Support NeoGAF

[Daft_Cat]

I suppose they're different sorts of stories with differing goals. Two was a heavily political tale, whereas three mostly limited its politics to side quests. That worked for me, because in exchange, CD Projekt Red got to try their hand at a more personal story for Geralt. Despite being the bigger game overall, it tries to tell a smaller, more romantic tale - and I think that's bold in and of itself. OP is correct that the antagonists are perhaps a bit too "high-fantasy" in comparison to the second game's more nuanced villains, but the story of Geralt, Yen, and Ciri remains full of touching moments - and that's before you factor in all the incredible narrative detours.

I love that both games exist... but given the robustness of The Witcher 3's overall experience. I'd be hard pressed to give the crown to two just because its core narrative is more complex (by design).

 

[Drakhyrr]

While I do prefer TW3, all things considered, many points raised in this thread are valid. I did miss the whole political side of the story, and choice and consequence were much better handled in TW2.

Also, while the world in TW3 is very well made and cohesive, I did miss some of the more fantastical environment design from TW2, such as the gigantic castle in the prologue, the forest with huge trees near flotsam, and the dwarven city. TW3 artistic design was too realistic IMO.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

There's a Witcher 2?

 

[Krappadizzle]

I liked Witcher 3 more, but I'll say I do think that W2 did do some things a bit better. Getting lost in the forests were awesome with how big those trees were. It was also cool how a few choices in W2 could drastically change the second half of the game, but I would rather have the choice of a huge ass world to explore and not be locked into a different experience based on choice like in W2 if I HAD to choose. And I'll say I think the Wild Hunt in W3 was a bit underwhelming compared to how they were presented in the Witcher 1 and 2 so there's that. Still, Witcher 3 had better combat, better graphics and music as well as just more content that was as compelling as both previous Witcher games. I'll say I wasn't crazy about all the political aspects of W2, but that was probably mostly due to me not being able to remember all the crazy ass names.

If I had to rank them I'd put them in the order of:
Witcher 3
Witcher 1
Witcher 2

Though that's like asking to pick a favorite child(I assume) as they all are really incredible games. There isn't a bad Witcher game, just better ones than others.

I don't think Witcher 2 needs a remaster unless they were to completely upgrade and change the combat system to match 3's as the game STILL looks incredible today and wouldn't gain much from a remaster.

Still, glad we live in a world where we have both.

 

[HeelPower]

I don't think Witcher 2 needs a remaster unless they were to completely upgrade and change the combat system to match 3's as the game STILL looks incredible today and wouldn't gain much from a remaster.

Still, glad we live in a world where we have both.

I think Witcher 2 really does need a remaster.A great majority of of TW3 players have not actually played TW2.It only released on 360 and its PC requirements made it fairly unaccesable upon release.

I think a remaster could sell great,because it remains an undiscovered game for many players.TW3 has generated a great,loving fanbase who'd enjoy TW2.

The game looks and plays great after EE,so CDPR could release it while we wait for Cyber Punk 2077.