Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

So, which one is your favourite Witcher game?

Which Witcher does Witchering the Best?

  • Witcher 1 (the NWN mod)

    Votes: 149 45.8%
  • Witcher 2 (the cutscene simulator)

    Votes: 20 6.2%
  • Witcher 3 (the downgraded port)

    Votes: 126 38.8%
  • KC (Skyrim)

    Votes: 30 9.2%

  • Total voters
    325

MoonlitKnight

Educated
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
60
One....

Whoa! I'm with the majority here.

Edit: Oh now I see the catch, TW3 is number 2 when it's really not that comparable to TW2. TW3 has even been like an actual struggle in some ways. It took all the way to Keira to get my interest going, and then if Novigrad hadn't come when it did I might of just give up on it.
Really Novigrad is the most boring it gets in TW3, basically find him to find this guy so he could tell you where this dude went who might be able to point you to Dandelion
It drags like hell.
 

Kefka1134

Guest
Really Novigrad is the most boring it gets in TW3, basically find him to find this guy so he could tell you where this dude went who might be able to point you to Dandelion
It drags like hell.

That's kinda every big part of TW3 though if we're being completely honest, just change names like Dandelion to Crache and Yennefer.

I'd give Keira's quest being more engaging than Novigrad, but the Baron thing?

I mean Crow's Perch has to be one of the worst hubs ever created, that massive bridge that takes forever to get to and only one way in, and then you gotta go allllllllllllll the way up and around.
 

imweasel

Guest
TW1 is the best in the series IMO.

TW2 was good and enjoyable, but also too short. TW3 has some awesome quest lines, but also WAY too much of this fucking repetetive open world derping around bullshit.
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
3,914
Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Depending on how you define a good character, I'd say the best chars in TW3 are the three witches (including directing, music and especially the superb voice acting).
I never fucking doubted them for a second, and I still totally remember them.
Which is more than I can say about most TW3 characters.
 
Last edited:

Neanderthal

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,626
Location
Granbretan
You ask me Vizima is is still one of best living cities ever made in gaming and beats Novigrad hands down. Quests from first game vary in quality from repititive shite to brilliant and innovative ones, here I think the first and third games are alike but with first game getting edge just for all experimental things it pulled off. Third game had better combat if you ask me, problems wi it and console nature but better than rhythm click game o first, course ideally I think Witcher speed in combat would be more ideally represented in a turn based game but Pope'll turn to porn afor that happens. UI, inventory and gameplay were all told more cohesive and satisfying in first game, what I especially liked was that you had animation for doing shit: You sharpened your sword, you were shown doing it, you drank someat, same. In third game this all happens magically while you're paused, I call that fucking cheap design and cheating.

I could go on but i'll skip to end and say I reckon first game were an instant classic. Third game were damn good, and I can't deny that, but lacked a lot of the originals charm, good design and ambition.
 

Carrion

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
3,648
Location
Lost in Necropolis
Depending on how you define a good character, I'd say the best chars in TW3 are the three witches (including directing, music and especially the superb voice acting).
I never fucking doubted them for a second, and I still totally remember them.
Which is more than I can say about most TW3 characters.
Too bad the
fact that Ciri destroys them all single-handedly in sword combat after all the build-up about how powerful they're supposed to be, and that a single elf is supposedly more dangerous than all three of them combined
really brings them down a notch. Everything else about them is great, though.
 

rado907

Savant
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
249
So I just beat all three titles one after the other, and I thought that every successive title was a massive improvement on the previous one.

The first Witcher had horrible combat, mediocre graphics, a muddled and uneven plot, bland dialogue, underdeveloped characters, annoying loading times, and way too many delivery boy quests.
Then the second game had combat in which the player at least had to do something more than time his clicks... It also had a tight plot, better characters, awesome graphics, and an engine that took it easy with the loading screens. One thing the game missed was more side quest. It focused too much on the main quest.
Witcher 3 took everything the second game had, and made it bigger and better. The open world approach worked excellently. Some quests dragged on, but many featured interesting choices that led to significant consequences. The delivery boy bullshit was kept to a minimum. And the private detective gimmick worked surprisingly well.

Witcher 3 > Witcher 2 > Witcher 1.
 

undecaf

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
3,517
Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2
I can't really tell which one was the overall best of the trilogy. But I think I had the most fun with Witcher 1 for some reason. The combat was clumsy and could've been done much better, but the game had a more RPG feel to it whereas 2 felt like a cinematic hack'n slash and 3 like a cinematic hack'n slash +1. 3 probably has the best narrative (the writing seems fairly good so far... I've not finished it yet) and 2 the best pacing and length. All in all, it's a very mixed bunch. Not top notch RPG material, but relatively fun games on their own merits (good for what it is).
 

Perkel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
15,810
Well i am after TW3 honeymoon and i think each game has it's own ups worth playing for.

TW3 is far better game than both TW1 and TW2 because it directly goes for book knowledge. People who didn't read books on other hand can say TW1 is better with TW2 being just behind it (but not bad at all).

To really understand why TW3 is amazing you need to actually read books. It is really amazing to se Dijkstra being exactly like in the books from looks to his character, people who didn't read the book also wouldn't really understand why this character was so weird to see him and how CDPR handled him. This goes to almost every character.

Only thing i didn't like was question about things Geralt should know (as he recovered all his memory). But those question were made for people who didn't read books. So sometimes it created this weird situation in which you know this is dumb question but Geralt need to ask either way because there are people who didn't read books.

I loved TW1 for it's main plot (amazing really), Vizima, OST, C&C and act 4. All of those aside from main plot and C&C are better in TW3.

TW2 is last because it feels like prelude to TW3 after finishing it. Still ton of fun stuff in that game and amazing art direction. OST only really was downside as they moved toward hollywood type of music and only like 2-3 tracks were great but i think after feedback they received TW3 proved that TW2 was worth for that lesson.
 

Cadmus

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
4,264
Well i am after TW3 honeymoon and i think each game has it's own ups worth playing for.

TW3 is far better game than both TW1 and TW2 because it directly goes for book knowledge. People who didn't read books on other hand can say TW1 is better with TW2 being just behind it (but not bad at all).

To really understand why TW3 is amazing you need to actually read books. It is really amazing to se Dijkstra being exactly like in the books from looks to his character, people who didn't read the book also wouldn't really understand why this character was so weird to see him and how CDPR handled him. This goes to almost every character.

Only thing i didn't like was question about things Geralt should know (as he recovered all his memory). But those question were made for people who didn't read books. So sometimes it created this weird situation in which you know this is dumb question but Geralt need to ask either way because there are people who didn't read books.

I loved TW1 for it's main plot (amazing really), Vizima, OST, C&C and act 4. All of those aside from main plot and C&C are better in TW3.

TW2 is last because it feels like prelude to TW3 after finishing it. Still ton of fun stuff in that game and amazing art direction. OST only really was downside as they moved toward hollywood type of music and only like 2-3 tracks were great but i think after feedback they received TW3 proved that TW2 was worth for that lesson.
I'm now about 60 hours in (in 1 fucking week!) but I still have better memories of TW1. It's all in the atmosphere. Better music, better voice acting (wooden as shit but Czech and it made the game so much more fun "Zase sem šlápnul do hovna.")

TW2 was amazing looking at the time, I suppose it still holds up now, it's not that old but it lost the atmosphere and all that makes it. It surely had better characters though and I enjoyed the combat, it seems like Geralt had more moves than in TW3.

TW3 is a huge-ass game, I'm enjoying it because it's got nice dialogues and just a tiny bit of the atmosphere is back but no way there's enough of it.
The open world just barely works and only because the "witcher" premise is so incredibly strong in itself. I really like how there's millions of monsters, poisons, oils, etc. It brings the profession to life. Shame my toaster runs it on medium details.
 

sqeecoo

Arcane
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,615
A hard question; I'm a pretty big fan of the Witcher series. Maybe cause I'm Slavic and like the mythology, or because I'm very lenient about flaws if a game has other original or redeeming aspects.

W1 was amazing at the time, with excellent atmosphere (perhaps helped by the stilted dialogues), moral ambiguity masterfully done, and a very cool story. C&C was very nice as well, as was the way you had to figure out stuff for yourself - you could fail a great detective portion of the main quest, for god's sake. Before it came out I was resigned I'd never again play a new real RPG other than perhaps some indy stuff. Combat was shit, etc. etc., but so what?
However, looking back on it now, I have to say I dislike how the game had obviously evil antagonists. For all its moral ambiguity in the side stuff (including the huge and excellently done terrorists vs. fanatics dilemma) you never had any doubt you were doing the right thing in the main quest. For this reason alone, I can't give it the top spot in comparison with the others.

W2 broke new ground in a spectacular fashion. I mean, it was very very flawed, but the sheer ambition of the game was shocking to me - every other developer would have stuck with the formula that worked in the previous game. And that's why I like the Witcher games: each one break new ground, and despite the flaws at the end of each I think "Damn. I'm never gonna play a game like this again."

Through amazing effort, W2 had:
Even worse combat than the original.
A fucking split down the middle of the story where your choice completely changes your path through the game. Fuck me.
Great political intrigue, and a very nice taste of why Geralt detests it and has his questionable philosophy of neutrality. Another minor flaw of the first game for me is that the injustice (against the nonhumans, of the terrorists killing innocents) is immediate and combatable directly, white-knight style. W2 shows how many political factions pulling in various directions can make clear good deeds have bad consequences. Better to stay the fuck out of it and just do your job, says Geralt, and I start to understand his view.
Also, there was no clear evil antagonist. At worst, the various factions could be seen as ambitious and/or imperialistic. And the main bad guy - you get to walk away without fighting, if you want to. Damn.
For an excellent analysis of the realistic politics of W2, I really recommend these articles: http://knightofphoenix.tumblr.com/witcher

W3 had the best open world I remember after Gothic. Fuck me! Sure console bullshit crept in and much of the potentially great detective stuff ended up railroaded, but yeah, I haven't had that open world feeling since the heyday of the Gothic series. This is high praise, but also had a effect along the lines of being lost in the political intrigue in W2 - in W3 I started off white-knighting through my quests in similar style to W1. But the world is so large, the scale of the suffering and terror of a war between nations well shown, that after the nth burned village you go through with people hanging from trees (and no quests! just a village), I just started feeling numb to the horror. I started to approach sidequests with a "I'll just do my job and you sort out the rest" mentality, and towards the very end my general feeling was "fuck this shit, I don't care what happens globally just want to save the people I care about". Which, again, is Geralt's philosophy, pretty much.
And although Ciri is a Mary Sue, sorta, I think this was a father-daughter relationship done well, especially in the sense that the daughter is grown up and, arguably, way more competent and powerful than the father. Not many of these stories done well around. Was reminded of Les Miserables a bit. But the main storyline suffered somewhat from the abitious scope of the game - some things could have been more fleshed out. Really liked the Yennefer character though, who I was skeptical about at the end of W2. Also there were at least two scenes I found a bit touching, which is not really something present in previous Ws.
Another thing I liked was how many of the final consequences were aggregates of the way you built up the relationships with others during the game, not single tipping points.

And of course, the fact that the game has 100+ quests and not a single fetch quest - they all have a neat little story and often a pretty good twist to them, even bullshit "kill a monster" ones - is incredibly impressive.

So TL:DR: They are all good though flawed games, each one with some impressive ambitious feature. For me, it's a tossup between W2 and W3. Again, I recommend the link I gave for great insights into W2.
 

Eirikur

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
1,126
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
The Witcher 3, doubly so now that I'm replaying it after having finished all the books. The lore, the exploration, the characters, the music; it all appeals strongly to me. Haven't been this deeply immersed in a setting since the first times I played Gothic 1-2, well over 10 years ago.

If only they'd rewrite "Reason of State", which is a massive piece of shit quest in an otherwise beautifully written game.
 

sqeecoo

Arcane
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,615
If only they'd rewrite "Reason of State", which is a massive piece of shit quest in an otherwise beautifully written game.

What's your problem with Reason of State? Not saying there aren't any, just curious to hear your opinion.
 

Nryn

Cipher
Patron
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
255
Divinity: Original Sin 2
If only they'd rewrite "Reason of State", which is a massive piece of shit quest in an otherwise beautifully written game.

What's your problem with Reason of State? Not saying there aren't any, just curious to hear your opinion.

Cannot speak for Eirikur, but I found that quest's choice to be the most frustrating bit of writing in a game that otherwise excels at providing believable context to even the most menial of quests. Dijkstra throwing himself against a Witcher and a King's special forces betrays an inexplicable lack of self-preservation on his part. Geralt had already broken Dijkstra's foot in the earlier books, and so he should have been aware of how dangerous the Witcher can be when he wants to save someone. To challenge the Witcher and his friends to mortal combat is entirely out of character for a man who has, up until then, been built up as cunning. To make it clear, I don't actually disagree with the idea that Dijkstra double-crosses the Redanian forces; it's just that he could have done so in so many different ways that didn't involve the writers throwing away one of the best characters in the game all for a forced "tough choice".

Speaking of which, even that abrupt choice was far too easy to make. Broche helps you out in W2 even if you chose Iorveth. Furthermore, even if one took in Letho for the Kaer Morhen Siege, Broche still remains a bro. The choice weighing him, Ves and Thaler against Dijkstra felt too heavily-weighed in the former's favor even for someone who has read most of the books and thought Dijkstra was my favorite character in the game.
 

sqeecoo

Arcane
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,615
I agree completely. The direct attack was an incredibly stupid and out-of-character move for Dijkstra. He didn't even have all that many men with him. Just dumb. Doesn't he remember I single-handedly slaughtered a whole Nilfgaardian garrison via frontal attack in W2, like half a year ago?

And the choice is way too easy: no way I am gonna leave Roache to die after he helped me in the semi-suicidal defense of Kaer Morhen as a personal favor. (although he wasn't much of a bro in W2 if you actually chose his path)

But I did kinda like that saving Roache gets you pretty much the best ending - I easily chose to stand with Roache, but I was convinced that this would cause general disaster down the line since I felt Dijkstra's plan was actually the best, sans the betrayal. I though that the choice was between personal and public importance, and that the game would fuck me over for going with the personal. A fairly happy ending was a surprise at this point, which I don't mind at all - the Witcher games have earned enough grimdark points that a happy outcome is basically an incredible twist :)

But yeah, Dijkstra's move was just poor writing, I agree with that. They could have easily made it more compelling by having Roache figure out Dijkstra's plan and attack him on the spot, forcing you to chose sides. That would have been a bit harder.
 

Eirikur

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
1,126
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
If only they'd rewrite "Reason of State", which is a massive piece of shit quest in an otherwise beautifully written game.

What's your problem with Reason of State? Not saying there aren't any, just curious to hear your opinion.

Cannot speak for Eirikur, but I found that quest's choice to be the most frustrating bit of writing in a game that otherwise excels at providing believable context to even the most menial of quests. Dijkstra throwing himself against a Witcher and a King's special forces betrays an inexplicable lack of self-preservation on his part. Geralt had already broken Dijkstra's foot in the earlier books, and so he should have been aware of how dangerous the Witcher can be when he wants to save someone. To challenge the Witcher and his friends to mortal combat is entirely out of character for a man who has, up until then, been built up as cunning. To make it clear, I don't actually disagree with the idea that Dijkstra double-crosses the Redanian forces; it's just that he could have done so in so many different ways that didn't involve the writers throwing away one of the best characters in the game all for a forced "tough choice".

Speaking of which, even that abrupt choice was far too easy to make. Broche helps you out in W2 even if you chose Iorveth. Furthermore, even if one took in Letho for the Kaer Morhen Siege, Broche still remains a bro. The choice weighing him, Ves and Thaler against Dijkstra felt too heavily-weighed in the former's favor even for someone who has read most of the books and thought Dijkstra was my favorite character in the game.

Strongly agree with this. No way in hell would Geralt stand idly by and let Roche & Ves be cut down, when they've just put their lives on the line for him defending Ciri against the Wild Hunt. Dijkstra should have realized this. Deciding to fight Geralt in melee combat was supremely moronic for a person as cunning and resourceful as Dijkstra. If he had waited a couple of minutes, until Geralt had left, his plot would have had practically zero risk. Instead he opted for the "Hey Geralt, before you leave, stand idly by and watch me kill your friends ok" approach...

There's also some other points:

1) In order to gain Geralt's support in the plot against King Radovid, Dijkstra had to convince Geralt to not be neutral. IIRC he basically said that 'Witcher neutrality is bullshit, a convenient excuse, and you know it!", which is true. But then, when he announced to Geralt that he would kill Roche & Ves, he was counting on Geralt to uphold the bullshit Witcher neutrality and not intervene. Extremely inconsistent.

2) The Northern Kingdoms are in a surprisingly strong position. King Radovid can defeat the Nilfgaardian Empire, and so can Dijkstra if he takes over. The Imperial strategist you speak to in Vizima admits as much. Yet Roche and Thaler, who are supposedly brilliant intelligence workers and secret service agents, are completely blind to it. They treat it as a great victory when they negotiate a complete capitulation of the Northern Kingdoms, only because they can keep Temeria as a vassal state under the Nilfgaardian Empire. They even think that Dijkstra, who is frequently referenced to as a Redanian patriot, is genuinely supportive of a plot that disbands Redania only in return for Temeria becoming a vassal state. In other words, Roche and Thaler seem mentally challenged.

3) If you happen to choose an innocent-sounding dialogue option called "Shove Dijkstra forcefully" when he tries to intimidate you in an earlier quest, the entire Reason of State quest will be permanently unavailable to you, and you'll be stuck with King Radovid in your ending.
 
Last edited:

sqeecoo

Arcane
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,615
Yep, my thoughts as well as outlined above.

Slight nitpicks mostly for fun:
2) I may have missed something, but my impression was that the deal Dijkstra&Roache were working on before Dijkstra's betrayal was to have Nilfgaard give Temeria some semblance of independence AND stop further incursions into the north, leaving Redania independent; Nilfgaard conquers everything if you side with Roache simply because there's no strong leader left to oppose him. It would indeed be utterly stupid for Dijkstra to work towards Redania's surrender, but I never noticed that was explicitly said and kinda assumed the above was part of the deal. I may have missed something though.

3) I actually disagree with this - that is the only "forceful" dialogue option I remember from the game, and it was pretty clear to me at the time that it wouldn't end amicably.



Since we are chatting so pleasantly, what do you guys think of the main, Ciri-related endings? Which one is the best? Are the C&C well done?
 

Eirikur

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
1,126
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
Yep, my thoughts as well as outlined above.

Slight nitpicks mostly for fun:
2) I may have missed something, but my impression was that the deal Dijkstra&Roache were working on before Dijkstra's betrayal was to have Nilfgaard give Temeria some semblance of independence AND stop further incursions into the north, leaving Redania independent; Nilfgaard conquers everything if you side with Roache simply because there's no strong leader left to oppose him. It would indeed be utterly stupid for Dijkstra to work towards Redania's surrender, but I never noticed that was explicitly said and kinda assumed the above was part of the deal. I may have missed something though.

Perhaps you're right. I did my 1st playthrough back in June, and have recently started the 2nd one. Will find out.

3) I actually disagree with this - that is the only "forceful" dialogue option I remember from the game, and it was pretty clear to me at the time that it wouldn't end amicably.

I'm all in favor of C&C and unforeseen consequences, but that one took it too far. If you choose to 'shove' him (extremely misleading dialogue option) you're inevitably stuck with the worst political ending no matter what. If you don't shove him, all options are left open. I wouldn't have minded it if we knew that Dijkstra was plotting against Radovid at the time, but this takes time far prior to that.

Since we are chatting so pleasantly, what do you guys think of the main, Ciri-related endings? Which one is the best? Are the C&C well done?

I think all three endings (the happy one, the bittersweet one, and the sad one) were very well written. Hard to say which one is most 'suitable', but perhaps the bittersweet one. The sad ending was most powerful by far though, what a blow. I'm glad I got the happy one first.

The Ciri-related C&Cs mostly made sense.
- The one about her meeting with Eilhart should've been written differently, because the dialogue doesn't really fit with the idea that Geralt is being overprotective of Ciri.
- The decision on whether to join Ciri and her friends in stealing the horses, or beat up her friends (I think), should have mattered.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
3,914
Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
What's also not good about the quest you're discussing is that the only way to side with Radovid is by not pursuing the quest.
Which I only found out by consulting teh internet before going forward with this.
So if I'd just have played along in hope for a c&c moment which includes helping Radovid I'd have been very disappointed.
 

Cadmus

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
4,264
After having played more of TW3, I'm starting to think it just might have the best pros and cons balance out of the three games.
 

NullFlow

Savant
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
203
TW3>TW1>>TW2

Despite the slog known as chapters 1 and 2 for TW1, if you manage to push on through you'll find quite a diamond in the rough. Chapters 3-5 were enough to show it was a great game and clearly was a labour of love, but from an amateur studio. Has the best alchemy system, atmosphere and comes pretty darn close to matching the third in worldbuilding. TW2 was where CDPR tried to emulate modern trends and appeal to the console market, and it shows. Has the least footing in the series and so far the only one I've not finished. Something about the game feels off and hasn't captivated me enough to continue. TW3 is a marriage between 1 and 2, but mostly takes from the better of them. By far the best writing, worldbuilding, character development, atmosphere, quest design, attention to detail, and gameplay. Wish it only had some better balancing, loot systems, enemy variety, didn't take the open world dive, and didn't take a nosedive in the story by act 3 and retconned Ciri and the White Frost, but other than that, I'd say the most engrossing Witcher game.
 

sqeecoo

Arcane
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,615
I sympathize with your view NullFlow, but let me try to explain what I love about TW2.

1) First and most obvious, the fucking storyline split. I don't actually think this is super-great. It doesn't seem needed in this type of story, and would have perhaps worked better if you had some sort of bro go in the other direction in your game, with which you could interact during your playthrough of your "side". Something like the characters in Pathologic, perhaps.

But come on, you have to give them credit for this crazy ambitious decision. Have we ever had something like this? A high budget game that has at least 1/3 of its content completely missed on the fist playthrough? Gotta call that a labor of love, man.

2) The politics were amazing. Again, I recommend http://knightofphoenix.tumblr.com/witcher

After my first W2 playthrough and before I read this series of articles I also though the story of W2 was a bit disjointed. In fact, it's an amazing tale of intrigue that doesn't shove anything in your face and asks you to pay close attention if you want to have a solid grasp of what's going on. Multiple factions pursuing their own non-evil goals and adapting on the fly to each other's actions. No one is clearly Evil, everyone is pretty smart and reasonable, given their ideals. And you are caught in the middle of it, unwillingly. Which brings me to

3) Being a helpless superhero. I'm not sure any game or even story does this better than the Witcher, and W2 in particular. Geralt is a superhero in W2 - whatever goal you decide to pursue, no matter how impossible, you succeed. Kill a castle-sized monster? Done and done. Slaughter a whole Nilfgardian garrison via frontal assault? No fucking problem. But at the same time you constantly fail to help steer the general political situation in a reasonable direction, and fail to even protect the ones you care about. Why? Well, you can't be everywhere at once and each faction is pulling in its own direction, inevitably causing conflict. You are not the center of the world, and it doesn't wait on your decision to move.

And each faction genuinely believes what they are doing is right. Besides, you are a combat superhero, not a superhero of persuasion (in fact, there are two superheroes of persuasion in the game, and they both end badly).

No other game and few other stories have shown how powerless you can be as a single, principled individual in global events, even though you are supremely competent and successful in what you set out to do.



All three of these elements are unique, arguably not only among the Witcher games but in general, which is why I voted for W2 in the poll. Now, granted, I'll agree that W2 has an above-average share of flaws and doesn't make its good sides too obvious. So I'm not gonna disagree with your ranking, but I think there's a lot to appreciate in W2. I genuinely recommend replaying the game while reading that series of articles I linked - it worked for me after my initial poor impression.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom