StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ok, I picked this up purely for the tits and ass.

And I was blown away by the story, the universe and Geraults sense of humour. Yeah there's no putting points into speech to insta win (though the convo hex is pretty close) but the dialogue and the character adapts to your actions and he does a pretty decent job of being a champion for everyone if you want to play him that way. Combat is a little different in that you usually have to plan in advance by drinking certain potions and coating your blades in toxins or you'll die pretty quick and the dress up is pretty decent as well.

No one else pick this up? For me it's certainly the best RPG I've played in years, heads and shoulders above anything from Bioware or the Elder Scrolls stuff.

Hav, this seems like it's up your alley.

I heard the combat was much harder than the broken mash-aard combat in the first one.

At low levels on very easy you still die regularly without doing the potion stuff. On the hardest you have to have potions and oils going or you'll die near instantly. Theres a riposte (sp?) mechanic you can do that lets you get them after they swing but I'm not fast enough on the buttons. Knives and bombs go a long way to help even things up.

The game was absurdly difficult for me at first, but became trivially easy as it went on. The difficulty doesn't scale well to your rapidly expanding/improving abilities and by the end I was just moving through dudes by accident sometimes. I started replaying it on dark mode but it doesn't seem any tougher than normal.

Dress up?

Yeah, mostly different armours but plenty of boots, pants and assorted useless items.

Dress up and tits and ass you say? I may have to check it out.

Starkles was telling me about it the other night when we were talking about Dragon's Dogma.

Dragon's Dogma is going to be 4-way dressup man. You're going to have a heart attack or something.

Spoiler Have to say I wish Bioware and Bethseda could take some lessons from this game in terms of story telling and making it more interesting. That said, I did find the story a bit hard to follow which no doubt is mainly from not playing the first. I like how the game is less forgiving and more than happy to have you die if you screw up.

I.E Geralt getting laced with arrows if he stupidly taunts the dozen or so folks with bows.

The over abundance of Geralt being able to screw women or otherwise as mission rewards or paying prostitutes repeatedly was amusing. The ending was a bit... wierd but I believe that got changed in the enhanced edition because people complained. I dont have the game anymore so havent seen the enhanced edition yet.

I think travelling guys who are 100% sterile and 100% free of STDs make a pretty good scratching post.

I've been playing the hell out of the Enhanced Edition for PC (DRM free, thank you CD Projekt Red) and having a damn good time. I've been playing on Dark difficulty from the get-go, masochist that I am, and I have to say that I consider it pretty damn challenging. At several points such as the first Letho fight I considered lowering the difficulty, which is quite an accomplishment. It did get easier as I unlocked a wider range of abilities later on, but I certainly wouldn't describe it as "trivially easy." If you're not careful, even the most common of encounters will fuck you up. Playing on Dark difficulty also grants access to some unique powerful "cursed" armor sets, though drawing the swords it comes with causes a stupid visual effect that drains color from the screen and really should have been optional.

As much as I enjoyed the storyline in the first game, I got much more out of the sequel, mostly due to more cutscenes and less dialogue sequences, and much better overall voice-acting. It's also nice that you don't see so many character faces recycled over the course of the game which makes it easier to identify with individual characters. The story reminds me of an HBO drama in a lot of ways in that the machinations of the world are incredibly complicated and demand the viewer/player pay close attention. While I was able to follow the general story, there were several details I didn't quite grasp during my first playthrough that became clearer in my second. Since I was really intrigued by the universe, this approach worked for me. It works much better than Bioware's never ending spews of exposition. I'd rather be a little confused than treated like I'm stupid.

I find it pretty cool how differently the second chapter unfolds depending on your choice in the first. I took Roche's path originally and am now trying Iorveth's. Sadly apart from that, my choices didn't feel as weighty as they did in the first game. I didn't find myself carefully considering my actions and speculating about their consequences as much as before. I was also a little disappointed with how much shorter the game feels. The prologue actually feels longer than the third chapter and epilogue combined. By the time the game had ended I badly wanted there to be more, though I suppose that's better than tiring of the first games fetch quests and spending the last 5-10 hours desperately rushing to get to the end. I can also see myself coming back to the Witcher 2 down the road much more than I can for the first game.

The combat is now much more involved than the Aard and Igni spam of the first game. It's not as refined as I'd like it to be, particularly with the lock-on. It can be quite frustrating when your sign or bomb goes towards a target you didn't intend, and it's quite awkward to switch targets. But overall I prefer this more challenging experience that demands you use every tool at your disposal. The boss fights and set piece moments also add some nice variety and excitement, as do the more cinematic finishers. I lol'd the first time I sent an enemy soaring off a cliff with the Aard sign.

My other big criticism is with the visuals. While the game looks great overall, the environmental pop-in as you run around can be a bit of an eye-sore, particularly in the last chapter. Things like grass and rocks will pop up ten feet in front of you as you approach. From what I've read online, this is just how the game was developed to allow for such lush environments without insane system requirements. There's also a bit of unsightly clipping on character models here and there like with Geralt's hair or Henselt's medallion. It's also rather annoying that I can run the game with everything maxed other than ubersampling and get a nice smooth framerate but will encounter crashes every 30 minutes. I'm thinking it's time for a RAM upgrade.

Overall I had a blast and am glad to finally have a quality game to sink some hours into after months of nothing. As others have implied, Bioware and Bethesda are going to have to step up their game, though they probably won't.

Aaron MkII wrote:Yeah, mostly different armours but plenty of boots, pants and assorted useless items.

And you can now change your hairstyle, though I most preferred the standard look.

PREDATOR490 wrote:That said, I did find the story a bit hard to follow which no doubt is mainly from not playing the first.

It can still be hard to follow even if you have played the first Witcher. Yennefer for example is barely mentioned in the first game, while in the second she is clearly of great importance to Geralt.

I played Witcher 2 before the EE, and I found it fun despite dying a lot in the first big battle (like they described in PA). The enhancements are making me think of getting the EE.

Yeah, I have no idea who Yennifer is.

As usual, the upgrade from standard Witcher 2 on PC to EE was broken and you had to basically download the whole game again. Doesn't matter.

I don't think you're meant to know who Yennefer is, you're still an amnesiac.

Vympel wrote:I don't think you're meant to know who Yennefer is, you're still an amnesiac.

Regardless of whether or not you're meant to know who she is, piecing together the backstories of the different characters gets quite confusing. Had I not played the Witcher 1, I might very well have assumed that Yennefer and others were introduced there. At times when Geralt spoke I felt like he had pieced together more of his past than I had, though perhaps things will become clearer when I'm further into my second playthrough.

There is a huge cutscene in TW1 which shows Yennefer and all. As well as a conversation with an innkeeper early ony which tells the story. Then another conversation with Zoltan. And yet another in chapter 4 of TW1, iirc. As well as journal entries.

What else could they have done except hitting the viewer over the head with it? Conversations are important in TW1.

Unfortunately I never played 1.

I played 1 before playing 2. Like right before. I forgot about the Yennefer stuff nonetheless. I probably knew it at the time though.

Thanas wrote:There is a huge cutscene in TW1 which shows Yennefer and all. As well as a conversation with an innkeeper early ony which tells the story. Then another conversation with Zoltan. And yet another in chapter 4 of TW1, iirc. As well as journal entries.

What else could they have done except hitting the viewer over the head with it? Conversations are important in TW1.

I may have simply forgotten about it as well, but the Witcher wiki says that Yennefer is merely referenced and not directly mentioned in the first game. I certainly don't recall a huge cutscene, nor a conversation with Zoltan. The only exchange you bring up that I do recall is this one:



and Yennefer isn't mentioned by name. Evidently what mentions of her that are in the TW1 are subtle enough that several people were unable to make the connection.

Dread Not wrote:I certainly don't recall a huge cutscene, nor a conversation with Zoltan. The only exchange you bring up that I do recall is this one:



and Yennefer isn't mentioned by name. Evidently what mentions of her that are in the TW1 are subtle enough that several people were unable to make the connection.

There are a few journal entries as well.... but you are right, the connection is made only in TW2.

To get the conversation with Zoltan you have to invite him to Shani's party iirc.

As I understand it the games are a direct sequel to the novels, and to actually understand half the characters properly you have to have read them first. That's why everyone you meet in the first game says they heard you were dead.

And since only one of the novels has been translated to English, a fair number of us are boned. :p

I think its actually two now, but yeah.

It makes things a bit more interesting entering a story mid-point and its an amnesic mystery no less. You get the instant impression your missing stuff and have to figure it out which is monumentally different from Mass Effect. Bioware specifically made those games so people could pick up 3 without needing a clue what happened which requires all sorts of new player pandering and hand holding.
Witcher 2 expects you to either keep up or die... which I like

That said, the game does feel woefully short and even after reading up on the internet I still couldnt figure out what was going on beyond having sticking people with pointy objects... either in the field or the bedroom.

I put 40 hours into the game when it came out last year, on my first play through. By the time I'd play through it a second time (to get both sides of the story) I'd been playing for 73 hours. I find it hard to describe the game as short...