Witcher 2 was lazy do you agree?

[GuyNwah]

I disagree. I think the OP may be thinking that the lack of irrelevant content somehow amounts to laziness. TW2 is not "lazy"; it is tightly edited and less lazy in that sense than TW1 was. In particular, contract quests have been de-emphasized, and grinding has been somewhat more effectively discouraged. I think this is intentional, not simply an unwillingness to spend effort on the game. It is a consequence of the different mood of the game, which is tense and urgent throughout.

I too would have liked to see consequences from TW1 make a bigger difference in TW2. But the balance has to be struck somewhere, and you have to make cruel decisions between the influence TW1 has on TW2 and the ability of TW2 to stand alone. This is not laziness; it is editorial decisions that are much easier to criticize than they are to make.

 

[reconmember]

I too would have liked to see consequences from TW1 make a bigger difference in TW2. But the balance has to be struck somewhere, and you have to make cruel decisions between the influence TW1 has on TW2 and the ability of TW2 to stand alone. This is not laziness; it is editorial decisions that are much easier to criticize than they are to make.

Indeed, and also having to take note on that save transfer is a very complex system. I mean, you can easily see this with BioWare. But save transfer is very hard to implement in a game, since people who haven't played e.g TW1 will probably skip buying TW2 b/c they don't find the first game to be "fun" enough, and some have a nack of wanting to play the first game in the series (like me), instead of just jumping into the franchise.

Save transfer sucks. I probably shouldn't exist at all imo.

 

[CostinRaz]

I believe any RPG series where the story between games is closely tied together should have save transfer and the choices made in previous games should matter a damned lot.

What I don't understand is why developers don't give a damn to repeat what Obsidian did with Kotor 2 from Kotor 1. You had a conversation with Anton early on in that game and defined Revan's force choice ( light or dark ) and whether or not Revan was male or female. Why can't have something similar but vastly improved in games nowadays instead of developers having to make choices in previous games irrelevant and also making the first hours of a game a boring piece of crap ( not in TW2s case, which I appreciate ) so that new players can catch up to the old events?

 

[synd]

Less content, more quality, surely doesn't mean that CDProjekt RED became lazy.
If CDPR were lazy, they could've added the same side quests from other games were you just grind but they tried to make everything very meaningful so you won't feel like you're wasting your time.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Less content, more quality, surely doesn't mean that CDProjekt RED became lazy.

I don't get where the "less content" comes from.
If it's based solely on game length, half the time spent in TW1 was backtracking, doing fetch quests and running around those two god awful swamps. Not exactly what I'd call "content."

TW2 had more characters, more developed side-quests and main quests, in addition to two very different paths.
I see more content and more quality in TW2 overall. One could say TW1 had more monsters it's true, but gameplay wise the monsters in TW2 were more challenging and demand different tactics (you don't fight a bunch of drowners like you'd fight an Arachas). In TW1, igni and group style and you're good to go.

 

[Gocko]

Those changes would've been pretty great yes, but no I don't think they were lazy as there was a ton of great content.

However I really agree with the reflecton part. To see some of the Witcher 1 side-quest/main-quest related characters ,depending on your choice, in the Witcher 2 would have been awesome.

 

[CostinRaz]

A run of TW1 when you know everything takes about 28 hours http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0D2A7CAF14543004&feature=view_all ( look at time ) on Hard Difficulty.

A run of TW2 on Insane knowing everything takes 23 hours http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2E2BDCE1CE0B87AF&feature=plpp

Thus to conclude TW1 is not that longer then TW2 to warrant such criticism as CDPR being lazy. Especially when one counts the extra 11 hours that it takes to win the other path: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE375D317784D9051&feature=plpp

 

[synd]

I don't get where the "less content" comes from.
If it's based solely on game length, half the time spent in TW1 was backtracking, doing fetch quests and running around those two god awful swamps. Not exactly what I'd call "content."

TW2 had more characters, more developed side-quests and main quests, in addition to two very different paths.
I see more content and more quality in TW2 overall. One could say TW1 had more monsters it's true, but gameplay wise the monsters in TW2 were more challenging and demand different tactics (you don't fight a bunch of drowners like you'd fight an Arachas). In TW1, igni and group style and you're good to go.

I think that you misunderstood me. I pretty much agree with everything you posted in part 2 of your post.
It's just that ppl understand "content" as game length so I used the wrong word for the right situation...

 

[Greed1914]

Disagree. As others have said, there were certainly more sidequests but many of these were fetch quests or grinding. It felt longer because MMO gameplay was implemented. There were fewer total sidequests in TW2, but the quality was ramped up considerably. Each one had a specific goal. For instance, instead of killing a bunch of monsters, you now sought a method of getting rid of them entirely, like a witcher would do. And as much as I liked Murky Waters, that section of the game could have been left out, it was entertaining filler.

CDPR focused on quality over quantity, and that isn't laziness.

 

[atomic_rectum]

Quality over quantity.

 

[Typo115]

I GET-IT maybe lazy wasnt the right choice of words but that doesn't mean my opinion has changed I LOVED TW1&TW2 but as I said before there is always room for improvement one being more reflection on past choices and more side quest but i see what you mean most side quests(From TW1) were pretty repetitive but nice the 1st go around. But again I digress but please this post wasn't to mock the games (I LOVE all of them) I was just giving suggestions but I do need to be more careful w/ my words.

 

[Sirnaq]

I GET-IT maybe lazy wasnt the right choice of words but that doesn't mean my opinion has changed I LOVED TW1&TW2 but as I said before there is always room for improvement one being more reflection on past choices and more side quest but i see what you mean most side quests(From TW1) were pretty repetitive but nice the 1st go around. But again I digress but please this post wasn't to mock the games (I LOVE all of them) I was just giving suggestions but I do need to be more careful w/ my words.

Lazy games are low quality products, repetitive dungenons, shitty graphics, barely working combat, copy-pasted quests. Dragon age2 was lazy game, mass effect 3 was lazy game, no wonder everyone goes defensive if you are calling their beloved game shitty lazy product, especially if devs tear their guts apart to develop it, release it and patch it for free.

 

[green_abobo]

i would say theres certainly not enough witcher contracts in the 2nd one. theres simply too much emphasis on the politics of the surrounding kingdoms for my taste. therefore geralt seems to become an afterthought, even though hes the main character.

overall in comparison, & i cant really put my finger on why i feel this way, but the 1st just has something intangible that the 2nd one lacks.

i dont know if its because i feel the first one is more true to the cannon books (or the ideal of geralt, & the idiom of the society of witchers themselves, what theyre supposed to be all about) but it just seems to ooze more of the experience of what it would mean to be a witcher.

the alchemy/ meditation screens are more detailed, & dare i say the character progression chart was alot more thought out, especially in terms of mutagens & special abilities. i liked the combat in the first one too. geralt seems too flimsy in the AoKs. he "feels" more superhuman (or mutant @ the very least) in the 1st.

even the curses from the first seem to have more meaning, whereas the main one in AoKs seems more made up, on the fly, & certainly lacks the "old wives tale" mentality & solutions that the witcher stories are famous for.

the monsters are just creepier as well. more variety of spectres, vampires, etc. the boss fights seemed more epic as well, save for maybe the kingslayer fights.

letho is a pretty awesome character too. i guess im torn.

very curious to see how the 3rd one plays out, & i do hope cd projekt red explores what happens to the other witchers, from kaer morhen, after they all went their separate ways after the prolouge. itll also be interesting to see if geralt can finally solve the riddle of the hunt, & possibly put the issue of yennifer to rest. cammomile & all.

my experience with the witcher 1 was on the pc, tw2, my sole experience is on the 360. maybe that does have something to do with my preference? hard to say.

dont get me wrong, i feel as though both games are exquisitely done. i just seem to enjoy playing the first a bit more is all. the only part of it i can do without is the whole wild goose chase a certain zerikanian alchemist sends you on. lol.

in these regards, i do tend to agree with the TCer.

 

[Veleda.980]

Nope. I disagree. Witcher 2 has better combat, better more involving sidequests, better EVERYTHING. I can replay this game over and over again. I enjoyed the first game, but I can't replay it over and over because the first game is just too tedious, too much backtracking (swamps anyone), too many fetch me this and that quests, boring weapons, annoying combat system, boring armor and boring abilities.

Look, the first game was great, for its time and I enjoyed it for what it was, but that was 2007. CDPR learned a lot from it and it shows in the second game. Witcher 2 is a much better game.

Obviously this is a matter of opinion. I like Witcher 1 better mainly because of its atmosphere. There is a lot of backtracking, this is true, but other than that nothing about the game is boring to me.

I think Witcher 2 was meant to be a tighter, more fast-paced story- as a design decision and not because of rushed development. I loved the game, don't mistake me, but I did feel a bit rushed on. Some people like to smell the daisies a little.

 

[gregski]

i dont know if its because i feel the first one is more true to the cannon books (or the ideal of geralt, & the idiom of the society of witchers themselves, what theyre supposed to be all about) but it just seems to ooze more of the experience of what it would mean to be a witcher.

I keep wondering why Witcher 1 seems to be more true to books. Did you read all of them? What ideal of Geralt/Witchers do you mean?

Maybe first 2 books (Last Wish and Sword of Destiny) leave the impression that Witchers are all about hunting monsters and keeping ordinary folk away from what lurks in the shadows. But Starting with Blood of Elves, Geralts story changes. It hardly has ANY monster contracts - rather occasional monster encounters on his way, that he not always solves with violence. It becomes a story of both Geralt's personal issues and the politics that surround him. It actually questions Witcher's role in the world and how they are becoming an artifact of a an old era, being more and more involved in politics, kings' and sorcerers' affairs - usually against their will.

 

[MarcAuron]

New Engine, and a general removal of things people considered to complex. Like the alchemy system.

They had to make two tutorials for Witcher 2 because nobody was reading their manual or journal.
If there is a game where fetch quests make sense than its a Witcher game, or a game that has any type of mercenary type character
.
Who do you ask for monster parts, logicaly a Witcher and not the local priest.
However the fetch quest where "borring, lots of backtracking, hurr durr swamp " so there's less now, clearly that underlined the idea that the player is god sent regardles of what the established lore of the first game is, so He should spend doing what being told by Roche or Iorweth insted of doing His profession and hunting monsters, on the other hand the few tech quest that where there where personally by a landslide worse than anything in the first game.

 

[enitaplap.18]

@MarcAuron
Lore is established by books not the first game.
Secondly rather than cleaning his name Geralt should wander around and slay monster "cuz hes Witahhh!". He is not an idiot he is doing what he has to do, happy or not. Also he risk his life for money to live not because he like to be wounded.
If they can't pay enough he can even tell them "to go plough themselves". Swamp was very atmospheric but i couldnt stand route from city to swamps after few first trips.

 

[MarcAuron]

@MarcAuron
Lore is established by books not the first game.
Secondly rather than cleaning his name Geralt should wander around and slay monster "cuz hes Witahhh!". He is not an idiot he is doing what he has to do, happy or not. Also he risk his life for money to live not because he like to be wounded.
If they can't pay enough he can even tell them "to go plough themselves". Swamp was very atmospheric but i couldnt stand route from city to swamps after few first trips.

The "established lore of the books" somehow didn't let me stay away from Roche or Iorweth, and clean my name on my own, clearly a investigation done by Geralt himself is impossible, what is He lacking freedom or brains? Nope had to stick with one of them , and the Geralt from the books would clearly stick with Djikstra and the other types from the books, seriously they where all the times there, in the books with Him on His path while searching for Yennefer or Ciri-Not.

 

[enitaplap.18]

Yeah.
On your own.
You can try to free yourself from Roch = Bolt from Ves.
Tell Iorveth that he is murderer an can fuck off = killed you and Zoltan
Not talk with Iorveth = You know nothing and have no clue about Kingslayer
Alone travell from flotsam through scoia'tael forest = sure death
or swim up river with sword and stuff with you = Drown
And so on and so on...
Geralt can't do everything alone
Dijkstra was a different case.

 

[MarcAuron]

Yeah.
On your own.
You can try to free yourself from Roch = Bolt from Ves.
Tell Iorveth that he is murderer an can fuck off = killed you and Zoltan
Not talk with Iorveth = You know nothing and have no clue about Kingslayer
Alone travell from flotsam through scoia'tael forest = sure death
or swim up river with sword and stuff with you = Drown
And so on and so on...
Geralt can't do everything alone
Dijkstra was a different case.

Indeed.The books are promoting a Gearlt with a neutral view , whether He is really neutral is up to the reader to decide.

The game gave me a bolt from Ves, oddly enough It didn't give me a competent friend to rescue me, easily doable, by someone like Foltest, Thaler , Triss, Dandelion paying someone...

Tell Iorweth via a "moar cinematic expireince" instead of real time and with a few guard guys or maybe even Loredo's minions used as meat to handle the elves, but clearly "dat cinematic " wouldn't be so "epic."

Expanded Triss and Foltest are more than its needed for the Kingslayers, plus the properly spying Dandelion, You know the "proper book lore" Dandelion .

Alone travel thru the forest with import save from the first game containing Yeavin's recommendation-doable .

Enter a traveling trade ship just like in the books as a merc or monster expert .

Don't get me wrong I loved the game, but the idea that Gearalt cant stand on His own without Roche and Iorweth doesn't sit with me.

Surely He would need help , but I prefer to chose who is helping me, instead of being railroaded .

It would be like arguing the idea that Letho is the "ultimnate boss " of the game "the final antagonist'" what created complaints about His Cinematic escape, when the player gets exactly the same chance at the end.
Why exactly do I have to hunt another Witcher, what I wasn't doing for example anyway, and that is the game doing well, actually just wanted to talk to Him about more Important things than Iorweth, Roche ...