Is he right?

Is he right?

Attached: C12D9358-9382-41E1-A4FD-1D7A1E052F5E.jpg (1242x1607, 1012.94K)

>Twitter screencap
>lightmode
>Literal who
>frogposter
Fucking kill yourself, OP. You should be perma b&.

I don't speak moon runes so no

really dude? you can't understand what he's saying based on the context
the same word with different numbers and pepe dressed up as a certain video game character
oh golly gee what could it be?

>twittee

I don't know what that image is

all 3 are terrible, polak

Attached: 1651696546675.gif (450x426, 3.22M)

W1 had the most soul but I prefer what W3 did more. I like content and they filled the game with shit to do and made even the side quests feel like an experience. W1 is jank kino but I could play W3 all day. W2 is a good study in why choices should only be illusory in vidya. They really tried to make it matter but it was just so much work and ultimately didn't pay off. It is mildly irritating that none of your choices really mattered in W3.

btw, I have no doubt they'll completely fuck up W4. It will be an abomination with brown and blacks tainting everything. It will look like downtown chicago and they'll call it progress.

it's the witcher you underage faggot
and don't pretend you never heard about it, it was all over the internet in 2014
the only way you could've missed it is if you were still shitting your diapers

*i mean that none of the choices you made in Witcher 2 made any real difference in Witcher 3 except some slightly different outcomes if you let a couple people live in W2.

Nobody actually believes Witcher 1 is better than 3, its something pretentious tools say to appear sophisticated and better than the rest since 3 was the (deservedly) most popular one.

>Lightmode bad
>>>/R/eddit

Pierdolony rak z wykopu

I really like witcher 1, it reminds me of Assassins creed 1 with how its feel was gradually lost with sequels and something better, but not for me rose from the ashes.
I agree with frogman

No.
3 is worse than 2, a lot of things are better but the writing really is atrocious, while 2 has the best writing and all original story and original characters

I'm playing throught the first game right now and, even though I really enjoy it, I wouldn't say it's better than 3.

Attached: Untitled2.png (1920x1080, 3.41M)

Blood and wine>Everything else

2 isn't even as good as 1 let alone 3.
Good game but it's definitely the weakest of the trilogy.
Cope.

Attached: 1488171016733.png (396x378, 58.79K)

W3 combat is an absolute joke.

For me it's 1>2>3

Nope. Completely indecipherable to me, sorry. Perhaps if it was written in something approaching an actual language, I would be able to piece together it's meaning; but whatever's written here is just gobbledygook.

Yes. That is absolutely correct.