Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • 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.

The Witcher 1 Thread

Carrion

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
3,648
Location
Lost in Necropolis
Only the official ones are worth trying, The Price of Neutrality being clearly the better one of the two and pretty nice overall. The others are fucking terrible from what I remember. I gave up when I tried the one where Geralt gets married.
 
Last edited:

Wolfe

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
432
I thought the marriage one was absolutely hilarious. Very cringey stuff, but funny as hell.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
4,548
Just beat Enhanced Edition, took me 53 hours to go through the main campaign and some of the side quests.

I forced myself to play it from beginning to end, hoping along the way that all of the praise this game gets is justified.

The story was halfway okay, but other than that, the Aurora Engine completely blows, as did all of the invisible barriers that covered probably 50% of each map.

Very linear, most of the character models were recycled over and over again, the majority of the game world was not interactive at all.

The graphics are also pretty ugly, even back in 2007.

The combat animations looked great, but the timed clicking reminded me of an MMORPG.

Also, parts of the game just didn't fit and looked cheap, like the monkey that hopped around each map for instance.

If I were to rate this game on a 1-10 scale, I would rate it 6/10.
 

Ninjerk

Arcane
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
14,323
Just beat Enhanced Edition, took me 53 hours to go through the main campaign and some of the side quests.

I forced myself to play it from beginning to end, hoping along the way that all of the praise this game gets is justified.

The story was halfway okay, but other than that, the Aurora Engine completely blows, as did all of the invisible barriers that covered probably 50% of each map.

Very linear, most of the character models were recycled over and over again, the majority of the game world was not interactive at all.

The graphics are also pretty ugly, even back in 2007.

The combat animations looked great, but the timed clicking reminded me of an MMORPG.

Also, parts of the game just didn't fit and looked cheap, like the monkey that hopped around each map for instance.

If I were to rate this game on a 1-10 scale, I would rate it 6/10.
Pretty fair. I'll always appreciate it for appearing during the drought and some of the more whimsical things it brought to the table (ie. suckin' dwarf cocks x 1000000 running around that city, the drunken party interlude).
 

adddeed

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
1,473
Just beat Enhanced Edition, took me 53 hours to go through the main campaign and some of the side quests.

I forced myself to play it from beginning to end, hoping along the way that all of the praise this game gets is justified.

The story was halfway okay, but other than that, the Aurora Engine completely blows, as did all of the invisible barriers that covered probably 50% of each map.

Very linear, most of the character models were recycled over and over again, the majority of the game world was not interactive at all.

The graphics are also pretty ugly, even back in 2007.
.
What a shmuck. Game was never advertised as open world. Of course they will be barriers. And graphics ugly? Game looks gorgeous and I played it a year ago. What they did with that engine is amazing. And this is a fact.
 

Starwars

Arcane
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
2,829
Location
Sweden
Yeah, I don't really get the complaint about the graphics. The environs look fucking amazing still. The game oozes atmosphere, art direction is top notch.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,624
The graphics are also pretty ugly, even back in 2007.

Compared to what, though? Granted, I'm not an avid gamer (at least, wasn't a PC gamer back in 2007), but the only game I can think of from those years, FO3, had pretty shitty graphics compared to The Witcher.

latest


u9UOlRp.jpg
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
4,548
Just beat Enhanced Edition, took me 53 hours to go through the main campaign and some of the side quests.

I forced myself to play it from beginning to end, hoping along the way that all of the praise this game gets is justified.

The story was halfway okay, but other than that, the Aurora Engine completely blows, as did all of the invisible barriers that covered probably 50% of each map.

Very linear, most of the character models were recycled over and over again, the majority of the game world was not interactive at all.

The graphics are also pretty ugly, even back in 2007.

The combat animations looked great, but the timed clicking reminded me of an MMORPG.

Also, parts of the game just didn't fit and looked cheap, like the monkey that hopped around each map for instance.

If I were to rate this game on a 1-10 scale, I would rate it 6/10.
Pretty fair. I'll always appreciate it for appearing during the drought and some of the more whimsical things it brought to the table (ie. suckin' dwarf cocks x 1000000 running around that city, the drunken party interlude).

Forgot about the constant travelling back and forth across 2-3 different maps through an infinite barrage of long loading screens.

Even with the Enhanced Edition, the loading screens are way too long, especially for trek quests which comprise about 70% of all quests, the other 30% being quests that force you to go through the long rest process which is just as annoying or moreso than the loading screens.

The graphics are also pretty ugly, even back in 2007.

Compared to what, though? Granted, I'm not an avid gamer (at least, wasn't a PC gamer back in 2007), but the only game I can think of from those years, FO3, had pretty shitty graphics compared to The Witcher.

latest


u9UOlRp.jpg

I'm a huge fan of Risen which was released a couple years later.

But if we're talking Oblivion/The Witcher/Gothic III, I disliked them all.
 
Last edited:

Old One

Arcane
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
3,679
Location
The Great Underground Empire
I actually agree with all your criticisms except that the graphics are bad and have some parts that don't fit. The Aurora Engine does suck, true; it's just that you'll never see it utilized better than it is in The Witcher. That is the absolute apex of what you can hope for from Aurora. The barriers everywhere are annoying (why can't Geralt hop over a fence?) but I learned to live with them as a necessary evil.

The graphics, atmosphere, and style are all extremely good, however. I think they've aged well so far.
 

Tabs

Novice
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
27
Location
Upstate
Finished my first playthrough of the Enhanced Edition. Total time was 29 hours, so as you may expect I did not do every sidequest. Combat was a little bit repetitive, but not too bad, although it was pretty easy: I only had to potion-up before bosses and never used a sign besides the knockback (Aard). The story was good although the connections between the plot-as-I-played-it and the hand-drawn cutscenes often didn't make sense.

I'd say a solid 8/10 experience. Onwards to the Witcher 2!
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
1,832
Finished my first playthrough of the Enhanced Edition. Total time was 29 hours, so as you may expect I did not do every sidequest. Combat was a little bit repetitive, but not too bad, although it was pretty easy: I only had to potion-up before bosses and never used a sign besides the knockback (Aard). The story was good although the connections between the plot-as-I-played-it and the hand-drawn cutscenes often didn't make sense.

I'd say a solid 8/10 experience. Onwards to the Witcher 2!

Prepare for a downgrade in combat.

While the whole series is criticized for poor gameplay, it is nonetheless weird that Witcher 1's repetitive rhythm-based combat system thing is somehow the best in the series. W2 and W3's combat are probably easier to pick up and play, but I'd argue that they are objectively worse designed: high lethality coupled with backstab bonuses and rolls that don't drain your stamina means you will mostly be using Quen, rolling around behind enemies non-stop like an idiot, and mashing fast attack. Basically every single combat encounter in W2 is resolved in exactly the same way. W3 alleviates this problem by adding a dodge, but has a lot of flaws in the balance like fast attacks being superior to strong attacks in every situation, and certain signs being stupidly overpowered. The most baffling part about the gameplay in later installments, however, is probably the neutered alchemy system - why mutilate the one system that W1 did extremely well?

Really, in light of W2 and W3's combat systems, W1 looks almost decent. Actual melee combat is minimalistic and mostly runs on autopilot, so you mostly worry about positioning and sign use - basically making the game less dependent on player reflexes and more on tactical decisions, especially on the highest difficulty. And because it demands you are occasionally required to click to perform a combo, you can't entirely stop paying attention. It is actually a pretty smart system, more so than most people give it credit IMHO. The issues is that it is repetitive and most people rightfully find it clumsy because of how unorthodox it is. Perhaps if W1 was based less on enemy heavy areas and more on well-designed combat set-pieces, it would have been better received.

If anyone wants a W1-style alchemy in W3 (which improves the game tremendously IMHO), I recommend the Primer Mod.
 

pippin

Guest
Twitcher 1's combat is fine. If you upgrade the appropiate abilities it becomes easier (and faster) to kill things.
Also, don't forget to bring the anti drowner ribbon. The only problem I had was with the giant plant, since I started attacking it like normal when I should've been using fire :M
The problem with backstabs was only rage inducing in the original TW2, for the EE and for TW3 it was more balanced.
 

naossano

Cipher
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
1,232
Location
Marseilles, France
Well, i would say the basic of The Witcher combat is repetitive, but it get a bit more depth in the later chapter, in which you have to rely on sign more often, and every buff become a requirement. On the other hand, i hate the fake difficulty they added with people attacking you right after the location has loaded, often after some cutscene. You lose a lot of time to come back at a point which you have millisecond to react or you are insta killed by a bunch of random mooks.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,110
I am sorry, but Witcher 1's combat was an absolute crapfest. It was mindless and pointless, a great example of why people often accuse action combat of being mindless when in reality it's all about design decisions. W1's combat is just terribly designed. You have to go through pointless combos which are just filler, with the first few combos doing no real damage. There is no challenge of any kind, and the sheer repetition of clicking is mind-boggling.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,624
I am sorry, but Witcher 1's combat was an absolute crapfest. It was mindless and pointless, a great example of why people often accuse action combat of being mindless when in reality it's all about design decisions. W1's combat is just terribly designed. You have to go through pointless combos which are just filler, with the first few combos doing no real damage. There is no challenge of any kind, and the sheer repetition of clicking is mind-boggling.

Agree.

This could have been easily solved the following way:

- Make the first attacks useful.
- Make combos difficult to pull off (seriously, you can easily pull them off blindfolded based on sound alone) but rewarding to pull off.

As it is in the game, combos ARE a necessity, when they basically should be "optional, but highly rewarding". If you don't use combos, prepare to have your playthrough extended by 100 hours.

Vagrant Story, as always, got it right.

- You can defeat an enemy without the use of combos and the battle is over reasonably fast.
- Should you decide to use combos, they prove valuable allies as they allow you to trigger special skills you can't trigger otherwise: draining health from the enemy, repairing your weapon, and the like (keep in mind the story takes place in a land where this makes a lot of sense).
 

Neanderthal

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,626
Location
Granbretan
Meh, i've seen worse an i've seen better, ideally I think it shoulda been turn based like ToEE then perhaps you'd o seen how quick/agile Witchers are. Revenant had a good combat system an all, wi some fuckin lovely animations that'd fit in Witcher like a glove.
 

Dux

Arcane
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
635
Location
Sweden
I'm playing with the zoomed out point and click system and I find the combat to be decent enough. Changing sword styles against certain enemies feels fairly involving. Still haven't gotten the hang of actually maneuvering effectively during combat, though. I just tend to click on enemies with the appropriate sword style and then click again when I see the flame. Worked fine thus far, although the Beast's stunlocks pissed me off some. Don't know how I was supposed to defend against that.

I gotta say, though, this game is sort of awkward (Polish) at times. The loose women, weird conversations and Geralt's deadpan delivery to top it all off.

Oh, by the way, I'm getting some white flickering dots or some shit on trees and shrubbery at night. Any remedy for that?
 

vortex

Fabulous Optimist
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Messages
4,221
Location
Temple of Alvilmelkedic
There are some indicaion Dark Souls is getting a remastered version. Witcher 1 would also benefit with remastered version.
I would like to see Witcher 1 in W3 engine and gameplay.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,624
The game's combat is terrible, to be honest, it's probably the first game where I leave and otherwise very interesting game unfinished (though I'll return to it in the future, not before restarting however).

It has the worst of every worlds: long, repetitive, tedious combat; lots of enemies thrown at you; too much grinding.

As an RPG, though, it is really really good. It's funny how you have more dialogue options in the first two chapters than you do in the entirety of Skyrim.
 

pippin

Guest
The game's combat is terrible, to be honest, it's probably the first game where I leave and otherwise very interesting game unfinished (though I'll return to it in the future, not before restarting however).

It has the worst of every worlds: long, repetitive, tedious combat; lots of enemies thrown at you; too much grinding.

As an RPG, though, it is really really good. It's funny how you have more dialogue options in the first two chapters than you do in the entirety of Skyrim.

Combat is a part of Rpgs, though.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom