Witcher 2 Enhanced Edition Hits 360 and PC in April

[Zer_]

Yeah, cause it only being DirectX 9 and having the interface it did, did not shout that they wanted to launch it for consoles at all. I have absolutely no issues with it being on 360. It was obvious that it was never going to be PC only right from the start. But some of the obnoxious members of my PC fraternity had to use it as stick to hit console owners with, without realising they would have egg on their face down the road.

Actually, it wasn't obvious right from the start. The alpha [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JciyoGmnGyo] of the game gave us no indication that the game's development would take the turn it did.

Holy shit, that trailer was sexy as hell.

I may have to pick this game up. I've heard nothing but good things about Witcher 2.

You mean you didn't hear any of the whining about it being too hard?

And to answer your initial question, like everyone else said, you'll be fine.

I play and enjoy Dark Souls, I can't see Witcher 2 being Dark Souls hard.

If The Witcher 2 is hard, it's hard in a bad gameplay mechanic sort of way. Which is ironic, because those same bad mechanics make the game a piss-take. One spell breaks the entire game.

As opposed to Dark Souls, which is hard, but it gives you the proper tools (like a well executed stamina, backstab system, etc.) to beat it.

Edit: Now, to be a little fair, I only played the game in its original state, which is to say before any patches that may or may not have fixed the horribly broken gameplay.

The gameplay wasn't broken prior to the patch, I played as a bomb/alchemist build going straight from the beginning before the patches came out and I didn't find it hard. I rarely used the quen sign. I'm convinced that all the whining about it being broken or to hard are simply from people, not wanting to put in the effort of blocking, dodging and generally playing in a manner that dying matters. Dying always matters to me in a game I don't like to die so I'm not wreckless and the Witcher 2 really fit my playstyle really well.

Of course it wasn't broken. Your attacks always hit their targets-
-WRONG. Your sword would literally go through the enemies without doing any damage just because you didn't have them targeted with the idiotic targeting system.
You could blo-
-WRONG Blocking used the same resource as the Signs, which, by the way, isn't a resource that's quick to fill up, rendering the entire concept of blocking in the game useless.
and dodg-
-WRONG If enemies showed any sign of being disoriented or anything like that, like they do in an actually well executed action RPG (Dark/Demon Souls), we could be having this conversation. As it was, it only served as a tool for kiting enemies.

And then a hundred of other things that are simply bad design/illogical/etc.

I didn't say the game was hard per se, I said the broken mechanics made it harder, which they did.

Targeting system was tweaked in previous patches, Blocking now uses fewer resources (I also believe that the cost is refunded if you perform a success parry.

A stunned/disoriented enemy had his guard down, you got a free hit, best use a sign to push them off the cliff or burn them.

 

[Baresark]

snip

The "right from the start" part implies otherwise. But whatever.

snip

'Kay, I'll keep this fairly short.

The way the combat in The Witcher 2 worked was that if you didn't have your camera pointed straight at an enemy, or have that enemy locked on, your hits would simply not register. When you actually do have the enemy on your target thingy, your attacks could then slice straight through other enemies standing right beside you or your primary target. Which could then be fixed by a talent, of all things, that let you hit multiple targets at once. This is simply bad design.

You never blocked because, as I said, blocking was entirely fucking meaningless in the game. For the same cost of 1 Vigor as blocking uses, you could activate a spell that's multiple times more useful.

I didn't say alchemy was useless, I said alchemy was useless unless you poured your skill points into it. Which is stupid, the whole shtick of a witcher is that he's good with potions. If you have to specialize for it despite having established that witchers are master alchemists, that's a sign of bad design.

Comparing this game to Gothic shows a fundamental lack of understanding in gameplay and platforms, and does nothing to prove a point. Gothic - open world RPG. The Witcher - tactical action RPG. Might as well compare it to Diablo at this point.

The comment about illiteracy, if you're not trying to be funny there, speaks for itself.

To your last paragraph, the moment when the released game has an entirely different gameplay focus than its alpha versions, is full of cliches associated with console gaming and when its gameplay is half-baked, as it was in this game, an obvious sign of trying to completely change it in later parts of the development process, is a good place start.

I almost didn't respond. Good job.

My only issue with what you're saying is simply that those things did not happen for me. My sword never passed through an enemy and if the sword went through two enemies, it hit two enemies. And the things you are saying are not a "flaw of console gaming". If those things happened to a lot of people, it's simply bad programming and not a product of the game being made with consoles in mind.

Also, I did not mean to compare Gothic directly to The Witcher 2. I was simply pointing out that third person games that use the same perspective as TW2 are not a console exclusive element. My main concern is that you did not point out a single way that this is more like a console game than a PC game. You simply selected specific elements and identified them as a reason of proof that TW2 was more designed for consoles. Your concern about the inventory system, the use of DirectX9, and combat do not in any way prove that they were making a console game versus making a PC game. These are simply design choices. I would say that I agree that using the same resource for signs and blocking is stupid. But, that is a poor design decision versus a decision that exists to make the game more friendly to console games.

 

[Baresark]

snip

Maybe you didn't play the game in its original sorry state then.

I really, honestly don't have the patience to explain why the changes were there to make the game easy to port to consoles. The facts are these - the first Witcher played in an entirely different fashion and had an entirely different sort of UI. So did the Witcher 2's alpha. I don't know what you want to attribute these changes to. They must be just random and completely unrelated.

I played the first Witcher. I did not play the alpha for the Witcher 2, personally. I understand what you're saying, but I think those changes were there to make the game appeal to a wider audience. I'm not saying that it did not make the game easier to port to a console. I am saying that those changes may not have existed for the purpose of porting. Once again, they are design changes. I don't think those changes exist to make the game a console title. I personally liked the second Witcher better. The problem with what you are saying is that you named elements that do not define a console title and then said they were there because CDPR only ever wanted to put this on the 360. I also don't see how the PC version isn't going to be the superior version when the game comes out on the 360. Lots of companies change games significantly when a title is in the Alpha stages. Some even change a game when it's in the beta stage (Diablo 3).

I respect your opinion, but you have not provided a single piece of evidence to support your point.

 

[Vrach]

Just one question, have they ever sorted the controls issue on a keyboard? In short, if I'm holding down A and pressing attack, will the Witcher attack the mob to the left of me or swipe in the direction I'm pointing the camera at like a right moron?