what part of the trilogy, the Witcher is the best? (The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt)
and in what aspects?(not looking at all for me in the lead remains part 1)If the first part of the series, to make the visual performance of the Third, it would be 100% a MASTERPIECE!
After I played part 1 in 2007 just after the release:) the problem was that the control on the mouse is put, and because of this play PSP:))) later in 2013, he passed part 2 and not just 1, waiting for how to get out 3тя part and passed this Shedevr, only in 2016 decided to go 1 piece and it really stood out to me almost better than 3rd part, in short, the dialogue is only at first seem notorious, later only pleasing to the eye:)
Hattack
Not the graphics makes masterpieces. In the first part had a lot of problems, but there have been quite normal.
The first definitely! and then an interesting concept turned into a hyped casual misery is for earnings of money and not to promote the gaming industry and especially the development of people, Heippa.
the first part is better in everything except graphics, of course.
there's you and a great story, and Geralt colorful, and interesting fights with pumping. there's even bugs are cool.
Objective of course 3 is better in everything. But for me like I feel (maybe younger then and the games got more fun) and atmosphere this is the first part.
Before that rocked part 2 was removed after 10 minutes of play.
Not willing to 3 downloaded, at first not very much. The same dumb skill, fighting clown.
Just like the story and graphics, some of the side quests.
And basically it's a huge and empty world.
Developers had to add forced flash battle, bosses, flying mount.
It was possible to divide the world into zones, what would Geralt frees them. For example is the castle he is attacked by monsters, several waves. The task of preserving the castle and kill all the monsters.To help you can call those whom we have helped in the story.The higher LVL Geralt those areas more difficult.
Then it would be a masterpiece and a game with beautiful cut scenes and graphics.
On this and it costs only 700 rubles instead of 2-3K.
this is my personal opinion for you to decide whether you agree or not I will not impose
Part 1
a good story has unexpected turns and there are some references to books on account management 2 years ago I was pitching and said eww what a jacket but I bought it a year ago today, to the management and boevka have to get used to everything
Part 2
she well normal plot (plot 1 of part I liked) excellent control system good graphics
the story I was not very hooked
Part 3
the Witcher 3 I didn't go but I played on my brother's laptop
this opinion will be based only on one of two story additions as the brother was ridiculous and I took one Supplement
graphics history great story I liked it
unfortunately I don't remember the name of the dlc, remember the mission where the man was using to sedate the animals he did it for his daughter
All of these detailed responses writing...
Let's just say - every piece was awesome in its time and all 3 are good for her so far.
Geralt-47
Hmm, in shock from how you perceive the world - "Sloppy", "Nothing is clear"
The first part is unambiguous. In principle, I do not like the witcher - I do not like books, a persistent antipathy for everyone's so beloved Wild Hunt. I don't like the plot, the characters, the pedaling ideas and the setting. But the first part of the game Witcher is so captivating with its role-playing system, a truly intriguing plot, charming music and a dark world in which you believe - that I close my eyes both to the problems of the game itself and to my own dislike. The above described everything well, I can only agree. B1 can at least be called an RPG, while the sequels have slipped into a spinal slasher. The player is not held for a fuck, and they are not afraid to hit in the face with really serious consequences from rash actions - as, for example, in the second chapter, during the investigation, if one throws groundless accusations,
Combat based on pumping and system, not player clicks-rolls. A system of alchemy for the comprehension of which it is not enough to drink and cook. Non-linearity, interesting and sometimes non-obvious quests - that's all.
The second witcher is a complete misunderstanding. Yes grafon, yes Summer, but fighting is one of the most crooked pieces of shit that I have ever seen in my life. The plot is also quite imaginative, I can't say anything bad.
The third witcher is a completely thrilling battle, a one-celled system of pumping and alchemy, a completely muddy level system where the levels of opponents on the world map have no geographic or logical reference, and a truly idiotic plot where you need to court Mary-Sue so that she, by the power of her exclusivity, all saved. At the same time, the hero - the witcher - has become a very weak-willed blank, which does not make a single independent decision during the plot. What choices give in dialogues and some forks are decisions made by the player, not the character. And even the player is not always given the right to make a choice - such as quests related to Gwent - in Novigrad, in Toussaint. I don't want to share money with some scum, just as I want to support the dwarves and throw off the fan of the fifth deck from the balcony - no, the game is not about that.
Geralt-47
Geralt-47 wrote: The
grafon is so-so, the combat is finally incomprehensible, you just click and he himself makes all sorts of feints and sculpts signs
He does not sculpt the signs himself, in order to impose a sign, you need to press RMB, but to select a sign, like 1,2,3,4,5 Selecting a sword Q / E. And the signs still need to be studied. There is also an animation of eating and potions, which will take some time. This complicates the fight a little. There is also an animation of sharpening swords, and he adds a lot of it taking into account the length of his arms. When you double-click W Geralt makes a somersault over enemies, with the same pressing of AD, dodges to the sides, with S - bounce back. If it is stupid to stand still and try to chop, then nichrome cannot be won, especially if the enemies are surrounded. Also in the game there are fires, cook potions and meditation can only be done near bonfires. Geralt can study herbs. In the skill tree, you can pump intelligence. And as for the graphics: the game of 2007,and with her old age, Geralt can cast a double shadow. Now, not all third-person games have such a rendering.
If it's dark in a cave, then no cat is an ass.
Also, in The Witcher 1 you need to think a little. Let's say you need to find some Persian, you found the place of the marker, but there is no Persian. The trick is that he can appear at night, and you are looking for during the day. Some monsters come out only at night, or in dark / swampy places. Or, let's say you need to find Brick in the "Under the Teddy Bear" tavern, but he is not there. So, you need to talk to someone. And who in the tavern most of all sees and knows the most? Tavern. Through him eyes, lips, and ears go through a lot. You can store things with him, and they will be carried over to the next chapter.
I, just like you, for a long time refused to complete it, and when I took it, it was impossible to tear me away from it. In this game, for any search, you need to communicate with bots, they will definitely say something.
The most powerful enemies for me (IMHO) Yved and Kashchei
The Witcher 3 The
Witcher 2 The
Witcher 1 The
Witcher 3 - replayed several times, also additions.
The Witcher 2 - passed twice, on the third it did not work.
Although the first one did not pass, I tried several times, but the combat really pisses me off)
The Witcher 3. The rest of the parts simply do not exist for me. So good 3rd. I also played the first and second parts, but after the third part, I repeat, the rest ceased to exist for me. I myself live in the village, and I'm just delighted as in the third part everything is familiar, good, native and in Russian
I like all three, but the Witcher 3 is still the best in terms of the totality of its components, and I consider Blood and Wine DLS to be the standard of how DLS should be done, although the second part in terms of working out locations is, of course, much better than the third.
Geralt-47 My friend
, it's easy to figure out what and how in the second Witcher. I immediately understood what and how it works. In the second, a greater variety in entertainment and dialogue catches the eye. For example, fisticuffs are implemented a little better than the banal "dodge × block × strike", there is arm wrestling and more animations of enemy deaths. Plus, the world itself is more gloomy, and the very beginning of a dynamic simple battle with ghouls. In general, as for me, it is all parts that are good and it’s stupid to compare them separately, especially in terms of graphics, because they came out at different times and, naturally, the third part will be the most fancy
The plot and "scale" of the quests of the second, as for me, is undeniably the best among all three parts. This is the real power of magic - the curse of Sabrina, and participation in the battle - the very beginning and siege of the castle of La Valette, What is it worth participating in the DRAGON quests! And the rest of the part is done in the same spirit.
The first part, probably due to the early year of release, is the most nondescript. Again, if the part had been done by modern standards, it might have competed with the other two parts.
Well, the third one is probably the most paradoxical. To some, it's a masterpiece. (I honestly don't know why.) And as for me, it's done, I'm sorry "fuck off."
Let me explain.
The plot is not inferior to others, there are no complaints about it. Everything else is sheer bullshit.
Why introduce this pathetic semblance of crafting when it's in its infancy? Example, we received a drawing for equipment, so what? That's right, nothing, he is several levels above or below the current level of the player. Therefore, we got - nothing.
Trade - I would just fire the developers involved in the "logic" of the market. We buy something for, say, 1,000 - we can sell the same item for a miserable 100, if we're lucky ..
Constant expenses for repairs, in the absence of a constant income in the game. More or less sane. Contracts, let me remind you, are one-time. And once you have done everything, there is practically nothing to earn.
And another flaw comes from trading: The player is forced to play as some bastard thief. Go into every house - rob clean. And it would be okay if we were talking about just some resources that in RPGs are “normal†to have in abundance and in excess, but no. In these very "must-steal-to-get" places are quite NECESSARY items, such as blueprints for the same equipment, alchemical recipes, etc., etc. That is, Geralt suddenly becomes a bastard thief, without principles, morality, conscience, etc.
Fights - you yourself know.
The much touted choice of the player at every moment.. Oh, yes, beautifully illustrated when killing Radovid, when not a single living soul in the city notices this. Well, or the moment with Ciri, when she is upset, after the ban on stealing horses for a bunch of her "friends" of thieves. - in the next quest, 2-5 minutes later, Ciri meets Geralt, as if nothing had happened. (Hello, developers?! Not everyone has sunk to the bottom yet! Someone else still has moral values.)
And what remains? Pleasant, sometimes, graphics. And this is a masterpiece? The part is simply imbued with the feeling of "done in the shortest possible time, just to work." And after all, in fact, to fix all these shortcomings is a trifling matter, Fashion is evidence of this. The question naturally arises, why was this not done in the first place? But because we (developers) are deeply (I'm sorry, it's me, not the developers) to shit on the player and how he will have to suffer the whole game.
IMHO.