602 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyberfrog81]

Yeah, some effort is expected to "get" the story.

Heaven forbid some games actually are like that.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Did you read all the journal entries? They help introduce you to the world.

Yes effort is required to grasp it, but I understood it from the first playthrough almost perfectly, and I never read the books and TW1's story has virtually nothing to do with the 2nd.

The war between Fotlest and the La Valettes is obvious, many characters (including Foltest) and journals explain it.
Several characters mention the economic importance of the Pontar Valley (As well as journals), and the historic border dispute between Kaedwen and Aedirn. As for why Henselt is hated by some, many in the game mention why, as well as his journal entry.

Effort is required yes, because there's actually a story and plot in there that goes beyond basic, but not that much. If you are not willing or able to put a moderate amount of effort and thinking, then the game is not for you, especially when it's going to get more complicated. So I suggest you drop it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 04 janvier 2013 - 04:32 .

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Foolsfolly wrote...

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.

I never found it hard to understand, basically Henselt is taking advantage of the chaos in Aedirn created by the death of King Demavend and using it as an opportunity to retake Lormark (known as Upper Aedirn to the Aedirnians) while the nobles still squabble over Stennis' claim to the throne.

[KnightofPhoenix]

If you don't mind spoilers, you can check my articles as well, in particular the first one.

TW2's plot is not simple and it does require thinking and dissecting, which I understand means time not all can give. But if you are able and willing, you'll find that TW2 has a very well written and intricate political plot that few games can match.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 04 janvier 2013 - 05:02 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

If you don't mind spoilers, you can check my articles as well, in particular the first one.

TW2's plot is not simple and it does require thinking and dissecting, which I understand means time not all can give. But if you are able and willing, you'll find that TW2 has a very well written and intricate political plot that few games can match.

Nice one, thanks mate

As some have suggested maybe I'm just too much of a casual gamer to put the effort in which is required to appriciate it fully on a 1st playthrough.
For me a good RPG should allow you to playthrough with minimal reading or research, but reward you for doing so. That's the way I like to play games and why I loved DA:O so much - I barely read a codex entry on my first playthrough, but read most on my 2nd. The first was no worse for it, easy to understand and get into, but the 2nd was far more colourful and deep for it.

I still think though that the game should have eased folk into the game better though. A small section (such as one of the origins in DA:O) which doesn't throw anything heavy plot or combat wise at the player, and which allows them to become familiar with the game first is something I think all RPGs need. The way TW2 does it is poor IMO.

Just sitting down to have an hour on it now so will see how it goes

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 05 janvier 2013 - 01:09 .

[Foolsfolly]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

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.

I never found it hard to understand, basically Henselt is taking advantage of the chaos in Aedirn created by the death of King Demavend and using it as an opportunity to retake Lormark (known as Upper Aedirn to the Aedirnians) while the nobles still squabble over Stennis' claim to the throne.

Lemme further explain myself.

First time through TW2 (never played the first and never read the books) I helped Iroveth. Which meant I got Stannis for the Henselt meeting over the Pontar Valley.

The thing is here I am, Geralt the Witcher. I'm very much enjoying the first chapter and Foltsum gets razed while the humans kill the non-humans. Enjoyed it. I get we're now off after the Kingslayer and Triss who have apparently left to some older city.

Now I'm Stannis. A guy I know nothing about talking to a king I've never met on the behalf of a group I have no information about. When Geralt finally shows up I felt relieved because I can keep playing my no-nonesense 'screw politics' Witcher again. WHo doesn't have to know the two parties or their motivations to tell both of them to sod off and then help out the poor and discriminated.

I'm not saying it ruined anything about the game. It just felt confusing to be thrown into this new area, new characters, and who knows what the agreements are about. I still don't know if those choices change anything. My gut tells me no. But it would be really neat if Stannis and Henselt changed their actions a bit based on how you handled that failed negation.

[KnightofPhoenix]

That sequence was very important imo. It characterized Henselt, Sile, Dethmold / Stannis and Saskia, further. It revealed more of the political situation. And shows us how the curse was activated.

The thing I disliked is the presence of choices, not because they do not have consequences (other than a duel or general brawl), but rather because it felt weird for me as a player to make decisions when I'm not Geralt. And that while the choices are not too different, it unnecessarily makes us decide what kind of people they are to an extent (esp Stennis, who could be bold and defiant, or foolishly trying to compromise).

[SpunkyMonkey]

Sorry but had to give up on it now

Tried playing it last night and I went from talking with a Visionary getting a load of spiel about a witch, (and incidentally told that I need to look for a piece of armor which i already had in my possession - the first time I can recall that I'd actually be specifically told what I should be looking for), to speaking with a relic seller who again confused me with tales of this spear, to asking myself what I should be doing and where I should be looking for this spear, and then running into the camp head and being bombarded with more unrelated speil from him.

I love dialogue rich RPGs, but it was all just so confusing and didn't cut to the chase at all. Very laborious and the last straw with me I'm afraid.

I guess TW2 really does depend on how events fall to if you enjoy it or not. I'll try it again in a few months, spend more time reading the backstories and glossary, and hope things fall better then, but this time round it's been nothing but a grind.

I really would be very interested to hear people's opinion on the game after their 2nd or 3rd playthrough and whether they felt it made the experience better or worse.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 10 janvier 2013 - 04:29 .

[IntoTheDarkness]

Nice AAR. it was most interesting to read.


... sorry, truth be told, I need this thread bumped to click 'bioware' button to sort OP's comment from the thread. This feature should be supported when you are already viewing a thread..

Modifié par IntoTheDarkness, 14 janvier 2013 - 08:18 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Waiting for the next playthrough!

Well, since you requested it!

I haven't had a whole lot of time to play (and have been thoroughly distracted by FTL as well as NBA 2k13) for a variety of reasons, but I do want to check it out.

[Allan Schumacher]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

I enjoyed the prologue too.

I think the King was well done.  He was an ass, but came across well for the type of person that Allan Schumacher thinks makes for an interesting fantasy King.

[TobiTobsen]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

I enjoyed the prologue too.

I think the King was well done.  He was an ass, but came across well for the type of person that Allan Schumacher thinks makes for an interesting fantasy King.

Foltest was the only king whose death made me sad. He was a jerk, yes, but he had some redeeming character traits that made him more of a likeable jerk compared to Demavend, Henselt and Stennis.

[Nerevar-as]

Read the first Witcher tale (should be included among the extras of the first game). Gives a very good idea of what kind of person Foltest was.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

I enjoyed the prologue too.

I think the King was well done.  He was an ass, but came across well for the type of person that Allan Schumacher thinks makes for an interesting fantasy King.

Did you play through the prologue in chronoligical order?

[Dutchess]

Phew, I just finished the game yesterday! I died a lot at every boss fight. xD I thought I might try a second playthrough on a higher difficulty (played on normal) but when I see how difficult the bosses were for me that might be a bit too ambitious... Anyway, I was on Iorveth's path but eventually chose to save Triss instead of Saskia. Poor Iorveth got seriously hurt. That made me feel bad. Now I've looked up all the different endings I suppose it would have been better to save Saskia after all.

[Cyberfrog81]

Well, wielders of magic are better off if you choose Triss. How noticable that will be in TW3 is anyone's guess.

[Dutchess]

True, but without Saskia as her "real self" the nonhumans may be in trouble (I didn't kill her). One thing I didn't understand is why killing Phillippa wouldn't have ended the spell. Saskia is doing what Phillippa wants, so dead Phillippa = no thrall Saskia?

[Addai]

Can you kill Philippa? Even when I chose to go get Triss I saw her crawling through Loc Muinne at the end.

[Dutchess]

Addai67 wrote...

Can you kill Philippa? Even when I chose to go get Triss I saw her crawling through Loc Muinne at the end.

No, as far as I know you can't kill her. But I'm wondering why not, since that would have seemed like the easiest solution, but Philippa says that Saskia will forever be under her spell if you kill her. How could that be if it is some kind of mind control?

[Addai]

She put her under Sile's control at the end, so probably that is what she's referring to?

[Cyberfrog81]

Saskia is so "in love" that she'll do anything for Philippa (and presumably her associates).

If Iorveth believed Philippa's death would break the spell, it's not like he would hesitate.

Modifié par Cyberfrog81, 22 janvier 2013 - 11:07 .

[Nerevar-as]

There´s also that in canon she had a different (and rather brutal) death. At least that´s what in universe "history" books say.

[Dutchess]

Addai67 wrote...

She put her under Sile's control at the end, so probably that is what she's referring to?

Hmm, could be, but Sìle can die right before the dragon fight and that doesn't change anything either.

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

Saskia is so "in love" that she'll do anything for Philippa (and presumably her associates).

If Iorveth believed Philippa's death would break the spell, it's not like he would hesitate.

Yes, but why doesn't her death break the spell if it works like being in love with the person who cast it? Saskia would go in mourning when Philippa dies, but other then that there isn't much she could do. I just don't understand Philippa's threat that if she dies, Saskia will be a thrall forever. 

And didn't Iorveth try to kill Philippa and got hurt that way? I didn't hear/see an explanation in the game, but on the wiki I read that Iorveth got scorched by Philippa while he tried to get the dagger. I don't know where they got that information, though. I have only seen a cutscene in which Philippa shoots fire at two guards.

[Cyberfrog81]

It's perfectly possible that Philippa was lying.

Though that info wouldn't be in the game, because that would undermine the whole plot of getting the dagger. Philippa getting away that easily was a bit silly, but I think the idea was to show how outclassed even Geralt was. And of course so they have the option to put her in the next game.

[Chewin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I enjoyed the prologue too.

I think the King was well done.  He was an ass, but came across well for the type of person that Allan Schumacher thinks makes for an interesting fantasy King.

You're the ass!

Nah, I jest. He was quite foolish and reckless--which was shown through the Striga incident and the La Valette revolt--but he was still a capabale monarch who managed to expand Temeria's sphere of influence and making it the most powerful Northern Kingdom. He was also a good military leader and a capable commander, thanks to his charisma.