I guess if this is the only forum you visit then I guess you are right but if you go to the official website and read the posts, your will see its quite the opposite. The main beef with the game is the activation at the moment. But as people finally get the game to work they encounter the many annoyances with the game. As I have said before maybe not on this site but this game gets its share of heavy criticism whether valid or not.

I agree with the OP in regards to the Console features that are apparent in this iteration of the Witcher.

I don't know about most other cRPG playes but I prefer my Fantasy style cRPGs in an overhead 3/4 view with an option to zoom in, like the W1, I know it's a different engine but give me a break. Bioware did the same thing with Dragons Age 2...
I like to Click click with my mouse. That's why I buy games on the PC.

I played W2 for few minutes and was getting frustrated with the controls so I decided to try an Xbox 360 controller and it felt better.
IMO, a cRPG shouldn't feel better with a console controller...yes I have an Xbox360 And I play games on it, but not RPGs. It's a pretty damn good game so far due to the presentation but I prefer my PC games to be more PC centric and that was a lot of the appeal of the 1st game. Remember the original's death animations and group fighting?

I appreciate the developers hard work but they skimped on the PC specific features.
Including:
-Aspect ratios with full screen(no bars)
-Optimized game controls for mouse and keyboard.
-Detailed PC style setting menu in game
-3/4 overhead option vs. 3rd person only

So you did read it - possibly twice - and still failed to see the point being made that having a need to streamline a game, making it overly accessible, isnt needed at all as people will buy your game if it's good in its own right. If you keep feeling the need to reiterate to me how a business works, there's no need, I can see quite clearly with the plethora of copy paste games as it is.

What I dont need from The Witcher, is another simplified console experience in the guise of a PC game. The first ame was brilliant, thats the experience I thought I was largely going to get again. I did not.

You know what? They actually did really well. It's genius in fact. Give the diehard PC fans the game first and they'll be none the wiser, while the naive and ignorant will simply overlook what's staring them in the face, the console version will come anyway.

but then i will never trust you again *is what i would say to their face*

what do u guys want im just going to say it its amazing and i got stuck for two days on kayran qte due to resolution issue all im going to say its an old fashioned rpg that shows da2 up completely the best thing ive played since gothic nearly 15 years ago just stop bitching and play the game ps nothing is perfect

we get it you hate the mouse and keyboard so much you would not even play the first one

but that in itself says you have no right to speak on behalf of gamers who hate game-pads

You can draw your own conclusion but I have not indicated that I hate the mouse and keyboard for I use it to play several of my games. But I guess if anyone enjoys gaming on something besides the mouse and keyboard they must hate it. Such strong logic. Can't argue with that.

you already said you could not handle the first game with it. so thats good enough to say you dont know this target audience.

Yes I don't know its target audience but for some reason they implemented controller support which attracted me. For some reason they have their game announce for the PS3 and Xbox 360. I think YOU don't know their target audience. :)

Please.

Don't change the argument to more PC vs console drivel. I have 6 consoles, the difference is, I like my console games to remain on console, the sole reason I was interested in The Witcher in the first place is that it was a PC RPG. I WANT a PC RPG, as do many other people, if you're really confused as to why people expected that at this point then perhaps you're in the wrong thread. There are plenty of others praising it, overlooking the differences simply because they have low standards.

Any sense of entitlement can be chalked up to the fact that I paid for the game and I was promised the experience would not be dumbed down, I was promised it was specifically targeted towards the PC with the control scheme aimed at a gamepad. That was fine. How often do you pay for things that you don't want, yet remain satisfied? Or in your mind does this somehow only apply to games?

Fact: it's simplified. Fact: it's dumbed down. Fact: it is more console centric than PC. Using the powers of deduction, see if you can see how CD Projekt have used the same formula many other devs have in order to put sales above making an interesting game - targeted at the platform they said it would be.

It's fine they would gloat about PC sales with the Witcher 1 right? Commenting on Dragon Age 1/2 as if they were not up to scratch, yet following many of their decisions with their own sequel in relation to streamlining combat and the inventory.

My argument is presented by what is in the game, all you're doing is playing semantics, defending something only because it appeals to you. Stop being butthurt and look at it objectively, because for once, that would be so refreshing just to see a single person do that. Or not. In that case you can look forward to TW3 getting in line with the rest of the dumbed down western RPG's. Yay.

then fuck off. you got what you want and the target audience did not, (witcher 1 players). we get it. you hate our choice method of control and you dont want us to be happy.
theres im done with you and your pathetic responses

Absolutely not. Combat in TW 1 was like a small mingame with no challenge whatsoever. Simply click left mouse button when the icon is flashing to win. Fights, where you actually had to move were sparse, alchemy was nice to have but not required and I did not use any bombs in TW1. Combat in TW 2 is fine, if the get rid of this weird pause waiting for the animation to finish.

no one is saying that it should be witcher 1 again.

but there was more strategy over reflexes in the first. even if it was slight.

you had to know the right style for each monster. while using the right sword type. but yes your right it could have been better. but so can this system

if they at-least brought back group and a better way to stay in a fight without rolling away, (my idea is defence.. but ive been harping that so much no one takes me seriously about it)

If were going to talk about making the game hard, then in TW1 you'd have turned those options off so there were no visual aides.

Can I do that in TW2? I can turn off needing to do the same maneuvers the same ways every time? Can I turn off having to only use two swords for two enemy types and bring back 6?

It doesn't work for gamepads - that's it, too many buttons, too complex for simple minded people. They don't want complexity. They want to win as soon as they power up their machines.

I already said the first game wasn't hard, but it was definitely more complex. Try beating a single Wraith with the fast style combat using a steel sword, see how long it takes you if you get it wrong. Can I get that back into TW2? It ruins any continuity and as I already mentioned, depth.

Choices are beautiful when they are presented to you. When they are removed altogether in place of a single way to fight enemies throughout the entire game, it loses re-playability and it's boring.

It seems a lot of people are either not reading the thread or they aren't exactly acquainted with the finer points of combat and gameplay options available in both games. What can I say, stay informed?