Thoughts on Witcher 2?

absolute dogshit gameplay. 8/10 story

Attached: benisOK.jpg (232x217, 7K)

Literally the other way around but ok.

>Shittest story and locations (too westernised and Game of Thronesy) in the series

One of the few videogame stories that actually requires to play attention. As for Game of Thronesy, it came out in May 2011, with the first episode of the TV show airing in April 2011. Unless you're suggesting they were influenced by the books, which is just ridiculous given how irrelevant they were in pop culture before the TV series. It's far more likely that CDPR were just influenced by real medieval politicking, as GRRM was.

Best in the series imo, kept the same basic formula of 1, with the characterization and combat of 3 without becoming a boring empty, open world meme

One of the best RPG game.

>too westernised and Game of Thronesy
to me, witcher 2 feels more "german", weird way of explaining it but the setting feels like youre in the holy roman empire or something

i like it though, different experience than the other two games but i still like it

In witcher 3 you chose between two sluts
In witcher 2 you chose between three bros
Guess which one is better

Attached: 1517323997587.jpg (746x982, 159K)

The bro choice is central to the plot of 2 while you can disregard the lustful wenches in 3.

>to me, witcher 2 feels more "german", weird way of explaining it but the setting feels like youre in the holy roman empire or something
that's a pretty good way to put it, on top of looking and feeling a lot dirtier, the armor design was fucking tits

Attached: b6005902389501fca2e919f3fae9365b.jpg (1920x1080, 357K)

Not an argument

This game was underrated because it released the same year as Skyrim and Dark Souls. It is STILL underrated thanks to Witcher 3. It’s a fucking amazing game that people completely gloss over.

Combat is complete fucking dogshit, even worse than TW1 but the story is cool. You're better off watching a let's play on youtube

Attached: 1549570069451.png (270x284, 140K)

i think it's retrospectively underrated

meaning it's greatly overshadowed by Witcher 3 because a lot of people were first introduced to the series with that game and that gets the most attention, and while I love TW3, i think a lot of people think that you don't really need to play the others or they're out of date

the choices and how they change entire chapters of the game, the progression to different areas with each chapter, the introduction of more politics but in a way that really put you in Geralt's shoes as someone who keeps getting dragged into politics despite wanting to be neutral, all of those created a game which in the context of knowing that it was put together by a bunch of fucking slavs on a shoestring budget after their first game which was a labour of love for a Polish fantasy novel series that at the time was completely unknown outside of Poland, really give it a lot of soul

Attached: fdd.jpg (788x1024, 127K)

3>1>2

shit combat

It was cool at the time but looking back on it it really feels like the low point of the trilogy and I wish it didn't throw out as much stuff from Witcher 1. Really would've preferred the Witcher 1 combat to be improved and iterated on rather than thrown out entirely.

reverse

Attached: tw28.jpg (1700x956, 2.55M)

Honestly enjoyed it more than tw3 at the time. Maybe got too old for witcher shit.

I liked it. Bad inventory, though.

Balance-wise disaster at the beginning of the game. You don't feel like playing Geralt, you feel like playing underaged Ciri who just finished her training.

Why do you consider 2 to be the best

>It's far more likely that CDPR were just influenced by real medieval politicking, as GRRM was.
They just went with political story threads from the books. Imho if somebody actually read the books, the witcher 2 has the best story all of all of them games. Too bad tw3 scrapped whole story from tw2.

backstabs are fucking broken in that game and i love that

Only payed through it once and no idea what was going on, all those names flew over my head.

>TW1's rhythm based combat ok, but didn't age well
>prefer the style over the pastel colored washout of 3 (medieval settings shouldn't look that clean)
>instanced worlds can be packed with more content than open worlds
>the two branching paths storyline gives it twice the replayability, while finding the motivation to pick 3 back up after a single 100+ hour playthrough is much more difficult, especially the drag at the beginning of every witcher
>Roche doesn't look like shit
>the armor design seriously gets me stiff
those are just some of the things I can think of

Attached: ayy lmao.png (1988x542, 1.75M)

>medieval settings shouldn't look that clean
why not? it's not like people only recently started cleaning things

Shit, tw2 looked so god damned beautiful at the time. Honestly i think it has better art direction than tw3.

The game that gets the tone and setting on point. Great story, best soundtrack, the characters are on point, nice graphics, but the gameplay is somehow worse than in 1. It gets better later in the game when the balancing evens out and you get more skills and combat options, but at the point where it gets fun the game is almost over.

Play it regardless, I loved it.

God fucking awful in every way
I forced myself to get almost to the end to give it a fair shake but I couldn't bring myself to finish it because gaming isn't supposed to be a chore. Gameplay is complete shit and the story isn't redeeming in the slightest, has the depth of a sidequest in Skyrim. No character is at all likable or interesting.
The dice minigame is far better than the rest of the game. Unlike any of the characters in game, the dice are 3 dimensional with many sides to them. There are clear stakes the entire game with a clear pay off. Every time you have a conflict, it's different. Literally every aspect of the rest of the actual game could learn a lot from that minigame.

I am saving this pasta for later, thanks man

Attached: 1552264728013.jpg (578x870, 67K)

It was my first, therefore the best.

i liked how you get two sides to the main story siding with person or the other and you actually got different locations and all. its just too bad it's the most minimal witcher-y game; you solve one curse, some some shitty contracts to kill handfull of monsters, and that was it. you do more witcher stuff in prologue of 1 and the tutorial town of 3.

It does. Supersampling also made it look surreal.

Maybe tack on something about the MC being edgier than a die, too

Attached: 1553391183425.jpg (797x439, 75K)

Loved it when it first came out, but it's very clunky to play these days.

Witcher 3 = Witcher 1 > Witcher 2

Good game, but has some flaws.
Shortest one in the series.
Few of your choices mattered, while one gave the attempt that they mattered. Like the quick line of Foltest's daughter from one being the Queen of Redania, and Siegfried.

this

Replayed it over 12 times to get every single story thread. Great game.

As someone who played them all in order recently for the first time (well haven't finished 3) I hate that 3 has no fucking dice poker, and that dice poker was made stupid in 2. Fuck Gwent.

>>to me, witcher 2 feels more "german"
I agree, but east HRE like Moravia or something. I quite like the way that moving around the Witcher world feels like moving around Europe, but not in a forced or tryhard way.

I liked 2 better than 3, but I played them chronologically.
That's not to say 3 was in any way bad, 2 was just a lot more focused.

It's really difficult to disagree with any of this. Good summary, user.