As for how much one's savegames from Witcher 1 & 2 will influence 3, I can't comment since I just don't know. But, I will say that when it comes to the first 2 games, I actually enjoyed the story in 1 more than I did in 2. However, gameplay-wise I thought 2 was better (mostly the combat).
I am sure you can just skip 1 (and probably 2 as well) and be just fine playing 3, but given that both the older games cost next to nothing these days and frequently pop up in GOG and Steam sales; if you have the time I'd say go for it. Despite some flaws and klunky bits, both are excellent RPGs in their own right, providing plenty of hours of fun.
I'm replaying the first game right now. I highly doubt any story decisions will impact Witcher III in any way. However, it's still a really good (and fairly weird) RPG. It doesn't really play quite like anything else. I'm surprised at how much I'm enjoying it on a second playthrough many years later.
If you have time I would recommend playing 1 and 2. While the choices will probably be more of a nod to witcher fans and a few minor scenes I would still recommend it. And while w2 is a better game , the original is more atmospheric and felt the environments and quests were more personal and grounded. And the original sore is so much better than the second one. So like I said if you have 60+ hours for both games before W3 give it a shot. It establishes Geralt who he is and such.
Keep in mind that the first one is quite slow paced and the combat is not its forte. And the voice acting is not as good for npcs and so on. Its an old pc game. So yeah. But personally I like W1 far more than W2 even if the gameplay part of it is not as good.
I'm currently playing the Witcher 1 for the first time. It is a very slow start, it took until act 2 to get me hooked, but now that I realized what the game actually is it's amazing. The game isn't for everyone, but I'd say play witcher 1 atleast until, and a bit of, act 2.
Your choices are so unlikely to matter it is beyond unimportant to play it. They barely mattered in Witcher 2. Also yes, the gameplay is actually pretty bad so it is worth skipping for that too. If you really want an appreciation for what is going on in witcher 3 and the characters involved you should read the books, not play the games.
Your choices are so unlikely to matter it is beyond unimportant to play it. They barely mattered in Witcher 2.
Yeh for story and worldstate reasons theres no need to play 1 and 2. 1 is the better game but the gameplay in 2 is probably much the same as in 3 so if you wanna get in mood for TW3 play some TW2.
The only reason to play the first game is if you want to know more about the lore and the world. That's a decision you can easily make later after you've finished the Witcher 2 since I can't see that your decisions would play into the second game at all anyway. What I enjoyed of the Witcher 1 was mostly the story and finding out more about the world, but I also found it to be a bit of a slog after a while. It's not exactly a short game, IIRC.
Shouldn't we have learned by now that story choices don't really mean anything. If you want to know the story, you should play both games.
You also shouldn't skip one and play two. One is a better game. The story is better and I prefer the gameplay. It's a little clunky but it's unique and works well once you figure it out. In the second one they made it more in line with how every other 3rd person game plays.
I really can't say what's going to carry over into this game's story yet.
Anyways, I think 2 is much better than 1 (which is really good in some areas and very flawed in others). Not that 2 is perfect but overall I think it's certainly better and more approachable. If you have the time and really want to go back to 1 it's always there.
Obviously some 1 fans in this thread but overall I'd say it's less popular. My biggest issue was it was the pacing and I thought it was too long. I'm guessing more things from 2 carry over (from story to choices to gameplay mechanics).
I think it's worth playing the Witcher 1 on easy just for the story. The combat is not great, and playing it on easy is pretty much the same game with quicker combat (and less chance of losing, naturally).
It's also perfectly fine to skip the Witcher 1, honestly.
Witcher 1 had great story and it set the world better than the W2. Also Witcher 1 feels more like a witcher kind of adventure - at least comparing to the first book stories. I doubt that the choices carry over in any meaningful way.
How about the books? Sword of Destiny was great introduction to the world of the witcher and the Last Wish has important chapter relating to the W3.
@artisanbreads: Its less popular becouse it was a relativly unknown game which noone played. Its the Demon souls of the souls series. Most people that recommends 2 over 1 either "tried" to play 1 after playing 2 many years after its release or they didnt play it at all. Like @punched said the combat is bad in both games but at least its unique in 1. I dont expect the combat to be very good in 3 either.
@artisanbreads: Its less popular becouse it was a relativly unknown game which noone played. Its the Demon souls of the souls series. Most people that recommends 2 over 1 either "tried" to play 1 after playing 2 many years after its release or they didnt play it at all. Like @punched said the combat is bad in both games but at least its unique in 1. I dont expect the combat to be very good in 3 either.
No I played it right when it came out and then played 2. I think there's plenty to not like in 1. I like the combat in two a lot more, even though it ends up being repetitive.
Not saying it's a bad game overall but there's pretty big issues with it to me.
@artisanbreads: I was commenting on TW1 being overall less popular not your stance on it. You made good arguments and theres nothing wrong with putting 2 above 1 if thats how you feel.
Th question of story and choice consequence has been answered but I just wanted to post to say that I much preferred Witcher 1 at the end of the day. It feels old and has its flaws, but once you play for a bit and get past some antiquated aspects, I feel it's much more rewarding of an experience. Also somehow I really liked the combat, which I know isn't the most popular opinion.
I haven't played 2 yet so no comment on that one. I completed the first one a couple years ago and have to admit that I pushed myself to beat it because I didn't want to leave it unfinished. That said, I did enjoy playing through the first half or 3/4 of the game. To be honest, I only bought the second one because it dropped down to $5 and I thought, "Hey, it's worth it to me to try it out for a couple hours for five bucks." After looking into reviews more, I'm quite excited at this point. I just installed it yesterday for the first time. (I've been working through a backlog of games.)
I think I would have liked The Witcher 1 more if it wasn't for that dumb Alvin subplot. (Which led into the even dumber twist ending.)
It kinda reminded me of something like Skyrim, in that the most interesting stuff happened to the side of the story. The main plot was pretty throwaway and forgettable. It's pretty good at world building, but it probably won't be that relevant to 3.
That being said, I did enjoy it enough that I almost immediately went out and bought the first Witcher book after finishing it, so take that for what you will.
I can understand wanting to skip the first one, I had to force myself to play the game up until the last chapter (maybe second to last?) when shit hit the fan and things got interesting.
But you will miss out on opportunities to make allies which will aid you in the sequel. I'm guessing the deafult start on Witcher 2 assumes you've made no great friends in the first game. It will still be a fun game though. Go ahead and skip 1 if you want.
I never played 2 but right now i'm playing through the first game, about 8 hours in and it has definitely been a good experience so far. you should get it, it's on sale pretty often too, i got it for about 1€ or something like that.
I just finished The Witcher 2 again. I first played it near the end of 2013; this was before I bought the first on Steam, as I had bought the first last year, and had just beat it on Monday. While I would say you don't have to play it; that goes for either of them really, I would fully recommend you play both. I think you'd get more out of the experience if you played both. Just playing The Witcher 2 again, I had totally forgot a lot of the story, so I am happy I replayed it, and I appreciated the story and characters a bit more due to playing the first. I am really happy I played both the first two games. I'm ready for three now :). That said, I'll have to use the Bard (or whoever the character will be) that implements my choices from the first two games into three, because I played the first on Steam, The Witcher 2 on 360, and I'll probably be playing three on the PS4. If I were you, I'd regret not playing the first, but that's me. Also, I thought both had better qualities to them over the other, so neither of them were overall better than the other I think. I should say the first takes time to get into though; I had played it on and off in short bursts early on, but it finally clicked at some point, especially since I wanted to see it through before three. I recommend skipping the contract missions.
The first half of Witcher 1 is pretty rough. It took me like 3 or 4 times to get through it. Having said that, I still think it's worth playing through it. You get a really good armor set at the start of Witcher 2 that you use for about half the game.
honestly your choices probably won't impact witcher 3 much like it did from witcher 1 to 2. You'll probably have minor differences in journal entries and that's about it.
Ba-ba-ba can't be tellin' ya about how your saves be transferrin', but if yer skippin' The Witcher (1) you'll be missin' out on-a-some great NPCs bah-ba-ba.
If you ever want to play the first game, play it first it'll be hard to go back. Not because it's a bad game, but the witcher 2 is an action rpg that plays better with a gamepad, while the first game is more of a mouse and keyboard rpg.
And your choices don't mean all that much, but they do change parts of the story in 2. And i thought the end of the first game was well done
The story in Witcher 1 is much more self-contained; 2 will give you more in the way of socio-political context that I'm pretty sure will enhance your playing of 3.
Why are people so sure that the choices in Witcher 2 won't matter much? I can definitely see some of them having significant repercussions.
The Witcher is to the first Mass Effect as The Witcher 2 is to Mass Effect 2. The first game does a good job establishing the world and there is a real sense of your player character having a role within that world. But mechanically it's janky and it does a lot of stuff that is not well thought out. The second game is much more streamlined with a more direct combat system, it plays better but it loses some of the charm the original had.
I don't think your story choices would matter much in Witcher 3 since the developers have stated that they wanted everyone to be able to experience everything in one playthough.
Log in to comment