The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

Yea, I don’t remember doing all that much actual sailing in Skellige. Just used the nav points. Once I realized all the question marks in the ocean were 100% skippable and you wouldn’t miss anything crucial, I was fine. I imagine that people who can’t play a game like that without exploring every map icon would have found Skellige tedious and boring, though.

For me, Skellige is actually more memorable for being the zone I found least interesting story-wise. I wasn’t emotionally invested in the succession one way or another, I find Yenn a bit tiring as a character (she feels like somebodies hot, snarky mom on a CW show, don’t @ me), and that is definitely the part of the game where you are most saddled with her in the storyline. Both literally and figuratively. I did enjoy the intro to the zone with the Ice Giant, but the whole Lycanthrope thing and the druids and the succession were all among the weaker storylines to me.

The fact I can actually remember all the storylines years later still says something. I couldn’t even give you anything beyond the vaguest idea what Pillars of Eternity was even about, for example. Let alone the name of even a single one of its zones. I guess bad Witcher 3 is still pretty excellent.

I loved Skellige a lot. After the dreary countryside of Velen in no-mans land, I was ready for the winter/mountain/forest setting on Skellige, and enjoyed it all immensely.

Yeah, it’s the closest to the wilderness RPG that it gets.

I spent some quality time with Hearts of Stone over the weekend and it’s just. So. Good. I loved the whole wedding with Shani and Vlodimir… dancing and drinking and brawling and pig wrangling…

And in a game filled with favorite moments, you can add this one to the heap: Geralt’s succinct reaction immediately after killing the grotesque, faceless Caretaker in the garden outside the Von Everec estate…

Do I buy this again on the Switch?

Is there a deficiency of other titles on the Switch to occupy your time with it?

Don’t hate me but this question is not really about Witcher 3. I want to come clean and admit I’ve never really played any of the Witcher games. Given that, would it make sense to start with the first Witcher or should I just write that one off, read a summary of it, and start with Witcher 2? I’m sure if I play the first two I’ll set them to easy so I won’t get all caught up in the fighting mechanics. But I would like to run through the storylines before starting W3.

So I guess the question is play W1 or not?

W1 wasn’t an enjoyable experience for me. I gave up on it after a few hours, mainly because the combat was so uninteresting. I was playing it with Polish voiceovers and English subs. It gave it a great out of this world feel!

I played Witcher 3 without ever beating either of the first two games, so I can say without hesitation that it’s not necessary. In fact, I would almost recommend starting with 3 just because it’s a much more polished and enjoyable experience. Then if you like it, you can go back and try the first two games.

Witcher 1 was brilliant, but I don’t think it aged well. I’d say starting with Witcher 2 or 3 is fine. 3 does have some cameos from 2, so if that’s something you like you’ll probably enjoy 3 more if you play 2 before, but it’s not required.

I only ever played W3. And 5-10 hours of W1 like 5 years prior.

It’s fine.

Witcher 2 is still kind of clumsy. I’d recommend starting with 3.

TW1 has most distinctly slavic atmosphere and its combat animations are crazy. It is a great game, but somewhat retro (does not support controller, dialogue animations are not AAA…). You should at the very least give it a chance.

Witcher 1 was great, but that was basically because the world and the story were unique and new. However, it’s clumsy now and hard to go back to. Give it a try if you can but you will probably get the same unique and new experience just jumping into no 3. No 2 was (as most middle books in a trilogy) not great, but a step between the two. You can probably jump straight into no. 3 without any problems but please read up on the first two to understand the story, the consequences of your actions before starting.

Whatever you choose, enjoy one of the most fantastic games and unique worlds and characters in a fantasy RPG.

Hey woah. This is something I’ve never heard before. The conventional wisdom I’d always read was that the middle book is the best in a trilogy since things are amping up, and that endings are usually disappointing. I also found this to be the case most of the time myself.

I normally find the middle book needlessly padded out to justify a trilogy when they could have just made two books. It has a bit of building up for the final book, but nothing that couldn’t have been done in the end of the first or start of the last book.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying I feel there’s a weird obsession in both literature and film to make trilogies and a lot of the time it’s totally not needed. It’s like publishers consider it a Holy Trinity and authors/writers need to pander to them and stretch things out. JMHOFWIW.

Play 3 and if after 200 hours you need more Witcher, try 2, then 1.

Don’t forget there’s seven seasons of a TV Series coming as well.

I played the first game and tbh don’t remember much about it apart from the cheesecake, and that it playing it took some work.

I remember W2 as being a distinctly more polished and engaging, but again, the actual details are pretty fuzzy. If you have some time to spare, it should be fun.

Except for the broad outlines, not much of either game was still in my head when I started The Witcher 3, and it didn’t matter. But come to think of it, I would kind of like to have had the experience of playing W2 and going straight to W3.

Everyone take a shot. Someone asked The Witcher Question.