I think a lot of gamers have just gotten used to modern games holding their hands every step of the way.RhombusHatesYou said:
What do you have against The Witcher series?
- Thread starter endtherapture
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My problem is I don't want to play TW2 until I beat the first one, but I can't get into the first one.
It starts off so slow I just can't do it. I just don't care about what's happening. The quests have you slowly walking around this shithole of a town for like 6 hours and I just don't want to be there.
I hear it gets better after that, but I can't get to after that.
It starts off so slow I just can't do it. I just don't care about what's happening. The quests have you slowly walking around this shithole of a town for like 6 hours and I just don't want to be there.
I hear it gets better after that, but I can't get to after that.
Because of the lore. I like that potions are a bit different in this game and have massive changes to the biology of your characters body, so Geralt needs time to rest and prepare his body for sticking what is essentially a fuck ton of chemical into his system (that fucks him up, due to the toxicity of the herbs and alcohol in the potions). It's not hard to know when you'll be heading into battle. Some stuff is sprung on you, and you need to adapt, but most of the time it's best to pop a Swallow potion whenever you head out of town or into a cave or anywhere monsters might be.Casual Shinji said:
Same sort of thing as Dark Souls, the game rewards preparation and thinking ahead of time.
I'm sorry, but 40 hours with that kind of combat is in no way tempting.Gundam GP01 said:
I reinstalled it just now to give a more accurate description of why I don't like it.
First of all the camera is way too close for a 3rd person view. Second is that his attacks are far too weak once you get a good number of foes on the battlefield, as whenever you try to combo vs one of them, the others just stops you.
1v1 is just fine, but the moment you have 3 or more it just get's very frustrating as you have no good way to deal with them all. Even worse if one of them is ranged.
Without a real way to defend myself other than parry, I spend the majority of the fight just running around waiting for vigor so I can stun them or something. Pure sword fighting does not seem to work, at least not in the beginning.
Again, not having a simple little tooltip or anything on the signs is just bad design.
Also, if the combat is not the main point of the game, it should be something clean and simple.
Maybe it's unfair to ask for it to be as good as something like the Souls games, but at least they don't force me to watch a unskippable cutscene every time I die and have to do it again.
The story might be good, but the combat part is a deal breaker for me.
You need to use your signs to crowd control. It's appealing to just chuck Igni at enemies to wear down their health, but 3 or the 5 signs are meant to crowd control when fighting multiple enemies. The Yrden sign sets down a trap that will stun and immobilise an enemy for a short time, rooting them in place and taking them out of combat for a short while. The Axii sign charms an enemy to fight on your side, which takes another one out of combat, possibly even tying up another few enemies in combat. Aard can stun an enemy and let you get an instant kill or some time to deal with another enemy. The Quen sign is a shield that allows you defend yourself without using parry.Rattja said:
Also all the signs are explained in the Journal section of the game. It's also not hard to experiment against enemies and just see what happens. You're not thrown into all-or-nothing combat straight into the game.
Also the cutscenes are not unskippable, just spam A or left click to skip the cutscene and reload straight away. The Souls series are a much bigger time sink because you have to RUN back to where you died which could often waste 10 minutes or more, as opposed to just a tiny cut scene.
I wanted to like the Witcher but I found the combat lacklustre and the tutorial section severely lacking. I've just started the second one now and I'm loving the shit out of it. About the only thing I miss from the first game is the panther (?) style or whatever the style that swept your sword around you for crowd control was called. The story is great too, as is most of the voice acting and the script, I've had a soft spot for Geralt ever since reading the books but he's such a cocky shit in this game it's unreal, he really wears his reputation.
I never played too much with the signs myself, I always played either the combat path or alchemy path with very few skill points going into magic. Alchemy was really powerful especially late game - one of the things I felt was lackluster was how powerful Gerald felt in the late game with Alchemy and Combat tree. I just felt very overpowered, didn't need to use dodge roll at all especially when I always had potions on within any of the battles. I guess only the Gargoyles and hidden boss felt like somewhat a challenge since two hits would still kill you. I remember the Dragon being easy, compared to the tutorial where two knights were more than enough to really challenge you.
It was fun for me, just wish there was more of a challenge in the end.
It was fun for me, just wish there was more of a challenge in the end.
I think Witcher 2 is a very well made game but for some reason I have trouble getting into it. I'm not sure if it's because the story is too political or if it's because it's in third person. I have a great deal of trouble playing 3D games that aren't in first person.
Look I understand how the signs work, I just don't like the way they work. Combined with the UI it just feels awkward and clunky to me.endtherapture said:
Basically the way the game handles just feels so wrong to me. The question was what I had against the series, and that is my reason, it does not feel right. It's annoying to play, and it makes me frustrated.
Nothing. The Witcher is a good series that deserves the critical acclimation and financial results it has earned.
The Witcher is fine by my book.
The Witcher is fine by my book.
Well I only played the first game, but I dislike it because I found it boring and just couldn't get into it. Also the erotic collectible card game was kind of a turn off for me.
Not enough cocks.
Coming from a straight male here but seriously there's (compared to most games) a lot of observation of the female human body but not a single penis. Like, Geralt and Triss wake up, Triss is all naked and sprawling about but Geralt has his trousers on. C'mon guys, if you're gonna go for the realism thing at least have someone whip it out occasionally.
Coming from a straight male here but seriously there's (compared to most games) a lot of observation of the female human body but not a single penis. Like, Geralt and Triss wake up, Triss is all naked and sprawling about but Geralt has his trousers on. C'mon guys, if you're gonna go for the realism thing at least have someone whip it out occasionally.
I don't think I've ever seen lips either.hazabaza1 said:
Nothing. I really enjoyed the series. The first one was...different, but I enjoyed my time with it, and even plan to replay it once I finish reading the books. Love the atmosphere, Geralt's voice actor, and the graphics on the second one are superb. Combat is great, though things like alternate weapons and potions became kinda useless later on in 2.
My criticisms would be, the world should be more open. Withcer 2, though superb, kinda felt railroady, which kinda doesn't make sense with those kinda games. Luckily, Witcher 3 is fixing that. Building a new PC just for that.
Yeah, the village town and swamp sections of W1 are a massive pain. I would pick up all of the fetch quests, talk to everyone, and then head to the big bland outdoors, turn on a podcast, and wade through baddies until I could turn them all in. The monotony was a little more bearable, but still annoying. It doesn't help that the prologue section is really weak overall (the swamp is semi redeemable by virtue of having a lot of little interactions and different people to meet in there), and is 5-6 hours of disjointed padding to get you inside the city.Weaver said:
Despite those zones, I still loved the Witcher 1. I thought the writing was compelling enough (I found the explanation of second-class dwarves and elves much more believable and better handled than DA), and the story quests were fun. The main thread jumbled itself up a few times, but the characters were interesting enough more for me to finish it happily. I also liked how going neutral was a difficult, but possible course, rather than the standard Good v. Evil scale. Some of the branching quests and willingness to let the player just mess around reminded me of older top-down RPGs, specifically Shani's investigation in Chapter 2. Also, the ending chapter and sequence were enjoyable enough, and felt like a good payoff. While you still slogged through level 2 drowners, killing a dozen of them in one blow was really satisfying, and made me feel like a badass monster slayer.
Sadly, haven't gotten too far into Witcher 2, but hoping to change that later this month.
Funnily enough, you can customize your character in COD:AW, but limited to preset face and randomized equipment that you get fromsonofliber said:
OT:
Dismissing the argument of some people wanting character creation isn't fair. True, the game never claims to have character creation, but the thread was created as "What do you have against The Witcher." Some people really like narrative driven fantasy RPGs, picked up the Witcher, and realized that they can't get behind the foreign entity they're controlling. That's okay. Geralt isn't exactly a great guy from the start, and you have to put a lot of effort turning him into a more upstanding person if that's what you want (And you still have to use Geralt's voice and Geralt's[/s] face).
The back of the box only mentions a 40+ long game, chaos gripping the land, and assassinations. The closest it gets to mentioning a dark, medieval story is the "narrative for mature players" line. At least WH40K starts with "In the grim darkness of the 41st millenium..." line.
The sexist argument I still get annoyed by (it is the medieval ages after all, and the game quickly sets you in a "realistic" fantasy similar to Westros in the first hour), but that type of dialogue and underlying tension can really turn people off of a game.
Don't get me wrong, I love my time in the games, but people might have picked it up expecting a certain fantasy experience. And it's not that type of game, but that doesn't mean its a good one for them. And the thread was written with the intent of bringing out why people dislike the series.
TL;DR - Different people dislike different things.
[quote="SajuukKhar" post="9.866889.21678207" Witcher 1 also had abysmal..... well..... pretty much everything mechanics wise, especially the combat, the combat was terrible. Witcher 2 was miles better, but it still felt really clunky.
eyond that, I found the world to be pretty generic and uninteresting overall. there was no part of the lore that really made me go "wow, this is something I've only ever seen here and is a defining characteristic of this series".
Witcher was just boring all around.[/quote]
I myself personally agree with OP, I only played Witcher 1 before laughing at its mechanics and going over to 2. Maybe I'll watch the cutscenes one day to get an idea of the game's storyline.
Now, as for what I've quoted, I agree with the first point. Witcher 2's difficulty was excessive, and I find it mostly had to do with the obtuseness of certain side missions - particularly the hunting ones. I think I spent three or four hours trying to find all the nekker nests before saying, "Fuck it," and moving on. But the difficulty was compounded not by the poorness of the mechanics - which I myself loved in their entirety - but by the bloody controls! They were great but using a controller is suicide. I played the PC version and the Xbox version, using a controller in each for sake of familiarity, but I found myself constantly getting slaughtered because I couldn't turn or move quickly enough to keep myself alive. With KB&M, all that faded away, and combat went from being a frustrating slog to a Souls-esque learning experience which I quite enjoyed, even if I never fully got the hang of it.
As for the lore, this is where I start to disagree. I felt Witcher did a great job of establishing lore but unfortunately was too rapt in gameplay to really get into it. What I did get into was really interesting to me, and perhaps it was generic, but its execution was masterful IMO and that's where the world's originality came from.
Edit: Now that I think about it, I feel like the potion system was original and well-woven into the world through its very unique lore. Witchers themselves, yeah, quite generic - I remember constantly thinking of Grey Wardens - but here, execution is masterful as well.
eyond that, I found the world to be pretty generic and uninteresting overall. there was no part of the lore that really made me go "wow, this is something I've only ever seen here and is a defining characteristic of this series".
Witcher was just boring all around.[/quote]
I myself personally agree with OP, I only played Witcher 1 before laughing at its mechanics and going over to 2. Maybe I'll watch the cutscenes one day to get an idea of the game's storyline.
Now, as for what I've quoted, I agree with the first point. Witcher 2's difficulty was excessive, and I find it mostly had to do with the obtuseness of certain side missions - particularly the hunting ones. I think I spent three or four hours trying to find all the nekker nests before saying, "Fuck it," and moving on. But the difficulty was compounded not by the poorness of the mechanics - which I myself loved in their entirety - but by the bloody controls! They were great but using a controller is suicide. I played the PC version and the Xbox version, using a controller in each for sake of familiarity, but I found myself constantly getting slaughtered because I couldn't turn or move quickly enough to keep myself alive. With KB&M, all that faded away, and combat went from being a frustrating slog to a Souls-esque learning experience which I quite enjoyed, even if I never fully got the hang of it.
As for the lore, this is where I start to disagree. I felt Witcher did a great job of establishing lore but unfortunately was too rapt in gameplay to really get into it. What I did get into was really interesting to me, and perhaps it was generic, but its execution was masterful IMO and that's where the world's originality came from.
Edit: Now that I think about it, I feel like the potion system was original and well-woven into the world through its very unique lore. Witchers themselves, yeah, quite generic - I remember constantly thinking of Grey Wardens - but here, execution is masterful as well.
Witcher franchise is one of my favorite RPG's of all time to be perfectly honest.
I played both games at least 5 times because I wanted to see where the different decisions will take me. I liked the choice & consequence system a lot and especially the morality in the game is never black and white but gray and you have to choose between the lesser evil or greater evil in some cases..neither with a good outcome.
I enjoyed the combat in Witcher 1 (shocker I know), because if you people actually payed attention to the dialogue (especially the one where Eskel or Lambert talks about the three stances) you would of known that Witcher's fighting style are quite unique and it takes a certain rhythm and flow with the pirouettes dodges and parries..hence why the combat is similar to a rhythm game. Witcher 2 changed that and myself am not actually relieved they did that..it was an unique combat style..W2 combat turned into a "roll and hit" tactic on higher difficulties.
I've also started reading all the Witcher books and I find the world and backstory of all these characters very fascinating and I would recommend reading them all (there are fan translated ones to the other 5 novels that haven't been licensed yet).
I find refreshing to see that they (CDPR) are the only ones who have managed to create a mature world like it used to be in the past where racism, sleeping with wenches, swearing and being religious to the point of fanaticism all hit home.
I'm sick and tired of this prudish developers (mostly from US) being afraid of showing off nudity in general...it's unbecoming how the ratio of violence vs nudity is so high on the former but God forbid the internet might implode because a naked breast is shown.
If I get gore in my mature game nudity shouldn't be censored or fade to black in sex scenes..simple as that.
I played both games at least 5 times because I wanted to see where the different decisions will take me. I liked the choice & consequence system a lot and especially the morality in the game is never black and white but gray and you have to choose between the lesser evil or greater evil in some cases..neither with a good outcome.
I enjoyed the combat in Witcher 1 (shocker I know), because if you people actually payed attention to the dialogue (especially the one where Eskel or Lambert talks about the three stances) you would of known that Witcher's fighting style are quite unique and it takes a certain rhythm and flow with the pirouettes dodges and parries..hence why the combat is similar to a rhythm game. Witcher 2 changed that and myself am not actually relieved they did that..it was an unique combat style..W2 combat turned into a "roll and hit" tactic on higher difficulties.
I've also started reading all the Witcher books and I find the world and backstory of all these characters very fascinating and I would recommend reading them all (there are fan translated ones to the other 5 novels that haven't been licensed yet).
I find refreshing to see that they (CDPR) are the only ones who have managed to create a mature world like it used to be in the past where racism, sleeping with wenches, swearing and being religious to the point of fanaticism all hit home.
I'm sick and tired of this prudish developers (mostly from US) being afraid of showing off nudity in general...it's unbecoming how the ratio of violence vs nudity is so high on the former but God forbid the internet might implode because a naked breast is shown.
If I get gore in my mature game nudity shouldn't be censored or fade to black in sex scenes..simple as that.
The item grinding for the ulti-gear in Witcher 2 was annoying. Also I felt that the cutscene ulti-skills were bugged. I kept getting the Wrong cutscene for some of them.
I dislike that I suck at the combat. I put the game away after the first fight with the kingslayer dude.