Do you think that the witcher 2 doesn't have enough monsters?

[Rima]

I haven't really counted nearly as many as the witcher 3 (but that's to be expected) and I thought there was a lot missing from the monster hunting role you're supposed to play as a witcher. I want to hear your opinions.

[Candy Witch]

I was perfectly fine with the way it was here.

The first and third Witcher games have lots of monster contracts and hunts for Geralt to go on, so they satisfied my desire for that particular aspect.

The Witcher 2 has a very tight, fast-paced storyline. There's very little exploration to be done, and only a few contracts on a side, so it never bothered me.

I'd actually argue that the first game got the balance right, in this regard. The third game had amazing side stories and side quests with all the contracts, but it didn't fit into the pace of the main story there, which seemed like you should be hurrying along a lot more, much like in the second game. There's a sense of urgency and the open world exploration and tons of side quests didn't really fit that, IMHO. Still a great game, but the pacing felt off to me.

The Witcher 2 has perfect pacing, by comparison. You spend most of your time following the main story. The focus is on the kingslayer story arc, so you deal a lot more with people than with monsters, in part because people are the worst monsters. I also always understood this as an analogy, but I may be wrong.