An Impromptu Witcher Lets Play - now with the Witcher 2!

[The Madman]

One of the neat things about 'future Alvin' is that his rational for doing everything is a twisted version of the lessons and talks you've given him throughout the game leading up to that point.

Here's a snippet of what's to come in Witcher 2:


It's going to be interesting to see which path you end up going down. Judging by your love of elves so far I can hazard a guess, but even so should be interesting. Witcher 2 is both more character focused while also being a bit wider in scope, you don't stay in just Temeria this time, so watching this might help as well just to give you an idea of what kingdoms are where:

Spoiler

Hope you enjoy. And yes, you can import your save from the first Witcher game. I can't remember if it's automatic or not though.

 

[Ryotknife]

If Geralt and Triss never tried to make a family, that would create a time paradox.

-Alvin would have never used the lessons learned from Geralt as motivation to become the Big Bad
-Big Bad Alvin would never send his henchmen to attack the witchers in the beginning.
-With no attack, Geralt would never meet Alvin.

end result, Witcher 1 would have never happened.

Unless of course this is the Bioshock Infinite version of timetravel where anything goes.

P.S. Witcher 2 is harder. Learn to make sweet love with the shield sign. Also the game melted my computer.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I do like how the game drills into you from the beginning, the importance of using the right sword for each occasion, and then completely disregards that in the final blow of the final boss.

Well, I assume it's supposed to be a metaphor - this guy was the "real" monster and thus the Silver Sword was appropriate.

However, I learned back in Chapter 2 that, when faced with groups of mixed enemies (some human, some monster), that going with the Silver Sword is ALWAYS the correct answer. Monsters typically do more damage than human enemies, and are harder to "stun lock" than human enemies, so when swarmed by, say, two Salamanders and three spiders (like in the Swamp) attempting to take the Salamanders first with the Steel sword, and then switch AGONIZINGLY slowly to the Silver sword to finish the spiders amounts to suicide. Whereas, going Silver Sword (particularly Silver Sword with +120% damage) will take out the monsters MUCH faster, and still do okay damage to the human opponents. Clear the monsters first, take a potion, and then switch style (but not sword, takes too long) to finish the human enemies.

In any case, it seemed weirdly appropriate that I killed the guy with the Silver Sword (particularly after beating him with it), even if the guy only just noticed which sword I was using.

It's also funny because Geralt was carrying two steel Witcher swords at the time, because I hoped that any swords equipped to me - particularly unique ones - might make the transition to the Witcher 2 along with my awesome armor. Probably a vain hope, but it doesn't really matter.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

P.S. Witcher 2 is harder. Learn to make sweet love with the shield sign. Also the game melted my computer.

Melted?

As in... destroyed via overheating?

I have an under-laptop fan pad to help cool it. It got me through Mass Effect (the first one), and it worked fine on this one. That should be enough... right?

Also - never used any signs in this game other than Force/Wind and Fire. I only bothered leveling them at all because I had a ton of Bronze talents and nothing better to spend them on.

 

[Norrdicus]

Geralt kills some critters and asks (eventually) asks the big question: what does this have to do with the plot of the game, stealing Witcher secrets, and all that crap? And the answer is... ...?

The guy wants to move people south. Okay. What does that have to do with his plan? He wants to make... Witchers without emotions... so they can survive on the ice... which he's planning to avoid....

Huh?

I understand his plan. I fail to see his logic. If he moves south, won't he AVOID the ice age? Why does he need to have Witchers who can keep doing their job in the ice age if he's going to dodge it.

Also, aren't there people ALREADY living in the warmer southern lands? Sure, he wants to preserve HIS culture, but don't they trade with those people already? Couldn't he just, you know, take a bunch of loyal followers and just move now? Maybe take a big ol Library with him to preserve northern culture?

For that matter, when things start getting cold, won't everyone ELSE go "hey, let's move south" ? Or is this going to be a Super Fast Ice Age? And even if it is... couldn't people pack up some food and flee south even after it starts snowing? They do have Winters here. People could escape after things started getting sucky. They aren't going to degenerate overnight.

No, it's going to be a world-wide, civilization-ruining ice age that is going to last so long that people won't know what a "plant" is. Moving South is going to alleviate things, not fix everyone's problems. Aldersberg is not going to use his mutants just for the mass migration, but also for keeping order when he aims to preserve humanity in the best possible (a.k.a. still super-sucky) conditions.

Aen Ithlinnespeath, Ithlinne Aegli aep Aevenien's prophecy

"Verily I say unto you, the era of the sword and axe is nigh, the era of the wolf's blizzard. The Time of the White Chill and the White Light is nigh, the Time of Madness and the Time of Contempt: Tedd Deireádh, the Time of End. The world will die amidst frost and be reborn with the new sun. It will be reborn of Elder Blood, of Hen Ichaer, of the seed that has been sown. A seed which will not sprout but burst into flame.

Ess'tuath esse! Thus it shall be! Watch for the signs! What signs these shall be, I say unto you: first the earth will flow with the blood of Aen Seidhe, the Blood of Elves... "

Anyway, Abigale is happy I didn't murder her earlier, so she gives me some potions. So do several other NPCs, like Toruviel, whose name I've been mispelling for ages. Some of them give me random buffs, like flaming swords. Siegfried appears and is a mini boss fight - apparently with the same stats from the last time I killed him.

Finally, we bump into Adda. She agrees to join the party, and just as I'm jokingly thinking she'd be hilarious as a Stirga, she turns into the fucking Stirga.

I find this a tad funny. It's "Striga"

So Alvin traveled back in time, joined the Rose Knights, had a vision about the Winter coming, and was the Big Bad?

No, he created The Order of the Flaming Rose.

Also, the game does a few things to fore-shadow this twist. He says stuff you you said to his kid version back at you, during your first meetings Aldersberg speaks as if you two have met and he owed you, he calls Geralt preachy while for most people except Alvin, Geralt is anything but preachy.

There's a little graphic-and-text epilogue thing where apparently nothing I did mattered. The King dicked over the Elves later, and the Squirrels got pissy again, and everything ended up back where it started. Great - way to make the player feel like they accomplished something. Ah well, I guess they wanted to a Status Quo to revert to for the Witcher 2.

The things do end up being different, it's just that it's not going to be a "good" ending ever. Scoia'tael were not going to end things peacefully in Vizima no matter how strongly you'd hope that. They are, and always will be, a guerrilla terrorist group, and nothing short of a non-human haven will make them stop.

"Yet the king's mercy was short-lived, and it could not quell disdain and hatred" really says nothing about King foltest dicking them over, honestly. The wording is very vague, but I'd almost bet money on the Temerian citizens themselves, or the Scoia'tael, re-ingiting the flames.

And then, in a weirdly different art style, Geralt goes to the King to get his cash.

It's only as weirdly different as the Striga cinematic.

Witcher 2 is both more character focused while also being a bit wider in scope, you don't stay in just Temeria this time, so watching this might help as well just to give you an idea of what kingdoms are where:

Spoiler

Yeah, I'll recommend watching this video as well until you know the countries and their rulers even vaguely. Even after playing Witcher 1, I was a bit lost in 2 because it revolves so much around politics of the established universe.

I do like how the game drills into you from the beginning, the importance of using the right sword for each occasion, and then completely disregards that in the final blow of the final boss.

That was honestly the best final boss death scene I've personally seen in RPGs

P.S. Witcher 2 is harder. Learn to make sweet love with the shield sign. Also the game melted my computer.

Yeah, Witcher 2 has inverse difficulty curve, and things are way more difficult in the beginning due to how squishy you are, and how often you get attacked by multiple opponents. Geralt really can't handle groups early game except when he has bombs handy

EDIT: Oh yeah, about the save importing, any save file made in the icy illusion or the garden after Aldersberg's death will be accepted in Witcher 2

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

If Geralt and Triss never tried to make a family, that would create a time paradox.
-Alvin would have never used the lessons learned from Geralt as motivation to become the Big Bad
-Big Bad Alvin would never send his henchmen to attack the witchers in the beginning.
-With no attack, Geralt would never meet Alvin.
end result, Witcher 1 would have never happened.

I just realized... was this supposed to be a defense of Triss being out of character? Since I just commented that, while awesome, the ending didn't justify that?

Here's the thing. "Because we had this cool ending in mind where the big bad is actually Alvin" is not an excuse for making a character behave out of character unless they also establish that Mind Control was involved.

A good ending is all well and good - great even. But they "foreshadowed" it by making an established character behave strangely for no other purpose than to shoe-horn in that twist. Good writing at the end doesn't make the earlier issue any less sloppy.

I can now see why they did it - but they still did it badly. That section remains the most painfully out of character, forced, and stereotypical aspect of the whole game. That moment is the weakest link in an otherwise good plot.

Or, to put it another way, I see now why they shot themselves in the foot, but it doesn't make it any less painful.

Considering how much attention and craft was put into the rest of the game, the out-of-no-where Triss character shift just feels sloppy and badly handled. It's like they had an outline, and they put a team of writers on each of the other sections... and wrote out the Triss bit on a piece of napkin. Looking back, it seems even worse now by comparison to all the good character development around it. Like a box of chocolates with one cat turd in it.

Okay, that last comment was a bit of hyperbole. I wouldn't want to eat a box of chocolates with a cat turd in it. On the other hand, while I still choke on the Triss section, the other items in the proverbial box are still edible. But, like the cat turd metaphor, they are also harmed by its presence.

I know. It's like a good meal served with clam chowder.

Of course to understand that, you have to know about my issues with clam chowder. I like clams. I like corn chowder. But if you mix clams and chowder, the smell makes me want to vomit. I don't know why. If you serve clam chowder with a meal, even if I don't eat the clam chowder, it harms the rest of the meal because the smell is still there, making me slightly sickened.

I've rambled a good bit about this, both before and now. Suffice it to say, I see why they did it, but I still think they did it badly. Just... better writing in that section could have helped. Triss instantly transforming into a shrewish mother just isn't believable. Becoming a parent takes time. That is NOT a natural response to sudden parenthood.

To have the attitudes about raising children that Triss has, including her fear of spoiling him, requires that she has raised children or been part of a family. She hasn't - according to others defending this scene, she was taken from her family at a young age and raised as a Sorceress. She knows nothing at all about how to raise children, so her instant transformation into the stereotypical "motherly" character makes no sense. Being bitchy about giving a kid sweets isn't genetically ingrained - it's a learned response. Believing that Geralt would make a good father when he's a professional monster hunter and woman seducer is just... not reasonable. Triss is a smart girl - she previously accepted that Geralt risks his life and fucks around. Now, because she wants to raise a child (fair enough), she expects Geralt to immediately conform to society's image of being a father? Even if she loves him and wants to be with him, that makes little sense, particularly since she doesn't want to give up being a Sorceress. It's just bad - it shows no understanding about WHY parents behave the way they do. Which is absurd - some of the writers must have had kids, had close family members with kids, something.

Yes, I've had more time to think about this and figure out exactly why it is that section of the plot so annoyed me. Geralt has character growth - he examines himself and decides that he'd like a family. Triss, meanwhile, has a child delivered to her home and INSTANTLY her "Mom Hormones" turn on and her character changes for no reason. Now, even if she wanted a kid (which she made no previous indication of), she'd still need time to, you know, GET TO KNOW HIM. To learn to be a parent. To learn that giving a kid candy all the time is a bad idea. To develop, as we see Geralt develop. Instead, we get Instant Harpy Mom.

Fun fact - I always refused to give Alvin candy (since I always stored or sold it, so never had any) and I always refused to train him with my sword (because swords aren't toys) and Alvin always said "I hate you and Triss!" afterwards. Triss, meanwhile, always said "You're so good with Alvin" afterwards.

Meanwhile, when Alvin asked for a Dog, I always promised that, someday, I'd get him one. Because dogs make good GUARDS, not to mention good Monster Detectors, and thus are a very practical pet for a Witcher's son. Alvin would be pleased... and Triss would scold me for spoiling Alvin. Because I promised him a practical gift some undetermined time in the near future.

In the Prologue, Triss tried to fuck Geralt's memories back from beyond the grave. In Chapter 3, she turns into a grouchy mom reminiscent of Marge Simpson. In Chapter 5, she talks about loving Alvin... she's known him for a few weeks, at best.

Lisa Cuddy, of the TV series House MD., took months to attach to her adopted daughter - after spending two whole seasons trying and failing to get pregnant, mind - and had an entire episode dedicated to the fact that she felt like a failure for not loving her child sooner. She has a long running character arc about this - and the process is well developed, so that when she does come to love her child, it is natural and believable.

Triss knows this fairly annoying kid for less than a month, after he gets dropped on her out of the blue (she doesn't even know he exists until after Geralt places the sensors at the beginning of chapter 3), and she loves him like her very own.

IF Alvin was mind-controlling her, then I could see that. He was certainly creepy enough. But, Future Alvin never has those powers. Other powers, yes, but not those powers. The game seems to think that Female Hormones are enough to entirely change a woman's personality and make her instantly love a child. Yeah, no.

....

Wow. Not sure how that got so long. When I said "suffice it to say" I really meant to finish there. Huh.

....

I think I'll just post this now before I write any more. ^^;;

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

No, it's going to be a world-wide, civilization-ruining ice age that is going to last so long that people won't know what a "plant" is. Moving South is going to alleviate things, not fix everyone's problems. Aldersberg is not going to use his mutants just for the mass migration, but also for keeping order when he aims to preserve humanity in the best possible (a.k.a. still super-sucky) conditions.

Quoting the prophesy didn't really help - it says nothing about the scale of the ice age.

Furthermore... how does he know it will be the whole world? We only see future Vizima. Even during Earth's more recent ice ages, the equator was pretty viable. I realize this is a fantasy world, but it's low fantasy - they typically try to keep semi-real.

Also, I will admit, I'm looking to Game of Thrones and their Winter for inspiration for the situation. Moving south does actually work in that world (as it would in this world) so I made an assumption.

Then again, if you grew up in England, lived all your life in England, etc - then the destruction of England would be like the end of the world, even if you could just move to Morocco.

It's only as weirdly different as the Striga cinematic.

No, the cut scene is in an entirely different engine that all of the others ones.

I'm guessing this is because it was made in the Witcher 2 engine. It looks like the clips from cut scenes I've seen from that game.

Note - you may have an older version of the game. This felt like something inserted later to "tie" the games together. The Epilogue stills were in the earlier art style from the Striga scene. This final cut scene was in an entirely different engine than any cut scene anywhere else in the game.

EDIT: Oh yeah, about the save importing, any save file made in the icy illusion or the garden after Aldersberg's death will be accepted in Witcher 2

Oh good. I was expecting a "post credits" save point, but there was none. I saved in the icy area right before going in to fight him, so that will likely do. I didn't think to save in the garden afterwards, but there might be an auto-save there.

 

[porous_shield]

I do like how the game drills into you from the beginning, the importance of using the right sword for each occasion, and then completely disregards that in the final blow of the final boss.

Well, I assume it's supposed to be a metaphor - this guy was the "real" monster and thus the Silver Sword was appropriate.

I really enjoyed running him through with a silver sword after giving him that lesson on witcher swords when he was a kid. They're both for monsters, it's just that steel/silver are more appropriate for different kids of monsters. The silver sword adds insult to injury, also death, but insult before he dies.

----

I picked Shani so I never noticed the OOCness of Triss and after reading your posts on the matter I'm glad I did.

 

[Norrdicus]

No, the cut scene is in an entirely different engine that all of the others ones.

I'm guessing this is because it was made in the Witcher 2 engine. It looks like the clips from cut scenes I've seen from that game.

Note - you may have an older version of the game. This felt like something inserted later to "tie" the games together. The Epilogue stills were in the earlier art style from the Striga scene. This final cut scene was in an entirely different engine than any cut scene anywhere else in the game.

No, I played Enhanced Edition, and the final cutscene was definitely not made with the Witcher 2 engine, it was made in the same style as the Striga cinematic from when you launch the game. Definitely inferior than Witcher 2. Here, let's see the Striga intro cinematic and Foltest's assassination attempt

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Final Thoughts.

Well, some of my final thoughts about the earlier issues with Triss's character have already been shared. I won't repeat them here.

For the game overall... I liked it. It has that nice top-down RPG feel that I came to love in games like Planescape: Torment, Balder's Gate, and Temple of Elemental Evil.

The story was good. Not the best RPG story ever (that's still Xenogears) but a fun, original one. It was very ambitious, and tried some new and interesting things (like the detective bit - I didn't say that ambitious always means successful).

I thought the combat was a good balance. Not the true "1-Click" combat of a MMO, like say Final Fantasy 12. It was more like a D&D video game. I liked that there's a bit of a rhythm game with timing your clicks to get combos. And I like that the pause feature lets you adjust your spells and equipment, even if Geralt takes his time actually doing so in game.

Also, I enjoyed potion making. Weird, but I did. It was fairly intutive, and aside from needing to explain what Albedo, Rubido, and Negrido do, it was fairly simple and straight forward. I never did try experimenting - the game handed me recipes often and I never felt the need.

The level up system was a little weird... the talents seemed kind of weirdly weighted at times, and many of the abilities got to be VERY specific. I still have no idea how to cause Blinding on a target, meaning that whole skill trees were effectively useless. Pain - that I could cause.

The GUI sometimes left things to be desired. The quest marker on the map could be misleading or even entirely inaccurate (the game was convinced that the King was in the Old Manor), the fact that you could only kneel in front of CERTAIN fires, and only with certain people's permission, was sometimes frustrating, and the lack of a fast travel system in Chapter 2 was just painful.

At the same time... the game manages to be engaging, fun, and interesting - similar, but subtly different things. I found the story interesting, the combat fun, and the world engaging - and the three together got me through the game, even during some of its more frustrating moments.

Some aspects got boring - the lack of better lead-in dialog or cut scenes caused me to eventually bore with having Geralt sleep around so that I likely missed several possible non-plot conquests. The fact that even taking a quest could lock out other quests screwed me over during Chapter 3, and the lack of storage access in Chapter 5 did nothing to challenge me, but did annoy me when I couldn't complete the Dentist quest after specifically storeing everything I needed so I wouldn't accidentally use or lose it.

Like all games, the Witcher is flawed. But then what isn't? My very favorite game, Xenogears, is flawed as well, but I don't love it any less.

It's an interesting world - more interesting in many ways that that of Game of Thrones, to which I keep comparing it.

Oh, aside - I recently bought "The Last Wish" (along with Saga) from Amazon.com. I've been reading it when time allows (particularly when I'm away from my computer for some reason) and quite enjoying it. I tried reading Game of Thrones and was bored out of my mind. The same thing for The Blade Itself. Couldn't stand either novel. So far, The Last Wish has me interested, and quite enjoying the story of Geralt.

Oh, and Dandelion was mentioned by name in the book already, so I guess he isn't just an Expy of that other Bard.

So far, I have not watched either of those videos that were posted. Since I'm going to start playing the game almost immediately, I kinda want to avoid Trailer spoilers. As to the world... will the book help? Because I'm zipping through that. I also downloaded the maps, if that helps.

Anyway, back to what I was saying. The world was interesting, and I feel like the game is helping me get to know it. It is an interesting mix of fairy tales and gritty low fantasy that I find quiet appealing. It rather reminds me of Curse of Chalion by Lois McMaster Bujold.

I'm wandering off topic. I'm not a reviewer, so I don't have a score, but I will say this:

The Witcher surprised me. I still don't agree that it's some sort of RPG revolution - it's good, but Planescape Torment did much of this already, and just as well or better. However, it also is not "stoggy and boring" as Yahtzee once called it. It's a good story with some flaws, told in an interesting and engaging way, using fairly standard top-down RPG style. I was expecting something much more complex (in a bad way) but what I got was a interesting game I could play with just the mouse (and spacebar to pause).

The Witcher was quite good. I enjoyed it. And I look forward to playing the Witcher 2 and reading the Witcher stories.

I did NOT expect to say that when I first started this thread. What a long way we've all come.

Thank you. See you (soon) in the Witcher 2.

And... in general thread discussion, obviously.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

....

Oh. I never actually watched that scene past "castle exterior" - so the first five seconds or less. I always hit Esc to get to the main menu.

That style is used no where else in the game (that I recall) so it seemed weird. Had I actually watched the pre-main menu scene, I would have recognized it.

Okay, I was wrong. ^^;; Also, thank you for posting this video. It's good that I actually got to see that at some point.

 

[Norrdicus]

For the game overall... I liked it. It has that nice top-down RPG feel that I came to love in games like Planescape: Torment, Balder's Gate, and Temple of Elemental Evil.

It's a good story with some flaws, told in an interesting and engaging way, using fairly standard top-down RPG style.

Aah, so you are part of the minority who played Witcher 1 in top-down view, eh? Most people, including myself, played "over the shoulder"

Also, I enjoyed potion making. Weird, but I did. It was fairly intutive, and aside from needing to explain what Albedo, Rubido, and Negrido do, it was fairly simple and straight forward. I never did try experimenting - the game handed me recipes often and I never felt the need.

I liked the alchemy as well, especially with the whole Toxin mechanic. Because most games let you chug down gallons of magical potions without penalty, you never really have good access to the very powerful ones. In Witcher and Witcher 2, you can turn a fight around with just 2-3

Oh, and Dandelion was mentioned by name in the book already, so I guess he isn't just an Expy of that other Bard.

Yeah, Geralt can pretty much thank Dandelion for his fame/infamy

As to the world... will the book help? Because I'm zipping through that. I also downloaded the maps, if that helps.

If you understand what countries I'm talking about when I say Temeria, Kaedwen, Redania, Aedirn and Nilfgaard, it should be alright. Otherwise, prepare to be confused for your first playthrough

Oh. I never actually watched that scene past "castle exterior" - so the first five seconds or less. I always hit Esc to get to the main menu.

I figured as much, just don't do the same thing with Witcher 2 D: ! That game has a bit more story-critical pre-menu cutscene.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Aah, so you are part of the minority who played Witcher 1 in top-down view, eh? Most people, including myself, played "over the shoulder"

Why would a fan of classic PC RPGs do otherwise? Top-down gives one a better tactical sense of the battlefield.

If you understand what countries I'm talking about when I say Temeria, Kaedwen, Redania, Aedirn and Nilfgaard, it should be alright. Otherwise, prepare to be confused for your first playthrough

Temeria and Redania I'm pretty familiar with.

Nilfgaard - or MILF-Guard, as I tend to think of it - I've heard a lot about in that there was a war with it, but I don't know much beyond that.

Oh - I watched that video. Apparently I can "recluse King" and "racist King" to the two kings I already know. The one getting his armies ready WAS the King in the Mirror (who was marrying Adda) from the first game, yes?

Still didn't give me any new info on Milfguard.

I figured as much, just don't do the same thing with Witcher 2 D: ! That game has a bit more story-critical pre-menu cutscene.

I'm not used to the premenu cut scene being important in a game. Usually, it's just a trailer for the game. Or, if it is important, it is usually repeated in New Game.

 

[Norrdicus]

Temeria and Redania I'm pretty familiar with.

As you should

Nilfgaard - or MILF-Guard, as I tend to think of it - I've heard a lot about in that there was a war with it, but I don't know much beyond that.

Yes, the old war. Since that man in the black suit who talks to the Witcher is a Nilfgaardian ambassador, you can expect them to have at least minor relevance

Oh - I watched that video. Apparently I can "recluse King" and "racist King" to the two kings I already know. The one getting his armies ready WAS the King in the Mirror (who was marrying Adda) from the first game, yes?

Correct. Racist king is from Kaedwen and the recluse failking is from Aedirn.

And yes, that king readying his troops is the king in the mirror, Radovid. Actually... you know, I think it's possible that you might not really see him at all depending on your story decisions.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

In case everyone's wondering about the lack of update - I have a job interview tomorrow, so haven't started the Witcher 2 yet. I don't want to be distracted from either the interview or starting the game, so I'm going to wait until after the interview.

Instead, I'm currently reading The Last Wish. I really like the framing story. Also - oh look, the Order is in the books too.

No wonder Sapkowski was pissed off.

Sapkowski: "What do you mean the Order that I created for my novel series was created by some time-traveling kid?!"

Even if he liked the rest of the game (and bringing back someone's dead character is usually a good way to piss them off - just ask Sir Conan Doyle), that alone would probably have ticked him off. Even if it is an awesome plot twist for the fans.

By the way - I loved the Beauty and the Beast story. It's my favorite so far.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

The top-down view is pretty good if you're on the hardest difficulty, as things like dodging/evading and understanding where every enemy is becomes important (dodging and leaping over enemies is easier in top-down view) but on the medium difficulty it requires more or less no strategy, so 3rd person is fine.

The 2nd game is much harder then the first but no strategy is required, it's an action difficulty. If you're going to play it up to date then do not take that other poster's advice on spamming Quen (shield). It was fortunately nerfed.

 

[Norrdicus]

Instead, I'm currently reading The Last Wish. I really like the framing story. Also - oh look, the Order is in the books too.

No wonder Sapkowski was pissed off.

Sapkowski: "What do you mean the Order that I created for my novel series was created by some time-traveling kid?!"

Even if he liked the rest of the game (and bringing back someone's dead character is usually a good way to piss them off - just ask Sir Conan Doyle), that alone would probably have ticked him off. Even if it is an awesome plot twist for the fans.

You sure it's not The Order of the White Rose that's in the books? Alvin essentially resurrects it as Order of the Flaming Rose

Edit: Might as well give some rather basic gameplay tips as you're now between games.

If you don't play action games such as Dark Souls, Monster Hunter, Devil May Cry and such, don't take it lightly if the game tutorial suggests you to play the game on Easy difficulty. You will die. A lot. You can totally play on Normal if you can handle potentially dying in some spots 3-4 times in a row

The first half of the prologue can be played in a non-chronological order, but it'll be easier for you if you do it in the right order, in both understanding what's going on, and the difficulty curve.

Do not reveal your back to the enemy whenever possible, back attacks deal tremendous amount of damage.

Don't spam spells at the wrong moments if you plan on sword-fighting efficiently. Geralt with full Vigor (mana/mp/whatever) will attack and block with 100% efficiency, while with empty Vigor, he'll do it at 50%, those are the cold hard numbers. So when you cast that Aard or Igni, make it count.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

You sure it's not The Order of the White Rose that's in the books? Alvin essentially resurrects it as Order of the Flaming Rose

Ah. Yes, it was the Order of the White Rose. They acted the same and had a very similar name/description.

So Alvin didn't found the order out of nothing. He rebuild a fallen organization. Huh.

Wait... so does that mean that the Order of the White Rose will be destroyed within the books? Perhaps by one particularly noteworthy white-haired Witcher or his actions?

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

The Witcher 2: Tutorial

Okay, first things first. I have it set to "Lowspec" and... well, when I loaded the Tutorial, the game slogs. My mouse seems to react about one second slower than it should, and keeps going for a second after I stop. I turned the sensitivity down to 1 in an attempt to stop it going past where I want to click, which helped some, but not much.

Second things second - is there no option for the over-head mouse control like there was in the Witcher 1? I really dislike the over-the-shoulder third person - it just doesn't work for me (particularly with the Slow Mouse making Geralt unable to walk straight up a damn path without running into the invisible walls).

During dialog, the audio continues on just fine, but the character animation crawls - the movements are at about half speed, so that after the audio dialog finishes, the characters continue gesturing in silence for a few seconds before the camera changes and the next audio plays while the characters slog along.

The combat was worse. Focusing on a single enemy is difficult, and mouse clicks lag, and sometimes don't even response unless I hold the click down.

Combat isn't difficult - it's impossible. Everything is constantly in slow-motion, like Geralt is swimming through molasses. The enemies are just as slow, but aren't required to time their clicks when the graphics and the rest of the game are on two different timetables.

The Throwing Knife challenge was the WORST. Getting one of those damn things aimed, with that TINY target market, while the mouse was constantly going too far and moving after I'd stopped, and the mage casting fucking fire balls at me constantly... yeah.

Is there anything I can do about this? Would "Enabling the Steam Cloud" help? Is there any way to get my top-down Isometric RPG view/feel back?

Pretty much everything above is a criticism of the game running like shit on my computer, which may not be its fault, and either the lack or my inability to fine my preferred layout. I don't WANT to use WASD - I want to click and have my character go where I clicked.

On actual gameplay issues... why do I have to enter meditation to drink potions? I used to be able to drink potions during combat, when I NEEDED to. Now... ugh.

I do like that I can meditate whenever, rather than only at a fire, and only if the game feels like letting me. Being able to make potions without resting for an hour is nice.

But having to enter that menu to drink them (and I'm guessing that menu is locked out during combat) is kind of ass.

The last game felt like a D&D-esque Planescape Torment kind of deal, and I loved it. So far... not liking the combat in this game at all. Of course, much of that is the massive slow-down.

Any thoughts/suggestions about how I might fix some of this?

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Any thoughts/suggestions about how I might fix some of this?

For performance issues, maybe try turning your resolution way down? I had a friend who was trying to run the game at 2560 x 1600 on his iMac with a GTX 660m. It... did not go well for him.

It's worth noting that, for me, the tutorial was the most demanding bit of the game. It was really quite annoying.

As far your issues with the gameplay go, IIRC it can only be played with WASD and over-the shoulder cam. They pretty much ditched the traditional CRPG gameplay entirely.