I realized another reason why TW2 is superior to TW3
Bit of a long post, so bear with me.
So, there have already been plenty of discussions on why TW2 had better narrative/structure/politics than TW3, with most of the latter's faults being the open-world setting and weak writing (Eredin's few lines, Dijkstra's sudden idiocy, Radovid's madness, etc.).
But recently, after having read the novels, I came to realize that another reason why TW2 is better is because it, in short, does its own thing.
It has its own characters, all of them memorable - Roche, Iorveth (Barely comes up in the novels), Letho, Saskia, Ves - and its own plot, dealing with Geralt and Triss going on an adventure that has no connection to the Witcher Saga. The Assassins of Kings, the hunt for Letho, the events in Flotsam, Vergen, and Loc Muinne - this all constitutes a story that took elements from Sapkowski's world (Including its protagonist) and, while making homages to them, made its own ORIGINAL STORY full of intrigue, drama, and emotional highs and lows. Compare this to TW3, which is pretty much a direct continuation of the Witcher Saga, and while this may appeal to some, it makes the game fall entirely flat when viewed on its own. Just watch the scene in which Geralt, Triss, and Roche first meet Iorveth, and remember that other than Geralt and Triss (Who are in a relationship and thus very distanced from their versions in the novels), NOTHING in this scene is a continuation of the Witcher Saga. It takes inspiration from it, yes, but it is entirely its own story.
TW2 had the confidence to strike out on its own, using the source material as a base, and it created a unique story that everyone can agree is the best-written in the series - a whole blog has been written just about TW2's politics and characters. The game dealt with rape, 'terrorism', nationalism and revenge in a more mature way than a game could ever be expected to. Even TW1 had more of its own story, regardless of the Ciri stand-in that was Alvin or Triss's strange attitude.
Lastly, I would even argue that the absence of characters like Ciri or Yennefer - while this may have been unintentional in TW1 - really helped Geralt shine as a character. In the books beyond the first one, his life practically revolves around Ciri and protecting her, and he's locked into a toxic relationship with Yennefer. While this may have been okay in the books, the change of pace in TW2 - travelling with Triss and Roche, having a goal that has nothing to do with Ciri (Finding the Kingslayer), really showed me that Geralt was capable of being in far more interesting stories. In TW3, other than in HoS and (most) side-quests, he reverts back to his character from the novels. Again, this may be find for some, but it hardly allows for character versatility. If any future games are made in the setting of the Witcher, I hope that CDPR lets go of Geralt, Ciri, and the Witcher Saga and simply tells its own story.
Bit of a long post, so bear with me.
So, there have already been plenty of discussions on why TW2 had better narrative/structure/politics than TW3, with most of the latter's faults being the open-world setting and weak writing (Eredin's few lines, Dijkstra's sudden idiocy, Radovid's madness, etc.).
But recently, after having read the novels, I came to realize that another reason why TW2 is better is because it, in short, does its own thing.
It has its own characters, all of them memorable - Roche, Iorveth (Barely comes up in the novels), Letho, Saskia, Ves - and its own plot, dealing with Geralt and Triss going on an adventure that has no connection to the Witcher Saga. The Assassins of Kings, the hunt for Letho, the events in Flotsam, Vergen, and Loc Muinne - this all constitutes a story that took elements from Sapkowski's world (Including its protagonist) and, while making homages to them, made its own ORIGINAL STORY full of intrigue, drama, and emotional highs and lows. Compare this to TW3, which is pretty much a direct continuation of the Witcher Saga, and while this may appeal to some, it makes the game fall entirely flat when viewed on its own. Just watch the scene in which Geralt, Triss, and Roche first meet Iorveth, and remember that other than Geralt and Triss (Who are in a relationship and thus very distanced from their versions in the novels), NOTHING in this scene is a continuation of the Witcher Saga. It takes inspiration from it, yes, but it is entirely its own story.
TW2 had the confidence to strike out on its own, using the source material as a base, and it created a unique story that everyone can agree is the best-written in the series - a whole blog has been written just about TW2's politics and characters. The game dealt with rape, 'terrorism', nationalism and revenge in a more mature way than a game could ever be expected to. Even TW1 had more of its own story, regardless of the Ciri stand-in that was Alvin or Triss's strange attitude.
Lastly, I would even argue that the absence of characters like Ciri or Yennefer - while this may have been unintentional in TW1 - really helped Geralt shine as a character. In the books beyond the first one, his life practically revolves around Ciri and protecting her, and he's locked into a toxic relationship with Yennefer. While this may have been okay in the books, the change of pace in TW2 - travelling with Triss and Roche, having a goal that has nothing to do with Ciri (Finding the Kingslayer), really showed me that Geralt was capable of being in far more interesting stories. In TW3, other than in HoS and (most) side-quests, he reverts back to his character from the novels. Again, this may be find for some, but it hardly allows for character versatility. If any future games are made in the setting of the Witcher, I hope that CDPR lets go of Geralt, Ciri, and the Witcher Saga and simply tells its own story.
Last edited:
