DragoFireheart
all caps, rainbow colors, SOMETHING.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2007
- Messages
- 23,731
Fuck the Witcher 2.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Should I play The Witcher 2?
- Thread starter Servo
- Start date
Fuck the Witcher 2.
Declinator
Arbiter
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 542
It's not that things have to be realistic it's that they have to make sense.
Moves that don't make sense bother me rarely as I have practically no idea about martial arts but sometimes they do. Especially spinning sword moves.
Again, it's not about realism as you can make those kind of moves in real life too. It's that it's stupid thing to do.
You can defend it by saying that it's okay to do ridiculous things in fantasy but I doubt you would similarly defend it if Geralt felt like always hopping on one foot while fighting. Perhaps it would be more glaringly stupid but the spinning isn't too bright either.
Sure, you could put it that way. In any case it bothers some much more than others.
Dreaad
Arcane
Think about this way then... if nothing else, unless you know about martial arts, their back-flips and high spinning kicks are rather impressive looking (even if impractical). I would imagine if you are some guard or thug in a medieval city who has been told that werewolves and vampires will cut you to pieces in seconds. Then a guy with white hair, a ton of scars and cat pupils comes to town and you know that his profession is to kill said monsters. Now if he starts spinning his sword around in some fancy way you've never seen before you're probably going to be fairly intimidated, maybe that's the reason witchers train like that. Or maybe all those spins and twirls are a viable way to take advantage of your supernatural speed to block more attacks and see what's going on around you. Point is it's not hard to make a justification for a pirouette with a long sword.
Correct_Carlo
Arcane
That's weird. I've always seen Chapter 4 as being the worst part of Witcher 1. I loved all the political stuff in chapters 2 and 3, with chapter 3 being the best part of the game, I think. The problem is that at the end of chapter 3, just when all the politics are heating up and everything is coming to a head, you are suddenly transported to the countryside and the game becomes a high fantasy King's Quest style game for a while, with you doing completely random sidequests exorcising ghosts and hanging out with lake spirits and what not. It's really jarring, tonally out of place with what came before, and stops the momentum of the game dead in its tracks. I was super into the political intrigue so all I wanted to do during chapter 4 was just get back to the city already. I really love "The Witcher 1" overall, but I've always thought it would have been a much better game had it just gone straight from chapter 3 to chapter 5. Especially since, apart from some important details about the kid you are protecting (which could have been fitted in elsewhere), most of chapter 4 could be completely cut from the game without affecting the main plot much at all.
Witcher 2 is a much leaner and shorter game and better for it over all, but I think they are both great games. Nothing special when it comes to gameplay, perhaps, but they are good if you like story, character, and world building over combat.
Honestly, though, even if you hate ARPGs or "The Witcher 1" I think people should still play "Witcher 2" just for the level/world design which is some of the more detailed of any game out there right now. A good portion of my playtime in that game just involved me wandering around and watching random NPCs going about their daily tasks and doing shit. It really feels like you are inside a living breathing world, which is nothing you could ever say about a Bioware game (comparing "Witcher 2's" insanely detailed cities and all their moving parts with "Dragon Age 2's" static, lifeless Kirkwall is a complete joke).
Last edited:
See, for me chapter 3 stopped the game in its tracks, sending me once again around that city and into the swamp and making me want to stop playing. I am far from alone in this, if 7 years of internet comments I've read are anything to go by.
Could be a translation issue to some extent. The story in the middle of the game was mostly incomprehensible to me due to poor translation.
Correct_Carlo
Arcane
I didn't mind the swamp, just because the quests in chapter 3 that required visits to the swamp were mostly pretty interesting (barring optional sidequest like the monster hunts and stuff like that). And most of Chp 3 takes place in the more upscale section of the city anyway, which is entirely new for that chapter.
Plus, I played in English and it made perfect sense to me. You do have to pay close attention to follow what's going on as the game doesn't spell everything out for you, but that's also true of Witcher 2 and I see that as one of the series' strengths. The party scene in chapter 3, for example, is one of my favorite parts of the game. It's very clear everyone has complicated histories and motivations but you kind of have to read between the lines to suss any of them out. I thought it was really refreshing that characters were so ambiguous and open to interpretation as usually in video games character development just involves talking to someone and them telling you their entire history in talking head, text dump, Q&A fashion which is really silly if you think about it as people just don't talk like that. I mean, characters do talk to you about their lives in the Witcher but it's often very clear that they are entirely full of shit and that the reality doesn't necessarily match their words, which is a rare thing in video games that characters will lie to the player but an even rarer thing that characters will lie without definitively being exposed as liars at some point. The fact that everyone had incredibly complicated histories they were alluding to and the fact that they mostly remained ambiguous about their real motivations made me way more interested in them as characters. Which is maybe just one benefit of being based on a series of books, I guess. Even minor characters in the game will have more complicated histories that the game will often only gesture towards, which has the effect of making the world seem more realistic and lived in. Most games don't really have the luxury of having all that history pre-built, but even if they did they would probably just tack it on in an awkward exposition text dump which the Witcher games wisely mostly avoid (the big exception being the amnesia plot, which mainly serves as a means of introducing the player to the world, but as the games progress I think the writers wisely quit using this as an exposition crutch and instead start using it more as a means of injecting a sense of mystery into the world).
Plus, I played in English and it made perfect sense to me. You do have to pay close attention to follow what's going on as the game doesn't spell everything out for you, but that's also true of Witcher 2 and I see that as one of the series' strengths. The party scene in chapter 3, for example, is one of my favorite parts of the game. It's very clear everyone has complicated histories and motivations but you kind of have to read between the lines to suss any of them out. I thought it was really refreshing that characters were so ambiguous and open to interpretation as usually in video games character development just involves talking to someone and them telling you their entire history in talking head, text dump, Q&A fashion which is really silly if you think about it as people just don't talk like that. I mean, characters do talk to you about their lives in the Witcher but it's often very clear that they are entirely full of shit and that the reality doesn't necessarily match their words, which is a rare thing in video games that characters will lie to the player but an even rarer thing that characters will lie without definitively being exposed as liars at some point. The fact that everyone had incredibly complicated histories they were alluding to and the fact that they mostly remained ambiguous about their real motivations made me way more interested in them as characters. Which is maybe just one benefit of being based on a series of books, I guess. Even minor characters in the game will have more complicated histories that the game will often only gesture towards, which has the effect of making the world seem more realistic and lived in. Most games don't really have the luxury of having all that history pre-built, but even if they did they would probably just tack it on in an awkward exposition text dump which the Witcher games wisely mostly avoid (the big exception being the amnesia plot, which mainly serves as a means of introducing the player to the world, but as the games progress I think the writers wisely quit using this as an exposition crutch and instead start using it more as a means of injecting a sense of mystery into the world).
Last edited:
Lack of brain cells would be a more likely reason, unless you played some early pre-EE version or something. Nothing "incomprehensible" about it. It's probably the most interesting part of the game as far as the story goes, certainly more so than Acts I or IV. It also has some of the best side quests.
Act IV is filler, plain and simple, but it's a lot of fun so I don't mind it. Still, some of the stuff like banging Lady of the Lake is borderline self-parody. I think acts one and four are important to the game as a whole, and they both offer pretty interesting self-contained stories which is something I'd have wanted to see in TW2 as well, but they're by far the least important parts of the game when it comes to the main story.
Yes, well, I'll put my narrative understanding skills and wealth of "Witcher has shit translation" comments on the internet against your opposition, no offense.
Okay, you've convinced me.
Well your "it's fine yur dumb" argument totally convinced me too bro.
Correct_Carlo
Arcane
I have played through Witcher 1 twice, though, and it does make perfect sense. Plus, while the game was initially terribly translated, I've never heard anyone claim that the re-translated Enhanced Edition is bad (and I've played enough foreign games to know a shit localization when I see one). It is complicated, though, and unlike most games you actually have to actively pay attention to follow what's going on (especially when a whole bunch of characters are all introduced at the beginning of chapter 3), but it's no harder to follow than your average episode of Game of Thrones. Especially if you read journal entries and character bios which are a huge help when it comes to getting a sense of who everyone is.
I actually think Witcher 1 is one of the better written and plotted RPGs I've ever played, though. Like, there's a really interesting theory that Alvin (i.e. the kid) is actually the Grand Master of the Order as a child that's well supported through circumstantial evidence, but the designers never really come out and say it fully. Lesser writers would have had this be a huge shocking reveal at the end of the game, but CDP just sticks in clues here or there and totally trusts the intelligence of its players to put two and two together. That sort of subtlety in writing is so rare in video games. Most game writing is so shitty, broad, and surface level that you really don't have to pay much attention, but Witcher actually rewards close analysis.
Anyhow, the wiki outlines the basics of the Alvin theory if anyone hasn't heard of it:
http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Alvin
I actually think Witcher 1 is one of the better written and plotted RPGs I've ever played, though. Like, there's a really interesting theory that Alvin (i.e. the kid) is actually the Grand Master of the Order as a child that's well supported through circumstantial evidence, but the designers never really come out and say it fully. Lesser writers would have had this be a huge shocking reveal at the end of the game, but CDP just sticks in clues here or there and totally trusts the intelligence of its players to put two and two together. That sort of subtlety in writing is so rare in video games. Most game writing is so shitty, broad, and surface level that you really don't have to pay much attention, but Witcher actually rewards close analysis.
Anyhow, the wiki outlines the basics of the Alvin theory if anyone hasn't heard of it:
http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Alvin
Last edited:
You guys can push this narrative of me being a total dumbass if you really want to. At the end of the day I know the game's dialogue was stilted and cumbersome as fuck. "Geralt!" "Yes?" "What?" I assumed it was translation. Maybe it was just poorly written, or not my style.
And I'm not sure if I wrote confusing, and if I did write confusing I meant more in the "what the fuck are these people talking about" way, not the "oh my god the plot is so complicated" way. I remember getting the plot fine, I just hated the dialogue. In fact I would say I wished the dialogue lived up to the plot.
And none of this changes the fact you fetch quest through that one city district and the swamp for like 10 fucking hours without being able to leave and it boiled my brain.
Dreaad
Arcane
I will say while the Witcher 1 plot was alright... it was essentially a carbon copy of books but whatever. Also I thought act's 2 and 3 were more interesting than act 1 and 4, however as Dalek pointed out the crappy translation/writing of dialog really REALLY damages the experience.
It's actually rather funny because the journal entries which Juan so enjoyed reading were essentially forced on the player (not sure if I worded that correctly) i.e. if you wanted to understand the story... you HAD to read the journal after every conversation, because sometimes things would pop up in there and there is no way in any universe that you could have deduced those pieces of information just from listening to what the NPC's were saying. It was as if the journal was written prior to the quests/dialog being made by the developers and they forgot to add in certain scenes in the actual game. Now I'm not opposed to a detailed codex in a game, but it should always be optional, something like BG2, where you it's fun to read, reveals some things you may not have realized or put together, but it the journal shouldn't hide key plot threads from a player.
I also think part of the reason people have such a large problem with the swamps/sewers in act 2 and 3 is that the story sort of makes it seem like an open world game. The reality however was that it was a requirement to search every inch of every area to advance the plot.There really was no optional cave, or crypt etc. It was like a cheap illusion of an open world, but really you had to go everywhere and click on every line of dialog... baring maybe the who done it quest in act 2. The only optional content in the game was the monster hunting and sex cards.
It's actually rather funny because the journal entries which Juan so enjoyed reading were essentially forced on the player (not sure if I worded that correctly) i.e. if you wanted to understand the story... you HAD to read the journal after every conversation, because sometimes things would pop up in there and there is no way in any universe that you could have deduced those pieces of information just from listening to what the NPC's were saying. It was as if the journal was written prior to the quests/dialog being made by the developers and they forgot to add in certain scenes in the actual game. Now I'm not opposed to a detailed codex in a game, but it should always be optional, something like BG2, where you it's fun to read, reveals some things you may not have realized or put together, but it the journal shouldn't hide key plot threads from a player.
I also think part of the reason people have such a large problem with the swamps/sewers in act 2 and 3 is that the story sort of makes it seem like an open world game. The reality however was that it was a requirement to search every inch of every area to advance the plot.There really was no optional cave, or crypt etc. It was like a cheap illusion of an open world, but really you had to go everywhere and click on every line of dialog... baring maybe the who done it quest in act 2. The only optional content in the game was the monster hunting and sex cards.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 97,442
Juan Carlo doing some major fanboying in this thread.
My favorite poorly written aspect of Witcher 1 - the town mayor who never notices or reacts to the fact that both of his daughters died and turned into horrible monsters.
My favorite poorly written aspect of Witcher 1 - the town mayor who never notices or reacts to the fact that both of his daughters died and turned into horrible monsters.
Still comes accross as more sensible as that DalekFlay guy with his "people on the internet are supporting my vision!"-arguments while it's pretty obvious for anyone who spent more than 5 minutes in Witcher-threads that act 4 is usually seen as a weaker one and a pretty artificial way to give the game some more playtime. If you're going to use that kind of dumb strawman at least do it right.
I always thought Act 1 was the weakest one btw: I like the idea behind the overall story but the execution feels disjointed despite being the most basic plot-wise, the countryside outside Vizima looks rudimentary (more so than the one in act 4) and the characters inhabiting it are mostly walking caricatures. Act 1 feels like a glorified NWN module made by small time hobbyists. I guess this was the first act of the first game on this scale they made though so they probably still had to get the hang of it. Thank god things got a lot better in act 2 though cause I was ready to give up.
Jvegi
Arcane
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2012
- Messages
- 5,095
How is it a theory? It's basically spelled out, not only by the narrative, but by the fact that the lessons you give Alvin influence Grand Master's motivations.
MasPingon
Arcane
Strange, Vizima Outskirts is my favourite chapter in TW. I like how nothing really "epic" is going on there, how "rudimentary" the landscape is and how it feels like a quiet place, with only minor problems at first. It's one of the best designed areas in game, with disturbing atmosphere, great music, a lot of free-running and exploration(and unfortunately backtracking). Witcher vacation before Vizima Confidental.
Act 4 easily rivals it in all the same regards. And sure, both have totally different feeling to 2 and 3, but I think this change of pace is for the better.
Correct_Carlo
Arcane
Well, you initially said that chapters 2 and 3 were bad because (your words) "The story in the middle of the game was mostly incomprehensible to me due to poor translation."
So we're not putting words in your mouth or anything, just responding to stuff you said yourself.
As to the dialogue, I won't argue that Witcher has incredible dialogue. I do think it's biggest flaw is that its dialogue is at times cheesy and can sometimes be slightly stiff (as is the case with many fantasy video games with faux-medieval speak), but I don't think it's poorly translated or incomprehensible. It might not always be aesthetically pleasing, but it imparts meaning as well as any translation of this type not explicitly done by literary types.
My biggest problem with Act 4 is just that it fucks up the momentum of the game and the vast majority of it is entirely irrelevant to the plot (not to mention the dramatic shift in tone from gritty political RPG to high fantasy). It might be a fun change of pace or respite for some people to just hang out and be a witcher for a while, but I've always seen it as unnecessary padding (it would have maybe made good DLC or something, I guess). I actually like the Witcher universe enough that I still enjoyed it, but I do think the game is slightly too long as a whole and if I had to cut one chapter from the game it'd definitely be chapter 4.
And I actually think that CDPR recognized this problem themselves given the way that "Witcher 2" very much plays like "Witcher 1" with most of the storyline fat and padding cut out.
I would assume chapter 4 is more appreciated by potato people, considering that it's an adaptation of a classic Polish tragedy.
Yeah, chapter one is the highlight of the game for me as well. I often replay just that area.
I meant story as in dialogue, character relationships, moment to moment actions. I got the plot just fine, it's not that complicated and the journal helps immensely, but the dialogue was fucking terrible most of the time. Maybe it's because I'm an English major, or native speaker, or whatever else... I just thought it was cumbersome and horrid. Through the whole game mind you, not just the middle chapters.
I probably just really liked it because the middle chapters took so long and were such a slog to me that the change of pace was a relief and a joy.
Since opinions on this game are mixed I did pick it up while it was on sale and have been playing it for the past few days. Here's wot I think.
1. Presentation: Best graphics since Crysis 1. Even on my modest rig with most of the settings turned down or off, my inner graphics whore is pleased. Lighting in particular is incredibly realistic. Compared to The Witcher 1, characters look a million times better. Animations are smoother and more believable. Though there is still a lot of pointless hand waving in dialogue, it's not as ridiculous or pronounced. Cutscenes are actually bearable because voice acting is good if not very good.
2. Combat: More fun though still quite clunky. By that, I mean that you click your mouse button and it takes a fraction of a second for Geralt to respond by swinging his sword. Sometimes you click and he does nothing, which is as frustrating as ever. It may actually be more difficult, with less mindless clicking and more strategy required. Enemies flank you, and if you find yourself surrounded you may quickly die. This is especially important to keep in mind since you can only block in one direction at a time. (There may be an upgrade that allows you to block attacks from any angle, but at least this is true to begin the game.) There is no longer a pause function during combat, but holding down CTRL allows you to slow down time and select a power, trap or bomb from a wheel. What sucks is you have to figure out what each thing in the wheel does outside of combat, as the wheel provides no descriptive text aside from the names of the items. So more planning is required, especially since there is no way to drink potions while in combat.
3. UI: No brainer - major decline on every front. Like the combat wheel (above), everything has been consolized. Mouse lag abounds in menus. You can't switch menu screens, i.e. if you are on the map screen you have to exit the menu entirely and return to the game before you can access the inventory. Crap crap crap.
4. Minigames: Not sure if this is worth mentioning but I actually like the minigames this time. I find myself going out of my way to fist fight, arm wrestle and gamble as opposed to avoiding them entirely like in the first game. Fist fights are entirely QTE and cake. Arm wrestling, on the other hand, is a bitch but actually "feels" like arm wrestling (as much as it can with a mouse I suppose). Gambling is quirky - you actually toss the dice on the board with your mouse and the falling/rolling is controlled by the inertia of your throw. I've already thrown the dice off the table completely several times by accident, after which it is impossible to see what values they landed on and you are forced to either forfeit or guess if you should bet/call/raise. It's a weird oversight by the devs.
5. Exploration: Some have derided the game for being more linear than the first but this is not the case in my experience so far. The first town you encounter is quite large - it actually "feels" like a town in that there are many side streets and alleyways, relatively few dead ends, buildings and houses have multiple doors, there is more variance in elevation, more ways to get around in general. Lobinden is surrounded by a forest on one side and a lake (or swamp) on the other, and you can explore each for the most part without encountering any loading screens which is a nice touch.
6. Story: I put this off til last because I don't have much to say on it. I thought the story in the first game was retarded until pretty much the very end. This one doesn't seem as grimdark but maybe that's just because the setting is more vibrant. The moral ambiguity is still there, which is arguably the strongest thing the first game had going for it.
Flame on.
1. Presentation: Best graphics since Crysis 1. Even on my modest rig with most of the settings turned down or off, my inner graphics whore is pleased. Lighting in particular is incredibly realistic. Compared to The Witcher 1, characters look a million times better. Animations are smoother and more believable. Though there is still a lot of pointless hand waving in dialogue, it's not as ridiculous or pronounced. Cutscenes are actually bearable because voice acting is good if not very good.
2. Combat: More fun though still quite clunky. By that, I mean that you click your mouse button and it takes a fraction of a second for Geralt to respond by swinging his sword. Sometimes you click and he does nothing, which is as frustrating as ever. It may actually be more difficult, with less mindless clicking and more strategy required. Enemies flank you, and if you find yourself surrounded you may quickly die. This is especially important to keep in mind since you can only block in one direction at a time. (There may be an upgrade that allows you to block attacks from any angle, but at least this is true to begin the game.) There is no longer a pause function during combat, but holding down CTRL allows you to slow down time and select a power, trap or bomb from a wheel. What sucks is you have to figure out what each thing in the wheel does outside of combat, as the wheel provides no descriptive text aside from the names of the items. So more planning is required, especially since there is no way to drink potions while in combat.
3. UI: No brainer - major decline on every front. Like the combat wheel (above), everything has been consolized. Mouse lag abounds in menus. You can't switch menu screens, i.e. if you are on the map screen you have to exit the menu entirely and return to the game before you can access the inventory. Crap crap crap.
4. Minigames: Not sure if this is worth mentioning but I actually like the minigames this time. I find myself going out of my way to fist fight, arm wrestle and gamble as opposed to avoiding them entirely like in the first game. Fist fights are entirely QTE and cake. Arm wrestling, on the other hand, is a bitch but actually "feels" like arm wrestling (as much as it can with a mouse I suppose). Gambling is quirky - you actually toss the dice on the board with your mouse and the falling/rolling is controlled by the inertia of your throw. I've already thrown the dice off the table completely several times by accident, after which it is impossible to see what values they landed on and you are forced to either forfeit or guess if you should bet/call/raise. It's a weird oversight by the devs.
5. Exploration: Some have derided the game for being more linear than the first but this is not the case in my experience so far. The first town you encounter is quite large - it actually "feels" like a town in that there are many side streets and alleyways, relatively few dead ends, buildings and houses have multiple doors, there is more variance in elevation, more ways to get around in general. Lobinden is surrounded by a forest on one side and a lake (or swamp) on the other, and you can explore each for the most part without encountering any loading screens which is a nice touch.
6. Story: I put this off til last because I don't have much to say on it. I thought the story in the first game was retarded until pretty much the very end. This one doesn't seem as grimdark but maybe that's just because the setting is more vibrant. The moral ambiguity is still there, which is arguably the strongest thing the first game had going for it.
Flame on.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.