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

Bradylama

Arcane
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
23,647
Location
Oklahomo
I just tried to replay Witcher 1 and it was just too aggravating and frustrating to sit through. The combat really isn't all that compelling, which is problematic for a game where you play a monster hunter, and the sheer amount of backtracking proved to be too tedious to even bother with. I already knew what was going to happen since I bought it back in 2007, so I quit in chapter 3 and just downloaded a save game based on what I planned to do anyways. It just hasn't aged well at all, and RTwP NWN-likes should just stay dead and buried. I also know it's not exactly fair to criticize the graphical qualities, but the plastic-faced deadeyed stare that every NPC has going on just comes across as creepy, and a lot of the character designs are just plain butt ugly. Especially Zoltan.

The series has done straight improvements with each subsequent release, with Witcher 3 being far and away the best game in the franchise.
 

Orma

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
1,698
Location
Kraków
Torment: Tides of Numenera
Witcher 1 is great, twitcher 2 is pure trash(didn't even bother finishing it) and twitcher3 is pretty good despite the combat and the console ui/controls.
 

Old Hans

Arcane
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
1,443
When its all said and done, Witcher 1 for me.

I had fun with witcher 3, but the skill system was so. fucking. boring.
I feel like all the rpg mechanics surrounding the witcher 3 just feel so boring and unispired.
 

Tito Anic

Arcane
Shitposter
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
1,679
Location
Magalan
Played and completed only the first part. Ending was kinda unfinished but it is great game in general. I liked story pacing, setting, CC, visuals, sound though rpg part was weak(no classes).
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,110
Can't believe Witcher 1 is leading Witcher 3. People need to lay off the drugs.

Witcher 1 = 8/10: A flawed gem. Excellent mature writing, great choices and consequences, great atmosphere and world-building, but unfortunately, crappy game-play. The combat is atrocious, exploration is almost non-existent due to the map structure, character development is fairly boring. Some interesting mechanics like researching monsters and then doing alchemy to prepare yourself.

Witcher 2 = 4/10: Utter shiite. The gameplay got even worse somehow, basically turning into a movie, with the horrible rolling in between. Cinematics for everything, even opening doors and climbing ladders. Writing is also worse than 1.

Witcher 3 = 9/10: Masterpiece. Combines the writing and atmosphere of the first game with vastly improved game-play (combat and exploration), an open world, better graphics and physics, and then multiplies everything by 30 in terms of quantity of content.
 

Perkel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
15,810
visuals, story, music etc. are not rpg part?

I heard that The Witcher 2 is best Rollplay game.

Can't believe Witcher 1 is leading Witcher 3. People need to lay off the drugs.

Witcher 1 = 8/10: A flawed gem. Excellent mature writing, great choices and consequences, great atmosphere and world-building, but unfortunately, crappy game-play. The combat is atrocious, exploration is almost non-existent due to the map structure, character development is fairly boring. Some interesting mechanics like researching monsters and then doing alchemy to prepare yourself.

Witcher 2 = 4/10: Utter shiite. The gameplay got even worse somehow, basically turning into a movie, with the horrible rolling in between. Cinematics for everything, even opening doors and climbing ladders. Writing is also worse than 1.

Witcher 3 = 9/10: Masterpiece. Combines the writing and atmosphere of the first game with vastly improved game-play (combat and exploration), an open world, better graphics and physics, and then multiplies everything by 30 in terms of quantity of content.

Bit harsh for TW2 but it is understandable. Clunky controls are even worse here than in TW1. La valette castle siege is also uber annoying. But Flotsam and rest of the game is great.

And that split right after flotsam is something that we won't probably see in a loooong while if ever. It is really interesting to play this game twice and see things from both sides of conflict.

Act 2 dramworld was also annoying as fuck.

Overall despite strong characterization, dialogs, journey game feels like stop gap or prologue to Witcher 3 rather game on its own.
 
Last edited:

TC Jr

Scholar
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
160
Location
Scotland
I failed to see the greatness of the open world in tw3, save from a good few side quests you might stumble upon the entire game is still essentially a go from a to b to c sometimes fuck about exploring but what really is there? The combats not good/deep enough to just have monster encounters be enough and the rest just seemed like every other modern open world game. Leveling up didn't feel significant and so 5 minutes of gameplay Vs 5 hours .. you're still more or less doing the same things. That can be said for a lot of games but it was noticeable for me in this game.

Compared to modern games it's probably brilliant but I don't think there's enough in this game that I haven't already experienced elsewhere, mechanic wise.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,110
The combat is actually criminally underrated. Is it great? No. But compared to the vast majority of RPG combat systems, it is of good quality. The reason most people don't appreciate it is that it takes a little effort to enjoy it.

You have to think about it in terms of AAA target audience. Witcher 3 is essentially aiming at Bethesda players, so it has to dumb things down quite a bit. They designed a cool counter system into W3 combat, where enemies actually dodge and parry the player, but in order not to make things too hard for the average Bethesda player, they then code the enemies to only start using the counters after they get hit a few times. This is of course retarded, but if either mod it or pretend like enemies will counter every time, and play it the way it was designed (dodging monsters and counter-attacking humans), the combat system begins to shine.

Use Death March difficulty (enemies kill you in 2-3 hits on this difficulty, so every mistake counts), avoid using signs except in emergencies or really tough fights, enable enemy upscaling so that enemies are always at least your level, avoid using retardedly OP heavy armors which soak most damage, and the combat system will become one of the more enjoyable ones in any RPG this side of Dark Souls. You will have to time your dodges and parries, while at the same time using movement to manage multiple enemies.

I will give you an example of what a typical bandit encounter looks like for me when following these guidelines above. I walk into a bandit camp. They jump up and draw their weapons. I wait for them to approach me, then roll past them to the bandit in the back with a crossbow, cutting him down with a few strikes. I turn to face the melee ones. One of them charges at me from distance, and I side-step him. While his buddies approach me, he turns and attacks me in melee range. I watch his weapon carefully, to see when exactly it will start flying toward me (most human enemies have elaborate, varying attacks with different timing), and then timely parry him to first disable him, and then get a hit or two in. As I hit him once, I notice another bandit swing from behind me, and instead of a second strike, dodge to the side, to get out of the way. The third bandit attacks me with a 2-handed axe which you cannot parry, so I dodge out of the way and hit him back, before turning to the 2nd bandit and now parrying him again. This dance continues until they are all lying on the ground.
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,825
Use Death March difficulty (enemies kill you in 2-3 hits on this difficulty, so every mistake counts), avoid using signs except in emergencies or really tough fights, enable enemy upscaling so that enemies are always at least your level, avoid using retardedly OP heavy armors which soak most damage, and the combat system will become one of the more enjoyable ones in any RPG this side of Dark Souls. You will have to time your dodges and parries, while at the same time using movement to manage multiple enemies.
Do i have to close my eyes or play with my elbows to enjoy it too? should slit my wrist so it becomes a race against time? :lol:
 

RepHope

Savant
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Messages
400
W3. Combat was shit but less so than 1 and 2, and I felt like they did an ok job wrapping everything up. Loved HoS and enjoyed BaW.
 

adddeed

Arcane
Possibly Retarded
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
1,473
Can't believe Witcher 1 is leading Witcher 3. People need to lay off the drugs.

Witcher 1 = 8/10: A flawed gem. Excellent mature writing, great choices and consequences, great atmosphere and world-building, but unfortunately, crappy game-play. The combat is atrocious, exploration is almost non-existent due to the map structure, character development is fairly boring. Some interesting mechanics like researching monsters and then doing alchemy to prepare yourself.

Witcher 2 = 4/10: Utter shiite. The gameplay got even worse somehow, basically turning into a movie, with the horrible rolling in between. Cinematics for everything, even opening doors and climbing ladders. Writing is also worse than 1.

Witcher 3 = 9/10: Masterpiece. Combines the writing and atmosphere of the first game with vastly improved game-play (combat and exploration), an open world, better graphics and physics, and then multiplies everything by 30 in terms of quantity of content.
you are kind of a dumbfuck to be honest. There is plenty of exploration in Witcher 1. Just because its not OPEN WORLD LOLOLOLOL doesnt mean there is nothing to discover. And combat is far far from atrocious, please stop the hyperbole. Combat is very serviceable and pretty entertaining.

Witcher 2 is not a 4/10, and thats a fact, not an opinion. Its probably the strongest game of the three, overall.

You are obviousy a dumb Witcher 3 fanboy. The game has as many faults as the previous entries. But overall all three games are well worth playing.

Seriously bro, you sound dumb as shit.
 

anvi

Prophet
Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
7,530
Location
Kelethin
In The Witcher 1 the combat is shit and the story is okay
In The Witcher 2 the combat is shit and the story is very good
In The Witcher 3 both the combat and the story are shit

So there's that
And as someone who hates stories, they are all shit. Although, W3 came close to being something I really loved. I really liked the world, questing, characters, graphics, etc. If I could play that game with a Rogue, Paladin, Mage, Bard, etc.. any real class with real gameplay basically, it would probably be in my top 5 games of all time.
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
11,760
Can't believe Witcher 1 is leading Witcher 3. People need to lay off the drugs.

Witcher 1 = 8/10:
...
Witcher 3 = 9/10:
You can't believe that a game you rate 8/10 is slightly leading a game you rate 9/10 by (as of this writing) a whopping 84 votes to 76 votes? Perhaps you are correct about people needing to "lay off the drugs". :M
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
781
I played Witcher 2 a good while later after it was released because it just didn't draw me as much and it was a pain to get through, Witcher 3 I played right after it was released for a whole 5 minutes and I just coudln't get involved or interested in it.

But the first Witcher, the first Witcher was fantastic.
 

TheWorld

Educated
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
44
Three fine games. It's been a long time since I have played witcher 1 but i remember that it nailed the feeling of a witcher, having to prepare for combats by doing research on the monsters, preparing potions, etc. Also some quests where awesome... I still remember the long investigation quest. I remember the combat was quite boring.

Witcher 2 had good story and writing and the split in the story was something you don't usually see around in AAA.

The three is one of the best open world games around (definitively the best open world rpg for me). Great writing and story. Great care of details in the side-quests. In general there are very few trash quest, most of them have something interesting going on. A pity that the balance is so shitty, both for the combat and for the economy. Overall it's my favourite of the series (playing it right now actually for the first time).
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,110
Do i have to close my eyes or play with my elbows to enjoy it too? should slit my wrist so it becomes a race against time? :lol:

Placing some constraints is pretty much a must to enjoy most RPG combats, so I don't know why you are acting like it's a new thing. For example, New Vegas combat is downright retarded if you use power armor and hitpoint bloating perks/vanilla leveling, but is quite enjoyable if you mod the bloat out and use light armor. And if you create a fully decked out party in Baldur's Gate 2 or a Harm/Disintegrate mage in Arcanum, enough said. Basically, due to either incompetence or catering to casuals, rpgs games usually have some easy mouth-breathing method to get through combat, which is boring and dull to hardcore players. Nothing wrong with avoiding it.

you are kind of a dumbfuck to be honest. There is plenty of exploration in Witcher 1. Just because its not OPEN WORLD LOLOLOLOL doesnt mean there is nothing to discover. And combat is far far from atrocious, please stop the hyperbole. Combat is very serviceable and pretty entertaining.

Witcher 2 is not a 4/10, and thats a fact, not an opinion. Its probably the strongest game of the three, overall.

You are obviousy a dumb Witcher 3 fanboy. The game has as many faults as the previous entries. But overall all three games are well worth playing.

Seriously bro, you sound dumb as shit.

Working hard to maintain the tag, eh? :)

Witcher 1 had no real exploration because most zones in it, despite looking expansive were actually fenced in by various visible and invisible walls. You couldn't exactly wander around and explore, you just went from quest giver to quest destination. Vizima was a bit open, but between all the loading zones, loading interiors, houses that couldn't be entered and so on, wasn't exactly exploration enabling either. And the combat in W1 was about the same level of quality as your comments. It was in the fullest sense of the word, a clickfest. Even worse than Diablo type games, because at least in those, every click was meaningful, since it got something done. In W1, the first 30 clicks were just to wind the combo through the low damage initial moves to get to the actual damage causing moves at the end. What a terrible system.

W2 strongest of the 3? Really? Really? It's not even a game, more like a bad movie.

You can't believe that a game you rate 8/10 is slightly leading a game you rate 9/10 by (as of this writing) a whopping 84 votes to 76 votes? Perhaps you are correct about people needing to "lay off the drugs". :M

The difference between 8 and 9 on a scale of 10 is actually pretty significant. If you transform it to a 100 scale system commonly used in school for grades, an 80 is Good, while a 90 is Great. Big difference.

Also, Witcher 3 is better than a 9, it is an outstanding game, but since it does have flaws and no game probably deserves a 10, I made it a 9. Similarly, Witcher 1 is actually worse than an 8, but since it's a flawed GEM, I was being nice and rounded it up to an 8.
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,825
Placing some constraints is pretty much a must to enjoy most RPG combats, so I don't know why you are acting like it's a new thing.
Difficulty doesnt automatically make anything more enjoyable tho. And losing because you purposely made retarded choices isnt fun either.
Not resting in BG2 and pushing your adventuring day feels cool, if you lose you reload, rest and keep going, this is probably the way the game was meant to be played with no artificial restrictions. Having your wizards only use useless spells and your fighters use their fists would certainly make the game harder. That said BG2 isnt a particularly good challenge if you know the meta, no rpg is. Thats a good thing.

rpgs games
Ok then.
 
Last edited:

Frozen

Arcane
Joined
Jan 1, 2014
Messages
8,303
TW1
Even with strange combat TW1 if played properly (on hard) has the best game mechanics.
And the combat is not bad, its different and refreshing even if a bit repetitive.
Potions DO matter unlike most of TW2 and all in TW3. Alchemy system is unique.
The itemization is one of better in RPGs- no junk, you can carry realistic amount of items, there are only 3 armors in whole game but they do make a difference, no magical swords all over the place etc.
The biggest problem is passing ( chapter 2) and that god-awful swamp, so much backtracking, bad journal, the fact that you don't know if a quest ends in specific chapter or goes on into the next one and similar unpolished stuff that can make you want to rage quit.
Everything else is great- atmosphere, bleak world, the fact that it was more like homage to books rather then a sequel.
 

MoonlitKnight

Educated
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
60
After finishing all

The Witcher 1: awesome effort. Its story was good overall, great if not for that often embarrassing dialogue. Good quest design with interconnected side quests (=yummy) and C&C. It has the best alchemy system of the three that's for sure. character system was good. Where it shined was with its atmosphere, which pairs SS2 in its quality, also its music was great (Unlike SS2 :|). Awful combat though

The Witcher 2: Brilliant story and dialogue, some of the best in the last decade. great still interconnected side quests with even better quest design and best C&C. saying the hubs sucked because they were smaller in size is like saying the same about VtMB. rolling broke the combat so I installed a pirouette mod. It did dumbed down the character system by a mile and broke alchemy. also worse atmosphere.

The Witcher 3: shit broken hitboxes combat. shit nonsensical story. shit C&C. shit super dumbed down footprints-tracking-simulator quest design. shit character system. only finished it because I wanted to know the end of the series. game for the idiotic mass.

overall TW2>TW1>>>>>>the holocaust>TW3
 
Self-Ejected

Brayko

Self-Ejected
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
5,540
Location
United States of America
The Witcher 3: shit broken hitboxes combat. shit nonsensical story. shit C&C. shit super dumbed down footprints-tracking-simulator quest design. shit character system. only finished it because I wanted to know the end of the series. game for the idiotic mass.

All that tech, all that effort, all that beautiful world design...wasted on a terrible plot, terrible characters, terrible voice acting, terrible music, terrible artificial submechanics and object distribution.
 

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