this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
140 points (96.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43897 readers
966 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think that's maybe a bit harsh compared to a lot of the games mentioned here. Witcher 1 definitely has a lot of problems compared to 2 and 3 but it had a lot going for it as well. Sure the combat was broken as hell once you got all the spinning moves and it was super sexist with the women as trading cards thing. But the story and world building were still fun and Geralt was well characterised. It's not a great game but it did well enough to get them the sequels. Definitely nowhere near the worst game I've played.
For sure - by "looking at it through the lens of relativity" I guess I failed to specify what I was holding it relative to - where my brain's at W1 as a starting point, and the quality of W2 and W3... Relative to other trilogies that actually did well, Witcher's starting point is hot trash. Like, a game that bad doesn't generally go on to have good sequels, but the degree of improvement in both W2 and W3 is fucking astounding.