The largest problem is that the combat is really awful being janky, imprecise, and a little difficult for all the wrong reasons. While the main story is fantastic (although a little slow at the start), the actual gameplay is heavily flawed. It really depends on how much jank you're willing to put up with. If you get frustrated, just roll and quen. The game doesn't get 'good' until you get to the first actual questing zone in the town Flotsam, which is probably one of my favorite questing zones in recent RPGs. The prologue in particular is pretty bad because Geralt starts out with too many core abilities locked off. You probably won't like the combat any better than Witcher 3's. Witcher 2 didn't have witcher sense yet and a lot of the quests are actually really unique in terms of both writing and gameplay. At the time it came out it was one of the few games focusing on gaming PCs first and consoles second, so its graphics were way beyond those of most other games in 2011, but you could still tell CDProjekt couldn't quite yet polish games the same way Ubisoft or somebody could.Įven the quests indicate CDPR was trying to figure out how to design its way out of fetch quests but hadn't quiet yet. Witcher 1 is a straight-up eurojank 'B' game, and Witcher 3 is a full-blown AAA game, but Witcher 2 looks like it's a 'B' game trying really hard to act like a AAA game. In terms of production values and gameplay, it's in a weird position between the other two games. To each their own, but Witcher 2 does handle exploration and world design in a way not enough games do today. Some also think its use of separate medium-sized explorable quest zones for each act is better than Witcher 3's massive open-world.

The characters and quests are as well written as those in Witcher 3.

Witcher 2 has the best main quest out of the three games.

Witcher 2 riposte tutorial