[BadassFractal]

The Witcher 3 and its expansions are probably my favorite game of all times, and I've been gaming voraciously since the late 80s. The story, the connection to the characters, the feeling of immersion into the world, and the character of Geralt himself are not something I've seen in many other titles. Somewhat reminiscent of Final Fantasy 7 in terms of its impact on me as a participant to the experience.

The pressure on that studio to deliver something amazing couldn't be any higher.

[_asummers]

Its NPCs having real backstories that didn't feel like fetch quests provided a very nice level of depth, and made you care about what happened to them. I got the bad ending, and my jaw was legitimately agape for a few minutes as I processed what just happened, after playing through for as many hours as I did.

[devonkim]

If it makes you feel any better, the more canon ending would likely be that brutal and painful given how the books were supposed to end the story of Geralt and Yennefer. Even the full trilogy ending seems to mock the player for being desperate for a completely “happy” ending - even that one can’t possibly be the happiest thing for Geralt if you ask me because we have lost so many good friends / colleagues probably to get there. The fact that the writers don’t even dwell on these losses too much actually makes the losses more brutal - you aren’t told how you should feel telegraphed in any way. Part of what makes the series so engaging is very similar to what made the Sopranos on TV so good - it is actually following the ups and downs and successes and failures of an active, dynamic life. I believe this was described by Kurt Vonnegut as such anyway.

It’s unfortunate a lot of people that hate on games won’t be able to sink their teeth into the really fantastic writing that went into that game and its expansions.

[BadassFractal]

Same, that ending messed me up for a little while, but I was fine with it. The expansions helped me forget about it more or less.

[Kiro]

Do I need to play Witcher 1 and 2 first?

[BadassFractal]

Not at all, I tried to get into 1 and couldn't, it was too rough around the edges for me. 2 was much better, but I got distracted a few hours in. 3 felt like a completely different universe quality-wise.

[CBLT]

Could you be more specific? My girlfriend loves 1, and says 2 was a major step down for her in gameplay.

1 and 2 are frequently sold at heavy discount so I already bought them both. I haven't gotten to try 1 yet as it doesn't have a Linux version.

[RulingWalnut]

I played through W1 (for the second time) in 2017, W2 in Jan (only got 1/3 of the way through originally), and W3 in March (first time). Each game approaches combat in very different ways in terms of mechanics but I felt that each contained the same core essence. I preferred the combat in W2 but I could absolutely understand why someone would prefer W1. I would say that W1 is a deeply flawed but still great game, W2 is simply a great game, and W3 is one of the best games ever.

[stevenwoo]

Had trouble getting into Witcher as well, and it's weird because I normally love action RPG games. I might have overdosed on Fallout 3 and its expansions too much just beforehand, though. The combat in Witcher 1 in melee felt looser/slidey for lack of a technical term and I had gotten used to the precise control of your player actions in Fallout 3. YMMV, it could just be in my head.

[wilde]

No.