Honestly, part 2 was so poorly done that you're really not missing out on anything. You remember how violence oriented part 1 was? Do you remember how there were cutscenes that depicted violent actions that you had literally no control over? Do you by any chance recall the final events in part 1 that require you to take violent actions in order to progress the game in literally any perceivable way?

Well part 2 drukkmann says, STOP THAT! Violence never solved anything idiot!!! Unless you didn't play part 2 at all... In which case, I suppose violence was the only way, and it solves everything. Part 1 drukkmann literally couldn't tell the story without assurance that you used violence.

"And why was violence important to the narrative and success of part 1," Jan asked...