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.
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.