How good is the first witcher game?

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

most recently I was playing fallout 3. The exploring was very good but now I just want to play a game better written and that does not that inspires almost pure apathy. I felt apathy towards the existence of the writing itself by end. The only exception to all of this a one short moment of good writing during the pitt dlc.

The real question is should I get it while it's on sale for 2 dollars. I have heard it has sucky combat but I tolerated the the boring combat of planescape torment, and it had boring start. I still ended up beating the game just for the writing and story.
I beat Kotor 2 multiple times, the gameplay piss easy, and boring. yet it is still consider it to be one of my favorite games.
If the writing if good enough then I'm quite sure I can tolerate shit gameplay.

my laptop would melt if I tried to play the witcher 2 on it. Playing that is currently not an option.

EDIT
Ok I bought the game. If the first chapter or so is boring like people say then I will play with the hope that it gets better.
If my patience wears thin I only $2 was wasted; no big loss.

 

[hazabaza1]

Not very.
I gave it a good few chances, got to the second chapter on two different save files, but everything is just so dull and lacks any kind of enthusiasm. Gameplay is boring, voice acting is awful, writing was dull up to then but maybe it gets better, I dunno.

If you get a summary of the first one the second game is pretty great however.

 

[IceForce]

Terribad.

2 different swords with 3 different ways to wield each one, makes for some very complicated sword play.
The story was uncompelling too. I felt no motivation to pursue the plotline, but I did anyway hoping it would get better. It didn't.

#subjective #opinion

 

[The Madman]

I like it. I don't think it's as good as The Witcher 2, but for a first game by a new developer it ain't half bad and to its credit it even does some things better than the sequel.

If I had to throw a major complaint at the first game it's the pacing. This is a game that goes from interesting to boring to frantic to lethargic one after the one after the other. One moment you're fighting off a bandit army conquering a keep and the next you're wandering a small village looking for ghosts, which isn't nearly as exciting as it sounds. It's not helped by a few slow introduction sequence either, the first two chapters aren't very interesting and yet take hours and hours to get through them. If you are interested enough to have gotten through them then the game definitely does pick up, and I absolutely love how malleable the plot is and how many of your earlier decisions come back and have consequences later on, but this takes time and patience.

No complaints about the gameplay. I didn't mind it, but obviously others feel differently. Character models aren't very good but the environments look nice. Good soundtrack. Mediocre voice acting. Uneven dialogue quality, which can be chalked up to a mediocre translation job. And a good but poorly paced story with some interesting characters and some intriguing choices to have to make.

Worth giving a try I'd say but don't expect a masterpiece. Witcher 2 is a better game in nearly every regard, but the first is still worth experiencing if you're the patient sort that likes these sort of choice driven rpg experiences.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Well, for starters, the game isn't anywhere near as hard as most people seem to claim it is. Well, at the hardest difficulty it might be, but I never understood why it is considered overly complicated in its base mechanics.

After that, the game has some truly terrible voice acting, and that does harm some of the characters. The time-specific nature of the quests can make the game rather tedious at times, especially if you have nothing to do for what amounts to ten real-time minutes. The save system is rather horrible, and can't figure out if it wants you to replay too much or too little. The gameplay can also be a bit dull given that the swordplay is more about spectacle than actual substance.

However, I was able to look past most of those problems. The world is interesting, and the quests and writing were normally very compelling. It may not be the best we've ever seen, and if you've followed any dark fantasy story in the last few years you've seen almost everything it has to offer. Still, I'd say it's a good game and worth picking up, especially if you can get it for as cheap as $2.

 

[Fireaxe]

It's certainly worth a play, I prefer it to the second one. The combat is fairly simple (essentially you have 6 ways to fight with your swords, look at your enemy and use the one that makes sense) and by the end of the game it's pretty easy (this is also the case in the sequel), the story is fun after the first chapter but said first chapter is a bit hit and miss.

I'd argue the combat in the first is better than the second, mostly because the second is incredibly easy to break.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

Snip

how many hours does the first couple chapters take?
Games have yet burned much by the prospect of getting later so far. I am willing to chance it for such a cheap price. if the amount of time is not ridiculous.

 

[Clowndoe]

I've never heard anyone dislike the game enough for it to be not worth 2$. It's a weird statement for sure, but that's all I got. I feel like the over-arching story is worth 10$ alone.

 

[The Madman]

how many hours does the first couple chapters take? Games have yet burned much by the prospect of getting later so far so I am willing to chance it for $2 if the amount of time is not ridiculous.

The Witcher is a pretty long game so beating the first few chapters can take anywhere from 5 to 15ish hours based on how thorough you are in completing sidequests or exploring the environments. The game in its entirety is anywhere from 30 to 50ish hours again based on how much of a completionist someone is, with lots of branching paths based on the decisions you make throughout. Nothing like Witcher 2 which has an entirely different location for one chapter based on your decisions, but they're impactful enough that if you wanted to try and see everything the game has to offer you'd need more than one playthrough for certain.

 

[Alma Mare]

It's an excellent game, one of the best of its kind. It does feel crude when compared to Witcher 2 and commited the cardinal sin of having botched his pacing. It spends the Prologue and first 2 Chapters setting the tone and faffing around before ramping up the stakes. When you know what you are getting into or you are enjoying the gameplay and setting for what it is at that point, then it's great. But I know many people get bored and turned off by that and don't push through 3 and beyond.

Once it finally starts joining the threads together and ramping up the stakes, it becomes VERY good. The way it handles story layers and consequences is awesome. For 2 dollars is a no brainer.

 

[Sack of Cheese]

It's a very pretty game! Aside from the graphic, the story is alright, the characters are alright, combat is fun and tight but you gotta remember to buff up before heading towards the swamp, field or whatever combat area.
It reminds me a lot of that 90s Hercules show, episodic monster of the week set in medieval fantasy world.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

You should keep in mind though with both games, if you're like me and not too fond of nudity and etc, then you better steer WAY CLEAR of these games. They're full of immature crap [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8300-Sexual-Failing] like that.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

once you understand the gameplay, it is laughably easy, I kept fucking it up really hard at first but once I got patient and realized what it was, it was a fucking breeze for the most part.

Yeah the pacing can be pretty fucking bad in some spots, but if you stick to the main quests (seriously, some of the sidequests are boring as hell and not worth it) you should get through just fine, perhaps look up a guide just to get the jist of what each main storyline entails so you aren't searching for hours how to figure out certain parts.

I did enjoy it after I got the gameplay down and got past the first chapter or two, but it's definitely not for everyone.

 

[MrDumpkins]

I thought the game was pretty fun, it has some beautiful locations and a great story. It's purposefully dull at the beginning because they are world building and setting up what's going on. It definitely is a game you have to pay attention to or you'll get confused as things go on. But if you invest the time the game wants you too it will be a really awesome experience. I absolutely loved it and the sequel, and can't wait for the third. CD projekt are great developers that really care about their customers (guess that's what you get when you live in a different culture than the US, where profits > customer satisfaction). The enhanced edition was free for anyone who owned the game and added more content and fixed a lot of the bugs a small developer can't possibly foresee even with QA.

Also the way it handles moral choice is basically "choose the lesser two evils" but your choices don't show consequences until later in the game, so you can't just pick a choice, not like it, and reload, unless you want to replay a ton of content.

 

[Weaver]

I wanted to like it. I've tried to play it several times but I just get so bloody bored each time. There is tons of travel time. Like I feel like I'm just walking around doing pointless sidequests that aren't fun for 15 hours.

The lore of the world is really good, the whole potion brewing thing was super cool; but the rest of the game just bored the hell out of me.

If there is a mod that let Geralt run at 10x speed the game would be more fun to me.

 

[The Madman]

You should keep in mind though with both games, if you're like me and not too fond of nudity and etc, then you better steer WAY CLEAR of these games. They're full of immature crap [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8300-Sexual-Failing] like that.

Meh, the card thing is also completely optional in Witcher 1, which is something people tend to overlook. I'll agree fully that it was dumb as hell and I'm glad the devs dropped it for the sequel, but even so I'd hardly consider it a game breaking ordeal especially when, again, it's completely optional and only shows up if you choose for it to.

Witcher 2 I found quite well done even. It still had it's moments of silly pandering, heh, lesbomancy, but in general I still found that it handled the touchy subject of sex better than, say, Dragon Age and its ridiculous cutscenes or influence system. And I say that as someone who actually quite likes Dragon Age: Origins.

 

[OpticalJunction]

I liked it a lot, it gets better towards the end unlike witcher 2 which starts off strong but gets lamer towards the end. The combat was not a problem for me, personally.

 

[Autumnflame]

i highly enjoyed both.

as they were a break from the stale " American " hero type games

i can understand if people didnt like it since its not for everyone

 

[Mausthemighty]

I liked the game. I liked it better than the second. I don't get why people here are so negative about it. Even the card game was fun. I tried to collect them all.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

the bad voice acting I found charming, reminded me of the PS1 era. the re use of NPC character models spoiled my immersion a little.

i love isometric views, so i enjoyed that aspect, and it was a really good effort by a new developer. i liked the style and i liked the rythem of the fighting.

the story and characters are good, but the pacing made it a bit of a grind. play once for sure. not sure if it will have much replay value for you