-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings |OT| Plough 'Em All
- Thread starter Snuggles
- Start date
- Status
jim-jam bongs
Member
I ploughed Abigail while my flatmate watched last night. There were sharply raised eyebrows at her card, let me tell you.Snuggler said:
Apparently you can restore an insane difficulty failed save. As you progress through the game you hit autosave checkpoints. Each autosave changes a REG_NONE value in your registry located here:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\CD Projekt RED\The Witcher 2\GameData
Playing insane is like this: You die, the game changes your key to junk, you can't use your save key to unlock previous saves anymore.
Your saves aren't edited or made invalid. Just the key used to 'unlock' those saves is changed. You will lose access to all your saves made.
To work around this problem:
You edit the registry value GameData and restore a previous key you were given. This will allow you to access saves made BEFORE and up UNTIL newer key values were given. So lets say you wrote down the registry value before (prologue spoilers...)
If you restore the value you would only have access to the saves made up until the registry value was written down... all latter saves are inaccessible. The best way to keep progress in insane is to backup your registry values every once in a while.
I have no idea if all the keys are the same for each game on every single persons PC.
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\CD Projekt RED\The Witcher 2\GameData
Playing insane is like this: You die, the game changes your key to junk, you can't use your save key to unlock previous saves anymore.
Your saves aren't edited or made invalid. Just the key used to 'unlock' those saves is changed. You will lose access to all your saves made.
To work around this problem:
You edit the registry value GameData and restore a previous key you were given. This will allow you to access saves made BEFORE and up UNTIL newer key values were given. So lets say you wrote down the registry value before (prologue spoilers...)
shooting the Balista and helping Foltest enter the castle. You eventually made it all the way to the prison and died.
I have no idea if all the keys are the same for each game on every single persons PC.
reptilescorpio
Member
Yeah that was quite a strange card compared to what she looked like ingame...jim-jam bongs said:
fizzelopeguss
Banned
Still haven't nailed loredo's mum yet, i am not a happy bunny.
reptilescorpio said:
I played with that ending, I followed the neutral path as much as I could in the game. It only changes the minutes Triss spends explaining the story to you, something the rest of the game let you experience yourself first hand.
If the game were to end on that note, the best way to make the final act satisfying is being involved in the breakdown between the various kings/political states, while fighting Letho and the his political benefactors and having some playable flashback to the Wild Hunt to help better frame what Geralt & Triss are up against in the next game. The conversation explaining all of this briefly is the exact opposite of what the rest of the game tried to achieve
reptilescorpio
Member
I disagree but it comes down to our opinion on how the story was told in the end so it doesn't really matter. I think what you just talked about will be the crux of the next game so rather than spend 5 hours on it, RED want to give a full 25 hour experience of the final part of Geralts past. The cards are all on the table now so Geralt is going into the next game knowing full well what to expect.syoaran said:
He wasColdsnap said:
at the beach next to the camp to the West I think. If you bring him back and drink with his friends you can get information out of them about the square coins.
syoaran said:
(ENDING SPOILER)
That seems like too much hand-holding with regards to the story, to be honest. Just during my Roche run, I could talk to the characters and figure out each of the following - a)Radovid became the most powerful monarch after giving him Anais and murdering Henselt or b)Henselt became the reigning power in the Northern Kingdoms afer his life was spared, and could prove to be a thorn in the Emperor's side during the invasion or c)Anais was given to Natalis, ensuring that the balance of power was maintained in the Northern Kingdoms, and the reputation of mages as a whole suffered, leading to mass witch-hunts. Like the rest of the game, the story during the third act requires inference, and resorted to subtle storytelling means like in the first game. Case in point - the ladybug, a reference to being reunited with a lover, or Geralt's inevitable search for Yennefer on knowing her whereabouts - bound to be the focus of the next game.
Lostconfused
Member
If you read the books you know exactly what's going to happen.Van Buren said:
Yennefer doesn't just get name dropped without Geralt dropping everything and running off to look for her
Edit: Although it should be obvious how the ending could be disappointing.
It doesn't bring a conclusion to anything, events unfold and set the stage for the next game.
Edit: Jeez, how did I not notice broken spoiler tags. Sorry everyone. I guess it's a good thing no one reads my posts.
Refreshment.01
Member
There's a lot of stuff you can leave, with bad price/weight ratio. One cool thing i remember some times i was pressed to come by some orens, so i didn't want to lose any loot. So i ended fighting my way to the nearest merchant with over weight. Was really sweet and challenging.LiquidMetal14 said:
You know what other change is great? Books are no longer marked as read like in the first game, this forces the player to pay more attention to the books. A good thing since there some cool stuff to read. This is in contrast to the first game in which a lot of people blindly bought the books that were marked as not read, clicked on the books and quickly resold then, not caring in anyway about what was the book about.
How many playtroughs you made?Jintor said:
jim-jam bongs
Member
The ending was great. To actually judge it you have to have played the game twice so that you can actually see how it all ties together, imo. It perfectly fits Geralt's role within the narrative of the series; he's a wildcard. Everyone wants him dead or on their side but nobody understands his motivations enough to guarantee his compliance.
I had to look that up to remember what it looked like but uh... yeah.
Snuggler said:
I had to look that up to remember what it looked like but uh... yeah.
reptilescorpio
Member
Nah everyone likes games for different things and latch onto certain things during gameplay. I play games for the story and loved every minute of TW2. I hated Alan Wake but I know that other people loved it, whether for the story or for the gameplay. The world is full of different people with different tastes. That is what makes it all worthwhile, if everyone loved the same thing we would never get any variety in life.Jintor said:
Lostconfused said:
(ENDING SPOILER)
And how exactly does this alternate conclusion take place ? The destruction of power of the lodge of sorceresses? An end to the invasion plans of Nilfgaard ? The political climate in the Northern Kingdoms simmering down ? Any such finality seems more commonplace to a Bioware game, to be frank, where some big threat is vanquished by the game's end. One thing I've grown to expect out of the Witcher universe on reading the books and playing the games is that the world's inevitably fucked, and there are machinations that Geralt cannot prevent from happening. As such, the conclusion to the personal story amidst the ongoing political incidents was very satisfying.
jim-jam bongs
Member
RAGE RAGE RAGE
reptilescorpio said:
Yeah, but previous to Witcher 2 I thought I liked games - well, RPGs in particular - for their story and their storytelling and everything the people are raving about Witcher 2 for. While I feel that like I said before what actually happens is really good and really interesting, and I'm a big fan of the branching style and the way in which events unfold differently to such a large extent, I just didn't find myself... engaged while I was actually playing the game proper. It's like the difference between reading an interesting story and reading a wikipedia plot summary of that story. Everybody's talking about how the ending wrapped up all the plot threads, did this and that, but I feel it just waltzed straight into sequel hook-town... which isn't an offense in itself, of course, but it didn't feel like the actual game itself had come to a close. It felt like it just ended halfway through something.
I also disliked the combat (which apparently means I suck at it?), although I appreciated what it was trying to do.
Only one playthrough so far, mainly because I don't really think I'd enjoy going through the combat again just to get to all the different content.
Still, I don't regret buying it and I think it's a pretty good game. I'm just not in "I'm scared of what will happen once I finish Witcher 2" territory.
reptilescorpio
Member
Guaranteed to be better than the story in DA2 at leastjim-jam bongs said:
Lostconfused
Member
Compared to stopping the Grand Master of the Order of the Sacred Flame the ending is nowhere near as satisfying. The conflict between the scoiatel and the order sets the background for Geralts story. While
in Assasin's of Kings Geralt is a lot more involved in the background conflicts rather than pursuing Letho. I don't disagree with you but Geralt's personal journey of tracking down Letho isn't as good of an ending as we got in 1
Refreshment.01
Member
That's it. Second playthrough you'll like a bit more even if its not your type of game. It really starts filtering through your skin the second time. Small details become more apparent, in my case (i don't like plot aspects of games) i began aprreciating the dialogue as i proceed in the 2nd playtrough.Jintor said:
ColonialRaptor
Member
leng jai said:
I think it's just
Triss, Ves and the Elf Chick (I haven't done Iorveth's path yet)
reptilescorpio
Member
For the combat maybe turn it down to Easy until you get the hang of it because once you get into the groove of it you will love it. It really is a mix of Demons Souls with the fluidity of Arkham Asylum. Using oils, spells and throwing weapons along with striking while jumping around the enemy group is needed to make the most of it. Even just put Quen on and then Aard any enemies that are starting to box you in can make the game really easy. Also put some skill points into more stamina so you have 4 bars instead of 2. You can Aard stun a guy so you can use a finisher on them or do about 10-12 slashes to get the adrenaline up enough to do a finisher too.Jintor said:
On the story side if you didn't feel engaged all the way through you would have missed most of the plot points as it doesn't force feed them to you. Most of what goes on is implied and you find evidence to support that idea. Without caring for what people are saying you miss all that. That is also why it feels like it finished early. The main plot was about the kingslayer and Geralts memories. The game itself forces that Temerian struggle and constant war on you but it is really functioning as a backdrop. First and foremost you have to remember Geralt is a Witcher. This is not DA where you are saving the world for King and country. A Witcher kills monsters and remains neutral to the problems of humans. Geralt is not human. He is not from Rivia. Geralt does not care if Temeria is taken over by Redania. His job is to wipe out monsters from the world. In order to do this he needs to regain his memories in order to protect himself from the Wild Hunt (which was fleshed out in the ending) and stop the kingslayer from continuing to destroy the reputation and standing that Witchers have. A Witcher cannot accept payment for killing a human, only monsters. That plot line is resolved along with Geralt regaining his memories and knowing exactly what to do. TW3 will feature all out war with the kingdoms but that shouldn't include Geralt. He got what he needed and now he is off to finish his business. He may have to get involved in order to protect his place in the world but he will not end up the Hero of Temeria or something like that.
And whores.ColonialRaptor said:
EternalGamer
Banned
When someone says they don't like the combat, it is hard to know if they even know how the combat is supposed to work since the game doesn't do a good job of explaining it.
I can see someone not using the quick select pocket items, not using lock on or rolls, and finding the combat very clumsy. But once you know how to use all your abilities it just flows in a way that is awesome.
I can see someone not using the quick select pocket items, not using lock on or rolls, and finding the combat very clumsy. But once you know how to use all your abilities it just flows in a way that is awesome.
Lostconfused said:
(ENDING SPOILER)
I do agree with you that the ending of Witcher 1 was great, mostly due to the twist, the questions raised by the twist, and the relatively small-scope of the story offering greater intimacy with the central villain, if he can be called that. The backstory of Letho's association with Geralt provided a lot of answers regarding wtf happened between the end of the books and the beginning of the first game, and just for that, I felt the connection to be personal.
The Epilogue alone defined the sequel's ending in my eyes, since it tied back to questions raised in the first game and the second about a Witcher's involvement in politics, and whether it can be justified. To me, Letho and Geralt stood at opposite ends when tasked with this question, and allowing the player agency to control how it all plays out was as satisfying as the Alvin reveal in the first game. In direct comparison, the first game featured a stronger self-contained ending, but the sequel's ending expands the scope of the political struggles in ways the first game never tried, while answering lingering questions in a smart manner. In the end, I find it hard to compare the two endings directly, since they seek to accomplish completely different aims.
The Epilogue alone defined the sequel's ending in my eyes, since it tied back to questions raised in the first game and the second about a Witcher's involvement in politics, and whether it can be justified. To me, Letho and Geralt stood at opposite ends when tasked with this question, and allowing the player agency to control how it all plays out was as satisfying as the Alvin reveal in the first game. In direct comparison, the first game featured a stronger self-contained ending, but the sequel's ending expands the scope of the political struggles in ways the first game never tried, while answering lingering questions in a smart manner. In the end, I find it hard to compare the two endings directly, since they seek to accomplish completely different aims.
reptilescorpio said:
Dude, I understood all that in-game and out. But I didn't care about any of it. It's interesting on some abstract level and outside the game proper but in-game I just somehow didn't find it engaging. About the only thing I really felt was fleshed out was Triss and Iov... Iovelf... Ioveleflth... Elfdude (though I think Roche is probably also similarly done well, though obviously I haven't done his version of events, so yeah).
And it wasn't about combat just being hard, it was more about it feeling unfair, or simply not fun. I can dance around Act 1 Boss all I want all day every day but you press the wrong button once or you react to his instant projectiles in the wrong way and you get killed in three hits. You swing your sword around in a dazzling arc of pure steel but because you're not targetting the overgrown bird-lady directly in front of you, you get hitstunned into an unblockable combo of dying. It's close to what I want but it's not quite there.
ColonialRaptor
Member
reptilescorpio said:
This is a good summary of what I think about how I felt with my place in the world and about how I made my decisions in the world.
This is why I think I made all of the RIGHT choices (except for selling Deathmold those plans for the necromancy so I'm going to go back to that save and play it over again from there). I let Henselt live, I was being accused of being a King Slayer. What good was I if I had let Roche take his life when I had just saved him from being assassinated by Witchers? Even if he had just tried to kill me and he had just slaughtered so many elves and Drawves in the invasion of Vergen it was not my place to just decide that he deserved to die then and there. I wanted to kill him. I would have liked to have scarred him or something (perhaps if I had the choice to cut out an eye or cut off an arm or something I would have done that) but I don't think it was the right thing to do to kill him.
Then when it came to the choice between going with Roche to save the girl or Triss, well - the choice wasn't necessarily easy, but in a way it was. I've known Triss for far longer and we have a much closer and much more trusted relationship than Roche (unfortunately there was some secrets there in that she was part of the Lodge and she hadn't told me about that) but as a Witcher it's not my place to go and save Temeria. Although I was a bit conflicted in this as I was killing humans in order to save Triss and a Witchers roll in the world is to kill Monsters. I also thought that Deathmold deserved to die, but I still thought that this was the most 'neutral' path to take and the Nilfgaurdians were seemingly quite intrusive bastards.
I don't really quite know what killing or not killing the Dragon at the end of the game is supposed to have... I didn't want to kill the poor beast, but I thought I'd get something from it, but now I sort of regret it - how could it survive a tree through it's chest anyway? Poor Dragon Dragons are cool.
Geralt says something about having an idea about why the Wild Hunt Elves from another Dimension wanted him and Yenefer - anyone got an idea of what this is?
Then when it came to the choice between going with Roche to save the girl or Triss, well - the choice wasn't necessarily easy, but in a way it was. I've known Triss for far longer and we have a much closer and much more trusted relationship than Roche (unfortunately there was some secrets there in that she was part of the Lodge and she hadn't told me about that) but as a Witcher it's not my place to go and save Temeria. Although I was a bit conflicted in this as I was killing humans in order to save Triss and a Witchers roll in the world is to kill Monsters. I also thought that Deathmold deserved to die, but I still thought that this was the most 'neutral' path to take and the Nilfgaurdians were seemingly quite intrusive bastards.
I don't really quite know what killing or not killing the Dragon at the end of the game is supposed to have... I didn't want to kill the poor beast, but I thought I'd get something from it, but now I sort of regret it - how could it survive a tree through it's chest anyway? Poor Dragon
Dragons are cool.Geralt says something about having an idea about why the Wild Hunt Elves from another Dimension wanted him and Yenefer - anyone got an idea of what this is?
Lostconfused
Member
It's not really important. Its a nice plot point but its nothing significant.Jintor said:
Witchers don't kill dragons. That's just how it is.ColonialRaptor said:I don't really quite know what killing or not killing the Dragon at the end of the game is supposed to have... I didn't want to kill the poor beast, but I thought I'd get something from it, but now I sort of regret it - how could it survive a tree through it's chest anyway? Poor Dragon
reptilescorpio
Member
If you didn't care about it then it didn't pull you in properly, which is the games fault. I never found the combat unfair but like I said, everyone enjoys a game differently. I blame it entirely on you playing Deus Ex before me.Jintor said:
Jintor said:
Yeah I want to kill it but maybe letting her live will mean she comes back on your side in TW3, same with Letho. Bah, going to leave them both dead. It is what I would expect Geralt to do.
The boss fights were bad. Just weren't fun at all. Hopefully they drop them completely for the next game or at least find a better option. I doubt QTE will remain too.Fredescu said:
ColonialRaptor
Member
Jintor said:
Oh boy... now that's intriguing. With all these spoilers that I'm uncovering and no way to know which path people are spoilering I'm bound to read it, that's going to be interesting. I'm planning to start the Iorveth path soon because I can't get enough of this game, will be interesting to see how quickly I can burn through the game when I don't have to listen to people talk and watch cut scenes and such that I've seen before, but even still - I WANT TO KNOW... but I don't want to be spoiled. Is it something I need to see in the game, or would reading it on a forum be revelation enough?
ColonialRaptor
Member
Lostconfused said:
That wasn't a normal dragon, that dragon was a tool of a mage and no longer a dragon... it was being tortured by being controlled like that. I was putting it out of it's misery.
Lostconfused
Member
You should see it in game. The revelation is great but it means nothing if you didn't read the short story about the dragon. http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Granica_możliwościColonialRaptor said:
Whatever justification makes you feel better. I am just telling you like it is.ColonialRaptor said:
jim-jam bongs
Member
Lostconfused said:
You know, I can't disagree with that. It was a bit of a letdown after the ending of the first game, which did a big wrap-up of a lot of the outstanding story threads as well as using the final cinematic to setup the next game. Judged in isolation I liked it, but yeah the first game had a much better ending.
ColonialRaptor said:
Necromancy plans eh? Or maybe Dethmold is a lying sack of shit
Lostconfused said:
Is it because they're sentient? Geralt mentions in the journal for the Troll Trouble quest that, by the Witcher's code, he can only kill a Troll if it's evil because they're considered sentient.
Lostconfused
Member
Witchers don't kill thinking creatures needlessly. But I think its also because dragons are very rare and have almost been hunted to extinction. I think it's mentioned as being part of the Witcher's Codex, but its never really explained. It's just one of the rules they follow like remaining neutral.jim-jam bongs said:
ColonialRaptor
Member
Lostconfused said:
So by short story you mean the books? I'm reading through the Last Wish at the moment so I assume that will end up explaining it for me?
I'll play through and see it when I get there.
I'm so interested to see how Iorveth's path handles Chapter 3 because
I don't imagine an Elf (especially this particular one) would be allowed to just run around this castle... But first, I have a few other saves in my Roche path to go back to and finish to see how they play out as I want to experience as much of this game as possible. I will be keeping my first (current save) as the save that I continue for the next game though as that is the 'most true to who I am and my choices'.
- Status