So like, how difficult/complex is The Witcher 2?

[bojackx]

Given the extremely positive reviews and general scarcity of titles I'm interested in, The Witcher 3 has caught my attention. After I asked my friend who's a big Witcher fan if I should get it, he said I'd be better able to appreciate the storyline if I play the second game in the series first.

From what I've heard, The Witcher 3 has a more accessible start than the second game, and hence I don't know if I'd be alright with the second game. I stay far away from games like Dark Souls as crippling difficulty is not something that at all interests me.

So my question: just how difficult/complex is the second Witcher game? Are the mechanics difficult to get your head around? Are the tutorials lacking in detail?

Whilst not exactly the best source for information, Yahtzee said in his Witcher 2 review that it's needlessly complex and a drain to learn, so I don't know.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's not particularly complex/difficult. There are a couple of boss fights that can be a bit of a *****, but if I can do them, so can you.

It's a much more linear game than 3, and doesn't have anywhere near the same ambition and scope.

Notably, you won't have any idea WTF is going on in Witcher 2 without playing the extremely wonky Witcher 1. You can catch up via YouTube videos, but you could just as easily do that for Witcher 2.

Ultimately, it's up to you. There are a lot of very detailed lore dumps people prepared to get newcomers ready for Witcher 3. If you want to avoid the previous games in the series, that's an option.

 

[EternallyBored]

I'll echo Guppy here, the game isn't exceptionally complex, the enhanced edition fixes a lot of the control issues that plagued the game at launch, the combat doesn't feel nearly as delayed and floaty anymore.

That said, what Yahtzee was likely referring to was the potion mechanic and the sword mechanic, you had to meditate, go to a separate screen, and pick what potions and items to use before a fight, while some people found it strategic, I will say it was mostly a chore, and once you've upgraded your fighting or signs enough, you don't even really need to do it anymore. It's a fairly simple system, but finding books to reveal monster weaknesses, hunting ingredients to make potions, and then wasting a minute or two putzing around screens to create and consume potions before any fight you wanted to use them in tended to take you out of the action for little reward, I basically ignored the alchemy in Witcher 2. If you play it and find the system tedious, then put some points into Quen, and other signs, you can pretty much make up for the lack of potions with little difficulty.

The sword issue Yahtzee talks about is the whole steel vs. silver sword thing, from a purely gameplay standpoint its a silly complication that doesn't really add much to the game, but it fits the lore of the world and adds to the immersion for those who follow the books, so it's kind of a necessary aspect for story purposes. You use steel swords on humans and regular animals, and you use silver on monsters, Witcher 3 makes this pretty simple by changing the healthbar design depending on which sword you need to use, and having Geralt enter combat pulling out the correct sword for the situation. In Witcher 2, it was fairly easy to tell which sword to use, but if you hit the wrong button you generally had to panic dodge for a few seconds in order to put the wrong sword away and pull out the right one. For those that don't care much for the books, the two swords mechanic comes off as kind of pointlessly complicating the combat system, especially since Witcher 2 didn't have a ton of sword upgrades so the two swords were usually almost identical barring the fact that you use one sword on one type of enemy and a different sword on another.

You can get the game really cheap now, so if you've got the cash to spare try it, if you don't, I would just watch a Youtube video and jump straight to Witcher 3.

 

[MysticSlayer]

There's a tutorial mode that is separate from the story, and the game asks if you want to start there. If you want to lower the difficulty of learning the game, that is a great place to start. The biggest issue from a mechanical standpoint will be wrapping your head around the signs, but that tutorial goes over them reasonably well.

After that, it isn't too complex. There is a lot of stuff there, but so much of it is mostly unnecessary at lower difficulty levels. That said, the game can still be a challenge, especially early on. The end game can also be brutal, but that may have just been due to me rushing through it at that point.

Overall, the game is tough, brutal at times even. However, I wouldn't really call it that complex of a game, at least if you stick to lower difficulty levels.

 

[Smooth Operator]

There is a steep learning curve, unlike something as Batman games where the one basic attack can take you through most of the game Witcher 2 will require you to learn quite a few moves right from the start or you will be completely useless.

Once you learn them properly things aren't bad at all, but you do need to learn first.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I would just watch a Youtube video and jump straight to Witcher 3.

Probably a good idea. Just watch a playthrough on YouTube. There is a slight twist here though so you might have to watch two separate videos. The game is completely different in Act 2 depending on one choice that you make at the end of Act 1. If you choose to go with one character instead of the other you'll end up in a different location with different characters and missions.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

Complex? Very.

Difficult? Eh...... not really.

There's exploits that CDPR can't/haven't patched out that'll send every monster in the game to pound town in the fuck truck.

The game is very much about preparation, it's about embining the right potions BEFORE a fight, it's about knowing what signs you'll need BEFORE the fight, it's about reading the bestiary to get hints about the monsters attack pattern BEFORE the fight.

Here's a Witcher 3 example. A lot of people were stuck on the Noonwraith fight in White Orchard. What they didn't know (and would have if they'd read the bestiary before the fight) is that Noonwraiths are much weaker when you fight them at night. A lot of people didn't know that if you use the Yrden sign to trap the Noonwraith then she won't be spectral anymore and your hits will actually do a lot more damage.

If they'd read the bestiary (which is a must in Witcher games) they'd have steamrolled the Noonwraith into oblivion.

The Witcher 2 is the same way. Read about enemies before you fight them, you'll be in for a more tactical, thoughtful experience than if you run in hoping to do nothing but wiggle your sword at enemies until they fall over dead.

 

[mysecondlife]

Given the extremely positive reviews and general scarcity of titles I'm interested in, The Witcher 3 has caught my attention. After I asked my friend who's a big Witcher fan if I should get it, he said I'd be better able to appreciate the storyline if I play the second game in the series first.

From what I've heard, The Witcher 3 has a more accessible start than the second game, and hence I don't know if I'd be alright with the second game. I stay far away from games like Dark Souls as crippling difficulty is not something that at all interests me.

So my question: just how difficult/complex is the second Witcher game? Are the mechanics difficult to get your head around? Are the tutorials lacking in detail?

Whilst not exactly the best source for information, Yahtzee said in his Witcher 2 review that it's needlessly complex and a drain to learn, so I don't know.

I paid for Witcher 2 years ago and only got around playing it to play Witcher 3.

I started Witcher 3 couple of days ago and I have to say I don't recommend playing W2. I found W3's mechanics little uninviting at first after getting used to W2.

Just jump straight to Witcher 3. You'll be happier that way.

 

[Leon Royce]

If you are going to play the Witcher series, I would recommend playing the first one. As dated as the graphics are and as un-interresting as the combat is, it's worth it for the setting and story. The characters, writing and choices are great. I remember enjoying it greatly despite myself.

The witcher 2 is the weakest entry in the series. While graphically you could call it a sleeper next gen title, its combat is terrible, its difficulty is all over the place, and the environment is so small and linear you will spend about 75% of play time in dialogue trees. The story and setting are also quite weak. Lots of names of people and places being thrown around whom you will not know about until the Witcher 3,

I stopped playing the Witcher 2 by the third act.

The witcher 3 is fantastic. I would recommend watching some good story recap videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiqMr0OvQog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSftIRQzYCM

But honestly I would recommend jumping straight into the Witcher 3. All around, it's the best in the series by far, and the other two, especially the first one, are seriously dated.

 

[Aerosteam]

Difficult? Eh, not really. My third run through the game was in Dark Mode and it was easier than I thought. Basically by:

Focusing all level ups on improving dodging and speed.
Use light attacks only and dodge everywhere.

That's all I did. :|

 

[Spushkin]

As someone who managed to enjoy all three Witcher games despite their issues and differences, I'd say the following: if you have time, play all of them, in succession. The controls, graphics, possibly even platforms will change (a friend of mine played Witcher on PC, Witcher 2 on Xbox 360, and Witcher 3 on PS4), but it's a hell of an awesome trip if you get into the lore and the characters.

Little nods in Witcher 3 will mean the world to you if you played the previous games, and literally nothing if you hadn't.

Of course, it takes time and patience, but if you have those, go ahead and just enjoy yourself.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

If you are going to play the Witcher series, I would recommend playing the first one. As dated as the graphics are and as un-interresting as the combat is, it's worth it for the setting and story. The characters, writing and choices are great. I remember enjoying it greatly despite myself.

The witcher 2 is the weakest entry in the series. While graphically you could call it a sleeper next gen title, its combat is terrible, its difficulty is all over the place, and the environment is so small and linear you will spend about 75% of play time in dialogue trees. The story and setting are also quite weak. Lots of names of people and places being thrown around whom you will not know about until the Witcher 3,

Subjectivity FTW, because my full viewing of a Witcher 1 LP was enough to put me the idea of ever playing the thing myself. Awful gameplay, terrible dialogue system (to be fair, 2 has some of its failings), bland settings, and only the rare character who seemed well realised (or well voiced).

I thought 2 was better in every respect bar a few small details (I'm not keen on 2's leniency with meditation and potions - or how little time they last. and retaining full style modes in combat would've been nice), but I'd agree it throws around lots of names and references to events which flew right over my head when I first played it (or that'll be explained by Witcher 3).

As for the topic itself? Nah, 2's not that complex or difficult, although both 1 and 2 have some rather obtuse and unhelpful quest design (and 2's 'tutorial' is fairly rubbish). I'd advise saving and testing new skills and upgrades out before committing, because you can't really afford to be wasteful with spending Talents. Maybe you don't want the hassle, but it'd be worth looking up some wiki entries to get a better idea of what's going to work for you in terms of gameplay style. 2's combat was a major step up from 1's peculiar design, but having played it again recently, it's still a rather iffy system that invariably requires much dopey rolling around the floor to avoid hits.

 

[Bellvedere]

Definitely worthwhile playing the first two games, simply because they're good games (though the first has aged, W2 is still awesome). The combat in W2 can be a little difficult at the start until you level up and get some more skills to use (things like being able to hit multiple enemies at once). You can adjust the difficulty at any time though. Asides from that there's nothing particularly difficult and complex about it (has a very thorough tutorial system I thought).

If you're only interested in playing the third game though, you could easily just read the plot from wikipedia but even that's probably not necessary.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

Play it!

Seriously, TW2 is stunning and will wet your appetite or TW3 even more.

Regards complexity & difficulty, well here's a quick guide to making it fairly straight forward. Watch this to catch up on events.........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB_bHqHzhIA

.......And read this regards the lore..........


Temeria is one of three important kingdoms in The Witcher 2. At the start of the game, Geralt is accompanying King Foltest of Temeria, who played a larger role in the first Witcher game.

Aedirn is another northern kingdom, bordered by both Temeria and Kaedwin, the other to major kingdoms in the game. The first major hub in the game, the city of Flotsam, is located in the Pontar Valley on the border between Temeria and Aedirn.

Kaedwin is the last of the three important kingdoms in the game's story. While Geralt never visits Keadwin, he does come into contact with its king, King Henselt, and his army in the game's second act.

One word you'll hear a lot is "Scoia'tael," which sounds crazy but really is just a name for an organization of non-human (Elves, Dwarves) freedom fighters/terrorists.

You'll hear people talk about "Yennefer," which is a name that has always struck me as uniquely hilarious, but who is basically just a sorceress who is very important in the broader Witcher lore and in the novels.

The last thing you'll hear about is "Nilfgaard," which is a bordering kingdom and a common enemy to pretty much everyone in the game.



And when you get given a set of options in the prologue when being interegated, select them in order from top to bottom or things will make far less sense.

If you struggle with combat consult a guide, but it's really not all that difficult, and investing a few hours getting into the game reaps the rewards of SO much depth it's unreal. Seriously. You can play this game through 4 times and still be uncovering major plot elements & perspectives. Stunning.

Also, I actually liked the duel sword system and it does add to the RPG aspects of the game, as you have an additional set of considerations to contemplate regards upgrades. It may not macke much sense "technically", but it makes the game FEEL RPG-like. It's simplifying stuff like that which makes the likes of Mass Effect 3 & DA:I so wank, yet TW2 so amazing.

 

[Ronald Nand]

Was wondering about Witcher 2, is it possible to put the game on an easier difficulty so the combat isn't too much trouble and I can leisurely experience the story, also would people who played recommend the semi-official combat mod that was released by a dev whom worker on the game.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

Was wondering about Witcher 2, is it possible to put the game on an easier difficulty so the combat isn't too much trouble and I can leisurely experience the story, also would people who played recommend the semi-official combat mod that was released by a dev whom worker on the game.

I play 360 so have no idea about the mod, but easier settings on combat make it no problem.

It's actually IMO great combat, and really stands up on Dark mode once you are familiar with it. You just have to accept it's geared towards melee combat, with Quen being a big part of that.

If I were you I'd follow a combat upgrade guide and play on normal for your first play through.

 

[murrow]

I'd recommend it without second thoughts.

A month ago I was in the same boat. I had never touched a Witcher game and thought that it would be nice to play the previous entry before tackling The Wild Hunt. I bought W2 for free in a Steam sale (gotta love Steam credits) and set on it without any familiarity with the lore, mechanics or anything.

And I had a blast.

As others have said, the beginning of the first act can be a bit hard, but once you get used to the controls and you gain a few levels this stops being a issue. The game aged surprisingly well (it really looks like a current gen title), has a nice sense of progression, an interesting story line, great characters and voice actors. Plus, it's relatively short. I finished my playthrough in 38h, leaving all but two sidequests incomplete. (Maybe I missed some hidden stuff, but I was sure taking my time to appreciate everything). In this aspect, it sort of reminded me of Mass Effect 2.

In my build I focused on melee and alchemy, with a few points on signs (basically just Quen). You don't *need* to prep for every fight by drinking potions, although they make some encounters incredibly easier. Plus, alchemy also provides you blade oils, bombs and traps, which you can use anytime.

As a tip, focus on dodge over parrying, and invest in the skills that increase the distance you cover while doing a combat roll. Once you get used to it (it ain't hard), it's all a matter of rolling to an enemy's back, attacking until he turns, rinsing & repeating. With a little bit of blade oil you'll get any foe to the ground in no time.

Oh, and before I forget. I disagree with one of the comments above that said that you'd have no idea what you're doing if you didn't play the first Witcher. I had *zero* knowledge of the lore and plot and greatly enjoyed the story. Of course, if you play the game and like it you might want to check things out. I myself studied the wiki and watched some video recaps after finishing my playthrough.