What do you have against The Witcher series?

[Alex Baas]

My gripes with the first is how little it fits with the books. The whole story feels like some bad fanfiction with the most random characters quoting some of the more memorible quips at the oddest times with none of the context. That bothered me. I disliked the way that certain characters who were dead got dropped into the story. The whole thing was a bloody fanfic!!!!

That said it did have its moments that I very much enjoyed. I liked the politics and the times where the choices you made would change the game. I am 3 hours into the second and it seems to have mostly fixed the contridictory lore. Most of it.

On a side note OMG CIRI IN THE WITCHER 3!!!!!!!! I have been saying that since she was shown in that trailer

EDIT: I find the claims of sexism amusing when a few particular scenes in Time of Contempt and one particular scene in Baptism of Fire exist

 

[endtherapture]

My gripes with the first is how little it fits with the books. The whole story feels like some bad fanfiction with the most random characters quoting some of the more memorible quips at the oddest times with none of the context. That bothered me. I disliked the way that certain characters who were dead got dropped into the story. The whole thing was a bloody fanfic!!!!

That said it did have its moments that I very much enjoyed. I liked the politics and the times where the choices you made would change the game. I am 3 hours into the second and it seems to have mostly fixed the contridictory lore. Most of it.

On a side note OMG CIRI IN THE WITCHER 3!!!!!!!! I have been saying that since she was shown in that trailer

EDIT: I find the claims of sexism amusing when a few particular scenes in Time of Contempt and one particular scene in Baptism of Fire exist

Ciri has just been confirmed as a playable character in TW3 which is awesome

I'd love to read the books but only a few of them have been translated to English haven't they?

 

[Alex Baas]

My gripes with the first is how little it fits with the books. The whole story feels like some bad fanfiction with the most random characters quoting some of the more memorible quips at the oddest times with none of the context. That bothered me. I disliked the way that certain characters who were dead got dropped into the story. The whole thing was a bloody fanfic!!!!

That said it did have its moments that I very much enjoyed. I liked the politics and the times where the choices you made would change the game. I am 3 hours into the second and it seems to have mostly fixed the contridictory lore. Most of it.

On a side note OMG CIRI IN THE WITCHER 3!!!!!!!! I have been saying that since she was shown in that trailer

EDIT: I find the claims of sexism amusing when a few particular scenes in Time of Contempt and one particular scene in Baptism of Fire exist

Ciri has just been confirmed as a playable character in TW3 which is awesome

I'd love to read the books but only a few of them have been translated to English haven't they?

Only 4 have so far and this is criminal. The books are great and everyone who complains about some of the issues within the Witcher like the combat and potions identify themselves as have not read the books

 

[MysticSlayer]

I don't have anything against The Witcher as a series. Well, there are a few things. It takes the whole male power fantasy thing to unbelievably juvenile levels, the writing completely lacks any subtlety in trying to deliver a message, and the combat in both games is mind-numbingly boring. Still, when it comes to specific complaints, what I have against The Witcher was probably fixed in The Witcher 2, and what I have against The Witcher 2 was just them messing up something that was done right in The Witcher.

To me, The Witcher (at least the Enhanced Edition) was actually a very engaging game. Yeah, the combat was boring once you realized the few potions that you needed to power through even the toughest of battles, but the game never seemed focused on combat and at least gave the sense of being a Witcher. I guess Chapter 2 was also a slog if you didn't allocate your traveling between Vizima and the swamp properly, but but it wasn't that bad. Overall, it had some interesting characters, a compelling (albeit preachy) story, and a fantastic world. It also had a charm that few dark fantasy games have.

The Witcher 2, though, was just...yeah. Personally, I'm baffled at how it managed to receive any critical success. I guess the lack of a "save the world" story was nice, but the writing and pacing around it was unbelievably horrible. The combat system looked better on paper, but it managed to be even more monotonous than the original game, and that takes a lot of boneheaded decisions to accomplish. The world wasn't that interesting both from a writing standpoint (which I've already mentioned) and from a design standpoint. It just always felt way too restrictive. The art style didn't really appeal to me, but that's sort of subjective. The graphics, to me at least, also felt off, like they were designed to draw attention to every little mistake in the textures and animations. I guess the voice acting improved (not that that was a hard to do), and there were still a couple interesting characters (i.e. Roche and Iorveth). Still, the game was just an absolute slog that I couldn't wait to put behind me so I could just wait for the sequel, which now I'm very unsure of because of how much I disliked The Witcher 2. All I can say is if there is a stealth section in the tutorial of The Witcher 3, I'm putting it down and never looking back. And to make matters worse, I haven't even begun to describe all the little details that made The Witcher 2 even more unbearable, but I could spend hours listing them all so I won't bother.

Overall, I don't mind The Witcher series. There are still some interesting plot threads that I'm looking forward to seeing resolved in The Witcher 3. I may even go back and play the original game on occasion, as I find it to be one of the most compelling fantasy RPGs I've ever played. But I think that the second game was awful, and I'm not sure if that's because CD Projekt didn't know where to go with the series or if they are just that bad (though it at least sounds like they've learned from their mistakes in that game). They clearly have passion for their work, but that doesn't always translate to a good result.

 

[Windcaler]

For me the first game really killed it for me. It wasnt a serious grimdark fantasy RPG that I was promised. It was a juvinile, borderline sexist, and monotonous game that I really didnt like. In fact I didnt like it so much that I didnt buy witcher 2 and have no plans to buy witcher 3. The same thing for Half life 2, the first one was just not very good IMO and its killed any interest I had in half life 2 and the future half lives that will only come out on some major celestial event.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

Well, the tedious combat in the first one, click click click click click click and perhaps click
Also, that they got rid of the nice looking menus in the first one and replaced them with boring excessively minimalistic UI
The story is a bit uninteresting and limp in the second one, no one seemed particularly interesting except perhaps saskia or iorveth



Also the fncking 10 second town background noise loop
AND ROLLING, SO MUCH ROLLING

 

[Edl01]

Honestly this is the thread I've been waiting for, because I have wanted to get this off my chest for a while.
The Witcher 1 was a pretty bad game, The Witcher 2 was Mediocre with some good features. SO WHY THE BLOODY HELL IS EVERYONE HYPED FOR THE WITCHER 3? I see it winning tons of most anticipated game awards(which is a rant for another time), getting praised universally across the board by people who haven't played it and the trailers of the game are getting millions upon millions of views.

Now I'm sure some people liked the Witcher 2 a lot more than me, however you can't say it was the second coming of christ and you can't reasonably get this hyped for a game when there is nothing to back that hype up.

Anyway I don't hate the Witcher series, I put a lot of time into Witcher 2 and I'd give it a 6 or 7/10 since I had a decent amount of fun with it. However there's just nothing to backup the suggestion that the Witcher 3 will be anything other than another fairly well made and fun action RPG.

 

[The Madman]

I see it winning tons of most anticipated game awards(which is a rant for another time), getting praised universally across the board by people who haven't played it and the trailers of the game are getting millions upon millions of views.

Because it looks promising and unlike you some people really liked Witcher 2 and so have high hopes for 3?

This ain't rocket science.

Also it looks real purdy. Mmm, dem pixels!

 

[bug_of_war]

Keep in mind I never played the first game so...

The Witcher 2 was about as average as the word average.

There's nothing really wrong with the game play or story, it's just there's nothing there to keep me personally interested. Sure it's nice not to have every step of a mission pointed out to me, but sometimes I like not having to consult a wiki to understand what the fuck I have to do next. Also, forced stealth missions and missions requiring you to either a) know backstory. or b) give you vague and undefined directions/instructions are just kinda frustrating. And while this may be a small annoyance, the game does not strictly follow Polish folklore, and it's extremely jarring when mythological creatures from another people show up in the game, though this criticism is probably more against my mates who threw me onto Witcher 2 than the game itself...


Look, the game is not bad, it is actually quite solid, but it's very much a you'll love it or hate it type of experience.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

Love the series so far, I think TW2 was a tad hard to get into because of all the lore-specific dialogue & history, and I think the TW1 gets very dull in parts, but they're minor grumbles for what's otherwise THE RPG franchize of the past few years for me.

The Witcher 2 is simply stunning, and I hope we see a return to branching story arcs again at some point. The replayability of the game is jaw-droppingly superb, with each playthrough better than the last so far for me (just finished my 5th)

 

[SNCommand]

Dislike the characters, like the environments, dislike the music, like the designs, dislike the combat

It essentially boils down to a very uninteresting experience for me, with lots of little irritants as I play

Also very much dislike the personality and appearance of Geralt, even the newly announced secondary playable character in Witcher 3 just looks like him with lipstick and boobs, they even share the same taste in women etc.

 

[baconmaster]

Don't really have anything "against" The Witcher 2 (haven't played 1.) I'm only 12 or so hours into it and I like the world and some of the situations it sets up are pretty interesting, even if the dialog itself is a bit inconsistent. It's absolutely gorgeous too

But the characters are mostly bland, the overarching story has yet to grab me in any significant way, and it has some absolutely terrible design flaws. Menus are a chore, context-sensitive actions as simple as lighting a torch range from finnicky to disastrous, QTEs in boss battles, enemies just vanish at times... And it does a terrible job with continuity. One guy hired me to do something, completely forgot about it and tried to kill me in another quest, and then completely forgot about that when I went back and did the job for him.

I am 100% certain that, if it weren't originally released as a PC exclusive, PC elitists would quit before getting to the first town and call it a shitty console port for idiots. As good as some of the good parts in TW2 are, I expect all decent games to have a certain level of polish. These flaws are unforgiveable in any modern game on PC, Console, handheld... You name it. The contextual actions would even be bad for a second-rate mobile game

Just watch as they all complain about how much worse TW3 is and how it was ruined by consoles. Even if it's more polished and the core experience isn't compromised at all, I guarantee it'll happen

 

[Jake Martinez]

I really, really, liked the Witcher 2. It has an old-style grungy fantasy world that reminds me of the older films and books from the 70's and 80's, it's very pulp that way - it's a low fantasy world, filled with cruelty, political intrigue and sex. It's funny for me to see people rag on it's writing and plot lines as being juvenile or sexist knowing that many of these people love Game of Thrones, which is infinitely more in that vein of writing style. I guess it's a classic case of "stop liking what I don't like".

Also, I really liked the combat in Witcher 2. I definitely recommend playing it on the hardest difficulty setting, it's quite visceral and satisfying to get good at the sword play and magic effects. In fact, playing it on the easier difficulty actually robs the game of most of it's fun.

Finally, I really enjoy the relationship with Triss and Geralt. It's obviously flawed and they both know it, in fact I think on Triss' part it's very tragic. It's not often in media other than books that you see a relationship between protagonists that aren't what I would consider impractically perfect, or riddled with tropes, so I enjoy the fact that sometimes, you actually really dislike Geralt for... well basically being Geralt, but you also get to see (through the options you are presented with in the game, depending on how you play it) that although he is cool emotionally, he's also suffering. Not very many players have been very perceptive about this, but part of what appears to attract Triss to Geralt is that it's in her own nature to be drawn to the suffering of other people. Although this should be obvious I would think considering the actions she undertakes and the causes she supports and fights for, they don't seem to apply this to her personal relationships despite this being primarily what her interactions with Geralt are based around.

In fact, one of the things that really bothers me about some of the criticism leveled at this game, or Triss's portrayal in particular, is that most people leveling it are very shallow in their assessment. They don't seem to understand that Triss is fully self aware of her own tragedy and unhappiness in loving Geralt. It feels to me that in their rush to find something to disapprove of, or cry "sexist" about, they basically take a complex and self aware character and turn her into a two dimensional caricature to try and make their points. Frankly, I think it's an overall sign of immaturity of general criticism that people have turned concepts such as unrequited love into jokes like "friend zoning" (complete with replacing the tragic aspect of it with a bizarre shaming narrative) or the concept of a doomed love into "sexism", if the one who is doomed is a woman (particularly ironic since this is a constant theme in womens literature going back to Jane Austin)

 

[endtherapture]

I really, really, liked the Witcher 2. It has an old-style grungy fantasy world that reminds me of the older films and books from the 70's and 80's, it's very pulp that way - it's a low fantasy world, filled with cruelty, political intrigue and sex. It's funny for me to see people rag on it's writing and plot lines as being juvenile or sexist knowing that many of these people love Game of Thrones, which is infinitely more in that vein of writing style. I guess it's a classic case of "stop liking what I don't like".

Also, I really liked the combat in Witcher 2. I definitely recommend playing it on the hardest difficulty setting, it's quite visceral and satisfying to get good at the sword play and magic effects. In fact, playing it on the easier difficulty actually robs the game of most of it's fun.

Finally, I really enjoy the relationship with Triss and Geralt. It's obviously flawed and they both know it, in fact I think on Triss' part it's very tragic. It's not often in media other than books that you see a relationship between protagonists that aren't what I would consider impractically perfect, or riddled with tropes, so I enjoy the fact that sometimes, you actually really dislike Geralt for... well basically being Geralt, but you also get to see (through the options you are presented with in the game, depending on how you play it) that although he is cool emotionally, he's also suffering. Not very many players have been very perceptive about this, but part of what appears to attract Triss to Geralt is that it's in her own nature to be drawn to the suffering of other people. Although this should be obvious I would think considering the actions she undertakes and the causes she supports and fights for, they don't seem to apply this to her personal relationships despite this being primarily what her interactions with Geralt are based around.

In fact, one of the things that really bothers me about some of the criticism leveled at this game, or Triss's portrayal in particular, is that most people leveling it are very shallow in their assessment. They don't seem to understand that Triss is fully self aware of her own tragedy and unhappiness in loving Geralt. It feels to me that in their rush to find something to disapprove of, or cry "sexist" about, they basically take a complex and self aware character and turn her into a two dimensional caricature to try and make their points. Frankly, I think it's an overall sign of immaturity of general criticism that people have turned concepts such as unrequited love into jokes like "friend zoning" (complete with replacing the tragic aspect of it with a bizarre shaming narrative) or the concept of a doomed love into "sexism", if the one who is doomed is a woman (particularly ironic since this is a constant theme in womens literature going back to Jane Austin)

Oh man I love the story with Triss and Geralt's story in the first two games so far. We've all experienced unrequited love, but from Triss' angle, wouldn't her actions be something we'd all do? The person you love the most in the world comes back without his lover (presumably dead) and without his memories, wouldn't you try to finally seduce them and bring them to yourself? The fact that many players don't know about Yennefer and fall into the Triss trap just makes it more effective (I'm one of them oops.). I'm well aware that Triss is manipulating Geralt to an extent, but people like Zoltan and Dandelion don't do anything to stop it. There's also lots of background stuff about the Rose of Remembrance Geralt picks could possibly be used in a spell to "bind" Geralt to Triss. Their relationship is just extremely tragic on her part and I think it's something we need to see a lot more of in games.

I think Triss is a really well written character and her and Geralt's relationship is amazingly written in my opinion. I really hope it's going to be extremely interesting now that Yennefer is going to be around in The Witcher 3. For all Triss' flaws she still deeply cares about Geralt so it's going to be a super tough decision if we have to chose between them.

 

[Remus]

I don't know about the second game - gotta up my rig to play it - but in the first game, the combat was weird to say the least and every fight outside your average bandit required a level of preparation only learned through trial and error. A game should not force frustration onto a player, period. If there was an organic way to learn creature weaknesses, great. But to force you to die repeatedly until you learn exactly what the game wants you to use, completely unreasonable.

 

[Zen Bard]

I really WANTED to like The Witcher. I'd heard great things about the writing, the immersion, the shades-of-gray game world and how the player's consequences actually matter.

Plus, I read Andrzej Sapkowski's first two books in the series and consider them among my favorite.

However,I just couldn't get past the gameplay. As others have indicated, the combat mechanics are clunky and the interface is horrendous. Which is a shame because there were a lot of great ideas and concepts in this game.

I may pick it up and try it again. Or maybe I'll just skip to The Witcher 3 when it comes out.

 

[Sanunes]

I have tried both Witcher games and neither made me interested enough to play beyond a couple of hours. They aren't bad games, they just are games that are not for me.

 

[w00tage]

I quit the first game after realizing that once again, the devs did not want me to play the combat game. They wanted to play the game for me when I clicked on an enemy. Same with Arkham Asylum, Deus Ex HR and every other "Press F to have me win the game for you" game.

All they needed was to let me do the sword-swinging, and I'd have played the hell out of that game (and the same with the rest of the list). But I'm not playing to drive a character around and watch him do stuff, I'm playing to play the character, ESPECIALLY during the combat. That's where the most tension is, and because of that, you also get the most feeling of accomplishment when you win by your skill as a player. Take that away from me, and you've taken the best part of the game away from me. And then I take my money elsewhere (go figure).

 

[Manawa]

I can't but nod in agreement with some people that accuse the game of having juvenile approach to sexuality, being too violent (tortures) or that Geralt is just not interesting.
I, for one, have read the Witcher books (yeah, I'm Polish) and let me tell you - the games are taking you lightly... or so I think - I only got through few hours with Witcher 2, so I don't know what goes down later. Beginning was enough for me - it reminded me why I disliked the books. It's just grim fantasy, that gets grimmer the deeper you get. There is no happy ending, characters will die or suffer one way or another. Again and again. It's like game of thrones in that regard. After reading I felt down, not an emotion I pursue while reading. But some people are into that, so hey - to each his own. I want escapism into happy times, not read about atrocities and genocides - I get that in news. Show me rainbow shitting unicorns, not violent rapes.

But even then - I'd say that Geralt is biggest flaw of entire storyline. He is hard to get invested in. A veteran - beast killer, that is bored with all the killing, yet constatly thrown into situations he is forced to kill. And he is best at it. Most of the time he is sad - not once in books I recall him being happy. Yet, every time he gets into town he gets laid. Friend told me it's because of some witcher powers that make any woman he touches horny. I call it bullshit and bad writing. What is interesting is the set of side characters, but they come and go, and we are stuck with sad, tired Geralt. Sure, he can get good oneliner here or there (at someones expense, most often just before killing him), but he is just a drag. I'd argue he is badly set up as character. He is introduced as this grumpy mofo, and only in later books he gets some depth. After that time it is hard to get invested in character.


TLR - I've read the books, didn't like them, don't like grim reality they show, Geralt is a bad character, therefore avoided the games.