Is this really better than 3 or people are just being contrarians

Is this really better than 3 or people are just being contrarians

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qRsqAmuxjNk
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>better characters
>better pacing
>better story
Different tastes I guess

Personally I prefer 2's story than 3's and I really like how the game has two drastically different routes. 3 has way way better gameplay though and like 3x as much content.

It's easily the worst in the series
t. 200+ hours in Witcher 1, ~70 hours in Witcher 2 and 300+ hours in Witcher 3

It's not better than 3, it just has better structure since it's like 1 where each chapter puts you in an area with the endgame of beating the boss monster of the are. Also a better main villain, but 3 has Mirror Man so it's neutralized.

2 is literally the worst in the series

Witcher 2 holds up only thanks to the story, characters and good at the time graphics. Gameplay is pure garbage, even worse than W3 and UI is the most consolized shit i ever saw in my life.
W1 is still the best and it has good combat that is the best casul filter.

It's a lot better written with actually hard choices, branching storyline, great new original characters and one of the best villains in gaming.

Sorry but 3 is complete trash in the storytelling department, especially compared to Witcher 2.

Narratively? Vastly better, honestly it's in an entirely different fucking realm of quality narrative-wise.

But it has a dreadful UI, awkward combat and a well intentioned but poorly executed alchemy system. Also objectively weaker animations, voice acting and general cutscene quality.

>Better story pacing
>2 games in 1
>Gritty and dark story
>Characters are sexist
>Gays get killed
It's really great user

The combat is far superior, and so is the story. The only thing that 3 surpasses it with is an open world and some graphical superiority. However, Witcher 2 has better character models anyways, and a romantic/gothic aesthetic instead of the cartoony Witcher 3.

Combat can be fixed with FCR in my opinion. Potions are fucked though, you have to drink them before combat starts.

3 is better, no doubt. Witcher 2 isn't shit but the gameplay is easily the worse of the trilogy and the story, while solid, is a bit confusing because of the two paths deal. You'll miss out significant details on your first playthrough which lessens the impact of a lot of stuff going.

sadly these. the game is still great but after Flotsam, youre as well to just watch a lets play.

1>Heart of Stone>=2>=Blood and wine>3

hmmmm

Originally the potion timers would run even during cutscenes so a boss would start and you'd have like two minutes left. So fucking stupid.

All three are good. TW2 is my favourite.
But it's also the hardest one to get into.

>is a bit confusing because of the two paths deal
Mouthbreathers like this is why Witcher 3 was fucking shit

>moomy the story is too complicated
>there are too much politics waaah
>no good guys makes my brain hurt


Just fuck you

I know. I think EE fixed a lot of problems

I enjoyed the aspect of drinking your potions before venturing out into situations where you expected there to be trouble. But the poor execution element comes in with potions only lasting like 5 fucking minutes AND loosing time during cutscenes. Whoever playtested the game and legitimately thought that was acceptable were a bunch of morons.

Honestly I didn't like the FCR2 all that much (although FCR for TW1 is, I believe, a necessity), the combat system is awkward either way and the FCR2 sort of just makes some aspects better but others worse. However, the pirouette animation is superb, and honestly when I replay TW2 I just use the vanilla combat system + pirouette animation.

>in 2 geralt doesnt know who ciri is
hmm

its not better than 3 but its a good game
I liked the prep phase before battle made it feel more like a witcher game and not your typical arpg

So many goddamned plebeians ITT. Literally the ONLY downside to the Witcher 2 is that it isn't long enough. The third chapter is also a little small / claustrophobic in my opinion but it beats the repetitive crutches that Witcher 3 relied on like Witcher senses, copy pasted boss fights, muh space elves, etc...

Witcher 2 / Witcher 3
> Graphics
Equal. Witcher 3 had cartoony player models. Witcher 2 had mature art design.
> story
Witcher 2 wins this by a large margin
> UI
Witcher 3 wins this by a small margin
> combat
Witcher 2 wins this by a fair margin, since combat in the Witcher 3 is exclusively lock on garbage and feels lifeless whereas in 2 it is rewarding and immersive.
> soundtrack
Tie

Half the fucking people you quoted still said the game is fantastic, just had a few complaints...

youtube.com/watch?v=qRsqAmuxjNk

This video got me into the series , but I realized all the reasons this guy is praising the series for were abandoned in Witcher 3 lmao.

but what about the gameplay

Agree. Potion execution was bad. Was it fixed in EE?

Tell me potion execution was great and I'll laugh at you

Witcher 3 did nothing exceptional or that much different to be praised for the gameplay..
So yeah, Witcher 2 is worse than Witcher 3, but when a series standout is the storytelling I will take 2.

2>3

Potions system is fine you sissy faggot, go play skyrim

Daily reminder witcher 3's villian has way more dialogue in witcher 1 then he does 3

Talking about timer running in cutscenes

>you humans are so...impractical
>Geralt...I was hoping you would come *unseathes katana

Did he develop autism between the games?

Daily reminder that Geralt was part of the Hunt if we know nothing what he did during that time

THIS

much better pacing and story

but definitely not better than the W3 DLCs

I also hated that the elf guy who is helping out Ciri is actually just helping out.
In books he haunted her just like the villain in the game and we got no explaination for change of heart

They doubled most of the core potions to 10 minutes, which was pretty much perfect, but still failed to address the timers counting down during cutscenes, which meant it was still kinda messed up. Definitely a small improvement though.

>combat
>Witcher 2 wins this by a fair margin, since combat in the Witcher 3 is exclusively lock on garbage and feels lifeless whereas in 2 it is rewarding and immersive.

Witcher 2 combat is just a shittier version of W3's combat. In what way does 2 have more rewarding and immersive combat?

Assuming this isn't le ebin contrarian posting, of course

Story is much better than 3 but nowhere near as good as 1. Roche, Iorveth and Letho are all interesting characters. It's replayable. It doesn't have a god awful uninspired open world. Gameplay is more or less the same i.e. mediocre. It's a better game, but a worse timesink. If you want the Skyrim experience, stick to 3.

landing a hit with the sword in Witcher 2 feels impactful and satisfying.
In Witcher 3 it feels floaty almost without any impact.

all witcher games are shades of shit

Since there's a first person mod. It really becomes Skyrim

And that's it?

The best thing about 2 is doing a Roche playthrough followed by a Iorveth playthrough, it really feels like you get to see behind the scenes while the opposite would just be disappointing. I also liked having to drink potions ahead of time but maybe that's just me