Current Events > Playing the Witcher 2 again, but on xbox one

(+) Yeah! (+)

I feel like there weren't this many loading screens on the PC version. Areas are sectioned off in a very unnatural way, and the meditation menu lost a lot of its charm in this version. Also I forgot that I wasn't a fan of Triss' VA, even in the first game >_>

I just finished reading the Witcher Saga so I'm going to be making my choices with that Geralt in mind (but a bit more on the goody two shows side). I remember that picking Iorveth felt very unnatural when I played, but the first game made me heavily biased toward the nonhuman plight. Going the Roche path should be fun.

---

2 to 3 is such a ridiculous jump in quality.

---

Shezarr posted...

2 to 3 is such a ridiculous jump in quality.

Almost as much as 1 to 2.

---

i couldn't get past the whole "preparation" aspect of the combat system. i tried it multiple times and put at least 3 hours total into the game, but it was just too hard to get used to it. guess i'm just a filthy casual.

---

BLooD WoLf posted...

i couldn't get past the whole "preparation" aspect of the combat system. i tried it multiple times and put at least 3 hours total into the game, but it was just too hard to get used to it. guess i'm just a filthy casual.

It's not really that important on normal. You basically just need Swallow, and ideally the appropriate blade oil iirc. In 1 you basically needed to have a good potion setup to succeed though.

I will say this combat kind of sucks ass because of Geralt's variable animations. It's very difficult to judge how long a commitment a move will be. If you ever try to play it again just throw it on Easy imo, you're not missing much.

008Zulu posted...

Almost as much as 1 to 2.

I remember being shocked at the jump in quality. I played 1 and 2 back to back.

---

Jabodie posted...

I remember being shocked at the jump in quality. I played 1 and 2 back to back.

My PC at the time was unprepared for the jump. Kept crashing in Floatsom.

---

Roche's path is fucking awesome. He's such a great character.

BLooD WoLf posted...

i couldn't get past the whole "preparation" aspect of the combat system. i tried it multiple times and put at least 3 hours total into the game, but it was just too hard to get used to it. guess i'm just a filthy casual.

It's honestly not that important. I really only used it before telegraphed boss battles. Apparently the alchemy talent tree is the strongest one if you know what you're doing though.

Jabodie posted...

I will say this combat kind of sucks ass because of Geralt's variable animations. It's very difficult to judge how long a commitment a move will be.

I didn't realize why the combat in this game is so clunky until I watched Joseph Anderson, one of those "I'mma make a 4 hour video about one game" dudes. Witcher 2 is weird because the animations don't match the actual combat. It looks like an action game akin to Dark Souls or God of War, but it's not. It works like an MMO with hotbar combat.

Melee attacks are essentially like spells in WoW. You can swing all you want, Geralt's sword does nothing unless you have a target. If you have a target, it casts the "melee spell" and creates a small AoE in front of him. Enemies standing in that AoE take damage. So it doesn't matter if Geralt takes a wide swing that passes through four guys, it's only going to damage the one you're targeting. He might be two feet away from an incoming sword, but he's still going to take damage because he's in the AoE. You can watch an archer embed an arrow into a rock and still take the damage from it. The cleave attack you can unlock later on works like Chain Lightning, you damage one guy and it chains to another guy even if he's six feet away. Enemies can parry before they take their sword out. They can block with their shield when you hit them from the back. Geralt can be set on fire before the dragon even breathes it because the attack is cast at the beginning of the animation.

And then the problem is compounded by various exceptions to the rules and glitches. Without that cleave attack, you're only supposed to be able to damage one enemy at a time. But because it works like an AoE, you can hit more than one if they're close enough. The targeting can bug out and you can attack enemies you don't have targeted until it catches up, realizes you can't, and you stop damaging them.

---

Hated 3 but I'm interested in checking out two to see how different they are. I actually hear 2 has a more engaging story, but three has better gameplay.... even though 3 has abysmal gameplay.

---

pegusus123456 posted...

It's honestly not that important. I really only used it before telegraphed boss battles. Apparently the alchemy talent tree is the strongest one if you know what you're doing though.

I didn't realize why the combat in this game is so clunky until I watched Joseph Anderson, one of those "I'mma make a 4 hour video about one game" dudes. Witcher 2 is weird because the animations don't match the actual combat. It looks like an action game akin to Dark Souls or God of War, but it's not. It works like an MMO with hotbar combat.

Melee attacks are essentially like spells in WoW. You can swing all you want, Geralt's sword does nothing unless you have a target. If you have a target, it casts the "melee spell" and creates a small AoE in front of him. Enemies standing in that AoE take damage. So it doesn't matter if Geralt takes a wide swing that passes through four guys, it's only going to damage the one you're targeting. He might be two feet away from an incoming sword, but he's still going to take damage because he's in the AoE. You can watch an archer embed an arrow into a rock and still take the damage from it. The cleave attack you can unlock later on works like Chain Lightning, you damage one guy and it chains to another guy even if he's six feet away. Enemies can parry before they take their sword out. They can block with their shield when you hit them from the back. Geralt can be set on fire before the dragon even breathes it because the attack is cast at the beginning of the animation.

And then the problem is compounded by various exceptions to the rules and glitches. Without that cleave attack, you're only supposed to be able to damage one enemy at a time. But because it works like an AoE, you can hit more than one if they're close enough. The targeting can bug out and you can attack enemies you don't have targeted until it catches up, realizes you can't, and you stop damaging them.

That sounds awful... does it also have that stupid thing where he does different attacks based on how close you are to the enemy? That was extremely obnoxious.

---

IndustrialTrudg posted...

That sounds awful

It's not quite as obvious in-game, you just feel an overall clunkiness.

IndustrialTrudg posted...

does it also have that stupid thing where he does different attacks based on how close you are to the enemy? That was extremely obnoxious.

I don't remember this at all, no. Are you talking about the third one?

---

pegusus123456 posted...

It's not quite as obvious in-game, you just feel an overall clunkiness.

I don't remember this at all, no. Are you talking about the third one?

Yeah the third one is the one I played.

---

Then no. The combat honestly isn't deep enough to have different attacks, I'm pretty sure it's just "click on this dude."

---

pegusus123456 posted...

Then no. The combat honestly isn't deep enough to have different attacks, I'm pretty sure it's just "click on this dude."

Have you not played the third one? That actually sounds less annoying. Another issue I had was Geralt would switch weapons and put them away automatically without my input.

---

No, I haven't. I actually started the series solely to play the third one, but it's somehow the one I never got around to playing.

---

pegusus123456 posted...

No, I haven't. I actually started the series solely to play the third one, but it's somehow the one I never got around to playing.

Yeah I kinda hated it lol, but like I said I'm mildly curious about the second.

---

I hope the graphics are good.

---

IndustrialTrudg posted...

Hated 3 but I'm interested in checking out two to see how different they are. I actually hear 2 has a more engaging story, but three has better gameplay.... even though 3 has abysmal gameplay.

I also remember liking 2's story more. It felt like a smaller and tighter experience, but we'll see how I feel this time around.

---

Actually a big reason why 3's story is less interesting is that, with the Wild Hunt, things become a simple good vs. evil story. Many things are changed about them in the games to simplify things imo.

---