Blaze (he/him)The Witcher III is currently on sale for 3€ until 25th May
jherazobFor those of us who have never played any of them, is it suggested you go through 1 and 2 first? Is there a recommended play order? Or just "Jump into 3 and forget about it"?
AudaciousThe first game is very dated and not recommended to play. CDPR admits it themselves and wanted to do a rework of the game, but that was said years ago, and IDK if they did it or not.
You can play the 3rd before the 2nd game and be just fine, because the two story lines are not completely connected, only with references and side content. Same with the first in the series.
The 2nd game is much shorter than the 3rd, and is not open world like the 3rd is. I liked both games, and didn’t played the first.
How did you make it through the “sneak through the enemy encampment” bullshit? I really liked the visuals, and cannot tell you how much I loved that first gigantic Kaiju kraken fight, but for the love of God that sneaking mission was bullshit!
It’s been a long time since I played those games. I need a little more detail on what exactly you are referencing. I probably should play W2 again, because I remember less of that game than W3.
It was so long ago I only remember tidbits. But it was fairly early. I fought I giant octopus and some camouflage creatures in some woods, then I remember meeting (or tracking maybe) the king slayer in an area that kinda looked like the ayeliad ruins in oblivion. Then it was night and I had to sneak around this army encampment with tents and shit. I’ll probably just try again with a guide one of these days, but that didn’t cross my mind back then.
Had to look it up, and there are different paths in Act 2, and I chosen Roche over Ioreth’s. I don’t remember any sneaking missions because I didn’t take that route. I should play it again with the other route.
There is a continuing story, but the first two are very different games, even from each other. They’re certainly fun, but won’t really be indicative of anything other than if you like the story or not, which you could mostly gather from wikis or video summaries. All that to say - it likely won’t change your experience of 3 if you don’t play the previous two directly.
I would only recommend the first one of you can stomach a dated system. The story very well written.
Just to be safe, I recommend 2nd then 3rd. The second game is short enough and the graphic still hold up.
I recommend playing them in order, you can Import your save file from 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3, carrying over narrative choices you’ve made. Also you get really good (and well earned) starting gear if you import the save.
The first one, while being ultra mega jank has some of the best writing out of any game I evet played. Choices really matter in this game and the game really respects your time for doing your homework whether it be monster hunting or investigations. It has more than the usually bad side, good side choice, characters can die because of your decisions (or even lack of). If you can see past babies first attempt of a combat system, the first Witcher game is amazing.
Hitch42I agree with this. Witcher 1’s combat mechanics are arcane enough to make the game frustrating, but the story is worth experiencing. After a couple of attempts to power through it, I used a godmode cheat and had much more fun playing.
UndercoverUlrikHDThe atmosphere of game 1 is incredible, but it might be a bit dated for most people, especially the combat system. You can perfectly start with any of the 3 games without a problem.
I’m a huge Witcher fan and couldn’t stomach the first game unfortunately. Luckily there is a neat recap video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=X52-ssOk2KM
I do recommend playing the second one before the third though, even though the stories are standalone.
I do recommend the books if you feel like it. Books -> Witcher 1 recap vid -> Witcher 2 -> Witcher 3 is my recommendation for best experience.
The Witcher 1 Story Summary in 5 Minutes (official cinematic)
Did the books come before the videogames? If so, are the games faithful to the books?
Yes, books came out some years before games. I think aroind late 80s/early 90s. My understanding is in Poland even people not usually into fantasy know of the books.
Games are fairly faithful to the books, at least in spirit. There are some problematic things lore wise that they did in games but I can understand why with most. No adaptation can be 1:1 and I understand it. Overall, I’m happy with how the games ended up.
First game, I didn’t like that much though. One thing is that the age is showing on the gameplay. I could get over that, but the story also recycled too many things from the books. The main story is its own thing, but there are many story beats that felt copied, with some things changed up to mask it. Pretty sure some sidequests were just stories from books, but with diferent characters. It was not bad, but it broke the immersion and I just couldn’t get over it. This in combination with the aged gameplay just made me look for a recap.
Stoked for the announced remake of the Witcher 1 though.
Thanks for the information! I may give the books a read.
First two are collections of short stories so there is no big time invesment with testing it out. You can try the waters and see how you like the style and if you don’t like it enough to continue, at least you have a book that works on its own.
Witcher 1 was weird, but I finished it just a few years ago. The combat is half automatic. Like, if you get a dodge skill it just means that when an enemy attacks, “Dodge” might appear above your head more often as enemies attack you. You dont actually dodge anything.
Geralt just swings his sword like crazy (automatically) and numbers appear above the enemies to indicate damage. It’s a constant stream of numbers. And you press buttons once in a while to cast spells, change combat style, or do special moves. At least I think you manually trigger special moves. It’s been a while.
If you watch this video on YouTube, you’ll see what I mean. None of the sword slashes involve pressing a button. They just happen.
I thought it was worth playing. Janky, yes, but worth playing. I played 1 and 2 before playing 3.
The Witcher 1 : All attacks for each style
I’m gonna say just play the 3rd one, and if you can bear the clunky gameplay and dated graphics, you can play the other two after.
Witcher 3 stands on its own, and the lore of the previous games isn’t relevant to its entertainment value.
I tried the first two and didnt play more than 5 minutes. But nearly 100% the 3rd. Make that as you wish.
Skip 1, play 2. The second game opens with the main character having amnesia, so basically everything important from the first game is explained to you.
2 is starting to show its age, for what it’s worth. It’s still a great game, but go into it with tempered expectations; It’s missing a lot of the quality of life things you have probably come to expect.
3 is a great game, but get through the intro area before you actually judge it. The tutorial is a massive slog. The game picks up around the time you reach the Bloody Baron, so at least get to that point before you write it off as boring.
I would actually recommend to also skip the 2nd one. They made some, ahm, unusual decisions, like having to meditate to drink potions meaning alchemy is basically useless unless you know when a fight is coming, which would be alright but the game also has a tendency to throw you into random fights right after a cutscene.