While I hope to see more of Saskia in Witcher 3, I hope choosing the other part won't have much drastic effects on the story in Witcher 3. (For Saskia)
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
- Thread starter Goker
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Roche->BROrche.
Yeah.
Yeah.
They attack and kill other non-humans, with no qualms or remorse.
Plus, they try to kill Ciri.
Plus, they try to kill Ciri.
I guess I will spoiler this, not that it's much of a spoiler though.
Err, technically it's two dead elves that had attacked a tollhouse, then a unit of Scoia'tael moving through the woods being observed by Ciri and Geralt before they visit the ruins with the roses you spoke of and then you see them in action for the first time when they attack the caravan protected by Yarpen and his lot.
Right on. At the moment I didn't necessarily think they were dicks, just really tragic and sad. (especially if you've read the short stories and At World's End, or whatever it was called, where the dilemma of elven struggle against the tide of humanity is explained)
I did. And even then I was mostly saw and shared Geralt's disgust with their chosen path. 
If you guys played Witcher 1 without reading the books. You can actually follow a neutral path, which is the way it's meant for a witcher. But you cannot do such a thing in Witcher 2 now.
So I recently bought the original Witcher. I must say, I am rather disappointed so far. All it has been up untill now has been walking back and forth on the map and doing fetch quests. I'm stuck on the part where you fight "The Beast" now, and its quite impossible. Is the rest of the game really so good as to bother pushing through this initial rough phase? Also, i've been told that the Witcher 2 is far superior. Is that true, or is it mostly the same?
Don't bother, it's complete ****. One shouldn't play any of the games in the series.
If you are ever stuck in a fight in a Witcher game, just look through your potions. Those things are ****ing important.
Oh, and yes, both of the games are absolutely fantastic. I really don't remember the start of the first game, mind you, but in general there are a lot of very interesting quests in that game. Instead of always just running to dungeons head first and chopping things up, you'll do a fair bit of thinking when dealing with some of the creatures you encounter. And yes, the second game's even better.
Those things are ****ing important.Oh, and yes, both of the games are absolutely fantastic. I really don't remember the start of the first game, mind you, but in general there are a lot of very interesting quests in that game. Instead of always just running to dungeons head first and chopping things up, you'll do a fair bit of thinking when dealing with some of the creatures you encounter. And yes, the second game's even better.
QuailLover
Marquis
The beginning sections are slow as molasses in January. Plug through them, and it gets much better. The side quests, are usually boring, but there are some gems though. Fights while drunk and etc.
TheFlyingFishy said:
I never liked the first Witcher all that much to be honest. The writing and plot are good, but the combat's ****. When I found out on my first run that I would have to run about some more in that same ****ing swamp in chapter III, I pretty much stopped playing.
Just read the plot of Witcher 1 in wikipedia and start playing the second one. It's way better.
I never completely finished the first Witcher. Not because it's a bad game, but because I found out that I missed a special monster contract in the very first area and so I couldn't get the sword I had been looking forward to for a while. That means I was peaked out on my swords where I was already, and it was taking a while to kill certain monsters.
The Witcher 2 is easily the best linear RPG I've played in a long time, though.
The Witcher 2 is easily the best linear RPG I've played in a long time, though.
