The Witcher

bad guys steal all your stuff, you go to get it back, turns out they are working for some badder guys, but maybe they are the good guys, its hard to tell, either way you bumble through without a full picture but that's the point and also they were right all along. Also race relations and shitty fetchquests, kill X drowners.

you don't know what a weeaboo is

You are Geralt, freak of nature sexmachine with amnesia, and you want revenge for an attack at your castle.

They're like Bioware games, sans the SJW shit at least the first two were, I haven't play the third game. The games place an emphasis on character interactions and the internal politics of the major regions, and the implications of which will create at least two major split paths in the first two games, but they only change minor aspects of the major story arch, i.e. you're always gonna hit the same story beats, but perhaps from a different perspective based on the faction you've chosen. Combat is very simple; you have a sword for humans and a sword for beasts, you have three fighting stances that you're meant to use in specific situations, and you have a number of potions and spells you can use to give yourself passive buffs like an increased damage output or regenerating health. Combat is effectively point and click, and you must get the timing right in between attacks to "chain" them together for more damage.

It's bretty gud, but very simple, don't expect much depth. Story is alright. Triss is a whore.

...

Slavs and those into slav mythology. Also elf removers / deus vult crowd depending whether you pick a certain route.

You also get to fuck random whores and collect lewd cards for your effort.

it's panzer dragoon saga over the witcher, not a hard choice

Pretty much these, though Geralt doesn't seem to be able to handle his liquor all that well

Yeah, just like a bioware game.

To be fair he repeatedly drank dwarves and hard alcoholics under the table.

Royals fucking plebs, racisms, sex with wenches, dwarfs bros, lesbomancy and gray morality.

The first one was great. The quests are connected in really fascinating ways. For instance I was stuck in the main quest with options I knew were certainly wrong, so I did what seemed like a completely unrelated sidequest. Some vital evidence turned out during that quest, which was connected to the main one and allowed for different approaches.
I played Witcher 2 for a bit, but it seemed like a more streamlined console game for a wider audience that I eventually lost interest. The first game kept me interested from beginning to end.

After the first drinking contest with an NPC I made sure to always carry wives' tears on me

the witcher 2 felt like a half-baked demon's souls clone (by the devs own admission) and suffered by having the core game play be really shit.

The first at least worked, but the combat isn't exactly good.

The memes were top notch, though.

(numbers)
Wasn't Witcher 1 made in the NWN engine? Game's like Mast Erect. It gives you an established protagonist, a story focused game with "rich lore" and simple as fuck gameplay, branching story paths and a bunch of dialogue, and you can fuck pretty much anyone you want, except for men because Geralt isn't a homo, but it's not like that somehow detracts from the comparison between this game and Bioware trash.

It's great, just know that the combat is more CRPG/MMO than any sort of action and is really boring throughout the prologue because you can't do anything interesting yet. It gets good when you can buff yourself/your weapon with a bunch of different items/potions, can use different spells, and have leveled up your spells/swords to do some more interesting things. I found that the fun mostly comes from exploration/talking/reading backstory/enjoying the atmosphere rather than the combat, though.

absolutely heretical

So playing the first one sounds good. Might give it a go.

pirate the third game specifically for the expansions too. base game isnt too bad either

Yeah, just like a bioware game.

But fine, I'll humor you. What I personalty love about W1 is how you establish Gerlat, as in he has this reputation but you're the only one that sets his motivation and such. And the game actually uses that to throw it in your face with the big bad.

Also one hell of a difference between plowing some whore and moving on and suffering thru 50+ scenes of cringy, tumblr tier fanfic "romance" so you get one fate to black

In my defense you get to fuck a succubus.

1 is clunky and a pain in the ass to slog through but is worth it for the story and characters and such, 2 is really meh, loses all the magic of 1 with only half the innovation, too much fucking politics, didn't like it, not quite finished with 3 but getting there, 3 is really fucking great, definitely the best of the bunch. Don't let the normalfags only buying the third one scare you off, it really is awesome. Combat is fluid, graphics are pretty, movement isn't clunky and shitty like 1 and 2, characters are great, LOTS of magic creatures and cuhrazy bullshit going on etc. Play all of them though, and do it all PC as your choices from the games carry over to the next.

I hope you're baiting user, by those merciful dubs there I hope (You)'re baiting.

1 has a really great story that develops at a good steady pace, some okay sidequests and exploration and fairly shit combat. It has good RPG elements with choices you make having consequences down the line for the rest of the game.
2 has an amazing story that develops very poorly as the whole last third of the game is just missing and the huge difference in branching paths can make you miss important plot elements that makes a lot of stuff not make sense, the sidequests and combat are better than 1 though the combat is still pretty shallow and the game does not account well for the different builds you can do with some being super OP and others being almost entirely broken. It also has the worst, most overcomplicated and tedious menus by a huge margin.
3 I haven't finished yet but so far it has the best exploration, the best sidequests, the worst main story, and the combat isn't significantly different than 2 though it accounts for different builds better.

yeah the best you get for importing save data is a throw-away npc popping up and saying "hey I was sent by X from Vizima, here's some free swallows and cats eyes also thanks for doing Y again"

Best potion hands down.

1st game: awful awful combat, good story, couldnt play past 2nd chapter (I reached the city, convinced captain to open gate, stopped)
2nd game: good. higher difficulties useless as combat boils down to "roll, roll, roll, light attack, repeat". on lower difficulties it is "roll, roll, 2 light attacks or 1 hard attack, repeat"
3rd game: didnt play. apparently it has skyrim quest markers

verdict: slightly overrated, overall astounding quality when compared to the rest of the industry (dragonnette age cisquisition, watch nogs 2, cis effect cisdromeda, shitrim etc.)

(checked)
Adorable.

This is basically it. We seem to have literally the same opinion.

Sage.

Cancer.

Requesting some Witcher related images.
I just noticed that my folder is barren.

上げる

XDDD

...

WOW this thread REALLY *does* attract the lowest of the low.
We replaced 4chin's console wars with rochelle v asshole threads, sad!
Hard choice really, ally with backstabbing vengeful elf who wants to kill all humans, or with bro who saved your life, defied the king's successors and his military superiors to save your ass, and stuck with you forever and ever and followed you everywhere?
tl;dr choose to kill king hagrid. easy fight

I cant find that webm were some commie wins the last fight in hightest difficulty while pressing only two buttons

...

...

You mean "create a place for the sorceresses to flee too whenever they fuck up another attempt at magical marxist social conditioning."

Just to be clear, you can bang any whore in the game right?

Whores, witches, barmaids, married barmaids, married whores, bakers, dryads, aquatic wenches distributing swords, married dryads.

honestly i found that the sex scenes in the game, especially the opening scenes, came off as some shallow attempt to appeal to me to self-insert as a male player

there's nothing wrong with the idea of the main character being something of a stud but his writing makes it just come off as shallow

...

Nah, fuck this I will stick to Skyrim
HAHAHAH DAS RIGHT BITCH I SAID IT

Witcher 1. "Clunky" combat but still decent. Dice is fun. Great story
Witcher 2. Absolute shit combat/game play. Dice is still fun. Decent story.
Witcher 3. Meh combat, but can be made fun with signs. Gwent is pretty fun. Good story, awsome story in expansions.

...

First was good, just good. You will enjoy it because it has multiple ways for you to fuck up.
Second was actually also good. Everyone hated it but I liked it for its replayability. It took around 6-12h to finish so I played it multiple times testing new stuff. I finished it 4 times. Make bombs against nekkers.
Third was for me the worst. It had its moments because it was open world game where you did quests around villages to slay monsters. Problem was main quest was set up in a way you should skip all side quests and do imminently it.

All of them includes decision making and ways to fuck yourself. They give you predetermined character but it is more RPG than 90% of RPG games right now.

Correct answer is:
First two games were created in way to allow you to skip books but third one misses out a lot if you don't remember what happened. Hell your main quest is direct continuation to books and ending to the saga.
No idea how you will do it. In Poland after first game you can get witcher everywhere including audiobooks. After all it is second brand after Żubrówka that was known in entire world. Everyone loves it here.
Alternatively you can read descriptions in W3 to see who was who but books are actually good.

The first game's combat sucks but it's sorta fun in its own way.

The second game's combat sucks but it's hard to pinpoint exactly why. Probably because the combat and the animations don't quite match and they have a tendency to block attacks coming from behind them unless you're directly behind. It also does shit like have two crossbows pointed at you in the middle of a conversation so they fire at you as soon as the conversation ends and you can't roll out of the way because your sword is sheathed.

Geralt's portrayal also changes in every game. In the first game Geralt was mostly stoic, in the second game Geralt was a young wisecracking rogue, in the third game Geralt is a wise but grumpy old man.

>>>/reddit/

One of my favorite parts

I didn't like Witcher 2 because it felt incredibly cramped. Especially jungle area was absolute dogshit with narrow paths everywhere and your view obstructed by huge trees. At least second act was better in that regard.

But it was best looking area in 3 games.

The combat is clunky, all the walking for the sidequests later is a pain, have no idea what they were thinking with the sex cards. But it's still my favourite. Because even though townspeople take shelter from the rain in 2, it didn't have the same feel.

My favourite type of magic as well.

Dice! Ahh, couldn't forget about the dice. I much prefer that to gwent because I have no idea what I'm doing in gwent, dice poker is pretty fun.

Best sword in the game, kinda pissed that it was only slightly better than the starting Witcher silver sword in No.2. It was a legendary artifact, it doesn't suddenly become dull.

I wanna help Saskia but I'd rather choose Roche and help Temeria stay free.

Shitty games with shitty gameplay. But they have muh story so it caters to the casual crowd, much like bioware games. Even racism.

Which one?
Because i think the Witchers combat from 1 to 3 differs dramatically

In 1st game he had no memory. In 2nd game its not like he had a lot of worries. In 3rd game shit is fucked. In books Geralt was pretty much the same. He did what he had to do, he had fun whenever it was possible.

Modern technology motherfucker. Old weapons are simply worse than modern ones. In real and in witcher world stuff are improving over time. You dont hire fucking archeologist if you want a good sword, you hire blacksmith with most modern knowledge possible.

All three of them have shitty gameplay. One button combat, it's fucking garbage and you will defend your shit taste by calling everyone criticizing it as baiting.

I guess that's true, going to all the trouble of getting that good blacksmith in 3 so even though you have ancient notes on the armour, you're still making it from modern materials.

As expected, cdpr drones defend their shitty games by screaming bait.

Great but flawed series. The first is absolutely worth playing through. Combat is wonky and not very involving and fun, but its fine as the writing and story make up for it.

"good story" never makes up for shite game play. The story is also predictable and mediocre. babbys first "moral grey area" story.

Don't forget ass creed eagle vision, skyrim weapon scaling, potion refilling, and any other extremely casual elements in the abysmally terrible gameplay.

I think the worst thing is different animations for an identical attack essentially randomizing your inputs. You don't do what you tell geralt to do, the game just interprets your input from a list and does what it wants to do in the classified appropriate attack animation list. Every animation is different, has a unique length, and this has been a problem since the second game. Style over substance, absolutely pathetic to get such a basic game play element wrong - and people wonder why Slavs make shit game devs.

I also like how movement has input delay.

Nice buzzword but skyrim did weapons much better.

That makes TW3 sound like an even more casual shitty game, considering skyrim was garbage.

But Morrowind did All of that at least 100 times better than skyrim
Why do you keep using a shitty game as a comparison user?

Out of curiosity, does that edge come naturally or do you feel it'll be easier to fit in that way?

It was a tasty looking hook and it wasn't me who made the initial comparison in the first place

Not an argument. Sorry you get offended when faced with the truth that skyrim was a casual and bad game.

>and it wasn't me who made the initial comparison in the first place
Thats not exactly a denial user…

thats you opnion user and its wrong
Skyrim is a perfectly good porn game, as testified by the almost limitless porn mods out there

Darn, sure got me.

(checked)
Hey at least I'm not the one avatarfagging.

...

Shitrim is an objectively bad video game. Muh mods will fix it is putting frosting on a turd.

Its merely a followup pic to my previous one, stop trying to avoid the topic at hand

Frosting on a turd is at the very least better than Turd without a frosting

Now children, if I can tell y'all one thing, it's this; don't you ever forget how to spot and recognize bait. It may damn well save your life.

this is true for every elder scrolls game
y'all'st faggots gotta play a good rpg for once.

Which is what, exactly?

Meh, live by the shitpost die by the shitpost

Who are you quoting?

dont try to feign ignorance user

MohandasKaramchandGandhi

There's no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt?

dawn of war was a good RTS considering All the shit we're gotten since

Yennefer is the best. Keira is second best.

>not also wearing a face mask to prevent oneself from sampling that delicious aroma
plebians

DoW Complete is the best only good DoW game.

Careful.
Also I like Triss simply because I have a thing for red heads.

I dont know user, some people really didnt like the soulstorm expansion and not just for all the lore breaking
The campaign was pretty subpar in comparison to Dark crusade

Good taste.

Complete is all of the expansions though, you already get all of the good ones so Soulstorm is just more game on top that you can play or not. SoB and DE were boring though.

...

THICC:^)

Excellent gameplay, Excellent physics collisions. Animation quality is very good, excellent ball physics. Excellent artificial intelligence. The different game variations. Much different than the players. Acceptable graphics.
but the game low and incomplete content.
After years of this game could go back to the days of brilliant gameplay the PlayStation 2 era.
But this game is very poor content. The game does not snow, not sunsets. Licenses incomplete. The number of stadiums to catastrophically low. Master League has problems playing the parts. For example, the Transfer Master League.
In general dawn of war gameplay on the pitch and is a winner all easily 40k behind.
But all is lost off the pitch.
Poor content. And small gym. Stadium sound weak. Incomplete license. This game has become a game incomplete.
At the end to say that dawn of war is a game with excellent gameplay. But in the face of incomplete games with low content.

...

have some more this is all i got though

What the fuck am I reading

Now that I like.

But didnt Soulstorm changes make the dark crusade campaign harder?

...

My retail version of complete installs the games as separate .exes. I can play the original, WA, and Dark Crusade when I choose.

Then maybes its just my pirated modded version…

I got amazon.com/Warhammer-000-Dawn-Complete-Collection/dp/B005B01IDC/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1485953376&sr=8-7&keywords=dawn of war complete four years ago. Highly worth it, the games don't use steam or any other DRM except for the soulstorm disc which requires cd check.

for me it's 3>1>2. 2 has my favorite main story though, but 3 has the better sidequests and i think overall it's the better package. another flaw of 2 is the alchemy system cause I really like going heavy on speccing into alchemy. the way it works in 2 alchemy builds aren't really that great.

i've been playing 3 again and lately have had some silly ass bugs though. sometimes geralt just refuses to dive and you have to reload the save, and the other there will suddenly be an invisible wall that only effects roach, so you have to dismount and resummon. And they never did fix the texture layering issue in places which just bothers my autism.

NNGGHH

Combat in 1 is pretty simple, but it is an attemt to make a game with one protagonist on a platform designed for 4. As a result you get rhytm combat + agressive sign usage, active roll that does fuckall and potions actually feel like they are saving your life.

Witcher 2 has worst combat in the series, mostly because the enemy your sword goes through doesn't recieve damage. The enemy that actually recieves damage is the one you locked on to. So, until you get a perk that allows you to hit multiple enemies and even after that really the combat will be a pain. It never stops being a pain, but by the end it gets insultingly easy. Potions all have downsides now and require the ability to see the future, so you'll never use them.

Witcher 3 has pretty good combat, you hit who it shows you hit, active dodge actually does shit and combat is enjoyable overall, especially at higher difficulties where the enemies actually try to kill you instead of just taking it. The potions no longer require omnipotence, but their effects are so shit and short there is no point. The hitboxes are much better and I never got a bullshit death like in TW2.
Combat is 3>1>2, story is 1>3>2.

click click click pause click
attack-attack-roll
attack attack attack - roll

repeatedly press buttons
repeatedly press buttons
repeatedly press buttons

Pretty good.

press buttons
press buttons and move mouse
press button and move stick
Woooow

Who asked what you are playing?

Yes, the first game is the best one. The later games tried to improve the combat at the cost of roleplaying and failed to improve the combat anyway.

The key difference is 1 played properly requires you to research likely enemies and make potions far in advance of combat to survive. 2 and 3 just replace this planning/role-playing with rolling.

The first one is definitely worth playing.

I fucking love little details like that.

That really bothered me in the sequels. The "Witcher" stuff, mainly alchemy, is best in the first game.

Witcher 1 does it the same way as all the other ones. Read bestiary>If no bestiary entry then make an educated guess>Take potion>Fight. The only actual difference is that potions lasted multiple in-game hours and getting bestiary entries was a little more involved. Then when you were in fights you picked which style of dance you wanted to do. That was it.

Though I will agree that alchemy in 3 could be better and is a little too easy, and in 2 it was basically pointless. I also liked the way brewing worked more in the first one.

And that is exactly why it's better, user.

OP asked for an JRPG you double nigger

I love all three for different reasons and I'd recommend all three for all being their own games with different gameplay and story styles.

First Witcher appeals to me as an oldschool rpg. Rythm combat can be fun. Whole game happening in only one (massive) city and its surroundings is amazing. Atmosphere is unmatched (especially in third and fourth chapters) and elevates the game into all time favorite lists with many people. I'm not an exception.
Bad part are some character models, which have aged badly, pacing problems and a rushed ending (that still made a damn good punch at the very end).
Another highlight is the writing. It's clunky in English, but it expresses ideas and flows in ways English games do not and I love it for this. There are some conversations… they get pure slav. I don't know how foreigners will register this, but I vouch for its authenticity.

Witcher 2 had great atmosphere and some beautiful locations. Story is very different, but I still love it. Gameplay… there are great concepts here, but combat just isn't very fun. It can be mastered, though. Or you can look up good builds.
It has a big branching path and there's nothing like Witcher 2 out there. Floatsam is amazingly comfy.

Witcher 3 is a drop in story quality overall, but some sections are God tier, above anything earlier in the series. And the first expansion has amazing writing.
Combat is better than in 2 and some people really like it, but I don't. It's a personal preference. It also suffers from the case of Assassin's Creed-like exploration "crates" being everywhere around.
Still, the overworld is designed impressively. I don't think I've seen a game that feels more real than this, as you travel around. It's a joy to just run around for hours. Snowy islands are better Skyrim than Skyrim. Sidequests are better than most video game's main quests.

I'd put Witcher up there with Fallouts and Planescapes and Masks of Betrayer, maybe a bit lower.
I'd put Witcher 2 up there with… It's in its own category with worse Souls game combat.
Witcher 3 shits all over Assassin's Creed games and touches Bethesda in funny places when it dares to go in that territory.

But then the sword comes back in Witcher 3 as a high tier sword.

1 is clunky but still fun, 2 is less clunky but linear, and 3 has a ton of shit to do and all the are stories in and of themselves.

They all have great writing and narrative, the world is very well fleshed out.

Combat is the most visceral in 3, although dodging is a bit easy. Play on blood and broken bones difficulty. Mods are a good idea too, cause there are some pretty good ones.

The expansions for 3 were kickass. Hearts of Stone was fucking amazing, and Blood and Wine made me forget the base game existed.

That it's pretty much the same? I don't understand user. I actually like it more in 3 that you could take potions in battle, and if they had balanced the brewing to be a bit more difficult instead of just needing alcohol to autofill I think alchemy could have been at its best in the series. But to each their own I guess.

So you'd rather have Geralt lose his memory every game then? The reason the bestiary is the way it is in 1 is because of Geralt's amnesia. He's forgotten most of his previous knowledge.

The bestiary has to be rebuilt in each game though if that's what you're saying. But in the first game you had to kill more of the same creature to get entries if you didn't have the gold for the books or could find them from looting. And only if you had the entries could you get some ingredients (which I really liked and wish they brought back in 3). First one also

I don't really know why that makes it "better" as the other user is saying however. It's just more steps and/or less steps if you consider Witcher 1 used substances instead and each ingredient had different substances to them (Vitriol, Rebis, etc.) allowing you to substitute. Two did it the same way. I don't know why they decided to change it in 3.

I didn't finish what I was saying, but I don't remember what I was going to say.

SJWs fight it since it doesn't have hordes of Niggers in it.