The Witcher vs The Witcher 2

[endtherapture]

I've recently finished another playthrough of The Witcher 2.

Until recently I always thought TW1 was the superior game, it's longer and more immersive and just felt more richer and everything felt more intuitive - alchemy, learning about monsters, hunting the monsters and everything. It was just a really deep RPG.

But yeah TW2 is also really good - the story is a lot more engaging but alchemy and the UI isn't nearly as fun. Combat is a lot more fun and more options too though, but it has big problems (like potion taking). Characters are a lot better but there's less moments like Shani's Party in TW1.

So erm..what Witcher game did you prefer?

 

[Kahunaburger]

I like them both - I think there are moments where Witcher 1 is better than Witcher 2 (the ending, the potion mechanics, facetime for major NPCs, Triss not being a damsel in distress for half of the game) but Witcher 2 as a game feels much more sure of itself. The world comes off as much more unique, and hits the grimm meets grimdark feel of the setting more effectively as well as doing a much better job of making you feel like a monster hunter vs. a general RPG protagonist. The translation (and possibly the original writing, although I don't know) is much better, and I don't recall hitting the sort of dialogue glitch I'd occasionally run into in TW1.

TW2 is also much more interesting in terms of storytelling techniques, which once again is something I feel reflects how the team in general feels more sure of themselves. I like the TW2 combat system a little more, as it encourages the full use of your various tactical options right from the start and scales a little bit better. The difficulty curve still feels backwards, but at least (for instance) Igni doesn't level up into quite the >killallhostiles button it was in TW1.

 

[-Seraph-]

I love both equally for what they are, and understand why some design decisions were made for the second one to accommodate for various things.

While 2 had less quests, it was mostly getting rid of a lot of "throw away chore" quests that RPGs tend to have. 2 was more straight to the point, and the story called for that given the gravity of the situation. And 1 did have a few branching quests that would get muddled while you were playing due to other quests getting in the way, which did affect pacing.

1 was a lot about getting to know the world, who Geralt and related persons were. The more expansive structure fit 1 as it had to introduce a lot of concepts and information to both Geralt (due to amnesia) and the player. It was all about getting to know everything, while 2 had more immediate matters to deal with.

I liked the combat in both to be fair, although 2 wins out as it is more exciting. 1's combat, like the story itself, starts off slow but grows on you after a while. 1's combat was very flexible, and only got better as things went on as more options opened up...of course the same can be said about 2. Although I will never agree with the idea that drinking potions pre-battle in 2 is a bad design decision/flaw. A little preparation before going into the big scary cave or monster infested forests isn't hard, and you KNOW where conflict is bound to occur, so taking two seconds to dope up isn't difficult.

2 ultimately wins for me because it exceeded all my expectations. It was a sequel that just managed to improve upon almost every way.

 

[endtherapture]

Although I will never agree with the idea that drinking potions pre-battle in 2 is a bad design decision/flaw. A little preparation before going into the big scary cave or monster infested forests isn't hard, and you KNOW where conflict is bound to occur, so taking two seconds to dope up isn't difficult.

2 ultimately wins for me because it exceeded all my expectations. It was a sequel that just managed to improve upon almost every way.

I understand what they were trying to do with the lore and everything about the potions, it just wasn't executed very well - main boss battles like the Draugr and the Dragon didn't allow you to meditate and rest beforehand, and potions ran out in cutscenes too even when you did prepare which was annoying. I just ended up modding the game so my potions lasted 30 minutes instead of 10 but it still makes the battle in the mist annoying.

 

[-Seraph-]

Although I will never agree with the idea that drinking potions pre-battle in 2 is a bad design decision/flaw. A little preparation before going into the big scary cave or monster infested forests isn't hard, and you KNOW where conflict is bound to occur, so taking two seconds to dope up isn't difficult.

2 ultimately wins for me because it exceeded all my expectations. It was a sequel that just managed to improve upon almost every way.

I understand what they were trying to do with the lore and everything about the potions, it just wasn't executed very well - main boss battles like the Draugr and the Dragon didn't allow you to meditate and rest beforehand, and potions ran out in cutscenes too even when you did prepare which was annoying. I just ended up modding the game so my potions lasted 30 minutes instead of 10 but it still makes the battle in the mist annoying.

They fixed that cut scene issue in one of the patches I think. I do agree that was annoying...though potions weren't exactly rare. And as for prepping before bosses? I was able to easily dope up before the dragon, Vandergrift, ect...because it was easily telegraphed most of the time. Don't know why you weren't able to meditate before the Dragon and what not...because I sure as hell could.

 

[endtherapture]

Although I will never agree with the idea that drinking potions pre-battle in 2 is a bad design decision/flaw. A little preparation before going into the big scary cave or monster infested forests isn't hard, and you KNOW where conflict is bound to occur, so taking two seconds to dope up isn't difficult.

2 ultimately wins for me because it exceeded all my expectations. It was a sequel that just managed to improve upon almost every way.

I understand what they were trying to do with the lore and everything about the potions, it just wasn't executed very well - main boss battles like the Draugr and the Dragon didn't allow you to meditate and rest beforehand, and potions ran out in cutscenes too even when you did prepare which was annoying. I just ended up modding the game so my potions lasted 30 minutes instead of 10 but it still makes the battle in the mist annoying.

They fixed that cut scene issue in one of the patches I think. I do agree that was annoying...though potions weren't exactly rare. And as for prepping before bosses? I was able to easily dope up before the dragon, Vandergrift, ect...because it was easily telegraphed most of the time. Don't know why you weren't able to meditate before the Dragon and what not...because I sure as hell could.

The first time I played it I don't think that patch was out, but I meditated beforehand, and by the time I actually got to fighting the Dragon on the tower roof, it had completely run out.

And fighting the Draugr in the mist, the potion run out as soon as I took control of the first Wraith warrior thing, which was a bum. That entire section is really annoying on higher difficulties.

 

[The Madman]

I like them both around equally, although I hope the upcoming enhanced edition will tilt things 2's way. Whatever the case I just feel 1 has the better overall story and sense of player choice, while 2 is just an overall better game. The pacing in 1 is also absolutely abysmal, it really really is, and the gameplay isn't exactly enthralling either but fortunately the sense of progression you get throughout the game and that moment towards the end when everything suddenly picks up? Brilliant. That moment alone, that V for Vendetta domino style moment when everything just starts to come together, that makes the game more than worthwhile for me.

Overall 2 just seems like the better game however. Give it a better ending and a few tweaks to even out the experience and it could be damned close to perfect, insofar as any game can be 'perfect'. That the upcoming enhanced edition does what I mention above is what's got me all excited.

Still we'll see. For how I love em both, warts and all.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Overall 2 just seems like the better game however. Give it a better ending and a few tweaks to even out the experience and it could be damned close to perfect, insofar as any game can be 'perfect'. That the upcoming enhanced edition does what I mention above is what's got me all excited.

This is exactly why I'm excited about the EE as well.

 

[Rawne1980]

I love both games.

I do admit that Witcher 1 has more of the "little moments" than the second one though.

Still giggle at the drinking contest with Shani's landlady.

My one and only issue with TW1 was all the backwards and forwards running around like a blue arsed fly.

 

[endtherapture]

Second one is far better.

Though thats not really saying much.

The first game was the slowest burning RPG since Baldur's Gate 2, but it was great.

 

[gorfias]

I like them both - I think there are moments where Witcher 1 is better than Witcher 2 (the ending, the potion mechanics, facetime for major NPCs, Triss not being a damsel in distress for half of the game) but Witcher 2 as a game feels much more sure of itself.

Did you play both on the same platform? Which one? Thinking about it. With my limited gaming budget, I ended up getting Deus Ex of of Steam for $7, but this (witcher 2) is being sold for PC for about $12 and is probably next on my must buy list.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I like them both - I think there are moments where Witcher 1 is better than Witcher 2 (the ending, the potion mechanics, facetime for major NPCs, Triss not being a damsel in distress for half of the game) but Witcher 2 as a game feels much more sure of itself.

Did you play both on the same platform? Which one? Thinking about it. With my limited gaming budget, I ended up getting Deus Ex of of Steam for $7, but this (witcher 2) is being sold for PC for about $12 and is probably next on my must buy list.

Played both on PC - Witcher 2 is pretty system-intensive, but a reasonably modern PC could probably run it.

 

[gorfias]

I like them both - I think there are moments where Witcher 1 is better than Witcher 2 (the ending, the potion mechanics, facetime for major NPCs, Triss not being a damsel in distress for half of the game) but Witcher 2 as a game feels much more sure of itself.

Did you play both on the same platform? Which one? Thinking about it. With my limited gaming budget, I ended up getting Deus Ex of of Steam for $7, but this (witcher 2) is being sold for PC for about $12 and is probably next on my must buy list.

Played both on PC - Witcher 2 is pretty system-intensive, but a reasonably modern PC could probably run it.

Cool! I am kinda disappointed in PC games that aren't really pushing the envelope these days (arguably, progammers aiming at console capabilities). It is fun to see what can push the envelope on my system. (You can never keep up though: last month I bought the fastest PC GPU on the planet: the 7970. Nvidia just released the GTX 680. I'm screwed. Hey: if it does what you want, then you should be happy. You pretty much support the position: Witcher 2 should be my next PC buy. THX.

 

[endtherapture]

I like them both - I think there are moments where Witcher 1 is better than Witcher 2 (the ending, the potion mechanics, facetime for major NPCs, Triss not being a damsel in distress for half of the game) but Witcher 2 as a game feels much more sure of itself.

Did you play both on the same platform? Which one? Thinking about it. With my limited gaming budget, I ended up getting Deus Ex of of Steam for $7, but this (witcher 2) is being sold for PC for about $12 and is probably next on my must buy list.

Played both on PC - Witcher 2 is pretty system-intensive, but a reasonably modern PC could probably run it.

Cool! I am kinda disappointed in PC games that aren't really pushing the envelope these days (arguably, progammers aiming at console capabilities). It is fun to see what can push the envelope on my system. (You can never keep up though: last month I bought the fastest PC GPU on the planet: the 7970. Nvidia just released the GTX 680. I'm screwed. Hey: if it does what you want, then you should be happy. You pretty much support the position: Witcher 2 should be my next PC buy. THX.

Witcher 2 is probably the best graphics a game has ever had - it doesn't have that much in the way of physics but for textures it's literally amazin - never seen so much detail put into anything that wasn't CGI.

 

[endtherapture]

Second one is far better.

Though thats not really saying much.

The first game was the slowest burning RPG since Baldur's Gate 2, but it was great.

If the "slow burn" lasts for longer then 20 hours then im not going to bother.

The first game took me 39 hours for my first playthrough, and I didn't even kill all the trophy monsters or do loads of the side quests - it was a beast of a game. Slow burning games are good, we need more of them in the market right now instead of the fast paced rushing games.

TW2 is more to-the-point, one playthrough will take about 20 hours (not touching sidequests).

Why are people so opposed to slow, long games?

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I preferred The Witcher 2 by leaps and bounds. I played The Witcher's original version and although I enjoyed it, I will admit that I didn't know what the hell was going on for a lot of it.

 

[DementedSheep]

The Witcher 2 by fair margin tho there are still many things prefers form the Witcher 1 and it had its moments. I never really liked the story of the Witcher 1 and the combat was very easy and repetitive. Quest also felt repetitive, there was too much backtracking and FUCKING DROWNERS EVERWHERE! I like the fact that you could actually experiment with alchemy in TW1 but I like how alchemy is used more in TW2 with each potion having positives and negatives and tho I know many don?t like it, I like that you can?t drink potions as needed in battle and instead have to prepare beforehand. That was only problem in some of the boss fights (the Draugr in particular) because by the time the fight started you potions would almost be out.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

They are both amazing games. Very different from each other. At times The Witcher 1 seems to be a better game, and other times it's The Witcher 2. The only thing I can say with certainty is that the atmosphere and immersion is better in 1, and combat is better in 2. Everything else is 50/50. Can't decide.

 

[Merkavar]

i think they are both excellent.

i prefered both games over other rpgs like dragon age etc. i like the story the comabt the everything else about both games.

i hope witcher 3 is even bigger and better with more story choices. and a bigger emphasis on alchemy and using the correct weapon and strategies.

also on a side note i liked the books. and hope that the person translatign them into english gets of their arse and finishes them already. i think its taken them years to translate the one book