The Witcher 2 : My verdict

OK, so I've finished The Witcher 2. A few thoughts to throw into the pot...

First the good stuff. Beautiful graphics, intuitive and responsive controls, visceral combat, engaging storyline, interesting and well rendered cut scenes.

So why do I feel some tinge of disappointment?

Well, I think (perhaps unfairly) I had lined up The Witcher 2 in my mind as a game to sink a lot of time into in the lead up to Skyrim. The reality is that I had to pace myself to make the game last three weeks. I could have finished it sooner easily, and if I'd not taken the time to do every side quests, I could have blasted through the main quest over a weekend.

Talking to my son, who plays FPS games on his X-Box, a 20 hour campaign is not only normal, but is sometimes considered generous these days. I'm obviously spoilt with Elder Scrolls - I think of 20 hours as 'just getting started'. Honestly, after 20 hours on Fallout New Vegas I'd only really settled on my character and got to Primm

Of course, the problem with a shorter quest is exacerbated by The Witcher 2 being linear. You can make a choice at two points to either go down one path (Roche) or the other (Jorvath). But you end up in the same place - just seeing it 'from the other side' so to speak. So I'm not sure I have the desire to go back and play it all through again.

I think the 'sandbox' vibe of the Elder Scrolls has ruined it for me when it comes to games like The Witcher and Dragon Age. I hate looking out onto a forest and thinking that I can explore, only to find that 'invisible walls' mean that I can only go down predetermined paths to reach the pre-selected quest locations. It totally breaks any real immersion for me. I doubt that I'll play any more RPG games that don't offer an open world. It's just too frustrating.

The other 'issue' for me with the game is that lack of role playing potential. Having to play as Geralt is obviously necessitated by having your character fully voiced, but it means you are stuck with the pre-defined archetype. You have to play as a male witcher who kills a lot of things with his sword! Magic and alchemy are useful support skills, but I think it would be very hard to make magic or alchemy into a viable character path. So inevitably you end up pumping talent points into the combat skills.

So to sum up. The Witcher 2 was a great game for what it was - a story-driven scripted, action-adventure with a few RPG elements thrown in. I've certainly had my moneys worth. But as something to invest months and months into?...Not really.

for th review and without any spoilers.

Paul, I think we should start a class action suit against Bethesda on the grounds that they have ruinmed us for playing more limited games. (joking)

I started playing Morrowind and Oblivion to pass the time until Dragon Age came out and when I played DA I got so frustrated that I couldn't explore that interesting world. Those invisible walls almost drove crazy.

I intend to play W2 but am very happy that I will be getting a free game, a gift from a friend. That will certainly mean I get my money's worth in game play.

Quote :

Honestly, after 20 hours on Fallout New Vegas I'd only really settled on my character and got to Primm

Playing style do matter, after 20 hours my last but one character had already been to Vegas and back and I don't rely on fast travel. The great thing is that you can totally go in the other direction and find interesting things to do. My latest bit of fun in FNV has been going through very dangerous places very early in the game just to see how far I could get (and sometimes I've been pleasantly surprised).

Still I get what you're saying about games that are story driven and don't offer an open world. At times playing DAO was almost claustrophobic.

It's story vs free roaming and I think you're right to say that Bethesda games may have spoiled you for other games.

I think that Fallout New Vegas is the best so far in the sense that it blends an interesting story and the freedom to explore and I hope Skyrim won't just be about roaming around (I personally like having something interesting happening in the back, something that gets me interested enough so I can be talked into saving or destroying the world -the reason why I found Oblivion really boring and why I'm enjoying FNV so much).

And ppl wonder why I didn't like DAO.....

OldCoot46 wrote:

And ppl wonder why I didn't like DAO.....

Not me, OldCoot, I understand.

The major weakness with Oblivion in my opinion is that there really isn't any main quest. It always felt to me like several different stories strung together.

In the prison you ask "Why am I her?" So you can start playing the game, dummy.

I do hope Skyrimdoes a better job wutg tge start abd stirt kube, Since Bethesda developed FNV I have hope.

Actually Nakia Obsidian developed FNV and many persons who worked on Fallout 2 did work on FNV. Fallout 3 was made by Bethesda and the story was rather straightforward and at times a bit annoying but definitely an improvement on Oblivion so I think that Fallout 3 was a step in the right direction.

I'm not surprised about Paul's reaction to the Witcher 2, I haven't played it yet but I've always felt that the first Witcher was an adventure game with RPing elements and not a "real" RPG (but then again there are no real RPGs for computers yet since absolute freedom in CRPGs doesn't exist yet).

Thank you for the correction. Hopefully Bethesda got the message with FNV's popularity. Story does count.