[SPOILERS] Witcher 3 vs Witcher 2 vs Witcher 1. Vote and discuss which one is your favorite :)

+

[SPOILERS] Witcher 3 vs Witcher 2 vs Witcher 1. Vote and discuss which one is your favorite :)

  • The Witcher 1

    Votes: 96 22.7%
  • The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings

    Votes: 116 27.4%
  • The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

    Votes: 211 49.9%

  • Total voters
    423
[SPOILERS] Witcher 3 vs Witcher 2 vs Witcher 1. Vote and discuss which one is your favorite :)

We can vote which Witcher game is our favorite one of the series, and then we can discuss and compare all aspects of the games such as story, gameplay, art direction, graphics, locations, characters, politics, relationships, and ...
 
Last edited:
Story: TW1 > TW2 > TW3
Gameplay: TW3 > TW1 > TW2
Visual aspect: TW3 > TW2 > TW1 (obviously)
Quest design: TW3 = TW2 > TW1
Monster variety: TW1 > TW3 > TW2
Music: TW3 = TW1 > TW2
Voiceovers: TW3 = TW2 > TW1
Inventory and interface: TW1 EE > TW3 > TW2
Alchemy (in its principle): TW1 > TW3 > TW2
Characters: TW2 > TW1 > TW3
Politics: TW2 > TW1 > TW3 (no politics of TW1 is better than crappy politics of TW3)
Sex, romances and related: TW2 > TW3 > TW1
Maturity of topics: TW2 > TW1 > TW3

Overall: TW3 > TW1 > TW2
 
Last edited:
TW2 for me. As much as TW3 proved that open world could be done with a story RPG i still think the TW2 approach creates a better rpg story experience. TW1 was a good game but one where they were still getting a handle on what worked.
 
Winner: TW3

Politics

TW2 > TW1 > TW3


  • TW3 politics is crap because the War between the Northern Kingdom and Nilfgaard is overshadowed by our search for Ciri. Also, they just mention it (e.g. Temeria lost the war and Vizima is conquered) instead of showing it (e.g. Random Nilfgaard patrol runs into random Redian patrol. A brawl ensued)
  • TW2 is better in this context because it was the time where most King of the North were being assassinated, and we were caught in the webs of politics. Also, it's the main focal point of the story: We were trying to clear our name from being a wanted fugitive.
  • TW1 no politics = Better. Nothing to argue about.

Story

TW3 = TW2 > TW1


  • TW3 Story would've blow other witcher series away, if it were not for the disappointing & lackluster epilogue. Epilogue should answer our question; but in TW3 it provokes more question than Answers. When Act 3 begun (after Battle of Kaer Morhen) in TW3, the story was just downhill from there... what happened?

Sex

TW2 > TW3 > TW1


  • TW3 is like a softcore porn. TW2 sex feels real, as if we're watching a porn video. If we use sex scene from TW2 + characters from TW3 = PERFECT. This game might get an AO rating from ESRB too

Romance

TW3 > TW2 > TW1


  • TW3 and TW2 is a close call... but I have to go with TW3. This is most engaging, emotional and defining contents of the game thanks to "The Last Wish" and "Now or Never". But, I just have few complaints (although I'm on #TeamYen)
  • Lack of Triss content, NO INTERACTION/DIALOGUE AFTER THE FINAL BATTLE, JUST AN EMPTY WORLD & TERRIBLE EPILOGUE WTF SERIOUSLY?!?! HOW COULD THEY OVERLOOKED THIS. NOT EVEN A WORD OF APOLOGY

Music

TW3 > TW1 > TW2


  • TW3 music is inspiring. It really brings out that medieval feeling, and it greatly enhance our Witcher experience. Loved it, especially when we're at Skellige.

Voice Acting/Voice overs

TW3 > TW2 > TW1


  • TW3 wins. I don't know but I enjoy TW3 voiceover more than other witcher series. They did it brilliantly with Triss and Yennefer (especially Yennefer)

Graphics/Gameplay

TW3 > TW2 > TW1


  • TW3 wins by miles, as expected of new generation engines, graphics and console. They really utilize it well in TW3.

=================================
Yup should be everything. Too lazy to break gameplay into details (e.g. combat mechanics, inventory system, alchemy system & etc)
 
Last edited:
For me TW3 is the weakest in story and options but so damn good at everything else that it still manages to be my favourite. Main thing that puts TW2 in 2nd place for me is the pacing and production value (and better representation of Triss XD ) otherwise TW1 and 2 are pretty damn close in my book.
 
When I played TW2, I hardly could stop playing the game. I wanted to know how the story will continue, I loved the dark and threatening setting, everything seemed to be a little bit dirtier...characters, world, dialogues.

I don't have this dark and oppressive feeling while playing TW3. Don't get me wrong. I really love playing it, running through the open world and discover different places but I don't get into the pull of the story anymore. This time it is no big problem for me to stop playing after 1 or 2 hours and continue the next day or a few days later.

So despite the better graphics, open world, Ciri etc. I personally enjoyed playing TW2 much more.
So my decision: TW2>TW3>TW1
 
Witcher 3 is the best game in the series. I think it's legitimately the best game I've ever played and I'm old and have been playing computer games since the mid 80s. I agree that TW2 had a much more interesting story, but on the flip side, TW3 has better dialog, acting, and presentation. No contest that TW3 is the best from a gameplay and immersion standpoint, as well. I would say that it's the first game in the Witcher series I would recommend for the gameplay and not just the story gaming aspects. I know I'm not alone; a lot of folks who didn't like the Witcher games or weren't interested in them, think this is a very good game.

I like all 3 games a lot in their own ways, but I definitely think each iteration has taken several more steps forward than back. The big disappointment for me is that they decided to make it a trilogy and bail out just when they had hit their stride.
 
When I played TW2, I hardly could stop playing the game. I wanted to know how the story will continue, I loved the dark and threatening setting, everything seemed to be a little bit dirtier...characters, world, dialogues.

I don't have this dark and oppressive feeling while playing TW3. Don't get me wrong. I really love playing it, running through the open world and discover different places but I don't get into the pull of the story anymore. This time it is no big problem for me to stop playing after 1 or 2 hours and continue the next day or a few days later.

So despite the better graphics, open world, Ciri etc. I personally enjoyed playing TW2 much more.

So my decision: TW2>TW3>TW1

I think the use of the open world does detract from the story, hence why i prefer TW2. TW3 did open world much better than i imagined but the benefits of it don't outweigh the trade offs for me.
 
I find myself unimpressed by Witcher 3. What is there to really "redefine the expectations of entire genre" as Witcher 2 and New York times was VERY CORRECT on saying that about TW2 and years down the line we still feel the impact in a very positive way on games.

The graphics are better you say then Witcher 2? In what way when you've got 2d foliage crappy foliage versus the glorious forest of TW2, when textures on the environment are lower resolution and the game runs like piss? The only improvement lies in the facial animations, lip syncing and hair. Everything else is not worth mentioning.

Witcher 2 was a quantum leap in terms of RPG graphics. It is by far away one of the best looking DX9 titles ever made. Witcher 3 is mediocre looking title that is already outmatched.

Gameplay? Marginal improvements to a broken formula, with terrible balance and design. Games like Dark Souls and Lords of the Fallen crush it with ease.

Story? A broken mess written with no consistency or care for the previous games or many of the crucial events in the books that completely ruins/ignores/tacks on the very characters CDPR had written.

Whoever did AOK had VERY different ideas about the world than whoever did Wild Hunt.

That's because none of the principal writers of TW1 or TW2 were left. To give you a post from BSN from Jan Bartkowicz:

http://forum.bioware.com/topic/433687-now-im-playing-the-witcher-2/page-10#entry13692657

Jan Bartkowicz and Sebastian Stephien wrote the vast majority of TW2 and it's main story. A third guy wrote the dwarves, a fourth guy Adam Sliwinski had a far smaller role.

Out of the four W2 writers only ONE guy, the guy who had the smallest impact, remained on the team and is in the credits. Sebastian Stephien, who had been the dialogue writer of TW1 before becoming lead writer, moved on to Cyberpunk while Marcin Blacha, who wrote "additional dialogue" for TW1 and helped with english translation of TW2 suddently became lead writer.

If TW3 has the worst story of the series it's because every single principal writer of TW1 and TW2 did not write TW3 with the exception of Sebastian before he moved on to Cyberpunk. Essentially CDPR....had their junior writing team handling the biggest game in the series.

I can't really fault the writers themselves, but I have to ask CDPR upper management what in the hell where they thinking?! I don't mean just on writing level but on an overall development.

Somehow CDPR management had the brilliant idea that they could deliver a game on three different platforms with their LIMITED experience on console development and on consoles that had not even been announced let alone released. That they could make the single biggest open world RPG, deliver it with a solid story while starting development on Cyberpunk and thus moving some of their most experienced people, including W2's LEAD WRITER, to that team. and do ALL of this on a 15 million development budget with an initial 80 or so people?

What happened? The development budget more then doubled, the game was delayed TWICE, the graphics coming out bad ( and 2d foliage with flat textures is rather bad considering the system requirements ) because they didn't have the resources to take on the task of making three good versions and instead delivered a single version that ran badly on EVERY machine, the staff overworked to death to make the game ( I remember the Neogaf post claiming this close to a year ago ), the team close to being tripled and Cyberpunk development halted to finish the game.

The overall result? A mediocre game that is by far away considerably worse then TW2 and has done nothing remarkable. It's only achievement is in copying the side quest system from SWTOR and implementing that in a single player situation. ( By side quests I mean monster contracts and the like ). I suppose that's OK....

Best in the series? No way. It's a damned shame.
 
Last edited:
This is such a hard choice. All 3 games have some really strong points and some really weak points and I like all 3 games equally for different reasons.

The Witcher 1:
Strong: Story.
Weak: Gameplay.

The Witcher 2:
Strong: Aesthetics and depth.
Weak: Geralt himself.

The Witcher 3:
Strong: Atmosphere, immersion and gameplay. I also really liked the character depth for some of the characters in TW3 (Yennefer, the Bloody Baron, Lambert and Geralt himself), while some of the other main character in TW3 got the short end of the stick (Radovid, Letho, Triss during act 3).
Weak: Simplification of the previously established depth and the many retcons / not doing anything with our choices from the previous games.

---------- Updated at 08:08 PM ----------

Somehow CDPR management had the brilliant idea that they could deliver a game on three different platforms with their LIMITED experience on console development and on consoles that had not even been announced let alone released. That they could make the single biggest open world RPG, deliver it with a solid story while starting development on Cyberpunk and thus moving some of their most experienced people, including W2's LEAD WRITER, to that team. and do ALL of this on a 15 million development budget with an initial 80 or so people?

Oh fuck the budget for TW3 was only 15 million? That's an extremely low budget. That's barely within triple-A territory. A game development budget has to be above 10 million for it to be considered triple-A. So TW3 is barely triple-A. No wonder it falls short in so many areas. It's the biggest RPG I've ever played and it's developed on a budget of only 15 mil? That's borderline insane.
 
Last edited:
It's a really difficult choice, both have their strong points: Also unlike movies the game usually get better as time moves along.

The main attractions for me in a game are Gameplay, Story and Music.

I'll start with the music since it's a tie, with a little favoritism towards W1.

In the story department it's close between W2 and W3, since I liked the individual story lines in W3 better (baron, tower of mice, etc), but W2 had a better story overall and it could be said depending on the path you choose they could be actually two different stories. Also W3 lost much of it's grittiness and lost it's mature themes.

Gameplaywise W3 is the victor, combat system, plenty of loot, the size of the world, GWENT, need I say more?

My vote would have gone to W3, but, given how many rough edges it had at the end. for now I'm going W2.

15 Millon budget? And they sold 4m+ copies already? Wow, I wish I had some shares of their company.
 
First 50 hours of TW3 were perfect (the Crones, Bloody Baron, Novigrad...). Then the game became long, too long. Too much useless and painful features (submarine exploration, boat, crossbow...) to make the game a little less boring. Levelling past level 20~ is useless, even in Death March. Act 3 is on the bad-BioWare level. I'm sick of "the golem at the end of the ruin" x10, sick of randomly getting a letter with a key to open a chest for the 30+ time.

It's like "having 5000 doors you can open in Novigrad" was an excuse for the other major flaws of the game. No it's not.

Putting this game in an open world makes little sense, the lore of the Witcher world is not interesting enough for that.
Of course the game has its moments (humor, amazing animations, dialogue and narrative are good most of the time, music is very good) and still deserve praise. But in the end, I was disappointed.

I liked TW2 more in the end, even if this game (and the game's writing) is overrated beyond reason. The prologue and the epilogue weren't good at all and Geralt is a walking plot device. TW1 and TW2 had more "flavor". TW3 felt more generic to me. Still a good game, but not the masterpiece I was expecting.

TW1 and 2 tried to convince me with intelligence and subtility, TW3 tried to seduce me with feelings and fireworks.

I hope they don't get greedy with another Witcher game.
 
Last edited:
@CostinRaz
Sadly, I had the very same feelings after playing the game, to the point I even checked whom from TW2's original team wrote the game.
 
Witcher 3 is the best hands down. Sure some minor things were worse than in previous installments, but these were the compromises that had to be made.
But I'm glad they strayed away from grand politics and put it to the side, still visible of course.
I hated W2 for the politics side of things - not because it was bad, but because it sometimes barely felt like a Witcher game at all.

Anyway, almost everything was improved and the game overshadowed my previous favorite game - Witcher 1.
 
It's hard to rate the Witcher games because each one focused on certain things and compromised other things, I loved Witcher 1 because it was personal though it didn't have good gameplay as the others, Witcher 2 for its political intrigue though let's be honest, it wasn't a true witcher game, Witcher 3 because it was a sequel to the books though the third act of the game after the battle of Kaer Morhen was just .... I hope they fix it later on with added content and new dialogues for certain characters because they were just horrible sometimes.


Story: TW3>TW1>TW2 (Rose-tinted glasses in-work over here).


Politics: TW2 (obviously) > TW1 > TW3

Though I saw the politics of TW3 to be absolutely horrible, after a certain discussion with @Sagitarii it had more to offer than just "Dragon Age-level politics" but indeed the game almost completely ignores what happened in the previous games (which I don't mind) but certain things were just missing for no reason, the fate of the Vergnis for example (sure, they got smashed hard by the Black Ones, but we needed more information about their fate), also the supposed "Mad War Genius" of Radovid that wasn't really explained except that he conquered his ally to make one strong force instead of two weak nordling kingdoms.


Art Direction: W1=W3 > W2


Music: W1=W3>W2


Graphics: W2>W3>W1


Gameplay: W3>W2>W1


Locations: W3>W1>W2


Characters: W3>W2>W1 (Biased because it has characters from the books, even if the King of the Wild Hunt was a joke in W3).


Relationships: W3>W1>W2




Overall: W3>W1>W2
 
I am tired of shitting on the W3 game, so I will just say that CDPR will never get any money from me on anything (except maybe for the expansion that will make the post end story world full with old characters and quests with them), nor a free publicity that they could enjoy for free during all that time since Witcher2 release on different forums and youtube from my part. It was like part time job at times, so much I believed in that game. No more of that - I can tell you that for sure.
Favorite of 3 - probably Witcher2. Witcher1 was also very good. Witcher 3 is just a different kind of game that appeals to a different kind of people and not me.

---------- Updated at 02:46 PM ----------

I find myself unimpressed by Witcher 3. What is there to really "redefine the expectations of entire genre" as Witcher 2 and New York times was VERY CORRECT on saying that about TW2 and years down the line we still feel the impact in a very positive way on games.

The graphics are better you say then Witcher 2? In what way when you've got 2d foliage crappy foliage versus the glorious forest of TW2, when textures on the environment are lower resolution and the game runs like piss? The only improvement lies in the facial animations, lip syncing and hair. Everything else is not worth mentioning.

Witcher 2 was a quantum leap in terms of RPG graphics. It is by far away one of the best looking DX9 titles ever made. Witcher 3 is mediocre looking title that is already outmatched.

Gameplay? Marginal improvements to a broken formula, with terrible balance and design. Games like Dark Souls and Lords of the Fallen crush it with ease.

Story? A broken mess written with no consistency or care for the previous games or many of the crucial events in the books that completely ruins/ignores/tacks on the very characters CDPR had written.



That's because none of the principal writers of TW1 or TW2 were left. To give you a post from BSN from Jan Bartkowicz:

http://forum.bioware.com/topic/433687-now-im-playing-the-witcher-2/page-10#entry13692657

Jan Bartkowicz and Sebastian Stephien wrote the vast majority of TW2 and it's main story. A third guy wrote the dwarves, a fourth guy Adam Sliwinski had a far smaller role.

Out of the four W2 writers only ONE guy, the guy who had the smallest impact, remained on the team and is in the credits. Sebastian Stephien, who had been the dialogue writer of TW1 before becoming lead writer, moved on to Cyberpunk while Marcin Blacha, who wrote "additional dialogue" for TW1 and helped with english translation of TW2 suddently became lead writer.

If TW3 has the worst story of the series it's because every single principal writer of TW1 and TW2 did not write TW3 with the exception of Sebastian before he moved on to Cyberpunk. Essentially CDPR....had their junior writing team handling the biggest game in the series.

I can't really fault the writers themselves, but I have to ask CDPR upper management what in the hell where they thinking?! I don't mean just on writing level but on an overall development.

Somehow CDPR management had the brilliant idea that they could deliver a game on three different platforms with their LIMITED experience on console development and on consoles that had not even been announced let alone released. That they could make the single biggest open world RPG, deliver it with a solid story while starting development on Cyberpunk and thus moving some of their most experienced people, including W2's LEAD WRITER, to that team. and do ALL of this on a 15 million development budget with an initial 80 or so people?

What happened? The development budget more then doubled, the game was delayed TWICE, the graphics coming out bad ( and 2d foliage with flat textures is rather bad considering the system requirements ) because they didn't have the resources to take on the task of making three good versions and instead delivered a single version that ran badly on EVERY machine, the staff overworked to death to make the game ( I remember the Neogaf post claiming this close to a year ago ), the team close to being tripled and Cyberpunk development halted to finish the game.

The overall result? A mediocre game that is by far away considerably worse then TW2 and has done nothing remarkable. It's only achievement is in copying the side quest system from SWTOR and implementing that in a single player situation. ( By side quests I mean monster contracts and the like ). I suppose that's OK....

Best in the series? No way. It's a damned shame.
Man, I cannot agree with you enough. I fully share every word in your great post. Thanks for writing it! The game just doesn't work trying to sit on two chairs at the same time. Whether it's an open world and free play or it's a main quest only game with some side quests... The Witcher2 did everything right but it was too short.
 
Top Bottom