Their own story or a conclusion to the books [SPOILERS]
I'm writing this as I wait for W2 to download. It is true what they, that the grass always seem greener in the other side of the fence. So I'm going to cross that fence and see if it holds true.
There is no question that in terms of graphics, size, mechanics, side quests, minigames, W3 towers over W2.
Yet when comparing the main story, I can't shake this feeling that W2 was better in this regard. It's been a while so I'm going to play it again to check.
From what I gather, the plot of W2 was their entire creation, while W3 main theme was mainly a conclusion to the books.
While I was never really into that particular topic, since I never actually finished them, I do think they deserve their place. Yet they could have dealt with that stuff in Act 1 so to speak and then focus on the heart of the matter, which is the political situation, scoitel and the lodge.
As others have stated the political situation was extremely lacking, the fate of the entire world relied on one sidequest, fifteen minutes of gameplay, and the choice of whether you accepted it or not and what you did at the end of it.
What I would have wanted was for them to go their own way, and do a true sequel to the W2, with the political intrigue, and who got control of Novigrad at the center of the stage.
They could have tied the romance options here as well, with Triss and Sigi on the side of the north and Yennefer and the emperor on the other. The criminal underground and the church a far bigger factor too. And from there, make two different paths (on the same map this time), like W2 and maybe add subfactions within them.
All of this is moot in a sense, the game is already as it is. This is mainly so the devs know what we prefer for the future, both for new content to the Witcher 3 and future games.
I'm writing this as I wait for W2 to download. It is true what they, that the grass always seem greener in the other side of the fence. So I'm going to cross that fence and see if it holds true.
There is no question that in terms of graphics, size, mechanics, side quests, minigames, W3 towers over W2.
Yet when comparing the main story, I can't shake this feeling that W2 was better in this regard. It's been a while so I'm going to play it again to check.
From what I gather, the plot of W2 was their entire creation, while W3 main theme was mainly a conclusion to the books.
While I was never really into that particular topic, since I never actually finished them, I do think they deserve their place. Yet they could have dealt with that stuff in Act 1 so to speak and then focus on the heart of the matter, which is the political situation, scoitel and the lodge.
As others have stated the political situation was extremely lacking, the fate of the entire world relied on one sidequest, fifteen minutes of gameplay, and the choice of whether you accepted it or not and what you did at the end of it.
What I would have wanted was for them to go their own way, and do a true sequel to the W2, with the political intrigue, and who got control of Novigrad at the center of the stage.
They could have tied the romance options here as well, with Triss and Sigi on the side of the north and Yennefer and the emperor on the other. The criminal underground and the church a far bigger factor too. And from there, make two different paths (on the same map this time), like W2 and maybe add subfactions within them.
All of this is moot in a sense, the game is already as it is. This is mainly so the devs know what we prefer for the future, both for new content to the Witcher 3 and future games.
