Witcher 3 compared to Witcher 1

[glowpipe]

Huh. Maybe it changes deeper into the game or maybe I was just looking to get something different than you out of the game, but exploring off of the beaten path is one of my favorite parts of the game. I love hunting down every little point of interest since it feels like so much more thought went into them in The Witcher 3 than in most other open world games. Sure, some of them are just monster nests or random chests to open and the gear you find is usually not as good as what you can craft yourself, but there seems to me to be plenty of interesting locations with little stories to discover to keep getting my sidetracked away from the main story quests.

Yeah. i love exploring aswell. Thats why, when i booted up skyrim special edition again, i manage to reach 80 hours played before even really starting the main quest. But its something that is really putting me off in witcher 3.

[Skizzit]

Yeah. i love exploring aswell. Thats why, when i booted up skyrim special edition again, i manage to reach 80 hours played before even really starting the main quest. But its something that is really putting me off in witcher 3.

I can never get into first person RPGs. The Fallout series is the only one and those I think are only because I love that world so much due to my expose to it via the original two games. Had Fallout 3 been the first in the series I don't think I would have really cared. I usually am not a huge fan of straight up fantasy either, but there is something about The Witcher's particular Polish spin on traditional fantasy that worked for me and dragged me in.

[Vocah]

If only it would be cheaper to make games, just imagine a retelling of the Witcher 1 and 2 stories with the Witcher 3 tech.

The same for other franchises.

[Akka]

You really need to finish it sometime. The story had some major feels going on in it by the end. And you really need to experience the story in the Hearts of Stone DLC. That one was really good. The story in Blood and Wine however, fell a little flat (IMO).

I found the MQ of Blood & Wine downright shitty TBH. Stupid main characters and plot with absurd logic and behaviours, too cinematic-oriented, the writing is vastly inferior to the main game and the atmosphere clashes too much with the grit of the original game (even if it's on purpose and fitting with the setting).

Regardless, it's still an impressive DLC, bigger and longer than most open-world ENTIRE GAMES while still being priced as an actual DLC (less than 20 bucks at release, probably less than half now, for more than 40 hours of content), so it only pales compared to TW3 itself and still roflstomp the competition.

[Leih]

All these Witcher 3 praising comments make me sad I haven't managed to get into it at all. I tried for several hours but I can't relate to any of the characters at all so far, and the whole open world grindy aspect of it doesn't appeal to me. This big open map with repetitive side missions thing got old back in Assassin's Creed 1 I kind of liked the story in some of the main missions so far, but all this side stuff in between is very distracting and uninteresting, and there's waaaay too much travelling. I also don't like the combat at all. It's a step up from Witcher 2, but it's still a bit iffy as far as real time combat systems go.

I'm not sure why but I wish I could see the beauty everyone else can with it.

[Zephyr Storm]

I found the MQ of Blood & Wine downright shitty TBH. Stupid main characters and plot with absurd logic and behaviours, too cinematic-oriented, the writing is vastly inferior to the main game and the atmosphere clashes too much with the grit of the original game (even if it's on purpose and fitting with the setting).

Regardless, it's still an impressive DLC, bigger and longer than most open-world ENTIRE GAMES while still being priced as an actual DLC (less than 20 bucks at release, probably less than half now, for more than 40 hours of content), so it only pales compared to TW3 itself and still roflstomp the competition.

Agreed. Blood and Wine is still far better than many other games and their DLC, but it is definitely the weakest in the Witcher 3 trio.

[May90]

Witcher 3 is the best open world game I've ever played period. No other game I've seen combines exploration, main story, side stories/quests, combat, crafting, mini-games and many other things in such a perfect way in which each seems essential, and, at the same time, none feels overly exaggerated. I never got bored with the game, and after 130+ hours completing the last quest only made me want more.

Witcher 3 is Bioware-level storytelling merged with Bethesda-level open world and Blizzard-level diversity of gameplay. It is going to be pretty hard to beat this gem in the nearest future!

[Akka]

Witcher 3 is Bioware-level storytelling merged with Bethesda-level open world

Pretty much.
Though the aspect which really, really blew me apart in the Witcher, was more about the incredible believability and realistic scale of the open world.
As a pure "sandbox", it's a bit inferior to Bethesda (there is a bit less interaction with the world itself), but as worldbuilding it's just so comically better it's funny. Distance between settlements "feel" true (they aren't, but they give the best illusion I've ever seen), the roads feel logical and natural, and the superb scenery stretching for incredibly far gives a real notion of a whole "region".
TW3 villages look actually like village (not one or two houses with three people), and Novigrad is the first time I've seen an actually honest-to-God HUGE city in a game outside a GTA game. And despite its size, it's still INCREDIBLY detailed. Not two streets are the same, there is countless landmarks and styles and everything. This is no Solitude here ("biggest city in the North" which is what, ten houses large ?"), it's a sprawling city with hundred of houses, characters and quests. You spend about a whole complete game worth of time in it... and yet when you look at the map, it's still appropriately sized and barely more than a large dot on the map.

As for the story-telling, TW3 is certainly more moving and feel more natural than the latest Bioware (which are too burdened with their formula and social commentary to still make room for their plot, which is a shame considering the few sparks of brilliance that tried to shine between the cogs of the Hollywood machine). The engine allows for extremely subtle display of emotions (which are all the more powerful considering the muted personality of Geralt), and there is some scenes which are just fantastic (the brotherhood with the other Witcher at Kaer Morhen, with the exchange of personal stories, playing card to pass time, drinking and the whole "summon the bitches !" delirium, are pure solid gold).

So yeah, TW3 is a masterpiece, a jewel of actual art in the video game world.

And to top it off, it's actually buyable completely DRM-free on GoG here. Don't be fools and don't buy it on Steam, go buy it directly from the actual makes (GoG belongs to CD Project ) !
(and it's "new year sales", it's -40 % at 30 bucks, and it easily is worth four times this price and more)

[Deleted]

I loved all 3 Witcher games but yes 3 is a huge improvement over 2, which was already a huge improvement over the first.

[Bloodletters]

Witcher 3 > Witcher 1 > Witcher 2

I need to stick up for Witcher 1 first, that game is very good. I get that a lot of people probably won't like it now given it's almost 10 years old and it was made on the crappy Bioware Aurora engine. I played it at release, it was very buggy but they released the enhanced edition and that game reviewed very well and it was seen as a big breath of fresh air in terms of western RPGs because the choice and consequence mechanics were much better than anything Bioware or Bethesda was doing.

Witcher 2 is also very good but I have Witcher 1 as the better game just because it's a lot longer and some of the later acts in Witcher 1's story are so great. Witcher 2 actually had to cut some significant portions of the game because CDPR was going bankrupt at the time. The combat in Witcher 2 is the hardest to get into at the beginning of the game. They take too many important skills away from you and trying to play on Dark Mode can be quite challenging unless you're really familiar with the game.

Witcher 3 is my favorite game ever. I feel that Witcher 3 has the best gameplay of the three, the sidequests and the world building are absolute first rate type of stuff.

[Kralljin]

Witcher 2 actually had to cut some significant portions of the game because CDPR was going bankrupt at the time. The combat in Witcher 2 is the hardest to get into at the beginning of the game. They take too many important skills away from you and trying to play on Dark Mode can be quite challenging unless you're really familiar with the game.

I still think the hardest part of Witcher 2 is the Prologue.

Seriously, fighting multiple enemies at once that carry shields, mixed with some knights that two shot you, in small spaces that leave little to no area for rolling / dodging is not the best starting experience.

[thewallofsleep]

I played 3 for 250 hours. Then bought 2 and 1 as a bundle like yourself. Played 2 for around 12 hrs and just couldn't get into it.

The controls are horrible, the combat is slow and sluggish, the graphics are terrible.

For their time, i'm sure they were decent games, perhaps even good. Now? No. They do not withstand the test of time imo.

Witcher 3 is a ridiculously massive step up in every aspect from Witcher 2.

Graphics, controls, gameplay, characters, scope, story, pacing .. its all simply better in Witcher 3.

Not to mention Witcher 3 is open world, Witcher 2 is zones with a linear path. I don't believe you can go back once you've went forward.

Oh and don't forget the DLC for Witcher 3. Hearts of Stone is short (10-20 hours main quest, if you can call that short) and tragic and kind of fucking creepy. Blood and Wine is an entirely new zone, a fucking amazing story and some really fantastic new characters. Regis is perhaps my favourite character of all time, in any game or book or show.

I HIGHLY recommend Witcher 3. It is the best game I have ever played and if I could wipe my memory of it so that I could binge it fresh for another 250 hours i'd do it in a heartbeat.

I would however recommend an Xbox controller for it, unless you're ok with keybindings. My GF couldn't get into keyboard use and went with the xbox controller, I just binded abilities to my naga and usual wow keybinds and enjoyed it that way. I'd also recommend playing it on a higher difficulty (blood and broken bones i believe is the 2nd highest) the game is stupidly easy on the lowest two difficulty levels. Blood and Broken Bones is basically how it should be played, with Death March adding on a little bit more difficulty.

Also make sure to check the option 'enemies scale with my level' personal choice, but I prefer it. Otherwise you'll be level 20 and be 1 hitting level 3 enemies when you go back to an area to finish some quests off.

This game will make you wonder how the fuck people still think Skyrim is a good RPG.

This comment is quite old, but does making enemies scale to your level mean you get xp for low level quests?

[Bloodletters]

I still think the hardest part of Witcher 2 is the Prologue.

Seriously, fighting multiple enemies at once that carry shields, mixed with some knights that two shot you, in small spaces that leave little to no area for rolling / dodging is not the best starting experience.

Totally agree. I think the combat opens up so much once you get to mid and late game and it's actually quite fun at that point.

[Sliske]

This comment is quite old, but does making enemies scale to your level mean you get xp for low level quests?

No, you need an addon for that

http://www.nexusmods.com/witcher3/mods/820/?

I recommend playing with both upscaling and that addon. Otherwise you'll have enemies that die to igni and quests that give 1 or 0 exp

[May90]

I still think the hardest part of Witcher 2 is the Prologue.

Seriously, fighting multiple enemies at once that carry shields, mixed with some knights that two shot you, in small spaces that leave little to no area for rolling / dodging is not the best starting experience.

In vanilla Witcher 2, or the current one (Enhanced Edition)? In EE on the hardest difficulty I didn't have much trouble in the prologue, once I figured out the system (similar to Kingdoms of Amalur, just much more punishing). Some of the boss fights, on the other hand... The first fight with Letho and Draug fight were nasty. The problem is that these bosses 1-2 shot you without Quen on, and with Quen you only get 1 hit grace, so one small mistake in a very long fight can cost you a few minutes of effort.

I like the Witcher 2 combat the most in the series, although Witcher 3 combat is quite close.