The Witcher 1 vs The Witcher 2.. Which one do you prefer?
12.01.2013 @ 13:59 #402
I guess I prefer the journal system of the original and feel that the cast of characters in TW2 is perhaps a little too large for the games good - but if I had to choose my fav Witcher’ game I would give the nod to TW2, simply by virtue of its astonishing presentation. In addition, TW2 fixes most of my major grumbles with its predecessor and still manages to find a good balance between story, action and player agency. Great games both!
13.01.2013 @ 18:25 #403
I really liked the story of the Witcher 1 but in my opinion, the storylines are way better executed in the Witcher 2. I think the combat in the Witcher 2 is far better than in the first part of the series though it was some getting used to in the beginning!
I really enjoyed the contradiction between the Scoia'Tael and The Order of the Flaming Rose in the first Witcher. In played with the Scoia'Tael against the Order so naturally, in the TW2 I find myself going along with Iorveth to Vergen, which I still think is the better story between Iorveth's and Roche's path. I felt home in Vergen Immediately. Though when I played the game a second time and sided with Roche. Which I then thought was the best storyline. Now I've played the game somewhat 5 times and I still find myself with the contradiction whether to side with a friend (Roche) or go with Iorveth to Vergen.
A game has never made me choose between two things I both want as much as in The Witcher 2 which makes The Witcher 2 better than The Witcher 1 and better than other games I've played. (Oh yes I said it).
17.01.2013 @ 17:43 #406
I wonder if the results would be any different if the poll was reset as of today. Also I wonder how the split is between people who played TW2 first vs. those who played TW1 first.
18.01.2013 @ 07:40 #408
I suspect that may be a big factor. First love is always something special
18.01.2013 @ 10:24 #409
I disagree, there's so many political plots, twists, schemes and decisions involved in The Witcher 2, definitely more so than in TW. In TW2 there are so many different outcomes to these schemes that I still, after playing the game somewhat 6 times, don't know which is the better ending for the world, for Geralt or for Temeria even.
There's so much more background stories to all the characters in TW2 and so much happening behind the scenes that you at first don't even know of. Plus the fact that all the characters have so many motives for what they're doing that its practically impossible to render one good or evil. All except for Loredo who I think is the worst.
Is Letho really that evil by doing what he did for saving his Witcher school from extinction.
Is Philippa really that bad for wanting to have her own nation in which elfs, dwarfs and humans are equal, I'm not saying I agree with her methods but hey, in times of chaos there's not much of a choice than taking radical actions.
And finally, is Nilfgaard really the enemy?
The Northern Kingdoms would gain prosperity, the Nilfgaardian Empire has a good economy, much better than say, Kaedwen with their woods. The Elder races are treated better in Nilfgaard than in the Northern Empire even have their own city: Dol Blathanna. Though Iorveth says that Elves have no future there because Francesca Findabair is forced to sacrifice Scoia'Tael to their execution which is why he thinks Upper Aedirn is the place elves ald dwarves can be free and thus follows Saskia.
I played The Wtcher first but to say the least, The Witcher 2 is most definitely an improvement />
19.01.2013 @ 10:42 #411
I think I'd have to say the second game but only just. I preferred the combat in the first once I got used to it, more fun. I liked Vizima in the first game a lot and going around there and back and forward between the swamp was fun - I liked these areas more than any where in the second game but then Flotsam comes after that for sure, but the first game had great atmosphere. The thing that really annoyed me with the first game was the last several hours. I found it absolutely terrible, way too much fighting and the main bosses constantly teleporting away and throwing more enemies at you made it one of the most annoying experiences I've ever had in gaming. The story was still good but I barely even wanted to get to the end because it was so bad. With the 2nd game I never felt it drag at all which was awesome. I liked all the main characters more in the 2 as well, Iorveth was the stand out.
20.01.2013 @ 17:38 #412
Like maps. And how easy it was to get lost this time around. My steam account said I played 70+ hours after my first playthrough. I'm pretty sure that at least a third of it is because of getting lost in that Flotsam forest.
And like mini games. They were much more enjoyable in TW1, I really don't like QTE fistfighting for example even though the animations are nice. As for the dice poker? I only completed "poker face" side quests and never ever touched dice again while in TW1 Thaler and I spent many nights rolling dice together while he made me rich - ahh those were the days. And I miss getting drunk. Really drunk I mean, not scripted drunk.
I enjoyed combat in both games however for me it was awfully hard to get used to it in TW2. Once I did though, I enjoyed it a lot. More than in TW1. In TW1 it got easier and easier up to the point where I just sat back, watching Geralt dance while occasionally clicking the mouse. Didn't feel the need to learn any sign other than the initial Aard and a bit of Igni. It was impossible to die. In TW2 however, the game didn't give me a break until the very end. I finally had to learn each and every sign and what they're used for. And I like that better. I like the challenge even though I'll always make the story my top priority in a RPG.
So, the story. TW2 is much more business like rather than that more relaxed, mysterious, spooky, fairy tale/folklore like atmosphere of TW1. While there seems to be more major characters of interest in the sequel, there are more memorable minor characters in the original. Friends are not allowed to catch a breath along with you because again, we are in a hurry, we're all business. Which of course, takes away from really caring for these characters (with the exception of Dandelion though. I liked him more in TW2, mostly because of the great decision to tell the story through his eyes in quests. I mean, journal. I still laugh at his explanation of Geralt's hallucination to the "less sophisticated readers" during The Path of Vision) but I understand that's what the new direction of the story requires. So no more parties, no more "hey guys, this girl wants a ring what do I do? oh i know, let's go to the brothel!"s, no more too much of "witcherness" with lots and lots of monsters and dark nights at cemeteries/crypts/swamps. (Seriously, since I played the games back to back, I didn't even realize it was nighttime in TW2 because it was still too light. Never really had that sense of time which I liked a lot in TW1.) But more schemes, more decisions to effect even more people, more "wtf am i doing here i'm just a witcher" moments, more, a lot more difficult choices where you can never be too sure you're "doing the right thing" because it seems to be even more non-existant than in TW1. Therefore, a story feeling even more mature yet somehow, a lot less "complete". You want more of it immediately because there are hints and plotlines that's left open while in TW1, I felt I completed everything and did not leave an inch of ground I didn't step on so.. move on. TW2 is more "to be continued" while in the end of TW1, I was more like "yes, assassins, a good set up for the sequel but Geralt *did* pick up all his coins scaterred around the floor right?"
In TW1, there were times I was bored. I just wanted to get it over with, I admit. In TW2, I kept telling the game: "Roach! Easy, girl!" Especially on Roche's path, huh.
So I see TW2 as a stop (a beautiful, important stop) on the road to TW3 which I hope will be a brilliant mixture of what made TW1 and TW2 great on their own terms. A pace that is neither too fast nor too slow with side quests in spooky places with monsters to feel all witcher-y and a main storyline that balances both politics/business and personal stuff. No high expectations at all. Oh and I loved how we were prepared for the Wild Hunt oh so nicely throughout TW2.
In the end, I voted both. They're so different, yet complement and complete each other like no other.
PS. Major problem: TW2's tutorial is broken. (The one that was added with EE I believe.) It suggested I should stick to easy mode. Offended, I started my game in normal mode. And managed. Died a lot but I managed. So after my normal difficulty playthrough, I went through the tutorial again, confident that it would suggest at least normal difficulty but no, it thinks I should play the easy difficulty again! So as any sensible person would do, I started my second playthrough on dark mode and finished it dying a lot less. Hah take that, tutorial :/
20.01.2013 @ 19:04 #414
Then there's the characterization, which was charming without being simply whimsical for the sake of it. The characters were larger than life without being devoid of depth, and the humor that was there came as a great contrast to everything. Both games have brilliantly delivered exposition, rather than being the piles of text you're supposed to expect from characters' mouth in games like Mass Effect. Speaking of that game, it was devoid of spirit that The Witcher had in spades. Let's not forget about Geralt, a character that you have a great range to define in, yet still has an engaging personality. I just love the general inhabitants of the world, as they are as detailed as the world they live in.
The Witcher 2 filled a gap I think every fantasy fan was waiting for. And let's face it, that's due mainly to Game of Thrones. I had followed the series a long while, but I think my fantasy tendencies were more D&D than anything else. The TV Show, ADwD coming out, and this game though? Absolutely wrecked my impressions of fantasy, and I love it. Political tendencies in the Middle Ages are a fascinating concept, and being able to see them being shaped through personal interactions makes the whole story seem more in control than a king's decree. Not to mention the very nature of it gives us some shocking pot twists, through and through. Though I loathe the use of the word, the 'grittiness' is prevolent without overstaying its welcome. It's not there for the sake of seeming mature... Well, not entirely.
The game itself was infinity more realized than the first, and felt a lot larger. The cast was more varied and interesting, the paths were more varied and interesting, and the quests - you guessed it - more varied and interesting. Even the monster hunting ones were fun, since the learned knowledge you acquired helped far more than simply being able to find out "Where the ploughing skull is". I'll be one to defend the combat in the first Witcher, but the second had leagues more strategy to it. I'm so glad they made that change before they shipped the product, as it was ill fit of the far ore advanced world they had laid out for the sequel. The sheer raw feeling of the world and its character really made the game seem far more than a labor of love.
In the end, The Witcher 2 is far more cohesive, and I think they really understood what they were making for themselves. The first had that sense of wonder to get you engrossed in an adventure (Fellowship of the Ring), and the second had the true scale of the world and its consequences (The Two Towers). I certainly hope it goes further than a trilogy, but the intent of the developers is one I stand firmly behind!