-
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
Both games are among the best action rpgs released in the last few years. While I just about prefer the sequel for its writing and handling of choices, the first game still remains fantastic.Dries said:Wow! I thought the general consensus was that TW2 was better than TW1!Does everybody here think that TW1 is better?
Van Buren said:
Yeah, both games are good.
Major complains with the first : tedious combat system (gets old a tad too fast as well) and pretty bad pacing (especially compared to the second).
No actual major complaints on the first, I would have enjoyed a few more locations to visit though.
cuevas. PhD.
Member
Yeah when I say I prefer the witcher 1 it doesn't mean the witcher 2 isn't a fantastic game.
EternalGamer
Banned
zoner said:
Yeah, people just like it be ause it is "older." Because digging an ancient video games from three years ago makes you feel elite and important. It gains you pretige points in the supercool society. It is also 100% true people "love" things about it that are "awful" and "bad." Also, I completely agree, fuck "self insert quality" characters.
Where the fuck do these people come from? Do they just use words without thinking about what they mean? There isnt a single sign of intelligent life in this entire post.
reptilescorpio
Member
Agreed. Both are awesome but TW2 is a cut above. Can't wait for 2.0. And my new PC upgrade for uber.Solo said:
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Dries said:Wow! I thought the general consensus was that TW2 was better than TW1!
Personally, I found TW2 to be much higher quality game and a more focused vision than TW1, and for that reason is the better of the two. I felt it improved on most of TW1's rougher points.
But, I do think there were a couple of specific areas TW1 just beats out TW2, but only just, and not really anything of significance in the grand scheme of things.
EatChildren said:
I honestly can only think of one thing The Witcher 1 does better than 2, and it's the scope of the game. Overall, I find TW1 to be an utterly average game, gameplay-wise, outside of its narrative and the fact that choices do actually matter. TW2 is better on all fronts except the actual scope.
I'm curious to what you find better in the first game? I'm seriously trying to remember what is better, but I simply can't.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
BeeDog said:
Scope I'll agree with, though TW1 is let down by Act 2 and 3 which drag on for waaay too long. Even then I felt The Witcher 2 was grand in scope, with my only disappointment being the lukewarm third and final act.
My only real criticism of The Witcher 2 compared to the first, and it's not so much a criticism as somethign I felt the original did better, is that I never found any of the fabled morally grey choices in The Witcher 2 all that hard to make. I found it much easier, for most part, to pick a certain 'style' of Geralt and stick with it through every problem.
In the other hand, The Witcher had more morally difficult and confronting scenarios, I felt, that often caught Geralt in events he cant avoid, where no option seems right. The bank heist, the Chapter V clash between the Scoia'tael and Order, the autopsy and investigation, etc. These were really difficult and truly morally grey scenarios.
That's not to say The Witcher 2 wasn't morally grey, I just never found any of the scenarios all the confronting or difficult. On the other hand, The Witcher 2 counters this by having the phenominal split from the end of Act 1 into Act 2, offering two distinctly different paths and experiences.
EatChildren said:
I can't agree with you on choices, so let's start with some examples I found more or less difficult personally (there are more, these are just from the top of my head):
1.Succubus quest. It's not about grey choice, but it certainly feels grey. You never know if the elf is really guilty until the very end (and even in the end you can argue that he decided to flee not because he was guilty but because he was afraid of Iorveth's wrath after you accused him of murders and presented evidence in a wrong light). Of course there was evidence but it was dubious. That was a really hard choice for me to make because I didn't trust the succubus. And still the fact that the elf ambushed you in the end can signify different things. May be he wanted revenge because you made him an outcast by making a wrong conclusion.
2.Henselth's death (or not). You can't kill the king just like that because it means chaos in the grand scheme of things and repercussions for chapter 3 (and yes, the game makes it sound like an important decision, so you'll know it even during the first playthrough) but it's sooo hard not do it.
3. Letho's death (or not). Enough was said about this. You said that you killed him because he kidnapped Triss. But he also saved her on my playthrough and - what's much more important - he saved Yennifer. Yennifer is tenfold more important to Geralt than Triss. So...
4. Persuading Roche not to give the king's daughter to the other king. Again there are cons and pros but in the end it comes down to your wit and personal preferences of handling politics.
5.And finally the end of the first chapter itself. Neither Iorveth, nor Roche are likable dudes. So it comes down to more subtle motivations. Like what do you find more important for you - to find the killer and stay faithful to the man who saved you or chase your own shadow while trying to get a different angle on the current situation?
Also there were minor choices like freeing Wes in Loredo's mansion right away or question her using the situation to your advantage.
2.Henselth's death (or not). You can't kill the king just like that because it means chaos in the grand scheme of things and repercussions for chapter 3 (and yes, the game makes it sound like an important decision, so you'll know it even during the first playthrough) but it's sooo hard not do it.
3. Letho's death (or not). Enough was said about this. You said that you killed him because he kidnapped Triss. But he also saved her on my playthrough and - what's much more important - he saved Yennifer. Yennifer is tenfold more important to Geralt than Triss. So...
4. Persuading Roche not to give the king's daughter to the other king. Again there are cons and pros but in the end it comes down to your wit and personal preferences of handling politics.
5.And finally the end of the first chapter itself. Neither Iorveth, nor Roche are likable dudes. So it comes down to more subtle motivations. Like what do you find more important for you - to find the killer and stay faithful to the man who saved you or chase your own shadow while trying to get a different angle on the current situation?
Also there were minor choices like freeing Wes in Loredo's mansion right away or question her using the situation to your advantage.
Solo said:
This man knows whats up.
I love both games. I think TW1 has a few jarring issues that really hurt it (stuff already mentioned like combat, control, etc) but the good far outweighs the bad. I found the game difficult to play through a second time with all of the backtracking and swamp/sewer crawling.
The Witcher 2 never had that "draggy" feeling for me. It changes it up at all the right moments.
SneakyStephan
Banned
EatChildren said:
I thought the autopsy was clear cut? You could pick the wrong person but if you did the sidequests you wouldn't.
I also enjoyed slaughtering me some religious nutjob order so that wasn't a hard choice for me
But yeah I get what you mean.
Complistic
Member
Solo said:
Ha, like Chinner I found myself unable to screw anyone while
Triss was missing.
I got my PC built!
This is the first game I have ever owned and played on a PC.
Playing with the 360 pad and it's awesome. This game is rough. I'm confused as to what all the spells do. I was dying a lot in the prologue until I figured out the Orem (I think) spell absorbed damage. I'm not used to a game not autosaving, so I have to start over a lot.
Overall I love it. It's the reason I wanted to build a PC and I am happy that I decided to do so. Game is amazing.
This is the first game I have ever owned and played on a PC.
Playing with the 360 pad and it's awesome. This game is rough. I'm confused as to what all the spells do. I was dying a lot in the prologue until I figured out the Orem (I think) spell absorbed damage. I'm not used to a game not autosaving, so I have to start over a lot.
Overall I love it. It's the reason I wanted to build a PC and I am happy that I decided to do so. Game is amazing.
Complistic
Member
Skilletor said:I got my PC built!
This is the first game I have ever owned and played on a PC.
Playing with the 360 pad and it's awesome. This game is rough. I'm confused as to what all the spells do. I was dying a lot in the prologue until I figured out the Orem (I think) spell absorbed damage. I'm not used to a game not autosaving, so I have to start over a lot.
Overall I love it. It's the reason I wanted to build a PC and I am happy that I decided to do so. Game is amazing.
get the skill that blocks from all directions and learn to spam the f5 (quicksave) key when you think you're about to be in danger.
Gully State
Member
The story in the original Witcher was way more satisfying than the sequel. The game ended on a better note and the plot twist just blew my mind. I recognize that sequel was a better package overall but it didn't quite hit the spot quite like the original at the end.
Gully State said:
Well, I do not totally agree. The Witcher provided a "closure" (save for the final twist) and felt completed.
The Witcher 2 leaves something wide open with tons of possibilities, but the build-up was fantastic and we feel the political and social games more than in the first.
In the end, I was more satisfied with the story of Witcher 2, even if it left me panting for more.
Complistic
Member
Solo said:
So you're saying the 2 dwarf's story about you and her didn't make you feel bad?
Gully State
Member
Micerider said:
I don't think we're talking about the same twist....
Alvin as Jacques De Aldesberg
Lasthope106
Member
Here is something that has been on my mind after finishing the game:
The Witcher 1 is game that simply cannot be made on a console. It is too much complex and I guess that is the reason why I find it to be the better game.
On the other hand, some of the design decisions with the interface in The Witcher 2 were made to adapt the game to consoles. Something as simple as telling the player which books had been read will have simplified that aspect of the game. The number of enemies in the first game was huge, even if you could kill them easily by the end.
I guess I just want more Witchering, and the Witcher 2 wasn't sufficient.
It is my hope that CD Projekt will fix all the issues until the game is perfect, just like they did with the EE patch.
The Witcher 1 is game that simply cannot be made on a console. It is too much complex and I guess that is the reason why I find it to be the better game.
On the other hand, some of the design decisions with the interface in The Witcher 2 were made to adapt the game to consoles. Something as simple as telling the player which books had been read will have simplified that aspect of the game. The number of enemies in the first game was huge, even if you could kill them easily by the end.
I guess I just want more Witchering, and the Witcher 2 wasn't sufficient.
It is my hope that CD Projekt will fix all the issues until the game is perfect, just like they did with the EE patch.
Lasthope106 said:
It's not simplifying. It did nothing to gameplay. It's called "getting boring, useless shit out of the game". It's like complaining about simplifying opening the door by reducing the number of keys necessary to do this from 2 to 1.
Lasthope106
Member
subversus said:
How is that boring? If I know which books I've read, then I won't buy them again by mistake and waste my orens, which I can the use to craft better gear, which directly affects gameplay.
I did this a few times because I don't have a photographic memory to recall all the books and diagrams I've read.
Lasthope106 said:
I concede that I found the UI in the first game to be a lot more useful compared to the sequel's. I'm not a fan of list inventories, in general, since I prefer arranging items for easy retrieval. In addition to this, the UI lacked the feedback to denote if a recipe/book, etc. had been read already.
But I don't agree with the change in combat mechanics to be a sign of dumbing down. If you've played Piranha Bytes' Gothic series, Witcher 2 reminds me of those games' inverse difficulty curve, which is even more brutal. I doubt anyone can argue that the Piranha Bytes game design is tailored for the mass-market console audience.
One of the criticisms leveled against the first game was that combat was simplistic, with Geralt rarely having to make full use of the repertoire of Witcher skills. While the second game's real-time combat might seem simple in comparison, the encounter design was much better, with Hard and Insane needing creative tactics to succeed. All that Witcher 1's Hard difficulty required was Alchemy. Since combat was easy even on the highest difficulty, the game had to resort to throwing huge numbers of enemies (usually Drowners) to provide a modicum of challenge.
As far as the amount of game content is concerned, after multiple playthroughs of both games, I find the amount of unique content in both games to be similar, with Witcher 1 providing longer initial playthroughs, and Witcher 2 providing less repetition on subsequent playthroughs.
Lasthope, I agree that The Witcher 2 features a distinct lack of witchering, but I can't say I prefer the first game. The "simplifying" done between part one and two was largely to the sequel's benefit -- things like having mission waypoints were a great help, especially in cases where information on character locations were scarce, or when you were meant to talk to someone you hadn't met before.
Combat was also significantly improved, and both games feature a whole lot of it. The first game is an endless clicky grind of mobs, while the second game is more thoughtful and elegant.
The only concessions made were smaller skill trees and less missions, but the density of TW2's individual missions caused nearly all of them to feel significant. TW1 had a lot of throwaway fluff.
They are both excellent games, certainly, and it's probably not worth arguing which one is objectively superior, but I'm sure all of us can agree that if TW3 manages to combine the best parts of TW2 with the strengths of TW1, we'll have a landmark game on our hands.
Oh, TW1 also had a better map.
Combat was also significantly improved, and both games feature a whole lot of it. The first game is an endless clicky grind of mobs, while the second game is more thoughtful and elegant.
The only concessions made were smaller skill trees and less missions, but the density of TW2's individual missions caused nearly all of them to feel significant. TW1 had a lot of throwaway fluff.
They are both excellent games, certainly, and it's probably not worth arguing which one is objectively superior, but I'm sure all of us can agree that if TW3 manages to combine the best parts of TW2 with the strengths of TW1, we'll have a landmark game on our hands.
Oh, TW1 also had a better map.
Lasthope106 said:
yeah, sounds horrifying. You're the fucking witcher who hunt monsters and therefore remember every bit of information from books (and books themselves) because they're necessary for survival, not some senile oldman who can't remember which book he has read last time because they're not important to him and they're for entertainment anyway.
Crunched said:
What is witchering, though ? The wenching ? The monster contracts ?
Unfortunately, the official forums were filled with complaints against the wenching in the first game, with far too many people taking it seriously, leading to claims of CDPR's supposed misogynistic attitude, while holding Bioware's cringe-worthy romances as some ideal to strive towards.
If Witchering refers to the monster contracts, I prefer them in the sequel. In the first game, just about all the monsters for the kill contracts were encountered while completing the main quest. If not, it was no big hassle to explore around for them, due to the lack of difficulty and with it, a sense of danger. In comparison, the kill contracts design is much better in the sequel, since it requires players to go off the main quest path, and one had to pay attention to the environment to succeed. The reason for Witcher 2 having not as many side quests as the first game is that CDPR devs posted that they would go for quality over quantity for Witcher 2's side quests, given the complaints about the fetch quests in the first game.
SneakyStephan
Banned
So ehm, I tried to boot up the game for the first time, it takes me to some agreement, then to a patcher which takes a while, then another patcher.
And then nothing happens (steam version).
I try to launch it again through the shortcut, it says launching witcher 2 , then again nothing.
No error, nothing at all...
edit: I verified cache integrity and now it's downloading 9GB of data? FUCK THAT I already downloaded 21GB when I installed the game and I'm on a bandwidth cap...
And then nothing happens (steam version).
I try to launch it again through the shortcut, it says launching witcher 2 , then again nothing.
No error, nothing at all...
edit: I verified cache integrity and now it's downloading 9GB of data? FUCK THAT I already downloaded 21GB when I installed the game and I'm on a bandwidth cap...
SneakyStephan said:
go to support section on TW2 official site. also there's a 78 pages thread on this forum about technical difficulties. I have deja vu reading your post, but don't remember the solution.
edit: hahahaha. that's steam version for you. GOG is the version to go.
SneakyStephan
Banned
subversus said:
First ever game for me that doesn't work right away on steam since steam's inception.
Guess I'll have to see if the 9GB dl does anything... No more youtube for me then till my cap resets.
Gully State
Member
Van Buren said:
Witchering as I see it are all the little sidequests from solving disputes to hunting monsters in exchange for orens. There were tons of that in the original which gave a more vivid sense of what a Witcher does on a day to day basis. I wouldn't say it was lost in the sequel but certainly the game funneled you into the main plot more.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Van Buren said:
I remember hearing once that the initiation for the Hell's Angels was riding a Harley for a mile while screwing a prostitute and downing a bottle of Jack in one slug. Something like that I reckon, that's witchering.
thetrin said:
My only major issue is the rushed final chapter. There were too many loose threads, and it left me wanting more. Sadly, "more" may be years away.
Aside from that, my only issues with the game are minor and technical. T'is a fine RPG and will be competing with Deux Ex and (probably) Dark Souls for GOTY.
I thought just about everything in TW1 was well-done. Didn't have a problem with the gameplay, and I thought both the story and world were genuinely interesting. The first game's only real weakness was the dated tech on which it was built, and TW2 pretty much cleared that up. TW2's only real problem is an almost total lack of gameplay balance, which I don't really mind because it doesn't get in the way of the game's extremely well-realized world.
- Status