Witcher 1 or 2?

Hey I was wondering what Witcher I should buy im told the series is like dragon age origins with loads of immersion and I want to relive the experience but with a new game.

I love storylines but I can live without it incase Witcher 1 is terrible, feels like i've heard someone say witcher 1 wasint very good but I may be wrong.

So please tell me which one I should buy

Witcher 1 and 2 are vastly different games. Personally, I'd suggest going in with the second game, but some people love the first game.

The second is more Dragon Age like than the first .... also has a much better story in my opinion and graphics and gameplay.

The first game is a much harder sell. It's a little jenky, obviously doesn't look as good now as it once did, and doesn't share the same polish as its predecessor. That said, however, it has a terrific story and conveys its world very well. It'll also improve your experience in The Witcher 2, as there are a lot of callbacks and some returning characters. I say give it a try, but know that you might not like it.

I loved both of them but if your computer can run it, or if you have a 360, get The Witcher 2. I really enjoyed the first game but I will say the second one was leagues better. The gameplay was dramatically changed and the story I personally think got better. I bought both on Steam for like $15 with all the sales and those games are always on sale during a big seasonal sale.

Witcher 1 is good but as people already said it is a much harder sell because of the mechanics, the combat and the presentation. Personally I would read the story of Witcher 1 and then buy and start with 2.

I loved the first to death, but even I got to admit that the second one is a better game as far as gameplay goes. I found it to be insanely hard though, and I liked the story in the first one better, so if you were the ask me, I like the first one more.

I have both in my Steam library. Guess I should suffer through the first one and then play 2.

Witcher 1 is a really long game. I don't think you will endure it if you do not like the first chapter. So try it first and if you don't like it give up and go for 2.

I played and LOVED witcher 2. Haven't played witcher 1, but it does a good job of filling you in on the events from the first game

I liked the Witcher 1 and couldn't get into Witcher 2 because it wasn't fun enough to play, given its difficulty. People say to stick with it, but I don't actually want to have to do that.

witcher 1 is boring as hell, the one thing it does have is an interesting mood. Play it if you want to appreciate all the improvements they made in the second.

Witcher 2 is not all that hard. I would say it's just not balanced at all. After you're done with first 4-5 mission it gradually becomes laughably easy.

I agree with the fact that it DOES get easier as it goes on, with Act 3 being FAR easier than Act 1, but it's not after the first 4-5 missions. The game didn't start to become pretty easy for me until about the halfway point of Act 2. Until then, the difficulty of the game nearly made me quit so many times. The fight about 3/4 of the way through act 1 was hands down the most difficult fight in the game, and I had to resort to cheap tactics that made me feel less like a badass Witcher, and more of a cowardly piece of shit.

And apparently the game was even HARDER on release - I probably would have quit if I played it back then!

I'm 60 hours into The Witcher and it's awesome but I lost interest. I need to pick it back up at some point. I played The Witcher 2 first and would probably recommend that over the first.

I'd say the Witcha 2 is better, but they're very different. It's kind of like comparing Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. They're just different; though, I'd say the second refined the first. The Witcha 2 is a more accessible and enjoyable experience, and I'd recommend it over the first.

They're different, but I'd say 2.

I never really thought Witcher 2 was difficult. Yes the Prologue was really difficult and at launch it was sometimes frustrating to only be able to block a certain amount of time but after the moment you go into the open world like environment I thought it was balanced well. Yes there are things that kill you in one hit but that only means that you can not go this away at the moment and that you have to come back when you are stronger. But I guess this is what games like Fallout or Elder Scrolls do to you when the whole world is scaled to your level.

edit: The only thing that was bullshit were bossfights^^

I loved the first game, but for some reason I was never able to stick with the second. I think it had something to do with the artificially steep difficulty curve. Even with all the right spells and equipment, some of the fights are such bullshit.

I'm going to agree with everyone saying that if you want to really "immerse" yourself, that Witcher 1 is worth the time. Witcher 2 isn't really hard at all, even at the beginning, I'd also say. I have never understood how people find it hard - it's just not button mashy for the first few hours. After that you can just kind of hit things and have to strategize less as the game goes on.

In short, play the games. They're fucking rad.

I played them in reverse order. The Witcher 1 was harder to get into, and there is way more backtracking (like, obscene amounts of it) than in the sequel. I think I got to the 4th chapter (out of 5, I believe) before I got distracted by other games I didn't bother to finish either

In terms of combat The Witcher 1 shares a lot of the same old-school roots as Dragon Age but with a bit of a rhythm element thrown in and only a single character to control. It's a great game and certainly worth trying but it's not for everyone so if you don't enjoy it don't hesitate to move on. The Witcher 2 shifts to become more of an action game. The learning curve is still fairly steep but it will be much more familiar to most people which makes it easier to get into.

Both games do a tremendous job on filling out an interesting backdrop and giving you agency in how the story progresses, so if you're looking for a world to get lost in There aren't many better choices to be found.

Play the first then second. If you're one of those people who for some reason can't go back to older games after playing the newer, more mechanically sound game, TW1 might be off putting. They are vastly different games though. Just start with the first, you'll get a feel for the world and story and characters, even though they're presented differently in TW2. Regardless, they're both phenomenal.

The second one is in every way a superior game. However, the first game has a very great and unique story, it's kind of like a murder mystery and it's a lot of fun to experience. However, absolutely play on easy and power through it. After playing The Witcher 2, the first will be near unplayable.

I'm about 3/4 through The Witcher: Enhanced Edition and it's an amazing game. The combat is definitely weird, but it's a satisfying twist on the average hack and slash. Mostly, I'd say it's still worth playing specifically for the terrific world, story, and characters. I think I'm on the medium difficulty, and it's a good challenge without ever getting really hard, so you could breeze through on easy (where alchemy isn't even necessary) and just soak up the story. I haven't gotten into the sequel yet, so I can't say how much better it may be, but the first game absolutely holds up.

(also, there are tons of high-res texture mods and stuff to make it more playable and modern)

I absolutely loved The Witcher 1 - I played it in 2011, just before Skyrim came out, so I didn't try to really get into Witcher 2 until much later. I dunno why, but I felt like TW2 didn't pull me into its world like TW1 did, and they made some fundamental changes that I wasn't thrilled with. They very much changed the style of game in some key ways; TW1 has multiple camera views, including a top-down style view that makes it look and feel a bit more like Diablo - TW1 is powered by the Aurora Engine, which was made by BioWare as the successor to the Infinity Engine, and which powered both Neverwinter Nights games. I found myself using this top-down view a lot; it especially made it easier to navigate around the world (just click one button and wait rather than directly controlling his every move) and it was useful to see more of the battlefield when taking on larger groups of enemies. TW2 is strictly a third-person game, and feels much more like they tried to make it more action oriented, maybe not so much in the core mechanics, but definitely in the presentation of said mechanics. Let me put it this way: they put out a console version of TW2, and it felt perfectly natural that they did - putting out a console version of TW1 would have been weird.

A loose analogy would be to say that The Witcher 1 is Dragon Age: Origins to The Witcher 2's Mass Effect - specifically ME2. A lot of people like ME more than DA:O, and a lot of people like TW2 more than TW1, but I know which side I'm on, and am totally fine with that. I'm also crazy enough to think that Mass Effect 1 is the best ME game. So in saying which one to play...well obviously I haven't played through TW2 so my words only carry so much weight. But the bigger problem is that I can only really speak for myself, and I know that my opinion doesn't necessarily represent what could be seen as the "status quo".

If you have the time and the means to play both games, you absolutely should - not just the OP, everyone should give them a try. As you'd expect from a game that's got a strong foundation in proper fantasy literature, the world is unique, vivid, and endlessly entertaining to explore. But TW1's mechanics might not resonate with you as much as they did with me, and if that discouraged you from playing TW2 then that would be a bummer. Also, TW1 is visually functional, whereas TW2 is straight up gorgeous. That might not matter to you; it matters to some people.

And regarding the difficulty, it always felt to me like The Witcher 2 expected you to understand its systems and its mechanics because it assumed you'd played The Witcher 1, but they completely changed a lot of those systems and mechanically so thoroughly that they were almost unrecognisable. It's like saying that you know how to play The Settlers of Catan because you've read the rulebook for Monopoly.

Yes this while I like both the 1st game is flawed and if your not REALLY into that style of game some of it can be Meh, Witcher 2 is fucking amazing.

If your primary goal is immersion, I would recommend starting with the first game. It is, after all, the beginning of the story... and what a story it is. Far better than Witcher 2's plot, in my opinion. Just know that it's a little slow to start, but it begins to pick up drastically around the middle of chapter 2.

Then when you move on to the Witcher 2, you can appreciate the setting, the characters, the polish, and the gameplay improvements that much more.

Both games are pretty flawed in their own ways, so I would suggest just swallowing the pill and powering through the story.

I view the direction of the Witcher series similarily to how the first two Mass Effect games turned out.

The first game sticks closer to more established and traditional RPG design and mechanics and is deeper in a lot of aspects than the second game, but is a bit rough around the edges with clunky animations, overly complex combat, and poor visuals.

The sequel has vastly superior production values, visuals, polish, and more immediate action game quality gameplay. Some of the depth and complexity of the original was lost (and they fucked up dice), but top to bottom it is simply a better game.

The story in both games is fantastic. You don't necisiarly need to play the first to follow the plot of the second, but it's a great way to introduce you the characters and the world. If you can put up with some jank in what is otherwise a damn good game, start with the first.

Yep, I also appreciate the Polish much more thanks to CD Projekt RED. ;)

Both. Witcher 1 has some aspects that Witcher 2 doesn't do as well, and vice versa.

Witcher 1 is not nearly as impenetrable as people make out. The combat is very easy and extremely exploitable. I think you can skip the first game but it means going into the second with less full understanding of the world.

Ah! Witcher 1! It's my all time favorite game. Just the name gets me all emotional. Seeing your question in the popular topics on the main page sent my heart beat racing. Read this blog of mine about my love for the Witcher 1 to get an idea of my crazy passion for the game.

You NEED to play it to enjoy the whole franchise. Now that the Witcher 3 is soon to come out, it would be great for you to play Witcher 1, cry about how awesome it was, play The Witcher 2, read the books, listen to the soundtrack, absorb the lore and wait for Witcher 3!

It is possible you might not fall for it the way I did, but you should definitely give it a try. The first act is a little slow, but the story gets really enjoyable. The combat is actually enjoyable and quite awesome to behold as Geralt swings his sword and paints circles of blood around him.

I loved TW1 so much that I was actually a little disappointed by TW2 ^^

If you love the story bits and character complexities of the Mass Effect series, you'll enjoy this. Definitely play TW1 before 2. And get the Enhanced Edition.

Both are great games but I'd say Witcher 2 is just that bit better, it is a tougher game than the first so be ready for a challenge. Luckily the two are hardly connected in story so don't feel too bad for playing the second one first.

If you truly want to be immersed, you should do what I did; play the first Witcher, fall in love, read every single book (including those not translated into English officially yet) and then play the second game.

I've fallen madly in love with that universe as a result and I couldn't imagine them playing in any other way. Funilly enough, the first game has very little to do with the Witcher's great fiction and is the perfect place to introduce yourself to the world.

Are you me? o_O

Haha I saw your post and thought the same thing. Yeah, I'm a crazy Witcher fan; after falling in love with the first game I read every book, fan translations and all. Well worth it.

Don't listen to the crazy people telling you to skip 1. If you can take that it feels a bit old janky, the first game is easily on par with 2 in many ways. While it's obviously way worse graphically and mechanically, the quests and enviroments are more varied and loot feels more rewarding and important, since it mostly comes from questlines. On top of that the story and characters are just as well written as 2, which means amazing. Definitely give it a shot.

Well if you have the time i should say go for both the game's.

Skipping the first game is crazy talk. Both are great games in their own ways, and it's not like we're getting swamped with CRPGs these days. So enough time to play them both.

I am beyond confused why people are comparing the Witcher 1 to any RPG. It's combat engine is called Tic Tac Toe. Guy is attacking me with attack style Y, so I have to counter with attack style Z. Think Assassin's Creed 2 only more so. As long as you use the right attack stance you win, typically without even getting hit. Use the wrong stance? You probably die, typically without even being able to land a hit. It is not deep, it is not tactical, and it certainly isn't challenging or fun. Rarely do you need spells or buffs. There are a few fights where you have to have them. Again, doesn't really add depth to the combat just mandatory pre buff time. Combat is one of the worst parts of Witcher 1. Notice I said "one of". Quite frankly the Witcher 1 is a BAD GAME. It plays badly, the graphics were never as good as people think they were, the story.... I am sorry it is cliche and it sucks. Chapter 2 where you are solving a murder mystery is great and really fun, I just wish the rest of the game had been half as good. Because everything before and after chapter 2, is slow, plodding, boring, and predictable. Chapter 1 is particularly bad, and I mean pretty much on all levels. Secondly Witcher 2 has almost nothing to do with Witcher 1 other than introducing you to a couple characters who recur in 2 and explaining why Geralt is where he is when the game starts. None of that info is actually important and a simple wiki plot read will deal with it if you care.

Witcher 2 on the other hand, while still being massively over rated, is actually a good game. The graphics actually are good, the plot is not totally predictable, the choices you make matter far more than any choices you ever get offered in Witcher 1, and the story in general is far more coherent and ties into the greater storyline well. The only major complaint I have about it is the reverse challenge, it is actually really hard in the beginning but at end game gets almost... fall asleep easy. If you really are going to play one Witcher game, 2 is the clear winner. It is the better game, period. It also is likely to tie into Witcher 3 in ways that matter unlike Witcher 1 to 2 which really have almost nothing to do with each other beyond Geralt being the main character in both.

Oh and by the way I like Dragon Age: Origins and still think Mass Effect 1 is the best Mass Effect. What I think of Witcher 1 seems pretty clear.

Don't you think after reading some of the other opinions here that yours might not be the definitive one? Those of us who like it aren't all brainwashed, right?

They fixed that in the enhanced edition with the new tutorial

I played Witcher 1 before the 2nd came out and absolutely loved it, but I do think Witcher 2 is a better game. Still have a soft spot for the first game though, so I'd suggest starting with that.

Well other human beings, do I have something for you: If you buy anything on GOG within the next week you can get The Witcher 1 for free. It's a pretty good game though it slogs a bit and I feel like the combat system thinks that it's deeper than it actually is.

Get both.

I love Witcher 1 so damn much, it's probably one of my favorite games of all time, but it does take a long time to get going. And it's a pretty long game overall.
I persevered and found it extremely rewarding.

If you have patience for RPGs, go for it. If you don't, maybe at least try it, it shouldn't be too expensive now.

Haven't yet played the second one, trying to make some money for a PC that could run it properly.

The most compelling reason to play The Witcher first is that the save transfers to Witcher 2 and presumably Witcher 3.

It really is an awesome game but don't expect to fly through it. I hit a wall during Act 4 and need to jump back in before 3 comes out.

Start with 2, nothing wrong with that, I did.
Absolutely playing 3.

I really enjoyed both Witchers, although I agree with 2 being a big improvement. However, it is very much worth playing through The Witcher. What I did, was simply play through the main quest for the most part, and didn't worry about side stuff.