Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kzach" data-source="post: 5572203" data-attributes="member: 56189">I tried the original Witcher and found it be incredibly clumsy, control-wise, to the point where I gave up even trying to get used to it a few minutes into the game. It was just so awkward that I felt any attempt to normalise myself to it will be a painful experience that I didn't want to engage in when I'm supposed to be playing a game for enjoyment.That, and the length of the cut-scenes were stupidly long. I'm not watching a movie, I'm playing a game.So I'm curious to hear what they've changed in #2 and if it's progressed and matured into a good game or if it's maintained the worst aspects of the original or made them even poorer.One thing that pisses me off about development studios is that they don't put even remotely close to near enough effort into refining their graphics and engines for peak performance. The difference in performance between a well-tuned game and a poorly tuned game is night and day. I often get the feeling that game developers slap these things together like a jury-rigged, Jerry-built house and just hope the building inspector never comes by before they can sell it.If this is anything like Mass Effect 2 (which from what I understand, they use the same basic engine, Unreal 3 I think), then I highly, highly, highly recommend a very aggressive approach. My first play-through of ME2 was with a soldier where I used the same mentality as I had in ME1, ie. sit behind cover and pick off enemies with AS fire. I died quite a lot. I then switched to playing a Vanguard (who are built around charging into melee), and quickly found it to be the superior tactic because the sooner I got past a certain 'respawn zone', the sooner the respawns stopped and the less enemies I had to deal with. It's now become a standard tactic for me in the game regardless of what class I play.</blockquote>

Verification