I played through W1 (for the second time) in 2017, W2 in Jan (only got 1/3 of the way through originally), and W3 in March (first time). Each game approaches combat in very different ways in terms of mechanics but I felt that each contained the same core essence. I preferred the combat in W2 but I could absolutely understand why someone would prefer W1. I would say that W1 is a deeply flawed but still great game, W2 is simply a great game, and W3 is one of the best games ever.
Had trouble getting into Witcher as well, and it's weird because I normally love action RPG games. I might have overdosed on Fallout 3 and its expansions too much just beforehand, though. The combat in Witcher 1 in melee felt looser/slidey for lack of a technical term and I had gotten used to the precise control of your player actions in Fallout 3. YMMV, it could just be in my head.
Comments
Could you be more specific? My girlfriend loves 1, and says 2 was a major step down for her in gameplay.
1 and 2 are frequently sold at heavy discount so I already bought them both. I haven't gotten to try 1 yet as it doesn't have a Linux version.
I played through W1 (for the second time) in 2017, W2 in Jan (only got 1/3 of the way through originally), and W3 in March (first time). Each game approaches combat in very different ways in terms of mechanics but I felt that each contained the same core essence. I preferred the combat in W2 but I could absolutely understand why someone would prefer W1. I would say that W1 is a deeply flawed but still great game, W2 is simply a great game, and W3 is one of the best games ever.
Had trouble getting into Witcher as well, and it's weird because I normally love action RPG games. I might have overdosed on Fallout 3 and its expansions too much just beforehand, though. The combat in Witcher 1 in melee felt looser/slidey for lack of a technical term and I had gotten used to the precise control of your player actions in Fallout 3. YMMV, it could just be in my head.