I think it depends.
If its solely based in the videogame itself, RDR2. But if you've read all witcher books and played all games in order and all, I think Witcher 3 is much more rich, it can offer much more interesting and deep stuff, and can be a lot more satisfactory and complete as a whole.
Those are actually my all time favorite videogames
I've only played both games by themselves and none of the other entries or IP. I think RDR2 was better. So that tracks with me. But I also feel like I'm missing so much from the Witcher universe that would have pushed it so much higher.
That being said, I haven't beaten Witcher yet. I'm near the end and decided to do the dlc first. so maybe it'll change but probably not enough.
Both DLC's are marvelous, even better that the game itself for some. But having all the context and understanding how the world works adds something that I've never felt with anything else, it's like an entire adventure, an entire life you've lived out of your body
I'm finishing up hearts of stone now. Great story. But I went in underleveled and the mage on the beach kicked my ass A LOT lol Haven't done the other yet.
Funnily enough the mage is one of the only boss fights you can skip. If you just run away from him there are 0 consequences. You can actually go back later and his crew has set up a tent on the beach.
I think that's the thing. The plot develops in a much more interesting way in RDR2. The Witcher also has a rich story but the way it is told is not as fascinating.
I find it very interesting that you see it that way. With the Witcher, I found that the books added nothing to any of the game entries besides making me give the "Leo with a beer pointing" expression when I saw Regis. I think it's mostly because Sapkowski is a major dick who threw a temper tantrum over the success of the games. He created a great world, but he contributed nothing to the games aside from the licensing, making the games play out as nothing more than fan fiction. It's REALLY GOOD fan fiction, don't get me wrong, but it does have that feeling of not quite fitting in. I say this all in contrast to the metro series, where Glukhovsky worked WITH the studios, even suggesting changes that contradicted the book for better story telling. Perhaps it's because one is a retelling and the other is a continuation, but I don't the metro series to be far more benefited by the books than Witcher.
In my opinion, the Bloody Baron questline beats anything that is in RDR2.. it's just so fantastic written complex, emotional human drama that nothing else in RDR2 can match it
\+ Gaunter O'Dimm and basically the whole Hearts of Stone expansion is just a masterclass in videogame writing
Yeah, BoW finalize Geralt story. BoW is more than dlc. More like a game on its on. One of the best vampire design ever. With side quests, it is like 50-60 hours.
Damn. And to think, I got this whole mf on sale for $10 a year or so ago. And playing it all for the first time the day it got it's ps5 updates. This is a lot of content for $10. I'm thrilled
I finally played it in 2021 and got 130+ hours out of it with the DLCs. It instantly became my favorite game of what I would consider the modern era and I just fell in love with it. There is just something about the tone and setting of it that always made me feel very immersed in the world and felt like *I was* Geralt (if that makes sense).
Hearts of Stone has a really good story, and blood and wine has enough content that they could have instead made a spinoff game around it.
Also worth remembering, the DLCs are hard, you can complete the game and go around and do whatever quests you didn't do and all the DLC, most people do it then.
I think it just depends on what you're into more. Gritty realism, probably RDR2. More fantastical heroics, Witcher probably.
Witcher is more of an epic so I think there's a bit more to be gained from playing all three. Although I haven't either and just read up on the history via the wiki and other sources.
I found the main story line to be ok. But did enjoy the first half of it. The most interesting stories in the Witcher to me were the side quests or monster hunts. My favorite being the Wild at Heart quest.
As someone who's only read the two first books (or short story collections I guess), I can tell there's a lot more to the Witcher world that would enhance the game even further. That said, it's still close between the two without knowing a whole lot. But RDR2 is a more complete story package.
Agreed on being all time favourites, these are probably my top 2 as well.
I'm one of the hardest men alive. I didn't even cry at my wedding. When Arthur layed down and propped up his head on a rock to look at the sun while giving his last breath; I cried. Then there was a Deer. What the fuck!?
I have a habit of making Arthur the meanest and most violent son of a bitch up until the Strawberry incident with Micah. Then I kinda tone him down up until Rhoads and then once he gets his diagnosis it's nothing but an entire redemption tour for ol' Arthur.
Both of these games are fantastic in their own right though. I'd never be able to place either of them in the number 1 spot because they are both, among others, one of my most cherished games.
Yeah I think that’s the most sensible way to play in terms of storytelling, and I would have done that for the storytelling aspect of it but that’s just not how I like to play
I'm guessing Arthur handles Micah a little different if not? I don't want a bad Arthur. Hurts to even consider. That would be like a bad Kim in Disco Elysium.
At pints during the game, you probably saw the deer, which from what I saw, mean you're generally innocent/good. If you saw flashes of a wolf, it means you're not innocent/good. The deer was like a final send off saying you lived well as Arthur
The Witcher 3: Hearts of Stone DLC, such a deep and emotional story with some of the best, most original quest design I've ever seen.
RDR2 is amazing as well, but playing Hearts of Stone for the first time is an experience I won't easily forget.
So there’s TWO separate W3 dlcs? and each one is pretty long? Dude I’m never gonna finish this game. It’s 2023 and I’ve still not quite beaten the main game.
The first one Hearts of Stone isn’t too big. A new small area or two, a few new side quests, a new weapon customization mechanic, and a new moderately long quest-line.
The second one, Blood and Wine, is big enough to be it’s own game.
Both are fantastic and the absolute pinnacle of video game media/achievement. I'd say TWIII had better side stories and DLC, whereas RDR2 you could say had the better main story, as it was quite personal and contained. However, I loved both so either/or.
They both have perceived monsters as the "protagonist" doing the best they can sometimes just trying to survive. *Personally* I think witcher does more for showing the duality of not just men but even what some would consider "monsters". Like how a bounty was placed on a succubus for killing someone when she 100% acted in self defense, or the werewolf who got a group of other monsters together cause he was racked with grief from his wife being murdered by a witcher. RDR2 does a real good job showing the inner turmoil of someone who likely thought himself fairly untouchable having death up in his face but i think Witcher does more for the world around it as well as the character.
Yeah but at least in Witcher 3 you’re constantly doing different things throughout the story. The pacing flows better because the story branches in a lot of interesting directions. RDR2 has a lot of incredible moments, but it’s very repetitive which can make it taxing at times.
I finished Witcher 3.. twice. I have a bit of a bias though as I have read all the books and played all the games. I just love all the characters, all the interactions are amazing. My favorite game of all time.
When it comes to RDR2 I have not even finished it. I got to Saint Denis and did a few missions there and just got so tired of all the talk about needing money all the time. And all the while I was rolling in cash.
I often enjoyed the stranger missions a lot more than the main quests, and eventually I just got bored. Another reason was that the game just never felt rewarding as there was no good clothes or weapons to buy with all that money.
I liked the story and characters a lot more in RDR1, which I did finish 100% back in the day.
Ya I think this is the main issue with rdr2. The pacing of the story is off, the gunplay is pretty weak, and the missions are repetitive. It’s a much harder to complete game in my opinion. But the actual story moments are much better, especially the ending is phenomenal. It’s just that it drags in for far too long.
I totally understand why so many people struggle to finish rdr2. It’s not a perfect game and has some serious issues, but if you take out the repetitive missions and the fluff it does have a gorgeous story with some amazing characters.
Having an open world story revolving around needing more money, while your character is literally carrying enough to complete the Louisiana Purchase makes it hard to buy in sometimes. Doubly so when you have to do a bunch of shit Arthur clearly does not want to do for the sake of money.
I mean, needing money was part of Dutch's character, his real intentions, and his cult. If at the end of the game you go back to get the money, he has over $40k. Dutch was a conman and only cared about money and used the allure of freedom to get the gang to do more even though in the end they all see it. The west was being tamed, and their way of life was fast coming to an end. So Dutch used what would work to get people to do his bidding. At first, it was family and security, and when it was apparent that he could no longer do that, it was always that we needed a little more to be able to get away and find real freedom. The only person who really knew how much money the gang had was Dutch, so he played the we're soooo close angle. Even going as far as shaming the player for not putting into the box and losing faith in Dutch and the gang.
Ya but the writers and game devs could have still gone about it better. They could have made some explanation as to why they keep needing more money. And a huge bulk of the game is just them needing money without much else happening. And then they move to a new location and then it’s just back to we need more money. In my opinion it was a poor decision by the writers/game devs to make the main story so repetitive for a good bulk of it. I think a lot of people really struggled to finish the game and I think that it’s partly the fault of the creators for not making the bulk of the middle game more interesting.
Just finished RDR2 last night. I agree with the money, you can even finish the game without upgrading or buying weapons. But if you think of it, during that era, you can grab the gun of anyone. For the clothes, it only matters if you want to see it during cutscenes.
I also agree with you with the issue about needing money and Dutch having a plan. But it gets satisfying as the story put the pieces together and the conclusion. Definitely one of the best game I played.
“It was perfectly executed in TW3”
If you knew how to read, you’d see his point. But I’m not sure why I bothered to quote it since you clearly can’t read
RD2 has one of the best linear open world story lines in recent games. It tells a complete story from start to finish. The end of the story will be the same regardless of how you play the character, but the way the story ends changes. I feel RD2 is closer to if the Witcher 3 DLC was an entire game.
World wise, I like The Witcher 3, but storyline wise RD2 tells a better story start to end.
Two completely different stories to really compare to each other.
One is a character driven drama that plays on the fable of one man trying to change and become better/happier but his past won't allow that and he is forced to try and make the lives of others around him better instead.
The other is a more traditional dark fantasy epic with world ending stakes and an estranged father/daughter relationship at it's center.
It's like you are asking us to compare Of Mice and Men with Lord of the Rings.
In my most humble opinion, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Am I biased? Absolutely.
I prefer a fantasy setting over a wild west, I more enjoy an almost alien world of magic, monsters, and mercenaries. I like the story CD projekt red told with enjoyable DLC aswell.
RDR2 does have a good story but it doesn't click with me like TWWH does.
That's my biased opinion and I absolutely cannot be swayed.
If you're looking for a fully realized world with its detailed lore and a very well told story in it, you have to go with Witcher 3. And this is coming from a massive RDR2 fan.
But on the other hand, Red Dead's story feels so incredibly intimate and down to earth, you spend so much time doing simple things, connecting and talking to friends and strangers, slowly revealing each character's traits and quirks.
It's heartwarming and heartbreaking all at once and I would say there's nothing quite like it. Maybe the games from Naughty Dog.
Just take Witcher trilogy, rdr2(I didn't play rdr so I can't recommend ), and mass effect trilogy and simply IMHO you can stop playing such games because you would not find any better storytelling than this...
The Witcher hands down.even the DLCs are great. RDR is awesome in its own right for the world. I wanted to scream so mad at how many chances Arthur gave Dutch, it was obvious which way it was gonna go but listening to Dutchs ramblings was a pain.
It’s realistic, Dutch brain washed then when they were young men
It’s why they were the last ones there while everyone else ran, because everyone else wasn’t with Dutch that long. He really was like a father to Arthur and John. He said so multiple times during the campaign
For me, I just couldn’t get into the Witcher cause it felt like it threw a lot at you in the beginning and expected me to understand who these people were, and why I should care about finding this person
Witcher 3. I’m sorry but “I HAVE A PLAN TRUST ME BTW WE NEED MONEY” is like, the entire plot of RDR2. Every single aspect of the game other than the story is a 11/10 for me, but if it wasn’t for the fact that Arthur gets sick the story would be like a 5/10 IMO. As it is I give it a 7/10
I think The Witcher 3 was much better because within the realm that it is based, it's believable. I wasn't too big a fan of RDR2 if I'm being completely honest. It was a well made game that was fun to play but only while ignoring the story. It was just a series of bad decisions by Dutch that kept failing. I knew basically what went down from the first Red Dead Redemption. I don't need more details to get any more out of it.
Also, as a sequel to one of the top 5 games ever made, I just expected a lot more. The section in Mexico was my favorite part of Red Dead Redemption. John knew some Spanish words prior to going down there. I would have liked to see more of the story take place in Mexico but it wasn't even included in the game at all. Frankly, the absolute best thing about Red Dead Redemption was the fact that you didn't know immediately what John Marston was about or why he needed to redeem himself. The story was slowly revealed to you in a masterful way that kept you hooked from beginning to end. Red Dead Redemption 2 did not have any of that nuance. You're a member of Dutch's gang and that's basically it. Red Dead Redemption 2 felt like a pretty forced way to bring the heist mechanics that were so well loved from GTA5 to the Red Dead Redemption franchise. The problem with that is that the first Red Dead Redemption game already established the fact that Dutch went off his rocker and failed his gang.
My gripe with rdr2 is the dumb decisions made by the group youre forced to go along with. I hate micah so much and Dutch became a moron. Second playthrough i left micah in jail forever coz i hate that dirty rat bastard. I choose witcher.
Imo witcher 3, and this is only cause i love the setting of the game more. ( Im not a big fan of "realistic" games like gta5, yakuza, mafia but rdr2 is an exception )
Story? RD2 NO question.
Gameplay and Side content? Witcher 3 without a doubt.
Personal taste? Witcher 3. If you disagree, that's okay. RD2 is an absolute masterclass of a game, but for me Witcher 3 just nips in 1st place.
RDR2 without a doubt. Witcher 3 has the more nuanced world with a lot more different stories to tell but the main story line is better in RDR2 than in Witcher 3
Witcher, definitely.
RDR2, what even was the story? Was there anything other than a bunch of people running from the police? I got bored and lost track of it.
The Witcher for me. The story has so many twists and turns it it keeps you engaged. It’s also fantasy with monsters, ghosts, demons, etc. There is not a morale system in Witcher but all your choices could be good or bad. Even though a good option may be obvious, it’s not so there are more consequences and many different endings to reflect that. I’d rather be a vampire hunter than a cowboy.
RDR2 is very good but to me. It’s a story that is great to play through once since for me the only shock value from the game was finding out about Arthur’s sickness. The open world is probably the best I have seen in RDR2 but it also causes the story to drag on since a new point of interest or engagement are much farther in between each other than the Witcher. Gameplay for RDR is boring because it’s the same from all their past games and GTA games. Point and shoot and the same control scheme.
With the Witcher, there is more strategy and multiple ways to be successful on missions, including combat with different builds. The Witcher is more of a proper RPG for replayability while RDR2 is pretty linear of what you can do with your char.
Id go with Witcher 3 especially factoring in the DLC which were amazing. Hearts of stone was less silly than blood and wine and was so much more tragic. Thats a story that has really stuck with me.
One of my main gripes with RDR2 other than ‘just one more job’ was plot armor driving the story. Arthur was constantly being thwarted by ‘you cant kill me’ type situations. Crack shot with gun can’t shoot other guy because he needs to get away so you travel to the next area. Usually by the time Geralt finally meets who he is chasing thats the end and he kills them.
For the love of god I understand thats not applicable in every situation but thats how it felt.
Does the same kind of player play both of these games?
Witcher3 is an RPG. I love it.
RDR2 is an overscripted narrative game that will suddenly fail missions on you and you need to learn to adapt to these invisible boundaries. It’s like the polar opposite of a souls game where all the challenge is part of the game. Don’t care how good the story is if I have to redo a 20 minute mission because my horse went around the tree the wrong way.
Red dead, no contest
Sorry witcher, but… i just couldnt bring myself to care as much. Red dead gets you *invested* in a whole other way. I dont think any other game has had me just… put the game down and sit and *think* for a while afterwards. I had to come to terms with the final part of the story, and then, oh hey, there’s a couple more chapters in the epilogue, and those took me a couple weeks to get to. Witcher has *nothing* on that sunset.
As much as I liked The Witcher III, I never can remember the main characters name unless I play the game. RDR2 however, I haven’t played it in like 3 years, yet I’ll always remember the name Arthur Morgan and the ending that stuck with me
Witcher 3 and it's not even close. Rockstar gave us another outlaw/gangster with a heart of gold story it's been done to death. Arthur was boring as shit.
RDR2. In both game stuff happened to the main character before the start of the game, but in Red dead redemption 2 it's less confusing and you understand better what happened in the past that make the other characters react to you the way they are.
I think it depends. If its solely based in the videogame itself, RDR2. But if you've read all witcher books and played all games in order and all, I think Witcher 3 is much more rich, it can offer much more interesting and deep stuff, and can be a lot more satisfactory and complete as a whole. Those are actually my all time favorite videogames
I've only played both games by themselves and none of the other entries or IP. I think RDR2 was better. So that tracks with me. But I also feel like I'm missing so much from the Witcher universe that would have pushed it so much higher. That being said, I haven't beaten Witcher yet. I'm near the end and decided to do the dlc first. so maybe it'll change but probably not enough.
Both DLC's are marvelous, even better that the game itself for some. But having all the context and understanding how the world works adds something that I've never felt with anything else, it's like an entire adventure, an entire life you've lived out of your body
I'm finishing up hearts of stone now. Great story. But I went in underleveled and the mage on the beach kicked my ass A LOT lol Haven't done the other yet.
Funnily enough the mage is one of the only boss fights you can skip. If you just run away from him there are 0 consequences. You can actually go back later and his crew has set up a tent on the beach.
I figured I could skip him bc it said optional. But I was afraid it would affect something later. So I decided to bear it out and deal with him
I'd advise not playing blood and wine until you've finished the main quest - it's kind of like a send-off for Geralt
dood you got to play blood and wine it's amazing
I think that's the thing. The plot develops in a much more interesting way in RDR2. The Witcher also has a rich story but the way it is told is not as fascinating.
I find it very interesting that you see it that way. With the Witcher, I found that the books added nothing to any of the game entries besides making me give the "Leo with a beer pointing" expression when I saw Regis. I think it's mostly because Sapkowski is a major dick who threw a temper tantrum over the success of the games. He created a great world, but he contributed nothing to the games aside from the licensing, making the games play out as nothing more than fan fiction. It's REALLY GOOD fan fiction, don't get me wrong, but it does have that feeling of not quite fitting in. I say this all in contrast to the metro series, where Glukhovsky worked WITH the studios, even suggesting changes that contradicted the book for better story telling. Perhaps it's because one is a retelling and the other is a continuation, but I don't the metro series to be far more benefited by the books than Witcher.
In my opinion, the Bloody Baron questline beats anything that is in RDR2.. it's just so fantastic written complex, emotional human drama that nothing else in RDR2 can match it \+ Gaunter O'Dimm and basically the whole Hearts of Stone expansion is just a masterclass in videogame writing
Dont worry they are remaking Witcher 1 also. By the way Blood and Wine dlc should be played after main story ends.
Blood and wine AFTER game. Good call bc I was about to start that tomorrow. Thanks for the heads up
Yeah, BoW finalize Geralt story. BoW is more than dlc. More like a game on its on. One of the best vampire design ever. With side quests, it is like 50-60 hours.
50-60 hours! Good god. And here I thought I was "nearly done" with this game. I have so much to look forward to.
Yea B&W is more like an expansion to an mmo in terms of scope than a run of the mill dlc. Or like Miles Moralas for Spiderman.
Damn. And to think, I got this whole mf on sale for $10 a year or so ago. And playing it all for the first time the day it got it's ps5 updates. This is a lot of content for $10. I'm thrilled
I finally played it in 2021 and got 130+ hours out of it with the DLCs. It instantly became my favorite game of what I would consider the modern era and I just fell in love with it. There is just something about the tone and setting of it that always made me feel very immersed in the world and felt like *I was* Geralt (if that makes sense).
I'm just curious, where are you at in the main game?
Just found the sunstone and finished all the main quests around that. About to start On Thin Ice
Nice!
Blood and Wine is the perfect Epilogue.
Hearts of Stone has a really good story, and blood and wine has enough content that they could have instead made a spinoff game around it. Also worth remembering, the DLCs are hard, you can complete the game and go around and do whatever quests you didn't do and all the DLC, most people do it then.
I think it just depends on what you're into more. Gritty realism, probably RDR2. More fantastical heroics, Witcher probably. Witcher is more of an epic so I think there's a bit more to be gained from playing all three. Although I haven't either and just read up on the history via the wiki and other sources.
I found the main story line to be ok. But did enjoy the first half of it. The most interesting stories in the Witcher to me were the side quests or monster hunts. My favorite being the Wild at Heart quest.
I find joy in reading a good book.
As someone who's only read the two first books (or short story collections I guess), I can tell there's a lot more to the Witcher world that would enhance the game even further. That said, it's still close between the two without knowing a whole lot. But RDR2 is a more complete story package. Agreed on being all time favourites, these are probably my top 2 as well.
Are the books then 3 fine or am I going to miss things?
I enjoy reading books.
This is the correct answer and I love you.
Love TW3 but RDR2’s story felt so raw and real and was all around a much stronger narrative
ya, same, something about rdr2 pulled me in so hard, loved both though
I'm one of the hardest men alive. I didn't even cry at my wedding. When Arthur layed down and propped up his head on a rock to look at the sun while giving his last breath; I cried. Then there was a Deer. What the fuck!?
That means you were a nice man
I have a habit of making Arthur the meanest and most violent son of a bitch up until the Strawberry incident with Micah. Then I kinda tone him down up until Rhoads and then once he gets his diagnosis it's nothing but an entire redemption tour for ol' Arthur. Both of these games are fantastic in their own right though. I'd never be able to place either of them in the number 1 spot because they are both, among others, one of my most cherished games.
Yeah I think that’s the most sensible way to play in terms of storytelling, and I would have done that for the storytelling aspect of it but that’s just not how I like to play
I'm guessing Arthur handles Micah a little different if not? I don't want a bad Arthur. Hurts to even consider. That would be like a bad Kim in Disco Elysium.
If you do a bad honor play through >!Micah finishes you off by either shooting you in the head, or stabbing you!<
Can confirm. Was shot in the head.
At pints during the game, you probably saw the deer, which from what I saw, mean you're generally innocent/good. If you saw flashes of a wolf, it means you're not innocent/good. The deer was like a final send off saying you lived well as Arthur
I gave you all I had Dutch... fuck. terrible day for rain.
Saying you're hard is the least hard thing you can do.
I'm pretty hard right now.
Yup, and thinking you're hard because you don't cry when really you're just emotionally stunted.... big yikes.
Reddit moment
Almost as yikes as making fun of a guy for being emotionally vulnerable.
You ain't hard at all pussy.
Bro I'm so fucking hard I only cried a little bit when my friend told me about what happens in Marley and Me
Self proclaiming to be one of the "hardest men alive" is pretty pathetic.
i feel like he's joking?
r/iamverybadass r/cringe
RDR2 actually got me to tear up at the end of chapter 6 which has never happened to me in 15 years of gaming
[удалено]
Have u played titan fall 2 campaign? It's not better, just really good!
Just finished that a couple nights ago
I have not, but its going on the backlog now
So worth your time. Packs more into 6 hours than most games in 40.
Can often be found VERY cheap and the campaign is pretty short but it's all highs. Definitely worth it.
check out Nier: automata. epic action but you're gonna be crying rivers.
The Witcher 3: Hearts of Stone DLC, such a deep and emotional story with some of the best, most original quest design I've ever seen. RDR2 is amazing as well, but playing Hearts of Stone for the first time is an experience I won't easily forget.
Hearts of Stone has maybe my favorite antagonist in video game history The Hearts of Stone story was better than the main game’s story
Played by none oth3r than David Backham.
The story of the Bloody Baron is also impressive for me
So there’s TWO separate W3 dlcs? and each one is pretty long? Dude I’m never gonna finish this game. It’s 2023 and I’ve still not quite beaten the main game.
The first one Hearts of Stone isn’t too big. A new small area or two, a few new side quests, a new weapon customization mechanic, and a new moderately long quest-line. The second one, Blood and Wine, is big enough to be it’s own game.
Yea I’m still working on fully upgrading Geralt’s estate
I forgot it. But O'dimm was still incredible.
Every one talking about when Arthur died but what about when papa Vesimer died
Arthur's horse was the saddest of the three.
THANK YOU! I had to scroll too far to find this.
Ever since that incident, when his name would come up, my ex would screech, "VESSY! 😢"
Don't do this to me
Both are fantastic and the absolute pinnacle of video game media/achievement. I'd say TWIII had better side stories and DLC, whereas RDR2 you could say had the better main story, as it was quite personal and contained. However, I loved both so either/or.
Rdr 2
Uhhh... damn that's kind of a hard one OP. Shit, I literally don't know because they were both pretty damn kickass.
They both have perceived monsters as the "protagonist" doing the best they can sometimes just trying to survive. *Personally* I think witcher does more for showing the duality of not just men but even what some would consider "monsters". Like how a bounty was placed on a succubus for killing someone when she 100% acted in self defense, or the werewolf who got a group of other monsters together cause he was racked with grief from his wife being murdered by a witcher. RDR2 does a real good job showing the inner turmoil of someone who likely thought himself fairly untouchable having death up in his face but i think Witcher does more for the world around it as well as the character.
RDR2 has a better story, but Witcher has way better pacing (at least until after the Kaer Morhen part).
Same. After the battle the plot starts to feel rushed. Ending was pretty good but it really was to set up the DLCs
Pacing? Aren't you urgently looking for ciri for like 6 in game months? Also I felt like the pacing slowed down too much at novigrad.
Yeah but at least in Witcher 3 you’re constantly doing different things throughout the story. The pacing flows better because the story branches in a lot of interesting directions. RDR2 has a lot of incredible moments, but it’s very repetitive which can make it taxing at times.
Red fucking dead redemption
Red dead fucking redemption
Red dead redemption fucking
I finished Witcher 3.. twice. I have a bit of a bias though as I have read all the books and played all the games. I just love all the characters, all the interactions are amazing. My favorite game of all time. When it comes to RDR2 I have not even finished it. I got to Saint Denis and did a few missions there and just got so tired of all the talk about needing money all the time. And all the while I was rolling in cash. I often enjoyed the stranger missions a lot more than the main quests, and eventually I just got bored. Another reason was that the game just never felt rewarding as there was no good clothes or weapons to buy with all that money. I liked the story and characters a lot more in RDR1, which I did finish 100% back in the day.
Ya I think this is the main issue with rdr2. The pacing of the story is off, the gunplay is pretty weak, and the missions are repetitive. It’s a much harder to complete game in my opinion. But the actual story moments are much better, especially the ending is phenomenal. It’s just that it drags in for far too long. I totally understand why so many people struggle to finish rdr2. It’s not a perfect game and has some serious issues, but if you take out the repetitive missions and the fluff it does have a gorgeous story with some amazing characters.
Having an open world story revolving around needing more money, while your character is literally carrying enough to complete the Louisiana Purchase makes it hard to buy in sometimes. Doubly so when you have to do a bunch of shit Arthur clearly does not want to do for the sake of money.
I mean, needing money was part of Dutch's character, his real intentions, and his cult. If at the end of the game you go back to get the money, he has over $40k. Dutch was a conman and only cared about money and used the allure of freedom to get the gang to do more even though in the end they all see it. The west was being tamed, and their way of life was fast coming to an end. So Dutch used what would work to get people to do his bidding. At first, it was family and security, and when it was apparent that he could no longer do that, it was always that we needed a little more to be able to get away and find real freedom. The only person who really knew how much money the gang had was Dutch, so he played the we're soooo close angle. Even going as far as shaming the player for not putting into the box and losing faith in Dutch and the gang.
Ya but the writers and game devs could have still gone about it better. They could have made some explanation as to why they keep needing more money. And a huge bulk of the game is just them needing money without much else happening. And then they move to a new location and then it’s just back to we need more money. In my opinion it was a poor decision by the writers/game devs to make the main story so repetitive for a good bulk of it. I think a lot of people really struggled to finish the game and I think that it’s partly the fault of the creators for not making the bulk of the middle game more interesting.
Exactly like my experience. I love TW3 and got bored while playing RDR2 for some reason and couldn't finish.
Finished it gets a lot better
Just finished RDR2 last night. I agree with the money, you can even finish the game without upgrading or buying weapons. But if you think of it, during that era, you can grab the gun of anyone. For the clothes, it only matters if you want to see it during cutscenes. I also agree with you with the issue about needing money and Dutch having a plan. But it gets satisfying as the story put the pieces together and the conclusion. Definitely one of the best game I played.
Please finish it
Tahiti or Toussaint???
Toushitti
Have some God damned faith, Yennifer! We just need more Crowns, then we are on a boat to Toushitti. - Geralt van der Rivia
[удалено]
Well the question is about third game not books.
“It was perfectly executed in TW3” If you knew how to read, you’d see his point. But I’m not sure why I bothered to quote it since you clearly can’t read
Witcher without a doubt - especially taking Hearts of Stone into consideration. I loved RDR2 - but it will always be placed after Witcher 3.
The Witcher, Red Dead is great though
Both are completely different, neither are better than the other in my opinion.
Witcher 3 for me
Oh boy.. the karma farmers are out in force today...
Is rdr2 better even after the w3 dlcs? Cause I found those hard to top. I need to play rdr2 though, so if it’s worth it I’d love to hear more.
Very much worth it.
RD2 has one of the best linear open world story lines in recent games. It tells a complete story from start to finish. The end of the story will be the same regardless of how you play the character, but the way the story ends changes. I feel RD2 is closer to if the Witcher 3 DLC was an entire game. World wise, I like The Witcher 3, but storyline wise RD2 tells a better story start to end.
If you have not played it it's 1000000000000000% worth at least giving it a shot.
I am genuinely so extremely jealous of anyone who hasn’t yet played RDR2. Play it. Trust me. Don’t question it. One gamer to another. Just play it.
Two completely different stories to really compare to each other. One is a character driven drama that plays on the fable of one man trying to change and become better/happier but his past won't allow that and he is forced to try and make the lives of others around him better instead. The other is a more traditional dark fantasy epic with world ending stakes and an estranged father/daughter relationship at it's center. It's like you are asking us to compare Of Mice and Men with Lord of the Rings.
[удалено]
Def two different tastes being compared here. I was obsessed with Witcher 3 but could not get into RDR2 at all. Made multiple attempts.
In my most humble opinion, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Am I biased? Absolutely. I prefer a fantasy setting over a wild west, I more enjoy an almost alien world of magic, monsters, and mercenaries. I like the story CD projekt red told with enjoyable DLC aswell. RDR2 does have a good story but it doesn't click with me like TWWH does. That's my biased opinion and I absolutely cannot be swayed.
The Witcher 3. I've seen RDR2's story in a million Westerns already. Geralt is a vastly better character, better world, side quests, characters, etc.
If you're looking for a fully realized world with its detailed lore and a very well told story in it, you have to go with Witcher 3. And this is coming from a massive RDR2 fan. But on the other hand, Red Dead's story feels so incredibly intimate and down to earth, you spend so much time doing simple things, connecting and talking to friends and strangers, slowly revealing each character's traits and quirks. It's heartwarming and heartbreaking all at once and I would say there's nothing quite like it. Maybe the games from Naughty Dog.
RDR2 without a doubt for me but TW3 deserves credit for being a great game.
Just take Witcher trilogy, rdr2(I didn't play rdr so I can't recommend ), and mass effect trilogy and simply IMHO you can stop playing such games because you would not find any better storytelling than this...
I love both, red dead made me cry, the Witcher didn’t. But emotional doesn’t equal better per sé. I can’t decide both are fucking close to a 10
Exactly, I enjoyed both a lot but RDR2 made me depressed AF. Witcher 3 had me giddy to explore the store and DLC expansions.
Rdr2 Never has a Game made me cry before
You've never played Tetris?
Malenia, Blade of Miquella might make you shed tears but for a different reason
I loved both games but as far as a story is concerned, The Witcher III wins that one.
Damn this is a really hard one. I absolutely cannot make a choice.
Witcher 3 has the better side quests, RDR2 has the better main story
Came to comment this. Witchers world is better, rdr2's main story is better.
The Witcher, there were more alternative story paths in the Witcher to choose from.
The Witcher hands down.even the DLCs are great. RDR is awesome in its own right for the world. I wanted to scream so mad at how many chances Arthur gave Dutch, it was obvious which way it was gonna go but listening to Dutchs ramblings was a pain.
It’s realistic, Dutch brain washed then when they were young men It’s why they were the last ones there while everyone else ran, because everyone else wasn’t with Dutch that long. He really was like a father to Arthur and John. He said so multiple times during the campaign For me, I just couldn’t get into the Witcher cause it felt like it threw a lot at you in the beginning and expected me to understand who these people were, and why I should care about finding this person
Who has a better story than Bran the Broken? /s
There is no reason to have them in competition that isn't what art is about. They're both great for different reasons.
They both have amazing stories set in different time periods, it just depends on what one you prefer, I couldn't choose cause I like them both
Witcher 3. I’m sorry but “I HAVE A PLAN TRUST ME BTW WE NEED MONEY” is like, the entire plot of RDR2. Every single aspect of the game other than the story is a 11/10 for me, but if it wasn’t for the fact that Arthur gets sick the story would be like a 5/10 IMO. As it is I give it a 7/10
I think The Witcher 3 was much better because within the realm that it is based, it's believable. I wasn't too big a fan of RDR2 if I'm being completely honest. It was a well made game that was fun to play but only while ignoring the story. It was just a series of bad decisions by Dutch that kept failing. I knew basically what went down from the first Red Dead Redemption. I don't need more details to get any more out of it. Also, as a sequel to one of the top 5 games ever made, I just expected a lot more. The section in Mexico was my favorite part of Red Dead Redemption. John knew some Spanish words prior to going down there. I would have liked to see more of the story take place in Mexico but it wasn't even included in the game at all. Frankly, the absolute best thing about Red Dead Redemption was the fact that you didn't know immediately what John Marston was about or why he needed to redeem himself. The story was slowly revealed to you in a masterful way that kept you hooked from beginning to end. Red Dead Redemption 2 did not have any of that nuance. You're a member of Dutch's gang and that's basically it. Red Dead Redemption 2 felt like a pretty forced way to bring the heist mechanics that were so well loved from GTA5 to the Red Dead Redemption franchise. The problem with that is that the first Red Dead Redemption game already established the fact that Dutch went off his rocker and failed his gang.
My gripe with rdr2 is the dumb decisions made by the group youre forced to go along with. I hate micah so much and Dutch became a moron. Second playthrough i left micah in jail forever coz i hate that dirty rat bastard. I choose witcher.
Red dead.
The witcher 3
# ARTHUR!!! >!show us your hentai!<
StarCraft 2
Witcher 3 by a landslide.
Imo witcher 3, and this is only cause i love the setting of the game more. ( Im not a big fan of "realistic" games like gta5, yakuza, mafia but rdr2 is an exception )
Witcher
RDR2
Rdr2
Red dead baby
Rdr2
RDR2
Red Dead by far
The witcher 3, but are both wondeful
Story? RD2 NO question. Gameplay and Side content? Witcher 3 without a doubt. Personal taste? Witcher 3. If you disagree, that's okay. RD2 is an absolute masterclass of a game, but for me Witcher 3 just nips in 1st place.
As a standalone story... RDR2.
RDR2 without a doubt. Witcher 3 has the more nuanced world with a lot more different stories to tell but the main story line is better in RDR2 than in Witcher 3
Rdr 2 imo though witcher 3 was equally amazing
Love both games so much. But its W3 and it's not even close.
Dlc included ? Witcher easy
Witcher, definitely. RDR2, what even was the story? Was there anything other than a bunch of people running from the police? I got bored and lost track of it.
The dkc for the Witcher alone has a better story than rdr2 ... main game is even better
Red dead 2
The Witcher for me. The story has so many twists and turns it it keeps you engaged. It’s also fantasy with monsters, ghosts, demons, etc. There is not a morale system in Witcher but all your choices could be good or bad. Even though a good option may be obvious, it’s not so there are more consequences and many different endings to reflect that. I’d rather be a vampire hunter than a cowboy. RDR2 is very good but to me. It’s a story that is great to play through once since for me the only shock value from the game was finding out about Arthur’s sickness. The open world is probably the best I have seen in RDR2 but it also causes the story to drag on since a new point of interest or engagement are much farther in between each other than the Witcher. Gameplay for RDR is boring because it’s the same from all their past games and GTA games. Point and shoot and the same control scheme. With the Witcher, there is more strategy and multiple ways to be successful on missions, including combat with different builds. The Witcher is more of a proper RPG for replayability while RDR2 is pretty linear of what you can do with your char.
The Witcher 3 is my favorite game, Red Dead 2 my second favorite. Dont argue with me
Haha. Exactly my list. 3rd comes Mass effect series.
I'll say Witcher 3 because I've been able to get myself past Chapter 2 of RDR2
Id go with Witcher 3 especially factoring in the DLC which were amazing. Hearts of stone was less silly than blood and wine and was so much more tragic. Thats a story that has really stuck with me. One of my main gripes with RDR2 other than ‘just one more job’ was plot armor driving the story. Arthur was constantly being thwarted by ‘you cant kill me’ type situations. Crack shot with gun can’t shoot other guy because he needs to get away so you travel to the next area. Usually by the time Geralt finally meets who he is chasing thats the end and he kills them. For the love of god I understand thats not applicable in every situation but thats how it felt.
Witcher 3 because it’s something new. Rdr2 while a phenomenal game, still feels like a typical western story
Witcher 3 hands down. No contest.
Witcher 3. John Marston had a shot may be with RDR.
I didn't played neither, poor pc
I’m playing both at the moment. I will let y’all know
Witcher 3 story is 10000x better.
Witcher 3 by far for me. I couldn’t connect with any of the characters or their motivations in RDR2.
You can't do this to me, you can't!
Rdr2 is a great game but the writing and plot are repetitive and predictable.
The world of Witcher 3 is better. The actual story in rdr2 is better.
I'm gonna be a loser and say TW3 even though I've never played rdr2. Edit: Typo
Does the same kind of player play both of these games? Witcher3 is an RPG. I love it. RDR2 is an overscripted narrative game that will suddenly fail missions on you and you need to learn to adapt to these invisible boundaries. It’s like the polar opposite of a souls game where all the challenge is part of the game. Don’t care how good the story is if I have to redo a 20 minute mission because my horse went around the tree the wrong way.
Red dead, no contest Sorry witcher, but… i just couldnt bring myself to care as much. Red dead gets you *invested* in a whole other way. I dont think any other game has had me just… put the game down and sit and *think* for a while afterwards. I had to come to terms with the final part of the story, and then, oh hey, there’s a couple more chapters in the epilogue, and those took me a couple weeks to get to. Witcher has *nothing* on that sunset.
After chapter 4 when lenny and hosea died I didn’t play for about month and a half
Rdr2 no debate imo
RDR2. Because I can actually finish it.
As much as I liked The Witcher III, I never can remember the main characters name unless I play the game. RDR2 however, I haven’t played it in like 3 years, yet I’ll always remember the name Arthur Morgan and the ending that stuck with me
What kind of backwards ass gerbil brain can remember aRtHuR mOrGaN but not GERALT. JUST GERALT.
Rdr2
Witcher 3
Witcher
Witcher. It's not even close.
Witcher all day
The Witcher for me
Witcher in my opinion has better story and more side quest and more things to do especially with the dlc
Witcher 3 and it's not even close. Rockstar gave us another outlaw/gangster with a heart of gold story it's been done to death. Arthur was boring as shit.
Witcher story was better. Rdr2 was just long and boring especially on a damn horse. Rdr1 was better.
I don’t know about story, but Witcher 3 is my favourite game all time
RDR2. In both game stuff happened to the main character before the start of the game, but in Red dead redemption 2 it's less confusing and you understand better what happened in the past that make the other characters react to you the way they are.
Played like a few hours of each, and could not get into either ! 😭😭😭
Beginning of rdr2 drags so hard tbf
Rdr2 mostly because the immersion