Comment

Comment on

Jax@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

I’d say you only need to play Blood and Wine - Hearts of Stone isn’t bad but it isn’t what I’d call an expansion.

Sort:hotnew top

baronvonj@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Given the depth of writing in the Witcher 3, I think skipping Hearts of Stone would be a huge mistake.

source
Coelacanth@feddit.nu ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
I would argue the other way around. Blood and Wine is fun and nice as a capstone to Geralt and has a lot of content if you just want to ride around and play Gwent and do the Wine Wars and play house with your vineyard or whatever. It’s a fun expansion with a lot of value for your money if that’s what you’re after.

Hearts of Stone though is the most focused, well written, cinematic and concise story and content they ever made for Witcher. Has great characters, mystery, tension, levels, cutscenes, atmosphere… For me it was by far the more impactful of the two DLCs. If anything B&W is too long, I was already burned out by the end of it.

source
Cypher45@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Idk man, Hearts of Stone’s story is the best in the entire game IMO.

I wouldn’t just call it not bad, it’s great.

source
_ed@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Heart of Stone hits harder than blood which is breezy in comparison. First time I enjoyed blood better but that was mostly down to the new location. Going over the same territory from the main game was a bit underwhelming. But on replay - no contest. (Well apart from the Auction house.)

source