Thats a hard decision but I'll stick with TW1 because:
1.Too much politics. TW2 feels like political RPG not dark RPG. For me politics is the most dull subject you can talk about so I was disappointed that whole story was about it.
2.I don't like TW2 soundtrack. Not saying music is bad but its nowhere near TW1 music.(Doesn't really fit this world or what I don't know(
3.TW2 makes Geralt look like a hero which isn't my style. Prefer hunting down salamandra for revenge than saving kingdoms which I'd rather see them fall
1.Too much politics. TW2 feels like political RPG not dark RPG. For me politics is the most dull subject you can talk about so I was disappointed that whole story was about it.
2.I don't like TW2 soundtrack. Not saying music is bad but its nowhere near TW1 music.(Doesn't really fit this world or what I don't know(
3.TW2 makes Geralt look like a hero which isn't my style. Prefer hunting down salamandra for revenge than saving kingdoms which I'd rather see them fall
Like was said before, Geralt was not the center of TW1. It was Salamandra, Scoia'Tael and the Order. Geralt was as much of an observer, who could participate if he wanted by joining one side. The only subplot that Geralt was the center of was the identity quest (which was great). In TW2, Geralt was the center of the memory subplot (not as good).secondchildren said:
And that's good imo, because it gives you a whole different perspective. A more political one (Temeria especially). This gives incentives to play the other side and experience something very different.secondchildren said:
How so?Agbeth said:
Geralt's primary motivation is to clear his name. As the plot goes on, his motivation can still be that, plus trying to find Triss and / or recovering his memory (Act 2 specifically). He can still be indifferent to the political situation (or he could not depending on how you rp him).
EDIT: if anything, TW1 follows the traditional hero formula much more. You save the day at the end by killing Aldesberg in an epic setting and his evil mutants.
In TW2, Letho more or less succeeded and his death would not change that.
I agree with your points but fighting beside kings, helping kings?, making some sort of political decisions was too much for me.KnightofPhoenix said:
A 2-3 hour movie would not have been able to portray the political intrigue adequately at all. TW2's story is far more complex than TW1's.eskiMoe said:
Didn't claim it wasn't.KnightofPhoenix said:
What I was saying was that the story had a negative effect to the game's atmosphere & immersion. And everything besides the story missions felt like distractions.
I mean why the hell would Geralt take Gargoyle contracts in Act 3 when Triss was being tortured basically under his feet? It felt stupid.
I like TW2 story better; it feels more "rounded" (I'd say 'redonda' in spanish), more complete, structurally talking, as it begins with Letho and ends with Letho, and we have all that political turmoil he caused in the middle. TW1 Salamandra plot and villains' motives weren't that good in my opinion. I loved the personal-journey feeling in TW1 though.
This presupposes heterosexuality. As a bisexual woman, I enjoy looking at Triss', um, assets just as much as the men do. I can simultaneously enjoy looking at her AND think that she's dressed strangely for her environment. A sleeveless hoodie? If it's cold, she'll want real sleeves, and if it's hot, what the hell is the hood for?Dona said:
Give everyone eye candy, I say. That way, I get to enjoy both sets.
I can appreciate female body just as well, that's not the problem. Triss is wearing nice clothes in TW2, I quite like her hoodie and boots (those blue ribbons! *_*) It is more that every female has an excuse to have her boobs out on display, they are (overly) sexualised while men are not (look at Geralt pulling his pants up the moment he's done with a girl, hahah. What's up with that?) I'm all for everyone getting eye candy, so where's my Witcher booty? :CCorylea said:This presupposes heterosexuality. As a bisexual woman, I enjoy looking at Triss', um, assets just as much as the men do. I can simultaneously enjoy looking at her AND think that she's dressed strangely for her environment. A sleeveless hoodie? If it's cold, she'll want real sleeves, and if it's hot, what the hell is the hood for?
Give everyone eye candy, I say. That way, I get to enjoy both sets.
Anyway, I don't want to derail the topic, I guess we can go have this discussion elsewhere if people want to chime in on the subject or whatever. :>
Let's not forget the other sorceresses are vain about their beauty. They not only wear more revealing and lavish clothing, but heavy makeup as well - look at Phillipa. To me it seems all NPC's are dressed according to character.Dona said:
I know that :> That's why I said everyone seems to have a 'valid' excuse to dress in revealing clothes. Sorceresses are vain, scared of being old, using magic to be beautiful (and as Blothfur said in another thread, using this to stay in power). Saskia is, well, a ploughing dragon and using sex appeal to be a leader. Ves, I don't even know, I'd wear heavier armour if I were a ploughing soldier, so whatever. And don't let me get started on make-up, yes, super heavy eyeliner is such a great idea if you know you'll be running around and sweating all day. Everyone who thinks it IS a good idea, please apply the same make-up and spend an hour in a gym. Have fun with eye infections!slimgrin said:
IT IS A GAME I CANNOT WIN. But I try :>
This has always been an issue story tellers in games struggle with. Oblivion being the easiest example:eskiMoe said:
"You must save the world!"
"Will do!...oh look.A cave.."
I'm not sure there is an adequate solution unless you want a straight forward linear game with no side missions. That's the last thing I want, so I'm willing to live with the contradiction in just about any game. Arkham City, Saints Row, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 - they all do it.
Dona said:
Even Ves has her reasons: Shes a sharp shooter, shes never really required to be in close quarter combat. The most important thing for her is ease of movement, look at the Soia'tael for a direct comparison (cedric has no sleeves and shows off some chest too ). We are also told that Roche uses her natural beauty for missions rather frequently, heck we even see it done on Loredo.
Overall I feel like its justified enough, it doesnt feel out of place. However, if you think that male nudity should be involved, I agree....not that I am interested, but I am sure a lot of people felt something was wrong when Geralt had his pants on in the opening scene....unless he can do Triss with his pants on....a witchers secrete technique maybe?
Well, maybe this thread is perfect for talking about women battle\non battle suits
I agree. It felt pretty ridiculous in Arkham City to fly around hunting riddles when you wereslimgrin said:
poisoned by Joker.
And I still think CDPR should've placed some stuff in between Act 2 & 3 in TW2. While Geralt & Roche/Iorweth were travelling to Loc Muinne. Something like them stopping to a village that was plagued by some monster problem that Geralt couldn't ignore and once they arrived @ Loc Muinne you could've just completed you main quests. It just feels so damn silly once they finally arrive in the city Geralt basically says "later bro" and goes to play dice poker with some random dudes