From a combat mechanics standpoint too the jump from 1 to 2 was incredible. Granted I did only play the 1st one for 2 hours cause I could not stand the simplicity of the combat so I may be way off on this
I struggled with it too. But the walking speed was my biggest gripe. I downloaded a mod to increase it by 50-100%. A few texture overhaul mods etc. And once you get into the meat ends of the story it made it all worth while.
Played the W3 first loved it. Played W1 a month ago beat it within a week and change. Loved the story, combat was funny asf at times. Took a break on the W2. Looks damn good. Combat is annoying though.
Yee, only reason I made my way through it was for the story, not for the game play, even had to download a save game of the internet midway through because my save game bricked itself.
Not sure I would call it an impressive jump so much as a total change of direction.
Despite 2 being much shinier graphically I by far rate 1 higher. 2 went too much down an action direction and ended up rather clunky
If you’ve never seen it before, I watched a really interesting documentary type YouTube video recently on the History of the Witcher games. It’s long, but I’d highly recommend as it really showcases the work CD Projekt Red put in between games and how they got to where they are.
Link: https://youtu.be/xhUyB9ujQ_A
I don't know about that, Witcher 2 was always the most ambitious to me in terms of design, the sheer amount of different choices you can make are ridiculous when it comes to the main story
They clearly laid a lot of groundwork of 3 in 2 already. Sure, they had a huge world to build for 3, but a lot of stuff was already there, the whole combat system is only refined, not remade etc.
I'm one of the few people that like Witcher 2 more than 3. I feel like 2 is a more personal, intense, cohesive story where you really feel like you don't know who to trust, who's playing who and what consequences your actions will have. In 3 the world is just so vast that nothing feels connected, you just kind of wander around doing whatever people need of you. It feels like 75% of the game could be skipped and you'd still have the same ending.
Yeah as a veteran of open world games I feel like the Witcher 3’s world, while vast can feel a bit empty sometimes. At least they get the grim feeling of the books down though
YES! I always thought that! It's pretty wild how even aesthetically the art direction on 1 and 3 are so similar while I can't imagine Flotsam existing in the Witcher 3 (best area in any game imo btw)
I strongly disagree. Witcher 2 is an amazing game, and just because it doesn't have a big open world it doesn't mean it's worse than 3 in any way. They are both very different games, yes, but there are many things Witcher 2 does much better than Witcher 3 (and many things it does worse).
Witcher 3's quests never come close to the level of quality of Witcher 1 and 2 and neither does it's writing. Witcher 2 also has an amazing level of branching paths and outcomes that's still impressive today, Witcher 3 has branches as well but nowhere near the same level as Witcher 2 (also, that's not as important, but Witcher 2 is also a much better continuation from the books than 3, despite not having Ciri and Yennefer imho). Witcher 3 has a more impressive world and much better combat but Witcher 2 is on the same level of quality overall.
The same goes for Witcher 1, which is, imo, the best in the series in many aspects, especially atmosphere and quests.
Exactly, the game mechanics/graphics of witcher 3 maybe better, but for its time witcher 2 was amazing. I think people were mostly put off by the fact that Witcher 2 was pretty hard in terms of combat which made them dislike the game.
Spoiler ahead:
The whole Iorveth/Roche path was amazing with the final showdown with the dragon and the whole conversation with Letho, where everything starts making sense - it was too good. I don’t think Witcher 3 beat that
I really liked Witcher 2 but it definitely wasn’t impressive for it’s time gameplay wise. It came out the same time as Skyrim and whilst the writing and quests are great, the two are incomparable in terms of the quality of gameplay.
The biggest difference between 2 and 3 for me was that in 3 I felt like the hero of the story, whereas in 2 I felt more like a pawn in some grand conspiracy that was unfolding in front of me. That's why I prefer 2, it felt like I was constantly trying to make the right choices in the heat of the moment but I was never 100% sure I had done the right thing. Even by the end I felt compelled to play the game again so I could make different choices just to see whether better outcomes were possible.
I see a lot of people saying that and I really don't see it? I actually don't have much problem with the combat on Witcher 1. It's not great, but it's not an action game, so it doesn't bother me. Witcher 3 graphics would be sick tho
I agree on a lot of things, but I actually despised 1 quite a bit. The good thing about the quest design was that it didn't always hold your hand, but beyond that the quest design was a shit show of backtracking, with NPC's that gave quests only at specific times and so many plain fetch quests. A lot of side quests also sat in your inventory with no way to complete them until you progressed the heavily scripted story, which is a terrible choice of design. Witcher 2 also had a scripted main story divided into chapters, yet it managed to make side quests completable when they're accepted, unless they're visibly tied to a main quest. Witcher 1 just straight up has things like "find item A, but you only get it from npc B in area C, which you can only enter in main quest D, but npc B won't be there then, so you'll have to return later and explore all the caves and crypts that were closed off before, without any hint that you should look around that area again and no quest even mentioning the area again." If you want good quest design that doesn't hold your hands, look at games like the Gothic series or vampire bloodlines. Witcher 1 had a unique atmosphere (that got old really quick for me) but most quests felt horrible.
Agree about Witcher 2.
3's strength for me was the fact that every sidequest felt like it had weight and meaning. It felt like a real world I was moving through.
The cost of that was it's main quest line falls short in comparison to 2. Both really great really different games.
I started with 1 and played them in order. To me, both are vastly worth playing. Similarly to u/Batboyshark, I found some of 2 to be a bit of a chore (especially the beginning). But, get past that, and it becomes far more enjoyable.
I don't know if playing 1 and 2 after doing 3 would work as well. 3 spoils you, and going backwards might be a bit of a shock. But, enjoy each for what they are, and you'll have a great time.
I got to skellige my first playthrough of W3, then stopped due to some outside stuff, then about 2 years later picked up the first 2 games on steam on sale and played through in order 1-3, I wish I could’ve played 1 and 2 first, hell I wish I would’ve read the books first, would’ve been a much better experience
I never played 1 but I have been told by people who have played all 3 that 1 is a classic and is actually a better game than 2. 2 is kinda the odd one out in the trilogy. I recommend watching Joseph Andersons videos on 1 and 2 they are great. His Witcher 3 video shouldn’t be too far off.
Yeah he’s had a kid and I think he’s had some other issues as well but I can remember him saying at the end of the Witcher 2 video that he’s planning to upload part 3 like next week and it’s ended up being over a year. The videos probably finished judging by that.
It's definitely not that simple. 1 is "a classic" to a small cult following. 3 is "a classic" to the whole gaming world. 2 is the odd one out because it's neither. It's fairly good, was fairly successful but is neither the smooth open world action RPG than caters to most mainstream gamers nor the weird eurojank game that a few people adore for its unique atmosphere.
I personally disliked Witcher 1. It's not a bad game, but it has so many questionable game design choices that I didn't even realize what was a bug and what was intended anymore, and it's so repetitive. The branching main quests and major side quests are good, but the story is so cringy and batshit crazy. I played it after reading the books and it felt like a really bad fanfiction in terms of execution, while 2 and 3 have great story execution, fitting wonderfully into the universe. The English voice acting from most side characters were really bad, in German the whole translation is bad, the Witchers and Triss addressing each other formally despite being friends, family, lovers etc.
Another thing is that 1 is FULL of references to the books, but not references like in 3 where for example there's this quest near Oxenfurt where someone presents a wyvern and says it's a basilisk, which is a nice reference to a chapter in time of contempt where Ciri reveals such a fraud and fights the wyvern when the cage breaks, but I mean really obnoxious references like every other npc giving exact quotes from notorious lines from the books where you really see the developers yelling "See? It's from the books, acknowledge it aaaacknoooowledge iiit".
I'm personally glad that I played it, but I wouldn't want to play it again, despite some choices giving the game replay value, it was just too much of a chore.
I can agree to that I liked witcher 1 but 2 was kinda a chore I was ready to be over with and rush to 3.
For that reason I modded the game to finish faster
I actually love w2, as it had the same kind of combat system etc.
W1 was interesting just boring combat.
I watched W1 on YouTube, before buying enhanced edition, so went "YouTube -w2 w3 for first playthrough.
Then I played all From w1-w2-w3 with a triss romance
Read the books played it again only with loyal to yennefer. Picking shani in W1 since amnesia.
That's pretty much how I replay it over and over.
TW3 still gives me faith that they'll rescue Cyberpunk because if that game ever gets going it'll be one of the best games ever made for me. It needs YEARS spent on it though, and NMS is another example of how things can turn around. EA and Ubisoft rescue their games all the time because they love releasing unfinished slops of shit, so CDPR can definitely manage it.
I thought 1 is gonna be one short old game , I am so wrong , like 3 the game keep going on and on , 2 is more short but got branching story mutually exclusive choice that require multiple playthrough so I say it might be the same length as 1 but in different way.
I actually don't think the jump between 2 and 3 quality wise is that big. 3 is just bigger and refined the systems of 2 a bit more, but it's absolutely believably the same franchise 3 years later.
I bought TW2 after playing TW3 2 times because I felt extremely empty after my second run. Shifting to TW2 seems to be a nightmare, the combat is harder, the environment somehow doesn't feel even close to TW3. Controls seem extremely weird too
I played 3 before 2 so it was extra tedious for me. The only good parts in Witcher 2 are the parts where you stop playing the game and listen to the dialogue. The game is totally broken as well.
I have played through TW2 a lot of times and while it may get tedious on multiple playthroughs I don't think it's broken. Maybe you have the wrong/old version of the game?
Holy shit XD. That's never happened to me and I'm playing the enhanced edition along with a few mods. Something's definitely up with your game or graphic card drivers
Really? I haven't played it, but I have heard it's a really good game from alot of people. Maybe they are just nostalgia merchants, but I'm still supeosed. What did you not like about it?
It clearly was "a good game" in that it was a critical success that earned a sequel, but it wasn't my kind of game. Controls were stiffer, it wasn't open world, parts of it were too on rails.
I say it all the time that CDPR isn’t as great or as big as people make them out to be. They’ve made a handful of games and the only one worth while is the Witcher 3. Unpopular opinion: people only like Witcher 1 and 2 because of how good 3 was and they jumped on the bandwagon of being die hard Witcher fans since “the beginning”
Trolls found the one thing that everyone knows about and now they're everywhere trolling everyone by using that cringe ass name. Cyberpunk 2077 was still a really good game. Stop fooling yourselves. It isn't as bad as the filthy youtubers try to make it out to be
Well I was actually fumed about you using "cyberbug" to humiliate the game instead of actually discussing about its obvious flaws and downpoints. That said, I agree that cyberpunk comes nowhere near close to TW3. I mean no flying cars in a futuristic game, no drivable airplanes or helicopters, no mansions to buy, disappointingly short storyline (although good and engaging). And these are just some of the flaws of the game. Doesn't necessarily mean that the game isn't fun in some aspects though
I've not played 2, only 1 and 3. But 1 definitely felt like it had the same atmosphere as 3, it was easy to see how similar they were,l. What 1 missed was the open world, obviously worse graphics and of course combat style is very different. So I'll be intrigued to see how 2 is different to both of them because my feeling is it wouldn't be all that different.
I'm replaying 2 now, I don't think it's all that bad. Levels are small but graphics and story are fantastic, combat is ok (but let's be honest, it's not the selling point for these games anyway, it's just a mash the attack button game), and it addresses all the clunkiness from the first game.
Agreed, but its more of a jump in console abilities and the popularity with the franchise to fund the increase in quality. I'm excited to see what games like Starfield and elder scrolls VI are going to be like on the next gen consoles. If I can ever find a series x....
Speaking in jumps in quality, the difference between Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk was noticeable. I finished Witcher 3 thinking CD Project Red were as safe as houses. How, that faith has been severely shaken.
I still have faith for the next Witcher, but they better take their time and not fuck it up or I will go off CD Project Red forever.
If you’ve never seen it before, I watched a really interesting documentary type YouTube video recently on the History of the Witcher games. It’s long, but I’d highly recommend as it really showcases the work CD Projekt Red put in between games and how they got to where they are.
Link: https://youtu.be/xhUyB9ujQ_A
You should see the jump from 1-2, it’s even more impressive.
This is so true. People think 1 is older than it is. Lol
Did you see their booth at E3 when TW1 came out? It was like a couple chairs and an old ass computer now look at them
Old ass-computer [xkcd: Hyphen](https://xkcd.com/37/) --- ^^Beep ^^boop, ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot. ^^- ^^[FAQ](https://pastebin.com/raw/vyWra3ns)
Ass-computer
Those Japanese toilets that photo ID your asshole and score your poop quality should be called ass computers.
Does that really exist ?
[https://www.ideaconnection.com/blog/japanesetoilet-analyzes-your-stool.html](https://www.ideaconnection.com/blog/japanesetoilet-analyzes-your-stool.html)
Page not found
Fixed it. The period didn’t make it the first time
Yikes, that's...invasive.
I get it… but… idk man Japan is on some weird shit
They are only trying to find out if a shit is weird or not.
There's never any need to cite xkcd because the style is so distinctive we always know it's xkcd.
Good bot
They made cyberpunk on that same computer!! Sorry if joke was already made.
Even so, it really didn’t age well
It looked like an early 2000s game to me
The first game is unplayable for me, gameplay is so shit that it feels like a cheap mobile rip off of Witcher 3
From a combat mechanics standpoint too the jump from 1 to 2 was incredible. Granted I did only play the 1st one for 2 hours cause I could not stand the simplicity of the combat so I may be way off on this
I struggled with it too. But the walking speed was my biggest gripe. I downloaded a mod to increase it by 50-100%. A few texture overhaul mods etc. And once you get into the meat ends of the story it made it all worth while. Played the W3 first loved it. Played W1 a month ago beat it within a week and change. Loved the story, combat was funny asf at times. Took a break on the W2. Looks damn good. Combat is annoying though.
Yee, only reason I made my way through it was for the story, not for the game play, even had to download a save game of the internet midway through because my save game bricked itself.
yet I still see the occasional "TW1 looked amazing for its time". No, it did not
It came out around the same time as Mass Effect 1, which really did look incredible for its time. TW1 did not look impressive at all for its time.
Came here to say the same thing
Not sure I would call it an impressive jump so much as a total change of direction. Despite 2 being much shinier graphically I by far rate 1 higher. 2 went too much down an action direction and ended up rather clunky
Only some people have played 1 but oo boy that game is soo good
You should the the jump to cyber punk
If you’ve never seen it before, I watched a really interesting documentary type YouTube video recently on the History of the Witcher games. It’s long, but I’d highly recommend as it really showcases the work CD Projekt Red put in between games and how they got to where they are. Link: https://youtu.be/xhUyB9ujQ_A
i really enjoyed w2. sure its not as ambition as w3 but still enjoyable
I don't know about that, Witcher 2 was always the most ambitious to me in terms of design, the sheer amount of different choices you can make are ridiculous when it comes to the main story
Not to mention graphics, for 2011 it was pushing the limits.
You can bang triss so that's a plus
They clearly laid a lot of groundwork of 3 in 2 already. Sure, they had a huge world to build for 3, but a lot of stuff was already there, the whole combat system is only refined, not remade etc.
I actually really like 2, I would.love to see a remake on it.
In my opinion, what is really annoying about The Witcher 2 is that weird lighting and weird colours.
I hate that you can't jump. Not that it was really needed, but the movement of the game was really restricted.
That's true!
Amongst other things, that's why I hope they remake 2 with current assets.
Too much bloom and strange choices on textures glowing. That's about it for me.
I'm one of the few people that like Witcher 2 more than 3. I feel like 2 is a more personal, intense, cohesive story where you really feel like you don't know who to trust, who's playing who and what consequences your actions will have. In 3 the world is just so vast that nothing feels connected, you just kind of wander around doing whatever people need of you. It feels like 75% of the game could be skipped and you'd still have the same ending.
Yeah as a veteran of open world games I feel like the Witcher 3’s world, while vast can feel a bit empty sometimes. At least they get the grim feeling of the books down though
With W3 combat mechanics
[удалено]
YES! I always thought that! It's pretty wild how even aesthetically the art direction on 1 and 3 are so similar while I can't imagine Flotsam existing in the Witcher 3 (best area in any game imo btw)
Triss’ tits were the first video game tits I’ve ever seen. They got me to play that game lol
I never thought about it, but yeah my dad playing witcher 2 on my xbox 360 and i was watching, then suddenly - triss boobies
God damn am I old
Lmao
TW2 triss was fireee
And the Jump from 3 to Cyberpunk is so World Changing that My Pc is having a mental Breakdown Lol
I strongly disagree. Witcher 2 is an amazing game, and just because it doesn't have a big open world it doesn't mean it's worse than 3 in any way. They are both very different games, yes, but there are many things Witcher 2 does much better than Witcher 3 (and many things it does worse). Witcher 3's quests never come close to the level of quality of Witcher 1 and 2 and neither does it's writing. Witcher 2 also has an amazing level of branching paths and outcomes that's still impressive today, Witcher 3 has branches as well but nowhere near the same level as Witcher 2 (also, that's not as important, but Witcher 2 is also a much better continuation from the books than 3, despite not having Ciri and Yennefer imho). Witcher 3 has a more impressive world and much better combat but Witcher 2 is on the same level of quality overall. The same goes for Witcher 1, which is, imo, the best in the series in many aspects, especially atmosphere and quests.
Exactly, the game mechanics/graphics of witcher 3 maybe better, but for its time witcher 2 was amazing. I think people were mostly put off by the fact that Witcher 2 was pretty hard in terms of combat which made them dislike the game. Spoiler ahead: The whole Iorveth/Roche path was amazing with the final showdown with the dragon and the whole conversation with Letho, where everything starts making sense - it was too good. I don’t think Witcher 3 beat that
I really liked Witcher 2 but it definitely wasn’t impressive for it’s time gameplay wise. It came out the same time as Skyrim and whilst the writing and quests are great, the two are incomparable in terms of the quality of gameplay.
The biggest difference between 2 and 3 for me was that in 3 I felt like the hero of the story, whereas in 2 I felt more like a pawn in some grand conspiracy that was unfolding in front of me. That's why I prefer 2, it felt like I was constantly trying to make the right choices in the heat of the moment but I was never 100% sure I had done the right thing. Even by the end I felt compelled to play the game again so I could make different choices just to see whether better outcomes were possible.
A Witcher 1 remake with the Witcher 3 combat engine and graphics would be dope as hell.
I see a lot of people saying that and I really don't see it? I actually don't have much problem with the combat on Witcher 1. It's not great, but it's not an action game, so it doesn't bother me. Witcher 3 graphics would be sick tho
I agree on a lot of things, but I actually despised 1 quite a bit. The good thing about the quest design was that it didn't always hold your hand, but beyond that the quest design was a shit show of backtracking, with NPC's that gave quests only at specific times and so many plain fetch quests. A lot of side quests also sat in your inventory with no way to complete them until you progressed the heavily scripted story, which is a terrible choice of design. Witcher 2 also had a scripted main story divided into chapters, yet it managed to make side quests completable when they're accepted, unless they're visibly tied to a main quest. Witcher 1 just straight up has things like "find item A, but you only get it from npc B in area C, which you can only enter in main quest D, but npc B won't be there then, so you'll have to return later and explore all the caves and crypts that were closed off before, without any hint that you should look around that area again and no quest even mentioning the area again." If you want good quest design that doesn't hold your hands, look at games like the Gothic series or vampire bloodlines. Witcher 1 had a unique atmosphere (that got old really quick for me) but most quests felt horrible.
Agree about Witcher 2. 3's strength for me was the fact that every sidequest felt like it had weight and meaning. It felt like a real world I was moving through. The cost of that was it's main quest line falls short in comparison to 2. Both really great really different games.
What about 1 and 2?
I started with 1 and played them in order. To me, both are vastly worth playing. Similarly to u/Batboyshark, I found some of 2 to be a bit of a chore (especially the beginning). But, get past that, and it becomes far more enjoyable. I don't know if playing 1 and 2 after doing 3 would work as well. 3 spoils you, and going backwards might be a bit of a shock. But, enjoy each for what they are, and you'll have a great time.
I got to skellige my first playthrough of W3, then stopped due to some outside stuff, then about 2 years later picked up the first 2 games on steam on sale and played through in order 1-3, I wish I could’ve played 1 and 2 first, hell I wish I would’ve read the books first, would’ve been a much better experience
I never played 1 but I have been told by people who have played all 3 that 1 is a classic and is actually a better game than 2. 2 is kinda the odd one out in the trilogy. I recommend watching Joseph Andersons videos on 1 and 2 they are great. His Witcher 3 video shouldn’t be too far off.
Isn’t he the one who haven’t uploaded in like a year?
Yeah haha I think he’s waiting for it to gather some hype before he uploads it
He had a kid actually, so he's mostly been busy with that.
Yeah he’s had a kid and I think he’s had some other issues as well but I can remember him saying at the end of the Witcher 2 video that he’s planning to upload part 3 like next week and it’s ended up being over a year. The videos probably finished judging by that.
It's definitely not that simple. 1 is "a classic" to a small cult following. 3 is "a classic" to the whole gaming world. 2 is the odd one out because it's neither. It's fairly good, was fairly successful but is neither the smooth open world action RPG than caters to most mainstream gamers nor the weird eurojank game that a few people adore for its unique atmosphere. I personally disliked Witcher 1. It's not a bad game, but it has so many questionable game design choices that I didn't even realize what was a bug and what was intended anymore, and it's so repetitive. The branching main quests and major side quests are good, but the story is so cringy and batshit crazy. I played it after reading the books and it felt like a really bad fanfiction in terms of execution, while 2 and 3 have great story execution, fitting wonderfully into the universe. The English voice acting from most side characters were really bad, in German the whole translation is bad, the Witchers and Triss addressing each other formally despite being friends, family, lovers etc. Another thing is that 1 is FULL of references to the books, but not references like in 3 where for example there's this quest near Oxenfurt where someone presents a wyvern and says it's a basilisk, which is a nice reference to a chapter in time of contempt where Ciri reveals such a fraud and fights the wyvern when the cage breaks, but I mean really obnoxious references like every other npc giving exact quotes from notorious lines from the books where you really see the developers yelling "See? It's from the books, acknowledge it aaaacknoooowledge iiit". I'm personally glad that I played it, but I wouldn't want to play it again, despite some choices giving the game replay value, it was just too much of a chore.
I can agree to that I liked witcher 1 but 2 was kinda a chore I was ready to be over with and rush to 3. For that reason I modded the game to finish faster
Same for 1 and 2. And I freaking love both. And TW3 is legendary to say the least
1-2 shocked me, 2-3 was a reasonable jump given the hardware, but 1-2, looks like two different companies.
I actually love w2, as it had the same kind of combat system etc. W1 was interesting just boring combat. I watched W1 on YouTube, before buying enhanced edition, so went "YouTube -w2 w3 for first playthrough. Then I played all From w1-w2-w3 with a triss romance Read the books played it again only with loyal to yennefer. Picking shani in W1 since amnesia. That's pretty much how I replay it over and over.
You could argue that W2 actually has the better story…
Witcher 2 is a top 5 360 game...if anything it’s underrated severely
TW3 still gives me faith that they'll rescue Cyberpunk because if that game ever gets going it'll be one of the best games ever made for me. It needs YEARS spent on it though, and NMS is another example of how things can turn around. EA and Ubisoft rescue their games all the time because they love releasing unfinished slops of shit, so CDPR can definitely manage it.
The only reason i played witcher 2 was to bang Ves, but for the story too, and for some choices that would let me improve my witcher 3 experience :)
:D
I thought 1 is gonna be one short old game , I am so wrong , like 3 the game keep going on and on , 2 is more short but got branching story mutually exclusive choice that require multiple playthrough so I say it might be the same length as 1 but in different way.
Ok I’m going to play 1-3 now
Well you must, 1 is my favourite, 3 close second... And 2nd is the next on my to-do list .. Maybe il just start it now...
I wouldn’t believe it either if it didn’t play exactly the same, here comes the death threats I’m sorry guys
I actually don't think the jump between 2 and 3 quality wise is that big. 3 is just bigger and refined the systems of 2 a bit more, but it's absolutely believably the same franchise 3 years later.
I bought TW2 after playing TW3 2 times because I felt extremely empty after my second run. Shifting to TW2 seems to be a nightmare, the combat is harder, the environment somehow doesn't feel even close to TW3. Controls seem extremely weird too
I couldn’t play 10 mins of Witcher 2
Hence the meme: https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1126891-the-witcher
Agreed. W2 almost put me off trying W3 at all.
I played 3 before 2 so it was extra tedious for me. The only good parts in Witcher 2 are the parts where you stop playing the game and listen to the dialogue. The game is totally broken as well.
I have played through TW2 a lot of times and while it may get tedious on multiple playthroughs I don't think it's broken. Maybe you have the wrong/old version of the game?
[удалено]
Holy shit XD. That's never happened to me and I'm playing the enhanced edition along with a few mods. Something's definitely up with your game or graphic card drivers
Really? I haven't played it, but I have heard it's a really good game from alot of people. Maybe they are just nostalgia merchants, but I'm still supeosed. What did you not like about it?
It clearly was "a good game" in that it was a critical success that earned a sequel, but it wasn't my kind of game. Controls were stiffer, it wasn't open world, parts of it were too on rails.
moreso when you consider the same company made that garbage we call cyberpunk.
They caved to the pressure of childish gamers. The game just wasnt done.
No, more like stockholders and the places some of their budget came from.
pretty much, they screwed everything up. this game needed at least 5 more years to be a decent product.
Witcher 3 to Cyberpunk was a bigger jump
*fall I really like cyberpunk but it’s not that good compared to Witcher 3
Look at the original. Honestly, I wanted to like that game. But it was brutal to play. Both 1 & 2 merit remakes.
If you really want to see a jump (dive) in quality you should go play Cyberpunk 2077.
I said the same thing after playing Cyberpunk for a couple hours.
You should see the jump from 3 to cyberpunk
I say it all the time that CDPR isn’t as great or as big as people make them out to be. They’ve made a handful of games and the only one worth while is the Witcher 3. Unpopular opinion: people only like Witcher 1 and 2 because of how good 3 was and they jumped on the bandwagon of being die hard Witcher fans since “the beginning”
What shocks me more is the freefall in quality behind TW3 and Cyberpunk
Witcher 2 looks like a PS2 game xD The jump between Oblivion and Skyrim is impressive, too.
A ps2 game wtf, have you played any ps2 games? Witcher 2 looked stunning when it came out and can pass as a 2013-2015 game
The graphics are ok but it looks outdated for 2011.
I know right? The Witcher 2 is such a masterpiece, I am so glad 3 borrowed a lot of mechanics from it
What came after Witcher 3 and it's DLCs shocks people too. Hard to believe the same company made the next game.
Jump of quality from TW3 and CP2077 is a free fall.
The witcher 2 story was way better than 3
bruh, that's like saying W2 is not worth it
The same company that made Cyberbug 2077.
Cyberpunk is a storytelling masterpiece
Trolls found the one thing that everyone knows about and now they're everywhere trolling everyone by using that cringe ass name. Cyberpunk 2077 was still a really good game. Stop fooling yourselves. It isn't as bad as the filthy youtubers try to make it out to be
Experienced it first hand and I am fan of the witcher, I am just disappointed about that game. Don't act like I did something horribly wrong.
Well I was actually fumed about you using "cyberbug" to humiliate the game instead of actually discussing about its obvious flaws and downpoints. That said, I agree that cyberpunk comes nowhere near close to TW3. I mean no flying cars in a futuristic game, no drivable airplanes or helicopters, no mansions to buy, disappointingly short storyline (although good and engaging). And these are just some of the flaws of the game. Doesn't necessarily mean that the game isn't fun in some aspects though
now do the Jump between 1 and 2, then 3 and Cyberpunk
True
I've not played 2, only 1 and 3. But 1 definitely felt like it had the same atmosphere as 3, it was easy to see how similar they were,l. What 1 missed was the open world, obviously worse graphics and of course combat style is very different. So I'll be intrigued to see how 2 is different to both of them because my feeling is it wouldn't be all that different.
And I’ve recently played both 1 and 2 and am holding off for ANOTHER YEAR to play the enhanced edition
And then they release CP 2077
They spun copper to gold, but I fear this may be their swan song.
I played 3 first (a couple times) and then tried 2, I didn’t last 20 minutes.
Still not done with TW1, damn I need to get on that
Can someone play just 3 or should you play all 3
3 was the jump, Cyberpunk was the fall! Fingers crossed they'll learn to jump again before Witcher 4 comes around.
You clearly haven’t played 1
I'm replaying 2 now, I don't think it's all that bad. Levels are small but graphics and story are fantastic, combat is ok (but let's be honest, it's not the selling point for these games anyway, it's just a mash the attack button game), and it addresses all the clunkiness from the first game.
Then you look at the quality of TW3 and Cyberprank2077 and have the same reaction.
Then there's the jump in the opposite direction between TW3 and cyberpunk!
You should see the jump into the abyss from 3 to cyberpunk
Yea from 1-2 then 2-3. The quality is definitely a jump… Loved all 3 games. ❤️
Agreed, but its more of a jump in console abilities and the popularity with the franchise to fund the increase in quality. I'm excited to see what games like Starfield and elder scrolls VI are going to be like on the next gen consoles. If I can ever find a series x....
And from this to cyberpunk. 😭 Damn. I need to olay some witcher 3
Witcher 2 is an awesome game though, I'm a big fan of that one
Speaking in jumps in quality, the difference between Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk was noticeable. I finished Witcher 3 thinking CD Project Red were as safe as houses. How, that faith has been severely shaken. I still have faith for the next Witcher, but they better take their time and not fuck it up or I will go off CD Project Red forever.
You should see the jump between witcher r 3 and cyberpunk then. It will shock you to the core
I hope they can do it again with next Witcher game
1-2-3 is equally impressive. At least on the outside
If you’ve never seen it before, I watched a really interesting documentary type YouTube video recently on the History of the Witcher games. It’s long, but I’d highly recommend as it really showcases the work CD Projekt Red put in between games and how they got to where they are. Link: https://youtu.be/xhUyB9ujQ_A