I realized another reason why TW2 is superior to TW3

[sv3672]

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.

It was not marketed as much as TW3, and was initially PC exclusive (later ported to X360), that may explain the relative lack of reviews from mainstream media.

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.

One the complaints that the devs think people had with TW2, was that it was "too complicated".

It may seem so on a first playthrough, but after playing more than once and trying different paths, one can understand it fully and see how well the story is written. However, I guess the majority of players and reviewers did not actually do that. And even the gameplay is sometimes not very friendly to new players, there are parts of the game that can be frustrating at first (e.g. the kayran), but are much less of a problem on a replay. In the case of TW3, more effort was put into making the game more "accessible" to first time players.

 

[MrBroche]

I totally get and respect your post and reasoning. Witcher II does indeed have a better story and is better paced, with some of the best political intrigue I've ever seen outside of Game of Thrones. But I prefer III for a few reasons.

It wasn't about the story for me, but the characters and world. The world was really well set up in I and II, but it was in III where they really knocked it out of the park. Every nook and cranny, every piece of dialogue, all of it felt real and lived in, with the world itself being the most beautiful game world I've ever experienced. Then there's the characters and their relationships. I loved pretty much every character and there was some fantastic character development. Geralt, The Bloody Baron, Lambert, Dandelion, Roche, Yen, Olgierd, etc. All of them felt genuine and their relationships felt real. I laughed my ass off at Geralt, Lambert and Eskel getting drunk beyond reason at Kaer Morhen, I cried when Vesemir died trying to save Ciri and Ciri freaked out, I couldn't help but smile whenever Geralt and Ciri/Yen/Triss had a tender moment together, as well as staring in awe at moments like Priscilla's song and Roche talking about Temerian's downfall. This was all also accompanied by the second great videogame soundtrack I've ever heard.

And the gameplay of course was the best it's ever been. Sure the game does have problems, mainly in the third act, and there are certain things II does better. But for me III excels in making you care for the various characters and buying into their relationships and struggles more than the others. To the point where I'm completely satisfied despite the problems such a huge open world brought.

 

[jimmywon34]

I just wish they would've gave us the best of both, why couldn't the great things about TW2 be carried over and assimilated with the great things of TW3?

It's a shame if the story of TW3 was dumbed down because TW2 story was 'too complex'? true even i didn't piece everything together my first playthrough but TW2 has obvious replay value and going through a second time you start picking up the missing pieces and it's not that it's very hard to piece together i think it is just quite a big story in itself and a lot to keep track of with plenty of dialogue to pay attention to so a short attention span will definitely hinder you in TW2, but if the standard is going to be dumbing down story-telling than i'm out, i think that is one of it's strongpoints and yes they obviously should've won more awards for TW2 if people thought TW3 was awesome for it's story, plus i don't always want things to be straight forward. TW3 had side quests that weren't always what they seemed and that was awesome, brilliant, and some emotional choices to be made, again great, but the overall story was very straight forward, find yen, find ciri, kill the the king of the wild hunt, i missed the overall story of political agendas of TW2 and getting entangled in them, with the Great War going on I felt like it would've been a great opportunity for some of that. Combine that with finding Ciri and The Wild Hunt and I think perhaps it could have been better, way better, it might've added a hell of a lot more to an already huge game so maybe i'm biting off more than i can chew but I can't foresee combining both being bad only a very good thing.

Also have to agree the combat of TW3 was indeed an improvement, felt smoother to me at least and i felt it did ok in the gore and dismemberment category as well, with TW2 the finsihing moves would cut to a scene which can throw combat off and i'm currently replaying TW3 and haven't noticed this, i believe it just uses slow motion to show the cool stuff which feels a bit smoother.

 

[Metalunatic]

Both games have their strengths and weaknesses, but I'm leaning more towards TW3 because of the characters, namely Ciri and Yen.

Not to say that TW2 has inferior characters, but the two I mentioned above are dear to me from the books.

 

[Jou05]

I agree completely OP. I like TW3 a lot, don't get me wrong but TW2 has a much better main story.

TW3 had a great open world, terrific side quests, atmosphere and good characters but the main story wasn't that strong (apart from the Bloody Baron questline which was great and is the best questline apart from the expansion). I really disliked how it was more a sequel to the books (liked the short stories but wasn't a fan of the book saga) than the previous games. Ciri was boring and Yennefer just ok but nothing special.

Also The Wild Hunt was a big joke (especially compared to Letho who is one of the best video game villians ever). TW2's choices didn't matter at all and the politics were really dumbed down (and they ruined Radovid)

But I liked TW3's Geralt the most, he felt more "human" and the VA got really better. I also liked that the Slavic feel of TW1 returned (which was sorely missing from TW2), Kaer Morhen and the other Witchers etc.

Overall both are great games and excel in different areas. TW1 is easily the weakest of the Trilogy, no doubt there. TW2 had the best main story and characters. TW3 has a great open world with lots of things to do etc. and has a more emotional story.

 

[RepHope]

I just wish they would've gave us the best of both, why couldn't the great things about TW2 be carried over and assimilated with the great things of TW3?

It's a shame if the story of TW3 was dumbed down because TW2 story was 'too complex'? true even i didn't piece everything together my first playthrough but TW2 has obvious replay value and going through a second time you start picking up the missing pieces and it's not that it's very hard to piece together i think it is just quite a big story in itself and a lot to keep track of with plenty of dialogue to pay attention to so a short attention span will definitely hinder you in TW2, but if the standard is going to be dumbing down story-telling than i'm out, i think that is one of it's strongpoints and yes they obviously should've won more awards for TW2 if people thought TW3 was awesome for it's story, plus i don't always want things to be straight forward. TW3 had side quests that weren't always what they seemed and that was awesome, brilliant, and some emotional choices to be made, again great, but the overall story was very straight forward, find yen, find ciri, kill the the king of the wild hunt, i missed the overall story of political agendas of TW2 and getting entangled in them, with the Great War going on I felt like it would've been a great opportunity for some of that. Combine that with finding Ciri and The Wild Hunt and I think perhaps it could have been better, way better, it might've added a hell of a lot more to an already huge game so maybe i'm biting off more than i can chew but I can't foresee combining both being bad only a very good thing.

Also have to agree the combat of TW3 was indeed an improvement, felt smoother to me at least and i felt it did ok in the gore and dismemberment category as well, with TW2 the finishing moves would cut to a scene which can throw combat off and i'm currently replaying TW3 and haven't noticed this, i believe it just uses slow motion to show the cool stuff which feels a bit smoother.

Open-world is what ultimately detracted from the story. It ate up resources that the devs could've allocated to the story, hell they had to delay multiple times because they realized they had this big world with nothing in it. You see it all the time with open-world games, the story and sometimes gameplay suffer, because you don't have the control over what the player does that you have in a more linear game.

W3 is still my favorite. While I could appreciate W2's higher quality intellectually, I never really connected with the characters until W3. 3 made me appreciate Geralt and made me more curious about the Witcher world. 2 made me appreciate CDPR as pretty good storytellers. But 2 suffered from other problems. The combat was awful, a poor mimicry of DS. Act 3 in W2 was even worse than W3's Act 3 before the EE, there were zero sidequests outside the MQ, because they had to rush it out in order to keep afloat due to the failed W1 console port. Roche's path was rather dull although Roche himself was the better character.

 

[sv3672]

TW1 is easily the weakest of the Trilogy, no doubt there.

I would not go as far as call it the worst, it is obviously dated technically, but in my opinion it is also the most original game that "does its own thing", to quote from the OP. By contrast, the sequels put increasing emphasis on production value, staying close to the books, and more "mainstream" gameplay. Which is not to say they are better or worse, that is only a trend I notice.

 

[Sephira]

@Holgar82 since we had a talk here about interrupting combos in W3 I can assure you that it can be done. I restarted the game some days ago and I dodged half a second before hitting a guy, thus interrupting the action.

So yeah.

 

[saladin1701]

Overall both are great games and excel in different areas. TW1 is easily the weakest of the Trilogy, no doubt there. TW2 had the best main story and characters. TW3 has a great open world with lots of things to do etc. and has a more emotional story.

I agree with that. For me I'd say The Witcher 2 wins on story and character development, The Witcher 3 wins on gameplay and acting. On the latter, it's gotten progressively better game on game. The Witcher's acting is, now looking back at it, hilariously bad. The Witcher 2's isn't much better but The Witcher 3's reflects the more serious approach to gaming voice acting actors take these days. It depends what's important to you and what you want out of an RPG. Personally I loathe TW2's combat and prefer TW3's hands down but TW2 wins for me because story is what I play RPGs for, not combat.

 

[Holgaroni]

@Holgar82 since we had a talk here about interrupting combos in W3 I can assure you that it can be done. I restarted the game some days ago and I dodged half a second before hitting a guy, thus interrupting the action.

So yeah.

I know that attacks can be interrupted, but not how i'd like to tho

Like the long-winded strong attack, can't interrupt it

 

[jimmywon34]

Open-world is what ultimately detracted from the story. It ate up resources that the devs could've allocated to the story, hell they had to delay multiple times because they realized they had this big world with nothing in it. You see it all the time with open-world games, the story and sometimes gameplay suffer, because you don't have the control over what the player does that you have in a more linear game.

W3 is still my favorite. While I could appreciate W2's higher quality intellectually, I never really connected with the characters until W3. 3 made me appreciate Geralt and made me more curious about the Witcher world. 2 made me appreciate CDPR as pretty good storytellers. But 2 suffered from other problems. The combat was awful, a poor mimicry of DS. Act 3 in W2 was even worse than W3's Act 3 before the EE, there were zero sidequests outside the MQ, because they had to rush it out in order to keep afloat due to the failed W1 console port. Roche's path was rather dull although Roche himself was the better character.

I felt that that's what it was also. As i've said in another post it's a shame they didn't take more time to make this game, but as you and others have said they already delayed it a few times and i can't really tell if fans were being impatient or they just rushed it or maybe both but if they would've taken more time with TW3 it would've been a whole lot better. I personally would've been fine waiting. Or maybe they just didn't have the resources to make it better.

And I really didn't detest the combat of TW2 too much after all it was a big step up from TW1 in that aspect but TW2 just blew me away when i first played it because of the story and characters and I really felt connected as playing as Geralt and figuring out his problems and that fact that your playthrough is completely altered by that choice between Roche or Iorveth, i had never played a game like that before where it was replayable immediately after your first playthrough because of that fact you get quite a bit different playthrough. Part of the appeal for TW2 I think for most people is siding with someone and fighting for what you believe in and in TW3 that is lost. Replaying TW3 is a bit harder for me because even though there is some choices here and there(that seem to have less impact) and some dialogue options that might lead to a bit different dialogue it's still quite a bit of the same stuff again and doesn't have that choice or choices that truly alter your whole game except maybe whatever Ciri ending you get but then the game is already over at that point anyways.

 

[Jou05]

I would not go as far as call it the worst, it is obviously dated technically, but in my opinion it is also the most original game that "does its own thing", to quote from the OP. By contrast, the sequels put increasing emphasis on production value, staying close to the books, and more "mainstream" gameplay. Which is not to say they are better or worse, that is only a trend I notice.

It really doesn't. Alvin is just a poor man's Ciri and triss feels like a Yennefer rip off in that game.
Geralt was really bland too etc.

TW2 is the game that does its own thing

 

[RepHope]

It really doesn't. Alvin is just a poor man's Ciri and triss feels like a Yennefer rip off in that game.
Geralt was really bland too etc.

TW2 is the game that does its own thing

Yeah I don't know how anyone can claim TW1 was CDPR "doing their own thing" when they were pretty blatantly ripping off the books. There were tons of book callbacks in W1, W2 was when they really started exploring things outside the focus of the books. 3 was kind of a medium, plenty of book callbacks and use of book characters, while doing their own thing with said characters, and adding new ones.

Personally I've always felt CDPR is at their best when their using Sapowski's work as a foundation for their own creations: Bloody Baron, Letho, O'Dimm, Cerys, Roche, Saskia, Olgierd, and Iorveth (although I think I remembered his name in the books) are some of the best characters in the games. Geralt, Yennefer, Zoltan, and Ciri mostly were still treated pretty well and I ended up liking them though.

 

[kidmmxv]

As a fellow Witcher 2 fan I gladly read trough this thread. I totally agree on the lore from the book debat. CDPR played it safe.

I think everyone who liked TW2 because of the politics and schemes, they liked it because it made you believe you had important influence over something so much larger than yourself. I was dragged into the geopolitical battlefield that was laid out. That feeling of being part of something so large I missed in TW3. First the story was not helping, but I also think the events didn't helped.

Like the battle of Kaer Morhen or the end battle. It felt really basic and not epic. It's hard to pull off a large battle that gives the player he/she is right into the heat. In TW2 there where no large battles. Only small skirmish during bigger event (siege of La Valette castle e.g.). You where giving the small task to open a gate. You saw the (scripted) battle near you, only you did not get involved in that. All those small tasks helps to give the player that feeling he/she is right in to the heat.
I don't understand why CDPR didnt went for a large battlescene. The had the know how from the second installment.

It makes believing in the power or large armies (like Nilfgaard or The Wildhunt hard for me).

 

[Sam2305]

As a fellow Witcher 2 fan I gladly read trough this thread. I totally agree on the lore from the book debat. CDPR played it safe.

I think everyone who liked TW2 because of the politics and schemes, they liked it because it made you believe you had important influence over something so much larger than yourself. I was dragged into the geopolitical battlefield that was laid out. That feeling of being part of something so large I missed in TW3. First the story was not helping, but I also think the events didn't helped.

Like the battle of Kaer Morhen or the end battle. It felt really basic and not epic. It's hard to pull off a large battle that gives the player he/she is right into the heat. In TW2 there where no large battles. Only small skirmish during bigger event (siege of La Valette castle e.g.). You where giving the small task to open a gate. You saw the (scripted) battle near you, only you did not get involved in that. All those small tasks helps to give the player that feeling he/she is right in to the heat.
I don't understand why CDPR didnt went for a large battlescene. The had the know how from the second installment.

It makes believing in the power or large armies (like Nilfgaard or The Wildhunt hard for me).

Totally agree

 

[Krull32]

I don't understand why CDPR didnt went for a large battlescene. The had the know how from the second installment.
It makes believing in the power or large armies (like Nilfgaard or The Wildhunt hard for me).

thats true.
The Wild Hunt is not really a real threat for the World. Some people know about them, but thats all.... not really scary.
The planned ( but deleted) Battle in Novigrad would have changed this at least a bit.

 

[Jou05]

Why put an entire place like Skellige? (which reminds the kind of land of one popular videogame from Bethesda) I doesn't fit the entire storyline at all. The only reason to go there it's because of Ciri (that, in terms of plot, could go anywhere, maybe a place more connected to the story or the war like Aedirn or the Eastern front). And that's why it affects storyline

Skellige would have been better as an expansion like toussaint with B&W imho. I liked the quests there and the atmosphere but it just didn't fit at all and killed the pacing of the game even further. Velen and Novigrad made sense.

Also I agree with people here saying that Ciri was a boring character, the game shined when it wasn't about her (same with the expansions). Disliked how much focus she got and when she says its my story...fuck that. Also not a big fan of Yen.

 

[andrewlucas]

No way TW2 is superior to its sequel by any chance lolz, but each to their own.

 

[sv3672]

Like the battle of Kaer Morhen or the end battle. It felt really basic and not epic. It's hard to pull off a large battle that gives the player he/she is right into the heat. In TW2 there where no large battles. Only small skirmish during bigger event (siege of La Valette castle e.g.). You where giving the small task to open a gate. You saw the (scripted) battle near you, only you did not get involved in that. All those small tasks helps to give the player that feeling he/she is right in to the heat.
I don't understand why CDPR didnt went for a large battlescene.

Actually, they did want a larger final battle, and even had plans for the Wild Hunt to attack Novigrad, but it was cut from the game for whatever reasons. Even the Undvik version of the final battle was intended to include a number of scenes that ended up getting deleted.

 

[Hicks233]

I think The Witcher managed to strike a balance between establishing a character, embroiling you in a complex situation and having you carry out the functions of a Witcher. Witcher 2 was intrigue and character all the way and had I think the strongest central narrative, though it suffered in terms of functioning as a Witcher. Witcher 3 had a pretty weak central narrative but had excellent opportunities to carry out the life and functions of a Witcher. As a series of unique contracts it was superb, some of them tied into the main story but would hold up perhaps even better on their own. I was hesitant when learning Witcher 3 was going to be open world. Now though I'd have liked it even more if it had been a series of contracts with their own smaller stories and the "central" story of the game would be the one you create as a Witcher. It was nice to meet Ciri but I didn't care much for the whole Wild Hunt and White Frost story. It just felt like an awkward framework to tie the much better smaller scale stories around. The expansions just added to that feeling. The world supports the character role so wonderfully that it doesn't really need an "epic" story to motivate actions.