It’s not the newest game I’ve played, but certainly the one with the most “stunning visuals™”.
Absolutely! Thank you.
I was just pointing out the devs should have stuck with the series’ misogynistic roots instead of selling out to everyone else.
Did you play Witcher 2, that was some horrible character movement. ;)
Weird thing about W3 is that it feels like it peaks around the early 1/3.
Skellige just doesn’t work for me but it’s hard to say exactly why. At that point i don’t want to wander around but get on with the main quest, and in Skellige it’s the only time where you can “feel” the engine underneath.
OTOH, the W3 has the only more-or-less sensible plot, W1 and W2 especially just jumps around multiple times with … whatever is going on there. In W3 is much better than the previous two games of outlining a plot and then actually sticking to it.
…for you.
Well obviously. But while i have very clear memories of Velen, W3 gets a bit fuzzier to me after that.
Though the Heart of Stone DLC is just about perfect and IMO by far the best mission chain of all of W3, vanilla and DLC combined. I do like the setting of Blood and Wine DLC as well, but i got stuck at a point later on and basically had to quit because i couldn’t beat it at the saved point without going back and playing a bunch of low level content for hours to regain the muscle memory i needed to combat what i was fighting.
I loved Skellige. I think it suffers from being the 3rd location with 2 very long locations that come first, so it could be easy to want to rush through it by the time you get there.
For me it was pretty easy to say why. Traveling by boat is just outright boring. There’s nothing to do and there are no surprises anywhere. And most of the islands feel really linear due to the mountainous terrain.
I found a merchant selling maps (fast travel spots) very early on in Skellige. I almost never took a boat anywhere. It was glorious.
Yea, I don’t remember doing all that much actual sailing in Skellige. Just used the nav points. Once I realized all the question marks in the ocean were 100% skippable and you wouldn’t miss anything crucial, I was fine. I imagine that people who can’t play a game like that without exploring every map icon would have found Skellige tedious and boring, though.
For me, Skellige is actually more memorable for being the zone I found least interesting story-wise. I wasn’t emotionally invested in the succession one way or another, I find Yenn a bit tiring as a character (she feels like somebodies hot, snarky mom on a CW show, don’t @ me), and that is definitely the part of the game where you are most saddled with her in the storyline. Both literally and figuratively. I did enjoy the intro to the zone with the Ice Giant, but the whole Lycanthrope thing and the druids and the succession were all among the weaker storylines to me.
The fact I can actually remember all the storylines years later still says something. I couldn’t even give you anything beyond the vaguest idea what Pillars of Eternity was even about, for example. Let alone the name of even a single one of its zones. I guess bad Witcher 3 is still pretty excellent.
I loved Skellige a lot. After the dreary countryside of Velen in no-mans land, I was ready for the winter/mountain/forest setting on Skellige, and enjoyed it all immensely.
Yeah, it’s the closest to the wilderness RPG that it gets.
I spent some quality time with Hearts of Stone over the weekend and it’s just. So. Good. I loved the whole wedding with Shani and Vlodimir… dancing and drinking and brawling and pig wrangling…
And in a game filled with favorite moments, you can add this one to the heap: Geralt’s succinct reaction immediately after killing the grotesque, faceless Caretaker in the garden outside the Von Everec estate…
Do I buy this again on the Switch?
Is there a deficiency of other titles on the Switch to occupy your time with it?
Don’t hate me but this question is not really about Witcher 3. I want to come clean and admit I’ve never really played any of the Witcher games. Given that, would it make sense to start with the first Witcher or should I just write that one off, read a summary of it, and start with Witcher 2? I’m sure if I play the first two I’ll set them to easy so I won’t get all caught up in the fighting mechanics. But I would like to run through the storylines before starting W3.
So I guess the question is play W1 or not?
W1 wasn’t an enjoyable experience for me. I gave up on it after a few hours, mainly because the combat was so uninteresting. I was playing it with Polish voiceovers and English subs. It gave it a great out of this world feel!
I played Witcher 3 without ever beating either of the first two games, so I can say without hesitation that it’s not necessary. In fact, I would almost recommend starting with 3 just because it’s a much more polished and enjoyable experience. Then if you like it, you can go back and try the first two games.
Witcher 1 was brilliant, but I don’t think it aged well. I’d say starting with Witcher 2 or 3 is fine. 3 does have some cameos from 2, so if that’s something you like you’ll probably enjoy 3 more if you play 2 before, but it’s not required.
I only ever played W3. And 5-10 hours of W1 like 5 years prior.
It’s fine.
Witcher 2 is still kind of clumsy. I’d recommend starting with 3.