It's time to discuss the greatest RPG ever made

1>3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>also 3 is good but it's not an rpg

No, because 2 is obviously the worst. Most crucially, it's a major deviation from the excellent slavic atmosphere of the original, arguably the greatest strong point of the series, while 3 had a return to form. It's by far the shortest even if you count acts 2 and 3 twice. It barely has you doing any of the witcher stuff. It might change an act but the number of decisions that change anything are low and there's always low personal stakes, so it's not very good from RP point of view. It exhibits "modern" designs like QTEs to a more offensive degree than 3. It has a bad implementation of rollrollroll action combat. Etc. Basically, everything where The Witcher truly excels at, it's worse than the original, and as an AAA title (production values, etc) it's worse than 3. Literally the worst of both worlds.

Attached: 1358694099076.jpg (500x637, 194.16K)

>2 is obviously the worst

Attached: brain.gif (340x223, 1.99M)

Sorry, my bad. What I meant is "2 is obviously the worst, on condition that you don't have a terrible, plebeian, taste"

But that's not [Irrelevant game from the late twentieth to early twenty-first centuries] it was so revolutionary and amazing! It was just not popular in [insert country here] over in [insert home country here] it was really popular. [Game] really blows the witcher 3 out of the water.

Based

>Based

Attached: redditor.png (762x988, 853.34K)

CAREFUL NOW GERALT CAREFUL

Attached: 6B8FCA55-A8C6-4D23-ADD2-C321A8AEB05A.png (1200x675, 1.3M)

Based on what?

The gameplay in 3 was really boring. The only fun I think I got from the game was learning gwent until I even that became spy spam