Gamers and their unreasonable disdain for the first Witcher game

[ninja666]

Since Witcher 3 is right around the corner, many a gamers decide to pick up the previous Witcher games and beat them before the third one releases. Because of that more often than not you can see forum threads and whatnot entitled "Which The Witcher game should I start with?" or something similar. Every time I see such a thred, 99% of the answers say they should start with Witcher 2 cause Witcher 1 is awful. Why do people think so and why is Witcher 2 preferred so much over the first one to the point where most of the people don't even care they are starting a story-driven game from the middle? Also, why do they think the first Witcher is "good, but not great" at best and should be avoided in the first place? Seriously, enlighten me cause I don't understand.

 

[raeior]

Well I like Witcher 1 actually more than 2 but I still can see why many people have problems with it. The combat system is bad. Pretty much just clicking in a specific rythm and everything goes down extremely easy. I guess many people also still remember the launch of Witcher 1 and it was horrible back then (so was 2 though..). The inventory is quite a mess, the world is mostly grey and brown with rain added on top. The sex cards were quite of a weird idea too and might be off-putting to some people. Also the story takes a lot of time to get interesting. The first area (after the Tutorial) is huge and consists of a lot of "kill X of this" or "Gather Y of this" missions. Especially the gather missions are also a problem for many people because they have no idea how to get sunken brains or whatever because they did not buy the necessary books to teach Geralt the gathering of said ressources.

The game picks up quite a bit after you enter Wyzima but a lot of people probably never get that far.

 

[asdfen]

witcher 1 is one of my faorite games ever however it used to be one of bugiest games ever at the time of release

 

[ninja666]

The combat system is bad. Pretty much just clicking in a specific rythm and everything goes down extremely easy.

Yet the people who think so probably have fun of their life playing games like Diablo and Torchlight.

The sex cards were quite of a weird idea too and might be off-putting to some people.

I agree, it was weird. Witcher 2's fully fledged, cinematic sex scenes aren't that much better either, though. They're still awkward and painful to look at.

Also the story takes a lot of time to get interesting. The first area (after the Tutorial) is huge and consists of a lot of "kill X of this" or "Gather Y of this" missions. [...]
The game picks up quite a bit after you enter Wyzima but a lot of people probably never get that far.

I never noticed that. I though it's normal for the story to take a while before picking up in an RPG. This isn't Call of Duty. You think it has something to do with the ever-shortening attention span in today's society?

 

[Zhukov]

Because it was arse?

Combat was arse. Just a tedious chore. Click on enemies. Keep clicking. Click extra hard when mouse pointer glows.

Graphics were arse. Maybe it was due to low budget, but prettier games have been made on far less by knowing their limits. If you don't have the money for a big 3D game then don't be surprised when your big 3D game comes out looking like hammered shit.

Voice acting was arse. Very flat and amateurish. Everyone sounded bored out of their minds. Which was at least somewhat appropriate I suppose, since not much of interest was happening and I was bored out of my mind too.

Maybe the story was good. Judging by the sequel, I seriously doubt it. What I can say from experience is that the first couple of hours of the story were total arse.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

I've only played the 1st one and then only a bit. I quite liked the design and world. Combat wasn't bad. Then I got to the section in the city. By god it dragged. I just couldn't be bothered playing it anymore. Stop playing, uninstall. Never been back to it since.

 

[Phasmal]

From what I heard the most the first Witcher game got was a resounding `meh`, but the people who liked it seem really invested in defending it, as we've had one of these `why didn't people like the first Witcher` threads before.

For me, I never played it, I know a couple of people who did and while some of them enjoyed it, it just wasn't one of those games that grabbed them.

I don't think it's unreasonable disdain for people not to like a game though.

 

[ninja666]

I don't think it's unreasonable disdain for people not to like a game though.

It actually is unreasonable, though because for the most part, the only argument people have against this game is "the first chapter had no action in it so I ditched the game hurr durr" like they expect fucking Call of Duty and not an RPG.

 

[endtherapture]

Since Witcher 3 is right around the corner, many a gamers decide to pick up the previous Witcher games and beat them before the third one releases. Because of that more often than not you can see forum threads and whatnot entitled "Which The Witcher game should I start with?" or something similar. Every time I see such a thred, 99% of the answers say they should start with Witcher 2 cause Witcher 1 is awful. Why do people think so and why is Witcher 2 preferred so much over the first one to the point where most of the people don't even care they are starting a story-driven game from the middle? Also, why do they think the first Witcher is "good, but not great" at best and should be avoided in the first place? Seriously, enlighten me cause I don't understand.

The Witcher 1 is an acquired taste. It's a bit of a throwback to old school RPG games. It's obtuse, old school and complicated. The game doesn't ohld your hand and you're gonna have to spend time in the journal section reading a lot of information in order to make heads of the plot, game mechanics and understanding what to do. It's a really long game that burns very slowly, so a lot of more modern gamers with shorter attention spans might not find themselves entertained by the slow progression. Personally I grew up playing those old school RPGs, so I fell in love with the game.

The writing is a bit weird. It's clearly translated from Polish so a lot of characters say odd things and the conversations are very disjointed. Half the writing is painful and cringey, and the other half is incredibly brilliant and masterful so it's a mixed boat. The good outweighs the bad in my opinion. The combat is weird too, but once you get into it it really makes sense, because it's timed clicks, and the Witcher's fighting style is about rhythm so it's actually good. The combat is basically about getting your rhythm up whilst preparing and adapting to enemies that you're fighting, and it can actually get quite hectic.

The best part of the game in my opinion is the world design. The place really feels alive in a way Skyrim or Dragon Age never could. It captures the atmosphere of a grimy medieval world really well, and the sound design and music is frankly amazing. I found myself really immersed in the world and that was what made the game so special for me. Sometimes it's just interesting to sit, listen to the soundtrack and watch the NPCs go about their life.

The Witcher 2 is by far a more focused experience and a more traditional AAA title, with big cutscenes, twitchy combat and stunning visuals. I rate both games similarly but The Witcher 2 is an easier game for a modern gamer to enjoy rather than the more old-school outlook of its predecessor. Both are 9/10s for me, two of the finest RPGs ever made.

 

[Phasmal]

I don't think it's unreasonable disdain for people not to like a game though.

It actually is unreasonable, though because for the most part, the only argument people have against this game is "the first chapter had no action in it so I ditched the game hurr durr" like they expect fucking Call of Duty and not an RPG.

You think it's unreasonable. But there are other arguments against the game in this very thread. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

But as I said, I never played that game, and I don't think I would, so it's no skin off my nose if people like it or not.

 

[aozgolo]

I wouldn't call it awful, I just can't seem to get into it, I mean I love the setting and the story and all, and the gameplay while not terrible just feels very slowly paced. The combat doesn't feel very immersive though admittedly I never got out of the first chapter. Also the whole potion mechanic is hard for me to wrap my head around, drinking potions before a fight is very counter-intuitive to typical gaming conventions, not saying it's a bad convention but the whole game makes me feel like I need to unlearn other game's habits before diving in and that's what puts me off the most I think.

 

[DoPo]

Also the whole potion mechanic is hard for me to wrap my head around, drinking potions before a fight is very counter-intuitive to typical gaming conventions, not saying it's a bad convention but the whole game makes me feel like I need to unlearn other game's habits before diving in and that's what puts me off the most I think.

That's actually something I really liked about Witcher - the preparation. If you were to go in a vampire den (for example) you'd have a hard time clearing it - not impossible, but hard. But if you prepare correctly, it becomes more manageable. Then again, too much preparation is going to hurt you...well, I think - if I remember correctly, there was a toxicity mechanic with the potions so you couldn't just chug them like you were on life support.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

It actually is unreasonable, though because for the most part, the only argument people have against this game is "the first chapter had no action in it so I ditched the game hurr durr" like they expect fucking Call of Duty and not an RPG.

If you have to resort to "hurr durr" in an argument it's quite clear you're on the losing side. When people say "no action in the first chapter" they tend to mean "there was nothing of import happening story-wise." If nothing of interest either in gameplay or plot people are well within their rights to ditch it.

 

[Elfgore]

I loved first Witcher. Best game in the series so far. Yeah, the first act was painfully slow. Yes, it really did start to drag near the end. But I enjoyed everything it did way more than the The Witcher 2, which I still haven't completed. The developers decided annoying as fuck gameplay = fun?

Nothing beat the first time I wandered into a cave only to learn that I actually had to have a torch or a potion to see in the dark. Very few things have made me feel so badass as wandering into a room full of guards, swinging my blade about in group attack mode, and watching every single one fall to the ground without a head. A personal favorite of mine, is that it reminded me a lot of the KoToR series in maps and navigation.

I wouldn't call the hatred unreasonable, but I would suggest people to actually try out the Witcher before marking it off.

 

[endtherapture]

Also the whole potion mechanic is hard for me to wrap my head around, drinking potions before a fight is very counter-intuitive to typical gaming conventions, not saying it's a bad convention but the whole game makes me feel like I need to unlearn other game's habits before diving in and that's what puts me off the most I think.

That's actually something I really liked about Witcher - the preparation. If you were to go in a vampire den (for example) you'd have a hard time clearing it - not impossible, but hard. But if you prepare correctly, it becomes more manageable. Then again, too much preparation is going to hurt you...well, I think - if I remember correctly, there was a toxicity mechanic with the potions so you couldn't just chug them like you were on life support.

Yeah the toxicity system is really genius because it makes you choose your buff and carefully select what potions to take. You have to weigh up the benefits of increased health regeneration vs stamina regeneration vs better reflexes or more damage. It's great because it makes you think instead of just chugging potions. Late in the game there's a potion which directly restores your health instantly but you've even got to think about using that otherwise you can push your toxicity over the edge and just die. It's a refreshing mechanics which I really like above just buffing using consumables in combat with no consequences, the only limitation being how many potions you have. Being able to drink 100x potions with no consequence in Skyrim has always rubbed me up the wrong way.

 

[Rip Van Rabbit]

I enjoyed the story, setting and certain characters. Beyond that though, I feel that the game was weighed down by an abundance of obtuse design choices that stood in the way of enjoying the entire experience.

At the time, it was refreshing to have to read and pay attention to the journal, the idea of potion preparation and research, making choices that affect the story in dramatic ways. But the obtuse menu design, combat that resorted to clicking when the cursor flashed to a different icon while Geralt did all these flashy moves that I wish I was performing, potion preparation was a chore, the story (while interesting) dragged on for longer than needed and in the end, the gameplay felt tedious.

I don't feel that it was a bad game by any means, but the quickest way to lose my interest is a dull "click-when-cursor-says-so" combat system. Which is, unfortunately, a large portion of the game.

 

[ninja666]

If you have to resort to "hurr durr" in an argument it's quite clear you're on the losing side. When people say "no action in the first chapter" they tend to mean "there was nothing of import happening story-wise." If nothing of interest either in gameplay or plot people are well within their rights to ditch it.

If you think two words decide whether I'm on the winning or the losing side, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I wouldn't call the hatred unreasonable, but I would suggest people to actually try out the Witcher before marking it off.

I'd suggest they should try out the game past the first chapter cause that's where most of the people stop playing.

Also the whole potion mechanic is hard for me to wrap my head around, drinking potions before a fight is very counter-intuitive to typical gaming conventions, not saying it's a bad convention but the whole game makes me feel like I need to unlearn other game's habits before diving in and that's what puts me off the most I think.

Aren't you confusing it with Witcher 2? IIRC in Witcher 1 you could drink potions you had in your quick slots on the spot. The toxicity meter was still there, but you weren't forced to drink them exclusively before fights.

 

[endtherapture]

I enjoyed the story, setting and certain characters. Beyond that though, I feel that the game was weighed down by an abundance of obtuse design choices that stood in the way of enjoying the entire experience.

At the time, it was refreshing to have to read and pay attention to the journal, the idea of potion preparation and research, making choices that affect the story in dramatic ways. But the obtuse menu design, combat that resorted to clicking when the cursor flashed to a different icon while Geralt did all these flashy moves that I wish I was performing, potion preparation was a chore, the story (while interesting) dragged on for longer than needed and in the end, the gameplay felt tedious.

I don't feel that it was a bad game by any means, but the quickest way to lose my interest is a dull "click-when-cursor-says-so" combat system. Which is, unfortunately, a large portion of the game.

If you put the game on hard mode, you have to click when the sword trails change colour (very subtle), or just learn the number of attacks in each pattern by counting and deciding when to click, which is actually really cool in my opinion.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

If you think two words decide whether I'm on the winning or the losing side, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Okay, then how about the entire sentence of which those two words were a part of?

"the first chapter had no action in it so I ditched the game hurr durr"

You had to resort to a strawman fallacy in order to paint the first game's critics as some lesser beings who clearly didn't understand it. No, a lot of people understood it fine. But it didn't keep the game from being any less boring and any less of a chore to get into. It's just tedious and dull and you can't expect people to wait to be entertained whether it be via gameplay or plot. And that's before we get into the problems of the juvenile attempts at maturity via grimy violence, gratuitous swearing, and of course its...uncomfortable portrayals of women.

 

[w23eer]

It actually is unreasonable, though because for the most part, the only argument people have against this game is "the first chapter had no action in it so I ditched the game hurr durr" like they expect fucking Call of Duty and not an RPG.

Well that would be a silly argument, considering the first chapter is nearly entirely action.

I quite liked the Witcher at first, but I really felt it got a bit tedious at the mid point and I just lost interest. I never felt the combat was engaging, but that's probably because I was playing on normal difficulty. I kinda wanted to try it again on hard, but I wasn't able to force myself to. Maybe someday, but not any time soon.

I actually played the Witcher 2 before I played the Witcher 1, and I honestly don't feel as if I missed any meaningful narrative. I always thought it would be nice to know who the recurring characters are (Dandelion, Zoltan and Triss) as they're never properly introduced in the Witcher 2 (the game sort of assumes you know them already)... but they're not really introduced in the Witcher 1 either. "Hi I'm Triss, I love you, let's fuck." Alright then.