Were the expansions better than main game?

[Deemonef]

Again, CDPR cannot please everyone, they obviously had their own vision of the characters, not everyone agrees with it, but there is not much that can be done about that. However, should they give up on writing stories with book characters in ways that try to develop them or show them in situations or roles not seen yet in the novels, if it means a minority of the fans will be disappointed? I do not think so, in the end the benefits may outweigh the negatives for those who approach the games with an open mind.



Witcher games are not a retelling of the books' story, they are an unofficial continuation. They would be less interesting if there was nothing new about the main characters, it would be the "low risk, low reward" approach.



This is again a Witcher 1 issue, and not even specific to Triss. No one in that game talks about Geralt's past or Ciri or Yennefer, not Dandelion, not Shani, nor anyone else who already knew him from the books, other than one innkeeper, more as an easter egg where only Ciri is named. No story explanation is given to this oddity. I do admit that TW1 was not very well written when it comes to how the game fits into the trilogy (it would be fine if neither the books nor the sequels existed), but it was the first game made by a small studio after all, and more importantly the topic is "Were the expansions better than main game?", where main game obviously refers to Wild Hunt. The flaws of its prequels are not relevant to that, Witcher 3 is even trying to fix them, for example this:

is not exactly true in Wild Hunt either, but more on that would be a matter of another discussion.

It's one thing to retell a story or take a common fact and change it
I see no Problem that the white frost would be an environmental distaster like in the book lore instead of this magical orb with can "touch" other dimensions... This is no way less interesting.
As I said, I really love it and never wish to missed those three games, but those are my facts why the expansions are better than the main games in my eyes. And TW1, TW2 and TW3 are all part of the main game.
And this is another point. There are many changes from one game to another, and the expansions don't have this problem.

This is true. No one talks about the two women, but Eskel and Co. don't want to have sex with Geralt
I hate Jaskier, too for the fact he didn't tell anything about it. I try to make up in my mind, that Geralt's friends don't talk much about his past, that his memory will come back by it's own and he will not have a shock... but when this is true, Triss and Jaskier are very mean, too.
So Jaskier and Triss are some kind of a**holes and... and I don't see why people don't understand why I don't like it for those reasons

The story of the expansions don't seem so "book-forced" and that's what I like

 

[Yeiiow]

Hearts of Stone was the best i have seen on any of the 3 games. My only real complain would be that Shani was not included in the main game, but relegated to a Paid Expansion.

Blood and Wine was disapointing in comparison. It suffers from the same issues that affect the main quest, lack of focus, trying to do and be too much, overstretching length, fanservice JUST for the sake of fanservice, and generally a step away from morally grey choises making one ending feel like the default good ending and other the default bad ending... The second part specially like with the main quest, feels rushed and of overall way lower quality than the first half.

 

[sv3672]

Hearts of Stone was the best i have seen on any of the 3 games. My only real complain would be that Shani was not included in the main game, but relegated to a Paid Expansion.

According to this video from PAX West 2017, the developers wanted Shani in the game, but could not find a good enough role for her in the main story, that is why she is in Hearts of Stone. They talk about this at 1:39:26.