82 réponses à ce sujet

[Sanunes]

It just reaches what some people want in a game and others can look past the faults based on the size of the studio. Personally I didn't care for the first Witcher game at all and the second one I stopped playing for the combat became tedious (and a few other issues with the design).

I am personally more interested in the Cyberpunk game they are developing for I think one of my biggest issues with The Witcher series is Geralt for I never feel like I am experiencing the world for myself its being done through a translation of how it is for Geralt.

[Il Divo]

Great series, though I absolutely cannot stand Zoltan or Dandelion.

[Jvolikas]

I actually played Witcher 2 for the first time last summer and couldn't get into it at all. Start throwing tomatoes.

[Kurremurre]

Jvolikas wrote...

I actually played Witcher 2 for the first time last summer and couldn't get into it at all. Start throwing tomatoes.

That's okay. I thought it was kind of weird at first, but it grew on me. I've gotten the impression (though I could be wrong) that a lot of people actually really dislike TW2, but really like the first game.

[mybudgee]

Because ( . )( . )

[TheChris92]

Not so sure why Witcher 1 gets the amount of praise but I suppose a lot of people like uneccesary complicated interfaces, slow-dull combat & a weak pacing. I've heard it gets better though so I'll withhold full judgement 'till I get the time to finish the game along with many others. Witcher 2 is pretty good though I enjoyed that game more than I thought I would, despite it having a few characters I don't like, particularly the protagonist.

[Han Shot First]

Liamv2 wrote...

When people say the witcher is great they are usually talking about the witcher 2 not the first one.

This.

[Cheylus]

Well I loved TW1 because of its coherent world, atmosphere and storytelling -- it was at least different from a lot of other games. It didn't felt like a Hollywood movie, a LotR rip-off or an anime, both graphic and story-wise, which is, in my opinion, quite rare. As it is in the books (TW series is a wonderful adaptation from the books, never played a game with that level of respect for the original material - TW2 kinda derailed from that in my opinion), characters looked like archetypes at first but are revealed to be much more than that. In most games I played most characters felt "unidimensional" like popcorn movie heroes. I didn't felt that with TW, they're all "pluridimensional" and there is one or more dimension(s) me as a player can't grasp. That's how good characters are written in novels; I thought that was brilliant. 

I can understand that if you don't like Geralt the whole game is falling. I happened to like him a lot, it helped.
I think OP exaggerates a bit about sidequests, music or graphics (or not in fact, to each his taste). But don't judge enemies and gameplay too harshly if you play on easy. I didn't like the combat too, but on easy you don't have to use magic, potions, stances and you can click your way through to the end of the game; that's not entirely true on other difficulties.

There is also another thing to take into account: people here and in TW forums are trying to oppose Dragon Age and The Witcher, which is very idiotic and juvenile (however the subject comes very often on the BSN contrary to TW board). Some people are blurred by their love for one franchise and I suppose they're twisting their opinion to try to "hurt" the other and its "fanbase". Hence exaggerated criticisms or praise. I can be wrong though.

Also, OP, you're asking "why does it have so much praise" not "why it is considered good": what someone told you about CDPR and their vision of the video game industry is still valid in that regard.
So, yeah, basically I loved TW because it was beautifully unique in my gaming experience first, the question of whether it is good or not came second. 

Modifié par Cheylus, 11 février 2014 - 02:59 .

[Addai]

Han Shot First wrote...

Liamv2 wrote...

When people say the witcher is great they are usually talking about the witcher 2 not the first one.

This.

That's not true at all. Opinions and such.

I prefer TW1, based on atmosphere, art style, combat and a more RPG versus action focus. The first game had very good buzz or else TW2 wouldn't have been as popular as it was.

[HiroVoid]

The first Witcher has some game mechanics that'll make it feel outdated to a lot of people, but I agree with Addai on all her points except maybe art style. I would say I liked the characters and story more in Witcher 2 though. Luckily, it looks like we may get a good mix in Witcher 3.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 11 février 2014 - 05:07 .

[Splinter Cell 108]

Addai67 wrote...

That's not true at all. Opinions and such.

I prefer TW1, based on atmosphere, art style, combat and a more RPG versus action focus. The first game had very good buzz or else TW2 wouldn't have been as popular as it was.

Same, I for one cannot comprehend why people say that. In TW1 you did fight monsters and it was more about that than about political scheming like TW2 was.

If you ask me TW in general has two stories, Geralt's story and the other story about what is happening in the world, in which more often than most games, you cannot stop what happens, you can help decide an outcome but that's it. You couldn't stop the fighting between the Order, or Jacques De Aldersberg just as it was impossible to stop Henselt from rolling over Aedirn or Nilfgaard from causing chaos in the North. 

They did something very right in TW, and that is the fact that Geralt is not a super hero, he cannot stop things like the war with Nilfgaard. You cah choose whether Geralt cares or not, but you can't really stop things from happening. To me the most significant part of that was Loc Muinne, I felt that Geralt was just another person with his own plans in Loc Muinne amongst all the others in that place. You can't stop Nilfgaard from starting the war, even if you have Shilard Fitz-Oesterlen killed along with the rest of the Nilfgaardian expedition. 

[HiroVoid]

You can actually stop Henselt from taking over Aedirn.

[Splinter Cell 108]

HiroVoid wrote...

You can actually stop Henselt from taking over Aedirn.

You can, but you can't really stop the events leading to the battle, which is what I'm refering to. I'm refering to the fact that the events of the world in the Witcher happen no matter what you do, meaning tha Geralt unlike many other main characters in certain RPGs can't stop the events happening in the world. You can't stop the war with Nilfgaard, it will happen regardless of what you do. Same for Foltest and Demavend's murders. 

[Khayness]

My two cents for a few points where opinions aren't prevailing (I prefer TW1 to TW2 too):

Kurremurre wrote...

- The combat, as has often been pointed out, is lame. Admittedly, I played on Easy (making the playthrough only a big waste of time instead of a huge or enormous one), but I don't see how higher difficulties would be much different. Fighting is a simple matter of clicking and watching, and sometimes switching between the three battle modes. A ”challenging battle” merely involves enemies with higher defence and/or health (forcing you to add potion-chugging to the mix) or lots and lots of stunning.

The combat doesn't bother those who grew up on games with combat consisting of clicking on things and watching the combat log go nuts. It functions, it has a dozen of mechanics built on it, it serves its purpose. Not to mention that for a NWN engine retool, it's an achievement they made it so different. Maybe you don't find it fun compared to other imput methods, that's fine.

Playing on higher difficulty forces you to use the tools you are given to a maximum extent, and some people enjoy a good challenge. It has a really cool crafting system which adds a lot to the atmosphere. Reading up on monsters, preparing potions, using special blade oils and bombs can be engaging if you are into immersive gameplay mechanics. Being near lethal poison level and comboing potions for main ingredient bonuses is the normal way to play on the hardest setting.

Switching between styles, piruletting around the battlefield and clever use of signs is damn awesome if you can pull it off in difficult encounters.

And that's just the vanilla game, combat mods would be another lengthy tale. There are fun gameplay elements for those who appreciate them.

Kurremurre wrote...

- The enemies come in very few different shapes and are mostly uninspired. In terms of gameplay, they are completely interchangeable.

So not true. They also come into play on the highest difficulty though. There are tons of stuff different monsters can do to you, like grab attacks, nasty posioning, leap attacks, zergrushing if you don't move around a lot, heavy bleeding dots, blinds, knockdowns, etc. All which requires the necessary preparation to prevail (resist status effect potions for example). You can't mow them down with Group Style and spam Ignii all day long (not until late game anyways), so they will use their tricks on you.

Modifié par Khayness, 12 février 2014 - 01:25 .

[HiroVoid]

I still think its funny how many people complained about how hard the beast fight was, but I got through it with no problem. I chalk that down though to me maybe playing on hard difficulty, so I already got used to using potions and oils on my swords whereas someone on normal difficulty might not have played around with the mechanics.

[grregg]

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

(...)

They did something very right in TW, and that is the fact that Geralt is not a super hero, he cannot stop things like the war with Nilfgaard. You cah choose whether Geralt cares or not, but you can't really stop things from happening. To me the most significant part of that was Loc Muinne, I felt that Geralt was just another person with his own plans in Loc Muinne amongst all the others in that place. You can't stop Nilfgaard from starting the war, even if you have Shilard Fitz-Oesterlen killed along with the rest of the Nilfgaardian expedition.

This^

In general I would describe the Witcher games (especially the first one) as being less epic than other RPGs. Which is very welcome because I consider "epicness" to be kind of like mustard. It does add to the taste when used in moderation but a gallon of mustard all by itself does not sound appealing.

That's of course a matter of personal taste, but too much epic does cause trouble in game design and not many companies are up to tackling them.

[Splinter Cell 108]

HiroVoid wrote...

I still think its funny how many people complained about how hard the beast fight was, but I got through it with no problem. I chalk that down though to me maybe playing on hard difficulty, so I already got used to using potions and oils on my swords whereas someone on normal difficulty might not have played around with the mechanics.

I found it super hard, but I never complained about it. Mainly because I just used Aard and insta killed, not really a fun way to do it but I was getting destroyed by that thing every time and I had invested heavily in Aard by the time I got there. 

[Dutchess]

HiroVoid wrote...

I still think its funny how many people complained about how hard the beast fight was, but I got through it with no problem. I chalk that down though to me maybe playing on hard difficulty, so I already got used to using potions and oils on my swords whereas someone on normal difficulty might not have played around with the mechanics.

Even with specter oil on my blade and a swallow and blizzard potion, the Beast tends to inflict pain on me and then tear me apart, so I felt forced to use Aard and hope for the stun. Last time I played I took the intoxicated perk that makes you immune to stun/pain or something like that while intoxicated, and had Geralt drink booze during the fight. I can't recall anymore if it worked or not. I also had the perk that made intoxication last less long, so the effect wore off early in the battle. I do think I managed to kill it that way...

[Addai]

I didn't have a hard time with the Beast once I figured out that Abigail was just unconscious, not dead. After a dozen reloads. *facepalm*

[Chromie]

EntropicAngel wrote...

While i enjoyed both games, around here it's a bit of a badge of "edginess" to praise TW and bash Bioware's games. Certainly not all Witcher fans do it, but I know a few who do.

Lol okay.

[FireAndBlood]

I only played TW2 so I can't comment on the first game, I found TW2 to be a game that has a fantastic story and amazing graphics, however it also had terrible combat, the characters were all scumbags, with exception of the lady leading the rebellion, which made it hard to relate to anyone. Also the lore was inaccessible to anyone who did not read the books, Bioware games have a codex which we can read why don't they do that for TW2.

Don't get me wrong TW2 is still one of the best RPGs I ever played but it is not the greatest game ever made as the internet hypes it up to be.

[HiroVoid]

There should be a journal that gives codex-like information on the setting in the same area I believe the quest descriptions are?

[Addai]

EntropicAngel wrote...

While i enjoyed both games, around here it's a bit of a badge of "edginess" to praise TW and bash Bioware's games. Certainly not all Witcher fans do it, but I know a few who do.

That's kind of accusing a lot of people of insicerity. How do you know that? A lot of us are in disappointed/ disaffected/ embittered status with Bioware and CDPR makes a nice contrast to some of the worst sins of Bioware in recent years. Just because you perceive that as unfair doesn't make the comparisons shallow.

Additionally, TW had that unpolished feel that ME1 also had (and DA:O to a lesser degree) that tends to be popular with the internet.

Or, you know, they're popular because they're substantial games with pretty fleshed out RPG mechanics and decent C & C.

Sheesh. You're 0 for 2 here.

Odd thing to say, considering that TW is a twitch game.

It is, but I agree with the assessment that it's closer to turn based because you spend more time watching Geralt execute his chain of moves rather than clicketyclicketyclickety. And you can probably tell from my statement which one I prefer.

FireAndBlood wrote...
Also the lore was inaccessible to anyone who did not read the books, Bioware games have a codex which we can
read why don't they do that for TW2.
 

You missed the codex in TW2? That would explain why you found some things confusing.

Modifié par Addai67, 12 février 2014 - 11:13 .

[FireAndBlood]

HiroVoid wrote...

There should be a journal that gives codex-like information on the setting in the same area I believe the quest descriptions are?

I remember character biographies but I don't remember entries that described countries, important battles or other historical events.

The UI interface was a complete mess.