The Witcher 2 - Thread

Id rather the Witcher 2 was longer and didnt have the whole play it twice for both sides of the story. I very rarely play a game like this twice. Great game none the less, just very short compaired to the first.
 
I was disappointed with the Witcher 2. Instead of the PC-centric game that was heralded, it came across like a well-ported console game.

It seemed like almost every design decision made - from the graphic options only in the launcher, to the UI and the combat system - was with one eye on porting to consoles, so we get a game that's designed for a 360 controller, with a UI that works best on a controller, and with text sizes designed for easy readability from across the room (with a few exceptions.)
 
Ravenger said:
I was disappointed with the Witcher 2. Instead of the PC-centric game that was heralded, it came across like a well-ported console game.

It seemed like almost every design decision made - from the graphic options only in the launcher, to the UI and the combat system - was with one eye on porting to consoles, so we get a game that's designed for a 360 controller, with a UI that works best on a controller, and with text sizes designed for easy readability from across the room (with a few exceptions.)
Click to expand...


110% do not agree with this at all. I just finished Risen, loved that game and clocked about 60 hours messing about with it. Now clocked around 10 hours with witcher 2 and I think this game is amazing. Well thought out, combat is awesome.
 
After just finishing this I tried to get into some other RPG's but I just lost interest. So I decided to buy Witcher 1 Enhanced Edition. I feel that Witcher 2 was now a complete and utter rush job, sure it does look a lot better and it is a great game no doubt at all. But compared to the 1st it is a big let down. I am glad I played Witcher 2 first before Witcher 1 otherwise I don't think I would have finished Witcher 2.

First game is better in every area apart from graphics, even though it still looks pretty damn good.
 
the 2nd game is more refined...doesnt mean its rushed.
Yes the 1st is longer with more quests but it doesnt mean its any better or worse than the 2nd one. They are both good for their own merits...the first one for example you will never play more than once where as the 2nd one was made for 2 playthroughs.
 
iamtheoneneo said:
the 2nd game is more refined...doesnt mean its rushed.
Yes the 1st is longer with more quests but it doesnt mean its any better or worse than the 2nd one. They are both good for their own merits...the first one for example you will never play more than once where as the 2nd one was made for 2 playthroughs.
Click to expand...

Actually you are correct I totally forgot about needing two playthroughs. Fair bit of gameplay when that is added up. I don't know I still think 1 is better out of the two so far. I just feel more bad ass in the first. I hope for the third they care a little less about how it looks and add a few more missions into the mix.
 
Bah this discussion was here before, pighardia wants to see everything during one playthrough, many other people agree, many other people (me included) disagree, but this discussion is freaking boring.

As for comparison with TW1, I would say it has a bit darker, more central european atmosphere, is longer and has more quests..but quality-wise TW2 is even higher, especially in writing and characters and story branching.Both are fantastic and I cannot wait for third one none-the-less.
 
wordy said:
Why not? (Genuine question)
Click to expand...

I think it cheapens decisions you make during the game a little bit, the second time i played through the game, when it came to choosing a side it was all a bit meh, as i already knew which side i HAD to choose if i wanted to see all of the content. And considering that during the game you only visit 2 real cities/villages, i do not see why you can't at least have both areas to explore. It all seems like a gimmick to me, I think what I don't like the most is how everyone raved before release at how the game will have you making real decisions which really affect the game when in reality it just limits you, they are forcing you to make 2 fundamentally different choices if you want to play the full content.

Why, if you take Roach's path can't you visit the other city(Vergen is it?)? Why did they destroy Flotsam so that you couldn't return there?

I've only done 1 play through but have no problems with it showing both sides of the story in different play throughs.
Click to expand...

Making it all rather pointless imo(i understand btw, i did the same thing;) i just find this game unbearably frustrating for some reason) It would be fine if you were not missing out on all that content for me, but i do not really see a reason for it beyond a gimmick.

/semi-rant (something about this game:p)

BTW, I do realize i am in the minority;)
 
Just gave this a quick try and was a bit shocked, it plays quite differently (harder) than the Witcher:

-Combat with multiple opponents seems a lot tougher (no group style), I got taken out on my way to the Ballista right at the start of the game lol :)
-Seems to require the use of potions/traps/signs a lot more
-Something doesn't quite feel right with the graphics, everything is really shiny (excessive bump mapping?), a bit like Doom3?

I might actually consider trying this game with a controller due to the above comments by others, the need to Parry/Cast during combat makes it a bit fiddly with keyboard.
 
Do you have the latest patch? You only need to fight with the swords, I never once had to mess about with anything else. This is a sub par game though compared to Witcher 1. This is a keyboard and mouse game for sure, no way should you have died going for the Ballista unless you suck really bad at games or maybe your game is not patched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom