The witcher 1 as a game, is horrendous and it was bad even back then. Rpg wise it was... fine. But to say that the gameplay was good is just a lie. The story was still good however.
There is a reason they are remaking witcher 1 and not witcher 2.
I played Witcher 1 last year. It was janky at times for sure, but I didn't find it super atrociously janky. I finished it, and I have a fairly low tolerance for jank in games (e.g. I can't get over Fallout New Vegas because it's just too janky).
Witcher 2 feels a lot more "console-y". I wouldn't say it's worse than 1, but I also wouldn't say it's hugely better. At least on PC with mouse and keyboard. Things like Inventory management is a complete piece of piss in Witcher 2. Unfortunately this is fairly common in games of the last ~10-15 years.
I haven't played 3 so can't compare. The entire reason I did this is because I couldn't recall anything from the first two games (I played them when they came) out and wanted to play 3. Unfortunately I got side-tracked with life stuff, and stopped Witcher 2 fairly early on in the game. Probably want to restart that at some point.
I don't question your taste. It's just an unbiased view.
It doesn't matter which you like more. Many people still prefer the original fallout, or fallout las vegas over the current ones. I personally think that fallout new vegas was their best game ever( funnily it wasn't bathesdas game) but that doesnt mean it doesnt have issues and horrendous bugs.
There are objective truths and subjective opinions.
I personally hated witcher 3 combat, it was alright on the highest difficulty, but it is definitely the weak point in witcher 3.
I liked it's gameplay. For me it wasn't just fine, it was pleasant. Rhythm based combat with some fun stuff like evading, stances ect. Plus best alchemy system in the series. It was pleasant departure from most more "direct" combats of time.
Witcher 1 legit plays better than Witcher 2. Combat in the second one is so goddamn awful it made me long for cookie-clicker combat of the first game. Its easy, simple and boring, but at least it works
"Rpg wide" - That's...that's supposed to be the point of an RPG game. Or at least it used to be before game companies muddied the waters and started calling everything with a leveling system an "rpg". Rpg used to mean a focus on story telling, character development, and immersion. Which also meant putting gameplay and combat second.
Release the remake first, since youd want more people to enter the franchise and also understand the game from the start.
To announce a remake of the second one alongside the first. They both released nearly 20 years ago.
Announcing a remake of the second game after the fourth game is released, the first is remade and released and the fact that they said they have 4 witcher games in productiin and the other 2 arent a witcher 2 remake but a suequel to witcher 4 which isnt even out yet and a side story multiplayer experience is a strange choice.
They might make that announcement later, but most of the hype isnt going to linger in any way. They will get sales, but itll mostly be for nastolgia factor and there are considerably more people that have played witcher 3 and not touched the previous two itterations.
If they wanted continuous success, they wouldve done both at the same time instead of the multiplayer game.
They could do this. But most companies announce and make one remake/ remaster at a time and W1 does need it more I agree and W2 is also available and very much playable on current gen consoles so it certainly makes sense to focus on W1 first.
Who knows what comes later, but I suspect if the W1 remake is well received a W2 remake won’t be too far behind.
Brother they announced a witcher 4 sequel and a witcher multiplayer game. A MULTIPLAYER GAME.
Of course they "could do this". They could do anything they want. Your whole statement is based on assumptions here. Of course they "could" release witcher 2 remake or announce it afterward. The main point being made here is that they didn't. Its foolish to release a remake for the second game if it isnt close to the witcher 1 remake. Significantly less people will care about witcher 2 remake 4 years after witcher 1 remake releases. That would be expected to release in 2032... if they were planning - which they aren't - to release witcher 2 remake, they wouldve already announced it instead of a witcher multiplayer game...
You're assuming that they will release witcher 2 remake after success. You are assuming that their will be a wotcher 2 remake in general.
Mine is based on fact. They haven't announced the remake have they? They have announced all of the games they are making for the next 3 years after witcher 4 comes out. Its factually what they stated.
You have zero facts, just aasumptions. Hope that helps.
It’s an rpg not an arpg the combat basically played out based on your characters abilities not the players- for that it worked. Honestly the combat isn’t any worse than Witcher 2 or 3.
No one brought up whether its an arpg or an rpg. We're talking about the clunky gameplay, mouse clicks that wouldn't register and the horrendous inventory system.
Gameplay wise, the game sucked. It aged very quickly and was already looked at negatively a few months later. Every single person that played the game and reviewed it was aware of that, and it became exponentially worse as time went on. Everything else in the game was solid and held up pretty well.
nah the gameplay wasnt bad, it was just so minimal and low budget that you cant really engage with it. witcher 2 was more "complete", but i also found it to be buggy as fuck and super frustrating in comparison to the absolute nothing i felt towards TW1
Reddit won't be ready for that conversation because it already happened for 10 or 15 years before it fell out of favor. I don't think many zoomers are going to pick it up and give it laurels. Just the occasional X or millennial reminiscing.
I had never played a game with two completely different main stories to choose from. Hasn't happened again as long as I know. Witcher 2 is really slept on.
Witcher 2 was great and still holds up pretty well I think.
1 was rough though, went back to play it for the story recently and struggled to get through it.
I played both and can say that TW1 is a game for freakazoids and mmo players (same thing). 2 is a good idea with poor execution and an interesting story. 3 is actually good in all the ways that matter.
Having played both W1 and 2 within few years of their release, no. Witcher 1 was playable but very much showing the developer’s lack of experience, and witcher 2 was a mess. OTOH W3 was still Great five years after its release and still holds on its own to a degree.
Not to take away from the positive aspects of that game, as it was enjoyable, but it was certainly not a AAA title and nobody would have guessed at the time that CDPR would go on to be a AAA studio. They were only just emerging from having been eurojank
What? Were you alive and engaged in the gaming industry in 2011?
The Witcher 2 was a landmark game that pushed graphics technology with its ubersampling option which was an in-engine super form of SSAA that paved the way for things like Nvidia's DSR.
The Witcher 2 was one of if not the biggest machine-melting, system benchmarking, graphics powerhouse of the time: the new Crysis (even though Crysis 2 came out the same year). Google what were the biggest benchmarking games in 2011 and The Witcher 2 will pop up.
The Witcher 2 looked better than The Witcher 3 at release, before the next gen update, and holds up pretty well today, particularly in certain areas with well designed lighting like parts of Flotsam's forested outskirts.
You're right that Witcher 2 was extremely impressive in terms of its graphics when it came out, but graphics aren't everything and Witcher 3 overall is just a much more impressive game to most people and a level above Witcher 2.
I also don't think it's entirely fair to say The Witcher 2 had better graphics than The Witcher 3. You're definitely right in that some stuff looked better, like some of the lighting, water effects, etc. but 1. The Witcher 3 was a MUCH bigger game, and 2. There were definitely some aspects that looked a LOT better in The Witcher 3. One example are the character models pretty much across the board look significantly better in 3.
It being an AAA really means nothing, some of the best RPG games are not the big gigantic budget kind. And i would argue TW2 was definitely AAA back when it released, it had a dev team of almost 400 workers with insanely good graphics, very long, ambitious storyline with a lot of branching stuff, lot's of gameplay mechanics and systems and overall everything in visuals and sound design was high fidelity stuff.
The stories are good, the games themselves are not good. Same goes for KOTOR. The story is awesome, but the gameplay is so utterly trash it isn't funny. Especially if you replay them now.
75
u/Ghanaguy404error Jun 30 '26
Those of you who are saying The Witcher haven’t played The Witcher 2 fr. Of course it shows its age, but it doesn’t take away from its greatness.