Should I try TW2 after an ambivalent TW1 experience?

[_silk_]

Both games do just this, to a degree rarely found in RPGs. I'm not sure why you keep asserting the opposite.

I am just another player who has enjoyed and cursed the game at times. Probably I spent less time with TW than most here and my opinion is utterly unimportant. Kindly consider that I am not an expert (of games as a whole and this special one neither) by any means and that my assertions are only based on my limited experience with the first game alone. I certainly did not explore any shade of the game and you are very welcome to impart your knowledge, your own experiences and your own opinion with me; I assure you that may point of view is not set in stone.

That being said, it was just my impression that Geralt's choices in TW1 not had the impact I expected. I know that there were differences, but eventually they did not matter too much. Choosing elves vs. the order, medic vs. sorceress, heal/cure the guardsman (Vince?) and Adda - I felt it did not change much in this world and for Geralt. Even your entire role playing attitude would not modify the end of the game - no matter if playing a warmongering, violent badass or a "true" witcher using the sword only as his last resort to solve conflicts. Finally you slaughter Alvin and he did not even spit one single word referring to your efforts and your shared past regardless how much you cared for him. However, this was explicitly my (non-power-gaming) impression and in fact I could have missed something.

The story is great, multi-layered, and laden with psychology. Sometimes a single phrase makes three statements at once, and directs the events. I actually even doubt that some of it was intentional because of how good it is. But in order to grasp it all people need to play the game at least twice, with two different ending each, and not everyone will be OK with some of the consequences. Well, if you truly like ASoIaF, and do not mind all the death and brutality, TW2 is for you. In this case I am sure you'll eventually be able to find the most enjoyable way through its story, with the most agreable outcome. But player'sdiscretion is definitely advised.

Now that's interesting! I happen to read ASoIaF just now and so far (currently 3rd book - a storm of swords) enjoy the story. You are right, in quite some aspects this universe bears a almost striking resemblance to the world of TW. Did not think about it until you pointed this out, thank you very much.

As it has been said, the choices and consequences are more pronounced in TW2 and have a deeper impact as well. Heck a decision you make in chapter 1 completely changes the 2nd chapter's story, the npcs you mainly interact with and locations you visit. It really is a game you really need to play more than once to get the full experience by the way. Is that what you were trying to ask?

Looks like I have to get a new graphics card, thank you, too. I think I'll give it a try then.

 

[Blothulfur]

That being said, it was just my impression that Geralt's choices in TW1 not had the impact I expected. I know that there were differences, but eventually they did not matter too much. Choosing elves vs. the order, medic vs. sorceress, heal/cure the guardsman (Vince?) and Adda - I felt it did not change much in this world and for Geralt. Even your entire role playing attitude would not modify the end of the game - no matter if playing a warmongering, violent badass or a "true" witcher using the sword only as his last resort to solve conflicts. Finally you slaughter Alvin and he did not even spit one single word referring to your efforts and your shared past regardless how much you cared for him. However, this was explicitly my (non-power-gaming) impression and in fact I could have missed something.

Afraid i've got to totrally disagree here, your actions mattered a damn lot, whether it was what foes you faced depending upon who you stood with at Kaer Morhen and whether Javed managed to steal all the secrets of the Mutagens. Whether you judged Abigail guilty or innocent, whether you let the Scoiatael arm themselves for their coming struggle, what your relationship was with Siegfried and the Order, whom you backed in the swamp if anybody, whether Vincent and Carmen live or die and whether the guard blame you or not, and whom backed you when you bearded Salamandra in their lair etcetera. All of these choices and many more had consequences, and some of which figure into the sequel.

Of course not much of this affects the epilogue in DeAldersburg's dream, but right up until that moment you are faced with the ramifications of your actions and can turn various people from their path or even ally with them. And in the dream your actions and even passing conversations will come back to haunt you, whether it is Celina, White Rayla, Triss, Shani, Adda, Vincent or whomever, they are there because of what and whom you chose. I can't see how anybody can ask for more than that. As for DeAldersburg trying to talk with Geralt, that all happened too fast, and what was said was the perfect ending for him in my opinion.

It sounds to me like the game simply isn't for you and the choices and consequences aren't to your liking, in which case simply choose something else that you prefer, as Slim says your mind is your own and we can't make it up.

 

[_silk_]

Thanks Blothulfur for sharing your perspective on that. This may come surprisingly, but generally I agree with what you said and I certainly liked this idea. It's only that in face of those choices on your way it seems weird that you cannot influence its ending. I mean, the Grand Master is the final confrontation of the game, it is not only the summit of the ice plains region but the summit of the whole storyline. Given that the game exactly is about your decisions and emphasises that you forge your own destiny, this end doesn't fit so well in my opinion. Contrary to you, I just cannot consider this a perfect ending because this end is determined in blatant absoluteness. And this is just the opposite of what the game embodies and teaches you before. It is possible the game wants to show us that not all things can be changed, that there are things beyond our powers - but why of all things the main storyline and end? Is it some kind of deliberate irony to foil your efforts and hope? Nobody argues when some quest does not ramify into half a dozen options. But the climax of a story with destiny as main actor? It just feels not consistent to me.

 

[Blothulfur]

Destiny doesn't play any part in the endgame, Geralt simply decides to rid the world of a monster as he sees it, the words of the King of the Wild Hunt are crap. In a way it is a tragedy, and the next scene after Jacque's death is the denouement of that tragedy. Personally I think it's another lesson for Geralt, that he can't judge who is a monster, and makes him wonder what he is, which may lead into the next games theme.

I can see no other ending on the Ice Plains, Jacque's gave him no alternative and he had allready sworn to two kings that he would solve that dilemna, which is another lesson to be learnt in and of itself. I loved this ending, for me it made sense.

 

[_silk_]

Destiny doesn't play any part in the endgame, Geralt simply decides to rid the world of a monster as he sees it, the words of the King of the Wild Hunt are crap.

Of course you can decide just to ignore what the King of the Wild Hunt says. But this would seem a bit cheap to me. Don't get me wrong, I didn't like what he said just as much, because in my judgement my decisions were making a difference in some instances albeit not to the degree I wished for. But he was not completely wrong either. The main story and the plot of the Grand Master did unfold largely untouched by your decisions. And your path through this plot was bloody indeed. When I decided to fight and kill the King of the Wild Hunt, I somehow approved his verdict of Geralt being the ultimate weapon of mass destruction one more (and a last) time. Isn't it yet ironic?

But probably this is immanent to the game and also coherent in its own way. TW is no "classic" RPG. You cannot choose the role you are playing - you are Geralt. And Geralt was made a killer. So the game misses a whole branch of choices a "classic" RPG offers. You will not get other options depending on your character skills and you cannot experience a different gameplay due to the choice of your profession etc. Obviously Geralt is a witcher, trained to kill since being a kid. Thus the game, the character development and even most choices you are allowed to make circle all about fighting. Only a few times you can decide to resolve issues by other means than your sword. I will not judge this good or bad, it's just a different scenario. So even if I did not like the things the King of the Wild Hunt said, reflecting his words he was not all wrong. Your way was a bloody mess not matter what you did, but at least you could use some opportunities to make it less bloody. I would have wished for more of these opportunities but by now I think the world of TW is just meant to be exactly how you found it.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Yes, unlike some of the classic RPGs, your character is well-developed, so the full array of choices is never available to you. So, while you're not given a wide range of wholly different options, the developers focus on giving you the choice on some of the finer details, letting you pick between 'lesser evils.' You're just put in a situation where it's all a matter of persepctive, not roleplaying an evil or a good character. To put it in D&D perspective, I see it as playing as a Chaotic/Neutral Good character, and it's up to you to decide if you're leaning more towards chaotic or neutral.

 

[Blothulfur]

I'm sorry to say this Silk but you're wrong again, the King has his own agenda and isn't what he seems, I won't spoil this for you but trust me when I say that he is speaking shit. Like most folk who bleat on about destiny and fate are. The main story and the plot of DeAldersburg is almost purely your doing, so much so that he will repeat back to you your words to him.

The Witcher is very much a classic RPG to me, like Torment, the Ultima's, Betrayal at Krondor and many others that have had a set protagonist whom the developers can actually breathe some life into, rather than the dull and idiotic characterless power fantasies that most other RPG's allow one to play dress up with. Geralt can refreshingly use his brains, skills and allies to get through various situations rather than just slaughtering his way through more and more combat encounters, which is what most RPG's throw at their protagonist's interspersed with a few characterless inane bits of chatter. Hell some RPG's even do not allow you to know what your character can say or restrict you to upper, middle and lower right personality and speech options, all of which lead to the same outcome.

To be honest I think the Witcher stands head and shoulders above these, both in choice and consequence, the numerous manners in which you can complete quests, the living world they craft and the protagonist who is more than the usual caricatured power fantasy of other games. However as i've said before the game obviously is not for you, and i'm beginning to suspect this thread is not really about whether you should play Assassins of Kings, but I shall state for the third and last time that it's your choice and we can't decide for you.

 

[_silk_]

I'm sorry to say this Silk but you're wrong again, the King has his own agenda and isn't what he seems, I won't spoil this for you but trust me when I say that he is speaking shit..

I am fine with that - and thanks for not spoiling the story.

The main story and the plot of DeAldersburg is almost purely your doing, so much so that he will repeat back to you your words to him.

Sorry, do you mean my (Geralt's) doing or his (KotWH)? I didn't think it was my doing (like the KothWH claimed) I only pitied that I had not more influence on it. I hope we are not talking at cross purposes here.

The Witcher is very much a classic RPG to me, like Torment, the Ultima's, Betrayal at Krondor and many others that have had a set protagonist whom the developers can actually breathe some life into, rather than the dull and idiotic characterless power fantasies that most other RPG's allow one to play dress up with. Geralt can refreshingly use his brains, skills and allies to get through various situations rather than just slaughtering his way through more and more combat encounters, which is what most RPG's throw at their protagonist's interspersed with a few characterless inane bits of chatter. Hell some RPG's even do not allow you to know what your character can say or restrict you to upper, middle and lower right personality and speech options, all of which lead to the same outcome.

To be honest I think the Witcher stands head and shoulders above these, both in choice and consequence, the numerous manners in which you can complete quests, the living world they craft and the protagonist who is more than the usual caricatured power fantasy of other games.

Well, I already said I have only limited game experiences. So far the RPG I most enjoyed was the Baldus's Gate series that also featured a very active community providing some tremendous mods. I would not say TW stands head and shoulders above it but admittedly, until now I know only TW1.

However as i've said before the game obviously is not for you, and i'm beginning to suspect this thread is not really about whether you should play Assassins of Kings, but I shall state for the third and last time that it's your choice and we can't decide for you.

I think the discussion focused too much on my "rants" simply because I was asked what I did not like of TW. So I cannot resent anyone that this thread leaves a somewhat biased impression. But I certainly did not hate the game or consider it generally weak. I would not have asked in the first place if I did not care about the game - my experience was just ambivalent as I put it in the header. Consider that to be rather positive as love and hate are often closer to each other than to indifference. Furthermore, your were really helpful and after this discussion I am indeed curios what TW2 has to offer. I think now I have even a better understanding of the first part. So thanks for sharing your insights. I was never looking for someone to decide in my place. I asked my question because TW2 is supposed to be "different" and I wanted to know what this means. I think you gave me a meaningful image of it.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Well, about Geralt being a weapon of destruction - I have to disagree. I think the King was just baiting Geralt. This is the North we are talking about. Just subtract Geralt's actions, and what, there would be less blood and lesser body count, with squirrels going to war on Temeria, and knights unleashing hordes of mutants? Without Geralt the entire damn Temeria would have gone to shit, and much more people would have died.
My main problem with TW1 is exactly the opposite - we do not have any really hard choices, they are not too grey to begin with, and Geralt is as close to be white knight out to help the helpless as it was only possible. When Lady of the Lake knighted him, I was rolling my eyes. In TW1, comparative to the books, Geralt was a bit white-washed, so what the king said did not really make much sense. Given abundance of choices, this take on Geralt was fine, but I became real glad when TW2 rolled out, and it had nothing about "helping the helpless", and any other knightly crap.

 

[_silk_]

Well, about Geralt being a weapon of destruction - I have to disagree. I think the King was just baiting Geralt. This is the North we are talking about. Just subtract Geralt's actions, and what, there would be less blood and lesser body count, with squirrels going to war on Temeria, and knights unleashing hordes of mutants? Without Geralt the entire damn Temeria would have gone to shit, and much more people would have died.

Yes, this is what I thought too. Therefore I became upset with him and his babbling and decided to fight him. It's only then I thought, perhaps he wanted me to kill (him) and I did exactly that and I was left with doubts.

My main problem with TW1 is exactly the opposite - we do not have any really hard choices, they are not too grey to begin with, and Geralt is as close to be white knight out to help the helpless as it was only possible. When Lady of the Lake knighted him, I was rolling my eyes. In TW1, comparative to the books, Geralt was a bit white-washed, so what the king said did not really make much sense. Given abundance of choices, this take on Geralt was fine, but I became real glad when TW2 rolled out, and it had nothing about "helping the helpless", and any other knightly crap.

This is quite comprehensible. We kind of touched this topic when I wrote to see a more profound moral dilemma and thus a harder choice when you must pick one of two (or more) things you love (e.g. one to live vs. die, to mention only the most blatant example). Choosing between a greater and a lesser evil is not so much a moral challenge. (Concerning the Lady of the Lake - evidently being a ripoff I was just unsure if this was meant to be a parody. At least the sword you received was not called Excalibur. )

 

[Mgec]

For me, everything but the music was an improvement in Witcher 2.

 

[Blothulfur]

Ah you want Witcher 2 to be like BG then? It isn't, it's far more nuanced and subtle, and the setting is the same rich deep tapestry presented so well in the first game rather than the Realms. Far less combat and a much deeper and more consistent plot, with more realistic difficult situations, rather than BG's simple morality, gameworld and squeeing romances. The characters are far more believable and self motivated as well.

 

[_silk_]

Ah you want Witcher 2 to be like BG then?

Haha, I'd rather not. When I'd like to play a game like BG, I would play BG, wouldn't I?

It isn't, it's far more nuanced and subtle, and the setting is the same rich deep tapestry presented so well in the first game rather than the Realms. Far less combat and a much deeper and more consistent plot, with more realistic difficult situations, rather than BG's simple morality, gameworld and squeeing romances. The characters are far more believable and self motivated as well.

These are really different worlds, I think we could argue endlessly as it is also a matter of preferences. For example the mods I mentioned not only improved bugs and consistency across the BG games but added so much profound content (incl. character development) that I likely would disagree. But I don't want to prejudge anything, that's just an educated guess and I rather wait with the verdict until I actually get to know TW2. (And hey, if it turns out to be head-to-head with BG I promise I won't complain!)

Coming from TW1 the target mark may not be too high, especially when you refer to nuances and subtlety (and then dare to mention romances - I remember collecting soft porn trading cards for the women Geralt was bedding in the course of the game!) Nuances may be a matter of perspective, you'll always find some if you look close enough. TW1was perhaps less a paragon of subtlety since it featured a lot in-your-face crime, sex, discrimination, violence, poverty, decadence, jealousy ... (not forgetting gutter language and sure enough an evil mage and a megalomaniac self-styled redeemer of humanity) - so from what you are telling me, I am looking forward to the second game of TW. (By the way, I believe the 2nd part of BG to be the better one, too.)

 

[Blothulfur]

Haha, I'd rather not. When I'd like to play a game like BG, I would play BG, wouldn't I?

These are really different worlds, I think we could argue endlessly as it is also a matter of preferences. For example the mods I mentioned not only improved bugs and consistency across the BG games but added so much profound content (incl. character development) that I likely would disagree. But I don't want to prejudge anything, that's just an educated guess and I rather wait with the verdict until I actually get to know TW2. (And hey, if it turns out to be head-to-head with BG I promise I won't complain!)

Coming from TW1 the target mark may not be too high, especially when you refer to nuances and subtlety (and then dare to mention romances - I remember collecting soft porn trading cards for the women Geralt was bedding in the course of the game!) Nuances may be a matter of perspective, you'll always find some if you look close enough. TW1was perhaps less a paragon of subtlety since it featured a lot in-your-face crime, sex, discrimination, violence, poverty, decadence, jealousy ... (not forgetting gutter language and sure enough an evil mage and a megalomaniac self-styled redeemer of humanity) - so from what you are telling me, I am looking forward to the second game of TW. (By the way, I believe the 2nd part of BG to be the better one, too.)

I was never bothered about the sex cards, as i've not got a prudish outraged reaction to tits and arse, but then again I worked three years on doors at a strip joint so i've seen a lot more than the tame stuff in the Witcher. Far better just plain fucking than all the overemotional juvenile guff that you find in other games I say, and it fits with the Chaucer like vibe that the Witcher creates, personally I welcome a realistic bit of crudity and violence rather than the childish renaissance fayre settings of most rpgs.

If you think that the Witcher lacked nuance then you're underestimating it a lot, whether it's Abigails true role in the Outskirts, Haren's schemes with the Scoiatael that simmers in the backgrouns, Triss' motivations, Vaska and Gramps true identities, whom the Brickmakers are really worshipping, Javed's connection to happenings in the Temple Quarter, the clues to Alvin and Jacque's relationship scattered throughout the game, the little gang war Rammsmeat is fighting, the political situation in Chapter Three, the origins of the Order, Radovid's multiple reasons for being in the city etcetera. All these and more are presented in a subtle manner and have far more nuance than the usual go here and kill something quests that most games deal in, and if one fails to spot them then it's not the games fault.

As for mods I like them but they're not part of the main game and a dev should finish their game rather than rely on modders to do so, that and some of them are of the disturbing kind that arise from the strange people of the BSN, and thus to be avoided at all costs by any reasonable individual.

I'll say it again, I really don't think the Witcher 2 is for you, it doesn't tone down anything in the sequel for the prudes or revolve just around a succession of combat encounters like BG so i'd avoid it. But your free to do as you wish.

 

[wichat]

Soft porn cards in TW1?



Maybe the term porn ought to be clearly defined before going further. If we start to argue with the same concept between porn and eroticism something goes wrong from the beginning of this thread. How many terms can be misunderstanding too? RPG? Madurity? Deep story? Morality? Geralt?

 

[Blothulfur]

I'm always surprised by how outraged folk are by a bit of harmless nudity meself, mind you I shower off at shifts end with ten other lads so I hardly notice any more.

 

[_silk_]

Oh, that is kind of a misunderstanding. I don't bother nudity. I bother when nudity is presented in an embarrassing childish way and in a way that adds nothing meaningful but being an end in itself. I even won't shy away now to confess I probably would have liked this when I was a teenager. Sometimes trying too hard to be adult just will not look mature anymore. There were situations it was just too much in-your-face, seemed unnecessary and led nowhere. But apart from that, I don't mind if you like it and consider the sex cards or the women around strip joints erotic. Everyone to his taste.

Though that was only one aspect of the game and for me it was certainly not enough to not like TW in general. I just could not prevent blurting this out when I saw the words subtlety and romances in the same paragraph. But it is really curios to see how the impressions differ. I found TW to feature even to a greater degree those "go here and kill something quests" than BG. There were hardly any quests where I didn't have to kill something as far as I recall the game.

But telling me to avoid TW2 when you yourself only made me curious about it is not very kind of you.

 

[Blothulfur]

Oh, that is kind of a misunderstanding. I don't bother nudity. I bother when nudity is presented in an embarrassing childish way and in a way that adds nothing meaningful but being an end in itself. I even won't shy away now to confess I probably would have liked this when I was a teenager. Sometimes trying too hard to be adult just will not look mature anymore. There were situations it was just too much in-your-face, seemed unnecessary and led nowhere. But apart from that, I don't mind if you like it and consider the sex cards or the women around strip joints erotic. Everyone to his taste.

Though that was only one aspect of the game and for me it was certainly not enough to not like TW in general. I just could not prevent blurting this out when I saw the words subtlety and romances in the same paragraph. But it is really curios to see how the impressions differ. I found TW to feature even to a greater degree those "go here and kill something quests" than BG. There were hardly any quests where I didn't have to kill something as far as I recall the game.

But telling me to avoid TW2 when you yourself only made me curious about it is not very kind of you.

I didn't find the tit and arse cards to be childish or erotic, just a laugh with the little masturbation jokes in each one, the woman choking the chicken and Triss' gratuitous pussy flashes etcetera. But if you dislike it that's your right, just seems a bit petty to get peeved about, bodies are natural and shouldn't shock anybody whose been married or has some years on their back. Still i've seen a lot of self righteous indignation on the net and getting outraged about harmless drawings is hardly a new thing.

Totally disagree about the Witcher having more combat than BG, that's the only way to solve stuff in BG and even more so in the sequel and later Bioware games. You've got an absolute shitload of quests that are resolved in none violent methods, starting with the potion for Triss quest in the prologue, the dice game throughout, delivering Haren Brogg's package, investigating the professor's arrest warrant, holding a seance with Alvin, investigating various matters and solving little problems with the villagers through gifts or talking, identifying Cohen's silver sword, the autopsy quest, procuring books for Kalkstein, and the list just goes on and on. Whereas in other games like BG it's simply a matter of killing everything and everybody, and you have no skills at all nor can interact with the world in any real manner except for looting.

This is why i'd say you're obviously not suited to the Witcher and aren't its target audience, stick with the stuff like BG if you prefer it, but this is just my view so feel free to do as you wish.

 

[_silk_]

I didn't find the tit and arse cards to be childish or erotic, just a laugh with the little masturbation jokes in each one, the woman choking the chicken and Triss' gratuitous pussy flashes etcetera. But if you dislike it that's your right, just seems a bit petty to get peeved about, bodies are natural and shouldn't shock anybody whose been married or has some years on their back. Still i've seen a lot of self righteous indignation on the net and getting outraged about harmless drawings is hardly a new thing.

Completely understand your point of view and agree with what you said about allegedly outraged people. However, you would wrong me to count me as one of those. These scenes did not "shock" or "outrage" me at all, I think at first I laughed too but it just wears off like hearing the same curses from the same homely faces again and again. In my opinion the game is just not in need of such blatancy and no game will be any more "mature" by employing such sequences.

Totally disagree about the Witcher having more combat than BG, that's the only way to solve stuff in BG and even more so in the sequel and later Bioware games.You've got an absolute shitload of quests that are resolved in none violent methods, starting with the potion for Triss quest in the prologue, the dice game throughout, delivering Haren Brogg's package, investigating the professor's arrest warrant, holding a seance with Alvin, investigating various matters and solving little problems with the villagers through gifts or talking, identifying Cohen's silver sword, the autopsy quest, procuring books for Kalkstein, and the list just goes on and on. Whereas in other games like BG it's simply a matter of killing everything and everybody, and you have no skills at all nor can interact with the world in any real manner except for looting.

Sorry, that is just not true. Your could talk you out of some fights in TW, but mostly not. And Geralt has just no other means of doing things as he is a witcher (i.e. a trained killer). Thus it would make no sense if Geralt could not make use of his means - that's what the game is about and consequently I consider that rather as a necessity and not a weakness. It is kind of inherent to the game design. Classic RPGs (I call them "classic" and suppose you know what I mean) like BG often offer a more diversified gameplay already because of the different professions (fighter, mage, rogue to name only the most famous) and the associated approaches in quests and story and every now and then your character skills could influence your options to solve a quest. I leave it to everyone to like one way over the other, some like it more to engage in action others prefer a more talkative, stealth or whatever approach. But I cannot comprehend how you can claim BG would not offer these options. Maybe it is just that you are more familiar with TW whereas I am more familiar with BG. You are surely more proficient regarding TW than I but if you are really serious about what you wrote concerning BG, then this clearly not applies to BG.

This is why i'd say you're obviously not suited to the Witcher and aren't its target audience, stick with the stuff like BG if you prefer it, but this is just my view so feel free to do as you wish.

Hell, you certainly do repeat this a lot. Tell me, why wouldn't I be suited when I only critised certain aspects of the game? I did state that I liked the game, didn't I? Do I have to furiously acclaim everything to be "suited"? Please take my critique with a grain of salt - we argued so much about one point making a mountain out of a molehill, that it must seem I thoroughly hate the game. (Apart from that, consider that I am German and you may be aware (or not) that I have to complain about something as it is part of my cultural identity. I am confident you will understand this being English yourself. As an English always will find a reason to apologize, a German always finds a reason for complaints. )

 

[Blothulfur]

Completely understand your point of view and agree with what you said about allegedly outraged people. However, you would wrong me to count me as one of those. These scenes did not "shock" or "outrage" me at all, I think at first I laughed too but it just wears off like hearing the same curses from the same homely faces again and again. In my opinion the game is just not in need of such blatancy and no game will be any more "mature" by employing such sequences.


Sorry, that is just not true. Your could talk you out of some fights in TW, but mostly not. And Geralt has just no other means of doing things as he is a witcher (i.e. a trained killer). Thus it would make no sense if Geralt could not make use of his means - that's what the game is about and consequently I consider that rather as a necessity and not a weakness. It is kind of inherent to the game design. Classic RPGs (I call them "classic" and suppose you know what I mean) like BG often offer a more diversified gameplay already because of the different professions (fighter, mage, rogue to name only the most famous) and the associated approaches in quests and story and every now and then your character skills could influence your options to solve a quest. I leave it to everyone to like one way over the other, some like it more to engage in action others prefer a more talkative, stealth or whatever approach. But I cannot comprehend how you can claim BG would not offer these options. Maybe it is just that you are more familiar with TW whereas I am more familiar with BG. You are surely more proficient regarding TW than I but if you are really serious about what you wrote concerning BG, then this clearly not applies to BG.


Hell, you certainly do repeat this a lot. Tell me, why wouldn't I be suited when I only critised certain aspects of the game? I did state that I liked the game, didn't I? Do I have to furiously acclaim everything to be "suited"? Please take my critique with a grain of salt - we argued so much about one point making a mountain out of a molehill, that it must seem I thoroughly hate the game. (Apart from that, consider that I am German and you may be aware (or not) that I have to complain about something as it is part of my cultural identity. I am confident you will understand this being English yourself. As an English always will find a reason to apologize, a German always finds a reason for complaints. )

Sorry but you came across as a prude with your disdainful outburst, and i'm used to people being outraged by the drawings and bringing them up first, it's the favourite easy argument of anybody who wants to criticise the game.

I'm afraid that my criticism of BG is true though, there were no player skills or feats, these weren't implemented from AD&D 2nd edition rules into BG2, despite many people asking for their inclusion at the time of development. Unfortunately the vast mass of quests in BG is just slaughter after slaughter, there are hardly any that stray away from this mechanic at all unlike the Witcher which has a huge number as I just proved from simple memory. Geralt fights far less than the Bhaalspawn, this is just plain and simple truth, I realise that you like BG but denying the truth is silly, the game massively overused combat as Bioware is wont to do when padding out there games and that can't be denied. I've played BG and BG2 since they first came out and recently completed a runthrough earlier this year, and i'm simply stating the truth.

The reason why i'm saying the game is not for you is because you asked for our opinion, and the amount of stuff that you disliked and missed in the Witcher makes me fairly sure that sticking to Bioware game would be best for you. I'm simply trying to help with an honest view, and providing objective proof of my arguments in most cases, no other motive. If I were a blinkered fanboy i'd just tell you to buy it for a few dollars from GOG, as it's on sale today and try it, but from what you say I don't believe that it will suit you.