The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings - Pleasantly surprised.

[ElectroJosh]

I am really enjoying the game so far.

I am not sure if Geralt is a true Mary-Sue character (but I understand why some would argue he is in the games). If Geralt is a true Mary-Sue that makes him very similar to a crap load of video game protagonists already out there (although Mary-Sue is not as common as the blank slate character).

The Oblivion comparison strikes me as strange because I found Oblivion to be quite weak (plot, world, characters, gameplay - pretty much everything) which is part of the reason I am not interested in Skyrim. The Witcher 2 just looks better than Olivion IMO - I am not sure if the graphics are "better" but the overall artistic choices are excellent compared to Oblivion's "look at our first attempt to make a game in High Def".

I found the combat difficult at first but after getting used it became fun. I don't think it is a matter of luck as, once I figured some key mechanics, I managed to fight without as many problems.

 

[-Seraph-]

Axil does damage in the sense that it's hella disruptive and the MC'd mob attacks the others, doing damage to them. The only damaging sign (Directly) is Igni, so if they just meant Igni wouldn't they have put "+4 Igni damage" on the rune rather than "+4 sign damage"?

The game's pretty fuckin long if I'm only level 7 and you finish at 30

Completely happy with its length.

Actually, Aard DOES do damage, and so does Quen. Aard does the least damage out of em all, but it's more for incapacitating enemies and shove em off. Can also lead to finisher moves if you're lucky.

Quen does damage to enemies that hit you, shocks em with lightning bolts and only gets better the more it's upgraded. Quen is fucking beast if you power it up because you can take a good beating and chip away other enemies while dealing with one.

To my knowledge, Yrden is the only one I didn't notice any damage, but it's a trap spell anyways.

I finished the game at lvl34 with Geralt as a mix of Sword and Sign. I had half of the Sign branch and half of the Sword branch with majority of those skills fully powered up. Never bothered with alchemy except for the vitality upgdrade, but the balance of the other two branches made my Geralt pretty beast.

 

[Keava]

A little bit OT: Just finished the game. I knew it was shorter than the first, but damn, it's pretty short overall. The biggest flaw of this game is that it has no climax. It more or less just ends.

While i agree that the ending could be more spectacular, it's pretty hard to fit in with character like Geralt. He is not there to save the world from some ultimate evil like most RPG protagonists. He's just professional monster slayer that happened to be in bad at bad time while pursuing his own agenda. That's probably one of the things that appeals to me the most. Your decisions are more in line of butterfly effect/chaos theory rather than direct effects that would be binary good/evil decisions.

 

[ImprovizoR]

The ending suggests that there will be a sequel or an expansion for the story.

 

[Keava]

Weren't there something like 17 of them? Either way, all the unfinished plot threads would be a suggestion to that, not the ending(-s), but I sincerely doubt you could make a direct sequel without pretty much ignoring the fact that the second game had many choices in terms of whether or not to kill a major character or who to side with (the Roche or Iorveth thing) and invalidating most of the people's decisions.

Not that I'm against a sequel, I just have doubts it can make the choices from the previous game meaningful.

I have a question that comes from this, though. Does anybody know how much the choices from the first game are felt in the second?

Spoiler: Will keep my response in spoiler tag to not annoy people

Whilethere is plenty of choices and possible ending i think it wouldn't be that hard to construct a story that includes them. Keep in mind most of them concern political background. Whenever Anaise stays in Temeria or Redania, is Henselt alive or not, did you finish off Saskia or let her live, is Letho alive or not, did you support Roche or Iorveth, was it Nilfgaardian ambassador that revealed the Sorceresses plot or Geralt and Triss, is Philippa Eilhart alive or dead, etc.

Then you have to consider the fact that Geralt is pretty much mostly interested in regaining his memories and possibly finding Yennefer and/or more about Wild Hunt. Means that Witcher 3 could throw us south into Niflgaard, most likely with the war in the background. Most of those choices will be relevant to the war itself and not so much to Geralt's agenda. It's not really impossible to make those choices apparent and meaningful without having to make an infinite mess of story itself.

As for savegame import, i know some items get imported, apart from that, i have to replay the first part since i lost my savegames and don't want to use someone's else.

 

[Gametek]

Anyone who can miss so much when it is one of the biggest parts of the story and is focused on so heavy really shouldn't even open their mouth about the story.

Weeeey...
A. I have not read the book, I have the first and still to start reading it. And on witcher2 I have still to complete the first act. I know, my collection edition is covered with dust, and my heart cry for that, but I have even to work.

B. I have come reeeeally near to what you said with only two cutscene of that. There is no need to aim your nerd rage to me for that.

 

[ElectroJosh]

Just got to act 2 in the game (I have a full-time job so I don't get a lot of uninterupted play time) and its still going well.

I think this is one of those games that was clearly designed by a team who loved the original stories and set out to make a compelling game. It isn't conventional nor does it feel blandly designed to appeal to the broadest common denominator (which means that some will love it and others will not). I am fine with this approach in gaming as I find too many games (and their sequels) to be retreads of an existing formula.

 

[Hiphophippo]

I spent a few hours with this game today and have to say I'm impressed. The game is...shall we shall, technically a bit buggy. I don't mean New Vegas buggy, just...not polished in it's gameplay. That said though, I thought it was just idle praise people going on about how the game was obviously a labor of love but it really does come through. It's clear the the developers put their heart into this game. So much so that I'm happy to overlook any technical quabbles I might have.

I never got into the first one despite trying hard to do so. This one sucked me in pretty quick though. I'm anxious to see it through to the end.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

I have a question that comes from this, though. Does anybody know how much the choices from the first game are felt in the second?

The most immediate and tangible thing you'll notice is that swords, armor, and a percentage of your ending gold total transfer over. The impact of big decisions (like siding with the Order or the Scoia'tael) will factor into how certain scenarios later play out (whether you'll have to fight or otherwise talk down folks, stuff like that), and choices like saving or killing Adda will be mentioned and referred back too relatively often, with events taking a different turn depending on how you left things in game one.

The small or more "local" stuff though won't really factor into the sequel since the game isn't set in Vizima or its immediate surroundings.