The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings - Pleasantly surprised.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

ChupathingyX:

Maraveno:
you know what my main point of critique for this game is?
Visually it's shite for some reason nobody has been able to touch the scale of epicness that was Oblivions graphics in a rpg since then

Nothing is scaling up to that

The characters were way to bland for me .
The combat is shaky at best
And the story is just a big pile of doggy doodoo

Maraveno out!

Oblivion, in particular Tamriel, had boring level design. Yeah sure it looked pretty but there was nothing unique going on.

1. Oblivion had boring characters who had bland design and that Bethesda stare.
2. Oblivion's combat was just slash, slash, block.
3. Oblivion's storyline was evil demon taking over world and now you need to go find a bunch of holy grail's so that someone else can take on the antagonist for you.

You should do comedy, 'cause you're hilarious.

1 Sorry I like me my forests where I can hunt deer
2 You were in controll of the slashing and blocking tho
3 At least it worked

Ironic Pirate:
I think I read they were considering a console port, is that at all likely?

They've said they'd be happy to do one once the PC version hit the shelves. They've already gotten the tech to downscale for consoles, so it's just a matter of getting someone to pay to have CD Projekt RED spend a few months cutting things up to fit on consoles (stuff like cutting maps up into smaller discrete sets of maps and shit like that because consoles are RAMtarded). CD Projekt themselves will probably foot the bill if they can get enough interest from distributors.

So far it hasn't seemed to make any kind of a splash here on the Escapist. A bit sad for such a stellar game. Is it because it's a PC exclusive release?

I wonder why people misuse the term "Mary Sue" so often? A Mary Sue is primarily author wish fulfillment. A Michael Moorecock reference with questionable people skills and terrible parenting skills who is essentially a bad-luck charm and on a semi-regular basis makes extremely bad judgment calls is not a Mary Sue.

In other words, in Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Blomqvist is a borderline Mary Sue, but Salander is not. It's okay to have a skilled, strong, and reasonably smart character, people.

What's different about the mutagens this time around?

Between the Witcher games and Painkiller, it would definitely seem polish-developed games are a thing to keep an eye out for.

starfox444:
What's different about the mutagens this time around?

Haven't gotten far in the first game so I can't remember them, but from what I've worked out so far in this one, some of the talents have a mutagen slot in it. You get mutagens mostly as drops from monsters. Put the lime in the mutagen in the slot, and voila, you get some minor bonus to your stats.

AllLagNoFrag:
I would reccomend this game to those that enjoy a good RPG game to play whilst waiting for Skyrim/Diablo3/ME3

Maraveno:
you know what my main point of critique for this game is?
Visually it's shite for some reason nobody has been able to touch the scale of epicness that was Oblivions graphics in a rpg since then

Nothing is scaling up to that

The characters were way to bland for me .
The combat is shaky at best
And the story is just a big pile of doggy doodoo

Maraveno out!

You people just have got to be shitting, right? xD

From what I've played of Witcher 2 so far, Skyrim and Diablo3 seem like games you play while waiting for Witcher 2 (or 3 respectively) not the other way around...

And Oblivions graphics and environments were horrible for the sheer fact that they were all randomly generated and there wasn't much effort behind em, you can especially "appreciate" that by looking at the world from the top like here: http://www.uesp.net/maps/obmap/obmap.shtml

It's composed of large barren areas with the same brushes and trees (sometimes in varying sizes) being repeated all over and nothing more o.O

About the characterization, you couldn't have missed the point harder, to be honest. However it's not your fault. Both this game and the previous tried very hard to keep the lore's tone without requiring people to know it in order to get into it. When you know the lore or you play enough to get its feel and explore the back story, then you realize how amazingly they pulled it off. When you don't know it, it takes quite a while before it sinks into you and the most flamboyant bits (Geralt sexing anything with a skirt, people cursing like 90's Bronx) are put into context. For me, it only clicked around Witcher 1's third chapter and for many people this will be way too late. Yahtzee's review is a prime example of this. So, it's the price the devs have to pay for trying to pull this off.

Merkavar:
sorry to be attemptign to hijack the thread but anyone able to download the DLC or anyone know of a solution to get it to download?

I installed and registered the game today, didn't have any issue at all getting the day one patch or the DLC. Did it all through the launcher.

OT - am loving the game so far. The difficulty is unbelievable though - having just finished the first game I thought I knew what to expect. I was mistaken.

The only thing that's bugging me (well actually two things now that I think about it) is the fact that I have no cursor in-game. I haven't checked it out, so i'm not sure if it's a bug or not, but i'm finding it slightly annoying.

The second (and by far less annoying) is the texture pop-in that sporadically shows up. I'm sure this is a driver issue though.

Combat is a lot of fun, much more challenging than the first game. The game itself looks beautiful (running it maxed out apart from the ubersampling), and the characters are pretty well voiced from what i've seen.

Ok, my only problem with the game is that goddamn part during the opening where you have to run from the dragon.

No, it's not a spoiler. One of the very first dialogue options - before you even know there's a dragon in the game - is "What about the dragon?"

Trolldor:
Ok, my only problem with the game is that goddamn part during the opening where you have to run from the dragon.

No, it's not a spoiler. One of the very first dialogue options - before you even know there's a dragon in the game - is "What about the dragon?"

Yeah, that's a pain.

If you haven't got past it yet, the trick is to get to the next wooden shelter as fast as you can. Just hack the crap out of the soldiers and run. Don't wait for the friendly NPCs.

Zhukov:

Trolldor:
Ok, my only problem with the game is that goddamn part during the opening where you have to run from the dragon.

No, it's not a spoiler. One of the very first dialogue options - before you even know there's a dragon in the game - is "What about the dragon?"

Yeah, that's a pain.

If you haven't got past it yet, the trick is to get to the next wooden shelter as fast as you can. Just hack the crap out of the soldiers and run. Don't wait for the friendly NPCs.

No, the end of the prologue when you're running towards the bottom of the screen with Foltest.

It just seems that whether it hits you or not is random.

PopcornAvenger:
So far it hasn't seemed to make any kind of a splash here on the Escapist. A bit sad for such a stellar game. Is it because it's a PC exclusive release?

Yeah, I was wondering where the review is. RPS and Eurogamer has already put up theirs'.

Hammeroj:

starfox444:
What's different about the mutagens this time around?

Haven't gotten far in the first game so I can't remember them, but from what I've worked out so far in this one, some of the talents have a mutagen slot in it. You get mutagens mostly as drops from monsters. Put the lime in the mutagen in the slot, and voila, you get some minor bonus to your stats.

Ah, I did it accidentally first time round.

How about these runes? How do I put them on my sword?

Baneat:

Hammeroj:

starfox444:
What's different about the mutagens this time around?

Haven't gotten far in the first game so I can't remember them, but from what I've worked out so far in this one, some of the talents have a mutagen slot in it. You get mutagens mostly as drops from monsters. Put the lime in the mutagen in the slot, and voila, you get some minor bonus to your stats.

Ah, I did it accidentally first time round.

How about these runes? How do I put them on my sword?

Runes and armor upgrades are easy to use. When you put your cursor over a Rune or armor upgrade, you'll notice the equipemnt slots will light up indicating that it's usable on that item (ie: Runes and oils for swords, armor upgrades for armor). It's just drag and drop onto the item you wanna upgrade, but it's permanent so be mindful of what you choose. The "dots" or circles beside that item shows how many upgrades it can take.

Applying oils is the same way, just drag it over the sword you want to apply it to and voila, your sword is temporarily boosted.

Dexter111:

AllLagNoFrag:
I would reccomend this game to those that enjoy a good RPG game to play whilst waiting for Skyrim/Diablo3/ME3

Maraveno:
you know what my main point of critique for this game is?
Visually it's shite for some reason nobody has been able to touch the scale of epicness that was Oblivions graphics in a rpg since then

Nothing is scaling up to that

The characters were way to bland for me .
The combat is shaky at best
And the story is just a big pile of doggy doodoo

Maraveno out!

You people just have got to be shitting, right? xD

From what I've played of Witcher 2 so far, Skyrim and Diablo3 seem like games you play while waiting for Witcher 2 (or 3 respectively) not the other way around...

And Oblivions graphics and environments were horrible for the sheer fact that they were all randomly generated and there wasn't much effort behind em, you can especially "appreciate" that by looking at the world from the top like here: http://www.uesp.net/maps/obmap/obmap.shtml

It's composed of large barren areas with the same brushes and trees (sometimes in varying sizes) being repeated all over and nothing more o.O

ehm It's a natural enviroment

The enviroment of Oblivion is comparable with The Area surrounding the town Killarney in Ireland

Actually there's a point in the mountains there where when you look out in tothe distance it looks exactly like you're in oblivion

Zhukov:
The story is very average by video game standards. Which means it's garbage by the standards of other media. The voice acting is rather lacklustre, not bad exactly, but decidedly flat. The supporting characters are nothing special.

I have to disagree. The story is very deep, complex and emotional and choices you make influence the story more than any game I've ever played. The story is actually the best thing about the game.

Zhukov:
Thing is, Geralt is the most blatant Mary Sue I have seen in quite some time. He's a tough, cynical badass with platinum hair and exotic eyes (gold with feline pupils in case you were wondering) who travels the world slaying monsters while being constantly pursued by amorous women. Also, he's an amnesiac with a tragic past. Oh yeah, and he has a slash scar across one eye, because apparently the developers were working off some sort of cliche checklist. His one saving grace is that he's generally a fairly nice guy.

You should definitely replay the game because Geralt is not blatant at all. He has a calm voice so that might give you that impression, but he has to make all of those tough choices and some of the things he says and does on his own indicate that he's definitely a well developed character.

Gametek:

Zhukov:
Thing is, Geralt is the most blatant Mary Sue I have seen in quite some time. He's a tough, cynical badass with platinum hair and exotic eyes (gold with feline pupils in case you were wondering) who travels the world slaying monsters while being constantly pursued by amorous women. Also, he's an amnesiac with a tragic past. Oh yeah, and he has a slash scar across one eye, because apparently the developers were working off some sort of cliche checklist. His one saving grace is that he's generally a fairly nice guy.

***************SPOILER********

He have no tragic past. He died fighting against a "pogrom" against non human, killed by a mere no one. with a fork. He still have this scare on the chest. Tha, a witch stole his dead body and stole gis soul from the dead itself, ressurectin him, but taking away his memory. For I don't remember the reson. Enough deep?

As for the story being shit on other media, it's a reap of from a book. Like harry potter videogame. And the book was good. As any fanboy will tell you.

You completely missed a huge part of the story

Anyone who can miss so much when it is one of the biggest parts of the story and is focused on so heavy really shouldn't even open their mouth about the story.

First off I will say that the Witcher 2 is a good game.

However, it's only a good game because of the amount of effort that the developer put into it and not because everything was executed flawlessly. I hope that makes sense to people, but I suppose what I am saying is that there are several parts of the game that do not work very well, but you can ignore/tolerate them because they are so "close" to being good.

Combat for instance is a big issue with me. The learning curve is far too brutal on it and I can see many people throwing down the game in disgust after being repeatedly killed in the tutorial level. It gets better and more fun once you have more options available to you, but even then there are still many situations where you know that you "won" simply because of luck or because after dying once, you picked the correct "starting action", like throwing a bomb or laying a trap off screen. The controls are just so flaky that even when you think you are "good" at combat, you seriously wonder if you are... It feels impossible to master, which is the opposite of say the combat system in Arkham Asylum, which felt like it got more complicated and intricate (and more possibilities opened up) as you got more skilled with it. Nice try CDProjekt but no cigar.

The loot/alchemy system is kind of broken as well. Limited accessibility of formulas and components from chapter to chapter is a big problem and having the right stuff to make appropriate gear later in the game often depends on having the foresight to know which bits to save from earlier scenes (which is annoying - why should I worry about if I need some creatures eyeballs later in the game???)

Also, the voice acting and dialog are... well they are 80% great and 20% utterly fail. The biggest failing in this department is that often characters talk in really unbelievable dialog. I don't know if this is a translation issue, or if the game was written this way, so I don't know who to "blame" but there are more than a few exchanges of dialog that are utterly. There is also the issue with there being far too many characters with weird fantasy type names to keep track of and too many references to them. I felt like I had to crack open the journal and re-read the character biographies several times just to understand what Geralt or others were talking about at several times in the game. (And I would swear that he often acted/or spoke of people that he shouldn't have known about, or hadn't been mentioned before - I think these are continuity errors but I was so confused to start with it's hard for me to confirm)

Basically put - I would recommend the Witcher 2 to some of my friends. I wouldn't just unreservedly recommend it to anyone because frankly, it's not a game for everyone. That's okay because if anything has been proven over the last few years, it's that making games to appeal to the "broadest base" often leads to unremarkable products. They set the bar really high for their game and they didn't quite meet it, but what they did create is pretty darn good.

I'll leave all comments about Geralt's character and such to the rest of you guys - I don't find myself enthralled in this department, but that's okay I suppose. Like a lot of things in the Witcher 2, it's kind of a mixed bag - some brilliant bits and some "wtf?!?" bits thrown in as well.

Baneat:

Hammeroj:

starfox444:
What's different about the mutagens this time around?

Haven't gotten far in the first game so I can't remember them, but from what I've worked out so far in this one, some of the talents have a mutagen slot in it. You get mutagens mostly as drops from monsters. Put the lime in the mutagen in the slot, and voila, you get some minor bonus to your stats.

Ah, I did it accidentally first time round.

How about these runes? How do I put them on my sword?

Equip the sword and see if there are any empty circles next to the icon. If there are, you can equip a rune. Works pretty much the same as the gems/runes in Diablo 2 - you just drag it on top of the sword; except you get a confirmation dialog box asking if you're sure you want to do it.

A little bit OT: Just finished the game. I knew it was shorter than the first, but damn, it's pretty short overall. The biggest flaw of this game is that it has no climax. It more or less just ends.

Hammeroj:

Baneat:

Hammeroj:
Haven't gotten far in the first game so I can't remember them, but from what I've worked out so far in this one, some of the talents have a mutagen slot in it. You get mutagens mostly as drops from monsters. Put the lime in the mutagen in the slot, and voila, you get some minor bonus to your stats.

Ah, I did it accidentally first time round.

How about these runes? How do I put them on my sword?

Equip the sword and see if there are any empty circles next to the icon. If there are, you can equip a rune. Works pretty much the same as the gems/runes in Diablo 2 - you just drag it on top of the sword; except you get a confirmation dialog box asking if you're sure you want to do it.

A little bit OT: Just finished the game. I knew it was shorter than the first, but damn, it's pretty short overall. The biggest flaw of this game is that it has no climax. It more or less just ends.

What level were you at when you finished?

I'm at the Kayran - And I put a sign damage rune on my suberb shortsword, does +sign damage enhance Axil and Yrden? The hadouken doesn't do much anyway, and Aard is laughable

Baneat:

Hammeroj:

Baneat:

Ah, I did it accidentally first time round.

How about these runes? How do I put them on my sword?

Equip the sword and see if there are any empty circles next to the icon. If there are, you can equip a rune. Works pretty much the same as the gems/runes in Diablo 2 - you just drag it on top of the sword; except you get a confirmation dialog box asking if you're sure you want to do it.

A little bit OT: Just finished the game. I knew it was shorter than the first, but damn, it's pretty short overall. The biggest flaw of this game is that it has no climax. It more or less just ends.

What level were you at when you finished?

I'm at the Kayran - And I put a sign damage rune on my suberb shortsword, does +sign damage enhance Axil and Yrden? The hadouken doesn't do much anyway, and Aard is laughable

I hardly ever used them, maybe once or twice. But they don't really do damage, do they? Doubt they get the bonus. And even if they do, stacking the bonus damage should not be done for these skills, but rather for rest of em.

I was something like level 30.

Right, one note on the whole amnesia thing.

It's only done for the convinience of international market. Geralt is a quite well known fantasy character in Poland there were ton of books with his adventures that explain the character and reasons behind it quite well.

But the game writers felt that a person going into the world without knowing the mythos in the books would be confused enough to have a character that feels so defined and full of history.

Hammeroj:

Baneat:

Hammeroj:
Equip the sword and see if there are any empty circles next to the icon. If there are, you can equip a rune. Works pretty much the same as the gems/runes in Diablo 2 - you just drag it on top of the sword; except you get a confirmation dialog box asking if you're sure you want to do it.

A little bit OT: Just finished the game. I knew it was shorter than the first, but damn, it's pretty short overall. The biggest flaw of this game is that it has no climax. It more or less just ends.

What level were you at when you finished?

I'm at the Kayran - And I put a sign damage rune on my suberb shortsword, does +sign damage enhance Axil and Yrden? The hadouken doesn't do much anyway, and Aard is laughable

I hardly ever used them, maybe once or twice. But they don't really do damage, do they? Doubt they get the bonus. And even if they do, stacking the bonus damage should not be done for these skills, but rather for rest of em.

I was something like level 30.

Axil does damage in the sense that it's hella disruptive and the MC'd mob attacks the others, doing damage to them. The only damaging sign (Directly) is Igni, so if they just meant Igni wouldn't they have put "+4 Igni damage" on the rune rather than "+4 sign damage"?

The game's pretty fuckin long if I'm only level 7 and you finish at 30

Completely happy with its length.

I am really enjoying the game so far.

I am not sure if Geralt is a true Mary-Sue character (but I understand why some would argue he is in the games). If Geralt is a true Mary-Sue that makes him very similar to a crap load of video game protagonists already out there (although Mary-Sue is not as common as the blank slate character).

The Oblivion comparison strikes me as strange because I found Oblivion to be quite weak (plot, world, characters, gameplay - pretty much everything) which is part of the reason I am not interested in Skyrim. The Witcher 2 just looks better than Olivion IMO - I am not sure if the graphics are "better" but the overall artistic choices are excellent compared to Oblivion's "look at our first attempt to make a game in High Def".

I found the combat difficult at first but after getting used it became fun. I don't think it is a matter of luck as, once I figured some key mechanics, I managed to fight without as many problems.

Baneat:

Axil does damage in the sense that it's hella disruptive and the MC'd mob attacks the others, doing damage to them. The only damaging sign (Directly) is Igni, so if they just meant Igni wouldn't they have put "+4 Igni damage" on the rune rather than "+4 sign damage"?

The game's pretty fuckin long if I'm only level 7 and you finish at 30

Completely happy with its length.

Actually, Aard DOES do damage, and so does Quen. Aard does the least damage out of em all, but it's more for incapacitating enemies and shove em off. Can also lead to finisher moves if you're lucky.

Quen does damage to enemies that hit you, shocks em with lightning bolts and only gets better the more it's upgraded. Quen is fucking beast if you power it up because you can take a good beating and chip away other enemies while dealing with one.

To my knowledge, Yrden is the only one I didn't notice any damage, but it's a trap spell anyways.

I finished the game at lvl34 with Geralt as a mix of Sword and Sign. I had half of the Sign branch and half of the Sword branch with majority of those skills fully powered up. Never bothered with alchemy except for the vitality upgdrade, but the balance of the other two branches made my Geralt pretty beast.

Hammeroj:

A little bit OT: Just finished the game. I knew it was shorter than the first, but damn, it's pretty short overall. The biggest flaw of this game is that it has no climax. It more or less just ends.

While i agree that the ending could be more spectacular, it's pretty hard to fit in with character like Geralt. He is not there to save the world from some ultimate evil like most RPG protagonists. He's just professional monster slayer that happened to be in bad at bad time while pursuing his own agenda. That's probably one of the things that appeals to me the most. Your decisions are more in line of butterfly effect/chaos theory rather than direct effects that would be binary good/evil decisions.

The ending suggests that there will be a sequel or an expansion for the story.

Keava:

Hammeroj:

A little bit OT: Just finished the game. I knew it was shorter than the first, but damn, it's pretty short overall. The biggest flaw of this game is that it has no climax. It more or less just ends.

While i agree that the ending could be more spectacular, it's pretty hard to fit in with character like Geralt. He is not there to save the world from some ultimate evil like most RPG protagonists. He's just professional monster slayer that happened to be in bad at bad time while pursuing his own agenda. That's probably one of the things that appeals to me the most. Your decisions are more in line of butterfly effect/chaos theory rather than direct effects that would be binary good/evil decisions.

All I'm saying is that there's no oomph to the ending. Didn't really feel all that satisfying to me, and I suspect it won't for many.

ImprovizoR:
The ending suggests that there will be a sequel or an expansion for the story.

Weren't there something like 17 of them? Either way, all the unfinished plot threads would be a suggestion to that, not the ending(-s), but I sincerely doubt you could make a direct sequel without pretty much ignoring the fact that the second game had many choices in terms of whether or not to kill a major character or who to side with (the Roche or Iorveth thing) and invalidating most of the people's decisions.

Not that I'm against a sequel, I just have doubts it can make the choices from the previous game meaningful.

I have a question that comes from this, though. Does anybody know how much the choices from the first game are felt in the second?

Hammeroj:

Weren't there something like 17 of them? Either way, all the unfinished plot threads would be a suggestion to that, not the ending(-s), but I sincerely doubt you could make a direct sequel without pretty much ignoring the fact that the second game had many choices in terms of whether or not to kill a major character or who to side with (the Roche or Iorveth thing) and invalidating most of the people's decisions.

Not that I'm against a sequel, I just have doubts it can make the choices from the previous game meaningful.

I have a question that comes from this, though. Does anybody know how much the choices from the first game are felt in the second?

As for savegame import, i know some items get imported, apart from that, i have to replay the first part since i lost my savegames and don't want to use someone's else.

bob1052:
Anyone who can miss so much when it is one of the biggest parts of the story and is focused on so heavy really shouldn't even open their mouth about the story.

Weeeey...
A. I have not read the book, I have the first and still to start reading it. And on witcher2 I have still to complete the first act. I know, my collection edition is covered with dust, and my heart cry for that, but I have even to work.

B. I have come reeeeally near to what you said with only two cutscene of that. There is no need to aim your nerd rage to me for that.

Just got to act 2 in the game (I have a full-time job so I don't get a lot of uninterupted play time) and its still going well.

I think this is one of those games that was clearly designed by a team who loved the original stories and set out to make a compelling game. It isn't conventional nor does it feel blandly designed to appeal to the broadest common denominator (which means that some will love it and others will not). I am fine with this approach in gaming as I find too many games (and their sequels) to be retreads of an existing formula.

I spent a few hours with this game today and have to say I'm impressed. The game is...shall we shall, technically a bit buggy. I don't mean New Vegas buggy, just...not polished in it's gameplay. That said though, I thought it was just idle praise people going on about how the game was obviously a labor of love but it really does come through. It's clear the the developers put their heart into this game. So much so that I'm happy to overlook any technical quabbles I might have.

I never got into the first one despite trying hard to do so. This one sucked me in pretty quick though. I'm anxious to see it through to the end.

Hammeroj:
I have a question that comes from this, though. Does anybody know how much the choices from the first game are felt in the second?

The most immediate and tangible thing you'll notice is that swords, armor, and a percentage of your ending gold total transfer over. The impact of big decisions (like siding with the Order or the Scoia'tael) will factor into how certain scenarios later play out (whether you'll have to fight or otherwise talk down folks, stuff like that), and choices like saving or killing Adda will be mentioned and referred back too relatively often, with events taking a different turn depending on how you left things in game one.

The small or more "local" stuff though won't really factor into the sequel since the game isn't set in Vizima or its immediate surroundings.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked