-
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 2 Enhanced Edition
- Thread starter Azalin
- Start date
PorkyThePaladin
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2013
- Messages
- 5,399
Those two games are absolute shit (W2 and DA:O), that's why I hate them. Age has nothing to do with it. After finishing W2, I started playing W3, and you know what? It's much better. At least so far, I am still very early in. Like anyone else, I have biases and all, but I am a fairly objective person and call it like I see it.
PorkyThePaladin
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2013
- Messages
- 5,399
No, both the gameplay and combat are much better so far. There is more actual gameplay and less cinematics than in W2. These are just small examples, but you push doors open as you walk up to them in W3, you actively climb ladders, there is an option to manually draw and sheath your swords. Small things, but in W2, walking through a door was actually a mini-cinematic, I kid you not, clicking on a ladder would switch to a non-interactive cinematic of Gerald climbing, swords would be drawn automatically depending on proximity of enemies. This kind of stuff made it seem more like a movie than a game. in W3, you use your Witcher sense to investigate stuff, which is kinda pre-determined unfortunately, but still adds some gameplay that W2 did not have. Just the the fact that it's open world and you can run/ride around exploring adds a whole new gameplay dimension that W2 did not have.
Combat-wise, there are actual mechanics now that work (and look better). You dodge enemies, and dodging a whole group on Death March difficulty is both challenging and interesting. W2 had the much more retarded roll, which aside from looking stupid, was much looser in terms of control, and resulted in much more random, chaotic button-mashing combat, whereas W3 feels much more skill-based and organized.
Plenty of gamers weren't even out of junior high in 2011, that's no benchmark for anything, and it just dodges the actual issue: Your argument is, essentially, that Witcher 2 is outdated with respect to the current generation, so anybody who plays it now would have a hard time evaluating it in the appropriate historical context and end up walking away underwhelmed. That's already quite an odd argument because it operates on the same logic as "sure, the Wizardry games were great but have become obsolete in the last 25 years, you can't enjoy them nowadays." But it's doubly odd because nothing significant has changed in the last 7 years of AAA gaming, it's the same established formulas executed at the same level of quality (or frequently, lack thereof).
pippin
Guest
The Witcher 2 was made by a company which had only one game under their belt, and the difference in production values between 1 and 2 was astronomical if you consider this. Makes me think how tw1 would have turned out if they had more experience and money. This is relevant for context.
DAO also applies, bu you shouldn't forget it was made by a AAA western company with decades of experience and numerous critically acclaimed games under their belt.
The WItcher 2 is old, but it doesn't seem to be old because tech and design have not advanced at all since its release. It's not as old as Bloodlines, for instance, but it's not a new game.
Also,
>fighting Letho
DAO also applies, bu you shouldn't forget it was made by a AAA western company with decades of experience and numerous critically acclaimed games under their belt.
The WItcher 2 is old, but it doesn't seem to be old because tech and design have not advanced at all since its release. It's not as old as Bloodlines, for instance, but it's not a new game.
Also,
>fighting Letho
Falksi
Arcane
The Witcher 2 and DA:O are two of my own personal favourite games ever, love them to bits and prefer both to TW3.
Both games convey excitement, interest & emotion great Imo. Although granted both took me at least 15 hours each to get into before going from average to great.
I just think they're games for people who prefer atmosphere & story over gameplay & size, but even then I enjoyed the gameplay in both. If you didn't like them fair enough, but to class them as "bad games"? Try playing Rise of the Robots.
Would absolutely LOVE to see another game with TW2 style branching story. The different choices and angles which you could view the story from made is so replayable. It's a bit sad that the success of TW3 will mean we likely won't get see that again for a long time.
For me that approach was a true step forward in gaming, and instead if being embraced & replicated it's been ignored because of the masses all brainwashed by Skyrim, open world fever.
Both games convey excitement, interest & emotion great Imo. Although granted both took me at least 15 hours each to get into before going from average to great.
I just think they're games for people who prefer atmosphere & story over gameplay & size, but even then I enjoyed the gameplay in both. If you didn't like them fair enough, but to class them as "bad games"? Try playing Rise of the Robots.
Would absolutely LOVE to see another game with TW2 style branching story. The different choices and angles which you could view the story from made is so replayable. It's a bit sad that the success of TW3 will mean we likely won't get see that again for a long time.
For me that approach was a true step forward in gaming, and instead if being embraced & replicated it's been ignored because of the masses all brainwashed by Skyrim, open world fever.
CDPR went overboard with the cinematics in TW2, and the pacing and the storytelling suffered as a result, especially during the first few hours of the game. Occasionally it feels like a rollercoaster ride where you're just going from one scene to another without having much say in the matter. It does get better later on, but there are still moments where it feels like Geralt is doing is own stuff and making you a mere spectator. They never got the combat system right either, even after patching and rebalancing it about a million times. It was also disappointing how they dumbed down some of the best aspects of TW1, the alchemy system being the most notable victim, and the Slavic atmosphere was largely gone too. In many ways it was much closer to your typical cinematic American AAA action-RPG, and even after the Enhanced Edition it feels a bit short and rushed in places.
However, it does have some really good things going for it. CDPR may have committed some blunders in the game design department, but they do have some fine writers and most importantly a thing that I can only describe as a sense of style, something that BioWare have been sorely missing more or less throughout their existence (especially in the Dragon Age series, which is just garbage in this regard). CDPR know what's appropriate in the setting and are very aware of their tone, effortlessly switching between different moods without it becoming even a bit disjointed at any point. They know how human beings work and are able to create some really good dialogue and scenes that carry an actual impact, no matter whether they're going for drama or comedy. All of their games are visually superb, not just because of technology but because they have a real eye for what actually looks good: the locations are beautiful but sufficiently gritty to feel "real", and every important character is visually distinct and instantly recognizable without feeling out of place. They have the balls to include scenes like this that consciously cross some invisible line somewhere, but they're also smart enough to only do it when it's appropriate instead of just going for the shock factor. It's just an incredible contrast to something like DA:O with its stupid giant shoulder pads, bland as fuck BioWare™ characters, embarrassing attempts at humour, tribal tattoo art style, super awkward sex scenes with 21st century lingerie, and the try-hard grimdarkness that permeates the entire game and feels like a 10-year-old's interpretation of "mature".
However, it does have some really good things going for it. CDPR may have committed some blunders in the game design department, but they do have some fine writers and most importantly a thing that I can only describe as a sense of style, something that BioWare have been sorely missing more or less throughout their existence (especially in the Dragon Age series, which is just garbage in this regard). CDPR know what's appropriate in the setting and are very aware of their tone, effortlessly switching between different moods without it becoming even a bit disjointed at any point. They know how human beings work and are able to create some really good dialogue and scenes that carry an actual impact, no matter whether they're going for drama or comedy. All of their games are visually superb, not just because of technology but because they have a real eye for what actually looks good: the locations are beautiful but sufficiently gritty to feel "real", and every important character is visually distinct and instantly recognizable without feeling out of place. They have the balls to include scenes like this that consciously cross some invisible line somewhere, but they're also smart enough to only do it when it's appropriate instead of just going for the shock factor. It's just an incredible contrast to something like DA:O with its stupid giant shoulder pads, bland as fuck BioWare™ characters, embarrassing attempts at humour, tribal tattoo art style, super awkward sex scenes with 21st century lingerie, and the try-hard grimdarkness that permeates the entire game and feels like a 10-year-old's interpretation of "mature".
Falksi
Arcane
The similarities in TW2 & DA:O for me are simply the fact that both take some time get into & enjoy, yet both are very repayable because of the variety in choices you have. Both also have superb music &, despite flawed aesthetics, a rooted and affirmed sense of what they are and what they have set out to do.
I agree with a lot of the points you make though Carrion, there's plenty of differences too. TW2 is ahead of DA:O in most ways, but when it was released I enjoyed it as much as TW2 when that was released. TW2 is defo easier to return to for me now though.
I agree with a lot of the points you make though Carrion, there's plenty of differences too. TW2 is ahead of DA:O in most ways, but when it was released I enjoyed it as much as TW2 when that was released. TW2 is defo easier to return to for me now though.
PorkyThePaladin
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2013
- Messages
- 5,399
I realize you are probably trolling, but if TW2 and DA:O are among the RPGs you like, may I suggest playing moar RPGs? Those are both absolutely terrible. Carrion is right in that CDProjekt has actual writing talent unlike the hacks at Bioware, but that in no way makes TW2 any less terrible. Games aren't books, you can't just write your way to a good game. On top of which, the writing in TW2 was way worse than in both TW1 and TW3. Saskia's story for example, began as a Joan of Arc rip-off, and was actually very emotionally powerful in that sense, but then of course, muh dragons, and plus her dialogue was borderline retarded. And Letho? I mean come on. The only good plotline in TW2 was Niflagardean schemes behind the whole thing, everything else was pretty lackluster, although certainly not as bad as Bioware/Bethesda/Larian/etc.
Falksi
Arcane
Played many and those two are right up there with my faves. Enjoyed TW2 far more than TW1 or 3. I just clearly like different aspects of games to yourself. Both did take a long time to warm to mind, but once hooked I was well hooked.
Always happy to try more RPGs if you've any to recommend which may make me rethink tho? Bare in mind I've a very old pc, so would have to be PS4, 360, or old school PC/console.
PorkyThePaladin
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2013
- Messages
- 5,399
Most great RPGs are old anyway. The only new ones I really like are Witcher 3 and Fallout: New Vegas (modded).
Here is a quick suggestion list of all time greats: Gothic 1 and 2, Fallout 1 and 2, Planescape: Torment, Ultima Underworld, Deus Ex (modded with our own Cyber P/Ash's GMDX mod), Vulture (graphical NetHack), Baldur's Gate saga, Betrayal at Krondor.
Falksi
Arcane
I have played most of them, and i can honestly say the only one which I enjoyed as much as TW2 & DA:O was Deus Ex. Will have to give Vulture & Betrayal at Krondor a go though, haven't even touched them yet. Cheers.
adddeed
Arcane
- Joined
- May 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,533
One thing i dont get about the fist fighting, why are only a series of maxium two buttons flash on the screen? Its way too easy. why not three or four, or two and then another suddenly etc. They made it far too easy for some reason, and could have been much better. I actually prefer it to the fistfights in Witcher 3 which are also pretty easy, but at least here i get to see some cool moves.
flyingjohn
Arcane
- Joined
- May 14, 2012
- Messages
- 3,229
Witcher 1 has 5 acts while witcher 2 only 3 acts.It shows painfully that they had to rush things.
Also there is nothing like the village or act 4 in witcher 2.
Personally that is what made the original memorable,you probably don't see much focus on the downtime in any crpgs.
Witcher 2 act 1 forest absolutely destroys any enjoyment.
Witcher 2 act 2 is the actual game and the choice between 2 locations is nice but that is all there is.
Witcher 2 act 3 i like the final chapter in witcher 1,too short but in the original it makes sense,here it just feels like they run out of time.
There are at least 2 acts missing.
And yes,witcher 1 act 3 swamp was not anything special but at least you actually had a proper act 3.
Also they ruined the mini games.The dice and fighting mini games give you almost nothing now.
The combat is ruined by queen and rolling.I managed to finish the game on release on hard just by spamming queen.It felt underwhelming.
Also the story feels more game of thrones like,yet it utterly fails because the politics thing is utterly boring.
You don't play the witcher for politics.
To me there was something special in the witcher 1,it felt like a mod made by people who liked the witcher universe.
Witcher 2 feels like very generic,almost like any aaa rpg game released in the last 10 years.
As for witcher 3,no idea considering i still haven't played it.
Last edited:
adddeed
Arcane
- Joined
- May 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,533
Good points. But you cant say X game has to have X amount of chapters because Y game had as many. What proof you have that they had to rush anything? Maybe they just wanted three Acts?
Im currently playing witcher 2, and have spent 12 hours in Flotsam still, and its great, what dont you like about it?
the combat is ruined because you ruined it yourself by spamming. I use all tools and its fun.
And there is plenty of typical Witcher stuff in the game, not just politics. Thats just the setup.
Im currently playing witcher 2, and have spent 12 hours in Flotsam still, and its great, what dont you like about it?
the combat is ruined because you ruined it yourself by spamming. I use all tools and its fun.
And there is plenty of typical Witcher stuff in the game, not just politics. Thats just the setup.
Falksi
Arcane
I found the original Witcher WAY to long, drawn out, dull & boring. 3 has way too much filler for me too. Whereas 2 had a superb balance of side quests, explorable but tight areas, and a tight knit story.
It's just personal preference. Neither is right or wrong.
It's just personal preference. Neither is right or wrong.
Falksi
Arcane
Good tastes in gaming mate *tipshat*
v1rus
Arcane
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,294
Finishing the 1 right now, and, as such, I'm gonna play 2 right away.
Now, teh_important_question - after beating the TW2 with one path, should I jump straight to 3, reading the missed things on internetz, or should i complete the other path first?
If answer is "yes, play the other part first" - afaik, you choose paths at the end of chapter 1 - how much of the game does this cut? Also, if I'd skip all the shit that stays the same, would it significantly reduce time needed?
Now, teh_important_question - after beating the TW2 with one path, should I jump straight to 3, reading the missed things on internetz, or should i complete the other path first?
If answer is "yes, play the other part first" - afaik, you choose paths at the end of chapter 1 - how much of the game does this cut? Also, if I'd skip all the shit that stays the same, would it significantly reduce time needed?
You should definitely finish the other path first to get a good picture of the whole plot, and also because TW3 features characters from both paths.
I don't think you should skip anything on the second playthrough, as there are still different choices to make throughout the prologue and the first act.
I don't think you should skip anything on the second playthrough, as there are still different choices to make throughout the prologue and the first act.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.