This game is confusing...

[northern27]

This game is confusing...

I just bought this game as a time filler since I've heard a lot about it. It's alright, I guess, not a bad game but not an amazing one in my mind. A lot of little things bug me.. dialogue, voice acting, combat, etc. I'll end up finishing it in the long run but it's not a game I can play for a long amount of time in one sitting.Anyways .. I'm having a hard time following the quests in this game.. It seems that if you don't do something in an exactly specific order then the entire quest just falls apart or skips a step. This works fine if the game is linear but when you can go to a bunch of different spots at once then it just unravels.For instance, I just had a quest to talk to some guy. I didn't talk to this guy right away and walked into an inn. There's some dead guy on the floor, my quest log updates, and all of a sudden I have a journal entry for this dead guy, who I've never met before, and the entry reads along the lines of "Your lead is dead, find someone else" ... I had no idea this guy was a lead, or who he was, or why he's important. What the hell?I find I have to save a lot and load often to backtrack and do things different in order for it to make sense. Very frustrating.

 

[ifayra]

Well, that is the amazing on this game, if you make a decision you have to face the result. The story changes everytime you choose one way. So if you play another time and you take other decisions you might be surprised how the story will go on

 

[genNighty]

I think it's Coleman. And it isn't confusing as you said, cuz it's consequence of your earlier decisions.

Spoiler

For exapmle: In Act I, when you meet efls in one quest, you can choose 2 actions: kill them or let them go. When you kill them, in Act II, one of the dwarfs will be put into jail. When you let them go, in Act II, they'll kill a man in the inn.

So it's a good thing, cuz playing once more, you can make different choices, and gameplay won't be the same as first time

 

[northern27]

Having my journal update arbitrarily with all the vital stats of a person I know nothing about and having the quest skip steps or blown doesn't seem as much a decision as shoddy coding.The same thing happened in the cellar in act 1 .. this guy shows up talking about destiny and such, apparently I know who he is (I don't, but I know him from the books I guess? I haven't read them .. this was confusing as hell, I had to go online and see if I missed something) and when I tell him I'll make my own destiny, he buggers off, and leaves a journal entry in my book that says I fought a dead friend of mine (which I didn't). I had to load the game again and do it over to figure out what the hell was going on. That one left me scratching my head.Oh and as for above, yeah I caught that, I got a bit of a cutscene, I was wondering why I got a cut-scene for some nobody I had never heard of up until I walked into the inn.

 

[Corylea.723]

leaves a journal entry in my book that says I fought a dead friend of mine (which I didn't).

Yes, you did. You just haven't been paying attention. The ghost you fought in the basement is the ghost of Leo, the guy who was killed by the Professor during the Prologue.I think your expectations are for something more straightforward than the game actually is. Many things depend upon other things, and many things are hints and clues about stuff that will only become clear later. Just roll with it, and it'll all come together.

 

[northern27]

I can tell you with 100% certainty that the first time I encountered the ghost-king looking guy in the basement that there was no fighting going on. I said something, he said something, he left, no fight. I read the updated journal and it was a whole different set of events than what transpired. My "expectations" would be for the game to: A) not provide spoilers for things I haven't done yet, which it has done already a few times and B) actually follow what I'm doing.Call me crazy.

 

[Gamewidow]

There is absolutely a path where the player does not fight Leo. Northern27 is quite right that some of the journal entries don't actually match what the player has done. eace:

 

[humberthumbert]

The coleman in the bar thing is a bit confusing I agree. The game is great though, keep going. You're barely into it and I can't recall anything like that happening later.

 

[petra_silie]

I have to admit that it had confused my as well with the killed Coleman the Hairy Bear. I hadn't done much in the Temple Quarter, entered the tavern and unexpectedly Geralt stumbled over this guy, someone I never had any business before :whatthe: But the journal updates cleared everything. Who that guy is and what importance he has for Geralt's missions.

 

[Corylea.723]

I have to admit that it had confused my as well with the killed Coleman the Hairy Bear. I hadn't done much in the Temple Quarter, entered the tavern and unexpectedly Geralt stumbled over this guy, someone I never had any business before :whatthe: But the journal updates cleared everything. Who that guy is and what importance he has for Geralt's missions.

Geralt has amnesia. Early in the game, I figured there'd be a lot of stuff going on where he didn't know what was happening or how it related, but it was important. Maybe I was role-playing the amnesia aspect more heavily than most? :hmmm:

 

[username_2078226]

Geralt's amnesia was a masterstroke for the devs, allowing those new to the Witcher world to learn it bit by bit using a prominent character without needing prior knowledge of its storyline. The end effect is a little confusing to the player, but so it is for Geralt.Not everything will make full sense the first time around for n00bs. Hang in there, it's worth the ride.

 

[petra_silie]

Yes, especially when I had the first conversation with the King of the Wild Hunt. He was talking in miracles and I hadn't a clue what he meant :hmmm: ;D

 

[Fandango9641]

I'm about 20 hours into my first playthrough and am finally starting to have fun with this game. I had heard so many good things about the Witcher prior to playing I think my expectations were a little too high, but I can agree that (for RPG fans at least) this is a title worth sinking a little time into. The Witcher isn’t a game without its problems and many things continue to grate; the voice acting is borderline absurd, many character models are recycled and poorly designed and I'm not totally sold on the unusual combat mechanics. On the flip side, the game looks beautiful (particularly in over the shoulder mode), the story is rich, deep and satisfying and the world (with its day, night and weather cycles) is pretty convincing. In addition, The Witcher makes excellent use of music (the soundtrack is superb) and ambient sounds in a way that brings many locales to life. In all, a solid experience thus far but a long way from being 'the best rpg ever'.

 

[northern27]

Geralt's amnesia was a masterstroke for the devs, allowing those new to the Witcher world to learn it bit by bit using a prominent character without needing prior knowledge of its storyline. The end effect is a little confusing to the player, but so it is for Geralt.Not everything will make full sense the first time around for n00bs. Hang in there, it's worth the ride.

I'd hardly call the worn-out amnesia cliche a masterstroke. It's used much too often when taking an established work and modifying it for a video game. It's also used a lot when someone decides something needs to be retcon'ed. I'm sick of seeing it.

 

[genNighty]

I think CDPR hadn't had another choice. Game storyline is based on books, and at the end of Sapkowski's saga, Geralt was stabed in stomach by angry villager. He was dying and probably was transported to Avalon.And now anybody who thinks that he/she can invent something better than amnesia, please raise your hand

 

[Karasu]

I think CDPR hadn't had another choice. Game storyline is based on books, and at the end of Sapkowski's saga, Geralt was stabed in stomach by angry villager. He was dying and probably was transported to Avalon.And now anybody who thinks that he/she can invent something better than amnesia, please raise your hand

:wave: ... just kidding... Although - it also would have worked without the amnesia part with just bringing our Witcher pretty weak and *maybe* a bit disoriented into play (hey, he was *kinda* :dead: - so who wouldn´t be disoriented?)But of course, this also is a cliché and worn-out... suddenly I feel a sadness, a sadness that I spent so much time with always the same clichés... :-[

 

[gorthuar]

Cliches, when done well, are not bad. Do keep in mind that, to quote TVTropes: "There is nothing new under the sun. Including this very statement." The only originalyty any work can hope for is in the way/form it uses to deliver it's cliches to us. And in my opinion The Witcher does that quite well.I thank you for your timeGorthuar of MirtheMaster of Arcane Magick

 

[Karasu]

Deep inside my heart, I am a cliché lover, Gorthuar. ;D It´s quite complicated to avoid them.

 

[username_2090060]

Geralt's amnesia was a masterstroke for the devs, allowing those new to the Witcher world to learn it bit by bit using a prominent character without needing prior knowledge of its storyline. The end effect is a little confusing to the player, but so it is for Geralt.Not everything will make full sense the first time around for n00bs. Hang in there, it's worth the ride.

I'd hardly call the worn-out amnesia cliche a masterstroke. It's used much too often when taking an established work and modifying it for a video game. It's also used a lot when someone decides something needs to be retcon'ed. I'm sick of seeing it.

well, dont play the game anymore if its too "cliche" for you. no reason to be a hater on a forum where everyone obviously loves this game.

 

[Fandango9641]

What a pointless comment. One can enjoy a game without loving every aspect of it unconditionally. Good game for sure, but not one without its faults.