Should I try TW2 after an ambivalent TW1 experience?

[_silk_]

Should I try TW2 after an ambivalent TW1 experience?

I have got a question on how the first and second part of TW compare regarding the implementation of the general setting of the game. I own both games/parts and played TW1 quite some time ago. However, I was never able to play the second game as my graphics card is old and weak.

By chance I glimpsed some headline recently (referring to the 3rd part of TW) and remembered the game, Geralt and the still unplayed 2nd part. Now I am not sure whether TW2 would be worth to get a new graphics card (I don't play games regularly anymore, let alone recent ones). To guard against misunderstandings: I very much liked the general setting in the first game. Unfortunately, I was rather disappointed by its implementation that imho just did not live up to its potential (or were it only my exaggerated expectations?).

I already read that both games are pretty different, possibly more than the numbering alone suggests - but what can I make of this? Would you be so kind to provide me a better understanding on how the games differ (preferably w/o spoiling too much)? Do you consider the 2nd game only different or better as well?

 

[sidspyker]

Well 'better' is subjective but both the games play very differently. It would help if you mentioned what exactly did you not enjoy.

For example The Witcher 1's combat was a mix of passive and active combat - rhythm based along with other elements.
The Witcher 2's is active combat (left click ,right click) along with other elements.

The Witcher 1 had plenty of backtracking.
The Witcher 2 has improved on that substantially.

Some people say The Witcher 1 picked up late, after a few chapters
The Witcher 2 fares much better in that regard

 

[Sagitarii]

The second game is an improvement over the first in many ways - mostly gameplay and graphics. Many regard Assasins of Kings to be a superior game, while others were quite disappointed with some of the elements - for example - soundtrack not living up to the first game standard, lack of the characteristic slavic and dense atmosphere.
I'm in the second front.
But, while I preferred the first game I agree the second one is superior in strictly game terms.

The main feature than changed is the combat system. It's not rhythm based anymore, it's much more action oriented - similar to Batman Arkham games. You still have potions, bombs, signs, plus they added traps, lures, throwing daggers for example.

The second game keeps its narrative style, with consequences, moral choices and even more non-linearity (you can end up in different regions based on your actions). So if you liked this in the first game - you won't be disappointed.

All in all, The Witcher 2 plays slicker and feels more like an AAA title than the predecessor. You really should play it if you liked the first one.
If I were you, I would upgrade the system for W3 already, because there is a good chance you'll like the second and Witcher 3 is looking like a mile step ahead.
If you can manage it of course.

 

[ReptilePZ]

For me, The Witcher 2 is a better game than The Witcher 1 in every respect. As an experience, I enjoyed the atmosphere and music of the first title more, not that they were bad in TW2.

So, combat is a lot tighter and more involved in TW2, it's a mish-mash of Batman and Dark Souls essentially. But it's a big change from TW1's more rhythm-based combat, so it might put you off if it's an aspect you enjoyed in the first game. Either way, neither of the combat systems are universally praised, so it's tough to say if you'll enjoy it - remains the weakest part of the series. There are more weapons and armours compared to the first game. Voice acting and animations are miles ahead. It's still one of the best looking games, in terms of visuals. Your choices determining how the story plays out is taken to a higher level as well, to the point where you need at least 2 playthroughs to really see the full picture. The story is focused a lot more on the political situation, so while it's complex, it's not to everyone's liking.

 

[jerf.674]

I think that TW2 is better than TW1 in most respects, although I liked the music and the athmospehere in the first game more. Still, TW2 is, in my opinion, the best RPG released to this date.
Certainly worth spending ~$150 on a graphics card like GTX750Ti (which would be enough for High settings @ 1080p) just for this game alone.
On the other hand, since TW3 will be released somewhat soon, and it looks like it will be an even much better game than the previous ones, I'd recommend spending a bit more on a better card to be able to run TW3 in the future.

 

[_silk_]

Well 'better' is subjective but both the games play very differently. It would help if you mentioned what exactly did you not enjoy.

When I said I liked the general setting, I thought of the things Sagitarii mentioned (the narrative, moral decisions, non-linearity). On the one hand that was a strenght of the game (not another game with "moral" choices as - 1. Let's rescue and fondle the little fluffy kittens. vs. 2. Let's skin the little fluffy kittens alive, eat their raw meat and drink their still warm blood.). On the other hand, however, this was not implemented in a convincing way. The game made a fuzz about Geralt's history/destiny and his decisions but eventually you learned little about Geralt and in the end the decisions made not much of a difference.

I even played the game twice, thinking I must have missed something given the enthusiasm of numerous gamers and the positive critics the game received. Well, it was not a complete waste of time because I must admit I realized the Alvin/Aldersberg story only then. But even here (considering this the main story line) it did not have any effect if you cared for Alvin as a boy. From my perspective the game confronted me with supposedly important decisions but eventually they did not truly matter. Hence I felt it did not entirely keep the promises made.

Another point I may mention is also related to choices in the game; best saying it with the game own words: You often had to chose the lesser evil. I consider this an arguable gameplay design. As I already said I welcome the tricky morality but I have difficulties with the "evil choices" being the main concept. The problem I see is, that it is difficult to really identify yourself with such decisions and consequently with the protagonist (Geralt). A viable option would be to chose one out of two things you support/love, but such a choice occurred only once (between the women - the medic and the sorceress). However the game forced me to work with/for people/ideologies I don't like and thus the decisions were not truly mine but Geralt's (and often he was so cool appearing almost indifferent). You may notice, I have a hard time describing what I recall from the game. I hope you guys understand what I was trying to say.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Well, there are still factions you must choose between in TW2. Though it's worth mentioning that there was a neutral option in TW1. It's still kind of there in TW2 but doesn't come up until the very end and at that point you've already aided one side somewhat. Choices are still morally gray, and Geralt's past is explored a lot more. Consequences are more clearly pronounced in the second game as well, so replaying the game twice, choosing different options and factions should result in a clearer difference.

 

[Blothulfur]

Doesn't sound like an underplayed stoic character like Geralt and the subtle shades of grey he operates in is your cup of tea mate, i'd give it a miss and play another game with clearer morals and a more malleable character, whose dialogue choices are more to your liking.

 

[kevokoma]

Thing is geralt is always thrown into situations where the choices he makes are skewed towards the lesser evil, although its important to note that he doesn't consider evil to be lesser or greater, to him evil is evil.
Also considering the choices I really don't think they are more than choosing between two evils. For example in TW2 you get to make a choice from your view point about whether to stick with the only man whose supported and helped you out so far or the other who could use all the help he can get and maybe you can try and reason with him if you talked to him from the standpoint of a friend.

I'll always recommend TW2 and I think you should give it a try, you might not like it after investing in some upgrades but at least you'll get the chance to play other games that you consider to be better but you couldn't play.

 

[_silk_]

Well, there are still factions you must choose between in TW2. Though it's worth mentioning that there was a neutral option in TW1. It's still kind of there in TW2 but doesn't come up until the very end and at that point you've already aided one side somewhat. Choices are still morally gray, and Geralt's past is explored a lot more. Consequences are more clearly pronounced in the second game as well, so replaying the game twice, choosing different options and factions should result in a clearer difference.

Thanks, sounds good to my ears. When I played TW1 the second time I chose a way as neutral as possible, I found the effects within the game to be rather minor for the story as a whole. So reading of more pronounced consequences pleases me. I'd hope to find more likeable factions in the 2nd game but I'm not sure whether this fits into the world of TW. So I fear the game sticks to its chose-the-lesser-evil-principle.

 

[Geralt_of_bsas]

When I said I liked the general setting, I thought of the things Sagitarii mentioned (the narrative, moral decisions, non-linearity). On the one hand that was a strenght of the game (not another game with "moral" choices as - 1. Let's rescue and fondle the little fluffy kittens. vs. 2. Let's skin the little fluffy kittens alive, eat their raw meat and drink their still warm blood.). On the other hand, however, this was not implemented in a convincing way. The game made a fuzz about Geralt's history/destiny and his decisions but eventually you learned little about Geralt and in the end the decisions made not much of a difference.

I even played the game twice, thinking I must have missed something given the enthusiasm of numerous gamers and the positive critics the game received. Well, it was not a complete waste of time because I must admit I realized the Alvin/Aldersberg story only then. But even here (considering this the main story line) it did not have any effect if you cared for Alvin as a boy. From my perspective the game confronted me with supposedly important decisions but eventually they did not truly matter. Hence I felt it did not entirely keep the promises made.

Another point I may mention is also related to choices in the game; best saying it with the game own words: You often had to chose the lesser evil. I consider this an arguable gameplay design. As I already said I welcome the tricky morality but I have difficulties with the "evil choices" being the main concept. The problem I see is, that it is difficult to really identify yourself with such decisions and consequently with the protagonist (Geralt). A viable option would be to chose one out of two things you support/love, but such a choice occurred only once (between the women - the medic and the sorceress). However the game forced me to work with/for people/ideologies I don't like and thus the decisions were not truly mine but Geralt's (and often he was so cool appearing almost indifferent). You may notice, I have a hard time describing what I recall from the game. I hope you guys understand what I was trying to say.

Geralt is a pre-defined character already so if you really don't like the things you mentioned in the last paragraph i can at least add to what the others said, TW2 won't change in this respect, much like in Blothulfur's advice.

On the other hand I have read all the books of the Geralt saga, and i can tell you that he is a pretty "good guy" and tries to do the right thing in general no matter what he gets to choose from, so maybe you could identify with him even when you can't fully control his morality. Because he has amnesia in TW1 and TW2 so his char is not too well represented, but maybe knowing this you can enjoy the role playing more.

And despite this things i understand you enjoyed TW1, so I would research a bit more into TW2, and if at the end you want to try it, get a GPU that might also run TW3 if possible so you can nail the two and complete the trilogy, TW3 sounds like its going to make history in the genre.

 

[_silk_]

Doesn't sound like an underplayed stoic character like Geralt and the subtle shades of grey he operates in is your cup of tea mate, i'd give it a miss and play another game with clearer morals and a more malleable character, whose dialogue choices are more to your liking.

Actually, the "grey" morality and the decisions you make are most appealing. In TW1 I just felt it could be of more significance and make more of a difference for the plot and Geralt himself. I felt a tad forlorn in this world, but maybe this is on purpose. I must admit I don't know the books of this universe and the game did not bother too much to introduce the world of TW in a meaningful way. Do you consider the knowledge of the books as helpful (or even essential) or rather dispensable?

 

[wichat]

The game made a fuzz about Geralt's history/destiny and his decisions but eventually you learned little about Geralt and in the end the decisions made not much of a difference.

I even played the game twice, thinking I must have missed something given the enthusiasm of numerous gamers and the positive critics the game received.y.

Feel the need for get further information about Geralt's life? Maybe you belong to the group of people who need to read the books. Not a fault of the game or a defect in the player, but a way that CDPR had to share trhough their games not only their feelings towards Geralt but the amazing world created by Spakowski.

 

[Blothulfur]

Everything's explained in the game, just read the journal and in game books. I went into it a Sapkowski vigin and understood everything, and i'm as thick as a fat mans thighs. Game won't handhold you and there is a lot of subtlety behind everything, but that's a good thing in my book. If there's any problems read Knight's politics series here on the Forums afterwards. You'd be surprised about what changes in the game, there's a vast amount of little and not so little touches that define your version of Geralt, and what he makes of his situation. All the best.

 

[jerf.674]

Actually, the "grey" morality and the decisions you make are most appealing. In TW1 I just felt it could be of more significance and make more of a difference for the plot and Geralt himself. I felt a tad forlorn in this world, but maybe this is on purpose. I must admit I don't know the books of this universe and the game did not bother too much to introduce the world of TW in a meaningful way. Do you consider the knowledge of the books as helpful (or even essential) or rather dispensable?

I certainly recommend reading the books. The events of the games happen after the events of the last book, so the plots are somehat independent, but reading the books will give you lots of background, which would allow you to enjoy the games much more. I heard that German translations of the books are quite good (as opposed to English, which are so-so as trnslation quality goes).
I would recommend reading the books even without any regard to the games. Sapkowski's Witcher cycle is, in my opinion, simply the best fantasy book series written to this date. Note that the first two books are collections of short stories, the main saga is from the third till the seventh book.

 

[Thothistox]

When I said I liked the general setting, I thought of the things Sagitarii mentioned (the narrative, moral decisions, non-linearity). On the one hand that was a strenght of the game (not another game with "moral" choices as - 1. Let's rescue and fondle the little fluffy kittens. vs. 2. Let's skin the little fluffy kittens alive, eat their raw meat and drink their still warm blood.). On the other hand, however, this was not implemented in a convincing way. The game made a fuzz about Geralt's history/destiny and his decisions but eventually you learned little about Geralt and in the end the decisions made not much of a difference.

I even played the game twice, thinking I must have missed something given the enthusiasm of numerous gamers and the positive critics the game received. Well, it was not a complete waste of time because I must admit I realized the Alvin/Aldersberg story only then. But even here (considering this the main story line) it did not have any effect if you cared for Alvin as a boy. From my perspective the game confronted me with supposedly important decisions but eventually they did not truly matter. Hence I felt it did not entirely keep the promises made.

Another point I may mention is also related to choices in the game; best saying it with the game own words: You often had to chose the lesser evil. I consider this an arguable gameplay design. As I already said I welcome the tricky morality but I have difficulties with the "evil choices" being the main concept. The problem I see is, that it is difficult to really identify yourself with such decisions and consequently with the protagonist (Geralt). A viable option would be to chose one out of two things you support/love, but such a choice occurred only once (between the women - the medic and the sorceress). However the game forced me to work with/for people/ideologies I don't like and thus the decisions were not truly mine but Geralt's (and often he was so cool appearing almost indifferent). You may notice, I have a hard time describing what I recall from the game. I hope you guys understand what I was trying to say.

I don't think you'd like TW2 then. It goes further in the same direction. Just like real life, the decisions Geralt makes are often between two evils, one of which is arguably lesser than the other. IMO, that's the strength of the series, but not everyone likes this idea.

 

[_silk_]

I don't think you'd like TW2 then. It goes further in the same direction. Just like real life, the decisions Geralt makes are often between two evils, one of which is arguably lesser than the other. IMO, that's the strength of the series, but not everyone likes this idea.

As a matter of fact I could live with that if the decisions involved really make a difference and thereby the consequences for the story line somehow reflect the dilemma of a choice. Simply put: When you really have to chew over a choice it should matter. Reconsidering my experience of the first game, this is the very aspect, which disappointed me to a certain degree when supposedly essential decisions and even your whole roleplaying attitude eventually turned out to be mostly irrelevant for the plot. When the game doesn't care for my choices, why should I? Nevertheless, the game was not too bad at all! It only felt like it easily could have been better. I think now I wish the 2nd part is this better game, and maybe effectively it is when the course of the story really differs more according to your choices as ReptilePZ suggested earlier.

 

[Garrison72]

As a matter of fact I could live with that if the decisions involved really make a difference and thereby the consequences for the story line somehow reflect the dilemma of a choice.

Both games do just this, to a degree rarely found in RPGs. I'm not sure why you keep asserting the opposite. It's what CDPR is known for. At any rate, you have the power to make up your own mind on the matter. No need to ask others whether you should play a certian game.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Another point I may mention is also related to choices in the game; best saying it with the game own words: You often had to chose the lesser evil. I consider this an arguable gameplay design. As I already said I welcome the tricky morality but I have difficulties with the "evil choices" being the main concept. The problem I see is, that it is difficult to really identify yourself with such decisions and consequently with the protagonist (Geralt). A viable option would be to chose one out of two things you support/love, but such a choice occurred only once (between the women - the medic and the sorceress). However the game forced me to work with/for people/ideologies I don't like and thus the decisions were not truly mine but Geralt's (and often he was so cool appearing almost indifferent). You may notice, I have a hard time describing what I recall from the game. I hope you guys understand what I was trying to say.

Well, it depends on you, really. Nobody can say it in advance whether you ill be OK with T2. I know some people trashed the game in the reviews because they loathed to work as bodyguards/hitmen for a very bad king, and so the 2nd chapter on Roche's path was a torture for them. Sure, some people do not like to be put in a situation of a serious choice (they probably believe that some hero always saves the day, or just prefer someone else to wallow in all this crap for the rest of us to live pleasant lives) , and so do not enjoy this at all. But people like me pretty much rave about it and consider the story of TW2 (one of) the best story in video games.

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.

 

[Vincentdante]

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?