thesoup
Arcane
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2011
- Messages
- 7,599
Alright, let's do a mini review here and comparison with 1:
Now onwards to Witcher 3, as soon as it downloads.
Witcher 2 pros:
-good story; tight, intimate and well written
-i like many of the changes in combat
-the graphics are absolutely stunningly beautiful and it runs so smooth it's unreal
-great characters
-a bunch of little things
cons:
-politics are boring as fuck
-side quests are few and far in between, and they are largely complete shit
-i hate a lot of the changes in combat
-felt pretty short
-loot is shit
-ui is complete trash
-alchemy is complete trash
-a bunch of little things
So overall I'll say that the first game was considerably better.
The combat in 2 was a mixed bag. On one hand, I like that side weapons and all signs are actually useful. On the other hand, side weapons are not really necessary and the signs have been changed in such a way that there's no crowd control, because Aard was nerfed so much it went from a force push that made for some breathing space into a piss weak beam that slightly nudges people. Sure, there's Axii, but eh, it's limited in utility in bigger crowds.
Essentially, the combat would in many cases just boil down to using Quen, rolling around and dishing out two hits in the back and running away, especially when you have a fuckton of opponents with shields which makes your whirl talent totally useless. There were some clever uses with Yrden vs bosses, like that teleporting mage in ch3 and the kayran in ch1, but this was so arbitrary because for some retarded reason I could not Yrden the dragon in ch3. It was maddening.
Oh and yeah, whoever said this game was difficult 6 years ago is retarded.
So compared to w1, I'd say both games have combat that's flawed in different ways. And I'd say I enjoyed the one in 1 a little more.
W2 has beautiful graphics, but imo, w1 has better aesthetics.
In W1 everything is shit, and everything depicts this mood rather well. The music is melancholic, the skies are grey, the city / villages all look like they are barely holding together. Most people are just flat out pieces of shit. Javed was right, he is no worse than Foltest. The villagers in ch1 are pieces of shit. Humans are pieces of shit who torment non humans. Non humans are equal pieces of shit who fight for freedom by killing innocent civilians, thereby adding fuel to the fire. Like Geralt said, both swords are for monsters. This is no bioware world, it's complicated and W1 just oozes atmosphere, the choices can be difficult, while the ending is truly tragic. I don't remember any music from w2 except one battle theme, the gfx were pretty, but the aesthetic wasn't memorable, it's just technically competent gfx. The story and characters were well written, but it was entirely about the upper echelons of society and that removed lots of the charm and atmosphere that 1 had.
Alchemy is an easy win for w1.
The inventory is not worth even mentioning.
The character leveling up system was ok. It was different and I think it worked just fine.
In terms of (side) questing, both are largely shit ridden with MMO tier quests, but I'd say w1 has the edge here because it actually has side quests and with that it has more good ones.
Mini games are always shit, regardless of game. More so when they involve QTE. I was ok with arm wrestling tho. So meh on this one.
The cinematic approach and QTEs aren't nearly as bad I was led to believe tho. I mean they suck, but they are few and far between, thankfully.
On a final note, it took me approximately 36 hours, if steam is correct, to finish w1, altho I did play it without finishing it before so I wasn't exactly going in blind and having to adjust. Witcher 2 took me 28 hours to complete, including dicking around in the arena for an hour or two and I only ever played it once.
-good story; tight, intimate and well written
-i like many of the changes in combat
-the graphics are absolutely stunningly beautiful and it runs so smooth it's unreal
-great characters
-a bunch of little things
cons:
-politics are boring as fuck
-side quests are few and far in between, and they are largely complete shit
-i hate a lot of the changes in combat
-felt pretty short
-loot is shit
-ui is complete trash
-alchemy is complete trash
-a bunch of little things
So overall I'll say that the first game was considerably better.
The combat in 2 was a mixed bag. On one hand, I like that side weapons and all signs are actually useful. On the other hand, side weapons are not really necessary and the signs have been changed in such a way that there's no crowd control, because Aard was nerfed so much it went from a force push that made for some breathing space into a piss weak beam that slightly nudges people. Sure, there's Axii, but eh, it's limited in utility in bigger crowds.
Essentially, the combat would in many cases just boil down to using Quen, rolling around and dishing out two hits in the back and running away, especially when you have a fuckton of opponents with shields which makes your whirl talent totally useless. There were some clever uses with Yrden vs bosses, like that teleporting mage in ch3 and the kayran in ch1, but this was so arbitrary because for some retarded reason I could not Yrden the dragon in ch3. It was maddening.
Oh and yeah, whoever said this game was difficult 6 years ago is retarded.
So compared to w1, I'd say both games have combat that's flawed in different ways. And I'd say I enjoyed the one in 1 a little more.
W2 has beautiful graphics, but imo, w1 has better aesthetics.
In W1 everything is shit, and everything depicts this mood rather well. The music is melancholic, the skies are grey, the city / villages all look like they are barely holding together. Most people are just flat out pieces of shit. Javed was right, he is no worse than Foltest. The villagers in ch1 are pieces of shit. Humans are pieces of shit who torment non humans. Non humans are equal pieces of shit who fight for freedom by killing innocent civilians, thereby adding fuel to the fire. Like Geralt said, both swords are for monsters. This is no bioware world, it's complicated and W1 just oozes atmosphere, the choices can be difficult, while the ending is truly tragic. I don't remember any music from w2 except one battle theme, the gfx were pretty, but the aesthetic wasn't memorable, it's just technically competent gfx. The story and characters were well written, but it was entirely about the upper echelons of society and that removed lots of the charm and atmosphere that 1 had.
Alchemy is an easy win for w1.
The inventory is not worth even mentioning.
The character leveling up system was ok. It was different and I think it worked just fine.
In terms of (side) questing, both are largely shit ridden with MMO tier quests, but I'd say w1 has the edge here because it actually has side quests and with that it has more good ones.
Mini games are always shit, regardless of game. More so when they involve QTE. I was ok with arm wrestling tho. So meh on this one.
The cinematic approach and QTEs aren't nearly as bad I was led to believe tho. I mean they suck, but they are few and far between, thankfully.
On a final note, it took me approximately 36 hours, if steam is correct, to finish w1, altho I did play it without finishing it before so I wasn't exactly going in blind and having to adjust. Witcher 2 took me 28 hours to complete, including dicking around in the arena for an hour or two and I only ever played it once.
Now onwards to Witcher 3, as soon as it downloads.
Last edited: