The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Enhanced Edition

The Witcher 2 present many changes from the first game, most of which are/were frowned upon by almost all players. To be fair, some of this grief has been solved and players of the Enhanced Edition will no longer suffer from lack of storage or inventory organisation in the same way as people did at the original release, even though this is was never more than an annoyance. The main problems of the game are due to the designers moving away from the PC market, even though they promise that PC is their focus. The GUI, the way the controls are used, heavy duty use of QTE's are all designed and optimised for playing with a handheld controller rather than mouse/keyboard. Even the way Geralt moves around is more akin to later console specific rpg's than modern pc games. The illusion that fetchquests are a thing of the past is simply that, an illusion. Of the time not spent in conversation, cutscenes or QTE's you will spend atleast half of the remaining time(actual play) running from A to B and C, it should be noted that actual combat time will vary widely by difficulty, from 5-10%(easy) and upwards. As a console game i would rate this higher, but it is a HORRIBLE PC game. The praised writing is not really that good either. The heavy duty use of 'ploughing' is charming at first, but hearing it in every second to third sentence gets old real fast. The Witcher 2 represents a major step down from the first installment in nearly every significant respect.

Witcher 2 is easily one of the most addictive games I have ever played. Witcher 1 was completely lackluster. Most of the conversations were only the result of one possible answer, but here you have the choice. Also the character portraits and the story are great... absolutely great. And this comes from a guy who has "Planescape Torment" and "Arcanum" in his heart. The combat system is challenging (played dark-mode, whereas "easy" is just button-mashing), but has some flaws - sometimes you get hit when you shouldn't get hit due to the distance to your foe and also Geralt's reaction time is questionable. Unfortunately, the developers implemented QTE, which should not be used in any roleplaying game, and the fact that Geralt can't jump is also a little disappointment. Potion-brewing, inventory management, shopping, all of them are not very convincing, but only a side show. What stays in my mind are the numerous memorable scenes (flute/assassassin attacks/"file eye removal", just to name a few), the characters and the motivating story and the surprises in it. Side quests like the three sisters are grandiose. And not to forget the breathing and living world. Graphically speaking - though certainly not the most important criteria for a good game - this game looks great for its time and is still is top notch today. Also the characterportraits in the menu, the monster and location descriptions show you how serious the developers were about this game. After witcher 1, which was only mediocre, this is a pearl. witcher 3 raises the question: Can it keep up with the good storytelling and dramaturgy? An open world always has its price. Every open world game I played had a shallow story at the end. Games like Skyrim are hollow... I can't wait to find out how witcher 3 will be.

I didn't expect Witcher 2 to be that good cause all of the things of skipping to 3 I heard on social media, people get triggered mostly are the ones who played 3 then go to 2 and they see that its not as good, but if you play the series in order then you would enjoy every single one of them. Pros: *Great story. *Great music and soundtracks. *Main quests are very good. *Interesting boos fights even though there wasn't many. *The concept of actions and consequences are amazing that makes Gerlat feel more like you since he is written in a way where he is too much neutral. Cons: *Kind of short for RPG game. *Side quests are not that good compared to Witcher 1 and 3. *Map are way much smaller compared to Witcher 1 and 3.

Truth be told, I'm not the biggest fan of the first Witcher game. Took me two attempts to finish it, and mostly did so because of the world and the story, because they were quite interesting, though the story was confusing at times. In any case, I did not like the gameplay, especially the combat, and the constant running around mostly the same places. So although I was intrigued to see the story continue, I waited quite a bit to play the second one, although I already had it in my library (from a sale way back were you could get it for free). Well, now I have played it and I'm glad I did. Great story, characters, world... and the game itself is alright, too. I liked the combat more this time, though it is more action-oriented, but there are still different tactics and playstyles to choose from. It's not very long, but I don't mind that, in fact the first one was maybe a bit too long, at least for what it was. This time, there are fewer side quests, though they are mostly quite good, some are small stories in themselves. Though the main storyline is really this game's strongest point. Yes, the Quick-Time-Events are stupid, but I guess it just was that time... in any case, there are a number of really meaningful decisions to make, some of which influence large parts of the game (and even events in the third game, as far as I know). You really wonder how it all plays out if you chose a different path, and I could see me replaying it some time. It'll probably be some time until I play part three, of which I have heard many good things. Mostly because I still have other games to play and I don't own Witcher 3 yet. But I don't think I'll wait as long this time...

This is a good game that is unfortunately hindered by poor combat balancing and some strange design decisions. You can't use potions in combat, however you can apply blade oils. Another very strange moment occurs where, at the start of chapter 2, the player suddenly finds themself in control of King Henselt (which is very jarring!). However, imo the biggest issues are the combat and balancing. The developers have completely thrown out the combat system from W1, which is unfortunate, as the W1 combat system (with e.g. the different stances) was imo interesting and distinctive. It needed refinement, not complete replacement. The 'Dark Souls'-like combat they replaced it with feels more generic and derivative. The balancing of the game is very bad - it has an inverted difficulty curve, with the prologue and chapter 1 being very punishing and chapter 3 a relative cakewalk. There are a number of reasons why it seems so tough early on. Monsters/enemies don't seem to scale at all as the game progresses and Geralt's character development is somewhat whacky. It seems to be based on saddling him with a load of artificial weaknesses, which require perks to be obtained to correct. Without the right combat feats, dodging is very difficult; blocking costs valuable vigor points; and you take 200% damage(!) from hits in the back. This last point combines with the combat mechanics to be a big culprit for the early difficulty. Hits in the back do double damage; however there is no way to back away from an opponent whilst facing them. So the only way to escape from a powerful enemy is to turn your back on them and risk getting one-shotted from behind. It's bad mechanical design that makes the game feel difficult for the wrong reasons. The game is redeemed by the intriguing and complex plot, the characters, the roleplaying with meaningful choices, and the gorgeous graphics. I will give it 3 stars, as I feel it has a lot of design issues and the current rating is way too high.