Anyone else thing this is just OK?

Hmm, it's been a while. I seem to remember nearing what would inevitably be the end, unless there's some sort of twist and the game is actually 200 hours long. I remember doing the outskirts, first district of the city (had sewers and what not in it) and second district (trade quarter or so?). Can't recall much beyond that district, except that it was the last I saw of the city itself. If the character ever revisits the city, it is further than I got.

That's certainly far enough to get a good feel for what the game has to offer. It's clearly not for you.

Originally Posted by Maylander
- The combat system. PJ mentioned it as a "love" or "hate" system. I'm one of the people who can't stand it. It tries desperately to seem more complex than it really is, but ends up being annoying, as the complexity/challenge comes exclusively from the actual system, and not from the enemies.

Not sure what to say there, I didn't feel that way at all. I would probably have preferred fuller control over the melee combat (no "timed" swings) , but I had no problems with the way they did it, and the challenge for me definitely came from the enemies, not the system.

Originally Posted by Maylander
- The game progress. Baldur's Gate 1, released over 10 years ago, managed to have a fairly open world despite a good story. Might & Magic managed the same even earlier. I see no reason at all why games should ever choose the simple solution and constantly shut down the areas you've already visited.

It doesn't shut down previous areas, you can revisit anywhere until you progress to the next chapter. It doesn't have a sandbox style open world, but then I don't feel that every game should.

Originally Posted by Maylander
- The "class system". What class system? Sure, you can focus on slightly different areas, but all in all, you still have to be "jack of all trades", and combat always feels the same.

I don't understand your complaint there, they never advertised any type of "class system".

Originally Posted by JDR13
Not sure what to say there, I didn't feel that way at all. I would probably have preferred fuller control over the melee combat (no "timed" swings) , but I had no problems with the way they did it, and the challenge for me definitely came from the enemies, not the system.

It's a matter of taste I presume.

Originally Posted by JDR13
It doesn't shut down previous areas, you can revisit anywhere until you progress to the next chapter. It doesn't have a sandbox style open world, but then I don't feel that every game should.

That's what I meant by previous area. Area 1: Outskirt, area 2: First part of the city. Etc. Very few RPGs are built like this, even when they're chapter based (there may be parts of it where you don't have access to previous regions, but most of the time it's not like that).

Originally Posted by JDR13
I don't understand your complaint there, they never advertised any type of "class system".

Never said they did, nor that I was disappointed by delivery compared to promise. I simply don't like the character development, as every combat type is needed no matter what you decide to focus on.

Can't recall any RPGs I would rate highly that had a character development system that affected as little as the one in The Witcher.

Originally Posted by Maylander
It's a matter of taste I presume.

Fair enough . Although your original statement seemed to imply that there was something inherently broken there.

Originally Posted by Maylander
Very few RPGs are built like this, even when they're chapter based (there may be parts of it where you don't have access to previous regions, but most of the time it's not like that).

That's exactly my point, I don't want every RPG I play to be the same in that regard. They took a chance and did something different, which is what more devs need to start doing, rather than using the same cookie cutter sandbox template that keeps getting used over and over.

Originally Posted by Maylander
Never said they did, nor that I was disappointed by delivery compared to promise. I simply don't like the character development, as every combat type is needed no matter what you decide to focus on.

Well, the way you wrote - The "class system". What class system? it did kind of seem like you were implying something was missing.

You can only gain enough experience in one playthrough to specialize in 2 out of the 6 magic signs, and they're all quite different. As far as sword style goes, yes you need them all eventually, but not in any one battle. I fail to see how that is a negative.

As much as I disagree with Maylander about WoW - I have to say he's on to something with The Witcher

In many traditionally strong areas for CRPGs - namely combat and character mechanics, it was severely disappointing and it was as if the developers had no clue as to how to satisfy gamers who're into that sort of thing.

The character development UI - while certainly beautiful - was a jumbled mess. The same thing goes for the journal. It's as if they wanted to express themselves artistically more than make it pleasant and functional. Later patches improved certain aspects, like the originally HORRIBLY restrictive inventory - but it's obvious they didn't spend much time making the experience fluid.

But you can't please everyone

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
In many traditionally strong areas for CRPGs - namely combat and character mechanics, it was severely disappointing and it was as if the developers had no clue as to how to satisfy gamers who're into that sort of thing.

The impression I got was that they didn't even attempt to satisfy gamers who are into that sort of thing. They set out to create an action-RPG built around a specific character. In that, IMO, they succeeded rather well — the biggest problem was with the difficulty levels. As in, at anything less than Hard, combat became a mechanical matter of looking for the flaming sword icon and then clicking (well, almost). I don't think it's quite fair to fault them for that, any more than faulting, say, Star Wars: A New Hope for not attempting to cater to people who want the psychological depth, complex cinematography, and refined ideas of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

The character development UI - while certainly beautiful - was a jumbled mess. The same thing goes for the journal. It's as if they wanted to express themselves artistically more than make it pleasant and functional. Later patches improved certain aspects, like the originally HORRIBLY restrictive inventory - but it's obvious they didn't spend much time making the experience fluid.

But you can't please everyone

As you say — I liked all of these well enough, even the inventory — compared to NWN 1 and 2, for example, it worked very well for me.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
The impression I got was that they didn't even attempt to satisfy gamers who are into that sort of thing. They set out to create an action-RPG built around a specific character. In that, IMO, they succeeded rather well — the biggest problem was with the difficulty levels. As in, at anything less than Hard, combat became a mechanical matter of looking for the flaming sword icon and then clicking (well, almost). I don't think it's quite fair to fault them for that, any more than faulting, say, Star Wars: A New Hope for not attempting to cater to people who want the psychological depth, complex cinematography, and refined ideas of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I don't actually fault them for anything, as I don't know their motives.

I liked SW:ANH as a child, but I would probably have issues with it if it was released today. But I wouldn't fault Lucas as such, except to say that his movies are crap in my opinion - assuming it'd be like his new trilogy.

I despise 2001, so there

I'm just saying it didn't work for me - and I naturally assume that when you fill a game with combat, your intention is that such activity should be entertaining and even somewhat challenging. If that was not their intention, then naturally it could be just as it should.

As for the Hard difficulty thing, that may well be - but if that's the case, they should probably have given different names - such as "casual" or "hardcore" or something along those lines, because "normal" indicates (to me, anyway) the way the game was meant to be played. It's kinda like the developers vision, though I'm well aware most developers today skew balance towards the easier side - but they can't very well expect us to guess their intentions.

As you say — I liked all of these well enough, even the inventory — compared to NWN 1 and 2, for example, it worked very well for me.

I think the NWN1 UI is excellent, and certainly MUCH superior to The Witcher in pretty much every way. Then again, I know it received a lot of criticism, but I never understood that. They were extremely generous with hotbars and everything was smooth - and the inventory was very large and in my opinion worked really, really well.

NWN2 was slow and cumbersome, and I think the icons they used were downright awful. Maybe if they spent less time changing things that didn't need to be changed, and more time actually polishing content - the game would have been more fulfilling overall.

However, to each his own

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I'm just saying it didn't work for me - and I naturally assume that when you fill a game with combat, your intention is that such activity should be entertaining and even somewhat challenging. If that was not their intention, then naturally it could be just as it should.

They didn't just fill it with combat though, not more so than most crpgs anyways. I'd say the time spent in combat, compared to doing other things, is probably a bit less than most.

As far as it being entertaining and challenging…. it is.

Originally Posted by JDR13
They didn't just fill it with combat though, not more so than most crpgs anyways. I'd say the time spent in combat, compared to doing other things, is probably a bit less than most.

The game is great for what it is, no disagreements there. It's just not for me.

It's obviously a linear story driven game - which is typically not my kind of game, unless there are things to keep my interest level high aside from on-rails storytelling.

I felt like I was in combat quite a lot, and I felt it wasn't something I looked forward to as I think it should have been.

As far as it being entertaining and challenging…. it is.

No!

My no is more powerful than your yes!

Someday you will try The Witcher again….


…and you WILL like it!

Originally Posted by JDR13
Someday you will try The Witcher again….


…and you WILL like it!

That's the plan, actually

I haven't played since my first playthrough … hopefully I will love it as much when I finally get around to replaying.

For the record, I didn't like the demo at all, and wasn't planning on ever getting the full game.. It was only after several people convinced me to try it again that I discovered how good (imo) that it actually was.

Originally Posted by txa1265
I haven't played since my first playthrough … hopefully I will love it as much when I finally get around to replaying.

I played it through three times, and I probably enjoyed my second playthrough the most. I got a bit lost in Chapter 2 in my first one -- there were rather too many WTF??? moments with the overly-convoluted murder mystery plot, which I did in the 'wrong' order. The second time around was a much smoother experience, playing at Hard was more enjoyable, and there were enough significant branches in the storyline that the game felt fresh and kept surprising me.