Never been a fan of "darker and edgier" and "grimdark" masquerading as maturity. Other aspects of the game have kept it in my play list. I can understand the attempt at Dark Fantasy, but it's a hit or miss exercise.
What do you have against The Witcher series?
- Thread starter endtherapture
- Start date
In case of The Witcher, the setting has nothing to do with it. It's the story that made it mature. Instead of saving the world from impending doom, you got yourself mixed into politics and racial-oriented war, while trying to recall your own memories.AtomChicken said:
Hard to say, on my end, I found the political struggles and interesting and other aspects, but I felt a bit of the content did get in the way of the overall and mature storyline. But I'll digress with my nitpicks; I prefer things to flow in one direction or the next.
That's the problem though it doesn't feel normal, it feels like they deliberately put it there just so they could go LOL BEWBS!endtherapture said:
Ehhhh, I think it tries too hard to be overly grimdark and "mature" and it just comes off as a child waving its arms for attention going LOOK ANOTHER RAPE REFERENCE, AM I COOL YET GUYS?! Just... ugh could you lighten up even occasionally or alternatively stop shoving "look how grimdark we are, look we're swearing again every 60 seconds and being misogynistic as fuck" in my face. There are absolutely no brakes on the grimdark train (granted, some misogyny is ok within the context of a medieval Middle Ages setting in moderation. Moderation isn't Witcher 2's strong suit however.)
I cannot stand things that are dark just for the sake of being dark and brings nothing else new to the table. I'm not opposed to dark themes either I just think there needs to be more to it than murder, rape, prejudice, racism, backstabbing and constant, unyielding negativity. I hate the entire premise of the Witcher universe, i'm sorry. I really tried, I bought the enhanced edition on 360 and PC years apart and I just can't do it.
The combat is sort of fun, if breakable by kiting enemies over that magic trap move, hitting them a bit then setting another one, repeat until you win. The quests are just confusing for no real reason. Yes, the lack of proper objective markers is pretty nice but I spent forever looking around the first town to do two sidequests that should have taken like, half an hour max. Apparently I need to craft bombs. Which exact type of bomb is left unexplained and I end up crafting some EMP/magic lightning bomb that does fuck all to destroy some nests. Ok I thought, the damage must need to be an explosive type so I craft some of those. Nope, explosives don't blow up nests because the game says so.
Finally I said fuck it, i'm tired. Back to MGS Rising or something else actually fun.
I cannot stand things that are dark just for the sake of being dark and brings nothing else new to the table. I'm not opposed to dark themes either I just think there needs to be more to it than murder, rape, prejudice, racism, backstabbing and constant, unyielding negativity. I hate the entire premise of the Witcher universe, i'm sorry. I really tried, I bought the enhanced edition on 360 and PC years apart and I just can't do it.
The combat is sort of fun, if breakable by kiting enemies over that magic trap move, hitting them a bit then setting another one, repeat until you win. The quests are just confusing for no real reason. Yes, the lack of proper objective markers is pretty nice but I spent forever looking around the first town to do two sidequests that should have taken like, half an hour max. Apparently I need to craft bombs. Which exact type of bomb is left unexplained and I end up crafting some EMP/magic lightning bomb that does fuck all to destroy some nests. Ok I thought, the damage must need to be an explosive type so I craft some of those. Nope, explosives don't blow up nests because the game says so.
Finally I said fuck it, i'm tired. Back to MGS Rising or something else actually fun.
I can't argue against people who can't finish the witcher 1, the first huge chunk of that game is like trying to play king of the hill with the hulk, you will be kicked and beaten so many times when you think you're almost done with that part, and then you'll realize there are 30 more boring and long fetch quests to go do with no main plot to drive you forward. This isn't even mentioning the combat..if you want to even call it that, the shit is a joke, after a couple minutes of toying with it, and figuring it out finally, I laughed and said "REALLY? that's how you "win"? LOL that is terrible."
the witcher 2 however...the game is definitely in my top 10 games of all time, shit is amazing and pushed the envelope for being the size of the developer and what they had to work with, I loved what they did with the game and hopefully the third game blows me away even more. the combat is a major upgrade in any description possible, and so is the drive of the main story (while keeping it open world enough to allow you to get immersed in the world and enjoy it for what it is.) compared to the first games.
yes, the card collecting thing was stupid in the first game...but it was highly avoidable, so while I laughed at how stupid it was, I didn't let it affect the rest of the game. sure, the second game has plenty of nudity and cursing, but it feels alive, not just some hollow derp crap thrown in for shock or drama, so I don't see the problem with it, which adds to it not being a big deal and the game not treating is as such.
EDIT: I feel like the witcher series hits its own niche of rpg's, it's not open world sandbox bliss like bethesda games, but it's also not the same take on stories and companions as bioware, which I think is great for them and rpg fans everywhere.
the witcher 2 however...the game is definitely in my top 10 games of all time, shit is amazing and pushed the envelope for being the size of the developer and what they had to work with, I loved what they did with the game and hopefully the third game blows me away even more. the combat is a major upgrade in any description possible, and so is the drive of the main story (while keeping it open world enough to allow you to get immersed in the world and enjoy it for what it is.) compared to the first games.
yes, the card collecting thing was stupid in the first game...but it was highly avoidable, so while I laughed at how stupid it was, I didn't let it affect the rest of the game. sure, the second game has plenty of nudity and cursing, but it feels alive, not just some hollow derp crap thrown in for shock or drama, so I don't see the problem with it, which adds to it not being a big deal and the game not treating is as such.
EDIT: I feel like the witcher series hits its own niche of rpg's, it's not open world sandbox bliss like bethesda games, but it's also not the same take on stories and companions as bioware, which I think is great for them and rpg fans everywhere.
I'm not a huge fan of the visual style but the biggest issue I have is with the combat. Witcher 2 just didn't feel good to play when it came to the combat system and that's a big game killer for me. If you're going to be a game that has a large focus on combat, that combat better at least be good if not great and, for me, the combat in Witcher 2 wasn't good.
Bare in mind that my only experience is with The Witcher 2, when it came out for 360 (I am pure scum to someone now probably =P)
It might be part of reviews and other people hyping it to hell and back (greatest RPG ever etc.), I felt that nothing about it was a standout. Story? It's alright. Gameplay? Fine. Characters? Good. But nothing about it struck me as great.
I do still like CDProjekt though, mainly for the business practices.
It might be part of reviews and other people hyping it to hell and back (greatest RPG ever etc.), I felt that nothing about it was a standout. Story? It's alright. Gameplay? Fine. Characters? Good. But nothing about it struck me as great.
I do still like CDProjekt though, mainly for the business practices.
My big beef with the series is the translations; or rather the lack of them. As I recall, the books (written in Polish) have been translated into Czech, German, Russian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Ukrainian, Finnish, French, Spanish, Italian, Swedish, Hungarian, and Chinese- but only the first one into English. English, the most commonly used (and probably most commonly spoken) language on Earth. English, in which more than half the world's books are written- not translated into, written. If the writer (or publisher) has some kind of psychotic vendetta against the language, I could respect that, but then why translate anything? Get on it, Poland! Sell us your written works, and we'll give you the vowels we stole from the Welsh!
As to the video games: I beat the first, repeatedly bounced off the second. I don't understand people's gripes with the combat in the first game; granted, it was all too easy to abuse the territorial nature of nonsentient enemies and pull them away, one at a time, to be Yrdened into oblivion, and using the wrong sword or combat style just meant that killing them would take longer, but it was the first RPG I'd played in years where it actually felt like the limit on your progress was the character's skill, rather than the player's. As much fun as sequence breaking can be, it usually kills the pacing and challenge of a game, and the Witcher didn't really let you do that. Sexuality doesn't bother me (though I'm unnerved by people calling it "childish" or "juvenile"), so the sex cards didn't bother me; I can see why they'd offend some people, though.
The second game I caromed off like an Arkanoid ball. The sluggish, unresponsive controls made combat a frustrating mess; the animations made the game seem like it was chugging even when it wasn't; and the quicktime events were- well, they were quicktime events, what more needs to be said? I'll gird my loins and plow through the game some day, but it'll be an "I want to know what happens next" struggle, not something done out of any real sense of enjoyment.
As to the video games: I beat the first, repeatedly bounced off the second. I don't understand people's gripes with the combat in the first game; granted, it was all too easy to abuse the territorial nature of nonsentient enemies and pull them away, one at a time, to be Yrdened into oblivion, and using the wrong sword or combat style just meant that killing them would take longer, but it was the first RPG I'd played in years where it actually felt like the limit on your progress was the character's skill, rather than the player's. As much fun as sequence breaking can be, it usually kills the pacing and challenge of a game, and the Witcher didn't really let you do that. Sexuality doesn't bother me (though I'm unnerved by people calling it "childish" or "juvenile"), so the sex cards didn't bother me; I can see why they'd offend some people, though.
The second game I caromed off like an Arkanoid ball. The sluggish, unresponsive controls made combat a frustrating mess; the animations made the game seem like it was chugging even when it wasn't; and the quicktime events were- well, they were quicktime events, what more needs to be said? I'll gird my loins and plow through the game some day, but it'll be an "I want to know what happens next" struggle, not something done out of any real sense of enjoyment.
I'm working through the Witcher now because I decided to complete every game in my backlog. I had tried it after purchasing it and made it an hour in before just saying no to the combat. I'm in act 3 and it still feels like work, but the story and characters are pulling me in a little.
There are great games where you can overlook a flaw because everything else is so good and then there are games which could be great but one part just drags them down a tier. The Witcher is among the latter. That combat man, it's just so bad.
I'm hoping the Witcher 2 actually engages me when I get around to it but I'm putting it off till much later to get some padding between the two just in case.
There are great games where you can overlook a flaw because everything else is so good and then there are games which could be great but one part just drags them down a tier. The Witcher is among the latter. That combat man, it's just so bad.
I'm hoping the Witcher 2 actually engages me when I get around to it but I'm putting it off till much later to get some padding between the two just in case.
The combat is fucking atrocious for starters. And the story is one of those that tries so hard to show how shitty the world is, it forgets to give me a reason as to why I should bother saving it. Or give a fuck about anyone. It's why I prefer Dark Souls, it manages to create a feeling of hopelessness without shoving racism, misogyny, rape, and people saying "Fuck" all the time in my face. Also every female character has her tits on display. EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ONE! I can understand prostitutes (Because of course, every "mature" game needs prostitutes) but the dragon slayer woman has a cleavage window in her armor? Fuck off.
Plus Geralt just can't fucking emote. At all. You should not be talking in a bored monotone when accusing someone of being a rapist.
The weird thing is though, I don't hate it. Part of me is fascinated with the story and wants to get into it, because I feel like I'm not getting the whole picture. The combat is shit, poorly explained and confusing though, so I tend to give up after a few hours. Plus that mystery in chapter two of the first game can go fuck itself. I don't know what the hell happened but I was constantly being told to investigate people I had never heard of before and had the ability to accuse the investigator of not being honest with me when I had no fucking idea why I would want to do that. BUT APPARENTLY I WAS SUPPOSED TO!
Plus Geralt just can't fucking emote. At all. You should not be talking in a bored monotone when accusing someone of being a rapist.
The weird thing is though, I don't hate it. Part of me is fascinated with the story and wants to get into it, because I feel like I'm not getting the whole picture. The combat is shit, poorly explained and confusing though, so I tend to give up after a few hours. Plus that mystery in chapter two of the first game can go fuck itself. I don't know what the hell happened but I was constantly being told to investigate people I had never heard of before and had the ability to accuse the investigator of not being honest with me when I had no fucking idea why I would want to do that. BUT APPARENTLY I WAS SUPPOSED TO!
Boo!
Firstly, I'm not remotely interested in getting into a wank-off between Bioware and The Witcher. If the best you can say about a game is, "That other game is worse", then how good can it be?
Secondly, my experience with the series is a brief foray into the first game and a complete run of the second game.
The first game was just plain awful. Looked like shit, janky animation, characters that look and talk like ventriloquist's dummies, empty and lifeless environments. Combat was shit, you just select the appropriate move set then click when the little curser lights up. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. Voice acting was extra special shit, bored sounding amateurs everywhere. (And yes, I played the "enhanced edition" which apparently had improved voice acting, I hate to think what the non-enhanced version sounded like.) I got to the first quest hub and decided I had better ways to spend my leisure time.
The second game initially impressed me. There's a thread somewhere in the depths of these forums [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.285308-The-Witcher-2-Assassins-of-Kings-Pleasantly-surprised#11252180] in which I praise the game and encourage people to check it out. That was written by me when I was part way into the first act (the town of Flotsam).
However, after the first act the pacing went straight to hell. The second act dragged like an injured leg. By the third act I was bored out of my gourd and just going through the motions.
The combat was unimpressive. The controls have this awkward delay on them and were clearly designed with the console release in mind. That's when they weren't just plain bugging out on me. You're nearly halfway through the game before you can unlock enough options to spice things up a bit. Too little, too late.
Checkpoint placement and saves. Oh Christ. This is where the game really lost me. Remember the fight with the battlefield demon... thing? So if it kills you, (because, oh, random example, my controls just bugged out for the thirtieth time) you have to watch a short unskippable cutscene, then watch two NPCs have an unscripted fight, then you have to fight a handful of random enemies while using a gimped character that can't dodge, parry or use items and abilities, then walk down a path, skip through some shitty dialogue, fight a miniboss and finally skip some more shitty dialogue before finally getting another crack at the actual boss fight. And no, you cannot save during any of that. What kind of base incompetence causes a developer to not put a checkpoint before a fucking boss fight?
After that I just said, "Fuck you game, prepare to be cheesed." Then I crafted a bajillion bombs and spammed them for the entire rest of the game. Worked like a treat.
Characters were boring as shit. Geralt is an emotionless, expressionless drone who stabs and fucks. But hey, maybe they were going for a blank slate sort of protagonist, so let's see who else there is. Triss. She gets her tits out a couple of times, then sits at a bar for a while before getting kidnapped for the rest of the game. No personality to speak of (seriously, try to name one personality trait for her). Then there's the dwarf. He's... a dwarf. Can't think of a single thing about him. Then there's the bard, I think his name was Dandelion. He's a bard. He's a bit of a ladies man, or thinks he is. Can't think of anything else about him. There's Roche, who at least has consistent and coherent motivations. Great, we've reached the 101 level of character writing. Oh, and there's his right hand girl who'll fuck you if you beat her in a fight.
The only character I felt remotely attached to was Iorveth. I liked his world-weary affect. Gave him some actual personality which put him head and fucking shoulders above the rest of the cast. Although on reflection I'm not sure if that was intentional or if his voice actor was just flat.
The sex thing. Okay, so Geralt and Triss are a couple. Cool. They have sex from time to time. Makes sense. The game is very matter-of-fact about that. Yay maturity.
Hey look, continuous allusions to rape. Well, fine, makes sense in context.
Hey look, here are some prostitutes making out with each other in their spare time. Because that's totally what prostitutes do. Ooooookay. I thought we were being mature here?
Hey look, the mage chick is whipping her assistant with a crop. Hot, right? Yeah, getting into fanservice territory now. Especially given that its not remotely relevant to anything at all.
Hey look, "lesbomancy". Aaaaaaand you've lost me.
The story did not impress. It starts off strong and focussed. King assassinated, Geralt blamed. Find assassin, clear name. Gotcha. Then act 2 bogs everything down in fantasy politics. Okay, fine, the story is expanding, I can dig that. Then act 3 rolls around and all the politics boils down to "The evil empire was being evil again". Yay. Oh, and the whole Assassin of Kings thread boils down to "They payed me", "Oh, okay then, peace out". Couple that with not giving a shit about the characters and I was well and truly done.
...
Hey, you asked for it.
I should note that, despite my seething, petulant disdain for The Witcher, I do quite like CD Project and I am at least curious about that Cyberpunk game they have in the works.
Firstly, I'm not remotely interested in getting into a wank-off between Bioware and The Witcher. If the best you can say about a game is, "That other game is worse", then how good can it be?
Secondly, my experience with the series is a brief foray into the first game and a complete run of the second game.
The first game was just plain awful. Looked like shit, janky animation, characters that look and talk like ventriloquist's dummies, empty and lifeless environments. Combat was shit, you just select the appropriate move set then click when the little curser lights up. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. Voice acting was extra special shit, bored sounding amateurs everywhere. (And yes, I played the "enhanced edition" which apparently had improved voice acting, I hate to think what the non-enhanced version sounded like.) I got to the first quest hub and decided I had better ways to spend my leisure time.
The second game initially impressed me. There's a thread somewhere in the depths of these forums [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.285308-The-Witcher-2-Assassins-of-Kings-Pleasantly-surprised#11252180] in which I praise the game and encourage people to check it out. That was written by me when I was part way into the first act (the town of Flotsam).
However, after the first act the pacing went straight to hell. The second act dragged like an injured leg. By the third act I was bored out of my gourd and just going through the motions.
The combat was unimpressive. The controls have this awkward delay on them and were clearly designed with the console release in mind. That's when they weren't just plain bugging out on me. You're nearly halfway through the game before you can unlock enough options to spice things up a bit. Too little, too late.
Checkpoint placement and saves. Oh Christ. This is where the game really lost me. Remember the fight with the battlefield demon... thing? So if it kills you, (because, oh, random example, my controls just bugged out for the thirtieth time) you have to watch a short unskippable cutscene, then watch two NPCs have an unscripted fight, then you have to fight a handful of random enemies while using a gimped character that can't dodge, parry or use items and abilities, then walk down a path, skip through some shitty dialogue, fight a miniboss and finally skip some more shitty dialogue before finally getting another crack at the actual boss fight. And no, you cannot save during any of that. What kind of base incompetence causes a developer to not put a checkpoint before a fucking boss fight?
After that I just said, "Fuck you game, prepare to be cheesed." Then I crafted a bajillion bombs and spammed them for the entire rest of the game. Worked like a treat.
Characters were boring as shit. Geralt is an emotionless, expressionless drone who stabs and fucks. But hey, maybe they were going for a blank slate sort of protagonist, so let's see who else there is. Triss. She gets her tits out a couple of times, then sits at a bar for a while before getting kidnapped for the rest of the game. No personality to speak of (seriously, try to name one personality trait for her). Then there's the dwarf. He's... a dwarf. Can't think of a single thing about him. Then there's the bard, I think his name was Dandelion. He's a bard. He's a bit of a ladies man, or thinks he is. Can't think of anything else about him. There's Roche, who at least has consistent and coherent motivations. Great, we've reached the 101 level of character writing. Oh, and there's his right hand girl who'll fuck you if you beat her in a fight.
The only character I felt remotely attached to was Iorveth. I liked his world-weary affect. Gave him some actual personality which put him head and fucking shoulders above the rest of the cast. Although on reflection I'm not sure if that was intentional or if his voice actor was just flat.
The sex thing. Okay, so Geralt and Triss are a couple. Cool. They have sex from time to time. Makes sense. The game is very matter-of-fact about that. Yay maturity.
Hey look, continuous allusions to rape. Well, fine, makes sense in context.
Hey look, here are some prostitutes making out with each other in their spare time. Because that's totally what prostitutes do. Ooooookay. I thought we were being mature here?
Hey look, the mage chick is whipping her assistant with a crop. Hot, right? Yeah, getting into fanservice territory now. Especially given that its not remotely relevant to anything at all.
Hey look, "lesbomancy". Aaaaaaand you've lost me.
The story did not impress. It starts off strong and focussed. King assassinated, Geralt blamed. Find assassin, clear name. Gotcha. Then act 2 bogs everything down in fantasy politics. Okay, fine, the story is expanding, I can dig that. Then act 3 rolls around and all the politics boils down to "The evil empire was being evil again". Yay. Oh, and the whole Assassin of Kings thread boils down to "They payed me", "Oh, okay then, peace out". Couple that with not giving a shit about the characters and I was well and truly done.
...
Hey, you asked for it.
I should note that, despite my seething, petulant disdain for The Witcher, I do quite like CD Project and I am at least curious about that Cyberpunk game they have in the works.
Admittedly, I only played part of the first one, but that was one thing I liked about it. I'm so unbelievably sick of starting a game and having some angel/sage/god/whatever else approach me to tell me "You are the chosen one! You must wield the Sword of Cliche to seek out the three magic Artifacts of MacGuffin. You are the only one who can save the land from certain doom!"ninja666 said:
Simply by not having that kind of bullshit i would say i the story elevated itself above most fantasy RPGs.
That said, i think i see why so many people go with the saving the world angle. Even the most boring and generic iteration of that idea can at least provide a driving force to push the player onwards. Yet, The Witcher managed to completely lose me, i reached a point were i had absolutely no idea how my actions in anyway contributed to the goal i had now basically forgotten.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the motivation in the first game basically revenge? If save the world is the most cliche plot line in the world, getting revenge is hot on its tails.FirstNameLastName said:
Yeah, basically. The bad guys come, trash your castle, kill some guy and take your alchemy equipment and then you and the other witchers "journey to the four corners of the world" or something like that to figure out why and get revenge/stop their evil plans.erttheking said:
Want to know the sad part? I honestly don't know. As I said, I completely forgot what it was I was working towards do to the inconsequential nature of most of the quests. I seem to remember someone stealing something dangerous though, so kind of mutagen maybe?erttheking said:
The nudity and sex stuff is silly, they tried too hard in the first with the cards and pushing that off more into the background was an improvement in the second. I felt with the first they felt they had to overdo it to make their mark.
I do love the story though it kinda bugs me that it differs from the novels (which I haven't read, but I like consistency and canon) With that said The Witcher is the original Shadow of Mordor and does it so well taking the overall themes of the books and having the developer take them in their own direction without being slavish to the originals timeline.
I loved how the theme of the first game was neutrality, trying to be grey and being a force of good and protection without moralizing and free will only for the Wild Hunt to confront you at the end and spin everything you've done in a different way due to it's own perspective and it's agenda for you.
For the second I loved how the game kept with those themes but truly branched out at the end and leaves me really anticipating how those threads are handled in future editions.
In my first game I went with the Temeria guys and supported the young Queen while seeing the other kingdoms get their bits but not Temeria, then played siding with the Elves (well, going along with them, not exactly agreeing with them) only to see the valley the games set in kept out of the grasp of the other kingdoms but Temeria falling under their sway.
After I completed the second game it annoyed me that I couldn't both support the Queen and help Saskia, but then I realized how overdone winning at everything is done and appreciated that the game sets you up to accomplish certain things but not all leaving it to be a a realistic, compromising world and painting Geralt as not superheroic, only someone who can do what he can where is currently is.
I didn't mind the combat in the first, the only thing that pissed me off was being unable to jump around the environment, it being among the first of the new generations of games that cut back on that and I've held a grudge for it ever since Everquest started doing that since Luclin.
Combat in the second was more enjoyable without being chaotic, I hope they don't try to over improve on it.
The plot actually turned into you trying to stop someone from doing something they felt was needed to save the world, though pretty much the human part only, because of a disaster they perceived occurring thousands of years from Geralt's time. While you could play up Geralt saving the world, his role plays more into the Witcher's natural role as protector of the natural order against the unnatural, which was the antagonists abuse of Witcher alchemy, and leaving the world to it's natural ends, and if the disaster did eventually come down the line it would be faced appropriately, not abusing things which is akin to all the monsters entering their world from their perspective.
I'd rather argue the plot of the first Witcher and the series as it's developing being more of the "Destiny has a plan for you" sort, only it involving a protagonist who fate only to encounter otherworldly beings (The Wild Hunt) who are imposing one upon him against his wishes apparently to simply to spit in his face and his idea of free will.
I do love the story though it kinda bugs me that it differs from the novels (which I haven't read, but I like consistency and canon) With that said The Witcher is the original Shadow of Mordor and does it so well taking the overall themes of the books and having the developer take them in their own direction without being slavish to the originals timeline.
I loved how the theme of the first game was neutrality, trying to be grey and being a force of good and protection without moralizing and free will only for the Wild Hunt to confront you at the end and spin everything you've done in a different way due to it's own perspective and it's agenda for you.
For the second I loved how the game kept with those themes but truly branched out at the end and leaves me really anticipating how those threads are handled in future editions.
In my first game I went with the Temeria guys and supported the young Queen while seeing the other kingdoms get their bits but not Temeria, then played siding with the Elves (well, going along with them, not exactly agreeing with them) only to see the valley the games set in kept out of the grasp of the other kingdoms but Temeria falling under their sway.
After I completed the second game it annoyed me that I couldn't both support the Queen and help Saskia, but then I realized how overdone winning at everything is done and appreciated that the game sets you up to accomplish certain things but not all leaving it to be a a realistic, compromising world and painting Geralt as not superheroic, only someone who can do what he can where is currently is.
I didn't mind the combat in the first, the only thing that pissed me off was being unable to jump around the environment, it being among the first of the new generations of games that cut back on that and I've held a grudge for it ever since Everquest started doing that since Luclin.
Combat in the second was more enjoyable without being chaotic, I hope they don't try to over improve on it.
I've never taken him as being a normal person personality wise. He seems otherworldly and I find it plays well into him being of a profession that is set apart and isolated from the rest of society, that helps it but isn't part of it. He couldn't be the usual ignorant protagonist discovering the world alongside with us, he's too well traveled to be, so him being societal outcast as well as being someone who's inexplicably returned from the dead for reasons even he doesn't know about helps the player without alienating them, but then again, I've always been a fan of cool, coldly rational protagonists (no, not the cliche unflappable douche which is a shadow of what I'm talking about).
The issue more revolved around them taking secrets the Witcher's feel are only theirs mainly because it's felt they're a danger if in the hands of others, it's one of many reasons why they love being impartial in matters and plays into their light handed overlording of people if they don't feel they do that in spirit.st0pnsw0p said:
The plot actually turned into you trying to stop someone from doing something they felt was needed to save the world, though pretty much the human part only, because of a disaster they perceived occurring thousands of years from Geralt's time. While you could play up Geralt saving the world, his role plays more into the Witcher's natural role as protector of the natural order against the unnatural, which was the antagonists abuse of Witcher alchemy, and leaving the world to it's natural ends, and if the disaster did eventually come down the line it would be faced appropriately, not abusing things which is akin to all the monsters entering their world from their perspective.
I'd rather argue the plot of the first Witcher and the series as it's developing being more of the "Destiny has a plan for you" sort, only it involving a protagonist who fate only to encounter otherworldly beings (The Wild Hunt) who are imposing one upon him against his wishes apparently to simply to spit in his face and his idea of free will.
I love the series so far. In fact I loved it so much I bought the translated books and read them as well. Yes, I feel there is a little problem with Geralt's lack of emotion and maybe forced tough guy-exterior. As suggested by some people though, I replayed Witcher 1 in the Enhanced Edition in Polish, with English subtitles, and it seemed a *bit* better.
My major gripe with it though, is the difficulty curve. In The Witcher, it's really about figuring it out, then it's actually quite easy and you can have some fun with it. I can see why people complain about the QTE-based fighting, but for the point and click, isn't that what most action RPG combat is like anyway? Only difference being you do most of your micromanagement and strategy plan before the battle starts, rather than during. Which is admittedly impossible in some circumstances, which is why the sword fighter classing is probably the easiest for beginners.
In the Witcher 2 however, you just cruise a long for the first couple acts, (I had a bit of trouble with the dragon), until you hit your first real fight in a courtyard, where I just got my ass handed to me multiple times I nearly gave up in frustration. That was nearly enough to put me off completely, until I stuck with it and got the hang of it. Anyway that's my main gripe, I'd like to play through Witcher 2 again before the next comes out, I've never 'roled a magic user through that one.
My major gripe with it though, is the difficulty curve. In The Witcher, it's really about figuring it out, then it's actually quite easy and you can have some fun with it. I can see why people complain about the QTE-based fighting, but for the point and click, isn't that what most action RPG combat is like anyway? Only difference being you do most of your micromanagement and strategy plan before the battle starts, rather than during. Which is admittedly impossible in some circumstances, which is why the sword fighter classing is probably the easiest for beginners.
In the Witcher 2 however, you just cruise a long for the first couple acts, (I had a bit of trouble with the dragon), until you hit your first real fight in a courtyard, where I just got my ass handed to me multiple times I nearly gave up in frustration. That was nearly enough to put me off completely, until I stuck with it and got the hang of it. Anyway that's my main gripe, I'd like to play through Witcher 2 again before the next comes out, I've never 'roled a magic user through that one.