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 2 Enhanced Edition

thesoup

Arcane
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
7,599
Alright, let's do a mini review here and comparison with 1:

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.

Now onwards to Witcher 3, as soon as it downloads.
 
Last edited:

thesoup

Arcane
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
7,599
Well I thought I'd be playing it by now, but it didn't finish downloading last night, contrary to what I thought.
So it's gonna be postponed by a day.:M
 

v1rus

Arcane
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,258
Finished Roche's path. While somewhat satisfying, i found it utterly inferior to Iorveths. Still, glad I did both.

I'm gonna go through thesoup analysis later this evening, or tomorrow, with great pleasure.
 

Carrion

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
3,648
Location
Lost in Necropolis
I think the most satisfying way to play TW2 is to go full Roche.

The story is the most coherent that way, revolving tightly around the kingslayers, and going for Dethmold's balls in Act III is the most intense sequence in the entire game. The Enhanced Edition added two very good side quests into the last act, but I think the one on Roche's path ("Lilies and Vipers") complements the main quest better and is probably my favorite side quest in the game. Plus, how could you turn your back on BROche and side with some filthy elves anyway? The one downside to Roche's path is that it lacks a proper city hub, but Vergen isn't exactly Vizima, and Henselt's camp is a lot of fun too. There's no lesbomancy either, but you can wash away the sense of loss by having a beer or two with Odrin and his pals.

Iorveth's path has its advantages too, of course, as the game is loaded with great characters whichever path you choose.
 

valcik

Arcane
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
1,864,690
Location
SVK
Bought this one on gog sale couple of years back, trying it for the first time right now.
The gameplay is a consoletardeous trash! Strange and very unintuitive mechanics, such as clicking the left mouse button at frightening rate in order to shoot ballista, or smashing the right mouse button in the right moment indicated by a small blinking icon appearing in the middle of the screen in order to evade dragon attacks.. WTF Polant? Solid mature writing and characters killed by childish popamole mechanics, why did you do this to me?!
 

Falksi

Arcane
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
10,633
Location
Nottingham
Bought this one on gog sale couple of years back, trying it for the first time right now.
The gameplay is a consoletardeous trash! Strange and very unintuitive mechanics, such as clicking the left mouse button at frightening rate in order to shoot ballista, or smashing the right mouse button in the right moment indicated by a small blinking icon appearing in the middle of the screen in order to evade dragon attacks.. WTF Polant? Solid mature writing and characters killed by childish popamole mechanics, why did you do this to me?!

Maybe pick it up cheap for console? I played it on the 360 and, whilst it's still not perfect, I actually quite enjoyed the gameplay. Especially on Dark mode.
 

valcik

Arcane
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
1,864,690
Location
SVK
I don't own any console, neither gamepad.
Also this seem to be movie rather than a game. Started act 1 today, had to spend solid 30 minutes watching cut-scenes interrupted by some five minutes of actual game, where you're controlling your character directly. Modern gaming..
 

Carrion

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
3,648
Location
Lost in Necropolis
Also this seem to be movie rather than a game. Started act 1 today, had to spend solid 30 minutes watching cut-scenes interrupted by some five minutes of actual game, where you're controlling your character directly. Modern gaming..
Yeah, the beginning is bad like that. The prologue and the start of the first act have some really good scenes (especially the ones with Foltest), but they're trying to do way too much at once, introducing you to a couple of dozen plot-relevant characters and a similar number of secondary ones, teaching you all of the basic gameplay mechanics and also telling the events through a number of flashbacks just because they can. As if that wasn't enough, they also chose to put almost all of their QTEs into the prologue, becausee filling your tutorial with a bunch of non-mechanics that you'll never use again sounds like such a good idea. The game gets much better when it finally lets you off the hook, which is an hour or two into the first act.

While the story of TW2 is the best in the series, the storytelling is actually the weakest, and the first few hours are a prime example of it. TW1 and TW3 do a much better job at setting things up without the need for huge infodumps or a barrage of cutscenes.
 

Falksi

Arcane
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
10,633
Location
Nottingham
Yeah the first few hours are heavy going. The games all about depth & replayability really.
Gamepad will help loads though. Mouse combat for it is rank.
 

thesoup

Arcane
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
7,599
I usee strong most of the time. Might as well have unbound the fast one.
 

Falksi

Arcane
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
10,633
Location
Nottingham
Whilst I reckon TW3's combat is better, the most fun/interesting build I've had in any Witcher game was a signs build on TW2.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,293
I don't know how people can do signs builds in Witcher games. It's so anti-lore. Witchers are supposed to be swordsmen, with some rudimentary, primitive magic thrown in for utility. The mages and sorceresses are the ones with real magic.
 

Gerrard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
12,193
Beat the game. Gotta say, I enjoyed it more than Witcher 1. While its worse in some forms, the dialogues and plot are way more organized, and improved graphics help, a lot. We'll ignore the fact its more of a cinematic experience than a game. Witcher 1 had a lot more satisfying ending tho.

Now, an important, technical question.
My last Witcher 2 save is just before meeting Letho, and thus, the one i transferred to Witcher 3. How will the game know if I decided to spare him or kill him? Did i transfer the wrong save, or, will the game literally ask me "WHADDYA DO WITH LETHO BRAH?"

Time for Roche's path and at long last, Witcher 3. :salute:
There's an autosave made at the end of the game.
 

adddeed

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
1,490
I don't know how people can do signs builds in Witcher games. It's so anti-lore. Witchers are supposed to be swordsmen, with some rudimentary, primitive magic thrown in for utility. The mages and sorceresses are the ones with real magic.
Ugh you still use the swords most of the time.
 

Israfael

Arcane
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
3,650
Finished the game on Dark in 37 hours, thoroughly disgusted by the experience. In fact, it took me 3 years to actually get through it, as I was almost queasy from controls at first, but then it either improved, or I just got more tolerant of lag. In all, huge decline compared to W1. I actually wonder why did they bother to get the game on PCs almost a year before consoles because it's actually plays worse than vanilla DS1 without any patches / hi-res packs.

- Controls are something in the game, it's like I'm controlling rover on Mars or the Moon, the lag is so big. Super slow mouse, keystrokes register quite slow as well.
- It looked like the game designers took great pains to make the game feel like true console product - autosaves at the most annoying / inopportune moments (if there's a 30 seconds cutscene, like in Kayran fight or the ghost story fight, the player should watch it 30 times before he finally manages to beat the QTE sequence or a stupid fight that probably no one tested on any difficulty except easy. Button choices are random and weird - why you have to press space, then enter to add a mutagen, why there could not have been a single button to do all that shit? Seriously. Also, who decided that it's good to only use mouse to select lines in dialogue? Getting that back (and an ability to jump over fences) feels like a huge UX revolution in W3.
- Apparently Geralt cannot into backpedalling which leads to funny situations in the aforementioned ghost sequence - you can't really retreat there so you either parry to victory (as in the draug and the zombies would stun-carry you to the edge of fire circle and then back off) or recieve 100500 points of damage in your back while trying to disengage.
- The world is super-small and corridor'y compared to W1 and W3 (which I just started playing), there's only a handful of quests. Idiotic choice 'DO YOU SIDE WITH FASCISTS OR ELVEN ANTIFA?' (I know it's the other way around in the books, but whatever) as compared to more subtle choices in W1 (at least there were 3 choices, not just two, including 'true' witcher path which actually made everything worse, in a sort of true Geralt way). I did not feel that I was in a coherent world, rather in a series of disjointed memories / experiences.
- Armor/ Weapon progression is really strange, also armor was basically useless as most enemies would kill you (from behind) in 1-2 strikes. Huge disparity in fights difficulty - I probably spent more time on the first Letho/Kayran/Ghost Battle fights than all other parts of the combat in the game. Potions and oils absolutely useless (for a warrior + signs witcher) from prologue to epilogue.
- Too epic and unwitcher'y plot. Forced dichotomy, strange choices, rash and unspymaster'y Broche (as compared to Dijkstra or Vattier in the books) whom, to my sincerest regret, I could not kill in the Act 2 after he just ruined everything with his stupid 'square coin' plot. Why I should help such a person, especially as a witcher?

Hopefully W3 is much better (at least it feels so in the beginning, even in-game and menu music is more like W1), because this is not far away from DA2 in terms of gameplay, scope and overall experience.
 
Last edited:

thesoup

Arcane
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
7,599
The lag is huge because V-Sync is on by default. Disable it to remove the lag. Same for Witcher 3 btw.
 

adddeed

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
1,490
I have absolutely zero lag in the game. Learn how to optimize you peasant. There are grpaihcal options for a reason you know. For someone who complains about consoles, you may as well go get one.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,293
Finished the game on Dark in 37 hours, thoroughly disgusted by the experience. In fact, it took me 3 years to actually get through it, as I was almost queasy from controls at first, but then it either improved, or I just got more tolerant of lag. In all, huge decline compared to W1. I actually wonder why did they bother to get the game on PCs almost a year before consoles because it's actually plays worse than vanilla DS1 without any patches / hi-res packs.

- Controls are something in the game, it's like I'm controlling rover on Mars or the Moon, the lag is so big. Super slow mouse, keystrokes register quite slow as well.
- It looked like the game designers took great pains to make the game feel like true console product - autosaves at the most annoying / inopportune moments (if there's a 30 seconds cutscene, like in Kayran fight or the ghost story fight, the player should watch it 30 times before he finally manages to beat the QTE sequence or a stupid fight that probably no one tested on any difficulty except easy. Button choices are random and weird - why you have to press space, then enter to add a mutagen, why there could not have been a single button to do all that shit? Seriously. Also, who decided that it's good to only use mouse to select lines in dialogue? Getting that back (and an ability to jump over fences) feels like a huge UX revolution in W3.
- Apparently Geralt cannot into backpedalling which leads to funny situations in the aforementioned ghost sequence - you can't really retreat there so you either parry to victory (as in the draug and the zombies would stun-carry you to the edge of fire circle and then back off) or recieve 100500 points of damage in your back while trying to disengage.
- The world is super-small and corridor'y compared to W1 and W3 (which I just started playing), there's only a handful of quests. Idiotic choice 'DO YOU SIDE WITH FASCISTS OR ELVEN ANTIFA?' (I know it's the other way around in the books, but whatever) as compared to more subtle choices in W1 (at least there were 3 choices, not just two, including 'true' witcher path which actually made everything worse, in a sort of true Geralt way). I did not feel that I was in a coherent world, rather in a series of disjointed memories / experiences.
- Armor/ Weapon progression is really strange, also armor was basically useless as most enemies would kill you (from behind) in 1-2 strikes. Huge disparity in fights difficulty - I probably spent more time on the first Letho/Kayran/Ghost Battle fights than all other parts of the combat in the game. Potions and oils absolutely useless (for a warrior + signs witcher) from prologue to epilogue.
- Too epic and unwitcher'y plot. Forced dichotomy, strange choices, rash and unspymaster'y Broche (as compared to Dijkstra or Vattier in the books) whom, to my sincerest regret, I could not kill in the Act 2 after he just ruined everything with his stupid 'square coin' plot. Why I should help such a person, especially as a witcher?

Hopefully W3 is much better (at least it feels so in the beginning, even in-game and menu music is more like W1), because this is not far away from DA2 in terms of gameplay, scope and overall experience.

The first Letho fight on Dark still triggers me.

The good news is that yes, W3 is waaaayyyyy better than this piece of trash.
 

passerby

Arcane
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
2,788
- Armor/ Weapon progression is really strange, also armor was basically useless as most enemies would kill you (from behind) in 1-2 strikes. Huge disparity in fights difficulty - I probably spent more time on the first Letho/Kayran/Ghost Battle fights than all other parts of the combat in the game. Potions and oils absolutely useless (for a warrior + signs witcher) from prologue to epilogue.

You could spent two points at the beginning of the swordsman tree or whatever it was called, to completely remove backstab bonus damage, then put best crafted armor and become almost invincible ( on hard ).
Not spending these two points there was like playing two difficulty levels higher. Shit design and lack of balance, no wonder since the main gameplay designer there is a modder responsible for FCR mod for W1.
 

v1rus

Arcane
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,258
So, this has been driving me insane and i cant find the answer on interwebz.

Why do you have to complete the Kayran quest? Its a main quest, you cant progress without it, but I cant remember which quest is locked until you complete it, and why.
 
Last edited:

Gerrard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
12,193
So, this has been driving me insane, and i cant find the answer on interwebz.

Why do you have to complete the Kayran quest? Its a main quest, you cant progress without it, but I cant remember which quest is locked until you complete it, and why.
Because it's attacking ships that go that way.
 

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