Witcher 2 Witcher 2: Not really enjoying it so far...

Geez chaps, more necromancy spells upon my poor ol' W2 thread? What manner of evil magic is this?

Curiously enough, I did replay Witcher 2 around this time last year for the Roche path in order to prepare for my Witcher 3 play-through. I probably enjoyed it a little more this time around, as I took on all challenges (i.e did the Letho fight this time) and the whole section in the Kaedweni Camp had some terrific gritty atmosphere and memorable quests.

Witcher 2 isn't just my fave of the series, it's my fave game of all time. The thing is the real quality of the game is in it's depth & plot layers, so you have to trudge through a lot of gumph at first to get to it.

When I first played it I utterly hated it and quit halfway through the 2nd chapter. On return however it finally clicked and wow, what a game. If I had to break it down I'd say around 15 hours hating it to start with, 300 odd hours loving it after.

Tips for those struggling with it:

*Cutscenes. It isn't so much the cutscens which are boring you at the start, it's the lore-specific dialogue which detatches you from everything because so much of it is unfamiliar, and unrelated to what you're doing. If you haven't played The Witcher 1, and have no intention of doing so, then watch these vids as they'll bring you up to speed & make a lot more of the dialogue make sense………

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB_bHqHzhIA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnvT-23ylPk

Look up any lore or dialogue which you aren't familiar with, so that you can immerse yourself.

*The interigation. When asked what happened PICK THE INTERIGATION CHOICES IN THE ORDER THEY ARE PRESENTED top to bottom, otherwise it's confusing. Lord knows why they included this as a choice option.

*The choice. End of chapter 1 you get a choice of allegiance. On first playthrough one choice is a better experience than the other IMO, so make sure that you create a save towards the end of Chapter 1, and don't be afraid to go back and choose a different path if you aren't enjoying the one you're on. Both paths are brilliant IMO, but one of them is definitely better after experiencing the other path, and seeing the other POV's. Remember, this game is about depth, choice & conciquence. Experiencing it once is like only watching New Hope out of all the Star Wars OT.

*Combat. It is a bit shit, but on Dark Mode it does a very key thing - captures the feel of being a Witcher (far better than TW3 IMO) as you have to plan ahead, and prepare way more than in TW3. It forces more roleplaying elements (remember, those things we once had before AAA Open World games dudes? lol). Definitely play on Dark Mode as soon as you feel able too, and make your backstab reductions the first upgrades you get, whatever build you go with.

*Exploration. This is old school chaps. Explore by all means, but it's a game where quests take you down the paths your meant to go on. Exploration does yield rewards mind, just don't think of it as an open world game in any way.

It requires work to enjoy chaps, but IMO it's definitely worth it. The best gaming experiences I've ever had were the 2nd, 3rd & 4th playthrough of this game because of all the choices & conciquences available.

I hated TW3, but it did have far more accessibility for the more casual crowd & I respect that. I'd love to see a 4th Witcher game, with Witcher 3's ease of access combined with Witcher 2's C&C and depth, and not watered down by an Open World either.

W2 is also my favorite Witcher game. Little or no filler and very focused on doing what CDPR does so well.

The prologue is, by far, the heaviest on the cutscenes, and you'll get a lot towards the end too. The rest of the game has nowhere near the same amount. Some people love to exaggerate about the cutscenes in both TW2 and TW3, but talk of "endless cutscenes" is pure bunk.

The QTEs are annoying, but it's also another thing people tend to exaggerate about. There's only a small handful of them in the entire game. Thankfully, CDP listened and did away with those in TW3.

I agree about the soundtrack not being as good, but TW1 is pretty tough to beat in that category.

The chapter 2 eternal battlefield section is worse than the prologue I think. Roughly 30 minutes of content, more than half of which is cutscenes broken up by small playable sections, half of which I'd argue have little to no reason to really exist. I found it incredibly jarring being pulled back and forth between videos and control so quickly and frequently in this section. It just felt very poorly designed.

What makes W2 is the story and the C&C. Totally agree with Maylander here. Create a save for when you choose sides. Going back and playing the other side is highly recommended.

NewDArt said:

W2 is also my favorite Witcher game. Little or no filler and very focused on doing what CDPR does so well.

Click to expand...

If they did a Witcher 4, would you prefer it to be as tighly focussed as TW2, Open World like TW3, or somewhere inbetween?

I always felt that TW3 would have benefitted from being around half the size, and split into chapters rather than done by levels (which essentially did that in a more annoying way anyway)

Falksi said:

If they did a Witcher 4, would you prefer it to be as tighly focussed as TW2, Open World like TW3, or somewhere inbetween?

I always felt that TW3 would have benefitted from being around half the size, and split into chapters rather than done by levels (which essentially did that in a more annoying way anyway)

Click to expand...

Well, I don't think the Witcher games will ever really be my preference in terms of RPGs - because they tend to focus on story and C&C - both of which are secondary to me.

I mean, I love a good story - but that's not my primary interest when it comes to gaming.

Witcher 3 would have been fantastic if they understood the appeal of exploration, loot, progression and a combat system full of meaningful choices.

Unfortunately, CDPR don't seem to really care about the nuances of those things - and W3 ended up feeling like a dialogue simulator with a massive amount of pointless filler.

Ultimately not an ideal combination.

However, if you could combine the writing and production values of Witcher 3 with the ultra freeform approach of Skyrim/Fallout with similarly rich perk/toy oriented character progression - and finally the balance and hand-crafted approach of Gothic - I could probably live with that

NewDArt said:

However, if you could combine the writing and production values of Witcher 3 with the ultra freeform approach of Skyrim/Fallout with similarly rich perk/toy oriented character progression - and finally the balance and hand-crafted approach of Gothic - I could probably live with that

Click to expand...

That's like asking for a hooker with three sets of tits.

JDR13 said:

The prologue is, by far, the heaviest on the cutscenes, and you'll get a lot towards the end too. The rest of the game has nowhere near the same amount. Some people love to exaggerate about the cutscenes in both TW2 and TW3, but talk of "endless cutscenes" is pure bunk.

The QTEs are annoying, but it's also another thing people tend to exaggerate about. There's only a small handful of them in the entire game. Thankfully, CDP listened and did away with those in TW3.

I agree about the soundtrack not being as good, but TW1 is pretty tough to beat in that category.

Click to expand...

Man, really sticks in your craw when I say endless cutscenes doesn’t it? Yes endless is an exaggeration, so is infinite when I use that. I assume though that people will apply a little common sense and realize that I just mean they’re a lot of cutscenes. It can be especially jarring if playing right after the first game due to the difference.

Anyway, so there’s no confusion. The Witcher 2 and 3 don’t have endless cutscenes. The games will eventually end and so will the cutscenes. After hours and hours of cutscenes they will mercifully end.

JDR13 said:

Eh? If you say so bro.

You're giving yourself a little too much credit in thinking I was referring specifically to you.

Click to expand...

Hmm, you quoted endless cutscenes and i was the only one to say specifically that, also you’ve responded in the past when I’ve talked about the “endless cutscenes “ but if you say it wasn’t me you were referring to then it wasn’t me.

sakichop said:

Hmm, you quoted endless cutscenes and i was the only one to say specifically that, also you’ve responded in the past when I’ve talked about the “endless cutscenes “ but if you say it wasn’t me you were referring to then it wasn’t me.

Click to expand...

It seems like someone is craving a little attention today.

I used that term to demonstrate the silliness of some people in general. Who would have known I was literally quoting someone from this thread?

JDR13 said:

It seems like someone is craving a little attention today.

I used that term to demonstrate the silliness of some people in general. Who would have known I was literally quoting someone from this thread?

Click to expand...

Yes attention from random Internet personalities, that’s what I need more of.:lol:

sakichop said:

Yes attention from random Internet personalities, that’s what I need more of.:lol:

Click to expand...

Personality? Now you're giving me too much credit.

Witcher 3 the dialogue simulator having endless talky sequences? No, that’s unheard of

Only the most rabid fan would struggle to admit that.

*kisses*

Awe.. projection is just so damn cute.

NewDArt said:

Well, I don't think the Witcher games will ever really be my preference in terms of RPGs - because they tend to focus on story and C&C - both of which are secondary to me.

I mean, I love a good story - but that's not my primary interest when it comes to gaming.

Witcher 3 would have been fantastic if they understood the appeal of exploration, loot, progression and a combat system full of meaningful choices.

Unfortunately, CDPR don't seem to really care about the nuances of those things - and W3 ended up feeling like a dialogue simulator with a massive amount of pointless filler.

Ultimately not an ideal combination.

However, if you could combine the writing and production values of Witcher 3 with the ultra freeform approach of Skyrim/Fallout with similarly rich perk/toy oriented character progression - and finally the balance and hand-crafted approach of Gothic - I could probably live with that

Click to expand...

"W3 ended up feeling like a dialogue simulator with a massive amount of pointless filler." really hits the nail on the head for me. So many dialogue options were utterly pointless, and did nothing but spout more information. Rarely did it enage me.

Personally I to much prefer the Gothic/Morrowind approach to Open Worlds, and found Skyrim to be way too shallow & "arcadey" to get immersed in.

It's a tough ask to appease everyone, but I'm sure there's a balance in there. I think Dragon Age:Origins is criminally overlooked as a game which combined both casual & hardcore elements superbly, so it would be nice if future AAA games could balance things out more with Open World gaming too.

It'd also help if they sold/hyped these games right too. Again using TW3 as an example, I was told "THIS is how you do open worlds" by many a reviewer, youtuber & poster. Yet the open world I experience I got in TW3 was one of the worst I've ever had. There may be good elements to the game itself, but after playing through the game twice just to make sure I'd missed nowt, I can't remember a single memorable thing of value which I discovered. Whereas in say Morrowind I could reel a list off. Even standard weapons felt significant because of how the game was structured.

I loved DA:O - though I didn't care for the limited character and loot systems. Also, it was not what I would consider a "true" open world game, but otherwise it was excellent.

Can't say I think much of Morrowind - except that it was extremely pretty upon release. I found most of the mechanics terrible - and the combat system of literally clicking one button from start to finish utterly void of appeal.

However, I know it's very popular among RPG fans - and that's what it all comes down to, differing preferences.

Skyrim had its share of flaws, for sure - but it hit all the right notes for me in terms of exploration and freeform gameplay. I love that I can be a stealth archer - for instance, and build him exactly how I like. I love the perks - and how each level felt like real progression with a nice tangible reward. That's my kind of progression - where as games like Witcher 3 felt almost void of such things, beyond the handful of actual spell upgrades.

Overall, I think all these games have merit and I can see the good and bad parts.

We all respond differently to different things.

To me, Witcher 2 was powerful because I felt the pacing was strong - and though it wasn't much of an RPG in terms of mechanics, what was there worked - and combat felt just right to me.

But it was the writing and the presentation that really stood out.

Witcher 3 was no different in those two ways, and it was even more impressive in terms of presentation. It's just that the experience got bogged down with ultra repetitive gameplay.

Probably didn't need to be that way - as you don't have to do anything but quests. I wish I'd realised that's the way to play it going in.

Still, I think it was too big for its own good no matter what. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing, and it's all but impossible to keep the emotional momentum throughout 100+ hours of questing.

But that's me, and I'm obviously in the minority where W3 is concerned.

I hated Dragon Age. Woeful balance issues favoring magic above all and shutting off region access because you decide to travel. Quality game with unforgivable flaws for me

NewDArt said:

I loved DA:O - though I didn't care for the limited character and loot systems. Also, it was not what I would consider a "true" open world game, but otherwise it was excellent.

Can't say I think much of Morrowind - except that it was extremely pretty upon release. I found most of the mechanics terrible - and the combat system of literally clicking one button from start to finish utterly void of appeal.

However, I know it's very popular among RPG fans - and that's what it all comes down to, differing preferences.

Skyrim had its share of flaws, for sure - but it hit all the right notes for me in terms of exploration and freeform gameplay. I love that I can be a stealth archer - for instance, and build him exactly how I like. I love the perks - and how each level felt like real progression with a nice tangible reward. That's my kind of progression - where as games like Witcher 3 felt almost void of such things, beyond the handful of actual spell upgrades.

Overall, I think all these games have merit and I can see the good and bad parts.

We all respond differently to different things.

To me, Witcher 2 was powerful because I felt the pacing was strong - and though it wasn't much of an RPG in terms of mechanics, what was there worked - and combat felt just right to me.

But it was the writing and the presentation that really stood out.

Witcher 3 was no different in those two ways, and it was even more impressive in terms of presentation. It's just that the experience got bogged down with ultra repetitive gameplay.

Probably didn't need to be that way - as you don't have to do anything but quests. I wish I'd realised that's the way to play it going in.

Still, I think it was too big for its own good no matter what. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing, and it's all but impossible to keep the emotional momentum throughout 100+ hours of questing.

But that's me, and I'm obviously in the minority where W3 is concerned.

Click to expand...

Lot of good points in there mate. I agree about Morrowind's combat too, what nailed it for me was the world. It just sucked me in massively. Skyrim I found enjoyable, just shallow & cliche. If they can take the best of both those games for TES6 I'll be very happy. The main thing is I really hope that they set TES6 in an alien world, with unfamiliar locations & enemies, some of which are very rare/hard to find. That's what the best Open World games do for me - always give you a feeling of discovery, and uncertainty what lay around the next corner. And that's where TW3 failed so badly IMO.

And like you say, when it comes to story driven RPGs, pacing is everything, and I agree with you totally on TW3's. There was simply too much which bogged it down.

Open World's have a place, but I think they've been forced into too many games lately, and that a lot of devs don't understand the art behind making an interesting one.

ToddMcF2002 said:

I hated Dragon Age. Woeful balance issues favoring magic above all and shutting off region access because you decide to travel. Quality game with unforgivable flaws for me

Click to expand...

The Warrior class did lack big time. All it needed were a few AOE powers to make it more interesting too.

But Duel Weild Rogue definitely had a place. Mage is still prob top of the tree, but DWR not far behind.