\ "Wild Hunt \" and \ "Assassins of Kings \" (comparison) (The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt)

Stribogg
You forgot three more minuses of "Assassins of Kings" - politics, politics, bloody politics, without it nowhere. There is no neutrality. The only excuse is that without this policy there would be no plot, and Geralt got into it for Triss to find it. In the third, you can put on politics - just events will go differently.

Better, of course, "The Wild Hunt", although this rigidity of "Assassins of Kings" was not enough - some tasks are not available during the game, depending on your choice. And the choice itself in DO is somehow simplified, at the end you were told what it led to, there is no feeling of a change in the attitude of the characters-friends towards you. For example, if Triss chose, why doesn't she go with Geralt to the Tor Gwalka Tower to save Ciri? Somehow Ian absolutely does not care that you chose not her (not only in this moment). That's all the quest is over, and then nothing ...

For example, in the first part, the consequences of your choices affect the final battle with the Master of the Order of the Burning Rose. Who and how will help you and whether there will be at all ... In the second, if you help Henselt, to put it mildly, they do not really accept you in Verdun, the same Khivay goes to the dwarves. And vice versa, if for Iorvet, then the dwarves are a mountain for you.

Between one masterpiece and another - I prefer not to choose ...

-Dismal-
They are both beautiful, but there are flaws in both.

"Assassins of Kings"
originality of choice, plot - in RPG (albeit with a conditionally open world) this is one and the same
two-dimensionality of Geralt's movement, corridor - is it not the same thing?
limited non-plot quests and crafting - well, I would not say that quests are limited there, and not very many, but enough, but about limited crafting - nonsense.

"Wild Hunt".
open world, excellent disclosure of characters (like living), plot, atmosphere, wonderful craft, excellent additional and witcher quests - well, let's allow Geralt's
interesting personal disclosure - the same as "excellent disclosure of characters (like living), plot"
boevka - I won’t argue about this, otherwise they will say that I’m writing garbage, but everyone met the boevka differently: many people were happy, many people said that it was monotonous and consisted of banal cries out to the enemy and dodging
full immersion - this is there is a plot, atmosphere and everything else that you wrote
freeplay (incomplete), some confusion in the storyline (due to complete freedom and an open world) - absolutely agree with this the
low interest of places - "questions" - well, it's debatable. There shouldn't be anything interesting in them - these places are there and that's it. They are needed for collecting gear and just so that it would not be boring. It would be too much to stuff an archigryphon, him or a demon into every question. And coming up with something cool for each question is very difficult.

I think that "Assassins of Kings" are inferior to "Wild Hunt" except that the open world - in the second part it is interesting and filled, but extremely small, although I remember how the developers, before the release of the game, said that it would have a completely open and large world - here they, of course, cheated, but the plot, excellent cut-scenes (which only fights with Leto are worth), disclosure of the light and dark sides of the characters - all this makes "Assassins of Kings" one of the best RPGs. Of course, immediately after the release, an abundance of bugs and glitches was noticed, but personally, this did not prevent me from fully enjoying this, I'm not afraid of this word, a masterpiece. In addition to all this, I want to say that I am a longtime fan of the works of Pan Sapkowski, but still I try to evaluate the games of the "Witcher" series as rationally and impartially as possible. "

cons: free play (incomplete) -
is there an interesting free play in any game? After completing the plot everywhere it becomes boring.

he wrote a blog without playing the game I'm sure. After all, how could a keiran be called a kraken?

but on the topic - the only difference is that the SDPR wanted to do something ala mass effect first, where one choice would entail a bunch of consequences, which we saw somehow in the second part, but it turned out that we crap on the third part where at the beginning influence (almost do not influence) the choices in a small dialog with 5 lines while shaving in a call

Nikotinoz_
Dude, I confess, I forgot Keiran's name)) For I played the second couple of times in total-

You can find a bunch of advantages in B3, so I will name the disadvantages
- Insignificance of previous decisions. I went through all 3 parts with the import of saves and was very unhappy when I found out that almost all of my decisions in the previous parts are bullshit.
- There is no variety in the combat system. I was missing something new, I was hoping that there would be a huge jump in the combat system since the second part, but I did not see it (again, a HUGE JUMP, not a small one)
- Open world. I would not like to call this a minus, since this is the first game from CDPRed with a completely open world, and not conditionally open. In short, the game is good almost everywhere, but not in the open world: there are a lot of bugs (I repeat: THIS IS THE FIRST EXPERIENCE OF CDPRed, I DON'T CONSIDER THIS A MINUS FOR THEM) flaws in physics, FLIGHT, etc. and so on - but in further games their open world it will be better for anyone because they already have their first experience in such a large game

Stribogg
you do not repent to me, you repent to the developers. I don’t care so,

yes, and it’s stupid to actually compare B2 - 2011 and B2 - 2015.

RADIANT and so on and so on
you look - he does not like the roach. the guy apparently does not know what the Skyrim horses are capable of

Actually, I was also the first to play Wild Hunt. That is, how he played ... I started to play, go through the plot, and when I realized what I was running into, I slowly put it off and started digging, so to speak, "in the past" of this game, so as not to drain myself the impression of ignorance of this universe. I didn’t play the first game, but I swallowed the whole cycle of books in less than a month)) and took up The Killer of Kings. Yes .... because of the early passage of the Wild Hunt itself, the impressions of all this corridor and movements were not the most vivid, and Geralt's face was so fucking scary, as well as in the first game (judging by the screenshots). Many people say that in the first part, his true portrait and all that is conveyed more, but as for me, Geralt from the 3rd part is exactly what he should be - an aging witcher, muttering under his breath, looking with a nonchalant glance at his interlocutors. The biggest plus in "The Killer of Kings" is the duality of the main plot - you are either on one or the other side of the conflict, in the full sense and with your own consequences (plus for the game, if you forget about "neutrality", "I don’t choose in general ", etc.). In the Wild Hunt, of course, the endings are varied, but all the same, everything moves along the same predetermined course. I can't name any more special differences, because everything that could be noted and so was pumped into the third part and improved but all the same, everything is moving along one given course. I can't name any more special differences, because everything that could be noted and so was pumped into the third part and improved but all the same, everything is moving along one given course. I can't name any more special differences, because everything that could be noted and so was pumped into the third part and improved

Vladislav Igorevich
I will try to explain .. Corridor is when the gamer is playing the game, and there is no way to independently decide which quest you will go through, I think that the term is so mega-known that there is no point in chewing too much.
And the two-dimensionality of movement is that Geralt cannot even climb onto a hillock, or jump (jump).
Geralt's personal disclosure is not entirely about characters, there are personal experiences of the protagonist, moral and emotional choices and reactions.

I will compare in conjunction with the 1st part, i.e. how well each of these games continued the plot logic of the previous one.

The biggest plus of Assassins of Kings is that it is the most non-linear game in the series. More tolerable transfer of saves after passing the first part (even things are transferred). Actually, this is where the pros end.
Cons: the shortest of the series. There are too many politics in the plot (although there are moments in the script that dilute it), a meager love line (either Triss or no one, unlike parts 1 and 3, ignoring Shani), very little information was given about the Wild Hunt, ignoring the main villain from the first part (he left quite a lot of questions). Lack of neutrality after 1 part.

Wild Hunt.
Pros: you can talk about them quite a lot, I will only say that it is not written above: in comparison with the second part, the interface has become more convenient, the weapon began to break.
Cons: disgusting transfer of saves (a living and healthy Thaler from 1 part is generally a cannon, why there was such a branched storyline in 2 parts is also a big question), a significant change in the concept of the Wild Hunt, the projects did not give us an answer to many questions in the final parts. Due to the presence of the "openness" of the world, many of the consequences of the decisions made are not clearly shown, as well as changes in the "scenery" in the plot were minimal (for example: Oxenfurt after the death of Radovid, and his comparison with the burning Vizima from part 1 and the massacre in Flotzam from 2 -Oh). There is no intelligible information about squirrels, Iorvet, Saskia and other characters.

The character disclosure is great in both games.

sabrido
there have already been many topics about freeplay in DO .. I personally just like to even be in DO, but replaying 9 times is no longer so amazing, but with normal freeplay it was possible to hang out there indefinitely.

Stribogg
You just wrote about corridor in Action. Kind of like in FEAR of similar games ... Judging by your words, this term cannot be applied to the RPG genre, since there is already a choice of how and where to go. You will prove your point of view to the last and disagree with my opinion, so you better not answer
The very fact that you sucked a lot from your finger and wrote several times, but in different words, means that you simply did not find much in it + and -
SpoilerAlthough everything that you wrote, you placed it correctly (with the exception of the combat one, it was really double-digit accepted)

sabrido
Of the latter, in Skyrim. But this is not only due to the good elaboration of the world, but also the wretchedness of the main plot.

I will try to collect all sensible thoughts in the topic header.

Stribogg
To infinity? You want too much. Personally, I am interested in the normal end of BEF itself - not only to hear how it all ended, but also to see the state of the world. And then Nilfgaard won, and in Novigrad the flags of Redania, and the soldiers also roam along the front line in Pontar.