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

Vladislav Igorevich
still answer)) Corridor - it is corridor everywhere. In the second witcher, there is no way to freely choose where you will go and what you will do - the game leads you to certain quests and to certain places, that's it, there is no freedom whatsoever. you do only what the game offers you at the moment.

A fan of all parts but least of all enjoyed part 2. there is too much politics in the plot, the locations are small and not interesting, the combat could have been done better, the graphics are myl and there is too much yellow in the colors. took place purely for the sake of the plot. to the first part, the claim is primarily to the plot, after all the unforgettable events from the books, when you want to find out what happened to Yennefer, Ciri, we are sent to look for some kind of salamanders and they don’t say a word about the main people in Geralt’s life, just as full of combat sucks, but the game has a good atmosphere, nice graphics and a good plot (but not good for the continuation of the story from the books) 3 part of me struck on the spot, almost everything is perfect in it and the only but significant disadvantage I think is a short plot, it is for this game the plot is very short but exciting and unforgettable, yes

Mantykora
so I am the same. The desire to climb in the freeplay world will disappear, when, well, there are absolutely no changes in it from such a long and saturated with various actions and deeds of passage.

I played the witcher from 1 part. The first part, of course, had its drawbacks, but it bribed with the atmosphere as in the books of the series. The second part looks more like a bridge between 1 and 3, but it had interesting details. For example, sympathy for Tris, or Leto the Witcher, etc. Such made the game memorable. The third part for me has become an almost perfectly recreated world of the witcher.

-Dismal-
nice person))) The name of the topic has been corrected, since I called it a little bit wrong, I just did not want to confront, but comparisons)))
Why is there a strange attitude towards forums on PG - they usually communicate with them, but here initially come to criticize and spread rot on the authors)))

All three parts are very different in perception and atmosphere. The first is similar to the first two collections of Sapkowski's stories, where Geralt, the carefree witcher, again fell into a major scrape. Yes, and bloopers like Triss's character, or at least the fact that Dandelion, seeing Geralt after his resurrection, did not immediately tell about Yennefer and Ciri, is a little embarrassing. And the main line with the Salamanders and new characters is great for a collection of stories.

The second part is based on the politota from the books, of which there were many, but Geralt was never a participant. More precisely, he never got involved so deeply, and he pursued personal goals, and did not think about who would sit there on the Temerian throne or whether Saskia would succeed in Vergen. But then there is the most twisted plot, with many twists and turns. But the price of such a plot was an atmosphere that is less witchy.

Well, the third is full-fledged novels, the search for Ciri, love with Yennefer and all that. Although there are witcher orders here, which seem to be reminiscent of stories, they still lack something. Maybe Buttercup, who always drags after Geralt, I don't know.

As a result, all three parts turned out to be quite different from each other, which is a rarity in game trilogies. And of course, all three games deserve attention.

SpartanSoap
Oh, you said well. All three parts are different, just as Sapkowski's books about the Witcher differ, first stories, then a holistic novel, and the intensity and scale of events grows with each new book. And in the game, the speed of events and their intensity increases. But you need to read the books all, as well as go through the games completely, in order.

Well, the third one is full-fledged novels, the search for Ciri, love with Yennefer
By the way, there are two interesting moments that were well played in "The Wild Hunt" and are similar to the events of the books:
- Yennefer, in search of Ciri, goes back to Skellig;
- when Geralt finds Ciri and when they find themselves together in Novigrad - Ciri goes to the memorable places of his escape from the Wild Hunt. Also a reference to the book - there are memorable places of escape from Leo Bonart, and the reward to everyone according to their deserts.

Made beautifully and philosophically - history repeats itself, but with variations. The Witcher 3 storyline may not be perfect, but CD Projekt's writers are geniuses.

I read Sapkowski's books once
upon a time, they did not catch on then Oldfag books ... But I fell in love with The Witcher precisely because of them and I play from 1 part of the series.
ps I'm still lucky)

SpartanSoap
I would also add that the plot of part 3 with the search for Ciri strongly copies the main saga about Geralt (not a collection of stories), while this part is more independent in terms of perception (it is not necessary to read books to understand the plot, but it is desirable to catch some nuances in dialogues).

The second is more independent in terms of unwinding the plot, but at the same time, in order to generally understand what is at stake (XD), you need to read books, or at least know the political world order.

And the first one is so original (it is not necessary to read books to understand the plot) that it is considered non-canon, but at the same time the dialogues themselves are kept in a book style, and the Wild Hunt itself is very similar to what is presented in the book.

Stribogg
For all, I think it's not worth talking about, from my side there was criticism, well, to spread rot if you please.

_Vlastin_
Really, oldfag)) In those days, probably, there was simply no time for books))))

In terms of the plot thread that runs from the books, through the 1st, 2nd, and finally the 3rd parts of the game, I consider only the one described in the wild hunt to be a solid continuation. By God, if the "memories" of Geralt in the final conversation with Leto in "The Killer of Kings" are embedded as a preface in "The Wild Hunt" itself, then in fact the previous one loses some value in terms of the canonical plot continuation, and I am sure that with the first game same. Yes, by themselves, they may not be bad, like games, but speaking of the story of Geralt of Rivia, at least what is described in the second part is a complete misunderstanding. That is, Geralt, in the role of the king's bodyguard? I would never have thought of it, and to be honest, it's funny. I am leading to the fact that a fan of Sapkowski's works sitting down to play The Witcher will not lose anything important in terms of the plot, if he watches videos with memories of what happened to Geralt and Ian after those events in Rivia, and he starts playing "Wild Hunt" right away. Naturally, apart from many hours of interesting gameplay. But that is another topic.

Stribogg
Be sure to play the first part, graphically, you may not like it (although what I mean, the picture is beautiful there), for that in terms of gameplay, plot and everything else, it's just an amazing game.

Pavel0198
I agree, and these two parts are very good, but each has its own merits.

Stribogg The
corridor of the quests or the corridor of the plot?

Playersaharan
Of the latter, in Skyrim. But this is not only due to the well-developed world, but also to the wretchedness of the main plot.
Well, yes. May be. I tried to play this "super game" three times. From the third time, about half passed and removed this nonsense. I know her fanatics are not measured, but for me this is complete crap.

Putnik_Dirar "... That is, Geralt, in the role of the king's bodyguard? I would never have thought, and to be honest, it's funny ..."
I haven't read The Season of Thunderstorms? ;)
Although, to be honest, this part stands apart both in the plot and in the general "quality" :(