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

[Jou05]

W1 was brave and brought something new to the scene so I admired them for that. The story was intriguing and actually drew me in.
W2 topped everything W1 brought to the table and blew every RPG (in my own opinion) out of the water with its plot line. It really was a very cool, intriguing and captivating story which actually had the player invested in the protagonist's strife and the supporting characters.
W3...well, aside from the side-quests, which as you guys pointed out it's just SWTOR style, and gameplay it fell flat on its face..the main story was pure crap after the Crones/Bloody Baron questilne died down. WITCHER 3: THE WILD HUNT had NO Wild Hunt..heck, most of the game was centered around Ciri..which was hugely disappointing seeing how this was to be Geralt's last chapter...I could write a shitload of lines about how much the story and characters were just R-U-S-H-E-D the F*** UP to deliver a half backed game to appease the masses but I'll just settle with un-installing this poor attempt at a "crowning achievement of the RPG genre" or "the last chapter in Geralt's saga" or "Geralt going out with a bang" and moving on. F*** this SH!T ...wasn't worth the hype and building our hopes up.

While I still enjoyed TW3 (2 is better in every way though), I agree about Ciri
The game focused way too much on her, apparently thats CDPR being once again in line with the books (TW3 really panders to book fans)
Poor Geralt got shafted in his own game..(same with TW1-TW2 characters in general)

I'm curious what else didn't you like and what would you do differently?
I feel like the entire Elder Blood story is just silly, thats why I liked the parts before we met Ciri more (Bloody Baron, Novigrad)

 

[Goodmongo]

Pure sex: TW1 beats the others hands down. Come on every women had sex with Geralt. Not to mention the cards.

Romance: TW2 easily wins.

TW1 and TW2 were very linear while TW3 was open world. Which is better is taste.

Graphics: Of course newer is better so TW3 wins.

Story: It's too early to tell. How will I feel about TW3 a year from now? We need more time to elapse to get an honest answer, at least I do.

 

[Froshshock]

I noticed more and more that characters had amnesia about things in Witcher 3, not to mention barely anything from past games had any impact on W3 at all. I would even say Bioware did a better job with Mass Effect and Dragon Age, and that was a pretty bad mess as well. The Witcher 3 was more like a game based on CDPR's choices, instead of something the players had chosen throughout the games. Add that to how badly it ended despite not following player's choices, and my first playthrough will likely be the last of Witcher 3.

I would love to paint a more rosy picture about the game, but i just can't. Same problem i had with for example Mass Effect, where anything after the first game is something i ignore. I certainly hope they look at what happened with The Witcher, and apply some genius to Cyberpunk 2077. They have a chance to create some new characters and stories, unlike what they've been working on so far. Don't drop the ball again.

Oh, and i voted Witcher 1, but Witcher 2 is great as well.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

As far as my opinion of main story and themes is concerned: TW2 > TW1 > TW3

 

[Dracolich55]

My personal list would be TW3>TW1>TW2.

I am usually cynical about sequels, let alone the third entries in game series.... but TW3 genuinely surprised me. Sure it has problems, like the politics, but I always thought the main focus was the personal stories anyways.

I like TW2 as much as anyone else, but I am surprised many consider it their favorite. One of my main problems was that info dump at the end, it really ruined a lot of the intrigue. Most people who know about writing, something even Stephen King remarked on, is that info dumps are one of the worst things you can do in a story. It can literally turn a great story into a mediocre one, and that is how I felt about TW2.

I think stories regarding relationships and growth of character is CDPR's strong suit, which is what they focused on in TW3. I think they half-assed the war because they still needed it, couldn't retcon something that significant, but the decided to focus the talent on what they do best. I am still salty about Iorveth and Saskia though, can't believe those two didn't make it into the game despite their importance in TW2.

As for TW1, the first time I played it just felt like a beautiful experience, like playing a painting, if that makes any sense. If's one of those games that has the "magic first time" experience that cannot be replicated. I would actually have put this one first but objectively speaking, TW3 has a lot more going for it.

 

[Monkey_Molester]

Story is king in The Witcher games and 2 had the best.

I'll never understand why CDPR decided it was a good idea to focus more on open world instead of story. Why?

 

[Willowhugger]

Story is king in The Witcher games and 2 had the best.

I'll never understand why CDPR decided it was a good idea to focus more on open world instead of story. Why?

Because they wanted to show how BIG the world was I think.

 

[TudorAdrian]

While I still enjoyed TW3 (2 is better in every way though), I agree about Ciri
The game focused way too much on her, apparently thats CDPR being once again in line with the books (TW3 really panders to book fans)
Poor Geralt got shafted in his own game..(same with TW1-TW2 characters in general)

I'm curious what else didn't you like and what would you do differently?
I feel like the entire Elder Blood story is just silly, thats why I liked the parts before we met Ciri more (Bloody Baron, Novigrad)

@Jou05:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think we've all the same gripes with the game although we stumble upon them one at a time and not all of us at once ..well I for one am not hell bent on post-ending game content whatsoever...just put me back at the main menu as long as there was a proper conclusion provided for the story at hand...which wasn't the case here...then there's the Wild Hunt which felt very underwhelming..I posted something in the "Eredin says 12 sentences ..." thread about how they could have been improved:

CDPR actually stated that at one point they had this big chunk of a questline where Geralt would have been wandering around collecting info on the Hunt and actually managed to infiltrate the Hunt...this would have been brilliant and it's sad they took it out..there could have been several ways to make these guys feel like a true threat:
- Random encounters: you know, when strolling out at night doing your sidequests etc. have some portals open up and WH warriors try to get a jump on you
- Night skies: right in the opening scene that old geezer tells the crowd that the WH rides the sky with every full moon...why wasn't this slotted into the game?? seeing the cavalcade race across the sky like mad...you know...a long shriek or something...just to get those chills down your spine and feeling that you're watched/hunted
- Geralt's nightmares: when Geralt visits Corine Tilly (the Novigrad oneiromancer) he said at one point that he dreamt of Ciri but the rest was just nightmares...this would have been a splendind opportunity to actually touch upon Geralt's memory having been recovered...you know..some sort of a mix in between cutscenes and playable flashbacks showing off Geralt & Yen's abductions, how it actually went down, Geralt's time with the Hunt and basically Eredin appearing in his dream consciously tormenting him just before Geralt wakes up and resumes his dialogue with Corrine
- Eredin, Caranthir, Imlerith, Ge'els dialogue: CDPR could have added more depth to these guys NOT in dialogue bits which included Geralt but in cutscenes that are strictly limited to these guys and how they interact and scheme between themselves to capture Ciri..give them a bit more plotting/strategy ...just flesh them out a bit.
- Kaer Morhen aftermath: get some scenes on the Hunt regrouping..they suffered a bitter defeat even though they were so close to seizing Ciri...I suspect they decided on a plan...not just "you know...let's wait it out..Imlerith, how about you bring us some Kaedweni / Temerian beers when you're back from the sabbath?"
- Ciri: since we've been playing Ciri in flashbacks and stuff, it would have been a great chance for Ciri to tell Geralt about her strife with the Wild Hunt when they sit by the fire in the Isle of Mists...you know...some sort of gameplay/cutscene showing Eredin's plans for her, Ciri violently objecting, Ge'els deciding to step in for her culminating with Ciri's escape from Tir Na Lia and the Wild Hunt's decision to seek-n-destroy...leading them to shift their focus on getting their hands on Geralt & Yen knowing that would draw Ciri out...this would have made things come full circle and feel rounded out

...this would be for the Wild Hunt..

Then there's other issues like:
- Nilfgaard: would have loved to see a lot more on the politics going on behind Emyhr's back..not necessarily directly involve Emyhr into the plot (Charles Dance's studio time I bet costs big $$) but ...Vilgefortz and Voorhis maybe...there is enough potential to build something very solid here..
- Redania: Radovid wasn't given a proper transition into the role of a madman...I understand what CDPR wanted to do with him and actually support it..surprised of myself even..but they should have elaborated how the paranoia got to him etc etc..Moreover, seeing how he's mentioned to be a military genius, this should have actually been reflected in some of his actions not just people babling about it..
- The Lodge: ....very underused characters...it was just a waste of good material and potential. The Lodge reunited could have been used for a very cool twist in Act 3's plot and even for a chain of intriguing side-quests but no....you just run around like a loon after a Deus Ex Machina like sunstone...to draw out Eredin!!! who would actually be on your back even without it sooner or later...stupid plot decision..
- Act 3 Interaction: ...says it all...seeing how CDPR advertised over and over and over and over again that this would be the end to Geralt's saga there should have been, hands-down, more interaction with the characters that played such an important role in Geralt's story...Triss, Yen, Zoltan etc etc etc
- Geralt's amnesia: ..covered this in the Wild Hunt section but still...the player should be part of this reveal and not just something that goes on around in Geralt's head...after all it's a ROLE PLAYING game..
- Missing characters: ANAIS! Iorveth, Saskia...where the heck are these guys?! they were so crucial to the past story and so many choices around them that I would have expected AT LEAST a cameo from them...nothing instead...It would have been cool if Iorveth and Vernon would both be brought in for the Battle of Kaer Morhen ..along with Letho...that would have sparked some very cool payoff for the decisions we made in W2..maybe even going somewhere along the lines of Letho saving Roache during the Hunt's siege and Ves saving Iorveth ..not really solving the quarrel between these guys but at least giving them a sense of odd companionship given the circumstances..this would have also built on the Hunt being a proper threat...Saskia maybe playing a part in some of the Lodge's plans ..that's assuming something interesting would have been done with the Lodge but well..
-Epilogues: man they were a downright disappointment.. CDPR should have extended them to provide CLOSURE for Geralt not just Ciri...something along the lines of the Prologue but showcasing Geralt's part of the story not Ciri's...him settling down, his pals visiting in Kovir (if he's with Triss) or him just laying underneath an apple tree (like Newton) with Yen in some nice and cozy orchard somewhere in the North...slides just don't cut it when it comes to closing of something of this story's amplitude..
..there's more stuff I could post here but I need to catch my bus to work

---------- Updated at 10:03 AM ----------

As far as my opinion of main story and themes is concerned: TW2 > TW1 > TW3

I concur as far as the main story goes bro.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Story is king in The Witcher games and 2 had the best.

I'll never understand why CDPR decided it was a good idea to focus more on open world instead of story. Why?

Well, my guess is that they thought that they would magically be able to change everything the TES games did wrong in the past. I've already said months ago that some things in open world games can't be changed in respect to the narrative (like the dragged down pacing and tension building, the lesser emphasis on choice and consequence, the rise of filler content) but almost nobody wanted to admit that. Sadly, every word of it turned out to be true...

In short they sacrificed a portion of the old Witcher formula to get open world on board. But weirdly enough, some narrative elements on top of that are just lacking even though they could be better no matter if the game features an open world or not.

 

[gogusar]

W1 was brave and brought something new to the scene so I admired them for that. The story was intriguing and actually drew me in.
W2 topped everything W1 brought to the table and blew every RPG (in my own opinion) out of the water with its plot line. It really was a very cool, intriguing and captivating story which actually had the player invested in the protagonist's strife and the supporting characters.
W3...well, aside from the side-quests, which as you guys pointed out it's just SWTOR style, and gameplay it fell flat on its face..the main story was pure crap after the Crones/Bloody Baron questilne died down. WITCHER 3: THE WILD HUNT had NO Wild Hunt..heck, most of the game was centered around Ciri..which was hugely disappointing seeing how this was to be Geralt's last chapter...I could write a shitload of lines about how much the story and characters were just R-U-S-H-E-D the F*** UP to deliver a half backed game to appease the masses but I'll just settle with un-installing this poor attempt at a "crowning achievement of the RPG genre" or "the last chapter in Geralt's saga" or "Geralt going out with a bang" and moving on. F*** this SH!T ...wasn't worth the hype and building our hopes up.

+1 to this post. I think the same. The game went downhill after the Baron Quest.
The whole game was intended to feel like rush for Ciri (thus wild hunt) and I did not like that idea. I did not like a lot of things in this game actually... "F*** this shit", is the exact conclusion I came down to, as well.

 

[DeGorro82]

I only praise the good from each titles.

TW1 : Sword Play Animation. 6 Different sword animation, which each class had 4 phase.
(Steel Sword : Strong, Fast & Group)(Silver : Strong, Fast & Group)
Note : I don't like the combat mechanic, but I love the wide variety of the combat animation.

TW2 : - 2 separate scenario path. The Roche path & Iorveth Path. This make the game had replayable value.
- Super Boss Fight, the Kayran. I like unique setting fight like this.

TW3 : As many people had said. Huge world, lots cutscene, more content and stable combat mechanic.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Erik Kain puts it pretty well why TW2 is better than TW3 in "core areas" and why a huge seamless open world was no good idea in the first place:

Still, there are problems with the open-world design, even if it nevertheless stands high above its peers. There is a bit of a pacing problem with so much world to explore. There’s a problem with running into creatures and enemies that are simply leagues beyond your level, just a short distance from where you’re supposed to be. There’s the oddity of Nekkers and Drowners and other baddies suddenly being five times harder in one region than they were in the last, for no reason other than “Because it’s an RPG and leveling.”

There’s more galling things that CD Projekt RED has gotten wrong. In one quest, having to do with a werewolf and a scandalous woman, I let the woman die.

She had a very distinct look to her, this woman, possibly just because you see her so much in this particular quest. Anyways, she’s dead. And then ten minutes later I see her exact clone in the next village. I spot four or five other women that look identical to this one over the next few hours.

There’s lots of asset duplication, really. Taverns that look identical. Towns that look damn near identical. Little boxes on the hillside and they all look just the same.

Some emotional and storytelling weight is lost here, compared to the first game. There are still great and distinct characters, but they’re often just lost in the flood of faces and people you encounter.

So The Witcher 3 may very well be the best open-world game—or at least open-world RPG or action game—I’ve ever played, but even then I can’t help but wonder if open-world is more of a game design curse than a blessing.

The way the quests and side-quests work could have worked just as well in a more rail-roaded game like The Witcher 2.

To me, I can’t help but wonder what open-world actually brings to a video game in a positive sense? Open-ended problem solving brings creative gameplay solutions. Creative 3D level design—the sort we saw in Bloodborne and in the Souls games—adds a layer of truly unique exploration to a video game.

But what does open world actually add? Yes, it can let us play in a great big sandbox or theme park, with lots of stuff to do and mini-games and walking hither and thither, but does it truly add value to video games the way game designers seem to believe?

I wonder. A very large and persistent side of me says “no.” The value added isn’t worth the cost. True open world games screw up the balance, tinker too much with the equilibrium.

On the one hand you have a very on-rails corridor shooter (or action game) with little to no exploration and little to no choice in how you solve problems, beat the level, etc. On the other hand you have this vast, open area you can explore at your own leisure, with map and level design that’s as much about space (and filling it) as it is about well constructed levels. More so.

Somewhere between these two extremes lies a good balance. Many good balances, probably. Some games will work better in a slightly narrower corridor; others will want branching paths. Maybe those paths will be narrow corridors or wide arenas.

I simply can’t shake, no matter how much I enjoy and admire and respect The Witcher 3, the feeling that bigger is not necessarily better. More open is not necessarily better game design. And that developers should focus not on the size or scope of a game or the time it takes to finish it, but in making each piece of the game sturdy, playable, memorable, and mechanically sound.

The Witcher 3 is a lovely game. But it’s not every bit the game I hoped it would be based on its predecessor.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/30/the-witcher-3-may-be-the-best-open-world-game-ever/


If you ask me, hub-based games like TW2 or the old CRPGs offer this "good balance" between narrative density, gameplay balancing and challenge and meaningful exploration with memorable places. I have no idea why CDPR gave up this balanced approach which served their core strengths so well for a typcial video gamey huge open world approach... -_-

 

[TudorAdrian]

Erik Kain puts it pretty well why TW2 is better than TW3 in "core areas" and why a huge seamless open world was no good idea in the first place:


http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/30/the-witcher-3-may-be-the-best-open-world-game-ever/


If you ask me, hub-based games like TW2 or the old CRPGs offer this "good balance" between narrative density, gameplay balancing and challenge and meaningful exploration with memorable places. I have no idea why CDPR gave up this balanced approach which served their core strengths so well for a typcial video gamey huge open world approach... -_-

This guy deserves a medal!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qkSe4YM7EY

 

[OptoNick]

I'll modify Simultas's template from the first page:

Story: TW3=TW2 > TW1 (a little bit in advance with hopes about tweaking the epilogues and expansions/EE)
Gameplay: TW3 > TW1 > TW2
Visual aspect: TW3 > TW1 > TW2 (not about graphics, but about designs)
Quest design: TW3 > TW2 > TW1
Monster variety: TW3 > TW1 > TW2
Music: TW1 > TW3 > TW2
Voiceovers and translations: TW3 > TW2 > TW1 (Russian version)
Inventory and interface: TW1 EE > TW3 > TW2
Alchemy: TW1 > TW3 > TW2
Characters: TW3 > TW2 > TW1
Politics: TW2 > TW3 > TW1
Sex, romances and related: TW3 > TW2 > TW1
Maturity of topics: TW3=TW1 > TW2

Can't choose favorite one, because love each of them for different reasons. Speaking in general, TW3 has a lot of improvements.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Maturity of topics: TW3=TW1 > TW2

Seriously? Care to explain?

I think TW3 is the least mature of all three games.

 

[gogusar]

I have no idea why CDPR gave up this balanced approach which served their core strengths so well for a typcial video gamey huge open world approach...

I wonder the same. But I think they attempted to enter TES territory and failed miserably.

 

[OptoNick]

Seriously? Care to explain?

TW2 has not so many unpoliticised topics. They are good, just too few of them. And the politics and its obvious maturity is a separate thread to discuss.

Both TW3 and TW1, on the other hand, has a LOT of pretty grim side-quests, random encounters, background dialogues and scenes, etc. which could make player to feel uncomfortable touching such a dirt.

 

[gogusar]

TW2 has not so many unpoliticised topics. They are good, just too few of them. And the politics and its obvious maturity is a separate thread to discuss.

Both TW3 and TW1, on the other hand, has a LOT of pretty grim side-quests, random encounters, background dialogues and scenes, etc. which could make player to feel uncomfortable touching such a dirt.

Sounds like bullsit to me?

 

[Willowhugger]

My viewpoint on the subject isn't that this is an open-world game. In fact, the previous two games were open-world games. It's just that Flotsam was a reasonably small open-world location versus the GINORMOUSITY of the Witcher 3. Unfortunately, CD_Projekt Red was so interested in making the world's largest Open World single-player game that they kind of went overboard as the vast-vast majority of the setting is empty.

Really, really empty.

Oxenfurt is completely pointless and won't have any real reason to visit other than Whoreson Junior's manor and Radovid's ship until the Expansion. It also means that a huge amount of the game is running around.

I can't help but think the game would have benefited from the following changes.

* Cut the Velen map in half.
* Split the Velen and Novigrad map into separate ones.
* Remove Oxenfurt until the Expansion.
* More stuff to do in Vizima.
* Get rid of half of Skellige's islands and make the quests on the remainder.
* Give more stuff to do in Kaer Morhen.

Really, Kaer Morhen illustrates the BIG problem with the game as there's NO REASON to have three football fields of running around for five people.

 

[gogusar]

Yeah I neither do not understand what is the point in Oxenfurt. Just to confuse it with Novigrad in the early stage of the game?
Wish they didn't go with that open world idea in the first place...