A comparison of Skyrim's and Two Worlds 2's magic systems.

Post » Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:07 pm

I remember another game that was pretty bad, but had a few interesting elements in it that I wouldn't mind other games trying. That was Dungeon Lords, a mess of a game with hideous graphics and released unfinished. It had something called heraldry, a limited number of signs with bonuses that different classes could gain, with effects very roughly comparable to the birthsigns in Morrowind and the stones in Skyrim. You could earn a maximum of four, with varying mix-or-match results. The magic system was very unusual in some respects. Four schools, but the interesting one had spells you made by combining alchemical reagents you found or bought, some very powerful and
highly unusual. Unfortunately, this was another of that game's unfinished and slipshod features that was released in a very bugged state and never corrected, but when it worked, it was something nearly unique in gaming.
User avatar
Nana Samboy
 
Posts: 3424
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:29 pm

Post » Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:19 pm

I completely agree with Sunblade. Stop overrating skyrim and underrating its competitors
User avatar
willow
 
Posts: 3414
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:43 pm

Post » Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:25 pm

I'm with the "can't compare the two" set. I couldn't play Two Worlds (I or II) AT ALL. IMO, they svcked eggs. While either MIGHT have had redeeming qualities, neither reveled those qualities to me within the first ten or so hours of play.
User avatar
Benji
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:58 pm

Post » Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:32 pm

I've not played any TES game that didn't need a magic overhaul to be enjoyable.

I really wish people would stop dissing the Two Worlds series... The first game in that I'm rating somewhere with Morrowind in terms of quality. Has anyone actually played it for more than an hour? The problem with the game is it missteps right out the door, but then gets pretty good.

The second game is awesome as well, but it's not as Open-World - it's more like Legend of Zelda in terms of story linearity.

Skyrim's big advantage is the ability to choose a race, and the skill-based leveling system.
User avatar
Jason White
 
Posts: 3531
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:54 pm

Post » Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:11 pm

I'm with the "can't compare the two" set. I couldn't play Two Worlds (I or II) AT ALL. IMO, they svcked eggs. While either MIGHT have had redeeming qualities, neither reveled those qualities to me within the first ten or so hours of play.

Why can't you compare the two? Aren't they both RPGs? Can't you be a mage in both? Can't you kill monsters in the same way? I don't understand this type of logic.

I think people in debates tend to stick with famous and catchy phrases even in the cases they aren't true
User avatar
NeverStopThe
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:25 pm

Post » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:13 am

I've not played any TES game that didn't need a magic overhaul to be enjoyable.

I really wish people would stop dissing the Two Worlds series... The first game in that I'm rating somewhere with Morrowind in terms of quality. Has anyone actually played it for more than an hour? The problem with the game is it missteps right out the door, but then gets pretty good.

The second game is awesome as well, but it's not as Open-World - it's more like Legend of Zelda in terms of story linearity.

Skyrim's big advantage is the ability to choose a race, and the skill-based leveling system.

But people only care about the immediate impact. That's why
User avatar
Teghan Harris
 
Posts: 3370
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:31 pm

Post » Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:30 pm

I`ve actually been play pirates of the flying fortress the past week or so. Now after playing that right after 200 hours in skyrim , there really isn`t all that much difference between the two games. One game has more then another in some aspects and vice versa. But they play almost identical. Yeah the stories are different and both companies handle certain ways they develop things differently. The two worlds games were developed in germany by a small company that I think did a kick ass job despite not having the kind of budget bethesda has when it comes to creating a game. But they got the most important thing right from the start, the games engine.

I remember playing tw1 a long time ago after I used to play oblivion like a fiend. At first i didn`t like it but the more I played it the more I thought to myself why didn`t oblivion do this or that like these guys did. TW2 was also supposed to be an expansion of tw1 called temptation but they decided to scrap the engine and create something better which turned out to be the grace engine, so they decided to kill the expansion project and focus on a new game instead. They did a good job, was a great game. I think it could have a little more of the kind of things you have in skyrim but on that note also I would love to see skyrim have alot more of the things tw2 had in it. Both games were great and have thier own distinguishing characteristics. I think skyrim was created for a more storydriven player while tw2 was made for more of the action hack/slash type player. But if I had to choose between one or the other I would pick skyrim for the cs because we never got our sdk for tw2 and all of us on those boards begged for it for so long when they told us we were getting one.

Expect tw3 to be just as big as skyrim though. They allready began working on it not long after pirates came out. You can bet after they saw skyrim and what it can do, they will do their best to put something they feel is just as good. At least that`s what I would do.
User avatar
Eileen Collinson
 
Posts: 3208
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:42 am

Previous

Return to V - Skyrim