I agree there could have been a much better tutorial at the start. That and some wonky lock-on issues are pretty much my only problems with the game.

Still, you can either continue to complain about the bad tutorials and quit playing or you can say "hmm, this game has a bad tutorial so I will read the instructions and read the tips online to learn how to play." It's your choice, but only one of those paths leads to playing an otherwise amazing game.

Here are some tips in case you missed them:

1 - Most important part of combat is staying away from enemies. Roll constantly when fighting a crowd.
2. Block only when you can't roll away.
3. Figure out which sign works on the enemy type you are fighting. Aard is more useful than you might think against many opponents.
4. Use Quen if you are fighting a group as it will stop you from taking damage when you get trapped.
5. Bombs are very useful, make sure to use them rather than ignore them.
6. Quick attacks should be used 90% of the time, strong attacks are for one-on-one fighting with strong enemies only.

I have to say that I doubt the developers are half-assing the prologue because it forces you to get to know the journal. I doubt in ye olde games it was considered half-assing if the game actually wanted you to read the manual. Also from a software viewpoint tutorials aren't hard to implement so older games don't really have any explanation for (usually) not having them. I believe the lack of handholding is more of a decision by the developers and not half-assing.

So your statement that "QTE's are explained in the manual" isn't true. Nor do you get an explanation onscreen. And like I said, no amount of explanation can make button spamming fun. Whoever thought including these in the game was a good idea was smoking something. You call it "control," I call it tedious having to click for every single stroke. I'm making my points, you're making yours. That's what a discussion is. You expect me to just agree with you? Sorry, I don't.
And this is fun to you?? That's my main problem- not just the difficulty, it's that even when performing the combat moves correctly, it's tedious. The fact that the game is so combat-heavy and difficult just intensifies the problems, rendering it unplayable rather than just things that are annoying but you can get on with the game anyway. Die-reload-die-reload is bad enough, but when the actual combat is so ridiculous, then no amount of payoff in story or the beautiful world makes it worth the pain.

Thanks for all the tips and comments guys and gals. I really like the look and feel but it is sure obvious how I am used to being spoon fed! Well I did die a lot in my start of Dragon Age Origins and yeah, you learn how to play eventually.

Think I am actually going to set TW2 aside in order to play TW1 again and create a save game to load. I am so behind CDP with their philosophy (GOG and no DRM) that I bought TW2 download solely on principle even though I am still old fashioned enough to love the box!

Who knows, maybe I won't like it when I get around to it again but it is good to be challenged (esp after that debacle called Dragon Age 2).
Cheers.

I think you're right. My bad for not investigating the game more closely before I bought it, and just assuming it would play similarly to TW1. Horribly disappointed.

Yeah, The Witcher was very different, more like an older PC game. The Witcher 2 is pretty much like Mass Effect 2, a more modern action style game with RPG trappings. For me personally this is AWESOME, but I can see a lot of people disagree and that is of course their opinion, as valid as any.

It's nothing like Mass Effect 2.

I would say it's a lot more like Castlevania LoS or something. Mass Effect still felt responsive and straight forward in combat, not tied up in it's own animations. I'm about to sit down for session 3 of trying to find some shred of fun in the gameplay in W2. I'm starting to worry that I've wasted 50$ and a ton of excitement and anticipation. Definitely a matter of opinion though I realize, I'm trying to find what so many people seem to be enjoying because I feel like I'm missing out >.<

How's that?

Like the poster said up above- ME2 is straightforward and responsive, a very polished game, although like TW2 it's not tactical. That was the case in ME1 as well, though, so expected. And ME2 did not have stupid button-mashing minigames.

I was comparing the games as far as what kind of RPGs they are, not their battle systems. Obviously Mass Effect 2 is a shooter and The Witcher 2 is a hack n' slash game. They are both the same type of action RPG though, and have very similar feels.

As for how "straightforward" they are Mass Effect 2 has a lot of nuance as well, the difference is you don't have to use it because the game is so damn easy. If you play ME2 on "insanity" difficulty you will notice it has a lot more tactical options and depth to it. The Witcher 2 just needs you to use those tactics on normal mode.

As for "stupid button-mashing mini-games" those are very, very rare and simple if you turn off "difficult QTEs" in the menu.

What is difficult is the game has no tutorial. Dev's were lazy, they just put some hints in the beginning of the game, which are useless as to use these some hints you must have learned the others. To use the 'tutorial' you must already know the game... Even with full hints, it would be a bad tutorial, as you don't have the time to guess how it works: you die.

Did you actually read through my post, or just skimmed through it, skipping the important bits as you did the manual? The end of my post clearly indicates that I made a mistake in my original post, and that the manual DOES talk about different combinations of key presses, i.e. single blows, a series of them, and even specifically mentions button presses for counter-attacks. On-screen, the button presses even shows up looking like keyboard buttons.

You know what's funny; I only added that last part previously too because I had a hunch that if I hadn't you're going to pick on every bit of discrepancy to try to win this argument, after all you didn't otherwise have a valid point to argue about on the matter. So I just had to make sure everything's correct before you reply. Thanks for proving me right.

You're entitled to your opinion that pressing a few SPECIFIC and ALTERNATING buttons amounts to "button spamming", and that is not fun. I disagree with your definition, and I'm neutral to the implementation.

Right... and you're saying that in TW1 you don't have to click for each stroke? You're saying can click once and Geralt will continues to slash until you tell him to stop? Did we even play the same game?

Sarcasm aside, the original point I was making was not that in TW2 you "get to" click at each stroke (because it's the same for TW1 and TW2 - you HAVE TO click for each stroke), it was that unlike TW1, you can select either Strong or Fast for each stroke, something you cannot readily do with TW1 (You have to switch stance before clicking the attack button; two steps instead of one) . In essense, TW1 and TW2 both uses the same one-click-per-stroke mechanics, with TW1 losing out because it requires twice the amount of keystrokes to do the same thing.

No, your latest replies have clearly shown exactly what I'm accusing you of, and this does not amount to a "Discussion".

1) You blatantly skip over any bit of information provided by the other party that is disfavourable to your argument (either because you choose not to read them or deliberately ignores them as if they do not exist) E.g. Not reading the manual, nor parts of replies that shows produces evidence of the supposedly "missing info".

2) You talk about making points but you refute factual arguments not by making counter-points, but by simply asserting your opinions on things, or worse, by making things up. E.g. Denouncing TW2's "one-click-per-stroke" mechanism when TW1 uses the same mechanism; to a worse degree.

I'd gladly call you a troll since you're obviously not interested in discussing things objectively but just want to put others down with your differing opinions, but having met Trolls in-game, I'd consider it being unfair to their good kind.

Good day, Sir. I think it unlikely that I shall want to spend further precious time talking to an imbecile again, and a self-righteous egoistic one at that. What a waste of time this has been.

Yes, the devs were lazy.. so did some of the players.