Yeah while TW1's atmosphere was great the overall story was very medicore
I personally believe TW1 had a great story. It explored the escalation of conflict between the Scoia'Tael and the Order with meticulous slowness before the climax that I found excellent. And Jacques de Aldersberg is, to me, one of the best characters of the series, and from what I have seen, a lot more interesting than the antagonists of TW3.
The problem with TW1 was its pacing, not the quality of its writing.
The problem with TW1 was its pacing, not the quality of its writing.
I dont' know how far into the main story I am (I just finished the Last Wish quest with Yennefer), but so far, I think TW2 had the better story. For me I'm enjoying the side quests more in TW3 than the main story. Not that the main story isn't good, but I almost feel like I'm just kind of getting to it when I happen to be doing something nearby. I haven't really been going out of my way to want to do it.
---------- Updated at 04:56 AM ----------
I think one of the things about TW2 that CDPR probably wanted to avoid was the complexity. For more people, the story was just confusing because there was just so much going on. It was a game that you had to beat multiple times to grasp the full story. Even still, with each new play through you could piece together even more new things that you did quite get the past times. I think with TW3 they wanted a story that was more straight forward and easier to understand.
---------- Updated at 04:56 AM ----------
I think one of the things about TW2 that CDPR probably wanted to avoid was the complexity. For more people, the story was just confusing because there was just so much going on. It was a game that you had to beat multiple times to grasp the full story. Even still, with each new play through you could piece together even more new things that you did quite get the past times. I think with TW3 they wanted a story that was more straight forward and easier to understand.
Probably one of the reasons why TW3's story (while good as a standalone) pales in comparison with TW2
Its just not very exciting (especially in the first Act which makes the majority of the game)
Well, W2 story is more plot-driven and W3 story is more character-driven. Still, because W3 is a open world too, the story doesn't feel very exciting. You go around trying to find Ciri and other characters along the way, and all of them are just under your nose. Philppa, Avalla'ch, Ciri herself and so on.
Since the game is more character driven, I expected more characters to be present in the game. Killing Ioverth, no mention of Saskia is a big letdown. Also, some parts of the game just wreeks Bioware writing. Geralt finds Ciri half-dead, and then the guiding-light Geralt used to get to The Island of Mists saves Ciri out of nowhere? Wtf? We know of Ioverth death by some NPC talk in the background? Really? I mean I know CD Projekt was more focused on delivering a very vast world, with some interisting side-quests and good combat, but don't forget about the characters you create like that. We grow attached to them, don't start killing off characters just like G.R.R Martin. You're not him CD Projekt and this is not Game of Thrones.
Since the game is more character driven, I expected more characters to be present in the game. Killing Ioverth, no mention of Saskia is a big letdown. Also, some parts of the game just wreeks Bioware writing. Geralt finds Ciri half-dead, and then the guiding-light Geralt used to get to The Island of Mists saves Ciri out of nowhere? Wtf? We know of Ioverth death by some NPC talk in the background? Really? I mean I know CD Projekt was more focused on delivering a very vast world, with some interisting side-quests and good combat, but don't forget about the characters you create like that. We grow attached to them, don't start killing off characters just like G.R.R Martin. You're not him CD Projekt and this is not Game of Thrones.
Really? I felt TW2's story was better AND more character-driven. In TW3, you are really just focused on finding and saving Ciri. In TW2, you are focused on Letho (clear your name), Triss (save her), and Roche/Iorveth (help in exchange for help). There are more major character plot arcs and since the game is linear with a smaller cast you get more face time with each one.
Though objectively, I'm not sure if the story from TW2 is actually better. They're both good stories. TW2 might just have felt more enjoyable to me because it's linearity creates a tighter story.
Loved both.
Witcher 2 story was a masterpiece. A very well written and complex story about a lost past, politics and conspiracies.
Witcher 3 on the other hand is a story about Geralt and Ciri. Everything else is secondary. I think the politics are mediocre in comparison to Witcher 2 and the overall writing probably a bit worse.(though many of the stories within the mainstory are very well written) But Witcher 3 was very emotional in comparison to the second game. I enjoyed every moment between Ciri and Geralt, which makes thje story for me superior. Currently I don't see myself replaying Witcher 2 ever again, because of the lack of Geralt/Ciri interaction.
Witcher 2 story was a masterpiece. A very well written and complex story about a lost past, politics and conspiracies.
Witcher 3 on the other hand is a story about Geralt and Ciri. Everything else is secondary. I think the politics are mediocre in comparison to Witcher 2 and the overall writing probably a bit worse.(though many of the stories within the mainstory are very well written) But Witcher 3 was very emotional in comparison to the second game. I enjoyed every moment between Ciri and Geralt, which makes thje story for me superior. Currently I don't see myself replaying Witcher 2 ever again, because of the lack of Geralt/Ciri interaction.
I liked Ciri but I didn't like how much the game focused on her (even the endings..) this was supposed to be Geralt's last chapter not soem sequel baiting with Ciri
TW2 story is just on another level for me, TW3's overall story is just too cliche/simple
I refuse to believe that after the Witcher 2, CDPR forgot how to write compelling stories. I am positive, as you rightly pointed out, that the story is poor because of the decision to go open-world. The story in Witcher 2 (though flawed) was a tightly written narrative with enough complexity to be believable and with just the right pacing so that it always seemed like the story was pushing forward. The most accurate way I can describe the Witcher 3 story is that it is so game-y. It has reduced itself to the pathetic standards of the rest of the stories in the video game industry. The story exists mainly to show off gameplay features, and Witcher's most important feature is it's Open World. The story makes you ride across the Northern Kingdoms, all the while subtly asking you to be impressed at the open world (which is very impressive, lets be honest). It feels like a story written for a game, while the best part about Witcher 2 was that it refused to be bogged down by these low standards and crafted a story that was not tied to convention or a slave to its own medium. Witcher 2 joins Half Life 2, Braid, Psychonauts, Spec Ops the Line, Bioshock and Silent Hill 2 as a massive leap forward for narrative in videogames, while Witcher 3 is a step back to the standard of the industry.
I don't care about the politics being dumbed down or simplified because from the get go, it was clear the Witcher 3 was take a tonal shift away from political intrigue into more personal relationships, however the personal relationships did not pay off in any satisfying way. The writers made it clear that the Geralt-Ciri relationship was at the core of the story, but they never go anywhere interesting with it, even when they reunite, their relationship is a one-note song. I am particularly disappointed in the lack of Ciri-Yennefer moments, as unlike Geralt, who she viewed as the man she was destined for but not necessarily her father, Ciri explicitly saw Yennefer as her mother-figure. But we get no pathos from that, nor from any other relationships because the story is too tied in convention and busy making sure we appreciate the open world. It's the curse of all open world games that has yet to be solved. Great interesting side-quests, a relatively decent open world (though the foliage, tessellation and anti-aliasing problems make me think Witcher 3 is not nearly as future-proof as the gorgeous Witcher 2) but a story without any pacing or urgency, written for the service of the world.
As Geralt says: "Sometimes I felt like you were right in front of me. Other times I felt as if I was going in circles."
You know what Geralt? You're not the only one who felt that way!
I don't care about the politics being dumbed down or simplified because from the get go, it was clear the Witcher 3 was take a tonal shift away from political intrigue into more personal relationships, however the personal relationships did not pay off in any satisfying way. The writers made it clear that the Geralt-Ciri relationship was at the core of the story, but they never go anywhere interesting with it, even when they reunite, their relationship is a one-note song. I am particularly disappointed in the lack of Ciri-Yennefer moments, as unlike Geralt, who she viewed as the man she was destined for but not necessarily her father, Ciri explicitly saw Yennefer as her mother-figure. But we get no pathos from that, nor from any other relationships because the story is too tied in convention and busy making sure we appreciate the open world. It's the curse of all open world games that has yet to be solved. Great interesting side-quests, a relatively decent open world (though the foliage, tessellation and anti-aliasing problems make me think Witcher 3 is not nearly as future-proof as the gorgeous Witcher 2) but a story without any pacing or urgency, written for the service of the world.
As Geralt says: "Sometimes I felt like you were right in front of me. Other times I felt as if I was going in circles."
You know what Geralt? You're not the only one who felt that way!