The Witcher 2 Enhanced Edition

[DraQ]

As a storyfag, I must point out to you that you are projecting so hard that you could point yourself to walls and show powerpoint presentations (yeah, I stole that joke from yathzee).

And you don't know how to use it.

Hint: look up projection (psychology) because you don't seem to actually understand what does it mean to project something and, more importantly, why aren't accusation of projecting something an universal form of wit.

I don't even know what the hell you are talking about: In a real world, with believable characters that have egos or really, any real person, it's not unusual that a person will claim they let you win (in order to save your life, of for whatever reason), when he merely lost outright, if you have any friends you might have done this yourself, or have experienced that one of your friends has done this, "the hubris of the defeated" as it is often called.

Does "hubris of the defeated" also include blasting the victor into a wall with asspulled TK bolt of divine proportions despite being supposedly weakened by having your ass systematically kicked in a long and exhausting battle?

Why is it even important that letho gives you credit for beating him? is the self-esteem of you guys really that low, that you need acknowledgment for your awesome skills by a fictional characters, and get all pissed at "storfyfags" when you don't get it?

You retarded?

Are you even capable of grasping what's being written in this thread?

I'm asking seriously now.

 

[Carrion]

Especially considering it was just a random choice IIRC. There wasn't any logic as to why one dialogue or another would lead to getting that coin.

There was, even though you always have to do some guesswork because the dialogue system is what it is. With drunkards, it's usually best to just play along. If you are too blunt, they'll realize what you're doing. I had no problems with that part of the game.

 

[aris]

As a storyfag, I must point out to you that you are projecting so hard that you could point yourself to walls and show powerpoint presentations (yeah, I stole that joke from yathzee).

And you don't know how to use it.

Hint: look up projection (psychology) because you don't seem to actually understand what does it mean to project something and, more importantly, why aren't accusation of projecting something an universal form of wit.

to project onto someone is to assign someone an opinion, and then attack it, it is really the same as a strawman. In any case, it is not even remotely relevant to the point I was making.

Does "hubris of the defeated" also include blasting the victor into a wall with asspulled TK bolt of divine proportions despite being supposedly weakened by having your ass systematically kicked in a long and exhausting battle?

No, it does not, but this is a game after all about a guy, which can, among other things, shoot out auto-win and kickass out of his fucking finger tips, which makes the jedi mind tricks look like the lamest party tricks ever. So I don't see why realism suddenly has to enter into the picture. If realism is what this is all about, which the guy I quotet sure as hell did not talk about, I'm still not very impressed.

 

[DraQ]

As a storyfag, I must point out to you that you are projecting so hard that you could point yourself to walls and show powerpoint presentations (yeah, I stole that joke from yathzee).

And you don't know how to use it.

Hint: look up projection (psychology) because you don't seem to actually understand what does it mean to project something and, more importantly, why aren't accusation of projecting something an universal form of wit.

to project onto someone is to assign someone an opinion, and then attack it, it is really the same as a strawman. In any case, it is not even remotely relevant to the point I was making.

So you don't get it.

No, it does not, but this is a game after all about a guy, which can, among other things, shoot out auto-win and kickass out of his fucking finger tips, which makes the jedi mind tricks look like the lamest party tricks ever. So I don't see why realism suddenly has to enter into the picture. If realism is what this is all about, which the guy I quotet sure as hell did not talk about, I'm still not very impressed.

 

[aris]

As a storyfag, I must point out to you that you are projecting so hard that you could point yourself to walls and show powerpoint presentations (yeah, I stole that joke from yathzee).

And you don't know how to use it.

Hint: look up projection (psychology) because you don't seem to actually understand what does it mean to project something and, more importantly, why aren't accusation of projecting something an universal form of wit.

to project onto someone is to assign someone an opinion, and then attack it, it is really the same as a strawman. In any case, it is not even remotely relevant to the point I was making.

So you don't get it.

No, it does not, but this is a game after all about a guy, which can, among other things, shoot out auto-win and kickass out of his fucking finger tips, which makes the jedi mind tricks look like the lamest party tricks ever. So I don't see why realism suddenly has to enter into the picture. If realism is what this is all about, which the guy I quotet sure as hell did not talk about, I'm still not very impressed.

 

[Comrade Goby]

is this game playable without having played the first?

I tried downloading many versions of it and I just couldn't get it to work. And since one was the GOG version I don't want to drop 10 dolla to get a version that might not even start up.

I think the STEAM version has the same problem.

What exactly is the problem? My EE launcher got stuck and I had to download an unofficial fix for it. Might be the same problem.

It just crashes right away. I have the steam version but I also dled and installed the GOG drm free version and both have the same problem.

Both are the EE DC.

Shit is bollocks.

 

[Carrion]

Okay, doesn't sound like the same problem then. I suppose you don't get an error message of any kind? Can you make it past the launcher to the title screen or does it crash even before that?

 

[DraQ]

As a storyfag, I must point out to you that you are projecting so hard that you could point yourself to walls and show powerpoint presentations (yeah, I stole that joke from yathzee).

And you don't know how to use it.

Hint: look up projection (psychology) because you don't seem to actually understand what does it mean to project something and, more importantly, why aren't accusation of projecting something an universal form of wit.

to project onto someone is to assign someone an opinion, and then attack it, it is really the same as a strawman. In any case, it is not even remotely relevant to the point I was making.

So you don't get it.

No, it does not, but this is a game after all about a guy, which can, among other things, shoot out auto-win and kickass out of his fucking finger tips, which makes the jedi mind tricks look like the lamest party tricks ever. So I don't see why realism suddenly has to enter into the picture. If realism is what this is all about, which the guy I quotet sure as hell did not talk about, I'm still not very impressed.

I see you're lost so I'll explain:

First, projection involves traits the projector themselves possesses. Which means it's inapplicable when he accuses storyfags of storyfagging, especially when based on their actual forum posts as can be deduced from Mrowak's post.

Second, you seem to have absolutely no clue in regards to Witcher universe and you use the (unfortunately) tireless "hurr durr realism don't apply cuz itsa fantarsy!!1" argument which doesn't become any less retarded the more it is used.

So if you excuse me I'll let you wallow in your your retardation if you so desire, but if you would be so kind as to do it privately, I would be grateful.

Okay, doesn't sound like the same problem then. I suppose you don't get an error message of any kind? Can you make it past the launcher to the title screen or does it crash even before that?

I'm not sure if this will be helpful, but I remember TW1 failing to launch on XP without SP2 back then. Maybe it's some system problem again?

 

[aris]

I see you're lost so I'll explain:

First, projection involves traits the projector themselves possesses. Which means it's inapplicable when he accuses storyfags of storyfagging, especially when based on their actual forum posts as can be deduced from Mrowak's post.

Second, you seem to have absolutely no clue in regards to Witcher universe and you use the (unfortunately) tireless "hurr durr realism don't apply cuz itsa fantarsy!!1" argument which doesn't become any less retarded the more it is used.

So if you excuse me I'll let you wallow in your your retardation if you so desire, but if you would be so kind as to do it privately, I would be grateful.

Your description of projecting is almost accurate but not quite. It also includes projecting one's feeling and perceptions upon another. It is possibly that I used it slightly wrong however. In any case, he was attacking a straw man, so what he wrote is wrong in any case.

As usual I see that your posts consist of a whole lot of insults, as much as it's a whole lot of saying-nothingness. I don't care for arbitrary rules on insanse physical and psychical feets that are allowed in some cases, but in others not, with no consistent rules other than that you "feel* that this ought not be allowed. Especially since fatigue has no effect on geralt, why the hell should it affect letho?

Also, I just rewatched that battle, which I did not remember all that hotly, and rolling on the floor laughing my ass off, what the hell is the big deal? Letho uses Aard on geralt (not a "TK bolt of divine proportions"), big whoop, then he escapes even though he seemingly could have taken geralt's life.

 

[Comrade Goby]

Okay, doesn't sound like the same problem then. I suppose you don't get an error message of any kind? Can you make it past the launcher to the title screen or does it crash even before that?

Before.

 

[DraQ]

Your description of projecting is almost accurate but not quite. It also includes projecting one's feeling and perceptions upon another. It is possibly that I used it slightly wrong however. In any case, he was attacking a straw man, so what he wrote is wrong in any case.

How do you know it was a strawman?

People post all sorts of retarded shit all the time, so what's wrong with a bunch of uncritical fanboys using "it showed how awesome Letho is" excuse?

As usual I see that your posts consist of a whole lot of insults

Diagnoses, my friend, diagnoses.

I don't care for arbitrary rules on insanse physical and psychical feets that are allowed in some cases, but in others not, with no consistent rules other than that you "feel* that this ought not be allowed. Especially since fatigue has no effect on geralt, why the hell should it affect letho?

Because it doesn't make any sense that only after heaving his ass kicked somewhat Letho would pull hideously overclocked aard, force his way through Geralt's own Aard after a spectacular contest of Beam-O-War, then basically go "no, u".

It's cheap, it cheapens the battle and it cheapens Geralt as an experienced and quite famous witcher who has already recovered from amnesia in terms of his skills, if not actual memories.

Plus, the lore in books has it clearly that you can die of magical exhaustion and that sword fights are extremely lethal, *especially* when there are witchers involved. Even if there is gameplay and story segregation in place (if only because of fucking HP system), the story should try to honor it which means no carving up Letho until he goes "no, u".

I proposed how it could be solved to not be jarring - either you don't actually beat up Letho and he goes "no, u" while winning through brute-force, or you do start beating him up, but he wins through some clever move, not through brute force and "no, u".

Others chimed in as well and, in fact, provided an example of very similar situation done right in the first game (first Javed battle).

Also, I just rewatched that battle, which I did not remember all that hotly, and rolling on the floor laughing my ass off, what the hell is the big deal? Letho uses Aard on geralt (not a "TK bolt of divine proportions"), big whoop, then he escapes even though he seemingly could have taken geralt's life.

If you were familiar with the books, you'd know that Aard was referred to (at least once) as "simple telekinetic sign" (or was it psychokinetic? Doesen't matter.)

I was using generic terms because not everyone here is familiar with Witcher terminology due to not everyone here being a Witcher fan.
And yeah, Letho's Aard was rather powerful.

 

[aris]

Well, the whole charade is basically a very common plot device, where the player gets to meet with the villain, have a nice chat and a friendly fight before the villain disappears in a cloud of smoke. It happens in a lot of games, BG2 for example. And this is contrary to where the (true) villain just pops out and says BOO towards the end (well executed in bioshock). I guess they could have made it an auto-lose battle, which games sometimes do, where the villain then spares his life, or something unpredictable happens that otherwise saves the hero his life, but that carries with it people that will try to reloading prematurely again and again before realizing that they are supposed to get the alternative alternative-you-win-death-cutscene at the end of the fight, because who likes to sit around for the death cut-scene? It's just another way of doing it, and I don't see what the big deal is really.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[toro]

Also, I just rewatched that battle, which I did not remember all that hotly, and rolling on the floor laughing my ass off, what the hell is the big deal? Letho uses Aard on geralt (not a "TK bolt of divine proportions"), big whoop, then he escapes even though he seemingly could have taken geralt's life.

Acting as a coward is indeed "seemingly could have taken" (!?) ... but he didn't because he had a spa meeting around that time. Massage before fights. Cool dude.

Well, the whole charade is basically a very common plot device, where the player gets to meet with the villain, have a nice chat and a friendly fight before the villain disappears in a cloud of smoke. It happens in a lot of games, BG2 for example. And this is contrary to where the (true) villain just pops out and says BOO towards the end (well executed in bioshock). I guess they could have made it an auto-lose battle, which games sometimes do, where the villain then spares his life, or something unpredictable happens that otherwise saves the hero his life, but that carries with it people that will try to reloading prematurely again and again before realizing that they are supposed to get the alternative alternative-you-win-death-cutscene at the end of the fight, because who likes to sit around for the death cut-scene? It's just another way of doing it, and I don't see what the big deal is really.

It's badly done even if it's a very common plot device. They could, but they didn't.

Anyway I used this situation to illustrate that a lot of praised C&C moments were nothing more than fluff. Which is quite alright, unless you put TW2 on some kind of pedestal and call it the poster-boy for C&C.

Especially considering it was just a random choice IIRC. There wasn't any logic as to why one dialogue or another would lead to getting that coin.

There is a second way to get that coin (http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/The_Butcher_of_Cidaris). It's definitely possible to get both coins and I think there is probably a 3rd way to solve the Conspiracy Theory quest. Which is good and somewhat confusing.

Anyway, the point is you didn't play the game in the way it was designed: the dialogues are not longer about choices and stuff, they are actual mini-games which exists for the sole purpose of simulating choices and stuff. [Thank you Bioware for the dialog wheel. Fucking scum.]
That's why the dialogues from Fallout are superior to what TW2 is throwing at a gamer - they simply separated the fluff part from the decisional part. The dialogue lines were simple and concise, when on the other hand, Freud would probably have problems reading the *innovative* lines of TW2.

Also this *innovative* dialogue system is self-defeating because skipping dialogues in TW2 becomes a valid way to play the game. Why would someone pay attention to the dialogues, if in the end it doesn't matter and there is no way to say what you want to say?
Cause it happened several times when the selected dialogue option triggered a totally different *spoken* version of it and in the end it simply forced a narrative path. How could this be a proper RPG game when you are not allowed to say the same dialogue line that you have selected?
ME did educate people in this regard, but this mechanic is misleading and shitty. Also it breaks any coherent storytelling experience. Even if dialogues lines are equivalent to thoughts, it makes no sense to read something and say something else.

And this is what outrages me, ME sucks because of the same mechanics, but TW2 is brilliant because they've added quality fluff (!?) This is not directed towards you (phelot) but Codex knows better. And the simple truth is that when analyzed - TW2 is not far from ME, which means is quite far from a good RPG.
It has potential, but that's not enough. I had fun with it, but if TW3 is the same. I don't know.

 

[Kaol]

witcher would be great if it just did its combat better

 

[DraQ]

Anyway, the point is you didn't play the game in the way it was designed: the dialogues are not longer about choices and stuff, they are actual mini-games which exists for the sole purpose of simulating choices and stuff. [Thank you Bioware for the dialog wheel. Fucking scum.]
That's why the dialogues from Fallout are superior to what TW2 is throwing at a gamer - they simply separated the fluff part from the decisional part. The dialogue lines were simple and concise, when on the other hand, Freud would probably have problems reading the *innovative* lines of TW2.

Also this *innovative* dialogue system is self-defeating because skipping dialogues in TW2 becomes a valid way to play the game. Why would someone pay attention to the dialogues, if in the end it doesn't matter and there is no way to say what you want to say?
Cause it happened several times when the selected dialogue option triggered a totally different *spoken* version of it and in the end it simply forced a narrative path. How could this be a proper RPG game when you are not allowed to say the same dialogue line that you have selected?
ME did educate people in this regard, but this mechanic is misleading and shitty. Also it breaks any coherent storytelling experience. Even if dialogues lines are equivalent to thoughts, it makes no sense to read something and say something else.

That's not a dialogue system, innovative or otherwise, that's simply excessively shitty interface decision for a perfectly workable dialogue system.

Dialogue system itself works fine and it's tried and true dialogue trees with a more novel element of timed response. It's that the interface displays short substitutes of lines actually spoken that is the problem here.

 

[Carrion]

Played through Iorveth's path. Some thoughts about the Enhanced Edition (spoilers, obviously):

- The new quest on Roche's path is great. It adds some nice touches to the story, especially if you stick with Roche until the end, and it improves the pacing of Chapter 3 a lot. TW2 needed more investigation quests anyway.

- Iorveth's new quest is really good too, at least if you like riddles, but it's more clearly just tacked-on filler. It expands on Geralt's backstory a bit but doesn't add any new flashbacks or anything really interesting. It doesn't really add anything to the main story either except for bringing a bit more depth to one relatively minor character, and it just feels like another side quest. Chapter 3 still feels too short on Iorveth's path and the pacing is awkward at best. When were I supposed to do the side quests again?

- The new cutscenes are kind of pointless for the most part. Dandelion speaks a lot but says very little between chapters, and since there's already a narrated quest journal, the standard cutscenes and the cartoony flashbacks, the narrative feels notably more fragmented than before. I'd rather have seen more conversations or dialogue choices with important characters or some other additions instead of such obvious filler. The cutscenes before the epilogue were good, though, at least the ones I saw on my two EE playthroughs.

- The ending slides are nice, but they could be better. There were many important choices in the game that weren't even mentioned in the slides in any way (come on, surely killing or sparing the dragon affects what happens to Upper Aedirn), which was a missed opportunity. Also, the unavoidable "Nilfgaard attacks, everyone dies" also kind of cheapens the whole thing.

- Crafting is even more pointless than before because of some new items. Why waste time and money forging some legendary sword or armor when the best stuff can be found in a random cave?

- There are still some minor annoyances that shouldn't be there. The quest journal can at times invent new names for people (The Visionary becomes "The Inspired", for example) or forget who the narrator is (you get journal entries like "I was hired to kill a harpy queen" instead of "Geralt was hired..."). Shouldn't have been that hard to notice and fix. Some minor bugs here and there as well.

All in all, it feels like they were a bit too much trying to make an "Enhanced Edition" instead of just fixing what needed fixing. Some of the new content simply isn't on the same level with the original content when it comes to quality and style, and it feels kind of disconnected as a result. Can't really see enough new content to justify the gigantic size of the download either.

 

[Mrowak]

Well, the whole charade is basically a very common plot device, where the player gets to meet with the villain, have a nice chat and a friendly fight before the villain disappears in a cloud of smoke. It happens in a lot of games, BG2 for example. And this is contrary to where the (true) villain just pops out and says BOO towards the end (well executed in bioshock). I guess they could have made it an auto-lose battle, which games sometimes do, where the villain then spares his life, or something unpredictable happens that otherwise saves the hero his life, but that carries with it people that will try to reloading prematurely again and again before realizing that they are supposed to get the alternative alternative-you-win-death-cutscene at the end of the fight, because who likes to sit around for the death cut-scene? It's just another way of doing it, and I don't see what the big deal is really.

Som, yes it is a very common plot device in gaming but that doesn't make it usddenly a good plot device. In my post on TW forums I used two examples to illustrate how cheap it is.

1). In Mass Effect 3 you engage in a boss battle with Kai Leng - a super ninja idiot. You fight to retrieve some data. And there you go kicking the loser's ass all over the place, but then a cutscene kicks in - the fucker suddenly destroys floor under you with a move of an eyebrow and muhahaha, you lose. After the whole thing, when you return to your ship, everyone and their grandad is bent on consolling you how 'it wasn't your fault you lost to Kai Leng'. And this is the last straw you can beare - of course it isn't your fault - it was game cheating on you and depriving you of your victory, because Game Master (designers) couldn't think of any way to use gameplay to tell the damn story - everything you witness is completely divorced from what you do. Suddenly somehow arbitralily says, 'you lose!' and it's over. Then to make matters worse he tries to 'emotionally engage' you. The thing is you don't feel grief or sadness; you are not even pissed off at the antagonist - you rage at the fuckers who came with this contrived mess. Yes the word is 'contrived' in literary standards - if something comes out of nowhere to defy prepared setup (which we received through gameplay) it's contrived. To my mind it almost amounts to reversed Deus Ex Machina - suddenly the villain is divinely empowered and defeats you denying the entire rule set in the world.

Another example:

2). Imagine a PnP game. There is Game Master and 3-4 players. The players are hunting a dragon. They are experienced bunch so they prepared themselves accordingly - items, potions, spells etc. Suddenly the dragon ambushes them. However, the players use clever tricks to save their own arses - warriors and rogues use nets and special grapling hooks to entangle lizard's limbs (slowing it down and preventing from casting spells), mage shoots a magic beam at the ceiling to force it to fall down on the dragon's head why clerics erects the barrier to protect the party from falling rocks. GM didn't expect this turn of events, and he doesn't want for his dragon to die so he says something like this: 'The dragon emerges unscathed from the demolished tunnel. Before anyone of you has any time to react he breaths fire of you 5 times, scorring critical hits for each of you. All of you fall uncnoscious to the ground. The dragon flies off leaving you behind. He is a powerful beast, isn't he?'.

At this point, it is guaranteed that the players will be screaming for GM's blood, calling him all kinds of cheat. It's likely that with this cheap trick the GM will lose some if not all of the players as he proved his incompetence - he put the life of his villain over the accomplishemnt of his players. In other words he denied rightful victory for no reason other then 'the plot must go on'. Again, this is called a 'contrivance' and it's far worse in interactive medium than in novels and films (and even there it's the mark of bad writing).

If the players didn't prepare themselves for the fight and didn't come up with a cunning plan, them losing the fight in accordance with the ruleset would be fine - in fact it would be a powerful device and a good lesson for the future. But in this case players exhibited initiative and intelligence - you reward for such things - not go all cheat on them. It's often better to kill your villain than resort to reversed Deus Ex Machina.

The fight with Letho is contrived mess exactly for the abovementioned reasons. Come to think of it, there's no reason for the fight to happen - they might as well make one huge cutscene.

This is all the more annoying considering that many games have C&C based on gameplay. For example in Way of the Samurai 1 you are faced with practically identical fight (though it's optional) with a very tough opponent. You are most likely to lose it in your first game which nets you just small negative consequence. However, if you win it you'll receive a huge ending-chenging consequence. That's a lot coming from optional fight.

And in TW2 you get less from obligatory battle. Because 'the plot must go on'. Contrived and lazy.

 

[aris]

An interesting read, but what do you propose as an alternative? The whole thing being a cut-scene is highly untraditional and would probably give the player the impression that they had even less control of the situation.

 

[Mrowak]

An interesting read, but what do you propose as an alternative?

This is the point - this is a goddamn custscene and we all know even laws of physics be damned in those. The problem is the cutscene is contrived - it's constructed to subvert everything that gameplay tells so that 'the plot must go on'. If the cutscene stemmed from player's actions e.g. performance in the previous section of the game it would be all believeable an ok. But it does not. It denies all that happened just prior to it making gameplay section pointless. It's the equivalent of the GM ignoring player's input (performance in combat) and rendering them powerless with words:

'The dragon emerges unscathed from the demolished tunnel. Before anyone of you has any time to react he breaths fire of you 5 times, scorring critical hits for each of you. All of you fall uncnoscious to the ground. The dragon flies off leaving you behind. He is a powerful beast, isn't he?'.

Essentially the same happens in the fight with Letho and in the hypothetical (but so true) example I came up with. It's suddenly putting hold on the ruleset and declaring 'you lose, muhahaha!'. It's cheating and being cheap. It's just contrived mess.

And I don't get your:

The whole thing being a cut-scene is highly untraditional and would probably give the player the impression that they had even less control of the situation.

How accounting for player's performace in battle gives the impression he has less control over game? If anything the opposite is true. Play well - you get one cutscene. Play bad - you get another. Both cutscenes can bring different consequences. It's logical - it's just common sense. Losing when you are winning because GM (designers) stomped his leg and said 'You lose' is on gindergarten sandbox level and proves that someone didn't plan scene thoroughly enough. Bad writing, no matter the way you look at it.

The funny thing is TW2 uses the mechanics I am talking about in another fight. When you have duel between Roche and Iorveth its ending cutscene depends on which character had more HP left. Why can't we have the same with Letho?

 

[DraQ]

An interesting read, but what do you propose as an alternative? The whole thing being a cut-scene is highly untraditional and would probably give the player the impression that they had even less control of the situation.

1. Cutscene would work and it would definitely be less enraging.

2. Short, mechanically rigged fight would work (see first battle with Gunther in DX1).

3. Letho using clever trick to turn the tides rather than simply bruteforcing his way through (see first battle with Javed in TW1) would work.

4. Post battle cutscene depending on the course of the battle would work.

 

[Havoc]

How about Letho throwing a bottle of acid? Geralt gets hit in the face during the battle and screams bloody murder on his knees.

 

[DraQ]

How about Letho throwing a bottle of acid? Geralt gets hit in the face during the battle and screams bloody murder on his knees.

I was thinking more along the lines of aard/bomb at the ceiling followed by collapsing architecture.

 

[Havoc]

That could be good too, but with the acid (if Geralt wins in the gameplay) Letho cheats to victory and still can say "I could've killed you back then, but I didn't".

 

[toro]

Maybe the whole fight could have been replaced with Geralt stumbling upon Triss giving head to Letho. And then we can talk about collar grabbing emotions and butthurt...