Witcher vs Witcher 2

[SwordsMaster]

Hi all,

So SM is considering purchasing the Witcher 2, since I enjoyed the first one. However there were many tedious bits, where you keep crossing over the same area and have to fight the same bloody spawning lake monsters over and over. But anyway. Is there a story continuation mechanics a la Mass effect? Is there any improvement on the inventory mechanics? Is the game as grown up as the first one? What about the length?

Please let me know what comments everyone has.

[rajpoot]

There is very little story continuation (negligible, even lesser than Mass Effect), since AFAIK Witcher basically wraps up it's own story and Witcher 2 takes off on a totally different and a lot more interesting story.
The gameplay overall, is a lot more fun. The sword fighting is a lot more fluid and action-y. The graphics are awesome, and the dialogue is better. Overall the game is not tedious at all.
On the other hand the number of monsters have been reduced quite a lot.
The game itself is average length, but depending on the choices you make, nearly two thirds of the game is quite different, story-wise (and to some extent quest wise), so you get replayability. This is actually something new CD Projekt have done...where player choices make a big difference.

And yeah. The game has matured, in one aspect atleast. Search Triss and Youtube and you'll know. :clown:

Edit:
Plus they're bringing out a new patch. Witcher v2.0. Adds a ton of content, includes all the DLCs released as yet, and it's free.
I mean if you don't get this game, you'll be missing something no RPG gamer should miss.

[SwordsMaster]

Hmm... Interesting. Thanks rajpoot. One other thing, would you be able to let me know in Spoilers or PM what are the points of the story that will so dramatically and invariably affect the storyline? Just so I know when to rename savegames :)

[rajpoot]

There's actually one main decision that'll affect the game. Needless to say it'll spoil the story.
It come at the end of Act 1. You need to choose whether to side with Scoi'atel and save Iorveth, or side with Temeria and Roche. Act2 and 3 play out depending on your choice, and if I'm any judge, it'll have a big effect on future sequels.
Aside from that there are quite a few minor choices that might have some lasting impact in future games, but in Witcher 2, they have no real effect. I can't list them since I don't remember all of them, but
like, you get a chance to kill two different sovereigns, in Act 2, depending on your choice in Act1. All this changes is some dialogue in Act3, but I'll bet it has some last effect on the story arc for future games.

Edit:
Found this nifty little decision checklist on the wiki. It's not complete, but it lists the major choices.
Link (http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/The_Witcher_2_decision_checklist)

[SwordsMaster]

Cool. Very Cool, rajpoot. Thanks. It appears I already am setting up for another playthrough.

Killed Aryan, for one, and failed to sneak through the dungeons. Also missed some missions in Flotsam...

Great game though. Absolutely worth the recommendation. Made me restart Witcher 1!

[Scienter]

I enjoyed Witcher 2 more than the first Witcher. It's more polished, I like the quests better. Due to a choice you must make early on, the game is definitely worth playing twice.

[CrossLOPER]

The story is better and they deal with sex in a less coy manner.

The controls are sticky, the way they shoved the tutorial in the prologue is baffling, the conversations do that stupid incomplete sentence thing, several quests were not fully developed and therefore unfinishable and the inventory and quick slots were obviously designed with a console in mind. Also, it is about 25% as long as the original. Also, as mentioned, right at the end of act 1, there are a handful of actions which you may choose to do which will throw you either with Iorveth or Rosche. The leap in logic and the stark contrast of the events that follow your actions confound me. The pacing is OK for most of the game, but that one point is just odd.

That being said, I find it enjoyable after getting used to the controls. Worse than the original, but the story alone makes it better than 90% of the dross on the market.

[rajpoot]

the inventory and quick slots were obviously designed with a console in mind

I haven't seen a statement I disagree more with.
This is one game that was made for the PC. PC users also use quickslots. It is a relatively recent trend but quite a few 'PC-first' games have had them.

[CrossLOPER]

I haven't seen a statement I disagree more with.
This is one game that was made for the PC. PC users also use quickslots. It is a relatively recent trend but quite a few 'PC-first' games have had them.
Right, which is why I have to change modes to drink potions, signs, and fighting styles, which actually resulted in a VERY useful fighting style being removed entirely(group). The only possible reason they could have had for this is if they were designing the game for a controller that had less buttons than a keyboard. Also, the snap-to-opponent targeting system SCREAM game pad. Why can't I use the mouse? It worked perfectly well in the first game. It's a clear reverse port. I have never actually seen anything like this. The fact that they are releasing the game for PS3 and XBOX360 lend credence to this.

[rajpoot]

The combat overhaul is (if my memory serves me correctly) something most PC users liked. Simpler heavy and light attacks with signs thrown in makes for far far more fluid combat than the cumbersome multiple styles of the original did.
And by what I know the, snap-to-opponent system (while it is a characteristic of the console based games), is required, since it allows seamless movement from one opponent to other. Had the whole combat system been slower, then probably it wouldn't have been required (think M&B) but Witcher 2 is quite fast and more often than not there's more than one enemy to face. Turning around slowly, aiming at the enemy and then striking wouldn't have worked well.

[CrossLOPER]

If by "fluid" you mean Diablo mashing the mouse buttons until the thing in front of you dies or doing endless rolly-pollies around around multiple enemies because I can't stun them in any other way except by spamming Quen, then yes, it is really "fluid". All that is missing is chest-high walls with matching Velcro attachments for the strap on my spine.

[rajpoot]

Unless you played the game on an easy difficulty level, button mashing and spamming signs won't get you far.
And anyway, even on easy difficulty level, button mashing, as opposed to Witcher's what? Timed clicking?

Make any half way decent sword fighting game out there faster, and it everything basically boils down to mashing the button.

[CrossLOPER]

Unless you played the game on an easy difficulty level, button mashing and spamming signs won't get you far.
And anyway, even on easy difficulty level, button mashing, as opposed to Witcher's what? Timed clicking?
It's far more engaging than button mashing. Also, I tended to switch styles frequently in larger fights. After getting better armor and binging Swallow and Rook, the game became pretty easy even on hard. It's not like the AI becomes more coordinated, it just does more damage.


Make any half way decent sword fighting game out there faster, and it everything basically boils down to mashing the button.
The battle system is not smoother. They removed features which gave it more possibilities besides rolling around the enemies like a hyperactive child.

[rajpoot]

What?

Edit: All right I see now you've just missed two quote tags.

Anyway it's a matter of personal preference I think, as to what one finds more engaging. For instance I loath the faster combat in Dragon Age 2 whose predecessor was a pure point and click RPG. At the same time I like the faster (and in my eyes smoother :tongue:) combat of Witcher 2, because I felt it was more like an action game, and it gave me more 'direct' control over my character's attacks and blocks....

Each man to his own :shrug: