Yaar Podshipnik said:
The controls are a bit hard, the QTEs are not entirely optional (what is the first dragon fight if not one massive QTE); the facial animation looks very wooden; the inventory/journal/alchemy interface is a fucking consoletard disgrace; combat is a bit to twitchy IMO (liked Risen a lot more);
I haven't played Witcher 2 yet, but the original Witcher was a better game that Risen in every way and considering virtually everyone is saying W2 outshines W1 across the board I have trouble believing that there is any category in which risen might be compared favorably to W2. Also, I have to mildly object when a fan of any of the Gothic series (and spinoffs) complains about twitchy combat and crappy control interfaces. Not to mention "wooden" facial animations. The Gothic games are not exactly graphical masterpieces, and never have been.
Yaar Podshipnik said:
camera could be a bit further away from Geralt's back; writing is a bit meh sometimes; world could be more free-roamy (again, Risen), and I could do without two or three crashes to desktop.
The camera comment seems quite nit-picky and unworthy of a response. The writing is a bit "meh", you say? Compared to what? Please don't say "Risen"
As for "free-roamy" world... in Risen? Seriously!? The "world" in Risen doesn't even qualify as a neighborhood and since it wasn't a sandbox design I fail to see what value there is in being able to explore at will. The game is designed in such a way that the player is meant to go everywhere and do everything and find everything and kill everything. Multiple times. On the same one (neighborhood) map. What's the big rush to go do that sooner and then come back when the game wants you to just to find an empty landscape? I'm a big fan of freedom of movement in RPGs and normally I'd agree with you on that point but you used for an example a game that would have to score even lower in that regard than the original Witcher. I don't get it. Why not pick a game that actually DID have a free-roamy game world? Couldn't think of any? Haven't played any? What's the deal?
Yaar Podshipnik said:
BUT it's a very nice game, with c&c (minor and major). Not an old school, classic RPG but a very solid title and much better than other stuff available now.
I don't doubt that it's better than other stuff available now. As an old school RPG fan I feel almost embarrassed to admit I haven't bought an RPG since Fallout 3 and the last one before that was Dragon Age. I'm not sure who I should be embarrassed for, though. Myself for no longer being in the "RPG fan" category (apparently)? Or developers who make games they refer to as RPGs, which a guy like me who has been playing RPGs since before IBM came out with the PC in 1981 wouldn't play even if they paid me for it? Anyway, at least I'm interested in W2. Only reason I haven't bought it already is that as much fun as I had with the first game I always find it a little depressing when very good games don't live up to their full potential. Things I didn't like about Witcher 1:
1) Limited choices for armor/outfit/clothes/whatever/weapons. No character customization. Everyone plays Geralt, and Geralt always looks the same, and Geralt always wears and uses the same stuff or "upgraded" versions of the same stuff that's really just the same stuff with slightly better stats.
2) The aforementioned lack of any kind of sandbox gameplay. Even something rudimentary like having a small chance of random encounters on the same maps would have gone a long way, and it wouldn't have been difficult to implement. This is a major pet-peeve of mine with many recent games. I should never feel like there's nothing left for me to do in an area because I've gone through all of the game's contents. It's a "suspension of disbelief" thing. There's no possibility whatsoever of me convincing myself that it's a real living and breathing would I'm in if there is a finite list of things I can do in a certain area and then it just becomes static animated scenery. It totally pisses me off that so many developers have copied this bit of game design bullshit from Bioware.
3) Too linear, and too short. I hear W2 is even shorter so that's a strike against it in my book. I really fucking hate these "Prologue->Chapter 1->Chapter 2->Chapter3->Finale" game designs. They always feel short, even when they aren't. Mostly because at every stage of the game you have a very short list of things you COULD do and usually one thing you MUST do. Feels very mechanical. Another Bioware technique that should have been left at Bioware, where it belongs.
4) Other stuff...
Anyway, now that there is a sequel out I'm tempted to play the "enhanced" version of the first one again, then get W2. Can't be worse than the other shit that's been peddled as "RPG" in recent years. And who knows? It may actually be as good as the reviewers say that it is.
