[tiam]

Aptorius, on 14 August 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

EDIT: On another note I am currently some where in the first act of the Witcher 2. Initial impressions is that this may be the best videogame I have ever played, at least in terms of realised ambition. Also holy shit this is going to take my a long time to finish. I've been playing it for 4 days and it seems I am hardly making a dent in the progress. Of course this might also be because I am spending a ton of time exploring and getting acquainted with the mechanics. I think I might end up playing through the game on easy because I am finding the combat system somewhat frustrating. Deep and rewarding yes but also downright impossible at times.

This is what I found. I bought the special edition based solely on the reviews of this site. I found the combat incredibly frustrating. At first I thought it was because I was awful at the swordplay but I got as far Letho using both bombs throwing knives etc. I might actually just play it on easy as you say. I got as far as the choice between Iorveth and Roche but have no idea what I chose. I have to start again anyway.

[Aptorian]

I like that the combat is "realistic" in the sense that, if you fuck up you get punished and probably die in a split second, but it gets a bit tedious at times. Oh look, you've been surrounded. We wont give you an ability to fight multiple opponents at once before you unlock it, so better start rolling and hope you don't get bodychecked by an angry troll. Or when you miss-time a swing and suddenly that one punch takes away 2/3 of your health bar.

Eh, I am getting better at the combat so I'll continue with it for while. I've tried setting it on easy and then it feels almost too easy, you hardly even need to apply potions or oils to win a fight.

[Morgoth]

I lost a lot of enjoyment by playing TW2 straight after I had finished Dark Souls. The combat system in The Witcher is pretty good, but compared to Dark Souls it feels slow and clumsy.

[Rictus]

Yeah, the combat is frustrating, to say the least. The worst of it is being forced to fight in really small, crowded places, such as that bloody fight for Seltkirk's armour (I think) in a chamber shared with like five or six enemies, oh and the asylum at the beginning, too.
As for that trailer. I'm not sure I grasp why Geralt refrained from using his sword on the soldiers, when moments later he cut them to ribbons. . .

[Traveller]

I don't remember having that many problems with the combat - except for thinking at the time that it just wasn't as solid as DS's. That said, I was still flipping around the screen, blasting people over ledges and hacking the rest up fairly easily. It really lets you take on a crowd and win with a bit of style.

My main beef was that despite all the equipment options, power-ups, ingredients and spells, you could get through the game using only a handfull of moves. New swords became available just as harder enemies appeared, making the 'upgrades' impact almost nil. And I ended the game with stacks of unused materials I'd been hoarding, and that was after building armour and traps and anything else I wanted. I suppose that because I explored absolutely everything, I got all the necessary upgrades earlier than if I hadn't, which may have helped.

I enjoyed it all; especially the bigger battle scenes, and the ability to take on multiple enemies at once with relative ease once you learn a few good combos of spells and moves.

Really looking forward to how W3 will turn out.

This post has been edited by Traveller: 15 August 2013 - 08:20 PM

[Gothos]

Traveller, on 15 August 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

My main beef was that despite all the equipment options, power-ups, ingredients and spells, you could get through the game using only a handfull of moves. New swords became available just as harder enemies appeared, making the 'upgrades' impact almost nil. And I ended the game with stacks of unused materials I'd been hoarding, and that was after building armour and traps and anything else I wanted. I suppose that because I explored absolutely everything, I got all the necessary upgrades earlier than if I hadn't, which may have helped.

Tried Dark Mode?

[Mentalist]

Gothos, on 15 August 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

Traveller, on 15 August 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

My main beef was that despite all the equipment options, power-ups, ingredients and spells, you could get through the game using only a handfull of moves. New swords became available just as harder enemies appeared, making the 'upgrades' impact almost nil. And I ended the game with stacks of unused materials I'd been hoarding, and that was after building armour and traps and anything else I wanted. I suppose that because I explored absolutely everything, I got all the necessary upgrades earlier than if I hadn't, which may have helped.

Tried Dark Mode?

for PC gamers, there's also the combat rebalance mod done by one of the devs in their spare time...

[Traveller]

I liked it, but not enough to go back through it again on a different mode. No spare time for gaming at the moment either - when I do get a chance, I play an hour or two of 'The Last of Us' but that's it.

[Defiance]

I think I'll have to check out the combat rebalance mod if I play through it again. I blew through Hard mode with ridiculous ease. The first part of the game was actually the most difficult. Once I got a few abilities powered up I was an untouchable whirlwind of silver and steel.

[Defiance]

https://www.youtube....h?v=hJlkMAZTEPI

Can't. Fucking. Wait.

This post has been edited by Defiance: 05 June 2014 - 06:42 PM

[Dadding]

I just beat the first Witcher and I'm making my way through the second. Really enjoying it so far. I haven't been able to stop watching the trailers / gameplay videos for the third - I'm not even done and I need more Witcher! What I don't understand though, is why everyone mentions 'mature' and 'complex' in relation to the game. Sure there's violence and nudity and sexual themes, but don't those exist in the majority of games nowadays? Don't get me wrong, I love the Witcher, I haven't even finished the series and it's already amongst my all-time favorite games. But the plot is pretty simple to follow: Monster hunter loses his memory, meets up with old friends, stops an uprising, and gets to the bottom of the kingslayer issue so he isn't framed.

I'm not trying to say that to sound superior or condescending or anything, we've all read MBOTF here, so I know all of you folks are smart people who enjoy an engaging story. I'm just thinking that 'mature' and 'complex' get thrown around too much and that we're forgetting what the Witcher really is: a fun game with a lot of potential.

This post has been edited by Dadding: 19 June 2014 - 07:49 AM

[Aptorian]

You don't find the story lines and the character interaction mature? I agree that the Witcher games are immature at times and there are cases of videogame tropes sneaking into the storytelling, but the themes, the choices, the motivations are all very mature in my opinion. Geralt isn't just you typical dumb protagonist, there's both subtlety, humor and skill involved in the way he addresses a situation.

[Gothos]

Well, for one, TW2 has just about the only serious choice system in gaming right now. Forget Mass Effect and Dragon Age morality/rivalry systems, that's all still coloured point systems that reward going all the way with one option only. TW2 choices are more ambiguous and you can't really say if one's the good guy way and the other is the bad guy way. In that, it's a lot more mature and complex than pretty much anything in the genre. I'm anxious to see how they approach and continue that in the new game.

I also need a new GPU. Donations, anyone?

[Gothos]

Traveller, on 15 August 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

I liked it, but not enough to go back through it again on a different mode. No spare time for gaming at the moment either - when I do get a chance, I play an hour or two of 'The Last of Us' but that's it.

Oh and this - Dark Mode is HARD. Well, not Nintendo hard, but it's hard in the sense that it rewards proper gameplay considerably. It's similar to how things were in S.T.A.L.K.E.R., higher difficulty means EVERYONE hits a lot, lot harder - including you, it seems. So if you know how to dance around and control the battlefield, you get that awesome feeling you did things right. If you misstep, you're fucked. As much that getting hit by one of the small guys, nekkers, takes like 1/3-1/2 of your hp if you don't invest heavily in the swordsmanship tree. Makes you really want to be prepared. I was actually unable to finish the game in Dark Mode so far, as it would seem there are places in the game you're seriously forced into close quarters combat in a confined space, and magic tree doesn't support that enough. I perished a zillion times in Act 3 sewers. I might go back to this as Swordsman (which is my fav anyway, always been).

[Dadding]

Apt Hoc, on 19 June 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

You don't find the story lines and the character interaction mature? I agree that the Witcher games are immature at times and there are cases of videogame tropes sneaking into the storytelling, but the themes, the choices, the motivations are all very mature in my opinion. Geralt isn't just you typical dumb protagonist, there's both subtlety, humor and skill involved in the way he addresses a situation.

I don't know, I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure if I can get on-board. There are some mature themes, that I agree with, but most games have mature themes. Fallout concerns itself with the inner human brutality, Dishonored contemplates wrongful accusation and clearing your name (much like The Witcher), Dark Souls deals with hopelessness, Portal 2 with imprisonment and perseverance. But are his motivations really mature? He tries not to kill people, unless they get in his way, and he tries to maintain his famous neutrality, though he often fails at that.

I guess I'm just arguing semantics, there's a lot of choice in The Witcher, I just don't find it's more or less mature than any other game on the market. And the argument for its maturity is often its violence and nudity.

Gothos, on 19 June 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

Well, for one, TW2 has just about the only serious choice system in gaming right now. Forget Mass Effect and Dragon Age morality/rivalry systems, that's all still coloured point systems that reward going all the way with one option only. TW2 choices are more ambiguous and you can't really say if one's the good guy way and the other is the bad guy way. In that, it's a lot more mature and complex than pretty much anything in the genre. I'm anxious to see how they approach and continue that in the new game.

I also need a new GPU. Donations, anyone?

I think this is a good way to put it. Its decision-making system is ambiguous and far-reaching. And there is some moral ambiguity, so I'll give you that. So yes, it is relatively complex, you've convinced me.

This post has been edited by Dadding: 19 June 2014 - 04:36 PM

[Mentalist]

Dadding, on 19 June 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

I just beat the first Witcher and I'm making my way through the second. Really enjoying it so far. I haven't been able to stop watching the trailers / gameplay videos for the third - I'm not even done and I need more Witcher! What I don't understand though, is why everyone mentions 'mature' and 'complex' in relation to the game. Sure there's violence and nudity and sexual themes, but don't those exist in the majority of games nowadays? Don't get me wrong, I love the Witcher, I haven't even finished the series and it's already amongst my all-time favorite games. But the plot is pretty simple to follow: Monster hunter loses his memory, meets up with old friends, stops an uprising, and gets to the bottom of the kingslayer issue so he isn't framed.

I'm not trying to say that to sound superior or condescending or anything, we've all read MBOTF here, so I know all of you folks are smart people who enjoy an engaging story. I'm just thinking that 'mature' and 'complex' get thrown around too much and that we're forgetting what the Witcher really is: a fun game with a lot of potential.

Well, one reason is the fact that it's not "monster". Sorry, but familiarity with source material helps. Witchers are mutants--humans mutated to become what they are to protect humanity from monsters.

One of the biggest undelrlying themes of the first games is "how do witchers fit into a new world?" there's a great piece of conversation in Act 2 with Ziegfried, where he plain out says "we (the Knights) are doing your job and more... you are obsolete".

Add to that the fact that majority of TW1 choices are true grey and grey morality. Salamanders are evil-that's about the only thing that's truly established. Which side you pick in a ridiculous racial conflict (if you've read "The last Wish", there's one short story that specifically adresses the issue of Blue Mountains elves--they CHOOSE to proudly stay on their infertile "reservations" and starve to death, resorting to raiding, rhather than mix with "an inferior species"), or solving domestic siputes, or human-vodyanoy conflict. EACH side has legitimate grievances--there's no "right" answer--that's the message the game stresses. Unlike say, ME where there is a "paragon" and "renegade" option, In the Witcher you make choices based on what you know about characters, and who you find more likeable--it's a far more "organic" way to tell the story.

As far as i'm concerned, TW2's only failing in accounting for TW1's choices is ignoring the option of choosing Shani over T'riss. I've played through TW1 about 4 or 5 times, now, and i've done that once. Shani's dialogue afterwards made me feel genuinely ashamed of my choice in a game-because it was plain as day that Geralt would not be a good family man. It helped that I played the game in Russian, which has MUCH better voiceovers (TV-level actors doing it).

In general, TW's political story is often described as "Game of Thrones-y", and dismissed as such-being an imitationa nd an attempt to cash in on ASOIAF's sudden popularity. I feel this misses the main point. The reason the Witcher Books (and games) had such an appeal is because the main characters never AIM to control the events--their only desire is to survive all the political and military garbage going on around them, and protect those they care about. Geralt is different from johny everyman protagonist, because he is "the chosen one" who is actively RUNNING AWAY from his "destiny". TW2 did not really convey that well-but this break with book canon is also set up in TW1, where Geralt is actively encouraged to abandon his neutrality and start to take sides. And the big choice in TW2 is really the penunltimate point of that--from this point on, it's purely CDPRed's Geralt, no longer hiding in the shadows of Sapkowski's Geralt.

It's a big question how well TW3 is able to handle this theme. But it is precisely this-"always choosing between two evils, The Blade of destiny has 2 edges", and being the unwitting herald of Death while trying to resist this fate--that make Geralt such a compelling character for me.

[Dadding]

Mentalist, on 19 June 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

Well, one reason is the fact that it's not "monster". Sorry, but familiarity with source material helps. Witchers are mutants--humans mutated to become what they are to protect humanity from monsters.

Not sure what you mean here, I'm aware that Geralt is a mutant, but does he not fight monsters? i.e. he's a monster hunter?

Mentalist, on 19 June 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

One of the biggest undelrlying themes of the first games is "how do witchers fit into a new world?" there's a great piece of conversation in Act 2 with Ziegfried, where he plain out says "we (the Knights) are doing your job and more... you are obsolete".

Add to that the fact that majority of TW1 choices are true grey and grey morality. Salamanders are evil-that's about the only thing that's truly established. Which side you pick in a ridiculous racial conflict (if you've read "The last Wish", there's one short story that specifically adresses the issue of Blue Mountains elves--they CHOOSE to proudly stay on their infertile "reservations" and starve to death, resorting to raiding, rhather than mix with "an inferior species"), or solving domestic siputes, or human-vodyanoy conflict. EACH side has legitimate grievances--there's no "right" answer--that's the message the game stresses. Unlike say, ME where there is a "paragon" and "renegade" option, In the Witcher you make choices based on what you know about characters, and who you find more likeable--it's a far more "organic" way to tell the story.

As far as i'm concerned, TW2's only failing in accounting for TW1's choices is ignoring the option of choosing Shani over T'riss. I've played through TW1 about 4 or 5 times, now, and i've done that once. Shani's dialogue afterwards made me feel genuinely ashamed of my choice in a game-because it was plain as day that Geralt would not be a good family man. It helped that I played the game in Russian, which has MUCH better voiceovers (TV-level actors doing it).

In general, TW's political story is often described as "Game of Thrones-y", and dismissed as such-being an imitationa nd an attempt to cash in on ASOIAF's sudden popularity. I feel this misses the main point. The reason the Witcher Books (and games) had such an appeal is because the main characters never AIM to control the events--their only desire is to survive all the political and military garbage going on around them, and protect those they care about. Geralt is different from johny everyman protagonist, because he is "the chosen one" who is actively RUNNING AWAY from his "destiny". TW2 did not really convey that well-but this break with book canon is also set up in TW1, where Geralt is actively encouraged to abandon his neutrality and start to take sides. And the big choice in TW2 is really the penunltimate point of that--from this point on, it's purely CDPRed's Geralt, no longer hiding in the shadows of Sapkowski's Geralt.

It's a big question how well TW3 is able to handle this theme. But it is precisely this-"always choosing between two evils, The Blade of destiny has 2 edges", and being the unwitting herald of Death while trying to resist this fate--that make Geralt such a compelling character for me.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. It's a great game, with some tough choices, and Geralt is an interesting guy. The 'choice' system in the Witcher is really unparalleled.

[Mentalist]

Dadding, on 19 June 2014 - 10:58 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 19 June 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

Well, one reason is the fact that it's not "monster". Sorry, but familiarity with source material helps. Witchers are mutants--humans mutated to become what they are to protect humanity from monsters.

Not sure what you mean here, I'm aware that Geralt is a mutant, but does he not fight monsters? i.e. he's a monster hunter?

Mentalist, on 19 June 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

One of the biggest undelrlying themes of the first games is "how do witchers fit into a new world?" there's a great piece of conversation in Act 2 with Ziegfried, where he plain out says "we (the Knights) are doing your job and more... you are obsolete".

Add to that the fact that majority of TW1 choices are true grey and grey morality. Salamanders are evil-that's about the only thing that's truly established. Which side you pick in a ridiculous racial conflict (if you've read "The last Wish", there's one short story that specifically adresses the issue of Blue Mountains elves--they CHOOSE to proudly stay on their infertile "reservations" and starve to death, resorting to raiding, rhather than mix with "an inferior species"), or solving domestic siputes, or human-vodyanoy conflict. EACH side has legitimate grievances--there's no "right" answer--that's the message the game stresses. Unlike say, ME where there is a "paragon" and "renegade" option, In the Witcher you make choices based on what you know about characters, and who you find more likeable--it's a far more "organic" way to tell the story.

As far as i'm concerned, TW2's only failing in accounting for TW1's choices is ignoring the option of choosing Shani over T'riss. I've played through TW1 about 4 or 5 times, now, and i've done that once. Shani's dialogue afterwards made me feel genuinely ashamed of my choice in a game-because it was plain as day that Geralt would not be a good family man. It helped that I played the game in Russian, which has MUCH better voiceovers (TV-level actors doing it).

In general, TW's political story is often described as "Game of Thrones-y", and dismissed as such-being an imitationa nd an attempt to cash in on ASOIAF's sudden popularity. I feel this misses the main point. The reason the Witcher Books (and games) had such an appeal is because the main characters never AIM to control the events--their only desire is to survive all the political and military garbage going on around them, and protect those they care about. Geralt is different from johny everyman protagonist, because he is "the chosen one" who is actively RUNNING AWAY from his "destiny". TW2 did not really convey that well-but this break with book canon is also set up in TW1, where Geralt is actively encouraged to abandon his neutrality and start to take sides. And the big choice in TW2 is really the penunltimate point of that--from this point on, it's purely CDPRed's Geralt, no longer hiding in the shadows of Sapkowski's Geralt.

It's a big question how well TW3 is able to handle this theme. But it is precisely this-"always choosing between two evils, The Blade of destiny has 2 edges", and being the unwitting herald of Death while trying to resist this fate--that make Geralt such a compelling character for me.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. It's a great game, with some tough choices, and Geralt is an interesting guy. The 'choice' system in the Witcher is really unparalleled.

ok, the first part was because I missed the word "hunter" in your reply. ignore that plz.

The wall of text is in answer to your question what gives the Witcher games the epithet "mature". And my answer was-the themes the game's narrative adresses, (which are difficult from your average "save the world from the Dark Ones") and the way the choice system is designed to be intuitive rather than "gamey". in most games, you make choices because you expect a reward, or because you know picking one way will affect the way the game's systems will react (karma meters, paragon/renegade scale, like/dislike). In the Witcher, there is no such clear-cut system, but there are likely to be narrative consequences. The move away from "gamey" to"organic" is what makes this series more "mature" in my eyes.

[Dadding]

Mentalist, on 20 June 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

ok, the first part was because I missed the word "hunter" in your reply. ignore that plz.

The wall of text is in answer to your question what gives the Witcher games the epithet "mature". And my answer was-the themes the game's narrative adresses, (which are difficult from your average "save the world from the Dark Ones") and the way the choice system is designed to be intuitive rather than "gamey". in most games, you make choices because you expect a reward, or because you know picking one way will affect the way the game's systems will react (karma meters, paragon/renegade scale, like/dislike). In the Witcher, there is no such clear-cut system, but there are likely to be narrative consequences. The move away from "gamey" to"organic" is what makes this series more "mature" in my eyes.

Witcher does a great job of separating choices from rewards and making your choices have an impact, but I don't see how this leads to a mature game. It leads to a fun, unpredictable game. I find myself putting less thought into what choices I make in the Witcher compared to other games. In The Witcher, I know that there's no Karma or similar system, so I just pick what I would do myself. In other games, I spend hours on the wiki determining what gives me the best items, what kind of character I want to build, etc. The Witcher doesn't have a good or evil build per se so I don't have to worry about that. But the heart of the matter is, putting thought into your choices or not does not a mature game make. I put a lot of thought into my turns in the game Worms, and I think about how I'm going to take out enemies in Call of Duty campaigns, but I wouldn't consider either of them terribly mature.

Organic is a great way to describe Witcher, because it doesn't speak to the maturity level, it speaks to actual game-play. All I'm saying is that while Witcher may be the leader in decision-making or story lines affected by your choices, but I don't think it's a super mature gaming experience. At the end of the day, Geralt is still a hyped-up super human (or mutant, whatever you want to call him) out to save the world (be it saving kings, catching a king killer, or stopping a revolt single handedly), there are still characters that are treated as evil (Wild Hunt, Jacques, Emperor Emreis), and characters that are treated as good (Triss, Shani), and then they throw in a bunch of nudity and call it mature.

All that being said, I love the Witcher, I've been obsessed with it lately.

[Mentalist]

Dadding, on 20 June 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 20 June 2014 - 04:02 PM, said:

ok, the first part was because I missed the word "hunter" in your reply. ignore that plz.

The wall of text is in answer to your question what gives the Witcher games the epithet "mature". And my answer was-the themes the game's narrative adresses, (which are difficult from your average "save the world from the Dark Ones") and the way the choice system is designed to be intuitive rather than "gamey". in most games, you make choices because you expect a reward, or because you know picking one way will affect the way the game's systems will react (karma meters, paragon/renegade scale, like/dislike). In the Witcher, there is no such clear-cut system, but there are likely to be narrative consequences. The move away from "gamey" to"organic" is what makes this series more "mature" in my eyes.

Witcher does a great job of separating choices from rewards and making your choices have an impact, but I don't see how this leads to a mature game. It leads to a fun, unpredictable game. I find myself putting less thought into what choices I make in the Witcher compared to other games. In The Witcher, I know that there's no Karma or similar system, so I just pick what I would do myself. In other games, I spend hours on the wiki determining what gives me the best items, what kind of character I want to build, etc. The Witcher doesn't have a good or evil build per se so I don't have to worry about that. But the heart of the matter is, putting thought into your choices or not does not a mature game make. I put a lot of thought into my turns in the game Worms, and I think about how I'm going to take out enemies in Call of Duty campaigns, but I wouldn't consider either of them terribly mature.

Organic is a great way to describe Witcher, because it doesn't speak to the maturity level, it speaks to actual game-play. All I'm saying is that while Witcher may be the leader in decision-making or story lines affected by your choices, but I don't think it's a super mature gaming experience. At the end of the day, Geralt is still a hyped-up super human (or mutant, whatever you want to call him) out to save the world (be it saving kings, catching a king killer, or stopping a revolt single handedly), there are still characters that are treated as evil (Wild Hunt, Jacques, Emperor Emreis), and characters that are treated as good (Triss, Shani), and then they throw in a bunch of nudity and call it mature.

All that being said, I love the Witcher, I've been obsessed with it lately.

It would appear we agree on all things, except what is the definition of "mature". English isn't my first language, so my definition would be something like "a step beyond the primitive; refined; aware of mistakes of the past". In this sense, the gameplay ideas of the Witcher games seem very much "mature" in comparison to most RPGs out there.