The Aurora couldn't handle it so they added isometric too, their own new engine is much more capable to display a 3D environment in full glory.
That's the same fallacy people drag up to argue that turnbased combat was only ever popular because of technical limitations and RT is the logical evolution. Does the addition of an optional, freely adjustable camera hurt your enjoyment of OTS in any way?
The comparison you draw is erroneous, that's not what I said. In this case the dev was limited by the engine they used, the combat in Witcher 1 was fun bun very limited (click, click, click). The addition of an OTS camera does in no way hamper my enjoyment of the game, but it does divert resources to something the devs don't want in the first place.
I for one am a fan of the "create a game you want to play" philosopy instead of the "create a game everyone (aka customers) wants to play" thing.
They were indeed limited by the engine, but that had no bearing on the camera. TW did after all have OTS and topdown cam. You assume that adding camera options needlessly "diverts resources" which isn't true in a fully fleshed out 3D environment, only if you cut corners and, say, your buildings have no roofs and are just facades, which I doubt is the case here. So it boils down to "going the way everyone goes as that's what customers expect" because OTS is all we get lately.
They were indeed limited by the engine, but that had no bearing on the camera. TW did after all have OTS and topdown cam. You assume that adding camera options needlessly "diverts resources" which isn't true in a fully fleshed out 3D environment, only if you cut corners and, say, your buildings have no roofs and are just facades, which I doubt is the case here. So it boils down to "going the way everyone goes as that's what customers expect" because OTS is all we get lately.
I'm no game developer, but I really doubt it's as simple as zooming out the camera. Technical issues put aside, design decisions need to be changed too. How will this combat work in isometric view? You can't simply zoom out the camera in a 3D game and call it isometric.
Locking the camera in close is another example of preparing for the console ports. Draw distance is a big killer of performance on consoles, so they like to constrain the viewable area as much as possible. It's the same reason they took it out of DA2.
Locking the camera in close is another example of preparing for the console ports. Draw distance is a big killer of performance on consoles, so they like to constrain the viewable area as much as possible. It's the same reason they took it out of DA2.
Looking at The Witcher's 2 amazing graphics, i think they are more worried about making it run on PC.
But you're right about that on consoles, specially noticeable with the stupid FOV's that make you feel like looking through magnifying lens, just so the game can run at SD/30fps.
How will this combat work in isometric view? You can't simply zoom out the camera in a 3D game and call it isometric.
You're right ofc. Many people, myself included, falsely say "isometric" for simplicity when they just mean a zoomed out camera pointing down at an angle, but correctly the term refers to a very specific fixed perspective ( like this: http://gamesfundamentals.com/projects/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Games_Graphics_Isometric_Urban.jpg )Designing an isometric game indeed takes a completely different approach, but when I just want to zoom out and view the action from a variable angle, nothing about the combat needs to change. Let me deal with the consequences if the camera proves suboptimal, don't take the choice away. There have been been a number of "iso" action games with gamepad based combat - which I assume is how TW2 will end up - and it worked out well enough. Revenant comes to mind as a good example.
Some people here are talking like the combat in "The Witcher" was the 2nd coming. It sucked..
But the game was fucking amazing nonetheless.
imo, everything besides the storyline/plot/etc was kind of a hot mess if you really look at it. Combat was terrible and side quests were tedious efforts. Among other things. But it was still good, though I don't jizz all over it as the second coming. Still, really looking forward to this game.
Those are back again, judging by the latest video. He even says they are for grinding XP, which isn't exactly glowing praise for their depth and enjoyment.
Those are back again, judging by the latest video. He even says they are for grinding XP, which isn't exactly glowing praise for their depth and enjoyment.
Ugh, that sucks if it is. I hated that shit so much, I barely finished any of them without tearing my hair out.
As long as it's not required for main quests though then I can at least ignore them for the most part.
What? No, hell no. I say, give us even more of those contracts as long as you give us other side-quests that are focused on other things. I loved contracts in the first game. I don't think that those "fetch that" quests are bad in RPGs as long as there are other side-quests. In The Witcher they had a purpose, that's how witchers make their money. The fact that they were under the form of contracts made it better and more believeable, in my opinion. They were a good source of money and experience at the same time and you could have done them while doing other quests.
NZXTS340ELITE : EVGA Z370 FTW / [ Intel i7 8086k @4.0Ghz ][ ASUS TUF RTX 3060 Ti 8GB ][ 16GB G.Skill Trident Z @3200mhz CL16 ][ 128GB Intel760p Series + 1TB Crucial MX500 + 3TB WD RED ][ Thermaltake Toughpower PF1 650W ]
yeah +1. loved the contracts and in most cases u ended up doing them anyway becuz u would fight in the cemtery..in the swamps ..etc..and collect the needed stuff.
>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ♪ Viva La Vida ♪ <<<<<< <<<<< <<<<<< <<<
Ugh, that sucks if it is. I hated that shit so much, I barely finished any of them without tearing my hair out.
As long as it's not required for main quests though then I can at least ignore them for the most part.
Don't think they will. In Witcher 1 only thing you got from them was money ( and xp ), they were completely optional.
apart rolling , which you can not do it does look fun especially those spells
tbh combat was worst thing in original witcher, so was sword types, and i hope they kinda get rid of them, having one sword for humans another for monster was nothing beyond silly, made no real reason, made skillups a mess as you didnt want to get either
witcher 1 was all about story for me, tho story didnt really pickup till midgame
tbh combat was worst thing in original witcher, so was sword types, and i hope they kinda get rid of them, having one sword for humans another for monster was nothing beyond silly, made no real reason, made skillups a mess as you didnt want to get either
It made sense if you read the books.
Quote from "The Last Wish":
Quote:
I believe in a sword. As you can see, I have two. Every witcher has two swords. The unkind say that the silver is for monsters, and the iron is for people. It's a fallacy of course. There are monsters you can smite only with a silver blade, but there are some that are also hurt by iron. Not every iron, but the one that comes from meteorite. (...) Take my sword. See how light it is? Even you can lift it without problems. Don't touch the blade, you'll hurt yourself. It's sharper than a razor. It has to be like this.
Yeah lets hope they remove all RPG elements and you just have to use one sword throughout the game!
And also, pressing 'space' should suffice to accomplish anything and everything.
BTW, I don't get the whining about combat in The Witcher. Unless you were playing on 'pussy' difficulty setting, it was loads of fun as you had to develop a certain feel for it. Of course, it's unlike Mark 'n Execute 2.0 or the Awesome button, I'll admit to 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
?
