Two Worlds 2 Interview Part 1: Redemption, Challenges, Horses and More

Greetings, dear readers. Recently, we at Kombo had the chance to sit down with a developer of one the most exciting games coming out this fall, and, hopefully, a candidate for the (nonexistent) “most improved sequel” award: Two Worlds 2. Jake DiGennaro, community director at Topware Interactive, chatted with us about everything from the mistakes that there were during development of the first game to motion control and 3D technology – with plenty of new info about Two Worlds 2 thrown in, as well.

If you’ve been keeping up with Kombo for the last week or so, you’ve probably been seeing some excerpts from this interview popping up in our daily news coverage. As promised, here’s part one of the two part interview in its entirety. Enjoy, and come back tomorrow for part two!

Kombo: Tell me a little bit about the game first- summarize, tell me what it’s all about.

Jake Digennaro: That’s such an open-ended question. It’s one of the hardest questions that I have to address when I do these. People are like, “So tell me a little bit about the game!” It’s an open world RPG, and it lasts 50 hours with three types of multiplayer. It’s kind of big. But, I mean, I guess that’s a little bit about the game. So yeah, it is an open world, fantasy RPG. It is the second in the series, the first one having been released in 2007. It’s gotten an overhaul from the ground up as far as graphics, and mechanics, and animations, and everything, so pretty much everything from the first game is gone, and everything from the new game is new. We took a lot of time and effort focusing on going through the reviews and going through online forums and stuff like that and seeing what people responded well to from the first game – some of the mechanics, some of the features, things like that, and tried to hone those aspects, and then go back and, obviously, address some of the major problems the game had, the shortcomings, a good portion of those being centered around technical issues.
 

It’s being developed by Reality Pump, over in Poland. So what’s Topware’s role?

We’re the IP owners and worldwide publishers. Reality Pump is under the Topware umbrella, basically. They’re a wholly owned studio by us. We own about three studios and we do our own publishing in Europe. However, for the United States, we don’t have the kind of logistical framework to do our own publishing, so we partner with Southpeak games, and they’re kind of our publishing partner over here in the states. And then we have a partner down in Australia and the south pacific area, and then we have one over in China and Japan and stuff like that. So yeah, we’re the IP owners, and we’re also the…it’s kind of a weird blend, how our company works, in that we’re the publishers, but at the same time, I spend a couple weeks every couple months over there working with them on the game. The lead English writer is actually a member of the Topware staff. The executive producer is a member of the Topware staff. So it’s a very blurry line between what is Topware and what is Reality Pump.

So you guys are helping with the actual development as well.

Oh yeah, I mean, I do scripts, and CGI, and gameplay mechanic feedback. When it comes to gameplay mechanics, I’m one of the leads, I’m probably the lead for the US as far as giving feedback. It’s me and a couple other guys, we get builds on a regular basis, and we give major feedback and critiques and stuff like that as representatives of what the American market needs. So it’s a weird blending of trying to accommodate, because the Eastern European, kind of European market has a little bit different desire of what they want from games. They have a little bit different perspective on what constitutes a good game and stuff like that, so there’s an interesting dichotomy between the kind of East and West as far as making something that kind of appeals to a broader audience, especially when it comes to these open world games.
 

Did Topware have the same role in the first game?

Yeah. There’s the same kind of arrangement for the first game as it is for the second game, with Southpeak publishing here in the states and Topware and Reality Pump essentially being the same company, just one of them’s in Germany/US and the other one’s in Poland.

So from your perspective, what went wrong with the first game? I understand there were technical issues, but was it an inherently flawed game besides that?

I don’t think it was inherent. I think that the way that the development cycle worked was inherently flawed, in that the game was designed as a PC exclusive title by a team that had only ever worked on PC games, and with an engine that was designed to be run on more powerful machines. And so when it came time, you know, it was eight or nine months prior to when the game was dated to hit shelves, it was decided that in order to be a viable product here, especially in the US market, that it needed to be present on the Xbox 360. So Reality Pump kind of, you know, they shit a brick (laughing). Because they had never developed an Xbox 360 game before. They hadn’t been developing this game as a 360. So the last eight or nine months that should have been spent QA-ing and, you know, really polishing the PC title was spent with a team basically converting all the assets and learning how to work within the framework of the 360.

So what you kind of ended up with was a game that felt clunky on the PC, and it just felt like it didn’t belong on the 360. We patched the crap out of it on the PC, and after about two months, if you go back and play it now, it plays a lot better than it did when it was originally released, and if you put it side by side against the 360 version, which hasn’t obviously been patched, the PC version…it’s night and day, as far as the differences go. So yeah, with the second time around, having that kind of, that knowledge, and knowing what some of the obstacles were that we were going to run into on the 360, plus having two years to develop it as opposed to eight months, we’ve been able to address most of those issues that flawed the first game.
 

Why wasn’t it delayed?

Contractual obligations and all sorts of stuff. That was a little bit before my time, but it was a decision that the partners sat down and made, knowing…I don’t know, with what they had in front of them, they decided to put it out in that form.

And why no patch for the 360 version?

Patching for the 360, when it comes to actual coding mechanics, is really, really difficult. I don’t know what the actual steps behind that are, but I know that it gets tremendously complicated when you’re trying to fix major coding issues and things along that nature.

On to the second game. Tell me about the new engine.

The GRACE engine, which was designed specifically for this game, is a proprietary game engine. We started developing it in 2008, when we had Two Worlds: The Temptation. It was an expansion plan that was rolled into.. basically we decided that we had more of a sequel on our hands than an expansion, based on content and size and things. We ended up scrapping The Temptation and realizing, “If we’re going to do this, let’s break everything down to base blocks and start from there.”

And that’s kind of what we did, and that was where Two Worlds 2, all the branding and everything, came from, where the real project, as you see it now, was born. And the first thing on that list of things to do was to build a game engine that was significantly more powerful, as far as graphics, and lighting, and shadowing and all that, and all the prettiness, but also designed in a fashion that is accommodating to the 360 and the PS3 during the development cycle. So there’s actually multiple iterations of the engine itself. There’s one designed specifically for the 360, for the PS3, the PC, and even the Mac. The projects are being essentially developed side by side, as opposed to designed with a lead platform and then ported over. So it’s a simultaneous development across all platforms, which makes things a lot smoother. You can see the game itself is a little tailored towards each platform, obviously.
 

For example, the PC and the PS3, just based on the nature of the machines, have a little bit more power when it comes to graphical fidelity and things like that. So we’re able to ramp it up a little higher. However, with the 360, especially when compared to the PS3, it’s a little bit smoother machine. It’s a little bit easier to work with, and everything like that, so we’re able to do a little bit more as far as that goes. So I think that’s one of the biggest advantages of having scrapped the old engine and not going out and buying, going out and leasing an engine, whether that be Unreal, or Chrome, or whatever, and actually sitting down and creating our own proprietary one. It’s kind of given us that flexibility, and through the development of that engine, our programmers have become so much more familiar with the 360 and the PS3 that a lot of the issues that plagued us the first time around on the consoles have been really alleviated.

You were talking about how you reached the decision to make it Two Worlds 2, the sequel, instead of the expansion; Were there ever any thoughts of creating a completely different franchise, like, going in a different direction using the revamped engine, but avoiding the Two Worlds name?

I mean, that’s one of the questions that we’ve gotten fairly often, is, you know, “With the critical reception of Two Worlds, the original, if we put this much time, and effort, and money and everything like that into creating a sequel, why stick with a branding that is kind of familiarized with poor quality and kind of hokey dialogue and stuff like that?” You know, on our front it’s more of…. There’s a personal investment to the franchise, and being the first outing for the console for us, and being the first time we’ve tried to do one of these open world RPG games, there’s some sentimental attachment, especially at the development level.

And it’s kind of a challenge, I guess, is one of the biggest things about it. Just being able to come back and say, especially to the people that did enjoy the first game and are looking forward to the second game, “Hey, we listened to you.” As a studio and as a publisher, and as fans of what we’re creating, we took to heart the feedback that we were given, the issues that our community had with the first game, and we’ve addressed them. We’ve brought a much more polished second round, second outing, a sophomore venture into this genre. I think that many times, especially when tackling these open world type games, there are a lot of problems the first time around, regardless.

We’re constantly compared to, say, Oblivion, Morrowind, and stuff like that. Well, the first two outings in The Elder Scrolls were great games, but they were riddled with their own flaws. And it wasn’t until they hit round three and, really, round 4 with Oblivionthat they really just nailed it on the head. And so that’s kind of, we kind of took precedent from them, from previous examples, saying, “People will stick with us a little bit if given the chance.” And we really wanted to build a franchise, build something that we could grow and expand upon and could see multiple iterations or possible spin-offs or whatever we decided to do with the franchise. But to just walk away from it really was something that we didn’t want to do.
 

The Topware rep at E3 told me that Reality Pump is looking at it as their chance for “redemption.”

It really is. That’s really the way that we viewed it from the Topware/Reality Pump stance, is this really is our comeback chance. This is an opportunity for us to take all the criticism and all the badmouthing and all that stuff that people have been putting out there, and say, “Hey, we’ve listened to you, but now it’s time to shut up and look at what we’ve made.” We’ve put a lot of blood, sweat and tears in it, and it’s not a $20-25 million game developed by a team of 300 guys. This is a smaller, independent publisher with about 40 guys on a team, 45 depending on where we’re at in the cycle, developing a huge, massive game, out of passion, really. It’s much more a passion project for these guys than it is just a job. So they really wanted to come back and make something special, make something that they could hang their hat on and they could be really proud of, so when people sat down and played the game, and they got to be part of that experience- the creators allowed people to have that experience. It really is something that we’re really excited to bring out, with all the work we put into it over the last three years.

Players aren’t limited to one class, but can switch between all three combat styles at will. How do the classes differ? How are you balancing them? When I saw it at E3, the mage seemed to be by far the most interesting.

The way that it’s designed is it’s not really a class system. It’s more the way that you advance is you gain different types of points to apply to attributes like strength and dexterity and things like that, and then skill points, which you allocate to different – exactly that – skills. Whether that be proficiency with two-handed swords, proficiency with a certain type of magic or casting time reduction, or general trade skills, whatever it be. And you can kind of jump between the different roles. You can jump between melee combat, range combat.. you can jump between these different mechanics in the game, in the combat system, at will. As far as the balancing goes, obviously, we’re creating something that isn’t so narrowly defined- being able to not only balance that specific role, but being able to balance it in contrast to other ones, so that you can’t manipulate jumping between these roles and breaking that function. But there isn’t a class necessarily.. There isn’t a role, I guess, more powerful than the other ones, but it’s a matter of, “How do we kind of integrate these into one more cohesive system, so that players are taking advantage of these different things and combining them into a singular play style?” Jumping between these roles, I think, has been where a lot of our focus, as far as the balancing, has been.
 

So it’s more like switching weapons, almost; you switch from your bow, to your magic, to your sword, and each one has different abilities within that, but it’s not a class system, per se.

Yeah, exactly. And then, designing each mechanic, like spellcasting, for example- you have the mage, and that seemed like the most powerful stuff. But designing that in a way that in close combat, it’s not an effective way for players to go through the content, because of the fact that you’re wearing cloth armor and you’re just carrying a stick, not a big, sharp, pointy stick. Not a sword. So designing the mechanics and the gameplay and the way that kind of the armor and everything works in a way that, in certain situations, players are kind of pushed towards different combat elements. You know, when you’re surrounded by a bunch of guys, yeah, maybe you’ll be the mage, and use an AoE [area of effect] buff, or something like that, or summon some minions to help you fight them off. But then you’re switching to the melee mechanics and you’re taking advantage of that, and then maybe you’re chopping down a couple, and then getting a little distance and then switching back over to the mage or you’re switching to archery or something like that. Or casting an invisibility spell and coming up behind, and kind of using some of the more assassination type stuff. Blending that into one cohesive system has been the goal.

At E3, I didn’t get to see horses. Are they making a return, and if so, how have they been changed?

They’ve been given an overhaul, to say the least. They are making a return. They’re a little bit more limited, as far as the game space and the role that they play. We’ve introduced a few different types of travel mechanics beyond just horses. The teleports make a return, including the personal teleport. We’ve also included a free sailing mechanic to move between certain areas. The way that the world’s divided up is into a couple different large islands to help pace the content and also to allow for us to design some variety as far as landscapes and environments go. But the more open areas of the game do have the horse present, and it’s been one of the, you know, I don’t call it a focal point, obviously, because things like game mechanics and balancing and everything like that are primary things, but it was definitely one of those things on the list that we knew that we had to address the second time around. Because the first outing did have so many issues when it came to the horse riding mechanics and everything like that. So making that a much more pleasant experience was a concern.
 

When you say sailing, are you talking, like, a Wind Waker type mechanic?

I haven’t played Wind Waker, so I’m not entirely sure, but the way the sailing is designed is based on air currents and water currents, and you actually steer the rudder and push the sail around, so you’re using those in conjunction with each other. It’s not the easiest thing to do. I’ve played through it and they’re still kind of locking it up right now as far as all that goes, and fine tuning. I haven’t played it in a couple weeks. It’s definitely something that takes a little bit of practice to get down. So it’s not just a matter of you jump in a boat and you point straight forward, you know, you aim forward and you steer a rudder. It actually takes a little bit of skill to figure out and kind of take advantage of. It’s interesting, and it’s a little bit challenging. It’s kind of fun having those challenging mechanics in the game and not just, you know, spoon feeding players content. Challenging them a little bit to master little mechanics and little mini games and things like that.

I don’t think I’ve ever played a realistic sailing game, now that I think of it.

Usually it’s just, you jump in and you control the rudder and you steer, and sometimes the wind will push you a little bit out of the way, but you actually control, like, the…I don’t know what they call it, the boon, or whatever, the thing that actually rotates the sail around. So you actually have to use that in conjunction with the water currents and the air currents and the rudder and all. It’s fun. There’s a lot of little mechanics in the game that provide little challenges for the player to master, like the lock picking and everything like that, and there’s all sorts of dice games and card games. There’s a music based game where you use buttons on the pad in order to play various instruments and things like that. So there’s all sorts of little challenging mechanics that players can jump into and kind of fiddle around with and become progressively better and better at.
 

When you kill things in Two Worlds 2, do they stay dead, like in the first, or will the world repopulate itself?

It’s a little dependent on what you’re killing. Most of the stuff is, once you kill it, it’s dead, as far as, like, zombies, or in a quest based dungeon or something like that, things stay dead. There are certain parts of the world where things will respawn, where it’s perceived more as just wandering things like certain wildlife and stuff like that. If you kill a boar, one of them might just pop up over here and just wander in that kind of general direction to make the game world feel a little bit more populated going towards the end of the game, so it doesn’t just feel like some big, empty landscape. So it’s kind of a mixture of the two, I guess, is the best way to say it.

The combat in the first game has been said to be more reminiscent of sort of an MMO than a reaction based system. How has that been changed for the sequel? Is it more of an action oriented system, rather than just clicking or pressing a button, “Do this attack,” and the character just does it?

It’s still based similarly to the first game, as far as the combat mechanics go. As far as having your standard attack, and then having, you know, whether it be the button faces or the numbers for the keyboard, corresponding to special attacks. But we did try to incorporate stuff that is a little bit more reaction based. Things like an active blocking system with an active counter system, stuff like that, to make it a little less just waiting for timers to come up and popping guys with those, to add a little bit more variety. But the base combat mechanics are still very reminiscent of the first game.

That’s all for now. Thanks to Mr. DiGennaro, and keep an eye out for part two tomorrow!