What do you have against The Witcher series?

[Las7]

Personally, the Witcher 2 is one of the best games of the decade.
opinions you know, everyone has one.

 

[Morgoth780]

I love both of them. However, I prefer the first one. That could be due to how the second ending, and it left me with a sour taste in my mouth. Definitely really exciting for the third one.

I guess coming out in May gives me another 12 weeks to upgrade my monitor and buy a new graphics card(s).

 

[TotalerKrieger]

Perhaps Western audiences tend to dislike or do not identify with the Eastern European themes and mannerisms which crop up from time to time amidst more conventional fantasy tropes? I would argue that many Westerners are influenced by the negative stereotypes and pre-conceived notions surrounding Eastern Europeans and their cultures, which may be affecting how they perceive certain aspects about the game. Although, on second thought, that might be completely baseless as there is widespread acceptance all the cultural tropes found in Japanese games, I am really just spitballing...

The fact that the series is developed with the PC as the primary platform may have resulted in a significant loss of quality or intuitiveness on the subsequent ports to consoles? I've only played on PC, but I thought the Witcher 2 was fantastic in both story and game design. Nothing Bioware has produced in the last decade comes close to surpassing the narrative and gameplay found in the Witcher 2. The weak point of the Witcher series, the fairly stereotypical characterization, remains on par with the rather dull, rehashed personalities created by Bioware. Bethesda still takes the cake for world design. I expect the Witcher 3 will not surpass the rich yet expansive environment of Skyrim, but who knows. The NPCs at least do not have that wooden, uncanny valley feel so prevalent in the Elder Scrolls series.

Having said all that, the first Witcher was a bit of a mess, even after the Enhanced Edition was released. The gameplay was old-fashioned and repetitive and there were some rather immature/tired themes which tended to mar the story overall. Maybe the first title has put people off the whole series and/or coloured their perception of the sequel?

 

[Longing]

I would enjoy The Witcher a lot more if you weren't forced to play as Gerald. I get that it's a book series, but he just comes across as so extremely unlikeable to me. I've briefly played the second one a year or so ago and I could not for the life of me get into it. It's the same reason I can't get into GOT I suppose. Everything's got this toxic thin layer of misogyny over it, like shit fondant (is there another kind?) on top of an otherwise excellent cake. I don't want to have to scrape everything off of it to get to the good parts.

Combat seemed functional, I`ll admit I didn`t get very far in the game so maybe it gets worse later on; a lot of people seem to have a problem with it.

Anyway, I guess it all comes down to: it`s not for me. And that's fine.

 

[endtherapture]

Perhaps Western audiences tend to dislike or do not identify with the Eastern European themes and mannerisms which crop up from time to time amidst more conventional fantasy tropes? I would argue that many Westerners are influenced by the negative stereotypes and pre-conceived notions surrounding Eastern Europeans and their cultures, which may be affecting how they perceive certain aspects about the game. Although, on second thought, that might be completely baseless as there is widespread acceptance all the cultural tropes found in Japanese games, I am really just spitballing...

The fact that the series is developed with the PC as the primary platform may have resulted in a significant loss of quality or intuitiveness on the subsequent ports to consoles? I've only played on PC, but I thought the Witcher 2 was fantastic in both story and game design. Nothing Bioware has produced in the last decade comes close to surpassing the narrative and gameplay found in the Witcher 2. The weak point of the Witcher series, the fairly stereotypical characterization, remains on par with the rather dull, rehashed personalities created by Bioware. Bethesda still takes the cake for world design. I expect the Witcher 3 will not surpass the rich yet expansive environment of Skyrim, but who knows. The NPCs at least do not have that wooden, uncanny valley feel so prevalent in the Elder Scrolls series.

Having said all that, the first Witcher was a bit of a mess, even after the Enhanced Edition was released. The gameplay was old-fashioned and repetitive and there were some rather immature/tired themes which tended to mar the story overall. Maybe the first title has put people off the whole series and/or coloured their perception of the sequel?

Yeah I'm thinking it could be quite a cultural difference. I'm from Britain myself and I find the game refreshing - the characters speak in English accents rather than American ones, I think the writing is hilarious at times, and it all has a rather quaint feel. It definitely has a very European feel to it which is absolutely unique. It definitely stands out from a game like Dragon Age to me, but I can understand why the American mass market might find it weird or unusual, given they have far less of a cultural history than Europe, so LOTR might be considered classic fantasy, but all our European nations have far more folk lore and stuff to draw upon. So the weird monsters like strigas, drowners, draugs and stuff might seem weird to an audience used to stuff like dragons, phoenixes and orcs.

But yeah, I agree with you regarding the companion design. Each Bioware character is well written, but essentially they are all tropes and stereotypes in every game, despite being well written. I do think characters like Roche and Iorveth are similar, but they feel a lot fresher, probably because they're not under your command and do their own things, they're more proactive than Bioware characters, and live with their backgrounds, rather than you having to go out and solve their daddy issues.

I would enjoy The Witcher a lot more if you weren't forced to play as Gerald. I get that it's a book series, but he just comes across as so extremely unlikeable to me. I've briefly played the second one a year or so ago and I could not for the life of me get into it. It's the same reason I can't get into GOT I suppose. Everything's got this toxic thin layer of misogyny over it, like shit fondant (is there another kind?) on top of an otherwise excellent cake. I don't want to have to scrape everything off of it to get to the good parts.

Combat seemed functional, I`ll admit I didn`t get very far in the game so maybe it gets worse later on; a lot of people seem to have a problem with it.

Anyway, I guess it all comes down to: it`s not for me. And that's fine.

It comes across as misogyny because the setting is misogynistic because it is based off 1300s Europe. Plus the plot is driven by the actions of a powerful group of female mages, so I wouldn't say the game is misogynistic or sexist, but the culture portrayed in the game is.

 

[happyninja42]

Perhaps Western audiences tend to dislike or do not identify with the Eastern European themes and mannerisms which crop up from time to time amidst more conventional fantasy tropes? I would argue that many Westerners are influenced by the negative stereotypes and pre-conceived notions surrounding Eastern Europeans and their cultures, which may be affecting how they perceive certain aspects about the game. Although, on second thought, that might be completely baseless as there is widespread acceptance all the cultural tropes found in Japanese games, I am really just spitballing...

Yeah I think you're stretching there. I don't have a problem with other culture's concepts and mythologies, it's how they are presented. And in Witcher, everything is just so...dull and drab. There is no life to any of it. It felt like a checklist of common fantasy elements, without any actual substance to them. Gruff, grim protagonist? Check. Scantily clad female protagonist/bedwarmer? Check. Random dudes in leather with swords, one of them being an old and scarred elder asskicker? Check. Big evil threat that you don't actually deal with for a while because you have tons of random fetch quests to do for people you don't know? Check.

Having said all that, the first Witcher was a bit of a mess, even after the Enhanced Edition was released. The gameplay was old-fashioned and repetitive and there were some rather immature/tired themes which tended to mar the story overall. Maybe the first title has put people off the whole series and/or coloured their perception of the sequel?

It could be, others like myself have stated we just couldn't sit through Witcher 1, and have no intention of picking up 2. And I fully admit it's because of how little interest I have in Witcher 1.

Yeah I'm thinking it could be quite a cultural difference. I'm from Britain myself and I find the game refreshing - the characters speak in English accents rather than American ones

This really isn't that big of a deal. We are familiar with English accents from hundreds of actors and actresses that are in many of the most popular shows out there. Seriously, it's not because of the accents.

I think the writing is hilarious at times, and it all has a rather quaint feel. It definitely has a very European feel to it which is absolutely unique. It definitely stands out from a game like Dragon Age to me, but I can understand why the American mass market might find it weird or unusual, given they have far less of a cultural history than Europe, so LOTR might be considered classic fantasy, but all our European nations have far more folk lore and stuff to draw upon. So the weird monsters like strigas, drowners, draugs and stuff might seem weird to an audience used to stuff like dragons, phoenixes and orcs.

Nah, it's not that. Seriously, one random fantasy monster is the same as any other. It's not like we balk when we see some creature we've never seen before. By that logic we would all freak out at every new IP that introduced new creatures, and we don't. Besides, all 3 of those examples of monsters you mentioned, I'm personally familiar with from other games/books/movies/shows, so it's not like they're totally new material.

But yeah, I agree with you regarding the companion design. Each Bioware character is well written, but essentially they are all tropes and stereotypes in every game, despite being well written. I do think characters like Roche and Iorveth are similar, but they feel a lot fresher, probably because they're not under your command and do their own things, they're more proactive than Bioware characters, and live with their backgrounds, rather than you having to go out and solve their daddy issues.

I dunno, every character in Witcher (that I actually met before turning the game off) screamed as being a super tropey archetype too. I even listed some of the tropes they seemed to use in my comment further up this post. I dunno, I mean, we've stated pretty clearly why we didn't like it, I think the reasons are explained in our posts. You don't have to theorize it, just read what we said. xD

 

[DoctorObviously]

I loved the first game, but I was pretty bummed when I found out the second game was actually Rolling Simulator 2012.

 

[DarksideFlame]

I was writing a long post about the faults of Witcher 1&2, but due to mishap it got deleted and fuck writing that again when it seems like every point I made is been said. It was essentially like Zhukov's post. The Witcher games tries to be serious and shit like Game of Thrones with more monsters and magic but it fails and just becomes silly or at worst boring. Game of Thrones isn't innocent of this either.

But actually the worst part doesn't have anything to the TW1 and 2, I like what they are trying to do and Witcher 3 is looking great, CD Project Red's stance on stuff like DRM and free updates are very cool and I'd love to support them more. If GOG started selling newer games and added an optional friends and chat system similar to Steam, I'd ditch steam and try to convince my friends to do the same. But in terms of the games they make I feel they are overestimating their abilities and overhyping their games.

I kinda wish they would add a donate to CDPR button instead making me buy their games to support them because that would make me feel like I've got more value for my money.

Anyhow, the worst thing about The Witcher isn't the games, it's the zealous fans of the games. Now while zealous fans is pretty much bad no matter what, the Witcher fans are an own level of zealousness. And I think it is excellently demonstrated in the OP except instead of asking people why, they'd be accusing the people who don't like the games of being Biodrones, casual or both.

Leading up to the release of TW2 many people were excited claiming it would be a return to the RPG's of the old with depth and complexity in both story and gameplay while I didn't skipped it, TW2 did pretty well was praised by from reviewers and others for it's complexity and intriguing story. So when I saw that TW2 was for sale on steam 2-3 years later and the gameplay looked fun I bought it (and TW1 too it was like, 2 euros)

Were they like the "Classic" RPG's of yore? Well, the witcher 1 certainly seemed like it, but it was quite shit and I didn't want to try out older RPG's after I'd played it TW1 for 64 hours and before I decided to give up on it.

So then, The Witcher 2, Was it like the Classic RPG's of yore?

...Was it fuck, the story wasn't very intriguing or memorable first time I played it I had forgotten most of it after 2 weeks, (I went with Roche to Henselt, Iorveths path was little better) I heard that a lot of people had trouble with the first fights in the game but when I played it on hard I aced past the prologue without much difficulty, I did play the Enhanced edition though maybe they had tweaked the difficulty a little bit, but I skipped the tutorial, never checked the controls and completed the game without too many frustrating deaths

Except for the Dragon boss fight and when draug attack you in act 2, when the bastard Dethmold took forever to charge up his spell. I also didn't know how to use throwing knives or bombs until I was halfway into act 3, I found out by mistake in an escort quest.

I am however, optimistic about Witcher 3 though mostly wary of being burned again.

 

[visiblenoise]

I wanted to get into it, but I was never hooked. The hour or so of Witcher 2 that I played was kind of tedious throughout. It doesn't hold your hand at all, which actually turned out to be a bad thing in my experience, because the world was just not one that I felt like exploring. After I got to the waterfront, that first town where you're really left to your own devices, I just didn't really feel like continuing.

I also really hate the lack of full physics-based movement, so moving around the world was a constant pain as well.

 

[suitepee7]

i dislike how much it chugged on my old computer, to the point where i had to wait a year to upgrade my pc before i could even play it...

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

So I'm reading through the thread, and I seem to be the only one complaining about the skewed camera..
(I might have overlooked someone though, sorry)

Is everyone okay with the camera angle? Are Witcher 2 & 3 the same?
I don't think I've played any other game with such a view, nor would I really..

Just tossing it out there.

 

[EvilMaggot]

I love the games incredibly much and cant wait for the 3rd one! (grr god damn delay!) Some of the finest RPG experince you can have imo.

 

[ZeroFarks]

Because it's immature, grimdark, sexist and just bad

 

[laggyteabag]

I don't have anything against it, at least not enough to hate it, I just can't get into it. It just seems like it is very against the player. One example is the spells. Here is a list of names:

Aard
Igni
Yrden
Quen
Axii
Heliotrop

Now, for those who have never played the Witcher series, or have only ever briefly played it, please tell me what the spells do? Well, Igni = Ignite = Fire. Right, cool. What about the others? In my playtime, they are explained once: In the tutorial, but there aren't even any tooltips that I could find that explained what the hell the others did. What is wrong with giving them more conventional/ understandable names?

I constantly say to myself that I will play and complete the Witcher 2, but I know that will probably never even happen.

 

[Silence]

The first Witcher was meh ... you can play it for the story, but I would recommend skipping it. I played it after 2.

2 is great in most aspects, unfortunately the gameplay is not great. But it works well enough and I would recommend picking up the game ... and playing it on easy. It's worth for the story. And it does something what makes it stand out above all other RPGs, which is why it is one of my favourite games ... but you only find out about it after finishing AND talking to other people who have played it.

Spoiler

Apart from the different Act 2s, these aren't just different levels. They have HUGE impact on the end. First time I played I was in Vergen, found out about Saskia, fought her and healed her. T&hen I talked to other people. And I found out that this is not possible in the other branch because you don't even KNOW what she is. Your choice has an effect on the things you, as a player and as Geralt, know about the world. And your choices are based on things you know ... or can not know.
It's not just "pick one thing because it sounds good". Your knowledge affects your choices and your possible choices. In a case it is one of the only games who do the "roleplay" thing in videogames right. It does things which are only possible in games and you can not just "watch" the whole game and miss nothing, like most other games.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

overall lack of polish.

Must. Resist. Obvious. Language. Joke.

 

[Alex1508]

I don't have anything against it, at least not enough to hate it, I just can't get into it. It just seems like it is very against the player. One example is the spells. Here is a list of names:

Aard
Igni
Yrden
Quen
Axii
Heliotrop

Now, for those who have never played the Witcher series, or have only ever briefly played it, please tell me what the spells do? Well, Igni = Ignite = Fire. Right, cool. What about the others? In my playtime, they are explained once: In the tutorial, but there aren't even any tooltips that I could find that explained what the hell the others did. What is wrong with giving them more conventional/ understandable names?

I constantly say to myself that I will play and complete the Witcher 2, but I know that will probably never even happen.

Aard is basically a force push or "fus ro dah" if you played Skyrim, a shockwave that can destroy enviromments, push away and stagger enemies.
Igni is a fireball.
Yrden is an electrical trap that is set on the location where Geralt casts the sign. If enemies walk over it they take damage and are stunned.
Quen creates an energy field around you that acts as a shield.
Axii allows you to turn an enemy/multiple enemies to fight on your side
Heliotrop is basically an ultimate spell. Once your adrenaline bar is on max you cast it by pressing "x" (on PC)...i think. It creates an area where time is warped making your enemies move in slow motion while you mantain your normal speed.

 

[00slash00]

I like the series for being a RPG with an adult audience in mind and a good story.

I think, nearly every problem I have with series comes from the first game.
I dislike Witcher 1 for its forced 'sex collection minigame'. Collecting cards for all the women you have slept with? Not what I'd call very grown up... Witcher 2 has done it a lot better.
And the used colors... Witcher 2 has really beautiful colors and has nicely done environments. From what I remember from Witcher 1 it's.. grey in grey with a little bit of brown.
Also, I really dislike the combat system of Witcher 1. Can't pull myself together to play it through to the end because of that.

I wouldn't say the card game is really forced. I don't think you HAVE to get any of them, but the fact that they're in the game at all is kind of immature and sexist. I didn't have much issue with the colors in The Witcher, though I do think that entirely too much time was spent in ugly swamps. What I remember most about the colors is the effects of light hitting Geralt's hair. In sunny areas it just burned out my eyes.
I've heard a lot of people saying they hated the combat system but I never minded it. It certainly isn't the most engaging or exciting system (it's basically just an extremely simple quicktime event) but it never hurt my enjoyment of the game. The only problem I did have with the first Witcher game was how slow it started out. You defend your fortress and then wander around the countryside for a couple hours. Then you finally get to the city and just wander around some more, gathering clues (when you aren't doing kill x of y quests in an ugly swamp that's fairly difficult to navigate). I honestly didn't feel really invested in the game until about chapter 3.

All that said though, I didn't realize The Witcher series got much criticism here at all. Well, the first game, maybe, but I always thought the general consensus on this site is that The Witch 2 was amazing

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Of the people that I've seen who said that they dislike the games, it gets broken down as follows:
-Game's needlessly convoluted controls
-Intimidating lore
-Slightly middling voice acting
-Objectification of women
-An over-emphasis on maturity that leads to immaturity

So, to counter them:
-Put some time into learning the game and it's not that difficult: start with two crafted items, namely Samum to dispatch enemy groups quickly, and Swallow to keep yourself in the fight. The reason why you can prepare for fights pre-emptively is because the town merchants only ever sell books on creatures that you will encounter in the immediate area. The books aren't just flavour text either: they give you actual hints on how to kill the specified creature, and how to complete the local monster-hunting quest. Admittedly, it takes some getting used to, but it is worth putting the time in. Otherwise you only have yourself to blame for not paying attention to the tutorial or playing the Arena mode.

-All new lore is intimidating, but there are only a few things you really need to know between the games. It also helps that Geralt doesn't care about politics, so you're rarely under pressure when it comes to knowing the lore(besides, most of it gets explained in dialogue). Again, it's advisable to put some time in, but you don't have too much incentive to do so. It's essentially Tolkien-esque, except with a peppering of Eastern European political scepticism, and a way more faithful re-creation of medieval-feudalism society.

-Fair enough, though I feel the dialogue makes up for it.

-There are literally no 'forced' sex scenes. They are all optional in this game, and the ones including Geralt's love interest, Triss, are tasteful without being too 'srs bznz guiz' or cringe-worthy like other games *cough* Bioware *cough*. All the non-optional ones are consensual ones used to blow off some steam for both parties, like you know, actual sex.

-This depends, though it's often lead in with the previous point. What people usually mean in reference to maturity to these games is the grey area in everything. Nearly all quests are intricately designed so that if there is a choice, it's never as clear-cut as it seems: you go in with the expectation that the best choice is always the more difficult one, again, just like in real life. The reason why it's mature in terms of the story, is that there are no good guys except for Geralt. It's a shitty world where having power inevitably leads to arm-twisting of varying degrees, and those with power abuse it constantly. Even when it looks like a leader with genuine and good intentions might change the world, it's ultimately fruitless as they will be exploited by a greater power. It's mature because the game relies on your own moral compass to guide events, just like how Geralt does things, and ultimately, you are only ever concerned with keeping those you care about safe.