It was a masterpiece of smoke and mirrors. Owing to a barrage of clever PR, a trickle of rather swish looking screens, some decent-looking in-game footage and more spin than a Shane Warne flipper, Reality Pump all but convinced us that they'd achieved the impossible - transforming the bilge that was Two Worlds into a sequel that genuinely had the cojones to challenge an aging Elder Scrolls IV
Hmm. The truth? This is another whiffsome mess of role-playing rubbishness - despite what those bafflingly positive reviews sneaking out of the European press might be suggesting.
Or at least that's the idea. Unfortunately, even on lowly 'medium' difficulty, Two Worlds II is nails - and we mean really, really hard. We've never seen a baboon with a health bar that long.
BIRD BRAIN
So, we ended up having to plunge all our points into levelling up our health and melée skills as it soon became painfully clear that range-based attackers were in line for a right pasting from the eclectic selection of zomboids, mummies, rhinoceroses and... erm, ostriches that roam Two Worlds II's wilderness.
So while it sounds decent enough being able to kick off a scrap from far away in mage regalia before flicking a hotkey to instantly switch over to sword and armour, ready to mop up the grisly remnants... the whole set-up is borked in practice.
You might as well just stick to hacking-'n'-slashing. Speaking of sword-'n'-shield based melée, we also seem to remember sophisticated mano-e-beasto fight also being promised by Reality Pump, something that no role-player thus far has even half-nailed.
The whole theme of having to duck, dive and generally mix things up is one big wad of bull though, and you either end up just hammering the right trigger and trading blows in traditionally rubbish fashion or hightailing it about while spewing fireballs like Benny Hill in a dress.
Looks-wise, it's the usual fantasy RPG story - with some reasonably purdy looking forest/mountainous/desert areas underpinned by shatto character models.
Rant all you like about Bethesda's dated engine, but a half-decade-old Oblivion still looks leagues better than this. In terms of atmosphere, it hardly helps that the game's princely lead is an obscenely gravely-voiced self-parody of a hero, a voice hilariously at odds with one of the campest running animations we've ever tittered along to.
JERKIN' OFF
Manage to slog through a spectacularly underwhelming first five hours and things gradually begin to pick up, but then that's never been our issue with Two Worlds. It always presented a sprawling world, bunged in a quiverful of (middling) quests and an impressive amount to mess about with, inventory-wise.
The trend continues here; the magic system (handled through a deck of cards) is a nice touch, as is being able to reduce items to their component elements to reinforce or indeed construct other weapons.
Like we say, persevere and it's not a total loss, but the languid opening is a considerable barrier to entry to all but the most determined adventuring sorts. The bugs don't seem as numerous nowadays, but the AI is still awful (sometimes an enemy follows you to the ends of the earth; sometimes they give up and prance back to their start position even while being pelted with arrows; sometimes they just stand there and take it), while strange events abound (keep your eyes peeled for errant barrels rolling down hills for no apparent reason).
Comments
33 comments so far...
newsinthefield on 5 Feb '11 said:
I was actually kind of rooting for Two Worlds II. I was sucked in by the sales pitch you mentioned and genuinely hoped that, after the epic fail which was Two Worlds I, the devs would thrust forth the greatest fantasy-RPG this generation...after Oblivion, of course.
theBishop on 5 Feb '11 said:
I don't know why but this line really tickled me!
chronicwombat on 5 Feb '11 said:
"bilge"
"whiffsome mess"
"borked"
"one big wad of bull"
"rubbish"
"obscenely gravely"
"slog"
"spectacularly underwhelming"
"languid"
"awful"
"uniformly dump"
"bland slog-a-thon"
Lol somehow i think someone doesnt like this game!
I'm a bit confused though because I was under the impression that its been pretty well revieved on the continent. I never played the first and have it on good knowledge that it smells, but I cant help be a little suspicious of this review. It seems to go out of its way to slag the game, even to the extent of using terms like "bunged in" when they mean 'added'. The review ends with "Please, don't buy this" - well surely after reading the review thats up to the reader to make an informed decision, not for the reviewer to try to force it on the reader.
It may well be a bad game but is it just me or does it seem like the reviewer has an unusually large amount of hate for it?
BLARRG on 5 Feb '11 said:
maybe because its a truly s**t sequel to a s**t first game? the devs really hyped that it would be alot better than the first so the reviewer is most likely p**sed that they lied. Also the early reviews shouldnt be trusted as they were some of the people who reviewed the first one well
chronicwombat on 5 Feb '11 said:
im not gonna be rushing out to buy it, lets put it like that. but im interested in trying it now lol. i still suspect that the reviewer is a bit OTT though. ive seen games get similar scores and get nowhere near as much of a pasting. i mean, even if its really bad, naming a sub-heading "jerkin-off"?!
Very_Silver_Ownz on 5 Feb '11 said:
'' The review ends with "Please, don't buy this" - well surely after reading the review thats up to the reader to make an informed decision, not for the reviewer to try to force it on the reader. ''
maybe because the game sucks and his trying to help you save £40 of your own money.
If your that desperate just rent it.
aawells07 on 6 Feb '11 said:
wow im a little taken back by this review. i played this game and really enjoyed it thoroughly. it has a few flaws but it is indeed miles better than the first my one big complaint is ur interaction with some characters in the game which are laughable at times but i looked past it rather than nit picking the hell out of it yeah it could be better in some ways but it did its job for me and apparently a lot others as most reviews for this game are much higher. sorry but ill look elsewhere for reviews from now on not to be rough but i feel the reviewer went into this game with a negative attitude and didnt give it a fair review..........srry venting
boskersrevenge on 6 Feb '11 said:
To coin a phrase... "bugger".
BenThomasFoster on 6 Feb '11 said:
Yet final fantasy got raving reviews :/ it's a good game for those who do not discriminate against easter european dev's
jimmyz66 on 6 Feb '11 said:
Ok, this reviewer must be taking money straight from Bethesda as he has his head so far up their a**.
It is funny how another site, and a more respectable magazine, gave this game a great review. http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/02/04/two-worlds-2-review/
Strange how things work when someone in the minority tries to force their opinion on the rest of the world by a low score while they drink the Oblivion kool aid.
Two Worlds 2 was not perfect but it is a game worth playing and this reviewer is just plain wrong and definitely should ask for a bigger office at Bethesda headquarters.
Yellow6 on 6 Feb '11 said:
"You'll have to toss me.
Just don't tell the elf"
sweatyBallacks on 6 Feb '11 said:
Ha ha funny review
nathar on 6 Feb '11 said:
Im not buying this but it seemed a harsh review in light of others I've read. It's currently rated as between 7 and 8 out of 10 on metacritic so the general consensus is that its ok if nothing special.
What i find a bit mental is that "Don't buy this" comment at the end. If this gets 4.8/10 doesnt that make it a very slightly below average game? I always liked PCzone for that - an average game got 50%, so you knew anything with 80 or above was likely to be a class game.
Yellow6 on 6 Feb '11 said:
I'm all for a reviewer telling me a game is terrible....if it really is.
I am however unsure why the "hate" for this particular game.
I have three points on the review.
1 - Barrels rolling down a street for no reason?
I'm sure this has happened many a time in real life.
Sounds quite realistic to me, aren't we always asking for more realism in games?
Does the person at the bottom of the street need to know that a dog knocked a barrel over.
Do we need to understand every single event in a "world" we are in.
Sure we need to understand the plot but why the worry over knocked over barrels....
Maybe the barrels actually were in the plot and the reviewer missed that plot thread
2 - Magicians are pretty much always weak at the start of a game, be it in paper and pen Dungeons and Dragons or the latest high graphics computer game.
Wizards rely on the rest of the party to carry them until they can become a superpower in the latter stages of the game.
OK, this is not a party game but it just means if you choose to play as a wizard early on you need that much more skill.
Does the reviewer not have the requisite skill for the wizarding
3 - I realise not everyone gets my humour and likewise I don't get everyone elses humour.
To slag it off in a game is a bit patronising.
You may be a games reviewer but does that give you a Masters degree in comedy
If you are so funny why aren't you on tv?
If you are so funny why am I not laughing?
OK here's another point
4 - I've played plenty of games that kicked my arse (at the start).
) and come from the days of the old R-type blasters in arcades. But I think the point sticks.
See point 2 about Wizards.
Does that mean it's a bad game?
Or, that I needed to practice more?
I'm reminded of a quote on international games designing.
Games designers (can't remember who) said the following:
"American gamers have the attention span of goldfish so we need to make it interesting for them and a bit easy.
Japanese gamers are proud and get very upset and lose face/honour if their character dies, so the designers made them lose powerups instead of lives.
European gamers are hardcore and so the same games are set at the toughest level in Europe".Quotes are not word for word (so not really quotes
Anyway, it makes me wonder if the reviewer is a Japanese style poor games player throwing his toys out of the pram because he's not good enough at it
Back to the opening, if it really is a terrible game I'm happy to be advised to keep my money....this review just does not do that for me.
pRM8 on 6 Feb '11 said:
Quite a few conflicting reviews on this game so far ranging from 'don't buy it, its absolute pap' from these guys to 'An ambitious and beautiful RPG that falls just short of greatness' from PC Gamer UK. Maybe its a more pleasant experience on the PC, who knows.
I'm inclined to give this a try (on PC) at least, despite this very negative review.
jimsondanet on 6 Feb '11 said:
What I want to know is it simply better or worse than the first cause I become quite sucked into the first one. It takes more than a few bugs to kill my buzz and iv honestly put more time into 2 worlds than many typical AAA 9'ers(/10 scoring). But then again I still didnt complete it, but then again... again, I didnt complete ESIV either.
On another note, how long this been out? my favorite online retailer was selling it last year
Check the user reviews before deciding incase you found you secretely enjoyed the 1st. Being forced to play this for a job would suck, but are sometimes not so bad at a leisurely pace.
eye.of.despair on 6 Feb '11 said:
Ive been playing two worlds 2 for more than a month.. it was leaked on pc ages ago.. Its not as bad as this review makes it out to be.. The world is beautiful.. expansive.. combat at this point is a bit repetitive but way better than some other games.. the quests are fun sometimes.. the game is easily a 7+ in my books..
CVG is just having one of their fits again.. giving this game a 4.8 is wak... its not the best.. but its in no way that bad.. Totally shows what we are dealing with.. If u dont like the genre ur playing or the initial mechanics..just thrash it..instead of giving it a few more plays.. but for me two worlds 2 was good from the start.. dunno what cvg is smokin.. but it must be strong..
Also im at chapter 13 of dead space.. and so far its a 9 game for me if i only look at the positives of the game .. as is my nature with any game.. if i were to force myself to put the game into contrast with the original and itself.. then its too linear..at points a little too cliche as well but thats easy to overlook.. with some really crap objectives thru the middle of the game.. also it was hailed for glorious graphics.. lol.. its not that good.. good art style but thats it.. looks more or less same as dead space 1.. and im playing it on pc at the highest settings.. also the game doesnt suppport more than 1x AA.. totally made with console hardware in mind.. In the end the games a 8.5 if im being critical.. and thats what its got from some sites.. but look out. cvg gave it 9.4.. OMG.. that means i should like the game MORE.. !!
and oh.. im playing on zealot.. most ridiculously difficult game since i played killzone 2 on hardest..
Demoki on 6 Feb '11 said:
It sounds like this guy was making two worlds 2 before being sacked and turned to reviewing games. From videos i have seen it looks pretty nice, better than the ageing elder scrolls engine. I think i shall try it out
wuntuwuntu on 6 Feb '11 said:
Heed the warning!!!
harky on 6 Feb '11 said:
Totally bizarre review.
svensk101 on 6 Feb '11 said:
Awful, awful review. Seriously, I must just not have the same copy of Two Worlds 2 as this guy. It is a massive improvement on the first and one of the best western RPG's I have played. Sounds like he wasn't particularly good at it and just decided to slag it off. The biggest slight is that this game has only marginally better voice-acting that the first one. Really!? Did this guy play Two Worlds. 'Verily' this and 'forsooth' that! I usually don't slag off reviews as everyone has their own opinion but I do not know where this reviewer is coming from.
Noticed someone criticising CVG aswell. This website may have gone way down hill but this isn't their review, to be fair.
DAEDALUS79 on 6 Feb '11 said:
Two little 2 late for Two worlds 2.....2wo?
Shamanoid on 6 Feb '11 said:
The funny thing about "Funny comments of the week" isn't the funny comments picked by CVG staff....
Without any hesitation rest assured that this is a failed attempt at Funny comments of the week.
It's the desperate and sometimes retarded attempt by some commenters to write a funny comment that they hope will land in the funny comments section.
Here is a tip for you, if somebody writes a comment that implies you have to laugh at it and usually ends it with a question mark or a smiley like this ---->
@DAEDALUS79, you fail at being funny.
budge on 6 Feb '11 said:
I've played this in 3D on a mate's PC and i thought it was actually alright. The reviewer obviously thought it was sh**e. Different strokes, different folks and all that.
Imaduck on 6 Feb '11 said:
In the screenshots alone, the textures/lighting etc. look WAY better than Oblivion. Odd...
splitter on 6 Feb '11 said:
If the rest of the magazine is written in such a 'shatto' style, I'll give it a miss, thanks.
_Marty_ on 6 Feb '11 said:
I've no idea what to think about this now - so many reviews from different ends of the scale... I was kinda interested in it, but after reading this, now I'm not so sure. REALLY need to play a demo I reckon...
Imaduck on 6 Feb '11 said:
I'm with Marty here. I kind of ended up playing the first 1 at one point with no idea what it was. I'll admit, a polished, stable, strong game - it is not. A game which brought some interesting ideas forward - yup. I actually spent quite a lot of time playing it. It did lose speed after a while though and ended in "wtfbbq". This one looks better in pretty much every way. Worth looking at just to expand your arsenal of ideas maybe.
plightstar on 7 Feb '11 said:
Well I loved the first one and I love this one. Can't stop playing it. It brings back fond memories of proper 3D RPGs like Morrowind or Daggerfall or Gothic 2.
Yellow6 on 7 Feb '11 said:
Sintek on 14 Feb '11 said:
Honestly, it sounds like the reviewer wasn't that good at the game and got frustrated from dying so much. The game doesn't hand-hold the player through every quest or encounter, which can be a rude awakening for people more accustomed to mass appeal RPGs like Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Of course Dragon Age is hundreds of times better than TW2, but for different reasons; TW2 is a fun hardcore experience in an open world with horrible voice acting and unfortunate J"RPG" influences, whereas DA is a wonderfully epic, structured story with great writing, acting and pacing.
I guess what I'm saying is that the reviewer should stick to garbage like Final Fantasy where only one button needs to be pressed the entire game. Or maybe he's just mad there aren't any spiky haired children with giant swords or panty shots of 12 year old girls?
siddham on 25 Feb '11 said:
It is reviewers like this juvenile moron that finally killed the mag for me. I never buy it any more. But I will buy Two Worlds II - eventually.
By the way; the fully patched Epic Version of the original game is pretty good, bug-free and very cheap.
bazzer555 on 29 Aug '11 said:
see i'm half a year behind everybody else...however, i have subscribed to this forum for the principal reason that i
couldn't believe the garbage i read! just one more slagging off for the tw games. apart from the stupidity of having to
change my time zone to get the first one up and running, i had NO issues with it; enjoyed it enormously and hope to
do the same with tw2. like someone else pointed out, i too got a beating in the first game and learned how to play it.
if this reviewer is not taking a back-hander from bethesda, i would be very surprised
adieu