602 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

I can't disagree with your criticisms of the game systems- it does often feel like a chore and I hate the combat. I also don't like the prologue. The dialogue is really good, however, and if you have to have subtitles on to catch it all, that's small sacrifice. I would also strenuously disagree that the characters are dull. Obviously that is opinion and taste but I found even the minor characters to be interesting. As for different accents, what do you expect in a crossroads trade town with various subcultures?

Modifié par Addai67, 02 janvier 2013 - 04:43 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Addai67 wrote...

I can't disagree with your criticisms of the game systems- it does often feel like a chore and I hate the combat. I also don't like the prologue. The dialogue is really good, however, and if you have to have subtitles on to catch it all, that's small sacrifice. I would also strenuously disagree that the characters are dull. Obviously that is opinion and taste but I found even the minor characters to be interesting. As for different accents, what do you expect in a crossroads trade town with various subcultures?

Gotta say how nice it is to have a civil semi-disagreement about a game without someone getting all defensive and protecting it like I'm beating up a family member lol.

Regarding accents thats fair enough - I guess it just seemed a bit odd to me because as a Brit they really stood out. I can live with that in games such as Divinity 2 where they all have the same accent, then it's cool, but the variety added an extra layer of mental processing for me as I'd think "Where's that accent from in real life?" mid-game, and it sort of broke the immersion for me a bit. Fair comment though.

The characters just didn't grab me I'm afraid. Possibly because of the confusing and scattergun prologue I'd already developed a dislike for them? But either way I just didn't care about much of what was happening.

Also, the game also just had to much general "trudgery". I never once felt as if exploring an area, house or anything would lead to any kind of significant reward. The way exploring was handled was just so, so processed - enter house, move analogue stick round in circle and mash button until everything is picked up, move on to next house. You can really tell in modern games where people have cut corners and used the copy-paste method to just satisfy a requirement. They should either do it with care or not do it at all IMO.

And then we are back to a pet hate of mine - inventory management. Encumberance is just not fun. RPG's should be about finding everything you can, not doing that then having to go somewhere and drop it off before you're "allowed" to look for more. Many games are guilty of that though.

But like you say each to there own, I just wanted to offer an alternate view as I thought the original was a great foundation, but a flawed implementation (6/10 for me), and after reading the reviews I really expected this to be a cracking game. As it is it felt like a step backwards overall, and I'd rate it a 4/10.

I'd say 25% of the time I had fun, 75% of the time it felt like a real chore.
 
I really hope that future RPGs lose this trend of bit-questing like with  the dice and pub-fights too - they do nothing but slow down the whole experience.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 02 janvier 2013 - 09:11 .

[Cyberfrog81]

Being a witcher is not about systematically entering every home and expecting exciting lewt.

[Addai]

The minigames are all optional except for once or twice you have to fist-fight. Side quests give color and flavor to the world and I often enjoy them more than the main story. I love the dice poker, though prefer it in TW1.

[Dutchess]

If you find the mini games not enjoyable, you can skip them. Optional, eh?

And what was so bad about the prologue? I can understand it's confusing if you play throug the sequences randomly, but they are listed in chronological order, so if you pick 1, 2, 3, I don't see what could be so scattered. You only start to get a good grasp of characters later in the game, and characters like Iorveth don't even appear in the prologue, so none of the characters "grasping" you because of the prologue doesn't sound that convincing to me.

The characters appear multi-layered to me, with obviously much thought put into them. Often they are more than the stereotypes they appear to present at first glance. Personally, I'm very impressed with the characters and the story. Besides personal preference and opinion on the subject, there is not much to debate upon. The game is certainly not badly written, I'd say.

[Addai]

The prologue is long and boring, lots of cutscenes and ladder climbing and QTEs. It feels like a slog.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The prologue is one of my favorite parts of the game. I felt it started with a bang, then followed by the slower and more "peaceful" pace of act 1. I think it was a great introduction to the story, themes, and ambiance of the game.

But to each his own.

[Gibb_Shepard]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Have just "finished" (given up halfway through Act 2) the Witcher 2.

What a truly awful, cumbersome and lackluster game.

For starters I don't think I've ever known an intro to a game make such little sense and be such hard work - the fact that it allows you to play the prologue pieces in a random order really didn't help, but regardless I was just like "Why's everyone talking as if I know everything about everything already?" At no point did I have any chance to "play around" with combat so that I could get to grips with it, and it was a pure chore.

Slogged my way through to Act 1 to find a cumbersome combat system which was trying to be clever, but which gets best results when just button bashing; a "broken" quest tracking system; tons of boring dialogue which really didn't feel interactive; an awful item collection system (here's 10 items you've picked up from 1 chest - read them quick! Oh no, gone); the necessity for subtitles due to softly spoken voices and game-specific words; an odd mix of accents (brummie, scottish and yorkshire all being found amongst people who live in an isolated village); and a dull plot all relying on characters looking "cool" to carry it.

I loved the prologue, and it's spelt out for you which order they're supposed to go in. At first you don't know what's going on, but if you listen while the game progresses, then you will. That's kinda how stories work.

I adored Act 1. The most atmospheric and beautiful  town i've seen in a game, with awesome quests to boot. The combat is also awesome imo.

The dialogue was top notch, the item collection was fine, the accents were awesome, and the plot is one of the best i've played; with fantastic characters.

Aren't opinions grand

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 03 janvier 2013 - 12:57 .

[slimgrin]

TW2 is one of the few RPG's where I never skip the prologue. Events there ripple through the whole game. And why do people still b*tch about the QTE's when CDPR made them optional from the start? I mean they got the message..

As far as cutscenes go, as long as they aren't overdone and they're skippable, I've no problem with them. They are an effective and compelling story telling tool. Combat needed a bit more time in the oven but it remains one of my favorite aspects of the game, especially if one gets nitty gritty with alchemy and stats. Loved the VO's, loved the complexity of the plot, loved the fact there was almost no handholding, loved the sex, the intelligent dialog, the foul language, the colorful charcters, the amazing scenery, the grimy seedy side of humanity, the way the game reacts to your decisions. My main criticisms are with the interface and the unfinished/buggy state of the game at release. 

Modifié par slimgrin, 03 janvier 2013 - 01:50 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Double post.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 03 janvier 2013 - 10:45 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

I know the mini-games are skipable, but why include things in a game which bog it down anyway? I'm the type of player who likes to do as many quests as possible, so it niggles at me if I feel like I'm missing something.

It's like releaseing an album with 20 tracks on it, 10 killer songs, 10 filler - the whole experience is better if they release just 10 killer songs, with maybe the odd filler to gel things together.

And I'n sorry but, for me, combat was flat-out awful - if only for the fact that you would play about with different tactics and approaches to things, but 90% of the time you would gain success by button bashing. Most enemies I played you just had to attack relentlessly to beat. And alchemy was totally pointless.

renjility wrote...

If you find the mini games not enjoyable, you can skip them. Optional, eh?

And what was so bad about the prologue? I can understand it's confusing if you play throug the sequences randomly, but they are listed in chronological order, so if you pick 1, 2, 3, I don't see what could be so scattered. You only start to get a good grasp of characters later in the game, and characters like Iorveth don't even appear in the prologue, so none of the characters "grasping" you because of the prologue doesn't sound that convincing to me.

The characters appear multi-layered to me, with obviously much thought put into them. Often they are more than the stereotypes they appear to present at first glance. Personally, I'm very impressed with the characters and the story. Besides personal preference and opinion on the subject, there is not much to debate upon. The game is certainly not badly written, I'd say.

Unfortunately, being totally new to the game I did pick them in a non-chronological order without realizing that choosing said dialogue option would detirmine which section I would play. It confused me and put me on the back foot from the off. IMO it was a stupid way to introduce someone to a game, and by the time I'd met Iorveth I'd already built a dislike for Geralt and Roche.

Also, the order I chose to play in, meant it was very dialogue heavy and combat-light for the first few hours. It just dragged.

Maybe that's the issue - as a relatively casual gamer I felt as if I had to do too much faffing about on the whole to get to any fun parts of the game. I love deep RPGs, but the "deepness" in this game felt ill-crafted. Honestly, i think that once you take away the asthetics there isn't much substance there. It'll be interesting to see what folk feel about it in several years time.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 03 janvier 2013 - 10:43 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Have just "finished" (given up halfway through Act 2) the Witcher 2.

What a truly awful, cumbersome and lackluster game.

For starters I don't think I've ever known an intro to a game make such little sense and be such hard work - the fact that it allows you to play the prologue pieces in a random order really didn't help, but regardless I was just like "Why's everyone talking as if I know everything about everything already?" At no point did I have any chance to "play around" with combat so that I could get to grips with it, and it was a pure chore.

Slogged my way through to Act 1 to find a cumbersome combat system which was trying to be clever, but which gets best results when just button bashing; a "broken" quest tracking system; tons of boring dialogue which really didn't feel interactive; an awful item collection system (here's 10 items you've picked up from 1 chest - read them quick! Oh no, gone); the necessity for subtitles due to softly spoken voices and game-specific words; an odd mix of accents (brummie, scottish and yorkshire all being found amongst people who live in an isolated village); and a dull plot all relying on characters looking "cool" to carry it.

I loved the prologue, and it's spelt out for you which order they're supposed to go in. At first you don't know what's going on, but if you listen while the game progresses, then you will. That's kinda how stories work.

I adored Act 1. The most atmospheric and beautiful  town i've seen in a game, with awesome quests to boot. The combat is also awesome imo.

The dialogue was top notch, the item collection was fine, the accents were awesome, and the plot is one of the best i've played; with fantastic characters.

Aren't opinions grand

lol, yeah and each to their own. Based on those I've read here I'm definitely gonna attempt to play the game again in a month or so, as I may develop a different perspective on things.

At least that's the great thing about these boards - an alternate opinion can help you appriciate games from another angle.

Having said that, DA:2 still remains awful no matter how many times I give it a go lol.

[Haplose]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
And I'n sorry but, for me, combat was flat-out awful - if only for the fact that you would play about with different tactics and approaches to things, but 90% of the time you would gain success by button bashing. Most enemies I played you just had to attack relentlessly to beat.

Again, I get the feeling we were playing a different game. If I tried what you just described, it would be a very quick way to commit suicide. I don't quite like the arcade feeling of the combat... but it's definately not conductive to button-mashing. I'vew found a lot of (dodging) rolling, parrying, riposte-ing, Aard-stunning, tactical positioning, quick striking, retreating and bomb-throwing absolutely required. Maybe it's a question of the difficulty setting. And I heard extensive Quen usage, particularly before the patch, could break the game.  So I did not use it.

Modifié par Haplose, 03 janvier 2013 - 11:09 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Haplose wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
And I'n sorry but, for me, combat was flat-out awful - if only for the fact that you would play about with different tactics and approaches to things, but 90% of the time you would gain success by button bashing. Most enemies I played you just had to attack relentlessly to beat.

Again, I get the feeling we were playing a different game. If I tried what you just described, it would be a very quick way to commit suicide. I don't quite like the arcade feeling of the combat... but it's definately not conductive to button-mashing. I'vew found a lot of (dodging) rolling, parrying, riposte-ing, Aard-stunning, tactical positioning, quick striking, retreating and bomb-throwing absolutely required. Maybe it's a question of the difficulty setting. And I heard extensive Quen usage, particularly before the patch, could break the game.  So I did not use it.

I was playing on Normal, but yes i used the Quen sign a lot - it just naturally stood out as a good sign to use. Quen-up, hit A repeatedly with the odd roll in there and most foes were felled quickly.

Again, much like the prologue's potential mish-mash of plot sequences, if these things are gunna break the game they shouldn't be included. Gamers shouldn't be punished for trying to maximize their fighting potential should they?

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 03 janvier 2013 - 12:01 .

[Khayness]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Maybe that's the issue - as a relatively casual gamer I felt as if I had to do too much faffing about on the whole to get to any fun parts of the game. I love deep RPGs, but the "deepness" in this game felt ill-crafted.

And what other RPGs do you prefer? You mentioned Divinity 2, but you didn't say you loved or hated it.

RPGs are really different, some hate the Witcher games because you can't create your own hero avatar, some hate Elder Scrolls games because the story isn't that important as the sandbox experience, some hate Dragon Age because it has combat reminiscent of the Infinity Engine games.

RPGs aren't for everybody, not even for RPG fans.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Khayness wrote...

And what other RPGs do you prefer? You mentioned Divinity 2, but you didn't say you loved or hated it.

RPGs are really different, some hate the Witcher games because you can't create your own hero avatar, some hate Elder Scrolls games because the story isn't that important as the sandbox experience, some hate Dragon Age because it has combat reminiscent of the Infinity Engine games.

RPGs aren't for everybody, not even for RPG fans. {smilie}

I loved Divinity 2 - absolutely blown away by the game's atmosphere, style and combat. Rough around the edges for sure, but just so much fun and so surprizing considering the relatively poor reception it got.

Thing is I quite enjoyed the first Witcher. With a few (different) combat tweaks and a more interesting plot it would have been awesome. Overall a 6/10 for me, but a great foundation to build on.

TW2 just took a massive step back IMO though. Such a shame, but at least some of you out there enjoyed it.

wiggles89 wrote...
Of course you're going to be able to button mash your way through encounters if you're playing on Normal.

The difficulty level isn't the issue, it's the fact that button mashing was usually a more succesful way of winning than trying to be strategic, use traps/alchemy/signs, and generally do things what the game is based around.

I found myself dying more times on normal by trying to embrace the Witcher's style of combat than I did by taking the Track and Field option of bash, bash bash.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 03 janvier 2013 - 03:29 .

[Addai]

I have to disagree that the depth of the game is in its aesthetics. I actually much prefer the more matte art style of TW1, but the depth and where TW2 really stands out is the complex political story and how you can shape it. But if you disliked Roche and Geralt from the start, that's not much to build on. I would still give the game another go, or rather start from where you left off so that you don't have to repeat the prologue. I also stopped somewhere in act 1 and gave up on the game for a few months before coming back to it.

Modifié par Addai67, 03 janvier 2013 - 03:51 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Addai67 wrote...

I have to disagree that the depth of the game is in its aesthetics. I actually much prefer the more matte art style of TW1, but the depth and where TW2 really stands out is the complex political story and how you can shape it. But if you disliked Roche and Geralt from the start, that's not much to build on. I would still give the game another go, or rather start from where you left off so that you don't have to repeat the prologue. I also stopped somewhere in act 1 and gave up on the game for a few months before coming back to it.

When did it start getting good for you? 

I tried and tried, but it constantly felt like an uphill battle to against mundane and chore-like antics, broken up by pockets of decency here and there.

[KnightofPhoenix]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
I tried and tried, but it constantly felt like an uphill battle to against mundane and chore-like antics, broken up by pockets of decency here and there.

If it's that painful for you, then there's no point in playing it now. Either drop it completely, or take a month or 2 long break and come back to it.

Maybe Act 2 is when it will start getting good for you. I wouldn't know, I loved it from the prologue.
But in any case, the flaws notwithstanding, I strongly believe this game merits at least a playthrough (well 2 if you want to see all the content and fully grasp the story). You'd find that there is much more to it than pretty aesthetics, if political plots intrigue you. If you can give it a go after a few months, try to and hopefully you won't regret it

[SpunkyMonkey]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
I tried and tried, but it constantly felt like an uphill battle to against mundane and chore-like antics, broken up by pockets of decency here and there.

If it's that painful for you, then there's no point in playing it now. Either drop it completely, or take a month or 2 long break and come back to it.

Maybe Act 2 is when it will start getting good for you. I wouldn't know, I loved it from the prologue.
But in any case, the flaws notwithstanding, I strongly believe this game merits at least a playthrough (well 2 if you want to see all the content and fully grasp the story). You'd find that there is much more to it than pretty aesthetics, if political plots intrigue you. If you can give it a go after a few months, try to and hopefully you won't regret it

Think that's my plan now. Tuck it away for a few months and try it afresh later in the year.

It didn't work with DA:2, but it did work with Deaus Ex HR, which I found a let down 1st time, but on return and with the mindset that experience points didn't really matter I loved it.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 03 janvier 2013 - 04:11 .

[Addai]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
When did it start getting good for you? 

I tried and tried, but it constantly felt like an uphill battle to against mundane and chore-like antics, broken up by pockets of decency here and there.

Well now I look forward to act 1, because I like Loredo and some of the excellent side quests.  To me this is where the meat of the story begins and where I feel like it's a Witcher game.  Overall my favorite part of the game is act 2 on Iorveth's path.  There is still some chore-like feeling, especially since Vergen is painful to navigate.  But I love the dwarves, especially their chatter.  Also some good side quests here.

[xSTONEYx187x]

I always feel like people who find The Witcher 2 "boring, a chore, banal" etc are missing out on such a great gaming experience, I know it probably seems nonsensical, it's like when I think of my friends who don't play videogames, I feel for them, missing out on such a brilliant entertainment medium, yet, they don't know what their missing, so it doesn't matter, or they tried it and didn't like it.

I have that mindset when I hear people's disdain for a game like TW 2, it's, it's just so God damn amazing.

Opinions are mad, aren't they.

[Foolsfolly]

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Odd mostly because I just didn't expect it. It's the type of moment where I'm definitely not against a cutscene either, however, since it's not the character I am controlling. It was a bit interesting with Triss (although at the same time a bit more jarring), because I can ask all but one of the questions based on... the choices that I want to make, not Triss. However, it does seem to lend itself to some replayability. It's of the scale of minor nitpick though.

Personally I have mixed feelings about this design choice, they were definately a welcome addition but it does enter dangerous territory where you start deciding the actions of other characters within the story, do you decide based on what you would want them to do or do you decide based on what you think the character you are controlling would do in that situation? Fortunately these decisions dont really change anything in the larger narrative so you wont really end up with situations where certain characters take ill concieved courses of action because the player feels it best that the character he is currently controlling fails in his current endeavor.

Still I did enjoy these moments, especially the negotiation as Henselt, made my decisions based on what I thought the character would do and say which made for a pretty awesome scene.

I have to admit when I first played TW2 not only was I confused about what I was doing (who are these people, why am I the only meeting about a peace accord when I KNOW NOTHING about the war, and all). I had no idea if I behaved 'in-character' or if what I did made any difference or not.

But it IS better upon replaying when you know who they are and what they want. But man we (or at least I) needed to know more about the characters and situation before I took control of them.

[SpunkyMonkey]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

I always feel like people who find The Witcher 2 "boring, a chore, banal" etc are missing out on such a great gaming experience, I know it probably seems nonsensical, it's like when I think of my friends who don't play videogames, I feel for them, missing out on such a brilliant entertainment medium, yet, they don't know what their missing, so it doesn't matter, or they tried it and didn't like it.

I have that mindset when I hear people's disdain for a game like TW 2, it's, it's just so God damn amazing.

Opinions are mad, aren't they.

After reading some of the comments on here I decided to give it another go last night and taking a different perspective on things helped to a certain degree. Having said that it also made me realize other negatives about the game and probably why I haven't enjoyed it as much as others have too.

One of the main reasons I think that I just can't get into it is the fact that the plot just seems too much hard work. One conversation I had with Roche regards a spy on a boat (which I had little clue about if I'm honest) really pinpointed one MASSIVE bugbare of mine with the plot - everyone talks about all these countries, providences and people such as Nilfgaard & Temeria as if I know what they are.

I can't recall the messy prologue or game in general introducing me to any of this, it just seems to throws words at me as if I've lived in that world for 30 years. DA:O did a superb job of introducing me to Fereldan slowly with cut scenes including maps etc. - The Witcher 2 just talks to you as if you've lived there all your life.

Foolsfolly  makes a great point - the plot is messy too. I'm with a King at a battlefield because I need to track a King Assasin in order to clear my name - fine. But I've no idea what this war is about, no idea what this battle 3 years is about, and no idea why folk are betraying their King despite me having killed a bloke with magic armour who was dishing out square coins.

Deep plots should give you more info the deeper you dig, not make it a hassle to digest what's happening. The greatest example I can think of with this is Star Wars - look how simple the intro crawl to Episode 4 is - essentially "Good Guys Vs Bad Guys in X situation". That's how DA:O felt to me and then after you've been eased into the film and when you dig deeper you get the whole lore, religion, backdrop etc.

The Witcher 2 is very Phantom Menace for me - in the very 2nd sentence I'm reading "The taxation
of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute." - WFT? I'm a dumb consumer, not a politician and I need to be eased into things.

I can imagine TW2 being a great play 2nd time through. But should you really have to go to such effort to get enjoyment from a game?

These are the areas BW themselves should be looking at in their own games as to why more casual gamers turn their backs on RPGS, instead of treating us like space monkeys who need flashy, Jackie Chan combat to raise a vacant smile. Just make things easy to digest and get into, and have the depth there if it's dug for.

Also, noticed last night that TW2 is still very processed all-round. Role-playing was little more than just go through all the options in last night's session.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 04 janvier 2013 - 09:15 .