Opinion on the witcher franchise?

[FPYockey]

I was gifted all of the witcher games a while ago. I played W1 and liked the story, but the game was dogshit and probably one of the worst i played. I held this opinion until the witcher 2 which somehow managed to be worse in every way besides the combat. Is the third game any good at all or is it also terrible before I waste any more time?

[GhostCow]

All have **** combat and basically no character building. Pass on the entire series.

[rusty_shackleford]

Witcher 1 is decent.
Witcher 3's DLCs are excellent(Hearts of Stone) and great(B&W), base game has one good quest line and 90 hours of filler.

[Acrux]

3rd person perspective = inferior game

[Rand]

I was gifted all of the witcher games a while ago. I played W1 and liked the story, but the game was dogshit and probably one of the worst i played. I held this opinion until the witcher 2 which somehow managed to be worse in every way besides the combat. Is the third game any good at all or is it also terrible before I waste any more time?

There's nothing seriously wrong with The Witcher 3
It fixes most of the mechanical issues from the first two games.

All have **** combat and basically no character building. Pass on the entire series.

They aren't classic RPGs so why would you expect this?
It's an established character and a story-driven game.

[Grey Wolf of Turan]

The witcher series are some of the best games ever made. True classics and the best thing to come out of poland in the last 100 years.

[aweigh]

I was gifted all of the witcher games a while ago. I played W1 and liked the story, but the game was dogshit and probably one of the worst i played. I held this opinion until the witcher 2 which somehow managed to be worse in every way besides the combat. Is the third game any good at all or is it also terrible before I waste any more time?

play them for the graphics. i found the 3rd one to be the most fun, but the 2nd one had the best story/characters.

they're supposedly remaking the 1st game, btw. don't know any further details other than that.

[wndrbr]

The first game may not be very "RPGey", but it's still very good.

TW2 is consolefied garbage with pathetic RPG elements and an offensively bad combat system. Like, the first game's combat system wasn't great either, but at least it was inoffensively bad. Just build your character properly, drink potions, and try to get into the rhythm of clicking. TW2's combat on the other hand is an attempt at copying third person actions by people who had no idea wtf they were doing. Poor balancing, poor hitboxes, poor variety of attack types, poor enemy movesets, randomized animation timings, etc etc. Even the soundtrack is worse, even though it was composed by the same dude who did music for the first game.

TW3 has one really great questline (The Bloody Baron), while the rest of the game is boring garbage. But since The Bloody Baron's questline is in the very beginning of the game, a lot of gamers and journos finished it, said "oh my god this is the best writing in any game i've seen before, even better than in Skyrim!", and then abandoned the game.

[General Reign]

They are ok but they are not real rpg's and the combat is ****.

[Tweed]

I spent 500 years grinding in the first few chapters of the first game and then never finished it.

[The_Mask]

Witcher 1 is good. Witcher 3 DLCs are good.

Witcher 3 main is mediocrity. Witcher 2 is dogshit.

Basically rollercoaster.

[Element]

Witcher 1 is decent.
Witcher 3's DLCs are excellent(Hearts of Stone) and great(B&W), base game has one good quest line and 90 hours of filler.

Whats the good questline? Carnal Sins?

[Element]

Witcher 3's problem is that it has some great side quests, like Towerful of Mice, but for every great one it has a couple of terrible ones like Fencing Lessons. Leads to a lot of frustration as you have to sift through a lot of content to unearth the great ones.

[Slavic Sorcerer]

I enjoyed the Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Visually and from the story's perspective it's a feast.
If you rush the main story you might miss on a lot of worldbuilding.

The DLCs are also great.
"Blood and Wine" takes you to Toussaint, medieval France-inspired area, and the whole atmosphere is very much fairy tale like.
"Heart of Stone" is a tragic love story.
And there are slightly different dialogue options whenever you complete them before, during, or after certain points of the core story.

Approach the Witcher games not as an RPG, but as a story that follows specific character; something akin to reading a book where you make certain choices that create an impact (small on big) on the story.

As for Witcher I and II, I cannot share any opinions - I didn't touch those games.
I was one of those young Poles that grew up on the Gothic games and Witcher books, rather than on the Witcher exclusively.

And I'm certainly biased. The Witcher what the Lord of the Rings is to the Brittish, due to the fact we, Poles, didn't really have a full blown fantasy series to call our own before communism was abolished.

[Humbaba]

Absolute dogshit, probably the worst games that were made in the last decade (Disclaimer: I never played any of the Witcher games.)



-Humbaba

[BENEFACTOR]

Witcher 1 is good. Witcher 3 DLCs are good.

Witcher 3 main is mediocrity. Witcher 2 is dogshit.

Basically rollercoaster.

Witcher 2 was a great cinematic experience.

[Fuze]

First one is quite good, though part of he success was also due to the time of rpg drought. When your current rival was NWN2, your kinda setup for victory.

[boot]

I thought all 3 were ****, I couldn't get into the role of Geralt who talks like batman and fucks all the ladies

[J1M]

I want to like them but they are too slow and talky. Furthest I made it was the gryphon boss.

[Emphyrio]

1st was rough even for its time. It had the best inventory and potion system though. At least after the enhanced edition? that tripled inventory size.
2nd was very talky and confusing plotwise. The grafix were great for the time and it was nice seeing realistic-ish armor when everything else at the time was very fantasy. This was before gay of thrones made everything dirty and grimdark so it was actually fresh then. The divergent 2nd act was a bad design. Potion system sucked.
3rd is very long and very talky, combat is very rolly. But combat is also much much easier than the 2nd game even on death march difficulty. Ubisoft-tier open world. Confusing and stupid leveling/perk system. The only game in the series worth playing at all though.

Gerald as a character is great for video games, can't go wrong with a magic-using potion-chugging mutant monster hunter, but all the other **** associated with the lore really sucks.

[Emphyrio]

also funny, it's advertised as "muh slavic folklore" but the first game is about some gay ethnic conflict with elfs and dorfs, killing dagon and trying to stop the Master from creating supermutants.

[BENEFACTOR]

1st was rough even for its time. It had the best inventory and potion system though. At least after the enhanced edition? that tripled inventory size.
2nd was very talky and confusing plotwise. The grafix were great for the time and it was nice seeing realistic-ish armor when everything else at the time was very fantasy. This was before gay of thrones made everything dirty and grimdark so it was actually fresh then. The divergent 2nd act was a bad design. Potion system sucked.
3rd is very long and very talky, combat is very rolly. But combat is also much much easier than the 2nd game even on death march difficulty. Ubisoft-tier open world. Confusing and stupid leveling/perk system. The only game in the series worth playing at all though.

Gerald as a character is great for video games, can't go wrong with a magic-using potion-chugging mutant monster hunter, but all the other **** associated with the lore really sucks.

Witcher 2 is more of a cut scene then a game, I believe almost half the game is cut scenes.

[junior]

I think the first act in Witcher 2 where you fight the keiran or w/e is somewhat decent, it's the later chapters where to game completely falls apart, In hindsight I wish those crooks went bankrupt in 2009 would be for the best.

[BENEFACTOR]

I think the first act in Witcher 2 where you fight the keiran or w/e is somewhat decent, it's the later chapters where to game completely falls apart, In hindsight I wish those crooks went bankrupt in 2009 would be for the best.

Do you not like gog? I much prefer it to steam.

[Atlantico]

I think the first act in Witcher 2 where you fight the keiran or w/e is somewhat decent, it's the later chapters where to game completely falls apart, In hindsight I wish those crooks went bankrupt in 2009 would be for the best.

Do you not like gog? I much prefer it to steam.

gog is good because it fills a certain niche that just isn't catered to, i.e. old games.

but their launcher is dogshit and the people who run the site are *******

I still prefer it over Steam yeah

[junior]

I think the first act in Witcher 2 where you fight the keiran or w/e is somewhat decent, it's the later chapters where to game completely falls apart, In hindsight I wish those crooks went bankrupt in 2009 would be for the best.

Do you not like gog? I much prefer it to steam.

I don't like to attach myself to any companies because things can change on a whim.

[H-H-Holmes]

I was really enjoying TW1 but it kept crashing on my Vista PC. I know I must have been really enjoying it because I distinctly remember the crash message itself which would pop up and close the game, despite this being 15+ years ago, so there must've been some perseverance there in the face of extreme annoyance. However, eventually the crashes became so frequent that I gave up on it. I feel like I was a fair ways into it, maybe halfway, but I never bothered going back to it after the issues so I don't know.

TW3 was meh. Tried forcing myself to like it because there was clearly some quality mixed in (eg bloody baron which has been mentioned, and the sylvan side quest sticks in my mind), but it was too few and far between all the manure. Didn't help that the map was swamped in stupid question marks, which I vaguely remember signified some kind of random encounter or ****** pointless mini quest, and I'm OCD as **** about stuff like that in games, so it was an endless source of irritation while playing. Again, gave up at what I presumed to be about halfway through and never went back to it.

[Ticarsem]

Read the Witcher books because I like dark fantasy and enjoyed them for the most part. Then I played 3 and gave 1 and 2 a shot. The characters and lore are a lot more interesting in the books and I'm surprised people praise the story of the games so much, must be carried by tone. As for the gameplay its ok, TW3 is just a Soulslike knockoff with light RPG mechanics while the others are dated and not in a charming way. I will say the Witcher 3 DLCs are way better and closer to Sapkowski than any of the main games.

[aweigh]

[Xenich]

Yeah, must be that, nope... couldn't be anything else.. nah...