WC2 has a kind of sequel conundrum. Like many RPG, it kind of want to stay true to its root, yet it has to expand to meet expectation, be it in visual department or scale of the story. I too agree that Witcher 1 was so involving I dreamed of it for weeks and couldn't stop playing. However you have to remember that the end of WC1 clearly set premise for something big and political to happen in WC2. It's the plot line, and to CDP credit I think they executed it wonderfully. Granted I would have prefer more of a personal conversation and quests, but a change for grander scale involvement isn't bad at all. TW2 tells us who we are and what's our place in the world of WC. The world is well realized but with the expense of smaller, personal story. They managed to weave in the search for Yenerfer and the Wild Hunt in still so that's good.

I think WC3 can only be better. WC2 in itself is hard to topple already. It would be fair to say it's already a classic on its own. With the current magnificent engine, the next install ment/ expansion/ DLC would not be far off. With their current visual capability, the next game don't need new engine at all. It looks far better than any game on the market at the moment and probably still years to come.

1, Still no idea on the identity of the original Witcher assassin that Geralt killed at the end of the first game. Letho only acknowledges the existence of Auckes and Serrit, and they did not have plans to kill Foltest until after Demavend. The best I can do is speculate that maybe Emhyr found other Witchers, but that really does not satisfy.

2. Letho contradicts his own actions that we witness earlier - he doesn't meet Iorveth until after Demavend is missing his head, but he says that killing Demavend would have been impossible without the help of Iorveth and the Scoia'tel. Sile also confirms what we know from that cutscene at the start of the first chapter by saying that Letho used the gold from killing Demavend to track down Iorveth. So is this sloppy writing or a strong reason to kill the lying thug rather than letting him go free? I tend towards the former, and kill him anyway just to be safe.

The ending to this game was too abrupt and you barely have a chance to make good use of the most powerful and expensive gear yet. Quite disappointing.

totally agree with you there, i felt that there could of been one or two more chapters:( i loved chapter 1:)

I liked the ending. Like TW1 in some ways, it concludes certain storylines without really wrapping anything up. That kind of thing can be done poorly, but here I think it's done well, not least because it's part of the mythology. The Witcher saga theme is "something ends, something begins", and TW2's loading icon is an ouroboros--the snake eating its own tail.

The games are also being consistent with the books by retaining Geralt's transition from straightforward monster hunter to reluctant political player. I know it's not for everyone, but I really enjoy the politics and the complicated problems it creates in the characters' personal lives.

What disappointed me most about the ending was the lack of actual results of many of your choices. I'd like to see something similar to Dragon Age where you get to see a summary video of what happened because of that choice etc..

I also felt that the end chapter was a bit rushed since I had my hopes to see larger consequences of earlier choices that would really elaborate in the end.

I just loved this game until I came to chapter 3 and its really disappointing that they didn't deliver an ending that matched the rest of the game.

Long time ago, but I remember you Corylea :) Maybe you won't see this as you don't appear to be active, but hope your game is coming along allright.

Like some others in here, I loved the Witcher 1. Not because it was a new game or a surprise from an unknown developer -- but simply because it was a great game with interesting characters and a great story.

The Witcher 2 is a good game too, but there is something lacking. Missing a neutral path is one issue I think. Would have preferred to not tie myself too tightly to either Roche or Iorveth, like we could do in the first game. The politics is a little confusing too, and it doesn't feel like Geralt is in control of much. He's kind of a lackey or a tool of whichever side he allies with, and that's not a great feeling.

I've played both paths now. First Roche and then Iorveth. After playing Roche I figured it would be good to ally with Iorveth for a different perspective. I absolutely adored the scenery and music in Vergen, but overall the experience felt less satisfying than the Roche path, which was a surprise to me. There are some decent characters in Vergen, better than in the Roche path, which basically only has Ves. But especially chapter 3 was more or a mess, and I'm not sure why every guard in the city is out to kill Geralt suddenly.

TW1 had many more 'likeable' characters, or people you could identify with or empathise with. And you had the Dryads, Lady of the Lake, the cute little love story. The city areas simply felt more alive too. In TW2 I'd get mighty fed up of the same 1-2 canned lines that every character would burp in your face when you got near.

Like Corylea, I went back to Zoltan and Dandelion often early on, to get more information or at least something to chat about. But there was very little, once you had gone through those initial dialogue trees.

Some of the story choices and developments also felt forced and not very realistic. I get that with Loredo there was a choice right there and then, either go after him or save those women. But at other times it was less of a time pressure. For instance I'm not sure why I couldn't both lead Philippa home and then go after Triss, or vice versa. There were other cases like that too, where the "choice and consequence" felt forced.

I like that there is an adult feel to the whole game world, and it was ballsy to include a pretty complicated political power game in a game like this, but overall it just felt like the player/Geralt had little agency, and was just a pawn. From the books I've read, and the first game, that felt a bit 'off'.

I also really disliked the clearly consolised user interface, with long silly lists and huuuuuge buttons and font everywhere. That's not directly about the game quality, but it does affect my appreciation of the game, because it made the whole user interface inefficient and awkward with a mouse + keyboard.

Although I loved Vergen, the game world still felt less engaging and real than in the Witcher 1. The people that inhabited it didn't feel like people, but placement holders with a few lines that would repeat ALL THE TIME. I also think the fourth wall breakers like the geezers that commented about cosplayers and such was horribly misplaced. Funny the first time, but with the above repeating problem, these lines quickly became very annoying. I actually tried to put a sword through these people, including the annoying kid that yapped about two swords, but of course that wasn't possible -- sigh.

Although I quickly learnt to use the new combat system, it also was a bit unbalanced throughout. Most combat was easy to manageable, while some fights were unfair in the extreme (Kayran + Letho fight).

The above comments may look worse than my real feeling about the game - because it is a really good game - but I still wanted to put down some thoughts. Sorry about the bump, but the official TW2 forum is even deader than this place.

To comment on this as well -- I agree. Although I can sort of understand that Letho wanted to revive the Witcher school in the south, to pretty willingly become such a powerful tool for Nilfgaard is a catastrophic break with Witcher philosophy, or wander way off the Path. Admittedly Letho isn't a traditional cackling evil type of character, at least at the end with the information he offers (and saving Triss given certain choices), but I still felt the only right move was to kill him. Letting a guy that has almost single handed put the entire North into chaos wander back south to the Emhyr and certainly become his tool again? No. Just no.

Also think the sorceresses' goals are a bit wonky. Whether they tried to weed out some weak monarchs in the North, or put the North into chaos to help the Nilfgaardians, are kind of the same here. Longterm goals or intentions may have been different, but the end is the same. The North is in chaos, and ripe for the taking of Nilfgaard. Do note, however, that I say that without any knowledge of TW3 events. And there is also the little line by Geralt at the end, where he says that through chaos, maybe the entire North will unite, to again stand together against their common foe in the south.

I think that ultimately I wish there had been a truly neutral path. We did a little of that on Iorveth's path via helping Upper Aedirn and Saskia, but a neutral path was more convincingly done in TW1, and I would have liked something akin to that in TW2 as well.