crazysapertonight
Member
W2 is better for me than W3. Story is a lot better.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Witcher 2 is better than The Witcher 3,Here's why(some spoilers) :
- Thread starter HeelPower
- Start date
The political intrigue in TW2 serves as a background on which characters act, it fuels character motivations.
That's why its so interesting in TW2 ,because it has direct ties to the large cast of characters.
Its not simply interesting for its own sake.A lot of the unique characterization relies on it.
I really,really agree with this.
TW2 wasn't a linear funnel.The game had plenty of meaningful exploration in its beautiful environs.Flotsam forest was pretty large.
The fact that there was no fast travel only added to that sense of exploration.You really know your way around by the time you're done with an area.
That's why its so interesting in TW2 ,because it has direct ties to the large cast of characters.
Its not simply interesting for its own sake.A lot of the unique characterization relies on it.
I really,really agree with this.
TW2 wasn't a linear funnel.The game had plenty of meaningful exploration in its beautiful environs.Flotsam forest was pretty large.
The fact that there was no fast travel only added to that sense of exploration.You really know your way around by the time you're done with an area.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Like I said in another post that's not the case at all 2 out of 7 books, the shortest to boot, are about that. TW3 moreso than any witcher game is a direct continuation of the books that centered on Ciri and had literally the same plot for major parts of it, find Ciri after she went AWOL.
The great parts about Witcher are about that but still TW2 is most in style of the witcher books. Geralt stumbling into events he wants nothing to do with and trying his worst not to get too caught up in it.
Except for the battle-system i agree that you are pointing out great things about TW2.
However, TW3 is better than TW2 in another thousand ways in my opinion. "Grayer characters" is hardly more important than things like dialogue writing and general gameplay enjoyment etc.
The replayability is a cool thing in TW2, but its a game that you beat in 35h. Shorter than a TW3-expansion. Would we really want TW3 to be that short? I sure wouldnt.
However, TW3 is better than TW2 in another thousand ways in my opinion. "Grayer characters" is hardly more important than things like dialogue writing and general gameplay enjoyment etc.
The replayability is a cool thing in TW2, but its a game that you beat in 35h. Shorter than a TW3-expansion. Would we really want TW3 to be that short? I sure wouldnt.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Witcher 3 is a superior game in the end. Yes, Letho is a much much much better antagonist than the leaders of the Wild Hunt, but this isn't true for the antagonists of Heart of Stone and Blood and Wine.
Secondly the Witcher 3 features romance options in Yennifer, Triss, Metz, and the Douchess that are much better than what was in Witcher 2.
The Witcher 3 has many strong storylines that are much better than many of the side quests in Witcher 2.
The Witcher 3 features meaningful exploration. Something I didn't truly understand until I went back and played W3 again with the expansions and the QOL patches. For one the grandmaster scavenger hunt is some of the most fun I've had in any open world game. I was shocked at how much I had missed on my first playthrough which was 120 hours.
The impact of your relationships with Vesemir, Ciri, The Bloody Baron, Priscilla, the royal sibling rivalry on Skellige, Keira, Olgeird, Shani, The Pellar, The Witches of the borg, Dudu, Gaunter O'Dinn, Lambert, Vivaldi, Barnabas, Phillippa, Eskel, Fringillica Vigo, Dettlaff, Milton and your bro Regis, is way beyond anything in Witcher 2. And I say this as someone who recently played them back to back again.
Just like Trespasser made Dragon Age Inquisitions story a much more satisfying conclusion, as does Heart and Stone and Blood and Wine for Witcher 3.
As a insular ending I was sort of let down by Witcher 3 when it came out. I got the bad ending (depressive) and it was over so abruptly. The expansions fill in the context for what happens beyond.
That still doesn't mean that that the main narrative of Letho was more exciting and better than the Wild Hunt ending.
1. Blood And Wine
2. Heart of Stone
3. Witcher 2 main story
4. Witcher 3 side quests
5. Witcher 3 main story
6. Witcher 1
Secondly the Witcher 3 features romance options in Yennifer, Triss, Metz, and the Douchess that are much better than what was in Witcher 2.
The Witcher 3 has many strong storylines that are much better than many of the side quests in Witcher 2.
The Witcher 3 features meaningful exploration. Something I didn't truly understand until I went back and played W3 again with the expansions and the QOL patches. For one the grandmaster scavenger hunt is some of the most fun I've had in any open world game. I was shocked at how much I had missed on my first playthrough which was 120 hours.
The impact of your relationships with Vesemir, Ciri, The Bloody Baron, Priscilla, the royal sibling rivalry on Skellige, Keira, Olgeird, Shani, The Pellar, The Witches of the borg, Dudu, Gaunter O'Dinn, Lambert, Vivaldi, Barnabas, Phillippa, Eskel, Fringillica Vigo, Dettlaff, Milton and your bro Regis, is way beyond anything in Witcher 2. And I say this as someone who recently played them back to back again.
Just like Trespasser made Dragon Age Inquisitions story a much more satisfying conclusion, as does Heart and Stone and Blood and Wine for Witcher 3.
As a insular ending I was sort of let down by Witcher 3 when it came out. I got the bad ending (depressive) and it was over so abruptly. The expansions fill in the context for what happens beyond.
That still doesn't mean that that the main narrative of Letho was more exciting and better than the Wild Hunt ending.
1. Blood And Wine
2. Heart of Stone
3. Witcher 2 main story
4. Witcher 3 side quests
5. Witcher 3 main story
6. Witcher 1
JamesJoyce1882
Member
While still pretty great, TW2 is my least favorite one. For me, the order is 3>1>2.
TW2 just felt too small, each area was tiny and restricted. In my opinion it played more like an adventure game than an RPG. On PC (Steam version) it also had by far the most technical problems with frequent crashes.
TW2 just felt too small, each area was tiny and restricted. In my opinion it played more like an adventure game than an RPG. On PC (Steam version) it also had by far the most technical problems with frequent crashes.
CybernatonEvolution
Member
Good points. I felt the same after playing the Witcher 3, and I had similar doubts before the game was even released. However, The Witcher 3 is very playable and more polished, but I still feel like it compromised certain strong points of TW2 due to the plot and open-world nature of TW3.
Blood and Wine has an amazing world though, and Hearts of Stone has an amazing story. I would like to see a more concise Witcher game with similar settings, atmosphere and political bullcrap to TW2.
Blood and Wine has an amazing world though, and Hearts of Stone has an amazing story. I would like to see a more concise Witcher game with similar settings, atmosphere and political bullcrap to TW2.
Yautja_Warrior
Member
Personally I think they are both awesome games but Witcher 3 just edges ahead because of the epic scale of the game that didn't sacrifice quality, despite being so massive.
I would love the first game to get a remaster with the Witcher 2 or 3 engine to make it more upto date and in line with 2 and 3, technically.
I would love the first game to get a remaster with the Witcher 2 or 3 engine to make it more upto date and in line with 2 and 3, technically.
I liked Witcher 2 more than W3 and I understand if someone likes W3 more, but dont even tell me W3 has better combat. W2 has much slower combat, but it feels more real, natural and potions are actually very important. W3 combat feels way too light (especially that "short dodge" felt like some weird dance move) and only necessary potions were the healing ones. And even they became useless once I got Quen active shield, that cant even compare with W2, where I had to prepare potions before bossfight and finding circle of power nearby was a godsend.
Ovek
7Member7
I agree, I've played through Witcher 2 many times over the years and only finished 3 once and have no desire to play it again even for all the new DLC.
The other thing I didn't like in 3, I went with Triss as my love interest mainly for funny dialogue or reaction from Yennefer but it seemed empty and unfinished or didn't happen at all something that surprised me from the people that made W2. Apparently they did "fix" it with later patches but I can't be arsed slogging my way through it again.
The other thing I didn't like in 3, I went with Triss as my love interest mainly for funny dialogue or reaction from Yennefer but it seemed empty and unfinished or didn't happen at all something that surprised me from the people that made W2. Apparently they did "fix" it with later patches but I can't be arsed slogging my way through it again.
I loved how heavy the atmosphere was in Witcher 2. It was not a world you would want to live in, it had problems it was mature. Witcher 3 was too 'nice' in my view even though it was trying to have serious themes. I enjoyed both but I think Witcher 2 had that heaviness that was separating it from other RPGs. I mean just listen to this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d_jizNCiInw
Witcher 3's main story (Ciri and the White Frost, Radovid the Stern, The Wild Hunt) is reaaalllyyyy weak and stumbles over itself to wrap up. It's really disappointing in many aspects and it feels like they struggled to get the game all nice and tidy in its final third.
But so much else of Witcher 3 is so damn gooooood and a lot of side quests and smaller story lines (THE FUCKING WITCHES OF CROOKBACK BOG ARE SO GOOD) are some of the best in gaming. And that isn't even mentioning Hearts of Stone which I think is the best singularly written story in gaming (Sorry, Last of Us).
Witcher 2's main story on the otherhand is very strong but the game as a whole was surpremely middling as a follow up to Witcher 1. I fucking love so much about Witcher 1. It's a janky mess and it's a joyful endearing mess. I love it's main story and Jacques de Aldersberg is still my favorite antagonist of the three games (Letho is prettyyyyyy close though). And most importantly the game makes you *feel* like a Witcher.
And that's where I think Witcher 2 stumbles the most. Some of that janky interfacing and mechanics of Witcher 1 still coalesced into fleshing out Geralt and a Witcher's needs and how they go about combat and preparation and hunting. And something about Witcher 2 just... didn't have that. I think part of it is just the large focus on the story line and being very lithe and conservative with side quests and extra content in Witcher 2. A lot of those menial small tasks and jobs and just basic interactions add a lot to the feel of a Witcher and being in a world and Witcher 2 just felt like it was missing a lot of that.
2 is sort of an afterthought to me because of that. It just pales next to its sequel and prequel.
But seriously, Hearts of Stone is fucking glorious.
But so much else of Witcher 3 is so damn gooooood and a lot of side quests and smaller story lines (THE FUCKING WITCHES OF CROOKBACK BOG ARE SO GOOD) are some of the best in gaming. And that isn't even mentioning Hearts of Stone which I think is the best singularly written story in gaming (Sorry, Last of Us).
Witcher 2's main story on the otherhand is very strong but the game as a whole was surpremely middling as a follow up to Witcher 1. I fucking love so much about Witcher 1. It's a janky mess and it's a joyful endearing mess. I love it's main story and Jacques de Aldersberg is still my favorite antagonist of the three games (Letho is prettyyyyyy close though). And most importantly the game makes you *feel* like a Witcher.
And that's where I think Witcher 2 stumbles the most. Some of that janky interfacing and mechanics of Witcher 1 still coalesced into fleshing out Geralt and a Witcher's needs and how they go about combat and preparation and hunting. And something about Witcher 2 just... didn't have that. I think part of it is just the large focus on the story line and being very lithe and conservative with side quests and extra content in Witcher 2. A lot of those menial small tasks and jobs and just basic interactions add a lot to the feel of a Witcher and being in a world and Witcher 2 just felt like it was missing a lot of that.
2 is sort of an afterthought to me because of that. It just pales next to its sequel and prequel.
But seriously, Hearts of Stone is fucking glorious.
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
w3 has better combat. in my opinion. i thought the controls in w2 were too slow and clunky. the weapon wheel was awkward as hell trying to switch signs. w3 was a huge improvement. not the greatest combat out there in any game i've played of course but i believe each game improves upon the last in all ways. w1 combat was bearable, w2 was ok but not great, w3 felt much more faster, responsive, smooth and enjoyable.
I have no idea whether OP is right, because I couldn't get more than two hours into TW2 before putting it down again because of the awful gameplay and encounter design.
I finished TW3, so by that token it's a lot better. Though after all the hyping of morally grey characters and how your decisions greatly influence the story, I was somewhat disappointed by this in TW3, so maybe TW2 did this better.
I finished TW3, so by that token it's a lot better. Though after all the hyping of morally grey characters and how your decisions greatly influence the story, I was somewhat disappointed by this in TW3, so maybe TW2 did this better.
TW2 is mostly better in those regards almost solely due to not actually wrapping up major major plot lines. The series' main strength has almost always been the more isolated self-contained stories or those that aren't directly from the books (see: Ciri, and The Wild Hunt). And Witcher 2 is a "smaller" game and was built very much around a major forking of story choices so they *feel* more grand and changing because of that.
Tenacious-D
Member
In my opinion:
Hearts of Stone = Witcher 2
Blood and Wine
Witcher 1
Witcher 3
I really didn't like what they did with TW3's main plot. It's a mess, especially if you've read the book series. What they did to The Wild Hunt and Eredin was just sad. The guy had better characterisation in the first game, when he was just a spectre. TW2's story was way better, even though it was missing Chapter 4, which would have been set in Dol Blathanna. Still hoping for a remaster where they finish that.
Maybe I also have a bias towards TW3 because they silently cut Iorveth after they promised he would be in the game. Maybe. Also salty that we never got to see the Roche, Iorveth and Letho scene at
Decks out for the guy that deserved an ending to his story arc. In general I think the politics in TW3 would have been way better if the Scoia'tael had been included. They had a big role in the previous games and books, so just pretending like they barely exist any more was a strange decision.
Also, I love TW2's combat system. Fight me.
https://gfycat.com/ThornyThunderousBlacklab
https://gfycat.com/ExhaustedChillyGnat
https://gfycat.com/BruisedWhiteEagle
Hearts of Stone = Witcher 2
Blood and Wine
Witcher 1
Witcher 3
I really didn't like what they did with TW3's main plot. It's a mess, especially if you've read the book series. What they did to The Wild Hunt and Eredin was just sad. The guy had better characterisation in the first game, when he was just a spectre. TW2's story was way better, even though it was missing Chapter 4, which would have been set in Dol Blathanna. Still hoping for a remaster where they finish that.
Maybe I also have a bias towards TW3 because they silently cut Iorveth after they promised he would be in the game. Maybe. Also salty that we never got to see the Roche, Iorveth and Letho scene at
Kaer Morhen. Gwent
Also, I love TW2's combat system. Fight me.
https://gfycat.com/ThornyThunderousBlacklab
https://gfycat.com/ExhaustedChillyGnat
https://gfycat.com/BruisedWhiteEagle
Great gifs.
There are simply more memorable encounters here than in the third.I distinctly remember certain encounters,set ups and how I learned to overcome them.Not so much in TW3.
I still very much enjoyed fighting in TW3.
The game had such a nasty and brutish(yet beautiful) world.A combination of music,art direction,unique lighting and writing portray that like no other game.
The only other game with a similarly dark,difficult atmosphere is probably the first Dark Souls.
Its an immaculate mix of elements that bring about that kind of darkness ,and its rare in games.
Tenacious-D
Member
100% agree with this. It's one of the benefits of making a more linear game. It kind of made me sad to see CDPR constantly saying, during TW3's PR, that they had always envisioned the series as a massive open world, because I think that TW1 and TW2 were so great because they were smaller and more intimate.
The thing that makes me sad about TW2 is that it probably would have been the best game in the series, if it had had more time in the oven. After CDPR sunk a bunch of money into the Witcher 1 remaster for PS360, which ended up never releasing, they needed to push TW2 out the door or go bankrupt. Even though I love the game, TW2 at launch was janky as hell. The subsequent patches and EE helped a lot, but there are still mechanics in the game that feel semi-complete, like Alchemy.
I'm not a fan of the solution they took in TW3 though, which was to just remove a bunch of mechanics and streamline everything.
Still, I think the story was great in TW2, and the game in general, was unique. It's obviously a matter of personal opinion if you like the politics or not, but how many games actually try to deal with politics in a believable way? TW3 sure as hell didn't, with sub-par scripts for Eredin, Radovid and Emhyr. I think part of the problem was the fact that they were writing someone else's characters. Although TW1 and 2 had book characters in them, they didn't take centre-stage like in TW3, and the limelight was more on new characters that they had created, like Letho, Roche, Iorveth, Jacques ect.
The fantasy stuff in The Witcher has always played second fiddle to the politics. In the books you don't even encounter any fantastical stuff for books on end (except for a few dwarves here and there and of course everybody's MVP Regis). Even the racism stuff is heavily centered in the politics, with Nilfgaard basically using the Scoia'tael as a way to distract the Northern Kingdoms so his invasion will go unchecked.
Terbinator
Member
I think it was widely known plot dev is better in 2 but character dev in 3.
Preach. better encounters and actually challenging.
Letho's first encounter and the two assassin's(iirc) were amazing.
Dang does it really get that good?
I really need to go back and try it again one of these days. I didn't get very far, I kinda remember running around some castle and running across a bridge in a really clunky QTE and a bad stealth thing escaping a prison. Seemed kinda terrible at the time just seemed like a chore to play in every way. But now Witcher 3 ended up being one of my favorite games of all time so I really want to give it another shot.
I really need to go back and try it again one of these days. I didn't get very far, I kinda remember running around some castle and running across a bridge in a really clunky QTE and a bad stealth thing escaping a prison. Seemed kinda terrible at the time just seemed like a chore to play in every way. But now Witcher 3 ended up being one of my favorite games of all time so I really want to give it another shot.
Dragon1893
Member
As much as I love TW2, overall it's definitely not the better game.
Terrorblot
Member
I feel like something that isn't be expressed enough in this thread is just how bad the game-feel of Witcher 2 is. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Witcher 2 and Witcher 3 isn't an A+ in this category either, but I gotta say I've tried to reboot Witcher 2 up and get a new game going at least 4 or 5 times since it released and I've never gotten out of Chapter 1 because the control and feel of the game is just so extremely clunky. I'm running the game on an i7 6700 and a GTX 1080 and it still feels sometimes like I'm playing at a low framerate or something (which isn't the case) just by nature of how the camera and cursor move. I'd kill for a remaster.
Braag
Member
I love both games but TW3 is definitely overall the better game. Yes TW2 has a tighter plot due to its chapter based storytelling and Letho is a better villain than Eredin (which was too much of a bogeyman) but then Hearts of Stone gave us Gaunter O'Dimm which was an excellent villain and TW3 does so many things better than TW2.
I mean I saw people argue these things after TW2 was released as well. Claiming that TW1 was the better game because the story was more personal to Geralt, thus more interesting and how Jacques de Aldersberg was a better villain than Letho.
Maybe it's nostalgia.. maybe people just like different things in their games.
I mean I saw people argue these things after TW2 was released as well. Claiming that TW1 was the better game because the story was more personal to Geralt, thus more interesting and how Jacques de Aldersberg was a better villain than Letho.
Maybe it's nostalgia.. maybe people just like different things in their games.
Riposte
Member
TW2 does a lot of things better than TW3; I would even say TW3 really disappointed me at times. I don't think TW2's combat system is better, but the messy difficulty found in the first half or 2/3rds of the game makes for way more interesting encounters than what TW3 offers (some boss fights aside, I guess). TW3 becomes very easy, very early on and then is easy to further sabotage with endless exp gain potential. More important is the narrative design and the benefits of having a small, sequential world. On the other hand, there's a special factor to TW3 that mainly comes from the sum of its production values and open-world (the mechanics of the open-world by itself are not anything special, just a medium to get formulaic quests with an outstanding average level of high-quality dialogue/humor). I think TW2 left me with a stronger impression of narrative (and possibilities) and the game's important NPCs/factions, while with TW3 it was the overall atmosphere and the core cast. I have to agree though, without the expansions (superior to the main game), TW3 may not be able to close the gap.
Inkvoterad
Member
Yeah, i agree on pretty much all of this. The main story of Witcher 3 didnt reslly grab me that much compared to 2. I think it's just that im so tired of "save the world" scenarios in general. The dlc's are up there with 2 though, so good.
The biggest issue I have with TW3 is that there wasn't more TW3. For me, it's up there with Orcarina (during its day). I just absolutely adore TW3.
TW2 I loved but it took time to get where it is with the overhaul of some systems in that game. TW2 is a excellent game, but TW3 is truly a masterpiece.
TW2 I loved but it took time to get where it is with the overhaul of some systems in that game. TW2 is a excellent game, but TW3 is truly a masterpiece.
Toussaint!
Inkvoterad
Member
toastyToast
Member
You're right about the characters at least. Much, much better. Everyone mentioned in the OP exceeds anyone in TW3. We got a shell of Roche, no Iorveth. The level of intrigue and the potential for more of it had my mind abuzz when The Witcher 3 dropped but it's like they capitalized on none of it. I thought it was important who had Anais and how Roche defecting to Redania would pan out. Anais wasn't mentioned at all, Radovid went fall fanatical, no mention of the sorceresses having a damn dragon under their control (or not). Why would I save Triss over helping stabilize a damn country if it doesn't even matter.
I really enjoyed TW3 but the overarching plot was a giant disappointment.
I really enjoyed TW3 but the overarching plot was a giant disappointment.
Primethius
Banned
I agree with your reasoning but not the overall conclusion.
I found personally that the story in TW3 was just not as good or interesting as either TW2 or TW1. I personally find TW1's story and world to be the best out of all three games, but TW2's was close. TW3's story just wasn't very interesting compared to them.
However, I think TW3 still wins out because the gameplay aspect is vastly improved over the first two games.
I found personally that the story in TW3 was just not as good or interesting as either TW2 or TW1. I personally find TW1's story and world to be the best out of all three games, but TW2's was close. TW3's story just wasn't very interesting compared to them.
However, I think TW3 still wins out because the gameplay aspect is vastly improved over the first two games.
Haha, yeah, no, you're getting it backwards. It's the other way around.
I know all comes down to taste and preference, but The Witcher 3 is objectively a best game. The battle system comparison? I don't even.
Although you have all the right to be wrong, I guess.
Edit: The friggin Wolf School Gear, dude. Come on.
I know all comes down to taste and preference, but The Witcher 3 is objectively a best game. The battle system comparison? I don't even.
Although you have all the right to be wrong, I guess.
Edit: The friggin Wolf School Gear, dude. Come on.
Son Of Sparda
Member
I liked the linear structure of TW2 more than TW3's OW design. So yeah, I agree.
Synless
Member
So your complaint is that the optional missions that are not required and you didn't need to do are a negative for the game? I beat Witcher 3 around 80 hours and did probably 70ish% of the side quests as well. You burned yourself out, not the game.
Complistic
Member
Thankfully I don't need to compare them, I can just play both of them since they each offer a very different experience.