Need help deciding what game to get, Diablo 3 or the Witcher 2?

Hey guys,

So, I have $66 trade in credit for Gamestop and I am interested in buying either of these 2 games. Here's the thing, right now the Witcher 2 is $30 at Gamestop so that makes it pretty enticing (Diablo 3 is still at $60). Also, I have never played either the first Witcher game or either of the previous Diablo games. I have, however, downloaded and played through the recently released Diablo 3 starter edition demo and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It seems like the type of game I could dig deep into and get a lot of value out of it. Reading reviews and listening to Patrick talk about it on the Bombcast, the Witcher 2 also sounds like a great game that I would enjoy. I enjoyed Skyrim, and love Game of Thrones, and this seems to be set in a similar world as those.

So which game would you guys recommend? Which do you think I'd get the most value out of and enjoy the most?

They are very different games. If you enjoy hunting for loot you will get more value for Diablo 3.

This is a ridiculous comparison.

Regardless, The Witcher 2 is one of my favourite games. Ever. So, I'd go with that.

You can't really compare the two. But Witcher 2, definitely.

The Witcher 2 is significantly better. Sadly you missed it on the steam sale, it was going for $18. D3 is a very repetitive game with a less than sufficient end-game.

Diablo 3's main goal is "farming efficently" the final difficulty, inferno, is nothing more than a gear check at every turn. It's not hard, but it just loses value that once you beat it, it has nothing left. D3 is expected to get PvP at some point, but that will not be for a while.

Witcher 2, hands down.

Do you like a great story, with genuine choices, but with jankyish combat... choose The Witcher 2. Do you like a grind-loot fest with a thin narrative, but ootentially hundreds of hours of samey content... choose Diablo 3. Personally Witcher 2 hands down, but be warned the first few hours are the worst in that game, and you may initially regret your purchase.

@GetEveryone said:

This is a ridiculous comparison.

Regardless, The Witcher 2 is one of my favourite games. Ever. So, I'd go with that.

I'm not necessarily trying to compare the two. I'm just saying, given the two options, which would you recommend. Thanks for your suggestion!

Gerald would eat Diablo for breakfast, so Witcher 2.

Witcher 2 is a better game, but the drive in both is different. Witcher 2 has a great story and characters, active combat, some loot but isn't loot driven. DIablo 3 has a terrible worthless story, and is all about loot.

Haven't played D3 yet but I have nothing but good things to say about TW2. Get it!

@Riboflavin said:

Witcher 2 is a better game, but the drive in both is different. Witcher 2 has a great story and characters, active combat, some loot but isn't loot driven. DIablo 3 has a terrible worthless story, and is all about loot.

Hmmm, Witcher 2 seems to have more of what I'm going for then. I think I'm leaning on getting that now.

Have you maybe thought about Guild Wars 2? I hear that game's kinda cool.

Otherwise the people who are saying Witcher 2 are all correct.

No brainer, I am the first person in line to tell you Witcher 2 is massively over rated. I would also get in line to tell you that despite that it is still an okay game and Diablo 3 is just a poor man's Diablo 2 with better graphics.

Unless you love boring, grindy, uninspired dungeon crawls, you want the Witcher 2 over rated or otherwise.

Also, I think it's important to note that I'm gonna be getting the Xbox 360 version of the Witcher 2. My PC, while good enough to run Diablo 3 at good settings, will probably die trying to run the Witcher 2. How's the 360 version? It's seemed like Patrick liked it well enough.

You can always get Borderlands or Titan Quest with what is left over, probably even the expansions too if you want.

That's like asking if you should get a bible or bagpipes. Get the cheaper one first, I guess?

The Witcher 2 is challenging, visually stunning, and has a compelling, well-realized narrative with multifaceted characters and a heavy emphasis on impactful choice. It's easily one of the best role-playing games in years, and it's from a studio which has some of most consumer-friendly practices in the industry.

Diablo 3 is a loot conveyor belt with a paper thin narrative, repetitive gameplay, and a difficulty curve which is basically tied to your luck in getting sick drops. I enjoy a dungeon crawler from time to time, and Diablo 3, for what it is, is a fine game, but The Witcher 2 is superior. Plus you'd be putting off throwing cash at Activision and Blizzard. Diablo 3 will be kicking for years so wait for a Steam sale down the road.

Witcher 2, because it's cheaper.

Diablo's great though.

I think i would get W2 cuz Diablo is just fun the first week then you've been bored out of doing the same things over and over.

@SuperZamrod said:

Also, I think it's important to note that I'm gonna be getting the Xbox 360 version of the Witcher 2. My PC, while good enough to run Diablo 3 at good settings, will probably die trying to run the Witcher 2. How's the 360 version? It's seemed like Patrick liked it well enough.

For what it's worth, I loved The Witcher and played it on PC. I got the 360 version of The Witcher 2 and stopped playing after a few hours because I thought the controls were atrocious, which I not something I can say for many games. Maybe you get used to them in time, but it's something to consider. I'm sure I'll come back to playing it.

That said, I loved D3 despite its seriously flawed storyline. I don't think you'll go wrong with D3, but based on what people say about The Witcher 2, it seems like that's a great experience in the long run as well.

The Witcher 2. It's a really great role-playing experience and one of the best-looking games in recent years. Diablo 3 was fun for about two weeks for me. Then it turned absolutely mind-numbing.

@Triumvir said:

The Witcher 2 is challenging, visually stunning, and has a compelling, well-realized narrative with multifaceted characters and a heavy emphasis on impactful choice. It's easily one of the best role-playing games in years, and it's from a studio which has some of most consumer-friendly practices in the industry.

Diablo 3 is a loot conveyor belt with a paper thin narrative, repetitive gameplay, and a difficulty curve which is basically tied to your luck in getting sick drops. I enjoy a dungeon crawler from time to time, and Diablo 3, for what it is, is a fine game, but The Witcher 2 is superior. Plus you'd be putting off throwing cash at Activision and Blizzard. Diablo 3 will be kicking for years so wait for a Steam sale down the road.

Diablo 3 isn't on Steam...

Anyway, judging by their predecessors I'd say The Witcher 2. I haven't actually played Diablo 3 or The Witcher 2, just some of Diablo 2 and The Witcher and I definitely preferred the one that chucked James Bond into dark fantasy.

Witcher 2, no contest.

If you like Game of Thrones, you will LOVE this. The political intrigue and characterisation is incredibly well done and leagues ahead of its contemporaries. Bioware should be taking serious notes from them on how to do fantasy.

Also, I just find it a more fun game. Diablo 3 felt so mindless. Positioning and timing plays far more of an active role in the combat in the witcher.

Also, it's a gorgeous game, both artistically and technically and the world is a joy to explore. I cannot recommend it enough.

EDIT: Also, I went into the Witcher 2 cold, not having played the first and I understood everything. Don't consider that a barrier to entry as the story is told well enough (and without clunky exposition) that it works as a self contained narrative experience.

@SuperZamrod said:

How's the 360 version?

It's really well-optimized, and worth supporting since they took the effort to make a proper console version. Definitely one of the best looking games on the 360 (up there with Gears 3 and Max Payne 3). Combat itself feels perfect with a gamepad, only some minor UI navigation quirks that take some getting used to.

Witcher 2 man, that game is a must play, Diablo 3 is just more Diablo.

I had a lot more fun with Witcher 2.

Witcher 2!

Get Witcher 2 and then get Titan Quest gold edition on Steam.

Witcher 2

Witcher 2, and then with your extra money maybe get the other Diablos? At least the second one. Or maybe just get Witcher 1.

The Witcher 2 is great and you should absolutely play that game at some point but I beat it and have never touched it again.

I've beaten Diablo 3 several times and will probably keep going back to it especially after updates/expansions.

The Witcher is great but you may get more game out of Diablo 3.

(I never played the first Witcher either so that's not even a factor if you're ever worried about that.)

Well, one game has an incredibly immersive world with a great story and a very likeable main character, while the other is a soulless grind. Of course, me saying that Diablo 3 is a soulless grind is entirely my opinion. But I think you should get The Witcher 2. Do it.

@Karkarov said:

Witcher 2 is massively over rated.

Disclaimer: I am a Witcher 2 nut.

Despite that, the phrase 'over-rated' can't help but come with a tonne of stigma. It's an ego term and nothing more.

Consider: the general population love something and it has been critically lauded, it is universally accepted as a best in field.

Yet there are sparse voices of dissent.

The noise of the praise has settled, and over the murmurings they are heard. 'Over-rated!', one shouts. 'Your estimation of the quality of this product is wrong,' another bellows. They demand to be heard, projecting their estimations of the object's perceived worth onto generally accepted opinion.

...and there is the true meaning: 'I am right and the rest are wrong'. Either this is exactly what people mean, or their actual stance is 'I don't like it despite the vast praise,' (which, of course, is totally acceptable).

Fuck 'over-rated', I'm on a mission to see that term lost in the abyss. Of course, it works the other way, too.

Diablo 3 is amazing if you have someone to play with. In the long run, playing alone can be pretty boring. The Witcher 2 is a completely singleplayer game, so if you don't plan on playing D3 with friends, get The Witcher 2.

Like others have said, It's hard to compare the two. For me though, Witcher 2 wins easily.

I'm yet to play Witcher 2, and very much want to, but D3 is fantastic and very easy to fall headfirst into, so yeah. Anyway, you've played the starter edition, so you know full well what that game's all about. If you want to keep going with it, then do.

@GetEveryone: Just wanted to say that I enjoyed the articulate nature of your post. The writing was well crafted and your point salient.

Also, Witcher 2 is pretty great and I need to finish the play through I started.

TW2. No contest.

Witcher was a great game, but I didnt find much replay value in it. Diablo is solid. and a huge time sink. You really should not miss out on the Witcher regardless, but for a money value as well as enjoyment worth Id go with Diablo I guess.

Disclaimer: I am a Witcher 2 nut.

Despite that, the phrase 'over-rated' can't help but come with a tonne of stigma. It's an ego term and nothing more.

Consider: the general population love something and it has been critically lauded, it is universally accepted as a best in field.

Yet there are sparse voices of dissent.

The noise of the praise has settled, and over the murmurings they are heard. 'Over-rated!', one shouts. 'Your estimation of the quality of this product is wrong,' another bellows. They demand to be heard, projecting their estimations of the object's perceived worth onto generally accepted opinion.

...and there is the true meaning: 'I am right and the rest are wrong'. Either this is exactly what people mean, or their actual stance is 'I don't like it despite the vast praise,' (which, of course, is totally acceptable).

Fuck 'over-rated', I'm on a mission to see that term lost in the abyss. Of course, it works the other way, too.

By this rationale, anything that ever gets praise from a lot of people always deserves it (otherwise known as Argumentum ad populum or the 'appeal to the masses' fallacy). The phrase 'overrated' will never be half as problematic as this perspective.

TW2 is a good, sometimes very good game, but even as a fan of the series I'd definitely consider it overrated. It has severe pacing issues, wildly inconsistent difficulty curve, not-so-great combat, bad UI, some issues with narrative flow and some dubious design choices. I'd take it over Diablo 3 any day of the week, since that just isn't my type of RPG, but without the graphical gloss I don't think TW2 would have quite the reputation it has.

i enjoyed the fuck out of both. so just toss a coin you wont be disappointed with either.

Diablo III has no endgame, so go Witcher 2.

@Laivasse: Point taken.

Though the AadP posits that popular opinion can and does change widely, wildly and differs regionally and culturally, semantically my argument still holds water (you should have seen this sentence before I re-wrote it).

You may believe that product A has such and such flaws, but if I believe any flaws it does have are transcended by its otherwise appealing aspects (in fact, I may be unable to perceive A's negative qualities at all), then I am not wrong and I haven't 'over-rated' A.

Extrapolating that idea, if the general consensus is that A is a quality product, based on the same reasoning ('conformity' struggles to apply here, given we are talking about a structured analysis of the qualitative aspects of A) the dissenting voices cannot claim that the masses have incorrectly 'over-rated' A.

Saying that, I concede that opinion is fickle. Gone With The Wind was once a beloved classic and is now widely regarded as bloated and racist.

I stand by my point, though. I'm stubborn and hate to be told that my (often unreasonable) decision to enjoy something is wrong because this person says so.

Specifically? I agree with neither your combat nor UI points. The action itself may boil down to rhythmic button presses, but everything on the periphery is absorbing. Oils, potions, signs - if you want more from the action, it is there to be pored over. Similarly, given that there is much information to be relayed, the UI is surprisingly intelligible.

The learning curve leaves much to be desired, though, and the narrative suffers a little here and there for juggling too many plot-points (I'll also say that the branching path divergence offers very little in the way of worth upon replay - the game's mechanics come away at the seems a little there). Besides that, the option to play the introduction out of sync is bewildering (which also gives rise to learning-curve issues).

@sixpin said:

@GetEveryone: Just wanted to say that I enjoyed the articulate nature of your post. The writing was well crafted and your point salient.

Also, Witcher 2 is pretty great and I need to finish the play through I started.

Thanks, man. I know it's just a message board, but I enjoy writing and try to convey that in my posts.

Also, you should. It's great.

Christ, don't get Diablo 3. Biggest let down in recent gaming history for me personally. The Witcher games are amazing, get them.

I would offer up getting the The Witcher 2 for its story and environment and then get Torchlight 2 in a few weeks. I played both Torchlight 1 and Diablo 3 and while I did put a lot of hours into Diablo 3 I was ultimately kind of let down. The problem is you aren't really playing the game for loot, you are playing the AH to better your character. In my 60 hours in Diablo 3 I never equipped a single thing I got from a loot drop. However Torchlight doesn't have an AH (auction house btw) and because they have enchanters and gems etc within town I was constantly using the actual drops for my own upgrades. Plus I just felt more connected to my character and loved the art style.

I think you will easily fall in love with The Witcher 2, whether it's with the story/writing, the characters, the gameplay or the artstyle, if you are in to fantasy avdenture games I think you will be quite pleased. Diablo on the other hand is different. If you are not familiar with Diablo then let me explain: Some old person... Monsters... Archangel... Diablo...Loot. Pretty much loot. It's very addictive, and great if you have friends too, but as with every other loot game it can easily get repetitive, but if you have friends to play with then it can counter that fast. Me personally would go for The Witcher 2 because I don't have friends to play with and I like to immerse myself into the story & characters. The Witcher 2 - Witcher 1 too - does that perfectly. We are all different and I'm not saying you can't do that on Diablo. I'm just telling my personal experience.

I think both options are good regardless, and will most likely suffice the money you spent.

Witcher 2. Don't look back.

@GetEveryone said:

@Karkarov said:

Witcher 2 is massively over rated.

Disclaimer: I am a Witcher 2 nut.

Despite that, the phrase 'over-rated' can't help but come with a tonne of stigma. It's an ego term and nothing more.

You did read my post where I went on to say it was still a good game and better than Diablo 3 right?

The Witcher 2 (I assume PC) is a game that will be remembered for decades to come.

Diablo 3 will also be remembered for decades, but it's more of a cautionary tale of how you shouldn't fuck up a good thing.

@Karkarov said:

@GetEveryone said:

@Karkarov said:

Witcher 2 is massively over rated.

Disclaimer: I am a Witcher 2 nut.

Despite that, the phrase 'over-rated' can't help but come with a tonne of stigma. It's an ego term and nothing more.

You did read my post where I went on to say it was still a good game and better than Diablo 3 right?

I did, that's why I was speaking in generalities. I only picked your comment because you used that phrase and I'd been wanting to write about it for a while.