this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
379 points (91.8% liked)
Gaming
3164 readers
268 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I maintain that Witcher 1 and 2 are better story rpgs than 3.
Witcher 3 is a beautiful game with lots of strengths, but balance and pacing are completely lost to the open world dynamic.
Balance and pacing? I found that Witcher 1 had no pacing
The Witcher 1 is incredibly painful to play, though. I played through it, but it felt incredibly unbalanced at times and just wasn't as well designed as the sequels.
I do get that. I played through them in order a few years ago but I'm also an older guy who doesn't mind old janky games as much.
I actually had to take a couple of months off between 2 and 3 because it was such a jarring transition.
Yeah. 2 had the window dressing of open world, but was very much not. I did kinda miss the way traps worked in 2. I would have very much like them to be in 3, but the bombs do work better for the faster kind of combat they developed in 3. TW2 combat felt more technical, like fencing, and TW3 feels like Royal Rumble but with swords.