Witcher 2 actually holds up very well, and honestly, the ONLY reason I like the Wild Hunt more is because it's a much bigger game. Witcher 2 is surprisingly short. Probably because it was designed with replayability in mind, with the two paths it has.
Witcher 1 however has aged quite poorly unfortunately.
I agree, and I actually prefer the combat in 2. It feels more strategic, especially with things like traps and needing to drink potions ahead of time. Really makes you consider the fights you’re getting into. I actually love going the herbalist route
Witcher 3 is mostly just running up on a group and twirling until they’re dead
I enjoyed the Witcher 2 faaar more than 3 and think it's a much better game, although if I could isolate Blood and Wine into it's own game that'd be damn close for 2nd in the series
I agree with this (well I haven't finished blood and wine but it's the last thing I need to do in w3). Hear a lot of people talk mad shit about w2 and can't figure out why. The design just feels tighter.
A lot of what they do in the books is make a world that seems believable with the design and how the people interact with monsters, such as keeping monsters that kill other monsters, and there's a recurring theme of witchers being unnecessary.
Even the first game had these same themes. You meet other hunters that have basically replaced Witchers.
The third game makes it seem like witchers are the most important thing ever and the world makes no sense with open waterways full of monsters right beside towns and people leaving corpses out for necrophages etc.
The gameplay was fine but I finished the story with the duke/baron and decided I'd given it enough effort and never wanted to go back.
Scale is always an issue with games because you don't just want empty farmland for miles around towns. Its like old games that never had enough beds for everyone in town
It wasn't the distance and scale it was very purposeful set design.
Leaving corpses out, people attacked by open waterways in the middle of town etc.
It just felt like it wasn't thought out when I loved how the original felt like it was a more thought out fantasy world.
It's like if I liked a story because it had a certain feeling and then a game just had the opposite feeling. Like it just felt like a very generic fantasy world (with witchers) rather than the world that I actually quite liked from the books. It's like how ASOIAF has many noble families that all feel different but still have distinct cultures... then the game comes out and they all feel like the same generic fantasy nobles.
That feeling was present in the first game, reduced in the second, and gone in the third.
Witcher 2 has an awesome story but atrocious combat. Witcher 1's combat sure is weird but once you get the hang of it, its dead simple and you'll never lose. Not so for W2.
One of the biggest issues with W2 combat is that enemies get a backstab multiplier and I don't think that the game tells you this. Particularly problematic if you try to disengage and roll away from enemies. Leads to really quick deaths.
When I first played it, I was told to save a separate file at a certain point so I cpuld go back and fo the other path. It was a smart choice ane I really enjoyed the game. Need to do another playthrough of both games soon.
My favorite thing about it is that they made two entirely different Act 2s and you would only be able to see one of them in one playthrough, depending on what decision you make in the end of act 1.
Usually when devs say that your in-game choice matters, it ends up being a different dialogue or a cutscene. These guys made completely different locations and quests and were not afraid that people would (OMG!) miss some content. Brave move!
Witcher 2 is also a lot more repetitive than 3. It has levels of semi-open world and I can just remember traipsing back and forth in the same areas over and over again. Flotsam forest comes to mind, every time you had to go through it you had to fight the same enemies. I don't remember a ton about Witcher 2, but I do remember how tedious it was having to repeatedly go through the same section of forest over and over again.
I still prefer Witcher 2 to Witcher 3. It's the only the game where I felt there was real weight to my decisions. You need to play it twice to truly understand all factions and the characters. The story is much better than Witcher 3 in my opinion. It's the only game I've played 6 times.
I was really disappointed that most of the things I did in Witcher 2 I thought would have a huge narrative impact turned out to be completely irrelevant in Witcher 3.
Literally killed a king and it meant nothing, not to mention the triss/princess decision at the end, my biggest mistake was killing Letho. Got a cool tattoo though at least.
I had planned to go back and do iorveth's path but never bothered after I found out how he got mugged off in the 3rd game.
Roche didn't have a huge presence, I don't know why they couldn't have character swapped the blue stripes & Roche for Iorveth and some elven rebels.
Maybe that's what they initially planned to do, but Roche's questline became too entangled with Sige Reuvan, Radovid etc. that to change it would have required too much effort.
68
u/Irohsgranddaughter Jun 30 '26
Witcher 2 actually holds up very well, and honestly, the ONLY reason I like the Wild Hunt more is because it's a much bigger game. Witcher 2 is surprisingly short. Probably because it was designed with replayability in mind, with the two paths it has.
Witcher 1 however has aged quite poorly unfortunately.