133 réponses à ce sujet

[legion999]

HoonDing wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Geralt is not flat!

And luckily, neither is Triss.

:drumroll:

Also am I the only one annoyed by that typo in the title?

Modifié par legion999, 07 décembre 2012 - 11:33 .

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Also how do the characters of ME2 even compare to Loredo, Saskia, Roche, Iorveth, Radovid, Phillipa, Sile and Dethmold. Sure there are SOME good ME2 characters but they don't anywhere the quality of writing of TW2.

There are these things called opinions... very pesky, I know.  Your reply has that whiff of fanboyism that makes discussions of the Witcher games so unpleasant around here.

Again, I'm not going to defend ME2.  I enjoyed it about as much as your average action movie, but is it possible that your opinion is colored by how badly the setup in ME2 was resolved in ME3?  If so, I would warn you to wait til the chickens are hatched in Witcher 3.  I am very skeptical that they will be able to carry over any major consequences of player choices in TW2, any more than the usual glossing.

[slimgrin]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
These are choices. Where are the consequences / reactivity? 
How does it come close to having the end of Act 1, all of Act 3 and mmost of Act 3 be different depending on choice?

TW2 ends up pretty much in the same place regardless of your act 2, as well.  The same general events happen, and even the advertising that you see "whole different areas" isn't true.  It's the same basic areas in act 2, only some parts are cordoned off at different times.

Most games only give the illusion of reactivity.  TW2 is no different.

O_o...giant portions are cordoned off. Quests and characters are specific to each path, as well as an entirely different perspective on the story. You don't even get the full skinny on Saskia until you play both paths. And you get the best choice of any game I've played in the end. Let the 'bad' guy go.

Modifié par slimgrin, 07 décembre 2012 - 11:36 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

EntropicAngel wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Different locations (and yes they are different, One you are in Vergen, the other, in Henselt's camp, and even when you visit the other location in one of the paths, you dont' see all of it and it's only for a brief moment), different characters, different main and side quests, are not an illusion.

It ending in the same place is irrelevent. What I have is a third of the game being actually different in terms of  story and gameplay. ME1 and 2 don't come anywhere near that.

How long is "one-third," by the way?

You have the end of Act 1 being different, Act 2 being almost compeltely different, and Act 3 being significantly different.

I'd say it's at least 10 hours of unique content for each path, if you skim through it. In general, it takes me 45 hours to finish each playthrough, but I take my time.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 décembre 2012 - 11:36 .

[Chromie]

Addai67 wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Also how do the characters of ME2 even compare to Loredo, Saskia, Roche, Iorveth, Radovid, Phillipa, Sile and Dethmold. Sure there are SOME good ME2 characters but they don't anywhere the quality of writing of TW2.

There are these things called opinions... very pesky, I know.  Your reply has that whiff of fanboyism that makes discussions of the Witcher games so unpleasant around here.

He may come off like that but Costin is just a bit crass and abrasive. No offense Costin you know I like reading your posts. 

[Costin_Razvan]

Your reply has that whiff of fanboyism that makes discussions of the Witcher games so unpleasant around here.

Deal with the fact that I find W2 an inherently superior game to ME2 long before ME3 came out where we have giant terminator robots who have no logical explanation behind and where people are brought back from the DEAD with one of the worst game explanations ( no Geralt did not actually die, he was saved by Ciri in the books ) ever made so he can be shoehorned into joining Cerberus.

Then there's Cerberus who spent four billion dollars on Shepard for no real bloody reason besides that TIM thinks he's a symbol and thus is worth all that effort.

Do I really need to go on? Watch smudboy's videos of ME2 done long before ME3's first trailer even came out and you will see the problems. But the main reason? TW2 treats me as intelligent adult who can make his own opinions on things whereas ME2 treats me like a retarded child.

Ultimately I think your hatred for the gameplay is making YOU biased against it.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 07 décembre 2012 - 11:46 .

[slimgrin]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I feel the same way (as Addai). One reason why I initially wouldn't touch anything TW with a 110-foot pole was because of the people here, on an EA website, doing literally nothing but bashing EA games--namely Bioware's games, and promoting TW like it was the second return of Christ.

It still annoys me.

ME1 is what got me back into games and into RPG's. I was a die hard fan once. But you're right. It doesn't make sense for me to be here now.

Modifié par slimgrin, 07 décembre 2012 - 11:49 .

[Chromie]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I feel the same way (as Addai). One reason why I initially wouldn't touch anything TW with a 110-foot pole was because of the people here, on an EA website, doing literally nothing but bashing EA games--namely Bioware's games, and promoting TW like it was the second return of Christ.

It still annoys me.

Well skip the thread or avoid the forum then. The Witcher games are excellent and like Costin said the games treat you like an adult and there has been a game that has made analyze the story and characters since Alpha Protocol. Sure fanboys will put you off but there is a reason the Witcher games are loved by almost anyone who plays them with it's complex three dimensional characters, great writing and probably the best use of poltics in a game I've seen so far. Factions actual doing something unlike well Cerberus in ME or the Qunari in DA2 and I have to mentions CDPR's great attitude on DRM and support. 

I don't defend the Witcher games because I think they speak for themselves frankly if you gave them a shot you might just like them if not love them. If anything you'll at least be able to form your own opinion unlike others who play for an hour and don't even have the full picture.

Modifié par Skelter192, 07 décembre 2012 - 11:52 .

[Addai]

slimgrin wrote...

O_o...giant portions are cordoned off. Quests and characters are specific to each path, as well as an entirely different perspective on the story. You don't even get the full skinny on Saskia until you play both paths. And you get the best choice of any game I've played in the end. Let the 'bad' guy go.

Like Loghain?

I am not saying that TW2 doesn't have choice or reactivity.  But IMO people exaggerate it.

I await the fan rage over however they handle TW3... if I were CDPR, I'd be very afraid.

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Ultimately I think your hatred for the gameplay is making YOU biased against it.

No, more likely that it's a cinematic game and even the best of those are fairly forgettable in my book.

But I do think that people put TW2 on a pedestal.  It's good, but it's not the be-all end-all and the apex of the RPG genre.  For some people there are things which really limit it.  My husband still won't play them because of the set character.  Good thing there are different games which people like for different reasons.

[Seboist]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I feel the same way (as Addai). One reason why I initially wouldn't touch anything TW with a 110-foot pole was because of the people here, on an EA website, doing literally nothing but bashing EA games--namely Bioware's games, and promoting TW like it was the second return of Christ.

It still annoys me.

I can bash EAware games and promote Persona 3 and 4 if you'd prefer.

[Costin_Razvan]

No, more likely that it's a cinematic game and even the best of those are fairly forgettable in my book.

Well OK, but it is quite insulting to a game that has a great deal of political complexity ( Knight covered that in great detail ) along with very well written, ambiguous characters to be considered equal if worse to a game where so many illogical things happen, from Shepard's revival to the collectors, to certain recruitment missions as well as having some very simplistic characters.

Yes I like Zaeed for instance but he's a simple character. If I compare him to Roche then Roche mops the floor with him in every respect ( even badass factor )

But I do think that people put TW2 on a pedestal. It's good, but it's not the be-all end-all and the apex of the RPG genre. For some people there are things which really limit it. My husband still won't play them because of the set character. Good thing there are different games which people like for different reasons.

People put TW2 on a pedestal because of rightly deserved story, character and universe quality and consistency ( something ME1 and 2 lack a LOT ). Are there problems that people ignore because of how much they love it? Absolutely, but it's much superior to the attempted Gears of War clone that is ME2.

As a story focused, cinematic, linear RPG it is by far and wide the very best. That some people refuse to play it because they dislike the protagonist doesn't change that.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 08 décembre 2012 - 12:18 .

[slimgrin]

Addai67 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

O_o...giant portions are cordoned off. Quests and characters are specific to each path, as well as an entirely different perspective on the story. You don't even get the full skinny on Saskia until you play both paths. And you get the best choice of any game I've played in the end. Let the 'bad' guy go.

Like Loghain?

I am not saying that TW2 doesn't have choice or reactivity.  But IMO people exaggerate it.

I await the fan rage over however they handle TW3... if I were CDPR, I'd be very afraid.

Well I can't agree with you one bit having played the game 5 times and seen all the permutations. But I only think it's fair you admit a clear bias, because any game that uses cutscenes seems to be little more than an interactive movie to you.

Modifié par slimgrin, 08 décembre 2012 - 12:33 .

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

No, more likely that it's a cinematic game and even the best of those are fairly forgettable in my book.

Well OK, but it is quite insulting to a game that has a great deal of political complexity ( Knight covered that in great detail ) along with very well written, ambiguous characters to be considered equal if worse to a game where so many illogical things happen, from Shepard's revival to the collectors, to certain recruitment missions as well as having some very simplistic characters.

I said nothing about story or characters- you went off on that, and gods forbid that anyone "insult" TW2 by not being impressed by it as you are.

[spirosz]

Love these threads.

[Haplose]

Well, the characters in TW2 are very good, the story and, in particular, political intrigues excellent. The choices and consequences second to none. Great art direction and graphics overall.

But the game itself is not without weaknesses. The character development is pretty poor. There are many talents, but they are often very generic, passive, boring and don't make that much of a diffference. Also one talent tree relies way too much on random, farmable drops, which can lead to grinding the game. Why they didn't make the Mutagens craftable or at least mergeable I cannot fathom.
I found the gameplay sadly lacking as well. It's either na action game or an crpg... CDPR should finally make a decision. I'd much prefer a combat system like in Gothic or even Skyrim to the rollfest in TW2.
Then there are way too many cutscenes. Also the silly, gimmicky boss fights with QTEs. I prefer to play a game rather then watch a film.
Also I cannot help but compare it with The Witcher 1... and that game was much richer, bigger and had significantly more impressive and immersive atmosphere. Also many great choices, starting already in the Act 1 (Abigail! now that was a tough choice!). 
So the game is not perfect.... far from it.

Modifié par Haplose, 08 décembre 2012 - 07:27 .

[IntoTheDarkness]

Haplose wrote...

Well, the characters in TW2 are very good, the story and, in particular, political intrigues excellent. The choices and consequences second to none. Great art direction and graphics overall.

But the game itself is not without weaknesses. The character development is pretty poor. There are many talents, but they are often very generic, passive, boring and don't make that much of a diffference. Also one talent tree relies way too much on random, farmable drops, which can lead to grinding the game. Why they didn't make the Mutagens craftable or at least mergeable I cannot fathom.
I found the gameplay sadly lacking as well. It's either na action game or an crpg... CDPR should finally make a decision. I'd much prefer a combat system like in Gothic or even Skyrim to the rollfest in TW2.
Then there are way too many cutscenes. Also the silly, gimmicky boss fights with QTEs. I prefer to play a game rather then watch a film.
Also I cannot help but compare it with The Witcher 1... and that game was much richer, bigger and had significantly more impressive and immersive atmosphere. Also many great choices, starting already in the Act 1 (Abigail! now that was a tough choice!). 
So the game is not perfect.... far from it.

Me thinks the flaws you pointed are a matter of preference where as the story quality can be analyzed objectively.

I personally found the Witcher to be the closest to a perfect RPG.

For instance, *too many* cutscenes is a nice change from endless, meaningless, boring cascade of combats in most other games where you have to kill tens of enemies to move from place A to B. And I love the combat system where your character and player's skills are both required.

The game is not flawed for some people. far from it.

[palker]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

And I could easily point out that plenty of people in the forums are idiots - which is mostly why I don't bother reading jack in here anymore unless I feel like yanking some chains to entertain myself, which I have quite successfully done in this thread (and with facts and a perfectly valid opinion too - go figure).

One thing that I've had to point out a number of times is that I use the Miranda avatar because I was a fan of the series Chuck (I loved that show) in which Yvonne Strahoviski played Sara. I also found the avatar amusing because A) she's an intelligent brunette who can be a stone-cold b-word, just like me and  because she irritated some forumites.

I would never argue that Miranda is NOT sexualized. But the major difference between her and every female that I've seen in The Witcher 1 is that Miranda is a brilliant woman (no matter what you think of the silly catsuit) and mostly sounds like it, as opposed to one of those airheaded bimbos who exist solely for Geralt to bed.

Furthermore, you can collectively stow it about whether or not I have a right to have an opinion about a character. I have played enough of TW1 to know that I couldn't stand being Geralt or listening to Geralt for one more minute, and somehow, I doubt that forcing myself to endure the misery of playing the full game will ever change my opinion of him at this point.

I work on formatting multiple manuscripts during the course of a single week, and let me tell you something: I don't have to read each manuscript in its entirety to know when one of them stinks.
It's usually quite clear within, say, a few paragraphs or pages whether or not
I've been stuck with something tolerable or crap that will make me miserable. The same thing applies to movies or, surprise,
video games - even your precious Witcher.

And finally, I will emphasize that I actually forced myself to watch gameplay from BOTH TW1 and TW2 to see if things would get better or if I had somehow unfairly judged Geralt and company. I actually spent a fair amount of time perusing various videos to see if I would have some hallelujah moment that would prove me wrong - no such luck, though. Per my manuscript example, I don't need 30-plus hours of playing a game to judge a character.

Sorry to break it to you, but there are people who don't think that Geralt is all that and a bag of chips. I tried to play TW1 because I repeatedly heard good things about it here - and then I was summarily disappointed by it within the first few minutes.

That is because you are dumb as a brick.

[TEWR]

I remember watching a Let's Play weeks ago -- which I had to stop watching for reasons -- of The Witcher 2 and Geralt didn't strike me as a misogynist. And Triss sounded like she was an intelligent character.

Question: What are the ideal things for a computer to have in order to capably run the Witcher 1 and 2?

[Chromie]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I remember watching a Let's Play weeks ago -- which I had to stop watching for reasons -- of The Witcher 2 and Geralt didn't strike me as a misogynist. And Triss sounded like she was an intelligent character.

Question: What are the ideal things for a computer to have in order to capably run the Witcher 1 and 2?

I play Witcher 2 just fine at 1920x1200 with a HD 5770 and 4 gigs of ram. I have most of the settings on turned on and on the highest settings except AA, SSAO, Uber and Shadows on low and I still manage to get 35fps.

[Dutchess]

In The Witcher there's also this main quest called "Identity" in which you... you know... develop Geralt's character. It's important to keep in mind that the guy has amnesia. He doesn't know who he is. How do you behave when you have no recollection of who you are? If you think Geralt's flat, it has to do with something on your end as well.
I can understand how the rather emotionless voice acting can make it difficult to see Geralt as something different than bland, and although the voice acting could indeed be better, I think his way of talking and behaving around people serves a purpose as well. Again, he has no memory of who he is. In a world like The Witcher's, you have to be careful with what you do and say. It's better to act composed and professional. There is only one thing that Geralt is certain about, and that is that he is a Witcher. A professional monster slayer. That's the only part of his identity he is certain of, so he acts the part. He behaves calm, serious and professional while he tries to figure out the world, the people around him, and himself.

Geralt is not a misogynist. Yes, he can have sex (although the vast majority of the sexual encounters is completely optional, so you as the player are primarily responsible for the image you create of your Geralt). He doesn't force these women to do anything. Both parties are clear about the meaning of the event and carry on with their lives after it. It's important to see sex in a different light than is normal in the modern world. The Witcher has medieval setting, and in that time life was hard for many people. Long days of work, little time for pleasure. Sex is one of the easy ways to relax a moment and have some fun. It's not so difficult to imagine a bored noble woman or a hard-working peasant woman willing to get intimate with Geralt to break the slur of everyday life.
Some people here have compared Geralt to James Bond, but I'd argue that his status goes further than that. Geralt is famous, whereas James Bond is supposed to be secret agent and is just so irresistable that every woman he looks at melts in his arms. Geralt lacks the charisma James Bond has so much of, but everybody has heard stories about him. He has done some pretty heroic things that everybody knows about (like curing the King's daughter from her curse). He is more of a superhero. Add to that that he's not quite human and thus mysterious... Oh, and he is sterile. Convenient. For the women.

If you don't agree with Geralt having these casual sexual encounters, again: they are completely optional. You also get the chance to develop a more intimate relationship with either Triss or Shani. You can make Geralt a man who would have liked to have a family, had life been different. This makes for a very different perspective. Having Geralt sleep with every available NPC and then yell he's a misogynist is just not fair.