Witcher 2 to Witcher 3

[Zafire]

I played 3 without playing the first two. I regret nothing. The story feeds you the lore pretty well, and if there is something you're curious about you can always look it up. I got fairly involved in the Witcher lore just from that curiosity (Who exactly WAS Letho, for example). The interrogation part after the starting area comes to mind.

The story doesn't really pick up until you hit the first big city, Novigrad. If you insist on doing everything the game has to offer, this will take you quite a while to get to. If not..well, you can speed through the story, too. The ending just might not be as good.

It really is the best RPG I have ever played. The card mini-game is extremely fun, the story is top-notch, and the sidequests are all mostly gray-areas. It is the only game where I can actually say I enjoyed almost every sidequest I did.

It gets a solid 5/5 from me. It made every other game seem boring for months after I beat it. It's that good.

[Kralljin]

So my question is: Which category does The Witcher belongs to? Is it absolutely necessary to play the first or second game in order to understand what's going on? or can I just jump in on the third one without worries?

To understand the "main plot" of Witcher 3, nope, the books are more important for that, altough the game explains it decently.

However for a not too insignificant subplot, having played Witcher 2 adds some depth and understanding to the story.


Personally though, Witcher 2 story is really great, political conspiracy is a major part and there and you uncover more and more as you go on, altough if the gameplay of Witcher 3 doesn't speak to you, Witcher 2 is worse in that regard.

Witcher 3 is one of the most overrated games to date. The story is decent and it looks pretty. But at the end of the day. Its a game, not a movie. The combat in withcer 3 is mediocre at best. It doesn't really change much from the start of the game to the end of the game. Really no sense of progression. Then to top it off.

It's a matter of preference really, Witcher 3 is still a game, altough the gameplay is not as great, it's nowhere near on the level of a "game" like Until Dawn, which is basically an interactive Horror Movie.

If the story is secondary to you, then the Witcher series is really not a thing for you.

It comes down to the philosophy of the game designers, Blizzard for example says "Gameplay first", therefore you get some really farfetched / contrived stuff as far as the story is concerned in Blizzard games.

These super fancy moveset which basically would get you killed in any real sword fight.

Aside from the Spin / Whirl, i can see most moves being rather "realistic", after all, Witchers are basically trained from childhood to fight tough monsters, have superhuman speed / agility on top of that, they can pull off a lot more than a regular human could.

[Illusions]

Before I started playing Witcher games, I was told that 'just get the third, you don't need to play through the first two'. So I suppose you could follow that advice too. A bigger question I'd raise is that do you want to play it? If you didn't like the combat in second, you might not like it in third, as they are quite similar. That being said, I hated the combat in second and it's alright/decent in third (but nothing overly spectacular).

Then again, I started playing from the first game and I loved it way more than most people did. The second game was weakest, in my opinion. So it's something like Witcher 3 > 1 > 2 for me, with 2 being 'decent', not bad.

Personally the Witcher games aren't so much focused on the combat as they are on the story and the scenery. The world is *gorgeous*, I've literally stopped so many times to snap pics and enjoy the world they've created. Someone said the exploration is worthless because the world is empty or whatnot, but I cannot disagree more - the areas are still different, there are interesting nooks and crannies, so on and so forth. But eventually, it just falls down to personal preference. If you are more for the story, the third game should be to your liking.

You don't need the first two games to understand the story of third. There are some references, some mentions, but you can read up on most things through in-game journals and such. The youtube videos someone mentioned is a great method, too. Playing Witcher 2 isn't necessary, as all the choices you made there can be chosen from Witcher 3 (did you kill a person or let them live etc), and thus far into my playthrough, they haven't had a big impact. I'm only in Novigrad in Witcher 3, so I'm not even very far into the game (I think it's either second or third area you "go" to, depending on if you count Novigrad as a separate location or not), and the playthrough until present has been longer than Witcher 2 full playthrough (60 hours in W3 to 42 in Witcher 2. Witcher 1 had 52 hours). So the game is definitely more massive.

[Derah]

These super fancy moveset which basically would get you killed in any real sword fight.

Right. Cause I'm looking for hyper-realism in a VIDEOGAME.

Dude I play videogames to escape real life, not to soak in it. The day I want realism, I just watch over the news. There's my daily dosage of reality, where I see a dude shanking another dude with a shiv.

When I'm in a videogame I don't mind doing a triple-backwards flip and follow with a quadruple-slash and impale while dualwielding swords on fire.

[Jastall]

You don't need to have played the first two games to enjoy TW3. The story is mostly self-contained. Of course you will miss some references and ask yourself a few questions, but the main plot is completely independent on that of the first two titles.

Although I'd encourage anyone who likes TW3 to at least take a look at the second game. Its gameplay and interface are kind of bad, but the story is interesting. TW1 doesn't have much to offer beyond its kickass music unless you're a major fan.

[Nevrex]

As someone who played all 3, to me the story, exploration and the atmosphere were more important than the gameplay.

I went into this series with the focus on story and being in a fantasy world, not so much on cool combos and loot (I would not complete the dark souls games if they didn't have a good story and lore).

I bought the 1st game when it was released. It was buggy as hell and the combat wasn't really engaging (just click the mouse when the sword flares up).
What made me love it though was the plot and the feel of the game. My first night waiting by the lake for the drowners to spawn for my contract, not knowing what is coming, seeing the sky going dark and all the villagers going inside. It was amazing.

Since my computer was pretty shit, i couldn't run the second game, so I played this one like 20 times.

Once I was able to play the second game, again it was great fun. Liked the characters, story and gameplay. It felt very short though. They went with the design of a short game with different endings, which is a shame.

Lastly the third game, I loved it. I have about 400+ hours in it, with the expansions. This game delivered the main thing I was looking for in the first 2 games-The travelling witcher looking for work.

I see that many people go straight to the third game and I get it. The first 2 games are old and they are not interesting enough gameplay wise. I think it's a shame though because you will miss or not understand stuff in the third game. It's like watching the third movie of a trilogy. It's fine by itself, but not complete.

[DrMcNinja]

Witcher 3 is better than 2, but personally I never felt like it was *much* better, especially in the combat department I saw nothing resembling a big improvement, apparently unlike other people who hated 2 but loved 3.

https://www.nexusmods.com/witcher3/mods/2521/

Really enjoy the game with this mod and it adds that little layer of complexity I missed. You can also tweak things a bit to fit you.

[Jonnusthegreat]

Long story short, several years ago, I heard all this fuzz about The Witcher, a game everyone who played it swore it was awesome, but when I played it, it had horrible combat, boring-ass story, and a semi-passable music. Overall I barely finished the first town before I decided to call it quits.

Fastforward a few years, The Witcher 2 came out. Once again, everyone and their mother swore this one was even better than the first one. Angry Joe gave it a 10/10 (So far he's only done that for like four games total in almost 10 years reviewing). I played it, once again just couldn't get into the combat, and didn't really get invested in the story. I finished the prologue and the prison escape, but about an hour after arriving to the first town, I called it quits.

Fastforward to today, a friend of mine gifted me Witcher 3 Game of the Year Edition, a game that has received so much jizz-spewing praise from EVERYONE on the internet, one would think this is better than skyrim, sex, and sex while playing skyrim. I saw a few videos on the combat and it looks much better than the previous two, the story looks a bit more interesting, and I am considering giving it a try. But I dunno if I should really play the other two in order to understand or enjoy the story of the third game. Some games are like that (Try to jump into Mass Effect 3 without playing the other two, and you won't know what the fuck is going on, or who is everyone, and 90% of all the jokes and references will fly over your head), while other games are not (I began playing Saints Row 4 first without having played any of the previous ones, and despite not knowing everyone, I still had a blast, the story was perfectly understood even if all the callbacks and references to previous games missed their mark on me. The jokes were still funny to a newcomer to the series).

So my question is: Which category does The Witcher belongs to? Is it absolutely necessary to play the first or second game in order to understand what's going on? or can I just jump in on the third one without worries?

Watch the Witcher 1 and 2 movies so you have the backstory. Depending on which ones you watch, it's a 4-10 hour investment. You SHOULD do this. If you play Witcher 3 without doing this, you'll have no idea who people like Djikstra and Radoviid are, and those parts of the story will just be normal quests with no flavor. But knowing who they are adds a layer of immersion to the game.

Here are some links, feel free to just google "Witcher movie" and find different ones:

[Derah]

Watch the Witcher 1 and 2 movies so you have the backstory. Depending on which ones you watch, it's a 4-10 hour investment. You SHOULD do this. If you play Witcher 3 without doing this, you'll have no idea who people like Djikstra and Radoviid are, and those parts of the story will just be normal quests with no flavor. But knowing who they are adds a layer of immersion to the game.

Here are some links, feel free to just google "Witcher movie" and find different ones:

Thank you. I think I'll take the middle-road compromise, and watch the video for the first game, then play the second with a buttload of mods and cheats to breeze through the poor combat and just stick to the story, and then go in for Witcher 3.

[Leafcast]

Witcher 2 is a great game, but it really doesn't start picking up pace until halfway through Flotsam. I'd recommend giving it a chance and then playing Witcher 3 so you have more context for some of the more nuanced plot points.

Have fun with Witcher 3, If I could choose any game to play again for the first time, it would be W3 without a doubt. Just knowing that you have the core game as well as both expansions ahead of you makes me super jealous.

[Kuja]

I've played W1 through, was very enjoyable. W2 I have never finished, didn't like it as much. W3 is great, but way too open world for me, so I always burn out with the exploration.

[Lord Pebbleton]

I couldn't even stand the tutorial in Witcher 1. Skipped 2 entirely.
I bought Witcher 3 and I think it is one of the most amazing experiences of my life.

[Derah]

Okay, last question regarding Witcher 3.

Without spoiling anything, is there an ideal time to play the DLC?

I ask because in some games, the DLC can be played in any order (For example, the two DLCs for Saints Row 4 can be played during or after the main story, doesn't really matter) while in others, while they "can" be played in any order, they really make a lot more sense if played after the main story (For example, Mass Effect 2's DLCs, or the Dragonborn DLC for skyrim)

So when it comes to Hearts of Stone and Blood&Wine, are these played after the main story? during? or what?

[Orby]

As someone who earlier this year replayed all the Witcher games the first Witcher game has aged horribly in every aspect its almost like The Room of video games as in it's so bad it's good.

But Witcher 2 has aged pretty well., grpahically it's still good to look at and it has a great atmosphere and storytelling.

And Witcher 3 of course has beaten out Legend of Zelda: OoT as my all time favourite video game of all time. The game is open world done right. No game since has perfected open world as CD Project Red has. I do wonder how it will hold up over time, but with LoZ:OoT being my number one video game for 14 years prior to Witcher 3 these games don't come around often for me.

But of course thats not saying it's to everyone taste, the combat is still clunky so if you are looking for a combat masterclass gameplay then you are in the wrong place. The game has flaws that I can look past but I am understandable some people wont. I loved the game because of it's awesome immersion. and brilliantly crafted storytelling. And it's awesome characters. And how I have always been a fan of Andrezj Sapkowski

[Davemetalhead]

Okay, last question regarding Witcher 3.

Without spoiling anything, is there an ideal time to play the DLC?

I ask because in some games, the DLC can be played in any order (For example, the two DLCs for Saints Row 4 can be played during or after the main story, doesn't really matter) while in others, while they "can" be played in any order, they really make a lot more sense if played after the main story (For example, Mass Effect 2's DLCs, or the Dragonborn DLC for skyrim)

So when it comes to Hearts of Stone and Blood&Wine, are these played after the main story? during? or what?

I'm only level 19 after 60 hours played, so I'm no expert but ... the two expansions appear to have a level requirement - the game advises being around level 32 I think fo the first expansion. It appears you can try them at any time, but you'll be up against mobs far above your level. I had a quest for the first one in my quest log since around level 4 or 5, so it appears they are seamlessly integrated into the main game.

Saying that, there is also an option to start with either of the expansions at the beginning, should you choose to do so. I haven't tried it, but the text mentions that you'll start with appropriate gear and level, but obviously you'll have missed out on all the game upto that point.

[Jastall]

Okay, last question regarding Witcher 3.

Without spoiling anything, is there an ideal time to play the DLC?

I ask because in some games, the DLC can be played in any order (For example, the two DLCs for Saints Row 4 can be played during or after the main story, doesn't really matter) while in others, while they "can" be played in any order, they really make a lot more sense if played after the main story (For example, Mass Effect 2's DLCs, or the Dragonborn DLC for skyrim)

So when it comes to Hearts of Stone and Blood&Wine, are these played after the main story? during? or what?

Both after the main game, I think. Their events are entirely unrelated to the main quest, and are important enough on their own to not grind the main quest's pacing to a screeching alt if you ask me. They also have some fairly steep level requirements (around level 30 for both) such that you won't be able to really do them until you near the endgame anyway.

Blood and Wine in particular is most definitely to be done after the base game is over, since at the end of it you get a few special scenes with important characters based on what happened during the main campaign, and gives some closure to Geralt's arc.

If you really want to play the DLC ASAP there's an option to create a new Geralt at the appropriate level with the appropriate gear, and with only the two DLC quests active. I don't recommend it for a first timer, but it is there.

[Arrowstormen]

Blood and Wine is definitely after the main game. Hearts of Stone can be done after the campaign, but also during it. Depends on what you want to do really. If you haven't finished parts of the main story, I know there are some things you can do in Hearts of Stone you can't otherwise do (potentially), but it's nothing major.

To add to the choir, never played 1, couldn't get into 2, Wild Hunt is probably my favorite game of all time. It also made me pick up some of the books as well when I went on vacation after having played it for a few days and couldn't play it again for a couple of weeks.

[Derah]

Jesus. That's an awful lot of praise Witcher 3 has to live up to.

:P we'll see if it actually manages to do so when I play it. I'm definitely skipping the first one and just watch the cutscenes in youtube, and then playing the second one with a trainer and some mods to trivialize the combat so I can focus on the story, and then start up the third one.

[Kralljin]

I couldn't even stand the tutorial in Witcher 1. Skipped 2 entirely.
I bought Witcher 3 and I think it is one of the most amazing experiences of my life.

Witcher 1 is just plain terrible in terms of gameplay.

Witcher 2 is bad to average, the combat system feels very awkward / less fluid than Witcher 3, the irony of Witcher 2 is that the prologue is probably the hardest part of the game.

[Elim Garak]

Witcher 1 didn't age well gameplay wise, but in its prime it was an amazing game. Both gameplay and Story wise. You just had to get used to the unique combat system, but once you figure it out - it's just a choreographic clicker. Switch stances according to situation, switch swords according to enemies, click at right cues to perform combos. Add signs to your taste. The story was amazing. Decisions, decisions.

I played it in its prime so I enjoyed it a lot, I tried playing it again - couldn't even force myself to do it.

Witcher 2 was better gameplay wise but more streamlined storywise - and amazing because of it (you actually have to play it twice to see both paths). But release version had clunky controls and combat was affected by that making it harder than it should've been, at least for me. But they fixed that fast. I played it with a controller, kb/mouse were still a bit clunky.

I think Witcher 2 is quite replayable today, the only downside is the slow "I remember" prologue.

Witcher 3 - well one of the best video games ever made. I'm gonna start another playthru tomorrow, now with all the expansions.