I realized another reason why TW2 is superior to TW3

+
Whatever the failures of the Witcher 3, you can at least play the whole game in one go versus getting locked out of a third.
 
Whatever the failures of the Witcher 3, you can at least play the whole game in one go versus getting locked out of a third.

Not necessarily an advantage, it just shows that - despite the open world - the main story of Wild Hunt was in some sense actually made more linear than that of Assassins of Kings. Although one can choose the order of doing quests, that hardly makes a meaningful difference. And parts of the game getting locked out depending on choices adds to the replay value (although the developers might have expected that the majority of people will not replay the game anyway). Blood and Wine brought back the branching storyline to some extent, but only near the end in the last few quests.
 
TW2 was insult to anyone who played the first game, was incredibly linear and pretty short on content. Only thing that was better in TW2 was alchemy, unlike TW3, were it took them 6 months to figure out that 2 potion slots are not enough and going into inventory while fighting breaks the pace.

That being exception, I agree with @Ysmirson
 
Not exactly agreed in this department.

To me it is just that the games distanced themselves too much from the books (says the guy who hated reading until he was 16).


Witcher 2 succeeded moderately in taking care of the Witcher 1 heritage of choices, though many were lost even there.
Witcher 3 totally butchered the story of the previous games. That was a huge spit in the faces of all who appreciated the first 2 games. That's why imho we shouldn't glorify CD Projekt, but simply calmly boycott the DLC's or some other method to let them know that Witcher 3 is just not right. It needs an Enhanced Edition and the devs have all the resources now to make it - even if they officially say they aren't going to do it. Well, to each his own. But i'm not joining the hype train. Better gift my friends what I think are more succesful games - Witcher 1 and 2. But I will be reserved in advising to get Witcher 3, especially with the DLC's.
That individual contribution from our consumer choice matters a lot.

Have a good day. Let's have a focused agenda on what is not right with Witcher 3.
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
The issue I must put an accent on is the lack of logical continuity - Ciri by the books actually after the whole thing with Gerlat dying, married a veteran of the Brena War (the one she met in Vizima when he was 12) and neither became queen, neither a witcher in her childhood dreams and neither disappeared



Witcher 2 succeeded moderately in taking care of the Witcher 1 heritage of choices, though many were lost even there.

What choice was imported and became relevant in TW2? Raven's armor? Swords?
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
Siegfried in Act 3.

1) It was a 3 min cameo.
2) You got Letho in TW3 with much more screentime and actual role in the game.

On everything else - read the books.

I read the books many, many times, still LOL... :rofl:
I can only assume you're talking about Jarre (whom Ciri never saw again after she left Ellander).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe that Adda is mentioned ONCE. LOL.

I found about 5 mentions of Adda in Witcher 2, and another about her curse that does not depend on the save import. Not all of these might be available on the same path, but it is nevertheless more than one. :)
 
I'm well into B&W and it's become clear CDPR will end TW3 without attempting to challenge the player's intellect while investigating/solving quests. I was hoping they'd step this up in the expansions, but they won't touch it with a ten foot barge pole now. It's goddamn depressing. I hope the Cyberpunk team doesn't follow this template of leading the player by the nose through every. Single. Quest.
 
Top Bottom