- I'd like to go to the swamp
- I can take you to the swamp in my ferry
- I want to hire your ferry to go to the swamp
- it'll be 1gp to go to the swamp

*interactive screen where 1gp is passed to the ferryman*
- do you want to go to the swamp now?
- yes, I'd like to go to the swamp now

* cutscene of ferry arriving *

Now that's some involving storytelling! Yet I absolutely loved The Witcher, as long as the story was progressing and choices were made. The last few hours of hack & slashing I disliked, but that's how it goes.

As a side note, when Witcher 2 came out, I was dismayed to see it continues with even more hack'n slash activities, so I didn't manage to endure past the prologue, despite trying twice. I hear it gets better, but I doubt I'll give it another chance.

I absolutely love DA: O, it's one of my favorite games, and I've happily replayed it many times over. DA2 however, I can't even play as it gives me motion sickness. :(

No. TW 1 storytelling isn't bad because it is not "movie like" it is bad because it is badly written. Eg. at no time in the game you are given enough background information to actually feel immersed in the world. Whenever they give out background lore it is either to short or boils down to "gameplay tips". I know that people complain about ME throwing WALLS of text at you in the beginning, but I like that. PS:T was even better, as they were able to create the world out of the gaming dialogue itself. (With voiced dialogues that sadly isn't really an option anymore, though).

You are thrown into "fifteen year old power trip fantasy world" (or "dark and edgy") filled with paper thin characters that look like they where designed by a fifteen year old who hasn't seen enough booty in his life. Any interesting elements of an interesting story (which SPOILER: is again a villain who actually wants to do something good with bad means. Where have I read that before .... Oh, EVERYWHERE) are buried beneath mountains of atrocious writing.

That itself doesn't make it a bad game, or even a bad story. But it isn't especially noteworthy either. It is just your (lower) average fantasy story. I literally read hundreds of those in my teens as I worked (and lived) in a comic book/RPG/table top store.

But, that combined with some horrible design choices in the game itself (Half of the gametime I spent running around from A to B) made TW 1 a more of a chore than a game.

DA2 isn't the direct sequel to the first game. You may freely skip it without consequences. If you want to know the story, you better watch it on youtube. It will free you from so much pain...

But be sure to buy complete edition. The Awakening is a good expansion, and DLCs are, well.. mediocre, but they expand the play time by more than few hours.

A game doesn't become a good game because it is based on a good book. A game needs to stand on its own. Look at Spec Ops: The Line or Stalker. Both games work flawlessly without any knowledge of the books they are based on. And both games have great movies based on the book which also can stand alone.

Even if the books have great characters, the game makes a very bad job at portraying them. And it wouldn't be better if it was more movie like. The game hardly offers any motivation for most of the characters.

The motivation of characters and the plot must be conceivable out of the game. If you want to do some fandom appreciation throw in some unrelated character for the kicks (which was that weird bard, from what I understand). But don't create your game based on knowledge you need from the books. That is bad storytelling.

Imo, The Witcher 1 was so overhyped because it was the first game that brought "dark and edgy" fantasy to the masses. (Same with "Of Fire and Ice", imo). But if you actually went down that rabbit hole of "dark fantasy" you'll notice that it isn't especially noteworthy (apart from better marketing).

Hear, hear.
I actually went and read the first Witcher book (after playing the game, the short story collection) and was a bit surprised to see it wasn't dark and edgy at all. More like a parody of several old stories. A fun read, but there was no depth there.

Guess the depth came in later books, might read them as well some day. But it's unfair to assume players read them all first.

Although, as a counter note. If it was a Star Wars game, I'd find it a reasonable to expect the players have seen the films. And.. I liked "The Avengers" quite a bit extra much, because the characters were "true" and "done right". So, probably the WItcher was extra good for the polish witcher fans who had read the books.

Still liked it as it was. As I did Fire and Ice*, even though Assasin Apprentice series was the earlier down to earth darker fantasy for me.

* but damn hell do the newest books ever keep dragging on

Its a great game with great characters, the banter between companions as you walk around is priceless, I highly recommend the game. The DLC is only OK, there was one, Witch Hunt (?) it was/is particularly shite.

I think it's my favorite western RPG ever. Play it! Get the Ultimate edition, the DLC isn't all great, but Awakening is worth the $10 price difference (US Steam prices; probably the same in Canada?).

DA2 doesn't continue the story of DA:O, so whether you love it or hate it doesn't really enter into the conversation.

Disclaimer: I liked ME2, aside from the planet scanning, so our taste in games may be irreconcilably different.

I disliked the very boring brown settings, but the tactical combat was very good. The story is decent but the best parts of their new world, the chantry vs. mages and Orlais, were not a focus.

This all reversed for DA2, the world was vibrant and interesting and the story focused on the unique aspects, but the tactical combat suffered.

Hopefully DA3 will be the best of both.

Heh, no, there's no real depth to them even later on, I'll be the first one to admit that. Have you seen FireFly? You basically get a bunch of great characters, and then watch their story unfold. There are bits that are really, positively brilliant, some interesting political scheming added to the mix that gets even more elaborate during the games (especially the second part,) but generally, it's not what I'd call a pinnacle in serious literature. Doesn't change the fact that it's probably the most entertaining fantasy book series I have ever red, which is something in itself - and I really like that the setting, as you said yourself, is not 'dark and edgy,' but fairly realistic and belivable - Sapkowski's a bit of a historian and basically goes by the rule 'you can't get more realistic than by learning from actual history.'
You've made me interested in DA2 right there.

DA 2 has probably the best "overall story" I've seen in most RPGs. Due to its unique structure of "linear storytelling" it is possible to actually have a plot that progresses fairly nice (which DA:O couldn't really do that well, due to the open world).

The story boils down to "How much can we restrict the freedom of a minority to ensure the safety of the majority". (Bioware has always mirrored real life issues in their games, which I like). And it makes a brilliant job in showing you both sides of the argument in giving your reasons to understand both sides. Both sides have valid points that are very nicely brought into the game via quests, etc. It somewhat falls apart in the last act, but up until then, it is a nice ride. But it can really get you thinking and sets and awesome stage for DA 3.

The characters are also a lot deeper than they first let on (and the character development is actually understandable without reading any outside sources ;-P). There are still some "low points" in character design and some of the characters are quite clearly expies of other characters. But Bioware pulls it of nicely. I only played the first DLC but that was really good. They even got all the old voice actors back to allow a free choice of companions, something you hardly see nowadays.

It also lifts a bit of the forced "dark and edgyness" of DA:O and simply shows how sucky it is to be a commoner in a fantasy world. But it does so "in telling" and not like "look, look, we are dark and edgy here".

Writing is great, a lot of smart humour, enough dick and fart jokes, the most interesting relationship developments I've seen in videogames (also some of the stupidest...).

A lot has been said in this which I agree on, like basically DA:O isn't directly connected to DA 2 and is better gameplay-wise, so I'll just add my 2 cents. (mild spoilers for KOTOR 1)

About the story in Bioware games: I really feel that Bioware has been replicating the overall story structure of KOTOR 1 over and over. Basically, if you remember Kotor 1, it goes like this: a short introductory level (the sinking spaceship), the first main planet (Taris), and then, a crossroads: you have 4 different planets to visit, in any order you like, to pick 4 parts of a puzzle. This gives you a small feeling of freedom in the way you experience the game.
Then, after the 4 planets are complete, the location of the last planet is revealed, you go there, boss fight, conclusion of the story, end of the game.
It's a very efficient story structure, mind you, but it has been replicated exactly in KOTOR 2, ME1, and DA:O. So yeah, all those games are great, but still, I couldn't shake off the feeling that I was playing the same story over and over. I mean, not in the details, but still I could tell when I was going to meet a new character, when there would be a betrayal, a love scene, an "unexpected" twist.

ME2 and DA2 broke away from this, and I really appreciate it: I still think ME:2 is the best Bioware game since Baldur's Gate and Kotor 1, because it brings successfully something new in term of story structure (DA2, however, not so successfully IMO...)
EDIT: oh, and I didn't play ME3 yet, please no spoilers...

Don't do anything you might regret.

It uses a lot of ME 2, but the story is "tighter". I think you will like it.