Fuck The Witcher 1. Seriously. (rant)

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,056
0
0
How in God's name did this game ever get any scores above 4/10? Has everyone on its Steam page showering it with positive reviews collectively lost all their critical faculties? The game is just stuffed to bursting with bad design, poor gameplay and shockingly inept storytelling. I'm 23 hours in, and not once can I say I've had fun. Not for one fucking minute. Argh!

- The UI sucks. It's overdesigned, poorly laid out, the inventory is a mess, and the symbols displaying your status effects fade to the background almost completely, making the whole affair basically pointless. Oh, and let's not forget the fucking quest tracking! Being only able to track one quest at a time is bad enough, but when the tracking repeatedly just plain misdirects you you can no longer say "well some people like different things". Sometimes when opening the menu, it's switched tabs without your input to display some insipid lore. No, fuck you! I don't want or need to read about goddamn generic town #237, I want to track my quests!

The combat sucks a big floppy donkey dick. It's repetitive, shallow, simplistic, repetitive, unresponsive, boring, repetitive and repetitive. It doesn't matter if you're fighting humans, giant spiders, ghouls or the guy you spend half the fucking game chasing, it's always the same click-click-click with no variety aside from throwing a sign or two in there. And since the whole thing is essentially just a timing minigame, you're not even looking at what's happening, but at the mouse cursor to time your clicks right. Combat styles are a joke. It goes like this: test whether enemy is weak to strength or speed, and switch to group style if more than 3 enemies surround you. Wow. Many deep. So technique. It's unresponsive too: multiple times I've had Geralt simply not do what I've wanted him to. He switches targets seemingly on his own, letting enemies whale on him while he tries to circumnavigate one simple enemy. The dodge move is so badly executed it's almost comical.

Oh, the game gives you different weapons, but you never use them. They display damage numbers, but since witcher swords only say "damage varies based on combat style" you have no point of comparison and therefore no way of knowing if a weapon is good or not. Then there are the status effects. Most are basically unnoticeable, but one or two make Geralt stop for a 40-minute soliloquy while the enemies pull his lungs out through his nostrils, ending the combat possibly in seconds once inflicted. The game doesn't signify how or what enemies inflict these or how to avoid them, so it's basically a random chance. Different weapons you get can inflict status effects, but since they don't affect enemy behavior in any way, what's the point?

And lastly, there's the element of preparation. Except the game hardly ever properly signifies to you when a difficult combat scenario is coming up, so you really have no way of knowing if potential combat even warrants preparation. And the combat you do know is ahead is most times so easy it's not worth the trouble. Even when you know to anticipate a difficult enemy encounter it's basically a guessing game as to what buffs are useful. I've used the Blizzard potion multiple times, and fuck me if there's been any discernible difference in the results whatsoever.

- The visual design sucks. While the graphics are quite nice for a mid-tier game from 2007, the look of the game is bland and generic to an almost astronomical degree. Nothing stands out and nothing is memorable. It's the same medieval towns, meadows and marshlands you find in every RPG ever made ever, and only that. While there are some mildly interesting monster designs, the aforementioned cosmically shitty combat lets them down every time. If one were to compile a ranking list of the most generic looking games ever, this'd easily make the top 5.

- The quests suck. This is the game's most glaring throat cancer tumor besides the combat. Basically every one is just a fetch quest for one character or another, for increasingly confusing and obscure reasons. This leads the player to trudge the same fucking locations over and over and over and over again to do Some Shit #569 for Random Dickhead #8301. Also, many of the quests overlap and interweave with each other, becoming accessible or gridlocked depending on the player's progress. Not only does the game signify this, but the quests you're literally unable to solve still stay as active quests in your journal. And let's not forget the fact that NPCs locations change depending on the time of day. But if you want to skip ahead, we can't just have a simple wait function, oh no! You have to go buggering back to some **** who will allow you to meditate or find a campfire. Honestly, who the fuck thought of this system, and who approved it?

- The alchemy... well okay, it doesn't suck, but it's basically pointless. Of the potentially dozens of potions and mixtures available, I've found exactly 2 to be useful: the healing potion and the night vision. The rest, completely useless, or at least I have experienced no scenario on normal difficulty where I'd think of any of them being useful.
- The story sucks. The overarching narrative is actually pretty interesting, and a refreshing change of pace from usual fantasy plots... if you can follow it in the first place, that is. The story is so poorly told, the characters so weakly established and introduced, the twists and turns so out of nowhere, and the game just assumes so much of the player that the whole thing falls apart like a house of cards during Hurricane Katrina within the first few hours. The game starts out, and immediately assumes you to give a shit about 5 or so different characters, who all have maybe 1 character's worth of introduction or setup between them. What's more, I read the whole fucking Witcher series, and I still didn't, and don't, care!

An example: at one point Geralt comes across a werewolf that can talk. It turns out it's a character we've met before acting as a vigilante at night in werewolf form, and is willing to help us. Then the game presents the player the opportunity to kill him, as if assuming the player's automatic response to any monster is "kill kill killapalooza". This is retarded, because 1) this is the first werewolf we see in the game, 2) werewolves haven't even been mentioned or established at this point with any preconceptions to the player, and 3) there's really no other reason for the player to want to kill the werewolf other than the game assuming them to want to.

Character motivations, basic introductions, setup, none of these things are present. Characters just pop in left and right without rhyme or reason, and the game just assumes you to care. What thin pretense of plot there is established at the start is swiftly buried beneath an avalanche of completely unrelated busywork that for some godforsaken reason becomes the game's main focus for hours at a time before shifting it again to completely different, but still equally unrelated busywork. By the point which I'm at now I've completely and utterly lost any speck of interest, and am just skimming through the dialogue to not have to suffer this shit any longer.

I think that's all. Honestly, avoid this game like the plague. The only possible recommendation I can give is if you bought it for 50 cents and feel an obsessive need to play through the whole trilogy (this is why I've been putting myself through this quagmire of shit). This game is not worth its price even at 75% off. It's so full of plain unforgivable flaws. And this is supposed to be the """"Enhanced""""" Edition. I don't even dare to think what the original was like!

Phew. That felt cathartic.

Edit: yes, this is about the first game and only the first. I've yet to play the others.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
The Witcher...1?

I liked the gameplay, was interesting. I just hated the swamp...and that my file deleted itself...and everytime I think about replaying it (cause I want to beat 1 and 2 before I play 3) I think about that shitty swamp and get discouraged.
 

Nick Cave

New member
Jan 2, 2017
33
0
0
Funny thing is, you'll still love it like the rest of us once you get into chapter 4. It definitely has a slow start though, and it hasn't aged very well. But chapter 4, 5 and parts of 3 is genuinely fantastic and make it worth playing. I can't really defend the graphics, gameplay or quest design though, just know that the writing and especially the pacing (it goes from horrendous to pretty damn great in the span of a chapter) vastly improves later on.

The big problem is though, with games like this and Bethesda games and most CRPGs in general is that the gameplay is so uninvolving and statbased that once it starts to get difficult, it gets horrible to play through, and it's really only fun when you're just mindlessly bashing your way through everything, I nearly ragequit at a later bossfight simply because I didn't have the one potion which i superffective, so i get to trade hits and then run around like Benny Hill while my HP regenerated.

The writing does genuinely make it all worth it though, it's really the only Witcher game (unless you count Hearts of Stone) which genuinely has a great last third (whereas it was rushed in the latter two games) and subsequently a damn good narrative. It does suffer from the oldschool weird-nerd-ideas-about-women like you when save a woman from being raped and she rewards you with sex, but that mostly gets done away with when the pacing starts racking up and it ends in a very satosfying way.

You don't have to finish it to understand 2 or 3, so I can't blame you for quitting (I did that myself before I picked it up again, chapter 2 is one of the worst experiences I've had while gaming), but you should know it does actually get good later on, but again, it's up to you.
 

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,056
0
0
It's rough around the edges being the first game, let alone the engine it's running on, but it's kinda tough to take all of OP's comments to heart when the tone clearly reeks of irrational resentment. For example the status effects don't disappear; they are still shown in the top left corner as an appropriate icon depending on the effect. If anything it's more a case of difference in design - even by 2007 by standards - than being broken or what have you.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
I got into The Witcher 1 on my third attempt. I hated it first time and the second time I tried to play it. But I gave it one final attempt before The Witcher 2 was released and I ended up loving it. It just takes a ridiculous amount of time for the good stuff to kick in. It wasn't until I got to Vizima that the game stopped sucking.
 

Wrex Brogan

New member
Jan 28, 2016
803
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
I got into The Witcher 1 on my third attempt. I hated it first time and the second time I tried to play it. But I gave it one final attempt before The Witcher 2 was released and I ended up loving it. It just takes a ridiculous amount of time for the good stuff to kick in. It wasn't until I got to Vizima that the game stopped sucking.
Now the question is, did the game stop sucking or did you come down with a case of Stockholm Syndrome? :p

Personally I could never get into it. I did finish the first game, and I could certainly see where people could look through the rough edges and find something to like, but for me it just... didn't work. Combat was clunky, writing was cheap (not a fan of the 'lots of swearwords to make it sound grimdark' school of literature), everything looked murky and pacing was damn near glacial for too many areas, especially the early zones. Just... not my cup of tea, no matter how I filtered it.

Witcher 3 was great though (Witcher 2 was... ok. Better than 1, at least). Glad they smoothed out all the rough shit from the first one, kinda a rarity with sequels these days.
 

SmallHatLogan

New member
Jan 23, 2014
613
0
0
Some legit criticism here but some of it feels a bit overblown to me. I thought the combat was not good but not terrible, kind of on Morrowind's level. Sidequests were a mixed bag. I ignored a lot of the fetch quests but there were a few narrative based ones that were pretty good. I liked the story but it was way too slow paced at the beginning. The prologue did nothing to endear me to the game at all and the first two chapters were just okay. Alchemy does make a noticeable difference but you can get by without it. Kind of like using items in battle in a Pokemon game. The weapon system felt superfluous. I used the default swords all they way into chapter four, then I bought the best steel sword and was given the best silver one. Art style? Eh, it's alright. Music was great.

So the game has its problems but I still enjoyed it.

Also, possibly an unpopular opinion, but I fucking hated Geralt's English voice. Sounds like he's trying to be a less gravelly version of Batman and/or Solid Snake. I guess some people would consider that a positive, but switching to the Polish track made him much more likeable to me. He seemed more like a normal dude.

bartholen said:
An example: at one point Geralt comes across a werewolf that can talk. It turns out it's a character we've met before acting as a vigilante at night in werewolf form, and is willing to help us. Then the game presents the player the opportunity to kill him, as if assuming the player's automatic response to any monster is "kill kill killapalooza". This is retarded, because 1) this is the first werewolf we see in the game, 2) werewolves haven't even been mentioned or established at this point with any preconceptions to the player, and 3) there's really no other reason for the player to want to kill the werewolf other than the game assuming them to want to.
I thought that bit was pretty straightforward. Witchers kill monsters. A werewolf is a monster. If you're roleplaying Geralt as someone that sticks to his Witcher's principles you'd kill the werewolf.
 

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,056
0
0
Nick Cave said:
Funny thing is, you'll still love it like the rest of us once you get into chapter 4. It definitely has a slow start though, and it hasn't aged very well. But chapter 4, 5 and parts of 3 is genuinely fantastic and make it worth playing.

You don't have to finish it to understand 2 or 3, so I can't blame you for quitting (I did that myself before I picked it up again, chapter 2 is one of the worst experiences I've had while gaming), but you should know it does actually get good later on, but again, it's up to you.
I haven't quit on it, and just made it to chapter 4. Glad to hear it's about to get better, because at this point shoving glass under my fingernails would probably be more entertaining

/comedic hyperbole

Adam Jensen said:
It just takes a ridiculous amount of time for the good stuff to kick in. It wasn't until I got to Vizima that the game stopped sucking.
Why am I reminded of Yahtzee's review of FFXIII right now? Also, for me the beginning of the game might have actually been the better part. Yeah, it's kinda shitty, but at least I could somewhat follow the plot and it seemed to maintain some sort of focus. In Vizima the whole thing splooges into 500 different directions, throws an entire cast of characters at us, and loses any semblance of a central thread. I just wandered from quest to quest (and from town to the swamp, and from the swamp to town, and from town to swamp, etc.) and forgot what I was even supposed to be doing. By the end of it I couldn't make heads or tails about what connected to who, why or how. I just felt like I'd spent the last few hours aimlessly talking to just about every random NPC and done stuff for them until a cutscene triggered.
 

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,056
0
0
hanselthecaretaker said:
It's rough around the edges being on the first game, let alone the engine it's running on, but it's kinda tough to take all of OP's comments to heart when the tone clearly reeks of irrational resentment. For example the status effects don't disappear; they are still shown in the top left corner as an appropriate icon depending on the effect. If anything it's more a case of difference in design - even by 2007 by standards - than being broken or what have you.
I don't really know what's supposed to be irrational about disliking repetitive combat, drawn out gameplay and poor storytelling. And when the foundations of the game fail to work, you start to notice tons of smaller nitpicks (like my whole tirade about the status effect symbols) which start to infuriate you in equal measure.
 

AD-Stu

New member
Oct 13, 2011
1,287
0
0
Yeah I agree with most of the points from OP - I got 30-something hours into it before I gave up and never came back to it.

The biggest thing for me though was realising that I flat out didn't care whether Gerald succeeded in his stupid quest to get his magic potions back or not. Didn't like him, didn't care if he lived or died. Once that realisation hit I just quit the game and never started it up again.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
I'll give the devs credit, it was their first attempt at a game and it wasn't a horribly buggy unplayable mess. It has issues, and a... I don't want to say difficulty or learning curve but there's definitely a curve there that needs to be overcome to truly enjoy it. And its not a guarantee that getting over the initial hump will mean you will enjoy it from then on...
It feels kinda like they wanted to make it more an isometric game but found it worked better as a 3D game.
 

The Madman

New member
Dec 7, 2007
4,404
0
0
I could sum up why I still rather like Witcher 1, but someone else has done it far better than I could already:


Game is super rough around the edges and by todays gaming standards a complete mess, but I still like it for what it was trying to achieve and for its ambitions in doing so. That said I would hesitate to recommend Witcher 1 to most people as a game today simply because its sequels really are better and there's little continuity between the games so they all work well enough as stand-alone games.
 

B-Cell_v1legacy

New member
Feb 9, 2016
2,102
0
0
It indeed suck. so is witcher 3. only 2 is decent game

the thing is franchise is incredibly overrated it always have terrible combat and gameplay.
 

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,056
0
0
Rastrelly said:
bartholen said:
blah-blah
First game is made for fans of the books. It is great. Read the books or GTFO newb.
Isn't that the excuse fans of Suicide Squad used too? And joke's on you, buddy: I have read the books, all of them. Didn't help one bit.
 

RunsWithBears

New member
Apr 16, 2017
13
0
0
The Witcher was brilliant. Possibly one of the best RPGs I have played, despite all it's flaws.

I agree with most of your criticisms, except for the point on alchemy. It actually says that unless you're playing on the hardest difficulty, alchemy isn't necessary to win the game. I enjoyed the mechanic a lot, because you had to prepare before going into combat. Talking to NPCs to figure out what you would be up against (or using common sense) and subsequently gathering ingredients for the needed potions added to the authentic feel of being a 'witcher'.

Atmosphere and authenticity is what made this game special for me. The areas felt alive. The characters you encountered had believable personalities and often a greyish moral background. You never knew who you could trust. That's one thing that I have never experienced before in a game: The Witcher purposely gives you difficult choices of which you cannot oversee all consequences. It adds a layer of uncertainty, which a lot of gamedesigners do not have the balls to include in their game. I feel like it fit the grim, grey atmosphere of the Witcher perfectly, though. "Good" and "bad" choices don't exist, just choices with consequences.

I guess that's the thing with the Witcher. You have to be willing to ignore a lot of faults to appreciate it's brilliancies. I also think that if you're not the roleplaying type, you're destined to underappreciate the original Witcher.
 

Zen Bard

Eats, Shoots and Leaves
Sep 16, 2012
704
0
0
Can't say I disagree with the OP.

The Witcher is the only game I've never finished. I just couldn't stand the gaming mechanics, the cumbersome controls and clunky combat.

Which is a real shame because I'm a huge fan of Sapkowski's books, so I really wanted to like it.

But around a quarter of the way through, it just stopped being fun.
 

Rastrelly

%PCName
Mar 19, 2011
602
0
21
bartholen said:
Rastrelly said:
bartholen said:
blah-blah
First game is made for fans of the books. It is great. Read the books or GTFO newb.
Isn't that the excuse fans of Suicide Squad used too? And joke's on you, buddy: I have read the books, all of them. Didn't help one bit.
Sorry, I don't watch comic book movies. As for the books - read them again, it's clear you carried out nothing of consistency, especially considering how much the first game calls back to the books, and how much more it fits their tone.
 

Kungfu_Teddybear

Member
Legacy
Jan 17, 2010
2,714
0
1
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
SmallHatLogan said:
.

bartholen said:
An example: at one point Geralt comes across a werewolf that can talk. It turns out it's a character we've met before acting as a vigilante at night in werewolf form, and is willing to help us. Then the game presents the player the opportunity to kill him, as if assuming the player's automatic response to any monster is "kill kill killapalooza". This is retarded, because 1) this is the first werewolf we see in the game, 2) werewolves haven't even been mentioned or established at this point with any preconceptions to the player, and 3) there's really no other reason for the player to want to kill the werewolf other than the game assuming them to want to.
I thought that bit was pretty straightforward. Witchers kill monsters. A werewolf is a monster. If you're roleplaying Geralt as someone that sticks to his Witcher's principles you'd kill the werewolf.
Actually, Geralt doesn't kill all monsters. If they're sentient and harmless he'll leave them alone. It's why he doesn't usually kill Succubi, Dopplers, Godlings, and many others. Even werewolves that are able to control themselves in their werewolf form. There's actually a side quest in The Witcher 3 where he even tells a werewolf that. Hell, one of his best friends is a higher vampire.
 

SmallHatLogan

New member
Jan 23, 2014
613
0
0
Kungfu_Teddybear said:
SmallHatLogan said:
.

bartholen said:
An example: at one point Geralt comes across a werewolf that can talk. It turns out it's a character we've met before acting as a vigilante at night in werewolf form, and is willing to help us. Then the game presents the player the opportunity to kill him, as if assuming the player's automatic response to any monster is "kill kill killapalooza". This is retarded, because 1) this is the first werewolf we see in the game, 2) werewolves haven't even been mentioned or established at this point with any preconceptions to the player, and 3) there's really no other reason for the player to want to kill the werewolf other than the game assuming them to want to.
I thought that bit was pretty straightforward. Witchers kill monsters. A werewolf is a monster. If you're roleplaying Geralt as someone that sticks to his Witcher's principles you'd kill the werewolf.
Actually, Geralt doesn't kill all monsters. If they're sentient and harmless he'll leave them alone. It's why he doesn't usually kill Succubi, Dopplers, Godlings, and many others. Even werewolves that are able to control themselves in their werewolf form. There's actually a side quest in The Witcher 3 where he even tells a werewolf that. Hell, one of his best friends is a higher vampire.
I'm not saying Geralt kills all monsters. But the purpose of Witchers is to kill monsters so it makes sense that they would give you the option. If the game had made Geralt kill him without giving you a choice I would've taken issue with it.