What do you have against The Witcher series?

[Soviet Heavy]

I have a couple issues with the second game, but overall I really like it. My biggest problem however is how utterly useless any weapon other than a longsword is. You'd think a short sword would be a really good offhand weapon, but apparently Geralt can only sword dance when he's using his regular bastard swords. All the spinning and dodging and rolling moves are restricted to that set of weapons, leaving shortswords, claymores and axes completely borked.

Sorry to take you as an example, but you get people complaining about stuff like this and also not being able to wield staves, or longbows or greataxes, and it just shows a failure to "understand" the setting. Geralt can only sword dance with his longswords because that's the combat style he was trained for, he wasn't trained to use shortswords like an assassin, claymores like a knight or axes like a viking bloke so he doesn't have the knowledge to use them.

If I remember correctly, CDProjekt RED released a video promoting the different weapons you could use in The Witcher 2, and they mentioned the alternative weapons as an option. I'm just curious why they would do that if they were going to make them so useless, and if longswords are in such abundance throughout the game.

I'll give them credit though. At least they didn't treat two handed swords like they weigh thirty pounds like Skyrim does.

 

[endtherapture]

I have a couple issues with the second game, but overall I really like it. My biggest problem however is how utterly useless any weapon other than a longsword is. You'd think a short sword would be a really good offhand weapon, but apparently Geralt can only sword dance when he's using his regular bastard swords. All the spinning and dodging and rolling moves are restricted to that set of weapons, leaving shortswords, claymores and axes completely borked.

Sorry to take you as an example, but you get people complaining about stuff like this and also not being able to wield staves, or longbows or greataxes, and it just shows a failure to "understand" the setting. Geralt can only sword dance with his longswords because that's the combat style he was trained for, he wasn't trained to use shortswords like an assassin, claymores like a knight or axes like a viking bloke so he doesn't have the knowledge to use them.

If I remember correctly, CDProjekt RED released a video promoting the different weapons you could use in The Witcher 2, and they mentioned the alternative weapons as an option. I'm just curious why they would do that if they were going to make them so useless, and if longswords are in such abundance throughout the game.

I'll give them credit though. At least they didn't treat two handed swords like they weigh thirty pounds like Skyrim does.

Probably cut for time or something? I remember there being daggers and axes and maces in the first game but I literally never used them, they were so pointless. The loot situation in the first game was fairly pathetic so i'm glad they fixed that and made other swords and armors more worthwhile in the second game.

I also seem to remember people forgetting to pick up their weapons so had to use a pitchfork for some period of the game, and I think there's a run of the game where a guy does the entire story using only a pitchfork or a mundane weapon like that.

 

[Flammablezeus]

I tried playing the first one. It was clunky as hell. The first main female was walking around in bikini armour or something whilst talking to people as if nothing was out of the ordinary. It was jarring as hell. After a fight in the beginning, you get a conversation with her. I asked if she was okay and she proceded to have sex with the main character.

I'll say that I hopped into this game because of all of the claims of maturity on the internet. I guess I found out that those claims must have been coming primarily from 15 year olds.

 

[maninahat]

I dont get people it seems, there are complains about...the game been sexist in the frigging middle ages...

I don't understand this argument for three reasons:
1) It's a fantasy setting! A fantasy depiction of a medieval times does not have to be consistent with every facet of a real medieval setting. People's immersion will not destroyed just because they didn't see a guy punch a prostitute; the castles and plagues and swords create enough of a flavour to pin the atmosphere down. That said, they could legitimately depict the world as a progressive society with completely equal treatment of the sexes, and I doubt any one would really mind, because, you know, fantasy. You could go the other way and make a Gorean fantasy (though please don't). Despite this, writers like to keep going for a gritty, grim dark depiction, and justify it by saying it is more realistic. This is disconcerting, but also inaccurate because...
2) Yes whilst there was more sexism in the middle ages, it didn't necessarily match the kind of sexist depictions in our medieval fantasy fiction. The medieval ages were sexist, less because they were filled with bodacious babes who would trade sex for any favour, and more because they saw women as quintessentially inferior. It would seem odd then that a fantasy attempting to resemble a more authentic middle-age setting would feel the need to depict medieval women as porn-stars, rather than women lacking basic rights.
3) Contrarily, the middle ages weren't quite as sexist as people assume, at least in some respects. It was normal for women to run businesses and own property, for instance. Also, due to a tendency for male authorities and officials to get themselves killed or wind up absent, their wives would often take on their husband's wealth and standing. This side of reality barely features in fantasy settings though, with the emphasis on depicting women as serfs, barmaids, prostitutes, nuns - as people without power. Whenever a women is shown as being powerful, they are usually in a fictional job role, such as a sorceress or enchantress. Writer's are missing a trick here, in that they could tell a lot of interesting stories about women in these more powerful roles. Skyrim certainly didn't have any problem doing it (for the most part).

 

[Casual Shinji]

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.

This thread is filled with people complaining about features of the game, such as the setting being dark and gritty, the fact you can't create your own character, the hardcore nature of the game, the stuff like potions must be applied pre-combat, the fact that it's not Skyrim/Dragon Age/Western RPG Number 68. It's like complaining that Dark Souls is hard, or that it has a slightly Eastern take on things, or that your health doesn't regenerate out of combat.

I don't think I've seen anyone complain that you can't create your own character, just that they don't like the main one.

And seriously, I would like to know what the purpose is to applying potions before going into combat, when you don't know what you're walking into, or when you're walking into it.

 

[Rattja]

Well I picked up Witcher 2 here the the other day, and I just can't for the life of me get through it because of the same issue I had with Dragon age (all of them).

It's actually quite simple, the mechanics are terrible. I don't care how good the story is or whatever else is in there when the thing I will be doing the most just feels wrong on every level.
Can't say exactly what the problem was in Witcher, but I had trouble beating the tutorial because there were something about that combat system that just did not work well with my brain. There was no good flow to get into and I was constantly fighting the camera.
You may say I suck at the game, fine, but when I finally beat something and died a bit later I had to do everything all over again, which would be fine if I could skip cutsceenes, but nope you can't do that.

Maybe it gets good if I get the hang of it, but I'll never know as it was one of the few games I've just put down and thought "nope, not happening". The core game mechanics are just bad in my opinion. Witcher 2 did not even explain those rune things you have to use in the selection screen, you are just supposed to know/remember.

Give me Souls caliber combat and the ability to skip shit I've seen 6 times already and I might give it a shot.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Besides, witchers have a little known power so see into the future a short way before they die, seeing what killed them and allowing them to apply oils and potions before hand to turn he tide of battle.

It's called "F9." No-one knows why

They can also see further than 5' away by manipulating the mystic force of Draw Distance and enhance their peripheral vision using invoking the entity FOV.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

a fucking fighting game.

Is that sequentially fucking and fighting or simultaneously?

 

[infohippie]

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.

This thread is filled with people complaining about features of the game, such as the setting being dark and gritty, the fact you can't create your own character, the hardcore nature of the game, the stuff like potions must be applied pre-combat, the fact that it's not Skyrim/Dragon Age/Western RPG Number 68. It's like complaining that Dark Souls is hard, or that it has a slightly Eastern take on things, or that your health doesn't regenerate out of combat.

I don't think I've seen anyone complain that you can't create your own character, just that they don't like the main one.

And seriously, I would like to know what the purpose is to applying potions before going into combat, when you don't know what you're walking into, or when you're walking into it.

Well fair enough that some people dislike Geralt. Some of us, on the other hand, really like him. Horses for courses I guess.
As for applying oils and making preparations beforehand, the point is you are supposed to research what you are likely to be fighting. Don't just skip through quest descriptions and various flavour text like it was Generic MMO no 47, instead look through them for hints about what creatures you're going to find in the areas you are going to and then read books about those creatures to learn how best to deal with them.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Don't just skip through quest descriptions and various flavour text like it was Generic MMO no 47

Heh.. reminds me of New Vegas and people complaining about the Deathclaws just north of... wossit? Junction?... despite everyone you meet at the place telling you "If you go past this point, Deathclaws will fuck you up."

Standard old school RPG procedure - open all doors, empty all containers, read all books, talk to every npc you can.

 

[infohippie]

Don't just skip through quest descriptions and various flavour text like it was Generic MMO no 47

Heh.. reminds me of New Vegas and people complaining about the Deathclaws just north of... wossit? Junction?... despite everyone you meet at the place telling you "If you go past this point, Deathclaws will fuck you up."

Standard old school RPG procedure - open all doors, empty all containers, read all books, talk to every npc you can.

I think a lot of gamers have just gotten used to modern games holding their hands every step of the way.

 

[Weaver]

My problem is I don't want to play TW2 until I beat the first one, but I can't get into the first one.

It starts off so slow I just can't do it. I just don't care about what's happening. The quests have you slowly walking around this shithole of a town for like 6 hours and I just don't want to be there.

I hear it gets better after that, but I can't get to after that.

 

[endtherapture]

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.

This thread is filled with people complaining about features of the game, such as the setting being dark and gritty, the fact you can't create your own character, the hardcore nature of the game, the stuff like potions must be applied pre-combat, the fact that it's not Skyrim/Dragon Age/Western RPG Number 68. It's like complaining that Dark Souls is hard, or that it has a slightly Eastern take on things, or that your health doesn't regenerate out of combat.

I don't think I've seen anyone complain that you can't create your own character, just that they don't like the main one.

And seriously, I would like to know what the purpose is to applying potions before going into combat, when you don't know what you're walking into, or when you're walking into it.

Because of the lore. I like that potions are a bit different in this game and have massive changes to the biology of your characters body, so Geralt needs time to rest and prepare his body for sticking what is essentially a fuck ton of chemical into his system (that fucks him up, due to the toxicity of the herbs and alcohol in the potions). It's not hard to know when you'll be heading into battle. Some stuff is sprung on you, and you need to adapt, but most of the time it's best to pop a Swallow potion whenever you head out of town or into a cave or anywhere monsters might be.

Same sort of thing as Dark Souls, the game rewards preparation and thinking ahead of time.

 

[Rattja]

Right, because a 40 hour long RPG with two main branching pathways is going to have combat comparable to a fucking fighting game.

I'm sorry, but 40 hours with that kind of combat is in no way tempting.
I reinstalled it just now to give a more accurate description of why I don't like it.
First of all the camera is way too close for a 3rd person view. Second is that his attacks are far too weak once you get a good number of foes on the battlefield, as whenever you try to combo vs one of them, the others just stops you.
1v1 is just fine, but the moment you have 3 or more it just get's very frustrating as you have no good way to deal with them all. Even worse if one of them is ranged.
Without a real way to defend myself other than parry, I spend the majority of the fight just running around waiting for vigor so I can stun them or something. Pure sword fighting does not seem to work, at least not in the beginning.

Again, not having a simple little tooltip or anything on the signs is just bad design.

Also, if the combat is not the main point of the game, it should be something clean and simple.
Maybe it's unfair to ask for it to be as good as something like the Souls games, but at least they don't force me to watch a unskippable cutscene every time I die and have to do it again.

The story might be good, but the combat part is a deal breaker for me.

 

[endtherapture]

Right, because a 40 hour long RPG with two main branching pathways is going to have combat comparable to a fucking fighting game.

I'm sorry, but 40 hours with that kind of combat is in no way tempting.
I reinstalled it just now to give a more accurate description of why I don't like it.
First of all the camera is way too close for a 3rd person view. Second is that his attacks are far too weak once you get a good number of foes on the battlefield, as whenever you try to combo vs one of them, the others just stops you.
1v1 is just fine, but the moment you have 3 or more it just get's very frustrating as you have no good way to deal with them all. Even worse if one of them is ranged.
Without a real way to defend myself other than parry, I spend the majority of the fight just running around waiting for vigor so I can stun them or something. Pure sword fighting does not seem to work, at least not in the beginning.

Again, not having a simple little tooltip or anything on the signs is just bad design.

Also, if the combat is not the main point of the game, it should be something clean and simple.
Maybe it's unfair to ask for it to be as good as something like the Souls games, but at least they don't force me to watch a unskippable cutscene every time I die and have to do it again.

The story might be good, but the combat part is a deal breaker for me.

You need to use your signs to crowd control. It's appealing to just chuck Igni at enemies to wear down their health, but 3 or the 5 signs are meant to crowd control when fighting multiple enemies. The Yrden sign sets down a trap that will stun and immobilise an enemy for a short time, rooting them in place and taking them out of combat for a short while. The Axii sign charms an enemy to fight on your side, which takes another one out of combat, possibly even tying up another few enemies in combat. Aard can stun an enemy and let you get an instant kill or some time to deal with another enemy. The Quen sign is a shield that allows you defend yourself without using parry.

Also all the signs are explained in the Journal section of the game. It's also not hard to experiment against enemies and just see what happens. You're not thrown into all-or-nothing combat straight into the game.

Also the cutscenes are not unskippable, just spam A or left click to skip the cutscene and reload straight away. The Souls series are a much bigger time sink because you have to RUN back to where you died which could often waste 10 minutes or more, as opposed to just a tiny cut scene.

 

[ForumSafari]

I wanted to like the Witcher but I found the combat lacklustre and the tutorial section severely lacking. I've just started the second one now and I'm loving the shit out of it. About the only thing I miss from the first game is the panther (?) style or whatever the style that swept your sword around you for crowd control was called. The story is great too, as is most of the voice acting and the script, I've had a soft spot for Geralt ever since reading the books but he's such a cocky shit in this game it's unreal, he really wears his reputation.

 

[Las7]

I never played too much with the signs myself, I always played either the combat path or alchemy path with very few skill points going into magic. Alchemy was really powerful especially late game - one of the things I felt was lackluster was how powerful Gerald felt in the late game with Alchemy and Combat tree. I just felt very overpowered, didn't need to use dodge roll at all especially when I always had potions on within any of the battles. I guess only the Gargoyles and hidden boss felt like somewhat a challenge since two hits would still kill you. I remember the Dragon being easy, compared to the tutorial where two knights were more than enough to really challenge you.
It was fun for me, just wish there was more of a challenge in the end.

 

[Magmarock]

I think Witcher 2 is a very well made game but for some reason I have trouble getting into it. I'm not sure if it's because the story is too political or if it's because it's in third person. I have a great deal of trouble playing 3D games that aren't in first person.

 

[Rattja]

Right, because a 40 hour long RPG with two main branching pathways is going to have combat comparable to a fucking fighting game.

I'm sorry, but 40 hours with that kind of combat is in no way tempting.
I reinstalled it just now to give a more accurate description of why I don't like it.
First of all the camera is way too close for a 3rd person view. Second is that his attacks are far too weak once you get a good number of foes on the battlefield, as whenever you try to combo vs one of them, the others just stops you.
1v1 is just fine, but the moment you have 3 or more it just get's very frustrating as you have no good way to deal with them all. Even worse if one of them is ranged.
Without a real way to defend myself other than parry, I spend the majority of the fight just running around waiting for vigor so I can stun them or something. Pure sword fighting does not seem to work, at least not in the beginning.

Again, not having a simple little tooltip or anything on the signs is just bad design.

Also, if the combat is not the main point of the game, it should be something clean and simple.
Maybe it's unfair to ask for it to be as good as something like the Souls games, but at least they don't force me to watch a unskippable cutscene every time I die and have to do it again.

The story might be good, but the combat part is a deal breaker for me.

You need to use your signs to crowd control. It's appealing to just chuck Igni at enemies to wear down their health, but 3 or the 5 signs are meant to crowd control when fighting multiple enemies. The Yrden sign sets down a trap that will stun and immobilise an enemy for a short time, rooting them in place and taking them out of combat for a short while. The Axii sign charms an enemy to fight on your side, which takes another one out of combat, possibly even tying up another few enemies in combat. Aard can stun an enemy and let you get an instant kill or some time to deal with another enemy. The Quen sign is a shield that allows you defend yourself without using parry.

Also all the signs are explained in the Journal section of the game. It's also not hard to experiment against enemies and just see what happens. You're not thrown into all-or-nothing combat straight into the game.

Also the cutscenes are not unskippable, just spam A or left click to skip the cutscene and reload straight away. The Souls series are a much bigger time sink because you have to RUN back to where you died which could often waste 10 minutes or more, as opposed to just a tiny cut scene.

Look I understand how the signs work, I just don't like the way they work. Combined with the UI it just feels awkward and clunky to me.
Basically the way the game handles just feels so wrong to me. The question was what I had against the series, and that is my reason, it does not feel right. It's annoying to play, and it makes me frustrated.

 

[Burnouts3s3]

Nothing. The Witcher is a good series that deserves the critical acclimation and financial results it has earned.

The Witcher is fine by my book.