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.
The best answer to this question is still Post Number 2027 in this thread:
Read that guide and dive into The Witcher 3.
You mean if after 200 hours you need more Witcher, then play the Blood & Wine DLC - that was a long one, wasn’t it?
Don’t forget to install The Witcher 3 HD Reworked Project.
Well, it is Netflix. So probably two.
I’ve been working my way through Witcher 1 and it’s pretty great. The areas are big enough to feel like an open world, without being exhausting to walk through. The combat takes a little getting used to, but it’s not bad. I recommend it – I’ve finished chapter 1 and it’s finally sunk its claws into me.
A warning: Witcher 1 does have many strengths, but it has severe pacing issues, particularly in Chapters 2 and 3. I’d say getting to the end of the game is worth the “low” parts, but they’re there.
Oh, I don’t think I ever escaped chapter 2, now that you mention it.
Thanks for letting me know. Better to expect it than to be surprised.
I started with 3 and it was fantastic. From context you can at least have a vague idea of Geralts past dealings with the characters he may have encountered before. I never felt lost.
I liked but didn’t love Witcher 2. Witcher 1 is unplayable to me in the way Final Fantasy VII is. It aged horrifically. I’ve heard from others that it has a good story, but when the list of side effects includes “Ocular Bleeding” I tend to lose interest in a product. And this is from someone who thinks Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup with tiles is fine, so I’m not averse to playing low-tech games. It’s just that initial style of “3d” aged so badly.
It’s also very easy to lock yourself out of a significant portion of the quests by triggering checkpoints in the main quest line. If you’re intent on playing the game I strongly advise you to look up a quest guide. It is one of the worst examples of sequencing issues I’ve ever seen in over 20 years of playing RPGs.
I don’t get this. Technologically and artistically is still looks quite beautiful and far cry from the truly early 3D games (like FF7).
I have no problem immersing myself in it even today.
I’ll happily admit the screenshots look better than I remember. But I suspect there was something about seeing the game in motion and how clunky everything felt that really turned me off. Honestly I can’t even remember my exact criticism, all I can say is that the game did not pull me in and I was pretty heavily invested in Geralt of Rivia, so it shouldn’t have been a tough sell for me.