The Witcher series APPRECIATION thread

[Artyoan]

The Witcher 1 had a bizarre tone to it that carried me through the whole game. Gameplay was bad but the whole package was well worth one playthrough. The twist at the end was entertaining, more than glad I didn't spoil that. The Witcher 2 felt like an odd detour that was heavily political but lost some of the appeal. I didn't hate it, but didn't carry away any lasting appreciation for it. Witcher 3 is a solid game that returns to some of the initial game's tone but still remains weaker on the combat side. If anything, the poor combat is my only real dislike of the series. That was never satisfying at any point.

I am a fan of the ladies card collection of Witcher 1.

 

[moon knight]

Look what just released in Proland:

I knew about this but sadly no images of the 2012/2013 build and cut content, right?

 

[Arthandas]

I knew about this but sadly no images of the 2012/2013 build and cut content, right?

 

[Haplo]

The Witcher 1 had a bizarre tone to it that carried me through the whole game. Gameplay was bad but the whole package was well worth one playthrough. The twist at the end was entertaining, more than glad I didn't spoil that. The Witcher 2 felt like an odd detour that was heavily political but lost some of the appeal. I didn't hate it, but didn't carry away any lasting appreciation for it. Witcher 3 is a solid game that returns to some of the initial game's tone but still remains weaker on the combat side. If anything, the poor combat is my only real dislike of the series. That was never satisfying at any point.

I am a fan of the ladies card collection of Witcher 1.

The Witcher 1 oozed fantastic atmosphere from every orfice. Also had most meaningfull alchemy, meaningfull enemy and herbology studies (lore books were a major expense!). Also one of the best itemizations in any computer game. Few, but meaningful and flavorful equipment upgrades. Certain story events and choices could even unlock certain strong character development options.

Was a fantastic game, even if both the combat and character development leaved a lot to be desired. Group style was unblanced, but very fun and fitting for a professional mutated monster hunter with lightning reflexes. Overall the combat and character development worked decent enough - and the deves proved you can do much worse.

 

[KörangarTheMighty]

Contrarian take, but I don't think TW1's Alchemy system is meaningful at all, regardless of difficulty. Swallow alone will carry you through any fight in the game. The system itself is certainly deep having a wide variety of recipes and it's thematic, making use of real hermetic terminology, however it's completely wasted on the lack of challenge that even the most unusual enemies present. Most of their routines are extremely basic and copypasta'd from one to the other. Drowner = Ghoul = Fleder etc. Couple of unique abilities, none of them warranting special care or treatment, for the most part identical barring HP pools.

Off the top of my head, Black Blood is a good example of fluff. Vampire bites you, it dies instantly. Cool idea, problem is it will never bite you, it will be dead long before that happens and even if it does get lucky, who cares when a bite does like 20? damage. Another one, a particular recipe, can't remember the name, allows you to see invisible enemies. Cool idea, but there are zero invisible enemies in the game. Shame really. Many others just buff attack or damage or stamina and are basically pointless, shaving maybe a few seconds off of combat.

Act 1 is the only part of this game that poses any sort of challenge due to the lack of a silver sword and the recipes you find there are minimal. Throughout the game reagents are way, way too common, just about every foe drops them and herbs respawn whenever you zone. The player can also hold way too many of them. This destroys the resource management aspect that the game could have easily provided. Additionally, Geralt can carry hundreds of bottles of booze and an entire pantry's worth of food, yet can't carry more than 3 swords? A half-hearted commitment to realistic inventory might as well not have been bothered with. Minimally, swallow potions should have been much harder to make than they were. If I were a dev, I'd have severely restricted the ingredient drops for those, but the biggest problem is still the lack of combat difficulty and dangerous abilities unique to enemy types that could reliably overcome the regen.

 

[Arthandas]

Contrarian take, but I don't think TW1's Alchemy system is meaningful at all, regardless of difficulty. Swallow alone will carry you through any fight in the game.

This. And it only gets worse in W2 and W3. I think I kept using only 3 different elixirs across the entire modded Dark Mode playthrough (swallow, rook and virga). Alchemy in W3 is even worse, it's so streamlined you may as well have infinite elixirs...

 

[Falksi]

I loved Witcher 2 and thought that the Alchemy did enough to be worth including on Dark Mode.

But there was definitely still room for improvement and I was anticipating Witcher 3 building on that and giving us some real depth in combat off the back of it. I was hoping that every none-popcorn enemy would be something which you had to study and prepare for correctly, or you wouldn't beat. Right oils, potions, traps, rituals, timing etc. The potential was there for such a fantastic game.

Fuck me how they dropped the ball with that. Here's some shitty hack and slash combat instead, beat every enemy with Quen. Wankers.

 

[Maxie]

Look what just released in Proland:

prefer arhn's movie about TW1

 

[BruceVC]

The Witcher 1 had a bizarre tone to it that carried me through the whole game. Gameplay was bad but the whole package was well worth one playthrough. The twist at the end was entertaining, more than glad I didn't spoil that. The Witcher 2 felt like an odd detour that was heavily political but lost some of the appeal. I didn't hate it, but didn't carry away any lasting appreciation for it. Witcher 3 is a solid game that returns to some of the initial game's tone but still remains weaker on the combat side. If anything, the poor combat is my only real dislike of the series. That was never satisfying at any point.

I am a fan of the ladies card collection of Witcher 1.

The Witcher 1 oozed fantastic atmosphere from every orfice. Also had most meaningfull alchemy, meaningfull enemy and herbology studies (lore books were a major expense!). Also one of the best itemizations in any computer game. Few, but meaningful and flavorful equipment upgrades. Certain story events and choices could even unlock certain strong character development options.

Was a fantastic game, even if both the combat and character development leaved a lot to be desired. Group style was unblanced, but very fun and fitting for a professional mutated monster hunter with lightning reflexes. Overall the combat and character development worked decent enough - and the deves proved you can do much worse.

As I mentioned I am currently playing both games now and I will play w3 after W2

W1 was excellent but it had some bad designs and you can see it was the first game from CDPR so its understandable. Some of the combat was very frustrating where you spawn in front of enemies with very little space to manoeuvre

I thought there were more narrative choices in W1 and this applied to side quests as well and W1 provided more side quests outside the main quest

And I like the alchemy in both games but W1 seemed more complex around finding books

I also preferred the Romance options in W1, there were more

But W2 has this grand narrative where you part of this literal change of the entire North and the combat is refined. Both games are great fun but I prefer W2 more than W1

 

[BruceVC]

I loved Witcher 2 and thought that the Alchemy did enough to be worth including on Dark Mode.

But there was definitely still room for improvement and I was anticipating Witcher 3 building on that and giving us some real depth in combat off the back of it. I was hoping that every none-popcorn enemy would be something which you had to study and prepare for correctly, or you wouldn't beat. Right oils, potions, traps, rituals, timing etc. The potential was there for such a fantastic game.

Fuck me how they dropped the ball with that. Here's some shitty hack and slash combat instead, beat every enemy with Quen. Wankers.

Im going to mod the shit out of W3 so I get the best experience around combat and other mechanics

 

[Arthandas]

combat is refined

It's literally the worst combat I have ever experienced in a tpp action game and that's coming from someone who actually likes the game.

 

[BruceVC]

combat is refined

It's literally the worst combat I have ever experienced in a tpp action game and that's coming from someone who actually likes the game.

Im enjoying it more than W1 because its predictable and consistent

There are no examples where I have ended up being immediately attacked in a small room and getting killed straight away or very quickly and that happened several times to me in W1 like with the Beast battle and one battle with the Salamandras around finding there HQ in the first village

The combat becomes easier in W2 but I still prefer the mechanics on Hard

 

[Arthandas]

its predictable and consistent

It's the opposite of that. You can roll behind an enemy to hit him in the back and he can do a one frame 180 and parry your attack, archers can parry your attacks in the middle of weapon swapping animation, you can get hit even if enemy is attacking in a different direction, Geralt will do his long range gap closing attack animations even when in kissing range and short slashes when 3 meters away, you can riposte an enemy and die during the animation, no one in CDPR ever heard of hitboxes, sometimes you can completely block attacks with zero stamina and sometimes you can't even with full stamina and the list goes on and on...

 

[Falksi]

But W2 has this grand narrative where you part of this literal change of the entire North and the combat is refined. Both games are great fun but I prefer W2 more than W1

I love how W2 runs, and I love the fact that you're a man on the run too. it's just something which is rarely done in games (or which I've rarely played anyway), and gave the game a nice fresh feel.

 

[MasPingon]

its predictable and consistent

It's the opposite of that. You can roll behind an enemy to hit him in the back and he can do a one frame 180 and parry your attack, archers can parry your attacks in the middle of weapon swapping animation, you can get hit even if enemy is attacking in a different direction, Geralt will do his long range gap closing attack animations even when in kissing range and short slashes when 3 meters away, you can riposte an enemy and die during the animation, no one in CDPR ever heard of hitboxes, sometimes you can completely block attacks with zero stamina and sometimes you can't even with full stamina and the list goes on and on...

You know what's funny? Back then they wanted to have Dark Souls combat style in The Witcher 2. So they changed the presentation but left the mechanics behind combat from old Aurora Engine games. So there aren't any hitboxes, when enemy takes a swing at you there is just stiking range that counts. If it's 180 degree angle, it will hit you no matter where you are, as long as you are in it's range. W2 combat is an abomination.

 

[Haplo]

And a fucking terrible roll-fest.
Or alternatively Quen abuse.

 

[Arthandas]

You know what's funny? Back then they wanted to have Dark Souls combat style in The Witcher 2. So they changed the presentation but left the mechanics behind combat from old Aurora Engine games. So there aren't any hitboxes, when enemy takes a swing at you there is just stiking range that counts. If it's 180 degree angle, it will hit you no matter where you are, as long as you are in it's range. W2 combat is an abomination.

Exactly! W2 is literally W1 cosplaying as a tpp action game, but animations are just cosmetic since nothing is actually tied to them.
Here's a combat relevant chapter from Joseph's great critique/analysis, that explains this in detail.

 

[Storyfag]

You know what's funny? Back then they wanted to have Dark Souls combat style in The Witcher 2. So they changed the presentation but left the mechanics behind combat from old Aurora Engine games. So there aren't any hitboxes, when enemy takes a swing at you there is just stiking range that counts. If it's 180 degree angle, it will hit you no matter where you are, as long as you are in it's range. W2 combat is an abomination.

Exactly! W2 is literally W1 cosplaying as a tpp action game, but animations are just cosmetic since nothing is actually tied to them.
Here's a combat relevant chapter from Joseph's great critique/analysis, that explains this in detail.

Splendid of you to link it! No discussion of The Witcher games can be complete without Joseph's videos on TW1 and TW2. Damn, I WANT him to finish the one on TW3 already.

 

[Falksi]

You know what's funny? Back then they wanted to have Dark Souls combat style in The Witcher 2. So they changed the presentation but left the mechanics behind combat from old Aurora Engine games. So there aren't any hitboxes, when enemy takes a swing at you there is just stiking range that counts. If it's 180 degree angle, it will hit you no matter where you are, as long as you are in it's range. W2 combat is an abomination.

Exactly! W2 is literally W1 cosplaying as a tpp action game, but animations are just cosmetic since nothing is actually tied to them.
Here's a combat relevant chapter from Joseph's great critique/analysis, that explains this in detail.

Watching that vid really makes me want to play W2 again lol.

Might have to get it booted up.

 

[MasPingon]

You know what's funny? Back then they wanted to have Dark Souls combat style in The Witcher 2. So they changed the presentation but left the mechanics behind combat from old Aurora Engine games. So there aren't any hitboxes, when enemy takes a swing at you there is just stiking range that counts. If it's 180 degree angle, it will hit you no matter where you are, as long as you are in it's range. W2 combat is an abomination.

Exactly! W2 is literally W1 cosplaying as a tpp action game, but animations are just cosmetic since nothing is actually tied to them.
Here's a combat relevant chapter from Joseph's great critique/analysis, that explains this in detail.

Watching that vid really makes me want to play W2 again lol.

Might have to get it booted up.

Yeah, I've watched this dude video and now I'm playing Witcher 1

 

[moon knight]

I knew about this but sadly no images of the 2012/2013 build and cut content, right?

That's a book about they hystory of TW3 development. It would've been more interesting if it had screenshots of the older builds (when the story where different and there were characters, like Blanka or Iorveth, that were later cut)

 

[Gerrard]

its predictable and consistent

It's the opposite of that. You can roll behind an enemy to hit him in the back and he can do a one frame 180 and parry your attack, archers can parry your attacks in the middle of weapon swapping animation, you can get hit even if enemy is attacking in a different direction, Geralt will do his long range gap closing attack animations even when in kissing range and short slashes when 3 meters away, you can riposte an enemy and die during the animation, no one in CDPR ever heard of hitboxes, sometimes you can completely block attacks with zero stamina and sometimes you can't even with full stamina and the list goes on and on...

Wow, that's a lot of words to spell "skill issue".

 

[Old Hans]

I loved Witcher 2 and thought that the Alchemy did enough to be worth including on Dark Mode.

But there was definitely still room for improvement and I was anticipating Witcher 3 building on that and giving us some real depth in combat off the back of it. I was hoping that every none-popcorn enemy would be something which you had to study and prepare for correctly, or you wouldn't beat. Right oils, potions, traps, rituals, timing etc. The potential was there for such a fantastic game.

Fuck me how they dropped the ball with that. Here's some shitty hack and slash combat instead, beat every enemy with Quen. Wankers.

if I remember correctly their original idea for combat for Witcher 3 was going to be similar to that sci-fi dark souls clone "the surge" where you could target body parts, which BTW was a really cool system.

 

[BruceVC]

https://www.eurogamer.net/ever-wondered-what-the-author-of-the-witcher-books-thinks-about-the-games

I have mentioned how much I enjoy the overall narrative and then the narrative choices in all Witcher games and its a big part of the appeal for me

I found this interesting 2012 interview with Sapkowski and he mentions how he is not fan of the narrative direction and outcomes in the games but he recognises how the games are good overall as Witcher products and marketing

""Maybe it's time to set the matters straight," he went on. "'The Witcher' is a well made video game, its success is well deserved and the creators deserve all the splendour and honour due. But in no way can it be considered to be an 'alternative version', nor a 'sequel' to the witcher Geralt stories. Because this can only be told by Geralt's creator. A certain Andrzej Sapkowski."

TBH he comes across as a little bitter and overly critical of the artistic style in the Witcher games if you read the interview

But he is entitled to his opinion as the creator of the original story and we know the games arent canon

 

[Mark Richard]

I'd be bitter in his position too. Sapkowski is the equivalent of a 16th century American native who sold his land to foreigners for a few glass beads, only for it to later turn out the land was worth a fortune because of its strategic value to global powers. After giving up the videogame rights for a minor upfront fee, the videogame industry got bigger than just about every established entertainment medium combined in a very short time. Sapkowski and CD Projekt worked out a new deal in 2019/20 though, so he's finally seeing some of that sweet Witcher 3 money.