Wiedzmin

PROS:

• Geralt's character development (with quite original method of talents) - potion making (includes picking of herbs, harvesting jaws of vampires etc.) - moral choices reflecting in changing attitudes of other characters - multitude of quests - some parts are really intense - deep, immersive story - nice music, beautiful landscapes, amazing architecture - seducing women is kind of fun - becoming master of dice poker and fist fighting is also kind of fun - original monsters

MEH:

• somewhere midgame you get a lot of bothersome "run here, talk, run there, talk" quests - you need to adjust to game's combat system - first 30-90 minutes of the game are kind of boring

CONS:

• you don't get to use many weapons or armors, because other weapons than swords are not usable in witcher battle styles making them ineffective especially later in the game - after you start feeling which skills are important and focus on developing them, fighting becomes quite easy

Overall: you need to bite the bullet and endure the first hour of the game. After that you get a really good, immersive RPG with damn good story and lots of locations.

The Witcher is one of those role playing games you wont forget for a long time. Once you get over the first "Tutorial" level, which is really just a hurdle you have to take to get to the main story, the story just takes off! I have played a lot of RPG's like Diablo, WoW, Neverwinter Nights and Elder Scrolls, but the Witcher is by FAR the best i have experienced.

The Story is about Geralt of Rivia, which under mysterious circumstances lost all his memories. He ends up with his friends in the abandoned Witcher's School, from where you start of your journey which takes you to an intriguing quest to find out who you are.

The game is very well developed with outstanding Characters and Storyline, and very minor bugs and features missing. Another notable thing is the adult content. Swearing, Blood, Gambling and the possibility to have a relation with other NPC's are just some other things that i particularly liked.

Overall i give it a 9 of 10 because it crashes a lot under vista (no problems in XP tho) and the missing coop and multiplayer modes. I for my part like this game very much and would love to see a sequel to it.

The first Witcher was actually a very good game, an introduction to a masterpiece franchise that tells a masterpiece polish novel.

I learned to love 'The Witcher', but it didn't come easily. It took me three or four attempts to advance past the first level, as I found it very hard to enjoy the combat. When I eventually convinced myself to stay and at least put in a few hours' work, I found that most of my earlier criticism washed away. It isn't as exhilarating as the combat in the second and third 'Witcher' games, but it presents its own strengths in offering a more strategic approach, turning boss battles into tests of ingenuity and wit rather than button-mashing.

When the story is good, it's very good. The quest(s) relating to King Foltest are particularly interesting, and there's arguably more intrigue in the first game's plot than in those of the later instalments. I'd argue that the primary villains aren't as well-written as later ones like Letho of Gulet ('Assassins of Kings') or Dettlaff ('Blood and Wine'); they seem a little too cartoonlike to ever become truly intimidating. Still, the good definitely outweighs the bad where storytelling and writing are concerned.

I played this before reading any of Andrzej Sapkowski's novels, but fans of the author will appreciate seeing some of Geralt's most memorable book scenes represented in the game. Unlike most game adaptations, though, there's a significant amount of choice offered to the player - and sometimes you can make a choice which directly contradicts the books. The developers, in this sense, have successfully combined the freedom of role-playing with the structure and solid narrative context of the novels; I don't think I've ever seen a feat like this replicated in another game.

'The Witcher' is a great RPG, and in a genre which tends to draw its inspiration from a select few contexts, this game really stands out as a unique work. Unlike many promising titles, 'The Witcher' was given the sequels it deserved.

What defines right or wrong? Good and Evil? Justice and Lawlessness? Is it the act, or its observer? You see why defining morality is a tricky business? Games are the ideal medium to convey these questions, for one reason: they give the possibility of choice; in a game, your moral compass can be tested. That is not to say that the author's morality is absent: the consequences that derive from these choices, and their moral weight, are entirely defined by the creators. Which opens a whole world of possibilities from a narrative standpoint. Should the player be rewarded for a good deed and punished by an evil one? Or should he be reminded that in the real world, good deeds are hard choices, and that crime, sometimes does pay? That to achieve great things, compromises must be made? Just the fact that so many issues can be discussed is a testament to the importance of interactive narratives. For many years, western rpg's have been the genre that has explored these issues. In comes "The Witcher", an adaptation of Andrzej Sapkowski's series of dark fantasy novels centered round a monster-slaying mutant with magical powers, named "The Witcher" Geralt. Sapkowski's work is reminiscent of high fantasy classics like "Lord of the Rings", but, as is common in dark fantasy narratives, twists its mythological nature in favor of a more cynic, realistic tone. Racism, segregation, social struggles, political and law corruption are just some of the themes that manage to squeeze into his universe, transforming it into less of a fantasy world, and more of an allegory of our society.

Geralt's tale starts with an attack on the witchers' citadel, carried out by a mage who seeks to rob the arcane secrets hidden therein. After failing to repel the attack, Geralt goes on a quest to recover said secrets and have revenge. As poor as this sounds, it develops in a series of unpredictable ways: on his journey, Geralt will be caught in the middle of a conflict between humans and non-humans. Elves, dwarfs and other species have been the focus of prejudice throughout the history of human civilization, and thus have taken up arms against them. On the other hand, humans see these "freedom fighters" as terrorists that are not afraid to kill innocent men and women. Throughout the game, Geralt will make difficult choices in a war he doesn't understand. Does he help the non-humans, that have a noble cause, but are so filled with hate that they won't stop at any means to fulfill their objectives? Or does he side with the humans, that are merely defending themselves, and whose society, though decadent, is a synonym of order? He can also stay neutral, waiting for one side to win. The player has many choices, and none right or wrong. Curiously, the player will only acknowledge their consequences much later in the game, when his overall perception of events has changed. More than once, good-hearted decisions will have horrible consequences, and cold judgments bring good in the end… just like real life. This simple substitution of black and white decisions with gray ones, transforms binary selections into conundrums of unpredictable consequences, giving a whole new meaning to the word "choice". And since the consequences are only known much further in the game, there is no point in doing the save-load routine: once you make a choice, there's no turning back.

The script of the game is a testament to the creativity and quality of its author's writings: dialogs are rich and mature and characters are multifaceted, filled with ulterior motives. As standard, a number of twists will turn catch the player off-balance. The only downfall in this department is the somewhat lack of quality in character animations and the absence of certain narrative bridges that make the plot seem somewhat confusing at times.

The presentation of the game is almost as good as its narrative. Art design department had a lot of work in conjuring up this dark-themed world, half way between Earth and Middle Earth, without falling in the temptation to transform it into either of them. Scenarios could have been taken from a historical-background game, as cities are usually places of decadence and poverty filled with Anglo-Saxon architectural details. Even forests and lakes, places typically associated with magic, have a down-to-earth feel, with somewhat drab color palettes. The game manages to feel idyllic, thanks to a good use of lighting and weather effects, but never surreal, like most fantasy-themed games. On the sound department, the soundtrack is mostly epic and medieval sounding, but fails to harness the emotional power of, say, Jeremy Soule's compositions ("Oblivion").

On the subject of game-play, "The Witcher" stands as most RPG's - In each chapter, you'll have to enter a town, talk to villagers to fetch some clichéd quests to make money. Once you've fed up with trifle matters, you can do the main quest and watch the plot unveil. Fortunately, most quests have something to say about the game's setting, even when they're pretty boring. Combat is a bit hack-and-slash, with the player only having to click on their enemies at the right time for Geralt to release massive sword-combos (like "Legend of Dragoon"). There are also some magic spells and different combat styles, bringing some tactical planning into play. Nothing new, but it manages to keep the player captivated.

Few games can brag about having meaningful stories, let alone about having meaningful possibilities. By taking the best out of the "Good vs Evil" rpg's and adding a morally confusing tale, the authors ended up creating a truly thought-provoking fantasy world. It has the writing quality of a book, and the endless possibilities of a game; it is the new landmark in interactive storytelling.