, then I read : Wing Commander :(
avatar
einarabelc5: I'm getting it.

http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/die_by_the_sword_expansion


And now, you see how the GoG business model might work. ;)
I just tried it. You're joking right?
avatar
Ebon-Hawk: You know this is 12yo game right?

Would it not be like judging all space combat simulators on the experience one may have today with Wing Commander 1?

I remember that during the time this game was new I thought it was a step in an interesting direction, one that I wanted to see repeated due to more realistic (or perception of that) approach to things at the time.
Well considering that Tomb Raider 1 came around the same time and DID platforming right I can't say I can give it a break. I tried the fighting and didn't liked it either, because the movement is rather unrealistic even for predefined movements(numpad)
Good Post Jaguar10 be prepared to be called racist and god knows what else because your an American with an opinion. Anyway Great post I myself feel the UI is so screwed up and yes the other things you mentions as well. TW1 is still the best they made or will ever make. I sent an E-mail to the Dev's asking for them to give an option to play with the new UI or go back to TW1 UI IMO it is so much better and the moves and combat is superior in TW1 then in 2. My opinion is it is dumb down for Consoles.
avatar
Jaguar10: Not sure if CD Projekt will see this or if this is the right place for it but I am so upset about the changes that were made in Witcher 2 I could cry. I loved The original Witcher and wrote CD Projekt a letter of praise. I liked the fight system with Geralt looking so realistic and stringing together those combos. Tthe inventory system was cool and easy to use and you got a good chance to practice at Kaer Morhen before going out to kill monsters. Additionally, I fell in love with the trailer they put out for #2 with the new, handsome Geralt and the sexy voice of Iorveth. I was so looking forward to this new game and then found out they had changed the look of Geralt (he now looks older but seems to have an annoying glowing face) and the voices of Iorweth and the Kingslayer. Huge disappointment. It made me not want to buy the game. Voice acting is extremely important in RPG's. I did buy it , however, when it went on sale recently. Spent 6 hours! downloading it and then started on Normal. I'm in my 50's and nothing is hardcore for me anymore! ha, ha. Took me forever to get out of the first courtyard where you had to wind up the ballista. I did finally beat it. Then I must have tried for three straight hours to beat the guys in the monastery courtyard before giving up in frustration and turning the gameplay down to Easy. This is not fun!!!!! I could kill the non-armored guys easily but to have 3 armored guys ganging up on me was horrible. I could barely do signs as Geralt stops running to do them and I end up getting whacked in the back, I practically broke my ring finger smashing the W button to even get him to move after a few blows! I just kept trying to outrun them and casting Quen now and then and doing somersaults around and around and around. Going up the stairs did not work either. I finally beat them on Easy but now I'm immediately being killed by a dragon on the bridge! I am so frustrated with this game it's not funny. How could they take a perfectly fine, award winning game and change so much about it?? I'm barely getting started and am about to just give up. The other thing I hate is its too hard to see the herbs, I'm getting tired of hitting Z every two minutes to find things, and the writing on the screen is so tiny I can barely read it. I didn't even realize I had potions in my inventory until half way through the ballista scene!! Where did they come from? Can't even see what you're getting when you get it. The hint box blocks out the screen too much as well and I can barely read it. The only good thing I can find so far is that they gave up the ridiculous American-no nudity/European-nudity thing. We're all adults so what's the big deal anyway. The opening scene was great. I also can't stand the new Dice Game!! The board is ugly, I can't see the dice when you throw, it's harder to understand what to do when the opponent raises, and what's with the designs on the dice?? You can't tell what's what. Another enjoyable aspect of the Witcher down the drain. Arm wrestling was okay but what is with all this hitting the mouse button for that, the ballista, raising the gate, running from the dragon, etc. Stupid! So, I'm now pressing S to run and smashing the RMB and still getting killed by the dragon. God!!! And I have to meditate to drink a potion???? How stupid is that?? Do they want you to have to start a fight, get killed, then figure out what potion you need and then reload?? Not having to meditate at a fire is refreshing but come on....!

I hate it when a game company puts out a great game and then all of a sudden someone gets a bug up his ass and says, well, gee, that was a great thing but hey, let's change it! In my opinon, this happened with Fallout New Vegas, the new Gothic Arcania, Fear 3 and now, woe of all woes, The Witcher 2!! I can't believe this is even the same company that put out the Witcher 1. I have been disappointed in almost every sequel that has come out in the last year or so. Mass Effect 2 was the only game I played that was as good as if not better than the first. CDProjekt, I thought you were better than that. Obviously not! You just can't trust anyone anymore.

I think I'll go and cry some more now............aaaggghghghghghghhhgh!

If I ever get past the dragon I hope the rest of the game turns out better but I am supremely disappointed in what I've seen so far. Are you listening CD Projeckt???? Go back to what worked for you before and quit trying to fix what ain't broke!!! Your core audience is die-hard PC gamers who are usually older people. (I believe that's why GOG is so popular)We loved the Witcher and proved it to you. I don't know who you have been listening to but what I see in Witcher 2 so far is not what made The Witcher great. Sure the story is great but if I can't beat the enemies on Easy it doesn't matter how great the story is!!! I'm sure there are people who will disagree with me but I am entitled to my opinion. I noticed several similar bad reviews on Metacritic and other sites so I'm not the only one who thinks like ths. If someone knows how I can get this message to CDProjekt directly I would appreciate it. I'll be very leery if there is a Witcher 3.
avatar
FlyByU: Good Post Jaguar10 be prepared to be called racist and god knows what else because your an American with an opinion. Anyway Great post I myself feel the UI is so screwed up and yes the other things you mentions as well. TW1 is still the best they made or will ever make. I sent an E-mail to the Dev's asking for them to give an option to play with the new UI or go back to TW1 UI IMO it is so much better and the moves and combat is superior in TW1 then in 2. My opinion is it is dumb down for Consoles.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially if it is different than that of most other people. It's unfortunate that so many people get up in arms when someone doesn't agree with the majority.

My two cents as far as this topic is concerned: I don't like the UI for TW2 either. Not only was everything easier to find in the first game (particularly information on monsters, especially after reading a book about a particular monster), but it also seemed to be laid out better for computers so that your mouse was never too far away from where you needed to go to make a selection.

But the combat is much better than the first game. The only problems I have with it is that alot of the time the game decides to not register my inputs, forcing me to press the same key 3-4 times before it responds.

However, the combat in this game is anything but dumbed down. If anything can be considered "dumbed down" it's the combat in the first Witcher game, and that was PC exclusive. So that shoots your "dumbed down for consoles" theory in the foot, at least as far as the combat goes.
Post edited September 02, 2011 by link1264
It's actually a lot harder to control with an Xbox controller than with keyboard and mouse, so the idea that the new interface is designed with the 360 version in mind doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny.
avatar
link1264: However, the combat in this game is anything but dumbed down.
It's not dumbed down, it's simply uninteresting and a chore. That, and the overall lagginess of the game prevented me from wanting to finish it. As comparison, I did finish the horrible Dragon Age 2 (however painful it was). The only reason I don't regret buying W2 more than DA2 is because it's GOG-related.

W2: good, but unplayable
DA2: bad, but playable