Support NeoGAF

[HeelPower]

Witcher 3 is undoubtedly a great game which gained mainstream recognition for its long list of great achievements.However,I feel its predecessor is still better in significant ways.

1) The Story,Factions,World Set up & Writing are more intricate,deeper,less predictable

The Witcher 2 had a much more sophisticated set up than that of Witcher 3. There is so much more to the writing here.There are multiple,better fleshed factions and truly non of them come out clean in terms of morality. The overall simmering plot of foltest's assassination,looming Nilfgaard in the background and human~non human conflict and lodge of the sorceresses is more nuanced and complex than it has ever been in The Witcher 3.

You can come back for multiple playthroughs and STILL untangle details you may have not gotten the first time through.

TW3 is a lot easier to follow by design and its a clear simple plot.Despite its massive length,there isn't much meat to analyse or revisit in the main plot of TW3.Its entertaining,endearing but not thought provoking.Its factions are played straight and its clear who is bad and who is good here.Almost to JRPG~esque levels(with much better writing)

2) MUCH Better Villains,More Intriguing,Shady Characters,Gray Morality

First of all,Letho is much more interesting antagonist than the king of the wild hunt could ever hope to be.Meeting him at the end was a thrilling,satisfying moment which TW3 didnot match.Not once.

Then comes an incredibly well developed cast of supporting characters and villains :
The corrupt,slimy commandant Loredo of flotsam, the powerful,plotting sorceress Philippa ,piggish,brutish Henselt,straight up gross Dethmold,hot headed Roche,Myserious Iorveth,unpredictable Sile De Tansarville, Shillard etc

The number of interesting,unique character is larger in number,more varied and more interesting to break down and talk about than those of TW3.

TW3 relies on the charm and clarity of its central characters(Geralt,Ciri,Yennefer) and works hard to make them extremely likeable. The only other interesting supporting characters were Baron and Djikstra(though he falls off a cliff at the end)

There is comparatively less depth,variety and conflicting interests among characters in TW3.

3.Higher Replayability,Better Consequences of Choices

The game's denser,more compact design allows for higher replayability in Witcher 2.Its not a small or short game either.There's enough to explore,uncover in beautifully immersive and varied hub-like worlds.

The game's central choice between Iorveth and Roche was incredibly well executed.Each choice leads to a very different.equally well design path.The combination of these two design choices lead to a much higher replay value.

TW3 is humongous ,sluggish and much more slowly paced by comparison.I didn't feel a need to go back once I was done with the Massive playthrough.I was actually a bit tired of it,especially because the last portions of the plot lack any of the intrigue and TW2's crazy final chapter.

4.Better Armor Design

There isn't much to say here.Armor designs are more detailed,more varied than in TW3.I wont post pictures as there's too many.

TW3=TW2: Gameplay,Battle System

They're about the same here.Though I'd say TW2 had better boss battles whereas TW3 was somewhat more flexible and intuitive to control ?

Final words :I hope they remaster TW2 so everyone can enjoy this great masterpiece.

 

[playXray]

I'm not sure I would say TW2 is the better game but there were definite benefits to its linearity. Despite the fact that TW3 has one of the most amazing open worlds I have ever seen, I actually found the game more enjoyable once I ignored the open world and just followed the plot line in a mostly linear fashion.

 

[Moaradin]

I kinda agree with you. Witcher 3 felt too bloated for me. I put 80 hours into it and got burned out before I could beat Act 1.

Witcher 2 was a much more focused experience and the story carried me along much better than Witcher 3 did.

 

[Carlius]

i agree. witcher 2 was a tighter better game in terms of story and gameplay. witcher 3 had the open world. also, iorveth FTW! roach beggars apply somewhere else.

 

[A.Romero]

They are completely different games. Both are some of the best in their own genre.

I fell in love with witcher 2,though. It was the first rpg I got really involved since FFVII but I have played 3 for twice as long and haven't finished the DLC.

It would be really hard for me to decide for a favorite.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

Witcher 3 is too bloated for its own good. Witcher 2 was quite enjoyable though.

 

[JBwB]

I rank the main stories in the Witcher series like this:

1 > 3 > 2

For me The Witcher 3 pretty much surpassed W2 in almost every aspect.

Both were really awesome experiences regardless.

 

[Amirnol]

I love and appreciate both games. The first one is great too, especially the story. As a complete trilogy, it's one hell of an experience.

 

[HeelPower]

I love Witcher 1&3 too ,but I'd say Witcher 2 left a stronger impression and a stronger drive to replay immediately and read up on its story.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Yes it is but it annoys me regardless none of Geralt's supposed friends once stopped to tell him, don't fucking trust that bitch philippa.

I also preferred the smaller scale compared to TW3s open world approach.

 

[ant_]

I played them back to back. Witcher 3 is just a better designed game. They both have interesting stories, characters, and worlds. I also found the writing a lot more enjoyable in Witcher 3.

I'm actually shocked that some people think Witcher 2 is the better game. I love both of them but the Witcher 3 is a clear step up for the developers.

 

[Pagusas]

I tried jumping back into the Witcher 2 after beating witcher 3, and my god it has not aged well The graphics are horrible, the voice acting is amateurish and its just hard to sit through after all the insane improvements of 3.

 

[HStallion]

I generally agree with the OP however the Witcher 2 didn't have this mother fucker:

Hearts of Stone was amazing.

 

[HanzSnubSnub]

I love both games very much. Having said that, your points are completely valid.

At the end of the day, one is open world and the other is not. I feel that alone is the reason for many of the differences.

 

[m_dorian]

Witcher 2 is a great game. Witcher 3 is a masterpiece.
I love them both.

 

[SlickVic]

Before playing the Witcher 2, I really liked the idea of the Roche or Iorveth choice before I played the game. It felt like you were getting 2 different stories in 1 game. But finishing up the game, I wasn't a huge fan of how it was actually executed. I remember it felt a bit awkward hitting Act 3 and a lot of the plot points either felt awkwardly stitched in from the other pathway or resolved off-screen. Almost as if I was watching bits and pieces of a final episode of a TV show that I had never actually seen before.

I'm sure it would have been a lot more satisfying if I did a second playthrough, but it's very rare I go back to replay a game, and while I liked the game, I just wasn't clamoring for more when I reached the ending the first time. Of course, that's just me and I'm sure others enjoyed this approach a lot. It simply didn't work as well for me.

I still like the Witcher 2 and it's story a lot. Looking back on it, I'll probably remember the game as a great appetizer to the fantastic feast that was The Witcher 3.

 

[RoboticWater]

I tried jumping back into the Witcher 2 after beating witcher 3, and my god it has not aged well The graphics are horrible, the voice acting is amateurish and its just hard to sit through after all the insane improvements of 3.

You sure that wasn't Witcher 1? Witcher 2 and 3 share many of the same voice actors (certainly for the leads, IIRC), and they give equally good performances in both games.

Seriously though, I don't know how anyone could go back to Witcher 2 and say the graphics are "horrible." Image quality in that game is top notch, and in my opinion, far more consistent than its successor's (due in no small part to 2's linearity). On a technical level the graphics are incredibly close to, if not on par with, 3's. In fact, I recall the game looking better in most regards, but I won't say that conclusively with just my memory as evidence.

 

[Daingurse]

Until Hearts of Stone, I definitely preferred Witcher 2 over Witcher 3. I much preferred the story, with it's emphasis on the politics of the various kingdoms. Found it very interesting. I also thought the linear nature suited the game well, it felt like a very focused tight experience. The combat also didn't bother me, despite hearing so many people who can't stand it at all. It was enough of an improvement over Witcher 1 for me lol. And man, what a gorgeous fucking game for 2011!

After Hearts of Stone though, Witcher 3 almost became on-par with Witcher 2 for me. That was such a fantastic expansion. Still haven't beat Blood and Wine, maybe that will make the game on par for me? I truly love Witcher 2 dearly. Was my 2nd favorite title of that entire generation of gaming.

 

[Azzanadra]

I did ultimately prefer the Witcher 3 overall, though as a sequel I was disappointed with how the politics were handled in The Witcher 3, as The Witcher 2 did have an engrossing and intriguing plot on that front. Still though, I much preferred the slavic/anglo-saxon fairy tales of The Witcher 3 than the dark and gritty realism of The Witcher 2. The Witcher has always been about putting spins on those fairy-tales, and that is something The Witcher 2 sorely missed. In fact, the only noteworthy instance I can think of is the "troll under the bridge" in act 1. Honestly felt The Witcher 2 was trying way too hard to be Game of Thrones rather than sticking to what made the books and previous game so amazing.

 

[darkslayer101]

TW3=TW2: Gameplay,Battle System

They're about the same here.

other than that I feel like the witcher you start playing the first is the one that has an impression on most people. The first witcher was one of my first rpg experience and it blew me away but to most people the combat was atrocious (which for the most part it is), the game didn't get the attention until witcher2.
As great as assassins of kings were, I felt heavily restricted and almost felt linear even with the game boasting the multiple options its provides. Not to mention the combat was straight up button mashing with the enemies having an amazing buff etc..

Witcher 3 combat is the best I have experienced in an rpg of such scope and narrative driven. The pirouttes feel natural and TIMED unlike witcher 2 were again felt too button mashy.

 

[dlauv]

I think Witcher 3 is better overall, but I do agree with your points. Witcher 2 was simply stronger in some spots albeit boss fights. They were worse than 3's, especially 3's expansions'. I do like some aspects of Witcher 2's combat over 3's, but I feel it was worse overall.

I do wish Witcher 3's leveling system was more like 2's.

 

[silva1991]

I agree about Letho being much better antagonist tan the forgettable guy in W3 main game whatever his name is.

I also like the combat in W2 better than W3.

As for replayability I actually had the urge to replay the W2 twice once and I don't think I will ever replay W3 again mainly because it's so huge with a poor combat.

I'm not sure if I would consider 2 better than 3 overall, but I would struggle to say that 3 is better either.

Witcher 2 was my first Witcher game and it had a bigger impact on me so maybe that affects my opinion.

 

[Jangowuzhere]

Witcher 3 is undoubtedly a great game which gained mainstream recognition for its long list of great achievements.However,I feel its predecessor is still better in significant ways.

1) The Story,Factions,World Set up & Writing are more intricate,deeper,less predictable


The Witcher 2 had a much more sophisticated set up than that of Witcher 3. There is so much more to the writing here.There are multiple,better fleshed factions and truly non of them come out clean in terms of morality. The overall simmering plot of foltest's assassination,looming Nilfgaard in the background and human~non human conflict and lodge of the sorceresses is more nuanced and complex than it has ever been in The Witcher 3.

You can come back for multiple playthroughs and STILL untangle details you may have not gotten the first time through.

This aspect of The Witcher 2 is exactly why I dislike it so much.

The various politics and multiple bullshit factions were terrible. The fact that you STILL can't untangle the details in that story speaks more to how badly written it all is. The game introduces various factions, but none of them are properly introduced in the game. The player is bombarded with tons of information about different kingdoms, politicians, policies, etc. and all of it is boring rubbish.

Also, in the end, who cares? You don't come to the Witcher for the political aspects in the story. The mythical fantasy elements are infinitely more interesting. The politics in The Witcher 2 did nothing but make that entire world feel much generic. Any story can have politics, but only few can have well crafted fantasy.

I was so glad they dialed back this stuff in The Witcher 3. They focused their attention on the characters and the world, and the game was all the better for it.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

other than that I feel like the witcher you start playing the first is the one that has an impression on most people. The first witcher was one of my first rpg experience and it blew me away but to most people the combat was atrocious (which for the most part it is), the game didn't get the attention until witcher2.
As great as assassins of kings were, I felt heavily restricted and almost felt linear even with the game boasting the multiple options its provides. Not to mention the combat was straight up button mashing with the enemies having an amazing buff etc..

Witcher 3 combat is the best I have experienced in an rpg of such scope and narrative driven. The pirouttes feel natural and TIMED unlike witcher 2 were again felt too button mashy.

I think the combat of all witcher games sucks tbh.

I did ultimately prefer the Witcher 3 overall, though as a sequel I was disappointed with how the politics were handled in The Witcher 3, as The Witcher 2 did have an engrossing and intriguing plot on that front. Still though, I much preferred the slavic/anglo-saxon fairy tales of The Witcher 3 than the dark and gritty realism of The Witcher 2. The Witcher has always been about putting spins on those fairy-tales, and that is something The Witcher 2 sorely missed. In fact, the only noteworthy instance I can think of is the "troll under the bridge" in act 1. Honestly felt The Witcher 2 was trying way too hard to be Game of Thrones rather than sticking to what made the books and previous game so amazing.

Witcher 2 came out a month after the first episode of Game of Thrones. Only the first 2 books are really putting spins on fairy-tales the latter series of books, which make up the majority of the witcher, focusing on Ciri is a fairly mundane story compared.

This aspect of The Witcher 2 is exactly why I dislike it so much.

The various politics and multiple bullshit factions were terrible. The fact that you STILL can't untangle the details in that story speaks more to how badly written it all is. The game introduces various factions, but none of them are properly introduced in the game. The player is bombarded with tons of information about different kingdoms, politicians, policies, etc. and all of it is boring rubbish.

Also, in the end, who cares? You don't come to the Witcher for the political aspects in the story. The mythical fantasy elements are infinitely more interesting. The politics in The Witcher 2 did nothing but make that entire world feel much generic. Any story can have politics, but only few can have well crafted fantasy.

I was so glad they dialed back this stuff in The Witcher 3. They focused their attention on the characters and the world, and the game was all the better for it.

that's actually a much bigger focus of witcher than the fantasy. Even witcher 1 made racism a central conflict of its story and that carries through all the games.

 

[GSG Flash]

Having played both back to back, it's really not.

TW2 is a great game, but TW3 is in a whole other league. TW3 is easily one of the best games I've ever played, can't say the same about TW2.

 

[plasmawave]

Witcher 2 as a game is complete garbage so I would say no.
Even if it has a better story the gamaplay is trash beyond belief.

 

[Jangowuzhere]

that's actually a much bigger focus of witcher than the fantasy. Even witcher 1 made racism a central conflict of its story and that carries through all the games.

That's very different from boring kingdom politics.

That racism aspect also ties heavily into the fantasy. We are talking about dwarves and Elves being subjugated by humans.

 

[StrategyFan]

witcher 1: best writing + role-playing + interconnectedness of quests+narrative
witcher 2: best story + plot
witcher 3: best cinematic experience + graphics + minigame

 

[Slangblade]

Witcher 2 as a game is complete garbageso I would say no.
Even if it has a better story the gamaplay is trash beyond belief.

See this I why I can't take gaf seriously anymore. I don't think The Witcher 2 is better than 3 but I do think the story is way better. Saskia is goat character for me.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

That's very different from boring kingdom politics.

That racism aspect also ties heavily into the fantasy. We are talking about dwarves and Elves being subjugated by humans.

Fine you constantly have to trek to the royal court, to parties, to the bank,... Witcher 1 actually bored me for some time with all the politicizing but throughout the game I came to appreciate it some more.

See this I why I can't take gaf seriously anymore. I don't think The Witcher 2 is better than 3 but I do think the story is way better. Saskia is goat character for me.

Saskia is also one of the much better tie ins from the books, since it's much more subtle than the otherwise hamfisted approach.

 

[guyssorry]

Witcher 2 is one of the worst, most boring, sloppy games I have ever played. The map was terrible, the story was boring, combat was garbage (even worse than in TW3), I did not care for any characters.

Witcher 3, on the other hand, is a great, solid 4/5 game with a beautiful (albeit too big) world, one of the few game stories that is not complete shit, interesting characters and side quests (for the most part), and not as sloppy as TW2.

So, I would have to disagree.

 

[Fall Into The GAF]

TW3 was the better game/overall experience and in a lot of areas, the story too. It was a more personable story about Geralt and wasn't so entrenched with the politicking of the 2nd game. Granted, it's a matter of different tastes but it was so goddamn refreshing coming off Assassin of Kings.

The combat system, however, is still a litmus test of patience. I really hope it's addressed fully in Cyberpunk/CDPR's next game.

 

[Ashtar]

I agreed with with the op premise until I played the expansions. I crowned Witcher 3 for goty a year before it was released and replayed Witcher 2 in anticipation, the game finally hits and I dive in probably sunk 60 hours into the main game but at some points I was left wondering what am I doing? I was poor at first and couldn't even afford to keep myself Fed so I did side missions to get money and my level up but I got so side tracked I completely lost track of the central story! So by the time I got around to finishing it a month later it felt anti climactic.
Now the Witcher 2 had a nice tight narrative and it benefitted from the that but when you break a 20 hour game into a 60 the pacing goes a bit off.
Also I preferred combat in w2 to w3, w3 I pretty much tanked everything because combat wasn't fun.
Letho was definitely a great villain and better than what's his face.
But the expansions changed my mind the tight story line of hos and the great new land mass of b&w elevated it to goty for me

 

[Renmyra]

Have to disagree. I've tried playing W2 (before W3 came out) at least 5 times, and I can never get past the opening because of the horrible combat. The art direction in this game is also pretty ass.

W3 is one of my all time favorite games.

Spoiler

Fun fact: It runs way better too.

 

[Azzanadra]

Witcher 2 came out a month after the first episode of Game of Thrones. Only the first 2 books are really putting spins on fairy-tales the latter series of books, which make up the majority of the witcher, focusing on Ciri is a fairly mundane story compared.

True, but ASOIAF had been out for a decade at that point and was still extremely popular in fantasy circles, which CDPR was undoubtedly a part off.

I agree about your second point, but notice I said "what made the books amazing". The saga itself I thought was pretty bad TBH, the short story collections however were great and that was The Witcher at its best.

 

[Pagusas]

You sure that wasn't Witcher 1? Witcher 2 and 3 share many of the same voice actors (certainly for the leads, IIRC), and they give equally good performances in both games.

Seriously though, I don't know how anyone could go back to Witcher 2 and say the graphics are "horrible." Image quality in that game is top notch, and in my opinion, far more consistent than its successor's (due in no small part to 2's linearity). On a technical level the graphics are incredibly close to, if not on par with, 3's. In fact, I recall the game looking better in most regards, but I won't say that conclusively with just my memory as evidence.

Yes lol I actually love Witcher 1.

The hair is my biggest problem in Witcher 2, how could they not see how angular it looked? And yes I know they share many of the same VO's, but the quality of the reads are just so much better in 3.

 

[Zukuu]

God knows. I've finished it twice and the cut off areas for each chapters are so lame. There is little to do and what you can do, is pretty meaningless. Even Witcher 1 was better.

 

[xeroborn55]

disagree.

Witcher 2 is by no means a bad game. I think its actually a pretty damn good game.

What Witcher 3 tries to do and mostly accomplishes is a much bigger achievement. That is a game that will be remembered for a long time. Its something special.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

True, but ASOIAF had been out for a decade at that point and was still extremely popular in fantasy circles, which CDPR was undoubtedly a part off.

I agree about your second point, but notice I said "what made the books amazing". The saga itself I thought was pretty bad TBH, the short story collections however were great and that was The Witcher at its best.

Oh yeah absolutely I couldn't even finish the last book when he started constantly switching narrators and also calling their narration in doubt in the process. I just read up online the rest of what happens. The short stories are fantastic though.

 

[Forkball]

Witcher 2 is a great game, but I think Witcher 3 out did it in most aspects.

1) The Story,Factions,World Set up & Writing are more intricate,deeper,less predictable

They are definitely more intricate, but I'm not sure if that means they are better. Witcher 1 mostly took place in a single city and the story largely focused on that singular area. Witcher 2 introduces more places, but it veers into Star Wars Episode I territory of bloated politics that aren't really explained. So we start off by sieging... some guy. The bastard son of Foltest? Where are we? Why is this castle important? What's happening? Then Foltest is out of the picture, and his children (bastards as well?) are taken away. We go to Flotsam, which is dubbed as an important border town, but it's importance is not really fully explained. Then in Chapter 2, although this is where the story deviates based on your choices, it revolves around control of the Pontar Valley. Why is this valley important? Henselt is the king of where? Aedirn? Kaedwen? What are these places and why are they important? If he gets the valley what happens? What happens if he loses it? Turns out it doesn't matter because Radovid, no matter what you did beforehand, somehow unifies the Northern Kingdoms under his reign. He takes Foltest's children. Or doesn't. John Natalis exists. psnilfgaard

Witcher 3 was definitely more simplified, but also had some depth to the different sides and factions. Nilfgaard and Redania had their share of positives and negatives, and all three outcomes of the fate of the Northern Kingdoms have pros and cons. In Witcher 2, so many plotlines were basically left unresolved, or we did not really get a sense of the impact of the conclusions.

2) MUCH Better Villains,More Intriguing,Shady Characters,Gray Morality
I too really liked the characters of Witcher 2, but Witcher 3 has its own group of memorable folks as well. I honestly don't think Letho was that compelling of a villain though. He kept teasing that he had some greater reason for killing kings throughout the game, but essentially he is nothing more than a hired hitman for Nilfgaard. Medieval Darth Vader wasn't really captivating at all I admit in Witcher 3, but they did feel like an insurmountable threat.

3.Higher Replayability,Better Consequences of Choices
Witcher 2 really does become almost two games after Chapter 1, but it can do that because it is indeed much smaller and directed than Witcher 3. Again, I feel like the consequences of your choices in Witcher 2 are largely left dangling. This is undoubtedly because they planned to tie them up in Witcher 3, but so many plotpoints are not touched upon at all in Witcher 3 which retroactively makes Witcher 2's plot threads unfulfilling.

4.Better Armor Design
Witcher 2 had some good armor for sure, but nothing tops the Wolven armor. NOTHING.

TW3=TW2: Gameplay,Battle System
I felt Witcher 3's gameplay and battle system was largely a more fleshed out and evolved version of 2's. Yes, I do like the combat in Witcher 3 and if you disagree I will twirl my sword at you.

All three Witcher games are actually pretty unique in how they play and the overall flow of gameplay, so they all stand out in some way. But I feel TW3 is largely the best game of the series.

 

[RedSwirl]

A lot of it comes down to taste I think.

Even when Witcher 3 came out a lot of reviews admitted Witcher 2 had a better main quest. TW3's is very conventional by comparison, but it makes up for it with an insane amount of interesting places and side stories. TW2 is pretty healthy in size, but TW3 is just ridiculous in its balance between breath and quality of content.

And you're always gonna have the argument between massive open-world RPGs and tighter ones focused around hubs. I like the sense of place and vastness you can get from an open-world game when done right, but I also appreciate how intricate tight RPG hubs can be. We see a lot fewer of the latter these days. It's something Deus Ex Mankind Divided does really well. TW2's Flotsam and Vergen are probably some of the most well-designed hub areas I've experienced in RPGs of the last decade or so. Flotsam in particular felt extremely functional and lived-in. You didn't just get a sense of what was going on from what the story told you, but you could feel it in what you saw. Probably one of the most pleasant RPG towns I can remember being in.

Overall though, I think TW3 at least feels like a much more polished game. TW2 felt like it was trying to step into the AAA space but still had some of that rough Eurojank left over from the first Witcher game. That's not a bad thing for a lot of people, but I felt TW2 in terms of polish was stuck kind of halfway between the deliciously full-blown Eurojank of STALKER or TW1 and the big mainstream console game TW3 eventually became.

 

[Exentryk]

Witcher 2's political heavy story did nothing for me. Witcher 3's more personal story was much more interesting and easy to get in to.

Witcher 2's small linear areas did nothing for me either. I don't mind linear areas (it can be better at times), but they should be large enough to explore (think Wild Orchard size). Given this, the exploration was much more satisfying in Witcher 3. It felt like a much more cohesive world than Witcher 2's loading screen separated areas.

Witcher 2's combat was really clunky. High animation priority, had to drink potions outside of combat, no mods for insta-casting magic, etc. Witcher 3's is a lot better.

I gave up playing Witcher 2 after a few hours, but have like 400 hours in TW3 and is my favourite RPG of all time.

 

[loganclaws]

Literally just finished Witcher 2 a week ago. It's the worst in the series. Witcher 1 and 3 are much better games.

 

[poodaddy]

I agree completely OP, The Witcher 2 is tied with Chrono Trigger as best RPG'S of all time for me. I love The Witcher 3 but I prefer politically charged stories in general and 2 delivered there; more intrigue and interesting motives for the incredible characters. I also prefer the music by quite a wide margin.

 

[Horp]

W2 was awesome for its time. W3 is better in almost every way but it being released later and the overall game being so good even further highlights the lacking combat for me, which diminishes the whole experience a lot.

 

[Philtastic]

After 175 hours played, I finally finished the main story of Witcher 3 this week and have started on the expansions. Although I think that you're right that the main story is more compelling in Witcher 2, there's a certain quality to insurmountable quantity when it's all pretty darn good. Contrary to what you've said, I think that there was still plenty of political intrigue or corruption involving Redania, Nilfgaard, Temeria, Philippa and the Lodge, Djikstra, the Mage Hunters, and the clans of Skellige to name a few with some large or small consequences based on how you dealt with them. I also felt that the Witcher 3 was not simply a single main quest but really a series of short stories that all moved toward a grand finale. As such, there wasn't simply a single main villain but a series of them, many of them in the previous list and all quite compelling in the role of villain (or ally or perhaps qualities of both). It's arguable that Eredin as a villain isn't that much worse than Emhyr var Emreis: they're both trying to violently conquer the world... and there were characters who were more monstrous than both of them.

The combat was more refined in Witcher 3 as well. Overall, I enjoyed Witcher 3 a lot more than Witcher 2.

 

[Maniac]

Wait a fucking minute.

Yo ass is tellin me it's easy and simple to tell which factions are good and which are bad in TW3?

The fuck... You weren't paying enough attention; they're all awful. Every last one of them. Terrible people utilising their power for terrible goals. And there's lots of political intrigue in the game; it's just not as much of a focus as in TW2. There's quite a lot of side-stories that're all about political power struggles.

TW2 lacked what The Witcher is all about; twisting the classic, well-known (and ancient) slavic & germanic folk lore into fabulously twisted, weird and engrossing fantasy. TW2 was more like Game of Thrones than it was The Witcher.

 

[Budi]

Interesting thoughts OP. But I can't agree with most of it. I even slightly prefer the first one over the sequel overall, third one blows them both away. Even the combat in first game compared to Witcher 2 was better imo. While not excellent I enjoyed the tempo based combat in Witcher 1, it felt bit strategic even with the stances. It's not as actiony as Witcher 2, but as someone already said in this thread it comes too much down to rapid button mashing. And I hated the leaps Geralt makes to acquire new target when another one dies. Though I need to be a bit forgiving to the combat in W2, since I played it on so old hardware it didn't even run steady 30 fps on the lowest settings. Ofcourse that has an effect on how it feels. I need to revisit the game with my new hardware and choose Roche's path this time. Also not being able to drink potions during combat in W2 was really dumb imo.

My Rankings W3 > W1 > W2. All of them absolutely great though. Maybe the best RPG series ever created. (Sorry Fallout, I blame Bethesda) And I love how different they all are.

 

[gatti-man]

I enjoyed the witches 2 far more than 3 so I agree. Witcher 3 I had to force myself to get through even on PC. I found myself not caring about what Geralt was doing most of the time.

 

[grandwizard]

I totally didn't expect to feel this way but honestly I have to agree. Something about TW2 just resonated with me and how you experience the world of The Witcher is so much better done than TW3. The way you are introduced to these great characters like Foltest and Henselt and see how things shape the world is just way more impactful to me as an RPG player.

I think TW2 might have one of the best 'conspiracy' stories in video games. I did find all the politics and factions confusing at first, but I came back to the game later and paid more attention and they do telegraph everything which makes it all the more awesome when you put it together. Everything just unfolds perfectly. It starts with Geralt trying to find an assassin and ends up with real world-changing stuff going on.

TW3 is a good game but it has a more typical 'chosen one who roams the lands and is always the most important person in every event who kills/slays everything and fights a great evil' thing going on. TW2 felt like a more personal journey of Geralt and his companions that get tied up in a world-spanning conspiracy.

In gameplay terms I also just more enjoyed the area design of 2. I felt it found a good balance of open and crafted environments. They were big enough to get lost in but you could tell everything was hand crafted and there wasn't a lot of wasted space. Flotsam forest is easily one of my favorite zones in any RPG, and as the first act of TW2 it was excellent.

Note though that I have yet to play the DLCs of TW3, I've only played the main game.