Okay let me start with two heavy hitters right from the get go and don't forget these are only personal oppinions and I absolute understand if you like those games. Good for you!
Zelda: Breath of the Wild -
Not a bad game per se, but I don't get the hype behind it. Sure the dungeons are fun but the world is so lifeless, the story non existent, the combat pretty shallow, the tower climbing is very much like FarCry but for some reasons it's okay here while Ubisoft gets the blame...like I said I dont get why the game is so beloved. Never finished it after the 20 hour mark and probably never will.
Red Dead Redemption 2 -
Just like Zelda not a bad game, but imho highly overrated. Graphics and and atmosphere are amazing but the controls are clunky and overloaded, nearly everybody is an unlikable douchebag who I would love to shoot myself at the first opportunity (maybe except Jack and Abigail) but I have to root and care for them. The game is just so long and feels very stretched, you already know that you won't get Dutch because it's a prequel and for an open world game you often get handholded in your weapon selection or things you can do because you have to wait for them to be unlocked by the game. I'm now nearly done with the game, playing the epilogue at the moment and I would say the last chapters are more entertaining than the rest of the game, but I still can't understand why this game was on so many game of the year lists and I really wanted to put the controller down a dozen times.
So there they are, two highly controversial oppinions by me and now I'm really curios what your takes are and how highly I get downvoted into oblivion ๐
Witcher 2 is the most underrated entry in the series, and has by far the most interesting story to tell. I'm shocked you find 3's story complicated as its pretty simplistic in comparison. Yeah it has more characters from the books involved, but the game tells you pretty much everything you need to know about all of them. Overall I enjoyed 3, but as a followup to Witcher 2 its pretty disappointing story-wise. Both games have shit combat, so if you're not invested in the story/world they aren't worth playing.
I think the explanations are the problem, it's overloading me with information... I feel like every cutscene is a wall of text that I'm barely able to follow... Witcher 2 felt like I was learning about the world in a more natural way
I see what you mean and can get down with that. The writing in 2 is in general much tighter then 3. It's a shame that compared to 3 relatively few people have played it.
Personal opinions aside as an open world RPG by itself Witcher 3 is pretty good, it's was a breakout success and remains a popular game for good reason. As a follow-up to Witcher 2 though it's pretty disappointing. Switching over to an open world does the storys pacing and stakes no favors, and it feels like CDPR is limited by following up the book series and trying to utilize its characters. As evidenced by Witcher 2 and the Hearts of Stone expansion for 3, it seems like their writers are much more comfortable writing their own original stories and characters. 3's main storyline doesn't introduce anyone nearly as interesting as Letho, Roach, and Iorveth, except for maybe the Baron, who like the others is an original character.
Additionally everything 2 spends time building up for 3 has pretty disappointing payoffs. The Northern Realms politics were a focus for 2, in 3 they are overly simplistic and somewhat nonsensical. Radovid is depicted as a cunning, competent, and ruthless king in 2, but goes blubbering mad off-screen between games. The Wild Hunt is barely a presence in the games storyline despite being it's namesake and Eredin is a flat and boring antagonist. I understand why Witcher 3 is so popular, but as someone who was a big fan of 2 and was incredibly hyped for it, I found it to be incredibly underwhelming.