Comment on Anon loves The Lord of the Rings
Aspharr@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoInteresting take, what did 1 have that 2 didn’t? As someone who enjoyed 1 a lot, I found 2 to be a much more fun experience. 1 felt klunky for me mechanically speaking and just didn’t age well. Thematically and character wise I’d say they’re of similar quality for sure.
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Here’s my thought process. We’re using two criteria, passion and longevity. The Witcher is clunky and weird and hasn’t aged well, but it’s also the reason The Witcher has become a global phenomenon.
The Witcher 2 was developed with incredible passion and ambition, where choices would have massive game-changing consequences. The problem is, I can barely remember any of it. I have long felt that it simply wasn’t a very impactful adventure. And then came The Witcher 3, which felt like an adventure with choices that mattered and a world that felt alive and lived in. It overshadowed everything else. And yet, without the first game, there would be no The Witcher 3. We might not even have all the books translated to english.
So that’s why I pick those two specifically.
Aspharr@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I think I see what you’re putting down. Witcher 1 crawled so that 3 could run, and 2 is just kinda living in 3’s shadow. Perhaps I was late to the bandwagon, I played 1 first when 2 was just getting released, I was under the impression Witcher 1 wasn’t that successful (but not a failure)and that 2 was what really brought the witcher into pop culture.
Honestly I think they’re all good games, and by your reasoning I can see why you would say 1 over 2.