Witcher 2--can anyone convince me that it's worth playing?

[shurato]

Just my humble opinion but Witcher 2 is one of the best RPG games I've ever played. I soldiered through W1 to get the backstory and lore history first using a walkthrough guide. Although you don't need to play the first one to play the second, I thought it helped me get immersed into the world and characters. Geralt is a badass mudda.... Can't wait for Witcher 3. I am going to play through W2 again and make different decisions this time around.

 

[AdamantC]

I absolutely detest Witcher 2. It is simply trying way, WAY too hard to be adult, gritty, and ambiguous, even more so then the first game. (which I did like) It's like what a 6 year old would think is "mature."
Of course the god awful clunky combat (W1's combat had problems but at least it was enjoyable) and the fact that they managed to suck even more personality out of Geralt didn't help either.

In short the series comes off as "Fisher-Price's My First Game of Thrones"

 

[Sulaco]

I absolutely detest Witcher 2. It is simply trying way, WAY too hard to be adult, gritty, and ambiguous, even more so then the first game. (which I did like) It's like what a 6 year old would think is "mature."
Of course the god awful clunky combat (W1's combat had problems but at least it was enjoyable) and the fact that they managed to suck even more personality out of Geralt didn't help either.

In short the series comes off as "Fisher-Price's My First Game of Thrones"

Sadly, I tend to agree with this 100%.

I bought W2 off of a STEAM sale maybe a year ago, after hearing so many good things about it. I had NEVER played the first game, so I went in with an open mind and moderate expectations.

I was thoroughly disappointed.

I can appreciate the "darker" take on fantasy, but W2 just came across as trying too hard. The over-the-freaking-top sexual innuendo was painfully sophomoric and groan inducing, the voice acting was very well-done, but I couldn't care less for the characters. Geralt was about as one-dimensional and forgettable as a protagonist gets.
The gameplay also felt very on-rails and enclosed, and the combat was simply no fun.

 

[AdamantC]

Also another thing that drove me insane in W2 was the lighting. The dark areas were really dark and the bright areas were NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST ON THE SURFACE OF THE SUN! I don't think I've ever seen a game with such poorly balanced lighting.

 

[zinfamous]

OK, wow--I thought there were only so few that didn't like these games.

I don't mid the combat so much; what is it about the combat that people don't like?

OK--I can find issues that are simply immersion breaking. First, response is very slow--swinging and dodging just doesn't seem to work about 20% of the time.

you pretty much have to go into fights, at least early on, tweaked on potions and with an oil on your blade. This set up, for a lot of fights....is really goddamned annoying. I don't mind the idea, but having to meditate, navigate through 3 menus, deal with the little animations, over and over...very tedious.

Witcher claims to have this unique flow to combat, and the sword play and skills for swords are designed to allow that, no? Then why this system that you constantly have to go through?

Maybe the idea is to find the right potion balance, get yourself into a groove so that you can not only dispatch the nearest mob quickly, but also run around and wipe most things out on the map before your crack wears out?

 

[AdamantC]

The thing is you could drink potions anytime in the first game which lead to much better battle flow as you could simply adjust your tactics on the fly.

Requiring you to meditate to use potions is completely stupid and the clunky menu just makes the process worse.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I absolutely detest Witcher 2. It is simply trying way, WAY too hard to be adult, gritty, and ambiguous, even more so then the first game. (which I did like) It's like what a 6 year old would think is "mature."
Of course the god awful clunky combat (W1's combat had problems but at least it was enjoyable) and the fact that they managed to suck even more personality out of Geralt didn't help either.

In short the series comes off as "Fisher-Price's My First Game of Thrones"

I think that is one reason W2 did not really grab me either. I just could not really identify with Geralt or really care what happened to him. Maybe I just did not get far enough into the game, or get the backstory from the first one (did not play it), but he just seemed so ambiguous and amoral that whatever he did or what happened to him just did not really matter to me.

 

[AdamantC]

Maybe I just did not get far enough into the game, or get the backstory from the first one

W2 takes place a few months after the end of 1 IIRC. So playing the first is pretty much a requirement if you want to have any fucking clue as to what is going on.

As for things that bothered me plot wise.
1)

Spoiler

I have a hard time believing that Geralt would be King Foltest's bitch

2)

Spoiler

Seriously why wasn't that guard leering at a nude Triss not wearing his ass as a hat after two seconds?

3)

Spoiler

At the end of the opening siege section, how in the great blue fuck did Geralt not think the monk caring for Foltest's bastards was not in the least be hinky? I mean Geralt is just staring out a bloody window while Foltest got whacked.

4)

Spoiler

what was the deal with the hanging scene in the first town? It was like a cut scene from Sweeny Todd sans music.

 

[Fire&Blood]

W2 is one of the very few games I haven't finished though I had it sitting on the drive for a while in case I wanted to come back to it but never did. I could see why others liked it and I didn't even regret buying it but just wasn't enough into it. I'm guessing I got about halfway through it, there was a fight with a huge monster where you had to hit it's tentacles when they hit the ground, IIRC, it's been a while. That's when I quit, felt like wasting my time.