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

×
Community
The Witcher 2When is the PC version coming?(256 posts)(256 posts)
(256 posts)
Pages:
1
5
7
8
9
10
11
15
18
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 20, 2011
avatar
StingingVelvet: It might be shorter, but what it has is better. Each quest is more involved and designed, even the random monster hunts. Developers have to choose what to do with their resources, they can either make a lot of average missions or less but more quality missions. I prefer the latter, and that is what Witcher 2 has.

Also no one can say 30+ hours of content is too little for $45. Come on now.
avatar
untamed: My playthrough was around 20 (estimate), and I did every side quest I could find (apart from 1 monster killing quest in Act 2). Admittedly I wasn't playing on Hard but then I don't think that would make much difference.

Also if you think about it there was only 1 main story quest, sure there were others listed in your journal but they were all part of the main quest. If you compare it to games like Fallout 3, you have multiple main story quests.

But sure, if it were any other game series I would be satisfied with even 10-15 hours, but I had such high hopes with TW2, I guess because they spoilt us with TW1.
There's always someone out there saying "I beat it in 20 hours dood!" and honestly I couldn't care less how fast you went through it, and how slowly you swear you went through it.
Posted May 20, 2011
avatar
Coflash: ....
avatar
Soylent: It's about the MONEY, that's why. Not to sound like a troll or conspiracy theorist, but look at the numbers.
Console games outsell PC games by a large margin.
Console games have a much larger market.
Console games are much more difficult to pirate.
Creating two versions of the same game is expensive and time consuming.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that lately games are created first for console, second for PC. I can add to your list too- no native DIrectX 11 (the Xbox is DX9), the pop-up screen to select weapons and magic, the weird keyboard and mouse mappings...

But if you were a developer, and you're going to write a new game engine, why limit yourself to a small market of PC gamers? Why not make it available to the hundreds of millions of console gamers as well?
Unfortunately for PC gamers, the PC has far passed the current generation consoles in performance, so we're stuck with whatever the console can support. This will change once the next generation of consoles comes out, but even then, those will last another 10+ years and the PC will quickly pass that generation of consoles as well.
Console games only outsell pc games in retail stores they have only just started to take PC digital sales into account and the figures where a shock,if you Google PC digital sales figures or something similar you will find it.The PC market is actually VERY much alive and kicking they have just moved from retail to sitting in there comfy home and buying them online.
Posted May 20, 2011
avatar
Soylent: It's about the MONEY, that's why. Not to sound like a troll or conspiracy theorist, but look at the numbers.
Console games outsell PC games by a large margin.
Console games have a much larger market.
Console games are much more difficult to pirate.
Creating two versions of the same game is expensive and time consuming.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that lately games are created first for console, second for PC. I can add to your list too- no native DIrectX 11 (the Xbox is DX9), the pop-up screen to select weapons and magic, the weird keyboard and mouse mappings...

But if you were a developer, and you're going to write a new game engine, why limit yourself to a small market of PC gamers? Why not make it available to the hundreds of millions of console gamers as well?
Unfortunately for PC gamers, the PC has far passed the current generation consoles in performance, so we're stuck with whatever the console can support. This will change once the next generation of consoles comes out, but even then, those will last another 10+ years and the PC will quickly pass that generation of consoles as well.
avatar
MADPADDY: Console games only outsell pc games in retail stores they have only just started to take PC digital sales into account and the figures where a shock,if you Google PC digital sales figures or something similar you will find it.The PC market is actually VERY much alive and kicking they have just moved from retail to sitting in there comfy home and buying them online.
i love how they never include those on sales reports. ... digital whats that :O
Posted May 20, 2011
I could instantly tell this was designed for consoles. Just enable the "real PC graphics" button, you know the one that stops it from looking like a aliased mess of crosshattched shading and glitchy texture filtering, i think its called "ubersampling" lol. Yeah basically IMO this game looks to me like console graphics and 10 year old shading and shadows, with no suppor to force on different levels of AF, AA, or Supersampling AA, Instead you get his stupid option called "ubersampling" that literally makes it finally look like a real PC game, but is completley unplayable because some idiot thaught it would be a good idea to have only 2 settings in the game, normal 4xMSAA, or 16XMSAA with 8xSupersampling with real shading and texture filtering. If i could only have the "nice shading" turned on, then enable 4xAA with 4XSSAA with my graphic card control panel, i think the game would look great and be playable on most current hardware. But no, you either get tons of glitchy Aliasing and texture filtering and shading, or a normaly shaded game thats completely unplayable. Please break ubersampling down into different levels of supersampling, and seperate the option which renders textures and shading better, or fix it so we can force our own levels of AA.
Post edited May 20, 2011 by kman420
Posted May 20, 2011
avatar
Coflash: Compare all the Witcher 1 screens, to the third of TW2 here.

http://steamcommunity.com/id/coflash/screenshots/

He's very different, as I said, after 40 or so hours of TW1 it is immediately obvious.
avatar
slophlong: I find it hard to believe that you played TW1 before this, the combat in TW2 is considerably harder/more complicated than TW1. Try turning your difficulty to "Normal" or "Hard" before claiming that the game is dumbed down. There are countless threads here with complaints that the game is too hard.

While I agree with some things (mainly the quick loading, no clue of what happened to that) it seems as if most of your post is just trolling.
avatar
Coflash: It is on hard, and I did play it, want my save game for both TW1 and 2?

How is it trolling? It's all based on fact, it's not as if coming here I didn't expect to face people such as yourself, but show me where I've trolled exactly when it's all based on evidence even you can see.
You actually ruined your argument by showing screen grabs! He looks like the same exact character, only more refined and detailed in TW2.

As for being a console game....they haven't even decided if they want to release a console version...the decisions you are talking about is to appeal to a wider audience. Console games are accessible because they are simpler to pick up and play...just because this game is able to be controlled with a controller and has a bit simpler control scheme doesn't mean it will ever come out on a console. Also remember we live in a modern age now.....it is possible to plug a gaming computer into a big screen TV.....playing on a big screen with a keyboard and mouse is basically impossible.

This whole post is most definitely trolling!
Posted May 20, 2011

Why the combat has been dumbed down to only ever involve hitting, rolling, hitting, rolling etc?

Why have the 3 levels of each combat type for the two swords been dumbed down? Was it really that hard to map to a controller? Again, you've taken depth from the combat.
Make no mistake, Witcher 2 is a console game on PC.
I do not say this in a derogatory way. It just follows that style of game-making.
There is nothing wrong with that.
The OP is correct on his statements except for this part I quoted above.

Witcher 1 has an incredibly weak skeleton of a combat system.
The three styles are implemented in the worst way possible.
They are so binary that they cannot add any depth.
Witcher 2 on the other hand specifially ADDS depth in the shape of movement and physicality to combat gameplay.
Witcher 2 is head and shoulders above Witcher 1 when the combat systems are compared.

Witcher 2 could have improved its combat further but the lack of CDP Red's console experience shows in the form of many small flaws scattered across the combat system.
Witcher 2, as a whole, is still a great game and the combat system is immensely better designed than the "I use 4 buttons to launch 3 attacks" Pavlov Dog of Witcher 1.

I cannot say anything against personal preference one might have to one school of game style, however one cannot objectively deny the massive improvement CDP Red made to the combat gameplay.
Post edited May 20, 2011 by Teknoir
Posted May 20, 2011

Why the combat has been dumbed down to only ever involve hitting, rolling, hitting, rolling etc?

Why have the 3 levels of each combat type for the two swords been dumbed down? Was it really that hard to map to a controller? Again, you've taken depth from the combat.
avatar
Teknoir: Make no mistake, Witcher 2 is a console game on PC.
I do not say this in a derogatory way. It just follows that style of game-making.
There is nothing wrong with that.
The OP is correct on his statements except for this part I quoted above.

Witcher 1 has an incredibly weak skeleton of a combat system.
The three styles are implemented in the worst way possible.
They are so binary that they cannot add any depth.
Witcher 2 on the other hand specifially ADDS depth in the shape of movement and physicality to combat gameplay.
Witcher 2 is head and shoulders above Witcher 1 when the combat systems are compared.

Witcher 2 could have improved its combat further but the lack of CDP Red's console experience shows in the form of many small flaws scattered across the combat system.
Witcher 2, as a whole, is still a great game and the combat system is immensely better designed than the "I use 4 buttons to launch 3 attacks" Pavlov Dog of Witcher 1.

I cannot say anything against personal preference one might have to one school of game style, however one cannot objectively deny the massive improvement CDP Red made to the combat gameplay.
but we can still make it better. there are aspects of the combat that just dont sit right.
Posted May 20, 2011
avatar
MADPADDY: Sure it's about money, they're a company. But let's take that out of the equation for a second and think of developers as already rich people who love making games. If you made a game solely for that reason, wouldn't your priority still be to reach as many people as possible? If, and I don't think TW2 in its current state is one, they made a console port that doesn't betray THEIR vision of the game, in what single fucking way is that a bad thing?


I just don't see how this became demonized so badly. How multiplatform is automatically associated with "selling out". If I made a product, my first priority would be to reach as many people as possible. Money is great, but if you want to amass lots of it you don't go into game development, there's far more profitable fields you can be in as a programmer / artist / animator / designer. No, people who are in the industry love games, do the best they can and want as many people as possible to see their game. And people who don't consider those intentions need to step into the real world... although I do believe that it's mostly the youngins screaming into their pillows and hammering away at forums. It's the vocal minority anyway, so, whatever.


(This isn't necessarily directed at you specifically, but you provided a good point of entry.)
All good points. Most developers love games and don't necessarily do it just for the money.

However... publishers, on the other hand, love money. They sell, and that's it. That's why they are publishers, not developers. In this case, Atari dictates where the game is sold, when, for how much, and whether it's going to be sold at all.

The only situation where a publisher does not control the development of the game is if the company publishes its own games. If CDProjekt had only used GOG (their own company), we would certainly see the price of the game higher, and available in fewer locations and formats. There wouldn't even be a retail box. That's why they needed Atari or Steam. And to make the most money, Atari and Steam want the game to be released on consoles, so they pressure CDProjekt to make it so.
Post edited May 20, 2011 by Soylent
Posted May 20, 2011
avatar
MADPADDY: Sure it's about money, they're a company. But let's take that out of the equation for a second and think of developers as already rich people who love making games. If you made a game solely for that reason, wouldn't your priority still be to reach as many people as possible? If, and I don't think TW2 in its current state is one, they made a console port that doesn't betray THEIR vision of the game, in what single fucking way is that a bad thing?


I just don't see how this became demonized so badly. How multiplatform is automatically associated with "selling out". If I made a product, my first priority would be to reach as many people as possible. Money is great, but if you want to amass lots of it you don't go into game development, there's far more profitable fields you can be in as a programmer / artist / animator / designer. No, people who are in the industry love games, do the best they can and want as many people as possible to see their game. And people who don't consider those intentions need to step into the real world... although I do believe that it's mostly the youngins screaming into their pillows and hammering away at forums. It's the vocal minority anyway, so, whatever.


(This isn't necessarily directed at you specifically, but you provided a good point of entry.)
avatar
Soylent: All good points. Most developers love games and don't necessarily do it just for the money.

However... publishers, on the other hand, love money. They sell, and that's it. That's why they are publishers, not developers. In this case, Atari dictates where the game is sold, when, for how much, and whether it's going to be sold at all.

The only situation where a publisher does not control the development of the game is if the company publishes its own games. If CDProjekt had only used GOG (their own company), we would certainly see the price of the game higher, and available in fewer locations and formats. There wouldn't even be a retail box. That's why they needed Atari or Steam.
they are the publishers. Atari only does the North american release.
Posted May 20, 2011
avatar
cloud8521: they are the publishers. Atari only does the North american release.
Who publishes the retail box in Europe or Australia?
Posted May 20, 2011
avatar
cloud8521: they are the publishers. Atari only does the North american release.
avatar
Soylent: Who publishes the retail box in Europe or Australia?
CDproject red does
Posted May 20, 2011
avatar
Soylent: All good points. Most developers love games and don't necessarily do it just for the money.

However... publishers, on the other hand, love money. They sell, and that's it. That's why they are publishers, not developers. In this case, Atari dictates where the game is sold, when, for how much, and whether it's going to be sold at all.

The only situation where a publisher does not control the development of the game is if the company publishes its own games. If CDProjekt had only used GOG (their own company), we would certainly see the price of the game higher, and available in fewer locations and formats. There wouldn't even be a retail box. That's why they needed Atari or Steam.
avatar
cloud8521: they are the publishers. Atari only does the North american release.
No they only publish the digital gog version and maybe the polish version,ATARI for USA,Namco Bandie for UK ETC.
Posted May 20, 2011
avatar
Coflash: Why Geralt now looks like any other generic next-gen hero character? His odd looks were refreshing, does he *really* need to be more handsome to appeal to the 10 - 15 year olds this game will inevitibly try to satisfy? He's gone from looking european to an american with the squarest of jaws.
I have to agree. Geralt looked more like Geralt to me in TW1, now he just looks kind of dorky with that dumb mangaish pony tail hairstyle... Still a nice story, but... WAY too short as well...
Posted May 20, 2011
avatar
Soylent: Who publishes the retail box in Europe or Australia?
avatar
cloud8521: CDproject red does
I'd be interested in seeing sales figures (if they ever release them) comparing NA and EU sales. Then we could see which market they were aiming for.

One thing is for certain, I haven't seen any advertisements near me, in the US. I regularly saw Dragon Age 2 and Portal 2 ads on billboards and TV, but nothing about the Witcher.
That is Atari's fail. Clearly they don't see any need to invest in advertising here.
Post edited May 20, 2011 by Soylent
Posted May 20, 2011
avatar
cloud8521: CDproject red does
avatar
Soylent: I'd be interested in seeing sales figures (if they ever release them) comparing NA and EU sales. Then we could see which market they were aiming for.

One thing is for certain, I haven't seen any advertisements near me, in the US. I regularly saw Dragon Age 2 and Portal 2 ads on billboards and TV, but nothing about the Witcher.
That is Atari's fail. Clearly they don't see any need to invest in advertising here.
accually.. not too many publishers advertise games. just how it is
Pages:
1
5
7
8
9
10
11
15
18
This is my favourite topic
Community
The Witcher 2When is the PC version coming?(256 posts)(256 posts)
(256 posts)