I realized another reason why TW2 is superior to TW3

[misho8723]

Man, this thread sure delivers

My opinion is that the story in TW3 isn't as good as in TW2, but has more emotional moments (to be honest, TW2 basically has non), they did really good job with some of the characters - Geralt, Yenn, other witchers, the Crones, everyone involved in Blood Baron questline, Keira, Letho, Roche, Dudu, Zoltan, Johnny, Ves, Avallac'h, Cerys, Rosa, Madman Lugos, Crach, Hjalmar, Skjall, etc.. Djikstra was pretty cool and almost perfectly carried over from books to the game, but then the last minutes of the quest Reason of State happened.. and in the case of Dandelion, they still couldn't in all 3 games truly show him in his true form - best Dandelion was in TW1, where he is shown the most accurate to his book version, but even there he wasn't as good portrayed as he could and should.. in my view they didn't archieved to show why Dandelion is so close to Geralt in the books and why they are true friends even though Geralt gets all the time in messy situation because of Dandelion...
I do not have a problem that they showed Radovid in the game - that he is more and more crazy now? I totally understand that .. there are many and many examples of this in our history - a really young king who must rule a land in war and his most important advisors are gone + many people have betrayed him + he is the only hope of this massive land + conspiracies against him + on the lookout of assasins attacks (paranoia) = that must the a hell of a pressure on his backs.. the problem with all this which I have is that in TW2 there weren't basically any signs of him going crazy or anything of this kind - his hatred for Phillipa was a personal thing - and then suddenly right from the start of TW3 we see him only in one role - crazy maniac, who is still a good leader in a war, but his practices are more and more crazier and fearsome and even dumb.. even against his own people.. in my opinion we should have been observers of this transformation of beeing this good, great leader to that crazy maniac.. it was just too sudden.. and the game could have shown of some of his good personal traits.. that's the problem that I have with him in TW3 - not that he is crazy, but the lack of his progresive of going from what he was in TW2 to what he is in TW3..
Ciri - I really like Ciri and her stories in the books and I love her in the game, even though I would still liked to see her "darker" side and atleast some talk about her life with the Rats members... and maybe she could have been found more sooner in the story, but maybe that's just me

And yes, we all agree that Eredin is a weak villain in the game, so can we please stop using him as the main point of criticism of the story? Because we all know about this.. don't forget that many people have problems with the story of TW2 - and no, I don't talk about those people who are bored with politics in that story.. like my main problem of that story is, that even though in my opinion for many reasons it's one of the best in videogame history, it doesn't have (that) many "big" scenes and that it didn't felt as a Witcher story or that I was playing as Geralt.. I really missed more monster contracts in that game.. and the game has other problems that I have with it - I overall like the combat in that game, but it's definitely worse in everyway compared to TW3, too little monster variety, the game in structure is very linear - more than TW1, very few small choices that change some thing - again, compared to TW1 - but has, it has some really big choices that change the world around you, ACT 3 is even after the EE a letdown- even more than ACT3 in TW3 (the only really great and unique thing in ACT3 in TW2 is that you have the choice of leaving the main "villain" of the game go free or to fight him to death)

In the case of racism, the game has still in my opinion adequate number of situations of showing how the folk in Velen and Novigrad has problems with with persons of other races.. but this isn't a important focus point in the story, wheres in TW1 and TW2 it was .. but you still have the feeling that people are suspicious between each other.. would I like to see more of Scoia'tael in the game ? Definitely, but I don't see the lack of them as a problem of the game..

And the game shows the horrors of war pretty much the best when it comes to RPG games - maybe the used color pallete isn't the best in my opinion, but the game has quests where you help people who lost someone in the war, or trying to find someone or people who are using the war for their own advantages.. there are destroyed homes and villages.. there are big battlefields where the ground and all plants are destroyed by all the fighting, is littered with corpses and weapons used in the battle, etc.. there are refugees trying to get food, trying to find new homes, to find their loved ones, etc.. would it be better if we would see some of this battles or the plundering of villages in real-time? Well yes, but that takes another resources, money and workforce for things that many people don't care about..

Yes, some complexity from TW2 was lost and the main victim of this is the political side of the story, but that doesn't mean it's a bad story and comparing it to Skyrim, are you serious people? Please, stop with it.. no one takes you after claim like this seriously anymore..

Skellige is in the game, because it's one of main places that were in the books - we know many characters from there.. the main characters from TW3 has connections to that place + it's a welcome change of place - something different from Temeria and all the slavic type lands used in TW1&TW2&big part of TW3 + the Witcher books are based on all types of European folklore and cultures, so scandinavian type of land is still true to the Witcher world + a place to show off all the different clans on the islands and their political system

Don't get me wrong - I too have some problems with the story of the game : like everyone else - the Wild Hunt, mainly Eredin.. the use of White Frost, more Scoia'tael, better implementation of our choices from TW2, more complexity to some characters + more screentime for them, my already mentioned problem with the sudden and offscreen change of Radovid's character, the loss of complexity when it comes to politics, maybe some more shocking moments, more changes to the world throught our actions and choices, etc..
I would definitely be glad if a EE would be announced with atleast some of the story parts changed, but even in this state the story is right now, it's one of the best in RPG's.. it maybe lost some of the complexity of previous game, but now it's more human with more emotions and big scenes...

It's nothing wrong with saying that the story is worse for you in TW3 compared to TW2, but please, we really don't need to go overboard and exaggerate the problems the story has

 

[jimmywon34]

Yes I thought they failed Dandelion in tw3, he just seems much more stupid in it, in the first two games they made him seem smarter which he actually is he is usually helping Geralt figure things out and can usually offer some insight into Gerlat's personal problems like in tw1. I also would've liked to see more screentime with him and Zoltan since it was Gerlat's last game and those are his closest friends but no not even a pat on the back and a round of drinks after defeating the threat to the whole world known as the wild hunt.

 

[saladin1701]

I wouldn't go so far as some of the lists in this thread but the main differences for me where the lack of consequence for your decisions, the inconsistencies within its own story leading to the writing falling off a cliff in the second half of the game, sometimes due to an over emphasis on certain characters above others, dumbing down of the adult content, underdeveloped characters (Triss, The Wild Hunt including Eredin, Avallac'h, Ves (seriously, what was the point of her in this game?), and the Lodge characters, especially given their supposed importance during the third Act; on the latter, chief amongst them being Sile's bizarre cameo.

The combat wasn't brilliant but I never liked the combat in The Witcher 2 either. In all games the AI has been pretty crap but that's a running theme within the industry anyway. But all in all the reason the third game wasn't as good as the second one was for me, is largely down to the writing and characterization issues which, by and large, the second one got right. The plot was also more interesting for me, personally, and whilst the more personal story did allow for probably the most powerful scene in video game history (Geralt finding Ciri in the cabin), suffered from the problem of falling away and becoming far less interesting once you'd actually found her.

One thing I will say is any comparisons to Skyrim's story are ridiculous because TES main quests aren't the point of TES games and are there to serve as a reason for exploration and confrontation. TES games aren't RPGs in the traditional sense where as TW3, for all its failings, most definitely is.

 

[jimmywon34]

I remember that as a wtf moment. Why they chose to kill off Sile in such a meaningless way? She helped make tw2 story great and her and Phillipa give the world that mystery, great character's, did not like seeing her dying that way especially after letting her live and flee in tw2 then she shows up just to die in front of you.

 

[cyberpunkforever]

TW1 wasn't an action RPG, the feel of the combat was totally different from TW2-3. There wasn't any feel of the controls in fact x-)
But STILL, it was brutal and nice to see. TW3 is not that brutal and nice to see imo and it lacks impact, and for a real action rpg that's not good

the combat in tw3 not brutal!? is way moe brutal ond violent than in tw2, more blood, geralt slices enemies in pieces, etc

 

[Holgaroni]

the combat in tw3 not brutal!? is way moe brutal ond violent than in tw2, more blood, geralt slices enemies in pieces, etc

I might shock you but... you can chop arms and heads also in TW2. Not so frequently and not in the stylish and dinamic way of TW3, but they fly away anyway from the body.
And yes, the combat is not brutal. For me brutal doesn't mean blood everywhere and body parts that fly away from the body.
Or maybe i haven't explained myself correctly, i'd like to see Geralt using his sword like he should, in a brutal/spectacular way.
Like this,this, this or this and this. (I admit it these last two are a bit exaggerated)

Geralt inTW3 seems like a common Swordmaster a bit obsessed with spins in comparison.

 

[dragonbird]

Moderator intervention:

There have been a fair number of posts in this thread that were simply expressing a dislike of TW3 for various reasons, and not directly related to the topic (i.e. not some way in which TW3 was worse than TW2). Please note that repeatedly going into threads to soapbox in this way isn't acceptable - it's disruptive to other forum members who want to discuss the thread topic, not read the same things over and over again.

So please stick to the thread topics. If you want to discuss TW3 in isolation, and have something new to say, then use the appropriate thread.

PS: Adding "TW2 did it better" to a list of complaints doesn't turn it on-topic

 

[Pug.]

I think the mods should give out periodic trophies on this forum to award good behavior - kind of like a cop stopping you on the freeway to say that you're doing a great job driving - and @misho8723 should get something like "Post that most closely adheres to the original intention of its thread."

 

[cyberpunkforever]

I might shock you but... you can chop arms and heads also in TW2. Not so frequently and not in the stylish and dinamic way of TW3, but they fly away anyway from the body.
And yes, the combat is not brutal. For me brutal doesn't mean blood everywhere and body parts that fly away from the body.
Or maybe i haven't explained myself correctly, i'd like to see Geralt using his sword like he should, in a brutal/spectacular way.
Like this,this, this or this and this. (I admit it these last two are a bit exaggerated)

Geralt inTW3 seems like a common Swordmaster a bit obsessed with spins in comparison.

ah ok you mean the finishing moves cinematics, yeah those are awesome, too bad they are not anymore in tw3

 

[Kinley]

ah ok you mean the finishing moves cinematics, yeah those are awesome, too bad they are not anymore in tw3

I remember people hating those so much. Mainly because they took so long and broke the flow of combat. Ah, good times...

 

[dragonbird]

I remember people hating those so much. Mainly because they took so long and broke the flow of combat. Ah, good times...

I did a mod for it, to remove the finishers, because of the number of people complaining about them.
@Garrison72 - any comment

 

[Garrison72]

I remember people hating those so much. Mainly because they took so long and broke the flow of combat. Ah, good times...

*raises hand*

I bitched so much DB made a mod for us all.

Yeah I don't get the hit box complaints in either game actually. I think maybe people are mistaking the concept of hit boxes for bugs or something else. In execution, TW3 combat is elegant and fun, if simplified.

Edit- Ha! What timing...

 

[Kinley]

I did a mod for it, to remove the finishers, because of the number of people complaining about them.
@Garrison72 - any comment

*raises hand*

I bitched so much DB made a mod for us all.

Yeah I don't get the hit box complaints in either game actually. I think maybe people are mistaking the concept of hit boxes for bugs or something else. In execution, TW3 combat is elegant and fun, if simplified.

Edit- Ha! What timing...

:teeth:

I'd say that the combat in Witcher 3 is the major improvement over the previous games. While it's not as "cinematic" it definitely flows better. I'd have better functionality over more spectacle any day.

 

[dragonbird]

I bitched so much

That's what I was thinking, but I thought I'd better phrase it more politely

I actually preferred the TW1 and 2 combat from a gameplay perspective, although I agree that TW3 flows better.

When you're as old as I am, there's too many keystrokes to remember in TW3.

 

[jimmywon34]

The biggest way tw2 is better that i don't think has been mentioned yet or maybe it has, is it has 2 paths that give you a dramatically different experience for the rest of the game, not just a different ending like in tw3, unless i'm missing something i need to replay tw3 to be sure because i've played tw2 more than a few times through so i know it a bit better but it outshines tw3 in that way.

 

[cyberpunkforever]

I remember people hating those so much. Mainly because they took so long and broke the flow of combat. Ah, good times...

yeah i remember that too, but i like those movements, i tw3 they would look awesome

---------- Updated at 03:38 AM ----------

The biggest way tw2 is better that i don't think has been mentioned yet or maybe it has, is it has 2 paths that give you a dramatically different experience for the rest of the game, not just a different ending like in tw3, unless i'm missing something i need to replay tw3 to be sure because i've played tw2 more than a few times through so i know it a bit better but it outshines tw3 in that way.

yes, that very very big choice in the first big map has great importance, it changes all.

 

[saladin1701]

*raises hand*

I bitched so much DB made a mod for us all.

Yeah I don't get the hit box complaints in either game actually. I think maybe people are mistaking the concept of hit boxes for bugs or something else. In execution, TW3 combat is elegant and fun, if simplified.

Edit- Ha! What timing...

Slightly off topic for a moment but I think it's exceedingly difficult to get Sword-based combat right for any developer, at least when compared to projectile weapons such a modern fire arms, which is probably why there isn't a game out there that seems to have one most people enjoy.

Back on topic, the are two big comparisons that distinguish the last two games. First is that the second one treated the player as an adult where as the third was aimed at a far more casual, younger audience than the previous titles. Even if we don't like it, which most of us don't, to be fair there are reasons why that decision would have been made.

The second issue is The Witcher 3 just feels rushed. At least once you've finished the first act. The second half of the game is bereft of anything interesting to do outside of the main quest and is largely linear in nature. Sure you can ignore it and go explore but you're likely to be over level for most content. After an open world Prologue and first Act, it's something of a culture shock to the player. The Witcher 2's Loc Muinne came in for the same criticism but I always felt that suited the story. You weren't there to explore and take contracts, you were there to take care of business - regardless of your path and playthrough - so it felt natural. The Witcher 3, especially post-Ciri rescue, feels like a "What now?" situation. You've found and rescued Ciri but aren't in any immediate danger from the Hunt so the story feels like it stalls as a result. You re-visit Novigrad and Skellige but it always feels like you're there because they couldn't afford a new map area for the player to explore. Loc Muinne felt tied to the story in an integral way. It made the story progress where as re-visiting the same places in the sequel felt like the story was stagnating.

There's never a moment in it where you ask yourself "what do I do now?". You're always progressing through the story, getting to know the characters, with Geralt getting drawn in deeper into the conspiracy the more he tries to get out. It was interesting but more importantly, it flowed better than the third game does. This for me is at the heart of why I will always think The Witcher 2 is the better game.

 

[Cs__sz__r]

:teeth:

I'd say that the combat in Witcher 3 is the major improvement over the previous games. While it's not as "cinematic" it definitely flows better. I'd have better functionality over more spectacle any day.

Summed up well how I feel about it. Less animations aside I think the W2 did it better.

It was still okay to me, definitely not awful. But then again we know the games don't shine in combat gameplay, looking at Witcher 1.

 

[TheImpZA]

The Witcher 2 had the Birdman. Could have stopped the White Frost with all his Harpy Feather suits, no problem.

The Birdman > Ciri.

Spoiler

Search your feelings, you know it to be true. :huh:

I am really surprised that TW3 has won so many awards, while TW2 won very little. Did no one play TW2? TW3 deserves acclaim, but it seems that TW2 got glossed over by many reviewers.

Replaying it recently, it's really brutal, and has so many twists leave your mouth sticking to the floor. I think a post by Scryar sums it up for me.

Playing Witcher 2 was like reading/watching a good thriller.
Playing Witcher 3 is like reading a mediocre high fantasy novel or watching a marvel superhero movie.

One the complaints that the devs think people had with TW2, was that it was "too complicated". I didn't think so, and I really hope we don't see more, for a lack of a better word, simplified storylines in future releases like Cyperpunk. Perhaps TW2 named dropped too many characters for new players, but the story itself isn't very complicated.

 

[jon7882]

Ok I haven't read through the entire thread but I think I get the gist. I can't say I agree with any of the complaints I've read but i haven't played in a while I'm going to play again today. I do remember it very well however but I haven't played HoS yet. Now I do love W1 and W2, I don't see how W3 isn't as good as either of them. I think the story is just as mature and just as good. I love the new combat, the better connection to the books. Personally I even thought the third act was fine.