What's Holla Forums's opinion on the Witcher games? Books, vidya and Wild Hunt's DLCs?

disappointment

>Witcher 3 has a bad combat system that at least looks cool, an average story and two amazing expansions. It also has the most content and is overall probably definitely the best Witcher game.

Never read the books and Lorefags can go fuck themselves

For the Witcher series that's not saying much,
Despite downgrades, it is a pretty game.

very boring, bad combat, bad writing, ultra serious "badass" gearbox quality main character.

read the last wish, collection of twists of short stories/fantasy story morals with a le adult twist that's sure to tip your fedora.

never got the criticism it needed to grow into something competent, amateurish mess in terms of game play, not really worth the time.

Wild Hunt's DLCs
didn't care.

Heats of Stone has you run errands for a wedding for 90% of it, happens on the already established map, has minor quests that are literally unfinished (the one with the missing children is completely half assed as you can see signs there were eaten yet never could investigate), the devil was the most boring jew in the game, the females weren't very good, and it tried too hard to be some italian operetta but fell flat on its face. Hearts of Stone sucks but I guess Holla Forums being one person loves it because they also think Dead Money is better than Old World Blues.

People probably like Dead Money more because it takes itself a little more seriously. I personally like both, but I can understand how people would prefer Dean's dry humor over hand penises and robo-scorpions.

How does Geralt look like a creepy rapist in TW2?

They are alright.

Its has some absolutely top tier waifus.
In my opinion 3 was the game bioware wishes they could make.
The dialogue is bettter, the combat system is better, and the world design and monster designs are better.

If I had to give it a number, I would say 7/10.

Witcher 1 was a neat little title when it came out, but has aged like milk. Decent story, not very good combat and is uneven is terms of graphics.

Witcher 2 is good, but compared to 1 has a steeper learning curve, combat is clunky but better then the first, story is good and still holds up graphically.

Witcher 3 is the most streamlined, with all the good and the bad that entails. Combat is fluid, but is not very challenging, story is on par with the other 2 and despite the shitstorm of it being graphically downgraded in production, still looks good.

They're just decent overall dark fantasy games that are competently made, but the issue is their competition are what make them look so much better then they actually are.

I honestly love the games which is apparently controversial now. I enjoyed them so much I got some of the books but only read most of Last Wish (only the titular story remains).

How the hell is Emhyr Ciri's dad when it's established in one of the short stories that she's hedgehog knight's daughter? Is it explained later?

I think at the time I finished it I felt pretty disappointed by 2 and thought it was worse than 1, but after some time I think it's probably my favorite of the three because the main story is just very consistently interesting whereas 1 and 3 are very uneven. Witcher 1 has pretty shit pacing with all the swamp shit and the detour to the wedding in chapter 4 and Witcher 3 just wasn't interesting enough to get me to finish it because I really didn't care about Ciri or Yen.
Gameplay-wise they all have their faults and I really don't think any of them stand out as significantly better or worse. Even 3 being basically just refined 2's combat somehow felt less intimate and the sidestep made lots of fights way too easy.

Get out.

Shit combat.
Shit alchemy.
Shit weapon crafting.
Shit main character.
Shit waifus. 1 at least let you fuck around with random babes, in 3 you only get the choice of two annoying, double-crossing bitches and nothing else.
1 has a decent story, 2 has a "you can skip this shit and lose nothing of significance" story, 3 has a garbage story where you spend half of it hunting your bratty daughter-fu, and the other half taking out the main villain's forces in one of the cheesiest finales ever.
Hearts of Stone has you fucking around doing errands for some asshole that you're for some reason supposed to feel really conflicted about, even though he's a dick and continues being a dick right up until the end if you choose to save him.
Blood and Wine is probably the most fun of the lot, probably because it doesn't take itself as seriously as the other ones, even though the story is once again garbage.

1 had the best atmosphere an story

3 had best graphics, world and gameplay

For a story based game its pretty good, if 3 had less handholding and a more hardcore combat it would be indisputable the best RPG game ever

Witcher 3 is pretty good but too easy. 1 is a mess with half of the game being complete trash and 2 feels unfinished.

jesus

Same here.

He was incognito there, impersonating a wandering knight. The curse was genuine though.

Read 'The Road With No Return' if you want to understand Geralt better.

I thought Emhyr felt he was bound by destiny to Ciri, not that he is her father.

How much do they pay you to keep that shit up for over 12 months?

Witcher 1 probably has the best main story of the 3 but the combat is complete ass. Everything from the animation and graphics to core gameplay aged like utter shit and prepare to do an assload of walking. You're going to love Roach in W3 if you boot it up after finishing chapter 1 of W1. Leveling system is pure autism from what I remember and the swamp has kept loads of people from finishing the game as the story has serious pacing issues up until that point before it really picks up and comes into its own with some relevant choices you make.

Witcher 2 worked much better as a self contained story. Bigger budget meant it was much more systematic, much better combat (bar the quen exploit), more choices that significantly affect the development of the story, but don't expect your choices inbetween games to affect anything in a meaningful way. An excellent game overall but for me it had vastly different atmosphere compared to the first game. None of the side missions were particularly memorable. Final non epilogue chapter is basically non existent.

Witcher 3 took the series in an open world direction which amazingly didn't sacrifice the story all that much. In the 88 hours that I have sunk into it I don't know how much of that is horse riding from point A to point B and I can't remember all that much of the main story but I fondly remember quite a few of the side quests and the Blood and Wine DLC story in particular. Heart of Stone was good but not all that great. It looks gorgeous even with a significant downgrade but there is a certain level of CURRENT YEAR poz in there so if you don't like that sort of thing then be aware. Also you can get fucked if you picked Iorveth's route in W2 because he's not in the game at all and his non human faction is completely irrelevant while Vernon is a major character.

Overall witcher 1 holds a special place in my heart probably due to all the time I spent playing it as a teenager so I've got some nostalgia goggles but objectively Witcher 2 is the best self contained game of the three, but as a fan of the series who doesn't care much for the combat and instead prefer to care about the immersion and story aspects, it's W1>Blood and Wine>W2>W3=Heart of Stone

It doesn't really matter which one you chose tbh, Vernon survives regardless.

That's what's happening to me right now. I've thought the lore and the plot were interesting thus far, and Geralt is a pretty interesting character, but it's been slow as fuck and the swamp can go fuck itself. I'm still trying to guide this hobo to the fucking church without getting manhandled. Shitty gameplay isn't helping.

...

1 was shitty on the technical side, but still my favorite of the series.

2 had a great main story, but the combat was the worst in the series.

wild cunt had a underwhealming main story, but some of the sidequests were pure gold and the combat was pretty decent for once. map exploration is boring though and the open world in general is pretty pointless.
hearts of stones is god tier, miles better than the maingame, blood and wine is good but the main storyline is a bit bullshit from time to time.

books are realy good, although i kind of prefere the first two with hte short stories over the rest.

the polish tv series is pure gold, both in productio and writing it equals and even exeeds game of thrones. a true masterpiece, i can only recommend it.

i actualy enjoyed hearts of stone more than witcher 1. you should try it if you havent yet.

why are you even playing rpgs?