Tw1 < tw3 < tw2

[makitenmakiten]

Tw1 &lt; tw3 &lt; tw2

For me TW3 not beat TW2, when it comes to history, serious and adult content, with political consequences.
TW3 is a good game, but not as great as expected.
What do you think?

 

[Jurigag]

For me it's obvious - tw1 > tw2 > tw3, tw3 for 2/3 of game was great and epic but last 1/3 pretty much ruined all epicness

 

[makitenmakiten]

tw3 for 2/3 of game was great and epic but last 1/3 pretty much ruined all epicness

Yes, I felt that too

 

[Wendek]

Well I still prefer TW1 for the alchemy system. Found it rubbish in TW2 (especially oils that wouldn't last for half a fight) and I don't like the automatically-replenish system of TW3.
I prefer TW2 for the romance, the political intrigues and overall impact of our decisions as a player. As well as the excellent main quest with the dual path system. Also preferred the talent tree of that one, even if it was clearly unbalanced.
I prefer TW3's sidequests and worldbuilding. A few of the best moments I've ever had in all the games combined are from that game (mainly :the Bloody Baron's quest)

Overall I agree with OP and The Witcher 2 remains my favorite installment of the series. The Witcher 3 is a good game and a great AAA game - but not really the next "Witcher" game to me. It's toned down a bit much for my taste.
Also cartoonish villains suck. Jacques d'Aldersberg and Letho were so much more interesting. Imlerith and Eredin are pathetic, even Joffrey in GoT has a deeper personality.

 

[jj284b]

it is actually funny you are bringing up the importance of decisions in W2, when in reality those made very little impact on the world of W3... and its actually a great decision.. many things that look important today are later seen as just episodes which had no impact at all... Nilfgard invaded, Radovid hunted sorceresses and mages... so impact wise, W3 dominates previous games big time... war is resolved, but thats just a minor thing compared to another conjunction of spheres happening and things that it will necessarily bring in the future...

 

[Wendek]

Well that's because TW3 did a huge retcon. Out of four endings in TW2, the witch hunt only happened in two for instance - it was one of the hardest choices to make because both decisions could be argued for and against. (It was obvious the witch hunt would bring much suffering to the land - but saving Anais/Saskia was the only way to guarantee Temeria's/Vergen's independence. Both of which end up doomed to fail in TW3) But instead it was retconned so that the witch hunt happens no matter what, so of course it feels like TW2's events had no repercussion. But that's just because the devs decided that TW3 should pretty much be a pure sequel to the books and thus TW2 had to be ignored for the most part.

 

[CTPhipps]

The Witch Hunt only happens in Novigrad. Which isn't even part of Redania.

Likewise, the Nilfgaard invasion occurred at the end of AOK and is implied to be destined to wipe out Saskia's kingdom no matter what.

It's dramatic irony that the Pontar Valley War was never going to matter as Nilfgaard invades it in AOK to defeat the Winner.

Henselt and Saskia could never have successfully defended it either way.

 

[Dracolich55]

My preferred order is TW3>TW1>TW2. Sure Tw3 ha sits faults with the story, but when I look at the bigger picture, and see what CDPR has done, I cannot help but give them a round of applause for this masterpiece. I think TW3 suffers from the hype really, all hyped up conclusions to series fall flat not because they are objectively bad games but because of expectations.

 

[smilydude13]

As for writing and main narrative my order would be TW2>TW1>TW3, at least in terms of main narrative. TW3 excels at side narratives like the Baron, but has terrible pacing, weak antagonists, and plot holes galore with a massive deus ex machina at the end. Not only that it dramatically simplifies or completely shafts well-liked and established characters like Dijkstra, Ciri, and Vesemir who seems to only be around to die. Whereas TW2 presented flawed, not wholly good or bad characters like Letho, Iorveth, and Roche, had a plot that made sense (even if it was cut short) and pretty much never took the easy way out, and TW1 established a good theme of neutrality/cause and effect, and the twist with Alvin was masterful.

 

[Pug.]

Meh, I tried the first Witcher game and just could not get into it. I might attempt again sometime ... but I am just not into old school isometric/quasi isometric RPG's anymore. I played Neverwinter Nights back it the day. It was fun then. Now, not so much.

I find it ironic that some people are ranking the Witcher 2 ahead of Wild Hunt because the latter admittedly falters a bit in the third act. Wasn't the second game embroiled in the same controversy? That's why they released an enhanced edition. I imagine they will probably end up doing the same with Wild Hunt.

I enjoy the Witcher 2, it's a fantastic game, but I find the combat more responsive and less wonky in Wild Hunt. And not to sound shallow, but the character models and graphics in Wild Hunt blow its predecessor out of the water (with the exception of a few locals, e.g. Flotsam). Add to that an improved musical score, a personal story that I find more compelling, and a secondary quest system which trumps anything I have seen thus far, and I rank the Witcher Wild Hunt first.

Witcher: Wild Hunt > Witcher 2 > Witcher 1

 

[smilydude13]

Meh, I tried the first Witcher game and just could not get into it. I might attempt again sometime ... but I am just not into old school isometric/quasi isometric RPG's anymore. I played Neverwinter Nights back it the day. It was fun then. Now, not so much.

I find it ironic that some people are ranking the Witcher 2 ahead of Wild Hunt because the latter admittedly falters a bit in the third act. Wasn't the second game embroiled in the same controversy? That's why they released an enhanced edition. I imagine they will probably end up doing the same with Wild Hunt.

I enjoy the Witcher 2, it's a fantastic game, but I find the combat more responsive and less wonky in Wild Hunt. And not to sound shallow, but the character models and graphics in Wild Hunt blow its predecessor out of the water (with the exception of a few locals, e.g. Flotsam). Add to that an improved musical score, a personal story that I find more compelling, and a secondary quest system which trumps anything I have seen thus far, and I rank the Witcher Wild Hunt first.

Witcher: Wild Hunt > Witcher 2 > Witcher 1

The Witcher was criticized for having a short third act, but as far as I remember, it wasn't criticized for having a third act that is flawed in the writing department as much as TW3 is. If TW3 was just light on content in the third act, but otherwise solid from a writing perspective, then my ranking would be a different story. But as it is, it's just an unbelievably sour note to end Geralt's and many other characters story on. TW2's ending left me wanting more and excited for TW3. TW3 left me feeling like I just read some terrible fan fiction that didn't even bother to stay consistent with previous games, let alone the books, and made me not excited for any Witcher building off of that.

 

[Pug.]

The Witcher was criticized for having a short third act, but as far as I remember, it wasn't criticized for having a third act that is flawed in the writing department as much as TW3 is. If TW3 was just light on content in the third act, but otherwise solid from a writing perspective, then my ranking would be a different story. But as it is, it's just an unbelievably sour note to end Geralt's and many other characters story on. TW2's ending left me wanting more and excited for TW3. TW3 left me feeling like I just read some terrible fan fiction that didn't even bother to stay consistent with previous games, let alone the books, and made me not excited for any Witcher building off of that.

What problems did you have with the writing in the third act? I'm just curious, not trying to flame-bait or anything.

I agree that there were some hiccups. The most glaring, in my mind, was the White Frost. As far as I understand, it doesn't really resemble it's counterpart in Andrzej Sapkowski's novels, nor is it clearly explained what exactly the White Frost is ... other than some sort of ice age that threatens to consume every inhabitable world. How exactly do you kill something like that? Ciri's last minute save kind of feels like a deus ex machina.

That was the only major problem that I had. Eredin needed development as an antagonist, but his agenda was pretty straightforward, and I didn't detect any massive plot-holes in that department.

I guess I'm just less critical than most. The whole Mass Effect 3 controversy went straight over my head as well. I kind of think it's like going to a five star restaurant, having an amazing meal, and then letting a rude valet spoil the entire evening for you. Why not just focus on the parts of the game that you enjoyed?

At any rate, I was happy with how it ended. I wanted to see Geralt develop his relationship with Ciri and his character attain some peace, happiness, and closure. I got that.

 

[Bobbtom]

TW3 started off good, but then the last 1/3 of the game amounted to nothing. The game just doesn't have that same feeling that W2 had. I could play W2 over and over again, but for now W3 is one of those games that I play once and never play again. Maybe it's those side quests and contract missions that just amount to,

1. Use fishbowl vision to see red stuff.
2. Kill monster at end of red stuff
3. Repeat to find more red stuff.

 

[makitenmakiten]

.

---------- Updated at 07:54 AM ----------

Well I still prefer TW1 for the alchemy system. Found it rubbish in TW2 (especially oils that wouldn't last for half a fight) and I don't like the automatically-replenish system of TW3.
I prefer TW2 for the romance, the political intrigues and overall impact of our decisions as a player. As well as the excellent main quest with the dual path system. Also preferred the talent tree of that one, even if it was clearly unbalanced.
I prefer TW3's sidequests and worldbuilding. A few of the best moments I've ever had in all the games combined are from that game (mainly :the Bloody Baron's quest)

Overall I agree with OP and The Witcher 2 remains my favorite installment of the series. The Witcher 3 is a good game and a great AAA game - but not really the next "Witcher" game to me. It's toned down a bit much for my taste.
Also cartoonish villains suck. Jacques d'Aldersberg and Letho were so much more interesting. Imlerith and Eredin are pathetic, even Joffrey in GoT has a deeper personality.

Yes, I expected much more of Eredin and the wild hunt

---------- Updated at 08:07 AM ----------

But that's just because the devs decided that TW3 should pretty much be a pure sequel to the books and thus TW2 had to be ignored for the most part.

I think that was the problem, they should have been much more faithful to their own interpretation, TW2 directly rather than books, because most people do not read them.

---------- Updated at 08:11 AM ----------

The Witch Hunt only happens in Novigrad. Which isn't even part of Redania.

Likewise, the Nilfgaard invasion occurred at the end of AOK and is implied to be destined to wipe out Saskia's kingdom no matter what.

It's dramatic irony that the Pontar Valley War was never going to matter as Nilfgaard invades it in AOK to defeat the Winner.

Henselt and Saskia could never have successfully defended it either way.

Exactly, all that was supposedly important TW2, had not any importance in TW3.

 

[jj284b]

The Witch Hunt only happens in Novigrad. Which isn't even part of Redania.

Likewise, the Nilfgaard invasion occurred at the end of AOK and is implied to be destined to wipe out Saskia's kingdom no matter what.

It's dramatic irony that the Pontar Valley War was never going to matter as Nilfgaard invades it in AOK to defeat the Winner.

Henselt and Saskia could never have successfully defended it either way.

no. Witch hunt happens in Redania and Novigrad.. everywhere where Radovid is in power.. just remember the discussion with Keira Metz, she told you that Radovid is hunting sorceresses and mages in the north like a fish in the barrel... so no, it really doesnt matter what you did in Loc Muine, because Radovid was set to kill Phillipa no matter what. his hatred towards mages and sorceresses caused the witch hunt. all you could do was start that witch hunt at full right there if you didnt saved Triss from Nilfgardians at Loc Muine.

 

[makitenmakiten]

Meh, I tried the first Witcher game and just could not get into it. I might attempt again sometime ... but I am just not into old school isometric/quasi isometric RPG's anymore. I played Neverwinter Nights back it the day. It was fun then. Now, not so much.

I find it ironic that some people are ranking the Witcher 2 ahead of Wild Hunt because the latter admittedly falters a bit in the third act. Wasn't the second game embroiled in the same controversy? That's why they released an enhanced edition. I imagine they will probably end up doing the same with Wild Hunt.

I enjoy the Witcher 2, it's a fantastic game, but I find the combat more responsive and less wonky in Wild Hunt. And not to sound shallow, but the character models and graphics in Wild Hunt blow its predecessor out of the water (with the exception of a few locals, e.g. Flotsam). Add to that an improved musical score, a personal story that I find more compelling, and a secondary quest system which trumps anything I have seen thus far, and I rank the Witcher Wild Hunt first.

Witcher: Wild Hunt > Witcher 2 > Witcher 1

I hope they release a enhanced edition that solves the issue.

---------- Updated at 08:38 AM ----------

TW3 started off good, but then the last 1/3 of the game amounted to nothing. The game just doesn't have that same feeling that W2 had. I could play W2 over and over again, but for now W3 is one of those games that I play once and never play again. Maybe it's those side quests and contract missions that just amount to,

1. Use fishbowl vision to see red stuff.
2. Kill monster at end of red stuff
3. Repeat to find more red stuff.

I do not know, if I never play again, but for now not sure. Maybe the expansions can improve the end.

 

[ultralars]

After having played the first witcher game three times, the second two times and now finished the third game, the third game is objectivly better in pretty much all departments, just like the second was much better than the first.

it comes with the fact that they obviusly had a much larger budget.

I hope the staff takes what people say here with a big grain of salt, seems all the whiny people congegrate here..

 

[Jou05]

it is actually funny you are bringing up the importance of decisions in W2, when in reality those made very little impact on the world of W3... and its actually a great decision.. many things that look important today are later seen as just episodes which had no impact at all... Nilfgard invaded, Radovid hunted sorceresses and mages... so impact wise, W3 dominates previous games big time... war is resolved, but thats just a minor thing compared to another conjunction of spheres happening and things that it will necessarily bring in the future...

Lol how is it TW2's fault that TW3 shitted on the choices made in TW2?

TW3 is pretty bad compared to TW2 in that regard
Instead of interesting choices we get some lame Parenting choices that influence the ending
Lets not even talk about how they handled the politics

Don't get me wrong TW3 is still a great game but thats because of the open world and the characters

 

[jj284b]

no, its not a fault of W2, neither W3... you had Nilfgardian invasion happening at the ending sequence of W2, therefore your choices in W2 were quite insignificant already... nobody could stop them, Nilfgardians dismantled Lodge, and killed kings to subjugate North easily. Henselt, Demaved and Foltest were the main obstacles during last Nilfgardian war (that happened in books), so removing them was important, while taking out mages who stopped Nilfgardians at Sodden was important as well... Nilfgardians played everybody, directly or indirectly, even Radovid was ultimately played, as they just made him to openly attack Philippa... so no, CDPR didnt made actions of W2 artifically insignificant in W3... those actions were already insignificant in W2 people just didnt realized it until Nilfgardians invaded.

 

[Charcharo]

TW1 had a lot of plotholes...

And was not very well tied to the books

It cant due to those reasons for me. I prefer Witcher 3 the most. Warts and all.

Now lets pray for STALKER 2