Also agreed on the continuity. I played TW2 first and just this year TW1 and now I think TW2 is a much worse game. Why was Geralt still working for Foltest, why does he delve into politics, why isn't he out there doing more witchery stuff, why is the game so linear?
Everything in bold is answered through the game itself. If you're still asking those questions after playing the game, you weren't paying attention enough.
As for linearity, the game has smaller areas and because of the locales/environments it definitely feels more cramped/linear. However as for choices/consequences, separate paths etc, TW2 is no more linear than TW1 is, actually that point could probably be argued in favor of 2.
Everything in bold is answered through the game itself. If you're still asking those questions after playing the game, you weren't paying attention enough.
As for linearity, the game has smaller areas and because of the locales/environments it definitely feels more cramped/linear. However as for choices/consequences, separate paths etc, TW2 is no more linear than TW1 is, actually that point could probably be argued in favor of 2.
I was wondering that myself in TW2 I [saved]Triss but let Saskia live with the curse not lifted. In the Epilogue I was then attacked by a random group of mobs who for some reason dropped the dagger needed to cure Saskia.[/spoiler] I wonder if that carries over.
This is *exactly* the one decision I'm curious about as well. The dragon still being under the influence of Philippa is quite a big deal as well, especially if you consider that Radovid is probably going to play a major role in TW3 (Novigrad is in Redania, he's the only king of the Northern Kingdoms that survives all the possible endings in TW2 and I'd wager that Philippa will be out for revenge).
I could care less about the other decisions. The fate of Temeria seems irrelevant in light of the Nilfgaardian invasion (I'd love to see Roche going full-on guerilla style against the Nilfgaardians though ), I don't think there's a lot they can and/or need to do with Letho and Silé (if you let them live), as we get sufficient closure on both in TW2, and the political questions regarding the Pontar Valley / Vergen / Flotsam / Aedirn also seem secondary in light of the Nilfgaardian occupation. The whole dragon / Philippa (who, by the way, is also one of the few characters that survives the events in TW2 in all endings) / Radovid plotline is a different matter though.
Also agreed on the continuity. I played TW2 first and just this year TW1 and now I think TW2 is a much worse game. Why was Geralt still working for Foltest, why does he delve into politics, why isn't he out there doing more witchery stuff, why is the game so linear?
This is explained at the begining. Basically, Foltest decided to keep Geralt around as a good luck charm after he saved him from that witcher assassin at the end of TW1 and, apparently, if a king says "jump!" you don't refuse even if you're a witcher. Still, I also found the jump from the events in TW1 to that stupid family feud amongst the Temerian nobility in the prologue of TW2 rather jarring as well. The game delves deep into politics, but doesn't do a very good job of explaining it. I found it almost impossible to understand what was going on (and especially why and how everything connected) during my first playthrough. I played through TW2 again a few weeks ago, though, and it all made perfect sense.
Still, I also found the jump from the events in TW1 to that stupid family feud amongst the Temerian nobility in the prologue of TW2 rather jarring as well. The game delves deep into politics, but doesn't do a very good job of explaining it.
I don't see what's problematic about the "jump" between the games and I don't see how the family feud is "stupid" or jarring.
For someone approaching The Witcher 2 as their very first entry into the Witcher world, you don't really need to see it with that much depth. (For reference The Witcher 2 was my first ever Witcher experience)
In its most basic form it's simply that Boussy/Anais are next in line for the throne because Foltest/Louisa had a thing. The other noble houses were pulling strings behind the scenes and denying Foltest from obtaining the children, so he mounted an assault against La'Valette castle to retrieve them. (I know you understand this but I'm just breaking it down)
Now of course, it goes deeper than that, and especially if you've played The Witcher 1 it DOES connect (For example you know that Adda was born of incest, and pretty much everyone knows this and her condition, so she's essentially locked out of the Throne, making Boussy/Anais important, and even more-so Aryan), but in reality even if you don't have that knowledge, the game provides more than enough information during the Prologue for players to have at least that basic level of understanding as described in the paragraph above.
I think the issue with The Witcher 2 is it catches a lot of people off-guard. Even people who played TW1 probably didn't go in expecting so much political stuff to be thrown at them right from the beginning, and for people who've never played the series not only are they trying to understand Gameplay, key Characters etc, but also trying to figure out the same political situation.
I think it does an absolutely fine job at explaining everything, and I think really it simply comes down to that notion of people being caught off-guard, and missing key bits of information because they didn't expect to have to pay attention that hard in the prologue.
I don't see what's problematic about the "jump" between the games and I don't see how the family feud is "stupid" or jarring.
For someone approaching The Witcher 2 as their very first entry into the Witcher world, you don't really need to see it with that much depth. (For reference The Witcher 2 was my first ever Witcher experience)
In its most basic form it's simply that Boussy/Anais are next in line for the throne because Foltest/Louisa had a thing. The other noble houses were pulling strings behind the scenes and denying Foltest from obtaining the children, so he mounted an assault against La'Valette castle to retrieve them. (I know you understand this but I'm just breaking it down)
Now of course, it goes deeper than that, and especially if you've played The Witcher 1 it DOES connect (For example you know that Adda was born of incest, and pretty much everyone knows this and her condition, so she's essentially locked out of the Throne, making Boussy/Anais important, and even more-so Aryan), but in reality even if you don't have that knowledge, the game provides more than enough information during the Prologue for players to have at least that basic level of understanding as described in the paragraph above.
I think the issue with The Witcher 2 is it catches a lot of people off-guard. Even people who played TW1 probably didn't go in expecting so much political stuff to be thrown at them right from the beginning, and for people who've never played the series not only are they trying to understand Gameplay, key Characters etc, but also trying to figure out the same political situation.
I think it does an absolutely fine job at explaining everything, and I think really it simply comes down to that notion of people being caught off-guard, and missing key bits of information because they didn't expect to have to pay attention that hard in the prologue.
Well, as a reader of the books, I wasn't surprised with all that political stuff in W2.. hell, it was the best thing about the story and that makes it one of my most favorites stories in all games that I have played..
Everything in bold is answered through the game itself. If you're still asking those questions after playing the game, you weren't paying attention enough.
As for linearity, the game has smaller areas and because of the locales/environments it definitely feels more cramped/linear. However as for choices/consequences, separate paths etc, TW2 is no more linear than TW1 is, actually that point could probably be argued in favor of 2.
I don't buy that. While Geralt certainly paid respect to Foltest, as a Witcher he is exempt from any servitude. Even Foltest shouldn't be able to make Geralt jump so long as it doesn't include monster slaying. Not to mention that if you have Geralt cure Adda Foltest should be in his debt.
On the other parts. I realize Geralt is dragged into it but it doesn't fit and you're not given a witcher path like in 1 where you did not have to choose between scoiatael and the order. My point is Geralt shouldn't have been there to be framed in the first place.
I wish I could have chosen Iorveth w/o the Scioatael. He is just so much more awesome than Roche, but Geralt's indebted to Roche and Geralt pays his debts.
I don't buy that. While Geralt certainly paid respect to Foltest, as a Witcher he is exempt from any servitude. Even Foltest shouldn't be able to make Geralt jump so long as it doesn't include monster slaying
Well, not exactly. Being a witcher doesn't mean he can ignore a king's wishes, being of a dying order of witchers doesn't give Geralt any kind of backing for that. Witchers aren't any kind of super elite force outside of any kingdom controls, this isn't Mass Effect, they are dudes that are kind of poor and survive with little hunter jobs in villages here and there, and they usually work alone so they don't even have a close-by witcher to help him.
Hell, witchers aren't even popular. They are considered freaks, mutants, untrustworthy, scum.
Foltest offered him an "offer he couldn't refuse", you could say, even more because the assassin was a witcher, so even if Geralt saved Foltest, he was also a bit suspect just by his condition of witcher, too. That made him have an interest in collaborating to show his hands were clean, and also Geralt as a witcher had a professional interest in knowing why a witcher he didn't know was trying to kill Folest. He was trying to clean witcher order's name.
I don't buy that. While Geralt certainly paid respect to Foltest, as a Witcher he is exempt from any servitude.Even Foltest shouldn't be able to make Geralt jump so long as it doesn't include monster slaying.Not to mention that if you have Geralt cure Adda Foltest should be in his debt.
No, he is not exempted. Foltest is a king, and Geralt is a fool to refuse his wish.
The witchers are a service which was created to kill monsters and they don't have any superior rights than anyone else, no more than say a trader or such sorts.
Foltest also certainly doesn't give a damn about any monster, as long as he thinks he is still in danger and he is certainly not in debt with Geralt because he already paid him a hefty sum for curing Aida.
In the books also when the Queen of Cintra asked Geralt to be her champion, he refused but she threatened him I think with death(I don't remember very clearly with what punishment) and he had to do as she wished.
So all in all, Geralt always chooses to be clear of politics whenever he can, but not every time does he have his wish fulfilled.
On the other parts. I realize Geralt is dragged into it but it doesn't fit and you're not given a witcher path like in 1 where you did not have to choose between scoiatael and the order. My point is Geralt shouldn't have been there to be framed in the first place.
The story happens like that, you can or can not like it. It doesn't mean it doesn't fit. It just happens like that.
Personally I dislike politics too and prefer monster hunting, but it is a strong theme of this saga so there is no avoiding that.
I wish I could have chosen Iorveth w/o the Scioatael. He is just so much more awesome than Roche, but Geralt's indebted to Roche and Geralt pays his debts.
I think the issue with The Witcher 2 is it catches a lot of people off-guard. Even people who played TW1 probably didn't go in expecting so much political stuff to be thrown at them right from the beginning, and for people who've never played the series not only are they trying to understand Gameplay, key Characters etc, but also trying to figure out the same political situation.
I think it does an absolutely fine job at explaining everything, and I think really it simply comes down to that notion of people being caught off-guard, and missing key bits of information because they didn't expect to have to pay attention that hard in the prologue.
I think this is the main problem with the story. Although all the necessary information is there, the game isn't very good at pointing out what is actually important to the main plot and what is not. For example, I realised during my recent playthrough that you can get all the information on the Kaedwenian / Aedernian dispute in Flotsam (iirc, you can ask Dandelion and Roche about it in the tavern), but at that point in the game you probably won't recognise this as vital information, because you're too focused on hunting the kingslayer and clearing your name. Then, as you jump to chapter 2, all of this suddenly becomes hugely important, while the hunt for Letho takes a backseat. And you could say the same for chapter 3: Again, all the information about the Loc Muinne summit and the reformation of the council and conclave is available beforehand, but it's almost impossible to determine that this will be important later on. Furthermore, the fact that you miss several important parts of the story during your first playthrough because of the two separate paths through chapters 2 and 3 doesn't make things easier at all.
So yes, I would agree that TW2 has the better story than TW1 (the latter almost seems a bit fan-fiction-y in hindsight). Actually, I would say that the plot is excellent, because it's complex and intricate without being conceited, because everything falls into place so neatly at the end and because there are a few really nice touches (such as the actualy chessmaster behind everything, the Nilfgaardian Emperor, never actually appearing in the game - I really liked that). But they could have done a better job at guiding the player through it. In fact, the developers seem to have come to the same conclusion. They added the transitions between chapters (those narrated by Dandelion) in the enhanced edition after all. These really do help.
Well, not exactly. Being a witcher doesn't mean he can ignore a king's wishes, being of a dying order of witchers doesn't give Geralt any kind of backing for that. Witchers aren't any kind of super elite force outside of any kingdom controls, this isn't Mass Effect, they are dudes that are kind of poor and survive with little hunter jobs in villages here and there, and they usually work alone so they don't even have a close-by witcher to help him.
Hell, witchers aren't even popular. They are considered freaks, mutants, untrustworthy, scum.
Foltest offered him an "offer he couldn't refuse", you could say, even more because the assassin was a witcher, so even if Geralt saved Foltest, he was also a bit suspect just by his condition of witcher, too. That made him have an interest in collaborating to show his hands were clean, and also Geralt as a witcher had a professional interest in knowing why a witcher he didn't know was trying to kill Folest. He was trying to clean witcher order's name.
That was my own conclusion as well but it was never explained nor particularly hinted at.
At least I didn't pick up on it when replaying the prologue after playing TW1.
Witchers are scorned in particular during TW1 when the order started filling in for them. Before that they had to bear with them whether they wanted or not. I don't remember if it ever cleared up if Witchers abducting children is just a rumour or whether there's truth to it, nonetheless most believe that is the case which ostracizes Witchers even more.
But even if Foltest commanded Geralt to play ball and Geralt would comply there isn't much reason for them to become friends as was hinted at in the prologue. I didn't particularly like the prologue during my 1st playthrough but after playing 1 and starting the Witcher 1 again it didn't feel right.
I'm starting to wonder if this game will recapture that feeling that I've only experience from one game, and that was playing Zelda:TOoT on N64 back in the day when it came out.
I don't buy that. While Geralt certainly paid respect to Foltest, as a Witcher he is exempt from any servitude. Even Foltest shouldn't be able to make Geralt jump so long as it doesn't include monster slaying. Not to mention that if you have Geralt cure Adda Foltest should be in his debt.
On the other parts. I realize Geralt is dragged into it but it doesn't fit and you're not given a witcher path like in 1 where you did not have to choose between scoiatael and the order. My point is Geralt shouldn't have been there to be framed in the first place.
I wish I could have chosen Iorveth w/o the Scioatael. He is just so much more awesome than Roche, but Geralt's indebted to Roche and Geralt pays his debts.
For anyone that hasn't played Witcher 1 and/or 2, plenty of spoilers in-bound so avoid this. (Apologies for the massive post, I don't have a TL : DR version sadly)
Witcher's are not exempt from servitude, however due to their nature 99% of the time they avoid it. Witcher's are generally looked upon dis-favorably, even (especially) by Nobility/Kings, and are only hired when the nobility have dire need in the form of a monster problem. However in Geralt's case, he's now saved Adda twice, saved the King and Foltest has grown to not only consider him a "luck charm" but also grown to like him, and both factor in Foltest wanting to keep Geralt around. Not to mention there's a few of sub-points:
-Triss is Foltest's royal adviser & Geralt wants to stay close to Triss for obvious reasons.
-Triss is collecting information about the person who tried to assassinate Foltest, and since it was a Witcher it has Geralt interested. So he wants to stay close to discover information regarding that.
-Geralt still hasn't recovered his memory, actually at the start of TW2 he's barely recovered much at all. He has no idea where Zoltan/Dandelion are, and there's no point for him to run off on his own with his lack of memory, so he sticks around people whom he is comfortable with - Triss/Foltest.
-Foltest (And Radovid) paid Geralt a handsome sum for taking down Jacques, Geralt was also rewarded well for saving Adda & so Geralt probably sees some good coin if he sticks nearby Foltest and butchers a few knights (Foltest outright states he will be the most titled/wealthiest Witcher ever once he ensures the children's safety).
As for the neutral path? There isn't one, and there isn't meant to be one, that's by design. You spend the entire duration of The Witcher 1 having just about every character shout at you at least once, "You can't stay neutral forever Geralt" or have characters openly mock your "Witcher Neutrality". It's foreshadowed to the point where even a monkey could realize that Geralt was eventually going to get caught up in politics.
Not to mention that Geralt wants to fuck off from all the bullshit and do his own thing anyway, but there's always something standing in his way. He wants to tell Loredo & Roche to fuck off and get out of Flotsam, but then Triss realizes the rose of remembrance and how it could restore his memories. Then when he has the rose he's ready to fuck off again, but Triss gets kidnapped. Then Cedric tells him to go to Aedirn and he'll recover his memory after participating in a "great battle". Which he has to go to anyway to find Triss, and he spends the rest of the game searching for her because he's not about to leave any of his friends to harm, especially not his lover.
Actually I've seen it argued that there is a "Neutral Path" in The Witcher 2, and that is simply that Geralt is never dabbling in politics because he wants to, but because it's convenient. He's using other people and the political situations, to ultimately achieve his selfish goal(s). Geralt doesn't give a shit about Roche or Iorveth, it's about his friends and ensuring their safety. He follows Roche/Iorveth because it conveniently leads him to where Triss is. He gets caught up in the Aedirn political shit because he has to clear the mist to find Triss. Even fighting in the battle for Vergen is less about the political crap and more-so because he doesn't want someone like Zoltan or his Dwarven Bros to die. Ultimately this all also leads to him recovering his memory and finding Yennefer/Ciri.
Personally I don't believe this, because after all the foreshadowing in The Witcher 1 I think it's by design that 2 doesn't have a neutral path, but I still find it both an interesting and plausible theory.
Now I certainly didn't pick all of this up on my first playthrough, but The Witcher 2 is all very well connected, with both The Witcher 1 and the foundations laid down by the book series. There's a lot going on under the surface & there's lots of elements people can miss. I just tend to get frustrated when people think The Witcher 2 did something "wrong", when really it didn't, it's just that some people personally prefer the atmosphere and "Witcher Work" style elements of the first game over the second. The Witcher 2 is extremely strong in its own right and certainly didn't do something incorrect or unconnected to the previous game (Or books) because it decided to dabble more in politics or do something people think is "weird" for a Witcher.
So today I was fortunate enough to attend a exclusive Witcher 3 event hosted by CD Projekt and Microsoft where I got to play the first 3 hours of the game. First of all, from speaking with the dev team, the game is pretty much done. They are in polish mode to iron out bugs and make last minute changes. Far as I can tell, the game is good to go. I want it now! Just based on my limited time with the game, I can already tell this will be my GOTY or at the least, GOTY contender for sure. The game starts off with the usual tutorial and overview of the mechanics. What's great is even the tutorial, it integrates with the overall story in such a great way. Not surprising from CD Project. Also the adult theme which I want to emphasize is very apparent from the start and has a very Game of Thrones vibe to it to make the most familiar comparison to for those of you who haven't played any of the Witcher titles. The outfits, architecture, dialog, the characters is done perfectly to draw you into the world and lore. The combat is smoother than ever and much more intuitive and fun without making it easy. The horse mechanic is awesome and very similar to Red Dead. I like the fact that you can just hold down "A" and it will automatically steer you to the direction you need to go. Great way to check out the beautiful surroundings and vistas. And when I say vistas.. Holy shit! You will be amazed! The engine has no inky blotches to draw far away vistas. Anywhere you look and no matter how far, your eyes will be treated to beautiful scenery as any digital painting. When I say far, i mean FAR! Like holy shit far. When i brought up my in game map which I thought was the entire map. But when the dev showed me the world map, and that where I was looking was just a tiny portion to the south, my jaw dropped. Seriously, the map is huge! No wonder the avg play test of the game is 200 hours. Anyways, you guys are in for a big treat and I can't wait till May comes. I can't even imagine what Cyberpunk 2077 will be like, but judging anything from the Witcher 3, it will be holy shit.
Honestly I came into this thread really excited to read impressions, but after reading this I'm pretty suspect. If you go and play a demo and your first statement of your impressions are "I can already tell this will be my GOTY or at the least, GOTY contender for sure", then one must immediately question the objectivity behind such a sentiment and whether or not the fact that you felt honored to attend a Witcher 3 exclusive event influenced your ability to critically analyze the product you were there to experience.
I don't think this skepticism is mean either, this post does not read like a very in depth report on the pros and cons of the game, more like a bulletpointed list of things CD Projekt would write about how awesome their own game is for REASONS. It very much reads like an advertisement, and I don't mean to imply you're a viral marketer or anything (I repeat, I don't think you are) but it does read like something a marketer would write... over the top praise without actual regard for detail and not actually saying much of anything we don't all already know.
For example, the "adult theme" in the Game of Thrones style has been there throughout the Witcher series so that's nothing new. Are they approaching the dialogue/writing in a special way? What stood out to you about the story that made it seem special even in this glimpse state you experienced it?
You go on a lot about the visuals, but Witcher 2 was a beautiful game and everyone can see that for themselves in the trailers. So yeah it's not actually expressing much new sentiment. Was there some particular area that was especially artistically impressive? Can you describe some of the areas you liked the most and explain why it set off such a bulletstorm of effusive praise?
You say the 'combat is smoother than ever', but what does that mean? How does the combat improve over Witcher 1 and 2 mechanically to make the experience smoother and more enjoyable? Can you describe these elements in any detail?
The rest of your post is literally just repeating how big the game world is, which has no value for me. Because it matters not how big it is, but how they are deciding to pack that game world in with compelling quests and bits of gameplay. If it's a massive world where you're spending time killing 10 boars for 10 boar skins or something like that ala Dragon Age: Inquisition, I'd rather just not have an insanely large game world.
So yeah I appreciate the post but being honest it's not the type of impressions I can quite take seriously yet. I hope you have the time to expand on your thoughts. I am a big fan of Witcher 1 and Witcher 2, so it's not that I am somehow cynical about the game. These impressions just are not...good.
But even if Foltest commanded Geralt to play ball and Geralt would comply there isn't much reason for them to become friends as was hinted at in the prologue. I didn't particularly like the prologue during my 1st playthrough but after playing 1 and starting the Witcher 1 again it didn't feel right.
I never got the impression that they were friends. In fact, I was rather taken aback by how assholish Foltest appeared in the prologue. Coming from TW1, I mistakenly assumed him to be one of the few decent guys around (probably because he appears fairly late in TW1 and is one of the few key players keeping his calm and acting reasonably when everything around is collapsing into chaos and madness). I think this is the main issue with the two games: Although the plot of TW2 is coherent and sufficiently explains all the major questions, you might still approach it with the wrong expectations and with a distorted perception of the world of The Witcher, about how its politics work, etc., if everything you know about it comes from TW1 (I mean, I followed Roche in my first playthrough, because I actually thought that I should *care* about Temeria and Foltest due to the events in TW1 - couldn't have been more wrong about this). So yes, TW2 really caught me having really enjoyed its predecessor but otherwise not knowing anything about the series on the wrong foot during my first playthrough. However, having a better grasp of The Witcher universe now, I actually think that TW2 clearly surpasses TW1 in the story department.
For anyone that hasn't played Witcher 1 and/or 2, plenty of spoilers in-bound so avoid this. (Apologies for the massive post, I don't have a TL : DR version sadly)
Witcher's are not exempt from servitude, however due to their nature 99% of the time they avoid it. Witcher's are generally looked upon dis-favorably, even (especially) by Nobility/Kings, and are only hired when the nobility have dire need in the form of a monster problem. However in Geralt's case, he's now saved Adda twice, saved the King and Foltest has grown to not only consider him a "luck charm" but also grown to like him, and both factor in Foltest wanting to keep Geralt around. Not to mention there's a few of sub-points:
-Triss is Foltest's royal adviser & Geralt wants to stay close to Triss for obvious reasons.
-Triss is collecting information about the person who tried to assassinate Foltest, and since it was a Witcher it has Geralt interested. So he wants to stay close to discover information regarding that.
-Geralt still hasn't recovered his memory, actually at the start of TW2 he's barely recovered much at all. He has no idea where Zoltan/Dandelion are, and there's no point for him to run off on his own with his lack of memory, so he sticks around people whom he is comfortable with - Triss/Foltest.
-Foltest (And Radovid) paid Geralt a handsome sum for taking down Jacques, Geralt was also rewarded well for saving Adda & so Geralt probably sees some good coin if he sticks nearby Foltest and butchers a few knights (Foltest outright states he will be the most titled/wealthiest Witcher ever once he ensures the children's safety).
As for the neutral path? There isn't one, and there isn't meant to be one, that's by design. You spend the entire duration of The Witcher 1 having just about every character shout at you at least once, "You can't stay neutral forever Geralt" or have characters openly mock your "Witcher Neutrality". It's foreshadowed to the point where even a monkey could realize that Geralt was eventually going to get caught up in politics.
Not to mention that Geralt wants to fuck off from all the bullshit and do his own thing anyway, but there's always something standing in his way. He wants to tell Loredo & Roche to fuck off and get out of Flotsam, but then Triss realizes the rose of remembrance and how it could restore his memories. Then when he has the rose he's ready to fuck off again, but Triss gets kidnapped. Then Cedric tells him to go to Aedirn and he'll recover his memory after participating in a "great battle". Which he has to go to anyway to find Triss, and he spends the rest of the game searching for her because he's not about to leave any of his friends to harm, especially not his lover.
Actually I've seen it argued that there is a "Neutral Path" in The Witcher 2, and that is simply that Geralt is never dabbling in politics because he wants to, but because it's convenient. He's using other people and the political situations, to ultimately achieve his selfish goal(s). Geralt doesn't give a shit about Roche or Iorveth, it's about his friends and ensuring their safety. He follows Roche/Iorveth because it conveniently leads him to where Triss is. He gets caught up in the Aedirn political shit because he has to clear the mist to find Triss. Even fighting in the battle for Vergen is less about the political crap and more-so because he doesn't want someone like Zoltan or his Dwarven Bros to die. Ultimately this all also leads to him recovering his memory and finding Yennefer/Ciri.
Personally I don't believe this, because after all the foreshadowing in The Witcher 1 I think it's by design that 2 doesn't have a neutral path, but I still find it both an interesting and plausible theory.
Now I certainly didn't pick all of this up on my first playthrough, but The Witcher 2 is all very well connected, with both The Witcher 1 and the foundations laid down by the book series. There's a lot going on under the surface & there's lots of elements people can miss. I just tend to get frustrated when people think The Witcher 2 did something "wrong", when really it didn't, it's just that some people personally prefer the atmosphere and "Witcher Work" style elements of the first game over the second. The Witcher 2 is extremely strong in its own right and certainly didn't do something incorrect or unconnected to the previous game (Or books) because it decided to dabble more in politics or do something people think is "weird" for a Witcher.
Fair points and the Witcher path theory is intriguing, I disagree on it being discouraged in 1 though. True people pushed you to pick a side for Geralt but I felt reluctant to do so cause Geralt himself said Witchers do not dabble in politics.
Also Neutral path is the standard path picked when not importing a savegame which the majority of the playerbase probably hasn't.
I don't think the writing is weak in 2, though citing amnesia for his loss against Letho is cheap, I just didn't particularly like the disparity to TW1 and on my first playthrough before having played TW1 and starting to read the books I genuinely had no clue about the background nor most of the people/factions.
Well i'm of course basing it on the time I played. Though with 3 hours, i've only gone through the prologue which at the same time works as a tutorial and couple missions to track down Yennefer. Of course the rest of the game could end up being crap. But my prediction is from what I've experienced during my play time, the previous Witcher games, vids that I've seen so far, and my faith in CD Projekt. Same way I thought Red Dead would be my GOTY when I played the first 2 hours. Also when I was heading to my first destination, there were so much stuff in the world that I wanted to check out in detail everything that I was passing by. In one case on my my first mission, I passed by this house where there was a family crying outside. I had to dismount and see why they were crying. Half of their house was burnt down, and a bloody dead body right out side. I tried talking to them but they kept telling me to STFU and get the fuck out of here. I tried punching them when they freaked out and ran. I felt like a total jerk. Here one of their family member is dead and their house is in ruins. But continuing my way to my destination, you'll come across random stuff like this. Even saw some bodies left hanging by a tree which I just wanted to check out. You'll see interesting objects or ruins in the middle of nowhere and can't help to explore. You'll see all kinds of people on the road and little patches of farm and houses where you just want to go up to them and see whats up. I tried really hard to focus on my missions to at least get a good feel of how the missions are structured instead of just wondering around which I was really tempted to. And to think this is only as tiny section of the world it is just mind blowing.
What happens next isn't that much of a spoiler alert but I'll tag it anyway.
So continuing on with Vessemir to reach I forgot the name of the place, we run into a dude that is getting attacked by a giffin. After some cool cut scene, you have an option to either be a total dick and demand for payment or be a chap and say you just wanted to help. I decided to be nice. The dude being appreciative, said to go to his town just up the road to a tavern where his sister or mom will treat me like family. Also that they might have information on Yennefer. Upon reaching the town, you can already see and feel the problems with griffins. Lots of dead bodies, people mourning, and people hating on witchers. Speaking with people in the tavern, you get your first introductory to the political system in the works and who's doing what of the griffin problem. You speak to series of people to find out about Yennifer and what the hell is going on here. After talking to the tavern owner, i went out to explore the town to scope out the peasant ladies hoping to get laid which ended up being disappointing. This is basically where I left off.
BTW i forgot to add this screenshot. This is from the prologue of the game after you race with Ciri down from the castle to meet with the other witchers.
Yeah I just stumbled upon that a few seconds after I posted it, but it doesn't really help things much. He's defending his GOTY assessment after 2 hours because of Read Dead, which tells me he's a guy who gets easily excited and doesn't have much regard for critical analysis of products. I don't mean to sound harsh, but it really is completely devoid of any analysis whatsoever, which is weird because this is supposed to be a topic of "impressions" but the only impression I'm getting is that it's an RPG where stuff happens. Which is cool, but doesn't have much value for me personally.
He describes something that occurs in a mission in that post, but again no real detail about why any of that is particularly special, how the combat gameplay improves over the past games (smoother, he said), how the story is presented in a way that is especially noteworthy. He's essentially describing that the world has events taking place in them, but not describing how any of this demonstrates any given quality about the game. In an RPG world, you stumble upon lots of different things going on... this isn't news. I'm looking for some in depth analysis to justify GOTY declarations. The entire post is just basically a synopsis of a story part he experiences, but with zero analysis as to why he is coming to the conclusions he is about the product.
So I'm not sure what I am supposed to be learning from that post either
I don't know man, I'll just keep reading the topic to see if we get any meaningful detail haha...
Fair points and the Witcher path theory is intriguing, I disagree on it being discouraged in 1 though. True people pushed you to pick a side for Geralt but I felt reluctant to do so cause Geralt himself said Witchers do not dabble in politics.
You've misunderstood me, I'm not saying the neutral path was discouraged in TW1, I'm saying that the political aspects of TW2 and the necessity of picking a side was foreshadowed in TW1. You're constantly told that "you can't stay neutral forever" and eventually you'll have to pick a side, which of course comes true in TW2.
The neutral path in TW1 is definitely the path that feels the most "right", and you're correct that Geralt himself even mentions that he doesn't want to dabble in politics. However it's still a heavily foreshadowed element in TW1, and it becomes clearer even towards the end of the game as characters like Foltest & Radovid start becoming heavily involved in the plot.
Geralt couldn't avoid politics in the books. Even going the neutral path he still couldn't avoid it in TW1. Then in TW2 it reaches peak and not only can he not avoid the politics but he gets actively dragged into situations he doesn't want to be in, and is forced to pick a side to further his goals.
You bet your ass I'll be the first one picking a neutral path if there is one in The Witcher 3, but politics is still a fairly significant part of The Witcher, and Geralt's political engagements in TW2 are not only explained, but generally speaking inferred by the first game.
But that has more to do with The Witcher 2 not really tying in very well with its predecessor story-wise (something which has always bothered me about the game and actually left me feeling a bit disappointed at first). At the end of TW1 Geralt is basically invicible, yet he starts out extremely weak at the beginning of TW2 and the game doesn't address this at all. Even your imported endgame gear is downgraded to level one - I mean, what's the point? There's a lot more that doesn't really make sense when you put TW1 and TW2 next to each other, but as a self-contained story, TW2 works quite well I think.
As someone who just started TW2 recently, it's not actually "importing" your gear - it's just starting you out with better gear than you would have otherwise. The steel sword becomes obsolete quickly but I kept the silver sword (Aerondight I think it was called) until halfway through chapter 2. The armor they start you with is also quite powerful, but it was so hideous I had to ditch it early. I appreciated that they started us off with all the signs this time. I felt like it represented an adequately advanced character moving on to new locales and new challenges. Geralt feeling weak probably has more to do with initial unfamiliarity with the new combat system than anything else.
Agreed that they could have acknowledged your actions in TW1 a little better - I think that would be more appreciated than the dozens of cameos by obscure characters from the novels that not many people have read (though I'm trying to remedy that). That said CDPR seems intent on making sure that each game in the series can be played without prior knowledge of the previous games, so I'm sure it's intentional as opposed to an oversight.
You've misunderstood me, I'm not saying the neutral path was discouraged in TW1, I'm saying that the political aspects of TW2 and the necessity of picking a side was foreshadowed in TW1. You're constantly told that "you can't stay neutral forever" and eventually you'll have to pick a side, which of course comes true in TW2.
The neutral path in TW1 is definitely the path that feels the most "right", and you're correct that Geralt himself even mentions that he doesn't want to dabble in politics. However it's still a heavily foreshadowed element in TW1, and it becomes clearer even towards the end of the game as characters like Foltest & Radovid start becoming heavily involved in the plot.
With all the people telling me that in TW1 I didn't even know there was a neutral path until I complained about the binary choice on GAF. The game spent so much time making you choose between humans and non-humans that I figured it wouldn't allow you to go your own path, and didn't recognize the point in the game where you're given that choice for what it was.
You've misunderstood me, I'm not saying the neutral path was discouraged in TW1, I'm saying that the political aspects of TW2 and the necessity of picking a side was foreshadowed in TW1. You're constantly told that "you can't stay neutral forever" and eventually you'll have to pick a side, which of course comes true in TW2.
The neutral path in TW1 is definitely the path that feels the most "right", and you're correct that Geralt himself even mentions that he doesn't want to dabble in politics. However it's still a heavily foreshadowed element in TW1, and it becomes clearer even towards the end of the game as characters like Foltest & Radovid start becoming heavily involved in the plot.
Geralt couldn't avoid politics in the books. Even going the neutral path he still couldn't avoid it in TW1. Then in TW2 it reaches peak and not only can he not avoid the politics but he gets actively dragged into situations he doesn't want to be in, and is forced to pick a side to further his goals.
You bet your ass I'll be the first one picking a neutral path if there is one in The Witcher 3, but politics is still a fairly significant part of The Witcher, and Geralt's political engagements in TW2 are not only explained, but generally speaking inferred by the first game.
That makes sense, can't say I'm particularly a fan of it but I enjoyed the game nonetheless. I also wouldn't want no politics at all I just felt 2 had too much but that is explained by it being mostly a setup for 3.
I need to find a PC to replay TW2 though since my Surface Pro 2 can only just so barely handle it.
I hope CDPR will find a way to let us recreate or port savegames over to consoles, like I said can't even handle TW2 very well so I'm going consoles for now.
That makes sense, can't say I'm particularly a fan of it but I enjoyed the game nonetheless. I also wouldn't want no politics at all I just felt 2 had too much but that is explained by it being mostly a setup for 3.
I need to find a PC to replay TW2 though since my Surface Pro 2 can only just so barely handle it.
I hope CDPR will find a way to let us recreate or port savegames over to consoles, like I said can't even handle TW2 very well so I'm going consoles for now.
My primary concern is with the "balance" of the combat in the game. I can deal with plenty of "jank", but having the vast majority of fights play out in the same fashion (*Shield* attack attack attack *Shield* attack attack attack) gets tiring.
To kick off all the press impressions CDPR will also have a special Twitch event.
All-new gameplay footage with developer commentary + Q&A session
15 minutes of never-before-seen The Witcher: Wild Hunt gameplay highlights, while Damien Monnier Senior Gameplay Designer, and Miles Tost Level Designer, will be coming in live from the studio to provide developer commentary for the new footage. Theyll be offering their insight, and an exclusive peek at the development process behind closed curtains at CD PROJEKT RED
a.) GAF isn't a hivemind
b.) If a game is a downgrade, it's a downgrade... it can still look awesome despite being a downgrade. I'm not saying Witcher is downgraded, but someone pointing out it's downgraded if it indisputably is is an actual good thing to do. It keeps developers to task for false advertising.
Yeah, thats probably the best trend to come out of this gen so far. Many of the big AAA games are putting themselves out there and having twich events and showing off long form gameplay demos of their stuff. I think its awesome.
Foltest offered him an "offer he couldn't refuse", you could say, even more because the assassin was a witcher, so even if Geralt saved Foltest, he was also a bit suspect just by his condition of witcher, too.
Just a quick note: Foltest doesn't know the assassin was a Witcher until you tell him. Geralt didn't know until you found out in the beginning of the game.
Just a quick note: Foltest doesn't know the assassin was a Witcher until you tell him. Geralt didn't know until you found out in the beginning of the game.
I'm starting to wonder if this game will recapture that feeling that I've only experience from one game, and that was playing Zelda:TOoT on N64 back in the day when it came out.
So did anyone question the validity of the OP's statements? As to whether he actually attended the hands-on event and actually played the game? His/her version of how the game starts uses some basic info that we already had. What I think might have happened is that the OP the knowledge from the training screenshot with Ciri at Kaer Morhen and the knowledge of the bathtub scene seen from a photo that appeared on (I think) twitter before OP made a post here about the start of the game. Seems to me like OP may have simply connected some dots there and made up the initial moments of the game based on the little info we already had..
The mods on The Witcher's official forum started removing all references to this thread once he posted what happens at the start of the game due to the embargo. Before that they let the original post go.
If you decide to rescue Triss, then, during the epilogue, you come across a group of Kaedwenian soldiers pulling a heavily wounded Iorveth on a cart. If you fight them, one of them drops Philippa's dagger and Triss saves Iorveth by teleporting him back to Vergen.
Geralt also mentions to Triss (if you spare the dragon) that perhaps there'll be another opportunity to lift Philippa's spell. I hope that the developers will include something that ties in with this in the sequel. I wouldn't bet on it though :-/
Honestly I came into this thread really excited to read impressions, but after reading this I'm pretty suspect. If you go and play a demo and your first statement of your impressions are "I can already tell this will be my GOTY or at the least, GOTY contender for sure", then one must immediately question the objectivity behind such a sentiment and whether or not the fact that you felt honored to attend a Witcher 3 exclusive event influenced your ability to critically analyze the product you were there to experience.
I don't think this skepticism is mean either, this post does not read like a very in depth report on the pros and cons of the game, more like a bulletpointed list of things CD Projekt would write about how awesome their own game is for REASONS. It very much reads like an advertisement, and I don't mean to imply you're a viral marketer or anything (I repeat, I don't think you are) but it does read like something a marketer would write... over the top praise without actual regard for detail and not actually saying much of anything we don't all already know.
For example, the "adult theme" in the Game of Thrones style has been there throughout the Witcher series so that's nothing new. Are they approaching the dialogue/writing in a special way? What stood out to you about the story that made it seem special even in this glimpse state you experienced it?
You go on a lot about the visuals, but Witcher 2 was a beautiful game and everyone can see that for themselves in the trailers. So yeah it's not actually expressing much new sentiment. Was there some particular area that was especially artistically impressive? Can you describe some of the areas you liked the most and explain why it set off such a bulletstorm of effusive praise?
You say the 'combat is smoother than ever', but what does that mean? How does the combat improve over Witcher 1 and 2 mechanically to make the experience smoother and more enjoyable? Can you describe these elements in any detail?
The rest of your post is literally just repeating how big the game world is, which has no value for me. Because it matters not how big it is, but how they are deciding to pack that game world in with compelling quests and bits of gameplay. If it's a massive world where you're spending time killing 10 boars for 10 boar skins or something like that ala Dragon Age: Inquisition, I'd rather just not have an insanely large game world.
So yeah I appreciate the post but being honest it's not the type of impressions I can quite take seriously yet. I hope you have the time to expand on your thoughts. I am a big fan of Witcher 1 and Witcher 2, so it's not that I am somehow cynical about the game. These impressions just are not...good.
I don't take any skepticism or even insult personally from any internet forums so no worries there. I admit, writing isn't my thing at all and like I've said before, I'm just a regular gamer giving out my impression without having feel like I'm writing an essay. So my impression details are very general. I don't know what value any of game impressions or previews give to each person but I'll try my best without spending too much time writing.
The adult theme is nothing new of course. I wanted to state it in particular for those new to the witcher games. But as far is being any different from the witcher 2? No. It has basically the same tone and feel to it in my opinion. It basically continues from where it left off.
The visuals are really hard to put into words without seeing it for yourself. It's certainly not anything I've ever seen before in a game for an open world game of this size and scope. I guess you just have to see it for yourself before whatever I say more about it will ruin your expectations of it. But that new preview link will somewhat help to show what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqat43KUAxY The griffin taking off with the horse is the dude's horse that you save in the beginning from my impressions.
The only thing I can say about the combat is, it feels tighter and more fluid than the W2. It feels way more responsive and It feels like I have more control. I think it may have to do with the animation but tapping of "x" and going to "y" doesn't cut the animation in a awkward way but feels natural. His combat moves are very similar to W2 where his "x" is fast and "y" is more of a powerful attack. I also noticed his combat stance also changes but not sure how exactly in control you have with it. Though he does automatically faces his closest target but not necessarily locked into it. The only thing I didn't like was that I couldn't find a button to block, parry, or counter. I meant to ask about this but forgot.
Other than that, W3 feels and plays like a Witcher game. At least basing it off W2, It just feels bigger and richer. That's the best way i can explain it is it feels like an expanded and improved W2. He walks the same way and the controls basically the same when controlling him.
So did anyone question the validity of the OP's statements? As to whether he actually attended the hands-on event and actually played the game? His/her version of how the game starts uses some basic info that we already had. What I think might have happened is that the OP the knowledge from the training screenshot with Ciri at Kaer Morhen and the knowledge of the bathtub scene seen from a photo that appeared on (I think) twitter before OP made a post here about the start of the game. Seems to me like OP may have simply connected some dots there and made up the initial moments of the game based on the little info we already had..
Well you'll see it for yourself if I'm just connecting the dots. But just connecting the dots wont tell you that you'll get a closeup ass shot of naked Yennefer. Or her sitting at her vanity table sideways in an angle where you can almost see her twat. And that screenshot of Ciri with the rest of the witcher, Geralt isn't wearing that outfit.
Books are the SOURCE material and are all fantastic. English translations are supposed to be passable, but best versions are original Polish, then Czech and Spanish.
The game delves deep into politics, but doesn't do a very good job of explaining it. I found it almost impossible to understand what was going on (and especially why and how everything connected) during my first playthrough. I played through TW2 again a few weeks ago, though, and it all made perfect sense.
), I don't think there's a lot they can and/or need to do with Letho and Silé (if you let them live), as we get sufficient closure on both in TW2, and the political questions regarding the Pontar Valley / Vergen / Flotsam / Aedirn also seem secondary in light of the Nilfgaardian occupation. The whole dragon / Philippa (who, by the way, is also one of the few characters that survives the events in TW2 in all endings) / Radovid plotline is a different matter though.
