3 Reason why Witcher is Better Than its Sequel
- Thread starter Takolin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
True Witcher 2 felt a bit short at the end, though I'd say that's to do with the mediocre ending rather than actual length, but the original Witcher was too long. No, seriously, you could cut an entire chapters worth of content from that game without even beginning to scratch the plot or anything particularly meaningful meanwhile the story often felt like it was dragging its feet and being deliberately dense just to stretch things out a bit longer. That's why you so often read in forums 'get to chapter ____ it gets better then' which is not something someone should ever have to say in defence of a game.
There's slow and deliberate pacing, then there's just overdrawn tedium. And as much as I love BOTH Witcher games, the first one has far too much of tedium.
I also don't see how the Witcher 2 is any more or less linear than the original game, I really don't. Both games are a series of central hub areas with branching locations and an array of side quests to compliment the main one, these hubs being progressed through at a steady rate in a fairly linear manner even if the reason and content of those hubs is more malleable. If anything the second is LESS linear since the second act can take place in two very different hubs depending on player choice whereas in the first game regardless of choice you'd always end up visiting the same areas anyway.
Plus lets be honest here: The Witcher had pretty bland combat. Wasn't as bad as some people make it out to be, I rather liked it. But it was hardly something memorable or even really entertaining as opposed to the second game which despite some flaws managed to make the actual 'gameplay' part of this game pretty fun with a few memorable battles and fun abilities.
I can see why some people would prefer the first Witcher, I'll even agree that the first game *does* do many things better than its sequel. But saying it's just outright better and for those of all reasons?
That's silly.
There's slow and deliberate pacing, then there's just overdrawn tedium. And as much as I love BOTH Witcher games, the first one has far too much of tedium.
I also don't see how the Witcher 2 is any more or less linear than the original game, I really don't. Both games are a series of central hub areas with branching locations and an array of side quests to compliment the main one, these hubs being progressed through at a steady rate in a fairly linear manner even if the reason and content of those hubs is more malleable. If anything the second is LESS linear since the second act can take place in two very different hubs depending on player choice whereas in the first game regardless of choice you'd always end up visiting the same areas anyway.
Plus lets be honest here: The Witcher had pretty bland combat. Wasn't as bad as some people make it out to be, I rather liked it. But it was hardly something memorable or even really entertaining as opposed to the second game which despite some flaws managed to make the actual 'gameplay' part of this game pretty fun with a few memorable battles and fun abilities.
I can see why some people would prefer the first Witcher, I'll even agree that the first game *does* do many things better than its sequel. But saying it's just outright better and for those of all reasons?
That's silly.
Well I didn't play the first Witcher but with the second one it felt like the designers were out for vengeance on the players, there was a good game in there but every time you tried to get into it they would just fuck with you.
My first impression was actually that it's some console game outsourced to some cheap incompetent studio to do the port, but no it was PC only... so I really don't understand if they just hate their fanbase somuch.
My first impression was actually that it's some console game outsourced to some cheap incompetent studio to do the port, but no it was PC only... so I really don't understand if they just hate their fanbase somuch.
And the Witcher 2 was badly optimised.
Seriously, try playing that on a low spec machine even on low settings and the stutter would drive you nuts.
My machine is a lot more powerful than my daughters so it worked fine on mine but she couldn't play it.
Don't get me wrong I absolutely loved both games.
My only problem with the first one was the sheer amount of backtracking you had to do for simple quests. If you forgot to pick up a book and went off after a monster or a plant you were screwed and had to treck back to get it. You would be in one area, move on to the next and then have to go back to pick up something for someone else.
Biggest one would be the 2 sisters. One kills the other and you have to find out how to set her "spirit" free. The vast amount of running around for that 1 quest is nuts.
Witcher 2 solved that problem but, as someone said above, it made it far too linear from what the first one was.
And the ending of Witcher 2 left me bitterly disappointed. Yes it leaves way for the third but it didn't really "end". You didn't get a sense of finishing anything. It was just "you're done now bye bye" and me sat there thinking "is that it?".
But the story is compelling and I need them to bring out the third one to see if he can find Yennifer. Then declare his love for her while trying not to let on he's fucked his way around 7 continents.
Seriously, try playing that on a low spec machine even on low settings and the stutter would drive you nuts.
My machine is a lot more powerful than my daughters so it worked fine on mine but she couldn't play it.
Don't get me wrong I absolutely loved both games.
My only problem with the first one was the sheer amount of backtracking you had to do for simple quests. If you forgot to pick up a book and went off after a monster or a plant you were screwed and had to treck back to get it. You would be in one area, move on to the next and then have to go back to pick up something for someone else.
Biggest one would be the 2 sisters. One kills the other and you have to find out how to set her "spirit" free. The vast amount of running around for that 1 quest is nuts.
Witcher 2 solved that problem but, as someone said above, it made it far too linear from what the first one was.
And the ending of Witcher 2 left me bitterly disappointed. Yes it leaves way for the third but it didn't really "end". You didn't get a sense of finishing anything. It was just "you're done now bye bye" and me sat there thinking "is that it?".
But the story is compelling and I need them to bring out the third one to see if he can find Yennifer. Then declare his love for her while trying not to let on he's fucked his way around 7 continents.
Witcher 2 is a better game. But Witcher 1 DEFINATELY has a much better story. The ending of Witcher 1 left me breathless and extremely satisfied. The ending of Witcher 2...not so much.godofwarishere said:
That said, the voice acting and script of Witcher 2 is simply fantastic. But I missed the sex cards
The main achievement of Witcher 2 (imo) is portraying a sexual relationship without it being silly. The opening sequence when they get out of bed is extremely sensual and simply fantastic. One of the best scenes of any kind in any game I have seen. There is another sexual scene further in that is quite good, and while it almost waddles into clichèd romance territory the humor at the end is its saving grace and it ends up being both sweet, sexy and funny.
I simply LOVE how CDProject has portrayed sex and relationships in W2. I WANT MORE!
If only Dragon Age and Mass Effect could be this mature...
I agree, the first one was a lot better story/choice system wise.
and it did feel a lot shorter, and because of that, i was really happy to replay the entire game while choosing Iorveth rather than Roche(i went with roche the first playthrough due to the fact that i felt the debt for the escape from prison during the prologue).
Since the ending left me somewhat wanting more, i took the Iorveth path, and it was a whole lot more satisfying, maybe it's just me, but seeing a dragon, that was actually turning into a human, to "meddle" in humanoid affairs (meaning also dwarves and elves), and even helping her break a mind control spell, was just great.
anyway, the ending, even marking the end of the game (which was enjoyable), left me wanting more to the story (i even got the english books, which were a heck of a time to find where i live), all i have to say is this: CAN'T WAIT for The Witcher 3
Yes, i believe we will have the wild hunt as the main chase for the game, and also, a couple more flashbacks with Yennefer and Ciri, although the pace of the story will change, due to the fact that it's hinted that Geralt has regained his entire memory
Off Topic: what did you think of the ladybug part at the end cinematic?
the first thing i thought was Axii to find Yennefer, who was supposed to be close to that location
and it did feel a lot shorter, and because of that, i was really happy to replay the entire game while choosing Iorveth rather than Roche(i went with roche the first playthrough due to the fact that i felt the debt for the escape from prison during the prologue).
Since the ending left me somewhat wanting more, i took the Iorveth path, and it was a whole lot more satisfying, maybe it's just me, but seeing a dragon, that was actually turning into a human, to "meddle" in humanoid affairs (meaning also dwarves and elves), and even helping her break a mind control spell, was just great.
anyway, the ending, even marking the end of the game (which was enjoyable), left me wanting more to the story (i even got the english books, which were a heck of a time to find where i live), all i have to say is this: CAN'T WAIT for The Witcher 3
Yes, i believe we will have the wild hunt as the main chase for the game, and also, a couple more flashbacks with Yennefer and Ciri, although the pace of the story will change, due to the fact that it's hinted that Geralt has regained his entire memory
Off Topic: what did you think of the ladybug part at the end cinematic?
the first thing i thought was Axii to find Yennefer, who was supposed to be close to that location
I'm pretty sure that creating threads to link your own blog counts as self-advertising.
As for the actual subject... eh. I gave up on the first Witcher game after about half an hour. I consider it utterly execrable in every conceivable way. Boring combat, bad writing, bad voice acting, lacklustre graphics... you name it.
The second game was a vast improvement. I wouldn't say it was good, but at least i managed to tolerate it long enough to finish it. The first half of Witcher 2 was actually of above average quality. Sadly, the second half sent the game spiralling from "one of the best this year" to "Jesus fucking Christ please let it be over soon".
As for the actual subject... eh. I gave up on the first Witcher game after about half an hour. I consider it utterly execrable in every conceivable way. Boring combat, bad writing, bad voice acting, lacklustre graphics... you name it.
The second game was a vast improvement. I wouldn't say it was good, but at least i managed to tolerate it long enough to finish it. The first half of Witcher 2 was actually of above average quality. Sadly, the second half sent the game spiralling from "one of the best this year" to "Jesus fucking Christ please let it be over soon".
So it's no longer unbelievably retarded and immature as in the Witcher 1 in which most sex basically consisted out of giving an item to a woman and getting a sex card?tzimize said:
Seriously, that was fucking stupid. Then again, so was Triss (next to being sexist and whatnot), leaving only the bland Shani as possible, not ridiculously moronic love interest.
Seriously though, I'm kind of curious to its sequel. The first Witcher, aside from the fact that it had non-black and white choices from time to time, had a pretty average story, atrocious voice acting, horrible pacing, lots and lots of shitty side-quests and a mere average battle system. From what I've been reading lately, they've improved all of those.
And honestly, I still don't get why so many developers spend so little time getting good voice actors. Are people so fucking dense that they don't realize how important voice acting actually is?
I'd say that its not the same at all. Some might feel the first Witcher was immature. I found it to be fun. Geralt is a hunk. A hunk you cant get pregnant from fucking. Is it that hard to believe that a lot of women would easily jump on such an opportunity? DISCLAIMER: I SAY A LOT NOT ALL.SpaceBat said:
Most games with romance focus on the hollywood approach. Being faithful, meeting that SPECIAL SOMEONE. I for one found it extremely refreshing to be able to play a character free from such stuff. And it is undoubtedly one of the most fun challenges in a game ever.
I remember when I met
The Lady of the Lake
Well played Witcher, well played. Just because its easy to bed a woman doesnt mean its stupid or immature. Casual sex? And it was usually a bit harder than dumping an item on someone...
Witcher 2 has not nearly as much sex, but the sex it does have is a lot more tasteful. I loved the approach of both as they both served different purposes and were both a good element to the game, albeit in different ways.