I just finished the prologue, and there's enough stuff in it that I decided to post my detailed opinions on it.

There are a couple of major design decisions that many roleplayers would object to. First and foremost is that the prologue relies a lot on cutscenes to tell the story, it's incredibly linear, and you get very, very little choice in dialogues.

Usually, I would object to that to. I hate and loathe cutscenes with a passion. The story should be told in the game, not in cinematics separate from the game. I also love choice, dialogue, decisions, etc.

And yet, here it works. While I hate cutscenes in general, I love them in The Witcher 2. Mostly because they look absolutely gorgeous, and also because they're not used to prevent me from doing something with the game mechanics, but instead they make me do something that's not possible with the game mechanics. I'm sure everybody hated the scene in KotOR where you saw Malak and wanted to attack him, but a cutscene forced you to flee while one party member sacrificed herself. Those cutscenes really suck. None of those here fortunately.

Another reason why cutscenes work here might be that they actually seem integrated with the game. In CRPGs, I consider dialogue to be part of the game. But here, every dialogue is basically a cutscene with text and dialogue choices. Roche's interrogation, which ties most of the prologue together, is a big example of that. You're both sitting, gesturing, eating and drinking, none of which are things for which there are commands in the game. So it's a cutscene, but it's also a dialogue (though most of it is automated).

QTEs should be basically similar: cutscenes with a few trivial/annoying game elements pasted in. But this is where the prologue goes wrong: the scene where you're supporting Foltest while running from the dragon looks like crap. It looks like a really crummy game from 20 years ago. I just have to run in one direction, and that's it. Meanwhile a huge dragon is slowly crawling after me and demolishing the bridge, instead of actually trying to kill me or do whatever else it is that it wants to do. As much as I hate cutscenes, a goodlooking dramatic cutscene would have been a thousand times better than this crappy scene. The game would have been better without it, or with whatever random other idea they could have implemented here.

Then there's the fistfighting. We already have a fighting mechanism in the game. Whether you think the combat in this game is awesome or sucks, it's there, and you will learn to deal with it. As long as it's consistent. So why do I suddenly have to press w, a, s or d when prompted by the game? What happened to the left/right clicking, parrying and dodging? And if you really honestly thinks is this better handled as a QTE, then why isn't it handled automatically, since I've got QTE's turned off?

That's basically all I can think of that's wrong with the prologue. Of course the early fights are incredibly tough, and nobody ever explained how to handle a fight, so you will die a lot of times before you finally learn. You're pushed into the deep end, and nobody's holding your hands. But I like that. I loved harsh games like nethack, and that's basically how I treat this. It's a puzzle that you need to figure out. Unfortunately I've now found a universal solution that works for almost every combat, so much of the thinking challenge is now gone. It's just a lot of frantic button mashing that remains.

Oh, that's another downside: I can't play this game for very long at a time. The frantic action gives me cramps, and I fear my RSI might return. There's a very good reason why I prefer turn-based and pausable games.

Still, for the most part, the prologue is excellent. Looks gorgeous (I love the harsh lighting in the next room from the interrogation room, seen when Ves enters or leaves), very plausible, believable story, tons of background that gets hinted at, cool foreboding (yeah, I noticed the very American accent of that blind monk; he's no local), amazing graphics, amazing design for the castle and the town (I love that sort of thing), very well written dialogue, great animations for characters, tough, interesting scenes to tackle, and it's all put together like one great, gorgeous and very believable whole.

Except for that crappy bit with the dragon. Nearly poked my eyes out there, but I'm glad I didn't.

No, you haven't seen enough of the game to even begin forming a detailed opinion.
Other than the controls, the Prologue and the game are nothing alike.

The prologue may be very different from the rest of the game, but it seems rather obvious to me that the prologue is very much like the prologue, which is what I'm reviewing.

You shouldn't get choices for something that already happened.

Sorry about that, I misunderstood you were just talking about the Prologue.
So.. uhhh.. yeah..I knew that, just testing...and stuff.

I don't know, I kinda like the few choices you get in the prologue. I think I'm gonna kill Aryen on my next play-through. I guess it's a bit weird to review only a part of the game, but I decided the prologue is big, cool and important enough to deserve a review of its own. After all, it's the part that's supposed to get you into the game, and sets the stage for the rest.

I'm not sure if my review is a good one, though. It's a bit messy. Maybe I should have done it by stage (wake up, assault, dragon, monastery), rather than meandering through themes.

you haven't seen enough. That means you will be even more upset by the game or overjoy, morelikely the first.

Dialogue choice in Witcher is that way, different from other RPGs, very much linear. And I like it that way. I dont need the pity different over what you may say and the same outcome. I can try that in real world.


First:
The prologue is very non-linear in which way you travel through the dungeon. You meet either of the 2 characters in different places, with very different conversation.

Later on, you will play act 2 in 2 different places.

Second:
You hate cutscene? Then you shouldn't play RPGs as all, better FPS or sth else. RPGs elements involves cutscences !!!

QTE:
Cannot stand with people who hate QTE. Cannot understand how people cannot press the key fast enough. Just cannot understand it.

QTE brings a different way to play the game. Also, when you learn Ripose, in order to use that skill, you have to react to a simple that signals counterstrike. The game won't counterstrike for you. So, it is a QTE you must beat.

Final:
That game is not short. That game is not expensive. It may cost more for 3 dinners. That is for me.

I don't know about it being weird, seems OK to me but if I had paid attention to the first line I wouldn't have posted what I did. It was 100% my fault.

I can't say I agree with you but your opinion is just as valid as mine so I don't see a problem.

But dialogue is the flesh and blood of RPGs. That's where you make the story. Linear dialogue means you don't get to make the story, you don't get to address what makes your character, you don't get to roleplay. Roleplaying in a single player game is limited enough as it is. Cut it down even more, and you might as well call it an FPS. That is not "very non-linear". You will end up in the dungeon, and you will get out of it. Some earlier choice may have an impact on what happens in between, but it's still linear.

Which is okay, mind you. It's a prologue. It's supposed to get you into the story, and it does an excellent job at that. I have no problem with it being this linear. I'm just pointing out that it is. The only non-linear bit about it is that you get to decide in what order to play those first 4 parts. That's bullshit. More than any other genre, RPGs should be able to tell a story without cutscenes. I don't remember Baldur's Gate, Torment or Fallout depending on lots of cutscenes. It's FPS that don't have a means to tell a story through the game, and need to rely on cutscenes (though not all FPSs try to tell a story). It's not about being unable to press the key fast enough, it's about the fact that it adds nothing whatsoever to the game. There's no thought involved, and RPGs should be a thinking game. Not a reaction speed game. Riposte (haven't used it yet, mind you), might be okay, because at least it's woven into the rest of the game. It's another game mechanism that goes with attacks, blocking, signs, item usage, etc. It's not a mini-game completely separate from the rest of the game. Unarmed combat is. Other QTEs even more so: it's an entire scene created for the sole purpose of playing a completely different game than I was playing just a moment before. And it's not a game with interesting decisions or outcomes, it's just pass or fail. It's lame. I'm not disputing the quality of the game as a whole. If you think I am, then you should read my review. I'm merely pointing out the few places where they dropped the ball. The game would have been even greater if they hadn't. The dragon QTE in particular. That scene should not exist.

First: about the dialogue.

witcher 2's dialogue choices are basically the same as in witcher 1, and different from the rest of other RPGs.

Older RPGs gives you more choices, as they didn't have voice over. It is pretty cheap to make a game like that. Now, they have fully-voice over game, in 3 languages. How much money can they spend on that alone? And are you sure you are gonna pay more for the game?

The dialogues give us, gamers, a feel and a way to play the character our way. In other world. the conversation implies the hero's personality. Furthermore, we want to build his personality. So that is RPG element.

In this game, there are way too many way to build the character they way want. You can fully feel immersed in the game world, get a feel of what your hero may think, and that includes dialogues.

He got a chances to make argue politics, hang a prince, kill a king or don't allow any of such happen via his dialogue choice. What more do you expect.

second: about the dungeon path: if you say it is linear, I cannot say more. How much is a game? How much is the cost of gas, driving around town on these days? how much is food and tips in restaurant?

For game and 4 years of work, I cannot demand more.

In act 2, you will play totally different games if you decice to re-play the game and take a different course.

Game is a game. You want programmers to make game like your real life, that is too much too ask.

third:
QTE gives me a different experience, take me off the common way to play this game. Sometimes, I am tired of mashing my left mouse buttons. Sometimes, I want to run. I love the QTE.

Just like how they add in dice-pokers, wrestling. QTE is like a minigame for me.

Last time playing COD4, I got a race game. Should I complain that racing in a first-person-shooter is out of place? No, hell no.

Last time playing Mass Effect, I have QTE which if I exploit correctly, I am rewarded with awesome cutscene.

forth:
combat. There are still more room for improvement. There are already mods to add challenges.

I love how they add finishing packs, or ripose and the way they implement it. You build up your characters, equip him with some skills. But they game wont play the skills for you. You better mash the buttons quick to use your skills.

it is rewarding for me.

Fifth:
Cutscence. You and I a different. I love cutscence. It brings me into the games, brings upclose to the characters.

I even love the cutscence where the dragon wopping down in prologue and raining fire up on the team, and Triss exclaims "it's a dragon! it's a dragon!" It makes me feel Triss is truely a woman.

Sum up:

This game is an action RPG; furtheremore, it doesn't stand with traditional RPGs. People complain because it is not like their old game. It is not their expection.

Fine!

But for me, this game re-defines RPGs and how RPGs should be played.

I agree. Voice over costs money, and full voice over is therefore limiting dialogue options. I do appreciate full voice over, because it enhances immersion, but so does dialogue choice. I'm perfectly happy to accept gaps in the voicing if it means more interactive dialogue. Exactly. That's why I think dialogue is the most important element of a CRPG. Reducing its interactivity hurts the roleplaying element, beautiful though a more linear dialogue may be. There's immersion in the game world, and there's immersion in the character. The game world immersion is absolutely unbelievably well done in TW2. But immersion in the character has different requirements. Pretty graphics and a good voice over help, but if you want to get a bit deeper, you have to address who he is, what makes him tick, what makes him who he is. In order to address this, you need to be able to make choices related to it. Very few CRPGs actually do that. TW1 did, and I'm sure TW2 will too. There's not a lot of that in the prologue yet, but that's okay. It's not what a prologue is for. But in order to do this, you need to be able to make dialogue choices. And not just for a few big forks in the story, but also for the small stuff.

You know what quest from TW1 was in my opinion the most relevant to roleplaying? The Identity quest. Had practically no impact on the story whatsoever (though a few decisions in other parts of the story did show up here), but it was entirely about defining who Geralt really is. That is the stuff roleplaying is made of.

And the more I think of it, the more I realise that most of my favourite CRPGs focused on this. Planescape: Torment is entirely about who you are, who you were, and what can change that. SW:KotOR 2 is filled with questions about why you did something that happened years before the game starts, and what you think about that decision now. There are lots of different answers possible to those questions, often with very little game impact, but they did define the character I was playing. It's what distinguishes an RPG from a tactical adventure game. Small decisions. Yes, shaping the world is definitely awesome, but if the only decisions you get to make are the ones with earth-shattering consequences, then they can become strategic decisions, rather than decisions that define your character. I'm not sure how tips or gas is relevant to the linearity of the prologue or any other aspect of the game. Yet that is one of the holy grails of roleplaying. I'm aware that computer games are very limited as a medium to attain that goal, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't still be the goal of any game that wants to call itself an RPG.

And we have come a long way towards that goal. The Witcher and TW2 tell very plausible, very credible stories, where your choices have a very credible impact. Compare this to the best-selling CRPGs of 10 or 20 years ago, many of which had very little story with very little detail (Torment and the Fallouts excepted in my opinion), The Witcher and TW2 improved a lot on that. But that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement.

Especially in the prologue (where I consider it acceptable, though I hope the rest of the game is different), the heavy dependence on cutscenes and linear dialogue often makes the game more interactive movie than RPG. The best interactive movie I've ever seen (apart from the dragon scene), but if you want it to be an RPG, then linear dialogue is not the way to go.

Choice is one of the things that makes an RPG. And not just external choice (at which The Witcher excels), but also internal choice: defining who you are. I guess we'll just have to disagree there. I think they don't add much to the game, and some of them detract from it. I'm not fundamentally opposed to minigames (I enjoyed the racing in the KotOR games, for example), but some QTEs just really aren't much of a game. They're just some obstacle you need to overcome in order to continue the story (which is often just more cutscene). For me it's really the personality defining questions and choices that are the most rewarding in a game like this. That one is awesome. My complaint is about the scene where you carry Foltest across the bridge with the dragon on your heels. For me not, so far at least. The Witcher 1 did redefine CRPGs for me, as did Baldur's Gate (which showed that roleplaying on a computer weren't the lost cause that they often seemed before then, though the illusion was still pretty thin then), Planescape: Torment (the first CRPG I'm aware of that really addresses the player character's identity. rather than merely an obstacle course on the way to the end of the story), and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2, which I played very recently, after TW1 even, yet it addressed the player character's identity and personality more than any other RPG (computer or otherwise) that I've ever experienced.

So far (I'm not that far into the game yet), The Witcher 2 redefines cutscenes and how they should be used, but not really anything related to roleplaying. Nothing that TW1 hasn't already done. So far, at least. Hopefully the game still has some surprises in store for me.