[SPOILERS] Witcher 3 vs Witcher 2 vs Witcher 1. Vote and discuss which one is your favorite :)

[vivaxardas2015]

I see TW1-3 as a single game, so I don't want to rank them.
Story in TW1 was a bit preposterous. Story in TW2 was terrific (Roche's path), with some really brilliant moments, but it has its share of problems with character motivations, and timing of events, probably due to a cut content, and a rather nonsensical Iorveth path clearly inserted as an afterthought. Also it was a very different story from TW3, with a different focus.
I really like what I got with TW3, so I won't complain about some minor issues I found.

 

[TouPoutsou]

TW2 is the best for 30 hours, TW3 is the best for 100 hours. Ultimately i had to give it to TW2. Not nesceserily beacause it's better, but because, watching CDPR evolution, from TW1 to TW2, they made me beleive so much in them to the point that TW3 would be the Jesus of gaming, and it is not. The main reason was that the game was commercialised and compromised to appeal to more people. As i have written before, i expected TW3 to be Morrowind, meets dark souls meets TW2 in terms of story. Istead i got Skyrim meets Batman meets Mass Effect(or a dumbed down version of The witcher series). Now if am to make a point list:

Story, dialogues, characters, choise and consequence system: The Witcher 2

Gameplay: The Witcher 3(not by much. Small improvements over TW2, and introcution of stupid skyrim inspired mechanics like eating food mid combat)

Visuals (considering the time of release): By a huge margin The Witcher 2. Hell for me THe Witcher 2 looks arguably better than TW3, even if TW3 is more technically advanced. To this day, TW2, subjectively, to me is still the best looking RPG of all time.

 

[CTPhipps]

Weird, I assumed Iorveth was the primary path.

It had all the big huge DRAMATIC moments.

While Roche is, "Yeah, things went pretty well."

 

[davidj8580]

Weird, I assumed Iorveth was the primary path.

It had all the big huge DRAMATIC moments.

While Roche is, "Yeah, things went pretty well."

It seems like the human path has always been the preferred one. Side with Siegfried in Witcher 1? He shows up in 2. Yaevinn is nowhere to be seen, no matter what your choice is. Same for 3. No matter what you do, Roche is the one who shows up. I guess they, like Bioware did with Dragon Age 1 to 2, assumed that everyone just sides with humans and went with it.

 

[luc0s]

Weird, I assumed Iorveth was the primary path.

It had all the big huge DRAMATIC moments.

While Roche is, "Yeah, things went pretty well."

Iorveth's path is more drama but also more nonsense. Roche's path is more logically consistent and more believable. Both paths have their own flaws though.

 

[gogusar]

i expected TW3 to be Morrowind, meets dark souls meets TW2 in terms of story. Istead i got Skyrim meets Batman meets Mass Effect

You nailed it.

 

[Nomzter]

2 had the best story 3 was the best game

1 was OK in all aspects

 

[Wolfehunter]

I felt witcher 1 was a great start and good introduction to Gerald. Witcher 2 was my fav. I found it more mature content and better story with consequences. Ambient graphics seem richer in W2 than w3 on some levels. Witcher 3 is a well done game but not the best. Has to much bugs and all the downgrading for console fiasco has turned me off. And I'm not just talking about graphics I'm talking almost every aspect of it. What I do like about witcher 3 is open world and the little details. I love the interaction with Characters and npcs verses npcs. I'm happy for variety of W3 over linear W2 but the rest I feel W2 shines more.

 

[yagha]

I'd have to say TW2 (Roche's path) is my favourite Witcher game.

There was a section of the game that was definitely one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had. After all the pain and suffering that took place over Upper Aedirn - the massacre of the Blue Stripes, Ves's rape, Kaedwen's hollow victory following Roche's vengeance, and the hopeless fall of Verden (Including Iorveth and Saskia) - all these events are followed by Geralt and Roche, two friends who've dragged themselves through all this violence and carnage, trecking through mountains towards the final confrontation in Loc Muinne as the most peaceful track in the game plays: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdxuXgIrJOk

For me, there is honestly no doubt that Roche's path is superior. While Act 2 on Iorveth's path ends on a high note of idealism and victory, the game is at its bleakest and most hopeless point on Roche's path at the end of Act 2. I have barely ever felt as many emotions during a game's playthrough as I did with Roche's path in TW2.

 

[Jou05]

For me its:
1. TW2
2. TW3
3. TW1

1. TW2
TW2 had easily the best storyline, I loved the complex politics and how intriguing and exciting it was throughout (from the prologue until the end at Loc Muinne)
The characters were awesome (Iorveth, Broche etc.) choices mattered and were interesting (no silly choices like in TW3, see the Ciri interactions)
Also the villians were great (Letho, Phillipa etc.) and overall it has one of the best stories in any game I have played

2. TW3
TW3 does many things better like graphics, gameplay, voice acting and side quests but the main story (most important part for me) is underwhelming to say the least
The main problem of the game is that it panders to book fans and newcomers instead of being a good sequel to TW2
Nothing mattered anymore (Anais who?, Iorveth & Saskia etc.) and the politics were dumbed down (Radovid becoming mad)

Personally I didn't care for Yennefer at all and I also felt the game focused way too much on Ciri (another thing it took from the books), she is interesting sure and likable too but this is Geralt's final game so its a shame that he and his friends got shafted in favour of her (see the endings)

The Wild Hunt were terrible and underdeveloped villians (after Letho a huge disappointment) and the last act was rushed
The story relied on feels rather than logic (Bioware-style, see the White Frost stuff or Vesemir dying)

It was not very exciting and felt padded out, though it did have some good writing (Bloody Baron questline)

3. TW1
TW1 in hindsight has a great atmosphere and makes me nostalgic BUT the lackluster voice acting, book rip offs (Triss being Yen 2.0 and Alvin Ciri-lite), the bad gameplay etc. all take it down

And contrary to TW3 it didn't have a good open world so it comes last for me
If CDPR knew that TW would be a trilogy from the beginning I think they would have done many things differently

 

[SystemShock7]

Hard to say which one was better for me between 1 and 2, but 1 and 2 gave me "The Witcher Experience", and TW3 didn't feel like it did. Maybe I lean a bit towards TW2, just because the 2 path thing...

TW3 did give me the worst controls in any game I have ever played...

And open world? Schmopen world. Don't believe the hype.

 

[dremvar]

For me it is W3 > W1 > W2

I didn't like how linear W2 was. I also liked the story in W3 and W1 way more than W2. I did like some of the characters in W2 a lot.

It is kind of sad how so many people prefer the mindless hand holding of Witcher 2, giving the player little freedom, and just following along a story.

Creating a linear game, instead of open world, is essentially dumbing the game down for people who want a more canned experience instead of having the freedom to choose what to do yourself.

 

[FrostKaiser]

Story: TW2>TW1>TW3

Gameplay: TW3>>>>TW2>TW1

Music: TW3>TW2>TW1

Graphics: TW2(at the time, it impressed me more)>TW3>TW1

 

[TudorAdrian]

W1 was brave and brought something new to the scene so I admired them for that. The story was intriguing and actually drew me in.
W2 topped everything W1 brought to the table and blew every RPG (in my own opinion) out of the water with its plot line. It really was a very cool, intriguing and captivating story which actually had the player invested in the protagonist's strife and the supporting characters.
W3...well, aside from the side-quests, which as you guys pointed out it's just SWTOR style, and gameplay it fell flat on its face..the main story was pure crap after the Crones/Bloody Baron questilne died down. WITCHER 3: THE WILD HUNT had NO Wild Hunt..heck, most of the game was centered around Ciri..which was hugely disappointing seeing how this was to be Geralt's last chapter...I could write a shitload of lines about how much the story and characters were just R-U-S-H-E-D the F*** UP to deliver a half backed game to appease the masses but I'll just settle with un-installing this poor attempt at a "crowning achievement of the RPG genre" or "the last chapter in Geralt's saga" or "Geralt going out with a bang" and moving on. F*** this SH!T ...wasn't worth the hype and building our hopes up.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Overall narrative: TW2 > TW1 > TW3

Character writing: TW3 > TW2 > TW1 (with exceptions)

Atmosphere: TW2 = TW1 > TW3

Choice&Consequence: TW2 > TW1 > TW3 (with exceptions)

Combat gameplay: TW3 > TW1 > TW2

Exploration: TW3 = TW1 = TW2

Visuals/graphics: TW3 > TW2 >> TW1

Audio/music/VO: TW2 = TW3 = TW1

Lore continuity: TW2 > TW 1 = TW3 (with exceptions)


That's just a rough overall assessment. These games are big and some aspects are complex with different shapes in the respective games.

 

[Juzzieb]

W1 was brave and brought something new to the scene so I admired them for that. The story was intriguing and actually drew me in.
W2 topped everything W1 brought to the table and blew every RPG (in my own opinion) out of the water with its plot line. It really was a very cool, intriguing and captivating story which actually had the player invested in the protagonist's strife and the supporting characters.
W3...well, aside from the side-quests, which as you guys pointed out it's just SWTOR style, and gameplay it fell flat on its face..the main story was pure crap after the Crones/Bloody Baron questilne died down. WITCHER 3: THE WILD HUNT had NO Wild Hunt..heck, most of the game was centered around Ciri..which was hugely disappointing seeing how this was to be Geralt's last chapter...I could write a shitload of lines about how much the story and characters were just R-U-S-H-E-D the F*** UP to deliver a half backed game to appease the masses but I'll just settle with un-installing this poor attempt at a "crowning achievement of the RPG genre" or "the last chapter in Geralt's saga" or "Geralt going out with a bang" and moving on. F*** this SH!T ...wasn't worth the hype and building our hopes up.

The Wild Hunt in the title meant that Geralt was going on a wild hunt for Ciri I believe XD That's the only way to make sense of it.

 

[TudorAdrian]

The Wild Hunt in the title meant that Geralt was going on a wild hunt for Ciri I believe XD That's the only way to make sense of it.

...that's a poor attempt to justify what we got..I thought the same thing and it seemed like a very shitty way to throw people off...although it matters not at this point...instead of just putting out bleak DLC (..and I'm pretty sure that content's been there before release...suspect a marketing stunt as opposed to what they did with W2) they could have done something about their main story, characters and villains.

 

[Krull32]

At the moment The Witcher 2

Greater is not better..
Perfect example The Witcher 3....

Maybe it will change in future...Ask again when version 3.5 arrives

 

[Hatubi]

TW3 had many magic moments. The romance scenes were beautiful and touching. Some scenes with Geralt and Ciri were adorable and heart-melting. Certain scenes were absolutely hilarious ("You're a genius, Lambert!") while others presented a nice mixture of great storytelling with just the right atmosphere (the crones, oh the crones). And then there were some excellent dramatic scenes, such as the battle of Kaer Morhen.

Yep, TW3 had numerous great moments, unmatched in quality and quantity. But TW2 had a great STORY, and in that it surpasses TW3. The story in TW3 is sometimes pretty good, sometimes pretty messy, not always cohesive, and though it is not bad by any means, you are left with a clear feeling it could have been done better. Not so in TW2, which presented perhaps the most clever, complicated, engrossing story I've seen in video games.

In all other elements, though, I think TW3 is the better game. On top of that, it had to deal with the expectations created by TW2, and did so admirably for the most part. For that I give my vote to TW3, but only by a hair's breadth.

 

[inanimate_object]

The Witcher 2 is the full realization of CDPR'S potential. Jaw-dropping future-proof graphical fidelity with ridiculously good lighting and occlusion, a dynamic and interactive story, paced to near perfection and with a constant sense of urgency, much improved gameplay and a script that seemed to have been written by people passed the age of 17. Witcher 3 is a disappointing mess of fetishizing source-material to the point where it becomes little more than an annoying, reoccurring name-drop, writing a story that serves only to shove the open world in your face and unimpressive tessellation and lighting improvements.

Witcher 3 had pretty good facial animations and is an amazing realization of Nvidia Hairworks. Besides that I don't see anything in Witcher 3 that stands out as anything beyond mediocrity.