Hm, I think our definitions of "maturity" might differ then. Imho TW2 was a tour de force of mature topics while TW3 has way too much "gamey" filler. And it lacks the narrative and atmospheric density of TW2 which gave the mature topics more depth and impact there...
The core of TW2 was its mature, complex, emotional and deep narrative. The core of TW3 is its open world.
Hard choice but for me it's between W2 and W3. Witcher 3 is superior to Witcher 2 in many aspects like stunning visuals, living / rich open world, great contracts, voice acting, writting, secondary quests, music etc... But I think I liked Witcher's 2 story more.
Other than that I absolutely agree with all the praise that W3 gets. As long time RPG gamer I agree with people statement how Witcher 3 set the highest possible bar for RPG genre and it's gonna be hard to top it.
After playing W3 and experiencing all the great things I just cant look at all other generic RPGs from companies like Bethesda - focus on freedom of gameplay but with complete lack to anything else. Mostly crap quests, absolutely forgetable characters, generic stories and sub-par gameplay. No thanks.
So for me overall it's W3 > W2 > W1
Other than that I absolutely agree with all the praise that W3 gets. As long time RPG gamer I agree with people statement how Witcher 3 set the highest possible bar for RPG genre and it's gonna be hard to top it.
After playing W3 and experiencing all the great things I just cant look at all other generic RPGs from companies like Bethesda - focus on freedom of gameplay but with complete lack to anything else. Mostly crap quests, absolutely forgetable characters, generic stories and sub-par gameplay. No thanks.
So for me overall it's W3 > W2 > W1
Personally, I was very disappointed of Witcher 2. I missed a lot of the atmosphere I got from Witcher 1 and this brilliant books of Sapkowski which are truly masterpieces of modern fantasy. I loved this unique mixture of slavic myths and dark fantasy. Witcher 2 is only dark fantasy, but the "fairy tale feeling" is missing in most parts of the game. The story concentrates on politics - that's not bad, but it lacks variety. And the story totally looses his credibility in Act 2. The storyline with Saskia in Vergen is a complete mess, in my opinion. Saskia may be cute, but I can't believe that the inhabitants of Vergen chose her as their leader. Searching the ingredients for her was so boring and felt like a big fetch quest. And this intoxication was very strange - there is no taster? No other magical control? And now we need the blood of a king... Really? Why does the blood of a king differ from other blood? Sounds like a typical high fantasy cliché, but is a shame for the witcher world where kings aren't better than other people.
Oh, and the dispute of the two trolls because of Triss was so ridicilous... Like a soap opera for trolls... Maybe funny as a side quest... But as part of the main quest?
I only played the Iorweth path because I couldn't motivate myself to play the game again. So maybe the Roche path is better, I don't know.
Personally, I think almost everything I've seen from Witcher 3 is much better (I didn't finish the game yet. I wasn't even at Skellige). I loved the whole main plot in Velen and I also liked what I've already seen from Novigrad (have just finished "Get Junior"). The Bloody Baron is one of the greatest characters I've ever seen in video games. And the crones bring back the fantastic fairy tale feeling of the first game and the books. Novigrad is the greatest city I've ever seen in a videogame, even better than Wyzima. Flotsam and Vergen were very small and lifeless compared to Novigrad or Wyzima - another reason why I didn't enjoy Witcher 2 as much as the other games.
Don't get me wrong - Witcher 2 is still a good game. But in my opinion, it's not a masterpiece. I have to finish Witcher 3 before I can say if it's a masterpiece but at the moment, I'm very optimistic.
Oh, and the dispute of the two trolls because of Triss was so ridicilous... Like a soap opera for trolls... Maybe funny as a side quest... But as part of the main quest?
I only played the Iorweth path because I couldn't motivate myself to play the game again. So maybe the Roche path is better, I don't know.
Personally, I think almost everything I've seen from Witcher 3 is much better (I didn't finish the game yet. I wasn't even at Skellige). I loved the whole main plot in Velen and I also liked what I've already seen from Novigrad (have just finished "Get Junior"). The Bloody Baron is one of the greatest characters I've ever seen in video games. And the crones bring back the fantastic fairy tale feeling of the first game and the books. Novigrad is the greatest city I've ever seen in a videogame, even better than Wyzima. Flotsam and Vergen were very small and lifeless compared to Novigrad or Wyzima - another reason why I didn't enjoy Witcher 2 as much as the other games.
Don't get me wrong - Witcher 2 is still a good game. But in my opinion, it's not a masterpiece. I have to finish Witcher 3 before I can say if it's a masterpiece but at the moment, I'm very optimistic.
Last edited:
My reasons for like Witcher 2 better mainly come down to the characters.
Despite Witcher 3 supposedly being more personal, I felt Witcher 2 was much more so. I played through the entire game and I always picked what was best for my friends instead of the "good of the world". It felt like Geralt just trying to get him and his friends through tough times. I let Letho live because I didn't really care for kings (Foltest was pretty badass though), I let Roche kill Henselt, I saved Triss, etc. Related to the characters, one of my biggest complaints was how Triss went from the female mascot for The Witcher to a side character. She was basically the 2nd main character. Even though I am fine with Ciri taking that role in the third game, I feel Triss still should have been of similar importance in 3 as the previous games.
Despite Witcher 3 supposedly being more personal, I felt Witcher 2 was much more so. I played through the entire game and I always picked what was best for my friends instead of the "good of the world". It felt like Geralt just trying to get him and his friends through tough times. I let Letho live because I didn't really care for kings (Foltest was pretty badass though), I let Roche kill Henselt, I saved Triss, etc. Related to the characters, one of my biggest complaints was how Triss went from the female mascot for The Witcher to a side character. She was basically the 2nd main character. Even though I am fine with Ciri taking that role in the third game, I feel Triss still should have been of similar importance in 3 as the previous games.
The Witcher 3 destroys both previous games and I love those games.
It has given me way more emotions, both in humor and sadness. It has beautiful detailed world that is pure joy to explore. It has huge number of great characters, more than both previous games combines. And I enjoyed pretty much every single dialogue in the game. It's no contest.
It has given me way more emotions, both in humor and sadness. It has beautiful detailed world that is pure joy to explore. It has huge number of great characters, more than both previous games combines. And I enjoyed pretty much every single dialogue in the game. It's no contest.
Witcher 2 better than Witcher 3, bla bla bla . . .
Nope. The Witcher core was "THE PATH". The Witcher 1 & 2 don't depict at all about "The Path". Witcher 3 show how the Witcher path is. Go from town to town to do his main quest, which are killing monster... either it's small or big. Looking for Ciri is Geralt-personal's Quest. Looking for Monster to be slay is Witcher-Main's quest.
If the Batman Arkam Knight icon-tag were "BE THE BATMAN". The Witcher 3 depict more "BE THE WITCHER".
If the Witcher 3 was create only for Main Quest which find Ciri and defend her for the Wild Hunt, it's not an original story. How many movies and games that told about a father looking for his missing child, and when he found her, he had to defend her from people who hunting her. This story is cliche man...
The power of Witcher 3 will always be the Open-World and it's wide variety and quantity of Side-quest.
I just hope, Witcher 4 (if they developing it). Had the same Open-World with x10 times larger than witcher 3, with more abundant but lots variety of it's side-quest. Of course, I'm expecting it will be 50~100 hours of main Quest. So combined it will be 2.000 hours of gameplay so people can now talk how they want to throw up, instead criticizing the game.
:yes:
Nope. The Witcher core was "THE PATH". The Witcher 1 & 2 don't depict at all about "The Path". Witcher 3 show how the Witcher path is. Go from town to town to do his main quest, which are killing monster... either it's small or big. Looking for Ciri is Geralt-personal's Quest. Looking for Monster to be slay is Witcher-Main's quest.
If the Batman Arkam Knight icon-tag were "BE THE BATMAN". The Witcher 3 depict more "BE THE WITCHER".
If the Witcher 3 was create only for Main Quest which find Ciri and defend her for the Wild Hunt, it's not an original story. How many movies and games that told about a father looking for his missing child, and when he found her, he had to defend her from people who hunting her. This story is cliche man...
The power of Witcher 3 will always be the Open-World and it's wide variety and quantity of Side-quest.
I just hope, Witcher 4 (if they developing it). Had the same Open-World with x10 times larger than witcher 3, with more abundant but lots variety of it's side-quest. Of course, I'm expecting it will be 50~100 hours of main Quest. So combined it will be 2.000 hours of gameplay so people can now talk how they want to throw up, instead criticizing the game.
:yes:
I wouldn't hold my breath for W4....if it does indeed happen, it will be in a very long time from now..heck, our interest in gaming might even go down 'till then. Best hopes for enhancing the experience & fixing the plot holes is:
a) DLC / expansions
b) Enhanced Edition treatment
I see someone has a problem with different opinions lol
Although I like TW3 and its open world, TW2 is vastly superior
I never asked for a Witcher simulator, I care most qbout the main plot and the one in TW3 was indeed cliche and underwhelming
Lol ease up guys
..though I'd have to agree here...W2's story felt more mature and developed with enough twists and proper pacing to keep you hooked in till the very end..Witcher 3 did a LOT of things right but the main story was not one of these things..at least not after the Crones / Bloody Baron plot line died down.Lol ease up guys
Yeah the main story was disappointing, Act 1 was fine but Act 2 +3 were mostly a mess and very rushed, not to mention how none of our choices matter etc.
Thankfully ithe game has a good open world and awesome side quests so overall TW3 is still great
Very tough choice. TW3 is an incredible achievement combining the open world with a multifaceted story line but it is so vast that it discourages exploring the what ifs. TW2 was a rich novelette that could produce a different story with each time through encouraging multiple play through. Both games were worth the money and time invested.
TW2. The smaller, more focused approached produced a much richer experience, with more atmospheric locales like Flotsam that just aren't rivaled by anything in TW3 for the most part. The writing was also vastly superior to TW3 apart from the Baron, with tighter and more intimate interactions with characters like Dandelion, Roche, Iorveth, Zoltan etc. In TW3, all characters are practically separate from each other, interacting only minimally and briefly with Geralt for the most part, and feel more like cameos than actual parts of the story. The main narrative is the most important part and they dropped the ball with TW3 in this regard, it comes across as bad fan fiction more than anything.
TW2 was definitely the best game in the series. The main problem I have with TW3 is the mood/atmosphere. The amount of sunshine and pretty looking places is just gaudy. I mean, I don't have a problem with that on a general level, but it doesn't work at all with The Witcher. Something I really admired about TW2 upon first playing it was it's dark, gritty, dirty environment. In a certain kind of way, it reminded me of dark souls. Moreover, it felt like I was in The Witcher's world. TW3 feels like i'm in a generic idealized fantasy world. There is absolutely no sense of encroaching darkness. Also, the story in TW3 is fairly lackluster while TW2's story felt very compelling. TW3 basically felt rushed, like it was supposed to be better but they just decided: screw it, open world. That is where the main problem lies. The big open world was so overly ambitious that it seemed the storyline ended up being sacrificed for it because they couldn't do both perfectly and decided that the open world was more important.
[ I almost forgot (and decided why not put it here near the first paragraph) about the comic strip things that tell storyline. WOW were they better in TW2! That is all xD ]
Another big thing was the lack of consequence. I was really pretty disappointed that my decisions in TW2 meant nothing in TW3. I was annoyed that Radovid somehow went insane when he had seemed like a pretty reasonable person in TW2. I was similarly annoyed that the Scoi'atel and The Order of the Flaming Rose were nowhere to be found. Okay, so that's not entirely true, there was one tiny, barely worth mentioning group of Scoi'atel. The Order not being there was strange though. A city pretty much ruled by the Eternal Fire and there's not one knight of the Order...? Actually, to be honest, there aren't any knights at all in this game unless you count the dead Temerian knights you find sometimes in piles of bodies or the (living) Nilgaardian pikemen. I really expected that at least Radovid would have some knights with him on that "OBVIOUSLY A SETUP" assassination mission. You guys can't honestly tell me you don't miss that awesome plate armor from TW2! Oh, and lets not forget the worst part of this game... Not enough Triss!! The first time I played TW2, I was genuinely concerned about her well-being and it seemed pretty obvious that even though you were surrounded by awesome politics, you're whole purpose in the game was to find and save Triss. She was the main love interest of Geralt in the games and had/has a seemingly cult following. I mean, come on, they put her on the cover of Playboy in Poland. They can't just toss her aside after all this! I haven't read the books but this is a Witcher game. And so far as I understand it, the games well-deviated from the stories. You can't make two games that are separate canon and then introduce a third game that follows the original book canon. This is perhaps the easiest way to put it, i think: The Witcher 3 is in a different series than the first two games. The game is pretty much like all other game series; the games follow a certain path until they reach an acceptable level of notoriety, then they lose the subtlety and go for the heavy handed approach that attracts the masses. It's just kind-of a let down firstly to the feeling I got upon completing TW2 of: ":O I CANNOT WAIT FOR THE NEXT GAME!!!!!!!" and then the massive hype surrounding the announcement of TW3.
Now, all this is not to discount TW3, because it is a good game and I liked playing it, it's just not really a Witcher game in my opinion. And I definitely get the heavy handed approach; after all, CDPR wants to make lots of money, so who can blame them. After all, seeing as how the point for them (or anyone) is to make money, and attracting the masses makes the most money, it's only logical. Open World is in style these days so they made it open world because that sells copies. I can't really argue with that. (This is simply my opinion, I have no intent to insult anyone else's opinion)
Thus ends my first post.
[ I almost forgot (and decided why not put it here near the first paragraph) about the comic strip things that tell storyline. WOW were they better in TW2! That is all xD ]
Another big thing was the lack of consequence. I was really pretty disappointed that my decisions in TW2 meant nothing in TW3. I was annoyed that Radovid somehow went insane when he had seemed like a pretty reasonable person in TW2. I was similarly annoyed that the Scoi'atel and The Order of the Flaming Rose were nowhere to be found. Okay, so that's not entirely true, there was one tiny, barely worth mentioning group of Scoi'atel. The Order not being there was strange though. A city pretty much ruled by the Eternal Fire and there's not one knight of the Order...? Actually, to be honest, there aren't any knights at all in this game unless you count the dead Temerian knights you find sometimes in piles of bodies or the (living) Nilgaardian pikemen. I really expected that at least Radovid would have some knights with him on that "OBVIOUSLY A SETUP" assassination mission. You guys can't honestly tell me you don't miss that awesome plate armor from TW2!
Oh, and lets not forget the worst part of this game... Not enough Triss!! The first time I played TW2, I was genuinely concerned about her well-being and it seemed pretty obvious that even though you were surrounded by awesome politics, you're whole purpose in the game was to find and save Triss. She was the main love interest of Geralt in the games and had/has a seemingly cult following. I mean, come on, they put her on the cover of Playboy in Poland. They can't just toss her aside after all this! I haven't read the books but this is a Witcher game. And so far as I understand it, the games well-deviated from the stories. You can't make two games that are separate canon and then introduce a third game that follows the original book canon. This is perhaps the easiest way to put it, i think: The Witcher 3 is in a different series than the first two games. The game is pretty much like all other game series; the games follow a certain path until they reach an acceptable level of notoriety, then they lose the subtlety and go for the heavy handed approach that attracts the masses. It's just kind-of a let down firstly to the feeling I got upon completing TW2 of: ":O I CANNOT WAIT FOR THE NEXT GAME!!!!!!!" and then the massive hype surrounding the announcement of TW3. Now, all this is not to discount TW3, because it is a good game and I liked playing it, it's just not really a Witcher game in my opinion. And I definitely get the heavy handed approach; after all, CDPR wants to make lots of money, so who can blame them. After all, seeing as how the point for them (or anyone) is to make money, and attracting the masses makes the most money, it's only logical. Open World is in style these days so they made it open world because that sells copies. I can't really argue with that. (This is simply my opinion, I have no intent to insult anyone else's opinion)
Thus ends my first post.
TW2 is the masterpiece that wil be remembered
Jesus when i only think about heading to Loc Muinne with Roche for the final confrontation with Letho. When Roche talks about his men from the Blue Stripes, how he raised them and they were not only his friends but his family and now they're all dead... The story, the music, the characters, the politics.
The scene when Geralt leaves with Triss Loc Muinne after facing Letho, and when Geralt closes the gates of Loc Muinne and during doing so the little ladybug flies over to him and lands on his finger...after alle the death, destruction, loss, love and pain he get's to experience that not everything is lost and that there's still beauty somewhere out there...and then he closes the gate and moves on into a new adventure.
Jesus when i only think about heading to Loc Muinne with Roche for the final confrontation with Letho. When Roche talks about his men from the Blue Stripes, how he raised them and they were not only his friends but his family and now they're all dead... The story, the music, the characters, the politics.
The scene when Geralt leaves with Triss Loc Muinne after facing Letho, and when Geralt closes the gates of Loc Muinne and during doing so the little ladybug flies over to him and lands on his finger...after alle the death, destruction, loss, love and pain he get's to experience that not everything is lost and that there's still beauty somewhere out there...and then he closes the gate and moves on into a new adventure.
Last edited:
for me the Witcher 3 is the best, but still a hard desicion, so many great memorys.............also the Witcher 1 will always have a special place on my list, after all its the game that started everything, this whole great journy
TW1 had a better story IMO, despite the amnesia cliché.
TW2 worked well as a sequel nly if you romanced Triss. If you choose Shani it made no sense from start: with all effort made to establish Roche/Iorveth paths it won't be that hard at least start the game alone, using a Shani save, and then find some reason for joining Triss later.
TW3 lost some pace in 3rd Act... I found Uma silly, Skellige empty, Yen - Ciri relationship failed... Shani should be a main romance option equal to Triss (highlights are correctly on Yennefer this time).
That said, TW3 is the best game. Some sidequests are better than TW1 and TW2 main story.
TW2 worked well as a sequel nly if you romanced Triss. If you choose Shani it made no sense from start: with all effort made to establish Roche/Iorveth paths it won't be that hard at least start the game alone, using a Shani save, and then find some reason for joining Triss later.
TW3 lost some pace in 3rd Act... I found Uma silly, Skellige empty, Yen - Ciri relationship failed... Shani should be a main romance option equal to Triss (highlights are correctly on Yennefer this time).
That said, TW3 is the best game. Some sidequests are better than TW1 and TW2 main story.
Plot: (HoS > ) 2>3>1
Characters:3=2>1
Atmosphere:1>2>3
Politics:2>1>3
Romance:3>1>2
Choice&Consequence:1>=2>3
Overall story:2>1>3
Combat,Signs,Alchemy etc:3>2>=1
Skills&Progression:3>1>2
Enemy types&Bosses:3>1>2
Overall gameplay:3>1>2
Visual design:2>1>=3
Open world&Side quests:3>1>2
Overall world:3>2>1
OVERALL:3>2>1
Characters:3=2>1
Atmosphere:1>2>3
Politics:2>1>3
Romance:3>1>2
Choice&Consequence:1>=2>3
Overall story:2>1>3
Combat,Signs,Alchemy etc:3>2>=1
Skills&Progression:3>1>2
Enemy types&Bosses:3>1>2
Overall gameplay:3>1>2
Visual design:2>1>=3
Open world&Side quests:3>1>2
Overall world:3>2>1
OVERALL:3>2>1
Hard to say... kinda... Witcher 2 was my first Witcher game and it was something that you can experience only once in a life time
Game was short, very short And those maps were so small.
And then came the Witcher 3! All the way to the Battle Of Kaer Morhen, that game was just constant fireworks, fabulous, huge, beautiful. After that something (sidequests?) disappeared, but it was still good. I missed that "do this or do that but don't do both" choice, which leaded you whole different paths and places. Now you could really spent time with that game, a lots of time. And that was good Now I'm on my second run and there's going to be third, or even fourth in a row. So, I think the Witcher 3 wins this one Two times in a row was enough for W2. Witcher 3 put very high standards for games released in the future. That huge and beautiful world alone is enough to keep you playing. And those great quests are wonderful extra
Witcher 1 is pc only, so playing it is not an option for me Maybe sometimes in the future my laptop can handle that game, but not this laptop. Or maybe they release W1 on consoles *wink wink*. I'm not going to get pc just for one game, not even for a Witcher, so don't even mention about it. I have played with pc enough to know I don't like it.
I loved that kinda story, where you had to choose which way to go. You couldn't do both. What a fantastic reason to play again! There was two totally different paths in different locations and the world really changed with your choices. In my first game there was a happy party in town and in second game that town was burning.
And those maps were so small.And then came the Witcher 3! All the way to the Battle Of Kaer Morhen, that game was just constant fireworks, fabulous, huge, beautiful. After that something (sidequests?) disappeared, but it was still good. I missed that "do this or do that but don't do both" choice, which leaded you whole different paths and places. Now you could really spent time with that game, a lots of time. And that was good
Now I'm on my second run and there's going to be third, or even fourth in a row. So, I think the Witcher 3 wins this one Two times in a row was enough for W2. Witcher 3 put very high standards for games released in the future. That huge and beautiful world alone is enough to keep you playing. And those great quests are wonderful extra Witcher 1 is pc only, so playing it is not an option for me
Maybe sometimes in the future my laptop can handle that game, but not this laptop. Or maybe they release W1 on consoles *wink wink*. I'm not going to get pc just for one game, not even for a Witcher, so don't even mention about it. I have played with pc enough to know I don't like it.