Okay let me start with two heavy hitters right from the get go and don’t forget these are only personal oppinions and I absolute understand if you like those games. Good for you!
Zelda: Breath of the Wild - Not a bad game per se, but I don’t get the hype behind it. Sure the dungeons are fun but the world is so lifeless, the story non existent, the combat pretty shallow, the tower climbing is very much like FarCry but for some reasons it’s okay here while Ubisoft gets the blame…like I said I dont get why the game is so beloved. Never finished it after the 20 hour mark and probably never will.
Red Dead Redemption 2 - Just like Zelda not a bad game, but imho highly overrated. Graphics and and atmosphere are amazing but the controls are clunky and overloaded, nearly everybody is an unlikable douchebag who I would love to shoot myself at the first opportunity (maybe except Jack and Abigail) but I have to root and care for them. The game is just so long and feels very stretched, you already know that you won’t get Dutch because it’s a prequel and for an open world game you often get handholded in your weapon selection or things you can do because you have to wait for them to be unlocked by the game. I’m now nearly done with the game, playing the epilogue at the moment and I would say the last chapters are more entertaining than the rest of the game, but I still can’t understand why this game was on so many game of the year lists and I really wanted to put the controller down a dozen times.
So there they are, two highly controversial oppinions by me and now I’m really curios what your takes are and how highly I get downvoted into oblivion 😂
The Witcher 3 is just… so god damn boring, it doesn’t help that weapons break too easily, yet the oppurutunities to get gold are so few that you’ll do several sidequests worth of monster genocide, sell EVERYTHING you own, and just barely afford to fix your weapons… It got so bad I had to hack my save to bypass the constant scrunging about for repairs… then I realized the story is so complicated that you NEED to play the other two games to understand what’s going on
I went back and played Witcher 2, and found it to be vastly superior, far more fun, far more immersive, and just an all around better time
I have been warned never to touch Witcher 1
the Netflix series was pretty good, though I only saw the first season
deleted by creator
I can’t stand Witcher 3 but played Witcher 1 not long ago and I really loved it. It is very oldcore and the controls are a b***h sometimes but it is a really great game with a great story. I hope Witcher 2 is as good too, it is on my next to play list very high.
Witcher 2 is the most underrated entry in the series, and has by far the most interesting story to tell. I’m shocked you find 3’s story complicated as its pretty simplistic in comparison. Yeah it has more characters from the books involved, but the game tells you pretty much everything you need to know about all of them. Overall I enjoyed 3, but as a followup to Witcher 2 its pretty disappointing story-wise. Both games have shit combat, so if you’re not invested in the story/world they aren’t worth playing.
I think the explanations are the problem, it’s overloading me with information… I feel like every cutscene is a wall of text that I’m barely able to follow… Witcher 2 felt like I was learning about the world in a more natural way
I see what you mean and can get down with that. The writing in 2 is in general much tighter then 3. It’s a shame that compared to 3 relatively few people have played it.
Personal opinions aside as an open world RPG by itself Witcher 3 is pretty good, it’s was a breakout success and remains a popular game for good reason. As a follow-up to Witcher 2 though it’s pretty disappointing. Switching over to an open world does the storys pacing and stakes no favors, and it feels like CDPR is limited by following up the book series and trying to utilize its characters. As evidenced by Witcher 2 and the Hearts of Stone expansion for 3, it seems like their writers are much more comfortable writing their own original stories and characters. 3’s main storyline doesn’t introduce anyone nearly as interesting as Letho, Roach, and Iorveth, except for maybe the Baron, who like the others is an original character.
Additionally everything 2 spends time building up for 3 has pretty disappointing payoffs. The Northern Realms politics were a focus for 2, in 3 they are overly simplistic and somewhat nonsensical. Radovid is depicted as a cunning, competent, and ruthless king in 2, but goes blubbering mad off-screen between games. The Wild Hunt is barely a presence in the games storyline despite being it’s namesake and Eredin is a flat and boring antagonist. I understand why Witcher 3 is so popular, but as someone who was a big fan of 2 and was incredibly hyped for it, I found it to be incredibly underwhelming.
Definitely recommend reading/listening to the books. Probably the best way to experience the Witcher overall.
I do love both the Witcher 2 and 3 though, few games make me feel as immersed in their world.
Funny, I was told to stay the fuck away from Witcher 2, but played Witcher 1. xD Witcher 1 has some odd controls (from a modern perspective) but an engaging story which actually forced me to stop playing on my first playthrough because I just couldn’t make the choice between pest and cholera. Of course I eventually dipped my toes in Witcher 2, but the 3rd one has spoiled me so damn hard with its fancy graphics, controller support and familiar controls, that it just didn’t click.
I played all three, watched the series and am in the process of reading though the 8 or so books.
The first witcher, as was mentioned, is very old and a little clunky for todays standards but it was great fun. I can neither understand why you liked the 2nd one - which I found bland and forgettable - nor the dislike for the third one, which was like 3 games in one imo.
I guess if you really like walking/riding a horse and have the hardware to crank it up to eleven, the third one is awesome, otherwise probably not.