Book or game? (The Witcher)

My opinion The game, books and the TV series as a whole make up a single picture and, yes, the universe of the witcher ... Neither 1 nor 2 nor 3 is a canon, the game gives some details, the series brings realism, and the books, as noted somewhere above, force the fantasy to complete this! At the same time, the difference in endings makes it possible to come up with it to each his own, as if to fill in the white spots with details ... A couple of years ago I watched the film and naturally shied away from the work in general, now I’m screwing up a little !!!

The book, it is more interesting this way and that)

I read it during the day and played in the evening) I liked the book better. It's a shame that Ian isn't in the game.

And I loaded a collection of books about the witcher into a lyaktronny book. He mastered one and a half, vomited. Even everything is the same because. But I played the first game about the witcher 3 times, I liked it very well. Witcher # 2 didn't even play - a hat, ala a corridor-console. The third can be better.

The third can be better.

It seems like they promise an open world. But I don't know, I like small and well-developed locations, as in the first part, to my liking.

SVAEIG
Comparing the released and not released is somewhat incorrect. Promises, advertisements, lies, in one and here it is, touch the pens in the other. Do not you think? An open, "seamless" world is not at all, not at all bad, on the contrary. The main thing here is that they also work meticulously, and not as usual.

usoid

I am not comparing, I just showed uncertainty about large-scale locations - an example from Gothic, when, after the well-worked and cozy first two parts, we got a huge, but boring world.

SVAEIG
Didn't play in the third one, I didn't like it right from the start, right from the first village. I deleted it and forgot it. I can’t judge the extent of the open spaces there, I didn’t appreciate it.
And due to uncertainty, Duc hope remains, until the release at least. ))

And due to uncertainty, Duc hope remains, until the release at least. ))

So I don't lose it, suddenly it will turn out to be an excellent RPG))

And I read the book and played both parts of the game, I liked the game more. But if there was no book, then there would be no game.

Pecos_Bill_2.0
Disagree. Not all games are made from books, and not even all games are used to write books, comics, or even make movies. Both that and another and the third, can exist separately and at the same time be of excellent quality, or as it is fashionable to say now - a masterpiece.

Games. The plot of the three parts is in no way inferior to the book, and in the first part it even surpasses, as it seems to me. The first witcher moved farthest from the canon with amnesia for Geradt and his friends (Okay Triss, but even Dandelion and Zoltan don't remember Ciri and Ian), the resurrected Professor, etc., but at the same time it turned out to be the most original (the secret of Jozh pales in comparison with skeletons in Alvin's closet). In the second, the basis of the plot is political intrigue. In general, if you look at the game chronology, the development of the world turned out to be interesting. Example: in the second part, in order to save Temeria, we are looking for help from Radovid, and in the third - on the contrary. The third invasion of the Northern Kingdoms by Nilfgaard can be called predictable (but at the same time canonical).
The third part. On the one hand, this part is as close as possible to books, but on the other hand, the plot in it is banal. We run again and look for Ciri, well, go nuts now. And yet, the script turned out great. The history of the baron, the Velenian witches, the ghost on Kolomnitsy, the curse of Udalrik and so on - all this can easily compete with the stories of Sapkowski.
Hearts of Stone. It seemed to me that the very concept of the villain from this expansion cannot correspond to the witcher world. (For Geralt to fight absolute evil? Ugh.) But here, of course, the opinion of Pan Sapkowski himself is needed. Nevertheless, the story itself is a masterpiece.
But games have a significant drawback - a lot of logical connections between parts are lost, unlike books. Here the Projects needed to work better. The characters turned out to be alive, their character is written perfectly, especially in the Criminal Code and DO. Even invented Persians like Thaler and Roche look no worse than books.

Now about the books. Although they are called "The Witcher", the central character in them is still Ciri, not Geralt. After reading it, I got the feeling that it was only by the third book that the pan decided what he would write about next. The first two books were notable for their regularity, but in the subsequent ones the plot develops very rapidly. The sixth book differs from its predecessors in its flashbacks as much as the seventh from the rest of the saga (and flashbacks and travel between worlds and the thickness of the pages). In general, the impressions are mixed, the first half of the saga is read better.
In short, all games have the atmosphere of the first two books (especially in additional quests), but not all books have the same qualities as "Sword of Destiny" and "Last Wish". Sapkowski was still tired of the Witcher and this was noticeable in the latest books. The fantasy itself is average, but the game version for this fantasy turned out to be excellent.