So what? It was justified by the story. If you're going to look for hints about Salamandra, you don't need to explore Kaer Morhen. Is open-world always the best solution? You can find new things in previous games too. In TW1 some side quests are available only at certain time e.g. there's a woman in Wyzima, who is tired of her passed husband. His ghost appears at night close to cementary and says nasty things about her. This woman will appear only at noon and she will be there for one hour (of game time). There are much more stuff like that in TW1. In TW2 I discovered hidden swamp in my second playthrough. Of course scale is not even close to TW3, but nobody said that previous games are big. They just represent smaller budget and different approach to game design.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Plenty of such stuff in W3 - a ghost woman is on the bridge to Blacksburg - again, she is there only at night, so a lot of players missed her - she gives you a quest to bring her wedding ring to her dead husband, yet if you dont have Keira's lamp, you wont be able to see what is really happening.. etc lots of things like this are placed all around W3 world...
Anyway, story wise, Witcher 3 story is most personal.. In W1, ok, they stole mutagens from you and killed one young witcher, yet it is nothing that would destroy Geralt completely... same in W2, ok, they blame you for Foltest death, but again, Geralt can live with it, and eventually, even forgive his killer for what hes done (at least i always did forgive Letho), yet, in Witcher 3, its all about saving one person that is the most dear to Geralt - Ciri.. so personally i don't understand people criticize lack of explaining behind The Wild Hunt motives... no father would try to understand motives of a kidnapper who wants to kidnap and kill his daughter.. so why they want this from Geralt?? Plus, entire motivation and whats going on, is still explained indirectly to players that payed attention - Tir Na Lia is being slowly destroyed by the White Frost, and Eredin wants to save his race by opening the large portal and perform full blown invasion into Witcher's world (and kill all humans once he is at it) for what he needs Ciri (or at least her body)... Avallach at the other side, wants Ciri's help to stop the White Frost instead... so yeah, i think story wise, W3 dominates both previous games.
Anyway, story wise, Witcher 3 story is most personal.. In W1, ok, they stole mutagens from you and killed one young witcher, yet it is nothing that would destroy Geralt completely... same in W2, ok, they blame you for Foltest death, but again, Geralt can live with it, and eventually, even forgive his killer for what hes done (at least i always did forgive Letho), yet, in Witcher 3, its all about saving one person that is the most dear to Geralt - Ciri.. so personally i don't understand people criticize lack of explaining behind The Wild Hunt motives... no father would try to understand motives of a kidnapper who wants to kidnap and kill his daughter.. so why they want this from Geralt?? Plus, entire motivation and whats going on, is still explained indirectly to players that payed attention - Tir Na Lia is being slowly destroyed by the White Frost, and Eredin wants to save his race by opening the large portal and perform full blown invasion into Witcher's world (and kill all humans once he is at it) for what he needs Ciri (or at least her body)... Avallach at the other side, wants Ciri's help to stop the White Frost instead... so yeah, i think story wise, W3 dominates both previous games.
Who is Ciri and why should Geralt care for when he lost his memory? Oh he's memory has return to him - when did that happen, and even if, why do you alienate the character of Geralt fron the player making him suddently care for people you, the player, hasn't met.Plenty of such stuff in W3 - a ghost woman is on the bridge to Blacksburg - again, she is there only at night, so a lot of players missed her - she gives you a quest to bring her wedding ring to her dead husband, yet if you dont have Keira's lamp, you wont be able to see what is really happening.. etc lots of things like this are placed all around W3 world...
Anyway, story wise, Witcher 3 story is most personal.. In W1, ok, they stole mutagens from you and killed one young witcher, yet it is nothing that would destroy Geralt completely... same in W2, ok, they blame you for Foltest death, but again, Geralt can live with it, and eventually, even forgive his killer for what hes done (at least i always did forgive Letho), yet, in Witcher 3, its all about saving one person that is the most dear to Geralt - Ciri.. so personally i don't understand people criticize lack of explaining behind The Wild Hunt motives... no father would try to understand motives of a kidnapper who wants to kidnap and kill his daughter.. so why they want this from Geralt?? Plus, entire motivation and whats going on, is still explained indirectly to players that payed attention - Tir Na Lia is being slowly destroyed by the White Frost, and Eredin wants to save his race by opening the large portal and perform full blown invasion into Witcher's world (and kill all humans once he is at it) for what he needs Ciri (or at least her body)... Avallach at the other side, wants Ciri's help to stop the White Frost instead... so yeah, i think story wise, W3 dominates both previous games.
And, 'if you read the books you'll understand' is no exuce - we are playing a game series, the continuity must be INTERNAL.
Now, I cared more about saving Triss and clearing Geralt name because Triss and Foltest were in the TW1 and the entire introduction of TW2
Who is Ciri and why should Geralt care for when he lost his memory? Oh he's memory has return to him - when did that happen, and even if, why do you alienate the character of Geralt fron the player making him suddently care for people you, the player, hasn't met.
And, 'if you read the books you'll understand' is no exuce - we are playing a game series, the continuity must be INTERNAL.
Now, I cared more about saving Triss and clearing Geralt name because Triss and Foltest were in the TW1 and the entire introduction of TW2
NO. This game is based on novels. and Novels define who and what Geralt is... you cannot exclude stories that happened in novels from game world. But lets get it back you you - Who is Triss then? just some sorceress that took advantage of a man that lost his memory? Mind you - he recovered his memory in W2, while whole memory storyline was created for W1 to begin with... If you exclude books, then how you wanna explain there was no explanation who Zoltan, Dandelion, Triss or other book characters are?? Plenty of things are refered from books, even in W1 and W2 btw.. and Ciri is the crucial character and the most important person for Geralt (yes, even more than Yennefer).. so you cannot just exclude her like you did... (besides, there is another motivation to hunt the Hunt and kill them all - they killed Vesemir, man who was practically like a father to Geralt..)
NO game based on a book would ever alienate book stories... that is why CDPR made a deal with Sapkowski, that they will base their stories story wise after his books and not within the same timeline or before (thats why Storm Season is placed to happen before main book story)
Yet, lets get back to original post - can W2 be played after W3? It can of course, yet all the choices made in W2 have much smaller impact than you thought they would have to begin with - all that politics machination is completely pointless in the end, and only thing it achieve is chaos that helps Nilfgaard to conquer the Northern Kingdoms, and of course Radovid's rise to power over remaining lands...
same is true for W1 - Aldersberg was shown ultimately as a misinformed man, he thought he is the chosen one to fight the White frost, but he was never supposed to be - men with Lara's gene are not the source, but always women... So his plan to save the world by creating supermutants was quite ridiculous to begin with... it wasnt his fate to defeat the White Frost...
Last edited:
Uh, do you really think that Andrzej Sapkowski cared, what story will be written for the games? No, he didn't. He doesn't know the story or even general overview and he still doesn't care. He has the full power over his characters and a story of hipothetical books. His works are canon, and TW games are and always will be only adaptations. He made Storm Season a sidequel, because he wanted to, not because he signed a deal. He's extremely proud of his books and he would never allow anyone to decide, how he should write next books. AS made clear long time ago that TW saga is finished and there won't be any sequels. But sidequel? Why not?NO game based on a book would ever alienate book stories... that is why CDPR made a deal with Sapkowski, that they will base their stories story wise after his books and not within the same timeline or before (thats why Storm Season is placed to happen before main book story)
Pointless? Do you play games only for save transfer? Game is really interesting, even if its decisions have little impact on sequel.Yet, lets get back to original post - can W2 be played after W3? It can of course, yet all the choices made in W2 have much smaller impact than you thought they would have to begin with - all that politics machination is completely pointless in the end,
It has NOTHING to do with excluding things from the novel. TW3 alienate both novel fans, game series fans and fans of both by having ZERO continuity to the previous installments. It didn't have to exclude Ciri (and if it excluded Yennefer it was even worse) but rather to explain to us how the fuck amnesiac Geralt had come to know and care for her THROUGHOUT THE GAME. Maybe throw returning memories of her, maybe just give us clues through dialogue, something. Do not throw at us the second most important character in the game out of nowhere.NO. This game is based on novels. and Novels define who and what Geralt is... you cannot exclude stories that happened in novels from game world. But lets get it back you you - Who is Triss then? just some sorceress that took advantage of a man that lost his memory? Mind you - he recovered his memory in W2, while whole memory storyline was created for W1 to begin with... If you exclude books, then how you wanna explain there was no explanation who Zoltan, Dandelion, Triss or other book characters are?? Plenty of things are refered from books, even in W1 and W2 btw.. and Ciri is the crucial character and the most important person for Geralt (yes, even more than Yennefer).. so you cannot just exclude her like you did... (besides, there is another motivation to hunt the Hunt and kill them all - they killed Vesemir, man who was practically like a father to Geralt..)
NO game based on a book would ever alienate book stories... that is why CDPR made a deal with Sapkowski, that they will base their stories story wise after his books and not within the same timeline or before (thats why Storm Season is placed to happen before main book story)
Yet, lets get back to original post - can W2 be played after W3? It can of course, yet all the choices made in W2 have much smaller impact than you thought they would have to begin with - all that politics machination is completely pointless in the end, and only thing it achieve is chaos that helps Nilfgaard to conquer the Northern Kingdoms, and of course Radovid's rise to power over remaining lands...
same is true for W1 - Aldersberg was shown ultimately as a misinformed man, he thought he is the chosen one to fight the White frost, but he was never supposed to be - men with Lara's gene are not the source, but always women... So his plan to save the world by creating supermutants was quite ridiculous to begin with... it wasnt his fate to defeat the White Frost...
In The Witcher 2 you spend an entire prologue and first act to know and care about Triss before she's kidnapped and by that time you have more than enough reasons to chase Letho.
In TW3's case however the premise of the story, finding Ciri comes out of thin air - no continuity, nothing. It doesn't matter if she was in the books because she didn't get any exposition to amnesiac Geralt. This is BAD WRITING, objectively.
Last edited:
It has NOTHING to do with excluding things from the novel. TW3 alienate both novel fans, game series fans and fans of both by having ZERO continuity to the previous installments. It didn't have to exclude Ciri (and if it excluded Yennefer it was even worse) but rather to explain to us how the fuck amnesiac Geralt had come to know and care for her THROUGHOUT THE GAME. Maybe throw returning memories of her, maybe just give us clues through dialogue, something. Do not throw at us the second most important character in the game out of nowhere.
In The Witcher 2 you spend an entire prologue and first act to know and care about Triss before she's kidnapped and by that time you have more than enough reasons to chase Letho.
In TW3's case however the premise of the story, finding Ciri comes out of thin air - no continuity, nothing. It doesn't matter if she was in the books because she didn't get any exposition to amnesiac Geralt. This is BAD WRITING, objectively.
Replay W2 then... he regained all his memory in W2 (cutscene with his death shows Ciri taking him and Yen to the boat)... not W3... so by W3 which happend 6 months after W2... he had all his memory back... so he knew exactly who Ciri and Yennefer is.. So how out of nowhere did they throw Ciri at you when you claim you read the books???
And btw, amnesia was just a short timed thing, result of brainwash Wild Hunt did on those who got away from them (maybe some sort of a last resort security spell that only activates once you are away from them.. its never realy explained, yet in W3 you at least can ask Yennefer about it
---------- Updated at 03:35 PM ----------
Uh, do you really think that Andrzej Sapkowski cared, what story will be written for the games? No, he didn't. He doesn't know the story or even general overview and he still doesn't care. He has the full power over his characters and a story of hipothetical books. His works are canon, and TW games are and always will be only adaptations. He made Storm Season a sidequel, because he wanted to, not because he signed a deal. He's extremely proud of his books and he would never allow anyone to decide, how he should write next books. AS made clear long time ago that TW saga is finished and there won't be any sequels. But sidequel? Why not?
Pointless? Do you play games only for save transfer? Game is really interesting, even if its decisions have little impact on sequel.
pointless in term what you guys give to W2 POLITICAL choices.. in the end all that political game was pointless because those goals lost any importance once Nilfgaard attacked... you dont agree, then tell me, where is John Natalis, or those Temerian nobles now, with Temeria occupied by Nilfgaard? was it that important to medle in to whole Anais issue and not just instead go and save Triss? And why killing Letho? he was played same way as everybody else was, and he only did that to save his school which proved to be futile thing as emperor organized a hunt on Letho afterwards... (and you can help him to get out of it in W3..)
And yes, there was an agreement between Sapkowski and CDPR when they bought the license about the continuity... after all CDPR owns the name "Witcher" which is used internationally...
Last edited:
I was thinking about TW2 alone, not about comparison between the two. TW2 is worth playing.pointless in term what you guys give to W2 POLITICAL choices..
Obviously Sapkowski sold rights for the games to CDPR, but he didn't sign an agreement that he can't write a sequel to the saga in the future. If you say he did, then show me the source of your information.And yes, there was an agreement between Sapkowski and CDPR when they bought the license about the continuity... after all CDPR owns the name "Witcher" which is used internationally...
Last edited:
and i never said otherwise.. W2 is worth playing... yet after W3, many of those political games just lost their importance.. personally, if i was to play it again, i would play it quite differently than when i played it back then...
and no, i was not suggesting that about Sapkowski, anyway he alone admitted he didn't wanted to write more about Geralt anymore.. and he wouldn't even write Storm Season if books didn't become more popular internationally, even thanks to popularity of games.
and no, i was not suggesting that about Sapkowski, anyway he alone admitted he didn't wanted to write more about Geralt anymore.. and he wouldn't even write Storm Season if books didn't become more popular internationally, even thanks to popularity of games.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure the topic isn't a discussion of whether or not you like TW3. This is the TW2 forum.
So please get back to the ACTUAL topic.
So please get back to the ACTUAL topic.
Last edited:
Replay W2 then... he regained all his memory in W2 (cutscene with his death shows Ciri taking him and Yen to the boat)... not W3... so by W3 which happend 6 months after W2... he had all his memory back... so he knew exactly who Ciri and Yennefer is.. So how out of nowhere did they throw Ciri at you when you claim you read the books???
And btw, amnesia was just a short timed thing, result of brainwash Wild Hunt did on those who got away from them (maybe some sort of a last resort security spell that only activates once you are away from them.. its never realy explained, yet in W3 you at least can ask Yennefer about it
...
No, there's not a single indication in TW2 that Geralt had fully regained his memory. This is factually incorrect. And if you think a word and half about Ciri is a sufficient exposition for amnesiac Geralt for the last game most important character you are not cut out to analyze stories.
Doesn't matter, the story must give proper explanation and build-up for returning memories of Geralt, whether memory regain happens on its own isn't relevant storytelling-wise
did you even play Witcher 2??? once you discover Shille is plotting with witchers from School of Viper, you have an animation where its said you regained your memory...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTN4e3mZcco
so, do yourself a favour and replay all games.. or you wanna tell this is not from Witcher 2???
Plus, Witcher 3 explains a lot about Ciri as you go.. whole Oneiromancer story in Novigrad, you have a discussion there where you are asked about things that link Geralt with Ciri, and he mentions all the important stuff that happened in books quite detailed...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTN4e3mZcco
so, do yourself a favour and replay all games.. or you wanna tell this is not from Witcher 2???
Plus, Witcher 3 explains a lot about Ciri as you go.. whole Oneiromancer story in Novigrad, you have a discussion there where you are asked about things that link Geralt with Ciri, and he mentions all the important stuff that happened in books quite detailed...
Last edited:
As I said earlier, a word and a half in a memory is no sufficient exposition for Geralt's memory regain. Later in the game we KNOW he hasn't restored all his memory from before The Wild Hunt incident, therefore Ciri does come out of nowheredid you even play Witcher 2??? once you discover Shille is plotting with witchers from School of Viper, you have an animation where its said you regained your memory...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTN4e3mZcco
so, do yourself a favour and replay all games.. or you wanna tell this is not from Witcher 2???
Plus, Witcher 3 explains a lot about Ciri as you go.. whole Oneiromancer story in Novigrad, you have a discussion there where you are asked about things that link Geralt with Ciri, and he mentions all the important stuff that happened in books quite detailed...
Sorry, but there are plenty more in W2... you just didnt payed attention to it and thats not my problem... or W3 game...These games, were build up on books, like it or not.. so dont blame games, because you didnt read them, or played games with a bit more attention.
And for memory loss and regained, thats actually a milestone in TW2.. so if you missed it, again, its your lack of attention behind it.
And for memory loss and regained, thats actually a milestone in TW2.. so if you missed it, again, its your lack of attention behind it.
Last edited:
ok, story aside, i wont comment on it here anymore.
Anyway, yesterday i started Witcher 2 again, and i think the biggest problem after finishing Witcher 3 for me was combat.. Witcher 3 combat is much more fluent, with all hits connect with enemy, while enemy actually tries to parry, dodge and counterattack. in Witcher 2, it seems like enemy is doing his animation while your attack animation is completely separate. Also, dodging enemy attacks and overall combat awareness is a bit worse in Witcher 2. Now, dont take this wrong way - CDPR obviously changed combat based on experiences from WItcher 2 so Witcher 3 combat is superior to it - but, if a player that played Witcher 3 and never tried Witcher 2 before comes to it now, he would instantly notice all these issues.
What I find better, is alchemy.. i like the way you can only drink potions before battle, the whole notion to get prepared instead of Witcher 3 way drinking potions on the fly.. but i guess open world game required a bit different approach, as you can be jumped by enemies while roaming and CDPR wanted to give players options to use potions more often..
So, looking back on whole trilogy, my opinion is that W3 had best combat, W1 best alchemy and overall world economy. W2 had nice armors, much nicer than those used in W3 (with exception of Wolf Witcher set of course)
Anyway, yesterday i started Witcher 2 again, and i think the biggest problem after finishing Witcher 3 for me was combat.. Witcher 3 combat is much more fluent, with all hits connect with enemy, while enemy actually tries to parry, dodge and counterattack. in Witcher 2, it seems like enemy is doing his animation while your attack animation is completely separate. Also, dodging enemy attacks and overall combat awareness is a bit worse in Witcher 2. Now, dont take this wrong way - CDPR obviously changed combat based on experiences from WItcher 2 so Witcher 3 combat is superior to it - but, if a player that played Witcher 3 and never tried Witcher 2 before comes to it now, he would instantly notice all these issues.
What I find better, is alchemy.. i like the way you can only drink potions before battle, the whole notion to get prepared instead of Witcher 3 way drinking potions on the fly.. but i guess open world game required a bit different approach, as you can be jumped by enemies while roaming and CDPR wanted to give players options to use potions more often..
So, looking back on whole trilogy, my opinion is that W3 had best combat, W1 best alchemy and overall world economy. W2 had nice armors, much nicer than those used in W3 (with exception of Wolf Witcher set of course)
i have to say, from a storyline perspective playing W2 is a bit jarring!
all of this occurs just six months to a year before the events of W3, and it opens with Geralt being something of a royal bodyguard, an independent but in the throes of a civil war Temeria, and Triss being an adviser to the king.
i mean a lot of this is mentioned in W3 but it's something else altogether to see it played out in W2. funny to see Roche and Triss having such prime roles when they're relegated so much to the side in W3.
glad i got this game. on sale now on Steam for $2.99, what a steal.
all of this occurs just six months to a year before the events of W3, and it opens with Geralt being something of a royal bodyguard, an independent but in the throes of a civil war Temeria, and Triss being an adviser to the king.
i mean a lot of this is mentioned in W3 but it's something else altogether to see it played out in W2. funny to see Roche and Triss having such prime roles when they're relegated so much to the side in W3.
glad i got this game. on sale now on Steam for $2.99, what a steal.
i mean a lot of this is mentioned in W3 but it's something else altogether to see it played out in W2. funny to see Roche and Triss having such prime roles when they're relegated so much to the side in W3.
Actually, only Roche has much less content in TW3, and Triss in fact has more than in any of the previous games, but in TW2 it is of better quality and does not feel incomplete and unfinished like in the latter acts of the third game. Of course, W2 is also a much shorter game, so the same role needs less content in that.
all of this occurs just six months to a year before the events of W3, and it opens with Geralt being something of a royal bodyguard, an independent but in the throes of a civil war Temeria, and Triss being an adviser to the king.
It can be a somewhat similar situation again at the end of W3.