Wiedzmin

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.