Witcher 3 - Review @ The Telegraph

The british newspaper The Telegraph has a review 5/5 for this game. A quote, then:

You're chasing down leads, not racing to stop the apocalypse, and leads take time to develop. In fact, most of the time, the leads themselves create a time-buffer, with whoever you need information from giving you a quest that, by its very nature, takes time to complete. The second is that it serves as a clear entryway into the world that you're stepping into. It's made clear at the beginning of the game that Geralt is not incredibly familiar with the physical and political geography of the places he's searching for Ciri in, through the lands of Velen, Novigrad and Skelliga, and so in your investigation you are able to discover how these places work and what makes them interesting without feeling as though your character knows more than you.

More information.

I read this yesterday and this paragraph alone prompted me to pre-order this game

This sums up EXACTLY what I disliked about W2, to the point where I only played it for 4-5 hours before giving it up. W2 was so front loaded with backstory that I had no clue about, tons of talky-talky dialog about politics that I had no interest in and names I had never heard before. I was making choices for a character who knew what was going on when I only had a bare outline. And no thanks, not going to read a bunch of Polish pulp fiction before playing a game.

Also, I'm sick to death of RPGs plopping you into "OMG Chosen One save the world save the world now now now!"

/my 2 cents

Originally Posted by Ovenall
I read this yesterday and this paragraph alone prompted me to pre-order this game

This sums up EXACTLY what I disliked about W2, to the point where I only played it for 4-5 hours before giving it up

Finished Witcher 1 but never got around to starting Witcher 2. Is it worth skipping and going straight to 3?

Originally Posted by VarleyD
Finished Witcher 1 but never got around to starting Witcher 2. Is it worth skipping and going straight to 3?

Yes. However W2 is very good game and you should play it if you liked W1.

W2 must be played at least twice, because it has a major branch in the storyline at mid-game.

Originally Posted by HiddenX
W2 must be played at least twice, because it has a major branch in the storyline at mid-game.

So true. Also, it should be noted that Roche's path in W2 includes ESSENTIAL story stuff. If you pick Iorveth's path your first playthrough (like I did), you will miss out on huge story elements and not understand many character's motivations. So you really need to play both, and then you need to do both sides of the final big choice in Act 3 or once again you will not understand the full story. Phew…

Anyway, TW2's story is so very impressive once you understand it all. It fits together so nicely…after 2-4 playthroughs.

Originally Posted by Ovenall
This sums up EXACTLY what I disliked about W2, to the point where I only played it for 4-5 hours before giving it up.

snip

Also, I'm sick to death of RPGs plopping you into "OMG Chosen One save the world save the world now now now!"

/my 2 cents

And my 2 cents will be that, after 5 hours of play, you don't know enough of the game to have an opinion. Geralt is also more of a pawn than the chosen one and he doesn't save the world. So your judgement is 100% wrong. Grats!

Originally Posted by zahratustra
And my 2 cents will be that, after 5 hours of play, you don't know enough of the game to have an opinion. Geralt is also more of a pawn than the chosen one and he doesn't save the world. So your judgement is 100% wrong. Grats!

I didn't quit because of the save the world aspect.

I quit because of the tiresome, wordy dialog about stuff I'd never heard of by characters that I don't know. The intro alone was difficult to get through. Again, role-playing a character who knows more about the story than I do was a chore and the combat wasn't rewarding enough for me to get over that. I get that if I had grinded my teeth and played for another 10 hours maybe it would start to hold together more. But it dropped me in the middle of a pulp fiction series without giving me motivation to care about what was happening.

And I'm not about to do reading homework before playing a game just to get through it.

So you are entirely wrong about my position. Grats!

I don't have the stamina to play The Witcher 2 twice.

Originally Posted by Ovenall
I get that if I had grinded my teeth and played for another 10 hours maybe it would start to hold together more. But it dropped me in the middle of a pulp fiction series without giving me motivation to care about what was happening.

And I'm not about to do reading homework before playing a game just to get through it.

So you are entirely wrong about my position. Grats!

I read all of the "pulp fiction" (short stories were a great read!) and I was in no better position then you since those games are based more on the world described in Sapkowski's books and on the books themselves.

Originally Posted by Ovenall
Again, role-playing a character who knows more about the story than I do…

Well… this might come as a shock to you but Geralt also didn't read any of Sapkowski's books. So the whole introduction was there specifically to let you in on the story…

Originally Posted by Ovenall
I'm sick to death of RPGs plopping you into "OMG Chosen One save the world save the world now now now!"

You saying as long it's not RPG, chosenone cliche is good. I bet your best game ever is Bioshock Infinite.

Originally Posted by VarleyD
Finished Witcher 1 but never got around to starting Witcher 2. Is it worth skipping and going straight to 3?

Don't skip the second game! It's not Dragon Age trilogy.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
I don't have the stamina to play The Witcher 2 twice.

That's where crap vids come into consideration. I'm pretty sure someone filmed the whole playthrough. It's not fun to just watch, I bet, but at least you can instaskip grinding parts.

Hey, I just found an excuse to actually watch some Dark Souls playthrough vid! Well, parts of it.

Originally Posted by zahratustra
Well… this might come as a shock to you but Geralt also didn't read any of Sapkowski's books. So the whole introduction was there specifically to let you in on the story…

Geralt knew where he was who all the characters are, what kind of general political events were going on, why he had to kill a bunch of people, etc.

Not saying he knew what was going to happen, but Yeah, you control a guy who is well versed with there world he's in, the characters he's surrounded with from the opening and the game literally plops you into the middle of some war and assumes you care.

I know it's heresy around here to criticize Witcher games. I finished the first one and really liked it. The second one was a test of endurance, and then I realized I'd have a better time reading a book or watching a movie vs. playing it.

And please… 5 hours into a game should be enough for someone to decide if one likes the game.

I love being thrown into the unknown. Keeps me thinking and guessing what is going on. Full resolution of all questlines is not needed either, I love good mysteries. Of course a game needs something to initially engage me. Like a bit fat carrot

Originally Posted by Ovenall
I know it's heresy around here to criticize Witcher games.

It's not. I believe we unanimously agreed that QTE in TW2 suck!

Originally Posted by Ovenall
And please… 5 hours into a game should be enough for someone to decide if one likes the game.

Yes… If it was 50 gigs on HDD Wolfenstein. Because by that time you'd finish it.

If it was Anachronox, it's not enough. You can't even scratch a surface of that game in just 5 hours.

You can, definetly, decide if you like the game start. The whole game? Nah.

Well I have other things to do than play video games that I find dull and un-engaging. It's not like I'm reading Tolstoy, it's a virtual cartoon with a comic book story. These games are pastimes.

5-6 hours and it's not grabbing me? Meh.

Originally Posted by Ovenall
Geralt knew where he was who all the characters are, what kind of general political events were going on, why he had to kill a bunch of people, etc.

Not saying he knew what was going to happen, but Yeah, you control a guy who is well versed with there world he's in, the characters he's surrounded with from the opening and the game literally plops you into the middle of some war and assumes you care.

I know it's heresy around here to criticize Witcher games. I finished the first one and really liked it. The second one was a test of endurance, and then I realized I'd have a better time reading a book or watching a movie vs. playing it.

And please… 5 hours into a game should be enough for someone to decide if one likes the game.

I with you, Ovenall. I played Witcher 2 through the first chapter, but I didn't care for either of the "paths" and would have played totally differently than either choice. Instead I stopped playing and put it back on the shelf. Never have had the desire to retry, though it will happen one day, perhaps. I absolutely loved the first game though, so I'm willing to give 3 a shot.

So Ovenall, you want a game that's great first 5 hours and retarded the rest of it?
There are plenty of those out there. For example overhyped garbage called Destiny.

Sorry, I'd always take an option of boring intro and the spectacular rest of it.

Originally Posted by joxer
There are plenty of those out there. For example overhyped garbage called Destiny.

Never mention Destiny to me. You know how much therapy I need at the mere mention of that trash? But seriously, that is a funny comparison because the Witcher 2 might have one of the most complex, nuanced, and rewarding political stories ever told in a video game. (My top two political fantasy games being Witcher 2 and Tactics Ogre PSP)

For instance, check out this article on the Emperor (which incidentally is a great intro to the Witcher 3, since the Emperor will be a central character I guess. Spoilers for Witcher 2 of course:

http://knightofphoenix.tumblr.com/po…rt-4-emhyr-the

(Can you imagine trying to write an article like this about Destiny? LOLNO)

Ovenall: I had a similar reaction to Witcher 2, except that I couldn't quite put my finger on why I didn't ultimately enjoy it.

I played it for at least 20 hours, past the branching story line, and nothing about the game really grabbed me; it wasn't bad (because then I wouldn't have played it as long as I did), just meh. Same thing with Witcher 1, although I managed to finish that.

So I resolved not to play Witcher 3.

And I broke that resolution after seeing reviews so it is pre-downloading now. Le sigh.

This sums up EXACTLY what I disliked about W2, to the point where I only played it for 4-5 hours before giving it up. W2 was so front loaded with backstory that I had no clue about, tons of talky-talky dialog about politics that I had no interest in and names I had never heard before. I was making choices for a character who knew what was going on when I only had a bare outline. And no thanks, not going to read a bunch of Polish pulp fiction before playing a game.

There is something wrong with a RPG game that gives you a ton of information at the begin and ask you to figure it out. During that time while you are trying to figure it out your choices make some sort of impact.
I much like in life just have everything explained to me….