The Bad: Floating rocks, NPCs walking through walls, broken game play, poor voice acting, BAD dialogue, Horses on crack..... These are just a few of the bad things I noticed while playing Two Worlds for the 360. Oh yeah, and very, very bad frame rate.

The Good: This game has an AMAZING selection of items, weapons, and armor. Not half bad magic spells either,(courtesy of the spell cards you collect) and even the fighting is pretty fun. You can duel wield weapons and bring enemies back from the dead to fight for you, etc.

Pretty much all of the fun elements definitely overpower the not so fun ones imo. I'm very addicted to this game at the moment, and I can see myself putting at least eighty hours into this game easy.

But if we overlook all the flaws, and reasons why we turned red from bad voice acting, I can't help but feel that this game has something even more sinister. Something more dark and scary than any of us could’ve ever imagined. Am I blowing this a bit out of proportion? Maybe, but I have to point this out just the same!

Ok, so we all pretty much design video games here and we try our best to send a polished product to the users and reviewers. To me, there is nothing more important than releasing a highly polished game, and that is how our video game designers should think too right?

Now look at this picture.

I had my character move up a mountain range only to find that the ocean’s horizon is not a horizon. This is one of the biggest things that I hide in my field maps on RPGM3, and here is a 360 game showing the ugliest part of the game.....Ugh! An actual video game designer let this go looking like this?! Doesn't anyone ever see these ugly visuals before the game's release, or do they even care?!

I've never heard of this game. Honestly, it doesn't sound interesting, either.

Ah, this game. Reminds me of Oblivion.

Yeah I bought the collectors on day one and played it for 10 min. Now it sits on a shelf behind Scene It.

But I want to know why video game designers let their projects go so unfinished? I realize that they have strict time limits, but some things are just unacceptable. They could've at least put up some game barriers to prevent people from going to the unfinished parts of the game, or somethin'.

This game could've really been something special, I think.

I don't know, I seem to really be enjoying it. It kinda reminds of that Diablo game? I never played Diablo, but I've seen enough of it to compare the similarities. But I still can't help but notice...
Ugh, I can even see 'seam lines' in the field map. Stuff like this makes me ask; WTF?!


The character even glitches when he walks over these lines, and there scattered throughout the whole game! How is this considered finished or playable?!

How's the online play? I think the game has Single and Multi, hence the title.

I don't get online for anything. But I heard that you don't get the run of the whole world map in multiplayer, and I don't think you get to use the same character from the main quest either. But you do get to choose your gender.

The real addictive element in this game is the items. Never have I seen so many items to choose from in a console game. The level of detail isn't too bad either.

I don't know, this game has very mixed reviews from really bad to really good, but I think it's pretty good.

This game feels so rushed though. Oh well, maybe we'll get luckier with the sequel; Two Worlds: The Temptation. Hmm, we'll see?

I was hoping that this would be a game that my cousin and I could play simultaneously online. I downloaded the demo and decided that I was very dissapointed. I have no interest in it anymore.

Yeah, there is a lot of depressing features about this game. I think its a good start for being their first really big RPG though. Its a shame really, it could have been something really good, but so much of it felt so rushed.

The really good elements of the game are hampered by the rushed content.

*ahem* Well. I got a little drunk a couple days ago and started playing this.

I kept playing even after sobering up. Its surprisingly good.
Bad voicing, bad framerate, but not nearly as bad after the update. I don't know if playing off the hard drive helps load times as some games (like Halo3) are worse from hd.

I didn't like that there was no real direction, as in a tutorial. I had to figure out how to navigate menus and it should be more intuitive. But as there really is a lot of depth to the menus, it would be too much to have a separate screen for all the things you can do so I understand the complexity. Honestly its not all that complex, its just they never explain how or even what you can do.
The bonus disc in the collectors edition is rubbish.

The graphics are better than I remembered too. I once badmouthed this game. No more. It really is an unpolished gem.

You mean, invisible barriers? Didn't those things die with the 90s?

He probably means unclimbable mountains or uncrossable rivers before the "rough edges" show.

There you go... all better. Perfectly funtioning game now. =/

I think the bigger the game company, the more they'd be able to get away with. Point in case: Sega still makes Sonic games. But even then, it gives me a glimmer of hope that we (as a game making community) can put more effort and attention to detail than real gaming companies. But that's about the only plus side to it. There really isn't much of an excuse for stuff like this... or castle crashers lack of online funtionality.

I'm at a loss? What else can you do but create some kind of barrier? There has to be some limit to the map, right?

EDIT: Isn't the picture supposed to be some kind of water horizon or is that a pure glitch?

It's probably the same thing that's found in RPGM3. The water's horizon isn't a background, but a square plain of water, its edges and corners easily visible when you reach a high enough altitude.

I can picture exactly what you are saying but what would they do in a polished professional game? It seems maybe not allow a high enough altitude or the camera changes?

Or, they could actually make the background with water so the edge of the map water isn't so blatantly obvious.

Maybe a gradiant background... with the top the color of the sky and the bottom the exact same shade as the water, so even if you were looking straight at an edge, you wouldn't be able to tell the water from the background.

Though actually, I think that's what dray was saying. I'm sure there are plenty of methods used in other games already. I think the most popular is just not having an end... like grand theft auto or something.

Well that gets back to the picture that you posted Lantis. You are saying that while the dark blue is intended to be water, the light blue is not intended to be sky but rather is the background color of the editor, poorly concealed?

EDIT: Oh wait!, is the dark blue color the sky! (If so) Now I understand what you guys are saying.