Witcher 2 vs. Witcher 3

[gorfias]

Odd, couldn't find this topic before: I bought Witcher 2 a million years ago and keep restarting it, never getting into it.

Then I see everyone giving Witcher 3 9.5/10. I feel like I'm missing something!

Is Witcher 3 something really new and I should just buy it right now or, if I will just push through 2, I'll discover what is great about the series and appreciate Witcher 3 all the more... LATER.

Your thoughts?

 

[Zhukov]

Witcher 3 is better than Witcher 2 is absolutely every way I can think of.

Also, the story of W3 concerns stuff that doesn't show up in W2 at all. It also does a decent job of setting the scene for newcomers. The only thing they have in common is a handful of minor characters.

So you can safely skip W2 if you are so inclined.

 

[The Madman]

Witcher 3 is pretty much an improvement over 2 in every regard. There could be some argument made that the first Witcher game did some novel things that neither of the other games did, but in terms of comparing 2 and 3 it's not even a contest really. Witcher 2 has the neat branching second chapter and some great characters in the form of Iorveth, Roche, Saskia and the like, but Witcher 3 is also full of great characters and diverging plot lines as well so... Yeah, 3 is better. And this is from someone who quite likes Witcher 2.

With that said I'd recommend playing all three games if possible. Witcher 1 and 2 might be tricky to get into for some people but they're worthwhile experiences that make 3 all the better if you've played them.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Every Witcher game is vastly different from the others. TW3 is an improvement over not just previous titles, but open world RPG formula. Game of the decade right there. That's why you're seeing all those terrific reviews. I would recommend that you play through The Witcher 2. I can understand if you can't play The Witcher 1, it's really not for everyone. But The Witcher 2 is a lot easier to get into than the first one. It just takes a while for the game to really open up. But the story is super engaging, it's totally worth it.

So you can safely skip W2 if you are so inclined.

But then you don't get to fully appreciate how awesome Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion and Roche are. And then there's Letho.

Oh, and go with the Scoia'tel since their arc is much better (or at least far less depressing) than the other choice.

This. Remember this! At the end of Act 1 you'll have to make a choice to go either with Iorveth (Scoia'tel commander) or Roche (Blue Stripes commander). Go with Iorveth. Much more satisfying.

 

[Auberon]

If you skip Witcher 2, you may miss out on aforementioned pals. And obviously politics, they're background and don't really show up in Wild Hunt.

 

[Abomination]

But then you don't get to fully appreciate how awesome Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion and Roche are. And then there's Letho.

Excuse me...

Excuse me?!

His name is Broche.

There is no other character I can think of in video games where the character is encouraged to stand by their friend as much as Broche.

The escapades you get up to with that guy in Witcher 2 is one of the greatest highlights for the game. Not to piss on the Iorveth path, it's good as well, but sadly the Broche path blows it out of the water.

Witcher 2 is well worth playing from an inter-personal perspective. You will really understand Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion, Broche and three of the northern kings better (Foltest is such a cool king).

So yeah, you can miss Witcher 2 - but the character relationships in it are well worth seeing.

Especially Broche's.

 

[Amaror]

Don't listen to those filthy terrorists. BRoche path all the Way!
Hehe, yeah Witcher 2 is pretty good if you can stick with it. That being said i can also understand if you can't. And the story of Witcher 3 is easy enough to understand without the second game, so you can just pick Witcher 3 up and have a great time. Maybe you can just play the third one and get attached enough to the characters so you can play through the second and first one easier afterwards.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

The thing about Roche's path though is that the missions are more boring, the setting (just a military camp) is more boring (come on, Vergen is AMAZING), you don't get to hang out with those awesome dwarves, and you don't get to find out the truth about Saskia. Roche is cool but his path is definitely a lot weaker in every regard. And it's not like you didn't get to hang out with him in Act 1 and in The Witcher 3.

Even the soundtrack in Iorveth's path is better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a-DmxpXhQE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_jizNCiInw

 

[Casual Shinji]

Skip W2 and just buy The Witcher 3.

I too disliked W2, only having a foundness for the visual design and Triss' naked body. But The Witcher 3 looked too damn alluring for me to completely ignore, so I took a risk and just bought it. And I freaking loved it.

As others have said, it's a step up in almost every way. The open-world just explodes the universe into life, the combat is very decent this time around, the more juvenile "lesbomancy" stuff is left by the wayside, and the voice acting is drastically improved. Characters actually sound like characters now, and not random people reading their lines off of a sheet paper. Even the emotionless Geralt has a good amount of charm to him now. The sidequests are some of the best you'll ever play in an RPG, and the open-world sets a benchmark for all other open-world games to come. Seriously, Fallout 4 had better bring its A-game.

As for catching up on the story... I had very little trouble with it, since the plot is fairly simple. And the meat of narrative is mostly found in all the little side tales you come across on your journey.

Just buy it. Now!

 

[stroopwafel]

Yeah, Witcher 3 is a fantastic game(one that set a new benchmark for RPG's and open-world games in general) and never having played Witcher 1 or 2 I didn't really feel I was missing out on story elements. Though, the Witcher lore in general seems really expansive so I guess there is always some added joy to be found when you're really into it.

I really wanted to play Witcher 2 at the time but I didn't have a 360 and I don't think my laptop could have handled it. Game still looks cool though but kind of archaic and cumbersome compared to Witcher 3. Would be rad(sorry, I grew up in the 90's) if they made a remaster of Witcher 2 with Witcher 3's combat(if that was the game's only problem).

 

[infohippie]

Definitely get TW3 even if you can't get into 2. You don't REALLY need to have played it, but it does enrich the world a little to know about it. And I must admit, the first time I ventured into that nekker nest in TW2 and got my ass handed to me was kinda terrifying.

The thing about Roche's path though is that the missions are more boring, the setting (just a military camp) is more boring (come on, Vergen is AMAZING), you don't get to hang out with those awesome dwarves, and you don't get to find out the truth about Saskia. Roche is cool but his path is definitely a lot weaker in every regard. And it's not like you didn't get to hang out with him in Act 1 and in The Witcher 3.

Argh, Roche spoiler! D: I have not found that part yet.

And if you don't take Iorveth's path you miss out on the lesbomancy.

On the other hand, letting Roche have a few minutes alone with that prick of a King is so satisfying. And a bunch of the Gwent cards lose some of their meaning if you are unfamiliar with the characters they represent, such as Dethmold's little quote.

There could be some argument made that the first Witcher game did some novel things that neither of the other games did

In particular, I still think its alchemy mechanic is the best of the series. I had been hoping to see that expanded on in the other games and was a bit disappointed that it was actually simplified. I liked how you could obtain secondary effects on potions with the right ingredients, and the fact you could only use potions at the end of meditation so you had to decide ahead of time how best to prepare for what you would likely be facing.

 

[Thyunda]

Skip W2 and just buy The Witcher 3.

I too disliked W2, only having a foundness for the visual design and Triss' naked body. But The Witcher 3 looked too damn alluring for me to completely ignore, so I took a risk and just bought it. And I freaking loved it.

As others have said, it's a step up in almost every way. The open-world just explodes the universe into life, the combat is very decent this time around, the more juvenile "lesbomancy" stuff is left by the wayside, and the voice acting is drastically improved. Characters actually sound like characters now, and not random people reading their lines off of a sheet paper. Even the emotionless Geralt has a good amount of charm to him now. The sidequests are some of the best you'll ever play in an RPG, and the open-world sets a benchmark for all other open-world games to come. Seriously, Fallout 4 had better bring its A-game.

As for catching up on the story... I had very little trouble with it, since the plot is fairly simple. And the meat of narrative is mostly found in all the little side tales you come across on your journey.

Just buy it. Now!

The facial animation on Geralt that was absent from the first two makes him one of the best protagonists in video game history in my opinion. His face when Lambert mocks the 'killing monsters' incident is just a picture - "It just came out that way..."
And then there's the expression he has when he says "I can't cry. I don't know how."
And it's the most tragic expression.

I think the power of the new generation of consoles is partly responsible for that. I also note that the third game seems to reference a lot more from the books in casual conversation, whereas the first two seemed to adopt the universe but try to ignore as much of the 'canon' (it's already stated that the games are a separate canon to the books) as they can.

The open-world stuff too made it more of a world than just a linear RPG like the first two...which I found to be a pain in the arse. The first one's combat was annoying because you're either a high enough level to beat the enemy or you're not. No two ways about it. The second one felt clunky and Geralt's face pissed me off.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

The facial animation on Geralt that was absent from the first two makes him one of the best protagonists in video game history in my opinion. His face when Lambert mocks the 'killing monsters' incident is just a picture - "It just came out that way..."
And then there's the expression he has when he says "I can't cry. I don't know how."
And it's the most tragic expression.

Everyone's got amazing facial expressions in The Witcher 3. And it's clear that CD Projekt RED didn't try to make them look uncanny realistic like some games these days that are made with motion capture technology. And it payed off incredibly. Every character looks really alive. Even when they're just standing around with a neutral face it looks like they're thinking about something. That's how real they all feel. Look at this:

It's a neutral facial expression, yet he's looking at something and he's clearly thinking about something. And that's unbelievable to me.

It feels as if they handcrafted all of the facial expressions for each situation and for every character. And it just pulls you in and you believe that these characters exist. You feel what they feel. There's so much subtlety in every facial movement. Every smile and every frown is just perfect. It's unlike anything I've ever seen in a video game. That cliche expression how eyes are the windows to the soul is actually true in this game.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

Both path's are brilliant, I prefer the Vergen one myself but enjoyed both immmensely.

TW2 is SUPREMELY rewarding if you persist with it OP. It takes a lot of getting into but the depth it has is stunning, (think of it a bit like listening to classical music).

I quit on my first play through after the first chapter as I found it extremly hard to make sense of anything. I watched a few Youtube vids explaining events in TW1 and game basics.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB_bHqHzhIA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywpaQPsQfgY

........and found it far better.

And familiarize yourself with the Kingdoms, geography, and politics & people - that helps loads.

For me TW2 is one of the best games out there. Is TW3 better? well, yes, but don't deprive yourself of TW2 experience without giving the ball a good kick first.

 

[CeeBod]

In the Witcher 3 there is no awful quicktime-event Kayran fight. That alone makes it 5 times better than the 2nd game! I wanted to re-play number 2 ahead of getting 3, to give me a savegame to use for 3, but there was just no way I could tolerate having to go through that god-awful fight again!

 

[rgrekejin]

Every Witcher game is vastly different from the others. TW3 is an improvement over not just previous titles, but open world RPG formula. Game of the decade right there. That's why you're seeing all those terrific reviews. I would recommend that you play through The Witcher 2. I can understand if you can't play The Witcher 1, it's really not for everyone. But The Witcher 2 is a lot easier to get into than the first one. It just takes a while for the game to really open up. But the story is super engaging, it's totally worth it.

I pretty much agree with this, although I will also stipulate that if you can slog through it, Witcher 1 has one of the greatest twist endings I've ever seen in a game, period.

So you can safely skip W2 if you are so inclined.

But then you don't get to fully appreciate how awesome Triss, Zoltan, Dandelion and Roche are. And then there's Letho.

His actual full legal name is "Fuck Yeah Letbro! *wailing guitar solo*". I'm not kidding. The guitar solo is mandatory. And it must wail.

...but Dandelion kind of sucks in the games. It wasn't until I read the books that I actually understood the point of Dandelion in the Witcher saga. The sorts of things Dandelion brings to the table don't really translate well to action games, so his character kind of withers on the vine in the games. Maybe less so in Witcher 3 than the others, but still... I never really understood why Dandelion was even here in the games. Why did people put up with him?

Oh, and go with the Scoia'tel since their arc is much better (or at least far less depressing) than the other choice.

This. Remember this! At the end of Act 1 you'll have to make a choice to go either with Iorveth (Scoia'tel commander) or Roche (Blue Stripes commander). Go with Iorveth. Much more satisfying.

Strange but true - I've never actually met anyone in real life (myself included) that takes the Scoia'tel path on their first playthrough in any Witcher game where there is a Scoia'tel path. I'm not sure why this is, but the sample size is large enough that it's a trend that can't be ignored. The Scoia'tel just seem more jerk-y than the other factions, I guess.

 

[Fallow]

Actually, there is one thing TW2 does far better. It makes you feel powerful in the endgame. It makes you feel like a frikkin Witcher on Blizzard, like the Butcher of Blaaviken. When you get your multi-executes rolling or your maxed out sign nukes you feel pretty much like Draconus on a bad day. Entire squads in platemail get torn to pieces like a falafel in a piranha tank.

In TW3, I never felt superior, or even masterful, in combat. Personally I consider that the greatest flaw in TW3. After hitting 35 and going back to the starting zone, I would want to feel like a God, with awesome Matrix combat moves, and Rand Al'Thor sign nukes. But alas, I do not.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Strange but true - I've never actually met anyone in real life (myself included) that takes the Scoia'tel path on their first playthrough in any Witcher game where there is a Scoia'tel path. I'm not sure why this is, but the sample size is large enough that it's a trend that can't be ignored. The Scoia'tel just seem more jerk-y than the other factions, I guess.

Yep. Even I went with Roche on my first playthrough. Then I wanted to see what happens if I choose Iorveth and I was blown away.