JerrytheBullfrog said:
Someone pointed out that it would be out of character for this badass Warmaster to have to go through a "and here's how you block" tutorial, so I was thinking - wouldn't it be cool if you started the game as some sort of neophyte recruit who was being GIVEN a lesson by *the* Geralt himself? That'd preserve Geralt as a wise experienced warrior while still introduce newbies to the game.
And then maybe the recruit gets killed and Geralt takes over, providing the player with an immediate emotional attachment to the game. I think it would have been a cool idea.
Now that sounds like an excellent idea!
I'm a huge fan of The Witcher - both games and Sapkowski's writing - but I do agree at least in part with this review. There should have been better explanation given for some things.
I also have a couple of gripes of my own. Don't think I'm hating on the game, though. I loved it, it's easily one of the best games I've played in recent years. I just think it could have been even better.
Firstly, it's too short. Three chapters, with the third chapter being considerably shorter than the first two? I would have liked it to be at least five chapters, all of them at least as long as the first. Maybe CDPR will address this with expansions, as long as they're done better than the "bonus missions" from the first game's Enhanced Edition.
Second, I wasn't all that keen on the storyline. (Although I haven't finished chapter three yet, so I don't know how things will end up with Yennefer, Triss and the Wild Hunt.) I don't like seeing Geralt get so mixed up in politics. I'd rather a game where he traveled from town to town doing witcher's work. Kill some spriggans that have moved into an abandoned mineshaft, investigate the disappearance of local fishermen at night and eliminate the drowners that turn out to be responsible. Perhaps a village suffers from some supernatural manifestation like the Barghests in the first game and you need to investigate firstly what is happening, then why it's happening, followed by who might be responsible and if they're even aware of it before even starting to figure out what to do about it. Maybe this needs some kind of twist so it doesn't get boring, but I'd rather play Geralt being a witcher than him getting involved in the follies of monarchs. Some investigative work could be really interesting if implemented right. I thought the first game had a much better overall plot, with the exception of chapter five's fighting in Vizima.
Third, and most important to my own enjoyment, I thought the alchemy had been far too simplified. I know it's not really a big part of the original lore but I thought it worked very well in the first game, and I miss that. There are no longer secondary effects possible and you don't have to find alcohol of various purities to use as a potion base. You can't just experiment to come up with potions you may not have researched yet and you can't just drink unidentified potions to see what they do. Potions and the associated toxicity also last far too short a time. I would have preferred to see alchemy made much more complex for the second game, rather than simplifying it as it was.
