WITCHER 2

Why are there always Witcher 1 & 3 threads but no 2?

Attached: header.jpg (460x215, 43K)

It's as great as 3 it doesn't have open world but it has better combat

because it's a console port and people didint like the gameplay transition from crpg style of w1 to dark souls rolling of w2. letho was a good villain though and probably the best story hook in the series.

Nothing is wrong with old console ports because everyone who has even a low end pc by today's standards will be able to run it just fine. Its only a problem when it's a game like Monster Hunter world that cant even maintain 60fps 4k on a $2500 pc

people were too bad to finish the tutorial level

I wasnt talking about performance issues. the controls were designed for a controller. and witcher 1 fans felt betrayed that cdproject would ditch them for console audience. witcher 3 had better mouse and keyboard support but it was still nothing like the first witcher which still is pc exclusive title.

Because it's even worse than 3.

Because you're like a decade late. Are you emulating this on your PSP or something?

2 is my fav

Story and gameplay are better than 3

because its kinda short
for all the systems it sets up few are actually used
they changed everything from w1 and it looks like they didnt have time and money do build a proper game around it
witcher 2 is a great game when everything works the problem is shit never works
Also it lagged like hell first time i played it

necause it is SHIT

Fuck no.
1>3> > >2

Witcher 3 was also designed for controller.

obviously, but it had better m+kb support. whereas witcher 2 is more or less "get a controller or get fucked". almost like a shitty jap port.

Because the gameplay is incredible shit and UI looks cheap and is a ridiculous downgrade after the first game. Also, they went all out with bloom and blur for consoles to keep up. Tiny locations don't help too.
It's a shame, because story and characters are excellent. Broche and Letho are goddamn amazing.

Wrong, tw2 is still better on m&k, i finished that game 12 times after release. The combat is just much harder than tw3, that's all.

>i finished that game 12 times after release.
I don't really value the opinions of autists who finish games 12 times... like after the second or third time it just becomes indicative of mental illness

tw2 had just tons of replayability. You had 2 completely disserent paths and within those paths multiple routes. That and they introduced dark mode that made the game better. tw2 was my favorite game of 2012.

I'm not even gonna pretend the diverging act 2 was impressive when it came at the cost of a proper final act. God that games pacing is shit in comparison to tw1.

You have to be delusional to say that. This or nostalgia googles. Tw1 whole first and second act is just fetchquests and running around swamps from one side to another.

Because even though all 3 are shit, 2 is by far the worst of the bunch.

Agree with, Witcher 2 is way too short. The game has only 3 acts (which is laughable, compared to the first one) AND the last act is tiny. Yep, it's really short and it makes the whole game unsatisfying. The moment it becomes interesting, it ends.

hahahaha
you are wrong.

4 acts if you count act 2 as 2a and 2b. stupid overly ambitious design I agree.

he isn't
noob

I wish 2's ending was more relevant in 3, i'm still mad Punished Roche running away with the king's daughter has absolutely no payoff in 3.

It has shit gameplay. I distinctly remember beating the dragon after like 10 minutes of mindless rolling and stabbing

I played this on the 360
Needless to say, it was a painful and horrible experience.

Because shills have to pretend that W3 had good writing.

Because Witcher 2 is a game not worth making a thread about it