So, the Witcher 2... Is it an improvement over the first one?

[Halla Burrica]

At first I wasn't gonna start this thread, since it's been 4 years since The Witcher 2 came out and it would probably seem redundant and kind of pointless to ask about it since it's been so long. Then I remembered there was a thread here not too long ago asking people how often they masturbated. So yeah. Here we are. I recently finished The Witcher: Enhanced Edition, had some very conflicted opinions about it. There were things I liked, things I didn't like and things I absolutely dreaded. The sequel definetely looks promising from the screenshots and trailers, but so did Mass Effect 3. So therefore I turn to you, fellow escapists, to try and figure out if The Witcher 2 delivers the knockout of a game that was promised with the first one, or if it swings and misses and then falls into a ditch of perverted snakes.

The lore: One thing I noticed about the Witcher is that it has pretty detailed lore, which I liked. The developers clearly had a lot of love for the books, and it shows both in the journal and the quests you undertake. So do they keep that interesting lore and even build upon it in the second game or do they just toss it out the window and go all generic Lord of The Rings?

Dialogue: The dialogue in the Witcher was not the games strongest point, in my opinion. There were some memorable lines here and there, but a lot of the time it was just cringeworthy or awkward. Wasn't helped by the voice acting either, which ranged from downright terrible to just mediocre. A bunch of times I found myself laughing when they were trying to be serious. Do they fix that in the sequel? Do they get better voice actors, as well as better lines to read, or is it just as bad?

Characters: The game had lot of characters, I'll give it that. Unfortunately, because of lacking characterization (not helped by the voice acting and dialogue), I only found myself giving much of a shit about six of the dozens and dozens of characters that were there. Those were Siegfried, Geralt, Alvin, the Fisher King (the guy in chapter 4 who always mumbles), Toruviel and King Foltest. That's it. Do they improve that in the sequel, or what?

Combat: I didn't care much for the combat either. It was stiff, pretty easy overall if you have any sense of rhythm, and more times than I can count the game didn't seem to register when I was trying to hit something. Often found it preferable to just run past enemies rather than fight them. Do they fix that?

Moral choice: This game has some pretty good examples of how moral choices in a game should work, with the conflict between the Scoia'tel and the Order. They are given both good and bad sides, with believe-able motivations. I liked the parts where you had to choose between the two because it wasn't so clear cut who was right or wrong, if either of them were. They challenge the player into figuring out right and wrong for themselves, is what I'm getting at. They didn't always manage that, however. In chapter 1, there was this major story choice you had to make between two parties, who both had zero redeeming qualities and no justification behind their actions. That's not interesting or challenging, that doesn't make you involved, it just makes it feel like you're moving a piece on a board instead of making a tough call. Do we get more of the former?

Quests: A lot of the quests didn't exactly impress me either. Too many of them were just "walk back and forward to deliver messages between two NPC's instead of just having them come with you and they could talk face to face" (seriously, in one quest, I had to run back and forward between two parts of a district that couldn't be further away maybe seven or eight times) or "talk to NPC, get something for NPC, then run all the way back to NPC". It's just tedious, is what I'm getting at. Quests that shoud take 3-5 minutes is stretched out to 8-12. I liked the minigames though, since they spanned over multiple chapters and were decent fun. Do they get a bit more creative in the next installment? They don't have to get away with it completely, but more variety would be much appreciated.

Overall, I didn't hate the Witcher. It was a decent game that could have been a great one if given the proper care. There definetely is a lot of potential here, potential I hope was realised in the sequel.

EDIT: Well, thanks for these insightful comments. I'm still interested in it, seems like a good game, but I'll probably put it on hold for a while.

 

[Chemical123]

Witcher 2 is significantly shorter than Witcher 1. But it was done at the expense of boring exploration/quests. There was a lot of time imo wasted in Witcher 1 going back and forth for no real purpose.

Witcher 2 definitely has better graphics but they sacrificed the size of the world for it. Less areas to explore and less things to do. Not that it was a bad thing since it made the game for focused.

There is a much bigger emphasis on the story and characters. Witcher 1 romance was essentially a gimmick with very little involvement. The only 2 characters that got extra time were Triss and Shani and both of them combined get less screen time than a less important romantic choice in Witcher 2.
Outside of romance, characters are more interesting and varied. Much better voice acting in general, helped by improved graphics.

Combat was improved but it was still not really that amazing imo. More dynamic and more interesting but at the end of the day your equipment and level was mostly what determined the outcome.

The entire Witcher 2 game is one huge moral choice. Without spoiling much there are literally huge parts of the game that you will see practically none of depending on the choices you make and it does not feel like it was done just to force you to play twice. After all, it would not make sense for somebody who is affiliated with Faction A prance around in Faction B's territory.

Overall, I would say that differences between two games are analogous to differences between Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 1. The 2nd game has better graphics, combat and more focused story at the expense of the sheer size of the world.

 

[endtherapture]

It's shorter and less atmospheric, and less of a magical and immersive experience than TW1. However it's got a more professionally told story, more engaging and exciting combat, and higher production values. It's a more mainstream game that's easier to enjoy, at the cost of something "special" that makes the first game such a cult hit.

 

[MysticSlayer]

The lore: One thing I noticed about the Witcher is that it has pretty detailed lore, which I liked. The developers clearly had a lot of love for the books, and it shows both in the journal and the quests you undertake. So do they keep that interesting lore and even build upon it in the second game or do they just toss it out the window and go all generic Lord of The Rings?

Compared to the first game, establishing a lore isn't as important. If anything, it's to The Witcher what Mass Effect 2 was to Mass Effect: It understands the first game did a fantastic job at establishing a world and adds comparatively little on to it. Unfortunately, this causes it to lose a lot of the mystical wonder associated with the first game.

And as for generic LotR: There's one very obvious LotR reference that is about as forced a joke as forced jokes go (then again, all the jokes in the second game felt forced). Outside of that, they definitely stick to The Witcher feel rather than going all-out Lord of the Rings.

Dialogue: The dialogue in the Witcher was not the games strongest point, in my opinion. There were some memorable lines here and there, but a lot of the time it was just cringeworthy or awkward. Wasn't helped by the voice acting either, which ranged from downright terrible to just mediocre. A bunch of times I found myself laughing when they were trying to be serious. Do they fix that in the sequel? Do they get better voice actors, as well as better lines to read, or is it just as bad?

Voice acting is improved considerably. Dialogue...err...not so much. If anything, I found the dialogue to be worse in the second game.

Characters: The game had lot of characters, I'll give it that. Unfortunately, because of lacking characterization (not helped by the voice acting and dialogue), I only found myself giving much of a shit about six of the dozens and dozens of characters that were there. Those were Siegfried, Geralt, Alvin, the Fisher King (the guy in chapter 4 who always mumbles), Toruviel and King Foltest. That's it. Do they improve that in the sequel, or what?

Triss is more interesting in the sequel, but aside from that, I found the characterization to be about the same between the two games.

Combat: I didn't care much for the combat either. It was stiff, pretty easy overall if you have any sense of rhythm, and more times than I can count the game didn't seem to register when I was trying to hit something. Often found it preferable to just run past enemies rather than fight them. Do they fix that?

It is more of a standard action game than the first, so there's that. However, they don't do a particularly good job with it. It is very basic, and not in a good way (e.g. think Dark Souls but not done well). It isn't horrible, but it is very boring and occasionally frustrating, and that becomes more and more apparent when they occasionally get into way-too-long combat sections. They also go a little more QTE-friendly, but aside from fist fighting, I don't think they are used after the first chapter.

That said, I should also mention the stealth. And to that I say: Holy shit, I'm struggling to imagine a game I've played that fucked up stealth even half as bad as this one, and I've played games with really bad stealth sections in games. Thankfully, there is only one mandatory stealth section, but that one almost made me drop the game before the first chapter. There is also one that is highly recommended in the first chapter, but it isn't necessary. I think a couple more come up, but despite my misgivings of the combat, I highly advise taking the combat route.

Moral choice: This game has some pretty good examples of how moral choices in a game should work, with the conflict between the Scoia'tel and the Order. They are given both good and bad sides, with believe-able motivations. I liked the parts where you had to choose between the two because it wasn't so clear cut who was right or wrong, if either of them were. They challenge the player into figuring out right and wrong for themselves, is what I'm getting at. They didn't always manage that, however. In chapter 1, there was this major story choice you had to make between two parties, who both had zero redeeming qualities and no justification behind their actions. That's not interesting or challenging, that doesn't make you involved, it just makes it feel like you're moving a piece on a board instead of making a tough call. Do we get more of the former?

Choices are like the first game. You'll have another Scoia'tel/Order-like choice (this time it is the Scoia'tel and Blue Stripes), but aside from that, no, the game basically just has you choosing which wicked person to side with, provided you're not just deciding the fate of some asshole that you don't have enough evidence to convict. To me, the game was way too proud of itself with the "you don't know what's right" choices, and it makes the writing at a lot of these sections just unbearable. Well "unbearable" might be a little harsh, but I definitely screamed at the screen a few times, "Yes, I know, there's no right or wrong! Now shut up and stop making it obvious how proud of yourselves you are!"

Quests: A lot of the quests didn't exactly impress me either. Too many of them were just "walk back and forward to deliver messages between two NPC's instead of just having them come with you and they could talk face to face" (seriously, in one quest, I had to run back and forward between two parts of a district that couldn't be further away maybe seven or eight times) or "talk to NPC, get something for NPC, then run all the way back to NPC". It's just tedious, is what I'm getting at. Quests that shoud take 3-5 minutes is stretched out to 8-12. I liked the minigames though, since they spanned over multiple chapters and were decent fun. Do they get a bit more creative in the next installment? They don't have to get away with it completely, but more variety would be much appreciated.

There are fewer side quests, but most of them are either "Kill X number of enemies," "Gather X amount of item," or "Talk to X NPC." You know, very standard stuff, but at least there are fewer of them. Minigames aren't so fun this time around, though. Fist fighting is improved, at least in that it is flashier. Dice Poker is an annoyance I didn't bother with later in the game (and I loved it in the first game), and Arm Wrestling is just awful, at least on the PC.

Overall, I didn't particularly liked the side quests in the second game. I enjoyed them in the first to an extent because they made the world feel full of stuff to see and do. The second game sticks to rather generic side quests but doesn't use them to improve the world in the slightest (outside of a couple that is).

But in the end, a basic way I would summarize The Witcher 2 is that it feels more like a cinematic action game. Again, think of what Mass Effect 2 felt like compared to Mass Effect: It was less concerned with establishing the world, more concerned with action, took a darker tone, tried to improve the gameplay (though I think ME2 did a far better job in its series), cut down on side quests, etc. Personally, I didn't like the second game anywhere near as much as the first, but there's definitely some appeal to it.

 

[kingthrall]

I found Witcher 3 to do a complete flip of what you described about the past two games which I somewhat agree.

Combat, lore , crafting and character development is great

what is lacks is all those characters you had properly fleshed out for example Iorveth doesnt even exsist, Sigfried either and there are few characters that do turn up but it seems like they missed massive opportunity to develop characters. You are going to find also that the combat is more like witcher 1 but with the skill tree of witcher 2, as in you can develop light,medium, heavy fighting styles and also signs, combat and alchemy ect.

Anyway I found witcher 2 to be the best game in the series, its just really sad that they never followed up on a lot of loose ends that could of been really awesome.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

The lore: One thing I noticed about the Witcher is that it has pretty detailed lore, which I liked. The developers clearly had a lot of love for the books, and it shows both in the journal and the quests you undertake. So do they keep that interesting lore and even build upon it in the second game or do they just toss it out the window and go all generic Lord of The Rings?

Don't hold your breath on this one. Whilst you can certainly jump right in and play The Witcher 2 without having experience the first game, it assumes that you won't need much exposition and even if you have played the first one it better have been recently. It doesn't do a lot to continue expanding Temeria and the universe and I felt that there was a certain something that got lost between the first and second.

Dialogue: The dialogue in the Witcher was not the games strongest point, in my opinion. There were some memorable lines here and there, but a lot of the time it was just cringeworthy or awkward. Wasn't helped by the voice acting either, which ranged from downright terrible to just mediocre. A bunch of times I found myself laughing when they were trying to be serious. Do they fix that in the sequel? Do they get better voice actors, as well as better lines to read, or is it just as bad?

Okay so the dialogue is better. I'd say it's a massive improvement over the first game, if only because characters actually sound like they're talking to each other. The voice acting for most characters is better, notably because some have had new voice actors. Even though Geralt has the same VA, I feel that his personality and accent is all over the place. For the most part it sounds like he's more emotional, but there was a moment in Chapter I where I swear he was almost American, to the point where I didn't realise it was Geralt talkig.

Combat: I didn't care much for the combat either. It was stiff, pretty easy overall if you have any sense of rhythm, and more times than I can count the game didn't seem to register when I was trying to hit something. Often found it preferable to just run past enemies rather than fight them. Do they fix that?

This is a big point of contention for me. Whilst I initially enjoyed the combat in the Prologue, there's an awkward spike in combat in Chapter I where it throws groups of enemies at you, yet you have no way of fighting through groups until a bit later on when you hit an arbitrary level to choose the skill. Until I got that skill my tactics consisted of Quen -> Roll -> Hit -> Roll and repeat. Bombs are more useful, but not as effective as you'd think explosives would be.

Over all I'm having a hard time investing myself into The Witcher 2 after playing the first one again. Whilst I enjoyed some nice save import touches, having Raven's armour, Aerondight and Gwalhir being replaced by standard loot was a bit of a downer and I thought they could have done a better job with the continuity in that department.

 

[Halla Burrica]

Overall, I would say that differences between two games are analogous to differences between Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 1. The 2nd game has better graphics, combat and more focused story at the expense of the sheer size of the world.

I had a hunch that it was something like that. Despite coming from different developers in different countries, with completely different genre and tone, I often got the impression that these two series had developed in a very similar manner. Considering that Mass Effect 2 is my favorite game in the Mass Effect trilogy (and possibly one of my favorite games ever), I'm getting an optimistic vibe here.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

So do they keep that interesting lore and even build upon it in the second game or do they just toss it out the window and go all generic Lord of The Rings?

They definitely keep and build upon the existing lore. Some new players find Witcher 2 too dense to dive into, as it's very lore-heavy and can be somewhat impenetrable to people with zero experience with the universe.

Do they fix that in the sequel? Do they get better voice actors, as well as better lines to read, or is it just as bad?

Voice acting and scripting are vastly superior in Witcher 2. I'd say they improve again in Witcher 3, by a similar amount. Both are problems in Witcher 1.

Characters: Do they improve that in the sequel, or what?

Attachment to characters is a highly personal thing. I found the characterization much improved in Witcher 2, but tastes may vary.

Combat: I didn't care much for the combat either. It was stiff, pretty easy overall if you have any sense of rhythm, and more times than I can count the game didn't seem to register when I was trying to hit something. Often found it preferable to just run past enemies rather than fight them. Do they fix that?

The combat in all three games can be charitably described as "flawed", but it does improve slightly from 1 to 2. The third has the best combat in the series.

Moral choice: Do we get more of the former?

The Witcher games in general will often force you to choose between the lesser of two evils. The 2nd game is no exception in that regard.

Quests: A lot of the quests didn't exactly impress me either. Too many of them were just "walk back and forward to deliver messages between two NPC's

Quests in Witcher 2 tend to benefit from better writing and better voice acting. The game is a bit more streamlined, and has less boggy "filler".

For what it's worth, I couldn't bring myself to finish Witcher 1...it was just too wobbly in too many areas. Witcher 2 was one of my favorite CRPGs of that decade, and Witcher 3 might be my favorite CRPG of all time.

 

[Aetrion]

The Witcher 1 had a much more open world than the Witcher 2, but compared to something like Witcher 3 it was extremely small, so that's a strength that simply doesn't hold up. For experiencing a story Witcher 2 is extremely well done, and for really exploring there are simply better games in a wide variety.

 

[asdfen]

I thought Witcher 2 was a step down from the first game in everything except graphics. I loved Witcher 1 despite it flaws and thought Witcher 2 was alright

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I thought Witcher 2 was a big improvement over the first game, largely because it definitely made the whole thing more compact and there was significantly less time wasting on fetch quests.

If it's been a while since you played Witcher 1, definitely have a wiki or something handy for Witcher 2. The lore isn't insanely deep, but it's got a LOT of politics in it, and it can get very confusing keeping track of what kingdom is at war with what king, and who the heir is to this throne, etc.

That being said, if I had to give my opinion now, just skip Witcher 2 and go straight to Witcher 3. Witcher 3 is utterly phenomenal, does a better job of explaining the lore and politics, and is flat-out the most fun I've had with a video game in years. I don't know how much decisions in Witcher 2 carry over into Witcher 3, but I do know there is one very big decision you make in Witcher 2 that does carry over into the 3rd game (though I haven't seen it's effect yet).

 

[Danbo Jambo]

TW2 was for me just WAY more fun and better than TW1.

Nearly every aspect you mention from Lore, to Dialogue, to Combat etc. is far, far superior in TW2 IMO.

If there's 1 game I'd recomend playing for Gen 7 it's TW2.