The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Review

[Kahunaburger]

Except this is not the reality of this game. The reality of this game is that it DOES change according to your actions, but never tells you what actions change which part of it. Rendering player choice meaningless, taking away control (which I'm sure you disagree, but it's actually bad) and ruining the experience.
The failed quest was the result of a binary decision that you could or could not have done. It is nothing more than a dick move that after I try so hard to finish it, suddenly I have to load the game to before I did something which at first glance is completely unrelated. It adds nothing to the experience.
This part, no, is not lack of polish. This part is a bad design decision.
But I see where you're coming from. I'm talking in design terms here though - nowadays, that kind of asinine move is not something you want in your game.
Would it add to the immersion if the game just suddenly and randomly killed you with no warning at random points in the game? I hope you get where I'm going with this.

IMHO, it renders player choice more meaningful to give choices unforeseen consequences, because it gives choices an impact beyond that particular scene. And it fits very well with the tone and feel of the world, and is absolutely consistent with the books (at least with The Last Wish - I haven't read the others.) Geralt is not a guy who wins all the time, or who makes good calls all the time. Winning all the time is a convention in video games, but it's very cool that the Witcher series is willing to subvert that convention for the sake of the narrative.

One of the best moments in the first game was when a major information source got shot because of a (seemingly) unrelated choice you made earlier - it drove in the tone of the world and made you examine all your future decisions in light of potential unforeseen consequences. Sure, it meant that the investigation suddenly became a lot harder, but that's completely okay in the context of the story, and in the context of the theme of choosing the lesser evil.

 

[Chronologist]

A lot of people are comparing Dragon Age 2 and The Witcher 2. As I see it, Dragon Age 2 is simple but intuitive, while The Witcher 2 is complex but incomprehensible. Both games failed to find a happy medium, where the system allows for customization and preparation while being simple enough for players to understand and room for them to grow and be creative in their approach.

As much as I hate to admit it, people tend to like the simple but intuitive games more. Simply observe the number of 1st and 3rd person shooters being produced should you need proof. However, that doesn't mean that we can't create complex games - they just need to have an appropriate learning curve.

I found Portal and Portal 2 to be complex games, especially by the end of both, yet the learning curve in those games is probably the best I've ever experienced from a videogame made this decade. By introducing mechanics slowly, allowing players to make choices and revise those choices, letting them get a feel for the game, I think THAT is the way to make a learning curve in an RPG. Dragon Age 2 got that. It's just a pity that the actual game itself failed to meet so many other standards.

 

[nbamaniac]

One of the best moments in the first game was when a major information source got shot because of a (seemingly) unrelated choice you made earlier - it drove in the tone of the world and made you examine all your future decisions in light of potential unforeseen consequences. Sure, it meant that the investigation suddenly became a lot harder, but that's completely okay in the context of the story, and in the context of the theme of choosing the lesser evil.

Very well said. I'll give my own example based on my first playthrough.

Spoiler

I took the Roche path, yet I was interested in Saskia who imho was the only purely good and honorable character in the game. She was essentially the game's Joan of Arc. After act 2, I didn't know of her fate. I only learned of it after I killed her! (Learned from dandelion's journal that she was the dragon).. So yeah I pretty much just said WTF?! I pretty much doomed the North more by killing its symbol of freedom.

Found out that you'll learn about her being a dragon when you sided with Iorveth. So yeah, the game HAS its consequences.

 

[Orc Town Grot]

7 out of 10 is right near the bottom of 'critics' reviews of witcher. It got 4 tens. it got more than 20 in the 90s, and some mentions for GOTY. There is absolutely nothing broken about the Witcher, (other than many tech bugs lol,) nor is there anything non-immersive. It has different design values, and it adheres to those fairly tightly, including the designer choice to make it hard at the beginning. These were not oversights or omissions they are design choices. Its a PC RPG for PC RPG gamers. When it is reviewed by PC RPG gamer types its is declared a masterpiece. There is nothing wrong with Greg Tito's review at all, when you appreciate that he is not a PC RPG gamer type. He has a slightly different resume, and he thought DA2 was great! 9/10 etc etc. So when you see DA2 9/10. Witcher 2 7/10, you can't say its a "bad" review. You can say that together the review scores indicate someone significantly ignorant about the genre he is reviewing. Its not "reviewer bad" its EDITOR bad. If Greg Tito thinks Dragon Age 2 is that close to perfect and W2 that far from it, this guy must be kept far away from reviewing PC RPG games, and allowed to review in genres where he actually knows which way is up. Witcher 2 is probably a 5/10 as an action game. its probably 3/10 as a game for little Tommy in elementary school. Its a 1/10 for my Aunt Helen. But Greg, its a PC RPG. Its created for PC RPG gamers by PC RPG gamers. In its correct category, its 9+/10. There is more to reviewing than giving a subjective feeling number. You need to address the way it creates gameplay within its genre and for its target audience. Hopefully this is a little more polite than saying "Greg Tito your a friggin idiot, you don't know what the hell you are talking about". I think Greg is very naughty and he should be punishd with 5 compulsory FULL playthroughs of Dragon Age 2. But sad to say, he might actually enjoy it.

 

[nbamaniac]

Hopefully this is a little more polite than saying "Greg Tito your a friggin idiot, you don't know what the hell you are talking about". I think Greg is very naughty and he should be punishd with 5 compulsory FULL playthroughs of Dragon Age 2. But sad to say, he might actually enjoy it.

This batch of words you just typed might just save us from 2012.

 

[frobisher]

The dodge was for a better position - specifically, to not be surrounded anymore.

Again, I do not recall having space to dodge with some huge stone on the left, chasm on the right and harpies everywhere else.

The obvious course of action would be to balance that encounter properly, not to restrict freedom of choice. You have a weird perspective on design.

Well, so you want a game to have a specific difficulty curve and yet do NOT want harder encounters in further parts of the prologue.

Yet if you were not new to RTS games, you didn't choose the easy difficulty. Even so, players who chose normal or hard didn't expect to continuously fail the first mission over and over. You know why? Because higher difficulty meant a harder game, not more sudden unforseen deaths as you deal with mechanics that are introduced at the beginning when they were supposed to be introduced later on. No, I'm afraid most RTS games know what a difficulty curve is. That is why a campaign starts off with a small number of units and gets progressively more complex, but at the same time the enemies get more numerous and difficult.

That might be true - in the world you could ignore the second part: "choose this difficulty if you are new to this game". And that doesn't change the fact that RTS games (which I chose as a random example while writing about difficulty level) have different difficulty curve.

As far as I remember, Homeworld would be punishing very quickly, especially if you didn't bother completing first missions with the biggest fleet possible, while eg. Dawn of War would prevent you from "dying" - instead promptly wipe your troops (and especially on hard: failure to learn fairly young cover mechanics = dead in few seconds), sometimes leaving you without resources to recreate them. So I guess what ytou write is true - but the same truth as every RPG is somehow supposed to have a training dummy and "please, roll left" tutorial). Hah, what about turn-based games? I do not remember having a proper tutorial in Panzer General 2 - even though first mission was called like that - and every casualty taken because of learning new mechanics mattered in later missions.

You still didn't give a solid reason for why the difficulty needs to constitute of punishment instead of challenge. Your only argument was that the game is "harder" in easy/normal because it's old-school. It is. It is also severely punishing and not accessible at all right from the start. This is most definitely not an old-school mechanic.

Er, I did? I said that level of punishment is corresponding with the gap between player's current understanding (and willingness to learn) of mechanics and the challenge each difficulty level presents. If it was old-school "catless" Geralt would be left completely blind in underground caves, hurting himself when running into walls, and finally dying in Dungeon Master style where game didn't bother to tell you how to use specific spells if you didn't find some scrolls

And I stand by what I said - game should be punishing if you are choosing a challenge level you are not able to withstand. If you are unable to withstand Normal while still learning the mechanics, choose Easy instead complaining about inaccessibility. Because Easy is meant for everyone learning the game - Normal is not - and again, no player can be excused if he is reading the description, ignoring it due to expecting "it will be DA 2 Normal" and ... dying a lot. If someone refuses to choose Easy because of some pride ("I have been playing games for decades, sheesh") then it's not devs' responsibility - they let people to change difficulty levels instead and to choose Easy after realising "I am not getting this mechanics yet". They describe Normal as the level where alchemy is needed and Easy as level similar to Normal in other games. What's players' excuse? Is it because of pride, so the simple way out of it for CDPR is to rename difficulty levels to Normal, Hard, Insane, Godlike?

Exploration. I just find it amusing how you need a prompt to jump over ravines and stuff. Not as amusing like the 5-inch crack in the staircase that prevented all of your progress in that direction in The Witcher 1. Now THAT was incredibly dumb.

Eh, first you said Action-RPG, now you mean exploration. It is not a sandbox, so I don't see the reason to implement (and pay significant sum for such implementation, what was their budget again?) another mechanics allowing you to explore several rooftops with nothing on them (or to pay even more to provide "something" on them). Again, the same justification could be used about crouching, crawling and using axes to break through wooden walls. What would be the gain compared to money that would need to be spent? (By people buying the game as well...)

So you like failing quests randomly on your first try? I'm not sure it's an opinion most people share...

Someone else already responded to that and I am pretty much in agreement.

One more detail you didnt really acknowledge though:

But what about the quests that can be "done" in multiple ways like in this game? What if that "failure" was simply called another resolution, although not very good one? Because that would mean your beef is only with the bad feelings "FAILED! X" brings even if it also is a part of the story, although not very satisfying one. Considering how many times you are failing in main story, how many things turn out to be out of your control and how many times you are being tricked it cannot be only about that though. Because... if it is excusable in main story but suddenly "bad design" in several sidequests... consistency? Or am I right and it is exactly about that ugly red, although still abstract and arbitrary, "X" in quest log? Because if that is so, designers need only to switch X to V and change appropriate notification. Because you already have sidequests that can be completed in various ways and with various, sometimes hardly satisfying endings.

Would it add to the immersion if the game just suddenly and randomly killed you with no warning at random points in the game?

I thought that was already present - eg. that animation of Geralt being shot by multiple arrows in Kaedwen camp. And in case I really have to say that - ad absurdum.

it also didn't help with explaining the logic of why, in all the mountains in that valley, there were exactly 7 harpy nests on exactly 2 distinct locations that were all conveniently within reach.

Oh, you knew about 7 nests - I have no idea why it was 7, not 8 or 9, but contracts have this weird MMO mentality where nobody questions why they have to bring 12 rat tails. It is not MMO though so I can chalk it up to lack of polish or hints (like specifying where those nests are - wouldn't hurt) - which is excusable considering their lack of experience in MMO design... and now I am already wondering about TOR and not Witcher

Edit: Seriously though, you expected to learn about locations in subquest from the book about harpies in general?

 

[Orc Town Grot]

No issue, but he didn't find any mechanisms flawed in DA2, like for example using the same dungeon 20+ times. ONLY THE WORST DESIGN FLAW IN THE HISTORY OF RPGs. The main issue with this review, is that Greg gave DA2 a near perfect score. And raved how great it was , and didn't see ANY major design flaws. This is borderline insane. Hence the responses (and many more to follow to be sure, as stunned RPG fans note the low-balling Greg is giving this game. The issue is how he can have ZERO taste (subjective/objective, whatever) when it cmes to RPGs.

 

[frobisher]

^

No matter how punishing you find Normal difficulty level, no matter how many examples of non-streamlined UI you can find, THAT is the main reason so much disbelief is out there. I can defend some concepts, admit weaknesses of others, shrug at the rest but the main problem remains: how on Earth was possible professional reviewer managed to be blind in DA 2 review and suddenly enlightened in W2 one even though any "design flaws" you can find in Witcher 2 are looking small in comparison. Even when you think about that famous difficulty balance! Normal as exploding-bodies-button-mashing-Easy anyone? FF only on Nightmare? (how about patching in option to freely choose THAT already? one year, two?). You can choose to play on Hard in DA 2? Oh, nice, choose Easy in Witcher then and stop pretending you are dying on Easy only because game is not telling you things...

 

[Ishiro32]

So i will quickly explain what is wrong with this review
He says:

but that doesn't blind me to major flaws in the game design of The Witcher 2.

after that

The fundamental problem is that the game is terrible at teaching you how to enjoy it.

Which is true, but this is problem of the tutorial design not game design.

simple navigation is tough because there is no indication of which direction is north

Small issue, since you can always check map where north is indicated.

The main quests also have you going back and forth to the same location often which made me wonder why they spent so much time building the rest of the place.

I honestly don't undestand this issue... Even if i accepted it i think about DA2 where this issue was multiplied by game having about 5 rooms.

But there is sometimes a terrible lag between pressing a button and witnessing Geralt respond, which encourages a weird constant tapping of the keys to make sure the command goes through. For combat whose fun depends on flow, this is a monstrous error.

No... actually that's a bug, which will be fixed in next patch. You can't claim that bugs are bad design. You should mention bugs, but you should also know that your point will become irrelevant after patch so you shouldn't base your opinion so much around them.

I thought that once I bought enough recipes, I'd be able to dovetail the effects of the three potions you can drink at a time for a net gain, but those recipes never materialized. I defaulted to only using the few potions that I couldn't do without, namely Cat, Swallow and Tawny Owl which let me see in the dark and regenerate health and vigor, respectively. Another opportunity missed.

What kind of complain is that? Seriously... That you can't get net gain? For me it's plus since you must think and there is no perfect combinations, you use what you want and you must think.

The inventory and crafting systems are a mess. You soon end up with a crapload of stuff, especially if you're like me and you have to open every box, sack and barrel in the game. (Quick aside: I wish games didn't reward me for entering every house and robbing people's cupboards right in front of them. I know Geralt is badass but wouldn't someone object to his thievery?) The list interface screams for some way to sort, and there's absolutely no good reason for every recipe to clog up your inventory. Crafting weapons and armor can only be done by speaking to the right person with the appropriate materials and recipe, that much I can understand, but I fail to see why I can't easily see which recipes the merchant has that I don't already own, or why I have to wait for a slow scroll to see which materials are needed. It's fine if you want me to craft 12 robust cloth from regular cloth in order to make that leather armor, but at least let me queue up that process.

That's UI problems mostly which we earlier adressed. And while i agree on them those are not major flaws in game design. The game could use a stockpile. They would propably fix recpies beeing in inventory etc. Those are minor issues.
Also i rember while beeing hero of kirkwall i also looted civilian houses... Strange that you didn't mention that in you DA2 review.

There's also just too much that's never explained in the game at all.

Lack of tutorial. Also you could, i know it's completly crazy... read manual if you had problems -.-''.

Beyond interface complaints, the action of The Witcher is not paced well at all. I loved the richness of the setting and learning about the various kings and their eponymous assassins was fascinating, but even a good cutscene can grow long. Momentous conversations lumped on top of one another peppered with a meaningless "action" sequence like walking a prisoner only annoyed me, doubly so because I wasn't allowed to save or drink the potions needed for the fight I was anticipating.

So... now he complain that cRPG have a lot of talking. I won't comment that... I also hate when in those FPS people shoot each other all the time, that's ridiculous. And walking a prisoner sequences are short, there is one long, but while you walk with him you talk to him and some guards so it's to create depth.

And while the tone of the writing rides a nice balance between dark humor and just dark, it sometimes strays too far. One particular moment stuck out: when Geralt openly mocks the plot of The Lord of the Rings as a frivolous fairy tale, it feels like such parody is beneath the integrity the game achieves the rest of the time. Especially when the mocking comes after a scene clearly derived from the "Council of Elrond" trope.

Fallout 2 was full of those, even fallout 1 and no one cared. People actually loved those and i fail to see why they shouldn't.

I can't ignore CD Projekt's poor design choices and crippling interface, however. I will likely replay The Witcher 2 again and again as I wait for the inevitable threequel, but each time I do I will curse the chance the game had to deliver mechanics to match its glorious setting.

Agreed about that the mechanics could be more fluent, and UI need a fix. But poor design choices? Where? I analysed your full writen review and you didn't mention any poor design choices. What are those major flaws in the game design? Because you mostly talked about one bug, minor UI problems and lack of tutorial. I ask where are those major flaws. I won't analyse video suplement since it's mostly rant about issues you mentioned in writen review.

 

[frobisher]

The corridor you came from. But this is going nowhere.

There was no corridor available (um... 9 harpies blocking it from you?) I guess we are talking about two different encounters. Which is interesting because I could swear this was the only place so many harpies appeared *at once*.

This is straw-manning so bad it almost hurts. No, I do not want an encounter that kills you over and over, and isn't even a boss fight, as part of the prologue. Something of that difficulty isn't justified to be in the prologue.

And yet difficulty level is not the same in every part of the prologue and no amount of straw will change the fact it gets harder just as you requested. Is it too hard now? Bah...

I am not aware we are suddenly slaves to that asinine construct where you cannot go beyond "boss fights" (hard) and "mob fights" (easy) because... well, for no particular reason other than "because that is how our forefathers have been making games". Except that they didn't, unless you wish to call all those games you didn't want to hear about (and a lot more) badly designed. But then I would have to ask from where you get that blueprint for difficulty curve or "cannot be difficult in the beginning, just cannot"? Is it a recent invention along with awesomeness and streamlining? Or your personal position you chose to express in similar fashion to that hated abomination called objectivity? I didn't bring those examples to show that some random games do this in similar fashion so Witcher could be absolved. But their very existence and critical acclaim proves the fact that game *can* punish you in the beginning without being automatically accused of being *poorly designed*, especially when it is a conscious choice, not the lack of testing. Oh, I agree, it IS a bad decision - but from the perspective of an executive worrying about sales or about word of mouth "it's tooo haaaaard" even when it is often countered by "RTFM". But I do not have a habit of criticising games, let alone their design, "because they will not sell well enough".

[rant] Oh and about the fact that "you cannot expect people to read these days, you have to show them everything" - I fail to see that expecting an effort is a bad design choice (MMO grind anyone? what, is the fact you are "playing" while killing the same mob for 2345345th time enough to call it "different" from reading manual thus "not playing"?). Not when that effort means reading few pages of important stuff. I have no idea where modern world is at this point, but if you are trying to say reading a manual is a chore, work or thing people despise, then I can be only thankful for devs for not adding another brick to that pathetic monument of laziness. [/rant]

And heh... it is still hard to call that kind of "misguided" expectation a bad design - creating a game consisting of lynching, burning crosses and walking in white hoods would mean devs were completely out of touch with modern world and rather disturbed. But neither that example or W 2 requiring you to read manual can be called badly designed just because they are not in line with expectations of the public. Especially when Witcher is NOT designed to please EVERYBODY. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBU4akKPlgs&feature=related if you require a proof that it was a choice

For the 30th time, punishment for things you do not know does not constitute proper difficulty design. Not in the very beginning of the game.
As for the other part - you do realise I'm saying the game is too easy later on, right? What am I supposed to do, change the difficulty slider 10 times per game because the developers couldn't be arsed to balance their game properly? So it's my fault that I'm not doing their job?

For the 30th time, combat mechanic kills you once. After that you know everything that can instakill you (one, ONE thing - being surrounded), but your ability to use mechanics leaves a lot to be desired. How quickly you can master it depends on you. If you cannot be bothered to switch difficulty levels, then yes, it is your fault, because you somehow bothered to choose particular difficulty level in the beginning not knowing (a lie) what to expect. And if the game is too hard for people desperate to play on Normal (not-reading-desciption, lalalala, can't hear you, devs, I know better) it is still not a reason to cry "bad design". Because it might be as well a portrait of "modern gamer", incapable of reading (manual and/or difficulty description), while not being a target group either. And sorry, but it is your job, not devs' to adjust the game to individual preferences just like you can adjust gfx settings manually or rely on the game detecting your hardware. What, should they also guess what is your idea of Easy, Hard and Insane? They spent several years and provided you with a tool so you can spend several seconds - you do that and have fun or you can refuse due to some random principle and blame them.

They could also enforce Easy setting for the Prologue and give you the option to choose later on. Game getting harder later on while Prologue is easy - I think this is the thing you wanted, right? Hey, that means the game can be "fixed" without redesigning everything... so how is that a bad design?

Since when is exploration a genre. Since when are the two of them mutually exclusive. Since when are we overlooking direct faults with the game because of what we think the budget was. The game does not require you to crouch, crawl and you can already break walls without pressing left click to trigger the script. Excuse me if I want to be in control of when I jump instead of getting prompts for it in specific areas. That is obviously a fault of my own and not the game lacking a feature it could do better with.

Since when exploration is an obligatory part of ARPG genre? Since when are we demanding a feature that brings nothing to the game? Unless you mean you simply want "more". That would be understandable, but that jump fetish is not. Also, that particular design choice prevents you from running from some fights - can be praised, can be hated. So you do not have "vertical freedom"... But I find it amusing you treat being in control of difficulty level and being in control of jumping with somehow... different manner. They gave you a choice in one field, stripped it from another - which one is more important and why are you refusing to use the first and demand the second ?

I didn't want to, because it was extremely dumb. But I guess you really don't know the difference between pointlessly interrupting a quest with no warning nor reward and finding a suitable conclusion (either good or bad, satisfying or not) to the side story arc.

Oh I know the difference - it is X or V in quest log. Sidequests have marginal rewards and caring about them to the point of multiple reloading in story-driven game is not a principle I am ready to accept. Especially when even a failure is presented as a PART OF THE STORY.

If you happen to see Radovid in a dungeon, pay attention to his answer when you are asking for a favour. Seriously, Geralt? You expect everything to work for you and wait for your choices?

On a side note there is a bug that caused me to fail that investigation quest in chapter 2 because I visited priest's house too early. Even then I saw no reason to reload and force myself to repeat an hour or two just to see "V" and get 200xp - I already knew everything I needed story - wise. Repeating that would mean something close to punishing myself and keeping Hard difficulty even when continuously killed. At some point it becomes meta-gaming, so thanks, but no, thanks. Consistent storyline beats completionist mode in my book even though I am completionist.

This question was important because a random unforseen death would trigger the same reaction from you as that sudden quest fail did for me: reloading the game. Unless you're one of those who considers the story to be completed and is enriched by the experience of pointlessly interrupting your gameplay.

Ha, if the process "quest failed -> reloading" is automatic, then it is telling more about you than about a game design. Reloading *as a rule* at that point is similar to reloading a game after gruesome death and spamming the field with 100 traps - because it is a sidequest, because even a failure due to world moving on is a part of the story (in Witcher - yes, in other games - not so much), because repeating a chunk of content is way more aggravating than repeating Draug fight - and there no choice about Draug fight either...


And seriously, do you really believe everything important in main story is a result of Geralt's choice? People - including Geralt - are getting kidnapped, killed, betrayed and tricked. In the end you are forced to make a choice and effectively render your previous work useless in one way or another. If you happen to select a particular path for Geralt, you are going to fail regardless of your perspective, because (whoa, game's decision to close avenue for you!) you will have to choose between bad and ugly. You can even fail in both aspects simply because prince Penis (couldn't resist) has his own will and story and your choices in Chapter 2 have unforeseen consequences later(yeah, world moving on despite your attempts to guide it).

Sure, those things will note give you fat X in quest log even though they are way bigger failures than those sidequests when you are simply too late. I am starting to believe they should do so, if only to make a point.

 

[Kahunaburger]

You mean that if you build a character around using sword attacks, sword attacks are effective against basic enemies? Give me a second while I pick up my monocle.

I'll chalk this up to you being facetious for the sake of it.
Moving on (so I don't have to quote): I haven't played Super Metroid or Zelda so I can't comment. Morrowind and Dragon Age are most significantly not like this. I don't recall dying a lot or struggling to survive in the first chapters of neither of them. The Fallout games have a broken difficulty curve towards the end but none of what TW2 does at the beginning (which, like I already said, is important). Minecraft is... different. Respawning takes a lot of liberties with difficulty.

Well, both Morrowind and Dragon Age: Origins have ways to develop your character(s) such that combat against basic enemies becomes trivial on any difficulty, which goes farther than Witcher 2 making combat against basic enemies easier but still high-stakes. In Morrowind, it even extends far enough that you can make all combat trivial. Zelda and Metroid basic enemies can pose an actual threat at lower level, but are basically speed bumps at higher levels when you have better equipment and more health. So, in other words the difficulty curve has precedents, and is (IMHO) much better than auto-leveled enemies.

The difficulty spike at the beginning isn't the problem either (RE4 has a similar spike, as does Morrowind if you explore) - the problem is more the lack of a tutorial. And it probably shouldn't have given the option to dump yourself in a fight with a dragon while you're still learning how to walk around. But that's not a game-breaking issue when you can reload and start with an easier flashback, set the game to an easier difficulty, or RTFM.

IMHO, it renders player choice more meaningful to give choices unforeseen consequences

And that happens all throughout the game, it's part of the story design. But note that those are Geralt's choices. There's a difference between what the player expects from the game and what the main character has to choose with the assistance of the player. In regards to the player, whenever he chooses something, he must know there is a choice, or otherwise have some way of finding out there is a choice. Doing the action with the only way of finding out what happens being after is just asinine. It just prompts a reload because you're missing on content. There is no reason to not let the player know of that beforehand. Forcing him to load the game if he wants a different outcome should be reserved for ACTUAL choices, not the game's decision to close avenues on you.
Remember how Fallout: New Vegas gave you a "no going back" warning once you entered the final stages of the last quest? That was considerate of the developers. There's no reason for that in TW2, but at least a "wait a minute while I get things done" option would be nice.

Once again, the world of The Witcher is not one where you pick your favorite outcome and tell the game to give you that outcome. It's a world where it is quite possible for Geralt (an by extension, the player) to make bad decisions and live with the consequences of those decisions. It's also a world where your actions can have unforeseen outcomes, or outcomes that are unforeseen because you didn't have enough information when you took those actions. Personally, I prefer this system to the "make an informed choice as to your quest outcomes, ending, and love interest" system most RPGs go with nowadays. You may not. Either way, this isn't an example of bad game design any more than an "epilogue this way" pop-up is. Those are both ways a game can be designed that are conscious choices by the developers and that different gamers may have different preferences for.

 

[abija]

I, on the other hand, need to be informed if the next thing I'm doing closes up parts of the story.

No you don't and the game doesn't block the story, it closes aspects of it. It even gets explained in the journal how the events unfold and why you ruined the bard's tale.

If you have some preformed opinions on how a game like this should be designed doesn't mean anything that doesn't adhere to it is broken. It just makes you obtuse.
Just like you died 20 times at the dragon scene in prologue because you didn't try faster to let the npcs in front. And why would you, it's obviously bad design to expect that from a player...

But you don't defend bad design just because it's been done before.

With the exception of Quen being overpowered, I found the difficulty curve mighty fine. But that's just a balance issue with a skill and it's one of the most common issues with single player games, especially complex ones like RPGs.
You still have enough difficult encounters in later stages while enjoying your character being stronger and stronger versus normal enemies which is a standard difficulty curve in a RPG.
There is a reason it's been done plenty of times before, because it's a good way to implement what the designer wants.

 

[yundex]

You can tell which kids just started getting into PC RPG games in this thread. "there is no pinpoint GPS and no complete quest button!" "I didn't know fire could kill me!" "I have to read my quest log and journal? WTF IS THAT?" "I failed a quest? OMG SHITTY DESIGN!" I've been reading this at work for laughs (and seriously, the comments from poiumty are comedy gold in the office), but it's kind of depressing that it takes so long for people to figure out what used to be obvious in rpg's. I haven't died in an rpg on normal difficulty in the last 5 years, thank you CDP.

If anyone is actually still on the fence about this game, you have 15 pages of pure hatred for a reviewer that gave the game a 3.5 or 7/10. This is one of the few cases where the majority is right.

NOTE: if you don't want do die in the prologue, switch it to easy difficulty when you start! You can enjoy the story while mashing left mouse like in every other rpg released in the past half decade, the story is still worth the money no matter the difficulty.

 

[frobisher]

And yet difficulty level is not the same in every part of the prologue and no amount of straw will change the fact it gets harder just as you requested. Is it too hard now? Bah...

I don't know what you're talking about. I never died more times in any parts of the game than I died at the very first fight.

You mean your first fight was during dragon part? If yes - see above; if no - now I don't know what you are talking about.

I don't recall ever saying mob fights should be easy and boss fights hard.

And I recall you complaining that dragon part of prologue was not even a boss fight.

Let's see... Homeworld, was it? Punishing later on because of something you could easily foresee in the beginning? Which somehow makes it just as obtuse as TW2?

Do you recall Homeworld telling you that you will be getting (and definitely needing) every unit that survives in later missions?

So which of my problems does the manual solve?

Keyboard setup. Signs. Wigor. Basic what-to-do-in-combat. Do I need to go on?

Does the manual come with a step-by-step walkthrough of the prologue?

Do you really need one? There is a game guide that is part of the package (means: free). It is basically a walkthrough combined with gameplay hints. So yes - you have that option as well.

Replace "difficult" with "punishing" and I'll reply: common sense.

Sorry, but common sense also says the moment you choose difficulty level you are unable to deal with you need to and will be punished - ie. killed. Do you want game to be "less punishing" while still difficult? Ask devs to design a game tailored for your individual learning curve. Do you want a game that is less punishing BECAUSE it is not too difficult? Select Easy. Do you feel uncomfortable because you have low understanding how mechanic works? Start with Easy. Or go trial-and-error.

So there's only one combat mechanic in this game then? What game are you really playing?
I mean, disregarding that the fight is timed because, you know, there's fire, and there's about 2 fights after it in a situation that will rarely, if ever, repeat itself (combat in a tight corridor). But no, combat MECHANIC kills you once. You can only die in one way. Dying from badly guessing how much a dodge helps is the same as dying from running out of vigor to block.

This is getting funny - but why not: there is only one case when combat mechanic will instakill you. All other examples you brought result with being hit once or twice. You are still alive, you can deal with your mistake without reloading. If you make too many of them too rapidly in a single combat and eventually die, then it is hardly a game that is responsible. fire from dragon is not a part of combat mechanic - it is situational feature (just like castle exploding and killing everyone wouldn't be a part of combat mechanic) that is supposed to kill you - unless you pay attention where the dragon is. Certainly not friendly. And certainly very difficult - if you happen to start the game with dragon part.

Heh. So making people constantly adjust their difficulty slider because you as a designer are too incompetent to keep it constant is the players' fault. Great thinking you have there.

Do you require constant change of difficulty in this game in its present state? Didn't think so.

I believe I was making myself clear. The moment you feel game is too hard (in the beginning) means you screw up by selecting Normal even though you haven's got a clue about combat mechanic (manual?) - switch to Easy. Or stop pretending selecting Easy in the beginning is demeaning for anyone instead common sense choice.

The moment you get an impression game becomes too easy because you obviously got the idea how it works - regardless how, manual/trial-and-error/innate awesomeness - switch it back to Normal or Hard or anything you desire.

The moment you start calling those above "constantly" is the moment you are getting lazy @ being funny.

I didn't adjust the slider myself because there was no need to - I'd eventually trial-and-error my way through.

Dying over and over again = there was a need, but there was no will. Slightly different, but the accent on choice is appreciated

But I still don't remember any game, ever, that had its difficulty curve designed around changing the setting mid-game.

That change to Easy is hardly designed. You should start the game on Insane and then complain you have to lower difficulty - the same thing, only in extreme version.

And changing difficulty mid-game is hardly a design either. Unless you take my hint "adjust difficulty according to your individual skill and learning curve" as "game gets too easy/too hard for *everyone* here and here and here, so...". In other words: if you have an impression game gets too easy for you at some arbitrary point - adjust difficulty or complain it is not designed for you and therefore - broken. Because obviously, everyone will arrive at the same skill level at the same time. And everyone will use trial-and-error (constant repetition, challenging enviroment, more things to learn at the same time) on higher difficulty level to get better asap. And everyone will be supported by good gear, skill set and money pool.

No, what they could do is balance their damn game. That would fix pretty much every balance problem they have.

No? How making prologue, source of anger and death, obligatory Easy is not balancing? I'd like to hear that version of complaints (too hard, then too easy) then. But I guess I know why such negativity - that would be a suggestion starting a new and unknown game on Easy had some merit.

You asked how the game was consolized, I gave you some examples. I didn't demand anything of the game, but yes, I see invisible walls and lack of a jump to be examples of consolitis.

*sigh* All right - have it your way. But since this is not a sandbox and consolitis is known for "removing features"... I fail to see what part of story or combat was removed or could be added, bringing significant unique benefits along.

I am a player who wants to see what happens in the damn quest. It is a common thing. I believe you will meet lots of people who want to see what happens in their damn quests.

And you just saw. Just like you will see quick and disappointing ending in poison investigation quest even when you succeed. And in another playthrough you will see an impressive branch of subquests related to that one. Without even knowing they were there in the first place... so be grateful you have that X. It tells you you could do better - and since you stated you wanted to, appreciate the hint you will not get from "V" version.

But as long as a quest can be completed, I don't want arbitrary barriers that fail my otherwise completable quests without even hinting that they do.

Eh, that is what I am trying to say - failing that particular quest is arbitrary term as well, because the story goes on. This is story - driven questing after all. Try to solve poison quest by talking to prince, peasants and nobles. Then tell me how is it different than "Iorveth took elves away" when compared to alternative (the cup, priest, dwarf). Yeah... just that X.

 

[abija]

You asked how the game was consolized, I gave you some examples. I didn't demand anything of the game, but yes, I see invisible walls and lack of a jump to be examples of consolitis.

Oh boy, I didn't even see this one. Way too funny.

Those are engine limitations and funny enough are the exact same in Aurora the engine used in TW1.Guess what, Aurora is a PC only engine made by Bioware and was mainly designed for a 3D game with top down camera.
You can basically blame Baldur's Gate 1 for the lack of jump and the inability to climb in Dragon Age or Witcher games )

Aurora Engine

The Aurora Engine was the 3D successor to BioWare's earlier, 2D game engine, called the Infinity Engine. The engine allows for real-time lighting and shadows, as well as surround sound. The first game released using the Aurora Engine was Neverwinter Nights, and included an accompanying "Aurora toolset" for users to create their own content.

 

[abija]

Yes. So which part gets harder then? Because that was the hardest part in the entire prologue.

For you, not everyone has to share your experience, shocking as it might be.
I struggled a bit taking on Aryan La Valette and his crew, while I had no issue with the dragon.

Handling a bunch of endregas and some elves in the forest at night in act 1 or the quest where you fight 3 wraths at same time for a while also felt a lot harder than prologue, for me.
Then in act 2 I went in the caves under Kedweni camp right at the start and it wasn't that easy either. Or the fight versus the 3 Bruhas or versus that traitor in confined space.

The game offers you multiple ways to fight and depending on your build and approach you try some fights are easier than others.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Because you keep going RTFM without it actually having any bearing on my arguments. Does the manual come with a step-by-step walkthrough of the prologue? Perhaps that super-move that would eliminate my frustration?

Quen

Once again, the world of The Witcher is not one where you pick your favorite outcome and tell the game to give you that outcome. It's a world where it is quite possible for Geralt (an by extension, the player) to make bad decisions and live with the consequences of those decisions.

Like I said above, Geralt doesn't have to make the right decision all the time. I, on the other hand, need to be informed if the next thing I'm doing closes up parts of the story. Because the point of the game is to experience the story, and I can't experience the story if the game shuts it off.
And to be fair there's actually many parts in the game where you can tell people to wait until you're done. This was just not one of them.

So, in other words the difficulty curve has precedents, and is (IMHO) much better than auto-leveled enemies.

But you don't defend bad design just because it's been done before.

On the question of making a game where the player can make bad calls, I absolutely think that's the right step to take it in. Play, don't show. As before, one of the most effective moments in the first Witcher was (given certain choices) when your actions in Chapter 1 stymie your investigation in Chapter 2. It creates a sense of importance for your actions that you don't have in games where consequences are obvious and/or instant. Instead of showing the player a cutscene of Geralt messing up, give the player the opportunity to mess up - much more effective, because it makes consequences part of the mechanics and not just part of the cutscene.

But once again, this particular issue isn't a choice between good and bad design - it's a choice between two equally valid ways to set up choices. You also seem to be discussing area transitions now, and this is once again an example of where different designs can be equally valid. There's not one right way to make games.

On the subject of the difficulty curve, all the games I mentioned with the same type of difficulty curve are widely seen as very, very good. So once again, this is less an actual problem, more a personal preference you have that is not reflected in this particular game. I do agree with you on the tutorial, though.