It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
The Witcher 2Ending Discussion [BIG SPOILERS!!!](37 posts)(37 posts)
(37 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 22, 2011
I am disappointed. The engine was amazing, but graphics can never replace a good storyline. There were too many branches of the story that felt they were only discussed and not lived. The choices and consequences are a great element, but they need to be balanced with a narrative that makes sense and rewards the audience for the journey. I felt that this game, which is still a must play, lost some of the essence that made the Witcher 1 phenomenal. The voice acting and heavy story elements, along with tough combat are the games strengths, but this story that created so much interest in the Witcher 1 fizzled out into kingly debauchery that was hard to watch. Case in point - no Alvin, no Dryads, no Adda, and no Kalkstein. It's as if the first game didn't happen except for the very end with the attempt on Foltest's life (and that's not even addressed by Letho on who it was that failed, and what he meant when he declared Geralt was one of them). So much missing plot wise!
Post edited May 22, 2011 by Clutch8
Posted May 22, 2011
I think most people who are disappointed in the ending are not upset about how the story ended, but more upset about how short chapter 3 and the epilogue were compared to the rest of the game, it almost seemed like they ran out of time and just shipped it. Don't get me wrong, it's still one of my favorite games ever, just a bit disappointed it ended so quickly.
Posted May 22, 2011
To me it's like if there was no Han Solo in Empire Strikes Back. Yeah, Luke blew up the deathstar and the main story is about him, but Han is a crucial element to the first one, and to have him not show up in Empire would have been less of a movie.
Posted May 22, 2011
avatar
Clutch8: I am disappointed. The engine was amazing, but graphics can never replace a good storyline. There were too many branches of the story that felt they were only discussed and not lived. The choices and consequences are a great element, but they need to be balanced with a narrative that makes sense and rewards the audience for the journey. I felt that this game, which is still a must play, lost some of the essence that made the Witcher 1 phenomenal. The voice acting and heavy story elements, along with tough combat are the games strengths, but this story that created so much interest in the Witcher 1 fizzled out into kingly debauchery that was hard to watch. Case in point - no Alvin, no Dryads, no Adda, and no Kalkstein. It's as if the first game didn't happen except for the very end with the attempt on Foltest's life (and that's not even addressed by Letho on who it was that failed, and what he meant when he declared Geralt was one of them). So much missing plot wise!
And no Shani :'(
Posted May 22, 2011
I'm looking through Google for any info on a expansion. Does anybody know something?
Posted May 22, 2011
avatar
Nyeen: I'm looking through Google for any info on a expansion. Does anybody know something?
This game just released lol give it some time.
Posted May 22, 2011
I loved TW2 but not as much as TW1. And yes, I was disappointed in the ending.

Having the whole thing be a Nilfgardian plot seemed sort of obvious. Oh, the bad guys from the books are the bad guys here, too? The bad guys are still bad? How ... predictable.

Also, Letho's motivation didn't make much sense to me. I can see where restarting a witcher school could be a big motivator, but starting a witcher school in order to make mutant assassins for Nilfgard -- and why else would Nilfgard be interested in starting a witcher school -- seems like it should be anathema to any witcher. Letho isn't stupid, naive, or unskilled in double-dealing, yet he seems to take Nilfgard's plan to restart the Viper school at face value. Huh? I don't buy it.

And I didn't feel as if I got as full an explanation as I wanted of Geralt's return to life and his amnesia. Whenever you leave the Wild Hunt, you have amnesia because ... well, just because. Or was there an actual reason in there that I managed to miss?

It seemed to me that the events in TW1 were wrapped around Geralt. In TW2, it seemed like Geralt played a significant role in events that weren't about him at all. From what I hear, that IS true to Sapkowski's books ... but that doesn't make it a fun game to play.

I think the game is stunningly beautiful, and some of the cutscenes are just WOW. But that's not the same as the game's being fun; I actually enjoyed The Witcher 1 more.

I think for me the main drawback of TW2, as compared with TW1, is that so few of the people in TW2 are actually likeable. In TW1, I liked both Siegfried and Yaevinn. I liked Thaler. I liked Vincent Meiss. I liked and admired Shani. I'm not sure that I liked Vaska, but I thought she was interesting. Sure, we hate Javed and the Professor, but there were a lot of likeable people to ally with or even just to talk to.

In TW2, I don't really like anyone except for the characters who are repeating from TW1. I don't care that much for Vernon Roche, nor do I like Iorveth all that much. Henselt is an @sshole, and I despise Dethmold. I haven't met anyone as good-hearted as Vincent Meiss or as entertaining as Thaler, no one as interesting as Yaevinn. Being with all these horrible people left a bad taste in my mouth.

I really just wanted to kill the lot of them, take Zoltan, Dandelion and Triss, and go far, far away.
Posted May 22, 2011
avatar
Corylea: I loved TW2 but not as much as TW1. And yes, I was disappointed in the ending.

Having the whole thing be a Nilfgardian plot seemed sort of obvious. Oh, the bad guys from the books are the bad guys here, too? The bad guys are still bad? How ... predictable.

Also, Letho's motivation didn't make much sense to me. I can see where restarting a witcher school could be a big motivator, but starting a witcher school in order to make mutant assassins for Nilfgard -- and why else would Nilfgard be interested in starting a witcher school -- seems like it should be anathema to any witcher. Letho isn't stupid, naive, or unskilled in double-dealing, yet he seems to take Nilfgard's plan to restart the Viper school at face value. Huh? I don't buy it.

And I didn't feel as if I got as full an explanation as I wanted of Geralt's return to life and his amnesia. Whenever you leave the Wild Hunt, you have amnesia because ... well, just because. Or was there an actual reason in there that I managed to miss?

It seemed to me that the events in TW1 were wrapped around Geralt. In TW2, it seemed like Geralt played a significant role in events that weren't about him at all. From what I hear, that IS true to Sapkowski's books ... but that doesn't make it a fun game to play.

I think the game is stunningly beautiful, and some of the cutscenes are just WOW. But that's not the same as the game's being fun; I actually enjoyed The Witcher 1 more.

I think for me the main drawback of TW2, as compared with TW1, is that so few of the people in TW2 are actually likeable. In TW1, I liked both Siegfried and Yaevinn. I liked Thaler. I liked Vincent Meiss. I liked and admired Shani. I'm not sure that I liked Vaska, but I thought she was interesting. Sure, we hate Javed and the Professor, but there were a lot of likeable people to ally with or even just to talk to.

In TW2, I don't really like anyone except for the characters who are repeating from TW1. I don't care that much for Vernon Roche, nor do I like Iorveth all that much. Henselt is an @sshole, and I despise Dethmold. I haven't met anyone as good-hearted as Vincent Meiss or as entertaining as Thaler, no one as interesting as Yaevinn. Being with all these horrible people left a bad taste in my mouth.

I really just wanted to kill the lot of them, take Zoltan, Dandelion and Triss, and go far, far away.
.
.
.
.




Did you play the Iorveth path yet? it has more likable characters by far compared to the Roche path. Also if you played the Roche path how can you not like Vess?
Post edited May 22, 2011 by Snarfinator
Posted May 22, 2011
avatar
Corylea: Also, Letho's motivation didn't make much sense to me. I can see where restarting a witcher school could be a big motivator, but starting a witcher school in order to make mutant assassins for Nilfgard -- and why else would Nilfgard be interested in starting a witcher school -- seems like it should be anathema to any witcher. Letho isn't stupid, naive, or unskilled in double-dealing, yet he seems to take Nilfgard's plan to restart the Viper school at face value. Huh? I don't buy it.
I can see where you're coming from here, but I assumed the support would have been mainly financial/information on mutagens etc. I seem to remember Letho saying he was going back south, so I assumed there would be no input from Nilfgaard other than starting up the school.


avatar
Corylea: And I didn't feel as if I got as full an explanation as I wanted of Geralt's return to life and his amnesia. Whenever you leave the Wild Hunt, you have amnesia because ... well, just because. Or was there an actual reason in there that I managed to miss?
I think something to do with a magnetic field causing the amnesia was mentioned and that if you were to encounter said field again it would reverse the process.

Overall, like you I enjoyed the Witcher 1 more than the sequel. It felt more 'folky' to me. Lots of different monsters types and interesting background lore concerning pretty much everything. I don't mind the 'larger' scale of the sequel, but I feel there was a certain tradeoff involved with it. I would have enjoyed more dialogue with the 'core group' of Geralt's friends (especially Triss, I felt dialogue with her was altogether far too sparse).

No doubt repeating many others, I was disappointed with the brevity of chapter 3 and the epilogue. I don't feel that it did the game justice, especially when compared with the excellent first two chapters. I still thought it was an excellent game, just a little lacking when compared with the first when it came to the small things.
Post edited May 22, 2011 by AutomaticMeat
Posted May 22, 2011
avatar
Corylea: I loved TW2 but not as much as TW1. And yes, I was disappointed in the ending.

I think for me the main drawback of TW2, as compared with TW1, is that so few of the people in TW2 are actually likeable.
avatar
Snarfinator: Did you play the Iorveth path yet? it has more likable characters by far compared to the Roche path. Also if you played the Roche path how can you not like Vess?
No, I haven't played the Iorveth path yet. I'm thrilled to hear that there are more likeable characters in it, though -- thanks for that tip!

I sorta liked Ves, but she didn't seem as well fleshed-out as some of the TW1 characters did. But yes, she was certainly the most likeable of the lot.
Posted May 22, 2011
Have to agree with people on the less likeable characters in TW2.

Altogether I found the game a bit too short and had a few too many story branches, made the story a little complicated and parts hard to remember.
Im sure a second playthrough would help, as I am going to do after a break.

Would of liked to see more of the Trolls as well, I found them (especially the couple in Chapter 2) to be amusing characters.

The ending for me felt quite 'blank', I let letho go in the end.
The last 'cutscenes' were just Geralt and Triss walking out of the town, after the credits, Geralt looking over the town before turning away.
Was a bit meh.
Posted May 22, 2011
avatar
AutomaticMeat: Overall, like you I enjoyed the Witcher 1 more than the sequel. It felt more 'folky' to me. Lots of different monsters types and interesting background lore concerning pretty much everything.
Yes! I felt like a witcher in TW1. In TW2, I felt like a bit-player in a huge political thing.

I know that some people said that the witcher contracts in TW1 were "fed-ex" quests, but it didn't feel like that to me at all. To me, it made sense that people would be hiring witchers to dispose of monsters for various reasons. And learning about it all was interesting and exciting. Learning about all the politics just made me feel weary. I guess that's fairly Geraltish :-), but it's not fun.

avatar
AutomaticMeat: I would have enjoyed more dialogue with the 'core group' of Geralt's friends (especially Triss, I felt dialogue with her was altogether far too sparse).
Yes! In the beginning, I do something or find out something, and I'd go try to discuss it with Triss, Zoltan, or Dandelion, only to find that they had nothing to say about anything. After awhile, I stopped trying. It made them seem less like my friends and more like game characters ... game characters that had been inadequately written.

avatar
AutomaticMeat: No doubt repeating many others, I was disappointed with the brevity of chapter 3 and the epilogue. I don't feel that it did the game justice, especially when compared with the excellent first two chapters. I still thought it was an excellent game, just a little lacking when compared with the first when it came to the small things.
I agree. I found the game excellent yet disappointing. And given what a story-heavy game it is, to have the story end so abruptly in Chapter 3 seemed like a let down. TW1 is my favorite game ever. I thought that would change when TW2 came out ... but it hasn't. That's kind of a shock, even though TW2 is a very good game.
Post edited May 22, 2011 by Corylea
Posted May 22, 2011
Some of the "I like Witcher 1 better" feelings come from the fact that the first game was such a huge surprise. It was made by a developer that until TW1 nobody had ever heard of, and was such a good game, by a small, unknown developer that people were wowed. That is a tough act to follow, no matter how good the second game is.
Post edited May 22, 2011 by Snarfinator
Posted May 22, 2011
avatar
Snarfinator: Some of the "I like Witcher 1 better" feelings come from the fact that the first game was such a huge surprise. It was made by a developer that until TW1 nobody had ever heard of, and was such a good game, by a small, unknown developer that people were wowed. That is a tough act to follow, no matter how good the second game is.
It was their first time so they will always remember it. ;) (take this comment in whatever way you want)
Posted May 22, 2011
I found TW2 ending pretty good, though not as stunning as in the first game - it just didn't have as much "wow effect" as TW1 where the ending was astonishing and made me wonder about the talisman and Alvin.

In my opinion the one problem with TW2 story is that it references the novels quite a lot even more than the first game, so the majority won't have a clue who Yennefer or Ciri are for example and the game doesn't explain it too well..

Personally I'd love to see a DLC/mod/expansion which would add an entire chapter which would explain the Geralt story and his relation with other characters, because there is so much potential for epic sidequests, monsterhunts and dilemmas.

I'd also love to see english translation of the rest of Sapkowski's novels as they give the game story much more depth.


Anyway I'd strongly recomend learning polish and reading all the novels because it is worth it!!!
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Community
The Witcher 2Ending Discussion [BIG SPOILERS!!!](37 posts)(37 posts)
(37 posts)