What do you have against The Witcher series?

[Something Amyss]

I dislike how boring all the characters are. Honestly, playing through Witcher 1 and 2, I couldn't give a flying crap about ANYONE in the game.

Sounds like the one book in the series I've read.

 

[XSTALKERX]

But the combat... Ugh... I just remember playing this and all I did was cast the shield on me and roll around until I could get a hit, and if I ever got hit, I would roll around until I could cast the shield again. The whole potions only before combat thing is something I didn't like, because it took alot of choice away from the player. Sure, at first I will fight however I like, trying to use all my spells and traps and weapons, but once my regen is gone, I am forced to go into rolling and shielding up. It really took away from the experience when the combat was so much weaker compared to the more visceral Dark Souls or the crazy fast paced combat of Dragon's Dogma. Witcher 2 sits dead last in combat mechanics of ARPG games (though I am still deciding how bad DA:I's combat is).

Completely disagree with you right there the wicher 2 has some of the best action RPG combat of any game out there, the only other RPG that does combat better is Dark Souls, and honestly what was so great about Dragon's Dogma's combat? I honestly want to know because a lot of people say the witcher 2 was clunky and say dragon's Dogma combat was good where I found dragon's dogma to be way clunkier. You can't lock on and the animations doesn't flow as good, it almost feel as if your character is stuck in cobwebs and takes a millisecond too long for an actual swing.


And witcher 2's combat not visceral? I'm sorry but what have you been smoking. Witcher 2 has some of the most visceral and satisfying combat ever, seriously every single hit that you deliver the enemy will react to in a realistic manner. Hit him from your left and you will see him stagger to the right, stab him in the stomach and you will see him staggering to the back and clutching his stomach. Hell I'd say that in terms of actual visceral combat the witcher 2 beats Dark Souls. I can understand why people don't like the combat in the witcher 2 because it does have some balancing issues, and I recommend playing with cheats and giving you a lot of skills right at the start of the game because it makes the game way more fun and only then will you see how good the combat mechanics really is. But saying the witcher 2's combat is not visceral is just plain wrong.

 

[XDSkyFreak]

From what I've seen most people dislike witcher for one of 2 main reasons:

1) Story&Characters: there are 2 accusations here: "it's too grimdark", which is bullshit because aparetly if you don't give a clear right and wrong binary moral choice, people seem to default to "it's too grimdark". Fuck you bioware. And for the rest of you: Warhammer is grimdark. Witcher is a fucking walk in a sunny field compared to that.
The second one is: it's too ugly and the characters are too boring. I would argue that it's realistic. I mean, come on ... how many unique special totally like none other persons do you know in your daily life? I would argue the more generic and boring features of Geralt make him way more relatable to me than Commander "I fuck reapers and every word out of my mouth is an inspirational speech" Shepard (alternative Commander "Every word out of my mouth is what a 14 year old considers edgy and cool rebel attitude" Shepard for renegades). AS for the story beeing depresing and ugly ... well that's the dark ages for you. Life sucks. It sucks today, so imagine how much it must have sucked then. Honestly, most fantasy settings in games today seem childish to me. Way to happy and clean for a world infested with killing abominations that can kill you in 2 seconds and where grandma has a nasty habit of getting up from the grave for a midnight snack of fresh brains. Fuck that. Witcher gets it right. It would be fucking depresing world, what with the life expectancy beeing drastically reduced. Now I get it, if you want a happy clean hero saves the day, fine. Just ... avoid calling the witcher a bad game for not catering to your view of what a fantasy game should do. And for the love of god don't call it generic when it's the most fucking unique fantasy game that came out in recent history alongside Dark Souls as oposed to the copy paste generic crap bioware keeps puting out.

2)Mechanics: here I'm afraid I can't defend the game in any way. All I can say is: I don't know what your problem was, I had an insane amount of fun playing around with the combat in both games, preping a nice stock of potions, traps and bombs, geting oils ready based on expected foes (because the game actually tells you what you can expect to face in most fights, it just doesn't hand hold you) and generaly RP-ing a witcher all the way.

 

[endtherapture]

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.

I personally feel like a lot of the flaws people have with the game are because they don't quite get it. Either they want everything (such as lore, characters, names of spells, uses of potions etc.) laid out on a table for them in a tutorial section and hand held through the game, or they just don't understand the core concepts of the series and went into expecting a traditional high fantasy power story.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Snipped 2 Oblivion

I personally feel like a lot of the flaws people have with the game are because they don't quite get it. Either they want everything (such as lore, characters, names of spells, uses of potions etc.) laid out on a table for them in a tutorial section and hand held through the game, or they just don't understand the core concepts of the series and went into expecting a traditional high fantasy power story.

I don't know, I'd like to establish a dialogue and such. Sapkowski's writing and style are characteristically Eastern European, so the games already come with a promise of a tough intro.

I think the reason behind the instant aggravation and impatience goes deeper than that. Partly endemic of modern culture that 'time is precious' so if something doesn't instantly grab you within the first few hours, then you're unlikely to continue playing. Whilst I like Flotsam since there's a lot of hidden-away areas to explore(like the bandit hideout that I had no idea existed which I found during my second playthrough), Act 1 is really heavy in terms of pacing. Still, it is a shame how people sometimes brush off entire genres because of this mindset: how many people do you think took one look at the Total War games and immediately rejected them?

However...all that I've seen of The Witcher 3 suggests that they might be able to circumvent this problem with the open world aspect, so here's hoping that the third instalment will convince naysayers to give the franchise a second chance!

Even if it doesn't, it looks just like more of The Witcher 2, which is already enough to have me glued to my monitor for days at a time ^_^

 

[endtherapture]

Snipped 2 Oblivion

I personally feel like a lot of the flaws people have with the game are because they don't quite get it. Either they want everything (such as lore, characters, names of spells, uses of potions etc.) laid out on a table for them in a tutorial section and hand held through the game, or they just don't understand the core concepts of the series and went into expecting a traditional high fantasy power story.

I don't know, I'd like to establish a dialogue and such. Sapkowski's writing and style are characteristically Eastern European, so the games already come with a promise of a tough intro.

I think the reason behind the instant aggravation and impatience goes deeper than that. Partly endemic of modern culture that 'time is precious' so if something doesn't instantly grab you within the first few hours, then you're unlikely to continue playing. Whilst I like Flotsam since there's a lot of hidden-away areas to explore(like the bandit hideout that I had no idea existed which I found during my second playthrough), Act 1 is really heavy in terms of pacing. Still, it is a shame how people sometimes brush off entire genres because of this mindset: how many people do you think took one look at the Total War games and immediately rejected them?

However...all that I've seen of The Witcher 3 suggests that they might be able to circumvent this problem with the open world aspect, so here's hoping that the third instalment will convince naysayers to give the franchise a second chance!

Even if it doesn't, it looks just like more of The Witcher 2, which is already enough to have me glued to my monitor for days at a time ^_^

A lot of people just prefer a more familiar and Western approach to RPGs. Stuff like Dragon Age is developed in North America, by North Americans so there's obviously much less of a culture shock there. The Witcher series has a real atmosphere and charm unlike a lot of other fantasy RPGs and I think a lot of that comes from it's unique background material and the different approach that Polish developers take to things.

Yeah definitely, in modern gaming culture people want to be guided gently into the game by a helpful hand and pop ups telling you what everything does. When something is different, like The Witcher with its two swords, it's magical signs where fireball isn't called fireball, and it's completely different approach to potions, I can see why people would be alienated by that, but I think that's their problem and not the games problem. The Witcher fills a special niche and I don't really want to it change to cater to more people. I just love the atmosphere and its gameplay quirks so much that I don't want it to become a traditional hack and slasher. But anyway, just read your journal and your codex to find out the background information on things, it's all in the game you just couldn't be bothered to look for it!

I do think The Witcher 3 should do a good tutorial though and frame it in an engaging opening, perhaps similar to TW2 but slightly less hardcore that the prologue and make it more engaging. If it stays as hardcore as the first two games, but is engaging and expansive like Skyrim, it could be the perfect game for me at least.

Honestly though I think they should just do another Witcher game after 3 and not have Geralt as the character but just be able to make your own generic Witcher with some customisation. It'd lose the personal element of the story but get more people on bored. I'm so surprised how many people went into the game bitching about how they can't play an archer or a mage, or were surprised they couldn't make their own character and were "forced" to play as Geralt. I personally love Geralt and his quick wit and dry sense of humour.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Snipped 2 Oblivion

I personally feel like a lot of the flaws people have with the game are because they don't quite get it. Either they want everything (such as lore, characters, names of spells, uses of potions etc.) laid out on a table for them in a tutorial section and hand held through the game, or they just don't understand the core concepts of the series and went into expecting a traditional high fantasy power story.

I don't know, I'd like to establish a dialogue and such. Sapkowski's writing and style are characteristically Eastern European, so the games already come with a promise of a tough intro.

I think the reason behind the instant aggravation and impatience goes deeper than that. Partly endemic of modern culture that 'time is precious' so if something doesn't instantly grab you within the first few hours, then you're unlikely to continue playing. Whilst I like Flotsam since there's a lot of hidden-away areas to explore(like the bandit hideout that I had no idea existed which I found during my second playthrough), Act 1 is really heavy in terms of pacing. Still, it is a shame how people sometimes brush off entire genres because of this mindset: how many people do you think took one look at the Total War games and immediately rejected them?

However...all that I've seen of The Witcher 3 suggests that they might be able to circumvent this problem with the open world aspect, so here's hoping that the third instalment will convince naysayers to give the franchise a second chance!

Even if it doesn't, it looks just like more of The Witcher 2, which is already enough to have me glued to my monitor for days at a time ^_^

A lot of people just prefer a more familiar and Western approach to RPGs. Stuff like Dragon Age is developed in North America, by North Americans so there's obviously much less of a culture shock there. The Witcher series has a real atmosphere and charm unlike a lot of other fantasy RPGs and I think a lot of that comes from it's unique background material and the different approach that Polish developers take to things.

Yeah definitely, in modern gaming culture people want to be guided gently into the game by a helpful hand and pop ups telling you what everything does. When something is different, like The Witcher with its two swords, it's magical signs where fireball isn't called fireball, and it's completely different approach to potions, I can see why people would be alienated by that, but I think that's their problem and not the games problem. The Witcher fills a special niche and I don't really want to it change to cater to more people. I just love the atmosphere and its gameplay quirks so much that I don't want it to become a traditional hack and slasher. But anyway, just read your journal and your codex to find out the background information on things, it's all in the game you just couldn't be bothered to look for it!

I do think The Witcher 3 should do a good tutorial though and frame it in an engaging opening, perhaps similar to TW2 but slightly less hardcore that the prologue and make it more engaging. If it stays as hardcore as the first two games, but is engaging and expansive like Skyrim, it could be the perfect game for me at least.

Honestly though I think they should just do another Witcher game after 3 and not have Geralt as the character but just be able to make your own generic Witcher with some customisation. It'd lose the personal element of the story but get more people on bored. I'm so surprised how many people went into the game bitching about how they can't play an archer or a mage, or were surprised they couldn't make their own character and were "forced" to play as Geralt. I personally love Geralt and his quick wit and dry sense of humour.

I do too, especially the smug way in which he says 'please'

Well, Cyberpunk might provide that 'jack of all trades' experience for people...when it comes out >.> I'd much prefer for The Witcher series to end after 3, since it just wouldn't be the same without Geralt, and designing another character would be quite difficult, since mages are treated way more differently than other people in that universe, whereas an archer isn't really a class as much as occupation :/

You are right on the money with the culture shock statement though. I remember playing Inquisition, and really hating Orlais and Orlesian politics, since it's essentially an Americanised interpretation of pre-revolutionary France...something that I never understand as to why people(notably Americans) have such a fixation on that time period. I imagine that same sort of sensation got people when playing The Witcher, since (Eastern European) our brand of political perspective is quite distinct in why we despise politics, not to mention the other things like the slavic terminology and aesthetic.

 

[XSTALKERX]

Snipped 2 Oblivion

I personally feel like a lot of the flaws people have with the game are because they don't quite get it. Either they want everything (such as lore, characters, names of spells, uses of potions etc.) laid out on a table for them in a tutorial section and hand held through the game, or they just don't understand the core concepts of the series and went into expecting a traditional high fantasy power story.

I don't know, I'd like to establish a dialogue and such. Sapkowski's writing and style are characteristically Eastern European, so the games already come with a promise of a tough intro.

I think the reason behind the instant aggravation and impatience goes deeper than that. Partly endemic of modern culture that 'time is precious' so if something doesn't instantly grab you within the first few hours, then you're unlikely to continue playing. Whilst I like Flotsam since there's a lot of hidden-away areas to explore(like the bandit hideout that I had no idea existed which I found during my second playthrough), Act 1 is really heavy in terms of pacing. Still, it is a shame how people sometimes brush off entire genres because of this mindset: how many people do you think took one look at the Total War games and immediately rejected them?

However...all that I've seen of The Witcher 3 suggests that they might be able to circumvent this problem with the open world aspect, so here's hoping that the third instalment will convince naysayers to give the franchise a second chance!

Even if it doesn't, it looks just like more of The Witcher 2, which is already enough to have me glued to my monitor for days at a time ^_^

A lot of people just prefer a more familiar and Western approach to RPGs. Stuff like Dragon Age is developed in North America, by North Americans so there's obviously much less of a culture shock there. The Witcher series has a real atmosphere and charm unlike a lot of other fantasy RPGs and I think a lot of that comes from it's unique background material and the different approach that Polish developers take to things.

Yeah definitely, in modern gaming culture people want to be guided gently into the game by a helpful hand and pop ups telling you what everything does. When something is different, like The Witcher with its two swords, it's magical signs where fireball isn't called fireball, and it's completely different approach to potions, I can see why people would be alienated by that, but I think that's their problem and not the games problem. The Witcher fills a special niche and I don't really want to it change to cater to more people. I just love the atmosphere and its gameplay quirks so much that I don't want it to become a traditional hack and slasher. But anyway, just read your journal and your codex to find out the background information on things, it's all in the game you just couldn't be bothered to look for it!

I do think The Witcher 3 should do a good tutorial though and frame it in an engaging opening, perhaps similar to TW2 but slightly less hardcore that the prologue and make it more engaging. If it stays as hardcore as the first two games, but is engaging and expansive like Skyrim, it could be the perfect game for me at least.

Honestly though I think they should just do another Witcher game after 3 and not have Geralt as the character but just be able to make your own generic Witcher with some customisation. It'd lose the personal element of the story but get more people on bored. I'm so surprised how many people went into the game bitching about how they can't play an archer or a mage, or were surprised they couldn't make their own character and were "forced" to play as Geralt. I personally love Geralt and his quick wit and dry sense of humour.

I like you guys seem like we're almost the only hardcore witcher fans on this entire site. And I agree completely with you guys about how people just want everything given to them on a sliver platter without having to really try and put a little effort in, or how they are just not good at the game so it's clearly the games fault.

 

[Charli]

While there are RPGs with far less immersive stories... I can't overlay my intentions and wants with Geralts.

I can't relate nor channel my will through his, it's like a wall I have with the character. I don't feel as though we're symbiotic like in some JRPG's where choice is illusion, or other WRPG's where true character customization and player intent is the focal point.

He and I, we're not compatible, which is fine, I can invest my time in plenty of other games.

The Witcher series is just not for me.

...My being a female MIGHT have something to do with it, but don't take that to mean some women may enjoy and mesh with the titular Witcher. I'm not one though.

 

[endtherapture]

I do too, especially the smug way in which he says 'please'

Well, Cyberpunk might provide that 'jack of all trades' experience for people...when it comes out >.> I'd much prefer for The Witcher series to end after 3, since it just wouldn't be the same without Geralt, and designing another character would be quite difficult, since mages are treated way more differently than other people in that universe, whereas an archer isn't really a class as much as occupation :/

You are right on the money with the culture shock statement though. I remember playing Inquisition, and really hating Orlais and Orlesian politics, since it's essentially an Americanised interpretation of pre-revolutionary France...something that I never understand as to why people(notably Americans) have such a fixation on that time period. I imagine that same sort of sensation got people when playing The Witcher, since (Eastern European) our brand of political perspective is quite distinct in why we despise politics, not to mention the other things like the slavic terminology and aesthetic.

Geralt has some amazing lines in the game, and some of the humour in the games is just hilarious. Foltest telling you about a ballista in the game, followed by a few hours later Roche saying the exact same lines and Geralt finishing it off really gets me. The delivery of some of the lines are amazing and I do laugh out loud so many times in the game.

Cyberpunk could really be equally as polarising, but we know next to nothing about it, however it sounds intriguing so I'm looking forward to some gameplay footage.

I think they could do another Witcher game, maybe playing as a Witcher from the third academy and creating your own character but it could lead to a less strong narrative.

Dragon Age and its construction of a world can be fairly dodgy. I mean I really like some aspects of the setting, such as the whole religion aspect, the Elven gods, the Blight, ancient history, the unreliability of what we are told and the Grey Wardens, stuff like that. But on the other hand a lot of the lore is so incredibly bland and I despise everything to do with Orlais, and it is extremely americanised at times, and many of the American voice actors just make me cringe.

 

[Grumman]

I personally feel like a lot of the flaws people have with the game are because they don't quite get it. Either they want everything (such as lore, characters, names of spells, uses of potions etc.) laid out on a table for them in a tutorial section and hand held through the game, or they just don't understand the core concepts of the series and went into expecting a traditional high fantasy power story.

I get it. I just hate it. Like I said, I know what this middle ages crap is and *deliberately try to avoid it*.

 

[endtherapture]

I personally feel like a lot of the flaws people have with the game are because they don't quite get it. Either they want everything (such as lore, characters, names of spells, uses of potions etc.) laid out on a table for them in a tutorial section and hand held through the game, or they just don't understand the core concepts of the series and went into expecting a traditional high fantasy power story.

I get it. I just hate it. Like I said, I know what this middle ages crap is and *deliberately try to avoid it*.

Dunno why you'd even bother to play a dark fantasy medieval RPG if you don't like the dark medieval period of history.

 

[EternallyBored]

I like you guys seem like we're almost the only hardcore witcher fans on this entire site. And I agree completely with you guys about how people just want everything given to them on a sliver platter without having to really try and put a little effort in, or how they are just not good at the game so it's clearly the games fault.

Look, can we please not turn this into a circlejerk of "you guys just don't like it because you don't get it, or you want this or that thing that thing that sounds vaguely insulting and smacks of elitism". As a fan of the Souls series I get quite enough of that trashy attitude from hanging around that fandom.

I like the Witcher series, but it is perfectly possible to "get" what the series was trying to do and still not like it. The series is dense and the second one starts throwing terms and events that at you that are only obliquely referenced in the first game and never explained adequately in the second, if you don't connect with the characters, or missed events or don't remember them from the first one, it isn't "wanting things handed to you on a silver platter" to expect at least the barest attempts at context, and if you don't like the characters, it doesn't always mean you aren't "getting" it, you can get something and still think it is bad or flawed.

I don't have much to say as most of my complaints against the Witcher series are minor (except the stupid cards in W1), but for the love of god don't start this smug crap where people who have complaints are dismissed as not getting it or just wanting everything handed to them on a silver platter, that is just insulting and childish, and it lends to the undercurrent of dislike for fans of the series (and the souls series).

 

[Jaegerbombastic]

I do too, especially the smug way in which he says 'please'

Well, Cyberpunk might provide that 'jack of all trades' experience for people...when it comes out >.> I'd much prefer for The Witcher series to end after 3, since it just wouldn't be the same without Geralt, and designing another character would be quite difficult, since mages are treated way more differently than other people in that universe, whereas an archer isn't really a class as much as occupation :/

You are right on the money with the culture shock statement though. I remember playing Inquisition, and really hating Orlais and Orlesian politics, since it's essentially an Americanised interpretation of pre-revolutionary France...something that I never understand as to why people(notably Americans) have such a fixation on that time period. I imagine that same sort of sensation got people when playing The Witcher, since (Eastern European) our brand of political perspective is quite distinct in why we despise politics, not to mention the other things like the slavic terminology and aesthetic.

I dunno: they could always do a spin-off with Ciri. Maybe even do a prequel/interquel with either Triss, Dandelion, Roche, etc. The Witcher is a pretty damn big universe. They got plenty of room to explore it.

Also, I think the recent focus on the French Revolution, whether making a game directly about it or a game that alludes to it, comes from the fact that many of us in North America at least treat it as the ur-example of when a revolution goes horribly wrong. The American Revolution, while bloody, was considered "gentlemanly" and the transition from colonial rule to the democratic republic we have today went pretty smoothly. Canada, the land of Bioware and Ubisoft Montreal, didn't even have a revolution: they just slowly turned into an independent state (although if you really want to be anal retentive they technically aren't independent but that's another story altogether).

France? It started when their economy was in shambles, violence poured into the streets, the revolution proper was short and very chaotic, extremists took over and ended up being more tyrannical than the previous establishment was, and the whole affair ends with Napoleon taking charge and nearly conquering all of Europe. That a helluva contrast from the First Continental Congress. Also, I'm probably going out on a limb but with all that has been going on in current with the Arab Spring, multiple civil wars, and now the threat of ISIS, the French Revolutions has a lot of interesting parallels to current events.

 

[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.

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.

well, I play games to have fun and there's nothing quite as tedious as being reminded of how fucking shit the world was (still kinda is).

 

[XSTALKERX]

I like you guys seem like we're almost the only hardcore witcher fans on this entire site. And I agree completely with you guys about how people just want everything given to them on a sliver platter without having to really try and put a little effort in, or how they are just not good at the game so it's clearly the games fault.

Look, can we please not turn this into a circlejerk of "you guys just don't like it because you don't get it, or you want this or that thing that thing that sounds vaguely insulting and smacks of elitism". As a fan of the Souls series I get quite enough of that trashy attitude from hanging around that fandom.

I like the Witcher series, but it is perfectly possible to "get" what the series was trying to do and still not like it. The series is dense and the second one starts throwing terms and events that at you that are only obliquely referenced in the first game and never explained adequately in the second, if you don't connect with the characters, or missed events or don't remember them from the first one, it isn't "wanting things handed to you on a silver platter" to expect at least the barest attempts at context, and if you don't like the characters, it doesn't always mean you aren't "getting" it, you can get something and still think it is bad or flawed.

I don't have much to say as most of my complaints against the Witcher series are minor (except the stupid cards in W1), but for the love of god don't start this smug crap where people who have complaints are dismissed as not getting it or just wanting everything handed to them on a silver platter, that is just insulting and childish, and it lends to the undercurrent of dislike for fans of the series (and the souls series).

You're not wrong but most of the complaints in this thread is leans towards "too hard it's the games fault". Characters, lore and story is purely subjective so if you don't like that I can't argue with that because that falls purely on tastes and people have different tastes. But for gameplay, especially for the second one it feels like a lot of people just don't like it because it was too hard at first. I mean I had that exact same attitude towards the souls series, I hated it at first but once I "got" it, it became amazing and my favorite action-RPG of the last 6 years.

 

[EternallyBored]

You're not wrong but most of the complaints in this thread is leans towards "too hard it's the games fault". Characters, lore and story is purely subjective so if you don't like that I can't argue with that because that falls purely on tastes and people have different tastes. But for gameplay, especially for the second one it feels like a lot of people just don't like it because it was too hard at first. I mean I had that exact same attitude towards the souls series, I hated it at first but once I "got" it, it became amazing and my favorite action-RPG of the last 6 years.

Really? most of the gameplay related complaints I've seen in this thread don't look anything like that. Complaints about the UI being unintuitive, or the complaints about the sword types aren't really about difficulty. Complaints about controls aren't really difficulty related either, much like the souls series on PC, a bad control scheme isn't about getting used to it, and frankly the Witcher 1's control scheme was unnecessarily convoluted and asking for more options or better setups isn't really a difficulty complaint, the scheme was better in 2 but still had elements where I felt like I was playing a console port rather than a made for PC RPG.

The complaints about potions aren't really related to difficulty either, that is another intuitiveness complaint, people are likely complaining about having to go into a bunch of separate menus to make potions, and then pausing the action again and going into a lengthy animation to use them, they are supposed to be planned pre-battle buffs, but I honestly got fed up and just never used them by act 3, the combat is broken enough that once you level and take the right skills, the whole combat system becomes really easy with even basic skills.

There are bad complaints, and people who just went into the game expecting something else and venting frustrations, so I can sympathize with you being frustrated about those complaints, but most of the combat related complaints I've seen in this thread have very little to do with the games difficulty.

EDIT: Honestly, i've never found the series to be well known for its difficulty at all, most of the other fans I talk to honestly find the combat to be kind of easy and possible to make it even easier once you know the skill system, especially in Witcher 2. I don't even bother with potions at all in Witcher 2 because the combat system is pretty simplistic after the opening act, and using quen at all pretty much breaks the games difficulty curve into tiny pieces.

 

[happyninja42]

I personally feel like a lot of the flaws people have with the game are because they don't quite get it. Either they want everything (such as lore, characters, names of spells, uses of potions etc.) laid out on a table for them in a tutorial section and hand held through the game, or they just don't understand the core concepts of the series and went into expecting a traditional high fantasy power story.

Wow, could you be any more smug and arrogant with this statement? The only reason we could possibly not share you opinion on something is "we just don't get it" ? Please, get off your high horse.