W1 had a sense of humor, and Geralt didn't take himself too seriously. There is a spirit of light-hearted fun and comedy to W1 that W2 simply doesn't have. I like W2 but it takes itself far too seriously--trying to make Geralt into something not-quite Geralt, if you catch my drift. W2 had its comedic moments, for sure, but they seemed labored and scripted and melodramatic.

The entire Witcher franchise is one of my favorites, no doubt, but the games could improve in one very important way: never have the game bottleneck into a point that must be passed the same way, by all players, in order for the game to proceed. In W1 it was the Queen spider in the cave with the timed events; it was the Kracken (or whatever it was called) in W2. IMO, there ought always to be multiple paths past and through such obstacles; some requiring twitch reflexes, others requiring brains, etc, with the choice of the way through being the player's.

I bought TW2 when it first came out, but I got stuck in the training spot that was glitched and I decided that I wanted to learn how to use the signs and weapons before playing again. In the meantime, I got hooked on replaying Morrowind with the Overhaul mod collection installed, and I was hooked again! Then I wandered back through New Vegas, and here I am starting the first Witcher game again, and oh my, it's gorgeous on this 1440 screen. I figure I'll play through this game again and relearn the signs and sword play before I try TW2 again.

Are the signs/swordplay similar in both games? It doesn't matter that much of course; I'm still going to play The Witcher again before TW2 regardless. heh

I do. 1 was slightly more complex than 2, in terms of both gameplay and feel of polish. At least, concerning those fields:

1) The exploration. Large areas, feel of open world, etc. With one word, one example; The Swamps.
2) Alchemy. Now that was complex and satisfying. Secondary substances and potions with second effects thanks to them, was a real treat. To be missed dearly, i say.
3) Alcohol. They might protest and conceal all they want about the reasons they removed it from game in 2 (at least as abundant items you can use whimsically, or the hilarious drinking contest minigame...), but the truth is, they had problems with ratings and simpletons who barked and yelled at the "content" itself, much like the sex cards, the large number of encounters you could achieve in 1, plus the easiness with which you could indulge in them (in 1, more "normal", everyday, casual girls would jump at you, rather than prostitutes, and more willingly, too; although this technically can happen in real life if you know precisely how to handle people well enough, its representation in games always raises a huge ruckus which is always unwise and unprofitable to oppose, translated as play safe and remove or change ruckus causing content itself).
4) Sex. 1 was a real piece of work. Honestly. Plus the gog bonus calendar composed of sex cards, and was updated up until and 2013, was a real treat, a faqing legend. EPIC!
5) Books. Books you read, would say so in the item's description itself. In 2, this was implemented no sooner than the release of the enhanced edition, effectively forcing you to carry all this dead weight, just to be sure that you wouldn't sell some book you really needed. Why would a game feature exist in an older gamer with more sophisticated mechanics, and in the sequel, it becomes implemented as mod/dlc at a far later date, is so beyond me...
6) Combat. 2's combat was new, refreshing, interesting. Yet a little bit TOO action and console like (i cannot describe it better). I got used to it and enjoyed it at the end of things, but 1's style was far more sophisticated and lore friendly (the strong, fast and group style, the combos, the fatalies...).
7) Finishers in 2, fatalities in 1. In 1, there was a very large number of finishing animations, execution like. Even subweapons could do a fatality, like that awesome assassin's dagger! In 2, they were implemented at a later point, and the variations were nowhere near to those of 1...
8) Gore. In 1, especially during the group style swings, people or creatures would loose much blood, and/or limbs easily. Butchery and bloodbath in all its goodness. 2 felt somewhat lacking on gore and its graphical representation, felt a little fake to me...
9) Consolization. Don't know, but for me, 2 gives off a faint aura of a consolized game. Not heavily, thankfully and mind that, but i don't know. Especially those quick action button press sequences, i honestly didn't like them the least bit!
10) Neutral path. And again, neutral path. How could 2 not have 1? Never understood that, never going to.

2 was a real masterpiece, though, and those preferences/notices of mine mean nothing to how much i loved it. But i liked what they did with 1 way more... Still, it is my own, personal opinion.

The worst thing about TW1 was all the things Geralt should have been able to do, but couldn't. He couldn't jump or climb or swim. He couldn't hop over a fence or a small crate. There were so many things he couldn't do, it sometimes made the game feel like it was forcing you through the story like a pig through a meat grinder. Luckily the story itself was pretty entertaining.

TW2 is much worse in this regard. Everything that has been changed seems to have been done in order to make sure the player has even less control over Geralt. TW2 is not even a cRPG, IMO; it's an interactive movie. You push buttons from time to time in order to prod the story along, but really you're just an observer. Push a button to climb a ladder. Push a button over and over and over to cock a ballista. Push a button to select a dialogue option. I don't like it.

If it weren't for the well-developed setting, there wouldn't be much to recommend TW2.

I have to agree with this. I was disappointed with Witcher 2 because I loved the Witcher original so much and the second one turned into some kind of movie with click timings.
I was so disappointed witht the second one actually that I don't plan on buying Witcher 3.

Now that I have completed both games, I can say that the first one is unique but has his problems while the second is more like a AAA game, really good looking but a little empty (and had one hell of an anti climax).
So I prefer the first one, but the second has a lot of replayability, you want to see where the other paths go and see elements of the story you couldn't have seen otherwise while in the first one, I knew that the path of neutrality was the best one from start, so I have no desire to replay it for now.

The Witcher >>>>> The Witcher 2

The Witcher 2 is, even if I hate to admit it, a terrible game. Terrible controls, convoluted UI, poor combat and potion mechanics, badly thought skills distribution system that forces you to "specialize" on one subject and waste precious skill-points on the entirely useless "Training" path. Geralt needs all 3 paths to survive, both lore-wise and gameplay-wise. Why CDP decided to give the possibility of making Geralt a mage, a swordsman or an alchemist but not a Witcher, I will never know.

Maybe the most enraging thing I can think of it's how CDP decided to ignore every decision from The Witcher and made The Witcher 2 more of an action movie than a cRPG. The best gear imported from The Witcher becomes useless before reaching through half Act 1, we get forced to stay with Triss no matter what and Shani's romance got entirely ignored; everything of what you did in the first Witcher just changes some dialogs in the second one, your decisions doesn't impact the world.
What class of cRPG developers decides to not give a crap about your decisions? Is this going to end like another Mass Effect? Did they just liked the idea of selling Telltale's illusion of choice?

They did terrible decisions that just make The Witcher 2 a hell of a movie, but a terrible videogame. I'm preoccupied to what will they do on The Witcher 3.

Now that you mention it... OH. MY. GOD!!! 2's combat system was unspeakable. Plus, no group style (hitting multiple enemies at once), if you didn't bother to unlock it via skill in swordsman path... Just terrible, not even a real ninja would "ukemi" his way ALL THE WAY into combat, just like Geralt did (felt like replacing combat movements entirely with ninja rolling). Well, if someone bothered to get used to it enough to do well, the combat style of 2 wasn't TOO annoying, but annoying still...

The decisions were somewhat nice and decent. Not too large an impact, but had impact, nonetheless... Thing is, they allowed former game to have loose consequences in the world of 2, just because they wanted NEW players to not feel out of the blue. And because they ported the thing into those !@#$ CONSOLES! How are consoletards and consoleturds supposed to enjoy a PC only game, especially one that its prequel has never made it into their shitbox? Hence the quick-button-pressing sequences, the emphasis on action, and the oversimplification of mechanisms like alchemy (no alchohol for base, no secondary substances, no bonuses).

And the cutting of "funny" features, like the drinking contest (get drunk like a donkey and win prizes), in addition to their replacement with more generic and politically correct stuff, like the arm-wrestling. Or the butchering down and watering down of "adult" portrayal of stuff/theme (prostites in 2 are really ugly, in 1 they were attractive, in 1 you could have sex with many *normal* girls without paying them), allowing you to have 2-3 romances at best, compared to the TWENTY of 1. We don't want consolekids exposed to hardcore fashion, or subconscious influence, now, do we? Since we all know consolekids put parents to buy their games and cheat their way into acquiring MATURE stuff, while parents are 200% none the wiser.

I don't blame the company for making this game a console game, TOO. Keyword, too, because in its core, it is for PC mostly. Or for applying politically correct philters and blindfolds to make said game appear less "disturbing", or SUGGESTIVE, if you will . They have to obey certain rules in their trade, like everyone else. Plus, they do a wonderful job into hearing their fans' thoughts/wishes/suggestions, and even sometimes actually make some of them happen. As well as the totally nonconstructive criticism, but as long as one side is satisfied, i don't have a problem with the other one getting satisfied, too.

Last but not least, there really is no point in making two games almost identical. 1 hasn't aged yet (at least a lot), everyone who likes it more (me included) can get back to it anytime. They are different. Both are good, 1 simply felt better. And it had a neutral, Witcher's path!

Oh, the drinking contests and the sex cards which, imo, were 10 times better than having actual sex cutscenes. Besides, all but Triss' and Ves' sex encounters were pretty much identical. There was just no incentive to pay for prostitutes.
Got disappointed when the only time you can get "drunk" is on a secondary mission with Ves and the other Blue Stripes, and you don't even "feel" drunk -- no special effects or clumsy movement. Oh well, at least we had the drug moment with a giant chicken.

I like CDP. They really work hard and put passion in their games. They hear and interact with their community. But The Witcher 2 was just the clearest example of how consoles dumb down gameplay immensely. They tried something new and they came with a lot of wrong ideas. At least, they're generous enough to give us an amazing modding tool to fix what they broke and make our own adventures. Very few developers care for modders nowadays. I'm glad CDP it's one of them.

About the story, see, that's one of the things that enraged me the most, if not THE one that enraged me the most. There was just no need to forget about all of our decisions or to start from scratch again. There are trailers explaining the story, there are the log entries explaining the previous events and there are resumes all over the internet. I don't understand why did CDP practically decided to start from scratch all over again and forget about PC gamers. Sure, we get additional stuff and more support. But so what? The essence of cRPGs, the promise that The Witcher gave since the beginning, is starting to vanish. My decisions matter, but at the same time they don't. I can shape the world and Geralt, and at the same time I can't.
They have already stated that The Witcher 3 will AGAIN start on a completely new setting, featuring a completely new story so EVERYONE, both veterans and new people can get into it. Is history repeating all over again?

I'm now sounding like a whining b!tch, so I'll stop. Wish I could write a constructive criticism, but I'm far too angry atm.

Fun fact, the Princess is a canon character from the short story that the Witcher comes bundled with (the opening cutscene gives the cliff notes of the climax). By the end of it, Geralt cures the child of turning into a Striga, but since she has suffered from the curse at an early age, she is severely developmentally crippled and her hair has gone white; for all intents and purposes, the Princess is mentally retarded. They make it clear that while she will live, she will never lead a normal life, and that she will be lucky if she ever learns to speak at all. In the Witcher, not only are there no signs of developmental problems as a result of her condition, and the only trace of her prior curse is a 'hilarious' longing for raw meat and eggs; the hair I can see being hidden by dye, but her grasp of speaking and conduct in general (i.e. starts all but dry humping Geralt's leg when she meets him) goes against her established state of being fucked in the head as a result of having been dead at birth, locked in a tomb for seven years, then arising as Striga until Geralt cured her at the age of 14 (5 years prior to what we see in the game). Apparently five years is all you need to shake off having literally no experience living as a human being since birth.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the writers of the Witcher rewrote an established mentally handicapped character for the purpose of making it ok for Geralt to be able to have sex with them without coming off as rapey. But that'd mean that the writers thought of the character primarily as a sex object, and it's not like there's anything in the game that indicates that they would do that- except for, you know, literally everything else about how they handled female characters and 'romance'.

Oh no, how dare people draw fan art. And it's of something that does nothing for me. Aaaaugh. It's not like it''s a fairly common activity on the internet that I could just as well not look at to avoid being squicked out.

Also, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at; is it that the source of outcry over the bullshit way the writers treated female characters were girls with "peculiar issues" (what issues, exactly? Aside from not being a fan of female characters being given the shaft by the writers, that is), unsuspecting parents, and gay people (incidentally, what is it with you and gay people; first that little episode in the BG forums, and now this?)?

Art is meant to be free, and art is liberal. Those who don't understand Art, should either leave it alone, or stop buggering others who appreciate it as is. Writers are artists, too. And as per EVERY type of art, it draws HEAVILY, INSPIRATION, from life itself. (i am not talking of the phantasy elements here, but of the personalities of depicted characters). Those who consider these things bullshit, or offensive (and in case of offensive they must start wondering if they are socially blind/ignorant, braindead or simply living in their own delusional little world) what is their purpose, here, again? To play a game chopped up and censored (even indirectly and stealthily), just because they want to have the developers tailor it to their self-delusionary tantrums, by nagging?

Also, every stinking game forum reeks of gays! In Baldur's Gate ones, i was harassed by one and the circumstances were exceptionally gross. In the Witcher forums, i wasn't harassed, but caught up in a shitstorm, while not a fault, and ultimately paid a price (temporary bans), while those responsible laughed, because some "hammer-wielding" people were their friends in real life. In all modern game forums, gays suddenly pop up and start DEMANDING (keyword here, DEMANDING!) homosexual features/depictions/choices implemented in them! The Witcher, Baldur's Gate, the recently cancelled World of Darkness MMO! Pc games are NOT gay bars, now, are they? Or i am missing something all along?

And about the peculiar issues. Peculiar issues at best. When someone for example discusses FICTIONAL characters in sensitive depictions of them/circumstances of appearance (like in this series), and some angry entity suddenly pops up claiming she took insult for REAL LIFE characters/people (women in that case), calling you a sexist pig in public and her friends in power label you as a misogynist followed for a three months ban for example (when you are anything but), then peculiar issues kindly and sincerely it is. I never understood what those people want in a mature fantasy setting of this type and caliber. Maybe nag and protest enough to have it turn into their standards?

Some times, when developers pay heed and care TOO much to their own consumers' opinions, might not be such a good idea. One example, is for instance, a thread like this, opened well after some people have played both games in comparison. The prequel being better in the eyes of many people, compared to the sequel. Or angry nuts who undermine the slow transformation of the setting to a less "old-fashioned", more politically correct one, that would appeal to a wider audience. Thing which has caused the downfall of many an exceptional franchises in the past, but thankfully, not this one here.

So if you don't like a work as is, you should shut up about it? Forgive me, but I call bullshit. It's only through developers being called out on their mistakes that they learn how to avoid said mistakes. If a writer used poor grammar, wrote one dimensional characters, or otherwise practiced their craft poorly, any criticism would be well earned. Either that or you are insinuating that by virtue of criticizing certain aspects of an art, one is demonstrating an inability to understand it, which leads to the same result of shutting up; it's not exactly clear which version you intended to communicate, but either way, my response is the same: bullshit. If anything, in order for one to be able to form any kind of in depth opinion about any given entry into any given art form, at least a base understanding of the art form is necessary, and a deeper understanding of the art form can lead one to identify flaws that might otherwise have gone unnoticed due to one's ignorance of how the art functions.

Mind, this is all bloody irrelevant, as I fail to see what this has to do with my post.

So, what exactly is being drawn from real life in the Witcher? The fact that people have sex? In and of itself, that's great; the medium of gaming could certainly stand to be more comfortable with including sexual content, seeing as how it's a major part of human life and all that. The fact that men in the setting are horrible to women? It's unfortunate, but the writers and Sapkowski seem to have been working with a universe designed after old European civilization that spawned a number of the fairy tales that the Witcher (the books, mostly, and the game to an extent) are focused on, so having the society be rather horrible to women due to institutionalized misogyny is totally understandable; mind, aside from my general frustration that the Witcher shares the same need as most fantasy to be set in yet another patch of Tolkein's back garden, that argument doesn't really hold up that well when dealing with magic users, who are in the best position to buck the shittier aspects of society due to their power. Is it the fact that a lot of the women dress sexually? Not in and of itself, no. Is it that the female characters dress sexually, often with no discernible reason beyond titillation and in ways that make absolutely no sense for the more combat-exposed characters to wear? Sorry, I was too busy being distracted by Triss' plunging v-neck and body fishnets which in no way, shape, or form would provide any protection in combat; the answer is yes, incidentally. Is it that the game lets you sleep with the main female characters, in addition to a lot of random female characters? Not exactly. Is it that the game's providing a collectible card upon having sex with someone incentivizes a "gotta fuck 'em all" mindset, reducing the act of sex from a consensual shared physical and emotional exchange between partners down to a bedding someone for bragging rights, simultaneously reducing each female character in that moment to their role in the whole affair to a mere conquest? Hoo boy, you bet; I don't doubt for a moment that that kind of shit attitude about sex is inspired by real life, but it's one that had no place in that game except to simulate that same disgusting drive to think of sex itself as some sort of game where women are just points waiting to be scored. Is it that the writers had no problem redefining a character for the sole discernible purpose of making it ok to fuck them? See above, but long story short, YES.

But hey, maybe I'm being unreasonable. If that's the case, then please, feel free to explain to me how any of the rhetorical questions I answered with "yes" and explain why they aren't in fact offensive or meant to be a deliberate story of the art as inspired by real life as opposed to the background radiation from the developers' attitude toward sexuality seeping over into the writing.

I said it before in the BG forums, and I'll say it here, the person who harassed you was out of line. However, as for your "shitstorm", I really have to wonder what exactly happened there; if it is anything like this little gem:

Then I have an inkling that those temporary bans may have been deserved. But hey, for all I know, this time you didn't make any comments about hurting people due to their sexuality or throw slurs around, so please feel free to set the record straight.

As for people wanting more representation of gay people in gaming... can you blame them? Non-straight characters are extremely rare in games, and when they do they tend to be either horrible stereotypes or otherwise get the shaft of the writers. Trevor in Phantasmagoria 2 was entertaining, but even he was a little too close to the stereotypical idea of the mincing gay man at points, and his death only narrowly avoided (in my opinion) being an instance of the "fag in a fridge" trope by virtue of the whole plot of the game revolving around people getting picked off, whereas the fridge trope depends on killing someone off purely to motivate the main character. Baron von Glower from Gabriel Knight 2 was handled much better, but the writers could barely bring themselves to do anything other than hint at his sexuality in such a way that I didn't catch on that he was bisexual until someone spelled it out for me. Hell, Curtis Craig from Phantasmagoria 2 was the only instance I can recall of a playable established character who was not straight, and even he barely counted due to the game refusing to flat out refusing to decide if he was in fact bisexual or had something else going on (thankfully it was not the latter, but sadly it was something far, far stupider, as anyone who has played the game can guess).

The lack of representation is worse in RPGs, where the big selling point is being able to create and roleplay your character your way; not allowing for one's possible homosexuality or bisexuality while allowing for straight sexuality to be expressed in game only makes sense if the designers of the world are saying that gay people don't exist in the setting, which is all kinds of fucked; to the extent that the argument is that the setting is modeled after historical settings and that gay people weren't recognized back then, (1) that's incorrect (homosexuality was very much a thing throughout history; hell, the Romans didn't even give a shit about gender when it came to sex, instead defining sexual roles by roles analogous to today's concepts of "top" and "bottom"), and (2) to the extent that they were recognized and the fact that they weren't tolerated is supposed to be the justification, remember that in these settings it's not that homosexual characters aren't tolerated or are subject hate crimes, it's that the unoverse has decreed that they do not exist. Imagine an RPG universe where black characters get the shaft not by virtue of having to worry about the fantasy version of white supremacists, but by virtue of the game forcing them to play as a white guy because it has been decided that black people do not exist in this universe, and I think you can understand why some people might get irritated.

Geralt being straight I can get; he's a defined character who the writers have decided will act only in certain ways, much like JC Denton from Deus Ex and the like; making certain things non-canon for a defined character I get. When the game's main character is purely player defined, like BG or any given MMO, or the game only allows for an otherwise "defined" character to be a gay female character (because lesbians are hot and sell well, apparently) and not a gay male, then that's when things get headdesky real fast (looking at you, Mass Effect).

Ok, this one I just don't get at all; because women are offended about how female characters are portrayed, that in and of itself constitutes a "peculiar issue"? Is there something I'm missing, or are you just trolling? As to what the people want, portraying a fantasy setting wherein a certain demographic in and of itself is fucked over by society isn't necessarily the problem (unless done so cavalierly in a way that demonstrates that the writers don't think that the situation is all that bad for them), but female characters being designed visually solely for titillation at the cost of logical character design and turning sex into a collectible card game that reduces the sex act down to 'scoring" and further objectifies the partner as a hole in the proverbial scorecard is most definitely on the list, for the reasons I gave above.

I haven't played the Witcher 2, and I probably won't any time soon. If they have gotten rid of the whole sex card nonsense, then great. From what I understand, they still have problems in other areas, both with regards to how women are treated (by the writers, not the setting itself) and gameplay that does nothing for me. That said, I'm not entirely sure I understand your comments about the setting. Has it changed or hasn't it?

In TW1 dice poker was about trying to build the best hand to beat your opponent.

In TW2 dice poker is about making sure your rubber dice don't bounce out of the box when you throw them.