TR Forums

After hearing Witcher 3 may be one of the best games ever made, and since I'm planning to wait on Pascal and a Steam sale to play it myself, I thought it was time to take a look at Witcher and Witcher 2 in my Steam library.

I'm maybe an hour into Witcher, trying to figure out how to make that potion to save Triss after the intro fight scene. The combat seems clunky and weird, the graphics are pretty poor by today's standards, there's a lot of animation bugginess, and a lot of moments that break game immersion particularly in the cut scenes. And I really can't tell how good the story is yet, but it hasn't captured me out of the gate.

But Gamespot gave Witcher an 8.5 rating (and a 9 for Witcher 2, and a 10 for Witcher 3). Then again, it is a 2007 game.

If you were new to the series, would you play Witcher? Or skip it for the second?

Yes and no.

I loved the Witcher original when it came out. But admittedly compared to 2 & 3 the combat is a bit more stats/RPG than the latter ones are "skill" based combat. i.e. your stats build into group style/fast/strong are waaay more important than dodging and rolling around to avoid everyone like the latter 2 are/became. But the RPG in the Witcher 1 is absolutely brilliant. The first area is small and clunky and crappy compared to the rest of the game, but that was probably done to not scare people off as they got used to the different systems in the game. Biggest flaw/quirk that you either love/hate is that you have to prepare before the fights more so than in the latter games. Also it's not an open world in as much as once you move to the next area you cannot go back, so it can feel a lot more challenging coming from the walkover Dragon Age/Skyrim games. It definitely has a better storyline though. Once you make it to the first proper city area the game opens up and becomes amazing and it was probably this feeling in that first city that it feels special for.

I played through 1 (and yeah, combat is neither 1 or 2s strong suit despite 2 being somewhat better) but haven't managed to finish one since. I guess just preoccupied with other games tho.

Honestly with 1 & 2 the actual gameplay, ergo the Combat, isnt all that great. I wouldn't fault anyone who just cheated their way through, particularly 1. I remember banging my head against my keyboard for its clunky system. I just shrugged it off because of the euro studio. What IS GREAT is the story and choices that may or may not come back to haunt you. And some of the other RPG elements are phenomenal.

I just finished the original Witcher. Do not judge the whole game based on the introduction! Combat takes some getting used to, but it isn't that bad. As you upgrade your stances and spells you get pretty powerful, and timing the various sword swings correctly keeps you on your toes (you unlock crazy moves; I love group stance!). If you don't get bogged down in collecting tons of herbs or playing dice, the main story line is pretty decent.

One of the best aspects of the game is that your choices actually affect the story in a meaningful way. There's a civil war going on and you can choose sides, main characters can die because of you, and the final act changes based on what you do during the game. Even on side quests, there's a fair amount of choices you can make that impact gameplay.

Negatives: Gear itemization is pretty weak and I found most spells to be fairly useless (fire being the huge exception). Fist fighting mini games are borderline broken. I only ended up using a few of the potion types, even though there are many different formula, and the alchemy system is deep and well done.

I actually had frame rate issues with 4690K and SLI 970s while in Act 3, until I turned down draw distance slightly, because the city is so sprawling with so many NPCs and the game appears to be single-threaded. I thought the atmosphere and art direction of the game was pretty good for 2007 (same time as the original Assassin's Creed), though of course it can't keep up with modern graphics.

The prologue is not indicative of the rest of the game, by any stretch. I think the game is definitely worth a play through. Just don't spend dozens of hours on it like you might with this kind of RPG.

Thanks! I won't give up until at least I pass through the first city.

But I have a lot to look forward to in Witcher 2?

Yeah, W2 was definitely better than W1. A little more polished, especially after the "enhanced edition" or whatever came out.

And 3 is, well, you've heard.

I tried Witcher 1 and gave up up on it quickly. Still loved number 2. Though the first 2 hours of playtime in nr2 is boring, the rest of the game is fantastic.

My experience with Witcher 1 was the first two hours is brutal as you learn how the mechanics work. It gets better, though, and the plot really really does deliver the goods if you're into story-heavy RPGs. If you haven't already ,dial the difficulty down it should help--this was made by and for oldschool RPG enthusiasts for whom Groundhog Day is the guide to better living so there's no shame in taking it easy.

Witcher 2 uses very different mechanics, similarly excellent story though I found it to be a little bit short compared to the first one.

My advice, as someone who really gets into the plot, is to plow through the tutorial and prologue and play them sequentially.

I played the first game very recently (last year I think), after picking it up alongside Witcher 2 with a 90% discount on both.

I actually liked the "timed" combat, it was a refreshing change from the usual button mashing. The graphics are poor indeed and sometimes the cutscene music is either of the wrong mood or wrong altogether, but the game as a whole was tolerable. The story's nothing you'd get an academy award for but the overall freshness of some of the core concepts is what helps it work.

Fast forward to Witcher 2 and you get an ambitious sequel with similarly questionable story cliches but a complete clustertruck of a combat system. Don't get too used to combat in Witcher, because in Witcher 2 the combat is not "timed" anymore, your hotkeys for signs and swords won't be the same, you get additional hotkeys, you can't drink potions whenever you like, and you'll spend the entire first act of the game cursing whichever god(s) you believe in because backstabs deal double damage to you (a new game mechanic) and you can literally die from one or two blows from some enemies.
(Edit: and no "group style" as a starter ability? Bollocks. At least you get it as a "passive" effect after you've spent a bunch of talent points.)

Once you get a good number of levels and talents set, your weaknesses subside, but it's left a very sore mark with me how the game starts with a paraplegic hero (until level 10-15) against some unfair combat situations. I finished the game earlier this year.

I haven't started Witcher 3 yet except for testing its performance back when such arguments were in vogue.

Since some enthusiastic gamers have replied, what else have you played made in the last 2-4 years that I should play if I haven't already?

Milo Burke wrote:

Since some enthusiastic gamers have replied, what else have you played made in the last 2-4 years that I should play if I haven't already?

Mass Effect, same reasons (and weaknesses in some cases) as The Witcher, with regard to the first game versus the rest.

Meaning it has a great story, but the intro to the first game is clunky and combat isn't good until the third game?

I played the first Mass Effect for an hour or two, didn't get into it. That said, I really revere BioWare for Knights of the Old Republic and Dragon Age. Should I give Mass Effect a more honest try?


Is it just me, or are game mechanics and immediate playability dramatically improving in games?

Milo Burke wrote:

I played the first Mass Effect for an hour or two, didn't get into it. That said, I really revere BioWare for Knights of the Old Republic and Dragon Age. Should I give Mass Effect a more honest try?

If you are strictly in it for the RPG and story I'd say yes. Again like Witcher 1 & 2 at this point I wouldnt fault anyone for cheating their way through. My guess is that Mass Effect 1-3 will set up a lot of back story/lore for the next (already) announced Mass Effect: Andomeda

I have a friend who LOOOVES Mass Effect. She has played it numerous times. Like you, I never got very far, but only because residency sucked up all my time. I have been meaning to give the series another try. KOTOR was such an awesome game back in its day.

My backlog is so huge right now. Besides Mass Effect, I also want to play GTA5, Witcher 2-3, the newer Assassins Creeds, the earlier Batman games, Borderlands series, Far Cry 4, DA:I, Ethan Carter, Talos Principle. Don't really know where to start; doubt I'll get to most of them. Currently playing Deus Ex HR and loving it, but sneaking around isn't the quickest way to finish the game, so it might be a while before I get to more of my backlog. Plus I still get on League of Legends regularly, and enjoy playing some Euro Truck Sim 2 or Civilization 4 once in a while. Then of course working full time..

I did just finish Tomb Raider with 3D Vision and can I just say WOW-AMAZING. I can't wait for VR to hit so that more games start supporting 3D. AC Revelations was also awesome in 3D; love the Ezio trilogy.

Westbrook348 wrote:

Besides Mass Effect, I also want to play GTA5, Witcher 2-3, the newer Assassins Creeds, the earlier Batman games, Borderlands series, Far Cry 4, DA:I, Ethan Carter, Talos Principle. Don't really know where to start; doubt I'll get to most of them.

Start with Ethan Carter. It's by far the shortest of the bunch, yet has outstanding graphics and atmosphere, and a cool story twist.

Milo Burke wrote:

Meaning it has a great story, but the intro to the first game is clunky and combat isn't good until the third game?

I played the first Mass Effect for an hour or two, didn't get into it. That said, I really revere BioWare for Knights of the Old Republic and Dragon Age. Should I give Mass Effect a more honest try?


Is it just me, or are game mechanics and immediate playability dramatically improving in games?

The first game stands well enough on it's own in every way; hangups are really limited inventory management (or lack thereof) which can be annoying until you get the hang of it, but otherwise it all flows well.

Combat gets significantly better in the second game, and the story does as well, particularly for a 'middle game', and that continues to the third. I've gone back and played through with a new character from the beginning more than once, and I've played through the second game five or six times now (upping the difficulty).

There are some amazing stories being told in witcher 1 and 2. If you're a true RPG fan who's in it for the story and atmosphere I highly recommend both games. But both games are kind of slow starters, I think it took me something like 5 hours before I really got into either of the games. The combat in 1 was horrible before I got the hang of it. But they really do grow on you, a lot. Witcher 1 is probably my favorite but 2 has some amazing characters arcs as well.

Some things Witcher 1 and 2 even did better than Witcher 3, Witcher 3 is the better game there is no doubt about it. But W1 and W2 has a lot to offer the hardcore RPG crowd who can take a hint when they see one, witcher 3 has a lot more handholding. For good and for bad.

Meadows wrote:

Fast forward to Witcher 2 and you get an ambitious sequel with similarly questionable story cliches but a complete clustertruck of a combat system. Don't get too used to combat in Witcher, because in Witcher 2 the combat is not "timed" anymore, your hotkeys for signs and swords won't be the same, you get additional hotkeys, you can't drink potions whenever you like, and you'll spend the entire first act of the game cursing whichever god(s) you believe in because backstabs deal double damage to you (a new game mechanic) and you can literally die from one or two blows from some enemies.
(Edit: and no "group style" as a starter ability? Bollocks. At least you get it as a "passive" effect after you've spent a bunch of talent points.)

I have mixed feelings about W2's combat mechanics. They clearly wanted to make the swordplay faster and more badass, like W1's glorious closing cinematic, but it doesn't apply itself very well to the hordes of monsters encountered in the game world. It's like the mechanics guys and the world guys weren't talking to each other, with the former expecting a string of epic duels and the latter expecting lots of AOE spam.

NovusBogus wrote:

Meadows wrote:

Fast forward to Witcher 2 and you get an ambitious sequel with similarly questionable story cliches but a complete clustertruck of a combat system. Don't get too used to combat in Witcher, because in Witcher 2 the combat is not "timed" anymore, your hotkeys for signs and swords won't be the same, you get additional hotkeys, you can't drink potions whenever you like, and you'll spend the entire first act of the game cursing whichever god(s) you believe in because backstabs deal double damage to you (a new game mechanic) and you can literally die from one or two blows from some enemies.
(Edit: and no "group style" as a starter ability? Bollocks. At least you get it as a "passive" effect after you've spent a bunch of talent points.)

I have mixed feelings about W2's combat mechanics. They clearly wanted to make the swordplay faster and more badass, like W1's glorious closing cinematic, but it doesn't apply itself very well to the hordes of monsters encountered in the game world. It's like the mechanics guys and the world guys weren't talking to each other, with the former expecting a string of epic duels and the latter expecting lots of AOE spam.

That's a really good description of the failings of the Witcher 2 combat mechanics. I'm onboard with it.

Thankfully though spamming igni is really effective, you don't really have to swordfight much if you don't want to.

Chaining entire combos together in Witcher 1 was very fulfilling, when you would time every sword swing perfectly and Geralt would get louder and faster and the enemies would just collapse.

Westbrook348 wrote:

Chaining entire combos together in Witcher 1 was very fulfilling, when you would time every sword swing perfectly and Geralt would get louder and faster and the enemies would just collapse.

When you finally got the hang of combat and got enough skills this was dang enjoyable. But the slog to get there was not.

The only time I felt like I was "slogging" in Witcher and it wasn't my own fault was all the walking around, crossing from one side of an Act to another multiple times. I'm glad to see that Geralt got a horse in later games. Otherwise it was my own OCD nature that spent wayy too much time playing dice, collecting as many of the "naughty" cards as possible, making too many trips back to vendors and the inn to sell items and fill up my stash with useless crap because I couldn't bring myself to drop items worth 1g until near the end of the game, and especially going out of my way from point A to point B to pick up every dang herb I saw even if I already had 100 of them and had no plans to use them. If I had just played the game and not gotten sidetracked so much, I don't think there would've been much "slogging." The combat was simplistic but I still enjoyed it and found it fulfilling because of the animations and the timing mechanic; plus a leveled up Igni is just awesome.

TwoEars wrote:

Thankfully though spamming igni is really effective, you don't really have to swordfight much if you don't want to.

Actually, that doesn't always prevent you from getting hit for long enough. Parrying doesn't save your health much unless you spend more points on it, and even dodging only gets useful once you've spent +2 talent points and it propels you thrice as far.

The only two ways that are even remotely fair are aard+two hits and quen+two hits, repeat forever. At least the game itself was interesting enough not to make me quit outright.