I have both The Witcher 2 and 3. Can anyone give me a comparison on what 2 does better and what 3 does better? I'm playing the former. While I actually like the combat more than games like Skyrim it feels unpolished at times. Sometimes quick attacks take forever to strike, and when I knock shielding enemies down they kneel with their shield up and automatically rotate in place to face you even as they're knocked down so that your attacks always hit their shield, which is pretty annoying.
About to fight the Kayran. The game so far is okay. Not terrible, not amazing either. I do like the writing and the characters, but the quests and areas and all that are pretty basic and not nearly as interesting as, say, New Vegas.
How far should I stick with the game, or should I just start The Witcher 3?
Combat in 3 gets a lot of shit from people, but it's inarguably better than 2. You can actually use potions in battle again like in 1, the timing of combat animations isn't as fucked up as it was in 2, there's a step dodge that makes positioning a lot easier and lets you cancel out of other animations to a certain extent while removing the need to roll around constantly, and everything just generally works a lot better. It's still not exactly great, but it's easily the best combat CDPR has done.
The overall world and atmosphere in 3 is a bit different from 2, and a little more similar to the first game. It still uses all the medieval fantasy tropes but has a more distinctly "Polish" flavour and more sort of dark fairy-tale inspired elements and nods to the Witcher novels, as opposed to 2 which kinda wants to be A Song of Ice and Fire.
The overall writing and quests are pretty similar in terms of quality. I'd say TW3 is a bit better-written but not as tightly paced, but if the writing/quest design in 2 doesn't really grab you then 3 probably won't either. Especially with the overreliance 3 has on quests where you basically just turn on Witcher Senses and look for glowing shit.
The Witcher 2 is really short as far as RPGs go (~30 hours) so you might as well finish it. I would say if you don't like it that much you probably won't like Witcher 3 much more, as it has some of the same faults. The biggest difference is the open world, which honestly doesn't add that much to the game as a lot of the stuff in it is kind of filler, like half the points of interest just being monster nests or bandit camps.
TW2 is the worst game in the whole series.
Linear, cramped, action-packed, filled with QTEs, consolized and has terrible controls + UI.
I don't understand why they had to cut the sword stances, nerf the alchemy, and restrict use of potions outside combat, all while making their effect too short to be used earlier.
Pseudo open world, so you have all the exploration, and none of the low quality bullshit padding content 3 suffers from, like points of interest and copy pasted caves.
Combat is vastly superior.
Your choices actually matter to how the game plays out, and not just for the ending like in 3.
Alchemy was actually useful instead of boring stat boosts
I hope that cleared it up. 2 has garbage combat and awful menus, but Letho and Broche and politics hold it up.
1 is amazing if you're not an ADHD CoD kiddie.
3 is very accessible for plebs, but has a lot of book references.
Witcher 3 has Arkham Asylum combat but atleast it works. Witcher 2 has shit hitboxes, no lockon, the inability to circle strafe and feels like a shitty version of Dark Souls combat. Witcher 3 atleast has you feeling like a nimble Witcher.
Overall in my opinion 3 > 1 > 2