Gamers and their unreasonable disdain for the first Witcher game

[Vrach]

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.

Quite simple (for me at least), the combat system is awful. Maybe you enjoy it, but it killed any interest I had in the game when I tried it within 20-30 minutes. It's unbearably boring, and the camera angles are atrocious. I respect the opinion that the game might have a good story, but I can't go through a game I don't enjoy just to see the story play out. There's the book for that anyway

 

[EternallyBored]

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.

Quite simple (for me at least), the combat system is awful. Maybe you enjoy it, but it killed any interest I had in the game when I tried it within 20-30 minutes. It's unbearably boring, and the camera angles are atrocious. I respect the opinion that the game might have a good story, but I can't go through a game I don't enjoy just to see the story play out. There's the book for that anyway

See, I liked the Witcher 1, but I can completely understand where complaints like this come from, it was a flawed game, especially with the bugs at launch, and with patches, it's still very much a flawed game, that really isn't necessary to beat to understand the rest of the series. As much as I like the series, it really isn't necessary to play the first game to understand the second, even the first game kind of banks on you being familiar with the books and doesn't do a fantastic job at introducing characters.

While some people can be hyperbolic in their criticism of the game, I don't really see why you care so much OP? The first game is divisive, amongst critics and audiences, the game got a lot of 7's and other average scores at launch, is it really so hard to comprehend that the game got this kind of criticism? The card collecting mechanic was considered to be juvenile and pointless, it's story and combat can drag for many people, the combat itself is often described as very mediocre, and while I didn't mind it, it seems easy to see why others would dislike it, the story also kind of mediocre overall, it really doesn't go anywhere new or interesting fantasy story wise.

I still like the series, but its seems pretty obvious why others don't, both games have their flaws, and even the things that do work can still be subjective on whether they are fun or not, case in point, the potions mechanic is fun for some, but it is obvious why others might find it tedious and not worth it, and in the second game it is entirely possible to abuse the sign system, especially Quen, to eliminate the need to even use potions in 90% of fights.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I enjoyed Witcher 1, more than 2 in many ways. The engine was older, graphics and what have you too, but I thought the characters, the world, the story and gameplay were fantastic. Having to make difficult choices that alter the path, and outcome, of the game was interesting and the story didn't paint anyone particularly well. I liked the Shani/Triss arc and Calvin (?) was fascinating. The revelations at the end were cleverly done and woven right into the characters and story.

I didn't mind the combat. Remove the timing aspect from it and it's just button mashing. The timing thing added an element of skill to combat that traditional RPGs lack. You have to pay attention and try and a mistake can alter the outcome, as it might in real life (I'm not suggesting combat is or need be realistic).

2 was okay, but very slow. I made the mistake of playing it when it first came out, pre-enhanced edition. The intro was ludicrously tough, the UI was cumbersome and the FoV felt very closed in. It was very KB/M unfriendly too and my suspicions were that they had made a console/cross-platform game (I believe it did end up on consoles, so my suspicion was borne out) that was much less fun to play on the PC than its predecessor. A controller and the enhanced edition made all the difference and I managed a full playthru a few months back. I did like it...I loved the story. But I don't think I liked it enough to have another go and see the game from Iorveth's path, much as I'd like to know how it plays out.

As for TW3, I'm very excited. I'm interested to see how Ciri and Yennefer fit into the world and how they relate to Geralt. I'm interested to know the whole backstory now that Geralt has/will have his memories back and of course, how we can influence a sandbox Witcher game. The Nilfgaard Empire's war will be a great backdrop for the story and action and I'm most interested to see how past choices feature into it too. (f.ex the main antagonist at the end of 2, whether we removed the crystal or not. How do the Scoia'tael fit in, King Henselt (alive or dead), Anaïs's fate and of course, Triss!).

I'm very interested to see how Yennefer and Geralt are with each other (at least she with him), especially with Triss in the picture. In the books, Triss is a minor character and Yennefer is Geralt's real love. In the games however, Triss is the major part of Geralt's life and Yennefer a forgotten memory. Can't wait to play and see how their relationships develop...with Triss being (my) Geralt's love, how can Yennefer compete when we, the player, have known her only briefly? Knowing CDPR, it will be complex, deep and difficult as any choice and equally have a profound impact on Geralt and/or the game.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I've only played the first Witcher and I didn't even make it into the city.
Tried a couple of times after that first attempt but I barely made it out of the castle in those.

Two things ruin the entire game for me; Combat and Camera.
Combat feels stiff and having to time clicks to attack was a chore.
I am not fond of the OTS view because the perspective becomes skewed.
(The isometric view was too clunky to use.)

 

[WeepingAngels]

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.

What thread are you reading? People are mentioning the graphics being bland, the sex cards being stupid and uncomfortable (I personally quit playing because I didn't want kid walking in at the wrong time, if I want to see nudity I don't play a video game), the combat sucked and the inventory was a damn mess.

I think it's unreasonable for you to start a thread and then not read or ignore the responses.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The combat was tedious, the camera angles were infuriating, and once I got to the first "sex scene" I decided that the game wasn't for me.

I don't equate "hardcore gaming" with "being willing to put up with offputting mechanics or controls just to say that you did".

 

[Fappy]

My girlfriend likes it, but after watching her play I really can't say I would. I enjoyed the second game and look forward to the third, but the first one just looks like a slog. No thanks!

 

[Vigormortis]

It's not unreasonable if it's opinion.

If the people you're talking to are saying, "The game did this, and I didn't like it", then it's their opinion and it's as reasonable as your own. If they're saying, "The game did this, and it's bad because ", then it's a critique that you can attempt to refute, if you have quantifiable proof what they're asserting is wrong.

From what you were saying, OP, it sounds like most of what you've been hearing is the former. Therefore, their disdain isn't unreasonable. If anything, your response to their disdain is unreasonable.

People like and dislike different things for different reasons. If they don't like what you like, just let it be. As long as they aren't telling you that you shouldn't like it either, then where's the problem?

From my experience, though, I've come across more fans that prefer the first game to the second, so.... :/

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

I'll admit: I love Torchlight 2. It's easily one of my favorite ARPGs, if not my top favorite. However, I can assure you that playing the game at the higher/highest difficulties isn't about "clicking in a specific rhythm". It very much becomes a game of lightning-fast reactionary combat. Sure, you can initiate a fight with a certain sequence of moves, but in most situations it quickly comes down to switching up your mode of attack with split-second reactions.

And spamming potions. Constantly spamming potions....

 

[RandV80]

Personally I think you can consider it unreasonable disdain only if you look at it from the perspective that CD Projekt was a rookie development studio. The Witcher was their first game with a relatively unknown IP and using a game engine from 2002, Aurora which Bioware used to make the first Neverwinter Nights. All things considered they did a pretty good job, though it's obviously not an accessible game made for everyone. Some of the things people criticize the game for simply wasn't feasible for CD Projekt at the time.

 

[Amaror]

I loved the Witcher but i would recommend people start with the second one, simply because it's easier for people to get into than the first one. The first witcher game has many flaws, i can easily overlook almost all of them myself because i like the rest of the game so much, but i can certainly understand that others can't.

The combat of the game is really basic and not really challenging, the sex-cards are rather awkward, the game isn't pretty, the presentation is overall not very good.
I personally love the game, because how much the decisions impact the story and the game itself, i love how the various places feel alive, because many of the sidequest are really well written and tell interesting stories in and of themselves.

Hell, i even got turned of by the game the first time i played it. I got to chapter three, but the main story takes a bit of a backseat at the beginning of that chapter and i just lost interest in the game because of that. Once the release of the Witcher 2 came nearer i decided to give it another go. During the time between the first and second attempt i became kind of an completionist and i found the game a lot more fun because of it. It's fun to hunt for the various secrets like the special monsters and the stories of the sidequests are generally that good, that it makes up for the times when the main story isn't up to the task.
For example during that beginning of the third chapter i still had several sidequests carried over from the second chapter, which i was now able to resolve, which carried my interest until the mainstory got more engaging again.

 

[NiPah]

So this is just one of those "I don't agree with people saying this game is bad", then a few people will come along and tell you why they thought it was bad, then you'll say "no those reasons aren't good enough because another popular game did them as well"?

Cause it sure seems so, and thus this topic is pretty much done.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Witcher 1 takes forever to get going and the combat is pretty loose. Unless you really enjoy MMO-like combat, it won't stick.

Witcher 2 on the other hand, starts with a castle siege, has a duel with a noble lord and ends with you escaping a dungeon. Even though the combat isn't that well explained, there is still a tutorial available beforehand and once you get the hang of the basics, it's not that bad. Granted, Flotsam takes a long time too, and the early talents are less about making Geralt a good fighter and more of a less-shit one, but there are sidequests, epic beasts and decisions a plenty.

Also it only takes between 4-10 hours to get the game to absolutely dazzle and get to Act II.

Witcher 2 is just more immediately engrossing, and to some people, it still is too slow a burn. Ergo, why Witcher 1 is not recommended, since comparatively, it is an ox in pacing.

 

[Mykal Stype]

Why do you have such an unreasonable disdain for people who answered a question you asked? Fair warning, I'll take one line of your answer out of context, ignore the rest of what you said, and just write "hurr durr" as my argument.

And as an actual answer, the story didn't interest me enough to justify playing through a combat system I found boring. And I liked Flower, Sun, and Rain, in which you spend most of the game walking forward while nothing happens. So I think that says a lot about how hard it is to bore me.

 

[Truth Cake]

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.

Isn't that just a flawless gem of an argument? "All opinions that conflict with mine on this subject are unreasonable because I decided that *some* of them are unreasonable!" With absolutely no self-awareness. Kudos, you've made my week and the week's only just begun.

If a game's introduction cannot draw you in and make you want to see more of the story, you have every right to not want to continue if you think you're going to be wasting your time with it.

My patience (as well as most people's I'm sure) is finite and so is the time that I/we have to devote to this one game, so why should I/we continue wasting my time being bored if the beginning part of it doesn't make me WANT to continue? Because some stranger on the internet told me it gets better in X hours? Why can't I just play a different game that's got a good intro that makes me WANT to continue, a game that gets good the moment you start it rather than so many hours of slogging through boredom from now?

Back on topic, I personally haven't played the first Witcher game, but I did play the second one for 5 hours or so. Got a fair way into the first town before I lost track of what I was supposed to be doing because of all the tedious sidequests that got in the way, so I gave it up.

 

[Megalodon]

'Takes forever to get going' is a weird one, but also rather accurate. I found the first act a real slog, but the quality really improved once you got to the city and received the Silver Sword. I really enjoyed the second and third acts. But then Act 4 screwed up the plot's rising tension completely 'you've uncovered part of a conspiracy, but they want you dead, so cool your heels in the country until Triss calls'. It felt like reverting to the worst aspects of Act 1, sticking you into a pointless holding pattern of busywork for however long, and completely killed my interest in continuing with the game.

 

[AntiChri5]

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.

Having likes and dislikes, personal preferences, is unreasonable now?

How interesting.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

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.

1st reply hits the nail on the head.

I did like the first game ALOT, but it definitely took me more than one try to really get into it, and even then, it took ALOT of effort to slug through that first chapter/area, and then after that the story picks up speed and I can really sink my teeth into it.

This game is definitely a rough gem, there are plenty of valid complaints against it, but they certainly don't bug me (subjectively at least) and it shouldn't bug you either OP, the game got its sequel and is getting another one here soon, so there is no reason to get your jimmies all rustled about it.

 

[Don Incognito]

The story was obtuse, the combat was maybe a level above atrocious, the voice acting ranged from bad to mediocre, and sweet monkey jesus, the very existence of the sex cards is quite possibly the most embarrassing story in the sad, sordid, and still ongoing saga of misogyny and gaming.

The sequel was... marginally better in most of these respects, but still not good. I couldn't force myself to carry on past the first act in either game.

 

[Loonyyy]

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.

Good thing they never encountered the action, because that's fucking horrendous. They got out in a timely manner.

I mean really, the "You must like Call of Duty" line of reasoning? What is this, the ingame chat of Battlefield?

If you want to convince people to give it a go, and change their mind, here's a tip: Don't start by calling them unreasonable in the thread title. Don't issue only angry dismissive strawmen in response. Actually give them a reason to play. Because rather than the impression that you like the game because of some reasons, I'm getting the impression that you are angry with those who dislike it, which is in itself, extremely unreasonable.

Give people reason to like it. If, like you say, you think that people haven't played it long enough, or through enough, then tell them why they should, what experiences they're missing. Me, I never finished it. The story was paced extremely slowly (Nothing to do with the action content), and the combat was, as someone else said, tedious. Wandering around boring environments for little reason at the start hardly put it high in my favour. It's been sitting in my "Not playing" pile for a long time.

I gave the Witcher 2 a start though, so I'm hoping that one turns out better.