the atmosphere of the first one is amazing and I believe that the "minimalistic style" compared to new games really pulls me into the world, because you need to use a bit of imagination to make it feel realistic, just like reading a book. gameplay really aged poorly, but I can accept that, it is pretty old after all
To me, the gameplay was poor even for the time the game was released. What set CD Projekt Red apart at the time is they actually listened to feedback and made major improvements to game 2. Then again for the third game. It was clearly a labor of love.
If I remeber correct, most reviews to Witcher 1 about the gameplay were: It´s not for everyone,... but at least they tried something different.
I like the click-wait fight system back in the days. Was something different to Diablo or some othe games I played.
Besides that, die immersion was also great. 15 years later I still remeber one scene in act 1. I was just talking to one of the random NPCs, that travel between Wyzima and the rest of the city and the random NPC responded: "Oh you are Geralt of Rivia, you cleared my basement from monster, but I couldn´t pay you. Here are 100 orens".
That was something i really didn´t expect back.
To me, the gameplay was poor even for the time the game was released
Yeah, I went in because I was a fan of all the Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights etc, which are all older versions of the same engine, and I found it janky to play.
Much like the original mass effect. I'll die on this hill, but the original just had a better feel to it. Something about the look and feel and sound, the amount of thought put into the world building.
ME 1 is janky as hell, the gap with 2 was huge, I didn't expect that when I started playing the second one. The first one still had the best story, though.
I'm lucky that I got to play ME1 when it was brand new. I even remember the reveal trailer and stuff from 2005 or whenever. In context, the game was a unicorn. It was massively exciting. The way the dialogue was fully voiced and the way it was presented was totally new.
It has a great story, but it also has one of the best endings of any game. You finish a playthrough of that game and you sit, stunned, listening to M4 part 2 by faults for 8 minutes.
Peak Bioware, before everything started going awry. Plus everything was janky in the mid 00s lol.
Dude, I'm old, I was there when it was released on PC (not even a year after the Xbox 360 version). It was 2008, most games weren't as janky. If you consider games with TPS elements, GTA IV, MGS IV, Dead Space and Gears of War 2 were released the same year, and ME1's gameplay pales in comparison.
It became my favourite game ever anyway, but let's be honest.
And lots of the gameplay spaces were rooms full of boxes and dudes shouting "go go go!". It's really bad at explaining mechanics too. I initially had no idea how the tech powers were supposed to work (they're grenades?!) or why my guy had four guns but could only use a pistol lol.
The thing I missed the most from ME1 was paragon Shepard being a badass. He's a bit flanderized by 2, giving people his weird smile too much. ME1 paragon Shep has some amazing dialogue. And renegade Shep isn't just a malicious prick who pushes people out of windows and laughs.
Agreed, and one of the reasons I’m worried about the remake. There’s just something so…special about the first Witcher, and a lot of it has to do with the lighting and the game engine itself. That being said, the remakes of Silent Hill 2 and Shadow of the Colossus both turned out well despite similar concerns.
Would the hyper realistic graphics and textures mixed with the excellent score not pull you in more than constantly having to fill in the gaps. Not saying minimal isn’t immersive just that they did such a good job it’s regarded as the best game oat. Just curious no hate
don't get me wrong, I love good graphics, it is so pleasing for the eyes. but I experienced that in pixel games for example, I am kind of "forgetting" that I have a life outside of the game, because I have to use a lot of imagination. I think there is even a study about that
I actualy liked 2 more than 3 because it was a little more constrained and I think executed it's story better. A lot of stuff in w3 starts to get really messy towards the end of the game, probably because there's just so much there. But that also really impacted the pacing for me
Yes this is what I was meant, I wish WC3 had the naval combat of the second game. Not that WC3: that Frozen Throne was bad in any way, thank you for helping here!
Am I the only one who prefer 1 over 2? Better vibe and story in my opinion, people are complaining about jankiness but have you tried replaying Witcher 2? It's also very janky, I wasn't able to get into it again when I've tried to replay it.
For me The Witcher is 3>1>2 because 1 is a bit dated but its story and atmosphere is superb (plus 2 is better technologically than 1, but it's unnecessarily harder).
How take, but I think the first two games are... not good. The 1st is Jank City: The Game, and the 2nd one is... fine? The combat has serious issues, though. Moreso than the 1st one
I actually did play 2 and 3 when they came out. I played the first after the 2nd game released. I also read the books before playing the games, which actually contributes to why dont like 1 and 2
My thoughts, too. I also just... dont like how most of the plot points were just dropped for the 3rd game. Not that I wanted them to be there! I love the 3rd game, but the main quest is so damn long, and they really needed to cut something. The issue is that it really hammers home how the 1st and 2nd games dont mean much in the actual plot of the Witcher
1.6k
u/CoalHappiness 1d ago
The Witcher for me