Witcher 1 Combat

[Quirkymeister]

Hello,
So I've decided to pass the time waiting for Witcher 3's price to go down a bit by playing the first two Witchers to contextualise myself a bit. Admittedly I haven't really played very much, about 40 minutes or so of the first game, but veterans of the first game, please tell me
1. Does combat evolve beyond monotonously clicking on the enemy in time with the mouse thing, occasionally changing stance to suit the type of enemy you're facing?
2. If combat does remain this boring, would you say that the story and world of the first one make up for it? I mean, Mass Effect 1's combat was arse as well, but the lore and characters gave me enough motivation to slog through it at least twice.
3. Would the latter games be at all playable/comprehensible if I skipped straight to Witcher 2 or 3?
Thanks,
-Quirky

 

[Elfgore]

1. No, it never changes.

2. The story and characters are good, but not good enough to make you finish it. The game is like a total of thirty hours too. That's a lot of trudge through.

3. Not really. Story is pretty much self contained. The second game gives a decent intro for any info you need.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Combat stays about the same sadly.
You can go to Witcher 2/3 without the first, but it will make more sense if you at least read or watch the story line of Witcher 1.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I made it about halfway through Witcher and I just couldn't any more. The story was alright but the game play issues were just stacking up to the point where it was a chore to play.

There are YouTube videos you can watch that will give you a story summation and prep you for Witcher 2, which is a far more polished game.

 

[Fat Hippo]

Yeah, the combat stays pretty bad. I mean, you get some spells, but it never makes the gameplay that interesting. IF you decide to play through it anyway, I'd recommend just playing on easy to get through it more quickly, and concentrate on the story, which isn't bad. I never finished it either, though.

 

[jklinders]

The combat never really bothered me. But no, it never changes. A save file upload does not really have much impact and the world comes in at a fairly stable default state regardless of the choices made in 1. Skip to 2 if you want. there is enough info dumps in 2 to get you up to speed pretty quick.

 

[DeadProxy]

I actually kinda liked The Witcher's combat. You had to know which sword to use with what style against any kind of group of enemies. But other than letting you combo into some of your magic spells (if you spend the points to do so when you level up), no, the combat doesn't ever really evolve past rhythmic clicking.

As for question number 2, I would say it does, if you're willing to put in the effort to do the side quest stuff, since they sometimes add some character to the world. Right up until the ending anyway. My only experience with this series is playing The Witcher 1, and played about an hour of W2, and none of the books, so I don't know if the ending of the game "makes sense" in any meaningful way. It introduces a brand new character in the last 10 minutes of the game, that I only assume is an important character given what he and Geralt talk about, but I don't remember at any point in the game where this character is mentioned, or even hinted at existing.

Like someone else said, it'd probably be most bearable if played on easy difficulty so all you ever really need for battles is the "Swallow Potion," and if you do all the sidequests you can as you come across them, you should be able to beat the game in about 20-25 hours. And honestly, given the 3 paths this game lets you walk down, (human, neutral, elf supporter) you might be satisfied enough with just a single playthrough, since Neutral is actually hard to maintain ( i think anyway) and supporting the humans just feels dirty.

Cant answer number 3, just bought Witcher 3 this morning, so I'll see if i am immediately lost or not in the story soon enough.

 

[Jiffex]

I find it interesting how people decide they should go play Witcher 1 first...

Instead of first reading the books...

It is depressing really. If you want the full deal, books -> Witcher 1 -> Witcher 2 -> Witcher 3. What you are doing now is kinda... half-assed...

The games are only an adaption of the books not a sequel or follow on. That's like saying it's depressing that people watch Game of Thrones instead of reading ASOIAF.

 

[Imre Csete]

Yeah, growing up with right clicking on foes, watching attack/turn combat rolls on the battle log RPGs kinda makes you not caring much about combat systems. Works? Good then.

It's based on the Aurora engine (Neverwinter Nights), it's actually quite amazing how much they managed to tweak it.

 

[Mikeybb]

*Snippalt of Rivia*
What is so bad about reading books anyway? Especially ones that are this good and the games owe their existence to?

Nothing really, but I can understand why some people wouldn't choose to read them.

Well, in my case I've been saving the books for when I've finished the series.
Not for fear of spoilers, but so I could enjoy the setting and characters in a different medium while I still had the desire to see more of the world they inhabit.

I know there was a tv series that ran for a while, but I can't vouch for the quality or availability of said show.
Suffice to say, you'd need either dubs or subs to enjoy it though if you're not Polish speaking.

 

[Jiffex]

I find it interesting how people decide they should go play Witcher 1 first...

Instead of first reading the books...

It is depressing really. If you want the full deal, books -> Witcher 1 -> Witcher 2 -> Witcher 3. What you are doing now is kinda... half-assed...

The games are only an adaption of the books not a sequel or follow on. That's like saying it's depressing that people watch Game of Thrones instead of reading ASOIAF.

Have you actually read them?
Sure, Witcher 1 and maybe 2 have a fair amount of differences from the book cannon (though not that many). You CAN say that, even if I would still say that it aint so.

Witcher 3 though has more in common with the books than W1 and W2.

What is so bad about reading books anyway? Especially ones that are this good and the games owe their existence to?

I'm not saying there is something wrong with reading the books, but the author has said the games are adaptions and only take elements from his books, while you are saying it's half-assed not to read them.

"The game - with all due respect to it, but let's finally say it openly - is not an 'alternative version', nor a sequel. The game is a free adaptation containing elements of my work; an adaptation created by different authors," he noted.

"Adaptations - although they can in a way relate to the story told in the books - can never aspire to the role of a follow-up. They can never add prologues nor prequels, let alone epilogues and sequels.

"Maybe it's time to set the matters straight," he went on. "'The Witcher' is a well made video game, its success is well deserved and the creators deserve all the splendour and honour due. But in no way can it be considered to be an 'alternative version', nor a 'sequel' to the witcher Geralt stories. Because this can only be told by Geralt's creator. A certain Andrzej Sapkowski."

That's from an interview that Anderzej Sapkowski did with Eurogamer.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-06-ever-wondered-what-the-author-of-the-witcher-books-thinks-about-the-games

 

[Beliyal]

What is so bad about reading books anyway? Especially ones that are this good and the games owe their existence to?

I'd love to read the Witcher books, but they are not exactly very popular and available. As far as I know (and I am constantly in bookstores), they are not available at all in my country. Which means I'd have to order them online. Pay extra for shipping. It's expensive. One day, for sure, but it really wasn't my first impulse when I got the first two games on a Steam sale for like, 5 euros. I'll probably get them eventually though.

As for the first game... I finished it. And I liked it. Sure, the combat is sort of bland, but I liked it later when I had memorized which style works for which monsters, it felt good. The story was good too. But like most people already said, it's not really necessary to finish the first in order to play the second, even though you'll of course understand certain things better. However, you can easily check everything online.

 

[Beliyal]

Popularity =/= quality, else World of Tanks and League of Legends are the best games ever made.

Perhaps I phrased it wrong, I didn't mean to say they aren't good quality wise, just that they are not exactly the most popular thing hanging in every bookstore and library. At least here, I've never seen them anywhere.

Witcher books are very popular in Eastern Europe. And even Central Europe. Due to the games, they are becoming increasingly popular in the west too.

You can always go for the fan translations. If interested, I can send them to you.

I personally read them in Bulgarian and Spanish though (the last one).

I'd be fine with English versions. It's just that I prefer physical books, but in case I can't find them anywhere, I'd be okay with digital or the PDF.

 

[jerrywhitman1]

Definitely check out the books first, I highly recommend doing that. Books are always better!

 

[BlindTom]

Popularity =/= quality, else World of Tanks and League of Legends are the best games ever made.

Perhaps I phrased it wrong, I didn't mean to say they aren't good quality wise, just that they are not exactly the most popular thing hanging in every bookstore and library. At least here, I've never seen them anywhere.

Witcher books are very popular in Eastern Europe. And even Central Europe. Due to the games, they are becoming increasingly popular in the west too.

You can always go for the fan translations. If interested, I can send them to you.

I personally read them in Bulgarian and Spanish though (the last one).

I'd be fine with English versions. It's just that I prefer physical books, but in case I can't find them anywhere, I'd be okay with digital or the PDF.

I saw both The Last Wish (The first book)and Sword Of Destiny (the most recent English translation) in a popular UK bookshop today. All English translations are available on both the UK and the US Amazon sites as well. They're at least as available as any other popular fantasy series from where I am. I can't speak for translations to other languages and what not of course, but if you're looking for the English ones they're looking for you as well

There is only this one time when Geralt has to again lift a curse from the Kings daughter, just like in the very first short story. But it's explicitly a different occurrence and all the issue is filled with deja vu and all the character take it like "what, she got cursed AGAIN?"

It's also heavily implied in that story that the problem could never be fixed permanently, and that she could regress to being a monster at any time, indeed that she remains inherently a monster forever.

 

[Jiffex]

1. Well, actually, over the time you learn some more sword skills and Signs. That helps make it somewhat more interesting. Plus more potions and poisons and needs to use them, so if you're not playing on easy you have to actually think it through. But the core principle doesn't change, of course.

Over all, I actually find this combat system a lot more tolerable than the piece of shit that is TW2 combat. Not a masterpiece, but rather well done.

2. The character dialogue? Cringe-worthy. The plot itself? Actually pretty good. The world and the atmosphere? So thick and delicious you can mistake them for ice cream. Would be totally worth it even with TW2 combat.

3. More or less, although you might find yourself questioning a lot o things. "Who's this crowned fella that likes Geralt so much? Why's Geralt sleeping with this redhead girl? What's the issue with the elf guys anyway?"

I find it interesting how people decide they should go play Witcher 1 first...

Dammit Charcharo, most of The Witcher books are wastepaper, so stop advertising them. We talked about this!

The games are only an adaption of the books not a sequel or follow on. That's like saying it's depressing that people
watch Game of Thrones instead of reading ASOIAF.

And you sir CLEARLY never read any of them. The games are an adaptation of the SETTING, not the books themselves. There is literally not a single scene or plot thread that takes place both in the game and in the book. All the events of all the games are taking place long after Geralt's "death". There is only this one time when Geralt has to again lift a curse from the Kings daughter, just like in the very first short story. But it's explicitly a different occurrence and all the issue is filled with deja vu and all the character take it like "what, she got cursed AGAIN?"
So no, the games are not following plot of the original source, like the GoT show tries with the books.

Shame on you.

I've read the Last Wish and Blood of Elves and I'm getting the others soon. And the only comparison I was making between GoT and The Witcher was that saying not reading The Witcher series before playing the games is like not reading ASOIAF before watching the show, but I guess a better series would be Tales of Dunk and Egg as that happens before the events in the show.

 

[Beliyal]

I saw both The Last Wish (The first book)and Sword Of Destiny (the most recent English translation) in a popular UK bookshop today. All English translations are available on both the UK and the US Amazon sites as well. They're at least as available as any other popular fantasy series from where I am. I can't speak for translations to other languages and what not of course, but if you're looking for the English ones they're looking for you as well

That's true, I'll probably get them from Amazon one day. The only problem is shipping. Damn shipping prices sometimes get higher than the product itself.

We have books in English in some bookstores here, but so far I haven't seen The Witcher. Maybe we'll get it one day, we have a popular bookstore/gamestore with tons of foreign books, I think it would probably be possible to order through them instead of Amazon. I just went to check their site and two books from the series are listed, but they are not in stock in any of the physical stores or online. I'll think about ordering from them, maybe the shipping won't be as high.

Problem is, reading books as a past time is on a decline

Unfortunately true as well. A shame really.

 

[TheSlothOverlord]

Disclaimer: I'm a huge Witcher fan, so take my words with a pinch of salt.

1. The combat doesn't really change but I actually liked it - especially the group style. There's just something satisfying about Geralt nonchalantly hitting everyone around him with a sword. That said Igni is just overpowered. If you max it out then you should be able to breeze through the rest of the game, even on hard difficulty.
2. I think the story is fairly good, although for me the main draw was getting to meet all the characters again. There is a nice twist at the end of the game, although I don't know how much you are into twists...
I have to say though, that in the first game the devs are incredibly heavy-handed with the references. The game is kind of like an overexcited puppy constantly yelling "REMEMBER THIS?! REMEMBER THIS?!" Yes game, I remember, I read the books. Some of them twice.
3. In general yes. While there is an overarching plot in between the games, the first Witcher kind of acts more like a setup. THere are some references to the earlier title in Witcher 2, but it's honestly not that strongly connected. If you skip to Witcher 2 immediately you might be a bit confused at first, but you should figure things out well enough. If anything there's probably some summary on the Internetz.
4. I would certainly recommend the books, but the thing is, that not all of them have been translated into English yet. So far five out of the seven are translated: The Last Wish, Sword of Destiny, Blood of the Elves, Time of Contempt and Baptism of Fire (this is the chronological order of the plot).
The ones still left are The Tower of the Swallow and Lady of the Lake (roughly translating). The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny are the two first books. They are collections of short stories which act as a setup: the main characters, their relations and the setting are introduced in these. The latter 5 books are the Witcher Saga "proper".
And well, one of the strong points of the original was Sapkowski's writing style: flowing between poetic and downright vulgar Sapkowski really liked to play around with the language. However, I have no idea how well that was translated into English.
If you wish at some point to read the books then let me warn you: In Witcher 1, in act 4, in the little village the bartender can tell you a "little story". Do not ask him! He'll spoil you the entire saga!
Well, that's enough fanboying for now I guess ;P.

 

[iLikeHippos]

1. No. It'll remain a headache until the end of the game.

2. If it was a terribly good story, you'd be better off buying the book the game was based on, or watch a Letsplay of it. That way, you don't need to be hassled by the game interfering.

3. No idea - never played those two, in fear that they'd be as monotonous as the first one. I hear somewhat good news about them, however.

Sucks to disappoint you, mate. Welcome to the club.

 

[Denamic]

I actually kinda liked The Witcher's combat. You had to know which sword to use with what style against any kind of group of enemies.

Not really. Silver for monsters, steel for everything else. Just focus on the group style. It's accurate enough for fast enemies and strong enough to take down heavy enemies if you put all your points into it. An additional benefit is that swarming enemies quickly get reduced into paste with that much focus into the group style.