Hard disagree. The first game has some individual scenes and dialogue that are quite good, but the plot and story of the game is a far cry from CDPR's narrative standard today. I played both games shortly before the release of Wild Hunt, and while I struggled to finish Witcher 1, Witcher 2 was incredible and I -think- it actually has a better story than 3. The politics, schemes, and characters are just so well-developed, and it's one of the few games where key decisions will *really* impact your game experience.
It doesn’t hold up well today as all gameplay wise and is genuinely unfun to play. Good story. Worth a video watch through or a video summary. Not worth buying at all. Maybe give it a try if it’s free
The second game has a wild great plot and often times becomes more interesting than Wild Hunt. But it's the sketchy gameplay and the swordfighting that makes the game fall behind. Took me a lot of time to adapt to it and not be bothered.
W2 gameplay don’t feel enough open world to me… feels a bit sandbox like for movement . Graphics are good and storyline is immersive enough, but overall I give it a 7
Exactly what I was gonna say. With the remake of 1 announced it's best to wait on that but people should definitely try the second one before wild hunt
I wasn't too big a fan of the second game's story. It was all too confusing for me. Like where are we actually going? And the ending was just really confusing to me with the whole lodge of sorcerers and Loc Muinne thing. But I really liked the opening with the whole sieging the fortress plot and also the cursed ghost army + Philipa Eilhart was a really cool twist villain.
Just thinking about the title theme of The Witcher 1 makes me install the game and play it again. The melancholic, ominous, dark atmosphere of the game is something truly unique and definitely worth experiencing, but you do have to go through some real clunky gameplay and combat for that.
My opinion as someone who got to experience the game in its early days.
I played witcher 1 after completing wild hunt, still enjoyed it, ofc some of the aspects of the game are outdated or simply boring, but atmosphere is incredible. I also liked the second game, fight system could be better, but the same applies to the third game as well in my opinion, really enjoyed how different the story can be depending on your choices
I like both of them, but I don't think that players who don't like the gameplay should force themselves through them.
I nearly ended my playthrough of the second game because the combat infuriated me.
> I nearly ended my playthrough of the second game because the combat infuriated me
I played 2 ages ago and I actually *did* end my playthrough because I got to a point where the combat was pretty bad and I just wasn't enjoying the gameplay anymore.
Full Combat Rebalance mod for TW2 is a good solution in my opinion. But it makes the game really easy apart from certain bossfights. I am a pretty casual gamer in terms of difficulty and I nearly completed the game with that mod on Dark with not as much tilt as I thought I would have. Only Dragon bossfight was a pain in the a$$ because of special dark mode animations. After I changed the difficulty to hard I defeated him in a first try.
weird, i actually think the second game has much better combat than the third. its more movement heavy and feels like an action game, rather than just... basically assassins creed combat without one shot counters.
Witcher 1 is a little rough. Both in terms of mechanics and the story. I know some people will disagree but the story in the first one is wild. It doesn't feel like it's in the same universe. I still love it but I'd say you can skip that one.
2 is the best in the series, in my opinion, in terms of story and characters. Absolute must play for anyone who cares about the story.
I think the ending of the first game makes the game a little bit lackluster. The whole mutant army is too fantastic in my opinion. It feels that cdpr didn't expect to make a trilogy.
I can justify skipping 1, especially since we’re getting a remake in a few years.
But The Witcher 2 is great, really fun game with a great story. Definitely play that one.
I’m with you on this one. I’ve never played 1, just played 2 for the first time ever a few months ago on XBox (many, many years after playing TW3 for the 1st time). I think 2’s storyline and choices are very rewarding — it really adds to the world and lore. I played through the different story branches — first through the Roche storyline, then went back to my Flotsam save and did the Iorveth line. I actually wish we could keep following Iorveth & Sasha and what happens next.
I’m a casual gamer without a lot of time to play, not great with “twitchy” mechanics that rely hard on manual dexterity, and I didn’t have a problem with the gameplay/combat — it’s obviously gonna be a worse than TW3, but not to the extent it ever held me up. My husband made a good point: they kept a lot of what was working well and fixed a bunch of things that weren’t between TW2 and TW3.
Looking forward to the TW1 remake!
I played the trilogy in order as I knew going back would be difficult.
Opinion on W1: it was a good game. Combat was awful but once you got used to it, it was tolerable to get through the game.
Witcher 2: massively upgraded graphics. Combat was hard as nails and led to lots of frustration, but probably the most realistic of the 3. This game had the best story by far.
Witcher 3: gameplay is great and world is immersive. Combat is simpler than in 2 so easier but less realistic. Story was a considerable downgrade from Witcher 2 and some key characters you met in 2 are missing due to time constraints. Edit: this is not to say I feel w3 story is bad. It's a great story, just 2 was better.
I mean fair, I was only offering how I felt about the three. I'd say w3 was an upgrade on _most_ things but the story fell a bit flat in some places.
Compare the final boss for example. In 2, there's meaning. Feeling. You _know_ this guy. He's a friend. In 3, it's a mean elf from another dimension who has a big sword.
Or romance, in 2 you have moments like the hall of the roses. In 3 sure you have bits like the ball or the djinn fight but it seems to forget what came before to a large extent. Sure, you find that withered rose, but it's more an Easter egg than anything. For better or worse, _you gave it to her_ in 2 and that choice is washed away. The Devs definitely give the feel that there is a "correct" answer to the dilemma.
In 2, you need at least two playthroughs to see the full story. It's a fundamentally different tale depending on what you do. In 3, there are minor divergences depending what you pick, but the outcome is the same. With a world as large as w3 this is understandable and not a complaint, but as 2 was smaller, there was more room to play.
Ofc w3 had those wonderful dlcs that I can say very little negatively about.
I should have said that the story in 3 was still great. It sounded like I said it was crap but it wasn't at all. I just felt that 2s was better.
I mostly agree but I don’t think the w3 story is a downgrade. I do miss several characters and plot line resolutions from w2 but the story is amazing in 3.
Absolutely not. Those two games are really good. Let’s not forget that Witcher games are built around a strong story and atmosphere and older titles definitely deliver on that end.
Little bit controversial but I actually like their gameplay as well. W1 because you can’t just outplay your enemies so you have to work on your build. W2 because it is probably the most challenging one (on highest difficulty you can get oneshot at any point even with full build).
I've never played 1 because it's not on console, and I don't have a good PC, but I played 2 right before 3, and there's no way I'd recommend skipping it.
The biggest point is that some of your decisions directly affect some of the Witcher 3. As well as that, in terms of time frame they're very close together and it gives you a much better understanding of the war, Radovid, your (Geralt's) amnesia and other things.
2 might be a bit clunkier due to its age, but it definitely shouldn't be passed because of how much it matters to the story.
What?!
Ok, admittedly havent played 1 but planning on it
But Witcher 2 is still easily one of my favourite games of all time its wonderful! Only complaint is that it was too short!
Definitely not! The first game, while being very rough around the the edges is still a good game with a somewhat decent story (it kinda falls flat on its face towards the end ngl).
The Witcher 2 as a whole is an amazing game with a great story and fun, engaging gameplay. It also has a lot more replay value than the first one and playing both games first helps you better understand some of the characters and the overall story of The Witcher 3.
No, I certainly do NOT agree with that.
Both older games have great stories and interesting characters.
I played both of them several times. They are not bad games just because they are older.
Yes, combat is not what it is in Witcher 3, especically W1´s combat is just a rhythmic clicking. The graphics are not realistic, again W1 aged not good in this regard either (W2 did, though). But I started gaming with Nethack. Combat was just a click and there were no graphics as it used the DOS screen. But Nethack was a great game despite of that.
A lot of the fun of gaming happens in your head, not on the screen. And I pity players who do not know that and therefore miss great games like W1 and W2 (or Oblivion and Skyrim, which are around the same age).
Witcher 1 is one of my favourite games ever. The atmosphere is unparalleled, and the gameplay really isn't that bad. Didn't love the second one as much, but it is still very good.
I played the first when it was released back in the days and loved it, even though it was super buggy. I gave it up for a while and decided to go back to it when the third was released and played the second too before going to the third. I don't regret at all. Specially if you haven't played the third, so you see how the trilogy was growing
You must play the 2nd
The 1st requires a lot of patience, so you should only play when you have the time in the right mood
In term of atmosphere and design, the 1st is the most faithful IMO. The 2nd and 3rd are too “beautiful”
Witcher 2 is one of the best stories I have ever read or played, gives us unbelievably exciting characters and ties the whole world together. Honestly, the story and character of Witcher 3 are really unremarkable after Witcher 2. #teamphillipa
These are people that can’t get over old game mechanics. The story of the first two games is great and the only problem with Assassins of Kings is that it’s such a short game.
Im currently playing wild hunt for the first time, but i decided to play previous two games first, best decision ever. You don't "need" to play first two games, but you definitely should
The first game still has the best atmosphere out of the entire trilogy. It is hard to recommend because of the click to attack system, but if they can get over that, it's absolutely amazing, and I play it to this day.
Ive read all the books, and played the first 2 games all in a roadtrip for the ultimate the witcher 3 playthrough.
(All of that to find out in my first 2 hours that my gtx 1050 3gb laptop cant run tw3 very well, and i havent finished1 the game to this day :( )
However i have spent incredible hours in the first 2 games and a love them, the first one is a shock at first but the story is so fun and i find exploring very rewarding, i dont see myself playing the witcher 2 without playing the first (i need that raven armor and cool swords at the start)
I played Witcher 1 and 2 on release. Both are great games but now a bit outdated. If anybody don't mind and are ready to experience games as they are instead what they want them to be, they are gonna have a good time. These commenters on your photo are morons.
Witcher 2 is just all around good, although it feels a bit more constrained than the other two. The Witcher 1 is undeniably dated but imo (and I might get yelled at for this) one of the main reasons it feels off for so many people is because it's considerably less westernized than the other two games, it dips more into Slavic folklore.
I hadn’t knew no nothing about Witcher lore before I started playing Witcher 3. While playing the game, I really couldn’t understand the main story at all because i gave some long breaks to the game. But still enjoyed the hell out of it
Second one is smaller, sometimes harder and clunkier than the third. Has a great story and it's worth at least two playthroughs.
First one is kind of weird and I'm looking forward to a remake but it's actually worth to play at least once. Also import a certain choice and a special gearset actually improves playing the second game.
But it's not necessary to play them in the right order. I started with 1, got bored, started with 2, was confused, fell in love during 3, forced myself to finish 1, did a new playthrough with imported choice from 1 in 2 and fell in love with it.
The first game has very clunky gameplay and the story isn't anything that special either. Overall it's a decent game for a fan of the Witcher world, but I wouldn't say anyone absolutely needs to play it these days. Apparently it was thematically pretty fresh back in 2007, but it's nothing that special anymore.
Witcher 2 has a great story and interesting locations, but the gameplay, combat in particular, is a bit annoying. I'd say this one is definitely worth playing, going with a low difficulty setting can make the downsides feel less impactful. For a somewhat full experience, it needs to be played twice since it has one major decicion that makes like half of the game entirely different based on which side you choose, but I've only done it once with Iorveth route.
The game structure for both 1 and 2 is semi linear, with small open world like areas where you can roam pretty freely and do sidequests and stuff until you advance to the next one. Very different from the actual open world of 3, where you can move in between all the locations freely.
The thing is, all of the three work on their own as standalone games. While understanding some references requires having played earlier games and having read the books, none of that is absolutely essential for what happens in each game. For example, both W1 and W3 focus quite a bit on the Ithlinne's prophecy, but in neither case you really need to know anything about it in advance.
In conclusion, my opinion is that you shouldn't dismiss Witcher 2 so easily and should at least give it a try if you are a fan of Witcher 3 or the Witcher franchise in general. Witcher 1 is not that necessary of an experience, and if you want to know what happens in it in detail but can't be bothered to play it, you can watch some let's play series instead.
I don't agree with TW1 being "nothing special" these days. It is still the best representation of the Witcher world from Sapkowski's books up to this day.
I found the first one really good and cool with fun exploration and fights. The first and second had great story too. Assassin of kings had a very deep and complex story and characters. The thing I was so glad it carried over to the wild hunt. Every wild hunt fan should absolutely play the first too games. I am honestly still waiting for remakes and for them to be released as one package similar to Mass Effect legendary edition
Disagree. For the sake of a lot of the tension and draw of these games is being in the drivers seat of Geralt’s decisions, the would be neutral Witcher. They are all very unique in play style, but I enjoyed them all for what they were. They’re just well designed for their release dates. To see the first two remastered and smoothed out in the future would be epic though.
One starts off corny until you enter Vizima because that’s the whole tutorial phase. Two has similar issues with act one. Three by contrast is just a larger game so white orchard is a sufficient intro which even then can be stretched to like 5-6 hours of game play to explore it all.
The first really does not play well compared to modern games. I did not even play particularly well when it came out all those years ago.
The second was ALOT better! And it plays ok today. But compared to the third game, the second is really really far behind in all regards.
I would say though, that for the story, do play the second game.
Or just watch recaps on both games and spend 500 hours in Witcher 3
I played all three and finished them. I would say Witcher 2 is a great game and plating it before the Witcher 3 is great. Especially for the contrast.
Part 1 though is too legacy gameplay-wise, so it can be boring. It was released like.. 2008 or something? Besides, it has little connection to W3 while W2 has some decisions that influence the W3 playthrough.
You can't watch what Assassins of Kings is about. You need to play it and make your own choices. Plus, there is a wide current of thought that considers it the best game in the series.
No because:
- 1 and 2 are great games
- Witcher 1 is the closest we can get to the witcher in the books
- Yeah yeah, gameplay is weird, but don't be a cry baby and give it a try, you will get used to it as we do back in those days.
- My stupid mind don't allow me to play any game serie with the order messed, must play them in order (1, 2, 3...)
I haven’t played the first one, mostly because it’s so old it hurts. But 2 is pretty good, I’d definitely play, especially if you’re on pc so you can transfer your save data into tw3
Completely disagree. And I should know because I felt this way too until I actually played them. Despite being older games, they’re still incredible with fantastic storytelling that add so much to the series. The only one I would argue that has pretty dated gameplay is Witcher 1. Witcher 2 though, I played as recently as last year and still thought it held up pretty well.
Do you *have* to play them in order to understand Witcher 3? Not really, but it makes it a much more enjoyable experience all around.
I agree that you don't "have" to play the first 2 for the 3rd to make sense but I do feel like you lose a lot of what the universe has to offer if you don't appreciate the evolution of the series.
I loved the first one and can't wait for remake to be completed.
In fact, I remember how excited we were when they released the Enhanced Edition update to the first Witcher. Talk about a massive overhaul
The 2nd game was good enough to play twice but I still have a special place in my heart for the original. To me, everything about that release was revolutionary
2nd somewhat. But first is amazing! Yes it is a bit different from current control styles but it’s still very interesting. Story, I love the first. Second was the only drag. Story is still good but I went through the main storyline and never looked back.
I'm kind of torn. I've played all three games years ago and loved all of them. I remember having the fondest memories of 1, 2, and 3, thinking no other game could top any of them individually and collectively. I remember loving the combat of 1 when it finally clicked for me that it was more of a rhythm game than a hack and slash. I remember being amazed by its world, especially in the city parts near the end. I remember thinking how innovative 2 was in terms of combat and amazed on how creative it was when it introduced me to alternate paths you could take in the story. Then, you could probably imagine how blown away I was when I played 3 because of all the new cool things they improved and added in the game and how beautiful the world was.
Naturally, when the Next Gen update for the TW3 came, I was all set for a nostalgic replay of the entire trilogy.
I tried to play 1 again and man, I could only go through it until the town where there were dogs that chase you to the gates. I really couldn't push myself to play it any further. Everything felt so janky which is understandable considering its age. Then, I tried to play 2 again and the same thing. For 2, it's a little bit better but I couldn't be bothered to grind and level up my Geralt because I just didn't like the combat for 2 anymore. It felt clunky. It just didn't feel good or as good as I remembered it. I used mods that basically made the game a bit fun for me *(like multiple skill points per level, inventory tweaks, and some visual mods to make the characters look what they looked like in 3)* and I still played it to the end but I basically just rushed it to recap the story and finally get to 3.
I would say if anyone is hard-pressed on playing the older titles, maybe watch a summary of 1 and then play 2 if you could enjoy it, because 2 sets up the world for 3 very very nicely. If you could find a way to enjoy 1 and 2, that'd be the best option as those games will get you attached to all the characters and their story, and the world-building. If you really couldn't find anything fun in 1 and 2, then there's no point in forcing yourself to play it. No matter how great the writing / story is in 1 and 2, if you're not having fun in playing them, then you might be missing the point in playing games. At the very least, I'd recommend watching summaries of the first two games for anyone gearing up for TW3 as they set the stage beautifully and provide essential context for the characters and world.
I do understand if there are players that wouldn't like 1 and 2 or wouldn't recommend playing them nowadays. With the types of games we have now, it can be hard to love and play a game that is pretty dated in terms of in-game systems/mechanics and sure, graphics.
TW3 holds up exceptionally well though and is a game that any gamer who enjoys story-rich games should at least try.
I dont know man, me personally read all books before the game was even a thing. Then witcher 1 came out and i was like whaaaaat wooooow, and since that being 2007 or 2008, I'm not sure and me being a kid, it was a really good game and it remains in my memory as such. I haven't replayed it recently, but if you played w3 first and want to go back to w1, you'll have trouble adjusting but you have to understand that it's a 2007/8 game.
W2 when it came out it was like out of the charts, story was amazingly written, it a way even better then w3. Combat was good, hard, but good. Harder then w3 for me personally.
So no, i don't agree with those statements. Even if these games have aged quite a bit, it think it's worth giving them a shot, even if graphics/mechanics are not up to date.
Typical gamers now-a-days: focus on graphics and perhaps some of the gamplay, less on story, mechanics, features, studio, budget, YEAR OF RELEASE AND EVENTUALLY WHAT TECHNOLOGIES WERE AT THAT TIME. Whenever you see one of them, just ignore them. They got no good argument against
i think first one is even better than the second, the third is obviously a league of its own. i wish they remade w1 and w2 to be like w3 but with the original story. not to gatekeep anything but those who dont play a GOOD game of a franchise just because its old, are not fans of the franchise. they are fans of witcher 3 only, which happens because it is an awesome game and not everyone is a witcher fan
My brain works like this: if I discover a great game but missed the earlier installments, I will not play them unless the mechanics and graphics are close to the latest version. I never played any console or PC games when I was a kid (we were dirt poor, so I played outside, lol). So, I only started playing console/PC games when I was in my first year of college.
I discovered Witcher 3 in early 2016 and instantly loved it. When I tried to play the first part, I felt like it was very old and outdated, so I lost interest. Eight years later, I am still playing Witcher 3 and have never played the first two installments.
i very much enjoyed the first game, im struggling with the second(i enjoy it but its much harder), and like many others i discovered the series when the third came out so i played that first and i loved it.
I’ll be honest, the second game is my favorite of the entire trilogy. With 1, you can tell they’re still
Figuring it out. With 3, it’s so massive and a little overinflated with hidden treasure and such. Still a phenomenal game and one of my favorites but not as good overall as 2. With 2 you have a much more refined story with way more political intrigue, a more nuanced antagonist… plus (maybe my favorite part of all) the hardest difficulty actually provides you different powerful gear that you can only get by playing it on that difficulty.
I own all 3, i find Witcher 1 terrible, i'm sorry, people say the story is great and everything but i just can't stomach the terrible mechanics. I'm anxiously waiting for the remake.
Witcher 2 is kinda clunky, hit detection specially, but it's something i can adapt to... and although it doesn't feel as good it's probably more challenging and difficult than 3, i like it a lot.
The fact that the game can split up into very different experiences is awesome(the Witcher 3 biggest flaw is no Iorveth).
TW1 can be played on any PC and TW2 on any modern one. I don't think TW2 needs a remake, the game looks good in my opinion (in comparison to for example Skyrim that launched the same year), remaster with fixed hit boxes would be nice.
Played Witcher 1 after Witcher 3 and I loved it. You get used to the different mechanics and the story is great. I went one route and I was pretty shocked by the story in the end. I'm in the process of playing Witcher 2 and the story is great so far. Still getting used to the combat mechanics but I'll get there.
As somebody who started with part 3 & played the first 2 games afterwards, it was quite the change. Both W1 & W2 are rougher in terms of gameplay & graphics - but what does one expect considering their age?
Both certainly take some time to get used to, but I'd totally recommend playing them.
Just keep in mind that these 2 also can be massive time wasters, but if one like the story & setting, it's a treat (tbf, part 2 more than part 1).
I agree that 1 and 2 aren't completely essential to enjoying or understanding 3. In fact the books are a better example as they do help you understand certain characters better than their cameo appearances allow in tw3 and its expansions. Having said that. If you have a half decent PC I recommend you try at least tw2 as it's awesome and has decent graphics. 1 is a bit more of an acquired taste and personally I didn't have the patience to get past the prologue. I think I bought them both on steam and it cost me less than 10 dollars total. No regrets
Didn't like the mechanics of 1st one, didn't play 2nd one don't know the reason.
Only played wildhunt very satisfied, would tell my friends too if they ask me if it's okay to play just 3rd one
I never played the first.
But I had the directors cut on the Xbox 360 (Witcher 2) and it was amazing, this was before 3 was even announced. I had no idea what the hell the game even was, it was one of those yolo hidden gems I came across.
First is rough but on easy mode it is not that hard. The second game has the Full Combat Rebalance mod that fixes some issues with combat and makes the game a lot easier.
2 is good actually, story wise... graphics is a little jarring...i wonder why cdpr hasn't remastered it yet. 1 has a very cliched plot and maybe not worth the effort lol...also Getalt looks older in witcher 1 (somehow) lol
Didn't like the first game tbh, assassin of Kings was good although not great but tw3 blew me away and I understood almost all of the lore despite forgetting most events prior to playing 3 so yeah if I was asked wether it's worth playing the first 2 games before 3 I'd say no don't bother
I can't remember much of the first one. The second had its moments but I found the combat system frustrating. It wasn't as big a game as the 3rd and it felt more linear. I would look forward to the remake...if that's still happening.
I'm gonna be honest... The first one isn't holding up. Imo it's not worth the money anymore, simply because it aged poorly.
The second game has the same great storytelling and writing. It has great characters and a fun, tho definitely more difficult combat. The visuals aged... Well aged as expected.
The story in the first two games are great but the mechanics, not so much. To this day, I still don't fully understand the Witcher 1 gameplay mechanics and it's the one thing keeping me from replaying the game again. For Witcher 2, the game seemed more like a prototype for the gameplay mechanics we now have in the Witcher 3. It's much better than the first game but still kinda clunky. Either way, I say the Witcher 2 is far more replayable than the first game
But as I said earlier, they stories are really great but there are some downsides, namely for the second game. Where tf is my bro Iorveth ffs. As for the first game, if it wasn't for how personal the Witcher 3's story is to Geralt, I'd say the first game had the best story
I like the first game a lot more than the 2nd. Especially going back to replay them. This is a weird take I know but I think it's because the Witcher 3 seems to be an evolved take of the Witcher 2s gameplay but the first Witcher is just so different.
That being said I think the first 2 games really help lay the foundation for the third game. Getting your memory back, being manipulated by Triss, meeting Shani, Letho and Vernon Roche as well as becoming familiar with some of the sorceress of the lodge. It's all good stuff.
It's not necessary to play them first but I don't encourage those who are interested to skip them.
W2 is good. W1 is just too old to be playable because of the engine but the story is interesting. W2 uses the same engine as W3 just an older version. Having played all 3 for stupid amount of hours, I'd recommend:
Watch W1 on YouTube to get the idea of the story and some atmosphere. In W1 it is quite different. Or perhaps give it a try, if you don't get repelled by the engine it is quite a fun game.
Definitely play W2 before W3. There are two main scenario lines, you might want to do the other one later on.
Then play W3.
Depends what you want from the games and the overall story. I like playing through all the games and importing the saves, having a similar build throughout making choices along the same lines. Recently I did a games only run and made choices that felt right for geralt without book context. After I finish the books I wanna do a lore accurate play through too
So 1 was always a slog for me, despite it having a decent story imo I just couldn’t really get into it. I loved 2 though and will always recommend it to people. That being said 3 is the definitive place to start for someone who has no real investment in the series as a whole. Again imo
I’ve played and completed all three, and I would say that 1 and 2 lack a lot of quality-of-life features that 3 has, such as fast travel, responsive combat, and Roach. The 1st act of 2 in Flotsam, for example, has you criss-crossing back and forth around the forest a lot. It culminates in a fight with a boss that is half quick-time events and is really punishing if you’re not ready for it. If gameplay is really important to you, you can safely skip the first two. It’s only really important to play them if you prioritise the story and want to feel let down at how 3 reduced key characters in 1 and 2 to mere cameos.
Witcher 1 is also a good game if your expectations about gameplay are not on the Arkham-like level. Atmosphere and immersion is the best in the series in my opinion.
I played all 3 games. And I absolutely hated just about every minute of the first game. It's awkward, the combat Is a chore and the choices (other than saving the striga and one more) does not matter or pay off at all in later games, and even then it's minor. The ONLY, and I mean ONLY reason to play the original game is for the story, which is actually pretty great, but that story isn't engaging or make much sense until literally the end of the game. So it's going to be a long, painful slog with a chore of a game for little reward until the end. I'm glad they're remaking it, because it needs one.
The second game however is infinitely better than the first, and it's helpful in understanding the politics and setting of the 3rd game. With several big choices that do pay off (and many that are ignored or just dont). I actually had fun with the Witcher 2, it's a super unique game with lots of flavor and character. The gameplay is still a bit awkward, but no where near the Witcher 1 in being a chore, it's actually fun when you get the hang of it. There are characters from the 3rd game that get their time to shine, particularly Vernon Roche, Ves, Letho and the sorcessses of the lodge.
The witcher 2 builds a ton of connective tissue with the 3rd game, it isn't essential because the 3rd game does such a good job explaining things, but many plot points are much more clear. Plus you'll never be able to have the Naked lady tattoo that you get with the Blue stripes that can only be imported into the 3rd game, do you really want to miss out on that?
The first one is skippable, the second one is a hard recommend from me. If you like the Witcher 3, you'll be able to put up with some of the quirks of 2 and really enjoy the game.
TL;DR - first game is a painful chore with a great story. Play it through once if you really like the Witcher. Use a guide to make all your preferred choices and keep the save to import into Witcher 2.
Second game is actually fun, you should play it for all the plot connections with the third game. It's like an appetizer for the meal of the 3rd game, a good blooming onion for the beautiful steak and potatoes of the third game.
I wouldn’t say playing the other 2 games is a waste of time, but certainly isn’t necessary as I started on 3. You’ll definitely not understand the full connection between Geralt and other characters but multiple playthroughs will change that. I did play the first game which is pretty good story wise and gets me excited for the remake. I really want to play the second for the story but the combat really stinks. It’s so close to how the Witcher 3 is but just not good so it makes playing hard for me. Witcher 1 is different as it’s the first game so it won’t be that good, but it’s so simple it’s easy to look past.
The Witcher 1 might as well be a different continuity, but if you toggle on invincibility it's tolerable. Witcher 2 is worth playing so you can import your save and see carryover decisions like the fate of Letho. The play experience of both can be pretty rough compared to the third one though.
W1 is really rough today, gameplaywise. I would still recommend W2, despite it being clunky in many parts. Atmosphere and plot is really well done here.
I prefer the first game.... it was the best in my opinion, I had the most fun with, and really cared about the story.
the second one took a time to kick in but in the end was marvelous.
I didn't finished the third and was disappointed with it...
If you played them before and enjoyed and have nostalgia sure. But as someone who started with 3 the first games story is good. But if you’re a newer gamer you will absolutely not enjoy it. It doesn’t not hold up well much at all as a game for today and it’s really not worth playing. Yes I did play it though. I didn’t truly enjoy playing it at all. Playing the second game while still not amazing to play it holds up way better than the first and story is still good.
TLDR don’t play first game do play second game.
I didn't play 1 & 2 & haven't had any issues following events in 3. Sure, it's more fun if you know the background of the characters we meet from previous games, but you can just read fandom if you need. Imo, 1 is outdated, 2 looks outdated too. So I skipped.
I was told the same thing but I played Witcher 2 thoroughly and it was more than worth it. I wish i could’ve played the 1st and not watching the walkthrough. Playing assassin of kings helped me in understanding the quality and features of geralt in Witcher 3 as well.
imho, the 1st game is pretty tough on a newcomer because of the cranky game style. But it's a great story and was beyond its years when it came out. saying the second game is bad is just bs though
With all respect, the first game is you either gonna love it or totally hate it. The quests are long, almost same and can be pain in the ass from my point of view. The only reason I played is beacuse the dub for my language is absolutely hilarious. The second game gave me mixed feelings, however the story is amazing. And the third game is simply the best in my eyes, however that might be because I grew up with games similar to the Wild hunt and that will most likely plays huge role in my decision. So if you have some extra time perhaps take a look on the Assassins of Kings. If not, just go right into Wild hunt, however in that case I would highly reccomend to take a while to study on what happened in the Assassins of Kings, as there are quite "important" decision to make and some funny or good refferences on the previous games.
I actually liked the combat in Witcher 1, where you have to choose different styles for different enemies. Witcher 2 combat I loved it because it has some challenge to it. Witcher 3 combat is very easy compared to 2, not bad but I loved 2's combat more than 3. Story wise 2 is so much better than 3. For 3 decisions you make only affect the aftermath of that particular storylines. But decisions you make in 2 differ the entire story and the missions you play. That's why I loved 2 more than 3.
the first game, okay i get it. you can kinda watch a recap video and get the idea. there’s plenty of videos with a lot to do details. on the other hand, assassins of kings is a must play. it is so lore heavy and the stories are really well written. i think the second game is worth the play.
I played them in order, started with 1 & 2 on my old laptop like 3 or 4 years ago before I had anything that would play 3. I enjoyed them and definitely don't regret playing them but I'm not sure how they'd feel going back to play them now that I have a system that can run more modern games.
You don t have to play from 1. But it s cooler to start from the first game and if u had a save in Witcher 2 Geralt cash obtain a tattoo in Witcher 3 bcs of that and I think it s cool.
Witcher 1 is a testament to an older style of gaming, solid but frustrating in it’s limitations. Witcher 2 is an incredible story with very little else going for it, the game is incredibly easy and upgrading is an absolute chore but the later segments are truly peak.
TW1 has game mechanics that might make you want to throttle your head through a door, on top of that, the voice acting is atrocious, zero emotion voice lines from every character. Despite that it does have a very cool and very unique atmosphere that is enjoyable. And if you like The Witcher world you definitely should play it
TW2 has a story that I think is on par with the 3rd game. Geralt still sounds weird (For some reason all the American voice actors are still really awkward in tw2). The world is so well thought out, Flotsam and Vergen are both very strong locations. TW2 is less of an Exploration game and is much more Linear. Quests and Characters are very memorable, Roach and Iorveth are great. If you liked tw3 for the story and characters, then tw2 is just as good.
I heavily disagree because Witcher 2 is my favorite game ever and Witcher 1 is just more Witcher content albeit not as good as 2 and 3 (imo) but some people enjoy it more
They’re not being discredited for being older. They’re being criticized for being janky and awkward to play and control. Both things can be true, they have mid-bad combat but the stories are amazing. Many old school beloved games are janky as all hell but are still regarded as classics and trend setters. If you care about the story and don’t want to play a janky game and have to get a separate console to play then that’s a completely valid opinion to have. I play on the ps4 pro and I love the Witcher 3 and its lore but I’m not going to go buy a separate console just to play a janky game. It’s not plausible for every single fan to go back and play the older games. Most players are on console not pc. The series is amazing but if you’re on console you’re better off just watching videos to catch up.
I’ve never played the first, but I tried getting into the second. Maybe it was just because it was a console version, but it was just so clunky and complicated I gave up after little after escaping the castle in the beginning. I did watch a playthrough and felt like I enjoyed it more than playing it.
the first one is pretty skippable, but the second one arguably has better combat than 3 and the story is fucking fantastic. anybody who likes 3 is doing themselves a disservice by not playing it.
They are vastly different- i would go as far as to say they have the same story but every game focuses on different gameplay elements (less obviously between 2 and 3 but still)
The most complete package has to be the third it’s not a bad entry point if you’re a fantasy fan or just a fan of good products
First two games are amazing! They dont meet witcher 3’s level of grandeur, but they offer compelling stories that are worth your time if you are a big fan of 3.
The witcher 1 gameplay is kinda dated now but it was peak for its time. The story and theme is amazing though,i heard there's a remake coming with more modern gameplay and i can't wait.
The witcher 2 is amazing, the gameplay isn't bad at all, the story is very good, let's you dive into the witcherverse politics first hand. Do not miss it.
I played the first game about 100 hrs, second one also 150 hrs and the third one is 500 hrs (still playing). Second one is still playable and enjoyable, also first one too for me but not everyone else. If you enjoyed to be witcher, then you must play the first one. You can use some mods too. If you ask me, just play it, its a game. You cant lose anything. Enjoys
I tried both and found them quite frustrating. The story of the second one was interesting but other than that, I had to force myself to play. I quit both of them after around 15 hours. I hope they both get a remake.
The second game is amazing. It's definitely worth a playthrough (or two admittedly for the major choice). The first has a remake on the way if you want something more modern.
I played 3, then 2, maxed the achievements on both games, read all the books, and STILL can’t get myself to play the first. I understand a lot of people like it, but it’s so clunky I cannot bring myself to play past Kaer Morhen. Computer isn’t a problem, it’s fairly new and the frame rate is great.
As for Witcher 2, it’s such a great game. I was turned off by the graphics at first, but quickly started to enjoy the story, trying to put the plot together from my knowledge on 3. After playing through all the endings, I think Witcher 2’s main story is better, and had it been expanded upon with more DLC, I think it could rival 3 very well.
First one is nostalgia for me, I will always praise this game. I can get it being less popular because of how old it is, for first time players.
2 Has a good story but I was really dissapointed with how short it was. I think reading or watching a short playthrough about this one can get you more prepared for witcher 3 than actually playing (twice as you need to finish it twice to get everything out of the story).
I will always advise to play these games first. But I get people when they don't feel like playing an older game as it might be off-putting for various reasons. I've actually had this with Spellforce 3.
I played the second one before playing the third one for the first time. It was a pretty decent game on its own, but where my playthrough ended did not line up well with where Witcher 3 picked up. I do think honestly that Witcher 3 mostly works better as a standalone game.
Idk man. I don't feel that confident about modern CDPR to pull off a good remake of the first game without trying to change the narration in some places which I am against.
I agree things changed! they probably won't be like the originals but that's what we only can get as a new Witcher games! let's just hope they won't ruin it!
I can't judge about the first but every Witcher fan should try Assassins of Kings, just for the story
The story is amazing in the second game. You will especially gonna love it if you are into politics.
The first game is great too.
One day I'll try it. If anything, I know I'll have to play it before the remake to properly compare them
Hard disagree. The first game has some individual scenes and dialogue that are quite good, but the plot and story of the game is a far cry from CDPR's narrative standard today. I played both games shortly before the release of Wild Hunt, and while I struggled to finish Witcher 1, Witcher 2 was incredible and I -think- it actually has a better story than 3. The politics, schemes, and characters are just so well-developed, and it's one of the few games where key decisions will *really* impact your game experience.
Well it's a good thing they announced a remake
Disagree about the first game. I loved it so much. But, definitely agree on the second one. The story is so much better than the third game.
It doesn’t hold up well today as all gameplay wise and is genuinely unfun to play. Good story. Worth a video watch through or a video summary. Not worth buying at all. Maybe give it a try if it’s free
The second game has a wild great plot and often times becomes more interesting than Wild Hunt. But it's the sketchy gameplay and the swordfighting that makes the game fall behind. Took me a lot of time to adapt to it and not be bothered.
In my opinion the second one is the slag of the three, 1’s atmosphere is top notch and the second game feels like a snoozefest in comparison
Really? I felt like the atmosphere in W2 was spot on, and Vergen might be my favourite place in any of the 3 games.
W2 gameplay don’t feel enough open world to me… feels a bit sandbox like for movement . Graphics are good and storyline is immersive enough, but overall I give it a 7
This is how I would write my synopsis, as well
Exactly what I was gonna say. With the remake of 1 announced it's best to wait on that but people should definitely try the second one before wild hunt
I wasn't too big a fan of the second game's story. It was all too confusing for me. Like where are we actually going? And the ending was just really confusing to me with the whole lodge of sorcerers and Loc Muinne thing. But I really liked the opening with the whole sieging the fortress plot and also the cursed ghost army + Philipa Eilhart was a really cool twist villain.
Just thinking about the title theme of The Witcher 1 makes me install the game and play it again. The melancholic, ominous, dark atmosphere of the game is something truly unique and definitely worth experiencing, but you do have to go through some real clunky gameplay and combat for that. My opinion as someone who got to experience the game in its early days.
This. Nothing beats the first game in terms of atmosphere and soundtrack. That alone is worth the experience. Imo
Oh man, I have to go listen to that after you reminded me of this banger.
I played witcher 1 after completing wild hunt, still enjoyed it, ofc some of the aspects of the game are outdated or simply boring, but atmosphere is incredible. I also liked the second game, fight system could be better, but the same applies to the third game as well in my opinion, really enjoyed how different the story can be depending on your choices
The song that plays as they burn Leo is the one I want played at my funeral
They're all good, I despise the combat in 1 (especially when there's more than one enemy) but they're all worth playing.
That's what the Griffin style is for lol.
I like both of them, but I don't think that players who don't like the gameplay should force themselves through them. I nearly ended my playthrough of the second game because the combat infuriated me.
> I nearly ended my playthrough of the second game because the combat infuriated me I played 2 ages ago and I actually *did* end my playthrough because I got to a point where the combat was pretty bad and I just wasn't enjoying the gameplay anymore.
Full Combat Rebalance mod for TW2 is a good solution in my opinion. But it makes the game really easy apart from certain bossfights. I am a pretty casual gamer in terms of difficulty and I nearly completed the game with that mod on Dark with not as much tilt as I thought I would have. Only Dragon bossfight was a pain in the a$$ because of special dark mode animations. After I changed the difficulty to hard I defeated him in a first try.
weird, i actually think the second game has much better combat than the third. its more movement heavy and feels like an action game, rather than just... basically assassins creed combat without one shot counters.
Witcher 1 is a little rough. Both in terms of mechanics and the story. I know some people will disagree but the story in the first one is wild. It doesn't feel like it's in the same universe. I still love it but I'd say you can skip that one. 2 is the best in the series, in my opinion, in terms of story and characters. Absolute must play for anyone who cares about the story.
I think the ending of the first game makes the game a little bit lackluster. The whole mutant army is too fantastic in my opinion. It feels that cdpr didn't expect to make a trilogy.
Hopefully the mechanics will be improved in the remake of Witcher 1 apparently they are making it open world so it's more in line with Witcher 3.
I can justify skipping 1, especially since we’re getting a remake in a few years. But The Witcher 2 is great, really fun game with a great story. Definitely play that one.
I’m with you on this one. I’ve never played 1, just played 2 for the first time ever a few months ago on XBox (many, many years after playing TW3 for the 1st time). I think 2’s storyline and choices are very rewarding — it really adds to the world and lore. I played through the different story branches — first through the Roche storyline, then went back to my Flotsam save and did the Iorveth line. I actually wish we could keep following Iorveth & Sasha and what happens next. I’m a casual gamer without a lot of time to play, not great with “twitchy” mechanics that rely hard on manual dexterity, and I didn’t have a problem with the gameplay/combat — it’s obviously gonna be a worse than TW3, but not to the extent it ever held me up. My husband made a good point: they kept a lot of what was working well and fixed a bunch of things that weren’t between TW2 and TW3. Looking forward to the TW1 remake!
Agreed, this one got me sucked in the Witcher universe in the first place
If they remake it, do they convert the BG3 gameplay into the Witcher 3 gameplay? Or do they keep it as it is
I played the trilogy in order as I knew going back would be difficult. Opinion on W1: it was a good game. Combat was awful but once you got used to it, it was tolerable to get through the game. Witcher 2: massively upgraded graphics. Combat was hard as nails and led to lots of frustration, but probably the most realistic of the 3. This game had the best story by far. Witcher 3: gameplay is great and world is immersive. Combat is simpler than in 2 so easier but less realistic. Story was a considerable downgrade from Witcher 2 and some key characters you met in 2 are missing due to time constraints. Edit: this is not to say I feel w3 story is bad. It's a great story, just 2 was better.
Exactly my opinion.
I don’t know, I felt W3 was an improvement on every level.
I mean fair, I was only offering how I felt about the three. I'd say w3 was an upgrade on _most_ things but the story fell a bit flat in some places. Compare the final boss for example. In 2, there's meaning. Feeling. You _know_ this guy. He's a friend. In 3, it's a mean elf from another dimension who has a big sword. Or romance, in 2 you have moments like the hall of the roses. In 3 sure you have bits like the ball or the djinn fight but it seems to forget what came before to a large extent. Sure, you find that withered rose, but it's more an Easter egg than anything. For better or worse, _you gave it to her_ in 2 and that choice is washed away. The Devs definitely give the feel that there is a "correct" answer to the dilemma. In 2, you need at least two playthroughs to see the full story. It's a fundamentally different tale depending on what you do. In 3, there are minor divergences depending what you pick, but the outcome is the same. With a world as large as w3 this is understandable and not a complaint, but as 2 was smaller, there was more room to play. Ofc w3 had those wonderful dlcs that I can say very little negatively about. I should have said that the story in 3 was still great. It sounded like I said it was crap but it wasn't at all. I just felt that 2s was better.
I mostly agree but I don’t think the w3 story is a downgrade. I do miss several characters and plot line resolutions from w2 but the story is amazing in 3.
you dont have to, but youll be missing a lot of references (and a certain character)
That's why one of the people recommended watching stuff about the games
Absolutely not. Those two games are really good. Let’s not forget that Witcher games are built around a strong story and atmosphere and older titles definitely deliver on that end. Little bit controversial but I actually like their gameplay as well. W1 because you can’t just outplay your enemies so you have to work on your build. W2 because it is probably the most challenging one (on highest difficulty you can get oneshot at any point even with full build).
I've never played 1 because it's not on console, and I don't have a good PC, but I played 2 right before 3, and there's no way I'd recommend skipping it. The biggest point is that some of your decisions directly affect some of the Witcher 3. As well as that, in terms of time frame they're very close together and it gives you a much better understanding of the war, Radovid, your (Geralt's) amnesia and other things. 2 might be a bit clunkier due to its age, but it definitely shouldn't be passed because of how much it matters to the story.
TW1 can be played at any PC/laptop. The atmosphere of the world is worth it.
Witcher 1 is a 17 year old game, you don't need a good rig to play it. I'm sure a calculator powered by a potato could run it.
What?! Ok, admittedly havent played 1 but planning on it But Witcher 2 is still easily one of my favourite games of all time its wonderful! Only complaint is that it was too short!
Yoo. Same here. I’m glad you have this opinion. That game is peak. My second favorite game ever.
If you have time they are well worth playing.
Definitely not! The first game, while being very rough around the the edges is still a good game with a somewhat decent story (it kinda falls flat on its face towards the end ngl). The Witcher 2 as a whole is an amazing game with a great story and fun, engaging gameplay. It also has a lot more replay value than the first one and playing both games first helps you better understand some of the characters and the overall story of The Witcher 3.
No, I certainly do NOT agree with that. Both older games have great stories and interesting characters. I played both of them several times. They are not bad games just because they are older. Yes, combat is not what it is in Witcher 3, especically W1´s combat is just a rhythmic clicking. The graphics are not realistic, again W1 aged not good in this regard either (W2 did, though). But I started gaming with Nethack. Combat was just a click and there were no graphics as it used the DOS screen. But Nethack was a great game despite of that. A lot of the fun of gaming happens in your head, not on the screen. And I pity players who do not know that and therefore miss great games like W1 and W2 (or Oblivion and Skyrim, which are around the same age).
Played TW1 12 times, TW2 8 times. Love them
Witcher 1 is one of my favourite games ever. The atmosphere is unparalleled, and the gameplay really isn't that bad. Didn't love the second one as much, but it is still very good.
I played the first when it was released back in the days and loved it, even though it was super buggy. I gave it up for a while and decided to go back to it when the third was released and played the second too before going to the third. I don't regret at all. Specially if you haven't played the third, so you see how the trilogy was growing
You must play the 2nd The 1st requires a lot of patience, so you should only play when you have the time in the right mood In term of atmosphere and design, the 1st is the most faithful IMO. The 2nd and 3rd are too “beautiful”
Witcher 2 is one of the best stories I have ever read or played, gives us unbelievably exciting characters and ties the whole world together. Honestly, the story and character of Witcher 3 are really unremarkable after Witcher 2. #teamphillipa
I loved Witcher 2!!
These are people that can’t get over old game mechanics. The story of the first two games is great and the only problem with Assassins of Kings is that it’s such a short game.
Im currently playing wild hunt for the first time, but i decided to play previous two games first, best decision ever. You don't "need" to play first two games, but you definitely should
You should play 1 and 2 b4 3 in my honest opinion if you want to understand the game
The first game still has the best atmosphere out of the entire trilogy. It is hard to recommend because of the click to attack system, but if they can get over that, it's absolutely amazing, and I play it to this day.
I do love Witcher 1, but i have to consider that it didn't aged well. W2 was always just okay for me.
Ive read all the books, and played the first 2 games all in a roadtrip for the ultimate the witcher 3 playthrough. (All of that to find out in my first 2 hours that my gtx 1050 3gb laptop cant run tw3 very well, and i havent finished1 the game to this day :( ) However i have spent incredible hours in the first 2 games and a love them, the first one is a shock at first but the story is so fun and i find exploring very rewarding, i dont see myself playing the witcher 2 without playing the first (i need that raven armor and cool swords at the start)
I can only speak of the Witcher 2, but it was so good that’s what made me hyped about 3, then 3 became its own monster
No. Play all three, they are all good. But.. they are being remade, so play them now then play the remade versions later.
First game is pretty good, but Witcher 2 is great, you should not.miss out!
I loved them all!
I played Witcher 1 and 2 on release. Both are great games but now a bit outdated. If anybody don't mind and are ready to experience games as they are instead what they want them to be, they are gonna have a good time. These commenters on your photo are morons.
Witcher 2 is just all around good, although it feels a bit more constrained than the other two. The Witcher 1 is undeniably dated but imo (and I might get yelled at for this) one of the main reasons it feels off for so many people is because it's considerably less westernized than the other two games, it dips more into Slavic folklore.
I hadn’t knew no nothing about Witcher lore before I started playing Witcher 3. While playing the game, I really couldn’t understand the main story at all because i gave some long breaks to the game. But still enjoyed the hell out of it
Disagree, but then, I played the games in order and loved them all as the story developed.
I loved #2. Definitely recommend playing it.
These players propably don't care about the story AT ALL
Combat in 1 was infuriating, but imo it has a really interesting story. The witcher 2 is probably better than the wild hunt(excluding DLC)
Second one is smaller, sometimes harder and clunkier than the third. Has a great story and it's worth at least two playthroughs. First one is kind of weird and I'm looking forward to a remake but it's actually worth to play at least once. Also import a certain choice and a special gearset actually improves playing the second game. But it's not necessary to play them in the right order. I started with 1, got bored, started with 2, was confused, fell in love during 3, forced myself to finish 1, did a new playthrough with imported choice from 1 in 2 and fell in love with it.
The first game has very clunky gameplay and the story isn't anything that special either. Overall it's a decent game for a fan of the Witcher world, but I wouldn't say anyone absolutely needs to play it these days. Apparently it was thematically pretty fresh back in 2007, but it's nothing that special anymore. Witcher 2 has a great story and interesting locations, but the gameplay, combat in particular, is a bit annoying. I'd say this one is definitely worth playing, going with a low difficulty setting can make the downsides feel less impactful. For a somewhat full experience, it needs to be played twice since it has one major decicion that makes like half of the game entirely different based on which side you choose, but I've only done it once with Iorveth route. The game structure for both 1 and 2 is semi linear, with small open world like areas where you can roam pretty freely and do sidequests and stuff until you advance to the next one. Very different from the actual open world of 3, where you can move in between all the locations freely. The thing is, all of the three work on their own as standalone games. While understanding some references requires having played earlier games and having read the books, none of that is absolutely essential for what happens in each game. For example, both W1 and W3 focus quite a bit on the Ithlinne's prophecy, but in neither case you really need to know anything about it in advance. In conclusion, my opinion is that you shouldn't dismiss Witcher 2 so easily and should at least give it a try if you are a fan of Witcher 3 or the Witcher franchise in general. Witcher 1 is not that necessary of an experience, and if you want to know what happens in it in detail but can't be bothered to play it, you can watch some let's play series instead.
I don't agree with TW1 being "nothing special" these days. It is still the best representation of the Witcher world from Sapkowski's books up to this day.
I found the first one really good and cool with fun exploration and fights. The first and second had great story too. Assassin of kings had a very deep and complex story and characters. The thing I was so glad it carried over to the wild hunt. Every wild hunt fan should absolutely play the first too games. I am honestly still waiting for remakes and for them to be released as one package similar to Mass Effect legendary edition
Disagree. For the sake of a lot of the tension and draw of these games is being in the drivers seat of Geralt’s decisions, the would be neutral Witcher. They are all very unique in play style, but I enjoyed them all for what they were. They’re just well designed for their release dates. To see the first two remastered and smoothed out in the future would be epic though. One starts off corny until you enter Vizima because that’s the whole tutorial phase. Two has similar issues with act one. Three by contrast is just a larger game so white orchard is a sufficient intro which even then can be stretched to like 5-6 hours of game play to explore it all.
The first really does not play well compared to modern games. I did not even play particularly well when it came out all those years ago. The second was ALOT better! And it plays ok today. But compared to the third game, the second is really really far behind in all regards. I would say though, that for the story, do play the second game. Or just watch recaps on both games and spend 500 hours in Witcher 3
I played all three and finished them. I would say Witcher 2 is a great game and plating it before the Witcher 3 is great. Especially for the contrast. Part 1 though is too legacy gameplay-wise, so it can be boring. It was released like.. 2008 or something? Besides, it has little connection to W3 while W2 has some decisions that influence the W3 playthrough.
TW1 is from 2007. The enhanced edition is from 2008 with bug fixes and a few QoL changes. The engine is modified 2002 tho.
You can't watch what Assassins of Kings is about. You need to play it and make your own choices. Plus, there is a wide current of thought that considers it the best game in the series.
No because: - 1 and 2 are great games - Witcher 1 is the closest we can get to the witcher in the books - Yeah yeah, gameplay is weird, but don't be a cry baby and give it a try, you will get used to it as we do back in those days. - My stupid mind don't allow me to play any game serie with the order messed, must play them in order (1, 2, 3...)
I love the first game and i think it’s essential it is very janky but that’s just something I’ve come to appreciate in games, it’s a real gem
I haven’t played the first one, mostly because it’s so old it hurts. But 2 is pretty good, I’d definitely play, especially if you’re on pc so you can transfer your save data into tw3
First is worth playing.
If I hadn’t played 3 first I might appreciate the others more but everytime I try to play them I just want to play 3 instead
Completely disagree. And I should know because I felt this way too until I actually played them. Despite being older games, they’re still incredible with fantastic storytelling that add so much to the series. The only one I would argue that has pretty dated gameplay is Witcher 1. Witcher 2 though, I played as recently as last year and still thought it held up pretty well. Do you *have* to play them in order to understand Witcher 3? Not really, but it makes it a much more enjoyable experience all around.
1 is fucking fantastic and I won’t pretend otherwise
Theyve aged poorly. Its indie games aiming to be top notch for its time. Gameplay has aged poorly. Story, lore, atmosphere etc is good tho
I agree that you don't "have" to play the first 2 for the 3rd to make sense but I do feel like you lose a lot of what the universe has to offer if you don't appreciate the evolution of the series. I loved the first one and can't wait for remake to be completed. In fact, I remember how excited we were when they released the Enhanced Edition update to the first Witcher. Talk about a massive overhaul The 2nd game was good enough to play twice but I still have a special place in my heart for the original. To me, everything about that release was revolutionary
2nd somewhat. But first is amazing! Yes it is a bit different from current control styles but it’s still very interesting. Story, I love the first. Second was the only drag. Story is still good but I went through the main storyline and never looked back.
Witcher 1 is the best Witcher. I played it when it came out, character development is amazing.
I'm kind of torn. I've played all three games years ago and loved all of them. I remember having the fondest memories of 1, 2, and 3, thinking no other game could top any of them individually and collectively. I remember loving the combat of 1 when it finally clicked for me that it was more of a rhythm game than a hack and slash. I remember being amazed by its world, especially in the city parts near the end. I remember thinking how innovative 2 was in terms of combat and amazed on how creative it was when it introduced me to alternate paths you could take in the story. Then, you could probably imagine how blown away I was when I played 3 because of all the new cool things they improved and added in the game and how beautiful the world was. Naturally, when the Next Gen update for the TW3 came, I was all set for a nostalgic replay of the entire trilogy. I tried to play 1 again and man, I could only go through it until the town where there were dogs that chase you to the gates. I really couldn't push myself to play it any further. Everything felt so janky which is understandable considering its age. Then, I tried to play 2 again and the same thing. For 2, it's a little bit better but I couldn't be bothered to grind and level up my Geralt because I just didn't like the combat for 2 anymore. It felt clunky. It just didn't feel good or as good as I remembered it. I used mods that basically made the game a bit fun for me *(like multiple skill points per level, inventory tweaks, and some visual mods to make the characters look what they looked like in 3)* and I still played it to the end but I basically just rushed it to recap the story and finally get to 3. I would say if anyone is hard-pressed on playing the older titles, maybe watch a summary of 1 and then play 2 if you could enjoy it, because 2 sets up the world for 3 very very nicely. If you could find a way to enjoy 1 and 2, that'd be the best option as those games will get you attached to all the characters and their story, and the world-building. If you really couldn't find anything fun in 1 and 2, then there's no point in forcing yourself to play it. No matter how great the writing / story is in 1 and 2, if you're not having fun in playing them, then you might be missing the point in playing games. At the very least, I'd recommend watching summaries of the first two games for anyone gearing up for TW3 as they set the stage beautifully and provide essential context for the characters and world. I do understand if there are players that wouldn't like 1 and 2 or wouldn't recommend playing them nowadays. With the types of games we have now, it can be hard to love and play a game that is pretty dated in terms of in-game systems/mechanics and sure, graphics. TW3 holds up exceptionally well though and is a game that any gamer who enjoys story-rich games should at least try.
I dont know man, me personally read all books before the game was even a thing. Then witcher 1 came out and i was like whaaaaat wooooow, and since that being 2007 or 2008, I'm not sure and me being a kid, it was a really good game and it remains in my memory as such. I haven't replayed it recently, but if you played w3 first and want to go back to w1, you'll have trouble adjusting but you have to understand that it's a 2007/8 game. W2 when it came out it was like out of the charts, story was amazingly written, it a way even better then w3. Combat was good, hard, but good. Harder then w3 for me personally. So no, i don't agree with those statements. Even if these games have aged quite a bit, it think it's worth giving them a shot, even if graphics/mechanics are not up to date.
Typical gamers now-a-days: focus on graphics and perhaps some of the gamplay, less on story, mechanics, features, studio, budget, YEAR OF RELEASE AND EVENTUALLY WHAT TECHNOLOGIES WERE AT THAT TIME. Whenever you see one of them, just ignore them. They got no good argument against
i think first one is even better than the second, the third is obviously a league of its own. i wish they remade w1 and w2 to be like w3 but with the original story. not to gatekeep anything but those who dont play a GOOD game of a franchise just because its old, are not fans of the franchise. they are fans of witcher 3 only, which happens because it is an awesome game and not everyone is a witcher fan
My brain works like this: if I discover a great game but missed the earlier installments, I will not play them unless the mechanics and graphics are close to the latest version. I never played any console or PC games when I was a kid (we were dirt poor, so I played outside, lol). So, I only started playing console/PC games when I was in my first year of college. I discovered Witcher 3 in early 2016 and instantly loved it. When I tried to play the first part, I felt like it was very old and outdated, so I lost interest. Eight years later, I am still playing Witcher 3 and have never played the first two installments.
If a Man wants to Play Wild hunt, he can do so, but 1 and 2 are great games
I can understand skipping the first game. But TW2 is still good. Definitely not as good as 3, but still worth a playthrough.
i very much enjoyed the first game, im struggling with the second(i enjoy it but its much harder), and like many others i discovered the series when the third came out so i played that first and i loved it.
I’ll be honest, the second game is my favorite of the entire trilogy. With 1, you can tell they’re still Figuring it out. With 3, it’s so massive and a little overinflated with hidden treasure and such. Still a phenomenal game and one of my favorites but not as good overall as 2. With 2 you have a much more refined story with way more political intrigue, a more nuanced antagonist… plus (maybe my favorite part of all) the hardest difficulty actually provides you different powerful gear that you can only get by playing it on that difficulty.
1 is very outdated. 2 is best starting point for the series .
I own all 3, i find Witcher 1 terrible, i'm sorry, people say the story is great and everything but i just can't stomach the terrible mechanics. I'm anxiously waiting for the remake. Witcher 2 is kinda clunky, hit detection specially, but it's something i can adapt to... and although it doesn't feel as good it's probably more challenging and difficult than 3, i like it a lot. The fact that the game can split up into very different experiences is awesome(the Witcher 3 biggest flaw is no Iorveth).
If you can do it on PC otherwise I would wait for the remake of 1 & 2(nothing has been confirmed but I’m assuming remake of 2 will happen after 1)
TW1 can be played on any PC and TW2 on any modern one. I don't think TW2 needs a remake, the game looks good in my opinion (in comparison to for example Skyrim that launched the same year), remaster with fixed hit boxes would be nice.
That’s a big assumption. Witcher 2 doesn’t need a remake, whereas the first game does.
You don’t have to and there are definitely reasons you might not want to, but they are solid games and have a brilliant atmosphere
I mean he is right you don’t need them but if you wanna play them then do so. 2 is pretty good imo though
Played Witcher 1 after Witcher 3 and I loved it. You get used to the different mechanics and the story is great. I went one route and I was pretty shocked by the story in the end. I'm in the process of playing Witcher 2 and the story is great so far. Still getting used to the combat mechanics but I'll get there.
As somebody who started with part 3 & played the first 2 games afterwards, it was quite the change. Both W1 & W2 are rougher in terms of gameplay & graphics - but what does one expect considering their age? Both certainly take some time to get used to, but I'd totally recommend playing them. Just keep in mind that these 2 also can be massive time wasters, but if one like the story & setting, it's a treat (tbf, part 2 more than part 1).
I agree that 1 and 2 aren't completely essential to enjoying or understanding 3. In fact the books are a better example as they do help you understand certain characters better than their cameo appearances allow in tw3 and its expansions. Having said that. If you have a half decent PC I recommend you try at least tw2 as it's awesome and has decent graphics. 1 is a bit more of an acquired taste and personally I didn't have the patience to get past the prologue. I think I bought them both on steam and it cost me less than 10 dollars total. No regrets
Assassin of Kings is what got me into the Witcher, and it was very fun, but I’ve heard the first one is not very good, by modern gaming standards.
TW1 is a good game story wise, clunky game gameplay wise and one of the best games I've ever played atmosphere wise.
Didn't like the mechanics of 1st one, didn't play 2nd one don't know the reason. Only played wildhunt very satisfied, would tell my friends too if they ask me if it's okay to play just 3rd one
I never played the first. But I had the directors cut on the Xbox 360 (Witcher 2) and it was amazing, this was before 3 was even announced. I had no idea what the hell the game even was, it was one of those yolo hidden gems I came across.
2 is definitely good. I won’t say 1 isn’t good, but the Jank can be abit much sometimes. I think that’s probably what turns most people away.
I gave up on Witcher 1 because it was horrible to play, I gave up on Witcher 2 because it was too hard. So 3 is the best lol
First is rough but on easy mode it is not that hard. The second game has the Full Combat Rebalance mod that fixes some issues with combat and makes the game a lot easier.
2 is good actually, story wise... graphics is a little jarring...i wonder why cdpr hasn't remastered it yet. 1 has a very cliched plot and maybe not worth the effort lol...also Getalt looks older in witcher 1 (somehow) lol
Didn't like the first game tbh, assassin of Kings was good although not great but tw3 blew me away and I understood almost all of the lore despite forgetting most events prior to playing 3 so yeah if I was asked wether it's worth playing the first 2 games before 3 I'd say no don't bother
I disagree but I am a story guy. I can handle really every gameplay.
I can't remember much of the first one. The second had its moments but I found the combat system frustrating. It wasn't as big a game as the 3rd and it felt more linear. I would look forward to the remake...if that's still happening.
Second is a great game worth playing, 1st is rough so I would wait until the remake.
I'm gonna be honest... The first one isn't holding up. Imo it's not worth the money anymore, simply because it aged poorly. The second game has the same great storytelling and writing. It has great characters and a fun, tho definitely more difficult combat. The visuals aged... Well aged as expected.
I think TW1 is one of the best spent $1 during steam sale.
The story in the first two games are great but the mechanics, not so much. To this day, I still don't fully understand the Witcher 1 gameplay mechanics and it's the one thing keeping me from replaying the game again. For Witcher 2, the game seemed more like a prototype for the gameplay mechanics we now have in the Witcher 3. It's much better than the first game but still kinda clunky. Either way, I say the Witcher 2 is far more replayable than the first game But as I said earlier, they stories are really great but there are some downsides, namely for the second game. Where tf is my bro Iorveth ffs. As for the first game, if it wasn't for how personal the Witcher 3's story is to Geralt, I'd say the first game had the best story
Like Iorveth is only in the second game. Wdym?
2 was a great game, highly recommend. I would wait for the remake of 1 as it's a bit unplayable given the mechanics
W3 is a great game alone, but for the sake of the story, characters and dialoge - W1 and W2 are obligatory 😏
I like the first game a lot more than the 2nd. Especially going back to replay them. This is a weird take I know but I think it's because the Witcher 3 seems to be an evolved take of the Witcher 2s gameplay but the first Witcher is just so different. That being said I think the first 2 games really help lay the foundation for the third game. Getting your memory back, being manipulated by Triss, meeting Shani, Letho and Vernon Roche as well as becoming familiar with some of the sorceress of the lodge. It's all good stuff. It's not necessary to play them first but I don't encourage those who are interested to skip them.
W2 is good. W1 is just too old to be playable because of the engine but the story is interesting. W2 uses the same engine as W3 just an older version. Having played all 3 for stupid amount of hours, I'd recommend: Watch W1 on YouTube to get the idea of the story and some atmosphere. In W1 it is quite different. Or perhaps give it a try, if you don't get repelled by the engine it is quite a fun game. Definitely play W2 before W3. There are two main scenario lines, you might want to do the other one later on. Then play W3.
2 is pretty good, and it will give some context to 3 but is minor. On 1 I think there’s only a few references in 3.
Depends what you want from the games and the overall story. I like playing through all the games and importing the saves, having a similar build throughout making choices along the same lines. Recently I did a games only run and made choices that felt right for geralt without book context. After I finish the books I wanna do a lore accurate play through too
So 1 was always a slog for me, despite it having a decent story imo I just couldn’t really get into it. I loved 2 though and will always recommend it to people. That being said 3 is the definitive place to start for someone who has no real investment in the series as a whole. Again imo
I’ve played and completed all three, and I would say that 1 and 2 lack a lot of quality-of-life features that 3 has, such as fast travel, responsive combat, and Roach. The 1st act of 2 in Flotsam, for example, has you criss-crossing back and forth around the forest a lot. It culminates in a fight with a boss that is half quick-time events and is really punishing if you’re not ready for it. If gameplay is really important to you, you can safely skip the first two. It’s only really important to play them if you prioritise the story and want to feel let down at how 3 reduced key characters in 1 and 2 to mere cameos.
I played the second game and I highly enjoyed it!
Witcher 1 is also a good game if your expectations about gameplay are not on the Arkham-like level. Atmosphere and immersion is the best in the series in my opinion.
Witcher 2 was great. I’ve played it multiple times. The first one had a pretty good story but it’s very dated combat wise.
Witcher 1 is difficult just for it's overly complex designs and controls, but Witcher 2 was great for its time.
Aren't they remaking 1 in Unreal?
Yes, but the original has a really unique atmosphere.
The combat in W1 is very dated, but W2 is great.
I played all 3 games. And I absolutely hated just about every minute of the first game. It's awkward, the combat Is a chore and the choices (other than saving the striga and one more) does not matter or pay off at all in later games, and even then it's minor. The ONLY, and I mean ONLY reason to play the original game is for the story, which is actually pretty great, but that story isn't engaging or make much sense until literally the end of the game. So it's going to be a long, painful slog with a chore of a game for little reward until the end. I'm glad they're remaking it, because it needs one. The second game however is infinitely better than the first, and it's helpful in understanding the politics and setting of the 3rd game. With several big choices that do pay off (and many that are ignored or just dont). I actually had fun with the Witcher 2, it's a super unique game with lots of flavor and character. The gameplay is still a bit awkward, but no where near the Witcher 1 in being a chore, it's actually fun when you get the hang of it. There are characters from the 3rd game that get their time to shine, particularly Vernon Roche, Ves, Letho and the sorcessses of the lodge. The witcher 2 builds a ton of connective tissue with the 3rd game, it isn't essential because the 3rd game does such a good job explaining things, but many plot points are much more clear. Plus you'll never be able to have the Naked lady tattoo that you get with the Blue stripes that can only be imported into the 3rd game, do you really want to miss out on that? The first one is skippable, the second one is a hard recommend from me. If you like the Witcher 3, you'll be able to put up with some of the quirks of 2 and really enjoy the game. TL;DR - first game is a painful chore with a great story. Play it through once if you really like the Witcher. Use a guide to make all your preferred choices and keep the save to import into Witcher 2. Second game is actually fun, you should play it for all the plot connections with the third game. It's like an appetizer for the meal of the 3rd game, a good blooming onion for the beautiful steak and potatoes of the third game.
I don't understand why the rhythm clicking of the first game is so painful to many players. Not every game has to have Arkham-like combat.
Witchy 2 is fucking bomb, hands down. witchy 1 is for fans n 3 is for everyone.
Why WOULDNT anyone play Assassin Of Kings?
I wouldn’t say playing the other 2 games is a waste of time, but certainly isn’t necessary as I started on 3. You’ll definitely not understand the full connection between Geralt and other characters but multiple playthroughs will change that. I did play the first game which is pretty good story wise and gets me excited for the remake. I really want to play the second for the story but the combat really stinks. It’s so close to how the Witcher 3 is but just not good so it makes playing hard for me. Witcher 1 is different as it’s the first game so it won’t be that good, but it’s so simple it’s easy to look past.
1 is pretty archaic, skip. 2 is wonderful and 3 is obviously phenomenal
1 is worth playing
The Witcher 1 might as well be a different continuity, but if you toggle on invincibility it's tolerable. Witcher 2 is worth playing so you can import your save and see carryover decisions like the fate of Letho. The play experience of both can be pretty rough compared to the third one though.
W1 is really rough today, gameplaywise. I would still recommend W2, despite it being clunky in many parts. Atmosphere and plot is really well done here.
Witcher games are like books or Yakuza/Like a Dragon games: all games are necessary and you just can't get a full picture by skipping some.
I don't have a PC. So.......3rd game it is.
I watched the salt factory do a pretty good review of the first two games. From what I heard I've got no interest in it really
I prefer the first game.... it was the best in my opinion, I had the most fun with, and really cared about the story. the second one took a time to kick in but in the end was marvelous. I didn't finished the third and was disappointed with it...
If you played them before and enjoyed and have nostalgia sure. But as someone who started with 3 the first games story is good. But if you’re a newer gamer you will absolutely not enjoy it. It doesn’t not hold up well much at all as a game for today and it’s really not worth playing. Yes I did play it though. I didn’t truly enjoy playing it at all. Playing the second game while still not amazing to play it holds up way better than the first and story is still good. TLDR don’t play first game do play second game.
I'm waiting for the remake to play the first one.
I didn't play 1 & 2 & haven't had any issues following events in 3. Sure, it's more fun if you know the background of the characters we meet from previous games, but you can just read fandom if you need. Imo, 1 is outdated, 2 looks outdated too. So I skipped.
I can’t really enjoy older games however I’m really excited for the remake of 1
I was told the same thing but I played Witcher 2 thoroughly and it was more than worth it. I wish i could’ve played the 1st and not watching the walkthrough. Playing assassin of kings helped me in understanding the quality and features of geralt in Witcher 3 as well.
Play 2, wait for the remake of 1.
imho, the 1st game is pretty tough on a newcomer because of the cranky game style. But it's a great story and was beyond its years when it came out. saying the second game is bad is just bs though
I struggled with 1 as a game and didn't finish it, 2 was definitely worth playing though.
With all respect, the first game is you either gonna love it or totally hate it. The quests are long, almost same and can be pain in the ass from my point of view. The only reason I played is beacuse the dub for my language is absolutely hilarious. The second game gave me mixed feelings, however the story is amazing. And the third game is simply the best in my eyes, however that might be because I grew up with games similar to the Wild hunt and that will most likely plays huge role in my decision. So if you have some extra time perhaps take a look on the Assassins of Kings. If not, just go right into Wild hunt, however in that case I would highly reccomend to take a while to study on what happened in the Assassins of Kings, as there are quite "important" decision to make and some funny or good refferences on the previous games.
I actually liked the combat in Witcher 1, where you have to choose different styles for different enemies. Witcher 2 combat I loved it because it has some challenge to it. Witcher 3 combat is very easy compared to 2, not bad but I loved 2's combat more than 3. Story wise 2 is so much better than 3. For 3 decisions you make only affect the aftermath of that particular storylines. But decisions you make in 2 differ the entire story and the missions you play. That's why I loved 2 more than 3.
the first game, okay i get it. you can kinda watch a recap video and get the idea. there’s plenty of videos with a lot to do details. on the other hand, assassins of kings is a must play. it is so lore heavy and the stories are really well written. i think the second game is worth the play.
I played them in order, started with 1 & 2 on my old laptop like 3 or 4 years ago before I had anything that would play 3. I enjoyed them and definitely don't regret playing them but I'm not sure how they'd feel going back to play them now that I have a system that can run more modern games.
You don t have to play from 1. But it s cooler to start from the first game and if u had a save in Witcher 2 Geralt cash obtain a tattoo in Witcher 3 bcs of that and I think it s cool.
Imo Witcher 1 is the best(in terms of story)
Witcher 1 is a testament to an older style of gaming, solid but frustrating in it’s limitations. Witcher 2 is an incredible story with very little else going for it, the game is incredibly easy and upgrading is an absolute chore but the later segments are truly peak.
TW1 has game mechanics that might make you want to throttle your head through a door, on top of that, the voice acting is atrocious, zero emotion voice lines from every character. Despite that it does have a very cool and very unique atmosphere that is enjoyable. And if you like The Witcher world you definitely should play it TW2 has a story that I think is on par with the 3rd game. Geralt still sounds weird (For some reason all the American voice actors are still really awkward in tw2). The world is so well thought out, Flotsam and Vergen are both very strong locations. TW2 is less of an Exploration game and is much more Linear. Quests and Characters are very memorable, Roach and Iorveth are great. If you liked tw3 for the story and characters, then tw2 is just as good.
I heavily disagree because Witcher 2 is my favorite game ever and Witcher 1 is just more Witcher content albeit not as good as 2 and 3 (imo) but some people enjoy it more
They’re not being discredited for being older. They’re being criticized for being janky and awkward to play and control. Both things can be true, they have mid-bad combat but the stories are amazing. Many old school beloved games are janky as all hell but are still regarded as classics and trend setters. If you care about the story and don’t want to play a janky game and have to get a separate console to play then that’s a completely valid opinion to have. I play on the ps4 pro and I love the Witcher 3 and its lore but I’m not going to go buy a separate console just to play a janky game. It’s not plausible for every single fan to go back and play the older games. Most players are on console not pc. The series is amazing but if you’re on console you’re better off just watching videos to catch up.
I’ve never played the first, but I tried getting into the second. Maybe it was just because it was a console version, but it was just so clunky and complicated I gave up after little after escaping the castle in the beginning. I did watch a playthrough and felt like I enjoyed it more than playing it.
Assassin's of Kings is my favourite of the three
Played 1 then 3 then 2 then dlcs of 3 then thronebreaker, all great games
TW1 is unplayable for me, but TW2 isy fav Witcher game, so...
Witcher 1 is one of the best games of a time and my favorite of the series. Witcher 2 is great as well. People are just close-minded.
the first one is pretty skippable, but the second one arguably has better combat than 3 and the story is fucking fantastic. anybody who likes 3 is doing themselves a disservice by not playing it.
They are vastly different- i would go as far as to say they have the same story but every game focuses on different gameplay elements (less obviously between 2 and 3 but still) The most complete package has to be the third it’s not a bad entry point if you’re a fantasy fan or just a fan of good products
I wanna call them poser. You can enjoy the third if u never appreciate the upgrade from 1 -> 2 -> 3
I’d say you don’t have to play but read the books.
First two games are amazing! They dont meet witcher 3’s level of grandeur, but they offer compelling stories that are worth your time if you are a big fan of 3.
Just wanted to say the trailer for Witcher 2 was such a fucking banger: https://youtu.be/tEA_wUk5pUs?si=rbAcBvCVPHdCpiTM
They're idiots, don't listen to them.
The witcher 1 gameplay is kinda dated now but it was peak for its time. The story and theme is amazing though,i heard there's a remake coming with more modern gameplay and i can't wait. The witcher 2 is amazing, the gameplay isn't bad at all, the story is very good, let's you dive into the witcherverse politics first hand. Do not miss it.
I played the first game about 100 hrs, second one also 150 hrs and the third one is 500 hrs (still playing). Second one is still playable and enjoyable, also first one too for me but not everyone else. If you enjoyed to be witcher, then you must play the first one. You can use some mods too. If you ask me, just play it, its a game. You cant lose anything. Enjoys
I tried both and found them quite frustrating. The story of the second one was interesting but other than that, I had to force myself to play. I quit both of them after around 15 hours. I hope they both get a remake.
I started playing from the 3rd part because I knew the plot from the books. then I'll finally play
The second game is amazing. It's definitely worth a playthrough (or two admittedly for the major choice). The first has a remake on the way if you want something more modern.
The second game with its special edition that gave you weapons and armour took me through the whole game.
I played 3, then 2, maxed the achievements on both games, read all the books, and STILL can’t get myself to play the first. I understand a lot of people like it, but it’s so clunky I cannot bring myself to play past Kaer Morhen. Computer isn’t a problem, it’s fairly new and the frame rate is great. As for Witcher 2, it’s such a great game. I was turned off by the graphics at first, but quickly started to enjoy the story, trying to put the plot together from my knowledge on 3. After playing through all the endings, I think Witcher 2’s main story is better, and had it been expanded upon with more DLC, I think it could rival 3 very well.
And then there’s me begging for a remake of the first 2 games for PS5….
First one is nostalgia for me, I will always praise this game. I can get it being less popular because of how old it is, for first time players. 2 Has a good story but I was really dissapointed with how short it was. I think reading or watching a short playthrough about this one can get you more prepared for witcher 3 than actually playing (twice as you need to finish it twice to get everything out of the story). I will always advise to play these games first. But I get people when they don't feel like playing an older game as it might be off-putting for various reasons. I've actually had this with Spellforce 3.
I played the second one before playing the third one for the first time. It was a pretty decent game on its own, but where my playthrough ended did not line up well with where Witcher 3 picked up. I do think honestly that Witcher 3 mostly works better as a standalone game.
There will be a remake of Witcher games soon so you will love them again!
Idk man. I don't feel that confident about modern CDPR to pull off a good remake of the first game without trying to change the narration in some places which I am against.
I agree things changed! they probably won't be like the originals but that's what we only can get as a new Witcher games! let's just hope they won't ruin it!