Witcher 2 to Witcher 3

[Sigxy]

Witcher 1 is just plain terrible in terms of gameplay.

Witcher 2 is bad to average, the combat system feels very awkward / less fluid than Witcher 3, the irony of Witcher 2 is that the prologue is probably the hardest part of the game.

I actually feel Witcher 1 is better than Witcher 2. Sure, it's clunky but it has it's charm... And at least it wasn't designed for consoles first, PC later, like Witcher 2. Going through the menu and inventory was just the worst. Plus, I'm not a fan of the quick-time events the 2nd game did. :<

Sadly I'm yet to finish Witcher 3. I want to finish all the side-stuff before moving on with the main plot, which involves visiting all the "?"s on the map... which is not that fun in the zone which involves using a boat a LOT. ;_:

Witcher 1 didn't age well gameplay wise, but in its prime it was an amazing game. Both gameplay and Story wise. You just had to get used to the unique combat system, but once you figure it out - it's just a choreographic clicker. Switch stances according to situation, switch swords according to enemies, click at right cues to perform combos. Add signs to your taste. The story was amazing. Decisions, decisions.

I played it in its prime so I enjoyed it a lot, I tried playing it again - couldn't even force myself to do it.

Witcher 2 was better gameplay wise but more streamlined storywise - and amazing because of it (you actually have to play it twice to see both paths). But release version had clunky controls and combat was affected by that making it harder than it should've been, at least for me. But they fixed that fast. I played it with a controller, kb/mouse were still a bit clunky.

I think Witcher 2 is quite replayable today, the only downside is the slow "I remember" prologue.

Witcher 3 - well one of the best video games ever made. I'm gonna start another playthru tomorrow, now with all the expansions.

Wish I could agree - but in my case, I can go back to Witcher 1 just about whenever and replay it. Witcher 2: I quit playing at the last chapter, took a -year- to get back to it and finish it, never want to play it again. '.'

[Airlick]

Witcher 3 is one of the most overrated games to date. The story is decent and it looks pretty. But at the end of the day. Its a game, not a movie. The combat in withcer 3 is mediocre at best. It doesn't really change much from the start of the game to the end of the game. Really no sense of progression. Then to top it off. These super fancy moveset which basically would get you killed in any real sword fight.

You got it wrong, the story is incredibly good and the graphics are stunning. You're right it's not a movie, it has enough relevant content for a whole TV series, except the writing quality is much higher than in grand majority of TV shows.

The gameplay isn't the best out there, but it's definitely right there at the top if you only look at RPG games. There definitely are no open world games with better gameplay than Witcher 3, especially considering it combines several different systems (riding, swimming, rowing, combat) at the same time. Pretty much the only games with better gameplay I can think of are 100% linear, short games that you experience exactly the way the devs envisioned them, which is not the case with sandboxish Witcher 3.

Those fancy moves might get you killed if you're a normal human, not like 3 times faster than a normal human and have some 60 years of constant fighting experience.

You're right in that the whole character progression and crafting was totally irrelevant, though. For me, and apparently for 99% of the players, considering how overwhelmingly praised the game is, it was just a bonus to the story and exploration. If you needed any incentives to explore a world so beautiful, lively and filled with side quests, pieces of lore and easter eggs, then true enough, loot wasn't a good enough incentive.

I wonder what's your idea of a 10/10 game if Witcher 3 is a 6/10.

[glowpipe]

You got it wrong, the story is incredibly good and the graphics are stunning. You're right it's not a movie, it has enough relevant content for a whole TV series, except the writing quality is much higher than in grand majority of TV shows.

The gameplay isn't the best out there, but it's definitely right there at the top if you only look at RPG games. There definitely are no open world games with better gameplay than Witcher 3, especially considering it combines several different systems (riding, swimming, rowing, combat) at the same time. Pretty much the only games with better gameplay I can think of are 100% linear, short games that you experience exactly the way the devs envisioned them, which is not the case with sandboxish Witcher 3.

Those fancy moves might get you killed if you're a normal human, not like 3 times faster than a normal human and have some 60 years of constant fighting experience.

You're right in that the whole character progression and crafting was totally irrelevant, though. For me, and apparently for 99% of the players, considering how overwhelmingly praised the game is, it was just a bonus to the story and exploration. If you needed any incentives to explore a world so beautiful, lively and filled with side quests, pieces of lore and easter eggs, then true enough, loot wasn't a good enough incentive.

I wonder what's your idea of a 10/10 game if Witcher 3 is a 6/10.

My 10/10 game doesn't exist yet. Use dark souls combat in witcher and we are getting closer. Not saying that it should be a uber hard and punishing game. Thats not what i mean with dark souls combat, but the combat feels really smooth. the hitboxes are spot on and you can change your gameplay and having to change style and tactics by simply swapping a weapon with different weapon arts.

I shit you not when i say that i think the gameplay and combat in assassins creed origins is better than witcher 3. The horse/camel rides better than roach. The boats are more or less the same. The weapon handling feels much better and is more engaging in the long run. But the skill system got the same problem as witcher. By being limited and you don't really feel its even there at end game.

Origins is riddled with a lot of issues and a weak story. But i take that gameplay any day over witcher 3

[Zafire]

Okay, last question regarding Witcher 3.

Without spoiling anything, is there an ideal time to play the DLC?

I ask because in some games, the DLC can be played in any order (For example, the two DLCs for Saints Row 4 can be played during or after the main story, doesn't really matter) while in others, while they "can" be played in any order, they really make a lot more sense if played after the main story (For example, Mass Effect 2's DLCs, or the Dragonborn DLC for skyrim)

So when it comes to Hearts of Stone and Blood&Wine, are these played after the main story? during? or what?

You can do Hearts of Stone before finishing the main game, but you have to be fairly close to the end of the main storyline to even fight anything on even ground. Blood and Wine is 100% after the main storyline.

At the end of Heart of Stone, depending on which ending you pick, you get a few options as a reward (Some of the rewards are amazing and carry over into New Game+, including the best equipment for your horse that turns his eyes red and makes him emit a black miasma). If you beat the DLC prior to beating the main storyline, there is an "extra" reward that basically tells you how to get the best ending. It's just information you can look up online though. Just a tip if you intend to play without guides.

[Derah]

Well, I bit the bullet, and played Witcher 1 from start to finish. Used a trainer of course, and ignored most of the sidequests, focusing only on the main stuff. Having played Witcher 1 entirely............ man this game has not aged well.

The story got a lot better once you're past the dreadful chapter 1, but the gameplay was shit from start to finish, the voice-acting was hit&miss (more misses than hits), the music was average at best, and the graphics are awful (Elder Scrolls Oblivion is almost 2 years older than this game and manages to look miles ahead).

Having said that, I have to say I greatly enjoyed the story (Shitty initial hours notwithstanding) and the fact that the story of Witcher 2 and 3 is several times better, serves as good encouragement to keep going.

[Progenitor Aquarius]

The most funny thing at this game in my opinion is not combat and armor, it’s the story and unlimited choices you can make which alter ending or future events in the storyline. Even making some choices in Whicher 2 can inpact the story in Witcher 3. Music and climate is outstanding, it’s Slavic folklore, some people might don’t understand it. It’s really recommended to play this game slowly and explore side quests before even going through main storyline. It’s really fun. Card game in Witcher 3 is also entertaining as hell.

[Derah]

Well, this is a tough choice.

Iorveth or Roche in Witcher 2?

Pros? Cons? I don't mind spoilers for the second game, just don't spoil the third one.

[Elim Garak]

Well, this is a tough choice.

Iorveth or Roche in Witcher 2?

Pros? Cons? I don't mind spoilers for the second game, just don't spoil the third one.

Two playthru's. Just sayin'

With Iorveth you get to meet Saskia.
Roche will be more helpful in Witcher 3. I'm not sure if it's connected I never tried a clean start in Witcher 3 and I use Roche save from Witcher 2.

[Derah]

Two playthru's. Just sayin'

With Iorveth you get to meet Saskia.
Roche will be more helpful in Witcher 3. I'm not sure if it's connected I never tried a clean start in Witcher 3 and I use Roche save from Witcher 2.

Two playthrough's indeed. Its a shame the first few hours were so shitty, because indeed the story DOES get better after a while. So better in fact, that I am most certainly going to play Witcher 2 again at some point in the future. However, right now I just want to beat it once so I can start Witcher 3, which is the one I'm REALLY interested in playing. (The gameplay in Witcher 2 is tolerable at best. Not annoying like the previous one, but not enjoyable either. I'd compare it to the gameplay of Mass Effect 1 more or less)

Having said that, the decision between Iorveth and Roche ended up being a lot easier than I thought. Iorveth doesn't show up in Witcher 3 at all (except for a side-comic in one of the DLCs), whereas Roche and Ves do. There's no point in helping and bonding with a character I wont see again after the game is over, so Roche it is.

[Drakain]

Witcher 3 is a great game. Witcher 2 is good, but Witcher 3 is great. You don’t need. Witcher 2 to enjoy 3. You probably won’t feel the same about Triss, but that’s okay. But play it on a higher difficulty.

[Airlick]

Well, this is a tough choice.

Iorveth or Roche in Witcher 2?

Pros? Cons? I don't mind spoilers for the second game, just don't spoil the third one.

Yeaaah, two playthroughs it is, they are pretty much 2 different storylines, you explore different locations and interact with different characters. Iorweth's playthrough is written more like adventurous chapters of the books (travelling with Zoltan and his crew, and later with Regis, Milva and others), Roche's storyline is like the political chapters. I found Iorweth's side slightly better, mostly due to the dwarves and Saskia.

[Kralljin]

Well, this is a tough choice.

Iorveth or Roche in Witcher 2?

Pros? Cons? I don't mind spoilers for the second game, just don't spoil the third one.

Roche's path is more relevant as far as Witcher 3 is concerned.

Iorveth's path however has more charm in my opinion, as it reveals more of the general plot and is seemingly seen as the "canon" one, at least a comic you get with HoS takes place between W2 and W3 clearly portrays events that could only happen if you chose Iorveth.

[Cattleya]

I thought Iorveth's route was the better of the two in Witcher 2, but yeah it got totally screwed over for Witcher 3, with neither of the two biggest characters from the route making an appearance.

[Schattenlied]

I didn't play TW1 or 2 more than maybe 30min each because their combat was so atrocious to me that I couldn't force myself to play them... I know basically nothing about their stories, still enjoyed TW3.

[nocturnus]

Witcher 3 is one of the most overrated games to date. The story is decent and it looks pretty. But at the end of the day. Its a game, not a movie. The combat in withcer 3 is mediocre at best. It doesn't really change much from the start of the game to the end of the game. Really no sense of progression. Then to top it off. These super fancy moveset which basically would get you killed in any real sword fight.

Couldn't agree more. It is beautiful graphically, but the gameplay itself is borderline mindnumbing (not to mention unwieldy) and the story is boring as fuck. Give me a King Killer Chronicles storyline and I'll be praising the game 'till there's no tomorrow, but this is just mediocre writing at best.

[Derah]

Well shit.

I finished Witcher 2 (Good story, poor ending, shit gameplay, but more tolerable than the first game- Graphics have aged beautifully. Hard to believe this game is older than skyrim, it wouldn't look out of place in 2017 still) and began witcher 3.

3 hours. I've only played 3 hours, done 2 side-quests and 1 contract, and half of a main-quest. And I'm fucking hooked.

This game WAS indeed worthy of all the jizz-spewing praise it got. Now I wish they'd remake the first two games using the engine and gameplay of this one. Its like every single fucking thing I hated about the gameplay, UI, and other elements from the first two games were addressed entirely.

And Gwent....... this thing could give Hearthstone a run for its money. Way more indepth and addictive than it should be. All in all, I've only played like 1% of the game so far, and I'm hooked. That's a good omen a far as I'm concerned.

[Valeron]

Unpopular opinion, but I loved Witcher 2 over 3.

I much prefer Witcher 2's story over 3