Witcher 2 vs. Witcher 3
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Roche's defining trait is loyalty, while Iorveth's is idealism. Roche's path is more brutal and dark, Iorveth's has a surprisingly optimistic take. Whichever you prefer they're both worthwhile and should both be experienced by fans of the series.
For what it's worth I'm part of team Roche. Iorveth is a great character but I never got past the feeling he'd still betray you if only he thought it would better serve his goals. He might feel bad about it but he'd totally do it. Roche on the other hand would ride into the fires of Hades itself to help out those he calls a friend, and by the end of Witcher 2 you are indeed a friend. There's a reason he's called Broche.
Although oddly enough things actually go better for him if you do Iorveth's path so really... bah!
Overall I'd still say Witcher 3 is the best game of the series by far, but that doesn't mean it's not good to also remember what the previous games might have done better.
For what it's worth I'm part of team Roche. Iorveth is a great character but I never got past the feeling he'd still betray you if only he thought it would better serve his goals. He might feel bad about it but he'd totally do it. Roche on the other hand would ride into the fires of Hades itself to help out those he calls a friend, and by the end of Witcher 2 you are indeed a friend. There's a reason he's called Broche.
Although oddly enough things actually go better for him if you do Iorveth's path so really... bah!
The alchemy was well done in Witcher 1 for sure. I also preferred the non-linear way investigations were handled in Witcher 1 over the more obvious takes on the idea we see in Witcher 2 and 3.infohippie said:
Overall I'd still say Witcher 3 is the best game of the series by far, but that doesn't mean it's not good to also remember what the previous games might have done better.
Very encouraging words. A lot more tempting than, "just play through the first 25 hours of FF13"..inu-kun said:
I know me. I'll give it a shot.
EDIT: By which I mean, a lot on this thread are advising that 3 really is that much of an improvement over 2 I should just go for it. But, again, I know me. With your words of encouragement, I know, having 2 already, I will try to get through that first 4 hours.
Thanks!
Me personally, I'm about 70 hours in the Witcher 3 but so far it seems that TW3 has more to do with the books than with what happens in TW2. I might be wrong though, I haven't played all that much main story since I arrived in Skellige soo.....
Witcher 2 was unbelievably good though. I really, really loved the character progression and skill development all through the game. Damn, the beginning is tough and unforgiving. 1st time I went through as a sword fighter on Roche's path, 2nd time as a Signs build on Iorveth's path years later in prep for TW3 and the 2nd time I had a LOT more fun. I think the Sign build was a bit overpowered by the end though.
In short, I wouldn't bother finishing TW2 first, it's not crucial as TW3 is such a HUGE game in it's own right. Yeah, it's good to know who is Triss and Zoltan and Dandelion but that all becomes pretty apparent. Dandelion is the freaking narrator and pretty much codex author of TW3 anyways. I can sum up what you need to know about Triss and Geralt's history in 2 sentences from TW2 (and Yen from the books) but that's a spoiler I wouldn't write here.
Just know that they're very different (TW2 linear, TW3 open world obviously) but both fantastic gaming experiences - TW1 and TW2 just take a lil longer to pick up the pace.
Witcher 2 was unbelievably good though. I really, really loved the character progression and skill development all through the game. Damn, the beginning is tough and unforgiving. 1st time I went through as a sword fighter on Roche's path, 2nd time as a Signs build on Iorveth's path years later in prep for TW3 and the 2nd time I had a LOT more fun. I think the Sign build was a bit overpowered by the end though.
In short, I wouldn't bother finishing TW2 first, it's not crucial as TW3 is such a HUGE game in it's own right. Yeah, it's good to know who is Triss and Zoltan and Dandelion but that all becomes pretty apparent. Dandelion is the freaking narrator and pretty much codex author of TW3 anyways. I can sum up what you need to know about Triss and Geralt's history in 2 sentences from TW2 (and Yen from the books) but that's a spoiler I wouldn't write here.
Just know that they're very different (TW2 linear, TW3 open world obviously) but both fantastic gaming experiences - TW1 and TW2 just take a lil longer to pick up the pace.
Play "arena" mode in TW2, until you get fairly good at it and you can comfortably beat the first couple fights quickly using only normal moves and signs.
Only then start the main campaign. You'll get a lot more enjoyment out of it that way. The general timing and the delays after the attack animations take some getting used to and it can be annoying to learn it the hard way during the campaign, but it can be satisfying when you're beating the baddies with style.
Only then start the main campaign. You'll get a lot more enjoyment out of it that way. The general timing and the delays after the attack animations take some getting used to and it can be annoying to learn it the hard way during the campaign, but it can be satisfying when you're beating the baddies with style.