Combat in 3 gets a lot of shit from people, but it's inarguably better than 2. You can actually use potions in battle again like in 1, the timing of combat animations isn't as fucked up as it was in 2, there's a step dodge that makes positioning a lot easier and lets you cancel out of other animations to a certain extent while removing the need to roll around constantly, and everything just generally works a lot better. It's still not exactly great, but it's easily the best combat CDPR has done.

The overall world and atmosphere in 3 is a bit different from 2, and a little more similar to the first game. It still uses all the medieval fantasy tropes but has a more distinctly "Polish" flavour and more sort of dark fairy-tale inspired elements and nods to the Witcher novels, as opposed to 2 which kinda wants to be A Song of Ice and Fire.

The overall writing and quests are pretty similar in terms of quality. I'd say TW3 is a bit better-written but not as tightly paced, but if the writing/quest design in 2 doesn't really grab you then 3 probably won't either. Especially with the overreliance 3 has on quests where you basically just turn on Witcher Senses and look for glowing shit.

The Witcher 2 is really short as far as RPGs go (~30 hours) so you might as well finish it. I would say if you don't like it that much you probably won't like Witcher 3 much more, as it has some of the same faults. The biggest difference is the open world, which honestly doesn't add that much to the game as a lot of the stuff in it is kind of filler, like half the points of interest just being monster nests or bandit camps.

>>323002612
2 is better than 3 in all aspects. There is no contest there.

>>323002612
TW2 is all around shit, and a huge downgrade from the original.

TW3 is quite a bit more LIKE the original, and thus a lot better, but its console-roots still show.

>>323005584
TW2 is the worst game in the whole series.
Linear, cramped, action-packed, filled with QTEs, consolized and has terrible controls + UI.

I don't understand why they had to cut the sword stances, nerf the alchemy, and restrict use of potions outside combat, all while making their effect too short to be used earlier.

>>323005952
Pseudo open world, so you have all the exploration, and none of the low quality bullshit padding content 3 suffers from, like points of interest and copy pasted caves.

Combat is vastly superior.

Your choices actually matter to how the game plays out, and not just for the ending like in 3.

Alchemy was actually useful instead of boring stat boosts

>>323002612
TW3 is much better than 2, but you might as well finish 2 because it's not that long

>>323006752
Linear pipes with nothing.

Combat is terrible.

Your "choices" literally only change one chapter, not the whole game in numerous way.

Alchemy was streamlined to total bullshit.

Gameplay
3>1>2
Story
2>3>1
Overall
3>1>2

I hope that cleared it up. 2 has garbage combat and awful menus, but Letho and Broche and politics hold it up.
1 is amazing if you're not an ADHD CoD kiddie.
3 is very accessible for plebs, but has a lot of book references.

>>323006902
Youre talking about 3, right?

Witcher 3 has Arkham Asylum combat but atleast it works. Witcher 2 has shit hitboxes, no lockon, the inability to circle strafe and feels like a shitty version of Dark Souls combat. Witcher 3 atleast has you feeling like a nimble Witcher.

Overall in my opinion 3 > 1 > 2