Should I play The Witcher 2?

[Name]

The Witcher 2 also has a in-game journal that adds to the story instead of repeating everything.

 

[Zarniwoop]

("SWING YOUR DAMN SWORD FFS ALREADY GERALT WTF??!?").

This sums up the witcher perfectly. The second one is less so, the combat is still stupid but better than the first. There's lots more placing of traps and the spells or whatever they call them make less sense. In combat there's no way to see which one does what, you have to learn them by heart.

 

[Commissar Draco]

Twicher 2 is no longer a game about being a Witcher but is the best ARPG of the lot anyway. Worth playing if only for stunning visuals and too see how proper medieval clothes, armor and weapons looks (jabs at DA)... Also for Hot Bromance with Roche.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

If you're a storyfag then many storyfags seem to think these are great "games".

If you're a gameplayfag then no.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Twitcher2 is essentially a worse Alpha Protocol.

 

[subotaiy]

Worth playing, but overall a mediocre game, worse than the first in pretty much all aspects. Also, if you come directly from a Souls game, the combat may put you off, much more than TW1, since its more similar, but evidently worse.

 

[DalekFlay]

Worth playing, but overall a mediocre game, worse than the first in pretty much all aspects.

Worse graphics, writing, world design, characters, quest design and choice and consequence my ass.

Combat comparison is subjective. I would take TW2's action combat over the timed clicking of the original, but I realize that's opinion. The rest though? Objectively better in the second game. Triss' dress in first game was hotter than her walkabout outfit though, I'll give you that.

 

[Infinitron]

TW1 had a Euro shovelware feel to it. TW2 feels like an American AAA game with a light Euro flavor. Neither has very good gameplay, although I suppose the first is more complex.

Pick your poison, I guess.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Worse graphics, writing, world design, characters, quest design and choice and consequence my ass.

Combat comparison is subjective. I would take TW2's action combat over the timed clicking of the original, but I realize that's opinion. The rest though? Objectively better in the second game. Triss' dress in first game was hotter than her walkabout outfit though, I'll give you that.

World design is subjective as well pretty much, two games differ very much in the mood and atmosphere so it's hard to compare and while neither game can be classified as sandbox The Witcher 1 did have way larger maps (either wilderness or city), the sequel felt a lot more corridor like.

While TW2's combat was more arguably more fun, one thing I preferred in the first one is that Geralt really felt like a master swordsman he should be, in the sequel Geralt's main edge over his opponents is rolling, even some pitchfork wielding rabble you face can parry more effectively than him (they can do it indefinitely while it drains Geralt's stamina) and I find it ridiculous you have to spend XP points for Geralt to "learn" counterattack/riposte.

Alchemy is much better in the first in most ways though I always found it surprising so many people claim alchemy tree is useless in Witcher 2, short potion duration (and it not pausing during dialogue) aside you can became an absolute killing machine by maxing out that tree (combined with a few skills from swordmanship tree), by the end of the game I was one shotting most enemies and boss fights were a joke.

UI is also way better in the first, Witcher 2 is very conzolised in that regard and while both games suffered from reverse difficulty curve (as most RPGs do in general), the sequel was one of the worst cases of it I've ever seen, by far the most difficult part of the game is the prologue/tutorial.

 

[Carrion]

Worse graphics, writing, world design, characters, quest design and choice and consequence my ass.

Quest design is debatable. I'd say the structure of the main quest was much better in TW1, Act II being a great example of that. Every act in TW2 is much more linear and restricted in comparison. At times you get a couple of different goals that you can do in any order, but that's about it. The most complex part about the game is again Act II, which is essentially just a multi-part MacGuffin hunt. The side quests were mostly good, though, and I don't really miss TW1's fetch quests that much, although I never really hated them either.

I also liked the way many of the side quests were tied to the main story in TW1. Through side quests you got to meet many characters that became important later in the game, and some side quests were directly related to the main storyline (like searching for the werewolf cure or meeting the King of the Wild Hunt). In TW2 the side quests are mostly isolated from the main plot, so after doing a monster-killing job you go seeing the monster-killing job guy who gives you a reward and that's it. TW1 also usually gave you a rather vague main goal ("find clues about X") so you were encouraged to talk to people, explore and do some side quests. In TW2 you always know what to do and where to go next, so why exactly would you waste your time doing pointless side jobs?

 

[MasPingon]

Worth playing, but overall a mediocre game, worse than the first in pretty much all aspects.

Worse graphics, writing, world design, characters, quest design and choice and consequence my ass.

Combat comparison is subjective. I would take TW2's action combat over the timed clicking of the original, but I realize that's opinion. The rest though? Objectively better in the second game.

Objectively Can you elaborate?

 

[DalekFlay]

Quest design is debatable. I'd say the structure of the main quest was much better in TW1, Act II being a great example of that. Every act in TW2 is much more linear and restricted in comparison. At times you get a couple of different goals that you can do in any order, but that's about it. The most complex part about the game is again Act II, which is essentially just a multi-part MacGuffin hunt. The side quests were mostly good, though, and I don't really miss TW1's fetch quests that much, although I never really hated them either.

The endless city and swamp slog throughout the middle of the game is a piece of shit and ruins what pacing there was. If the whole game was like chapters one and four I would agree for the most part, but it isn't. Chapters 2 and 3 are objectively bad due to poor pacing and design.

 

[MasPingon]

Except they aren't. Chapter 2 is great, you access Vizima Temple Quater, which exceeds every single location from TW2 when it comes to world design. You got a ton of things to do, there is nice non-linear detective quest, there is swamp location with disquieting Lovecraftian atmosphere. There are a lot of beautiful locations, such as the one from where you travel to the swamp by a boat. Objectively you just got a shit taste.

 

[Roguey]

It balances out the economy and discourages hoarding, for instance. Too bad that you can carry around so much stuff that it becomes more or less trivial in the end, so you've got a point there. TW1 did it better, in any case.

Regarding balance http://spring.me/JESawyer/q/413411465802828654

Sale prices have to reflect the fact that the player has unlimited inventory space. In most games, we have to balance around the hope/belief that most players aren't patient -- because really, nothing actually prevents the player from yanking everything out of a dungeon and marching it down to a shop other than their own impatience. That's not a great way to balance things because the gulf of value between the impatient and the patient is pretty large.

Regarding hoarding, I had a ton of stuff at my inn stash at the end in both games.

Gothic and Risen do well enough with unlimited inventory. Once you get your battle tower in Divinity 2 your inventory pretty much becomes limitless and it loses nothing for it.

 

[Infinitron]

Witcher 1's Chapter 2 is interesting, but overrated. The plot of the detective quest doesn't really make much sense.

"Oh look, a random person was mentioned, ADDED HIM TO MY SUSPECT LIST." I especially like the part where you discover Kalkstein has some kind of bodyguard arrangement with the local mobsters, something which there is absolutely no sign of before he says it and which is subsequently never mentioned again.

The whole thing was just really clunky. Maybe it's bad translation, I don't know.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Chapters 2 and 3 are objectively bad due to poor pacing and design.

Implying Twitcher 2 has good pacing

 

[MasPingon]

The whole thing was just really clunky. Maybe it's bad translation, I don't know.

Yeah, it is. It's very hard to follow, because the game expects you to think out of what actually have been said during the investigation and there are clues, which at first, doesn't seem to have anything to do with solving the case. In my first playthrough I didn't know what the hell was going on. Now I find it interesting, you won't find this kind of quest implementation in many other games.

 

[Stonewolf]

TW1 was a boring turd. ✔

TW2 is acceptable. ✔

Certain elements of Codex shrieking "PREVIOUS ONE WAS BETAR" no matter what as always. ✔

 

[Roguey]

I will always love how my preference for doing all side quests before a main quest resulted in Geralt making references to events I hadn't seen only for everything to fall into place after I finally visited Raymond.

 

[Infinitron]

I will always love how my preference for doing all side quests before a main quest resulted in Geralt making references to events I hadn't seen only for everything to fall into place after I finally visited Raymond.

Even worse: In conversations, the game sometimes expected you to select the dialogue options from top to bottom, so if you selected a middle option you got responses that made references to things you didn't know about yet.

 

[DalekFlay]

Yeah, it is. It's very hard to follow, because the game expects you to think out of what actually have been said during the investigation and there are clues, which at first, doesn't seem to have anything to do with solving the case. In my first playthrough I didn't know what the hell was going on. Now I find it interesting, you won't find this kind of quest implementation in many other games.

It has nothing to do with thinking about it, or intelligence, or anything else. It's a badly translated mess. I like some the political stuff in that chapter but it and 3 just drag on and on, the swamp is okay but quickly grows boring, it just never ends and isn't that good. The Witcher 2 has no such problems.

 

[Carrion]

Regarding balance http://spring.me/JESawyer/q/413411465802828654

Yet Sawyer still further limited inventory space in his New Vegas mod. I'm sure you can find a quote where he explains why he did it.

Gothic and Risen do well enough with unlimited inventory.

True, but Gothic has notably less stuff you can pick up, and bartering has a fairly minor role in the game anyway.

The endless city and swamp slog throughout the middle of the game is a piece of shit and ruins what pacing there was.

That has fuck all to do with quest structure.

 

[aris]

Twitcher2 is essentially a worse Alpha Protocol.

 

[Roguey]

Regarding balance http://spring.me/JESawyer/q/413411465802828654

Yet Sawyer still further limited inventory space in his New Vegas mod. I'm sure you can find a quote where he explains why he did it.

http://spring.me/JESawyer/q/352126040920847365

I think weight allowance is something that needs to be analyzed along with other system goals. The primary reasoning is that if things have weight and you have a carry limit, the weight of things you choose to carry is a strategic consideration. The problem is that the relationship between weight and value (usually tactical) is not directly proportional. Especially when it comes to weapons, you can get into a weird cost-benefit analysis that often doesn't make sense.

E.g. the Minigun in F:NV is a pretty good weapon. It's also very heavy. Is it better than the Anti-Materiel Rifle or Brush gun? In certain circumstances, yes, but it's not "objectively" better. Three weapons with different tactical applications at roughly the same level of power, but one weighs much more than the others.

An even more extreme case is the Fat Man. In the original release of F:NV, the Fat Man did pretty modest damage, but it still weighed a ton. The patched version increased the damage a lot and GRA introduced "low-end" ammo for it, but ultimately its use wasn't particularly tactical. For 99% of all fights, players kept the Fat Man jammed in their back pockets, only pulling it out when they effectively didn't want to fight.

DX:HR illustrates this conflict even more clearly. The Rocket Launcher and even the Sniper Rifle are huge weapons. Carrying them around is a large strategic liability, and their usage/applicability in any given scenario is often either pointless or overkill.

This can also cause consideration conflicts in armor. In F:NV, heavy armor protected better than light armor, but it slowed the player down and weighed more. The consideration was not simply DT/movement, but DT/movement/weight, which motivated more people to use light or medium armor. In the original Fallout, protection generally increased with weight (excepting Metal Armor, sort of), so there was a strategic trade-off, but that effectively ended with Power Armor. PA and HPA granted +3 ST, so the increased weight of the armor was offset by the player's adjusted max carry. Practically speaking, this meant there was no good reason to use Combat Armor or Brotherhood Combat Armor once you gained PA or HPA.

What does all of this mean? It means I think we (myself included) often take weight allowance and item weights (or slots, or whatever abstraction) for granted instead of considering how they influence players' strategic decisions.

In New Vegas, weight is something to consider when it comes to choosing to carry weapons and armors over others, whereas in Witcher 2 it isn't. Get your best steel, silver, and armor, a few miscellaneous items if you really want to use them, and dump the stuff you won't use too often in your stash.

True, but Gothic has notably less stuff you can pick up, and bartering has a fairly minor role in the game anyway.

And there's a lot more where that came from.

 

[Sodafish]

Yes it's worth playing. Dark mode can be quite challenging at times.