The Witcher 2 Is Now The Witcherest Of All

I am undoubtedly the least capable arm-wrassler at RPS. Like noodles, they are.

The Witcher 2: Enhanced Edition patch is now making the game even witcherier than before, although my game remains in a pre-enhancement state because the patch preload appears to have vanished up its own witcheroo. I’m not entirely sure how to decipher my own sentence but there appears to be a problem with a borked file in the preload so I have been forced to reinstall the entire game. CDP have discovered a possible way to avoid my tribulations, details of whicher here. Go forth and witch.

The good news for me? I’ve had time to go through the extensive patch notes and have now decided not to patch immediately, simply because it is necessary for me to see precisely what this refers to: “Fixed Geralt’s head on cut scene in Prologue”. This too – “Fixed unusual behavior of clothing when using Heliotrope Sign”. I’ll bring back screengrabs.


  1. Lobotomist says:

    BTW if you bought the game over GOG, check your goodie box.
    They added whopping 50 pages comic ! New maps, art books … whole new bundle :)

    • porkchops says:

      You can also add your copy to GoG through the launcher if you bought it through retail.
      Maybe from other places too, I don’t know if steam copy gave you a cd key.

      • Klydefrog says:

        The Steam version doesn’t come with a CD Key but you can still redeem a GOG copy through a fairly arduous process on which I am about to embark. Instructions here: link to
        Also The Witcher: Enhanced edition is currently on sale on GOG for $5 until the 23rd of April for anyone who’s interested.

      • Durkonkell says:

        The game’s already been patched significantly and now we’re receiving a (free) upgrade to the enormous Enhanced Edition. Also, a completely free backup copy which you can download from their website without any DRM.

        And this is happening nearly a year after the initial release.

        I love CD Projekt.

        • PearlChoco says:

          Is there also a way to redeem a GoG copy of Witcher 1 using a retail CD key?

    • Mungrul says:

      They have also somewhat dubiously added the Triss Merigold Playboy session pictures to the bonus items. Oh CDPR, when will you learn?
      Seriously, what about the women who bought Witcher 2 through GoG?
      Isn’t this just a tad crass?

      • Verity says:

        What about them? Do you seriously think intelligent women will be offended by some half-naked pics of a fictional mage girl? Even if so, which would be hilarious, it’s a completely optional content and they shouldn’t be playing this game in the first place, The Sims 3 Expansion #24 seem a better choice.

        • Duffin says:


        • fionny says:

          It is all fitting with the story, Geralt is a happy go lucky playboy, if someone takes offence to a bit of humour then they certainly shouldn’t be playing the game.

        • Apples says:

          Right sure, but it’s not a case of ONE INSTANCE being ‘offensive’ (hint: nobody is offended by things like this, more like eye-rollingly dismissive or disappointed). It’s that this is a continuation of the general trends that mean female characters’ foremost trait is always ‘sexy’, that game marketing always appeals majoritively to men (where are the sexy marketing shots of Geralt?), and that creepy weirdos on Nexus will always carry on making naked tit-physics mods for games because it feels like it’s legitimised by the atmosphere of the game industry itself.

          That is to say, nobody gets bothered about sexy women unless they’re anti-sex (the Sims, by the way, is absolutely full of sexual content so if they were I doubt they’d play that!), and individual instances of sexualisation are not notable on their own. It’s when it’s, like, every single game that does the same thing. It’s irrelevant that it’s fictional or that she’s a mage (you seem to be saying it doesn’t matter because it’s not real), because the content and character were created by real people and seen by real people and reflect real attitudes. Actual people thought that it was appropriate, cool and enjoyable to their target market to put their main female character in a Playboy shoot.

          There’s also issues of objectified sexuality vs empowered/autonomous sexuality – that is, does the depiction of female sexuality in the game and marketing content depict it as for male titillation or for mutual male+female enjoyment? I didn’t play all of Witcher 2 so I’m not gonna talk about it specifically in regards to that, but basically it’s way more complicated than “omg get over it you prudes”.

          • Klydefrog says:

            Sexual equality in gaming: link to (NSFW)

          • Verity says:

            Most of my female friends who are into fantasy (play games and read books) enjoyed The Witcher immensely, despite the fact that you play a playboy warrior who even collects cards with naked chicks in the first game – they found it really cool and fun.
            You really are making a huge deal of out nothing. There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of when if comes to body, everyone who is over 14 years old know how the body of both genders look, every single person looks more or less the same in that respect and pretending that it’s offensive is crazy.
            “Actual people thought that it was appropriate, cool and enjoyable to their target market to put their main female character in a Playboy shoot.”
            Yes, I surely think it was appropriate, because why not? Why do you think such ads are targeted towards men? Because men buy most games and we like naked chicks, and girls, the majority, don’t really care if there is a naked girl in the game because they have the same body. The beginning of Witcher 2 has a scene where Geralt is also naked, lying next to Triss, so there, you got a treat for girls. Since the game is based on books and Geralt was a playboy there, sleeping with a lot of women, blame Sapkowski, the author.
            This is not a complicated issue at all. They undressed a chick. Which happens every single month on every single issue of Playboy around the world. This time, the girl happened to come from a video game and the drama of feminists begin. Why don’t you picket under men magazine buildings regularly?

          • Apples says:

            You are misunderstanding. As I said, female bodies are not the problem. Sexy female bodies are not even the problem! There is, however, a huge difference between a naked body and a sexualised one, and between a sexualised one and an objectified one. For example, a man standing naked in a doctor’s office clearly has a different ‘meaning’ than a man in fetish gear, right? So when Geralt is naked at the start of the game, that’s not ‘a treat for women’, as it is not, in fact, sexualised. I’d like to dig out that picture of the sexualised male superheros but I’m at work so I can’t get it – it showcases the difference by placing Batman etc into the butt-shoving, open-mouthed, passive poses of female superheros. It’s the reason that having abs and muscles on Batman’s costume is not the same as having a boob-window on Supergirl’s costume; one is a display of masculine power that a man is supposed to identify with, and one is a display of sexuality with a man is supposed to find appealing. Women do not come into it. Am I, as a woman, supposed to somehow find something sexually appealing in watching Geralt pick up prostitutes, in cutscenes and conversations purely from his point of view, just because at some point he takes his shirt off? while the woman’s body is still the main focus of the camera?

            Also lol at you trying to speak for “most girls”. And lol at you saying that mostly men buy games – I wonder why women are not particularly attracted to an industry which markets by putting women in Playboy!?!?! And lol at you thinking that because I don’t think it was a great move, I must be ashamed of my body. What an amazing culture we have, where if you don’t want to ogle women, you must surely be ashamed of your body and sexuality. And lol at the idea that “we like naked chicks” gets to overrule anything women actually feel about them (outside of your own brain where you erroneously feel you can speak for them). And megalol at the idea of one shirtless non-sexualised guy at the start of the game, who for the rest of the game you are asked to identify with and ‘be’ rather than male-gaze at, making up for the whole majoritively sexist games industry.

            It is a complicated issue. For you, who likes to look at ‘naked chicks’ (sooo respectful to women~) and gets pandered to, it isn’t. For women and men who actually know anything and pay attention to any sort of gender politics rather than going “DUR I LIKE TO LOOK AT BOOBS SO IT’S FINE”, it is.

          • Verity says:

            Oooh so you’re a woman! That explains everything! Why do I even start to discuss with a feminist? Why feminists play games where you play a man, having sex with girls, and then complain about girls being used in a sexualized way? So, let me help you understand basic principles. If you put an ugly, or even a “normal looking”, not really a sexy girl as your main female character, less people will find her attractive and worth remembering, welcome to the simple yet working world of men. You play a game where the protagonist is a MAN, not only that but a playboy, and you play it from HIS perspective, not yours, my lady. He is not interested in his naked torso, but in Triss boobs and her ass. Simple enough?

            Again, most girls I know are not feminists and are their views are completely in opposition to yours, so yes, I’m speaking for most girls, not a minority you clearly belong to. DO NOT play games which are obviously not addressed to you, because feminist complaints will change nothing.

          • Apples says:

            Yeah whatever dude, I’m pretty sure they probably told that to suffragists and to Rosa Parks too.* Don’t complain, nothing will ever change! Just accept your inferior status and the fact that 90% of the world revolves around rich white men! I guess I’ll go play all those games made for women, oh wait, there aren’t any. Oh well too bad for me I guess, I’ll just go do some woman activities like knitting and making you sandwiches and menstruating. Jesus Christ you’re stupid and selfish. I wonder why you don’t know any feminist women – possibly because they avoid you like the plague?

            *Yes obviously this is not as important an issue. Obviously I am not going to make a huge change in the way that they did. But an individual should try to campaign as much as possible for their rights no matter how petty the issue seems, because it feeds back into the wider issues of society.

          • Verity says:

            In fact it’s the other way around, I avoid them! Have a nice day!

            This is business. Games must sell. Changing the plot and adaptation to fulfill daydreams of feminist campaigners will result in lost sales. Simple as that. Petition directly to CDPR, maybe you’ll work something out. :>

          • Duffin says:

            Maybe you two should take a minute to realise how ridiculous it is to argue over the sexualisation of a woman who is not even fucking real.

          • Verity says:

            That’s what I pointed out before, Duffin, she’s just being stubborn and says it doesn’t matter. :(

          • Klydefrog says:

            link to – I assume this is what you were referring to, Apples, when you mentioned male super heroes being put into the positions of female ones? My perspective on this argument is that Apples is arguing against the sexulisation of women in the gaming industry as a whole, which I agree is a problem, whereas Verity seems only to be arguing on the subject of The Witcher. In the case of The Witcher, some of this can be justified due to the nature of the character as you said, Verity, but you’re ignoring the fact that a lot of advertising and marketing in gaming can be not only offensive to women but also somewhat exploitative of the teenage boys at which games are so often aimed. Do you really not think that that’s wrong in some way? Also, you just come off as sexist when you dismiss Apples as a feminist and indeed feminism as a whole as well as in assuming that the number of women you know represents “most women”. Some of the points you’re arguing are fairly valid but you lose all credibility when you present them in such an immature fashion.

          • Apples says:

            “over the sexualisation of a woman who is not even fucking real.” Hey genius, try reading my posts before dismissing them – “It’s irrelevant that it’s fictional or that she’s a mage (you seem to be saying it doesn’t matter because it’s not real), because the content and character were created by real people and seen by real people and reflect real attitudes. Actual people thought that it was appropriate, cool and enjoyable to their target market to put their main female character in a Playboy shoot.”

            If someone writes a lengthy pedophilic fantasy story, well, it’s ‘not even fucking real’, right? So who cares? We can’t tell anything about the author’s views or personality, or condemn him, can we? Well no, obviously we can on both counts. Even if stuff ‘isn’t real’, it came from somewhere, it didn’t magically arise from the aether.

            Also on the above post, the single instance of the Witcher cannot be separated from the overall games industry culture, and overall western culture. It came from it and contributes to it. It cannot be taken as a single instance because it does not exist in a vacuum, it must be taken as part of a whole, a whole which I think some of you cannot see at all because you are immersed in that whole and that whole benefits you (even though it is to the detriment of others).

          • Verity says:

            I value equality, don’t get me wrong, but I don’t see absolutely anything wrong in sexual ads and marketing. I have nothing against that kind of marketing aimed at women, with naked guys or whatever, but I have to wonder how effective that would be. It is obvious that sex ads work on men (and teens, but that’s not the problem IMHO, if a teen wants to even watch some dirty films there is not much that can stop him anyway, everyone does that at some stage, let’s not fool ourselves), but would they work on women? If that’d be the case, we’d see such marketing, and yet we don’t, there is not a lot of nude guys in games and else, so girls are not really interested in seeing them. Sex sells men, but does it work for women? I dismiss feminist arguments because she’d like this element of marketing being removed and it will not happen, because it works, at least for men, and really, the only people it bothers is a little niche of sex-equality-concious gamers, the rest, quite frankly, doesn’t give a shit. I like independent woman, I like feminists when they act in a logical manner, but criticizing a game for sexual content is not logical. A logical, real action would be to propose a way to appease both men and women, without changing the plot, the adaptation, the game itself. Removing sexualized girls from the game “hurts” guys and sales, which is not a good way to go.

          • Apples says:

            Ah yes, now we’re onto “Well women just biologically don’t like sex as much!”. ~BIOTRUTHS~. Actually in my posts I asked where the sexy marketing was of Geralt, so no, I am not asking for sex to be removed from marketing. And of course it sells. The problem is that it sells partly because men are not aware, and more importantly, like you, don’t actually care one iota, whether the marketing is derogatory or harmful towards women. It makes women into objects, with agency and usually faces removed (look up ‘dismemberment’ in advertising), in order to be marketed to men alongside the product. If more people found this unappealing, even intellectually, rather than sexy and fun and appealing, it would not sell. “Sex sells” is true, “Objectification sells, and only to men” is something you have made up.

          • Duffin says:

            It is not legal to buy the game unless you are 18. We are talking about a ‘shoot’ from playboy magazine (which *gasp* has tits in it) that is a completely optional download that should only be available to adults. These are not ingame ‘sex cards’ being forced down our throats like the first game. The ‘real’ attitudes reflected by ‘real people’ is sexual desire. Yes it’s immature and quite frankly a bit sad but not sinister, and making a comparison to ‘pedophilic stories’ is a bit insane. What are you suggesting, they are sexually perverted? Or just have a thing for attractive women, because most men do.

          • Grape says:

            We are talking about a ‘shoot’ from playboy magazine (which *gasp* has tits in it) that is a completely optional download that should only be available to adults.

            Wh… what?

            Jesus-fucking-Christ, did I just read that?

            Are you serious? Are you one of those genuinely broken people who think the only people who should be allowed to see naked chicks are old people, because if anyone under eighteen sees it, they will be harmed in vague and nonsensical ways? Did you just go there?

            Wow. I think you’ve just disqualified yourself from being taken seriously in any future discussion on the matter. People like you are just the worst.

          • Apples says:

            Because the point that was relevant to was that things not being real invalidated them when it comes to arguing about them or analysing them. The point wasn’t “is this illegal/perverted/wrong”, it was “Can we argue about this even though it’s fictional?”. So… er… yes, we can.

            edit: hahaha Grape, Apples. That’s pretty funny. Also Duffin’s post is right, I looked at myself in the mirror once when I under 18 and now I’m blind ):

          • Duffin says:

            Grape – The female form will literally burn your eyes from their sockets if you are not 18.

            I said legally, not morally or otherwise. I was trying to figure out the heinous crimes that CDP are alleged to have done.

            Apples – What I meant is, surely there are far far more serious sexist problems in the world than some video game character getting her tats out.

          • ffs_jay says:

            (Edit: Actually, fuck it. I should know by this point that arguing anything related to sexual or racial politics on a games site is an exercise in being goggle-bogglingly astounded at the sheer mental fucking AUGHitude of people you previously had some modicum of respect for. Suffice to say I mostly agree with Apples.)

          • Apples says:

            Duffin, yeah there are but they stem from and are contributed to by the same things that cause constant sexualised marketing of women and the fact that many industries and hobbies are male-dominated. We can’t say “ignore women being objectified in men’s magazines, focus on serious things like the wage gap”, because they are linked! They are both because of women being viewed as (sexual) objects, as inferior, as there to appeal to men and little else, etc. What can I, personally, do to decrease the wage gap AND to decrease objectification of women? Explain to people why what they’re looking at, even if it seems all cool and harmless and fun as a single instance, might be kinda messed up in a wider context. And I think the fact that people are unironically saying “Yeah but too bad about the chicks, coz I like looking at tits, so there, now get out of my games because you don’t belong here” shows that these arguments are NOT irrelevant and unnecessary.

          • Duffin says:

            Right okay, you win.

          • Verity says:

            “many industries and hobbies are male-dominated”

            and why is that?

            At this point I’m asking you to provide concrete examples of how to deal with the issue, because arguments on forums etc. alone will not suffice, especially when you’re being sarcastic and defending your views to the hilt.

          • theleif says:

            What ffs_jay said.

          • Apples says:

            I’m not being sarcastic for the most part. I was once to you, but that’s because you literally told me to get out instead of debating with me so there was not much point being sincere. If you defend your ‘right’ to stare at tits and believe this takes priority over the industry having even a pretense of inclusivity and respect towards the female playerbase, and that women should just leave if they don’t like it instead of trying to change things so that they feel welcome, then it really is not a wonder that women are not attracted to games nor the industry. Obviously I cannot come in here and say “the games industry is male-dominated because… and we solve it by…” and just sum it up. That is a stupid thing to expect. But if you can look at your own behaviour and that of some others on this post, and not have any doubt that you are people who women would want to spend time with (which you obviously don’t), and you think that women should just abandon their hobbies and jobs if they feel badly treated when it comes to media/games, then you don’t have the self-awareness to understand the first thing about why it is the case.

            edit: oh and you were talking about industries and hobbies in general with that quote. Well I dunno maybe it’s something to do with the fact that it was only like 85 years ago that women got full suffrage in this country and stuff like that. Seriously, there are people alive today who were alive when women WERE NOT CONSIDERED FULL CITIZENS and were thought to be too frivolous, stupid, hysterical or ill-educated to vote. For most of human history, all hobbies and industries have been male-dominated because men did things, and women stayed at home and did ‘women’s work’. If you think that will magically change in one generation with absolutely no shift in attitudes towards gender from a large number of people, you are delusional. Progress is being made but it’s not solved. Remaining problems and inequality are not because women don’t work hard enough, don’t want it enough, or are biologically something-or-other, they are left over from the last generation. hth

          • theleif says:

            “At this point I’m asking you to provide concrete examples of how to deal with the issue, because arguments on forums etc. alone will not suffice, ”

            Well, a good start would be to try to at least have a better view on gender roles than Porky’s in mind when designing a game.

      • Duffin says:

        Wait what… Triss Merrigold playboy session?

        • phenom_x8 says:

          Yeah, she’s appeared in local playboy magazine (Czech maybe) awhile before the launch of The Witcher 2. And there’s even some calendar photo session involving live action Gerald and naked Triss (that sadly not very appealing)

        • Verity says:

          The Polish one, May 2011, you can see the pages

          link to

          here. NSFW.

          • Duffin says:

            Just how I like my women, wearing nothing but a dagger. Wait… I haven’t thought that one through have I.

      • fionny says:

        @Mungrul It is all fitting with the story, Geralt is a happy go lucky playboy, if someone takes offence to a bit of humour then they certainly shouldn’t be playing the game.

      • Terragot says:

        Most 1st world counties have done the whole sexual revolution thing so it would be callow for anyone to be offended as something as harmless as CDPR trying to dip out the 4th window with their lore.

        Please don’t try to incite sexual hatred. There are already a number of serious problems with gender around the globe.

        • Apples says:

          Hmm yase, a sexually revolutionised first world where violence gets lower age ratings than sex and having a nipple shown on TV causes a national scandal in the biggest 1st world nation

          • Terragot says:

            exactly my point; stop kicking up a fuss over nothing.

          • Apples says:

            Sorry? Wot? I pointed out that your post is wrong and that’s apparently exactly your point? Or is my sarcasm detector broken?

          • Terragot says:

            Yes, you kind of backed up what I was getting at. The fact that the biggest fuss the first world kicks up is about a nipple slip during an american football game. This must be maniacally hilarious for the women of, say, the Democratic Republic of Congo.

          • Apples says:

            But if we’re not even capable of seeing a nipple or a woman breastfeeding in public, while women in cultures the first world considers ‘primitive’ find it normal to walk topless, how can we say we have had a sexual revolution and are so advanced? Certainly we have advantages over third world cultures in terms of sexual attitudes but not unilaterally. We also have certain things in which we are much more prudish and illogical over. In general women are treated much worse in non-first-world cultures but although women have a beter legal position in our society, they’re still not exactly free and empowered when it comes to sex. And how saying “Yo I think that’s pretty crude and not that respectful to women” is “sexual hatred”, god knows. I don’t think you can just say “welp, revolution happened, no more problems left, stop complaining” when it’s so clearly not true. We can care about more than one issue at a time too – no problem caring about the treatment of women and sexual attitudes outside of the first world and within it at the same time.

      • Grape says:

        I for one just thank God those poor, defenseless women have brave knights like Mungrul to stand up for them.

        • Apples says:

          Oh stop doing the “feminist men are just white knights” thing. It’s pathetic.

          • Grape says:

            …If frequently quite true.

          • Apples says:

            When. When has it been true. When have you objectively seen this. How does white knighting on a games forum even help him in any way, why would he bother. It’s not true, you’re being ridiculous, and anyway going “Yeah well you’re just FAKING your opinions!” is a completely pointless accusation to bring to an argument.

        • Mungrul says:

          Look, it’s partly the offense it could potentially cause to women that they’re to be treated as nothing more than sex objects, but there’s also an ongoing issue of maturity here. Overall, Witcher 2 is a wonderfully grown-up title, but CDPR persist in this puerile titillation that only serves to drag their name down and that of gaming as a whole. They’ve taken an interesting character and reduced her to wank material for teenage nerds. I love naked women as much as the next heterosexual man, but there’s a time and place for them. CDPR actually managed to treat the relationship between Triss and Geralt with some taste in the game itself, undoing a lot of the damage they’d done to their name with the sex cards in the first game, then they go and undo it all by rewarding players with soft porn.
          With gaming making attempts to become accepted as a mature medium, stuff like this reverts public perception of gamers and developers to nothing more than horny, lonely, teenage boys who surreptitiously masturbate to oversexualised portrayals of femininity. It’s as bad as the Asari in Mass Effect.

          • Terragot says:

            Are you a nun? What circles are you moving in to find nudity taboo? I’m not embarrassed by the state of gaming, I love this industry and I’m proud to say I’m a part of it. I don’t think the problem here is the fact that CDPR have a computer rendered image of a nude woman published in a magazine that is extremely relevant to pop culture, but it’s probably just that you’re ashamed of the feminine form.

            Okay, if we’re all hopeless geeks who can’t enjoy the feminine form, then what about the cool kids who run playboy? I’m pretty sure no ones calling them hopeless nerds for publishing the pictures?

            Go boss HBO, or marvel, or the cat walk, or FHM, or the aviation industry, or Nigella fucking Lawsen around with your sexual chalice, but leave my beloved glorious games industry alone, we are not a pathetic collective entity that is ashamed by this, you are.

          • Apples says:

            Haha what is all this “You must be ASHAMED of your body!!!” shit. It’s cool that you have absolutely no shame about being marketed to as if you were a teenage boy who needs exaggerated woman-shaped pixels to wank to, but some of us have more self-awareness. As if you need to find that kind of awful thing sexually appealing in order to be mature and free of shame…

            also this whole post thread really shows why the games industry is such crap which is never taken seriously. It’s even less mature than HBO and that’s just fine and this guy will throw a fit if someone tries to change it. Hahahaha.

        • Ninja Foodstuff says:

          I’ve ticked at least 4 items off my cracked sexism arguments bingo. Is this really necessary?

      • Crane says:


        The problem I have with this whole issue is that it seems, to a great extent, to be a self-perpetuating cycle.
        Most games are bought by males, therefore most games are marketted towards males, therefore…

        To call this particular instance gravely offensive would be (in my opinion), getting worked up over something quite small. The problem, rather, is that it’s a reflection of the state of the industry as a whole.

        Of course, I also feel that the side arguing for better portrayed female characters are undermining their own efforts by not being able to have a consensus on what constitutes a good female character.
        Any debate I’ve read on the topic has always devolved into a spiral of “What bout so-and-so?” “No, she actually shows some sexuality, which makes her too slutty!” followed by “Well, how about so-and-so?” “No, that’s basically a character written as a man but with a female voice and character model.”

        And so the whole damn thing sinks into pointless bickering, and I stop paying any attention to the debate (as I suspect do many others).
        Which is a shame, because a greater variety of well-portrayed characters aside from “brown haired stubbly american heterosexual white male” would do wonders for the industry.

        • Apples says:

          Yeah I also hate the “She can’t be feminine, but if she’s not feminine she’s just a man with a woman’s body!” thing. This comes up 100% of the time with Shepard and Ripley in Alien, as if it’s somehow a disadvantage that they were written as gender-neutral rather than dealing with whatever ‘women’s issues’ are in alien-fighting. I always thought that Dr Girlfriend was a really good example of how to write a sexy woman that appeals to both genders (even without the man-voice she would be). I like Bayonetta’s design too but can’t speak for the writing cause I haven’t played it.

      • Kleppy says:

        Yeah naked ladies ew

      • thenagus says:

        It’s sad to see “feminist” banded around here as if it’s a dirty word, and the borderline hostility towards women ( “Oooh so you’re a woman! That explains everything!” ). Don’t expect to see this on RPS.

        …CDP always disappointing me with this stuff, given that in pretty much every other respect they’re a great company, and make great games. I feel this kind of thing is degrading not only to women, but to CDP themselves. There’s no need for it.

        The argument here has slight flavours of this:
        link to

    • TNG says:

      Or if you have it from any other source but GOG, go here to redeem your free GOG copy: link to

  2. Spinoza says:

    She said, No man, Lord. And Witcher said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and Witch some more.

  3. caddyB says:

    Way to go CDP! That’s what I call post-release support. Keep building that goodwill and your sales will be aplenty in the years to come ( as long as you don’t pull a Bioware on us )

    • John Connor says:

      My favourite part of the Extended Edition is that they added an “Extended Ending,” just as a bonus. The ending is fine as it is, but they thought, “Why not? We can do better.”

      Meanwhile, Bioware defended their abysmal work to the bone, and it took the combined rage of their entire fanbase before they decided to do anything about it – and even then, it doesn’t seem like they are going to fix the actual problem people had with the ending, just draw it out longer.

      It’s funny that CDProjekt started as an outfit localizing Bioware’s games, and less than 10 years later, have become greater than the studio whose works they were founded to localize…

      • lanster27 says:

        That’s only because Bioware fans are crazy.

        To me, the respective endings fit their respective stories. I like Bioware to have the balls to deliver an ending that’s different yet similar to other sci-fi stories and not another predictable ending. Screw what the fans think, because Bioware is large enough of a company to not please their fanbase on every aspect of their games. If they wanted to deliver a bad ending, they can just chuck a “they live happily ever after. The End’. Overall it proved that at least they gave some thought into the ending.

        Witcher 2 ends on a low note, and to me that makes sense as well. On a grand scale, the storyline in Witcher 1 and 2 doesn’t really affect the whole background too much. Kings die and kingdoms fall, al seen through the outcast’s perspective. I can’t say Geralt has changed much from the first game to the second.

        • Ringwraith says:

          Mass Effect 3’s ending feels incredibly disconnected from the rest of the game however, and really doesn’t seem to fit nor have any explanation to it.
          It feels rushed and tacked-on, which is the problem.

        • Apples says:

          “Overall it proved that at least they gave some thought into the ending.” Ah yes, this ending that completely contradicts the rest of the game, does not fit the intended space-opera genre at all, opens hundreds of gaping plot holes, and outright conflicts with several statements given by the Reapers in the previous games. Indeed, much thought they must have put into this (the five minutes before they scrapped the intended ending that was hinted at through ME2). BUT AT LEAST IT’S DIFFERENT AND NOT HAPPY AND THEREFORE TOTALLY MATURE AND GREAT

          • lanster27 says:

            “Ah yes, this ending that completely contradicts the rest of the game, does not fit the intended space-opera genre at all, opens hundreds of gaping plot holes, and outright conflicts with several statements given by the Reapers in the previous games.”


            It’s this kind of generalisation and exaggeration that confuses me. The ending does not contradicts the rest of the game. In fact, no matter what ending, the reapers are gone, the galaxy saved more or less, and the cycle of genocide ended. And hundreds of plot holes? I can only think of two, the relocation of the Citadel and the Normandy going through a mass relay. Surely you must be really observant to pick up hundreds!

            The ending does not conflict with several statements given by the Reapers in the previous games. The only thing actual Reapers said is something along the line of ‘We’ve come to destroy you etc etc”. In fact, I think most of the information given about Reapers are all ‘rumours’ from others, so how can you say they are correct at all?

            -end spoiler-

            Why do people hate it so much? Maybe because they already had an ending in their mind, but found out what Bioware wanted was different to what they expected?

          • Ringwraith says:

            But, space magic!
            Seriously, nothing is explained, and there’s awful implications like from the Arrival DLC which go completely unaddressed. Which is not the quality of writing the rest of the game (and series) shows, making it all the more jarring.
            Not to mention it breaks a lot of rules for writing a narrative, like how it comes completely out of nowhere in the last five minutes so it’s essentially a deus ex machina.
            Also, the whole ‘war assets’ thing does pretty much nothing, which is weird when you consider they did the suicide mission, which was similar in set-up, so well.

          • Apples says:

            OK. Welp. First of all, we do talk directly to Reapers in all three games. Sovereign, in ME1, says “Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.” Why, that doesn’t sound as if they were intending to save organic life at all! It sounds like they were trying to end literally everything including organic life! He also says that we are “incapable of understanding”. If so, why could some ghost kid explain it to us in five seconds at the end of the game? He then says “Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation” and continues in a derogatory fashion about organics. Welp, if so, why bother saving them? Reapers clearly considered synthetic life to be superior in ME1 and say that they are “The pinnacle of evolution and existence”, only for this to be completely reversed in ME3. He says “We are each a nation – independent” apart from being controlled by a ghost child, which he obviously forgets to mention.

            And that’s just the reaper stuff from ME1!

            Merging organics and synthetics literally makes no sense from any perspective except ~space magic~ and does not fit in the ME world which is slightly more hard science than soft ‘magic’ science. It also does not fit the self-determination theme of the whole trilogy.

            I could go on forever but I will stop there.

            edit: lol one sec. The other post reminded me – war assets are so dumb. You literally collect ships, soldiers and scientists, but then they decide whether irrelevant stuff happens like whether your teammates die in a beam blast, big ben blows up, Shephard survives being crushed, etc. Things that have nothing to do with scientists or soldiers. Ffuuuuck so bad

          • lanster27 says:

            To Apple:

            Most of your points doesn’t help your case. Sovereign says that in ME1 with many reasons behind it. Maybe it isn’t programmed to know the meaning behind the genocide, only the Catalyst knows the true purpose. And why would Sovereign need to know the reason behind the genocides? He just need to carry them out, in the fashion of a military general. He says the current races are incapable of understanding their true purpose, because at that time the Reapers have not seen the completion of the Crucible (to show the Reapers the cumulative knowledge of the universe has advanced beyond their control). And that’s probably what triggered the Catalyst to reveal the true purpose of the genocides.

            The Catalyst wants to save the organics because they feel superior. If you think about it that way, it makes sense. They probably also see it as their purpose in the galaxy, to restore order. If they exterminate every single living being, they lose their purpose in the galaxy. And to Sovereign mentioning independent nations – like my earlier speculation, it doesn’t know Catalyst is the controller. Such is the device of indoctrination.

            And in the end, organic-synthetic merge is just the Catalyst’s way to screw with everyone. You say it can’t exist, well so doesn’t eezo and mass effect fields. This is sci-fi we’re talking about. You can say the whole universe was based on space-magic. Element zero? Ha chemistry. Faster than light travel? Hardly possible. Turning everyone into synthetic-organic mutations doesn’t seem that far off now, does it?

          • malkav11 says:

            Having fictional elements in a story does not automatically grant license to throw any other random fictional element into said story and have it treated with the same inherent suspension of disbelief. If the ending of Mass Effect 3 was that the Reapers were (without any prior setup, mind you) actually demons from Hell and Shepard had to seal them forever inside a gemstone that he’d push into his forehead, would you write that off as okay because they had faster than light travel?

          • Apples says:

            Well yes, it does. “There’s an element that can change objects’ mass” is within the realms of possibility. Mass Effect relays, guns, etc follow on logically from that. “Every race in the galaxy helped to build a machine that has the ability to somehow graft electronics onto flesh or flesh onto electronics perfectly and create ‘a new DNA’ even though synthetic life has no DNA to begin with, without being able to tell that it could do that” is just bullshit. How did it affect everyone? Where’d it get the electronic bits from, or for that matter the fleshy bits? What the hell is going on?

            As for the Reaper stuff you’re just going “Yeah but what if!!” What if Sovereign doesn’t know the reason – then why bother putting him in the game, or not just have him say he doesn’t know? Is Sov really insecure or something and doesn’t want to admit he doesn’t know? If you have to resort to weird hypothetical reasons like “The reapers didn’t know they were being controlled or the reason for killing everyone (I guess they were just like, doing stuff and didn’t even know why for the whole 3 games??) and they just made stuff up about knowing and not being able to explain it because …” the ending has failed. You should know what happened during the course of the game, or be able to piece it together out of actual evidence, not have to make up increasingly outlandish reasons for things not fitting together.

            “it doesn’t know Catalyst is the controller. Such is the device of indoctrination. ” Your argument seems to rest on this, but what are you saying here? That the ghost kid indoctrinates the Reapers? The Reapers indoctrinate people, there is no such evidence of the ghostie indoctrinating anyone, ever, or even existing outside of the last few minutes of the game.

          • lanster27 says:

            Unless anything is proven or currently in research, your “within the realms of possibility’ is just as good as mine. And currently I haven’t heard of anything that can change other object’s mass. And calling anything not possible at the current level of our technology bullshit is just ignorance.

            And in a similar logic, my alternative and complicated analysis of the game share equal credibility with your simple analysis of the game. Sovereign is in the game to represent the Reapers, and their ignorance of their existence, of a higher power controlling them. Just because the game do not explain it does not mean it can’t be true.

            Read between the lines, use your imagination, and maybe the ending will make much more sense. it is sci-fi game, not a Maths exam. After all, it’s our own interpretation of the ending that makes us like it or hate it. If you prefer to hate the ending, stick to what is only said by characters in the game, never question their motives, their intentions, or if they can be trusted in what they say, then there’s nothing much I can say to make you see otherwise.

  4. Duffin says:

    Mine is not “updating automatically via game launcher”. Just says ‘Patch_EE is ready to be installed’ and then nothing happens. It can’t tease me like this.

    EDIT: Also not only did they patch out the DRM on my retail verion, I can now use my key to get free DRM digital copy on GoG. *swoons*

  5. fionny says:

    Must get back to playing this very very soon and finish it!

  6. brat-sampson says:

    Newest downloader seems to manually replace the borked .bin from the original pre-load in addition to grabbing the final piece needed to patch. I have to say though, this is the most extreme ‘patch’ I’ve ever seen! 12 gig of files followed by 16 gig taken up in installation!

    I haven’t been bothered to check but isn’t that about the same size as the original game install?!?

  7. fiddlesticks says:

    The Witcher 2: Witch Harder

  8. Belsameth says:

    So, did they fix the tutorial to be slightly more usefull and not annoyingly difficult?

    • f1x says:

      Witch please, they fixed that long ago

      • caddyB says:


      • Belsameth says:

        They did? Nice. I might actually buy it then :)

        • f1x says:

          Yes, sorry it was necessary to write that pun

          About the tutorial they fixed it in version 2.0 (or before, but 2.0 was kind of enhanced version already) along with some other things that needed fixing

    • Necroscope says:

      I can understand to some extent, meaning that with so many games I want to try out that I already own it is a tame end before it gets going scenario to be put off the game by the tutorial. TW2 tutorial combat had me sweating for a while before I adpated and then until they eventually patched it to be less punishing…

      • f1x says:

        I think the problem was more the lack of tutorial,
        myself played straight at release without any of the first patches and the only thing that infuriated me was dying at the fires because nodoby told me I should do the “shield thing” before running through (because some fires in one of the first areas are simply unavoidable you have to go stepping through)

        But besides that, the game played perfectly fine and I loved to discover some of the combat/signs mechanics myself instead of always being pointed with a big red arrow like “click here”
        but anyway, the game is much better after 2.0 and I suppose its near perfection now with the Enhanced edition
        and all that for the extra cost of 0€

      • Belsameth says:

        I rather liked TW1 but wanted to try a “demo” before buying it. The beginning area, with all the archers, infuriated me to no end and, since I didn’t yet put any money down, deleted the game and never looked back. Now is a time to get curious again tho :)

  9. Ninja Foodstuff says:

    I guess it will be best for me to abandon the 5 hours I played so far and start from the beginning again?

    Also, for anyone trying to redeem the backup with a steam version, this post over at forums should help

    • kyrieee says:

      No reason to abandon anything.
      The new content is in Chapter 3.

      • malkav11 says:

        There’s also a new tutorial and new cutscenes throughout.

  10. Kdansky says:

    Is there a full change-list? I can’t find it.

  11. Sidorovich says:

    Have they fixed the crap combat and bollocks boss fights?

    • Kinch says:

      There was nothing wrong with combat or boss fights — just a lot of whiners who thought the game would be a button smasher.

      • phenom_x8 says:

        Agree, fighting Letto was tad easy when you find the way how to do it. I just died for five times in a row until I realise that well placed yrden spell actually doing very much help.

        • Strontium Mike says:

          Sorry no the boss fights were dreadful, the first wasn’t too bad once you work out which tentacles to trap but Letho was bad. Nothing in the game up to that point prepares you for the difficulty of that fight, thanks to the new meditate to drink a potion mechanic an alchemy build is fairly useless in boss fights. Especially Letho as it’s iirc conversation, cutscene, conversation, fight by which time your potions are wearing off and the whole thing might as well have been a cutscene as you don’t even defeat him.

          The combat was okay except for the auto targeting choosing targets off screen and landing you in group of enemies, that is it would have been okay if this was a spinoff or the first game in a series. But since it is billed as The Witcher 2 it should have improved and expanded upon the game mechanics of the first game, not replaced them entirely.

          • Blackcompany says:

            The Kayran and Letho are mistakes. Plain and simple. The difficulty spike represented by these two Chapter 1 encounters are absurd. Add to that the conclusion of the Letho fight, and its plain they simply made a mistake here. I initially gave up on the game at the Letho fight.

            Then someone on this sight advised me to turn the game down to easy just to get through it. And I did.

            And what I discovered after doing so was easily one of the greatest RPG’s I have ever played. The harsh, morally grey world; the real choices and consequences. The mature decisions and the way you simply have to live with them, period. The graphics, the smooth, responsive combat and the challenge.

            I highly recommend this game to anyone interested in a mature game intended for an adult audience where choices matter, affect the game you play. I don’t think you will find a better RPG this generation.

    • lanster27 says:

      He must be thinking of Duke Nukem Forever.

  12. Maldomel says:

    So good to see devs can actually support their games even months after they came out.

    Now maybe I can test the limits of my shit-tier internet connection, and play the witcherest version of all in a month.

  13. Kinch says:

    Playing it again on 360 — because hey, the Dark Edition, is awesome!!11!one!

    I can see the difficulty has been toned down a bit on normal mode, the game is definitely more accessible now, witch I’m not sure I like (reading all the angry forum posts was entertaining).

    Perfect game, and a great dev with a fantastic attitude!

  14. The Godzilla Hunter says:

    For some reason, the steam front page describes the EE as version 2.0.


    • Shivoa says:

      I’m getting “Witcher” search only returning trailers for 2 and the 1st game, the game id (link to linked in both news page on Steam for this update and my link from an existing purchase) is giving the deadly:

      This item is currently unavailable in your region

      (This is in the UK)

      • Durkonkell says:

        Wha?! I’m seeing the same thing. There’s a news post saying that the Enhanced Edition is now available, but the link just leads to a ‘not available in your region’ message. Additionally, the game doesn’t seem to want to patch…

        This is bloody mental. Who’s playing stupid games with regional availability? And why can’t I as an existing customer download the new version?

  15. fuggles says:

    This will be lost in the miasma, but I had a problem with the patch using the launcher in that it declared pack0.dzip corrupt and then aborting the launcher it refused to run. Found out online that the solution to this is to go to link to and redownload Part 1 and Part 2, although make sure to delete the old ones first or else they will probably download as Part 1(1) and Part 2(1).

    After this run TW2EE_Patch.exe and it will then install, although it seems to install all the language patches.

    • j6m says:

      I for one didn’t need to download TW2EE_Patch-1.bin again; seems TW2EE_Patch-2.bin was the culprit. Makes sense, since the former wasn’t part of the pre-load.

  16. Guiscard says:

    Is there any means of download other than the one their site? Say one that won’t restart everytime my internet connection drops out under the burden of the download?

  17. Apples says:

    edit: oh the comment i replied to disappeared. ok

  18. Casimir's Blake says:

    STILL no option to play first-person? :(

  19. Alec Meer says:

    Too much rage, hate and suffering here, so turning off comments for a while.