The Witcher 2 - new incredible screenshots**56k Beware**

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"] Did you ever play a PC game in your life? Your post make me think you didn't. You seem to be under impression that PC games are devoid of menus and everything is done through hotkeys. Why would he use hotkeys in a press demonstration anyway? Doesn't make any sense. . It doesn't matter if a game has hotkeys or not, on demonstrations they almost always show the menu selection anyway to actualy let viewer know what was done.Birdy09

No PC-centric game I've played had a console wheel obviosly meant for analogue sticks popping out in your face

In TW1 you could change spells with hotkeys, change stances, even if yod didnt use hotkeys you could just use the mouse pointer to select everything without oppening some stupid sub-menus.

Now all of that is gone because of obvious console design. They may be making a PC version first, but it has nothing to do with 100% PC game, because it's designed with consoles in mind, to be ported when they get all the fans money.

What's the point of putting major console influence on what's supposed to be a 100% PC RPG ?

I'm suprised such a huge discussion was born because of such a minor UI change like a wheel menu.

I'm suprised such a huge discussion was born because of something as irrelevant as a wheel menu.IronBass

I agree, how many pages has this arguement been going on now? Like 15 pages?

Sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad.

I agree, how many pages has this arguement been going on now? Like 15 pages?

Sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad.Ikuto_Tsukiyomi

I'm also suprised that after PC games being so often criticized for being simplifieddue to a console approach, the problem now is that the UI is somehow toocomplicated.

:question:

I'm suprised such a huge discussion was born because ofsuch a minorUI changelike a wheel menu.

IronBass

I'm suprised such a huge discussion was born because ofsuch a minorUI changelike a wheel menu.

IronBass

[QUOTE="Ikuto_Tsukiyomi"]I agree, how many pages has this arguement been going on now? Like 15 pages?

Sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad.IronBass

I'm also suprised that after PC games being so often criticized for being simplifieddue to a console approach, the problem now is that the UI is somehow toocomplicated.

:question:

:? Lets see here, a game has to have million of unnecessary console like sub-menus? How badly the UI is designed has nothing to do with the complexity of the game.See what a mess Oblivion UI is and what a tidy business Morrowind UI is.GeneralShowzer

Then this UI shouldn't be such a big problem, if after all it's not related to the complexity of the game.

But, I couldn't agree more. Sub menus are the devil. How daredevs make us waste500 millisecond going to a secondary screen.

Anyways, if the rumors are true and this hints a console version, good news for everyone :D

I also like how you keep ignoring that crysis had a wheel menu and you're saying its not the same when its EXACTLY the same.

Wheels help MOUSE movements be faster, so you can access things faster with a MOUSE, not necessarily an analog. Just because it works very well on PC and consoles, does not mean it was console-centric.

Temple of Elemental Evil? According to GeneralShowzer It isn't a PC game. :P

Let's be honest, the Witcher 1 wasn't a good game. It's unrealistic to put so many expectations onto a game and make it appear as the second coming of Half-Life when the first game was... none of the aforementioned. It was highly flawed; I have played the game approximately up until I had to conduct an investigation of certain characters and I stoppped playing... again.

The starting area is painfully horrendous. I will admit that Ostagar itself isn't too great either, but you can juggle that problem a bit by switching Origins, whereas the Witcher was completely linear. I myself thought the Outskirs area was somewhat longer than Ostagar too, probably because of the sheer amount of backtracking. I don't understand the hype for a game that was near broken when it was released and with bad writing, I might add.

None of the characters I have met up until that point I considered memorable: truthfully, I had met a great deal of them and I was about to see some of them again. Most origins in Dragon Age, on the contrary, were much more memorable and often with sad endings. Not once have I seen an outstanding character up until the point I stopped playing. What are people expecting out of this game?

It's fine that people are looking for the next RPG. It's fine that other RPG's are getting attention. But all the hype, I believe, is a little unwarranted because -- let's stop pretending, mkay? -- the first game... was not good.

Temple of Elemental Evil? According to GeneralShowzer It isn't a PC game. :P

RyuRanVII

Heh... Black Isle and Troika used both wheels and pocket inventories, yet some people believe those were invented by consoles this generation. Shows how much knowledge of the genre they have:P

But all the hype, I believe, is a little unwarranted because -- let's stop pretending, mkay? -- the first game... was not good.SkyWard20

The first true competitor to The Witcher 2 (mainstream RPG-wise, not graphics) was revealed:

Behold Risen 2: Dark Waters:

Let's be honest, the Witcher 1 wasn't a good game. It's unrealistic to put so many expectations onto a game and make it appear as the second coming of Half-Life when the first game was... none of the aforementioned. It was highly flawed; I have played the game approximately up until I had to conduct an investigation of certain characters and I stoppped playing... again.

The starting area is painfully horrendous. I will admit that Ostagar itself isn't too great either, but you can juggle that problem a bit by switching Origins, whereas the Witcher was completely linear. I myself thought the Outskirs area was somewhat longer than Ostagar too, probably because of the sheer amount of backtracking. I don't understand the hype for a game that was near broken when it was released and with bad writing, I might add.

None of the characters I have met up until that point I considered memorable: truthfully, I had met a great deal of them and I was about to see some of them again. Most origins in Dragon Age, on the contrary, were much more memorable and often with sad endings. Not once have I seen an outstanding character up until the point I stopped playing. What are people expecting out of this game?

It's fine that people are looking for the next RPG. It's fine that other RPG's are getting attention. But all the hype, I believe, is a little unwarranted because -- let's stop pretending, mkay? -- the first game... was not good.

SkyWard20

Temple of Elemental Evil? According to GeneralShowzer It isn't a PC game. :P

RyuRanVII

Let's be honest, the Witcher 1 wasn't a good game. It's unrealistic to put so many expectations onto a game and make it appear as the second coming of Half-Life when the first game was... none of the aforementioned. It was highly flawed; I have played the game approximately up until I had to conduct an investigation of certain characters and I stoppped playing... again.

The starting area is painfully horrendous. I will admit that Ostagar itself isn't too great either, but you can juggle that problem a bit by switching Origins, whereas the Witcher was completely linear. I myself thought the Outskirs area was somewhat longer than Ostagar too, probably because of the sheer amount of backtracking. I don't understand the hype for a game that was near broken when it was released and with bad writing, I might add.

None of the characters I have met up until that point I considered memorable: truthfully, I had met a great deal of them and I was about to see some of them again. Most origins in Dragon Age, on the contrary, were much more memorable and often with sad endings. Not once have I seen an outstanding character up until the point I stopped playing. What are people expecting out of this game?

It's fine that people are looking for the next RPG. It's fine that other RPG's are getting attention. But all the hype, I believe, is a little unwarranted because -- let's stop pretending, mkay? -- the first game... was not good.

SkyWard20

I gotta disagree with you somewhat. The Witcher has its flaws - combat is clunky at best, and infuriating at worst. The voice acting is lol-wurthy. Entertaining though, which is more than I can say for something like Oblivion, though I'd argue DAO had better voice acting from what I've seen so far, which might be why you remember them better. So far, the character's I've met have either being divided into Witcher brethren, villains, or the many many girls who'll sleep with a mutant man they met that morning. The animations seem a bit jerky at times. The graphics aren't amazing, but aren't enough to detract much from the experience.

But the game is pretty good - the choices are well done, the use of alchemy is a nice addition, and the skill tree actually requires some thought in order to not gimp the character - compared to DAO where you could do a pretty good job of maxing out an entire skill path fairly easy. The starting area is a pretty poor representation of the game.

[QUOTE="RyuRanVII"]

Temple of Elemental Evil? According to GeneralShowzer It isn't a PC game. :P

AdrianWerner

There are so many options here it's logical. No way you can navigate this with an analogue stick.

I don't really feel owned, because those menus are nothing alike. The Witcher only has five spells, two swords, and two stances. Wheel pop up screens are obvious sign of consolization.

GeneralShowzer

Menu systems don't determine if a game has been consolised.

When a game is dumbed down to the point where it appeals to the lowest common denominator and can be finished in an afternoon, then its been consolised. I think were pretty safe with the Witcher. But you don't really care in any case because your a hater and haters gotta hate :)

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] I don't really feel owned, because those menus are nothing alike. The Witcher only has five spells, two swords, and two stances. Wheel pop up screens are obvious sign of consolization.

tenaka2

Menu systems don't determine if a game has been consolised.

When a game is dumbed down to the point where it appeals to the lowest common denominator and can be finished in an afternoon, then its been consolised. I think were pretty safe with the Witcher. But you don't really care in any case because your a hater and haters gotta hate :)

Having played the first 10% of the game, which also happens to be the section that is consistently referred to as the weakest part of it, I can say that the people who've played 100% of it are undeniably wrong about its quality and should admit this as fact. Blahblahblahblah Dragon Age blahblahblahblah

SkyWard20

Yeah, The Witcher definitely does not have pessimistic story arcs what with all the parts where the guard killls his own girlfriend, the rich bastard offs his brother, the peasants screw themselves up due to their own ignorance and the manipulation of other powers, and they all end up blaming a witch for bringing down a demonic curse upon themselves. Have you been paying any attention at all to what's going on around you?

Of course, the difference in the writing quality of both games is that Dragon Age reveals the ultimate goal of the player in its first 5%, which is basically "kill a really boring generic villain which happens to be the leader of a really boring generic horde army and UNITE THE RACES FOR AN EPIC BATTLE AT THE END". Basically, it's Lord of the Rings with a few altered words and names, except that it tries to bring in the whole "grim and dark" aesthetic by making everything really brown. Not an interesting plotline at all. The characters are above par, but that's about it.

Then again, you seem to enjoy raising all these points about how you don't like the Witcher's story, and then you go and rate Oblivion highly. Umm, yeah, if you don't like the Witcher for that reason I don't see how you can enjoy one of the worst-written RPGs ever conceived.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="RyuRanVII"]

Temple of Elemental Evil? According to GeneralShowzer It isn't a PC game. :P

GeneralShowzer

:|

Are we serious? So BF2 was consolized because of the radial menu? All of the Sims games were consolized because of the radial menu.

Please do yourself a favor and look into the physiology behind UI development. It's one of the most difficult parts of developing software.

This constant accusation of every game under the sun of being "consozlied" because they are taking a UI scheme that is both extremely easy to understand and very versatile across multiple platforms is unbelievable wrong. Burying crap behind hundreds of drop-down menus, menus that take up huge chunks of the screen, hotkey bars that flood the screen with tons of icons, and all of that crap is remnants of a time where PC developers were still developing more streamlined UIs to increase usability amoung users.

You have no idea how many people are turned off by software when there are tons of menus and buttons they need to worry about. Drop down menus and tons of menu screens are one of the major reasons that PC gaming has always been considered only for the most nerdy and hardcore gamers. These games have high learning curves at it is and a clunky UI that's only easy to understand by people who have been playing games like it for years, only scares away new people. Also clunky interfaces detract from the whole experiance. Having to navigate on-screen drop down menus or memorize tons of hotkeys (especially when you need to have sequences of commands) makes the experiance both hard to learn and very choppy. Of course one could argue how we are all noobs and we should beable to learn complicated menus and hotkeys, but that argument goes completely against software development philosophy. If it can be easier, you make it easier. Keep it simple stupid, a simple phrase that guides modern software development.

This has little to do with consolization. This is our advancements in UI development. Radial menus are very easy to navigate with a mouse. Radial menus also play to people's physiological behavior and forming patterns. Not only are you aided by text, but now you'll have icons, colors, and directions.

For example a drop down menu requires you to know the exact position downwards from you mouse. Stacking multiple options in a single direction requires extra reading and usually has a higher learning curve. Menus are never sorted by color as then they are difficult to read. You're only option of using drop-down menus is text and hotkey combinations. With a radial menu you now have several different muscle reflexes and modes of identification that can be used. For example icons instead of text are much easier for the brain to identify. So a radial menu with icons above text are much smoother. Next you have color coding. The brain more easily identifies with colors than just text. You mix icons + color and you have more ways the brain can easily identify stuff.

However the most important part of the radial menu is the direction. Instead of always down, you're muscles will start to gain the habits of moving in different directions for different commands you want. With the radial menu in BF2 it became second nature to use the request ammo, health, or any of that stuff. You didn't even have to look at the text at all to know which one you are picking. This focuses the eyes on the game instead of the menu which streamlines the experience so that the game doesn't feel interrupted by menu commands.

The radial menu plays to human physiology much better. We are creatures of habit. Radial menus play to building habits much more quickly in our brain. They are also much easier for newer players to see what's available without every confusing them with extra info they don't need.

These radial menus have been in tons of programs and video games on the PC, even hardware sees forms of these radial menus. Remember the hit that was the iPod? It used a radial menu for the basic commands like pause, play, forward, backwards... they were extremely easy to pick up on and stay because your brain built habits based upon direction and not exact positioning.

This idea of streamlining UIs is not due to consolization. Every part of software development is about usability. Games also need to consider UI as part of their gameplay. A clunky interface can take the focus off of the game. Obviously this is no good. Older games are constantly plagued by that, especially the older RPGs. They don't flow well because of more clunky interfaces. We've all played older games that are fun yet are a pain to navigate.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]Beautiful ownage :DWasdie

:|

Are we serious? So BF2 was consolized because of the radial menu? All of the Sims games were consolized because of the radial menu.

Please do yourself a favor and look into the physiology behind UI development. It's one of the most difficult parts of developing software.

This constant accusation of every game under the sun of being "consozlied" because they are taking a UI scheme that is both extremely easy to understand and very versatile across multiple platforms is unbelievable wrong. Burying crap behind hundreds of drop-down menus, menus that take up huge chunks of the screen, hotkey bars that flood the screen with tons of icons, and all of that crap is remnants of a time where PC developers were still developing more streamlined UIs to increase usability amoung users.

You have no idea how many people are turned off by software when there are tons of menus and buttons they need to worry about. Drop down menus and tons of menu screens are one of the major reasons that PC gaming has always been considered only for the most nerdy and hardcore gamers. These games have high learning curves at it is and a clunky UI that's only easy to understand by people who have been playing games like it for years, only scares away new people. Also clunky interfaces detract from the whole experiance. Having to navigate on-screen drop down menus or memorize tons of hotkeys (especially when you need to have sequences of commands) makes the experiance both hard to learn and very choppy. Of course one could argue how we are all noobs and we should beable to learn complicated menus and hotkeys, but that argument goes completely against software development philosophy. If it can be easier, you make it easier. Keep it simple stupid, a simple phrase that guides modern software development.

This has little to do with consolization. This is our advancements in UI development. Radial menus are very easy to navigate with a mouse. Radial menus also play to people's physiological behavior and forming patterns. Not only are you aided by text, but now you'll have icons, colors, and directions.

For example a drop down menu requires you to know the exact position downwards from you mouse. Stacking multiple options in a single direction requires extra reading and usually has a higher learning curve. Menus are never sorted by color as then they are difficult to read. You're only option of using drop-down menus is text and hotkey combinations. With a radial menu you now have several different muscle reflexes and modes of identification that can be used. For example icons instead of text are much easier for the brain to identify. So a radial menu with icons above text are much smoother. Next you have color coding. The brain more easily identifies with colors than just text. You mix icons + color and you have more ways the brain can easily identify stuff.

However the most important part of the radial menu is the direction. Instead of always down, you're muscles will start to gain the habits of moving in different directions for different commands you want. With the radial menu in BF2 it became second nature to use the request ammo, health, or any of that stuff. You didn't even have to look at the text at all to know which one you are picking. This focuses the eyes on the game instead of the menu which streamlines the experience so that the game doesn't feel interrupted by menu commands.

The radial menu plays to human physiology much better. We are creatures of habit. Radial menus play to building habits much more quickly in our brain. They are also much easier for newer players to see what's available without every confusing them with extra info they don't need.

These radial menus have been in tons of programs and video games on the PC, even hardware sees forms of these radial menus. Remember the hit that was the iPod? It used a radial menu for the basic commands like pause, play, forward, backwards... they were extremely easy to pick up on and stay because your brain built habits based upon direction and not exact positioning.

This idea of streamlining UIs is not due to consolization. Every part of software development is about usability. Games also need to consider UI as part of their gameplay. A clunky interface can take the focus off of the game. Obviously this is no good. Older games are constantly plagued by that, especially the older RPGs. They don't flow well because of more clunky interfaces. We've all played older games that are fun yet are a pain to navigate.

It's made worse by "In your face" wheel, where you can chose spells, while the spells in TW1, were just small icons on the left on your screen you can select with your mouse. It's not more simple, it's dumb and more time-wasting. Have you played The Witcher? Now even the mouse is gone, you can't prompt up the mouse pointer while not in menus.

It looks like the Mass Effect 360.

You know how i know that this is console design?

The developer flat out came out and said "It's designed with consoles in mind"

Except the UI is not streamlined?

It's made worse by "In your face" wheel, where you can chose spells, while the spells in TW1, were just small icons on the left on your screen you can select with your mouse. It's not more simple, it's dumb and more time-wasting. Have you played The Witcher? Now even the mouse is gone, you can't prompt up the mouse pointer while playing.

It looks like the Mass Effect 360.

GeneralShowzer

So you have played the Witcher 2 already? Tell us more about it, what is it like? Any good? Perhaps you could write a review for us.

Why are you hating on a game that your never goign to play anyway?

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] Except the UI is not streamlined?

It's made worse by "In your face" wheel, where you can chose spells, while the spells in TW1, were just small icons on the left on your screen you can select with your mouse. It's not more simple, it's dumb and more time-wasting. Have you played The Witcher? Now even the mouse is gone, you can't prompt up the mouse pointer while playing.

It looks like the Mass Effect 360.

tenaka2

So you have played the Witcher 2 already? Tell us more about it, what is it like? Any good? Perhaps you could write a review for us.

Why are you hating on a game that your never goign to play anyway?

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]But all the hype, I believe, is a little unwarranted because -- let's stop pretending, mkay? -- the first game... was not good.110million

Extremely unnoteworthy novels, you mean; the game being a lot more popular than any of the author's books. We have to get our facts straight, after all.

I don't think I need to let the PC gamers handle the RPG's. They haven't had a good exclusive since Neverwinter Nights -- there's not much to handle.

Except the UI is not streamlined?

It's made worse by "In your face" wheel, where you can chose spells, while the spells in TW1, were just small icons on the left on your screen you can select with your mouse. It's not more simple, it's dumb and more time-wasting. Have you played The Witcher? Now even the mouse is gone, you can't prompt up the mouse pointer while not in menus.

It looks like the Mass Effect 360.

You know how i know that this is console design?

The developer flat out came out and said "It's designed with consoles in mind"

GeneralShowzer

And you've played it? There are plenty of games that work fine on the console with small UI changes.

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

Let's be honest, the Witcher 1 wasn't a good game. It's unrealistic to put so many expectations onto a game and make it appear as the second coming of Half-Life when the first game was... none of the aforementioned. It was highly flawed; I have played the game approximately up until I had to conduct an investigation of certain characters and I stoppped playing... again.

The starting area is painfully horrendous. I will admit that Ostagar itself isn't too great either, but you can juggle that problem a bit by switching Origins, whereas the Witcher was completely linear. I myself thought the Outskirs area was somewhat longer than Ostagar too, probably because of the sheer amount of backtracking. I don't understand the hype for a game that was near broken when it was released and with bad writing, I might add.

None of the characters I have met up until that point I considered memorable: truthfully, I had met a great deal of them and I was about to see some of them again. Most origins in Dragon Age, on the contrary, were much more memorable and often with sad endings. Not once have I seen an outstanding character up until the point I stopped playing. What are people expecting out of this game?

It's fine that people are looking for the next RPG. It's fine that other RPG's are getting attention. But all the hype, I believe, is a little unwarranted because -- let's stop pretending, mkay? -- the first game... was not good.

Kickinurass

I gotta disagree with you somewhat. The Witcher has its flaws - combat is clunky at best, and infuriating at worst. The voice acting is lol-wurthy. Entertaining though, which is more than I can say for something like Oblivion, though I'd argue DAO had better voice acting from what I've seen so far, which might be why you remember them better. So far, the character's I've met have either being divided into Witcher brethren, villains, or the many many girls who'll sleep with a mutant man they met that morning. The animations seem a bit jerky at times. The graphics aren't amazing, but aren't enough to detract much from the experience.

But the game is pretty good - the choices are well done, the use of alchemy is a nice addition, and the skill tree actually requires some thought in order to not gimp the character - compared to DAO where you could do a pretty good job of maxing out an entire skill path fairly easy. The starting area is a pretty poor representation of the game.

The Witcher EE fixed a lot of problems from the first game, and that update was free.

I received quite a few downloads from Impulse later on that added even more new dialog.

Combat is different, but I got used to it.

First area is boring if you don't take advantage of it. I stocked up on ingredients for potions, I found some ingredients that allowed me to make a potion that didn't appear until later (but you can still make), and once you take it it's identified.

And to top it all off, I did extra combat in every chapter so at the end I reached Level 40 (Master Witcher). The vast majority of gamers usually reach Level 38 or 39 by the end.

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]

Except the UI is not streamlined?

It's made worse by "In your face" wheel, where you can chose spells, while the spells in TW1, were just small icons on the left on your screen you can select with your mouse. It's not more simple, it's dumb and more time-wasting. Have you played The Witcher? Now even the mouse is gone, you can't prompt up the mouse pointer while not in menus.

It looks like the Mass Effect 360.

You know how i know that this is console design?

The developer flat out came out and said "It's designed with consoles in mind"

Wasdie

And you've played it? There are plenty of games that work fine on the console with small UI changes.

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

Having played the first 10% of the game, which also happens to be the section that is consistently referred to as the weakest part of it, I can say that the people who've played 100% of it are undeniably wrong about its quality and should admit this as fact. Blahblahblahblah Dragon Age blahblahblahblah

Barbariser

Yeah, The Witcher definitely does not have pessimistic story arcs what with all the parts where the guard killls his own girlfriend, the rich bastard offs his brother, the peasants screw themselves up due to their own ignorance and the manipulation of other powers, and they all end up blaming a witch for bringing down a demonic curse upon themselves. Have you been paying any attention at all to what's going on around you?

Of course, the difference in the writing quality of both games is that Dragon Age reveals the ultimate goal of the player in its first 5%, which is basically "kill a really boring generic villain which happens to be the leader of a really boring generic horde army and UNITE THE RACES FOR AN EPIC BATTLE AT THE END". Basically, it's Lord of the Rings with a few altered words and names, except that it tries to bring in the whole "grim and dark" aesthetic by making everything really brown. Not an interesting plotline at all. The characters are above par, but that's about it.

Then again, you seem to enjoy raising all these points about how you don't like the Witcher's story, and then you go and rate Oblivion highly. Umm, yeah, if you don't like the Witcher for that reason I don't see how you can enjoy one of the worst-written RPGs ever conceived.

It seems the second game does that also. Though I do find it interesting that you imply Dragon Age to be cliched when you're playing a character with tacked-on amnesia in the Witcher. Not to mention that he's a tough as nails cynic and womanizer. "Do that again and you'll make me angry... wouldn't want that now, would you?'

Funny thing is I've yet to decide if he tried to impersonate Duke Nukem or The Hulk with that line. Good news is I've already decided which game has funnier writing -- something that Dragon Age, of all things, doesn't do quite as well.

Though I do find it interesting that you imply Dragon Age to be cliched when you're playing a character with tacked-on amnesia in the Witcher.

SkyWard20

Hardly tacked on.

[spoiler] He came back from complete death...quite plausible to have clouded portions of your mind coming back from a different realm. [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

Though I do find it interesting that you imply Dragon Age to be cliched when you're playing a character with tacked-on amnesia in the Witcher.

topsemag55

Hardly tacked on.

Shepard came from death also and didn't need to have amnesia. I wouldn't exactly rank The Witcher in the same league -- or world, more like it -- with Mass Effect 2 though.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

Let's be honest, the Witcher 1 wasn't a good game. It's unrealistic to put so many expectations onto a game and make it appear as the second coming of Half-Life when the first game was... none of the aforementioned. It was highly flawed; I have played the game approximately up until I had to conduct an investigation of certain characters and I stoppped playing... again.

The starting area is painfully horrendous. I will admit that Ostagar itself isn't too great either, but you can juggle that problem a bit by switching Origins, whereas the Witcher was completely linear. I myself thought the Outskirs area was somewhat longer than Ostagar too, probably because of the sheer amount of backtracking. I don't understand the hype for a game that was near broken when it was released and with bad writing, I might add.

None of the characters I have met up until that point I considered memorable: truthfully, I had met a great deal of them and I was about to see some of them again. Most origins in Dragon Age, on the contrary, were much more memorable and often with sad endings. Not once have I seen an outstanding character up until the point I stopped playing. What are people expecting out of this game?

It's fine that people are looking for the next RPG. It's fine that other RPG's are getting attention. But all the hype, I believe, is a little unwarranted because -- let's stop pretending, mkay? -- the first game... was not good.

topsemag55

I gotta disagree with you somewhat. The Witcher has its flaws - combat is clunky at best, and infuriating at worst. The voice acting is lol-wurthy. Entertaining though, which is more than I can say for something like Oblivion, though I'd argue DAO had better voice acting from what I've seen so far, which might be why you remember them better. So far, the character's I've met have either being divided into Witcher brethren, villains, or the many many girls who'll sleep with a mutant man they met that morning. The animations seem a bit jerky at times. The graphics aren't amazing, but aren't enough to detract much from the experience.

But the game is pretty good - the choices are well done, the use of alchemy is a nice addition, and the skill tree actually requires some thought in order to not gimp the character - compared to DAO where you could do a pretty good job of maxing out an entire skill path fairly easy. The starting area is a pretty poor representation of the game.

The Witcher EE fixed a lot of problems from the first game, and that update was free.

I received quite a few downloads from Impulse later on that added even more new dialog.

Combat is different, but I got used to it.

First area is boring if you don't take advantage of it. I stocked up on ingredients for potions, I found some ingredients that allowed me to make a potion that didn't appear until later (but you can still make), and once you take it it's identified.

And to top it all off, I did extra combat in every chapter so at the end I reached Level 40 (Master Witcher). The vast majority of gamers usually reach Level 38 or 39 by the end.

Yeah I have the Enhanced Edition :P

Just got it last week off steam - so I don't even know what problems there were at launch. I'm fine with the game - its very fun and hilarious in many ways.

Except for the combat - I've gotten used to it but without a doubt it's the weakest part of the game.

Ok, he has an excuse, but what effect does that have on the plot? Finding out about your past and who you are was central to the plot of Planescape: Torment; I don't see why it's important to integrate another dead video game cliche.

Shepard came from death also and didn't need to have amnesia. I wouldn't exactly rank The Witcher in the same league -- or world, more like it -- with Mass Effect 2 though.

SkyWard20

Look at it from the dev's perspective: When you view the intro cinematic of Geralt and the striga, he has all of the abilities in the skill trees. He doesn't at the beginning of the game.

Wouldn't be much point to playing the game if you already had his complete skills - there'd be no levelling. A supernatural explanation was provided, which made for a good story start.

From The Witcher 2 preview on GS "And all of this--the mystery, the investigation, and the inappropriate poetry--was part of just a single side quest. If the main story arc is given this much detail, and we have no reason to think otherwise, then The Witcher 2 should be another masterfully woven tale in line with its predecessor." :DGeneralShowzer

I enjoyed reading this comment.

"I SAID that the first game was EASY on HARD difficulty. Why are you trying to "teach" me how to play or whatever? You are clearly bad at video games. The game was not hard at all on the HARD difficulty. Not in the beginning, not in the middle, nowhere!!!! The only potion I needed was SWALLOW(!!!) and of course CAT to see in the dark.

Man, I wonder how many of the people who love the first game actually know how to play the game 'cause they gave a pass to so many bad design choices, bad dialog, bad scripting, hilarious reuse of character models, terrible inventory, etc. etc. As I said, A MILE LONG LIST OF FLAWS!"

I have stated before this that the only potion I needed was swallow ( or cat for some missions ). The Witcher fanboys were not to keen to answer that little criticism; they did however, tell me how the Witcher is the best RPG in recent memory.

I guess I just don't understand the complexity of the Witcher's alchemy system.

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

Ok, he has an excuse, but what effect does that have on the plot? Finding out about your past and who you are was central to the plot of Planescape: Torment; I don't see why it's important to integrate another dead video game cliche.

Shepard came from death also and didn't need to have amnesia. I wouldn't exactly rank The Witcher in the same league -- or world, more like it -- with Mass Effect 2 though.

topsemag55

Look at it from the dev's perspective: When you view the intro cinematic of Geralt and the striga, he has all of the abilities in the skill trees. He doesn't at the beginning of the game.

Wouldn't be much point to playing the game if you already had his complete skills - there'd be no levelling. A supernatural explanation was provided, which made for a good story start.

Please stop trying to find the tinniest excuse to hate the game.GeneralShowzer

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]From The Witcher 2 preview on GS "And all of this--the mystery, the investigation, and the inappropriate poetry--was part of just a single side quest. If the main story arc is given this much detail, and we have no reason to think otherwise, then The Witcher 2 should be another masterfully woven tale in line with its predecessor." :DGeneralShowzer

How can I agree if I've never played the Witcher 2?:?

Though I've noticed that they do.

There's no need to justify gameplay mechanics with story and lore ( at least not with this cliche ). That's exactly why it feels tacked on. That's probably part of the reason the 'amnesia cliche' exists in the first place.

SkyWard20

Check again - do you remember what he was running from? Helluva story starter.:o

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"]Please stop trying to find the tinniest excuse to hate the game.millerlight89

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

There's no need to justify gameplay mechanics with story and lore ( at least not with this cliche ). That's exactly why it feels tacked on. That's probably part of the reason the 'amnesia cliche' exists in the first place.

topsemag55

Check again - do you remember what he was running from? Helluva story starter.:o

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

There's no need to justify gameplay mechanics with story and lore ( at least not with this cliche ). That's exactly why it feels tacked on. That's probably part of the reason the 'amnesia cliche' exists in the first place.

topsemag55

Check again - do you remember what he was running from? Helluva story starter.:o

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] Oh i wish it was approached as a PC game. But it wasn't.GeneralShowzer

[QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"][QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"] You're full of it.ducati101