Gamers and their unreasonable disdain for the first Witcher game

[Therumancer]

Since Witcher 3 is right around the corner, many a gamers decide to pick up the previous Witcher games and beat them before the third one releases. Because of that more often than not you can see forum threads and whatnot entitled "Which The Witcher game should I start with?" or something similar. Every time I see such a thred, 99% of the answers say they should start with Witcher 2 cause Witcher 1 is awful. Why do people think so and why is Witcher 2 preferred so much over the first one to the point where most of the people don't even care they are starting a story-driven game from the middle? Also, why do they think the first Witcher is "good, but not great" at best and should be avoided in the first place? Seriously, enlighten me cause I don't understand.

I suspect Yahtzee made it "cool" to bash the first Witcher game. Overall it's not bad for what it is, albeit it's very story intensive and if your not into that your not going to appreciate it. That and it does take a certain amount of investment where instead of just say running through the storyline your going to have to do things like get a cycle going where you spend days farming money by fistfighting, running a circuit of dice poker players (and saving and reloading) and similar things. Not to mention it includes some content which can be missed, as your not directly lead to him a lot of people miss "The King's Huntsman" in the first part of the game and thus never turn in the special trophies for him, not realizing this is such a person until you meet him in other other chapters in a more central location. If you don't turn in all the trophies you miss out on the best weapon in the game, and one which also carries over into Witcher 2 if I remember. This managed to seriously slot some people off apparently.

The first Witcher game also had something of a censorship scandal, given that a cut version of it, with the sex scenes and trading cards were removed from the game for western release. A lot of people skipped it, unless like me they could import the uncut version from the UK, later though the content was restored into a director's cut version. That said because of the scandal even if the other games have the sex stuff, SJWs like to pick on the first one because that was the game that was successfully stopped for being "sexist" for a time... in this case sexism being that Geralt acts like other Conan-inspired dark fantasy characters and runs around and bangs every half way decent looking woman he can manage to, even when he has a love interest. There are so many women that Geralt can sleep with that it's pretty much an unofficial challenge in the game to collect all the soft porn cards to prove how many notches you put in his bedpost. Juvenile yes, but it's actually kind of fun, and truthfully I've never heard many actual women complain about it (indeed my stepmother is a huge fan of these games), it's also genera appropriate given the whole vibe they are going for, given that Geralt seems to be a very "Conan Like" figure within his own world, indeed Geralt and Conan would probably be neck and neck for the gold if someone was to ever make whoring an Olympic event.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

I tried playing both Witcher games. They just never grabbed me. The combat in both games is what did it I think. It felt clunky, I guess?

Also, I really wish people would stop using "it gets really good 8 hours in" as a reason I should give a game a chance. I don't want to slog through a swamp of shit to get to a somewhat grassier field on the other side when theres a field right there without the swamp.

 

[Bat Vader]

It has been a few years since I first and last played the first Witcher game but one of the things that makes it stick out heavily was all the back tracking I had to do. It wasn't in one area but over multiple instances which was the annoying thing. The combat didn't bother me all that much but I can never play it again.

 

[Fallow]

I think it was a solid RPG. There certainly were flaws (rythmic combat, and Swallow was waaaay too potent), but overall the game was fresh when the remastered version arrived. I liked the story (though I still don't know how chapter 1 ties into anything at all), I liked the characters, I even liked the sex cards.

TW2 on the other hand was a masterpiece (when the remastered version arrived), improving on the first in every possible way. Perhaps that is also why so many supposedly recommend it as a starting point?

Personally, for anyone over 25, I would recommend starting with the first game.

 

[GladiatorUA]

It was ok. The combat is passable. It's certainly better than low quality attempt at better action combat.

The story is good... until you read the books. Too much was ripped off from the Witcher Saga. And I'm not talking about references or plot rooted in saga's events. Some names are copied from the books without any reason. You meet people with the same exact name as minor Nilfgardian nobles, who might also be dead and have no business in this part of the world anyway. But that's nothing compared to "striga" and "source-boy". They basically rip off two most well known Witcher stories. Ok, fine, I can forgive striga. That part was lazy, but it was plausible. The "source-boy" was not. Ciri is the "source" and there is very little random about her having this power. And yet, this random boy with the same power appears. There is also a stand alone scenario that moves another short story to another location. Too many times to be just inspirations. Lazy writing that tramples all over the lore. But other than that, story is fine.

Go read the books. They are quite good. Start from The Last Wish(chronologically it's the first one, published second), then The Sword of Destiny(chronologically second, published first) will be released in English in May. Both contain short stories that set up the saga. Three out of five books of the Saga have been translated to English so far. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher more info.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

The combat system is bad. Pretty much just clicking in a specific rythm and everything goes down extremely easy.

Yet the people who think so probably have fun of their life playing games like Diablo and Torchlight.

Actually, I hate playing hack&slash games like those you mentioned and hated TW1's combat for that reason.

So it's not difficult to explain why for me.

I won't say that it's a bad game, nor have I noticed a large number of people saying that it is really. Witcher fanboys trolling other upcoming RPG's like Pillars of Eternity are a much bigger nuisance imo.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Only played Witcher 2 - which I thought was one of the best RPG's of last gen - and I'm struggling to finish an LP by one of my favourite LP'ers of the first game, and it's put me off ever actually wanting to play the damn thing. Subjective is as subjective does, sure, but, man, Witcher 1's a weird, ugly looking mess.

As someone else said, it's a mixed bag on the writing, but for me the utterly awful, stilted presentation and peculiar loops you end up in with conversations outweigh the good. Yes, it has its moments of unexpected wit and intelligence, which recall Witcher 2's quality and polish, but immersive or satisfying it ain't (often having dialogue kick you from conversation, forcing you to endure the greetings again just you finish your questions).

The combat? As I've not played it, it's tricky to judge, but it looks absolutely terrible. And I mean that in two ways; its design as something akin to a QTE (I think the 'combo' system is just plain bad design), and the animations... I mean, backflips in the middle of combat with a longsword as an attack? In a supposedly 'grounded' medieval fantasy world? Yeah, just no...

Re the world: in some ways it's nicely gritty and well realised, but it's certainly no looker (technically), and Geralt's dopey run animations make everything seem to float by - there's very little sense of weight to anything (that absolutely goes for the anemic combat, too). Geralt not being able to hop down or up ledges or small inclines in the wilds would also get annoying (and helps break immersion).

As for the story? This is very subjective, but I've found it just plain boring so far (currently at Chapter 4), and am hoping it kicks into gear at some point before the end. Witcher 2 had focus, felt like it simply had more plot, and moved along at a fair rate. Witcher 1 simply meanders.

...as for Triss: I've not played 2 for a few years, now, but was she always this irritating and poorly voiced? I remember finding her quite compelling in TW2, but here she's just finicky and deeply unlikable.

Throw in the cringe worthy sex scenes and cards, and I think Witcher 1 gets the reputation it seemingly deserves. It's making me question whether my perception of TW2 is skewed by time, or not (I'll be replaying TW2 after this LP finishes, and honestly, I'm not looking forward to it just in case TW1 colours it).

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

As for the story? This is very subjective, but I've found it just plain boring so far (currently at Chapter 4), and am hoping it kicks into gear at some point before the end. Witcher 2 had focus, felt like it simply had more plot, and moved along at a fair rate. Witcher 1 simply meanders.

The story as it is doesn't really pick up until near the end of Chapter 4 (that's the one with the "nice" village, the young kid and the spirit of a dead bride, right?) and then plays itself out pretty quickly. I will admit that it has been something like 6 years since I last played the game, but everything up until the giant conflict sparks is just filler. The story then resolves itself rather quickly but with a rather memorable, if not entirely obvious, twist.

...as for Triss: I've not played 2 for a few years, now, but was she always this irritating and poorly voiced? I remember finding her quite compelling in TW2, but here she's just a finicky and deeply unlikable.

Triss is much better realized in 2. Her actions in 1 made me hate her, whereas 2 quickly redeemed her in my eyes by making her more than a stilted, poorly voiced ***** that continuously seemed to fuck Geralt over, while claiming to care for him. In 2 she has an actual personality and her relation to Geralt is far more focused and believable.

Throw in the cringe worthy sex scenes and cards, and I think Witcher 1 gets the reputation it seemingly deserves. It's making me question whether my perception of TW2 is skewed by time, or not (I'll be replaying TW2 after this LP finishes, and honestly, I'm not looking forward to it just in case TW1 colours it).

Your perception of TW2 is most likely not skewered. CDProjektRed made a good show of potential in the Witcher, but they also failed to live up to it in most respects, all of which you have outlined in your post. TW2 was CDPR stepping up and proving that they could live up to that potential by delivering a far better game, that simply outshone its' predecessor in all respects and rectified all the problems of the first game. Which is why I am optimistic of where TW3 is going.

 

[happyninja42]

Well we've had this thread before, where we went into pretty significant detail about why we don't like it. But I'll try and restate it here. I can't speak on Witcher 2, as I never played it, because Witcher 1 bored me to tears so quickly it just wasn't funny. I spent a few hours of gameplay, listening to the terrible voice acting, the mumbling, amnesia-stricken protagonist, his brooding demeanor, running around doing fetch quests in a town literally designed like a race track, and just thought. "Why am I doing this stuff? It's boring, I'm bored, this game has zero tension and development to it."

The combat system was terrible and clunky, the plot was cliched to the eyeballs, the protagonist was straight out of Grim and Gravely White dude general casting, and the quests became tedious and repetitive. The first time I walked past those shrines when the demon dogs pop out, it was a bit of a jump scare. By the 30th time I was running past them doing other quests, they became an annoyance. The "pussy cards" thing was silly, and detracted from whatever type of plot there was, the writing was very dull, and overall, it was just a bad game.

It wasn't fun, it didn't catch my interest, and playing it felt more tedious and like a chore, than something that was actually fun. I never played 2 because after speaking to some people I know who've played both, they were like "if you don't like those things about Witcher 1, then you probably won't like 2 either, as it's got a lot of the same bad points." So I never played it. I own both because I bought them during that halloween steam sale last year for like 10 bucks total or something, but I uninstalled them after like 2 days.

 

[Darks63]

I was too mmoish for my tastes. Too many collect X from Y with the added annoyance of forcing me to research Y before I could collect X.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

Finished Witcher 1 twice (second time was enhanced version, in Polish dialogue which was much better voice acting). Although I loved it I can totally understand why people have a hard time keeping on it. I actually put it down the first time I played thinking it was pretty dull. But I gave it another chance and now it's one of my favourite RPG's ever. Sill yet to finish Witcher 2 second time around, I'll say the mechanics and gameplay in Witcher 2 are much better but the story in Witcher 1 had me more reeled in.

I'd say people suggest Witcher 2 more often as a starting point coz it get's into it quicker, still unforgivingly hard at the start though damn.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

The story as it is doesn't really pick up until near the end of Chapter 4 (that's the one with the "nice" village, the young kid and the spirit of a dead bride, right?) and then plays itself out pretty quickly.

Yeah, that's the one. On this note, I can say as an LP it's even worse. Were I playing the game, I'd appreciate the change in scenery, at least. Although why the pacing and story takes such a quick kick to the knees I have no idea.

Your perception of TW2 is most likely not skewered. CDProjektRed made a good show of potential in the Witcher, but they also failed to live up to it in most respects, all of which you have outlined in your post. TW2 was CDPR stepping up and proving that they could live up to that potential by delivering a far better game, that simply outshone its' predecessor in all respects and rectified all the problems of the first game. Which is why I am optimistic of where TW3 is going.

Good to hear, I guess (re perception). Triss, in particular, was so odd; 'Hey, it's Triss! She was awesome, and had a great design! And now she's--- a snide, generic seeming NPC who I want to set on fire?'.

But yes, if my memory of 2 isn't off, then CDProjekt really have demonstrated a remarkable ability to learn and improve on ideas (and presentation), which may bode exceptionally well for 3.

 

[ffronw]

For me, the big thing about The Witcher was that it looked, felt, and played like a game that a bunch of developers made on a less-than-large budget, which is exactly what it was. It was CDProjekt RED's coming-out party, and it had all the hallmarks of a game that was more of a labor of love than a labor of marketing research.

Yes, the combat system was clunky. Yes, the story took forever to get going. Yes, it was buggy, especially early on. But all of that stuff kind of went to the wayside for me for a couple of specific reasons.

1. I loved the setting, the characters, and the story. The Witcher books are an entertaining set of stories, and the game really captured the essence of those books. The characters are exactly what you'd expect, and you can buy into the world fairly easily.

2. It didn't hamstring itself for the sake of convenience. Yes, I know that some pople will say that it should, but CDP knew what game they wanted to make, and they went and made it. Sure, some focus group might have told them that they should tone down potion toxicity, or make potions more immediate and require less preparation, but that wasn't the game they wanted to make. CDP made the game they wanted to make, and you could tell how much they put into it watching them talk about it. That came through when you played the game, and for one appreciated it.

All that said, I can certainly see why someone might not like the first game. It's an acquired taste, like someone else said earlier. Much like a great craft beer, The Witcher has layers and nuances that can appeal to many different tastes.

 

[Cette]

Pretty simple really. The plot, setting and characters weren't enough to keep a me interested past the obtuse to terrible voice acting, graphics ,combat,and menus. Doubly so when by act 3 I was till not sure why I should care about any of these people or events.

The only things in the setting that seemed even vaguely unique were the witchers themselves and the one we're following may be the least interesting man on earth. If they hadn't pulled the amnesia bit at the beginning and maybe used his prior relationships to make one have something to grab onto and care about that might have been salvageable. But as is even Geralt doesn't have a reason to care.

And the combat just the terrible terrible combat. Not skilled based enough to please people who want something deep nor spammy enough for the hack and slash crowd.

Keep meaning to try the second one as I hear at the least the combat and presentation get cleaned up and the plot actually moves.

 

[Seishisha]

Ah the witcher, a game i knew nothing about going into and bought it based pretty much entirly on the box's description. I can't say it was the best game ever made, and i'll admit when i played it i was disapointed but only because i could see somthing glinting every now and then, a promise of much better game that never seemed to fully emerge.

Despite it's awful and stupidly easy combat, the setting and world was actualy pretty damn interesting, the way you could intereact with people and realy change somthing important to the story was ambitious. For all the good quests however it had a share of boring tedious ones aswell, especialy in the early game when you as a player and geralt as a character had absolutly no knowledge of the enviroment or monsters. To give the dev's credit this is explained away with amnesia in geralt's back story but the justification in the narrative doesnt make up for the clumsiness and straight up obfucsation of important mechanics in the game.

The pacing was realy all over the place aswell, some area's could be blitzed through and others were full of back tracking, im sure anyone who played remembers the marsh/swamp area, not only was it big but all the quest's location were pretty much at opposite ends. Lots of back and forth to get everything done, compared to the ending sequence in the mountains which was very linear.

The voice acting was pretty damn bad atfirst aswell, though this was later patched out and replaced with somthing more acceptable, this is a relative term though it was still horrid in parts.

It was a game that i played through once, all the little niggle's that built up throughout the experiance put me off ever playing it again.

The experiance was still pretty fresh in my mind around the time Witcher 2 was announced and i remember the skeptacism i had about it back then. After some actual footage came out though i could see the improvements and decidied to visit the world a second time round.

Witcher 2 felt like a different game, it felt like it was made by a different studio. The dev's really did improve pretty much all of the bad elements that hamstrung the first game. Better dialog and voice acting, nicer combat that actualy represented a decent challenge on the harder settings, better enviroment design having far more landmarks making navigation easier. To top it all no more stupid amnesia hindering your action's as a player, allowing you full control right from the get go.

The introduction was handled much better and a proper tutorial was added in aswell. Though i admit during the opening castle assault section in certain area's the combat suddenly spikes in difficulty, if your not prepared you'll proably die the first couple of times. As a side note, fuck that QTE dragon section on the bridge, i failed that so many times because apparently i didn't hammer the mouse hard enough to duck.

Speaking of QTE's i remember at the time people complaining alot about them so i was expecting somthing very pervasive to the game design, aside from the afformentioned dragon section, a couple of boss battles and the bare knuckle boxing which is mostly optional. I never had a problem with the QTE's, the section of gameplay using them were pretty short and it was by no means the main focus of combat or interaction in the game.

The stealth mechanics were very poorly implemented though they probably shouldn't have been put in at all, fortunatly you only have to use them a couple of times in the early game and it never crops up again. The result of failing stealth is also fortunatly not severe and relativly organic, get spotted by a gaurd he attacks you rather than giving you a game over. This forgiving system is a good thing because failure is pretty much inevitable, it takes one mistake to be noticed and complete perfection to avoid detection.

Some of the quests were a little cryptic finding monster nest's in itself can be a challenge, they tend to blend into the enviroment almost too well but atleast this makes some sense. Finding out you need a very specific type of bomb to blow them up however is just needless busywork.

The way the game toy's with your expectations during some quests is great aswell, early on you can 'save' an elf lady being harrased by soldier's. They claim she was the last person seen with their missing commrades. You can offer to investigate and then either tell the truth or lie about what you find. Telling porky pies however does not end as i thought it would the first time round. From that point on i treated all potential quests with more skepticism and caution.

The way the story branches off allowing two very different midgame chapter's depending on who you chose to assist was a nice touch and gave me reason to replay the game multiple times. Speaking of branching there are multiple quests that simply resolve themselves depending on if you act or not, every playthrough will result in some missed opportunites because of your actions. This realy cememted for me the importance of my descions upto that point.

Overall i much prefer witcher 2, i spent far more time playing and replaying it than the original. Although i never realy hated the original like some people did, i never loved it either so for me atleast the sequel was vastly superior. Although i can only speak for myself and my own experiances i would imagine many people who played both games feel the same way, which could explain alot of the vitriol the first witcher receives.

Sorry for the overly long ramble of a post.

 

[endtherapture]

For me, the big thing about The Witcher was that it looked, felt, and played like a game that a bunch of developers made on a less-than-large budget, which is exactly what it was. It was CDProjekt RED's coming-out party, and it had all the hallmarks of a game that was more of a labor of love than a labor of marketing research.

Yes, the combat system was clunky. Yes, the story took forever to get going. Yes, it was buggy, especially early on. But all of that stuff kind of went to the wayside for me for a couple of specific reasons.

1. I loved the setting, the characters, and the story. The Witcher books are an entertaining set of stories, and the game really captured the essence of those books. The characters are exactly what you'd expect, and you can buy into the world fairly easily.

2. It didn't hamstring itself for the sake of convenience. Yes, I know that some pople will say that it should, but CDP knew what game they wanted to make, and they went and made it. Sure, some focus group might have told them that they should tone down potion toxicity, or make potions more immediate and require less preparation, but that wasn't the game they wanted to make. CDP made the game they wanted to make, and you could tell how much they put into it watching them talk about it. That came through when you played the game, and for one appreciated it.

All that said, I can certainly see why someone might not like the first game. It's an acquired taste, like someone else said earlier. Much like a great craft beer, The Witcher has layers and nuances that can appeal to many different tastes.

Great post. The game is a rough diamond and a labour of love very much true to its source material, and certainly not designed by a focus group or committee like many other games currently, which is why it is so special, and why it rubs a lot of people up the wrong way (who frankly just don't understand what it is supposed to be I think)